Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:12:13.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Herbicide Spray Penetration into Corn and Soybean Canopies Using Air-Induction Nozzles and a Drift Control Adjuvant

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2017

Cody F. Creech ,
Ryan S. Henry ,
Andrew J. Hewitt  and
Greg R. Kruger
Cody F. Creech
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, Panhandle Research and Extension Center, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Scottsbluff, NE, USA
Ryan S. Henry
Affiliation:
Research Technician, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, West Central Research and Extension Center, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, North Platte, NE, USA
Andrew J. Hewitt
Affiliation:
Adjunct Professor, The University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, West Central Research and Extension Center, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, North Platte, NE, USA and Professor, The University of Queensland, Gatton, Australia
Greg R. Kruger*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, West Central Research and Extension Center, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, North Platte, NE, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Greg R. Kruger, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, West Central Research and Extension Center, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, North Platte, NE 69101. (E-mail: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Drift reduction technologies aim to eliminate the smaller droplets that occur with some sprays because these small droplets can move off-target in the wind. Commonly used drift reduction technologies such as air-induction nozzles and spray additives impact on reducing off-target movement is well documented, however, the impact on herbicide penetration into an established crop canopy is not well known. This experiment evaluated the canopy penetration and efficacy of glyphosate treatments applied using four nozzle types (XR11005, AIXR11005, AITTJ11005, and TTI11005), two carrier volume rates (94 and 187 L ha-1), and glyphosate applications with and without a commercial drift reducing adjuvant. Applications were made to corn and soybean fields using glyphosate applied at 1.26 kg ae ha-1 with liquid ammonium sulfate at 5% v/v. A rhodamine dye was added (0.025% v/v) to the spray tank of each mixture as a tracer. MylarTM cards were placed in the field above the canopy, in the middle canopy, and on the ground for corn and above and below canopy for soybean. Five cards were at each position in the canopy arranged across the crop row. The addition of a drift reducing adjuvant did not impact canopy penetration. Doubling the carrier volume increased the amount of penetration proportionally and as such the percent reduction was not different. The TTI11005 nozzle had the greatest amount of spray penetration (28%) in the soybean canopies and the XR nozzle had the greatest amount (50%) in the corn canopies. Deposition across the row, beginning in-between the row crop and ending in the row of the crop was 44, 18, and 8% for soybean and 59, 50, and 36% for corn. For both crops, more than half of the herbicide application was captured in the crop canopy. Proper nozzle selection for canopy type can increase herbicide penetration and increasing the carrier volume will increase penetration proportionally.

Keywords

Bradley Hanson, University of California, DavisGlyphosatecorn, Zea mays L.soybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrCoveragedriftdroplet sizedrift reduction technologyspray
Type
Weed Management-Techniques
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , February 2018 , pp. 72 - 79
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2017 

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

[ASABE] American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (2009) Spray nozzle classification by droplet spectra. St. Joseph, MI: ASABE Standard S572.1. Pp 1–3 Google Scholar
Anonymous (2011) TeeJet Technologies. In Catalog 51 . Wheaton, IL: Spraying Systems Co. Pp 136–137 Google Scholar
Benbrook, CM (2012) Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the US--the first sixteen years. Environ Sci Eur 24:1–13 Google Scholar
Bode, L (1987) Spray application technology. Pages 85--110 in McWhorter CG, Gebhardt MR, eds. Methods of Applying Herbicides. Champaign, IL: WSSA Mongraph. 4pGoogle Scholar
Brazee, R, Reichard, D, Bukovac, M Fox, R (1991) A partitioned energy transfer model for spray impaction on plants. J Agric Eng Res 50:11–24 Google Scholar
Burnham, KP Anderson, DR (2002) Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. New York: Springer-Verlag. 488 pGoogle Scholar
Carmer, S, Nyquist, W Walker, W (1989) Least significant differences for combined analyses of experiments with two-or three-factor treatment designs. Agron J 81:665–672 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creech, CF, Henry, RS, Fritz, BK Kruger, GR (2015a) Influence of herbicide active ingredient, nozzle type, orifice size, spray pressure, and carrier volume rate on spray droplet size characteristics. Weed Technol 29:298–310 Google Scholar
Creech, CF, Henry, RS, Werle, R, Sandell, LD, Hewitt, AJ Kruger, GR (2015b) Performance of post-emergent herbicides applied at different carrier volume rates. Weed Technol 29:611–624 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creech, CF, Moraes, JG, Henry, RS, Luck, JD Kruger, GR (2015c) The impact of spray droplet size on the efficacy of 2,4-D, atrazine, chlorimuron-methyl, dicamba, glufosinate, and saflufenacil. Weed Technol 30:573–586 Google Scholar
Ebert, T Downer, R (2008) Insecticide application: the dose transfer process. Pages 1166--1180 in Capinera, JL, ed. Encyclopedia of Entomology, Vol. 1. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Netherlands Google Scholar
Etheridge, RE, Womac, AR Mueller, TC (1999) Characterization of the spray droplet spectra and patterns of four venturi-type drift reduction nozzles. Weed Technol 13:765–770 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feng, PC, Chiu, T, Sammons, RD Ryerse, JS (2003) Droplet size affects glyphosate retention, absorption, and translocation in corn. Weed Sci 51:443–448 Google Scholar
Fernandez-Cornejo, J, Wechsler, SJ Livingston, M (2014) Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service ERR-162. 54 pGoogle Scholar
Fritz, BK, Hoffmann, WC, Bagley, WE, Kruger, GR, Czaczyk, Z Henry, RS (2014) Measuring drop size of agricultural spray nozzles - measurement distance and airspeed effects. Atomization Sprays 24:474–760 Google Scholar
Jensen, PK (2007) Nonvertical spray angles optimize graminicide efficacy. Weed Technol 21:1029–1034 Google Scholar
Knoche, M (1994) Effect of droplet size and carrier volume on performance of foliage-applied herbicides. Crop Prot 13:163–178 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littell, RC, Milliken, GA, Stroup, WW, Wolfinger, RD Schabenberger, O (2006) SAS for Mixed Models. 2nd edn. Cary, NC: SAS Institute. 780 pGoogle Scholar
Liu, SH, Campbell, RA, Studens, JA Wagner, RG (1996) Absorption and translocation of glyphosate in Aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) as influenced by droplet size, droplet number, and herbicide concentration. Weed Sci 44:482–488 Google Scholar
Lund, I, Cross, J, Gilbert, A, Glass, C, Taylor, W, Walklate, P Western, N (2000) Nozzles for drift reduction. Asp Appl Biol 57:97–102 Google Scholar
Matthews, GA (1992) Pesticide Application Methods. 2nd edn. New York: Longman Scientific and Technical. 405 pGoogle Scholar
McMullan, PM (2009) Utility adjuvants. Weed Technol 14:792–797 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merritt, C, Graham, B, Dar, W Javed, Z (1989) Comparison of spray losses in laboratory and field situations. Asp Appl Biol 21:137–146 Google Scholar
Monaco, TJ, Weller, SC Ashton, FM (2002) Weed Science: Principles and Practices. 4th edn. New York: John Wiley & Sons Google Scholar
Nordby, A Skuterud, R (1974) The effects of boom height, working pressure and wind speed on spray drift. Weed Res 14:385–395 Google Scholar
Reichard, DL (1988) Drop formation and impaction on the plant. Weed Technol 2:82–87 Google Scholar
Richardson, R (1987) Effect of drop trajectory on spray deposits on crop and weeds. Plant Prot Q 2:108–111 Google Scholar
Schou, W, Forster, W, Mercer, G, Teske, M Thistle, H (2012) Building canopy retention into AGDISP: preliminary models and results. Trans Am Soc Agric Eng 55:20159–22066 Google Scholar
Van den Berg, F, Kubiak, R, Benjey, W, Majewski, M, Yates, S, Reeves, G, Smelt, J Van der Linden, A (1999) Emission of pesticides into the air. Pages 195–218 in van Dijk HFG, van Pul WAJ, de Voogt WP, eds. Fate of Pesticides in the Atmosphere: Implications for Environmental Risk Assessment. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Netherlands Google Scholar
VanGessel, MJ Johnson, QR (2005) Evaluating drift controlagents to reduce short distance movement and effect on herbicide performance. Weed Technol 19:78–85 Google Scholar
Wolf, T, Harrison, S Hall, F (1997) Spray deposit variability—implications for herbicide dose response. Pages 120–127 in Proceedings of the 1996 National Meeting, Expert Committee on Weeds. Victoria, BC: BC Ministry of Forests Google Scholar
Wolf, TM, Grover, R, Wallace, K, Shewchuk, SR Maybank, J (1993) Effect of protective shields on drift and deposition characteristics of field sprayers. Can J Plant Sci 73:1261–1273 Google Scholar
Yates, W, Akesson, N Bayer, D (1976) Effects of spray adjuvants on drift hazards. Trans Am Soc Agric Eng 19:41–46 Google Scholar
Zhu, H, Dorner, J, Rowland, D, Derksen, R Ozkan, H (2004) Spray penetration into peanut canopies with hydraulic nozzle tips. Biosyst Eng 87:275–283 CrossRefGoogle Scholar