Lessons Learned From the Deployment of Test-Bed for Precision Agriculture

Hardware Evaluation of Cluster-Based Agricultural IoT Network

“…Since the autonomous, resource-constrained SNs in Agri-IoT are expected to operate without postdeployment maintenance checks, the issues of fault management (FM), power optimization, and self-organization during SN design and network deployment remain critical design factors that cannot be ignored in existing testbed solutions [13], [36]. However, the results from most research projects on Agri-IoT relied on simulation experiments [3], [16], [17], and the testbed solutions are based on indoor deployment conditions and the classic WSN-based IoT design principles [3], [5], [14]- [17], [37]- [39] without critical considerations of the aforementioned design factors. Consequently, the gap between the philosophy of this technology and the comprehension of its real-world behavior for a more accurate performance assessment has not been resolved.…”

“…Consequently, the gap between the philosophy of this technology and the comprehension of its real-world behavior for a more accurate performance assessment has not been resolved. To understand how the benchmarking realization testbeds of Agri-IoT in [3], [5], [14]- [17] fared in real-world operational conditions, results from their respective performances are systematically evaluated and summarized in Table 2. Additionally, the following challenges were observed from the systematic assessment of the stipulated solutions.…”

“…Additionally, the following challenges were observed from the systematic assessment of the stipulated solutions. It was discovered that the current benchmarking testbed solutions in [3], [5], [14]- [17], [40]- [43] are capital-intensive because they are reliant on fixed/location-restricted backbone infrastructures (see Figure 2), too complicated to deploy and manage by even expert users, based on unrealistic indoor conditions which do not commensurate real-world environmental conditions, and based on the high-power-demanding centralized or flooding architectures which further complicate network manageability when up-scaled. It was also discovered in [3], [5], [14], [15], [37]- [39] that the embedded communication technology, event routing architecture, and the SNs' power management are the core factors that made them capital-intensive and complicated to both experts and low-income farmers.…”

“…It was also discovered in [3], [5], [14], [15], [37]- [39] that the embedded communication technology, event routing architecture, and the SNs' power management are the core factors that made them capital-intensive and complicated to both experts and low-income farmers. Additionally, self-healing, reconfigurability, and adaptability mechanisms to faults were not deployed [8], [16], [17]; hence, faulty and turbulent conditions could not be tolerated. Furthermore, since the battery-powered SNs rely on expensive Wi-Fi and cellular communication technologies that are not freely accessible at all locations, the SNs exhausted their battery supply a few days after deployment.…”

“…over two-thirds of the economically active global population [2], [6]. Coincidentally, these solutions were also tested under indoor environmental conditions [13], [16], [29], making their results unrealistic for accurately assessing their respective performance indicators [3], [17]. Although some of these testbeds function in outdoor conditions [3], [5], [14], [15], setting up such test-beds and managing the experimental SNs via centralized/flooding-based routing architectures with wired backbones can be time-consuming, location-constrained, effort-intensive, complicated, and capital-intensive for most farmers in Africa, especially when the network scales in both size and SN-count (i.e., in large-scale networks).…”