Comparison of Droplet Size, Coverage, andDrift Potential from UAV Application Methods and Ground Application Methods on Row Crops

Highlights Droplet size, coverage, and drift potential of pesticide spray in corn with UAV application methods were compared with ground methods. Measured droplets were smaller in UAV trials (102 to 182 μm geometric mean diameter) than in ground trials (265 to 432 μm geometric mean diameter). UAV methods (particularly those without a boom) achieved high coverage in the middle swath of the field (>60 droplets cm-2) compared to ground methods (10 to 40 droplets cm-2). Real-time particle monitors indicated potential for downwind spray drift during ground trials but not UAV trials. The findings indicate a strong potential for “spot” or “band” spray coverage using UAV methods. Abstract. 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.