Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T16:42:54.092Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of boom and airblast sprayers on T-trellis apples

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

H. W. Hogmire ,
R. G. Diener  and
V. L. Crim
H. W. Hogmire
Affiliation:
Plant Science Experiment Farm, West Virginia University, Kearneysville, WV 25430, USA
R. G. Diener
Affiliation:
Plant Science Experiment Farm, West Virginia University, Kearneysville, WV 25430, USA
V. L. Crim
Affiliation:
Plant Science Experiment Farm, West Virginia University, Kearneysville, WV 25430, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

T-trellis apple trees treated with combinations of fungicides and insecticides applied with a boom sprayer had a lower percentage of fruit damage from diseases and insects than those treated with an airblast sprayer. With the boom sprayer, chemical deposit was uniform in distribution between outer and inner parts of the tree canopy, but with the airblast sprayer there was more than a threefold difference in deposit between parts of the canopy. The boom sprayer was inferior to the airblast sprayer in the control of apple aphids (Aphis pomi) when vertical top growth (watersprouts) had grown to 0·7–1 m. Management of aphids with a boom sprayer would probably require the control or periodic removal of watersprout growth, or the use of systemic insecticides.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 116 , Issue 2 , April 1991 , pp. 253 - 257
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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

REFERENCES

Alm, S. R., Reichard, D. L. & Hall, F. R. (1987). Effects of spray drop size and distribution of drops containing bifenthrin on Telranychus urlicae (Acari: Tetranychidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 80, 517–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diener, R. G., Hogmire, H. W., Elliott, K. C, Nessel Road, P. E. & Blizzard, S. H. (1989). A spray system for multiple tier t-trellis apple orchards. Applied Agricultural Research 4, 62–67.Google Scholar
Donohue, S. J. & Gettier, S. W. (1981). Laboratory Procedures. VPl & SU Soil Testing and Plant Analysis Laboratory. Publication of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, No. 881.Google Scholar
Dunn, J. S. & Stolp, M. (1987). Apples on the lincoln canopy – mechanized management. HortScience 22, 568–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, F. R., Reichard, D. L. & Krueger, H. R. (1975). Dislodgeable azinphosmethyl residues from airblast spraying of apple foliage in Ohio. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 3, 352–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randall, J. M. (1971). The relationships between air volume and pressure on spray distribution in fruit trees. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 16, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichard, D. L., Tennes, B. R., Burton, C. L. & Brown, G. K. (1982). Experimental orchard sprayer. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 25, 33–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steiner, P. W. (1969). The distribution of spray material between target and non-target areas of a mature apple orchard by airblast equipment. MS thesis, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Virginia & West Virginia Cooperative Extension Services (1989). 1989–1990 Spray Bulletin for Commercial Tree Fruit Growers. Publication 456–419.Google Scholar