27/06/2024: Videos of DJI Agras T50 unboxing and performing a route mission.
26/4/2024: The DJI Agras T50 was just announced for the Australian market. See details here.
26/4/2024: To see the T50 bundles and pricing, go here.
Using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) could be a new tool in the biosecurity toolbox making pest control more targeted, safer and less invasive.
So says Scion’s plant protection physics and chemistry team lead Dr Justin Nairn, adding UAVs can fly closer to the target than a helicopter (about two metres versus 10m-plus) have a smaller footprint and fly slower so can be more precise.
The research comes two years since the discovery of the fall armyworm in New Zealand in February 2022 – the moth caterpillar threatening crops.
Nairn’s initial studies in March 2021 into the general efficiency of spraying with UAVs used fluorescent dye to investigate how UAVs performed in aerial spray operations in urban environments.
In February last year scientists trialled a key bio-insecticide for combating Lepidoptera moths.
While the trial findings are being finalised, Nairn says using UAVs for pest control is growing quickly as operational limitations like cost, weight and flight time are reducing with technology advances.
He expects climate change could increase the risk of invasive pests reaching New Zealand and affecting its multi-billion-dollar primary sector, so Scion researchers hope UAVs can provide a more efficient urban biosecurity solution.
Scion has been involved with pest incursion responses and field research in aerial spray methodology for decades – from a seven-year $65 million response to the painted apple moth in Auckland in 1999 to the ongoing battle against fall armyworm and managing myrtle rust – looking for new, more targeted ways to tackle pest and insect outbreaks.
Fast and effective pest control is vital to prevent pest and pathogen establishment, although there needs to be a balance between engaging communities ahead of incursion responses and the potential need for fast action, Scion social scientist Dr Andrea Grant says.
“If community concerns are not addressed and they have no opportunity to respond to planned operations, they may lose confidence and support for urban biosecurity operations in future.”
In aligned research, Grant ran focus groups looking at social and cultural considerations of UAV spraying which included social researchers, UAV researchers, Māori involved in forest protection and management, and forestry managers.
Participants identified social issues like human health, safety and ethics, professionalisation of UAV use, Te Tiriti partnerships, engagement and capability.
Grant and her collaborators also held a co-design workshop where participants noted the need to work with Māori alongside key agencies in research, policy, operations and ethical aspects of co-design.
Māori environmental not-for-profit Te Tira Whakamātaki was included in focus groups.
Chief scientist Dr Simon Lambert says much of the Māori economy is in the primary sector so highly reliant on the environment.
“Māori are increasingly aware of the vulnerability of their assets and cultural capital to biosecurity events and are not opposed to technological innovation but insist on early and ongoing engagement.”
Better Border Biosecurity (B3) is a multi-partner joint venture researching ways to reduce entry and establishment of new plant pests and diseases in New Zealand.
B3 Director Dr Desi Ramoo says Nairn’s research is an example of adapting existing technology into an applied biosecurity tool.
“We must be prepared with a number of solutions developed from Western science and mātauranga Māori to ensure we are ahead of the game and move from a reactive to proactive biosecurity system.”
Forest Owners Association biosecurity manager Brendan Gould says successful intervention relies on the ability to respond, but community impacts and implications need to be considered as part of the process of operational design.
He says engagement before an incursion is important but challenging when immediate action is needed.
Scion’s research allowed for pre-engagement to be considered. Nairn’s work was part funded by Better Border Biosecurity while Grant’s was part funded by Forest Growers Research Trust, and both received Strategic Science Investment
Written by Geoff Dobson
