Low-Volume Spraying

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
A consideration of why a specific result occurs, rather than a simple reporting of terminal data, augurs the crystallization of the "where and when" of pathogen deposition, the "how" of effective biological coverage, and the "why" of biocidal performance of a given formulation. Significant changes in spraying terminology by the pathologist are in order as more detailed information becomes available. Compilation of data on the biocidal range of deposits and the prolongation of residual effectiveness, for example, should negate the use of the numerous adjectives now used to denote physical coverage of plant surfaces. Furthermore, these can serve to give the term "dosage" a valid quantitative meaning: a specific-threshold dosage level per unit area of plant surface. Concomitantly, this should serve to eliminate the present nebulous system used commercially and in research alike, which bases dosage solely on pounds or pints of formulated products for land areas with little regard to crop-surface areas actually involved or percentage of active fungicidal ingredient employed. The relative inefficiency of even low-volume spraying becomes clear when correlated with the ED50 of a fungicide as extrapolated from laboratory and greenhouse studies. Obviously, now more than ever, the plant-protection pathologist must work closely with the agricultural engineer for the fusion of biological information on the pathogen, formulations, droplet size, and weather to modify equipment for optimal fungicidal placement. Ultimately this will reduce the present waste of chemicals used for crop protection. This is a bibliography of 91 references.

This publication has 2 references indexed in Scilit: