Drift and deposition on coffee trees using a hydropneumatic sprayer at different application rates
Palavras-chave:
spray losses, spray tank, air jet sprayer, Coffea arabica L.Resumo
Spraying is essential for applying nutrient solution and phytosanitary treatments, necessitating efficient deposition on the target areas. However, during application, some of the spray solution drifts into the environment. Therefore, understanding the effectiveness of spraying equipment is crucial to reduce losses. This study aimed to evaluate spray deposition on leaves and drift above the canopy, on the soil, and on leaves in rows adjacent to the target area using a hydropneumatic sprayer at different application rates. The JA1 and MAG2 nozzles were used to spray 200 and 400 L ha-1, respectively. Deposition was evaluated by incorporating a marker into the solution and subsequently analyzing it via spectrophotometry. The assessment covered included four adjacent rows on each side of the sprayer. The application rate, side, and row were used to fit a linear mixed model, with the means being compared using the Tukey test with Šidák correction. All parameters exhibited greater deposition on the left side compared to the right, with increased deposition on the right side only occurring due to a wind direction. Drift was detected on the soil, above the canopy, and up to the fourth assessed row, influenced by application rate, wind direction and droplet classification.
Referências
1.Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento. Acompanhamento da safra brasileira de café: segundo levantamento [Internet]. Brasília (DF): CONAB; 2024 [cited 2024 May 15];11(2). Available from: https://www.conab.gov.br/info-agro/safras/cafe
2. Garcera C, Molotó E, Izquierdo H, Balsari P, Marucco P, Grella M, Gioelli F, et al. Effect of the airblast settings on the vertical spray profile: implementation on an on-line decision aid for citrus treatments. Agronomy. 2022;12(6):1462.
3. Salas B, Salcedo R, Ortega P, Grella M, Gil E. Use of ultrasound anemometers to study the influence of air currents generated by a sprayer with an electronic control airflow system on foliar coverage. Effect of droplet size. Comput Electron Agric. 2022;202:e107381.
4. Palma RP, Cunha JP, Guimarães EC, Santana DG, Assunção HH. Multivariate analysis applied to spray deposition in ground application of phytosanitary products in coffee plants. Eng Agríc. 2021;41(4):458-67.
5. Alves TC, Cunha JPR, Alves GS, Silva SM, Lemes EM. Canopy volume and application rate interaction on spray deposition for different phenological stages of coffee crop. Coffee Sci. 2020;15:e151777.
6. Crause DH, Vitória EL, Soela DM, Oliveira DA, Batista AG, Lacerda EG. Estimativa de deriva na aplicação de defensivos agrícolas no café conilon. Braz J Prod Eng. 2020;6(4):85-94.
7. Kasner EJ, Fenske R, Hoheisel G, Galvin K, Blanco LMN, Seto EYW, et al. Spray drift from a conventional axial fan airblast sprayer in a modern orchard work environment. Ann Work Expo Health. 2018;62(9):1134-46.
8. Byers RE, Hickey KD, Hill CH. Base gallonage per acre. Virginia Fruit. 1971;60:19-23.
9. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing [software]. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2023. Available from: https://www.R-project.org
10. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw. 2015;67(1):1-48.
11. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker N, Saveliev AA, Smith GM. Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. New York: Springer; 2009. 574 p.
12. Lenth R, Singmann H, Love J, Buerkner P, Herve M. emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means [R package version 4.0-3]. 2023. Available from: http://cran.r-project.org/package=emmeans
13. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers. ASABE S572.3: spray nozzle classification by droplet spectra. St. Joseph: ASABE; 2020. 6 p.
14. Gregorio E, Torrent X, Planas S, Rosell-Polo JR. Assessment of spray drift potential reduction for hollow-cone nozzles: part 2. lidar technique. Sci Total Environ. 2019;687:967-77.
15. Dekeyser D, Duga AT, Verboven P, Endalew AM, Hendrickx N, Nuyttens D. Assessment of orchard sprayers using laboratory experiments and computational fluid dynamics modelling. Biosyst Eng. 2013;114(2):157-169.
16. Salcedo R, Pons P, Llop J, Zaragoza T, Campos J, Ortega P, et al. Dynamic evaluation of airflow stream generated by a reverse system of an axial fan sprayer using 3D-ultrasonic anemometers. Effect of canopy structure. Comput Electron Agric. 2019;163:e104851.
17. Garcerá C, Molotó E, Chueca P. Spray pesticide applications in Mediterranean citrus orchards: canopy deposition and off-target losses. Sci Total Environ. 2017;599:1344-62.
18. Hu Y, Yang H, Hou B, Xi Z, Yang Z. Influence of spray control parameters on the performance of an air-blast sprayer. Agriculture. 2022;12(8):1260.
19. Salcedo R, Fonte A, Grella M, Garcerá C, Chueca P. Blade pitch and air-outlet width effects on the airflow generated by an airblast sprayer with wireless remote-controlled axial fan. Comput Electron Agric. 2021;190:e106428.
20. Rathanayake AP, Chandel AK, Schrader MJ, Hoheisel GA, Khot LR. Spray patterns and perceptive canopy interaction assessment of commercial airblast sprayers used in Pacific Northwest perennial specialty crop production. Comput Electron Agric. 2021;184:e106097.
21. Grella M, Gil E, Balsari P, Marucco P, Gallart M. Advances in developing a new test method to assess spray drift potential from air blast sprayers. Span J Agric Res. 2017;15(3):e0207.
22. Endalew AM, Hertog M, Delele MA, Baetens K, Ramon H, Nicolaï BM, et al. Modelling the effect of wind speed and direction on airflow from na air-assisted orchad sprayer through 3D orchad canopy architecture. Acta Hortic. 2008;1(803):97-104.
23. Bahlol HY, Chandel AK, Hoheisel G, Khot LR. The smart spray analytical system: developing understanding of output air-assist and spray patterns from orchard sprayers. Crop Prot. 2020;127:104977.
24. Lesnik M, Stajnko D, Vajs S. Interactions between spray drift and sprayer travel speed in two different apple orchard training systems. Int J Environ Sci Technol. 2015;12(9):3017-28.
25. Grella M, Gallart M, Marucco P, Balsari P, Gil E. Ground deposition and airborne spray drift assessment in vineyard and orchard: the influence of environmental variables and sprayer settings. Sustainability. 2017;9(5):728.
26. Cação JECR, Moreira BRA, Raetano CG, Carvalho FK, Prado EP. Spray retention on coffee leaves associated with type and concentration of adjuvants. Eng Agríc. 2019;39(5):623-9.
27. Chen Y, Zhu H, Ozkan HE, Derksen RC, Krause CR. Spray drift and off-target loss reductions with a precision air-assisted sprayer. Transactions of the ASABE. 2013;56(6):1273-81.
28. Miranda-Fuentes A, Rodríquez-Lizana IA, Cuenca A, Gonzáles-Sánches EJ, Blanco-Roldán GL, Gil-Ribes JA. Improving plant protection product applications in traditional and intensive olive orchards through the development of new prototype air-assisted sprayers. Crop Prot. 2015;94:44-58.
29. Jiang H, Niu C, Liu L, Wang D, Wang J, Mao W. Design and experiment of air volume control system of orchard multi-pipe air sprayer. Trans Chin Soc Agric Mach. 2020;51(S2):298-307.
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2026 Revista Ceres
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
