Browse

Journals By Subject

Life Sciences, Agriculture & Food
Chemistry
Medicine & Health
Materials Science
Mathematics & Physics
Electrical & Computer Science
Earth, Energy & Environment
Architecture & Civil Engineering
Education
Economics & Management
Humanities & Social Sciences
Multidisciplinary

Books

Publish Conference Abstract Books
Upcoming Conference Abstract Books
Published Conference Abstract Books
Publish Your Books
Upcoming Books
Published Books

Proceedings

Events

Events
Five Types of Conference Publications

Join

Join as Editor-in-Chief
Join as Senior Editor
Join as Editorial Board Member
Join as Associate Editor
Become a Reviewer

Information

For Authors
For Reviewers
For Editors
For Conference Organizers
For Librarians
Article Processing Charges
Special Issue Guidelines
Editorial Process
Manuscript Transfers
Peer Review at SciencePG
Open Access
Copyright and License
Ethical Guidelines
Submit an Article
Review Article | | Peer-Reviewed

Assessing the Impact of Precision Farming Technologies: A Literature Review

Hayat Idier*,  Mohammed Dehhaoui,  Nassreddine Maatala,  Kenza Ait El Kadi
Published in World Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology (Volume 2, Issue 4)
Received: 19 October 2024     Accepted: 18 November 2024     Published: 3 December 2024
Views:       Downloads:
Download PDF
Abstract

Climate change, population growth, and economic shocks govern a context where food security and economic sustainability represent major challenges for the agricultural sector. Research for innovative production systems that ensure a better allocation of resources is a necessity to provide the foundations for farm reconversion. In this way, we carried out our work relating to precision farming, which is one of the innovative approaches aimed at ensuring the sustainability of agricultural production systems, thanks to its application principles and potential benefits. This synthesis paper examines aspects of assessing the impact of the use of such technology by analyzing previous research. The analysis carried out showed that the study of the impact of the use of precision technologies focused on three essential components on a micro-economic scale: the economic component, the environmental component, and the agronomic component. Prior studies examining the advantages of precision technologies have mostly relied on the examination of experiments and the application of quantitative analysis methods to measure the impact on environmental, economic, and agronomic parameters. The results of the study demonstrated that the adoption of precision farming technologies has provided advantages that contribute to the sustainability of agricultural production systems. Specifically, reducing environmental impact, cutting GHG (greenhouse gases) emissions by over 80%, valorizing natural resources (water and soil) with irrigation water savings of over 26%, and improving production efficiency and effectiveness. However, we suggest further studies examining the effects of precision agriculture using an integrated approach to assess the agronomic, economic, environmental, and social aspects of a production system as a whole. These studies will provide recommendations for adapting precision agriculture technologies to a wide range of farm types. In turn, highlighting the benefits of using precision farming technologies will support the process of adoption by farmers. The overview and findings presented in this article should point researchers in the direction of further research into precision farming technologies and provide extension staff, farm advisors, and farm machinery dealers with guidelines for promoting the adoption of precision farming.

Published in World Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology (Volume 2, Issue 4)
DOI 10.11648/j.wjast.20240204.17
Page(s) 161-179
Creative Commons

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

Copyright

Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group
Previous article
Keywords

Precision Agriculture (PA), Assessment, Impact, Sustainability

1. Introduction
Precision agriculture is a management approach for agricultural production systems
[84]
. It involves the use of various precision technologies to monitor and manage variability within fields through site-specific management
[34]
.
Pedersen and Lind
[66]
have defined precision agriculture based on two complementary aspects: the technical aspect, where precision agriculture is associated with handling a high density of information and data referred to as "big data," wich provide the presentation and interpretation of specific variables. Then the practical aspect, which pertains to the implementation of the results of big data processing in the field. Precision farming implies the existence of heterogeneity within a field and/or among fields, which requires variable-rate application of inputs in order to achieve production potential and economize agricultural inputs
[22, 67]
.
In the definition by Pierce and Nowak
[67]
, the concept of time has been properly introduced in addition to that of space. For them, precision agriculture involves managing the spatial and temporal variability of all agricultural production interventions through the combined use of modern technologies and scientific principles, with the aim of improving crop performance and environmental quality. In the literature, precision agriculture has the same meaning as site-specific management (SSM), the management of crop production systems, except that precision agriculture is a broader approach adapted to various production systems
[66, 84]
. Site-Specific Crop Management (SSCM) is an aspect of precision agriculture in which a set of technologies is associated to assist users in making decisions regarding input utilization and enhancing agronomic techniques that account for soil conditions and meet crop needs based on field variability
[61]
.
Indeed, the potential benefits of adopting precision agriculture technologies revolve around the sustainability of production systems, through:
a. Reduction of environmental impact and rational use of resources through:
1) Improving the efficiency of machinery and agricultural input utilization
[96]
.
2) Reducing pesticide residues in the nectar and pollen of flowering plants, thereby protecting the health of honeybees
[54]
.
3) Contributing to increased biodiversity and pollinator populations through controlled use of chemical products
[90]
.
4) Sustainable use of pesticides and fertilizers, through targeted application
[46, 69]
.
5) Rational application of agrochemicals and minimization of environmental pollution risks
[1-68, 69-96]
.
6) Mitigating the effects of climate variability.
b. Optimizing agricultural production and improving incomes through:
1) Improved management of agricultural practices using precision agriculture technologies
[96]
.
2) Improved fertilizer and water efficiency per unit area managed
[83]
.
3) Enhancing or preserving crop yields and farmers' income while optimizing input applications
[1, 68]
.
4) Reducing production costs
[1]
.
5) Improving product quality and traceability through technologies enabling precise field management (harvesting and sorting) to obtain a product with specific qualities
[1, 31-68]
.
Technological advances provide a variety of tools and resources that contribute to the improvement of production management processes and the implementation of good agricultural practices. However, the rate of adoption of precision technologies is still low for certain categories
[49]
. Several factors influence the process of adopting PATs. Economic factors, such as the size of the farms, the complexity and cost of technologies, the availability of financial support
[6, 30, 76]
, and other social factors related to the age of the farmers, their experience, and their level of education
[30]
.
In addition, the adoption of PATs depends on farmers' perceptions of their usefulness
[52]
. Farmers expect the efficiency and effectiveness of input use (seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides)
[63]
, the stability of their field productivity, increased farm income, and the optimization of natural resources (water and soil)
[10]
. This is how studies on the impact of precision agriculture provide farmers and decision-makers with data that will facilitate reasoning for the adoption of these technologies and potential interventions to support the development of precision agriculture.
In conclusion, emerging precision technologies promise to serve sustainable agriculture by enabling better allocation of irrigation water resources and reducing losses in fertilizers, all while exerting less pressure on natural resources.
In this context, some research related to precision agriculture technologies has been divided between studies focused on trials that assess the technical evaluation of precision tools in the fields
[9-28, 38-50]
. Other studies have addressed the assessment of the effects of precision technologies' application
[70, 83-95]
and other sources referenced in this paper.
The aim of this synthesis work is to analyze case studies related to the assessment of the impact of a set of precision technologies and to extract various aspects related to these studies. A clear and demonstrated understanding of the benefits offered by precision technologies enables farmers to make adoption decisions, gives adopters the opportunity to further improve their management, and provides the basis for decision-making related to incentives and interventions that can promote the transition to the precision farming approach.
Accordingly, this study aims to 1) Present the methodology adopted for selecting the articles for analysis. 2) Highlight the results of the impact of using precision agriculture technologies for production systems, while noting the approaches used by researchers to assess the benefits of PA technologies. 3) Provide a critical evaluation of the subject and recommendations.
The structure of this work will begin with a presentation of the methodology that explains the process behind performing this literature review. Following this, the results of the assessment of the impact of the use of precision farming technologies are outlined in terms of the three components: environment, economy and agronomy. Finally, the key findings and conclusions from this study are highlighted.
2. Methodology
The aim of this work is presenting a literature review of the literature on the impact of introducing precision agricultural technologies at farm level. The present study is the result of an analysis of a several research assessing the effects of implementing precision farming technologies in crop production processes. A deductive approach was followed to carry out this work and is described in figure 1.
Figure 1. Review paper implementation steps.
3. Findings of Assessing the Impact of the Use of Precision Agriculture Technologies
One of the factors driving the adoption of precision agriculture technologies is the perceived benefits when these technologies are introduced into the production process. One of the factors driving the adoption of precision agriculture technologies is the perceived benefits when these technologies are introduced into the production process. Benefits including increased productivity, cost reduction, input savings, and reduced intervention time, influence the adoption decision among farmers
[39, 74]
. The quantified results of the effects of PATs help development actors to promote the adoption of these innovations
[45]
.
In this section, we present the results of the evaluation of the economic, agronomic, and environmental benefits arising from impact assessment studies of precision agriculture technologies (PATs) applied to crop production systems in different countries.
3.1. Agronomic Impact
Previous studies demonstrate the introduction of precision technologies in all agricultural interventions, including tillage, seeding, irrigation, fertilization, and pest control (Table 1). Additionally, the assessment of the benefits of precision farming has focused on field crops as well as arboreal species, allowing us to deduce the production systems where the use of precision technologies is most justified. In this section related to the analysis of the agronomic impact, we expect to demonstrate that precision agriculture technologies can increase productivity and improve yield quality criteria.
Table 1. Precision technologies assessed in research.

References

Cultivation

Technology

Application

[
4]

Vineyard

Variable rate application

Fertilization Irrigation

[
7]

Potato

Variable rate application

Nitrogen fertilization

[
12]

Apple

Variable rate application

Soil moisture sensors

Irrigation Nitrogen fertilization

[
13]

Zucchini in a greenhouse

Decision support system

Wireless soil sensors

Irrigation

[
14]

Wheat

Laser levelling

Precision seeding

Soil tillage

Seeding

[
21]

Potato

Proximity sensing (sensors)

Irrigation

[
22]

Onion

Variable rate application

Irrigation

[
24]

Barley

Variable rate application

Nitrogen fertilization

[
27]

Potato

Proximity sensing (Sensor chlorophyll of the SPAD)

Nitrogen fertilization

[
29]

Potato

Decision support system

Control plant disease

[
40]

Wheat

Variable rate application

Nitrogen fertilization

[
46]

Wheat

Laser levelling

Precision seeding

Soil tillage

Seeding

[
70]

Wheat

Laser levelling

Soil tillage

[
73]

Wheat

Variable rate application

Seeding

[
77]

Soybeans

Geographic information system

Irrigation strategy simulation model

Irrigation

[
83]

Rice, wheat, mustard, sugarcane

Laser levelling

Soil tillage
3.1.1. Tillage and Precision Seeding
Precision soil leveling creates a favorable surface for crop development, where plants make efficient use of available resources (water and fertilizers), and thereby increasing productivity
[83]
. Ramadan et al.,
[70]
achieved efficiency in wheat irrigation management using laser leveling with water savings of 40%.
Precision seeding technologies, in turn, bring benefits for farmers. They have the potential to optimize seed use and improve crop productivity. Samborski et al.,
[72]
opting for variable-rate seeding of soybeans obtained an 18% reduction in seeding rate without affecting yield. According to Šarauskis et al.,
[73]
doubling the sowing rate boosted wheat yields by 23% to 27% in regions where weeds were proliferating. Similarly, the integration of precision seeding and laser leveling technology has increased winter wheat yields by 23.2%
[14]
. The findings of research conducted in China
[46]
examining the impacts of laser leveling and precision seeding indicated that wheat was able to absorb more nitrogen, justifying a significant increase in grain yield by 22.51% and straw yield by 34.51%.
Installing technologies like controlled traffic and automatic guidance systems on tillage equipment reduces field overlaps, which is expected to increase yield
[4]
.
3.1.2. Variable Rate Fertilization
The Tekin study conducted in 2010
[81]
in Turkey found that variable rate application increased wheat production by 1% to 10% while reducing nitrogen rates by 4% to 37%. The study conducted in 2013 by Biggar and al. in the United States regarding nitrogen fertilization based on sensor technology, revealed an increase of 5% in corn yield and 8% in wheat yield when nitrogen input was reduced by 21% and 10%, respectively
[4]
.
Jovarauskas et al.,
[40]
conducted their experiment relative to variable-rate nitrogen fertilization of spring wheat for five years (2014-2018). Their findings showed no gain in yield as compared to conventional practices. For two out of the five years, wheat yields were slightly higher with variable-rate fertilization, reaching 1.2% in 2015 and 4% in 2016. The year 2015 was characterized by low rainfall, and in 2016, rainfall exceeded the annual average by 31%. During these years, variable-rate fertilization enabled efficient use of nitrogen fertilizers, as inputs were adjusted to crop conditions. As a result, the study concluded that the benefits of variable-rate nitrogen application are contingent on the climate and explicit in unfavorable conditions for the plant
[40]
.
Fabbri et al.,
[24]
in their results about variable-rate nitrogen application, revealed that with a nitrogen reduction of up to 75%, barley yields were maintained and grain protein levels were higher than with conventional fertilization.
For crops with high added value, fertilizers and soil characteristics have a significant effect on production and profit margins. Applying lime at variable rates adjusts the soil pH to the optimal level for the crop, which stabilizes yields and improves product quality
[4]
.
Bohman et al.,
[7]
research demonstrated that, by respecting the recommended requirements for potatoes, a 15% decrease in nitrogen had no effect on yield. Fernandes et al.,
[27]
used chlorophyll sensors to adjust nitrogen fertilization. And nitrogen inputs were reduced by 38% to 63% without affecting potato yield or tuber quality. Furthermore, the integration of nitrogen management and variable-rate irrigation allowed for the supply of the required quantities of nitrogen and irrigation water, which enhanced the yield characteristics
[12]
.
3.1.3. Precision Irrigation
The numerous technologies tested for precision irrigation have demonstrated their efficiency in managing irrigation water. Evans et al.,
[23]
achieved a water saving of 26% with a site-specific irrigation system. In a semi-arid climate, capacitive sensors have proven their worth in improving irrigation water management in potato fields
[21]
. Moreover, applying variable-rate irrigation in the onion fields in England, reduced water consumption compared to traditional irrigation methods while maintaining the same level of agricultural production
[22]
. Similarly, in Italy, precision irrigation has significantly reduced water use in greenhouses growing zucchini without inducing yield losses. Yields were maintained at an average of 30.5 tons/ha by using either precision management or conventional irrigation
[13]
.
However, other studies have revealed increases in yield production, such as in the USA, where corn yields increased by over 1% under precision irrigation
[53]
, while rice yields outperformed traditional irrigation by more than 7%
[75]
.
Also, the yields obtained by precision irrigation of the soybean crop, indicated an average potential increase of 4% to 6.4 % depending on a wet or dry year, respectively
[77]
, in addition to an average potential reduction in water use that exceeds 4%. Additionally, the yields of the soybean crop acquired through precision irrigation showed an average potential increase of 4 % to 6.4% depending on a wet or dry year respectively
[77]
, in addition to an average potential reduction in water use that exceeds 4%. During drought years, precision irrigation can have significant potential for improving irrigation efficiency and yield production.
3.1.4. Site-Specific Pesticide Application
The main effect of site-specific pesticide application technologies can be summed up as a reduction in pesticide quantities, with controlled intervention and preservation of yield quality. According to
[16]
, site-specific fungicide application has limited effect in preventing fungal spread in the soil. Also, the use of a decision support system (DSS) for downy mildew monitoring, has shown the effectiveness of interventions during the potato production cycle
[29]
.
Gonzalez-de-santos et al.,
[33]
conducted tests on a variety of site-specific herbicide treatment devices. And by precise targeting of treatment areas, experiments have revealed a more efficient use of production resources by reducing the amount of herbicides and fuel used compared to conventional applications. Furthermore, the reduction in weed burden could contribute to yield improvement or sustain the level reached by conventional application
[33]
.
Similarly, the site-specific herbicide treatment of field crops (wheat and barley) in Germany decreased the amount of pesticides by reducing the area treated. However, no effect on yield was determined
[69]
. Similar results were seen in Germany when field crops (barley and wheat) were treated with herbicides at specified sites, which decreased the amount of pesticides used by reducing the area treated. However, no effect on yield was determined
[69]
.
The effect of pest and disease attacks on crop production is probably more notable than an increase in yield following phytosanitary intervention. For this reason, the main objective of site-specific pesticide applications is to maintain yield levels without destroying product quality. Therefore, high-value crops that are susceptible to pathogens require appropriate management practices to sustain commercial yield
[55]
.
In summary, yield is an essential component of a farm's production model. Precision farming technologies make it possible to minimize the environmental impact of agricultural practices while maintaining or improving yield levels when they replace inadequate conventional interventions. As a result, research is unlikely to consider a significant impact of technologies on crop yield but rather to analyze the evolution of economic and environmental parameters without any reduction in production.
3.2. Economic Impact
Farmers mainly seek to achieve economic benefits (reduced input costs, gross margin, break-even point, etc.) by introducing a technology to their farm.
Numerous researchers have long been interested in site-specific management
[11, 32]
, although their findings do not reflect economic and financial potentials. For
[31]
, site-specific management generates additional costs associated with the use of technology. These costs are broken down into four categories:
1) Information costs, relate to investment in the instruments and resources required to gather information.
2) Data processing costs, include software costs, specific resources, and the time required to set up site-specific management programs.
3) Costs of management adaptation, converting to precision farming entails costs related to modifying and adapting the management system, including equipment purchases.
4) Learning costs: these relate to the risk of inefficient use of PA technologies during the introduction phase.
In addition, for some kinds of technology, the cost of skilled labor and the cost of expertise are crucial. Consequently, an a priori economic study of the technology introduction is necessary to assess the investment in a precision farming system. Also, Gandorfer and Meyer-Aurich
[27]
, have indicated that a thorough economic evaluation also involves an ex-post analysis.
Indeed, an economic evaluation is not limited to an analysis of the investment in PA, but also to an analysis of the impact. This is why additional studies have examined the effects of implementing the precision farming system using different approaches.
Schneider and Wagner
[91]
made a comparative analysis, between site-specific nitrogen fertilization based on sensors and mapping and site-specific fertilization using neural network and decision tree algorithms. Then, according to the partial budgeting method, mapping technique has shown a negative contribution to profit was anticipated to -14 €/ha. The sensor system produced a 16 €/ha economic benefit. The greatest benefit, however, was shown when using neural networks and decision-tree algorithms; this was 46 €/ha more advantageous than conventional management and 26 €/ha more advantageous than using sensor management. As a result, the better the technology's ability to gather the data required to make accurate decisions, the more explicit the economic benefit
[11]
.
On the other hand, other research has examined the impact of site-specific input management using production functions, and it has been concluded that, at the level of its economic optimum, site-specific fertilizer management is characterized by flat gain functions. In other words, slight variations in fertilizer units relative to the optimum result in negligible marginal economic benefits for farmers
[65]
.
At the same time, contemporary advances are pushing the application of precision farming technologies in a wide range of contexts, and several approaches to valuation have been employed (Table 2) to demonstrate the economic benefits.
Table 2. Studies have analyzed precision farming’s economic advantages.

Reference

Research methodology

Analysis method

Cultivation

Country

[8]

Survey

Descriptive statistics

Wheat

Brazil

[13]

Experimentation

Life Cycle Cost LCC

Zucchini in a greenhouse

Italy

[14]

Experimentation

Cost/benefit analysis

Wheat

China

[22]

Experimentation

Cost/benefit analysis

Onion

England

[35]

Experimentation

Cost/benefit analysis

Barley, wheat

Belgium

[43]

Experimentation

Cost/benefit analysis

Barley

Denmark

[47]

Experimentation

Parametric analysis: Revenue, profit, expenses

Apple

Greek

[55]

Experimentation

Monte-Carlo method, Sensitivity analysis

Apple

United States

[56]

Experimentation

Life cycle assessment (LCA)

Barley, rapeseed, Soybean, wheat

Australia
Table 2. Continued.

Reference

Research methodology

Analysis method

Cultivation

Country

[60]

Experimentation

Cost/benefit analysis

Maize

Belgium, France

[69]

Experimentation

Partial budgeting

Wheat, barley

Germany

[76]

Survey

Partial budgeting analysis

Wheat, potatoes

Belgium, Germany

[82]

Experimentation

Regression analysis, parametric analysis: gross margin, NPV (nette presente value), IRR (Internal Rate of return), payback period

Wheat

Spain

[88]

Experimentation

Parametric analysis: Costs, cash-inflow

Corn, cotton, soybean

United State

[89]

Survey

Descriptive statistics

-

United States

[93]

Experimentation

Descriptive statistics

Cotton

United State

[96]

Experimentation

Partial budgeting

Soybean, maize

Brazil
3.2.1. Precision Seeding
The study conducted by
[14]
evaluated the economic advantages of both seeding techniques; precision seeding and conventional seeding. By opting for precision seeding, the costs of services and of implementing precision technologies have increased the total cost of inputs. However, cost-benefit ratios were 2.11 for precision seeding and 2.27 for precision seeding with laser leveling, an increase of 8.1% and 16.7%, respectively, compared with conventional seeding. Additionally, compared with conventional seeding, the net return for precision seeding increased by 15.5%, or 202 $/ha, and for precision seeding with laser leveling, it was a surplus of 30%, or 546 $ / ha. Nonetheless, a subsidy for technologies related to precision farming will help raise the net return even further
[14]
. In addition, the integration of precision farming technologies into agricultural practices increases income compared with the use of a single technology
[14, 51]
, as they provide precision and control of variability
[48]
.
Corassa et al.,
[19]
chose variable-rate seeding in their experiment to determine the optimal seeding rate for soybeans. The used technique reduces the seed rate by as much as 18% without compromising yield.
In the same context,
[88]
in their study showed the effectiveness of using Automatic Section Control (ASC) system for planters, avoiding double planting of row crops. However, the time required to recoup the investment in the ASC technology depends on farm size and field conditions.
Munnaf et al.,
[60]
have compared the economic response of uniform seeding rate (URS) with site-specific seeding (SSS) of maize. According to their findings, the gross margin increased from 26.7 to 92.67 €/ha respectively, this benefit being mainly due to the 180% increase in yield from 0.25 to 0.7 Mg/ha.
3.2.2. Variable Rate Fertilization
The use of precision farming technologies, such as prescription maps and sensors, has shown potential savings in crop production inputs of up to 23.9% while also reducing environmental impact
[56]
. Similarly, Colaço and Bramley, analyzing the studies of using sensors for site-specific nitrogen management, revealed nitrogen fertilizer savings ranging from 5% to 45%, with less impact on yield
[17]
.
Guerrero et al.,
[35]
in their experiment conducted on variable rate nitrogen fertilization (VRNF) of cereals, deduced a reduction in applied nitrogen of over 19% with a benefit of up to 19.52 €/ha. In the same way, variable-rate fertilization of apple trees has resulted in fertilizer savings of over 60%, with a consequent reduction in fertilizer costs of up to 7.6%
[47]
.
The application of lime at a variable rate in the experiment conducted by Kuang et al.,
[43]
showed an economic benefit of 2.5 €/ha; however, this benefit was not significant over one year of experimentation, requiring a longer-term study.
Karydas et al.,
[41]
carried out their study on the development and use of a farm management information system (FMIS). Fertilization management using FMIS enabled farmers to increase their plot yields by around 15%. As a result, input costs can be economized by up to 20%.
Soto et al.,
[76]
in their study across five European countries for two types of precision farming technology, reported that the evolution of net income varied with farm size. An increase in net income ranging from -18 to 34 €/ha per year with the use of guidance system machines and from -16 to 411 €/ha per year for variable rate application technologies. Although the PA technologies have allowed for labor and working time reductions, they also come with a price tag for assistance and counseling about the management of these technologies.
Tenreiro et al.,
[82]
analyzing the economics of variable-rate nitrogen application, obtained negative annual differential gross margins for 50% of the examined years (3/6 years) due to the crop*year interaction and exogenous variables like investment support policies. Also, the assessment of the viability of the variable-rate application revealed a correlation between profitability and the minimum cultivated area, which needs to exceed 500 ha annually. Furthermore, the internal rate of return (IRR) is affected by variations in inputs and outputs, as well as by the way the equipment is operated (purchased, leased, or subcontracted)
[82]
.
3.2.3. Precision Irrigation
El Chami et al.,
[22]
have conducted a cost-benefit analysis study on precision irrigation in an onion production system in England. Comparing precision irrigation with conventional irrigation, the results showed that precision irrigation saved 22.6% more water than conventional irrigation. Consequently, the added value of irrigation water consumed rose from 2.36 €/m3 per conventional irrigation to 3.02 €/m3 per precision irrigation
[22]
. Despite the precision irrigation system's ability to save water and use irrigation water more efficiently, the investment in this technology surpasses that in conventional irrigation, coming in at 720 €/ha and 766 €/ha, respectively
[22]
. Positive net benefits have been produced by precision irrigation, although they are on average 0.7% less than those of traditional irrigation
[22]
. These benefits are positively correlated with the degree of soil variability. Similarly, farmers in Brazil have perceived increased crop productivity, optimal planning of farming interventions, savings on input costs, and positive net benefits. Except that these economic benefits for site-specific applications depend on the rate of field heterogeneity
[8]
.
In the Mediterranean region of Italy,
[13]
analyzed the impact of precision irrigation by opting for a decision support system (DSS) and an automatic management system connected to sensors in greenhouse zucchini plantations. The result of the economic cost-benefit analysis showed that production costs are mainly affected by the water component. The decision support system and sensor-based irrigation systems produced total costs of 3127 €/ha and 3222 €/ha, respectively, while the farmer's irrigation practices generated a total cost of 3274 €/ha. However, the contribution of the investment costs of the decision support system approach and sensor-based management to production costs is only 16% and 18%, respectively
[13]
.
Furthermore, precision irrigation technologies have advantages in terms of the efficiency of the use of irrigation water. Precision irrigation of potato fields in England has resulted in water savings of approximately 20 mm/year in humid climate zones. However, the benefits of precision irrigation depend on the extent of soil heterogeneity in the field, climatic conditions, the mode of irrigation, and the cost of water
[20]
. Similarly, Mendes et al.,
[57]
have developed an intelligent variable flow irrigation system for bean fields that has resulted in up to 27% water savings.
3.2.4. Site-Specific Pesticide Application
Yang, 2020
[93]
investigated the effect of site-specific pesticide management based on prescription map technology, multispectral imagery, and data processing software. His experiments in South Texas on cotton root rot showed a reduction in fungicide expenses, as targeting infested areas meant that only 57% of the field was treated. Consequently, compared to a uniform treatment, the quantity of fungicide was reduced and its cost was lowered by 43%, saving 2400 $
[93]
. The study made use of cutting-edge precision technologies that have demonstrated their technical effectiveness, including aerial images captured by aircraft and satellite images, in addition to image processing software and control systems for variable-rate fungicide application. However, the investment in these tools can only be recouped if the area treated is reduced by more than 70% through site-specific management
[93]
.
Compared with conventional application,
[55]
estimated average pesticide cost reductions of 60 - 67% with variable-rate application. Also, the technical analysis of the technology revealed a 27–32% decrease in overall application time, estimated at 16–26 minutes, as compared to traditional application times. In addition, variable-rate application technologies have contributed to reducing working hours and saving about 28% on fuel
[55]
. Zanin et al.
[96]
explored a site-specific approach to pesticide management based on real-time sensors. An economic evaluation of the feasibility of site-specific spraying showed a 56% reduction in application costs compared with uniform spraying, thanks to lower volumes of pesticides applied.
In the same vein,
[69]
compared conventional farmer control with site-specific pesticide application based on two monitoring approaches: RGB images and drones. The findings demonstrated that fungicide costs were reduced by 38%, or 75 €/ha, and herbicide costs were reduced by 66%, or 111 €/ha, compared with uniform application. Additionally, site-specific applications resulted in extended gross margins 18% to 22% higher than the reference. However, investment in technology generates additional average annual costs of €17/ha, ranging from 21 €/ha to 37 €/ha.
Gusev et al.,
[37]
pointed out in their study that the use of PATs such as satellite vehicle monitoring systems has led to savings in production resources, including a 6.3% reduction in fuel consumption, a 1.1% reduction in seed consumption, a 3.1% reduction in fertiliser consumption and a 3.6% reduction in phytosanitary products. As a result, profitability has increased by 0.78%.
3.2.5. Minimum Application Area
Precision agriculture manages variability;
[44]
revealed that field heterogeneity generates specific management zones, which creates higher economic benefits compared to a uniform field. The managed area affects the intensity of the impact of PA technologies. For this reason, the concept of minimum area has been brought up in several studies looking at the economic advantages of precision farming technologies.
Rajmis et al.,
[69]
considered the minimum area of application to be the area of grain from which farmers can offset the costs of precision farming technology. They concluded that to save 70% of pesticide costs, the minimum area for drone spraying is 314 ha and an area of 597 ha for site-specific management by sensors. Whereas, areas of 1593 ha and 3024 ha for site-specific applications using drones and sensors, respectively, only enable a 30% reduction in costs.
Tenreiro et al.,
[82]
defined the adoption threshold as the minimum farm area that ensures the economic viability of variable-rate nitrogen application technology. The analysis showed that an area larger than 567 ha per year planted with wheat would be economically advantageous. The rise in wheat prices and the intervention of support policies mean that this area decreases between 68 and 177 ha/year. Manandhar et al.,
[55]
deduced an amortization period for variable-rate pesticide application technology of 3.8 years for a 4 ha apple orchard and 1.1 years for a 20 ha area.
As a result, both the investment needs and the cost of interventions vary across technologies. Nevertheless, as the minimum surface area increases, economies of scale can be achieved, and the farmer recoups his investment.
In conclusion, the economic benefits of PA are affected by a set of factors that are either endogenous, linked to the characteristics of the field and the costs generated by the technologies
[8]
, or exogenous, which are particularly linked to input price policies, investment policies, etc. However, PA technologies are likely to have a direct or indirect economic impact
[3]
. Variable-rate application technologies have shown explicit economic benefits due to their ability to help reduce input costs (fertilizers and water) while improving farm profitability
[36]
. In this regard, surveys conducted by
[89]
revealed that 33% of adopting farmers appreciated an increase in the profitability of the technologies of at least 5%. Over 65% of these farmers realized profits from variable-rate fertilizer and seed application technologies, and 66% from automatic section control technologies.
3.2.6. Precision Agriculture Technologies for Small Farms
Smallholdings include farms with areas ranging from less than one hectare to 10 hectares
[26]
. The class of farms with less than 2 hectares constitutes 84% of agricultural farms worldwide, particularly in low-income and lower-middle-income countries
[25]
. Small farms present difficulties in adopting precision agriculture technologies due to the size of the plots, the high cost of the technology, and the lack of professional and financial support. Given this, proving the financial advantages of PAT for this type of farm is challenging
[59]
. The results of several studies have shown that farm size strongly impacts economic results
[5-74, 76-88]
. Certain classes of farms can even have a negative impact on net income
[76]
.
Small farms' revenue and business activities render certain technologies unaffordable, thereby hindering their adoption. Consequently, it is found that some technical categories, particularly in emerging nations, are more advanced than others
[59]
. These mainly include satellite imagery, mobile applications, and unmanned aerial vehicles, sometimes known as drones
[86, 94]
. Due to their usefulness in collecting information for managing variability, these technologies are being developed by various collective use modes for small farms (e.g., companies providing services to cooperatives)
[78, 86]
.
Notwithstanding the barriers to smallholder adoption of precision agriculture technologies, their use has potential benefits. PATs increase agricultural labor and energy efficiency and effectiveness
[42, 79]
, and they promote the attractiveness of agriculture to young people in rural areas
[42]
. Furthermore, PATs demonstrate their environmental utility while optimizing the use of production resources (fertilizers, water, and energy)
[2-17, 18-20]
. This advantage assists in the sustainability of small farms. Therefore, it is crucial to develop technologies that are appropriate for small farms and their production systems.
3.3. Environmental Impact
3.3.1. Agriculture and Environment
Agricultural activity interacts strongly with the environment and is intimately related to natural resources. On a global scale, agriculture mobilizes large quantities of fertilizers (N, P2O5 andK2O), increasing from 31 Mt in 1961 to over 195 Mt in 2021 (Figure 3). Similarly, the use of pesticides in agriculture has increased by 97%, from 1.7 Mt in 1990 to 3.5 Mt in 2021 (Figure 2).
Data source: (FAOSTAT, 2024)

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 2. Evolution of pesticide use in agriculture.
Data source: (FAOSTAT, 2024)

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 3. Evolution of fertilizer use in agriculture.
At the same time, 11.2% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2021 will come from agriculture. Agriculture's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions has decreased during the last ten years (Figure 4), thanks to efforts to reduce the environmental impact of agriculture.
However, the agricultural sector includes activities with higher GHG emissions linked to enteric fermentation, cultivated soils, and fertilization practices (Figure 5). Excessive fertilization has adverse effects on the environment, with around 20-50% of fertilizers applied being converted into greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as methane, nitrous oxide over fertilization harms the environment since 20 –50% of fertilizers are released as greenhouse gases (GHGs), including carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane
[92]
. Furthermore, overuse of pesticides in agriculture poses a risk to biodiversity and contaminates ecosystems
[64].
Data source: (FAOSTAT, 2024)

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 4. Agriculture activities' contribution to greenhouse gas emissions.
Data source: (FAOSTAT, 2024)

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 5. Agriculture activities' contribution to greenhouse gas emissions.
Therefore, agriculture needs more sustainable management practices to face the challenges of food security and the preservation of natural resources. The employment of PA technologies contributes to environmental conservation thanks to the range of advantages offered by their use
[3, 24-96]
.
3.3.2. Precision Tillage and Seeding
Naresh et al.,
[62]
conducted six years of research on sugarcane, assessing the impact of precision leveling on energy balance and greenhouse gas emissions. Precision leveling increased energy productivity by 90.7 GJ/ha compared with conventional levelling, which was 198.6 GJ/ha. Similarly, GHG emissions were reduced from 5249.33 to 944.19 kg CO2eq/ha/year. In addition, laser leveling has been considered a precision conservation technology that has improved the efficiency of irrigation water use
[70, 83]
.
In the same context,
[14]
examined the effects of residual nitrogen following wheat harvesting in an environmental assessment of precision seeding technologies. The findings indicate that the concentration of nitrate in the soil decreased by 7.9% at a depth of 0–60 cm, while the concentration of ammonia decreased by more than 25% at the same depth. Nitric and ammoniacal residue nitrogen were decreased by precision seeding, however, these effects were not significant at the 0.05% level. The year-long investigation revealed both environmental and economic advantages. In fact, additional favorable impacts may persist and even strengthen in the coming years
[14]
.
In a similar vein,
[29]
found that precision seeding significantly reduced ammonia nitrogen by 46% and nitrate nitrogen by 26%. In addition, compared with conventional seeding, ammonia was considerably reduced by 29% with laser leveling.
Li et al.,
[46]
expanded on the environmental impact analysis by examining how precision seeding methods affect soil nitrogen oxidative bacteria's responses. The use of precision seeding technologies had no significant impact on the quantity of ammonia-oxidizing bacteria (AOB). On the other hand, the multiplication of ammonia-oxidizing archaea (AOA) was activated by the reduction of residual soil nitrogen.
In addition, the integration of controlled traffic farming has proven to have positive environmental effects. This technology has minimized fuel consumption by reducing the number of passes made by farm machinery and the time spent working in the field, in addition to reducing the risk of erosion and soil compaction
[80]
.
3.3.3. Variable Rate Fertilization
Millar et al.,
[58]
considered nitrogen fertilization to be the main factor in N2O emissions. Similarly,
[3]
mentioned that 90% of total GHGs come from the nitrification and denitrification processes of nitrogen fertilizers in fields.
A. T. Balafoutis et al.,
[4]
assessed the effects of variable-rate nitrogen application for three seasons on vineyards, and deduced a significant reduction in total GHG emissions of over 25% and GHG emissions from fertilization of 38% to 43% for the two vine varieties studied. Also,
[40]
were interested in assessing the direct impact of variable application technologies. Their analysis focused on two aspects, the energy review and the estimation of GHG emissions from variable-rate nitrogen application compared with conventional fertilization practices. The experiment conducted between 2014 and 2018 demonstrated that variable-rate nitrogen fertilization technology enabled an increase in energy efficiency, while reducing the energy requirements of agricultural interventions by 12.3%. It also improves productivity by increasing the quantity of product obtained per unit of energy by 9%, compared with conventional fertilization. With regard to GHG emissions, the results of the environmental analysis indicate that GHG emissions from variable-rate nitrogen fertilization (VRF) were 40.4% and 45.5% from conventional fertilization (CF). CO2 Emissions were reduced by 9.4%, equivalent to 457.9 ± 32.0 kg CO2eq ha-1 (VRF) versus 505.5 ± 32.5 kg CO2eq ha-1 (CF).
However, evaluation of the impact of precision fertilization in the short term has not produced any significant results on greenhouse gas emissions
[24]
. Other studies have linked the effect of precision technologies with intra- and inter-seasonal climatic variability, as soil moisture, temperature, and microbial activity influence the direct processes of greenhouse gas generation from the soil
[15, 24-95]
.
3.3.4. Precision Irrigation
Precision irrigation is expected to have a positive impact on the environment by conserving water inputs and subsequently lowering pumping energy
[3]
. Also, another aspect of irrigation control is the control of N2O emission processes in irrigated areas
[85]
. The variable-rate irrigation system evaluated by
[22]
reduced irrigation water consumption by 22.6% and CO2 emissions by 23% compared with conventional practices.
Canaj et al.,
[13]
conducted a life-cycle analysis of precision irrigation technology to quantify environmental effects. The study demonstrated a reduction in environmental risks from 0.03% to 62%. A 12% reduction in the health burden, 11% in resource deterioration, and 13% in the ecological system's quality degradation. Furthermore, the results revealed an energy savings of 340 kWh/ha due to irrigation water savings of 38.8%, without affecting yield. Consequently, precision irrigation technologies have contributed to an overall reduction in environmental impact of 13% per ton of zucchini
[13]
.
3.3.5. Site-Specific Application of Pesticides
Site-specific spraying is a sustainable farm management approach that reduces the treatment frequency indicator (TFI) on the plot while reducing the area treated
[16]
. The site-specific pesticide application generates positive effects for the ecosystem, and helps restore ecological balance since inputs are targeted and made without destroying fauna and refuges in non-infested areas
[87]
.
S⊘nderskov et al.,
[71]
evaluated a decision support system (DSS) for weed control. Herbicide use has decreased by almost 60% in Denmark as a result of the implementation of DSS for barley field management (with a TFI dropping from 1.28 to 0.55).
Gonzalez-de-santos et al.,
[33]
, considered precise pesticide management as an approach to improving the quality of agricultural products, and preserving the health and safety of living beings. As such, they have developed a precision herbicide application system. The integration of new precision farming technologies (GNSS, maps, algorithms, robots, etc.) has enabled the design of effective intervention systems. The findings demonstrated that applying precision agricultural technologies to pesticide treatment reduces herbicide use by 75%, thereby reducing risks to health and the environment.
Ultimately, the various precision agriculture technologies have the potential to reduce the impact of agricultural interventions on the environment either directly or indirectly
[3]
. The first effect revealed was a reduction in the quantities of chemical inputs relating to pesticides and fertilizers. Also, limiting the overexploitation of energy and water resources is a fundamental advantage that ensures the sustainability of production systems. Still, in-depth studies over long time periods are needed to produce consistent outcomes in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing the quality of soil and groundwater.
4. Discussion
4.1. Impact Assessment
This literature review highlights the results of research examining the impact of precision farming technologies. By analyzing the results of these studies, we have been able to outline the impact of the use of precision technologies in terms of three major aspects: agronomic, economic and environmental, as shown in the figure 6. And generally the effects have been positive, but to different extents.
The agronomic impact consists in improving the production process while increasing yield or maintaining it at the same level as with conventional application
[12-14, 48-82]
. However, the results may differ from one crop to another
[83]
and according to the type of technology adopted.
The economic benefits reside mainly in the reduction in the cost of agricultural applications following the reduction in the quantities of water used for irrigation
[57]
, pesticides
[69]
, fertilizers
[47]
and energy consumption
[40]
. However, economic gain depends on a number of external factors linked to the effects of climate and market conditions (raw material prices, selling prices, etc.) and other factors internal to the farm: degree of heterogeneity of the soil
[8]
and the minimum area of application
[69, 82]
, and type of technology used, depending on the agricultural intervention (irrigation, fertilization or phytosanitary treatment).
Nonetheless, the investment cost for certain types of technology outweighs the benefits resulting from their use
[22]
. This can be seen in the fact that certain agricultural interventions require the mobilization of a range of integrated techniques, or the cost of the technology itself is high.
The environmental benefits of precision technologies are well documented in the results of some previous experiments. The reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is a notable result
[3, 24]
, as a result of the reduction in the intensity of agricultural machinery use and energy consumption.
Improved soil quality is another potential result, through improved microbial activity following the reduction in chemical inputs.
Figure 6. Synthesis of the effects of the use of precision farming technologies on agronomic, economic and the environmental aspects.
Another aspect that will be influenced by the use of precision farming technologies at farm is the social component. The introduction of certain types of technology requires farmers to have a certain level of education for adoption, and or qualified manpower for the handling and monitoring of farm operations
[63]
. It will therefore be useful to study this aspect by analyzing the impact of the adoption of precision farming technologies on employability and labor costs.
4.2. Analysis Method
Precision farming technologies are used to realize one or more agricultural interventions, and impact analysis extends throughout the production process.
The works examined have opted for different methods of analysis (Figure 7) based mainly on experimentation
[82, 22-13]
. The life cycle cost method
[13, 56]
and cost-benefit analysis
[14, 22-60, 43-35]
can be allows for a transversal analysis from upstream to downstream of production process for the three aspects (agronomic, economic and environmental) without reaching the social aspect. Partial budgeting used by
[96, 69, 76]
and Monte Carlo methods
[55]
were applied to the economic study of precision farming technologies. Descriptive analysis and regression are methods used to analyse agronomic, economic and environmental parameters
[82, 88-47]
.
The strength of each method depends on its ability to analyse several aspects on a large scale and the possibility of extracting trends from the results. The aim of analysing the impact of precision farming technologies on the farm system could be not only to encourage farmers to adopt the technologies
[45]
, but also to analyse the technico-economic efficiency of the use of these technologies
[55]
, to assess the sustainability of production systems
[45]
, and the adjustment of technologies to farm conditions. As a result, studying the impact of precision farming opens up a number of avenues for future research and in-depth studies from different perspectives and on a multitude of scales.
Figure 7. Analysis methods used in the research reviewed.
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
Our work consisted in analysing the impact of the use of precision farming technologies by studying some recent research cases. Then we classified these impacts according to three aspects. The findings demonstrate that precision farming technologies have proven their environmental, economic and agronomic effectiveness.
Based on the results obtained from the works studied, we are recommending four guidelines for future research, and which will also serve to promote the development of precision agriculture:
Determining the balance between the costs and benefits of introducing the technology,
The economic benefits have been shown to depend on a number factors, precisely the type and level of technology used, the size of the farm, and the crop, in addition to the country's economic context, hence the need to multiply research studies in order to bring out a consistent trend in the results. Both small- and large-scale farmers therefore need to incorporate specific technologies into their processes, with a view to optimising their production process.
Analysing the social impact of the use of precision farming technologies
In the age of digitization, precision farming depends on technologies that require a certain level of staff qualification and others that will probably make farms relatively autonomous. Therefore, evaluating the employment and farm economic effects of these technologies is crucial to establishing the socio-economic trends and prospects for this innovative production approach. Also, another social aspect is how these technologies will be adapted to farmers whose level of education does not allow them to handle these advances.
Extend the range of studies for crop groups (e.g. cereals, market gardening, arboriculture, etc.) and opting for integrated analysis methods
Methods that enable the impact of precision farming technologies to be analysed on a multi-scales can indicate the production systems for which conversion to precision farming is most sustainable. They can also indicate which crops are most profitable with the use of these technologies.
Extending impact studies to the entire farm sector
It would be crucial to explore how precision farming technologies will contribute to making the farming sector competitive and attractive to new investments.
6. Highlights
1) Precision pest management and precision irrigation are a sustainable practice.
2) Adoption of precision farming reduces the environmental risks.
3) Investing in precision farming technologies generates additional costs.
4) The minimum application area is important to ascertain economic break-even point.
5) Social impact of precision agriculture is a scientific avenue to be explored.
Abbreviations

AOA

Ammonia-Oxidizing Archaea

AOB

Ammonia-Oxidizing Bacteria

ASC

Automatic Section Control

CF

Conventional Fertilization

DSS

Decision Support System

FMIS

Farm Management Information

GHG

Greenhouse Gas

GNSS

Global Navigation Satellite System

IRR

Internal Rate of Return

LCA

Life Cycle Assessment

LCC

Life Cycle Cost

NPV

Nette Presente Value

PA

Precision Agriculture

PAT

Precision Agriculture Technology

RGB

Red, Green, and Blue

SSCM

Site-Specific Crop Management

SSM

Site-Specific Management

SSS

Site-Specific Seeding

TFI

Treatment Frequency Indicator

URS

Uniform Seeding Rate

VRF

Variable Rate Fertilization

VRNF

Variable Rate Nitrogen Fertilization
Author Contributions
Hayat Idier: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft
Mohammed Dehhaoui: Supervision, Validation
Nassreddine Maatala: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing
Kenza Ait El Kadi: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
[1] Ahmad, U., & Sharma, L. (2023). A review of Best Management Practices for potato crop using Precision Agricultural Technologies. Smart Agricultural Technology, 4, 100220.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atech.2023.100220

[2] Argento, F., Anken, T., Abt, F., Vogelsanger, E., Walter, A., & Liebisch, F. (2021). Site-specific nitrogen management in winter wheat supported by low-altitude remote sensing and soil data. Precision Agriculture, 22(2), 364-386.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-020-09733-3

[3] Balafoutis, A., Beck, B., Fountas, S., Vangeyte, J., Van der Wal, T., Soto, I., Gómez-Barbero, M., Barnes, A., & Eory, V. (2017). Precision agriculture technologies positively contributing to GHG emissions mitigation, farm productivity and economics. Sustainability, 9(8), 1339.
[4] Balafoutis, A. T., Koundouras, S., Anastasiou, E., Fountas, S., & Arvanitis, K. (2017). Life Cycle Assessment of Two Vineyards after the Application of Precision Viticulture Techniques: A Case Study. Sustainability, 9(11), Article 11.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su9111997

[5] Bhakta, I., Phadikar, S., & Majumder, K. (2019). State-of-the-art technologies in precision agriculture: A systematic review. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 99(11), 4878-4888.

https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.9693

[6] Blasch, J., van der Kroon, B., van Beukering, P., Munster, R., Fabiani, S., Nino, P., & Vanino, S. (2022). Farmer preferences for adopting precision farming technologies: A case study from Italy. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 49(1), 33-81.
[7] Bohman, B. J., Rosen, C. J., & Mulla, D. J. (2019). Evaluation of Variable Rate Nitrogen and Reduced Irrigation Management for Potato Production. Agronomy Journal, 111(4), 2005-2017.

https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2018.09.0566

[8] Bolfe, É. L., Jorge, L. A. de C., Sanches, I. D., Luchiari Júnior, A., da Costa, C. C., Victoria, D. de C., Inamasu, R. Y., Grego, C. R., Ferreira, V. R., & Ramirez, A. R. (2020). Precision and Digital Agriculture : Adoption of Technologies and Perception of Brazilian Farmers. Agriculture, 10(12), Article 12.

https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10120653

[9] Bonfante, A., Monaco, E., Manna, P., De Mascellis, R., Basile, A., Buonanno, M., Cantilena, G., Esposito, A., Tedeschi, A., De Michele, C., Belfiore, O., Catapano, I., Ludeno, G., Salinas, K., & Brook, A. (2019). LCIS DSS—An irrigation supporting system for water use efficiency improvement in precision agriculture: A maize case study. Agricultural Systems, 176, 102646.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102646

[10] Borghi, E., Avanzi, J. C., Bortolon, L., Luchiari Junior, A., & Bortolon, E. S. O. (2016). Adoption and Use of Precision Agriculture in Brazil: Perception of Growers and Service Dealership. Journal of Agricultural Science, 8(11), 89.

https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v8n11p89

[11] Bullock, D. S., Lowenberg-DeBoer, J., & Swinton, S. M. (2002). Adding value to spatially managed inputs by understanding site-specific yield response. Agricultural Economics, 27(3), 233-245.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5150(02)00078-6

[12] Cai, S., externe, L. vers un site, fenêtre, celui-ci s’ouvrira dans une nouvelle, Zheng, B., Zhao, Z., Zheng, Z., Yang, N., & Zhai, B. (2023). Precision Nitrogen Fertilizer and Irrigation Management for Apple Cultivation Based on a Multilevel Comprehensive Evaluation Method of Yield, Quality, and Profit Indices. 15(3), 468.

https://doi.org/10.3390/w15030468

[13] Canaj, K., Parente, A., D’Imperio, M., Boari, F., Buono, V., Toriello, M., & Montesano, F. F. (Réalisateurs). (2022). Can Precise Irrigation Support the Sustainability of Protected Cultivation? A Life-Cycle Assessment and Life-Cycle Cost Analysis [Enregistrement vidéo]. MDPI AG.

https://www.proquest.com/docview/2618266287/abstract/3CE53A454CB84390PQ/9

[14] Chen, J., Zhao, C., Jones, G., Yang, H., Li, Z., Yang, G., Chen, L., & Wu, Y. (2022). Effect and economic benefit of precision seeding and laser land leveling for winter wheat in the middle of China. Artificial Intelligence in Agriculture, 6, 1-9.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aiia.2021.11.003

[15] Chen, Z., Wang, Q., Zhao, J., Chen, Y., Wang, H.-Y., Ma, J., Zou, P., & Bao, L. (2020). Restricted nitrous oxide emissions by ammonia oxidizers in two agricultural soils following excessive urea fertilization. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 20.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-019-02479-0

[16] Cointe, R. L., Simon, T. E., Delarue, P., Hervé, M., Leclerc, M., & Poggi, S. (2016). Reducing the Use of Pesticides with Site-Specific Application: The Chemical Control of Rhizoctonia solani as a Case of Study for the Management of Soil-Borne Diseases. 11(9), e0163221.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163221

[17] Colaço, A. F., & Bramley, R. G. V. (2018). Do crop sensors promote improved nitrogen management in grain crops? Field Crops Research, 218, 126-140.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2018.01.007

[18] Colaço, A. F., & Molin, J. P. (2017). Variable rate fertilization in citrus: A long term study. Precision Agriculture, 18(2), 169-191.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-016-9454-9

[19] Corassa, G. M., Amado, T. J. C., Strieder, M. L., Schwalbert, R., Pires, J. L. F., Carter, P. R., & Ciampitti, I. A. (2018). Optimum Soybean Seeding Rates by Yield Environment in Southern Brazil. Agronomy Journal, 110(6), 2430-2438.

https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2018.04.0239

[20] Daccache, A., Knox, J. W., Weatherhead, E. K., Daneshkhah, A., & Hess, T. M. (2015). Implementing precision irrigation in a humid climate – Recent experiences and on-going challenges. Agricultural Water Management, 147, 135-143.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2014.05.018

[21] Djaman, K., Koudahe, K., Saibou, A., Darapuneni, M., Higgins, C., & Irmak, S. (2022). Soil Water Dynamics, Effective Rooting Zone, and Evapotranspiration of Sprinkler Irrigated Potato in a Sandy Loam Soil. Agronomy, 12(4), Article 4.

https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12040864

[22] El Chami, D., Knox, J. W., Daccache, A., & Weatherhead, E. K. (2019). Assessing the financial and environmental impacts of precision irrigation in a humid climate. Horticultural Science, 46(1), 43-52.

https://doi.org/10.17221/116/2017-HORTSCI

[23] Evans, R., Larue, J., Stone, K., & King, B. (2013). Adoption of site-specific variable rate sprinkler irrigation systems. Irrigation Science, 31.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-012-0365-x

[24] Fabbri, C., Marta, A. D., Napoli, M., Orlandini, S., & Verdi, L. (2023). Short-term Response of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Precision Fertilization on Barley. 13(1), 96.

https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13010096

[25] FAO. 2020. The State of Food and Agriculture 2020. Overcoming water challenges in agriculture. Rome.

https://doi.org/10.4060/cb1447en

[26] FAO. (2013). Smallholders and Family Farmers.

https://openknowledge.fao.org/items/1dd8c6ba-0f86-4e89-a850-5d7e31dea44e

[27] Fernandes, F. M., Soratto, R. P., Fernandes, A. M., & Souza, E. F. C. (2021). Chlorophyll meter-based leaf nitrogen status to manage nitrogen in tropical potato production. Agronomy Journal, 113(2), 1733-1746.

https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20589

[28] Ferrandez, J., García-Chamizo, J., Nieto-Hidalgo, M., Mora-Pascual, J., & Mora-Martínez, J. (2016). Developing Ubiquitous Sensor Network Platform Using Internet of Things: Application in Precision Agriculture. Sensors, 16, 1141.

https://doi.org/10.3390/s16071141

[29] Foughali, K., Fathallah, K., & Frihida, A. (2019). A Cloud-IOT Based Decision Support System for Potato Pest Prevention. Procedia Computer Science, 160, 616-623.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.11.038

[30] Franco, D., Singh, D., & K. V., P. (2018). Evaluation of Adoption of Precision Farming and its Profitability in Banana Crop. Indian Journal of Economics and Development, 14, 225.

https://doi.org/10.5958/2322-0430.2018.00124.5

[31] Gandorfer, M., & Meyer-Aurich, A. (2017). Economic Potential of Site-Specific Fertiliser Application and Harvest Management (S. M. Pedersen & K. M. Lind, Éds.; p. 79-92). Springer International Publishing.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68715-5_3

[32] Gandorfer, M., & Rajsic, P. (2008). Modeling Economic Optimum Nitrogen Rates for Winter Wheat When Inputs Affect Yield and Output-Price. Agricultural Economics Review.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Modeling-Economic-Optimum-Nitrogen-Rates-for-Winter-Gandorfer-Rajsic/478d9ba0771247e17cc28196a24127023c9db076

[33] Gonzalez-de-santos, P., Ribeiro, A., Fernandez-quintanilla, C., Lopez-granados, F., Brandstoetter, M., Tomic, S., Pedrazzi, S., Peruzzi, A., Pajares, G., Kaplanis, G., Perez-ruiz, M., Valero, C., Del Cerro, J., Vieri, M., Rabatel, G., & Debilde, B. (2017). Fleets of robots for environmentally-safe pest control in agriculture. 18(4), 574-614.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-016-9476-3

[34] González-Salazar, F. (2020). Agriculture 4.0 the advance in models and new knowledge to improve production. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 844, 012028.

https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/844/1/012028

[35] Guerrero, A., De Neve, S., & Mouazen, A. M. (2021). Data fusion approach for map-based variable-rate nitrogen fertilization in barley and wheat. Soil and Tillage Research, 205, 104789.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2020.104789

[36] Günal, E. (2021). Delineating reclamation zones for site-specific reclamation of saline-sodic soils in Dushak, Turkmenistan. PLOS ONE, 16, e0256355.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256355

[37] Gusev, A., Skvortsov, E., & Volkova, S. (2022). The study of the impact of introduction of precision farming technologies on the main production and economic indicators at agriculture organizations. 020012. INDUSTRIAL, MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING.

https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0107626

[38] Haghverdi, A., Leib, B. G., Washington-Allen, R. A., Ayers, P. D., & Buschermohle, M. J. (2015). Perspectives on delineating management zones for variable rate irrigation. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 117, 154-167.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2015.06.019

[39] Jacobs, A., Van Tol, J. J., & Preez, C. C. (2018). Farmers’ perceptions of precision agriculture and the role of agricultural extension : A case study of crop farming in the Schweizer-Reneke region, South Africa. South African Journal of Agricultural Extension (SAJAE), 46, 107-118.

https://doi.org/10.17159/2413-3221/2018/v46n2a484

[40] Jovarauskas, D., Steponavičius, D., Kemzūraitė, A., Zinkevičius, R., & Venslauskas, K. (2021). Comparative analysis of the environmental impact of conventional and precision spring wheat fertilization under various meteorological conditions. Journal of Environmental Management, 296, 113150.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113150

[41] Karydas, C., Chatziantoniou, M., Stamkopoulos, K., Iatrou, M., Vassiliadis, V., & Mourelatos, S. (2023). Embedding a precision agriculture service into a farm management information system—Ifarma/PreFer. Smart Agricultural Technology, 4, 100175.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atech.2023.100175

[42] Kienzle, J. (2013). Precision Agriculture for Smallholder Famers. Agriculture for Development TAA, TAA ISSN 1759-0604, 12-15.
[43] Kuang, B., Tekin, Y., Waine, T., & Mouazen, A. (2014). Variable rate lime application based on on-line visible and near infrared (vis-NIR) spectroscopy measurement of soil properties in a Danish field.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Variable-rate-lime-application-based-on-on-line-and-Kuang-Tekin/cbaab31d0210bd422ca26c8f39220fe5a4d0dd77

[44] Lawes, R. A., & Robertson, M. J. (2011). Whole farm implications on the application of variable rate technology to every cropped field. Field Crops Research, 124(2), 142-148.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2011.01.002

[45] Lee, C.-L., Strong, R., & Dooley, K. E. (2021). Analyzing Precision Agriculture Adoption across the Globe : A Systematic Review of Scholarship from 1999–2020. Sustainability, 13(18), Article 18.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810295

[46] Li, C., Wang, Y., Lu, C., & Huai, H. (2018). Effects of precision seeding and laser land leveling on winter wheat yield and residual soil nitrogen. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 20, 2357-2362.

https://doi.org/10.17957/IJAB/15.0820

[47] Liakos, V., Smith, E., Fountas, S., Nanos, G., Kalfountzos, D., & Gemtos, T. (2020). On-Farm Evaluation of Variable Rate Fertilizer Applications Using Yield-Based Mathematical Formulae in a Greek Apple Orchard. International Journal of Fruit Science, 20(sup2), S48-S65.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15538362.2019.1702135

[48] Longchamps, L., Tisseyre, B., Taylor, J., Sagoo, L., Momin, A., Fountas, S., Manfrini, L., Ampatzidis, Y., Schueller, J. K., & Khosla, R. (2022). Yield sensing technologies for perennial and annual horticultural crops : A review. Precision Agriculture, 23(6), 2407-2448.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-022-09906-2

[49] Looney, L., Montgomery, P., Edwards, M., Arnall, B., & Raun, W. (2022). Producers’ adoption behaviors for precision agriculture (PA) technologies to improve nitrogen use efficiency : Diffusion of Innovations theory as an explanatory lens. Advancements in Agricultural Development, 3, 40-50.

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i3.205

[50] López-Riquelme, J. A., Pavón-Pulido, N., Navarro-Hellín, H., Soto-Valles, F., & Torres-Sánchez, R. (2017). A software architecture based on FIWARE cloud for Precision Agriculture. Agricultural Water Management, 183, 123-135.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.10.020

[51] Lowenberg-DeBoer. (2001). Economic analysis of precision farming.
[52] Lowenberg-DeBoer, J., & Erickson, B. (2019). Setting the Record Straight on Precision Agriculture Adoption. Agronomy Journal, 111.

https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2018.12.0779

[53] Lu, Y.-C., Sadler, E. J., & Camp, C. R. (2005). Economic Feasibility Study of Variable Irrigation of Corn Production in Southeast Coastal Plain. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 26(3), 69-81.

https://doi.org/10.1300/J064v26n03_08

[54] Lückmann, J., Kaiser, S., & Von Blanckenhagen, F. (2019). Precision farming—Consideration of reduced exposure in the pollinator risk assessment.

https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.22046.89924

[55] Manandhar, A., Zhu, H., Ozkan, E., & Shah, A. (2020). Techno-economic impacts of using a laser-guided variable-rate spraying system to retrofit conventional constant-rate sprayers. Precision Agriculture, 21(5), 1156-1171.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-020-09712-8

[56] Medel-Jiménez, F., Krexner, T., Gronauer, A., & Kral, I. (2024). Life cycle assessment of four different precision agriculture technologies and comparison with a conventional scheme. Journal of Cleaner Production, 434, 140198.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.140198

[57] Mendes, W. R., Videira, A. M. E., Er-Raki, S., Heeren, D. M., Dutta, R., & Araújo, F. M. U. (2024). Development of a Fuzzy Variable Rate Irrigation Control System Based on Remote Sensing Data to Fully Automate Center Pivots. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, 21(4), 6109-6125. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering.

https://doi.org/10.1109/TASE.2023.3322120

[58] Millar, N., Robertson, G. P., Grace, P. R., Gehl, R. J., & Hoben, J. P. (2010). Nitrogen fertilizer management for nitrous oxide (N2O) mitigation in intensive corn (Maize) production : An emissions reduction protocol for US Midwest agriculture. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 15(2), 185-204.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-010-9212-7

[59] Mizik, T. (2023). How can precision farming work on a small scale? A systematic literature review. Precision Agriculture, 24(1), 384-406.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-022-09934-y

[60] Munnaf, M. A., Haesaert, G., & Mouazen, A. M. (2022). Site-specific seeding for maize production using management zone maps delineated with multi-sensors data fusion scheme. Soil and Tillage Research, 220, 105377.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2022.105377

[61] Nabi, L. A., Firasath. (2021). Agriculture 5.0: Artificial Intelligence, IoT and Machine Learning. CRC Press.

https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003125433

[62] Naresh, R. K., Bhatt, R., Chandra, M. S., Laing, A. M., Gaber, A., Sayed, S., & Hossain, A. (2021). Soil Organic Carbon and System Environmental Footprint in Sugarcane-Based Cropping Systems Are Improved by Precision Land Leveling. Agronomy, 11(10), Article 10.

https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11101964

[63] Norton, G. W., Swinton, S. M., Peters, G. H., & Pingali, P. (2001). Precision agriculture: Global prospects and environmental implications.
[64] Olivier, G., & Hanene, C. (2021). Causalité, sévérité et évolution des impacts des pesticides sur les écosystèmes. In : Prone A. (ed.). Impact de I’anthropisation sur la biosphère : biodiversité et fonctionnement des écosystèmes.
[65] Pannell, D. J. (2006). Flat Earth Economics: The Far-reaching Consequences of Flat Payoff Functions in Economic Decision Making. Review of Agricultural Economics, 28(4), 553-566.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9353.2006.00322.x

[66] Pedersen, S. M., & Lind, K. M. (2017). Precision Agriculture : Technology and Economic Perspectives. Springer.
[67] Pierce, F. J., & Nowak, P. (1999). Aspects of Precision Agriculture. In D. L. Sparks (Éd.), Advances in Agronomy (Vol. 67, p. 1-85). Academic Press.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(08)60513-1

[68] R. G. Evans, W. B. Stevens, & W. M. Iversen. (2009). Development of Strip Tillage on Sprinkler Irrigated Sugarbeet. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 26(1), 59-69.

https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.29476

[69] Rajmis, S., Karpinski, I., Pohl, J.-P., Herrmann, M., & Kehlenbeck, H. (2022). Economic potential of site-specific pesticide application scenarios with direct injection and automatic application assistant in northern Germany. Precision Agriculture, 23.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-022-09888-1

[70] Ramadan, A., Mehanna, H., Pipars, S., & Bakery, B. (2014). IMPACT OF LASER LAND LEVELING ON WATER PRODUCTIVITY OF WHEAT UNDER DEFICIT IRRIGATION CONDATIONS. Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 1, 53-64.
[71] S⊘nderskov, M., Kudsk, P., Mathiassen, S. K., B⊘jer, O. M., & Rydahl, P. (2014). Decision Support System for Optimized Herbicide Dose in Spring Barley. Weed Technology, 28(1), 19-27.

https://doi.org/10.1614/WT-D-13-00085.1

[72] Samborski, S. M., Gozdowski, D., Stępień, M., Walsh, O. S., & Leszczyńska, E. (2016). On-farm evaluation of an active optical sensor performance for variable nitrogen application in winter wheat. European Journal of Agronomy, 74, 56-67.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2015.11.020

[73] Šarauskis, E., Kazlauskas, M., Naujokienė, V., Bruciene, I., Steponavičius, D., Romaneckas, K., & Algirdas, J. (2022). Variable Rate Seeding in Precision Agriculture: Recent Advances and Future Perspectives. Agriculture, 12, 305.

https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12020305

[74] Schimmelpfennig, D. (2016). Farm Profits and Adoption of Precision Agriculture. 217, 46.
[75] Simmonds, M., Plant, R. E., Peña-Barragán, J. M., Kessel, C., Hill, J., & Linquist, B. (2013). Underlying causes of yield spatial variability and potential for precision management in rice systems. Precision Agriculture, 1-29.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-013-9313-x

[76] Soto, I., Barnes, A., Balafoutis, A., Beck, B., Sanchez, B., Vangeyte, J., Fountas, S., Van der Wal, T., Eory, V., & Gómez-Barbero, M. (2019). The contribution of precision agriculture technologies to farm productivity and the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in the EU:

https://doi.org/10.2760/016263

[77] Souza, S. A., Rodrigues, L. N., & da Cunha, F. F. (2023). Assessing the precision irrigation potential for increasing crop yield and water savings through simulation. Precision Agriculture, 24(2), 533-559.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-022-09958-4

[78] Squeri, C., Diti, I., Irene Pauline, R., Stefano, P., Paolo, D., Carla, S., & Matteo, G. (2021). [PDF] The High-Yielding Lambrusco (Vitis vinifera L.) Grapevine District Can Benefit from Precision Viticulture | Semantic Scholar.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-High-Yielding-Lambrusco-(Vitis-vinifera-L.)-Can-SqueriDiti/106c7e37ca91c7c2b5d459a13f6a63154a81755a

[79] Strub, L., Kurth, A., & Loose, S. M. (2021). Effects of Viticultural Mechanization on Working Time Requirements and Production Costs. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 72(1), 46-55.

https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2020.20027

[80] Tamirat, T. W., Pedersen, S. M., Farquharson, R. J., de Bruin, S., Forristal, P. D., Sørensen, C. G., Nuyttens, D., Pedersen, H. H., & Thomsen, M. N. (2022). Controlled traffic farming and field traffic management : Perceptions of farmers groups from Northern and Western European countries. Soil and Tillage Research, 217, 105288.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2021.105288

[81] Tekin, A. (2010). Variable rate fertilizer application in Turkish wheat agriculture: Economic assessment. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 5, 647-652.
[82] Tenreiro, T., Avillez, F., Gómez, J., Penteado, M., Coelho, J., & Fereres, E. (2022). Opportunities for variable rate application of nitrogen under spatial water variations in rainfed wheat systems—An economic analysis. Precision Agriculture, 24.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-022-09977-1

[83] Tomar, S. S., Singh, Y. P., Naresh, R. K., Dhaliwal, S. S., Gurjar, R. S., Yadav, R., Sharma, D., & Tomar, S. (2020). Impacts of laser land levelling technology on yield, water productivity, soil health and profitability under arable cropping in alluvial soil of north Madhya Pradesh. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, 9(4), 1889-1898.
[84] Trivelli, L., Apicella, A., Chiarello, F., Rana, R., Fantoni, G., & Tarabella, A. (2019). From precision agriculture to Industry 4.0: Unveiling technological connections in the agrifood sector. British Food Journal, 121(8), 1730-1743.

https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-11-2018-0747

[85] Trost, B., Prochnow, A., Drastig, K., Meyer-Aurich, A., Ellmer, F., & Baumecker, M. (2013). Irrigation, soil organic carbon and N2O emissions. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 33(4), 733-749.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0134-0

[86] UNDP. (2021). Precision Agriculture for Smallholder Farmers. UNDP.

https://www.undp.org/publications/precision-agriculture-smallholder-farmers

[87] Vasileiadis, V. P., Moonen, A. C., Sattin, M., Otto, S., Pons, X., Kudsk, P., Veres, A., Dorner, Z., van der Weide, R., Marraccini, E., Pelzer, E., Angevin, F., & Kiss, J. (2013). Sustainability of European maize-based cropping systems: Economic, environmental and social assessment of current and proposed innovative IPM-based systems. European Journal of Agronomy, 48, 1-11.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2013.02.001

[88] Velandia, M., Buschermohle, M., Larson, J. A., Thompson, N. M., & Jernigan, B. M. (2013). The economics of automatic section control technology for planters: A case study of middle and west Tennessee farms. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 95, 1-10.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2013.03.006

[89] Wang, T., Jin, H., Sieverding, H., Kumar, S., Miao, Y., Rao, X., Obembe, O., Mirzakhani Nafchi, A., Redfearn, D., & Cheye, S. (2023). Understanding farmer views of precision agriculture profitability in the U.S. Midwest. Ecological Economics, 213, 107950.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107950

[90] Wenneker, M., Riemens, M. M., Allema, B., Bremmer, J., Van Apeldoorn, D., Bai, Y., Kempenaar, C., & Reinders, M. (2021). Future of crop protection in Europe.

https://doi.org/10.2861/044114

[91] Werner, A., Dreger, F., & Schwarz, J. (2008). Informationsgeleitete Pflanzenproduktion mit Precision Farming als zentrale inhaltliche und technische Voraussetzung für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung der landwirtschaftli- chen Landnutzung – pre agro II.
[92] Xia, L., Xia, Y., Li, B., Wang, J., Wang, S., Zhou, W., & Yan, X. (2016). Integrating agronomic practices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while increasing the economic return in a rice-based cropping system. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 231, 24-33.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.06.020

[93] Yang, C. (2020). Remote Sensing and Precision Agriculture Technologies for Crop Disease Detection and Management with a Practical Application Example. Engineering, 6.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2019.10.015

[94] Yang, R., Ahmed, Z. U., Schulthess, U. C., Kamal, M., & Rai, R. (2020). Detecting functional field units from satellite images in smallholder farming systems using a deep learning based computer vision approach : A case study from Bangladesh. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment, 20, 100413.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsase.2020.100413

[95] Yue, P., Li, K., Gong, Y., Hu, Y., Mohammat, A., Christie, P., & Liu, X. (2016). A five-year study of the impact of nitrogen addition on methane uptake in alpine grassland. Scientific Reports, 6(1), Article 1.

https://doi.org/10.1038/srep32064

[96] Zanin, A. R. A., Neves, D. C., Teodoro, L. P. R., da Silva Júnior, C. A., da Silva, S. P., Teodoro, P. E., & Baio, F. H. R. (2022). Reduction of pesticide application via real-time precision spraying. Scientific Reports, 12(1), Article 1.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-09607-w

Cite This Article
Plain Text BibTeX RIS

  • APA Style

    Idier, H., Dehhaoui, M., Maatala, N., Kadi, K. A. E. (2024). Assessing the Impact of Precision Farming Technologies: A Literature Review. World Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2(4), 161-179. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.wjast.20240204.17

    Copy | Download

    ACS Style

    Idier, H.; Dehhaoui, M.; Maatala, N.; Kadi, K. A. E. Assessing the Impact of Precision Farming Technologies: A Literature Review. World J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2024, 2(4), 161-179. doi: 10.11648/j.wjast.20240204.17

    Copy | Download

    AMA Style

    Idier H, Dehhaoui M, Maatala N, Kadi KAE. Assessing the Impact of Precision Farming Technologies: A Literature Review. World J Agric Sci Technol. 2024;2(4):161-179. doi: 10.11648/j.wjast.20240204.17

    Copy | Download 

  • @article{10.11648/j.wjast.20240204.17,
  author = {Hayat Idier and Mohammed Dehhaoui and Nassreddine Maatala and Kenza Ait El Kadi},
  title = {Assessing the Impact of Precision Farming Technologies: A Literature Review
},
  journal = {World Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology},
  volume = {2},
  number = {4},
  pages = {161-179},
  doi = {10.11648/j.wjast.20240204.17},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.wjast.20240204.17},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.wjast.20240204.17},
  abstract = {Climate change, population growth, and economic shocks govern a context where food security and economic sustainability represent major challenges for the agricultural sector. Research for innovative production systems that ensure a better allocation of resources is a necessity to provide the foundations for farm reconversion. In this way, we carried out our work relating to precision farming, which is one of the innovative approaches aimed at ensuring the sustainability of agricultural production systems, thanks to its application principles and potential benefits. This synthesis paper examines aspects of assessing the impact of the use of such technology by analyzing previous research. The analysis carried out showed that the study of the impact of the use of precision technologies focused on three essential components on a micro-economic scale: the economic component, the environmental component, and the agronomic component. Prior studies examining the advantages of precision technologies have mostly relied on the examination of experiments and the application of quantitative analysis methods to measure the impact on environmental, economic, and agronomic parameters. The results of the study demonstrated that the adoption of precision farming technologies has provided advantages that contribute to the sustainability of agricultural production systems. Specifically, reducing environmental impact, cutting GHG (greenhouse gases) emissions by over 80%, valorizing natural resources (water and soil) with irrigation water savings of over 26%, and improving production efficiency and effectiveness. However, we suggest further studies examining the effects of precision agriculture using an integrated approach to assess the agronomic, economic, environmental, and social aspects of a production system as a whole. These studies will provide recommendations for adapting precision agriculture technologies to a wide range of farm types. In turn, highlighting the benefits of using precision farming technologies will support the process of adoption by farmers. The overview and findings presented in this article should point researchers in the direction of further research into precision farming technologies and provide extension staff, farm advisors, and farm machinery dealers with guidelines for promoting the adoption of precision farming.
},
 year = {2024}
}

    Copy | Download 

  • TY  - JOUR
T1  - Assessing the Impact of Precision Farming Technologies: A Literature Review

AU  - Hayat Idier
AU  - Mohammed Dehhaoui
AU  - Nassreddine Maatala
AU  - Kenza Ait El Kadi
Y1  - 2024/12/03
PY  - 2024
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.wjast.20240204.17
DO  - 10.11648/j.wjast.20240204.17
T2  - World Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology
JF  - World Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology
JO  - World Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology
SP  - 161
EP  - 179
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2994-7332
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.wjast.20240204.17
AB  - Climate change, population growth, and economic shocks govern a context where food security and economic sustainability represent major challenges for the agricultural sector. Research for innovative production systems that ensure a better allocation of resources is a necessity to provide the foundations for farm reconversion. In this way, we carried out our work relating to precision farming, which is one of the innovative approaches aimed at ensuring the sustainability of agricultural production systems, thanks to its application principles and potential benefits. This synthesis paper examines aspects of assessing the impact of the use of such technology by analyzing previous research. The analysis carried out showed that the study of the impact of the use of precision technologies focused on three essential components on a micro-economic scale: the economic component, the environmental component, and the agronomic component. Prior studies examining the advantages of precision technologies have mostly relied on the examination of experiments and the application of quantitative analysis methods to measure the impact on environmental, economic, and agronomic parameters. The results of the study demonstrated that the adoption of precision farming technologies has provided advantages that contribute to the sustainability of agricultural production systems. Specifically, reducing environmental impact, cutting GHG (greenhouse gases) emissions by over 80%, valorizing natural resources (water and soil) with irrigation water savings of over 26%, and improving production efficiency and effectiveness. However, we suggest further studies examining the effects of precision agriculture using an integrated approach to assess the agronomic, economic, environmental, and social aspects of a production system as a whole. These studies will provide recommendations for adapting precision agriculture technologies to a wide range of farm types. In turn, highlighting the benefits of using precision farming technologies will support the process of adoption by farmers. The overview and findings presented in this article should point researchers in the direction of further research into precision farming technologies and provide extension staff, farm advisors, and farm machinery dealers with guidelines for promoting the adoption of precision farming.

VL  - 2
IS  - 4
ER  -

    Copy | Download

Author Information
Download PDF

About Us

Science Publishing Group (SciencePG) is an Open Access publisher, with more than 300 online, peer-reviewed journals covering a wide range of academic disciplines.

Learn More About SciencePG

Products

Information

Important Link

Copyright © 2012 -- 2025 Science Publishing Group – All rights reserved.