Integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into agriculture is a pivotal solution to address the pressing challenges posed by rapid population growth and escalating food demand. Traditional farming methods, unable to cope with this surge, often resort to harmful pesticides, deteriorating soil health. However, the advent of AI promises a transformative shift toward sustainable agricultural practices. In the context of the United States, AI's historical trajectory within the agricultural sector showcases a remarkable evolution from rudimentary applications to sophisticated systems focused on optimizing production and quality. The future of American agriculture lies in AI-driven innovations, spanning various facets such as image sensing for yield mapping, labor management, yield optimization, and decision support for farmers. Despite its numerous advantages, the deployment of AI in agriculture does not come without challenges. This paper delved into both the benefits and drawbacks of AI adoption in the agricultural domain, examining its impact on the agro-industry and the environment. It scrutinized the emergence of robot farmers and AI's role in reshaping farming practices while acknowledging the inherent problems associated with AI implementation, including accessibility, data privacy, and potential job displacement. Moreover, the study explored how AI tools can catalyze the development of agribusiness, offering insights into overcoming existing challenges through innovative solutions. By comprehensively understanding the opportunities and obstacles entailed in AI integration, stakeholders can navigate the agricultural landscape adeptly, fostering a more sustainable and resilient food system for future generations.
Citation: Jahanara Akter, Sadia Islam Nilima, Rakibul Hasan, Anamika Tiwari, Md Wali Ullah, Md Kamruzzaman. Artificial intelligence on the agro-industry in the United States of America[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2024, 9(4): 959-979. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2024052
| [1] | Giulia Ambrosi, Pamela Milani . Endoplasmic reticulum, oxidative stress and their complex crosstalk in neurodegeneration: proteostasis, signaling pathways and molecular chaperones. AIMS Molecular Science, 2017, 4(4): 424-444. doi: 10.3934/molsci.2017.4.424 |
| [2] | Jehad Shaikhali, Gunnar Wingsle . Redox-regulated transcription in plants: Emerging concepts. AIMS Molecular Science, 2017, 4(3): 301-338. doi: 10.3934/molsci.2017.3.301 |
| [3] | Mayuko Ichimura, Akari Minami, Noriko Nakano, Yasuko Kitagishi, Toshiyuki Murai, Satoru Matsuda . Cigarette smoke may be an exacerbation factor in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease via modulation of the PI3K/AKT pathway. AIMS Molecular Science, 2015, 2(4): 427-439. doi: 10.3934/molsci.2015.4.427 |
| [4] | Zhaoping Qin, Patrick Robichaud, Taihao Quan . Oxidative stress and CCN1 protein in human skin connective tissue aging. AIMS Molecular Science, 2016, 3(2): 269-279. doi: 10.3934/molsci.2016.2.269 |
| [5] | Vittorio Emanuele Bianchi, Giancarlo Falcioni . Reactive oxygen species, health and longevity. AIMS Molecular Science, 2016, 3(4): 479-504. doi: 10.3934/molsci.2016.4.479 |
| [6] | Akshaj Pole, Manjari Dimri, Goberdhan P. Dimri . Oxidative stress, cellular senescence and ageing. AIMS Molecular Science, 2016, 3(3): 300-324. doi: 10.3934/molsci.2016.3.300 |
| [7] | Carlos Gutierrez-Merino, Dorinda Marques-da-Silva, Sofia Fortalezas, Alejandro K. Samhan-Arias . The critical role of lipid rafts nanodomains in the cross-talk between calcium and reactive oxygen and nitrogen species in cerebellar granule neurons apoptosis by extracellular potassium deprivation. AIMS Molecular Science, 2016, 3(1): 12-29. doi: 10.3934/molsci.2016.1.12 |
| [8] | Viktor Semenkov, Anatolii Mikhalskii, Alexandr Sapoznikov . Influence of heat shock proteins in individual sensitivity of human neutrophils to heat stress. AIMS Molecular Science, 2019, 6(2): 38-51. doi: 10.3934/molsci.2019.2.38 |
| [9] | Chitho P. Feliciano, Sandrine Cammas-Marion, Yukio Nagasaki . Recent advances in self-assembling redox nanoparticles as a radiation protective agent. AIMS Molecular Science, 2023, 10(1): 52-69. doi: 10.3934/molsci.2023005 |
| [10] | Brandt D. Pence . Recent developments and future perspectives in aging and macrophage immunometabolism. AIMS Molecular Science, 2021, 8(3): 193-201. doi: 10.3934/molsci.2021015 |
Integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into agriculture is a pivotal solution to address the pressing challenges posed by rapid population growth and escalating food demand. Traditional farming methods, unable to cope with this surge, often resort to harmful pesticides, deteriorating soil health. However, the advent of AI promises a transformative shift toward sustainable agricultural practices. In the context of the United States, AI's historical trajectory within the agricultural sector showcases a remarkable evolution from rudimentary applications to sophisticated systems focused on optimizing production and quality. The future of American agriculture lies in AI-driven innovations, spanning various facets such as image sensing for yield mapping, labor management, yield optimization, and decision support for farmers. Despite its numerous advantages, the deployment of AI in agriculture does not come without challenges. This paper delved into both the benefits and drawbacks of AI adoption in the agricultural domain, examining its impact on the agro-industry and the environment. It scrutinized the emergence of robot farmers and AI's role in reshaping farming practices while acknowledging the inherent problems associated with AI implementation, including accessibility, data privacy, and potential job displacement. Moreover, the study explored how AI tools can catalyze the development of agribusiness, offering insights into overcoming existing challenges through innovative solutions. By comprehensively understanding the opportunities and obstacles entailed in AI integration, stakeholders can navigate the agricultural landscape adeptly, fostering a more sustainable and resilient food system for future generations.
Increasing population and economic development are continuing to put a great challenge and pressure on the domestic consumption for rice in Malaysia, as rice is a staple food of its population. Rice production in the country has reached 72% of the self-sufficiency level (SSL), still eight percent short of the 80% target. This is done in order to avoid the national market shortage of rice, because a lower rice self-sufficiency rate will threaten the food security condition of the country. Despite, there are increasing in planted areas in Peninsular Malaysia, the presence of soft soil in paddy field area resulted in reducing the rice production. A soft soil is one of the major problems and dealing with such as clay was challenging task in construction phase [1,2]. The other problems have been noted such as sodicity and permeability of soil. At this current time, total area of soft soil is recorded about 8000 ha and another 5000 ha has high potential to meet the same problem. Although, several options has been adopted by the government to mitigate the soft soil, such as the establishment of irrigation and road networking. However, this problem is still persisted to occur again.
In general, soft soil is characterized with very low compaction as indicated by the soil penetration resistance value of less than 0.40 MPa [3]. This is frequently occurred in acid sulphate soil due to the weak hardpan layer that cannot support the surcharge load imposed by machinery equipment, especially during soil preparation and harvesting seasons [4]. The continuous tillage also exerts series of disruptive forces to disintegrate soil particle thus causing the soft soil problem. Depth and width of soft zone are governed by high soil water content, causing low structural porosity and high structural deformation. This is well documented that decreased in bulk density coupled with increasing in soil water caused the reduction in permissible ground pressure [5,6]. High water content and low permeability of the soil cause the waterlogged patches of water in paddy field area. The waterlogged condition will affect the poor seed germination and also causes the low soil strength, which delays the hardpan formation and eventually slow down the working efficiency in the paddy field because the land is not able to support the load pressure of machinery equipment [7]. Soft soil is also characterized by sodicity. Sodicity induces deterioration in soil structure impedes water entry into the soil and the subsequent percolation of water through the soil profile [8]. Under sodic condition, poor soil structure, restricted water movement and nutrient toxicities are the major constraints to plant growth [9]. Structural degradation arises due to clay dispersion, plugging of the soil pores and development of a calcareous hard layer in the subsoil. To mitigate soft soil in the paddy field area, Muda Agricultural Development Authority (MADA) has to stop the agricultural activities in the problematic paddy fields. This is done to make the sufficient time range in order to hardpan layer is dried and harden, but this way took a long period of time, which it will reduce the rice yield.
One of the common options to improve soft soil problem is to replace the soil with the new soil to develop better hardpan layer. This is involved the removal of soft soils and replaced with stronger material such as crushed rocks [10]. Mohd Nazim et al. [11] applied this technique in plot study scale in Alor Senibong, Kedah, Malaysia. Besides, Azizul [3] applied the vibrator subsoiler technique in paddy estate of FELCRA Seberang Perak, Malaysia. This technique used the vibrator subsoiler as a specific tool which installed in the tractor in order to make small drainages which then could discharge the excess water from the problematic soil in paddy field area. However, these techniques are expensive for local farmers which involve the dredge and compactor machines to be used. To have appropriate soil management, the farmer should understand what type of amendment that required to optimize the productivity of the soil for the crop [12].
An alternative option should be examined to warrant a cheaper solution which offers soil improvement mechanically and soil quality in terms of nutrient enrichment for better yield. Hasil Tani Organic Compound (HTOC) is an alternative product that can potentially act as organic soil amendment to increase soil quality and stability index. This is manufactured by using organic component consisting of wood residuals as well as humic acid and zeolite mineral in a specific ratio [13]. When the paddy soil is flooded for rice cultivation, soil particles started to disperse, thus organic matter of HTOC will assist the soil by binding the soil particles towards stable aggregates. Many studies have highlighted the effects of organic matter on soil physicochemical properties [14]. The amelioration of soil physicochemical properties by raising soil organic matter and organic carbon has been recommended for increasing soil quality and crop production [15]. Application of HTOC at appropriate rate is able to improve the less fertile soil such as soft soil. The mechanism of HTOC to improve soft soil was use zeolite component to help increasing the stability of soil structure and absorb the excess water in soil pores to expedite time range for hardpan layer formation. Treated plot with HTOC is showed by decrease in soil water content. Another important component of HTOC is humic acid, it is very effective for binding soil aggregates and nutrient retention of soft soils. In this paper, soil samples were taken at top soil 0–15 cm to analyze the basic properties of soft soil. The objective of study was to examine closely the effects of addition of HTOC to soft soil in order to enhance its quality and strength.
This study was conducted in the selected paddy fields that associated with soft soil problem. The study area located at Alor Senibong MADA, Langgar, Kedah, Malaysia (6°6'15.19"N and 100°27'55.74"E) (Figure 1). The paddy soil was an acid sulphate soil that classified as Tualang Series [16]. This site has experienced with the presence of soft soil that hinder the agricultural activity of this area and low rice yield with an average production of less than 2 t ha–1 season–1. Rice cultivation in this area applied the fertilizers and pesticides subsidized by Malaysian government. Department of Meteorology, Malaysia recorded the mean rainfall in year 2016 at this area was about 2364 mm year–1, with pronounced dry period in December-March annually.
Figure 1. Location of the study area.The treatments for the field trial were; T0 = 0 t HTOC ha–1 (control plot), T1 = 0.25 t HTOC ha–1 (treated plot). Total area from each of plot was about 0.58 acres. HTOC was applied after the first ploughing activities using a portable sprayer with capacity of 250 L. Only fertilizers and no lime added in the experimental plot based on the standard rate. Rice variety MR219 was used in this investigation that was commonly planted by farmers throughout Peninsular Malaysia. A total of 18 representative top soil samples 0–15 cm (three from each point) were collected randomly from the paddy plots (Figure 2). Sampling activity was divided by three different periods such as; before paddy planting (May 2016), after the first harvest (Sept 2016) and after the second harvest (Feb 2017) (Figure 3). The penetrometer measurements were recorded at the same points with three replicates reading from each of point to obtain a representative average result per plot. Then, samples were brought to the laboratory for analysis. In-situ measurement of soil strength has been done by using Hand Penetrometer Eijelkamp. The penetrometer method had a measuring range of 1000 N (10 MPa). Soil strength was measured by pushing the cone into the ground at a constant rate of 2 cm s–1. The cone used in this study had the base area of 5 cm2. The resistance is read in N (Newton) and noted for the appropriate depth. The base area of the cone should also be noted because the cone resistance was expressed in N cm–2 which then it should be converted to MPa unit.
Figure 2. Spatial distribution of sampling points in study area.
Figure 3. Flowchart of the study.After air-drying, soil samples were ground and passed through a 2 mm sieve. The following soil analysis was carried out. Soil pH was analyzed by using distilled water based on 1:2.5 ratio of soil and water which then it was measured by pH meter WTW INOLAB Level 1 [17]. Electrical conductivity was extracted into saturated gypsum and measured by meter conductivity device Model H 18819 Hanna [18]. Soil organic matter content was determined using loss on ignition method [19]. The dry combustion method was based on loss on ignition where oven dried soil samples were placed in a crucible and ignited in a muffled oven for at least 3 hours at 550 ± 25℃. The crucible with sample was cooled in the desiccator for 30 minutes and then weighed. The organic matter was than calculated from the weight loss by using correction factor for clay content. Soil water content was determined using the gravimetric method [19] and the hydraulic conductivity was determined using the falling head method described by Kirkby [20]. Particle size was determined using the pipette method with slight modification [21]. Bulk density was determined using wax method by Russell and Balcerek [22].
Exchangeable base cations (Ca2+, Mg2+, Na+ and K+) were determined by using NH4OAc extraction which then was measured by atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS) instrument. While, for exchangeable acid cations (Al3+ and H+) was extracted by 1 M KCl solution and determined by titimetric method. Then, the cation exchange capacity (CEC) was determined by the addition of base and acid cations [23]. Total carbon was determined by Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Sulphur instrument. Humic acid content in the soil was extracted by suspending the soil overnight in NaOH (0.5 mol L–1) solution and the supernatant was collected by centrifugation. The extract was then acidified up to pH 2.0 using 6 N HCl and centrifuged to obtain fulvic acid. The residue was washed with HCl (0.5 mol L–1) solution and the washings and supernatants were combined for separating humic acid.
Data from the experiment were analyzed statistically using One-way ANOVA to determine the mean difference between before and after HTOC application. The statistical package used was IBM SPSS software version 21.
Table 1 shows the basic properties of HTOC product. HTOC product has a high organic matter content of 41.59% with a pH as high as 7.98. Electrical conductivity is around 3.50 mS cm–1. Total carbon and nitrogen are about 25.80% and 0.89%, respectively. C:N ratio with the value of 29:1. Cation exchange capacity is as high as 20.81 cmolc kg–1. Humic and fulvic acid are around 4.59% and 0.19%, respectively.
| Parameter | Value |
| Organic matter (%) | 41.59 ± 0.02 |
| pH | 7.98 ± 0.01 |
| Electrical conductivity (mS cm–1) | 3.50 ± 0.81 |
| Total C (%) | 25.80 ± 0.01 |
| Total N (%) | 0.89 ± 0.01 |
| C:N | 29:1 ± 0.01 |
| Exchangeable H+ (cmolc kg–1) | 0.00 |
| Exchangeable Al3+ (cmolc kg–1) | 0.57 ± 0.25 |
| Exchangeable K+ (cmolc kg–1) | 6.98 ± 0.85 |
| Exchangeable Mg2+ (cmolc kg–1) | 3.93 ± 0.28 |
| Exchangeable Ca2+ (cmolc kg–1) | 5.18 ± 0.21 |
| Exchangeable Na+ (cmolc kg–1) | 3.21 ± 0.12 |
| Cation exchange capacity (cmolc kg–1) | 20.81 ± 1.48 |
| Base saturation (%) | 97 |
| Humic acid (%) | 4.59 ± 0.31 |
| Fulvic acid (%) | 0.19 ± 0.01 |
DownLoad: CSVTable 2 shows the effects of HTOC product on the soil properties in the field trial. The pH of treated plot has risen from 3.36 to 3.77 at the first harvest which then it reached at 4.34 at the second harvest. Mean pH of treated plot after the first and the second harvest is found significantly higher than control plot, with the value of p = 0.017 and p < 0.001, respectively at 5% level. This showed that the addition of 0.25 t HTOC ha–1 as successfully indicated a better result than the prior sowing. The increment pH of treated plot may due to the rapid dissolution of HTOC in the soil profile. Similar result has been found by Sahibin et al. [13] in their earlier study. Relatively higher pH in the paddy soil is observed after HTOC application in Region 4 Alor Nan, Kedah with pH value increases from 4.63 to 5.12. However, the application rate of soil amendment like HTOC depends on the localities. Hence, field experiment such as this current study is needed to justify the most suitable and feasible application rate. On the other hand, Al level in the soil is reduced reasonably when the pH increases, which indicates the better efficiency of HTOC, thus pH is negatively and significantly correlated with exchangeable Al3+ (r = –0.670, p < 0.05). Soil pH increases significantly following reduction in exchangeable Al3+, while it is positively and significantly correlated to exchangeable Ca2+ (r = 0.651, p < 0.05, Table 3). By increasing the pH dissolves Al in the soil will precipitate to form gibbsite (Al(OH)3), thereby reducing the toxicity of Al in the soil [24]. Exchangeable Al3+ of the treated plot has decreased from 2.07 cmolc kg–1 to 1.63 cmolc kg–1 after the first harvest, which then it reached at 1.37 cmolc kg–1 after the second harvest. Mean exchangeable Al3+ of treated plot after the first and the second harvest is found significantly lower than control plot, with the value of p < 0.001 at 5% level. This notes that exchangeable Al3+ in the soil tends to decrease, while exchangeable Ca2+ increases over the season.
| Parameter | Periods | |||||
| Before planting (May 2016) | 1st harvest (Sept 2016) | 2nd harvest (Feb 2017) | ||||
| T0 | T1 | T0 | T1 | T0 | T1 | |
| Sand (%) | 13 ± 0.36 | 13 ± 0.62 | 11 ± 0.47 | 12 ± 0.59 | 13 ± 3.84 | 13 ± 0.07 |
| Silt (%) 0.063–0.002 mm | 38 ± 1.06 | 31 ± 2.50 | 39 ± 0.20 | 32 ± 3.15 | 34 ± 9.65 | 30 ± 0.53 |
| Clay (%) < 0.002 mm | 49 ± 0.73 | 56 ± 2.45 | 50 ± 0.27 | 56 ± 2.57 | 52 ± 5.83 | 57 ± 0.46 |
| Texture | Clay | Clay | Clay | Clay | Clay | Clay |
| Water content (%) | 43.70 ± 0.13 | 40.11 ± 2.25 | 43.64 ± 0.03 | 24.90 ± 0.06 | 39.37 ± 0.13 | 24.38 ± 0.27 |
| Organic matter (%) | 2.36 ± 0.08 | 3.19 ± 0.20 | 2.35 ± 0.05 | 6.40 ± 0.24 | 2.16 ± 0.32 | 7.07 ± 0.98 |
| Bulk density (g cm–3) | 1.00 ± 0.00 | 1.00 ± 0.00 | 1.01 ± 0.00 | 1.01 ± 0.01 | 1.02 ± 0.00 | 1.03 ± 0.00 |
| Hydraulic conductivity (cm hr–1) | 0.15 ± 0.01 | 0.19 ± 0.01 | 0.21 ± 0.04 | 0.30 ± 0.13 | 0.19 ± 0.04 | 0.54 ± 0.02 |
| pH | 3.20 ± 0.04 | 3.36 ± 0.04 | 3.34 ± 0.06 | 3.77 ± 0.01 | 3.39 ± 0.01 | 4.34 ± 0.01 |
| Electrical conductivity (mS cm–1) | 1.99 ± 0.01 | 2.07 ± 0.01 | 2.05 ± 0.01 | 2.18 ± 0.02 | 2.03 ± 0.01 | 2.32 ± 0.01 |
| Exchangeable Al3+ (cmolc kg–1) | 2.27 ± 0.15 | 2.07 ± 0.06 | 2.33 ± 0.15 | 1.63 ± 0.06 | 2.40 ± 0.10 | 1.37 ± 0.06 |
| Exchangeable H+ (cmolc kg–1) | 0.40 ± 0.10 | 0.80 ± 0.10 | 0.40 ± 0.10 | 0.57 ± 0.06 | 0.50 ± 0.10 | 0.57 ± 0.06 |
| Exchangeable Ca2+ (cmolc kg–1) | 1.64 ± 0.23 | 1.44 ± 0.08 | 1.64 ± 0.01 | 2.16 ± 0.09 | 1.64 ± 0.01 | 4.44 ± 0.01 |
| Exchangeable Mg2+ (cmolc kg–1) | 1.16 ± 0.03 | 1.64 ± 0.03 | 1.18 ± 0.01 | 2.39 ± 0.31 | 1.18 ± 0.02 | 2.68 ± 0.02 |
| Exchangeable Na+ (cmolc kg–1) | 1.21 ± 0.14 | 1.26 ± 0.08 | 1.34 ± 0.05 | 0.58 ± 0.08 | 1.43 ± 0.02 | 0.46 ± 0.05 |
| Exchangeable K+ (cmolc kg–1) | 1.80 ± 0.03 | 1.75 ± 0.02 | 1.98 ± 0.01 | 2.65 ± 0.53 | 1.82 ± 0.09 | 2.01 ± 0.01 |
| Cation exchange capacity (cmolc kg–1) | 8.48 ± 0.30 | 8.96 ± 0.17 | 8.86 ± 0.14 | 9.98 ± 0.34 | 8.98 ± 0.21 | 11.51 ± 0.08 |
| Base saturation (%) | 69 ± 1.84 | 68 ± 1.13 | 69 ± 1.30 | 78 ± 0.32 | 68 ± 0.40 | 83 ± 0.40 |
| Exchangeable sodium percentage (%) | 21 ± 2.56 | 21 ± 1.37 | 22 ± 0.64 | 7 ± 1.26 | 23 ± 0.27 | 5 ± 0.47 |
| Organic carbon (%) | 0.65 ± 0.11 | 0.67 ± 0.09 | 0.67 ± 0.09 | 3.14 ± 0.10 | 0.66 ± 0.11 | 4.13 ± 0.01 |
| Humic acid (%) | 0.05 ± 0.01 | 0.09 ± 0.01 | 0.10 ± 0.02 | 0.13 ± 0.01 | 0.15 ± 0.05 | 1.32 ± 0.01 |
| Fulvic acid (%) | 0.12 ± 0.01 | 0.13 ± 0.00 | 0.14 ± 0.01 | 0.25 ± 0.01 | 0.14 ± 0.01 | 0.19 ± 0.01 |
| Note: T0: Control plot; T1: Treated plot. | ||||||
DownLoad: CSV| SOM | HC | SS | Exc. Na+ | Exc. Ca2+ | pH | SWC | Exc. Al3+ | |
| SOM | 1 | |||||||
| HC | 0.896** | 1 | ||||||
| SS | 0.694* | 0.719** | 1 | |||||
| Exc. Na+ | 0.037 | 0.155 | –0.344 | 1 | ||||
| Exc. Ca2+ | 0.830** | 0.846** | 0.918** | –0.256 | 1 | |||
| pH | 0.706* | 0.843** | 0.561 | 0.522 | 0.651* | 1 | ||
| SWC | –0.977** | –0.849** | –0.605* | 0.011 | –0.761** | –0.582* | 1 | |
| Exc. Al3+ | –0.210 | –0.324 | 0.181 | –0.968** | 0.079 | –0.670* | 0.140 | 1 |
| Note: SOM: Soil Organic Matter; HC: Hydraulic Conductivity; SS: Soil Strength; SWC: Soil Water Content. *Significance level at 5% and **Significance level at 1%. |
||||||||
DownLoad: CSVIn this trial, electrical conductivity of the treated plot has also increased from 2.07 mS cm–1 to 2.32 mS cm–1. Thus, the classification of Landon [25] obtains that salt-free content in the soil is low. This low salt content will ease the paddy plants to absorb optimum water from the soil. The studied soil is sodic with high level of Na content and low level of total salts. High Na content in the soil is shown by the high exchangeable Na+. When the ratio of Na to other ions at these exchange sites is high, clay particles are less tightly bound to each other and the soil aggregates easily disperse when the soil become wet. To improve the exchangeable Na+ in soil, most of ions Na+ must be removed by leaching it downward, below the root zone [26]. To accomplish this result, ions Na+ in the soil exchange complex must be replaced by Ca2+. HTOC product is a calcium-containing material, which can supply soluble Ca2+ to replace the exchangeable Na+.
After HTOC application, exchangeable Na+ of the treated plot has decreased to 0.58 cmolc kg–1 after the first harvest and it changed at 0.46 cmolc kg–1 after the second harvest. Mean exchangeable Na+ of treated plot after the first and the second harvest is found significantly lower than control plot, with the value of p < 0.001 at 5% level. The presence of excessive amount of exchangeable Na+ reverses the process of aggregation and causes soil aggregates to disperse into their constituent individual soil particles. This is known as deflocculation and often occurs in sodic soil. The untreated soil is classified as sodic because the Exchangeable Sodium Percentage (ESP) value is greater than 6%. But after being treated with HTOC, the ESP value has decreased to less than 6% at the second harvest. Mean exchangeable sodium percentage of treated plot after the first and the second harvest is found significantly lower than control plot, with the value of p < 0.001 at 5% level. This is due to the polyvalent cations of Ca2+ and Mg2+ from HTOC have displaced ions Na+ in the soil and they created a flocculated soil condition.
Exchangeable Ca2+ of the treated plot increases from 1.44 cmolc kg–1 to 4.44 cmolc kg–1 after the second harvest. Exchangeable Mg2+ increases from 1.64 cmolc kg–1 to 2.68 cmolc kg–1 and from 1.89 cmolc kg–1 to 2.06 cmolc kg–1 after the second harvest. Exchangeable K+ also increases from 1.75 cmolc kg–1 to 2.65 cmolc kg–1 after the first harvest. Exchangeable Ca2+, Mg2+ and K+ are high due to addition of these cations from HTOC. The concentration of these cations in the soil are in the required level for rice cultivation as found by MARDI [27]. This shows that the use of HTOC at the appropriate rate is able to alleviate Ca and Mg deficiency in paddy soil. The presence of extra Ca and Mg in the soil can also contribute to the alleviation of Al toxicity. Hence, the cation exchange capacity has also increased from 8.93 cmolc kg–1 to 11.51 cmolc kg–1 with base saturation increased from 68% to 83% after the second harvest. Organic carbon content of the treated plot with HTOC has risen from 0.67% to 4.13% after the second harvest. Humic acid content has increased from 0.09% to 1.32%, while fulvic acid content relatively increased from 0.13% to 0.19% after the second harvest. The organic component consists of wood residuals from HTOC resulting in the increment of organic carbon, humic and fulvic acid content in the soil. Humic acid component from HTOC has acted to buffer the effect of high salts by dissolving Ca compounds that already presented in the soil. It flocculates the soil particles that have already dispersed to build the stable aggregates.
Application of HTOC in the study area shows the changes in soil physical properties as shown in Table 2. The initial water content of the paddy soil is high at 40.11%. This shows the high soil water will cause the reduction in macro pores spaces and lead to decline in load support capacity of the soil and permissible ground pressure [28]. Hence, soil water plays significant role in maintaining aggregate stability and tensile strength of soil aggregates [29]. But after being treated with HTOC, soil water content has decreased to 24.90% at the first harvest and it changed to 24.38% at the second harvest.
Mean soil water content of treated plot after the first and the second harvest is found significantly lower than control plot, with the value of p < 0.001 at 5% level. This mean a decrease in soil water content is due to the isolated components; zeolite and humic acid of HTOC which are capable to absorb the excess water in paddy soil. The zeolite material is useful for assisting water infiltration and retention due to its porous properties and the capillary suction.
The studied soil is sodic with fine particles (clay + silt) about 80%. Clay particles will be separated by the presence of water and exchangeable Na+, and it will reduce the water movement and the aeration in the soil. Thus, the water permeability of the soil is poor and the soil is also characterized with hard and cloddy appearances when dry and tends to crust. The initial water permeability of the soil is low as shown by the low hydraulic conductivity value. But after being treated with HTOC, it starts to increase from 0.19 cm hr–1 to 0.54 cm hr –1 after the second harvest. Mean hydraulic conductivity of treated plot after the first and the second harvest is found significantly higher than control plot, with the value of p < 0.001 at 5% level. This shows that the efficiency of HTOC which flocculates together with the clay particles to accelerate the aggregate formation. The stability of soil aggregate is prominent to water infiltration and retention for paddy soil. Hence, a decrease in soil aggregate stability results in low hydraulic conductivity value.
Organic matter content in the soil is low at 3.19% before started the trial, this is caused by the reduce presence of decaying organisms, or an increases rate of decay as a result of changes in natural or anthropogenic factors. Tillage is one of the anthropogenic factors to a decline in organic matter via contributing to an increase rate of organic matter decay [30]. Moreover, climate also affects soil organic matter content, so soil in warmer climates like in paddy area will tend to contain less organic matter than those in cooler climates [31]. Low organic matter results in low stability index, low soil quality and productivity, which make the soil more susceptible to dispersion. But after being treated with HTOC, the organic matter content in the soil increases to 6.40% after the first harvest. It continues increasing to 7.07% after the second harvest. Mean soil organic matter content of treated plot after the first harvest is found significantly higher than control plot, with the value of p < 0.001 at 5% level. A correlation matrix of all parameters studied reveals that soil organic matter is not significantly correlated to exchangeable Na+ (r = 0.037). Soil organic matter is positively and significantly correlated to hydraulic conductivity (r = 0.896 p < 0.01) and soil strength (r = 0.694 p < 0.05, Table 3). This shows that organic matter content in the soil become more significant after applying HTOC, as these organic matters attach to soil particles, especially clay particles and bind micro soil and macro soil aggregates, thus they prevent the soil from dispersing by the water pressure and also the action of heavy machines.
Previous study by Sahibin et al. [13] from the paddy field in Jelempok Region 1 MADA Kedah, Malaysia reports that organic matter content of the paddy soil which has been treated with HTOC was successfully raised from 6.51% to 7.87% and gave the same result with the current study. Soil organic matter content can be related to soil texture. For example, clay soils tend to have a higher organic matter content than sandy soils due to they have the ability to protect humus from the sequel decay process. In addition, soil water also contributes the effect on the organic matter content in soil. Organic matter content is negatively and significantly correlated to soil water content (r = – 0.977, p < 0.01, Table 3). Bulk density of the soil under investigation is found to be at the good level, which mean they can provide structural support for water and solute movement as well as aeration. After being treated with HTOC, bulk density of the soil increases from 1.00 g cm–3 to 1.03 g cm–3 after the second harvest period. The increment bulk density value of treated plot suggests to high soil porosity and relative low soil compaction. Organic carbon increases from 0.67% to 4.13% after the second harvest. Previous study by Razi et al. [32] reports the total soil carbon stock in this study area is around 475.72 ton ha–1.
The effect of HTOC on soil strength of soft soil is presented in Figure 4. The graphs of control plot and treated plot before planting period has increased continuously and it reached a peak 0.24 MPa at depth 0 to 50 cm and then decreased at depth 60–100 cm with the lowest strength value was found as only 0.20 MPa. This shows that the value measured is still below 0.40 MPa, this means that the land cannot support the surcharge load imposed by machinery equipment. But after being treated with HTOC, the graph of soil strength at the first harvest has raised to 0.62 MPa at depth 0 to 20 cm and it decreased to 0.42 MPa at depth 60 to 100 cm. The highest soil strength is recorded after the second harvest with value of 0.84 MPa at depth 0 to 30 cm. The hardpan is defined as the layer harder to penetrate and no roots, it usually finds between 10 cm and 30 cm from soil surface [33]. The increase in soil strength level is directly correlated with decrease in water potential. Relative water content is negatively and significantly correlated to soil strength (r = –0.605, p < 0.05, Table 3), while for exchangeable Na+ is not significantly correlated (r = –0.344). This mean an increase in soil strength and decrease soil water content and exchangeable Na+ as the quantity of HTOC is added to soil.
Figure 4. The effect of HTOC on soil strength.Result of studies shows that the use of organic soil amendment like HTOC has a potential to improve of soft soil in paddy cultivation area by enhancing soil quality such as soil strength, organic matter content, hydraulic conductivity, pH, electrical conductivity, exchangeable Ca2+, Mg2+, K+ and cation exchange capacity to a range that is high soil stability index and productivity for paddy cultivation. As whole, soil properties of treated plot reports a better result than control plot. Besides, HTOC application also results in decreasing soil water content, exchangeable Na+ and exchangeable sodium percentage which were very important to mitigate soft soil problem. HTOC can successfully improve soil pH from 3.36 to 4.34.
The authors wish to thank The National University of Malaysia and the Faculty of Science and Technology for providing the infrastructure to ensure the success of this research. This research is conducted with UKM research grant ETP-2015-003. The study is conducted in MADA region in collaboration with MADA and Green Frontier Technology Sdn Bhd.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.
| [1] | Alig RJ (2003) Land use changes involving forestry in the United States: 1952 to 1997, with projections to 2050. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. https://doi.org/10.2737/PNW-GTR-587 |
| [2] |
Spangler K, Burchfield EK, Schumacher B (2020) Past and current dynamics of US agricultural land use and policy. Front Sustainable Food Syst 4: 98. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.00098 doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2020.00098
|
| [3] | Wang SL, Heisey P, Schimmelpfennig D, et al. (2015) Agricultural productivity growth in the United States: Measurement, trends, and drivers. Economic Research Service, Paper No. Err-189. |
| [4] |
King BA, Hammond T, Harrington J (2017) Disruptive technology: Economic consequences of artificial intelligence and the robotics revolution. J Strategic Innovation Sustainability 12: 53–67. https://doi.org/10.33423/jsis.v12i2.801 doi: 10.33423/jsis.v12i2.801
|
| [5] |
Aditto F, Sobuz Md HR, Saha A, et al. (2023) Fresh, mechanical and microstructural behaviour of high-strength self-compacting concrete using supplementary cementitious materials. Case Stud Constr Mater 19: e02395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e02395 doi: 10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e02395
|
| [6] |
Barragán-Montero A, Javaid U, Valdés G, et al. (2021) Artificial intelligence and machine learning for medical imaging: A technology review. Phys Med 83: 242–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2021.04.016 doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2021.04.016
|
| [7] |
Jabin JA, Khondoker Md TH, Sobuz Md HR, et al. (2024) High-temperature effect on the mechanical behavior of recycled fiber-reinforced concrete containing volcanic pumice powder: An experimental assessment combined with machine learning (ML)-based prediction. Constr Build Mater 418: 135362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.135362 doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.135362
|
| [8] |
Akintuyi OB (2024) AI in agriculture: A comparative review of developments in the USA and Africa. Res J Sci Eng 10: 060–070. https://doi.org/10.53022/oarjst.2024.10.2.0051 doi: 10.53022/oarjst.2024.10.2.0051
|
| [9] |
Sharma VA, Tripathi AK, Mittal H (2022) Technological revolutions in smart farming: Current trends, challenges & future directions. Comput Electron Agri 201: 107217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2022.107217 doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2022.107217
|
| [10] |
Mana AA, Allouhi AA, Hamrani A, et al. (2024) Sustainable AI-based production agriculture: Exploring AI applications and implications in agricultural practices. Smart Agric Technol 7: 100416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atech.2024.100416 doi: 10.1016/j.atech.2024.100416
|
| [11] |
Ben Ayed R, Hanana M (2021) Artificial intelligence to improve the food and agriculture sector. J Food Qual 2021: 5584754. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5584754 doi: 10.1155/2021/5584754
|
| [12] |
Subeesh A, Mehta CR (2021) Automation and digitization of agriculture using artificial intelligence and internet of things. Artif Intell Agric 5: 278–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aiia.2021.11.004 doi: 10.1016/j.aiia.2021.11.004
|
| [13] |
Talaviya T, Shah D, Patel N, et al. (2020) Implementation of artificial intelligence in agriculture for optimisation of irrigation and application of pesticides and herbicides. Artif Intell Agric 4: 58–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aiia.2020.04.002 doi: 10.1016/j.aiia.2020.04.002
|
| [14] |
Eli-Chukwu NC (2019) Applications of artificial intelligence in agriculture: A review. Eng, Technol Appl Sci Res 9: 4377–4383. https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.2756 doi: 10.48084/etasr.2756
|
| [15] |
Toorajipour R, Sohrabpour V, Nazarpour A, et al. (2021) Artificial intelligence in supply chain management: A systematic literature review. J Bus Res 122: 502–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.09.009 doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.09.009
|
| [16] |
Antonucci F, Figorilli S, Costa C, et al. (2019) A review on blockchain applications in the agri-food sector. J Sci Food Agric 99: 6129–6138. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.9912. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.9912
|
| [17] | Kumar H, Sahoo S (2021) Chapter: Artificial intelligence in agriculture. In: New Engineering Technology for Modern Farming, New India Publishing Agency, New Delhi, 141–152. |
| [18] | Dhananjayan V, Jayakumar S, Ravichandran B (2020) Chapter: Conventional methods of pesticide application in agricultural field and fate of the pesticides in the environment and human health. In: Rakhimol KR, Thomas S, Volova T, et al. (Eds.), Controlled Release of Pesticides for Sustainable Agriculture, 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23396-9_1 |
| [19] |
Ndukhu OH, Onwonga NR, Wahome GR, et al. (2016) Assessment of organic farmers' knowledge and adaptation strategies to climate change and variability in Central Kenya. Br J Appl Sci Technol 17: 1–22. https://doi.org/10.9734/BJAST/2016/16270 doi: 10.9734/BJAST/2016/16270
|
| [20] |
Barnes AP, Soto I, Eory V, et al. (2019) Exploring the adoption of precision agricultural technologies: A cross regional study of EU farmers. Land Use Policy 80: 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.10.004 doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.10.004
|
| [21] |
Yadav VS, Singh AR, Gunasekaran A, et al. (2022) A systematic literature review of the agro-food supply chain: Challenges, network design, and performance measurement perspectives. Sustainable Prod Consumption 29: 685–704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.11.019 doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2021.11.019
|
| [22] |
Shaikh TA, Rasool T, Lone FR (2022) Towards leveraging the role of machine learning and artificial intelligence in precision agriculture and smart farming. Comput Electron Agric 198: 107119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2022.107119 doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2022.107119
|
| [23] |
Akkem Y, Biswas SK, Varanasi A (2023) Smart farming using artificial intelligence: A review. Eng Appl Artif Intel 120: 105899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2023.105899 doi: 10.1016/j.engappai.2023.105899
|
| [24] |
Jha K, Doshi A, Patel P, et al. (2019) A comprehensive review on automation in agriculture using artificial intelligence. Artif Intell Agric 2: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aiia.2019.05.004 doi: 10.1016/j.aiia.2019.05.004
|
| [25] |
Shamshiri RR, Weltzien C, Hameed IA, et al. (2018) Research and development in agricultural robotics: A perspective of digital farming. Int J Agric Biol Eng 11: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.25165/j.ijabe.20181104.4278 doi: 10.25165/j.ijabe.20181104.4278
|
| [26] |
Nath PC, Mishra AK, Sharma R, et al. (2024) Recent advances in artificial intelligence towards the sustainable future of agri-food industry. Food Chem 447: 138945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2024.138945 doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2024.138945
|
| [27] |
Jung J, Maeda MM, Chang A, et al. (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 doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2020.09.003
|
| [28] |
Rejeb A, Rejeb K, Zailani S, et al. (2022) Examining the interplay between artificial intelligence and the agri-food industry. Artif Intell Agric 6: 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aiia.2022.08.002 doi: 10.1016/j.aiia.2022.08.002
|
| [29] |
Javaid M, Haleem A, Khan IH, et al. (2023) Understanding the potential applications of artificial intelligence in agriculture sector. Adv Agrochem 2: 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aac.2022.10.001 doi: 10.1016/j.aac.2022.10.001
|
| [30] |
Arvanitis K, Symeonaki E (2020) Agriculture 4.0: The role of innovative smart technologies towards sustainable farm management. Open Agric 14: 130–136. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874331502014010130 doi: 10.2174/1874331502014010130
|
| [31] |
Javaid M, Haleem A, Singh RP, et al. (2022) Enhancing smart farming through the applications of Agriculture 4.0 technologies. Int J Intell Net 3: 150–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijin.2022.09.004 doi: 10.1016/j.ijin.2022.09.004
|
| [32] |
Sobuz MHR, Jabin JA, Ashraf A, et al. (2024) Enhancing sustainable concrete production by utilizing fly ash and recycled concrete aggregate with experimental investigation and machine learning modeling. J Build Pathol Rehabil 9: 134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41024-024-00474-8 doi: 10.1007/s41024-024-00474-8
|
| [33] |
Dhanaraju M, Rehabilitation P, Ramalingam K, et al. (2022) Smart farming: Internet of things (IoT)-based sustainable agriculture. Agriculture 1: 1745. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12101745 doi: 10.3390/agriculture12101745
|
| [34] |
Chukkapalli SSL, Mittal S, Gupta M, et al. (2020) Ontologies and artificial intelligence systems for the cooperative smart farming ecosystem. IEEE Access 8: 164045–164064. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3022763 doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3022763
|
| [35] |
Xiong Y, Ge Y, Grimstad L, et al. (2020) An autonomous strawberry-harvesting robot: Design, development, integration, and field evaluation. J Field Rob 37: 202–224. https://doi.org/10.1002/rob.21889 doi: 10.1002/rob.21889
|
| [36] |
Wang Y, Jin L, Mao H (2019) Farmer cooperatives' intention to adopt agricultural information technology—Mediating effects of attitude. Inf Syst Front 21: 565–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-019-09909-x doi: 10.1007/s10796-019-09909-x
|
| [37] |
Dewi T, Risma P, Oktarina Y (2020) Fruit sorting robot based on color and size for an agricultural product packaging system. Bull Electr Eng Inf 9: 1438–1445. https://doi.org/10.11591/eei.v9i4.2353 doi: 10.11591/eei.v9i4.2353
|
| [38] |
UmaMaheswaran SK, Kaur G, Pankajam A, et al. (2022) Empirical analysis for improving food quality using artificial intelligence technology for enhancing healthcare sector. J Food Qual 2022: 1–13. https://10.1155/2022/1447326 doi: 10.1155/2022/1447326
|
| [39] |
Pérez-Gomariz M, López-Gómez A, Cerdán-Cartagena F(2023) Artificial neural networks as artificial intelligence technique for energy saving in refrigeration systems—A review. Clean Technol 5: 116–136. https://doi.org/10.3390/cleantechnol5010007 doi: 10.3390/cleantechnol5010007
|
| [40] |
Sobuz MHR, Al-Imran, Datta SD, et al. (2024) Assessing the influence of sugarcane bagasse ash for the production of eco-friendly concrete: Experimental and machine learning approaches. Case Stud Constr Mater 20: e02839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e02839 doi: 10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e02839
|
| [41] |
Phimolsiripol Y, Siripatrawan U, Cleland DJ (2011) Weight loss of frozen bread dough under isothermal and fluctuating temperature storage conditions. J Food Eng 106: 134–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2011.04.020 doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2011.04.020
|
| [42] |
Haff RP, Toyofuku N (2008) X-ray detection of defects and contaminants in the food industry. Sens Instrum Food Qual Saf 2: 262–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11694-008-9059-8 doi: 10.1007/s11694-008-9059-8
|
| [43] |
Medus LD, Saban M, Francés-Víllora JV, et al. (2021) Hyperspectral image classification using CNN: Application to industrial food packaging. Food Control 125: 107962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.107962 doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.107962
|
| [44] |
Benouis M, Medus LD, Saban M, et al. (2020) Food tray sealing fault detection using hyperspectral imaging and PCANet. IFAC-PapersOnLine 53: 7845–7850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2020.12.1955 doi: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2020.12.1955
|
| [45] |
Taneja A, Nair G, Joshi M, et al. (2023) Artificial intelligence: Implications for the agri-food sector. Agronomy 13: 1397. https://10.3390/agronomy13051397 doi: 10.3390/agronomy13051397
|
| [46] |
Hasan NMS, Sobuz MHR, Shaurdho NMN, et al. (2023) Eco-friendly concrete incorporating palm oil fuel ash: Fresh and mechanical properties with machine learning prediction, and sustainability assessment. Heliyon 9: e22296. https://10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22296 doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22296
|
| [47] |
Cheraghalipour A, Paydar MM, Hajiaghaei-Keshteli M (2018) A bi-objective optimization for citrus closed-loop supply chain using Pareto-based algorithms. Appl Soft Comput 69: 33–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2018.04.022 doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2018.04.022
|
| [48] |
Ketsripongsa U, Computing R, Sethanan K, et al. (2018) An Improved differential evolution algorithm for crop planning in the Northeastern Region of Thailand. Math Compu App 23: 40. https://doi.org/10.3390/mca23030040 doi: 10.3390/mca23030040
|
| [49] |
Sharma A, Zanotti P, Musunur LP (2020) Drive through robotics: Robotic automation for last mile distribution of food and essentials during pandemics. IEEE Access 8: 127190–127219. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3007064 doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3007064
|
| [50] |
Wardah S, Djatna T, Yani M (2020) New product development in coconut-based agro-industry: current research progress and challenges. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 472: 012053. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/472/1/012053 doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/472/1/012053
|
| [51] |
Bo W, Qin D, Zheng X, et al. (2022) Prediction of bitterant and sweetener using structure-taste relationship models based on an artificial neural network. Food Res Int 153: 110974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2022.110974 doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2022.110974
|
| [52] |
Nahiyoon SA, Ren Z, Wei P, et al. (2024) Recent development trends in plant protection UAVs: A journey from conventional practices to cutting-edge technologies—A comprehensive review. Drones 8: 457. https://10.3390/drones8090457 doi: 10.3390/drones8090457
|
| [53] |
Shahana A, Hasan R, Farabi SF, et al. (2024) AI-driven cybersecurity: Balancing advancements and safeguards. J Comput Sci Technol Stud 6: 76–85. https://10.32996/jcsts.2024.6.2.9 doi: 10.32996/jcsts.2024.6.2.9
|
| [54] |
Onyeaka H, Tamasiga P, Nwauzoma UM, et al. (2023) Using artificial intelligence to tackle food waste and enhance the circular economy: Maximising resource efficiency and minimising environmental impact: A review. Sustainability 15: 10482. https://10.3390/su151310482 doi: 10.3390/su151310482
|
| [55] |
Pantazi XE, Moshou D, Bravo C (2016) Active learning system for weed species recognition based on hyperspectral sensing. Biosyst Eng 146: 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2016.01.014 doi: 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2016.01.014
|
| [56] |
Allmendinger A, Spaeth M, Saile M, et al. (2022) Precision chemical weed management strategies: A review and a design of a new CNN-based modular spot sprayer. Agronomy 12: 1620. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12071620 doi: 10.3390/agronomy12071620
|
| [57] |
Wu X, Aravecchia S, Lottes P, et al. (2020) Robotic weed control using automated weed and crop classification. J Field Rob 37: 322–340. https://doi.org/10.1002/rob.21938 doi: 10.1002/rob.21938
|
| [58] |
Snyder CS (2017) Enhanced nitrogen fertiliser technologies support the '4R'concept to optimise crop production and minimise environmental losses. Soil Res 55: 463–472. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR16335 doi: 10.1071/SR16335
|
| [59] |
Misra NN, Dixit Y, Al-Mallahi A, et al. (2020) IoT, big data, and artificial intelligence in agriculture and food industry. IEEE Int Things J 9: 6305–6324. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2020.2998584 doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2020.2998584
|
| [60] |
Kumar K, Thakur GSM (2012) Advanced applications of neural networks and artificial intelligence: A review. Int J Inf Technol Comput Sci 4: 57. https://doi.org/10.5815/ijitcs.2012.06.08 doi: 10.5815/ijitcs.2012.06.08
|
| [61] | Bucher S, Ikeda K, Broszus B, et al. (2021) Adaptive Robotic Chassis (ARC): RoboCrop a smart agricultural robot toolset. Interdisciplinary Design Senior Theses 69: 1–101. Available from: https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/idp_senior/69 |
| [62] |
Pournader M, Ghaderi H, Hassanzadegan A, et al. (2021) Artificial intelligence applications in supply chain management. Int J Prod Econ 241: 108250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108250 doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108250
|
| [63] |
Monteiro J, Barata J (2021) Artificial intelligence in extended agri-food supply chain: A short review based on bibliometric analysis. Proc Comput Sci 192: 3020–3029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.09.074 doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2021.09.074
|
| [64] |
Taneja A, Nair G, Joshi M, et al. (2023) Artificial intelligence: Implications for the agri-food sector. Agronomy 13: 1397. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13051397 doi: 10.3390/agronomy13051397
|
| [65] |
Akhtman Y, Golubeva E, Tutubalina O, et al. (2017) Application of hyperspectural images and ground data for precision farming. Geo, Environ, Sustainability 10: 117–128. https://doi.org/10.24057/2071-9388-2017-10-4-117-128 doi: 10.24057/2071-9388-2017-10-4-117-128
|
| [66] |
Agboka KM, Tonnang HEZ, Abdel-Rahman EM, et al. (2022) Data-driven artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms for modelling potential maize yield under maize–legume farming systems in East Africa. Agronomy 12: 3085. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12123085 doi: 10.3390/agronomy12123085
|
| [67] |
Li T, Cui L, Wu Y, et al. (2024) Soil organic carbon estimation via remote sensing and machine learning techniques: Global topic modeling and research trend exploration. Remote Sen 16: 3168. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16173168 doi: 10.3390/rs16173168
|
| [68] | Singh S, Vaishnav R, Gautam S, et al. (2024) Agricultural robotics: A comprehensive review of applications, challenges and future prospects. In: 2024 2nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Applications Theme: Healthcare and Internet of Things (AIMLA). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/AIMLA59606.2024.10531517 |
| [69] |
Karunathilake EMBM, Le AT, Heo S, et al. (2023) The path to smart farming: Innovations and opportunities in precision agriculture. Agriculture 13: 1593. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13081593 doi: 10.3390/agriculture13081593
|
| [70] | Ravichandran G, Koteeshwari R (2016) Agricultural crop predictor and advisor using ANN for smartphones. In: 2016 International Conference on Emerging Trends in Engineering: Technology and Science (ICETETS). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICETETS.2016.7603053 |
| [71] | Lemsalu M (2021) Developing a machine vision system for an autonomous strawberry harvester prototype in open-field conditions. Available from: https://urn.fi/URN: NBN: fi: aalto-2021121910963. |
| [72] | Kour K, Gupta D, Gupta K, et al. (2022) Monitoring ambient parameters in the IoT precision agriculture scenario: An approach to sensor selection and hydroponic saffron cultivation. Sensors (Basel) 22: 8905. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22228905 |
| [73] | Patil SS, Thorat SA (2016) Early detection of grapes diseases using machine learning and IoT. In: 2016 Second International Conference on Cognitive Computing and Information Processing (CCIP). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/CCIP.2016.7802887 |
| [74] | Al Mahmud A, Hossain Md A, Saju AB, et al. (2024) Information technology for the next future world: Adoption of it for social and economic growth: Part Ⅱ. Int J Innovative Res Technol Basic Appl Sci 10: 744. |
| 1. | Muhammad Rendana, Wan Mohd Razi Idris, Sahibin Abdul Rahim, Zulfahmi Ali Rahman, Tukimat Lihan, Characterization of physical, chemical and microstructure properties in the soft clay soil of the paddy field area, 2021, 18, 2356-1424, 81, 10.20961/stjssa.v18i1.50489 | |
| 2. | Muhammad Rendana, Wan Mohd Razi Idris, Sahibin Abdul Rahim, Zulfahmi Ali Rahman, Tukimat Lihan, Rubber bark dust-zeolite composite improved mechanic strength of soft paddy soil through improved microstructure, 2021, 18, 2356-1424, 194, 10.20961/stjssa.v18i2.56345 | |
| 3. | Xuqing Li, Yao Su, Temoor Ahmed, Haiying Ren, Muhammad Rizwan Javed, Yanlai Yao, Qianli An, Jianli Yan, Bin Li, Effects of Different Organic Fertilizers on Improving Soil from Newly Reclaimed Land to Crop Soil, 2021, 11, 2077-0472, 560, 10.3390/agriculture11060560 | |
| 4. | A D F Firstyadi, B S Wignyosukarto, S Purboseno, Post reclamation of acid sulphate soil due to extended tidal irrigation area in Palingkau, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia, 2021, 930, 1755-1307, 012017, 10.1088/1755-1315/930/1/012017 | |
| 5. | Muhammad Rendana, Wan Mohd Razi Idris, Sahibin Abdul Rahim, Zulfahmi Ali Rahman, Tukimat Lihan, Predicting soil erosion potential under CMIP6 climate change scenarios in the Chini Lake Basin, Malaysia, 2023, 10, 2196-4092, 10.1186/s40562-022-00254-7 | |
| 6. | Muhammad Rendana, Wan Mohd Razi Idris, Sahibin Abdul Rahim, Hazem Ghassan Abdo, Hussein Almohamad, Ahmed Abdullah Al Dughairi, Flood risk and shelter suitability mapping using geospatial technique for sustainable urban flood management: a case study in Palembang city, South Sumatera, Indonesia, 2023, 2474-9508, 1, 10.1080/24749508.2023.2205717 | |
| 7. | Xuqing Li, Daoze Wang, Qiujun Lu, Zhongling Tian, Jianli Yan, Effects of SMOF on soil properties, root-zone microbial community structure, metabolites, and maize (Zea mays L.) response on a reclaimed barren mountainous land, 2023, 14, 1664-302X, 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1181245 | |
| 8. | Muhammad Rendana, Wan Mohd Razi Idris, Sahibin Abdul Rahim, Hazem Ghassan Abdo, Hussein Almohamad, Ahmed Abdullah Al Dughairi, Jasem A. Albanai, Effects of the built-up index and land surface temperature on the mangrove area change along the southern Sumatra coast, 2023, 2158-0103, 1, 10.1080/21580103.2023.2220576 | |
| 9. | Muhammad Rendana, Wan Mohd Razi Idris, Sahibin Abdul Rahim, Hazem Ghassan Abdo, Hussein Almohamad, Ahmed Abdullah Al Dughairi, Habitat suitability analysis in a natural peat swamp forest on Sumatran elephants using remote sensing and GIS, 2023, 2158-0103, 1, 10.1080/21580103.2023.2234463 | |
| 10. | Farkhanda Naz, Muhammad Arif, Tan Xue, Changxiao Li, Artificially remediated plants impact soil physiochemical properties along the riparian zones of the three gorges dam in China, 2024, 7, 2624-893X, 10.3389/ffgc.2024.1301086 | |
| 11. | Edna Mary Varghese, Babanpreet Kour, S. Ramya, Pooja D. Krishna, K.A. Nazla, K. Sudheer, K.N. Anith, M.S. Jisha, B. Ramakrishnan, Rice in acid sulphate soils: Role of microbial interactions in crop and soil health management, 2024, 196, 09291393, 105309, 10.1016/j.apsoil.2024.105309 |
Jahanara Akter, Sadia Islam Nilima, Rakibul Hasan, Anamika Tiwari, Md Wali Ullah, Md Kamruzzaman. Artificial intelligence on the agro-industry in the United States of America[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2024, 9(4): 959-979. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2024052
| Parameter | Value |
| Organic matter (%) | 41.59 ± 0.02 |
| pH | 7.98 ± 0.01 |
| Electrical conductivity (mS cm–1) | 3.50 ± 0.81 |
| Total C (%) | 25.80 ± 0.01 |
| Total N (%) | 0.89 ± 0.01 |
| C:N | 29:1 ± 0.01 |
| Exchangeable H+ (cmolc kg–1) | 0.00 |
| Exchangeable Al3+ (cmolc kg–1) | 0.57 ± 0.25 |
| Exchangeable K+ (cmolc kg–1) | 6.98 ± 0.85 |
| Exchangeable Mg2+ (cmolc kg–1) | 3.93 ± 0.28 |
| Exchangeable Ca2+ (cmolc kg–1) | 5.18 ± 0.21 |
| Exchangeable Na+ (cmolc kg–1) | 3.21 ± 0.12 |
| Cation exchange capacity (cmolc kg–1) | 20.81 ± 1.48 |
| Base saturation (%) | 97 |
| Humic acid (%) | 4.59 ± 0.31 |
| Fulvic acid (%) | 0.19 ± 0.01 |
DownLoad: CSV| Parameter | Periods | |||||
| Before planting (May 2016) | 1st harvest (Sept 2016) | 2nd harvest (Feb 2017) | ||||
| T0 | T1 | T0 | T1 | T0 | T1 | |
| Sand (%) | 13 ± 0.36 | 13 ± 0.62 | 11 ± 0.47 | 12 ± 0.59 | 13 ± 3.84 | 13 ± 0.07 |
| Silt (%) 0.063–0.002 mm | 38 ± 1.06 | 31 ± 2.50 | 39 ± 0.20 | 32 ± 3.15 | 34 ± 9.65 | 30 ± 0.53 |
| Clay (%) < 0.002 mm | 49 ± 0.73 | 56 ± 2.45 | 50 ± 0.27 | 56 ± 2.57 | 52 ± 5.83 | 57 ± 0.46 |
| Texture | Clay | Clay | Clay | Clay | Clay | Clay |
| Water content (%) | 43.70 ± 0.13 | 40.11 ± 2.25 | 43.64 ± 0.03 | 24.90 ± 0.06 | 39.37 ± 0.13 | 24.38 ± 0.27 |
| Organic matter (%) | 2.36 ± 0.08 | 3.19 ± 0.20 | 2.35 ± 0.05 | 6.40 ± 0.24 | 2.16 ± 0.32 | 7.07 ± 0.98 |
| Bulk density (g cm–3) | 1.00 ± 0.00 | 1.00 ± 0.00 | 1.01 ± 0.00 | 1.01 ± 0.01 | 1.02 ± 0.00 | 1.03 ± 0.00 |
| Hydraulic conductivity (cm hr–1) | 0.15 ± 0.01 | 0.19 ± 0.01 | 0.21 ± 0.04 | 0.30 ± 0.13 | 0.19 ± 0.04 | 0.54 ± 0.02 |
| pH | 3.20 ± 0.04 | 3.36 ± 0.04 | 3.34 ± 0.06 | 3.77 ± 0.01 | 3.39 ± 0.01 | 4.34 ± 0.01 |
| Electrical conductivity (mS cm–1) | 1.99 ± 0.01 | 2.07 ± 0.01 | 2.05 ± 0.01 | 2.18 ± 0.02 | 2.03 ± 0.01 | 2.32 ± 0.01 |
| Exchangeable Al3+ (cmolc kg–1) | 2.27 ± 0.15 | 2.07 ± 0.06 | 2.33 ± 0.15 | 1.63 ± 0.06 | 2.40 ± 0.10 | 1.37 ± 0.06 |
| Exchangeable H+ (cmolc kg–1) | 0.40 ± 0.10 | 0.80 ± 0.10 | 0.40 ± 0.10 | 0.57 ± 0.06 | 0.50 ± 0.10 | 0.57 ± 0.06 |
| Exchangeable Ca2+ (cmolc kg–1) | 1.64 ± 0.23 | 1.44 ± 0.08 | 1.64 ± 0.01 | 2.16 ± 0.09 | 1.64 ± 0.01 | 4.44 ± 0.01 |
| Exchangeable Mg2+ (cmolc kg–1) | 1.16 ± 0.03 | 1.64 ± 0.03 | 1.18 ± 0.01 | 2.39 ± 0.31 | 1.18 ± 0.02 | 2.68 ± 0.02 |
| Exchangeable Na+ (cmolc kg–1) | 1.21 ± 0.14 | 1.26 ± 0.08 | 1.34 ± 0.05 | 0.58 ± 0.08 | 1.43 ± 0.02 | 0.46 ± 0.05 |
| Exchangeable K+ (cmolc kg–1) | 1.80 ± 0.03 | 1.75 ± 0.02 | 1.98 ± 0.01 | 2.65 ± 0.53 | 1.82 ± 0.09 | 2.01 ± 0.01 |
| Cation exchange capacity (cmolc kg–1) | 8.48 ± 0.30 | 8.96 ± 0.17 | 8.86 ± 0.14 | 9.98 ± 0.34 | 8.98 ± 0.21 | 11.51 ± 0.08 |
| Base saturation (%) | 69 ± 1.84 | 68 ± 1.13 | 69 ± 1.30 | 78 ± 0.32 | 68 ± 0.40 | 83 ± 0.40 |
| Exchangeable sodium percentage (%) | 21 ± 2.56 | 21 ± 1.37 | 22 ± 0.64 | 7 ± 1.26 | 23 ± 0.27 | 5 ± 0.47 |
| Organic carbon (%) | 0.65 ± 0.11 | 0.67 ± 0.09 | 0.67 ± 0.09 | 3.14 ± 0.10 | 0.66 ± 0.11 | 4.13 ± 0.01 |
| Humic acid (%) | 0.05 ± 0.01 | 0.09 ± 0.01 | 0.10 ± 0.02 | 0.13 ± 0.01 | 0.15 ± 0.05 | 1.32 ± 0.01 |
| Fulvic acid (%) | 0.12 ± 0.01 | 0.13 ± 0.00 | 0.14 ± 0.01 | 0.25 ± 0.01 | 0.14 ± 0.01 | 0.19 ± 0.01 |
| Note: T0: Control plot; T1: Treated plot. | ||||||
DownLoad: CSV| SOM | HC | SS | Exc. Na+ | Exc. Ca2+ | pH | SWC | Exc. Al3+ | |
| SOM | 1 | |||||||
| HC | 0.896** | 1 | ||||||
| SS | 0.694* | 0.719** | 1 | |||||
| Exc. Na+ | 0.037 | 0.155 | –0.344 | 1 | ||||
| Exc. Ca2+ | 0.830** | 0.846** | 0.918** | –0.256 | 1 | |||
| pH | 0.706* | 0.843** | 0.561 | 0.522 | 0.651* | 1 | ||
| SWC | –0.977** | –0.849** | –0.605* | 0.011 | –0.761** | –0.582* | 1 | |
| Exc. Al3+ | –0.210 | –0.324 | 0.181 | –0.968** | 0.079 | –0.670* | 0.140 | 1 |
| Note: SOM: Soil Organic Matter; HC: Hydraulic Conductivity; SS: Soil Strength; SWC: Soil Water Content. *Significance level at 5% and **Significance level at 1%. |
||||||||
DownLoad: CSV| Parameter | Value |
| Organic matter (%) | 41.59 ± 0.02 |
| pH | 7.98 ± 0.01 |
| Electrical conductivity (mS cm–1) | 3.50 ± 0.81 |
| Total C (%) | 25.80 ± 0.01 |
| Total N (%) | 0.89 ± 0.01 |
| C:N | 29:1 ± 0.01 |
| Exchangeable H+ (cmolc kg–1) | 0.00 |
| Exchangeable Al3+ (cmolc kg–1) | 0.57 ± 0.25 |
| Exchangeable K+ (cmolc kg–1) | 6.98 ± 0.85 |
| Exchangeable Mg2+ (cmolc kg–1) | 3.93 ± 0.28 |
| Exchangeable Ca2+ (cmolc kg–1) | 5.18 ± 0.21 |
| Exchangeable Na+ (cmolc kg–1) | 3.21 ± 0.12 |
| Cation exchange capacity (cmolc kg–1) | 20.81 ± 1.48 |
| Base saturation (%) | 97 |
| Humic acid (%) | 4.59 ± 0.31 |
| Fulvic acid (%) | 0.19 ± 0.01 |
| Parameter | Periods | |||||
| Before planting (May 2016) | 1st harvest (Sept 2016) | 2nd harvest (Feb 2017) | ||||
| T0 | T1 | T0 | T1 | T0 | T1 | |
| Sand (%) | 13 ± 0.36 | 13 ± 0.62 | 11 ± 0.47 | 12 ± 0.59 | 13 ± 3.84 | 13 ± 0.07 |
| Silt (%) 0.063–0.002 mm | 38 ± 1.06 | 31 ± 2.50 | 39 ± 0.20 | 32 ± 3.15 | 34 ± 9.65 | 30 ± 0.53 |
| Clay (%) < 0.002 mm | 49 ± 0.73 | 56 ± 2.45 | 50 ± 0.27 | 56 ± 2.57 | 52 ± 5.83 | 57 ± 0.46 |
| Texture | Clay | Clay | Clay | Clay | Clay | Clay |
| Water content (%) | 43.70 ± 0.13 | 40.11 ± 2.25 | 43.64 ± 0.03 | 24.90 ± 0.06 | 39.37 ± 0.13 | 24.38 ± 0.27 |
| Organic matter (%) | 2.36 ± 0.08 | 3.19 ± 0.20 | 2.35 ± 0.05 | 6.40 ± 0.24 | 2.16 ± 0.32 | 7.07 ± 0.98 |
| Bulk density (g cm–3) | 1.00 ± 0.00 | 1.00 ± 0.00 | 1.01 ± 0.00 | 1.01 ± 0.01 | 1.02 ± 0.00 | 1.03 ± 0.00 |
| Hydraulic conductivity (cm hr–1) | 0.15 ± 0.01 | 0.19 ± 0.01 | 0.21 ± 0.04 | 0.30 ± 0.13 | 0.19 ± 0.04 | 0.54 ± 0.02 |
| pH | 3.20 ± 0.04 | 3.36 ± 0.04 | 3.34 ± 0.06 | 3.77 ± 0.01 | 3.39 ± 0.01 | 4.34 ± 0.01 |
| Electrical conductivity (mS cm–1) | 1.99 ± 0.01 | 2.07 ± 0.01 | 2.05 ± 0.01 | 2.18 ± 0.02 | 2.03 ± 0.01 | 2.32 ± 0.01 |
| Exchangeable Al3+ (cmolc kg–1) | 2.27 ± 0.15 | 2.07 ± 0.06 | 2.33 ± 0.15 | 1.63 ± 0.06 | 2.40 ± 0.10 | 1.37 ± 0.06 |
| Exchangeable H+ (cmolc kg–1) | 0.40 ± 0.10 | 0.80 ± 0.10 | 0.40 ± 0.10 | 0.57 ± 0.06 | 0.50 ± 0.10 | 0.57 ± 0.06 |
| Exchangeable Ca2+ (cmolc kg–1) | 1.64 ± 0.23 | 1.44 ± 0.08 | 1.64 ± 0.01 | 2.16 ± 0.09 | 1.64 ± 0.01 | 4.44 ± 0.01 |
| Exchangeable Mg2+ (cmolc kg–1) | 1.16 ± 0.03 | 1.64 ± 0.03 | 1.18 ± 0.01 | 2.39 ± 0.31 | 1.18 ± 0.02 | 2.68 ± 0.02 |
| Exchangeable Na+ (cmolc kg–1) | 1.21 ± 0.14 | 1.26 ± 0.08 | 1.34 ± 0.05 | 0.58 ± 0.08 | 1.43 ± 0.02 | 0.46 ± 0.05 |
| Exchangeable K+ (cmolc kg–1) | 1.80 ± 0.03 | 1.75 ± 0.02 | 1.98 ± 0.01 | 2.65 ± 0.53 | 1.82 ± 0.09 | 2.01 ± 0.01 |
| Cation exchange capacity (cmolc kg–1) | 8.48 ± 0.30 | 8.96 ± 0.17 | 8.86 ± 0.14 | 9.98 ± 0.34 | 8.98 ± 0.21 | 11.51 ± 0.08 |
| Base saturation (%) | 69 ± 1.84 | 68 ± 1.13 | 69 ± 1.30 | 78 ± 0.32 | 68 ± 0.40 | 83 ± 0.40 |
| Exchangeable sodium percentage (%) | 21 ± 2.56 | 21 ± 1.37 | 22 ± 0.64 | 7 ± 1.26 | 23 ± 0.27 | 5 ± 0.47 |
| Organic carbon (%) | 0.65 ± 0.11 | 0.67 ± 0.09 | 0.67 ± 0.09 | 3.14 ± 0.10 | 0.66 ± 0.11 | 4.13 ± 0.01 |
| Humic acid (%) | 0.05 ± 0.01 | 0.09 ± 0.01 | 0.10 ± 0.02 | 0.13 ± 0.01 | 0.15 ± 0.05 | 1.32 ± 0.01 |
| Fulvic acid (%) | 0.12 ± 0.01 | 0.13 ± 0.00 | 0.14 ± 0.01 | 0.25 ± 0.01 | 0.14 ± 0.01 | 0.19 ± 0.01 |
| Note: T0: Control plot; T1: Treated plot. | ||||||
| SOM | HC | SS | Exc. Na+ | Exc. Ca2+ | pH | SWC | Exc. Al3+ | |
| SOM | 1 | |||||||
| HC | 0.896** | 1 | ||||||
| SS | 0.694* | 0.719** | 1 | |||||
| Exc. Na+ | 0.037 | 0.155 | –0.344 | 1 | ||||
| Exc. Ca2+ | 0.830** | 0.846** | 0.918** | –0.256 | 1 | |||
| pH | 0.706* | 0.843** | 0.561 | 0.522 | 0.651* | 1 | ||
| SWC | –0.977** | –0.849** | –0.605* | 0.011 | –0.761** | –0.582* | 1 | |
| Exc. Al3+ | –0.210 | –0.324 | 0.181 | –0.968** | 0.079 | –0.670* | 0.140 | 1 |
| Note: SOM: Soil Organic Matter; HC: Hydraulic Conductivity; SS: Soil Strength; SWC: Soil Water Content. *Significance level at 5% and **Significance level at 1%. |
||||||||
