Comparing the Efficacy of Fungicide Application Technologies for Disease Control in Tomatoes

Richard C. Derksen, Ph.D. Sally A. Miller, Ph.D.

Agricultural Research Service, USDA OARDC, Plant Pathology Dept.
1680 Madison Avenue, Wooster, OH 44691

Background: Pest management guidelines provide little information that would be helpful to growers in selecting
appropriate pesticide delivery equipment. Fungicides are traditionally applied using high pressure, hollow cone
nozzles. Operated in this manner, hollow cone nozzles can produce a significant amount of drift that does not
provide the intended biological impact. There is little research evidence that, provided applications are made in a
timely manner, high pressure, hollow cone nozzles enhance placement of and efficacy of fungicides. New, low-drift
nozzles may provide similar biological benefits. Air-assisted applications are becoming increasing available to
growers. This technology has been shown, in some cases, to increase the uniformity of deposits through a canopy
and to reduce spray drift. Previously research demonstrated that air-assisted technology was the only effective
means for producing deposits on the undersides of leaves.

Objective: The objective of this research was to assess spray deposit and coverage characteristics produced by
conventional and air-assisted spray delivery systems and to evaluate their impact on tomato disease management.

Materials and Methods: In 2000, one set of field experiments was conducted at the OARDC Plant Pathology farm
in Wooster with four replications per treatment organized in a randomized complete block design. Thirteen
fungicide sprayer treatments and one no-spray treatment were included in the experiment. A second field site was
also established in Fremont, Ohio. Processing tomatoes (Peto seed Hypeel 696) were used as the test crop. Each
plot consisted of three, 40-ft rows, spaced on 5-ft centers. Chlorothalonil (Bravo) was applied on a 7-10 day
schedule at various rates depending on the treatment. The application rate per spray was determined based on label
recommendations. Plants were evaluated for disease incidence and severity three times throughout the growing
season. Fruit was evaluated at harvest for anthracnose and other fruit rots. Red and non-red fruit yields were
measured at harvest based on sampling from the center row of the plot.

Most Wooster treatments were made using an application rate of 25 gpa. The D2-23 and D4-25 treatments made
applications at 12.5 and 40 gpa respectively. Table 1 shows the different operating parameters for each treatment.
The 2.5 mph Myers Mity Mist treatment served as a comparison to 1998 and 1999 experiments. The AI11003
treatment used an air-induction nozzle that produces relatively large, air-filled, droplets. Many manufacturers claim
that these air-filled droplets increase coverage where the droplets deposit. Copper-ion treatments were made using
well water treated with a copper-ion generator supplied by Superior Water (Fort Wayne, IN). Other treatments
made with copper added to the spray mix were to study the effect of additional copper on disease management.
Control treatments made using only the copper ionized water served to independently evaluate the influence of this
technology on disease management.

In 1998 and 1999, the Myers Mity Mist produced significantly higher lower leaf surface coverage than any
conventional broadcast treatment. The Myers Mity Mist sprayer consisted of a traditional orchard type air blast
sprayer with the fan direction reversed to draw air in from the sides and top of the sprayer and out the back of the
machine through a 20-ft wide metal shroud. The exit air velocity was approximately 40 mph and was directed down
and approximately 30 degrees back from vertical. The nozzles were positioned in the center of the air outlet. For
the 2000 experiments, the Myers sprayer was set up to operate at 2.5 mph as well as 5 mph. The application rate of
25 gpa was maintained by increasing nozzle pressure to increase nozzle output.

Spray coverage evaluations were made using water, a fluorescent tracer, and 0.1% surfactant (X-77) tank mix. One
coverage evaluation was made on each of the four replicates of each treatment during the last two weeks of August.
Following the application of the fluorescent tracer tank mix, four leaves were picked from each of the top and
middle canopy elevations, on three different plants, in the center row of the plots. Coverage measurements were
made on one, 7mm x 7mm area, on each side of each leaf. A computer imaging system was used to take pictures of
the leaves and to calculate the area of the leaf under the camera covered by the fluorescent tracer.

1
A water-soluble food coloring was used to evaluate the quantity of material deposited on the tomato leaves.
Following application of the dye, five leaves were picked from each of the top and middle canopy elevations, on
four different plants, in the center row of the plots. The quantity of dye on each leaf was determined by washing
each leaf in water and measuring the concentration of dye in the rinsate.

Similar disease management studies were conducted at the Fremont, OH, location. Two nozzle treatments, making
30 gpa applications, were evaluated at this location: 1) AI11002 (50 psi, 5 mph) and 2) D2-23 (20 psi, 5 mph). Full
rate and half-rate Bravo applications were made with each nozzle treatment.

Table 1. 2000 Wooster tomato foliar deposits and spray coverage by leaf surface.

Travel %Coverage %Coverage

Pressure Speed Source Leaf Deposits Upper Surface Lower Surface
Treatment (psi) (mph) Water (µg/cm2) All elevations All elevations
Myers Air 22 2.5 well 0.868 b* 47 c d* 15 b*
Myers Air 110 5.0 well 1.276 a 64 a 26 a
Myers Air 110 5.0 Cu-ion 0.868 b 61 a b 24 a
AI11003 77 5.0 well 0.649 c d 41 d 1 d
XR8004 50 5.0 well 0.767 bc 54 bc 3 d
D2-23 240 5.0 well 0.556 d 29 e 3 c d
D4-25 240 5.0 well 0.652 c d 59 a b 8 c
D3-25 230 5.0 well 0.561 d 43 d 3 c d
D3-25 230 5.0 Cu-ion 0.497 d 39 d 4 c d
*Numbers in the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different from each other

Results and Discussion: Mean foliar spray deposits for each sprayer treatment are shown in Table 1. Higher spray
deposits were found in the top part of the plant canopy. Two slower speed treatments, XR8002 and Myers,
deposited nearly as much material in the lower elevations as in the upper elevations. The 2.5 mph Myers treatment
produced high foliar deposits and spray coverage in 1998 and 1999. The Myers also produced relatively high spray
deposits at the faster travel speed in 2000. The air-assist sprayer produced the highest spray coverage on both upper
and lower leaf surfaces. The flat fan treatment performed similar to the slower air sprayer treatment except it
produced significantly lower coverage on the bottoms of leaves. There were also some notable differences between
hollow cone treatments of various spray volumes. The results show that the higher volume, D4-25, hollow cone
nozzle treatment produced higher spray deposits and significantly higher spray coverage than the low volume, D2-
23, hollow cone treatment. There were no significant differences in spray deposits between the 12.5 and 25 gpa
hollow cone treatments except the D3-25 treatments produced significantly higher upper leaf surface coverage.
Deposits produced by the venturi-type, AI11003, drift reduction nozzle were not significantly different from the
other conventional sprayer treatments. The upper surface leaf coverage produced by this treatment was similar to
that produced by the high pressure, hollow cone nozzle making applications at the same rate but lower than the
conventional flat fan treatment.

As in 1999, the copper ion treated water did not appear to significantly change sprayer performance as measured by
deposits and coverage. Both treatments using the copper ion treated water produced slightly lower deposits than did
similar nozzle treatments using standard well water for the tank mix. It should be noted that only small droplets can
be charged to a point where they will overcome the gravitational and inertial forces necessary to be attracted to the
plant canopy. Many of the droplets produced by the XR110015 nozzle on the Myers and the D3-25 hollow cone
nozzle are too large to be charged effectively. It is also possible that a smaller concentration of copper ions may
have exited the nozzles than initially mixed in the spray tank if the ions were acting on materials on the inside of the
spray tank and spray lines. Other observations indicated that the copper ion treated water supply helped clean tanks
and spray lines and to control algae.

Table 2 shows some of the results of the foliar and fruit disease observations and the yields for each sprayer
treatment in Wooster. Different spray solutions were evaluated with some of the sprayer treatments to enable

2
evaluation of the effects of reduced rates of application and of using copper ion treated water. In 2000, weather
conditions in Wooster were favorable for good production but plant were relatively small. Yields were
approximately 1/3 to 1/4 less than normally expected (6 to 12 tons/acre).

All fungicide treatments resulted in lower levels of foliar infection than the no spray, control treatment. Levels of
foliar infection were also lower in the copper ion water treatment that did not include any Bravo than the no spray,
control treatment. No significant differences in the levels of foliar infection between any of the sprayer treatments
making Bravo application were observed. There were no significant differences in marketable fruit yield between
any of the treatments, regardless of sprayer type or use of fungicide.

Table 2. 2000 Wooster tomato disease observations and yields by treatments.

Sprayer or Nozzle Source Marketable Yield

Treatment Tank Mix Water % Foliar Infection (tons/acre)
Control – no spray 49.75a* 10.64 a*
Myers Air (2.5 mph) Bravo well 18.0 c d 6.04 a
Myers Air (5.0 mph) Bravo well 12.5 c d 9.69 a
Myers Air (5.0 mph) Bravo Cu-ion 15.75 c d 10.56 a
AI11003 Bravo well 13.5 c d 11.77 a
XR8004 Bravo well 15.75 c d 8.46 a
D2-23 (12.5 gpa) Bravo well 11.25 d 8.08 a
D4-25 (40 gpa) Bravo well 12.5 c d 10.84 a
D3-25 none well 38.5 a b 9.69 a
D3-25 none Cu-ion 27.5 c d 11.48 a
D3-25 Bravo (half rate) well 18.0 c d 8.29 a
D3-25 Bravo well 11.25 d 8.33 a
D3-25 Bravo Cu-ion 18.25 c d 8.56 a
D3-25 Bravo+copper well 7.0 d 9.56 a
*Numbers in the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different from each other

While rainfall in Fremont was well above average for the growing period, these treatments were not flooded. No
measures of deposit characteristics were made in the Fremont experiments. Disease ratings were made in Fremont
in August and September. Despite significant differences in rates of active ingredients and droplet spectrums, there
were no significant differences in foliar infection between treatments and the no spray, control at any point before
harvest. Harvest evaluations showed that there were no significant differences in the amount of healthy, red, fruit
produced by each treatment.

Field tests conducted between 1998 and 2000 with processing tomatoes revealed that different spraying systems
influence the fate of spray. Conventional nozzle treatments have produced the greatest variability in deposits by
canopy height. They have also been shown to be the least effective means for producing spray deposits on the
undersides of leaves. Large droplet applications, such as those made with drift reduction nozzles, have been shown
to deposit similar amounts of material within relatively small processing tomato canopies but spray coverage is
reduced. Air-assisted spray delivery has consistently provided relatively high spray deposits and spray coverage.
However, several factors must be considered when using air-assisted delivery including travel speed, droplet size,
air volume, air speed, and the orientation of the air-spray stream. These factors must be properly balanced to ensure
that spray deposits in the most efficacious manner in a canopy. Because of weather conditions and other factors, it
has not been possible to develop correlations between spray deposit characteristics and biological results. However,
these results will help processing tomato growers understand the fate of sprays they apply by various techniques and
demonstrate how growers may be able to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their applications. Such
improvements could reduce the amount of pesticide needed to provide economic control of pests of tomatoes and
other crops as well as ensure a safe and abundant food supply. Additional biological investigations are still
necessary to determine the relationship between spray deposit, spray coverage, and biological efficacy.