Articles
CENTER-PIVOT APPLICATION OF PESTICIDES TO PEACHES
Article number
254_43
Pages
265 – 270
Language
Abstract
Two sets of sprinklers (standard impact and deflector) on a center-pivot and a patented spray nozzle configuration (piggy-back) that mounts on the center-pivot truss were compared against an air-blast sprayer for applying pesticides to peach [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch] ‘Rio Grande’ trees.
Disease and insect pressures were monitored on unsprayed trees.
Nonphytotoxic oils and a surfactant were added to the pesticides that were applied with the two sprinkler configurations on the center-pivot to increase pesticide retention on the fruit and foliage because the 2.5 mm of water applied per spray by these sprinklers tended to wash off pesticides.
Scab (Cladosporium carpophiplum Von Thumen) infection levels varied significantly on fruit collected 12 June 1987 (first commercial harvest); 28% for checks, 11% for standard impact sprinklers, 10% for deflector sprinklers, 6% for piggy-back nozzles, and 4% for air-blast sprayer.
Brown rot [Monilinia fructicola (Wint.) Honey] was absent on all fruit, and insects that caused catfacing did not differ among pesticide application methods and unsprayed checks.
Scab increased and brown rot developed as the fruit matured on the tree, but relative effectiveness of the pesticide application methods was unchanged.
We conclude that the piggy-back configuration was as effective as the air-blast sprayer for controlling scab.
Further testing is in progress to attempt to confirm this conclusion for other diseases and for insect pests.
Overall, the piggy-back configuration had the lowest mean level of disease and insect damage of the four application methods.
Pesticide application with the piggy-back configuration should not require a new or special-use registration because the piggy-back spray was equivalent to a conventional spray to runoff.
Disease and insect pressures were monitored on unsprayed trees.
Nonphytotoxic oils and a surfactant were added to the pesticides that were applied with the two sprinkler configurations on the center-pivot to increase pesticide retention on the fruit and foliage because the 2.5 mm of water applied per spray by these sprinklers tended to wash off pesticides.
Scab (Cladosporium carpophiplum Von Thumen) infection levels varied significantly on fruit collected 12 June 1987 (first commercial harvest); 28% for checks, 11% for standard impact sprinklers, 10% for deflector sprinklers, 6% for piggy-back nozzles, and 4% for air-blast sprayer.
Brown rot [Monilinia fructicola (Wint.) Honey] was absent on all fruit, and insects that caused catfacing did not differ among pesticide application methods and unsprayed checks.
Scab increased and brown rot developed as the fruit matured on the tree, but relative effectiveness of the pesticide application methods was unchanged.
We conclude that the piggy-back configuration was as effective as the air-blast sprayer for controlling scab.
Further testing is in progress to attempt to confirm this conclusion for other diseases and for insect pests.
Overall, the piggy-back configuration had the lowest mean level of disease and insect damage of the four application methods.
Pesticide application with the piggy-back configuration should not require a new or special-use registration because the piggy-back spray was equivalent to a conventional spray to runoff.
Publication
Authors
D.R. Evert, K.A. Harrison, P.F. Bertrand, J.R. Young
Keywords
Online Articles (61)