Wyniki wyszukiwania

Sortuj według:

Ogranicz wyniki do:

Artykuł dostępny w postaci pełnego tekstu - kliknij by otworzyć plik

Comparison of an ultra-low volume (ULV) sprayer against a conventional sprayer, for foliar fertiliser and fungicide applications in turfgrass

100%

Ferguson J. C., Gaussoin R. E., Eastin J. A., Sousek M. D., Kruger G. R.

Journal of Plant Protection Research

2016

tom 56

nr 1

Two field studies (I and II) at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln: John Seaton Anderson Turfgrass Research Facility near Mead, NE, USA, were conducted to determine if a new ultra-low volume (ULV) sprayer can apply foliar nutrient, growth regulator, and fungicide treatments, in a manner similar to that of a conventional sprayer. Treatments were applied over creeping bentgrass ‘L-93’ (Agrostis stolonifera L.) managed as a fairway at 561 l · ha−1 and 47 l · ha−1 with the conventional and ULV sprayer, respectfully. Data were collected for chlorophyll content with a chlorophyll meter, and for the normalised difference vegetation index (NDVI) with a turf colour meter. Each plot was harvested for biomass at 21 days after treatment. Study II compared the ULV sprayer and a conventional sprayer, for the control of brown patch (Rhizoctonia solani Kuhn) in creeping bentgrass. The treatments were propiconazole and azoxystrobin. Spray volume was 561 l · ha−1 for the conventional sprayer, and 19 l · ha−1 for the ULV sprayer. Statistical differences in turf quality or dry weight reductions between the conventional and ULV sprayer were not detected. Brown patch control was also similar between the two sprayers, but azoxystrobin provided better control than propiconazole. Even with a 30-fold decrease in application volume, the results indicated that the Kamterter ULV sprayer may be a useful and effective management option for foliar fertiliser and fungicide applications in turfgrass.

Developing a comprehensive Drift Reduction Technology risk assessment scheme

86%

Ferguson J. C., Hewitt A. J., Eastin J. A., Connell R. J., Roten R. L., Kruger G. R.

Journal of Plant Protection Research

2014

tom 54

nr 1

Drift Reduction Technologies (DRTs) are becoming increasingly important for improving spray applications in many countries including New Zealand (NZ). Although there is a growing database on the performance of DRTs, there is no rating system showing the effectiveness of the DRT’s performance. In Europe, DRTs are classified relative to current reference technologies as part of the rating systems used to establish spray drift risk reduction. We have recommended some key elements of such a comprehensive exposure risk reduction scheme for any country, based on prior and on-going research into the performance of specific DRTs in row, tree, and vine crops. Our intention was to create a rating system to determine the effectiveness of a given technology. This rating system would improve spray application practices and environmental stewardship for a wide range of crops and application scenarios.

Ograniczanie wyników

2 Journal of Plant Protection Research

2 Eastin J. A.

2 Ferguson J. C.

2 Kruger G. R.

1 Connell R. J.

1 Gaussoin R. E.

1 Hewitt A. J.

1 Roten R. L.

1 Sousek M. D.

1 2016

1 2014

Wyniki wyszukiwania

Comparison of an ultra-low volume (ULV) sprayer against a conventional sprayer, for foliar fertiliser and fungicide applications in turfgrass

Developing a comprehensive Drift Reduction Technology risk assessment scheme