Evaluation of a solid stream radial nozzle on fixed-wing aircraft, for penetration of spray within a soybean canopy
More details
Hide details
United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, P.O. Box 350, Stoneville, Mississippi, USA
Steven James Thomson
United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, P.O. Box 350, Stoneville, Mississippi, USA
Submission date: 2013-10-23
Acceptance date: 2014-02-03
Journal of Plant Protection Research 2014;54(1):96–101
Experiments were conducted to evaluate the Accu-Flo multiple orifice nozzle for penetration of spray into a soybean (Glycine max L.) canopy by comparing results to those from a popular straight stream nozzle and rotary atomizer. A mixture of water + Induce® adjuvant was applied at three different spray release heights in a random sequence, using an Air Tractor 402-B agricultural aircraft. Sampler stands were placed at twenty-four locations in the field. Water sensitive paper (WSP) cards were clipped onto rigid stands just above the canopy and 30 cm off the ground within the canopy. Weather data were recorded using two different stations on-site. Wind was predominantly from the west and parallel to the direction of the spray runs. The spray delivery systems compared were the Accu-Flo nozzles, (64 needle 0.020 opening), CP®-09 straight stream with 5 degree deflection, and Micronair® AU5000 atomisers (14 mesh screen) at a low volume spray rate of 18.7 l/ha. A total of 54 spray runs were made over three days, and heights were varied at 3.7 m, 4.9 m and 6.1 m. Water sensitive papers were scanned and analysed for coverage per unit card area using an image analysis system. Altitude and [Nozzle X Altitude] interaction were significant effects on coverage at the 0.01 and 0.07 significance levels, respectively, for the top cards. Nozzle type was not a significant effect on coverage for the top cards, but was significant at the 0.01 level for the bottom cards. Altitude alone had no obvious effect on coverage for the bottom cards, although it had an effect for the top cards. The highest percentage area of spray coverage was observed from the Accu-Flo nozzles, especially for the bottom cards. Average spray coverage from the Accu-Flo nozzles was 1.7 times higher than coverage from the CP® nozzles or Micronair® atomisers in the lower portion of the canopy.
The authors have declared that no conflict of interests exist.
Antuniassi A. 2006. Aerial application strategies for soybean rust control. In: Proc. Nat. Soybean Rust Symp. Nashville, TN, USA, 14−16 November 2005. http://www.plantmanagementnetw... [Accessed: February 26, 2014].
Bayer T., Arrué A., Costa I.F.D., Lenz G., Coradini C., Sari B.G., Pes M.P. 2012. Aplicação aérea de fungicidas na cultura do arroz irrigado com diferentes bicos de pulverização. [Aerial fungicide application on irrigated lowland rice with varying spraying nozzles]. Ciência Rural 42 (12): 2185–2191.
Bergey L. 2006. Personal communication. Vice President of Operations, Bishop Equipment Co., Hatfield, PA, USA.
Draper M.A., Wilson, J.A., Ruden B.E., Humburg D.S., Ruden K.R., Schilling S.M. 2002. Aerial spray coverage trials in South Dakota – 2002. p. 63-66. In: Proc. 2002 Nat. Soybean Head Blight Forum. Erlanger, KY, USA, 7–9 December 2002, 281 pp. http://www.scabusa.org/pdfs/fo... [Accessed: February 26, 2014].
Fritz B.K. 2013. Personal communication. Research Agricultural Engineer, USDA-ARS, APMRU. College Station, TX, USA.
Fritz B.K., Hoffmann W.C., Czaczyk Z., Bagley W., Kruger G., Henry R. 2012. Measurement and classification methods using the ASAE S572.1 reference nozzles. J. Plant Prot. Res. 52 (4): 447–457.
Gardisser D.R. 2007. Aerial application tips for “Rust” control. http://oardc.osu.edu/soyrust/2... [Accessed: February 26, 2014].
Gimenes M.J., Raetano C.G., Dal Pogetto M.H.F.A., Prado E.P., Christovam R.S., Rezende D.T., Costa S.I.A. 2012. Air-assistance in spray booms which have different spray volumes and nozzle types for chemically controlling Spodoptera frugiperda on corn. J. Plant Prot. Res. 52 (2): 247–253.
Huang Y., Thomson S.J. 2011. Characterization of in-swath spray deposition for CP-11TT flat-fan nozzles used in low volume aerial application of crop production and protection materials. Trans. ASABE 54 (6): 1973–1979.
IPMPipe 2013. USDA PIPE United States soybean rust commentary. Southern Region Integrated Pest Management Center, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA. http://sbr.ipmpipe.org/cgi-bin... [Accessed: February 26, 2014].
McCracken A. 2005. Soybean rust’s greatest foe is aerial application. Kansas Agricultural Aviation Association – Air Currents 18: 9.
Minogue P. 2004. Advances in aerial application technology. In: Proc. 25th Ann. For. Veg. Mgt. Conf., Redding, CA, USA, 20-22 January 2004. http://www.fvmc.org/PDF/2004/2.... [Accessed: February 26, 2014].
NCSRP 2009. Asian soybean rust. North Central Soybean Research Program, Ankeny IA, USA. http://www.planthealth.mobi/di... [Accessed: February 26, 2014].
Ratajkiewicz H., Wachowiak M., Kierzek R. 2008. Rola parametrów opryskiwania i adiuwantów w skuteczności działania fungicydów przeciwko chwościkowi buraka (Cercospora beticola). [Effect of spray application parameters and adjuvants on efficiency of fungicides against cercospora leaf spot (Cercospora beticola)]. Prog. Plant Prot./Post. Ochr. Roślin 48 (3): 1101–1105.
Ratajkiewicz H., Kierzek R., Karolewski Z., Wachowiak M. 2009. The effect of adjuvants, spray volume and nozzle type on azoxystrobin efficacy against Leptosphaeria maculans and L. biglobosa on winter oilseed rape. J. Plant Prot. Res. 49 (4): 440–445.
Thomson S.J., Lyn M.E. 2011. Environmental and spray mixture effects on droplet size represented by water sensitive paper used in spray studies. Trans. ASABE 54 (3): 803–807.
Wolf R.E. 2004. The effect of application volume and deposition aids on droplet spectrum and deposition for aerial applications. Tech. Paper No. AA04-006. 2004 ASAE NAAA/ASAE Technical Session 38th Annual National Agricultural Aviation Association Convention, Nevada, USA , 6–9 December 2004, 8 pp.