Application of Plant Protection UAV to Control Cotton Pests
Abstract: In order to clarify the effect and application prospects of plant protection drones on cotton pests, in 2017, plant protection drone low-altitude low-volume spray and artificial electric sprayer large-capacity spray were used in two different application modes. Field efficacy comparison test. The results showed that the control effects of 3 days and 7 days after application of the same dosage were 83.95% and 93.21% for the cotton leafhoppers, and 81.03% and 89.94% for the electric sprayers respectively. The powdered plant protection drones were 89.25% and 90.45%, respectively, and the electric sprayers were 90.10% and 91.37% respectively; the cotton raft plant protection drones were 85.17% and 89.72%, respectively, and the electric sprayers were 84.11% and 88.07% respectively; The operating efficiency of the drone is 25 times that of the electric sprayer, the cost of applying the medicine is reduced by 60%, and the cost of the control cost is 37.5%. The plant protection drone has the advantages of good control effect, labor saving, labor saving, water saving, and cotton safety.
Cotton planting is in an important position in Chaisang District, Jiujiang City, Jiangxi Province. The annual control area of cotton pests and diseases is more than 67,000 hectares. The main pest species are the borer pests, cotton bollworm, cotton bollworm, etc.; leaf-eating pests, Spodoptera litura , beet armyworm, etc.; sucking insects cotton blind mites, cotton scorpion horses, cotton spider mites and so on. Cotton leaf mites and cotton sphagnum have previously occurred in small quantities and generally only occur locally. In 2017, most places were relatively heavy, and cotton aphid was a common pest. Therefore, the three kinds of pests were selected for field efficacy test. The ground self-propelled spraying machine is not convenient for entering the cotton field, and it is easy to cause damage to the cotton branches and leaves. The manual hand sprayer and the knapsack electric sprayer also have large working intensity, long time, low efficiency, easy poisoning by the application personnel, and liquid medicine. Disadvantages such as large water consumption [1-2]. In order to do a good job in the prevention and control of cotton pests and diseases, the Chai Sang District Plant Protection and Quarantine Station in Jiujiang City, Jiangxi Province will promote the rapid development of new agricultural main bodies, transform the methods of disease prevention and pest control, vigorously promote the rule of prevention, reduce the use of chemical pesticides, and scientifically use pesticides. In order to achieve reduction and control, cost-saving and zero-growth, the company will cooperate with the Liangxin Feifang Professional Cooperative in Chaisang District of Jiujiang City. In 2017, it will choose the relatively heavy cotton leafhopper, cotton whitefly and often The hairy cotton aphid carries out the plant protection and drone prevention test, and provides a reference for the plant protection drone in the promotion and application of specialized defense.
1 Materials and methods
1.1 Test materials
The cotton planting variety is No.1. Test drug: one is the Dajiang MG-1 plant protection drone, which is the product of Shenzhen Dajiang Innovation Technology Co., Ltd.; the other is the 3WBD-16 knapsack electric sprayer (working pressure is 0.2~0.4 Mpa), Taizhou Jiaojiang Fengshuo Agricultural Machinery Factory. The test agent is 100 g/L bifenthrin EW, which is a commercial product of Jiangsu Yangnong Chemical Co., Ltd.; 50% flonicamidil SC is a commercially available product of Dow AgroSciences Corporation of the United States.
1.2 Test methods
The field efficacy test was conducted in the cotton field of Pengwan Village, Chengzi Town, Chaisang District, Jiujiang City. Each agent is sprayed in a 667 m2 area. For the control of cotton leafhopper, 100 g/L bifenthrin EW (dosage amount is 450 g/hm2), and control cotton bead powder, 50% flunicarbonitrile SC (dosage amount 360 g/hm2) is used to control cotton aphid 50% flonicamidonitrile SC (150 g/hm2) was used. Set three repetitions per treatment and set a protection line and a blank control.
1.3 Application method
Both cotton leafhopper and cotton whitefly were selected when the density of the variegated mouth was 70, and the cotton aphid was selected when the density of the variegated mouth was 100. The liquid medicine is configured by a secondary dilution method, and is formulated into a liquid medicine according to the required amount of the drug and the amount of water, and uniformly sprayed and controlled by the plant protection drone and the electric sprayer. The sprayed liquid dredging drone was 15 L/hm2 and the electric sprayer was 675 L/hm2.
1.4 Survey method
All the three treatments were based on the number of insects before the application. The effects of the control were investigated 3 days and 7 days after the drug treatment. The cotton leafhoppers were sampled at 5 points, 20 strains were investigated at each point, and the 3rd fruit branch of each plant was recorded. The number of nymphs and cotton mites were sampled by parallel jump method. Each plot was surveyed at 10 points, and 10 cottons were investigated at each point. A total of 100 cottons were investigated. One leaf, the number of adults of Bemisia tabaci on the leaves, the top three leaves of each cotton aphid, the amount of cotton aphids on the leaves. According to the survey data, calculate the population loss rate and control effect, according to the following formula .
Infestation rate (%) = [(Pt0 number of insects – Pt1 number of insects) / Pt0 number of insects] × 100
Control effect (%) = [(Pt population reduction rate – CK population reduction rate) / (100-CK population reduction rate)] × 100
2 Results and analysis
2.1 Observation of cotton safety
During the test, cotton growth was normal, and no cotton phytotoxicity was observed in each treated cotton. It shows that it is safe to use cotton, pesticides and insecticides to control cotton pests and diseases; but electric sprayers prevent and damage people’s leaves in the field.
2.2 Control effect on cotton leafhopper, whitefly and cotton aphid
The application of bifenthrin in the cotton leaf sputum was controlled once, and the control effect was investigated 3 days and 7 days after the drug treatment. The control effect of the plant protection drone was 83.95% and 93.21% respectively; the control effect of the electric sprayer was 81.03%. 89.94%. The electric sprayer’s control effect is slightly lower than that of the plant protection drone, and both of them achieve good control effect, and the control effect is at the same level, and the difference is significant. The difference is not significant.
The application of fluramide was used to control the cotton bead powder in the prolonged period. The control effect was investigated 3 days and 7 days after the drug treatment. The control effect of the plant protection drone was 89.25% and 90.45% respectively; the control effect of the electric sprayer They are 90.10% and 91.37% respectively. The electric sprayer’s control effect is slightly higher than that of the plant protection drone, and both of them achieve good control effect, and the control effect is at the same level, and the difference is significant. The difference is not significant.
The application of fluramide was carried out once in the period of cotton aphid. The control effect was investigated on the 3rd and 7th day after the drug treatment. The control effect of the plant protection drone was 85.17% and 89.72% respectively. The control effect of the electric sprayer was 84.11%, 88.07%. The electric sprayer’s control effect is slightly lower than that of the plant protection drone, and both of them achieve good control effect, and the control effect is equivalent. The difference is significant, and the difference is not significant.
2.3 Comparison of the efficacy of two kinds of drug control
Plant protection drones are more efficient, faster and less expensive than electric sprayers. The efficiency of plant protection drones is more than 25 times that of electric sprayers, and it has the best short-term control period, which solves the dilemma of centralized labor in agricultural production. The cost of plant protection drones is 60% lower than that of electric sprayers, and the cost of prevention and control costs is 37.5%. With the quantitative production of advanced machinery, the cost of technology will continue to decline.
3 Conclusions and discussion
The test results show that the two kinds of application machinery control cotton leafhopper, cotton whitefly, cotton aphid have achieved good control effect, and the control effect is at the same level. During the test, the cotton growth in each treatment area was normal, consistent with the blank control area, no obvious phytotoxicity was found, and the cotton was safe. The test shows that the plant protection drone has the advantages of good control effect, high operation efficiency, low cost and water conservation. In 2017, the test pests (cotton leafhopper, cotton whitefly, cotton aphid) did not break out in the local area. Further trials are needed to determine the effectiveness of plant protection drones in the year of cotton pests and diseases. The plant protection drone market has broad prospects for promotion, and can promote the application of cotton leafhopper, cotton whitefly, and cotton aphid.
When using plant protection drone to control cotton pests and diseases, it was found that the plant type was small from cotton seedling to flowering, and the local area generally adopted wide-scale thinning, and there were more free places. The plant protection drone could not spray the cotton plants, and the pesticide waste was large. Therefore, the directional spray of the electric sprayer is more advantageous than the plant protection drone, saving the use of pesticides.
The test drug and the applicator have good control effect, but cotton often produces dwarf insect pests such as cotton bollworm, cotton red bell and leaf-feeding pests Spodoptera litura, beet armyworm, which occurs locally in 2017, while sucking The pests such as cotton red spiders are not serious, and no field control tests have been carried out on the pests. Further tests are needed in the future to determine the effects of the drugs on other pests and diseases.
4 Plant Protection UAV Operation Precautions
On the one hand, the plant protection drone spray is greatly affected by meteorological factors (such as wind and sunny hot air flow), and it is better to avoid windy or breezy weather and morning and evening operations. On the other hand, when cotton is in late growth, the soil is full of water, and the operation of plant protection drones is low due to low flying height, which may cause cotton to fall. Therefore, it should be avoided after heavy rain. On the other hand, in the operation of the plant protection drone, the automatic mode has higher requirements for the field, and is suitable for the block-shaped field. For the irregular field, it is suitable for the manual mode, but there is a leakage phenomenon and a turning point. If the amount of liquid is too large, this is related to the proficiency of the operator and the design of the product. Try to choose the automatic mode and pay attention to the amount of pesticide and water per unit area.