Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101870

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Results in Engineering
journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/results-in-engineering

Herbicide spraying and weed identification using drone technology in

modern farms: A comprehensive review
Srija Meesaragandla a, Megha P. Jagtap a, Narendra Khatri b, *, Hakka Madan b,
Aditya Abhiram Vadduri b
a
Department of Agronomy, Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, Parbhani, 431402, Maharashtra, India
b
Department of Mechatronics, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In the field of advanced agriculture, drones have emerged as cutting-edge aerial spraying technology. This
Drones innovative approach offers enhanced flexibility and a more systematic approach compared to traditional
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) applications methods, resulting in a remarkable 60-fold increase in efficiency. Identifying weed patches can be accomplished
Weeds
by utilizing image acquisition with drones for subsequent processing and spraying. An additional benefit of
Herbicides
spraying is the “downwash” effect generated by the rotors, resulting in enhanced deposition on the intended
Spraying
target. It is important to assess specific application techniques in order to enhance the efficiency of weed control
using drones. This review provides an overview of the current scientific research on the use of camera-equipped
drones for weed detection and the subsequent application of herbicides for weed control. Research on the
comparison of sprayers and their effectiveness in spraying has shown that this technology has the capability to
replace applications carried out mainly with knapsack sprayers in order to reduce occupational hazards. There
are various factors that can affect the efficiency of this particular method of aerial spraying. These include the
altitude and speed at which the spraying is conducted, as well as meteorological conditions, the rate at which the
solution is applied, the characteristics of the droplet producer, and the properties of the spray solution. Over­
coming various challenges is crucial for the successful implementation of this new technology. Skilled experts are
required to address formulation and labeling details, as well as guidelines. Additionally, understanding the
aerodynamic effect in droplets is essential for its effectiveness.

1. Introduction
There is a growing global demand for food as the population con­
tinues to increase, necessitating a series of increases in food production.
Given this, farmers employ technology that yields higher productivity,
such as utilizing drones for weed detection and spraying. Weeds pose a
significant threat to crop productivity [1]. Weeds compete for resources
like nutrients, water, light, CO2, and space, resulting in significant re­
ductions in crop yield. In addition, weeds provide a habitat for pests like
insects, bacteria, viruses, and fungi that can impact neighboring crops
[2–6]. To control weeds, various methods are employed, such as manual
weeding, mechanical and machine weeding, traditional herbicides,
sustainable techniques, and artificial intelligence (AI).
Hand weeding involves a lack of available workers and significant
expenses in terms of wages. When considering the effectiveness of me­
chanical weed control in weed management, it is important to
understand its limitations [7,8]. Chemical weed control approaches are
more effective than mechanical methods in reducing weed densities and
biomass. Herbicides, on the other hand, cause significant negative im­
pacts, particularly the problem of herbicide resistance in weeds, even
though it’s cost-effective and versatile [9,10]. There are several draw­
backs to consider, such as the low effectiveness, especially when it
comes to knapsack sprayers. Additionally, this method requires a high
labor intensity and is quite time-consuming. Moreover, a significant
amount of water is used, ranging from 225 to 450 L per hectare [11].
To optimize the productivity of contemporary agriculture, it is
necessary to utilize drones for aerial application. This allows for the
standardization of the process of chemical spraying and helps adapt to
the scarcity of labor in rural regions. This spraying technology ensures
that the product is deposited more effectively on the chosen target and
reduces environmental losses. A UAV monitors small individual plants
or weed patches, which have previously been unavailable [12]. In their

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: narkhatri@gmail.com, narendra.khatri@manipal.edu (N. Khatri).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2024.101870
Received 10 September 2023; Received in revised form 17 January 2024; Accepted 30 January 2024
Available online 1 February 2024
2590-1230/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
S. Meesaragandla et al.
study, Mink et al. (2018) discuss a method of applying herbicides to
specific sites using UAV imagery. It demonstrate that by analyzing aerial
images, it is possible to determine the presence or absence of weeds in
row crops [13,14].
In addition, the advancement of drones equipped with cameras and
geographic information systems (GIS) technology in weed management
strategies is evident [15]. By combining drones, robots, artificial intel­
ligence, and other sensors, various agricultural tasks can be optimized
for weed detection and eradication, leading to improved outcomes
[16–19]. This technology utilizes drones to decrease manual labor and
enhance food quality [20].
Nonetheless, a deficiency in research data pertaining to herbicide
spraying utilizing drones is evident. Additional research investigations
are requisite to delve into the dynamics of drone herbicide spraying and
its consequential impact on weed and crop injury. Consequently, the
objective of this review is to delineate the extant scientific research
landscape and conduct a thorough analysis of drone utilization in
contrast to alternative sprayers, with a focus on enhancing weed control
efficiency. The underlying strategy involves the technological
advancement of this methodology within the Indian agricultural
domain, aimed at augmenting weed management and crop yield, while
concurrently mitigating the challenges posed by labor scarcity and
diminishing chemical reliance for the eradication of herbicide-resistant
weeds.
2. Types of drones used in agriculture
In 1985, the Yamaha company in Japan introduced the inaugural
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) for agricultural applications, namely
the RMAX model R50. China also stands as a notable contributor to this
technology, with over 200 manufacturers incorporating UAVs in their
operations. The majority of these UAVs possess an unloaded capacity
ranging from 10.0 kg to 50.0 kg, operate within the altitude range of 1.0
m–5.0 m, and maintain an operational speed of less than 8.0 m/s.
Powered by electric motors, these UAVs are equipped with tank loads
ranging from 5 L to 30 L [21]. Drones manifest as two primary types:
Fixed wings and Rotary wings. The latter, particularly multi-rotors, are
predominantly employed for chemical spraying due to their stability and
capability for vertical and static flight.
2.1. Classification of agri-drones
There are two main categories of agri-drones: fixed wing and rotary
type. Table 1 presents a comparison of the characteristics of fixed-wing
and rotary-type agri-drones.
2.1.1. DJI Agras MG-1
The DJI Agras MG-1, an octocopter designed for agricultural appli­
cations, facilitates the aerial dispersion of herbicides, insecticides, and
fertilizers across extensive agricultural landscapes. Notable attributes of
the MG-1 include its capacity to carry a liquid payload of up to 10 kg and
Table 1
Classification of the Agri-drones based on the types of wings.
UAV Fixed wings Rotary wings
Flight time Up to an hour Up to 20 min
Flexibility in altering Allow new directions Allow new direction for re-
direction during a for re-direction direction direction during flight
flight wind direction.
Runway Requires a runway to Not required runway
take off from the
ground
Adaptable Highly adaptable Highly adaptable
Coverage area Large area Small area
Cost $500 to $1,00,000 $1,00,000
Agricultural spraying drones on the market include.
2
Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101870
the ability to cover an area ranging from 4000 to 6000 m2 within a mere
10-min timeframe. This operational efficiency surpasses manual spray­
ing by a factor of 70. The aircraft offers three distinct flight modes,
namely Smart, Manual Plus Mode, and Manual Mode, allowing adap­
tation to varying field conditions [22]. Table 2 provides a comprehen­
sive overview of the features associated with the DJI Agras MG-1, while
Fig. 1 illustrates the herbicide spraying process performed by the drone.
2.1.2. DJI Agras-16
The DJI Agras-16 is a hexacopter operating under a multicraft con­
trol mode, effectively overseeing the concurrent operation of five
aircraft. Its distinctive radar system incorporates digital beam forming
(DBF) technology, enabling the generation of a 3D point cloud imagery
for precise environmental sensing and obstacle avoidance [22]. Table 3
provides a comprehensive overview of the key features inherent to the
DJI Agras-16, and Fig. 2 illustrates its field operation.
2.1.3. Field quadcopter
Fig. 3 illustrates the Parrot Bluegrass, a fixed-wing drone specifically
designed for precision farming applications, particularly in agricultural
spraying [25,26]. It provides insights into augmenting crop productivity
and enhancing crop quality. The fixed-wing drone is characterized by its
simplicity, affordability, and an accurate camera capable of capturing
high-quality images. Equipped with a multispectral sensor and a 14 MP
front red, green, and blue (RGB) camera, it offers a comprehensive set of
features. To complement its straightforward functionalities, it in­
corporates the Parrot Fields mobile app, facilitating quick comprehen­
sion of field operations and data analysis for crops.
The Sentara normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) camera
stands out as one of the smallest and lightest intelligent farming sensors
currently available in the market. The software associated with this
camera proves highly effective in generating NDVI maps, providing
valuable insights into crop health. Additionally, it supports topography
mapping, weed detection location mapping, and crop density analysis.
Flight planning becomes more accessible and ensures precise coverage
of large areas. Fig. 4 illustrates a crop field mapping operation utilizing a
Sentara NDVI camera mounted on a DJI phantom quadcopter.
Several agricultural drones in India, such as the Phoenix 1200 Ag
quadcopter, Garuda Kisan drone, Carbon fiber E16L, Mode 2 Carbon
Fiber Agriculture, IG Drone Auto Agri drone, Prime AG2, etc., contribute
to the diverse landscape of drone applications in agriculture. Table 4
presents a comprehensive comparison of different drones deployed for
agricultural purposes.
When selecting a type of battery, various factors come into play for
the user. Considerations include initial costs, lifetime, mass, volume,
temperature sensitivity, maintenance access, and product accessibility.
A careful evaluation of these factors is essential in battery selection [28].
In comparing lithium-ion batteries with lithium-polymer batteries, the
preference tends towards the utilization of lithium-polymer batteries
[29].
Table 2
Specifications of DJI Agras MG-1.
Parameter Specifications
Nozzle 4
Liquid tank 10 kg (payload), 10 L (volume)
Battery 12000 mAh
Flight parameters Max take-off weight: 24.5 kg
Max operating speed: 8 m/s
Max flying speed: 22 m/s
Area covered 65–80 acre in one day
S. Meesaragandla et al. Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101870

Fig. 1. Crop field spraying using DJI Agras MG-1 [23].

Fig. 4. Crop field NDVI mapping using Sentera’s NDVI camera mounted on DJI
Table 3
Phantom quadcopter [27].
Specifications of DJI Agras-16.
Parameters Specifications

Nozzle 8 Table 4
Liquid tank 16L Technical specifications of most used UAVs in agriculture [22].
Battery 17500 mAh Agriculture Battery Application Coverage Flight Time
Spray width 6.5 m UAVs
Spray rate 4.8 L/min
Area covered 10 ha/h DJI Matrice 5700 Crop health 400 acre 40 min
100 mAh monitoring, aerial
LiPo 6S photography, and
mapping
Agras MG-1- 12000 Aerial imaging, 7–10 acre 22 min
DJI mAh spraying, and mapping
Sentera P.H. Weed detection, pest 700 acre
X. management, and crop
health monitoring
DJI Matrice 4500 Plant identification 50–100 18 min/40
600 pro mAh and counting, acre min with
LiPo 6S navigation, and aerial additional
imaging battery
EBee SQ fly 4900 RGB photography, 500 acre 55 min
mAh covering large areas in
Lipo each flight, soil
temperature measuring
Lancaster 5 7000 Plant counting and 300 acre 45 min
mAh numbering, analyzing
plant quality, and
developing
prescription maps
Fig. 2. Field operation of DJI Agras-T16 [24]. Sentera Plant counting, crop 50 acre
NDVI health monitoring
Phantom 4
Pro
Honeycomb 8000 Navigation, 600 acre 55 min
mAh surveillance, soil H20
LiPo levels, and air pressure
AgEagle RX- Aerial photography, 400 acre
60 crop health
monitoring, and map
prescription

identifying weed patches, a crucial aspect when navigating amidst crop

Fig. 3. Crop field mapping using Parrot Bluegrass quadcopter.
3. Drones in weed management
3.1. Use of drones in weed detection
Drones are frequently utilized for crop condition assessment through
the scanning of near-infrared and visible light [30]. Their significant
advantage lies in the reduced surveying or monitoring time required for
rows [31]. UAVs have the capacity to cover extensive hectares within
minutes, generating photographic images for weed patch identification
[32]. Processing of these images involves the utilization of deep neural
networks, convolutional neural networks, and object-based image
analysis.
A comprehensive evaluation of research on UAV-based weed iden­
tification highlights three primary types of cameras: RGB, multispectral,
and hyperspectral [33,34]. However, the precision of these cameras in
distinguishing weed patches depends on factors such as flying height,
drone type, and camera resolution.
Prior to designing an automated weed management system, it is
imperative to differentiate between crop seedlings and weeds [35,36].

3
S. Meesaragandla et al. Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101870

The quadcopter UAV model md4-1000, equipped with a global posi­
tioning system (GPS) and an RGB or multispectral camera, is employed
for the detection and mapping of weeds, crop rows, and bare soil. This is
achieved through an appropriate and automated object-based image
analysis (OBIA) framework, facilitating the creation of accurate
site-specific herbicide application maps [37].
A method involving color analysis for detecting green weeds like
Cirsium arvense in cereals before crop harvest has been implemented.
Under various environmental circumstances, RGB cameras demon­
strated correct categorization of 92–97 % of patches when C. arvense was
dominant [38]. Small consumer UAVs, including models like the
Phantom 3 or 4, are capable of mapping 10 ha in 20 min at a flight
altitude of 40 m. In a specific vineyard field, a quadcopter UAV captured
aerial red-green-blue (RGB) photos to map weed patches, optimizing
site-specific weed control during the dormant stage of C. dactylon, uti­
lizing an OBIA approach for early detection and mapping [39].
Enhancing the accuracy of weed identification in a model md4-1000
quadcopter involves considering the precise position of each plant
within the crop row structure. The weed mapping rule set method is
executed automatically through three phases: 1) crop row categoriza­
tion, 2) differentiation between crop plants and weeds based on relative
positions, and 3) development of a weed infestation map in a grid sys­
tem. This technique encourages the reduction of herbicide applications,
tailoring doses to the observed degree of weed infestation [40].
Detection capability, indicating the algorithm’s accuracy in classi­
fying a pixel as a crop or weed [41,42], stands at 91 % accuracy in
detecting weeds on visuals with a spatial resolution of 21.6 mm/pixel.
Utilizing visible and multispectral cameras, a UAV with an automated
OBIA approach maps Johnsongrass weed patches [43].
Equipped with GPS, the UAV eBee captures multispectral images of
infested weeds such as lamb’s quarters (Chenopodium album) and thistle
(Cirsium arvense). Two dicotyledonous weeds are identified in the maize
crop. The study underscores the importance of spatial resolution in
detecting specific weed sizes, a critical element in the development of
UAV-based weed identification technology [41]. UAVs, offering greater
flexibility and versatility than conventional planes, excel in obtaining
high-resolution images for weed and crop damage detection caused by
dicamba, facilitating site-specific weed management to spot weed den­
sities [41,49]. Table 5 details the applications of RGB, multispectral, and
hyperspectral cameras in agriculture management [44].
3.2. Use of drone spraying for weed control
There exists a pronounced suppressive effect on weed growth in
wheat fields. The application of drone-based spraying yields a substan­
tial weed management impact, suppressing over 98 % of Japanese fox­
tail and bedstraw (Galium aparine) weeds within wheat crops.
Observations indicate the presence of approximately 0–2 weeds per 0.5
m2, with the majority of the treated area exhibiting an absence of weed
seedlings [11]. The respective weed control effects stand at 89.4 % and
90.8 % [50]. At a drone spraying rate of 600 mL/ha, the experimental
plot demonstrates a significant reduction in weed height [51].
In the context of pre-emergence (PE) spraying, the drone can achieve
a weed control efficiency of 98–100 % in fields characterized by higher
soil moisture and reduced straw content. It is recommended to empha­
size the use of drones for pre-emergence spraying, given its greater
significance in weed management. Conversely, post-emergence (PoE)
spraying exhibits a weed injury efficiency ranging from 10 to 70 % and
reveals a certain degree of weed resistance to post-herbicides employed
in the research study [11]. This suggests that employing a drone for
pre-emergence spraying holds greater importance in weed control
compared to the use of post-application herbicides, which demonstrate a
level of weed resistance and induce weed injuries within the range of
10–70 %.
Among various treatments, the application of 70 % metribuzin at a
rate of 0.175 kg a.i. ha− 1 in wheat crops using a knapsack sprayer (PE)
combined with drone (PoE) results in the lowest dry weight of monocot
and dicot weeds. This integrated approach achieves the highest weed
control efficiency at 74.82 % and the lowest weed index of 2.78 %,
indicating its efficacy in weed management post a weed-free treatment
[52]. Notably, in the case of Japanese foxtail weeds, knapsack sprayer
application outperforms drone spraying. However, for weeds such as
bluegrass and bedstraw, drone treatments exhibit comparable efficacy in
terms of weed control [11].
3.2.1. Various herbicides are applied via Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
(UAVs)
A UAV equipped with diflufenican + isoproturon herbicide demon­
strates a notable weed control efficacy, reducing over 98 % of weeds
such as Japanese foxtail and bedstraw (Galium aparine) in wheat crops
[11]. Conversely, the application of Fluroxypyr-meptyl at a rate of 20 %
EC, using a drone at 600 mL/ha results in a considerably diminished
impact on weed growth and height [51].

Table 5
Identification of weed patches by using different types of cameras.
Type of camera Crop Weed (common name) Weed (scientific name) Main results References

RGB camera Triticum spp Thistle Cirsium arvense Discriminate crop vs weeds [38]
RGB camera Vitis vinifera Bermuda grass Cynodon dactylon Discriminate crop vs weeds [39]
RGB camera Hordeum vulgare Thistle Coltsfoot Cirsium arvense Tussilago farfara Discriminate crop vs weeds [45]
Multispectral camera Zea mays Mat amaranthus Johnsongrass Amaranthus blitoides Sorghum halepense Discriminate crop vs weeds [40]
Multispectral camera Zea mays Common Chenopodium album Discriminate crop vs weeds [46]
lambs quarters Cirsium arvense
Thistle
Multispectral camera Triticum durum Wild oat Avena sterilis Discriminate crop vs weeds [47]
Canary grass Phalaris canariensis
Ryegrass Lolium rigidum
Hyperspectral camera Triticum spp Weeds Discriminate crop vs weeds. [30]
Hyperspectral camera Zea mays Marestail Conyza canadensis Discriminate herbicide-resistant weeds [48]
Hordeum vulgare common Chenopodium album
Pisum sativum lambs quarters
Phaseolus vulgaris
Hyperspectral camera Triticum durum Wild oat Avena fatua Discriminate crop vs weeds [37]
Multispectral camera Canary grass Phalaris canariensis
Ryegrass Lolium rigidum
RGB camera Glycine max Palmer Amaranthus palmeri Assessment of crop injury from dicamba [49]
Multispectral camera Amaranth Echinochloa crusgalli
Barnyard grass Digitaria sanguinalis
Large crabgrass

4
S. Meesaragandla et al.
In the research domain, current studies reveal that there is no sig­
nificant divergence in weed control effectiveness when employing
different herbicide rates (e.g., diflufenican + isoproturon at 180 +
1.800 kg a.i. ha− 1 and 120 + 1.200 kg a.i. ha− 1) through various
sprayers such as UAVs and knapsack sprayers. Similar observations are
made with different herbicide combinations (diflufenican + isoproturon
and flufenacet + diflufenican + flurtamone). The research asserts that
low-rate herbicides exhibit less efficacy compared to high-rate herbi­
cides, attributing this to the development of weed resistance in the area
[11].
The application of isoproturon + clodinafop-propargyl + meso­
sulfuron herbicides via UAV demonstrates comparable weed control
effectiveness to that achieved with a knapsack sprayer. However, for
Japanese foxtail weed, the knapsack sprayer application of meso­
sulfuron + isoproturon + clodinafop-propargyl proves more effective
than its UAV counterpart. Simultaneously, UAV application of diflufe­
nican + isoproturon reduces Japanese foxtail seedlings by 60 % and
shepherd’s purse by 50 %, while the knapsack sprayer treatment ach­
ieves approximately 75 % reduction in Japanese foxtails and 80 % in
shepherd’s purses in another experimental area. Additionally, UAV
application of flufenacet + diflufenican + flurtamone controls 70 % of
Japanese foxtail and 80 % of shepherd’s purse, whereas the knapsack
sprayer application results in less than 85 % reduction in Japanese
foxtail and 80 % in shepherd’s purse [11].
Herbicide application through a combination of knapsack sprayer
(PE) and drone (PoE) yields a lower weed index compared to PE her­
bicide application by a knapsack sprayer with metribuzin 70 % at a rate
of 0.175 kg a.i ha− 1 [52].
UAV application of isoproturon + clodinafop-propargyl + meso­
sulfuron herbicides at both low and high rates generates approximately
68 % and 72 % injury rates, respectively, while the knapsack sprayer
induces 80 % total injury. In another field area, UAV application with a
lower rate of herbicide mixtures results in an average of 48–50 % weed
injury on Japanese foxtail, whereas a higher rate leads to 62–65 %
injury. Moreover, the knapsack sprayer demonstrates a 68 % success
rate [53]. With the exception of flucarbazone-sodium + clodinafop
propargyl + mesosulfuron + florasulam, which has a limited control
impact on bluegrass, no significant difference is observed in weed
management effectiveness among herbicide combinations. Notably,
doubts persist regarding the quality and quantity of chemical doses
applied.
3.3. Effect of drone spraying
3.3.1. Spray coverage
In the conducted trials, a Spraying Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)
equipped with a precisely coordinated ultra-low-power MSP430 single-
chip miniaturized scale microcontroller module is utilized to coordinate
spraying at the required locations in the field. This coordination proves
to be superior in achieving a more uniform spray, surpassing the rec­
ommended standard of the ultra-low volume spraying range coefficient
[54]. Results reveal that the CL-shaped peach tree exhibits robust
droplet coverage in the upper layer and consistency in the bottom three
layers, with the Y-shaped tree displaying a higher droplet coverage rate.
Inter-row spraying in the CL-shaped configuration not only reduces
chemical spraying volume but also enhances the droplet coverage rate
[55]. The discharge of droplets on a round head-shaped canopy plant
achieves uniform deposition, resulting in the highest percentage of spray
coverage compared to hedgerow and open center canopy plants [56].
3.3.2. Crop growth and yield
Significant differences in maize biomass are observed between un­
treated and treated control plots. Early post-emergence spraying with
UAVs leads to a reduction in herbicide usage without affecting crop
yield, while concurrently enhancing silage biomass output [57]. Inte­
grating UAV mapping with sprayers introduces a novel technique that
5
Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101870
improves weed spatial aggregation (patchiness) and product usefulness,
thereby maximizing efficiency. UAV Integrated Spraying (UAV-IS) en­
hances weed detection and control, mitigating herbicide resistance
development and promoting improved crop growth and productivity.
Herbicide spraying with UAVs results in a 14.6 % improvement in wheat
production, reaching 9283.40 kg/ha with UAV application compared to
8097.58 kg/ha with manual operations [58].
3.3.3. Soil management
It is asserted that weed control efficiency in Precision Agriculture
(PE) is intricately linked to soil management. Despite a herbicide rate 20
% lower than the generally employed rate, weed management effec­
tiveness remains unaffected. This is attributed to the soft topsoil,
absence of straw cover in the research area, and the experiment’s pre­
vailing higher rainfall and humidity. In situations where spray volume is
insufficient to provide ample moisture, UAV-assisted PE herbicide
application facilitates the formation of an herbicide film on the soil
surface. The presence of large soil particles and straw coverage on the
soil surface imposes restrictions on herbicide film production. Utilizing
UAVs for PE herbicide spraying exhibits substantial promise but neces­
sitates an accompanying soil management strategy to achieve optimal
weed control efficiency [11,58].
3.3.4. Crop injury
The application of PE herbicides via UAVs is deemed safe for wheat
seeds and seedlings, causing no crop injury. Conversely, when employ­
ing UAVs for the application of isoproturon + clodinafop-propargyl +
mesosulfuron in the case of Post-Emergence (PoE), a 10 %–20 % injury
(total plant chlorosis) is observed, recovering within 20 days after
treatment. Consequently, operators using herbicide combinations with
mesosulfuron via UAV should exercise caution and conduct a formula­
tion test in a small plot before widespread application [11].
4. Factors that interfere in spray deposition on target while
spraying with UAV
Optimal spraying efficiency and uniform deposition depend on
various application parameters, including flight height, speed, UAV
type, application rate, nozzle type, droplet size, spray pressure, adju­
vants, and meteorological factors such as wind speed, wind direction, air
temperature, and relative humidity. Numerous studies affirm that her­
bicide application efficiency is directly impacted by droplet size, con­
centration, and spray volume [59].
4.1. Droplet release height and speed
To attain optimal application, it is crucial to establish a balance
between the altitude and velocity of drone flight [60]. In instances
where the wind direction proves unstable and exceeds a rate of four (4)
m/s, the droplet distribution becomes non-uniform. Additionally, the
deposition width encounters limitations imposed by the flight height
[61]. Researchers demonstrate that the flight speed does not influence
the width of the deposition swath; rather, it is the flight height that plays
a significant role [62]. For instance, the impact of drone flight height on
the spraying quality of citrus reveals adequate spray coverage when the
drone operates at an altitude of 1.2 m [63]. The droplet’s launch height
governs its evaporation as it progresses from 1.5 m to 4.0 m before
reaching the target. Nevertheless, other factors, such as lateral wind and
flight path, may impede the droplet launch. Algorithms and artificial
intelligence technologies prove capable of rectifying such influences and
maintaining the aircraft’s stability in the face of fluctuating wind and
topographical conditions [64].
4.2. Uniformity distribution of droplets
The horizontal uniformity is influenced by various parameters such
S. Meesaragandla et al.
as the tip utilized, the overlap of the jets, the design of the spray system,
and the type of UAV. The distribution uniformity remains excellent at
altitudes of 1.5 m and 2.0 m. Undersized droplets (<50 mm) easily drift,
while larger droplets (>400 mm) face challenges in penetration [65].
Fine droplets with a diameter of <50 mm are designed to rapidly lose
their kinetic energy upon release, directing them towards the drift zone
due to external wind. In contrast, coarser droplets, when compared to
fine ones, significantly reduce drift [66].
In the presence of a crosswind exceeding the critical speed, spray
drift may become substantial [67–69]. When a UAV sprays with coarse
droplets (400–450 μm) at a 10 % concentration, the highest deposition is
concentrated along the center axis of the UAV within the 1–2 m region.
Consequently, low flight altitude (2 m) and a speed range of (2 m/s)
result in maximum deposition, droplet density concentration, and the
highest coverage percentage in the target zone [70].
4.3. Spray volume
Spray volume is intricately associated with both droplet coverage
and concentrations [61]. Generally, spray volumes of 15 and 22.5 L/ha
do not exhibit any discernible impact on weed control. It is feasible to
administer Precision Agriculture Pesticides (PoE) with a low spray vol­
ume; however, this may potentially affect Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
(UAVs). Due to restricted battery life and limited loading capacity, UAV
applications result in a lower spray volume and constrained droplet
distribution [11].
The application volume with UAVs for crops such as wheat, rice, and
others ranges from 12 L/ha to 18 L/ha [55,70–72]. In the context of
weed control, a low spray volume manifests a superior effect on blue­
grass, while a high spray volume demonstrates a more pronounced
impact on bedstraw. The utilization of a UAV with a 15 L/ha spray
volume yields a diminished effect (22 %) compared to employing a 22.5
L/ha and a knapsack sprayer (48–56 %) [11].
4.4. Spray coverage
When subjected to UAV spraying, the target zones currently exhibit
an average coverage percentage of 18.77 % [72]. The deposition and
coverage of droplets are presently influenced by the formation of plant
canopy structures [73–75]. Notably, the outer layer presently receives
more depositions compared to the inner layers of the plant canopy.
Additionally, in the context of aerial spraying, the uniformity of droplet
distribution and penetrability is currently heavily influenced by flight
height and speed at lower natural wind speeds [70].
The current whirling strength directly correlates with deposition,
coverage per unit area, and deposition uniformity. Moreover, the vol­
ume of application presently affects the range and number of depositions
per unit area. Syngenta Crop Protection AG (Basel, Switzerland)
currently posits that a reasonable number of spray deposits, including
insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides, can yield satisfactory results.
Specifically, the recommended number of depositions should be at least
20 depositions/cm2, 30–40 depositions/cm2, and 50–70 depositions/
cm2 for insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides, respectively.
4.5. Spray deposition
The upper layer exhibits an average deposition of 28 %, with a
corresponding 26 % detected on the lower layer. Consequently,
approximately 92.8 % of the deposition is presently recorded on the
underlayer, in contrast to the upper layer, and 90 % of the droplets are
deposited within 8 m of the target area [76].
The current average spray deposition, standing at 2.29 μL/cm2,
reaches its maximum when the UAV operates at a height of 2 m with a
forward speed of 2 m/s [73]. Currently, the density of droplets in the
intermediate layer of soybean experiences a reduction of 14.75 % to the
upper layer and 71.85 % to the middle layer. Notably, the droplet
6
Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101870
density and deposition of the middle layer currently surpass those of the
upper and lower layers during spraying with the M23 electric four-rotor
UAV [77].
4.6. Effect of the operational parameters on spraying deposition and
density
Droplet deposition and distribution are crucial factors for evaluating
the effectiveness of the spray. The maximum spray deposition (4.63 μL/
cm2) in the target area is observed when the UAV operates at a height of
2 m with a speed of 2 m/s. However, as the speed and height increase,
there is a decrease in spray deposition in the target zone [73]. The
average droplet density in the target zone currently stands at 56.19
droplets/cm2, while at a height of 2 m with a speed of 2 m/s, the droplet
density is 87.1 droplets per cm2. A slower flight speed (2 m/s) presently
facilitates a higher abundance of droplet deposition [73].
The significantly increased droplet density is seemingly attributed to
the combined influence of flight speed, flight altitude, and wind speed
[70]. Another contributing factor is the density of droplets, which
currently varies with droplet size. The droplet size, represented by Dv50,
currently exerts an influence on droplet penetration, with coarse drop­
lets achieving higher deposition at the bottom of the canopy. Presently,
the droplet density is greatly influenced by flight altitude, spray volume,
and droplet size [50].
4.7. Droplet size
The application of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) offers a notable
advantage in terms of spraying effectiveness with reduced application
rates, which is closely tied to the production of droplets of uniform size.
Consequently, there exists a current need for ongoing research and
development in this domain [31].
The size distribution of droplets varies among different nozzles based
on factors such as the orifice size, nozzle design, and applied pressure.
The current study reveals a DV0.5 droplet diameter value of 169 m, a
DV0.1 value of 72 m, a DV0.9 value of 267 m, and a nozzle flow rate of
0.78 L/min. Here, DV0.1, DV0.5, and DV0.9 represent volume diameters
(m) below which 10 %, 50 %, and 90 % of the total volume is comprised
of smaller droplets, respectively [72].
Examining the XR 110 015VS flat fan spray tip, it is noteworthy that
the jet angle emerges as the most influential factor affecting droplet size.
When a drone is in operation, the overlapping spray jets create inter­
ference, complicating the estimation of drift and deposition on the target
[78].
4.8. Risk of drift losses
Wind velocity, spray tips, and the operating direction relative to the
crop area all currently impact drift applications with UAVs [79,80].
High flight altitudes currently encourage drift and low distribution
uniformity, while heights between 1.5 m and 2.0 m are presently pref­
erable for achieving uniform spray deposition. Conversely, it is presently
demonstrated that heights near 1 m can result in low dispersion uni­
formity due to turbulence driven by the airflow induced by propellants
[81]. Additionally, there may be a direct loss of solution to the soil due
to the non-retention of foliar. Adjusting the operating pressure and angle
of contact of the spray tips currently attains a 33.7 % reduction in drift in
a wind tunnel test [11].
The AIXR 11002VP air-induction flat fan spray tip on a multirotor
remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) currently obtains higher target coverage
and decreases drift potential compared to other tips. Other tips, such as
the hollow cone tip (HC), flat fan tip, and XR, are presently more prone
to drift. It is important to note that selecting the suitable tip currently
depends not only on the kind of aircraft but also on other parameters
such as treatment purpose and crop. According to the present research
study, 90 % of the drift distance between 15 and 8 m is observed [82].
S. Meesaragandla et al. Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101870

Furthermore, a suitable adjuvant currently improves weed control
efficacy by increasing adsorption and reducing evaporation and drip­
ping [39,83]. Thus, assessments before the implementation of drones,
including wind speed and direction, are currently considered. The 90 %
droplet displacement currently occurs when the application happens in
the wind direction, at a range of up to 14.5 m, underlining the current
significance of considering an area without treatment (buffer zone)
while spraying in the wind direction of flight [51].
4.9. Detecting mimicry weeds
Accurate identification of crops and weeds, coupled with timely
weed detection, remains crucial for precise variable spraying. Aerial
photography serves as a pivotal tool for identifying, measuring, and
mapping weeds within commercial agricultural areas for research
purposes.
The findings underscore the efficacy of utilizing multispectral images
in distinguishing between Italian ryegrass and wheat within a two-class
system, yielding success rates ranging from 52 % to 78 % [84]. In this
investigation, aerial color and infrared photography are harnessed to
detect emerging weed species, specifically in winter wheat fields,
achieving an impressive accuracy range of 64–99.9 % [85,86].
Furthermore, employing a maximum likelihood classifier for delineating
winter wheat and broadleaf weed species results in an overall imagery
classification accuracy of 91 % [85,86]. High-resolution UAV-acquired
images are employed in this study to both identify and quantify weed
species in soybeans [87].
In differentiating redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) and wild
oats (Avena fatua) from spring wheat [88], researchers leverage seven
bands from an extensive hyperspectral image database. The classifica­
tion techniques used exhibit an impressive overall accuracy of 94 % for
redroot pigweed and wheat, though this accuracy slightly diminishes to
88 % when distinguishing wild oats from wheat. Previous research
emphasizes that, in wheat systems, the effectiveness of classification
relies more on spectral and morphological variations between species
than on imaging scenarios. Examining reflectance across the 400–900
nm ranges [89], this study reports clear differentiation between ryegrass
(Lolium rigidum Gaud.) and wheat, aligning with earlier research
[89–91] highlighting the improvement in weed identification and dif­
ferentiation between crop and weed species in this section of the elec­
tromagnetic spectrum.
The majority of weed detection investigations (27.42 %) are pres­
ently conducted during the seedling stage of the crop’s development
cycle. Predominantly, weed images (48.28 %) are acquired using a red,
green, and blue (RGB) camera, with machine learning approaches
(47.90 %) emerging as the predominant classification algorithm [92].
This evaluation commences by highlighting literature covering the
normal phenology stage of crops, reference data, sensor/camera types,
classification methods, and current UAV applications in detecting and
mapping weeds for various crops. Table 6 presently presents a com­
parison of different UAVs deployed for agricultural spraying.
5. Studies of comparative performances of UAVs with other
sprayers
The findings indicate that spraying on weed patches currently con­
serves herbicide between 14 and 39.2 % compared to untreated areas, as
opposed to employing a uniform blanket treatment. Additionally, this
method results in savings ranging from €16 to €45 per hectare [57].
In cases where the spraying area is less than 10 ha, traditional air
blast sprayers (L0) stand out as the most cost-effective option. For areas
spanning 10–100 ha, on-off switching sprayers (L1) prove to be the
optimal choice, while canopy-optimized distribution sprayers (L2) excel
for areas exceeding 100 ha in vineyard fields. A noteworthy observation

Table 6
Comparison of the different UAVs deployed for agricultural spraying.
Reference UAV type No of nozzles Tank capacity Flow rate UAV Wind speed Droplet deposition/size Swath
& height and speed (m/s) & (m)
Nozzle spacing Spray volume

[72] Single rotor 9 & 50 cm 60 L 4.4 L/min 2 m & 2 m/s 1.1 2.29 μL/cm2
UAV (target area) &
freeman 2000 56.9 droplets/cm2
[77] Single rotor 5 20 L 1–3 m & 5 m/s 0.149 μL/cm2 4–7
UAV S40 45.3droplets/cm2
[77] M23 electric four rotors 4 10 L 1–3 m & 5 m/s 0.097 μL/cm2 4–6
43.4 droplets/cm2
[77] M8A electric eight rotors 6 10 L 1–3 m & 5 m/s 0.264 μL/cm2 4–5
58.6 droplets/cm2
[60] Quanfeng120 2& 12 L 800 mL/min 1.5 m & 3 m/s 2.2 0.1227 μL/cm2 2–4
Single rotor 1.10 m
[93] Z-3 UAV 20 L 850 mL/min 5 m & 3 m/s 3 296.29 μm
&
15 L/ha
[60] Quanfeng120 2& 12 L 800 mL/min 2.5 m & 3 m/s 1.8 0.0956 μL/cm2 5–8
Single rotor 1.10 m
[50] UAV XAG 4 15 L 1m 8.7 L/ha 3.5
P series 12 L/ha
7.76/cm2,15 L/ha
18 L/ha
30 L/ha
[61] YR-GSF06 four flat-fan 10 L 9.6 1.5–2 m & 0–8 m/s 4 48 L/ha 3–5
(2.4 × 4)
L/min
[61] TAX- five flat-fan 16 L 12.0 1.5–2 m & 0–6 m/s 4 72 L/ha 4–6
Xiangnong (2.4 × 5)
L/min
[61] YR-AU 15 six flat fan 18 L 14.4 1.5–2 m & 0–8 m/s 4 96 L/ha 5–7
(2.4 × 6)
L/min
[94] DJI AGRAS 4 10 L 5.56 m/s 10 L/ha & 5
MG-1 4 ha/h

7
S. Meesaragandla et al. Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101870

is a 10–35 % reduction in costs when using L1 and L2 instead of L0 [95].

The efficiency of a UAV sprayer currently surpasses that of a knap­
sack sprayer by 60 times. PE treatments with UAV and PoE spraying
with a knapsack sprayer demonstrate heightened weed control effi­
ciency across various scenarios. Specifically, knapsack sprayer treat­
ments induce 56–64 % injuries to Japanese foxtail, whereas UAV
treatments result in 20–40 % injuries [96].
UAV applications currently exhibit a 200 % greater effectiveness in
detecting and controlling weedy areas. While UAV-treated areas are
20–60 % smaller than ground-based applications, they miss 26 % of the
weedy region. In comparison, ground-based applications overlook only
2–3 % of the experimental site. When dealing with highly aggregated
weed densities, UAV weed control treatments are currently 12 % and 25
% more effective than broadcast techniques at 14 and 28 DAT, respec­
tively. However, with denser populations displaying a more uniform
distribution, the efficacy drops by 15 % at both 14 and 28 DAT [97].
UAVs currently offer the advantages of more uniform liquid distri­
bution and better absorption [32]. The present study’s results demon­
strate that UAV Integrated Spraying (UAV-IS) is 0.3–3 times more
efficient than broadcast ground-based applications in detecting and
evaluating weedy target areas. Despite this, UAV applications currently
avoid up to 26 % of the target weedy area, whereas ground-based ap­
plications cover almost the entire experimental region but miss 2–3 % of
the objective weedy area [98].
The percentage of splash drops for UAV spraying at 37.4 L/ha is
currently four times higher than for knapsack sprayer application at 140
L/ha. The findings suggest that UAVs can be utilized for herbicide
application instead of backpack sprayers [99]. Although the UAV
sprayer currently exhibits lower droplet density, droplet coverage rate,
and distribution uniformity, it currently boasts the best deposition (1.01
gm/cm2) and is 98 % more effective than the electric air-pressure
knapsack (EAP) sprayer [71]. Employing an AGRAS MG-1 with four
nozzles, a 5.0 m swath, and a capacity of 10 L/ha sprayed at an appli­
cation rate with a speed of 5.56 m/s currently covers approximately 4 ha
per hour. This is a significantly higher volume compared to a knapsack
sprayer [94].
According to the researchers, in UAV testing, droplets exhibit smaller
size and higher coverage (>60 droplets per cm) compared to those
observed in ground trials (10–40 droplets per cm). In contrast to con­
ventional land techniques, UAV testing yields a more continuous vertical
droplet coverage and has the ability to spot or band spray due to its
smaller volume and increased acuteness, thereby proving beneficial for
the control and minimization of drift [100]. UAV spraying, boasting a
60-fold increase in efficiency compared to traditional methods [76], is
characterized by greater flexibility and systematization.
The investigation currently assesses the efficacy of weed manage­
ment in soybean crops through a comparative analysis of drone, boom,
and Knapsack sprayer methodologies. Fig. 5(a) presently illustrates the
comparative operational efficiency of the different sprayers, quantified Fig. 5. Comparative representation of (a) work efficiency (b) time (hr-ha− 1) for
Drone, Boom, and Knapsack sprayer for weed management in soybean.
as the ratio of the sprayed area to the time taken for spraying. Addi­
tionally, Fig. 5(b) currently provides insight into the average duration
required to complete the spraying of 1 ha of agricultural land [53]. However, the application of UAVs in advanced agriculture is not
The utilization of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in advanced without its limitations. Firstly, the cost of UAVs surpasses that of
agriculture offers several advantages. Drones play a pivotal role in traditional sprayers. Technical expertise is imperative for their effective
enabling farmers to optimize their time efficiently by engaging in ac­ use. Furthermore, UAVs have a limited flight time, typically ranging
tivities such as soil fertilization, spraying, irrigation, crop health from 20 min to 1 h, covering a relatively small area. In comparison to
assessment, planting, and livestock monitoring [101]. This leads to a other sprayers, the herbicide/pesticide tank capacity is modest.
notable reduction in the workload for both farmers and operators. Compliance with civil aviation regulations is obligatory, and there is a
Additionally, UAVs exhibit the capability to operate on wet and sloping potential risk of drifting during spraying operations. Moreover, the
surfaces, applying treatments precisely in targeted regions. Vertical utilization of drones is weather-dependent [92,103].
flying is achievable, and performance at low altitudes remains satis­
factory. Real-time farm data provided by drones empowers farmers to 6. Conclusion
make informed decisions regarding agricultural inputs. Moreover, the
implementation of drones for crop surveillance has the potential to In conclusion, the integration of drone technology in herbicide
significantly enhance crop yields while effectively preventing pest and spraying and weed identification within modern farms represents a
disease infestations [102]. transformative leap in advanced agriculture. The utilization of camera-

8
S. Meesaragandla et al.
equipped drones not only enhances the efficiency of weed detection but
also facilitates a more systematic and flexible approach, yielding a
remarkable 60-fold increase in overall operational efficiency compared
to traditional methods. The innovative “downwash” effect generated by
drone rotors further amplifies the precision of herbicide deposition on
targeted areas, emphasizing the efficacy of this aerial spraying
technology.
This comprehensive review underscores the need for a nuanced un­
derstanding of specific application techniques to optimize weed control
using drones. The comparison of sprayers and their effectiveness,
particularly when replacing conventional knapsack sprayers to mitigate
occupational hazards, demonstrates the potential of drone-based ap­
plications. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that various factors,
such as altitude, speed, meteorological conditions, application rate,
droplet producer characteristics, and spray solution properties, can
significantly impact the efficiency of this method.
Overcoming challenges inherent in drone-based herbicide spraying
necessitates the expertise of skilled professionals to address formulation
intricacies, labeling details, and adherence to guidelines. Additionally, a
profound understanding of the aerodynamic effects on droplets becomes
imperative for ensuring the overall effectiveness of this cutting-edge
technology. As agriculture continues to embrace advancements, the
successful implementation of drone-based herbicide spraying hinges on
a collaborative effort to navigate and resolve these challenges, thereby
paving the way for a sustainable and efficient future in modern farming
practices.
7. Future scope and applications
In the forthcoming years, agriculture drones will empower farmers to
economize time, alleviate work-related burdens, mitigate labor short­
ages, curtail the overuse of inputs, and diminish environmental chemical
loads through targeted spraying on specific areas requiring attention.
Precision agriculture, characterized by more efficient resource utiliza­
tion for heightened productivity, is anticipated to be realized through
the advent of drones. Consequently, drones are poised to be recognized
as a green-tech tool in future agricultural practices. Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles (UAVs) are also gaining prominence in the surveillance of
challenging-to-access natural disasters such as flooded regions, tsu­
namis, and earthquakes. Drones play a pivotal role in evaluating the
magnitude of damage and providing insightful information on its ram­
ifications. The evolution of drone technology, encompassing enhance­
ments in image processing methodologies, battery capabilities, novel
camera designs, low-volume sprayers, nozzle configurations, extended
flying durations, cost-effectiveness, etc., is foreseen to culminate in the
establishment of smart farming practices in the future.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Srija Meesaragandla: Writing – original draft, Methodology,
Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation. Megha P. Jagtap: Writing
– review & editing, Supervision, Conceptualization. Narendra Khatri:
Writing – review & editing, Supervision. Hakka Madan: Validation.
Aditya Abhiram Vadduri: Validation.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
9
Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101870
References
[1] E.C. Oerke, Crop losses to pests, J. Agric. Sci. 144 (2006) 31–43, https://doi.org/
10.1017/S0021859605005708.
[2] P. Roshan, A. Kulshreshtha, V. Hallan, Global Weed-Infecting Geminiviruses, (n.
d.).
[3] J.D. Smith, T. Dubois, R. Mallogo, E.F. Njau, S. Tua, R. Srinivasan, Host range of
the invasive tomato pest Tuta absoluta Meyrick (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) on
Solanaceous crops and weeds in Tanzania, Fla. Entomol. 101 (2018) 573–579,
https://doi.org/10.1653/024.101.0417.
[4] R. Srinivasan, F.A. Cervantes, J.M. Alvarez, Aphid-Borne Virus Dynamics in the
Potato-Weed Pathosystem, Insect Pests of Potato, 2013, pp. 311–337, https://doi.
org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386895-4.00011-9.
[5] R.A. Hegazy, I.A. Abdelmotaleb, Z.M. Imara, M.H. Okasha, Development and
evaluation of small-scale power weeder, Misr J. Agric. Eng. 31 (2014) 703–728,
https://doi.org/10.21608/MJAE.2014.98430.
[6] M. Abo-Habaga, Z. Imara, M. Okasha, Development of a combine hoeing machine
for flat and ridged soil, J. Soil Sci. Agric. Eng. 9 (2018) 817–820, https://doi.org/
10.21608/JSSAE.2018.36548.
[7] H.L. Hicks, D. Comont, S.R. Coutts, L. Crook, R. Hull, K. Norris, P. Neve, D.
Z. Childs, R.P. Freckleton, The factors driving evolved herbicide resistance at a
national scale, Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2 (2018) 529–536, https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41559-018-0470-1.
[8] A. Muola, B. Fuchs, M. Laihonen, K. Rainio, L. Heikkonen, S. Ruuskanen,
K. Saikkonen, M. Helander, Risk in the circular food economy: glyphosate-based
herbicide residues in manure fertilizers decrease crop yield, Sci. Total Environ.
750 (2021) 141422, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141422.
[9] M. Hasan, M.S. Ahmad-Hamdani, A.M. Rosli, H. Hamdan, Bioherbicides: an eco-
friendly tool for sustainable weed management, Plants 10 (2021) 1–21, https://
doi.org/10.3390/plants10061212.
[10] C. MacLaren, J. Storkey, A. Menegat, H. Metcalfe, K. Dehnen-Schmutz, An
ecological future for weed science to sustain crop production and the
environment. A review, Agron. Sustain. Dev. 40 (2020), https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13593-020-00631-6.
[11] Y. Chen, H. Qi, G. Li, Y. Lan, Weed control effect of unmanned aerial vehicle
(UAV) application in wheat field, Int. J. Precis. Agric. Aviat. 1 (2018) 25–31,
https://doi.org/10.33440/j.ijpaa.20190202.45.
[12] H. Xiang, L. Tian, Development of a low-cost agricultural remote sensing system
based on an autonomous unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), Biosyst. Eng. 108
(2011) 174–190, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2010.11.010.
[13] R. Mink, A. Dutta, G.G. Peteinatos, M. Sökefeld, J.J. Engels, M. Hahn,
R. Gerhards, Multi-temporal site-specific weed control of Cirsium arvense (L.)
scop. and Rumex crispus L. in maize and sugar beet using unmanned aerial
vehicle based mapping, Agric. For. 8 (2018), https://doi.org/10.3390/
agriculture8050065.
[14] M.T. Islam, K. Yoshida, S. Nishiyama, K. Sakai, Mutual validation of remote
hydraulic estimates and flow model simulations using UAV-borne LiDAR and
deep learning-based imaging techniques, Results Eng 20 (2023) 101415, https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.RINENG.2023.101415.
[15] M.C. Oliveira, O.A. Osipitan, K. Begcy, R. Werle, Cover crops, hormones and
herbicides: priming an integrated weed management strategy, Plant Sci. 301
(2020) 110550, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2020.110550.
[16] N. Jihani, M.N. Kabbaj, M. Benbrahim, Kalman filter based sensor fault detection
in wireless sensor network for smart irrigation, Results Eng 20 (2023) 101395,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RINENG.2023.101395.
[17] A. Rabak, K. Uppuluri, F.F. Franco, N. Kumar, V.P. Georgiev, C. Gauchotte-
Lindsay, C. Smith, R.A. Hogg, L. Manjakkal, Sensor system for precision
agriculture smart watering can, Results Eng 19 (2023) 101297, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.RINENG.2023.101297.
[18] D. Bini, D. Pamela, S. Prince, Machine vision and machine learning for intelligent
agrobots: a review, in: ICDCS2020 - 2020 5th Int. Conf. Devices, Circuits Syst,
2020, pp. 12–16, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDCS48716.2020.243538.
[19] H. Kamyab, T. Khademi, S. Chelliapan, M. SaberiKamarposhti, S. Rezania,
M. Yusuf, M. Farajnezhad, M. Abbas, B. Hun Jeon, Y. Ahn, The latest innovative
avenues for the utilization of artificial Intelligence and big data analytics in water
resource management, Results Eng 20 (2023) 101566, https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.RINENG.2023.101566.
[20] B.K. Imtiyaz Ahmed, A. Prakash, M. Syeda Husna, A. Prakash, An approach for
digital farming using mobile robot, Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Inven. Res. Comput. Appl.
ICIRCA 2020 (2020) 580–585, https://doi.org/10.1109/
ICIRCA48905.2020.9182995.
[21] X.K. He, J. Bonds, A. Herbst, J. Langenakens, Recent development of unmanned
aerial vehicle for plant protection in East Asia, Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 10 (2017)
18–30, https://doi.org/10.3965/j.ijabe.20171003.3248.
[22] V. Puri, A. Nayyar, L. Raja, Agriculture drones: a modern breakthrough in
precision agriculture, J. Stat. Manag. Syst. 20 (2017) 507–518, https://doi.org/
10.1080/09720510.2017.1395171.
[23] V. Chamola, V. Hassija, V. Gupta, M. Guizani, A comprehensive review of the
COVID-19 pandemic and the role of IoT, drones, AI, blockchain, and 5G in
managing its impact, IEEE Access 8 (2020) 90225–90265, https://doi.org/
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2992341.
[24] Á. Restás, I. Szalkai, G. Óvári, Drone application for spraying disinfection liquid
fighting against the covid-19 pandemic—examining drone-related parameters
influencing effectiveness, Drones 5 (2021), https://doi.org/10.3390/
drones5030058.
S. Meesaragandla et al.
[25] G. Sun, X. Wang, Y. Ding, W. Lu, Y. Sun, Remote Measurement of Apple Orchard
Canopy Information Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Photogrammetry, vol. 9,
Agronomy, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9110774.
[26] K.A. Wójcik, R.J. Bialik, M. Osińska, M. Figielski, Investigation of Sediment-Rich
glacial meltwater plumes using a high-resolution multispectral sensor mounted
on an unmanned aerial vehicle, Water (Switzerland) (2019) 11, https://doi.org/
10.3390/w11112405.
[27] Sentera’s NDVI sensor turns a basic DJI drone into a precision agriculture
platform, (n.d.). https://www.thedronegirl.com/2017/03/08/sentera-sensor-dji-
ndvi/(accessed August 14, 2022).
[28] P.D. Rathod, G.U. Shinde, R.K. Kalloji, A study and analysis on agricultural drone,
Int. J. Res. Eng. Sci. Manag. 5 (2022) 91–93. https://www.journals.resaim.com/
ijresm/article/view/1762. (Accessed 14 August 2022).
[29] N.A. Khofiyah, W. Sutopo, B.D.A. Nugroho, Technical feasibility battery lithium
to support unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV): a technical review, Proc. Int. Conf.
Ind. Eng. Oper. Manag. 2019 (2019) 3591–3601.
[30] U. Shapira, I. Herrmann, A. Karnieli, J.D. Bonfil, Weeds detection by ground-level
hyperspectral data, Theory Into Pract. XXXVIII (2010) 27–33.
[31] A.J. Hewitt, R. Sanderson, E.W. Huddleston, A.G. Robinson, Comparison of the
droplet size spectra produced by rotary atomizers and hydraulic nozzles under
simulated aerial application conditions, J. Environ. Sci. Heal. Part B. 29 (1994)
647–660, https://doi.org/10.1080/03601239409372898.
[32] H. Li, Y. He, C. Qin, D. Liu, K. Zhang, Ecological analysis on spray performance of
multi-rotor unmanned aerial sprayer in soybean field, Ekoloji 28 (2019)
4573–4579, https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.11766.75841.
[33] W.H. Maes, K. Steppe, Perspectives for remote sensing with unmanned aerial
vehicles in precision agriculture, Trends Plant Sci. 24 (2019) 152–164, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2018.11.007.
[34] D.C. Tsouros, S. Bibi, P.G. Sarigiannidis, A review on UAV-based applications for
precision agriculture, Inf 10 (2019) 349, https://doi.org/10.3390/
INFO10110349, 10 (2019) 349.
[35] C.L. Chang, K.M. Lin, Smart agricultural machine with a computer vision-based
weeding and variable-rate irrigation scheme, Robotics 7 (2018), https://doi.org/
10.3390/robotics7030038.
[36] Y. Li, Y. Li, X. Pan, Q.X. Li, R. Chen, X. Li, C. Pan, J. Song, Comparison of a new
air-assisted sprayer and two conventional sprayers in terms of deposition, loss to
the soil and residue of azoxystrobin and tebuconazole applied to sunlit
greenhouse tomato and field cucumber, Pest Manag. Sci. 74 (2018) 448–455,
https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.4728.
[37] F. López-Granados, J. Torres-Sánchez, A.I. De Castro, A. Serrano-Pérez, F.
J. Mesas-Carrascosa, J.M. Peña, Object-based early monitoring of a grass weed in
a grass crop using high resolution UAV imagery, Agron. Sustain. Dev. 36 (2016)
1–12, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0405-7.
[38] J. Rasmussen, J. Nielsen, J.C. Streibig, J.E. Jensen, K.S. Pedersen, S.I. Olsen, Pre-
harvest weed mapping of Cirsium arvense in wheat and barley with off-the-shelf
UAVs, Precis. Agric. 20 (2019) 983–999, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-018-
09625-7.
[39] A.I. de Castro, J.M. Peña, J. Torres-Sánchez, F. Jiménez-Brenes, F. López-
Granados, Mapping Cynodon dactylon in vineyards using UAV images for site-
specific weed control, Adv. Anim. Biosci. 8 (2017) 267–271, https://doi.org/
10.1017/s2040470017000826.
[40] J.M. Peña, J. Torres-Sánchez, A.I. de Castro, M. Kelly, F. López-Granados, Weed
mapping in early-season maize fields using object-based analysis of unmanned
aerial vehicle (UAV) images, PLoS One 8 (2013) 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0077151.
[41] M. Louargant, S. Villette, G. Jones, N. Vigneau, J.N. Paoli, C. Gée, Weed detection
by UAV: simulation of the impact of spectral mixing in multispectral images,
Precis. Agric. 18 (2017) 932–951, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-017-9528-3.
[42] F.J. Mesas-Carrascosa, J. Torres-Sánchez, I. Clavero-Rumbao, A. García-Ferrer, J.
M. Peña, I. Borra-Serrano, F. López-Granados, Assessing optimal flight parameters
for generating accurate multispectral orthomosaicks by uav to support site-
specific crop management, Rem. Sens. 7 (2015) 12793–12814, https://doi.org/
10.3390/rs71012793.
[43] J.M. Peña, J. Torres-Sánchez, A. Serrano-Pérez, A.I. de Castro, F. López-Granados,
Quantifying efficacy and limits of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) technology for
weed seedling detection as affected by sensor resolution, Sensors 15 (2015)
5609–5626, https://doi.org/10.3390/s150305609.
[44] M. Esposito, M. Crimaldi, V. Cirillo, F. Sarghini, A. Maggio, Drone and sensor
technology for sustainable weed management: a review, Chem. Biol. Technol.
Agric. 8 (2021) 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40538-021-00217-8.
[45] J. Rasmussen, J. Nielsen, F. Garcia-Ruiz, S. Christensen, J.C. Streibig, Potential
uses of small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in weed research, Weed Res. 53
(2013) 242–248, https://doi.org/10.1111/wre.12026.
[46] M. Louargant, G. Jones, R. Faroux, J.N. Paoli, T. Maillot, C. Gée, S. Villette,
Unsupervised classification algorithm for early weed detection in row-crops by
combining spatial and spectral information, Rem. Sens. 10 (2018) 1–18, https://
doi.org/10.3390/rs10050761.
[47] F. López-Granados, J.M. Peña-Barragán, M. Jurado-Expósito, M. Francisco-
Fernández, R. Cao, A. Alonso-Betanzos, O. Fontenla-Romero, Multispectral
classification of grass weeds and wheat (Triticum durum) using linear and
nonparametric functional discriminant analysis and neural networks, Weed Res.
48 (2008) 28–37, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3180.2008.00598.x.
[48] B. Scherrer, J. Sheppard, P. Jha, J.A. Shaw, Hyperspectral imaging and neural
networks to classify herbicide-resistant weeds, J. Appl. Remote Sens. 13 (2019) 1,
https://doi.org/10.1117/1.jrs.13.044516.
10
Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101870
[49] Y. Huang, K.N. Reddy, R.S. Fletcher, D. Pennington, UAV low-altitude remote
sensing for precision weed management, Weed Technol. 32 (2018) 2–6, https://
doi.org/10.1017/wet.2017.89.
[50] P. Chen, F. Ouyang, G. Wang, H. Qi, W. Xu, W. Yang, Y. Zhang, Y. Lan, Droplet
distributions in cotton harvest aid applications vary with the interactions among
the unmanned aerial vehicle spraying parameters, Ind. Crops Prod. 163 (2021)
113324, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2021.113324.
[51] K. Zhang, J. Chen, C. Wang, L. Han, Z. Shang, G. Wang, M. Wang, X. Deng,
Y. Zhang, X. Wang, P. Li, Y. Wei, J. Wang, X. Xu, Y. Lan, R. Guo, Evaluation of
herbicides aerially applied from a small unmanned aerial vehicle over wheat
field, Int. J. Precis. Agric. Aviat. 1 (2018) 49–53, https://doi.org/10.33440/j.
ijpaa.20200301.61.
[52] D. Pranaswi, M.P. Jagtap, B. V Asewar, D.N. Gokhale, G.U. Shinde, Weed control
efficiency with herbicide application by the combination of Drone and Knapsack
sprayer in wheat (Triticum aestivum L .), Pharm. Innov. 11 (2022) 741–744.
[53] C. Hiremath, N. Khatri, M.P. Jagtap, Comparative studies of knapsack, boom, and
drone sprayers for weed management in soybean (Glycine max L.), Environ. Res.
240 (2024) 117480, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2023.117480.
[54] X. Xue, Y. Lan, Z. Sun, C. Chang, W.C. Hoffmann, Develop an unmanned aerial
vehicle based automatic aerial spraying system, Comput. Electron. Agric. 128
(2016) 58–66, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2016.07.022.
[55] Y. Meng, J. Su, J. Song, W.H. Chen, Y. Lan, Experimental evaluation of UAV
spraying for peach trees of different shapes: effects of operational parameters on
droplet distribution, Comput. Electron. Agric. 170 (2020) 1–12, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compag.2020.105282.
[56] C. Shan, G. Wang, H. Wang, Y. Xie, H. Wang, S. Wang, S. Chen, Y. Lan, Effects of
droplet size and spray volume parameters on droplet deposition of wheat
herbicide application by using uav, Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 14 (2021) 74–81,
https://doi.org/10.25165/j.ijabe.20211401.6129.
[57] F. Castaldi, F. Pelosi, S. Pascucci, R. Casa, Assessing the potential of images from
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) to support herbicide patch spraying in maize,
Precis. Agric. 18 (2017) 76–94, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-016-9468-3.
[58] J.E. Hunter, T.W. Gannon, R.J. Richardson, F.H. Yelverton, R.G. Leon, Integration
of remote-weed mapping and an autonomous spraying unmanned aerial vehicle
for site-specific weed management, Pest Manag. Sci. 76 (2020) 1386–1392,
https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.5651.
[59] R. Kieloch, K. Domaradzki, The influence of selected spraying parameters on two
formulation of sulfonylurea herbicides effect, J. Cent. Eur. Agric. 14 (2013)
42–51, https://doi.org/10.5513/JCEA01/14.1.1153.
[60] J. Wang, Y. Lan, S. Wen, A.J. Hewitt, W. Yao, P. Chen, Meteorological and flight
altitude effects on deposition, penetration, and drift in pineapple aerial spraying,
Asia-Pacific, J. Chem. Eng. 15 (2020) 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1002/apj.2382.
[61] J. Liao, Y. Zang, X.W. Luo, Z.Y. Zhou, Y. Bin Lan, Y. Zang, X. Gu, W. Xu, A.
J. Hewitt, Optimization of variables for maximizing efficacy and efficiency in
aerial spray application to cotton using UASs, Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 12 (2019)
10–17, https://doi.org/10.25165/j.ijabe.20191202.4288.
[62] D.E. Martin, W.E. Woldt, M.A. Latheef, Effect of application height and ground
speed on spray pattern and droplet spectra from remotely piloted aerial
application systems, Drones 3 (2019) 1–21, https://doi.org/10.3390/
drones3040083.
[63] Y. Tang, C.J. Hou, S.M. Luo, J.T. Lin, Z. Yang, W.F. Huang, Effects of operation
height and tree shape on droplet deposition in citrus trees using an unmanned
aerial vehicle, Comput. Electron. Agric. 148 (2018) 1–7, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compag.2018.02.026.
[64] Z.C. Wang, L.C. Lan, X.K. He, A. Herbst, Dynamic evaporation of droplet with
adjuvants under different environment conditions, Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 13
(2020) 1–6, https://doi.org/10.25165/j.ijabe.20201302.5353.
[65] S. Hussain, M.J.M. Cheema, M. Arshad, A. Ahmad, M.A. Latif, S. Ashraf,
S. Ahmad, Spray uniformity testing of unmanned aerial spraying system for
precise agro-chemical applications, Pakistan J. Agric. Sci. 56 (2019) 897–903,
https://doi.org/10.21162/PAKJAS/19.8594.
[66] X.P. Burgos-Artizzu, A. Ribeiro, A. Tellaeche, G. Pajares, C. Fernández-
Quintanilla, Improving weed pressure assessment using digital images from an
experience-based reasoning approach, Comput. Electron. Agric. 65 (2009)
176–185, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2008.09.001.
[67] T. Talaviya, D. Shah, N. Patel, H. Yagnik, M. Shah, Implementation of artificial
intelligence in agriculture for optimisation of irrigation and application of
pesticides and herbicides, Artif. Intell. Agric. 4 (2020) 58–73, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.aiia.2020.04.002.
[68] M.E. Teske, H.W. Thistle, B.K. Fritz, Modeling aerially applied sprays: an update
to agdisp model development, Trans. ASABE (Am. Soc. Agric. Biol. Eng.) 62
(2019) 343–354, https://doi.org/10.13031/TRANS.13129.
[69] Q. Shi, H. Mao, X. Guan, Numerical simulation and experimental verification of
the deposition concentration of an unmanned aerial vehicle, Appl. Eng. Agric. 35
(2019) 367–376, https://doi.org/10.13031/AEA.13221.
[70] W.C. Qin, B.J. Qiu, X.Y. Xue, C. Chen, Z.F. Xu, Q.Q. Zhou, Droplet deposition and
control effect of insecticides sprayed with an unmanned aerial vehicle against
plant hoppers, Crop Protect. 85 (2016) 79–88, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cropro.2016.03.018.
[71] Q. Xiao, R. Du, L. Yang, X. Han, S. Zhao, G. Zhang, W. Fu, G. Wang, Y. Lan,
Comparison of droplet deposition control efficacy on phytophthora capsica and
aphids in the processing pepper field of the unmanned aerial vehicle and
knapsack sprayer, Agronomy 10 (2020), https://doi.org/10.3390/
agronomy10020215.
[72] F. Ahmad, B. Qiu, X. Dong, J. Ma, X. Huang, S. Ahmed, F. Ali Chandio, Effect of
operational parameters of UAV sprayer on spray deposition pattern in target and
S. Meesaragandla et al.
off-target zones during outer field weed control application, Comput. Electron.
Agric. 172 (2020) 105350, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2020.105350.
[73] M. Al Heidary, J.P. Douzals, C. Sinfort, A. Vallet, Influence of spray characteristics
on potential spray drift of field crop sprayers: a literature review, Crop Protect. 63
(2014) 120–130, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2014.05.006.
[74] J. Badules, M. Vidal, A. Boné, J. Llop, R. Salcedo, E. Gil, F.J. García-Ramos,
Comparative study of CFD models of the air flow produced by an air-assisted
sprayer adapted to the crop geometry, Comput. Electron. Agric. 149 (2018)
166–174, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2017.09.026.
[75] S.W. Hong, L. Zhao, H. Zhu, CFD simulation of airflow inside tree canopies
discharged from air-assisted sprayers, Comput. Electron. Agric. 149 (2018)
121–132, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2017.07.011.
[76] X. Xue, Y. Lan, Agricultural aviation applications in USA, Nongye Jixie Xuebao/
Transactions Chinese Soc. Agric. Mach. 44 (2013) 194–201, https://doi.org/
10.6041/j.issn.1000-1298.2013.05.034.
[77] K.F. Zhang, Z. Zhang, Y.H. Zhang, H. Li, Experimental study of single-rotor UAV
on droplet deposition distribution in soybean field, Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 17
(2019) 13833–13844.
[78] H. Guo, J. Zhou, F. Liu, Y. He, H. Huang, H. Wang, Application of machine
learning method to quantitatively evaluate the droplet size and deposition
distribution of the UAV spray nozzle, Appl. Sci. 10 (2020), https://doi.org/
10.3390/app10051759.
[79] B.S. Faiçal, F.G. Costa, G. Pessin, J. Ueyama, H. Freitas, A. Colombo, P.H. Fini,
L. Villas, F.S. Osório, P.A. Vargas, T. Braun, The use of unmanned aerial vehicles
and wireless sensor networks for spraying pesticides, J. Syst. Architect. 60 (2014)
393–404, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sysarc.2014.01.004.
[80] J. Wang, Y. Bin Lan, H.H. Zhang, Y.L. Zhang, S. Wen, W.X. Yao, J. Deng, Drift and
deposition of pesticide applied by UAV on pineapple plants under different
meteorological conditions, Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 11 (2018) 5–12, https://doi.
org/10.25165/j.ijabe.20181106.4038.
[81] F. Yang, X. Xue, C. Cai, Z. Sun, Q. Zhou, Numerical simulation and analysis on
spray drift movement of multirotor plant protection unmanned aerial vehicle,
Energies 11 (2018), https://doi.org/10.3390/en11092399.
[82] J.E. Hunter, T.W. Gannon, R.J. Richardson, F.H. Yelverton, R.G. Leon, Coverage
and drift potential associated with nozzle and speed selection for herbicide
applications using an unmanned aerial sprayer, Weed Technol. 34 (2020)
235–240, https://doi.org/10.1017/wet.2019.101.
[83] A.I. de Castro, J. Torres-Sánchez, J.M. Peña, F.M. Jiménez-Brenes, O. Csillik,
F. López-Granados, An automatic random forest-OBIA algorithm for early weed
mapping between and within crop rows using UAV imagery, Rem. Sens. 10
(2018) 1–21, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10020285.
[84] J.T. Sanders, E.A.L. Jones, A. Minter, R. Austin, G.T. Roberson, R.J. Richardson,
W.J. Everman, Remote sensing for Italian ryegrass [Lolium perenne L. ssp.
multiflorum (Lam.) Husnot] detection in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.),
Front. Agron. 3 (2021) 1–10, https://doi.org/10.3389/fagro.2021.687112.
[85] A.I. de Castro, M. Jurado-Expósito, J.M. Peña-Barragán, F. López-Granados,
Airborne multi-spectral imagery for mapping cruciferous weeds in cereal and
legume crops, Precis. Agric. 13 (2012) 302–321, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11119-011-9247-0.
[86] A.I. de Castro, F. López-Granados, M. Jurado-Expósito, Broad-scale cruciferous
weed patch classification in winter wheat using QuickBird imagery for in-season
site-specific control, Precis. Agric. 14 (2013) 392–413, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11119-013-9304-y.
[87] A.C. de O. Castro, A.M. Geraldine, R.P. Marques, P.J. Christoffoleti, A.P.L. Dias,
M.V.A. Ventura, T.M. Alves, B.H.T. Arantes, C.G. dos Santos, E.M. Sperandio,
Identification of weed species in commercial soybean areas by high-resolution
drone images, J. Agric. Sci. 14 (2022) 123, https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.
v14n3p123.
11
Results in Engineering 21 (2024) 101870
[88] P.R. Eddy, A.M. Smith, B.D. Hill, D.R. Peddle, C.A. Coburn, R.E. Blackshaw, Weed
and crop discrimination using hyperspectral image data and reduced bandsets,
Can. J. Rem. Sens. 39 (2014) 481–490, https://doi.org/10.5589/m14-001.
[89] F. López-Granados, M. Jurado-Expósito, J.M. Peña-Barragán, L. García-Torres,
Using remote sensing for identification of late-season grass weed patches in
wheat, Weed Sci. 54 (2006) 346–353, https://doi.org/10.1614/ws-05-54.2.346.
[90] R.M. Menges, P.R. Nixon, A.J. Richardson, Light reflectance and remote sensing
of weeds in agronomic and horticultural crops, Weed Sci. 33 (1985) 569–581,
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0043174500082862.
[91] U. Shapira, I. Herrmann, A. Karnieli, D.J. Bonfil, Field spectroscopy for weed
detection in wheat and chickpea fields, Int. J. Rem. Sens. 34 (2013) 6094–6108,
https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2013.793860.
[92] N.A. Mohidem, N.N. Che’ya, A.S. Juraimi, W.F.F. Ilahi, M.H.M. Roslim,
N. Sulaiman, M. Saberioon, N.M. Noor, How can unmanned aerial vehicles be
used for detecting weeds in agricultural fields? Agric. For. 11 (2021) https://doi.
org/10.3390/agriculture11101004.
[93] X.Y. Xue, K. Tu, W.C. Qin, Y. Bin Lan, H.H. Zhang, Drift and deposition of ultra-
low altitude and low volume application in paddy field, Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 7
(2014) 23–28, https://doi.org/10.3965/j.ijabe.20140704.003.
[94] J.P.A.R. da Cunha, C.B. de Alvarenga, P.C.N. Rinaldi, M.G. Marques,
R. Zampiroli, Use of remotely piloted aircrafts for the application of plant
protection products, Eng. Agric. 41 (2021) 245–254, https://doi.org/10.1590/
1809-4430-ENG.AGRIC.V41N2P245-254/2021.
[95] E. Tona, A. Calcante, R. Oberti, The profitability of precision spraying on
specialty crops: a technical–economic analysis of protection equipment at
increasing technological levels, Precis. Agric. 19 (2018) 606–629, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11119-017-9543-4.
[96] Y. Chen, C. Hou, Y. Tang, J. Zhuang, J. Lin, S. Luo, An effective spray drift-
reducing method for a plant-protection unmanned aerial vehicle, Int. J. Agric.
Biol. Eng. 12 (2019) 14–20, https://doi.org/10.25165/j.ijabe.20191205.4289.
[97] A. Chlingaryan, S. Sukkarieh, B. Whelan, Machine learning approaches for crop
yield prediction and nitrogen status estimation in precision agriculture: a review,
Comput. Electron. Agric. 151 (2018) 61–69, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compag.2018.05.012.
[98] P. Chen, Y. Lan, X. Huang, H. Qi, G. Wang, J. Wang, L. Wang, H. Xiao, Droplet
deposition and control of planthoppers of different nozzles in two-stage rice with
a quadrotor unmanned aerial vehicle, Agronomy 10 (2020), https://doi.org/
10.3390/agronomy10020303.
[99] D. Martin, V. Singh, M.A. Latheef, M. Bagavathiannan, Spray deposition on weeds
(Palmer amaranth and morningglory) from a remotely piloted aerial application
system and backpack sprayer, Drones 4 (2020) 1–18, https://doi.org/10.3390/
drones4030059.
[100] J.L. Gibbs, T.M. Peters, L.P. Heck, Comparison of droplet size, coverage, and drift
potential from UAV application methods and ground application methods on row
crops, Trans. ASABE (Am. Soc. Agric. Biol. Eng.) 64 (2021) 819–828, https://doi.
org/10.13031/TRANS.14121.
[101] S. Han, A. Fuentes, S. Yoon, Y. Jeong, H. Kim, D. Sun Park, Deep learning-based
multi-cattle tracking in crowded livestock farming using video, Comput. Electron.
Agric. 212 (2023) 108044, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPAG.2023.108044.
[102] D. van der Merwe, D.R. Burchfield, T.D. Witt, K.P. Price, A. Sharda, Drones in
Agriculture, first ed., Elsevier Inc., 2020 https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.
agron.2020.03.001.
[103] L. Sánchez-Fernández, M. Barrera, J. Martínez-Guanter, M. Pérez-Ruiz, Drift
reduction in orchards through the use of an autonomous UAV system, Comput.
Electron. Agric. 211 (2023) 107981, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
COMPAG.2023.107981.