Field evaluation of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) sprayer: effect of spray volume on deposition and the control of pests and disease in wheat

Wang, Guobin; Lan, Yubin; Huang, Qi; Chen, Pengchao; Hewitt, Andrew; Han, Yuxing

doi:10.1002/ps.5321

Cited by 165 publications

(122 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

115

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Wang et al . also revealed that UAVs are more cost effective and energy efficient compared to conventional sprayers . Comparisons of the mist sprayer and UAV revealed no statistically significant differences in terms of FHB control, but the working efficiency of the UAV was 13.3 times greater than that of the mist sprayer and the potential risks to humans and the environment were reduced.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…These results are in accordance with previous studies. 31 Comparison of the results suggested that one reason for the high deposition and low losses with the UAV and mist sprayer could be related to the higher droplet density and coverage. Pesticide application using an UAV tends to involve ultra-low volume spraying, resulting in a relatively high concentration of pesticide compared to traditional sprayers, the excess spray from which accounts for their low deposition rate.…”

Section: Analysis Of Spraying Deposition and Losses To Soilmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Application method affects pesticide efficiency and effectiveness in wheat fields

Xiao

Chen

Fan

et al. 2019

Pest Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND There is an urgent need to enhance pesticide effectiveness while reducing adverse environmental impacts, based on the pesticide reduction program that requires net zero growth in chemical pesticide applications by 2020. Agricultural production can benefit from appropriate pesticide application using the optimal method. In this study, the effects of different application methods on the effectiveness, spray deposition, and residue behaviour of 48% phenamacril · tebuconazole suspension concentrate (SC) in wheat production were compared to determine the most efficient and effective method. RESULTS 48% phenamacril · tebuconazole SC was most effective in controlling Fusarium head blight (FHB) and mycotoxin contamination. Statistically significant differences in the control effect, spray deposition, initial residues, and half‐life (t1/2) were subsequently observed with different application methods, suggesting that the application method plays a key role in pesticide availability and control efficiency. The differences in control efficiency and pesticide residues between application methods were thought to be related to droplet size, droplet distribution, and penetrability. Unmanned aerial vehicle and mister sprayers were found to effectively increase the control efficacy of 48% phenamacril · tebuconazole SC in terms of FHB control and mycotoxin concentrations, as well as enhancing pesticide availability. CONCLUSION These findings are of theoretical and practical value for the scientific application of pesticides in wheat, helping to enhance pesticide utilization while reducing harmful residues. © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Analysis Of Spraying Deposition and Losses To Soilmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application method affects pesticide efficiency and effectiveness in wheat fields

Xiao

Chen

Fan

et al. 2019

Pest Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In recent years, UAVs have been developed to conduct aerial applications of crop protection chemicals . UAV sprayers are capable of treating agricultural areas over complex geographic terrain not easily accessible to personnel or ground‐based machinery .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…7,9,10 In recent years, UAVs have been developed to conduct aerial applications of crop protection chemicals. [11][12][13][14][15][16] UAV sprayers are capable of treating agricultural areas over complex geographic terrain not easily accessible to personnel or ground-based machinery. 15 Commercial UAV pesticide applications have become available in the USA even though a literature gap concerning the need to optimize the use of this technology presently exists.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integration of remote‐weed mapping and an autonomous spraying unmanned aerial vehicle for site‐specific weed management

Hunter

Gannon

Richardson

et al. 2019

Pest Management Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have been used in agriculture to collect imagery for crop and pest monitoring, and for decision‐making purposes. Spraying‐capable UAVs are now commercially available worldwide for agricultural applications. Combining UAV weed mapping and UAV sprayers into an UAV integrated system (UAV‐IS) can offer a new alternative to implement site‐specific pest management. RESULTS The UAV‐IS was 0.3‐ to 3‐fold more efficient at identifying and treating target weedy areas, while minimizing treatment on non‐weedy areas, than ground‐based broadcast applications. The UAV‐IS treated 20–60% less area than ground‐based broadcast applications, but also missed up to 26% of the target weedy area, while broadcast applications covered almost the entire experimental area and only missed 2–3% of the target weeds. The efficiency of UAV‐IS management practices increased as weed spatial aggregation increased (patchiness). CONCLUSION Integrating UAV imagery for pest mapping and UAV sprayers can provide a new strategy for integrated pest management programs to improve efficiency and efficacy while reducing the amount of pesticide being applied. The UAV‐IS has the potential to improve the detection and control of weed escapes to reduce/delay herbicide resistance evolution. © 2019 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.

show abstract

“…Agricultural aerial spraying includes manned and unmanned aircraft [9] . Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is more suitable for small farming plots [10] . It has been already commonly used in Japan and Korea [11,12] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Weed control effect of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) application in wheat field

Chen¹,

Qi²,

Li³

et al. 2018

International Journal of Precision Agricultural Aviation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wheat is a major food source throughout the world. However, biological factors like pests and weeds can lead to lower crop yield. Most crop protection nowadays involves pesticide and herbicides application. This is commonly conducted with knapsack in China, which is inefficient and high labor intensive. Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) are an aerial spraying technology recently-developed. Using UAV application is more flexible and standardized, the spraying efficiency is 60 times more than knapsack sprayer. However, weed management using UAV is still a challenge. Low spray volume and droplet density with less penetration may affect weed control efficacy. High droplet concentration may induce crop injury. This study focused on discovering crop safety and weed control efficacy of UAV in wheat fields. Different herbicides, rates and spray volume were tested for pre-emergence (PRE) and post-emergence (POST). The results show that no crop injury was induced for PRE. While 10%-20% injury on wheat was found for POST. All herbicides treatments showed significant effects on weed management compared to untreated control. However, the efficacy was not stable between years and fields. Weed management for PRE can reach 98%-100% when the soil is humid, smooth and with no straw coverage when using diflufenican + isoproturon (120 + 1200 g ai ha-1). For POST application via UAV, weed injury ranged from 10% injury to 70%, in which isoproturon + clodinafop-propargyl + mesosulfuron (120 + 7.5 + 0.9 g ai ha-1) injured weed the most in 2018 (reached 70%). Knapsack sprayer showed relatively better weed control efficacy in many cases for POST applications. Weeds showed certain degree of resistance. In general, PRE application with UAV showed better potential, but herbicide spraying needs to be combined with field management to achieve better weed management efficacy.

show abstract

Field evaluation of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) sprayer: effect of spray volume on deposition and the control of pests and disease in wheat

Cited by 165 publications

References 27 publications

Application method affects pesticide efficiency and effectiveness in wheat fields

Application method affects pesticide efficiency and effectiveness in wheat fields

Integration of remote‐weed mapping and an autonomous spraying unmanned aerial vehicle for site‐specific weed management

Weed control effect of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) application in wheat field

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About