A proposal for dose expression & dose adjustment in the EU-Southern Zone. DOSA3D system

Transcription

1 A proposal for dose expression & dose adjustment in the EU-Southern Zone DOSA3D system Santiago Planas 1,2, Carla Roman 1, Ricardo Sanz 1, Joan Ramon Rosell 1 1 University of Lleida 2 Generalitat de Catalunya, Spain EPPO Workshop on harmonized dose expression for the zonal evaluation of plant protection products in high growing crops Viena, /20 AgVance

2 Production area for EU Member States (ha) 6E+06 4E+06 SZ Olive (2012) Citrus (2012) Almonds (2015) Grapes (2013) Deciduous fruits (2012) 2E+06 SZ SZ 0E+00 ES IT EL FR PT RO PL DE HU BG AT HR CZ CY SI NL SK BE UK source: EUROSTAT - Extracted on:

3 Hedgerow Stone fruits, October 2016 ES-Sunyer

4 Orchards with isolated trees (traditional) Almonds, May 2016 ES-Sunyer Olives, August 2016 ES-Tortosa

5 Globular shaped near hedgerow Hazelnut picture 3.0 m 4.0 m Citrus, August 2016 ES-Tortosa Hazelnuts, August 2016 ES-Puigpelat 6

6 Hedgerows for pome & stone fruits Almonds, October 2016 ES-Alcanó 7

7 Extreme differences on training systems between crops Should they be protected with the identical amount of pesticide? 4.0 m between rows 1.2 m 2.0 m 2.1 m 2.3 m 2.0 m 1.8 m

8 Extreme differences on training systems within crops Should they be protected with the identical amount of pesticide? 4.0 m between rows 0.9 m 1.8 m 1.8 m

9 Extreme differences on training systems & cropping practices within crops Do they be protected with the identical amount of pesticide? 0.8 m 1.0 m October 2016 ES-Alpicat July 2015 ES-Lleida 2.0 m 1.8 m July 2011 ES-Lleida July 2011 ES-Lleida

10 Differences on training & pruning practices within crops Should these vineyards be protected with the identical amount of pesticide? m between rows 1.1 m 0.7 m July 2015 ES-Raïmat July 2015 ES-Raïmat 0.4 m September 2016 ES-Priorat 11

11 Extreme differences through growing stages Peach, from March to October 2016 ES-Sunyer 10 12

12 LAI 2,0 LAI % 40% LAI 2,0 LAI % 40% 1,5 30% 1,5 30% 1,0 20% 1,0 20% 0,5 10% 0,5 10% 0,0-1,0-0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0 00% 0,0-1,00-0,50 0,00 0,50 1,00 00% Y, canopy depth (m) Y, canopy thicknes (m) Z, canopy height (m) 4,5 3,5 2,5 1,5 Mean LAI % (n=6) 16% 33% 30% Z, canopy height (m) 4,5 3,5 2,5 1,5 Mean LAI 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0, ,5 (n=8) 7% 37% 42% 0,5 19% 0,5 13% 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 LAI 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 LAI EU-FP3 CT-1304 Project AIR ( ) SRI

13 Summary Cropping structures in SZ: extreme differences Spraying equipment & penetrability Principles for dose expression and dose adjustment From DOSAFRUT to DOSA3D Conclusions & proposal 14

14 ABS Efficiency = 40-55% 1200 L ha -1 ABS w/ deflectors Efficiency = 60-70% 800 L ha -1 August 2014 ES-Tortosa July ES-Alcarràs

15 Hydraulic nozzles Efficiency = 50-75% 300 L ha- 1 Pneumatic nozzles Efficiency = 60-80% 180 L ha- 1 April 2014 ES-Raïmat DO Costers del Segre June 2009 ES DO Penedés

16 Penetrability leaf deposition vs. depth (ng/dm 2 ) / (g/ha) 300,0 250,0 vine 200,0 apple 150,0 100,0 50,0 pear citrus 0,0 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 Canopy depth (m) EU-FP3 CT-1304 Project AIR ( ) SRI

17 Two sides - penetrability (µg/cm 2 ) 1,2 1,0 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 R² = 0,9471 Volume rate: L/ha Trials (n = 6) 0,0-1,25-0,75-0,25 0,25 0,75 1,25-16 % Canopy depth (m) (µg/cm 2 ) 0,7 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,1 R² = 0,9207 Volume rate: L/ha Trials (n = 9) 0,0-0,75-0,5-0,25 0 0,25 0,5 0,75-20 % Canopy d (µg/cm 2 ) 1,2 Volume rate (L/ha): Trials (n = 8) deposition (µg/cm 2 ) 0,7 Volume rate (L/ha): Trials (n = 4) 1,0 0,6 0,8 0,6-24 % 0,5 0,4-58 % 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,0 R² = 0, Canopy depth (m) 0,2 0,1 0,0 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 R² = 0,9463 Canopy depth EU-FP3 CT-1304 Project AIR ( ) SRI

18 Leaf deposition for early & full leaf stages Blanquilla Conference Golden Volume rate: 800 L ha (ng/cm2) /(g/ha) Early stage Full stage PULVEXACT Project ( ) 19

19 Leaf deposition early & full leaf stages HARDI - IRIS MAKATO HARDI - MULTIOUTLET BBCH BBCH

20 Summary Cropping structures in SZ: extreme differences Spraying equipment & penetrability Principles for dose expression and dose adjustment From DOSAFRUT to DOSA3D Conclusions & proposal 21

21 EPPO document 2001/8780 mentioned by Vlasta Zlof mentioned by Gabriele Kovacs and Gregor Kral (background paper) the ideal method for expression of the dose should take account of the total leaf area in relation to the field area but should be sufficiently simple to be understandable on the product label and practical for farmers. It should also take account of the efficiency of spraying technique 22

22 Previous works - PULVEXACT Project ( ) LIDAR data recording for structures characterization (more than 55 orchards & vineyards) right

23 Previous works - PULVEXACT Project ( ) LIDAR data recording for structures characterization (more than 55 orchards & vineyards) right left 24

24 OPTIDOSA Project ( ) Real LAI measuring & crop parameters correlation Picking-up leaves to measure leaf area index (LAI) Pear (n=17) Apple (n=18) Peach (n=1) Grapevine (n=19)

25 Leaf Wall Area (LWA) h LWA Fruit & grapevines (n=55) R² = 0, LWA 0 0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 LAI measured OPTIDOSA Project ( ) 26

26 Tree Row Volume (TRV) Fruit & grapevines (n=55) w h TRV (m3 ha-1) R² = 0, TRV 0 0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 LAI measured OPTIDOSA Project ( ) 27

27 Canopy solid housing (CSH) w h + % gaps

28 Canopy solid housing (CSH) h z = h * (100- % gaps) h 33 % gaps 16 % gaps 90 % gaps h z LAI = f ( height, width, porosity)

29 Canopy solid housing (CSH) R 2 w h 5,0 4,0 Fruit & grapevines (n=55) R² = 0,86 LWA 0.48 TRV 0.68 CSH 0.86* (DOSA3D) Canopy solid hausing 3,0 2,0 1,0 0,0 0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 LAI measured OPTIDOSA Project ( ) 30

30 Summary Cropping structures in SZ: extreme differences Spraying equipment & penetrability Principles for dose expression and dose adjustment From DOSAFRUT to DOSA3D Conclusions & proposal 31

31 32

32 Hypothesis for effective dose deposition 1. High density net: min 100 impacts cm Robustness, mean droplet dimension: 225 µm Ø => Base dosing: 0.6 µl cm -2 = 60 L ha -1 VV LL haa 1 = 60 2 LLLLLL = 120 LLLLLL

33 VV = mmmmmm [100 h; (120 LLLLLL)/EE] Efficiency (E) = 40 80% Canopies structure Sprayer & nozzles performance Operating parameters (air flow rate, forward speed) Pest with additional volume requirements (R) Action of adjuvants (Co)

34 DOSAFRUT validation trials ( ) Bioefficacy (27) & chemical residues on fruits (7) Reference (untreated) Reference (untreated) DOSAFRUT DOSAFRUT Standard dose Standard dose

35 Crop dimensions and leafiness (pear orchard, cv. Williams) LAI, width & height (m) height height width width LAI width % gaps gaps 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% Percentage of gaps (%) 0 1/4/2012 1/4/ /4/ /4/ /5/ /5/ /5/ /5/ /6/ /6/ /7/ /7/ /7/ /7/ /8/ /8/2012 Date 10%

36 Ex.: Spray applications (7) during the growing season(pear orchard, cv. Williams) LAI 5,0 4,5 4,0 3,5 3,0 2,5 Volume rate 850 L ha , ,5 LAI V standard V adjusted 350 1,0 300 Apr-11 Apr-21 May-01 May-11 May-21 May-31 Jun-10 Jun-20 Date

37 Ex. Effect of dose adjustment on the number of P. piri larvae per shoot Generalised linear model with longitudinal data Estimation P value β Standard application: β1=0 log( µ ) = β0 + β1( application) + β2( date) + β3( application* date) larvae Volume adjusted Volume standard

38 Ex.: Spray applications (7) during the growing season(pear orchard, cv. Williams) LAI 5,0 L 850 ha -1 4,5 4,0 750 L ha ,5 3,0 2,5 2,0 1,5 600 L ha L ha -1 early medium full leaf LAI V adjusted 1,0 300 Apr-11 Apr-21 May-01 May-11 May-21 May-31 Jun-10 Jun-20 Date

39 Conversion between models of dose expression DOSA3D (L ha -1 ) Crop factor (CF) BBCH / LAI / Leafiness (m 2 /m 3 ) Spraying factor (SF) Efficiency Concentration (%) (kg/l) Liquid volume (L ha -1 ) Crop area (kg ha -1 ) 1 / Canopy height (m) Canopy height (m) * Canopy width (m) / Distance between rows (m) Tree Row Volume (kg ha -1 ) / (m 3 ha -1 ) 2 / Canopy width(m) Canopy height (kg ha -1 m -1 ) Distance between rows (m) / 2 Leaf Wall Area (kg ha -1 ) / (10 4 m 2 LWA ha -1 ) 40

40 Example of label for one product Concentration on the liquid tank: 0.05% Volume rate: adjust to the crop stage and spraying efficiency Canopy width Volume rate (L ha-1) for each 1 m of canopy height < 1.0 m m >2.0 m For more accurate adjustment use officially recognized tools + = 41

41 Conclusions & proposal LWA can be useful in the NZ & CZ where very narrow structures predominate To be reflexive before the introduction in the SZ: not the only method In the SZ, to recommend the dose by means: Concentration (%) + Volume rate (L ha -1 ) & adjusting the volume rate to: mid height mid width leafiness (growing stage or estimated porosity) For more accurate adjusting (spraying efficiency) Use officially recognized tools on internet / App mobile (ongoing)

42 Thanks!!! 43