Effect of Nozzle Type and Adjuvants on Spray Coverage on Apple Leaves
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Experiment 1
3.2. Experiment 2
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Al Heidary, M.; Douzals, J.P.; Sinfort, C.; Vallet, A. Influence of spray characteristics on potential spray drift of field crop sprayers: A literature review. Crop Prot. 2014, 63, 120–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holownicki, R.; Doruchowski, G.; Godyn, A.; Swiechowski, W. Effects of air jet adjustment on spray losses in orchard. Asp. Appl. Biol. 2000, 57, 293–300. [Google Scholar]
- Hilz, E.; Vermeer, A.W.P. Spray drift review: The extent to which a formulation can contribute to spray drift reduction. Crop Prot. 2013, 44, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jensen, P.K. Influence of air-assistance to flat fan and air-induction nozzles and the use of nozzle sledge on the activity of haloxyfop against ryegrass. Asp. Appl. Biol. 2002, 66, 73–78. [Google Scholar]
- Wolf, T.M. Low-drift nozzle efficacy with respect to herbicide mode of action. Asp. Appl. Biol. 2000, 57, 29–34. [Google Scholar]
- Frießleben, R. Influence of coarse droplet applications via injector nozzles on biological efficacy in apple production. In Proceedings of the VII Workshop on Spray Application in Fruit Growing, Cuneo, Italy, 25–27 July 2003; pp. 109–115. [Google Scholar]
- Lešnik, M.; Pintar, C.; Lobnik, A.; Kolar, M. Comparison of the effectiveness of standard and drift-reducing nozzles for control of some pests of apple. Crop Prot. 2005, 24, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heinkel, R.; Fried, A.; Lange, E. The effect of air injector nozzles on crop penetration and biological performance of fruit sprayers. Asp. Appl. Biol. 2000, 57, 301–307. [Google Scholar]
- Jaeken, P.; de Maeyer, L.; Broers, N.; Creemers, P. Nozzle choice and its effect on spray deposit and distribution, uptake, drift and biological efficacy in standard apple orchards (Malus sylvestris, cv Jonagold). Pflanzensch. Nachr. Bayer. 2003, 56, 326–353. [Google Scholar]
- Knewitz, H.; Weisser, P.; Koch, H. Drift-reducing spray application in orchards and biological efficacy of pesticides. Asp. Appl. Biol. 2002, 66, 231–236. [Google Scholar]
- Fornasiero, D.; Mori, N.; Tirello, P.; Pozzebon, A.; Duso, C.; Tescari, E.; Bradascio, R.; Otto, S. Effect of spray drift reduction techniques on pests and predatory mites in orchards and vineyards. Crop Prot. 2017, 98, 283–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doruchowski, G.; Świechowski, W.; Masny, S.; Maciesiak, A.; Tartanus, M.; Bryk, H.; Hołownicki, R. Low-drift nozzles vs. standard nozzles for pesticide application in the biological efficacy trials of pesticides in apple pest and disease control. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 575, 1239–1246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Derksen, R.C.; Zhu, H.; Fox, R.D.; Brazee, R.D.; Krause, C.R. Coverage and Drift Produced by Air Induction and Conventional Hydraulic Nozzles Used for Orchard Applications. Trans. ASABE 2007, 50, 1493–1501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holownicki, R.; Doruchowski, G.; Świechowski, W.; Godyn, A. VarioWindSelect system for automatic adjustment of nozzle type to the wind velocity in order to decrease spray drift in orchard. In Proceedings of the 7th International ATW-Symposium on Technology Application in Horti- and Viticulture, Stuttgart, Germany, 10–11 May 2004; pp. 36–42. [Google Scholar]
- Doruchowski, G.; Swiechowski, W.; Holownicki, R.; Godyń, A. Environmentally-Dependent Application System for safer spray application in fruit growing. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2009, 84, 107–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spanoghe, P.; Steurbaut, W.; van der Meeren, P. The effect of adjuvants on spray performance by use of nozzles with different orifices. Asp. Appl. Biol. 2002, 66, 251–256. [Google Scholar]
- Hoffmann, W.C.; Hewitt, A.J.; Barber, J.A.S.; Kirk, I.W.; Brown, J.R. Field Swath and Drift Analyses Techniques; ASAE Paper, No. AA032007; ASAE: St. Joseph, MI, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Celen, I.H. The effect of spray mix adjuvants on spray drift. Bulg. J. Agric. Sci. 2010, 16, 105–110. [Google Scholar]
- Carlsen, S.C.K.; Spliid, N.H.; Svensmark, B. Drift of 10 herbicides after tractor spray application. 2. Primary drift (droplet drift). Chemosphere 2006, 64, 778–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Holloway, P.J.; Butler Ellis, M.C.; Webb, D.A.; Western, N.M.; Tuck, C.R.; Hayes, A.L.; Miller, P.C.H. Effects of some agricultural tank-mix adjuvants on the deposition efficiency of aqueous sprays on foliage. Crop Prot. 2000, 19, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stainier, C.; Destain, M.F.; Schiffers, B.; Lebeau, F. Droplet size spectra and drift effect of two phenmedipham formulations and four adjuvants mixtures. Crop Prot. 2006, 25, 1238–1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butler Ellis, M.C.; Tuck, C.R.; Miller, P.C.H. The effect of some adjuvants on sprays produced by agricultural flat fan nozzles. Crop Prot. 1997, 16, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanderson, R.; Hewitt, A.J.; Huddleston, E.W.; Ross, J.B. Relative drift potential and droplet size spectra of aerially applied Propanil formulations. Crop Prot. 1997, 16, 717–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, L.; Zhu, H.; Ozkan, E.; Bagley, W.E.; Krause, C.R. Droplet evaporation and spread on waxy and hairy leaves associated with type and concentration of adjuvants. Pest Manag. Sci. 2011, 67, 842–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butler Ellis, M.C.; Bradley, A. Influence of formulation on spray drift. Asp. Appl. Biol. 2002, 66, 251–258. [Google Scholar]
- Butler Ellis, M.C.; Tuck, C.R. The variation in characteristics of air-included sprays with adjuvants. Asp. Appl. Biol. 2000, 57, 155–162. [Google Scholar]
- De Schampheleire, M.; Nuyttens, D.; Baetens, K.; Cornelis, W.; Gabriels, D.; Spanoghe, P. Effects on pesticide spray drift of the physicochemical properties of the spray liquid. Prec. Agric. 2009, 10, 409–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spanoghe, P.; de Schampheleire, M.; van der Meeren, P.; Steurbaut, W. Review Influence of agricultural adjuvants on droplet spectra. Pest Manag. Sci. 2007, 63, 4–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhu, H.; Zondag, R.H.; Derksen, R.C.; Reding, M.; Krause, C.R. Influence of spray volume on spray deposition and coverage within nursery trees. J. Environ. Hortic. 2008, 26, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forester, W.A.; Gaskin, R.E.; Strand, T.M.; Manktelow, D.W.L.; Leeuwen, R.M. Effect of target wettability on spray droplet adhesion, retention, spreading and coverage: Artificial collectors versus plant surfaces. N. Z. Plant Prot. 2014, 67, 284–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Powell, E.S.; Orson, J.H.; Miller, P.C.H.; Kudsk, P.; Mathiassen, S. Defining the size of target for air induction nozzles. Asp. Appl. Biol. 2002, 66, 65–72. [Google Scholar]
- Arnold, A.C. A comparative study of droplet sizing equipment for agricultural fan-spray atomizers. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 1990, 12, 431–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herbst, A. Droplet sizing on agricultural sprays: A comparison of measuring systems using a standard droplet size classification scheme. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems (ILASSEurope), Zürich, Switzerland, 2–6 January 2001; pp. 371–402. [Google Scholar]
- Gimenes, M.J.; Zhu, H.; Raetano, C.G.; Oliveira, R.B. Dispersion and evaporation of droplets amended with adjuvants on soybeans. Crop Prot. 2013, 44, 84–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, H.; Zhou, H.; Xu, L.; Zhu, H. Effect of surfactant concentration on the spreading properties of pesticides droplets on Eucalyptus leaves. Biosyst. Eng. 2016, 143, 42–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, Y.; Zhu, H.; Ozkan, H.E.; Derksen, R.C.; Krause, C.R. Evaporation and deposition coverage area of droplets containing insecticides and spray additives on hydrophilic, hydrophobic and crabapple leaf surfaces. Trans. ASABE 2009, 52, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, L.; Zhu, H.; Ozkan, E.; Bagley, W.E.; Derksen, R.C.; Krause, C.R. Adjuvant effects on evaporation time and wetted area of droplets on waxy leaves. Trans. ASABE 2010, 53, 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, H.; Yu, Y.; Ozkan, H.E.; Derksen, R.C.; Krause, C.R. Influence of Spray Additives on Droplet Evaporation and Residual Patterns on Wax and Wax-Free Surfaces; ASABE Paper, No. 083752; ASABE: St. Joseph, MI, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gent, D.H.; Schwartz, H.F.; Nissen, S.J. Effect of commercial adjuvants on vegetable crop fungicide coverage, absorption, and efficacy. Plant Dis. 2003, 87, 591–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISO 10625:2018(en). Equipment for Crop Protection—Sprayer Nozzles—Colour Coding for Identification; The International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- ISO 25358:2018(en). Crop Protection Equipment—Droplet-Size Spectra from Atomizers—Measurement and Classification; The International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Little, T.M. Interpretation and presentation of results. HortScience 1981, 16, 637–640. [Google Scholar]
- Schechter, I.; Proctor, J.T.A.; Elfving, D.C. Morphological Differences among Apple Leaf Types. HortScience 1992, 27, 101–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Eliáš, P. Stomata density and size of apple trees growing in irrigated and non irrigated conditions. Biologia 1995, 50, 115–118. [Google Scholar]
- Skorupska, A. Morphologico-anatomical structure of leaves abd female fecundity of genus Tetranychus (Acarina, Tetranychidae) on selected scab-resistant apple varieties. J. Plant Prot. Res. 1999, 39, 144–152. [Google Scholar]
- Hall, F.R.; Downer, R.A.; Cooper, J.A.; Ebert, T.A.; Ferree, D.C. Changes in Spray Retention by Apple Leaves during a Growing Season. HortScience 1997, 32, 858–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warabieda, W.; Solomon, M. Influence of leaf pubescence on the behavior of the two-spotted spider mite [Tetranychus urticae] and European red mite [Panonychus ulmi]. Acta Agrobot. 2003, 56, 109–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Skorupska, A. Resistance of apple cultivars to two-spotted spider mite, Tetranychus urticae Koch (Acarina, Tetranychidae). Part II. Influence of leaf pubescence of selected apple cultivars on fecundity of two-spotted spider mite. J. Plant. Prot. Res. 2004, 44, 69–74. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, L.; Zhu, H.; Ozkan, H.E.; Thistle, H.W. Evaporation rate and development of wetted area of water droplets with and without surfactant at different locations on waxy leaf surfaces. Biosyst. Eng. 2010, 106, 58–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, H.; Yu, Y.; Ozkan, H.E.; Derksen, R.C.; Krause, C.R. Evaporation and wetted area of single droplets on waxy and hairy leaf surfaces. Commun. Agric. Appl. Biol. Sci. 2008, 73, 711–718. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Schönherr, J.; Baur, P.; Uhlig, B.A. Rates of cuticular penetration of 1-naphthylacetic acid (NAA) as affected by adjuvants, temperature, humidity and water quality. Plant. Growth Regul. 2000, 31, 61–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Trade Name | Active Ingredient | Concentration [%] |
---|---|---|
EXPERIMENT I: water + fluorescent tracer Tinopal CBS-X, 1.5% | ||
Agral 90 | nonylphenoxy polyethoxy ethanol | 0.05 |
0.10 | ||
0.15 | ||
Silwet L-77 | 0.05 | |
Heptamethyltrisiloxane | 0.10 | |
0.15 | ||
Greemax | 0.025 | |
alpha-butyl-omega-hydroxypoly block polymer | 0.050 | |
0.075 | ||
EXPERIMENT II: water suspension of fungicide Delan 700 WG * (dithianon), 0.2% + fluorescent tracer Tinopal CBS-X, 1.5% | ||
0.05 | ||
Silwet L-77 | polyethoxylated hepatamethyl trisiloxane | 0.10 |
0.15 |
Nozzle Type | Nozzle Size * [ISO] | Pressure [MPa] | Droplet Size ** [ISO] | Travel Speed [m s−1] | Flow Rate [L min−1] | Spray Volume Rate *** [L ha−1] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hollow cone TR-80 | 01 | 0.66 | Fine | 2.0 | 0.5 | 135 |
02 | 0.58 | Fine | 1.04 | 260 | ||
03 | 0.55 | Medium | 1.54 | 385 | ||
Flat fan air-inclusion ID-90 | 01 | 0.66 | Very Coarse | 2.0 | 0.54 | 135 |
02 | 0.58 | Very Coarse | 1.04 | 260 | ||
03 | 0.55 | Very Coarse | 1.54 | 385 |
Source of Variation | df | Sum of Squares | Percent of Total | df | Sum of Squares | Percent of Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Upper Leaf Side | Lower Leaf Side | |||||
A. SPRAY COVERAGE | ||||||
Main effects: | ||||||
NT—Nozzle type | 1 | 3851.20 | 30.86 | 1 | 360.88 | 1.41 |
NS—Nozzle size | 2 | 871.14 | 6.98 | 2 | 736.97 | 2.88 |
AC—Adjuvant concentr. | 3 | 1837.98 | 14.72 | 3 | 8489.05 | 33.24 |
Interactions: | ||||||
NT × NS | 2 | NS 43.72 | 0.35 | 2 | 780.56 | 3.05 |
AC × NT | 3 | 601.54 | 4.82 | 3 | 971.26 | 3.80 |
AC × NS | 6 | 516.89 | 4.14 | 6 | 868.32 | 3.40 |
AC × NT × NS | 6 | 309.48 | 2.48 | 6 | 810.15 | 3.17 |
ERROR | 216.0 | 4447.14 | 35.63 | 216.0 | 12,519.82 | 49.02 |
TOTAL | 12,479.13 | 25,537.03 | ||||
B. DROPLET DENSITY | ||||||
Main effects: | ||||||
NT—Nozzle type | 1 | 445,998.82 | 15.42 | 1 | 4,343,543.20 | 58.06 |
NS—Nozzle size | 2 | 71,176.23 | 2.46 | 2 | 54,522.11 | 0.72 |
AC—Adjuvant concentr. | 3 | 464,708.33 | 16.07 | 3 | 384,813.67 | 5.14 |
Interactions: | ||||||
NT × NS | 2 | 49,746.43 | 1.72 | 2 | 76,430.06 | 1.02 |
AC × NT | 3 | NS 26,167.65 | 0.91 | 3 | 574,164.05 | 7.67 |
AC × NS | 6 | NS 39,594.46 | 1.37 | 6 | 92,352.79 | NS 1.23 |
AC × NT × NS | 6 | 234,962.20 | 8.12 | 6 | 234,783.64 | 3.13 |
ERROR | 216.0 | 1,559,786.60 | 53.93 | 216.0 | 1,719,517.30 | 22.98 |
TOTAL | 2,892,140.73 | 7,480,126.79 |
Source of Variation | df | Sum of Squares | Percent of Total | df | Sum of Squares | Percent of Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Upper Leaf Side | Lower Leaf Side | |||||
A. SPRAY COVERAGE | ||||||
Main effects: | ||||||
NT—Nozzle type | 1 | 1283.82 | 26.619 | 1 | 531.93 | 4.07 |
NS—Nozzle size | 2 | 140.69 | 2.917 | 2 | 2124.88 | 16.24 |
AC—Adjuvant concentr. | 3 | 366.97 | 7.609 | 3 | 2614.96 | 19.99 |
Interactions: | ||||||
NT × NS | 2 | 154.97 | 3.213 | 2 | NS 114.53 | 0.87 |
AC × NT | 3 | NS 49.67 | 1.030 | 3 | 298.61 | 2.28 |
AC × NS | 6 | NS 143.77 | 2.981 | 6 | 502.12 | 3.84 |
AC × NT × NS | 6 | NS 136.73 | 2.835 | 6 | NS 292.25 | 2.23 |
ERROR | 215.0 | 2546.27 | 52.795 | 216.0 | 6600.88 | 50.46 |
TOTAL | 4822.91 | 13,080.17 | ||||
B. DROPLET DENSITY | ||||||
Main effects: | ||||||
NT—Nozzle type | 1 | 782,384.20 | 25.79 | 1 | 7,451,145.60 | 74.33 |
NS—Nozzle size | 2 | NS 4369.30 | 0.14 | 2 | NS 36,215.10 | 0.36 |
AC—Adjuvant concentr. | 3 | 389,820.94 | 12.85 | 3 | 222,056.98 | 2.21 |
Interactions: | ||||||
NT × NS | 2 | NS 30,508.93 | 1.01 | 2 | 285,669.92 | 2.85 |
AC × NT | 3 | 57,765.75 | 1.90 | 3 | 279,002.66 | 2.78 |
AC × NS | 6 | 147,958.17 | 4.88 | 6 | 100,433.89 | 1.00 |
AC × NT × NS | 6 | 246,278.87 | 8.12 | 6 | 102,169.60 | 1.02 |
ERROR | 216.0 | 1,374,471.30 | 45.3 | 216.0 | 1,547,855.40 | 15.44 |
TOTAL | 3,033,557.46 | 10,024,549.18 |
Source of Variation | df | Sum of Squares | Percent of Total | df | Sum of Squares | Percent of Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Upper Leaf Side | Lower Leaf Side | |||||
A. SPRAY COVERAGE | ||||||
Main effects: | ||||||
NT—Nozzle type | 1 | 1970.26 | 23.19 | 1 | NS 71.83 | 0.27 |
NS—Nozzle size | 2 | 680.74 | 8.01 | 2 | 2009.24 | 7.65 |
AC—Adjuvant concentr. | 3 | 1080.01 | 12.71 | 3 | 11,977.81 | 45.62 |
Interactions: | ||||||
NT × NS | 2 | 280.74 | 3.30 | 2 | NS 107.31 | 0.41 |
AC × NT | 3 | 497.97 | 5.86 | 3 | NS 15.27 | 0.06 |
AC × NS | 6 | 302.92 | 3.56 | 6 | NS 308.34 | 1.17 |
AC × NT × NS | 6 | 552.51 | 6.50 | 6 | NS 175.06 | 0.67 |
ERROR | 216.0 | 3132.44 | 36.86 | 216.0 | 11,589.18 | 44.14 |
TOTAL | 8497.59 | 26,254.04 | ||||
B. DROPLET DENSITY | ||||||
Main effects: | ||||||
NT—Nozzle type | 1 | 2,146,947.08 | 27.91 | 1 | 4,184,895.59 | 47.17 |
NS—Nozzle size | 2 | NS 8077.99 | 0.10 | 2 | NS 8008.97 | 0.09 |
AC—Adjuvant concentr. | 3 | 2,097,732.70 | 27.27 | 3 | 658,528.15 | 7.42 |
Interactions: | ||||||
NT × NS | 2 | 117,657.27 | 1.53 | 2 | 109,780.91 | 1.24 |
AC × NT | 3 | 131,694.69 | 1.71 | 3 | 837,687.23 | 9.43 |
AC × NS | 6 | NS 99,227.03 | 1.29 | 6 | NS 94,904.48 | 1.07 |
AC × NT × NS | 6 | 286,827.52 | 3.73 | 6 | 336,646.46 | 3.79 |
ERROR | 216.0 | 2,803,427.12 | 36.45 | 216.0 | 2,647,798.03 | 29.82 |
TOTAL | 769,159.42 | 8,878,249.81 |
Source of Variation | df | Sum of Squares | Percent of Total | df | Sum of Squares | Percent of Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Upper Leaf Side | Lower Leaf Side | |||||
A. SPRAY COVERAGE | ||||||
Main effects: | ||||||
NT—Nozzle type | 1 | 4491.94 | 15.52 | 1 | 548.43 | 16.54 |
NS—Nozzle size | 2 | 2321.61 | 8.02 | 2 | 180.06 | 5.43 |
AC—Adjuvant concentr. | 3 | 4840.24 | 16.73 | 3 | 287.71 | 8.68 |
Interactions: | ||||||
NT × NS | 2 | 482.95 | 1.67 | 2 | NS 21.06 | 0.63 |
AC × NT | 3 | 578.89 | 2.00 | 3 | 122.35 | 3.69 |
AC × NS | 6 | 1414.60 | 4.89 | 6 | NS 23.62 | 0.71 |
AC × NT × NS | 6 | 1157.77 | 4.00 | 6 | NS 96.66 | 2.92 |
ERROR | 216.0 | 13,646.93 | 47.16 | 216.0 | 2035.21 | 61.39 |
TOTAL | 28,934.94 | 3315.11 | ||||
B. DROPLET DENSITY | ||||||
Main effects: | ||||||
NT—Nozzle type | 1 | 3,001,383.00 | 39.011 | 1 | 2,321,846.82 | 39.67 |
NS—Nozzle size | 2 | 190,066.57 | 2.470 | 2 | 198,662.72 | 3.39 |
AC—Adjuvant concentr. | 3 | 813,718.25 | 10.577 | 3 | 555,928.22 | 9.50 |
Interactions: | ||||||
NT × NS | 2 | NS 888.36 | 0.012 | 2 | 74,393.41 | 1.27 |
AC × NT | 3 | 159,083.01 | 2.068 | 3 | 275,456.15 | 4.71 |
AC × NS | 6 | NS 75357.99 | 0.979 | 6 | NS 98,849.81 | 1.69 |
AC × NT × NS | 6 | 520,645.07 | 6.767 | 6 | 207,168.92 | 3.54 |
ERROR | 216.0 | 2,932,497.90 | 38.116 | 216.0 | 2,120,186.60 | 36.23 |
TOTAL | 7,693,640.16 | 5,852,492.65 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Hołownicki, R.; Doruchowski, G.; Świechowski, W.; Konopacki, P.; Godyń, A. Effect of Nozzle Type and Adjuvants on Spray Coverage on Apple Leaves. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1790. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11091790
Hołownicki R, Doruchowski G, Świechowski W, Konopacki P, Godyń A. Effect of Nozzle Type and Adjuvants on Spray Coverage on Apple Leaves. Agronomy. 2021; 11(9):1790. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11091790
Chicago/Turabian StyleHołownicki, Ryszard, Grzegorz Doruchowski, Waldemar Świechowski, Paweł Konopacki, and Artur Godyń. 2021. "Effect of Nozzle Type and Adjuvants on Spray Coverage on Apple Leaves" Agronomy 11, no. 9: 1790. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11091790