1. Introduction
At present, the domain of embedded systems is experiencing significant advancement. In terms of technological progression, notable achievements have been made in hardware miniaturization, with ARM Cortex-M series microcontrollers being extensively deployed. The enhancement of edge computing capabilities facilitates local data processing, particularly through the utilization of Raspberry Pi platforms, while the implementation of fog computing architectures has commenced in agricultural applications and various other sectors. In terms of application scenarios, embedded systems have penetrated into vertical fields such as agriculture, industry, and medical care, realizing functions ranging from soil sensors to closed-loop control of intelligent irrigation, and the initial potential of integration with emerging technologies such as machine learning and blockchain. However, research gaps remain. This paper mainly studies the technology optimization, vertical domain customization strategy, integration with emerging technologies, cross-platform deployment, and scalability design of embedded systems to solve Iot problems. The research methods used are case analysis, such as embedded system application cases in different fields, and comparative studies. It can provide a reference for the development of embedded systems in the Internet of Things, put forward improvement suggestions for application scenarios, predict the development trend of integration with emerging technologies, and provide ideas for solving problems in the scale and inclusive development of the embedded Internet of Things.
2. Technological evolution: hardware and architectural innovations
2.1. Low-power embedded chips and edge computing
The hardware miniaturization of embedded systems and the enhancement of edge computing capabilities have become the core driving force for the development of agricultural IoT. For example, the STM32F407ZGT6 chip based on ARM Cortex-M4 achieves 12-15 meter detection range and 20kHz frequency conversion acoustic wave control in the intelligent bird repellant, its power consumption is only 5W, and it supports solar power supply [1]. Single-board computers, exemplified by the Raspberry Pi, facilitate a reduction in irrigation decision latency from 2 seconds to 200 milliseconds for cloud-based solutions by enabling localized data processing [2], significantly optimizing resource utilization. In addition, by deploying edge gateways (such as WeMos ESP8266) in the field, the fog computing architecture can analyze soil moisture and meteorological data in real time, trigger localized alerts, and reduce cloud communication bandwidth requirements by 30% [3]. It can improve efficiency and make people’s lives more convenient.
2.2. Fog-cloud collaborative architecture
The new fog-cloud collaborative architecture solves the scaling bottleneck of traditional IoT through a hierarchical data processing mechanism. For example, the intelligent greenhouse system combined with the Alibaba Cloud platform and LoRaWAN gateway assigns image recognition tasks to edge nodes (such as Jetson Nano) and uploads only structured data to the cloud, reducing the daily data volume from 15GB to 1.2MB [4]. This architecture achieves millisecond response in precision irrigation scenarios, saving 47% of energy compared to pure cloud solutions [5].
3. Application scenario: embedded IoT practices in vertical domains
3.1. Agricultural internet of things
The integration of low-cost embedded solutions, ranging from soil sensors to closed-loop control mechanisms for intelligent irrigation, has permeated the entire agricultural value chain, thereby establishing a comprehensive closed-loop system that encompasses data acquisition and intelligent decision-making processes. Taking soil-crop-environment dynamic collaborative control as an example, the technical framework contains the following core components: Sensing layer: Capacitive soil moisture sensor (3.3-5.5VDC): Using the frequency domain reflection principle (FDR) to achieve ±3% accuracy in the 0-100% volume moisture content (VWC) range, power consumption is only 0.2W. The integrated implementation of the Sensirion SHT45 and GY-302 light modules facilitates the simultaneous monitoring of soil electrical conductivity (EC value) and photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), thereby offering a comprehensive decision-making framework for optimizing drip irrigation systems. [6]. Multi-spectral imaging node: Based on the Raspberry PI 4B+AS7341 spectral sensor, the crop canopy reflection spectrum (400-1000nm) is captured at 15 FPS, and the chlorophyll content is evaluated in real time by NDVI index, with an accuracy of 89%. Control layer: Adaptive drip irrigation algorithm: An embedded MCU (such as ESP32) runs a PID controller that dynamically adjusts the pulse solenoid valve opening according to the soil moisture threshold. In the Negev Desert experimental site in Israel, the system achieved a reduction in annual water consumption per hectare from 5,700 cubic meters to 520 cubic meters, thereby enhancing water utilization efficiency to 92% [6]. Joint pest and disease control: The lightweight model based on YOLOv3-Tiny (compressed to 8.7MB) is deployed in Jetson Nano and can identify 7 types of pests (flies, aphids, etc.) with 90% accuracy through transfer learning. Combined with the sound and light repellent device, pesticide use was reduced by 35%, and the error rate of beneficial insects was less than 5% [7]. The output value per unit area increased United Nations food [8]. The table compares the performance of conventional agriculture and embedded IOT solutions in three aspects [9]:
Output value per unit area: Traditional agriculture is $3,200 per hectare, while the embedded IoT solution is $5,800 per hectare, representing an increase of 81%, indicating that the latter can significantly enhance the output value per unit area.
Labor demand: Conventional agricultural practices necessitate 0.8 laborers per hectare, whereas the integration of an Internet of Things (IoT) solution diminishes this requirement to 0.3 laborers per hectare, reflecting a substantial reduction of 62.5% in labor demand.
Carbon emissions: Traditional agriculture emits 1,450 kilograms of CO2 equivalent per hectare, while the embedded IoT solution emits 890 kilograms of CO2 equivalent per hectare, a reduction of 38.6%, suggesting that this solution has a greater environmental advantage with lower carbon emissions.
This table indicates that embedded Internet of Things (IoT) solutions have obvious advantages over traditional agriculture in terms of enhancing agricultural economic benefits and reducing environmental impacts.
Table 1: Economic benefits and environmental impact
Index | Conventional agriculture | Embedded IOT solutions | Lifting range |
Output value per unit area($/ha) | 3,200 | 5,800 | 81% |
Labour demand(people/ha) | 0.8 | 0.3 | -62.5% |
Carbon emission(kg CO₂e/ha) | 1,450 | 890 | -38.6% |
4. Technological convergence: cross-domain synergies
4.1. Blockchain &embedded systems
The combination of Hyperledger Fabric and embedded devices provides a new paradigm for agricultural traceability. Each sensor node (such as ESP32) generates a time-stamped hash value and is linked, enabling the data tampering detection rate of the Mango supply chain to reach 99.8%[10]. Nevertheless, the consensus mechanism inherent to blockchain technology leads to a 23% escalation in energy consumption by devices, necessitating the optimization of lightweight algorithms, exemplified by IOTA Tangle [11].
4.2. TinyML-driven edge intelligence
TensorFlow Lite Micro facilitates real-time disease prognostication on the Cortex-M7 microcontroller, with the model size optimized to 48KB while sustaining an inference accuracy of 87% [12]. For example, the wheat rust detection system achieves a processing speed of 5 FPS on STM32H743 through 8-bit quantization MobileNetV2, which reduces the latency by 98% compared with the cloud solution [13].
5. Standardization and security: scaling challenges
5.1. Protocol fragmentation
The expansion of Internet of Things (IoT) communication protocols within the agricultural sector has resulted in a disjointed ecosystem, hindering both interoperability and scalability. The distinctions between LoRa (Long Range) and NB-IoT (Narrowband IoT) serve as prime illustrations of this fragmentation.
LoRa: Optimized for rural areas with a coverage radius of 15–20 km and ultra-low power consumption (e.g., 10-year battery life for soil sensors) [14]. However, its limited bandwidth (0.3–50 kbps) restricts high-frequency data transmission.
NB-IoT: Designed for urban deployments with higher node density, supporting up to 50,000 devices per cell tower and bandwidths up to 200 kbps. Yet, its reliance on cellular infrastructure increases operational costs in remote regions.
An examination of a multinational agribusiness functioning in Brazil and Germany demonstrated that the endorsement of six communication protocols (LoRaWAN, NB-IoT, Zigbee, Sigfox, Wi-Fi HaLow, and Modbus) resulted in a 41% escalation in annual device management expenditures, predominantly attributable to the necessity for redundant gateway installations and the establishment of protocol-specific maintenance teams [14]. For instance, Zigbee (2.4 GHz) and Wi-Fi HaLow (900 MHz) sensors in the same greenhouse caused signal interference, reducing data packet delivery rates to 72%.
The IEEE P2418.1 Standard attempts to unify interfaces by mandating dual-mode radios (e.g., LoRa + NB-IoT) and adopting JSON-LD for metadata harmonization. Early adopters like John Deere’s Smart Corn Planters achieved 68% compatibility in mixed-protocol fields, but legacy devices using proprietary protocols (e.g., Bosch XDK110’s custom LoRa stack) remain incompatible [15]. Future solutions may leverage software-defined radios (SDRs) to dynamically switch protocols, though current implementations increase power consumption by 18%.
5.2. Data security threats
(1) Firmware Exploits: The 2023 Australian smart farm attack exploited unencrypted OTA updates on a SolarEdge irrigation controller, injecting malware that overrode soil moisture thresholds. This phenomenon led to 350 hectares of wheat cultivation experiencing an excess water influx of 220%, culminating in an estimated $2.1 million in agricultural losses [16]. Post-incident forensics revealed that the malware utilized a buffer overflow vulnerability in the controller’s FreeRTOS kernel (CVE-2023-4871).
(2) Edge Node Compromise: A 2024 study demonstrated that 63% of Raspberry Pi- based edge gateways lacked secure boot mechanisms, enabling physical attackers to extract AES-128 encryption keys via GPIO pin snooping.
Mitigation Strategies: TrustZone Hardware Security: NXP’s i. MX RT1180 microcontroller isolates cryptographic operations (e.g., ECDSA key generation) in a secure enclave, reducing key leakage risks by 83% compared to software-only TPMs [17]. Field tests on soybean farms showed that TrustZone-enabled devices detected 99.4% of unauthorized firmware modification attempts.
Differential Privacy (DP): The incorporation of Laplace noise (ε=0.5) into the aggregated soil data facilitates differential privacy, resulting in a reduction of data utility loss to 9% while simultaneously thwarting adversarial attempts to reconstruct individual farm datasets [18]. For example, the AgriDP framework achieved 91% accuracy in regional drought predictions without exposing individual farm moisture levels.
6. Cost-effectiveness and scalability
6.1. Low-cost solutions
Affordability remains critical for smallholder adoption. The KisanIoT Project in India deployed 12,000 Arduino-based weather stations, integrating.
Hardware: Arduino Nano 33 BLE Sense ($18) + SIM800L GSM module ($5), measuring temperature, humidity, and rainfall.
Software: A lightweight LwM2M client transmitting data every 30 minutes via 2G networks.
Results:
Cost: $23 per unit vs. $220 for commercial equivalents (e.g., Davis Vantage Pro2) [19].
Failure Analysis: 30% of units failed within 6 months due to moisture ingress (67%), antenna corrosion (22%), and firmware crashes (11%) [20].
Scalability Improvements:
Modular Design: The FarmBot Genesis v1.5 kit uses snap-on sensor modules (e.g., pH, EC), allowing farmers to incrementally upgrade capabilities.
Community Training: Kenya’s iCow initiative reduced device failures by 44% through hands-on workshops on solar panel cleaning and OTA update verification.
6.2. Energy optimization
Energy constraints dominate rural IoT deployments. Recent advancements encompass Dynamic Voltage and Frequency Scaling (DVFS): John Deere X9 harvesters utilize STM32H7 microcontroller units (MCUs) featuring adaptive DVFS, which facilitates dynamic modulation between 480 MHz (3.8W) and 240 MHz (2.1W) contingent upon computational demand. This optimization has resulted in a 27% reduction in energy consumption during periods of diminished activity (e.g., nocturnal operations) [21]. Comparative tests showed that static voltage regulators wasted 41% of energy during idle states, while DVFS achieved 89% efficiency.
Hybrid Energy Harvesting: Solar-Supercapacitor Systems: The SolarCap v3.0 kit combines a 6W PV panel with a 100F graphene supercapacitor, storing 12.6 kJ of energy. During 72-hour overcast periods, it maintains a 5W LoRa gateway by discharging at 98% efficiency, outperforming lithium batteries (23% capacity after 200 cycles) [22].
Vibration Energy Harvesting: Siemens’ ENV-100 piezo module attached to tractors generates 8.3 mW from engine vibrations, sufficient to power BLE soil sensors.
Energy-Aware Task Scheduling: A reinforcement learning model deployed on Texas Instruments CC2652R MCUs optimizes sensor wake-up intervals, reducing LoRa node energy use by 33% without compromising data granularity.
RISC-V Ecosystem: Open-source RISC-V cores (e.g., SiFive E21) cut licensing costs by 90%, enabling sub-$ 10 edge AI devices for pest detection.
Bio-Inspired Power Management: Mimicking plant circadian rhythms, the "Photosync" algorithm synchronizes sensor activity with solar irradiance patterns, boosting energy efficiency by 19%.
In the RISC-V ecosystem, there's room for improvement. Optimizing ISA implementation can further enhance the performance - power ratio. Scholars suggest microarchitecture optimizations like pipeline design, but complex ones may increase cost. For software, more efficient compilers and operating systems are needed. However, relevant talent is scarce.
Security is crucial for RISC-V in edge devices. Hardware-software security mechanisms like encryption instruction set extensions at the hardware level and secure startup and runtime monitoring at the software level are being explored. However, balancing security, performance, and cost is a challenge.
RISC-V's integration with MRAM can improve data access speed and energy efficiency, yet it faces process and interface problems. Its connection with quantum computing is also a forward-looking direction, though lacking in interdisciplinary research.
In bio-inspired power management, cross-species inspiration from deep-sea organisms can help design algorithms for low-power sensor networks but requires interdisciplinary knowledge. The "Photosync" algorithm needs adaptive optimization using machine learning, which demands large datasets and faces resource limitations on edge devices. Also, power management should be optimized from individual to system level in IoT systems considering device heterogeneity and task requirements.
7. Conclusion
This paper comprehensively analyzes the development of embedded systems in the Internet of Things, covering multiple dimensions. The embedded Internet of Things system has significantly improved the intelligence level of agricultural production through hardware innovation and architecture evolution. Edge computing and cloud collaboration frameworks address latency and bandwidth constraints, whereas TinyML and blockchain technologies enhance device intelligence and trustworthiness. Nonetheless, protocol fragmentation and security vulnerabilities persist as significant obstacles to scalability. Three breakthroughs should be made in the future: First, establishing cross-platform embedded device interoperability standards; Furthermore, developing lightweight post-quantum encryption algorithms; Moreover, building a predictive maintenance system based on digital twins. On the economic side, modular design (such as RISC-V open source ecology) can further reduce the adoption threshold of small farmers and promote the inclusive development of agricultural IoT.
References
[1]. Singh, G., & Singh, J. (2023). Transformative potential of IoT for developing smart agriculture system: A systematic review. In 2023 4th International Conference on Communication, Computing and Industry 6.0 (C216) (pp. 1-6). Bangalore, India. https://doi.org/10.1109/C2I659362.2023.10430789
[2]. Sharma, D. R., Mishra, V., & Srivastava, S. (2023). Enhancing crop yields through IoT-enabled precision agriculture. In 2023 International Conference on Disruptive Technologies (ICDT) (pp. 279-283). Greater Noida, India. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDT57929.2023.10151422
[3]. Rikeeth, A. (2024). IoT in agriculture 4.0: Farmer adoption, barriers, and the path to sustainable farming. In 2024 Second International Conference on Emerging Trends in Information Technology and Engineering (ICETITE) (pp. 1-7). Vellore, India. https://doi.org/10.1109/ic-ETITE58242.2024.10493146
[4]. Kaur, H., Shukla, A. K., & Singh, H. (2022). Review of IoT technologies used in agriculture. In 2022 2nd International Conference on Advance Computing and Innovative Technologies in Engineering (ICACITE) (pp. 1007-1011). Greater Noida, India. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICACITE53722.2022.9823520
[5]. Kim, T., Baek, J., & Im, D. (2024). A study on low-power wide area communication based multi-sensing technology for smart agriculture. In 2024 Fifteenth International Conference on Ubiquitous and Future Networks (ICUFN) (pp. 544-546). Budapest, Hungary. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICUFN61752.2024.10625632
[6]. Cheng, W.-M., et al. (2021). A real and novel smart agriculture implementation with IoT technology. In 2021 9th International Conference on Orange Technology (ICOT) (pp. 1-4). Tainan, Taiwan. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICOT54518.2021.9680638
[7]. Abdul Hafeez, P., Singh, G., Singh, J., Prabha, C., & Verma, A. (2022). IoT in agriculture and healthcare: Applications and challenges. In 2022 3rd International Conference on Smart Electronics and Communication (ICOSEC) (pp. 446-450). Trichy, India. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICOSEC54921.2022.9952061
[8]. Lu, Y., An, J., & Shi, S. (2021). Research on smart agriculture IoT system based heterogeneous networking technology. In 2021 IEEE 4th International Conference on Information Systems and Computer Aided Education (ICISCAE) (pp. 485-488). Dalian, China. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICISCAE52414.2021.9590756
[9]. Savita, & Vimal. (2023). Integrating IoT-based environmental monitoring and data analytics for crop-specific smart agriculture management: A multivariate analysis. In 2023 3rd International Conference on Technological Advancements in Computational Sciences (ICTACS) (pp. 368-373). Tashkent, Uzbekistan. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICTACS59847.2023.10390277
[10]. Kuaban, G. S., et al. (2022). An IoT course program to foster the adoption of IoT-driven food and agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). In 2022 International Conference on Electrical, Computer and Energy Technologies (ICECET) (pp. 1-7). Prague, Czech Republic. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICECET55527.2022.9872825
[11]. Ismaili, S., Idrizi, F., Rustemi, A., Ibraimi, M., & Idrizi, H. (2024). IoT-based irrigation system for smart agriculture. In 2024 XXXIII International Scientific Conference Electronics (ET) (pp. 1-6). Sozopol, Bulgaria. https://doi.org/10.1109/ET63133.2024.10721573
[12]. Anand, A. et al.(2022). Applications of Internet of Things (IoT) in agriculture: The need and implementation. In 2022 International Conference Advancement in Data Science, E-learning and Information Systems (ICADEIS) (pp. 01-05). Bandung, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICADEIS56544.2022.10037505
[13]. Alakuş, D. O., & Türkoğlu, İ. (2024). Smart agriculture, precision agriculture, digital twins in agriculture: Similarities and differences. In 2024 Innovations in Intelligent Systems and Applications Conference (ASYU) (pp. 1-5). Ankara, Turkiye. https://doi.org/10.1109/ASYU62119.2024.10757158
[14]. Ravishankar, M., Siddharth, S., Yadav, A. A., & Kassa, S. R. (2023). Integrating IoT and sensor technologies for smart agriculture: Optimizing crop yield and resource management. In 2023 IEEE Technology & Engineering Management Conference - Asia Pacific (TEMSCON-ASPAC) (pp. 1-5). Bengaluru, India. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEMSCON-ASPAC59527.2023.10531339
[15]. Kassim, M. R. M. (2022). Applications of IoT and blockchain in smart agriculture: Architectures and challenges. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Computing (ICOCO) (pp. 253-258). Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICOCO56118.2022.10031697
[16]. Khaleefah, R. et al. (2023). Optimizing IoT data transmission in smart agriculture: A comparative study of reduction techniques. In 2023 5th International Congress on Human-Computer Interaction, Optimization and Robotic Applications (HORA) (pp. 01-05). Istanbul, Turkiye. https://doi.org/10.1109/HORA58378.2023.10156757
[17]. Cornei, D., & Foșalău, C. (2022). Using IoT in smart agriculture: Study about practical realizations and testing in a real environment. In 2022 International Conference and Exposition on Electrical And Power Engineering (EPE) (pp. 013-018). Iasi, Romania. https://doi.org/10.1109/EPE56121.2022.9959823
[18]. Singh, G., & Singh, J. (2023). A fog computing-based agriculture-IoT framework for detection of alert conditions and effective crop protection. In 2023 5th International Conference on Smart Systems and Inventive Technology (ICSSIT) (pp. 537-543). Tirunelveli, India. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSSIT55814.2023.10060995
[19]. Hazra, S., et al. (2024). Prospects of agriculture using IoT and machine learning. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Smart Power Control and Renewable Energy (ICSPCRE) (pp. 1-6). Rourkela, India. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSPCRE62303.2024.10674786
[20]. Thirisha, R., et al. (2023). Precision agriculture: IoT-based system for real-time monitoring of paddy growth. In 2023 International Conference on Sustainable Emerging Innovations in Engineering and Technology (ICSEIET) (pp. 247-251). Ghaziabad, India. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSEIET58677.2023.10303483
[21]. El Ghati, O., Alaoui-Fdili, O., Alioua, N., Chahbouni, O., & Bouarifi, W. (2023). An overview of the applications of AI-powered visual IoT systems in agriculture. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Advances in Data-Driven Analytics And Intelligent Systems (ADACIS) (pp. 1-4). Marrakesh, Morocco. https://doi.org/10.1109/ADACIS59737.2023.10424223
[22]. Pachouri, V., Pandey, S., Gehlot, A., Negi, P., Chhabra, G., & Joshi, K. (2023). Agriculture 4.0: Inculcation of big data and the Internet of Things in sustainable farming. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Contemporary Computing and Communications (InC4) (pp. 1-4). Bangalore, India. https://doi.org/10.1109/InC457730.2023.10263261
Cite this article
Wang,Z. (2025). Applications of Embedded IoT Systems in Smart Agriculture: Innovations and Challenges. Applied and Computational Engineering,151,156-162.
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer/Publisher's Note
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s). EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
About volume
Volume title: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Software Engineering and Machine Learning
© 2024 by the author(s). Licensee EWA Publishing, Oxford, UK. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Authors who
publish this series agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the series right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this
series.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the series's published
version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial
publication in this series.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and
during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See
Open access policy for details).
References
[1]. Singh, G., & Singh, J. (2023). Transformative potential of IoT for developing smart agriculture system: A systematic review. In 2023 4th International Conference on Communication, Computing and Industry 6.0 (C216) (pp. 1-6). Bangalore, India. https://doi.org/10.1109/C2I659362.2023.10430789
[2]. Sharma, D. R., Mishra, V., & Srivastava, S. (2023). Enhancing crop yields through IoT-enabled precision agriculture. In 2023 International Conference on Disruptive Technologies (ICDT) (pp. 279-283). Greater Noida, India. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDT57929.2023.10151422
[3]. Rikeeth, A. (2024). IoT in agriculture 4.0: Farmer adoption, barriers, and the path to sustainable farming. In 2024 Second International Conference on Emerging Trends in Information Technology and Engineering (ICETITE) (pp. 1-7). Vellore, India. https://doi.org/10.1109/ic-ETITE58242.2024.10493146
[4]. Kaur, H., Shukla, A. K., & Singh, H. (2022). Review of IoT technologies used in agriculture. In 2022 2nd International Conference on Advance Computing and Innovative Technologies in Engineering (ICACITE) (pp. 1007-1011). Greater Noida, India. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICACITE53722.2022.9823520
[5]. Kim, T., Baek, J., & Im, D. (2024). A study on low-power wide area communication based multi-sensing technology for smart agriculture. In 2024 Fifteenth International Conference on Ubiquitous and Future Networks (ICUFN) (pp. 544-546). Budapest, Hungary. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICUFN61752.2024.10625632
[6]. Cheng, W.-M., et al. (2021). A real and novel smart agriculture implementation with IoT technology. In 2021 9th International Conference on Orange Technology (ICOT) (pp. 1-4). Tainan, Taiwan. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICOT54518.2021.9680638
[7]. Abdul Hafeez, P., Singh, G., Singh, J., Prabha, C., & Verma, A. (2022). IoT in agriculture and healthcare: Applications and challenges. In 2022 3rd International Conference on Smart Electronics and Communication (ICOSEC) (pp. 446-450). Trichy, India. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICOSEC54921.2022.9952061
[8]. Lu, Y., An, J., & Shi, S. (2021). Research on smart agriculture IoT system based heterogeneous networking technology. In 2021 IEEE 4th International Conference on Information Systems and Computer Aided Education (ICISCAE) (pp. 485-488). Dalian, China. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICISCAE52414.2021.9590756
[9]. Savita, & Vimal. (2023). Integrating IoT-based environmental monitoring and data analytics for crop-specific smart agriculture management: A multivariate analysis. In 2023 3rd International Conference on Technological Advancements in Computational Sciences (ICTACS) (pp. 368-373). Tashkent, Uzbekistan. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICTACS59847.2023.10390277
[10]. Kuaban, G. S., et al. (2022). An IoT course program to foster the adoption of IoT-driven food and agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). In 2022 International Conference on Electrical, Computer and Energy Technologies (ICECET) (pp. 1-7). Prague, Czech Republic. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICECET55527.2022.9872825
[11]. Ismaili, S., Idrizi, F., Rustemi, A., Ibraimi, M., & Idrizi, H. (2024). IoT-based irrigation system for smart agriculture. In 2024 XXXIII International Scientific Conference Electronics (ET) (pp. 1-6). Sozopol, Bulgaria. https://doi.org/10.1109/ET63133.2024.10721573
[12]. Anand, A. et al.(2022). Applications of Internet of Things (IoT) in agriculture: The need and implementation. In 2022 International Conference Advancement in Data Science, E-learning and Information Systems (ICADEIS) (pp. 01-05). Bandung, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICADEIS56544.2022.10037505
[13]. Alakuş, D. O., & Türkoğlu, İ. (2024). Smart agriculture, precision agriculture, digital twins in agriculture: Similarities and differences. In 2024 Innovations in Intelligent Systems and Applications Conference (ASYU) (pp. 1-5). Ankara, Turkiye. https://doi.org/10.1109/ASYU62119.2024.10757158
[14]. Ravishankar, M., Siddharth, S., Yadav, A. A., & Kassa, S. R. (2023). Integrating IoT and sensor technologies for smart agriculture: Optimizing crop yield and resource management. In 2023 IEEE Technology & Engineering Management Conference - Asia Pacific (TEMSCON-ASPAC) (pp. 1-5). Bengaluru, India. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEMSCON-ASPAC59527.2023.10531339
[15]. Kassim, M. R. M. (2022). Applications of IoT and blockchain in smart agriculture: Architectures and challenges. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Computing (ICOCO) (pp. 253-258). Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICOCO56118.2022.10031697
[16]. Khaleefah, R. et al. (2023). Optimizing IoT data transmission in smart agriculture: A comparative study of reduction techniques. In 2023 5th International Congress on Human-Computer Interaction, Optimization and Robotic Applications (HORA) (pp. 01-05). Istanbul, Turkiye. https://doi.org/10.1109/HORA58378.2023.10156757
[17]. Cornei, D., & Foșalău, C. (2022). Using IoT in smart agriculture: Study about practical realizations and testing in a real environment. In 2022 International Conference and Exposition on Electrical And Power Engineering (EPE) (pp. 013-018). Iasi, Romania. https://doi.org/10.1109/EPE56121.2022.9959823
[18]. Singh, G., & Singh, J. (2023). A fog computing-based agriculture-IoT framework for detection of alert conditions and effective crop protection. In 2023 5th International Conference on Smart Systems and Inventive Technology (ICSSIT) (pp. 537-543). Tirunelveli, India. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSSIT55814.2023.10060995
[19]. Hazra, S., et al. (2024). Prospects of agriculture using IoT and machine learning. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Smart Power Control and Renewable Energy (ICSPCRE) (pp. 1-6). Rourkela, India. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSPCRE62303.2024.10674786
[20]. Thirisha, R., et al. (2023). Precision agriculture: IoT-based system for real-time monitoring of paddy growth. In 2023 International Conference on Sustainable Emerging Innovations in Engineering and Technology (ICSEIET) (pp. 247-251). Ghaziabad, India. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSEIET58677.2023.10303483
[21]. El Ghati, O., Alaoui-Fdili, O., Alioua, N., Chahbouni, O., & Bouarifi, W. (2023). An overview of the applications of AI-powered visual IoT systems in agriculture. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Advances in Data-Driven Analytics And Intelligent Systems (ADACIS) (pp. 1-4). Marrakesh, Morocco. https://doi.org/10.1109/ADACIS59737.2023.10424223
[22]. Pachouri, V., Pandey, S., Gehlot, A., Negi, P., Chhabra, G., & Joshi, K. (2023). Agriculture 4.0: Inculcation of big data and the Internet of Things in sustainable farming. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Contemporary Computing and Communications (InC4) (pp. 1-4). Bangalore, India. https://doi.org/10.1109/InC457730.2023.10263261