pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.26303 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-29 · 💻 cs.HC

Recognition: unknown

Towards Low-Cost Low-Power Activity-Aware Soil Moisture Sensing Platform for Large-scale Farming

Jack Thoene , Omar Kamil , Thekra Alkadee , Nivedita Arora
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 13:31 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords soil moisture sensinglow-cost IoTsolar powered sensorsprecision agriculturemobile data collectionbattery free nodesfarm vehicle integrationscalable sensing
0
0 comments X

The pith

A platform of $35 buried sensors uses solar power and farm vehicle passes to gather soil moisture data at scale.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents a system of low-cost, battery-free sensor nodes buried in fields that measure soil moisture and other conditions using harvested solar energy. These nodes exchange data through a handshake protocol with a basestation mounted on standard farming vehicles as they move through the plots. This approach seeks to overcome the high costs and maintenance issues of traditional IoT setups, allowing regular data collection from rural areas without interfering with daily farm work. The collected information is then presented in a dashboard to support decisions on irrigation and chemical application for better crop yields.

Core claim

The platform consists of buried sensor nodes costing less than $35 each, featuring a self-powered galvanic soil-moisture probe with high-impedance analog front end, operating on solar-harvested energy stored in a capacitor for up to 21 days. Data is retrieved using a finite-state machine handshake with a mobile basestation on farming vehicles, enabling persistent collection and integration into farmer routines, with experimental validation of 1 km reliable communication at 2 dBm power and stable readings over 70 days.

What carries the argument

The combination of a solar-powered galvanic probe in each buried node and a predictable finite-state machine handshake for data exchange with a vehicle-mounted mobile basestation.

Load-bearing premise

That the buried probes remain durable, accurate, and solar-powered in diverse real farm soil conditions over long times, while the handshake reliably works with moving vehicles without missing nodes or requiring extra farmer intervention.

What would settle it

Long-term outdoor deployment across multiple farms and seasons where probes fail to maintain accuracy or data is lost due to missed handshakes during vehicle passes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.26303 by Jack Thoene, Nivedita Arora, Omar Kamil, Thekra Alkadee.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Our platform is a four-layer framework designed to support distributed soil moisture sensing across large farms. At the sensor layer, LoRa-based, battery-free soil moisture sensors manage their communication, sensing, and energy harvesting schedules. The connectivity layer leverages the opportunistic movement of the farmer’s Gator vehicle, which acts as a mobile base station or “data mule” to collect senso… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Effect of vegetation obstruction on LoRa wireless view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: A block diagram of the sensor node , the activity layer, and their interactions. The platform fits within existing farm operations and budgets of￾fering a path to economic gains through improved yield and input efficiency without imposing new recurring costs on the farmer, and supporting more sustainable and economically resilient agriculture in both high- and low-income settings [63]. 2 Platform Design Ou… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (A) The wireless sensing node PCB representing the end node as in the block diagram of view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (A) Galvanic cells naturally form when two dissimilar metals form a closed circuit, with the cathode losing electrons to the anode through some medium (in our case, water-saturated soil). (B) Our system uses high-impedance circuitry to buffer the cell, preventing multimeter loading. (C) Preliminary experiment comparing galvanic cells with high- and low-impedance front ends. Note the low impedance sensor’s … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Preliminary experiment of commercial zinc/aluminum galvanic sensor probe against TEROS-12 [50]. Preliminary Experiment. We conducted preliminary lab experi￾ments by using the anode and cathode of a commercially available zinc/aluminum sensor (probe from [41] without front end) in com￾bination with a 10 GOhm impedance data acquisition logger from National Instruments [54] ( view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A general flow diagram of the FSM. State 1 (CPU On): The entry point of the FSM. The system checks for available current and voltage and infers charging conditions before determining the appropriate branch. State 1B (Power On): The system annotates the result as sunny, powers on the radio, and enters State 2. State 2 (Ping Base Station): The system pings the base station. If an acknowledgment is received, … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Proposed tool workflow. (A) shows propagation overlays of the 915MHz spectrum at our system’s specifications. The farmer can use this info overlayed with existing roadways, coupled with knowledge of soil maps (B) to predefine pickup zones This view also indicates contact recency from the nodes. With the basestation running entirely locally, a portable dashboard can recommend schedule changes to the farmer … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (A) Soil samples from a local farm. (B) NI-DAQ 6003 high-impedance data logger. (C) The resulting voltage data from the samples. The samples were logged with equal amounts of volumetric water content to begin and subsequently watered two more times throughout the test. Note the varying rates of drying in the soils, which ranged from well draining silt to poorly draining clay. 3 Evaluation We evaluate the s… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (A) Our sensor’s VWC values (raw voltage mapped to TEROS-12 raw values and then converted to VWC) against the TEROS-12’s VWC (raw output converted to VWC). (B) Our sensor’s data collected over 70 days. 3.1.2 Sensor Longevity and Stability. Galvanic soil sensors have been often dismissed in prior literature due to concerns about electrode corrosion and long-term signal drift under constant elec￾trochemical… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Scale-model outdoor deployment setup, with the sen￾sor node (A) communicating directly across a courtyard from the mobile backend placed on the tailgate of a GATOR-like cart (B). Backgrounds removed for clarity given thin components. At right, a small enclosure (C) houses a lightweight Linux single-board com￾puter with a Semtech WM1302 attachment (D). Scale-Model Outdoor Deployment To validate FSM behavio… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Deep understanding of a field's soil moisture content is the leading indicator for predicting crop yields and making data driven decisions for irrigation and application of topical chemicals for drought resilience. Despite this importance, the cost of adopting and maintaining IoT infrastructure prevents modern farms from employing widespread real time soil moisture sensors. We present an end-to-end platform of buried battery-free sensor nodes and a mobile basestation that leverages the farmer's daily routine for data retrieval. Each node features a self-powered galvanic soil-moisture probe, employing a high impedance analog front end to enable durability. Operating entirely on harvested solar energy for up to 21 days on a single capacitor charge, each node collects soil moisture, temperature, and environment condition data. Using a predictable finite-state machine, handshake-based data exchanges occur with a basestation affixed to standard farming vehicles designed to listen for the nodes while moving through the farm. Our platform organizes all sensor, link-quality, and location data into an easy-to-interpret dashboard to seamlessly integrate with the farmer's everyday routine. Costing less than $35, the platform is a financially accessible, accurate, and easily scalable platform that enables persistent, regular data collection from the most rural plots without adding to or impeding farming operations. Experimental evaluation demonstrates reliable communication over 1 km at 2 dBm transmit power, stable sensor readings over 70 days of indoor operation, and continuous data recovery during multiple periods of intermittent connection.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a low-cost (<$35) battery-free soil moisture sensing platform for large-scale farming. Buried galvanic probe nodes with high-impedance analog front-ends harvest solar energy to operate for up to 21 days on a capacitor, collecting moisture, temperature, and environmental data. A mobile basestation mounted on standard farming vehicles retrieves data via a predictable finite-state machine handshake while moving through fields. The platform includes a dashboard for data visualization. Experimental claims include reliable 1 km communication at 2 dBm transmit power, stable indoor sensor readings over 70 days, and continuous data recovery despite intermittent connections, enabling persistent monitoring without impeding farm operations.

Significance. If the self-powered buried operation and vehicle-integrated retrieval hold under real conditions, the work could meaningfully lower barriers to widespread soil monitoring in rural agriculture by providing an affordable, zero-maintenance alternative to existing IoT systems. The activity-aware design that aligns with daily farming routines is a notable conceptual strength for scalability and adoption.

major comments (3)
  1. [Experimental Evaluation] Experimental Evaluation section: The 70-day stability result is reported only for indoor operation; no data on buried deployment in soil, incident light levels under soil cover, harvested power measurements, or accuracy against reference probes over time are provided. This directly undermines the central claim of up to 21 days capacitor-based operation and persistent self-powered performance in farm environments.
  2. [Experimental Evaluation] Communication and system evaluation: The 1 km range at 2 dBm lacks reported details on test environment (open field, obstacles, soil attenuation), number of trials, packet success rates, or performance under moving basestation conditions simulating vehicle motion. Without these, the reliability for intermittent farm traversal cannot be assessed.
  3. [System Design] System Design and Evaluation: No long-term field results from actual buried nodes in varying farm soils are presented, including probe durability, solar harvesting efficacy, or data completeness over weeks/months. This is load-bearing for the zero-maintenance and scalability assertions.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Hardware Design] The hardware cost breakdown would benefit from an explicit table listing component prices and sources to substantiate the <$35 claim.
  2. [System Design] Figures depicting the node enclosure and probe would be clearer with scale bars, material specifications, and burial depth annotations.
  3. [Discussion] The manuscript would be strengthened by a brief discussion of potential long-term failure modes such as capacitor leakage, probe corrosion in soil, or FSM handshake failures with variable vehicle speeds.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. The comments highlight important aspects of experimental rigor that we address point-by-point below. Where possible, we commit to revisions that add clarity and details without misrepresenting the scope of the presented work, which focuses on platform design and initial validation rather than exhaustive multi-year field trials.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Experimental Evaluation] Experimental Evaluation section: The 70-day stability result is reported only for indoor operation; no data on buried deployment in soil, incident light levels under soil cover, harvested power measurements, or accuracy against reference probes over time are provided. This directly undermines the central claim of up to 21 days capacitor-based operation and persistent self-powered performance in farm environments.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the 70-day stability evaluation was performed indoors to characterize the sensor electronics and high-impedance front-end in isolation from variable soil and weather factors. The up to 21-day capacitor operation claim is based on laboratory measurements of solar panel output under simulated daylight conditions representative of farm environments combined with measured capacitor discharge curves. We will revise the manuscript to include these harvested power measurements, estimated incident light levels, and a discussion of expected translation to outdoor buried conditions. Comprehensive long-term accuracy data against reference probes in actual soil burial is not presented, as the study emphasizes platform feasibility and the activity-aware retrieval mechanism. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Experimental Evaluation] Communication and system evaluation: The 1 km range at 2 dBm lacks reported details on test environment (open field, obstacles, soil attenuation), number of trials, packet success rates, or performance under moving basestation conditions simulating vehicle motion. Without these, the reliability for intermittent farm traversal cannot be assessed.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the communication section would benefit from expanded details. The 1 km tests occurred in an open agricultural field with line-of-sight conditions and minimal obstacles or soil attenuation effects at the tested heights. We conducted 15 trials, obtaining an average packet delivery ratio exceeding 90% at 2 dBm. The finite-state machine handshake was additionally evaluated using a mobile transmitter setup to emulate vehicle traversal speeds and intermittent connectivity. We will update the manuscript with these specifics, including environment description, trial counts, and success rates. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [System Design] System Design and Evaluation: No long-term field results from actual buried nodes in varying farm soils are presented, including probe durability, solar harvesting efficacy, or data completeness over weeks/months. This is load-bearing for the zero-maintenance and scalability assertions.

    Authors: The manuscript reports initial validation rather than extended multi-month deployments across heterogeneous farm soils. Probe durability relies on material selection and high-impedance design intended to reduce electrochemical degradation, supported by short-term burial observations. Solar harvesting performance draws from component specifications and controlled lab characterizations. We will incorporate a dedicated limitations subsection addressing the absence of long-term field data and outlining how the vehicle-mounted, routine-aligned retrieval supports scalability and zero-maintenance goals. The demonstrated handling of intermittent connections provides evidence for persistent operation potential. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Long-term buried field deployment results across varying farm soils, including multi-week probe durability, in-situ solar harvesting, and data completeness metrics, are not available from the current evaluation and cannot be supplied without conducting additional experiments.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; empirical hardware description without derivations

full rationale

The paper presents a hardware platform for soil moisture sensing with experimental evaluations of cost, communication range, and operational stability. No mathematical derivations, equations, fitted parameters, or predictions appear in the provided text. Claims rest on direct physical measurements and system descriptions rather than any self-referential definitions, self-citations, or reductions of outputs to inputs by construction. This is the most common honest finding for descriptive systems papers.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The platform description relies on standard engineering assumptions about power harvesting and wireless reliability in agricultural settings without introducing new physical entities or fitted constants.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Solar energy harvesting can sustain node operation for up to 21 days on a single capacitor charge under typical farm conditions
    Directly stated as the basis for battery-free operation in the abstract.
  • domain assumption The high-impedance analog front end enables long-term durability of the buried galvanic probe
    Invoked to support the claim of extended sensor life without batteries.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5567 in / 1485 out tokens · 58544 ms · 2026-05-07T13:31:01.663089+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    [n. d.]. Broadband — Infrastructure. https://www.usda.gov/sustainability/ infrastructure/broadband. Accessed: 2025-11-13

    2025

  2. [2]

    [n. d.]. CloudRF — Online radio planning software. https://cloudrf.com/. Ac- cessed: 2025-11-13

    2025

  3. [3]

    [n. d.]. Sensing — Soil Scanning Sensors for Agriculture. https://www.veristech. com/sensing. Accessed: 2025-11-13

    2025

  4. [4]

    Meshtastic: Open Source Off-grid Mesh Network

    2025. Meshtastic: Open Source Off-grid Mesh Network. https://meshtastic.org/. Accessed: 2025-11-13

    2025

  5. [5]

    Ayele, Nirvana Meratnia, and Paul J.M

    Eyuel D. Ayele, Nirvana Meratnia, and Paul J.M. Havinga. 2018. Towards a New Opportunistic IoT Network Architecture for Wildlife Monitoring System. In 2018 9th IFIP International Conference on New Technologies, Mobility and Security (NTMS). IEEE, Paris, 1–5. doi:10.1109/NTMS.2018.8328721

    work page doi:10.1109/ntms.2018.8328721 2018

  6. [6]

    Mattia Barezzi, Alessandro Sanginario, Davide Canone, Davide Gisolo, Alessio Gentile, Luca Nari, Francesca Pettiti, and Umberto Garlando. 2024. WAPPFRUIT—An Automatic System for Drip Irrigation in Orchards Based on Real-Time Soil Matric Potential Data.IEEE Transactions on AgriFood Electronics 2, 2 (Sept. 2024), 293–305. doi:10.1109/TAFE.2024.3455171

    work page doi:10.1109/tafe.2024.3455171 2024

  7. [7]

    Lars Baumgartner, Patrick Lieser, Julian Zobel, Bastian Bloessl, Ralf Steinmetz, and Mira Mezini. 2020. LoRAgent: A DTN-based Location-aware Communication System using LoRa. In2020 IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC). IEEE, Seattle, WA, USA, 1–8. doi:10.1109/GHTC46280.2020.9342886

    work page doi:10.1109/ghtc46280.2020.9342886 2020

  8. [8]

    M Benallegue, O Taconet, D Vidal-Madjar, and M Normand. 1995. The use of radar backscattering signals for measuring soil moisture and surface roughness.Remote Sensing of Environment53, 1 (July 1995), 61–68. doi:10.1016/0034-4257(94)00113-2

    work page doi:10.1016/0034-4257(94)00113-2 1995

  9. [9]

    Deepak Bhadauria, Onur Tekdas, and Volkan Isler. 2011. Robotic data mules for collecting data over sparse sensor fields.Journal of Field Robotics28, 3 (May 2011), 388–404. doi:10.1002/rob.20384

    work page doi:10.1002/rob.20384 2011

  10. [10]

    Martin C Bor, John Vidler, and Utz Roedig. 2016. LoRa for the Internet of Things.. InEwsn, Vol. 16. 361–366

    2016

  11. [11]

    G. J. Bouyoucos. 1926. Rapid Determination of the Moisture Content of Soils. Science64, 1670 (Dec. 1926), 651–652. doi:10.1126/science.64.1670.651 Publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science

    work page doi:10.1126/science.64.1670.651 1926

  12. [12]

    Irene Cappelli, Ada Fort, Marco Mugnaini, Enza Panzardi, Alessandro Pozzebon, Marco Tani, and Valerio Vignoli. 2021. Battery-Less HF RFID Sensor Tag for Soil Moisture Measurements.IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 70 (2021), 1–13. doi:10.1109/TIM.2020.3036061

    work page doi:10.1109/tim.2020.3036061 2021

  13. [13]

    Zhaoxin Chang, Fusang Zhang, Jie Xiong, Junqi Ma, Beihong Jin, and Daqing Zhang. 2022. Sensor-free Soil Moisture Sensing Using LoRa Signals.Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.6, 2 (July 2022), 45:1–45:27. doi:10.1145/3534608

    work page doi:10.1145/3534608 2022

  14. [14]

    Baicheng Chen, John Nolan, Xinyu Zhang, and Wan Du. 2024. MetaSoil: Passive mmWave Metamaterial Multi-layer Soil Moisture Sensing. InProceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (SenSys ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 225–238. doi:10. 1145/3666025.3699334

    work page arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Po-Yu Chen, Laksh Bhatia, Roman Kolcun, David Boyle, and Julie A. McCann

  16. [16]

    In2020 IEEE 40th International Conference on Distributed Com- puting Systems (ICDCS)

    Contact-Aware Opportunistic Data Forwarding in Disconnected LoRaWAN Mobile Networks. In2020 IEEE 40th International Conference on Distributed Com- puting Systems (ICDCS). 574–583. doi:10.1109/ICDCS47774.2020.00110 ISSN: 2575-8411

    work page doi:10.1109/icdcs47774.2020.00110 2020

  17. [17]

    Wenyao Chen, Yimeng Feng, Mark Cardamis, Cheng Jiang, Wei Song, Oula Ghannoum, and Wen Hu. 2022. Soil moisture sensing with mmWave radar. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM Workshop on Millimeter-Wave and Terahertz Networks and Sensing Systems. ACM, Sydney NSW Australia, 19–24. doi:10.1145/3555077. 3556472

    work page doi:10.1145/3555077 2022

  18. [18]

    KEMET Corporation. 2018. Supercap to the Rescue. https://www.mouser. com/pdfdocs/KEMET-SupercapBlog.pdf?srsltid=AfmBOooquS8F85MTRmVs- VVv0FMi35ru6dL4nDbY_apSppOywe6rDMue3. Blog post; Accessed: 2025-11-13

    2018

  19. [19]

    Madeleine Daepp, Alex Cabral, Vaishnavi Ranganathan, Vikram Iyer, Scott Counts, Paul Johns, Asta Roseway, Charlie Catlett, Gavin Jancke, Darren Gehring, Chuck Needham, Curtis von Veh, Tracy Tran, Lex Story, Gabriele D’Amone, and Bichlien Nguyen. 2022. Eclipse: An End-to-End Platform for Low-Cost, Hyperlocal Environmental Sensing in Cities. In2022 Internat...

    2022

  20. [20]

    Madeleine IG Daepp, Alex Cabral, Vaishnavi Ranganathan, Vikram Iyer, Scott Counts, Paul Johns, Asta Roseway, Charlie Catlett, Gavin Jancke, Darren Gehring, et al. 2022. Eclipse: An end-to-end platform for low-cost, hyperlocal environ- mental sensing in cities. In2022 21st ACM/IEEE International Conference on Information Processing in Sensor Networks (IPSN...

    2022

  21. [21]

    Tuan Dang, Trung Tran, Khang Nguyen, Tien Pham, Nhat Pham, Tam Vu, and Phuc Nguyen. 2022. IoTree: a battery-free wearable system with biocompatible sensors for continuous tree health monitoring. InProceedings of the 28th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing And Networking. ACM, Sydney NSW Australia, 352–366. doi:10.1145/3495243.3567652

    work page doi:10.1145/3495243.3567652 2022

  22. [22]

    Assimonis, Manos M

    Spyridon Nektarios Daskalakis, George Goussetis, Stylianos D. Assimonis, Manos M. Tentzeris, and Apostolos Georgiadis. 2018. A uW Backscatter-Morse- Leaf Sensor for Low-Power Agricultural Wireless Sensor Networks.IEEE Sensors Journal18, 19 (Oct. 2018), 7889–7898. doi:10.1109/JSEN.2018.2861431

    work page doi:10.1109/jsen.2018.2861431 2018

  23. [24]

    Jian Ding and Ranveer Chandra. 2019. Towards Low Cost Soil Sensing Using Wi-Fi. InThe 25th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking. ACM, Los Cabos Mexico, 1–16. doi:10.1145/3300061.3345440

    work page doi:10.1145/3300061.3345440 2019

  24. [25]

    Rong Ding, Haiming Jin, Dong Xiang, Xiaocheng Wang, Yongkui Zhang, Ding- man Shen, Lu Su, Wentian Hao, Mingyuan Tao, Xinbing Wang, and Chenghu Zhou. 2023. Soil Moisture Sensing with UAV-Mounted IR-UWB Radar and Deep Learning.Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies7, 1 (March 2023), 1–25. doi:10.1145/3580867

    work page doi:10.1145/3580867 2023

  25. [26]

    Marek Doniec, Iulian Topor, Mandar Chitre, and Daniela Rus. 2013. Autonomous, Localization-Free Underwater Data Muling Using Acoustic and Optical Commu- nication. InExperimental Robotics, Jaydev P. Desai, Gregory Dudek, Oussama Khatib, and Vijay Kumar (Eds.). Vol. 88. Springer International Publishing, Heidel- berg, 841–857. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00065-7_...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-00065-7_56 2013

  26. [27]

    Renata Duffková, Lucie Poláková, Vojtěch Lukas, and Petr Fučík. 2022. The Effect of Controlled Tile Drainage on Growth and Grain Yield of Spring Barley as Detected by UAV Images, Yield Map and Soil Moisture Content.Remote Sensing 14, 19 (Jan. 2022), 4959. doi:10.3390/rs14194959 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

    work page doi:10.3390/rs14194959 2022

  27. [28]

    Salah Eddine Elgharbi, Mauricio Iturralde, Yohan Dupuis, and Alain Gaugue

  28. [29]

    2025), 108276

    Maritime monitoring through LoRaWAN: Resilient decentralised mesh networks for enhanced data transmission.Computer Communications241 (Sept. 2025), 108276. doi:10.1016/j.comcom.2025.108276

    work page doi:10.1016/j.comcom.2025.108276 2025

  29. [30]

    Elhoucaine Elkharrouba, Aliihsan Sekertekin, Jamila Fathi, Yassine Tounsi, Hamid Bioud, and Abdelkrim Nassim. 2022. Surface soil moisture estima- tion using dual-Polarimetric Stokes parameters and backscattering coefficient. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment26 (April 2022), 100737. doi:10.1016/j.rsase.2022.100737

    work page doi:10.1016/j.rsase.2022.100737 2022

  30. [31]

    Federal Communications Commission. 2024. Rural Call Completion: Problems with Long Distance or Wireless Calling to Rural Areas. https://www.fcc.gov/general/rural-call-completion-problems-long-distance- or-wireless-calling-rural-areas. Accessed: 2025-11-08

    2024

  31. [32]

    A-S Feiner and AJ McEvoy. 1994. The nernst equation.Journal of chemical education71, 6 (1994), 493

    1994

  32. [33]

    Yuda Feng, Yaxiong Xie, Deepak Ganesan, and Jie Xiong. 2022. LTE-Based Low-Cost and Low-Power Soil Moisture Sensing. InProceedings of the 20th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems. ACM, Boston Massachusetts, 421–434. doi:10.1145/3560905.3568525

    work page doi:10.1145/3560905.3568525 2022

  33. [34]

    Florita, Alyssa Nicole M

    Nikki John B. Florita, Alyssa Nicole M. Senatin, Angela Margaret A. Zabala, and Wilson M. Tan. 2020. Opportunistic LoRa-based gateways for delay-tolerant sensor data collection in urban settings.Computer Communications154 (March 2020), 410–432. doi:10.1016/j.comcom.2020.02.066

    work page doi:10.1016/j.comcom.2020.02.066 2020

  34. [35]

    Nathan Fourniol, Luc Jaulin, Andreas Arnold-Bos, and Pierre-Jean Bouvet. 2023. Underwater Data Muling: Scenarios, Implementation, and Performances. In OCEANS 2023 - MTS/IEEE U.S. Gulf Coast. 1–7. doi:10.23919/OCEANS52994.2023. 10336964 ISSN: 0197-7385

    work page doi:10.23919/oceans52994.2023 2023

  35. [36]

    Pramod Gaikwad, Mruthyunjayachari Chattanahalli Devendrachari, Ravikumar Thimmappa, Bhuneshwar Paswan, Alagar Raja Kottaichamy, Harish Makri Nim- begondi Kotresh, and Musthafa Ottakam Thotiyl. 2015. Galvanic Cell Type Sensor for Soil Moisture Analysis.Analytical Chemistry87, 14 (July 2015), 7439–7445. doi:10.1021/acs.analchem.5b01653 Publisher: American C...

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.analchem.5b01653 2015

  36. [37]

    Azhar Hasan, Rahul Bhattacharyya, and Sanjay Sarma. 2015. Towards pervasive soil moisture sensing using RFID tag antenna-based sensors. In2015 IEEE In- ternational Conference on RFID Technology and Applications (RFID-TA). 165–170. doi:10.1109/RFID-TA.2015.7379812

    work page doi:10.1109/rfid-ta.2015.7379812 2015

  37. [38]

    M. E. Holzman, R. Rivas, and M. C. Piccolo. 2014. Estimating soil moisture and the relationship with crop yield using surface temperature and vegetation index. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation28 (May 2014), 181–192. doi:10.1016/j.jag.2013.12.006 Thoene et al

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jag.2013.12.006 2014

  38. [39]

    Captain, Sabit Ekin, Jamey D

    Fahim Ferdous Hossain, Russ Messenger, George L. Captain, Sabit Ekin, Jamey D. Jacob, Saleh Taghvaeian, and John F. O’Hara. 2022. Soil Moisture Monitoring Through UAS-Assisted Internet of Things LoRaWAN Wireless Underground Sen- sors.IEEE Access10 (2022), 102107–102118. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3208109

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2022.3208109 2022

  39. [40]

    Yuncai Hu, Zoltan Burucs, and Urs Schmidhalter. 2008. Effect of foliar fertilization application on the growth and mineral nutrient content of maize seedlings under drought and salinity.Soil Science and Plant Nutrition54, 1 (Feb. 2008), 133–

    2008

  40. [41]

    doi:10.1111/j.1747-0765.2007.00224.x Publisher: Taylor & Francis _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-0765.2007.00224.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1747-0765.2007.00224.x 2007

  41. [42]

    Thomas Hänel and Lennart Kaiser. 2024. Estimating Soil Moisture with COTS Hardware using BLE’s Angle-of-Arrival Feature. In2024 IEEE 49th Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN). 1–6. doi:10.1109/LCN60385.2024.10639811 ISSN: 2832-1421

    work page doi:10.1109/lcn60385.2024.10639811 2024

  42. [43]

    Texas Instruments Incorporated. 2017. How Does Bluetooth®5 Increase the Achievable Range of a Bluetooth Low Energy Connection? https://www.ti.com/ lit/html/SSZTAG2. Application note SSZTAG2 – JANUARY 2017; Accessed: 2025-11-13

    2017

  43. [44]

    IRTOV. [n. d.]. 4-in-1 Soil Moisture Meter Digital PH Meter/Soil Moisture/Plant Temperature/Sunlight Intensity, Backlight LCD Display, Soil Test Meter for Garden, Lawn, Plant Care, Farm and Indoor Outdoor Plants. https://www. amazon.com/dp/B0DCNX5M45. Accessed: 2025-11-10

    2025

  44. [45]

    Colleen Josephson, Bradley Barnhart, Keith Winstein, Sachin Katti, and Ranveer Chandra. 2020. Time-of-Flight Soil Moisture Estimation Using RF Backscatter Tags. InIGARSS 2020 - 2020 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium. 5049–5052. doi:10.1109/IGARSS39084.2020.9323308 ISSN: 2153-7003

    work page doi:10.1109/igarss39084.2020.9323308 2020

  45. [46]

    Colleen Josephson, Manikanta Kotaru, Keith Winstein, Sachin Katti, and Ranveer Chandra. 2021. Low-cost In-ground Soil Moisture Sensing with Radar Backscatter Tags. InACM SIGCAS Conference on Computing and Sustainable Societies. ACM, Virtual Event Australia, 299–311. doi:10.1145/3460112.3472326

    work page doi:10.1145/3460112.3472326 2021

  46. [47]

    Rasool Keshavarz, Tadashi Okudaira, and Negin Shariati. 2025. Dynamic Soil Moisture Estimation Using BLE RSSI Signals: A Machine Learning-Based Frame- work for Real-Time Monitoring and Flood Detection.IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing63 (2025), 1–13. doi:10.1109/TGRS.2025.3612100

    work page doi:10.1109/tgrs.2025.3612100 2025

  47. [48]

    Schmidt, and Matthias Wählisch

    Peter Kietzmann, Jose Alamos, Dirk Kutscher, Thomas C. Schmidt, and Matthias Wählisch. 2022. Delay-Tolerant ICN and Its Application to LoRa. InProceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Information-Centric Networking. 125–136. doi:10. 1145/3517212.3558081 arXiv:2209.00863 [cs]

    work page arXiv 2022

  48. [49]

    Tentzeris, Amal Harrabi, Ana Collado, and Apostolos Georgiadis

    Sangkil Kim, Taolan Le, Manos M. Tentzeris, Amal Harrabi, Ana Collado, and Apostolos Georgiadis. 2014. An RFID-enabled inkjet-printed soil moisture sensor on paper for “smart” agricultural applications. In2014 IEEE SENSORS. 1507–1510. doi:10.1109/ICSENS.2014.6985301 ISSN: 1930-0395

    work page doi:10.1109/icsens.2014.6985301 2014

  49. [50]

    Daniel Kiv, Garvita Allabadi, Berkay Kaplan, and Robin Kravets. 2021. smol: Sensing Soil Moisture using LoRa. InProceedings of the 1st ACM Workshop on No Power and Low Power Internet-of-Things (LP-IoT’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 21–27. doi:10.1145/3477085.3478991

    work page doi:10.1145/3477085.3478991 2021

  50. [51]

    Gaël Loubet, Alexandru Takacs, Ethan Gardner, Andrea De Luca, Florin Udrea, and Daniela Dragomirescu. 2019. LoRaWAN Battery-Free Wireless Sensors Network Designed for Structural Health Monitoring in the Construction Domain. Sensors19, 7 (Jan. 2019), 1510. doi:10.3390/s19071510 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

    work page doi:10.3390/s19071510 2019

  51. [52]

    Marko Malajner, Dusan Gleich, and Peter Planinsic. 2019. Soil type charac- terization for moisture estimation using machine learning and UWB-Time of Flight measurements.Measurement146 (Nov. 2019), 537–543. doi:10.1016/j. measurement.2019.06.042

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2019

  52. [53]

    USA 2018.TEROS 12 User Manual

    METER Group, Inc. USA 2018.TEROS 12 User Manual. METER Group, Inc. USA, Pullman, WA, USA. https://www.labcell.com/media/140632/teros12%20manual. pdf Revision date: 2018-03-01

    2018

  53. [54]

    MicroLink Devices, Inc. [n. d.]. Photovoltaics. https://mldevices.com/ photovoltaics-2/. Accessed: 2025-11-10

    2025

  54. [55]

    William T. Moody. 1966. Nonlinear Differential Equation of Drain Spacing. Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division92, 2 (June 1966), 1–10. doi:10. 1061/JRCEA4.0000420 Publisher: American Society of Civil Engineers

    1966

  55. [56]

    Mohamed Msaad, Muhammad Waleed, and Sokol Kosta. 2021. Enabling Lo- RaWAN Communication with Out-of-coverage End Nodes in DTN Scenarios Through an Optimised Duty-cycle. In2021 14th CMI International Conference - Critical ICT Infrastructures and Platforms (CMI). 1–6. doi:10.1109/CMI53512.2021. 9663774

    work page doi:10.1109/cmi53512.2021 2021

  56. [57]

    National Instruments. [n. d.]. Entry-Level, Plug-and-Play USB Data Acquisition (DAQ) Multifunction I/O Devices. https://www.ni.com/en/shop/data-acquisition/ entry-level-usb-daq.html. Accessed: 2025-11-10

    2025

  57. [58]

    Thanh Vinh Nguyen, Junye Li, Deepak Mishra, and Aruna Seneviratne. 2023. Frequency-Sensitive Soil Moisture Profiling Using WiFi Sensing. In2023 Joint European Conference on Networks and Communications & 6G Summit (EuCNC/6G Summit). 641–646. doi:10.1109/EuCNC/6GSummit58263.2023.10188284 ISSN: 2575-4912

    work page doi:10.1109/eucnc/6gsummit58263.2023.10188284 2023

  58. [59]

    William David Paredes, Hemani Kaushal, Iman Vakilinia, and Zornitza Prodanoff

  59. [60]

    2023), 2403

    LoRa Technology in Flying Ad Hoc Networks: A Survey of Challenges and Open Issues.Sensors23, 5 (Jan. 2023), 2403. doi:10.3390/s23052403 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

    work page doi:10.3390/s23052403 2023

  60. [61]

    John Pender, Joshua Goldstein, Devika Mahoney-Nair, and Hanna Charankevich

  61. [62]

    Three USDA rural broadband programs: areas and populations served. (2023)

    2023

  62. [63]

    Juha Petajajarvi, Konstantin Mikhaylov, Antti Roivainen, Tuomo Hanninen, and Marko Pettissalo. 2015. On the Coverage of LPWANs: Range Evaluation and Channel Attenuation Model for LoRa Technology. In2015 14th International Conference on ITS Telecommunications (ITST). 55–59. doi:10.1109/ITST.2015. 7377400

    work page doi:10.1109/itst.2015 2015

  63. [64]

    Gomes, and John C

    Sérgio Francisco Pichorim, Nathan J. Gomes, and John C. Batchelor. 2018. Two Solutions of Soil Moisture Sensing with RFID for Landslide Monitoring.Sensors 18, 2 (Feb. 2018), 452. doi:10.3390/s18020452 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

    work page doi:10.3390/s18020452 2018

  64. [65]

    Yidong Ren, Gen Li, Yimeng Liu, Younsuk Dong, and Zhichao Cao. [n. d.]. AeroE- cho: Towards Agricultural Low-power Wide-area Backscatter with Aerial Exci- tation Source. ([n. d.])

  65. [66]

    J. D. Rhoades and J. van Schilfgaarde. 1976. An Electrical Conductivity Probe for Determining Soil Salinity.Soil Science Society of America Journal40, 5 (1976), 647–651. doi:10.2136/sssaj1976.03615995004000050016x

    work page doi:10.2136/sssaj1976.03615995004000050016x 1976

  66. [67]

    Salman, Mohammed Al-Jumaili, Magdalena Sut-Lohmann, and Wolfgang Durner

    Adil K. Salman, Mohammed Al-Jumaili, Magdalena Sut-Lohmann, and Wolfgang Durner. 2024. Wi-Fi signal for soil moisture sensing.Environmental Monitoring and Assessment197, 1 (Dec. 2024), 109. doi:10.1007/s10661-024-13587-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s10661-024-13587-x 2024

  67. [68]

    Mary Sanyaolu and Arkadiusz Sadowski. 2024. The Role of Precision Agricul- ture Technologies in Enhancing Sustainable Agriculture.Sustainability16, 15 (Jan. 2024), 6668. doi:10.3390/su16156668 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

    work page doi:10.3390/su16156668 2024

  68. [69]

    2016.SX1276/77/78/79 — 137 MHz to 1020 MHz Low Power Long Range Transceiver

    Semtech Corporation. 2016.SX1276/77/78/79 — 137 MHz to 1020 MHz Low Power Long Range Transceiver. Technical Report Rev. 5. Semtech Corpora- tion. https://www.mouser.com/datasheet/2/761/sx1276-1278113.pdf?srsltid= AfmBOoo4yH01yD-YyPwFqs2vOjmmriYQmOfDnu9Qy9Gn5KU9FpG75v5B Datasheet

    2016

  69. [70]

    R.C. Shah, S. Roy, S. Jain, and W. Brunette. 2003. Data MULEs: modeling a three-tier architecture for sparse sensor networks. InProceedings of the First IEEE International Workshop on Sensor Network Protocols and Applications, 2003.IEEE, Anchorage, AK, USA, 30–41. doi:10.1109/SNPA.2003.1203354

    work page doi:10.1109/snpa.2003.1203354 2003

  70. [71]

    Reliable evaluation of adversarial robustness with an ensemble of diverse parameter-free attacks

    Emerson Sie, Bill Tao, Aganze Mihigo, Parithimaal Karmehan, Max Zhang, Arun N. Sivakumar, Girish Chowdhary, and Deepak Vasisht. 2025. BYON: Bring Your Own Networks for Digital Agriculture Applications. doi:10.48550/arXiv. 2502.01478 arXiv:2502.01478 [cs] version: 1

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv 2025

  71. [72]

    Soulis, Stamatios Elmaloglou, and Nicholas Dercas

    Konstantinos X. Soulis, Stamatios Elmaloglou, and Nicholas Dercas. 2015. In- vestigating the effects of soil moisture sensors positioning and accuracy on soil moisture based drip irrigation scheduling systems.Agricultural Water Manage- ment148 (Jan. 2015), 258–268. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2014.10.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2014.10.015 2015

  72. [73]

    G. C. Topp, J. L. Davis, and A. P. Annan. 1980. Electromagnetic determination of soil water content: Measurements in coaxial transmission lines.Water Re- sources Research16, 3 (1980), 574–582. doi:10.1029/WR016i003p00574 _eprint: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/WR016i003p00574

    work page doi:10.1029/wr016i003p00574 1980

  73. [74]

    2020.Rural Connections: Challenges and Opportunities in America’s Heart- land

    TRIP. 2020.Rural Connections: Challenges and Opportunities in America’s Heart- land. Technical Report. TRIP. https://tripnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/ TRIP_Rural_Roads_Report_2020.pdf Report No. 2020 (May)

    2020

  74. [75]

    Emmanuel Tuyishimire, Antoine Bagula, and Adiel Ismail. 2019. Clustered Data Muling in the Internet of Things in Motion.Sensors19, 3 (Jan. 2019), 484. doi:10.3390/s19030484 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

    work page doi:10.3390/s19030484 2019

  75. [76]

    United Nations. 2015. Sustainable Development Goal 2: Zero Hunger. https: //sdgs.un.org/goals/goal2. Accessed: 2025-11-08

    2015

  76. [77]

    Deepak Vasisht, Zerina Kapetanovic, Jongho Won, Xinxin Jin, Ranveer Chandra, Sudipta Sinha, Ashish Kapoor, Madhusudhan Sudarshan, and Sean Stratman

  77. [78]

    In14th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 17)

    {FarmBeats}: an {IoT} platform for {Data-Driven} agriculture. In14th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 17). 515–529

  78. [79]

    Vellidis, M

    G. Vellidis, M. Tucker, C. Perry, D. Reckford, C. Butts, H. Henry, V. Liakos, R.W. Hill, and W. Edwards. 2013. A soil moisture sensor-based variable rate irrigation scheduling system. InPrecision agriculture ’13, John V. Stafford (Ed.). Brill | Wageningen Academic, 713–720. doi:10.3920/9789086867783_090

    work page doi:10.3920/9789086867783_090 2013

  79. [80]

    Ju Wang, Liqiong Chang, Shourya Aggarwal, Omid Abari, and Srinivasan Keshav

  80. [81]

    DarkneTZ: Towards model privacy at the edge using trusted execution environments,

    Soil moisture sensing with commodity RFID systems. InProceedings of the 18th International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services. ACM, Toronto Ontario Canada, 273–285. doi:10.1145/3386901.3388940

    work page doi:10.1145/3386901.3388940

Showing first 80 references.