Meta-analysis of scientific studies related to pesticide application techniques - air assistance and adjuvant addition

Oliveira, Gustavo Migliorini de; Canteri, Marcelo Giovanetti; Saab, Otavio Jorge Grigoli Abi

doi:10.1590/0103-8478cr20151067

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 13 publications

(12 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In previous studies, the Vortex ® system was shown to increase the deposition of a spray mixture inside the canopy of a soybean crop (Baesso et al, 2014), as well as to improve the control of soybean rust, increasing the yield and the mass per thousand soybean grains (Christovam et al, 2010;Prado et al, 2010). On the other hand, cases have been reported wherein such assisted methods did not influence spray deposition levels (Aguiar Júnior et al, 2011), and in some studies, air-assisted boom spraying had no effect on the performance of agrochemicals, in that it did not potentiate nor did it compromise the control levels of phytopathogenic fungi (Oliveira et al, 2016).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Besides using assisted boom sprayer systems, the deposition and coverage of the leaf surface by sprayed chemicals can be maximized by adjusting other factors, such as: the spectrum of the droplets (Silva et al, 2014, Weber et al, 2017França et al, 2018), spray pressure (Cunha et al, 2016), spray nozzle type (Cunha et al, 2014;Madureira et al, 2015;Cunha et al, 2016, Durão & Boller, 2017, adding adjuvants to the spray (Cunha et al, 2014;Madureira et al, 2015;Oliveira et al, 2016), and changing the volume of the mixture (Cunha et al, 2014;Prado et al, 2015;Weber et al, 2017;Roehrig et al, 2018).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Deposition and Coverage of Soybean Leaf Surfaces by Sprays Applied Using Different Assisted Boom Sprayer Systems

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Maintaining homogeneity in the distribution of fungicidal sprays applied throughout the plant, minimizing the variation between the upper and lower third of the plant, is one of the main challenges for application technologies with regard to soybean crops. To increase the deposition and leaf coverage of sprayed compounds, especially in the middle and lower thirds of the plant, we developed and tested alternative assisted boom sprayer systems. In this study, three assisted boom sprayer systems (Vortex ® , Dropleg ® , and chain curtain) were evaluated, in addition to the conventional system, in terms of the deposition and coverage of the leaf surface they achieved in the upper, middle, and lower thirds of plants using the fluorescent tracer Helios SC 500™. The assisted boom sprayer systems allowed the sprayed mixture to be better distributed throughout the plant. With the conventional spray system (without assitance), the deposition in the upper third was approximately 26 times higher than that in the lower third, whereas with the use of the assisted boom sprayer systems, the difference in deposition between these thirds was 11 times higher. Among the evaluated systems, the Dropleg ® system presented the lowest depositional variation, which was only 5.5 times higher in the upper than in the lower third, because of the increased deposition achieved in the lower third of the plant. Leaf coverage varied from 41% to 81% in the upper third, from 24% to 43% in the middle third, and from 4% to 13% in the lower third of the plant. Using the conventional spray system, the leaf surface coverage was approximately 13 times higher in the upper third than in the lower third of the plant, whereas with the use of the assisted boom sprayer systems, especially the Dropleg ® system, this variation was reduced by 73%, and the coverage of the upper and lower thirds only differed by 3.5 times. Indeed, the Dropleg ® system reached a leaf coverage of close to 13% in the lower third of the plant. The use of assisted boom sprayer systems improved the distribution of the mixture applied throughout the plant, reducing the differences among the thirds of the plant both in the levels of deposition and coverage of the leaf surfaces. The Dropleg ® system increased the deposition and leaf coverage in the lower third of the plant the most, facilitating better distribution of the mixture.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deposition and Coverage of Soybean Leaf Surfaces by Sprays Applied Using Different Assisted Boom Sprayer Systems

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When analyzing the effect of the air supply through a series of works, Oliveira et al (2016) indicated that this mechanism of support to the spray bar had no effect on the performance of agrochemicals and the control levels of phytopathogenic fungi. The contrasting and variable effects on the Vortex ® system may be associated with the different canopy opening levels, which can be influenced by the plant arrangement (Holtz et al, 2014), depending on the characteristic of the cultivar Tormen et al, 2012), as well as by the time of the day of spraying, due to the variation of the horizontal angle of soybean leaves throughout the day (Graziano et al, 2017;Moura et al, 2017).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chemical Control of Asian Soybean Rust as a Function of Cultivar, Row Spacing and Spray Bar Support Systems

Hoffmann¹,

Roehrig

Boller

et al. 2019

Eng. Agríc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Product deposition and foliar surface cover are highly impacting factors on the efficiency of foliar fungicides applied to soybean cultivars, due to their low mobility, with side effects on Asian soybean rust (ASR) control. Spray bar support systems, such as the air curtain (Vortex ® ) and the use of nozzles along the bar (Dropleg ® ), stand out as an alternative to obtain a better distribution of fungicide throughout the plant. In this study, two spray bar support systems (Vortex ® and Dropleg ® ) were, therefore, evaluated and compared with the conventional spraying method based on the biological efficacy in ASR control. In order to do this, two harvests, with three spacing between rows and two cultivars were employed. Vortex ® and Dropleg ® spray bar support mechanisms do not effectively contribute to the optimization of Asian soybean rust control or to the grain crop yield, regardless of cultivar and row spacing. Decreasing the row spacing did not influence the level of control of Asian soybean rust, as the highest grain yield was obtained with the smallest spacing. The cultivar with genetic resistance to Asian rust showed lower levels of this disease, thus, greater control against the use of fungicides.

show abstract

WITHDRAWN: Adjuvants in the spraying of fungicides in soybean plants

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Meta-analysis of scientific studies related to pesticide application techniques - air assistance and adjuvant addition

Abstract: The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of air-assisted boom sprayers and addition of adjuvants in the

Cited by 4 publications

References 13 publications

Deposition and Coverage of Soybean Leaf Surfaces by Sprays Applied Using Different Assisted Boom Sprayer Systems

Deposition and Coverage of Soybean Leaf Surfaces by Sprays Applied Using Different Assisted Boom Sprayer Systems

Chemical Control of Asian Soybean Rust as a Function of Cultivar, Row Spacing and Spray Bar Support Systems

WITHDRAWN: Adjuvants in the spraying of fungicides in soybean plants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About