Effect of Adjuvants and pH Adjuster on the Efficacy of Sulcotrione Herbicide

Sobiech, Łukasz; Grzanka, Monika; Skrzypczak, G.; Idziak, R.; Włodarczak, Sylwia; Ochowiak, Marek

doi:10.3390/agronomy10040530

Cited by 21 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most tank-mix adjuvants aim for reducing evaporation, spray drift, and volatilization and improving pesticide’s ability to spread and stick on the target surface by reducing CA ( Celen, 2010 ; Melo et al, 2015 ; Santos, Ferreira & Viana, 2019 ). The addition of tank-mix adjuvant(s) into a pesticide product or pesticide spray mixture contributes to the reduction of spraying droplets’ CAs, which is expected to reduce off-target deposit effectively and obtain a better distribution ( Griesang et al, 2017 ; Mehdizadeh, Mehdizadeh & Baghaeifar, 2020 ; Meng et al, 2018 ; Sobiech et al, 2020 ). Therefore, some tank-mix adjuvants are able to reduce the amount of pesticide usage, enhance control efficacy, facilitate the delivery of pesticide chemicals, and alleviate environmental pollution ( Jibrin et al, 2021 ; Li et al, 2021 ; Meng et al, 2018 ; Preftakes et al, 2019 ; Wang et al, 2018 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

UAV spraying on citrus crop: impact of tank-mix adjuvant on the contact angle and droplet distribution

Meng

Zhong

Liu

et al. 2022

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adding tank-mix adjuvants into the spray mixture is a common practice to improve droplet distribution for field crops (e.g., rice, wheat, corn, etc.) when using Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) sprayers. However, the effectiveness of tank-mix adjuvant for UAV spraying in orchard crops is still an open problem, considering their special canopy structure and leaf features. This study aims to evaluate the effects of a typical tank-mix adjuvant concentrations (i.e., Nong Jian Fei (NJF)) on Contact Angle (CA) and droplet distribution in the citrus tree canopy. Three commonly used parameters, namely dynamic CA, droplet coverage, and Volume Median Diameter (VMD), are adopted for performance evaluation. The dynamic CAs on the adaxial surface of citrus leaves, for water-only and NJF-presence sprays, respectively, are measured with five concentration levels, where three replications are performed for each concentration. The sprays with 0.5‰ NJF are adopted in the field experiment for evaluating droplet distributions, where Water Sensitive Papers (WSPs) are used as collectors. Two multi-rotor UAVs (DJI T20 and T30) which consist of different sizes of pesticide tanks and rotor diameters are used as the spraying platforms. Both water-only and NJF-presence treatments are conducted for the two UAVs, respectively. The results of the CA experiment show that NJF addition can significantly reduce the CAs of the sprays. The sprays with 0.5‰ NJF obtain the lowest CA within the observing time, suggesting a better spread ability on solid surface (e.g., WSPs or/and leaves). With respect to the effects of NJF addition on individual UAVs, the field trial results indicate that NJF addition can remarkably increase both the droplet coverage and VMD at three canopy layers, except for T30 droplet coverage of the inside and bottom layers. Comparing the difference of droplet coverage between two UAVs, while significant difference is found in the same layer before NJF addition, there is no notable difference appearing in the outside and bottom layers after NJF addition. The difference of VMD in the same layer between two UAVs is not affected by NJF addition except for the bottom layer. These results imply that the differences of droplet coverage among different UAVs might be mitigated, thus the droplet distribution of some UAVs could be improved by adding a tank-mix adjuvant into the sprays. This hypothesis is verified by investigating the droplet penetration and the correlation coefficient (CC) of droplet coverage and VMD. After NJF addition, the total percentage of T20 droplet coverage in the bottom and inside layers is increased by 5%. For both UAVs, the CCs indicate that both droplet coverage and VMD increase at the same time in most cases after NJF addition. In conclusion, the addition of a tank-mix adjuvant with the ability to reduce CA of the sprays, can effectively improve droplet distribution using UAV spraying in the citrus canopy by increasing droplet coverage and VMD.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

UAV spraying on citrus crop: impact of tank-mix adjuvant on the contact angle and droplet distribution

Meng

Zhong

Liu

et al. 2022

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sobiech et al. (2020) demonstrated that the addition of NIS to sulcotrione solutions reduced dST by 20.8 mN m −1 compared to sulcotrione alone. Surfactants typically reduce the surface tension of a solution between 30 and 50 mN m −1 (Curran et al., 1999).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sobiech et al. (2020) reported that at 60% RH CA of sulcotrione solutions containing NIS was 20.2° smaller than sulcotrione alone. Although sCA is directly related to dST, some of the adjuvant solutions that presented lower dST in relation to formulations alone did not necessarily present lower sCA.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of surfactant‐humectant adjuvants on physical properties, droplet size, and efficacy of glufosinate formulations

Polli

Alves

Moraes

et al. 2022

Agrosystems Geosci & Env

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Glufosinate efficacy is inconsistent among weed species and under environmental conditions that favor rapid droplet drying. Surfactant‐humectant adjuvants could maximize glufosinate efficacy by increasing wetting and penetration into the leaf surface while decreasing evaporation rate (ER). However, there is a lack of information in the literature about the interaction of surfactant‐humectants adjuvants with glufosinate. The objective of this study was to investigate the influence of surfactant‐humectant adjuvants on the physical properties, droplet size, and efficacy of two glufosinate formulations. Laboratory, greenhouse, and field studies were conducted at the Pesticide Application Technology Laboratory of the University of Nebraska‐Lincoln. Treatment design was a 2 × 5 factorial with two glufosinate formulations combined with five adjuvant treatments plus an untreated control. Density and viscosity of glufosinate solutions mostly increased with the addition of adjuvants. However, the influence of the adjuvants on dynamic surface tension (dST), static contact angle (sCA), and evaporation rate (ER) varied by glufosinate formulation, adjuvant, and relative humidity (RH). Under greenhouse conditions, an improvement in efficacy by adding adjuvants was mainly observed for Interline solutions. The addition of adjuvants to Interline solutions increased biomass reduction up to 19 and 35% for common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.) and kochia [Bassia scoparia (L.) A. J. Scott], respectively. Also, some of the adjuvants presented null or antagonistic influence on herbicide efficacy. No increase in control, biomass reduction, and mortality of horseweed (Erigeron canadensis L.) and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson) was observed with the use of adjuvants under field conditions. Herbicide‐adjuvant‐plant‐environment interaction is complex. Thus, the use of surfactant‐humectant adjuvants may not increase herbicide efficacy.

show abstract

“…However, the authors observed that a reduction in pH improved control when using half a dose, suggesting that the spray solution acidification may assist the herbicide treatment under more extreme situations. Sobiech et al (2020) also stated that the use of pH reducers and small water hardness can be of great importance when using reduced herbicide doses.…”

Section: Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

WATER HARDNESS AND pH IN THE EFFECTIVENESS OF GLYPHOSATE FORMULATIONS

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The hardness and pH of the spray water can interfere with the weed control effectiveness with herbicides, but it is not clear the magnitude of this interference, mainly associating different levels of pH and hardness to different glyphosate formulations. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of hardness and pH, in association, of the water used in the application of two glyphosate formulations on the weed control effectiveness. The experiment was conducted in duplicate, in areas with a predominance of Digitaria horizontalis, under a randomized block design with a 4×4×2+1 factorial scheme, composed of four water hardness levels (70, 110, 230, and 430 ppm CaCO3), four pH levels (3.5, 4.5, 5.5, and 6.5), two glyphosate formulations (ammonium salt and potassium salt), and control without application, with four repetitions. The physicochemical characteristics of the spray solutions and the weed control effectiveness were evaluated at 7, 14, and 21 days after application (DAA). The water pH at the studied range did not interfere with the control effectiveness. The increase in hardness reduced the control at 7 DAA, but this difference was not noticed after 21 DAA. Glyphosate ammonium salt promoted higher control of D. horizontalis than that with potassium salt, regardless of water hardness and pH.

show abstract

Effect of Adjuvants and pH Adjuster on the Efficacy of Sulcotrione Herbicide

Cited by 21 publications

References 40 publications

UAV spraying on citrus crop: impact of tank-mix adjuvant on the contact angle and droplet distribution

UAV spraying on citrus crop: impact of tank-mix adjuvant on the contact angle and droplet distribution

Influence of surfactant‐humectant adjuvants on physical properties, droplet size, and efficacy of glufosinate formulations

WATER HARDNESS AND pH IN THE EFFECTIVENESS OF GLYPHOSATE FORMULATIONS

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About