How Effective Are Plant Protection Drones in Rice Fields

This year, the plant-protection drone market has taken off. Well-known brands like DJI, XAG, Nongfeike, Hanhe (Wuxi), and GaoKe New Agriculture, along with lesser-known makes such as Xiangnong Plant Protection, Flying Eagle Brothers, and EHang, have all entered the space. In terms of saving labor and boosting operational efficiency, drones do deliver clear benefits.

Rice is one of China’s staple crops. It covers vast acreage and suffers from diverse pests and diseases, especially in mid-to-late growth stages. The rice leaf folder (Cnaphalocrocis medinalis) feeds on the middle leaves, causing rolled, blanched leaves; severe outbreaks turn fields pale. Brown planthoppers cluster on rice stems and suck sap, which can lead to large-scale “hopper burn.” Rice sheath blight (Pellicularia sasakii) spreads rapidly under hot, humid conditions and can block heading, causing “necking.” Dense rice canopies in later stages make it hard for conventional spraying to reach the middle–lower leaves, resulting in poor control and even outbreaks that depress yield. Manual field operations are also difficult and labor-intensive; large-volume spraying wastes pesticide, harms applicators and the environment, and is too slow for explosive outbreaks.

For growers, beyond sheer efficiency, the core question is whether drones can control pests and diseases as effectively as manual spraying.

To answer that, we reviewed authoritative trial results in rice from several research groups. Highlights:

• Tianjin Plant Protection Station (Yang Aibin et al.) compared a WSZ‑2410 multirotor plant-protection drone with a backpack electric sprayer applying 20% chlorantraniliprole SC against the Asiatic rice borer. Results showed that, versus backpack spraying, the drone—being compact, light, and non-contact with the crop—achieved good control with lower labor intensity, saving time, labor, and water while improving efficiency, making it an ideal option for rice fields.
• Kesheng Group, Jiangsu (Liu Huiqiang et al.) used a YR‑A10 small plant-protection drone to apply 25% pymetrozine SC at 30 g/mu against planthoppers. Control was 72.92% at 7 days and 81.93% at 15 days after treatment (DAT). With a 5 g specialized adjuvant, efficacy was 70.34% (7 DAT) and 86.88% (15 DAT). An aviation-specific pymetrozine formulation at the same dose achieved 70.96% (7 DAT) and 87.70% (15 DAT). Overall, efficacy was not significantly different from manual spraying.
• Hunan Agricultural University, College of Plant Protection (Xun Dong et al.) tested a TH80‑1 drone against planthoppers, rice leaf folder, and sheath blight. In the late tillering stage, under the same tank-mix, control of planthoppers reached 70.83%, 81.23%, and 91.04% at 3, 7, and 14 DAT, respectively; leaf-retention against rice leaf folder was 66.76%, 69.32%, and 87.33%; and sheath blight control was 76.62% (7 DAT) and 91.22% (14 DAT). Across targets, drone applications performed significantly and often better than conventional manual sprayers.

Summary: Drone operations are widely recognized for efficiency. On control efficacy, published trials indicate results generally comparable to manual spraying.

Published at: Oct 1, 2018 · Modified at: Sep 12, 2025