“This year was the first year we used a growth regulator on our wheat. After heading, we noticed a wavy pattern of different plant heights between 30 and 45° to the operating direction. It was only a couple inches difference and was difficult to photograph. We sprayed 12 gpa at 9 mph using TT11005 nozzles alternating forward and back at 35 psi and a 70% duty cycle. I’ve talked to other operators in Canada and in Europe and several customers have reported seeing this pattern, no matter which model of PWM sprayer. What’s happening?”
Skips in cereal that are obvious to the eye can be difficult to photograph.
The pulse width modulation is very likely responsible for the waves. We have a number of articles describing how PWM works, but here’s a brief recap of the relevant bits.
A solenoid intermittently interrupts nozzle flow with a frequency between 10 and 100 times per second (depending on manufacturer). The proportion of the time the nozzle remains open is called the Duty Cycle. Each nozzle is linked to the neighbouring nozzles so that when one pulses on, the neighbour pulses off. So although you may only have half the nozzles spraying at any moment in time, sufficient overlap ensures there are no gaps in the pattern.
However, depending on the combination of frequency and duty cycle, it is possible to lose that overlap between nozzles. This can cause a checkerboard pattern that appears to repeat in a diagonal line. The following two images are from www.Capstanag.com and they illustrate an ideal overlapping pattern and a pattern that creates skips.
Here’s a 11008 at 10 gpa, 15 mph, 60% DC, 10 Hz, 21” boom.Here’s an 8008 tip at 5 gpa, 15 mph, 30% DC, 10 Hz, 21” boom.
We can also sometimes see skips on the outer edges of sharp turns. In that case the outer boom section can be travelling two or three times as fast as the cab. In a conventional system, this would produce under-dosing in the outer region and over-dosing closer to the cab.
Some degree of skipping may be more common than we realize. It’s only when we spray products that produce obvious visual symptoms at low doses that we can see a biological response. In the case of plant growth modifiers used to prevent lodging in cereals, we have a perfect storm situation. A region of reduced spray overlap, applied at a time when the crop is elongating rapidly, perhaps on rolling ground from an unstable boom height, can all conspire to create regions of reduced dose with striking visual symptoms.
The following list describes conditions that can increase the potential for skips, and what you can do to avoid them.
Low duty cycles. Cycles less than 60% should be avoided.
Fast travel speeds. Faster speeds may help blend the spray in the swath a little, but too fast can create gaps and increase drift potential. At high travel speeds the system is usually operating at a high duty cycle unless an especially large nozzle size has been selected. Ideally, we want to run the duty cycle at 60-80%, but there are always exceptions. For example, according to Wilger, 90-92% is fine when you run at 20 gal/ac with their “15 gal tips”.
Low booms. The lower the boom, the less overlap. Raising the boom to 24″ above the crop may help, but beware of drift.
Narrow fan angles. Nozzle angles less than 110° reduce the degree of overlap and are less forgiving if the distance between nozzle and target decreases.
Low pressure. Avoid operating at pressures below 35 PSI. Due to pressure drop at the solenoid, 40 PSI on the monitor might mean 28 PSI at the nozzle. Some nozzle tables account for solenoid-induced pressure drop and some do not. Low pressure may be insufficient to establish the full 110° pattern, and the resulting marginal overlap not only means inconsistent dose, but inconsistent droplet size because droplets are coarsest at the edge of the pattern. And, if that’s not already enough, note that air induction nozzles intended for use with PWM tend to create messy patterns at low pressures and low duty cycles.
Especially coarse spray quality. Unless the label requires it, consider using spray qualities no larger than Very Coarse, particularly at low volumes. PWM frees the operator to use pressure independent of rate, so you may be able to accomplish this without swapping nozzles.
Products that are highly dose-dependent. This one is likely unavoidable, but be aware they are the products most likely to produce obvious visual symptoms. In the case of PGR’s, we have not (yet?) seen any evidence that skips translate to reduced yield. Weed misses or sub-lethal doses of fungicide or insecticide might be another matter.
Editor’s Note: This work was performed in 2023. A more recent exploration into wheat head coverage was performed in 2025. This article is not obsolete as it introduces concepts and makes foundational observations. Read on, then read the 2025 article afterwards.
Fusarium head blight is one of the most economically important diseases in winter wheat. Application timing is arguably the most critical aspect of effective crop protection. The application window stretches some two to five days following the point where 75% of the wheat heads are fully emerged and coinciding with the beginning of flowering (Figure 1). Product placement is the second most critical aspect, where the wheat head represents the primary target, and the flag and penultimate leaf are somewhat incidental, secondary targets.
Figure 1. Winter wheat at T3 staging is optimal for fungicide application.
This article describes the results of two experiments exploring wheat head spray coverage from a rotary drone. The first compares wheat head coverage from a drone to that of a helicopter (Figure 2). The second explores the effect of drone ground speed, and the related downwash, on wheat head coverage. All work was performed under PMRA research authorization. As of the date of this publication, there are no crop protection products permitted for application by RPAS in Canada.
Figure 2. The helicopter spraying in background does not create a downwash. Note how the spray is not forced straight down but falls in a sheet subject to gravity and inertia. The rotary drone spraying in the foreground does create a downwash. Note how the wheat is displaced by the spray-laden air as the drone passes. At higher speeds, this downwash does adopt a down-and-back vector.
Experimental Design
Wheat field
The wheat field was clay/loam located at 42°47’12.6″N 81°03’06.4″W near New Sarum, Ontario. Wheat was “common seed” planted on October 2nd, 2022, at 1.8 million seed/ac on 19 cm (7.5 in) row spacing. It was sprayed on June 5th, 2023, and at the time the wheat heads were about 0.7 m (2.5 ft) high.
Treatments were laid out parallel with the planting direction in a randomized design. The helicopter pilot reported an effective swath width of 13.7 m (45 ft), which formed the basis for the treatment block widths (Figure 3). The helicopter made a single pass. The drone pilot reported an effective swath width of 4.5 m (14.75 ft). It made three passes per treatment block in the helicopter versus drone experiment but made only a single pass centred on the treatment block for the speed experiment.
Both the helicopter and drone applied fungicide at label rate plus 0.125% Activate in a final volume of 50 L/ha (5 gpa). For the helicopter this was about 20 ac. per jug, and for the drone we created an equivalent tank mix using 450 ml fungicide and 37.75 ml Activate diluted with water to fill the 30 L spray tank.
Figure 3. Treatment layout for both experiments. H: Helicopter. D: Drone. Yellow rectangles represent location of water sensitive papers on a 1.75 m (5.75 ft) spacing, centred on the treatment block. Flight paths were centred on the treatment block.
Helicopter versus drone experiment
For the helicopter treatments, five water sensitive papers (WSP) were spaced 1.75 m (5.75 ft) apart, centred on the treatment block. For the rotary drone passes, two rows of WSP were spaced 1.75 m (5.75 ft) apart, centred on the treatment block. Application volume was 50 L/ha (5 gpa)
The helicopter had a 20 foot boom with CP-03-05 nozzles on 12” spacing, alternating between a 0.062 (smallest) orifice and a 0.172 (largest) orifice. Ground speed was 96.5 km/h (60 mph) and altitude ranged from 1.5-3 m (5-10 ft) above the wheat heads. The contractor company calibrated the helicopter according to their standard operating practices.
The rotary drone was a DJI Agras T30 equipped with TeeJet TT110015’s. It flew at 5.1 m/s at 3 m above the wheat heads and applied three adjacent swaths of 4.5 m. The contractor company calibrated the drone according to their standard operating practices. A similar methodology can be found here.
Drone speed experiment
A single pass was made over three rows of WSP spaced 1.75 m apart, centred on the treatment block. The drone made two separate passes (n=2) for each speed. Samplers were retrieved and replaced after each pass and the same plot was used for all six passes. Application volume was 30 L/ha (3 gpa). Drone was refilled after every two passes to maintain a consistent weight.
The rotary drone was a DJI Agras T40 programmed to apply an “Extra Coarse” spray quality at 3.5 m above the wheat heads with a swath width of 9 m. Ground speeds were 2 m/s, 4 m/s and 7.2 m/s and were visually confirmed by the RPAS controller. Once again, the contractor company calibrated the drone according to their standard operating practices.
Target Locations
For both experiments, SpotOn brand WSP from the same production run was pre-curled by wrapping it around a pencil, then wrapped around the wheat head and secured at the bottom by a small, spring back paper clip (Figure 4). This left approximately 1.5 x 1 inches (i.e. half) of the surface exposed to spray and provided an indication of panoramic coverage.
The clip distorted the target by flattening it at the bottom and obscured a small portion of the target area, but this area was digitally removed during the analysis. By securing the WSP to the wheat head rather than a surrogate stake, the target moved naturally in the downwash of the drone. The papers were retrieved when dry, placed in individual plastic bags, flattened for scanning, and digitized using a DropScope within 24 hours of retrieval.
Figure 4. Pre-curled water sensitive paper was wrapped around the bottom of the wheat head and secured with a spring back paper clip.
Weather and Application Times
Weather data was collected using a Kestrel 3550AG weather meter (Kestrel Instruments) in a vane mount positioned 1.5 m (5 ft) above the wheat heads. Wind speed fluctuated throughout the day, but wind direction remained relatively stable at 90 degrees to the flight path. Targets remained within the swath, despite any offset, as indicated by the consistent coverage observed on the windward WSP compared to other, downwind samplers in each pass.
Application method
Pass #
Time
Windspeed (km/h)
Temperature (°C)
Helicopter
1
8:45
2.0
17.0
Helicopter
2
10:00
4.5
17.7
Helicopter
3
10:20
4.8
19.9
Agras T30
1
10:20
4.8
19.9
Agras T30
2
10:45
5.2
19.7
Agras T30
3
11:00
8.6
20.0
Agras T40
1
12:25
8.2
21.6
Agras T40
2
13:00
4.8
22.4
Agras T40
3
13:30
5.2
22.8
Wind direction remained a steady side wind (i.e. 90 degrees) to the flight path throughout day. Sky was clear (i.e. minimal to no cloud cover) throughout day.
Results and Analysis
WSP were scanned and digitized. Coverage was measured as percent surface covered (% area), and deposit density (# deposits/cm2). Given that only ½ of the WSP was exposed to spray, and the remining half was obscured during the wrapping process, the entire card was scanned, and the resulting coverage was doubled.
Helicopter versus drone experiment
For each helicopter pass, a single line of five WSP were averaged to a single data point. Therefore, n=3, but represents 15 WSP samplers. For the drone, two lines of three papers were placed in the block. Each line was averaged to a single data point, for n=2 per pass x 3 passes for a total of n=6, representing 18 WSP samplers. The following image (Figure 5) shows a digitized WSP typical of each method.
Figure 5. Typical WSP from helicopter and drone applications at 5 gpa. Recall that only half the paper (the right half, in this case) was exposed following the wrapping process.
The following histograms (Figure 6 and 7) illustrate the mean coverage for each application method, with standard error.
Figure 6. Average wheat head coverage (percent area) by application method. Drone is n=6 and Helicopter is n=3. Bars represent standard error.Figure 7. Average wheat head coverage (deposit density) by application method. Drone is n=6 and Helicopter is n=3. Bars represent standard error.
The drone covered an average 17% more surface area than the helicopter. The spray quality was visibly finer, as evidenced by the average 64% higher deposit count. As a matter of context, we ran a similar study four days later with a field sprayer running TeeJet AITTJ60’s on 38 cm (15 in) centres, 50 cm (20 in) above the wheat head. It applied 175 L/ha (19 gpa) compared to the 50 L/ha (5 gpa) applied by the helicopter and drone. The relative percent area covered is shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8. Average wheat head coverage (percent area) by application method. Drone (5 gpa) is n=6, Helicopter (5 gpa) is n=3 and Field Sprayer (19 gpa) is n=6. Bars represent standard error.
The more than fourfold difference in coverage from ground versus aerial application is significant, but given the relative concentrations of product applied (i.e. the same product rate) residue levels would likely prove equivalent for all treatments. Fungicide efficacy cannot be predicted from coverage data, but the convention is that the more surface area covered, the better the protection.
Drone speed experiment
The drone made two separate passes over each treatment block. For each drone pass, three lines of three WSP were placed in the block. Each line of three papers was averaged to create a single data point, for n=3 per pass and n=6 in total. The following histograms (Figures 9 and 10) illustrate the mean coverage for each application method, with standard error.
Figure 9. Average wheat head coverage (percent area) by ground speed. Each speed is n=6. Bars represent standard error.Figure 10. Average wheat head coverage (deposit density) by ground speed. Each speed is n=6. Bars represent standard error.
As an aside, note that the average is approximately 2% surface area for these 30 L/ha (3 gpa) applications compared to the 3.6% average at 50 L/ha (5 gpa) in the drove versus helicopter experiment, reflecting the results from many studies that show employing higher water volumes results in improved coverage until some point of diminishing return.
The drone appeared to cover approximately the same surface area at all three speeds. However, when deposit density is considered, the slowest speed deposited 31% more droplets than the medium speed, which in turn deposited 23% more droplets than the fastest speed.
One possibility is that higher speeds, which are known to create wider swaths, dispersed the spray over a larger area. Another possibility is that higher speeds, which are known to increase drift potential, left a greater proportion of droplets aloft, beyond the reach of the samplers. Yet another non-exclusive possibility is that deposit counts increased while overall surface coverage remained approximately equal because the diameter of the stain increased with speed. DropScope reports stain diameter, and this has been graphed alongside the deposit counts in Figure 11.
Figure 11. Deposit counts share an inverse relationship with ground speed, but average stain diameter shares a direct relationship with ground speed.
We see an inverse relationship between ground speed and deposit density, but a direct relationship between ground speed and stain diameter. This difference may appear small, but assuming stains are approximately circular, diameter can be used to calculate deposit area, per the following table.
Drone Ground Speed (mph)
Mean Coverage (%)
Mean Deposit Density (#/cm2)
Mean Stain Diameter (µm)
*Mean Stain Area (µm2)
4.5
2.0
88.4
81
5,153.0
9
2.2
61.3
88.3
6,124.0
16.1
1.9
49.9
93.3
6,793.0
*Assumes a circular deposit
We see an increase in average deposit area of 16% and 10%, respectively, for each increase in speed. In previous trials conducted in corn in 2022 we saw a decrease in coverage and an increase in drift when drone ground speed was increased. We also observed that as the T40’s ground speed increased, the swath width appeared to increase. We did not measure effective swath width at different speeds, but if this observation is correct then droplet density by area would decrease at higher speeds. The loss of spray to drift and/or through increased swath width would explain why increased speed resulted in fewer deposits on the wheat heads.
The increased deposit diameter is likely due to spread factor. Higher ground speeds would impart a higher droplet velocity and therefore cause droplets to spread more on impact. If this is the case, and had we conducted residue trials, we would predict an inverse relationship between ground speed and residue levels, despite having similar percent surface coverage. This observation underpins the importance of assessing deposition patterns as well as residue in coverage trials.
Conclusions
For this use case, a drone applying 50 L/ha (5 gpa) produces a similar, if slightly higher, percent coverage on a wheat head compared to a helicopter applying the same volume. However, the deposit density is considerably higher.
Corroborating previous results in corn, drone application volume has a direct relationship with spray coverage.
For this use case, drone ground speed does not appear to affect the percent wheat head area covered, but there is an inverse relationship with deposit density. We theorize based on the direct relationship between ground speed and deposit spread, and prior evidence of increased drift with higher ground speed, that less active ingredient is deposited on the wheat head at higher ground speeds.
The relationship between downwash (i.e. dwell time, which is a function of downwash air energy and ground speed), wheat movement and coverage is unclear.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Zimmer Air, Drone Spray Canada, Bayer Canada, Grower-Cooperator Adam Pfeffer and OMAFRA SEO student Vanessa Benitz.
