When we consult a nozzle catalogue we are interested in the flow and droplet sizes produced at a given pressure. Perhaps we should also consider the effect of pressure on spray angle. We have several articles discussing the collective impact of spray overlap, nozzle spacing and boom height on coverage uniformity (Check here and here for example). However, we don’t really address the fact that fan angle is not a constant. This may be more relevant with the growing adoption of spot sprayers.
To illustrate the potential for fan angle variation, we assembled a collection of red, flat fan nozzles (‘04s) from several manufacturers. We plugged each nozzle into a spray pattern table, set the regulator at a given pressure, and photographed the spray angle and flow distribution. This process was repeated for each nozzle at seven different pressures within the manufacturer’s approved range of 20-80 psi. After digitizing the photos, we measured the spray angle using a digital protractor.
We anticipated a concomitant increase in spray angle as the pressure increased. This is not news. Anyone who has operated a sprayer has seen the spray pattern open up as the boom fills and pressurizes. Bear in mind this was only performed once (i.e. n=1), so while it illustrates trends it shouldn’t be mistaken for a rigorous scientific comparison. Further, this demonstrates a static situation and not a dynamic one where travel speed, wind conditions and the vortices from the sprayer it self will influence matters.
We saw similar trends with nozzles other than 110˚ fans, but let’s focus on 110˚s due to their current popularity.
Fan angles for five common 110 degree AI flat fans over their manufacturer-recommended pressure range
The spray angle for 110˚ nozzles ranged from 75˚ at 20 psi to approximately 143˚ at 80 psi. One nozzle failed to reach 110˚ at any pressure. Conversely, there was another that was over 110˚ at nearly all pressures. Ideally, spray nozzles should be operated around the middle of their manufacturer-recommended operating range. Three of the nozzles tested came close to 110˚ at that median pressure, but only the TeeJet AIC110-04 measured 110˚ at the middle of its recommended range (~50 psi).
Using that nozzle as an example, let’s look at the pressure, spray angle and subsequent distribution of flow along the swath at three different pressures. At 20 psi, the spray angle was 85˚. The yellow balls are floats that reflect flow as a series of cross sections of the swath. We see that aside from the tapered edges (which illustrate the need for 100% overlap between neighbouring nozzles) the distribution was fairly even. One of the priorities in nozzle design is to ensure a low coefficient of variability over the operating pressure range. In other words, the length of the swath may change, but the spray quality and uniformity in that swath is still within spec. At 50 psi the nozzle produced the expected 110˚ fan, and the spray distribution remained even. At 80 psi, the angle spread out to 125˚, spanning a greater distance, but it started to produce a less-even distribution.
Photographs of spray angle and distribution for the TeeJet AIC110-04 at the extreme low, middle and highest pressures of its recommended pressure range.
When fan angle changes with pressure, it can have significant implications. Nozzle spacing on a boom varies from sprayer to sprayer. Generally 50 cm (20 inch) centres are the standard in North America, but we’ve seen 15″ and even 10″. Nozzle spacing and boom height collectively determine the degree of spray overlap. Excessive overlap isn’t a problem, although additional nozzles do mean added expense, cleaning time and potential for plugging. Conversely, gaps in the pattern could lead to sub-lethal applications or flat-out misses. For example, in this soybean demo plot (below) we sprayed a contact herbicide at low pressure to collapse the spray pattern. You can see the alternating stripes of hits and misses that resulted from an incomplete overlap of spray.
Soybean demo plot sprayed with a contact herbicide using 110˚ air induction flat fans at 20 psi. The collapsed spray pattern did not overlap sufficiently to burn the entire crop down, leaving a striped pattern and demonstrating the poor coverage.
Nozzle manufacturers generally recommend a 100% spray overlap for flat fans. This creates sufficient overlap when the boom sways low to the ground. It also increases the degree of droplet size homogeneity under the boom as coarser and fewer droplets are generally found at the “horns” or edges of the pattern compared to the centre. In order to ensure this degree of overlap, sprayer operators should observe and consider changes in fan angle over their typical pressure range. Otherwise, the cost of poor deposit uniformity under the boom could be high.
Operate nozzles around the middle of the manufacturer-recommended pressure range. However, just because a nozzle is rated over a range of pressures does not mean the angle is constant.
Lower pressures are a greater concern than higher pressures. 30 psi is the absolute lowest pressure for operating a 110˚ air induction flat fan; the ideal operating range for these nozzles is 50-70 psi.
If nozzles are not maintaining the recommended 100% overlap at your preferred pressure range, then consider switching nozzle rates, and adjusting pressure and boom height.
This work was performed with Victoria Radaukas, 2015 OMAFRA application technology summer student.
If you’re a sprayer operator with some experience behind you, you may have applied mercury arsenate, nicotine, Paris green, or perhaps even DDT. All of these historical pesticides were effective, but they were also toxic to both the applicators and the environment. Fortunately, today’s agrochemical manufacturers produce pesticides that are effective while being far less hazardous.
One important aspect of modern synthetic pesticides that enhances their efficacy is their ability to redistribute. Pesticide redistribution is the movement of a pesticide from its initial point of deposition to a different spot on or in the plant. Pesticides that can redistribute can improve pest control compared to those that must contact the target pest but cannot innately redistribute. This is especially true when spraying hard-to-wet plant tissues, such as flower clusters or fruit. Even when the immediate coverage of these tissues is insufficient, the subsequent relocation beyond the initial spray deposit can result in a more effective protective barrier. When plants are rapidly growing, many of these products can translocate through the plant tissues to protect newly emerged tissue that did not receive a direct deposit.
Some of the most difficult and persistent pests are more effectively controlled by redistributing pesticides. Materials that move within the plant after application provide improved control of piercing-sucking insects such as aphids and psyllids, as well as pests that feed in difficult-to-spray areas such as under leaves. These products can absorb into plant tissue, increasing their resistance to wash-off by rain or irrigation.
Five Types of Pesticide Redistribution
There are five significant types of pesticide redistribution: translaminar, vapor, xylem, phloem and redistribution via precipitation
Translaminar Redistribution
Translaminar redistribution (Figure 1) in its most literal sense is a compound moving from the side of the leaf that received spray, to the unsprayed opposite side. This results in protection on both sides. However, translaminar redistribution also involves limited radial movement providing a “halo” of protection around the initial deposition. The extent of this area of influence is product-dependent.
Figure 1. Schematic of translaminar redistribution, with small round dots indicating deposition of pesticide, arrows indicating the direction of redistribution, and the shading indicating the area of the plant protected by the pesticide.
Vapor Redistribution
Vapor redistribution (Figure 2A) occurs when surface depositions volatilize and move laterally along a plant surface, re-adsorbing to the plant surface in new locations as they move. Again, the extent of vapor activity is product specific, but also condition specific requiring an optimal combination of temperature, relative humidity, wind, and solar radiation to facilitate volatilization. When pesticides are referred to as “locally systemic,” it often implies that they exhibit translaminar and/or vapor redistribution properties.
Figure 2. Pesticide redistribution type schematics (A) vapor, (B) xylem, (C) phloem. The small colored groups of dots indicate deposition of pesticide, while arrows indicate the direction of redistribution, with shading representing the area of the plant protected by the pesticide.
Xylem and Phloem Redistribution
Xylem redistribution (Figure 2B), also called xylem systemic, refers to the absorption of a pesticide and subsequent systemic movement of the pesticide through the xylem vessels of a plant. Xylem vessels move water and minerals in an upward and outward direction in plants. There is very little movement of water and nutrients downwards or backwards along branches or leaves in xylem vessels. Xylem redistribution can help protect growing tissues from damage by pests or diseases when the pesticide redistributes from the point of application to the newly developing tissues. Most systemic fungicides and insecticides redistribute via the xylem.
Phloem redistribution (Figure 2C), also called phloem systemic, is the bi-directional movement of pesticides in the phloem vessels of a plant. Phloem vessels transport sugars and other nutrients both to the roots of plants and upwards and outwards to shoots and fruits/seeds. Phloem systemic pesticides are sometimes called “true systemic,” because they can translocate throughout the entire plant.
Some pesticides that redistribute via the xylem or phloem can be applied to the soil substrate to be absorbed by the roots and redistributed throughout the plant. The process of plant nutrients or pesticides being transported from one place to another within the plant is called translocation.
Soil-Applied Systemics
Several factors affect a pesticide’s ability to redistribute. These factors affect the speed of uptake, the duration and extent of translocation, and the amount of accumulation in plant tissue relative to the initial dose. For pesticides labeled for soil application, their uptake by plant roots and redistribution via xylem or phloem can lead to long residual efficacy of the product; Up to eight weeks or more depending on the product, plant, and soil. This is in contrast to foliar-applied products, where good residual efficacy could be expected to last two to three weeks depending on the product. However, foliar-applied products tend to provide a more rapid kill of target pests and a more rapid absorption and translocation of active ingredients.
For soil-applied systemic pesticides, the composition of the soil substrate can affect the uptake of the pesticide by the plant. Growing media high in organic matter (>30% bark or peat moss) can bind pesticides, making it difficult for plants to absorb them through roots and subsequently translocate via the plants vascular system. Soil applications of systemic materials should take place one to six weeks prior to the onset of the insect pest or pathogen. This allows sufficient time for the pesticide to translocate to, and accumulate in, target tissues. The more water-soluble pesticides (e.g. Thiamethoxam) are taken up more rapidly than the less water-soluble pesticides (e.g. Imidacloprid).
Redistribution via Precipitation
In contrast to systemic pesticides, contact pesticides cannot redistribute on their own. However, rain or irrigation can spread the deposit to some degree, increasing coverage area. This effect should not be relied upon, as it depends on the product formulation, the intensity of the precipitation, and the interval following application. In the case of prolonged precipitation, the residual activity of contact products can be greatly reduced as they are diluted and washed off plant tissues.
Plant Morphology
The status of the plant to which they are being applied is a significant consideration when applying redistributing pesticides. Both soil-applied and foliar-applied pesticides are more rapidly absorbed and redistributed when applied to young plants or juvenile plant tissue. In general, when plants are actively growing, have a strong root system, or are actively transpiring, they tend to absorb and translocate pesticides more rapidly than when plants are growing slowly. In addition, plants with difficult to wet leaves or surfaces due to thick cuticles or waxy layers tend to not absorb pesticides as readily. Penetration into plants with difficult to wet surfaces can be improved by adding adjuvants such as surfactants to tank mixes.
Multiple Modes of Redistribution
The extent to which each product can redistribute can be thought of as a continuum. Generally, when a product exhibits some form of redistribution, it can also redistribute via a different method. A good example of this is xylem and translaminar redistribution. When a product can redistribute via the xylem it generally can move through the leaf via the translaminar pathway as well. Some products can redistribute via the xylem, translaminar, and vapor pathways all at the same time. Others, while technically able to redistribute via more than one mechanism, are only biologically effective via one mechanism.
Consult the Pesticide Label and Other Reputable Sources
The best way to determine how a pesticide product redistributes is to consult the manufacturer’s label, as well as technical information from reputable sources such as government or academia. If a manufacturer provides a technical information bulletin it is generally available on their website on the pesticide product page along with the label. However, because there are no standardized metrics to rate pesticide redistribution, there can be significant disparity between products. Some products that are advertised as being xylem systemic for example, are actually less systemic than products that are not even advertised as being systemic. Additional information on the efficacy and redistributing characteristics of specific products can be obtained from extension agents or crop consultants.
Conclusion
In summary, when selecting a pesticide remember to consider the four different pathways of redistribution (xylem, phloem, translaminar, and vapor) and how these methods may improve the efficacy of your application, allowing you to get more out of every drop.
We’ve often heard the adage “Coverage is King” but what does that mean, exactly? It means that in order for your spray application to yield acceptable results, a threshold amount of the active ingredient in your tank must end up on the target. But at what point have we achieved sufficient spray coverage without wastefully over-applying to the target? What does good coverage look like?
Let’s manage expectations right here at the beginning of the article: There is no single, definitive answer because it depends on the nature of the application. In other words, you have to understand which factors are relevant to your specific situation before you can understand what success looks like.
Let’s highlight some of those factors:
Transfer Efficiency, Catch Efficiency and Retention
This relates to the spray’s ability to span the distance from nozzle to target (transfer efficiency) get intercepted by that target (catch efficiency) and then deposit a biologically-active residue on the target surface (retention).
First, the spray must reach the the target location. This may be the soil, or it might be the underside of a leaf deep in a plant canopy. The degree of success will depend on the droplet size(s), distance to the target and the environmental conditions.
Then the droplets have to be retained by the target surface and not bounce or slide off. Difficult-to-wet surfaces such as fruit, stems and waxy vertical leaves may be more easily covered with finer droplets and/or formulations that include activator adjuvants (e.g. surfactants).
Then the deposit must stay wet long enough to be absorbed by the tissue, or leave a hardy residue on the surface that can withstand weathering (e.g. precipitation, sun, and even bacteria) long enough to encounter the pest. More on this below.
Mode of Action
This relates to where spray must deposit (or relocate to) in order for it accomplish it’s objective. Here are a few examples of how products might work. Read your pesticide label to determine your situation.
Some products require contact. Insects must touch them, either via a droplet landing on them or as they move through a deposit. Similarly, certain fungicides must contact fungal hyphae on the plant surface. A few products are designed to drench the target, as is the case with oil-based miticides.
Some insecticides must be ingested. That may be in the form of a surface deposit or in plant material that has absorbed the chemistry. Similarly, some fungicides are absorbed by plant tissue.
Many herbicides are mobile (i.e. systemic). They may be drawn up through the roots, or enter the cytoplasm via leaves and travel to the growing points on the plants, or move through the xylem. Others are contact, staying relatively close to the original deposit.
The sprayer operator should consider these factors when planning the application and when evaluating the resulting coverage. So how do we visualize coverage? Some operators look for the shine on leaves, or a cloudy residue once the spray has dried. That’s better than nothing, but we recommend water sensitive paper (WSP), which is still the most versatile and economical way to visualize coverage.
WSP can be purchased from most retailers that carry spray equipment. It is available in three sizes, of which the 1” x 3” size is the most common. It can be folded and clipped to a plant surface, or placed on the ground. We’ve written several articles on how to use it (such as here and here and in pretty much a third of the articles on Sprayers101).
There are two metrics that must be evaluated when assessing coverage on water sensitive paper:
the area of the target that has spray on it, and
the distribution of the droplets over that area.
Let’s use a metaphor to explain:
The Battleship® / Coverage Metaphor
Imagine the boats in this Battleship® game are the insect pests, and the board they’re on is a leaf. The white pegs represent the spray deposits. In this first image, we see 100% coverage and a very high deposit density. Sure, we got every boat, but this is literal and figurative overkill. There’s no need to completely drench the target in order to control most pests. When you spray a target past the point of run-off, you are not adding more pesticide to the target – you are displacing what was already there. The surface will not exceed the concentration of product you sprayed (with the possible exception of mixes that include certain adjuvants). While additional volume can improve coverage to a point, there is a diminishing return.
Unless the label specifically asks for a drench, this is too much coverage.
In this second image, we’ve covered about 15% of the target area, which is reasonable. However, note the lack of distribution. You can see that we’ve missed quite a bit of the leaf. If our pretend pests are sedentary and if this was a contact product, then we’ve missed. If this was WSP we would advise the sprayer operator to note how much space there is between the deposits. Could a pest such as an insect or small weed easily fit between the deposits?
15% coverage is good, but the distribution is bad.
In this third image, we are still covering about 15% of the target, but now the spray is distributed more evenly. Some of you are likely noticing that we missed a pest. That observation reminds me of one of my favourite exchanges from the movie “Christmas Vacation” where Clark finally got his house illuminated, but his father-in-law only sees the problems: “The little lights aren’t twinkling.” “I see that and thanks for noticing, Ed.”
15% coverage, distributed evenly. Deposits may have some pest activity beyond the edge of the residue (light red circles).
Yes, we still missed a pest, but spraying is playing a game of odds. You want enough spray to increase the odds of controlling a pest, but not so much to waste spray (and money and time). This image represents an ideal coverage situation. If this pest moves, or this pesticide redistributes even a little, it will affect the pest.
Plus, we should not discount the threshold of influence that lies around pesticide residue. Imagine a small circle around each droplet (illustrated here as light red haloes) where active ingredient may redistribute beyond the initial deposit to affect an adjacent pest. Perhaps even more importantly, deposits do not spread on WSP the way they do on actual plant tissue, so WSP always gives an underestimate of the potential coverage.
In this last image, we see that red deposits have been introduced. This represents a disease control program where an earlier (white) application retains some residual activity when next application (red) is applied. The second spray application almost never lands on top of the first, giving much more protection on the target. For those keeners out there, note that we got that last pest!
In the case of many disease management programs, subsequent sprays tend to fill in gaps left by previous sprays. If timing is prompt, residual activity will see you through.
If you Absolutely Need a Number…
So, what if you’ve read all this but still insist on a firm number to define adequate coverage? We’ll reiterate that there’s no universally-accepted threshold of deposit density or area covered. It would be nice if pesticide labels included this information, but they don’t.
We’ll stick out necks out and say that in general practice we see excellent results when we achieve 85 discrete deposits per cm2 as well as 10-15% surface coverage on at least 80% of the water sensitive papers in a spray application. If you can manage this, it should give satisfactory results in most situations.
Ontario Agriculture Conference – 2022
For a really in-depth conversation on the topic of coverage, check out our presentation from the 2022 Ontario Ag Conference. We tried to deliver a fun and memorable demo at the end of this presentation to show how different droplet sizes might contribute to coverage. Enjoy.
North American built boom sprayers have nozzle spacings of 20” (50 cm in the rest of the world), but other spacings such as 15” (37 cm) and 10” (25 cm) also exist. What are the reasons for these alternative spacings and do they offer any inherent advantages?
Why spacing matters
Nozzles are spaced along a boom to allow their fans (patterns) to overlap sufficiently at the target. In broadcast spraying, a uniform distribution of spray volume gives us the best chance for consistent coverage along the boom. Since flat fan nozzles produce a tapered pattern (i.e. the volume is highest in the centre and diminishes towards the edges), approximately 100% overlap (i.e. 50% from each neighbour) will produce a uniform swath.
Figure 1: Tapered flat fans that require some overlap are the default pattern type for agricultural boom nozzles. This is true of conventional and low-drift styles. Note that the flat fans are turned 15° to prevent the spray patterns from interfering with one another.
The 100% overlap isn’t just for volumetric distribution. Flat fan spray patterns tend to have more and finer droplets in the centre and fewer and coarser droplets at the edges. All droplet sizes contribute to coverage in different ways, so the overlap ensures both number and sizes are evenly distributed along the entire boom.
Figure 2: 30% overlap may achieve volumetric uniformity. But because the centre of the pattern contains the majority of the smaller droplets, low overlap may result in low coverage in the overlap regions, resulting in striping.Figure 3: Consistent droplet number distribution along the boom requires at minimum 100% overlap (50% from each neighbouring nozzle). This blends those regions of the patterns with high and low droplet densities.
The generic 20” spacing arose from long-held conventions about boom height, fan angle, and travel speed. Specifically, this spacing required a boom height of 20” to obtain good overlap of the once-dominant 80° fan angle. Combined with 0.15 to 0.3 US gallon per minute (gpm) nozzles and travel speeds of 6 to 8 mph, operators were able to apply 5 to 15 US gallons per acre (gpa) volumes. Using nozzles with smaller flow rates would generally result in nozzle blockages.
But what if we want to change any of those variables? How does this affect nozzle spacing? Figuring out the pros and cons of an alternate spacing requires a little math and some contingency management.
Boom Height Math
First the math. If the boom has 20” nozzle spacing and we need 100% overlap, the width of the spray pattern at target height must be two times the nozzle spacing, which is 40″. You must calculate the required fan angle and boom height to achieve this. Most nozzle catalogues have tables to help with this, or you can download a handy spreadsheet to calculate your own scenarios here.
For today’s standard 110° fans, a minimum boom height of 14” is needed to achieve 100% overlap. For 15” spacing, the height is reduced to 11”. For 10” spacing, we drop to a mere 7”. However, consider that most modern suspended booms are not operated at heights less than 24” to allow for sway. At that height, there’s plenty of overlap to go around for 20″ nozzle spacing. For those booms that are able to operate at a consistent height, narrower spacings permit lower heights that will reduce drift potential significantly. Every time we halve boom height, we also halve drift potential.
Figure 4: Using 110° tips with 20″ spacing, the theoretical height at which we achieve 50% overlap is 11″ above target.
By tilting the nozzles forward or backward from the vertical, we can reduce the boom height somewhat further and still get the same overlap. For example, for 20 and 15” spacings, angling nozzles forward or backwards by 30° allows us to drop the boom another 2” closer to the target.
Contingencies
A suspended boom hardly ever stays at a uniform height; It sways up and down with field conditions, topography, etc. This is why many operators set their booms above the minimum height – to prevent striping when the boom sways low. The penalty is that this increases the distance droplets need to travel, increasing drift potential and any turbulent displacement problems arising from the moving boom.
Assuming a 110° flat fan at 24” boom height, each nozzle achieves a theoretical pattern width of about 70”, which is an overlap of 70÷20=3.4-fold or 240% on 20” nozzle spacing. Given a minimally-acceptable overlap of 50% (25% from each neighbouring nozzle), the boom could be as low as 11”. For 15” spacing, the minimum height for 50% overlap is 8”, and for 10” spacing it’s 5”. This means the narrower spray patterns gain 3” to 6” in allowed downward boom movement.
Figure 5: Using 110° tips on 15″ spacing, the height for 50% overlap is 8″ above target.
A second contingency is that spray patterns are rarely the exact value that the nozzle catalogues specify. A so-called 110° nozzle may operate at only 90°, or up to 150°, depending on the nozzle model, the spray pressure, and the tank mix. Learn more here and here. Patterns also don’t continue to grow at their rated fan angle, as droplets slow due to air-resistance and fall more vertically due to gravity. For that reason, a visual check is recommended to ensure the expected overlap is achieved.
Figure 6: Fan angles indicate initial trajectories of droplets at the edge. With distance, gravity pulls these droplets downward, narrowing the pattern width from that achieved theoretically (figure adapted from image in TeeJet catalogue).
A third issue to consider is less related to boom height but nonetheless affects spray distribution. Small droplets move with air currents, and the turbulence created by large, fast sprayers creates enough turbulence to move these droplets significantly. A perfect pattern under static conditions can look quite different at a fast travel speed with a modest side wind. Low booms may help prevent some of this displacement because droplets spend less time in flight, and their average velocity is faster.
Figure 7: Spray deposition onto a 2 mm string to measure deposit uniformity for a fast travel speed and high boom and a slow speed, low boom configuration.
Flow Rate Math
Flow rate requirements per nozzle change whenever we equip a boom at an alternate spacing. The basic formulae are shown below.
Moving from a 20″ to a 15″ spacing would require a nozzle with 0.75 of the flow rate, approximately from a 02 to 015 size, or 03 to a 025 size, or 04 to 03 size, etc.
Pulse Width Modulation
The use of Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) has increased the overlap requirement. With PWM, alternate nozzles are on a 180° timing offset from their neighbours. This means that when running >50% duty cycle, when one nozzle is temporarily off, its neighbours are on. These neighbours’ patterns must now span the gap, and 100% overlap is the absolute minimum to achieve this. PWM users therefore select the wider pattern angles and some opt for >100% overlap.
Figure 8: Pulse Width Modulated booms require 200% overlap so that the entire boom receives proper coverage when the alternate set of nozzles is off. For 110° fans at 20″ spacing, the minimum boom height would be 21″
PWM Considerations
High flows (greater than 1 US gpm at the nozzle) that are common for fertilizer top-dressing may require higher-flow PWM valves.
Narrow spacings reduce the individual nozzle flow rates and can therefore support higher application rates before triggering a larger valve requirement.
PWM valves aren’t cheap and for example 15″ spacing compared to 20″ spacing adds 24 valves on a 120′ boom.
Banding
We noted that 20” nozzle spacing is a standard because it corresponds to what has traditionally been achievable with available boom heights and spray pattern angles. But things can change.
Narrower spacings such as 15” originate with row crops and planter row spacings of 15” or 30”. These spacings exist so the spray pattern can be placed either over the top of a crop row, or in between the rows for banding. Using narrower fan angles and/or lower boom heights, together with “even” (as opposed to “tapered”) fans, banding sprays can be applied over the top of, or between crop rows. Or drop hoses can reach between the rows for top-dressing or directed sprays into the canopy.
Canopy Penetration
With narrower spacing, it can be argued that a greater proportion of the boom length has spray directed directly downward (corresponding to the centre of the pattern). Whether or not this translates into better penetration of a canopy is a fair question. In laboratory trials, use of 10” or 20” spacing did not improve penetration into a broadleaf canopy. But if the lower boom height afforded by the narrower spacing was utilized, some improvements in the deposit of angled sprays onto vertical targets was observed.
Adjusting to Narrower Spacings
As we showed earlier, use of 15” or 10” spacing booms for broadcast sprays requires a smaller nozzle size to achieve the same spray volumes as the 20” spacing. If boom height remains constant, narrower spacings result in greater pattern overlap which provides more latitude for sway. Alternately, lower boom heights can be used.
Using smaller nozzles on narrower spacing presents some challenges. Generally, smaller nozzle size means finer spray quality. If an operator wants to retain the spray quality they had on a 20″ spacing, they may opt to use lower pressure (not advisable for non-PWM systems) or swap to different nozzle design that can produce the desired spray quality at the lower flow rate.
Smaller nozzles are more prone to plugging, so that needs to be managed with filtration, filling practices and water sourcing. Be aware of the the product formulations and their requirements for filter mesh size. Most dry products specify a 50 mesh filter (or coarser). Also, check size options for nozzles. The smallest size for most nozzle models is 015, but certain PWM-specific nozzles are only available in 03 or larger.
The marriage of narrow spacings with individual nozzle shutoff can result in a versatile system capable of producing high resolution banded sprays in narrow seeded crops. For example, consider a boom with a 10” nozzle spacing spacing that matches the seeder row spacing. The operator can shift from 10” to 20” or 30” from the cab if the valve control software allows it. With accurate guidance and good boom levelling, topdressing foliar products (e.g. nutrients, fungicides) can follow the crop row precisely.
Spot Sprays
Spot sprays present a situation where compromises are needed. Some, such as WEEDit, utilize narrower nozzle spacings to allow better treatment resolution and increase product savings. Any one nozzle or sets of adjacent nozzles may be triggered by the sensor. For single nozzle activation, to preserve the value of the better resolution a uniform, narrow band of spray needs to be created. This means a 30° or 40° fan angle from a banding nozzle will be necessary. For example, a 24” boom height will result in a 13” band with a 30° fan, and an 18” band with a 40° fan. In the latter case, the dose would be diluted by 80%, wasting much of the potential savings.
Figure 10: Boom height is critical for banded sprays and for spot sprays. Too wide a pattern on a single nozzle reduces dose, too narrow creates misses.
Frequently, a patch of weeds will trigger several adjacent nozzles. Now these individual bands need to work together to create a uniform swath. This will inevitably require some overlap to avoid gaps, but too much overlap will result in bands where twice the dose will be applied. A tapered fan may suit this situation better. As a result of these varying needs, tolerances for spot spray boom height are even more strict than for broadcast spraying. More thoughts on spot spray nozzle selection are here.
Conclusions
Narrower nozzle spacings on a broadcast boom allow somewhat lower boom heights and these can in turn reduce drift and improve deposition of sprays. Lower flow nozzles will be needed with narrower spacings, requiring management of plugging and potentially a more drift-prone spray quality. The value of narrower spacings depends on the availability of booms that control sway, allowing them to operate at uniform, low heights.
Download the 2023 publication from Crop Protection here.
Cercospora leaf spot (CLS), caused by the fungal pathogen Cercospora beticola, is one of the most damaging foliar diseases affecting sugarbeet (Figure 1) (Khan et al. 2008). Growers rely on broad-spectrum contact fungicides because they are less likely to cause fungicide resistance (OMAFRA 2020). However, these fungicides are usually less effective than other fungicides (Trueman & Burlakoti 2014), and require frequent reapplications (Thind & Hollomon 2018) and good coverage to be effective (Prokop & Veverka 2006; Roehrig et al. 2018).
Figure 1. Cercospora leaf spot on sugarbeet.
We evaluated practices intended to improve the efficacy of Manzate® Pro-Stick™ (Mancozeb) by improving deposition and penetration into the sugarbeet canopy. Practices included different nozzle types (Shepard et al. 2006; Dorr et al. 2013), carrier volumes (Armstrong-Cho et al. 2008; Roehrig et al. 2018; Tedford et al. 2018) and the addition of InterLock®. InterLock is a spray adjuvant made with modified vegetable oil (MVO), vegetable oil and a polyoxyethylene sorbitan fatty acid ester emulsifier. It is intended to reduce the number of drift-prone, fine droplets without compromising the volume median diameter (WinField® 2019).
Research
In 2019 and 2020, InterLock and carrier volume were assessed to evaluate effects of:
InterLock on Manzate Pro-Stick efficacy at different carrier volumes.
InterLock on spray deposition and penetration within the sugarbeet canopy.
Objective 1: InterLock on Manzate Pro-Stick efficacy at different carrier volumes
Four replicated field trials were conducted at two sites, Dealtown (2019) and Ridgetown (2019 and 2020). Treatments were evaluated using four carrier volumes: 115, 235, 350, and 470 L ha-1 (12, 25, 37, and 50 gpa) and applied on a 14-day schedule.
Results
Adding InterLock to Manzate Pro-Stick did not reduce disease accumulation over the season (Figure 2a) or improve beet and sugar yield or sugar quality compared to applications of Manzate Pro-Stick alone (data not shown).
Carrier volume did not affect disease accumulation (Figure 2b).
Figure 2a. Disease accumulation (standardized area under the disease progress stairs; sAUDPS) (±SE) for fungicide treatments applied to sugarbeets in Ridgetown and Dealtown ON 2019, and in Ridgetown 2020. Bars followed by the same letter are not significantly different at p ≤ 0.05, Tukey’s HSD, ns= not significant.Figure 2b. Disease accumulation (standardized area under the disease progress stairs; sAUDPS) (±SE) for carrier volume applied to sugarbeets in Ridgetown and Dealtown ON 2019, and in Ridgetown 2020. Bars followed by the same letter are not significantly different at p ≤ 0.05, Tukey’s HSD, ns= not significant.
Objective 2: InterLock on spray deposition and penetration within the sugarbeet canopy
Deposition was evaluated using Rhodamine WT dye recovery. The amount of dye recovered for a treatment (µL AI/ g leaf tissue) was used to make assumptions about treatment deposition in the sugarbeet canopy. To assess spray deposition, samples were taken from six canopy locations (Figure 3 and 4).
Figure 3. Leaf sample collection from sugarbeet canopy.Figure 4. Leaf samples were taken from a) three canopy locations 1= inner, 2= mid, 3= outer from b) two leaf locations each A= tip, B= base.
Three sets of replicated experiments were conducted in Ridgetown (2019 and 2020) to evaluate the effect of InterLock on canopy deposition when 1) mixed with Manzate Pro-Stick, 2) using three different nozzle types, and 3) using three carrier volumes.
In the first study, four programs (Manzate Pro-Stick + InterLock, Manzate Pro-Stick alone, InterLock alone, and water) were evaluated for dye recovery.
Results
Deposition was improved for the InterLock only treatment compared with water, but when InterLock was applied with Manzate Pro-Stick the deposition was the same as Manzate Pro-Stick applied alone (Figure 5). It is possible that the fungicide formulation or active ingredient had an antagonistic effect with InterLock, though we cannot determine that from this study.
Figure 5. Effect of program on mean Rhodamine WT active ingredient (µL per gram of dry leaf) (±SE) recovered from six locations in a sugarbeet canopy at the 13 (Trial 1) and 16 (Trial 2) leaf stage in Ridgetown, ON 2019. Bars followed by the same letter are not significantly different at p ≤ 0.05, Tukey’s HSD.
In the second study Manzate Pro-Stick + InterLock and Manzate Pro-Stick were applied using three different nozzle types at ~40 psi:
The Hardi ISO Injet is an air inclusion 110° flat fan that produces a Very Coarse spray quality.
The TeeJet XR110 is a conventional 110° flat fan that produces a Medium spray quality.
The TeeJet AI3070 is an air inclusion, dual flat fan (30° and 70° spray angles) that produces a Coarse spray quality.
Results
Adding InterLock did not affect deposition and did not alter the performance of any nozzle type (data not shown).
Deposition among nozzles did differ, with the ISO injet nozzle providing improved deposition compared to the XR110 and AI3070 nozzles (Figure 6).
Figure 6. Effect of nozzle type on mean Rhodamine WT active ingredient (µL per gram of dry leaf) (±SE) recovered from six locations in a sugarbeet canopy at the 15 (Trial 3), 18 (Trial 4), and 19-22 (Trial 5) leaf stage in Ridgetown, ON 2019 and 2020. Bars followed by the same letter are not significantly different at p ≤ 0.05, Tukey’s HSD.
In the third study, Manzate Pro-Stick + InterLock and Manzate Pro-Stick were applied using three carrier volumes: 115, 235, and 350 L ha-1.
Results
The addition of InterLock had no effect on deposition, regardless of carrier volume (data not shown).
Deposition increased with increasing carrier volume (Figure 7a). A regression analysis determined a curvilinear relationship between carrier volume and deposition, predicting that deposition would increase with increased carrier volume until a maximum carrier volume was reached (Figure 7b). Many studies indicate that at exceptionally high carrier volumes coverage can be reduced primarily due to run-off.
Even though increased carrier volume improved fungicide deposition, increased volume did not improve fungicide efficacy for CLS management (Objective 1 efficacy trials).
Figure 7a. Effect of carrier volume on mean Rhodamine WT active ingredient (µL per gram of dry leaf) (±SE) recovered from six locations in a sugarbeet canopy at the 20 and 23 leaf stage in Ridgetown, ON 2020 (Trial 6 & 7). Bars followed by the same letter are not significantly different at p ≤ 0.05, Tukey’s HSD.Figure 7b. Regression of carrier volume (115, 235, 350 L ha-1) and mean Rhodamine WT active ingredient (±SE) recovered from six locations in a sugarbeet canopy at the 20 and 23 leaf stage in Ridgetown, ON 2020 (Trial 6 & 7). Data analysis was performed on the log normal scale, means and SE presented have not been back-transformed.”
Canopy location was an important factor in all experiments
The least deposition was always found in the outer and inner canopy from the base of the leaf, and in the outer canopy from the tip of the leaf (Figure 4), suggesting that these locations are the most challenging to achieve spray deposition. An example from the nozzle type experiment is shown in Figure 8. One of the proposed benefits of InterLock is for improved spray penetration, but in the current study, InterLock did not improve penetration of Manzate Pro-Stick into any of the harder to reach canopy locations.
Figure 8. Effect of canopy location on mean Rhodamine WT active ingredient (µL per gram of dry leaf) (±SE) recovered from six locations in a sugarbeet canopy treated with InterLock and different nozzle types at the 15-22 leaf stage in Ridgetown, ON, 2019 and 2020 (Trials 3, 4 & 5). Bars followed by the same letter are not significantly different at p ≤ 0.05, Tukey’s HSD.
Conclusion
Adding InterLock to Manzate Pro-Stick did not improve deposition in any field experiment regardless of the nozzle type or carrier volume used. Further, using InterLock with Manzate Pro-Stick did not improve fungicide efficacy for CLS management. However, we cannot determine from this study if InterLock would improve deposition, penetration, or fungicide efficacy using other fungicide products.
Despite findings of improved disease management with the use of larger carrier volume, fungicides are sometimes still applied with smaller carrier volumes of 100 L ha-1 or less (Armstrong-Cho et al. 2008; Roehrig et al. 2018) to save time and reduce the cost of application. In this experiment, increased carrier volume improved deposition but did not improve fungicide efficacy of Manzate Pro-Stick for CLS management. There is the potential that using increased carrier volume may be more beneficial in years with a greater disease severity, and may thus be worthwhile to growers, as has been observed in previous research on Cercospora leaf spot in Ontario (Tedford et al. 2018).
This research was sponsored from the Canadian Agricultural Partnership, Ontario Agri-Food Innovation Alliance, Ontario Sugarbeet Growers’s Association, and the Michigan Sugar Company.
References
Armstrong-Cho C, Wolf T, Chongo G, Gan Y, Hogg T, Lafond G, Johnson E, and Banniza S. 2008. The effect of carrier volume on Ascochyta blight (Ascochyta rabiei) control in chickpea. Crop Prot. 27: 1020-1030.
Dorr GJ, Hewitt AJ, Adkins SW, Hanan J, Zhang H, and Noller B. 2013. A comparison of initial spray characteristics produced by agricultural nozzles. Crop Prot. 53: 109-117.
Khan J, del Rio LE, Nelson R, Rivera-Varas V, Secor GA, and Khan MFR. 2008. Survival, dispersal, and primary infection site for Cercospora beticola in sugar beet. Plant Dis. 92: 741-745.
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA). 2020. Vegetable Crop Protection Guide, Pub 838. Sugarbeets. Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto.
Prokop M, and Veverka K. 2006. Influence of droplet spectra on the efficiency of contact fungicides and mixtures of contact and systemic fungicides. Plant Protect. Sci. 42: 26-33.
Roehrig R, Boller W, Forcelini CA, and Chechi A. 2018. Use of surfactant with different volumes of fungicide application in soybean culture. Eng. Agr. Jaboticabal 38: 577-589.
Shepard D, Agnew M, Fidanza M, Kaminski J, and Dant L. 2006. Selecting nozzles for fungicide spray applications. Golf Course Manag. 74: 83-88.
Tedford SL, Burlakoti RR, Schaafsma AW, and Trueman CL. 2018. Optimizing management of Cercospora leaf spot (Cercospora beticola) of sugarbeet in the wake of fungicide resistance. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 41: 35-46.
Thind TS, and Hollomon DW. 2018. Thiocarbamate fungicides: Reliable tools in resistance management and future outlook. Pest Manag. Sci. 74: 1547-1551.
Trueman CL, and Burlakoti RR. 2014. Evaluation of products for management of Cercospora leaf spot in sugarbeet, 2014. Plant Disease Management Reports. 9: FC009.
WinField United. 2019. InterLock. [Internet]. [cited 2019 Feb 25].
