Performances evaluation of four typical unmanned aerial vehicles used for pesticide application in China

Background: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) are increasingly being used commercially for crop protection in East Asia as a new type of equipment for pesticide applications, which is receiving more and more attention worldwide. A new model of pear cultivation called the ‘Double Primary Branches Along the Row Flat Type’ standard trellised pear orchards (FT orchard) is widely used in China, Japan, Korea, and other Asian countries because it saves manpower and is suitable for mechanization compared to traditional spindle and open-center cultivation. The disease and pest efficacy of the flat-type trellised canopy structure of this cultivation is a great challenge. Therefore, a UAV spraying trial was conducted in an FT orchard, and a four-factor (SV: Spray application volume rate, FS: Flight speed, FH: Flight height, FD: Flight direction) and 3-level orthogonal test were designed. Results: These data were used to analyze the effect, including spray coverage, deposit density, coefficient of variation, and penetration coefficient on the canopy, to determine the optimal operating parameters of the UAV for pest efficacy in FT orchards. The analysis of extremes of variance showed that factor FD had a significant effect on both spray coverage and deposition density. Followed by factor FS, which had a greater effect on spray coverage (p < 0.05), and factor SV, FH, which had a greater effect on deposition density (p < 0.05). The effects of different factors on spray coverage and deposit density were FD > FS > FH > SV, FD > FH > SV > FS, in that order. The SV3-FS1-FH1-FD3, which flight along the row with an application rate of 90 L/ha, a flight speed of 1.5 m/s, and a flight height of 4.5 m, was the optimal combination, which produced the highest deposit density and spray coverage. It was determined through univariate analysis of all experimental groups, using droplet density of 25/cm² and spray coverage of 1%, and uniformity of 40% as the measurement index, that T4 and T8 performed the best and could meet the control requirements in different horizontal and vertical directions of the pear canopy. The parameters were as follows: flight along the tree rows, application rate not less than 75 L/ha, flight speed no more than 2 m/s, and flight height not higher than 5 m. Conclusion: This article provides ample data to promote innovation in the use of UAVs for crop protection programs in pergola/vertical trellis system orchards such as FT orchards. At the same time, this project provided a comprehensive analysis of canopy deposition methods and associated recommendations for UAV development and applications.

Testing method and distribution characteristics of spatial pesticide spraying deposition quality balance for unmanned aerial vehicle

Drift potential of UAV with adjuvants in aerial applications

Efficient utilization is a pre-requisite for pesticide reduction, and appropriate airflow distribution pattern plays a key role in enhancing the effectiveness of pesticide application by air-assisted orchard sprayers, yet the mechanism of this is unclear. In order to clarify the specific effects of airflow velocity and direction on spraying efficacy, a series of spray tests on pear and cherry and airflow distribution tests in open areas were conducted by a multi-unit air-assisted sprayer on ten different fan settings. Several deposit indicators were analyzed and contrasted with the air distribution. The results showed that an increase in airflow velocity inside the canopy improved the abaxial side deposit coverage of both pear (from 3.33% to 11.80% in the Top canopy and from 6.26% to 11.00% in the Upper canopy) and cherry leaves (from 3.61% to 10.87% in the Top canopy, from 1.36% to 9.04% in the Middle canopy, and from 3.40% to 9.04% in the Bottom canopy), but had no significant effect on the spray penetration. The correlation between deposit indicators and airflow velocities/directions was evaluated, and the results indicated that the enhanced airflow velocities, both in the forward and horizontal direction, improved the abaxial side deposit coverage (CAB) on the outside of pear canopy (p < 0.001), but for cherry, none of the airflow indicators had a significant impact on the CAB independently. On the other hand, the increased airflow direction angle in the cross-row plane for pear, as well as the increased airflow velocities in forward and vertical direction for cherry, both showed negative effects on the adaxial side deposit coverage (p < 0.01). The findings in this study might be helpful to improve the performance of pesticide application in orchards, especially for abaxial side deposition, and could provide a reference for the further investigations about the effect of airflow on spray canopy deposition.

Highlights Field tests were performed in an orchard to evaluate spray performance of an unmanned agricultural aircraft system. A conventional air-assisted orchard sprayer was applied as a reference for comparing the feasibility of UAAS. The canopy deposition, airborne drift, loss to ground, and sprayer external contamination were tested. Field test results can provide a reference for the application of UAAS for pest control in orchards. Abstract. Unmanned agricultural aircraft system (UAAS) technology has developed rapidly in China in recent years. Due to their high application efficiency, all-terrain operation, and low-volume spraying, UAASs have been widely used for pest management in field crops, achieving good pest control and reduced pressure on farmers. In this study, the applicability of UAAS for orchard protection was tested in an apple orchard by spraying with a four-rotor UAAS and a conventional air-assisted orchard sprayer. The spray characteristics of both sprayers, including canopy deposition, drift in the air, loss to the ground, and external contamination on the sprayer, were measured and compared. The field results showed that the effective spray swath width of the UAAS was 2.23 m, and the maximum droplet density was 132 droplets cm ^-2 in the center of the flight line. The actual deposition in the tree canopy was lower with the UAAS than with the air-assisted sprayer, but the normalized deposition of the UAAS was equivalent to that of the air-assisted sprayer, and the coefficient of variation for deposition in all parts of the canopy was obviously higher for the UAAS than for the air-assisted sprayer. Due to the airflow produced by the high-speed rotors, the spray drift in the air was much higher with the UAAS than with the air-assisted sprayer, whereas the ground loss of the UAAS was 1/5 that of the air-assisted sprayer. Moreover, the rotor airflow of the UAAS caused a large amount of droplets to attach to the sprayer fuselage, causing the external contamination on the UAAS to be five times that of the air-assisted sprayer. Results showed that the use of a multirotor UAAS for plant protection in an orchard had considerable influence on the spray drift and external contamination of the spray equipment. Based on the results, the following recommendations can be made: (1) plant protection with a UAAS should be attained by spraying at a reasonable height to reduce the drift in the air, and (2) UAAS manufacturers should develop adequate spraying systems as well as appropriate UAAS designs for plant protection. Keywords: Air-assisted orchard sprayer, Apple orchard, Spray deposition, Spray loss, UAAS.