Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-c52kr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T07:25:29.370Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Drift-Reducing Nozzle Effects on Herbicide Performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Bradford K. Ramsdale  and
Calvin G. Messersmith
Bradford K. Ramsdale*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105
Calvin G. Messersmith
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: Brad_Ramsdale@ndsu.nodak.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Herbicide efficacy, coverage, and retention were evaluated for spray applied through Drift Guard, Turbo TeeJet, AI TeeJet, and TurboDrop drift-reducing nozzles compared to a conventional flat-fan nozzle. Percentage spray coverage detected on water-sensitive cards was greater for conventional and Drift Guard nozzles than for Turbo TeeJet, AI TeeJet, and TurboDrop nozzles. Spray without adjuvants was retained better by redroot pigweed for treatments applied with conventional and Drift Guard nozzles than Turbo TeeJet, AI TeeJet, and TurboDrop nozzles. However, spray with adjuvants was retained similarly for all nozzle types when averaged over spray adjuvant and two weed species. The efficiency of spray retention was greater for spray applied in 47 than in 190 L/ha spray volume for all nozzles. Paraquat and glyphosate, representing contact and translocated herbicides, respectively, provided similar grass species control for all nozzle types, regardless of spray volume. Paraquat and glyphosate were also equally or more effective in 47 compared to 190 L/ha spray volume.

Keywords

Glyphosateparaquatcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALfoxtail millet, Setaria italica (L.) P. Beauvoat, Avena sativa L.proso millet, Panicum miliaceum L.redroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. # AMAREApplication methodsdroplet sizespray coveragespray driftspray retentionspray volumeATV, all-terrain vehicleMVO, methylated vegetable oilNIS, nonionic surfactantVMD, volume median diameter

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , September 2001 , pp. 453 - 460
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous. 1998. Agricultural Spray Products. Catalog 47. Wheaton, IL: Spraying Systems. 144 p.Google Scholar
Bode, L. E., Butler, B. J., and Goering, C. E. 1976. Spray drift and recovery as affected by spray thickener, nozzle type, and nozzle pressure. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 19: 213–218.Google Scholar
Bruns, D. E. and Nalewaja, J. D. 1998. Spray retention is affected by spray parameters, species, and adjuvants. In Nalewaja, J. D., Gross, G. R., and Tann, R. S., eds. Pesticide Formulations and Application Systems. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials. pp. 107–119.Google Scholar
Buehring, N. W., Roth, L. O., and Santelmann, P. W. 1973. Plant response to herbicide spray drop size and carrier volume. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 16: 636–637.Google Scholar
Cecil, A.R.G. 1997. Modified spray nozzle design reduces drift whilst maintaining effective chemical coverage. Brighton, UK: Brighton Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds. pp. 543–548.Google Scholar
Combellack, J. H., Western, N. M., and Richardson, R. G. 1996. A comparison of the drift potential of a novel twin fluid nozzle with conventional low volume flat fan nozzles when using a range of adjuvants. Crop Prot. 15: 147–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, S. E. and Taylor, B. P. 1999. The distribution and retention of sprays on contrasting targets using air-inducing and conventional nozzles at two wind speeds. Brighton, UK: Brighton Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds. pp. 461–466.Google Scholar
Cranmer, J. R. and Linscott, D. L. 1990. Droplet makeup and the effect on phytotoxicity of glyphosate in velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 38: 406–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cranmer, J. R. and Linscott, D. L. 1991. Effects of droplet composition on glyphosate absorption and translocation in velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 39: 251–254.Google Scholar
de Ruiter, H., Uffing, A.J.M., Meinen, E., and Prins, A. 1990. Influence of surfactants and plant species on leaf retention of spray solutions. Weed Sci. 38: 567–572.Google Scholar
Derksen, R. C., Ozkan, H. E., Fox, R. D., and Brazee, R. D. 1999. Droplet spectra and wind tunnel evaluations of air-induction and pre-orifice nozzles. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 42: 1573–1580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dexter, R. W. and Huddleston, E. W. 1998. Effects of adjuvants and dynamic surface tension on spray properties under simulated aerial conditions. In Nalewaja, J. D., Gross, G. R., and Tann, R. S., eds. Pesticide Formulations and Application Systems. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials. pp. 95–106.Google Scholar
Duncan Yerkes, C. N. and Weller, S. C. 1996. Diluent volume influences susceptibility of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) biotypes to glyphosate. Weed Technol. 10: 565–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etheridge, R. E., Womac, A. R., and Mueller, T. C. 1999. Characterization of the spray droplet spectra and patterns of four venturi-type drift reduction nozzles. Weed Technol. 13: 765–770.Google Scholar
Grayson, B. T., Price, P. J., and Walter, D. 1996. Effect of the volume rate of application on the glasshouse performance of crop protection agent/adjuvant combinations. Pestic. Sci. 48: 205–217.3.0.CO;2-#>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harr, J., Guggenheim, R., Schulke, G., and Falk, R. H. 1991. The Leaf Surface of Major Weeds. Witterswil, Switzerland: Fricker.Google Scholar
Jensen, P. K. 1999. Herbicide performance with low volume low-drift and airinclusion nozzles. Brighton, UK: Brighton Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds. pp. 453–461.Google Scholar
Jordan, T. N. 1981. Effects of diluent volumes and surfactants on the phytotoxicity of glyphosate to bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon). Weed Sci. 29: 79–83.Google Scholar
Knoche, M. 1994. Effect of droplet size and carrier volume on performance of foliage-applied herbicides. Crop Prot. 13: 163–178.Google Scholar
Lake, J. R. 1977. The effect of drop size and velocity on the performance of agricultural sprays. Pestic. Sci. 8: 515–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, T. C. and Womac, A. R. 1997. Effect of formulation and nozzle type on droplet size with isopropylamine and trimesium salts of glyphosate. Weed Technol. 11: 639–643.Google Scholar
Ozkan, E. 1998. New Nozzles for Spray Drift Reduction. Food, Agriculture and Biological Engineering. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheet AEX 523-98. 4 p.Google Scholar
Spillman, J. J. 1984. Spray impaction, retention, and adhesion: an introduction to basic characteristics. Pestic. Sci. 15: 97–106.Google Scholar
Stevens, P.J.G., Kimberley, M. O., Murphy, D. S., and Policello, G. A. 1993. Adhesion of spray droplets to foliage: the role of dynamic surface tension and advantages of organosilicone surfactants. Pestic. Sci. 38: 237–245.Google Scholar
Wolf, T. M. 2000. Low-drift nozzle efficacy with respect to herbicide mode of action. Aspects Appl. Biol. 57: 29–34.Google Scholar
Wolf, T. M., Grover, R., Wallace, K., Shewchuk, S. R., and Maybank, J. 1993. Effect of protective shields on drift and deposition characteristics of field sprayers. Can. J. Plant Sci. 73: 1261–1273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Womac, A. R., Goodwin, J. C., and Hart, W. E. 1997. Tip Selection for Precision Application of Herbicides. A Look-Up Table of Drop Sizes to Assist in the Selection of Nozzles. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station Bull. 695. 47 p.Google Scholar
Yates, W. E., Cowden, R. E., and Akesson, N. B. 1985. Drop size spectra from nozzles in high speed airstream. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 28: 405–410.Google Scholar