无人机与地面对行作物雾滴粒径、覆盖范围及漂移势的比较

IF 1.4 4区 农林科学 Q3 AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING
J Gibbs, T M Peters, L P Heck
{"title":"无人机与地面对行作物雾滴粒径、覆盖范围及漂移势的比较","authors":"J Gibbs,&nbsp;T M Peters,&nbsp;L P Heck","doi":"10.13031/trans.14121","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Worldwide, the use of uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs) for pesticide application has grown tremendously in the past decade. Their adoption has been slower for Midwestern row crops. This study compared droplet size, coverage, and drift potential of sprays from UAV application methods to those from ground (implement) sprayer methods on corn in the Midwest. Droplet sizes measured during UAV spray trials [geometric mean diameters of 179 and 112 μm for UAV (boom) and UAV (no boom), respectively] were substantially smaller than those deposited during implement spray trials [mean diameters of 303 and 423 μm for implement (regular) and implement (pulse)]. Droplet coverage was high and localized in the middle swath of the field for the UAV with boom (10 to 30 droplets cm<sup>-2</sup>) and with no boom (60 droplets cm<sup>-2</sup>). Droplet coverage was broader, covering the entire field width for the implement methods (10 to 40 droplets cm<sup>-2</sup>). Vertical coverage of droplets was more uniform for UAV methods than implement methods. Although the UAVs produced smaller droplets than the implement methods, we still observed greater potential for downwind pesticide drift during the implement spray trials. Because localized application may be beneficial for pest control and drift reduction, the findings indicate a strong potential for \"spot\" or \"band\" spray coverage using UAV methods. This is likely due to the smaller size, reduced spray volumes, and increased agility of UAVs as compared to more conventional methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":23120,"journal":{"name":"Transactions of the ASABE","volume":"64 3","pages":"819-828"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10476208/pdf/nihms-1926678.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Droplet Size, Coverage, and Drift Potential from UAV Application Methods and Ground Application Methods on Row Crops.\",\"authors\":\"J Gibbs,&nbsp;T M Peters,&nbsp;L P Heck\",\"doi\":\"10.13031/trans.14121\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Worldwide, the use of uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs) for pesticide application has grown tremendously in the past decade. Their adoption has been slower for Midwestern row crops. This study compared droplet size, coverage, and drift potential of sprays from UAV application methods to those from ground (implement) sprayer methods on corn in the Midwest. Droplet sizes measured during UAV spray trials [geometric mean diameters of 179 and 112 μm for UAV (boom) and UAV (no boom), respectively] were substantially smaller than those deposited during implement spray trials [mean diameters of 303 and 423 μm for implement (regular) and implement (pulse)]. Droplet coverage was high and localized in the middle swath of the field for the UAV with boom (10 to 30 droplets cm<sup>-2</sup>) and with no boom (60 droplets cm<sup>-2</sup>). Droplet coverage was broader, covering the entire field width for the implement methods (10 to 40 droplets cm<sup>-2</sup>). Vertical coverage of droplets was more uniform for UAV methods than implement methods. Although the UAVs produced smaller droplets than the implement methods, we still observed greater potential for downwind pesticide drift during the implement spray trials. Because localized application may be beneficial for pest control and drift reduction, the findings indicate a strong potential for \\\"spot\\\" or \\\"band\\\" spray coverage using UAV methods. This is likely due to the smaller size, reduced spray volumes, and increased agility of UAVs as compared to more conventional methods.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23120,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transactions of the ASABE\",\"volume\":\"64 3\",\"pages\":\"819-828\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10476208/pdf/nihms-1926678.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transactions of the ASABE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.13031/trans.14121\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transactions of the ASABE","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13031/trans.14121","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在世界范围内,在过去十年中,使用无人驾驶飞行器(uav)进行农药应用的情况急剧增长。在中西部的行作物中,它们的采用速度较慢。本研究比较了无人机和地面(机具)喷雾器在中西部玉米上喷雾的液滴大小、覆盖范围和漂移潜力。在无人机喷雾试验中测量的液滴尺寸[无人机(吊臂)和无人机(无吊臂)的几何平均直径分别为179和112 μm]明显小于在实施器喷雾试验中沉积的液滴[实施器(常规)和实施器(脉冲)的平均直径分别为303和423 μm]。对于有臂架(10 - 30滴cm-2)和没有臂架(60滴cm-2)的无人机,液滴覆盖率很高,并且定位在场地的中间地带。液滴覆盖范围更广,覆盖了实施方法的整个场宽度(10至40液滴cm-2)。无人机方法对雾滴的垂直覆盖比实施法更均匀。尽管无人机产生的液滴比实施方法小,但在实施喷雾试验期间,我们仍然观察到更大的顺风农药漂移可能性。由于局部应用可能有利于害虫控制和减少漂移,研究结果表明,使用无人机方法进行“点”或“带”喷雾覆盖的潜力很大。这可能是由于与更传统的方法相比,无人机的尺寸更小,喷雾体积更小,灵活性更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Droplet Size, Coverage, and Drift Potential from UAV Application Methods and Ground Application Methods on Row Crops.

Worldwide, the use of uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs) for pesticide application has grown tremendously in the past decade. Their adoption has been slower for Midwestern row crops. This study compared droplet size, coverage, and drift potential of sprays from UAV application methods to those from ground (implement) sprayer methods on corn in the Midwest. Droplet sizes measured during UAV spray trials [geometric mean diameters of 179 and 112 μm for UAV (boom) and UAV (no boom), respectively] were substantially smaller than those deposited during implement spray trials [mean diameters of 303 and 423 μm for implement (regular) and implement (pulse)]. Droplet coverage was high and localized in the middle swath of the field for the UAV with boom (10 to 30 droplets cm-2) and with no boom (60 droplets cm-2). Droplet coverage was broader, covering the entire field width for the implement methods (10 to 40 droplets cm-2). Vertical coverage of droplets was more uniform for UAV methods than implement methods. Although the UAVs produced smaller droplets than the implement methods, we still observed greater potential for downwind pesticide drift during the implement spray trials. Because localized application may be beneficial for pest control and drift reduction, the findings indicate a strong potential for "spot" or "band" spray coverage using UAV methods. This is likely due to the smaller size, reduced spray volumes, and increased agility of UAVs as compared to more conventional methods.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Transactions of the ASABE
Transactions of the ASABE AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: This peer-reviewed journal publishes research that advances the engineering of agricultural, food, and biological systems. Submissions must include original data, analysis or design, or synthesis of existing information; research information for the improvement of education, design, construction, or manufacturing practice; or significant and convincing evidence that confirms and strengthens the findings of others or that revises ideas or challenges accepted theory.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信