energies

Review
Solar-Powered Plant Protection Equipment: Perspective
and Prospects
Desikan Ramesh 1, * , Mohanrangan Chandrasekaran 2 , Raga Palanisamy Soundararajan 2 ,
Paravaikkarasu Pillai Subramanian 1 , Vijayakumar Palled 3 and Deivasigamani Praveen Kumar 1

1 Department of Renewable Energy Engineering, Agricultural Engineering College and Research Institute,
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore 641003, India
2 Department of Plant Protection, Horticultural College and Research Institute for Women, Tamil Nadu
Agricultural University, Tiruchirappalli 620027, India
3 Department of Renewable Energy Engineering, College of Agricultural Engineering,
University of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur 584104, India
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The major challenges in sustainable and profitable agriculture are developing high-
yielding crop varieties and reducing crop losses. Presently, there are significant crop losses due
to weed/bird/insect/animal attacks. Among the various renewable energy sources, solar energy
is utilized for different agricultural operations, especially in plant protection applications. Solar
photovoltaic (PV) devices present a positive approach to sustainable crop production by reducing
crop loss in various ways. This might result in the extensive use of PV devices in the near future.
PV-based plant protection equipment/devices are primarily utilized in protecting crops from birds,
weeds, or insects. Solar-powered plant protection equipment such as light traps, bird scarers, sprayers,
weeders, and fencing are gaining interest due to their lower operational costs, simple design, no
Citation: Ramesh, D.; fuel requirements, and zero carbon emissions. Most of these PV devices require 12 V rechargeable
Chandrasekaran, M.; Soundararajan, batteries with different currents to meet the load, which varies from 2 to 1500 W. This paper briefly
R.P.; Subramanian, P.P.; Palled, V.; discusses the applications of solar-powered plant protection devices in sustainable agriculture and
Kumar, D.P. Solar-Powered Plant their future prospects.
Protection Equipment: Perspective
and Prospects. Energies 2022, 15, 7379. Keywords: plant protection; pest control; solar energy gadgets; solar insect trap; solar sprayer; solar
https://doi.org/10.3390/en15197379 fencing; solar weeder
Academic Editors: Luigi Vesce,
Maurizio Stefanelli
and Emanuela Gatto
1. Introduction
Received: 19 July 2022
Accepted: 5 October 2022
Agriculture production involves several operations, such as land preparation, sowing,
Published: 8 October 2022
transplanting, intercultural operation (weeding and spraying), irrigation, and harvest-
ing of the final products such as grains, seeds, fruits, leaves, flowers, tubers, and other
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
plant parts. To carry out these operations, farmers use different types of commercial and
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
non-commercial energy sources. As compared to traditional farming, modern farming op-
published maps and institutional affil-
erations are carried out with commercial energy sources that partially replace conventional
iations.
animal and human powers. Due to recent developments in farm mechanization, energy
consumption in agriculture has increased with the better availability of commercial energy
resources. In the current scenario, most of the tillage, plant protection, and harvesting
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
operations are carried out with machinery attached to the tractor/power tiller. For modern
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. agriculture, petroleum and electricity are essential in performing primary and secondary
This article is an open access article tillage and also in other mechanized operations. Electricity is the second-largest energy
distributed under the terms and source used in agriculture, followed by fossil fuels, which are mainly used to operate water
conditions of the Creative Commons pumps for irrigation. Increased energy inputs and escalation of petroleum prices have
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// significantly increased the overall cost of crop production, which has led to reduced prof-
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ itability in agriculture [1]. On the other hand, overdependence on fossil fuels and electricity
4.0/). in agriculture and agro-based industries/other user groups have increased greenhouse

Energies 2022, 15, 7379. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15197379 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2022, 15, 7379 2 of 21

gas emissions. These factors have led to environmental pollution, global warming, and
climate change.
Increasing temperature in the atmosphere due to global warming alters macro and
microclimatic conditions, which also have an impact on the agroecosystem. This impact
realized in terms of frequent outbreaks of existing pest pestilence and invasion of new
insect pests causes reduced crop yield/production [2]. According to Van Lenteren [3],
5000 species of insects are considered harmful to crops, livestock, and human beings from
among the world’s one million described insect species. Generally, a considerable economic
loss occurs through loss in crop yield, which is caused by the infestation of pests such
as insects, non-insect pests, birds, and weed plants. Crop losses due to weeds can vary
from crop to crop based on the occurrence of weed species, locality, and farming system
in the region [4,5]. Weeds compete with the main crop for nutrients, light, and water and
might serve as an alternate host for insects, nematodes, and pathogens [6]. In this way,
crop quality and yield can be directly reduced, and the cost of cultivation can be indirectly
increased. An estimate predicted that weeds, insects, and diseases destroy about 40 percent
of world crop production [7]. The global losses due to the attack of these organisms were
estimated at USD 500 billion, but it can be reduced to USD 213 billion by adopting proper
pest management strategies [8]. FAO’s Food Loss Index calculation depicting the first global
loss estimate released in 2019 revealed that there was a 13.8 percent loss in yield due to
direct (such as insect pests, diseases, post-harvest losses, etc.) and indirect (marketable loss)
ways and the overall crop losses were more (0.1–18.0%) in cereals and pulses (FAO 2019).
The management of these harmful organisms is essential to maintain crop hygiene
and prevent losses in crop yield. Farmers mainly adopt synthetic chemical molecules to
control weeds, insect pests, and diseases. Different methods employed for weed/insect
management in agriculture are depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Different weed/insect control methods used in agriculture.

The fuels used to operate the types of equipment involved in the applications of
chemicals are mostly diesel and petrol. These commercial fuels are uneconomical for
farmers in their day-to-day activities and contaminate the natural ecosystem due to toxic
gas emissions. Apart from the spraying equipment, some devices such as light insect
traps and fences are operated by electrical energy. Mostly electrical energy is not available
Energies 2022, 15, 7379 3 of 21

in isolated and remote agricultural farms, i.e., off-grid areas in general. Under such
circumstances, electricity produced from the sunlight is the best option for un-electrified
remote areas in tropical and subtropical countries due to abundant solar radiation. Solar
energy has wide applications such as space heating/cooling, thermal applications for
industries, cooking, distillation, refrigeration, water heating, electricity production, etc. [9].
The present paper envisages the recent developments and applications of solar-powered
plant protection equipment.

2. Eco-Friendly Strategies for Plant Protection

Generally, plant protection involves management strategies for controlling insect
pests, diseases, birds, and other biological stresses during crop cultivation. The concept
of integrated pest management (IPM) involves cultural, physical, mechanical, behavioral,
biological, and chemical methods. Among the current strategies, the chemical method
is the most viable, effective, and readily available option in the crop production system.
In many countries, synthetic pesticides are primarily used to control pests. However,
improper use of synthetic chemical molecules directly affects agro-horticultural ecosystems
and the environment, and they also contaminate harvested farm produce. Nowadays,
chemical pesticides develop resistance in insects and pathogens, forcing farmers to use
higher quantities and indiscriminate pesticides. Overuse of pesticides poses a high risk to
the public who consume these products with residual pesticides and affects the existing
natural environment [10]. Non-optimal use of pesticides leads to resistance and resurgence
development in pests and diversity loss in the natural environment [11,12]. The man-
agement of insect pests has become one of the biggest challenges for organic cultivation,
making new, eco-friendly alternative management strategies a timely need to combat the
problems. Physical methods include electric and bait traps, which have received a great
deal of attention worldwide [12,13]. Farmers are more interested in implementing eco-
friendly pest management strategies and handling plant health management techniques at
the right time during crop production. The preference is for management strategies and the
delivery system or mode of implementing these methods. The utilization of eco-friendly
energy sources might be the most preferred operating tool in plant protection if options
are many. However, eco-friendly energies for various plant protection operations are a
newer dimension of agriculture and organic farming. According to an FAO (2000) survey,
35 percent of solar energy is utilized in agricultural activities such as irrigation, livestock
watering, and electric fencing. Only 2 percent is used for operating the sprayers, whereas
power consumption for solar fencing protection against grazing animals is 14 percent.

3. Applications of Solar Energy in Agriculture

In the current situation, there is a timely need to substitute commercial energy usage
with new eco-friendly energy sources in agriculture and reduce the negative impacts on
the environment. Renewable energy sources are the right choice for biofuel and electricity
to replace conventional energy sources. Electricity generation from solar and wind energy
is well proven, and the technologies are already available, installed, and used worldwide.
Among the renewable energy sources, solar energy is closely associated with agricul-
ture. Generally, the plant derives light energy from the sun for photosynthesis. In other
words, plants produce their food by using water and CO2 present in the atmosphere via
photosynthesis in sunlight. Solar energy usage in agriculture is not a new technology in the
post-harvest processing of agro produce. In earlier days, sunlight was directly used to dry
different types of agro produce by spreading them in the open and then storing them for
future use. In the case of solar thermal energy applications, conventional open-yard sun
drying and solar drying are more popular among the farming community. The two forms
of energy obtained from sun, light and thermal energy, can be tapped by using devices for
various applications both at domestic and industrial levels in agriculture and agro/food
processing sectors.
Energies 2022, 15, 7379 4 of 21

Many reviews on solar energy utilization in agriculture are found in the literature [14,15],
including solar photovoltaic reviews [16–20] and PV economics and potential [21,22].
Different solar dryer designs, thermal energy backup systems, and various solar drying
technologies have been well documented [15,23–43].

4. Solar PV Technologies
Electricity production using solar energy is achieved either through photovoltaic
technology or the concentration of solar power [44]. However, the solar PV system is
mainly preferred for a mobile/stationary machine that requires low power inputs. Solar
PV technology uses the photovoltaic effect for converting sunlight into electrical energy.
The electrical load should be connected either directly to the PV system or battery. The
added advantages of PV are the lack of moving parts, power production on any scale,
reliable power production without toxic gas emissions, and long lifespan. The most
common PV applications include remote site electrification, street lights, traffic signals,
vehicle battery charging, water pumping, fencing, communications, satellite, and remote
monitoring [9,45]. Several reviews are published on the different aspects of solar PV water
pumping [46–56] and design aspects of solar pumping [31,37]. There is a broad scope for
the successful implementation of solar-powered farm machinery/tools/implements in
agriculture. Popular PV-powered farm gadgets used in crop production include solar water
pumping, solar fencing, solar-operated sprayers, solar-operated dusters, solar bird scarers,
solar insect traps, and solar PV–thermal hybrid drying systems. Standalone solar PV is
unique and has several potential applications in agriculture.

5. Solar-Powered Equipment for Weed Management

Solar Power Weeders
Weeds are usually eradicated by mechanical action or synthetic herbicides. Few
herbicides are available with a specific mode of action, making it tedious to identify
and achieve the expected management of weeds [57]. Mechanical weeding involves the
repetitive actions of weeding tools (operated by man/machine) to make physical contact
with weeds to uproot them [58]. Manual weeding is an energy- and labor-intensive process,
and women laborers are primarily involved in manual weeding, which also increases
the cost of operation. In order to reduce the drudgery and discomfort of the workers,
long-handled weeders are available for both dry and wetlands. Presently, the utilization
of human power has become expensive in developing countries such as India due to
the non-availability of farm laborers or higher wage expectations. Developing fully or
semi-automatic weeders is mandatory in farm mechanization to reduce the labor force.
Solar-powered weeders are an excellent alternative to implement sustainable mechanization
in agriculture due to increased fuel costs.
The components of solar weeders are a solar panel, a rechargeable battery, transport
wheels, a motor, weed detectors (sensors/cameras), and a weeding mechanism. Generally,
lead acid batteries are preferred for these types of equipment. The added advantages of
lead acid batteries are that they are inexpensive, have a long life cycle, have a higher energy
density, a higher surge current supply, and a lower energy to weight ratio than other battery
types [59]. These batteries are a viable option for a DC motor with higher torque for electric
vehicles [59].
Solar robotic weeders are also available, and they work a minimum of five hours
continuously, which helps control weeds in time. Most solar weeders are robotic models,
and their weeding operations are either mechanical or chemical spray types. DC motors
are used in the weeder for movement and mechanical weeding purposes. The added
advantages of these models are reduced human resources, no fuel requirement, more
precision in weeding, light weight, and 24/7 operations. Furthermore, the solar panel is
attached to the system, which helps recharge the battery, even during operations. Generally,
12 V rechargeable batteries are used in solar-powered mechanical weeders. The number of
batteries may vary based on the power requirement for its operation (Table 1).
Energies 2022, 15, 7379 5 of 21

Table 1. Different types of powered weeders.

Battery PV Panel Power

S. No Particulars Transport Solar Power Reference
Specification Attachment Used to
Solar energy-based vehicle Rechargeable
DC motors
1. weed detecting Wheels 20–40 W battery, Inbuilt [60]
(7 nos.)
robotic model 12 V, 7 Ah
DC motors and
Rechargeable
2. Greenbot—weeding Wheels 100 W Inbuilt other parts [61]
battery
(3 nos.)
Prototype of solar DC motor and
3. Wheel NA — – [62]
weeding robot IR sensor
Remote-Controlled Solar
12 V battery DC motor and
4. Agro Sprayer Robot Wheels NA – [63]
(2 nos.) pumps
(prototype)

The unmanned system (robot) is well suited for weeding operations, and it helps to
minimize the required workforce and herbicide usage while weeding. Two solar-powered
weeders, EcoRobot and AVO robot models, are developed by Ecorobotix, Switzerland
(Figure 2). These models work more effectively in row crops based on the detection of
weeds (>85%), and a micro-dose of herbicides is applied precisely on the weeds to destroy
them. The solar power used in EcoRobot and AVO models is 380 W and 1150 W, respectively,
and they have a working time of 8 and 12 h once fully charged by solar panels [64].

Figure 2. Solar-powered weeders [64].

6. Solar-Powered Equipment for Pest Management

6.1. Solar Insect Traps
Light traps are effective trapping tools for monitoring and managing insect pests [65,66].
These traps are also used for various scientific purposes, such as biodiversity analysis,
taxonomic collections, periodic surveys, prediction of insect pest occurrence models, and
monitoring [67,68]. The light trap consists of a light source, a holder with a dome, a funnel,
vanes, a timer, an insect trapping system, and a stand. They are designed in different
configurations based on the behavior of the insect’s response to the different wavelengths
of light. For example, a mercury lamp emits a low-wavelength light, which lures a diversity
of flying insects from the surrounding area. Preferred insect traps include flight-intercept
traps [69], bait and pheromone traps [70], and traps that incorporate sticky surfaces [71].
Nocturnal insects tend to be attracted to a light source. This behavior is used in light traps.
The insects hit the light or a vane and fall into the trap, and are killed or kept alive for
monitoring [72].
Energies 2022, 15, 7379 6 of 21

Candescent bulbs were used in light traps in earlier days, which consumed more power
and generated heat during operation. The power consumption increased the operational
cost to the farmer. Nowadays, mercury vapor lamps, gas lamps, fluorescent lamps, ultra-
violet (UV) fluorescent lamps, UV light-emitting diodes (LED) lamps, LED garden lamps,
and compact fluorescent lamps (CFL) are used in light traps. Among them, the first three
are predominantly used for pest management purposes [73]. However, LED bulbs are
preferred in solar insect traps due to many features such as less energy consumption, low
cost per unit trapping time, higher energy efficiency, longer lifespan, etc. Moreover, the
specific wavelengths available in LED bulbs for particular insect species improve trapping
efficiency [74–76].
Recently, solar light traps have become more popular among the farming community
as they are cost-effective (Figure 3). The main components of these traps are similar to
other electrical light traps except the battery, timer, and solar panel. A solar insect trap
unit is exposed to sunlight during the daytime to generate and store electrical energy
in the battery. A timer is another critical component in the light trap for operation. A
stand is used to hold all parts of the trap at different heights according to the nature
of crops. Several researchers developed and tested the details of solar insect light traps
(Table 2). The energy required for the light source used in different solar insect traps
ranges from 3 to 20 W. Mostly, 12 V rechargeable lead acid batteries are used in these
traps. The wavelength of the light source used in the traps is 315 to 590 nm to attract
different insect species. Common traps used to attract the insects are a container filled with
a soapy solution, net structures, and glue boards [10,65,77–81]. Plastic cups/aluminum
funnel traps with pheromone lures also trap insects for taxonomic studies [82–84]. When
monitoring insects over an extended period, these kinds of solar light traps help to reduce
the labor requirement due to automatic timers [85]. Solar light traps effectively attract pests
in vegetable crops [10]. Calderon et al. [80] reported a unique LED light trap for rice bugs
with a solar panel made of polycrystalline solar cells (20 W).

Table 2. Details of the solar insect traps tested for different crops.

Battery Solar Panel

S. No. Cropping System Target Insects Light Source Trapping System Reference
Specification Power
Leaf beetle, elephus
12 V, 14 Ah, lead High-voltage
Vegetable and beetle, aphids,
1. UV LED bulb acid calcium circuit of 20 W [10]
coconut leafhopper, leaf
battery mosquito wire net
minor
Veterinary— 12 V, 45 Ah Lead
2. Tabanid fly LED - - [86]
animal farms acid battery
Ground beetles,
General Calathus White LED
3. 1.2 V, 600 m Ah Not mentioned - [84]
vegetation melanocephalus, bulb
Pseudoophonus rifipes
Vegetation and
4. General insects 12 W LED bulb 12 V, 7.5 Ah Not mentioned 10 W [87]
cropped fields
Hemipteran and 3 W UV LED 12 V, 7 Ah sealed
5. Mango garden Wire mesh panel 10 W [78]
Dipteran insects bulb lead battery
Rice and
6. General insects UV lamp 12 V battery Wire mesh panel 10 W [79]
Brinjal field
Plantation and 12 V, 4.5 Ah
7. General insects 3 W DC Mosquito net 25 W [65]
Orchard crops rechargeable
Spodoptera exigua,
Heliothis assulta,
Hemipteran bugs,
8. Annual crops 5 W DC lamp 12 V battery - - [74]
green leafhopper,
beetles, weevils,
planthopper
Energies 2022, 15, 7379 7 of 21

Table 2. Cont.

Battery Solar Panel

S. No. Cropping System Target Insects Light Source Trapping System Reference
Specification Power
12 V
Circuit of
9. Rice Black bug LED bulb polycrystalline 20 W [80]
mosquito trap
solar cells
LED—Green Battery-powered Pheromone
10. Sweet potato Sweet potato weevil - [82]
light solar cell funnel trap
Brown planthopper, Container box for
yellow stem borer, collecting pests
11. Rice 20 W CFL - - [77]
pink stem borer, leaf with a solution of
folder, black bug soap water
12 W UV 12 V, 35 Ah
General cropping Aluminum
12. Herbivores fluorescent rechargeable 15 W [83]
area funnel trap
bulb battery
1.2 V, 600 mAh
Gardens with LED garden Plastic cup as
13. General insects rechargeable - [84]
vegetation lamps traps
battery
6 V, 12 Ah
14. Hayfield Mosquito species CDC light - 6W [85]
UB6120 battery
12 V lead acid
15. - - UV LED Cum/glue trap 10 W [81]
battery
Rice leaffolder,
Tryporyza incertulas,
Different
Chilo suppressalis,
16. Rice wavelength - - - [88]
Oxya chinensis, gall
bulbs
midge, brown plant
hopper

Figure 3. Solar insect light trap.

6.2. Solar-Powered Sprayers

Spraying is an operation of spreading fine droplets of liquid chemicals over plant
canopy to protect them from pests and diseases. For this purpose, many versions of
manual or power-operated (engine, battery, tractor, and power tiller) spraying equipment
are used. Backpack, trolley type, and wheel-supported solar-powered sprayers are used
as alternatives to conventional sprayers (Table 3). Solar PV sprayers consist of solar
panels, rechargeable batteries, DC motors with a pump or a spinning disk, a chemical
tank, wheels/support frame (based on types), a spray lance, and accessories. Solar panels
are fitted in most of the sprayers for easy recharging. In the case of backpack sprayers,
depending on the models, the power output from the solar panel varies in the range of 5
to 75 W. A solar-powered knapsack sprayer has a solar panel of 20 W, a 12 V and 7.5 Ah
battery, a 12 V DC motor with a pump, a spraying tank, a frame, an adapter, and a connector
Energies 2022, 15, 7379 8 of 21

output for multiple applications (radio, mobile charging, lighting, etc.). These kinds of
sprayers are used for different crops such as cotton, red gram, and vegetables such as onion
(Figure 4). The operation cost of solar-powered sprayers is INR 53.75, which is lower than
battery-powered (INR 78.75) and manually operated (INR 102.5) sprayers.

Table 3. Details of the various types of solar-powered sprayers.

Device PV Power
S. No. Name of Sprayer Solar Power Battery Solar Panel Reference
Movement Used
Solar-powered Lead acid
Transport DC motor—
1. semi-automatic - battery, 12 V, Inbuilt [89]
wheels pump
pesticide sprayer 7.5 Ah
Solar-powered DC water
2. Backpack 5W 12 V, 7 Ah Stand alone [90]
sprayer pump
Solar pesticide Transportable
3. 5W 12 V, 7 Ah Inbuilt DC motor [91]
sprayer trolley type
DC motor—
Solar PV backpack
4. Backpack 5W 12 V, 9 Ah Inbuilt diaphragm [92]
sprayer
pump
Lead acid
Solar-powered 6 V DC motor
5. Backpack 5W battery Inbuilt [93]
sprayer spinning disc
6 V, 4.5 Ah
Solar-powered Solarized
6. Backpack 10 W 12 V Inbuilt [94]
knapsack sprayer agro sprayer
Solar-based
DC motor
7. pesticide Backpack 10 W 12 V Inbuilt [95]
pump
Sprayer
DC motor
Lead acid
Solar-powered cum
8. Backpack 20 W battery 12 V, Stand alone [96]
pesticide sprayer centrifuged
8 Ah
pump
Solar-powered
9. Backpack 10 W 12 V, 7 Ah Inbuilt DC motor [97]
sprayer
Solar agro sprayer
10. Backpack 10 W 12 V, 7 Ah Inbuilt DC motor [98]
with night vision
Multipurpose DC
11. solar-powered Backpack 20 W 12 V,7 Ah Inbuilt motor— [99]
sprayer pump
Wearable
Lead acid
agricultural DC motor—
12. Backpack 20 W battery Inbuilt [100]
solar-powered pump
12 V, 10 Ah
sprayer
Solar-powered
Lead acid Brushless DC
agricultural
13. Backpack 20 W battery Inbuilt motor— [101]
pesticide sprayer
12 V, 9 Ah pump
lab model
Solar pesticide 20 W DC motor—
14. Backpack 12 V, 8 Ah Inbuilt [102]
sprayer polycrystalline pump
Lead acid
Solar knapsack
15. Backpack 25 W battery Inbuilt DC pump [103]
sprayer
12 V–9 Ah
DC pump—
Solar-powered PV Transport 60 Wp (2 12 V, 7 Ah
16. Inbuilt diaphragm [104]
sprayer wheels nos.) (2 nos.)
pump
Energies 2022, 15, 7379 9 of 21

Table 3. Cont.

Device PV Power
S. No. Name of Sprayer Solar Power Battery Solar Panel Reference
Movement Used
DC motor—
Solar-powered Lead acid
17. Backpack 60 Wp Stand alone pump [105]
knapsack sprayer battery 7 Ah
set
Solar-powered Lead acid DC motor—
18. Backpack 60 W Stand alone [104]
sprayer battery pump
DC
Lead acid 12
19. Solar sprayer Backpack 75 W Inbuilt motor— [105]
V, 7 Ah
blower
100 Wp poly- DC motor—
Solar PV power
20. Trolley type crystalline (2 12 V, 32 Ah Inbuilt pump of [104]
sprayer
nos. × 50 W) 60 W
Solar-powered
Bullock
21. high-clearance - - - - [106]
drawn
sprayer
Solar-powered Polycrystalline Lead acid
22. Lab model Stand alone DC motor [107]
microner sprayer silicone battery 12 V
Bullock-drawn
Dry lead acid
23. solar-powered Trolley type 500 W Inbuilt DC motor [92]
12 V, 100 Ah
hi-tech sprayer
Solar agro-remote 12 V battery DC motor—
24. Wheel type - Stand alone [94]
controlled sprayer (2 nos.) pump
Solar PV sprayer
DC motor—
developed by Inbuilt/
25. Trolley - - pump [108]
NIPHM, Standalone
(60 W)
Hyderabad
Remote-controlled
12 V battery DC motor
26. solar agro sprayer Wheels NA – [63]
(2 nos.) and pumps
robot (prototype)

(a) (b)
Figure 4. Cont.
Energies 2022, 15, 7379 10 of 21

(c) (d)

(e)

Figure 4. Different types of solar-powered sprayers. (a) Solar-powered knapsack sprayer; (b) uti-
lization of solar-powered knapsack sprayer in onion field; (c) utilization of solar-powered knapsack
sprayer in cotton field; (d) utilization of bullock-drawn solar-powered high-clearance sprayer in
cotton field; (e) utilization of solar-powered push-type sprayer in cotton field.

A solar PV sprayer consists of a DC pump (60 W), 60 Wp solar panels (2 nos.), a DC

motor, batteries (2 nos., 12 V, 7 Ah), and a chemical tank (30 L). The area coverage and
chemical application rate are 0.21 ha h−1 and 84 l h−1 , respectively [109].

6.3. Solar PV Duster

A duster is a mechanical device used to apply solid chemicals in powder form to
manage insect pests, weeds, and disease-causing pathogens in agro-horti ecosystems. The
power source used for conventional dusters is either workforce or compression ignition
engines. In a solar-powered duster, the main components are a solar panel, a rechargeable
battery, and a dusting unit. Different types of solar-powered dusters employed in plant
protection aspects are presented in Table 4. Electricity generation and storage are similar to
other types of solar PV gadgets. The solar panel is fitted in a supporting frame, and it can be
carried above the head of the operator without any weight on the head. The approach has
two advantages: it provides shade to the operator, and charges the battery during operation.
A battery-operated blower or a fan is used in the dusting unit to produce an air blast. The
chemical powder from the hopper is sent to the blower outlet and carried by air to reach
the exit point [110]. Furthermore, the device can be used for off-farm activities, such as
lighting the house throughout the year when it is not in use as a duster/sprayer [109].
Energies 2022, 15, 7379 11 of 21

Table 4. Different types of solar-powered dusters.

Name of the Battery PV Panel

S. No Model Solar Power Power Used to Reference
Equipment Specification Attachment
Solar-powered DC motors for
multiple (Crystalline) 6V blower and
1. Lab model Inbuilt [111]
granulated 3W (3 nos.) feeding
pesticide duster mechanism units
Solar-powered
Lead acid
multiple
2. Backpack 3W battery 6 V Inbuilt DC motor [111]
granulated
(3 nos.)
pesticide duster
DC
Solar PV
3. Backpack 6.5 W 12 V, 7 Ah Inbuilt motor—rotating [112]
sprayer/dusters
pump
4. Solar PV duster Backpack - - Inbuilt Dusting unit [104]

Conventional and Solar-Based Plant Protection Equipment Methods

During the past three decades, conventional types of equipment have been primarily
used in agricultural fields. Solar-powered plant protection equipment became one of
the potential options for smart and sustainable organic agriculture. A comparison of
conventional and solar-powered plant protection equipment is presented in Table 5. Solar-
based equipment does not create any air pollution compared to the other types of equipment
operated using fossil fuels. However, most solar-powered plant protection equipment,
except solar insect traps and solar fencing, is in the research and development stage.

Table 5. Comparison of conventional and solar plant protection equipment.

Plant Protection Equipment (Sprayers)

Particulars
Conventional Solar
Manual, battery, compression ignition
Power source Solar energy
(CI) engine (petrol or diesel)
Operational cost Higher due to fuel price Nil
Overall weight Higher than solar PV sprayer Slightly less than CI engines
Training for operating machine Required Required in case of drone sprayers
Cost Less Higher
Power supply Immediate after engine running Immediate after full charging of a battery
CO2 emissions Possible No
The operator should carry the solar PV sprayer
The operator should carry the equipment
Mode of operation into the entire field, whereas solar drone
into an entire field
sprayers alone enter the field
Drift Less More in a drone sprayer due to its fan
It is still under development and testing, not
Technology Most of the machinery is commercialized yet fully commercialized except for solar insect
trap and solar fencing
Periodical cleaning of equipment
Periodic cleaning of the solar panel and
Maintenance required and it may vary for different
checking the distilled water level in the battery
power sources
Improvement point Almost nil Overall efficiency
Possible failure Engine failure due to poor maintenance Battery failure due to poor maintenance
Energies 2022, 15, 7379 12 of 21

7. Solar-Powered Equipment for Non-Insect Pest Management

7.1. Solar Bird Scarer
Birds also cause considerable yield loss in agriculture and horticulture. During the
grain filling, stage, or maturity stages of crops such as fruits, vegetables, and millets, birds
such as parrots, pigeons, bulbuls, myna, peacocks, and other vertebrate pests cause consid-
erable damage to the crops. Even though birds may eat a tiny piece of the agro produce, the
main problem is picking, spilling, and wasting while feeding, leading to considerable loss.
Bird scaring is a simple technique to create an uncomfortable environment for birds and to
disperse them from the target area [113]. Conventional methods are used to scare the birds,
such as drumming, visual repellents (balloons, kites, plastic flagging, mylar streamers),
busting crackers, flags, scarecrows, and whistling [114–118]. White cloth banging was used
in paddy fields as a tactic to scare birds [119]. Chemical repellents are a socially acceptable,
non-lethal approach to managing avian depredation of crops [120–123]. Gas cannons are
also used to scare birds off crops, and they are most effective in combination with other
scaring techniques [124]. Manual bird scaring, flags, and scarecrows can provide slight
relief, which is ineffective for larger areas [125]. Moreover, they are labor-intensive and
costly. Mechanical bird scarers can be a better option.
A solar bird scarer consists of a PV panel, a lead acid battery, an audio oscillator, an
amplifier, and speakers [126]. Birds are scared by sounds produced in these units with
different frequencies and pitches. Pande [126] suggested a wide range of frequencies to
scare the birds for an extended period. A solar-powered bird repelling system consists of a
solar panel (7 W, 12 V), a charge controller, a 12 V rechargeable battery, an MP3 player, an
amplifier, speakers (2 × 20 W), three sonar sensors or PIR sensors, and an Arduino UNO
microcontroller [127]. The MP3 player is used to play different sounds to scare the birds. A
similar study was carried by Koyuncu and Lule [128] to test a bird scarer using an MP3
player of domestic birds’ predators’ calls to scare the birds and found that falcon was a more
aggressive sound than other predators. The results from Suryawanshi [113] confirmed the
solar-powered audible bird scarer of Koyuncu and Lule [128]. Muminov et al. [127] also
tested a solar-powered bird repelling system using bird scarer sounds. Another interesting
study conducted by Siahaan et al. [129] using bird detectors and repellent via ultrasonic
waves revealed that the frequency of 28–60 kHz could disturb bird activity on a farm.

7.2. Solar Fencing

Animals are other significant contributors to economic loss in agriculture, especially
when farms are close to forest areas [130]. For example, wild animals such as elephants, gaur,
sambar, and wild boar cause more crop loss in Kerala, India, whereas wild boars, monkeys,
porcupines, goral, deer, and bears cause crop damage in central Italy and Nepal [131–133].
In remote areas, electric fencing is a proven technology to protect and safeguard fields
from animals. Farmers may fail to protect their farms from animal attacks mainly due to the
non-availability of electricity/absence of power grids. A PV electric fence is an alternative
to the existing electric fence system and is well suited for off-grid areas. It is the most
effective and economical approach for long-term operations in unelectrified areas. Solar
PV fencing systems can fulfill farmers’ requirements to protect their crops (Figure 5). The
components of the solar fencing system are solar panels, an energizer or a controller, a
rechargeable battery, a main post, a fence wire supporting post, a t-post, a lightning diverter
and choke kit, a super-earth kit, a super strain insulator, a permanent wire tightener, a chain
wire strainer, tension springs, a double insulated lead-out cable, joint clamps, gateway and
gates, cut out switches, electrified flood gates, live light, and a fence voltage alarm [134].
The current from the battery is supplied to the energizer to produce a high voltage with a
low current in the fencing wires. Animals touching the fence wires experience a minimal
electric shock which makes them leave the field. The fencing system would not cause any
fatalities or injuries to animals/humans due to the low current supplied from the solar
PV system. Kadam et al. [134] found that a combination of a solar panel (35 kW) and
battery (12 V) was sufficient to effectively cover a 3.5 km fence line, which costs about USD
Energies 2022, 15, 7379 13 of 21

3300/km. In Kenya, 121 km of solar fencing was established to protect fields from elephant
attacks in the West Laikipia area. The fencing system was arranged with 10 m spacing for
fencing posts to support five fencing wires and 5 km spacing for an energizer house cum
solar panels to produce 7 kV power [135]. Most solar PV-based fencing systems installed in
South Africa were due to reduced costs compared to conventional fencing systems [136].

Figure 5. Solar fencing for agricultural field.

Schlageter and Haag-Wackernagel [137] studied the deterrence effect of solar blinkers
for wild boars. The components of solar blinkers are red LEDs, a solar cell, an on/off
switch, and an implied accumulator. During the operation, LEDs blink at the rate of 2 Hz,
and the light is visible for 500 m in the clear nighttime. They found that solar blinkers were
insufficient for effective crop protection.
Bapat et al. [138] developed a wireless sensor network-supported farm intrusion
detection system (FIDS) to protect crops from animal intrusions. This system consisted of
PIR sensors, sound-generating devices, light flashers, and an RF module and was powered
by the solar PV system. The FIDS was fixed at field boundaries to detect and stop animals.

8. Future Perspectives and Prospects

The performance of most fossil fuel- and electricity-based plant protection equipment
is well documented, and their operational parameters are also optimized. The utilization
of PV systems for different applications constitutes a new era in agriculture, horticulture,
and forest sectors. A PV system is a potential alternative, offering more opportunities in
operating different types of electricity-based agricultural equipment. The development
of devices with simple construction/operation for plant production and protection may
work well on small-scale farms and in post-harvest processing units. The efficiency details
of various solar power-operated units are given in Table 6. Even though the applications
and power requirements of plant protection equipment are different, the PV system’s
overall performance needs to improve. The research on PV systems should be focused
on improving their performance, such as solar panel efficiency, overall system efficiency,
and enhanced battery life. The main areas to emphasize to improve the performance of
PV-powered plant protection equipment (Figure 7) are as follows:
• The operating mechanism is an important deciding factor to finalize the size of the
panel and the battery capacity to operate the machine. For instance, there are two com-
mon methods to eradicate weeds/insects, namely mechanical and chemical. Power
requirements may be different for each of these methods.
• The improvement of solar panel efficiency results in a smaller panel size/area, and it
indirectly results in an overall weight reduction of the system.
• The overall performance of the device ultimately depends on the performance of the
battery. The battery capacity is directly linked to the size/weight of the battery. If the
battery’s power density can be improved, the battery size will reduce while outputting
the same power. Hence, it is suggested that battery life should be enhanced to reduce
Energies 2022, 15, 7379 14 of 21

the maintenance cost. If all three requisites are fulfilled, an improvement in overall
performance may be achieved.
• Sensors for image capturing of weeds/insects, sound detection, motion capturing of
birds, and timers can be incorporated in the plant protection devices to improve their
performance.
• The solar PV plant protection equipment with artificial intelligence (AI), remote sens-
ing, and supporting software may minimize the required power and costs for their
operations, resulting in better performance. For example, an integrated approach can
be used for a drone-operated bird scarer cum sprayer (Figure 6). This would help in
reducing the overall cost and can also be used for other purposes.
• The Internet of Things (IoT) has a potential purpose in agriculture, which would help
in increasing the efficiency of agricultural production processes [139]. Applications of
IoT technologies can modify existing agricultural practices [140]. Furthermore, IoT-
supported automation of solar-powered plant protection equipment will reduce labor
requirements with improved crop yield, which would lead to smart health monitoring
in agriculture.
• Solar-powered plant protection equipment can be operational only for a few days
or weeks in the entire crop duration (Table 7). The equipment will be idle when not
used, and daily charging and discharging of the battery should be carried out for
better utilization of the PV system. The battery in the PV system must be monitored
regularly. Poor maintenance of the battery will lead to reduced battery life. In order to
avoid this situation, the PV system and battery may be used for off-farming activities.
• Recently, farmers have started using drone sprayers due to the simplicity of operation
and more coverage per day. There is not much research on solar-powered drone-
operated sprayers. Since drone sprayers require fans for their operation and air mass,
nearby areas also would be affected by their operation. Moreover, there will be more
chances for the drift of chemicals in the air. Future research may focus on the effective
utilization of solar-powered drones with proper calibrations.
• The economic and technical feasibility studies for such solar equipment may be carried
out before launching them into the commercial market.

Table 6. Efficiency of different solar-powered plant protection devices used in agriculture.

Field Efficiency
Unit Specification Crop References
(%)
Capacity: 20 L
Solar-powered
Solar panel wattage: 25 W Egg plant 77.00 [103]
knapsack sprayer
Flow rate: 600 mL min−1
Dimensions: 1260 × 960 mm
Solar-operated
Panel wattage: 150 W (2 Nos.)
walking-type power Groundnut 90.24 [141]
Operational width: 35 cm
weeder
Weeding depth: 2–3 cm
Dimensions: 1450 × 950 × 700 mm
Solar energy-operated Panel wattage: 160 W
Paddy 83.30 [142]
paddy weeder Type: Cage wheel
Depth of operation: 30–70 mm
Panel wattage: 160 W
Solar-operated power
Cutting width of blade: 70 mm Maize 88.03 [143]
weeder
No. of blades: 4
Solar-powered Dimension: 185 × 160 mm
light-emitting diode Panel wattage: 3 W Groundnut 37.31 [144]
insect trap Battery capacity: 10 Ah
Energies 2022, 15, 7379 15 of 21

Table 7. Schedule of different PV-powered plant protection equipment used in agriculture.

Name of PV Different Stages of Crop Cultivation in Agriculture *

Device Sowing Vegetative Flowering Maturity Harvesting
Solar bird scarer
Solar weeder
Solar insect trap
Solar sprayer
Solar duster
Solar fencing
* stages may vary from crop to crop.

Figure 6. An integrated approach: solar-powered drone for bird scaring and spraying operations.

Figure 7. Thrust areas for PV-powered plant protection equipment.

Energies 2022, 15, 7379 16 of 21

9. Conclusions
Presently, renewable energy sources are becoming popular and are effectively utilized
in different sectors at domestic and industrial levels. Among them, solar-powered devices
are booming, especially in tropical countries due to the availability of more solar radia-
tion and low operational costs. Effective utilization of solar resources entails sustainable
intensification and development in agriculture. We studied solar-powered equipment in
agriculture, exclusively for plant health management in terms of crop protection aspects,
and reviewed the advantages of solar-powered plant protection equipment such as light
traps, bird scarers, fencing, sprayers, and dusters. Solar light traps and solar fencing, in
particular, have recently become more popular among farmers.
Low-cost, solar-powered technology is the need of the hour to prevent crop loss, as
these devices may be operated with less power, reduced battery weight, and lower costs,
with the incorporation of electronics for easy controlling and monitoring of operations for
the benefit of the farming community. Several suggestions for solar-powered devices have
been proposed to help farmers and entrepreneurs reduce the device operator’s burden.
Moreover, PV-powered plant protection equipment will help promote sustainable agri-
culture with profitable returns in the future by eliminating the dependence on fossil fuels
and associated environmental pollutions. Future studies can focus on developing new and
innovative hybridization concepts of solar-powered equipment for profitable agriculture.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization and methodology, D.R. and M.C.; investigation, R.P.S. and
V.P.; writing—original draft preparation, D.R. and M.C.; writing—review and editing, P.P.S. and
D.P.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors acknowledge Tamil Nadu Agricultural University for providing
necessary facilities for solar-powered insect trap cum bird scarer project.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Jha, G.K.; Pal, S.; Singh, A. Changing Energy-Use Pattern and the Demand Projection for Indian Agriculture. Agric. Econ. Res. Rev.
2012, 25, 61–68.
2. Scherm, H.; Sutherst, R.W.; Harrington, R.; Ingram, J.S.I. Global Networking for Assessment of Impacts of Global Change on
Plant Pests. Environ. Pollut. 2000, 108, 333–341. [CrossRef]
3. Van Lenteren, J.C. Ecosystem Services to Biological Control of Pests: Why Are They Ignored? Proc. Sect. Exp. Appl. Entomol. Neth.
Entomol. Soc. 2006, 17, 103. Available online: https://secties.nev.nl/pages/publicaties/proceedings/nummers/17/103-111.pdf
(accessed on 4 October 2022).
4. Bridges, D.C. Crop Losses Due to Weeds in the United States, 1992; Weed Science Society of America: Westminster, UK, 1992;
ISBN 0911733159.
5. Swinton, S.M.; Buhler, D.D.; Forcella, F.; Gunsolus, J.L.; King, R.P. Estimation of Crop Yield Loss Due to Interference by Multiple
Weed Species. Weed Sci. 1994, 42, 103–109. [CrossRef]
6. Boydston, R.A.; Mojtahedi, H.; Crosslin, J.M.; Brown, C.R.; Anderson, T. Effect of Hairy Nightshade (Solanum sarrachoides)
Presence on Potato Nematodes, Diseases, and Insect Pests. Weed Sci. 2008, 56, 151–154. [CrossRef]
7. Pimentel, D.; Peshin, R. Integrated Pest Management: Pesticide Problems; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany, 2014; Volume 3, ISBN 9400777965.
8. Dhaliwal, G.S.; Koul, O.; Arora, R.; Cuperus, G.W. Integrated Pest Management: Retrospect and Prospect. In Integrated Pest
Management: Potential, Constraints and Challenges; CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UK, 2004.
9. Kannan, N.; Vakeesan, D. Solar Energy for Future World—A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 62, 1092–1105. [CrossRef]
10. Sermsri, N.; Torasa, C. Solar Energy-Based Insect Pest Trap. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 197, 2548–2553. [CrossRef]
11. Kim, K.-N.; Song, H.-S.; Li, C.-S.; Huang, Q.-Y.; Lei, C.-L. Effect of Several Factors on the Phototactic Response of the Oriental
Armyworm, Mythimna separata (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Asia-Pac. Entomol. 2018, 21, 952–957. [CrossRef]
12. Park, J.-H.; Lee, H.-S. Phototactic Behavioral Response of Agricultural Insects and Stored-Product Insects to Light-Emitting
Diodes (LEDs). Appl. Biol. Chem. 2017, 60, 137–144. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 7379 17 of 21

13. Johansen, N.S.; Vänninen, I.; Pinto, D.M.; Nissinen, A.I.; Shipp, L. In the Light of New Greenhouse Technologies: 2. Direct Effects
of Artificial Lighting on Arthropods and Integrated Pest Management in Greenhouse Crops. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2011, 159, 1–27.
[CrossRef]
14. Khan, J.; Arsalan, M.H. Solar Power Technologies for Sustainable Electricity Generation—A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2016, 55, 414–425. [CrossRef]
15. Mustayen, A.; Mekhilef, S.; Saidur, R. Performance Study of Different Solar Dryers: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014,
34, 463–470. [CrossRef]
16. El Chaar, L.; El Zein, N. Review of Photovoltaic Technologies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 2165–2175. [CrossRef]
17. Joshi, A.S.; Dincer, I.; Reddy, B. V Performance Analysis of Photovoltaic Systems: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2009, 13,
1884–1897. [CrossRef]
18. Meral, M.E.; Dincer, F. A Review of the Factors Affecting Operation and Efficiency of Photovoltaic Based Electricity Generation
Systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 2176–2184. [CrossRef]
19. Parida, B.; Iniyan, S.; Goic, R. A Review of Solar Photovoltaic Technologies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 1625–1636.
[CrossRef]
20. Singh, G.K. Solar Power Generation by PV (Photovoltaic) Technology: A Review. Energy 2013, 53, 1–13. [CrossRef]
21. Foster, R.; Cota, A. Solar Water Pumping Advances and Comparative Economics. Energy Procedia 2014, 57, 1431–1436. [CrossRef]
22. Meah, K.; Ula, S.; Barrett, S. Solar Photovoltaic Water Pumping—Opportunities and Challenges. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2008,
12, 1162–1175. [CrossRef]
23. Bal, L.M.; Satya, S.; Naik, S.N. Solar Dryer with Thermal Energy Storage Systems for Drying Agricultural Food Products:
A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 2298–2314. [CrossRef]
24. Chaudhari, A.D.; Salve, S.P. A Review of Solar Dryer Technologies. Int. J. Res. Advent Technol. 2014, 2, 218–232.
25. Chauhan, P.S.; Kumar, A.; Tekasakul, P. Applications of Software in Solar Drying Systems: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2015, 51, 1326–1337. [CrossRef]
26. Chauhan, Y.B.; Rathod, P.P. A Comprehensive Review of the Solar Dryer. Int. J. Ambient Energy 2020, 41, 348–367. [CrossRef]
27. El-Sebaii, A.A.; Shalaby, S.M. Solar Drying of Agricultural Products: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 37–43.
[CrossRef]
28. Fudholi, A.; Sopian, K.; Ruslan, M.H.; Alghoul, M.A.; Sulaiman, M.Y. Review of Solar Dryers for Agricultural and Marine
Products. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14, 1–30. [CrossRef]
29. El Hage, H.; Herez, A.; Ramadan, M.; Bazzi, H.; Khaled, M. An Investigation on Solar Drying: A Review with Economic and
Environmental Assessment. Energy 2018, 157, 815–829. [CrossRef]
30. Kant, K.; Shukla, A.; Sharma, A.; Kumar, A.; Jain, A. Thermal Energy Storage Based Solar Drying Systems: A Review. Innov. food
Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2016, 34, 86–99. [CrossRef]
31. Muhsen, D.H.; Khatib, T.; Nagi, F. A Review of Photovoltaic Water Pumping System Designing Methods, Control Strategies and
Field Performance. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 68, 70–86. [CrossRef]
32. Murthy, M.V.R. A Review of New Technologies, Models and Experimental Investigations of Solar Driers. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 2009, 13, 835–844. [CrossRef]
33. Patil, R.; Gawande, R. A Review on Solar Tunnel Greenhouse Drying System. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 56, 196–214.
[CrossRef]
34. Phadke, P.C.; Walke, P.V.; Kriplani, V.M. Direct Type Natural Convection Solar Dryer: A Review. Int. J. Adv. Res. Sci. Eng. 2015, 4,
256–262.
35. Pirasteh, G.; Saidur, R.; Rahman, S.M.A.; Rahim, N.A. A Review on Development of Solar Drying Applications. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2014, 31, 133–148. [CrossRef]
36. Prakash, O.; Kumar, A. Solar Greenhouse Drying: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 29, 905–910. [CrossRef]
37. Rawat, R.; Kaushik, S.C.; Lamba, R. A Review on Modeling, Design Methodology and Size Optimization of Photovoltaic Based
Water Pumping, Standalone and Grid Connected System. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 57, 1506–1519. [CrossRef]
38. Shalaby, S.M.; Bek, M.A.; El-Sebaii, A.A. Solar Dryers with PCM as Energy Storage Medium: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 2014, 33, 110–116. [CrossRef]
39. Sharma, A.; Chen, C.R.; Lan, N.V. Solar-Energy Drying Systems: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2009, 13, 1185–1210.
[CrossRef]
40. Sontakke, M.S.; Salve, S.P. Solar Drying Technologies: A Review. Int. J. Eng. Sci. 2015, 4, 29–35.
41. Thirugnanasambandam, M.; Iniyan, S.; Goic, R. A Review of Solar Thermal Technologies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14,
312–322. [CrossRef]
42. VijayaVenkataRaman, S.; Iniyan, S.; Goic, R. A Review of Solar Drying Technologies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16,
2652–2670. [CrossRef]
43. Ndukwu, M.C.; Bennamoun, L.; Simo-Tagne, M. Reviewing the Exergy Analysis of Solar Thermal Systems Integrated with Phase
Change Materials. Energies 2021, 14, 724. [CrossRef]
44. Chock, R.Y.; Clucas, B.; Peterson, E.K.; Blackwell, B.F.; Blumstein, D.T.; Church, K.; Fernández-Juricic, E.; Francescoli, G.; Greggor,
A.L.; Kemp, P. Evaluating Potential Effects of Solar Power Facilities on Wildlife from an Animal Behavior Perspective. Conserv.
Sci. Pract. 2021, 3, e319. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 7379 18 of 21

45. Kalogirou, S.A. Solar Energy Engineering: Processes and Systems; Academic Press: Oxford, UK, 2013; ISBN 0123972566.
46. Aliyu, M.; Hassan, G.; Said, S.A.; Siddiqui, M.U.; Alawami, A.T.; Elamin, I.M. A Review of Solar-Powered Water Pumping
Systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 87, 61–76. [CrossRef]
47. Chandel, S.S.; Naik, M.N.; Chandel, R. Review of Performance Studies of Direct Coupled Photovoltaic Water Pumping Systems
and Case Study. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 76, 163–175. [CrossRef]
48. Chandel, S.S.; Naik, M.N.; Chandel, R. Review of Solar Photovoltaic Water Pumping System Technology for Irrigation and
Community Drinking Water Supplies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 49, 1084–1099. [CrossRef]
49. Gopal, C.; Mohanraj, M.; Chandramohan, P.; Chandrasekar, P. Renewable Energy Source Water Pumping Systems—A Literature
Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 25, 351–370. [CrossRef]
50. Koner, P.K. A Review on the Diversity of Photovoltaic Water Pumping Systems. Int. Energy J. 2017, 15, 89–110.
51. Li, G.; Jin, Y.; Akram, M.W.; Chen, X. Research and Current Status of the Solar Photovoltaic Water Pumping System–A Review.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 79, 440–458. [CrossRef]
52. Periasamy, P.; Jain, N.K.; Singh, I.P. A Review on Development of Photovoltaic Water Pumping System. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 2015, 43, 918–925. [CrossRef]
53. Poompavai, T.; Kowsalya, M. Control and Energy Management Strategies Applied for Solar Photovoltaic and Wind Energy Fed
Water Pumping System: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 107, 108–122. [CrossRef]
54. Shinde, V.B.; Wandre, S.S. Solar Photovoltaic Water Pumping System for Irrigation: A Review. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2015, 10,
2267–2273.
55. Sontake, V.C.; Kalamkar, V.R. Solar Photovoltaic Water Pumping System—A Comprehensive Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2016, 59, 1038–1067. [CrossRef]
56. Wazed, S.M.; Hughes, B.R.; O’Connor, D.; Calautit, J.K. A Review of Sustainable Solar Irrigation Systems for Sub-Saharan Africa.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 1206–1225. [CrossRef]
57. Duke, S.O. Why Have No New Herbicide Modes of Action Appeared in Recent Years? Pest Manag. Sci. 2012, 68, 505–512.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
58. Machleb, J.; Peteinatos, G.G.; Kollenda, B.L.; Andújar, D.; Gerhards, R. Sensor-Based Mechanical Weed Control: Present State and
Prospects. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2020, 176, 105638. [CrossRef]
59. Khan, S.U.-D.; Almutairi, Z.A.; Al-Zaid, O.S.; Khan, S.U.-D. Development of Low Concentrated Solar Photovoltaic System with
Lead Acid Battery as Storage Device. Curr. Appl. Phys. 2020, 20, 582–588. [CrossRef]
60. Sujaritha, M.; Annadurai, S.; Satheeshkumar, J.; Sharan, S.K.; Mahesh, L. Weed Detecting Robot in Sugarcane Fields Using Fuzzy
Real Time Classifier. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2017, 134, 160–171. [CrossRef]
61. Sujaritha, M.; Lakshminarasimhan, M.; Fernandez, C.J.; Chandran, M. Greenbot: A Solar Autonomous Robot to Uproot Weeds in
a Grape Field. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Eng. 2016, 4, 1351–1358.
62. Patel, H.; Prajapati, A.; Maheshwari, R. Design & Implementation of Solar Weeding Robot for Cotton Field. Int. Res. J. Eng.
Technol. 2018, 5, 3295–3298.
63. Malani, H.; Nanda, M.; Yadav, J.; Purohit, P.; Didwania, K.L. Remote Controlled Solar Agro Sprayer Robot. In Proceedings
of the International Conference on Information and Communication Technology for Intelligent Systems, Ahmedabad, India,
25–26 March 2017; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 513–518.
64. Ecorobotix. Available online: https://www.Ecorobotix.Com/En/Avo-Autonomous-Robot-Weeder/ (accessed on 4 October 2022).
65. Reddy, M.R.N.; Ammika, S.G. Modelling and Optimazation of Solar Light Trap for Reducing and Controling the Pest Population.
Int. J. Engeenering 2015, 3, 224–234.
66. Augul, R.S.H.; Al-Saffar, H.H.; Mzhr, N.N. Survey of Some Hemipteran Species Attracted to Light Traps. Adv. Biores. 2015, 6,
122–127.
67. Baker, R.R.; Cook, L.M. Moths: Population Estimates, Light-Traps and Migration. In Case Studies in Population Biology; Manchester
University Press: Manchester, UK, 1985; pp. 188–211.
68. Beck, J.; Linsenmair, K.E. Feasibility of Light-Trapping in Community Research on Moths: Attraction Radius of Light, Complete-
ness of Samples, Nightly Flight Times and Seasonality of Southeast-Asian Hawkmoths (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae). J. Res. Lepid.
2006, 39, 18–37. [CrossRef]
69. Hill, C.J.; Cermak, M. A New Design and Some Preliminary Results for a Flight Intercept Trap to Sample Forest Canopy
Arthropods. Aust. J. Entomol. 1997, 36, 51–55. [CrossRef]
70. Furlong, M.J.; Pell, J.K.; Choo, O.P.; Rahman, S.A. Field and Laboratory Evaluation of a Sex Pheromone Trap for the Autodissem-
ination of the Fungal Entomopathogen Zoophthora radicans (Entomophthorales) by the Diamondback Moth, Plutella xylostella
(Lepidoptera: Yponomeutidae). Bull. Entomol. Res. 1995, 85, 331–337. [CrossRef]
71. Bacon, O.G.; Seiber, J.N.; Kennedy, G.G. Evaluation of Survey Trapping Techniques for Potato Tuberworm Moths with Chemical
Baited Traps. J. Econ. Entomol. 1976, 69, 569–572. [CrossRef]
72. Montgomery, G.A.; Belitz, M.W.; Guralnick, R.P.; Tingley, M.W. Standards and Best Practices for Monitoring and Benchmarking
Insects. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2021, 8, 513. [CrossRef]
73. Sheikh, A.H.; Bhandari, R.; Thomas, M.; Bunkar, K. Light Trap and Insect Sampling: An Overview. Int. J. Curr. Res. 2016, 8,
40868–40873.
Energies 2022, 15, 7379 19 of 21

74. Bae, S.-D.; Park, J.-O.; Mainali, B.; Kim, H.; Yoon, Y.; Lee, Y.; Cho, Y. Evaluation of Different Light Colors in Solar Trap as
Attractants to Cereal and Legume Insect Pests. Korean J. Int. Agric. 2015, 27, 516–521. [CrossRef]
75. De Medeiros, B.A.S.; Barghini, A.; Vanin, S.A. Streetlights Attract a Broad Array of Beetle Species. Rev. Bras. Entomol. 2017, 61,
74–79. [CrossRef]
76. Mwanga, E.P.; Ngowo, H.S.; Mapua, S.A.; Mmbando, A.S.; Kaindoa, E.W.; Kifungo, K.; Okumu, F.O. Evaluation of an Ultraviolet
LED Trap for Catching Anopheles and Culex Mosquitoes in South-Eastern Tanzania. Parasit. Vectors 2019, 12, 1–12. [CrossRef]
77. Baehaki, S.E.; Iswanto, E.H.; Munawar, D. Relationship of Predators Flight and Rice Pests That Caught on the Light Trap of
Mercury (ML-160 Watt) BSE-G3 Model and Light Trap of Solar Cell-CFL-20 Watt. Int. J. Entomol. Res. 2017, 2, 79–85.
78. Kumar, N. Development and Evaluation of Eco-Friendly Solar Energy Based Light Trap. Int. J. Pure Appl. Biosci. 2019, 7, 356–360.
[CrossRef]
79. Thangalakshmi, S.; Ramanujan, R. Electronic Trapping and Monitoring of Insect Pests Troubling Agricultural Fields. Int. J. Emerg.
Eng. Res. Technol. 2015, 3, 206–213.
80. Calderon, R.A. Solar Powered Rice Black Bug Light Trap. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Advances in
Science, Engineering and Technology, Manila, Philippines, 17–18 December 2017; pp. 17–18.
81. Brimapureeswaran, R.; Nivas, G.; Meenatchi, R.; Sujeetha, A.R.P.; Loganathan, M. Development of a New Solar Light Cum Glue
Trap Model and Its Utilization in Agriculture. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Innov. Eng. 2016, 2, 37–41.
82. McQuate, G.T. Green Light Synergistally Enhances Male Sweetpotato Weevil Response to Sex Pheromone. Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 4499.
[CrossRef]
83. Longing, S.D.; Discua, S.A.; Cokendolpher, J.C. A Solar-Powered UV Light Trap for Long-Term Monitoring of Insects in Remote
Habitats. Coleopt. Bull. 2018, 72, 140–144. [CrossRef]
84. Eccard, J.A.; Scheffler, I.; Franke, S.; Hoffmann, J. Off-grid: Solar Powered LED Illumination Impacts Epigeal Arthropods. Insect
Conserv. Divers. 2018, 11, 600–607. [CrossRef]
85. Hanson, S.M.; Johnson, A.L.; Hou, Y.; Hellwig, M.D. Recharging Centers for Disease Control Light Trap Batteries with Solar
Panels. Int. J. Appl. 2012, 2, 76–80.
86. Blahó, M.; Egri, Á.; Barta, A.; Antoni, G.; Kriska, G.; Horváth, G. How Can Horseflies Be Captured by Solar Panels? A New
Concept of Tabanid Traps Using Light Polarization and Electricity Produced by Photovoltaics. Vet. Parasitol. 2012, 189, 353–365.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
87. Bera, K.P. Development of a New Solar Light Trap Model and Its Utilisation as IPM Tool in Agriculture. JETIR 2015, 2, 549–554.
88. Tu, H.; Tang, N.; Hu, X.; Yao, Z.; Wang, G.; Wei, H. LED Multispectral Circulation Solar Insecticidal Lamp Application in Rice
Field. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2016, 32, 193–197.
89. Ahalya, M.; Muktha, A.; Veena, M.; Vidyashree, G.; Rehna, V.J. Solar Powered Semi-Automatic Pesticide Sprayer for Use in
Vineyards. SSRG Int. J. Electron. Commun. Eng. 2017, 4, 54–57.
90. Kumar, R.; Gopalakrishnan, M.N.N. Fabrication of Solar Operated Agricultural Sprayer. Int. J. Sci. Res. Dev. 2017, 5, 658–661.
91. Murthy, K.B.; Kanwar, R.; Yadav, I.; Das, V. Solar Pesticide Sprayer. Int. J. Latest Eng. Res. Appl. 2017, 2, 82–89.
92. Yallappa, D.; Palled, V.; Veerangouda, M. Development and Evaluation of Solar Powered Sprayer with Multi-Purpose Applications.
In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC), Seattle, WA, USA, 13–16 October 2016;
pp. 1–6.
93. Mishra, A.; Bhagat, N.; Singh, P. Development of Solar Operated Sprayer for Small Scale Farmers. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci.
2019, 8, 2019. [CrossRef]
94. Sasaki, R.S.; Teixeira, M.M.; Oliveira Filho, D.; Cesconetti, C.J.; Silva, A.C.; Leite, D.M. Development of a Solar Photovoltaic
Backpack Sprayer. Comun. Sci. 2014, 5, 395–401.
95. Gokulavasan, B.; Alseena, C.S.; Kiruthika, P.R.; Lakshmi, S.M.; Pavithra, V. Design and Development of Solar Based Pesticide
Sprayer. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Systems, Science, Control, Communication, Engineering and
Technology, Coimbatore, India, 18–19 March 2016; pp. 751–754.
96. Kumawat, M.M.; Wadavane, D.; Ankit, N.; Dipak, V.; Chandrakant, G. Solar Operated Pesticide Sprayer for Agriculture Purpose.
Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 2018, 5, 3396.
97. Mali, P.J.; Ahir, Y.G.; Bijagare, A.S.; Khadayate, R.S. Farmer Friendly Solar Operated Spray Pump. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 2016, 3,
969–972.
98. Patil, S.; Badarinarayan, K.S. Solar Agro Sprayer with Night Vision. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 2016, 3, 1128–1130.
99. Joshua, R.; Vasu, V.; Vincent, P. Solar Sprayer-An Agriculture Implement. Int. J. Sustain. Agric. 2010, 2, 16–19.
100. Farrag, A.M. Design of Wearable Agricultural Solar-Powered Sprayer for Remote Areas. In Proceedings of the ASES National
Solar Conference, San Francisco, CA, USA, 10–13 July 2016.
101. Chavan, R.; Hussain, A.; Mahadeokar, S.; Nichat, S.; Devasagayam, D. Design and Construction of Solar Powered Agricultural
Pesticide Sprayer. Int. J. Innov. Adv. Comput. Sci. 2015, 4, 145–150.
102. Charvani, S.; Sowmya, K.; Malathi, M.; Rajani, P.; Saibaba, K. Design and Fabrication of a Solar Sprayer. In Proceedings of the 2nd
International Conference on Emerging Trends in Engineering and Management Research, Pune, India, 28 May 2017; pp. 237–244.
103. Aboegela, M.A.; Elmeadawy, M.I.; El-Sebaee, I.M.; Al Fakhrany, W.B. Development A Knapsack Sprayer Powered by Photovoltaic
Panel. J. Soil Sci. Agric. Eng. 2019, 10, 907–912. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 7379 20 of 21

104. Swami, V.; Chauhan, D.K.; Santra, P.; Kothari, K. Design and Development of Solar PV Based Power Sprayer for Agricultural Use.
Ann. Arid Zone 2016, 55, 51–57.
105. Sinha, J.P.; Singh, J.K.; Kumar, A.; Agarwal, K.N. Development of Solar Powered Knapsack Sprayer. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 2018, 88,
590–595.
106. Yadav, A.; Veerangouda, M.; Murali, M.; Prakash, K.V.; Nadagouda, S. Bio-Efficacy of Bullock Drawn Solar Powered High
Clearance Sprayer. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. 2019, 8, 694–696.
107. Karami Rad, M.; Omid, M.; Alimardani, R.; Mousazadeh, H. A Novel Application of Stand-Alone Photovoltaic System in
Agriculture: Solar-Powered Microner Sprayer. Int. J. Ambient Energy 2017, 38, 69–76. [CrossRef]
108. Rao, C.S.; Srinivas, I.; Adake, R.V.; Santra, P.; Reddy, B.S.; Kumar, M.; Rao, K.V.; Reddy, K.S.; Yadav, O.P.; Saxena, M.C. Utilization
of Renewable Energy Sources in Dryland Systems. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Dryland Development Conference,
Sustainable Development of Drylands in the Post 2015 World, Alexandria, Egypt, 21–24 August 2016; International Dryland
Development Commission (IDDC): Alexandria, Egypt, 2017; pp. 537–552.
109. Poonia, S.; Jain, D.; Santra, P.; Singh, A.K. Use of Solar Energy in agricultural production and processing. Indian Farming 2018, 68,
104–107.
110. Pande, P.C. Development of Photovoltaic Systems for Arid Zone of India. Energy Environ. 1990, 314–319. [CrossRef]
111. Jivrag, A.; Chawre, V.; Bhagwat, A. Solar Operated Multiple Granulated Pesticide Duster. In Proceedings of the World Congress
on Engineering, London, UK, 6–8 July 2011; Volume 3, pp. 52–56.
112. Kar, A.; Garg, B.K.; Singh, M.P.; Kathju, S. Trends in Arid Zone Research in India; Central Arid Zone Research Institute: Jodhpur,
India, 2009; pp. 221–222.
113. Suryawanshi, V.R. Design, Manufacture and Test of a Solar Powered Audible Bird Scarer and Study of Sound Ranges Used in It.
Int. J. Sci. Res. 2013, 4, SUB159173.
114. Ruelle, P.; Bruggers, R.L. Traditional Approaches for Protecting Cereal Crops from Birds in Africa. In Proceedings of the Tenth
Vertebrate Pest Conference, Monterey, CA, USA, 23–25 February 1982.
115. Haque, A.K.M.F.; Broom, D.M. Experiments Comparing the Use of Kites and Gas Bangers to Protect Crops from Woodpigeon
Damage. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1985, 12, 219–228. [CrossRef]
116. Marsh, R.E.; Erickson, W.A.; Salmon, T.P. Bird Hazing and Frightening Methods and Techniques (with Emphasis on Containment
Ponds). 1991. Available online: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1051&context=icwdmother
(accessed on 4 October 2022).
117. Esipisu, I. Climate-Smart Kenyan Crop Hits a Setback–Hungry Birds. Thompson Reuters Foundation News, 2013–2015. Available
online: https://news.trust.org/item/20130807112810-q5vw8 (accessed on 4 October 2022).
118. Wang, Z.; Fahey, D.; Lucas, A.; Griffin, A.S.; Chamitoff, G.; Wong, K.C. Bird Damage Management in Vineyards: Comparing
Efficacy of a Bird Psychology-Incorporated Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System with Netting and Visual Scaring. Crop Prot. 2020,
137, 105260. [CrossRef]
119. Kiruba, S.; Mishra, B.P.; Stalin, S.I.; Jeeva, S.; Dhas, S. Traditional Pest Management Practices in Kanyakumari District, Southern
Peninsular India. 2006. Available online: http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/6802/1/IJTK%205(1)%20(2006)%2071
-74.pdf (accessed on 4 October 2022).
120. Avery, M.L.; Werner, S.J.; Cummings, J.L.; Humphrey, J.S.; Milleson, M.P.; Carlson, J.C.; Primus, T.M.; Goodall, M.J. Caffeine for
Reducing Bird Damage to Newly Seeded Rice. Crop Prot. 2005, 24, 651–657. [CrossRef]
121. Cummings, J.L.; Pochop, P.A.; Engeman, R.M.; Davis Jr, J.E.; Primus, T.M. Evaluation of Flight ControlR to Reduce Blackbird
Damage to Newly Planted Rice in Louisiana. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2002, 49, 169–173. [CrossRef]
122. Linz, G.M.; Homan, H.J.; Slowik, A.A.; Penry, L.B. Evaluation of Registered Pesticides as Repellents for Reducing Blackbird
(Icteridae) Damage to Sunflower. Crop Prot. 2006, 25, 842–847. [CrossRef]
123. Werner, S.J.; Linz, G.M.; Tupper, S.K.; Carlson, J.C. Laboratory Efficacy of Chemical Repellents for Reducing Blackbird Damage in
Rice and Sunflower Crops. J. Wildl. Manag. 2010, 74, 1400–1404. [CrossRef]
124. Stickley, A.R.; Andrews, K.J. Survey of Mississippi Catfish Farmers on Means, Effort, and Costs to Repel Fish-Eating Birds from
Ponds. In Proceedings of the Fourth Eastern Wildlife Damage Control Conference, Madison, WI, USA, 25–28 September 1989;
p. 39.
125. De Mey, Y.; Demont, M.; Diagne, M. Estimating Bird Damage to Rice in Africa: Evidence from the Senegal River Valley. J. Agric.
Econ. 2012, 63, 175–200. [CrossRef]
126. Pande, P.C. A Novel Solar Device for Dusting Insecticide Powder. In Proceedings of the National Solar Energy Convention,
Vienna, Austria, 6–10 July 1998; University of Roorkee: Roorkee, India, 1998; pp. 117–122.
127. Muminov, A.; Jeon, Y.C.; Na, D.; Lee, C.; Jeon, H.S. Development of a Solar Powered Bird Repeller System with Effective Bird
Scarer Sounds. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Information Science and Communications Technologies
(ICISCT), Tashkent, Uzbekistan, 2–4 November 2017; pp. 1–4.
128. Koyuncu, T.; Lule, F. Design, Manufacture and Test of a Solar Powered Audible Bird Scarer. Int. J. Agric. Biosyst. Eng. 2009, 3,
345–347.
129. Siahaan, Y.; Wardijono, B.A.; Mukhlis, Y. Design of Birds Detector and Repellent Using Frequency Based Arduino Uno with
Android System. In Proceedings of the 2017 2nd International conferences on Information Technology, Information Systems and
Electrical Engineering (ICITISEE), Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 1–2 November 2017; 2017; pp. 239–243.
Energies 2022, 15, 7379 21 of 21

130. Feuerbacher, A.; Lippert, C.; Kuenzang, J.; Subedi, K. Low-Cost Electric Fencing for Peaceful Coexistence: An Analysis of
Human-Wildlife Conflict Mitigation Strategies in Smallholder Agriculture. Biol. Conserv. 2021, 255, 108919. [CrossRef]
131. Peechi, T. Studies on Crop Damage by Wild Animals in Kerala and Evaluation of Control Measures. Available online: https://docs.kfri.
res.in/KFRI-RR/KFRI-RR169.pdf (accessed on 4 October 2022).
132. Amici, A.; Serrani, F.; Rossi, C.M.; Primi, R. Increase in Crop Damage Caused by Wild Boar (Sus scrofa L.): The “Refuge Effect”.
Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 32, 683–692. [CrossRef]
133. Awasthi, B.; Singh, N.B. Status of Human-Wildlife Conflict and Assessment of Crop Damage by Wild Animals in Gaurishankar
Conservation Area, Nepal. J. Inst. Sci. Technol. 2015, 20, 107–111. [CrossRef]
134. Kadam, D.M.; Dange, A.R.; Khambalkar, V.P. Performance of Solar Power Fencing System for Agriculture. J. Agric. Technol. 2011,
7, 1199–1209.
135. Evans, L.A.; Adams, W.M. Fencing Elephants: The Hidden Politics of Wildlife Fencing in Laikipia, Kenya. Land Use Policy 2016,
51, 215–228. [CrossRef]
136. Hayward, M.W.; Kerley, G.I.H. Fencing for Conservation: Restriction of Evolutionary Potential or a Riposte to Threatening
Processes? Biol. Conserv. 2009, 142, 1–13. [CrossRef]
137. Schlageter, A.; Haag-Wackernagel, D. Effectiveness of Solar Blinkers as a Means of Crop Protection from Wild Boar Damage. Crop
Prot. 2011, 30, 1216–1222. [CrossRef]
138. Bapat, V.; Kale, P.; Shinde, V.; Deshpande, N.; Shaligram, A. WSN Application for Crop Protection to Divert Animal Intrusions in
the Agricultural Land. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2017, 133, 88–96. [CrossRef]
139. Nižetić, S.; Šolić, P.; González-de, D.L.-I.; Patrono, L. Internet of Things (IoT): Opportunities, Issues and Challenges towards a
Smart and Sustainable Future. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 274, 122877. [CrossRef]
140. Shafi, U.; Mumtaz, R.; García-Nieto, J.; Hassan, S.A.; Zaidi, S.A.R.; Iqbal, N. Precision Agriculture Techniques and Practices: From
Considerations to Applications. Sensors 2019, 19, 3796. [CrossRef]
141. Kachhot, A.R.; Dulawat, M.S.; Vadher, A.L. Development of Solar Operated Walking Type Power Weeder. Agriculture Science and
Green Energy 2021, 2, 30–41. [CrossRef]
142. Sahu, G.; Raheman. H. Development of a Solar Energy Operated Weeder for Wetland Paddy Crop. J. Renew. Energy Environ. 2022,
9, 1–11.
143. Kumari, S.; Mehta, A.K.; Menna, S.S. Development and Performance Evaluation of Solar Operated Power Weeder. Int. Res. J. Eng.
Technol. 2019, 6, 1340–1343.
144. Balamurugan, R.; Kandasamy, P. Effectiveness of portable solar powered light emitting diode insect trap: Experimental investiga-
tion in a groundnut field. J. Asia-Pac. Entomol. 2021, 24, 1024–1032. [CrossRef]