Industry (UAPASTF) Response to Pesticide Regulators’ “State of the Knowledge” Review of Drone Use for Pesticide Application: Best Practices for Safe and Effective Application of Pesticides

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The title is too lengthy and should be condensed.
2. There is no title for the fifth part. Also, compared to the other sections, section 5 lacks an introductory overview at the beginning.

Author Response

Comment 1. The title is too lengthy and should be condensed.

Response: Agree. The title has been edited and condensed in the revised manuscript (L2-4). The text has been highlighted in blue for clarity. 

Comment 2. There is no title for the fifth part. Also, compared to the other sections, section 5 lacks an introductory overview at the beginning. 

Response: Agree/Explained. There was an error in naming the sections with section 4 labeled as section 5. This has been fixed in the revised manuscript. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments:

This manuscript gives an overview of the “Best Management Practices” guidelines developed by UAPASTF in accordance with recommendations from the OECD WPP Drone/UAV subgroup. Focusing on aerial spraying operations using unmanned aerial vehicles, the manuscript comprehensively summarizes and discusses key components of the guidelines from multiple perspectives. The manuscript systematically compares regulatory frameworks governing UASS operations across major global entities, offering practitioners critical insights into international regulatory variations. The manuscript further examines operational considerations at different stages of pesticide application and identifies critical factors influencing spraying efficacy, providing practical references for field implementation. Notably, the analysis highlights environmental impacts on spraying operations, with particular emphasis on surface temperature inversion - a rarely addressed parameter in existing literature that significantly affects aerial application outcomes.

 

Special comments:

Numbering sections and subsections is incorrect starting from 256. For example, “5.1” should be changed to “4.1”, and so on.

Author Response

Comment 1: This manuscript gives an overview of the “Best Management Practices” guidelines developed by UAPASTF in accordance with recommendations from the OECD WPP Drone/UAV subgroup. Focusing on aerial spraying operations using unmanned aerial vehicles, the manuscript comprehensively summarizes and discusses key components of the guidelines from multiple perspectives. The manuscript systematically compares regulatory frameworks governing UASS operations across major global entities, offering practitioners critical insights into international regulatory variations. The manuscript further examines operational considerations at different stages of pesticide application and identifies critical factors influencing spraying efficacy, providing practical references for field implementation. Notably, the analysis highlights environmental impacts on spraying operations, with particular emphasis on surface temperature inversion - a rarely addressed parameter in existing literature that significantly affects aerial application outcomes.

Response: Agree. The authors highly appreciate reviewers’ comment on the suitability of the manuscript. 

Comment 2. Numbering sections and sub-sections is incorrect starting from 256. For example, “5.1” should be changed to “4.1” and so on. 

Response: Agree. The text has been edited to reflect the changes in the revised manuscript. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The content of this manuscript is more in the format of a review than a full original article. It is recommended to modify the manuscript type accordingly.

2. Figures 2 and 3 lack adequate explanations, and the captions for the other figures are too brief to be interpreted. Please consider providing a more detailed description to improve clarity.

3. It would be helpful to include a flow chart outlining the standard operating procedures (SOPs) for drone spraying. This will help ensure that future operators can perform the process efficiently and safely.

Author Response

Comment 1: The content of this manuscript is more in the format of a review than a full original article. It is recommended to modify the manuscript type accordingly. 

Response: Agree. The authors request the Associate Editor to consider this. The edited manuscript has been revised to reflect this change (L1).  

Comment 2. Figures 2 and 3 lack adequate explanations, and the captions for the other figures are too brief to be interpreted. Please consider providing a more detailed description to improve clarity.

Response. Agree. Swath assessment has been extensively studies and references have been added in the revised manuscript as indicated by the reviewer. L 319-322.

Comment 3. It would be helpful to include a flow chart outlining the standard operating procedures (SOPs) for drone spraying. This will help ensure that future operators can perform the process efficiently and safely. 

Response: Agree. A table (Table 1) has been added in the revised manuscript outlining the BMPs to be considered. L 93-94.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. I found the topic to be relevant and timely, as UAV-based pesticide application is an evolving area with a need for clear guidance. However, I have identified several areas that require major revisions before this manuscript can be considered for publication.

My main concerns are as follows:

• Referencing: Several sections lack sufficient references to support the statements and recommendations. Please provide appropriate citations.

• Regulatory Considerations: The current section on regulatory considerations (lines 96-99) does not contribute significantly to the manuscript. It reads more like a disclaimer than an analysis. I recommend that you either:

  • Provide a comparative analysis of regulatory approaches in key regions.

  • Focus on the regulatory implications for your proposed Best Management Practices.

  • Identify regulatory gaps or uncertainties.

  • Integrate relevant regulatory points into the specific BMPs.

• Limitations Section: The manuscript would be strengthened by the inclusion of a dedicated section discussing the limitations of UAV-based pesticide application. This section should address:

  • Scalability for large areas

  • Economic and policy factors

  • Regulatory landscape and compliance

  • Technological maturity and development

I have provided more detailed comments within the manuscript document. I believe that addressing these concerns will significantly improve the quality and scientific rigor of your work. I encourage you to carefully consider my feedback and revise the manuscript accordingly.

Sincerely,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

General Comment: Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. I found the topic to be relevant and timely, as UAV-based pesticide application is an evolving area with a need for clear guidance. However, I have identified several areas that require major revisions before this manuscript can be considered for publication.

Response: Agree. The authors appreciate the comments from the reviewer and have responded to those accordingly. Please see the responses in the attached word file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript, can be accepted for publication in its current format. The authors have adequately addressed the concerns and suggestions raised during the review process.