Submitted:
19 May 2023
Posted:
22 May 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Artificial Intelligent in Smart Farming
4. Crop Analysis and Prediction- Benefits and Challenges
4.1. Benefits
- More effectiveness: This approach is more effective and accurate in identifying patterns and saving farmers’ time and resources because a larger volume of data can be evaluated by machine learning in a shorter amount of time than with previous methods.
- Increased crop yield: Using many data sources for analysis, including weather patterns, soil quality, and historical machine learning algorithms, can help farmers make more informed decisions that increase crop yields.
- Lower costs: Machine learning may assist farmers in maximizing the use of resources like water, fertilizer, and pesticides by offering insights into crop development and health. This can save expenses while also lowering how much of an impact agriculture has on the environment.
- Early disease detection: Farmers can take preventative measures to stop the spread of illness and reduce crop loss by identifying early indicators of crop diseases with the aid of machine learning. Once the model is sufficiently trained it can detect anomalies such as discoloration on growth size in the early stages of disease, much faster than it would be noticed by humans.
- Improved crop management: By offering insights into variables like soil moisture, temperature, and nutrient levels, ML algorithms can assist farmers in improving their crop management tactics. This can assist farmers in making data-driven decisions regarding the best time to water, fertilize, and sow their crops
4.2. Challenges
- Data volume: ML models frequently need a lot of data for efficient training. Large data management and collection in agriculture can be difficult, especially for small farms.
- Data quality: The accuracy and dependability of machine learning (ML) models depend on the caliber of the training data. Obtaining high-quality data in agriculture can be challenging because of changes in the soil, climate, geography, and other environmental factors. As a result, gathering and cleansing data might be difficult.
- Model complexity: Because agricultural systems are intricate, it can be challenging to develop machine learning (ML) models that completely account for all the important variables affecting crop development and output. Selecting the best model architecture for a certain crop analysis or forecast activity can be difficult and may call for extensive knowledge.
- Interpretability: Analyzing the outcomes of ML models, particularly those that use deep learning techniques, which are quite complex, can be challenging. Because of this, it may be difficult for farmers to comprehend the elements that go into making a particular crop prediction or suggestion.
- Accessibility: In situations with limited resources, it may be challenging to obtain access to the hardware and software infrastructure required for developing and deploying ML models.
- Privacy and security: These concerns exist around the collection, storage, and use of sensitive agricultural data. It can be challenging to ensure privacy and security while still allowing access to the data for ML research.
- Human factors: It’s possible that farmers and other interested parties won’t readily adopt new methods and technology, such as ML-based systems. For technology to be used more widely, it must be made accessible, user-friendly, and capable of providing real benefits
4. Methodology
- Find the count of observations with class c, let it be count(c)
- Calculate the prior probability for class c, let it be P(c) = count(c) / m
- Find the count of observations with the feature i and class c, let it be count (i, c)
- Find the count of observations with class c
- Calculate the conditional probability of feature i given class c.
- Initialize the posterior probability P(c|x) to P(c)
- For each feature i in x:
- Select a bootstrap sample from the training data set.
- Using the bootstrap sample, create a decision tree T_t with a maximum depth of d.
- Randomly select f features to consider at each split of T_t
- Use the selected features to find the best split at each node of T_t
- For each decision, find the prediction. Obtain the predictions of all the trees.
- Using the prediction from all decisions tress, calculate the final predicted class.
- Define the number of layers, number of neurons per layer
- Initialize randomly the weights and biases for each neuron in the network.
- Forward propagate the input through the neural network to obtain the predicted output.
- Calculate the error rate between the predicted output and the actual output.
- Backward propagate the error through the neural network to adjust the weights and biases using the optimization algorithm.
- Repeat until the error converges to a satisfactory level.
5. Experimental Results
6. Conclusion
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Linchao Li et al. Developing machine learning models with multi-source environmental data to predict wheat yield in China. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 2022, Volume 194, 106790.
- van Klompenburg T; Kassahun A; Catal C. Crop yield prediction using machine learning: A systematic literature review. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 2020, 177.
- Kuradusenge et al., et al. Crop Yield Prediction Using Machine Learning Models: Case of Irish Potato and Maize. Agriculture 2023, vol. 13(1), pp. 225.
- Oré, G.; Alcântara, M. S.; Góes, J. A.; Oliveira, L. P.; Yepes, J.; Teruel, B.; Castro, V. Crop Growth Monitoring with Drone-Borne DInSAR. Remote Sensing 2020, vol. 12(4), pp. 615.
- A. Gehlot; N. Sidana; D. Jawale; N. Jain; B. P. Singh; B. Singh. Technical analysis of crop production prediction using Machine Learning and Deep Learning Algorithms. International Conference on Innovative Computing, Intelligent Communication and Smart Electrical Systems (ICSES), 2022, Chennai, India, 2022, pp. 1-5.
- S. Vashisht; P. Kumar; M. C. Trivedi. Improvised Extreme Learning Machine for Crop Yield Prediction. 3rd International Conference on Intelligent Engineering and Management (ICIEM) 2022, London, United Kingdom, pp. 754-757.
- F. Shahrin; L. Zahin; R. Rahman; A. J. Hossain; A. H. Kaf; A. K. M. Abdul Malek Azad. Agricultural Analysis and Crop Yield Prediction of Habiganj using Multispectral Bands of Satellite Imagery with Machine Learning. 11th International Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering (ICECE) 2020, Dhaka, Bangladesh, pp. 21-24.
- Tawseef A. S.; Tabasum R.; Faisal R. L. Towards leveraging the role of machine learning and artificial intelligence in precision agriculture and smart farming. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 2022, Volume 198.
- Senthil K. S. D.; Mary D. S. Smart farming using Machine Learning and Deep Learning techniques. Decision Analytics Journal 2022, Volume 3, pp. 100041.
- Senthil K. M.; Akshaya R; Sreejith K. An Internet of Things-based Efficient Solution for Smart Farming. Procedia Computer Science 2023, Volume 218, Pages 2806-2819.
- Vivek S.; Ashish K. T; Himanshu M. Technological revolutions in smart farming: Current trends, challenges & future directions. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 2022, Volume 201, 107217.
- Mamatha, J.C. K. Machine learning based crop growth management in greenhouse environment using hydroponics farming techniques. Measurement: Sensors 2023, Volume 25,100665.
- Sandya D. A.; Ziwei H.; Yishuo Z.; Myung H. N.; Bahadorreza O.; Atul S. A survey on smart farming data, applications, and techniques. Computers in Industry 2022, Volume 138, 103624.
- Rashid M; Bari B.S.; Yusup Y.; Kamaruddin M.A.; Khan N. A Comprehensive Review of Crop Yield Prediction Using Machine Learning Approaches with Special Emphasis on Palm Oil Yield Prediction. in IEEE Access 2021, vol. 9, pp. 63406-63439.
- Babber J.; Malik P.; Mittal V.; Purohit K.C. Analyzing Supervised Learning Algorithms for Crop Prediction and Soil Quality. 6th International Conference on Computing Methodologies and Communication (ICCMC) 2022, Erode, India, pp. 969-973.
- Ishak M; Rahaman M.S; Mahmud T. FarmEasy: An Intelligent Platform to Empower Crops Prediction and Crops Marketing. 13th International Conference on Information & Communication Technology and System (ICTS) 2021, Surabaya, Indonesia, pp. 224-229.
- Patel K; Patel H.B. A Comparative Analysis of Supervised Machine Learning Algorithm for Agriculture Crop Prediction. Fourth International Conference on Electrical, Computer and Communication Technologies (ICECCT) 2021, Erode, India, pp. 1-5.
- Memon R; Memon M; Malioto N; Raza M.O. Identification of growth stages of crops using mobile phone images and machine learning. International Conference on Computing, Electronic and Electrical Engineering (ICE Cube) 2021, Quetta, Pakistan, pp. 1-6.
- Chandraprabha M; Dhanaraj R.K. Soil Based Prediction for Crop Yield using Predictive Analytics. 3rd International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communication Control and Networking (ICAC3N) 2021, Greater Noida, India, pp. 265-270.
- Ray R. K; Das S. K; Chakravarty S. Smart Crop Recommender System-A Machine Learning Approach. 12th International Conference on Cloud Computing, Data Science & Engineering (Confluence) 2022, Noida, India, pp. 494-499.
- Johnson N; Santosh M.B; Dhannia T. A survey on Deep Learning Architectures for effective Crop Data Analytics. International Conference on Advances in Computing and Communications (ICACC) 2021, India, pp. 1-10.
- Priyadharshini K; Prabavathi R; Devi V.B; Subha P; Saranya S.M; Kiruthika K. An Enhanced Approach for Crop Yield Prediction System Using Linear Support Vector Machine Model. International Conference on Communication, Computing and Internet of Things (IC3IoT) 2022, Chennai, India, pp. 1-5.
- Malathy S; Vanitha C. N; Kotteswari S.; M. E. Rainfall Prediction for Enhancing Crop-Yield based on Machine Learning Techniques. International Conference on Applied Artificial Intelligence and Computing (ICAAIC) 2022, Salem, India, pp. 437-442.
- Chowdary V.T; Robinson Joel M; Ebenezer V; Edwin B; Thanka R; Jeyaraj A. A Novel Approach for Effective Crop Production using Machine Learning. International Conference on Electronics and Renewable Systems (ICEARS) 2022, Tuticorin, India, pp. 1143-1147.
- Yamparla R; Shaik H. S; Guntaka N; Marri P; Nallamothu S. Crop Yield Prediction using Random Forest Algorithm. 7th International Conference on Communication and Electronics Systems (ICCES) 2022, Coimbatore, India, pp. 1538-1543.
- G. A. R. and S. S. S., “A brief study on the prediction of crop disease using machine learning approaches,” 2021 International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Computing Applications (ICCICA), Nagpur, India, pp. 1-6.
- Kumar R; Shukla N; Princee. Plant Disease Detection and Crop Recommendation Using CNN and Machine Learning. International Mobile and Embedded Technology Conference (MECON), 2022, Noida, India, pp. 168-172.
- Bhosale S. V.; Thombare R. A.; Dhemey P.G.; Chaudhari A.N. Crop Yield Prediction Using Data Analytics and Hybrid Approach. Fourth International Conference on Computing Communication Control and Automation (ICCUBEA) 2018, Pune, India.
- Alwis S.D.; Hou Z.; Zhang Y.; Na M.H.; Ofoghi B.; Sajjanhar A. A survey on smart farming data, applications and techniques. Computers in Industry 2022, vol. 138, pp. 103624.
- Ramos P. J.; Prieto F.A.; Montoya E.C; Oliveros C.E. Automatic fruit count on coffee branches using computer vision. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 2017, vol. 137, pp. 9-22.
- Sengupta S.; Lee W.S. Identification and determination of the number of immature green citrus fruit in a canopy under different ambient light conditions. Biosystems Engineering 2014, vol. 117, pp. 51-61, 2014.
- Su Y.; Xu H.; Yan L. Support vector machine-based open crop model (SBOCM): Case of rice production in China. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2017, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 537-547.
- Adankon M.M.; Cheriet M. Support Vector Machine. Encyclopedia of Biometrics 2009, S. Z. Li and A. Jain, Eds. Boston, MA: Springer US, pp. 1303-1308.
- Ali, I.; Cawkwell, F.; Dwyer, E.; Green, S. Modeling Managed Grassland Biomass Estimation by Using Multitemporal Remote Sensing Data—A Machine Learning Approach. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 2016, vol. 10, 3254–3264.
- Pantazi X.E.; Moshou D.; Alexandridis T.K.; Whetton R.L.; Mouazen A.M. Wheat yield prediction using machine learning and advanced sensing techniques. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 2016, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 572-576.
- Senthilnath J.; Dokania A.; Kandukuri M.; Ramesh K.N.; Anand G.; Omkar S.N. Detection of tomatoes using spectral-spatial methods in remotely sensed RGB images captured by UAV. Biosyst. Eng. 2016, vol. 146, pp. 16-32, 2016.
- Ebrahimi M.A.; Khoshtaghaza M.H.; Minaei S.; Jamshidi B. Vision-based pest detection based on SVM classification method. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2017, vol. 137, pp. 52-58.
- Chung C.L.; Huang K.J.; Chen S.Y.; Lai M.H.; Chen Y.C; Kuo Y.F. Detecting Bakanae disease in rice seedlings by machine vision. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2016, vol. 121, pp. 404-411.
- Sun X.; Guo M.; Ma M.; Mankin R.W. Identification and classification of damaged corn kernels with impact acoustics multi-domain patterns. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 2018, vol. 150, pp. 152-161.
- Ramirez-Paredes J.P.; Hernandez-Belmonte U.H. Visual quality assessment of malting barley using color, shape and texture descriptors. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 2020, vol. 168, p. 105110.
- Pantazi X.E.; Tamouridou A.A.; Alexandridis T.K.; Lagopodi A.L.; Kontouris G.; Moshou D. Detection of Silybum marianum infection with Microbotryum silybum using VNIR field spectroscopy. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2017, vol. 137, pp. 130-137.
- Ferentinos K.P. Deep learning models for plant disease detection and diagnosis. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2018, vol. 145, pp. 311-318.
- Mehdizadeh S.; Behmanesh J.; Khalili K. Using MARS, SVM, GEP and empirical equations for estimation of monthly mean reference evapotranspiration. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2017, vol. 139, pp. 103-114.
- Feng Y.; Peng Y.; Cui N.; Gong D.; Zhang K. Modeling reference evapotranspiration using extreme learning machine and generalized regression neural network only with temperature data. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2017, vol. 136, pp. 71-78.
- Patil A.P.; Deka P.C. An extreme learning machine approach for modeling evapotranspiration using extrinsic inputs. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2016, vol. 121, pp. 385-392.
- Mohammadi K.; Shamshirband S.; Motamedi S.; Petković D.; Hashim R.; Gocic M. Extreme learning machine based prediction of daily dew point temperature. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2017, vol. 117, pp. 214-225.
- Motokura K.; Takahashi M.; Ewerton M.; Peters J. Plucking Motions for Tea Harvesting Robots Using Probabilistic Movement Primitives. in IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 2020, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 3275-3282.
- Mao S.; Li Y.; Ma Y.; Zhang B.; Zhou J.; Wang K. Automatic cucumber recognition algorithm for harvesting robots in the natural environment using deep learning and multi-feature fusion. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 2020, vol. 170, p. 105254.
- Li J.; Tang Y.; Zou X.; Lin G.; Wang H. Detection of Fruit-Bearing Branches and Localization of Litchi Clusters for Vision-Based Harvesting Robots. in IEEE Access 2020, vol. 8, pp. 117746-117758.
- Ge Y.; Xiong Y.; Tenorio G. L. Fruit Localization and Environment Perception for Strawberry Harvesting Robots. IEEE Access, 2019, vol. 7, pp. 147642-147652.
- Pyingkodi M.; Thenmozhi K.; Karthikeyan M.; Kalpana T.; Palarimath S.; Kumar G.B.A. IoT based Soil Nutrients Analysis and Monitoring System for Smart Agriculture. 3rd International Conference on Electronics and Sustainable Communication Systems (ICESC) 2022, Coimbatore, India, pp. 489-494.
- Pivoto D.; Waquil P.D.; Talamini E.; Finocchio C.P.S.; Corte V.; Mores G. Scientific development of smart farming technologies and their application in Brazil, Information Processing in Agriculture, 2018, Volume 5, Issue 1, 2018, Pages 21-32, ISSN 2214-3173. [CrossRef]
- S. P. N and H. P. M. Kumar. Soil Quality Identifying and Monitoring Approach for Sugarcane Using Machine Learning Techniques. Fourth International Conference on Emerging Research in Electronics, Computer Science and Technology (ICERECT), Mandya, 2022, India, pp. 1-5.
- Puengsungwan S. IoT based Soil Moisture Sensor for Smart Farming. International Conference on Power, Energy and Innovations (ICPEI), 2020, Chiangmai, Thailand, pp. 221-224.
- Sahu P.; Singh A.P.; Chug A.; Singh D. A Systematic Literature Review of Machine Learning Techniques Deployed in Agriculture: A Case Study of Banana Crop. in IEEE Access, 2022, vol. 10, pp. 87333-87360, 2022.
- OpenAI, “New and Improved Content Moderation Tooling.,” OpenAI, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://openai.com/blog/new-and-improved-content-moderation-tooling/. [Accessed 01 04 2023].
- Google, “Bard Chatbox,” Google, [Online]. Available: https://bard.google.com. [Accessed 2 4 2023].
- J. Dean, “1.1 the deep learning revolution and its implications for computer architecture and chip design,” in IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference-(ISSCC), 2020.
- Cui Y.W. et al. Traffic graph convolutional recurrent neural network: A deep learning framework for network-scale traffic learning and forecasting. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 2019, vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 4883-4894.
- S. M. a. B. N. Kiran Maharana. A review: Data pre-processing and data augmentation techniques. Global Transitions Proceedings, 2022, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 91-99.
- N. L. S. R. N. J. J. C. a. S. A. G. Goodwin. Toward the explainability, transparency, and universality of machine learning for behavioral classification in neuroscience. Current opinion in neurobiology, 2022, vol. 73, p. 102544.
- N. A. K. O. A. F. B. M. S. A. S. a. A. A.-S. Nasir. Water quality classification using machine learning algorithms. Journal of Water Process Engineering 2022, vol. 48, p. 102920.
- K. N. J. N. A. a. D. D. Gupta. Liver Disease Prediction using Machine Learning Classification Techniques. in 2022 IEEE 11th International Conference on Communication Systems and Network Technologies (CSNT), 2022.
- Elbasi E. et al. Artificial Intelligence Technology in the Agricultural Sector: A Systematic Literature Review. in IEEE Access 2023, vol. 11, pp. 171-202.
- Elbasi E.; Zreikat A.I.; Mathew S.; Topcu A.E. Classification of influenza H1N1 and COVID-19 patient data using machine learning. 44th International Conference on Telecommunications and Signal Processing (TSP), 2021, Brno, Czech Republic, pp. 278-282.



| Method | Accuracy | Kappa | MAE | RMSE | RAE | RRSE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bayes Net | 99.59 | 0.995 | 0.0010 | 0.018 | 1.14 | 8.64 |
| Naïve Bayes Classifier | 99.46 | 0.994 | 0.0009 | 0.020 | 1.05 | 9.73 |
| Logistic | 97.99 | 0.979 | 0.0020 | 0.038 | 2.30 | 18.24 |
| Multilayer Perception | 98.79 | 0.987 | 0.0046 | 0.033 | 5.33 | 16.18 |
| Simple Logistic | 98.66 | 0.986 | 0.0025 | 0.029 | 2.88 | 14.03 |
| IBK | 97.86 | 0.977 | 0.0032 | 0.043 | 3.69 | 21.05 |
| KSTAR | 97.86 | 0.977 | 0.0036 | 0.038 | 4.11 | 18.47 |
| LWL | 76.74 | 0.756 | 0.0752 | 0.188 | 86.59 | 90.26 |
| Ada BoostM1 | 6.82 | 0.036 | 0.0829 | 0.203 | 95.51 | 97.79 |
| Regression | 98.38 | 0.983 | 0.0099 | 0.042 | 11.41 | 20.44 |
| Decision Table | 88.50 | 0.879 | 0.0565 | 0.145 | 65.10 | 69.61 |
| Hoeffding Tree | 99.46 | 0.994 | 0.0009 | 0.020 | 1.05 | 9.74 |
| J48 | 98.79 | 0.987 | 0.0012 | 0.032 | 1.35 | 15.36 |
| Random Forest | 99.46 | 0.994 | 0.0032 | 0.024 | 3.63 | 11.75 |
| Random Tree | 98.12 | 0.980 | 0.0017 | 0.041 | 1.96 | 19.79 |
| Method | Build Time (second) | Test Time (second) |
|---|---|---|
| Bayes Net | 0.48 | 0.25 |
| Naïve Bayes Classifier | 0.03 | 0.67 |
| Logistic | 4.83 | 0.06 |
| Multilayer Perception | 17.39 | 0.05 |
| Simple Logistic | 3.86 | 0.02 |
| IBK | 0.03 | 0.69 |
| KSTAR | 0 | 6.9 |
| LWL | 0 | 9.56 |
| Ada BoostM1 | 0.04 | 0 |
| Regression | 2.4 | 0.05 |
| Decision Table | 0.75 | 0.01 |
| Hoeffding Tree | 0.41 | 0.06 |
| J48 | 0.27 | 0.03 |
| Random Forest | 1.57 | 0.13 |
| Random Tree | 0.02 | 0 |
| Training Set | Accuracy | Kappa | MAE | RMSE | RAE | RRSE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10% | 93.53 | 0.9323 | 0.0166 | 0.0726 | 19.06 | 34.69 |
| 20% | 95.39 | 0.9518 | 0.0096 | 0.0568 | 11.10 | 27.22 |
| 30% | 95.91 | 0.9571 | 0.0082 | 0.0545 | 9.47 | 26.14 |
| 40% | 97.87 | 0.9778 | 0.0065 | 0.0436 | 7.51 | 20.92 |
| 50% | 97.90 | 0.9790 | 0.0057 | 0.039 | 6.50 | 18.87 |
| 60% | 97.95 | 0.9786 | 0.0056 | 0.0433 | 6.41 | 20.76 |
| 70% | 98.63 | 0.9857 | 0.0043 | 0.033 | 4.95 | 15.83 |
| 80% | 98.41 | 0.9833 | 0.0038 | 0.0315 | 4.42 | 15.10 |
| 90% | 97.72 | 0.9761 | 0.0038 | 0.0331 | 4.41 | 15.88 |
| Training Set | Build Time | Test Time |
|---|---|---|
| 10% | 19.18 | 0.05 |
| 20% | 17.03 | 0.03 |
| 30% | 17.47 | 0.01 |
| 40% | 14.26 | 0.02 |
| 50% | 14.54 | 0.02 |
| 60% | 14.12 | 0 |
| 70% | 14.79 | 0.01 |
| 80% | 13.81 | 0 |
| 90% | 13.21 | 0 |
| Method | {N, P, K} | {Temperature, Humidity, pH, Rainfall} | {K, P, Rainfall} | {N, Temperature, Humidity, pH} |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bayes Net | 67.64 | 97.05 | 85.69 | 89.70 |
| Naïve Bayes Classifier | 65.37 | 96.39 | 85.16 | 87.03 |
| Logistic | 66.17 | 85.42 | 74.19 | 76.07 |
| Multilayer Perception | 66.84 | 89.17 | 80.34 | 82.88 |
| Simple Logistic | 66.84 | 85.16 | 72.86 | 74.73 |
| IBK | 66.57 | 91.04 | 79.27 | 81.02 |
| KSTAR | 65.10 | 91.71 | 81.14 | 80.74 |
| LWL | 42.11 | 61.23 | 46.39 | 50.26 |
| Ada BoostM1 | 6.81 | 6.81 | 6.81 | 6.81 |
| Regression | 65.37 | 95.98 | 84.22 | 86.49 |
| Decision Table | 63.77 | 74.73 | 79.27 | 72.19 |
| Hoeffding Tree | 65.37 | 96.52 | 85.29 | 86.89 |
| J48 | 65.10 | 94.65 | 83.55 | 84.49 |
| Random Forest | 66.57 | 97.32 | 82.88 | 87.03 |
| Random Tree | 68.04 | 94.92 | 79.27 | 83.15 |
| Item | Growth Characteristics | Use (food, feed, fiber) | Type | Water requirements | Harvest method |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rice | Grass | Food | Cereals | Drought | By Hand Or Machine |
| Maize | Grass | Feed, Fiber | Cereals | Drought | By Hand Or Machine |
| Chickpea | Bush | Food | Legume | Drought | Machine |
| Kidneybeans | Bush | Food | Legume | Drought | By Hand And Machine |
| Pigeonpeas | Bush | Food | Legume | Drought Resistant | By Hand |
| Mothbeans | Bush | Fiber | Legume | Drought Resistant | Both |
| Mungbean | Bush | Food | Legume | Drought | Hand Picked |
| Blackgram | Bush | Food | Legume | Drought Tolerance | Both |
| Lentil | Bush | Food | Legume | Drought | Hands |
| Pomegranate | Tree | Fiber | Fruit | Drought Tolerant | Hands |
| Banana | Tree | Fiber | Fruit | Water Loving | Hands |
| Mango | Tree | Fiber | Fruit | Drought Tolerance | Hands |
| Grapes | Tree | Fiber | Fruit | Drought Tolerance | Hand |
| Watermelon | Sprawling Vines | Fiber | Fruit | Drought Tolerance | Hands |
| Muskmelon | Bush | Fiber | Fruit | Drought Tolerance | Hands |
| Apple | Tree | Fiber | Fruit | Drought Tolerance | Hand |
| Orange | Tree | Fiber | Fruit | Water Loving | Hand |
| Papaya | Tree | Fiber | Fruit | Water Loving | Hand |
| Coconut | Tree | Fiber | Fruit | Water Loving | Hand |
| Cotton | Bush | Fiber | Plant | Drought Tolerant | Machine |
| Jute | Shrub | Fiber | Plant | Water Loving | Hands |
| Coffee | Shrub | Fiber | Fruit | Drought | Hands |
| Method | Accuracy | Growth Characteristics | Usage | Type | Water Requirements | Harvest Method |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bayes Net | 99.59 | 96.79 | 91.31 | 99.13 | 85.69 | 89.17 |
| Naïve Bayes Classifier | 99.46 | 79.41 | 85.69 | 90.59 | 65.90 | 76.33 |
| Logistic | 97.99 | 83.28 | 86.76 | 91.04 | 80.62 | 66.57 |
| Multilayer Perception | 98.79 | 97.99 | 98.12 | 97.41 | 87.16 | 95.72 |
| Simple Logistic | 98.66 | 82.08 | 87.71 | 90.91 | 80.08 | 67.51 |
| IBK | 97.86 | 98.53 | 98.66 | 98.72 | 97.99 | 97.99 |
| KSTAR | 97.86 | 99.19 | 99.19 | 98.86 | 97.86 | 97.86 |
| LWL | 76.74 | 83.02 | 88.23 | 67.27 | 57.75 | 70.18 |
| Ada BoostM1 | 6.82 | 76.87 | 82.08 | 45.32 | 44.11 | 61.23 |
| Regression | 98.38 | 99.19 | 99.06 | 99.09 | 98.93 | 98.93 |
| Decision Table | 88.50 | 96.12 | 95.58 | 95.04 | 93.04 | 94.65 |
| Hoeffding Tree | 99.46 | 79.41 | 85.43 | 89.82 | 66.31 | 76.60 |
| J48 | 98.79 | 98.26 | 97.86 | 98.63 | 98.39 | 99.33 |
| Random Forest | 99.46 | 99.33 | 99.73 | 99.45 | 99.73 | 99.59 |
| Random Tree | 98.12 | 98.66 | 99.33 | 98.36 | 97.59 | 98.66 |
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 MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI 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. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).