Automation’s Impact on Agriculture: Opportunities, Challenges, and Economic Effects
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- The technical feasibility and adaptability of automation in various fields;
- The socioeconomic impacts of agricultural automation;
- The economic impact analysis of agricultural automation;
- The ecological considerations of agricultural automation.
2. Materials and Methods
3. Path of Evolution in Agriculture
4. Different Types of Agricultural Robots
4.1. Land Preparation before Planting
4.2. Sowing and Planting
4.3. Plant Treatment
4.4. Estimating Yield, Phenotyping, and Geospatial Insights
5. Economic Analysis of Agricultural Automation
5.1. Technical Feasibility of Automation
5.2. Dynamics of Demographic Shifts
- i.
- Elderly Dominance: The proportion of elderly individuals (ages 65 and above) is expected to experience substantial growth, contributing to the emergence of an aging society. This phenomenon can be attributed to factors such as improved healthcare, increased life expectancy, and declining birth rates.
- ii.
- Shrinking Working-Age Population: Projections indicate a decline in the working-age population (ages 15–64) relative to the elderly population. This reduction may result from declining birth rates and a smaller youth population, leading to a reduced entrance of individuals into the workforce.
- i.
- Labor Shortages in Agriculture: With a declining working-age population, labor shortages in various sectors, including agriculture, could become more obvious. The agricultural workforce might struggle to meet the demands of planting, cultivating, harvesting, and other labor-intensive tasks [3,4,5,6].
- ii.
- Increased Reliance on Technology: The decreasing availability of traditional manual labor might drive the adoption of technology and automation in agriculture. Robots, drones, and AI-driven systems could fill the gap by performing tasks that require physical strength and endurance, allowing for continued productivity [3,4,5,6,22].
- iii.
- Transition to a Knowledge-Based Workforce: With a lower number of individuals entering the workforce, there could be a shift toward more knowledge-based roles. This includes roles related to technology development, data analysis, precision agriculture, and the management of automated systems.
5.3. Economic Shifts Caused by Automation
- Overall Crop Yield Increase: By integrating emerging technologies into farming practices, there is a potential to uplift global crop yields by an astounding 70%. Considering the 2015 global annual crop production value of USD 1.2 trillion, this surge translates to an additional economic value of USD 800 billion by 2050 if these technologies are universally adopted [65].
- Precision Fertilizer Application: This method alone can tap into an addressable market worth USD 65 billion by enhancing yields by 18%. The integration of tractor-mounted sensors, drones, satellites, and data analysis software will be pivotal in this regard [65].
- Reduction in Soil Compaction: By employing a fleet of smaller, automated tractors, there is a potential to mitigate soil compaction, which has historically reduced yields by 15–20%. This approach alone presents a USD 45 billion market opportunity based on a projected 13% yield increment [65].
- Precision Irrigation: Modern irrigation systems paired with real-time water sensors can not only enhance yields by 10% but also curtail water wastage by up to 50%. This method taps into a USD 35 billion market [65].
- Precision Planting: With an expected 13% improvement in yields, the addressable market for this technology stands at USD 45 billion. The key here lies in the use of multi-hybrid planters and sophisticated data analysis tools [65].
- Precision Spraying: By optimizing pesticide and herbicide applications, yields can be boosted by 4%. This precise approach carves out an addressable market of USD 15 billion [65].
6. Advantages and Disadvantages of Automation in Agriculture
- i.
- Cost Savings: Utilizing robots and automation systems in field crop production has the potential to save costs through expense reduction. Robots can perform tasks like planting, weeding, and harvesting more efficiently, reducing the need for manual labor. This can result in lower labor costs and increased productivity. Furthermore, automation optimizes resource usage, including water and fertilizers, leading to reduced input costs [5,8,67].
- ii.
- Labor Cost Reduction: In 2021, the agricultural and food sectors in the United States generated 21.1 million jobs, comprising 10.5 percent of total employment. Direct on-farm employment accounted for 2.6 million jobs (1.3 percent of total employment), while the rest were supported by industries related to agriculture, with food services leading at 11.8 million jobs, followed by food/beverage stores at 3.3 million jobs, and other agriculture-related industries adding 3.4 million jobs [70]. However, labor expenses in the U.S. agricultural sector are projected to reach USD 42.09 billion in 2023. This reflects a 4.4 percent increase from the 2022 level of USD 40.31 billion (adjusted for inflation).
- iii.
- Efficiency Improvements: Robots and automation systems have the potential to improve the overall operational efficiency in field crop production. They can operate with precision and accuracy, resulting in optimized resource usage, reduced errors, and increased crop productivity. For instance, robots can precisely apply fertilizers or pesticides in specific quantities and to targeted areas, minimizing waste and improving effectiveness. Automation can also enable tasks to be performed at optimal times, considering factors such as weather conditions and crop growth stages [3,5,67].
- iv.
- The utilization of robots in agriculture holds significant potential for promoting sustainable practices and preserving ecological systems. By leveraging the precision and efficiency of robotics, farming can transition towards methods that minimize environmental impact, optimize resource use, and enhance biodiversity. Such technologies not only aim to boost productivity but also support the regeneration of natural ecosystems, highlighting a path forward where agricultural innovation and ecological conservation go hand in hand. This approach underscores a vital research direction, emphasizing the need for solutions that are economically viable, socially equitable, and environmentally sustainable [57].
- i.
- High Initial Investment: Implementing robotics in agriculture requires significant upfront investment. The cost of purchasing and maintaining robots, as well as integrating them into existing farming systems, can be expensive for farmers, especially small-scale ones. This financial burden may limit the adoption of robotics in some agricultural operations [29,72,73,74,75,76].
- ii.
- Limited Adaptability: Agricultural robots are designed for specific tasks and may lack the flexibility to adapt to diverse farming practices. They often operate optimally in controlled environments with standardized crops. Farmers who have varied or specialized farming operations may face challenges finding robots that suit their specific needs [72,73].
- iii.
- Technical Complexity and Maintenance: Agricultural robots require advanced technical knowledge for their operation, programming, and maintenance. Farmers may need to acquire additional skills or hire specialized personnel to handle these tasks. Regular maintenance, software updates, and troubleshooting can also be time-consuming and may disrupt farming operations if not properly managed [26,74].
- iv.
- Lack of Human Intuition: Agricultural robots, while efficient at performing repetitive tasks, lack human intuition and decision-making capabilities. They may struggle with complex or unpredictable situations that require human judgment. This limitation can hinder their effectiveness in tasks that involve delicate handling, the identification of pests or diseases, or making nuanced decisions based on real-time conditions [60,71,77].
- v.
- Specialized Training Needs: The successful implementation and operation of agricultural robots often require specialized training for farmers and agricultural workers. Learning to operate and program these sophisticated machines may involve a learning curve and an additional investment of time and resources. Acquiring the necessary skills and knowledge to effectively utilize robotic technology may pose a challenge for some farmers, especially those who are less familiar with advanced technologies or have limited access to training resources [75,76,78].
- vi.
- Impact on Employment: The adoption of robotics in agriculture has the potential to reduce the need for human labor. While this can lead to increased efficiency and productivity, it may also result in job displacement for agricultural workers, particularly those involved in manual labor. This can have social and economic implications, especially in regions where agriculture is a significant source of employment [72,73,74].
- vii.
- Dependence on Technology: The upcoming “digital agricultural revolution” has sparked excitement as it promises to boost productivity and minimize environmental impacts. As a result, multinational corporations are investing more in agricultural data management. These companies, usually involved in various aspects of agricultural production, have been acquiring technology firms to strengthen their presence in this domain. For instance, Monsanto acquired Precision Planting in 2012 and Climate Corp the following year, while Dupont partnered with John Deere to offer a wireless data-transfer system and collaborated with DTN to provide market and weather information. John Deere has also expanded its machine-learning capabilities by purchasing Precision Planting from Monsanto and recently acquiring Blue River Technologies. Several entrepreneurs have followed suit and invested in digital services for the agricultural sector. However, despite their significant interest and investments, the actual transformation of agricultural practices through this technological revolution has been relatively slow [24,63,79,80,81].
7. Discussion
8. Future Work
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- The World Bank. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. World Population. Available online: www.un.org/en/desa/world-population-projected-reach-98-billion-2050-and-112-billion-2100 (accessed on 17 November 2023).
- The World Bank. United Nations Population Division. World Population. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.0014.TO.ZS (accessed on 20 October 2023).
- Population Pyramids. United-States-of-America. 2023. Available online: https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-America/2023/ (accessed on 20 October 2023).
- Mahmud, M.S.A.; Abidin, M.S.Z.; Emmanuel, A.A.; Hasan, H.S. Robotics and automation in agriculture: Present and future applications. Appl. Model. Simul. 2020, 4, 130–140. [Google Scholar]
- Dixit, R.; Choudhary, S.; Govil, N. Analysis of the Factors Influencing the Consumer Buying Behaviour in Online Shopping: An Empirical Study with Reference to Delhi, India. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Innovative Computing & Communication (ICICC), Delhi, India, 19–20 February 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Bechar, A.; Vigneault, C. Agricultural robots for field operations: Concepts and components. Biosyst. Eng. 2016, 149, 94–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beluhova-Uzunova, R.P.; Dunchev, D.M. Precision farming–concepts and perspectives. Zagadnienia Ekon. Rolnej/Probl. Agric. Econ. 2019, 360, 142–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quan, X.; Guo, Q.; Ma, J.; Doluschitz, R. The economic effects of unmanned aerial vehicles in pesticide application: Evidence from Chinese grain farmers. Precis. Agric. 2023, 24, 1965–1981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ragazou, K.; Garefalakis, A.; Zafeiriou, E.; Passas, I. Agriculture 5.0: A new strategic management mode for a cut cost and an energy efficient agriculture sector. Energies 2022, 15, 3113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- AlZu’bi, S.; Hawashin, B.; Mujahed, M.; Jararweh, Y.; Gupta, B.B. An efficient employment of internet of multimedia things in smart and future agriculture. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2019, 78, 29581–29605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, K.; Shu, L.; Li, K.; Yang, F.; Han, G.; Wang, X.; Pearson, S. Photovoltaic agricultural internet of things towards realizing the next generation of smart farming. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 76300–76312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rose, D.C.; Chilvers, J. Agriculture 4.0: Broadening responsible innovation in an era of smart farming. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2018, 2, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balafoutis, A.T.; Evert, F.K.V.; Fountas, S. Smart farming technology trends: Economic and environmental effects, labor impact, and adoption readiness. Agronomy 2020, 10, 743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raj, E.F.I.; Appadurai, M.; Athiappan, K. Precision farming in modern agriculture. In Smart Agriculture Automation Using Advanced Technologies: Data Analytics and Machine Learning, Cloud Architecture, Automation and IoT; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 61–87. [Google Scholar]
- Kane, G.C.; Palmer, D.; Phillips, A.N.; Kiron, D.; Buckley, N. Strategy, not technology, drives digital transformation. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2015, 14, 1–25. [Google Scholar]
- Vij, A.; Vijendra, S.; Jain, A.; Bajaj, S.; Bassi, A.; Sharma, A. IoT and machine learning approaches for automation of farm irrigation system. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2020, 167, 1250–1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Ivanov, S.H. Robonomics: The rise of the automated economy. ROBONOMICS J. Autom. Econ. 2021, 1, 11. [Google Scholar]
- de Araujo Zanella, A.R.; da Silva, E.; Albini, L.C.P. Security challenges to smart agriculture: Current state, key issues, and future directions. Array 2020, 8, 100048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mazzetto, F.; Raimondo, G.; Pasqualina, S. Reflections and Methodological Proposals to Treat the Concept of “Information Precision” in Smart Agriculture Practices. Sensors 2020, 20, 2847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Steward, B.L.; Gai, J.; Tang, L. The use of agricultural robots in weed management and control. In Robotics and Automation for Improving Agriculture (Book); Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2019; Volume 44, pp. 161–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hassan, S.I.; Alam, M.M.; Illahi, U.; Al Ghamdi, M.A.; Almotiri, S.H.; Su’ud, M.M. A systematic review on monitoring and advanced control strategies in smart agriculture. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 32517–32548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Araújo, S.O.; Peres, R.S.; Barata, J.; Lidon, F.; Ramalho, J.C. Characterising the agriculture 4.0 landscape—Emerging trends, challenges and opportunities. Agronomy 2021, 11, 667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weersink, A.; Fraser, E.; Pannell, D.; Duncan, E.; Rotz, S. Opportunities and challenges for big data in agricultural and environmental analysis. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2018, 10, 19–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marinoudi, V.; Sørensen, C.G.; Pearson, S.; Bochtis, D. Robotics and labour in agriculture. A context consideration. Biosyst. Eng. 2019, 184, 111–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ciruela-Lorenzo, A.M.; Del-Aguila-Obra, A.R.; Padilla-Meléndez, A.; Plaza-Angulo, J.J. Digitalization of agri-cooperatives in the smart agriculture context. proposal of a digital diagnosis tool. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finger, R.; Swinton, S.M.; El Benni, N.; Walter, A. Precision farming at the nexus of agricultural production and the environment. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2019, 11, 313–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, M.; Wang, X.; Feng, H.; Huang, Q.; Xiao, X.; Zhang, X. Wearable Internet of Things enabled precision livestock farming in smart farms: A review of technical solutions for precise perception, biocompatibility, and sustainability monitoring. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 312, 127712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vecchio, Y.; De Rosa, M.; Adinolfi, F.; Bartoli, L.; Masi, M. Adoption of precision farming tools: A context-related analysis. Land Use Policy 2020, 94, 104481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deemyad, T.; Sebastian, A. Mobile Manipulator and EOAT for In-Situ Infected Plant Removal. In IFToMM Symposium on Mechanism Design for Robotics; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 274–283. [Google Scholar]
- Deemyad, T.; Sebastain, A. HSL Color Space for Potato Plant Detection in the Field. In Proceedings of the 2021 Fourth International Conference on Electrical, Computer and Communication Technologies (ICECCT), Erode, India, 15–17 September 2021; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Pinaki, M.; Tewari, V.K. Present status of precision farming: A review. Int. J. Agric. Res. 2010, 5, 1124–1133. [Google Scholar]
- Oliveira, L.F.; Moreira, A.P.; Silva, M.F. Advances in forest robotics: A state-of-the-art survey. Robotics 2021, 10, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vasconez, J.P.; Kantor, G.A.; Cheein, F.A.A. Human–robot interaction in agriculture: A survey and current challenges. Biosyst. Eng. 2019, 179, 35–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lytridis, C.; Kaburlasos, V.G.; Pachidis, T.; Manios, M.; Vrochidou, E.; Kalampokas, T.; Chatzistamatis, S. An overview of cooperative robotics in agriculture. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mousazadeh, H. A technical review on navigation systems of agricultural autonomous off-road vehicles. J. Terramech. 2013, 50, 211–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moeller, R.; Deemyad, T.; Sebastian, A. Autonomous Navigation of an Agricultural Robot Using RTK GPS and Pixhawk. In Proceedings of the 2020 Intermountain Engineering, Technology and Computing (IETC), Orem, UT, USA, 2–3 October 2020; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Deemyad, T.; Moeller, R.; Sebastian, A. Chassis Design and Analysis of an Autonomous Ground Vehicle (AGV) using Genetic Algorithm. In Proceedings of the 2020 Intermountain Engineering, Technology and Computing (IETC), Orem, UT, USA, 2–3 October 2020; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Thomas, W.; Wegrowski, P.; Lemirick, J.; Deemyad, T. Lightweight Foldable Robotic Arm for Drones. In Proceedings of the 2022 Intermountain Engineering, Technology and Computing (IETC), Orem, UT, USA, 13–14 May 2022; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Oliveira, L.F.; Moreira, A.P.; Silva, M.F. Advances in agriculture robotics: A state-of-the-art review and challenges ahead. Robotics 2021, 10, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lowenberg-DeBoer, J.; Huang, I.Y.; Grigoriadis, V.; Blackmore, S. Economics of robots and automation in field crop production. Precis. Agric. 2020, 21, 278–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cantelli, L.; Bonaccorso, F.; Longo, D.; Melita, C.D.; Schillaci, G.; Muscato, G. A small versatile electrical robot for autonomous spraying in agriculture. AgriEngineering 2019, 1, 391–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fountas, S.; Mylonas, N.; Malounas, I.; Rodias, E.; Hellmann Santos, C.; Pekkeriet, E. Agricultural robotics for field operations. Sensors 2020, 20, 2672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, B.; Xie, Y.; Zhou, J.; Wang, K.; Zhang, Z. State-of-the-art robotic grippers, grasping and control strategies, as well as their applications in agricultural robots: A review. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2020, 177, 105694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edan, Y.; Han, S.; Kondo, N. Automation in agriculture. In Springer Handbook of Automation; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; pp. 1095–1128. [Google Scholar]
- Gonzalez-de-Santos, P.; Fernández, R.; Sepúlveda, D.; Navas, E.; Emmi, L.; Armada, M. Field robots for intelligent farms—Inhering features from industry. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linaza, M.T.; Posada, J.; Bund, J.; Eisert, P.; Quartulli, M.; Döllner, J.; Pagani, A.; GOlaizola, I.; Barriguinha, A.; Moysiadis, T.; et al. Data-driven artificial intelligence applications for sustainable precision agriculture. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moysiadis, T.; Adamides, G.; Stylianou, A.; Zotos, N.; Giannakopoulou, M.; Alexiou, G. Use of IoT technologies for irrigation and plant protection: The case for Cypriot fruits and vegetables. In Bio-Economy and Agri-Production; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2021; pp. 175–194. [Google Scholar]
- Victorino, G.; Braga, R.; Santos-Victor, J.; Lopes, C.M. Yield components detection and image-based indicators for non-invasive grapevine yield prediction at different phenological phases. OENO One 2020, 54, 833–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atefi, A.; Ge, Y.; Pitla, S.; Schnable, J. Robotic technologies for high-throughput plant phenotyping: Contemporary reviews and future perspectives. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 611940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paraforos, D.S.; Vassiliadis, V.; Kortenbruck, D.; Stamkopoulos, K.; Ziogas, V.; Sapounas, A.A.; Griepentrog, H.W. A FarmManagement Information System Using Future Internet Technologies. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2016, 49, 324–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Point Cloud Technology. Available online: www.pointcloudtechnology.com (accessed on 5 April 2021).
- Pylianidis, C.; Osinga, S.; Athanasiadis, I.N. Introducing digital twins to agriculture. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2021, 184, 105942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prause, L. Digital agriculture and labor: A few challenges for social sustainability. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spanaki, K.; Karafili, E.; Despoudi, S. AI applications of data sharing in agriculture 4.0: A framework for role-based data access control. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2021, 59, 102350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Döllner, J. Geospatial artificial intelligence: Potentials of machine learning for 3D point clouds and geospatial digital twins. PFG–J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Geoinf. Sci. 2020, 88, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lockhart, A.; Marvin, S.; While, A. Towards new ecologies of automation: Robotics and the re-engineering of nature. Geoforum 2023, 145, 103825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fasiolo, D.T.; Scalera, L.; Maset, E.; Gasparetto, A. Towards autonomous mapping in agriculture: A review of supportive technologies for ground robotics. Robot. Auton. Syst. 2023, 169, 104514. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, A.; Fressoli, M. Post-automation. Futures 2021, 132, 102778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Ag and Food Sectors and the Economy. 2023. Available online: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/ag-and-food-sectors-and-the-economy/?topicId=b7a1aba0-7059-4feb-a84c-b2fd1f0db6a3 (accessed on 15 February 2024).
- Chui, M.; Manyika, J.; Miremadi, M. Where machines could replace humans—And where they can’t (yet). McKinsey Q. 2016, 3, 58–69. [Google Scholar]
- Humanoid Robots: Sooner Than You Might Think. 15 November 2022. Available online: www.goldmansachs.com (accessed on 15 February 2024).
- Gallardo, R.K.; Sauer, J. Adoption of labor-saving technologies in agriculture. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2018, 10, 185–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goedde, L.; Katz, J.; Ménard, A.; Revellat, J. Agriculture’s Connected Future: How Technology can Yield New Growth. 2020. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/agriculture/our-insights/agricultures-connected-future-how-technology-can-yield-new-growth (accessed on 15 February 2024).
- Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research. Profiles in Innovation: Precision Farming—Cheating Malthus with Digital Agriculture. 13 July 2016. Available online: https://www.gspublishing.com (accessed on 15 February 2024).
- Siderska, J. The adoption of robotic process automation technology to ensure business processes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shockley, J.M.; Dillon, C.R.; Shearer, S.A. An economic feasibility assessment of autonomous field machinery in grain crop production. Precis. Agric. 2019, 20, 1068–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Szczygielski, J.J.; Charteris, A.; Bwanya, P.R.; Brzeszczyński, J. The impact and role of COVID-19 uncertainty: A global industry analysis. Int. Rev. Financ. Anal. 2022, 80, 101837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schieffer, J.; Dillon, C. The economic and environmental impacts of precision agriculture and interactions with agro-environmental policy. Precis. Agric. 2015, 16, 46–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teece, D.J. Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: Enabling technologies, standards, and licensing models in the wireless world. Res. Policy 2018, 47, 1367–1387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Farm Labor. 2023. Available online: https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2023/july/u-s-agriculture-labor-expenses-forecast-to-increase-more-than-4-percent-in-2023/ (accessed on 15 February 2024).
- da Silveira, F.; Lermen, F.H.; Amaral, F.G. An overview of agriculture 4.0 development: Systematic review of descriptions, technologies, barriers, advantages, and disadvantages. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2021, 189, 106405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Cheng, C.; Fu, J.; Su, H.; Ren, L. Recent advancements in agriculture robots: Benefits and challenges. Machines 2023, 11, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Shaughnessy, S.A.; Evett, S.R.; Colaizzi, P.D.; Andrade, M.A.; Marek, T.H.; Heeren, D.M.; Lamm, F.R.; LaRue, J.L. Identifying advantages and disadvantages of variable rate irrigation: An updated review. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2019, 35, 837–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jha, K.; Doshi, A.; Patel, P.; Shah, M. A comprehensive review on automation in agriculture using artificial intelligence. Artif. Intell. Agric. 2019, 2, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duckett, T.; Pearson, S.; Blackmore, S.; Grieve, B.; Chen, W.H.; Cielniak, G.; Cleaversmith, J.; Dai, J.; Davis, S.; Fox, C.; et al. Agricultural robotics: The future of robotic agriculture. arXiv 2018, arXiv:1806.06762. [Google Scholar]
- Blackmore, S.; Stout, B.; Wang, M.; Runov, B. Robotic agriculture–the future of agricultural mechanisation. In Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Precision Agriculture; Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2005; pp. 621–628. [Google Scholar]
- Soma, T.; Nuckchady, B. Communicating the benefits and risks of digital agriculture technologies: Perspectives on the future of digital agricultural education and training. Front. Commun. 2021, 6, 259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reddy, N.V.; Reddy, A.V.V.V.; Pranavadithya, S.; Kumar, J.J. A critical review on agricultural robots. Int. J. Mech. Eng. Technol. 2016, 7, 183–188. [Google Scholar]
- Bertoglio, R.; Corbo, C.; Renga, F.M.; Matteucci, M. The digital agricultural revolution: A bibliometric analysis literature review. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 134762–134782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ren, C.; Kim, D.K.; Jeong, D. A survey of deep learning in agriculture: Techniques and their applications. J. Inf. Process. Syst. 2020, 16, 1015–1033. [Google Scholar]
- Jensen, K.; Nielsen, S.H.; Joergensen, R.N.; Boegild, A.; Jacobsen, N.J.; Joergensen, O.J.; Jaeger-Hansen, C.L. A low cost, modular robotics tool carrier for precision agriculture research. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Precision Agriculture, Indianapolis, IN, USA, 15–18 July 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Vasconcelos, G.J.Q.; Costa, G.S.R.; Spina, T.V.; Pedrini, H. Low-Cost Robot for Agricultural Image Data Acquisition. Agriculture 2023, 13, 413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shahrooz, M.; Talaeizadeh, A.; Alasty, A. Agricultural Spraying Drones: Advantages and Disadvantages. In Proceedings of the 2020 Virtual Symposium in Plant Omics Sciences (OMICAS), Bogotá, Colombia, 23–27 November 2020; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Li, T.; Liu, P. People might be more willing to use automated vehicles in pandemics like COVID-19. Int. J. Hum.–Comput. Interact. 2022, 38, 491–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Acemoglu, D.; Restrepo, P. Automation and new tasks: How technology displaces and reinstates labor. J. Econ. Perspect. 2019, 33, 3–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, H.; Wang, T.; Liu, Y.; Qiao, X.; Li, Y. Computer vision technology in agricultural automation—A review. Inf. Process. Agric. 2020, 7, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trysnyuk, V.; Okhariev, V.; Trysnyuk, T.; Zorina, O.; Kurylo, A.; Radlowska, C. Improving the algorithm of satellite images landscape interpretation. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Geoinformatics-Theoretical and Applied Aspects, Kyiv, Ukraine, 13–16 May 2019; Volume 2019, pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Escamilla-García, A.; Soto-Zarazúa, G.M.; Toledano-Ayala, M.; Rivas-Araiza, E.; Gastélum-Barrios, A. Applications of artificial neural networks in greenhouse technology and overview for smart agriculture development. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, D.; Song, Z.; Quan, C.; Xu, X.; Liu, C. Recent advances in image fusion technology in agriculture. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2021, 191, 106491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pedersen, S.M.; Fountas, S.; Have, H.; Blackmore, B.S. Agricultural robots—System analysis and economic feasibility. Precis. Agric. 2006, 7, 295–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karunathilake, E.M.B.M.; Le, A.T.; Heo, S.; Chung, Y.S.; Mansoor, S. The path to smart farming: Innovations and opportunities in precision agriculture. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamilaris, A.; Prenafeta-Boldú, F.X. A review of the use of convolutional neural networks in agriculture. J. Agric. Sci. 2018, 156, 312–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kirkhorn, S.R.; Earle-Richardson, G.; Banks, R.J. Ergonomic risks and musculoskeletal disorders in production agriculture: Recommendations for effective research to practice. J. Agromed. 2010, 15, 281–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Publisher | No. of Papers |
---|---|
ELSEVIER | 23 |
MDPI | 19 |
Springer | 9 |
IEEE | 9 |
Taylor & Francis | 3 |
SSRN | 3 |
frontiers | 3 |
Annual Reviewers | 3 |
world bank | 2 |
McKinsy &company | 2 |
arXiv | 2 |
Goldmansachs | 2 |
Taylor & Francis Group | 1 |
Korea Information Processing Society | 1 |
USDA ERS | 1 |
American economy association | 1 |
IVES | 1 |
CABI | 1 |
US Department of Agriculture | 1 |
Population Pyramids | 1 |
Wageningen Academic | 1 |
Pointcloudtechnology | 1 |
ASABE | 1 |
Fortune | 1 |
Cambridge Core | 1 |
European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers | 1 |
MITSLoan | 1 |
Grand Total | 95 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 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
Bazargani, K.; Deemyad, T. Automation’s Impact on Agriculture: Opportunities, Challenges, and Economic Effects. Robotics 2024, 13, 33. https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics13020033
Bazargani K, Deemyad T. Automation’s Impact on Agriculture: Opportunities, Challenges, and Economic Effects. Robotics. 2024; 13(2):33. https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics13020033
Chicago/Turabian StyleBazargani, Khadijeh, and Taher Deemyad. 2024. "Automation’s Impact on Agriculture: Opportunities, Challenges, and Economic Effects" Robotics 13, no. 2: 33. https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics13020033
APA StyleBazargani, K., & Deemyad, T. (2024). Automation’s Impact on Agriculture: Opportunities, Challenges, and Economic Effects. Robotics, 13(2), 33. https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics13020033