Role of hedgerows in intercepting spray drift: Evaluation and modelling of the effects

When a pesticide is applied a proportion of the sprayed solution may become a cause of pollution in the surrounding environment, with ecotoxicological implications and phytotoxicity to other crops. In many countries buffer zones along field edges are recommended to shield surface waters, and hedgerows can play an important role in reducing pesticide risk. This study focuses on droplet drift, with the aim of evaluating the hedgerow efficacy in reducing drift from broadcast air-assisted sprayers and then to construct a simple model for estimating the spray drift level in surrounding fields. Three experiments were conducted in North-East Italy in 2004 and 2005, in winter, summer and autumn to obtain suitable optical porosity values in order to evaluate their effects. Three study situations (no hedgerow, single, double hedgerow) and two sprayer-hedgerow interaction scenarios (sprayer working perpendicular to or parallel with the hedgerow) were considered. Hedgerows were 7-8 m in height, while spray release height ranged from 1 to 2 m. The sampling method proved to be effective, with more than 73% of total amount sprayed being intercepted. Where there was at least one hedgerow, off-site spray reductions ranged from 82.6 (with optical porosity of 74.7%) to 97% (with optical porosity of 10.8%). The presence of a double hedgerow did not produce a higher interception rate. Analysis of the spatial pattern of drift showed that where there is a hedgerow with an optical porosity of 74-75%, the aerial drift caused by common broadcast air-assisted sprayers becomes negligible at a distance of 6-7 m. Hedgerows thus proved to be effective in intercepting spray drift leaving cultivated fields. In particular, low optical porosities provided high interception rates, even with very dense canopies, as no spray bypass was recorded. Spray drift profile was then modelled taking into account the effect of wind and optical porosity of a nearby hedgerow. A negative-exponential model is proposed. The model fits the experimental data quite satisfactorily and may be used to estimate spray drift magnitude in relation to wind speed and optical porosity of any hedgerow crossed by a droplets cloud spray drift.

[1]  Gordon M. Heisler,et al.  2. Effects of windbreak structure on wind flow , 1988 .

[2]  P. Holland,et al.  DRIFT FROM ORCHARD SPRAYING , 1997 .

[3]  Yvan Pannatier,et al.  Variowin: Software for Spatial Data Analysis in 2D , 1996 .

[4]  J. C. van de Zande,et al.  Air inclusion nozzles don't reduce pollution of surface water during orchard spraying in the Netherlands. , 2002 .

[5]  A. Burn.  Pesticide buffer zones for the protection of wildlife. , 2003, Pest management science.

[6]  Miguel A. Altieri,et al.  Biodiversity And Pest Management In Agroecosystems , 1994 .

[7]  Miguel A. Altieri,et al.  The effects of a vegetational corridor on the abundance and dispersal of insect biodiversity within a northern California organic vineyard , 2001, Landscape Ecology.

[8]  T. Uçar,et al.  Wind tunnel studies on spray deposition on leaves of tree species used for windbreaks and exposure of honey bees. , 2003, Pest management science.

[9]  R. M. Aiken,et al.  Positional, Spatially Correlated and Random Components of Variability in Carbon Dioxide Efllux , 1991 .

[10]  Ian Craig,et al.  The GDS model—a rapid computational technique for the calculation of aircraft spray drift buffer distances , 2004 .

[11]  J. F. Maber,et al.  The effect of canopy development and sprayer position on spray drift from a pipfruit orchard , 2000 .

[12]  P. Fontana,et al.  Diversity and abundance of phytoseiid mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae) in vineyards and the surrounding vegetation in northeastern Italy , 2004 .

[13]  W. A. Kenney,et al.  A method for estimating windbreak porosity using digitized photographic silhouettes , 1987 .

[14]  P. Thorne.  Atmospheric science: The answer is blowing in the wind , 2008 .

[15]  M Calliera,et al.  Rating systems for pesticide risk classification on different ecosystems. , 2001, Ecotoxicology and environmental safety.

[16]  J. Dabrowski,et al.  Pesticide interception by emergent aquatic macrophytes: Potential to mitigate spray-drift input in agricultural streams , 2005 .

[17]  J. C. van de Zande,et al.  The effect of windbreak height and air assistance on exposure of surface water via spray drift , 2000 .

[18]  T. Uçar,et al.  Windbreaks as a pesticide drift mitigation strategy: a review. , 2001, Pest management science.

[19]  A. Hewitt,et al.  Spray drift: impact of requirements to protect the environment. , 2000 .

[20]  C. Qualset,et al.  Biodiversity in agroecosystems , 1998 .

[21]  R. Webster,et al.  Statistical Methods in Soil and Land Resource Survey. , 1990 .

[22]  Graham Matthews,et al.  Working towards more efficient application of pesticides , 2000 .

[23]  N. Woods,et al.  The entrapment of particles by windbreaks , 2001 .

[24]  C. Nicholls,et al.  Biodiversity, Ecosystem Function, and Insect Pest Management in Agricultural Systems , 1999 .

[25]  H. Ganzelmeier,et al.  Drift, drift reducing sprayers and sprayer testing. , 2000 .

[26]  Willem A.H. Asman,et al.  Dry Deposition and Spray Drift of Pesticides to Nearby Water Bodies , 2003 .