Estimating off-rate pesticide application errors resulting from agricultural sprayer turning movements
- 229 Downloads
Pesticide application is an essential practice on many U.S. crop farms. Off-rate pesticide application errors may result from velocity differential across the spray boom while turning, pressure fluctuations across the spray boom, or changes in boom-to-canopy height due to undulating terrain. The sprayer path co-ordinates and the status (on or off) of each boom control section were recorded using the sprayer control console which provided map-based automatic boom section control. These data were collected for ten fields of varying shapes and sizes located in central Kentucky. In order to estimate potential errors resulting from sprayer turning movements, a method was developed to compare the differences in application areas between spray boom control sections. The area covered by the center boom control section was considered the “target rate area” and the difference in these areas and the areas covered by remaining control sections were compared to estimate application rate errors. The results of this analysis conducted with sprayer application files collected from ten fields, many containing impassable grassed waterways, indicated that a substantial portion of the fields (6.5–23.8%) could have received application in error by more than ±10% of the target rate. Off-rate application errors exceeding ±10% of the target rate for the study fields tended to increase as the average turning angles increased. The implication of this is that producers may be unintentionally applying at off-label rates in fields of varying shapes and sizes where turning movements are required.
KeywordsPrecision spraying No-till farming Variable-rate application Chemical application Spray boom
- Bode, L. E., & Butler, B. J. (1983). Spray characteristics of rotary atomizers. In K. G. Seymour (Ed.), Proceedings of the pesticide formulations and application systems second conference (pp. 89–104). ASTM TP 795. Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing Materials.Google Scholar
- Fulton, J. P., Shearer, S. A., Stombaugh, T. S., Higgins, S. F., & Dillon, C. R. (2003). ‘As-applied’ model validation for variable-rate application of granular materials. In P. C. Rober, R. H. Rust, W. E. Larson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th international conference on precision agriculture and other precision resources management. Madison, WI, USA: ASA-CSSA-SSSA. CD-ROM.Google Scholar
- Gibson, C. (2004). Full season soybean enterprise 1999–2003. University of Kentucky College of Agriculture. http://www.uky.edu/Ag/AgEcon/pubs/ext_other/kfbm_soybean99-03.pdf. Accessed 26 Jul 2010.
- Lawrence, H. G., & Yule, I. J. (2007). Modeling of fertilizer distribution using measured machine parameters. Transactions of the ASABE, 50(4), 1141–1147.Google Scholar
- Luck, J. D., Zandonadi, R. S., Luck, B. D., & Shearer, S. A. (2010b). Reducing pesticide over-application with map-based automatic boom section control on agricultural sprayers. Transactions of the ASABE, 53(3), 685–690.Google Scholar
- Shafagh-Kolvanagh, J., Zehtab-Salmasi, S., Javanshir, A., Moghaddam, M., & Nasab, A. D. M. (2008). Effects of nitrogen and duration of weed interference on grain yield and SPAD (chlorophyll) value of soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merril.). Journal of Food Agriculture and the Environment, 6(3–4), 368–373.Google Scholar