Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-w5vf4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-24T00:08:21.498Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Directed Sprayer for Targeting Pesticides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

J. E. Morrison Jr.  and
J. M. Chandler
J. E. Morrison Jr.
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. of Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., 808 E. Blackland Rd., Temple, TX 76502
J. M. Chandler
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. of Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., 808 E. Blackland Rd., Temple, TX 76502
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An experimental directed sprayer has been improved for use in conservation-tillage and no-tillage field conditions and variable row widths. The directed sprayer consists of a rear-mounted toolbar with individually flotational spraying units on lightweight runners which move over field surfaces without the collection of loose residues. Improvements allow convenient adjustments which combined lateral, vertical, angular, and fore-and-aft repositionings to correctly aim the hydraulic nozzles for desired pesticide targeting. Such new designs are needed to deliver pesticides to targets at minimum application rates and with minimum environmental impacts.

Keywords

Conservation tillageno-tillagerow cropsadjustments

Information

Type
Notes
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 1992 , pp. 441 - 444
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Kleppe, C. D., and Harvey, R. G. 1991. Postemergence directed sprayers for wild-proso millet (Ponicum miliaceum) control. Weed Technol. 5:185–193.Google Scholar
2. Morrison, J. E. Jr., and Brown, S. M. 1988. Directed sprayer for no-tillage weed control. Appl. Eng. Agric. 4(2):90–92.Google Scholar