Deposição De Calda Ao Longo Do Dossel Na Cultura Da Soja Utilizando Pulverizador Equipado Com Controlador De Fluxo

Weber, Nelson Cristiano; Santos, Eloá Matos dos; Russini, Alexandre; Silva, Fernando Felisberto da

doi:10.13083/reveng.v25i5.843

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Besides using assisted boom sprayer systems, the deposition and coverage of the leaf surface by sprayed chemicals can be maximized by adjusting other factors, such as: the spectrum of the droplets (Silva et al, 2014, Weber et al, 2017França et al, 2018), spray pressure (Cunha et al, 2016), spray nozzle type (Cunha et al, 2014;Madureira et al, 2015;Cunha et al, 2016, Durão & Boller, 2017, adding adjuvants to the spray (Cunha et al, 2014;Madureira et al, 2015;Oliveira et al, 2016), and changing the volume of the mixture (Cunha et al, 2014;Prado et al, 2015;Weber et al, 2017;Roehrig et al, 2018).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deposition and Coverage of Soybean Leaf Surfaces by Sprays Applied Using Different Assisted Boom Sprayer Systems

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Maintaining homogeneity in the distribution of fungicidal sprays applied throughout the plant, minimizing the variation between the upper and lower third of the plant, is one of the main challenges for application technologies with regard to soybean crops. To increase the deposition and leaf coverage of sprayed compounds, especially in the middle and lower thirds of the plant, we developed and tested alternative assisted boom sprayer systems. In this study, three assisted boom sprayer systems (Vortex ® , Dropleg ® , and chain curtain) were evaluated, in addition to the conventional system, in terms of the deposition and coverage of the leaf surface they achieved in the upper, middle, and lower thirds of plants using the fluorescent tracer Helios SC 500™. The assisted boom sprayer systems allowed the sprayed mixture to be better distributed throughout the plant. With the conventional spray system (without assitance), the deposition in the upper third was approximately 26 times higher than that in the lower third, whereas with the use of the assisted boom sprayer systems, the difference in deposition between these thirds was 11 times higher. Among the evaluated systems, the Dropleg ® system presented the lowest depositional variation, which was only 5.5 times higher in the upper than in the lower third, because of the increased deposition achieved in the lower third of the plant. Leaf coverage varied from 41% to 81% in the upper third, from 24% to 43% in the middle third, and from 4% to 13% in the lower third of the plant. Using the conventional spray system, the leaf surface coverage was approximately 13 times higher in the upper third than in the lower third of the plant, whereas with the use of the assisted boom sprayer systems, especially the Dropleg ® system, this variation was reduced by 73%, and the coverage of the upper and lower thirds only differed by 3.5 times. Indeed, the Dropleg ® system reached a leaf coverage of close to 13% in the lower third of the plant. The use of assisted boom sprayer systems improved the distribution of the mixture applied throughout the plant, reducing the differences among the thirds of the plant both in the levels of deposition and coverage of the leaf surfaces. The Dropleg ® system increased the deposition and leaf coverage in the lower third of the plant the most, facilitating better distribution of the mixture.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deposition and Coverage of Soybean Leaf Surfaces by Sprays Applied Using Different Assisted Boom Sprayer Systems

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reduction of row spacing increased grain yield by approximately 6.5% and 8.6% for the susceptible cultivar (SYN 1363 RR) and for the resistant cultivar (SYN 1365 RR), respectively, by observing the 0.17 m spacing between rows in relation to the other ones (Table 8 and Table 9). One of the main reasons for ineffective ASR control is associated with the target coverage deficiency by the application of fungicides, especially at the lower portion of the plant (Cunha et al, 2014;Silva et al, 2014;Cunha et al, 2016;Moura et al, 2017, Weber et al, 2017. The control efficacy becomes, therefore, compromised, as fungicides for ASR management, although systemic, are translocated to small distances from the deposition point (Reis et al, 2010).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The contrasting and variable effects on the Vortex ® system may be associated with the different canopy opening levels, which can be influenced by the plant arrangement (Holtz et al, 2014), depending on the characteristic of the cultivar Tormen et al, 2012), as well as by the time of the day of spraying, due to the variation of the horizontal angle of soybean leaves throughout the day (Graziano et al, 2017;Moura et al, 2017). Moreover, the spray tip angle, droplet size and speed, adjuvants and mixture volume are factors that also influence droplets' penetration along the canopy of the plant (Cunha et al, 2014, Madureira et al, 2015Prado et al, 2015;Cunha et al, 2016;Weber et al, 2017, França et al, 2018.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…During this period, the leaves of the upper strata constitute a physical barrier against the deposition of fungicide droplets inside the canopy, which makes spraying with conventional bars inefficient. Strategies that increase the deposition, mainly in the lower part of the crop are, therefore required (Cunha et al, 2011;Cunha et al, 2014;Cunha et al, 2016;Moura et al, 2017;Weber et al, 2017). These obstacles can be partially overcome with the use of spray bar support equipment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Chemical Control of Asian Soybean Rust as a Function of Cultivar, Row Spacing and Spray Bar Support Systems

Hoffmann¹,

Roehrig

Boller

et al. 2019

Eng. Agríc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Product deposition and foliar surface cover are highly impacting factors on the efficiency of foliar fungicides applied to soybean cultivars, due to their low mobility, with side effects on Asian soybean rust (ASR) control. Spray bar support systems, such as the air curtain (Vortex ® ) and the use of nozzles along the bar (Dropleg ® ), stand out as an alternative to obtain a better distribution of fungicide throughout the plant. In this study, two spray bar support systems (Vortex ® and Dropleg ® ) were, therefore, evaluated and compared with the conventional spraying method based on the biological efficacy in ASR control. In order to do this, two harvests, with three spacing between rows and two cultivars were employed. Vortex ® and Dropleg ® spray bar support mechanisms do not effectively contribute to the optimization of Asian soybean rust control or to the grain crop yield, regardless of cultivar and row spacing. Decreasing the row spacing did not influence the level of control of Asian soybean rust, as the highest grain yield was obtained with the smallest spacing. The cultivar with genetic resistance to Asian rust showed lower levels of this disease, thus, greater control against the use of fungicides.

show abstract

“…Thus, with the increase in displacement speed, the operational capacity increases. However, factors such as operating pressure, flow rate and nozzle outlet orifice should be regulated in such a way to satisfy the quality of applications, adjusting the application technology to the required conditions (WEBER et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Insecticide Application Speed in the Control of Lepidopteran Pests in Soybean1

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the chemical control of pests, diseases and weeds, great importance is given to the phytosanitary product and little attention to the application technology. The control of soybean pests did not escape the general rule and, therefore, some pests known as secondary, and even nonexistent, became responsible for great damage to the soybean crop. The objective of this work was to test the application of insecticide at different speeds (5 and 16 km h-1) by varying the rates of application in 108 to 110 and 199 to 216 L ha-1 to quantify the difference in the coverage percentage of the applied insecticide in the canopy of soybean plants, and to verify the interaction of these factors with efficacy parameters for the control of caterpillars (Helicoverpa armigera and Chrysodeixis includens). In general, the highest leaf coverage by the insecticide was observed in the upper part of the canopy, regardless of the rate and speed of application, resulting in lower leaf damage. For the middle and lower thirds of the plant, the decrease in speed influenced more the decrease in leaf damage by the caterpillars than the increase in the spray volume.

show abstract

Deposição De Calda Ao Longo Do Dossel Na Cultura Da Soja Utilizando Pulverizador Equipado Com Controlador De Fluxo

Cited by 5 publications

References 13 publications

Deposition and Coverage of Soybean Leaf Surfaces by Sprays Applied Using Different Assisted Boom Sprayer Systems

Deposition and Coverage of Soybean Leaf Surfaces by Sprays Applied Using Different Assisted Boom Sprayer Systems

Chemical Control of Asian Soybean Rust as a Function of Cultivar, Row Spacing and Spray Bar Support Systems

Insecticide Application Speed in the Control of Lepidopteran Pests in Soybean1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About