Potential application
Which palms need attention, what was approved and carried out, and what changed by the next visit?
Palm treatment and follow-up
Connect reviewed tree selections, approved field action and later observations without automating the agronomist’s decision.
A proposed pilot workflow, not a customer result or evidence of a deployed combined system. Data availability, integrations and operating suitability must be confirmed.
Discuss a pilotConnected workflow
From observations to a reviewed decision.
- Observe and select
- Approve the plan
- Carry out and record
- Revisit and review
- 01
Review candidate palms
Use AI Vision / See n Locate observations and available geospatial context to prepare selected-tree lists. Field teams check the target references before a job; detections are not an automatic treatment instruction.
- 02
Approve the field plan
An agronomist reviews the available evidence and approves the treatment plan. Dosage is fixed before flight and is never changed autonomously in flight.
- 03
Treat where the method is suitable
Use No-Mapping P2P with prepared treatment points where operating conditions and the approved plan permit. Operators record actual activity, exceptions and missed work using available records.
- 04
Compare the return visit
Propose reviewing application and repeat-visit records in AgriSense 2.0. Persistent tree identity and treatment-record integration require implementation and validation; reconcile references rather than assuming automatic matching.
Supported decisions
What people could decide.
- Which palms should be inspected or included in the approved plan?
- What work remains incomplete or needs an operator’s clarification?
- Which follow-up changes warrant another inspection?
Proposed measures
What a pilot should check.
- Reviewed target selection and reference quality
- Recorded actual treatment and exceptions
- Follow-up condition at an agreed visit interval
Evidence needed to assess value
Compare the selected-tree list, approved job, available application records and dated follow-up observations. A flight trace alone cannot confirm the dose delivered to an individual palm.
Scope and limitations
This proposed combined workflow does not establish treatment efficacy or autonomous diagnosis. Agronomists approve the work; operators carry it out and record it.
AgriSense sensor connections, persistent tree identity, treatment-record integration and predictive support remain directions requiring implementation and field validation. Spectral indices support inspection; people approve treatment. LIBS is a separate concept, not an operational AgriSense input.