A systematic review of digital agricultural extension services for smallholder farmers

Introduction

The phrase "digital agricultural extension" is defined as the provision of agricultural advice and services to smallholder farmers via the use of information and communication technology (ICT) [1] . The examination encompasses issues like historical development, technical progress, content, variables affecting acceptance, effects, concerns on inclusiveness (women & young), costeffectiveness and scalability of digital extension efforts [2] . The most essential technologies include the most basic mobile (calls, SMS, USSD), internet-based tools (apps, portals, social media) and sophisticated tools (artificial intelligence, drones, internet of things) [3,4] . The information given might be anything from best practices, pest alerts, market and weather information, it is usually tailored to the characteristics of the local region. Factors influencing adoption and user-centred design include variables such as availability to gadgets, literacy, trust and perceived value [5,6] . Also, there is growing adoption from better farmer involvement. It may also help to improve resilience with timely counsel. A large percentage of young farmers are digital champions which helps to speed adoption amongst their peers. But women farmers encounter obstacles, such not being able to have a phone, or not being able to read [7] . Models that mix "phygital" assistance (digital and in-person interaction) are more inclusive. Costeffectiveness assessments reveal that mobile services have the ability to reach a large number of farmers at low cost per farmer [8] . For long-term sustainability it is vital to have viable business models and policies that permit them. These policy implications emphasize the need to invest in rural connectivity and digital literacy, the need to provide inclusive content design, the need to develop public-private sector cooperation and the need to give common measures [9] . The gaps that remain include a larger need for more rigorous effect assessments (particularly long-term and gender-disaggregated), standardized outcome measurements and research on new technologies (such as artificial intelligence, remote sensing and blockchain) [10,11] . In general, digitally enabled extension has great potential to enhance the productivity, income and resilience of smallholder farmers, if the social and infrastructural challenges can be overcome [12] . In the early 20th century agricultural extension was introduced to spread scientific findings to farmers. Agricultural extension, for example, has been represented by the cooperative extension model in the United States, but also by the Green Revolution activities in India and Africa [13] . Two early extension pioneers, Norman Borlaug and Everett Rogers, set the theoretical groundwork before the digital age. One example of the theoretical framework they developed was Borlaug's high yielding crops and Rogers's diffusion of innovations theory [14] . The first instance of the use of technology was the radio and television broadcasts for assistance of agriculture in the middle of the century. The use of ICT for Agriculture (ICT4Ag) has increased in intensity throughout the previous several decades [15] . Governments, for example, set up tele-centers and farmer contact centers in the early 1990s. The main actors of the current digital extension are development scholars and practitioners who promoted the use of information and communication technology in extended education [16] . For example, CGIAR/IFPRI's Rajul Pandya-Lorch, David Spielman, Kristin Davis and Catherine Ragasa have been at the forefront of the evaluation and policy work on extension enabled by information and communication technology [17] . Development was also encouraged by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and business enterprises. Programs such as the Precision Agriculture for Development (PAD) and organizations such as the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the Global Sustainable Management Association (GSMA) and AGRA have aided this [18] . The following timeline emphasizes key milestones: The new finding is a signal that we are moving away from noninteractive broadcasting medium and towards data-driven, interactive solutions [19] . Take, for example, the proliferation of smartphones and social media in the 2010s, which led in the emergence of new platforms and the related multi-dimensional initiatives. We have employed a huge number of scientists and professionals [20] . Other regional experts (e.g. David Laborde and Johan Swinnen on policy, Stephan Haefele and Mariette McCampbell on implementation) and younger scholars (e.g. Sam Coggins and Brendan Brown) have also looked at digital tools in Africa and Asia besides the people mentioned [21] .

Digital extension is a relatively recent area of research that considers the agricultural science, communication and technology. Taken together, this history and corpus of academic work highlight digital extension as an emergent issue [22,23] .

Thematic Synthesis Technologies and Platforms

 Digital extension employs a wide array of technologies.

Early efforts used basic mobile phones: SMS alerts (push notifications), IVR (interactive voice response) systems and call centers connecting farmers to experts [24] . For example, India's Kisan Call Centers (toll-free helplines) answered thousands of farmer queries daily, while national SMS portals broadcast regional weather and market prices. USSD menus also allow farmers to dial short codes for information without needing internet or literacy [25] .  With smartphone proliferation, mobile apps and web portals became common. Multi-functional smartphone platforms integrate diagnostics (e.g. plant disease image recognition), advisories and market connections. Examples include Plantix (pest diagnostics by image) and eNAM (India's digital market portal) [26] . These apps often provide customized recommendations (fertilizer doses, variety selection) and link to input suppliers or buyers. Social messaging apps like WhatsApp and Facebook are widely used informally: extension agents share videos or bulletins in group chats and peer networks exchange tips. Social media channels (YouTube, farmer blogs) also serve as informal extension channels [27] .  New technologies are on the horizon. Farmers are trialling AI and chatbots to automatically answer their inquiries using natural language. This is shown in projects like NDEMRI (AI-driven SMS advice) [28] . Remote sensing and GIS offer macro-level inputs, such as satellite-based services sending weather predictions or notifications on the health of crops to farmers' phones. IoT sensors and drones are being trialled for precision farming (e.g. soil moisture sensors providing recommendations on watering) [29] . Use of blockchain and digital platforms for transparency in contract farming and supply chains. These new technologies are still in their infancy but point to future digital advice capabilities (e.g. drone photos to identify pests) [30] .

Table 1:

The table below summarizes key categories [31,32,33,34,35,36] Technology

Delivery Channels

Digital extension can be delivered through direct-to-farmer channels or via intermediaries. The most direct are mobilebased: SMS/voice push (top-down broadcasting), inbound calls and interactive apps [37] . Indirect channels include embedding ICT into formal extension systems: for instance, many extension agents now use tablets or apps to manage farmer data and share content in field visits. Farmer cooperatives or input dealers sometimes use digital platforms to coordinate advice (e.g. distributing personalized bulletins via WhatsApp) [38] . Media channels also count as delivery: interactive radio or TV programs can supplement digital tools by prompting listeners to send SMS questions or use hotlines. Lastly, community networks play a role: organized farmer groups or "leader farmers" often help spread digital content offline (e.g. showing app videos during meetings). Thus, delivery is often multichannel combining phone, internet and in-person methods (a "phygital" approach) [39,40,41] .

Content Types

Digital extension encompasses diverse content:  Weather and Climate: short term predictions and seasonal recommendations assist farmers plan planting/harvesting and mitigate risk (drought, pests) [42] .  Market Information: prevailing pricing in local mandis or consumers' marketplaces help to decide crops to be grown and sales. Some sites even link farmers to customers [43] .  Crop Management: The service is built on best practice recommendations for planting, fertilisation, irrigation, pest and disease management. This includes notifications of new pests or customized advice (e.g. fertilizer rates) [44] .  Seed and Input Recommendations: recommendations on appropriate crop kinds, procurement of inputs (quality seeds, fertilizers) is sometimes provided. AI tools might help customize dosing [45] .  Livestock Advice: some agencies give advice on animal husbandry and market information for animals on mixed farms [46] .  Financial/Insurance: credit, subsidies or weather-index insurance information may be sent via applications or SMS [47] .  Extension Training and Support: e-learning modules, quizzes or virtual coaching material provide continuing farmer education (e.g. video courses available via phones) [48] .

Most systems tailor content by locality (crop, language) and sometimes even by individual farm conditions (using inputs like soil data or farmer profile). As one review notes, personalized digital extension "provides information on the types of crops to grow, inputs to use and other methods of cultivation, " leading to measurable productivity gains [49] .

Adoption Factors

Multiple factors influence whether smallholders use digital extension:  Device and Connectivity Access: Farmers require a phone/computer and consistent power/network, Lack of cellphones, electrical shortages and poor mobile service are named in studies frequently as important hurdles. In regions where only basic phones are available, interactive voice and SMS services are more often used than smartphone applications [50,51] .  Digital and General Literacy: Low literacy may prevent the use of technologies that are text-based. Pictorial material or interactive voice services (IVR, audio messaging) may help. Again, digital skills are lacking and user training is needed. Projects training farmers or using local adolescents as facilitators showed increased use [52] .  Relevance and Personalization: Content has to be relevant to farmers' requirements (crop kind, season). Tools that enable farmers to enter their priorities (e.g. cropping plan) are utilized more than static broadcasts. Many farmers "appropriated" products, only utilizing relevant bits. When developers co-design with users, they get higher acceptance [53, 54] .  Trust and Cultural Factors: Farmers are more inclined to use tools advised by reputable sources. Credibility boosters include peer demonstration, recommendations from other farmers and local-language information. In one research, uptake was delayed by skepticism of new voice services until agents created rapport. Gender and societal norms matter: women frequently have less decision-making authority and phone access, therefore services must actively reach out to them [55] .  Cost and Value Perception: Even small charges (SMS fees, airtime) are a barrier for the poorest farmers. Reach is increased at no or subsidized cost. Importantly farmers will embrace if advantages exceed costs. Several publications stress the need of proving revenue increases or yield improvements. Tech-savvy youth farmers may drive wider adoption by demonstrating outcomes [56,57] .  Support and Training: Continued technical assistance (helpdesk, agent training) allows continued use. Services that provide feedback loops where farmers may ask questions engage farmers. Where farmers could follow up or change settings, satisfaction increased [58] . Adoption may be incremental curiosity, innovators using it and eventually widespread uptake if benefit is seen. Table 2 below illustrates typical hurdles and facilitators and how programs address challenges. non-users [65] . Similarly, targeted SMS or call advisories have been demonstrated to increase yields by helping farmers use optimal practices at the right time. A second randomized experiment in Gujarat, India (Avaaj Otalo) found that cellphone guidance improved farmers' cotton knowledge and did not limit peer-to-peer information sharing [66] . In fact, farmers in the treatment shared more information with neighbours and were prepared to pay more for the service over time. In various African nations, textmessage campaigns have boosted the uptake of better seeds and fertilizer via reminders and market suggestions [67] .  Resilience is more than productivity, it is also a digital extension. Having access to the latest weather or pest information may help farmers prepare for climate shocks (such as drought) and minimize their impact. Market information may be improved to increase revenues and to decrease post-harvest losses by connecting farmers to purchasers [68] . Digital channels provided advice flow during COVID-19 when face-to-face was not available, bridging knowledge gaps and promoting food security.

Studies suggest that the digital integration of finance and extension (e.g. packaging loan offers with guidance) might further stabilize livelihoods [69] .  Cost-effectiveness studies suggest that digital technologies may provide extension at a far lower cost per farmer than conventional visits. The per-farmer intervention costs for SMS-based services were in the single-digit dollar range, whereas in-person extension expenses are often an order of magnitude higher [70] . Digital scaling enables reaching millions (e.g. SMS systems in India reach over 50 million farmers a day). High scalability is shown by the fact that private providers such as Precision Agriculture expect to reach 10-20 million farmers with mobile advisory by 2024 [71] . However, most robust impact evidence is still appearing. Many research are on intermediate indicators (knowledge acquisition, adoption rates), few long-term results are known. signs that benefits are diminishing without complementing help (e.g. if farmers lack inputs or markets, advising alone can only go so far) [72] . However, there is a widespread opinion that if successfully executed, digital extension may transform the productivity and income of users and so contribute to poverty alleviation and SDG objectives [73] .

Gender, Youth and Inclusivity Gender

Women make up over half of smallholder farmers worldwide, yet digital advising services reach fewer women than males. Barriers include lower rates of women's ownership of phones, lesser literacy and cultural norms that restrict women's mobility and decision-making [74] . An analysis has shown that if not properly addressed, digital services risk widening existing gender inequalities. A research in Zambia found that while basic phone ownership was widespread, women were frequently excluded from obtaining digital guidance owing to family control of phones and suspicion [75] . Strategies for improving inclusion include: providing information in local languages and audio formats (to address literacy barriers), developing content around crops women grow, timing voice calls at convenient times, involving male family members in training to help them support women's access and explicitly targeting women in program design [76,77] . For example, Grameen Foundation's Agripath initiative incorporates gender analysis by examining who makes choices on the farm and structuring training appropriately. Overall, gender-sensitive extension entails addressing women's demands from the beginning (e.g., female extension agents, women-only group chats) and not as an afterthought [78] .

Youth

Younger farmers are more likely to utilize digital instruments, appreciating their efficiency and ingenuity. Youth provide a "digital multiplier" function: as Grow Asia argues, young farmers are frequently the early adopters of new technology, share their triumphs on social media and affect their peers' perspectives [79] . Involving youngsters helps spread information more quickly and also builds the next generation of farmers.

Effective initiatives empower kids via support for youth-led demonstration farms, incorporating agriculture into tech curriculum and even hiring young agripreneurs as extension partners [80] . But youth adoption has challenges too, like other farmers they require ROI evidence and access to funding. Policies may exploit youth as trainers and marketers of digital Ag instruments, contributing to sustainable growth of services [81] .

Other Inclusion Considerations

Inclusiveness also means include minority linguistic groups, farmers with disabilities and the extremely poor. Low-tech media (SMS, radio) often better reach the poorest without cellphones [82] . Rural digital training has to be inclusive (e.g. visuals or voice for the illiterate, adaptable interfaces for the handicapped). Cultural relevance is important: extension material that disregards local customs or labour restrictions may not be successful [83] . A hybrid model of digital advice and community meetings or radio guarantees no group is left behind in many areas. Ultimately digital extension equality demands conscious design (to overcome the "digital divide"), not merely technology deployment [84] .

Cost-Effectiveness and Business Models

 Digital extension often achieves high cost-effectiveness due to low incremental delivery costs. Studies estimate unit costs (per advisory message delivered) in the cents or low dollars for SMS and voice platforms. Economies of scale kick in once infrastructure is built: serving 10, 000 farmers costs only marginally more than serving 1, 000 [85] . For example, SMS advisories to millions in India and elsewhere have remarkably low per-farmer costs. By contrast, traditional extension worker visits require significant travel and labor costs [86] .  However, sustainable financing remains a challenge. Many pilots have been donor-funded and free for farmers. Longterm models include: public funding (governments subsidize national extension services via ICT), private sector (agribusinesses or telecoms view advisory as lossleader or premium service) and social enterprise (users pay small fees, or services are bundled with input sales) [87] . Payment-for-services is sensitive for smallholders, many projects thus explore partial cost-recovery (e.g. charging agribusiness firms for bulk SMS campaigns, offering premium analytics to input dealers). Partnerships help: e.g. mobile network operators sometimes sponsor agrinfo SMS to gain customers [88] .  Impact evaluations often include benefit-cost ratios. One analysis of a mobile advisory program in Africa found benefit-cost ratios well above 1 (i.e. benefits double or triple costs). Another method calculates the willingness to pay by farmers: in India, some farmers would pay up to 45% of their net profits for high-quality advisory [89] . These findings indicate that if delivered value is high, digital extension can sustain itself economically. Still, upfront investment in platforms, data and capacity-building is needed and programs must plan for maintenance and updates (not just one-off interventions) [90] .

Scalability

 Digital tools are inherently scalable: software can be cloned at minimal cost and messages broadcast widely. High scalability has been demonstrated: national services reaching millions in India, Ghana, Kenya etc. But scaling beyond pilots requires careful attention to context. Crucial factors include government endorsement, local partner networks and user support systems. Technical scalability (server capacity, bandwidth) is solvable, but organizational scalability (training agents across regions, ensuring content relevance everywhere) is more complex [91] .  Evidence shows successful scale-up often involves publicprivate partnerships. For instance, India's mKisan was a government initiative, whereas many African countries relied on private agtech startups with NGO support. Hybrid models where governments handle policy and oversight and private apps deliver the tech have promise. Digital platforms can also bridge national boundaries (e.g., FAO's global farmer helplines), but language and agronomic differences limit direct transfer. Thus, scalable solutions often require localization teams [92] .  Replicability is helped by open standards: common data formats, open APIs and coordinated extension strategies.

Where standards exist (like India's eNAM interoperable market system), scaling is easier. Where every project reinvents the wheel, growth stalls. Many experts advocate for integrated national agri-information systems, so that multiple services share a digital backbone. In sum, scalability is a technical strength of digital extension, but achieving it requires building institutional capacity, ensuring content diversity and securing sustainable funding [93] .

Policy Implications

Policymakers play a pivotal role in enabling digital extension. Key implications include:  Investment in rural connection is critical to enabling the development of a base for the spread of mobile and internet infrastructure into remote areas In addition, telecommunications coverage in rural areas may be expanded via joint ventures or subsidies [94,95] .  Governments may demonstrate their commitment to the promotion of digital literacy and skills training by integrating digital skills into agricultural training courses (for farmers and extension workers). Providing financial assistance for community information and communication technology centers and online educational initiatives may quicken adoption [96,97] .  We need to take out actions promoting inclusive design to incorporate women and young people in the national agriextension plans. It could be worthwhile, for example, to educate female extension workers or to target services at the crops women farm. Any more material may have to be released, as needed by policy makers, in a variety of publicly accessible forms and in a number of languages spoken in the local community [98] .

 Standards for the use of agricultural data would be set to encourage the development of trust. Developing standards for the transmission of data across platforms and organizations may promote the interoperability of services. However, there are privacy regulations that restrict the use of data acquired from farmers [99] .  Policies need to enable charitable groups, mobile carriers and agritech companies to work together. This is an example of a public-private cooperation in action. So, for example, governments may give incentives to the firms developing agricultural applications, in the form of subsidies or tax breaks and then utilize existing public extension networks to distribute information [100] .  Integration with Traditional Extension: While digital services are not a panacea, they work best when paired with activities that are conducted at more traditional levels. Digital technology should not replace field staff in mixed extension systems but complement their role. Policymakers should adopt these kind of systems. The hybrid technique has both benefits. Face-to-face contact gives competent guidance and information and communication technology delivers vast knowledge [101] .  Evaluation frameworks of government extension projects should incorporate measuring of digital service. Some examples of these KPIs are: reach, user happiness, total outcomes etc. This is because monitoring and evaluation are of considerable importance. With impact assessment institutionalized, authorities may more easily identify effective initiatives and scale up those procedures [102] .  Financial support methods like as subsidies or credit facilities may allow smallholders to obtain cell phones or pay mobile rates. These strategies may assist to reduce the effect of cost barriers. And that's not to mention the state subsidies that may help speed up digital expansion, assuming sustainability models (such as subscription tiers, advertising) would develop over time [103] .  Disaster preparedness is thus critical: the outbreak has brought out the relevance of digital extension in times of need. Thus, it is important for decision-makers to integrate information and communications technology (ICT) strategies in disaster response plans. For instance, in times of droughts or epidemics, the speedy spreading of SMS messages may be quite helpful [104,105] .

Conclusion

Digital agricultural extension is changing how information is disseminated and new ideas are introduced to smallholder farmers. This large body of research has proven that mobile phones and internet platforms provide rapid and personalized information on crops, weather, markets and other associated issues, leading in large productivity and profitability increases. Interactivity and scalability are among the key features of digital extension. Millions of farmers may be reached at minimal cost and two-way contact (phone calls or online chat) makes it simpler to tailor advice to the individual requirements of farmers. The catalysts are young people and farmers who are good at technology and barriers related to gender and literacy need to be actively addressed. Effective programs combine digital and traditional approaches for local relevance and confidence. In many circumstances the cost efficiency is high but the long term financial viability of an organization depends on the business models and the regulatory backing it gets. In order to maximise effect, stakeholders need to concentrate on connection and training, offer inclusive content and build publicprivate partnerships. Furthermore, academics and policy makers should work together to create common measures and share their expertise across sites. In times of shock, such as the pandemic, the delivery of information to farmers via digital extension has been demonstrated to greatly increase resilience and resilience. It would be good if digital extension could bridge the gaps that occur in extension in rural regions with low areas of population density. It is vital to highlight that technology is just one half of the formula for success, human factors (e.g., responsive and farmer-centered implementation) and supporting ecosystems are equally critical. In conclusion, digital extension services may play a major role in impacting smallholder agriculture, therefore improving productivity, incomes and food security. However, to achieve this potential in full, it is important to overcome hurdles that are social, infrastructural and economic in character. Continuous innovation based on scientific principles and inclusive design would be of enormous help in ensuring that the dividends of the digital revolution are available to every single farmer.

References

1. Spielman D, Lecoutere E, Makhija S, Van Campenhout B. Information and communications technology (ICT) and agricultural extension in developing countries. Annual Review of Resource Economics. 2021;13:177-201.
2. Liu S, Guo L, Webb H, Ya X, Chang X. Internet of Things monitoring system of modern eco-agriculture based on cloud computing. IEEE Access. 2019;7:37050-37058.
3. Prajval V, Krishnamoorthi A, Thakur R, Ruchitha T, Kapoor M, Singh A, et al. From code to crop: how bioinformatics is transforming crop genomics in modern agriculture and bettering environment. Journal of Advances in Biology & Biotechnology. 2024;27(4):27-49.
4. Singh A, Labanya GSR. Exploring the role of hydrogen in agriculture for machinery, biomass and reducing carbon footprints. Plant Archives. 2025;25(1):2852-2863.
5. Debnath P, Raj R. Optimizing functional genomics and application of root wounding and immersion for enhanced virus-induced gene silencing in plants: a comprehensive review. Plant Archives. 2025;25(1):3115-3126.
6. Krishnamoorthi A, Chaurasia J, Baidya BK, Singh A, Kumar V, Singh A. A comprehensive review on evolution, challenges of models, opportunities in urban farming practices in the world. Journal of Scientific Research and Reports. 2024;30(6):136-156.
7. Raghuvanshi HR, Kalaiselvi P, Ravindra NR, Kumar V. Biotechnological breakthroughs: paving the path to cleaner and more productive agriculture through bioremediation. Journal of Advances in Biology & Biotechnology. 2024;27(4):119-142.
8. Bhardwaj R, Kumar M, Kaushal N, Kamboj AD, Krishnamoorthi A, Singh A, et al. From lab to bouquet: the biotechnological frontier in modern floriculture for sustainable and resilient flower farming. Journal of Advances in Biology & Biotechnology. 2024;27(2):119137.
9. Jain S, Ranganna G, Jadhav PS, Shrivastava U, Sood A, Prasad L, et al. Cultivating tomorrow: harnessing gene editing and silencing for precision horticulture. Journal of Advances in Biology & Biotechnology. 2024;27(1):147160.
10. Krishnamoorthi A, Salam NK, Kalaiselvi D, KB C, Kumar S, Kumar V, et al. Digital sequencing information in agricultural crops: a comprehensive review. International Journal. 2024;8(8):1404-1412.
11. Krintz C, Wolski R, Golubovic N, Lampel B, Kulkarni V, Sethuramasamyraja B, et al. SmartFarm: improving agriculture sustainability using modern information technology. In: Proceedings of the KDD Workshop on Data Science for Food, Energy and Water; 2016.
12. Mukherjee A, Maity A. Public-private partnership for convergence of extension services in Indian agriculture. Current Science. 2015;109:1557-1563.
13. Naika MB, Kudari M, Devi MS, Sadhu DS, Sunagar S. Digital extension service: quick way to deliver agricultural information to the farmers. In: Food Technology Disruptions. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier; 2021. p. 285-323.
14. De Jesus NM, Buenas LJE. Descriptive analytics and interactive visualizations for performance monitoring of extension services programs, projects and activities. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications. 2023;14:660-668.
15. Ortiz-Crespo B, Steinke J, Quirós CF, van de Gevel J, Daudi H, Gaspar Mgimiloko M, et al. User-centred design of a digital advisory service: enhancing public agricultural extension for sustainable intensification in Tanzania. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability. 2021;19:566-582.
16. Singh N, Sunitha NH, Tripathi G, Saikanth DRK, Sharma A, Jose AE, Mary MVKJ. Impact of digital technologies in agricultural extension. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics and Sociology. 2023;41:963-970.
17. Moosaei M, Afshari N. Investigating the role of personalized digital extension services on agricultural performance (a case study of farmers in Fars Province). International Journal of Agricultural Science Research Technology and Extension Education Systems. 2023;13:2233.
18. Thi Hoa Sen L, Chou P, Dacuyan FB, Nyberg Y, Wetterlind J. Barriers and enablers of digital extension services' adoption among smallholder farmers: the case of Cambodia, the Philippines and Vietnam. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability. 2024;22:2368351.
19. Kitchenham B, Brereton OP, Budgen D, Turner M, Bailey J, Linkman S. Systematic literature reviews in software engineering: a systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology. 2009;51:7-15.
20. Lu Y, Song S, Wang R, Liu Z, Meng J, Sweetman AJ, et al. Impacts of soil and water pollution on food safety and health risks in China. Environment International. 2015;77:515.
21. Phuong LTH, Biesbroek GR, Wals AE. The interplay between social learning and adaptive capacity in climate change adaptation: a systematic review. NJAS Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences. 2017;82:1-9.
22. Wasik BA, Hindman AH, Snell EK. Book reading and vocabulary development: a systematic review. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2016;37:39-57.
23. Chanias S, Myers MD, Hess T. Digital transformation strategy making in pre-digital organizations: the case of a financial services provider. Journal of Strategic Information Systems. 2019;28:17-33.
24. Narine LK, Harder A, Roberts TG. Extension officers' adoption of modern information communication technologies to interact with farmers of Trinidad. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education. 2019;26:17-34.
25. Obong R, Mugonola B, Phillips DP. Determinants of mobile phones usage in sweet potato vine business in Gulu district, northern Uganda. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 2018;13:1071-1079.
26. Girma Y, Kelil A. Mobile phone and beef cattle marketing: the case of Girar Jarso district of Oromia region, Ethiopia. Cogent Food & Agriculture. 2021;7:1911032.
27. Kalio GA. Availability, access and utilization of ICTs and its tools among poultry farmers in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, Nigeria. Animal Research International. 2021;17:38363844.
28. Krell NT, Giroux SA, Guido Z, Hannah C, Lopus SE, Caylor KK, et al. Smallholder farmers' use of mobile phone services in central Kenya. Climate and Development. 2021;13(3):215-227.
29. Mugabi N, Omona J, Jansson B. Revolutionalizing agriculture extension delivery through mobile telephony: the experience of village enterprise agent model in Greater Masaka area, Uganda. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment. 2018;217:963-974.
30. Oliveira-Jr A, Resende C, Pereira A, Madureira P, Gonçalves J, Moutinho R, et al. IoT sensing platform as a driver for digital farming in rural Africa. Sensors. 2020;20(12):3511.
31. Thakur M, Pandit V, Chaudhary M, Rajkumar R. ICT interventions in crop health knowledge management for smallholder farmers. Journal of Global Communication. 2016;9(1):35-46.
32. Emeana EM, Trenchard L, Dehnen-Schmutz K. The revolution of mobile phone-enabled services for agricultural development (m-Agri services) in Africa: the challenges for sustainability. Sustainability. 2020;12(2):485.
33. Khan N, Siddiqui BN, Khan N, Khan F, Ullah N, Ihtisham M, et al. Analyzing mobile phone usage in agricultural modernization and rural development. International Journal of Agricultural Extension. 2020;8(2):139-147.
34. Khan NA, Qijie G, Ali S, Shahbaz B, Shah AA. Farmers' use of mobile phone for accessing agricultural information in Pakistan: a case of Punjab Province. Ciência Rural. 2019;49:e20181016.
35. Drewry JL, Shutske JM, Trechter D, Luck BD, Pitman L. Assessment of digital technology adoption and access barriers among crop, dairy and livestock producers in Wisconsin. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 2019;165:104960.
36. Getahun AA. Challenges and opportunities of information and communication technologies for dissemination of agricultural information in Ethiopia. International Journal of Agricultural Extension. 2020;8(1):57-65.
37. Al-Hamdani MHS, Al-Khazarji RMI, Mohammad OKJ. Effecting of mobile applications in control farmers' communication behavior in Iraq. In: Proceedings of the 1st Annual International Conference on Information and Sciences (AiCIS); 2018 Nov 20-21; Fallujah, Iraq. 2018.
38. Mohanraj I, Gokul V, Ezhilarasie R, Umamakeswari A. Intelligent drip irrigation and fertigation using wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Technological Innovations in ICT for Agriculture and Rural Development (TIAR); 2017 Apr 7-8; Chennai, India. 2017.
39. Arinloye DDA, Linnemann AR, Hagelaar G, Coulibaly O, Omta OS. Taking profit from the growing use of mobile phone in Benin: a contingent valuation approach for market and quality information access. Information Technology for Development. 2015;21(1):44-66.
40. Thar SP, Ramilan T, Farquharson RJ, Pang A, Chen D. An empirical analysis of the use of agricultural mobile applications among smallholder farmers in Myanmar. Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries. 2021;87(1):e12159.
41. Lahiri B, Anurag TS, Marak BR, Sangma AK, Sangma SM. Development of mobile based fishery advisory prototype: an experience with fisher tribes of Garo Hills in NorthEastern Himalayan region of India. Indian Journal of Fisheries. 2020;67(1):10-17.
42. Mudda K, Giddi B, Murthy P. A study on the digitization of supply chains in agriculture: an Indian experience. Journal of Agricultural Informatics. 2017;8(2):45-55.
43. Murugan M, Karthikeyan C. Effectiveness of SMS based extension advisories on farmers adoption behaviour. Madras Agricultural Journal. 2017;104(1-3):85-89.
44. Nwabugwu TS, Nwobodo CE, Okoro JC. Awareness and use of e-resources among public extension personnel in Anambra State, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension. 2019;23(2):161-170.
45. Agwu EA, Ndakotsu JE, Ifeonu CF. Farmers' perceived effectiveness of the Growth Enhancement Support Scheme in Kogi State, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension. 2019;23(1):113-129.
46. Agwu AE, Ogbonnah EE. Access and use of information communication technologies by women staff of public extension service in the North Central Zone of Nigeria. Agricultural Information Worldwide. 2013;6(1):18-24.
47. Aker JC. Dial "A" for agriculture: a review of information and communication technologies for agricultural extension in developing countries. Agricultural Economics. 2011;42(6):631-647.
48. Etwire PM, Buah S, Ouédraogo M, Zougmoré R, Partey ST, Martey E, et al. An assessment of mobile phone-based dissemination of weather and market information in the Upper West Region of Ghana. Agriculture & Food Security. 2017;6:8.
49. Folitse BY, Manteaw SA, Dzandu LP, Obeng-Koranteng G, Bekoe S. The determinants of mobile-phone usage among small-scale poultry farmers in Ghana. Information Development. 2019;35(4):564-574.
50. Henze J, Ulrichs C. The potential and limitations of mobilelearning and other services in the agriculture sector of Kenya using phone applications. In: Proceedings of the 12th European IFSA Symposium: Social and Technological Transformation of Farming Systems: Diverging and Converging Pathways; 2016 Jul 12-15; Shropshire, UK. 2016.
51. Jaji MFO, Abanigbe SA, Abass BO. Mobile phone as an extension tool among female agricultural practitioners in Lagos State, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension. 2017;21(1):66-75.
52. Komolafe SE, Abogunrin OO, Adesiji GB, Akinnifesi AI. Assessment of the use of mobile phone as an information communication channel among fish farmers in Lagos State, Nigeria. Bulletin of the Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Kyushu University. 2018;41:57-66.
53. Kumari G, Biswas A. Mobile phone: a potential tool for agricultural transformation. Trends in Biosciences. 2014;7(4):448-451.
54. Rimpika, Anushi, Manasa S, Anusha KN, Sharma S, Thakur A, et al. An overview of precision farming. International Journal of Environment and Climate Change. 2023;13(12):441-456.
55. Jain S, Bhujel S, Shrivastava U, Mohapatra A, Mishra G. Advancements in drone technology for fruit crop management: a comprehensive review. 2023.
56. Anushi AK, Ghosh PK. From seed to succulence: mastering dragon fruit propagation techniques. Journal of Plant Biota. 2024.
57. Anushi BPS, Sachan K. Bioformulation: a new frontier in horticulture for eco-friendly crop management. Journal of Plant Biota. 2024.
58. Anushi, Tripathi VK. Influence of biostimulants and organic mulch on physiological, biochemical and yield attributes of strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa Duch.) cv. Katrain Sweet. Plant Science Today. 2025;12(3):1-9. doi:10.14719/pst.5994.
59. Anushi VK, Tripathi VK, Shukla P. Influence of biostimulants and organic mulch on soil microbial population in strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa Duch.). Biochemical and Cellular Archives. 2024;24(2):2551-2555. doi:10.51470/bca.2024.24.2.2551.
60. Tripathi VK, Kumar S, Tripathi R, Singh A. Impact of biostimulants and organic mulch on vegetative growth, flowering and yield of strawberry cv. Katrain Sweet. AATCC Review. 2025;13(3):118-126. doi:10.21276/AATCCReview.2025.13.03.118.
61. Migliaccio KW, Morgan KT, Vellidis G, Zotarelli L, Fraisse C, Rowland DL, et al. Smartphone apps for irrigation scheduling. Transactions of the ASABE. 2016;59(1):291-301.
62. Mittal S, Hariharan VK. Mobile-based climate services impact on farmers risk management ability in India. Climate Risk Management. 2018;22:42-51.
63. Aromolaran AK, Alarima CI, Akerele D, Oyekunle O, Leramo GA. Use of internet for innovation management by extension agents in Oyo State. Journal of Agricultural Extension. 2016;20(1):96-106.
64. Chalemba L. Integration of telecommunication technologies into agricultural market information systems: a comparative analysis of Uganda and Malawi. Journal of Agricultural Informatics. 2016;7(2):70-79.
65. Cox AJ, Sseguya H. ICT supported extension services in conservation agriculture information access for small holder farmers in Laikipia County, Kenya. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS); 2015 Nov 11-12; Dublin, Ireland. 2015.
66. Khan NA, Gao QJ, Ali S, Shahbaz B, Khan P, Abid M. Analyzing ICT-enabled agricultural advisory services in Pakistan: evidence from a marginalized region of Punjab Province. Electronic Commerce Research. 2020;22:11071129.
67. Asif AS, Uddin MN, Dev DS, Miah MAM. Factors affecting mobile phone usage by the farmers in receiving information on vegetable cultivation in Bangladesh. Journal of Agricultural Informatics. 2017;8(2):33-43.
68. Bayass LB, Carlos J, Gardeazabal A, Karner M, Folberth C, Vargas L, et al. AgroTutor: a mobile phone application supporting sustainable agricultural intensification. Sustainability. 2020;12(22):9309.
69. Ngowi E, Mwakalobo A, Mwamfupe D. Making ICTs work for agro-pastoral livelihood: using the telecentre as learning tool for agro-pastoralist communities in Tanzania. Journal of Sustainable Development. 2015;8(4):89-100.
70. Oladele O, Gitika M, Ngari F, Shimeles A, Mamo G, Aregawi F, et al. Adoption of agro-weather information sources for climate smart agriculture among farmers in Embu and Ada'a districts of Kenya and Ethiopia. Information Development. 2019;35(4):639-654.
71. Prathap DP, Ponnusamy KA. Mass media and symbolic adoption behavior of rural women. SIMILE Studies in Media and Information Literacy Education. 2007.
72. Mloza Banda C, Chapota R, Chinkhokwe P, Kisebe J. Creating channels, connections and communities: experimenting with virtual rural agricultural learning communities in Nkhotakota district, Malawi. In: Proceedings of the Fifth RUFORUM Biennial Regional Conference; 2016 Oct 17; Cape Town, South Africa. 2016.
73. Munthali N, Van Paassen A, Leeuwis C, Lie R, van Lammeren R, Aguilar-Gallegos N, et al. Social media platforms, open communication and problem solving in the back-office of Ghanaian extension: a substantive, structural and relational analysis. Agricultural Systems. 2021;190:103123.
74. Panda CK. Advances in application of ICT in crop pest and disease management. In: Natural Remedies for Pest, Disease and Weed Control. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier; 2020. p. 235-242.
75. Aziz MT, Khan A. Utilization of ICTs for availing agricultural information in District Charsadda, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa-Pakistan. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture. 2021;37(3):797-806.
76. Barakabitze AA, Fue KG, Sanga CA. The use of participatory approaches in developing ICT-based systems for disseminating agricultural knowledge and information for farmers in developing countries: the case of Tanzania. Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries. 2017;78(1):1-23.
77. Lamberts M, Mayer H, Regalado R, Hunsberger A, Mannion C. Developing a bilingual video/video podcast to teach clients how to apply a soil drench insecticide to control a new pest, the fig whitefly. Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society. 2008;121:358-359.
78. Abuta CMA, Agumagu AC, Adesope OM. Social media used by arable crop farmers for communicating climate change adaptation strategies in Imo State, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension. 2021;25(2):73-82.
79. Nuutinen M. Online communities of practice empowering members to realize climate-smart agriculture in developing countries. In: Climate Literacy and Innovations in Climate Change Education. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2018.
80. Olaitan OK, Jimoh FA, David OO. Appropriateness of information and communication technologies (ICTs) use: a case study of agricultural information dissemination in Ogun State, Nigeria. International Journal of Agricultural Extension. 2018;5(2):93-101.
81. Omulo G, Kumeh EM. Farmer-to-farmer digital network as a strategy to strengthen agricultural performance in Kenya: a research note on "Wefarm" platform. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2020;158:120120.
82. Adetumbi SI, Olaniyi OA, Adewale J. Assessment of use of selected information communication technologies (ICTs) for extension service delivery: implication for agricultural development in Nigeria. International Journal of Agricultural Management and Development. 2013;3(2):131-139.
83. Molina-Maturano J, Verhulst N, Tur-Cardona J, Güereña DT, Gardeazábal-Monsalve A, Govaerts B, et al. Understanding smallholder farmers' intention to adopt agricultural apps: the role of mastery approach and innovation hubs in Mexico. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 2021;41(2):19.
84. Swathi Lekshmi P, Chandrakandan K, Balasubramani N. Mass media utilization behaviour of farm women. Agricultural Science Digest. 2016;36(1):51-55.
85. Viscusi G, Cabitza F, Maurino A, Stella F. Determining factors in ICT adoption by MSMEs in agriculture clusters: an exploratory case study. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 7th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS); 2013 May 29-31; Paris, France. 2013.
86. Zoundji GC, Okry F, Vodouhê SD, Bentley JW, Witteveen L. Commercial channels versus free distribution and screening of agricultural learning videos: a case study from Benin and Mali. Experimental Agriculture. 2020;56(4):544560.
87. Zoundji GC, Vodouhê SD, Okry F, Bentley JW, Tossou RC. Beyond Striga management: learning videos enhanced farmers' knowledge on climate-smart agriculture in Mali. Sustainable Agriculture Research. 2018;7(2):80-91.
88. Umadikar J, Sangeetha U, Kalpana M, Soundarapandian M, Prashant S, Jhunjhunwala A. mASK: a functioning personalized ICT-based agriculture advisory system. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Region 10 Humanitarian Technology Conference (R10 HTC); 2014 Aug 6; Chennai, India. 2014.
89. Van Campenhout B, Spielman DJ, Lecoutere E. Information and communication technologies (ICTs) to provide agricultural advice to smallholder farmers: experimental evidence from Uganda. Washington (DC): International Food Policy Research Institute; 2018. Report No.: 1778.
90. Shang L, Heckelei T, Gerullis MK, Börner J, Rasch S. Adoption and diffusion of digital farming technologies: integrating farm-level evidence and system interaction. Agricultural Systems. 2021;190:103074.
91. Subash S, Gupta J, Gereketi P. Effectiveness of the interactive web-module on knowledge empowerment of dairy farmers. Journal of Animal Health and Production. 2018;6(1):13-17.
92. Tegegne AK, Alemu TA. SMS-based agricultural information system for rural farmers in Ethiopia. Journal of Usability Studies. 2019;15(1):47-62.
93. Temba B, Kajuna F, Pango G, Benard R. Accessibility and use of information and communication tools among farmers for improving chicken production in Morogoro Municipality, Tanzania. Livestock Research for Rural Development. 2016;28:1-9.
94. Thar SP, Ramilan T, Farquharson RJ, Chen D. Identifying potential for decision support tools through farm systems typology analysis coupled with participatory research: a case for smallholder farmers in Myanmar. Agriculture. 2021;11(6):516.
95. Warner LA, Silvert CJ, Benge M. Using adoption and perceived characteristics of fertilizer innovations to identify extension educational needs of Florida's residential audiences. Journal of Agricultural Education. 2019;60(2):155-172.
96. Michels M, Bonke V, Musshoff O. Understanding the adoption of smartphone apps in crop protection. Precision Agriculture. 2020;21(6):1209-1226.
97. Arinloye D, Linnemann A, Hagelaar G, Omta S, Coulibaly O, van Boekel M. Willingness to pay for market information received by mobile phone among smallholder pineapple farmers in Benin. In: Bitzer B, Vellema S, editors. Quality innovation in food chains. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers; 2016. p. 75-100.
98. Ifejika PI. Assessment of fisherfolk information seeking behaviour with mobile phone for improve extension and advisory services. Journal of Agricultural Science. 2016;8(10):170-178.
99. Kumar U, Werners S, Sharmishtha R, Sadia A, Hoang L, Dilip Kumar D, et al. Role of information in farmers' response to weather and water related stresses in the Lower Bengal Delta, Bangladesh. Sustainability. 2020;12(16):6598.
100. Kumar V, Lehri S, Sharma AK, Meena P, Kumar A. Image based rapeseed-mustard disease expert system: an effective extension tool. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education. 2016;8:10-13.