Influence of Water Application Volumes of Plant Protection UAV on Control Efficacy of Rice Sheath Blight

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2025-0124

Abstract

Abstract:

To optimize the pesticide application parameters of plant protection drones, this study systematically evaluated the effects of different water application rates on the control efficacy against rice sheath blight and the economic benefits, aiming to provide a scientific basis for precise drone-based pesticide application. Using the DJI T40 drone, field experiments were conducted in Songjiang District, Shanghai, from 2023 to 2024. Three water application rate gradients (30, 45, and 67.5 L/hm²) were set, with pesticides applying at the jointing and heading stages of rice, and the control efficacy in terms of diseased plant rate and disease index was monitored. (1) At the jointing stage, there were no significant differences in control efficacy among the gradients (diseased plant control efficacy: 85.57%-87.68%; disease index control efficacy: 89.86%-91.34%). (2) At the heading stage, the control efficacy at 30 L/hm² was significantly lower than that at other gradients (P< 0.05), while there was no significant difference between 45 L/hm² and 67.5 L/hm² (P>0.05). In 2023, the diseased plant control efficacy ranged from 79.71% to 91.99%, and the disease index control efficacy ranged from 89.47% to 94.95%. In 2024, 7 days after pesticide application, the diseased plant control efficacy was 78.86%-95.01%, and the disease index control efficacy was 85.30%-94.93%; 15 days after application, the diseased plant control efficacy was 73.17%-93.12%, and the disease index control efficacy was 77.38%-92.46%. (3) In terms of economic benefits, the operation efficiency showed a decreasing trend with the increase of water application rate (30L: 4.0 hm² /h→67.5 L: 2.67 hm² /h), and the control cost increased by 71.4% with the increase of water application rate (from 1050 to 1800 yuan per application). A differentiated water application strategy is recommended: since the water application rate at the jointing stage has no significant impact on the control efficacy, 30 L/hm² is recommended (balancing efficiency and cost); as the water application rate at the heading stage has a significant impact on the control efficacy, 45 L/hm² is preferred (balancing control efficacy and economy).

Key words: plant protection UAV, water application volume, rice, sheath blight, jointing stage, heading stage, field efficacy, precision spraying

WANG Yanqiu, GU Xiao, ZHOU Cheng, MAO Huiying, CHEN Yong. Influence of Water Application Volumes of Plant Protection UAV on Control Efficacy of Rice Sheath Blight[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(23): 111-116.

Figures/Tables 6

References 26

[1]	凌启鸿. 论水稻生产在确保我国粮食安全和环境健康建设中的重要作用[A].中国作物学会栽培专业委员会换届暨学术研讨会论文集[C]. 北京: 中国作物学会出版社, 2007.
[2]	刘晓梅, 李莉, 张金花, 等. 水稻纹枯病发病规律及防治技术研究[J]. 东北农业科学, 2025, 50(3):56-61.
[3]	范春全, 何彬彬. 基于迁移学习的水稻病虫害识别[J]. 中国农业信息, 2020, 32(2):36-44.
[4]	SAVARY S, TENG P S, WILLOCQUET L, et al. Quantification and modeling of crop losses: a review of purposes[J]. Annual review of phytopathology, 2006, 44(1):89-112.
[5]	ZUO S M, ZHANG Y F, CHEN Z X, et al. Current progress on genetics and breeding in resistance to rice sheath blight[J]. Scientia sinica vitae, 2010, 40(11):1014-1023.
[6]	刘晓梅, 梁卫, 苏兰淇, 等. 吉林省水稻主栽品种对纹枯病的抗性评价与抗源筛选[J]. 东北农业科学, 2023, 48(5):76-80.
[7]	龙欣钰, 孟祥佳, 曹帅, 等. 水稻纹枯病生防菌株的筛选、鉴定及其防治效果[J]. 植物保护学报, 2022, 49(6):1620-1630.
[8]	怀燕, 陈照明, 杨梢娜, 等. 新型肥料在水稻轻简化施肥中的稳产效应评估[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(15):1-6. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0765
[9]	蒋鹏, 张林, 周兴兵, 等. 冬水田轻简化栽培杂交稻蓄留再生稻产量形成特点[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2024, 38(5):544-554. doi: 10.16819/j.1001-7216.2024.231205
[10]	兰玉彬, 陈盛德, 邓继忠, 等. 中国植保无人机发展形势及问题分析[J]. 华南农业大学学报, 2019, 40(5):217-225.
[11]	臧禹, 谷秀艳, 林树青, 等. 植保无人机作业方式对玉米螟防治的雾滴沉积和防治效果影响[J]. 华中农业大学学报, 2024, 43(6):325-332.
[12]	刘枫, 贺有超, 张俊佩, 等. 植保无人机作业参数对雾滴在核桃冠层沉积分布的影响研究[J]. 中国果树, 2024(12):102-106.
[13]	张路生, 于晓庆, 邵玉丽, 等. 植保无人机对大豆-玉米带状复合种植播后苗前喷雾的雾滴沉积特性及除草效果[J]. 植物保护, 2025, 51(1):327-333.
[14]	李鹏飞, 薛钦元, 陈龙, 等. 喷雾参数对无人机雾滴沉积及棉蚜防效的影响[J]. 农机化研究, 2025, 47(11):199-205.
[15]	过崇简, 陈志宜, 王法明, 等. 水稻纹枯病菌Thanatephorus cucumeris (Frank) Donk致病力分化及品种抗性鉴定技术的研究[J]. 中国农业科学, 1985, 18(5):50-56.
[16]	马军韬, 张国民, 张丽艳, 等. 水直播条件下黑龙江省稻瘟病及纹枯病药剂防控技术研究[J]. 东北农业科学, 2023, 48(2):90-94.
[17]	应俊杰, 余山红, 方辉, 等. 基于植保无人机的农艺融合技术应用与植保社会化服务体系建设分析[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2024, 65(10):2259-2265. doi: 10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20240552
[18]	张莉. 高效植保机械化技术应用情况分析研究[J]. 农机科技推广, 2025(1):49-52.
[19]	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
[20]	孔繁涛. 植保无人机在农作物病虫害防治中的应用分析[J]. 农业开发与装备, 2024(5):33-35.
[21]	顾中言, 徐德进, 徐广春. 田间药液用量影响农药单位剂量防治效果的原因分析[J]. 中国农业科学, 2018, 51(13):2513-2523. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2018.13.007
[22]	芦芳, 章先飞, 沈方圆, 等. 不同助剂及用水量对无人机防治水稻纹枯病防效的影响研究[J]. 现代农机, 2026(6):87-89.
[23]	黄蓓荣, 关洪丹, 倪天豪. 植保无人机施药防治水稻纹枯病的适宜药液量筛选试验简报[J]. 上海农业科技, 2023(1):110-111.
[24]	李艳大, 叶春, 曹中盛, 等. 无人机与人工喷施雾滴在水稻冠层内沉积特征及效益比较[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2021, 35(5):513-518. doi: 10.16819/j.1001-7216.2021.210107
[25]	兰波, 刘方义, 徐善忠, 等. 植保无人机超低容量喷施技术防治水稻纹枯病的药效评价[J]. 江西农业学报, 2017, 29(11):55-58.
[26]	梅玲. 气象要素对植保无人机飞行作业的影响分析[J]. 农业灾害研究, 2021, 11(4):31-32.

年份	处理	药剂	防治时期	药剂用量/(mL/hm²)	用水量/(L/hm²)
2023	A1	75%戊唑醇·嘧菌酯WG、250 g/L嘧菌酯SC	拔节期、穗期	225、600	30
	A2	75%戊唑醇·嘧菌酯WG、250 g/L嘧菌酯SC	拔节期、穗期	225、600	45
	A3	75%戊唑醇·嘧菌酯WG、250 g/L嘧菌酯SC	拔节期、穗期	225、600	67.5
	CK1	—	—	—	—
2024	B1	250 g/L嘧菌酯SC	穗期	600	30
	B2	250 g/L嘧菌酯SC	穗期	600	45
	B3	250 g/L嘧菌酯SC	穗期	600	67.5
	CK2	—	—	—	—

年份	处理	药剂	防治时期	药剂用量/(mL/hm²)	用水量/(L/hm²)
2023	A1	75%戊唑醇·嘧菌酯WG、250 g/L嘧菌酯SC	拔节期、穗期	225、600	30
	A2	75%戊唑醇·嘧菌酯WG、250 g/L嘧菌酯SC	拔节期、穗期	225、600	45
	A3	75%戊唑醇·嘧菌酯WG、250 g/L嘧菌酯SC	拔节期、穗期	225、600	67.5
	CK1	—	—	—	—
2024	B1	250 g/L嘧菌酯SC	穗期	600	30
	B2	250 g/L嘧菌酯SC	穗期	600	45
	B3	250 g/L嘧菌酯SC	穗期	600	67.5
	CK2	—	—	—	—

处理	拔节期—药后7 d				穗期—药后7 d
处理	病株率/%	病株防效/%	病情指数	病指防效/%	病株率/%	病株防效/%	病情指数	病指防效/%
A1	3.30	85.57a	0.37	89.86a	7.96	79.71a	0.96	89.47a
A2	2.82	87.68a	0.31	91.34a	4.58	88.33b	0.57	93.73ab
A3	2.89	87.37a	0.32	91.13a	3.15	91.99b	0.46	94.95b
CK1	22.89		3.62		39.24		9.07

处理	拔节期—药后7 d				穗期—药后7 d
处理	病株率/%	病株防效/%	病情指数	病指防效/%	病株率/%	病株防效/%	病情指数	病指防效/%
A1	3.30	85.57a	0.37	89.86a	7.96	79.71a	0.96	89.47a
A2	2.82	87.68a	0.31	91.34a	4.58	88.33b	0.57	93.73ab
A3	2.89	87.37a	0.32	91.13a	3.15	91.99b	0.46	94.95b
CK1	22.89		3.62		39.24		9.07

处理	穗期-药后7 d				穗期-药后15 d
处理	病株率/%	病株防效/%	病情指数	病指防效/%	病株率/%	病株防效/%	病情指数	病指防效/%
B1	2.15	78.86a	0.30	85.30 a	3.73	73.17 a	0.64	77.38 a
B2	4.34	94.01b	0.48	93.91b	8.45	91.49b	0.99	90.92b
B3	2.28	95.01b	0.24	94.93b	4.31	93.12b	0.52	92.46b
CK2	11.99		1.33		16.44		1.83