Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35336456›Full record

ReviewSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Data Fusion in Agriculture: Resolving Ambiguities and Closing Data Gaps.

Jayme Garcia Arnal Barbedo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Jayme Garcia Arnal BarbedoEmbrapa Digital Agriculture, Campinas 13083-886, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-1156-8270

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Acquiring useful data from agricultural areas has always been somewhat of a challenge, as these are often expansive, remote, and vulnerable to weather events. Despite these challenges, as technologies evolve and prices drop, a surge of new data are being collected. Although a wealth of data are being collected at different scales (i.e., proximal, aerial, satellite, ancillary data), this has been geographically unequal, causing certain areas to be virtually devoid of useful data to help face their specific challenges. However, even in areas with available resources and good infrastructure, data and knowledge gaps are still prevalent, because agricultural environments are mostly uncontrolled and there are vast numbers of factors that need to be taken into account and properly measured for a full characterization of a given area. As a result, data from a single sensor type are frequently unable to provide unambiguous answers, even with very effective algorithms, and even if the problem at hand is well defined and limited in scope. Fusing the information contained in different sensors and in data from different types is one possible solution that has been explored for some decades. The idea behind data fusion involves exploring complementarities and synergies of different kinds of data in order to extract more reliable and useful information about the areas being analyzed. While some success has been achieved, there are still many challenges that prevent a more widespread adoption of this type of approach. This is particularly true for the highly complex environments found in agricultural areas. In this article, we provide a comprehensive overview on the data fusion applied to agricultural problems; we present the main successes, highlight the main challenges that remain, and suggest possible directions for future research.

Indexed as

Agricultureartificial intelligencedata fusionprecision agriculturesensorsvariability

Identifiers

PMID35336456
PMCPMC8952279

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.