Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T11:55:54.317Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reducing Herbicide Particle Drift: Effect of Hooded Sprayer and Spray Quality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2018

Henry C. Foster ,
Benjamin P. Sperry ,
Daniel B. Reynolds Open the ORCID record for Daniel B. Reynolds [Opens in a new window] ,
Greg R. Kruger Open the ORCID record for Greg R. Kruger [Opens in a new window]  and
Steve Claussen
Henry C. Foster
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA
Benjamin P. Sperry
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA
Daniel B. Reynolds*
Affiliation:
Professor and Endowed Chair, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA
Greg R. Kruger
Affiliation:
Associate Professor and Extension Specialist, University of Nebraska, North Platte, NE, USA
Steve Claussen
Affiliation:
President of Willmar Fabrications LLC, Willmar, MN, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Daniel B. Reynolds, Professor and Endowed Chair, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, 32 Creelman Street, Mississippi State, MS 39762. (E-mail: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A field study was conducted in 2015 and 2016 to compare particle drift of glyphosate using a fluorescent tracer dye applied with hooded and open sprayers at four spray qualities (Fine [F], Medium [M], Very-Coarse [VC], and Ultra-Coarse [UC]). F and M spray qualities exhibited up to 86% and 56% less drift, respectively, out to 31 m downwind with the hooded sprayer than with the open sprayer. Conversely, VC and UC spray qualities were not affected by sprayer type out to 31 m downwind. From 43 to 104 m downwind, hooded sprayer applications exhibited approximately 50% less drift than open sprayer applications, regardless of spray quality. From 43 to 89 m downwind, F spray qualities, regardless of sprayer type, exhibited higher drift than all other spray qualities. These data indicate that hooded sprayers considerably reduce drift of all spray qualities at short distances downwind. Additionally, at longer distances downwind, both larger spray qualities and sprayer hoods reduced drift independently.

Keywords

Daniel Stephenson, Louisana State University Agricultural CenterGlyphosateHerbicide application technologyherbicide driftsprayer type
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 32 , Issue 6 , December 2018 , pp. 714 - 721
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2018. 

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

Al-Khatib, K, Claassen, MM, Stahlman, PW, Geier, PW, Regehr, DL, Duncan, SR, Heer, WF (2003) Grain sorghum response to simulated drift from glufosinate, glyphosate, imazethapyr, and sethoxydim. Weed Technol 17:261–265 Google Scholar
Al-Khatib, K, Parker, R, Fuerst, EP (1993) Wine grape (Vitis vinifera L.) response to simulated herbicide drift. Weed Technol 7:97–102 Google Scholar
Alves, GS, Kruger, GR, da Cunha, JPAR, de Santana, DG, Pinto, LAT, Guimaraes, F, Zaric, M (2017a) Dicamba spray drift as influenced by wind speed and nozzle type. Weed Technol 31:724–731 Google Scholar
Alves, GS, Kruger, GR, da Cunha, JPAR, Vieira, BC, Henry, RS, Obradovic, A, Grujic, M (2017b) Spray drift from dicamba and glyphosate applications in a wind tunnel. Weed Technol 31:387–395 Google Scholar
Anonymous (2016a) Xtendimax® herbicide product label. Monsanto publication No. 35008P3-5. St. Louis, MO: Monsanto. 9 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2016b) Xtendimax® herbicide supplemental label. Monsanto publication No. 35008P2-8. St. Louis, MO: Monsanto. 7 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2017) Enlist Duo® herbicide product label. Dow publication No. D02-407-003. Indianapolis, IN: Dow AgroSciences. 7 pGoogle Scholar
[ASABE] American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (2009) Spray nozzle classification by droplet spectra. St. Joseph, MI: ASABE Standard S572.1. Pp 1–3 Google Scholar
Auch, DE, Arnold, WE (1978) Dicamba use and injury on soybeans (Glycine max) in South Dakota. Weed Sci 26:471–475 Google Scholar
Bish, MD, Bradley, KW (2017) Survey of Missouri pesticide applicator practices, knowledge, and perceptions. Weed Technol 31:165–177 Google Scholar
Creech, CF, Henry, RS, Fritz, BK, Kruger, GR (2015) Influence of herbicide active ingredient, nozzle type, orifice size, spray pressure, and carrier volume rate on spray droplet size characteristics. Weed Technol 29:298–310 Google Scholar
Cundiff, GT, Reynolds, DB, Mueller, TC (2017) Evaluation of dicamba persistence among various agricultural hose types and cleanout procedures using soybean (Glycine max) as a bio-indicator. Weed Sci 65:305–316 Google Scholar
Dill, GM, CaJacob, CA, Padgette, SR (2008) Glyphosate-resistant crops: adoption, use and future considerations. Pest Manag Sci 64:326–331 Google Scholar
Egan, JF, Bohnenblast, E, Goslee, S, Mortensen, D, Tooker, J (2014) Herbicide drift can affect plant and arthropod communities. Agr Ecosyst Environ 185:77–87 Google Scholar
[EPA] Environmental Protection Agency (2017) Compliance Advisory: Crop Damage Complaints Related to Dicamba Herbicides Raising Concerns. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-07/documents/fifra-dicambacomplianceadvisory-201708.pdf. Accessed October 12, 2017Google Scholar
Everitt, JD, Keeling, JW (2009) Cotton growth and yield response to simulated 2,4-D and dicamba drift. Weed Technol 23:503–506 Google Scholar
Fehr, WR, Caviness, CE (1977) Stages of soybean development. Special Report 80. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Cooperative Extension Service. 12 pGoogle Scholar
Fehringer, RJ, Cavaletto, TA (1990) Spray drift reduction with shrouded boom sprayers. Pages 1–9 in Proceedings of the 1990 International Meeting of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 12 pGoogle Scholar
Ford, RJ (1986) Field trials of a method for reducing drift from agricultural sprayers. Can Agr Eng 28:81–83 Google Scholar
Greenshields, JER, Putt, ED (1958) The effects of 2,4-D spray drift on sunflowers. Can J Plant Sci 38:234–240 Google Scholar
Griffin, JL, Bauerle, MJ, Stephenson, DO, Miller, DK, Boudreaux, JM (2013) Soybean response to dicamba applied at vegetative and reproductive growth stages. Weed Technol 27:696–703 Google Scholar
Griffin, JL, Clay, PA, Miller, DK, Grymes, CF, Hanks, JE (2012) Bermudagrass control in sugarcane with glyphosate and a hooded sprayer. J Am Soc Sugar Cane Technol 32:38–50 Google Scholar
Grover, R, Kerr, LA, Maybank, J, Yoshida, K (1978) Field measurement of droplet drift from ground sprayers. I. Sampling, analytical, and data integration techniques. Can J Plant Sci 58:611–622 Google Scholar
Henry, RS, Claussen, S, Kruger, GR (2014) A comparison of an unhooded and hooded sprayer for pesticide drift reduction. J Agr Eng 1:43–51 Google Scholar
Henry, RS, Fritz, BK, Hoffmann, WC, Kruger, GR (2016) The influence of nozzle type, operating pressure, and tank-mixture components on droplet characteristics and the EPA’s drift reduction rating. J ASTM 36:149–161 Google Scholar
Hoffmann, WC, Fritz, B, Ledebuhr, M (2014) Evaluation of 1, 3, 6, 8-pyrene tetra sulfonic acid tetra sodium salt (PTSA) as an agricultural spray tracer dye. Appl Eng Agric 30:25–28 Google Scholar
Kaupke, CR, Yates, WE (1966) Physical properties and drift characteristics of viscosity-modified agricultural sprays. Trans ASAE 9:797–799 Google Scholar
Kleppe, CD, Harvey, RG (1991) Postemergence-directed sprayers for wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) control. Weed Technol 5:185–193 Google Scholar
Londo, JP, Bautista, NS, Sagers, CL, Lee, EH, Watrud, LS (2010) Glyphosate drift promotes changes in fitness and transgene flow in canola (Brassica napus L.) and hybrids. Ann Bot-London 106:957–965 Google Scholar
Manalil, S, Busi, R, Renton, M, Powles, S (2011) Rapid evolution of herbicide resistance by low herbicide dosages. Weed Sci 59:210–217 Google Scholar
Marple, ME, Al-Khatib, K, Shoup, D, Peterson, DE, Claaseen, M (2007) Cotton response to simulated drift of seven hormonal-type herbicides. Weed Technol 21:987–992 Google Scholar
Marrs, RH, Frost, AJ, Plant, RA, Lunnis, P (1993) Determination of buffer zones to protect seedlings of non-target plants from the effects of glyphosate spray drift. Agr Ecosyst Environ 45:283–293 Google Scholar
Maybank, J, Yoshida, K, Grover, R (1974) Droplet size spectra, drift potential, and ground deposition pattern of herbicide sprays. Can J Plant Sci 54:541–546 Google Scholar
Maybank, J, Yoshida, K, Grover, R (1978) Spray drift from agricultural pesticide applications. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 28:1009–1014 Google Scholar
Meyer, CJ, Norsworthy, JK, Kruger, GR, Barber, T (2015a) Influence of droplet size on efficacy of the formulated products Engenia, Roundup PowerMax, and Liberty. Weed Technol 29:641–652 Google Scholar
Meyer, CJ, Norsworthy, JK, Young, BG, Steckel, LE, Bradley, KW, Johnson, WG, Loux, MM, Davis, VM, Kruger, GR, Bararpour, MT, Ikley, JT, Spaunhorst, DJ, Butts, TR (2015b) Herbicide program approaches for managing glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus and Amaranthus rudis) in future soybean-trait technologies. Weed Technol 29:716–729 Google Scholar
Morgan, MJ, Rasmussen, LW, Orton, LW (1957) The effect of wind on delivery patterns of nozzles used for weed spraying. Weeds 5:350–361 Google Scholar
Mortensen, DA, Egan, JF (2012) Quantifying vapor drift of dicamba herbicides applied to soybean. Environ Toxicol Chem 31:1023–1031 Google Scholar
Nordby, A, Skuterud, R (1975) The effects of boom height, working pressure and wind speed on spray drift. Weed Res 14:385–395 Google Scholar
Ozkan, HE, Miralles, A, Sinfort, C, Zhu, H, Fox, RD (1997) Shields to reduce spray drift. J Agr Eng Res 67:311–322 Google Scholar
Ramsdale, BK, Messersmith, CG (2001) Drift-reducing nozzle effects on herbicide performance. Weed Technol 15:453–460 Google Scholar
Relyea, RA (2005) The impact of insecticides and herbicides on the biodiversity and productivity of aquatic communities. Ecol Appl 15:618–627 Google Scholar
Ritz, C, Streibig, JC (2005) Bioassay analysis using R. J Stat Software 12:1–22 Google Scholar
Roten, RL, Ferguson, JC, Hewitt, AJ (2014) Drift reducing potential of low drift nozzles with the use of spray-hoods. N Z Plant Prot 67:274–277 Google Scholar
Schroeder, GL, Cole, DF, Dexter, AG (1983) Sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.) response to simulated herbicide spray drift. Weed Sci 31:831–836 Google Scholar
Sciumbato, AS, Chandler, JM, Senseman, SA, Bovey, RW, Smith, KL (2004) Determining exposure to auxin-like herbicides. Quantifying injury to cotton and soybean. Weed Technol 18:1125–1134 Google Scholar
Sidahmed, MM, Awadalla, HH, Haidar, MA (2004) Symmetrical multi-foil shields for reducing spray drift. Biosyst Eng 88:305–312 Google Scholar
Smith, HC, Ferrell, JA, Webster, TM, Fernandez, JV (2017) Cotton response to simulated auxin herbicide drift using standard and ultra-low carrier volumes. Weed Technol 31:1–9 Google Scholar
Staten, G (1946) Contamination of cotton fields by 2,4-D or hormone-type weed sprays. J Am Soc Agron 38:536–544 Google Scholar
Steckel, L, Chism, C, Thompson, A (2010) Cleaning Plant Growth Regulator (PGR) Herbicides Out of Field Sprayers. https://extension.tennessee.edu/publications/Documents/W071.pdf. Accessed: November 4, 2018Google Scholar
Tehranchian, P, Norsworthy, JK, Powles, S, Bararpour, MT, Bagavathiannan, MV, Barber, T, Scott, RC (2017) Recurrent sublethal-dose selection for reduced susceptibility of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) to dicamba. Weed Sci 65:206–212 Google Scholar
Thistle, HW (2004) Meteorological concepts in the drift of pesticides. Pages 156–162 in Proceedings of International Conference on Pesticide Application for Drift Management. Waikoloa, HI: Washington State UniversityGoogle Scholar
[USDA APHIS] US Department of Agriculture—Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (2014) Determination of Nonregulated Status for Dow AgroSciences DAS-68416-4 Soybean. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/11_23401p_det.pdf. Accessed October 12, 2017Google Scholar
[USDA APHIS] US Department of Agriculture—Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (2015a) Determination of Nonregulated Status for Dow AgroSciences DAS-8190-7 Cotton. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/13_26201p_pdet.pdf. Accessed October 12, 2017Google Scholar
[USDA APHIS] US Department of Agriculture—Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (2015b) Determination of Nonregulated Status for MON 88701 cotton. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/12_18501p_det.pdf. Accessed October 12, 2017Google Scholar
[USDA APHIS] US Department of Agriculture—Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (2015c) Determination of Nonregulated Status for MON 88708 soybean. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/10_18801p_det.pdf. Accessed October 12, 2017Google Scholar
Vieira, BC, Butts, TR, Rodrigues, AO, Golus, JA, Schroeder, K, Kruger, GR (2018) Spray particle drift mitigation using field corn (Zea mays L.) as a drift barrier. Pest Manag Sci 74:10.1002/ps.5041 Google Scholar
Wax, LM, Knuth, AL, Slife, FW (1969) Response of soybeans to 2,4-D, dicamba, and picloram. Weed Sci 17:388–393 Google Scholar
Wolf, TM, Grover, R, Wallace, K, Shewchuk, SR, Maybank, J (1993) Effect of protective shields on drift and deposition characteristics of field sprayers. Can J Plant Sci 73:1261–1273 Google Scholar