## 3 Results and Discussion
### Control Efficacy  
The crop productions at sprayed areas were higher than that of non-sprayed areas for both crops (Table 6). To compare the difference caused by the nozzle, [PERSON]'s test was conducted to determine whether there was a difference in crop production. As a result, no  
Figure 6: Coverage of droplet deposition with error bar representing standard deviation by plants and nozzles. Figure 7: Penetration ratio of droplet deposition with error bar representing standard deviation by plants and nozzles. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Factor**} & **Degree of** & **Sum of** & \multirow{2}{*}{**F**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**\(p\)-Value**} \\  & **Freedom** & **Squares** & & \\ \hline Plant & 1 & 1104 & 2.668 & 0.117 \\ Nozzle & 1 & 398 & 0.962 & 0.337 \\ Plant \(\times\) Nozzle & 1 & 2 & 0.005 & 0.947 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Two-way analysis of variance of penetration ratio. significant difference was found between the experimental groups using AI and flat fan nozzles for both crops (\(p<0.05\)). Based on the coverage measurements in Section 3.1, the amount of spray droplets delivered to the crop canopy was higher with the AI nozzle, but there was no difference in the PR, so there was no difference in yield. And it is considered that this is the result of trying to minimize the impact of various factors on crop yields, but not being able to fully control them. Also, the increased size of the spray droplets resulted in increased deposition with less drift, but the decreased surface area seems to have reduced the effectiveness. Further research is needed to determine the optimal spray droplet size. To compare direct pest control efficacy, the damage ratio of rice caused by pests and diseases was investigated (Figure 8). The investigation results showed that in the case of AI nozzle treatment, the damage ratios of rice blast, rice stem borer, and sheath blight were 39.3%, 1.0%, and 6.5%, respectively; in the case of flat fan nozzle treatment, these values were 42.0%, 2.9%, and 8.0%, respectively; and for the control group, these values were 71.1%, 7.6%, and 35.0%, respectively. The damage ratios caused by three pests and diseases were reduced by 6.4%, 65.5%, and 18.7% when using AI nozzles compared with those when using flat fan nozzles. Therefore, the AI nozzle is shown to have better control efficacy, giving some indication of smaller drop drift using the conventional nozzles. The damage ratios of soybeans caused by pests and diseases were also investigated (Table 7). The pest that causes damage to the leaves was anthracose and the insect was litura. And the pest that damages grain was anthracose and the insect was clavatus. It was shown that the damage caused by pests outweighed the damage caused by diseases and that the leaf damage was more severe than grain damage. For more detailed analysis, [PERSON]'s test was conducted to determine whether there was a difference in the damage ratios. However, no significant difference was found between the experimental groups using AI and flat fan nozzles for both crops (\(p<0.05\)). Similar to the results of the production \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline  & **Rice (g/m2)** & **Soybean (g/m2)** \\ \hline AI nozzle & 465a & 324a \\ Flat fan nozzle & 449a & 309a \\ Control & 322b & 240b \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} a.p. the same letter note indicates no significant difference at the \(p=0.05\) significant level, different letters indicate significant differences at \(p=0.05\) significant level.  
\end{table} 
Table 6: Crop production rate by treatment. Figure 8: Control efficacy of rice after spraying by pests and diseases. investigation, there was no significant difference in the PR values between treatments, so it seems that there is no difference in control efficacy. When analyzing the effects of aerial control in the future, it is considered more accurate to examine PR values rather than canopy coverage. [PERSON] et al.