ArticleScientific reports2026
Design and laboratory verification of an AI-driven plant protection robot with a custom communication protocol.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Traditional agricultural plant protection primarily relies on manual labor and indiscriminate chemical spraying, resulting in inefficiency, increased cost, and environmental pollution. The advancement of precision agriculture is impeded by three persistent bottlenecks in field robotics, namely, unreliable wireless communication within crop canopies, computational limitations for real-time edge artificial intelligence (AI), and high costs of system integration. To address these challenges, as a proof-of-concept feasibility study, this work presents the design and integrated laboratory-based verification of a novel, low-cost, AI-driven plant protection robot. Its core innovation lies in the holistic co-design of a custom CRC-16-protected communication protocol, an edge AI-based pest detection pipeline, and a precision spraying mechanism within a unified architecture. Laboratory-based verification demonstrated that (1) an optimized YOLOv11l model achieves a mean Average Precision (mAP@0.5) of 0.806 for pest detection, with an inference latency of 35.7 ms, on a Raspberry Pi 4B; (2) the custom protocol ensured a data fidelity of 99.91%, with a transmission latency of 12.3 ± 2.1 ms; and (3) the robotic platform achieved a path tracking accuracy of 1.8 ± 0.5 cm and an operational coverage efficiency of 98.7 m²/h, with a projected operational cost of approximately $1.95 per hectare under idealized laboratory conditions. These results confirm the technical feasibility of the integrated approach as a foundation for future field development. This work provides a scalable, cost-effective framework that couples robust perception, reliable communication, and precise actuation, thereby offering a practical proof-of-concept for smart farming applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.