From Sensors to Insights: Leveraging Intelligent Data Mining for Precision Farming and Decision Support
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23138969Keywords:
Precision Agriculture, Internet of Things, Satellite Remote Sensing, Deep Learning, Time-series Forecasting, Decision Support SystemsAbstract
Climate change, resource scarcity, and growing weather variability make sustainable farm management increasingly difficult. This study presents a precision-agriculture framework that fuses real-time Internet of Things (IoT) measurements with satellite-based environmental information to support data-driven decisions. Low-cost wireless sensor nodes record soil moisture, pH, air temperature, relative humidity, water turbidity, and total dissolved solids, and we combine these field streams with NASA Earthdata, Landsat, and Agriculture and Water Management Data Pathfinder products. We clean, validate, normalize, and align the heterogeneous data in time and space before modeling. We use four task-specific models: YOLOv5 for plant disease and pest detection, a long short-term memory (LSTM) network for short-term ultraviolet (UV) index forecasting, a CNN2D-BGRU network for weather forecasting, and an RF-LSTM-Attention model for seasonal rainfall prediction to support flood and drought assessment. Outputs are delivered through a web-based decision-support platform with live visualizations and threshold-based alerts. The detector achieved 92.1% accuracy (95% CI 87.4–95.2%), 94.7% recall, and a Matthews correlation coefficient of 0.84. The UV model achieved a mean absolute error of 0.249 index units, and the rainfall model a mean absolute percentage error of 9.49%. A prevalence-aware analysis shows that at 10% field disease prevalence, only half of image-based alerts would be true positives, and that using IoT microclimate conditions as a prior can raise alert precision to about 79%. These results support multi-source fusion for precision agriculture, while sensor reliability, missing data, extreme weather, and model generalization remain open challenges.
Downloads
References
1. IPCC. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change; Pörtner, H.-O.; Roberts, D. C.; Tignor, M.; et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844
2. FAO. The State of Food and Agriculture 2021: Making Agrifood Systems More Resilient to Shocks and Stresses; FAO: Rome, 2021. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb4476en
3. Wolfert, S.; Ge, L.; Verdouw, C.; Bogaardt, M.-J. Big Data in Smart Farming – A Review. Agric. Syst. 2017, 153, 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.01.023
4. Liakos, K. G.; Busato, P.; Moshou, D.; Pearson, S.; Bochtis, D. Machine Learning in Agriculture: A Review. Sensors 2018, 18, 2674. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18082674
5. Kamilaris, A.; Prenafeta-Boldú, F. X. Deep Learn-ing in Agriculture: A Survey. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2018, 147, 70–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2018.02.016
6. Tzounis, A.; Katsoulas, N.; Bartzanas, T.; Kittas, C. Internet of Things in Agriculture, Recent Advances and Future Challenges. Biosyst. Eng. 2017, 164, 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2017.09.007
7. Elijah, O.; Rahman, T. A.; Orikumhi, I.; Leow, C. Y.; Hindia, M. N. An Overview of Internet of Things (IoT) and Data Analytics in Agriculture: Benefits and Challenges. IEEE Internet Things J. 2018, 5, 3758–3773. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2018.2844296
8. Weiss, M.; Jacob, F.; Duveiller, G. Remote Sensing for Agricultural Applications: A Meta-Review. Remote Sens. Environ. 2020, 236, 111402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.111402
9. Sishodia, R. P.; Ray, R. L.; Singh, S. K. Applica-tions of Remote Sensing in Precision Agriculture: A Review. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3136. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12193136
10. Wulder, M. A.; Loveland, T. R.; Roy, D. P.; Craw-ford, C. J.; Masek, J. G.; Woodcock, C. E.; Allen, R. G.; Anderson, M. C.; Belward, A. S.; Cohen, W. B.; et al. Current Status of Landsat Program, Sci-ence, and Applications. Remote Sens. Environ. 2019, 225, 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.02.015
11. Mohanty, S. P.; Hughes, D. P.; Salathé, M. Using Deep Learning for Image-Based Plant Disease De-tection. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 1419. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01419
12. Ferentinos, K. P. Deep Learning Models for Plant Disease Detection and Diagnosis. Comput. Elec-tron. Agric. 2018, 145, 311–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2018.01.009
13. Barbedo, J. G. A. Factors Influencing the Use of Deep Learning for Plant Disease Recognition. Bio-syst. Eng. 2018, 172, 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2018.05.013
14. Redmon, J.; Divvala, S.; Girshick, R.; Farhadi, A. You Only Look Once: Unified, Real-Time Object Detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR); IEEE: Las Vegas, NV, 2016; pp. 779–788. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2016.91
15. Chen, Z.; Wu, R.; Lin, Y.; Li, C.; Chen, S.; Yuan, Z.; Chen, S.; Zou, X. Plant Disease Recognition Model Based on Improved YOLOv5. Agronomy 2022, 12, 365. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12020365
16. Peng, Y.; Wang, Y. Leaf Disease Image Retrieval with Object Detection and Deep Metric Learning. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 963302. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.963302
17. Hochreiter, S.; Schmidhuber, J. Long Short-Term Memory. Neural Comput. 1997, 9, 1735–1780. https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735
18. Kratzert, F.; Klotz, D.; Brenner, C.; Schulz, K.; Herrnegger, M. Rainfall–Runoff Modelling Using Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) Networks. Hy-drol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2018, 22, 6005–6022. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-6005-2018
19. Li, H.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Yao, Y.; Wang, R.; Dai, Y. Water-Level Prediction Analysis for the Three Gorges Reservoir Area Based on a Hybrid Model of LSTM and Its Variants. Water 2024, 16, 1227. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16091227
20. Miri, S. M.; Kavianpour, M. R.; Alizadeh, M. J. Delta Feature and Random Forest–Enhanced LSTM–Attention Forecasts with Probabilistic Postprocessing for Rainfall Forecasting. Sci. Rep. 2026, 16, 24208. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-54896-0
21. Joy, U. G.; et al. Attention-Enhanced LSTM Mod-eling for Improved Temperature and Rainfall Forecasting in Bangladesh. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-025-05858-5
22. Ujjwal; Patel, S. C.; Shah, B. K.; Ogbonna, N.; Ashqar, H. I. Analysis of Droughts and Their Inten-sities in California from 2000 to 2020. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2411.04303. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.04303
23. Saito, T.; Rehmsmeier, M. The Precision-Recall Plot Is More Informative than the ROC Plot When Evaluating Binary Classifiers on Imbalanced Da-tasets. PLoS One 2015, 10, e0118432. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118432
24. NASA Earthdata. Earth Science Data Systems Pro-gram. https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/
25. Jocher, G., et al. ultralytics/yolov5. Zenodo, 2020. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3908559
26. Cho, K.; van Merriënboer, B.; Gulcehre, C.; Bah-danau, D.; Bougares, F.; Schwenk, H.; Bengio, Y. Learning Phrase Representations Using RNN En-coder–Decoder for Statistical Machine Translation. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP); ACL: Doha, Qatar, 2014; pp. 1724–1734. https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/D14-1179
27. Schuster, M.; Paliwal, K. K. Bidirectional Recur-rent Neural Networks. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 1997, 45, 2673–2681. https://doi.org/10.1109/78.650093
28. Breiman, L. Random Forests. Mach. Learn. 2001, 45, 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324
29. Bahdanau, D.; Cho, K.; Bengio, Y. Neural Machine Translation by Jointly Learning to Align and Translate. In 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR); San Diego, CA, 2015. arXiv:1409.0473. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1409.0473
30. Chicco, D.; Jurman, G. The Advantages of the Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC) over F1 Score and Accuracy in Binary Classification Eval-uation. BMC Genomics 2020, 21, 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-019-6413-7
31. Wilson, E. B. Probable Inference, the Law of Suc-cession, and Statistical Inference. J. Am. Stat. As-soc. 1927, 22, 209–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1927.10502953
32. Hyndman, R. J.; Koehler, A. B. Another Look at Measures of Forecast Accuracy. Int. J. Forecast. 2006, 22, 679–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2006.03.001
33. World Health Organization. Global Solar UV Index: A Practical Guide; WHO: Geneva, 2002.
34. Gama, J.; Žliobaitė, I.; Bifet, A.; Pechenizkiy, M.; Bouchachia, A. A Survey on Concept Drift Adapta-tion. ACM Comput. Surv. 2014, 46, 44. https://doi.org/10.1145/2523813
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 S.M.Abtahi Noor, Sarrinah Binta Reza (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
Share
Academia.edu
✓ Academia.edu upload package ready — academia.edu Ready
Quick upload package (copy each field into Academia.edu's "Add new work" form)
This only prepares the data. Nothing is sent to Academia.edu automatically; the author uploads the work from their own account and must hold the rights to share the file.
