- Tytuł:
- Comparison of an ultra-low volume (ULV) sprayer against a conventional sprayer, for foliar fertiliser and fungicide applications in turfgrass
- Autorzy:
-
Ferguson, J.C.
Gaussoin, R.E.
Eastin, J.A.
Sousek, M.D.
Kruger, G.R. - Powiązania:
- https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/65667.pdf
- Data publikacji:
- 2016
- Wydawca:
- Polska Akademia Nauk. Czytelnia Czasopism PAN
- Tematy:
-
comparison
ultra-low volume sprayer
sprayer
conventional sprayer
foliar fertilizer
fungicide
application
turf grass
Rhizoctonia solani - Opis:
- Two field studies (I and II) at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln: John Seaton Anderson Turfgrass Research Facility near Mead, NE, USA, were conducted to determine if a new ultra-low volume (ULV) sprayer can apply foliar nutrient, growth regulator, and fungicide treatments, in a manner similar to that of a conventional sprayer. Treatments were applied over creeping bentgrass ‘L-93’ (Agrostis stolonifera L.) managed as a fairway at 561 l · ha−1 and 47 l · ha−1 with the conventional and ULV sprayer, respectfully. Data were collected for chlorophyll content with a chlorophyll meter, and for the normalised difference vegetation index (NDVI) with a turf colour meter. Each plot was harvested for biomass at 21 days after treatment. Study II compared the ULV sprayer and a conventional sprayer, for the control of brown patch (Rhizoctonia solani Kuhn) in creeping bentgrass. The treatments were propiconazole and azoxystrobin. Spray volume was 561 l · ha−1 for the conventional sprayer, and 19 l · ha−1 for the ULV sprayer. Statistical differences in turf quality or dry weight reductions between the conventional and ULV sprayer were not detected. Brown patch control was also similar between the two sprayers, but azoxystrobin provided better control than propiconazole. Even with a 30-fold decrease in application volume, the results indicated that the Kamterter ULV sprayer may be a useful and effective management option for foliar fertiliser and fungicide applications in turfgrass.
- Źródło:
-
Journal of Plant Protection Research; 2016, 56, 1
1427-4345 - Pojawia się w:
- Journal of Plant Protection Research
- Dostawca treści:
- Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł