{"title":"无人机与地面对行作物雾滴粒径、覆盖范围及漂移势的比较","authors":"J Gibbs, T M Peters, L P Heck","doi":"10.13031/trans.14121","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Worldwide, the use of uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs) for pesticide application has grown tremendously in the past decade. Their adoption has been slower for Midwestern row crops. This study compared droplet size, coverage, and drift potential of sprays from UAV application methods to those from ground (implement) sprayer methods on corn in the Midwest. Droplet sizes measured during UAV spray trials [geometric mean diameters of 179 and 112 μm for UAV (boom) and UAV (no boom), respectively] were substantially smaller than those deposited during implement spray trials [mean diameters of 303 and 423 μm for implement (regular) and implement (pulse)]. Droplet coverage was high and localized in the middle swath of the field for the UAV with boom (10 to 30 droplets cm<sup>-2</sup>) and with no boom (60 droplets cm<sup>-2</sup>). Droplet coverage was broader, covering the entire field width for the implement methods (10 to 40 droplets cm<sup>-2</sup>). Vertical coverage of droplets was more uniform for UAV methods than implement methods. Although the UAVs produced smaller droplets than the implement methods, we still observed greater potential for downwind pesticide drift during the implement spray trials. Because localized application may be beneficial for pest control and drift reduction, the findings indicate a strong potential for \"spot\" or \"band\" spray coverage using UAV methods. This is likely due to the smaller size, reduced spray volumes, and increased agility of UAVs as compared to more conventional methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":23120,"journal":{"name":"Transactions of the ASABE","volume":"64 3","pages":"819-828"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10476208/pdf/nihms-1926678.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Droplet Size, Coverage, and Drift Potential from UAV Application Methods and Ground Application Methods on Row Crops.\",\"authors\":\"J Gibbs, T M Peters, L P Heck\",\"doi\":\"10.13031/trans.14121\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Worldwide, the use of uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs) for pesticide application has grown tremendously in the past decade. Their adoption has been slower for Midwestern row crops. This study compared droplet size, coverage, and drift potential of sprays from UAV application methods to those from ground (implement) sprayer methods on corn in the Midwest. Droplet sizes measured during UAV spray trials [geometric mean diameters of 179 and 112 μm for UAV (boom) and UAV (no boom), respectively] were substantially smaller than those deposited during implement spray trials [mean diameters of 303 and 423 μm for implement (regular) and implement (pulse)]. Droplet coverage was high and localized in the middle swath of the field for the UAV with boom (10 to 30 droplets cm<sup>-2</sup>) and with no boom (60 droplets cm<sup>-2</sup>). Droplet coverage was broader, covering the entire field width for the implement methods (10 to 40 droplets cm<sup>-2</sup>). Vertical coverage of droplets was more uniform for UAV methods than implement methods. Although the UAVs produced smaller droplets than the implement methods, we still observed greater potential for downwind pesticide drift during the implement spray trials. Because localized application may be beneficial for pest control and drift reduction, the findings indicate a strong potential for \\\"spot\\\" or \\\"band\\\" spray coverage using UAV methods. This is likely due to the smaller size, reduced spray volumes, and increased agility of UAVs as compared to more conventional methods.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23120,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transactions of the ASABE\",\"volume\":\"64 3\",\"pages\":\"819-828\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10476208/pdf/nihms-1926678.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transactions of the ASABE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.13031/trans.14121\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transactions of the ASABE","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13031/trans.14121","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of Droplet Size, Coverage, and Drift Potential from UAV Application Methods and Ground Application Methods on Row Crops.
Worldwide, the use of uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs) for pesticide application has grown tremendously in the past decade. Their adoption has been slower for Midwestern row crops. This study compared droplet size, coverage, and drift potential of sprays from UAV application methods to those from ground (implement) sprayer methods on corn in the Midwest. Droplet sizes measured during UAV spray trials [geometric mean diameters of 179 and 112 μm for UAV (boom) and UAV (no boom), respectively] were substantially smaller than those deposited during implement spray trials [mean diameters of 303 and 423 μm for implement (regular) and implement (pulse)]. Droplet coverage was high and localized in the middle swath of the field for the UAV with boom (10 to 30 droplets cm-2) and with no boom (60 droplets cm-2). Droplet coverage was broader, covering the entire field width for the implement methods (10 to 40 droplets cm-2). Vertical coverage of droplets was more uniform for UAV methods than implement methods. Although the UAVs produced smaller droplets than the implement methods, we still observed greater potential for downwind pesticide drift during the implement spray trials. Because localized application may be beneficial for pest control and drift reduction, the findings indicate a strong potential for "spot" or "band" spray coverage using UAV methods. This is likely due to the smaller size, reduced spray volumes, and increased agility of UAVs as compared to more conventional methods.
期刊介绍:
This peer-reviewed journal publishes research that advances the engineering of agricultural, food, and biological systems. Submissions must include original data, analysis or design, or synthesis of existing information; research information for the improvement of education, design, construction, or manufacturing practice; or significant and convincing evidence that confirms and strengthens the findings of others or that revises ideas or challenges accepted theory.