## 4 Conclusions  
1. This study showed that the coverage of plants by droplets sprayed by the agricultural spraying robot (when the angle of the beam of the sprayer in the vertical direction \(\alpha_{1}\) varied from \(-18^{\circ}\) to \(+10^{\circ}\) and in the horizontal direction was constant \(\alpha_{2}=140^{\circ}\)) is significantly affected by the lateral wind at different velocities. The spray coverage of the  
Figure 14: The influence of lateral wind velocity and DRA on the spray drift of downwind droplets at 1 m from the ground and 3 m beyond the spray zone. Figure 15: The influence of lateral wind velocity and DRA on the spray drift of downwind droplets at 0.5 m from the ground and 3 m beyond the spray zone. artificial plants was significantly higher in the middle part of the plant (0.5 m from the ground) than in the upper part (1 m). For DRA1, the spray coverage was about 45% at 1 m and 75% at 0.5 m, i.e., about 40% higher. When a lateral wind of \(v=2\) m s\({}^{-1}\) was applied to the spray zone, the spray coverage for DRA1 at 1 m height decreased to 32%, at \(v=4\) m s\({}^{-1}\)--to 10.5%, at \(v=6\) m s\({}^{-1}\)--to 2.3% and at \(v=8\) m s\({}^{-1}\)--to 1.4%. Analysis of the results obtained at 0.5 m height showed that when the spraying process was subjected to a wind velocity of \(v=2\) m s\({}^{-1}\), the spray coverage of the DRA1 solution was 82.1%, at \(v=4\) m s\({}^{-1}\)--74.0%, at \(v=6\) m s\({}^{-1}\)--71.3%, and \(v=8\) m s\({}^{-1}\)--58.4%. The results showed that even under high lateral wind velocities (\(v=6\)-\(8\) m s\({}^{-1}\)), the droplet sprays provided sufficient coverage of the middle part of the artificial plant. 2. It was found that as the lateral wind velocity increased from 2 m s\({}^{-1}\) to 8 m s\({}^{-1}\), the proportion of droplets drifting downwind increased, while the coverage of the spray zone by droplets of spray liquid gradually decreased. In the spray zone, at 1 m height, the water spray coverage of the artificial plants was about 36% at a lateral wind velocity close to 0. In the spray zone, at \(v=2\) m s\({}^{-1}\) lateral wind, the spray coverage of the plants decreased to 14.2% at \(v=4\) m s\({}^{-1}\)--to 5.0%, at \(v=6\) m s\({}^{-1}\)--to 2.1%, and at \(v=8\) m s\({}^{-1}\)--to 1.2%. Meanwhile, spray drift at 3 m from the spray zone increased. When the spraying process was subjected to a lateral wind velocity of \(v=2\) m s\({}^{-1}\), the spray coverage was 1.6%, 4.2% at \(v=4\) m s\({}^{-1}\), 5.3% at \(v=6\) m s\({}^{-1}\), and 8.1% at \(v=8\) m s\({}^{-1}\). 3. Studies have shown that the use of chemical drift reduction agents (DRAs) can reduce spray drift. Regardless of the strength of the lateral wind, spraying DRA solutions resulted in a lower proportion of droplets being carried away compared to water. When sprayed in a lateral wind of \(v=8\) m s\({}^{-1}\) in a row of artificial plants 6 m from the spray zone, the water spray coverage was 0.9 \(\pm\) 0.3%, 0.3 \(\pm\) 0.2% for DRA1 (3 times lower than that of water), 0.5 \(\pm\) 0.3% for DRA2 (1.8 times lower than that of water), and 0.8 \(\pm\) 0.3% for DRA3 (approximately 1.1 times lower than that of water). To summarize the results of the studies, it can be noted that significant losses of spray liquid increase with lateral wind velocity above 4 m s\({}^{-1}\). So it is not recommended to perform a spraying operation with a spraying robot at a wind velocity above this value. Although DRAs help reduce the impact of spray drift, losses of sprayed liquid remain high. This cannot only affect the quality and quantity of harvests, but also have a negative impact on the environment. Conceptualization, T.J. and D.S. ([PERSON]); methodology, T.J., D.S. ([PERSON]) and D.S. ([PERSON]); software, T.J. and A.G.; validation, [PERSON], D.S. ([PERSON]) and D.S. ([PERSON]); formal analysis, T.J., A.K. and D.S. ([PERSON]); investigation, T.J.; resources, T.J. and D.S. ([PERSON]); data curation, T.J, A.G. and D.S. ([PERSON]); writing--original draft preparation, T.J., A.K. and D.S.