با همکاری انجمن‏‌ بیماری شناسی گیاهی ایران

نوع مقاله : مدیریت آفات و بیماری‌های گیاهی

نویسندگان

1 عضو هیئت علمی مؤسسه تحقیقات فنی و مهندسی کشاورزی

2 عضو هیئت علمی

3 دانشیار پژوهش/ موسسه تحقیقات گیاه پزشکی

چکیده

این پژوهش با هدف ارزیابی کارایی دو روش رایج سمپاشی برای کنترل شتۀ مومی کلزا در مرحلۀ ساقه‌دهی و معرفی روش مناسب‌تر با توجه به پارامترهای فنّیِ مؤثر بر عملکرد و کارایی سمپاشی اجرا‌شد. آزمون در قالب طرح کاملاً تصادفی در سه تیمار و سه تکرار اجرا شد. براساس نتایج به‌دست آمده، برای سمپاش‌های بوم‌دار و لانس‌دار حجم محلول مصرفی به‌ترتیب برابر با 179و 279 لیتر در هکتار، ظرفیت مزرعه‌ای مؤثر به‌ترتیب برابر با 0/5 و 6/0 هکتار در ساعت، بازدۀ مزرعه‌ای به‌ترتیب برابر با 8/56 و 6/41 درصد، سطح لهیدگی محصول 85/3 و45/4 درصد، ضریب کیفیت پاشش به‌ترتیب برابر با 96/1 و 31/3، و میانگین بادبردگی 0/21 و 7/35 درصد به‌دست آمد. از نظر کارایی، بین دو سمپاش در 3 و 7 روز بعد از سمپاشی اختلاف معنی‌داری وجود نداشت. اما در ۱۴ روز پس از سمپاشی اختلاف معنی‌داری بین تیمارها وجود داشت و درصد کارایی سمپاش‌های بوم‌دار و لانس‌دار به‌ترتیب به ۸۳ و ۴۱ درصد رسید. با توجه به‌نتایج بهتر سمپاش بوم‌دار پشت‌تراکتوری و کارایی سمپاشی بیشتر آن نسبت به سمپاش لانس‌دار پشت‌تراکتوری، این روش برای کنترل شتۀ کلزا در مرحلۀ ساقه‌دهی توصیه می‌شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Comparison of boom and lance sprayers to control Brevicoryne brassicae (L.) in canola

نویسندگان [English]

  • Nikrooz Bagheri 1
  • Mahmoud Safari 2
  • Aziz sheikhigarjan 3

1 Scientific Board, Agricultural Engineering Research Institute

2 Scientific Board

3 Research Associate Professor, Iranian Research Institute of Plant Protection (IRIPP)

چکیده [English]

Tthis research was conducted with the aim of evaluating of two common spraying methods for Brevicoryne brassicae control during stemming stage and to introduce a more suitable method according to the technical parameters affecting the performance and efficiacy of spraying. The test was conducted in the form of a completely randomized design in three treatments and three replications based on the obtained results, for the tractor-mounted boom sprayer and tractor-mounted lance sprayer, the amount of consumed volume was 179 and 279 L/ha, respectively, the effective field capacity was 5.0 and 0.8 ha/hr, respectively, the field efficiency was 56.8% and 55.5%, respectively, the crop damage area obtained 3.85% and 4.45%, respectively, the spray quality coefficient was 1.96% and 3.31%, respectively, and the average drift was 21.0% and 35.7%. Also, there was no significant difference between the two sprayers in 3 and 7 days after spraying. However, 14 days after spraying, there was a significant difference between the treatments, and the spraying efficacy of the boom sprayer reached 83% and 41% for the lance sprayer. Considering the better results of the tractor-mounted boom sprayer and its greater spraying efficiency than the tractor-mounted lance sprayer, this method is recommended to control pests during the canola stemming stage.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Boom sprayer
  • Brevicoryne brassicae (L.) control
  • lance sprayer
  • spraying efficacy
AMIRSHAGHAGHI, F. and M, SAFARI, 2016. Comparison and technical evaluation of electrostatic, micronair and tractormounted lance sprayers in order to control  (Carpocasa pomonella L.) in apple orchards. Journal of Agricultural Machinery, No. 6(2): 376-383. (in Persian with English summary)
AMAN, R. K. V. BANSAL, and A, KUMAR, 2020. Performance evaluation of tractor operated boom: Type sprayer. International Journal of Chemical Studies, No. 8(3): 929-935. https://doi.org/10.22271/chemi.2020.v8.i3l.9318
BADEI, F. L, ALIMORADI. S, JAHEDI POUR and K, HAJ MOHAMADNIA GHALIBAF, 2014. Evaluation of common sprayers and different doses of herbicides on wheat yield. 1st International and 13th Iranian Crop Science Congress.  26-28 August 2014. Karaj. Iran. (in Persian with English summary)
BEHROUZI LAR, M. 1999. Engineering Principles of Agricultural Machines (Translated). Azad Islamic University Press. 1st Edition, 355-357.
CHEN, P. Y. LAN, X. HUANG, H, Qi, G. WANG, WANG, J. WANG, and H. Xiao, 2020. Droplet Deposition and Control of Planthoppers of Different Nozzles in Two-Stage Rice with a Quadrotor Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. Agronomy, No. 10 (303): 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10020303
ELWAKEEL, A. E, S. A. AHMED, A. M, ZEIN ELDIN, and L, NASRAT, 2022. Design and evaluation of a self-propelled field sprayer to be operated and controlled remotely. Al-Azhar Journal of Agricultural Engineering, No. 2: 40-52.
GOEL, A. and P. Aggarwal, 2007. Pesticide poisoning, Natl. Med. J. India, No. 20: 182–191. PMID: 18085124.
GUO, S, J. LI, W. YAO, Y, ZHAN, Y, LI and Y, SHI, 2019. Distribution characteristics on droplet deposition of wind field vortex formed by multi-rotor uav. PloS One, No.14 (7), e0220024. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220024
HIRA, H. ALI, H. IHSAN, A. AKHTAR, Z. ., AMEER, S. YASIN, M. ALI, A. and S, NAWAZ, 2022: Comparative Efficacy of Insecticides against Cabbage Aphid Brevicoryne Brassicae, A Pest of Oilseed Rape, Brassica napus (L.) under Controlled Conditions, Journal of Bioresource Management, 9 (2).
KEYHANIAN, A. R, A, SHEIKHI GARJAN, A, AMINI and M. A. KHALAF, 2008. Investigating the effectiveness of several insecticides in controlling cabbage aphid in canola fields. Agricultural Applied Research, No.163-167.
KIM, K-D, H-S, LEE, S-J, HWANG, S-J, J-S, NAM, and B-S SHIN, 2017. Analysis of Spray Characteristics of Tractor-mounted Boom Sprayer for Precise Spraying. Journal of Biosystems Engineering, No. 42(4): 258-264. https://doi.org/10.5307/JBE.2017.42.4.258
KHARIM, M. N. A, A, WAYAYOK, A. SHARIFF, A. R. M SHARIF, A. F. ABDULLAH and E. M, HUSIN, 2019. Droplet deposition density of organic liquid fertilizer at low altitude UAV aerial spraying in rice cultivation. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, No. 167. 105045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2019.105045
KUMAR, S. P, A. K. ROUL, B. M. NANDEDE, B, JYOTI, and C. R. CHEThan, 2021. Development of small tractor operated boom sprayer for effective control of weeds in maize. Indian Journal of Weed Science, No. 53(2): 173–178. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164. 2021.00032.0
LAMARE, A. I, ZWERTVAEGHER, D. NUYTTENS, P. BALSARI, P. MARUCCO, GRELLA, M. A. CAFFINI, N. MYLONAS, S, FOUNTAS, and J-P DOUZALS,  2022. Performance of a prototype boom sprayer for bed-grown carrots based on canopy deposition optimization, ground losses and spray drift potential mitigation in semi-field conditions. Applied Sciences, No. 12, 4462. https://doi.org/10.3390/ app12094462
LAN, Y. and S. CHEN, 2018. Current status and trends of plant protection uav and its spraying technology in china. International Journal of Precision Agricultural Aviation, No.1(1): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.33440 /j.ijpaa.20180101.0002
LAN, Y. B, S. D. CHEN, and B. K. Fritz, 2017. Current status and future trends of precision agricultural aviation technologies. International Journal of Agricultural & Biological Engineering, No. 10(3): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3965/j.ijabe.20171003.3088
MEGAHED, H. A, H. A, FOUAD. A. M. RASMY, and A. M. MOUSA, 2021.  Improvement of spray distribution pattern for a knapsack sprayer using boom spray nozzles. Al-Azhar Journal of Agricultural Engineering 1, No. 9-18.
NOURBAKHSH, S, 2022. List of important pests, diseases and weeds of major agricultural products, poisons and recommended methods for their control. The country's plant protection organization publication, 209 pages (In Persian).
ROSTAMI, M.A. and N, TAHERI-KHORASANI, 2021. Optimization and Evaluation of a Turbine Sprayer for Spraying the Date Palm Trees and Comparison of Its Performance with Two Types of Lance Sprayer. Agricultural Mechanization and Systems Research, No. 22(77): 19-34. (in Persian with English summary)
SAFARI, M. and K. GERAMI, 2020. Prioritization of Methods and Criteria of Spraying for Wheat Fields by Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). Iranian biosystem engineering, No. 51(1): 139-148. (in Persian with English summary).
https://doi.org/10.22059/IJBSE.2019.287967.665217
SAFARI, M. and J, KAFASHAN, 2014. Development and evaluation of a mounted spinning disk sprayer and a conventional tractor mounted boom sprayer. Agricultural Engineering Research Journal, No. 6(24): 15-32. (in Persian with English summary)
SAFARI. M, and A, SHEIKHI GARJAN, 2018. Comparison between unmanned aerial vehicle and tractor lance sprayer against Dubas bug Ommatissus lybicus (Hemiptera: Tropiduchidae). Iranian Journal of Plant Protection Science, No. 51(1): 13-26. (in Persian with English summary)
SAFARI. M, and N, BAGHERI, 2021. Technical parameters for the evaluation of UAV sprayers. Agricultural Engineering Research Institute. Technical Issue.
SANCHEZ-HERMOSILLA, J. V. J. RINCON, F. C, PAEZ, J, PEREZ-ALONSO, A-J.,   CALLEJON-FERRE, 2021. Evaluation of the effect of different hand-held sprayer types on a greenhouse pepper crop. Agriculture, No. 11, 532. https://doi.org/10.3390/ agriculture11060532.
SHEIKHI GARJAN, A.A.A. KEYHANIAN, and S. MOEIN. 2009. Efficiency of sprayer equipped by micronair nozzles (CDA) in chemical control of Sunn pest nymphs. Applied Entomology and Phytopathology, No. 77(87): 19-32. (in Persian with English summary)
SRINIVASARAO, A. T. K, KHURA. A. K, PARRAY. H, KUSHWAHA. I, MANI. And S. K. SARKAR, 2021. Development evaluation of tractor operated swinging lance sprayer for field crops. The Pharma Innovation Journal, No. 10(6): 18-23.
ZHUA, H.M, SALYANIB, and R, FOX, 2011. A portable scanning system for evaluation of spray deposit distribution. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, No. 76: 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2011.01.003.