agronomy

Article
Effects of Dosage and Spraying Volume on Cotton
Defoliants Efficacy: A Case Study Based on
Application of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
Fang Xin 1 , Jing Zhao 2, *, Yueting Zhou 1 , Guobin Wang 3 , Xiaoqiang Han 1, * ID
, Wei Fu 4 ,
Jizhong Deng 3 and Yubin Lan 3
1 The Key Laboratory of Oasis Eco-Agriculture, Xinjiang Production and Construction Group,
College of Agricultural, Shihezi University, Shihezi 832002, China; xinf@stu.shzu.edu.cn (F.X.);
zhouyueting@stu.shzu.edu.cn (Y.Z.)
2 Institute of Plant Protection, Xinjiang Academy of Agricultural and Reclamation Science,
Shihezi 832000, China
3 National Center for International Collaboration Research on Precision Agricultural Aviation Pesticides
Spraying Technology (NPAAC), College of Engineering, South China Agricultural University,
Guangzhou 510642, China; guobinwang@stu.scau.edu.cn (G.W.); jz-deng@scau.edu.cn (J.D.);
ylan@scau.edu.cn (Y.L.)
4 College of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Shihezi University, Shihezi 832002, China;
fw_mac@shzu.edu.cn
* Correspondence: zj7506@gmail.com (J.Z.); hanshz@shzu.edu.cn (X.H.); Tel.: +86-993-668-3537 (J.Z.);
+86-993-205-8060 (X.H.)




Received: 28 March 2018; Accepted: 18 May 2018; Published: 30 May 2018


Abstract: Plant protection unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) consist of light and small UAVs with
pesticide spraying equipment. The advantage of UAVs is using low-volume spray technology to
replace the traditional large-volume mass locomotive spray technology. Defoliant spraying is a key
link in the mechanized cotton harvest, as sufficient and uniform spraying can improve the defoliation
quality and decrease the cotton trash content. However, cotton is planted at high density in Xinjiang,
with leaves in two adjacent rows seriously overlapped, making the lower leaves poorly sprayed.
Thus, the defoliation effect is poor, and the cotton quality is degraded. To improve the effect of
defoliation and reduce the losses caused by boom sprayer rolling, the effect of defoliant dosage
on defoliation, boll opening, absorption and decontamination in cotton leaves and the effect of
spraying volume on absorption and decontamination in cotton leaves sprayed by UAVs are studied.
The pooled results indicate that plant protection UAVs could be used for cotton defoliants spraying
with a twice defoliant spraying strategy, and the defoliant dosage has no significant effect on seed
cotton yield and fiber quality in Xinjiang. The residue of thidiazuron in cotton leaves reaches the
maximum at four days after spraying, the residue of diuron in cotton leaves reaches the maximum
at one day after second spraying. The thidiazuron and diuron residues are increased with spraying
volume at rang of 17.6–29.0 L/ha. When the spraying volume is less than 17.6 L/ha, the residue
of thidiazuron and diuron is reduced. The research results could provide a reference for further
optimization of the spraying parameters of cotton defoliant by plant protection UAVs.

Keywords: cotton defoliant; dosage and spraying volume; absorption and decontamination;
unmanned aerial vehicle

1. Introduction
Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) is an important commercial crop worldwide, and serves as
a significant source of fiber, feed, foodstuff, oil and biofuel [1,2]. Cotton is the pillar industry of

Agronomy 2018, 8, 85; doi:10.3390/agronomy8060085 www.mdpi.com/journal/agronomy

Agronomy 2018, 8, 85 2 of 15

Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, China, which is of great significance to the economic and
social development of Xinjiang [3]. Defoliation or leaf abscission is induced in cotton as a natural
physiological process, which is usually inadequate or not timely enough for a complete mechanical
harvest of cotton. Therefore, defoliation before harvest is often induced by managing the plants
so that senescence, abscission (separation) layer development and leaf drop are encouraged [4–7].
Advantages associated with defoliant application prior to cotton harvest include: increased harvester
efficiency, reduction in the leaves and trash content in harvested lint, and quicker drying of dew.
Defoliant spraying is a key link in the mechanized cotton harvest, as sufficient and uniform spraying
could improve the defoliation quality and decrease the cotton trash content, and it is significant to solve
defects of cotton quality [8,9]. Mechanization, modernization and standardized production are the basic
paths of sustainable development of the Xinjiang cotton industry [10]. Most cotton pesticide operations
are carried out using large-volume ground machinery in Xinjiang, which results in rolling the cotton
plant, hitting the bolls, pulling the cotton branch, hitting the opened balls off, water and pesticide
wastage, and reduces the yield and quality of cotton. It is a bottleneck and technical issue that restricts
the cotton quality and efficiency of Xinjiang. Herbicidal defoliant diuron and hormonal defoliant
thidiazuron are widely used in Xinjiang. Thidiazuron increases the concentration of ethylene relative to
auxin in leaf petioles and results in the activation of the leaf abscission layer [11–13]. Diuron accelerates
the scorch of cotton leaves, improves defoliation under low temperature conditions [14]. However,
these types of defoliants induce drastic leaf abscission which inhibits timely transport of nutrients
from leaves to cotton bolls. Also, these defoliants do not directly influence boll ripening and must
be applied in combination with ethephon, a boll opener, to provide satisfactory defoliation and boll
opening [15,16].
Plant protection unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are light and small UAVs with pesticide
spraying equipment. UAVs achieve precision pesticide spraying using the global positioning system
(GPS) and geographic information system (GIS) [17,18]. The advantage of UAVs is using low-volume
spray technology replaced the traditional large-volume mass locomotive spray technology. [19].
UAVs accomplish spray precision docking by GPS and real-time kinematic (RTK) automatic navigation
technology, which increases the quality of aviation plant protection operations significantly [20].
Compared to conventional agricultural aircraft, UAVs do not require a special airport and have
additional advantages, such as good mobility [21,22]. UAVs are also more adaptable for spraying at
low altitudes due to geographical restrictions [23,24]. Meanwhile, UAVs could effectively improve
pesticide efficacy, reduce pesticide amounts, and rational use of pesticide [25,26]. The problem of
the development of plant protection UAVs is the combination and relationship between aircraft and
agricultural plant protection in China [27,28]. Plant protection is accompanied by the reduction in
agricultural disease, insects, weed control and prevention, while low-altitude aviation is emerging
as a breakthrough in aviation technology. The initial combination of aviation and plant protection
has resulted in low-altitude aviation plant protection. UAVs have a very important value in the
development of precision agriculture, fulfilling an urgent need in the development of modern
agriculture in China. Currently, leaves of the cotton canopy overlap, making it inconvenient for
crop spraying using a conventional land spraying machine. Due to the harsh walking conditions in
cotton fields, operating a land-spraying machine is very difficult and requires high labor intensity.
Large-volume spraying not only leads to pesticide waste but also seriously endangers the environment
and the operators [29]. The development of aviation plant protection technology would drive the
development of new pesticide industries and the aviation application equipment industries in line
with the needs of national strategic development which has broad market prospects and bring about
huge economic, social and ecological benefits [30].
Boom sprayers are widely used for large farm crops due to their high working efficiency and
favorable spraying effect. However, there are still some problems in cotton defoliant spraying in
Xinjiang. Cotton is planted in a high density in Xinjiang, the row space is 10 cm and 66 cm, causing
leaves in two adjacent rows to be seriously overlapped, which results in reducing the yield and
Agronomy 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 15

Agronomy
leaves in2018,
two 8, 85
adjacent rows to be seriously overlapped, which results in reducing the yield3 of and15

quality of cotton [9]. Zhao et al. [31,32] and An [33] reported control of cotton aphids, Qin et al.
reportedofcontrol
quality of plant
cotton [9]. Zhaohoppers by UAVs,
et al. [31,32] and Anwhich showed good
[33] reported controlresults and aphids,
of cotton could effectively
Qin et al.
decrease insect population trends [34]. However, there are few reports on the
reported control of plant hoppers by UAVs, which showed good results and could effectively spraying defoliants by
decrease
UAVs.population
insect Herein, thetrends
authors report
[34]. this study’s
However, results
there are few concerning the spraying
reports on the effect of defoliant
defoliantsdosage on
by UAVs.
defoliation, boll opening, absorption and decontamination in cotton leaves and the effect of
Herein, the authors report this study’s results concerning the effect of defoliant dosage on defoliation, spraying
volume
boll on absorption
opening, andand
absorption decontamination
decontamination in cotton leaves
in cotton sprayed
leaves by effect
and the plant protection
of sprayingUAVs,
volumeto
obtain
on the optimized
absorption parameters for in
and decontamination thecotton
working
leavesof UAVs,
sprayedand by provide references
plant protection and to
UAVs, bases for
obtain
further improving the cotton defoliant spraying technique.
the optimized parameters for the working of UAVs, and provide references and bases for further
improving the cotton defoliant spraying technique.
2. Materials and Methods
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Material
2.1. Experimental Material
2.1.1. The UAV Sprayers and Equipment
2.1.1. The UAV Sprayers and Equipment
The aviation platforms were the JT-30 UAV (UAV 1, Figures 1 and 2, Xinjiang Jiangtian
Aviation aviation
The Science platforms were the
and Technology JT-30
Co., UAV
Ltd., (UAV 1,
Xinjing, Figures
China) 1 and
and the 2,3WQF120-12
Xinjiang Jiangtian
UAV Aviation
(UAV 2,
Science and Technology Co., Ltd., Xinjing, China) and the 3WQF120-12
Figure 1, Anyang Quanfeng Aviation Plant Protection Technology Co., Ltd., Anyang, China), UAV (UAV 2, Figure
which 1,
Anyang Quanfeng
were equipped withAviation
a sprayingPlant
unit.Protection
The main Technology
parameters of Co.,
theLtd.,
UAVAnyang,
1 and UAV China), which were
2 are presented in
equipped with a spraying unit. The main parameters of the UAV 1 and
Table 1. The UAVs both used GPS and RTK navigation technology, with the accuracy of the flying UAV 2 are presented in
Table
height1.and
Theflying
UAVs velocity
both used GPS and RTK
controlled navigation
within 0.1 m and technology, with the accuracy
0.1 m/s, respectively. of the flying
The spraying height
platforms
and flyingof
consisted velocity
a medicalcontrolled
kit withwithin 0.1 mof
a capacity and
30 0.1 m/s, respectively.
L (UAV 1) and 12 L (UAV The spraying platforms
2), a miniature consisted
straightway
of a medical kit with a capacity of 30 L (UAV 1) and 12 L (UAV 2), a miniature
pump, pipeline, spraying nozzle, and electronic control valve. UAV 1 with six spraying nozzles straightway pump,
pipeline, spraying
(hollow conical nozzle,were
nozzle) and symmetrically
electronic control valve. UAV
arranged 1 with
on both six of
sides spraying
the UAV nozzles
at the(hollow conical
same interval
nozzle) were symmetrically arranged on both sides of the UAV at the same
(700 mm), and the installing angle of the 4 spraying nozzles was a vertically downward sprayinginterval (700 mm), and the
installing angle of the 4 spraying nozzles was a vertically downward spraying
direction and using 2 spraying nozzles with a 60° angle in a horizontal direction. UAV 2 with three direction and using
2 sprayingnozzles
spraying with a 60◦were
nozzles(LU120-02) anglesymmetrically
in a horizontal direction.
arranged on UAV
both 2sides
withof three
the spraying
UAV andnozzles in the
(LU120-02) were symmetrically arranged on both sides of the UAV and in the
precise middle at the same interval (625 mm), and the installing angle of the spraying nozzles was precise middle at thea
same interval (625 mm), and the installing angle of the spraying nozzles was
vertically downward spraying direction. Using a working pressure of 0.3 MPa (UAV 1) and 0.3 MPa a vertically downward
spraying
(UAV 2),direction.
the measured Usingflow
a working
rate ofpressure
a singleofspraying
0.3 MPa (UAV
nozzle1)wasand 250
0.3 MPa
mL/min(UAV(UAV2), the1)measured
and 400
flow rate of
mL/min (UAV 2).a single spraying nozzle was 250 mL/min (UAV 1) and 400 mL/min (UAV 2).

Figure
Figure 1.
1. Spraying
Sprayingdefoliant
defoliantby
by unmanned
unmanned aerial
aerial vehicle
vehicle (UAV)
(UAV) (UAV
(UAV 11 and
and UAV
UAV 2).
2).

Thidiazuron and
Thidiazuron and diuron
diuron were
were analyzed with an
analyzed with an Agilent
Agilent 1200
1200 HPLC
HPLC equipped
equipped with with a a
reversed-phase column (Agilent XDB-C18 4.6 × 150 mm, 5 µm, Agilent, Santa Clara, CA, USA) at ◦ C.
25 °C.
reversed-phase column (Agilent XDB-C18 4.6 × 150 mm, 5 μm, Agilent, Santa Clara, CA, USA) at 25
The
The mobile
mobile phase
phasewas
wasmethanol/water (65/35, v/v)
methanol/water(65/35, ataaflow
v/v) at flow rate
rate of
of 0.8
0.8 mL/min.
mL/min. TheThe injection
injection volume
volume
was
was 20 μL and electronic balance, BSA224S-CW, was from Sartorius, Göttingen, Germany. speed
20 µL and electronic balance, BSA224S-CW, was from Sartorius, Göttingen, Germany. High High
centrifuge, LDZS-2,LDZS-2,
speed centrifuge, was from
wasBeijing
fromJingli centrifuge
Beijing Co. Ltd., Beijing,
Jingli centrifuge Co. Ltd.,China. Swirl
Beijing, meter,Swirl
China. MS3 meter,
D S25,
IKA,
MS3 D came
S25,from
IKA, Staufen im Staufen
came from Breisgau,imGermany.
Breisgau, Ultrasonic cleaner, KQ-500
Germany. Ultrasonic DB,
cleaner, was from
KQ-500 Kunshan
DB, was from
Ultrasonic Instruments Co. Ltd., Kunshan, Jiangsu, China and the Rotary Evaporators,
Kunshan Ultrasonic Instruments Co. Ltd., Kunshan, Jiangsu, China and the Rotary Evaporators, RV10 D, RV10
were
from IKA,
D, were Staufen
from IKA, im Breisgau,
Staufen Germany.Germany.
im Breisgau,
Agronomy 2018, 8, 85 4 of 15
Agronomy 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 15

Figure 2. Flight control platform of UAV 1.

Figure 2. Flight control platform of UAV 1.
Table 1. Characteristic parameters of UAV 1 and UAV 2
Table 1. Characteristic parameters of UAV 1 and UAV 2
Parameter UAV 1 UAV 2
Rotor (cm)
Parameter Six
UAVrotor
1 (Diameter ,76.5) Single
UAVrotor
2 (Diameter, 2410)
Motor Electric-Powered Kerosine-powered
Rotor (cm)
Nozzle type Six rotor
Hollow (Diameter,
conical 76.5)
nozzle Single rotor (Diameter, 2410)
LU120-01/LU120-02/LU120-02/LU120-04
Motor Electric-Powered Kerosine-powered
Nozzle numbers 6 3
Nozzle type Hollow conical nozzle LU120-01/LU120-02/LU120-02/LU120-04
Pressure (MPa) 0.3 0.3
Nozzle numbers 6 3
Pressure (MPa) 40.3
for 0 (vertically down), 2 for 60 0.3
Spraying angle (°) 0 (vertically down)
(horizontal direction)
4 for 0 (vertically down), 2 for 60
Spraying
Sprayingangle
width (◦ )(m) 6(horizontal direction) 4 0 (vertically down)
Sprayingwidth
Spraying height (m) (the height to 6 4
2 2
Spraying height
the canopy (thecotton,
of the heightm)
to the
2 2
canopy
Flyingof the cotton,
altitude m)
(the height to
Flying altitude(m)
(the height to the 2.7 2.7
the ground) 2.7 2.7
ground) (m)
Spray rod length (m) 3.5 1.25
Spray rod length (m) 3.5 1.25
Flow rate (one nozzle) (mL/min) 680 300/560/770/930
Flow rate (one nozzle) (mL/min) 680 300/560/770/930
Drivingspeed
Driving speed(m/s)
(m/s) 55 44
Tank
Tank capacity
capacity (L)(L) 30
30 1212
Working
Working efficiency
efficiency (ha)
(ha) 50-60
50–60 20-25
20–25
Netweight
Net weight(kg)
(kg) 24
24 3030
No-load
No-loadoperation
operation(min) (min) 35
35 ≥45
≥ 45

2.1.2.2.1.2. Defoliant
Defoliant andand Reagents
Reagents
80% thidiazuron wettable powder was produced by Jiangsu Repont Pesticide Factory Co., Ltd.,
80% thidiazuron wettable powder was produced by Jiangsu Repont Pesticide Factory Co., Ltd.,
Changzhou, China. 37% thidiazuron·17% diuron suspension concentrate, came from Jiangsu
Changzhou,
InstituteChina. 37% thidiazuron
of Ecomones + 17% diuron
Co., Ltd., Nanjing, China.suspension
40% ethephonconcentrate,
aqueouscame fromproduced
solution Jiangsu Institute
by
of Ecomones Co., Ltd., Nanjing, China. 40% ethephon aqueous solution produced
Jiangsu Anpon Electrochemical Co., Ltd., Huaian, China were used. Thidiazuron standard by Jiangsu Anpon
(97%)
Electrochemical Co., Ltd.,(97%),
and diuron standard Huaian,fromChina were used.
J&K Scientific Thidiazuron
Ltd., standard
Beijing, China (97%)Methanol
were used. and diuron standard
(HPLC),
(97%),came
fromfrom
J&K Sigma-Aldrich,
Scientific Ltd., Beijing, China
St. Louis, MO,were
USA.used. Methanol
Primary (HPLC),
secondary came
amine from
(PSA) Sigma-Aldrich,
sorbent, was
produced
St. Louis, MO,by Welch
USA. Technology
Primary (Shanghai)
secondary Limited
amine Co.,
(PSA) Ltd., Shanghai,
sorbent, China. by Welch Technology
was produced
(Shanghai) Limited Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China.

2.2. General Situation of Experimental Field

The effect of defoliant dosage on defoliation, boll opening, absorption and decontamination
in cotton leaves experiment was carried out in Beiquan town of Xinjiang Production and
Agronomy 2018, 8, 85 5 of 15

Construction Crops, Shihezi, (E 85◦ 280 32”, N 44◦ 390 54”), Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, China,
during September 2017. The experimental field had middle level fertilizer and planted cotton for
many years. Cotton (Xinluzao 64) was planted on 24 April 2017, using a mechanical cotton-picking
planting model, with wide film planting 6 lines (10 cm + 66 cm), 195,000 cotton /ha, and drip irrigation
under plastic film. The effect of spraying volume on the dynamics of defoliant absorption and
decontamination in cotton leaves experiment was carried out in Farm 150 of Xinjiang Production and
Construction Crops (E 86◦ 030 28”, N 44◦ 560 42”), Shihezi, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, China,
during September 2017. The experimental field had middle level fertilizer planted cotton for many
years. Cotton (Xinluzao 64) was planted on 21 April 2017, using a mechanical cotton-picking planting
model, a wide film planting 6 lines (10 cm + 66 cm), 180,000 cotton /ha, drip irrigation under plastic
film. The heights, growing ways and leaf area index were uniform within each farm. The difference of
the two farms was the density, which was affected by the soil fertility and planting density.

2.3. Experimental Treatment

2.3.1. Effect of Defoliant Dosage on Defoliation Effect Sprayed by UAV 1

The experiment consisted of 4 treatments (Table 2). Cotton defoliant spraying was carried out on
7 September 2017 and 15 September 2017.

Table 2. Defoliant treatment for defoliant dosage.

Dosage (g/ha)
Spraying
7 September 2017 15 September 2017
Treatment Volume
(L/ha) 80% 37% thidiazuron + 40%
Adjuvant 40% Ethephon Adjuvant
Thidiazuron 17% diuron Ethephon
1 22.5 150 150 300 180 720 900
2 22.5 300 300 600 180 720 900
3 22.5 450 450 900 180 720 900
4 22.5 0 0 0 0 0 0

2.3.2. Effect of Spraying Volume on Defoliation Effect Sprayed by UAV 2

The experiment consisted of 4 treatments (Tables 3 and 4). Cotton defoliant spraying was carried out
on 5 September 2017 and 13 September 2017. The weather during the experimental period is in Table S1.

Table 3. Defoliant treatment for spraying volume.

Treatment Spraying Volume (L/ha) Nozzle Type Speed (m/s) Area (m2 )
5 9.3 LU120-01 4 3200
6 17.6 LU120-02 4 3200
7 24.2 LU120-03 4 2400
8 29.0 LU120-04 3.5 2400

Table 4. Defoliant treatment for spraying volume.

Dosage (g/ha)
Spraying
5 September 2017 13 September 2017
Treatment Volume
(L/ha) 37% thidiazuron + 40% 37% thidiazuron + 40%
Adjuvant Adjuvant
17% diuron Ethephon 17% diuron Ethephon
5 9.3 180 720 450 180 720 1050
6 17.6 180 720 450 180 720 1050
7 24.2 180 720 450 180 720 1050
8 29.0 180 720 450 180 720 1050
Agronomy 2018, 8, 85 6 of 15

2.4. Defoliation and Boll Opening

Prior to treatment application, 30 plants were randomly tagged to count the number of leaves on
each plant. The number of leaves was counted again 4, 8, 12 and 15 day after spraying on the same
tagged plants. Defoliation rate was calculated by Equation (1).

Defoliation rate (%) = ((Na − Nb )/Na ) × 100% (1)

where Na = Number of leaves before treatment, Nb = Number of leaves after treatment.

Boll opening rates were determined on the same tagged 30 plants. Bolls on each plant were
examined and recorded as either opened or closed and the boll opening rate was calculated by
Equation (2).
Boll opening rate (%) = (Nc /Nd ) × 100% (2)

where Nc = Number of opened bolls, Nd = Number of Total bolls.

2.5. Cotton Leaves Processing

2.5.1. Cotton Leaves Extraction and Purification

The cotton leaves (upper, middle and lower layer) were collected before spraying and 1, 4, 7,
8 and 12 days (1, 5, 7, 8 and 15 days for spraying volume experiment) after spraying. There are
eight fruit branches per cotton, the upper, middle and lower layers are three, three, and two fruit
branches, respectively (Figure 3). A method had been developed to determine defoliant residues in
cotton leaves using QuEChERS-pretreatment method and HPLC. Sample preparation and purification
were performed as follows: 4.0 g of cotton leaves were accurately weighed, frozen in liquid nitrogen
and grinded into powder. The powder was transferred to a 50 mL centrifuge tube. Afterwards, 25 mL
of acetonitrile was added to the centrifuge tube, and the mixture was ultrasonically extracted for 20 min.
Subsequently, NaCl (3 g) was added to the solution, which was vortexed for 1 min and centrifuged at
3800 rpm for 5 min. Next, 1 mL of supernatant was transferred into a 2 mL centrifuge tube with 50 mg
of PSA, vortexed for 1 min and centrifuged at 10,000 rpm for 3 min. The supernatant was filtered
through a 0.22 µm organic membrane filter for HPLC. Blank samples were used for validation studies
and matrix-matched standard calibration. An untreated group was set up as control group, and all
samples were stored in a −20 ◦ C freezer.

2.5.2. Standard Curve and Added Recovery

The thidiazuron and diuron standard (50 mg, respectively) were dissolved in 50 mL methanol
and diluted to 100 mL together, obtaining 500 mg/L thidiazuron and diuron mixed mother liquid,
then diluted to 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 mg/L, respectively, resulting in a series of mixed standard solutions.
The standard solution was determined by HPLC. The standard curve was obtained by drawing
the area as an ordinate and drawing the concentration of the thidiazuron and diuron standard
solution as abscissa. The standard curve equation of thidiazuron and diuron were y = 29.845x − 23.63,
R2 = 0.9964 and y = 114.33x − 82.01, R2 = 0.995, respectively. The peak area and concentration of
thidiazuron and diuron exhibited a good linear relationship (2–10 mg/L).
Agronomy 2018, 8, 85 7 of 15
Agronomy 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 15

Figure 3.
Figure 3. Layout
Layout of sampling collectors
of sampling collectors on
on the
the cotton.
cotton.

Samples for recovery studies were spiked with the corresponding volume of the working solution
Samples for recovery studies were spiked with the corresponding volume of the working solution
and incubated for 30 min before extraction. Cotton leaves were treated with 0.05, 0.5 and 5 mg/kg
and incubated for 30 min before extraction. Cotton leaves were treated with 0.05, 0.5 and 5 mg/kg
(thidiazuron) and 0.05 and 0.5 (diuron) standard working solution, and thidiazuron and diuron
(thidiazuron) and 0.05 and 0.5 (diuron) standard working solution, and thidiazuron and diuron
recoveries were determined using an established method. Each additional level was repeated three
recoveries were determined using an established method. Each additional level was repeated three
times whilst setting a blank control (Tables 5 and 6). The average recoveries of 0.05, 0.50 and 1.0 mg/kg
times whilst setting a blank control (Tables 5 and 6). The average recoveries of 0.05, 0.50 and 1.0 mg/kg
thidiazuron from cotton leaves were 81.47%, 83.11% and 93.71%, respectively. The average
thidiazuron from cotton leaves were 81.47%, 83.11% and 93.71%, respectively. The average recoveries of
recoveries of 0.05 and 0.50 mg/kg diuron from cotton leaves were 117.28% and 100.75%, respectively.
0.05 and 0.50 mg/kg diuron from cotton leaves were 117.28% and 100.75%, respectively. These values
These values met the requirements for residue analysis.
met the requirements for residue analysis.
Table 5. Recovery of thidiazuron in cotton leaves.
Table 5. Recovery of thidiazuron in cotton leaves.
Added Concentration Added Recovery (%) Average Added RSD
(mg/kg)
Added Concentration Added
1 Recovery
2 (%) 3 Average
RecoveryAdded
(%) (%) (%)
RSD
(mg/kg) 1 77.06 282.94 384.41 Recovery (%)
0.05 81.47 2.1
0.05 0.5 77.0683.1982.94
82.37 84.41
83.78 83.11
81.47 5.82.1
0.5 1.0 83.19 82.37 83.78
98.22 91.72 91.20 83.11
93.71 7.15.8
1.0 98.22 91.72 91.20 93.71 7.1
Table 6. Recovery of diuron in cotton leaves.
Table 6. Recovery of diuron in cotton leaves.
Added Concentration Added Recovery (%) Average Added
RSD (%)
(mg/kg) 1 2 3 Recovery (%)
Added Concentration Added Recovery (%) Average Added
0.05 117.23 116.49 118.11 117.28 2.6(%)
RSD
(mg/kg) 1 2 3 Recovery (%)
0.5 94.90 103.86 103.50 100.75 6.9
0.05 117.23 116.49 118.11 117.28 2.6
0.5 94.90 103.86 103.50 100.75 6.9
2.6. Yield Characters and Fiber Quality
The cotton
2.6. Yield yield
Characters was
and measured
Fiber Quality after all the cotton bolls opened where 100 cotton bolls from the
canopies (upper, middle and lower layer) were randomly tagged and collected in each experimental
area The cotton yield
to determine the was measured
cotton after all the and
yield characteristic cotton bolls
fiber opened where 100 cotton bolls from the
quality.
canopies (upper, middle and lower layer) were randomly tagged and collected in each experimental
area to determine
2.7. Data Statistics the
and cotton yield characteristic and fiber quality.
Processing
Defoliation,
2.7. Data Statisticsboll
and opening,
Processinguniformity and elongation of the cotton fiber which were expressed
in percentage, were transformed to arcsin√X/100; others were log (x + 1) transformed prior to
Defoliation, boll opening, uniformity and elongation of the cotton fiber which were expressed in
analysis to stabilize wide variances and √ meet normal assumptions. After transformation, the data
percentage, were transformed to arcsin X/100; others were log (x + 1) transformed prior to analysis
was analyzed for normality using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and for equal variance across the
treatments and replicates using Levene’s test. Data was compared across different application rate
Agronomy 2018, 8, 85 8 of 15

to stabilize wide variances and meet normal assumptions. After transformation, the data was analyzed
for normality using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and for equal variance across the treatments and
replicates using Levene’s test. Data was compared across different application rate using analysis
of variance (ANOVA) (SPSS v21.0, SPSS Inc, an IBM Company, Chicago, IL, USA). Duncan’s new
multiple test was used for multiple comparisons and the significance level was p = 0.05. In the factorial
Agronomy 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 15
design for both experiments, the averages were compared by using t-test at 5% probability.
using analysis of variance (ANOVA) (SPSS v21.0, SPSS Inc, an IBM Company, Chicago, IL, USA).
3. Results and Discussion
Duncan’s new multiple test was used for multiple comparisons and the significance level was p = 0.05.
In the factorial design for both experiments, the averages were compared by using t-test at 5%
3.1. Effect of Defoliant Dosage on Defoliation Efficacy
probability.

3.1.1. Defoliation Efficacy

3. Results and Discussion

Efficacy of of
3.1. Effect defoliation wasonaffected
Defoliant Dosage strongly
Defoliation Efficacy by overall defoliant dosage. Analysis of variance
in relation to cotton parameters among defoliation efficacy and defoliant dosage is presented in
Figure 4.3.1.1.
The Defoliation Efficacy began to form at four days after spraying, and the dose had a great
leaf abscission
effect on theEfficacy
defoliation effect; was
of defoliation the affected
defoliation ratebyofoverall
strongly upperdefoliant
layer leaves
dosage.was moreofthan
Analysis 20%inin three
variance
dosages. The defoliation rate was 34% by the dosage of 450 g/ha, which was significantly
relation to cotton parameters among defoliation efficacy and defoliant dosage is presented in Figure 4. higher
The leaf abscission began to form at four days after spraying, and the dose
than that of two low dose treatments. The defoliation rate then rose gradually, through eight days of had a great effect on the
sprayingdefoliation effect; the defoliation rate of upper layer leaves was more than 20% in three dosages. The
the defoliation rate of upper layer leaves was more than 45% of three dosages, and displayed
defoliation rate was 34% by the dosage of 450 g/ha, which was significantly higher than that of two
a concentrated effect. Defoliation rates were 45.49%, 52.16% and 61.06% for 150, 300 and 450 g/ha,
low dose treatments. The defoliation rate then rose gradually, through eight days of spraying the
respectively. Interestingly,
defoliation rate of upper the middle and was
layer leaves lower moreleaves
thanof theofcotton
45% three canopy
dosages, with 150 and 450
and displayed a g/ha
showedconcentrated
good defoliation effect. effect, and 300
Defoliation ratesg/ha
wereshowed moderate
45.49%, 52.16% anddefoliation
61.06% for 150, effect.
300The
and results
450 g/ha, indicated
respectively.
the defoliation Interestingly,
effect the middle
was influenced byand lower leaves
defoliant of the and
quantity, cotton canopy
the amount with of
150defoliants
and 450 g/ha could be
reducedshowed good defoliation
in Xinjiang. To furthereffect,improveand the
300 defoliation
g/ha showedeffect,
moderate defoliation
spraying effect. The
treatments were results
carried out
indicated the defoliation effect was influenced by defoliant quantity, and the amount of defoliants
again on 15 September 2017, when the temperature had dropped. Therefore, the 37% thidiazuron +
could be reduced in Xinjiang. To further improve the defoliation effect, spraying treatments were
17% diuron
carriedwasoutchosen.
again on Following
15 September a second spraying,
2017, when within four
the temperature d (twelve
had dropped.dTherefore,
after the thefirst37%spraying),
the upper,
thidiazuron·17% diuron was chosen. Following a second spraying, within four d (twelve d after thewith the
middle and lower layer leaves of defoliation rate had been significantly improved,
upper layer defoliation
first spraying), the rate
upper,nearly
middle90%, and the
lower middle layerofmore
layer leaves than 63%
defoliation andbeen
rate had thesignificantly
lower layer more
than 42%.improved,
Seven with daysthe upper
after thelayer
seconddefoliation
spraying rate (fifteen
nearly 90%,daystheafter
middle thelayer
firstmore than 63%the
spraying), andupper
the layer
lower layer more than 42%. Seven days after the second spraying (fifteen days after the first
defoliation rate was more than 90% and the total defoliation rate was more than 80%, which reached
spraying), the upper layer defoliation rate was more than 90% and the total defoliation rate was
the requirements for machine picked cotton harvesting.
more than 80%, which reached the requirements for machine picked cotton harvesting.
These findings suggest
These findings thatthat
suggest thethe80%80%thidiazuron dosage
thidiazuron dosage of of
thethe
firstfirst spraying
spraying had ahad a significant
significant
effect oneffect
the upper
on the andupper middle layer layer
and middle leaves, and and
leaves, the defoliation
the defoliation effect was
effect wasproportional
proportional to to the
the dosage
in gooddosage in good(the
temperatures temperatures
minimum(the minimum is
temperature temperature
higher than is 12 ◦ C). than
higher When12the °C). When the began
temperature
to drop,temperature
the compounded began to formulations
drop, the compounded formulations of
of 37% thidiazuron + 17%37% thidiazuron·17%
diuron was used, diuronwhichwas further
used, which further strengthened the effect of defoliation. Therefore, the defoliation rate reached
strengthened the effect of defoliation. Therefore, the defoliation rate reached more than 80% after
more than 80% after being sprayed twice, which met the requirements for machine picked cotton
being sprayed twice, which met the requirements for machine picked cotton harvesting. Generally,
harvesting. Generally, it was feasible to achieve better defoliation by reducing the defoliant dosage
it was feasible to spraying.
of the first achieve better defoliation by reducing the defoliant dosage of the first spraying.

Dosage: 150 g/ha Dosage: 300 g/ha

Total Total
100 100
Upper layer Upper layer
90 90
Middle layer Middle layer
80 80
Lower layer Lower layer
70 70
Defoliation (%)

Defoliation (%)

60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
4 8 12 15 4 8 12 15
Days after spraying Days after spraying

Figure 4. Cont.
Agronomy 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 15
Agronomy 2018, 8, 85 9 of 15
Agronomy 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 15
100
Dosage: 450 g/ha 100 Total Dosage: 0 g/ha
Total
90 90 Upper layer
100 Upper layer 100 Dosage: 0 g/ha
Total Dosage: 450 g/ha Total
80 80 Middle layer
90 Middle layer 90 Upper layer
Upper layer
Lower layer
70 80 Lower layer
Middle layer 70
80 Middle layer

Lower layer Lower layer

70 70
Defoliation (%)

(%) (%)
60 60
Defoliation (%)

60

Defoliation
60
50 50

Defoliation
50 50
40 40
40 40
30 30
30 30
20 20 20
20

10 10 10
10

0 0 00
4 8 12 15 4 8 12 15
4 8 12 15 4 8 12 15
Days after spraying Days after spraying
Days after spraying Days after spraying

Figure 4. Defoliant dosage effect on defoliation efficacy by UAV 1.

Figure 4.
Figure Defoliant dosage
4. Defoliant dosage effect
effect on
on defoliation
defoliation efficacy
efficacy by
by UAV
UAV 1.
1.
3.1.2. Boll Opening
3.1.2. Boll Opening
As illustrated in Figure 5, the cotton bolls opening effect increased significantly after spraying
Asby
As UAV 1. Eight
illustrated
illustrated in days after
inFigure
Figure spraying,
5,5,the
thecotton
cotton the bollopening
bolls
bolls opening
opening rate increased
effect
effectincreasedby 21.87%,
increased 20.43% and
significantly
significantly after24.04%
spraying
after by
spraying
for 300, 600 and 900 g/ha ethephon, respectively. The boll opening rate was slightly higher with the
UAV
by UAV1. Eight daysdays
1. Eight afterafter
spraying,
spraying, the bolltheopening rate increased
boll opening by 21.87%,
rate increased 20.43%20.43%
by 21.87%, and 24.04% and for 300,
24.04%
high-dose ethephon treatment, but not significantly different. However, the large-dose ethephon
600 and 900
for 300, 600 g/ha
and 900 ethephon, respectively.
g/ha ethephon, The boll opening
respectively. The bollrate was slightly
opening rate was higher with
slightly the high-dose
higher with the
caused the cotton leaves to wither without falling, improving the impurity content in the cotton. The
ethephon
high-dose treatment,
ethephon but not
treatment, significantly
but not different.
significantly However,
different. the large-dose
However,
boll opening rate was significantly improved, increasing to 82.59%, 90.00% and 88.84%, respectively, the ethephon
large-dose caused the
ethephon
cotton
causedleaves
the cotton
within to wither
four days without
leaves to the
after wither falling,
second withoutimproving
spraying falling, the
(twelve impurity
improving
days content
the
after first in the
impurity
spraying). cotton.
content
The The
in theboll
boll opening rateopening
cotton. The
rate
boll was was
opening more
ratethan
significantly was 85% within seven
improved,
significantly increasingdays (fifteen
improved, days90.00%
toincreasing
82.59%, after theand
to 82.59%, first88.84%,
spraying)
90.00% after the second
respectively,
and 88.84%, within four
respectively,
days
within spraying,
after
fourthe days reaching
second the
afterspraying requirements
the second (twelve
spraying for machine
days(twelve picked
after first
days cotton
spraying). harvesting.
after first The The thick
boll opening
spraying). canopy
The boll rate and
was more
opening rate
weather condition have a greater impact on defoliation and boll opening [35]. Defoliants like
than
was 85%
morewithinthan seven
85% withindays (fifteen
seven days daysafter the first
(fifteen daysspraying)
after theafter firstthespraying)
second spraying,
after thereaching
second
thidiazuron/diuron and ethephon/cyclanilide have optimal activity when maximum and minimum
the requirements
spraying,dailyreaching forthe
temperatures
machine
requirements
are
picked for
above 27 °C degrees
cotton
machineharvesting.
and above picked The
cottonthick
10 °C, respectively
canopy and
harvesting.
[6]. However, The weather
thick
in the
condition
canopy
northern and
have a greater
weather conditionimpact on
have defoliation
a greater and
impact boll onopening [35].
defoliation Defoliants
and boll like
opening
areas of Xinjiang, where the cotton has a relatively short growth period and the temperature cool down thidiazuron/diuron
[35]. Defoliants and
like
ethephon/cyclanilide September. have
Plant optimal
protection activity
UAVs when
could be maximum
thidiazuron/diuron and ethephon/cyclanilide have optimal activity when maximum and minimum
soon in used for and
cotton minimum
defoliant spraying daily
with temperatures
a two-time are
above ◦
defoliant
27 C degrees spraying strategy, the ◦
first spray composed of 80% thidiazuron, the second spray being the
daily temperatures areandaboveabove27 °C 10degrees
C, respectively
and above[6]. 10 However,
°C, respectivelyin the[6].northern
However, areas of Xinjiang,
in the northern
where compounded formulations 37% thidiazuron·17% diuron, which
and could guarantee the defoliation andsoon in
areas ofthe cottonwhere
Xinjiang, has atherelatively
cotton hasshort growth short
a relatively period growth the
period temperature cool down
and the temperature cool down
boll opening effectively.
September.
soon in September.Plant protection
Plant protection UAVsUAVs couldcould be used for cotton
be used for cotton defoliant
defoliant spraying
sprayingwith withaatwo-time
two-time
defoliant spraying
spraying strategy,
strategy, the the first
first spray
spray composed
composed of of 80%
80% thidiazuron,
thidiazuron,the the second
second spray being the
100 150g/ha
compounded
compounded formulations
formulations 37%
37%thidiazuron
thidiazuron·17%
300g/ha
+ 17%diuron,
diuron,which which could
could guarantee
guarantee the defoliation and
90
boll opening
opening effectively.
effectively. 450g/ha
80
0g/ha
The opening bolls rate (%)

70
100 60 150g/ha
90 50 300g/ha

80 40 450g/ha
0g/ha
The opening bolls rate (%)

30
70
20
60
10
50
0
0 4 8 12 15
40 Days after spraying
30
Figure 5. Effect of defoliant dosage on opening boll by UAV 1.
20
The above research conclusions indicated taking the spray twice defoliant strategy, the first
10
spray of 80% thidiazuron, the second spray of the compounded formulations 37% thidiazuron·17%
0
0 4 8 12 15
Days after spraying

Figure 5.
Figure 5. Effect
Effect of
of defoliant dosage on
defoliant dosage on opening
opening boll
boll by
by UAV
UAV 1.
1.

The above research conclusions indicated taking the spray twice defoliant strategy, the first
spray of 80% thidiazuron, the second spray of the compounded formulations 37% thidiazuron·17%
Agronomy 2018, 8, 85 10 of 15

The above research conclusions indicated taking the spray twice defoliant strategy, the first spray
of 80% thidiazuron, the second spray of the compounded formulations 37% thidiazuron + 17% diuron
could guarantee the defoliation and boll opening effectively. Meanwhile, the dosage of 80% thidiazuron
and 40% ethephon could be reduced.

3.1.3. Yield Characters and Fiber Quality

Defoliant application timing has a significant effect on cotton yield and quality [5–7,13]. However,
there are few reports on the effects of defoliant dosage on cotton yield and quality. The study indicates
defoliants dosage had no significant effect on seed cotton yield and fiber quality (Table 7). All the
treatments had similar results as the untreated control for each of these parameters when applied
at three dosages. Therefore, this showed that the treatments could be applied safely at either of the
application timings without affecting these cotton fiber quality parameters.

Table 7. Effect of defoliant dosage on yield characters and fiber quality of cotton sprayed by UAV 1.

Treatment BW UHML/mm ML/mm UI/% Mic Str/cN·Tex−1 Elg/% MR SFI

a b b a a b a a
1 5.70 28.58 24.41 85.4 5.16 27.8 6.7 0.85 7.1 b
2 5.29 b 28.46 b 24.22 b 85.1 a 5.05 b 28.2 b 6.7 a 0.84 a 7.3 b
3 5.64 a 27.74 b,c 23.17 b,c 83.5 c 5.18 a 26.3 c 6.6 a 0.84 a 8.2 a
4 4.97 c 30.07 a 25.52 a 84.9 a,b 4.54 c 32.2 a 6.8 a 0.84 a 7.0 b
a–c(p < 0.05; Duncan’s Test); BW, Boll weight; UHML, Upper half mean length; ML, Mean length; UI, Uniformity
index; Mic, Micronaire; Str, Strength; Elg, Elongation; MR, Maturity; SFI, Short fiber index.

3.1.4. Attachment and Absorption

To clarify the effect of defoliant dosage on attachment and absorption of thidiazuron and diuron in
cotton leaf sprayed by UAV 1, the defoliant residue detection and degradation was studied. As shown
in Figure 6, due to the high content of thidiazuron in the defoliant, the residue of thidiazuron was
higher than that of diuron at each period after spraying. The residues of thidiazuron and diuron
in cotton leaves were closely related to the cotton canopy structure, with the highest residue in the
upper layer and the lowest residue in the lower layer (Figure 6). Coincidentally, the middle layer
leaves of cotton canopy with 150 and 450 g/ha showed more thidiazuron and diuron residues than the
dosages with 300 g/ha. In contrast, the lower layer of cotton canopy with 150 g/ha showed the lowest
thidiazuron residues and 150 g/ha showed lowest diuron residues. This indicates that the dose of
defoliant had a significant effect on thidiazuron and diuron attachment and absorption in cotton leaves
which affected the defoliation and boll opening. Regarding the thidiazuron, the leaves of the upper
and middle layers had maximum residues four days after spraying (Figure 6A,B); the lower layer had
maximum residues eight days after spraying (one day after the second spraying, Figure 6C). Due to
poor penetrability of plant protection UAVs, the first spraying could not penetrate the cotton canopy,
thus the second spraying was needed to improve the defoliant absorption by lower leaves. Conversely,
diuron residues in the cotton canopy were much less, with the highest residue after the second spraying
(eight days after the first spraying, one day after the second spraying, Figure 6D–F). The first spraying
was 80% thidiazuron wettable powder and the second spraying was 37% thidiazuron + 17% diuron
suspension concentrate, resulting in the residue of thidiazuron in cotton leaves reaching the maximum
four days after spraying and the residue of diuron in cotton leaves reached the maximum one day after
the second spraying. Thidiazuron is a contact type plant growth regulator, which must contact and be
absorbed by the cotton leaves to play the role of leaf abscission of cotton. Therefore, the attachment
and absorption of thidiazuron and diuron on the cotton canopy corresponded with the defoliation and
boll opening efficiency.
Agronomy 2018, 8, 85 11 of 15
Agronomy 2018, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 15

150g/ha 150g/ha
Upper layer Middle layer
300g/ha
50
B 300g/ha
60
A
Cotton leaves attachment and absorption
45 450g/ha

Cotton leaves attachment and absorption

450g/ha
50 40

35
40
(mg / kg)

30

(mg / kg)
25
30
20

20 15

10
10
5

0
0
1 4 7 8 12
1 4 7 8 12
Days after spraying Days after spraying

150g/ha 150g/ha
Lower layer Upper layer
25
C 300g/ha
5 D 300g/ha
Cotton leaves attachment and absorption

Cotton leaves attachment and absorption

450g/ha 450g/ha
20 4

15
3
(mg / kg)

(mg / kg)
10
2

5
1

0
1 4 7 8 12 0
1 4 7 8 12
Days after spraying Days after spraying

150g/ha 150g/ha
5 E Middle layer
300g/ha
5
F Lower layer
300g/ha
Cotton leaves attachment and absorption

450g/ha
Cotton leaves attachment and absorption

450g/ha
4 4

3
(mg / kg)

3
(mg / kg)

2 2

1 1

0 0
1 4 7 8 12 1 4 7 8 12
Days after spraying Days after spraying

Figure
Figure 6. Effect
6. Effect of defoliant
of defoliant dosage
dosage on attachment
on attachment and absorption
and absorption of thidiazuron
of thidiazuron on leaf
on cotton cotton leaf
sprayed
sprayed by UAV 1 ((A) for upper layer; (B) for middle layer and (C) for lower layer) and diuron ((D)
by UAV 1 ((A) for upper layer; (B) for middle layer and (C) for lower layer) and diuron ((D) for upper
for upper layer; (E) for middle layer and (F) for lower layer). Twelve days after spraying, the upper
layer; (E) for middle layer and (F) for lower layer). Twelve days after spraying, the upper layer leaves
layer leaves had been defoliated completely.
had been defoliated completely.

3.2. Effect of Spraying Volume on Attachment and Absorption by UAV 2

3.2. Effect of Spraying Volume on Attachment and Absorption by UAV 2
The spraying volume has a significant effect on the attachment and absorption in cotton leaves
The
for spraying
plant volume
protection has aspraying.
UAVs significant effect
When on the attachment
spraying and absorption
the low concentration in cotton
defoliant leavesthe
solution, for
plant protection UAVs spraying. When spraying the low concentration defoliant
spraying volume should be increased to ensure the effect of prevention and control, which would solution, the spraying
volume
resultshould
in the belossincreased to ensure
of the defoliant the effect
solution. Whenof prevention
spraying theand highcontrol, which would
concentration result
defoliant in the
solution,
lossthe
of the defoliant
active solution.
constituents contentWhenof a spraying the high
single droplet concentration
would be more thandefoliant
the lethalsolution,
dose for the
the active
pest,
constituents
and causecontent
a wasteofofa defoliant
single droplet would in
[36]. Shown be Figure
more than the lethal
7, spraying withdose
thefor
samethedefoliant
pest, anddosage,
cause a
waste of defoliant
spraying volume [36]. Shownainsignificant
showed Figure 7, spraying
effect on with the same
the residue of defoliant
thidiazurondosage, spraying
and diuron in volume
cotton
leaves.
showed The thidiazuron
a significant andthe
effect on diuron
residueresidues were increased
of thidiazuron with spraying
and diuron in cottonvolume
leaves. at 17.6–29
The L/ha,
thidiazuron
and when the spraying volume was less than 17.6 L/ha, it showed less
and diuron residues were increased with spraying volume at 17.6–29 L/ha, and when the spraying residues of thidiazuron and
diuron.
volume wasTherefore,
less than 17.6in the fielditof
L/ha, defoliant
showed lessspraying,
residues the optimum concentration
of thidiazuron and diuron. of defoliantin
Therefore, and
the
fieldspraying volume
of defoliant shouldthe
spraying, be determined in combination
optimum concentration with the spraying
of defoliant of defoliant
and spraying volume to should
ensure bea
determined in combination with the spraying of defoliant to ensure a better control effect. Under the
 Agronomy2018,
Agronomy 2018,8,8,85x FOR PEER REVIEW 12ofof1515
12

better control effect. Under the same amount of active ingredient, the concentration increased with
same amount
decreasing of active rate.
application ingredient, thecompared
Qin et al. concentration increased
the control withofdecreasing
efficacy insecticidesapplication rate.
sprayed against
Qin et al. compared the control efficacy of insecticides sprayed against plant
plant hoppers by UAV with spray volume of 15 L/ha and stretcher-mounted sprayer with spray hoppers by UAV with
spray
volumevolume
of 750 of L/ha.
15 L/haTheand stretcher-mounted
results found that thesprayer with spray
insecticidal volume
efficacy of 750
and the L/ha. The
persistence resultsof
period
found that the insecticidal efficacy and the persistence period of UAV were greater
UAV were greater than those achieved with a hand lance operated from a stretcher-mounted than those achieved
with a hand
sprayer [9]. lance operated
The droplet from a stretcher-mounted
concentration sprayer
when applied with UAVS [9].were
The droplet concentration
higher and when
there was enough
applied
defoliantwith UAVS were
deposited higher
on the and plant.
cotton there was enoughrestricted
However, defoliant deposited on the cotton
by conventional sprayersplant.
and
However, restricted by conventional sprayers and defoliants, few reports on cotton defoliation
defoliants, few reports on cotton defoliation with high concentration were reported. In the pesticide with
high concentration
application, there were
was noreported.
need toInuse
thelarge
pesticide application,
volume dilution,there
as a was no number
certain need to use large volume
of droplets could
dilution, as a certain number of droplets could achieve a good efficacy, especially for
achieve a good efficacy, especially for the systemic chemicals [37]. From theoretical discussions, this the systemic
chemicals
is similar[37].
to theFrom theoretical
cotton defoliantdiscussions,
application.this is similar to the cotton defoliant application.

Upper layer 9.3L/ha Middle layer 9.3L/ha

14 A 17.6L/ha 12 B 17.6L/ha
24.2L/ha 24.2L/ha

Cotton leaves attachment and absorption

Cotton leaves attachment and absorption

12 10
29.0L/ha 29.0L/ha

10
8

(mg / kg)
8
(mg / kg)

6
6
4
4
2
2

0
0
1 5 7 8 15
1 5 7 8 15
Days after spraying Days after spraying

Lower layer 9.3L/ha Upper layer 9.3L/ha

12
C 17.6L/ha 4 D 17.6L/ha
24.2L/ha 24.2L/ha
Cotton leaves attachment and absorption

Cotton leaves attachment and absorption

3.5
10 29.0L/ha 29.0L/ha
3
8
2.5
(mg / kg)

(mg / kg)

6 2

1.5
4
1
2
0.5

0 0
1 5 7 8 15 1 5 7 8 15
Days after spraying Days after spraying

Middle layer 9.3L/ha Lower layer 9.3L/ha

3.5 E 17.6L/ha 3 F 17.6L/ha
24.2L/ha 24.2L/ha
Cotton leaves attachment and absorption

Cotton leaves attachment and absorption

3
29.0L/ha 2.5 29.0L/ha
2.5
2
(mg / kg)

2
(mg / kg)

1.5
1.5

1
1

0.5 0.5

0 0
1 5 7 8 15 1 5 7 8 15
Days after spraying Days after spraying

Figure7. 7.
Figure Effect
Effect of spraying
of spraying volume
volume on attachment
on attachment and absorption
and absorption of thidiazuron
of thidiazuron on cottonon cotton
leaf leaf
sprayed
sprayed by UAV 2 ((A) for upper layer; (B) for middle layer and (C) for lower layer) and diuron
by UAV 2 ((A) for upper layer; (B) for middle layer and (C) for lower layer) and diuron ((D) for upper ((D)
for upper
layer; (E) forlayer; (E)layer
middle for middle
and (F)layer and (F)
for lower for lower
layer). Fifteenlayer). Fifteen
days after days after
spraying, the spraying,
upper layertheleaves
upper
layer leaves had been defoliated
had been defoliated completely. completely.
Agronomy 2018, 8, 85 13 of 15

4. Conclusions
In conclusion, the pooled data from this study indicate that plant protection UAVs could be used
for cotton defoliants spraying by a twice defoliants spraying strategy, the first spray composed of
80% thidiazuron, the second spray the compounded formulations 37% thidiazuron + 17% diuron,
which could guarantee the defoliation and boll opening effectively. The defoliant dosages had no
significant effect on seed cotton yield and fiber quality. Meanwhile, the residue of thidiazuron in
cotton leaves reached the maximum four days after spraying and the residue of diuron in cotton leaves
reached the maximum one day after the second spraying. The thidiazuron and diuron residues increase
with spraying volume in the range of 17.6–29.0 L/ha. When the spraying volume is less than 17.6 L/ha,
the residue of thidiazuron and diuron is reduced. According to the experiment results and combined
with the cotton defoliation, boll opening, fiber quality and thidiazuron and diuron residues in cotton
leaves, the first spraying dosage of 300 g/ha and spraying volume of 17.6 L/ha will be recommended
to the farmers for UAVs defoliant application. The research results could provide a reference for further
optimization of the spraying parameters of cotton defoliant by plant protection UAVs.

Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/8/6/85/s1,

Table S1: Weather conditions during the experiment period, Figure S1: The standard curve of thidiazuron,
Figure S2: The standard curve of diuron, Figures S3–S122: Chromatograms.
Author Contributions: X.H., and J.Z. conceived and designed the experiments; F.X., J.Z., G.W. And J.D. performed
the field experiments; Y.T. Zhou performed the chemical analysis; F.X., X.H. and J.Z. analyzed the data; X.H. and J.Z.
wrote the paper; W.F. And Y.L. conceived the research and revised the manuscript.
Funding: The study was found by The National Key Research and Development Program of China
(2016YFD0200700).
Acknowledgments: The author is very grateful to Xinjiang Jiangtian Aviation Technology Co., Ltd. for providing
plant protection unmanned aerial vehicles and related materials.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Sunilkumar, G.; Campbell, L.M.; Puckhaber, L.; Stipanovic, R.D.; Rathore, K.S. Engineering cottonseed for
use in human nutrition by tissue-specific reduction of toxic gossypol. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2006,
103, 18054–18059. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Singh, K.; Rathore, P.; Gumber, R.K. Impact of Harvest-aid Defoliants on Yield of American Cotton and Their
Monetary Evaluation. Int. J. Plant Sci. 2015, 28, 41–46. [CrossRef]
3. Bai, Y.; Mao, S.C.; Tian, L.W.; Li, L.; Dong, H.Z. Advances and Prospects of High-Yielding and Simplified
Cotton Cultivation Technology in Xinjiang Cotton-Growing Area. Sci. Agric. Sin. 2017, 50, 38–50. (In Chinese)
4. Dai, J.L.; Dong, H.Z. Stem girdling influences concentrations of endogenous cytokinins and abscisic acid in
relation to leaf senescence in cotton. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2012, 33, 1697–1705. [CrossRef]
5. Bange, M.P.; Long, R.L. Impact of harvest aid timing and machine spindle harvesting on neps in upland
cotton. Text. Res. J. 2013, 83, 651–658. [CrossRef]
6. Wright, S.D.; Hutmacher, R.B.; Banuelos, G.; Rios, S.I.; Hutmacher, K.A.; Munk, D.S.; Wilson, K.A.;
Wrobles, J.F.; Keeley, M.P. Impact of Pima Defoliation Timings on Lint Yield and Quality. J. Cotton Sci.
2014, 18, 48–58.
7. Wright, S.D.; Hutmacher, R.B.; Shrestha, A.; Banuelos, G.; Rios, S.; Hutmacher, K.A.; Munk, D.S.; Keeley, M.P.
Impact of Early Defoliation on California Pima Cotton Boll Opening, Lint Yield, and Quality. J. Crop Improv.
2015, 29, 528–541. [CrossRef]
8. Byrd, S.A.; Collins, G.D.; Edmisten, K.L.; Roberts, P.M.; Snider, J.L.; Spivey, T.A.; Whitaker, J.R.; Porter, W.M.;
Culpepper, A.S. Leaf Pubescence and Defoliation Strategy Influence on Cotton Defoliation and Fiber Quality.
J. Cotton Sci. 2016, 20, 280–293.
9. Qin, W.C.; Xue, X.Y.; Cui, L.F.; Zhou, Q.Q.; Xu, Z.F.; Chang, F.L. Optimization and test for spraying parameters
of cotton defoliant sprayer. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2016, 9, 63–72.
10. Yu, S.X.; Zhang, L.; Feng, W.J. Study on Strategy of Large Scale, Mechanization, Informationization,
Intelligence and Social Services for Cotton Production. Eng. Sci. 2016, 18, 137–148.
Agronomy 2018, 8, 85 14 of 15

11. Suttle, J.C. Involvement of ethylene in the action of the cotton defoliant thidiazuron. Plant Physiol. 1985,
78, 272–276. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Zhang, P.K.; Deng, X.J.; Wang, C.Y. Effects of Different Composite Chemicals on Cotton Ripening and
Defoliation Sprayed by UAV. Agrochemicals 2017, 56, 619–623. (In Chinese)
13. Gormus, O.; Kurt, F.; El Sabagh, A. Impact of Defoliation Timings and Leaf Pubescence on Yield and Fiber
Quality of Cotton. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2017, 19, 903–915.
14. Çôpur, O.; Demirel, U.; Polat, R.; Gür, M.A. Effect of Different Defoliants and Application Times on the Yield
and Quality Components of Cotton in Semi-arid Conditions. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2010, 9, 2095–2100.
15. Du, M.W.; Li, Y.; Tian, X.L.; Duan, L.S.; Zhang, M.C.; Tan, W.M.; Xu, D.Y.; Li, Z.H. The Phytotoxin Coronatine
Induces Abscission-Related Gene Expression and Boll Ripening during Defoliation of Cotton. PLoS ONE
2014, 9, e97652. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Du, M.W.; Ren, X.M.; Tian, X.L.; Duan, L.S.; Zhang, M.C.; Tan, W.M.; Li, Z.H. Evaluation of Harvest Aid
Chemicals for the Cotton-Winter Wheat Double Cropping System. J. Integr. Agric. 2013, 12, 273–282.
[CrossRef]
17. Ma, Y.; Ren, X.L.; Song, J.L.; Ma, D.Y.; Liu, Z.; Fu, W.; Jiang, W.L.; Hu, H.Y.; Wang, D.; Wang, Z.G.; et al. Review
on Result of Spraying Defoliant by Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Cotton Field of Xinjiang. China Cotton 2016,
43, 16–20. (In Chinese)
18. Lan, Y.B.; Thomson, S.J.; Huang, Y.B.; Hoffmann, W.C.; Zhang, H.H. Current status and future directions
of precision aerial application for site-specific crop management in the USA. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2010,
74, 34–38. [CrossRef]
19. Liu, W.L.; Zhou, Z.Y.; Chen, S.D.; Luo, X.W.; Lan, Y.B. Status of Aerial Electrostatic Spraying Technology and
its Application in Plant Protection UAV. J. Agric. Mech. Res. 2018, 5, 1–9. (In Chinese)
20. Zhang, Y.L.; Lian, Q.; Zhang, W. Design and test of a six-rotor unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) electrostatic
spraying system for crop protection. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2017, 10, 68–76.
21. Chen, T.H.; Lu, S.H. Autonomous navigation control system of agricultural mini-unmanned aerial vehicles
based on DSP. Trans. CSAE 2012, 28, 164–169. (In Chinese)
22. Bae, Y.; Koo, Y.M. Flight attitudes and spray patterns of a roll-balanced agricultural unmanned helicopter.
Appl. Eng. Agric. 2013, 29, 675–682.
23. Lan, Y.B.; Hoffmann, W.C.; Fritz, B.K.; Martin, D.E.; Lopez, J.D., Jr. Spray drift mitigation with spray mix
adjuvants. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2008, 24, 5–10. [CrossRef]
24. Zhang, D.Y.; Lan, Y.B.; Chen, L.P.; Wang, X.; Liang, D. Current status and future trends of agricultural aerial
spraying technology in China. Trans. CSAM 2014, 45, 53–59. (In Chinese)
25. Krik, I.W.; Hoffmann, W.C.; Fritz, B.K. Aerial application methods for increasing spray deposition on wheat
heads. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2006, 23, 357–364.
26. He, X.K.; Jane, B.; Andreas, H.; Jan, L. Recent development of unmanned aerial vehicle for plant protection
in East Asia. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2017, 10, 18–30.
27. Meng, Y.H.; Zhou, G.Q.; Wu, C.B.; Wang, Z.G.; Xu, X.S. Application and Popularization of Agricultural Plant
Protection Unmanned Aerial Vehicle in China. China Plant Prot. 2014, 34, 33–39. (In Chinese)
28. Ma, X.Y.; Wang, Z.G.; Jiang, W.L.; Ren, X.L.; Hu, H.Y.; Ma, Y.J.; Ma, Y. Analysis of Current Status and
Application Prospects of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Plant Protection Technology in Cotton Field in China.
China Cotton 2016, 43, 7–11. (In Chinese)
29. Zhang, J.X.; Wang, X.Y.; Feng, Z.Z.; Geng, X.J.; Mu, S.M.L.; Huo, H.Y.; Tong, H.; Li, M.Z.; Li, Y.; Chi, Y.; et al.
In vitro establishment of a highly effective method of castor bean (Ricinus communis L.) regeneration using
shoot explants. J. Integr. Agric. 2016, 15, 1417–1422. [CrossRef]
30. Zhou, Z.Y.; Zang, Y.; Luo, X.W.; Lan, Y.B.; Xue, X.Y. Technology innovation development strategy on
agricultural aviation industry for plant protection in China. Trans. CSAE 2013, 29, 1–10. (In Chinese)
31. Zhao, B.M.; Zhang, Q.; Zhu, Y.Y. Control Efficacy of Cotton Aphids by Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Spraying
Sulfoxaflor at Low Altitudes. Pestici. Sci. Admin. 2017, 38, 60–67. (In Chinese)
32. Zhao, B.M.; Zhang, Q.; Zhu, Y.Y.; He, W.J.; Wen, J.H. Application effect of plant protection unmanned aerial
vehicle in control of cotton aphid. China Plant Prot. 2017, 37, 61–63. (In Chinese)
33. An, N. Preliminary Report of Plant Protection Unmanned Aerial Vehicle in control of Cotton Aphids.
Xinjiang Agric. Sci. Technol. 2017, 4, 49–50. (In Chinese)
Agronomy 2018, 8, 85 15 of 15

34. Qin, W.C.; Qiu, B.J.; Xue, X.Y.; Chen, C.; Xu, Z.F.; Zhou, Q.Q. Droplet deposition and control effect of
insecticides sprayed with an unmanned aerial vehicle against plant hoppers. Crop Prot. 2017, 85, 79–88.
[CrossRef]
35. Cao, Y.; Deng, W.; Li, Y.P.; Li, X.F.; Zheng, M.Q.; Yuan, H.Z. Effects of concentration, droplet density and
spraying volume on efficacy of emamectin benzoate against Plutella xylostella L. Chin. J. Pestic. Sci. 2014,
16, 54–60. (In Chinese)
36. Logan, J.; Gwathmey, C.O. Effects of Weather on Cotton Responses to Harvest-Aid Chemicals. J. Cotton Sci.
2002, 6, 1–12.
37. Yuan, H.Z.; Wang, G.B. Effect of droplet size and deposition density on field efficacy of pesticide. Plant Prot.
2015, 41, 9–16. (In Chinese)

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).