Key Factors for Improving Deposition Effects of Pesticide Mixture Sprayed by Plant Protection UAV on Rice

doi:10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas2023-0131

Abstract

Abstract:

This study intended to solve the field operation issues of plant protection UAV exiting in the pesticide application on rice, such as poor uniformity of droplet distribution and low pesticide deposition rates. In this study, we evaluated the influence of different factors on the droplet distribution and pesticide deposition rates after UAV application, such as pesticide adjuvant, application volumes, and flight speeds. Key factors that produced significant differences among different treatments were identified, and their effects on the particle physical properties and wettability of the pesticide mixture were further analyzed. Among the orthogonal tests based on three factors and three levels, areas of droplets collected at the upper layer were significantly higher than both of middle and lower layers, addition of pesticide adjuvant could increase the uniform of droplets distributed at different heights, and the area proportion of droplets collected at middle and lower layers were significantly increased in comparison with the treatments without adjuvant. The pesticide adjuvant, application volumes, and flight speeds were found to affect the pesticide deposition rates to varying degrees, pesticide deposition rates ranged from 43.72% to 68.63%; R values reflecting the influence of three various factors on the pesticide deposition rates were 13.44, 6.25 and 4.93, respectively, and only the difference caused by pesticide adjuvant could reach significant level. After preparation of 0-48 h, addition of two kinds of pesticide adjuvant both significantly reduced the surface tensions and static contact angles of pesticide mixtures, while there was not significant difference between the mixtures prepared with different kinds of adjuvant. Moreover, the variety of pesticide adjuvant that showed higher pesticide deposition rates could also effectively reduce the particle sizes and the dispersion of particle size of pesticide mixture within preparation of 0-48 h. Thus, our research provides an important reference for the improvement of precise pesticide application of UAV on rice, and helps improve the pesticide deposition rates and reduce the loss of pesticides.

Key words: unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) of plant protection, rice, droplet distribution, pesticide deposition rates, pesticide adjuvant

ZHANG Yongqiang, LI Sijie, LIU Ju, GE Baiyi, TANG Ziqing, PU Xiaoming, LIN Birun, YANG Qiyun, SHEN Huifang, ZHANG Jingxin. Key Factors for Improving Deposition Effects of Pesticide Mixture Sprayed by Plant Protection UAV on Rice[J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2024, 14(5): 16-23.

Figures/Tables 7

References 29

[1]	陈晓明, 王程龙, 薄瑞. 中国农药使用现状及对策建议[J]. 农药科学与管理, 2016, 37(2):4-8.
[2]	汪建军, 王社英. 农药在农业生产中的作用及其科学评价[J]. 铜仁职业技术学院学报, 2004(2):29-31.
[3]	何雄奎. 中国植保机械与施药技术研究进展[J]. 农药学学报, 2019, 21(Z1):921-930.
[4]	刘光涛, 赵国芳. 如何减少田间农药投放量与提高农药利用率兼谈植保机械喷雾技术的改进[J]. 农药市场信息, 2005(7):29-30.
[5]	张军勇, 袁立贺. 农药利用率低的原因及改进措施[J]. 农业工程技术, 2018, 38(8):39.
[6]	闫晓静, 褚世海, 杨代斌, 等. 给农业插上科技的翅膀:植保无人机低容量喷雾技术助力农药减施增效[J]. 植物保护学报, 2021, 48(3):469-476.
[7]	WANG G B, HAN Y X, LI X, et al. Field evaluation of spray drift and environmental impact using an agricultural unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) sprayer[J]. Science of the total environment, 2020, 737:139793.
[8]	兰玉彬, 单常峰, 王庆雨, 等. 不同喷雾助剂在植保无人机喷施作业中对雾滴沉积特性的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2021, 37(16):31-38.
[9]	马钰, 贡常委, 张韫政, 等. 喷头类型对植保无人机低容量喷雾雾滴在稻田冠层沉积分布及防治效果的影响[J]. 植物保护学报, 2021, 48(3):518-527.
[10]	薛新宇, 秦维彩, 孙竹, 等. N-3型无人直升机施药方式对稻飞虱和稻纵卷叶螟防治效果的影响[J]. 植物保护学报, 2013, 40(3):273-278.
[11]	陈勤伍, 吴飞龙. 不同农药(械)对水稻穗期褐飞虱的防效试验[J]. 安徽农学通报, 2021, 27(24):94-95.
[12]	卢小平, 肖冬芽, 甘贱根, 等. 4种施药器械对水稻基部病虫害的防效比较及经济效益分析[J]. 江西农业学报, 2018, 30(5):61-64.
[13]	丁志新. 不同植保机械对水稻病虫害防治的影响[J]. 江苏农机化, 2022(1):14-17.
[14]	马金龙, 陈吟. 直播稻田无人机全程防治病虫草害初探[J]. 中国农学通报, 2020, 36(27):135-141. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb20190900608
[15]	袁会珠, 薛新宇, 闫晓静, 等. 植保无人飞机低空低容量喷雾技术应用与展望[J]. 植物保护, 2018, 44(5):152-158.
[16]	QIN W C, QIU B J, XUE X Y, et al. Droplet deposition and control effect of insecticides sprayed with an unmanned aerial vehicle against plant hoppers[J]. Crop protection, 2016, 85:79-88.
[17]	陈盛德, 兰玉彬, 李继宇, 等. 小型无人直升机喷雾参数对杂交水稻冠层雾滴沉积分布的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2016, 32(17):40-46.
[18]	袁秋生, 黄洪, 唐涛. 植保无人机防治水稻二化螟和稻纵卷叶螟的效果研究[J]. 湖南农业科学, 2021(11):55-58.
[19]	何玲, 王国宾, 胡韬, 等. 喷雾助剂及施液量对植保无人机喷雾雾滴在水稻冠层沉积分布的影响[J]. 植物保护学报, 2017, 44(6):1046-1052.
[20]	张亚莉, 高启超, 邓继忠, 等. M45型多旋翼植保无人机减量施药对稻飞虱防治效果的影响[J]. 华南农业大学学报, 2021, 42(6):36-42.
[21]	国家植保机械质量监督检验中心. NY/T 2677—2015,农药沉积率测定方法[S]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2015.
[22]	王明. 水稻田喷雾技术的农药沉积利用率测定与评估模型构建[D]. 北京: 中国农业科学院, 2019.
[23]	曾文, 邓继忠, 高启超, 等. 用P20型植保无人机减量施药防治稻纵卷叶螟[J]. 农业工程学报, 2021, 37(15):53-59.
[24]	APPAH S, JIA W D, OU M X, et al. Analysis of potential impaction and phytotoxicity of surfactant-plant surface interaction in pesticide application[J]. Crop protection, 2020, 127:104961.
[25]	陈奕璇, 石鑫, 覃贵亮, 等. 植物油助剂Aero-mate 320对植保无人机稻田低容量喷雾沉积利用率的提升效果及其机理分析[J]. 植物保护学报, 2021, 48(3):510-517.
[26]	王明, 陈奕璇, 苏小计, 等. 添加助剂对植保无人飞机低容量喷雾在矮化密植苹果园中雾滴沉积分布及苹果黄蚜防治效果的影响[J]. 植物保护学报, 2019, 46(6):1316-1323.
[27]	宋睿, 沈国清, 张永涛, 等. 植保无人机飞防助剂的筛选及其性能评价[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2021, 37(2):333-339.
[28]	张利斌, 张庆贺, 韩玉军, 等. 药液表面张力和黏度对草甘膦药效的影响及其机理研究[J]. 植物保护, 2011, 37(5):160-163.
[29]	周晓欣. 雾滴蒸发规律的探索及几种航空喷雾助剂的评价[D]. 沈阳: 沈阳农业大学, 2017.

试验处理	助剂	施药液量/(L/hm²)	飞行速度/(m/s)
T1	不加	12.00	4.00
T2	不加	15.00	5.00
T3	不加	18.00	6.00
T4	助剂1	12.00	5.00
T5	助剂1	15.00	6.00
T6	助剂1	18.00	4.00
T7	助剂2	12.00	6.00
T8	助剂2	15.00	4.00
T9	助剂2	18.00	5.00

试验处理	助剂	施药液量/(L/hm²)	飞行速度/(m/s)
T1	不加	12.00	4.00
T2	不加	15.00	5.00
T3	不加	18.00	6.00
T4	助剂1	12.00	5.00
T5	助剂1	15.00	6.00
T6	助剂1	18.00	4.00
T7	助剂2	12.00	6.00
T8	助剂2	15.00	4.00
T9	助剂2	18.00	5.00

不同高度	T4	T5	T6
上层	1.14	1.21	1.04
中层	0.38	0.56	0.39
下层	0.16	0.27	0.17
变异系数/%	92.49	70.47	84.72

不同高度	T4	T5	T6
上层	1.14	1.21	1.04
中层	0.38	0.56	0.39
下层	0.16	0.27	0.17
变异系数/%	92.49	70.47	84.72

因素	助剂	施药液量	飞行速度
K1	154.03	146.71	157.86
K2	174.90	165.45	145.43
K3	134.57	151.34	160.22
k1	51.34	48.90	52.62
k2	58.30	55.15	48.48
k3	44.86	50.45	53.41
R	13.44	6.25	4.93
F	7.26	2.84	1.37
P	0.0034**	0.0780^ns	0.2729^ns