Plant protection drone for cotton locust control trial

Plant protection drone for cotton locust control trial

The results show that compared with artificial application, the application of the UAV has the advantages of high application efficiency and good control effect, and can be used for large-scale control of cotton pests and emergency prevention and control of sudden pests and diseases.

1 Materials and methods

1.1 Test materials

1.1.1 Test crop: cotton, the variety is Xinluzhong No. 61

1.1.2 Application Machinery: Test Machine: Plant Protection UAV, produced by Guangzhou Jifei Technology Co., Ltd.; Control Machinery: 3WBS-16L Knapsack Manual Sprayer.

1.1.3 Test agent: 25% lambda-cyhalothrin acetamiprid soluble powder (produced by Jiangsu Huifeng Agrochemical Co., Ltd.)

1.1.4 Control objects: cotton aphids.

1.2 Crop cultivation and environmental conditions test location

The experimental field is located in the 45th group of 24 consecutive 181#, with a total area of ​​280 mu, which is sandy loam soil, medium fertility, flat terrain, good water supply conditions, high management level and normal management of water and fertilizer.

1.3 experimental design

There are 4 treatments in the experiment, namely, drone spraying cyfluthrin 300g/hm2+ imidacloprid 150g/hm2 (A), drone spraying cyfluthrin 450g/hm2+ imidacloprid 150g/hm2 (B), Manual sprayer cyhalothrin 300g/hm2+ imidacloprid 150g/hm2 (C), clear water control (CK). Using the cell comparison test, each treatment was repeated 3 times, and each cell was randomly arranged. The area of ​​the flying drone spraying area was 1334 m2, and the manual atomizer was 667 m2. Each cell was randomly arranged, and each processing room was provided with a protection line for isolation.

The test was sprayed once on June 2, 2016. The spray volume of the sprayer was 30kg/667m2, and the spray volume of the plant protection drone was about lkg/667, which was based on the final calculation.

1.4 Survey items and methods

1.4.1 Survey time and frequency

Each of the first, third, and seventh days after the application was investigated once.

1.4.2 Survey and calculation methods

The survey used a diagonal five-point sampling method, and 20 strains were surveyed at each point. The sampling points were fixed and the amount of insects was investigated. Before the application of the drug, the number of live insects was investigated, and the number of live insects was investigated at 1, 3, and 7 days after the drug, and the rate of reduction of the insect population was calculated and the control effect was corrected. Record the time from the start of application to the end of application (time stop timing) to calculate the operating efficiency of different instruments.

The test data was analyzed by DPS (DataProcess System) data processing system for the Duncan’s New Complex Range (DMRT) difference significance test.

1.4.3 Direct impact on crops

No phytotoxicity was observed during the test. After 1, 3, and 7 days of application, no obvious effect was found on the normal growth of cotton aphids, indicating that P20V2 plant protection was not safe for high-concentration liquid spray.

1.4.4 Impact on other organisms

No impact on other pests and diseases and non-target organisms.

  1. Results and analysis

2.1 Operational efficiency

By recording the working time, the aircraft sprays 3 processes for a total of 710 s, with an average time of 1770 s/hm2. Manual hand sprayers averaged 25,000 s/hm2. The application efficiency of drones was 14.1 times that of manual application. It can be seen that the application efficiency of plant protection drones is significantly higher than that of manual application.

2.1 Locust control

It can be seen from Table 1 that 1d after the drug, the best control effect is treatment C, which is 82.4%, followed by treatment B, the control effect is 76.3%, and the worst effect is treatment A, which is 53.8%, and treatment B, C The difference was extremely significant; 3d after the drug, the control effect of each treatment was significantly increased, the best effect was treated with C, which was 96.3%, followed by treatment B, which was 93.0%. The difference between the two treatments was significantly different from that of treatment A. Treatment A was 83.7%; after treatment, the treatment effect reached the maximum value, the difference between the three treatments was not significant, the treatment C was the highest, 99.1%, followed by treatment B, 98.8%, and finally the treatment A, It is 96.5%.

3 conclusions and discussion

The use of plant protection unmanned helicopters to control cotton aphids has a good effect. Compared with the knapsack sprayers, the same dose of insecticides, the control effect between 1, 3, 7d after the drug is equivalent, there is no significant difference, In the case of insecticide reduction, the difference was extremely significant on the first day, the difference was significant on the third day, and the difference was not significant on the seventh day, indicating that the pesticide can be used in a reduced amount to control the cotton aphid, but the quick-acting effect is poor. The effectiveness is basically the same.

Generally speaking, unmanned helicopters have certain advantages in terms of control effect, adaptability, and reduction of pesticide use, and have the advantages of reducing the amount of liquid spray and safety for operators, and can be popularized and applied in the prevention and control of cotton pests.

Leave a Comment