|
Ground Spray Systems and Spray Parameter Evaluation for Control of Fusarium Head Blight on a Field Scale Basis. 1Langdon Research Extension Center, North Dakota
State University, Langdon, ND 58249, 2Dept. of Agricultural
Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, 3Dept. of Agricultural & *Corresponding Author: PH: (701) 256-2582, E-mail:
shalley@ndsuext.nodak.edu Objectives Evaluate field scale spray systems with differing application technologies for enhanced control of Fusarium head blight (FHB). � Introduction The production industry, growers and commercial pesticide
applicators, often question the validity of research using small scale
equipment. In the scientific community the validity of research methods receive
constant review and revision. Reasons for using small scale equipment include a)
parameter control, including reducing variance attributed to soil difference, b)
the extensive time necessary to calibrate large spray booms, and c) the �cost of the equipment necessary for conducting
a research trial. At the request of the chemical and biological committee, and
in response to the production industry, a trial was implemented at the Materials and Methods A study was planned as a randomized complete block design (RCBD)
arranged as a factorial replicated six times to determine differences between
spraying systems with differing application technologies with emphasis on
droplet size. Due to limitations among the spray systems and time constraints
to equate droplet size parameters necessary for the factorial, the data was
analyzed as a RCBD. A foundation seed production field, planted to Alsen, was
selected for the suitability of plot layout to the spray systems, soil
uniformity (Cavour-Cresbard loam), and the site�s proximity to the mixing and
other facilities of the station.� Four
replicates had previous crop small grains and two replicates were previous crop
potatoes. The site was partitioned into 72 plots 35 x 60 feet to accommodate
the field scale equipment. All units sprayed each individual replicate and did
an end run around the trial to the front to align for the subsequent replicate
and to minimize potential of drip contamination to other plots. About 20 ft
from the front and backside of each plot was swathed and discarded from all
disease assessment and harvest results. Harvest data was collected from the
interior 20 feet of the spray area from each respective unit with a Hege small
plot combine. Recommended, NDSU Extension Service, HRSW production practices
for the northeast 1) AGCO�s ESP (Energized Spray Process). The spray solution is delivered through a hydraulic spray boom mounted on a Spray-Coupe. The spray solution is energized with a negative electric charge (40,000 volts) that is attracted to the positively charged wheat spike. The charge creates a high-intensity electrostatic field between the nozzle and the plant that increases spray velocity and attracts the solution to the plant. The ESP sprayed fungicide at 10 gpa through XR8003 nozzles operating at 60 psi and XR8002 nozzles operating at 110 psi. No adjuvant was added to the spray solution by recommendation of the company representative. 2) Hardi Commander Plus 1200 80 ft Twin Force with Mustang 3500 Rate Controller. The spray solution is delivered by hydraulic nozzles, ISO yellow #2 110� tips, which spray into an air stream that delivers the solution to the target. The air stream, generated by a centrifugal fan and dispersed through a bag type manifold, was angled forward 30 degrees. Spray solution was delivered at 15 gpa to both treatments, nozzles spaced 20 inches 22 to 24 inches above the canopy. One treatment was sprayed at 45 psi with fan speed operating at 1750 rpm which would deliver a droplet size of between 160-240 volume mean diameter (VMD). The second treatment sprayed at 100 psi with fan speed of 2300 rpm which would produce a VMD of 160-240 VMD. Greater pressure should produce the droplets in the lower end of the VMD range. 3) Spray-air Technologies Ltd. The spray solution was delivered by CO2 pressurized system. The solution was dispersed through a metering orifice at 27 psi spaced 10 inches apart angled 15 degrees forward from vertical at 9 gpa. The droplet is formed by wind shear picking the drop off the end of an orifice in the center of the air stream. The speed of the wind stream determines the droplet size with greater wind speed (increased static pressure) producing smaller droplets. The air stream is generated by a centrifugal fan and dispersed by a manifold to individual orifices. 4) Ledebuhr Industries Proptec. This system produces an air stream generated by hydraulic driven axial fans spaced 48 inches apart. Blade pitch is adjustable. The spray solution is delivered by hydraulic pump through a metering orifice. The droplet is generated by a rotary atomizer spinning at approximately 5400 rpm. The Proptec atomizer was operated at approximately 2000 psi with a 4 gpm hydraulic flow rate delivering spray solution at 10.4 gpa. This system generates an extremely fine droplet (approximately 125 micron VMD) in a 40 to 50 mph air stream. 5) Conventional F+B. The control system utilizes hydraulic nozzles, XR8001, angle 30 degrees downward and oriented to deliver the spray solution forward and backward to spray both sides of the spike. The nozzles were operated at 40 psi delivering 10.4 gpa spray solution. The spray solution consisted of Bayer�s experimental fungicide JAU 6476, prothiaconazole. This fungicide was selected because of its linear disease reduction as rate increases. A rate of 2.85 oz/acre, half the recommended rate, was used to measure differences between the spraying systems and application technology parameters. Induce adjuvant was mixed with all solutions at 0.125% v/v except the ESP sprayer. A mixing error reduced the fungicide rate in both treatments of the Hardi system by approximately 20% to a rate of approximately 2.3 oz/acre. Data was analyzed with the general linear model (GLM) in SAS. Least significant differences (LSD) were used to compare means at the 5% probability level. Results and
Discussion Spray application began at about Total spike coverage was reduced by about � when the conventional sprayer was operated above recommended height and by � when the angle of the Proptec was increased from 45 to 75 degrees (Table 1). Spike coverage on the front side ranged from a high of 63% with the conventional unit at recommended height to 13% on the Proptec angled 70 degrees downward. The greatest backside coverage was also the conventional at recommended height at 25% and the smallest coverage on the conventional 36 inches above target (3%) and Proptec 70 degrees downward. Conclusion This trial demonstrated the three major spray solution delivery systems, electrostatic, air stream, and hydraulic and further demonstrated three principal methods of spray atomization: hydraulic, wind sheer, and the rotary. The study indicates that operation and adjustment of each of the spray systems can affect one or more disease components and yield parameters. Water sensitive paper analysis indicated less but similar coverage compared to spike measurement (Table 2). The varying VMD indicates a wide range of choices between spraying systems and some variability when parameters of each individual spraying system changed. In most treatments a smaller droplet size was deposited on the back side of the deposition card compared to the front side indicating that a factor other than inertial impact contributed to deposition on the backside of the papers. Each of the spraying systems offers latitude to change application parameters as shown by GPA determinations from the conventional and Proptec systems (Table 2).� Similar assessment can be made from the horizontal placed water sensitive paper which would affect leaf coverage and possibly leaf disease control. Proper adjustment and operation is imperative to maximize the efficiency of all the systems. Coverage on the untreated indicates minimal intra plot spray drift. One must conclude that all sprayers in this test successfully delivered the necessary fungicide dose to minimize disease infection. In the future, additional reductions or a range of fungicide rates may be necessary to measure sprayer differences. Measurement of the spray parameters indicates that further study to identify optimal adjustment factors to maximize spray coverage and fungicide efficacy should be undertaken. Evaluation on the appropriate fungicide rate for spray system and spray system parameter study should also be undertaken. The study group wishes to acknowledge funding support of the
USWBSI, and the cooperating companies, AGCO Corporation, Hardi Inc., Degelman
Industries, Spray-Air Technologies Ltd. and company representatives Chris
Mohning, Rich Hundt, and Bob Dawes. �"This
material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
under Agreement Nos. 59-0790-3-079 and 59-0790-9-072.� This is a cooperative project with the U.S. Wheat
& Barley Scab Initiative." "Any opinions, findings, conclusions,
or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and
do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture." Table 1. �FHB
Incidence and field severity, leaf disease, yield, test weight, protein, and
DON by spray systems, Langdon, 2003.
* Significant at 0.05 probability level for mean comparisons Table 2. �Back, front, and total spike coverage and mean area, VMD, and GPA for front side and backside coverage placed vertically as measured on water sensitive paper by spray system, Langdon 2003.
*Increased water volumes result in increased coverage parameters when other parameters remain constant. **20 spike sample Table 3. �Mean area, VMD, and GPA for coverage as measured on water sensitive paper placed horizontally by spray system, Langdon 2003.
*Missing values due to coverage limitations of the water and oil sensitive paper |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
Information for Prospective Students
NDSU is an equal opportunity institution
This information may be photocopied for noncommercial, educational purposes in its entirety with no changes.
Requests to use any portion of the document should be sent to NDSU.permission@ndsu.edu.
North Dakota State University Agriculture and University Extension
Dept. 7070, Morrill 7, P.O. Box 6050, Fargo, ND 58108-6050