Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Evaluation of An Unmanned Aerial Vehicle As A New Method of Pesticide Application For Almond Crop Protection
Evaluation of An Unmanned Aerial Vehicle As A New Method of Pesticide Application For Almond Crop Protection
Received: 24 April 2020 Revised: 18 July 2020 Accepted article published: 3 August 2020 Published online in Wiley Online Library:
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
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 2.2 Orchard spray events and testing layout
canopy orchard crops. 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-
2 MATERIALS AND METHODS gle rate of insecticide at two spray volumes with and without an
2.1 Unmanned aerial vehicle and spray system adjuvant applied by a multi-rotor aircraft. In the following year,
The unmanned aerial vehicle used in this work was based on the 2019, the testing focus was the hull-splitting stage when good
DJI Matrice 600 platform (DJI Inc., Shenzhen, China) and retro- spray coverage is required, tree canopy is the densest, and the
fitted with the commercial spray system and control software cus- crop load is at maximum. Two sequential applications were con-
tomized by Leading Edge Aerial Technologies, Inc. (Leading Edge ducted in 2019. The first 2019 application (July 10) was conducted
Associates, Asheville, NC, USA). This battery-powered small-scale at the beginning of hull split (approximately 5%) when most eggs
drone carried a payload of approximately 11 kg and had a flight are laid by the second-generation navel orangeworm moths. The
time of about 8–10 min at full payload. The spray systems second application was 14 days later (July 24) when hull split had
included a two-chamber diaphragm pump, a 1.2 m (40 ) fixed extended to the lower and inner canopy when hulls completely
boom with four flat fan nozzles and a 13.2-L (3.5 gal) tank. This opened on the upper portion of the trees and the nuts were
drone sprayer was operated under approval by the US Federal exposed. During this period, almonds are susceptible to third gen-
Aviation Administration (FAA) under Part 137 and by California eration NOW attack. No rainfall occurred during the entire time of
Department of Pesticide Regulation for agricultural crop spraying. the test from application to harvest.
The drone sprayer has an extensive use history for about 6000 The 2019 study consisted of three blocks of almond trees
acres and over 4500 flights in the US. (Fig. 2). Two blocks were for unmanned aerial applications and
All the applications were made by a licensed pilot (U.S. Federal had an area of 0.17 ha (0.42 acre) each. Each of the two blocks
Aviation Administration and California Department of Pesticide contained three rows of almond trees with 20 trees per row. A
Regulation) with a separate ground crew coordinating pesticide total of 60 trees were sprayed in each drone treatment block.
mixing and loading. For the drone pesticide application at the The third block was the control for ground application and had
low-spray volume (46.8 L/ha), each row was sprayed with one a treatment area of 0.8 ha (2 acres). Overall, treated almond trees
forward-moving pass and in parallel to the row orientation. As measured approximately 6.1–7.5 m (20–25 ft) high, 4.9 m (16 ft)
the aircraft passed over the end of the treatment area, spray dis- in-row tree space, and 6.7 m (22 ft) row-to-row space. Orchard leaf
charge was turned off and the aircraft was side-stepped into the area index (LAI) was not measured as part of this study, however
starting position for the next swath by turning two 90° clockwise the light interception of the almond tree canopies was approxi-
rotations. The release height was maintained between mately 65–70% at the time of this study.
1.84–2.43 m in the 2019 field trials. The drone high-spray volume Two spray volumes, 46.8 L/ha (5 gal per acre) and 93.6 L/ha
application (93.6 L/ha) flew the 46.8 L/ha pattern twice. In each (10 gal per acre), were used for the drone application treatments.
drone spray scenario, GPS-guided autonomous flight was used The ground airblast sprayer used in this study was a commonly
for remotely piloted non-spray operations such as take-off, land- used, typical ground applicator following commercial practices
ing, ferrying, and turn time. Specifications of the aerial platform used in the geographic area. It was a large Rears PTO unit with
and spray parameters are listed in Table 1. 28o fan pitch of 3800 (Rears Manufacturing Co., Coburg, OR) pulled
3
Parameters September 13, 2018 July 10, 2019 July 24, 2019
formulated as a Water Dispersible Granule (WDG) for foliar spray concluded that acetonitrile surface washes were appropriate for
via ground or aerial application equipment.22 The label rate of quantifying residues of chlorantraniliprole in this work.
Altacor ® insect control at 111 g a.i./hectare (0.099 lbs a.i./acre) Biological efficacy was evaluated based on NOW larval damage
was used in this study. to Fritz, a late maturing but hard shell variety as a substitute to the
Dyne-Amic® adjuvant (Helena® Agri-Enterprises, LLC, Collierville, Nonpareil variety. Harvest occurred in early October, approxi-
TN 38017, USA), a surfactant blend of methylated seed oil (MSO) mately 2 months after the second application. At that time, the
and non-ionic organosilicone-based surfactant,23 was tank nuts were collected immediately after the trees were shaken. Each
mixed15 (0.06% v/v) with chlorantraniliprole in all 2019 spray replication consisted of 100 nuts sampled from the ground under
treatments to improve coverage. Our 2018 pilot study using chlor- the treated tree. All nuts were cracked open and observed for
antraniliprole with and without Dyne-Amic® surfactant showed NOW damage and reported as percent NOW control.
the advantage of adding the surfactant. The MSO oil in the
Dyne-Amic® formulation reduces evaporation and improves pen-
2.6 Data analysis
etration of plant tissue while the organosilicone component
At two dates in 2019, treatments were applied in consecutive
reduces surface tension and better spreads droplets for more
sprays on the same treatment blocks (i.e., aerial or ground applica-
thorough coverage and deposition. In field trials, the tank mixing
tions). Repeated measures mixed model analysis of variance
started with dispersing Altacor® insect control in water and then
(ANOVA) was performed to compare treatment responses for
adding the adjuvant. This order of addition followed the recom-
each application. Analysis accounted for measurements repeated
mendations from FMC's Best Management Practices for UAVs
spatially (i.e. canopy level) on the same subject (tree). Mean values
applications.10
obtained for the residue data of chlorantraniliprole in the different
2.5 Analytical and biological analyses groups were compared using Fisher's LSD at significance level
Chlorantraniliprole residue on almonds is reported as the mass of 0.05. Biological performance was examined using one-way
active ingredient (a.i.) per whole unhulled almond (ug a.i. per g ANOVA at a significant level of 0.05. The statistical analyses were
biomass). Chlorantraniliprole recovery on filter papers were performed using SAS® (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) and Matlab® soft-
reported as mass of active ingredient (a.i.) per unit area (ug a.i. ware (R2019a, The MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA, USA).
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- 3 RESULTS
antraniliprole recovery, almond and filter paper samples were 3.1 Spray coverage and visualization
removed from the freezer and allowed to thaw for several hours There were distinct visual differences between ground and drone
before adding 40 mL of acetonitrile to each vessel. Caps were applications illustrated by the water-sensitive papers shown in
sealed with tape to prevent leaking and vials were placed on Fig. 4. Large deposits and sparse coverage were observed on
Glas-Col rotators (Glas-Col LLC., Terre Haute, IN) at 45 rpm for the drone sprayed water-sensitive cards with the two spray vol-
approximately 18 h. Each sample was then diluted in microfuge umes, whereas small deposits and dense coverage were found
tubes with additional acetonitrile (900 μL ACN: 100 μL sample) for the ground application. At the bottom of Fig. 4, the average
before centrifuging. Extracts were analyzed with a Waters Acquity percent coverage for all the water-sensitive papers were summa-
H-Class UPLC coupled to a Waters Xevo TQD mass spectrometer rized for the two consecutive spray events. These results showed a
(Waters Corp., Milford, MA). Chromatography was performed at consistent trend as did the visual observations. An initial review of
40 °C with a flow rate of 600 μL/min using an Acquity HSS T3 the spray cards shows that the ground application provided bet-
(2.1 ' 50 mm; 1.8 μm) column. Eluents were LC grade water (eluent ter spray coverage than the drone application. Uniform spray cov-
A; Omnisolv, EMD Millipore Corp. Darmstadt, Germany) and ace- erage with small droplets is believed to increase the likelihood of
tonitrile (eluent B; Omnisolv, EMD Millipore Corp. Darmstadt, Ger- an insect encountering the insecticide applied. The spray pattern
many) and each were amended with 0.1% formic acid (Suprapur, from the drone application shows a higher coverage percentage
EMD Millipore Corp. Darmstadt, Germany). Chromatographic runs at the higher application volume of 93.5 L/ha than that of
started at 99% eluent A and were held for 0.5 min, followed by a 46.8 L/ha. The UAV sprayer with the smaller payload resulted in
4 min linear gradient to 99% eluent B. After a 0.5 min hold at a much higher active ingredient concentration in the tank solu-
99% eluent B the column was returned to 99% eluent A for tions. Calculated product tank concentration for each treatment
0.9 min before the start of the next run. Chlorantraniliprole resi- is listed in the middle of Fig. 4. When the same product use rate
dues were monitored with ESI+ at a mass transition of 484–286. was applied at 111 g a.i./ha (0.099 lb a.i./ac) in the drone and
For this work, an acetonitrile surface wash of the un-hulled ground applications, the resulting active ingredient concentra-
almonds was used to remove residues of chlorantraniliprole. This tions by the drone applications at 46.8 L/ha and 93.5 L/ha are
method was chosen based on previous registration studies with respectively 10 and 20 times higher than that of the air-blast
incurred residues of 14C-chlorantraniliprole on treated apple ground application applied at 935 L/ha. Since product concentra-
fruits. This incurred residue study showed that 92–96% of the res- tion information is not well illustrated on water-sensitive cards,
idue was recovered using this surface washing procedure. To fur- the inference of product biological effectiveness using indicator
ther demonstrate the applicability of this method to unhulled solely from the water-sensitive cards can be misleading. The addi-
almonds, a surface washing study using untreated almond sam- tional use of pesticide residue analysis which measures the abso-
ples fortified at known concentrations was performed. The mean lute amount of active ingredient on plant tissue provides
recovery of chlorantraniliprole from almonds fortified at 0.1 μg/ complementary data to the deposition pattern information
nut and 1 μg/nut and subjected to acetonitrile surface washes revealed by the spray cards. It is important to recognize that more
was 85% and 83%, respectively. Based on the high recoveries in droplets, even if at a lower ppm concentration (still above the
both the incurred residue and fortified almond studies, it was lethal dose to kill larvae), are more desirable than fewer droplets
5
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 The second sequential application (later season) on the test
to ensure larvae encountering a lethal droplet. trees showed 1.2–1.3 times higher pesticide residue recovery
than the first application. Comparing the two consecutive spray
3.2 Pesticide residues events, one major difference was the use of different nozzles in
Figure 5 presents an overview comparison of pesticide residues in the two consecutive applications. Coarse droplets were used in
almond trees sprayed by the drone and the ground applications. the first application because at that time most hull splits
In general, measured pesticide residues per biomass were highly occurred in the upper canopy where there was a need for
variable, as calculated by the coefficient of variation (CV) in the greater droplet deposition. The assumption was that coarse
range of 51–91%, which is often a typical characteristic of agricul- droplets were more likely to deposit at first contact with tree
tural sprays and subsequent measurements. Variations from the parts. Subsequently, a smaller droplet size was targeted for
ground application are higher than that of the drone applications. the second application when hull split would occur later at
The mean values of the pesticide residues for each treatment lower canopy levels and was expected to achieve better droplet
were in a range of 0.19–0.40 μg of active ingredient per gram of penetration. Complete hull split may provide more area for
whole unhusked almonds. No statistical difference is observed insecticide droplets to deposit where there is a greater need
among means of the treatments at the three spray volumes in for pest control. In addition, higher residue recovery in the sec-
the second application (P > 0.05), differing from the visual differ- ond application may be attributed to some remaining residue
ence found on the water sensitive papers in Fig. 4. from the first application, as expected.
6
Although the pooled pesticide residues were quite similar consistent for both drone treatments. In the first application, the
between the drone and ground applications, the interactions Turbo TeeJet® 11004 nozzles were used to produce droplets clas-
between canopy elevations and the spray methods were statisti- sified as coarse droplets with the purpose of covering most hull-
cally significant (P < 0.05) in both spray events. In Fig. 6(A), the splitting nuts at the upper canopy. In the second application,
drone application had more chlorantraniliprole residues at the when the hull splits progressed to the lower canopy where the
upper and middle canopies while less at the lower canopy. The spray penetration was more desirable, the XR TeeJet® 8003 type
ground application showed the opposite pattern where more nozzles producing fine droplets were selected. Although the high
pesticide residues were recovered on the lower part of almond temperature and low relative humidity conditions in California
trees with less pesticide delivered to the middle and upper cano- may introduce high potential for evaporation and drift, the level
pies. The same clear pattern was observed in the second applica- of canopy penetration in the second application by the small
tion (Fig. 6(B)). In Fig. 6(A, B), the magnitude of residues at the drone sprayer was unexpected.
upper canopy by drone application is similar to those at the lower Figure 7 shows a linear increase of chemical deposition on filter
canopy by ground application. This complementary pattern papers from lower to upper canopy elevations in both spray
reveals the difference between the top-down spray of aerial appli- events, a trend consistent with the pesticide residue analysis on
cation versus the bottom-up spray by ground application. While almonds. However, contrary to the trend found on almond nuts,
occasional insufficient coverage on top canopy targets, especially where more residues were detected on the second application,
those nut sutures facing upward, is observed for conventional fewer residues were detected on filter paper from the second
ground sprayers, an equal argument can be made as to whether application versus the first. This is probably from the use of new fil-
drone application can provide adequate coverage to the lower ter papers, thus there was no accumulation of residues from the
canopy of almond trees. Considering the size of the drone first application. Depositions on filter papers show slightly less
(approximately 1.6 m aircraft dimension) relative to the size of coefficient of variation values (16–85%) than the almond residue
tree canopies (6–8 m canopy size), it is not intuitive to believe samples (24–97%), possibly because of the regular geometry
the small drone can generate notably extensive penetration to and standard way of positioning the pole collectors versus more
the lower tree canopies. randomly positioned and protected nuts. The analytical results
Note that, at the lower canopy, chemical residues are higher in from filter papers validated the canopy penetration measured
the second application than the first application, a trend on almonds samples. The downwash flow created by the rotor
Figure 6. Chlorantraniliprole residues on whole unhusked almonds at three canopy levels: (A) 2019 first application; (B) 2019 second application.
7
navel orangeworm (Amyelois transitella)(Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). 23 Helena® Agri-Enterprises L. Aero Dyne-Amic® Label. Available from:
Pest Manag Sci 75:1435–1442 (2019). https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/agrian-cg-fs1-production/
16 Markle JC, Niederholzer FJ and Zalom FG, Evaluation of spray applica- pdfs/Aero_Dyne-Amic1_Label.pdf
tion methods for navel orangeworm control in almonds. Pest Manag 24 Teske M, Thistle H, Schou W, Miller P, Strager J, Richardson B et al., A
Sci 72:2339–2346 (2016). review of computer models for pesticide deposition prediction.
17 Perez A, Simnitt S. Fruit and tree nuts outlook. Report No.: FTS-369 Trans ASABE 54:789–801 (2011).
(2019). Available from: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/ 25 Wen S, Han J, Ning Z, Lan Y, Yin X, Zhang J et al., Numerical analysis and
outlooks/92731/fts-368.pdf?v=1681.5 validation of spray distributions disturbed by quad-rotor drone wake
18 Asai W, Micke W, Kester D and Rough D, The Evaluation and Selection of at different flight speeds. Comput Electron Agric 166:105036 (2019).
Current Varieties; Almond Production Manual. University of California 26 Chung J and Scherer M, Commercial Drone Adoption in Agribusiness:
System. Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. ANR Publica- Disruption in the Agriculture Ecosystem. Ipsos Business Consulting,
tions, Davis, CA (1996). Beijing, China (2019).
19 Edstrom J and Micke W eds, Sustaining yields in almond hedgerows, in 27 Higbee BS and Siegel JP, Field efficacy and application timing of methoxyfe-
I International Congress on Almond, Acta Horticulturae, Leuven, Bel- nozide, a reduced-risk treatment for control of navel orangeworm
gium, Vol. 525. (1994). https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.1994. (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in almond. J Econ Entomol 105:1702–1711 (2012).
373.35 28 Matthews G, Pesticides: residues in crops and their application. Out-
20 Siegel JP, Strmiska MM and Walse SS, Evaluating insecticide coverage looks Pest Manag 30:85–87 (2019).
and determining its effect on the duration of control for navel oran- 29 Wang G, Lan Y, Qi H, Chen P, Hewitt A, Han Y, Field evaluation of an
geworm (Amyelois transitella Walker)(Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in Cal- unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) sprayer: effect of spray volume on
ifornia almonds. Pest Manag Sci 75:2989–2995 (2019). deposition and the control of pests and disease in wheat. 75:
21 FMC. Altacor® insect control label. Available from: https://www3.epa. 1546–1555 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.5321.
gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/000279-09607-20180702.pdf 30 Wang G, Han Y, Li X, Andaloro J, Chen P, Hoffmann WC, Han X, Chen S,
(2018). Lan Y, Field evaluation of spray drift and environmental impact
22 FMC's Altacor® Insect Control, powered by Rynaxypyr® active. Available using an agricultural unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) sprayer. Science
from: https://www.fmccrop.com/Portals/_default/fmc_pdf/ of The Total Environment 737 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
c4d54d5af2834890a25ea1fefbde85e3.pdf (2020). scitotenv.2020.139793.
11