4.7 Article

Quantifying pesticide deposits and spray patterns at micro-scales on apple (Malus domesticus) leaves with a view to arthropod exposure

期刊

PEST MANAGEMENT SCIENCE
卷 74, 期 12, 页码 2884-2893

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ps.5136

关键词

fungicide; penconazole; orchard; residue analysis; spatial variation; water-sensitive paper

资金

  1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (Swindon, UK) [BB/L024497/1]
  2. ADAMA Agricultural Solutions UK Ltd. (Thatcham, UK)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND Pesticides used in commercial crop systems can adversely affect non-target arthropod populations. The spatial distribution of pesticide residues is rarely studied at scales relevant to these populations. Here, we combine two methods for assessing pesticide spray deposits at spatial scales relevant to non-target arthropods found in apple orchards. Pesticide residues were determined on individual apple leaves through conventional residue analysis; water-sensitive paper was used to investigate spatial distributions in deposits at the micro-scale. We also evaluated how accurately a digital image analysis program estimated pesticide residues. RESULTS CONCLUSION We found that mean pesticide spray coverage on water-sensitive paper varied by up to 6.1% (95% CI 9.4%, 2.7%) within an apple orchard, and leaf residues varied by up to 0.95 (95% CI 0.54, 1.36) mg kg(-1) within a tree. Leaf residues based on analytical chemistry were six times lower than pesticide deposition estimated through image analysis of water-sensitive paper, although these correlated strongly. This correlation allowed estimation of actual residues by application of a correction factor. Our method demonstrates accurate estimation of pesticide deposits at the individual leaf scale through digital analysis of water-sensitive paper and is a low-cost, rapid alternative to conventional residue analysis techniques. (c) 2018 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据