Evaluation of leaf deposit quality between electrostatic and conventional multi-row sprayers in a trellised vineyard

Abstract

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Relative efficiencies of experimental and conventional foliar sprayers and assessment of optimal LWA spray volumes in trellised wine grapes

“…Leaf deposit d (μg cm −2 ) was measured for each plot and spray timing, using leaves as natural collectors, following the protocol established in previous research work 38,44,45 . To evaluate the spray distribution uniformity, the canopy was divided into several sampling sections.…”

“…The normalized deposit d N (μg cm −2 leaf) was calculated [Eqn )] by considering the values of tracer concentration for each timing, sprayer and volume rate (Table 3). This methodology has been applied successfully in previous studies to directly compare different spray technologies and working conditions for PPP applications 39,44,45,50,51 where d N is the normalized tracer deposit (μg cm −2 leaf), f Tc is a factor that compensates for fluctuations in actual spray concentrations and f VR is a factor that compensates for the different spray volumes applied.…”

Assessment of Three Commercial Over-the-Row Sprayer Technologies in Eastern Washington Vineyards

“…Growers often desire sprayers that can cover more than one row in a single pass (Franson 2010) as the greatest efficiencies can be gained in multi-row machines (Niederholzer 2013, Landers 2014). However, most over-the-row sprayer deposition assessment studies have not compared opposed and unopposed row applications (Gil et al 2015, Salcedo et al 2020, Soriano et al 2005, or if a comparison is made, it is not from the same sprayer (Pergher et al 2013). Experiments that do not collect data from opposed and unopposed rows do not provide a full picture of sprayer performance as it relates to deposition and drift.…”

Canopy spray application technology in specialty crops: a slowly evolving landscape

“…Electrostatic sprayers also come in multi‐row curtain sprayer configurations. These systems can improve deposition over non‐electrostatic multi‐row curtain systems at significantly reduced application volumes 7 . Electrostatic sprayers use very fine droplets (30–60 μm, sometimes less) that have a high potential for drift 14 .…”

“…Modern pesticides have further necessitated that plants are thoroughly covered, as much less active ingredient (g ha −1 ) is applied on a per‐area basis than historical pesticide products (kg ha −1 ). Fortunately, most modern sprayers offer improved pesticide spray characteristics, with 40–90% less drift, 3,4 20–80% less volume per application, 4–6 and improved spray deposition on plants, 4,7,8 compared with unmodified radial air blast sprayers. These spray characteristics have led to much more efficient pesticide use in specialty crop directed canopy spraying.…”