## 3 Results
### UAV Spraying and Artificial Spraying Pesticides to Control Wheat Aphids  
In the XD20 fields, one day after the spraying of pesticides, the control effect of sulfoxaflor recommend dosage and its 30% reduction dosage applied by MBES were 71.94% and 61.10%, respectively. The corresponding UAV treatments showed 67.47% and 58.80%, respectively. No significant difference was tested between P3 and P3M, as were P4 and P4M. Similarly, acetamiprid treatments P9 (55.94%) versus P9M (55.70%) and P10 (46.64%) versus P10M (48.99%) also performed with few differences (Table 4).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Treatments** & **Fields** & **1 DAS Control Effects (\%)** & **3 DAS Control Effects (\%)** & **7 DAS Control Effects (\%)** \\ \hline P3 & & 67.47\% \(\pm\) 3.63\% a & 77.54\% \(\pm\) 2.86\% a & 84.59\% \(\pm\) 2.05\% a \\ P3M & & 71.94\% \(\pm\) 3.69\% a & 79.68\% \(\pm\) 2.94\% ab & 87.01\% \(\pm\) 2.14\% a \\ P4 & & 58.80\% \(\pm\) 2.10\% b & 67.80\% \(\pm\) 2.15\% b & 75.92\% \(\pm\) 1.94\% b \\ P4M & XD20 & 61.10\% \(\pm\) 2.15\% b & 73.62\% \(\pm\) 2.37\% c & 76.11\% \(\pm\) 2.22\% b \\ P9 & & 55.94\% \(\pm\) 1.91\% a & 48.59\% \(\pm\) 2.49\% ab & 50.74\% \(\pm\) 2.93\% b \\ P9M & & 55.70\% \(\pm\) 3.25\% a & 52.81\% \(\pm\) 3.29\% a & 76.12\% \(\pm\) 2.22\% a \\ P10 & & 46.64\% \(\pm\) 1.94\% b & 43.61\% \(\pm\) 3.76\% b & 43.37\% \(\pm\) 2.56\% c \\ P10M & & 48.99\% \(\pm\) 2.03\% b & 46.84\% \(\pm\) 1.11\% b & 55.10\% \(\pm\) 5.02\% b \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: The control effects on wheat aphids of sulfoxaflor and acetamiprid with different method.  
Figure 4: The 7 DAS control effect of pesticides on wheat aphids fed on XD20 (**a**) and XD60 (**b**). Note: * represents the significant difference between regular dosage treatment and reduction dosage treatment.  
After three days, the control effect of P4M was 73.62%, which was significantly higher than UAV treatment P4. The regular dosage P3 and P3M performed with no such difference. But, the control effects of all sulfoxaflor treatments were higher than 80%. On the other hand, all acetaminophen treatments showed lower control effects compared to the sulfoxaflor treatments, but still stayed with no differences between the UAV method and MBES method of regular dosage treatments (P9 and P9M) and 30% reduction dosage treatments (P10 and P10M). Their control effects were 48.59% (P9), 52.81% (P9M), 43.61% (P10), and 46.84% (P10M), respectively (Table 4).  
The survey after seven days showed a similar result compared to one day after pesticide applications. The control effect of regular dosage of sulfoxaflor sprayed by MBES could reach 87.01%. That number of UAV sprayers could also gain a relative high value of 84.59%. By the way, two 30% reduction dosage treatments, P4 and P4M treatments, showed no significantly different control effects, but these two treatments both were significantly lower than P3 and P3M. During this time, acetamiprid treatments performed dissimilarly. The control effect of P9M (76.12%) was significantly better than its corresponding UAV treatment (50.74%). The 30% reduction dosage treatment also showed a significantly higher value (55.11%) than P10 (43.37%) (Table 4).  
Similarly, after three days, the control effect of P3M (80.14%) was significantly higher than P3 (73.79%), but P4 (66.47%) performed with no such difference compared to P4 (63.53%). P9M (73.50%) and P10M (67.48%) both had capabilities to show significantly higher control effects compared with their corresponding UAV treatments P9 (61.76%) and P10 (53.54%) (Table 4).  
But, after seven days, the results of sulfoxaflor treatments and acetamiprid treatments had reversed entirely. The P3M/P3 group and P4M/P4 group both performed with no obvious difference in the control effects. Surprisingly, two concentration treatments of acetamiprid showed a significantly better control effect by aerial method. The artificial sprayer gained the worst value (Table 4).