machine learning in agriculture research paper pdf

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 09 September 2021

Advancing agricultural research using machine learning algorithms

• Spyridon Mourtzinis 1 ,
• Paul D. Esker 2 ,
• James E. Specht 3 &
• Shawn P. Conley 4  

Scientific Reports volume  11 , Article number:  17879 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

10k Accesses

12 Citations

34 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Agroecology

Rising global population and climate change realities dictate that agricultural productivity must be accelerated. Results from current traditional research approaches are difficult to extrapolate to all possible fields because they are dependent on specific soil types, weather conditions, and background management combinations that are not applicable nor translatable to all farms. A method that accurately evaluates the effectiveness of infinite cropping system interactions (involving multiple management practices) to increase maize and soybean yield across the US does not exist. Here, we utilize extensive databases and artificial intelligence algorithms and show that complex interactions, which cannot be evaluated in replicated trials, are associated with large crop yield variability and thus, potential for substantial yield increases. Our approach can accelerate agricultural research, identify sustainable practices, and help overcome future food demands.

Similar content being viewed by others

Promising directions of machine learning for partial differential equations

Harnessing landrace diversity empowers wheat breeding

Scientific discovery in the age of artificial intelligence

Introduction.

Increasing food demand will challenge the agricultural sector globally over the next decades 1 . A sustainable solution to this challenge is to increase crop yield without massive cropland area expansion. This can be achieved by identifying and adopting best management practices. To do so requires a more detailed understanding of how crop yield is impacted by climate change 2 , 3 and growing-season weather variability 4 . Even with that knowledge, prediction is challenging because various factors interact with each other. For example, variability in soil type can interact with weather conditions and mitigate or aggravate climate-related impacts on crop yield 5 , 6 . Additionally, seed genetics (G) and crop management decisions (M), interact with the effect of environment (E: soil and in-season weather conditions), thereby resulting in a near infinite number of combinations of G × E × M that can impact crop yield.

Substantial variability in crop yield arises from the wide range of optimal to sub-optimal management observed in soybean farmers’ fields 7 , 8 . Reducing the frequency of lowest vs . highest yields has been proposed as an effective means to increase food production in existing crop land 9 . In that regard, replicated field experiments have been used to identify best management practices for several decades. Most commonly, the effectiveness of up to three management factors and their interactions are evaluated in a single location due to practical constraints (e.g., cost, logistics). By holding the background management constant, causal relationships are identified, and the effectiveness of the examined management practice/s is assessed. It is assumed that background management practices are optimal or at least relevant to what most farmers use in the region, which in fact may not be realistic for many farmers.

Multi-year-site performance trials that account for large environmental and background management variability is another common practice in agricultural research. Such trials usually estimate an average effect across environments and background cropping systems. Inevitably, the measured yield response magnitude and sign may not apply to all farms in the examined region. Other research approaches involve analysis of producer self-reported data 7 , 8 , which can capture yield trends attributable to producer management choice across large regions, but such studies lack sufficient power relative to establishing causality and evaluating complex high-order G × E × M interactions.

Process-based models have been extensively used to evaluate the effect of weather 10 and management 11 , 12 on crop yield. However, to obtain accurate estimates, the models require extensive calibration, which is not a trivial task due to the large number of parameters. Specifically, it has been shown that management is an important source of uncertainty in process-based models, which can lead to substantial and varying degree of bias in yield estimates across the US, even when using harmonized parameters 13 .

Given all the well-known deficiencies of current agricultural research methods, we argue that a method that allows environment-specific identification of unique cropping systems with the greatest yield potential is essential to meet future food demand. Here, by utilizing maize and soybean yield and management data from publicly available performance tests, plus associated weather data, and by leveraging the power of machine learning (ML) algorithms, we developed a method that can evaluate myriads of potential crop management systems and thereby identify those with the greatest yield potential in specific environments across the US.

Results and discussion

Two databases including yield, management, and weather data for maize (n = 17,013) and soybean (n = 24,848) involving US crop performance trials conducted in 28 states between 2016 to 2018 for maize and between 2014 to 2018 for soybean, were developed (Fig.  1 ). Crop yield and management data were obtained from publicly available variety performance trials which are typically performed yearly in several locations across each state ( see methods for more information ). Final databases were separated in training (80% of database) and testing (20% of database) datasets using stratified sampling by year, use of irrigation, and soil type. For each crop, an extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost, see methods for more information ) algorithm to estimate yield based on soil type and weather conditions (E), seed traits (G) and management practices (M) was developed (see variables listed in Tables S1 and S2 for maize and soybean, respectively, and data science workflow in Fig. S1 ).

Locations where maize and soybean trials were performed during the examined period. The map was developed in ArcGIS Pro 2.8.0 ( https://www.esri.com ).

The developed algorithms exhibited a high degree of accuracy when estimating yield in independent datasets (test dataset not used for model calibration) (Fig.  2 ). For maize, the root mean square error (RMSE) and mean absolute error (MAE) was a respective 4.7 and 3.6% of the dataset average yield (13,340 kg/ha). For soybean, the respective RMSE and MAE was 6.4 and 4.9% of the dataset average yield (4153 kg/ha). As is evident in the graphs (Fig.  2 ), estimated yields exhibited a high degree of correlation with actual yields for both algorithms in the independent datasets. For maize and soybean, 72.3 and 60% of cases in the test dataset deviated less than 5% from actual yields, respectively. Maximum deviation for maize and soybean reached 43 and 70%, respectively. Data points with deviations greater than 15% from actual yield were 1.5% in maize and 3.6% in soybean databases. These results suggest that the developed algorithms can accurately estimate maize and soybean yields utilizing database-generated information involving reported environmental, seed genetic, and crop management variables.

Actual versus algorithm-derived maize (left) and soybean (right) yield in test datasets. Black solid line indicates y = x, red short-dashed lines, black dashed lines, and red long-dashed lines indicate ± 5, 10, and 15% deviation from the y = x line. RMSE, root mean square error; MAE, mean absolute error; r 2 , coefficient of determination; n = number of observations. Each observation corresponds to a yield of an individual cropping system in a specific environment (location-year).

In contrast to statistical models, ML algorithms can be complex, and the effect of single independent variables may not obvious. However, accumulated local effects (ALE) plots 14 can aid the understanding and visualization of important and possibly correlated features in ML algorithms. For both crops, indicatively important variables included sowing date, seeding rate, nitrogen fertilizer (for maize), row spacing (for soybean) and June to September cumulative precipitation (Fig.  3 ). Across the entire region and for both crops, the algorithm-derived trends suggest that above average yields occur in late April to early May sowing dates, but sharply decrease thereafter. Similar responses have been observed in many regional studies across the US for both, maize 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 and soybean 19 . Similarly, simulated yield curves due to increasing seeding rate are in close agreement with previous maize 20 , 21 and soybean 22 studies. The maize algorithm has captured the increasing yield due to increasing N fertilizer rate. The soybean algorithm suggests that narrower row spacing resulted in above average yield compared to wider spacing. Such response has been observed in many regions across the US 23 . Season cumulative precipitation between 400 and 700 mm resulted in above average yields for both crops.

Accumulated local effect plots for maize sowing date ( A ), seeding rate ( B ), Nitrogen fertilizer rate ( C ), and cumulative precipitation between June and September (mm) ( D ), and soybean sowing date ( E ), seeding rate ( F ), row spacing ( G ), and cumulative precipitation between June and September (mm) ( H ).

The responses in the ALE plots (Fig.  3 ) suggest that these algorithms have captured the general expected average responses for important single features. Nevertheless, our databases include hundreds of locations with diverse environments across the US and site-specific crop responses which may vary due to components of the G × E × M interaction. We argue that, instead of examining a single or low-order management interactions, site-specific evaluation of complex high order interactions (a.k.a. cropping systems) can reveal yield differences that current research approaches cannot fully explore and quantify. For example, sowing date exerts a well-known impact on maize and soybean yield. For each crop separately, by creating a hypothetical cropping system (a single combination of all management and traits in Tables S1 and S2 ) in a randomly chosen field in south central Wisconsin (latitude = 43.34, longitude = -89.38), and by applying the developed algorithms, we can generate estimates of maize and soybean yield. For that specific field and cropping system (out of the vast number of management combinations a farmer can choose from), maize yield with May 1st sowing was 711 kg/ha greater (6% increase) than June sowing (Fig.  4 A). By creating scenarios with 256 background cropping system choices (Table S3 ), the resultant algorithm-derived yield estimate difference for the same sowing date contrast (averaged across varying cropping systems) was smaller but still positive (3% increase), although the range of possible yield differences was wider (Fig.  4 B). However, when comparing, instead of averaging, the estimated yield potential among the simulated cropping systems, a 2903 kg/ha yield difference (25% difference) was observed (Fig.  4 C). Interestingly, when focusing on the early sown fields that were expected to exhibit the greatest yield, the same yield difference was observed (Fig.  4 D). This result shows that sub-optimal background management can mitigate the beneficial effect of early sowing (Table S4 ).

Maize yield difference (in kg/ha and percentage) due to sowing date (May 1st vs. June 1st) for a single identical background cropping system ( A ), maize yield difference due to sowing date when averaged across 256 (3 years × 256 cropping systems = 768 year-specific yields) ( B ), maize yield variability in each of the 256 cropping systems ( C ), and maize yield variability in each of the 128 cropping systems with early sowing ( D ). Soybean yield difference due to sowing date (May 1st vs June 1st) for a single identical background cropping system ( E ), soybean yield difference due to sowing date when averaged across 128 (5 years × 128 cropping systems = 640 year-specific yields) ( F ), soybean yield in each of the 128 cropping systems ( G ) and soybean yield variability due in each of the 64 cropping systems with early sowing ( H ). Within each panel, the horizontal red and grey lines indicate the boxplot with maximum and minimum yield, respectively. In the left four panels, boxes delimit first and third quartiles; solid lines inside boxes indicate median and green triangles indicate means. Upper and lower whiskers extend to maximum and minimum yields. Each maize and soybean cropping system is a respective 8-way and a 7-way interaction of management practices in a randomly chosen field in Wisconsin, USA (Table S3 and S5 , respectively).

In the case of soybean, a May 1st sowing resulted in greater yield (588 kg/ha; a 14% increase) than a June 1st in the single background cropping system (Fig.  4 E). The result was consistent when yield differences due to sowing date were averaged across 128 background cropping system choices (Table S5 ) (Fig.  4 F). Similar to what was observed in maize, among all cropping systems, yield varied by 1704 kg/ha (44% difference) (Fig.  4 G). When focusing only on the early sown fields, a 1181 kg/ha yield difference (27% yield increase) was observed (Fig.  4 H). In agreement with maize, this result highlights the importance of accounting for sub-optimal background management which can mitigate the beneficial effect of early sowing (Table S6 ).

We note here the ability of farmers to change management practices can be limited due to an equipment constraint (e.g., change planter unit row width) or simply impossible (e.g., change the previous year’s crop). Thus, recommended management practices that were evaluated in studies that used specific background management may not be applicable in some instances. The benefits of the foregoing approach, which involves extensive up-to-date agronomic datasets and high-level computational programing, can have important and immediate implications in future agricultural trials. Our approach allows for more precise examination of complex management interactions in specific environments (soil type and growing season weather) across the US (region covered in Fig.  1 ). The ability to extract single management practice information (even across cropping systems) is also possible by utilizing ALE plots, or by calculation of the frequency at which a given level/rate of a management practice appeared among the highest yielding cropping systems (Tables S4 and S6 ).

Among all available 30-d weather variables, many were strongly correlated in both crop databases (Figs. S2 and S3 for maize and soybean, respectively). Models using all 30-d interval variables with r < 0.7 (Tables S8 and S9 ) showed minimal to no performance gain compared to the final more parsimonious models that included season-long weather variables (Fig. S4 ). Thus, we consider the length of periods we chose to represent well the approximate successive 60-d pre-sowing, 120-d in-season, and 60-d post-harvest segments of growing season in the US (Fig. S7 ). Season-long weather conditions have been used in previous studies 13 , 24 , and it has been shown that choice of growing season does not affect climate-related effects on crop yield 25 , 26 .

As an additional sensitivity analysis, we developed ALE plots for the algorithms using the aforementioned 30-d weather variables (Fig. S8 ). For major management practices, there were no differences in simulated responses between the algorithms that used multiple 30-d weather variables and the final chosen algorithms that used longer intervals (Fig.  3 ). Repeating the analysis for the same hypothetical cropping system in the same Wisconsin location using the algorithms developed with the 30-d weather conditions, the observed trends were consistent with the season-long weather algorithms, although the simulated yields were numerical different (Fig. S9 ). Nevertheless, across all representations of weather conditions (algorithms with 30-d intervals and season-long), the levels/rates of management practices in the 5% highest and lowest yielding maize and 5% highest soybean cropping systems with early sowing date were identical, apart from manure use in maize. Based on these results, we consider the algorithm-derived yield estimates robust to different representations of seasonal weather variability.

It appears that several different cropping systems can result in similar high yield for both crops (Fig.  4 C,D,G,H). This is in agreement with other agricultural decision maker tools 27 . Moreover, it is common for neighboring farms to attain similar crop yield despite the use of a different cropping system, suggesting that a single optimal solution does not necessarily exist and that different combinations of management practices, when they interact with environment, can still result in similar high yields. Since the effect of environment is ever-changing, the high level of complexity of synergies between G × E × M suggests that long-term optimization of single management factor may not be possible 28 , which further highlights the importance of accounting for the effect of the entire cropping system at the field level.

The approach we present here should not be considered as a crop yield forecasting exercise. There have been several attempts to forecast crop yields using deep neural network methods (e.g., 29 , 30 ). In contrast, the algorithms we present here can generate hypothetical experimental data that can be used to rapidly examine G × E × M interaction for both maize and soybean across the US. Of the millions of possible G × E × M combinations, our ML algorithms can identify hidden complex patterns between G × E × M combinations for yield optimization that may be non-obvious, but once identified, worthy of field test confirmation. Farmers can use the algorithms to gain insights about optimum management interactions in their location-specific environment (known soil type × expected weather conditions), and to identify farm factors that may be too costly to alter without a priori reason (generated by the model) for doing so. Researchers can compare expected yield across thousands of hypothetical cropping systems and use the results as a guide to design more efficient future field-based crop management practice evaluation experiments.

We note that this approach should not be considered as a substitute of replicated trials. To the contrary, replicated field trials performed by Universities are continually needed to serve as an excellent source of high-quality unbiased data which can be used to train even more comprehensive algorithms. The major issue with current performance trial data is that a great amount of management information is not reported. Usually, only information relevant to the examined management factors in each trial are reported, which inevitably results in missing values (Tables S1 and S2 ), or even in absence of important variables (e.g., number and dates of split fertilizer application). As we have highlighted here, the high order and complex background management interactions should not be considered as irrelevant.

Conclusions

Agricultural experiments repeated every year in hundreds of locations across the US generate a vast amount of crop yield and management datasets which are useful for broad inferences (average effect of a management practice across a range of environments). Such datasets have, to date, remained disconnected from each other, and are difficult to combine, standardize, and properly analyze. In the presented work, we overcame these issues by developing large databases and by leveraging the power of ML algorithms. We argue that our algorithms can advance agricultural research and aid in revealing a currently hidden yield potential in each individual farm across the US.

Crop yield and management data were obtained from publicly available variety performance trials which are typically performed yearly in several locations across each state 31 . Recorded, trial-specific, management practices for maize included use of irrigation, tillage practice, seeding rate, row spacing, sowing date, previous crop, fertilizer (N, P, and K), use of manure, cultivar’s maturity, insecticide traits and use of seed treatments (Table S1 ). For soybean, use of irrigation, foliar fungicide, tillage practice, seeding rate, row spacing, sowing date, previous crop, and cultivar maturity were recorded (Table S2 ).

Since data were collected from different states and years, it was assumed that reported management practices (general categories) were consistent across all locations. Additionally, the type and application method of fertilizer was rarely reported. Similarly, there was a lack of information on the active ingredient and rates of seed treatments and foliar applied products. We acknowledge that this lack of information, as we state in the discussion section, is a limitation of our databases and our assumption, that the way different management practices are reported across different states is consistent, may have contributed to the observed unexplained variability.

For both databases, data entry was performed manually. Additionally, for both crops, soil type was recorded and weather data (Table S7 ) were retrieved from the DAYMET 32 database for each year and set of coordinates. DAYMET daily data are reasonably accurate when means or totals are calculated over extended periods 33 . Therefore, means and sums for three periods (90–150, 151–270, and 271–330 days of year) (Tables S1 and S2 ) and 30-d periods (Tables S8 and S9 ) were calculated. The different sets of weather variables were used in different models to assess their impact in model accuracy.

The exact coordinates for each site were not reported in the trial reports. Therefore, approximate coordinates, based on the nearest reported city, were used for each unreported site. When unmanageable production adversities were reported (e.g., hail, damage due to deer etc.), the associated data were not used. Missing values were present in almost all management-related variables in both databases (Tables S1 and S2 ). Since the data were derived from designed experiments, levels of management were not a result of response to external factors (e.g., weather conditions) but were researcher’s decisions to answer specific research questions (e.g., crop yield response to different sowing dates or maturity ratings), no missing data imputation was performed.

The first step before data analysis was to examine correlations among the weather variables. Due to their strong collinearity (Figs. S3 and S4 for maize and soybean, respectively), only those with Pearson r < 0.7 were retained for subsequent analyses. The final maize database included seven weather variables (Table S1 ) and the final soybean database included eight weather variables (Table S2 ). Categorical variables were one-hot encoded and then databases were separated in training (80% of database) and testing (20% of database) datasets. To ensure adequate representation of growing environments in both, the training and testing portions of the data, stratified sampling was performed by year, use of irrigation, and soil type. For each crop, an extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) algorithm 34 was trained to predict final yield as a response of the aforementioned weather and management variables listed in Tables S1 and S2 . The hyperparameters were optimized using the training dataset and included number of estimators, tree depth, number of leaves, minimum sum of instance weight in node, learning rate, subsample percentage, column sample by tree and by level, gamma, alpha and lambda parameters. To efficiently tune the hypermeters, Bayesian optimization was performed using “hyperopt” in Python 3.6.9 with tenfold cross validation. The combination of the hypermeters that resulted in the lowest root mean square error (RMSE) in the tenfold cross validations was chosen as the final model which was further evaluated on the test portion of the data (Fig.  2 in main document).

Accumulated local effects (ALE) plots 14 , which are robust to correlation among independent variables, were developed for indicative and important variables using 1000 Monte Carlo simulations. These plots are useful to visualize how individual features influence the predictions of the developed “black-box” algorithms. To perform the evaluation for the “what if” scenarios, the final algorithms were applied on hypothetical cropping systems in a randomly chosen field in south central Wisconsin (latitude = 43.34, longitude =  − 89.38) and weather conditions in 2016–2018 for maize and 2014–2018 for soybean. Boxplots were used to visually evaluate the results.

Data and code availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Godfray, H. C. J. et al. Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327 , 812–818 (2010).

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Schlenker, W. & Lobell, D. B. Robust negative impacts of climate change on African agriculture. Environ. Res. Lett. 5 , 014010 (2010).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Mourtzinis, S. et al. Climate-induced reduction in US-wide soybean yields underpinned by region- and in-season specific responses. Nat. Plants 1 , 14026 (2015).

Article   Google Scholar  

Hoffman, L. A., Kemanian, A. R. & Forest, C. E. The response of maize, sorghum, and soybean yield to growing-phase climate revealed with machine learning. Environ. Res. Lett. 15 , 094013 (2020).

Folberth, C. et al. Uncertainty in soil data can outweigh climate impact signals in global crop yield simulations. Nat. Commun. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11872 (2016).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Makinen, H., Kaseva, J., Virkajarvi, P. & Kahiluoto, H. Shifts in soil–climate combination deserve attention. Agric. For. Meteorol. 234 , 236–246 (2017).

Rattalino Edreira, J. I. et al. Assessing causes of yield gaps in agricultural areas with diversity in climate and soils. Agric For Meteorol 247 , 170–180 (2017).

Mourtzinis, S. et al. Sifting and winnowing: analysis of farmer field data for soybean in the US North-Central region. Field Crops Res. 221 , 130–141 (2018).

Pradhan, P., Lüdeke, M. K. B., Reusser, D. E. & Kropp, J. P. Food self-sufficiency across scales: How local can we go?. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48 , 9463–9470 (2014).

Frieler, K. et al. Understanding the weather signal in national crop-yield variability. Earths Fut. 5 , 605–616 (2017).

Puntel, L. A. et al. Modeling long-term corn yield response to nitrogen rate and crop rotation. Front. Plant Sci. 7 , 1630 (2016).

Rong, J. et al. Exploring management strategies to improve maize yield and nitrogen use efficiency in northeast China using the DNDC and DSSAT models. Comput. Electron. Agric. 166 , 104988 (2019).

Leng, G. & Hall, J. W. Predicting spatial and temporal variability in crop yields: an inter-comparison of machine learning, regression and process-based models. Environ. Res. Lett. 15 , 044027 (2020).

Apley, D. W. & Zhu, J. Visualizing the effects of predictor variables in black box supervised learning models. arXiv:1612.08468v2 (2016).

Swanson, S. P. & Wilhelm, W. W. Planting date and residue rate effects on growth, partitioning, and yield of corn. Agron. J. 88 , 205–210 (1996).

Wiatrak, P. J. & Wright, D. Corn hybrids for late planting in the Southeast. Agron. J. 96 , 1118–1124 (2004).

Bruns, H. A. & Abbas, H. K. Planting date effects on Bt and non-Bt corn in the mid-south USA. Agron. J. 98 , 100–106 (2006).

Long, N. V., Assefa, Y., Schwalbert, R. & Ciampitti, I. A. Maize yield and planting date relationship: A synthesis-analysis for US high-yielding contest-winner and field research data. Front. Plant Sci. 8 , 2106 (2017).

Mourtzinis, S., Specht, J. E. & Conley, S. P. Defining optimal soybean sowing dates across the US. Sci. Rep. 9 , 2800 (2019).

Assefa, Y. et al. Yield responses to planting density for US modern corn hybrids: A synthesis-analysis. Crop Sci. 56 , 2802–2817 (2016).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Light, M. A., Lenssen, A. W. & Elmore, R. W. Corn (Zea mays L.) seeding rate optimization in Iowa, USA. Precis. Agric. 18 , 452–469 (2016).

Gaspar, A. et al . Defining optimal soybean seeding rates and associated risk across North America. Agron. J. 1–12 (2020).

Andrade, J. et al. Assessing the influence of row spacing on soybean yield using experimental and producer survey data. Field Crops Res. 230 , 98–106 (2019).

Lobell, D. B. et al. The critical role of extreme heat for maize production in the United States. Nat. Clim. Change 3 , 497–501 (2013).

Lobell, D. B. & Field, C. B. Global scale climate–crop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming. Environ. Res. Lett. 2 , 014002 (2007).

Schlenker, W. & Roberts, M. J. Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to US crop yields under climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106 , 15594–15598 (2009).

Hochman, Z. et al. Re-inventing model-based decision support with Australian dryland farmers. 4. Yield prophet (R) helps farmers monitor and manage crops in a variable climate. Crop Pasture Sci. 60 , 1057–1070 (2009).

Sadras, V. O. & Densison, R. F. Neither crop genetics nor crop management can be optimized. Field Crops Res. 189 , 75–83 (2016).

Khaki, S. & Wang, L. Crop yield prediction using deep neural networks. Front. Plant Sci. 10 , 621 (2019).

Khaki, S., Wang, L. & Archontoulis, S. V. A CNN-RNN framework for crop yield prediction. Front. Plant Sci. 10 , 1750 (2020).

Websites for each state-specific university variety trial can be found in Table S10 in supplementary material.

Thornton, P.E. et al. Daymet: Daily surface weather data on a 1-km grid for North America, Version 3. ORNL DAAC, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA. https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1328 (2016).

Mourtzinis, S., Rattalino Edreira, J. I., Conley, S. P. & Grassini, P. From grid to field: assessing quality of gridded weather data for agricultural applications. Eur. J. Agron. 82 , 163–172 (2017).

Chen, T. & Guestrin, C. XGBoost: A Scalable tree boosting system. arXiv:1603.02754v3 (2016).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Adam Roth and multiple students for their help in database development and John Gaska for constructing Fig. 1 . This research was funded in part by the Wisconsin Soybean Marketing Board, The North Central Soybean Research Program (S.P. Conley), and the USDA National Institute of Food and Federal Appropriations under Project PEN04660 and Accession number 1016474 (P.D. Esker).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Agstat Consulting, Athens, Greece

Spyridon Mourtzinis

Department of Plant Pathology and Environmental Microbiology, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA, 16801, USA

Paul D. Esker

Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, 68583-0915, USA

James E. Specht

Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, 53706, USA

Shawn P. Conley

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

S.M. conceived the idea, analyzed the data, and wrote the paper. P.D.E and J.E.S. contributed to idea development, reviewed results, and provided revisions for improvement of the manuscript. S.P.C. contributed to the data set and idea development, reviewed results, and commented on the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Spyridon Mourtzinis .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary information., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Mourtzinis, S., Esker, P.D., Specht, J.E. et al. Advancing agricultural research using machine learning algorithms. Sci Rep 11 , 17879 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-97380-7

Download citation

Received : 17 January 2021

Accepted : 25 August 2021

Published : 09 September 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-97380-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Various tomato infection discrimination using spectroscopy.

• Bogdan Ruszczak
• Krzysztof Smykała
• Pedro Javier Navarro Lorente

Signal, Image and Video Processing (2024)

Machine learning in agriculture: a review of crop management applications

• Ishana Attri
• Lalit Kumar Awasthi
• Teek Parval Sharma

Multimedia Tools and Applications (2023)

A robust and resilience machine learning for forecasting agri-food production

• Amin Gholamrezaei
• Kiana Kheiri

Scientific Reports (2022)

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Sensors (Basel)

Machine Learning in Agriculture: A Comprehensive Updated Review

Lefteris benos.

1 Centre of Research and Technology-Hellas (CERTH), Institute for Bio-Economy and Agri-Technology (IBO), 6th km Charilaou-Thermi Rd, GR 57001 Thessaloniki, Greece; [email protected] (L.B.); [email protected] (A.C.T.); [email protected] (G.D.); [email protected] (D.K.)

Aristotelis C. Tagarakis

Georgios dolias, remigio berruto.

2 Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Science (DISAFA), University of Turin, Largo Braccini 2, 10095 Grugliasco, Italy; [email protected]

Dimitrios Kateris

Dionysis bochtis.

3 FarmB Digital Agriculture P.C., Doiranis 17, GR 54639 Thessaloniki, Greece

The digital transformation of agriculture has evolved various aspects of management into artificial intelligent systems for the sake of making value from the ever-increasing data originated from numerous sources. A subset of artificial intelligence, namely machine learning, has a considerable potential to handle numerous challenges in the establishment of knowledge-based farming systems. The present study aims at shedding light on machine learning in agriculture by thoroughly reviewing the recent scholarly literature based on keywords’ combinations of “machine learning” along with “crop management”, “water management”, “soil management”, and “livestock management”, and in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Only journal papers were considered eligible that were published within 2018–2020. The results indicated that this topic pertains to different disciplines that favour convergence research at the international level. Furthermore, crop management was observed to be at the centre of attention. A plethora of machine learning algorithms were used, with those belonging to Artificial Neural Networks being more efficient. In addition, maize and wheat as well as cattle and sheep were the most investigated crops and animals, respectively. Finally, a variety of sensors, attached on satellites and unmanned ground and aerial vehicles, have been utilized as a means of getting reliable input data for the data analyses. It is anticipated that this study will constitute a beneficial guide to all stakeholders towards enhancing awareness of the potential advantages of using machine learning in agriculture and contributing to a more systematic research on this topic.

1. Introduction

1.1. general context of machine learning in agriculture.

Modern agriculture has to cope with several challenges, including the increasing call for food, as a consequence of the global explosion of earth’s population, climate changes [ 1 ], natural resources depletion [ 2 ], alteration of dietary choices [ 3 ], as well as safety and health concerns [ 4 ]. As a means of addressing the above issues, placing pressure on the agricultural sector, there exists an urgent necessity for optimizing the effectiveness of agricultural practices by, simultaneously, lessening the environmental burden. In particular, these two essentials have driven the transformation of agriculture into precision agriculture. This modernization of farming has a great potential to assure sustainability, maximal productivity, and a safe environment [ 5 ]. In general, smart farming is based on four key pillars in order to deal with the increasing needs; (a) optimal natural resources’ management, (b) conservation of the ecosystem, (c) development of adequate services, and (d) utilization of modern technologies [ 6 ]. An essential prerequisite of modern agriculture is, definitely, the adoption of Information and Communication Technology (ICT), which is promoted by policy-makers around the world. ICT can indicatively include farm management information systems, humidity and soil sensors, accelerometers, wireless sensor networks, cameras, drones, low-cost satellites, online services, and automated guided vehicles [ 7 ].

The large volume of data, which is produced by digital technologies and usually referred to as “big data”, needs large storage capabilities in addition to editing, analyzing, and interpreting. The latter has a considerable potential to add value for society, environment, and decision-makers [ 8 ]. Nevertheless, big data encompass challenges on account of their so-called “5-V” requirements; (a) Volume, (b) Variety, (c) Velocity, (d) Veracity, and (e) Value [ 9 ]. The conventional data processing techniques are incapable of meeting the constantly growing demands in the new era of smart farming, which is an important obstacle for extracting valuable information from field data [ 10 ]. To that end, Machine Learning (ML) has emerged, which is a subset of artificial intelligence [ 11 ], by taking advantage of the exponential computational power capacity growth.

There is a plethora of applications of ML in agriculture. According to the recent literature survey by Liakos et al. [ 12 ], regarding the time period of 2004 to 2018, four generic categories were identified ( Figure 1 ). These categories refer to crop, water, soil, and livestock management. In particular, as far as crop management is concerned, it represented the majority of the articles amongst all categories (61% of the total articles) and was further sub-divided into:

• Yield prediction;
• Disease detection;
• Weed detection;
• Crop recognition;
• Crop quality.

The four generic categories in agriculture exploiting machine learning techniques, as presented in [ 12 ].

The generic categories dealing with the management of water and soil were found to be less investigated, corresponding cumulatively to 20% of the total number of papers (10% for each category).

Finally, two main sub-categories were identified for the livestock-related applications corresponding to a total 19% of journal papers:

• Livestock production;
• Animal welfare.

1.2. Open Problems Associated with Machine Learning in Agriculture

Due to the broad range of applications of ML in agriculture, several reviews have been published in this research field. The majority of these review studies have been dedicated to crop disease detection [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ], weed detection [ 17 , 18 ], yield prediction [ 19 , 20 ], crop recognition [ 21 , 22 ], water management [ 23 , 24 ], animal welfare [ 25 , 26 ], and livestock production [ 27 , 28 ]. Furthermore, other studies were concerned with the implementation of ML methods regarding the main grain crops by investigating different aspects including quality and disease detection [ 29 ]. Finally, focus has been paid on big data analysis using ML, aiming at finding out real-life problems that originated from smart farming [ 30 ], or dealing with methods to analyze hyperspectral and multispectral data [ 31 ].

Although ML in agriculture has made considerable progress, several open problems remain, which have some common points of reference, despite the fact that the topic covers a variety of sub-fields. According to [ 23 , 24 , 28 , 32 ], the main problems are associated with the implementation of sensors on farms for numerous reasons, including high costs of ICT, traditional practices, and lack of information. In addition, the majority of the available datasets do not reflect realistic cases, since they are normally generated by a few people getting images or specimens in a short time period and from a limited area [ 15 , 21 , 22 , 23 ]. Consequently, more practical datasets coming from fields are required [ 18 , 20 ]. Moreover, the need for more efficient ML algorithms and scalable computational architectures has been pointed out, which can lead to rapid information processing [ 18 , 22 , 23 , 31 ]. The challenging background, when it comes to obtaining images, video, or audio recordings, has also been mentioned owing to changes in lighting [ 16 , 29 ], blind spots of cameras, environmental noise, and simultaneous vocalizations [ 25 ]. Another important open problem is that the vast majority of farmers are non-experts in ML and, thus, they cannot fully comprehend the underlying patterns obtained by ML algorithms. For this reason, more user-friendly systems should be developed. In particular, simple systems, being easy to understand and operate, would be valuable, as for example a visualization tool with a user-friendly interface for the correct presentation and manipulation of data [ 25 , 30 , 31 ]. Taking into account that farmers are getting more and more familiar with smartphones, specific smartphone applications have been proposed as a possible solution to address the above challenge [ 15 , 16 , 21 ]. Last but not least, the development of efficient ML techniques by incorporating expert knowledge from different stakeholders should be fostered, particularly regarding computing science, agriculture, and the private sector, as a means of designing realistic solutions [ 19 , 22 , 24 , 33 ]. As stated in [ 12 ], currently, all of the efforts pertain to individual solutions, which are not always connected with the process of decision-making, as seen for example in other domains.

1.3. Aim of the Present Study

As pointed out above, because of the multiple applications of ML in agriculture, several review studies have been published recently. However, these studies usually concentrate purely on one sub-field of agricultural production. Motivated by the current tremendous progress in ML, the increasing interest worldwide, and its impact in various do-mains of agriculture, a systematic bibliographic survey is presented on the range of the categories proposed in [ 12 ], which were summarized in Figure 1 . In particular, we focus on reviewing the relevant literature of the last three years (2018–2020) for the intention of providing an updated view of ML applications in agricultural systems. In fact, this work is an updated continuation of the work presented at [ 12 ]; following, consequently, exactly the same framework and inclusion criteria. As a consequence, the scholarly literature was screened in order to cover a broad spectrum of important features for capturing the current progress and trends, including the identification of: (a) the research areas which are interested mostly in ML in agriculture along with the geographical distribution of the contributing organizations, (b) the most efficient ML models, (c) the most investigated crops and animals, and (d) the most implemented features and technologies.

As will be discussed next, overall, a 745% increase in the number of journal papers took place in the last three years as compared to [ 12 ], thus justifying the need for a new updated review on the specific topic. Moreover, crop management remained as the most investigated topic, with a number of ML algorithms having been exploited as a means of tackling the heterogeneous data that originated from agricultural fields. As compared to [ 12 ], more crop and animal species have been investigated by using an extensive range of input parameters coming mainly from remote sensing, such as satellites and drones. In addition, people from different research fields have dealt with ML in agriculture, hence, contributing to the remarkable advancement in this field.

1.4. Outline of the Paper

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. The second section briefly describes the fundamentals of ML along with the subject of the four generic categories for the sake of better comprehension of the scope of the present study. The implemented methodology, along with the inclusive criteria and the search engines, is analyzed in the third section. The main performance metrics, which were used in the selected articles, are also presented in this section. The main results are shown in the fourth section in the form of bar and pie charts, while in the fifth section, the main conclusions are drawn by also discussing the results from a broader perspective. Finally, all the selected journal papers are summarized in Table A1 , Table A2 , Table A3 , Table A4 , Table A5 , Table A6 , Table A7 , Table A8 and Table A9 , in accordance with their field of application, and presented in the Appendix A , together with Table A10 and Table A11 that contain commonly used abbreviations, with the intention of not disrupting the flow of the main text.

2. Background

2.1. fundamentals of machine learning: a brief overview.

In general, the objective of ML algorithms is to optimize the performance of a task, via exploiting examples or past experience. In particular, ML can generate efficient relationships regarding data inputs and reconstruct a knowledge scheme. In this data-driven methodology, the more data are used, the better ML works. This is similar to how well a human being performs a particular task by gaining more experience [ 34 ]. The central outcome of ML is a measure of generalizability; the degree to which the ML algorithm has the ability to provide correct predictions, when new data are presented, on the basis of learned rules originated from preceding exposure to similar data [ 35 ]. More specifically, data involve a set of examples, which are described by a group of characteristics, usually called features. Broadly speaking, ML systems operate at two processes, namely the learning (used for training) and testing. In order to facilitate the former process, these features commonly form a feature vector that can be binary, numeric, ordinal, or nominal [ 36 ]. This vector is utilized as an input within the learning phase. In brief, by relying on training data, within the learning phase, the machine learns to perform the task from experience. Once the learning performance reaches a satisfactory point (expressed through mathematical and statistical relationships), it ends. Subsequently, the model that was developed through the training process can be used to classify, cluster, or predict.

An overview of a typical ML system is illustrated in Figure 2 . With the intention of forming the derived complex raw data into a suitable state, a pre-processing effort is required. This usually includes: (a) data cleaning for removing inconsistent or missing items and noise, (b) data integration, when many data sources exist and (c) data transformation, such as normalization and discretization [ 37 ]. The extraction/selection feature aims at creating or/and identifying the most informative subset of features in which, subsequently, the learning model is going to be implemented throughout the training phase [ 38 ]. Regarding the feedback loop, which is depicted in Figure 2 , it serves for adjustments pertaining to the feature extraction/selection unit as well as the pre-processing one that further improves the overall learning model’s performance. During the phase of testing, previously unseen samples are imported to the trained model, which are usually represented as feature vectors. Finally, an appropriate decision is made by the model (for example, classification or regression) in reliance of the features existing in each sample. Deep learning, a subfield of ML, utilizes an alternative architecture via shifting the process of converting raw data to features (feature engineering) to the corresponding learning system. Consequently, the feature extraction/selection unit is absent, resulting in a fully trainable system; it starts from a raw input and ends with the desired output [ 39 , 40 ].

A graphical illustration of a typical machine learning system.

Based on the learning type, ML can be classified according to the relative literature [ 41 , 42 ] as:

• Supervised learning: The input and output are known and the machine tries to find the optimal way to reach an output given an input;
• Unsupervised learning: No labels are provided, leaving the learning algorithm itself to generate structure within its input;
• Semi-supervised learning: Input data constitute a mixture of labeled and non-labeled data;
• Reinforcement learning: Decisions are made towards finding out actions that can lead to the more positive outcome, while it is solely determined by trial and error method and delayed outcome.

Nowadays, ML is used in facilitating several management aspects in agriculture [ 12 ] and in a plethora of other applications, such as image recognition [ 43 ], speech recognition [ 44 ], autonomous driving [ 45 ], credit card fraud detection [ 46 ], stock market forecasting [ 47 ], fluid mechanics [ 48 ], email, spam and malware filtering [ 49 ], medical diagnosis [ 40 ], contamination detection in urban water networks [ 50 ], and activity recognition [ 51 ], to mention but a few.

2.2. Brief Description of the Four Generic Categories

2.2.1. crop management.

The crop management category involves versatile aspects that originated from the combination of farming techniques in the direction of managing the biological, chemical and physical crop environment with the aim of reaching both quantitative and qualitative targets [ 52 ]. Using advanced approaches to manage crops, such as yield prediction, disease detection, weed detection, crop recognition, and crop quality, contributes to the increase of productivity and, consequently, the financial income. The above aspects constitute key goals of precision agriculture.

Yield Prediction

In general, yield prediction is one of the most important and challenging topics in modern agriculture. An accurate model can help, for instance, the farm owners to take informed management decisions on what to grow towards matching the crop to the existing market’s demands [ 20 ]. However, this is not a trivial task; it consists of various steps. Yield prediction can be determined by several factors such as environment, management practices, crop genotypic and phenotypic characteristics, and their interactions. Hence, it necessitates a fundamental comprehension of the relationship between these interactive factors and yield. In turn, identifying such kinds of relationships mandates comprehensive datasets along with powerful algorithms such as ML techniques [ 53 ].

Disease Detection

Crop diseases constitute a major threat in agricultural production systems that deteriorate yield quality and quantity at production, storage, and transportation level. At farm level, reports on yield losses, due to plant diseases, are very common [ 54 ]. Furthermore, crop diseases pose significant risks to food security at a global scale. Timely identification of plant diseases is a key aspect for efficient management. Plant diseases may be provoked by various kinds of bacteria, fungi, pests, viruses, and other agents. Disease symptoms, namely the physical evidence of the presence of pathogens and the changes in the plants’ phenotype, may consist of leaf and fruit spots, wilting and color change [ 55 ], curling of leaves, etc. Historically, disease detection was conducted by expert agronomists, by performing field scouting. However, this process is time-consuming and solely based on visual inspection. Recent technological advances have made commercially available sensing systems able to identify diseased plants before the symptoms become visible. Furthermore, in the past few years, computer vision, especially by employing deep learning, has made remarkable progress. As highlighted by Zhang et al. [ 56 ], who focused on identifying cucumber leaf diseases by utilizing deep learning, due to the complex environmental background, it is beneficial to eliminate background before model training. Moreover, accurate image classifiers for disease diagnosis need a large dataset of both healthy and diseased plant images. In reference to large-scale cultivations, such kinds of automated processes can be combined with autonomous vehicles, to timely identify phytopathological problems by implementing regular inspections. Furthermore, maps of the spatial distribution of the plant disease can be created, depicting the zones in the farm where the infection has been spread [ 57 ].

Weed Detection

As a result of their prolific seed production and longevity, weeds usually grow and spread invasively over large parts of the field very fast, competing with crops for the resources, including space, sunlight, nutrients, and water availability. Besides, weeds frequently arise sooner than crops without having to face natural enemies, a fact that adversely affects crop growth [ 18 ]. In order to prevent crop yield reduction, weed control is an important management task by either mechanical treatment or application of herbicides. Mechanical treatment is, in most cases, difficult to be performed and ineffective if not properly performed, making herbicide application the most widely used operation. Using large quantities of herbicides, however, turns out to be both costly and detrimental for the environment, especially in the case of uniform application without taking into account the spatial distribution of the weeds. Remarkably, long-term herbicide use is very likely to make weeds more resistant, thus, resulting in more demanding and expensive weed control. In recent years, considerable achievements have been made pertaining to the differentiation of weeds from crops on the basis of smart agriculture. This discrimination can be accomplished by using remote or proximal sensing with sensors attached on satellites, aerial, and ground vehicles, as well as unmanned vehicles (both ground (UGV) and aerial (UAV)). The transformation of data gathered by UAVs into meaningful information is, however, still a challenging task, since both data collection and classification need painstaking effort [ 58 ]. ML algorithms coupled with imaging technologies or non-imaging spectroscopy can allow for real-time differentiation and localization of target weeds, enabling precise application of herbicides to specific zones, instead of spraying the entire fields [ 59 ] and planning of the shortest weeding path [ 60 ].

Crop Recognition

Automatic recognition of crops has gained considerable attention in several scientific fields, such as plant taxonomy, botanical gardens, and new species discovery. Plant species can be recognized and classified via analysis of various organs, including leaves, stems, fruits, flowers, roots, and seeds [ 61 , 62 ]. Using leaf-based plant recognition seems to be the most common approach by examining specific leaf’s characteristics like color, shape, and texture [ 63 ]. With the broader use of satellites and aerial vehicles as means of sensing crop properties, crop classification through remote sensing has become particularly popular. As in the above sub-categories, the advancement on computer software and image processing devices combined with ML has led to the automatic recognition and classification of crops.

Crop Quality

Crop quality is very consequential for the market and, in general, is related to soil and climate conditions, cultivation practices and crop characteristics, to name a few. High quality agricultural products are typically sold at better prices, hence, offering larger earnings to farmers. For instance, as regards fruit quality, flesh firmness, soluble solids content, and skin color are among the most ordinary maturity indices utilized for harvesting [ 64 ]. The timing of harvesting greatly affects the quality characteristics of the harvested products in both high value crops (tree crops, grapes, vegetables, herbs, etc.) and arable crops. Therefore, developing decision support systems can aid farmers in taking appropriate management decisions for increased quality of production. For example, selective harvesting is a management practice that may considerably increase quality. Furthermore, crop quality is closely linked with food waste, an additional challenge that modern agriculture has to cope with, since if the crop deviates from the desired shape, color, or size, it may be thrown away. Similarly to the above sub-section, ML algorithms combined with imaging technologies can provide encouraging results.

2.2.2. Water Management

The agricultural sector constitutes the main consumer of available fresh water on a global scale, as plant growth largely relies on water availability. Taking into account the rapid depletion rate of a lot of aquifers with negligible recharge, more effective water management is needed for the purpose of better conserving water in terms of accomplishing a sustainable crop production [ 65 ]. Effective water management can also lead to the improvement of water quality as well as reduction of pollution and health risks [ 66 ]. Recent research on precision agriculture offers the potential of variable rate irrigation so as to attain water savings. This can be realized by implementing irrigation at rates, which vary according to field variability on the basis of specific water requirements of separate management zones, instead of using a uniform rate in the entire field. The effectiveness and feasibility of the variable rate irrigation approach depend on agronomic factors, including topography, soil properties, and their effect on soil water in order to accomplish both water savings and yield optimization [ 67 ]. Carefully monitoring the status of soil water, crop growth conditions, and temporal and spatial patterns in combination with weather conditions monitoring and forecasting, can help in irrigation programming and efficient management of water. Among the utilized ICTs, remote sensing can provide images with spatial and temporal variability associated with the soil moisture status and crop growth parameters for precision water management. Interestingly, water management is challenging enough in arid areas, where groundwater sources are used for irrigation, with the precipitation providing only part of the total crop evapotranspiration (ET) demands [ 68 ].

2.2.3. Soil Management

Soil, a heterogeneous natural resource, involves mechanisms and processes that are very complex. Precise information regarding soil on a regional scale is vital, as it contributes towards better soil management consistent with land potential and, in general, sustainable agriculture [ 5 ]. Better management of soil is also of great interest owing to issues like land degradation (loss of the biological productivity), soil-nutrient imbalance (due to fertilizers overuse), and soil erosion (as a result of vegetation overcutting, improper crop rotations rather than balanced ones, livestock overgrazing, and unsustainable fallow periods) [ 69 ]. Useful soil properties can entail texture, organic matter, and nutrients content, to mention but a few. Traditional soil assessment methods include soil sampling and laboratory analysis, which are normally expensive and take considerable time and effort. However, remote sensing and soil mapping sensors can provide low-cost and effortless solution for the study of soil spatial variability. Data fusion and handling of such heterogeneous “big data” may be important drawbacks, when traditional data analysis methods are used. ML techniques can serve as a trustworthy, low-cost solution for such a task.

2.2.4. Livestock Management

It is widely accepted that livestock production systems have been intensified in the context of productivity per animal. This intensification involves social concerns that can influence consumer perception of food safety, security, and sustainability, based on animal welfare and human health. In particular, monitoring both the welfare of animals and overall production is a key aspect so as to improve production systems [ 70 ]. The above fields take place in the framework of precision livestock farming, aiming at applying engineering techniques to monitor animal health in real time and recognizing warning messages, as well as improving the production at the initial stages. The role of precision livestock farming is getting more and more significant by supporting the decision-making processes of livestock owners and changing their role. It can also facilitate the products’ traceability, in addition to monitoring their quality and the living conditions of animals, as required by policy-makers [ 71 ]. Precision livestock farming relies on non-invasive sensors, such as cameras, accelerometers, gyroscopes, radio-frequency identification systems, pedometers, and optical and temperature sensors [ 25 ]. IoT sensors leverage variable physical quantities (VPQs) as a means of sensing temperature, sound, humidity, etc. For instance, IoT sensors can warn if a VPQ falls out of regular limits in real-time, giving valuable information regarding individual animals. As a result, the cost of repetitively and arduously checking each animal can be reduced [ 72 ]. In order to take advantage of the large amounts of data, ML methodologies have become an integral part of modern livestock farming. Models can be developed that have the capability of defining the manner a biological system operates, relying on causal relationships and exploiting this biological awareness towards generating predictions and suggestions.

Animal Welfare

There is an ongoing concern for animal welfare, since the health of animals is strongly associated with product quality and, as a consequence, predominantly with the health of consumers and, secondarily, with the improvement of economic efficiency [ 73 ]. There exist several indexes for animal welfare evaluation, including physiological stress and behavioral indicators. The most commonly used indicator is animal behavior, which can be affected by diseases, emotions, and living conditions, which have the potential to demonstrate physiological conditions [ 25 ]. Sensors, commonly used to detect behavioral changes (for example, changes in water or food consumption, reduced animal activity), include microphone systems, cameras, accelerometers, etc.

Livestock Production

The use of sensor technology, along with advanced ML techniques, can increase livestock production efficiency. Given the impact of practices of animal management on productive elements, livestock owners are getting cautious of their asset. However, as the livestock holdings get larger, the proper consideration of every single animal is very difficult. From this perspective, the support to farmers via precision livestock farming, mentioned above, is an auspicious step for aspects associated with economic efficiency and establishment of sustainable workplaces with reduced environmental footprint [ 74 ]. Generally, several models have been used in animal production, with their intentions normally revolving around growing and feeding animals in the best way. However, the large volumes of data being involved, again, call for ML approaches.

3.1. Screening of the Relative Literature

In order to identify the relevant studies concerning ML in respect to different aspects of management in agriculture, the search engines of Scopus, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, PubMed, Web of Science, and MDPI were utilized. In addition, keywords’ combinations of “machine learning” in conjunction with each of the following: “crop management”, “water management”, “soil management”, and “livestock management” were used. Our intention was to filter the literature on the same framework as [ 12 ]; however, focusing solely within the period 2018–2020. Once a relevant study was being identified, the references of the paper at hand were being scanned to find studies that had not been found throughout the initial searching procedure. This process was being iterated until no relevant studies occurred. In this stage, only journal papers were considered eligible. Thus, non-English studies, conferences papers, chapters, reviews, as well as Master and Doctoral Theses were excluded. The latest search was conducted on 15 December 2020. Subsequently, the abstract of each paper was being reviewed, while, at a next stage, the full text was being read to decide its appropriateness. After a discussion between all co-authors with reference to the appropriateness of the selected papers, some of them were excluded, in the case they did not meet the two main inclusion criteria, namely: (a) the paper was published within 2018–2020 and (b) the paper referred to one of the categories and sub-categories, which were summarized in Figure 1 . Finally, the papers were classified in these sub-categories. Overall, 338 journal papers were identified. The flowchart of the present review methodology is depicted in Figure 3 , based on the PRISMA guidelines [ 75 ], along with information about at which stage each exclusive criterion was imposed similarly to recent systematic review studies such as [ 72 , 76 , 77 , 78 ].

The flowchart of the methodology of the present systematic review along with the flow of information regarding the exclusive criteria, based on PRISMA guidelines [ 75 ].

3.2. Definition of the Performance Metrics Commonly Used in the Reviewed Studies

In this subsection, the most commonly used performance metrics of the reviewed papers are briefly described. In general, these metrics are utilized in an effort to provide a common measure to evaluate the ML algorithms. The selection of the appropriate metrics is very important, since: (a) how the algorithm’s performance is measured relies on these metrics and (b) the metric itself can influence the way the significance of several characteristics is weighted.

Confusion matrix constitutes one of the most intuitive metrics towards finding the correctness of a model. It is used for classification problems, where the result can be of at least two types of classes. Let us consider a simple example, by giving a label to a target variable: for example, “1” when a plant has been infected with a disease and “0” otherwise. In this simplified case, the confusion matrix ( Figure 4 ) is a 2 × 2 table having two dimensions, namely “Actual” and “Predicted”, while its dimensions have the outcome of the comparison between the predictions with the actual class label. Concerning the above simplified example, this outcome can acquire the following values:

• True Positive (TP): The plant has a disease (1) and the model classifies this case as diseased (1);
• True Negative (TN): The plant does not have a disease (0) and the model classifies this case as a healthy plant (0);
• False Positive (FP): The plant does not have a disease (0), but the model classifies this case as diseased (1);
• False Negative (FN): The plant has a disease (1), but the model classifies this case as a healthy plant (0).

Representative illustration of a simplified confusion matrix.

As can be shown in Table 1 , the aforementioned values can be implemented in order to estimate the performance metrics, typically observed in classification problems [ 79 ].

Summary of the most commonly used evaluation metrics of the reviewed studies.

Other common evaluation metrics were the coefficient of correlation ( R ), coefficient of determination ( R 2 ; basically, the square of the correlation coefficient), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE), and Mean Squared Error (MSE), which can be given via the following relationships [ 80 , 81 ]:

where X t and Z t correspond to the predicted and real value, respectively, t stands for the iteration at each point, while T for the testing records number. Accordingly, low values of MAE, MAPE, and MSE values denote a small error and, hence, better performance. In contrast, R 2 near 1 is desired, which demonstrates better model performance and also that the regression curve efficiently fits the data.

4.1. Preliminary Data Visualization Analysis

Graphical representation of data related to the reviewed studies, by using maps, bar or pie charts, for example, can provide an efficient approach to demonstrate and interpret the patterns of data. The data visualization analysis, as it usually refers to, can be vital in the context of analyzing large amounts of data and has gained remarkable attention in the past few years, including review studies. Indicatively, significant results can be deduced in an effort to identify: (a) the most contributing authors and organizations, (b) the most contributing international journals (or equivalently which research fields are interested in this topic), and (c) the current trends in this field [ 82 ].

4.1.1. Classification of the Studies in Terms of Application Domain

As can be seen in the flowchart of the present methodology ( Figure 3 ), the literature survey on ML in agriculture resulted in 338 journal papers. Subsequently, these studies were classified into the four generic categories as well as into their sub-categories, as already mentioned above. Figure 5 depicts the aforementioned papers’ distribution. In particular, the majority of the studies were intended for crop management (68%), while soil management (10%), water management (10%), and livestock management (12% in total; animal welfare: 7% and livestock production: 5%) had almost equal contribution in the present bibliographic survey. Focusing on crop management, the most contributing sub-categories were yield prediction (20%) and disease detection (19%). The former research field arises as a consequence of the increasing interest of farmers in taking decisions based on efficient management that can lead to the desired yield. Disease detection, on the other hand, is also very important, as diseases constitute a primary menace for food security and quality assurance. Equal percentages (13%) were observed for weed detection and crop recognition, both of which are essential in crop management at farm and agricultural policy making level. Finally, examination of crop quality was relatively scarce corresponding to 3% of all studies. This can be attributed to the complexity of monitoring and modeling the quality-related parameters.

The classification of the reviewed studies according to the field of application.

In this fashion, it should be mentioned again that all the selected journal papers are summarized in Table A1 , Table A2 , Table A3 , Table A4 , Table A5 , Table A6 , Table A7 , Table A8 and Table A9 , depending on their field of application, and presented in the Appendix A . The columns of the tables correspond (from left to right) to the “Reference number” (Ref), “Input Data”, “Functionality”, “Models/Algorithms”, and “Best Output”. One additional column exists for the sub-categories belonging in crop management, namely “Crop”, whereas the corresponding column in the sub-categories pertaining to livestock management refers to “Animal”. The present systematic review deals with a plethora of different ML models and algorithms. For the sake of brevity, the commonly used abbreviations are used instead of the entire names, which are summarized in Table A10 and Table A11 (presented also in the Appendix A ). The list of the aforementioned Tables, along with their content, is listed in Table 2 .

List of the tables appearing in the Appendix A related to: (a) the categories and sub-categories of the machine learning applications in agriculture ( Table A1 , Table A2 , Table A3 , Table A4 , Table A5 , Table A6 , Table A7 , Table A8 and Table A9 ) and (b) the abbreviations of machine learning models and algorithms ( Table A10 and Table A11 , respectively).

4.1.2. Geographical Distribution of the Contributing Organizations

The subject of this sub-section is to find out the geographical distribution of all the contributing organizations in ML applications in agriculture. To that end, the author’s affiliation was taken into account. In case a paper included more than one author, which was the most frequent scenario, each country could contribute only once in the final map chart ( Figure 6 ), similarly to [ 83 , 84 ]. As can be gleaned from Figure 6 , investigating ML in agriculture is distributed worldwide, including both developed and developing economies. Remarkably, out of the 55 contributing countries, the least contribution originated from African countries (3%), whereas the major contribution came from Asian countries (55%). The latter result is attributed mainly to the considerable contribution of Chinese (24.9%) as well as Indian organizations (10.1%). USA appeared to be the second most contributing country with 20.7% percentage, while Australia (9.5%), Spain (6.8%), Germany (5.9%), Brazil, UK, and Iran (5.62%) seem to be particularly interested in ML in agriculture. It should be stressed that livestock management, which is a relatively different sub-field comparing to crop, water, and soil management, was primary examined from studies coming from Australia, USA, China, and UK, while all the papers regarding Ireland were focused on animals. Finally, another noteworthy observation is that a large number of articles were a result of international collaboration, with the synergy of China and USA standing out.

Geographical distribution of the contribution of each country to the research field focusing on machine learning in agriculture.

4.1.3. Distribution of the Most Contributing Journal Papers

For the purpose of identifying the research areas that are mostly interested in ML in agriculture, the most frequently appeared international journal papers are depicted in Figure 7 . In total, there were 129 relevant journals. However, in this bar chart, only the journals contributing with at least 4 papers are presented for brevity. As a general remark, remote sensing was of particular importance, since reliable data from satellites and UAV, for instance, constitute valuable input data for the ML algorithms. In addition, smart farming, environment, and agricultural sustainability were of central interest. Journals associated with computational techniques were also presented with considerable frequency. A typical example of such type of journals, which was presented in the majority of the studies with a percentage of 19.8%, was “ Computers and Electronics in Agriculture ”. This journal aims at providing the advances in relation to the application of computers and electronic systems for solving problems in plant and animal production.

Distribution of the most contributing international journals (published at least four articles) concerning applications of machine learning in agriculture.

The “ Remote Sensing ” and “ Sensors ” journals followed with approximately 11.8% and 6.5% of the total number of publications, respectively. These are cross-sectoral journals that are concentrated on applications of science and sensing technologies in various fields, including agriculture. Other journals, covering this research field, were also “ IEEE Access ” and “ International Journal of Remote Sensing ” with approximately 2.1% and 1.2% contribution, respectively. Moreover, agriculture-oriented journals were also presented in Figure 7 , including “ Precision Agriculture ”, “ Frontiers in Plant Science ”, “ Agricultural and Forest Meteorology ”, and “ Agricultural Water Management ” with 1–3% percentage. These journals deal with several aspects of agriculture ranging from management strategies (so as to incorporate spatial and temporal data as a means of optimizing productivity, resource use efficiency, sustainability and profitability of agricultural production) up to crop molecular genetics and plant pathogens. An interdisciplinary journal concentrating on soil functions and processes also appeared with 2.1%, namely “ Geoderma ”, plausibly covering the soil management generic category. Finally, several journals focusing on physics and applied natural sciences, such as “ Applied Sciences ” (2.7%), “ Scientific Reports ” (1.8%), “ Biosystems Engineering ” (1.5%), and “ PLOS ONE ” (1.5%), had a notable contribution to ML studies. As a consequence, ML in agriculture concerns several disciplines and constitutes a fundamental area for developing various techniques, which can be beneficial to other fields as well.

4.2. Synopsis of the Main Features Associated with the Relative Literature

4.2.1. machine learning models providing the best results.

A wide range of ML algorithms was implemented in the selected studies; their abbreviations are given in Table A11 . The ML algorithms that were used by each study as well as those that provided the best output have been listed in the last two columns of Table A1 , Table A2 , Table A3 , Table A4 , Table A5 , Table A6 , Table A7 , Table A8 and Table A9 . These algorithms can be classified into the eight broad families of ML models, which are summarized in Table A10 . Figure 8 focuses on the best performed ML models as a means of capturing a broad picture of the current situation and demonstrating advancement similarly to [ 12 ].

Machine Learning models giving the best output.

As can be demonstrated in Figure 8 , the most frequent ML model providing the best output was, by far, Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs), which appeared in almost half of the reviewed studies (namely, 51.8%). More specifically, ANN models provided the best results in the majority of the studies concerning all sub-categories. ANNs have been inspired by the biological neural networks that comprise human brains [ 85 ], while they allow for learning via examples from representative data describing a physical phenomenon. A distinct characteristic of ANNs is that they can develop relationships between dependent and independent variables, and thus extract useful information from representative datasets. ANN models can offer several benefits, such as their ability to handle noisy data [ 86 ], a situation that is very common in agricultural measurements. Among the most popular ANNs are the Deep Neural Networks (DNNs), which utilize multiple hidden layers between input and output layers. DNNs can be unsupervised, semi-supervised, or supervised. A usual kind of DNNs are the Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), whose layers, unlike common neural networks, can set up neurons in three dimensions [ 87 ]. In fact, CNNs were presented as the algorithms that provide the best output in all sub-categories, with an almost 50% of the individual percentage of ANNs. As stressed in recent studies, such as that of Yang et al. [ 88 ], CNNs are receiving more and more attention because of their efficient results when it comes to detection through images’ processing.

Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) followed, representing approximately 10% of ANNs, with Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) standing out. They are called “recurrent” as they carry out the same process for every element, with the previous computations determining the current output, while they have a “memory” that stores information pertaining to what has been calculated so far. RNNs can face problems concerning vanishing gradients and inability to “memorize” many sequential data. Towards addressing these issues, the cell structures of LSTM can control which part of information will be either stored in long memory or discarded, resulting in optimization of the memorizing process [ 51 ]. Moreover, Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP), Fully Convolutional Networks (FCNs), and Radial Basis Function Networks (RBFNs) appeared to have the best performance in almost 3–5% of ANNs. Finally, ML algorithms, belonging to ANNs with low frequency, were Back-Propagation Neural Networks (BPNNs), Modular Artificial Neural Networks (MANNs), Deep Belief Networks (DBNs), Adaptive-Neuro Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS), Subtractive Clustering Fuzzy Inference System (SCFIS), Takagi-Sugeno Fuzzy Neural Networks (TS-FNN), and Feed Forward Neural Networks (FFNNs).

The second most accurate ML model was Ensemble Learning (EL), contributing to the ML models used in agricultural systems with approximately 22.2%. EL is a concise term for methods that integrate multiple inducers for the purpose of making a decision, normally in supervised ML tasks. An inducer is an algorithm, which gets as an input a number of labeled examples and creates a model that can generalize these examples. Thus, predictions can be made for a set of new unlabeled examples. The key feature of EL is that via combining various models, the errors coming from a single inducer is likely to be compensated from other inducers. Accordingly, the prediction of the overall performance would be superior comparing to a single inducer [ 89 ]. This type of ML model was presented in all sub-categories, apart from crop quality, perhaps owing to the small number of papers belonging in this subcategory. Support Vector Machine (SVM) followed, contributing in approximately 11.5% of the studies. The strength of the SVM stems from its capability to accurately learn data patterns while showing reproducibility. Despite the fact that it can also be applied for regression applications, SVM is a commonly used methodology for classification extending across numerous data science settings [ 90 ], including agricultural research.

Decision Trees (DT) and Regression models came next with equal percentage, namely 4.7%. Both these ML models were presented in all generic categories. As far as DT are concerned, they are either regression or classification models structured in a tree-like architecture. Interestingly, handling missing data in DT is a well-established problem. By implementing DT, the dataset can be gradually organized into smaller subsets, whereas, in parallel, a tree graph is created. In particular, each tree’s node denotes a dissimilar pairwise comparison regarding a certain feature, while each branch corresponds to the result of this comparison. As regards leaf nodes, they stand for the final decision/prediction provided after following a certain rule [ 91 , 92 ]. As for Regression, it is used for supervised learning models intending to model a target value on the basis of independent predictors. In particular, the output can be any number based on what it predicts. Regression is typically applied for time series modeling, prediction, and defining the relationships between the variables.

Finally, the ML models, leading to optimal performance (although with lower contribution to literature), were those of Instance Based Models (IBM) (2.7%), Dimensionality Reduction (DR) (1.5%), Bayesian Models (BM) (0.9%), and Clustering (0.3%). IBM appeared only in crop, water, and livestock management, whereas BM only in crop and soil management. On the other hand, DR and Clustering appeared as the best solution only in crop management. In brief, IBM are memory-based ML models that can learn through comparison of the new instances with examples within the training database. DR can be executed both in unsupervised and supervised learning types, while it is typically carried out in advance of classification/regression so as to prevent dimensionality effects. Concerning the case of BM, they are a family of probabilistic models whose analysis is performed within the Bayesian inference framework. BM can be implemented in both classification and regression problems and belong to the broad category of supervised learning. Finally, Clustering belongs to unsupervised ML models. It contains automatically discovering of natural grouping of data [ 12 ].

4.2.2. Most Studied Crops and Animals

In this sub-section, the most examined crops and animals that were used in the ML models are discussed as a result of our searching within the four sub-categories of crop management similarly to [ 12 ]. These sub-categories refer to yield prediction, disease detection, crop recognition, and crop quality. Overall, approximately 80 different crop species were investigated. The 10 most utilized crops are summarized in Figure 9 . Specifically, the remarkable interest on maize (also known as corn) can be attributed to the fact that it is cultivated in many parts across the globe as well as its versatile usage (for example, direct consumption by humans, animal feed, producing ethanol, and other biofuels). Wheat and rice follow, which are two of the most widely consumed cereal grains. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) [ 93 ], the trade in wheat worldwide is more than the summation of all other crops. Concerning rice, it is the cereal grain with the third-highest production and constitutes the most consumed staple food in Asia [ 94 ]. The large contribution of Asian countries presented in Figure 6 , like China and India, justifies the interest in this crop. In the same vein, soybeans, which are broadly distributed in East Asia, USA, Africa, and Australia [ 95 ], were presented in many studies. Finally, tomato, grape, canola/rapeseed (cultivated primarily for its oil-rich seed), potato, cotton, and barley complete the top 10 examined crops. All these species are widely cultivated all over the world. Some other indicative species, which were investigated at least five times in the present reviewed studies, were also alfalfa, citrus, sunflower, pepper, pea, apple, squash, sugarcane, and rye.

The 10 most investigated crops using machine learning models; the results refer to crop management.

As far as livestock management is concerned, the examined animal species can be classified, in descending order of frequency, into the categories of cattle (58.5%), sheep and goats (26.8%), swine (14.6%), poultry (4.9%), and sheepdog (2.4%). As can be depicted in Figure 10 , the last animal, which is historically utilized with regard to the raising of sheep, was investigated only in one study belonging to animal welfare, whereas all the other animals were examined in both categories of livestock management. In particular, the most investigated animal in both animal welfare and livestock production was cattle. Sheep and goats came next, which included nine studies for sheep and two studies for goats. Cattles are usually raised as livestock aimed at meat, milk, and hide used for leather. Similarly, sheep are raised for meat and milk as well as fleece. Finally, swine (often called domestic pigs) and poultry (for example, chicken, turkey, and duck), which are used mainly for their meat or eggs (poultry), had equal contribution from the two livestock sub-categories.

Frequency of animal species in studies concerning livestock management by using machine learning models.

4.2.3. Most Studied Features and Technologies

As mentioned in the beginning of this study, modern agriculture has to incorporate large amounts of heterogeneous data, which have originated from a variety of sensors over large areas at various spatial scale and resolution. Subsequently, such data are used as input into ML algorithms for their iterative learning up until modeling of the process in the most effective way possible. Figure 11 shows the features and technologies that were used in the reviewed studies, separately for each category, for the sake of better comprehending the results of the analysis.

Distribution of the most usual features implemented as input data in the machine learning algorithms for each category/sub-category.

Data coming from remote sensing were the most common in the yield prediction sub-category. Remote sensing, in turn, was primarily based on data derived from satellites (40.6% of the total studies published in this sub-category) and, secondarily, from UAVs (23.2% of the total studies published in this sub-category). A remarkable observation is the rapid increase of the usage of UAVs versus satellites from the year 2018 towards 2020, as UAVs seem to be a reliable alternative that can give faster and cheaper results, usually in higher resolution and independent of the weather conditions. Therefore, UAVs allow for discriminating details of localized circumscribed regions that the satellites’ lowest resolution may miss, especially under cloudy conditions. This explosion in the use of UAV systems in agriculture is a result of the developing market of drones and sensing solutions attached to them, rendering them economically affordable. In addition, the establishment of formal regulations for UAV operations and the simplification and automatization of the operational and analysis processes had a significant contribution on the increasing popularity of these systems. Data pertaining to the weather conditions of the investigated area were also of great importance as well as soil parameters of the farm at hand. An additional way of getting the data was via in situ manual measurements, involving measurements such as crop height, plant growth, and crop maturity. Finally, data concerning topographic, irrigation, and fertilization aspects were presented with approximately equal frequency.

As far as disease detection is concerned, Red-Green-Blue (RGB) images appear to be the most usual input data for the ML algorithms (in 62% of the publications). Normally, deep learning methods like CNNs are implemented with the intention of training a classifier to discriminate images depicting healthy leaves, for example, from infected ones. CNNs use some particular operations to transform the RGB images so that the desired features are enhanced. Subsequently, higher weights are given to the images having the most suitable features. This characteristic constitutes a significant advantage of CNNs as compared to other ML algorithms, when it comes to image classification [ 79 ]. The second most common input data came from either multispectral or hyperspectral measurements originated from spectroradiometers, UAVs, and satellites. Concerning the investigated diseases, fungal diseases were the most common ones with diseases from bacteria following, as is illustrated in Figure 12 a. This kind of disease can cause major problems in agriculture with detrimental economic consequences [ 96 ]. Other examined origins of crop diseases were, in descending order of frequency, pests, viruses, toxicity, and deficiencies.

Distribution of the most usual output features of the machine learning algorithms regarding: ( a ) Disease detection and ( b ) Crop quality.

Images were also the most used input data for weed detection purposes. These images were RGB images that originated mainly from in situ measurements as well as from UGVs and UAVs and, secondarily, multispectral images from the aforementioned sources. Finally, other parameters that were observed, although with lower frequency, were satellite multispectral images, mainly due to the considerably low resolution they provide, video recordings, and hyperspectral and greyscale images. Concerning crop recognition, the majority of the studies used data coming mostly from satellites and, secondarily, from in situ manual measurements. This is attributed to the fact that most of the studies in this category concern crop classification, a sector where satellite imaging is the most widely used data source owing to its potential for analysis of time series of extremely large surfaces of cultivated land. Laboratory measurements followed, while RGB and greyscale images as well as hyperspectral and multispectral measurements from UAVs were observed with lower incidence.

The input data pertaining to crop quality consisted mainly of RGB images, while X-ray images were also utilized (for seed germination monitoring). Additionally, quality parameters, such as color, mass, and flesh firmness, were used. There were also two studies using spectral data either from satellites or spectroradiometers. In general, the studies belonging in this sub-category dealt with either crop quality (80%) or seed germination potential (20%) ( Figure 12 b). The latter refers to the seed quality assessment that is essential for the seed production industry. Two studies were found about germination that both combined X-ray images analysis and ML.

Concerning soil management, various soil properties were taken into account in 65.7% of the studies. These properties included salinity, organic matter content, and electrical conductivity of soil and soil organic carbon. Usage of weather data was also very common (in 48.6% of the studies), while topographic and data pertaining to the soil moisture content (namely the ratio of the water mass over the dry soil) and crop properties were presented with lower frequency. Additionally, remote sensing, including satellite and UAV multispectral and hyperspectral data, as well as proximal sensing, to a lesser extent, were very frequent choices (in 40% of the studies). Finally, properties associated with soil temperature, land type, land cover, root microbial dynamics, and groundwater salinity make up the rest of data, which are labeled as “other” in the corresponding graph of Figure 11 .

In water management, weather data stood for the most common input data (appeared in the 75% of the studies), with ET being used in the vast majority of them. In many cases, accurate estimation of ET (the summation of the transpiration via the plant canopy and the evaporation from plant, soil, and open water surface) is among the most central elements of hydrologic cycle for optimal management of water resources [ 97 ]. Data from remote sensors and measurements of soil water content were also broadly used in this category. Soil water availability has a central impact on crops’ root growth by affecting soil aeration and nutrient availability [ 98 ]. Stem water potential, appearing in three studies, is actually a measure of water tension within the xylem of the plant, therefore functioning as an indicator of the crop’s water status. Furthermore, in situ measurements, soil, and other parameters related to cumulative water infiltration, soil and water quality, field topography, and crop yield were also used, as can be seen in Figure 11 .

Finally, in what concerns livestock management, motion capture sensors, including accelerometers, gyroscopes, and pedometers, were the most common devices giving information about the daily activities of animals. This kind of sensors was used solely in the studies investigating animal welfare. Images, audio, and video recordings came next, however, appearing in both animal welfare and livestock production sub-categories. Physical and growth characteristics followed, with slightly less incidence, by appearing mainly in livestock production sub-category. These characteristics included the animal’s weight, gender, age, metabolites, biometric traits, backfat and muscle thickness, and heat stress. The final characteristic may have detrimental consequences in livestock health and product quality [ 99 ], while through the measurement of backfat and muscle thickness, estimations of the carcass lean yield can be made [ 100 ].

5. Discussion and Main Conclusions

The present systematic review study deals with ML in agriculture, an ever-increasing topic worldwide. To that end, a comprehensive analysis of the present status was conducted concerning the four generic categories that had been identified in the previous review by Liakos et al. [ 12 ]. These categories pertain to crop, water, soil, and livestock management. Thus, by reviewing the relative literature of the last three years (2018–2020), several aspects were analyzed on the basis of an integrated approach. In summary, the following main conclusions can be drawn:

• The majority of the journal papers focused on crop management, whereas the other three generic categories contributed almost with equal percentage. Considering the review paper of [ 12 ] as a reference study, it can be deduced that the above picture remains, more or less, the same, with the only difference being the decrease of the percentage of the articles regarding livestock from 19% to 12% in favor of those referring to crop management. Nonetheless, this reveals just one side of the coin. Taking into account the tremendous increase in the number of relative papers published within the last three years (in particular, 40 articles were identified in [ 12 ] comparing to the 338 of the present literature survey), approximately 400% more publications were found on livestock management. Another important finding was the increasing research interest on crop recognition.
• Several ML algorithms have been developed for the purpose of handling the heterogeneous data coming from agricultural fields. These algorithms can be classified in families of ML models. Similar to [ 12 ], the most efficient ML models proved to be ANNs. Nevertheless, in contrast to [ 12 ], the interest also been shifted towards EL, which can combine the predictions that originated from more than one model. SVM completes the group with the three most accurate ML models in agriculture, due to some advantages, such as its high performance when it works with image data [ 101 ].
• As far as the most investigated crops are concerned, mainly maize and, secondarily, wheat, rice, and soybean were widely studied by using ML. In livestock management, cattle along with sheep and goats stood out constituting almost 85% of the studies. Comparing to [ 12 ], more species have been included, while wheat and rice as well as cattle, remain important specimens for ML applications.
• A very important result of the present review study was the demonstration of the input data used in the ML algorithms and the corresponding sensors. RGB images constituted the most common choice, thus, justifying the broad usage of CNNs due to their ability to handle this type of data more efficiently. Moreover, a wide range of parameters pertaining to weather as well as soil, water, and crop quality was used. The most common means of acquiring measurements for ML applications was remote sensing, including imaging from satellites, UAVs and UGVs, while in situ and laboratory measurements were also used. As highlighted above, UAVs are constantly gaining ground against satellites mainly because of their flexibility and ability to provide images with high resolution under any weather conditions. Satellites, on the other hand, can supply time-series over large areas [ 102 ]. Finally, animal welfare-related studies used mainly devices such as accelerometers for activity recognition, whereas those ones referring to livestock production utilized primary physical and growth characteristics of the animal.

As can be inferred from the geographical distribution (illustrated in Figure 6 ) in tandem with the broad spectrum of research fields, ML applications for facilitating various aspects of management in the agricultural sector is an important issue on an international scale. As a matter of fact, its versatile nature favors convergence research. Convergence research is a relatively recently introduced approach that is based on shared knowledge between different research fields and can have a positive impact on the society. This can refer to several aspects, including improvement of the environmental footprint and assuring human’s health. Towards this direction, ML in agriculture has a considerable potential to create value.

Another noteworthy finding of the present analysis is the capturing of the increasing interest on topics concerning ML analyses in agricultural applications. More specifically, as can be shown in Figure 13 , an approximately 26% increase was presented in the total number of the relevant studies, if a comparison is made between 2018 and 2019. The next year (i.e., 2020), the corresponding increase jumped to 109% against 2019 findings; thus, resulting in an overall 164% rise comparing with 2018. The accelerating rate of the research interest on ML in agriculture is a consequence of various factors, following the considerable advancements of ICT systems in agriculture. Moreover, there exists a vital need for increasing the efficiency of agricultural practices while reducing the environmental burden. This calls for both reliable measurements and handling of large volumes of data as a means of providing a wide overview of the processes taking place in agriculture. The currently observed technological outbreak has a great potential to strengthen agriculture in the direction of enhancing food security and responding to the rising consumers’ demands.

Temporal distribution of the reviewed studies focusing on machine learning in agriculture, which were published within 2018–2020.

In a nutshell, ICT in combination with ML, seem to constitute one of our best hopes to meet the emerging challenges. Taking into account the rate of today’s data accumulation along with the advancement of various technologies, farms will certainly need to advance their management practices by adopting Decision Support Systems (DSSs) tailored to the needs of each cultivation system. These DSSs use algorithms, which have the ability to work on a wider set of cases by considering a vast amount of data and parameters that the farmers would be impossible to handle. However, the majority of ICT necessitates upfront costs to be paid, namely the high infrastructure investment costs that frequently prevent farmers from adopting these technologies. This is going to be a pressing issue, mainly in developing economies, where agriculture is an essential economic factor. Nevertheless, having a tangible impact is a long-haul game. A different mentality is required by all stakeholders so as to learn new skills, be aware of the potential profits of handling big data, and assert sufficient funding. Overall, considering the constantly increasing recognition of the value of artificial intelligence in agriculture, ML will definitely become a behind-the-scenes enabler for the establishment of a sustainable and more productive agriculture. It is anticipated that the present systematic effort is going to constitute a beneficial guide to researchers, manufacturers, engineers, ICT system developers, policymakers, and farmers and, consequently, contribute towards a more systematic research on ML in agriculture.

In this section, the reviewed articles are summarized within the corresponding Tables as described in Table 2 .

Crop Management: Yield Prediction.

Acc: Accuracy: CA: Conservation Agriculture; CI: Crop Indices; CEC: Cation Exchange Capacity; CCC: Concordance Correlation Coefficient; DOY: Day Of Year; EC: Electrical Conductivity; HD: Heading Date; HDM: Heading Date to Maturity; K: Potassium; Mg: Magnesium; N: Nitrogen; OLI: Operational Land Imager; P: Phosphorus; RGB: Red-Green-Blue; S: Sulphur; SOM: Soil Organic Matter; SPAD: Soil and Plant Analyzer Development; STI: Soil Texture Information; STD: Standard Deviation; UAV: Unmanned Aerial Vehicle; UGV: Unmanned Ground Vehicle.

Crop Management: Disease Detection.

Acc: Accuracy; AUC: Area Under Curve; CR: Cedar Rust; ExGR: Excess Green Minus Excess Red; FS: Frogeye Spot; H: Healthy; mAP: mean Average Precision; RGB: Red-Green-Blue; S: Scab; TYLC: Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl; UAV: Unmanned Aerial Vehicle; VddNet: Vine Disease Detection Network.

Crop Management: Weed Detection.

Acc: Accuracy; AUC: Area under Curve; IoU: Intersection over Union; mAP: mean Average Precision; RGB: Red-Green-Blue; UAV: Unmanned Aerial Vehicle; UGV: Unmanned Ground Vehicle.

Crop Management: Crop Recognition.

Acc: Accuracy; IoU: Intersection over Union; RGB: Red-Green-Blue; UAV: Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.

Crop Management: Crop Quality.

Acc: Accuracy; DSM: Detection and Segmentation Module; EDG: Estimated Dimensions Geometry; IVTD: In Vitro True Digestibility; RGB; Red-Green-Blue; MMD: Manually Measured Dimensions; mAP: mean Average Precision; PSO: Particle Swarm Optimization; RGB; Red-Green-Blue; SAE: Stacked AutoEncoder; VI: Vegetation Indices; WF: Wavelet Features.

Water management.

Acc: Accuracy; CC: Coefficient of Correlation; ET: Evapotranspiration; ET o : reference EvapoTranspiration; ROC: Receiver Operating Characteristic; ME: Model Efficiency; NSE: Nash-Sutcliffe model efficiency Coefficient; POD: Probability Of Detection.

Soil management.

ACCA: Aminoyclopropane-1-carboxylate; AUC: Area Under Curve; BP: Bacterial Population; CC: Coefficient of Correlation; CCC: Concordance Correlation Coefficient; CCE: Calcium Carbonate Equivalent; ET: EvaporoTransporation; MIR: Mid InfraRed; NSE: Nash-Sutcliffe model efficiency Coefficient; NIR: Near-InfraRed; PS: Phosphate Solubilization; PWP: Permanent Wilting Point; RPIQ: Ratio of Performance to Interquartile Range; RPD: Relative Percent Deviation; SOC: Soil Organic Carbon; WI: Willmott’s Index.

Livestock Management: Animal Welfare.

AUC: Area Under Curve; Cont: Contagious; DE: Digestible Energy; ED: Energy Digestibility; ENV: Environmental; DWT: Discrete Wavelet Transform; MFCCs: Mel-Frequency Cepstral Coefficients; NIR: Near InfraRed; NPV: Negative Predictive Value; PTZ: Pan-Tilt-Zoom; PPV: Positive Predictive Value; RGB: Red-Green-Blue; RR: Respiration Rate; ST: Skin Temperature.

Livestock Management: Livestock Production.

ACFW: Adult Clean Fleece Weight; ADG: Average Daily Gain; AFD: Adult Fibre Diameter; AGFW: Adult Greasy Fleece Weight; ASL: Adult Staple Length; ASS: Adult Staple Strength; BBFT: Bacon/BackFat Thickness; BCS: Body Condition Score; CCW: Cold Carcass Weights; CTLEAN: Computed Tomography Lean Meat Yield; DBT: Deep Body Temperature; EMA: Eye Muscle Area; GWAS: Genome-Wide Association Studies; GRFAT: Greville Rule Fat Depth; HER: Human Error Range; IMF: IntraMuscular Fat; HCW: Hot Carcass Weight; LW: Loin Weight; MS: Marbling Score; MT: Muscle Thickness; REIMS: Rapid Evaporative Ionization Mass Spectrometry; RGB: Red-Green-Blue; SMY: Saleable Meat Yield.

Abbreviations for machine learning models.

Abbreviations for machine learning algorithms.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.B.; methodology, L.B., G.D., R.B., D.K. and A.C.T.; investigation, L.B. and G.D.; writing—original draft preparation, L.B. and A.C.T.; writing—review and editing, L.B., G.D., D.K., A.C.T., R.B. and D.B.; visualization, L.B.; supervision, D.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This work has been partly supported by the Project “BioCircular: Bio-production System for Circular Precision Farming” (project code: T1EDK- 03987) co-financed by the European Union and the Greek national funds through the Operational Programme Competitiveness, Entrepreneurship and Innovation, under the call RESEARCH—CREATE—INNOVATE.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Machine learning in agriculture: a review of crop management applications

• Published: 01 July 2023
• Volume 83 , pages 12875–12915, ( 2024 )

Cite this article

• Ishana Attri   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8779-3231 1 ,
• Lalit Kumar Awasthi 1 &
• Teek Parval Sharma 1  

1678 Accesses

8 Citations

Explore all metrics

Machine learning has created new opportunities for data-intensive study in interdisciplinary domains as a result of the advancement of big data technologies and high-performance computers. Search engines, email spam filters, websites that offer personalized recommendations, banking software that alerts users to suspicious activity, and a plethora of smartphone apps that perform tasks like voice recognition, image recognition, and natural language processing are just a few examples of the online and offline services that have incorporated machine learning in recent years. One of the most crucial areas where machine learning applications still has to be investigated is agriculture, which directly affects people’s well-being. In this article, a literature review on machine learning algorithms used in agriculture is presented. The proposed paper deal with various crop management applications which are categorised into five parts i.e., Weed and pest detection, Plant disease detection, Stress detection in plants, Smart farms or automation in farms and the last one is Crop yield estimation and prediction. The articles’ filtering and categorization show how machine learning may improve agriculture. This article examines machine learning breakthroughs in agriculture. This paper’s findings show that by using novel machine learning approaches, models may achieve improved accuracy and shorter inference time for real-world applications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Application of Machine Learning Algorithms in Agriculture: An Analysis

Towards Applications of Machine Learning Algorithms for Sustainable Systems and Precision Agriculture

Smart Sustainable Agriculture Using Machine Learning and AI: A Review

Data availability.

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study

Abade A, Ferreira PA, de Barros Vidal F (2021) Plant diseases recognition on images using convolutional neural networks: A systematic review. Comput Electron Agric. 185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2021.106125

Alam M, Alam MS, Roman M, Tufail M, Khan MU, Khan MT. Real-Time Machine-Learning Based Crop/Weed Detection and Classification for Variable-Rate Spraying in Precision Agriculture. In: 2020 7th International Conference on Electrical and Electronics Engineering, ICEEE 2020. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.; 2020. p. 273–80

Albuquerque CKG, Polimante S, Torre-Neto A, Prati RC (2020) Water spray detection for smart irrigation systems with Mask R-CNN and UAV footage. 2020 IEEE Int Work Metrol Agric For MetroAgriFor 2020 - Proc, 236–240. https://doi.org/10.1109/MetroAgriFor50201.2020.9277542

Alessandrini M, Calero Fuentes Rivera R, Falaschetti L, Pau D, Tomaselli V, Turchetti C (2021) A grapevine leaves dataset for early detection and classification of esca disease in vineyards through machine learning. Data Br. 35

AlZu’bi S, Hawashin B, Mujahed M, Jararweh Y, Gupta BB (2019) An efficient employment of internet of multimedia things in smart and future agriculture. Multimed Tools Appl. 78(20):29581–29605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-019-7367-0

Article   Google Scholar  

Ang KLM, Seng JKP (2021) Big data and machine learning with hyperspectral information in agriculture. IEEE Access 9:36699–36718. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3051196

Appeltans S, Pieters JG, Mouazen AM (2021) Detection of leek white tip disease under field conditions using hyperspectral proximal sensing and supervised machine learning. Comput Electron Agric. 190:106453.Available from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168169921004701 . Accessed 12 Mar 2023

Araus JL, Cairns JE (2014) Field high-throughput phenotyping: The new crop breeding frontier. Trends Plant Sci 19(1):52–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2013.09.008

Asad MH, Bais A (2020) Weed detection in canola fields using maximum likelihood classification and deep convolutional neural network. Inf Process Agric 7(4):535–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inpa.2019.12.002

Ataş M, Yardimci Y, Temizel A (2012) A new approach to aflatoxin detection in chili pepper by machine vision. Comput Electron Agric 87:129–141

Bakhshipour A, Jafari A (2018) Evaluation of support vector machine and artificial neural networks in weed detection using shape features. Comput Electron Agric 145:153–160

Barbedo JGA (2019) Detection of nutrition deficiencies in plants using proximal images and machine learning: A review. Comput Electron Agric. Elsevier B.V.; 162: 482–92

Benos L, Tagarakis AC, Dolias G, Berruto R, Kateris D, Bochtis D (2021) Machine Learning in Agriculture: A Comprehensive Updated Review. Sensors 21(11):3758. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21113758

Bhange M, Hingoliwala HA (2015) Smart Farming: Pomegranate Disease Detection Using Image Processing. In: Procedia Computer Science. Elsevier; p. 280–8

Bienertova-Vasku J, Lenart P, Scheringer M (2020) Eustress and Distress: Neither Good Nor Bad, but Rather the Same? BioEssays. 42(7)

Boissard P, Martin V, Moisan S (2008) A cognitive vision approach to early pest detection in greenhouse crops. Comput Electron Agric 62(2):81–93

Brinkhoff J, Vardanega J, Robson AJ (2020) Land cover classification of nine perennial crops using sentinel-1 and -2 data. Remote Sens. 12(1)

Cattivelli L et al (2008) Drought tolerance improvement in crop plants: An integrated view from breeding to genomics. F Crop Res 105(1–2):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2007.07.004

Chen M et al (2021) A reinforcement learning approach to irrigation decision-making for rice using weather forecasts. Agric Water Manag. 250(March):106838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2021.106838

Chen Y-R, Chao K, Kim MS. Machine vision technology for agricultural applications. Available from: www.elsevier.com/locate/compag . Accessed 12 Mar 2023

Chen J, Liu Q, Gao L (2021) Deep convolutional neural networks for tea tree pest recognition and diagnosis. Symmetry (Basel) 13(11):1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13112140

Conrad AO, Li W, Lee DY, Wang GL, Rodriguez-Saona L, Bonello P (2020) Machine learning-based presymptomatic detection of rice sheath blight using spectral profiles. Plant Phenomics. 2020

Cravero A, Sepúlveda S (2021) Use and adaptations of machine learning in big data—applications in real cases in agriculture. Electron 10(5):1–35. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10050552

Daniya T, Vigneshwari S (2019) A review on machine learning techniques for rice plant disease detection in agricultural research. Int J Adv Sci Technol 28(13):49–62

Google Scholar  

Dawei W, Limiao D, Jiangong N, Jiyue G, Hongfei Z, Zhongzhi H (2019) Recognition pest by image-based transfer learning. J Sci Food Agric 99(10):4524–4531. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.9689

de Castro AI, Torres-Sánchez J, Peña JM, Jiménez-Brenes FM, Csillik O, López-Granados F (2018) An automatic random forest-OBIA algorithm for early weed mapping between and within crop rows using UAV imagery. Remote Sens. 10(2)

Dian Bah M, Hafiane A, Canals R (2018) Deep learning with unsupervised data labeling for weed detection in line crops in UAV images. Remote Sens 10(11):1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10111690

Etienne A, Saraswat D (2019) Machine learning approaches to automate weed detection by UAV sensors. Int Soc Opt Photonics. 11008

Evstatiev BI, Gabrovska-Evstatieva KG (2021) A review on the methods for big data analysis in agriculture. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng. 1032(1): https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/1032/1/012053

Friedel CC, Jahn KHV, Sommer S, Rudd S, Mewes HW, Tetko IV (2005) Support vector machines for separation of mixed plant-pathogen EST collections based on codon usage. Bioinformatics 21(8):1383–1388

Ganesh Babu R, Chellaswamy C (2022) Different stages of disease detection in squash plant based on machine learning. J Biosci. 47(1)

Garibaldi-márquez F, Flores G, Mercado-ravell DA, Ramírez-pedraza A, Valentín-coronado LM (2022) Weed Classification from Natural Corn Field-Multi-Plant Images Based on Shallow and Deep Learning. 1–22

Guo Q, Kelly M, Graham CH (2005) Support vector machines for predicting distribution of Sudden Oak Death in California. Ecol Modell 182(1):75–90

Harakannanavar SS, Rudagi JM, Puranikmath VI, Siddiqua A, Pramodhini R (2022) Plant leaf disease detection using computer vision and machine learning algorithms. Glob Transitions Proc 3(1):305–310

Helm JM et al (2020) Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence: Definitions, Applications, and Future Directions. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 13(1):69–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-020-09600-8

Islam N, Rashid MM, Wibowo S, Xu CY, Morshed A, Wasimi SA, et al. (2021) Early weed detection using image processing and machine learning techniques in an australian chilli farm. Agric. 11(5)

Jansen MA, Potters G (2017) Stress: The Way of Life. Plant Stress Physiology, 2nd edn. CABI, London, UK, pp ix–xiv

Javidan SM, Banakar A, Vakilian KA, Ampatzidis Y (2023) Diagnosis of grape leaf diseases using automatic K-means clustering and machine learning. Smart Agric Technol 3:100081

Jiang Q, Wu G, Tian C, Li N, Yang H, Bai Y, et al. (2021) Hyperspectral imaging for early identification of strawberry leaves diseases with machine learning and spectral fingerprint features. Infrared Phys Technol. 118

Jose A, Nandagopalan S, Venkata CM, Akana S (2021) Artificial Intelligence Techniques for Agriculture Revolution: A Survey. Ann Rom Soc Cell Biol. 25(4): 2580–2597. Available: http://annalsofrscb.ro . Accessed 12 Mar 2023

Jung J, Maeda M, Chang A, Bhandari M, Ashapure A, Landivar-Bowles J (2021) The potential of remote sensing and artificial intelligence as tools to improve the resilience of agriculture production systems. Curr Opin Biotechnol 70:15–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2020.09.003

Karadağ K, Tenekeci ME, Taşaltın R, Bilgili A (2020) Detection of pepper fusarium disease using machine learning algorithms based on spectral reflectance. Sustain Comput Inform Syst. 28

Kaur N, Devendran V (2020) Novel plant leaf disease detection based on optimize segmentation and law mask feature extraction with SVM classifier. Mater Today Proc

Khan MA, Ali M, Shah M, Mahmood T, Ahmad M, Jhanjhi NZ et al (2021) Machine learning-based detection and classification of walnut fungi diseases. Intell Autom Soft Comput 30(3):771–785

van Klompenburg T, Kassahun A, Catal C (2020) Crop yield prediction using machine learning: A systematic literature review. Comput Electron Agric. Elsevier B.V. Vol. 177

Kong W, Liu F, Zhang C, Bao Y, Yu J, He Y (2014) Fast detection of peroxidase (POD) activity in tomato leaves which infected with Botrytis cinerea using hyperspectral imaging. Spectrochim Acta - Part A Mol Biomol Spectrosc 118:498–502

Kounalakis T, Triantafyllidis GA, Nalpantidis L (2019) Deep learning-based visual recognition of rumex for robotic precision farming. Comput Electron Agric. 165(October). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2019.104973

Kulkarni P, Karwande A, Kolhe T, Kamble S, Joshi A, Wyawahare M. Plant Disease Detection Using Image Processing and Machine Learning

Kumar KKEK (2022) Detection of rice plant disease using AdaBoostSVM classifier. Agron J 114(4):2213–2229

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Lampridi MG, Sørensen CG, Bochtis D (2019) Agricultural sustainability: A review of concepts and methods. Sustain. 11(18). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11185120

Lan Y, Huang Z, Deng X, Zhu Z, Huang H, Zheng Z, et al. (2020) Comparison of machine learning methods for citrus greening detection on UAV multispectral images. Comput Electron Agric. 171

Langemeier M, Dobbins C, Nielsen B, Vyn T, Casteel S, Johnson B (2021) Purdue Crop Cost & Return Guide, Purdue University, 2021

Leonardo MM, Carvalho TJ, Rezende E, Zucchi R, Faria FA (2019) Deep Feature-Based Classifiers for Fruit Fly Identification (Diptera: Tephritidae). Proc - 31st Conf Graph Patterns Images. SIBGRAPI 2018:41–47. https://doi.org/10.1109/SIBGRAPI.2018.00012

Li N, Ren Z, Li D, Zeng L (2020) Review: Automated techniques for monitoring the behaviour and welfare of broilers and laying hens: towards the goal of precision livestock farming. Animal 14(3):617–625. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731119002155

Li D, Yang W, Wang S (2010) Classification of foreign fibers in cotton lint using machine vision and multi-class support vector machine. Comput Electron Agric 74(2):274–279

Liakos K, Busato P, Moshou D, Pearson S, Bochtis D (2018) Machine Learning in Agriculture: A Review. Sensors 18(8):2674. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18082674

Lindenthal M, Steiner U, Dehne HW, Oerke EC (2005) Effect of downy mildew development on transpiration of cucumber leaves visualized by digital infrared thermography. Phytopathology 95(3):233–240. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-95-0233

Liu Y et al (2022) Forest pest identification based on a new dataset and convolutional neural network model with enhancement strategy. Comput Electron Agric. 192(June 2021):106625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2021.106625

Loey M, ElSawy A, Afify M (2020) Deep learning in plant diseases detection for agricultural crops: A survey. Int J Serv Sci Manag Eng Technol 11(2):41–58. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJSSMET.2020040103

Mayuri KP, Priya VC (2018) Role of Image Processing and Machine Learning Techniques in Disease Recognition, Diagnosis and Yield Prediction of Crops: a Review. Int J Adv Res Comput Sci. 9(2):975–8887. https://doi.org/10.26483/ijarcs.v9i2.5793

Meng T, Jing X, Yan Z, Pedrycz W (2020) A survey on machine learning for data fusion. Inf Fusion 57:115–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.001

Meshram V, Patil K, Meshram V, Hanchate D, Ramkteke SD (2021) Machine learning in agriculture domain: A state-of-art survey. Artif Intell Life Sci 1:100010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ailsci.2021.100010 . ( ISSN 2667-3185 )

Milioto A, Lottes P, Stachniss C (2017) Real-time blob-wise sugar beets vs weeds classification for monitoring fields using convolutional neural networks. ISPRS Ann Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci 4(2W3):41–48. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-annals-IV-2-W3-41-2017

Moshia ME, Newete SW (2019) Mexican poppy (Argemone mexicana) control in cornfield using deep learning neural networks: a perspective. Acta Agric Scand Sect B Soil Plant Sci 69(3):228–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064710.2018.1536225

Mourtzinis S, Esker PD, Specht JE et al (2021) Advancing agricultural research using machine learning algorithms. Sci Rep 11(1):17879. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-97380-7

Myers SS et al (2017) Climate Change and Global Food Systems: Potential Impacts on Food Security and Undernutrition. Annu Rev Public Health 38(December):259–277. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044356

Neelakantan P (2022) Analyzing the best machine learning algorithm for plant disease classification. Mater Today Proc

Nilsson H-E (1995) Remote sensing and image analysis in plant pathology. Available: www.annualreviews.org . Accessed 17 Mar 2023

Ning X, Tian W, Yu Z, Li W, Bai X, Wang Y (2022) HCFNN: High-order coverage function neural network for image classification. Pattern Recog 131:108873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2022.108873

Ning X, Xu S, Nan F, Zeng Q, Wang C, Cai W, Li W, Jiang Y (2022) Face editing based on facial recognition features. IEEE Trans Cogn Dev Syst 14(5):1547–1558. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCDS.2022.3182650

Oppermann R, Paracchini M (2012) HNV Farming–Central to European Cultural Landscapes and Biodiversity. High Nature Value Farming in Europe: 35 European Countries—Experiences and Perspectives; Verlag Regionalkultur: Ubstadt-Weiher, Germany

Ouhami M, Hafiane A, Es-Saady Y, El Hajji M, Canals R (2021) Computer vision, IoT and data fusion for crop disease detection using machine learning: A survey and ongoing research. Remote Sensing. MDPI AG, Vol. 13

Ozyurp B, Sunol AK, Camurdan MC, Mogilp P, Hall LO (1998) Chemical plant fault diagnosis through a hybrid symbolic-connectionist machine learning approach. Comput Chem Eng 22:299–321

Partel V, Charan Kakarla S, Ampatzidis Y (2019) Development and evaluation of a low-cost and smart technology for precision weed management utilizing artificial intelligence. Comput Electron Agric. 157(December 2018):339–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2018.12.048

Patrício DI, Rieder R (2018) Computer vision and artificial intelligence in precision agriculture for grain crops: A systematic review. Comput Electron Agric 153(August):69–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2018.08.001

Peng H, Li Z, Zhou Z, Shao Y (2022) Weed detection in paddy field using an improved RetinaNet network. Comput Electron Agric. 199:107179. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPAG.2022.107179

Pérez AJ, Pez FL, Benlloch JV, Christensen S (2000) Colour and shape analysis techniques for weed detection in cereal fields. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. Vol. 25. Available from: www.elsevier.com/locate/compag . Accessed 17 Mar 2023

Prasad BR, Ramashri T, Naidu KR (2020) Vectored machine learning rearing process: Early Detection of leaf diseases. J Sci Ind Res 79(7):619–625

Pritam Patil MC, Patil DD, Subramanium P (2020) Detection and Identification of Rice Leaf Diseases using Multiclass SVM. Int Res J Eng Technol. Available from: www.irjet.net . Accessed 17 Mar 2023

Pushpanathan K, Hanafi M, Mashohor S, FazlilIlahi WF (2021) Machine learning in medicinal plants recognition: a review. Artif Intell Rev 54(1):305–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-020-09847-0

Raza SEA, Prince G, Clarkson JP, Rajpoot NM (2015) Automatic detection of diseased tomato plants using thermal and stereo visible light images. PLoS One. 10(4)

Römer C, Bürling K, Hunsche M, Rumpf T, Noga G, Plümer L (2011) Robust fitting of fluorescence spectra for pre-symptomatic wheat leaf rust detection with Support Vector Machines. Comput Electron Agric 79(2):180–188

Rosegrant MW, Ringler C, Zhu T (2009) Water for agriculture: Maintaining food security under growing scarcity. Annu Rev Environ Resour 34:205–222

Rumpf T, Mahlein AK, Steiner U, Oerke EC, Dehne HW, Plümer L (2010) Early detection and classification of plant diseases with Support Vector Machines based on hyperspectral reflectance. Comput Electron Agric 74(1):91–99

Saggi MK, Jain S (2019) Reference evapotranspiration estimation and modeling of the Punjab Northern India using deep learning. Comput Electron Agric 156:387–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2018.11.031

Saleem R, Shah JH, Sharif M, Yasmin M, Yong HS, Cha J (2021) Mango leaf disease recognition and classification using novel segmentation and vein pattern technique. Appl Sci. 11(24)

Samuel AL (1959) Some Studies in Machine Learning Using the Game of Checkers. IBM J Res Dev 44(1):206–226. https://doi.org/10.1147/rd.441.0206

dos Santos Ferreira A, Freitas DM, da Silva GG, Pistori H, Folhes MT (2019) Unsupervised deep learning and semi-automatic data labeling in weed discrimination. Comput Electron Agric. 165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2019.104963

Shrivastava VK, Pradhan MK (2021) Rice plant disease classification using color features: a machine learning paradigm. J Plant Pathol 103(1):17–26

Silva DM, Bernardin T, Fanton K, Nepaul R, Pádua L, Sousa JJ, et al. (2021) Automatic detection of Flavescense Dorée grapevine disease in hyperspectral images using machine learning. In: Procedia Computer Science. Elsevier B.V.; 125–32

Sobiyaa P, Jayareka KS, Maheshkumar K, Naveena S, Rao KS (2022) Paddy disease classification using machine learning technique. Mater Today Proc

Soltani N et al (2016) Potential Corn Yield Losses from Weeds in North America. Weed Technol 30(4):979–984. https://doi.org/10.1614/wt-d-16-00046.1

Song X, Zhang G, Liu F, Li D, Zhao Y, Yang J (2016) Modeling spatio-temporal distribution of soil moisture by deep learning-based cellular automata model. J Arid Land 8(5):734–748. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40333-016-0049-0

Sonka ST (2016) Big data: Fueling the next evolution of agricultural innovation. J Innov Manag 4(1):114–136. https://doi.org/10.24840/2183-0606_004.001_0008

Sørensen CAG, Kateris D, Bochtis D (2019) ICT Innovations and Smart Farming. Commun Comput Inf Sci 953:1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12998-9_1

Sowmya BJ, Shetty C, Seema S, Srinivasa KG (2020) Chapter 7 - Utility system for premature plant disease detection using machine learning. Siddhartha Bhattacharyya VSDGAK, editor. 149–172

Su WH (2020) Advanced machine learning in point spectroscopy, rgb-and hyperspectral-imaging for automatic discriminations of crops and weeds: A review. Smart Cities 3(3):767–792. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities3030039

Subeesh A et al (2022) Deep convolutional neural network models for weed detection in polyhouse grown bell peppers. Artif Intell Agric 6:47–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aiia.2022.01.002

Sundmaeker H, Verdouw CN, Wolfert J (2016) Freire LP (2016) Internet of Food and Farm 2020. In: Vermesan O, Friess P (eds) Digitising the Industry. River Publishers, Ljubljana, Slovenia, pp 129–150

Sunil GC, Zhang Y, Koparan C, Ahmed MR, Howatt K, Sun X (2022) Weed and crop species classification using computer vision and deep learning technologies in greenhouse conditions. J Agric Food Res. 9(June):100325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2022.100325

Tang J, Arvor D, Corpetti T, Tang P (2021) Mapping center pivot irrigation systems in the southern amazon from sentinel-2 images. Water (Switzerland) 13(3):1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13030298

Thenmozhi K, Reddy US (2019) Crop pest classification based on deep convolutional neural network and transfer learning. Comput Electron Agric. 164(June):104906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2019.104906

Tian K, Li J, Zeng J, Evans A, Zhang L (2019) Segmentation of tomato leaf images based on adaptive clustering number of K-means algorithm. Comput Electron Agric.165

Vázquez-Hernández MC, Parola-Contreras I, Montoya-Gómez LM, Torres-Pacheco I, Schwarz D, Guevara-González RG (2019) Eustressors: Chemical and physical stress factors used to enhance vegetables production. Sci Hortic (Amsterdam) 250:223–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2019.02.053

Virnodkar SS, Pachghare VK, Patil VC, Jha SK (2020) Remote sensing and machine learning for crop water stress determination in various crops: a critical review. 21(5). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-020-09711-9

Wäldchen J, Rzanny M, Seeland M, Mäder P (2018) Automated plant species identification—Trends and future directions. PLoS Comput Biol 14(4):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005993

Wang C, Wang X, Zhang J, Zhang L, Bai X, Ning X, Zhou J, Hancock E (2022) Uncertainty Estimation for Stereo Matching Based on Evidential Deep Learning. Pattern Recog 124:108498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2021.108498

Wang A, Xu Y, Wei X, Cui B (2020) Semantic Segmentation of Crop and Weed using an Encoder-Decoder Network and Image Enhancement Method under Uncontrolled Outdoor Illumination. IEEE Access 8:81724–81734. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2991354

Wang A, Zhang W, Wei X (2019) A review on weed detection using ground-based machine vision and image processing techniques. Comput Electron Agric 158(January):226–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2019.02.005

Wen Z, Tao Y (1999) Building a rule-based machine-vision system for defect inspection on apple sorting and packing lines. Expert Syst Appl 16(3):307–313

Xu G, Zhang F, Shah SG, Ye Y, Mao H (2011) Use of leaf color images to identify nitrogen and potassium deficient tomatoes. Pattern Recognit Lett 32(11):1584–1590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2011.04.020

Yashodha G, Shalini D (2020) An integrated approach for predicting and broadcasting tea leaf disease at early stage using IoT with machine learning - A review. Mater Today Proc. 37(Part 2):484–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.05.458

Yuan Y, Chen L, Wu H, Li L (2022) Advanced agricultural disease image recognition technologies: A review. Inf Process Agric 9(1):48–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inpa.2021.01.003

Zamani AS, Anand L, Rane KP, Prabhu P, Buttar AM, Pallathadka H, et al. (2022) Performance of Machine Learning and Image Processing in Plant Leaf Disease Detection. J Food Qual. 2022

Zecca F (2019) The Use of Internet of Things for the Sustainability of the Agricultural Sector: The Case of Climate Smart Agriculture. Int J Civ Eng Technol, 10(03): 494–501: http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp

Zhou J, Fu X, Zhou S, Zhou J, Ye H, Nguyen HT (2019) Automated segmentation of soybean plants from 3D point cloud using machine learning. Comput Electron Agric 162:143–153

Zhou R, Kaneko S, Tanaka F, Kayamori M, Shimizu M (2014) Disease detection of Cercospora Leaf Spot in sugar beet by robust template matching. Comput Electron Agric 108:58–70

Zou K, Ge L, Zhou H, Zhang C, Li W (2021) Broccoli seedling pest damage degree evaluation based on machine learning combined with color and shape features. Inf Process Agric 8(4):505–514

Zubler AV, Yoon JY (2020) Proximal Methods for Plant Stress Detection Using Optical Sensors and Machine Learning. Biosensors. 10(12), https://doi.org/10.3390/BIOS10120193

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Computer Science and Engineering, NIT, Hamirpur, 177005, HP, India

Ishana Attri, Lalit Kumar Awasthi & Teek Parval Sharma

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ishana Attri .

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interests/competing interests.

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Lalit Kumar Awasthi and Teek Parval Sharma contributed equally to this work.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Attri, I., Awasthi, L.K. & Sharma, T.P. Machine learning in agriculture: a review of crop management applications. Multimed Tools Appl 83 , 12875–12915 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-023-16105-2

Download citation

Received : 16 September 2022

Revised : 03 May 2023

Accepted : 26 June 2023

Published : 01 July 2023

Issue Date : February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-023-16105-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Machine learning
• Agriculture
• Stress detection
• Plant disease detection
• Pest and weed detection
• Smart farms
• Crop yield prediction
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Author Biographies
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

A review of machine learning techniques in agroclimatic studies.

1. Introduction

• What are the fundamental ML and AutoML methods used in assessing climate change impacts in agriculture?
• What performance metrics and evaluation methods are utilized to gauge the effectiveness of ML models in climate adaptation and mitigation within agriculture?
• What are the limitations and challenges in applying ML to climate change studies in agriculture?
• How prevalent are ML techniques compared to AutoML approaches in current climate science research?

2. Advancing Agriculture through Machine Learning

2.1. ml’s techniques in agricultural practices, 2.2. distinguishing between ml and dl in agricultural applications, 2.3. enhancing ml accessibility in agriculture with automl, 3. applications of ml and dl in agriculture, 4. search, screening, and review process, 5. results and discussion, 5.1. algorithms and metrics used in agriculture applications, 5.2. challenges and best practices in applying ml to agriculture, 5.3. transparency gaps in data processing for agricultural ml, 5.4. challenges in model architecture and training transparency, 5.5. enhancing replicability and scalability in agriculture through automl, 5.6. future research directions, 6. conclusions, author contributions, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Calvin, K.; Fisher-Vanden, K. Quantifying the indirect impacts of climate on agriculture: An inter-method comparison. Environ. Res. Lett. 2017 , 12 , 115004. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wheeler, T.; Von Braun, J. Climate change impacts on global food security. Science 2013 , 341 , 508–513. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lesk, C.; Rowhani, P.; Ramankutty, N. Influence of extreme weather disasters on global crop production. Nature 2016 , 529 , 84–87. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Futia, G.; Vetrò, A. On the Integration of Knowledge Graphs into Deep Learning Models for a More Comprehensible AI—Three Challenges for Future Research. Information 2020 , 11 , 122. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Domingues, T.; Brandão, T.; Ferreira, J.C. Machine Learning for Detection and Prediction of Crop Diseases and Pests: A Comprehensive Survey. Agriculture 2022 , 12 , 1350. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sharma, A.; Jain, A.; Gupta, P.; Chowdary, V. Machine Learning Applications for Precision Agriculture: A Comprehensive Review. IEEE Access 2021 , 9 , 4843–4873. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liakos, K.G.; Busato, P.; Moshou, D.; Pearson, S.; Bochtis, D. Machine Learning in Agriculture: A Review. Sensors 2018 , 18 , 2674. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kamilaris, A.; Prenafeta-Boldú, F.X. Deep learning in agriculture: A survey. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2018 , 147 , 70–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Weersink, A.; Fraser, E.; Pannell, D.; Duncan, E.; Rotz, S. Opportunities and challenges for big data in agricultural and environmental analysis. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2018 , 10 , 19–37. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhu, J.J.; Yang, M.; Ren, Z.J. Machine Learning in Environmental Research: Common Pitfalls and Best Practices. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023 , 57 , 17671–17689. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• He, X.; Zhao, K.; Chu, X. AutoML: A survey of the state-of-the-art. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2021 , 212 , 106622. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Salehin, I.; Islam, M.S.; Saha, P.; Noman, S.; Tuni, A.; Hasan, M.M.; Baten, M.A. AutoML: A systematic review on automated machine learning with neural architecture search. J. Inf. Intell. 2024 , 2 , 52–81. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• 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. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sharma, R.; Kamble, S.S.; Gunasekaran, A.; Kumar, V.; Kumar, A. A systematic literature review on machine learning applications for sustainable agriculture supply chain performance. Comput. Oper. Res. 2020 , 119 , 104926. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Benos, L.; Tagarakis, A.C.; Dolias, G.; Berruto, R.; Kateris, D.; Bochtis, D. Machine Learning in Agriculture: A Comprehensive Updated Review. Sensors 2021 , 21 , 3758. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Peng, W.; Karimi Sadaghiani, O. A review on the applications of machine learning and deep learning in agriculture section for the production of crop biomass raw materials. Energy Sources Part A Recover. Util. Environ. Eff. 2023 , 45 , 9178–9201. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mohamed, S.A.; Metwaly, M.M.; Metwalli, M.R.; AbdelRahman, M.A.E.; Badreldin, N. Integrating Active and Passive Remote Sensing Data for Mapping Soil Salinity Using Machine Learning and Feature Selection Approaches in Arid Regions. Remote Sens. 2023 , 15 , 1751. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Maheswari, M.U.; Ramani, R. A Comparative Study of Agricultural Crop Yield Prediction Using Machine Learning Techniques. In Proceedings of the 2023 9th International Conference on Advanced Computing and Communication Systems (ICACCS), Coimbatore, India, 17–18 March 2023; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2023; Volume 1, pp. 1428–1433. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuradusenge, M.; Hitimana, E.; Hanyurwimfura, D.; Rukundo, P.; Mtonga, K.; Mukasine, A.; Uwitonze, C.; Ngabonziza, J.; Uwamahoro, A. Crop Yield Prediction Using Machine Learning Models: Case of Irish Potato and Maize. Agriculture 2023 , 13 , 225. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Prem, G.; Hema, M.; Basava, L.; Mathur, A. Plant Disease Prediction using Machine Learning Algorithms. IJCA 2018 , 182 , 0975-8887. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sai, P.M.; SushmaSri, V.; Sailu, V.H.; Pradeepthi, U.; Kavitha, M.; Kavitha, S. Detection Of Leaf Diseases In Modern Agriculture Using Deep Learning Techniques. In Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Computer Communication and Informatics (ICCCI), Coimbatore, India, 23–25 January 2023; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2023; pp. 1–6. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pawar, D.; Rais Allauddin Mulla, D.S.H.; Shikalgar, S.; Jethva, H.B.; Patel, G.A. A Novel Hybrid AI Federated ML/DL Models for Classification of Soil Components. Int. J. Recent Innov. Trends Comput. Commun. 2022 , 10 , 190–199. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kumar, R.; Chug, A.; Singh, A.P.; Singh, D. A Systematic Analysis of Machine Learning and Deep Learning Based Approaches for Plant Leaf Disease Classification: A Review. J. Sens. 2022 , 2022 , e3287561. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sirsat, M.; Cernadas, E.; Fernández-Delgado, M.; Barro, S. Automatic prediction of village-wise soil fertility for several nutrients in India using a wide range of regression methods. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2018 , 154 , 120–133. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Elavarasan, D.; Vincent, D.R.; Sharma, V.; Zomaya, A.Y.; Srinivasan, K. Forecasting yield by integrating agrarian factors and machine learning models: A survey. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2018 , 155 , 257–282. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kouadio, L.; Deo, R.C.; Byrareddy, V.; Adamowski, J.F.; Mushtaq, S. Artificial intelligence approach for the prediction of Robusta coffee yield using soil fertility properties. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2018 , 155 , 324–338. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chala, A.T.; Ray, R.P. Machine Learning Techniques for Soil Characterization Using Cone Penetration Test Data. Appl. Sci. 2023 , 13 , 8286. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Keerthana, M.; Meghana, K.; Pravallika, S.; Kavitha, M. An ensemble algorithm for crop yield prediction. In Proceedings of the 2021 Third International Conference on Intelligent Communication Technologies and Virtual Mobile Networks (ICICV), Tirunelveli, India, 4–6 February 2021; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2021; pp. 963–970. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shook, J.; Gangopadhyay, T.; Wu, L.; Ganapathysubramanian, B.; Sarkar, S.; Singh, A.K. Crop yield prediction integrating genotype and weather variables using deep learning. PLoS ONE 2021 , 16 , e0252402. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Singh, G.; Singh, S.; Sethi, G.; Sood, V. Deep learning in the mapping of agricultural land use using Sentinel-2 satellite data. Geographies 2022 , 2 , 691–700. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wolanin, A.; Mateo-García, G.; Camps-Valls, G.; Gómez-Chova, L.; Meroni, M.; Duveiller, G.; Liangzhi, Y.; Guanter, L. Estimating and understanding crop yields with explainable deep learning in the Indian Wheat Belt. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020 , 15 , 024019. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fenu, G.; Malloci, F.M. An Application of Machine Learning Technique in Forecasting Crop Disease. In Proceedings of the 2019 3rd International Conference on Big Data Research, Cergy-Pontoise, France, 20–22 November 2019; pp. 76–82. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhuang, L. Deep-Learning-Based Diagnosis of Cassava Leaf Diseases Using Vision Transformer. In Proceedings of the 2021 4th Artificial Intelligence and Cloud Computing Conference, AICCC ’21, New York, NY, USA, 17–19 December 2022; pp. 74–79. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cravero, A.; Sepúlveda, S. Use and Adaptations of Machine Learning in Big Data—Applications in Real Cases in Agriculture. Electronics 2021 , 10 , 552. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Elnashar, H.S. Deep Learning: Potato, Sweet Potato Protection and Leafs Diseases Detections. In Integrated Emerging Methods of Artificial Intelligence & Cloud Computing ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 529–539. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kumar, M.; Kumar, A.; Palaparthy, V.S. Soil Sensors-Based Prediction System for Plant Diseases Using Exploratory Data Analysis and Machine Learning. IEEE Sens. J. 2021 , 21 , 17455–17468. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fernández, D.; Adermann, E.; Pizzolato, M.; Pechenkin, R.; Rodríguez, C.G.; Taravat, A. Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning Algorithms for Soil Erosion Modelling Based on Remotely Sensed Data. Remote Sens. 2023 , 15 , 482. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, H.; Croot, P.; Zhang, C. Discovering hidden spatial patterns and their associations with controlling factors for potentially toxic elements in topsoil using hot spot analysis and K-means clustering analysis. Environ. Int. 2021 , 151 , 106456. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Feng, Z.; Huang, G.; Chi, D. Classification of the complex agricultural planting structure with a semi-supervised extreme learning machine framework. Remote Sens. 2020 , 12 , 3708. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• 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. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wolpert, D.H.; Macready, W.G. No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 1997 , 1 , 67–82. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barbudo, R.; Ventura, S.; Romero, J.R. Eight years of AutoML: Categorisation, review and trends. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 2023 , 65 , 5097–5149. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Meng, F.; Li, J.; Zhang, Y.; Qi, S.; Tang, Y. Transforming unmanned pineapple picking with spatio-temporal convolutional neural networks. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2023 , 214 , 108298. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sörensen, K. Metaheuristics—The metaphor exposed. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 2015 , 22 , 3–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Loizou, E.; Karelakis, C.; Galanopoulos, K.; Mattas, K. The role of agriculture as a development tool for a regional economy. Agric. Syst. 2019 , 173 , 482–490. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gitz, V.; Meybeck, A.; Lipper, L.; Young, C.D.; Braatz, S. Climate change and food security: Risks and responses. Food Agric. Organ. United Nations (FAO) Rep. 2016 , 110 , 3–36. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang, Q.; Liu, Y.; Gong, C.; Chen, Y.; Yu, H. Applications of Deep Learning for Dense Scenes Analysis in Agriculture: A Review. Sensors 2020 , 20 , 1520. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Joshi, A.; Pradhan, B.; Gite, S.; Chakraborty, S. Remote-Sensing Data and Deep-Learning Techniques in Crop Mapping and Yield Prediction: A Systematic Review. Remote Sens. 2023 , 15 , 2014. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kumar, S.; Prasad, K.; Srilekha, A.; Suman, T.; Rao, B.P.; Vamshi Krishna, J.N. Leaf Disease Detection and Classification based on Machine Learning. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Smart Technologies in Computing, Electrical and Electronics (ICSTCEE), Bengaluru, India, 9–10 October 2020; pp. 361–365. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Khanal, S.B.; Lynch, J.P. The opening of Pandora’s Box: Climate change impacts on soil fertility and crop nutrition in developing countries. Plant Soil 2010 , 335 , 101–115. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Khanal, S.; Fulton, J.; Klopfenstein, A.; Douridas, N.; Shearer, S. Integration of high resolution remotely sensed data and machine learning techniques for spatial prediction of soil properties and corn yield. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2018 , 153 , 213–225. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Prabha, C.; Pathak, A. Enabling Technologies in Smart Agriculture: A Way Forward Towards Future Fields. In Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Advancement in Computation & Computer Technologies (InCACCT), Gharuan, India, 5–6 May 2023; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2023; pp. 821–826. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blair, G.S.; Henrys, P.; Leeson, A.; Watkins, J.; Eastoe, E.; Jarvis, S.; Young, P.J. Data Science of the Natural Environment: A Research Roadmap. Front. Environ. Sci. 2019 , 7 , 121. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mafarja, M.M.; Mirjalili, S. Hybrid whale optimization algorithm with simulated annealing for feature selection. Neurocomputing 2017 , 260 , 302–312. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Raschka, S. Model evaluation, model selection, and algorithm selection in machine learning. arXiv 2018 , arXiv:1811.12808. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liaw, R.; Liang, E.; Nishihara, R.; Moritz, P.; Gonzalez, J.E.; Stoica, I. Tune: A research platform for distributed model selection and training. arXiv 2018 , arXiv:1807.05118. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guidotti, R.; Monreale, A.; Ruggieri, S.; Turini, F.; Giannotti, F.; Pedreschi, D. A survey of methods for explaining black box models. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 2018 , 51 , 1–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Feurer, M.; Eggensperger, K.; Falkner, S.; Lindauer, M.; Hutter, F. Auto-sklearn 2.0: Hands-free automl via meta-learning. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2022 , 23 , 11936–11996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kiala, Z.; Odindi, J.; Mutanga, O. Determining the capability of the tree-based pipeline optimization tool (tpot) in mapping parthenium weed using multi-date sentinel-2 image data. Remote Sens. 2022 , 14 , 1687. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• LeDell, E.; Poirier, S. H 2 O automl: Scalable automatic machine learning. In Proceedings of the AutoML Workshop at ICML, Online, 17–18 July 2020; Volume 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee, S.; Kim, J.; Bae, J.H.; Lee, G.; Yang, D.; Hong, J.; Lim, K.J. Development of Multi-Inflow Prediction Ensemble Model Based on Auto-Sklearn Using Combined Approach: Case Study of Soyang River Dam. Hydrology 2023 , 10 , 90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Laadan, D.; Vainshtein, R.; Curiel, Y.; Katz, G.; Rokach, L. MetaTPOT: Enhancing a tree-based pipeline optimization tool using meta-learning. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, Online, 19–23 October 2020; pp. 2097–2100. [ Google Scholar ]
• Azevedo, K.; Quaranta, L.; Calefato, F.; Kalinowski, M. A Multivocal Literature Review on the Benefits and Limitations of Automated Machine Learning Tools. arXiv 2024 , arXiv:2401.11366. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jala, P.K.; Meenal, R.; Nagabushanam, P.; Selvakumar, A.I.; Jude Hemanth, D.; Rajasekaran, E. Machine Learning, Deep Learning Models for Agro-Meteorology Applications. In Proceedings of the 2023 4th International Conference on Signal Processing and Communication (ICSPC), Coimbatore, India, 23–24 March 2023; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2023; pp. 196–200. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peppes, N.; Daskalakis, E.; Alexakis, T.; Adamopoulou, E.; Demestichas, K. Performance of machine learning-based multi-model voting ensemble methods for network threat detection in agriculture 4.0. Sensors 2021 , 21 , 7475. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shoaib, M.; Shah, B.; EI-Sappagh, S.; Ali, A.; Ullah, A.; Alenezi, F.; Gechev, T.; Hussain, T.; Ali, F. An advanced deep learning models-based plant disease detection: A review of recent research. Front. Plant Sci. 2023 , 14 , 1158933. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rahul Kumar, V.; Shrishti, V.; Sridhar, P.A. Corn Plant Disease Classification using a combination of Machine Learning and Deep Learning. In Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Futuristic Technologies (INCOFT), Belgaum, India, 24–26 November 2022; pp. 1–4. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aggarwal, M.; Khullar, V.; Goyal, N. Exploring Classification of Rice Leaf Diseases using Machine Learning and Deep Learning. In Proceedings of the 2023 3rd International Conference on Innovative Practices in Technology and Management (ICIPTM), Uttar Pradesh, India, 22–24 February 2023; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2023; pp. 1–6. [ Google Scholar ]
• Memon, K.; Umrani, F.A.; Baqai, A.; Syed, Z.S. A Review Based On Comparative Analysis of Techniques Used in Precision Agriculture. In Proceedings of the 2023 4th International Conference on Computing, Mathematics and Engineering Technologies (iCoMET), Sukkur, Pakistan, 17–18 March 2023; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2023; pp. 1–7. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sharma, A.; Sharma, A.; Tselykh, A.; Bozhenyuk, A.; Choudhury, T.; Alomar, M.A.; Sánchez-Chero, M. Artificial intelligence and internet of things oriented sustainable precision farming: Towards modern agriculture. Open Life Sci. 2023 , 18 , 20220713. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Golatkar, N.; Hemalatha, N. Applications of deep learning in agriculture (pest-detection). Redshine Arch. 2023 , 1 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ahmed, A.A.; Reddy, G.H. A mobile-based system for detecting plant leaf diseases using deep learning. AgriEngineering 2021 , 3 , 478–493. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Araújo, S.O.; Peres, R.S.; Ramalho, J.C.; Lidon, F.; Barata, J. Machine Learning Applications in Agriculture: Current Trends, Challenges, and Future Perspectives. Agronomy 2023 , 13 , 2976. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jones, J.W.; Antle, J.M.; Basso, B.; Boote, K.J.; Conant, R.T.; Foster, I.; Godfray, H.C.J.; Herrero, M.; Howitt, R.E.; Janssen, S.; et al. Toward a new generation of agricultural system data, models, and knowledge products: State of agricultural systems science. Agric. Syst. 2017 , 155 , 269–288. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Crane-Droesch, A. Machine learning methods for crop yield prediction and climate change impact assessment in agriculture. Environ. Res. Lett. 2018 , 13 , 114003. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Karmaker, S.K.; Hassan, M.M.; Smith, M.J.; Xu, L.; Zhai, C.; Veeramachaneni, K. Automl to date and beyond: Challenges and opportunities. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 2021 , 54 , 1–36. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hutter, F.; Kotthoff, L.; Vanschoren, J. Automated Machine Learning: Methods, Systems, Challenges ; Springer Nature: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Feurer, M.; Hutter, F. Hyperparameter optimization. In Automated Machine Learning: Methods, Systems, Challenges ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 3–33. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gardner, S.; Golovidov, O.; Griffin, J.; Koch, P.; Shi, R.; Wujek, B.; Xu, Y. Fair AutoML Through Multi-objective Optimization. In Proceedings of the ESEC/FSE 2023: 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering Fix Fairness, Don’t Ruin Accuracy: Performance Aware Fairness Repair Using AutoML, San Francisco, CA, USA, 3–9 December 2023; pp. 502–514. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryo, M. Explainable artificial intelligence and interpretable machine learning for agricultural data analysis. Artif. Intell. Agric. 2022 , 6 , 257–265. [ Google Scholar ]
• Khuat, T.T.; Kedziora, D.J.; Gabrys, B. The roles and modes of human interactions with automated machine learning systems. arXiv 2022 , arXiv:2205.04139. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee, D.J.L.; Macke, S. A Human-in-the-loop Perspective on AutoML: Milestones and the Road Ahead. IEEE Data Eng. Bull. 2020 , 42 , 59–70. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liashchynskyi, P.; Liashchynskyi, P. Grid search, random search, genetic algorithm: A big comparison for NAS. arXiv 2019 , arXiv:1912.06059. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stamoulis, D.; Ding, R.; Wang, D.; Lymberopoulos, D.; Priyantha, B.; Liu, J.; Marculescu, D. Single-path mobile automl: Efficient convnet design and nas hyperparameter optimization. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process. 2020 , 14 , 609–622. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Tamayo-Vera, D.; Wang, X.; Mesbah, M. A Review of Machine Learning Techniques in Agroclimatic Studies. Agriculture 2024 , 14 , 481. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14030481

Tamayo-Vera D, Wang X, Mesbah M. A Review of Machine Learning Techniques in Agroclimatic Studies. Agriculture . 2024; 14(3):481. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14030481

Tamayo-Vera, Dania, Xiuquan Wang, and Morteza Mesbah. 2024. "A Review of Machine Learning Techniques in Agroclimatic Studies" Agriculture 14, no. 3: 481. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14030481

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

• DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3048415
• Corpus ID: 231618470

Machine Learning Applications for Precision Agriculture: A Comprehensive Review

• Abhinav Sharma , Arpit Jain , +1 author V. Chowdary
• Published in IEEE Access 2021
• Agricultural and Food Sciences, Computer Science, Engineering

Figures and Tables from this paper

302 Citations

Machine learning applications in agriculture: a review for opportunities, challenges, and outcomes.

• Highly Influenced

Machine Learning & Internet of Things in Plant Disease Detection: A comprehensive Review

Application of machine learning in agriculture: recent trends and future research avenues, application of machine learning techniques in modern agriculture: a review, artificial intelligence technology in the agricultural sector: a systematic literature review, machine learning in agriculture domain: a state-of-art survey, comprehensive survey on applications of internet of things, machine learning and artificial intelligence in precision agriculture, crop prediction from soil parameters using light ensemble learning model, smart farming prediction models for precision agriculture: a comprehensive survey.

• 20 Excerpts

An Assessment of the Machine Learning Algorithms Used in Agriculture

205 references, machine learning in agriculture: a review, a comprehensive review on automation in agriculture using artificial intelligence, sensors driven ai-based agriculture recommendation model for assessing land suitability, machine learning approaches for crop yield prediction and nitrogen status estimation in precision agriculture: a review, crop yield prediction and efficient use of fertilizers, review—machine learning techniques in wireless sensor network based precision agriculture, a systematic literature review on machine learning applications for sustainable agriculture supply chain performance, iot and machine learning approaches for automation of farm irrigation system, predictive analysis to improve crop yield using a neural network model, intelligent irrigation system using artificial intelligence and machine learning: a comprehensive review, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers