4.7 Article

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

Journal

PEST MANAGEMENT SCIENCE
Volume 75, Issue 6, Pages 1546-1555

Publisher

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/ps.5321

Keywords

unmanned aerial vehicle; electric air-pressure knapsack sprayer; pesticide deposition; control efficacy; wheat aphid; wheat powdery mildew

Funding

  1. National Key Research and Development Plan: High Efficient Ground and Aerial Spraying Technology and Intelligent Equipment [2016YFD0200700]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are a recently developed aerial spraying technology. However, the effect of spray volume variation on deposition and pesticide control efficacy is unknown. The effect of three UAV spray volumes (9.0, 16.8 and 28.1 L ha(-1)) using three different nozzle sizes on droplet deposition and wheat aphid and powdery mildew control efficacy was assessed. An electric air-pressure knapsack (EAP) sprayer was used as a comparison. RESULTS Different spray volumes significantly influenced the deposition and control efficacy of the UAV and EAP. For the UAV, a low spray volume of 9.0 L ha(-1) with a fine nozzle (nozzle LU120-01) resulted in lower deposition and control efficacy. Optimal control efficacy was achieved with coarser nozzles (nozzles LU120-02, -03) at > 16.8 L ha(-1) volume with systemic insecticide, and at 28.1 L ha(-1) with contact insecticide and fungicide. For EAP, a high spray volume led to run-off, and a spray volume of 225 L ha(-1) achieved better deposition and control efficacy. CONCLUSION The UAV had comparable deposition and efficacy control to the EAP at a higher spray volume (> 16.8 L ha(-1)) with coarse nozzles, but exhibited inferior deposition and efficacy control at a lower spray volume (<9.0 L ha(-1)) with fine nozzles. (c) 2019 Society of Chemical Industry

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available