Full TGIF Record # 132687
Item 1 of 1
Web URL(s):https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/gcman/article/2008feb114.pdf
    Last checked: 09/30/2008
    Requires: PDF Reader
Publication Type:
i
Professional
Author(s):Vincelli, Paul; Dixon, Ed
Author Affiliation:Vincelli: Extension Professor; Dixon: Research Analyst, Department of Plant Pathology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky
Title:Improving spray coverage improves dollar spot control: Using the right nozzle to apply fungicide can save your grass
Section:Research
Other records with the "Research" Section
Source:Golf Course Management. Vol. 76, No. 2, February 2008, p. 114-116.
# of Pages:3
Publishing Information:Lawrence, KS: Golf Course Superintendents Association of America
Keywords:TIC Keywords: Spraying nozzles; Spraying practices; Dollar spot; Spray drift; Disease control; Coverage; Application rates; Disease severity; Fungicides
Abstract/Contents:Presents a study conducted to determine the effect of spray coverage on plant diesease control. Details methods and materials used in the study, stating that researchers "tested both a contact fungicide, Daconil Ultrex 82.5WDG (active ingredient chlorothalonil; Syngenta Professional Products), applied as 3.2 ounces product/1,000 square feet (9.8 kilograms/hectare), and a systemic fungicide, Eagle 20EW (myclobutanil; Dow AgroSciences), applied as 1.2 fluid ounces product/1,000 square feet (3.8 litres/hectare)." Also states that researchers "applied each fungicide using a carbon-dioxide-pressurized hand-held sprayer fitted with one of four nozzles, delivering a total of 1.5 gallons/1,000 square feet at 35 pounds/square inch (611.2 liters/hectare at 241.3 kilopascals). Reports that "although both products achieved better disease control on 15 of the 31 dates, all the dates were not the same. On the other 16 assessment dates, complete-coverage and incomplete-coverage nozzles provided statistically equal control of dollar spot." Also reports that "sometimes when improved control was found using complete-coverage nozzles, means in those plots were in the range of 0-0.5 dollar spot infection center/square foot (0.09 square meter) versus 0.2-2.0 dollar spot infection center/square foot (0.09 square meter) in the incomplete-coverage plots." Suggests that superintendents should think of the application of foliar fungicides much like trying to spray-paint a wall: achieve as good a coverage as [one] can." Emphasizes that "reducing drift to off-target sites is very important." Concludes that "results clearly support the use of nozzles that provide complete spray coverage because they result in more consistent control of dollar spot than nozzles providing incomplete coverage. Water-sensitive paper is easy to use and can permit a quick check on the quality of...spray coverage."
Language:English
References:9
See Also:See also related article "Does spray coverage influence fungicide efficacy against dollar spot?" Applied Turfgrass Science, December 18 2007, p. [1-5] R=131330 R=131330
Note:Pictures, color
ASA/CSSA/SSSA Citation (Crop Science-Like - may be incomplete):
Vincelli, P., and E. Dixon. 2008. Improving spray coverage improves dollar spot control: Using the right nozzle to apply fungicide can save your grass. Golf Course Manage. 76(2):p. 114-116.
Fastlink to access this record outside TGIF: https://tic.msu.edu/tgif/flink?recno=132687
If there are problems with this record, send us feedback about record 132687.
Choices for finding the above item:
Web URL(s):
https://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/gcman/article/2008feb114.pdf
    Last checked: 09/30/2008
    Requires: PDF Reader
Find Item @ MSU
MSU catalog number: b2193862a
Request through your local library's inter-library loan service (bring or send a copy of this TGIF record)