## 3 Results and Discussion  
This study initially included a water spray to be able to equate this spray as a control. We investigated spray solutions with three different DRAs. Other scientists like [PERSON] et al. [58] in their study also determined the coverage of trees growing in gardens with droplets sprayed by a spraying robot. In their study, five WSP sheets were applied to the foliage of trees. Spraying was carried out at two different travel speeds and three different spraying methods. However, [PERSON] et al. [58] did not investigate spray drift, which was done in this study. In our study, the robot sprayer was controlled by the remote control and drove on a set speed of 1.2 m s\({}^{-1}\). The travel trajectory was between the first and second rows of plants and it sprayed on the artificial plants in the first row. The results showed that at 0.5 m the coverage of WSP sheets by sprayed droplets was significantly higher than at 1.0 m (Figure 9). The spray coverage at 0.5 m was 57.6% on the first artificial plant and 55.8% on the second. In a similar study carried out by [PERSON] et al. [52], the XAG R150 spraying robot was used to search for spray parameters that could cover orchard plants and vineyards with droplets at the recommended 25-35% or 70-100 drops cm\({}^{-2}\). We decided that in our study, this rate was deliberately increased to better highlight the influence of lateral wind. It was observed that DRA helped to improve the spray coverage of sprayed plants in the absence of wind. The spray coverage of DRA1 on the first artificial plant at 0.5 m was 76.6%, which showed a coverage of about 33.0% higher than that of water, DRA2 a coverage of 81.2%, which showed a coverage of about 41.0% higher than that of water, DRA3 a coverage of 72.9%, which showed a coverage of about 26.6% higher than that of water. Very similar results were obtained when analyzing the WSPs of the artificial plant 2: DRA1 had a spray coverage of 74.2%, which showed a coverage about 33.0% higher than water, DRA2 81.2%, about 45.5% higher than water, and DRA3 72.7%, about 30.3% higher than water. Comparing the results obtained at a height of 1 m on the leaves of artificial plant 1, the spray coverage of 36.5% H\({}_{2}\)O was 43.9% for DRA1 (about 20.3% higher than water), 41.4% for DRA2 (about 13.4% higher than water) and 38.8% for DRA3 (about 6.3% higher than water). On the WSPs of artificial plant 2, the water spray coverage was 35.3%, 44.6% for DRA1 (coverage about 26.3% higher than water), 42.7% for DRA2 (coverage about 21.0% higher than water), and 39.0% for DRA3 (coverage about 10.5% higher than water). to the herbicide spray solution reduced droplet drift by 18% at 2 m from the spray zone and 36% at 12 m. In our study, the coverage of artificial plants in the spray zone at 1 m height was 14.2%. In the next row (3 m from the spray zone), the coverage of artificial plants was 1.6%. In the row 6 m away from the spray zone, the coverage of artificial plants was 0.1%. Coverage with DRAs was more effective, with 32.0% coverage of artificial plants with DRA1 droplets (about 2.3 times higher coverage than water), 34.8% coverage with DRA2 droplets (about 2.5 times higher than water), and 16.5% for DRA3 (about 16.2% higher than for water). Analysis of spray drift shows that the coverage of DRAs was lower on the artificial plants, which means that fewer droplets were carried downwind. On the plants, DRA1 had coverage of 0.8% (about 2 times lower than water), DRA2 0.7% (about 2.3 times lower than water), and DRA3 0.9% (about 1.8 times lower than water). Comparing the effectiveness of all DRAs with each other, they are quite similar. The lowest proportion of droplets was carried away by DRA2. When comparing DRA2 with DRA1, the coverage differed by only 0.1 percentage points or 14.3%, and with DRA3 by only 0.2 percentage points or 28.6%.