See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/361953634

Impact of Drone Spraying of Nutrients on Growth and Yield of Maize Crop

Article in International Journal of Environment and Climate Change · July 2022

DOI: 10.9734/ijecc/2022/v12i1130972

CITATIONS READS

0 846

7 authors, including:

Jagadeeswaran Ramasamy Kumaraperumal Ramalingam

Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Tamil Nadu Agricultural University
51 PUBLICATIONS 167 CITATIONS 123 PUBLICATIONS 287 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ragunath Kaliaperumal Balaji Kannan

Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Tamil Nadu Agricultural University
76 PUBLICATIONS 150 CITATIONS 158 PUBLICATIONS 134 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

URBAN SPRAWL ASSESSMENT IN THE COIMBATORE CITY CORPORATION USING REMOTE SENSING & GIS View project

Crop Monitoring using Microwave Remote Sensing View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kumaraperumal Ramalingam on 19 July 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Environment and Climate Change

12(11): 274-282, 2022; Article no.IJECC.89342

ISSN: 2581-8627
(Past name: British Journal of Environment & Climate Change, Past ISSN: 2231–4784)

Impact of Drone Spraying of Nutrients on Growth

and Yield of Maize Crop
K. Kaniska a*, R. Jagadeeswaran a, R. Kumaraperumal a, K. P. Ragunath b,
Balaji Kannan c, D. Muthumanickam a and S. Pazhanivelan b
a
Department of Remote Sensing and Geographic Information System,
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India.
b
Water Technology Centre, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India.
c
Agricultural Engineering College & Research Institute, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University,
Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India.

Authors’ contributions

This work was carried out in collaboration among all authors. All authors read and approved the final
manuscript.

Article Information
DOI: 10.9734/IJECC/2022/v12i1130972

Open Peer Review History:

This journal follows the Advanced Open Peer Review policy. Identity of the Reviewers, Editor(s) and additional Reviewers,
peer review comments, different versions of the manuscript, comments of the editors, etc are available here:
https://www.sdiarticle5.com/review-history/89342

Received 30 April 2022

Accepted 06 July 2022
Original Research Article
Published 11 July 2022

ABSTRACT
This study aimed at utilizing unmanned aerial vehicle in place of a conventional hand sprayer for
the smart delivery of agricultural inputs especially crop nutrients. A field experiment was conducted
in the farms of Agricultural Research Station, Bhavanisagar, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University.
There were nine treatments which were replicated thrice in a randomized block design. The
treatments include NPK 19:19:19 along with liquid micronutrient, humic acid, and TNAU Maize
maxim at two intervals viz., 50% Tasselling, and Cob filling stage. These nutrients were applied as
foliar spray through battery operated and fuel operated drones and were compared with knapsack
hand sprayer. Biometric observations such as plant height, leaf area, dry matter accumulation and
yield parameters such as cob yield and number of grains per cob were observed during the critical
crop growth stages. Foliar application of nutrients through drones had a significant influence on the
growth and yield of maize crop. TNAU Maize maxim applied using the fuel-operated drone with an
atomizer nozzle (T7) @ 30 lit/ac spray fluid recorded the maximum biometric and yield attributes
than other treatments. Improved biometric attributes like plant height of 261.2 cm and 270.32 cm,
LAI of 4.14 and 5.15, and DMP of 12354 kg/ha and 18564 kg/ha at 60 DAS and 90 DAS,
respectively was recorded with drone spray. It also resulted in a grain and stover yield of 7195
kg/ha and 10942 kg/ha, respectively than hand sprayer.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Corresponding author: E-mail: [email protected];

 Kaniska et al.; IJECC, 12(11): 274-282, 2022; Article no.IJECC.89342

Keywords: Maize; drone spray; water soluble nutrients; foliar spray.

1. INTRODUCTION application via foliar spray at critical stages of

growth is becoming increasingly vital to effective
Maize survives in several agricultural nutrient utilization and improved crop production
environments, and its capability to accommodate [8]. With this in consideration, the current
different habitats sets it apart from other crops research was carried out with the objective of
[1]. Maize is among the most widely consumed knowing the impact of spraying using drones with
grains in the world, and it is a food source in different nozzles and knapsack sprayer and also
many nations hence it is considered the “Queen reading the biometric and yield parameters of the
of Cereals”. It is a good source of vitamins A, B, maize crop [9].
and E, and a variety of minerals, as well as
providing the essential calories for everyday The United States ranks the first in the
metabolic activities. As the industrial revolution production of maize with 384 tonnes and China
has begun, the localized usage of maize has stands next to USA with 231 tonnes of maize
shifted towards industrialized usage. Because of production in the year 2021. India ranks seventh
its high protein, oil, and carbohydrate content, in the production of maize with the area of 9.89
maize are a superior choice for animal feed to million hectares, production of 31.64 million
other crops (66%). tonnes and production of 3199 kg/ha in 2021.
The area, production and productivity of maize in
Most industrialized countries have implemented Tamil Nadu are 0.40 million hectares, 2.56
cutting-edge technology like photogrammetry million tonnes and 6408 kg/ha, respectively in
and remote sensing (RS) for precision agriculture 2021 [10]. The area, production and productivity
with Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) to create of India is given in Table 1.
a good agriculture farm with less infection [2].
Aerial spraying by UAVs is not only used for crop 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
protection but also for agricultural fertilization [3].
It will benefit farmers by increasing agricultural 2.1 Experimental Site
output, and quality, and most crucially, reducing
their workload [4]. With the rising scarcity of The field analysis was carried out in the summer
agricultural workers, finding a good opportunity to of February 2022 at the Agricultural Research
finish a high-quality spraying operation through a Station, Bhavanisagar with a latitude of 11° 48’ N
traditional knapsack sprayer is becoming and a longitude of 77° 13’ E and 256 m above
increasingly challenging. mean sea level. The type of soil is largely Irugur
or Chikkarasampalayam series, ranging from
NPK fertiliser application has long been one of medium to deep reddish-brown.
the most practical and efficient ways to increase
crop output and nutritional quality, particularly for 2.2 Experimental Design and Treatment
maize [5]. Plant growth regulators have been Details
extensively used in the latest days to mitigate
physiological limits, resulting in increased output The experiment was laid out in a randomized
in a wide range of crops [6]. The plant uses block design with 9 treatments and 3 replications.
micronutrients not just to optimize its The test crop used was maize hybrid COH (M) 8
development and output, but also to increase its with a spacing of 60 x 30 cm. The treatment
crude protein and fibre content [7]. Nutrient details are as follows: T 1 - Drone spray

Table 1. Maize Area, Production and Productivity of Tamil Nadu and India in 2019-2021

Year Tamil Nadu India

Area Production Productivity Area Production Productivity
(Million (Million (kg/ha) (Million (Million (kg/ha)
hectares) tonnes) hectares) tonnes)
2021 0.40 2.56 6408 9.89 31.64 3199
2020 0.33 2.47 7424 9.56 28.76 3006
2019 0.39 2.83 7258 9.02 27.71 3070

275
 Kaniska et al.; IJECC, 12(11): 274-282, 2022; Article no.IJECC.89342

Table 2. Technical parameters of the fuel and battery-operated drones

Fuel operated Battery operated

Classification Parameters Classification Parameters
Dimensions(mm) 2160×2250×600 Dimensions(mm) 1520×1520×590
Nozzle type Flood Jet & Atomizer Nozzle type Flood Jet
Tank capacity (L) 16 Tank capacity (L) 10
Fuel tank capacity (L) 4 Battery capacity 16000 mAh
Spraying width 4m Spraying width(m) 3.5 m
Flying height 0.75 to 1 m Flying height(m) 0.75 to 1 m
(Above crop canopy)
No. of nozzles 4 No. of nozzles 4

(Battery operated)- Jet type nozzle: All 19 (NPK) observing the biometric parameters like plant
+ Liquid Micro Nutrient + Humic Acid (1%) T 2 - height and LAI, and dry matter production (DMP)
Drone spray (Fuel operated)- Jet type nozzle: All at 30 days intervals. DMP was calculated by
19 (NPK) + Liquid Micro Nutrient + Humic Acid cutting the plants that fell inside a 1m × 1m
(1%) T3 - Drone spray (Fuel operated)- Atomizer quadrat in each replication of 9 treatments and
nozzle: All 19 (NPK) + Liquid Micro Nutrient + recorded the fresh weight. Then these plants
Humic Acid (1%) T4 - Knapsack sprayer: All 19 were oven-dried at 80°C ± 5°C until they reached
(NPK) + Liquid Micro Nutrient + Humic Acid (1%) a stable weight and were given in kg/ha. The
T5 - Drone spray (Battery operated) - Jet type yield parameters like length and girth of the cob,
nozzle: Maize Maxim @ 6 kg/ac T 6 - Drone spray number of rows/cob, number of grains/row,
(Fuel operated) - Jet type nozzle: Maize Maxim number of grains/cob, grain yield, and stover
@ 6 kg/ac T7 - Drone spray (Fuel operated) - yield were recorded.
Atomizer nozzle: Maize Maxim @ 6 kg/ac T 8 -
Knapsack sprayer: Maize Maxim @ 6 kg/ac T 9 - 2.5 Statistical Analysis
Control (Water Spray). The spray mixture of All
19 along with liquid micronutrient, humic acid, According to Gomez and Gomez [12], the data
and TNAU Maize Maxim was sprayed twice at acquired throughout the investigation were
50% tasselling and cob filling stage using drones statistically analysed. If the critical difference was
with two types of nozzles viz., flood jet type and calculated at a confidence threshold of 5%, the
atomizer type and knapsack sprayer. variations in treatment were considered
significant. The results are given in tables.
2.3 Characteristics of Spraying Devices
Table 3. Technical parameters of knapsack
2.3.1 Drone parameters sprayer

The fuel and battery-operated drone with two Classification Parameters

types of nozzles namely flood jet and atomizer Dimension 41.9 cm × 17.8 cm ×
type was used for the spraying of boosters. The 53.3 cm
technical parameters of the drones were given in Nozzle type Hollow cone
Table 2. Tank capacity 15 liters
Spraying width 0.75 to 1 m
2.3.2 Knapsack sprayer parameters Spraying height 20 to 30 cm above the
crop canopy
Foliar nutrients were manually sprayed using a No. of nozzle 1
knapsack sprayer with a hollow cone nozzle. The
knapsack sprayer had a loading capacity of 15 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
litres [11]. The technical parameters of the
knapsack sprayer are given in Table 3. 3.1 Growth Parameters
2.4 Observations Plant growth and development are the effects of
superb coordination of multiple mechanisms
In all the 9 treatments randomly, 5 plants were working at various phases of plant growth.
selected in each replication and tagged for Different treatments led to considerable

276
 Kaniska et al.; IJECC, 12(11): 274-282, 2022; Article no.IJECC.89342

differences in plant height, which is an important 270.3 at 60 DAS and 90 DAS, respectively.
component of maize growth. In 30 DAS, before Because micronutrients have a positive effect on
spraying of crop booster and micronutrients the crop development, fast cell division and cell
taller plants were recorded at the treatment T1 - elongation are intimately linked.
Drone spray (Battery operated)- Jet type nozzle: Raghuramakrishnan et al. [7] published a report
All 19 (NPK) + LMN +HA (1%) with 98.51 cm. with a similar conclusion with a plant height of
But after the application of the crop booster, fuel- 287.31 cm. The plants were shorter in control
operated drone spray with atomizer nozzle T 7 (T9) than in other treatments. The plant height
has recorded the soaring plant heights 261.2 and values are given in Table 4.

Table 4. Effect of foliar application of spray fluid through drone on plant height (cm) of maize

Treatments Plant height (cm)

30 DAS 60 DAS 90 DAS
T1 Drone spray (Battery operated)- Jet type nozzle: All 19 98.51 231.0 236.93
(NPK) + LMN +HA (1%)
T2 Drone spray (Fuel operated)- Jet type nozzle: All 19 96.37 219.8 226.31
(NPK) + LMN +HA (1%)
T3 Drone spray (Fuel operated)- Atomiser nozzle: All 19 94.72 243.0 246.69
(NPK) + LMN +HA (1%)
T4 Knapsack sprayer: 98.45 206.0 214.71
All 19 (NPK) + LMN +HA (1%)
T5 Drone spray (Battery operated)- Jet type nozzle: Maize 95.67 249.0 257.36
Maxim @ 6 kg/ac
T6 Drone spray (Fuel operated)- Jet type nozzle: Maize 98.54 259.33 269.33
Maxim @ 6 kg/ac
T7 Drone spray (Fuel operated)- Atomiser nozzle: Maize 96.32 261.2 270.32
Maxim @ 6 kg/ac
T8 Knapsack sprayer: Maize Maxim @ 6 kg/ac 98.31 208.0 215.29
T9 Control (Water Spray) 98.29 192.0 197.32
SE.d 1.823 4.465 4.581
CD (0.05) 3.865 9.465 9.712

Table 5. Effect of foliar application of spray fluid through drone on leaf area index (LAI) of
maize

Treatments LAI
30 DAS 60 DAS 90 DAS
T1 Drone spray (Battery operated)- Jet type nozzle: All 19 1.69 3.51 4.39
(NPK) + LMN +HA (1%)
T2 Drone spray (Fuel operated)- Jet type nozzle: All 19 1.6 3.12 4.18
(NPK) + LMN +HA (1%)
T3 Drone spray (Fuel operated)- Atomiser nozzle: All 19 1.79 3.69 4.60
(NPK) + LMN +HA (1%)
T4 Knapsack sprayer: 1.48 2.69 3.95
All 19 (NPK) + LMN +HA (1%)
T5 Drone spray (Battery operated)- Jet type nozzle: Maize 1.89 3.93 4.82
Maxim @ 6 kg/ac
T6 Drone spray (Fuel operated)- Jet type nozzle: Maize 2.01 4.12 5.13
Maxim @ 6 kg/ac
T7 Drone spray (Fuel operated)- Atomiser nozzle: Maize 2.03 4.14 5.15
Maxim @ 6 kg/ac
T8 Knapsack sprayer: Maize Maxim @ 6 kg/ac 1.49 2.71 3.96
T9 Control (Water Spray) 0.97 1.95 2.8
SE.d 0.033 0.067 0.085
CD (0.05) 0.070 0.143 0.180

277
 Kaniska et al.; IJECC, 12(11): 274-282, 2022; Article no.IJECC.89342

The leaf area index is a favourable indicator that values at higher levels as a result. The changes
has a major impact on maize plant growth. The in dry matter production and SPAD values are
number of photosynthetic pigments produced given in Table 6.
does not have to be a role in higher yield. Rather,
the distribution of those photosynthetic pigments 3.2 Yield Parameters
to the shoot and root is crucial. It is determined
by the leaf area index and other physiological The results on yield parameters of maize were
characteristics. The foliar application of nutrients greatly affected by the spray of micronutrients
and crop boosters had a considerable impact on and crop boosters. The maximum cob length and
the leaf area index (LAI) at 60 DAS and 90 DAS. cob girth were observed in treatment T 7 Drone
This could be because of the greater number of spray (Fuel operated)- Atomiser nozzle: Maize
leaves, leaf area, and tillers. Among the Maxim @ 6 kg/ac 24.8 cm and 17.9 cm,
treatments, the foliar spraying of TNAU Maize respectively using 30 lit/ac spray fluid, and the
maxim twice using the fuel-operated drone with lowest was observed in treatment T 9 Control with
atomizer nozzle of spray volume 30 lit/ac has 15.8 cm and 13.1 cm, respectively. The test
recorded the very high LAI value of 4.14 and weight was also high in the treatment T 7 (27.86
5.15 at 60 DAS and 90 DAS, respectively. The g). The yield attribute values are given in
treatment, control (T9) recorded the lowest LAI Table 7.
value of 1.95 and 2.8, where only water spray
was given. This result was in similar with the The highest grain and stover yield was achieved
report of Raghuramakrishnan et al. [7]. The LAI in treatment T7 which sprayed 30 lit/ac spray fluid
values are given in Table 5. using the Drone (Fuel operated)- Atomiser
nozzle: Maize Maxim @ 6 kg/ac with 7195 kg
Dry matter production (DMP) of a crop and 10942 kg per hectare, respectively.
measures, how well it uses the resources it has. Treatment T9 Control (Water Spray) with 3049 kg
Noticeable changes in dry matter accumulation and 6623 kg per hectare of grain and straw yield
could be related to differences in general growth recorded the lowest. The yield values are given
and development, as reflected by observations of in Table 8. The results of Kumar et al. [14] were
several growth indices such as plant height and found similar with this work. The yield in drone
LAI. The dry matter was accumulated most in the spray when compared with the conventional
treatment T7 Drone spray (Fuel operated)- knapsack sprayer was high due to the high
Atomiser nozzle: Maize Maxim @ 6 kg/ac with absorption of TNAU Maize maxim. The geometry
12354 and 18564 with 30 lit/ac and the lowest of maize plants, as well as the drone's downward
dry matter accumulation was noticed in the airstream, provides the ideal circumstances for
treatment T9 Control (Water Spray) with 7482 droplet deposition. The improvement in
and 9645 at 60 DAS and 90 DAS, respectively. the growing season, active absorption, and
This result was in similar with the report of transfer from source to sink as a result of
Raghuramakrishnan et al. [7]. physiological and biochemical processes.

The total chlorophyll content of leaves is This research also shows that UAVs can be a
measured by the SPAD value reading, which significant tool for precision agriculture because
reveals the level of greenness in the leaves. The of their low cost and advantageous vantage point
amount of chlorophyll, a green pigment, is one of and is also safer for farmers than an electric
the main elements that control the capacity for Knapsack Sprayer [15]. The advantages of drone
photosynthetic activity [13]. The SPAD value of spraying observed in the present experiment are:
the treatment T5 recorded highest with the value
50.3 before spraying. But, after the spraying of (i) saving on quantity and cost of nutrients
the chemicals NPK 19:19:19, liquid Micronutrient (ii) the cost of spray is lesser than
and humic acid and TNAU Maize maxim, the conventional spraying method
SPAD values increased significantly. It recorded (iii) spray fluid requirement is also very less.
the values of 62.4 and 60.7 at 60 DAS and 90
DAS, respectively. Increased chlorophyll content The spraying cost of drone was less (Rs. 1250 /
and enhanced nutrient mobility within leaves led ha) when compared with the spraying cost of
to a higher SPAD value for the degree of knapsack sprayer (Rs. 2000 / ha). The nutrient
greenness in the leaf. This occurs as a result of requirement through drone spray was 0.25 kg/ha
the delay between treatment and crop uptake. and 0.75 kg/ha for flood jet and atomizer nozzle
The enhanced split application keeps SPAD drone spray, respectively. Whereas, for

278
 Kaniska et al.; IJECC, 12(11): 274-282, 2022; Article no.IJECC.89342

Table 6. Effect of foliar application of spray fluid using an agricultural drone on dry matter production (DMP) (kg/ha) and SPAD values of maize

Treatments Dry matter production (kg/ha) SPAD values

30 DAS 60 DAS 90 DAS 30 DAS 60 DAS 90
DAS
T1 Drone spray (Battery operated)- Jet type nozzle: All 19 (NPK) + LMN +HA 3258 10594 16017 43.5 51.2 50.1
(1%)
T2 Drone spray (Fuel operated)- Jet type nozzle: All 19 (NPK) + LMN +HA 3296 10098 15182 48.1 48.6 46.3
(1%)
T3 Drone spray (Fuel operated)- Atomiser nozzle: All 19 (NPK) + LMN +HA 3258 11081 16742 45.8 53.9 52.5
(1%)
T4 Knapsack sprayer: 3085 9598 11863 39.1 44.2 40.4
All 19 (NPK) + LMN +HA (1%)
T5 Drone spray (Battery operated)- Jet type nozzle: Maize Maxim @ 6 kg/ac 3325 11592 17695 50.3 59.5 57.9
T6 Drone spray (Fuel operated)- Jet type nozzle: Maize Maxim @ 6 kg/ac 3296 12146 18459 35.2 56.7 55.3
T7 Drone spray (Fuel operated)- Atomiser nozzle: Maize Maxim @ 6 kg/ac 3314 12354 18564 41.3 62.4 60.7
T8 Knapsack sprayer: Maize Maxim @ 6 kg/ac 3208 9611 12134 37.2 45.7 43.6
T9 Control (Water Spray) 3307 7482 9645 32.8 39.4 31.5
SE.d 61.53 205.09 303.38 0.77 1.01 0.97
CD (0.05) 130.45 434.79 643.16 1.65 2.15 2.07

279
 Kaniska et al.; IJECC, 12(11): 274-282, 2022; Article no.IJECC.89342

Table 7. Effect of foliar application of spray fluid using an agricultural drone on yield attributes
of maize

Treatments Cob Cob Test

Length Girth Weight
(cm) (cm) (g)
T1 Drone spray (Battery operated)- 21.6 15.6 26.97
Jet-type nozzle: All 19 (NPK) + LMN +HA (1%)
T2 Drone spray (Fuel operated)- Jet type nozzle: 20.6 14.9 26.52
All 19 (NPK) + LMN +HA (1%)
T3 Drone spray (Fuel operated)- Atomiser nozzle: 22.6 16.3 27.41
All 19 (NPK) + LMN +HA (1%)
T4 Knapsack sprayer: 19.1 13.9 25.63
All 19 (NPK) + LMN +HA (1%)
T5 Drone spray (Battery operated)- 23.7 17.1 27.74
Jet-type nozzle: Maize Maxim @ 6 kg/ac
T6 Drone spray (Fuel operated)- Jet type nozzle: 24.1 17.8 27.8
Maize Maxim @ 6 kg/ac
T7 Drone spray (Fuel operated)- Atomiser nozzle: 24.8 17.9 27.86
Maize Maxim @ 6 kg/ac
T8 Knapsack sprayer:Maize Maxim @ 6 kg/ac 19.6 14.1 26.08
T9 Control (Water Spray) 15.8 13.1 25.14
SE.d 0.415 0.302 0.507
CD (0.05) 0.880 0.642 1.076

Table 8. Effect of foliar application of spray fluid using an agricultural drone on grain and
straw yield (kg/ha) of maize

Treatments Yield (kg/ha)

Grain yield Straw yield
T1 Drone spray (Battery operated)- Jet-type nozzle: 6013 9304
All 19 (NPK) + LMN +HA (1%)
T2 Drone spray (Fuel operated)- Jet type nozzle: 5692 8868
All 19 (NPK) + LMN +HA (1%)
T3 Drone spray (Fuel operated)- Atomiser nozzle: 6294 9743
All 19 (NPK) + LMN +HA (1%)
T4 Knapsack sprayer: 5271 8382
All 19 (NPK) + LMN +HA (1%)
T5 Drone spray (Battery operated)- Jet-type nozzle: 6619 10197
Maize Maxim @ 6 kg/ac
T6 Drone spray (Fuel operated)- Jet type nozzle: 6912 10657
Maize Maxim @ 6 kg/ac
T7 Drone spray (Fuel operated)- Atomiser nozzle: 7195 10942
Maize Maxim @ 6 kg/ac
T8 Knapsack sprayer:Maize Maxim @ 6 kg/ac 5389 8418
T9 Control (Water Spray) 3049 6623
SE.d 117.118 180.879
CD(0.05) 248.291 383.465

knapsack sprayer it was 5 kg/ha. The spray fluid 200 lit/ha. Treatment wise input requirements
was also 25 lit/ha and 75 lit/ha for flood jet and and spraying cost details for both
atomizer nozzle in drone spray, respectively as drone and knapsack sprayers are given in
compared to conventional spray requirement of Table 9.

280
 Kaniska et al.; IJECC, 12(11): 274-282, 2022; Article no.IJECC.89342

Table 9. Treatment wise input requirements and spraying cost for drone and knapsack spray

Treatments Nutrient Spray Spraying

Requiremen fluid cost
t (kg/ha) (lit/ha) (Rs/ha)
T1 Drone spray (Battery operated)- Jet-type nozzle: 0.25 kg 25 1250
All 19 (NPK) + LMN +HA (1%)
T2 Drone spray (Fuel operated)- Jet type nozzle: 0.25 kg 25 1250
All 19 (NPK) + LMN +HA (1%)
T3 Drone spray (Fuel operated)- Atomiser nozzle: 0.75 kg 75 1250
All 19 (NPK) + LMN +HA (1%)
T4 Knapsack sprayer: 5.0 kg 200 2000
All 19 (NPK) + LMN +HA (1%)
T5 Drone spray (Battery operated)- Jet-type nozzle: 0.25 kg 25 1250
Maize Maxim @ 6 kg/ac
T6 Drone spray (Fuel operated)- Jet type nozzle: 0.25 kg 25 1250
Maize Maxim @ 6 kg/ac
T7 Drone spray (Fuel operated)- Atomiser nozzle: 0.75 kg 75 1250
Maize Maxim @ 6 kg/ac
T8 Knapsack sprayer:Maize Maxim @ 6 kg/ac 5 kg 200 2000
T9 Control (Water Spray) only water spray

4. CONCLUSION REFERENCES
Thus, from the present experiment it is observed 1. Murdia LK, Wadhwani R, Wadhawan N,
that, physiological features were modified by Bajpai P, Shekhawat S. Maize utilization in
foliar application of nutrients and plant growth India: An overview. American Journal of
regulators. Foliar spray of TNAU Maize maxim Food and Nutrition. 2016;4(6):169-176.
using the fuel-operated drone with atomizer 2. Rejeb, Abderahman, Alireza Abdollahi,
nozzle (T7) with the spray fluid of 30 lit/ac has Karim Rejeb, Horst Treiblmaier. Drones in
recorded enhanced biometric attributes viz., plant agriculture: A review and bibliometric
height, LAI, DMP, and yield attributes viz., cob analysis. Computers and Electronics in
length and girth, number of rows per cob, Agriculture. 2022;198:107017.
number of grains per row and cob. Hence, the 3. del Cerro, Jaime, Christyan Cruz Ulloa,
drones cane be utilized for spraying any kind of Antonio Barrientos, Jorge de León Rivas.
nutrient applied through foliar spray for crops like Unmanned aerial vehicles in agriculture: A
maize where at some stage of the crop the use survey. Agronomy. 2021;11(2):203.
of hand sprayer is practically difficult. This would DOI:https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy1102
also help to minimize the demand for skilled 0203
labour for spraying and also it heavily reduces 4. Subramanian KS, Pazhanivelan
the requirement of chemical and well as spray Sellaperumal. Drones in insect pest
fluid requirement. management. Frontiers in Agronomy.
2021;3:1-12.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DOI:https://doi.org/10.3389/fagro.2021.640
885
The authors are thankful to the Department of
5. Nirere D, Mbaraka SR, Rucamumihigo FX,
Remote Sensing and GIS for providing the fund
Murorunkwere F, Musana FR,
through the “M/s Fowler Westrup Private Limited”
Rukangantambara H. Effect of foliar
scheme to carry out the research work in a
application of nitrogen-phosphorus-
project mode and like to extend our sincere
potassium fertilizers on nutrient uptake and
thanks to Professor and Head and staff members
protein content of maize. African Journal of
for their valuable comments and constructive
Biotechnology. 2021;20(12):465-
suggestions on the manuscript.
469.
COMPETING INTERESTS 6. Krishnaveni S, Anandha A, Palchamy,
Mahendran S. Effect of foliar spray of
Authors have declared that no competing nutrients on growth and yield of green
interests exist. gram (Phaseolus radiatus). Legume

281
 Kaniska et al.; IJECC, 12(11): 274-282, 2022; Article no.IJECC.89342

Research-An International Journal. 2004; yield and quality of green gram. The
27(2):149-150. Pharma Innovation Journal. 2021;SP-
7. Raghuramakrishnan M, Sankaran VM, 10(12):69-72.
Somasundaram E, Ramesh PT. Effect of 13. Gomez G, Kwanchai A, Arturo A. Gomez.
micronutrients and STCR based Statistical procedures for agricultural
macronutrients on growth, yield and research. John Wiley & Sons; 1984.
nutrient uptake of hybrid maize. The 14. Ramachandiran K, Pazhanivelan S.
Pharma Innovation Journal. 2021;10(11): Influence of irrigation and nitrogen levels
251-255. on growth, yield attributes and yield of
8. Saleh, Heba S, Dawood RA, El-Far IA, El- maize (Zea mays). Indian Journal of
Nagar GR. Impact of some micro-nutrients Agronomy. 2016;61(3):360-365.
foliar application on two maize hybrids 15. Kumar A, Sathish N, Sakthivel E,
productivity. Assiut Journal of Agricultural Subramanian R, Kalpana P, Janaki,
Science. 2020;51(3):14-26. Rajesh P. Influence of foliar spray of
9. Babu SV, Varshiniand R. Influence of nutrients and plant growth regulators on
graded levels and split application of physiological attributes and yield of finger
nitrogen on growth and physiological millet (Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn.).
attributes of hybrid maize. The Pharma Inter J of Chem Studies. 2018;6(3):2876-
Innovation Journal. 2020;9(12):180- 2879.
184. 16. Wang, Zhao, Mujahid Hussain, Guanmin
10. DOI:https://doi.org/10.22271/tpi.2020.v9.i1 Huang, Jiaming Yin, Yuling Guo, You Mo,
2c.5432 Liusheng Duan, Zhaohu Li, Weiming Tan.
11. Avalable:https://www.indiastat.com.elibrary Better droplet deposition and internode
tnau.remotexs.in/data/agriculture/maize- shortening effects of plant growth regulator
17199 EDAH on maize applied by small
12. Dayana K, Ramesh T, Avudaithai S, Paul unmanned aerial vehicle than electric
Sebastian S, Rathika S. Foliar application knapsack sprayer. Agriculture. 2022;
of nutrients using agricultural drone on 12(3):404.

© 2022 Kaniska et al.; This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0); which permits unrestricted use; distribution; and reproduction in any medium;
provided the original work is properly cited.

Peer-review history:
The peer review history for this paper can be accessed here:
https://www.sdiarticle5.com/review-history/89342

282

View publication stats