3.0 6.

Review

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) in

Precision Agriculture: Applications
and Challenges

Parthasarathy Velusamy, Santhosh Rajendran, Rakesh Kumar Mahendran, Salman Naseer,

Muhammad Shafiq and Jin-Ghoo Choi

https://doi.org/10.3390/en15010217
 energies
Review
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) in Precision Agriculture:
Applications and Challenges
Parthasarathy Velusamy 1 , Santhosh Rajendran 1 , Rakesh Kumar Mahendran 2 , Salman Naseer 3 ,
Muhammad Shafiq 4, * and Jin-Ghoo Choi 4, *

1 Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Karpagam Academy of Higher Education,

Coimbatore 641021, India; sarathy.vp@gmail.com (P.V.); santhoshrd@gmail.com (S.R.)
2 Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, Vel Tech Multitech Dr.Rangarajan Dr.Sakuthala
Engineering College, Chennai 600062, India; rakeshkumarmahendran@gmail.com
3 Department of Information Technology, University of the Punjab Gujranwala Campus,
Gujranwala 52250, Pakistan; salman@pugc.edu.pk
4 Department of Information and Communication Engineering, Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan 38541, Korea
* Correspondence: shafiq@ynu.ac.kr (M.S.); jchoi@yu.ac.kr (J.-G.C.)

Abstract: Agriculture is the primary source of income in developing countries like India. Agriculture
accounts for 17 percent of India’s total GDP, with almost 60 percent of the people directly or indirectly
employed. While researchers and planters focus on a variety of elements to boost productivity,
crop loss due to disease is one of the most serious issues they confront. Crop growth monitoring
and early detection of pest infestations are still a problem. With the expansion of cultivation to
wider fields, manual intervention to monitor and diagnose insect and pest infestations is becoming
increasingly difficult. Failure to apply on time fertilizers and pesticides results in more crop loss
and so lower output. Farmers are putting in greater effort to conserve crops, but they are failing
most of the time because they are unable to adequately monitor the crops when they are infected





 by pests and insects. Pest infestation is also difficult to predict because it is not evenly distributed.
Citation: Velusamy, P.; Rajendran, S.; In the recent past, modern equipment, tools, and approaches have been used to replace manual
Mahendran, R.K.; Naseer, S.; Shafiq, involvement. Unmanned aerial vehicles serve a critical role in crop disease surveillance and early
M.; Choi, J.-G. Unmanned Aerial detection in this setting. This research attempts to give a review of the most successful techniques to
Vehicles (UAV) in Precision have precision-based crop monitoring and pest management in agriculture fields utilizing unmanned
Agriculture: Applications and aerial vehicles (UAVs) or unmanned aircraft. The researchers’ reports on the various types of UAVs
Challenges. Energies 2022, 15, 217. and their applications to early detection of agricultural diseases are rigorously assessed and compared.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en15010217
This paper also discusses the deployment of aerial, satellite, and other remote sensing technologies
Academic Editor: Dalia Štreimikienė for disease detection, as well as their Quality of Service (QoS).

Received: 1 November 2021

Keywords: UAV; crop monitoring; pest management; remote sensing
Accepted: 21 December 2021
Published: 29 December 2021

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

with regard to jurisdictional claims in 1. Introduction
published maps and institutional affil-
Most of the developed countries have adopted the latest technologies such as Pho-
iations.
togrammetry and Remote Sensing (RS) [1,2] for precision agriculture [3,4] using Unmanned
Aerial Vehicles (UAV) to make a good agriculture farm with minor infection. It will help
the farmers with more crop productivity, quality, and, most importantly, the farmers’ lesser
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
workload. Further it can be used for spraying fertilizer and pesticides. Usually, the UAV’s
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. are developed with an automated drone system with sensors and cameras in order to
This article is an open access article monitor the condition and height of the crops. There are various types of UAV models have
distributed under the terms and been developed. Based on the agriculture farm, select proper and appropriate UAVs should.
conditions of the Creative Commons The role of UAV in precision management is taken care by the captured spectral images.
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// The multispectral camera will monitor the condition of the crop by scanning the entire
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ crop field. The actuated drones mounted with cameras will identify the pest and insect
4.0/). hot spots. The UAVs and remote-sensing techniques mentioned above help the farmers to

Energies 2022, 15, 217. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15010217 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2022, 15, 217 2 of 19

take appropriate measures at the right time to protect the crops from diseases. The UAV
with low-altitude remote sensing has more advantages like good mobility, easy construc-
tion, and high resolution for obtaining the images [5]. The quality of the crop and yield
benefits depends on biotic and abiotic factors. In the past, the farmers rely based on their
experiences for the production of the crops. Different types of farmers are moving towards
remote sensing platforms like UAV-based technology, which helps them protect the crops.
In the future, precision agriculture will rely on Sensors, Robotics, the Internet of Things,
Machine Learning, and Decision-based support systems. In [6], IoT-based technology has
also been adapted to agricultural systems, incorporating cloud computing, big data storage,
security issues, and analytics. In [7], they implemented an energy harvesting mechanism
using solar energy and a wind turbine by integrating a long-range (LoRa) communication
modem in agricultural field.
This review contributes the best solutions for protecting the crop and pest management
to solve the farmer’s problem and their day-to-day challenges in the agriculture field. We
provide a brief overview to the necessity for UAVs. The goal of precision farming using
remote sensing technologies is explained to reduce the potential risks and improve the
agricultural yield. We focus on UAVs and their types with clear explanations with a
comparison between the different types of UAVs including their technical specifications.
The role of UAV in precision pest management is discussed. We provide the conclusion
with a challenges and future scope in precision agriculture.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 gives a brief overview about
the precision agriculture. Section 3 describes different types of UAVs. Section 4 juxtaposed
the qualitative parameters of various types of UAVs and their applications in precision
agriculture. Section 5 investigates the role of UAVs in precision pest management. In the
last section we have drawn our conclusions.

2. Precision Agriculture
Precision agriculture (PA) helps farmers make crucial decisions at the right time by
analyzing a vast amount of data regarding the environment and crop details. Thus, PA helps
the farmers marching towards more production with quality to meet the required demand.
Remote Sensing (RS) plays a vital role in crop evaluation and soil health conditions. It
indicates the problems at the right time and helps to resolve the problem wisely. Figure 1
describes various remote sensing platforms used for precision agriculture.

Figure 1. RS Platforms in precision agriculture.

UAV is flexible for most applications and addresses the solutions for the problems
faced by other RS platforms [8].
It can be easily accessible and provides accurate data. Further, it is cost-effective and
easy to deploy anywhere and can operate real-time spatial images compared with other
Energies 2022, 15, 217 3 of 19

traditional RS Platforms. Table 1 presented a detailed comparison of the quality of services

provided by the various types of RS Platforms in Precision Agriculture.

Table 1. QOS comparison of RS platforms used in precision agriculture.

Types of RS Platforms
Quality of Services
UAV Satellite Manned Aircraft Ground Based
Flexibility high low low low
Adaptability high low low low
Cost low high high low
Time Consumption low low low high
Risk low average high low
Accuracy high low high moderate
Deployment easy difficult complex moderate
Feasibility yes no no yes
Availability yes no yes no
Operability easy complex complex easy

3. Types of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)

UAVs describe vehicles with weights around or lower to 25 kg which do not need a
human to fly them as they can be managed remotely. A quick survey can be easily achieved
over a wide range of area through unmanned aerial vehicles [9]. UAVs can be applied for
analyzing images, ground monitoring, and in-depth situation analysis of a crop [8]. We
can categorize UAVs into various types based on the number of rotors, speed, application,
mechanism, etc. UAVs with weights greater than or equal to 25 kg have specific rules and
laws to fly. As a result, weight can be a significant factor for distinguishing between the
UAVs while the vehicle takes off. Firstly, we can see very heavy UAVs which weigh around
2 tons or more. They will be able to carry enough fuel and are mainly used for military
purposes. Secondly, some UAVs weigh 200–2000 kgs and 50–200 kgs. These are used for
various applications extensively and can hold enough fuel to travel for longer. Finally, we
have lightweight UAVs weighing around 5 to 50 kgs that finds uses in agriculture purposes.
Further, we have micro-UAVs which weigh less than 5 kgs. UAVs that are lighter
than 5 kg are easy for take-off and less expensive than heavier vehicles. It can be fixed-
wing, Single Rotor, Multi Rotor Landing (VTOL) UAVs, and Hybrid Vertical Take-off.
There is a vast difference in the structure of fixed-wing and multi-rotor. Their time of
flying, endurance, and type of energy differ entirely from each other. A single motor is
slightly different from multi-rotors. The single rotor contains two rotors in which one more
oversized rotor is on the top, and the other is small and fixed on the tail. Multi-rotor can
be Tricopter, Quadcopter, Hexacopter, and Octocopter based on the number of rotors and
applications [10]. We discuss the various types of UAVs depicts in Figure 2 and Table 2.

Figure 2. Types of UAV.

Energies 2022, 15, 217 4 of 19

Table 2. Comparison of Types of UAV.

Types of UAV
Parameters
Fixed Wing Single Rotor Multi-Rotor Hybrid VTOL
1(1 Big Sized and Tricopter-3
Small Sized on Quadcopter-4
No. of Rotors 1 1
the tail of the Hexacopter-6
drone) Octocopter-8
Manufacture and
Simple Complex Complex Complex
Maintenance
Cost High High Low High
2h
Average Flying (Battery) Higher (Powered Ability to cover longer
Limited (20–30 min)
Time 16 h by Gas Engine) distances
(Powered by Gas Engine)
More
Endurance More Limited More
(with Gas Power)
Battery—They never utilize
Battery—They utilize
Energy energy to stay afloat on air, Gas Power Battery
energy to stay afloat on air
Gas Engine
Speed Fast Flying Speed Limited Limited Fast Flying Speed
Aerial Photography, Short Mapping and Land
Long-Distance Aerial
Applications Aerial Scanning Distance Aerial Mapping Surveying, Mining,
Mapping and Surveillance
and Surveillance Surveillance and Security
Aerial photography is not
Harder to fly,
applicable because it needs Imperfect in hovering
Drawbacks Dangerous to Limited Payload
to be motionless in the air Limited Payload
handle
for a period.
Required (runway or a
Training Required Catapult Launcher- to set a
Not Required Not Required Not Required
in Flying fixed-wing in air, Parachute
or a Net- Landing)

3.1. Fixed Winged

As can be seen in Figure 3, A fixed-winged UAV does data collection through remote
operation mode. Fabrication of a simple fixed-wing UAV is by a wingspan of 195 cm
and a carbon-fiber body with one propeller engine. As a result, excellent aerodynamics
can be provided with the added benefit of more flight time when speed increases in the
places surveyed. Usually, such UAVs are equipped with high-resolution cameras for better
mapping and surveillance from height. In addition, it has a straightforward flight system.
Moreover, the architecture and maintenance of such UAVs are also relatively easy [11].

Figure 3. Fixed Wing.

Energies 2022, 15, 217 5 of 19

3.2. Single Rotor

A single-rotor system consists of two different components: As can be seen in Figure 4,
the helicopter and another system that controls the helicopter from ground level. The
helicopter contains various parts connected to it, namely a flight controller, gyroscope,
GPS receiver, transmitter for image and telemetry, the sensor for heading and spraying
components. Similarly, the ground-level controlling system contains a telemetry receiver
and a transmitter in a remote control. Moreover, in specific systems, forced-air engine
cooling is installed to cool the engine when it reaches high altitude and when the flight
speed is low. In order to sense the heeling and pitch angle of the aircraft and detect 3D
positional velocity, vertical gyroscopes which have high precision are used. Another sensor
using magnetic heading is used to make minor corrections of mistakes due to the changing
fight directions. The elevation and location of the UAV can be detected using a pressure
altimeter connected to it. Various control variables can be computed using Kalman filter
and Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) algorithms [12].

Figure 4. Single rotor.

3.3. Hybrid Vertical Take-Off and Landing (VTOL)

Hybrid VTOL UAVs are Vehicles that have the benefit of both fixed-winged systems
and multi-rotor systems. As shown in Figure 5, They are very efficient in take-off, which is
similar to multi-rotor systems. At the same time, they fly with an efficiency of a fixed-wing
system. Due to its combined features, the development and maintenance of hybrid systems
are complex, as are their control systems. In this case, three controllers, namely horizontal,
vertical, and transition, are used [8].

Figure 5. Hybrid VTOL.

Energies 2022, 15, 217 6 of 19

3.4. Multi Rotor

Based on the number of rotors and their configuration, multi-Rotor can be classified.
Some of the most frequently used multi-copters are tricopter, quadcopter, hexocopter,
and octocopter.

3.4.1. Tri Copter

As can be seen in Figure 6, The general structure of tricopter has three rotors which will
help balance the weight of the tricopter when it is flying. The movement of the rotors is in
such a way that the right rotor will be in the clockwise direction. The other two rotors will
move in the opposite direction. A servo method is used to negate the unbalanced clockwise
torque, which is done by tilting the rotor present in the tail. As a result, a productive pitch
has been developed using the three rotors in various directions to move forward. Thus,
differentiating the left and right rotor thrust, rolling can be achieved. Similarly, the vehicles
can be moved sideways also [13].

Figure 6. Tricopter.

3.4.2. Quad Copter

Quadcopter has a superior design of UAVs, and they have four rotors. These rotors
generate the lift of this model. As shown in Figure 7, Out of these four rotors, two oppositely
placed rotors rotate in a clockwise direction (CW), and the remaining two rotors rotate in a
counter-lockwise direction (CCW). The movement of this model around the axis includes
forward/backward movements called ‘pitch,’ moving laterally in left or right directions
called ‘roll’ and clockwise and counterclockwise movements called ‘yaw.’ The Plus and
cross configuration models (based on their shapes) of Quadcopter are. The cross model
is more popular than the conventional one because of its increased stability over the plus
model [14].

3.4.3. Hex Copter

The Greek word Hexa means six. Hexacopter is a drone that has six arms, and each
of them is attached to a single high-speed BLDC motor. As can be seen in Figure 8, The
airframe is made of glass fiber. Aluminum tubes (500 × 25 mm) are fixed to an arm mount
in the outer edge of the airframe. The six motors are mounted at the far end of these tubes
(see Plate 1). The airframe plate is the support structure over which the other parts of
the drone, such as batteries, motor, support a flight-controlled GPS antenna and tube of
high-speed capacity. It also hasFPV cameras, ESC, circuit boards, and sensors. This model is
used to spray pesticides for various agricultural purposes with a maximum of 5-L capacity
fluid tank attached to the bottom of the airframe, where the outlet of this tank is attached
to the inlet of the spray motor. The outlet of the spray motor is connected to spray nozzles.
A U-shaped bent aluminum pipe of 14 × 1.5 mm proportion is used to mount the parts like
Energies 2022, 15, 217 7 of 19

a fluid tank, spray motor, and spray lance. The spray lance has four nozzles spaced in a
gap of 45 cm, each spanning 1.3 m. The bottom area of the drone has landing gears below
the spray unit so that take-off and landing of the model would be safe during and after the
spray [15].

Figure 7. Quad copter.

Figure 8. Hexacopter.

3.4.4. Octocopter
Octocopter has eight rotors and is used as similar to Hexa UAV for agricultural
spraying purposes. As can be seen in Figure 9, This has a diagonal wheelbase of 1630 mm
diameter and can fly for 15 min with a 10 kg payload. It has six nozzles with 5–8 m
spray width. This model was observed using the Time-resolved particle image velocimetry
(TR-PIV) method to measure the movement of the sprayed droplets and their deposition.
This observation method showed that two variables, such as rotor speed and position of
the spray nozzle, influence the movement of deposition of the spray [16].
Energies 2022, 15, 217 8 of 19

Figure 9. Octo copter.

4. Role of UAV in Precision Pest Management

Precision pest management can be used for monitoring the crops which identify the
pest-affected places using remote sensing technologies, and control mechanisms such as
pesticide spraying will be acted accordingly from prevention of diseases. For achieving
this, both the technologies should be mounted on the UAV.
The Unmanned aerial vehicle can also be used for spraying fertilizer and pesticides
on agricultural fields [9]. The UAV has a significant feature with good speed and accuracy
in spraying system of the fertilizer and pesticides. The main parts of UAV used for
spraying are:
• Pressure nozzle;
• Spraying controller;
• Pesticide box;
• Hall-flow sensor;
• Small diaphragm pump;
• Field-map interpretation system.
A sprayer is connected with UAV for spraying pesticides or fertilizers. It can be
sprayed through the nozzle into droplets under pressure. The suitable pressure is produced
to spray the fluid with the help of the spray motor. The spraying controller uses the
Hall-flow sensor for estimating the fluid flow inside the system and initiates the nozzle
of the sprayer. UAVs used for spraying purpose can be varied with their Speed, Payload,
and number of nozzles used for spraying. UAV-based fertilizer and pesticide spraying
methodology has more efficiency than the traditional systems. It reduces the human contact
with hazardous gases. A limited amount of human power is required. The UAV reduces
the time and expenses.
A detailed study is made on pest detection using Remote Sensing technology. Tables 3–6
show the pest detection in various types of crops, and the observations are analyzed
through the captured spectral images by the UAV, Manned Aircraft, Satellite, and ground-
based technology. Further in the Table 3, technical specification of the UAV is mentioned
while capturing the images of the crops in different agricultural fields and locations.
Energies 2022, 15, 217 9 of 19

Table 3. UAV based remote sensing.

Parameters
References Crop Name No. of
Type of UAV Camera Pest Name Observations
Rotors
Sourav Kumar
Bhoia et al., 2021 Rice RGB, 4 Visual inspection of
Multi-Rotor Multispectral Leaf hopper
[17] images

Wu, Bizhi et al., Bursaphelenchus

Pine Multi-Rotor Multispectral 6 Visual Images
2021 [18] xylophilus
Ishengoma, Farian
Severine et al., 2021 Maize Multi-Rotor Multispectral 6 Lepidoptera Visual Images
[19]
Érika Akemi Saito Visual inspection of
Moriya et al., 2021 Lemon Multi-Rotor Hyperspectral 4 Phytophthora Gummosis
images
[20]
An, G et al., 2021 Rice 4 Damage assessments
[21] Multi-Rotor Hyperspectral Ustilaginoidea virens

Nguyen, C et al., Grapevine vein-clearing

Grapevine Multi-Rotor Hyperspectral 4 Visual Images
2021 [22] virus
Ma, H et al., 2021 4 Visual inspection of
[23] Wheat Multi-Rotor Hyperspectral Fusarium head blight images
Qin, J et al., 2021 Pine Multi-Rotor Multispectral 6 Bursaphelenchusxylophilus Damage assessments
[24]
Pathogen Fusarium
Xiao, Y et al., 2021 4 graminearum
[25] Wheat Multi-Rotor Hyperspectral Visual Images
(Gibberellazeae)
Guo, A et al., 2021 4 Disease Monitoring
[26] Wheat Multi-Rotor Hyperspectral Puccinia striiformis

Castrignanò, A
Olive Multi-Rotor Multispectral 6 Xylella fastidiosa Visual Images
et al., 2020 [27]
Pathogen Fusarium
Francesconi S et al., 4 graminearum
2021 [28] Wheat Multi-Rotor Hyperspectral Visual Images
(Gibberellazeae)
SaumyaYadav et al., RGB, Xanthomonas campestris
Peach Multi-Rotor 4 Visual Images
2021 [29] Multispectral pv.pruni
Görlich, F et al., Sugar beet Multi-Rotor Hyperspectral 4 Cercosporabeticola Damage assessments
2021 [30]
Yu, Run et al., 2021 Pine 4
[31] Multi-Rotor Hyperspectral Bursaphelenchusxylophilus Visual Images

Yue Shi et al., 2021 Potato 4

[32] Multi-Rotor Hyperspectral Phytophthora infestans Visual Images

Walter Chivasa, Maize Multi-Rotor Multispectral 6 Gemini virus Visual Images

et al., 2021 [33]
Anton Louise P. de
Ocampo and Elmer Solanummelongena Multi-Rotor- RGB 4 Aphis gossypii Vision-based
Quad copter Monitoring
P. Dadios 2021 [34]
Gao, Junfeng et al., Visual Images, Degree
Potato Multi-Rotor Multispectral 6 Phytophthora infestans
2020 [35] of Severity
Deng, Xiaoling CandidatusLiberibacter Visual inspection of
Lemon Multi-Rotor Hyperspectral 4
et al., 2020 [36] asiaticus images
Everton Defoliant pests such as Pest Segmentation
Castel∼ aoTetila Soya Multi-Rotor- RGB 4
et al., 2020 [37] Quad copter insects and mollusks and Classification

Vinı’cius Bitencourt
Campos Calou Multi-Rotor- Visual Images, Degree
Banana RGB 4 Yellow sigatoka
Quad copter of Severity
et al., 2020 [38]
Del Campo-Sanchez Visual inspection of
Grape Multi-Rotor RGB 4 Cotton assid
et al., 2019. [39] images
Abdulridha, Jaafar Lemon Multi-Rotor Hyperspectral 4 Xanthomonas citri
Visual inspection of
et al., 2019. [40] images
RGB, Ground trapsand root
Vanegas et al., 2018 Multispectral,
Grape Multi-Rotor 4 Grapephylloxera digging, visual vigour
[41] Hyperspectral assessments
Energies 2022, 15, 217 10 of 19

Table 3. Cont.

Parameters
References Crop Name No. of
Type of UAV Camera Pest Name Observations
Rotors
Huang et al., 2018
Cotton Multi-Rotor Multispectral 4 Two-spotted spidermite Damage assessments
[42]
Samuel Joalland Sugar Beet 4 Beet
et al., 2018 [43] Multi-Rotor Hyperspectral Cyst Nematode Visual Images

Hunt et al., 2017. Potato Multi-Rotor Multispectral 6 Colorado potato beetle Damage assessments
[44]
Stanton et al., 2017 Sorghum Fixed Wing Multispectral 1 Sugarcane aphid Arthropod counts
[45]
Arthropod counts,
Severtson et al., 8
2016a. [46] Canola Multi-Rotor Multispectral Green peachaphid soil and plant tissue
nutrient analyses
Nebiker et al., 2016 Onion 1 NA
[47] Fixed Wing Multispectral Thrips

Ishengoma et al., RGB, Outbreak reported by

Wheat Multi-Rotor 4 Fall armyworm
2021 [19] Multispectral grower

A large volume of spatial images with high resolution was acquired with the UAV,
which helps increase the accuracy level of the algorithm for classification and identification
of the leaf spot in the banana. Quantification, prediction, identification, and classification
are made to observe pests and insects in agricultural crops. The aerial images of the UAV
and digital image processing (DIP), it calculates the severity of the attack of yellow Sigatoka.
For estimating the damage in the field, it will act as an alternative method [38] Deep learning
architectures are evaluated for the pest images of soybean and its classification obtained
from the UAV. The performance of Inception-v3, Resnet50, VGG-16, VGG-19, and Xception
was evaluated for different learning strategies with a dataset of 5000 images captured in
actual field conditions [37].
UAVs mounted with traditional RGB cameras using remote sensing technologies
could be considered to detect and quantify pests through UAV aerial images. Focusing on
the 2D geomatic and 3D products, most of the users of UAV platforms need to improve
the application utility and accuracy [39]. Recent advancement in remote sensing technol-
ogy through unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) leads to rapid image processing tools for
crop management and surveillance of pests. This UAV remote sensing-based technology
increases the efficiency of existing practices of human surveillance for the detection of
pests like grape phylloxera in vineyards. It uses UAV integrated with advanced digital
hyper spectral, multispectral, and RGB sensors. The predictive model is developed for
phylloxera detection. Under different levels of phylloxera infestation, the combination of
RGB, multispectral, and hyper spectral images with ground-based data at two separate
periods was explored [41] Comparing remote sensing technologies presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Aerial (manned aircraft) based remote sensing.

Parameters
References Crop Name
Camera Pest Name Observations
Xuan Li et al., 2021 [48] alfalfa Multispectral Empoasca fabae Damage assessments
Bhattarai et al., 2019 [49] Wheat Multispectral Hessian fly Arthropod counts
Backoulou et al., 2018a,b [50,51] Sorghum Multispectral Sugarcane aphid Damage assessments
Arthropod counts or visual
Backoulou et al., 2016 [52] Wheat Multispectral Greenbug
inspection
Elliott et al., 2015 [53] Sorghum Multispectral Sugarcane aphid Damage assessments
Energies 2022, 15, 217 11 of 19

Table 4. Cont.

Parameters
References Crop Name
Camera Pest Name Observations
Backoulou et al., 2011a,b, 2013,
Wheat Multispectral Russian wheat aphid Visual inspections
2015 [54–56]
Mirik et al., 2014 [57] Wheat Hyper spectral Russian wheat aphid Visual inspection of images
Multispectral,
Reisig and Godfrey 2010 [58] Cotton Cotton aphid Arthropod counts
Hyper spectral
Arthropod counts or visual
Elliott et al., 2009 [59] Wheat Multispectral Greenbug
inspection
Carroll 2008 [60] Corn Hyper spectral European corn borer Damage assessments
Elliott et al., 2007 [61] Wheat Multispectral Russian wheat aphid Proportion of infested plants
Multispectral,
Reisig and Godfrey, 2006 [62] Cotton Spider mite Arthropod counts
Hyper spectral
Willers et al., 2005 [63] Cotton Multispectral Tarnished plantbug Sweep net sampling
Fitzgerald et al., 2004 [34] Cotton Hyper spectral Strawberry spider Arthropod counts
Sudbrink et al., 2003 [64] Cotton Multispectral Beet armyworm Arthropod counts
Soya Bean Cyst
F. W. Nutter Jr. et al., 2002 [65] Soya Bean Multispectral Visual inspection of images
Nematode
Sweep net sampling, drop
Willers et al., 1999 [66] Cotton Multispectral Tarnished plant bug
cloth sampling
Lobits et al., 1997 [67] Grape Multispectral Grape phylloxera Root digging
Arthropod counts sooty
Hart and Meyers, 1968 [68] Citrus Multispectral Brown soft scale
mold assessments
Visual inspections sooty
Everitt et al., 1994 [69] Citrus Multispectral Citrus blackfly
mold assessments
Visual inspections sooty
Everitt et al., 1996 [70] Cotton Multispectral Silverleaf whitefly
mold assessments
Arthropod counts sooty
Hart et al., 1973 [71] Citrus Multispectral Citrus blackfly
mold assessments

Remote sensing data is used for studying the infestations of pests and insects in
agricultural fields efficiently. In winter wheat (Triticumaestivum) fields in Kansas, USA,
the association between Hessian fly (Mayetiola destructor) infestation and normalized
difference vegetation index (NDVI) is evaluated using aircraft data and multispectral
satellite. In each field, Hessian fly infestation was surveyed with multiple sampling points
in a uniform grid fashion. The results have proven an increase in pest infestation with
decreased NDVI in both aircraft and satellite data. NDVI satellite data performed better
than NDVI aircraft data in pest infestation fields. The results show that remote sensing
technology data can be used for monitoring the health of wheat plants and areas of poor
growth [50]. Infestations of pests and insects in the agriculture field are not uniform and
can proliferate in intensity and size. Remote sensing with multispectral data is used for
assessing the sorghum fields for the infestations by sugarcane aphids. The difference in the
normalized differenced vegetation index (NDVI) with bi-temporal images and analysis of
changes in the image captured is efficient for assessing the infestation of temporal changes
in the sorghum field by the sugarcane aphids. Experimentation on comparing changes in
the field and distribution categories concerning normalized differenced vegetation index
(NDVI) image classification from the sorghum field with infested sugarcane aphid, an
essential technique for assessing the infestations of temporal changes by sugarcane aphids
Energies 2022, 15, 217 12 of 19

in sorghum fields [72] Comparing orbital based remote sensing technologies presented
in Table 5.

Table 5. Orbital (Satellite) based remote sensing.

Parameters
References Crop Name
Camera Pest Name Observations
MarianAdan et al., 2021 [73] avocado Multispectral Persea mite Visual Inspections
Michael Gomez Selvaraj et al., RGB,
Banana Yellow sigatoka Visual Inspections
2020 [74] Multispectral
Bhattarai et al., 2019 [50] Wheat Multispectral Hessian fly Arthropod counts
Ma et al., 2019 [23] Wheat Multispectral Wheat aphid Arthropod counts
Abdel-Rahman et al., 2017 [75] Corn Multispectral Stem borer Arthropod counts
Zhang et al., 2016 [76] Corn Multispectral Oriental armyworm Damage assess-counts
Lestina et al., 2016 [77] Wheat Multispectral Wheat stem sawfly Arthropod counts
Arthropod counts damage
Luo et al., 2014 [78] Wheat Multispectral Wheat aphid
assessments
Huang et al., 2011 [79] Wheat Multispectral Aphid Arthropod counts
Reisig and Godfrey, 2010 [59] Cotton Multispectral Cotton aphid Arthropod counts
Reisig and Godfrey, 2006 [63] Cotton Multispectral Spider mite Arthropod counts

Remote sensing tools coupled with Machine Learning have a lead role in monitoring
the crop and surveillance of pests. Early warning systems use remote sensing applications
to classify crops and pest-affected areas that provide accurate and cost-effective data
at different agricultural fields with proper spatial, temporal, and spectral resolutions.
However, monitoring more significant landscapes is challenging, therefore combining high-
resolution UAV satellite images of data through efficient machine learning (ML) models
and advanced mobile applications, which helps detect the disease-affected part.
The hybrid model system is developed by combining a custom classifier and object
detection model (RetinaNet) for disease classification and banana localization; we have
used RGB-UAV aerial images from the Republic of Benin and DR Congo fields. This
result proves better accuracy under different testing with performance metrics and reveals
that RGB-UAV mixed model successfully classifies the object classification and detection
among healthy and diseased crops with 99.4% accuracy. Thus, this approach provides high
potential support systems for making major banana diseases in Africa [76].
Monitoring the pests and diseases makes vital in providing treatment practically
in affected regions. The accuracy level of the crops affected by insects and pests gets
improved when the environmental parameters are coupled with the vegetation index.
Furthermore, similar symptoms can be identified for different pests and diseases in crop
growth. Therefore, the information of growth period helps obtain the changes incurred in
the crop concerning infection of insects and pests. An approach is developed by integrat-
ing environmental parameters and crop growth, experimenting with image performance
classification effects, and discriminating the crops affected by the pests and diseases with
Landsat-8 satellite images (Bi-Temporal).
The integrated model with environmental factors and temporal growth indices proved
with good results of 82.6% accuracy. In addition, it performed better in discriminating
damages using Landsat-8 satellite images in winter wheat crops. Further, to enhance the
accuracy level of the advancement models by integrating multi-temporal remotely sensed
data with multisource, which provides a detailed spatial crop pest and disease distribution
to meet the current requirements of precision agriculture [23] Comparing ground based
remote sensing technologies presented in Table 6.
Energies 2022, 15, 217 13 of 19

Table 6. Ground based Remote Sensing.

Parameters
References Crop Name
Camera Pest Name Observations
MaríaGyomar Gonzalez-Gonzalez visual inspection of the
Citrus Hyperspectral Tetranychus urticae
et al., 2021 [80] leaves
Banks grassmite
Martin and Latheef 2019 [81] Corn Multispectral Damage assessments
spotted spidermite
Alves et al., 2019, 2013 [82,83] Soyabean Hyperspectral Soybean aphid Arthropod counts
Multispectral, Beet
Samuel Joall and et al., 2018 [43] Sugar Beet Visual Images
Hyperspectral Cyst Nematode
Controlled
Martin and Latheef, 2018 [84] Pinto bean Multispectral Two-spotted spider
infestations
Fan et al., 2017 [85] Rice Hyperspectral Striped stem borer Damage assessments
Two spotted spider
Herrmann et al., 2017 [86] Bean Hyperspectral Damage assessments
mite
Abdel-Rahman et al., 2013, 2010, Arthropod counts, Damage
Sugarcane Hyperspectral Sugarcane thrips
2009 [87–89] assessments
Mirik et al., 2012 [90] Wheat Multispectral Russian wheat aphid Visual inspections
Zhang et al., 2008 [91], Luedeling Arthropod counts, Damage
Peach Hyperspectral Spider mite
et al., 2009 [92] assessments
Two spotted spider
Fraulo et al., 2009 [93] Strawberry Hyperspectral Arthropod counts
mite
Li et al., 2008 [94] Sorghum Hyperspectral Corn leaf aphid Arthropod counts,
Xu et al., 2007 [95] Tomato Hyperspectral Leaf miner Damage assessments
Soya Bean Cyst
F. W. Nutter Jr. et al., 2002 [65] Soya Bean Multispectral Visual inspection of images
Nematode
Everitt et al., 1996 [70] Cotton Multispectral Silverleaf whitefly Visual inspections
Peñuelas et al., 1995 [96] Apple Hyperspectral European red mite Arthropod counts

Using spectral sensors with infrared range and 50 nm sensor bandwidth in soy-
bean fields, a cumulative abundance of A. glycines could be effectively quantified. A.
glycines on soybean are detected by simulating ground-based hyperspectral data with
multispectral sensors. This approach reduces the complexity and cost while compared with
counts of manual aphids with potential scouting of pests in soybean and crop production
systems [82].
For the last few decades, most agriculture fields are using RS technologies for precision
agriculture with different applications such as crop monitoring, Prediction of Yields, and
Pest Management. Further, these techniques are also used for plant stress and nutritional
deficiencies. RS technologies can detect pests and insects successfully in a wide variety of
crops and fields. The average usage of different types of RS Platforms is shown in Figure 10.
Precision Accuracy is more important in the economic development of the agriculture field,
and the accuracy yields to monitor the crop infected by the pest and quality of the crop
properly. Further, the precision accuracy rate in the agriculture field by RS technologies is
shown in Figure 11.
Energies 2022, 15, 217 14 of 19

Figure 10. Average usage of RS platforms.

Figure 11. Precision accuracy rate.

5. Economic Benefits of UAV Technologies

The UAV based remote sensing technology helps the farmers in the agricultural
fields for gaining more productivity globally. There will be certain regions like South and
Southeast Asia, Western and Central Europe, Central America and the Caribbean, and
Southern Africa can be adapted with these kinds of new technologies without major human
adaptations to increase productivity for a sustainable growing population.
There are more economic benefits for the society that could be derived from the remote
sensing technology and unmanned aerial vehicle. Especially for developing countries like
India and African countries, the usage of UAV leads to reduction in damage of crops and
increase yields. If farmers can be encouraged to use this technology on the commercial
side, it will eventually help them to increase the production of crops. Once the farmers are
producing crops on a larger scale, it will help them to export the agricultural products to
other continents. This will balance the problems in the economy of developing countries
through an increase in export and reduction in import of agricultural produce to some
extent. Moreover, it will gradually help increase employment which will reduce poverty
and improve the standard of living for people.

6. Conclusions
Unmanned aerial vehicle in precision agriculture has critical challenges which are
described as payload, Sensors used in the UAV, cost of UAV, flight duration, data analytics,
environmental conditions, and requirements. Cost is the main challenge for UAV use, which
is added with various needed sensors, mounting parts, technology-based applications, and
the software needed for data analytics. Nowadays, commercial companies offer services
Energies 2022, 15, 217 15 of 19

for renting out the various UAVs with all needed remote sensing devices. Data analytics is
also a vital challenge to attain results at a periodic interval of time once the data have been
collected from the various sensors mounted on the UAVs. It creates numerous terabytes of
data stored, processed, and analyzed adequately with the appropriate software. Similarly, it
is hard to develop a UAV that can detect both hotspots of the pest and the solutions applied
for them since payload and flight duration are limited for UAV use in fields. Weather
conditions such as rain, snowfall, clouds, and fog are another factor that limits the UAV
activities and the sensing process. The farmers can easily adapt to this technology that is
compatible with their agriculture requirements and cost-effective solutions.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, P.V., S.R. and R.K.M.; methodology, M.S. and J.-G.C.;
software, S.R. and S.N.; validation, P.V., M.S. and J.-G.C.; investigation, M.S. and J.-G.C.; resources,
S.R., R.K.M. and S.N.; data curation, P.V., M.S. and J.-G.C.; writing—original draft preparation, P.V.;
writing—review and editing, P.V., M.S. and J.-G.C.; visualization, S.R. and R.K.M.; supervision, S.R.
and R.K.M.; project administration, M.S. and R.K.M.; funding acquisition, J.-G.C. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research
Foundation (NRF) of Korea funded by the Ministry of Education under Grant 2018R1D1A1B07048948.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The authors declare that they have no
known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.

References
1. Colomina, I. Unmanned aerial systems for photo grammetry and remote sensing: Areview. ISPRS J. Photo Grammetry Remote Sens.
2014, 92, 79–97. [CrossRef]
2. Everaerts, J. The use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for remote sensing and mapping. The International Archives of the
Photo grammetry. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2008, 37, 1187–1192.
3. Natu, A.S.; Kulkarni, S.C. Adoption and Utilization of Drones for Advanced Precision Farming: A Review. Int. J. Recent Innov.
Trends Comput. Commun. 2016, 4, 563–565.
4. Zhang, C.; Kovacs, J.M. The application of small unmanned aerial systems for precision agriculture: A review. In Precision
Agriculture; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; Volume 13, pp. 693–712.
5. Zhang, H.L.; Tian, W.T.; Yin, J. A Review of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Low-Altitude Remote Sensing (UAV-LARS) Use in
Agricultural Monitoring in China. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 1221. [CrossRef]
6. Farooq, M.S.; Riaz, S.; Abid, A.; Abid, K.; Naeem, M.A. A Survey on the Role of IoT in Agriculture for the Implementation of
Smart Farming. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 156237–156271. [CrossRef]
7. Swain, M.; Zimon, D.; Singh, R.; Hashmi, M.F.; Rashid, M.; Hakak, S. LoRa-LBO: An Experimental Analysis of LoRa Link Budget
Optimization in Custom Build IoT Test Bed for Agriculture 4.0. Agronomy 2021, 11, 820. [CrossRef]
8. Delavarpour, N.; Cengiz, K.; Nowatzki, N.; Bajwa, S.; Sun, X. A Technical Study on UAV Characteristics for Precision Agriculture
Applications and Associated Practical Challenges. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 1204. [CrossRef]
9. Rahman, M.F.F.; Fan, S.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, L. A Comparative Study on Application of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Systems in
Agriculture. Agriculture 2021, 11, 22. [CrossRef]
10. Islam, N.; Rashid, M.M.; Pasandideh, F.; Ray, B.; Moore, S.; Kadel, R. A Review of Applications and Communication Technologies
for Internet of Things (IoT) and Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) based Sustainable Smart Farming. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1821.
[CrossRef]
11. Ziliani, m.; Parkes, s.; Hoteit, I.; McCabe, M. Intra-Season Crop Height Variability at Commercial Farm Scales Using a Fixed-Wing
UAV. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 2007. [CrossRef]
12. Xinyu, X.; Lan, Y.; Sun, Z.; Chang, C.; Hoffmann, W.C. Develop an unmanned aerial vehicle based automatic aerial spraying
system. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2016, 128, 58–66.
13. McArthur, D.R.; Chowdhury, A.B.; Cappelleri, D.J. Design of the interacting-boomcopter unmanned aerial vehicle for remote
sensor mounting. J. Mech. Robot. 2018, 10, 025001. [CrossRef]
14. Sharma, R. Review on Application of Drone Systems in Precision Agriculture. J. Adv. Res. Electron. Eng. Technol. 2021, 7, 520137.
15. Yallappa, D.; Veerangouda, M.; Maski, D.; Palled, V.; Bheemanna, M. Development and evaluation of drone mounted sprayer for
pesticide applications to crops. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC), San Jose,
CA, USA, 19–22 October 2017; pp. 1–7.
Energies 2022, 15, 217 16 of 19

16. Qing, T.; Zhang, R.; Chen, L.; Min, X.; Tongchuan, Y.; Bin, Z. Droplets movement and deposition of an eight-rotor agricultural
UAV in downwash flow field. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2017, 10, 47–56.
17. Bhoi, S.K.; Kumar Jena, K.; Kumar Panda, S.; Long, H.V.; Kumar, P.R.; Bin Jebreen, S.H. An Internet of Things assisted Unmanned
Aerial Vehicle based artificial intelligence model for rice pest detection. Microprocess. Microsyst. 2021, 80, 103607. [CrossRef]
18. Wu, B.; Liang, A.; Zhang, H.; Zhu, T.; Zou, Z.; Yang, D.; Tang, W.; Li, J.; Su, J. Application of conventional UAV-based high-
throughput object detection to the early diagnosis of pine wilt disease by deep learning. For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 486, 118986.
[CrossRef]
19. Ishengoma, F.S.; Rai, I.A.; Said, R.N. Identification of maize leaves infected by fall armyworms using UAV-based imagery and
convolutional neural networks. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2021, 184, 106124. [CrossRef]
20. Saito Moriya, É.A.; Imai, N.N.; Tommaselli, A.M.G.; Berveglieri, A.; Santos, G.H.; Soares, M.A.; Marino, M.; Reis, T.T. Detection
and mapping of trees infected with citrus gummosis using UAV hyperspectral data. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2021, 188, 106298.
[CrossRef]
21. An, G.; Xing, M.; He, B.; Kang, H.; Shang, J.; Liao, C.; Huang, X.; Zhang, H. Extraction of Areas of Rice False Smut Infection Using
UAV Hyperspectral Data. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 3185. [CrossRef]
22. Nguyen, C.; Sagan, V.; Maimaitiyiming, M.; Maimaitijiang, M.; Bhadra, S.; Kwasniewski, M.T. Early Detection of Plant Viral
Disease Using Hyperspectral Imaging and Deep Learning. Sensors 2021, 21, 742. [CrossRef]
23. Ma, H.; Huang, W.; Jing, Y.; Yang, C.; Han, L.; Dong, Y.; Ye, H.; Shi, Y.; Zheng, Q.; Liu, L.; et al. Integrating growth and
environmental parameters to discriminate powdery mildew and aphid of winter wheat using bi-temporal Landsat-8 imagery.
Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 846. [CrossRef]
24. Qin, J.; Wang, B.; Wu, Y.; Lu, Q.; Zhu, H. Identifying Pine Wood Nematode Disease Using UAV Images and Deep Learning
Algorithms. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 162. [CrossRef]
25. Xiao, Y.; Dong, Y.; Huang, W.; Liu, L.; Ma, H. Wheat Fusarium Head Blight Detection Using UAV-Based Spectral and Texture
Features in Optimal Window Size. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 2437. [CrossRef]
26. Guo, A.; Huang, W.; Dong, Y.; Ye, H.; Ma, H.; Liu, B.; Wu, W.; Ren, Y.; Ruan, C.; Geng, Y. Wheat Yellow Rust Detection Using
UAV-Based Hyperspectral Technology. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 123. [CrossRef]
27. Castrignanò, A.; Belmonte, A.; Antelmi, I.; Quarto, R.; Quarto, F.; Shaddad, S.; Sion, V.; Muolo, M.R.; Ranieri, N.A.; Gadaleta, G.; et al. A
geostatistical fusion approach using UAV data for probabilistic estimation of Xylella fastidiosa subsp. pauca infection in olive
trees. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 752, 141814. [CrossRef]
28. Francesconi, S.; Harfouche, A.; Maesano, M.; Balestra, G.M. UAV-Based Thermal, RGB Imaging and Gene Expression Analysis
Allowed Detection of Fusarium Head Blight and Gave New Insights into the Physiological Responses to the Disease in Durum
Wheat. Front. Plant. Sci. 2021, 12, 628575. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29. Yadav, S.; Sengar, N.; Singh, A.; Singh, A.; Dutta, M.K. Identification of disease using deep learning and evaluation of bacteriosis
in peach leaf. Ecol. Inform. 2021, 61, 101247. [CrossRef]
30. Görlich, F.; Marks, E.; Mahlein, A.-K.; König, K.; Lottes, P.; Stachniss, C. UAV-Based Classification of Cercospora Leaf Spot Using
RGB Images. Drones 2021, 5, 34. [CrossRef]
31. Yu, R.; Ren, L.; Luo, Y. Early detection of pine wilt disease in Pinus tabuliformis in North China using a field portable spectrometer
and UAV-based hyperspectral imagery. For. Ecosyst. 2021, 8, 40. [CrossRef]
32. Yu, R.; Luo, Y.; Zhou, Q.; Zhang, X.; Wu, D.; Ren, L. Early detection of pine wilt disease using deep learning algorithms and
UAV-based multispectral imagery. For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 497, 119493. [CrossRef]
33. Chivasa, W.; Mutanga, O.; Burgueño, J. UAV-based high-throughput phenotyping to increase prediction and selection accuracy in
maize varieties under artificial MSV inoculation. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2021, 184, 106128. [CrossRef]
34. Fitzgerald, J.G.; Maas, S.J.; Detar, W.R. Spider mite detection and canopy component mapping in cotton using hyperspectral
imagery and spectral mixture analysis. Precis. Agric. 2004, 5, 275–289. [CrossRef]
35. Gao, J.; Westergaard, J.C.; Sundmark, E.H.R.; Bagge, M.; Liljeroth, E.; Alexandersson, E. Automatic late blight lesion recognition
and severity quantification based on field imagery of diverse potato genotypes by deep learning. Knowl. Based Syst. 2014,
214, 106723. [CrossRef]
36. Deng, X.; Zhu, Z.; Yang, J.; Zheng, Z.; Huang, Z.; Yin, X.; Wei, S.; Lan, Y. Detection of Citrus Huanglongbing Based on Multi-Input
Neural Network Model of UAV Hyperspectral Remote Sensing. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 2678. [CrossRef]
37. Tetila, E.C.; Machado, B.B.; Astolfi, G.; Belete, N.A.D.; Amorim, W.P.; Roel, A.R.; Pistori, H. Detection and classification of soybean
pests using deep learning with UAV images. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2020, 179, 105836. [CrossRef]
38. Calou, V.C.; Teixeira, A.d.S.; Moreira, L.C.; Lima, C.S.; de Oliveira, J.; de Oliveira, M. The use of UAVs in monitoring yellow
sigatoka in banana. Biosyst. Eng. 2020, 193, 115–125. [CrossRef]
39. Del-Campo-Sanchez, A.; Ballesteros, R.; Hernandez-Lopez, D.; Ortega, J.F.; Moreno, M.A. Agroforestry and Cartography Precision
Research Group. Quantifying the effect of Jacobiascalybica pest on vineyards with UAVs by combining geometric and computer
vision technique. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0215521. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Abdulridha, J.; OzgurandAmpatzidis, B.J. UAV-Based Remote Sensing Technique to Detect Citrus Canker Disease Utilizing
Hyperspectral Imaging and Machine Learning. Remote Sens. 2013, 11, 1373. [CrossRef]
41. Vanegas, F.; Bratanov, D.; Powell, K.; Weiss, J.; Gonzalez, F. A novel methodology for improving plant pest surveillance in
vineyards and crops using UAV-based hyperspectral and spatial data. Sensors 2018, 18, 260. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Energies 2022, 15, 217 17 of 19

42. Huang, H.; Deng, J.; Lan, Y.; Yang, A.; Deng, X.; Zhang, L.; Wen, S.; Jiang, Y.; Suo, G.; Chen, P. A two-stage classification approach
for the detection of spider mite-infested cotton using UAV multispectral imagery. Remote Sens. Lett. 2018, 9, 933–941. [CrossRef]
43. Joalland, S.; Screpanti, C.; Varella, H.V.; Reuther, M.; Schwind, M.; Lang, C.; Liebisch, A.W.F. Aerial and Ground Based Sensing of
Tolerance to BeetCyst Nematode in Sugar Beet. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 787. [CrossRef]
44. Hunt, J.E.R.; Rondon, S.I. Detection of potato beetle damage using remote sensing from small unmanned aircraft systems. J. Appl.
Remote Sens. 2017, 11, 026013. [CrossRef]
45. Stanton, C.; Starek, M.J.; Elliott, N.; Brewer, M.; Maeda, M.M.; Chu, T. Unmanned aircraft system-derived crop height and
normalized difference vegetation index metrics for sorghum yield and aphid stress assessment. J. Appl. Remote Sens. 2017,
1, 026035. [CrossRef]
46. Severtson, D.; Callow, N.; Flower, K.; Neuhaus, A.; Olejnik, M.; Nansen, C. Unmanned aerial vehicle canopy reflectance data
detects potassium deficiency and green peach aphid susceptibility in canola. Precis. Agric. 2016, 17, 659–677. [CrossRef]
47. Nebiker, S.; Lack, N.; Abächerli, M.; Läderach, S. Light-weight multispectral UAV sensors and their capabilities for predicting
grain yield and detecting plant diseases. ISPRS Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci 2016, XLI-B1, 963–970. [CrossRef]
48. Li, X.; Giles, D.K.; Andaloro, J.T.; Long, R.; Lang, E.B.; Watson, L.J.; Qandah, I. Comparison of UAV and Fixed-Wing Aerial
Application for Alfalfa Insect Pest Control: Evaluating Efficacy, Residues, and Spray Quality. Pest. Manag. Sci. 2021, 77, 4980–4992.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
49. Bhattarai, G.P.; Schmid, R.B.; McCornack, B.P. Remote sensing data to detect hessian fly infestation in commercial wheat fields.
Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 6109.
50. Backoulou, F.G.; Elliott, N.; Giles, K.; Alves, T.; Brewer, M.; Starek, M. Using multispectral imagery to map spatially variable
sugarcane aphid infestations in sorghum. Southwest. Entomol. 2018, 43, 37–44. [CrossRef]
51. Backoulou, F.G.; Elliott, K.L.; Brewer, G.M.J.; Starek, M. Detecting change in a sorghum field infested by sugarcane aphid.
Southwest. Entomol. 2018, 43, 823–832. [CrossRef]
52. Backoulou, F.G.; Elliott, N.C.; Giles, K.L. Using multispectral imagery to compare the spatial pattern of injury to wheat caused by
Russian wheat aphid and greenbug. Southwest. Entomol. 2016, 41, 1–8. [CrossRef]
53. Elliott, C.N.; Backoulou, G.F.; Brewer, M.J.; Giles, K.L. NDVI to detect sugarcane aphid injury to grain sorghum. J. Econ. Entomol.
2015, 108, 1452–1455. [CrossRef]
54. Backoulou, F.G.; Elliott, N.C.; Giles, K.; Phoofolo, M.; Catana, V. Development of a method using multispectral imagery and
spatial pattern metrics to quantify stress to wheat fields caused by Diuraphisnoxia. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2011, 75, 64–70.
[CrossRef]
55. Backoulou, F.G.; Elliott, K.L.; Giles Rao, M.N. Differentiating stress to wheat fields induced by Diuraphisnoxia from other stress
causing factors. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2013, 90, 47–53. [CrossRef]
56. Backoulou, F.G.; Elliott, N.C.; Giles, K.L.; Mirik, M. Processed multispectral imagery differentiates wheat crop stress caused by
greenbug from other causes. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2015, 115, 34–39. [CrossRef]
57. Mirik, M.; Ansley, R.J.; Steddom, K.; Rush, C.M.; Michels, G.J.; Workneh, F.; Cui, S.; Elliott, N.C. High spectral and spatial
resolution hyperspectral imagery for quantifying Russian wheat aphid infestation in wheat using the constrained energy
minimization classifier. J. Appl. Remote Sens. 2014, 8, 083661. [CrossRef]
58. Reisig, D.D.; Godfrey, L.D. Remotely sensing arthropod and nutrient stressed plants: A case study with nitrogen and cotton
aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Environ. Entomol. 2010, 39, 1255–1263. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59. Elliott, N.; Mirik, M.; Yang, Z.; Jones, D.; Phoofolo, M.; Catana, V.; Giles, K.; Michels, G.J. Airborne remote sensing to detect
greenbug stress to wheat. Southwest. Entomol. 2009, 34, 205–221. [CrossRef]
60. Carroll, W.M.; Glaser, J.A.; Hellmich, R.L.; Hunt, T.E.; Sappington, T.W.; Calvin, D.; Copenhaver, K.; Fridgen, J. Use of spectral
vegetation indices derived from airborne hyperspectral imagery for detection of European corn borer infestation in Iowa corn
plots. J. Econ. Entomol. 2008, 101, 1614–1623. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
61. Elliott, C.N.; Mirik, M.; Yang, Z.; Dvorak, T.; Rao, M.; Michels, J.; Walker, T.; Catana, V.; Phoofolo, M.; Giles, K.L.; et al. Airborne
multispectral remote sensing of Russian wheat aphid injury to wheat. Southwest. Entomol. 2007, 32, 213–219. [CrossRef]
62. Reisig, D.; Godfrey, L. Remote sensing for detection of cotton aphid- (Homoptera: Aphididae) and spider mite- (Acari: Tetrany-
chidae) infested cotton in the San Joaquin Valley. Environ. Entomol. 2006, 35, 1635–1646. [CrossRef]
63. Willers, J.L.; Jenkins, J.N.; Ladner, W.L.; Gerard, P.D.; Boykin, D.L.; Hood, K.B.; McKibben, P.L.; Samson, S.A.; Bethel, M.M.
Site-specific approaches to cotton insect control. Sampling and remote sensing analysis techniques. Precis. Agric. 2005, 6, 431–445.
[CrossRef]
64. Sudbrink, D.; Harris, F.; Robbins, J.; English, P.; Willers, J. Evaluation of remote sensing to identify variability in cotton plant
growth and correlation with larval densities of beet armyworm and cabbage looper (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Fla. Entomol. 2003,
86, 290–294. [CrossRef]
65. Nutter, F.W., Jr.; Tylka, G.L.; Guan, J.; Moreira, A.J.D.; Marett, C.C.; Rosburg, T.R.; Basart, J.P.; Chong, C.S. Use of Remote Sensing
to Detect Soybean Cyst Nematode-Induced Plant Stress. J. Nematol. 2002, 34, 222–231. [PubMed]
66. Willers, L.J.; Seal, M.R.; Luttrell, R.G. Remote sensing, lineintercept sampling for tarnished plant bugs (Heteroptera: Miridae) in
midsouth cotton. J. Cotton Sci. 1999, 3, 160–170.
67. Lobits, B.; Johnson, L.; Hlavka, C.; Armstrong, R.; Bell, C. Grapevine remote sensing analysis of phylloxera early stress (GRAPES):
Remote sensing analysis summary. NASA Tech. Memo. 1997, 112218.
Energies 2022, 15, 217 18 of 19

68. Hart, W.G.; Meyers, V.I. Infrared aerial color photography for detection of populations of brown soft scale in citrus groves. J. Econ.
Entomol. 1968, 61, 617–624. [CrossRef]
69. Everitt, J.; Escobar, D.; Summy, K.; Davis, M. Using airborne video, global positioning system, and geographical information
system technologies for detecting and mapping citrus blackfly infestations. Southwest. Entomol. 1994, 19, 129–138.
70. Everitt, J.; Escobar, D.; Summy, K.; Alaniz, M.; Davis, M. Using spatial information technologies for detecting and mapping
whitefly and harvester ant infestations in south Texas. Southwest. Entomol. 1996, 21, 421–432.
71. Hart, G.W.; Ingle, S.J.; Davis, M.R.; Mangum, C. Aerial photography with infrared color film as a method of surveying for citrus
blackfly. J. Econ. Entomol. 1973, 66, 190–194. [CrossRef]
72. Backoulou, F.G.; Elliott, N.C.; Giles, K.; Phoofolo, M.; Catana, V.; Mirik, M.; Michels, J. Spatially discriminating Russian wheat
aphid induced plant stress from other wheat stressing factors. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2011, 78, 123–129. [CrossRef]
73. Adan, M.; Abdel-Rahman, E.M.; Gachoki, S.; Muriithi, H.B.W.; Lattorff, M.G.; Kerubo, V.; Landmann, T.; Mohamed, S.A.;
Tonnang, H.E.Z.; Dubois, T. Use of earth observation satellite data to guide the implementation of integrated pest and pollinator
management (IPPM) technologies in an avocado production system. Remote Sens. Appl. Soc. Environ. 2021, 23, 100566. [CrossRef]
74. Selvaraj, M.G.; Vergara, A.; Montenegro, F.; Ruiz, H.A.; Safari, N.; Raymaekers, D.; Ocimati, W.; Ntamwira, J.; Tits, L.; Blomme, G.
Detection of banana plants and their major diseases through aerial images and machine learning methods: A case study in DR
Congo and Republic of Benin. J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2020, 169, 110–124. [CrossRef]
75. Abdel-Rahman, M.E.; Landmann, T.; Kyalo, R.; Ong’amo, G.; Mwalusepo, S.; Sulieman, S.; LeRu, B. Predicting stem borer density
in maize using RapidEye data and generalized linear models. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2017, 57, 61–74. [CrossRef]
76. Zhang, J.; Huang, Y.; Yuan, L.; Yang, G.; Chen, L.; Zhao, C. Using satellite multispectral imagery for damage mapping of
armyworm (Spodopterafrugiperda) in maize at a regional scale. Pest. Manag. Sci. 2016, 72, 335–348. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
77. Lestina, J.; Cook, M.; Kumar, S.; Morisette, J.; Ode, P.J.; Peairs, F. MODIS imagery improves pest risk assessment: A case study of
wheat stem sawfly (Cephuscinctus, Hymenoptera: Cephidae) in Colorado, USA. Environ. Entomol. 2016, 45, 1343–1351. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
78. Luo, J.; Huang, W.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, J.; Ma, R.; Huang, M. Predicting the probability of wheat aphid occurrence using satellite
remote sensing and meteorological data. Optik 2014, 125, 5660–5665. [CrossRef]
79. Huang, W.; Luo, J.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, J.; Ma, Z. Predicting wheat aphid using 2-dimensional feature space based on multi-temporal Landsat
TM. In IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2011; Volume 24–29, pp. 1830–1833.
80. Gonzalez-Gonzalez, M.; Blasco, J.; Cubero, S.; Chueca, P. Automated Detection of TetranychusurticaeKoch in Citrus Leaves Based
on Colour and VIS/NIR Hyperspectral Imaging. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1002. [CrossRef]
81. Martin, D.E.; Latheef, M.A. Aerial application methods control spider mites on corn in Kansas, USA. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2019,
77, 571–582. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
82. Alves, M.T.; Moon, R.D.; MacRae, I.V.; Koch, R.L. Optimizing band selection for spectral detection of Aphis glycines Matsumura
in soybean. Pest. Manag. Sci. 2019, 75, 942–949. [CrossRef]
83. Alves, M.T.; Macrae, I.V.; Koch, R.L. Soybean aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae) affects soybean spectral reflectance. J. Econ. Entomol.
2013, 108, 2655–2664. [CrossRef]
84. Martin, D.E.; Latheef, M.A. Active optical sensor assessment of spider mite damage on greenhouse beans and cotton. Exp. Appl.
Acarol. 2018, 74, 147–158. [CrossRef]
85. Fan, Y.; Wang, T.; Qiu, Z.; Peng, J.; Zhang, C.; He, Y. Fast detection of striped stem-borer (Chilosuppressalis Walker) infested rice
seedling based on visible/near-infrared hyperspectral imaging system. Sensors 2017, 17, 2470. [CrossRef]
86. Herrmann, I.; Berenstein, M.; Paz-Kagan, T.; Sade, A.; Karnieli, A. Spectral assessment of two-spotted spider mite damage levels
in the leaves of greenhouse-grown pepper and bean. Biosyst. Eng. 2017, 157, 72–85. [CrossRef]
87. Abdel-Rahman, M.E.; VandenBerg, M.; Way, M.J.; Ahmed, F.B. Hand-held spectrometry for estimating thrips (Fulmekiolaserrata)
incidence in sugarcane. In IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2019;
Volume 12–17, pp. 268–271.
88. Abdel-Rahman, M.E.; Ahmed, F.B.; vandenBerg, M.; Way, M.J. Potential of spectroscopic data sets for sugarcane thrips (Fulmekio-
laserrataKobus) damage detection. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2010, 31, 4199–4216. [CrossRef]
89. Abdel-Rahman, M.E.; Way, M.; Ahmed, F.; Ismail, R.; Adam, E. Estimation of thrips (FulmekiolaserrataKobus) density in
sugarcane using leaf-level hyperspectral data. S. Afr. J. Plant. Soil 2013, 30, 91–96. [CrossRef]
90. Mirik, M.; Ansley, R.; Michels, G.; Elliott, N. Spectral vegetation indices selected for quantifying Russian wheat aphid (Diuraphis-
noxia) feeding damage in wheat (Triticumaestivum L.). Precis. Agric. 2012, 13, 501–516. [CrossRef]
91. Zhang, M.; Hale, A.; Luedeling, E. Feasibility of using remote sensing techniques to detect spider mite damage in stone fruit
orchards. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, Boston, MA, USA, 6–11 July
2008; Volume 7–11, pp. I323–I326.
92. Luedeling, E.; Hale, A.; Zhang, M.; Bentley, W.J.; Dharmasri, L.C. Remote sensing of spider mite damage in California peach
orchards. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2009, 11, 244–255. [CrossRef]
93. Fraulo, B.A.; Cohen, M.; Liburd, O.E. Visible/near infrared reflectance (VNIR) spectroscopy for detecting twospotted spider mite
(Acari: Tetranychidae) damage in strawberries. Environ. Entomol 2009, 38, 137–142. [CrossRef]
94. Li, H.; Payne, W.A.; Michels, G.J.; Rush, C.M. Reducing plant abiotic and biotic stress: Drought and attacks of greenbugs, corn
leaf aphids and virus disease in dryland sorghum. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2008, 63, 305–316. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 217 19 of 19

95. Xu, H.; Ying, Y.; Fu, X.; Zhu, S. Near-infrared spectroscopy in detecting leaf miner damage on tomato leaf. Biosyst. Eng. 2007,
96, 447–454. [CrossRef]
96. Peñuelas, J.; Filella, I.; Lloret, P.; Munoz, F.; Vilajeliu, M. Reflectance assessment of mite effects on apple trees. Int. J. Remote Sens.
1995, 16, 2727–2733. [CrossRef]