Here in Episode 10 of Exploding Sprayer Myths we’ve coaxed @Nozzle_Guy back into the orchard. This is part two of a two-part mini series on airblast calibration. In Episode 9 we talked about air settings and travel speed, and now we’re tackling nozzling and coverage.
But here’s the twist: Rather than use spray math to determine the required nozzles to achieve ideal coverage, we do it backwards. This process uses ideal coverage to determine nozzles and finishes with sprayer math.
Confused? Watch the video and this surprisingly simple and versatile approach will become clear. See if you catch the subtle visual joke about “coverage” realize that to pull this off, we had to film it backwards.
Special thanks to the @RealAgriculture team, the Simcoe Research Station and Don Murdoch.
Spray application by drone is here. It’s common practice in South East Asia, with a very significant proportion of ag areas now treated that way. Estimates from South Korea, for example, suggest about 30% of their ag area being sprayed by drone. It’s in the US, too. The Yamaha RMax and Fazer helicopters, which pioneered drone spraying in Japan dating back to the mid 1990s, have been approved for use in California since 2015. DJI, the world’s largest drone manufacturer, introduced their ag model, the Agras MG-1, to North America in 2016. Many other spray drones are available or in development.
As William Gibson, the author of Johnny Mnemonic, once said,
“The future’s here, it’s just not widely distributed yet.”
DJI Agras MG-1 spray drone (Source: DJI.com)
Proponents of drone spraying cite a drone’s ability to access areas where topography is a problem, such as steep slopes, where productivity of manual application is much lower, or low areas where soil moisture prevents ground vehicles. Operator exposure is reduced compared to handheld application.
Opponents talk about productivity and cost factors compared
to manned aerial application, spray drift, and rogue use.
Before drone spraying becomes commonplace, two important
things need to happen.
Federal laws need to be updated to accommodate the unique features of remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS), as they’re now called. Current laws make many assumptions unique to manned ships, and the process to correct that will require some patience. A thorough review for US laws, and their shortcomings, can be found here.
Federal pesticide labels need to permit the use of drones for application. As of August, 2021, Canadian labels have no such registered use.
There is no doubt that we need to prepare for a future that includes spraying by drones. Features such as topography adjustment for height consistency and autonomous swath control are already essentially standard, and the capabilities that improve control and safety will continue to develop.
And yet I’ve been nervous about the prospect of pesticide application with drones. My primary concern is around – you guessed it – spray drift. Because a drone payload is relatively small (about 5 to 25 L, depending on the model), application volumes will need to be low to have any sort of productivity. How low? For manned aircraft with a 200 to 600 gallon hopper, 2 to 4 US gpa (18 to 36 L/ha) are the lowest commonplace volumes. The lower volumes require a Medium spray quality (among the finer sprays in modern boom spray practice) to achieve the required coverage.
It’s a simple concept: the less water is used, the smaller the droplets need to be to provide the necessary droplet density on the target. Drift control with coarser sprays requires higher volumes, and true droplet-size-based low-drift spraying can’t really happen at volumes less then, say 5 to 7 US gpa.
At 2 to 4 US gpa, a drone would be able to do perhaps 1 acre per load. While OK for spot spraying, it represents a serious productivity constraint for anything larger. There will be a push toward lower volumes, perhaps 0.5 to 1 gpa (5 to 10 L/ha). The only way these will provide sufficient coverage is with finer sprays, ASABE Fine to Very Fine, with expected problematic effects on off-target movement and evaporation. These fine droplets are also more prone to the aerodynamic eccentricities of aircraft.
Vortices from the rotor can create unpredictable droplet movement (Source: kasetforward.com)
The current regulatory models for aerial drift assessment in North America, AgDISP and AgDRIFT, are not yet able to simulate drone application. But by entering finer sprays into these models for their conventional manned rotary wing aircraft, we can see that buffer zones will be higher. Much higher. And that outcome will give pause to regulators. Failure to control the movement of a spray is, and should be, a problem.
Estimated Buffer Zones (calculated by AgDISP) for a reference rotary wing spray aircraft, using three pesticide toxicologies and two spray qualities.
Furthermore, ultra-low volume (ULV) sprays can change the efficacy of some products, and these will require new performance studies. At this time, regulators are seeking information not just on spray drift, but on product efficacy, operator and bystander exposure, and crop residues.
Regulators are currently collecting spray drift and efficacy data from drones. Since the drones available in today’s market do not conform to a common design standard like fixed or rotary winged manned aircraft, each model may have its own characteristics and need its own study. Some will have rotary atomizers, others will use hollow cone hydraulic sprays. Some will have electrostatic charging, others may propose special adjuvants.
Once data are assessed, there will likely be restrictions in flight height, flight speed, wind speed, spray quality, water volume, perhaps air temperature and relative humidity (or Delta T). This is not new to spraying, as current labels already constrain use for both ground and aerial spray application, more so for aerial.
The obvious question is how these proper application practices can possibly be assured. Operators will need more than just regulatory approval to use a drone, they will require proper training, similar to what a commercial aerial applicator now receives prior to operating a business.
Recall that our aerial applicators are governed by national organizations, the NAAA in the US and the CAAA in Canada. These organizations are in regular contact with federal regulators to assure compliance. They also help fund research into application efficacy and safety. They organize conferences in the off-season and calibration clinics in the growing season. At these, flow rates are confirmed and deposited droplet size is measured. Spray pattern uniformity is assessed and corrected as necessary.
Should drone applications be exempt from these controls? I don’t think that would be wise. Are we ready to implement them? Absolutely not.
These requirements would change the drones’ economic model. And despite these precautions, a drone may still leave the control of a pilot due to unforeseen technical or human events.
In the US, Yamaha does not sell their drone helicopters. Instead, they deploy their own teams to make the applications. This way, they have assurance that only trained and experienced pilots use the technology.
As the industry gears up for the first registrations, we see drone service companies take a leading role in testing. Much is being learned via legal applications of liquid micronutrients, for example, or limited use of pesticides under approved research permits. And I’m pleased to see the recognition of drift management in these efforts through the use of low-drift nozzles. We are off to a promising start.
Requests for drone use are in progress at our regulatory agencies. The outcomes of their risk assessments will provide important initial guidance, and food for thought and discussion. In the meantime, the drone development continues at a rapid pace, with new features and greater capacity at each iteration.
Some pesticide labels require or prohibit certain droplet sizes to reduce the potential for drift. But, even when labels are silent about size restrictions, operators should be aware of the potential for droplet size to affect coverage. In the case of airblast, droplets should be:
large enough to survive evaporation between nozzle and target.
small enough to adhere without drifting off course.
plentiful enough to provide uniform coverage without compromising productivity (e.g. affecting refills and travel speed).
Once spray leaves the nozzle, the operator has no more control over the application, so it’s important to plan for as many contributing factors as possible. Deciding which nozzles to use (and yes, you have alternatives beyond disc-core), requires an understanding spray quality symbols and basic droplet behaviour.
Spray Quality
Droplet diameter is measured in microns (µm). For a given pressure, a nozzle creates a range of droplet sizes which are described by the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE) standard S572.3 (Feb. 2020) In North America, these spray quality ratings range from “Extremely Fine – XF” to “Ultra Coarse – UC”. For interest, the scale is based on the British Crop Protection Council (BCPC) system, which is slightly different.
To make sense of the spray quality rating, we must first understand that not every droplet produced by a hydraulic nozzle is the same size. We noted that a single nozzle produces a range of droplet sizes. Spray quality captures that span using a few key metrics. The first is the Volume Median Diameter (VMD) or DV0.5. Think of it this way: Let’s say you have a hollow cone nozzle that breaks a volume of liquid up into droplets. Let’s arrange them from finest to coarsest as in the following graph.
The DV0.5 refers to the droplet size where half the spray volume is comprised droplets smaller than the DV0.5, and the other half is comprised of larger droplets. But we need more to understand the variation in the population. In other words, are they all the same size, or do they vary a great deal?
That’s why we also assign a DV0.1 which tells us the droplet size where 10% of the spray volume is comprised of smaller droplets, and a DV0.9 which indicates that 10% of the spray volume is comprised of larger droplets. Let’s add them to the graph:
With all three numbers, we can calculate the Relative Span (RS) by subtracting the DV0.1 from the DV0.9 and dividing by the DV0.5. The smaller the resulting number, the less variation there is in the spray quality. Two nozzles might produce a range of droplets with the same DV0.5, but the one with the larger RS is more variable, and is more likely to drift. Since we don’t typically have access to the RS of each nozzle, we rely on the spray quality symbols in nozzle catalogues to alert us to potential drift issues.
Relative Droplet Size
Did you notice in the graph that there are a lot of Fine droplets compared to Coarse? Disc-core (or disc-whirl) nozzles do not have spray quality ratings, and moulded hollow cones may or may not. This is, in part, because the standard was developed for flat fan nozzles, but mostly it arises from the nature of airblast spraying. No matter the original droplet diameter, the air shear from the sprayer and the distance-to-target reduce the DV0.5 considerably by the time spray reaches the target. It is safe to assume that the final spray quality will be much finer than the nozzle’s rating.
Incidentally, this is a big difference between boom sprayers and airblast: Where the boom sprayer operator should be aware of how pressure affects droplet size, it’s of little consequence to an airblast operator. On an airblast sprayer, pressure really only affects nozzle rate.
So, while shear and evaporation raise drift potential, shear also increases droplet count. Imagine the volume a nozzle emits as a cake. No matter how many slices you cut the cake into, you still have the same amount of cake. The finer the slices, the more people can have a slice, albeit not very much. Similarly, a single Coarse droplet can contain the same volume as many finer droplets. Mathematically, a droplet with diameter X represents the same volume as eight droplets with diameters of 1/2X. See the illustration below:
The eight to one rule: Every time the diameter of a droplet spray is doubled, there are eight times fewer droplets. Conversely, every time the diameter of a droplet is halved, there are eight times more.
Droplet Behaviour
The droplets that comprise the spray behave differently from one another. Finer droplets have a low settling velocity, which means they take a long time to fall out of the air. Conversely, coarser droplets fall out of the air more quickly. Think of how a ping pong ball (the finer droplet) has much less mass than a golf ball (the coarser droplet). When thrown into the wind, the golf ball follows a simple trajectory before falling. The ping-pong ball behaves erratically, like a soap bubble. Wind, thermals, humidity and many other factors will change where it goes because it is too light to resist them. It may even land behind the thrower, blown by the prevailing wind.
It is because of the behaviour of finer droplets, and the airblast sprayer’s inclination to create them, that we must be so diligent when we adjust the air settings.
We once explored this at a nursery workshop. The operator was spraying whips, which are young trees with very few lateral branches. He used a cannon sprayer to cover 30 rows (15 from each side) and felt he would incur less drift if he just used pressure, not air, to propel the spray. Water sensitive paper exposed the erratic coverage that resulted. Coverage uniformity was greatly improved when air was used, even when only spraying from one side of the 30 row block. Of course, this was only to demonstrate a principle; we don’t recommend alternate-row-middle-spraying.
Air-induction nozzles can be used to increase the median droplet size on an airblast sprayer. When used in the top nozzles positions, the coarser droplets that miss the top of tall targets will ultimately fall (reducing drift). They can also be used in positions that correspond to restricted airflow. In this case the operator relies on pressure to propel the coarser droplets where there is limited air to carry finer droplets.
Conclusion
The net result of all this is that the sprayer operator must choose a nozzle, pressure, and travel speed while considering the effect of distance-to-target and the weather. The resultant range of droplets should be fine enough to increase droplet count and be carried by sprayer air to deposit uniformly throughout the canopy. However, droplets should also be coarse enough to reduce drift if they miss.
Hey, if it was easy, anyone could do it!
Move ahead to 29:40 to watch a video describing how droplets behave an misbehave. Ahhhh Covid-hair. It was a thing.
Droplet size influences droplet behaviour. The following table lists the pros and cons to changing droplet size when overall spray volume (e.g. L/ha) remains constant.
Relative Spray Quality
Pros
Cons
Coarser Droplets
Lower drift potential because they resist deflection by wind and evaporation from heat and low humidity.
Lower droplet count may reduce coverage.
Greater mass means they move ballistically, propelled at higher speeds by pressure for greater distance.
May fall out of the spray before reaching the top or centre of the canopy.
Coarser droplets do not penetrate dense canopies as easily as finer droplets.
Redistribution due to bounce, shatter or run-off may either improve or compromise coverage.
Redistribution due to bounce, shatter or run-off may either improve or compromise coverage.
Finer Droplets
Higher droplet count may improve coverage (if they arrive at the target).
Higher drift potential from wind, and evaporation from heat and low humidity.
Finer droplets penetrate denser canopies better than coarser.
Finer droplets move unpredictably and require optimal air settings to direct them to the target. Sprayer design and air settings will determine if it is optimal for nearby or distant targets, but it is rarely if ever both.
Finer droplets move unpredictably and require optimal air settings to direct them to the target. Sprayer design and air settings will determine if it is optimal for nearby or distant targets, but it is rarely if ever both.
It is preferred to use nozzles that create coarser droplets at higher rates (to compensate for fewer droplets) in the higher boom positions. They are more likely to stay on course to the tops of the trees, and when they miss, many fall out of the air rather than contribute to drift.
Learn more about strategies to reach the top of a canopy here.
Finer droplets have very little mass and therefore very little kinetic energy. This means they slow quickly (imagine throwing a feather) and require entraining air to carry them to the target. Finer droplets also evaporate quickly, particularly on hot and dry days (i.e. unsuitable Delta T conditions). If employed, they should be distributed in the lower-middle portion of the boom where they have the least distance to travel and are most likely to be intercepted by canopy.
Boom distribution
Unlike a broad acre boom sprayer, where each nozzle emits the same rate, an airblast boom can distribute spray unevenly. For a curved (axial) boom, the rule of thumb is to produce 2/3 of the overall volume from the top 1/3 of the boom. This compensates for the distance and greater proportion of canopy it is intended to cover.
A vertical (tower) boom positions each nozzle roughly the same distance from the target, and if that target is a hedged canopy, the spray can be distributed equally over the boom. Research has demonstrated that there is no appreciable advantage to one spray shape over another (e.g. flat fan, hollow cone, full cone) other than the spray quality they produce.
In extreme cases, operators might elect to “fire hose” spray to the tops of canopies using high pressures. This is achieved by using streaming nozzles or removing the swirl/whirl/disc plate in a disc-core combination nozzle in the top few nozzle positions. Given the heavy demand on the pump and the inaccuracy of the method, this should only be considered when air fails to reach the tops of trees.
Learn more about nozzling an airblast sprayer here.
Spray coverage and diagnostics
It’s well understood that spray coverage has a negative correlation with tree height. The irony is that in large nut trees the upper portion of the canopy produces much of the harvest. Taken collectively, this may explain why pest activity is also highest in the upper canopy. When choosing a spray volume and boom distribution, the metric is threshold coverage in the top 1/3 of the canopy. This requires us to define threshold coverage.
If ribbons and leaf movement represent the feedback mechanism for air settings, then water sensitive paper (WSP) is the choice for spray coverage. Placement in tall trees can be tricky, given that we are most concerned with coverage at the top, but this can be overcome by mounting the WSP on telescoping poles. Papers can be oriented horizontally to represent a leaf, or curled around the pole to give panoramic coverage and emulate a nut. Beware over-blowing in the lower canopy, which creates a shingling effect where leaves cover one another (or the WSP) and block coverage.
Fluorescent dyes and kaolin clay show spray coverage in situ, but there are drawbacks. Few growers will spray dye and come back at night with a black light to examine targets. Further, a target sprayed with dye or clay cannot be sprayed a second time, which means the grower can’t adjust the sprayer and try again in the same canopy. And finally, it’s very difficult to determine if there is more or less coverage with clay or fluorescent dye.
Learn more about how to use water sensitive paper here.
WSP is fast, cheap and effective. With the exception of drench applications, the most demanding spray application (e.g. contact fungicide) should produce a spray coverage pattern of 85 drops per cm2 and 10-15% total coverage on 80% of the targets. This threshold comes from collective research and experience in many horticultural crops, and should true hold for tree nut.
Be prepared to make changes to your sprayer calibration to compensate for tree height, canopy density, and weather conditions throughout the season. The feedback from water sensitive paper is far more accurate than shoulder-checks and leaf residue. It takes some time and effort, but it’s well worth it. Coverage is King.
What others have done
Researchers like Brad Higbee (Paramount Farming Co.) and Ken Giles (UC Davis) have explored spray coverage and efficacy from different sprayer configurations to combat Naval Orange Worm in almond. What follows is a summary of their observations. This information comes from their presentations and conversations with Brad.
Ten years of trials spanned travel speeds of 3-6.5 km/h, volumes of 1,400-2,150 L/ha, and sprayer-generated airspeeds (measured at source) of 80-290 km/h. They looked at efficacy, residue levels and WSP coverage both in leaves and on the nuts themselves. When comparing sprayer configurations, the target almond tree was divided into four levels:
Level 1 = 1.8 m to 2.5 m (Lower canopy)
Level 2 = 3.0 m to 3.7 m
Level 3 = 4.2 m to 4.9 m
Level 4 = >5.5 m (Upper canopy)
Many configurations were tested, but the following figure shows the top four. Of those not shown, most notable are the Bell 206 helicopter (280 L/ha at 50 km/h) and the Curtec AC 1000 Cross-Flow tower.
A. Air-O-Fan low profile axial D-240 (Also used Air-O-Fan 232). B. Progressive Ag two-head 2650 electrostatic air-shear with 4 m tower (Also used 4.9 m three-head and 5.5 m four-head). C. Blueline Accutech 10-head air-shear tower. D. Low-profile axial airblast with two Sardi-style fans on mast. Upper fans set to 70% overall fan speed and spray volume. Axial fan and nozzles set to 30%
Here is a summary of their observations:
Spray coverage and residue deposition was weakest in upper half (Levels 3 and 4) of canopy. Tower sprayers tended to provide more uniform coverage across vertical levels. For low-profile axial sprayers, most of the residues were deposited in the lower half of the tree.
The Air-O-Fan low-profile axial had the highest overall residues. But, above 3.7 m there was severe drop off in coverage. PTO-driven sprayers seemed as effective as engine driven. Incremental improvements were observed on this sprayer when using multiple banks of booms, full cone and hollow cone nozzles.
The Progressive Ag tower provided the highest residue deposition above 3.7 m and modest deposition in the lower canopy. While tower sprayers tended to provide more uniform coverage, the Progressive Ag was not significantly better than the Air-O-Fan overall.
Aerial application (280 L/ha) combined with the Air-O-Fan low-profile axial sprayer (1,870 L/ha) did increase residues in the upper canopy, but did not result in greater damage reduction relative to the Air-O-Fan alone.
Slowing the Air-O-Fan low-profile axial sprayer from 4 to 3.2 km/h resulted in 30% more coverage and 47% higher residue deposition overall.
Electrostatic treatments did not perform well on WSP (small droplet size was suspected), but they were among the best in residue deposition at full volume and “delivered surprising residues at high speeds/low volumes”.
Brad has done remarkable work studying the impact of several sprayer configurations. While many were tested, there are still more that might be considered.
Canopy management
When all else fails, we are left with only one alternative: canopy management. Hedging and pruning the trees to create sprayer clearance opens canopies to spray (and light and air) and is a critical part of crop protection.
Learn more about the benefits of canopy management here.
Topping trees to bring them to a manageable height to improve coverage and reduce drift may be the only viable option for protecting the crop. I acknowledge that a great deal of nut production takes place in the upper third of the canopy, and it is beyond the scope of this article to discuss production and yield economics. However, when the crop is left unprotected, the yield quality is negatively impacted and it has been shown that a reduction in harvest weight is offset by the improvement in overall quality.
Where plants are very old and overgrown (such as macadamia), it is highly recommended that the orchardist engage a local crop expert and discuss a strategy for canopy management. There are many benefits, including:
Improved harvest quality
Fewer refills (saving time and water)
Less time to spray means more timely applications
Potential chemistry savings
Savings in gas, noise and equipment wear and tear
Potential for reduced off target spray drift
Summary
Spraying large nut trees is a challenging proposition. A number of inter-connected factors are involved and an operator must address all of them make spraying as efficient and as effective as possible.
Adjust sprayer air settings first, using canopy penetration as your guide to travel speed.
Distribute the 2/3 of the volume and coarser spray quality to the top 1/3 of the boom.
Consider an air-assisted vertical boom configuration to improve coverage uniformity and reduce drift.
Use water sensitive paper for critical coverage feedback and make changes based on that feedback.
Develop a canopy management strategy to improve spray coverage and yield quality.
I’ve studied spray applications in a diversity of crops, both broad acre and specialty, but perhaps nothing is as challenging large tree nut canopies. Australia’s macadamia orchards can form >10 metre high, >4 metre deep canopy walls! So in writing this article I face the opposite situation I normally encounter when advising on airblast sprayer settings.
In my region, fruit orchard, cane, bush and vine crops are typically sprayed with airblast sprayers. Over the years, through breeding and crop management, these operations have densified. The idea is that smaller, uniform crops can be managed, protected and harvested more efficiently. The ratio of quality fruit to planted area goes up, and input costs go down.
However, our aging fleet of sprayers are overpowered relative to the target. This means much of what I do involves demonstrating to sprayer operators what sufficient coverage looks like, and then teaching how to restrain sprayer parameters to achieve this ideal coverage as efficiently as possible.
So, are there any commonalities?
Yes! The need to understand what “good coverage” looks like, and the parameters that affect it, is universal to any airblast operation. Assuming the operator already has product choice and pest staging well in hand, there are three major factors that influence the quality of the spray application: The sprayer settings, the geometry of the target and the environmental conditions.
In theory we can discuss each of these factors individually, but in practice they interact with one another. It is wrong to adjust one factor without considering the other two. This is also why you should be wary of anyone that tries to sell you a sprayer by demonstrating it in an empty lot on a calm day! Always calibrate a sprayer in the planting, in weather conditions you would normally spray in.
Air volume and direction
Air adjustments are perhaps the most impactful changes you can make to your operation. The air stream created by the sprayer not only conveys the spray solution to the target, but opens the canopy and exposes leaf surfaces to the spray. In order to achieve adequate coverage, the volume (and speed) of sprayer-generated air must be sufficient to span the distance from sprayer to target, and then displace the volume of air in the canopy while depositing the spray.
I admit to a bias when it comes to air shear systems. These sprayers utilize sprayer-generated air to atomize the spray liquid as well as convey it. As such, you cannot easily adjust the air without affecting spray quality (aka average droplet size or VMD). My preference is an arrangement where nozzle selection allows you to control spray quality independent of air settings. In any case, adjusting air settings requires the operator to “see” air.
In my region, I advise tying 25 cm lengths of flagging tape at the top, middle and bottom of the far side of the upwind tree. Then, drive past with the air on and the spray booms off. If the ribbons stand straight out, the sprayer is over-blowing and the operator can drop to a lower fan gear, reduce the tractor RPM’s (if using a positive displacement-style pump) or drive faster. If the ribbons don’t move, the opposite steps can be taken. If the ribbons still won’t move, the sprayer is under-powered, it’s too windy to spray, or the canopy is too large.
Let’s explore that last point. In the case of a canopy as large as macadamia, it is unlikely a low-profile axial sprayer can produce sufficient air volume to displace all the air in the canopy – particularly at the top of the tree. In this case a more humble goal would be to move the leaves at the trunk, indicating that the sprayer is managing to drive the air to the centre. To monitor this, an observer wearing safety goggles would have to stand at the far side of the upwind trunk and (while being very careful of flying debris) watch for leaf movement.
This becomes increasingly difficult to monitor as the target gets fuller, higher, and farther away from the sprayer. Consider the macadamia trees in the following figure:
The observer will have difficulty seeing leaf movement at the top of either the taller or shorter tree, but we can safely assume there will be less movement as a function of height. Since our goal is uniform penetration throughout the canopy, we must somehow compensate for this differential. Consider the following figure which extrapolates the path between the sprayer air outlet and the tree:
In this figure we have divided each side of a low-profile axial sprayer into halves. The bottom half of the air outlet must produce enough air volume to displace area X. I realize I’m mixing area and volume, but bear with me. For the taller tree, the upper half of the outlet must produce enough air to displace 2.5 times the area versus the bottom half. Given that it is a single air outlet, this means inconsistent coverage.
Comparatively, the shorter tree requires a more uniform air distribution. While this improves matters, there are further challenges. Sprayer-generated air slows and disperses proportional to distance, requiring more air to compensate. Also, orchard wind speed increases with elevation, increasing the potential for interference and dispersion. So, the taller the tree, the harder it is to achieve uniform canopy penetration.
Spraying shorter nut trees with a low-profile axial sprayer is possible. The sprayer would require a large fan (≥1 m diameter), an aggressive fan blade pitch and a high fan speed. Air deflectors and air separation vanes would also be needed to segregate and focus the air. And travel speed would play a significant role.
Travel Speed
Travel speed should be considered as function of air penetration. A slower travel speed (~2 km/h) facilitates the displacement of stagnant canopy air with sprayer-generated air. Further, a slower travel speed reduces the wake effect that can suck finer droplets from the swath.
It may seem counter-intuitive, but slower speeds can result in greater productivity. There is no need to increase the volume sprayed per hectare, so additional refills are not an issue. Further, improving spray coverage at slower speeds may prevent the need for an additional “clean-up” application later on, saving time and reducing environmental impact. Time lost to slower travel speed can also be reclaimed with more efficient loading practices.
Learn more about travel speed here and productivity here.
Directed Sprays and Off-Target Deposition
When the height of the target tree exceeds alley width, or when branches overgrow alleys, many low-profile axial sprayers suffer from line-of-sight issues. Lower branches/leaves block the upper canopy and too many nozzles target the lower canopy. See the figure below.
One option is to direct spray vertically to ensure the swath reaches the top of the canopy. In this case it is hoped that droplets remain Coarse enough to fall from the swath and penetrate the canopy, or blow laterally with prevailing wind (left side of figure). This unadvisable strategy is unlikely to achieve consistent results and greatly increases the potential for drift.
Alternately, the top of the swath can be vectored directly at the top of the tree, but it must pass through canopy to reach it (right side of figure). This strategy increases the potential for drift, risks missing a portion of the upper canopy and is also unlikely to yield consistent results.
Ideally, we would use a sprayer design that brings the air (and nozzles) closer to the target. Hypothetically, there are several possible configurations, but in practice their success will be hampered by boom sway and roll (from sloped plantings or uneven alleys) and pressure drop restrictions (from boom height). Here are a few possibilities:
A. A vertical boom with a tapered inflatable bag to convey and redirect the air laterally (typically one-sided). B. An axial sprayer topped with a ducted tower with vertical booms, terminating in either a second axial fan or one-sided cannon. C. An axial sprayer with a vertical mast with a series of Sardi-style nozzle/fan assemblies distributed along the height.
In the following figure we see how two possible arrangements might work. On the left is a vertical boom with a tapered air assist system. This provides the shortest distance-to-target for each nozzle and in moving laterally, the air will more easily penetrate horizontal limbs. It also reduces the potential for drift.
On the right is a novel arrangement proposed by Dr. Ken Giles (UC Davis, California). A Sardi-style fan and nozzle assembly is elevated above the canopy from an axial sprayer. His intention was to create air and fluid interaction to generate turbulence that could improve uniformity and decrease drift. He proportioned 70% of the overall spray to the top fan, and the remaining 30% from the ground. Working in almond, he saw more even coverage distribution compared to a low-profile axial sprayer and noted it reduced off target drift. For a target as tall as macadamia, additional fans would likely be required.
In Part 2 we discuss Droplet size, Boom distribution, Spray coverage and diagnostics, California research and Canopy management.
