Specialty crops, like flowers, herbs, and vegetables, generally do not have an adequate spectrum of herbicide chemistries to control weeds and have been dependent on hand weeding to achieve commercially acceptable weed control. However, labor shortages have led to higher costs for hand weeding. There is a need to develop labor-saving technologies for weed control in specialty crops if production costs are to be contained. Machine vision technology, together with data processors, have been developed to enable commercial machines to recognize crop row patterns and control automated devices that perform tasks such as removal of intrarow weeds, as well as to thin crops to desired stands. The commercial machine vision systems depend upon a size difference between the crops and weeds and/or the regular crop row pattern to enable the system to recognize crop plants and control surrounding weeds. However, where weeds are large or the weed population is very dense, then current machine vision systems cannot effectively differentiate weeds from crops. Commercially available automated weeders and thinners today depend upon cultivators or directed sprayers to control weeds. Weed control actuators on future models may use abrasion with sand blown in an air stream or heating with flaming devices to kill weeds. Future weed control strategies will likely require adaptation of the crops to automated weed removal equipment. One example would be changes in crop row patterns and spacing to facilitate cultivation in two directions. Chemical company consolidation continues to reduce the number of companies searching for new herbicides; increasing costs to develop new herbicides and price competition from existing products suggest that the downward trend in new herbicide development will continue. In contrast, automated weed removal equipment continues to improve and become more effective.

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.

In recent years, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) technology has expanded to include UAV sprayers capable of applying pesticides. Very little research has been conducted to optimize application parameters and measure the potential of off-target movement from UAV-based pesticide applications. Field experiments were conducted in Raleigh, NC during spring 2018 to characterize the effect of different application speeds and nozzle types on target area coverage and uniformity of UAV applications. The highest coverage was achieved with an application speed of 1 m s⁻¹ and ranged from 30% to 60%, whereas applications at 7 m s⁻¹ yielded 13% to 22% coverage. Coverage consistently decreased as application speed increased across all nozzles, with extended-range flat-spray nozzles declining at a faster rate than air-induction nozzles, likely due to higher drift. Experiments measuring the drift potential of UAV-applied pesticides using extended-range flat spray, air-induction flat-spray, turbo air–induction flat-spray, and hollow-cone nozzles under 0, 2, 4, 7, and 9 m s⁻¹ perpendicular wind conditions in the immediate 1.75 m above the target were conducted in the absence of natural wind. Off-target movement was observed under all perpendicular wind conditions with all nozzles tested but was nondetectable beyond 5 m away from the target. Coverage from all nozzles exhibited a concave-shaped curve in response to the increasing perpendicular wind speed due to turbulence. The maximum target coverage in drift studies was observed when the perpendicular wind was 0 and 8.94 m s⁻¹, but higher turbulence at the two highest perpendicular wind speeds (6.71 and 8.94 m s⁻¹) increased coverage variability, whereas the lowest variability was observed at 2.24 m s⁻¹ wind speed. Results suggested that air-induction flat-spray and turbo air–induction flat-spray nozzles and an application speed of 3 m s⁻¹ provided an adequate coverage of target areas while minimizing off-target movement risk.

Common waterhemp, giant foxtail, and velvetleaf seed germination in response to temperature was studied with a two-way thermogradient plate. Seeds were maintained under dark and wet conditions at 4 C for 12 wk, and velvetleaf seeds were scarified before the experiments were conducted. The seeds were germinated at 25 different temperature treatments. Minimum and optimum temperatures for velvetleaf germination were approximately 8 and 24 C, respectively. Temperature alternation did not affect the germination of this species. The minimum germination temperature was 10 C for common waterhemp and 14 C for giant foxtail. The optimum germination of giant foxtail occurred at approximately 24 C, but common waterhemp optimum germination was variable depending on temperature alternation. Increased amplitude of the diurnal temperature alternation increased percent germination of these two species, and this was more evident at lower temperatures. In the case of common waterhemp, the temperature required to reach specific germination percentages was reduced by increasing the amplitude of the temperature alternation.