ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Effect of droplet size on weed control in wheat
 
More details
Hide details
1
College of Agriculture, Shahrekord University, Shahrekord, Iran Department of Agricultural Engineering
2
College of Agriculture, Shahrekord University, Shahrekord, Iran Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Ali Esehaghbeygi
College of Agriculture, Shahrekord University, Shahrekord, Iran 1 Department of Agricultural Engineering
 
Journal of Plant Protection Research 2011;51(1):17–22
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
The efficacy of different water volume and nozzle systems, comprising spinning-discs with two disc speeds (low volume, LV), a spinning-cage rotary atomizer (median volume, MV), a flat fan nozzle Teejet-11004 (high volume, HV), and no weed control, were assessed for the application of 2,4-D to control weeds in irrigated wheat. The herbicide was applied at the tillering stage of cultivated wheat, Ghods variety. Sprayer nozzle performance was evaluated in terms of wheat grain yield, weed shoot biomass, and wheat residual (straw), at the research farm of Shahrekord University in 2007 and 2008. ANOVA analysis indicated that nozzle type, and the year had significant effects on grain yield and dry biomass of weeds at 5% confidence. There was a significant difference be- tween the two years of the experiment for all variants. The results indicated that the median diameter volume using the spinning disc (low disc speed) for herbicide application, gave better weed control than others. The spinning disc nozzle decreased water use and so it was cheaper to operate. It did not, however, significantly improve herbicide efficacy, especially in dense canopies compared with the conventional flat fan nozzles. The spinning-disc had more droplet uniformity at high disc speeds compared with the cage rotary atomizer, but was more effective for weed control at low disc speeds.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors have declared that no conflict of interests exist.
 
REFERENCES (23)
1.
Buhler D.D., Burnside O.C. 1987. Effects of application variables on glyphosate phytotoxicty. Weed Technol. 1: 14–17.
 
2.
Cauquil J. 1987. Cotton pest control: a review of the introduction of ultra low volume (ULV) spraying in sub Saharan French speaking Africa. Crop Protect. 6 (1): 38–42.
 
3.
Dadari S.A., Mani H. 2005. The effect of post-emergence weed control on irrigated wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in the Sudan savannah of Nigeria. Crop Protect. 24 (9): 842–847.
 
4.
Doruchowski G., Labanowska B., Goszczynski W., Godyn A., Holownicki R. 2002. Spray deposit, spray loss and biological efficacy of chemicals applied with different spraying techniques in black currants. Electr. J. Polish Agric. Univ. 5 (2), p. 1.
 
5.
Inman S.A., Kapusta G. 1983. Evaluation of CDA Rotary Nozzles for Weed Control in Soybeans. Abstracts, Meeting of the Weed Science Society of America, USA, p. 54.
 
6.
Keshtpoosh Co. 2006. Master Catalogue of Sprayer Model KP6000-N2. Available at www.keshpoosh.com.
 
7.
Knoche M. 1994. Effect of droplet size and carrier volume on performance of foliage-applied herbicides. Crop Protect. 13 (3): 163–178.
 
8.
Mason J.M., Matthews G.A., Wright D.J. 1998. Appraisal of spinning disc technology for the application of entomopathogenic nematodes. Crop Protect. 17 (5): 453–461.
 
9.
Micron Sprayers Ltd. 2010. Battery Powered, Hand-Held Agricultural Spraying Machine, HERBI-4. Bromyard Industrial Estate, Bromyard, Herefordshire, UK: 1–8.
 
10.
Mohan R.G., Nelson J.E. 1982. On-farm Comparative Herbicide Performance with Conventional and Controlled Droplet Applicators. In: Proceedings of the North Central Weed Control Conference, Indianapolis. USA, vol. 37, p. 15.
 
11.
Montazeri M., Zand E., Baghestani M.A. 2005. Weeds and Their Control in Wheat Fields of Iran. 1st ed. Agricultural Research and Education Organization Press, Tehran, Iran (in Persian with English abstract), p. 18.
 
12.
Pearson S.L., Bode L.E. 1985. Effect of Carrier Volumes and Nozzle Types on Post Emergence Weeds Control. In: Proceedings of the North Central Weed Control Conference. Vol. 40, USA, p. 35.
 
13.
Pearson S.C., Bode L.E., Butler B.J. 1981. Characteristics of Controlled Droplet Applicators. p. 1–2. In: Proceedings of the North Central Weed Control Conference. Vol. 36, USA. Sabzkooshnegin Co. 2007. Master Catalogue of Sprayer Model SKN3000. Available at www.sabzkoosh.com.
 
14.
Scoresby J.R., Nalewaja J.D. 1982. The Controlled Droplet Applicator for Herbicide Application. In: Proceedings of the North Central Weed Control Conference. Vol. 37, Indianapolis, USA, p. 10.
 
15.
Shaw W.C. 1982. Integrated weed management systems technology for pest management. Weed Sci. 30: 3–12.
 
16.
Sikkema P.H., Brown L., Shropshire C., Spieser H., Soltani N. 2008. Flat fan and air induction nozzles affect soybean herbicide efficacy. Weed Biol. Manage. 8 (1): 31–38.
 
17.
Spraying systems Co. 1996. Agricultural Spray Products Catalog. Catalog 45A. Illinois, 60189-7900, USA.
 
18.
Uremis I., Bayat A., Uludag A., Bozdogan N., Aksoy E., Soysal A., Gonen O. 2004. Studies on different herbicide application methods in second-crop maize fields. Crop Protect. 23 (11): 1137–1144.
 
19.
Walker S.R. 1986. Comparison of controlled droplet and conventional application of post emergence herbicides. Queensland J. Agric. Anim. Sci. 43 (2): 135–139.
 
20.
Walker S.R., Medd R.W., Robinson G.R., Cullis B.R. 2002. Improved management of Avena ludoviciana and Pwepeds toededoxa with more densely sown wheat and less herbicide. Weed Res. 42 (4): 257–270.
 
21.
Webb N., Jenkins D. 2000. WinDIAS User Manual. Cambridge: Delta_T devices LTD, UK, 85 pp.
 
22.
Zand E., Baghestani M.A., Bitarafan M., Shimi P. 2007. A Guide for Herbicides Registered in Iran. Jihad-e-Agriculture Press, Mashhad, Iran, 110 pp.
 
23.
Zandstra B.H. 1985. Low-volume Application of Fluazifop and Oxyfluorfen with Flat Fan, Air Assisted and Rotary Nozzles for Post-Emergence Weed Control in Onions. In: Proceedings of the North Central Weed Control Conference. Vol. 40. USA, (in Persian with English abstract), p. 42.
 
eISSN:1899-007X
ISSN:1427-4345