Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:50:47.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficiency of an Optically Controlled Sprayer for Controlling Weeds in Fallow

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Gail A. Wicks ,
Warwick L. Felton ,
Robert D. Murison ,
Gordon E. Hanson  and
Paul G. Nash
Gail A. Wicks
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska, Route 4, Box 46A, North Platte, NE 69101
Warwick L. Felton
Affiliation:
New South Wales Agriculture, Centre for Crop Improvement, RMB 944, Tamworth, Australia 2340
Robert D. Murison
Affiliation:
University New England, Armidale, Australia 2351
Gordon E. Hanson
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska, Route 4, Box 46A, North Platte, NE 69101
Paul G. Nash
Affiliation:
P. G. Nash, Research Technician, New South Wales Agriculture, Centre for Crop Improvement, RMB 944, Tamworth, Australia 2340
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted to compare performance of glyphosate with three different boom arrangements in a winter wheat-fallow rotation near North Platte, NE, in 1994 and 1995. One boom was optically controlled, and the other boom was for broadcast herbicide applications. Spraying with both booms at the same time was called “dual boom.” The sprayers were tested during May, June, and July on two weed density levels established by applying glyphosate at 0.42 kg ae/ha with and without atrazine at 0.84 kg ai/ha in October following wheat harvest. The dual-boom and the broadcast herbicide applications were more efficient in controlling weeds than the optically controlled system. The dual boom reduced weed density 4.5-fold compared with the optically controlled sprayer used alone. Horseweed < 8 cm tall was more difficult to control with the optically controlled sprayer than redroot pigweed and kochia because of its cylindrical-shaped growth patterns. Barnyardgrass and green foxtail seedlings with an erect growth pattern were also difficult for the sensors to detect. Poorer control with the optically controlled sprayer was associated with failure to identify small weeds, chlorotic plants, inconsistency among sensors, and too wide a field of view (FOV), as sensors were spaced farther apart than presently recommended. The number of sensors on a boom needs to be increased to improve the performance of the optically controlled sprayer.

Keywords

Atrazine, 6-chloro-N-ethyl-N'-(1-methylethyl)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamineglyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl)glycinebarnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv., # ECHCGgreen foxtail, Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv, # SETVIhorseweed, Conyza candensis (L.) Cronq # ERICAkochia, Kochia scoparia (L.) Schrad # KCHSCredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus (L.) # AMAREwinter wheat, Triticum aestivum L.Detectsprayatrazineglyphosateherbicide savingsAMAREECHCGERACAERICAKCHSCPANCAPOLCOSETVIFOV, field of viewREML, restricted maximum likelihood
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , December 1998 , pp. 638 - 645
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Ahrens, W. H. 1994. Relative costs of a weed activated versus conventional sprayer in northern Great Plains fallow. Weed Technol. 8:50–57.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1993. Detectspray™ User Manual System 50. North Fargo, ND: Concord. 31 p.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. 1995. Detectspray-S45 use in conservation fallow on the Canadian Prairies. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 48. 16 p.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. 1996. Weed sensing sprayer reduced herbicide use in conservation tillage. In Brown, H., Cussans, G. W., Devine, M. D., Duke, S. O., Fernandez-Quintanillco, C., Helweg, A., Labrada, R. E., Landes, M., Kudsk, P., and Streibig, J. C., eds. Proceedings of the 2nd International Weed Control Congress. Flakkebjerg, Denmark: Department of Weed Control and Pesticide Ecology. pp. 1313–1316.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. M. and Hastie, T. J., eds. 1997. Statistical model in S. London. Chapman and Hall. 608 p.Google Scholar
Duff, P. 1993. Detectspray system. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 133. 45 p.Google Scholar
Felton, W. L. 1990. Use of weed detection for fallow weed control. Conservation tillage. In Conservation Tillage Proceedings of the Great Plains Agricultural Council Bull. 131. pp. 241–244.Google Scholar
Felton, W. L., Doss, A. F., Nash, P. G., and McCloy, K. R. 1991. A microprocessor controlled technology to selectively spot spray weeds. Automated Agriculture for the 21st Century Symposium. Proc. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 11–91:427–432.Google Scholar
Fenster, C. R. and Wicks, G. A. 1977. Minimum tillage fallow systems for reducing wind erosion. Trans. ASAE 20:906–910.Google Scholar
Hanson, G. E. and Wicks, G. A. 1992. Use of the Detectspray in Nebraska. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 47:61–67.Google Scholar
Hanson, G. E. and Wicks, G. A. 1993. Weed control with the Detectspray. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 48:52.Google Scholar
Howard, K. D. and Hanks, J. E. 1993. Consistency of the calibration parameters for sensor sprayer. Detectspray system. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 130. 44 p.Google Scholar
Verbyl, A. P., Cullis, B. R., Kenward, M. G., and Welham, S. J. 1997. The Analysis of Designated Experiments and Longitudinal Data Using Smoothing Splines. Research Rep. 97/4. Adelaide, Australia: University of Adelaide. 49 p.Google Scholar
Wicks, G. A., Stahlman, P. W., and Anderson, R. L. 1995. Weed management systems for the semiarid areas of the Central Great Plains. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 50:174–199.Google Scholar