Ground deposit of pesticides in relation to the cereal canopy density

Gyldenkærne, Steen; Secher, B. J. M.; Nordbo, Ebbe

doi:10.1002/(sici)1096-9063(199912)55:12<1210::aid-ps76>3.3.co;2-y

Cited by 7 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Interception by the two crops is similar for the growth stages up to around GS 40. For the later growth stages, the data by Jensen and Spliid (2003) and by Gyldenkaerne (1999) suggest that there is less interception by barley than by wheat. It is not clear if this difference is due to the plant properties (such as leaf angle and leaf surface) or due to differences between the crop stands, such as planting density.…”

Section: Figure 4 Comparison Between Interception Calculated From Plmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Figure 6 shows the interception values from those authors who included both barley and wheat crops in their study. The wheat that did not receive any N-fertilizer in the study by Gyldenkaerne (1999) was not included in this figure. Interception by the two crops is similar for the growth stages up to around GS 40.…”

Section: Figure 4 Comparison Between Interception Calculated From Plmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To illustrate the effect of poor nutrition on interception, the results from Gyldenkaerne (1999) are plotted in Figure 8. Gyldenkaerne (1999) used different fertiliser levels to vary the leaf area index of the wheat crop between plots. Fertiliser (N) was applied at 0, 100 or 200 kg/ha.…”

Section: Figure 6 Comparison Of Interception Measurements On Wheat Amentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Collection and evaluation of relevant information on crop interception for the revision of the Guidance Document on Persistence in Soil

Beinum

Beulke

2010

EFSA Supporting Publications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A literature search was carried out on behalf of EFSA to collect measurements of spray interception by crops. Various methods were used in literature for measuring interception and for deriving the interception values from the measurements. Advantages and disadvantages of the different methodologies are discussed. Reported measurements for interception by cereal crops were collated in a database, together with any additional information regarding the data, such as information related to the crop or the sprayer equipment. Interception values were calculated from the reported measurements and listed in the database.The interception values for cereals were analysed and compared with the FOCUS interception values currently used for PEC soil and groundwater calculations. Factors that may have affected interception were analysed and discussed, as well as the relationship between interception and the soil cover of the crop at the time of spray application. Based on the available data, the FOCUS values seem to overestimate interception during tillering (GS20-29) and during the final growth stages (GS70-99), while interception is underestimated during the later part of stem elongation (GS33-39). CFT/EFSA/PPR/2009/02. Accepted for Publication in October 2010Spray interception by crops during pesticide application 2The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the European Food Safety Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by EFSA. EFSA reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors.The crop interception table currently used for PEC soil and groundwater calculations was compiled by members of the FOCUS groundwater group (FOCUS, 2000). Limited experimental data was available to the workgroup when these interception values were established. The aim of this project was to collate any data on interception by crops from publicly available literature and to analyse the data in relation to the current FOCUS values (FOCUS, 2002).A literature search was performed to retrieve available literature that reports measurements of spray interception by agricultural crops. Nineteen reference databases were searched using the Dialog host for terms related to "deposition" or "interception". The search terms and logic are set out in Chapter 2 of this report. More than 2000 references were found. The relevance of the literature references was checked against a list of minimal criteria. Where necessary the full articles were retrieved. A reference list was compiled for rejected references with their reason for rejection. A total of 55 references with relevant crop interception...

show abstract

Section: Figure 4 Comparison Between Interception Calculated From Plmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Figure 4 Comparison Between Interception Calculated From Plmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Collection and evaluation of relevant information on crop interception for the revision of the Guidance Document on Persistence in Soil

Beinum

Beulke

2010

EFSA Supporting Publications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A model by Bache & Uk (1975) and Bache (1979Bache ( , 1985 is useful for discerning the way in which the vertical distribution pattern is likely to be influenced by droplet size, wind-speed and foliage area. A study by Gyldenkaerne et al (1999) modelled the ground deposit of pesticides in relation to cereal canopy and density. This study found that soil deposition, or pesticide capture by the canopy, may be calculated from a simple exponential expression including a pesticide coefficient and leaf area index.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spray retention models for vegetable crops preliminary investigation

Forster¹,

Steele²,

Gaskin³

et al. 2004

NZPP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study tests the most appropriate of three mathematical models for spray retention by plant foliage. The current study utilised two plant species, potato (easy to wet with relatively horizontal leaves) and onion (difficult to wet with relatively vertical foliage). Formulations providing a range of dynamic surface tensions (26-73 mN/m) were used at two nominal spray volumes (200 and 500 litres/ha). The model by Grayson et al. (1993) worked reasonably well with the current data. However, to be truly predictive, extensive revision is required and recommendations for this are outlined.

show abstract

“…However, one study that could support rule number three was found. It was a study on cereals by Gyldenkaerne et al (1999). Here the relationship between leaf area index (LAI) and soil deposit was examined by the following equation: Ps = Pa exp(k LAI), where k is the pesticide capture coefficient, Ps the soil deposition and Pa the application rate.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%