Full TGIF Record # 333418
Item 1 of 1
Web URL(s):https://scisoc.confex.com/scisoc/2023am/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/148799
    Last checked: 12/01/2023
Publication Type:
Content Type:Abstract or Summary only
Author(s):Floyd, Weston; Straw, Chase M.; Muesse, Megan; Tucker, Hailey; Alabi, Opeyemi Emmanuel; Winger, Jacob
Author Affiliation:Floyd: Presenting Author and Texas A&M University, College Station, TX; Straw: Horticultural Science, Texas A&M University, college Station, TX; Muesse and Tucker: TAMU Turfgrass, College Station, TX; Alabi: Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX; Winger: Turfgrass Management and Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
Title:Assessing the benefits of a GPS sprayer and its justification
Section:Turf management and ecology poster (includes student competition)
Other records with the "Turf management and ecology poster (includes student competition)" Section

C05 turfgrass science
Other records with the "C05 turfgrass science" Section

Other records with the "211" Section
Meeting Info.:St. Louis, Missouri: October 29-November 1, 2023
Source:ASA, CSSA, SSSA International Annual Meeting. 2023, p. 148799.
Publishing Information:[Madison, Wisconsin]: [American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America]
# of Pages:1
Abstract/Contents:"This study aimed to quantify the benefits of GPS sprayers on sports fields. In 2023, a completely randomized designed study with six treatments was conducted in College Station, TX. Treatments involved experienced and inexperienced applicators using manual, GPS, and GPS+autosteer sprayer technologies. Two locations with softball/baseball and soccer fields were selected. Each treatment was replicated three times at each location on three separate fields. Two different sprayers were employed, one at each location. The experienced applicator, with nearly two decades of experience, sprayed at both locations, while four university students, each assigned to one location and field type, represented the inexperienced applicators. Field boundaries were georeferenced once with the sprayers for application and to determine the target area. A target spray volume of 611 L ha-1 was used, with a known amount of water placed in the tanks and the remaining water after each application pumped out to calculate the total volume sprayed. ArcMap was used to determine the percentage of missed and overlapped target area from spray maps, and the total volume sprayed was used to determine the percentage of overspray beyond the target area. The data were subjected to ANOVA in RStudio, and means were separated using Fishers protected LSD (Ī±=0.05). Inexperienced applicators exhibited significantly higher missed and overlapped areas on both field types with manual spraying compared to the experienced applicator. While increasing sprayer technology did not reduce missed areas for the experienced applicator on either field type, it did have a positive impact for the inexperienced applicator, with GPS and GPS+autosteer showing significantly lower levels than manual. Moreover, increasing sprayer technology notably improved overlapped areas for both experienced and inexperienced applicators on both field types. As sprayer technology increased, the target area overspray generally decreased. These findings support the adoption of sprayer technology for sports fields."
Note:This item is an abstract only!
ASA/CSSA/SSSA Citation (Crop Science-Like - may be incomplete):
Floyd, W., C. M. Straw, M. Muesse, H. Tucker, O. E. Alabi, and J. Winger. 2023. Assessing the benefits of a GPS sprayer and its justification. Agron. Abr. p. 148799.
Fastlink to access this record outside TGIF: https://tic.msu.edu/tgif/flink?recno=333418
If there are problems with this record, send us feedback about record 333418.
Choices for finding the above item:
Web URL(s):
    Last checked: 12/01/2023
Request through your local library's inter-library loan service (bring or send a copy of this TGIF record)