4.7 Article

Spray coverage and pest management efficacy of a solid set canopy delivery system in high density apples

期刊

PEST MANAGEMENT SCIENCE
卷 75, 期 11, 页码 3050-3059

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/ps.5421

关键词

high density apples; sprayer technology; solid set delivery; spray coverage

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND Air blast sprayers are not optimized for spraying the short statured trees in modern apple orchards, resulting in off target drift and variable coverage. A solid set canopy delivery system (SSCDS) consisting of a microsprayer array distributed throughout the orchard was investigated as a replacement agrochemical application method in this study. SSCDS's have the potential to optimize coverage, rapidly spray applications, and remove the operator and tractor from the orchard. RESULTS Air blast and SSCDS applications were compared using water sensitive paper, bioassays, and pest damage assessments. Pest management and coverage were compared using application volumes of 700 and 795 L ha(-1), respectively. In 2013, adaxial coverage measurements showed no difference between the treatments, but air blast sprayers had higher coverage levels on the abaxial surfaces. There were no significant differences in coverage in 2014. Bioassays using Choristoneura rosaceana fed on leaf discs treated by the SSCDS displayed 95.8% mortality in 2013 and 94.2% mortality in 2014, and air blast treated larval mortality was 95% in 2013 and 100% in 2014. Damage evaluations in both years generally showed no significant differences between the air blast plots and the SSCDS plots, but significant differences between the treated plots and untreated control. CONCLUSIONS The prototype SSCDS was an effective pest management tool in high density apples, and offered a number of advantages over an air blast. Further engineering and research into coverage optimization would offer producers a novel tool for foliar agrochemical applications. (c) 2019 Society of Chemical Industry

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据