Aerial photography was conducted using the UAV “Geoscan 201 Agrogeodesy.”
For generating the digital elevation model, the software Agisoft Metashape Professional was used.
To digitize the heap boundaries and calculate their volume, QGis software tools were utilized.

Factors that reduce the quality of calculations:
• It is not recommended to conduct photography in the presence of precipitation or fog.
• Aerial photogrammetry should be performed during the snow-free period. Otherwise, fallen snow will distort the DEM and, accordingly, the accuracy of heap volume calculations.
• Additionally, the remote measurement method will allow the calculation of volume, but not weight, for which several additional parameters must be considered (e.g., root crop moisture, “density” of the heap, etc.).

Figure 2.11 illustrates a typical visualization of assessing the quality of agronomic operations.

Aerial photography was conducted using the UAV “Geoscan 201 Geodesy.”
For generating the digital elevation model, the software Agisoft Metashape Professional was used.
To digitize the heap boundaries and calculate their volume, QGis software tools were utilized.
For the legal execution of aerial photography work, the contractor will require an operator certificate (FAP 494) and a license for handling information constituting state secrets. 

Requirements for Aerial Photography Work:
To conduct aerial photography, an operator certificate (FAP 494) and a license for handling state secret information are required.

Factors That May Affect the Quality of Results:
• Rain, snow, or strong wind (preferably up to 5 m/s, with a maximum limit of 10 m/s) on the day of the survey.
• It is not recommended to conduct photography in the presence of precipitation or fog.
• For terrain mapping, it is best to perform the survey when there is neither snow nor vegetation on the field. 

Monitoring with UAVs, in contrast to previous scenarios, involves the operator (usually an agronomist) observing in real time the footage captured by the drone’s camera. The drone, typically a lightweight multicopter, is flown above the field (or orchard, vineyard, or melon patch). Essentially, this allows the operator to check what’s happening in the field in just a few minutes, without having to walk to the center or other parts of the field. By flying over the entire field, the operator can spot irregularities in crop color, height, or germination in the visible or multispectral spectrum. With manual control, the operator can also fly closer to anomalies and examine them in more detail.

For this task, DJI Mavic and Phantom drones are most commonly used. The application scenario does not require complex data processing, but the footage can be saved either by recording the screen or by storing individual photos, which can be revisited later if necessary.

This scenario typically does not require contractors and is often used by the farmer or in-house agronomist.

The cost of a DJI Mavic 3 drone is around 200,000 rubles, while a DJI Mavic 3 Multispectral with a multispectral camera costs between 500,000 and 800,000 rubles. An AgroScout drone from Albatros costs between 400,000 and 800,000 rubles for similar tasks.

Images showing the agronomist monitoring herbicide application on a field using the DJI Phantom4 RTK and the DJI Agras T30 are provided below in Figures 2.12, 2.13, and 2.14. 

There is successful experience with the use of observer drones, including FPV drones as “flying herders.” However, for this to work, the drone operator must have a relatively high skill level in manual drone control.

The typical weather limitations include winds no stronger than 6 m/s (for some models, up to 10 m/s), no snow, and no heavy rain. In light rain, some drone models can still operate and provide quality footage when the camera is directed downwards (nadir view). It’s also important to consider that in cold weather, flight duration decreases due to the reduced capacity of the batteries. The typical flight time for observation is 20-30 minutes.

Observation using UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) can be a crucial tool for agronomists in assessing the state of fields and crop yield. However, using the footage “by eye” without subsequent data processing has functional limitations. Without processing the data obtained through the UAV, the agronomist may miss important details that can affect decision-making. Therefore, this approach should be used rationally, combined with selective ground observation, measuring plant height, planting density, soil composition, and other parameters that are carried out without the UAV. 

The limitations of agricultural drones as tools for performing agricultural operations are usually related to a decrease in their productivity when the application rate (seeding or spraying) per hectare increases. However, this is the cost of operational efficiency and mobility, similar to the trade-off between wireless communication and data transfer via cable.

Therefore, agricultural drones cannot and should not completely replace traditional agricultural tools, but they have carved out their own niche in farms worldwide, reducing the use of both piloted aviation and ground equipment. Manual labor, still used on small fields (plots) and in household plots, can be completely replaced by agricultural drones. 

The limitations in the use of agricultural drones also include the lack of widely available information on optimal input conditions for performing treatments in terms of “crop-pest-pesticide-volume of active ingredient per hectare-reduced rate of tank mix per hectare-drop size-height-speed.” Currently, this information is mainly shared among industry enthusiasts through Telegram chats, where they discuss the effects achieved under various treatment conditions. The authors of this review would like to see this review become one of the means for consolidating the accumulated knowledge of industry participants. They hope that the continuation of this review will involve regular activities to collect data on achieved effects, classification, independent verification, and wide dissemination of confirmed information.

Spraying is an effective method of using agrochemicals (primarily pesticides), which involves applying droplets of liquid pesticide solution, suspension, or emulsion to the surface that requires treatment. Various types of sprayers are used for this, including handheld, ground-based, and in our case—agricultural drones. [10]

Factors influencing the effectiveness of spraying:
1. Timeliness of treatment
2. Uniformity of application
3. Coverage degree
4. Dosage
5. Freshness (time from preparation) of the tank mixture

Considering the advantages of agricultural drones described in section 2.2, the effect of their use in a typical Russian farm is usually linked to the timeliness of the treatment and the freshness of the tank mixture. This is without considering the specifics of ultra-low volume spraying, which will be discussed in more detail below.

Spraying should be considered from two aspects:
1. Biological
2. Physicochemical

Biological Aspect

The biological aspect involves conducting spraying at optimal times. First, this is related to the toxicological appropriateness of applying pesticides to the sensitive stage or development phase of harmful organisms. Secondly, optimal timing is linked to the duration of the spraying process, which is limited by the development of the crop being protected. To achieve good biological results, the degree of coverage of the treated object is crucial. The degree of coverage is the ratio of the area of the surface covered by the pesticide solution to the total surface area of the object being treated. Based on a large experimental dataset, it has been established that for different types of pesticides, the degree of coverage should be at least:
• 0.5 – 1.0% for herbicides
• 2.0 – 3.0% for insecticides and fungicides

Physicochemical Aspect

The physicochemical aspect of spraying involves understanding the properties of the pesticides used, droplet size, degree of coverage of the treated surface, the rate of working fluid application, and the pH of the water. It is important to know at what air temperature spraying can be carried out to minimize the number of harmful organisms or avoid plant burns. It is also important to know the compatibility of pesticides when spraying with combined mixtures. For example, organophosphorus and pyrethroid insecticides decompose in an alkaline environment and lose their toxicity.

Thus, there are many factors, in addition to the instrument used for spraying (agricultural drone, self-propelled sprayer, or piloted aircraft), that determine the success of the operation. The professional operator—the agricultural drone pilot—must be knowledgeable about this information, as must the client (the client’s agronomist). Only in such a partnership of professionals can the maximum effect of the treatment be guaranteed without risk to the crop. 

In spraying, there are several categories based on the volume of liquid applied per hectare:
• High-volume spraying – more than 300 l/ha
• Full-volume spraying – 200-300 l/ha
• Low-volume spraying (LV) – 75-200 l/ha
• Ultra-low-volume spraying (ULV) – up to 25 l/ha

The effective use of agrodrones in plant protection is closely tied to the emergence of ultra-low-volume spraying (ULV), along with the proven effectiveness of this technique with various pesticides and complex tank mixes. Therefore, ULV will be discussed in detail in this review, including its known advantages and disadvantages, which are often mistakenly attributed to the advantages and disadvantages of agrodrones using ULV. Many practitioners now associate ULV directly with agrodrones, which is not entirely correct, and we will attempt to distinguish between ULV, which can also be carried out by ground equipment and piloted aviation (which the authors have observed personally), and the use of agrodrones.

Advantages of ULV spraying:
• Higher biological activity of the pesticide, as it covers a larger surface area. With the use of agrodrones, due to the swirling air flow, the pesticide reaches the underside of the leaves.
• No runoff of agrochemicals into the soil. This is achieved by reducing the droplet size and the same air turbulence that keeps the pesticide on the plant cover. For comparison, during full-volume spraying, up to 30% of the pesticide is lost due to runoff into the soil.
• Reduced pesticide dosage in many cases, as the biological activity is higher and runoff is avoided.
• Fuel and labor cost savings due to fewer water deliveries.
• For low-water and arid regions, this also helps conserve water, which might not be available in sufficient quantities for full-volume treatments.

Disadvantages of ULV spraying:
• More susceptible to inversion effects. When meteorological anomalies occur, small droplets in ULV spraying increase the risk of drift and pesticide transfer. This is not due to the wind, which moves the droplets a fixed distance, but rather the ability of small droplets to remain suspended in the air for a long time and fall as dew, which is especially noticeable during low crop treatments or fallow land applications.
• Drift of the pesticide by the wind. This is a problem for inexperienced operators and creates difficulties when treating small plots. For larger fields (~100 ha), experienced BAS pilots can manage drift within acceptable limits without compromising the quality of the treatment.
• Evaporation of small droplets. At higher temperatures and air humidity, the “life span” of 200 µm droplets is 200 seconds, while for 50 µm droplets it is only 12.5 seconds. Therefore, in our country, spraying is more effective when conducted at night during hot summer periods.
• Higher water quality requirements. The optimal pH for most chemicals is around 6. Operators must closely monitor this parameter. Additionally, the longer the prepared working solution stands, the more it loses its effectiveness.
• Limited number of registered pesticides with ULV recommendations in Russia. This is a systemic issue, leading to two types of recommendations for water quantity in the tank mixture from pesticide manufacturers: official ones, based on previous tests when the pesticides were added to the catalog, and unofficial ones, where private information is shared about how a pesticide registered for full-volume application works under ULV conditions.

Which Formulations Are Most Suitable for UAV-Based Application (UAV Plant Protection Technology)?
• Microencapsulated Suspension (CS) – These pesticides are suspensions of active ingredients enclosed in a thin film-forming material shell. According to the catalogue of registered pesticides and agrochemicals, there are 10 CS-formulated pesticides, including both insecticides and herbicides. However, such formulations are significantly more expensive than traditional solutions.
• Water-Dispersible Granules (WG);
• Oil-Based Dispersions (OD).
There is no unanimous opinion on which formulation type is the most effective for UAV-based application. However, it is important to understand that the ultimate suitability is determined by the density of the solution—the closer it is to the density of water, the better the performance. Additionally, the volatility of the active ingredient must be taken into account. 

One of the essential skills in performing spraying operations is the preparation of a tank mix, which becomes especially important in UAV-based spraying (UASS) due to the high concentration of active ingredients. Tank mixes are a valuable means of enhancing both the biological and economic efficiency of plant protection products. They allow for the simultaneous control of weeds, pests, and diseases. This approach not only helps slow down the adaptation of harmful organisms to commonly used pesticides, but also reduces the overall pesticide load on treated areas, improves labor productivity, saves fuel and lubricants, decreases mechanical damage to crops, lowers the cost of agrochemical applications, and helps preserve soil structure and humus content.
For example, using a combination of small doses of two or more pesticides may provide the same biological efficacy and duration of protection as a large dose of a more toxic single-agent product.
There are two main types of mixtures:
• Factory-formulated mixtures (combined preparations) manufactured by chemical companies;
• Tank mixes prepared immediately before spraying.
The use of pesticides in tank mixes is now widespread in crop protection practices, both in Russia and internationally.
Tank mixes may include pesticides of the same type (insecticides, fungicides, or herbicides). Such combinations are used to broaden the spectrum of activity and increase effectiveness against specific harmful organisms. Additionally, tank mixes may include pesticides with different functions, enabling simultaneous control of multiple types of pests and diseases. 

Practical experience and scientific research indicate that the use of pesticides in tank mixtures is advisable only when the timing of application for each component coincides and the physical and chemical compatibility of the components is ensured.
Choosing the optimal timing for the application of tank mixtures is a critical factor in implementing plant protection measures. In practice, incorrectly selected spraying times are often the primary cause of failure. This factor becomes particularly important when the mixture includes products with differing application windows.
When using pesticides in tank mixtures, it is necessary to consider not only the physical and chemical properties and interactions of the active ingredients, but also those of the formulation components—such as surfactants, fillers, stabilizers, solvents, and specific additives.
During the preparation of tank mixtures under field conditions, changes in the physical and chemical properties of the components may occur, potentially increasing the toxicity to cultivated plants. To avoid such negative effects, it is essential to follow basic mixing guidelines when combining plant protection products. 

Variable-rate application and partial field treatment.
Given the robotic nature of agrodrone operations, performing partial or selective field treatment—such as perimeter spraying or targeting specific weed-infested patches—poses no difficulty using the standard functionalities of any modern agrodrone’s software.
Figure 2.17 shows zones where weed infestation exceeds the economic threshold of harmfulness. The total area of such zones does not exceed 10% of the entire field. By designating these zones in the flight plan as targets for herbicide application, it is possible to achieve significant savings on pesticide costs. 

Desiccation refers to the spraying of crops with chemicals that promote the dehydration of plant tissues (rapid drying of foliage). This operation is typically performed 5–15 days prior to mechanical harvesting, with the main objective of facilitating combine harvester operations. Depending on crop development, desiccation can be carried out across the entire field or selectively in certain areas. When glyphosate is used as a desiccant, it also helps eliminate late-emerging weed overgrowth, which can otherwise complicate harvesting.
The prevailing market rate for drone-based desiccation is approximately 1,000–1,500 rubles per hectare (1,500 for single-field jobs, 1,000 per hectare for orders exceeding 20,000 hectares). The direct cost for a farmer performing the operation independently is around 500 rubles per hectare. The cost difference is mainly due to transportation expenses and the fee of an external drone operator.
Compared to ground-based desiccation, drone application is fully justified by eliminating crop losses from trampling or damage caused by the booms of ground sprayers—especially important when the crop is near maturity. 

Spraying trees typically requires specialized mechanized equipment capable of delivering insecticide as an aerosol or a high-pressure jet to reach the upper tree canopies. However, such technology proves economically inefficient when dealing with isolated pest outbreaks. Moving the equipment to the treatment site, the large capacity of the sprayer tank (designed for treating hectares of forest stands), and other related factors lead to unjustified expenses.
For localized infestations, drone-based spraying is an ideal solution. This method allows for precise, targeted application of insecticides directly to affected areas, as illustrated in Figure 2.18. Figure 2.19 shows an outbreak of the American white moth caterpillar (Hyphantria cunea) on a box elder (Acer negundo) in a shelterbelt. 

Agricultural drones are capable of applying both liquid fertilizers (foliar feeding) and granular fertilizers. Foliar feeding (as well as pesticide application) is performed on the surface. The absorption of nutrients occurs through their uptake by the leaf surface. This method is considered the most effective and economical for applying micronutrients.
Foliar feeding is carried out during the growing season upon visual identification of micronutrient deficiencies in plants. This application method allows for timely correction of micronutrient deficiencies while simultaneously preventing the negative consequences of micronutrient application to the soil.
Foliar feeding can be performed using BAS (Precision Agriculture Systems). This is particularly advantageous when it is necessary to apply fertilizers in differentiated doses (as part of the precision farming concept). Initially, BAS is used to determine vegetation indices, based on which a fertilization algorithm for the crops is developed. The fertilizer is then applied to the precise location in the required dose using a drone. This foliar fertilization or plant protection treatment technology can also be successfully utilized in nurseries of woody plants, vineyards, and industrial orchards.
Thus, to carry out the application of plant protection agents and fertilizers in differentiated doses, three stages are required:
1. Survey using BAS (fieldwork);
2. Data processing, analysis, and creation of an application map (office work);
3. Application of pesticides or agrochemicals using an agricultural drone (fieldwork). 

Macronutrients (Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium)
Macronutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium are typically applied to the soil prior to sowing as starter fertilizers. Numerous farms have reported successful experience in applying NPK (nitrogen + phosphorus + potassium) using agricultural drones equipped with standard onboard spreaders, at application rates of 120 kilograms per hectare.
It is important to note that the cost of drone-based application at a rate of 100 kilograms per hectare amounts to approximately 3,000 rubles per hectare. Given this expense, the economic efficiency of using agricultural drones for application rates of 100 kilograms or more can only be justified under specific conditions—namely, when ground-based equipment cannot access the field, or when no functional ground-based machinery is available. 

In Russia, there has been successful experience not only in the aerial seeding of rice, but also of rapeseed, mustard, and various annual and perennial grasses.

In addition to surface seeding and seeding into water-filled paddies, there is also a practice of seeding with the use of agricultural drones followed by mechanical incorporation of the seeds into the soil. At present, this method is most commonly employed as a necessary, reactive measure—typically when ground-based seeders are unable to perform the operation for various reasons—thus serving as an “emergency response” rather than a primary tool.
Nevertheless, it cannot be ruled out that, over time, this method of seeding may become more widespread for certain crops, as agricultural technologies continue to evolve and adapt to new methods of operation—including the integration of agricultural drones. 

In recent years, Russian agriculture has faced a range of new challenges, including the growing threat posed by insect pests that cause substantial damage to crops. One promising—albeit still underdeveloped—approach to combating these pests is the use of entomophages: predatory insects that feed on harmful species and their larvae without causing harm to agricultural crops. This biological method of pest control is considered more environmentally friendly and natural compared to conventional chemical insecticides.
Entomophages, often referred to as nature’s plant defenders, represent a diverse group of beneficial insects. Among the most prominent are Trichogramma, Habrobracon, and Chrysopa (green lacewing), each playing a vital role in the biological protection of plants.
Trichogramma is one of the most widely used entomophages. It lays its eggs inside the eggs of pest insects, effectively destroying them at the embryonic stage. A single female Trichogramma can parasitize 20 to 40 pest eggs, with a flight radius of up to three meters. During one growing season, Trichogramma may produce five to six generations, enabling it to maintain consistent control over pest populations throughout the season.
Habrobracon, on the other hand, targets the larvae of pests such as the European corn borer and the cotton bollworm. It paralyzes the caterpillars by injecting a toxin through its ovipositor, causing them to cease feeding and growing, thereby reducing their harmful impact. The biological efficacy of Habrobracon reaches up to 82% in cornfields and 88% in sunflower fields, making it a powerful tool in pest management.
The green lacewing (Chrysopa) is another highly effective entomophagous insect, feeding voraciously on caterpillars, aphids, thrips, and other small pests. Its larvae are particularly efficient, consuming hundreds of harmful insects during their short life cycle, making them indispensable allies in pest control strategies.
Technology of Entomophage Application via Drones
Since 2017, Russia has been actively developing technologies for the aerial application of entomophages using unmanned aerial systems (UAS)—commonly known as drones. The deployment of drones enables the swift and even distribution of beneficial insects across large agricultural areas, significantly enhancing the overall effectiveness of biological pest control.
The adaptation of drone-based dispersal mechanisms to specific agronomic tasks is opening new horizons for the efficient introduction of beneficial insects, ensuring both flexibility and high productivity in agricultural operations. Such innovations are particularly crucial in the context of climate change and resource scarcity, where resilient and sustainable solutions are increasingly in demand.
The process of crop protection through entomophage release using UAS represents a modern, high-tech, and effective strategy for pest management. At the heart of this system are drone platforms such as the DJI Matrice 100 (M100) and DJI Matrice 600 (M600), which ensure precise and uniform dispersal of entomophages over cultivated fields.
However, the current landscape is marked by a shortage of spare parts and consumables for imported equipment. In response, efforts are underway to develop a universal domestic drone platform, capable of replacing existing foreign-made models. Its principal advantage lies in its adaptability—allowing for integration with various tasks and dispersal mechanisms, thereby ensuring greater operational flexibility.
To achieve effective application of entomophages, a range of specially designed dispersal units is employed. For instance, devices used for Habrobracon and Chrysopa are available in two variants, differing in their kinematic structures and control systems. This allows operators to select the most suitable tool for the task at hand, further enhancing the efficiency and precision of biological pest control using drones. 

The second version of the dispersal unit features a more complex architecture, with a controller based on the STM32 chip integrated with the flight controller of the M600 platform. This integration allows for pre-programming of entomophage release points and enhances treatment in areas with pest concentrations. Additionally, the release can be manually controlled in the event of GNSS signal loss, making the system more reliable.
A key component of the second version is the charging and calibration station, which automatically charges the disperser with cassettes containing entomophages. These cassettes consist of corrugated cardboard sheets, onto which entomophages, such as Gabrbrocon (in larval form) or Chrysopa (in egg form), are attached.
In addition to these systems, new dispersers are being developed for other entomophages, such as Trichoderma. This system will be capable of generating a dust cloud for the even distribution of beneficial microorganisms, further expanding the possibilities for biological crop protection.
The development of UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) and the improvement of entomophage application technologies represent an important step toward sustainable agriculture, where the impact of chemical substances on the environment and agricultural products is minimized.
The use of drones for the application of entomophages in agriculture opens new opportunities for effective pest control. The key advantages of this technology include:
1. Accuracy and uniformity of distribution: Drones ensure precise application of entomophages, which is especially important for dealing with pests that breed unevenly. This allows for effective coverage of large areas and hard-to-reach sections of fields.
2. Reduced treatment costs: The automation of the process through drones significantly reduces labor costs and the time required for field treatment. This makes the method economically viable and accessible for widespread use.
3. Speed of application and round-the-clock operation: Drones can quickly cover large areas, greatly increasing the efficiency of protective measures. Additionally, they can operate at night, which is particularly useful for plant protection when daytime treatment might be difficult or undesirable.

The comprehensive service for plant protection using entomophages with drones is a multi-stage process that involves the work of various specialists and the use of advanced technologies. The main stages of providing this service are as follows:
1. Field Study and Its Features: The first stage involves the agricultural service team visiting the site. Specialists conduct an inspection of the crops and analyze the geographical location of the field, its features, and condition. It is crucial to assess the access routes for the pilot service, evaluate the satellite navigation signal strength necessary for the flight task, and install pheromone traps, such as those for the cotton bollworm, to monitor pest activity.
2. Initial Monitoring and Forecasting: Over 5-10 days, a follow-up inspection of the field is carried out, during which specialists assess the state of the crops and the pest population. Based on the pest flight forecast and the current field situation, the economic threshold of pest damage (ET) is determined, and the timing for the release of entomophages is scheduled. If protection is needed, the most effective type of entomophages is selected, and a release schedule is developed.
3. Initial Release of Entomophages: Based on the results of the monitoring, the pilot service promptly and timely releases the entomophages on the field using drones. Unique schemes and algorithms are applied for each specific field, ensuring maximum efficiency of the treatment. Different types of entomophages, such as Gabrbrocon and Chrysopa, use appropriate dispersers.
4. Effectiveness Control and Trap Replacement: After 5-10 days, a follow-up inspection of the field is carried out to assess the effectiveness of the entomophages applied. If necessary, specialists replace the pheromone traps and determine the timing for the next bioagent application.
5. Secondary Release of Entomophages: A secondary release of bioagents is carried out to maintain a stable level of crop protection and minimize losses from pest insects.
6. Final Control and Effectiveness Assessment: The final stage includes an inspection of the field 5-10 days after the secondary release of entomophages. An analysis of the effectiveness of biological protection is conducted.
This multi-stage process allows for the effective protection of agricultural crops from pests, minimizing the use of chemical pesticides and ensuring the ecological purity of the products. 

In Table 2.5, a comparison of three different methods of pest control for agricultural crops is presented: the use of self-propelled machinery, aviation (using the Bekas aircraft), and the innovative approach with the application of entomophages using drones. Each of these methods has its own characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages, which influence the choice of agronomists and farmers depending on the specific conditions.
Self-propelled machinery generally allows for the processing of relatively large land areas but requires additional costs for maintenance, such as fuel and servicing. Aviation, on the other hand, offers the ability to treat hard-to-reach areas, but is limited in terms of area and may be less effective in impacting pests. The use of drones with entomophages allows for a significant increase in the area treated and guarantees high pest control efficiency. This table presents the key parameters and results of each method, which allows for a visual evaluation of their effectiveness and economic feasibility.

Despite the obvious advantages, the technology of applying entomophages using drones is still in the active implementation and research phase. One of the challenges is the limited scientific data supporting the effectiveness of this method. Nevertheless, the results of already conducted experiments and practical applications show that the use of entomophages in combination with advanced technologies can significantly improve the efficiency of crop protection.
Furthermore, an important aspect remains the issue of the availability and production of entomophages. Trichogramma is already widely available on the market, while the production of Gabrus bracon and lacewing is still insufficiently developed. However, the further development of this area promises to be an important step towards more sustainable and environmentally friendly agriculture. 

The use of entomophages with drones represents an innovative and environmentally friendly method of crop protection. The development of these technologies and their widespread implementation could become an important element of the sustainable agriculture strategy, reducing dependence on chemical insecticides and promoting the preservation of biodiversity.

Harvesting crops is still considered an exotic application of drones. However, it is not something impossible. While there are no economically justified examples of drone use during harvest in Russia, there are several examples of how this could be applied:
The Israeli startup Tevel Aerobotics Technologies has developed autonomous flying drones that take off from a base station, pick only ripe fruits from trees, and gently lower them for collection. Since they are not humans, Tevel’s robot harvesters can work around the clock, seven days a week, during the harvest season. They never get tired, they never need coffee breaks or restroom visits, and they do not plan vacations. TEVEL AEROBOTICS TECHNOLOGIES [16]
HMC Farms® has partnered with Tevel Aerobotics Technologies for a pilot launch of their crop harvesting system using flying autonomous robots, as shown in Figure 2.20. A representative from HMC states that this summer, the peach, nectarine, and plum harvest was successfully completed with drones: “This project is still in its early stages, but the future potential is very impressive.” 

Drones transport oranges in an orchard by the Yangtze River in Zigui County, Hubei Province, central China. Farmers manually harvest the oranges, fill special baskets, and then a cargo drone arrives at the designated point with a rope. A person on the ground attaches the basket to the rope, and the drone carries it to the road, where it is transferred to road transport. The weight that the drone lifts is around 50 kg.
The oranges in this province grow in mountainous terrain, and previously, a person was used to collect the fruit. In a day, they could carry down 50 kg from the mountain. With further automation, single-track paths for mechanical carts were established, but the capital costs for such paths were very high, making their use unprofitable.
In recent years, the promotion of agricultural drones led to the creation of a drone service company in Zigui County, which revolutionized the transportation of oranges. This year, during the orange harvest season, around 200 drones were involved in the transportation process.
“The demand for transporting oranges with drones has increased, and we have trained more than 400 pilots,” said Liu Huide, the head of the agricultural service company in Zigui.
“Each drone is equipped with three rechargeable batteries, allowing it to operate continuously. Each flight covers a radius of about 300 meters, and the agricultural drone can transport 10 tons of oranges per day,” said Liu Dehui. He added that using drones to transport oranges is fast and economical, with the average transportation cost being only 3.7 rubles per kilogram of oranges.