Research Article

Received: 24 April 2020 Revised: 18 July 2020 Accepted article published: 3 August 2020 Published online in Wiley Online Library:

(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI 10.1002/ps.6052

Evaluation of an unmanned aerial vehicle

as a new method of pesticide application
for almond crop protection
Xuan Li,a* Durham Ken Giles,b* Franz J Niederholzer,c John T Andaloro,a
Edward B Langa and Lawrence J Watsona

Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), a new method of application to deliver pesticides, is rapidly being adopted
for commercial use in crop protection in East Asia with increasing worldwide interest. Pest control in mature almond orchards
with dense foliar canopies presents greater coverage challenges than field crops and smaller orchard or vineyard crops. We
investigated the use of an electric hexacopter to provide acceptable spray deposition and canopy penetration to be considered
credible for use in an almond pest control program.
RESULTS: The performance of the aerial and ground methods at different spray volumes were compared by analyzing spray
deposition on water sensitive papers, insecticide residues on filter papers and residues on whole unhulled almonds at three
canopy elevations. Overall residue levels of chlorantraniliprole insecticide on whole unhulled almonds across all pooled canopy
strata were similar between UAV applied at 46.8 L/ha and 93.5 L/ha and the comparative air blast sprayer treatments applied at
935 L/ha. However, significant interactions between canopy elevation and spray method showed distinct residue patterns
between the two application methods. Penetration and spray deposition at the lower canopy were observed and validated
for the UAV application. Pest efficacy was evaluated by measuring nut damage at harvest.
CONCLUSION: This study presents promising data that support the potential innovative integration of UAV's into crop protec-
tion programs for large canopy crops such as almonds and may guide future research for developing relevant label recommen-
dations.
© 2020 Society of Chemical Industry

Keywords: unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV); spray deposition; analytical evaluation; navel orangeworm; insect control; aerial spraying;
almond; pesticide application

1 INTRODUCTION worldwide interest. For example, in China, farm labor shortages

Commercial application of agrochemicals by using unmanned
aerial vehicles (UAVs), often referred to as drones or remotely-
piloted aircraft (RPA), is rapidly growing in use in East Asia with
significant commercial activities in vehicle and spray system
development. The early use of unmanned aerial application
began approximately three decades ago in Japan, where the
Yamaha RMAX® radio-controlled helicopter was used for pest
and disease control in rice crops.1, 2 In the U.S., the RMAX® (permit-
ted payload 16–35 kg) has been deployed for pesticide applica-
tion in California's Napa Valley and other vineyard areas to
control vine foliar diseases.3 This new technology offers an alter-
native to ground-vehicle sprayers and manual knapsack sprayers,
both of which are difficult and can be dangerous to operate effec-
tively on steep, complex terrain in commercial wine grape pro-
duction.4 Different from the single rotor, fuel-powered,
conventional pitch angle-controlled helicopter design of the
RMAX®, electric multi-rotor drones with a smaller payload
(10–16 kg) that featured with autonomous fixed-pitch flight con-
trol are rapidly being commercialized for crop protection in small,
fragmented, and irregular farm areas in East Asia with increasing
accelerated the successful use of small drones for pest and dis-
ease control.5 The UAV application of pesticides at low spray vol-
ume and low flight altitude has become popular in rice paddies,
corn, and cotton, and is even gaining use in high-value specialty
crops such as apple and tea.5-8 North America is experiencing sim-
ilar shortages of field labor, especially for tasks such as pesticide
application.9 Meanwhile, regulatory changes in labor practices,
such as limitation on workday length and higher minimum wages,
are driving more automation, in general, for agriculture field
* Correspondence to: X Li, Stine Research Center, FMC Corporation, 1090 Elkton
Road, Newark, DE 19711, USA, E-mail: xuan.li@fmc.com; or DK Giles, Depart-
ment of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, University of California at
Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA. E-mail: dkgiles@ucdavis.edu
a Stine Research Center, FMC Corporation, Newark, DE, USA
b Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, University of California
at Davis, Davis, CA, USA
c University of California Cooperative Extension, Colusa, CA, USA
1

Pest Manag Sci 2020 www.soci.org © 2020 Society of Chemical Industry

 www.soci.org
operations. Hence, UAV application technology, which allows
higher operational efficiency combined with comparable pest
control results, emerges as a new approach to supplement or dis-
place the traditional ground and aerial spraying practices.10-14
Concurrent with the evolving UAV technology are the demands
for correct and safe application of pesticides under challenged
environmental and biological conditions.10 Certainly, orchard
environments with tall trees and expansive canopies present chal-
lenges for achieving adequate pest control for any method of
application, especially when targeted insecticide delivery (nut
deposit) is desirable. Thus, a California almond orchard was cho-
sen for this study to determine the potential of UAV method of
application to control pests that attack almond. Insect pests can
attack shoots (peach twig borer), foliage (mites, leafrollers) and
the almond nut (navel orangeworm, peach twig bower, leaf
footed bug, oriental fruit moth). Of all the pests mentioned above,
the navel orangeworm (NOW - Amyelois transitella, Lepidoptera:
Pyralidae) is the primary pest of almond in California.15 Its control
requires precise timing and targeted insecticide delivery at the
early hull split stage to protect the newly exposed nut from
NOW egg-laying and subsequent larval damage. Eggs are laid
directly on the splitting hull, the exterior of the nut, with preferen-
tial egg laying occurring at/in the hull suture, and larvae hatch
within a week under hot summer temperatures common as the
crop matures. Larvae then move a short distance to begin feeding
within the nut, where pesticides cannot reach. To maximize nut
protection, pesticide sprays are applied as soon as the nuts are
vulnerable – at early hull split.
Precise pesticide application timing is challenging due to the
almond varieties and their planting pattern in the orchard. The
‘Nonpareil’ variety, currently accounting for slightly less than half
of the total almond production in California, is not self-fertile and
is commonly planted in alternating rows with one to three differ-
ent pollinizer varieties across the orchard. A consequence of this
planting pattern is multiple hull splits timings,18 beginning with
‘Nonpareil’ in late June/early July and stretching into early fall
for certain pollinizer varieties, such as ‘Fritz’. Further, timing of
hull-splitting within almond tree canopies and changes in canopy
management strategies in the past 20–25 years combine to com-
plicate pest protection of the almond crop ahead of harvest.
Within trees of each almond variety, a spatial and temporal pro-
gression of hull-splitting and subsequent initiation of crop vulner-
ability to NOW damage occurs from the upper to the lower
canopy (Fig. 1(A)). The hedgerow almond plantings predominate
in the almond production systems in California, resulting in more
shading lower in the canopy and more nuts in the upper, sunlit
canopy.19 This situation challenges NOW control using ground-
based air-blast spraying, the conventional method used in Califor-
nian orchards, to successfully treat the upper level nuts from
ground sprays, particularly for nuts whose open sutures (splits)
face upward (Fig. 1(B)). Reduction in NOW control in the upper
canopy relative to the lower canopy using air-blast sprayers is well
recognized.15–16 Ideally, effective sprays would be made on a
timely basis on different rows at different canopy elevations
based on almond varieties and their time of hull-splitting. Since
a more adaptable precisely timed spray schedule is desired for
NOW control, it will be advantageous to investigate the role of
UAV application technology to manage NOW. The operational
flexibility, independence from irrigation schemes, and ability to
increase insecticide deposition in the upper canopy could posi-
tion the UAV sprays as either a substitute or supplement to exist-
ing ground sprays.
2
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps © 2020 Society of Chemical Industry
X Li et al.
Figure 1. Challenge of hull split spray for navel orangeworm control:
(A) nuts mature earlier at tree tops (6–9 m above ground); (B) nuts with
the sutures oriented upward away from ground application. Photographs
taken at approximately 8 m above ground.
Determining the effectiveness of multi-rotor drones in NOW
control in almonds would be of significant value to determine
their potential use in the crop protection industry. To date,
there has been no research on the performance of pesticide
delivery and canopy penetration as well as operational success
of using drones in high-value nut production, particularly
almond trees. While the drone applicator has apparent advan-
tages and attractive characteristics over ground air-blast sprayer
to cover nuts at the upper tree canopy, low spray volumes asso-
ciated with a small payload raises questions of adequate spray
penetration, deposition, and coverage of nuts produced in a
high-density canopy and the resulting level of pest control.
Such constraints require characterization of the drone applica-
tion performance throughout multiple spraying events relevant
to the complexity of hull-splitting stages. While water sensitive
paper and fluorescent tracer dyes are commonly used in spray
quality evaluation,13 pesticide residues on the spray targets
and subsequent biological performance may also be critical for
characterizing the effectiveness of a method of application.
Thus, a comprehensive investigation that includes the combina-
tion of multiple evaluation tools to measure the suitability of
drone spray in almonds compared to commercial ground air-
blast application, was conducted. Criteria, including visualized
spray pattern using water sensitive paper, analytical tracing of
active ingredient using filter paper, pesticide residues on nuts
and nut damage from navel orangeworm, were investigated
for all the UAV and air blast treatments.
This study examined the use and performance of an electric
multi-rotor UAV (∼11 kg payload, small size according to FAA part
107) for its potential to control foliar and nut attacking almond
pests based on evaluation of spray deposits. Specific objectives
were to (i) compare the results of commercial multi-rotor aerial
sprayer versus a conventional air-blast orchard sprayer applied
throughout the almond hull-splitting stage and (ii) quantify the
comparative application performance under multiple evaluation
metrics including spray deposition assessment, pesticide residue
analysis, and determine the credibility of using UAV application
technology to protect almond nuts from navel orangeworm
attack. Additional objectives were to investigate the operational
feasibility of drone orchard spraying and quantify pesticide depo-
sition on specific drone structures. While the initial work focuses
specifically on a single crop and insect pest, these results may
Pest Manag Sci 2020
Insecticide deposition from UAV application on almond
Figure 2. Layout of the typical treatment area by unmaned aerial application, sampling and measurments stratgies.
be pertinent to pesticide applications made on other large dense
canopy orchard crops.
2 MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 Unmanned aerial vehicle and spray system
The unmanned aerial vehicle used in this work was based on the
DJI Matrice 600 platform (DJI Inc., Shenzhen, China) and retro-
fitted with the commercial spray system and control software cus-
tomized by Leading Edge Aerial Technologies, Inc. (Leading Edge
Associates, Asheville, NC, USA). This battery-powered small-scale
drone carried a payload of approximately 11 kg and had a flight
time of about 8–10 min at full payload. The spray systems
included a two-chamber diaphragm pump, a 1.2 m (40 ) fixed
boom with four flat fan nozzles and a 13.2-L (3.5 gal) tank. This
drone sprayer was operated under approval by the US Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) under Part 137 and by California
Department of Pesticide Regulation for agricultural crop spraying.
The drone sprayer has an extensive use history for about 6000
acres and over 4500 flights in the US.
All the applications were made by a licensed pilot (U.S. Federal
Aviation Administration and California Department of Pesticide
Regulation) with a separate ground crew coordinating pesticide
mixing and loading. For the drone pesticide application at the
low-spray volume (46.8 L/ha), each row was sprayed with one
forward-moving pass and in parallel to the row orientation. As
the aircraft passed over the end of the treatment area, spray dis-
charge was turned off and the aircraft was side-stepped into the
starting position for the next swath by turning two 90° clockwise
rotations. The release height was maintained between
1.84–2.43 m in the 2019 field trials. The drone high-spray volume
application (93.6 L/ha) flew the 46.8 L/ha pattern twice. In each
drone spray scenario, GPS-guided autonomous flight was used
for remotely piloted non-spray operations such as take-off, land-
ing, ferrying, and turn time. Specifications of the aerial platform
and spray parameters are listed in Table 1.
Pest Manag Sci 2020 © 2020 Society of Chemical Industry
www.soci.org
2.2 Orchard spray events and testing layout
Three application trials were carried out at a research almond
orchard in Arbuckle, California in the 2018 and 2019 seasons.
Focus of the 2018 testing was a proof of concept trial using a sin-
gle rate of insecticide at two spray volumes with and without an
adjuvant applied by a multi-rotor aircraft. In the following year,
2019, the testing focus was the hull-splitting stage when good
spray coverage is required, tree canopy is the densest, and the
crop load is at maximum. Two sequential applications were con-
ducted in 2019. The first 2019 application (July 10) was conducted
at the beginning of hull split (approximately 5%) when most eggs
are laid by the second-generation navel orangeworm moths. The
second application was 14 days later (July 24) when hull split had
extended to the lower and inner canopy when hulls completely
opened on the upper portion of the trees and the nuts were
exposed. During this period, almonds are susceptible to third gen-
eration NOW attack. No rainfall occurred during the entire time of
the test from application to harvest.
The 2019 study consisted of three blocks of almond trees
(Fig. 2). Two blocks were for unmanned aerial applications and
had an area of 0.17 ha (0.42 acre) each. Each of the two blocks
contained three rows of almond trees with 20 trees per row. A
total of 60 trees were sprayed in each drone treatment block.
The third block was the control for ground application and had
a treatment area of 0.8 ha (2 acres). Overall, treated almond trees
measured approximately 6.1–7.5 m (20–25 ft) high, 4.9 m (16 ft)
in-row tree space, and 6.7 m (22 ft) row-to-row space. Orchard leaf
area index (LAI) was not measured as part of this study, however
the light interception of the almond tree canopies was approxi-
mately 65–70% at the time of this study.
Two spray volumes, 46.8 L/ha (5 gal per acre) and 93.6 L/ha
(10 gal per acre), were used for the drone application treatments.
The ground airblast sprayer used in this study was a commonly
used, typical ground applicator following commercial practices
used in the geographic area. It was a large Rears PTO unit with
28o fan pitch of 3800 (Rears Manufacturing Co., Coburg, OR) pulled
3
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps
 www.soci.org X Li et al.

Table 1. Parameters and testing conditions for orchard UAV application

Values at different application times

Parameters September 13, 2018 July 10, 2019 July 24, 2019

Aircraft type PV600 Pro PV30™ PV30™

Target swath width (m) 6.10 6.10 6.10
Release height (m) 1.22–1.83 1.83–2.43 1.83–2.43
Application ground speed (m/s) 1.34 1.34 1.34
Spray pressure (bar) 2.41 2.07 2.41
Nozzle type TXR ConeJet® 8003 Turbo TeeJet® 11004 XR TeeJet® 8003
Drop size category Fine Coarse Fine
Nozzle spacing (even spaced) (cm) 30.48 30.48 30.48
Average temperature† (°C) 21 21 25
Relative humidity (%) 49% 73% 50%
Mean wind speed (m/s) 1.79 1.34 1.79
Mean wind direction 139.4° (South East) 34.5° (North East) 245.5° (South West)
†
The weather data are retrieved and averaged from the California weather database.

by a Kubota M108S tractor (Kubota Tractor Corporation, Osaka,

Japan) and considered a commercial unit. The ground application
volume of 935.4 L/ha (100 gal per acre) is based on FMC's Altacor®
Insect Control product label recommendation for almond and
other tree nuts and was appropriate for the tree size in this
orchard. In addition, 935.4 L/ha (100 gal per acre) is the standard
application volume in tree crops in the Sacramento Valley of Cal-
ifornia. The spray volume of 935.4 L/ha was delivered at a ground
speed of 0.89 m/s (2 mph) at an operating pressure of 6.89 bar
(100 psi).
Seven hollow cone nozzles (Spray Systems Inc., Wheaton, IL) per
side were consistently used during the air-blast studies. Nozzles
were arranged to deliver about 80% of the spray flow from the
top four open nozzles using the following orifices (all with D25
swirl plates) listed from the upper nozzle port: D5 (orifice diame-
ter: 1.98 mm), D8 (orifice diameter: 3.18 mm), D8 (orifice diameter:
3.18 mm), D7 (orifice diameter: 2.77 mm), D5 (orifice diameter:
1.98 mm), D4 (orifice diameter: 1.60 mm), and D4 (orifice diame-
ter: 1.60 mm) (Spray Systems Inc., Wheaton, IL).
2.3 Measurement and sample collection
Spray penetration was measured at three canopy levels using
water sensitive papers (WSP) and glass fiber filter papers. The
water sensitive cards and filter papers were placed side-by-side,
oriented horizontally and pole-mounted at three elevations at
2.4, 3.6, and 4.9 m (8, 12, and 16 ft) above ground, representing
lower, middle and upper canopies, respectively. In each treat-
ment, telescoping poles were setup in five trees in a row with each
tree considered a replication unit for analysis. After the applica-
tion, filter papers were placed in pre-labeled jars and retained
for analysis of insecticide deposition. The water sensitive papers
were recovered, secured and then optically scanned for image
analysis to estimate the spray coverage by using DropVision® Ag
software (Leading Edge Associates, Asheville, NC).
Insecticide residues were measured from nuts hand sampled at
lower, middle and upper canopy levels, equivalent to card/paper
positions. For each treatment, three to five nuts were randomly
picked from three canopy elevations per tree, and about 12 to
15 nuts were collected per tree. Six almond trees were sampled
for each treatment and a total of 72–90 nuts were sampled per
4
Figure 3. Locations of collected pesticide deposition samples on UAV
components: (i) Spray boom (each side); (ii) UAV arms (two opposite sides);
(iii) Central hub; (iv) Rotor blades.
treatment. Untreated almond samples were collected prior to
each spray and used for extraction efficiency calibration in analyt-
ical method development and validation.
Pesticide deposition on the unmanned aircraft itself was evalu-
ated from multiple drone components to provide preliminary
insight into how small droplets entrapped by rotor vortices cre-
ated by the multi-rotor aerodynamics. Filter papers were placed
on the rotorcraft at each side of the boom holder, two of the
drone arms which the operator is likely to use to lift the drone,
and one on the drone top cover (Fig. 3). Deposition samples from
the rotor blades were collected using cotton swabs saturated with
acetone upon completion of the spray mission. All samples were
stored in a solvent-resistance jar on dry ice during transport and
remained frozen until time of analysis.
2.4 Chemicals
Altacor® insect control (active ingredient: chlorantraniliprole) was
used for navel orangeworm control in this study21 and is a regis-
tered insecticide commonly used in California almonds. Choran-
traniliprole, an anthranilic diamide, is classified by IRAC as a
group 28 mode of action insecticide affecting the insect's ryano-
dine receptors which quickly paralyzes Lepidopteran larvae pre-
venting crop damage. Altacor® insect control product contains
35% chlorantraniliprole as the active ingredient (a.i.) and is

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps © 2020 Society of Chemical Industry Pest Manag Sci 2020

Insecticide deposition from UAV application on almond
formulated as a Water Dispersible Granule (WDG) for foliar spray
via ground or aerial application equipment.22 The label rate of
Altacor ® insect control at 111 g a.i./hectare (0.099 lbs a.i./acre)
was used in this study.
Dyne-Amic® adjuvant (Helena® Agri-Enterprises, LLC, Collierville,
TN 38017, USA), a surfactant blend of methylated seed oil (MSO)
and non-ionic organosilicone-based surfactant,23 was tank
mixed15 (0.06% v/v) with chlorantraniliprole in all 2019 spray
treatments to improve coverage. Our 2018 pilot study using chlor-
antraniliprole with and without Dyne-Amic® surfactant showed
the advantage of adding the surfactant. The MSO oil in the
Dyne-Amic® formulation reduces evaporation and improves pen-
etration of plant tissue while the organosilicone component
reduces surface tension and better spreads droplets for more
thorough coverage and deposition. In field trials, the tank mixing
started with dispersing Altacor® insect control in water and then
adding the adjuvant. This order of addition followed the recom-
mendations from FMC's Best Management Practices for UAVs
applications.10
2.5 Analytical and biological analyses
Chlorantraniliprole residue on almonds is reported as the mass of
active ingredient (a.i.) per whole unhulled almond (ug a.i. per g
biomass). Chlorantraniliprole recovery on filter papers were
reported as mass of active ingredient (a.i.) per unit area (ug a.i.
per cm2). The theoretical expectation for perfect deposition of
chlorantraniliprole is 1.1096 ug a.i./cm2, based on the application
rate of product per unit land area. For analytical analysis of chlor-
antraniliprole recovery, almond and filter paper samples were
removed from the freezer and allowed to thaw for several hours
before adding 40 mL of acetonitrile to each vessel. Caps were
sealed with tape to prevent leaking and vials were placed on
Glas-Col rotators (Glas-Col LLC., Terre Haute, IN) at 45 rpm for
approximately 18 h. Each sample was then diluted in microfuge
tubes with additional acetonitrile (900 μL ACN: 100 μL sample)
before centrifuging. Extracts were analyzed with a Waters Acquity
H-Class UPLC coupled to a Waters Xevo TQD mass spectrometer
(Waters Corp., Milford, MA). Chromatography was performed at
40 °C with a flow rate of 600 μL/min using an Acquity HSS T3
(2.1 ' 50 mm; 1.8 μm) column. Eluents were LC grade water (eluent
A; Omnisolv, EMD Millipore Corp. Darmstadt, Germany) and ace-
tonitrile (eluent B; Omnisolv, EMD Millipore Corp. Darmstadt, Ger-
many) and each were amended with 0.1% formic acid (Suprapur,
EMD Millipore Corp. Darmstadt, Germany). Chromatographic runs
started at 99% eluent A and were held for 0.5 min, followed by a
4 min linear gradient to 99% eluent B. After a 0.5 min hold at
99% eluent B the column was returned to 99% eluent A for
0.9 min before the start of the next run. Chlorantraniliprole resi-
dues were monitored with ESI+ at a mass transition of 484–286.
For this work, an acetonitrile surface wash of the un-hulled
almonds was used to remove residues of chlorantraniliprole. This
method was chosen based on previous registration studies with
incurred residues of 14C-chlorantraniliprole on treated apple
fruits. This incurred residue study showed that 92–96% of the res-
idue was recovered using this surface washing procedure. To fur-
ther demonstrate the applicability of this method to unhulled
almonds, a surface washing study using untreated almond sam-
ples fortified at known concentrations was performed. The mean
recovery of chlorantraniliprole from almonds fortified at 0.1 μg/
nut and 1 μg/nut and subjected to acetonitrile surface washes
was 85% and 83%, respectively. Based on the high recoveries in
both the incurred residue and fortified almond studies, it was
Pest Manag Sci 2020 © 2020 Society of Chemical Industry
www.soci.org
concluded that acetonitrile surface washes were appropriate for
quantifying residues of chlorantraniliprole in this work.
Biological efficacy was evaluated based on NOW larval damage
to Fritz, a late maturing but hard shell variety as a substitute to the
Nonpareil variety. Harvest occurred in early October, approxi-
mately 2 months after the second application. At that time, the
nuts were collected immediately after the trees were shaken. Each
replication consisted of 100 nuts sampled from the ground under
the treated tree. All nuts were cracked open and observed for
NOW damage and reported as percent NOW control.
2.6 Data analysis
At two dates in 2019, treatments were applied in consecutive
sprays on the same treatment blocks (i.e., aerial or ground applica-
tions). Repeated measures mixed model analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was performed to compare treatment responses for
each application. Analysis accounted for measurements repeated
spatially (i.e. canopy level) on the same subject (tree). Mean values
obtained for the residue data of chlorantraniliprole in the different
groups were compared using Fisher's LSD at significance level
0.05. Biological performance was examined using one-way
ANOVA at a significant level of 0.05. The statistical analyses were
performed using SAS® (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) and Matlab® soft-
ware (R2019a, The MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA, USA).
3 RESULTS
3.1 Spray coverage and visualization
There were distinct visual differences between ground and drone
applications illustrated by the water-sensitive papers shown in
Fig. 4. Large deposits and sparse coverage were observed on
the drone sprayed water-sensitive cards with the two spray vol-
umes, whereas small deposits and dense coverage were found
for the ground application. At the bottom of Fig. 4, the average
percent coverage for all the water-sensitive papers were summa-
rized for the two consecutive spray events. These results showed a
consistent trend as did the visual observations. An initial review of
the spray cards shows that the ground application provided bet-
ter spray coverage than the drone application. Uniform spray cov-
erage with small droplets is believed to increase the likelihood of
an insect encountering the insecticide applied. The spray pattern
from the drone application shows a higher coverage percentage
at the higher application volume of 93.5 L/ha than that of
46.8 L/ha. The UAV sprayer with the smaller payload resulted in
a much higher active ingredient concentration in the tank solu-
tions. Calculated product tank concentration for each treatment
is listed in the middle of Fig. 4. When the same product use rate
was applied at 111 g a.i./ha (0.099 lb a.i./ac) in the drone and
ground applications, the resulting active ingredient concentra-
tions by the drone applications at 46.8 L/ha and 93.5 L/ha are
respectively 10 and 20 times higher than that of the air-blast
ground application applied at 935 L/ha. Since product concentra-
tion information is not well illustrated on water-sensitive cards,
the inference of product biological effectiveness using indicator
solely from the water-sensitive cards can be misleading. The addi-
tional use of pesticide residue analysis which measures the abso-
lute amount of active ingredient on plant tissue provides
complementary data to the deposition pattern information
revealed by the spray cards. It is important to recognize that more
droplets, even if at a lower ppm concentration (still above the
lethal dose to kill larvae), are more desirable than fewer droplets
5
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps
 www.soci.org X Li et al.

Figure 4. Comparison of concentrations of active ingredient in sprays and spray area coverage on water–sensitive papers at three canopy levels between
three application methods. Note ‡The A.I concentration was calculated based on the active ingredient use rate of 1.109 μg a.i./cm2 (0.099 lb a.i./ac).

Figure 5. Chlorantraniliprole residues on whole unhusked almonds among three spray treatments in two consecutive spray events.

at a much higher ppm concentration. Spray coverage is important
to ensure larvae encountering a lethal droplet.
3.2 Pesticide residues
Figure 5 presents an overview comparison of pesticide residues in
almond trees sprayed by the drone and the ground applications.
In general, measured pesticide residues per biomass were highly
variable, as calculated by the coefficient of variation (CV) in the
range of 51–91%, which is often a typical characteristic of agricul-
tural sprays and subsequent measurements. Variations from the
ground application are higher than that of the drone applications.
The mean values of the pesticide residues for each treatment
were in a range of 0.19–0.40 μg of active ingredient per gram of
whole unhusked almonds. No statistical difference is observed
among means of the treatments at the three spray volumes in
the second application (P > 0.05), differing from the visual differ-
ence found on the water sensitive papers in Fig. 4.
6
The second sequential application (later season) on the test
trees showed 1.2–1.3 times higher pesticide residue recovery
than the first application. Comparing the two consecutive spray
events, one major difference was the use of different nozzles in
the two consecutive applications. Coarse droplets were used in
the first application because at that time most hull splits
occurred in the upper canopy where there was a need for
greater droplet deposition. The assumption was that coarse
droplets were more likely to deposit at first contact with tree
parts. Subsequently, a smaller droplet size was targeted for
the second application when hull split would occur later at
lower canopy levels and was expected to achieve better droplet
penetration. Complete hull split may provide more area for
insecticide droplets to deposit where there is a greater need
for pest control. In addition, higher residue recovery in the sec-
ond application may be attributed to some remaining residue
from the first application, as expected.

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps © 2020 Society of Chemical Industry Pest Manag Sci 2020

Insecticide deposition from UAV application on almond
Although the pooled pesticide residues were quite similar
between the drone and ground applications, the interactions
between canopy elevations and the spray methods were statisti-
cally significant (P < 0.05) in both spray events. In Fig. 6(A), the
drone application had more chlorantraniliprole residues at the
upper and middle canopies while less at the lower canopy. The
ground application showed the opposite pattern where more
pesticide residues were recovered on the lower part of almond
trees with less pesticide delivered to the middle and upper cano-
pies. The same clear pattern was observed in the second applica-
tion (Fig. 6(B)). In Fig. 6(A, B), the magnitude of residues at the
upper canopy by drone application is similar to those at the lower
canopy by ground application. This complementary pattern
reveals the difference between the top-down spray of aerial appli-
cation versus the bottom-up spray by ground application. While
occasional insufficient coverage on top canopy targets, especially
those nut sutures facing upward, is observed for conventional
ground sprayers, an equal argument can be made as to whether
drone application can provide adequate coverage to the lower
canopy of almond trees. Considering the size of the drone
(approximately 1.6 m aircraft dimension) relative to the size of
tree canopies (6–8 m canopy size), it is not intuitive to believe
the small drone can generate notably extensive penetration to
the lower tree canopies.
Note that, at the lower canopy, chemical residues are higher in
the second application than the first application, a trend
Figure 6. Chlorantraniliprole residues on whole unhusked almonds at three canopy levels: (A) 2019 first application; (B) 2019 second application.
Pest Manag Sci 2020 © 2020 Society of Chemical Industry
www.soci.org
consistent for both drone treatments. In the first application, the
Turbo TeeJet® 11004 nozzles were used to produce droplets clas-
sified as coarse droplets with the purpose of covering most hull-
splitting nuts at the upper canopy. In the second application,
when the hull splits progressed to the lower canopy where the
spray penetration was more desirable, the XR TeeJet® 8003 type
nozzles producing fine droplets were selected. Although the high
temperature and low relative humidity conditions in California
may introduce high potential for evaporation and drift, the level
of canopy penetration in the second application by the small
drone sprayer was unexpected.
Figure 7 shows a linear increase of chemical deposition on filter
papers from lower to upper canopy elevations in both spray
events, a trend consistent with the pesticide residue analysis on
almonds. However, contrary to the trend found on almond nuts,
where more residues were detected on the second application,
fewer residues were detected on filter paper from the second
application versus the first. This is probably from the use of new fil-
ter papers, thus there was no accumulation of residues from the
first application. Depositions on filter papers show slightly less
coefficient of variation values (16–85%) than the almond residue
samples (24–97%), possibly because of the regular geometry
and standard way of positioning the pole collectors versus more
randomly positioned and protected nuts. The analytical results
from filter papers validated the canopy penetration measured
on almonds samples. The downwash flow created by the rotor
7
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps
 www.soci.org
Figure 7. Chlorantraniliprole residues on filter papers by the unmanned
aerial application at two spray volumes at three canopy levels: (A) 2019
first application; (B) 2019 second application.
wake from a six-rotor copter directly impacts the fate of droplets
and can assist in the penetration of spray droplets deeper into
the tree canopy. Fundamentally different from the full-size heli-
copters, the aerodynamic effects that result from small-scale mul-
tiple rotors have not been comprehensively explored. Thus,
droplet movement and spray flow are currently not yet well
defined for small UAVs that normally function by the counter-
rotation rotors spinning at varying speeds to achieve necessary
flight control. Regardless, proper use of rotor downwash relative
to wind speed and direction can result in significant influence
on droplet penetration, as documented in this study.
3.3 Crop protection from navel orangeworm
The crop damage evaluations in the 2019 field trial were taken
after two consecutive spray events. The mean percentage of crop
damage across all treatments ranged from 3 to 5% (Fig. 8).
Although there is no statistical difference (P > 0.05) in NOW dam-
age among the conducted treatments, changes in almond varie-
ties and spray timing may alter the biological outcomes,
especially when using the Nonpareil variety thus supporting addi-
tional research on almond varieties. Previous studies show a typ-
ical almond damage reduction is around 50% and a 75%
damage reduction can be a rare case.15, 16, 20 The Fritz variety used
in this study has excellent shell integrity to minimize navel oran-
geworm penetration into the kernel, thus it is not prone to more
damage than the commonly planted Nonpareil variety. The
8
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps © 2020 Society of Chemical Industry
X Li et al.
Figure 8. Comparison of navel orangeworm damage rate between the
unmanned aerial application and the ground application.
‘Nonpareil’ nuts are usually shaken to the orchard floor in August,
allowed to dry on the orchard floor and picked up (removed from
the orchards) one to two weeks later. For subsequent pesticide
protection of the remaining pollinizer variety almonds in the
unharvested half of the orchard rows, 100% of the orchard must
be currently driven with an airblast sprayer, an inefficient practice
that can conflict with postharvest (‘Nonpareil’) irrigation. In the
case of a late pollinizer such as ‘Fritz’ variety commonly planted
every fifth tree row, two out of every five row middles must be
driven to spray a quarter of the acreage. Current preharvest insec-
ticide practices for NOW management in California generally
involve two sprays: one at the beginning of ‘Nonpareil’ hull split
in late June or early July and the second in mid to late July as
the Nonpareil nuts begin to split and dry. The overall strategy is
to protect the ‘Nonpareil’ crop while reducing the NOW popula-
tion so subsequent, economically less efficient and horticulturally
impractical sprays are not needed to protect the pollinizer crop.
While there are varietal differences in susceptibility to NOW dam-
age, harvest date also contributes to damage potential as the later
harvested pollinizer varieties are exposed to increasing NOW pop-
ulation as the harvest season progresses. In high pest pressure
years, lack of direct pesticide protection of pollinizer almonds, as
those nuts split, can result in significant economic damage.
This pest is challenging to manage given its biology, its host
(almond), and the orchard production system in California. The
most effective NOW management is delivered by an integrated
program using cultural practices supplemented with pesticide
application(s).15–17 The best spray timing for navel orangeworm
in almond can be started as early as 1% hull split. Given the com-
plexity of the different almond varieties in terms of insecticide
timing and vulnerability to NOW damage, extensive biological
efficacy studies are still needed to confirm arguments and draw
any concrete conclusions. However, the biological complexity in
almond crop protection clearly indicates the need for excellent
spray coverage to achieve optimal pest control with most regis-
tered insecticides. It is important to note that biological efficacy
results together with deposition assessment, residue analysis,
and drift evaluation are four critical elements in the evaluation
of UAV technology as a new method of application.
3.4 Active ingredient recovery on the aircraft
The aerodynamics from aircraft rotor wake and its downwash flow
interact with the spray plumes and impact canopy penetration,
uniform coverage, and drift potential. In this study, spray deposits
from major components of the aircraft were collected after com-
pletion of the second application and active ingredient was deter-
mined to explore any indication of excessive upward movement
Pest Manag Sci 2020
Insecticide deposition from UAV application on almond
Figure 9. Distribution of active ingredient recovery on different drone
components.
of the spray. There are two major interactions between the aircraft
and the release droplets: the first is the uplifting of droplets
entrapped by the rotor tip vortices, and the second is contamina-
tion when the aircraft passes through the spray zone with small
droplets suspended above the canopy. Figure 9 shows that a min-
imal amount of active ingredient was recovered (< 6 μg) on the
aircraft, reducing the concerns that the rotor outwash may entrap
the spray material and/or the excessive spray suspension consist-
ing of very fine droplets. The results suggest that the unmanned
aerial application can be a relatively clean operation when the
spray system is properly configured, and the application event is
operated under sound parameters with favorable environmental
conditions following best management practices.10 In general,
the level of pesticide residues detected decreased along with
the distance away from the nozzles. The spray boom and drone
arms were the parts with highest residues, while the rotor blades
and the top of the central hub had lower residues. Since the drone
arms are often the most common locations for lifting the aircraft
by the ground crew, wearing proper personal protection equip-
ment (PPE) is important. It is also important to note that mitigat-
ing the risk of airborne drift and operator exposures remains a
top priority for aerial, and all application operations.14,24,25 These
data, although only from a single trial, are encouraging indica-
tions that minimal aircraft contamination and spray interference
may be achievable.
4 DISCUSSIONS
Results from this study, based on a specific six-rotor UAV model,
for a specific pest and pesticide combination on one crop at a spe-
cific critical stage of pest control are not conclusive and should
not be extrapolated to all uses. However, these data provide
insight into both the potential use of drone technology for
orchard crops and possibly large canopy perennial crops in com-
mercial agriculture and recommendations suited for the new UAV
method of pesticide application. An important recommendation
for UAV application is determining the minimal spray volume that
will provide reliable pest control while retaining operational effi-
ciency. For example, the US Altacor® insect control label21 gener-
ally requires a minimum spray volume of 93.6 L/ha (10 gal per
acre) for manned aerial application. But, all Altacor® insect control
applications on tree nuts, including the control of navel orange-
worm in almonds, requires that the minimum labeled spray vol-
ume increases to 280.6 L/ha (30 gal per acre) regardless of
Pest Manag Sci 2020 © 2020 Society of Chemical Industry
www.soci.org
ground or aerial method of application.21 This label requirement
reflects the historical difficulty to achieve effective navel orange-
worm control in almonds where the spray target is neither the
foliage nor the entire almond surface, but specifically the almond
hull suture to control hatching and feeding larvae. Furthermore,
the current product label recommends critical timing of the first
spray as early as 1% hull splits followed by a second spray approx-
imately 2 weeks later if moths are still in flight. The second spray
(14 days later) is intended to extend the active pest control win-
dow. Individual nuts continue to split for 10–21 days, exposing
untreated tissue where navel orangeworm eggs can be laid and
infest the nuts. In practice, proper determination of spray timing
and performing two sprays in a 14-day window are hampered
by logistical challenges, especially for large-acreage growers
who may not have sufficient ground sprayers, time, labor or other
resources adequate to react. A successful UAV application for
NOW control would first be able to perform treatment on-time
with reasonable cost and operational efficiency. The flexibility of
UAV application might offer spot spraying to areas where hull split
occurs early (outside rows and treetops) in the almond orchard
then followed by ground application when the remaining almond
orchard reaches the approximate average hull split treatment
threshold of 1–5%.27 The combination of application methods
may not be practical if the same product is used and violates
labeled maximum number of applications, or amount of active
ingredient allowable per season. The alternative is to develop an
application recommendation with practical and effective minimal
spray volumes that allow solo drone applications in sequence to
be effective at an appropriate treatment threshold limit.
Developing standard spray systems, best practices, and risk mit-
igation recommendations are critically needed with this new
method of application. How products are aerially dispersed
depends on a set of engineering and environmental factors, such
as aircraft scale, aircraft speed, wake vortices, wind speed, temper-
ature, boom length, droplet size, etc.10, 26, 28, 29, 30 Diverse design
of the rotary and spray configurations and the associated tran-
sient aerodynamics surrounding the aircraft present challenges
for maximizing effective operations. General best management
practices have been developed based on current knowledge
and limited experience with a few specific aircrafts.10 However, a
better understanding of droplet fate and spray quality relative
to drone type, model, and spray configuration is expected by
drone end users. More field data are needed to provide consis-
tently sound recommendations, which in turn relies on adopting
an accountable cross-disciplinary approach to characterize UAV
field performance. In this study, we used water sensitive cards to
visualize the difference in spray coverage between ground appli-
cation method and the drone aerial methods when spraying con-
siderably different droplet size spectra and spray volumes. We
measured the product residue on the actual nut targets and incor-
porated pest control ratings into the spray quality evaluation,
allowing a comprehensive view of the field performance of the
UAV pesticide application on nut trees with dense canopy. This
holistic approach connects pesticide residue, deposition, cover-
age, and canopy penetration data with pest control efficacy,
which provides more information than interpreting image-based
pseudo-quantitative data from only water sensitive cards. Devel-
opment of UAV technology using an industry-wide multi-
disciplinary approach is recommended and will better ensure that
UAV technology is optimally incorporated into agricultural pro-
duction and crop protection programs. This requires continued
and coordinated efforts among the crop protection industry,
9
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps
 www.soci.org
aircraft manufacturers, regulatory agencies, and the private and
public research communities.
5 CONCLUSIONS
This study characterized the comparative differences of spray
deposition and canopy penetration between a new method of
application, a UAV technology, versus a conventional commercial
ground application method to evaluate the credibility of UAV use
for almond pest control. The results of this study showed compa-
rable overall pesticide residue levels on whole unhulled almonds
but distinct differences in coverage and residue patterns at differ-
ent canopy elevations between the aerial and ground application
methods. The UAV application at the higher spray volume of
93.5 L/ha provided a higher coverage percentage than the lower
spray volume of 46.8 L/ha. This result continues to verify that
spray volume label recommendations continue to be critical in
pest control, even for the new UAV method of application. How-
ever, more crop protection-focused data are needed to confirm
the efficacy of the UAV application method at differing spray vol-
umes. The interactions between canopy elevations and the spray
methods were statistically significant. Deep canopy penetration
by the small drone sprayer into the high-density almond trees
was intuitively unexpected and plainly noticeable, assumedly
benefitting from the rotor downwash. Almond residues increased
from the lower canopy to the upper canopy with the drone appli-
cation method, a trend that is validated and aligned with analyti-
cal results found on sprayed filter papers. The movement of spray
droplets above the drone sprayer was minimal in this study, sug-
gesting the possibility that the unmanned aerial application can
be a clean operation when droplet size and spray configurations
are properly chosen.
The current management of navel orangeworm in large almond
orchards dictates applying the accurate amount of product at the
correct hull split timing to the specific split hull target. These are
demanding criteria that current UAV application technology
may not be able to meet as a suitable substitute of the traditional
air-blast ground sprayer. However, this study demonstrated that
UAV aerial application may possibly provide complementary
assistance to air-blast ground sprays in a timely and precise man-
ner, particularly for controlling pest populations within a critically
short time window. Developing an integrated approach would
operationally facilitate the high temporal and spatial targeting
that is not possible now, due to the time and logistics required
for high spray volume, low ground speed (and associated field
efficiency) in conventional sprays. The unique almond nut-suture
where the navel orangeworm moth lays eggs compounded by
high temporal and spatial variability of hull splitting for different
almond varieties challenges any application method to provide
economic crop protection.
Most importantly, this study provides comprehensive data
regarding the use of multi-rotor drones in the agricultural industry
for pesticide application. The coverage, residue and penetration
data collected from one of the most difficult pest control systems
in US agriculture supports reported successes experienced in
China. UAV technology is a new method of application to growers
and offers an additional tool for crop protection. Additional
research is required to better understand and model droplet
movement and optimize spray system configurations that will
improve this technological offering, making it more valuable for
10
agricultural use.
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps © 2020 Society of Chemical Industry
X Li et al.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are grateful to Bill Reynolds, president of Leading-Edge Aerial
Technology Inc., for providing the UAV equipment and ground
support and the imaging analysis of water sensitive cards. We
express our appreciation to our team members from Stine
Research Center, particularly Joe Klems, Jim Stry, Jing Wang for
chlorantraniliprole registration and analytical information, Nancy
Ferry for statistical analysis, and Hector Portillo for Altacor® insect
control application guidance. We thank Pete Lana and Philip
Northover for their participation of the 2019 field trial. We appre-
ciate all the constructive comments and suggestions from Jacob
Vukich, Hector Portillo, and Roberte Makowski on the manu-
script1. We particularly acknowledge the thorough and expert
review by Joel Siegel.
REFERENCES
1 Bolman B, 2015. Provocation: A prairie drone companion. Cult Mach
16:1–6 (2015).
2 Sheets KD, The Japanese impact on global drone policy and law: why a
laggard United States and other nations should look to Japan in the
context of drone usage. Ind J Global Legal Stud 25:513 (2018).
3 Giles D and Billing R, Deployment and performance of a UAV for crop
spraying. Chem Eng Trans 44:307–312 (2015).
4 Giles D, Use of remotely piloted aircraft for pesticide applications:
issues and outlook. Outlooks Pest Manag 27:213–216 (2016).
5 He X, Rapid development of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) for plant
protection and application technology in China. Outlooks Pest
Manag 29:162–167 (2018).
6 Tang Q, Zhang RR, Ding CC, Chen LP, Xu M, Xu G et al., Application of an
ultrasonic anemometer array to field measurements of the down-
wash flow of an agricultural unmanned helicopter. Trans ASABE 62:
1219–1230 (2019).
7 Meng Y, Song J, Lan Y, Mei G, Liang Z and Han Y, Harvest aids efficacy
applied by unmanned aerial vehicles on cotton crop. Ind Crop Prod
140:111645 (2019).
8 Scherer M, Chung J and Lo J, Commercial Drone Adoption in Agribusi-
ness: Disruption and Opportunity. Ipsos Business Consulting, Beijing,
China (2017).
9 Charlton D, Taylor JE, Vougioukas S and Rutledge Z, Innovations for a
shrinking agricultural workforce. Choices: The Magazine of Food,
Farm, and Resource Issues 34:1–8 (2019).
10 Li X, Andaloro JT, Lang EB, Pan Y. Best management practices for
unmanned aerial vehicles (uavs) application of insecticide products
on rice. 2019 ASABE Annual International Meeting, Paper
No. 1901493. doi:https://doi.org/10.13031/aim.201901493 (2019).
11 Huang Y, Hoffmann WC, Lan Y, Wu W and Fritz BK, Development of a
spray system for an unmanned aerial vehicle platform. Appl Eng
Agric 25:803–809 (2019).
12 Teske ME, Thistle HW and Fritz BK, Modeling aerially applied sprays: an
update to AGDISP model development. Trans ASABE 62:343–354
(2019).
13 Richardson B, Rolando CA, Somchit C, Dunker C, Strand TM and
Kimberley MO, Swath pattern analysis from a multi-rotor unmanned
aerial vehicle configured for pesticide application. Pest Manag Sci
76:1282–1290 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.5638.
14 Brown CR and Giles DK, Measurement of pesticide drift from
unmanned aerial vehicle application to a vineyard. Trans ASABE 61:
1539–1546 (2018).
15 Siegel JP, Strmiska MM, Niederholzer FJ, Giles DK and Walse SS, Evalu-
ating insecticide coverage in almond and pistachio for control of
1
FMC, Altacor and Rynaxypyr are trademarks of FMC Corporation or an
affiliate. As of November 1, 2017, the U.S. EPA registration for the Altacor®
insect control product noted in this document were sold to FMC by
DuPont. TeeJet, Turbo TeeJet, and XR TeeJet are trademarks of Spraying
Systems Company Corporation, Dyne-Amic is a registered trademark of
Helena Holding Company, and DropVision is a registered trademark of
Leading Edge Associates.
Pest Manag Sci 2020
Insecticide deposition from UAV application on almond
navel orangeworm (Amyelois transitella)(Lepidoptera: Pyralidae).
Pest Manag Sci 75:1435–1442 (2019).
16 Markle JC, Niederholzer FJ and Zalom FG, Evaluation of spray applica-
tion methods for navel orangeworm control in almonds. Pest Manag
Sci 72:2339–2346 (2016).
17 Perez A, Simnitt S. Fruit and tree nuts outlook. Report No.: FTS-369
(2019). Available from: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/
outlooks/92731/fts-368.pdf?v=1681.5
18 Asai W, Micke W, Kester D and Rough D, The Evaluation and Selection of
Current Varieties; Almond Production Manual. University of California
System. Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. ANR Publica-
tions, Davis, CA (1996).
19 Edstrom J and Micke W eds, Sustaining yields in almond hedgerows, in
I International Congress on Almond, Acta Horticulturae, Leuven, Bel-
gium, Vol. 525. (1994). https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.1994.
373.35
20 Siegel JP, Strmiska MM and Walse SS, Evaluating insecticide coverage
and determining its effect on the duration of control for navel oran-
geworm (Amyelois transitella Walker)(Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in Cal-
ifornia almonds. Pest Manag Sci 75:2989–2995 (2019).
21 FMC. Altacor® insect control label. Available from: https://www3.epa.
gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/000279-09607-20180702.pdf
(2018).
22 FMC's Altacor® Insect Control, powered by Rynaxypyr® active. Available
from: https://www.fmccrop.com/Portals/_default/fmc_pdf/
c4d54d5af2834890a25ea1fefbde85e3.pdf (2020).
Pest Manag Sci 2020 © 2020 Society of Chemical Industry
www.soci.org
23 Helena® Agri-Enterprises L. Aero Dyne-Amic® Label. Available from:
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/agrian-cg-fs1-production/
pdfs/Aero_Dyne-Amic1_Label.pdf
24 Teske M, Thistle H, Schou W, Miller P, Strager J, Richardson B et al., A
review of computer models for pesticide deposition prediction.
Trans ASABE 54:789–801 (2011).
25 Wen S, Han J, Ning Z, Lan Y, Yin X, Zhang J et al., Numerical analysis and
validation of spray distributions disturbed by quad-rotor drone wake
at different flight speeds. Comput Electron Agric 166:105036 (2019).
26 Chung J and Scherer M, Commercial Drone Adoption in Agribusiness:
Disruption in the Agriculture Ecosystem. Ipsos Business Consulting,
Beijing, China (2019).
27 Higbee BS and Siegel JP, Field efficacy and application timing of methoxyfe-
nozide, a reduced-risk treatment for control of navel orangeworm
(Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in almond. J Econ Entomol 105:1702–1711 (2012).
28 Matthews G, Pesticides: residues in crops and their application. Out-
looks Pest Manag 30:85–87 (2019).
29 Wang G, Lan Y, Qi H, Chen P, Hewitt A, Han Y, Field evaluation of an
unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) sprayer: effect of spray volume on
deposition and the control of pests and disease in wheat. 75:
1546–1555 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.5321.
30 Wang G, Han Y, Li X, Andaloro J, Chen P, Hoffmann WC, Han X, Chen S,
Lan Y, Field evaluation of spray drift and environmental impact
using an agricultural unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) sprayer. Science
of The Total Environment 737 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2020.139793.
11
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ps