A hawk-inspired metaheuristic for trajectory optimization of UAVs in precision agriculture

Authors

  • Gigin Durai Chelladurai Department of Mechanical Engineering, Mar Ephraem College of Engineering and Technology, Elavuvilai, Marthandam, Tamil Nadu 629171, India Author
  • Lenin Fred Alfred Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Mar Ephraem College of Engineering and Technology, Elavuvilai, Marthandam, Tamil Nadu 629171, India Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.65746/jbrha139

Keywords:

unmanned aerial vehicle; trajectory optimization; coverage path planning; bio-inspired optimization; metaheuristic; precision agriculture; plantation monitoring

Abstract

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) have become central to precision agriculture, where efficient trajectory planning over large fields directly determines mission feasibility, energy use, and the quality of acquired data. We address the problem of generating an optimal, fully covering trajectory for a single UAV operating over a plantation field modeled as a graph of waypoints. The problem is a constrained variant of the Travelling Salesman Problem in which all waypoints must be visited, total path length and turning cost must be minimized, and an energy budget must be respected. Existing metaheuristics such as Particle Swarm Optimization, Grey Wolf Optimizer, and Harris’s Hawks Optimization struggle to balance exploration with the strict coverage constraint of plantation scenarios, and tend to converge prematurely on irregular layouts. We propose the Hawk-Inspired Trajectory Optimizer (HITO), a new population-based metaheuristic whose search behavior is inspired by the soaring, patrolling, and stooping phases of hawks. HITO introduces a thermal-soaring exploration operator, a territorial-patrol transition operator, and a stoop-dive exploitation operator, supported by a coverage-repair mechanism that guarantees feasibility at every iteration. We provide a Markov-chain argument for convergence and an O(N·n²) per-iteration complexity bound, where N is population size and n are the number of waypoints. HITO is benchmarked on simulated plantation fields of 1, 3, and 5 hectares against seven baselines, and on twelve CEC 2017 benchmark functions. Across thirty independent runs, HITO reduces path length by 12.4 % on average over the best baseline, lowers energy consumption by 14.1 %, improves coverage robustness, and converges in fewer generations. Statistical significance is confirmed using Wilcoxon signed-rank and Friedman tests.

References

1. Khanal S, Kc K, Fulton JP, et al. Remote sensing in agriculture—accomplishments, limitations, and opportunities. Remote Sensing. 2020; 12(22): 3783. doi: 10.3390/rs12223783

2. Barrientos A, Colorado J, Cerro J, et al. Aerial remote sensing in agriculture: A practical approach to area coverage and path planning for fleets of mini aerial robots. Journal of Field Robotics. 2011; 28(5): 667–689. doi: 10.1002/rob.20403

3. Galceran E, Carreras M. A survey on coverage path planning for robotics. Robotics and Autonomous Systems. 2013; 61(12): 1258–1276.

4. Choset H, Pignon P. Coverage path planning: The boustrophedon cellular decomposition. Field and service robotics. London: Springer London; 1998. pp. 203–209. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4471-1273-0_32

5. Kennedy J, Eberhart R. Particle swarm optimization. Proceedings of ICNN’95-international conference on neural networks. IEEE. 1995; 4: 1942–1948. doi: 10.1145/3205651.3207877

6. Mirjalili S, Mirjalili SM, Lewis A. Grey wolf optimizer. Advances in Engineering Software. 2014; 69: 46–61.

7. Mirjalili S, Lewis A. The whale optimization algorithm. Advances in Engineering Software. 2016; 95: 51–67.

8. Heidari AA, Mirjalili S, Faris H, et al. Harris hawks optimization: Algorithm and applications. Future Generation Computer Systems. 2019; 97: 849–872. doi: 10.1016/j.future.2019.02.028

9. Dorigo M, Birattari M, Stutzle T. Ant colony optimization. IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine. 2006; 1(4): 28–39. doi: 10.1145/2001858.2002122

10. Goldberg DE. Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning. Addison. Reading. 1989.

11. Tokekar P, Vander Hook J, Mulla D, et al. Sensor planning for a symbiotic UAV and UGV system for precision agriculture. IEEE Transactions on Robotics. 2016; 32(6): 1498–1511. doi: 10.1109/iros.2013.6697126

12. Huang Y, Hoffmann WC, Lan Y, et al. Development of a spray system for an unmanned aerial vehicle platform. Applied Engineering in Agriculture. 2009; 25(6): 803–809. doi: 10.13031/2013.29229

13. Cabreira TM, Brisolara LB, Paulo RFJ. Survey on coverage path planning with unmanned aerial vehicles. Drones. 2019; 3(1): 4. doi: 10.3390/drones3010004

14. Chou SF, Liao CH. Energy-Efficient UAV Path Planning and Charging Integration for Precision Agriculture. In 2025 IEEE VTS Asia Pacific Wireless Communications Symposium (APWCS). IEEE; 2025. pp. 1–5. doi: 10.1109/APWCS67981.2025.11151947

15. Chen Y, Li W, Yue J. Dynamic path planning of UAV for three-dimensional moving target search in complex environment. In: 2021 IEEE International Conference on Emergency Science and Information Technology (ICESIT). IEEE; 2021. pp. 770–775.

16. Radmanesh M, Kumar M, Nemati A, et al. Dynamic optimal UAV trajectory planning in the national airspace system via mixed integer linear programming. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering. 2016; 230(9): 1668–1682. doi: 10.1177/0954410015609361

17. Wang Y, Bai P, Liang X, et al. Reconnaissance mission conducted by UAV swarms based on distributed PSO path planning algorithms. IEEE Access. 2019; 7: 105086–105099. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2932008

18. Aggarwal S, Kumar N. Path planning techniques for unmanned aerial vehicles: A review, solutions, and challenges. Computer Communications. 2020; 149: 270–299. doi: 10.1016/j.comcom.2019.10.014

19. Mittal N, Singh U, Salgotra R, et al. A boolean spider monkey optimization based energy efficient clustering approach for WSNs. Wireless Networks. 2018; 24(6): 2093–2109. doi: 10.1007/s11276-017-1459-4

20. Yang X S, Deb S. Cuckoo search via Lévy flights. 2009 World congress on nature & biologically inspired computing (NaBIC). IEEE; 2009. pp. 210–214. doi: 10.1109/NABIC.2009.5393690

21. Wu G, Mallipeddi R, Suganthan PN. Problem definitions and evaluation criteria for the CEC 2017 competition on constrained real-parameter optimization. National University of Defense Technology, Changsha, Hunan, PR China and Kyungpook National University, Daegu, South Korea and Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Technical Report. 2017; 9(10): 2017. doi:

22. Wilcoxon F. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bulletin. 1945; 1(6): 80–83. doi: 10.2307/3001968

23. Friedman M. The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1937; 32(200): 675–701. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1937.10503522

24. Wolpert DH, Macready WG. No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation. 1997; 1(1): 67–82. doi: 10.1109/4235.585893

25. Valavanis KP, Vachtsevanos GJ. Handbook of unmanned aerial vehicles. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated; 2014.

Downloads

Published

09/04/2026

Issue

Section

Article

How to Cite

A hawk-inspired metaheuristic for trajectory optimization of UAVs in precision agriculture. (2026). Journal of Biological Regulators and Homeostatic Agents, 40(3), 139. https://doi.org/10.65746/jbrha139