Dataset of spray deposit distribution in vine canopy for two contrasted performance sprayers during a vegetative cycle associated with crop indicators (LWA and TRV)

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and environmental sustainability of pesticide application largely depend on maximizing target coverage, while minimizing off-target losses. Recently, laboratory-based measurements were used to develop new cannontype spout to increase the droplet size spectra produced by a pneumatic vineyard sprayer. The study described below evaluated the effectiveness of the new device to reduce off-target losses (both in-field and off-field ground losses), and to distribute an adequate canopy spray. Field trials were conducted to measure canopy spray deposition, canopy coverage, and off-target losses from a multiple-row pneumatic sprayer equipped with newly-designed spout under three different positional configurations. The configurations were defined by the variation of liquid release positions from the inner to the outer part of the cannon-type spout: conventional, alternative, and extreme. Each configuration was tested in a vineyard by applying a solution of water and yellow-dye tracer. RESULTS: It was confirmed that the increased droplet size corresponding to the alternative and extreme liquid release positions has no effect on total canopy deposition or coverage. The alternative and extreme configurations produced reduced off-field losses, up to 75% and 83%, respectively, by increasing the droplet size spectra. These reduced off-field losses imply increased in-field losses of 13% and 16%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The newly-designed pneumatic spout offers the first effective option for environmentally-friendly pneumatic spray pesticide application with the guarantee of canopy spray deposition and coverage levels similar to those obtained with conventional pneumatic application.

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 92%

Field assessment of a newly‐designed pneumatic spout to contain spray drift in vineyards: evaluation of canopy distribution and off‐target losses

Grella

Miranda‐Fuentes

Marucco

et al. 2020

“…This normalization process was adapted to consider the effect of the volume rate on the results. Following previous research, 51 it was determined using Eqn ):

d_{100} = ((), d_{N} \times 100) / V_{R}

where d 100 is the deposit per 100 L applied per hectare (μg cm −2 100 L –1 ha −1 ) and d N is the normalized tracer deposit (μg cm −2 leaf).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Gil

Salcedo

Soler³

et al. 2021

BACKGROUND Leaf wall area (LWA) has been proposed as an appropriate dose expression for field testing of plant protection products (PPPs) applied via foliar spray in trellised grapes. However, its efficiency could change depending on the characteristics of the crop or the pesticide application equipment (PAE). Herein, three spray technologies were evaluated. A traditional air‐assisted tractor‐mounted sprayer was compared with two portable knapsack sprayers: a backpack mistblower and a backpack hydraulic sprayer. Trials were conducted in trellised wine grapes at three selected crop stages (BBCH 55, 65, 75) covering the main period of canopy development. In each canopy stage, leaf deposition and coverage were sampled for each technology. The tractor‐mounted sprayer was working at 200 L ha−1 of LWA spray volume for the earliest stage and 370 L ha−1 for the other two. Three higher volume rates were used for backpack sprayers up to 800 and 1250 L ha−1 for the mistblower and the hydraulic system, respectively. RESULTS Optimal LWA spray volumes differed among application devices in terms of efficiency and uniformity of deposition on the canopy. The efficiency of each spray application also was conditioned by the spray volume. CONCLUSION LWA is useful for defining optimal spray volumes in trellised grapes. However, both canopy density and spray technology should be considered to assist this process. Field testing of PPPs and subsequent label recommendations should consider the relative efficiencies of corresponding experimental and conventional spray technologies. © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry

“…Another aspect that should be noticed is that the most common pneumatic sprayers used in vineyards are those which have the capability to spray more than one row at the same time, known as multi‐row pneumatic sprayers ( e.g . in France, where pneumatic sprayers are widespread, they represent 70–80% of sprayers used in large vineyards) . These sprayers are equipped with two different types of pneumatic nozzles: (i) hand‐type nozzles, with individual air spouts disposed as ‘fingers’ of the main spout and whose mission is to spray the row next to the sprayer, and (ii) the cannon‐type nozzles, with a main wide spout with very high air velocity that aims at spraying the further row, i.e .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the influence of air speed and liquid flow rate on the droplet size and homogeneity in pneumatic spraying

Balsari

Grella

Marucco

et al. 2018