Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T00:13:38.436Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Practical Changes to Single-Boom Sprayers for Zone Herbicide Application

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

William W. Donald  and
Kelly Nelson
William W. Donald*
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, 269 Agricultural Engineering Building, Columbia, MO 65211
Kelly Nelson
Affiliation:
Greenley Research Center, University of Missouri, Novelty, MO 63460
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Reduced-rate zone herbicide application (ZHA) consists of banding reduced herbicide rates between crop rows (≤ full broadcast registered rate, 1×) and banding much reduced herbicide rates over crop rows (≪ 1×). The objective of this research was to compare the mechanically complicated dual-boom ZHA sprayer with a much simpler, single-boom ZHA sprayer for controlling giant foxtail and common waterhemp in field corn in 2003 and 2004 in Missouri. The dual-boom ZHA sprayer employed two different herbicide solutions, which were propelled through two booms on separate sprayer systems to apply different herbicide rates over in-row and between-row areas while maintaining similar carrier volumes and coverage through two booms. In contrast, the single-boom ZHA sprayer is a mechanically simpler system in which both herbicide rates and carrier volumes were varied across one boom over in-row (IR) and between-row (BR) areas. In single-boom ZHA, two different nozzle tips were alternated on one boom over in-row and between-row areas, the number of nozzles per boom was doubled, and the distance between nozzles was halved compared with a conventional sprayer boom. In a 2-yr study, these different ZHA sprayers were used to apply preemergence atrazine + S-metolachlor between and over crop rows at various reduced rates (1× = 2,240 + 1,750 g ai/ha, respectively). Among all single- and dual-boom ZHA sprayer treatments and the weed-free checks, corn yields and in-row total weed cover were statistically indistinguishable for both years and for between-row total weed cover in 1 of 2 yr. In both years, a single-boom ZHA system prevented yield loss from competing weeds as effectively as the dual-boom ZHA system. The new single-boom ZHA system is a mechanically simple, inexpensive, generic alternative for reducing herbicide rates and lowering input costs.

Keywords

AtrazineS-metolachlorcommon waterhemp, Amaranthus rudis Sauer # AMATAgiant foxtail, Setaria faberii (L.) Beauv. # SETFAcorn, Zea mays L., ‘Pioneer 33G28’ and ‘Pioneer 34M92’Band applicationbandingchloroacetamidereduced ratetriazineweedBR, between-rowIR, in-rowWC, weed coverZHA, zone herbicide application
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , June 2006 , pp. 502 - 510
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Bedmar, F., Manetti, P., and Monterubbianesi, G. 1999. Determination of the critical period of weed control in corn using a thermal basis. Pesqu. Agropecu. Bras. 34:187–193.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Doll, J. D., Proost, R. T., and Visocky, M. R. 1995. Integrating mechanical weeding with reduced herbicide use in conservation tillage corn production systems. Agron. J. 87:507–512.Google Scholar
Bussan, A. J. and Boerboom, C. M. 2001. Modeling the integrated management of giant foxtail in corn-soybean. Weed Sci. 49:675–684.Google Scholar
Donald, W. W., Johnson, W. G., and Nelson, K. A. 2004a. In-row and between-row interference by corn modifies the response of annual weed cover to preemergence residual herbicides. Weed Technol. 18:497–504.Google Scholar
Donald, W. W., Archer, D., Johnson, W. G., and Nelson, K. 2004b. Zone herbicide application controls annual weeds and reduces residual herbicide use in corn. Weed Sci. 52:821–833.Google Scholar
Doyle, P. and Stypa, M. 2004. Reduced herbicide rate—a Canadian perspective. Weed Technol. 18:1157–1165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, M. R., Swanton, C. J., and Anderson, G. W. 1992. The critical period of weed control in grain corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 40:441–447.Google Scholar
Hamill, A. S. and Zhang, J. 1995. Herbicide reduction in metribuzin-based weed control programs in corn. Can. J. Plant Sci. 75:927–933.Google Scholar
Hoeft, R. G., Nafziger, E. D., Johnson, R. R., and Aldrich, S. R. 2000. Modern Corn and Soybean Production. 1st ed. Campaign, IL: Modern Corn and Soybean Production (MCSP) Publications. Pp. 90–91.Google Scholar
Hoshmand, A. R. 1994. Experimental Research Design and Analysis: A Practical Approach for Agricultural and Natural Sciences. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Pp. 15–42.Google Scholar
Lin, B. H., Taylor, H., Delvo, H., and Bull, L. 1995. Factors influencing herbicide use in corn production in the North Central region. Rev. Agric. Econ. 17:159–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Sullivan, J. and Bouw, W. J. 1993. Reduced rates of postemergence herbicides for weed control in sweet corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 7:995–1000.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, J. and Bouw, W. J. 1997. Effect of timing and adjuvants on the efficacy of reduced herbicide rates for sweet corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 11:720–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz, J. A., Sanchez, J. J., and Goodman, M. M. 1998. Base temperature and heat unit requirement of 49 Mexican maize races. Maydica 43:277–282.Google Scholar
SPSS, Inc. 2003. SPSS Base User's Guide. Version 12.233 Chicago: SPSS. Pp. 359–376.Google Scholar
Zhang, J., Weaver, S. E., and Hamill, A. S. 2000. Risks and reliability of using herbicides at below-labeled rates. Weed Technol. 14:106–115.Google Scholar
Zoschke, A. 1994. Toward reduced herbicide rates and adapted weed management. Weed Technol. 8:376–386.Google Scholar