
doi: 10.1002/ps.8155
pmid: 38703046
AbstractBACKGROUNDEffective utilization of plant protection UAVs in peanut cultivation management necessitates a comprehensive grasp of how application volume rates and pesticides influence peanut leaf spot and rust control. This study aimed to compare the effects of application volume rates and pesticides on droplet deposition, disease, leaf retention rate and peanut yield. A T20 plant protection unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) sprayer was used to apply four various pesticide doses. In comparison, a knapsack sprayer was used to spray with an application volume rate of 450 L ha−1.RESULTSThe results showed a significant difference in droplet deposition between the plant protection UAVs and the electric knapsack sprayer. In the pesticide treatment with an application volume rate of 15.0 L ha−1, there was no significant difference in the deposition on the peanut canopy of each pesticide treatment, but there was a significant difference in the deposition on the ground in the treatment with adding vegetable oil adjuvant. The treatment with added vegetable oil additives showed the worst performance. The treatment with an application volume rate of 22.5 L ha−1 showed the best performance, with the leaf spot control effect being only 0.3% lower than that of the electric knapsack sprayer.CONCLUSIONPlant protection UAV spraying is feasible to control peanut diseases. Considering the operational effectiveness of the plant protection UAV and application volume rate, it is recommended to use an application volume rate of 22.5 L ha−1 without adding vegetable oil adjuvants for field operations. © 2024 Society of Chemical Industry.
Arachis, Crop Protection, Pesticides, Plant Diseases
Arachis, Crop Protection, Pesticides, Plant Diseases
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 16 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
