Measurement of foliar spray retention on creeping bentgrass

被引:2
|
作者
Zhang, Pingyuan [1 ]
Branham, Bruce E. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Illinois, Dept Crop Sci, 1201 S Dorner Dr, Urbana, IL 61801 USA
关键词
Scott McElroy; Auburn University; Creeping bentgrass; Agrostis stolonifera L; AGSST 'L93'; Adjuvant; dew; foliar retention efficiency; nozzle type; spray volume; tartrazine; AGRICULTURAL SPRAYS; CARRIER VOLUME; DROPLET SIZE; WEED-CONTROL; EFFICACY; PERFORMANCE; ABSORPTION; ADJUVANTS; DEPOSITS; TRANSLOCATION;
D O I
10.1017/wet.2019.60
中图分类号
S3 [农学(农艺学)];
学科分类号
0901 ;
摘要
Experiments were conducted to evaluate the impact of spray volume, nozzle type, adjuvants, the presence of dew, and their interactions on foliar retention of creeping bentgrass. Tartrazine, a common food dye, was used as a tracer in this study. Increasing spray volume from 95 L ha(-1) to 1,500 L ha(-1) decreased foliar retention efficiency from 98% to approximately 85%. Compared with flat-fan nozzles, air-induction nozzles delivered similar retention efficiency at all spray volumes evaluated. However, flat-fan nozzles provided higher uniformity and more thorough coverage. Adding nonionic surfactants, organosilicone adjuvants, or methylated seed oils at typical concentrations yielded retention efficiency of approximately 90% to 93% regardless of spray volumes. In contrast, with water alone, increasing spray volume reduced retention efficiency from 95.9% to 87.3%. Simulated dew applied at 1,950 L ha(-1) increased retention efficiency by approximately 3% when spray application volume was 190 L ha(-1), while no difference was observed at 750 L ha(-1). The presence of dew reduced the impact of adjuvants on retention efficiency. Large quantities of dew, 3,800 L ha(-1), did reduce retention efficiency.
引用
收藏
页码:827 / 832
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Tolerance to quinclorac by seedling creeping bentgrass
    Reicher, ZJ
    Hardebeck, GA
    Yelverton, FF
    Christians, NE
    Bingaman, B
    Turner, J
    HORTSCIENCE, 2002, 37 (01) : 210 - 213
  • [32] Velvet and creeping bentgrass tolerance to fenoxaprop
    Henry, GM
    Hart, SE
    HORTSCIENCE, 2004, 39 (07) : 1768 - 1770
  • [33] Response of creeping bentgrass to nitrogen and ethephon
    McCullough, PE
    Liu, HB
    McCarty, LB
    HORTSCIENCE, 2005, 40 (03) : 836 - 838
  • [34] THATCH CONTROL ON CREEPING BENTGRASS TURF
    EGGENS, JL
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PLANT SCIENCE, 1980, 60 (04) : 1209 - 1213
  • [35] UPTAKE AND TRANSLOCATION OF BENOMYL IN CREEPING BENTGRASS
    NICHOLSO.JF
    MEYER, WA
    SINCLAIR, JB
    PHYTOPATHOLOGY, 1971, 61 (08) : 1024 - &
  • [36] Temporal shade on creeping bentgrass turf
    Bell, GE
    Danneberger, TK
    CROP SCIENCE, 1999, 39 (04) : 1142 - 1146
  • [37] EFFECT OF FERTILIZATION ON PENNCROSS CREEPING BENTGRASS
    WADDINGTON, DV
    TURNER, TR
    DUICH, JM
    MOBERG, EL
    AGRONOMY JOURNAL, 1978, 70 (05) : 713 - 718
  • [38] Dollar spot resistant hybrids between creeping bentgrass and colonial bentgrass
    Belanger, FC
    Bonos, S
    Meyer, WA
    CROP SCIENCE, 2004, 44 (02) : 581 - 586
  • [39] Controlling transgene escape in GM creeping Bentgrass
    Luo, H
    Kausch, AP
    Hu, Q
    Nelson, K
    Wipff, JK
    Fricker, CCR
    Owen, TP
    Moreno, MA
    Lee, JY
    Hodges, TK
    MOLECULAR BREEDING, 2005, 16 (02) : 185 - 188
  • [40] Expression of pokeweed antiviral proteins in creeping bentgrass
    Dai, WD
    Bonos, S
    Guo, Z
    Meyer, WA
    Day, PR
    Belanger, FC
    PLANT CELL REPORTS, 2003, 21 (05) : 497 - 502