IoT for Smart Agriculture: Resource Management in 2025

Unpacking the latest tech and strategies for sustainable water and resource optimization in modern farming.

In 2018, I reviewed the landscape of IoT (Internet of Things) technologies for water management in an article published in Irrigation Today magazine, "Using the Power of IoT to Improve Irrigation Water Management" (Osroosh and Adhikari, 2018). Since then, the field has rapidly evolved. This article serves as a focused update, reflecting the current state of IoT in agriculture for 2025.

Studies continue to show a potential for water savings exceeding 50% with sensor-based irrigation scheduling. Informed irrigation decisions require real-time data from soil and weather sensor networks at desired resolution and reasonable cost. Wireless sensor networks enable detailed plant monitoring across diverse field areas.

The need for wireless sensors and actuators has fueled the growth of IoT solutions, particularly Low-Power Wide-Area Networking (LPWAN). LPWAN technologies connect low-cost, low-power sensors to cloud-based services. In 2025, a range of wireless and IoT connectivity solutions exist, making it crucial to understand the best LPWAN technology for specific applications.

 

 

IoT Implementation Scenarios

The following remain the primary scenarios for implementing IoT:

  1. Buying a sensor that connects to a customer-owned wireless network (e.g., Wi-Fi, Bluetooth).

  2. Installing on-site infrastructure or components (e.g., vendor-managed LoRaWAN, Symphony Link).

  3. Utilizing infrastructure from a network operator LPWAN (e.g., LTE Cat-M1, NB-IoT, with expanding 5G-IoT options).

Cellular network operators and cellular IoT remain valuable for agricultural settings where sensors transmit small data over wide areas with long battery life. This distinguishes LPWAN from Bluetooth, ZigBee, or traditional cellular networks.

IoT Strengths and Limitations

LTE Cat-M1 and NB-IoT have expanded coverage and remain strong options for applications requiring higher data rates. However, data usage remains a primary cost driver in cellular IoT. Combining existing wireless technologies like Wi-Fi or ZigBee with LPWAN can optimize costs.

One-to-many architecture remains a cost-effective approach. In-field data collection via Bluetooth LE, Wi-Fi, or ZigBee, with data transmission via cellular IoT (like LTE Cat-M1) or private/public LoRaWAN, is still a viable strategy.

Key Updates for 2025:

  • Coverage: LTE Cat-M1 and NB-IoT coverage has significantly improved in the U.S. and other developed regions. Check with your local providers for the most up to date coverage maps. LoRaWAN community networks have also grown. Satellite IoT is now a viable option in remote areas.

  • 5G-IoT: 5G-IoT is emerging, offering potential for higher bandwidth and lower latency in irrigation applications, and real-time video monitoring of crop health.

  • Cost: While cellular IoT costs have become more competitive, carefully evaluate current data plans from carriers like Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile. LoRaWAN remains a cost-effective option for low-data-rate applications.

  • Technology Focus: LoRaWAN remains ideal for monitoring applications with infrequent data transmission and long battery life. Cellular IoT (LTE Cat-M1) is better suited for applications requiring more frequent data and control. NB-IoT has seen increased adoption in specific regions. It should also be noted that private LoRa networks, using LoRa sensor nodes and LoRa to Wi-Fi gateways (See example here: “Long-Range Wireless Monitoring System”), can provide a good solution for localized, low data rate, sensor network needs.

  • Sensor and Software Growth: The focus has shifted more towards software and data analytics. Cloud platforms and AI-driven insights are now essential for optimizing irrigation.

What the Future Holds

The IoT market continues to evolve. While sensor development remains challenging, larger companies are focusing on compatibility and interoperability. Growers should prioritize quality data and reasonable costs, regardless of the underlying technology. Cellular IoT adoption, like LTE Cat-M1, will likely continue, but costs must be carefully managed.

In addition to cost and performance, data privacy has emerged as a critical concern for growers. The vast amounts of data collected by IoT sensors, including soil moisture, weather patterns, and operational details, raise questions about who owns and controls that information.

Growers need assurances that their data is secure and used responsibly, and that they maintain control over its access and usage. As the market matures, expect to see greater emphasis on data security protocols and transparent data management practices.

Conclusion

As IoT technologies continue to evolve, companies, researchers, and growers must stay informed about the latest developments and carefully evaluate their options to maximize efficiency and sustainability. Prioritizing data privacy and security will also be essential for building trust and ensuring the responsible use of these powerful tools.

Reference

Osroosh, Y., Adhikari, D., 2018. Using the Power of IoT to Improve Irrigation Water Management. Irrigation Today, April: 6-7.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Transpiration-Based CWSI: A More Accurate Approach to Crop Water Stress Assessment

Image
  This article builds upon my previous work on canopy temperature measurements and the Crop Water Stress Index (CWSI), and I highly recommend reading " Decoding VPD and CWSI for Optimized Crop Water Management " before continuing. My research has focused on two key challenges in the conventional CWSI approach: the calculation of CWSI itself, and how it's applied to irrigation scheduling (the CWSI algorithm). I've developed improvements in both areas, specifically by using a transpiration-based CWSI calculation and a dynamic threshold algorithm. These enhancements are detailed below.   CWSI Definitions Traditional CWSI Definition  As discussed previously, CWSI is traditionally defined as: CWSI = (ΔTm - ΔTl) / (ΔTu - ΔTl) where ΔTm is the measured canopy-to-air temperature difference, ΔTl is the temperature difference under non-limiting soil water availability (well-watered plant canopy), and ΔTu is the temperature difference for a non-transpiring canopy (dead plant)....
Read more

Understanding Plant Water Status: A Deeper Dive into VPD and Canopy Temperature

Image
After my recent post about the Hidden Complexities of VPD Measurements , and reading the comments, I realized I needed to provide more information on this topic. Let's assume we can obtain accurate canopy surface temperature data, target plant canopies are healthy (not affected by disease or pests), measurement timing is right, and we're dealing with a plant species that responds to VPD changes. Here are two key questions to consider: How should canopy surface temperature readings look like in a well-watered plant versus a water-stressed plant?   How can we take advantage of canopy temperature and VPD measurements?   Canopy-to-air temperature difference (ΔT = Tc - Ta) is fundamental. For most plant species responding to VPD, ΔT should be negative, signifying active transpiration. When plants close stomata due to water stress ( soil moisture deficit ), transpiration diminishes, and leaf surface temperature rises. Transpiration has a cooling effect on the leaf, similar to sweat...
Read more

Decoding VPD and CWSI for Optimized Crop Water Management

Image
  1. Introduction to VPD and Its Significance Recently, I came across a company promoting a new RH and temperature sensor with AI-powered data analytics. The comments section sparked a lively discussion, with many questions raised about VPD measurements, the impact of radiation, and the importance of sensor shielding and ventilation. While these are valid concerns, I believe a key aspect is often overlooked. Current AgriTech innovations frequently prioritize combining sensors with AI models, potentially neglecting the fundamental biophysical principles and the limitations of the sensors themselves. Furthermore, relying solely on AI in data-limited fields like agriculture may not always be the most effective approach. Vapor Pressure Deficit (VPD) is a critical environmental factor that profoundly affects plant water status. Let's examine this concept more closely. While standard meteorological VPD provides a general estimate, the canopy-to-air vapor pressure deficit (Dc) more accura...
Read more