Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T07:02:14.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Electronic Moisture Sensor for Maintaining Herbicide Solution on a Roller Applicator

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

J. S. Schepers  and
O. C. Burnside
J. S. Schepers
Affiliation:
Sci. Ed. Admin.-Agric. Res., .S. Dep. Agric. (Asst. Prof., Dep. Agron)
O. C. Burnside
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln NE 68583
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Other research has shown that a roller applicator can selectively control weeds that protrude above the crop, conserve over 80% of the herbicide, eliminate spray drift and splash, and obviate recirculation of the spray solution. The carpet on the roller applicator must be moist enough to transfer ample herbicide to the weeds it contacts but dry enough to prevent dripping of herbicide solution from the carpet. An electronic moisture sensor and solenoid valve system was designed to permit operation of the roller applicator through various weed densities while automatically maintaining a proper level of herbicide solution in the carpet of the roller.

Keywords

Selective herbicide applicationweed escapesherbicide conservationdrift eliminationselective weed control
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 27 , Issue 5 , September 1979 , pp. 559 - 561
Copyright
Copyright © 1979 by the Weed Science Society of America 

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

Literature Cited

1. American National Standards Institute, Inc. 1975. Graphic symbols for electrical and electronic diagrams. Inst. Electr. Electron. Eng., New York, New York. 111 pp.Google Scholar
2. Burnside, O. C. and Watson, R. G. Jr. 1979. Weed escapes — your future problems. Nebraska Farm, Ranch and Home Quarterly. 25(4):3–4.Google Scholar
3. Carlson, D. R. 1977. Use of the recirculating sprayer for selective control of common milkweed. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 32:110–112.Google Scholar
4. Cramer, G. I. and Burnside, O. C. 1978. Glove-treatments for control of common milkweed. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. Res. Rep. 35:134.Google Scholar
5. Field, D. D. 1977. Gravity-fed recirculating sprayers. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 32:146–148.Google Scholar
6. Irons, S. W. and Burnside, O. C. 1978. Feasibility of the roller applicator for controlling weed escapes in soybeans. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. Res. Rep. 35:132–133.Google Scholar
7. McWhorter, C. G. 1970. A recirculating spray system for post-emergence weed control in row crops. Weed Sci. 18:285–287.Google Scholar
8. McWhorter, C. G. 1977. Weed control in soybeans with glyphosate applied in the recirculating sprayer. Weed Sci. 25:135–141.Google Scholar
9. Moore, J. O. 1977. A broadcast recirculating sprayer. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 32:145–146.Google Scholar
10. Schepers, J. S. and Burnside, O. C. 1978. Maintaining spray solution on a roller applicator. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. Res. Rep. 35:136–137.Google Scholar
11. Wyrill, J. B., III and Burnside, O. C. 1976. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of 2,4-D and glyphosate in common milkweed and hemp dogbane. Weed Sci. 24:557–566.Google Scholar
12. Wyse, D. L. and Habstritt, C. 1977. A roller herbicide applicator. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 32:144–145.Google Scholar