ReviewSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Navigation and Sensor Fusion for Autonomous Field Robots in Precision Agriculture: Narrative Review.
Review in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Autonomous field robots are increasingly used in precision agriculture for monitoring, phenotyping, spraying, and site-specific intervention, yet reliable autonomy remains difficult under vegetation occlusion, uneven terrain, variable illumination, and intermittent communications. This review provides a deployment-oriented synthesis of navigation and sensor-fusion methods for agricultural robots, with emphasis on what is practical under field conditions rather than only in laboratory settings. The literature was examined through a structured narrative-review workflow using Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, and related citation tracking, with primary emphasis on studies published between 2015 and 2025. We compare global, local, and hybrid planning methods; motion-control strategies such as PID, Pure Pursuit, and MPC; and localization pipelines that combine GNSS, IMU, LiDAR, cameras, odometry, and SLAM or Kalman-family fusion. Beyond algorithm summaries, the review links method selection to agricultural deployment constraints, including GNSS degradation, dynamic obstacles, compute limits, ROS 2 integration, time synchronization, and coordinate-frame management. The synthesis shows that no single stack is optimal across all crop systems: lightweight GNSS/IMU-based solutions remain attractive in structured open fields, whereas orchards, vineyards, and other occluded environments benefit more from tighter multi-sensor fusion and SLAM-supported localization. Finally, the review distills design guidance for sensing, planning, validation, and digital-twin-supported testing, and identifies research gaps related to robustness, benchmarking, safety, and scalable on-farm deployment.
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.