Current Progress and Future Prospects of Agriculture Technology: Gateway to Sustainable Agriculture
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- World prospects for agriculture advancement;
- Technology-based limitations faced by the agricultural industry, and the role of major equipment and technologies, such as the IoT, and UAVs, to address these limitations and other issues, such as resource shortages and their precise uses, food quality, environmental pollutions, climate change, and urbanization;
- Highlighting the latest developments in the IoT and other technologies that support advanced agriculture;
- Strategies and policies to consider when implementing the IoT and other technologies in advanced agriculture;
- Key issues in food safety with recommendations to address those issues;
- Future prospects and recommendations of these advanced technologies.
2. Methods
3. Major Agriculture Applications and Services
3.1. Soil Monitoring
3.2. Irrigation
3.3. Crop Disease and Its Management
3.4. Fertilizer
3.5. Crop Harvesting Monitoring and Forecasting
4. Advanced Agricultural Approaches
4.1. Greenhouse Agriculture
4.2. Hydroponics
4.3. Vertical Farming (VF)
4.4. Phenotyping
5. Major Equipment and Technologies
5.1. Smartphone
5.2. Agricultural Communication
5.2.1. Cellular Communication
5.2.2. Bluetooth
5.2.3. Zigbee
5.3. Sensor Devices
5.4. Advanced Machines Used to Advance Agriculture
5.5. Cloud Computing
5.6. Harvesting
6. Uses of UAVs in Agriculture Advancement
6.1. Soil and Water Analysis
6.2. Planting
6.3. Irrigation
6.4. Health Assessment of the Crops
6.5. Spraying Pesticides/Herbicides
6.6. Plant Species Detection/Identification
7. Food Safety and Transportation
7.1. Compliance
7.2. Laird Sentrius
7.3. Tempreporter
7.4. CCP Smart Label (RC4)
8. Current Challenges and Future Prospects
8.1. Smartphone and the IoT
8.2. The IoT and Wireless Sensors (IoTWS)
8.3. Communication
8.4. Drones and Other Robots
8.5. Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence
8.6. Energy Consumption, Renewable Energy, Microgrid, and Smart Grid
8.7. Vertical Farming and Hydroponics
9. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Union, U. World Population Projected to Reach 9.8 Billion in 2050, and 11.2 Billion in 2100; UN DESA: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- McNabb, D.E. The population growth barrier. In Global Pathways to Water Sustainability; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 67–81. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 68% of the World Population Projected to Live in Urban Areas by 2050, Says UN; United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, X.; Davidson, E.A. Improving nitrogen and water management in crop production on a national scale. In Proceedings of the AGU Fall Meeting, Washington, DC, USA, 10–14 December 2018; p. B22B-01. [Google Scholar]
- Ayaz, M.; Ammad-Uddin, M.; Sharif, Z.; Mansour, A.; Aggoune, E.-H.M. Internet-of-Things (IoT)-Based Smart Agriculture: Toward Making the Fields Talk. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 129551–129583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tripathi, A.D.; Mishra, R.; Maurya, K.K.; Singh, R.B.; Wilson, D.W. Estimates for world population and global food availability for global health. In The Role of Functional Food Security in Global Health; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 3–24. [Google Scholar]
- Elder, M.; Hayashi, S. A regional perspective on biofuels in Asia. In Biofuels and Sustainability; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 223–246. [Google Scholar]
- Hassan, Q.F. Internet of Things A to Z: Technologies and Applications; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Navulur, S.; Prasad, M.G. Agricultural management through wireless sensors and internet of things. Int. J. Electr. Comput. Eng. 2017, 7, 3492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sisinni, E.; Saifullah, A.; Han, S.; Jennehag, U.; Gidlund, M. Industrial internet of things: Challenges, opportunities, and directions. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2018, 14, 4724–4734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ayaz, M.; Ammad-Uddin, M.; Baig, I. Wireless sensor’s civil applications, prototypes, and future integration possibilities: A review. IEEE Sens. J. 2017, 18, 4–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, J.; Yu, W.; Zhang, N.; Yang, X.; Zhang, H.; Zhao, W. A survey on internet of things: Architecture, enabling technologies, security and privacy, and applications. IEEE Internet Things J. 2017, 4, 1125–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, X.; An, X.; Zhao, Q.; Liu, H.; Xia, L.; Sun, X.; Guo, Y. State-of-the-art internet of things in protected agriculture. Sensors 2019, 19, 1833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Khan, N.; Siddiqui, B.N.; Khan, N.; Ismail, S. The Internet of Thing in Sustainable Agriculture. Artech J. Res. Stud. Agric. Sci. 2020, 2, 12–15. [Google Scholar]
- Demestichas, K.; Peppes, N.; Alexakis, T. Survey on Security Threats in Agricultural IoT and Smart Farming. Sensors 2020, 20, 6458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonneau, V.; Copigneaux, B.; Probst, L.; Pedersen, B.; Industry 4.0 in Agriculture: Focus on IoT Aspects. European Commission, Digital Transformation Monitor. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/dem/monitor/content/industry-40-agriculture-focus-iot-aspects (accessed on 10 July 2017).
- King, T.; Cole, M.; Farber, J.M.; Eisenbrand, G.; Zabaras, D.; Fox, E.M.; Hill, J.P. Food safety for food security: Relationship between global megatrends and developments in food safety. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 68, 160–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chung, S.-S.; Wong, C.K. Regulatory and Policy Control on Food Safety in China; BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Khanna, A.; Kaur, S. Evolution of Internet of Things (IoT) and its significant impact in the field of Precision Agriculture. Comput. Electr. Agric. 2019, 157, 218–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tzounis, A.; Katsoulas, N.; Bartzanas, T.; Kittas, C. Internet of Things in agriculture, recent advances and future challenges. Biol. Eng. 2017, 164, 31–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dinkins, C.P.; Jones, C. Interpretation of Soil Test Reports for Agriculture; MT200702AG, Montana State University Extension: Bozeman, MT, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Saiz-Rubio, V.; Rovira-Más, F. From smart farming towards agriculture 5.0: A review on crop data management. Agronomy 2020, 10, 207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shafi, U.; Mumtaz, R.; García-Nieto, J.; Hassan, S.A.; Zaidi, S.A.R.; Iqbal, N. Precision agriculture techniques and practices: From considerations to applications. Sensors 2019, 19, 3796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Villa-Henriksen, A.; Edwards, G.T.; Pesonen, L.A.; Green, O.; Sørensen, C.A.G. Internet of Things in arable farming: Implementation, applications, challenges and potential. Biol. Eng. 2020, 191, 60–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Navarro, E.; Costa, N.; Pereira, A. A systematic review of IoT solutions for smart farming. Sensors 2020, 20, 4231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Talavera, J.M.; Tobón, L.E.; Gómez, J.A.; Culman, M.A.; Aranda, J.M.; Parra, D.T.; Quiroz, L.A.; Hoyos, A.; Garreta, L.E. Review of IoT applications in agro-industrial and environmental fields. Comput. Electr. Agric. 2017, 142, 283–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez-Fernández, J.; González-Zamora, A.; Sánchez, N.; Gumuzzio, A.; Herrero-Jiménez, C. Satellite soil moisture for agricultural drought monitoring: Assessment of the SMOS derived Soil Water Deficit Index. Rem. Sens. Environ. 2016, 177, 277–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vågen, T.-G.; Winowiecki, L.A.; Tondoh, J.E.; Desta, L.T.; Gumbricht, T. Mapping of soil properties and land degradation risk in Africa using MODIS reflectance. Geoderma 2016, 263, 216–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ray, R.L.; Fares, A.; He, Y.; Temimi, M. Evaluation and inter-comparison of satellite soil moisture products using in situ observations over Texas, US. Water 2017, 9, 372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Devaux, A.; Kromann, P.; Ortiz, O. Potatoes for sustainable global food security. Potato Res. 2014, 57, 185–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Motoshita, M.; Ono, Y.; Pfister, S.; Boulay, A.-M.; Berger, M.; Nansai, K.; Tahara, K.; Itsubo, N.; Inaba, A. Consistent characterisation factors at midpoint and endpoint relevant to agricultural water scarcity arising from freshwater consumption. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2018, 23, 2276–2287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chen, T. Implementing Efficient and Multi-Hop Image Acquisition in Remote Monitoring IoT Systems Using LoRa Technology; University of Saskatchewan: Saskatoon, SK, Canada, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Li, J.; Liu, Y.; Xie, J.; Li, M.; Sun, M.; Liu, Z.; Jiang, S. A Remote Monitoring and Diagnosis Method Based on Four-Layer IoT Frame Perception. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 144324–144338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dittmar, H.; Drach, M.; Vosskamp, R.; Trenkel, M.E.; Gutser, R.; Steffens, G. Fertilizers, 2. Types. In Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, P.; Bustamante, M.; Ahammad, H.; Clark, H.; Dong, H.; Elsiddig, E.A.; Haberl, H.; Harper, R.; House, J.; Jafari, M. Agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU). In Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014; pp. 811–922. [Google Scholar]
- Lavanya, G.; Rani, C.; Ganeshkumar, P. An automated low cost IoT based Fertilizer Intimation System for smart agriculture. Sustain. Comput. Inform. Syst. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waskom, R.; Bauder, T.; Pearson, R. Best management practices for agricultural pesticide use. In Bulletin (Colorado State University. Extension); XCM-177; Colorado State University: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, S.; Lee, M.; Shin, C. IoT-based strawberry disease prediction system for smart farming. Sensors 2018, 18, 4051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Venkatesan, R.; Kathrine, G.J.W.; Ramalakshmi, K. Internet of Things Based Pest Management Using Natural Pesticides for Small Scale Organic Gardens. J. Comput. Theoret. Nanosci. 2018, 15, 2742–2747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalachev, E. Exporting Technology to the Russian Agriculture Market. Bachelor’s Thesis, JAMK University of Applied Sciences, Jyväskylä, Finland, 16 May 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Oberti, R.; Marchi, M.; Tirelli, P.; Calcante, A.; Iriti, M.; Tona, E.; Hočevar, M.; Baur, J.; Pfaff, J.; Schütz, C. Selective spraying of grapevines for disease control using a modular agricultural robot. Biol. Eng. 2016, 146, 203–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stein, K.; Coulibaly, D.; Stenchly, K.; Goetze, D.; Porembski, S.; Lindner, A.; Konaté, S.; Linsenmair, E.K. Bee pollination increases yield quantity and quality of cash crops in Burkina Faso, West Africa. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wietzke, A.; Westphal, C.; Gras, P.; Kraft, M.; Pfohl, K.; Karlovsky, P.; Pawelzik, E.; Tscharntke, T.; Smit, I. Insect pollination as a key factor for strawberry physiology and marketable fruit quality. Agric. Ecol. Environ. 2018, 258, 197–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chung, S.-O.; Choi, M.-C.; Lee, K.-H.; Kim, Y.-J.; Hong, S.-J.; Li, M. Sensing technologies for grain crop yield monitoring systems: A review. J. Biol. Eng. 2016, 41, 408–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Manfrini, L.; Pierpaoli, E.; Zibordi, M.; Morandi, B.; Muzzi, E.; Losciale, P.; Grappadelli, L.C. Monitoring strategies for precise production of high quality fruit and yield in Apple in Emilia-Romagna. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2015, 44, 301–306. [Google Scholar]
- Benincasa, P.; Antognelli, S.; Brunetti, L.; Fabbri, C.A.; Natale, A.; Sartoretti, V.; Modeo, G.; Guiducci, M.; Tei, F.; Vizzari, M. Reliability of NDVI derived by high resolution satellite and UAV compared to in-field methods for the evaluation of early crop N status and grain yield in Wheat. Exp. Agric. 2018, 54, 604–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ihtisham, M.; Liu, S.; Shahid, M.O.; Khan, N.; Lv, B.; Sarraf, M.; Chen, Q. The Optimized N, P, and K Fertilization for Bermudagrass Integrated Turf Performance during the Establishment and Its Importance for the Sustainable Management of Urban Green Spaces. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, N.; Medlock, G.; Graves, S.; Anwar, S. GPS guided Autonomous Navigation of a Small Agricultural Robot with Automated Fertilizing System, 0148-7191; SAE Technical Paper; SAE: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Raut, R.; Varma, H.; Mulla, C.; Pawar, V.R. Soil Monitoring, Fertigation, and Irrigation System Using IoT for Agricultural Application. In Intelligent Communication and Computational Technologies; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 67–73. [Google Scholar]
- González-Briones, A.; Castellanos-Garzón, J.A.; Mezquita Martín, Y.; Prieto, J.; Corchado, J.M. A framework for knowledge discovery from wireless sensor networks in rural environments: A crop irrigation systems case study. Wirel. Commun. Mob. Comput. 2018, 2018, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villarrubia, G.; Paz, J.F.D.; Iglesia, D.H.; Bajo, J. Combining multi-agent systems and wireless sensor networks for monitoring crop irrigation. Sensors 2017, 17, 1775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Neto, A.J.S.; Zolnier, S.; de Carvalho Lopes, D. Development and evaluation of an automated system for fertigation control in soilless tomato production. Comput. Electr. Agric. 2014, 103, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ihtisham, M.; Fahad, S.; Luo, T.; Larkin, R.M.; Yin, S.; Chen, L. Optimization of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium fertilization rates for overseeded perennial ryegrass turf on dormant bermudagrass in a transitional climate. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bruns, H.A. Southern corn leaf blight: A story worth retelling. Agric. J. 2017, 109, 1218–1224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pohanish, R.P. Sittig’s Handbook of Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals; William Andrew: Norwich, NY, USA, 2014; p. 1006. [Google Scholar]
- Torbick, N.; Chowdhury, D.; Salas, W.; Qi, J. Monitoring rice agriculture across Myanmar using time series Sentinel-1 assisted by Landsat-8 and PALSAR-2. Remote Sens. 2017, 9, 119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, Z.; Walsh, K.B.; Verma, B. On-tree mango fruit size estimation using RGB-D images. Sensors 2017, 17, 2738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Udomkun, P.; Nagle, M.; Argyropoulos, D.; Mahayothee, B.; Müller, J. Multi-sensor approach to improve optical monitoring of papaya shrinkage during drying. J. Food Eng. 2016, 189, 82–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The FarmTRX Moisture Sensor Adds Moisture Capability to Your FarmTRX Yield Monitor. 2019. Available online: https://www.farmtrx.com/ (accessed on 15 April 2019).
- Pimentel, D.; Burgess, M. Soil erosion threatens food production. Agriculture 2013, 3, 443–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Benke, K.; Tomkins, B. Future food-production systems: Vertical farming and controlled-environment agriculture. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2017, 13, 13–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nishimura, T.; Okuyama, Y.; Matsushita, A.; Ikeda, H.; Satoh, A. A compact hardware design of a sensor module for hydroponics. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 6th Global Conference on Consumer Electronics (GCCE), Nagoya, Japan, 24–27 October 2017; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
- Tripodi, P.; Massa, D.; Venezia, A.; Cardi, T. Sensing technologies for precision phenotyping in vegetable crops: Current status and future challenges. Agronomy 2018, 8, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sarraf, M.; Kataria, S.; Taimourya, H.; Santos, L.O.; Menegatti, R.D.; Jain, M.; Liu, S. Magnetic field (MF) applications in plants: An overview. Plants 2020, 9, 1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhou, J.; Reynolds, D.; Websdale, D.; Le Cornu, T.; Gonzalez-Navarro, O.; Lister, C.; Orford, S.; Laycock, S.; Finlayson, G.; Stitt, T. CropQuant: An automated and scalable field phenotyping platform for crop monitoring and trait measurements to facilitate breeding and digital agriculture. BioRxiv 2017, 161547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- bin Ismail, M.I.H.; Thamrin, N.M. IoT implementation for indoor vertical farming watering system. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Electrical, Electronics and System Engineering (ICEESE), Kanazawa, Japan, 9–10 November 2017; pp. 89–94. [Google Scholar]
- Siregar, B.; Efendi, S.; Pranoto, H.; Ginting, R.; Andayani, U.; Fahmi, F. Remote monitoring system for hydroponic planting media. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on ICT For Smart Society (ICISS), Tangerang, Indonesia, 18–19 September 2017; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Liang, J.-Y.; Chien, Y.-H. Effects of feeding frequency and photoperiod on water quality and crop production in a tilapia–water spinach raft aquaponics system. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2013, 85, 693–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ibayashi, H.; Kaneda, Y.; Imahara, J.; Oishi, N.; Kuroda, M.; Mineno, H. A reliable wireless control system for tomato hydroponics. Sensors 2016, 16, 644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Theopoulos, A.; Boursianis, A.; Koukounaras, A.; Samaras, T. Prototype wireless sensor network for real-time measurements in hydroponics cultivation. In Proceedings of the 2018 7th International Conference on Modern Circuits and Systems Technologies (MOCAST), Thessaloniki, Greece, 7–9 May 2018; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
- Kong, Q.; Chen, H.; Mo, Y.-L.; Song, G. Real-time monitoring of water content in sandy soil using shear mode piezoceramic transducers and active sensing—A feasibility study. Sensors 2017, 17, 2395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kumar, R.; Zhang, X.; Wang, W.; Khan, R.U.; Kumar, J.; Sharif, A. A multimodal malware detection technique for Android IoT devices using various features. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 64411–64430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gasso-Tortajada, V.; Ward, A.J.; Mansur, H.; Brøchner, T.; Sørensen, C.G.; Green, O. A novel acoustic sensor approach to classify seeds based on sound absorption spectra. Sensors 2010, 10, 10027–10039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Khan, N.; Ismail, S.; Wali, A.; Kazim, R.; Azam, T. The influence of information communication technology development on income inequality. Artech J. Curr. Bus. Financ. Aff. 2020, 11, 18. [Google Scholar]
- Alfian, G.; Syafrudin, M.; Rhee, J. Real-time monitoring system using smartphone-based sensors and nosql database for perishable supply chain. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pongnumkul, S.; Chaovalit, P.; Surasvadi, N. Applications of smartphone-based sensors in agriculture: A systematic review of research. J. Sens. 2015, 95308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Flor, A.G.; Cisneros, A.J. e-Agriculture. Int. Encycl. Digit. Commun. Soc. 2015, 9999, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Omran, E.-S.E.; Negm, A.M. Smart Sensing System for Precision Agriculture. In Technological and Modern Irrigation Environment in Egypt; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 77–105. [Google Scholar]
- Wyche, S.; Steinfield, C. Why don’t farmers use cell phones to access market prices? Technology affordances and barriers to market information services adoption in rural Kenya. Inf. Technol. Dev. 2016, 22, 320–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baumüller, H. Agricultural Innovation and Service Delivery through Mobile Phones: Analyses in Kenya. Ph.D. Thesis, Universitäts-und Landesbibliothek Bonn, Bonn, Germany, 2015; p. 156.
- Barnett, I.; Batchelor, S.; Gilligan, D.; Haddad, L.; Hidrobo, M.; Ledlie, N.; Palloni, G.; Scott, N.; Shyam, T. External Evaluation of Mobile Phone Technology-Based Nutrition and Agriculture Advisory Services in Africa and South Asia; IFPRI: Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Gilligan, D.O.; Hidrobo, M.; Palloni, G.; Tambet, H. External Evaluation of Mobile Phone Technology-Based Nutrition and Agriculture Advisory Services in Africa and South Asia: Mobile Phones, Nutrition, and Health in Tanzania: Quantitative Endline Report; IFPRI: Washington, DC, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Minkoua Nzie, J.; Bidogeza, J.-C.; Azinwi Ngum, N. Mobile phone use, transaction costs, and price: Evidence from rural vegetable farmers in Cameroon. J. Afr. Bus. 2018, 19, 323–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, Q.; Shi, Y.; Tang, H.; Yang, P.; Xie, A.; Liu, B.; Wu, W. eFarm: A tool for better observing agricultural land systems. Sensors 2017, 17, 453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Işık, M.F.; Sönmez, Y.; Yılmaz, C.; Özdemir, V.; Yılmaz, E.N. Precision irrigation system (PIS) using sensor network technology integrated with IOS/Android application. Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Guler, E.; Yilmaz Sengel, T.; Gumus, Z.P.; Arslan, M.; Coskunol, H.; Timur, S.; Yagci, Y. Mobile phone sensing of cocaine in a lateral flow assay combined with a biomimetic material. Anal. Chem. 2017, 89, 9629–9632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Baumüller, H. The little we know: An exploratory literature review on the utility of mobile phone-enabled services for smallholder farmers. J. Int. Dev. 2018, 30, 134–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Debauche, O.; Mahmoudi, S.; Andriamandroso, A.L.H.; Manneback, P.; Bindelle, J.; Lebeau, F. Cloud services integration for farm animals’ behavior studies based on smartphones as activity sensors. J. Ambient Intell. Hum. Comput. 2019, 10, 4651–4662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wan, X.; Cui, J.; Jiang, X.; Zhang, J.; Yang, Y.; Zheng, T. Smartphone based hemispherical photography for canopy structure measurement. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Optical Instruments and Technology: Optoelectronic Measurement Technology and Systems, Beijing, China, 28–30 October 2017; p. 106210Q. [Google Scholar]
- Frommberger, L.; Schmid, F.; Cai, C. Micro-mapping with smartphones for monitoring agricultural development. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Symposium on Computing for Development, Bangalore, India, 11–12 January 2013; pp. 1–2. [Google Scholar]
- Andriamandroso, A.L.H.; Lebeau, F.; Beckers, Y.; Froidmont, E.; Dufrasne, I.; Heinesch, B.; Dumortier, P.; Blanchy, G.; Blaise, Y.; Bindelle, J. Development of an open-source algorithm based on inertial measurement units (IMU) of a smartphone to detect cattle grass intake and ruminating behaviors. Comput. Electr. Agric. 2017, 139, 126–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azam, M.M.; Rosman, S.; Mustaffa, M.; Mullisi, S.S.; Wahy, H.; Jusoh, M.; Ali, M.M. Hybrid water pump system for hilly agricultural site. In Proceedings of the 2016 7th IEEE Control and System Graduate Research Colloquium (ICSGRC), Shah Alam, Malaysia, 8 August 2016; pp. 109–114. [Google Scholar]
- Herrick, J.E.; Beh, A.; Barrios, E.; Bouvier, I.; Coetzee, M.; Dent, D.; Elias, E.; Hengl, T.; Karl, J.W.; Liniger, H. The land-potential knowledge system (LandPKS): Mobile apps and collaboration for optimizing climate change investments. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 2016, 2, e01209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Orlando, F.; Movedi, E.; Coduto, D.; Parisi, S.; Brancadoro, L.; Pagani, V.; Guarneri, T.; Confalonieri, R. Estimating leaf area index (LAI) in vineyards using the PocketLAI smart-app. Sensors 2016, 16, 2004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sopegno, A.; Calvo, A.; Berruto, R.; Busato, P.; Bocthis, D. A web mobile application for agricultural machinery cost analysis. Comput. Electr. Agric. 2016, 130, 158–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bueno-Delgado, M.V.; Molina-Martínez, J.M.; Correoso-Campillo, R.; Pavón-Mariño, P. Ecofert: An Android application for the optimization of fertilizer cost in fertigation. Comput. Electr. Agric. 2016, 121, 32–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jordan, R.; Eudoxie, G.; Maharaj, K.; Belfon, R.; Bernard, M. AgriMaps: Improving site-specific land management through mobile maps. Comput. Electr. Agric. 2016, 123, 292–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freebairn, D.; Robinson, B.; McClymont, D.; Raine, S.; Schmidt, E.; Skowronski, V.; Eberhard, J. SoilWaterApp-monitoring soil water made easy. In Proceedings of the 18th Australian Society of Agronomy Conference, Ballarat, Australia, 24–28 September 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Ferguson, J.C.; Chechetto, R.G.; O’Donnell, C.C.; Fritz, B.K.; Hoffmann, W.C.; Coleman, C.E.; Chauhan, B.S.; Adkins, S.W.; Kruger, G.R.; Hewitt, A.J. Assessing a novel smartphone application–SnapCard, compared to five imaging systems to quantify droplet deposition on artificial collectors. Comput. Electr. Agric. 2016, 128, 193–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Scholz, M. Enhancing adoption of integrated weed management–an Australian farmer’s perspective. Outlooks Pest Manag. 2018, 29, 66–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suen, R.C.L.; Chang, K.T.; Wan, M.P.-H.; Ng, Y.C.; Tan, B.C. Interactive experiences designed for agricultural communities. In CHI’14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 551–554. [Google Scholar]
- Pérez-Castro, A.; Sánchez-Molina, J.; Castilla, M.; Sánchez-Moreno, J.; Moreno-Úbeda, J.; Magán, J. cFertigUAL: A fertigation management app for greenhouse vegetable crops. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 183, 186–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masek, P.; Masek, J.; Frantik, P.; Fujdiak, R.; Ometov, A.; Hosek, J.; Andreev, S.; Mlynek, P.; Misurec, J. A harmonized perspective on transportation management in smart cities: The novel IoT-driven environment for road traffic modeling. Sensors 2016, 16, 1872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zulkifli, C.; Noor, N. Wireless Sensor Network and Internet of Things (IoT) Solution in Agriculture. Pertan. J. Sci. Technol. 2017, 25. [Google Scholar]
- Hong, G.-Z.; Hsieh, C.-L. Application of integrated control strategy and bluetooth for irrigating romaine lettuce in greenhouse. IFAC PapersOnLine 2016, 49, 381–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petäjäjärvi, J.; Mikhaylov, K.; Hämäläinen, M.; Iinatti, J. Evaluation of LoRa LPWAN technology for remote health and wellbeing monitoring. In Proceedings of the 2016 10th International Symposium on Medical Information and Communication Technology (ISMICT), Worcester, MA, USA, 20–23 March 2016; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Jing, L.; Wei, Y. Intelligent Agriculture System Based on LoRa and Qt Technology. In Proceedings of the 2019 Chinese Control And Decision Conference (CCDC), Nanchang, China, 3–5 June 2019; pp. 4755–4760. [Google Scholar]
- Borrero, J.D.; Zabalo, A. An autonomous wireless device for real-time monitoring of water needs. Sensors 2020, 20, 2078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mark, T.; Griffin, T. Defining the Barriers to Telematics for Precision Agriculture: Connectivity Supply and Demand; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohamed, A. Analysis of Telematics Systems in Agriculture. Master’s Thesis, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Digital Farming: What Does It Really Mean? And What Is the Vision of Europe‘s Farm Machinery Industry for Digital Farming? European Agricultural Machinery, CEMA: Bruxelles, Belgium, 2017; p. 9.
- Jaafar, H.H.; Woertz, E. Agriculture as a funding source of ISIS: A GIS and remote sensing analysis. Food Policy 2016, 64, 14–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yalew, S.G.; van Griensven, A.; Mul, M.L.; Van der Zaag, P. Land suitability analysis for agriculture in the Abbay basin using remote sensing, GIS and AHP techniques. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 2016, 2, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hegazy, I.R.; Kaloop, M.R. Monitoring urban growth and land use change detection with GIS and remote sensing techniques in Daqahlia governorate Egypt. Internet J. Sustain. Built Environ. 2015, 4, 117–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rose, I.; Welsh, M. Mapping the urban wireless landscape with Argos. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, Zürich, Switzerland, 2–5 November 2010; pp. 323–336. [Google Scholar]
- Patmasari, R.; Wijayanto, I.; Deanto, R.; Gautama, Y.; Vidyaningtyas, H. Design and realization of automatic packet reporting system (APRS) for sending telemetry data in Nano satellite communication system. J. Meas. Electr. Commun. Syst. 2018, 4, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- De La Piedra, A.; Braeken, A.; Touhafi, A. Sensor systems based on FPGAs and their applications: A survey. Sensors 2012, 12, 12235–12264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Murray, S.C. Optical sensors advancing precision in agricultural production. Photon. Spectra 2018, 51, 48. [Google Scholar]
- Novero, A.U.; Pasaporte, M.S.; Aurelio, R.M., Jr.; Madanguit, C.J.G.; Tinoy, M.R.M.; Luayon, M.S.; Nañola, C.L., Jr. The use of light detection and ranging (LiDAR) technology and GIS in the assessment and mapping of bioresources in Davao Region, Mindanao Island, Philippines. Remote Sens. Appl. Soc. Environ. 2019, 13, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McRoberts, R.E.; Tomppo, E.O. Remote sensing support for national forest inventories. Remote Sens. Environ. 2007, 110, 412–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weiss, U.; Biber, P. Plant detection and mapping for agricultural robots using a 3D LIDAR sensor. Robot. Auto. Syst. 2011, 59, 265–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biber, P.; Weiss, U.; Dorna, M.; Albert, A. Navigation system of the autonomous agricultural robot Bonirob. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Agricultural Robotics: Enabling Safe, Efficient, and Affordable Robots for Food Production (Collocated with IROS 2012), Vilamoura, Portugal, 11 October 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Del-Moral-Martinez, I.; Rosell-Polo, J.R.; Sanz, R.; Masip, J.; Martínez-Casasnovas, J.A.; Arnó, J. Mapping vineyard leaf area using mobile terrestrial laser scanners: Should rows be scanned on-the-go or discontinuously sampled? Sensors 2016, 16, 119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Montagnoli, A.; Fusco, S.; Terzaghi, M.; Kirschbaum, A.; Pflugmacher, D.; Cohen, W.B.; Scippa, G.S.; Chiatante, D. Estimating forest aboveground biomass by low density lidar data in mixed broad-leaved forests in the Italian Pre-Alps. For. Ecosyst. 2015, 2, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dvorak, J.S.; Stone, M.L.; Self, K.P. Object detection for agricultural and construction environments using an ultrasonic sensor. J. Agric. Saf. Health 2016, 22, 107–119. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Gómez Álvarez-Arenas, T.; Gil-Pelegrin, E.; Ealo Cuello, J.; Fariñas, M.D.; Sancho-Knapik, D.; Collazos Burbano, D.A.; Peguero-Pina, J.J. Ultrasonic sensing of plant water needs for agriculture. Sensors 2016, 16, 1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Andújar, D.; Ribeiro, A.; Fernandez-Quintanilla, C.; Dorado, J. Assessment of a ground-based weed mapping system in maize. Prec. Agric. 2009, 9, 355. [Google Scholar]
- García-Ramos, F.J.; Vidal, M.; Boné, A.; Malón, H.; Aguirre, J. Analysis of the air flow generated by an air-assisted sprayer equipped with two axial fans using a 3D sonic anemometer. Sensors 2012, 12, 7598–7613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yew, T.K.; Yusoff, Y.; Sieng, L.K.; Lah, H.C.; Majid, H.; Shelida, N. An electrochemical sensor ASIC for agriculture applications. In Proceedings of the 2014 37th International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO), Opatija, Croatia, 26–30 May 2014; pp. 85–90. [Google Scholar]
- Cocovi-Solberg, D.J.; Rosende, M.; Miró, M. Automatic kinetic bioaccessibility assay of lead in soil environments using flow-through microdialysis as a front end to electrothermal atomic absorption spectrometry. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 6282–6290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shinners, K.J.; Barnett, N.G.; Schlesser, W.M. Yield Monitor for Forage Crops; Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation: Madison, WI, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Hemmat, A.; Binandeh, A.; Ghaisari, J.; Khorsandi, A. Development and field testing of an integrated sensor for on-the-go measurement of soil mechanical resistance. Sens. Actuators Phys. 2013, 198, 61–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schuster, J.N.; Darr, M.J.; McNaull, R.P. Performance benchmark of yield monitors for mechanical and environmental influences. In Proceedings of the 2017 ASABE Annual International Meeting, Washington, DC, USA, 16–19 July 2017; p. 1. [Google Scholar]
- Kumar, A.; Bhatia, A.; Fagodiya, R.; Malyan, S.; Meena, B. Eddy covariance flux tower: A promising technique for greenhouse gases measurement. Adv. Plants Agric. Res. 2017, 7, 337–340. [Google Scholar]
- Yunus, M.A.M.; Mukhopadhyay, S.C. Novel planar electromagnetic sensors for detection of nitrates and contamination in natural water sources. IEEE Sens. J. 2010, 11, 1440–1447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crabit, A.; Colin, F.; Bailly, J.S.; Ayroles, H.; Garnier, F. Soft water level sensors for characterizing the hydrological behaviour of agricultural catchments. Sensors 2011, 11, 4656–4673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Howard, B. LIDAR and its use in agriculture; House of Representatives Standing Committee: Canberra, Australian, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Moureaux, C.; Ceschia, E.; Arriga, N.; Béziat, P.; Eugster, W.; Kutsch, W.L.; Pattey, E. Eddy covariance measurements over crops. In Eddy Covariance; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 319–331. [Google Scholar]
- Kakar, J.A. UAV communications: Spectral requirements, MAV and SUAV channel modeling, OFDM waveform parameters, performance and spectrum management. Master’s Thesis, Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA, 5 May 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Ситдикoва, Ф.; Тарасoва, В.; Сабирoва, Р. Computers & Internet in Daily Use: учебнoе пoсoбие для студентoв факультета ВМК. Available online: http://dspace.kpfu.ru/xmlui/handle/net/21267 (accessed on 5 December 2013).
- Wortmann, F.; Flüchter, K. Internet of things. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2015, 57, 221–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bronars, S.G. A vanishing Breed: How the Decline in US Farm Laborers Over the Last Decade Has Hurt the US Economy and Slowed Production on American Farms. July 2015. Available online: https://research.newamericaneconomy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/PNAE_FarmLabor_August-3-3.pdf (accessed on 10 July 2015).
- Wiggins, M.F. Farm labor and the struggle for justice in the eastern United States. In Latinx Farmworkers in the Eastern United States; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 227–251. [Google Scholar]
- Defterli, S.G. Review of robotic technology for strawberry production. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2016, 32, 301–318. [Google Scholar]
- Bolda, M. Robotic Strawberry Harvester on the Move. Available online: https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=8162 (accessed on 17 August 2012).
- Gorli, R. Future of Smart Farming with Internet of Things. J. Agric. Water Works Eng. 2017, 1, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Uddin, M.A.; Mansour, A.; Jeune, D.L.; Ayaz, M.; Aggoune, E.-H.M. UAV-assisted dynamic clustering of wireless sensor networks for crop health monitoring. Sensors 2018, 18, 555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- D’Oleire-Oltmanns, S.; Marzolff, I.; Peter, K.D.; Ries, J.B. Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) for monitoring soil erosion in Morocco. Remote Sens. 2012, 4, 3390–3416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Reinecke, M.; Prinsloo, T. The influence of drone monitoring on crop health and harvest size. In Proceedings of the 2017 1st International Conference on Next Generation Computing Applications (NextComp), Mauritius, Madagascar, 19–21 July 2017; pp. 5–10. [Google Scholar]
- Fortes, E.P. Seed plant drone for reforestation. Grad. Rev. 2017, 2, 13–26. [Google Scholar]
- Dugdale, S.J.; Malcolm, I.A.; Hannah, D.M. Drone-based Structure-from-Motion provides accurate forest canopy data to assess shading effects in river temperature models. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 678, 326–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Eisenbeiß, H. UAV Photogrammetry; ETH Zurich: Zürich, Switzerland, 2009; p. 236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reger, M.; Bauerdick, J.; Bernhardt, H. Drones in Agriculture: Current and future legal status in Germany, the EU, the USA and Japan. Landtechnik 2018, 73, 62–79. [Google Scholar]
- Romero-Trigueros, C.; Nortes, P.A.; Alarcón, J.J.; Hunink, J.E.; Parra, M.; Contreras, S.; Droogers, P.; Nicolás, E. Effects of saline reclaimed waters and deficit irrigation on Citrus physiology assessed by UAV remote sensing. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 183, 60–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hoffmann, H.; Jensen, R.; Thomsen, A.; Nieto, H.; Rasmussen, J.; Friborg, T. Crop water stress maps for an entire growing season from visible and thermal UAV imagery. Biogeosciences 2016, 13, 6545–6563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Park, S.; Ryu, D.; Fuentes, S.; Chung, H.; Hernández-Montes, E.; O’Connell, M. Adaptive estimation of crop water stress in nectarine and peach orchards using high-resolution imagery from an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). Remote Sens. 2017, 9, 828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cranston, L.M.; Pembleton, K.G.; Burkitt, L.L.; Curtis, A.; Donaghy, D.J.; Gourley, C.J.; Harrington, K.C.; Hills, J.L.; Pembleton, L.W.; Rawnsley, R.P. The role of forage management in addressing challenges facing Australasian dairy farming. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2020, 60, 26–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spoorthi, S.; Shadaksharappa, B.; Suraj, S.; Manasa, V. Freyr drone: Pesticide/fertilizers spraying drone-an agricultural approach. In Proceedings of the 2017 2nd International Conference on Computing and Communications Technologies (ICCCT), Chennai, India, 23–24 February 2017; pp. 252–255. [Google Scholar]
- Superiority, A.; Supremacy, A. Small Unmanned Aerial Systems and Tactical Air Control. Air Space Power J. 2019, 33, 19. [Google Scholar]
- Faiçal, B.S.; Freitas, H.; Gomes, P.H.; Mano, L.Y.; Pessin, G.; De Carvalho, A.C.; Krishnamachari, B.; Ueyama, J. An adaptive approach for UAV-based pesticide spraying in dynamic environments. Comput. Electr. Agric. 2017, 138, 210–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Do, D.; Pham, F.; Raheja, A.; Bhandari, S. Machine learning techniques for the assessment of citrus plant health using UAV-based digital images. In Proceedings of the Autonomous Air and Ground Sensing Systems for Agricultural Optimization and Phenotyping III, Orlando, FL, USA, 16–17 April 2018; International Society for Optics and Photonics: Orlando, FL, USA, 2018; Volume 10664, p. 106640O. [Google Scholar]
- Clark, R. Mapping and Estimating Forest Fuel with Radar Remote Sensing; University of Nebraska-Lincoln: Lincoln, NE, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Gnädinger, F.; Schmidhalter, U. Digital counts of maize plants by unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Remote Sens. 2017, 9, 544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jin, X.; Liu, S.; Baret, F.; Hemerlé, M.; Comar, A. Estimates of plant density of wheat crops at emergence from very low altitude UAV imagery. Remote Sens. Environ. 2017, 198, 105–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Szewczyk, R.; Zieliński, C.; Kaliczyńska, M. Automation 2018: Advances in Automation, Robotics and Measurement Techniques; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; Volume 743. [Google Scholar]
- Torres-Sánchez, J.; Lopez-Granados, F.; Serrano, N.; Arquero, O.; Peña, J.M. High-throughput 3-D monitoring of agricultural-tree plantations with unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) technology. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0130479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ranganathan, J.; Waite, R.; Searchinger, T.; Hanson, C. How to Sustainably Feed 10 Billion People by 2050, in 21 Charts. World Res. Inst. 2018, 8, 2019. Available online: https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/12/how-sustainably-feed-10-billion-people-2050-21-charts (accessed on 10 April 2020).
- Otten, J.J.; Diedrich, S.; Getts, K.; Benson, C. Commercial and anti-hunger sector views on local government strategies for helping to manage food waste. J. Agric. Food Syst. Commu. Dev. 2018, 8, 55–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morone, P.; Koutinas, A.; Gathergood, N.; Arshadi, M.; Matharu, A. Food waste: Challenges and opportunities for enhancing the emerging bio-economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Refed, A. A Roadmap to Reduce US Food Waste by 20 Percent; Rockefeller Foundation: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Kiran, E.U.; Trzcinski, A.P.; Ng, W.J.; Liu, Y. Bioconversion of food waste to energy: A review. Fuel 2014, 134, 389–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jobe, W. A Resource Planning Software for Youth Agripreneurs in Africa. Bachelor’s Thesis, Ashesi University, Accra, Ghana, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Footprint, F.F.W.; Change, C. Food Wastage Footprint. Available online: http://www.fao.org/nr/sustainability/food-loss-and-waste (accessed on 22 June 2015).
- Tubiello, F.N.; Fischer, G. Reducing climate change impacts on agriculture: Global and regional effects of mitigation, 2000–2080. Technol. Forecas. Soc. Chan. 2007, 74, 1030–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Booth, D. Building capacity: Internet of Things Builds Capacity for Automatic Temperature Logging. J. Environ. Health 2015, 77, 34–37. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Jordan, N.; Warner, K.D. Enhancing the multifunctionality of US agriculture. Biol. Sci. 2010, 60, 60–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farooq, M.S.; Riaz, S.; Abid, A.; Umer, T.; Zikria, Y.B. Role of IoT Technology in Agriculture: A Systematic. Electronics 2020, 9, 319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jasper, C. Take control of your connected devices and manage your M2M worldwide. CIS Syst. 2018, 1–35. Available online: https://www.business.att.com/content/dam/businesscenter/pdf (accessed on 13 December 2018).
- Kubo, H.; Tanaka, H.; Kakimoto, T. Proposal of five frameworks for constructing keystone strategy. In Proceedings of the 2018 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), Honolulu, HI, USA, 19–23 August 2018; pp. 1–11. [Google Scholar]
- Williams, S.P. Blockchain: The Next Everything; Scribner: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, A.; Anderson, J. AI, Robotics, and the Future of Jobs. Pew Res. Cen. 2014, 6, 78. [Google Scholar]
- York, J. Examining the San Diego Venture Ecosystem. Arch. Bus. Adm. Manag. 2018, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Steinbock, D. Wireless Horizon: Strategy and Competition in the Worldwide Mobile Marketplace; Amacom Books: Seattle, WA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Turck, M. Growing Pains: The 2018 Internet of Things Landscape. Mattturck. Comput. 2018, 33. Available online: http://mattturck.com/iot2018/ (accessed on 9 June 2018).
- Friedrich, M. Global Hunger on the Rise as Climate Extremes Increase. JAMA 2018, 320, 1969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Meola, A. Why IoT, Big Data & Smart Farming Are the Future of Agriculture. Available online: http://www.businessinsider.com/author/andrew-meola (accessed on 24 February 2017).
- Fiehn, H.B.; Schiebel, L.; Avila, A.F.; Miller, B.; Mickelson, A. Smart agriculture system based on deep learning. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Smart Digital Environment 2018, Rabat, Morocco, 18–20 October 2018; pp. 158–165. [Google Scholar]
- Peters, A. This Strawberry-Picking Robot Gently Picks the Ripest Berries with Its Robo-Hand. Fast Company, 2018. Available online: www.fastcompany.com/40473583/this-strawberry-pickingrobot-gently-picks-the-ripest-berries-with-its-robo-hand (accessed on 2 March 2021).
- Sylvester, G. E-Agriculture in Action: Drones for Agriculture; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and International: Rome, Italy, 2018; p. 126. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5564e.pdf (accessed on 2 March 2021).
- Sarbu, I.; Sebarchievici, C. A comprehensive review of thermal energy storage. Sustainability 2018, 10, 191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Enescu, D.; Chicco, G.; Porumb, R.; Seritan, G. Thermal energy storage for grid applications: Current status and emerging trends. Energies 2020, 13, 340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Touliatos, D.; Dodd, I.C.; McAinsh, M. Vertical farming increases lettuce yield per unit area compared to conventional horizontal hydroponics. Food Energy Secur. 2016, 5, 184–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Khan, N.; Siddiqui, B.N.; Khan, N.; Khan, F.; Ullah, N.; Ihtisham, M.; Muhammad, S. Analyzing mobile phone usage in agricultural modernization and rural development. Int. J. Agric. Ext. 2020, 8, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lyra, D.A.; Ismail, S.; Butt, K.U.R.B.; Brown, J. Evaluating the growth performance of eleven’Salicornia bigelovii’populations under full strength seawater irrigation using multivariate analyses. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2016, 10, 1429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sinn, H.-W. The Green Paradox: A Supply-Side Approach to Global Warming; MIT Press: Massachusetts, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Elsheshtawy, Y. Cities of sand and fog: Abu Dhabi’s global ambitions. Evol. Arab City Tradit. Mod. Urban Dev. 2008, 258–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Smartphone Sensors | Purpose | Common Agriculture Usages | References |
---|---|---|---|
Image sensor (Camera) | Take images of any object | Leaf area index (LAI), fruit ripeness, harvest readiness, soil erosion, disease detection. | [87] |
Accelerometer | Measures acceleration that used to observe the tilting motion and orientation of the object | Rotation of camera during use, machine activities, or detecting workers. | [88] |
GPS | Provides location, measuring the latitude and longitude of devices | Used for location information, land measurement, and crop mapping | [89] |
Microphone | Detects usual or unusual sound and transform into electrical waves | Maintenance of machine, detection of bugs, and making audio queries. | [90] |
Gyroscope | Senses the angular velocity to track the target rotation/turn | Canopy structure measurement and equipment movement. | [89] |
Inertial Sensor | Utilizes accelerometer and gyro to determine the object altitude in relation to the inertial system | The precise distance of the plant, leaves, and/or any other object is measured from the camera. | [91] |
Barometer | Measure air pressure | Measure air pressure | [92] |
Mobile Apps | Application | Feature/Achievement | References |
---|---|---|---|
PETAFA | GIS | It provides information on the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) for different crops at various life cycles. However, it distributes geo-referenced soil analysis through packages. | [5] |
LandPKS | Soil Assessment | Land management has long-term potential, depending on weather, topography, and relatively static soil properties (such as depth, soil texture, and mineralogy). The app aims to increase growers’ understanding of the land potential and climate change adaptation and mitigation activities. | [93] |
PocketLAI | Irrigation | The app estimates the leaf area index (LAI), which is the main factor determining plant water requirements. It uses a moving camera and accelerometer sensor to acquire images at 57.5° under the hood while the user keeps rotating the device along its central axis. | [94] |
AMACA | Machinery or Devices | Equipment costs are a significant part of crop expenditure. The application helps estimate the mechanical and implantation costs in different field operations. Follow the cutter-driven quality function deployment (QFD) approach to meet your expectations with user expectations for application design features. | [95] |
eFarm | GIS | eFarm is crowdsourcing and human perception tool that collects geo-tagged agricultural land information at the parcel level. Ideal for mapping, sensing, and modeling of agricultural land systems research. | [84] |
Ecofert | Management of Fertilizers | Ecofert helps manage the best use of fertilizer files. It calculates the best fertilizer combination based on the required nutritional solution and considers the needs of different crops. In addition, it considers fertilizer costs based on current market prices. | [96] |
AgriMaps | Land Management | The application follows an evidence-based, site-specific approach to make recommendations for cropland management. Compared to other related applications, it provides a platform for spatial data visualization with a wider range of geospatial information. | [97] |
SWApp | Irrigation | The developers of this app specifically targeted arid regions, as irrigation problems are more common in these regions. The application provides a reliable and economical solution for monitoring soil moisture and even considers weather history. | [98] |
SnapCard | Sparing applications | The SnapCard application was developed for the field analysis of spray collectors based on imaging analysis. It uses different cell phone sensors and follows five imaging methods to quantify droplet deposition and size. | [99] |
Weedsmart | Weed Management | This app can increase weed management in the pasture. Based on the answers given to nine questions about pasture farming systems, this application assesses herbicide resistance and the risk of weed seed banks. | [100] |
Village Tree | Pest Management | Village Tree provides smart pest management solutions by collecting plant pest and disease reporters. It uses a crowdsourcing method and sends images along with location knowledge to warn other growers that may be affected. | [101] |
cFertigULF | Fertigation | The tool measures the amount of fertilizer and water required for major crop types based on different crop growth systems and multiple fertilization techniques. Farmers can achieve the precise application of water and other nutrients in greenhouse farming. | [102] |
Communication/Data Type | Possible Applications | Expected Data Size | Power Consumption (Active Mode) |
---|---|---|---|
Small-sized data and power consumption | Air temperature and/or wind speed, soil, leaf thickness/color (chlorophyll), fruit size, flower | 100 s of bytes | Less than an mA (fraction of mA) |
Medium-sized data medium power consumption | Multi/hyper spectral camera, Acoustic sensors | 10 s of Mb | 10 s of mA |
Large size data and power consumption | Video streaming cameras | 10 s of Mb per minute | 50 A |
Wireless Sensors | Employment | References |
---|---|---|
Telematics Sensors | Telematics sensors are the leading equipment used for communication, an agricultural-based toolkit, which is the most accurate and precise communication tool. This application is mainly used to gather information from remote areas that are not accessible easily, report the information of the machine’s working status, collect information about areas, locations, and assist in locating travel routes. These programs help farming managers automatically store and record information correlated with agriculture. | [109,110,111] |
Remote Sensing | Remote sensing tools are used to capture and store geographical information and several environmental and climatic parameters. Moreover, it helps in managing, manipulating, displaying, and analyzing geographical and spatial information. These sensors help assess several factors, such as forecasting, monitoring, yield assessment, crop evaluation, land degradation, and pest management (e.g., using LiDAR, satellite, UAVs). For example, the Argos sensor can be used for processing, disseminating, and collecting global-based data and is compatible with smartphone platforms. | [112,113,114,115,116] |
Acoustic Sensor | Acoustic sensors provide other tools for farm management, such as weeding and fruit harvesting. The major advantage of this advanced technology is its low price with quick response capabilities, particularly when considering convenient devices. | [33,117,118] |
Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) | This technology is utilized in different agricultural applications, including segmentation, land mapping, farm 3D models, determining soil types, yield prediction, soil loss, and monitoring erosion. Moreover, LiDAR is also utilized to monitor dynamic measurements, such as leaf area and fruit. | [119,120,121,122,123,124] |
Optical Sensor | These sensors use the phenomenon of light reflection to help measure soil organic matter, soil moisture, and color, the presence of minerals and their composition, clay content, etc. These sensors can be used to evaluate the soil’s ability to reflect light based on different parts of the selector’s magnetic field. | [125,126] |
Ultrasonic Ranging Sensor | This type of sensor can be one of the best choices in various agricultural applications because of its low price. It is easy to use, and its sampling rate can easily be adjusted/modified. Frequent uses are tank monitoring, spray distance measurement (for example, boom height and width control for uniform spray reporting, object detection, and collision avoidance), and crop canopy monitoring. | [127,128,129] |
Optoelectronic Sensor | Optoelectronic sensors can distinguish plant types; hence, they help to detect weeds, and other plants, particularly in wide-row crops. Optoelectronic sensors are also capable of differentiating between vegetation and soil from their reflection spectra. | [130] |
Electromagnetic Sensor | Electromagnetic sensors are used to record conductivity and transient electromagnetic responses, identify electrical responses and adjust variable-rate applications in practical situations. Sensors based on this technology use electrical circuits to measure the ability of soil particles to conduct or accumulate charge, which is mainly accomplished by two methods; contact or non-contact. | [131] |
Electrochemical Sensor | This is used to assess soil characteristics to analyze the soil’s nutrient level, for example, pH. Standard chemical soil assessment methods are often time-consuming and expensive and can be simply replaced with these advanced sensors. These sensors are used to measure macro and micronutrients, salinity, and pH in the soil precisely. | [132,133] |
Mechanical Sensors | Mechanical sensors evaluate the mechanical resistance (compaction) of the soil to indicate variable compaction. Mechanical sensors enter or pass through the soil and record forces evaluated by strain gauges or load cells. | [134] |
Airflow Sensor | These sensors measure the soil’s permeability and moisture content and identify the soil structure to distinguish different soil types. Measurements can be made in a single position or dynamically during movement, for example, in a fixed position or mobile mode. | [135] |
Mass Flow Sensor | This sensor is used for yield monitoring because it provides yield information by measuring the amount of grain flow (for example, when passing through a combine harvesting). | [136,137] |
Eddy Covariance-Based Sensor | This sensor can be utilized to quantify the exchange of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and other hydrologic and climatic parameters. This eddy covariance technique provides a robust technique to quantify the gas fluxes among soil, vegetation, and atmosphere, which are essential for most agricultural applications in various ecosystems. | [134,138] |
SWLB Sensor | Soft water level-based (SWLB) sensors are utilized in advanced agricultural watersheds to monitor hydrological behavior, including flow and water level, inflexible time-step acquisitions. | [9,136] |
Organization | Initiatives and Vision | References |
---|---|---|
In order to provide food heating systems, Google and the MIT Media Lab Open Agriculture Initiative (Open AgTM) proposed a vision for future agriculture and crops. To give advanced cloud-based services in advanced agriculture the program (e.g., Food ComputerTM equipment) and many open-source technologies in closed and climate-controlled environments. They also proposed different initiatives, such as its Climate Recipe Program, which proposed solutions based on the cross-correlation of plant phenotypic responses with biological, environmental, and genetic variables. | [176] | |
Microsoft | Microsoft has begun to invest in advanced agriculture. The company started a five-year, USD 50 million plan in 2018 named Al for Earth. In this plan, Microsoft targets four key areas for building a suitable future: agriculture, climate, water, and biodiversity. The primary goal of the company is to use its expertise in cloud computing, artificial intelligence (AI), and the internet to solve agricultural problems. | [177] |
Intel | Infiswift is an IoT platform based on a high-performance Intel architecture that aims to improve the efficiency of agricultural operations by providing connected services throughout the agricultural ecosystem. | [5] |
Jasper, Cisco | Jasper is part of Cisco and provides a cloud-based software platform for agribusiness IoT. The platform is rapidly embracing IT services to realize advanced agriculture using automation, real-time visibility, and remote diagnoses. | [178] |
Watson, International Business Machines (IBM) | Watson Decision is an AI-based service that delivers an agricultural platform designed to use advanced equipment and IT to develop the sustainability, harvest, and value of advanced agriculture. In this way, IBM uses its experience, data, and AI services to support growers in making excellent decisions throughout the planting stage. | [179] |
Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) | Purdue University has begun to use wireless sensor innovation and the IoT to revolutionize agricultural research; every day, different sensors, cameras, and different types of manual input are used to capture essential data, all of which are processed and evaluated in real-time. In order to effectively monitor food quality, Purdue cooperates with HPE to integrate research, innovation, and technology such as cloud computing and internet technology to transform into the latest practice of digital agriculture. | [180] |
Dell | Dell has begun to introduce agricultural robots and machines equipped with advanced machine learning and AI functions. The company has currently joined Aero-farms (vertical agricultural power) to accelerate the provision of the IoT and data science services for advanced agriculture. | [181] |
Qualcomm | Qualcomm Ventures (QV) has been one of the leading wireless companies for the past 15 years, and now QV considers AgTech to be one of the main investment areas for future projects. They have recently established global partnerships with Strider (Brazilian Farm Management Platform), Ninjacart (Indian Agricultural Comprehensive Trading Market), and FarmEasy (Chinese Farm Data Platform), especially in Latin America Partnership reveals the status of advanced agriculture. | [182,183] |
Hello, Tractor | Hello, Tractor and IBM Research have established a blockchain-based platform AI that pays special attention to African growers. The new technology giant co-founded by IBM will jointly test the product this year. The cloud-based service, dubbed Digital Wallet, aims to support the Hello Tractor business, which is dedicated to providing small-scale farmers with technical equipment and analytical data to create advance agricultural ecosystems. | [184] |
Farm2050 | According to Farm2050, worldwide food production has to be increased by 70% from the current levels to meet the increased food demand for a population of approximately 10 billion by 2050. This is a major initiative for AgTech in the future, as 25 world-leading organizations such as Google, Microsoft, Bayer, John Deere, and Pepsi cooperate with this organization. Its rudimentary objective is to use new technologies to develop the future of food by supporting AgTech entrepreneurs and start-ups. | [185] |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Khan, N.; Ray, R.L.; Sargani, G.R.; Ihtisham, M.; Khayyam, M.; Ismail, S. Current Progress and Future Prospects of Agriculture Technology: Gateway to Sustainable Agriculture. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4883. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094883
Khan N, Ray RL, Sargani GR, Ihtisham M, Khayyam M, Ismail S. Current Progress and Future Prospects of Agriculture Technology: Gateway to Sustainable Agriculture. Sustainability. 2021; 13(9):4883. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094883
Chicago/Turabian StyleKhan, Nawab, Ram L. Ray, Ghulam Raza Sargani, Muhammad Ihtisham, Muhammad Khayyam, and Sohaib Ismail. 2021. "Current Progress and Future Prospects of Agriculture Technology: Gateway to Sustainable Agriculture" Sustainability 13, no. 9: 4883. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094883
APA StyleKhan, N., Ray, R. L., Sargani, G. R., Ihtisham, M., Khayyam, M., & Ismail, S. (2021). Current Progress and Future Prospects of Agriculture Technology: Gateway to Sustainable Agriculture. Sustainability, 13(9), 4883. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094883