scholarly journals Comparison of Spray Deposition, Control Efficacy on Wheat Aphids and Working Efficiency in the Wheat Field of the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle with Boom Sprayer and Two Conventional Knapsack Sprayers

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guobin Wang ◽  
Yubin Lan ◽  
Huizhu Yuan ◽  
Haixia Qi ◽  
Pengchao Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle ◽  
Spray Deposition ◽  
Wheat Crop ◽  
Control Efficacy ◽  
Wheat Field ◽  
Run Off ◽  
Aerial Vehicle ◽  
Deposition Uniformity ◽  
Working Efficiency ◽  
Deposition Control

As a new low volume application technology, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) application is developing quickly in China. The aim of this study was to compare the droplet deposition, control efficacy and working efficiency of a six-rotor UAV with a self-propelled boom sprayer and two conventional knapsack sprayers on the wheat crop. The total deposition of UAV and other sprayers were not statistically significant, but significantly lower for run-off. The deposition uniformity and droplets penetrability of the UAV were poor. The deposition variation coefficient of the UAV was 87.2%, which was higher than the boom sprayer of 31.2%. The deposition on the third top leaf was only 50.0% compared to the boom sprayer. The area of coverage of the UAV was 2.2% under the spray volume of 10 L/ha. The control efficacy on wheat aphids of UAV was 70.9%, which was comparable to other sprayers. The working efficiency of UAV was 4.11 ha/h, which was roughly 1.7–20.0 times higher than the three other sprayers. Comparable control efficacy results suggest that UAV application could be a viable strategy to control pests with higher efficiency. Further improvement on deposition uniformity and penetrability are needed.

scholarly journals Comparison of Droplet Deposition Control Efficacy on Phytophthora capsica and Aphids in the Processing Pepper Field of the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle and Knapsack Sprayer

Agronomy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qinggang Xiao ◽  
Rui Du ◽  
Lin Yang ◽  
Xiaoqiang Han ◽  
Sifeng Zhao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle ◽  
Phytophthora Capsici ◽  
Droplet Deposition ◽  
High Concentration ◽  
Control Effect ◽  
Control Efficacy ◽  
Continuous Growth ◽  
Knapsack Sprayer ◽  
Aerial Vehicle ◽  
Pillar Industry

Processing pepper planting and processing have become an important red pillar industry in Xinjiang. With the continuous growth of processing pepper planting areas in Xinjiang, diseases and pests are increasing year by year. The aim of this study was to compare the droplet deposition and control efficiency of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and electric air-pressure knapsack (EAP) sprayers on a processing pepper field. The UAV sprayer had a poor droplet coverage rate, droplet density, and deposition uniformity, but displayed the best deposition (1.01 μg/cm2, which was 98% more than the EAP sprayer). The control efficacy of the UAV sprayer on processing pepper fields with Phytophthora capsici and aphids was slightly lower than that of the EAP sprayer. When the UAV sprayer was used to control processing pepper diseases and pests, it could reduce the pesticide dosage on the premise of ensuring the control effect. Further study of the residue of high concentration pesticides in pepper fruit and environment sprayed by UAVs are needed.

Assessment of spray deposition, drift and mass balance from unmanned aerial vehicle sprayer using an artificial vineyard

2021 ◽  
pp. 146181
Author(s):  
Changling Wang ◽  
Herbst Andreas ◽  
Aijun Zeng ◽  
Wongsuk Supakorn ◽  
Baiyu Qiao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mass Balance ◽  
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle ◽  
Spray Deposition ◽  
Aerial Vehicle

scholarly journals Evaluation of herbicides aerially applied from a small unmanned aerial vehicle over wheat field

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-53
Author(s):  
Kunpeng Zhang ◽  
Jianguang Chen ◽  
Chaoyang Wang ◽  
Libin Han ◽  
Zengzhen Shang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle ◽  
Wheat Field ◽  
Aerial Vehicle

<i>Assessment of spray deposition and losses in the apple orchard from agricultural unmanned aerial vehicle in China</i>

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Longlong Li ◽  
Yajia Liu ◽  
Xiongkui He ◽  
Jianli Song ◽  
Aijun Zeng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle ◽  
Spray Deposition ◽  
Apple Orchard ◽  
Aerial Vehicle

scholarly journals Evaluation of nitrogen status in a wheat crop using unmanned aerial vehicle images

2021 ◽  
Vol 81 (3) ◽  
pp. 408-419
Author(s):  
Víctor Manuel Gordillo-Salinas ◽  
Héctor Flores-Magdaleno ◽  
Carlos Alberto Ortiz-Solorio ◽  
Ramón Arteaga-Ramírez
Keyword(s):  
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle ◽  
Wheat Crop ◽  
Nitrogen Status ◽  
Aerial Vehicle

Measurement of Pesticide Drift from Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Application to a Vineyard

2018 ◽  
Vol 61 (5) ◽  
pp. 1539-1546 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin R. Brown ◽  
Durham K. Giles
Keyword(s):  
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle ◽  
Collection Efficiency ◽  
Spray Deposition ◽  
Air Samples ◽  
Remotely Piloted Aircraft ◽  
Pesticide Drift ◽  
Aerial Vehicle ◽  
Ground Deposition ◽  
Commercial Pesticide ◽  
Edge Based

Abstract. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are now being used to perform commercial pesticide applications in California, but little information is available regarding the amount of pesticide drift resulting from these applications. The physical dimensions and operating speed of UAVs differ substantially from those of manned aircraft and fall outside the validated range of spray dispersion models. This study measured spray drift from a 0.84 ha aerial pesticide application of imidacloprid performed with a Yamaha R-Max II UAV over a Napa Valley vineyard. Downwind deposition samples, in-swath deposition samples, and downwind air samples were collected up to 48 m downwind of the application field. In-swath deposition samples measured approximately 57% of the target rate, while downwind drift deposition decreased from approximately 0.4% at 7.5 m downwind to 0.03% at 48 m downwind. All air samples were below the method detection limit. A drift deposition curve fitted to measured ground deposition using a log-log second-degree polynomial function yielded an R2 value of 0.985. An estimated 0.28% to 0.54% of applied material was lost as drift out to 50 m downwind of the field edge based on ground deposition measurements, 82% of which deposited within the first 7.5 m downwind. Uncertainty in mass accountancy and deposition measurements is discussed, with sources of error including obstructions in the downwind measurement area, low collection efficiency of the sampling media, a high coefficient of variation of spray deposition in the treatment field, and possible photodegradation of the tracer material. Keywords: Aerial application, AGDISP, Pesticide deposition, Pesticide drift, Remotely piloted aircraft, UAV, Unmanned aerial vehicle, Vineyard.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document