GiESCO 2019 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 GiESCO 9 GiESCO 2019 9 Survey reveals training needs for airblast sprayer operators

Survey reveals training needs for airblast sprayer operators

Abstract

Context and purpose of the study – In California, little training in sprayer calibration or pesticide drift management is required to apply pesticides. Yet, there is a need to maximize pesticide efficacy and minimize drift. Therefore, our team is developing a training course on airblast application best practices. We distributed a survey to identify current practices and used importance-performance analysis to interpret responses to the importance of spray related topics and satisfaction with previous training.

Material and methods – In 2018 we solicited survey replies, receiving 219 responses from winegrape and orchard industry members. Respondents rated 18 spray topics using a Likert-type scale. Topic categories included sprayer calibration, weather, techniques to reduce drift, and applicator attitude. Respondents rated 1) how important each topic is to them and 2) how satisfied they are with the quality of training they had previously received; or “no training received”. Results were calculated by topic as the mean importance (y) and satisfaction with training (x), and graphed using (x,y) as coordinates. The overall importance and performance means were used to define graph quadrants; the resulting topic placement in the quadrants prioritized training needs. We also asked: “Do you change your sprayer set up?”, “What steps do you take to calibrate?” and “Have you experienced a pest control failure that could have been related to a poor spray application?”

Results – Checking spray coverage ranked the most important topic while improving safety ranked highest for satisfaction. Topics fell into quadrants: 1.-high priority: checking coverage, selecting nozzles, reducing costs, and measuring flow; 2.-less emphasis: measuring application rate, measuring speed, improving safety, checking wind speed, reducing drift, and checking pressure; 3.-low interest: reducing spray loss to the ground, adjusting air flow, determining droplet size, checking temperature, determining if an inversion exists, using the low-drift technique “Gear up, Throttle down”, and checking relative humidity; 4.-low priority: checking wind direction. Responses to “What steps do you take to calibrate?” included measuring speed (44.9%), spraying out the tank to a known area (35.6%) and checking nozzles (34.7%). Only 8.1% of respondents check coverage and 5.9% admitted not calibrating or not often. 38% do not change their sprayer set-up once the season begins. Over half experienced a pest control failure they suspect was due to poor application; grape powdery mildew had the highest perceived failure. Respondents understand drift is undesirable but assign less importance to practices to reduce drift incidence, possibly due to lack of training received by 6-23%. Our course will focus on high priority topics; and checking weather and equipment to minimize drift.

DOI:

Publication date: June 18, 2020

Issue: GiESCO 2019

Type: Poster

Authors

Lynn WUNDERLICH1, Franz NIEDERHOLZER2, Lisa BLECKER3, Rhonda J. SMITH4, Stephanie BOLTON5

1 UCCE, 311 Fair Lane, Placerville, California, 95667 USA
2 UCCE, P.O. Box 180, 100 Sunrise Blvd., Colusa, California, 95932 USA
3 UCIPM, 2801 Second St., Davis, California, 95618 USA
4 UCCE, 133 Aviation Blvd. Santa Rosa, California, 95403 USA
5 Lodi Winegrape Commission, 2545 Turner Rd., Lodi, California, 95242 USA

Contact the author

Keywords

Airblast sprayer, calibration, training, survey 

Tags

GiESCO 2019 | IVES Conference Series

Citation

Related articles…

Frost risk projections in a changing climate are highly sensitive in time and space to frost modelling approaches

Late spring frost is a major challenge for various winegrowing regions across the world, its occurrence often leading to important yield losses and/or plant failure. Despite a significant increase in minimum temperatures worldwide, the spatial and temporal evolution of spring frost risk under a warmer climate remains largely uncertain. Recent projections of spring frost risk for viticulture in Europe throughout the 21st century show that its evolution strongly depends on the model approach used to simulate budburst. Furthermore, the frost damage modelling methods used in these projections are usually not assessed through comparison to field observations and/or frost damage reports. The present study aims at comparing frost risk projections simulated using six spring frost models based on two approaches: a) models considering a fixed damage threshold after the predicted budburst date (e.g BRIN, Smoothed-Utah, Growing Degree Days, Fenovitis) and b) models considering a dynamic frost sensitivity threshold based on the predicted grapevine winter/spring dehardening process (e.g. Ferguson model). The capability of each model to simulate an actual frost event for the Vitis vinifera cv. Chadonnay B was previously assessed by comparing simulated cold thermal stress to reports of events with frost damage in Chablis, the northernmost winegrowing region of Burgundy. Models exhibited scores of κ > 0.65 when reproducing the frost/non-frost damage years and an accuracy ranging from 0.82 to 0.90. Spring frost risk projections throughout the 21st century were performed for all winegrowing subregions of Bourgogne-Franche-Comté under two CMIP5 concentration pathways (4.5 and 8.5) using statistically downscaled 8×8 km daily air temperature and humidity of 13 climate models. Contrasting results with region-specific spring frost risk trends were observed. Three out of five models show a decrease in the frequency of frost years across the whole study area while the other two show an increase that is more or less pronounced depending on winegrowing subregion. Our findings indicate that the lack of accuracy in grapevine budburst and dehardening models makes climate projections of spring frost risk highly uncertain for grapevine cultivation regions.

Analysis of Cabernet Sauvignon and Aglianico winegrape (V. vinifera L.) responses to different pedo-climatic environments in southern Italy

Water deficit is one of the most important effects of climate change able to affect agricultural sectors. In general, it determines a reduction in biomass production, and for some plants, as in the case of grapevine, it can endorse fruit quality. The monitoring and management of plant water stress in the vineyard

The impact of leaf canopy management on eco-physiology, wood chemical properties and microbial communities in root, trunk and cordon of Riesling grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.)

In the last decades, climate change required already adaptation of vineyard management. Increase in temperature and unexpected weather events cause changes in all phenological stages requiring new management tools. For example, defoliation can be a useful tool to reduce the sugar content in the berries creating differences in the wine profiles. In a ten-year field experiment using Riesling (Vitis vinifera L, planted 1986, Geisenheim, Germany), various mechanical defoliation strategies and different intensities were trialed until 2016 before the vineyard was uprooted. Wood was sampled from the plant compartments root, trunk, cordon and shoot for analyses of physicochemical properties (e.g. lignin and element content, pH, diameter), nonstructural carbohydrates and the microbial communities. The aim of the study was to investigate the influence of reduced canopy leaf area on the sink-source allocation into different compartments and potential changes of the fungal and prokaryotic wood-inhabiting community using a metabarcoding approach. Severe summer pruning (SSP) of the canopy and mechanical defoliation (MDC) above the bunch zone decreased the leaf area by 50% compared to control (C). SSP reduced the photosynthetic capacity, which resulted in an altered source-sink allocation and carbohydrate storage. With lower leaf area, less carbohydrates are allocated. This for example resulted in a decreased trunk diameter. Further, it affected the composition of the grapevine wood microbiota. SSP and MDC management changed significantly the prokaryotic community composition in wood of the root samples, but had no effect in other compartments. In general, this study found strong compartment and less management effects of the microbial community composition and associated physicochemical properties. The highest microbial diversities were identified in the wood of the trunk, and several species were recorded the first time in grapevine.

Climate change impacts: a multi-stress issue

With the aim of producing premium wines, it is admitted that moderate environmental stresses may contribute to the accumulation of compounds of interest in grapes. However the ongoing climate change, with the appearance of more limiting conditions of production is a major concern for the wine industry economic. Will it be possible to maintain the vineyards in place, to preserve the current grape varieties and how should we anticipate the adaptation measures to ensure the sustainability of vineyards? In this context, the question of the responses and adaptation of grapevine to abiotic stresses becomes a major scientific issue to tackle. An abiotic stress can be defined as the effect of a specific factor of the physico-chemical environment of the plants (temperature, availability of water and minerals, light, etc.) which reduces growth, and for a crop such as the vine, the yield, the composition of the fruits and the sustainability of the plants. Water stress is in many minds, but a systemic vision is essential for at least two reasons. The first reason is that in natural environments, a single factor is rarely limiting, and plants have to deal with a combination of constraints, as for example heat and drought, both in time and at a given time. The second reason is that plants, including grapevine, have central mechanisms of stress responses, as redox regulatory pathways, that play an important role in adaptation and survival. Here we will review the most recent studies dealing with this issue to provide a better understanding of the grapevine responses to a combination of environmental constraints and of the underlying regulatory pathways, which may be very helpful to design more adapted solutions to cope with climate change.

Projected changes in vine phenology of two varieties with different thermal requirements cultivated in La Mancha DO (Spain) under climate change scenarios

The aim of this work was to analyze the phenology variability of Tempranillo and Chardonnay cultivars, related to the climatic characteristics in La Mancha Designation of Origin, and their potential changes under climate change scenarios. Phenological dates referred to budbreak, flowering, veraison and harvest were analyzed for the period 2000-2019. The weather conditions at daily time scale, recorded during the same period, were also evaluated. The thermal requirements to reach each of these phenological stages were calculated and expressed as the GDD accumulated from DOY=60. Changes in phenology were projected by 2050 and 2070 taking into account those values and the projected temperatures and precipitation, simulated under two Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenarios –RCP4.5 and RCP8.5– using an ensemble of models. The average phenological dates during the period under study were, April 16th ± 6.6 days and April 5th ± 6.0 days for budbreak, May 31st ± 6.0 days and May 27th ± 5.3 days for flowering, July 26th ± 5.6 days and July 25th ± 5.8 days for veraison, and Ago 23rd ± 10.8 days and Ago 17th ± 9.0 days for harvest, respectively, for Tempranillo and Chardonnay. The projected changes in temperature imply an average change in the maximum growing season (April-August) temperatures of 1.2 and 1.9°C by 2050, and 1.6 and 2.6°C by 2070, under the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios, respectively. A reduction in precipitation is predicted, which vary between 15% for 2050 under RCP4.5 scenario and up to 30% by 2070 under RCP8.5. The advance of the phenological dates for 2050, could be of 6, 7, 7, and 8 days for Tempranillo and 4, 6, 6 and 9 days for Chardonnay, respectively for budbreak, flowering, veraison and harvest under the RCP4.5 scenario. Under the RCP8.5 emission scenario, the advance could be up to 30% higher.