Review and Assessment of Crop-Related Digital Tools for Agroecology

6.73.4 Review and Assessment of CropRelated Digital Tools for Agroecology Evangelos Anastasiou, Aikaterini Kasimati, George Papadopoulos, Anna Vatsanidou, Marilena Gemtou, Jochen Kantelhardt, Andreas Gabriel, Friederike Schwierz, Custodio Efraim Matavel, Andreas Meyer-Aurich et al. Special Issue Smart Farming: Advancing Techniques for High-Value Crops Edited by Dr. Thanos Balafoutis and Dr. Evangelos Anastasiou Review https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15112600 Academic Editor: Frank Liebisch Received: 22 September 2025 Revised: 30 October 2025 Accepted: 4 November 2025 Published: 12 November 2025 Citation: Anastasiou, E.; Kasimati, A.; Papadopoulos, G.; Vatsanidou, A.; Gemtou, M.; Kantelhardt, J.; Gabriel, A.; Schwierz, F.; Matavel, C.E.; MeyerAurich, A.; et al. Review and Assessment of Crop-Related Digital Tools for Agroecology. Agronomy 2025, 15, 2600. https://doi.org/10.3390/ agronomy15112600 Copyright: © 2025 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/). Review Review and Assessment of Crop-Related Digital Tools for Agroecology Evangelos Anastasiou 1,2,* , Aikaterini Kasimati 1, George Papadopoulos 1, Anna Vatsanidou 3, Marilena Gemtou 1, Jochen Kantelhardt 4, Andreas Gabriel 5, Friederike Schwierz 6, Custodio Efraim Matavel 6, Andreas Meyer-Aurich 6, Elias Maritan 7, Karl Behrendt 7, Alma Moroder 8,9 , Sonoko Dorothea Bellingrath-Kimura 8,9, Søren Marcus Pedersen 10, Andrea Landi 10, Liisa Pesonen 11 , Junia Rojic 12, Minkyeong Kim 12, Heiner Denzer 12 and Spyros Fountas 1 1Department of Natural Resources Development and Agricultural Engineering, Agricultural University of Athens, 11855 Athens, Greece; [email protected] (A.K.); [email protected] (G.P.); [email protected] (M.G.); [email protected] (S.F.) 2Laboratory of Agricultural Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece 3Department of Agricultural Development, Agrofood and Management of Natural Resources, School of Agricultural Development, Nutrition & Sustainability, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 34400 Psahna, Greece 4Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Institute of Agricultural and Forestry Economics, BOKU University, Feistmantelstr. 4, 1180 Vienna, Austria 5Institute for Agricultural Engineering and Animal Husbandry, Bavarian State Research Center for Agriculture (LfL), Kleeberg 14, 94099 Ruhstorf an der Rott, Germany 6Leibniz Institute for Agricultural Engineering and Bioeconomy (ATB), Max-Eyth-Allee 100, 14469 Potsdam, Germany; [email protected] (A.M.-A.) 7Harper Adams Business School, Harper Adams University, Newport TF10 8NB, UK 8 Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research e.V., Eberswalder Straße 84, 15374 Müncheberg, Germany 9Faculty of Life Science, Thaer-Institute of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences, Humboldt University of Berlin, Albrecht-Thaer-Weg 5, 14195 Berlin, Germany 10 Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 23, 1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark; [email protected] (A.L.) 11 Production Systems, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Latokartanonkaari 9, 00790 Helsinki, Finland 12 Pessl Instruments GmbH, Werksweg 107, 8160 Weiz, Austria *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract The use of digital tools in agroecological crop production can help mitigate current farming challenges such as labour shortage and climate change. The aim of this study was to map digital tools used in crop production, assess their impacts across economic, environmental, and social dimensions, and determine their potential as enablers of agroecology. A systematic search and screening process, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses methodology, identified 453 relevant studies. The results showed that most digital tools are applied for crop monitoring (83.4%), with unmanned aerial vehicles (37.7%) and camera sensors (75.2% combined) being the most frequently used technologies. Farm Management Information Systems (57.6%) and Decision Support Systems (25.2%) dominated the tool categories, while platforms for market access, social networking, and collaborative learning were rare. Most tools addressed the first tier of agroecology, which refers to input reduction, highlighting a strong focus on efficiency improvements rather than systemic redesign. Although digital tools demonstrated positive contributions to social, environmental, and economic dimensions, studies concentrated mainly on economic benefits. Future research should investigate the potential role of digital technologies in advancing higher tiers of agroecology, emphasising participatory design, agroecosystem services, and broader coverage of the agricultural value chain. Agronomy 2025,15, 2600 https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15112600 Agronomy 2025,15, 2600 2 of 44 Keywords: crop production; tiers of agroecology; digitalization; systematic map; smart farming 1. Introduction During the previous decades, the world exhibited rapid technological and economic growth in all sectors [ 1 ]. However, this growth was conducted without taking into consideration the limited available resources that the planet offers as well as the environmental consequences that may arise by using unsustainable production methods [ 2 , 3 ]. Thus, various issues have arisen from this approach, including climate change, environmental pollution, health risks, demographic changes, and biodiversity decline [ 4 – 8 ]. The agricultural sector has not been an exception to this. Heavy dependence on chemical pesticides and synthetic fertilisers has resulted in health problems due to the consumption of unhealthy food, as well as water, soil, and air pollution [ 9 ]. Moreover, the use of heavy machinery has led to soil degradation [ 10 ], while urban migration has also led to the abandonment of rural areas [ 11 ]. Furthermore, farmers’ aging may further limit the ability to feed an increasing population in coming years [12]. Thus, there is a need for more sustainable and socially just agricultural production systems. Many initiatives have started in the previous years at national and international levels (e.g., European Union’s Green Deal [ 13 ], United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals [ 14 ], and Paris Agreement [ 15 ]) that apply to agriculture and promote an economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable future. Adoption of agroecology can contribute to this future. Agroecology refers to a holistic approach that combines social, economic, and environmental elements that can lead to sustainable agricultural production [ 16 ]. Agroecology can contribute to both incremental and transformational changes in agriculture. According to previous research, adoption of agroecological practices can be categorised into five different tiers, namely: Tier One: input reduction; Tier Two: substitution with sustainable inputs; Tier Three: incorporation of biodiversity through agricultural system redesign; Tier Four: reconnection of producers and consumers; and Tier Five: creation of a just and equitable global food system [17]. The path of agroecology is not the only one that can lead to a more sustainable future. Smart farming can also contribute to this future. Many studies have indicated the incremental and transformational power of the adoption of digital tools that are applied in agriculture. Digital tools refer to offline or online software-based systems (e.g., programs, applications, platforms, and other computational resources) that are used on computers, mobile, or other devices for the completion of tasks through the utilisation of digital information [ 18 ]. Digital tools applied in agriculture include various sensors like red-greenblue (RGB), red-green-blue-depth (RGB-D), multispectral, hyperspectral, and thermal cameras, light detection and ranging (LiDAR), Internet of Things (IoT)-based weather sensors (air temperature, air humidity, precipitation, wind velocity and direction), smart traps, soil sensors (moisture, temperature, soil electrical conductivity) and actuators, soil electrical conductivity sensors, synthetic aperture radar (SAR), Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSSs), proximal canopy sensors, and others. These are mounted on satellites, crewed and uncrewed terrestrial or aerial vehicles, or stationary platforms [ 19 – 21 ]. The data collected from these sensors are analysed using artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) methods to provide insights to optimise crop production [22,23]. Although the aims of smart farming and digitalisation in agriculture are consistent with the scope of agroecology, their relationship is still relatively new and underexplored [ 24 , 25 ]. Furthermore, there is a huge debate among advocates and opponents of Agronomy 2025,15, 2600 3 of 44 using digitisation for agroecological transformation. The first supports this by emphasising improved yields and optimal decision-making, whereas the latter refers to restricted autonomy in decision-making and disenfranchisement [ 26 ]. Consequently, the primary goal of this study was to map digital tools utilised in crop production and analyse their economic, environmental, and social impacts in order to determine their potential as agroecology enablers. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Search Strategy and Query Design A systematic literature search using the Web of Science database was conducted to identify relevant digital tools that were applied in crop production over the past ten years and that could enable the transition to agroecology. The reason for selecting Web of Science as the sole database is that it is one of the leading research article databases, covering more than 34,000 journals and containing over 270 million records [ 27 ]. Additionally, the long time span helps reduce potential biases caused by the limited number of studies included in the analysis. A structured query was applied on 28 February 2025 to the search engine to identify relevant research articles (Table 1). The query was developed for identifying relevant information for crop, animal, and agroforestry production as part of the Horizon Europe and Innovate UK co-funded project Digitalisation for Agroecology (D4AgEcol) [ 28 ]. The outcomes of this query were further screened to extract relevant studies with a focus on crop production. Table 1. Query used in the Web of Science database to identify relevant publications [28]. Web of Science Database Query (TS=(“Internet of Things”) OR TS=(“cloud computing”) OR TS=(“big data”) OR TS=(“artificial intelligence”) OR TS=(“machine learning”) OR TS=(“simulation”) OR TS=(“augmented reality”) OR TS=(“additive manufacturing”) OR TS=(“horizontal and vertical system integration”) OR TS=(“autonomous robo*”) OR TS=(“cybersecurity”) OR TS=(“DSS”) OR TS=(“decision support”) OR TS=(“sens*”) OR TS=(“databas*”) OR TS=(“ICT”) OR TS=(“robo*”) OR TS=(“GPS”) OR TS=(“GNSS”) OR TS=(“information syste*”) OR TS=(“image analys?s”) OR TS=(“image processing”) OR TS=(“camera*”) OR TS=(“video”) OR TS=(“RFID”) OR TS=(“eID”) OR TS=(“ruminal bolus”) OR TS=(“drafting”) OR TS=(“walk over weight”) OR TS=(“thermistore*”) OR TS=(“smart trap*”) OR TS=(“e?trap*”) OR TS=(“insect trap*”) OR TS=(“UAV*”) OR TS=(“UAS*”) OR TS=(“accelerometer*”) OR TS=(“pedometer*”) OR TS=(“virtual fencing”) OR TS=(“RGB”) OR TS=(“multispectral”) OR TS=(“hyperspectral”) OR TS=(“thermal”) OR TS=(“LIDAR”) OR TS=(“RADAR”) OR TS=(“EMI”) OR TS=(“satellite”) OR TS=(“UGV*”) OR TS=(“recording”) OR TS=(“guidance”) OR TS=(“steering”) OR TS=(“reacting”) OR TS=(“variable rate”) OR TS=(“monitoring”) OR TS=(“social network*”) OR TS=(“social platform*”) OR TS=(“social media”) OR TS=(“platform*”) OR TS=(“aerial”) OR TS=(“proximal”) OR TS=(“ground”) OR TS=(“FMIS”) OR TS=(“farm management information syste*”) OR TS=(“blockchain”) OR TS=(“marketplace*”) OR TS=(“load cell*”) OR TS=(“flow meter*”) OR TS=(“microphone*”) OR TS=(“feeder*”) OR TS=(“drinker*”) OR TS=(“body temperature device”) OR TS=(“photoelectric sensor”) OR TS=(“scale”) OR TS=(“force plat*”)) AND (TS=(“diversit*”) OR TS=(“knowledge AND (co-creat* OR shar*)”) OR TS=(“synerg*”) OR TS=(“efficien*”) OR TS=(“recycl*”) OR TS=(“value* AND (human OR social)”) OR TS=(“cultur*”) OR TS=(“food AND tradition*”) OR TS=(“responsib* AND govern*”) OR TS=(“economy AND (circular OR solidarity)”)) AND (TS=(“digital agriculture”) OR TS=(“digital farming”) OR TS=(“agroecolog*”) OR TS=(“agro-ecolog*”) OR TS=(“sustainable agriculture”) OR TS=(“precision agriculture”) OR TS=(“smart farming”) OR TS=(“smart agriculture”) OR TS=(“precision livestock farming”)) AND (TS=(“crop*”) OR TS=(“vineyard*”) OR TS=(“vegetable*”) OR TS=(“orchard*”) OR TS=(“arable”) OR TS=(“livestock”) OR TS=(“poultry”) OR TS=(“chicken”) OR TS=(“hen”) OR TS=(“ruminant*”) OR TS=(“pig*”) OR TS=(“goat*”) OR TS=(“sheep”) OR TS=(“lamb*”) OR TS=(“cow*”) OR TS=(“cattle”)) 2.2. Results Filtering The selected research articles were published between 2012 and December 2024 in order to concentrate on recent research publications. To map the pertinent research papers Agronomy 2025,15, 2600 4 of 44 and guarantee a methodical and transparent approach, the literature review adhered to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) methodology. PRISMA is an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses [29]. The aforementioned query yielded 2412 research articles, which were reviewed by people with prior experience on the topics of this study. The systematic map targeted research articles in English with a focus on digital tools applied to arable, vegetable, and orchard crops, as well as vineyards. Consequently, studies related to livestock, agroforestry, or livestock–crop farming systems were excluded, as well as studies with a focus on genetics and mechanised interventions without the use of digital tools. Each record was screened independently by two reviewers at the stages of screening and eligibility. Conflicts at either stage were resolved by a third reviewer, who adjudicated and issued the final decision. As a result, the first outcomes were filtered to exclude articles that, based on the title and abstract, were unrelated to the study’s goal. On this basis, 1531 of the retrieved items were omitted. The subsequent screening round was applied on the remaining 881 articles and excluded inaccessible items as well as articles that were irrelevant to the study scope based on the entire text. The final number of suitable articles that were evaluated in depth for this study was 453 (Figure 1). Figure 1. The PRISMA workflow diagram of the research articles search. 2.3. Classification The selected articles were categorised into three generic classes and several subclasses based on relevant research [ 17 , 19 – 21 , 30 – 32 ]. Each article followed a consistent methodology for categorisation, involving two reviewers for assessment and a third reviewer to Agronomy 2025,15, 2600 5 of 44 resolve any conflicts. The classification into agroecology tiers was based on the following criteria. Articles focusing on digital tools aimed at increasing the efficiency of agricultural operations at the field level (e.g., variable rate nitrogen application [ 33 ], decision support system for pest monitoring [ 34 ]) were assigned to Tier One, “reduce inputs.” When digital tools were referenced in conjunction with sustainable inputs (e.g., organic fertilisers [ 35 ], or other sustainable practices like mechanical pruning [ 36 ]), the articles were classified under Tier Two, “substitute with sustainable inputs.” Tier Three, “redesign agricultural systems to incorporate biodiversity,” included articles addressing holistic management approaches at the regional level (e.g., land suitability tools [ 37 ], risk assessment for heavy metal pollution in soils [ 38 ]). Articles related to applications that enhance crop yield characteristics to better meet consumer needs (e.g., plant phenotyping [ 39 ]), contribute to food safety ( e.g., yield prediction [ 40 ]), or improve traceability [ 41 ] were assigned to Tier Four, “reconnect producers and consumers.” Tier Five, “create a just and equitable global food system,” comprised articles focusing on regional-level food systems (e.g., [ 42 , 43 ]). The final selection of studies was subjected to qualitative and statistical analysis to extract key insights into existing digital tools for the crop sector (Table 2). One article can be categorised into multiple keywords, resulting in percentages of each keyword contribution, not summing up to 100%. Table 2. Technical aspect keywords used in the literature review. Classes Options Crop-related characteristics and applications Farming Type Arable Crops; Vegetable Crops; Orchard Crops; Vineyards Farming System Type Conventional; Organic; Integrated Management Operation Type Land Preparation; Irrigation; Fertilisation; Pest Control; Weeding; Harvest; Monitoring; Marketing; Breeding Characteristics and use of digital tools on crops Application Type Guidance/Steering; Recording/Monitoring/Mapping; Reacting/VRA (Variable Rate Application)/Control; Information/Knowledge Sharing Platform Satellite; UAV (Uncrewed Aerial Vehicle); UGV (Uncrewed Ground Vehicle); Crewed Ground Vehicles; Stationary; Wearable; Mobile Ground; Crewed Aerial Vehicles Sensors Hyperspectral; Multispectral; Thermal; RGB/RGB-D; LIDAR; Weather Station; Load Cell; Sound Sensor; Flow Meter; Temperature Sensor; Weight Sensor; Soil Sensor; Stem Water Potential Sensor; NIRS (NearInfrared Spectroscopy; Smart Trap; Synthetic Aperture Radar; GNSS; Soil Electrical Conductivity Sensor; Canopy Sensor; Fluorescence; Water Quality Sensor; Ground-Penetrating Radar; Soil Cutting Resistance Sensor; Electronic Plate Meter; Force Plate; pH Sensor Software Software; FMIS (Farm Management Information System); DSS (Decision Support System); Social Platform; Digital Marketplace Contribution to transition to agroecology Tier of Agroecology Tier One: reduce inputs; Tier Two: substitute with sustainable inputs; Tier Three: redesign agricultural systems to incorporate biodiversity; Tier Four: reconnect producers and consumers; Tier Five: create a just and equitable global food system 2.4. Impact Categorisation The collected records were assessed in terms of different impacts, and specifically environmental, economic, and social impacts. The impacts were based on the work performed by Wolters et al. [44] (Table 3). Agronomy 2025,15, 2600 6 of 44 Table 3. Impacts used for the assessment of the selected research articles [28]. Impact Type Impact Economic Impact Productivity Revenue, profit, farm income Input costs Shelf life of product Product quality Product wastage Environmental Impact Air protection Soil protection Water protection Biodiversity protection GHG emission Social Impact Labour time Stress for farmer Amount of heavy physical labour Number and/or severity of personal injury accidents Number and/or severity of accidents resulting in spills, property damage, incorrect application of inputs, etc. Human exposure to chemicals An “Impact Scale” with a simple grading was used to analyse the impact of digital tools for agroecology found in the research articles. This scale, ranging from “Large Decrease” to “Large Increase,” was used to assess the impact of digital technologies on the aforementioned economic, environmental, and social variables [28]. The aim of using this scale was to classify the effect of each solution allowing, for a disciplined and uniform way of measuring the possible advantages or drawbacks. The scale’s categorical nature allowed for a clear delineation of impact, highlighting tools that might substantially improve conditions or those that could possibly pose risks or challenges across the assessed areas. Numerical values were assigned for each impact based on each category with the aim of making the impact of digital tools, which present heterogeneous evidence, easily comparable (Table 4). Each digital tool was accounted for once, regardless of its application system. In case one publication introduced several tools, the impact scale was created for the combined use of the digital tools. Two reviewers with relevant experience assigned the numeric values to each record, where if there was a conflict, a third reviewer made the final decision. Table 4. Numeric values assigned per impact type [28]. Impact Numeric Value Large Decrease Small Decrease No Effect Small Increase Large Increase Economic Impacts Productivity −2−1 0 +1 +2 Revenue, profit, farm income −2−1 0 +1 +2 Input costs +2 +1 0 −1−2 Shelf life of product −2−1 0 +1 +2 Product quality −2−1 0 +1 +2 Product wastage +2 +1 0 −1−2 Agronomy 2025,15, 2600 7 of 44 Table 4. Cont. Impact Numeric Value Large Decrease Small Decrease No Effect Small Increase Large Increase Environmental Impacts Air protection −2−1 0 1 +2 Soil protection −2−1 0 1 +2 Water protection −2−1 0 1 +2 Biodiversity protection −2−1 0 +1 +2 GHG emission +2 +1 0 −1−2 Social Impacts Labour time +2 +1 0 −1−2 Stress for farmer +2 +1 0 −1−2 Amount of heavy physical labour +2 +1 0 −1−2 Number and/or severity of personal injury accidents +2 +1 0 −1−2 Number and/or severity of accidents resulting in spills, property damage, incorrect application of inputs, etc. +2 +1 0 −1−2 Human exposure to chemicals +2 +1 0 −1−2 After evaluating the economic, environmental, and social impact, the overall score for each category was calculated by summing the scores for each type of impact. A similar technique was used to assess the combined economic and environmental impact, as well as the overall impact, which considered economic, environmental, and social impacts. This was conducted to provide a more holistic assessment, since economic, environmental, and social dimensions are often interdependent and can influence one another. However, the combinations of economic with social and environmental with social were not considered, as these pairs do not provide the same level of complementary insight. In these evaluations, weights were used to normalise the numbers to account for the fact that the environmental effect category has one fewer type of impact than the economic and social categories [ 28 , 45 ]. Specifically, the weights in the Table 5were assigned to ensure comparability across categories and to avoid over-representing any single dimension when impacts were combined. For the economic, environmental, and social categories, a weight of 1 was used, since each represents a distinct and independent type of impact. In contrast, combined categories such as economic and environmental and the overall impact (economic, environmental, and social) were given smaller weights ( 0.5 and 0.33 for each impact, respectively) to normalise their scores. In this way, balanced scores for the combined categories in relation to the single-dimension scores was ensured (Table 5). Table 5. Weights and categorisation rules per impact category [28]. Impact Type Weight for Each Impact Type Numeric Values Low Impact Medium Impact High Impact Economic 1 <4 ≥4 and <8 ≥8 Environmental 1 <3 ≥3 and <7 ≥7 Social 1 <4 ≥4 and <8 ≥8 Economic and Environmental * 0.5 <4 ≥4 and <8 ≥8 Overall ** 0.33 <4 ≥4 and <8 ≥8 * Each impact (economic and environmental) was assigned 0.5 to result in normalised values. ** Each impact (economic, environmental, and social) was assigned 0.33 to result in normalised values. Agronomy 2025,15, 2600 8 of 44 The distribution of the overall scores was used to provide a standardised and datadriven way of defining thresholds to assign each record to low, medium, or high impact [ 28 ]. Specifically, values falling in the lower numeric values range were categorised as low impact, mid-range values as medium impact, and upper numeric values as high impact (Table 5). 2.5. Analysis The statistical analysis included the number of research studies published annually. In addition, frequency analysis was performed for the crop characteristics (type, operation, and farming system), the digital tools (scope of use, sensors, and platforms), the agroecology tier, and the impact assessment. The PRISMA checklist, the classification and analysis of the selected research articles are presented in the Supplementary Materials [ 33 – 43 , 46 – 487 ]. 3. Results 3.1. Annual Publications Between 2012 and 2024, there was a significant and consistent increase in the number of published research articles on digital tools for crop production that could support the transition to agroecology. Starting with a negligible number of articles in 2012, the research output shows a gradual rise until 2017, after which there is an exponential growth, culminating in over 100 articles in 2024 (Figure 2). Figure 2. Number of articles per year (the 2025 bar represents articles that were accepted in 2024, published in 2025, and subsequently included in the database). 3.2. Crop-Related Characteristics and Applications of Digital Tools The percentages of research articles that correspond to different agricultural management systems are presented in Figure 3. According to the analysis, the conventional agricultural management overwhelmingly dominates the discourse, with digital tools being applied in 99.3% of relevant articles. In contrast, “Integrated Management” and “Organic” farming systems show significantly lower percentages, at 74.2% and 57.4%, respectively. While “Integrated Management” still features digital tools in a substantial portion of its research, the gap between this and “Conventional” is considerable. “Organic” agriculture, which aligns most closely with agroecological principles, has the lowest mention of digital tools. Agronomy 2025,15, 2600 15 of 44 incentives for maximising yields through technological means in established systems [ 492 ]. Regarding “Organic” and “Integrated Management,” the lower values suggest that the integration of digital technologies into more sustainable and agroecological approaches is still in its nascent stages [493]. The lower figures for Integrated and Organic management could be justified by several factors. These include the inherent complexity of agroecological systems, which may not be easily amenable to conventional digital optimisation [ 494 ], and the debate within these movements towards open-source and simple solutions specifically tailored for their unique requirements [26,495]. Regarding the results on crop types, the predominance of tools used in arable crops is justified by the vast cultivated area dedicated to arable crops (e.g., cereals, oilseeds, and pulses), their critical role in global food security, and the significant economic scale of their production [ 496 – 500 ], which incentivises the adoption and research of digital technologies for efficiency and yield optimisation [ 501 ]. Regarding the lower percentage in vegetables and orchards, this can be justified by their generally smaller individual farm sizes, more specialised cultivation practices, and sometimes exhibiting higher operation complexity compared with large-scale arable farming, which might lead to different priorities for digital tool development [ 502 – 504 ]. Similarly for the vineyards, the lower percentage can be justified given that viticulture is a highly specialised and often regionalised agricultural sector compared with the rest of the crops while requiring higher operational complexity [505,506]. The high percentage of articles that address “Monitoring” operations is well justified given that this operation is foundational to smart farming and enables data-driven decisionmaking across almost all other farming operations. Digital tools like sensors, drones, and satellite imagery are crucial for data collection on crop health, soil conditions, and environmental factors. Processed data from these sensors can lead to timely and accurate decisions for all operations [ 507 – 510 ]. The emphasis on “Fertilisation” reflects the economic and environmental importance of optimising nutrient application, where digital tools (e.g., variable rate spreaders, IoT sensors for nutrient analysis) can be used for optimising application of nutrients based on crop needs due to better detection of crops (<5% error) and can achieve savings of >8% depending on the nutrients compared with traditional practices [ 511 , 512 ]. Accordingly, digital tools for “Harvest” are used to improve efficiency, reduce losses, and optimise timing for quality and yield by achieving yield prediction of >90% [ 513 ]. Similarly, “Pest Control” and “Irrigation” benefit significantly from digital solutions for optimised pest management and water application due to the fact that they can reduce chemical use and resource waste by >70% according to the pesticide type through the use of prescription maps and >10% in irrigation water by coupling weather, soil, and crop data to assess the specific needs [ 21 , 514 ]. Regarding the low percentages of “Weeding” and “Land preparation,” these can be justified by the fact that these operations are of high importance, mainly in arable crops. Digital tools can save >20% herbicides through spot spraying due to high accuracy in weed detection (>90%), while >50% fuel savings and >0.6 tonnes reduction of air pollution can be achieved due to trajectory optimisation and path following through the use of autosteering and appropriate tillage depth compared with traditional practices [501,515,516]. The low focus on “Breeding” can be justified by it being a longer-term, more scientific process that is not as directly impacted by real-time digital tools in the field [ 517 ]. The very low percentage for “Marketing” suggests that research on digital tools in crop production predominantly focuses on the production aspects within the farm gate, with less emphasis on post-harvest value chain and market access strategies using digital technologies, while this aspect is of higher interest in urban agriculture [518,519]. Agronomy 2025,15, 2600 16 of 44 The main focus on the “Recording/Monitoring/Mapping” application can be justified by the fact that digital tools are mainly used to monitor and map the agricultural environment and provide the essential data layer for all other advanced digital farming applications [ 507 – 510 ]. Accordingly, “Reacting/VRA/control,” while crucial for optimising inputs and outputs, inherently relies on the preceding “Recording/Monitoring/Mapping” phase, which justifies its lower percentage [ 20 ]. “Information/Knowledge Sharing,” while important for knowledge transfer and community building, does not exhibit immediate and measurable results [ 520 ]. Similarly, the low percentage of “Guidance” can be justified by its niche application to specific machinery operations, compared with the broad utility of monitoring, although it is vital for precision and efficiency in field operations [521,522]. 4.3. Digital Tools Our study showed that imaging sensors can provide a higher volume of information compared with other sensors, and for this reason they were selected in the field studies, in accordance with preceding studies. Specifically, multispectral imaging captures specific light bands to assess crop health, nutrients, and stress, while thermal imaging measures temperature variations to detect water stress and disease. Both are key in remote sensing for large-area monitoring [ 523 , 524 ]. RGB/RGB-D cameras support visual inspection (e.g., weed, pest, crop), 3D mapping, and agricultural robotics [ 525 , 526 ]. Hyperspectral imaging provides even richer spectral detail for advanced plant analysis, though it is less common due to higher cost and data complexity [ 527 , 528 ]. Additionally, soil sensors are fundamental for precise irrigation and fertilisation, measuring parameters like moisture, pH, and nutrient levels, directly impacting resource efficiency [ 529 ]. LiDAR provides highly accurate 3D structural information of crops and fields, useful for canopy volume, plant height, and terrain mapping that can be used for optimising application of nutrients and plant protection products, pruning, and yield prediction [ 530 ]. Canopy sensors directly measure plant properties, often relating to nitrogen status or biomass. These sensors support more specific or detailed analyses compared with broad-area remote sensing [ 531 ]. Regarding the low use of the rest of the sensors in crops, the results can be justified by the fact that these sensors are used in specific agricultural applications. Also, they are less frequently the primary focus of research articles on digital tools in crop production compared with the more broadly applicable and widely adopted imaging and soil sensing technologies. Finally, these sensors provide limited benefit in comparison with the other sensor types [19,21]. The high percentage of “UAV” in the category platform is well justified by the unique advantages of UAVs in agriculture, namely their ability to provide high-resolution, ondemand imagery, flexibility in deployment, and capacity to cover significant areas quickly and cost effectively for application and monitoring compared with ground-based methods. They are particularly valuable for monitoring and mapping, which, as seen in a previous analysis, is the dominant use of digital tools [ 532 ]. “Stationary platforms” includes fixedposition sensors and actuators (e.g., soil sensors, solenoid valves) and weather stations. Their significant presence is justified by the need for continuous, long-term, and precise data collection at specific points within the field, providing a stable and reliable data source for various agricultural parameters [ 533 ]. “Mobile Ground” platforms encompass a range of handheld devices, mainly used for monitoring and mapping. Their importance lies in their ability to perform close-range sensing, detailed sampling, and precise application of inputs, complementing aerial data with ground-truth information [ 531 ]. “Satellites” offer broad-area coverage and frequent revisit times, but their resolution can be lower than UAVs, and cloud cover can be an issue when using optical data. Also, satellites are used for enabling accurate positioning, and consequently, allowing accurate navigation Agronomy 2025,15, 2600 17 of 44 and application of crop robots. However, their ability to cover vast regions makes them economically crucial for large-scale monitoring and regional analysis, justifying their substantial, though not leading, share [ 534 ]. “Crewed Ground Vehicles” and “Crewed Aerial Vehicles” represent traditional human-driven machinery and aircraft, which are less the focus of novel digital tool research compared with autonomous or remote systems, justifying their lower percentages due to safety and less work effort for the operators [ 19 , 21 ]. The “UGV” category, while promising for precision tasks and reducing labour, are still in earlier stages of adoption and research compared with UAVs, explaining their modest share due to regulations and higher manufacturing costs [ 535 ]. “Wearable” devices, while useful, are currently less central to the automated data collection and application processes that dominate digital agriculture research. Hence, they exhibited limited use in crop-related studies, although they are widely used in the livestock sector [536,537]. Regarding the results on software types, the high percentage of “FMIS” is highly justified because the systems are comprehensive software platforms designed to integrate and manage various aspects of farm operations, from planning and record-keeping to resource management and financial analysis. They serve as the central hub for data collected by sensors and other digital tools, enabling holistic decision-making and operational efficiency. The strong emphasis on FMIS aligns with the previous findings that “monitoring” is the dominant use of digital tools, as FMISs are crucial for processing and utilising these monitored data [ 538 – 540 ]. DSS are specialised computer programs that analyse data to provide recommendations or assist farmers in making informed decisions regarding, for example, optimal fertilisation, irrigation scheduling, or pest control. Their substantial presence is logical, as they represent the analytical and actionable layer built upon the data foundation provided by FMIS and monitoring tools [ 541 ]. In contrast, “Social Platform” and “Digital Marketplace” percentages indicate that research has very little focus on platforms designed for farmer-to-farmer interaction, knowledge exchange, or direct buying and selling of agricultural products. This could be justified by the fact that the core of precision agriculture research is typically centred on in-field production efficiency and optimisation, rather than on social aspects or broader supply chain and market dynamics where the farmers are utilising traditional platforms [542–545]. 4.4. Transition to Agroecology The application of digital tools in agriculture presented the strongest focus on “Tier One: input reduction,” where digital tools optimise fertilisers, pesticides, water, and energy use to cut waste and environmental impact while maintaining yields, aligning with precision agriculture goals [ 546 ]. Accordingly, digital tools that address “Tier Two: substitution with sustainable inputs” received less focus, because most tools are designed to improve the efficiency of existing inputs rather than replacing them, although in some cases they can be used for the application of sustainable crop inputs (e.g., organic fertilisers and pesticides) [ 547 ]. Similarly, digital tools for “Tier Three: incorporation of biodiversity through agricultural system redesign” received less focus due to the need for more complicated systems [ 548 ]. “Tier Four: reconnection of producers and consumers” and “Tier Five: creation of a just and equitable global food system” received minimal research, as current digital agriculture efforts remain centred on on-farm production [ 542 – 545 ]. The results can be justified by the fact that Tiers Four and Five aim at value chains as well as complicated food systems. These involve interconnected activities and actors that make it challenging to develop and assess solutions [ 549 ]. Moreover, incremental changes like the ones that correspond to Tiers One, Two, and Three are more preferable due to lower risk, shorter adoption and adaptation periods, and a lower number of conflicts compared with the radical changes that correspond to Tiers Four and Five [ 550 ]. Also, different barriers have Agronomy 2025,15, 2600 18 of 44 been identified for the adoption of informatics technologies in agri-food chains that are relevant to production processing and commercialisation and include data privacy and security, high costs to connectivity, training, interoperability, data standards, scalability, governance, technological and infrastructure gaps, technological readiness, farm size, time consumption, and age [ 551 ]. Thus, appropriate policies and practices should be implemented to address these barriers and enable the development of radical digital tools that address Tier Four and Tier Five. 4.5. Impact Assessment Regarding the results on the impacts, these are in alignment with other studies that found that there are economic, environmental, and societal benefits to the use of digital tools in agriculture. Digital tools are expected to reduce product wastage, improve product quality and shelf life, cut input costs, and boost revenue, profit, farm income, and productivity. These gains derive from better timing, resource optimisation, and targeted application of inputs indicating that the adoption of digital tools can provide direct economic benefits [ 547 , 552 – 554 ]. Accordingly, environmental impacts were also beneficial. Digital tools contribute to decreased GHG emissions by optimising fuel and fertiliser use. Many studies referred to increases in biodiversity, water, and air protection, with some seeing no effect. Soil protection trends are positive, reflecting benefits from the use of digital tools [ 555 – 557 ]. Moreover, the social impacts of digital tools in agriculture were also in alignment with the rest of the results from the other impacts. Digital tools can contribute to reduced human exposure to chemicals through precision operations (e.g., spraying, fertilisation) and automation, and they also tend to slightly lower the number and severity of accidents and personal injuries. The amount of heavy physical labour is widely expected to decrease due to the use of robots and other automated systems, although they may add pressures from data management, complexity, and financial costs [21,558–560]. Digital tool use in agriculture is generally seen as positive by the reviewers of the database across economic, environmental, and social dimensions, with the strongest consensus around significant economic benefits such as increased productivity, revenue, and reduced input costs, and very few studies rating the impact as low. However, concerns have been raised that productivity gains might not cover the capital costs of investments, for instance in site-specific management [ 561 ]. Environmental impacts are also widely seen as beneficial, though the scale of these benefits is slightly lower than for economic gains. Social impacts, despite mixed assessments, also received a high proportion of high-impact ratings, likely reflecting a broader recognition that digital tools can substantially reshape labour needs. Combined assessments showed that economic and environmental impacts together are rated as high in 44.7%, medium in 21.9%, and low in 33.3% of the research articles, while all impacts combined (economic, environmental, and social) receive high, medium, and low ratings in 43.2%, 21.1%, and 35.7% of the cases, respectively. The slight drop in high-impact ratings when all dimensions are considered suggests that lower-impact perceptions in certain social aspects diluted the strong economic and environmental scores. This is justified by the limited focus of the research on digital tools in the social impact category [518,519]. 4.6. Future Directions The findings highlight a significant opportunity and need for increased research and development into digital tools that genuinely support and enable the transition towards more sustainable and agroecological farming systems, rather than predominantly reinforcing conventional methods. Specifically, the identified digital tools prioritise crop yield and input optimisation rather than contributing to radical agroecological transformation. Agronomy 2025,15, 2600 19 of 44 Thus, there is a need to support whole-system transformation and social innovation such as polyculture, agribusiness diversification strategies, and community-based networks [ 561 ]. Additionally, the wide use of FMIS and DSS platforms reflects that there is a focus on farm-level decision-making. However, agroecology emphasises the co-creation of knowledge, participatory learning, and stronger relations across value chains, and for this reason, these should be further investigated [ 562 ]. For example, the integration of blockchain technologies can promote environmental sustainability and efficient resource contribution and enhance trust and traceability while optimising inventory and distribution [ 563 ], and thus, it should be further developed. Similarly, different types of sensors should be developed to provide a richer picture of agroecosystem functions (e.g., pollinator activity through insect traps with camera sensors, multi-sensor integrated approaches for soil nutrient cycles monitoring) [ 564 – 566 ] along with robotics and automation platforms that are better adapted to agroecological environments and handle multicultural systems [ 132 ]. From the abovementioned discussion, it is clear that a better coupling between digitalisation and agroecology at socio-technical levels through participatory design is needed to empower all actors across value chains under the principles of agroecology [ 24 , 562 , 567 ]. Also, the socio-cultural drivers and barriers that affect the adoption level of digital tools that can be utilised as enablers of agroecology should be further investigated at regional, cultural, and traditional levels [568,569], along with the suggested technologies referred to above. 5. Study Limitations The present literature review, while providing valuable insights into the intersection of digital tools and agroecology in crop production, is subject to several limitations that warrant consideration. Firstly, the query structure employed, relying on specific keywords, inherently narrowed the scope of included articles. This approach, while necessary for focus, may have inadvertently excluded relevant studies that utilised alternative terminologies, focused on related but not directly matched concepts, or were published in disciplines less accustomed to the precise phrasing used in the search string, particularly at the nuanced interface of “digital tools” and “agroecology.” Secondly, the review’s reliance on a defined number of years (2012 to 2024 as seen in the initial analysis) means that foundational research published prior to this period, or very recent, cutting-edge developments that have not yet been indexed or widely disseminated, may have been omitted. Thirdly, the exclusive use of one database for article retrieval introduces a potential bias, as different academic databases index varying sets of journals across diverse disciplines and geographical regions. This singular source might not fully capture the global breadth and depth of research, leading to an incomplete representation of the existing literature [ 570 ]. Additionally, the broad focus of this survey did not allow narrowing of the focus to the most significant cases where digital tools have the most impact [ 571 ]. Finally, the inherent subjectivity in interpreting and categorising information from diverse research articles and impact assessments, coupled with the rapidly evolving nature of digital agriculture, means that the findings represent a snapshot in time and may not fully capture the dynamic landscape of this interdisciplinary field [572]. 6. Conclusions As it was presented above, crop-related digital tools are more focused on input reduction, which corresponds to the first tier of agroecology. This indicates that current developments remain primarily efficiency-oriented and do not fully integrate systemic agroecological approaches that can be radical and transformative across value chains and regions. Accordingly, the impact assessment revealed that although the digital tools can contribute positively to economic, environmental, and social dimensions, the majority of Agronomy 2025,15, 2600 20 of 44 studies focused on economic outcomes, with limited evaluation of environmental and social impacts. Thus, future research on the digitalisation of crop production should place greater emphasis on assessing and enhancing the environmental and social contributions of digital tools, integrating appropriate agroecological frameworks into their development. Efforts should also explore the potential of underutilised technologies, such as ground-based robots, wearable sensors, and diversified environmental monitoring systems, across a wider range of production stages, including breeding, land preparation, and post-harvest marketing. More databases (e.g., IEEE, Scopus, Google Scholar) should be included in future studies to better map the relevant technologies. Finally, digital tools should be co-designed with farmers and other stakeholders to identify potential socio-cultural drivers and barriers that may differ and to consequently ensure social acceptability, foster participatory knowledge exchange, and support transitions toward higher tiers of agroecology. Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https:// www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agronomy15112600/s1, Supplementary File: The PRISMA checklist and the supporting information on the scientific literature review assessment. Author Contributions: E.A.: Writing—Review and Editing, Writing—Original Draft, Visualisation, Methodology, Investigation, Formal Analysis, Data Curation, Conceptualisation, Supervision; A.K.: Writing—Original Draft, Methodology, Investigation, Data Curation; G.P.: Writing—Original Draft, Visualisation, Investigation, Data Curation; A.V.: Writing—Review and Editing, Investigation, Data Curation; M.G.: Writing—Review and Editing, Investigation, Data Curation; J.K.: Investigation, Data Curation; A.G.: Investigation, Data Curation; C.E.M.: Investigation, Data Curation; E.M.: Writing—Review and Editing, Investigation, Data Curation; K.B.: Writing—Review and Editing, Investigation, Data Curation; A.M.: Investigation, Data Curation; S.D.B.-K.: Writing—Review and Editing, Investigation, Data Curation; S.M.P.: Writing—Review and Editing, Investigation, Data Curation; A.L.: Writing—Review and Editing, Investigation, Data Curation; L.P.: Writing—Review and Editing, Investigation, Data Curation; J.R.: Investigation, Data Curation; M.K.: Investigation, Data Curation; H.D.: Investigation, Data Curation; F.S.: Investigation, Data Curation; Project Administration; A.M.-A.: Writing—Review and Editing, Investigation, Data Curation; Project Administration; S.F.: Writing—Review and Editing, Conceptualisation, Supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: The research has been funded by the European Union project D4AgEcol: ‘DIGITALISATION FOR AGROECOLOGY’, under Grant Agreement No.: 101060759. The research has been co-funded by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI Reference No. 10037994). Data Availability Statement: The original contributions presented in this study are included in the Supplementary Materials. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author. Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Karl Reimand and Andreas Niedermayr for their valuable help in the investigation. During the preparation of this manuscript/study, the authors used Quillbot for the purposes of grammar. The authors have reviewed and edited the output and take full responsibility for the content of this publication. Conflicts of Interest: Authors Junia Rojic, Minkyeong Kim and Heiner Denzer were employed by the company Pessl Instruments GmbH. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. References 1. My Thi Thi, D.; Tran Phu Do, T. The Interrelationships between Economic Growth and Innovation: International Evidence. J. Appl. Econ. 2024,27, 2332975. [CrossRef] 2. Lawrence, J.; Mekoth, N. Demarketing for Sustainability: A Review and Future Research Agenda. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2023,47, 2157–2180. [CrossRef] Agronomy 2025,15, 2600 21 of 44 3. Zhang, L.; Xu, M.; Chen, H.; Li, Y.; Chen, S. Globalization, Green Economy and Environmental Challenges: State of the Art Review for Practical Implications. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022,10, 870271. [CrossRef] 4. Singh, S.; Sharma, M.; Gupta, Y. A Systematic Review of Environmental Sustainability and Economic Growth. World Rev. Entrep. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2024,20, 683–715. [CrossRef] 5. Hensher, M.; McCartney, G.; Ochodo, E. Health Economics in a World of Uneconomic Growth. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 2024,22, 427–433. [CrossRef] 6. Dasgupta, P.; Levin, S. Economic Factors Underlying Biodiversity Loss. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2023,378, 20220197. [CrossRef] 7. Albert, M.J. Beyond Continuationism: Climate Change, Economic Growth, and the Future of World (Dis)Order. Camb. Rev. Int. Aff. 2022,35, 868–887. [CrossRef] 8. Mason, A.; Lee, R.; Members of the NTA Network. Six Ways Population Change Will Affect the Global Economy. Popul. Dev. Rev. 2022,48, 51–73. [CrossRef] 9. Jote, C.A. The Impacts of Using Inorganic Chemical Fertilizers on the Environment and Human Health. Org. Med. Chem. Int. J. 2023,13, 555864. 10. Shaheb, M.R.; Venkatesh, R.; Shearer, S.A. A Review on the Effect of Soil Compaction and Its Management for Sustainable Crop Production. J. Biosyst. Eng. 2021,46, 417–439. [CrossRef] 11. Ruas, R.d.B.; Costa, L.M.S.; Bered, F. Urbanization Driving Changes in Plant Species and Communities—A Global View. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2022,38, e02243. [CrossRef] 12. Borda, Á.J.; Sárvári, B.; Balogh, J.M. Generation Change in Agriculture: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Economies 2023,11, 129. [CrossRef] 13. Boix-Fayos, C.; de Vente, J. Challenges and Potential Pathways towards Sustainable Agriculture within the European Green Deal. Agric. Syst. 2023,207, 103634. [CrossRef] 14. Saleem, A.; Anwar, S.; Nawaz, T.; Fahad, S.; Saud, S.; Ur Rahman, T.; Khan, M.N.R.; Nawaz, T. Securing a Sustainable Future: The Climate Change Threat to Agriculture, Food Security, and Sustainable Development Goals. J. Umm Al-Qura Univ. Appl. Sci. 2024, 11, 1–17. [CrossRef] 15. Amahnui, G.A.; Vanegas, M.; Verchot, L.; Castro-Nunez, A. Achieving the Paris Agreement Goals by Transitioning to LowEmissions Food Systems: A Comprehensive Review of Countries’ Actions. Environ. Sci. Policy 2025,163, 103968. [CrossRef] 16. Altieri, M.A.; Nicholls, C.I.; Henao, A.; Lana, M.A. Agroecology and the Design of Climate Change-Resilient Farming Systems. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015,35, 869–890. [CrossRef] 17. Gliessman, S. Transforming Food Systems with Agroecology. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2016,40, 187–189. [CrossRef] 18. Moorhouse, B.L.; Yan, L. Use of Digital Tools by English Language Schoolteachers. Educ. Sci. 2023,13, 226. [CrossRef] 19. Anastasiou, E.; Balafoutis, A.T.; Fountas, S. Trends in Remote Sensing Technologies in Olive Cultivation. Smart Agric. Technol. 2023,3, 100103. [CrossRef] 20. Balafoutis, A.T.; Beck, B.; Fountas, S.; Tsiropoulos, Z.; Vangeyte, J.; van der Wal, T.; Soto-Embodas, I.; Gómez-Barbero, M.; Pedersen, S.M. Smart Farming Technologies—Description, Taxonomy and Economic Impact. In Precision Agriculture: Technology and Economic Perspectives; Pedersen, S.M., Lind, K.M., Eds.; Progress in Precision Agriculture; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 21–77; ISBN 978-3-319-68715-5. 21. Anastasiou, E.; Fountas, S.; Voulgaraki, M.; Psiroukis, V.; Koutsiaras, M.; Kriezi, O.; Lazarou, E.; Vatsanidou, A.; Fu, L.; Bartolo, F.D.; et al. Precision Farming Technologies for Crop Protection: A Meta-Analysis. Smart Agric. Technol. 2023,5, 100323. [CrossRef] 22. Aijaz, N.; Lan, H.; Raza, T.; Yaqub, M.; Iqbal, R.; Pathan, M.S. Artificial Intelligence in Agriculture: Advancing Crop Productivity and Sustainability. J. Agric. Food Res. 2025,20, 101762. [CrossRef] 23. Padhiary, M.; Saha, D.; Kumar, R.; Sethi, L.N.; Kumar, A. Enhancing Precision Agriculture: A Comprehensive Review of Machine Learning and AI Vision Applications in All-Terrain Vehicle for Farm Automation. Smart Agric. Technol. 2024,8, 100483. [CrossRef] 24. Bellon-Maurel, V.; Lutton, E.; Bisquert, P.; Brossard, L.; Chambaron-Ginhac, S.; Labarthe, P.; Lagacherie, P.; Martignac, F.; Molenat, J.; Parisey, N.; et al. Digital Revolution for the Agroecological Transition of Food Systems: A Responsible Research and Innovation Perspective. Agric. Syst. 2022,203, 103524. [CrossRef] 25. Maurel, V.B.; Huyghe, C. Putting Agricultural Equipment and Digital Technologies at the Cutting Edge of Agroecology. OCL 2017,24, D307. [CrossRef] 26. Shilomboleni, H.; Schnurr, M.A. Are Disruptive Agricultural Technologies Compatible with Agroecology? Npj Sustain. Agric. 2025,3, 21. [CrossRef] 27. Web of Science. 2025. Available online: https://clarivate.com/academia-government/scientific-and-academic-research/researchdiscovery-and-referencing/web-of-science/ (accessed on 23 October 2025). 28. Anastasiou, E.; Kasimati, A.; Papadopoulos, G.; Vatsanidou, A.; Gemtou, M.; Schwierz, F.; Meyer-Aurich, A.; Fountas, S. Assessing the Agroecological Impact of Digital Tools in Livestock Production: A Systematic Review. Smart Agric. Technol. 2025,12, 101480. [CrossRef] Agronomy 2025,15, 2600 22 of 44 29. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Int. J. Surg. 2010,8, 336–341. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 30. Angelopoulou, T.; Tziolas, N.; Balafoutis, A.; Zalidis, G.; Bochtis, D. Remote Sensing Techniques for Soil Organic Carbon Estimation: A Review. Remote Sens. 2019,11, 676. [CrossRef] 31. Albiero, D.; Pontin Garcia, A.; Kiyoshi Umezu, C.; Leme de Paulo, R. Swarm Robots in Mechanized Agricultural Operations: A Review about Challenges for Research. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2022,193, 106608. [CrossRef] 32. Aqeel-ur-Rehman; Abbasi, A.Z.; Islam, N.; Shaikh, Z.A. A Review of Wireless Sensors and Networks’ Applications in Agriculture. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 2014,36, 263–270. [CrossRef] 33. Nordblom, T.L.; Hutchings, T.R.; Godfrey, S.S.; Schefe, C.R. Precision Variable Rate Nitrogen for Dryland Farming on Waterlogging Riverine Plains of Southeast Australia? Agric. Syst. 2021,186, 102962. [CrossRef] 34. Potamitis, I.; Rigakis, I.; Fysarakis, K. The Electronic McPhail Trap. Sensors 2014,14, 22285–22299. [CrossRef] 35. Marti-Jerez, K.; Català-Forner, M.; Tomàs, N.; Murillo, G.; Ortiz, C.; Sánchez-Torres, M.J.; Vitali, A.; Lopes, M.S. Agronomic Performance and Remote Sensing Assessment of Organic and Mineral Fertilization in Rice Fields. Front. Plant Sci. 2023,14, 1230012. [CrossRef] 36. Logeshwaran, J.; Srivastava, D.; Kumar, K.S.; Rex, M.J.; Al-Rasheed, A.; Getahun, M.; Soufiene, B.O. Improving Crop Production Using an Agro-Deep Learning Framework in Precision Agriculture. BMC Bioinform. 2024,25, 341. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 37. Abdelkader, M.; Delali, A. Support System Based on GIS and Weighted Sum Method for Drawing up of Land Suitability Map for Agriculture. Application to Durum Wheat Cultivation in the Area of Mleta (Algeria). Span. J. Agric. Res. 2012,10, 34–43. [CrossRef] 38. Pan, S.; Wang, K.; Wang, L.; Wang, Z.; Han, Y. Risk Assessment System Based on WebGIS for Heavy Metal Pollution in Farmland Soils in China. Sustainability 2017,9, 1846. [CrossRef] 39. Khan, Z.; Rahimi-Eichi, V.; Haefele, S.; Garnett, T.; Miklavcic, S.J. Estimation of Vegetation Indices for High-Throughput Phenotyping of Wheat Using Aerial Imaging. Plant Methods 2018,14, 20. [CrossRef] 40. Sun, C.; Feng, L.; Zhang, Z.; Ma, Y.; Crosby, T.; Naber, M.; Wang, Y. Prediction of End-Of-Season Tuber Yield and Tuber Set in Potatoes Using In-Season UAV-Based Hyperspectral Imagery and Machine Learning. Sensors 2020,20, 5293. [CrossRef] 41. Nguyen, D.-H.; Huynh-Tuong, N.; Pham, H.-A. A Blockchain-Based Framework for Developing Traceability Applications towards Sustainable Agriculture in Vietnam. Secur. Commun. Netw. 2022,2022, 1834873. [CrossRef] 42. Xiao, L.; Wang, G.; Zhou, H.; Jin, X.; Luo, Z. Coupling Agricultural System Models with Machine Learning to Facilitate Regional Predictions of Management Practices and Crop Production. Environ. Res. Lett. 2022,17, 114027. [CrossRef] 43. Safarov, F.; Temurbek, K.; Jamoljon, D.; Temur, O.; Chedjou, J.C.; Abdusalomov, A.B.; Cho, Y.-I. Improved Agricultural Field Segmentation in Satellite Imagery Using TL-ResUNet Architecture. Sensors 2022,22, 9784. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 44. Wolters, S.L.; Balafoutis, T.; Fountas, S.; Evert, F.K. van Industry Solutions on Smart Farming Technology. Zenodo 2017. [CrossRef] 45. Ezell, B.; Lynch, C.J.; Hester, P.T. Methods for Weighting Decisions to Assist Modelers and Decision Analysts: A Review of Ratio Assignment and Approximate Techniques. Appl. Sci. 2021,11, 10397. [CrossRef] 46. Fathi, M.; Shah-Hosseini, R.; Moghimi, A. 3D-ResNet-BiLSTM Model: A Deep Learning Model for County-Level Soybean Yield Prediction with Time-Series Sentinel-1, Sentinel-2 Imagery, and Daymet Data. Remote Sens. 2023,15, 5551. [CrossRef] 47. Zhou, L.; Chen, N.; Chen, Z. A Cloud Computing-Enabled Spatio-Temporal Cyber-Physical Information Infrastructure for Efficient Soil Moisture Monitoring. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2016,5, 81. [CrossRef] 48. Apolo-Apolo, O.E.; Pérez-Ruiz, M.; Martínez-Guanter, J.; Valente, J. A Cloud-Based Environment for Generating Yield Estimation Maps From Apple Orchards Using UAV Imagery and a Deep Learning Technique. Front. Plant Sci. 2020,11, 1086. [CrossRef] 49. Mylonas, P.; Voutos, Y.; Sofou, A. A Collaborative Pilot Platform for Data Annotation and Enrichment in Viticulture. Information 2019,10, 149. [CrossRef] 50. M’hamdi, O.; Takács, S.; Palotás, G.; Ilahy, R.; Helyes, L.; Pék, Z. A Comparative Analysis of XGBoost and Neural Network Models for Predicting Some Tomato Fruit Quality Traits from Environmental and Meteorological Data. Plants 2024,13, 746. [CrossRef] 51. Ndlovu, H.S.; Odindi, J.; Sibanda, M.; Mutanga, O.; Clulow, A.; Chimonyo, V.G.P.; Mabhaudhi, T. A Comparative Estimation of Maize Leaf Water Content Using Machine Learning Techniques and Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)-Based Proximal and Remotely Sensed Data. Remote Sens. 2021,13, 4091. [CrossRef] 52. Ashapure, A.; Jung, J.; Chang, A.; Oh, S.; Maeda, M.; Landivar, J. A Comparative Study of RGB and Multispectral Sensor-Based Cotton Canopy Cover Modelling Using Multi-Temporal UAS Data. Remote Sens. 2019,11, 2757. [CrossRef] 53. Filintas, A.; Nteskou, A.; Kourgialas, N.; Gougoulias, N.; Hatzichristou, E. A Comparison between Variable Deficit Irrigation and Farmers’ Irrigation Practices under Three Fertilization Levels in Cotton Yield (Gossypium hirsutum L.) Using Precision Agriculture, Remote Sensing, Soil Analyses, and Crop Growth Modeling. Water 2022,14, 2654. [CrossRef] 54. Ghazvini, A.; Sharef, N.M.; Balasundram, S.K.; Lee, L.S. A Concentration Prediction-Based Crop Digital Twin Using Nutrient Co-Existence and Composition in Regression Algorithms. Appl. Sci. 2024,14, 3383. [CrossRef] Agronomy 2025,15, 2600 23 of 44 55. Du, C.; Zhang, L.; Ma, X.; Lou, X.; Shan, Y.; Li, H.; Zhou, R. A Cotton High-Efficiency Water-Fertilizer Control System Using Wireless Sensor Network for Precision Agriculture. Processes 2021,9, 1693. [CrossRef] 56. Cai, Y.; Li, Y.; Qi, X.; Zhao, J.; Jiang, L.; Tian, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Cao, W.; Zhang, X. A Deep Learning Approach for Deriving Wheat Phenology from Near-Surface RGB Image Series Using Spatiotemporal Fusion. Plant Methods 2024,20, 153. [CrossRef] 57. Cerrato, S.; Mazzia, V.; Salvetti, F.; Martini, M.; Angarano, S.; Navone, A.; Chiaberge, M. A Deep Learning Driven Algorithmic Pipeline for Autonomous Navigation in Row-Based Crops. IEEE Access 2024,12, 138306–138318. [CrossRef] 58. Malambo, L.; Popescu, S.; Ku, N.-W.; Rooney, W.; Zhou, T.; Moore, S. A Deep Learning Semantic Segmentation-Based Approach for Field-Level Sorghum Panicle Counting. Remote Sens. 2019,11, 2939. [CrossRef] 59. Panjaitan, S.D.; Dewi, Y.S.K.; Hendri, M.I.; Wicaksono, R.A.; Priyatman, H. A Drone Technology Implementation Approach to Conventional Paddy Fields Application. IEEE Access 2022,10, 120650–120658. [CrossRef] 60. Valente, A.; Costa, C.; Pereira, L.; Soares, B.; Lima, J.; Soares, S. A LoRaWAN IoT System for Smart Agriculture for Vine Water Status Determination. Agriculture 2022,12, 1695. [CrossRef] 61. Song, X.; Bramley, R.G.V.; Evans, K.J. A Method to Position a Simple Strip Trial to Improve Trial Efficiency and Maximise the Value of Vineyard Variability for Decision-Making. OENO One 2023,57, 97–107. [CrossRef] 62. Yuzugullu, O.; Erten, E.; Hajnsek, I. A Multi-Year Study on Rice Morphological Parameter Estimation with X-Band Polsar Data. Appl. Sci. 2017,7, 602. [CrossRef] 63. Babaeian, E.; Sidike, P.; Newcomb, M.S.; Maimaitijiang, M.; White, S.A.; Demieville, J.; Ward, R.W.; Sadeghi, M.; LeBauer, D.S.; Jones, S.B.; et al. A New Optical Remote Sensing Technique for High-Resolution Mapping of Soil Moisture. Front. Big Data 2019, 2, 37. [CrossRef] 64. Bazinas, C.; Vrochidou, E.; Kalampokas, T.; Karampatea, A.; Kaburlasos, V.G. A Non-Destructive Method for Grape Ripeness Estimation Using Intervals’ Numbers (INs) Techniques. Agronomy 2022,12, 1564. [CrossRef] 65. Herrera, P.; Dorado, J.; Ribeiro, Á. A Novel Approach for Weed Type Classification Based on Shape Descriptors and a Fuzzy Decision-Making Method. Sensors 2014,14, 15304–15324. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 66. Nan, F.; Song, Y.; Yu, X.; Nie, C.; Liu, Y.; Bai, Y.; Zou, D.; Wang, C.; Yin, D.; Yang, W.; et al. A Novel Method for Maize Leaf Disease Classification Using the RGB-D Post-Segmentation Image Data. Front. Plant Sci. 2023,14, 1268015. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 67. Vanegas, F.; Bratanov, D.; Powell, K.; Weiss, J.; Gonzalez, F. A Novel Methodology for Improving Plant Pest Surveillance in Vineyards and Crops Using UAV-Based Hyperspectral and Spatial Data. Sensors 2018,18, 260. [CrossRef] 68. Khan, S.; Tufail, M.; Khan, M.T.; Khan, Z.A.; Iqbal, J.; Alam, M. A Novel Semi-Supervised Framework for UAV Based Crop/Weed Classification. PLoS ONE 2021,16, e0251008. [CrossRef] 69. Khan, A.M. A novel study of the interrelationship of seasonality, satellite data and weed compositional changes of the agroecological system of gujrat, pakistan. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2018,16, 2995–3018. [CrossRef] 70. Wehrhan, M.; Sommer, M. A Parsimonious Approach to Estimate Soil Organic Carbon Applying Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Multispectral Imagery and the Topographic Position Index in a Heterogeneous Soil Landscape. Remote Sens. 2021,13, 3557. [CrossRef] 71. Bregaglio, S.; Savian, F.; Raparelli, E.; Morelli, D.; Epifani, R.; Pietrangeli, F.; Nigro, C.; Bugiani, R.; Pini, S.; Culatti, P.; et al. A Public Decision Support System for the Assessment of Plant Disease Infection Risk Shared by Italian Regions. J. Environ. Manag. 2022,317, 115365. [CrossRef] 72. 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. [CrossRef] 73. Cambra Baseca, C.; Sendra, S.; Lloret, J.; Tomas, J. A Smart Decision System for Digital Farming. Agronomy 2019,9, 216. [CrossRef] 74. Li, Y.; Yan, W.; An, S.; Gao, W.; Jia, J.; Tao, S.; Wang, W. A Spatio-Temporal Fusion Framework of UAV and Satellite Imagery for Winter Wheat Growth Monitoring. Drones 2022,7, 23. [CrossRef] 75. Jiang, B.; Zhang, J.-L.; Su, W.-H.; Hu, R. A SPH-YOLOv5x-Based Automatic System for Intra-Row Weed Control in Lettuce. Agronomy 2023,13, 2915. [CrossRef] 76. Jia, W.; Wei, J.; Zhang, Q.; Pan, N.; Niu, Y.; Yin, X.; Ding, Y.; Ge, X. Accurate Segmentation of Green Fruit Based on Optimized Mask RCNN Application in Complex Orchard. Front. Plant Sci. 2022,13, 955256. [CrossRef] 77. Shekhawat, K.; Singh, V.K.; Rathore, S.S.; Raj, R.; Das, T.K. Achieving Sustainability in Food Systems: Addressing Changing Climate through Real Time Nitrogen and Weed Management in a Conservation Agriculture-Based Maize–Wheat System. Sustainability 2021,13, 5010. [CrossRef] 78. Yao, Y.; Miao, Y.; Huang, S.; Gao, L.; Ma, X.; Zhao, G.; Jiang, R.; Chen, X.; Zhang, F.; Yu, K.; et al. Active Canopy Sensor-Based Precision N Management Strategy for Rice. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2012,32, 925–933. [CrossRef] 79. Argolo Dos Santos, R.; Chartuni Mantovani, E.; Filgueiras, R.; Inácio Fernandes-Filho, E.; Cristielle Barbosa Da Silva, A.; Peroni Venancio, L. Actual Evapotranspiration and Biomass of Maize from a Red–Green-Near-Infrared (RGNIR) Sensor on Board an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). Water 2020,12, 2359. [CrossRef] Agronomy 2025,15, 2600 24 of 44 80. Myint, S.W.; Aggarwal, R.; Zheng, B.; Wentz, E.A.; Holway, J.; Fan, C.; Selover, N.J.; Wang, C.; Fischer, H.A. Adaptive Crop Management under Climate Uncertainty: Changing the Game for Sustainable Water Use. Atmosphere 2021,12, 1080. [CrossRef] 81. Kiani, F.; Seyyedabbasi, A.; Nematzadeh, S.; Candan, F.; Çevik, T.; Anka, F.A.; Randazzo, G.; Lanza, S.; Muzirafuti, A. Adaptive Metaheuristic-Based Methods for Autonomous Robot Path Planning: Sustainable Agricultural Applications. Appl. Sci. 2022,12, 943. [CrossRef] 82. Rehman, M.U.; Eesaar, H.; Abbas, Z.; Seneviratne, L.; Hussain, I.; Chong, K.T. Advanced Drone-Based Weed Detection Using Feature-Enriched Deep Learning Approach. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2024,305, 112655. [CrossRef] 83. Iagăru, P.; Pavel, P.; Iagăru, R.; S , ipo s , , A. Aerial Monitorization—A Vector for Ensuring the Agroecosystems Sustainability. Sustainability 2022,14, 6011. [CrossRef] 84. Lopez-Jimenez, J.; Quijano, N.; Vande Wouwer, A. Agent-Based Sensor Location Strategy for Smart Irrigation of Large Crop Fields. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2023,214, 108282. [CrossRef] 85. Luciani, R.; Laneve, G.; JahJah, M. Agricultural Monitoring, an Automatic Procedure for Crop Mapping and Yield Estimation: The Great Rift Valley of Kenya Case. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2019,12, 2196–2208. [CrossRef] 86. Catala-Roman, P.; Segura-Garcia, J.; Dura, E.; Navarro-Camba, E.A.; Alcaraz-Calero, J.M.; Garcia-Pineda, M. AI-Based Autonomous UAV Swarm System for Weed Detection and Treatment: Enhancing Organic Orange Orchard Efficiency with Agriculture 5.0. Internet Things 2024,28, 101418. [CrossRef] 87. De Lima Silva, Y.K.; Furlani, C.E.A.; Canata, T.F. AI-Based Prediction of Carrot Yield and Quality on Tropical Agriculture. AgriEngineering 2024,6, 361–374. [CrossRef] 88. Ye, Z.; Yin, S.; Cao, Y.; Wang, Y. AI-Driven Optimization of Agricultural Water Management for Enhanced Sustainability. Sci. Rep. 2024,14, 25721. [CrossRef] 89. Khan, A.; Malebary, S.J.; Dang, L.M.; Binzagr, F.; Song, H.-K.; Moon, H. AI-Enabled Crop Management Framework for Pest Detection Using Visual Sensor Data. Plants 2024,13, 653. [CrossRef] 90. Kim, T.H.; AlZubi, A.A. AI-Enhanced Precision Irrigation in Legume Farming: Optimizing Water Use Efficiency. LEGUME Res.—Int. J. 2024,47, 1382–1389. [CrossRef] 91. Wang, S.; Guan, K.; Wang, Z.; Ainsworth, E.A.; Zheng, T.; Townsend, P.A.; Liu, N.; Nafziger, E.; Masters, M.D.; Li, K.; et al. Airborne Hyperspectral Imaging of Nitrogen Deficiency on Crop Traits and Yield of Maize by Machine Learning and Radiative Transfer Modeling. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2021,105, 102617. [CrossRef] 92. Feng, L.; Zhang, Z.; Ma, Y.; Du, Q.; Williams, P.; Drewry, J.; Luck, B. Alfalfa Yield Prediction Using UAV-Based Hyperspectral Imagery and Ensemble Learning. Remote Sens. 2020,12, 2028. [CrossRef] 93. Zhang, W.; Li, J.; Yu, W.; Ding, P.; Wang, J.; Zhang, X. Algorithm for UAV Path Planning in High Obstacle Density Environments: RFA-Star. Front. Plant Sci. 2024,15, 1391628. [CrossRef] 94. Guimarães, N.; Pádua, L.; Sousa, J.J.; Bento, A.; Couto, P. Almond Cultivar Identification Using Machine Learning Classifiers Applied to UAV-Based Multispectral Data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2023,44, 1533–1555. [CrossRef] 95. Ariza-Sentís, M.; Vélez, S.; Baja, H.; Valenti, R.G.; Valente, J. An Aerial Framework for Multi-View Grape Bunch Detection and Route Optimization Using ACO. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2024,221, 108972. [CrossRef] 96. Chen, W.; Zhang, J.; Guo, B.; Wei, Q.; Zhu, Z. An Apple Detection Method Based on Des-YOLO v4 Algorithm for Harvesting Robots in Complex Environment. Math. Probl. Eng. 2021,2021, 7351470. [CrossRef] 97. Diacono, M.; Castrignanò, A.; Vitti, C.; Stellacci, A.M.; Marino, L.; Cocozza, C.; De Benedetto, D.; Troccoli, A.; Rubino, P.; Ventrella, D. An Approach for Assessing the Effects of Site-Specific Fertilization on Crop Growth and Yield of Durum Wheat in Organic Agriculture. Precis. Agric. 2014,15, 479–498. [CrossRef] 98. Quebrajo, L.; Pérez-Ruiz, M.; Rodriguez-Lizana, A.; Agüera, J. An Approach to Precise Nitrogen Management Using Hand-Held Crop Sensor Measurements and Winter Wheat Yield Mapping in a Mediterranean Environment. Sensors 2015,15, 5504–5517. [CrossRef] 99. Hosseiny, B.; Rastiveis, H.; Homayouni, S. An Automated Framework for Plant Detection Based on Deep Simulated Learning from Drone Imagery. Remote Sens. 2020,12, 3521. [CrossRef] 100. Li, K.-Y.; Burnside, N.G.; De Lima, R.S.; Peciña, M.V.; Sepp, K.; Cabral Pinheiro, V.H.; De Lima, B.R.C.A.; Yang, M.-D.; Vain, A.; Sepp, K. An Automated Machine Learning Framework in Unmanned Aircraft Systems: New Insights into Agricultural Management Practices Recognition Approaches. Remote Sens. 2021,13, 3190. [CrossRef] 101. De Castro, A.; Torres-Sánchez, J.; Peña, J.; Jiménez-Brenes, F.; Csillik, O.; López-Granados, F. An Automatic Random Forest-OBIA Algorithm for Early Weed Mapping between and within Crop Rows Using UAV Imagery. Remote Sens. 2018,10, 285. [CrossRef] 102. Zhang, C.; Kang, F.; Wang, Y. An Improved Apple Object Detection Method Based on Lightweight YOLOv4 in Complex Backgrounds. Remote Sens. 2022,14, 4150. [CrossRef] 103. Urvina, R.P.; Guevara, C.L.; Vásconez, J.P.; Prado, A.J. An Integrated Route and Path Planning Strategy for Skid–Steer Mobile Robots in Assisted Harvesting Tasks with Terrain Traversability Constraints. Agriculture 2024,14, 1206. [CrossRef] Agronomy 2025,15, 2600 31 of 44 251. Biffi, L.J.; Mitishita, E.A.; Liesenberg, V.; Centeno, J.A.S.; Schimalski, M.B.; Rufato, L. Evaluating the Performance of a SemiAutomatic Apple Fruit Detection in a High-Density Orchard System Using Low-Cost Digital RGB Imaging Sensor. Bol. Ciênc. Geod. 2021,27, e2021014. [CrossRef] 252. Lambert, J.P.T.; Hicks, H.L.; Childs, D.Z.; Freckleton, R.P. Evaluating the Potential of Unmanned Aerial Systems for Mapping Weeds at Field Scales: A Case Study with Alopecurus myosuroides.Weed Res. 2018,58, 35–45. [CrossRef] 253. Farooque, A.A.; Zare, M.; Abbas, F.; Zaman, Q.; Bos, M.; Esau, T.; Acharya, B.; Schumann, A.W. Evaluation of DualEM-II Sensor for Soil Moisture Content Estimation in the Potato Fields of Atlantic Canada. Plant Soil Environ. 2019,65, 290–297. [CrossRef] 254. Dutta, M.; Gupta, D.; Sahu, S.; Limkar, S.; Singh, P.; Mishra, A.; Kumar, M.; Mutlu, R. Evaluation of Growth Responses of Lettuce and Energy Efficiency of the Substrate and Smart Hydroponics Cropping System. Sensors 2023,23, 1875. [CrossRef] 255. Kumar, S.V.; Singh, C.D.; Rao, K.V.R.; Kumar, M.; Rajwade, Y.A.; Babu, B.; Singh, K. Evaluation of IoT Based Smart Drip Irrigation and ETc Based System for Sweet Corn. Smart Agric. Technol. 2023,5, 100248. [CrossRef] 256. Hieu Luu, T.; Thanh Tam, N.; Nguyen Ky Phuc, P.; Cuong Nguyen, H.; Van Le, L.; Hieu Ngo, Q. Evaluation of Land Roughness and Weather Effects on Paddy Field Using Cameras Mounted on Drone: A Comprehensive Analysis from Early to Mid-Growth Stages. J. King Saud Univ.—Comput. Inf. Sci. 2023,35, 101853. [CrossRef] 257. Dhillon, M.S.; Kübert-Flock, C.; Dahms, T.; Rummler, T.; Arnault, J.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Ullmann, T. Evaluation of MODIS, Landsat 8 and Sentinel-2 Data for Accurate Crop Yield Predictions: A Case Study Using STARFM NDVI in Bavaria, Germany. Remote Sens. 2023,15, 1830. [CrossRef] 258. Catania, P.; Roma, E.; Orlando, S.; Vallone, M. Evaluation of Multispectral Data Acquired from UAV Platform in Olive Orchard. Horticulturae 2023,9, 133. [CrossRef] 259. Yu, J.; Wang, J.; Leblon, B. Evaluation of Soil Properties, Topographic Metrics, Plant Height, and Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Multispectral Imagery Using Machine Learning Methods to Estimate Canopy Nitrogen Weight in Corn. Remote Sens. 2021,13, 3105. [CrossRef] 260. Santos, S.A.D.; Ferraz, G.A.E.S.; Figueiredo, V.C.; Volpato, M.M.L.; Machado, M.L.; Silva, V.A. Evaluation of the Water Conditions in Coffee Plantations Using RPA. AgriEngineering 2022,5, 65–84. [CrossRef] 261. Wang, Y.; Yuan, Y.; Yuan, F.; Ata-UI-Karim, S.T.; Liu, X.; Tian, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Cao, W.; Cao, Q. Evaluation of Variable Application Rate of Fertilizers Based on Site-Specific Management Zones for Winter Wheat in Small-Scale Farming. Agronomy 2023,13, 2812. [CrossRef] 262. Novielli, P.; Romano, D.; Pavan, S.; Losciale, P.; Stellacci, A.M.; Diacono, D.; Bellotti, R.; Tangaro, S. Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Genotype-to-Phenotype Prediction in Plant Breeding: A Case Study with a Dataset from an Almond Germplasm Collection. Front. Plant Sci. 2024,15, 1434229. [CrossRef] 263. Rallo, P.; De Castro, A.I.; López-Granados, F.; Morales-Sillero, A.; Torres-Sánchez, J.; Jiménez, M.R.; Jiménez-Brenes, F.M.; Casanova, L.; Suárez, M.P. Exploring UAV-Imagery to Support Genotype Selection in Olive Breeding Programs. Sci. Hortic. 2020, 273, 109615. [CrossRef] 264. Shi, Y.; Hu, Z.; Wang, X.; Odhiambo, M.O.; Sun, G. Fertilization Strategy and Application Model Using a Centrifugal Variable-Rate Fertilizer Spreader. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2018,11, 41–48. [CrossRef] 265. Grella, M.; Gioelli, F.; Marucco, P.; Zwertvaegher, I.; Mozzanini, E.; Mylonas, N.; Nuyttens, D.; Balsari, P. Field Assessment of a Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) Spray System Applying Different Spray Volumes: Duty Cycle and Forward Speed Effects on Vines Spray Coverage. Precis. Agric. 2022,23, 219–252. [CrossRef] 266. Reznick, J.P.K.; Pauletti, V.; Barth, G. Field Estimate with NDVI of Grain Yield and Quality of Wheat Flour. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agríc. E Ambient. 2021,25, 801–806. [CrossRef] 267. Ravensbergen, A.P.P.; Van Ittersum, M.K.; Hijbeek, R.; Kempenaar, C.; Reidsma, P. Field Monitoring Reveals Scope to Reduce Environmental Impact of Ware Potato Cultivation in the Netherlands without Compromising Yield. Agric. Syst. 2024,220, 104091. [CrossRef] 268. Vurro, F.; Croci, M.; Impollonia, G.; Marchetti, E.; Gracia-Romero, A.; Bettelli, M.; Araus, J.L.; Amaducci, S.; Janni, M. Field Plant Monitoring from Macro to Micro Scale: Feasibility and Validation of Combined Field Monitoring Approaches from Remote to in Vivo to Cope with Drought Stress in Tomato. Plants 2023,12, 3851. [CrossRef] 269. Gené-Mola, J.; Sanz-Cortiella, R.; Rosell-Polo, J.R.; Morros, J.-R.; Ruiz-Hidalgo, J.; Vilaplana, V.; Gregorio, E. Fruit Detection and 3D Location Using Instance Segmentation Neural Networks and Structure-from-Motion Photogrammetry. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2020,169, 105165. [CrossRef] 270. Zhang, M.; Wu, B.; Zeng, H.; He, G.; Liu, C.; Tao, S.; Zhang, Q.; Nabil, M.; Tian, F.; Bofana, J.; et al. GCI30: A Global Dataset of 30 m Cropping Intensity Using Multisource Remote Sensing Imagery. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 2021,13, 4799–4817. [CrossRef] 271. Nanavati, R.V.; Meng, Y.; Coombes, M.; Liu, C. Generalized Data-Driven Optimal Path Planning Framework for Uniform Coverage Missions Using Crop Spraying UAVs. Precis. Agric. 2023,24, 1497–1525. [CrossRef] 272. Leroux, C.; Jones, H.; Pichon, L.; Guillaume, S.; Lamour, J.; Taylor, J.; Naud, O.; Crestey, T.; Lablee, J.-L.; Tisseyre, B. GeoFIS: An Open Source, Decision-Support Tool for Precision Agriculture Data. Agriculture 2018,8, 73. [CrossRef] Agronomy 2025,15, 2600 32 of 44 273. Sosa-Herrera, J.A.; Vallejo-Pérez, M.R.; Álvarez-Jarquín, N.; Cid-García, N.M.; López-Araujo, D.J. Geographic Object-Based Analysis of Airborne Multispectral Images for Health Assessment of Capsicum annuum L. Crops. Sensors 2019,19, 4817. [CrossRef] 274. Wang, T.; Mei, X.; Alex Thomasson, J.; Yang, C.; Han, X.; Yadav, P.K.; Shi, Y. GIS-Based Volunteer Cotton Habitat Prediction and Plant-Level Detection with UAV Remote Sensing. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2022,193, 106629. [CrossRef] 275. Lapidus, D.; Salem, M.E.; Beach, R.H.; Zayed, S.; Ortiz-Monasterio, I. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Benefits and Profitability of the GreenSeeker Handheld NDVI Sensor: Evidence from Mexico. Precis. Agric. 2022,23, 2388–2406. [CrossRef] 276. Hennessy, P.J.; Esau, T.J.; Farooque, A.A.; Schumann, A.W.; Zaman, Q.U.; Corscadden, K.W. Hair Fescue and Sheep Sorrel Identification Using Deep Learning in Wild Blueberry Production. Remote Sens. 2021,13, 943. [CrossRef] 277. Jiménez-Buendía, M.; Soto-Valles, F.; Blaya-Ros, P.J.; Toledo-Moreo, A.; Domingo-Miguel, R.; Torres-Sánchez, R. High-Density Wi-Fi Based Sensor Network for Efficient Irrigation Management in Precision Agriculture. Appl. Sci. 2021,11, 1628. [CrossRef] 278. Wang, Y.; Chen, Z.; Jiang, Y.; Liu, T. High-Order Neural-Network-Based Multi-Model Nonlinear Adaptive Decoupling Control for Microclimate Environment of Plant Factory. Sensors 2023,23, 8323. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 279. Huang, C.; You, S.; Liu, A.; Li, P.; Zhang, J.; Deng, J. High-Resolution National-Scale Mapping of Paddy Rice Based on Sentinel-1/2 Data. Remote Sens. 2023,15, 4055. [CrossRef] 280. Yang, L.; Wang, L.; Abubakar, G.A.; Huang, J. High-Resolution Rice Mapping Based on SNIC Segmentation and Multi-Source Remote Sensing Images. Remote Sens. 2021,13, 1148. [CrossRef] 281. Prey, L.; Hu, Y.; Schmidhalter, U. High-Throughput Field Phenotyping Traits of Grain Yield Formation and Nitrogen Use Efficiency: Optimizing the Selection of Vegetation Indices and Growth Stages. Front. Plant Sci. 2020,10, 1672. [CrossRef] 282. Ezzy, H.; Charter, M.; Bonfante, A.; Brook, A. How the Small Object Detection via Machine Learning and UAS-Based RemoteSensing Imagery Can Support the Achievement of SDG2: A Case Study of Vole Burrows. Remote Sens. 2021,13, 3191. [CrossRef] 283. Seol, J.; Park, Y.; Pak, J.; Jo, Y.; Lee, G.; Kim, Y.; Ju, C.; Hong, A.; Son, H.I. Human-Centered Robotic System for Agricultural Applications: Design, Development, and Field Evaluation. Agriculture 2024,14, 1985. [CrossRef] 284. Al-Badri, A.H.; Ismail, N.A.; Al-Dulaimi, K.; Rehman, A.; Abunadi, I.; Bahaj, S.A. Hybrid CNN Model for Classification of Rumex Obtusifolius in Grassland. IEEE Access 2022,10, 90940–90957. [CrossRef] 285. Chang, C.-H.; Lin, J.; Chang, J.-W.; Huang, Y.-S.; Lai, M.-H.; Chang, Y.-J. Hybrid Deep Neural Networks with Multi-Tasking for Rice Yield Prediction Using Remote Sensing Data. Agriculture 2024,14, 513. [CrossRef] 286. De Queiroz Otone, J.D.; Theodoro, G.D.F.; Santana, D.C.; Teodoro, L.P.R.; De Oliveira, J.T.; De Oliveira, I.C.; Da Silva Junior, C.A.; Teodoro, P.E.; Baio, F.H.R. Hyperspectral Response of the Soybean Crop as a Function of Target Spot (Corynespora Cassiicola) Using Machine Learning to Classify Severity Levels. AgriEngineering 2024,6, 330–343. [CrossRef] 287. Liang, T.; Duan, B.; Luo, X.; Ma, Y.; Yuan, Z.; Zhu, R.; Peng, Y.; Gong, Y.; Fang, S.; Wu, X. Identification of High Nitrogen Use Efficiency Phenotype in Rice (Oryza sativa L.) Through Entire Growth Duration by Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Multispectral Imagery. Front. Plant Sci. 2021,12, 740414. [CrossRef] 288. Silva, J.E.; Da Silva, W.H.B.; Ferraz, M.A.J.; Menezes, E.A.S.; Da Costa, O.P.; Inácio, F.D.; Barboza, T.O.C.; Melo, C.A.D.; Carvalho, G.R.; Santos, A.F.D. Impact of Spray Volume and Flight Speed on the Efficiency of Drone Applications in Coffee Plants of Different Ages. Smart Agric. Technol. 2024,9, 100694. [CrossRef] 289. Daccache, A.; Knox, J.W.; Weatherhead, E.K.; Daneshkhah, A.; Hess, T.M. Implementing Precision Irrigation in a Humid Climate—Recent Experiences and on-Going Challenges. Agric. Water Manag. 2015,147, 135–143. [CrossRef] 290. Cao, M.; Tang, F.; Ji, P.; Ma, F. Improved Real-Time Semantic Segmentation Network Model for Crop Vision Navigation Line Detection. Front. Plant Sci. 2022,13, 898131. [CrossRef] 291. Xu, B.; Meng, R.; Chen, G.; Liang, L.; Lv, Z.; Zhou, L.; Sun, R.; Zhao, F.; Yang, W. Improved Weed Mapping in Corn Fields by Combining UAV-based Spectral, Textural, Structural, and Thermal Measurements. Pest Manag. Sci. 2023,79, 2591–2602. [CrossRef] 292. Li, Y.; Miao, Y.; Zhang, J.; Cammarano, D.; Li, S.; Liu, X.; Tian, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Cao, W.; Cao, Q. Improving Estimation of Winter Wheat Nitrogen Status Using Random Forest by Integrating Multi-Source Data Across Different Agro-Ecological Zones. Front. Plant Sci. 2022,13, 890892. [CrossRef] 293. Schmidt, J.; Beegle, D.; Zhu, Q.; Sripada, R. Improving In-Season Nitrogen Recommendations for Maize Using an Active Sensor. Field Crops Res. 2011,120, 94–101. [CrossRef] 294. Li, Y.L.; Yi, S.P. Improving the Efficiency of Spatially Selective Operations for Agricultural Robotics in Cropping Field. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2013,11, 56–64. [CrossRef] 295. Vurro, F.; Manfredi, R.; Bettelli, M.; Bocci, G.; Cologni, A.L.; Cornali, S.; Reggiani, R.; Marchetti, E.; Coppedè, N.; Caselli, S.; et al. In Vivo Sensing to Monitor Tomato Plants in Field Conditions and Optimize Crop Water Management. Precis. Agric. 2023,24, 2479–2499. [CrossRef] 296. Devanna, R.P.; Milella, A.; Marani, R.; Garofalo, S.P.; Vivaldi, G.A.; Pascuzzi, S.; Galati, R.; Reina, G. In-Field Automatic Identification of Pomegranates Using a Farmer Robot. Sensors 2022,22, 5821. [CrossRef] Agronomy 2025,15, 2600 33 of 44 297. Milella, A.; Marani, R.; Petitti, A.; Reina, G. In-Field High Throughput Grapevine Phenotyping with a Consumer-Grade Depth Camera. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2019,156, 293–306. [CrossRef] 298. Sun, S.; Li, C.; Paterson, A. In-Field High-Throughput Phenotyping of Cotton Plant Height Using LiDAR. Remote Sens. 2017,9, 377. [CrossRef] 299. Niu, H.; Peddagudreddygari, J.R.; Bhandari, M.; Landivar, J.A.; Bednarz, C.W.; Duffield, N. In-Season Cotton Yield Prediction with Scale-Aware Convolutional Neural Network Models and Unmanned Aerial Vehicle RGB Imagery. Sensors 2024,24, 2432. [CrossRef] 300. Hu, C.; Sapkota, B.B.; Thomasson, J.A.; Bagavathiannan, M.V. Influence of Image Quality and Light Consistency on the Performance of Convolutional Neural Networks for Weed Mapping. Remote Sens. 2021,13, 2140. [CrossRef] 301. Falco, N.; Wainwright, H.M.; Dafflon, B.; Ulrich, C.; Soom, F.; Peterson, J.E.; Brown, J.B.; Schaettle, K.B.; Williamson, M.; Cothren, J.D.; et al. Influence of Soil Heterogeneity on Soybean Plant Development and Crop Yield Evaluated Using Time-Series of UAV and Ground-Based Geophysical Imagery. Sci. Rep. 2021,11, 7046. [CrossRef] 302. Domingues, T.; Brandão, T.; Ribeiro, R.; Ferreira, J.C. Insect Detection in Sticky Trap Images of Tomato Crops Using Machine Learning. Agriculture 2022,12, 1967. [CrossRef] 303. Champ, J.; Mora-Fallas, A.; Goëau, H.; Mata-Montero, E.; Bonnet, P.; Joly, A. Instance Segmentation for the Fine Detection of Crop and Weed Plants by Precision Agricultural Robots. Appl. Plant Sci. 2020,8, e11373. [CrossRef] 304. Xu, B.; Fan, J.; Chao, J.; Arsenijevic, N.; Werle, R.; Zhang, Z. Instance Segmentation Method for Weed Detection Using UAV Imagery in Soybean Fields. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2023,211, 107994. [CrossRef] 305. Vélez, S.; Mier, G.; Ariza-Sentís, M.; Valente, J. Integrated Framework for Multipurpose UAV Path Planning in Hedgerow Systems Considering the Biophysical Environment. Crop Prot. 2025,187, 106992. [CrossRef] 306. Ortiz-Torres, G.; Zurita-Gil, M.A.; Rumbo-Morales, J.Y.; Sorcia-Vázquez, F.D.J.; Gascon Avalos, J.J.; Pérez-Vidal, A.F.; RamosMartinez, M.B.; Martínez Pascual, E.; Juárez, M.A. Integrating Actuator Fault-Tolerant Control and Deep-Learning-Based NDVI Estimation for Precision Agriculture with a Hexacopter UAV. AgriEngineering 2024,6, 2768–2794. [CrossRef] 307. Silvestri, N.; Ercolini, L.; Grossi, N.; Ruggeri, M. Integrating NDVI and Agronomic Data to Optimize the Variable-Rate Nitrogen Fertilization. Precis. Agric. 2024,25, 2554–2572. [CrossRef] 308. Emmi, L.; Gonzalez-de-Soto, M.; Pajares, G.; Gonzalez-de-Santos, P. Integrating Sensory/Actuation Systems in Agricultural Vehicles. Sensors 2014,14, 4014–4049. [CrossRef] 309. Aurasopon, A.; Thongleam, T.; Kuankid, S. Integration of IoT Technology in Hydroponic Systems for Enhanced Efficiency and Productivity in Small-Scale Farming. Acta Technol. Agric. 2024,27, 203–211. [CrossRef] 310. Hunter, J.E.; Gannon, T.W.; Richardson, R.J.; Yelverton, F.H.; Leon, R.G. Integration of Remote-weed Mapping and an Autonomous Spraying Unmanned Aerial Vehicle for Site-specific Weed Management. Pest Manag. Sci. 2020,76, 1386–1392. [CrossRef] 311. Wang, P.; Chen, Y.; Xu, B.; Wu, A.; Fu, J.; Chen, M.; Ma, B. Intelligent Algorithm Optimization of Liquid Manure Spreading Control. Agriculture 2023,13, 278. [CrossRef] 312. Ke, S.; Dai, G.; Pan, H.; Jin, B. Intelligent Vineyard Blade Density Measurement Method Incorporating a Lightweight Vision Transformer. Egypt. Inform. J. 2024,26, 100456. [CrossRef] 313. Morales, A.S.; D’Aquino, C.D.A.; Klaus, R.B.P.; Vargas, G.D.S.; Giassi, M.A.M.; Ourique, F.D.O. Internet of Things Experimental Platform for Real-Time Water Monitoring: A Case Study of the Araranguá River Estuary. Acta Sci. Technol. 2023,45, e63130. [CrossRef] 314. Ziliani, M.G.; Parkes, S.D.; Hoteit, I.; McCabe, M.F. Intra-Season Crop Height Variability at Commercial Farm Scales Using a Fixed-Wing UAV. Remote Sens. 2018,10, 2007. [CrossRef] 315. Lu, X.; Li, W.; Xiao, J.; Zhu, H.; Yang, D.; Yang, J.; Xu, X.; Lan, Y.; Zhang, Y. Inversion of Leaf Area Index in Citrus Trees Based on Multi-Modal Data Fusion from UAV Platform. Remote Sens. 2023,15, 3523. [CrossRef] 316. Li, X.; Wu, J.; Yu, J.; Zhou, Z.; Wang, Q.; Zhao, W.; Hu, L. Inversion of Soil Moisture Content in Cotton Fields Using GBR-RF Algorithm Combined with Sentinel-2 Satellite Spectral Data. Agronomy 2024,14, 784. [CrossRef] 317. Zu, J.; Yang, H.; Wang, J.; Cai, W.; Yang, Y. Inversion of Winter Wheat Leaf Area Index from UAV Multispectral Images: Classical vs. Deep Learning Approaches. Front. Plant Sci. 2024,15, 1367828. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 318. Jenal, A.; Lussem, U.; Bolten, A.; Gnyp, M.L.; Schellberg, J.; Jasper, J.; Bongartz, J.; Bareth, G. Investigating the Potential of a Newly Developed UAV-Based VNIR/SWIR Imaging System for Forage Mass Monitoring. PFG—J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Geoinf. Sci. 2020,88, 493–507. [CrossRef] 319. Morchid, A.; Jebabra, R.; Khalid, H.M.; El Alami, R.; Qjidaa, H.; Ouazzani Jamil, M. IoT-Based Smart Irrigation Management System to Enhance Agricultural Water Security Using Embedded Systems, Telemetry Data, and Cloud Computing. Results Eng. 2024,23, 102829. [CrossRef] 320. Atalla, S.; Tarapiah, S.; Gawanmeh, A.; Daradkeh, M.; Mukhtar, H.; Himeur, Y.; Mansoor, W.; Hashim, K.F.B.; Daadoo, M. IoT-Enabled Precision Agriculture: Developing an Ecosystem for Optimized Crop Management. Information 2023,14, 205. [CrossRef] Agronomy 2025,15, 2600 34 of 44 321. Săcăleanu, D.-I.; Matache, M.-G.; Ro s , u, S , .-G.; Florea, B.-C.; Manciu, I.-P.; Peri s , oară, L.-A. IoT-Enhanced Decision Support System for Real-Time Greenhouse Microclimate Monitoring and Control. Technologies 2024,12, 230. [CrossRef] 322. Forcén-Muñoz, M.; Pavón-Pulido, N.; López-Riquelme, J.A.; Temnani-Rajjaf, A.; Berríos, P.; Morais, R.; Pérez-Pastor, A. Irriman Platform: Enhancing Farming Sustainability through Cloud Computing Techniques for Irrigation Management. Sensors 2021,22, 228. [CrossRef] 323. Rosell-Polo, J.R.; Gregorio, E.; Gene, J.; Llorens, J.; Torrent, X.; Arno, J.; Escola, A. Kinect v2 Sensor-Based Mobile Terrestrial Laser Scanner for Agricultural Outdoor Applications. IEEEASME Trans. Mechatron. 2017,22, 2420–2427. [CrossRef] 324. Wibowo, H.; Sitanggang, I.S.; Mushthofa, M.; Adrianto, H.A. Large-Scale Oil Palm Trees Detection from High-Resolution Remote Sensing Images Using Deep Learning. Big Data Cogn. Comput. 2022,6, 89. [CrossRef] 325. Zhang, J.; Cheng, T.; Guo, W.; Xu, X.; Qiao, H.; Xie, Y.; Ma, X. Leaf Area Index Estimation Model for UAV Image Hyperspectral Data Based on Wavelength Variable Selection and Machine Learning Methods. Plant Methods 2021,17, 49. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 326. Puntel, L.A.; Thompson, L.J.; Mieno, T. Leveraging Digital Agriculture for On-Farm Testing of Technologies. Front. Agron. 2024,6, 1234232. [CrossRef] 327. Xue, W.; Jeong, S.; Ko, J.; Tenhunen, J. Linking Canopy Reflectance to Crop Structure and Photosynthesis to Capture and Interpret Spatiotemporal Dimensions of Per-Field Photosynthetic Productivity. Biogeosciences 2017,14, 1315–1332. [CrossRef] 328. Pineda-Castro, D.; Diaz, H.; Soto, J.; Urban, M.O. LysipheN: A Gravimetric IoT Device for near Real-Time High-Frequency Crop Phenotyping: A Case Study on Common Beans. Plant Methods 2024,20, 39. [CrossRef] 329. Pathak, H.; Igathinathane, C.; Howatt, K.; Zhang, Z. Machine Learning and Handcrafted Image Processing Methods for Classifying Common Weeds in Corn Field. Smart Agric. Technol. 2023,5, 100249. [CrossRef] 330. Oliveira, R.A.; Näsi, R.; Niemeläinen, O.; Nyholm, L.; Alhonoja, K.; Kaivosoja, J.; Jauhiainen, L.; Viljanen, N.; Nezami, S.; Markelin, L.; et al. Machine Learning Estimators for the Quantity and Quality of Grass Swards Used for Silage Production Using Drone-Based Imaging Spectrometry and Photogrammetry. Remote Sens. Environ. 2020,246, 111830. [CrossRef] 331. Yeasin, M.; Haldar, D.; Kumar, S.; Paul, R.K.; Ghosh, S. Machine Learning Techniques for Phenology Assessment of Sugarcane Using Conjunctive SAR and Optical Data. Remote Sens. 2022,14, 3249. [CrossRef] 332. Serrano, J.; Shahidian, S.; Marques Da Silva, J.; Paixão, L.; Moral, F.; Carmona-Cabezas, R.; Garcia, S.; Palha, J.; Noéme, J. Mapping Management Zones Based on Soil Apparent Electrical Conductivity and Remote Sensing for Implementation of Variable Rate Irrigation—Case Study of Corn under a Center Pivot. Water 2020,12, 3427. [CrossRef] 333. Guo, H.; Zhang, R.; Dai, W.; Zhou, X.; Zhang, D.; Yang, Y.; Cui, J. Mapping Soil Organic Matter Content Based on Feature Band Selection with ZY1-02D Hyperspectral Satellite Data in the Agricultural Region. Agronomy 2022,12, 2111. [CrossRef] 334. Tilse, M.J.; Bishop, T.F.A.; Triantafilis, J.; Filippi, P. Mapping the Impact of Subsoil Constraints on Soil Available Water Capacity and Potential Crop Yield. Crop Pasture Sci. 2022,73, 636–651. [CrossRef] 335. Machefer, M.; Lemarchand, F.; Bonnefond, V.; Hitchins, A.; Sidiropoulos, P. Mask R-CNN Refitting Strategy for Plant Counting and Sizing in UAV Imagery. Remote Sens. 2020,12, 3015. [CrossRef] 336. Bacenetti, J.; Paleari, L.; Tartarini, S.; Vesely, F.M.; Foi, M.; Movedi, E.; Ravasi, R.A.; Bellopede, V.; Durello, S.; Ceravolo, C.; et al. May Smart Technologies Reduce the Environmental Impact of Nitrogen Fertilization? A Case Study for Paddy Rice. Sci. Total Environ. 2020,715, 136956. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 337. Hassanijalilian, O.; Igathinathane, C.; Day, S.; Bajwa, S.; Nowatzki, J. Measuring Soybean Iron Deficiency Chlorosis Progression and Yield Prediction with Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. Smart Agric. Technol. 2023,4, 100204. [CrossRef] 338. Parasca, S.C.; Spaeth, M.; Rusu, T.; Bogdan, I. Mechanical Weed Control: Sensor-Based Inter-Row Hoeing in Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) in the Transylvanian Depression. Agronomy 2024,14, 176. [CrossRef] 339. Giupponi, C.; Zen, M. Methods and Tools for Developing Virtual Territories for Scenario Analysis of Agro-Ecosystems. Ital. J. Agron. 2016,11, 743. [CrossRef] 340. Kalamatianos, R.; Karydis, I.; Avlonitis, M. Methods for the Identification of Microclimates for Olive Fruit Fly. Agronomy 2019,9, 337. [CrossRef] 341. Yan, X.; Zhou, Y.; Liu, X.; Yang, D.; Yuan, H. Minimizing Occupational Exposure to Pesticide and Increasing Control Efficacy of Pests by Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Application on Cowpea. Appl. Sci. 2021,11, 9579. [CrossRef] 342. Zhang, B.; Hastings, A.; Clifton-Brown, J.C.; Jiang, D.; Faaij, A.P.C. Modeled Spatial Assessment of Biomass Productivity and Technical Potential of Miscanthus × Giganteus,Panicum Virgatum L., and Jatropha on Marginal Land in China. GCB Bioenergy 2020, 12, 328–345. [CrossRef] 343. Lv, Z.; Meng, R.; Man, J.; Zeng, L.; Wang, M.; Xu, B.; Gao, R.; Sun, R.; Zhao, F. Modeling of Winter Wheat fAPAR by Integrating Unmanned Aircraft Vehicle-Based Optical, Structural and Thermal Measurement. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2021,102, 102407. [CrossRef] 344. Pádua, L.; Marques, P.; Martins, L.; Sousa, A.; Peres, E.; Sousa, J.J. Monitoring of Chestnut Trees Using Machine Learning Techniques Applied to UAV-Based Multispectral Data. Remote Sens. 2020,12, 3032. [CrossRef] Agronomy 2025,15, 2600 35 of 44 345. Du, M.; Noguchi, N. Monitoring of Wheat Growth Status and Mapping of Wheat Yield’s within-Field Spatial Variations Using Color Images Acquired from UAV-Camera System. Remote Sens. 2017,9, 289. [CrossRef] 346. Chedid, V.; Cortez, J.W.; Arcoverde, S.N.S. Monitoring the Vegetative State of Coffee Using Vegetation Indices. Eng. Agríc. 2024, 44, e20220212. [CrossRef] 347. Niu, S.; Nie, Z.; Li, G.; Zhu, W. Multi-Altitude Corn Tassel Detection and Counting Based on UAV RGB Imagery and Deep Learning. Drones 2024,8, 198. [CrossRef] 348. Wang, P. Multi-Node Temperature Monitoring Method for Digital Agricultural Planting Based on Wireless Sensor Network. Turk. J. Agric. For. 2024,48, 212–225. [CrossRef] 349. Dunnett, A.; Shirsath, P.B.; Aggarwal, P.K.; Thornton, P.; Joshi, P.K.; Pal, B.D.; Khatri-Chhetri, A.; Ghosh, J. Multi-Objective Land Use Allocation Modelling for Prioritizing Climate-Smart Agricultural Interventions. Ecol. Model. 2018,381, 23–35. [CrossRef] 350. Rodrigues, F.A.; Blasch, G.; Defourny, P.; Ortiz-Monasterio, J.I.; Schulthess, U.; Zarco-Tejada, P.J.; Taylor, J.A.; Gérard, B. MultiTemporal and Spectral Analysis of High-Resolution Hyperspectral Airborne Imagery for Precision Agriculture: Assessment of Wheat Grain Yield and Grain Protein Content. Remote Sens. 2018,10, 930. [CrossRef] 351. Gallardo-Romero, D.J.; Apolo-Apolo, O.E.; Martínez-Guanter, J.; Pérez-Ruiz, M. Multilayer Data and Artificial Intelligence for the Delineation of Homogeneous Management Zones in Maize Cultivation. Remote Sens. 2023,15, 3131. [CrossRef] 352. Da Silva, P.C.; Ribeiro Junior, W.Q.; Ramos, M.L.G.; Lopes, M.F.; Santana, C.C.; Casari, R.A.D.C.N.; Brasileiro, L.D.O.; Veiga, A.D.; Rocha, O.C.; Malaquias, J.V.; et al. Multispectral Images for Drought Stress Evaluation of Arabica Coffee Genotypes Under Different Irrigation Regimes. Sensors 2024,24, 7271. [CrossRef] 353. Silva, B.C.D.; Prado, R.D.M.; Baio, F.H.R.; Campos, C.N.S.; Teodoro, L.P.R.; Teodoro, P.E.; Santana, D.C.; Fernandes, T.F.S.; Silva Junior, C.A.D.; Loureiro, E.D.S. New Approach for Predicting Nitrogen and Pigments in Maize from Hyperspectral Data and Machine Learning Models. Remote Sens. Appl. Soc. Environ. 2024,33, 101110. [CrossRef] 354. Barbosa, J.D.A.; Faria, R.T.D.; Coelho, A.P.; Dalri, A.B.; Palaretti, L.F. Nitrogen Fertilization Management in White Oat Using Spectral Indices. Pesqui. Agropecuária Trop. 2020,50, e64924. [CrossRef] 355. Alejandrino, J.D.; Concepcion Ii, R.S.; Bandala, A.A.; Sybingco, E.; Vicerra, R.R.P.; Dadios, E.P. Non-Invasive Plant Root Tomography Through Optimized Sonar Array Transducer Antenna Design Using Genetic Swarm Metaheuristic. J. Adv. Comput. Intell. Intell. Inform. 2024,28, 59–66. [CrossRef] 356. Tanveer, M.U.; Munir, K.; Raza, A.; Almutairi, M.S. Novel Artificial Intelligence Assisted Landsat-8 Imagery Analysis for Mango Orchard Detection and Area Mapping. PLoS ONE 2024,19, e0304450. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 357. Teimouri, N.; Jørgensen, R.N.; Green, O. Novel Assessment of Region-Based CNNs for Detecting Monocot/Dicot Weeds in Dense Field Environments. Agronomy 2022,12, 1167. [CrossRef] 358. Vahdanjoo, M.; Sorensen, C.G. Novel Route Planning Method to Improve the Operational Efficiency of Capacitated Operations. Case: Application of Organic Fertilizer. AgriEngineering 2021,3, 458–477. [CrossRef] 359. Videgain, M.; Martínez-Casasnovas, J.A.; Vigo-Morancho, A.; Vidal, M.; García-Ramos, F.J. On-Farm Experimentation of Precision Agriculture for Differential Seed and Fertilizer Management in Semi-Arid Rainfed Zones. Precis. Agric. 2024,25, 3048–3069. [CrossRef] 360. Bragagnolo, J.; Amado, T.J.C.; Nicoloso, R.D.S.; Jasper, J.; Kunz, J.; Teixeira, T.D.G. Optical Crop Sensor for Variable-Rate Nitrogen Fertilization in Corn: I—Plant Nutrition and Dry Matter Production. Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Solo 2013,37, 1288–1298. [CrossRef] 361. Singh, N.; Ajaykumar, K.; Dhruw, L.K.; Choudhury, B.U. Optimization of Irrigation Timing for Sprinkler Irrigation System Using Convolutional Neural Network-Based Mobile Application for Sustainable Agriculture. Smart Agric. Technol. 2023,5, 100305. [CrossRef] 362. Loewen, S.; Maxwell, B.D. Optimizing Crop Seeding Rates on Organic Grain Farms Using on Farm Precision Experimentation. Field Crops Res. 2024,318, 109593. [CrossRef] 363. Meloni, R.; Cordero, E.; Capo, L.; Reyneri, A.; Sacco, D.; Blandino, M. Optimizing Nitrogen Rates for Winter Wheat Using In-Season Crop N Status Indicators. Field Crops Res. 2024,318, 109545. [CrossRef] 364. Zhao, Z.; Mao, Y.; Gao, S.; Lu, C.; Pan, C.; Li, X. Organic Carbon Accumulation and Aggregate Formation in Soils under Organic and Inorganic Fertilizer Management Practices in a Rice–Wheat Cropping System. Sci. Rep. 2023,13, 3665. [CrossRef] 365. López-Martínez, M.D.J.; Díaz-Flórez, G.; Villagrana-Barraza, S.; Castañeda-Miranda, C.L.; Solís-Sánchez, L.O.; Ortíz-Esquivel, D.I.; De La Rosa-Vargas, J.I.; Olvera-Olvera, C.A. Pattern Classification of an Onion Crop (Allium Cepa) Field Using Convolutional Neural Network Models. Agronomy 2024,14, 1206. [CrossRef] 366. Wen, S.; Zhou, J.; Hu, G.; Zhang, H.; Tao, S.; Wang, Z.; Chen, J. PcMNet: An Efficient Lightweight Apple Detection Algorithm in Natural Orchards. Smart Agric. Technol. 2024,9, 100623. [CrossRef] 367. Li, T.; Chen, Q.; Zhang, X.; Ding, S.; Wang, X.; Mu, J. PeachYOLO: A Lightweight Algorithm for Peach Detection in Complex Orchard Environments. IEEE Access 2024,12, 96220–96230. [CrossRef] 368. Yamamoto, A.; Kusudo, T.; Kimura, M.; Matsuno, Y. Performance Assessment of Farm Machinery for Persimmon Fruit Cultivation in a Japanese Mountainous Area. AgriEngineering 2022,4, 17–31. [CrossRef] Agronomy 2025,15, 2600 36 of 44 369. Ajayi, O.G.; Ashi, J.; Guda, B. Performance Evaluation of YOLO v5 Model for Automatic Crop and Weed Classification on UAV Images. Smart Agric. Technol. 2023,5, 100231. [CrossRef] 370. Argyriou, A.V.; Tektonidis, N.; Alevizos, E.; Ferentinos, K.P.; Kourgialas, N.N.; Mathioudakis, M.M. Precision Farming Multimodal Technologies Using Optical Sensors for the Detection of Citrus Tristeza Virus Endemics. Sustainability 2024,16, 5748. [CrossRef] 371. Johansen, K.; Morton, M.J.L.; Malbeteau, Y.; Aragon, B.; Al-Mashharawi, S.; Ziliani, M.G.; Angel, Y.; Fiene, G.; Negrão, S.; Mousa, M.A.A.; et al. Predicting Biomass and Yield in a Tomato Phenotyping Experiment Using UAV Imagery and Random Forest. Front. Artif. Intell. 2020,3, 28. [CrossRef] 372. Garofalo, S.P.; Giannico, V.; Lorente, B.; García, A.J.G.; Vivaldi, G.A.; Thameur, A.; Salcedo, F.P. Predicting Carob Tree Physiological Parameters under Different Irrigation Systems Using Random Forest and Planet Satellite Images. Front. Plant Sci. 2024,15, 1302435. [CrossRef] 373. Teodoro, P.E.; Teodoro, L.P.R.; Baio, F.H.R.; Da Silva Junior, C.A.; Dos Santos, R.G.; Ramos, A.P.M.; Pinheiro, M.M.F.; Osco, L.P.; Gonçalves, W.N.; Carneiro, A.M.; et al. Predicting Days to Maturity, Plant Height, and Grain Yield in Soybean: A Machine and Deep Learning Approach Using Multispectral Data. Remote Sens. 2021,13, 4632. [CrossRef] 374. Traore, A.; Ata-Ul-Karim, S.T.; Duan, A.; Soothar, M.K.; Traore, S.; Zhao, B. Predicting Equivalent Water Thickness in Wheat Using UAV Mounted Multispectral Sensor through Deep Learning Techniques. Remote Sens. 2021,13, 4476. [CrossRef] 375. Grüner, E.; Astor, T.; Wachendorf, M. Prediction of Biomass and N Fixation of Legume–Grass Mixtures Using Sensor Fusion. Front. Plant Sci. 2021,11, 603921. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 376. García-Vázquez, F.; Ponce-González, J.R.; Guerrero-Osuna, H.A.; Carrasco-Navarro, R.; Luque-Vega, L.F.; Mata-Romero, M.E.; Martínez-Blanco, M.D.R.; Castañeda-Miranda, C.L.; Díaz-Flórez, G. Prediction of Internal Temperature in Greenhouses Using the Supervised Learning Techniques: Linear and Support Vector Regressions. Appl. Sci. 2023,13, 8531. [CrossRef] 377. Markovi´c, D.; Vujiˇci´c, D.; Tanaskovi´c, S.; Ðor ¯ devi´c, B.; Ran ¯ di´c, S.; Stamenkovi´c, Z. Prediction of Pest Insect Appearance Using Sensors and Machine Learning. Sensors 2021,21, 4846. [CrossRef] 378. Zhang, Y.; Guo, L.; Chen, Y.; Shi, T.; Luo, M.; Ju, Q.; Zhang, H.; Wang, S. Prediction of Soil Organic Carbon Based on Landsat 8 Monthly NDVI Data for the Jianghan Plain in Hubei Province, China. Remote Sens. 2019,11, 1683. [CrossRef] 379. Marcu, I.; Drăgulinescu, A.-M.; Oprea, C.; Suciu, G.; Bălăceanu, C. Predictive Analysis and Wine-Grapes Disease Risk Assessment Based on Atmospheric Parameters and Precision Agriculture Platform. Sustainability 2022,14, 11487. [CrossRef] 380. Rosso, P.; Nendel, C.; Gilardi, N.; Udroiu, C.; Chlebowski, F. Processing of Remote Sensing Information to Retrieve Leaf Area Index in Barley: A Comparison of Methods. Precis. Agric. 2022,23, 1449–1472. [CrossRef] 381. Valero, S.; Morin, D.; Inglada, J.; Sepulcre, G.; Arias, M.; Hagolle, O.; Dedieu, G.; Bontemps, S.; Defourny, P.; Koetz, B. Production of a Dynamic Cropland Mask by Processing Remote Sensing Image Series at High Temporal and Spatial Resolutions. Remote Sens. 2016,8, 55. [CrossRef] 382. Filgueiras, R.; Mantovani, E.C.; Althoff, D.; Dias, S.H.B.; Cunha, F.F.D.; Venancio, L.P. Productivity and Water Demand of Maize Estimated by the Modified Satellite Priestley-Taylor Algorithm. Semina Ciênc. Agrár. 2019,40, 2991. [CrossRef] 383. Bhadra, S.; Sagan, V.; Sarkar, S.; Braud, M.; Mockler, T.C.; Eveland, A.L. PROSAIL-Net: A Transfer Learning-Based Dual Stream Neural Network to Estimate Leaf Chlorophyll and Leaf Angle of Crops from UAV Hyperspectral Images. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2024,210, 1–24. [CrossRef] 384. Jiménez-Brenes, F.M.; López-Granados, F.; De Castro, A.I.; Torres-Sánchez, J.; Serrano, N.; Peña, J.M. Quantifying Pruning Impacts on Olive Tree Architecture and Annual Canopy Growth by Using UAV-Based 3D Modelling. Plant Methods 2017,13, 55. [CrossRef] 385. Boonupara, T.; Udomkun, P.; Kajitvichyanukul, P. Quantitative Analysis of Atrazine Impact on UAV-Derived Multispectral Indices and Correlated Plant Pigment Alterations: A Heatmap Approach. Agronomy 2024,14, 814. [CrossRef] 386. Zhang, J.; Zhao, B.; Yang, C.; Shi, Y.; Liao, Q.; Zhou, G.; Wang, C.; Xie, T.; Jiang, Z.; Zhang, D.; et al. Rapeseed Stand Count Estimation at Leaf Development Stages With UAV Imagery and Convolutional Neural Networks. Front. Plant Sci. 2020,11, 617. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 387. Tonnang, H.E.Z.; Balemi, T.; Masuki, K.F.; Mohammed, I.; Adewopo, J.; Adnan, A.A.; Mudereri, B.T.; Vanlauwe, B.; Craufurd, P. Rapid Acquisition, Management, and Analysis of Spatial Maize (Zea mays L.) Phenological Data—Towards ‘Big Data’ for Agronomy Transformation in Africa. Agronomy 2020,10, 1363. [CrossRef] 388. Han, N.; Zhang, B.; Liu, Y.; Peng, Z.; Zhou, Q.; Wei, Z. Rapid Diagnosis of Nitrogen Nutrition Status in Summer Maize over Its Life Cycle by a Multi-Index Synergy Model Using Ground Hyperspectral and UAV Multispectral Sensor Data. Atmosphere 2022, 13, 122. [CrossRef] 389. Li, N.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, C.; Guo, H.; Sun, Z.; Wu, X. Real-Time Crop Recognition in Transplanted Fields With Prominent Weed Growth: A Visual-Attention-Based Approach. IEEE Access 2019,7, 185310–185321. [CrossRef] 390. Zong, Z.; Liu, G.; Zhao, S. Real-Time Localization Approach for Maize Cores at Seedling Stage Based on Machine Vision. Agronomy 2020,10, 470. [CrossRef] 391. He, J.; Jia, Y.; Li, Y.; Biswas, A.; Feng, H.; Yu, Q.; Wu, S.; Yang, G.; Siddique, H.H.M. Regional-Scale Precision Mapping of Cotton Suitability Using UAV and Satellite Data in Arid Environments. Agric. Water Manag. 2025,307, 109215. [CrossRef] Agronomy 2025,15, 2600 37 of 44 392. Caruso, G.; Palai, G.; Gucci, R.; Priori, S. Remote and Proximal Sensing Techniques for Site-Specific Irrigation Management in the Olive Orchard. Appl. Sci. 2022,12, 1309. [CrossRef] 393. Na, I.S.; Lee, S.; Alamri, A.M.; AlQahtani, S.A. Remote Sensing and AI-Based Monitoring of Legume Crop Health and Growth. LEGUME Res.—Int. J. 2024,47, 1179–1184. [CrossRef] 394. Solgi, S.; Ahmadi, S.H.; Seidel, S.J. Remote Sensing of Canopy Water Status of the Irrigated Winter Wheat Fields and the Paired Anomaly Analyses on the Spectral Vegetation Indices and Grain Yields. Agric. Water Manag. 2023,280, 108226. [CrossRef] 395. Shao, H.; Tang, R.; Lei, Y.; Mu, J.; Guan, Y.; Xiang, Y. Rice Ear Counting Based on Image Segmentation and Establishment of a Dataset. Plants 2021,10, 1625. [CrossRef] 396. Jiang, X.; Fang, S.; Huang, X.; Liu, Y.; Guo, L. Rice Mapping and Growth Monitoring Based on Time Series GF-6 Images and Red-Edge Bands. Remote Sens. 2021,13, 579. [CrossRef] 397. Tseng, H.-H.; Yang, M.-D.; Saminathan, R.; Hsu, Y.-C.; Yang, C.-Y.; Wu, D.-H. Rice Seedling Detection in UAV Images Using Transfer Learning and Machine Learning. Remote Sens. 2022,14, 2837. [CrossRef] 398. Utstumo, T.; Urdal, F.; Brevik, A.; Dørum, J.; Netland, J.; Overskeid, Ø.; Berge, T.W.; Gravdahl, J.T. Robotic In-Row Weed Control in Vegetables. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2018,154, 36–45. [CrossRef] 399. Rodriguez-Gallo, Y.; Escobar-Benitez, B.; Rodriguez-Lainez, J. Robust Coffee Rust Detection Using UAV-Based Aerial RGB Imagery. AgriEngineering 2023,5, 1415–1431. [CrossRef] 400. Bai, X.; Gu, S.; Liu, P.; Yang, A.; Cai, Z.; Wang, J.; Yao, J. RPNet: Rice Plant Counting after Tillering Stage Based on Plant Attention and Multiple Supervision Network. Crop J. 2023,11, 1586–1594. [CrossRef] 401. Tarariko, O.; Ilienko, T.; Kuchma, T.; Novakovska, I. Satellite Agroecological Monitoring within the System of Sustainable Environmental Management. Agric. Sci. Pract. 2019,6, 18–27. [CrossRef] 402. Gabbrielli, M.; Corti, M.; Perfetto, M.; Fassa, V.; Bechini, L. Satellite-Based Frost Damage Detection in Support of Winter Cover Crops Management: A Case Study on White Mustard. Agronomy 2022,12, 2025. [CrossRef] 403. Sabzi, S.; Abbaspour-Gilandeh, Y.; García-Mateos, G.; Ruiz-Canales, A.; Molina-Martínez, J.M. Segmentation of Apples in Aerial Images under Sixteen Different Lighting Conditions Using Color and Texture for Optimal Irrigation. Water 2018,10, 1634. [CrossRef] 404. Pérez-Ortiz, M.; Peña, J.M.; Gutiérrez, P.A.; Torres-Sánchez, J.; Hervás-Martínez, C.; López-Granados, F. Selecting Patterns and Features for Betweenand withinCrop-Row Weed Mapping Using UAV-Imagery. Expert Syst. Appl. 2016,47, 85–94. [CrossRef] 405. Rovira-Más, F.; Saiz-Rubio, V.; Cuenca-Cuenca, A. Sensing Architecture for Terrestrial Crop Monitoring: Harvesting Data as an Asset. Sensors 2021,21, 3114. [CrossRef] 406. Prey, L.; Schmidhalter, U. Sensitivity of Vegetation Indices for Estimating Vegetative N Status in Winter Wheat. Sensors 2019,19, 3712. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 407. Sachin, K.S.; Dass, A.; Dhar, S.; Rajanna, G.A.; Singh, T.; Sudhishri, S.; Sannagoudar, M.S.; Choudhary, A.K.; Kushwaha, H.L.; Praveen, B.R.; et al. Sensor-Based Precision Nutrient and Irrigation Management Enhances the Physiological Performance, Water Productivity, and Yield of Soybean under System of Crop Intensification. Front. Plant Sci. 2023,14, 1282217. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 408. Vizzari, M.; Santaga, F.; Benincasa, P. Sentinel 2-Based Nitrogen VRT Fertilization in Wheat: Comparison between Traditional and Simple Precision Practices. Agronomy 2019,9, 278. [CrossRef] 409. Santaga, F.S.; Benincasa, P.; Toscano, P.; Antognelli, S.; Ranieri, E.; Vizzari, M. Simplified and Advanced Sentinel-2-Based Precision Nitrogen Management of Wheat. Agronomy 2021,11, 1156. [CrossRef] 410. Lee, C.-J.; Yang, M.-D.; Tseng, H.-H.; Hsu, Y.-C.; Sung, Y.; Chen, W.-L. Single-Plant Broccoli Growth Monitoring Using Deep Learning with UAV Imagery. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2023,207, 107739. [CrossRef] 411. Argento, F.; Anken, T.; Abt, F.; Vogelsanger, E.; Walter, A.; Liebisch, F. Site-Specific Nitrogen Management in Winter Wheat Supported by Low-Altitude Remote Sensing and Soil Data. Precis. Agric. 2021,22, 364–386. [CrossRef] 412. Ali, T.; Rehman, S.U.; Ali, S.; Mahmood, K.; Obregon, S.A.; Iglesias, R.C.; Khurshaid, T.; Ashraf, I. Smart Agriculture: Utilizing Machine Learning and Deep Learning for Drought Stress Identification in Crops. Sci. Rep. 2024,14, 30062. [CrossRef] 413. Ghanimi, H.M.A.; R, S.; Jeyaraj, J.P.G.; K, S.; Rangasamy, R.; Sengan, S. Smart Fertilizing Using IoT Multi-Sensor and Variable Rate Sprayer Integrated UAV. Scalable Comput. Pract. Exp. 2024,25, 3766–3777. [CrossRef] 414. Esmail Karar, M.; Abdel-Aty, A.-H.; Algarni, F.; Fadzil Hassan, M.; Abdou, M.A.; Reyad, O. Smart IoT-Based System for Detecting RPW Larvae in Date Palms Using Mixed Depthwise Convolutional Networks. Alex. Eng. J. 2022,61, 5309–5319. [CrossRef] 415. Cruz, M.; Mafra, S.; Teixeira, E.; Figueiredo, F. Smart Strawberry Farming Using Edge Computing and IoT. Sensors 2022,22, 5866. [CrossRef] 416. Asiimwe, G.; Jaafar, H.; Haidar, M.; Mourad, R. Soil Moisture or ET-Based Smart Irrigation Scheduling: A Comparison for Sweet Corn with Sap Flow Measurements. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2022,148, 04022017. [CrossRef] 417. Schirrmann, M.; Gebbers, R.; Kramer, E.; Seidel, J. Soil pH Mapping with an On-The-Go Sensor. Sensors 2011,11, 573–598. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Agronomy 2025,15, 2600 38 of 44 418. Sarkar, S.; Sagan, V.; Bhadra, S.; Rhodes, K.; Pokharel, M.; Fritschi, F.B. Soybean Seed Composition Prediction from Standing Crops Using PlanetScope Satellite Imagery and Machine Learning. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2023,204, 257–274. [CrossRef] 419. Kerry, R.; Ingram, B.; Hammond, K.; Shumate, S.R.; Gunther, D.; Jensen, R.R.; Schill, S.; Hansen, N.C.; Hopkins, B.G. Spatial Analysis of Soil Moisture and Turfgrass Health to Determine Zones for Spatially Variable Irrigation Management. Agronomy 2023, 13, 1267. [CrossRef] 420. Gargiulo, J.; Clark, C.; Lyons, N.; De Veyrac, G.; Beale, P.; Garcia, S. Spatial and Temporal Pasture Biomass Estimation Integrating Electronic Plate Meter, Planet CubeSats and Sentinel-2 Satellite Data. Remote Sens. 2020,12, 3222. [CrossRef] 421. Cordero, E.; Longchamps, L.; Khosla, R.; Sacco, D. Spatial Management Strategies for Nitrogen in Maize Production Based on Soil and Crop Data. Sci. Total Environ. 2019,697, 133854. [CrossRef] 422. Stumpf, F.; Schneider, M.K.; Keller, A.; Mayr, A.; Rentschler, T.; Meuli, R.G.; Schaepman, M.; Liebisch, F. Spatial Monitoring of Grassland Management Using Multi-Temporal Satellite Imagery. Ecol. Indic. 2020,113, 106201. [CrossRef] 423. Mousavi, S.R.; Jahandideh Mahjenabadi, V.A.; Khoshru, B.; Rezaei, M. Spatial Prediction of Winter Wheat Yield Gap: AgroClimatic Model and Machine Learning Approaches. Front. Plant Sci. 2024,14, 1309171. [CrossRef] 424. Borra-Serrano, I.; Peña, J.; Torres-Sánchez, J.; Mesas-Carrascosa, F.; López-Granados, F. Spatial Quality Evaluation of Resampled Unmanned Aerial Vehicle-Imagery for Weed Mapping. Sensors 2015,15, 19688–19708. [CrossRef] 425. Lourenço, V.R.; Montenegro, A.A.D.A.; Carvalho, A.A.D.; Sousa, L.D.B.D.; Almeida, T.A.B.; Almeida, T.F.S.D.; Vilar, B.P. Spatial Variability of Biophysical Multispectral Indexes under Heterogeneity and Anisotropy for Precision Monitoring. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agríc. E Ambient. 2023,27, 848–857. [CrossRef] 426. Jiang, S.; Wu, J.; Wang, Z.; He, Z.; Wang, M.; Yao, W.; Feng, Y. Spatiotemporal Variations of Cropland Carbon Sequestration and Water Loss across China. Agric. Water Manag. 2023,287, 108427. [CrossRef] 427. Heinemann, P.; Schmidhalter, U. Spectral Assessments of N-Related Maize Traits: Evaluating and Defining Agronomic Relevant Detection Limits. Field Crops Res. 2022,289, 108710. [CrossRef] 428. Bazame, H.C.; Pinto, F.A.C.; Queiroz, D.S.; Queiroz, D.M.D.; Althoff, D. Spectral Sensors Prove Beneficial in Determining Nitrogen Fertilizer Needs of Urochloa Brizantha Cv. Xaraés Grass in Brazil. Trop. Grassl.-Forrajes Trop. 2020,8, 60–71. [CrossRef] 429. Chen, H.; Qiu, Y.; Yin, D.; Chen, J.; Chen, X.; Liu, S.; Liu, L. Stacked Spectral Feature Space Patch: An Advanced Spectral Representation for Precise Crop Classification Based on Convolutional Neural Network. Crop J. 2022,10, 1460–1469. [CrossRef] 430. Lombardi, F.; Lualdi, M. Step-Frequency Ground Penetrating Radar for Agricultural Soil Morphology Characterisation. Remote Sens. 2019,11, 1075. [CrossRef] 431. Mattupalli, C.; Moffet, C.A.; Shah, K.N.; Young, C.A. Supervised Classification of RGB Aerial Imagery to Evaluate the Impact of a Root Rot Disease. Remote Sens. 2018,10, 917. [CrossRef] 432. Al-Naeem, M.; Hafizur Rahman, M.M.; Banerjee, A.; Sufian, A. Support Vector Machine-Based Energy Efficient Management of UAV Locations for Aerial Monitoring of Crops over Large Agriculture Lands. Sustainability 2023,15, 6421. [CrossRef] 433. Kim, D.-W.; Min, T.-S.; Kim, Y.; Silva, R.R.; Hyun, H.-N.; Kim, J.-S.; Kim, K.-H.; Kim, H.-J.; Chung, Y.S. Sustainable Agriculture by Increasing Nitrogen Fertilizer Efficiency Using Low-Resolution Camera Mounted on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019,16, 3893. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 434. Sulaiman, A.; Anand, V.; Gupta, S.; Alshahrani, H.; Reshan, M.S.A.; Rajab, A.; Shaikh, A.; Azar, A.T. Sustainable Apple Disease Management Using an Intelligent Fine-Tuned Transfer Learning-Based Model. Sustainability 2023,15, 13228. [CrossRef] 435. Abuova, A.B.; Tulkubayeva, S.A.; Tulayev, Y.V.; Somova, S.V.; Kizatova, M.Z. Sustainable Development of Crop Production with Elements of Precision Agriculture in Northern Kazakhstan. Entrep. Sustain. Issues 2020,7, 3200–3214. [CrossRef] 436. Qadir, A.; Mondal, P. Synergistic Use of Radar and Optical Satellite Data for Improved Monsoon Cropland Mapping in India. Remote Sens. 2020,12, 522. [CrossRef] 437. Wu, C.; Tang, X.; Xu, X. System Design, Analysis, and Control of an Intelligent Vehicle for Transportation in Greenhouse. Agriculture 2023,13, 1020. [CrossRef] 438. Khan, R.; Ali, I.; Zakarya, M.; Ahmad, M.; Imran, M.; Shoaib, M. Technology-Assisted Decision Support System for Efficient Water Utilization: A Real-Time Testbed for Irrigation Using Wireless Sensor Networks. IEEE Access 2018,6, 25686–25697. [CrossRef] 439. Lyle, G.; Lewis, M.; Ostendorf, B. Testing the Temporal Ability of Landsat Imagery and Precision Agriculture Technology to Provide High Resolution Historical Estimates of Wheat Yield at the Farm Scale. Remote Sens. 2013,5, 1549–1567. [CrossRef] 440. Lucena, F.; Breunig, F.M.; Kux, H. The Combined Use of UAV-Based RGB and DEM Images for the Detection and Delineation of Orange Tree Crowns with Mask R-CNN: An Approach of Labeling and Unified Framework. Future Internet 2022,14, 275. [CrossRef] 441. Kazlauskas, M.; Šarauskis, E.; Lekaviˇcien ˙ e, K.; Naujokien ˙ e, V.; Romaneckas, K.; Bruˇcien ˙ e, I.; Buragien ˙ e, S.; Steponaviˇcius, D. The Comparison Analysis of Uniform-and Variable-Rate Fertilizations on Winter Wheat Yield Parameters Using Site-Specific Seeding. Processes 2022,10, 2717. [CrossRef] Agronomy 2025,15, 2600 39 of 44 442. Calvet-Mir, L.; Benyei, P.; Aceituno-Mata, L.; Pardo-de-Santayana, M.; López-García, D.; Carrascosa-García, M.; PerdomoMolina, A.; Reyes-García, V. The Contribution of Traditional Agroecological Knowledge as a Digital Commons to Agroecological Transitions: The Case of the CONECT-e Platform. Sustainability 2018,10, 3214. [CrossRef] 443. Schillings, J.; Holohan, C.; Lively, F.; Arnott, G.; Russell, T. The Potential of Virtual Fencing Technology to Facilitate Sustainable Livestock Grazing Management. Animal 2024,18, 101231. [CrossRef] 444. Sanyaolu, M.; Sadowski, A. The Role of Precision Agriculture Technologies in Enhancing Sustainable Agriculture. Sustainability 2024,16, 6668. [CrossRef] 445. Keshet, D.; Brook, A.; Malkinson, D.; Izhaki, I.; Charter, M. The Use of Drones to Determine Rodent Location and Damage in Agricultural Crops. Drones 2022,6, 396. [CrossRef] 446. Iatrou, M.; Karydas, C.; Iatrou, G.; Pitsiorlas, I.; Aschonitis, V.; Raptis, I.; Mpetas, S.; Kravvas, K.; Mourelatos, S. Topdressing Nitrogen Demand Prediction in Rice Crop Using Machine Learning Systems. Agriculture 2021,11, 312. [CrossRef] 447. Rebouh, N.Y.; Mohamed, E.S.; Polityko, P.M.; Dokukin, P.A.; Kucher, D.E.; Latati, M.; Okeke, S.E.; Ali, M.A. Towards Improving the Precision Agriculture Management of the Wheat Crop Using Remote Sensing: A Case Study in Central Non-Black Earth Region of Russia. Egypt. J. Remote Sens. Space Sci. 2023,26, 505–517. [CrossRef] 448. Pandey, D.K.; Mishra, R. Towards Sustainable Agriculture: Harnessing AI for Global Food Security. Artif. Intell. Agric. 2024,12, 72–84. [CrossRef] 449. ˇ Rezník, T.; Herman, L.; Klocová, M.; Leitner, F.; Pavelka, T.; Leitgeb, Š.; Trojanová, K.; Štampach, R.; Moshou, D.; Mouazen, A.M.; et al. Towards the Development and Verification of a 3D-Based Advanced Optimized Farm Machinery Trajectory Algorithm. Sensors 2021,21, 2980. [CrossRef] 450. Yao, J.; Wang, Y.; Xiang, Y.; Yang, J.; Zhu, Y.; Li, X.; Li, S.; Zhang, J.; Gong, G. Two-Stage Detection Algorithm for Kiwifruit Leaf Diseases Based on Deep Learning. Plants 2022,11, 768. [CrossRef] 451. Mazzia, V.; Comba, L.; Khaliq, A.; Chiaberge, M.; Gay, P. UAV and Machine Learning Based Refinement of a Satellite-Driven Vegetation Index for Precision Agriculture. Sensors 2020,20, 2530. [CrossRef] 452. Hütt, C.; Bolten, A.; Hüging, H.; Bareth, G. UAV LiDAR Metrics for Monitoring Crop Height, Biomass and Nitrogen Uptake: A Case Study on a Winter Wheat Field Trial. PFG—J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Geoinf. Sci. 2023,91, 65–76. [CrossRef] 453. Huang, Y.; Reddy, K.N.; Fletcher, R.S.; Pennington, D. UAV Low-Altitude Remote Sensing for Precision Weed Management. Weed Technol. 2018,32, 2–6. [CrossRef] 454. Bukowiecki, J.; Rose, T.; Holzhauser, K.; Rothardt, S.; Rose, M.; Komainda, M.; Herrmann, A.; Kage, H. UAV-Based Canopy Monitoring: Calibration of a Multispectral Sensor for Green Area Index and Nitrogen Uptake across Several Crops. Precis. Agric. 2024,25, 1556–1580. [CrossRef] 455. Khose, S.B.; Mailapalli, D.R. UAV-Based Multispectral Image Analytics and Machine Learning for Predicting Crop Nitrogen in Rice. Geocarto Int. 2024,39, 2373867. [CrossRef] 456. Chivasa, W.; Mutanga, O.; Biradar, C. UAV-Based Multispectral Phenotyping for Disease Resistance to Accelerate Crop Improvement under Changing Climate Conditions. Remote Sens. 2020,12, 2445. [CrossRef] 457. Biglia, A.; Grella, M.; Bloise, N.; Comba, L.; Mozzanini, E.; Sopegno, A.; Pittarello, M.; Dicembrini, E.; Alcatrão, L.E.; Guglieri, G.; et al. UAV-Spray Application in Vineyards: Flight Modes and Spray System Adjustment Effects on Canopy Deposit, Coverage, and off-Target Losses. Sci. Total Environ. 2022,845, 157292. [CrossRef] 458. Higuti, V.A.H.; Velasquez, A.E.B.; Magalhaes, D.V.; Becker, M.; Chowdhary, G. Under Canopy Light Detection and Ranging-based Autonomous Navigation. J. Field Robot. 2019,36, 547–567. [CrossRef] 459. Ragiman, R.; Babu Talluri, K.; Nrg, V.; Sagar, B.V. Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)-Assisted Pesticide Application for Pest and Disease Management in Rice. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2024,17, 88–95. [CrossRef] 460. Chang, A.; Jung, J.; Yeom, J.; Maeda, M.M.; Landivar, J.A.; Enciso, J.M.; Avila, C.A.; Anciso, J.R. Unmanned Aircraft System-(UAS- )Based High-Throughput Phenotyping (HTP) for Tomato Yield Estimation. J. Sens. 2021,2021, 8875606. [CrossRef] 461. Siqueira, R.; Longchamps, L.; Dahal, S.; Khosla, R. Use of Fluorescence Sensing to Detect Nitrogen and Potassium Variability in Maize. Remote Sens. 2020,12, 1752. [CrossRef] 462. Altieri, G.; Maffia, A.; Pastore, V.; Amato, M.; Celano, G. Use of High-Resolution Multispectral UAVs to Calculate Projected Ground Area in Corylus avellana L. Tree Orchard. Sensors 2022,22, 7103. [CrossRef] 463. Aliabad, F.A.; Shojaei, S.; Mortaz, M.; Ferreira, C.S.S.; Kalantari, Z. Use of Landsat 8 and UAV Images to Assess Changes in Temperature and Evapotranspiration by Economic Trees Following Foliar Spraying with Light-Reflecting Compounds. Remote Sens. 2022,14, 6153. [CrossRef] 464. Khun, K.; Tremblay, N.; Panneton, B.; Vigneault, P.; Lord, E.; Cavayas, F.; Codjia, C. Use of Oblique RGB Imagery and Apparent Surface Area of Plants for Early Estimation of Above-Ground Corn Biomass. Remote Sens. 2021,13, 4032. [CrossRef] 465. Hank, T.; Bach, H.; Mauser, W. Using a Remote Sensing-Supported Hydro-Agroecological Model for Field-Scale Simulation of Heterogeneous Crop Growth and Yield: Application for Wheat in Central Europe. Remote Sens. 2015,7, 3934–3965. [CrossRef] Agronomy 2025,15, 2600 40 of 44 466. Beese, L.; Dalponte, M.; Asner, G.P.; Coomes, D.A.; Jucker, T. Using Repeat Airborne LiDAR to Map the Growth of Individual Oil Palms in Malaysian Borneo during the 2015–16 El Niño. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2022,115, 103117. [CrossRef] 467. Sharifi, A. Using Sentinel-2 Data to Predict Nitrogen Uptake in Maize Crop. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2020, 13, 2656–2662. [CrossRef] 468. Helman, D.; Bahat, I.; Netzer, Y.; Ben-Gal, A.; Alchanatis, V.; Peeters, A.; Cohen, Y. Using Time Series of High-Resolution Planet Satellite Images to Monitor Grapevine Stem Water Potential in Commercial Vineyards. Remote Sens. 2018,10, 1615. [CrossRef] 469. Manu, A.; McDanel, J.; Brummel, D.; Avornyo, V.K.; Lawler, T. Using Unmanned Aerial Systems Technology to Characterize the Dynamics of Small-Scale Maize Production Systems for Precision Agriculture. Drones 2024,8, 633. [CrossRef] 470. Li, D.; Hu, Q.; Ruan, S.; Liu, J.; Zhang, J.; Hu, C.; Liu, Y.; Dian, Y.; Zhou, J. Utilizing Hyperspectral Reflectance and Machine Learning Algorithms for Non-Destructive Estimation of Chlorophyll Content in Citrus Leaves. Remote Sens. 2023,15, 4934. [CrossRef] 471. Dahal, S.; Phillippi, E.; Longchamps, L.; Khosla, R.; Andales, A. Variable Rate Nitrogen and Water Management for Irrigated Maize in the Western US. Agronomy 2020,10, 1533. [CrossRef] 472. Nackley, L.L.; Warneke, B.; Fessler, L.; Pscheidt, J.W.; Lockwood, D.; Wright, W.C.; Sun, X.; Fulcher, A. Variable-Rate Spray Technology Optimizes Pesticide Application by Adjusting for Seasonal Shifts in Deciduous Perennial Crops. HortTechnology 2021, 31, 479–489. [CrossRef] 473. De Oliveira Maia, F.C.; Bufon, V.B.; Leão, T.P. Vegetation Indices as a Tool for Mapping Sugarcane Management Zones. Precis. Agric. 2023,24, 213–234. [CrossRef] 474. Kerkech, M.; Hafiane, A.; Canals, R. Vine Disease Detection in UAV Multispectral Images Using Optimized Image Registration and Deep Learning Segmentation Approach. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2020,174, 105446. [CrossRef] 475. Karakizi, C.; Oikonomou, M.; Karantzalos, K. Vineyard Detection and Vine Variety Discrimination from Very High Resolution Satellite Data. Remote Sens. 2016,8, 235. [CrossRef] 476. Gavrilovi´c, M.; Jovanovi´c, D.; Božovi´c, P.; Benka, P.; Govedarica, M. Vineyard Zoning and Vine Detection Using Machine Learning in Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Imagery. Remote Sens. 2024,16, 584. [CrossRef] 477. Mohamed, E.S.; Baroudy, A.A.E.; El-beshbeshy, T.; Emam, M.; Belal, A.A.; Elfadaly, A.; Aldosari, A.A.; Ali, A.M.; Lasaponara, R. Vis-NIR Spectroscopy and Satellite Landsat-8 OLI Data to Map Soil Nutrients in Arid Conditions: A Case Study of the Northwest Coast of Egypt. Remote Sens. 2020,12, 3716. [CrossRef] 478. Gu, H.; Mills, C.; Ritchie, G.L.; Guo, W. Water Stress Assessment of Cotton Cultivars Using Unmanned Aerial System Images. Remote Sens. 2024,16, 2609. [CrossRef] 479. Zhao, J.; Tian, G.; Qiu, C.; Gu, B.; Zheng, K.; Liu, Q. Weed Detection in Potato Fields Based on Improved YOLOv4: Optimal Speed and Accuracy of Weed Detection in Potato Fields. Electronics 2022,11, 3709. [CrossRef] 480. Castellano, G.; De Marinis, P.; Vessio, G. Weed Mapping in Multispectral Drone Imagery Using Lightweight Vision Transformers. Neurocomputing 2023,562, 126914. [CrossRef] 481. Jiang, Y.; Yang, Z.; Xu, X.; Shen, D.; Jiang, T.; Xie, B.; Duan, J. Wetting and Deposition Characteristics of Air-Assisted Spray Droplet on Large Broad-Leaved Crop Canopy. Front. Plant Sci. 2023,14, 1079703. [CrossRef] 482. Sousa, D.; Small, C. Which Vegetation Index? Benchmarking Multispectral Metrics to Hyperspectral Mixture Models in Diverse Cropland. Remote Sens. 2023,15, 971. [CrossRef] 483. Scudiero, E.; Teatini, P.; Manoli, G.; Braga, F.; Skaggs, T.H.; Morari, F. Workflow to Establish Time-Specific Zones in Precision Agriculture by Spatiotemporal Integration of Plant and Soil Sensing Data. Agronomy 2018,8, 253. [CrossRef] 484. Osman, Y.; Dennis, R.; Elgazzar, K. Yield Estimation and Visualization Solution for Precision Agriculture. Sensors 2021,21, 6657. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 485. Goigochea-Pinchi, D.; Justino-Pinedo, M.; Vega-Herrera, S.S.; Sanchez-Ojanasta, M.; Lobato-Galvez, R.H.; Santillan-Gonzales, M.D.; Ganoza-Roncal, J.J.; Ore-Aquino, Z.L.; Agurto-Piñarreta, A.I. Yield Prediction Models for Rice Varieties Using UAV Multispectral Imagery in the Amazon Lowlands of Peru. AgriEngineering 2024,6, 2955–2969. [CrossRef] 486. Jia, W.; Liu, M.; Luo, R.; Wang, C.; Pan, N.; Yang, X.; Ge, X. YOLOF-Snake: An Efficient Segmentation Model for Green Object Fruit. Front. Plant Sci. 2022,13, 765523. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 487. Liu, J.; Wang, C.; Xing, J. YOLOv5-ACS: Improved Model for Apple Detection and Positioning in Apple Forests in Complex Scenes. Forests 2023,14, 2304. [CrossRef] 488. Farooq, M.S.; Uzair, M.; Raza, A.; Habib, M.; Xu, Y.; Yousuf, M.; Yang, S.H.; Ramzan Khan, M. Uncovering the Research Gaps to Alleviate the Negative Impacts of Climate Change on Food Security: A Review. Front. Plant Sci. 2022,13, 92753. [CrossRef] 489. Zurek, M.; Hebinck, A.; Selomane, O. Climate Change and the Urgency to Transform Food Systems. Science 2022,376, 1416–1421. [CrossRef] 490. Amoak, D.; Luginaah, I.; McBean, G. Climate Change, Food Security, and Health: Harnessing Agroecology to Build ClimateResilient Communities. Sustainability 2022,14, 13954. [CrossRef]