IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v15y2025i15p1664-d1715505.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Technology Advancements and the Needs of Farmers: Mapping Gaps and Opportunities in Row Crop Farming

Author

Listed:
  • Rana Umair Hameed

    (Department of Electronic Engineering, Maynooth University, W23 V5XH Maynooth, Ireland)

  • Conor Meade

    (Sustainable Ecosystems Group, Department of Biology, Maynooth University, W23 V5XH Maynooth, Ireland)

  • Gerard Lacey

    (Department of Electronic Engineering, Maynooth University, W23 V5XH Maynooth, Ireland)

Abstract

Increased food production demands, labor shortages, and environmental concerns are driving the need for innovative agricultural technologies. However, effective adoption depends critically on aligning robot innovations with the needs of farmers. This paper examines the alignment between the needs of farmers and the robotic systems used in row crop farming. We review current commercial agricultural robots and research, and map these to the needs of farmers, as expressed in the literature, to identify the key issues holding back large-scale adoption. From initial pool of 184 research articles, 19 survey articles, and 82 commercial robotic solutions, we selected 38 peer-reviewed academic studies, 12 survey articles, and 18 commercially available robots for in-depth review and analysis for this study. We identify the key challenges faced by farmers and map them directly to the current and emerging capabilities of agricultural robots. We supplement the data gathered from the literature review of surveys and case studies with in-depth interviews with nine farmers to obtain deeper insights into the needs and day-to-day operations. Farmers reported mixed reactions to current technologies, acknowledging efficiency improvements but highlighting barriers such as capital costs, technical complexity, and inadequate support systems. There is a notable demand for technologies for improved plant health monitoring, soil condition assessment, and enhanced climate resilience. We then review state-of-the-art robotic solutions for row crop farming and map these technological capabilities to the farmers’ needs. Only technologies with field validation or operational deployment are included, to ensure practical relevance. These mappings generate insights that underscore the need for lightweight and modular robot technologies that can be adapted to diverse farming practices, as well as the need for farmers’ education and simpler interfaces to robotic operations and data analysis that are actionable for farmers. We conclude with recommendations for future research, emphasizing the importance of co-creation with the farming community to ensure the adoption and sustained use of agricultural robotic solutions.

Suggested Citation

  • Rana Umair Hameed & Conor Meade & Gerard Lacey, 2025. "Technology Advancements and the Needs of Farmers: Mapping Gaps and Opportunities in Row Crop Farming," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-32, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:15:y:2025:i:15:p:1664-:d:1715505
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/15/15/1664/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/15/15/1664/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sergio Cubero & Ester Marco-Noales & Nuria Aleixos & Silvia Barbé & Jose Blasco, 2020. "RobHortic: A Field Robot to Detect Pests and Diseases in Horticultural Crops by Proximal Sensing," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-13, July.
    2. Friedrich Rübcke von Veltheim & Heinke Heise, 2020. "The AgTech Startup Perspective to Farmers Ex Ante Acceptance Process of Autonomous Field Robots," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-18, December.
    3. Gurdeep Singh Malhi & Manpreet Kaur & Prashant Kaushik, 2021. "Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture and Its Mitigation Strategies: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-21, January.
    4. David Tilman & Kenneth G. Cassman & Pamela A. Matson & Rosamond Naylor & Stephen Polasky, 2002. "Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices," Nature, Nature, vol. 418(6898), pages 671-677, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mahboobe Ghobadi & Mahdi Gheysari & Mohammad Shayannejad & Hamze Dokoohaki, 2023. "Analyzing the Effects of Planting Date on the Uncertainty of CERES-Maize and Its Potential to Reduce Yield Gap in Arid and Mediterranean Climates," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-17, July.
    2. Elisa Morri & Riccardo Santolini, 2021. "Ecosystem Services Valuation for the Sustainable Land Use Management by Nature-Based Solution (NbS) in the Common Agricultural Policy Actions: A Case Study on the Foglia River Basin (Marche Region, It," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-23, December.
    3. Liu, Duan & Tang, Runcheng & Xie, Jun & Tian, Jingjing & Shi, Rui & Zhang, Kai, 2020. "Valuation of ecosystem services of rice–fish coculture systems in Ruyuan County, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    4. Shen Yuan & Shaobing Peng, 2017. "Exploring the Trends in Nitrogen Input and Nitrogen Use Efficiency for Agricultural Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-15, October.
    5. Katarina Arvidsson Segerkvist & Helena Hansson & Ulf Sonesson & Stefan Gunnarsson, 2021. "A Systematic Mapping of Current Literature on Sustainability at Farm-Level in Beef and Lamb Meat Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-14, February.
    6. Vainio, Annukka & Tienhaara, Annika & Haltia, Emmi & Hyvönen, Terho & Pyysiäinen, Jarkko & Pouta, Eija, 2021. "The legitimacy of result-oriented and action-oriented agri-environmental schemes: A comparison of farmers’ and citizens’ perceptions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    7. Hualin Xie & Yingqian Huang & Qianru Chen & Yanwei Zhang & Qing Wu, 2019. "Prospects for Agricultural Sustainable Intensification: A Review of Research," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-27, October.
    8. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    9. Aude Ridier & Caroline Roussy & Karim Chaib, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 265-283, September.
    10. Singh, Ajay Kumar & Ashraf, Shah Nawaz & Sharma, Sandeep Kumar, . "Farmer’s Perception on Climatic Factors and Social-economic Characteristics in the Agricultural Sector of Gujarat," Research on World Agricultural Economy, Nan Yang Academy of Sciences Pte Ltd (NASS), vol. 4(01).
    11. Paul L. G. Vlek & Asia Khamzina & Hossein Azadi & Anik Bhaduri & Luna Bharati & Ademola Braimoh & Christopher Martius & Terry Sunderland & Fatemeh Taheri, 2017. "Trade-Offs in Multi-Purpose Land Use under Land Degradation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, November.
    12. Diriba Shiferaw G., 2017. "Water-Nutrients Interaction: Exploring the Effects of Water as a Central Role for Availability & Use Efficiency of Nutrients by Shallow Rooted Vegetable Crops - A Review," Journal of Agriculture and Crops, Academic Research Publishing Group, vol. 3(10), pages 78-93, 10-2017.
    13. Sheng Gong & Jason.S. Bergtold & Elizabeth Yeager, 2021. "Assessing the joint adoption and complementarity between in-field conservation practices of Kansas farmers," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-24, December.
    14. Seufert, Verena & Ramankutty, Navin & Mayerhofer, Tabea, 2017. "What is this thing called organic? – How organic farming is codified in regulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 10-20.
    15. Md. Shakhawat Hossain, 2025. "Assessing smallholder farmers’ flood risk behavior and their willingness to pay for crop insurance as a risk coping strategy in northern Bangladesh," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 121(4), pages 4191-4217, March.
    16. Md Asduzzaman Kiron & Md Elias Hossain & Md. Mehedi Hasan Chokdar, 2025. "Assessing the Economic Impact of Climate Change on Rice Production in Bangladesh: A Ricardian Approach for Sustainable Agriculture," Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 359-373, July.
    17. Jónsson, Jón Örvar G. & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur & Nikolaidis, Nikolaos P. & Giannakis, Georgios V., 2019. "Tools for Sustainable Soil Management: Soil Ecosystem Services, EROI and Economic Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 109-119.
    18. Kataki, Sampriti & West, Helen & Clarke, Michèle & Baruah, D.C., 2016. "Phosphorus recovery as struvite: Recent concerns for use of seed, alternative Mg source, nitrogen conservation and fertilizer potential," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 142-156.
    19. Amanda Balasooriya & Darshana Sedera, 2025. "Top Management Challenges in Using Artificial Intelligence for Sustainable Development Goals: An Exploratory Case Study of an Australian Agribusiness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-19, July.
    20. repec:cdl:ucsbrw:qt15q4z6xj is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Carpentier, A. & Reboud, X., 2018. "Why farmers consider pesticides the ultimate in crop protection: economic and behavioral insights," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277528, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:15:y:2025:i:15:p:1664-:d:1715505. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.