Skip to main content

Drone and sensor technology for sustainable weed management: a review

Abstract

Weeds are amongst the most impacting abiotic factors in agriculture, causing important yield loss worldwide. Integrated Weed Management coupled with the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (drones), allows for Site-Specific Weed Management, which is a highly efficient methodology as well as beneficial to the environment. The identification of weed patches in a cultivated field can be achieved by combining image acquisition by drones and further processing by machine learning techniques. Specific algorithms can be trained to manage weeds removal by Autonomous Weeding Robot systems via herbicide spray or mechanical procedures. However, scientific and technical understanding of the specific goals and available technology is necessary to rapidly advance in this field. In this review, we provide an overview of precision weed control with a focus on the potential and practical use of the most advanced sensors available in the market. Much effort is needed to fully understand weed population dynamics and their competition with crops so as to implement this approach in real agricultural contexts.

Introduction

Biotic threats such as insects, weeds, fungi, viruses, and bacteria can broadly affect crop yield and quality. Among these, weeds are the most impacting problem causing remarkable yield loss worldwide [1]. The most characterized effect of weeds is competition for resources such as light [2], water [3], space [4], and nutrients [5]. In addition, specific chemical signals and/or toxic molecules produced by weeds may interfere with a normal crop development [6]. A distinctive trait of wild species, including weeds, is their high physiological, morphological, and anatomical plasticity which makes them more tolerant than crop species to environmental stressors [7,8,9,10]. Moreover, weeds interact with other biological components of the environment, acting as refuge for plant pests such as insects, fungi, and bacteria that can harm close in crops [11,12,13]. For example, wild oats (Avena fatua L.) can harbor the etiological agents of the powdery mildew in crops such as wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), oats, and barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) [14]; altamisa (Parthenium hysterophorus L.) can be a secondary host of the common hairy caterpillar (Diacrisia obliqua Walk.) [15, 16]; Cyperus rotundus can host the root-knot Meloidogyne graminicola and, therefore, can contribute to their spreading in the field [17]. Finally, weed infestation may affect fresh and processed products quality such as beer, wine, forage [18, 19]. In this respect, weed residuals may cause accumulation of off-flavors products [20, 21], or in some cases, can make them harmful to humans and animals [22, 23]. Weeds may also contain high levels of allergens and/or toxic metabolites that, if ingested, can cause asthma, skin rash, and other reactions [24, 25].

Most weed research aims at developing strategies that can reduce the deleterious impact of the interspecific competition between crops and weeds and recent technological advances may further contribute to this scope, while improving the sustainability of weed control [26,27,28]. Worldwide, weed competition causes severe yield reduction in all major crops, such as wheat (23%), soybean (37%), rice (37%), maize (40%), cotton (36%), and potato (30%) [1]. Yearly, weeds cause 50% yield losses of corn and soybean productivity in North America. For corn, this equates to a loss of 148 million tons for an economical loss of over $26.7 billion [29]. In Australia, yield loss due to weeds accounts for 2.76 million tons of grain from different plants, including wheat, barley, oats, canola, sorghum, and pulses [30]. The annual global economic loss caused by weeds has been estimated to be more than $100 billion U.S. dollars [31], despite worldwide annual herbicide sales in the range of $25 billion [32]. In Europe, herbicides are the second most-sold pesticides. They accounted for 35% of all pesticide sales in 2018, overcoming insecticides and acaricides (Fig. 1) [33].

Fig. 1
figure1

Percentage (of total volume in kilograms) of pesticide sales by category in Europe in 2018 [33]

Weed management requires an integrated approach

In 2050, the world population will quadruplicate, reaching 9.15 billion people [34]. However, the predicted increase in food demand will be hardly met by the current production system [35]. Also, climate change will be an additional challenge for the human food supply in the near future [36]. Among all the processes affecting crop productivity, weed management will be one of the hardest challenges [37]. Mechanical and chemical weed control has disadvantages that probably will impede them to be effective for future weed management [38,39,40,41,42,43]. Mechanical methods are scarcely efficient, and herbicides have a high ecological impact. An approach that minimizes the drawbacks of mechanical and chemical weed control is Integrated Weed Management (IWM). IWM combines chemical, biological, mechanical, and/or crop management methods, and represents a model to improve the efficiency and sustainability of weed control [3, 44]. In contrast to traditional methods, IWM integrates several agro-ecological aspects such as the role of conservation tillage and crop rotation on weeds seed bank dynamics [10], the ability to forecast the critical period of weed interference and their competition with crops [45, 46], and the specific critical levels of crops/weeds interaction [47]. Therefore, an effective IWM must rely on a thorough knowledge of crop-weeds competition dynamics, which currently represents one of the most active research areas in weed science [48, 49].

New technologies for site-specific weed management

Precision agriculture relies on technologies that combine sensors, information systems, and informed management to optimize crop productivity and to reduce the environmental impact [50]. Nowadays, precision agriculture has a broad range of applications and it is employed in different agricultural contexts including pests control [51], fertilization, irrigation [52, 53], sowing [54] and harvesting [55]. Precision agriculture can be effectively applied to IWM also. In the last decade, precision agriculture has rapidly advanced because of technological innovations in the areas of sensors [56], computer hardware [57], nanotechnology [58], unmanned vehicles systems and robots [59] that may allow for specific identification of weeds that are present in the field [47]. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) are one of the most successful technologies applied in precision agriculture [60]. Unmanned Vehicles systems are mobile Aerial (UAV) or Terrestrial (UTV) platforms that provide numerous advantages for the execution and monitoring of farming activities [61]. UAVs can be highly valuable since they allow for Site-Specific Weed Management (SSWM) (Fig. 2). SSWM is an improved weed management approach for highly efficient and environmentally safe control of weed populations [28], enabling precise and continuous monitoring and mapping of weed infestation. SSWM consents to optimize weed treatments for each specific agronomical situation [62]. The combination of UAVs with advanced cameras and sensors, able to discern specific weeds [63], and GPS technologies, that provide geographical information for field mapping, can help in precisely monitoring large areas in a few minutes. Thanks to more accurate planning of weed management that can increase mechanical methods effectiveness and/or reduce herbicide spread [64], the potential agro-ecological and economic implications of SSWM are remarkable, yielding lower production costs, reducing the onset of weed resistance, improving biodiversity, and containing environmental impacts [65]. The application of UAVs to weed control can, therefore, contribute to improve the sustainability of future agricultural production systems that must comply with an increasing world population [34, 35].

Fig. 2
figure2

Site-specific weed management (SSWM) scheme realized by drones and its economical and agro-ecological implications

UAVs remote sensing techniques and sensors

UAVs have become a common tool in precision agriculture [66, 67]. Thanks to their affordability, user-friendliness and versatility, UAVs are often the primary choice for fast and precise in situ remote sensing or survey operations. Despite their versatility, these systems may be used for different purposes, depending on the sensors they carry on. Ongoing research is looking at the best solutions to integrate data collected from sensors on UAVs, ground sensors and other data sources for better management of punctual operations in the field, with a particular focus on smart agriculture and big data management [68, 69].

Although UAVs systems do not offer the same territorial coverage as satellites, they offer a spatial and temporal resolution that other systems do not [70, 71]. From an economic point of view, the use of drones requires the investment to buy a UAV system with at least a 0.1 cm/px resolution RGB camera, a trained pilot for flight management and post-processing software capabilities. The initial UAV investment is compensated by the repeatability of flights, which increases the frequency of datasets delivered, and the higher resolution compared to other systems [72, 73]. UAVs systems also have further advantages: (1) the possibility to collect easily deployable data in real time (excluding post-processing); (2) they can be used to survey areas with high level of hazard and/or difficult to reach; (3) they allow operators to collect data even with unfavorable weather conditions, such as in very cloudy or foggy days, under which satellite detection systems fail or produce very altered datasets [71]. The most important sensors available as payload are mainly categorized into three classes depending on the spectral length and number they can record:

  • RGB (Red, Green, Blue) or VIS (Visible) sensors

  • Multispectral sensors

  • Hyperspectral sensors

RGB/VIS sensors

The RGB or VIS sensors are the most common and largely available commercial cameras (Table 1). Their possible applications have been the focus of most research for years due to their potential and low-cost operational requirements [74, 75].

Table 1 RGB cameras and their main specifications

These sensors are used to calculate vegetation indices such as the Green/Red Vegetation Index (GRVI), Greenness Index (GI) and Excessive Greenness (ExG) with acceptable or high levels of accuracy [76, 77]. Also, RGB sensors have been increasingly used for machine learning techniques in object recognition, phenology, pathologies, and similar purposes. The typical workflow of processing RGB images from UAVs for remote sensing is: 1. pre-flight planning, 2. flight and image acquisition, 3. post-processing and indexes or dataset extrapolation [71]. Phase 1 is critical and essential to collect data of useful quality for the purpose. In the pre-flight planning phase, the parameters to consider are the definition of the study area, the flight altitude, site topography, weather forecast and local regulations for unmanned flights. In phase 2, it is recommended to keep the data flow sufficient to store data and to check if the acquisition platform can acquire the amount of data required. It could be possible to encounter I/O errors due to the inadequacy of the platform with consequent loss of information or abortion of the mission. In phase 3, for RGB sensors, there is no need to perform radiometric calibration, which is the case when using multispectral and hyperspectral sensors. RGB data can be used per se or to create a georeferenced orthomosaic. In this case, the individual images are rectified, georeferenced using GPS data and stitched together to form a single image (orthomosaic) covering the entire study area. Orthomosaics can be generated either with RGB values as they are or after calculating the desired vegetation indices [77]. If RGB images are to be used in machine learning algorithms, the workflow is different [78,79,80,81]. In this case, it is necessary to collect a large dataset of images for the training and testing of the algorithm [82]. This dataset may already be available from third-party sources, such as PlantVillage [83] or PlantDoc [84]. Alternatively, it can be created from scratch if the purpose of the research is not covered by existing datasets [85]. In this case, the acquisition, selection and processing of the images are critical, because the final dataset can affect both the training and the use of the neural network, with risks of producing biased results [86].

Multispectral sensors

The multispectral sensors are used for a wider range of calculations of vegetation indices as they can rely on a higher number of radiometric bands. A comparison of the most common multispectral sensors, specific for UAV systems, is shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Multispectral sensors and their main specifications

With multispectral sensors, the range of vegetation indices that can be monitored is considerably extended compared to those that can be calculated with only three RGB bands. Moreover, the workflow has minor variations. For these sensors, in phase 1, the radiometric calibration and atmospheric correction phases are strictly required. Many multispectral sensors, such as the Micasense RedEdge series or the Parrot Sequoia + , have downwelling irradiance sensors and a calibrated reflectance panel to address some of the requirements for radiometric calibration [87]. Due to a lower resolution of the sensors compared to RGB ones, a lower flight altitude and an adequate horizontal and vertical overlap of recorded images must be taken into account to obtain an adequate ground resolution for the surveyed objective and to avoid missing data [88]. In phase 2, having a higher number of radiometric bands to record, the dataflow will be higher so is critical to avoid I/O errors, missing data or mission failures [89]. Due to multi-lenses nature of the sensors in phase 3, the data collected suffer from the parallax problem. As a consequence, images have to be rectified, georeferenced and must be stacked to generate a single image with different radiometric levels, and calibrated with the downwelling irradiance sensors data acquired during the flight [90]. After this procedure, it is possible to generate a multispectral orthomosaic and then calculate the requested indexes [91]. Multispectral images are also used in machine learning applications [80, 85, 92] taking into account the multi-camera nature of sensors and the different bands recorded. Thanks to the availability of a higher number of radiometric bands, the machine learning algorithms can be extended to not-visible recognition such as early stage plant disease, field quality assessment, soil water content, and more [91].

Hyperspectral sensors

The hyperspectral sensors can record hundreds to thousands of narrow radiometric bands, usually in visible and infrared ranges. To deal with hyperspectral applications, the choice of number and radiometric range of bands is critical. Each band or combination of bands, being very narrow, can detect a specific field characteristic. Each hyperspectral sensor can detect only a certain number of bands, so the aim of survey must be very clear to choose the right sensor. Although hyperspectral sensors have decreased in price in recent years, they are still an important starting investment since they are much more expensive than RGB and multispectral sensors. In addition, they are heavier and bigger than other sensors, often making their use on UAV systems difficult and/or excessively onerous in terms of payload. Some of most used hyperspectral sensors in UAVs application and their main characteristics are shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Hyperspectral sensors and their main characteristics

In this case, the workflow for radiometric calibration is more complex compared to other sensors. Some calibration methods needed for these sensors are derived from manned aircraft hyperspectral platforms, based on artificial targets to assess data quality, to correct radiance, and to generate a high-quality reflectance data-cube [93]. In phase 1, the planning must also be carried out in time and not only in space because, in addition to the spectrometric resolution, hyperspectral sensors have a temporal resolution due to the different acquisition method. In phase 2, it should be considered that both images’ size and data flow are bigger than multispectral/RGB images. Moreover, these sensors may acquire a large amount of data, but the payload limitations of UAVs may not allow the transport of adequate file storage systems. Phase 3 for hyperspectral images is critical: quality assessment is one of the critical issues of hyperspectral data and some problems associated with the quality of the images have not been completely overcome. Among those, the stability of the sensor itself (due to the nature of UAV platforms) and the vibrations involved can comprise a good calibration of the sensor. Subsequently, on post-processed data, it is possible to calculate narrowband indices such as chlorophyll absorption ratio index (CARI), greenness index (GI), greenness vegetation index (GVI), modified chlorophyll absorption ratio index (MCARI), modified normalized difference vegetation index (MNDVI), simple ratio (SR), transformed chlorophyll absorption ratio index (TCARI), triangular vegetation index (TVI), modified vegetation stress ratio (MVSR), modified soil-adjusted vegetation index (MSAVI) and photochemical reflectance index (PRI) [94].

Applications of UAVs to weed management

UAVs are ideal to identify weed patches. The main advantages of UAVs compared to UTVs are the shorter monitoring/surveying time they require and optimal control in the presence of obstacles, which is critical when working between crop rows [95]. In a few minutes, UAVs can cover many hectares flying over the field, thus providing the photographic material for weed patches identification [61]. These images are processed via deep neural network [78], convolutional neural network, and object-based image analysis [96, 97]. Based on a systematic review of the literature concerning weed identification by UAVs, it can be concluded that mainly three types of cameras are used for weed patches identification: RGB, multispectral and hyperspectral cameras (Table 4). These cameras are very similar in terms of information obtained for the purpose of weeds identification. Indeed, the three camera types can recognize weed patches with good accuracy depending on flying altitude, camera resolution and UAV used. UAVs have been mainly tested on important crops such as Triticum spp., Hordeum vulgare, Beta vulgaris, Zea mays [98,99,100,101]. These are among the most cultivated crops worldwide and are highly susceptible to weed competition especially in early phenological stages. In these crops, it was possible to identify several dicotyledonous weeds including Amaranthus palmeri, Chenopodium album and Cirsium arvense [102,103,104], as well as different monocotyledonous such as Phalaris spp., Avena spp. and Lolium spp. [105, 106]. These weed species are widespread globally and can be a serious threat to different crops [107, 108]. Therefore, the combined use of UAVs and image processing technologies may contribute to effectively control different weed species interfering with the crops with relevant environmental benefits [28, 109].

Table 4 Weed patches identification by different types of camera (multispectral, RGB, hyperspectral)

Conclusion

The use of UAVs and machine learning techniques allow for the identification of weed patches in a cultivated field with accuracy and can improve weed management sustainability [97]. Weed patches identification by UAVs can facilitate integrated weed management (IWM), reducing both the selection pressure vs herbicide-resistant weeds and herbicides diffusion in the environment [64]. Recent research has shown that new technologies are able to discern single weed species in open fields [63, 106, 126]. If integrated with weed management planning, this information gathered via remote imaging analysis can contribute to sustainably improve weed management. In addition, imaging analysis can help in the study of weed dynamics in the field, as well as their interaction with the crop, which both represent a necessary step to define new strategies for weed management based on interspecific crop–weed interactions [127,128,129]. Recent studies demonstrate that some weed communities are actually not detrimental to crop yield and quality [127, 128]. In winter wheat cultivation, a highly diversified weed community caused lower yield losses than a less diversified one [129]. In soybean, through a combination of field experiments in which weed species were manipulated in composition and abundance, it has been shown that increasing levels of weed competition resulted in an increase in seed protein content without impairing yield [130].

Most likely, the integration of known and emerging technologies in this field will greatly improve the sustainability of weed control, following the SSWM approach. By image analysis, different machine learning techniques will be able to provide a reliable overview of the level and type of infestation. Specific algorithms can be trained to manage weeds removal by Autonomous Weeding Robot (AWR), via herbicide spray or mechanical means [131]. Also, the creation of a specific weed images dataset is crucial to achieve this goal. This approach must necessarily rely on a dataset of photographs taken in dedicated experimental fields, labeled in extended COCO/POCO (Common Objects in COntext/ Plant Objects in COntext) format [86] and integrated with images from PlantVillage dataset [83] or other existing ones.

New insights on weed population dynamics and their competition with crops are needed in order to extend this approach to real agricultural contexts, so as to specifically recognize and eliminate only harmful weed species. The overall objective is to overcome the consequences of biological vacuum around the crop, which has been proved to be highly impacting for both biotic and the abiotic components of the environment [132, 133], with long-term consequences on human safety on earth.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

IWM:

Integrated Weed Management

UAV:

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

UTV:

Unmanned Terrestrial Vehicles

SSWM:

Specific Weed Management

RGB:

Red Green Blue

VIS:

Visible

GRVI:

Green/Red Vegetation Index

GI:

Greenness Index

ExG:

Excessive Greenness

GPS:

Global Positioning System

CARI:

Chlorophyll Absorption Ratio Index

MCARI:

Modified Chlorophyll Absorption Ratio Index

MNDVI:

Modified Normalized Difference Vegetation Index

SR:

Simple Ratio

TCARI:

Transformed Chlorophyll Absorption Ratio Index

TVI:

Triangular Vegetation Index

MVSR:

Modified Vegetation Stress Ratio

MSAVI:

Modified Soil-Adjusted Vegetation Index

PRI:

Photochemical Reflectance Index

AWR:

Autonomous Weeding Robot

COCO/POCO:

Common Objects in COntext/ Plant Objects in COntext

References

  1. 1.

    Oerke EC. Crop losses to pests. Sci: J Agric; 2006.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Guglielmini AC, Verdú AMC, Satorre EH. Competitive ability of five common weed species in competition with soybean. Int J Pest Manag. 2017;63:30–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Kaur H, Brar SG, Shete PP. A REVIEW on different weed management approaches. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2019; 8: 2854.

  4. 4.

    Korav S, Ram V, Ray LIP, Krishnappa R, Singh NJ, Premaradhya N. Weed pressure on growth and yield of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in Meghalaya, India. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2018;7:2852–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Thompson CR, Dille JA, Peterson DE. Weed Competition and Management in Sorghum. In Sorghum. Ciampitti IA, Vara Prasad P, eds. 2019.

  6. 6.

    Zohaib A, Abbas T, Tabassum T. Weeds cause losses in field crops through allelopathy. Not Sci Biol. 2016;8:47–56.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Cirillo V, Masin R, Maggio A, Zanin G. Crop-weed interactions in saline environments. Eur J Agron. 2018;99:51–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Hauvermale AL, Sanad MNME. Phenological plasticity of wild and cultivated plants. Plant communities and their environment. London: IntechOpen; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Guo L, Qiu J, Li L-F, Lu B, Olsen K, Fan L. Genomic clues for crop-weed interactions and evolution. Trends Plant Sci. 2018;23:1102–15.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Kumar A, Choudhary T, Das S, Meena SK. Weed Seed Bank: impacts and management for future crop production BT—agronomic crops, Vol 2. Management Practices. Hasanuzzaman M, editor. 2019. p. 207–23.

  11. 11.

    Smith JD, Dubois T, Mallogo R, Njau E-F, Tua S, Srinivasan R. Host range of the invasive tomato pest tuta absoluta meyrick (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) on solanaceous crops and weeds in Tanzania. Fla Entomol. 2019;101:573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Roshan P, Kulshreshtha A, Hallan V. Global weed-infecting geminiviruses BT-geminiviruses: impact, challenges and approaches. Berlin: Springer; 2019. p. 103–21.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Srinivasan R, Cervantes FA, Alvarez JM. Aphid-borne virus dynamics in the potato-weed pathosystem. Insect Pests Potato. 2013.

  14. 14.

    Eshed N, Wahl I. Role of wild grasses in epidemics of powdery mildew. Phytopathology. 1975;65:57–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Adkins S, Shabbir A. Biology, ecology and management of the invasive parthenium weed (Parthenium hysterophorus L.). Pest Manag Sci. 2014;70:1023–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Tanveer A, Khaliq A. Mahajan G. Interference and management of parthenium: The world ’ s most important invasive weed. J Crop Prot; 2015. p. 68.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Khan MR, Somvanshi VS, Rao U. Emerging nematode pest of rice, wheat and onion. Rice Root-Knot Nematode Popular Kheti. 2017;3:53–5.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Ersin A, Gargin S, Esitken A, Guzel NP, Atay AN, Altindal M, et al. The effect of weed competition on apple fruit quality. Not Bot Horti Agrobot Cluj-Napoca. 2017;45:120–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Yadav T, Chopra NK, Chopra NK, Kumar R, Soni PG. Assessment of critical period of crop-weed competition in forage cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) and its effect on seed yield and quality. Indian J Agron. 2018;63:124–7.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Hall CW. Vacuum treatment of milk. in: vacuum technology transactions. Pergamon; 2013.

  21. 21.

    Sabra FS, Mahmoud MS. Utilization of herbicidal treatments to overcome weed problems in utilization of herbicidal treatments to overcome weed problems in peppermint (Mentha piperita L.) cultivation under Egyptian conditions. Asian J Agric Food Sci. 2015;03:1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Mantle P. Comparative ergot alkaloid elaboration by selected plectenchymatic mycelia of Claviceps purpurea through sequential cycles of axenic culture and plant parasitism. Biology. 2020;9:41.

    CAS  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Kumar R, Katiyar R, Kumar S, Kumar T, Singh V. Lantana camara: an alien weed, its impact on animal health and strategies to control. J Exp Biol Agric Sci. 2016;4:321–37.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Denisow-Pietrzyk M, Pietrzyk Ł, Denisow B. Asteraceae species as potential environmental factors of allergy. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2019;26:6290–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Allan S, Shi B, Adkins SW. Impact of parthenium weed on human and animal health. Parthenium Weed Biol Ecol Manag. 2018;7:105.

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Korres NE, Burgos NR, Travlos I, Vurro M, Gitsopoulos TK, Varanasi VK, et al. New directions for integrated weed management: modern technologies, tools and knowledge discovery. Adv Agron. 2019;155:243–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Partel V, Charan Kakarla S, Ampatzidis Y. Development and evaluation of a low-cost and smart technology for precision weed management utilizing artificial intelligence. Comput Electron Agric. 2019;157:339–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Hunter JE, Gannon TW, Richardson RJ, Yelverton FH, Leon RG. Integration of remote-weed mapping and an autonomous spraying unmanned aerial vehicle for site-specific weed management. Pest Manag Sci. 2020;76:1386–92.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Soltani N, Dille JA, Burke IC, Everman WJ, VanGessel MJ, Davis VM, et al. Potential Corn yield losses from weeds in North America. Weed Technol. 2016;30:979–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Llewellyn R, Ronning D, Ouzman J, Walker S, Mayfield A, Clarke M. Impact of Weeds on Australian Grain Production: the cost of weeds to Australian grain growers and the adoption of weed management and tillage practices Report for GRDC. CSIRO. 2016.

  31. 31.

    Appleby AP, Müller F, Carpy S. Weed control. In Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, (Ed.). https://doi.org/10.1002/14356007.a28_165

  32. 32.

    Swanton CJ, Nkoa R, Blackshaw RE. Experimental methods for crop-weed competition studies. Weed Sci. 2015;63:2–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    EUSROSTAT. Statistics Eurostat. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/aei_fm_salpest09/default/table?lang=en.

  34. 34.

    Alexandratos N, Bruinsma J. World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision. 2012.

  35. 35.

    Ray DK, Mueller ND, West PC, Foley JA. Yield trends are insufficient to double global crop production by 2050. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e66428.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Mall RK, Gupta A, Sonkar G. 2—effect of climate change on agricultural crops. In: Dubey SK, Pandey A, Sangwan RSBT-CD in B and B, editors. Elsevier. 2017. p. 23–46.

  37. 37.

    Westwood JH, Charudattan R, Duke SO, Fennimore SA, Marrone P, Slaughter DC, et al. Weed management in 2050: perspectives on the future of weed science. Weed Sci. 2018;66:275–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Dong W, Liu E, Yan C, Tian J, Zhang H, Zhang Y. Impact of no tillage vs. conventional tillage on the soil bacterial community structure in a winter wheat cropping succession in northern China. Eur J Soil Biol. 2017;80:35–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Duke S, Heap I. Evolution of weed resistance to herbicides: what have we learned after 70 years. Biol Physiol Mol Biol Weeds. 2017;63–86.

  40. 40.

    Hicks HL, Comont D, Coutts SR, Crook L, Hull R, Norris K, et al. The factors driving evolved herbicide resistance at a national scale. Nat Ecol Evol. 2018;2:529–36.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Büchi L, Wendling M, Amossé C, Necpalova M, Charles R. Importance of cover crops in alleviating negative effects of reduced soil tillage and promoting soil fertility in a winter wheat cropping system. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2018;256:92–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Jackson L, Calderon F, Steenwerth K, Scow K, Rolston D. Responses of soil microbial processes and community structure to tillage events and implications for soil quality. Geoderma. 2003;114:305–17.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Muola A, Fuchs B, Laihonen M, Rainio K, Heikkonen L, Ruuskanen S, et al. Risk in the circular food economy: glyphosate-based herbicide residues in manure fertilizers decrease crop yield. Sci Total Environ. 2020;750:141422.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Riemens MM, Van Der Weide RY, Bleeker PO, Lotz LAP. Effect of stale seedbed preparations and subsequent weed control in lettuce (cv. Iceboll) on weed densities. Weed Res. 2007;47:149–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Bajwa AA, Walsh M, Chauhan BS. Weed management using crop competition in Australia. Crop Prot. 2017;95:8–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Swanton CJ, Weise SF. Integrated weed management: the rationale and approach. Weed Technol. 1991;5:657–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Young SL, Pitla SK, Van Evert FK, Schueller JK, Pierce FJ. Moving integrated weed management from low level to a truly integrated and highly specific weed management system using advanced technologies. Weed Res. 2017;57:1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Bonny S. Genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops, weeds, and herbicides: overview and impact. Environ Manage. 2016;57:31–48.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Rose MT, Cavagnaro TR, Scanlan CA, Rose TJ, Vancov T, Kimber S, et al. Impact of Herbicides on Soil Biology and Function. In: Sparks DL, editor. Adv Agro. Academic Press. 2016; pp. 133–220.

  50. 50.

    Shannon D, Clay DE, Sudduth KA. An introduction to precision agriculture. Precis Agric Basics. 2018.

  51. 51.

    Mahlein AK. Plant disease detection by imaging sensors—parallels and specific demands for precision agriculture and plant phenotyping. Plant Dis. 2016;100:241–51.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Nawar S, Corstanje R, Halcro G, Mulla D, Mouazen AM. Delineation of soil management zones for variable-rate fertilization: a review. Adv Agron. 2017;143:175–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Lama GFC, Errico A, Francalanci S, Solari L, Preti F, Chirico GB. Evaluation of flow resistance models based on field experiments in a partly vegetated reclamation channel. Geosciences. 2020;10:47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Gautam PV, Kushwaha HL, Kumar A, Kumar D. Mechatronics application in precision sowing: a review. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2019;8:1793–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Chlingaryan A, Sukkarieh S, Whelan B. Machine learning approaches for crop yield prediction and nitrogen status estimation in precision agriculture: a review. Comput Electronics Agric. 2018;151:61–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Murray SC. Optical sensors advancing precision in agricultural production. Photonics Spectra. 2017.

  57. 57.

    Dyshekov AI, Smirnov IG, Mirzaev MA, Shereuzhev MA. Principles of functioning of the autonomous device for weed control for precision agriculture. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng. 2020.

  58. 58.

    Duhan JS, Kumar R, Kumar N, Kaur P, Nehra K, Duhan S. Nanotechnology: the new perspective in precision agriculture. Biotechnol Rep. 2017;15:11–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Mogili UR, Deepak BBVL. Review on application of drone systems in precision agriculture. Procedia Comput Sci. 2018;133:502–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Raj R, Kar S, Nandan R, Jagarlapudi A. precision agriculture and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) BT unmanned aerial vehicle: applications in agriculture and environment. In: Avtar R, Watanabe T, editors. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020.

  61. 61.

    Krishna KR. Agricultural drones: a peaceful pursuit. Taylor Francis. 2018.

  62. 62.

    John KN, Valentin V, Abdullah B, Bayat M, Kargar MH, Zargar M. Weed mapping technologies in discerning and managing weed infestation levels of farming systems. Res Crops. 2020.

  63. 63.

    Lottes P, Khanna R, Pfeifer J, Siegwart R, Stachniss C. UAV-based crop and weed classification for smart farming. Proc IEEE Int Conf Robot Autom. 2017.

  64. 64.

    López-Granados F, Torres-Sánchez J, Serrano-Pérez A, de Castro AI, Mesas-Carrascosa Fco-J, Peña J-M. Early season weed mapping in sunflower using UAV technology: variability of herbicide treatment maps against weed thresholds. Precis Agric. 2016;17:183–99.

  65. 65.

    Jiménez-Brenes FM, López-Granados F, Torres-Sánchez J, Peña JM, Ramírez P, Castillejo-González IL, et al. Automatic UAV-based detection of Cynodon dactylon for site-specific vineyard management. PLoS ONE. 2019.

  66. 66.

    Daponte P, Vito LD, Glielmo L, Iannelli L, Liuzza D, Picariello F, et al. A review on the use of drones for precision agriculture. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 2019;275:012022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Radoglou-Grammatikis P, Sarigiannidis P, Lagkas T, Moscholios I. A compilation of UAV applications for precision agriculture. Comput Netw. 2020;172:107148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Mancini A, Frontoni E, Zingaretti P. Satellite and UAV data for Precision Agriculture Applications. In: 2019 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS). IEEE. 2019.

  69. 69.

    Brook A, De Micco V, Battipaglia G, Erbaggio A, Ludeno G, Catapano I, et al. A smart multiple spatial and temporal resolution system to support precision agriculture from satellite images: proof of concept on Aglianico vineyard. Remote Sens Environ. 2020;240:111679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Watts AC, Ambrosia VG, Hinkley EA. Unmanned aircraft systems in remote sensing and scientific research: classification and considerations of use. Remote Sens. 2012;4:1671–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Manfreda S, McCabe ME, Miller PE, Lucas R, Madrigal VP, Mallinis G, et al. On the use of unmanned aerial systems for environmental monitoring. Remote Sens. 2018;10:641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Anderson K, Gaston KJ. Lightweight unmanned aerial vehicles will revolutionize spatial ecology. Front Ecol Environ. 2013;11:138–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Whitehead K, Hugenholtz CH. Remote sensing of the environment with small unmanned aircraft systems (UASs), part 1: a review of progress and challenges. J Unmanned Veh Syst. 2014;02:69–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Torres-Sánchez J, Peña JM, de Castro AI, López-Granados F. Multi-temporal mapping of the vegetation fraction in early-season wheat fields using images from UAV. Comput Electron Agric. 2014;103:104–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Jannoura R, Brinkmann K, Uteau D, Bruns C, Joergensen RG. Monitoring of crop biomass using true colour aerial photographs taken from a remote controlled hexacopter. Biosyst Eng. 2015;129:341–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Motohka T, Nasahara KN, Oguma H, Tsuchida S. Applicability of green-red vegetation index for remote sensing of vegetation phenology. Remote Sens. 2010;2:2369–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Xue J, Su B. Significant remote sensing vegetation indices: a review of developments and applications. J Sens. 2017.

  78. 78.

    Crimaldi M, Cristiano V, De Vivo A, Isernia M, Ivanov P, Sarghini F. Neural network algorithms for real time plant diseases detection using UAVs. In: Coppola A, Di Renzo GC, Altieri G, D’Antonio P, editors. Innov Biosyst Eng Sustain Agric For Food Prod. 2020. p. 827–35.

  79. 79.

    Pflanz M, Schirrmann M, Nordmeyer H. Drone based weed monitoring with an image feature classifier. Julius-Kühn-Archiv. 2018;458:379–84.

    Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Etienne A, Saraswat D. Machine learning approaches to automate weed detection by UAV based sensors. In: Autonomous air and ground sensing systems for agricultural optimization and phenotyping IV. International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2019. p. 110080R.

  81. 81.

    Wang S, Han Y, Chen J, Pan Y, Cao Y, Meng H, et al. A deep-learning- based low-altitude remote sensing algorithm for weed classification in ecological irrigation area. In: International Conference on Intelligent Technologies and Applications. Springer, Singapore, 2018. p. 451–460.

  82. 82.

    Bah MD, Hafiane A, Canals R. Deep learning with unsupervised data labeling for weed detection in line crops in UAV images. Remote Sens. 2018;10:1690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Hughes DP, Salathe M. An open access repository of images on plant health to enable the development of mobile disease diagnostics. ArXiv151108060 Cs. 2016. http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.08060

  84. 84.

    Singh D, Jain N, Jain P, Kayal P, Kumawat S, Batra N. PlantDoc: a dataset for visual plant disease detection. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM IKDD CoDS and 25th COMAD. 2020. p. 249–253.

  85. 85.

    Sa I, Popović M, Khanna R, Chen Z, Lottes P, Liebisch F, et al. WeedMap: a large-scale semantic weed mapping framework using aerial multispectral imaging and deep neural network for precision farming. Remote Sens. 2018;10:1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Wspanialy P, Brooks J, Moussa M. An image labeling tool and agricultural dataset for deep learning. ArXiv200403351 Cs Eess. 2020. http://arxiv.org/abs/2004.03351

  87. 87.

    Micasense Inc. Automatic Calibration Panel Detection (QR Mode). MicaSense Knowl. Base. 2020. https://support.micasense.com/hc/en-us/articles/360018618774

  88. 88.

    Micasense Inc. Best practices: Collecting Data with MicaSense Sensors. MicaSense Knowl. Base. 2020. https://support.micasense.com/hc/en-us/articles/224893167.

  89. 89.

    Laliberte AS, Goforth MA, Steele CM, Rango A. Multispectral remote sensing from unmanned aircraft: image processing workflows and applications for rangeland environments. Remote Sens. 2011;3:2529–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Barrero O, Perdomo SA. RGB and multispectral UAV image fusion for Gramineae weed detection in rice fields. Agric: Precis; 2018.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Candiago S, Remondino F, De Giglio M, Dubbini M, Gattelli M. Evaluating multispectral images and vegetation indices for precision farming applications from UAV images. Remote Sens. 2015;7:4026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Mazzia V, Comba L, Khaliq A, Chiaberge M, Gay P. UAV and machine learning based refinement of a satellite-driven vegetation index for precision agriculture. Sensors. 2020;20:2530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Brook A, Ben-Dor E. Supervised Vicarious Calibration (SVC) of multi-source hyperspectral remote-sensing data. Remote Sens. 2015;7:6196–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Adao T, Hruska J, Padua L, Bessa J, Peres E, Morais R, et al. Hyperspectral imaging: a review on UAV-based sensors, data processing and applications for agriculture and forestry. Remote Sens. 2017;9:1110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Hassanein M, El-Sheimy N. An efficient weed detection procedure using low-cost UAV imagery system for precision agriculture applications. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci ISPRS Arch. 2018;42:181–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    Tsouros DC, Bibi S, Sarigiannidis PG. A review on UAV-based applications for precision agriculture. Inf Switz. 2019;10:349.

    Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Maes WH, Steppe K. Perspectives for remote sensing with unmanned aerial vehicles in precision agriculture. Trends Plant Sci. 2019;24:152–64.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Fawakherji M, Potena C, Bloisi DD, Imperoli M, Pretto A, Nardi D. UAV Image based crop and weed distribution estimation on embedded GPU boards BT computer analysis of images and patterns. Berlin: Springer; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Rasmussen J, Nielsen J, Streibig JC, Jensen JE, Pedersen KS, Olsen SI. Pre-harvest weed mapping of Cirsium arvense in wheat and barley with off-the-shelf UAVs. Precis Agric. 2019;20:983–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Franco C, Guada C, Rodríguez JT, Nielsen J, Rasmussen J, Gómez D, et al. Automatic detection of thistle-weeds in cereal crops from aerial RGB images BT information processing and management of uncertainty in knowledge-based systems. Applications. 2018. p. 441–52.

  101. 101.

    Louargant M, Jones G, Faroux R, Paoli JN, Maillot T, Gée C, et al. Unsupervised classification algorithm for early weed detection in row-crops by combining spatial and spectral information. Remote Sens. 2018;10:1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Huang Y, Reddy KN, Fletcher RS, Pennington D. UAV low-altitude remote sensing for precision weed management. Weed Technol. 2018;32:2–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. 103.

    Hansen KD, Garcia-Ruiz F, Kazmi W, Bisgaard M, La Cour-Harbo A, Rasmussen J, et al. An autonomous robotic system for mapping weeds in fields. IFAC Proc Vol IFAC-Pap. 2013;8:217–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. 104.

    Louargant M, Villette S, Jones G, Vigneau N, Paoli JN, Gée C. Weed detection by UAV: simulation of the impact of spectral mixing in multispectral images. Precis Agric. 2017;1–20.

  105. 105.

    López-Granados F, Jurado-Expósito M, Peña-Barragán JM, García-Torres L. Using remote sensing for identification of late-season grass weed patches in wheat. Weed Sci. 2006;54:346–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. 106.

    Sanders JT, Everman WJ, Austin R, Roberson GT, Richardson RJ. Weed species differentiation using spectral reflectance land image classification. ProcSPIE. 2019.

  107. 107.

    Davis S, Mangold J, Menalled F, Orloff N, Miller Z, Lehnhoff E. A Meta-analysis of Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense) management. Weed Sci. 2018;66:548–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. 108.

    Alshallash KS. Germination of weed species (Avena fatua, Bromus catharticus, Chenopodium album and Phalaris minor) with implications for their dispersal and control. Ann Agric Sci. 2018;63:91–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. 109.

    De Castro AI, Torres-Sánchez J, Peña JM, Jiménez-Brenes FM, Csillik O, López-Granados F. An automatic random forest-OBIA algorithm for early weed mapping between and within crop rows using UAV imagery. Remote Sens. 2018;10:285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. 110.

    Reddy KN, Huang Y, Lee MA, Nandula VK, Fletcher RS, Thomson SJ, et al. Glyphosate-resistant and glyphosate-susceptible Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats.): hyperspectral reflectance properties of plants and potential for classification. Pest Manag Sci. 2014;70:1910–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  111. 111.

    Lass LW, Prather TS, Glenn NF, Weber KT, Mundt JT, Pettingill J. A review of remote sensing of invasive weeds and example of the early detection of spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) and babysbreath (Gypsophila paniculata) with a hyperspectral sensor. Weed Sci. 2005;53:242–51.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  112. 112.

    Tiwari O, Goyal V, Kumar P, Vij S. An experimental set up for utilizing convolutional neural network in automated weed detection. Proc 2019 4th Int Conf Internet Things Smart Innov Usages IoT-SIU 2019. 2019;1–6.

  113. 113.

    Tay JYL, Erfmeier A, Kalwij JM. Reaching new heights: can drones replace current methods to study plant population dynamics? Plant Ecol. 2018;219:1139–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. 114.

    Sandino J, Gonzalez F. A Novel Approach for invasive weeds and vegetation surveys using UAS and artificial intelligence. 2018 23rd Int Conf Methods Models Autom Robo. 2018.

  115. 115.

    Scherrer B, Sheppard J, Jha P, Shaw JA. Hyperspectral imaging and neural networks to classify herbicide-resistant weeds. J Appl Remote Sens. 2019;13:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. 116.

    Svensgaard J, Jensen SM, Westergaard JC, Nielsen J, Christensen S, Rasmussen J. Can reproducible comparisons of cereal genotypes be generated in field experiments based on UAV imagery using RGB cameras? Eur J Agron. 2019;106:49–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. 117.

    Garcia-Ruiz FJ, Wulfsohn D, Rasmussen J. Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) and thistle (Cirsium arvensis L.) discrimination based on field spectral data. Biosyst Eng. 2015;139:1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. 118.

    Shapira U, Herrmann I, Karnieli A, Bonfil JD. Weeds detection by ground-level hyperspectral data. ISPRS Archive Vol. XXXVIII. 2010;38:27–33.

    Google Scholar 

  119. 119.

    Rasmussen J, Nielsen J, Garcia-Ruiz F, Christensen S, Streibig JC. Potential uses of small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in weed research. Weed Res. 2013;53:242–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. 120.

    Slaughter DC, Giles DK, Fennimore SA, Smith RF. Multispectral machine vision identification of lettuce and weed seedlings for automated weed control. Weed Technol. 2008;22:378–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. 121.

    Norasma N, Ya C, George D. Spectral discrimination of weeds using hyperspectral. 2013.

  122. 122.

    López-Granados F, Peña-Barragán JM, Jurado-Expósito M, Francisco-Fernández M, Cao R, Alonso-Betanzos A, et al. Multispectral classification of grass weeds and wheat (Triticum durum) using linear and nonparametric functional discriminant analysis and neural networks. Weed Res. 2008;48:28–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. 123.

    de Castro AI, Peña JM, Torres-Sánchez J, Jiménez-Brenes F, López-Granados F. Mapping Cynodon dactylon in vineyards using UAV images for site-specific weed control. Adv Anim Biosci. 2017;8:267–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. 124.

    Fawakherji M, Potena C, Bloisi DD, Imperoli M, Pretto A, Nardi D. UAV image based crop and weed distribution estimation on embedded GPU boards. Commun Comput Inf Sci. 2019;1089:100–8.

    Google Scholar 

  125. 125.

    Peña JM, Torres-Sánchez J, de Castro AI, Kelly M, López-Granados F. Weed mapping in early-season maize fields using object-based analysis of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) images. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  126. 126.

    Pantazi X-E, Moshou D, Bravo C. Active learning system for weed species recognition based on hyperspectral sensing. Biosyst Eng. 2016;146:193–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. 127.

    Gibson DJ, Young BG, Wood AJ. Can weeds enhance profitability? Integrating ecological concepts to address crop-weed competition and yield quality. J Ecol. 2017;105:900–4.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  128. 128.

    Millar KDL, Ebbs SD, Gibson DJ, Wood AJ, Young BG. Evaluation of physiological parameters for the prediction of seed yield and quality for soybean (Glycine max) plants grown in the presence of weed competition. Plant Biosyst. 2011;145:1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. 129.

    Adeux G, Vieren E, Carlesi S, Bàrberi P, Munier-Jolain N, Cordeau S. Mitigating crop yield losses through weed diversity. Nat Sustain. 2019;2:1018–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. 130.

    Millar K, Gibson DJ, Young BG, Wood AJ. Impact of interspecific competition on seed development and quality of five soybean cultivars. Aust J Exp Agric. 2007;47:1455–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  131. 131.

    Talaviya T, Shah D, Patel N, Yagnik H, Shah M. Implementation of artificial intelligence in agriculture for optimisation of irrigation and application of pesticides and herbicides. Artif Intell Agric. 2020;4:58–73.

    Google Scholar 

  132. 132.

    Lanz B, Dietz S, Swanson T. The expansion of modern agriculture and global biodiversity decline: an integrated assessment. Ecol Econ. 2018;144:260–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. 133.

    Erisman JW, van Eekeren N, de Wit J, Koopmans C, Cuijpers W, Oerlemans N, et al. Agriculture and biodiversity: a better balance benefits both. AIMS Agric Food. 2016;1:157–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This research was funded by MEDES Foundation.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

ME and MC wrote the original draft and produced all the tables and the figures. AM, FS and VC revised the text for the final version. VC and ME conceived the idea of writing the review. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valerio Cirillo.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Esposito, M., Crimaldi, M., Cirillo, V. et al. Drone and sensor technology for sustainable weed management: a review. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 8, 18 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40538-021-00217-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Site-specific weed management
  • UAVs
  • Precision agriculture
  • Weed detection
  • Crop–weed interaction