report 4

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 3

IDENTIFICATION OF CROP HEALTH USING AI-ENABLED REMOTE SENSING

Abstract: This research presents an innovative IoT-enabled framework designed to enhance precision
farming practices through advanced monitoring of soil and crop health. The system aims to prevent
physiological disorders in crops by leveraging real-time data collection, machine learning analytics,
and automated alerts. This research represents a significant advancement in agricultural technology,
potentially transforming crop management strategies and improving overall farm productivity and
sustainability. The system's ability to predict and prevent issues before they manifest promises to
revolutionize modern farming practices, contributing to more efficient and environmentally friendly
food production.

1. Introduction

Agriculture is one of the oldest and most important of all industries and is facing unprecedented
challenges posed by rapid population growth, environmental pressures, and the increasing demand for
food production. Traditionally, farming has depended upon human experience and intuition, supported
by periodical manual inspections within the farming field. However, farming is rapidly changing into
a more science, data, and technology-based industry, as farmers continue to apply previous developed
understanding and operational practices for managing their fields. The integration of smart
technologies into the farming system has transformed the way farmers have historically managed their
fields. One of the most promising transformational technologies is the Internet of Things (IoT), which
is changing the way that precision agriculture is being implemented and practiced. The present
research provides an IoT-driven precision agriculture framework in the form of an advanced
technology that monitors based on the most complete soil and crop health indicators to proactively
manage physiological stress that results in crop disorders.

2. Literature Survey

Precision agriculture, as a sophisticated agricultural management practice, ultimately seeks to


maximize farm inputs while conserving resources. Precision agriculture takes a major leap away from
the traditional, uniform style of farming. Using the idea of observing, measuring, and reacting to
variability in and between fields, precision agriculture seeks to adapt farming practices to meet the
needs of individual fields. This evolution was sparked by technology including GPS, GIS, remote
sensing, and more recently, the Internet of Things [1].

The roots of precision agriculture can be traced back to the introduction of GPS technology on farms
in the 1980s, the transition to precision agriculture reflected the change in farming from broad scale,
generalized management to a more precise, data driven approach. The adverse results from managing
based on uniform applications that were deemed efficient, effectively explained the evolution of
farming practices over the past 40 years. Despite the long data temporal scale there is value in
including GIS, remote sensing technologies, and variable-rate technology to monitor and control
farming practices that are more precise [2].

Tilling soil-based agriculture initially arises an agronomic challenge with respect to maintaining soil
health, which is fundamental to crop production; but relying on conventional soil sampling through
time is also a limitation with respect to providing a snapshot of soil health. Even when sampling an
agricultural field once or twice a year is the conventional approach, seeking up to date snapshots of
changes due to forces exerted by climate, microbial biomass, and management practices is
agronomically valid. Accordingly, when samples are taken seasonally once in the spring or fall before
planting or after harvest is too late to manage nutrients properly, thus observes and contributes to the
large yield losses nationwide [3].

Farmers face similar complications with crop monitoring using traditional methods. Direct visual
inspections of crops take a long time and can be unreliable due to potential human error in larger scale
farming systems. In addition, by the time that visual symptoms of stress, pest damage, or disease have
developed to a visible point, there may already be a high level of crop damage that limits response
options. This reactive type of management creates crop loss, increasing reliance on pesticides and/or
fertilizers, and can impact profitability while raising environmental issues [4]. Another major
difficulty in agriculture is detecting physiological disorders in the developing crop, which can have
significant effects on crops yields and crop quality. Physiological disorders arise from a variety of
issues and are frequently related to nutrient imbalance, variable environments, and/or genetics, but
spotting them early on is difficult. In addition, physiological disorders often show up as ‘little
bubbles’ in plants (ex. blossom-end rot in tomatoes) or in tubers (ex. hollow heart in potatoes) and
without constant, comprehensive monitoring can complicate symptom identification, and when
producers do identify a problem, they are often unsure how to find solutions [5].

References

[1] S. N. McBratney, B. Whelan, T. Ancev, and J. Bouma, "Precision Agriculture: An International


Journal on Advances in Agricultural Technologies," Precision Agriculture, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1-9, 2005.

[2] M. E. Oliver, "Precision agriculture – a key to environmental sustainability," ScienceDirect, vol.


29, no. 1, pp. 46-50, 2008.

[3] A. Zhang and J. Wang, "Advancements in Soil Nutrient Management Using IoT-Based Precision
Agriculture," Journal of Agricultural Informatics, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 10-19, 2021.

[4] L. Fountas et al., "Precision agriculture: current technologies and future directions," Computers
and Electronics in Agriculture, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 79-85, 2008.
[5] D. Khosla and B. A. Jones, "Physiological Disorders in Crops: Early Detection Using IoT-Based
Monitoring Systems," International Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, vol. 12, no. 4,
pp. 34-42, 2019.

You might also like