Skip to main content

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Agron.
Sec. Weed Management
Volume 6 - 2024 | doi: 10.3389/fagro.2024.1491842
This article is part of the Research Topic Innovative Technology and Techniques for Effective Weed Control View all 4 articles

Spray Volume Optimization with UAV-based Herbicide Application for Effective Droplet Deposition and Weed Control in Direct-Seeded Rice

Provisionally accepted
R Arockia Infant Paul R Arockia Infant Paul 1,2P Murali Arthanari P Murali Arthanari 1*Panneerselvam Peramaiyan Panneerselvam Peramaiyan 2Virender Kumar Virender Kumar 3Muthukumar Bagavathiannan Muthukumar Bagavathiannan 4Bholuram Gujar Bholuram Gujar 4Shanmugam Vijayakumar Shanmugam Vijayakumar 3Maduraimuthu Djanaguiraman Maduraimuthu Djanaguiraman 1S Pazhanivelan S Pazhanivelan 1R Kavitha R Kavitha 1
  • 1 Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, India
  • 2 International Rice Research Institute South Asia Regional Centre, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India
  • 3 International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Los Baños, Philippines
  • 4 Texas A and M University, College Station, Texas, United States

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) represent a cutting-edge technology that holds the promise of revolutionizing the conventional tasks carried out in the realm of agriculture. On a global scale, UAVs are gaining prominence for pesticide applications, particularly with a focus on utilizing low spray volumes. Nevertheless, there remains a notable gap in research concerning the impacts of employing low spray volumes on herbicide efficacy. Hence, multi-location field studies were conducted at Agricultural Research Station, Bhavanisagar and Wetland Station, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India in 2022 to evaluate the impact of different spray volumes using UAV and Knapsack Manual Sprayer (KMS) on droplet deposition, droplet density, and weed control efficacy. The treatments included UAV sprays at 30 and 45 L ha -1 , as well as KMS at 500 L ha -1 , with a weedy check as a control. Bispyribacsodium 10% SC was applied at a rate of 35 g a.i ha -1 during the 2-to 3-leaf stage of the crops. The results revealed that droplet deposition, area coverage, and volume median diameter were affected by sprayer type (UAV and KMS). However, the two spray volumes tested using the UAV method provided similar droplet parameters. The KMS system at 500 L ha -1 exhibited the highest droplet deposition, while the UAV system achieved better droplet distribution at a spray volume of 30 L ha -1 . Remarkably, the UAV system at 30 L ha -1 demonstrated effective weed control, which was statistically comparable to the KMS system at 500 L ha -1 . These findings emphasize that the UAV spraying system with a spray volume of 30 L ha -1 , delivering effective weed control while utilizing less carrier volume compared to the manual knapsack spraying method. Thus, the UAV spray system has great potential as a viable alternative to manual knapsack spraying for herbicide application in direct-seeded rice.

    Keywords: Drone, direct seeded rice (DSR), Flat fan nozzle, knapsack manual sprayer (KMS), Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS)

    Received: 05 Sep 2024; Accepted: 06 Nov 2024.

    Copyright: © 2024 Paul, Arthanari, Peramaiyan, Kumar, Bagavathiannan, Gujar, Vijayakumar, Djanaguiraman, Pazhanivelan and Kavitha. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence: P Murali Arthanari, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, India

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.