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>3.0.co;2-6

Cited by 22 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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.…”

Section: Methodology Used By Focus To Derive Crop Interception Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collection and evaluation of relevant information on crop interception

Olesen

Jensen

2013

EFSA Supporting Publications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methodology Used By Focus To Derive Crop Interception Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collection and evaluation of relevant information on crop interception

Olesen

Jensen

2013

EFSA Supporting Publications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…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. 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.…”

Section: Figure 4 Comparison Between Interception Calculated From Plmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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. 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: 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.…”

Section: Figure 4 Comparison Between Interception Calculated From Plmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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 4 Comparison Between Interception Calculated From Plmentioning

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

The effect of different spray liquids on the foliar retention of agricultural sprays by wheat plants in a canopy

Ellis¹,

Webb²,

Western³

2004

Pest Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this work was to examine the effect of liquid properties on spray retention in a range of situations representative of practical pesticide application. Liquids with different physical properties were sprayed with conventional flat-fan and air-induction nozzles onto outdoor-grown wheat plants (Triticum aestivum L cv Axona) at growth stages between GS 22 and GS 35. Since total retention is affected by leaf surface as well as plant growth stage and canopy density, the experiments included spraying both single leaves and groups of plants with different canopy densities. Retention on whole plants was strongly influenced by plant growth and canopy properties. Individual leaf surfaces were not as water-repellent as was found previously for younger indoor-grown plants, reducing the effect of dynamic surface tension on retention. This, combined with the increased probability of droplets hitting foliage in a denser canopy, gave reduced differences in retention between liquids when compared with similar measurements made previously on younger plants. With a leaf area index greater than 7, retention on whole plants was almost independent of liquid. Air-induction nozzles gave lower levels of retention than flat-fan nozzles, with this difference greatest when spraying high dynamic surface tension liquids and at low crop densities.

show abstract

Ground deposit of pesticides in relation to the cereal canopy density

Cited by 22 publications

References 16 publications

Collection and evaluation of relevant information on crop interception

Collection and evaluation of relevant information on crop interception

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

The effect of different spray liquids on the foliar retention of agricultural sprays by wheat plants in a canopy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About