sensors

Article
Energy Aware Software Defined Network Model for
Communication of Sensors Deployed in Precision Agriculture
Shakeel Ahmed

Department of Computer Science, College of Computer Sciences and Information Technology,

King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia; [email protected]

Abstract: A significant technological transformation has recently occurred in the agriculture sector.
Precision agriculture is one among those transformations that largely focus on the acquisition of the
sensor data, identifying the insights, and summarizing the information for better decision-making that
would enhance the resource usage efficiency, crop yield, and substantial quality of the yield resulting
in better profitability, and sustainability of agricultural output. For continuous crop monitoring, the
farmlands are connected with various sensors that must be robust in data acquisition and processing.
The legibility of such sensors is an exceptionally challenging task, which needs energy-efficient
models for handling the lifetime of the sensors. In the current study, the energy-aware software-
defined network for precisely selecting the cluster head for communication with the base station
and the neighboring low-energy sensors. The cluster head is initially chosen according to energy
consumption, data transmission consumption, proximity measures, and latency measures. In the
subsequent rounds, the node indexes are updated to select the optimal cluster head. The cluster
fitness is assessed in each round to retain the cluster in the subsequent rounds. The network model’s
performance is assessed against network lifetime, throughput, and network processing latency. The
experimental findings presented here show that the model outperforms the alternatives presented in
this study.

Keywords: precision agriculture; software defined network; network latency; network lifetime;
sensor nodes; throughput

Citation: Ahmed, S. Energy Aware

Software Defined Network Model for
Communication of Sensors Deployed
in Precision Agriculture. Sensors 2023,
1. Introduction
23, 5177. https://doi.org/10.3390/ Agriculture is defined as an activity humans undertake to ensure that a population
s23115177 has access to adequate, safe, and nutritious food sustainable. Many countries rely on the
exports of agricultural products to generate adequate revenue to feed their citizens. In
Academic Editor: Wonsuk
(Daniel) Lee
such a context, agricultural ties and crop yields are essential, and more strategies and
approaches have been practiced recently to ensure productivity enhancement [1]. Real-
Received: 17 May 2023 time monitoring of the environmental condition and remote control in agriculture is fast
Revised: 26 May 2023 expanding to create more profitable and efficient agricultural systems and instruments.
Accepted: 26 May 2023 Precision agriculture has the potential to go in this direction. These two words refer to
Published: 29 May 2023 integrating sophisticated technology with traditional agricultural techniques for fine-grid
crop management. Farmers may benefit from vital environmental information from their
cultivated regions provided by intelligent farming systems, enabling them to boost their
productivity and revenue. These technological advancements have the potential to benefit
Copyright: © 2023 by the author.
practically every aspect of agriculture, from seeding to irrigation to crop management and
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
harvesting systems [2].
distributed under the terms and
Precision Agriculture (PA) is a movement that aims to facilitate and optimize agricul-
conditions of the Creative Commons tural growth for both farmers and society. It is important to note that PA is an advanced
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// farming technology that monitors, evaluates, and records agricultural areas and crops.
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ Advanced sensing technology has allowed on-site soil and climate monitoring to provide
4.0/).

Sensors 2023, 23, 5177. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23115177 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors

Sensors 2023, 23, 5177 2 of 19

precise recommendations. Increased agricultural production, decreased environmental con-

sequences, and enhanced human well-being may be achieved using Internet of Things (IoT)
technology. Sensors would assist in monitoring farm inputs [3]. Farmers use optimized
inputs like water and fertilizer to boost output without sacrificing quality and cost [4].
The desire for increasing agricultural efficiency while minimizing environmental impact
pushes the progress of innovation towards integrated “smart” agricultural production
that replace traditional farming techniques. Knowledge-based agricultural management
systems with autonomous systems have been created to minimize the inputs by considering
time-sensitive and demographic crop-centric conditions [5]. However, feasibility studies
analyzing the costs and advantages of implementing agricultural robotic mechanisms as
recently launched models are required to enable greater acceptance by sector users [6,7].
The sensor nodes would transfer the real-time data to the base station (BS), which
is further processed for precise decision-making. The sensors’ lifetime and the sensor
devices’ communication would make the process challenging. The data is transferred
over a predefined path as the routing technique recommends. Static routing techniques
are more secure than dynamic routing; nevertheless, solutions based on static routing
are not suitable for broad areas like agriculture farms or in the network where scalability
matters. IoT technology has been extensively fused with other industries in recent years
to encourage interaction that would enhance network performance, resource usage, and
load distribution [8]. Climate-related difficulties may be solved in the agriculture sector by
implementing innovative IoT systems, which can boost agricultural yields and productivity.
For decades, agriculture has used sensors to procure data in static settings. The offline con-
figuration can gather static data and gives enough knowledge to make excellent judgments
about future yields or crops for the following year. Still, it cannot provide data on rapid
environmental changes jeopardizing agricultural products.
This article aims to use cutting-edge IoT-based sensor infrastructure to gather informa-
tion from the surroundings and transfer the sensor data to the BS for timely decision-making
in precision agriculture. Wireless agriculture sensors are dispersed across the agricultural
field in the suggested framework to extract information relating to soil composition, such
as moisture, temperature, and humidity levels. This data is safely transported to the cluster
heads, which serve as the point of contact or as a manager for data exchange to the BS.
Following is a list of the primary aspects of the study.
• The suggested software-defined network is efficient in establishing a wireless sensor
network that is robust and computationally efficient with multiple clusters of nodes
with divergent levels of residual energy.
• The sensor node’s responsibilities are delegated to the cluster heads for further pro-
cessing, increasing the nodes’ survival. It ensures node availability by discharging
responsibilities depending on available residual energy.
• The clusters are updated over multiple rounds concerning their fitness values, that
result in clusters with an optimal number of nodes.
• Finding a cluster head (CH) that can effectively oversee data flow between sensor area
nodes and the BS.
• Each round, the CH-index value is updated concerning the local and global best node
index values. At the same time, the initial CH-index is determined based on the
residual energy and the distance to the BS.
• Validated the proposed framework against existing studies concerning various net-
work characteristics and summarized the findings.
The other sections of the paper are organized as follows. Section 2 discusses the
Material and Methodology, which discusses different networking metrics used in evaluating
the model and the assumption in the simulated network. Section 3 discusses the proposed
Energy Aware Software Defined Network model. Section 4 summarizes the results obtained
from the experimentation. Section 5 offers the conclusion and future scope.
Sensors 2023, 23, 5177 3 of 19

Literature Review
Placidi et al. [9] have proposed a low-cost soil moisture sensor named Sentek commer-
cial sensor that works over a LoRa WAN-based network for economic precision agriculture.
Loamy to silty soils were compared. The moisture readings were accurate. However,
reliability issues were found that might be addressed by using costlier commercial sensors.
The research emphasizes sensors for analyzing soil moisture content without handling
other critical characteristics like pH, temperature, humidity, and sunlight. Hsu et al. [10]
offer a novel service approach built on top of the IoT cloud computing platform, which
may be employed to enhance the current approach of integrating the cloud-to-physical
networking and the processing capabilities of the IoT. This study applies cutting-edge
platform technologies to the cloud agricultural platform. It may collect vast area data and
analysis through cloud integration, enabling farms with limited network bandwidth data
resources to provide agricultural monitoring automation and pest control picture analysis.
A robust network infrastructure for monitoring and regulating agricultural fields in
remote areas was introduced in research by Ahmed et al. [11]. They introduced an IoT-based
control system for farming and agriculture development. All topological components and
enhancements are thoroughly reviewed and studied. The IoT routing and MAC solution
accomplished energy efficiency, low latency, and substantial throughput. Integrating a
Wi-Fi long-distance (WiLD) network over a fog-computing strategy makes the system’s
performance possible. Another study for alerting the farmers on mildew issues was
proposed by Sergio et al. [12], using the IoT paradigm. They presented the SEnviro (Sense
our Environment platform) system to monitor grape crops. To reduce communication
between endpoints, they employed the edge computing concept. The authors in the study
on an irrigation system based on IoT that recognizes plants automatically, Kwok et al. [13],
have used deep learning to recognize the kind and category of plants for an automated
plant watering system. The plant’s water need is computed by identifying a current set
of plant photos and data set obtained from the farm. When the identification procedure
is accomplished, it uses the database to obtain irrigation information. Modeling training
procedures takes time since many photos must be saved.
In the study by Ratnaparkhi et al. [14], sensors are investigated as the most potent
instrument for IoT deployment. Based on their uses, a broad range of agricultural sensors
are provided. Sensor arrays, location, acoustic and airflow sensors were among the sensors
studied. It was also discovered that agricultural sensors increase agricultural output.
Some of the issues encountered in installing sensors in Distributed systems include their
customization, continuous Wi-Fi connection, the management of errors and malfunctions,
and identifying the proper sensors for diverse contexts.
Jawad et al. [15] conducted a study on agricultural applications based on wireless sen-
sor networks. This study aims to conduct a comparative analysis of Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, LoRa,
diverse cellular technologies, and Sig Fox wireless and protocol suites. LoRa and ZigBee
proved effective for Precision Agriculture because of their long-range communications and
low energy needs. Many methods and techniques concerning the power consumption of
WSNs were grouped. The authors propose a smart agricultural IoT (SMAIoT) system to
track and analyze data from various inexpensive sensors [16]. This network infrastructure
is designed to gather data from soil, air, groundwater, and animals and utilize them to
make appropriate judgments. The suggested framework’s distinctive feature is automat-
ing tasks, such as irrigation, fertilizers, insect identification, and pesticide spraying, with
high productivity.
Long-Range Wide-Area Network (LoRaWAN) [17,18] is a technology that could inter-
net connect multiple devices over the internet in a much-secured manner. The LoRaWAN is
inspired by Low Power Wide Area Network (LPWAN) due to its capacity to communicate
across large distances [19]. LoRaWANs offer low-power, low-cost, long-range, and low-
data-rate communication. LoRaWAN includes end devices, gateways, network servers,
and applications. Gateways and network servers link hundreds of thousands of LoRa
end devices. LoRa lets low-power devices communicate long-distance with low bitrate. It
Sensors 2023, 23, 5177 4 of 19

is the best choice for most IoT applications, including smart towns, smart billing, intelli-
gent transportation, automated lighting, and precision agriculture. LoRa only works in
low-bitrate settings [20]. The main limitation of the LoRaWAN technology is the limited
number of nodes based on the duty cycles, and not suitable for applications that rely on
low latency applications.
Vij A et al. [21] have used a pre-processed agriculture data set to add machine-
intelligent approaches to the agricultural decision support model. Rather than utilizing
a publicly accessible dataset, a model is designed to gradually learn plants’ watering de-
mands. Various ML algorithms are tested in terms of accuracy for making irrigation choices.
Before making accurate judgments, manual irrigations are conducted twice. Because of the
model’s dynamic nature, data are processed in stages and may be used for several plants
with different watering circumstances. There is a great necessity for a learning method that
can be taught by itself utilizing a substantially lighter learning procedure with environmen-
tal factors, which does not require more memory in the system but require more computing.
According to the study, edge computing should be included in the agricultural system for
making accurate decisions with immediate calculation locally. This article will describe
a smart infrastructure that uses IoT and edge computing to monitor soil moisture using
sensors, data transfer among sensors, and an Analytics-as-a-Service cloud. The details of
various state-of-art approaches are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of various state-of-art models in WSN for real-time data exchange.

Approach Highlights Limitations

The model is efficient in low-data rate
Affordable precision agriculture employing a communication. This technology is feasible to
Sentek commercial sensor [9] low-cost soil moisture sensor that works on implement over limited sensors. However,
Lora WAN multiple other meteorological sensors would
impact the performance of the network model.
Wi-Fi long-distance network is designed to The model is efficient for fog technology, but
implement over a fog technology that is the technology needs additional routers, hubs,
WiLD network [11]
energy efficient, has low latency, and has and gateways for data storage and processing
substantial throughput system.
Smart agricultural IoT is efficient in acquiring
and analyzing real-time data from various The study has limitedly analyzed the latency
SMAIoT network [16] in-expensive sensors automating tasks, such and the network’s sustainability, which are
as irrigation, fertilizers, insect identification, crucial in applications like PA.
and pesticide spraying.
Long-Range Wide-Area Network is efficient
The technology is feasible for low data rate
in applications like healthcare and smart
LoRaWAN network [17] applications and applications where network
agriculture domains. The data among the
latency is not a crucial parameter.
sensor’s devices are a well-secured manner.
The model does not take the distance measures
Low-energy adaptive cluster hierarchy
like node-node and node-BS distances are not
models are one of the energy-efficient models
LEACH [22] considered while assessing the energy models,
used in WSN technology for interconnecting
and residual energy is not considered when
multiple nodes in the network.
selecting the CH.
Probabilistic Buckshot-Driven Cluster Head The proposed model selects the optimal CH
Identification is an efficient model for provided the CH in the initial round is
PB-RESHM [23]
choosing the optimal cluster head to efficiently chosen, as the CH in subsequent
exchange data in the WSN. rounds relies on the CH in the current round.

The existing technologies for precision agriculture primarily focus on data acquisition
and processing of the data for precise recommendations to the farmers. Some studies
focus on the security aspects of the study. There are ample studies that focus on the
lifetime of the network and effective communication among the nodes in the network.
However, the models either focus on the survivability of the nodes or the efficient routing
mechanism, not on both things simultaneously. Nevertheless, there is demand for a model
Sensors 2023, 23, 5177 5 of 19

to maximize the network’s lifetime and routing techniques for pushing the data across the
sensor devices and the BS. The suggested software-defined network is efficient concerning
the sustainability of the nodes. Additionally, the proposed model does have minimal
network latency. The CH is selected based on the index values populated based on the local
and global best values, resulting in an optimized way of assessing the node index values
and choosing an optimal CH for the data exchange. The implementation of the proposed
technology is discussed in the forthcoming sections of the study. The pivotal point of the
study focuses on the survivability of the network but maintaining the throughput and
latency of the network to be at the optimal level. However, the latency of the network is
not a crucial parameter in PA, yet the model desired to maintain the latency to be minimal.
2. Material and Methodology
IoT technologies have recently been used in various areas because of their cheap
cost, ease of implementation, and cost-effective ecosystem. A vast array of sensor nodes
was dispersed around the field to perceive the required data in IoT [24]. Under either a
single-hop or multi-hop data transmission paradigm, data are gathered and transmitted
to the BS for further processing. The current section of the paper elaborates on the details
of the implementation environment, evaluation parameters used in assessing the model’s
efficiency, and the proposed energy-aware software-defined network model.
The IoT environment is separated into multiple regions, and each area has one clus-
ter leader responsible for gathering and forwarding sensory input to BS. Additionally,
most sensor nodes went into sleep mode to extend the network lifespan. Various energy-
aware technologies are used to formulate the network architecture for exchanging data
among the nodes. Some of those technologies include Low energy adaptive cluster hier-
archy (LEACH) [25], improved chain-based clustering hierarchical routing (ICCHR) [26],
Multiple-Attribute Decision-Making (MADM) [27], Probabilistic Buckshot-Driven Clus-
ter Head Identification (PB-RESHM) [23], Energy Aware Distance-based Cluster Head
selection and Routing (EADCR) protocol [28], Spider Monkey Optimization (SMO), Energy-
efficient Cluster Head Identification (SSMOECHS) [29], Group Search Ant Lion with Levy
Flight (GAL-LF) [30], Grasshopper Optimization Algorithm (GOA) [31], Probabilistic Clus-
ter Head Selection (LEACH-PRO) [32], heterogeneous Modified Grey Wolf Optimizer
(HMGWO) [33], Fibonacci Based Trimet Graph Optimization (FBTGO) [34], and fitness-
value-based improved GWO (FIGWO) [35], and are used in identifying the CH and ex-
changing the data with the BS. Optimizing the selection of the CH in a wireless sensor
network involves prioritizing the node with the highest residual energy while considering
the minimum energy consumption required by the communication mechanism. This will
facilitate the transmission of a greater amount of data simultaneously by the CH. Energy or
distance are often employed as the primary identifiers of the CH. Individual nodes with
significant leftover resources and energy with low operating costs are the best candidates
for cluster heads. Each round assigns an updated index value to the appropriate cluster
head, relying on the leftover resources. Existing indices are updated to reflect the current
best CH globally in the network.

2.1. Implementation Environment

The proposed model for precision agriculture is implemented in the simulation en-
vironment using the CupCarbon simulator, a discrete-event-driven model installed in a
Windows environment. The Cupcarbon simulator is publicly available [36]. The network
events are periodically captured from the simulator. Table 2 summarizes the implementa-
tion environment in detail.
This scenario takes place over a 100 × 100 m2 elevation grid. A maximum transmission
distance of 30 m may be detected in this case. The scenario is used to evaluate how well the
given strategy works. The model was constituted over the same cohort of nodes executed
for 2000 repetitions. The details of the simulated environment are discussed in Table 3. The
sample screens of the simulation environment are presented in Figure 1.
Sensors 2023, 22, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 20

Sensors 2023, 23, 5177 6 of 19

candidates for cluster heads. Each round assigns an updated index value to the appropri-
ate cluster head, relying on the leftover resources. Existing indices are updated to reflect
the current
Table best
2. Details of CH globally in theEnvironment.
the Implementation network.

Environment
2.1. Implementation Details
Environment Specifications

The proposedMachine HP Pavilion

model for precision agriculture is implemented inseries
the simulation en-
Processor
vironment using the Intel Core-i5 12thmodel
CupCarbon simulator, a discrete-event-driven Generation
installed in a
Operating System Windows 10
Windows environment. The Cupcarbon simulator is publicly available
Architecture X64-bit
[36]. The network
events are periodically
Memorycaptured from the simulator. Table 2 summarizes
16 GB DDR4-3200 MHz theRAM
implementa-
tion environment Software
in detail. CupCarbon Simulator
Simulator version V5.2
Supporting
Table 2. Details software
of the Implementation Environment. Java JDK 1.8

Environment Details Specifications

Table 3. Details of the simulation Environment.
Machine HP Pavilion series
Processor
Environment Details Intel Core-i5 12th Generation
Specifications
Operating System Windows 102
Topological Area (In meters) 100 × 100 m
Architecture
Location of BS X64-bit
50 × 50
NumberMemory
of Nodes 16 GB DDR4-3200100 MHz RAM
Initial Software
Energy of Node 100 mW
CupCarbon Simulator
Number of Base
Simulator Stations
version 1
V5.2
Stationary or mobile Stationary
Supporting software
Radio electronic energy
Java JDK 1.8
50 nJ/bit
Message length [node to CH] 2800-bits
This Message
scenariolength
takes [CH
place over a 100 × 100 m2 elevation6400-bits
to BS] grid. A maximum trans-
Length of
mission distance of control
30 m maypacket 200-bitsis used to evaluate
be detected in this case. The scenario
howNumber of rounds
well the of packet transmission
given strategy 500/2000/3000
works. The model was constituted over the same cohort of
Limit of transmission distance 50 m
nodes executed for 2000 repetitions. The details of the simulated environment are dis-
Center frequency (GSM900) 950 MHz
cussed in Table 3. The sample
Intra-cluster routingscreens of the simulation environment are presented in Fig-
Single Hop
ure 1.

Figure 1.
Figure 1. In
In sample
sample screens
screens of
of the
the implementation
implementation environment,
environment, the
the sink
sink denotes
denotes the
the base
base station,
station,
and the circle around the sensors denotes the coverage area. Each node in the network is assigned aa
and the circle around the sensors denotes the coverage area. Each node in the network is assigned
node number
node number to todifferentiate.
differentiate.

Table
2.2. 3. Details Metrics
Evaluation of the simulation Environment.

The performance of the proposed

Environment Details energy-aware IoT architecture in PA is being assessed
Specifications
using various standard evaluation metrics
Topological Area (In meters) like Energy consumption,
100 × 100 mlatency,
network 2 mean
network lifetime, Location
bandwidth consumption,
of BS and the node’s communication
50 × 50 fitness. The
significance of each evaluation metric mentioned above is discussed along with the formula.
Sensors 2023, 23, 5177 7 of 19

2.2.1. Energy Consumption

Energy consumption is critical in determining the sensor network’s longevity. Each
node in the network has leftover energy connected with it. The energy is utilized for
communicating data among other nodes across the network. The longest-lasting nodes may
designate the nodes with the most energy resources as the local head for data exchange with
the BS. Energy consumption is a statistic used to assess network performance. Topological
adjustments, such as the location of the linked BS and the sum of links associated with
the node that will minimize the energy demand enhance the network’s sustainability. The
energy usage for data exchange with BS is calculated using the following Equation (1) for
direct communication. Nodes that rely on the other nodes would rely on the other nodes to
exchange the data [37].
energydirt (dst) = de + ddc dst2 (1)

n
energyexct (dst) = de + ∑ x=0 dex dst4 (2)
From the above equations,
energydirt (dst) The energy needed to push the data directly to BS
energyexct (dst) The energy required for transferring the data through a neighboring node
de Amount of power the intermediate relay nodes use during a data transfer.
ddc Amount of energy required for direct transfer of the data to BS.
dst the distances measured among the corresponding node and the destination node
n The adjacent nodes that facilitate the transmission of data.

2.2.2. Mean Network Lifetime

The mean network lifetime is another crucial statistic in assessing network design
performance. It is always desired to have a network with a greater network lifetime. The
sum of nodes in the network determines it. The network lifetime over the time stamps of
the range 1 to n is assessed using Equation (3) [38].

n 1 tn − π × dbs 2 × dn
nl = ∑ tim=1
 
dbs
  ×
tn
(3)
π 2 × nc + 1 × nc 2 × dn

where the notations used are as follows

tn Denotes the total number of nodes in the network.
dn The nodes density within the network.
dbs The distance between the corresponding node to the BS.
nc Denote the network coverage.
nl Denote the network’s lifetime.

2.2.3. Bandwidth Consumption

Data are continually transferred between network nodes and the BS, leading to data
exchange bandwidth usage. The CH uses bandwidth while sharing data among sensor
network nodes, which is desired to be minimum [39]. The formula for the bandwidth
consumption is identified by Bc is shown in Equation (4).
p
Bc = TAb − ∑i=0 Bri (4)
The variable TAb in the above equation denotes the total allotted bandwidth and
the variable Br designates the bandwidth required at each instance i in the network. The
bandwidth requirement is assessed based on the sum of spike packets passing through the
node at an instance of time concerning bits per packet as shown in Equation (5).

Sp × bp
Br = (5)
It
Sensors 2023, 23, 5177 8 of 19

where the notations used are as follows

Sp the sum of spike packets.
It Instance of time.
bp Bits per packet.

2.2.4. Node’s Communication Fitness

The communication fitness of a node is one of the indications used to determine if it can
function as a CH. At some stage in the network, the node with appropriate communication
fitness is identified as competent to become the CH. The fitness of node communication
is tested regularly. The evaluated value aids in determining the best cluster head node
for data transmission among nodes and the linked BS [40]. The formula for assessing the
node’s fitness is shown in Equation (6).

x ab − et
    
f n = 1 − min 1, ∑ a ∑b max 0, /tn (6)
et

where the notations used are as follows

x ab Represents the energy corresponding to the internal node communication.
et Energy threshold at the instance.
tn Total number of nodes in the network.

2.2.5. Network Latency

Network latency refers to the time it takes to exchange data among nodes and the
BS, i.e., connected BS, through CH. Network latency is intended to be as low as possi-
ble for speedier data interchange. If the packet must be transferred between numerous
cluster heads before reaching the BS, the delay will grow as the number of data packets
is exchanged. Each CH must wait until all the packets are processed, which includes
propagation and queuing delays. In general, network latency is measured in terms of time
delay associated with the distance the packet travels at a determined transmission rate
to the size of the packet at the specified transmission rate [41]. The formula for network
latency over the transmission rate Tr is determined based on Equation (7). The propagation
delay associated with the network is shown in Equation (8), and the Serialization delay is
shown in Equation (9).
p
nl = d (7)
Sd

dst
pd = (8)
Tr

bp
Sd = (9)
Tr

2.3. Architecture Assumptions

Several network assumptions are emphasized before discussing the technical aspects of
the recommended Energy-aware IoT Framework for precision agriculture. The hypothesis
is listed in bullet points as follows.
• There are divergent sensor nodes scattered in each network region for real-time monitoring.
• The regions in the network are circular size areas relying on the network coverage of
the nodes.
• The nodes and the BS are fixed upon deploying them to establish the network.
• All the communication links among the sensors and sensor nodes to the BS are sym-
metric and bi-directional.
• Each network node differs concerning the availability of the residual energies like
batter life, processing capabilities, and available memory.
• Based on the leftover energy reserves, nodes are classified as low, sustainable, or high.
Sensors 2023, 23, 5177 9 of 19

• Each region in the network would have multiple clusters, and each would have
multiple sensor nodes. Among those sensor nodes in the cluster, there would be one
CH that is responsible for the exchange of the data.

3. Energy Aware Software Defined Network model

In each search space, the suggested model is non-dominant. Depending on available
resources, nearby nodes, proximity to the corresponding BS, and associated network
maintenance expenses, CHs are chosen. The proposed approach for sensor networks
consists of two phases. At first, we consider energy, distance, and latency while selecting a
cluster’s heads. In the next phase, the index at each cluster head is updated in line with the
local and global best residual energies, and the indexes and the nodes are updated. The
Sensors 2023, 22, x FOR PEER REVIEW
present subsection of the suggested framework provides an in-depth description10ofofthe 20

framework. The connection among the sensor node, CHs, and BS is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2.
Figure Image representing
2. Image representing the
the connections
connections among
among various
various devices
devices in
in the
the network.
network.

3.1. Initial
3.1. Initial Selection
Selection of
of the
the Cluster
Cluster Head
Head
The initial
The initial selection
selection of of the
the CH
CH isisbased
basedononmultiple
multiplefactors
factorsconsidered
considered in
inchoosing
choosing the
the
optimal CH in the cluster. Choose the node with the most available
optimal CH in the cluster. Choose the node with the most available residual and lowest residual and lowest
energy consumption
energy consumption to to find
find the
the most
most suitable
suitable CH.
CH. ItIt will
will enable
enable thethe CH
CH to
to transmit
transmit more
more
data packets. Energy and distance are the main determinants in locating the CH. It is It
data packets. Energy and distance are the main determinants in locating the CH. is
de-
desired to consider the CH close to the BS, as it would consume less
sired to consider the CH close to the BS, as it would consume less energy to push the data energy to push the
data to the BS, and the communication latency can also be minimized [42]. The CH-index
to the BS, and the communication latency can also be minimized [42]. The CH-index is
is used in determining the significance of the CH. The node that has the highest CH-Index
used in determining the significance of the CH. The node that has the highest CH-Index
would be assumed to be the optimal node for being a cluster head. The energy metric for
would be assumed to be the optimal node for being a cluster head. The energy metric for
overall communication is identified by E for p packets over a distance d, from the node to
overall communication is identified by c 𝐸𝑐 for 𝑝 packets over a distance 𝑑 , from the
the BS is shown in Equation (10) [43].
node to the BS is shown in Equation (10) [43].
n  o
Ec 𝐸=𝑐 E − −({(𝐼
=int𝐸𝑖𝑛𝑡 Ie ×
𝑒 ×
p)𝑝)++ E (𝐸t 𝑡××p𝑝××d𝑑2 2 )} (10)
(10)

where
where the
the notations
notations used
used are
are as
as follows
follows
𝐼𝑒 Implied energy
𝐸𝑡 The energy needed to push the data from the node to BS
The formula for implied energy is shown in Equation (11) [44].
𝐼𝑒 = 𝐸𝑡𝑑 + 𝐸𝑡𝑎 (11)
Sensors 2023, 23, 5177 10 of 19

Ie Implied energy
The energy needed to push the data from the node
Et
to BS
The formula for implied energy is shown in Equation (11) [44].

Ie = Etd + Eta (11)

where the notations used are as follows

Etd The total energy deployed to exchange the p packets among the sensor node and the BS
Eta The energy needed for data time aggregation
The total energy is measured as recognized by the notation Etot , which also includes
the amount of idle time recognized by Ei of the node as shown in Equation (12).

Etot = Ei + Ec (12)

The distance measure is assessed between the CH and the BS using the Euclidean
distance measure. The Euclidean distance measure is generally used in spatial image
processing techniques [45]. The same distance measure is used in measuring the distance
among the coordinates in terms of measuring metrics, i.e., meters [46]. The notation
dm recognize the corresponding formula for the distance measure as shown in Equation (13).
q

2
dm = m y − n y + ( m x − n x )2 (13)


In the above equation,

the m x , my are the coordinates associated with the CH, and
the coordinates n x , ny correspond to the BS. The delay among the nodes is the other
significant parameter that is considered. The latency is proportional to the density of nodes
within the cluster. As a result, the count of cluster nodes should be reduced to minimize
the delay. The corresponding formula is shown in Equation (14).

maxiC=n1 (CHi )
delay = (14)
cn

In the above equation, the numerator maxiC=n1 (CHi ) denotes the maximum delay
associated with the CH and the notation cn designates the sum of nodes in the cluster. The
CH-index is measured based on all the above measures and the residual energy availability.
The formula for the CH-index is shown in Equation (15).

R ei

CHindex = 1 cn + (ωx × Ec ) + ωy × dm + (ωz × delay) (15)
cn ∑ j= 1 Re j

From the above equation, the notations ωx , ωy , ωz designated the weights associated
with each of the features. The weight ωx is associated with the communication energy
metric, and the weight ωy corresponds to the distance measure; the associated values
are assumed to be in the range of 0 and 1. The weight associated with the delay, i.e., ωz
is considered 0.2 in the earlier studies. The deployment of the sensors and the network
topology can be seen in Figure 3.

3.2. Updating of the CH-Index

The next phase of the proposed model is to update the CH-index values, which would
assist in identifying the optimal CH in the current iteration. The index of the CH is being
updated using the spider monkey optimization model. The updated CH-index value
based on the SMO algorithm is used in the successive rounds of the network lifetime. The
SMO approach considers the cluster heads’ local and global best CH-index values. During
the initiation phase, the initial fitness of the search space is determined based on resided
energy index, delay, and distance measures. In the successive phases, the CH-index values
 𝑖=1 𝑖
sociated with the CH and the notation 𝑐𝑛 designates the sum of nodes in the cluster. The
CH-index is measured based on all the above measures and the residual energy availabil-
ity. The formula for the CH-index is shown in Equation (15).
𝑅𝑒𝑖
Sensors 2023, 23, 5177
𝐶𝐻𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 = 1 𝑐𝑛 + (𝜔𝑥 × 𝐸𝑐 ) + (𝜔𝑦 × 𝑑𝑚 ) + (𝜔𝑧 × 𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑦) (15)
11 of 19
∑𝑗=1 𝑅𝑒
𝑐𝑛 𝑗

From the above equation, the notations 𝜔𝑥 , 𝜔𝑦 , 𝜔𝑧 designated the weights associated
with each of the features. The weight 𝜔𝑥 is associated with the communication energy
are considered in optimizing the index values. The corresponding objective function for
metric, and the weight 𝜔𝑦 corresponds to the distance measure; the associated values are
updating CH-index is shown in Equation (16).
assumed to be in the range of 0 and 1. The weight associated with the delay, i.e., 𝜔𝑧 is
considered 0.2 in the earlier studies. The deployment of the sensors and the network to-
 
CHindex = CHindex + ( Ilb − CHindex ) × rand(0, 1) + CH pb − CHindex × rand(−1, 1) (16)
pology can be seen in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Image representing the node deployment and network topology.

topology.

In the above
3.2. Updating CH-Indexthe notation Ilb represents the index value of the local best node
of theequation,
in theThe
cluster, especially
next phase of the when a node other
proposed modelthan
is tothe CH may
update the have a better
CH-index indexwhich
values, value
based on the current environmental conditions. The function rand
would assist in identifying the optimal CH in the current iteration. The index of the CHthe
( 0, 1 ) is to confine is
range of
being values using
updated betweenthe0 spider
and 1 and similarly
monkey model.rand
for the function
optimization 1, 1). TheCH-index
The(−updated notation
CH pb designates the node’s perturbation rate based on underlying factors. The value of the
CH-Index would be updated based on the index value of the global best. The global best is
recognized as the node with the highest CH-Index value. The corresponding function to
update the index values based on the global best is shown in Equation (17).
 
CHindex = CHindex + CHgb − CHindex × rand(0, 1) + ( Ilb − CHindex ) × rand(−1, 1) (17)

In the above equation, the notation CHgb designates the global best value of the index
values. The assessed CH-index is used in updating the CH.
The fitness of the cluster is assessed every time to decide if the cluster could be retained
for the next successive rounds or to merge the nodes in the cluster with the neighboring
clusters. The fitness of the cluster is identified by f c and is assessed using the formula as
shown in Equation (18).

1
fc = n n p (18)
∑i c ∑j i |CHindex − Mindex |

From the above equation, the notation nc denotes the sum of clusters in the network,
and the notation ni denotes the sum of corresponding nodes within the cluster. The mean
index values of all the nodes in the cluster are identified by Mindex . Based on the value of
the cluster fitness, the clusters in the network are retained for subsequent rounds of the
transmission network. The Algorithm 1 for the CH selection is shown below.
Sensors 2023, 23, 5177 12 of 19

Algorithm 1: CH selection
Input:
Number Nodes: 100
Initial Energy: 100 mW
Number of rounds: 2000
Output:
Assessment: Network Lifetime, Network Delay, Network Throughput
Start
Function:Initial_CH-Index()
for 1 to n do // n denotes max nodes in the network
Calculate Ec //Ec denotes energy consumption
Calculate dm //dm denotes the distance measure
Calculate delay //communication delay
Approximate ω x , ωy , ωz )
Initial_CH − index( Ec , dm ,delay,ω x ,ωy ,ωz )
return (CH-index value)
end for
while (round < 2000) do
Function: Update CH-Index()
for 1 to n do
Identify Ilb
Identify CHgb
Calculate CH pb
Update_CH − Index( Ilb ,CHgb , CH pb )
return (CH-index value)
end for
Function: Cluster_fitness()
for 1 to nc do //nc denotes the number of clusters
for 1 to ni do //ni denotes the number of nodes in the
cluster
Calculate Mindex //Mindex mean of all node index
Cluster_fitness(Mindex , CHindex )
return (Cluster_fitness value)
end for
end for
Update Clusters
Return (Lifetime, Delay, Throughput)
Stop

4. Results and Discussion

Regarding network availability, throughput, remaining energy, energy usage, and
mean network lifetime, the suggested software-driven network model is carefully studied
compared to the findings of various advanced network models. The first connection
creation and node list update take 845-time units. The proposed software-driven network
model is compared to current models using a comparable experimental setting. In the
current study, various models like LEACH, PB-RESM, SSMOECHS, Two-Tier Clustering-
based Data Aggregation (TTCDA) [47], and Energy-efficient Clustering Data Aggregation
(EECDA) [48] are considered in the evaluation of the proposed model. The network life
is the metric measured in terms of time units, which is generally analyzed against the
percentage of the active nodes in the network along with measures like First Node Die
(FND) and Last Node Die (LND). The FND is the metric that denotes when the first node
turned inactive in the network, and the LND denotes the last node that turned inactive
in the network. Either of the metrics would assist in analyzing the network lifetime. The
network lifetime performance is shown in Table 4 on executing for 3000 rounds. The
corresponding graphs generated from the experimental values of network lifetime are
shown in Figure 4.
 Sensors 2023, 23, 5177 13 of 19
Sensors 2023, 22, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 20

Table 4. Experimental values of network lifetime.

% of Nodes Alive in the Network
Approaches FND LND
Approaches
90 % of Nodes
70 Alive in50the Network30
FND LND
LEACH-C 1294 90
1515 169570 50
1843 30
1976 2201
LEACH-C
SSMOECHS 1294
2071 1515
2172 1695
2218 1843
2242 1976
2250 2201
2259
SSMOECHS
PB-RESHM 2071
2162 2172
2236 2218
2309 2242
2385 2250
2439 2259
2532
PB-RESHM 2162 2236 2309 2385 2439 2532
LEACH-PRO
LEACH-PRO 1159
1159 NANA NANA 1720
1720 NA
NA 4800
4800
HMGWO
HMGWO 1450
1450 NANA NANA 1675
1675 NA
NA 1884
1884
FIGWO
FIGWO 1248
1248 NANA NANA 1612
1612 NA
NA 1906
1906
Proposed Approach
Proposed Approach 2237
2237 2268
2268 2330
2330 2397
2397 2470
2470 2579
2579

(a) (b)
Figure 4. 4.
Figure (a)(a)
Graphs representing
Graphs thethe
representing analysis ofof
analysis thethe
First Node
First Die
Node (b)(b)
Die Graphs representing
Graphs thethe
representing Last
Last
Node
NodeDie.
Die.

Themodel’s
The model’sperformance
performance is isassessed
assessedconcerning
concerningthroughput
throughputand andnetwork
networklifetime
lifetime
metrics.It It
metrics. is is desired
desired that
that the
the network
network throughput
throughput is is always
always desired
desired totobebehigh,
high,which
which
determines
determines the
the sumsum ofof packets
packets that
that aresuccessfully
are successfully delivered.
delivered. The
The study’s
study’s throughput
throughput is is
measured as kilobits per second (kbps). The network lifetime is
measured as kilobits per second (kbps). The network lifetime is measured in time units,measured in time units,
which
which elucidates
elucidates the
the availability
availability ofof the
the nodes
nodes inin
thethe network,
network, which
which is is also
also desired
desired toto
bebe
high.
high. The
The lifetime
lifetime metrics
metrics areare evaluated
evaluated asas the
the total
total rounds
rounds ofof the
the network
network toto deliver
deliver the
the
packetwithout
packet withoutsignificant
significantloss
losssuccessfully.
successfully. The The experimental
experimental values of of network
networkthroughput
through-
Sensors 2023, 22, x FOR PEER REVIEW and lifetime are shown in Table 5. The corresponding graphs of network throughput 15 of and
20
put and lifetime are shown in Table 5. The corresponding graphs of network throughput
network
and network lifetime
lifetimeareare
shown
shown in Figure
in Figure 5. 5.

Table 5. Experimental values of Network Throughput and lifetime.

Network Throughput (kbps) Network Lifetime

TTCDA 3.32 1425
EECDA 2.55 1532
PB-RESHM 3.65 1673
Proposed model 4.01 1820

(a) (b)
Figure 5. 5.(a)(a)
Figure Graphs representing
Graphs the
representing analysis
the ofof
analysis network throughput,
network (b)(b)
throughput, Graph representing
Graph the
representing the
analysis ofof
analysis network lifetime.
network lifetime.

The other metrics, like energy consumption and leftover energy at the stable homo-
geneous network, are discussed in Table 6. From the metrics mentioned above, leftover
energy is the metric that determines the remaining residual energy in the network upon
successful transmission of the data, which was desired to be high. Energy utilization is the
metric that presents the overall energy consumption for network maintenance and data
Sensors 2023, 23, 5177 14 of 19

Table 5. Experimental values of Network Throughput and lifetime.

Network Throughput (kbps) Network Lifetime

TTCDA (a) 3.32 (b) 1425
EECDA 2.55 1532
Figure 5. (a)PB-RESHM
Graphs representing the analysis of3.65
network throughput, (b) Graph 1673
representing the
analysis ofProposed
network model
lifetime. 4.01 1820

The other metrics, like energy consumption and leftover energy at the stable homo-
geneousThe other metrics,
network, like energy
are discussed consumption
in Table andmetrics
6. From the leftovermentioned
energy at the stable
above, homo-
leftover
geneous network, are discussed in Table 6. From the metrics mentioned
energy is the metric that determines the remaining residual energy in the network uponabove, leftover
energy istransmission
successful the metric that determines
of the the was
data, which remaining
desiredresidual energy
to be high. in the
Energy networkisupon
utilization the
successful transmission of the data, which was desired to be high. Energy
metric that presents the overall energy consumption for network maintenance and data utilization is the
metric that
exchange, presents
which the overall
is desired to be aenergy consumption
minimum. The energyforparameter
network maintenance
in the currentand data
study
is measured in terms of milliwatts (mW). The corresponding energy utilization and lefto-is
exchange, which is desired to be a minimum. The energy parameter in the current study
measured
ver in terms
energy-related of milliwatts
graphs (mW).
are shown The corresponding
in Figure 6. energy utilization and leftover
energy-related graphs are shown in Figure 6.
Table 6. Experimental values of Energy utilization and Leftover Residual Energy.
Table 6. Experimental values of Energy utilization and Leftover Residual Energy.
Energy Utilization Leftover Residual Energy
Approaches Energy Utilization Leftover(mW)
Residual Energy
Approaches (mW)
(mW) (mW)
TTCDA 50.3 49.7
TTCDA
BECDA 68.550.3 49.7
31.5
BECDA 68.5 31.5
EECDA
EECDA 72.872.8 27.2
27.2
PB-RESHM
PB-RESHM 46.546.5 53.4
53.4
Proposed model
Proposed model 41.241.2 59.7
59.7

(a) (b)
Figure 6. 6.
Figure (a)(a)
Graphs representing
Graphs representing the the
analysis of energy
analysis utilization
of energy for 2000
utilization for rounds, (b) Graphs
2000 rounds, rep-
(b) Graphs
resenting the analysis
representing of leftover
the analysis residual
of leftover energy.
residual energy.

For
Forbetter
betteranalysis
analysisof
of the efficiency,
efficiency,the
themodel
modelisisanalyzed
analyzed with
with other
other cutting-edge
cutting-edge tech-
techniques like
niques like cumulativecumulative low-energy
low-energy adaptive clusteringadaptive clustering
hierarchy-LEACH(Cum_LEACH)hierarchy-
[49],
stable election protocol (SEP) [50], and distributed energy-efficient clustering (DEEC) [51].
The model is evaluated with an initial energy of 50 mW instead of 100 mW as the ini-
tial simulated energy for the other evaluations. Table 7 shows the model’s performance,
and leftover energy and consumption are reported in milliwatts to preserve consistency
throughout the study. The experimental values are evaluated for 500 rounds. The energy
consumption and leftover energy graphs are shown in Figure 7, with reduced initial energy
over 500 rounds.
 LEACH(Cum_LEACH) [49], stable election protocol (SEP) [50], and distributed energy-
efficient clustering (DEEC) [51]. The model is evaluated with an initial energy of 50 mW
instead of 100 mW as the initial simulated energy for the other evaluations. Table 7 shows
the model’s performance, and leftover energy and consumption are reported in milliwatts
to preserve consistency throughout the study. The experimental values are evaluated for
Sensors 2023, 23, 5177 500 rounds. The energy consumption and leftover energy graphs are shown in Figure 7,19
15 of
with reduced initial energy over 500 rounds.

Table
Table7. 7.
Experimental
Experimentalvalues
valuesofofEnergy
Energyutilization
utilizationand
andLeftover
LeftoverResidual
Residual Energy
Energy with reduced initial
with reduced ini-
tial energy over 500 rounds.
energy over 500 rounds.
Energy Utilization Leftover Residual Energy
Approaches Energy Utilization Leftover Residual Energy
Approaches (mW) (mW)
(mW) (mW)
Cum_LEACH
Cum_LEACH 13.76
13.76 0.12
0.12
SEPSEP 13.78
13.78 0.02
0.02
DEEC
DEEC 13.65
13.65 0 0
Proposed model
Proposed model 11.73
11.73 0.74
0.74

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure7. (a) Graphs
7. (a) representing
Graphs the analysis
representing of energy
the analysis utilization,
of energy (b) Graph
utilization, representing
(b) Graph the anal-
representing the
ysis of leftover
analysis residual
of leftover energy.
residual energy.

TheThe experimental
experimental results
results in Tables
in Tables 4 and
4 and 5 demonstrate
5 demonstrate that that the proposed
the proposed modelmodel
ex-
exhibits
hibits superior
superior performance
performance compared
compared to the
to the advanced
advanced models
models employed
employed forfor comparison.
comparison.
The
The proposed
proposed model
model hashas resulted
resulted in better
in better network
network throughput,
throughput, lifetime,
lifetime, and leftover
and leftover re-
residual
sidual energy.
energy. TheThe energy
energy utilization
utilization is retained
is retained to to
be be minimal
minimal compared
compared to to
thetheother
other
models
models that
that areare considered
considered in evaluation
in the the evaluation process.
process. The significant
The other other significant evaluation
evaluation met-
sors 2023, 22, x FOR PEER REVIEW metric is the computational delay in the network, which is assessed for
ric is the computational delay in the network, which is assessed for each round. The anal- each round. The
analysis is made over multiple rounds. The experimental results on delay
ysis is made over multiple rounds. The experimental results on delay evaluation are pre- evaluation are
presented
sented in Table
in Table 8, and8,the
andcorresponding
the correspondinggraph graph on network
on network delaydelay is shown
is shown in Figure
in Figure 8. 8.

Table 8. Experimental values of time delay in milliseconds at various rounds of the simulation.

Rounds
Approaches
1 500 1000 1500 2000
GAL-LF 1130 790 1050 937 1010
GOA 1080 1060 830 1200 986
PB-RESHM 1000 995 876 843 793
Proposed Approach 903 824 774 738 651

Figure 8. Graphs representing the network delay over multiple rounds.

Figure 8. Graphs representing the network delay over multiple rounds.

The proposed model has a minimal time delay at all rounds from
of the network’s analysis. The network with minimal would have a fas
service request, and the network would be more productive. The prop
Sensors 2023, 23, 5177 16 of 19

Table 8. Experimental values of time delay in milliseconds at various rounds of the simulation.

Rounds
Approaches
1 500 1000 1500 2000
GAL-LF 1130 790 1050 937 1010
GOA 1080 1060 830 1200 986
PB-RESHM 1000 995 876 843 793
Proposed Approach 903 824 774 738 651

The proposed model has a minimal time delay at all rounds from starting till the end
of the network’s analysis. The network with minimal would have a faster response to
the service request, and the network would be more productive. The proposed network
procedure has been shown to perform well across several assessment parameters. The
proposed model has approximately 26% times better node sustainability in the network
than the other existing models. It can be observed from the results obtained that the time
delay at the 2000th round of the proposed model is approximately 18% lesser than the PB-
RESHM, which is a model that holds the least time delay among the existing contemporary
models. The energy utilization of the model is approximately 14% better than the other
state-of-art models, and the model holds approximately 10% more residual energy than the
other existing models. The comparison in the study is made across multiple approaches,
and the experimental values of the state-of-art models are acquired from the previous
publications to ensure the values are authentic, resulting in the change of approaches over
multiple parameters.

5. Conclusions
The studies have determined that the WSNs are a crucial component of remote sensing
for smart agricultural systems, allowing for better monitoring, temperature monitoring,
irrigation system monitoring, and water supply monitoring. It’s crucial because it facilitates
interaction between various network entities in the intelligent agricultural ecosystem. A
WSN is made up of nodes that are in constant contact with one another and with a BS. The
sensors’ topology management, mapping, and storage, as well as their battery life, all have
their drawbacks. Due to these barriers, the efficiency of the intelligent farm system has been
diminished. The proposed energy-aware model is robust in establishing and maintaining
the network with reasonable lifetime, delay, and energy consumption. The experimental
analysis with various contemporary models has proven that the proposed approach has
outperformed network management. The unique way of choosing the initial CH based on
the underlying node capabilities, updating the cluster head index based on the local and
global best indexed, and assessing the cluster fitness to retain the cluster in subsequent
rounds would assist in better network establishment and maintenance.
The forthcoming strategy involves utilizing and establishing auto-encoder technology
to deploy sensors and prioritize feature significance in the cluster head selection process
within the network. The futuristic evaluations may consider evaluating against the network
with a broader area with dense nodes for precise analysis of the network’s robustness. The
network performance can be further assessed by incorporating the temporary support
nodes to improve the network’s lifetime.

Funding: The paper funding was performed by the Deputyship for Research and Innovation, Ministry
of Education, Saudi Arabia, through project number INST116.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Sensors 2023, 23, 5177 17 of 19

Acknowledgments: The author extends his appreciation to the Deputyship for Research and In-
novation, Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia, for funding this research work through project
number (INST116).
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

References
1. Zhang, R.; Li, X. Edge Computing Driven Data Sensing Strategy in the Entire Crop Lifecycle for Smart Agriculture. Sensors 2021,
21, 7502. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Liu, J.; Xiang, J.; Jin, Y.; Liu, R.; Yan, J.; Wang, L. Boost Precision Agriculture with Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Remote Sensing and
Edge Intelligence: A Survey. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 4387. [CrossRef]
3. Akhtar, M.N.; Shaikh, A.J.; Khan, A.; Awais, H.; Bakar, E.A.; Othman, A.R. Smart Sensing with Edge Computing in Precision
Agriculture for Soil Assessment and Heavy Metal Monitoring: A Review. Agriculture 2021, 11, 475. [CrossRef]
4. Prachi, S.; Prem, C.P.; George, P.P.; Andrew, P.; Prashant, K.S.; Nikos, K.; Khidir, A.K.D.; Yangson, B. Hyperspectral remote sensing
in precision agriculture: Present status, challenges, and future trends. In Earth Observation, Hyperspectral Remote Sensing; Elsevier:
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 121–146. [CrossRef]
5. Lampridi, M.G.; Kateris, D.; Vasileiadis, G.; Marinoudi, V.; Pearson, S.; Sørensen, C.G.; Balafoutis, A.; Bochtis, D. A Case-Based
Economic Assessment of Robotics Employment in Precision Arable Farming. Agronomy 2019, 9, 175. [CrossRef]
6. Liakos, K.G.; Busato, P.; Moshou, D.; Pearson, S.; Bochtis, D. Machine learning in agriculture: A review. Sensors 2018, 18, 2674.
[CrossRef]
7. Mottaleb, K.A. Technology in Society Perception and adoption of a new agricultural technology: Evidence from a developing
country. Technol. Soc. 2018, 55, 126–135. [CrossRef]
8. Haseeb, K.; Ud Din, I.; Almogren, A.; Islam, N. An Energy Efficient and Secure IoT-Based WSN Framework: An Application to
Smart Agriculture. Sensors 2020, 20, 2081. [CrossRef]
9. Placidi, P.; Morbidelli, R.; Fortunati, D.; Papini, N.; Gobbi, F.; Scorzoni, A. Monitoring soil and ambient parameters in the iot
precision agriculture scenario: An original modeling approach dedicated to low-cost soil water content sensors. Sensors 2021,
21, 5110. [CrossRef]
10. Hsu, T.-C.; Yang, H.; Chung, Y.-C.; Hsu, C.-H. A Creative IoT agriculture platform for cloud fog computing. Sustain. Comput.
Inform. Syst. 2020, 28, 100285. [CrossRef]
11. Ahmed, N.; De, D.; Hussain, M.I. Internet of Things (IoT) for Smart Precision Agriculture and Farming in Rural Areas. IEEE
Internet Things J. 2018, 5, 4890–4899. [CrossRef]
12. Trilles, S.; Torres-Sospedra, J.; Belmonte, Ó.; Zarazaga-Soria, F.J.; González-Pérez, A.; Huerta, J. Development of an open
sensorized platform in a smart agriculture context: A vineyard support system for monitoring mildew disease. Sustain. Comput.
Inform. Syst. 2020, 28, 100309. [CrossRef]
13. Kwok, J.; Sun, Y. A smart IoT-based irrigation system with automated plant recognition using deep learning. In Proceedings of
the 10th International Conference on Computer Modeling and Simulation—ICCMS2018, Sydney, Australia, 8–10 January 2018;
ACM Press: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 87–91.
14. Ratnaparkhi, S.; Khan, S.; Arya, C.; Khapre, S.; Singh, P.; Diwakar, M.; Shankar, A. Smart agriculture sensors in IOT: A review.
Mater. Today Proc. 2020, 156, 467–474.
15. Jawad, H.M.; Nordin, R.; Gharghan, S.K.; Jawad, A.M.; Ismail, M. Energy-Efficient Wireless Sensor Networks for Precision
Agriculture: A Review. Sensors 2017, 17, 1781. [CrossRef]
16. Jani, K.A.; Chaubey, N.K. A Novel Model for Optimizing Resource Utilization in Smart Agriculture System Using IoT (SMAIoT).
IEEE Internet Things J. 2021, 9, 11275–11282. [CrossRef]
17. Almuhaya, M.A.M.; Jabbar, W.A.; Sulaiman, N.; Abdulmalek, S. A Survey on LoRaWAN Technology: Recent Trends, Opportuni-
ties, Simulation Tools and Future Directions. Electronics 2022, 11, 164. [CrossRef]
18. Basford, P.J.; Bulot, F.M.J.; Apetroaie-Cristea, M.; Cox, S.J.; Ossont, S.J. LoRaWAN for Smart City IoT Deployments: A Long Term
Evaluation. Sensors 2020, 20, 648. [CrossRef]
19. Rahman, H.U.; Ahmad, M.; Ahmad, H.; Habib, M.A. LoRaWAN: State of the Art, Challenges, Protocols and Research Issues. In
Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE 23th International Multitopic Conference (INMIC), Bahawalpur, Pakistan, 5–7 November 2020;
pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
20. Pinto-Erazo, A.M.; Suárez-Zambrano, L.E.; Mediavilla-Valverde, M.M.; Andrade-Guevara, R.E. Introductory Analysis of
LoRa/LoRaWAN Technology in Ecuador. In Communication, Smart Technologies and Innovation for Society. Smart Innovation,
Systems and Technologies; Rocha, Á., López-López, P.C., Salgado-Guerrero, J.P., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2022; Volume 252.
[CrossRef]
21. Vij, A.; Vijendra, S.; Jain, A.; Bajaj, S.; Bassi, A.; Sharma, A. IoT, and machine learning approaches for automation of farm irrigation
system. Proc. Comput. Sci. 2020, 167, 1250–1257. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2023, 23, 5177 18 of 19

22. Mahapatra, R.P.; Yadav, R.K. Descendant of LEACH Based Routing Protocols in Wireless Sensor Networks. Procedia Comput. Sci.
2015, 57, 1005–1014. [CrossRef]
23. Srinivasu, P.N.; Panigrahi, R.; Singh, A.; Bhoi, A.K. Probabilistic Buckshot-Driven Cluster Head Identification and Accumulative
Data Encryption in WSN. J. Circuits Syst. Comput. 2022, 31, 17. [CrossRef]
24. Shakeel, A.; Srinivasu, P.N.; Gupta, M. Future perspectives of AI-driven Internet of Things. In Aiot Technologies and Applications for
Smart Environments; The Institution of Engineering and Technology: Edison, NJ, USA, 2023; p. 295. [CrossRef]
25. Han, B.; Ran, F.; Li, J.; Yan, L.; Shen, H.; Li, A. A Novel Adaptive Cluster Based Routing Protocol for Energy-Harvesting Wireless
Sensor Networks. Sensors 2022, 22, 1564. [CrossRef]
26. Wu, H.; Zhu, H.; Zhang, L.; Song, Y. Energy Efficient Chain Based Routing Protocol for Orchard Wireless Sensor Network.
J. Electr. Eng. Technol. 2019, 14, 2137–2146. [CrossRef]
27. Lekhra, J.; Kumar, A.; Kumar, A. An approach based on modified multiple attribute decision making for optimal node deployment
in wireless sensor networks. Int. J. Inf. Technol. 2022, 14, 1805–1814. [CrossRef]
28. Panchal, A.; Singh, R. EADCR: Energy Aware Distance Based Cluster Head Selection and Routing Protocol for Wireless Sensor
Networks. J. Circuits Syst. Comput. 2022, 30, 2150063. [CrossRef]
29. Lee, J.-G.; Chim, S.; Park, H.-H. Energy-Efficient Cluster-Head Selection for Wireless Sensor Networks Using Sampling-Based
Spider Monkey Optimization. Sensors 2019, 19, 5281. [CrossRef]
30. Dattatraya, K.N.; Rao, K.R. Maximising network lifetime and energy efficiency of wireless sensor network using group search
Ant Lion with Levy Flight. IET Commun. 2020, 14, 914–922.
31. Saremi, S.; Mirjalili, S.; Lewis, A. Grasshopper optimisation algorithm: Theory and application. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2017, 105, 30–47.
[CrossRef]
32. Yousif, Z.; Hussain, I.; Djahel, S.; Hadjadj-Aoul, Y. A Novel Energy-Efficient Clustering Algorithm for More Sustainable Wireless
Sensor Networks Enabled Smart Cities Applications. J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2021, 10, 50. [CrossRef]
33. Zhao, X.; Ren, S.; Quan, H.; Gao, Q. Routing Protocol for Heterogeneous Wireless Sensor Networks Based on a Modified Grey
Wolf Optimizer. Sensors 2020, 20, 820. [CrossRef]
34. Amiripalli, S.S.; Bobba, V.; Srinivasu, N.P. Design and Analysis of Fibonacci Based TGO Compared with Real-time Mesh using
Graph Invariant Technique. Int. J. Sens. Wirel. Commun. Control 2022, 12, 230–234. [CrossRef]
35. Zhao, X.; Zhu, H.; Aleksic, S.; Gao, Q. Energy-Efficient Routing Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks Based on Improved Grey
Wolf Optimizer. KSII Trans. Internet Inf. Syst. 2018, 12, 2644–2657.
36. CupCarbon IoT Simulator. Available online: https://cupcarbon.com/ (accessed on 30 March 2023).
37. Liu, X.; Wu, J. A Method for Energy Balance and Data Transmission Optimal Routing in Wireless Sensor Networks. Sensors 2019,
19, 3017. [CrossRef]
38. Jerew, O.; Blackmore, K.; Liang, W. Mobile Base Station and Clustering to Maximize Network Lifetime in Wireless Sensor
Networks. J. Electr. Comput. Eng. 2012, 2012, 902862. [CrossRef]
39. Mantri, D.S.; Prasad, N.R.; Prasad, R. Bandwidth efficient cluster-based data aggregation for Wireless Sensor Network. Comput.
Electr. Eng. 2015, 41, 256–264. [CrossRef]
40. Mukase, S.; Xia, K.; Umar, A. Optimal Base Station Location for Network Lifetime Maximization in Wireless Sensor Network.
Electronics 2021, 10, 2760. [CrossRef]
41. Navin Dhinnesh, A.D.C.; Sabapathi, T. Probabilistic neural network based efficient bandwidth allocation in wireless sensor
networks. J. Ambient. Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 2022, 13, 2001–2012. [CrossRef]
42. Wu, M.; Li, Z.; Chen, J.; Min, Q.; Lu, T. A Dual Cluster-Head Energy-Efficient Routing Algorithm Based on Canopy Optimization
and K-Means for WSN. Sensors 2022, 22, 9731. [CrossRef]
43. Gurumoorthy, S.; Subhash, P.; Pérez de Prado, R.; Wozniak, M. Optimal Cluster Head Selection in WSN with Convolutional
Neural Network-Based Energy Level Prediction. Sensors 2022, 22, 9921. [CrossRef]
44. Son, Y.; Kang, M.; Kim, Y.; Yoon, I.; Noh, D.K. Energy-Efficient Cluster Management Using a Mobile Charger for Solar-Powered
Wireless Sensor Networks. Sensors 2020, 20, 3668. [CrossRef]
45. Srinivasu, N.P.; Rao, S.T.; Srinivas, G.; Reddy, P.P.V.G.D. A Computationally Efficient Skull Scraping Approach for Brain MR
Image. Recent Adv. Comput. Sci. Commun. 2020, 13, 833–844. [CrossRef]
46. Azad, P.; Sharma, V. Cluster Head Selection in Wireless Sensor Networks under Fuzzy Environment. Int. Sch. Res. Not. 2013,
2013, 909086. [CrossRef]
47. Mantri, D.; Prasad, N.R.; Prasad, R.; Ohmori, S. Two tier cluster based data aggregation (TTCDA) in wireless sensor network.
In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Networks and Telecommunciations Systems (ANTS),
Bangalore, India, 16–19 December 2012; pp. 117–122.
48. Chao, S.; Wang, R.-C.; Huang, H.-P.; Sun, L.-J. Energy efficient clustering algorithm for data aggregation in wireless sensor
networks. J. China Univ. Posts Telecommun. 2010, 17, 104–122.
49. Repuri, R.K.; Darsy, J.P. Energy-Efficient LoRa Routing for Smart Grids. Sensors 2023, 23, 3072. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sensors 2023, 23, 5177 19 of 19

50. Shrivastav, K.; Kulat, K.D. Scalable energy efficient hexagonal heterogeneous broad transmission distance protocol in WSN-IoT
Networks. J. Electr. Eng. Technol. 2020, 15, 95–120. [CrossRef]
51. Qing, L.; Zhu, Q.; Wang, M. Design of a distributed energy-efficient clustering algorithm for heterogeneous wireless sensor
networks. Comput. Commun. 2006, 29, 2230–2237. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.