A Survey on Multi Objective Optimization Challenges in Swarm Intelligence

Various challenges in real life are multi-objective and conflicting (i.e., alter concurrent optimization). This implies that a single objective is optimized based on another’s cost. The Multi-Objective Optimization (MOO) issues are challenging but potentially realistic, and due to their wide-range application, optimization challenges have widely been analyzed by research with distinct scholarly bases. Resultantly, this has yielded distinct approaches for mitigating these challenges. There is a wide-range literature concerning the approaches used to handle MOO challenges. It is important to keep in mind that each technique has its pros and limitations, and there is no optimum alternative for cure searchers in a typical scenario. The MOO challenges can be identified in various segments e.g., path optimization, airplane design, automobile design and finance, among others. This contribution presents a survey of prevailing MOO challenges and swarm intelligence approaches to mitigate these challenges. The main purpose of this contribution is to present a basis of understanding on MOO challenges.

Survey of ground and aerial herbicide application practices in Arkansas agronomic crops

A thorough understanding of commonly used herbicide application practices and technologies is needed to provide recommendations and determine necessary application education efforts. An online survey to assess ground and aerial herbicide application practices in Arkansas was made available online in spring 2019. The survey was direct-emailed to 272 agricultural aviators and 831 certified commercial pesticide applicators, as well as made publicly available online through multiple media sources. A total of 124 responses were received, of which 75 responses were specific to herbicide applications in Arkansas agronomic crops, accounting for approximately 49% of Arkansas’ planted agronomic crop hectares in 2019. Ground and aerial application equipment were used for 49% and 51% of the herbicide applications on reported hectares, respectively. Rate controllers were commonly used application technologies for both ground and aerial application equipment. In contrast, global positioning system-driven automatic nozzle and boom shut-offs were much more common on ground spray equipment than aerial equipment. Applicator knowledge of nozzles and usage was limited, regardless of ground or aerial applicators, as only 28% of respondents provided a specific nozzle type used, indicating a need for educational efforts on nozzles and their importance in herbicide applications. Of the reported nozzle types, venturi nozzles and straight-stream nozzles were the most commonly used for ground and aerial spray equipment, respectively. Spray carrier volumes of 96.3 and 118.8 L ha−1 for ground spray equipment and 49.6 and 59.9 L ha−1 for aerial application equipment were the means of reported spray volumes for systemic and contact herbicides, respectively. Respondents indicated application optimization was a major benefit of utilizing newer application technologies, herbicide drift was a primary challenge, and research needs expressed by respondents included adjuvants, spray volume efficacy, and herbicide drift. Findings from this survey provided insight into current practices, technologies, and needs of Arkansas herbicide applicators. Research and education efforts can be implemented as a result to address aforementioned needs while providing applied research-based information to applicators based on current practices.