Performance of an air-assisted boom sprayer in the control of Colorado beetle infestation in potato crops

• Published in: Biosystems engineering Vol. 97; no. 2; pp. 181 - 187
• Main Authors: Ade, G., Rondelli, V.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Kidlington Elsevier Ltd 01-06-2007; Elsevier
• Subjects: Agricultural machinery and engineering; Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions; air-assisted overleaf spraying; air-assisted sprayers; air-assisted underleaf spraying; Biological and medical sciences; design; equipment performance; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Generalities. Biometrics, experimentation. Remote sensing; insect control; insect pests; insecticides; Leptinotarsa decemlineata; potatoes; Solanum tuberosum; Colorado; United States; North America; America; Bioengineering; Sprayer; Coleoptera; Solanum tuberosum; Insecta; Air; Engineering; Arthropoda; Dicotyledones; Angiospermae; Spermatophyta; Agriculture; Tuber plant; Solanaceae; Invertebrata; Infestation; Performance; C3-Type
• ISSN: 1537-5110; 1537-5129
• DOI: 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2007.03.015

The object of the research was to verify the performance of commercial spraying equipment that combined air-assisted spraying with underleaf spraying. Two years of trials were conducted on potato crop. The air-assisted boom sprayer was compared with a traditional boom sprayer to check the spray application in terms of quality and efficacy of distribution. Tests evaluated the efficacy of widely used commercial products for the control of young Colorado beetle larvae. The experiment was a randomised design with three treatments: air-assisted overleaf, air-assisted underleaf and traditional. The overleaf treatment with a well-developed canopy showed 18% of higher deposit on the plant and 37% less losses to the ground when compared to the traditional treatment, whereas no difference was found in losses to the ground when there was less foliage. The underleaf spraying gave the best performance in terms of quality distribution and losses to the ground, showing better efficiency on taller and more dense potato crops, where losses to the ground were almost 42% less than that of the air-assisted overleaf treatment.