Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 11

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

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 Figure 1. Challenge of hull split spray for navel orangeworm control:
footed bug, oriental fruit moth). Of all the pests mentioned above, (A) nuts mature earlier at tree tops (6–9 m above ground); (B) nuts with
the navel orangeworm (NOW - Amyelois transitella, Lepidoptera: the sutures oriented upward away from ground application. Photographs
Pyralidae) is the primary pest of almond in California.15 Its control taken at approximately 8 m above ground.
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 Determining the effectiveness of multi-rotor drones in NOW
directly on the splitting hull, the exterior of the nut, with preferen- control in almonds would be of significant value to determine
tial egg laying occurring at/in the hull suture, and larvae hatch their potential use in the crop protection industry. To date,
within a week under hot summer temperatures common as the there has been no research on the performance of pesticide
crop matures. Larvae then move a short distance to begin feeding delivery and canopy penetration as well as operational success
within the nut, where pesticides cannot reach. To maximize nut of using drones in high-value nut production, particularly
protection, pesticide sprays are applied as soon as the nuts are almond trees. While the drone applicator has apparent advan-
vulnerable – at early hull split. tages and attractive characteristics over ground air-blast sprayer
Precise pesticide application timing is challenging due to the to cover nuts at the upper tree canopy, low spray volumes asso-
almond varieties and their planting pattern in the orchard. The ciated with a small payload raises questions of adequate spray
‘Nonpareil’ variety, currently accounting for slightly less than half penetration, deposition, and coverage of nuts produced in a
of the total almond production in California, is not self-fertile and high-density canopy and the resulting level of pest control.
is commonly planted in alternating rows with one to three differ- Such constraints require characterization of the drone applica-
ent pollinizer varieties across the orchard. A consequence of this tion performance throughout multiple spraying events relevant
planting pattern is multiple hull splits timings,18 beginning with to the complexity of hull-splitting stages. While water sensitive
‘Nonpareil’ in late June/early July and stretching into early fall paper and fluorescent tracer dyes are commonly used in spray
for certain pollinizer varieties, such as ‘Fritz’. Further, timing of quality evaluation,13 pesticide residues on the spray targets
hull-splitting within almond tree canopies and changes in canopy and subsequent biological performance may also be critical for
management strategies in the past 20–25 years combine to com- characterizing the effectiveness of a method of application.
plicate pest protection of the almond crop ahead of harvest. Thus, a comprehensive investigation that includes the combina-
Within trees of each almond variety, a spatial and temporal pro- tion of multiple evaluation tools to measure the suitability of
gression of hull-splitting and subsequent initiation of crop vulner- drone spray in almonds compared to commercial ground air-
ability to NOW damage occurs from the upper to the lower blast application, was conducted. Criteria, including visualized
canopy (Fig. 1(A)). The hedgerow almond plantings predominate spray pattern using water sensitive paper, analytical tracing of
in the almond production systems in California, resulting in more active ingredient using filter paper, pesticide residues on nuts
shading lower in the canopy and more nuts in the upper, sunlit and nut damage from navel orangeworm, were investigated
canopy.19 This situation challenges NOW control using ground- for all the UAV and air blast treatments.
based air-blast spraying, the conventional method used in Califor- This study examined the use and performance of an electric
nian orchards, to successfully treat the upper level nuts from multi-rotor UAV (∼11 kg payload, small size according to FAA part
ground sprays, particularly for nuts whose open sutures (splits) 107) for its potential to control foliar and nut attacking almond
face upward (Fig. 1(B)). Reduction in NOW control in the upper pests based on evaluation of spray deposits. Specific objectives
canopy relative to the lower canopy using air-blast sprayers is well were to (i) compare the results of commercial multi-rotor aerial
recognized.15–16 Ideally, effective sprays would be made on a sprayer versus a conventional air-blast orchard sprayer applied
timely basis on different rows at different canopy elevations throughout the almond hull-splitting stage and (ii) quantify the
based on almond varieties and their time of hull-splitting. Since comparative application performance under multiple evaluation
a more adaptable precisely timed spray schedule is desired for metrics including spray deposition assessment, pesticide residue
NOW control, it will be advantageous to investigate the role of analysis, and determine the credibility of using UAV application
UAV application technology to manage NOW. The operational technology to protect almond nuts from navel orangeworm
flexibility, independence from irrigation schemes, and ability to attack. Additional objectives were to investigate the operational
increase insecticide deposition in the upper canopy could posi- feasibility of drone orchard spraying and quantify pesticide depo-
tion the UAV sprays as either a substitute or supplement to exist- sition on specific drone structures. While the initial work focuses
ing ground sprays. specifically on a single crop and insect pest, these results may
2

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


Insecticide deposition from UAV application on almond www.soci.org

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

Pest Manag Sci 2020 © 2020 Society of Chemical Industry 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 Figure 3. Locations of collected pesticide deposition samples on UAV
top four open nozzles using the following orifices (all with D25 components: (i) Spray boom (each side); (ii) UAV arms (two opposite sides);
swirl plates) listed from the upper nozzle port: D5 (orifice diame- (iii) Central hub; (iv) Rotor blades.
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- treatment. Untreated almond samples were collected prior to
ter: 1.60 mm) (Spray Systems Inc., Wheaton, IL). each spray and used for extraction efficiency calibration in analyt-
ical method development and validation.
Pesticide deposition on the unmanned aircraft itself was evalu-
2.3 Measurement and sample collection ated from multiple drone components to provide preliminary
Spray penetration was measured at three canopy levels using insight into how small droplets entrapped by rotor vortices cre-
water sensitive papers (WSP) and glass fiber filter papers. The ated by the multi-rotor aerodynamics. Filter papers were placed
water sensitive cards and filter papers were placed side-by-side, on the rotorcraft at each side of the boom holder, two of the
oriented horizontally and pole-mounted at three elevations at drone arms which the operator is likely to use to lift the drone,
2.4, 3.6, and 4.9 m (8, 12, and 16 ft) above ground, representing and one on the drone top cover (Fig. 3). Deposition samples from
lower, middle and upper canopies, respectively. In each treat- the rotor blades were collected using cotton swabs saturated with
ment, telescoping poles were setup in five trees in a row with each acetone upon completion of the spray mission. All samples were
tree considered a replication unit for analysis. After the applica- stored in a solvent-resistance jar on dry ice during transport and
tion, filter papers were placed in pre-labeled jars and retained remained frozen until time of analysis.
for analysis of insecticide deposition. The water sensitive papers
were recovered, secured and then optically scanned for image 2.4 Chemicals
analysis to estimate the spray coverage by using DropVision® Ag Altacor® insect control (active ingredient: chlorantraniliprole) was
software (Leading Edge Associates, Asheville, NC). used for navel orangeworm control in this study21 and is a regis-
Insecticide residues were measured from nuts hand sampled at tered insecticide commonly used in California almonds. Choran-
lower, middle and upper canopy levels, equivalent to card/paper traniliprole, an anthranilic diamide, is classified by IRAC as a
positions. For each treatment, three to five nuts were randomly group 28 mode of action insecticide affecting the insect's ryano-
picked from three canopy elevations per tree, and about 12 to dine receptors which quickly paralyzes Lepidopteran larvae pre-
15 nuts were collected per tree. Six almond trees were sampled venting crop damage. Altacor® insect control product contains
for each treatment and a total of 72–90 nuts were sampled per 35% chlorantraniliprole as the active ingredient (a.i.) and is
4

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


Insecticide deposition from UAV application on almond www.soci.org

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

Pest Manag Sci 2020 © 2020 Society of Chemical Industry 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 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

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


Insecticide deposition from UAV application on almond www.soci.org

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

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


www.soci.org 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.
Figure 7. Chlorantraniliprole residues on filter papers by the unmanned
aerial application at two spray volumes at three canopy levels: (A) 2019 While there are varietal differences in susceptibility to NOW dam-
first application; (B) 2019 second application. 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
wake from a six-rotor copter directly impacts the fate of droplets years, lack of direct pesticide protection of pollinizer almonds, as
and can assist in the penetration of spray droplets deeper into those nuts split, can result in significant economic damage.
the tree canopy. Fundamentally different from the full-size heli- This pest is challenging to manage given its biology, its host
copters, the aerodynamic effects that result from small-scale mul- (almond), and the orchard production system in California. The
tiple rotors have not been comprehensively explored. Thus, most effective NOW management is delivered by an integrated
droplet movement and spray flow are currently not yet well program using cultural practices supplemented with pesticide
defined for small UAVs that normally function by the counter- application(s).15–17 The best spray timing for navel orangeworm
rotation rotors spinning at varying speeds to achieve necessary in almond can be started as early as 1% hull split. Given the com-
flight control. Regardless, proper use of rotor downwash relative plexity of the different almond varieties in terms of insecticide
to wind speed and direction can result in significant influence timing and vulnerability to NOW damage, extensive biological
on droplet penetration, as documented in this study. efficacy studies are still needed to confirm arguments and draw
any concrete conclusions. However, the biological complexity in
3.3 Crop protection from navel orangeworm almond crop protection clearly indicates the need for excellent
The crop damage evaluations in the 2019 field trial were taken spray coverage to achieve optimal pest control with most regis-
after two consecutive spray events. The mean percentage of crop tered insecticides. It is important to note that biological efficacy
damage across all treatments ranged from 3 to 5% (Fig. 8). results together with deposition assessment, residue analysis,
Although there is no statistical difference (P > 0.05) in NOW dam- and drift evaluation are four critical elements in the evaluation
age among the conducted treatments, changes in almond varie- of UAV technology as a new method of application.
ties and spray timing may alter the biological outcomes,
especially when using the Nonpareil variety thus supporting addi- 3.4 Active ingredient recovery on the aircraft
tional research on almond varieties. Previous studies show a typ- The aerodynamics from aircraft rotor wake and its downwash flow
ical almond damage reduction is around 50% and a 75% interact with the spray plumes and impact canopy penetration,
damage reduction can be a rare case.15, 16, 20 The Fritz variety used uniform coverage, and drift potential. In this study, spray deposits
in this study has excellent shell integrity to minimize navel oran- from major components of the aircraft were collected after com-
geworm penetration into the kernel, thus it is not prone to more pletion of the second application and active ingredient was deter-
damage than the commonly planted Nonpareil variety. The mined to explore any indication of excessive upward movement
8

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


Insecticide deposition from UAV application on almond 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
Figure 9. Distribution of active ingredient recovery on different drone
components. 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
of the spray. There are two major interactions between the aircraft UAV application might offer spot spraying to areas where hull split
and the release droplets: the first is the uplifting of droplets occurs early (outside rows and treetops) in the almond orchard
entrapped by the rotor tip vortices, and the second is contamina- then followed by ground application when the remaining almond
tion when the aircraft passes through the spray zone with small orchard reaches the approximate average hull split treatment
droplets suspended above the canopy. Figure 9 shows that a min- threshold of 1–5%.27 The combination of application methods
imal amount of active ingredient was recovered (< 6 μg) on the may not be practical if the same product is used and violates
aircraft, reducing the concerns that the rotor outwash may entrap labeled maximum number of applications, or amount of active
the spray material and/or the excessive spray suspension consist- ingredient allowable per season. The alternative is to develop an
ing of very fine droplets. The results suggest that the unmanned application recommendation with practical and effective minimal
aerial application can be a relatively clean operation when the spray volumes that allow solo drone applications in sequence to
spray system is properly configured, and the application event is be effective at an appropriate treatment threshold limit.
operated under sound parameters with favorable environmental Developing standard spray systems, best practices, and risk mit-
conditions following best management practices.10 In general, igation recommendations are critically needed with this new
the level of pesticide residues detected decreased along with method of application. How products are aerially dispersed
the distance away from the nozzles. The spray boom and drone depends on a set of engineering and environmental factors, such
arms were the parts with highest residues, while the rotor blades as aircraft scale, aircraft speed, wake vortices, wind speed, temper-
and the top of the central hub had lower residues. Since the drone ature, boom length, droplet size, etc.10, 26, 28, 29, 30 Diverse design
arms are often the most common locations for lifting the aircraft of the rotary and spray configurations and the associated tran-
by the ground crew, wearing proper personal protection equip- sient aerodynamics surrounding the aircraft present challenges
ment (PPE) is important. It is also important to note that mitigat- for maximizing effective operations. General best management
ing the risk of airborne drift and operator exposures remains a practices have been developed based on current knowledge
top priority for aerial, and all application operations.14,24,25 These and limited experience with a few specific aircrafts.10 However, a
data, although only from a single trial, are encouraging indica- better understanding of droplet fate and spray quality relative
tions that minimal aircraft contamination and spray interference to drone type, model, and spray configuration is expected by
may be achievable. 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
4 DISCUSSIONS field performance. In this study, we used water sensitive cards to
Results from this study, based on a specific six-rotor UAV model, visualize the difference in spray coverage between ground appli-
for a specific pest and pesticide combination on one crop at a spe- cation method and the drone aerial methods when spraying con-
cific critical stage of pest control are not conclusive and should siderably different droplet size spectra and spray volumes. We
not be extrapolated to all uses. However, these data provide measured the product residue on the actual nut targets and incor-
insight into both the potential use of drone technology for porated pest control ratings into the spray quality evaluation,
orchard crops and possibly large canopy perennial crops in com- allowing a comprehensive view of the field performance of the
mercial agriculture and recommendations suited for the new UAV UAV pesticide application on nut trees with dense canopy. This
method of pesticide application. An important recommendation holistic approach connects pesticide residue, deposition, cover-
for UAV application is determining the minimal spray volume that age, and canopy penetration data with pest control efficacy,
will provide reliable pest control while retaining operational effi- which provides more information than interpreting image-based
ciency. For example, the US Altacor® insect control label21 gener- pseudo-quantitative data from only water sensitive cards. Devel-
ally requires a minimum spray volume of 93.6 L/ha (10 gal per opment of UAV technology using an industry-wide multi-
acre) for manned aerial application. But, all Altacor® insect control disciplinary approach is recommended and will better ensure that
applications on tree nuts, including the control of navel orange- UAV technology is optimally incorporated into agricultural pro-
worm in almonds, requires that the minimum labeled spray vol- duction and crop protection programs. This requires continued
ume increases to 280.6 L/ha (30 gal per acre) regardless of and coordinated efforts among the crop protection industry,
9

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


www.soci.org X Li et al.

aircraft manufacturers, regulatory agencies, and the private and ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


public research communities. 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
5 CONCLUSIONS express our appreciation to our team members from Stine
This study characterized the comparative differences of spray Research Center, particularly Joe Klems, Jim Stry, Jing Wang for
deposition and canopy penetration between a new method of chlorantraniliprole registration and analytical information, Nancy
application, a UAV technology, versus a conventional commercial Ferry for statistical analysis, and Hector Portillo for Altacor® insect
ground application method to evaluate the credibility of UAV use control application guidance. We thank Pete Lana and Philip
for almond pest control. The results of this study showed compa- Northover for their participation of the 2019 field trial. We appre-
rable overall pesticide residue levels on whole unhulled almonds ciate all the constructive comments and suggestions from Jacob
but distinct differences in coverage and residue patterns at differ- Vukich, Hector Portillo, and Roberte Makowski on the manu-
ent canopy elevations between the aerial and ground application script1. We particularly acknowledge the thorough and expert
methods. The UAV application at the higher spray volume of review by Joel Siegel.
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
REFERENCES
pest control, even for the new UAV method of application. How- 1 Bolman B, 2015. Provocation: A prairie drone companion. Cult Mach
ever, more crop protection-focused data are needed to confirm 16:1–6 (2015).
the efficacy of the UAV application method at differing spray vol- 2 Sheets KD, The Japanese impact on global drone policy and law: why a
umes. The interactions between canopy elevations and the spray laggard United States and other nations should look to Japan in the
context of drone usage. Ind J Global Legal Stud 25:513 (2018).
methods were statistically significant. Deep canopy penetration
3 Giles D and Billing R, Deployment and performance of a UAV for crop
by the small drone sprayer into the high-density almond trees spraying. Chem Eng Trans 44:307–312 (2015).
was intuitively unexpected and plainly noticeable, assumedly 4 Giles D, Use of remotely piloted aircraft for pesticide applications:
benefitting from the rotor downwash. Almond residues increased issues and outlook. Outlooks Pest Manag 27:213–216 (2016).
from the lower canopy to the upper canopy with the drone appli- 5 He X, Rapid development of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) for plant
protection and application technology in China. Outlooks Pest
cation method, a trend that is validated and aligned with analyti- Manag 29:162–167 (2018).
cal results found on sprayed filter papers. The movement of spray 6 Tang Q, Zhang RR, Ding CC, Chen LP, Xu M, Xu G et al., Application of an
droplets above the drone sprayer was minimal in this study, sug- ultrasonic anemometer array to field measurements of the down-
gesting the possibility that the unmanned aerial application can wash flow of an agricultural unmanned helicopter. Trans ASABE 62:
1219–1230 (2019).
be a clean operation when droplet size and spray configurations
7 Meng Y, Song J, Lan Y, Mei G, Liang Z and Han Y, Harvest aids efficacy
are properly chosen. applied by unmanned aerial vehicles on cotton crop. Ind Crop Prod
The current management of navel orangeworm in large almond 140:111645 (2019).
orchards dictates applying the accurate amount of product at the 8 Scherer M, Chung J and Lo J, Commercial Drone Adoption in Agribusi-
correct hull split timing to the specific split hull target. These are ness: Disruption and Opportunity. Ipsos Business Consulting, Beijing,
China (2017).
demanding criteria that current UAV application technology 9 Charlton D, Taylor JE, Vougioukas S and Rutledge Z, Innovations for a
may not be able to meet as a suitable substitute of the traditional shrinking agricultural workforce. Choices: The Magazine of Food,
air-blast ground sprayer. However, this study demonstrated that Farm, and Resource Issues 34:1–8 (2019).
UAV aerial application may possibly provide complementary 10 Li X, Andaloro JT, Lang EB, Pan Y. Best management practices for
unmanned aerial vehicles (uavs) application of insecticide products
assistance to air-blast ground sprays in a timely and precise man- on rice. 2019 ASABE Annual International Meeting, Paper
ner, particularly for controlling pest populations within a critically No. 1901493. doi:https://doi.org/10.13031/aim.201901493 (2019).
short time window. Developing an integrated approach would 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
operationally facilitate the high temporal and spatial targeting
Agric 25:803–809 (2019).
that is not possible now, due to the time and logistics required 12 Teske ME, Thistle HW and Fritz BK, Modeling aerially applied sprays: an
for high spray volume, low ground speed (and associated field update to AGDISP model development. Trans ASABE 62:343–354
efficiency) in conventional sprays. The unique almond nut-suture (2019).
13 Richardson B, Rolando CA, Somchit C, Dunker C, Strand TM and
where the navel orangeworm moth lays eggs compounded by
Kimberley MO, Swath pattern analysis from a multi-rotor unmanned
high temporal and spatial variability of hull splitting for different aerial vehicle configured for pesticide application. Pest Manag Sci
almond varieties challenges any application method to provide 76:1282–1290 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.5638.
economic crop protection. 14 Brown CR and Giles DK, Measurement of pesticide drift from
unmanned aerial vehicle application to a vineyard. Trans ASABE 61:
Most importantly, this study provides comprehensive data
1539–1546 (2018).
regarding the use of multi-rotor drones in the agricultural industry 15 Siegel JP, Strmiska MM, Niederholzer FJ, Giles DK and Walse SS, Evalu-
for pesticide application. The coverage, residue and penetration ating insecticide coverage in almond and pistachio for control of
data collected from one of the most difficult pest control systems
in US agriculture supports reported successes experienced in 1
FMC, Altacor and Rynaxypyr are trademarks of FMC Corporation or an
China. UAV technology is a new method of application to growers
affiliate. As of November 1, 2017, the U.S. EPA registration for the Altacor®
and offers an additional tool for crop protection. Additional insect control product noted in this document were sold to FMC by
research is required to better understand and model droplet DuPont. TeeJet, Turbo TeeJet, and XR TeeJet are trademarks of Spraying
movement and optimize spray system configurations that will Systems Company Corporation, Dyne-Amic is a registered trademark of
improve this technological offering, making it more valuable for Helena Holding Company, and DropVision is a registered trademark of
10

agricultural use. Leading Edge Associates.

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


Insecticide deposition from UAV application on almond www.soci.org

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

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

You might also like