Multiplatform Mobile App Supporting for AgroFert System
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X40642Keywords:
Mobile application, Liming, FertilizingAbstract
Currently, liming and fertilizing recommendations for crops in the main regions of Brazil is made using the knowledge generated by researchers and summarized in liming and fertilizing manuals. This requires professionals to refer to these manuals for recommendations, which are often made manually. In this context, the AgroFert system was created to be an automated liming and fertilizing recommendation tool, assisting professionals and small producers in monitoring crop-related information. The system acts on the recommendation of correctives and fertilizers for the states of Rio Grande do Sul / Santa Catariana and Paraná for the main grain crops and to evaluate the evolution of the chemical characteristics of the soil. This work presents a multiplatform mobile application, which integrated with AgroFert system, allows users to make recommendations in the field, without the need for constant connection with the application server to make recommendations.
Downloads
References
BECKER, Edegar. A tecnologia da informação aplicada à produção de alimentos. Revista da UNIFEBE, v. 7, n. 7, p. 231-240, 2016.
MOLIN, José P.; RABELLO, Ladislau M. Estudos sobre a mensuração da condutividade elétrica do solo. Engenharia Agrícola, v. 31, n. 1, p. 90-101, 2011.
OLIVEIRA, Robert Rafael Araújo et al. Development of a system for recommendation of calage and fodder for grain crops. Ciência e Natura, v. 40, p. 290-299, 2018.
RABELLO, L.M; INAMASSU, R.Y.; BERNARDI, A C. de C. Sistema de medição de condutividade elétrica. São Carlos: Embrapa Instrumentação Agropecuária. 2010, 8p. (Circular Técnica, 54).
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
