Review article A critical review on rice cultivation and mechanization level in Indian perspective Prabhat K Guru a,* , Parmanand Sahu a,*, Prabhakar Shukla b, Pushpraj Diwan a, Ghanshyam Panwar a, Priyanka Tiwari c, Ankur Nagori a, Gopal Carpenter a, Rajeswar Sanodiya a, Balveer Singh Meena a, Manish Kumar a, Anshika Rani a, Ipsita Rath a, Deeksha Dey a, Neha Verma a, Sandip Gangil a, Suryakant Khandai d, Rabe Yahaya d a ICAR-Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Bhopal, M.P., India b MCAET, Ambedkarnagar, ANDUAT, Kumarganj, Ayodhya, India c National Insitute of Technology, Kurukshetra, India d International Rice Research Institute, Philippines A R T I C L E I N F O Keywords: Rice Farm Machinery Indian Agriculture Mechanization Rice Transplanter Precision Agriculture A B S T R A C T Present article explores the historical trend, current scenario, mechanization level and challenges for rice cultivation in India. Rice, a vital crop for sustenance and the economy, faces the challenge of meeting the needs of India’s growing population and supporting small-scale farmers. The literature highlights the necessity of modernization in response to population growth, resource constraints, and the demand for increased agricultural productivity. It explores the adoption of modern mechanization techniques, particularly the growing use of tractors, in the context of India’s predominantly small land holdings. The paper also made a critical discussion on three primary rice cultivation methods employed in Indian scenario and highlights an overview of the machinery used for various agricultural operations for rice cultivation. In addition, it assessed the pros and cons of me chanical rice transplanter and the emergence of direct seeding of rice as a cost-effective alternative. The research addresses the challenges and opportunities associated with mechanizing rice cultivation practices in India, emphasizing the critical role of weed, water, and nutrient management in realizing the full benefits of modernization. 1. Introduction Rice, one of the world’s most consumed staple crops, serves as a vital source of sustenance for nearly half of the global population [1,2]. In India, rice occupies a preeminent position in the agrarian landscape, not only as a primary dietary staple but also as a crucial contributor to the nation’s economy [3]. The cultivation of rice has been woven into the very fabric of Indian agriculture for centuries, and its sustained pro ductivity is essential to ensure food security and economic stability [4]. However, the dynamic interplay between burgeoning population pres sures, dwindling natural resources, and the pressing need to enhance agricultural productivity has engendered a paradigm shift in the way rice is cultivated in India [5]. The conventional methods of rice cultivation, characterized by labor- intensive practices and low mechanization, are increasingly proving to be unsustainable in the face of mounting challenges [6]. As India con tinues to grapple with the dual challenge of feeding its ever-expanding population and ensuring the livelihoods of millions of small-scale farmers, the adoption of modern mechanization techniques in rice farming has become an imperative [7]. 2. Mechanization level in Indian agriculture Currently, India stands as one of the world’s swiftest-growing economies, with a concurrent surge in the level of mechanization within its agricultural sector. This progressive shift towards modernized agricultural practices is notably marked by the increasing utilization of tractors as a primary power source [8]. India has witnessed a substantial rise in tractor adoption, positioning itself as a global leader in both tractor manufacturing and sales [9,10]. The average farm power * Corresponding authors. E-mail addresses: prabhatkumarguru@gmail.com, prabhat.guru@icar.gov.in (P.K. Guru), param89sahu@gmail.com (P. Sahu). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Results in Engineering journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/results-in-engineering https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2025.105632 Received 27 January 2025; Received in revised form 19 May 2025; Accepted 3 June 2025 Results in Engineering 26 (2025) 105632 Available online 4 June 2025 2590-1230/© 2025 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by- nc-nd/4.0/ ). https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9294-2091 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9294-2091 mailto:prabhatkumarguru@gmail.com mailto:prabhat.guru@icar.gov.in mailto:param89sahu@gmail.com www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/25901230 https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/results-in-engineering https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2025.105632 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2025.105632 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.rineng.2025.105632&domain=pdf http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ availability in India is estimated approximately 3.0 kW/ha [11]. Fig. 1 highlighted the farm power availability in agriculturally active crop producing states of India. All the states are categorized into three different categories based on the farm power availability; category-I is associated with more than or equal to national average of 3.0 kW/ha. Only eight states has been achieved the national target of 3.0 kW/ha by 2030. Category-II represented 1.7 to 3.0 kW/ha and category-III shows 1.0 to 1.7 kW/ha. The farm power availability at different states varied significantly, which also affected the production and productivity of the agricultural commodities. In-depth estimation at inter district level of individual states delineated more variation, which showed the lack of awareness among the farmers about the use of modern and advanced machineries in various agricultural operations [12]. Significant ad vancements in farm mechanization have occurred in India; however, its adoption remains highly uneven. Additionally, the identification and region-specific promotion of appropriate equipment for diverse agro-climatic zones remain inadequate [13]. The correlation between farm power availability and farm produc tivity is a pivotal facet of this transformation, underscoring the manifold advantages of farm mechanization [14]. While there has been substan tial growth in farm power availability over the past decade, India still lags behind many developed nations, signifying an imperative for accelerated farm mechanization [15]. Several studies indicate that India’s farm mechanization, particularly in rice cultivation, lags behind leading rice-producing nations such as China, Japan, and the United States. In 2021, China’s total agricultural machinery power reached 1.078 billion kilowatts. The overall mecha nization rate in crop cultivation, including land preparation, sowing, and harvesting, reached 72.03%, while wheat, rice, and corn production attained mechanization levels of 97.29%, 85.59%, and 90%, respec tively [16]. In the U.S., rice mechanization integrates advanced preci sion farming technologies such as GPS-guided systems, yield monitors, and automated machinery, significantly enhancing efficiency, reducing labor dependency, and improving rice production quality [17]. Although robotics and variable rate technology (VRT) have shown substantial potential for site-specific weed management, challenges persist, including precise weed identification, high initial costs, seamless integration with existing farming systems, and the development of robust real-time application mechanisms [18]. Japan, on the other hand, experienced rapid mechanization in rice farming as early as the 1960s and 1970s, marked by the widespread adoption of tractors, binders, seedling transplanters, and rice combines, which revolutionized tradi tional labor-intensive practices [19]. Today, Japan has further advanced mechanization through automation and robotics, achieving fully autonomous farming systems capable of handling operations from tillage to harvesting, particularly in large-scale cultivation of rice, wheat, and soybean [20]. This comparative analysis underscores the need for India to accelerate mechanization efforts by leveraging global best practices, adopting scalable precision technologies, and addressing financial and structural barriers to enhance agricultural productivity and sustainability. Fig. 2 explicates the positive trend of farm power availability and crop productivity since 1975 to 2022 [11], the Pearson’s correlation coefficients derived from data demonstrate a strong and positive rela tionship between farm power, productivity, and power availability per unit of crop production. The 0.97 correlation between farm power (kW/ha) and productivity (t/ha) indicates that as mechanization and energy inputs in agriculture have increased over the years, crop pro ductivity has also significantly improved. It is estimated that the power availability per unit of crop production increases from 0.46 kW/t to1.34 kW/t during last forty-seven years. It is notable that increment in farm power availability leads to the sustainable growth in crop productivity, which highlighted the prerequisite of mechanization level at all over the country. A critical challenge in the context of rice cultivation in India pertains to the prevalence of small land holdings, with 80% of farms occupying less than 2 hectares, and 62% averaging less than half a hectare [21]. The overall farm mechanization level for major crops grown in the country is 47% which is lower than USA (95%), Europe (95%), Russia (85%), Brazil (75%) and China (60%) [22]. Fig. 3 elucidates the overall mechanization level of the major crops grown in India. The rice crop secured second rank in overall mechanization level (53%) after the Fig. 1. Farm power availability in India. P.K. Guru et al. Results in Engineering 26 (2025) 105632 2 wheat (69%);only these two cropshave more than the national average mechanization level. In other side, the rest of the crop has less than the average mechanization level such as pulses (41%), oil-seeds (39%), cotton (36%), sugarcane (35%) and sorghum and millets (33%). By integrating financial aid (subsidies, low-interest loans from Sub-Mission on Agricultural Mechanization (SMAM), NABARD (National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development)) (Dey and Mishra, 2022), custom hiring centers [23], and capacity-building efforts (Krishi Vigyan Kendras and institutes) [24], India can enhance mechanization among small farmers, improving productivity and reducing labor dependency. Expanding custom hiring centers with large machinery like tractors, combines, and threshers is crucial for advancing mechanization. Establishing regional testing facilities for farm equipment ensures quality and safety. Additionally, promoting community-level improve ments in rice cultivation will enhance efficiency, reduce losses, and support sustainable agricultural practices. Custom Hiring Centers (CHCs) have emerged as a pivotal intervention in advancing agricultural mechanization and promoting inclusivity in India. By providing small and marginal farmers with access to advanced machinery, CHCs have facilitated the adoption of modern farming practices, enhancing pro ductivity, resource efficiency, and sustainability, thereby transforming the landscape of Indian agriculture. The transition from traditional to mechanized farming presents sig nificant challenges for farmers, including high capital investment in machinery, limited technical knowledge, fragmented landholdings, and inadequate supporting infrastructure [21]. In context of rice crop production in India, mechanization levels vary across different farm operations. According to [11], mechanization levels for different operation of rice crop stands at 80% for seedbed preparation, 34% for sowing/transplanting, 34% for wee ding/intercultural/plant protection, and 60% for harvesting & thresh ing. Current scenario of mechanization level of rice crop accentuate that Fig. 2. Trend of productivity and farm power availability. Fig. 3. Mechanization level of major crops in India. P.K. Guru et al. Results in Engineering 26 (2025) 105632 3 the seed bed preparation and harvesting & threshing operations for rice are notably more mechanized over the other field operations. Fig. 4 delineated the state-wise rice cultivation area and production in India. West Bengal (22.45 Mt) secures first position in production of rice followed by Punjab (20.07 Mt) and Uttar Pradesh (19.91 Mt). However, Uttar Pradesh has recorded highest area of rice cultivation (5.81 Mha) followed by West Bengal (5.12 Mt), Odisha (3.77 Mha) and Chhattisgarh (3.76 Mha). Gujrat is the state where rice cultivating area and production is least. Fig. 5 highlighted the productivity of rice in India; there is a huge difference in the productivity across the different states. The average productivity of rice is about 3.96 Mt. However, Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, Tamilnadu, Telangana, Haryana, Karnataka, and West Bengal have more than average productivity. While the pro ductivity of rice is lower in other states of India (Fig. 5). The mechani zation level of the individual state is one of the major factors that influence the productivity of any crop [25]; especially for rice crop. Present article embarks on a comprehensive exploration of the evolving landscape of rice cultivation in India, focusing on the state of mecha nization and the strides made in recent years. The role of private agri-tech startups and corporate mechanization services in transforming rice cultivation in India has become increas ingly prominent in recent years. These entities are playing a pivotal role in accelerating the adoption of modern mechanized farming practices by offering innovative solutions tailored to small-scale farmers. Agri-tech startups have introduced cutting-edge technologies such as automated tractors, drones for field monitoring, and precision planting machinery, which have made it easier for farmers to access high-efficiency equip ment at a fraction of the traditional cost. Furthermore, private com panies have expanded the availability of machinery through custom hiring services, addressing the challenge of high upfront costs for smallholder farmers. This model has proven particularly effective in bridging the mechanization gap in rural areas, as it provides farmers with the flexibility to rent equipment only when needed. Corporate mechanization services also offer on-ground technical support, ensuring that machines are operated efficiently and maintained, which further enhances their value. The involvement of private sector players has not only helped modernize rice farming but also introduced data-driven approaches such as IoT-enabled devices and AI-based crop manage ment systems. These advancements promise to boost productivity, reduce operational costs, and drive sustainable farming practices, helping India’s rice farmers adapt to the changing agricultural landscape. In Vietnam, rice mechanization has seen significant progress, particularly in the northern and southern regions, where large-scale rice farms benefit from advanced machinery such as tractors, rice trans planters, and combine harvesters. The government’s strong support through subsidies, combined with regional training programs, has facilitated the adoption of mechanized practices, improving both pro ductivity and resource efficiency. In Thailand, mechanization is highly developed, especially for land preparation, transplanting, and harvest ing. The use of rice transplanters is widespread, and the country has made substantial investments in mechanization infrastructure, including rice combine harvesters and post-harvest machinery. Despite this, smaller farms face challenges in accessing these machines due to high costs, leading to a greater reliance on custom hiring services. In the Philippines, rice mechanization lags behind other ASEAN countries, though the government has actively worked to modernize rice produc tion. While tractor usage is growing, the adoption of mechanized transplanting and harvesting remains limited due to financial con straints and smaller farm sizes. Nevertheless, the increasing focus on improving irrigation systems and establishing custom hiring centers is expected to drive future mechanization efforts in the Philippines. The comparison highlights that while all three countries face challenges related to the small farm size and financial barriers, Vietnam and Thailand have made more substantial strides in mechanizing rice pro duction than the Philippines. 3. Rice cultivation methods in India Three main techniques are used for rice cultivation: Dry Direct Sowing of Rice (DDSR), Wet Direct Sowing of Rice (WDSR), and trans planting [26,27]. DDSR involves the direct spreading of rice seeds in dry fields instead of using seedlings obtained from a nursery. The prepara tion of the field for Direct Dry Seeded Rice (DDSR) comprises tillage procedures, which are performed using either tools driven by bullocks or machinery drawn by power tillers or tractors. WDSR, or wet direct-seeded rice, is a method that utilises pre- germinated paddy seeds. These seeds are either scattered or planted in rows using a drum seeder. They are placed on seedbeds that have been properly prepared with sufficient drainage. This strategy is commonly Fig. 4. State-vise area and production of rice in India. P.K. Guru et al. Results in Engineering 26 (2025) 105632 4 used in locations where irrigation is prevalent. The process of preparing the field for WDSR involves two stages of soil cultivation, namely pri mary and secondary tillage, along with the addition of water to create puddles. This is followed by the planting of sprouted seeds. In case of transplanted rice, the field preparation process closely resembles that of WDSR, followed by the transplantation of 3-4 week-old seedlings at specific intervals. These seedlings are grown in dedicated nursery bed. In rice cultivation, farmers primarily rely on three distinct power sources: tractors, power tillers, and animals. However, the use of animals in this context has dwindled, primarily due to the associated high maintenance costs and limited capacity [28]. Tractors equipped with suitable implements stand as the predominant power source of choice. For a comprehensive overview of the machinery available and utilized in rice cultivation practices in India presented in Table 1. 4. Field preparation and crop establishment Optimal field preparation stands as a pivotal element within the mechanization of rice cultivation. It serves to maintain consistent water depths, curbing weed proliferation, and enhancing the efficiency of pesticide and fertilizer utilization. Paddy fields prepared with precision tillage techniques ensure the sustained presence of adequate water levels, optimizing the utilization of resources like water, fertilizers, and pesticides [29,30]. Traditionally, farm implements such as the country plough, mould board (MB) plough, disc harrow, spike tooth harrow, spring-based harrow, blade type harrow, zig-zag type harrow, cultiva tors, clod crushers, chisel ploughs, sub-soilers, scraper, bund former, and wooden levelers have been employed in rice farming with animal power. Conversely, implements like the MB plough, cultivators, tractor-drawn disc harrows, rotavator, and laser-guided land leveler are typically drawn by tractors [31]. In the context of mechanized rice cultivation in India, several studies shed light on the influence of field conditions on the performance of sowing and transplanting machinery[32]. high lighted that the effectiveness of these machines is intricately linked to field conditions. For transplanting, it is imperative to have a well-puddled and leveled field with minimal to no standing water on the surface (ideally 10-20 mm), as excessive standing water can result in suboptimal machine performance[33]. conducted research using a six-row rice transplanter and found that maintaining a water depth of 25 mm, as opposed to 75 mm, resulted in the highest paddy production (5.20 t/ha). Ensuring proper seedling establishment involves uniformly puddling the field with a mechanical transplanter and allowing it to settle for at least 24 hours, a practice emphasized by [31]. However, in cases where rotary puddlers (single-pass) or peg-type puddlers (dou ble-pass) are utilized, the field should be left undisturbed for approxi mately 48 hours to achieve the ideal conditions for transplanting [32]. It’s worth noting that the sedimentation time of puddled soil had a direct impact on the float sinkage of the transplanter and its draft de mand during operation. For optimal results, a sedimentation period of around 32 hours may be the preferred choice to minimize the percentage of floating seedlings, prevent mechanical damage, and reduce the number of missing hills. Interestingly[26], found that, in comparison to puddled transplanted rice, a mechanical transplanter operation without puddling the soil yielded a higher crop yield under certain conditions. In the realm of rice field leveling, the utilization of laser land leveling has gained significant prominence due to its numerous advantages[34]. emphasized the effectiveness of laser leveling in achieving uniform puddle soil conditions, which, in turn, mitigate conveyance losses at the field level while improving water and nutrient use efficiency. The adoption of technology in field preparation for rice production is extensive, with the majority of Indian farmers opting for tractors equipped with suitable implements to facilitate deep ploughing and Fig. 5. State-vise productivity of rice (t/ha) in India. Table 1 Farm implements/machines used for rice cultivation in India. Operations Implements/machinery used Land preparation : MB plough, Reversible plough, Cultivator, Disc harrow, Puddler, Laser guided land leveler, Rotavator. Dry sowing : Inclined plate planter, Seed-cum-fertilizer drill, Raised bed planter, Multi crop planter. Wet sowing : Lowland paddy drum seeder, Power-operated drum seeder. Transplanting : Mechanical rice transplanter, walk behind transplanter. Intercultural operations : Power weeder, Sprayer, Cono-weeder, Hand hoe, Rotary weeder, Fertilizer applicators, Deep placement urea applicators. Harvesting : Self-propelled vertical conveyor reaper, Reaper cum binder, Combine harvester. Threshing : Multicrop thresher, Paddy thresher. Straw management : Straw combine, Straw baler, Happy seeder, ZT seed-cum- ferti drill. P.K. Guru et al. Results in Engineering 26 (2025) 105632 5 puddling. Nevertheless, subsequent operations such as seeding, trans planting, harvesting, and threshing continue to rely heavily on manual labor, exhibiting minimal mechanization (Table 2 and Table 3). The on-going improvement of rice types has made precision sowing and transplanting of rice essential. The cost-effectiveness and efficiency of precision seeders specifically built for sowing rice crops have gained worldwide attention. Precision seed drills have been created to specif ically target strong grain crops and maximise seed rates. These drills ensure accurate sowing lines, leading to better crop establishment and ultimately higher returns compared to traditional methods. Table 4 presents a comprehensive summary of numerous seeders designed for both dry and wet direct sowing of rice, showcasing distinct metering units. 5. Mechanical rice transplanting The usage of rice transplanter in India has witnessed significant growth and adoption [31]. These mechanized implements have played a transformative role in the agricultural landscape of India, particularly in the labor-intensive process of rice cultivation [38]. Rice transplanter have enabled Indian farmers to substantially increase planting effi ciency, reduce labor dependency, and optimize seedling placement, thus contributing to higher yields and overall agricultural productivity [39]. The different type of rice transplanter used in India is shown in Fig. 6. 6. Advantages and drawbacks of mechanical rice transplanter [40] compared the different type of mechanical transplanter and they identified a critical issue in the adoption of mechanical transplanter namely, the mat-type seedling raising process. Farmers’ failure to correctly follow this process impairs the machine’s effectiveness, with mat nursery preparation consuming about 40% of the energy required in mechanical transplanting. In contrast, conventional nursery preparation for manual transplantation consumes just 11% of the total energy [41]. reported unsatisfactory performance of riding-type 8-row transplanter in valley lands and terraces, particularly in irregular field forms like terraces. These machines left significant areas un-transplanted, neces sitating manual intervention to utilize the entire field for crop produc tion [42]. conducted an impact study of self-propelled paddy transplanter in Kerala, revealing cost savings for farmers compared to manual transplanting. Traditional and self-propelled transplanting methods yielded average net returns of Rs. 19,798 per hectare and Rs. 27,462 per hectare, respectively [43]. investigated the best practice management (BMPs) for submergence-tolerant rice varieties and me chanical transplanting for intensification of rice-rice cropping systems in Assam. They observed the BMPs increased rice grain yield by 25% (1.11–1.14 t/ha) and net margin by 68–90% (290–320 USD per hectare) over traditional method of planting across the seasons [31]. provided an extensive review of rice transplanting methods in India, emphasizing the labor-intensive nature of manual transplanting and its associated musculoskeletal issues for workers. They identified the technological gaps in adoption of mechanical transplanter viz. field condition before transplanting and mat type nursery raising techniques. The reviews discussed various aspects of rice cultivation methods in India, highlighting the advantages and challenges associated with each approach. Mechanical transplanter was found to offer benefits in terms of efficiency but faced hurdles related to proper nursery preparation. In contrast, traditional manual transplanting and certain mechanical methods showed cost-effectiveness and yielded positive net returns. An overall performance of different rice transplanter is appended in Table 5. Mechanical rice transplanting offers several advantages, including significant labor and time savings while ensuring optimal plant density, which contributes to increased crop yield. Compared to manual trans plantation, which requires 25 man-days per hectare, mechanical trans plantation reduces labor requirements to just 1.4 man-days per hectare Table 2 Machinery used for field preparation. DDSR field preparation machinery (No. of passes) WDSR & Transplanting field preparation machinery (No. of passes) BD– Indigenous plough (1)+ Clod breaker (1) + Laddering (1) BD – Indigenous plough (1) + Disc puddler (3) BD – Plough (1) + Harrow (2) TD–PT -Dry cultivator (2) + ST - Wet rotavator (2) TD– PT- MB plough (1) + ST- Cultivator (2) TD–PT-Dry cultivator (2) + ST- Wet cultivator (2) TD–PT- MB plough (1) + ST- Disc harrow (2) TD–PT- Dry MB plough (1) + ST- Wet Disc puddler (2) TD–PT-Cultivator (2) + ST- Disc harrow (2) TD–PT- Dry cultivator (2) + ST- Cage wheel (2) Tractor –PT- MB plough (1) + ST- Rotavator (2) Power Tiller-PT & ST (2) Power tiller- PT & ST (2) Primary Tillage (PT); Secondary Tillage (ST); Bullock Drawn (BD); Tractor Drawn (TD) Table 3 Sowing methods / sowing machinery in rice cultivation. DDSR WDSR Transplanting Manual broadcasting Manual broadcasting Transplanting by hand Sowing behind BD plough Manual line sowing Manually drawn transplanter BD seed drill Manual drum seeder Power-operated transplanter Manual seed drill TD seed drill Power tiller seed drill Bullock Drawn (BD); Tractor Drawn (TD) Table 4 Operating parameters of different rice sowing machinery. Method Type of machinery Metering unit Rice cultivar Seed rate (kg/ ha) References DDSR Seed cum fertilizer drill Fluted roller type Basmati/ Coarse grain/ Hybrids 25 -30 [30]& [35] Inclined plate planter Inclined plate metering unit Traditional rice varieties 15-20 Gopal and Direct, 2010; & [26] Multi-crop planter Cup type/ Vertical plate Traditional rice varieties 15-20 Gopal and Direct, 2010; & [26] WDSR Drum seeder Drums Conventional 25- 30 [35]& [36] Precision direct seeding machine (Kubota) Roller type hybrid rice/ Conventional rice 30-40 [37] Precision rice hill drop drilling machine Combined hole type Hybrid rice/ Conventional rice 30-40 [37] Simple-type rice direct- seeder Combined hole-type Hybrid rice/ Conventional rice 30-50 [37] Vacuum disc rice direct- seeder Vacuum disc Hybrid rice 15-30 [37] Vacuum drum rice direct- seeder Vacuum drum Hybrid rice 15-30 [37] P.K. Guru et al. Results in Engineering 26 (2025) 105632 6 [45]. Additionally, yield improvements of 0.12 t/ha in the Aman season and 0.35 t/ha in the Boro season have been reported with mechanical transplanters [46]. However, the technique also has certain limitations. It necessitates a well-puddled and leveled field without standing water, as improper field conditions can lead to floating hills. Furthermore, skilled mechanics and operators are essential for efficient machinery operation, maintenance, and timely repairs [45]. 7. Direct seeding of rice The mechanized direct seeding of rice has emerged as an economi cally efficient method for rice cultivation, gaining increasing favor among farmers. This surge in popularity can be attributed primarily to labor shortages and the escalating costs associated with agricultural production. As rice production systems have advanced technologically, an array of tools has been introduced to farmers, enabling them to streamline both cost and time requirements (Table 6). This table collectively underscores the benefits and challenges of different rice cultivation methods, with a growing shift towards DSR due to water scarcity, labor shortages, and advancements in technology. Proper management of weeds, water, and nutrients emerges as a key factor for successful DSR adoption, reflecting the need for more precise input usage in modern rice cultivation. The adoption of Direct Seeding of Rice (DSR) was examined as a promising alternative, offering advan tages like reduced labor, water conservation, and shorter crop durations. However, DSR also faced challenges such as weed management and nutrient control. In rain-fed agroecosystems, DSR faces significant challenges, including high weed infestation, suboptimal crop establish ment, and complex water and nutrient management, compared to con ventional transplanted rice systems [49]. Studies emphasized the importance of weed, water, and nutrient management for successful DSR implementation. Fig. 6. Different types of rice transplanter used in India. Table 5 Performance of different rice transplanter. Type of transplanter Brief specifications Performance results References Self-propelled ride on type single wheel eight row mat seedling transplanter Diesel Engine (2.94 kW); 8 Rows; row to row spacing 238 mm Field capacity – 0.15 ha/h Manpower required- 39 Man h/ha Saving in labor cost – 80 % [44] Field capacity – 0.19 ha/h Saving in labor cost – 52 % ​ Field capacity – 0.123 ha/h Saving in labor cost – 42 % [38] Self-propelled walk behind type four row mat seedling transplanter Petrol Engine (3.20 kW); 4 rows; row to row spacing 300 mm Field capacity – 0.1251 ha/h Manpower required- 43 Man h/ha Saving in labor cost – 78.4 % [44] Self-propelled ride on type four wheel six row mat seedling transplanter Petrol Engine (12.5 kW): 6 rows; row to row spacing 300 mm; Field capacity – 0.365 ha/h Manpower required- 39 Man h/ha Saving in labor cost – 87.6 % [44] Table 6 Advantages and limitations of DSR. Advantages Limitations Reference Methane emission reduction by 8- 92 % over conventional transplanting (CTPR) Lower cost of production by US $22–80/ha over CTPR Yield penalty of 7.5% to 28.5% over CTPR [27] Savings of 30–55% of irrigation water over CTPR Saving of 38 % human labors over CTPR High weed infestation Lack of knowledge about weed management practices [47] Lower GHG emission High disease incidence rate Higher lodging [48] P.K. Guru et al. Results in Engineering 26 (2025) 105632 7 8. Nutrient management techniques in rice Effective nutrient management is critical for optimizing rice pro duction, particularly the application of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K). In many developing countries, there is often an imbalance in fertilizer use, with either overuse or underuse deviating from recommended application rates. Traditional methods of fertilizer application, still prevalent among many farmers, often fail to deliver nutrients efficiently due to the spatial variability of nutrient availability across large fields [50]. Improper timing and application rates further exacerbate low fertilizer use efficiency in rice cultivation [51]. Overuse of chemical fertilizers not only represents an economic loss but also leads to severe environmental issues, including land degradation, non-point source pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and reduced yield responses to fertilizers [52,53]. Specifically, excessive N and P fertilizers contribute to environmental problems such as increased greenhouse gas emissions, eutrophication, and groundwater pollution, while P fertil izers can introduce heavy metals and radioactive pollutants into the soil-water-plant continuum [54]. Conversely, appropriate application of NPK fertilizers can increase rice productivity by 2-3 times [55], and precision nutrient application can reduce production costs and improve rice yields [56]. Nitrogen management is particularly crucial as N deficiency is a common issue with significant economic implications. Crop growth and grain yields heavily depend on the proper application of N fertilizers. Precision nutrient management requires timely information on the spatial distribution of crop N status, which can be more effectively, achieved using proximal or remote sensing techniques rather than traditional destructive chemical analyses. Site-specific nutrient man agement strategies for N in Asia have shown to enhance rice yield by 11% and increase recovery efficiency by 31 to 40% on average [57]. Urea, a highly concentrated nitrogenous fertilizer, is water-soluble and readily available to crops. It changes to ammoniacal forms in the soil, providing a prolonged nitrogen supply [58]. Nitrogen can be applied by two methods: broadcasting and deep placement. Urea, available in granular form, can be broadcasted or drilled into the soil. Alternatively, urea briquettes or pellets can be placed manually at a depth of 7-10 cm at a rate of one urea supergranule (USG) per four rice hills, according to IFDC guidelines. Although effi cient, the high labor cost and associated drudgery discourage wide spread adoption. In the manual deep placement method, a person places urea bri quettes deeply in the field, positioning one briquette for every four hills, 4-5 cm away from the plants and 3-4 cm deep, in alternating rows. In Indian farming systems, nitrogen is often broadcast manually before transplanting, resulting in low nitrogen use efficiency, with only 30% of applied N utilized by crops. Deep placement of nitrogenous fertilizer has proven to enhance nitrogen use efficiency in rice [59]. Various studies have demonstrated that mechanical deep placement of urea briquettes increases yield and nitrogen use efficiency, reduces labor requirements, and is more environmentally sustainable compared to traditional broadcasting methods. Research has shown that deep placement of urea by machines results in comparable yields to hand placement, with significantly higher yields than traditional broadcasting methods [60]. Field trials and evaluations of various applicators in different regions have consistently demonstrated their effectiveness in improving rice yields, reducing nitrogen losses, and increasing nitrogen use efficiency ([61–66]; Alam et al., 2005) (Table 7). 9. AI and IoT in Modern Agricultural Mechanization In the digital era, advancements in digital technologies have signif icantly expanded the scope of agricultural mechanization, particularly with the integration of the Internet of Things (IoT) and artificial intel ligence (AI) [68]. AI and Machine Learning (ML) are revolutionizing agriculture by improving crop and soil health monitoring, optimizing resource use, and enhancing decision-making processes. Advanced technologies such as hyperspectral imaging and 3D laser scanning pro vide precise data for analysis, helping farmers make informed choices. AI assists in selecting optimal seeds, predicting weather patterns, and determining the right nutrients to improve soil quality. Additionally, intelligent equipment ensures precise seed spacing and planting depth, while AI-powered health monitoring systems track crop conditions and recommend nutrient applications. These innovations boost productivity, reduce resource waste, and promote sustainable farming practices [69]. A key application of AI in agriculture is disease detection in rice crops. AI and IoT-based smart agriculture enable rapid, real-time identification of biotic stresses. Deep learning techniques, particularly convolutional neural networks (CNN), analyze high-spectral images to classify crop diseases accurately. Real-time monitoring facilitates early detection and effective management, significantly improving disease diagnosis effi ciency and precision [70]. This technological shift not only enhances agricultural efficiency but also supports sustainability by ensuring higher yields, reducing environmental impact, and fostering smarter, data-driven farming practices. AI, a branch of computer science, aims to create intelligent machines that learn from experiential data (Talaviya et al., 2020). Integrating AI with IoT enhances "thing-to-thing" communication, improving efficiency (Wicaksono et al., 2021). Key AI subfields include deep learning, CNNs, ANNs, SVM, k-NN, and K-clus tering (Behmann et al., 2015; Tejaswini et al., 2022). Machine learning leverages data and statistical models to enhance accuracy and efficiency, driving advancements in data science and big data through intelligent, high-speed decision-making.Precision agriculture and artificial intelli gence (AI) have the potential to significantly enhance mechanized rice farming in India by optimizing resource utilization, improving crop health monitoring, and facilitating data-driven decision-making. These advancements contribute to increased productivity, reduced input wastage, and enhanced sustainability, ensuring more efficient and resilient agricultural systems [71]. 10. Conclusions Article highlighted the transformative journey of rice cultivation in India, marked by a significant shift towards mechanization as a response to the formidable challenges facing the agricultural sector. As a critical staple crop for both sustenance and economic stability, the cultivation of rice in India has been historically labor-intensive, but the demands of a burgeoning population, coupled with dwindling natural resources, have spurred the adoption of modern farming practices. The rise of tractors as primary power sources and the emergence of Direct Seeding of Rice (DSR) as a viable alternative have revolutionized the sector. However, the transition to mechanization is not without its challenges, including the need for precise weed, water, and nutrient management. Never theless, the paper underscores that mechanization leads to enhancing of productivity, reducing labor dependency, and contributing to food se curity and economic growth in India. To realize this potential fully, it is imperative for policymakers, researchers, and farmers to collaborate in Table 7 Deep placement of urea applying methods and their advantages over conven tional method. Applying method Benefits over conventional method Reference (s) • Hand placement of urea in briquette form Time of operation: 50 % less [67] • Placement of urea briquette using three- row briquette applicator (TRBA) at basal and top dressing applicator (TDA) at first top dressing Yield: 25.9% higher NUE: 90.8% higher ​ • Placing briquette in sub soil using an applicator attached with transplanter Time of operation: 88% less [65] P.K. Guru et al. Results in Engineering 26 (2025) 105632 8 addressing the challenges and seizing the opportunities presented by the mechanization of rice cultivation, ensuring a sustainable and prosperous future for Indian agriculture. CRediT authorship contribution statement Prabhat K Guru: Writing – original draft, Methodology, Investiga tion, Data curation, Conceptualization. Parmanand Sahu: Writing – original draft, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data cura tion, Conceptualization. Prabhakar Shukla: Investigation, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. Pushpraj Diwan: Methodology, Data curation. Ghanshyam Panwar: Methodology, Investigation, Data curation. Priyanka Tiwari: Methodology, Investigation, Data curation. Ankur Nagori: Methodology, Investigation, Data curation, Conceptu alization. Gopal Carpenter: Methodology, Investigation, Formal anal ysis. Rajeswar Sanodiya: Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis. Balveer Singh Meena: Methodology, Formal analysis. Manish Kumar: Investigation, Formal analysis. Anshika Rani: Methodology, Investi gation. Ipsita Rath: Methodology, Investigation. Deeksha Dey: Meth odology, Investigation. Neha Verma: Methodology, Investigation. Sandip Gangil: Writing – review & editing, Supervision. Suryakant Khandai: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Conceptualization. Rabe Yahaya: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization. Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Funding Information This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Ethics and Consent to Participate declarations Not applicable. Data availability No data was used for the research described in the article. References [1] Sharma V, Saini DK, Kumar A (2020) We are IntechOpen, the world ’ s leading publisher of Open Access books built by scientists, for scientists. https://doi. org/10.5772/intechopen.91144. [2] Yu Q, You L, Wood-sichra U, et al (2020) A cultivated planet in 2010 – Part 2 : the global gridded agricultural-production maps. 3545–3572. [3] Rana JC, Bisht IS (2023) Reviving Smallholder Hill Farming by Involving Rural Youth in Food System Transformation and Promoting Community-Based Agri- Ecotourism : A Case of Uttarakhand State in North-Western India. [4] Jat RK, Meena VS, Kumar M, et al (2022) Direct seeded rice : strategies to improve crop resilience and food security under adverse climatic conditions. [5] Mishra P, Vij S (2022) Changing Agriculture and Climate Variability in Peri-Urban Gurugram, India. 105–121. [6] Jiao W, Yu Z, Sun Y, Liu Y (2023) An analytical framework for formulating conservation and development measures for important agricultural heritage systems. [7] Massicotte M, Andrée P, Ayres J, et al (2015) Book review globalization and food sovereignty : global and local change in the new politics of food. 2:194–198. htt ps://doi.org/10.15353/cfs-rcea.v2i1.75. [8] Jha SN, Mehta CR (2022) Achievements in agricultural engineering in independent India. [9] Guru PK, Saha S, Tiwari P (2022) Advances in rice mechanization in India Advances in rice mechanization in India. [10] B. Singh, T. Hussain, S. Bernard, Field Crops Res. Eff. crop establ. methods weed control treat. weed manag. rice yield 172 (2015) 72–84. [11] C.R. Mehta, R. Bangale, N.S. Chandel, M. Kumar, Farm mechanization in India : status and way forward, Agric. mech. asia afr. lat. am. 54 (2024) 75–88. [12] J.P. Aryal, G. Thapa, F. Simtowe, Mechanisation of small-scale farms in South Asia: empirical evidence derived from farm households survey, Technol. Soc. 65 (2021) 101591. [13] A. Rajkhowa, I. Barman, P.K. Das, S.D. Deka, A. Sonowal, An analysis of extent of farm mechanization in north bank plains agro-climatic zone of Assam, Asian J Agri Ex Econ Socio 11 (2020) 81–90. [14] R.S. Singh, R.K. Sahni, Transformation of Indian agriculture through mechanization, Econ. Aff. 64 (2) (2019) 297–303. [15] P. Rajkhowa, Z. Kubik, Revisiting the relationship between farm mechanization and labour requirement in India, Indian Econ Rev 56 (2021) 487–513, https://doi. org/10.1007/s41775-021-00120-x. [16] B. Zou, Y. Chen, A.K. Mishra, S. Hirsch, Agricultural mechanization and the performance of the local Chinese economy, Food Policy 125 (2024) 102648. [17] N. Childs, S.S. Raszap, W.D. McBride, US rice production changed significantly in the new millennium, but remained profitable. Amber Waves: The Economics of Food, Farming, Natural Resources, and Rural America, 2020, p. 2020. [18] A. Upadhyay, Y. Zhang, C. Koparan, N. Rai, K. Howatt, S. Bajwa, X. Sun, Advances in ground robotic technologies for site-specific weed management in precision agriculture: A review, Comput. Electron. Agric. 225 (2024) 109363. [19] K.K. Oshiro, Mechanization of rice production in Japan, Econ. geogr. 61 (4) (1985) 323–331. [20] K. Tamaki, Y. Nagasaka, K. Nishiwaki, M. Saito, Y. Kikuchi, K. Motobayashi, A robot system for paddy field farming in Japan, IFAC Proc. Vol. 46 (18) (2013) 143–147. [21] Mehta CR, Chandel NS, Senthilkumar T, Centre R (2014) Status, challenges and strategies for farm mechanization in India. [22] Anonymous, Sectoral paper on Farm mechanization, Farm Sect. Policy Dep. Natl. Bank Agric. Rural Dev. (2018). https://www.nabard.org/auth/writereaddata/file/ NSP%20Farm%20Mechanisation.pdf. [23] S.K. Bethi, S.S. Deshmukh, Custom hiring centers in Indian agriculture: evolution, impact, and future prospects, Asian J. Agric. Ext. Econ. Sociol. 41 (11) (2023) 193–203. [24] P.S. Gorfad, J.N. Thaker, K.P. Baraiya, Impact of KrishiVigyan Kendra in operational villages, Gujarat J. Ext. Educ. (2018) 44–48. Special issue. [25] S.P. Singh, R.S. Singh, S. Singh, Sale trend of tractors and farm power availability in India, Agric. Eng. Today 35 (2) (2011) 25–35. [26] B.R. Kamboj, D.B. Yadav, A. Yadav, et al., Mechanized transplanting of rice (Oryza sativa L .) in nonpuddled and No-till conditions in the rice-wheat cropping system in Haryana, India 2013 (2013) 2409–2413. [27] V. Kumar, J.K. Ladha, Direct Seeding of Rice : Recent Developments and Future Research Needs, 1st edn., Elsevier Inc, 2011. [28] A.K. Shrivastava, P.K. Guru, N.K. Khandelwal, R.K. Dubey, Analysis of changes in energy use pattern of wheat crop in two decades –, study cent. India 24 (2022) 128–144. [29] B.A.M. Bouman, T.P. Tuong, Field water management to save water and increase its productivity in irrigated lowland rice, Agric. water manag. 49 (2001) 11–30. [30] Jat M, Maize I, Gathala MK, et al (2009) Evaluation of precision land leveling and double zero-till systems in the rice – wheat rotation : water use, productivity, profitability and soil physical properties. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2009.0 6.003. [31] Guru PK, Chhuneja NK, Dixit A, et al (2018) Mechanical transplanting of rice in India : status, technological gaps and future thrust. 55:100–106. https://doi.org/1 0.5958/2249-5266.2018.00012.7. [32] A.K. Goel, D. Behera, S. Swain, Eff. Sediment. Period Perform. Rice Transplanter X (2008) 1–13. [33] Saleem MU, Akhtar M, Farooq U, et al (2015) Effect of different water depths on plant population and rice (Oryza sativa) yield AT time of transplanting using mechanized transplanter. 6:76–80. [34] L. Tang, L. Hu, Y. Zang, et al., Method and experiment for height measurement of scraper with water surface as benchmark in paddy fi eld, Comput Electron Agric 152 (2018) 198–205, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2018.07.020. [35] Y.S. Saharawat, B. Singh, R.K. Malik, et al., Evaluation of alternative tillage and crop establishment methods in a rice- wheat rotation in North Western IGP Field Crops Research Evaluation of alternative tillage and crop establishment methods in a rice – wheat rotation in North Western IGP, F Crop Res 116 (2010) 260–267, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2010.01.003. [36] R.M.C. Ratnayake, BMCP Balasoriya, Re-design, fabrication andPerformance evaluation of manual conical drum seeder: a case study, CSAM Policy Br. (2015) 1–11. September (2015). [37] Zhang D, Zhou X, Zhang J, et al (2018) Detection of rice sheath blight using an unmanned aerial system with high-resolution color and multispectral imaging. 1–14. [38] M. Kumar, P. Sahuand, P.R. Sahu, Performance evaluation of 8-row self propelled rice transplanter for kharif season in sandy loam soil, Int J Chem Stud 8 (2020) 1381–1384, https://doi.org/10.22271/chemi.2020.v8.i3s.9389. [39] Vijayakumar S, Pasoubady S, Arulanandam M, Elangovan S (2023) We are IntechOpen, the world ’ s leading publisher of Open Access books built by scientists, for scientists. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112167. [40] A. Dixit, R. Khurana, J. Singh, G. Singh, Comparative performance of different paddy transplanters developed in India- a review, Agric Rev 28 (2007) 262–269. [41] R. Saha, P.S. Patra, A.S. Ahmed, Impact of mechanical transplanting on rice productivity and profitability- review, Int J Econ Plants 8 (2021) 226–230, https:// doi.org/10.23910/2/2021.0418d. [42] R.S. Singh, K.V.R. Rao, Impact of self-propelled paddy transplanter in Kerala, in: Rural Development. International Conference of Agricultural Engineering - CIGR- P.K. Guru et al. Results in Engineering 26 (2025) 105632 9 https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.91144 https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.91144 https://doi.org/10.15353/cfs-rcea.v2i1.75 https://doi.org/10.15353/cfs-rcea.v2i1.75 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0047 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0047 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0003 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0003 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0056 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0056 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0056 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0068 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0068 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0068 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0070 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0070 https://doi.org/10.1007/s41775-021-00120-x https://doi.org/10.1007/s41775-021-00120-x http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0075 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0059 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0059 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0059 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0074 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0074 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0074 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0066 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0066 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0073 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0073 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0073 https://www.nabard.org/auth/writereaddata/file/NSP%20Farm%20Mechanisation.pdf https://www.nabard.org/auth/writereaddata/file/NSP%20Farm%20Mechanisation.pdf http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0057 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0057 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0057 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0061 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0061 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0071 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0071 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0023 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0023 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0023 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0025 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0046 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0046 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0046 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0004 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2009.06.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2009.06.003 https://doi.org/10.5958/2249-5266.2018.00012.7 https://doi.org/10.5958/2249-5266.2018.00012.7 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0012 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0012 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2018.07.020 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2010.01.003 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0040 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0040 https://doi.org/10.22271/chemi.2020.v8.i3s.9389 https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112167 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0007 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0007 https://doi.org/10.23910/2/2021.0418d https://doi.org/10.23910/2/2021.0418d http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0048 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0048 AgEng 2012: agriculture and engineering for a healthier life, Valencia, Spain 8th to 12th July 2012, 2012. [43] P. Peramaiyan, K. Singh, R. Borgohain, et al., Submergence-tolerant rice varieties and mechanical transplanting for intensification of rice-rice cropping systems in, Assam. Farming Syst 2 (2024) 100068, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. farsys.2023.100068. [44] G.S. Manes, A. Dixit, A. Singh, et al., Feasibility Mech. Transplanter Paddy Transpl. Punjab 44 (2013) 2–5. [45] H. Rahaman, M.M. Rahman, A.S. Islam, M.D. Huda, M. Kamruzzaman, Mechanical rice transplanting in Bangladesh: current situation, technical challenges, and future approach, J. Biosyst. Eng. 47 (4) (2022) 417–427. [46] M.A Hossen, M.D. Huda, M. Kamruzzaman, M. Islam, Validation of walking and riding type rice transplanter in different location of Bangladesh, Eco-Friendly Agril, J 11 (04) (2019) 43–59. [47] R. Nabipour, M.R. Yazdani, F. Mirzaei, et al., Water productivity and yield characteristics of transplanted rice in puddled soil under drip tape irrigation, Agric Water Manag 295 (2024) 108753, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2024.108753. [48] Farooq M, Siddique KHM, Rehman H, et al (2011) Soil & Tillage Research Rice direct seeding : experiences, challenges and opportunities. 111:87–98. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.still.2010.10.008. [49] S. Mishra, A.K. Chaubey, J. Pathak, Direct seeded rice: prospects, constraints and future research work, Indian Farming 73 (9) (2023) 11–14. [50] Y.K. Gaihre, U. Singh, W.D. Bible, et al., Mitigating N2O and NO emissions from direct-seeded rice with nitrification inhibitor and Urea deep placement, Rice Sci 27 (2020) 434–444, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsci.2020.03.005. [51] S. Peng, R.J. Buresh, J. Huang, et al., Improving nitrogen fertilization in rice by site-specific N management. A review, Agron Sustain Dev 30 (2010) 649–656, https://doi.org/10.1051/agro/2010002. [52] A.G. Good, P.H. Beatty, Fertilizing nature: A tragedy of excess in the commons, PLoS Biol 9 (2011) 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001124. [53] J. Yang, Q. Zhou, J. Zhang, Moderate wetting and drying increases rice yield and reduces water use, grain arsenic level, and methane emission, Crop J 5 (2017) 151–158, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cj.2016.06.002. [54] M. Fan, J. Shen, L. Yuan, et al., Improving crop productivity and resource use efficiency to ensure food security and environmental quality in China, J Exp Bot 63 (2012) 13–24, https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/err248. [55] P. Mondal, M. Basu, Adoption of precision agriculture technologies in India and in some developing countries: scope, present status and strategies, Prog Nat Sci 19 (2009) 659–666, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnsc.2008.07.020. [56] S. Peng, R.J. Buresh, J. Huang, et al., Strategies for overcoming low agronomic nitrogen use efficiency in irrigated rice systems in China, F Crop Res 96 (2006) 37–47, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2005.05.004. [57] A. Dobermann, C. Witt, D. Dawe, Performance of site-specific nutrient management in intensive rice cropping systems of Asia, Better Crop Int 16 (2002). [58] S.M.M. Islam, Y.K. Gaihre, M.N. Islam, et al., Effects of integrated nutrient management and urea deep placement on rice yield, nitrogen use efficiency, farm profits and greenhouse gas emissions in saline soils of Bangladesh, Sci Total Env. 909 (2024) 168660, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.168660. [59] S.P. Patel, P.K. Guru, N.T. Borkar, et al., Energy footpr. rice prod. 26 (2018). [60] Y. Takahashi, T. Chinushi, Y. Nagumo, et al., Effect of deep placement of controlled release nitrogen fertilizer (coated urea) on growth, yield, and nitrogen fixation of soybean plants, Soil Sci Plant Nutr 37 (1991) 223–231, https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00380768.1991.10415032. [61] M.M. Deo, D. De, I. Mani, M.A. Iquebal, Development of mechanical urea briquette applicator for SRI, Indian J Agric Sci 91 (2021) 208–212, https://doi.org/ 10.56093/ijas.v91i2.111578. [62] M.A. Hoque, M.A. Wohab, M.A. Hossain, et al., Improvement and evaluation of Bari USG applicator, Agric Eng Int CIGR J 15 (2013) 87–94. [63] E. Pasandaran, B. Gultom, J. Sri Adiningsih, et al., Government policy support for technology promotion and adoption: A case study of urea tablet technology in Indonesia, Nutr Cycl Agroecosystems 53 (1998) 113–119, https://doi.org/ 10.1023/A:1009705813669. [64] N.K. Savant, P.S. Ongkingco, IV. Zarate, et al., Urea briquette applicator for transplanted rice, Fertil Res 28 (1991) 323–331, https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF01054333. [65] Manikyam N, Guru PK, Naik RK (2021) Design and development of ICAR-NRRI urea applicator for rice transplanter Design and development of ICAR-NRRI urea applicator for rice transplanter. [66] M.A. Wohab, Y.K. Gaihre, A.T.M. Ziauddin, M.A. Hoque, Design, development and field evaluation of manual-operated applicators for deep placement of fertilizer in puddled rice fields, Agric Res 6 (2017) 259–266, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40003- 017-0267-5. [67] D. Chatterjee, S. Mohanty, P.K. Guru, et al., Comparative assessment of urea briquette applicators on greenhouse gas emission, nitrogen loss and soil enzymatic activities in tropical lowland rice, Agric Ecosyst Env. 252 (2018) 178–190, https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.10.013. [68] A. Subeesh, C.R. Mehta, Automation and digitization of agriculture using artificial intelligence and internet of things, Artif. Intell. Agric. 5 (2021) 278–291. [69] M. Javaid, A. Haleem, I.H. Khan, R. Suman, Understanding the potential applications of artificial intelligence in agriculture sector, Adv. Agrochem 2 (1) (2023) 15–30. [70] S. Shubhika, P. Patel, R. Singh, A. Tripathi, S. Prajapati, M.S. Rajput, V. Vivekanand, Application of artificial intelligence techniques to addressing and mitigating biotic stress in paddy crop: A review, Plant Stress, 2024 100592. [71] P. Bhattacharyya, K. Chakraborty, K.A. Molla, A. Poonam, D. Bhaduri, R.P. Sah, S. Paul, P.S. Hanjagi, G. Basana-Gowda, P. Swain, Climate resilient technologies for rice based production systems in Eastern India, ICAR-National Rice Research Institute, Cuttack, Odisha, 2022, p. 408. P.K. Guru et al. Results in Engineering 26 (2025) 105632 10 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0048 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0048 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.farsys.2023.100068 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.farsys.2023.100068 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0026 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0026 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0067 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0067 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0067 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0062 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0062 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0062 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2024.108753 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2010.10.008 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2010.10.008 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0065 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0065 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsci.2020.03.005 https://doi.org/10.1051/agro/2010002 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001124 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cj.2016.06.002 https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/err248 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnsc.2008.07.020 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2005.05.004 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0008 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0008 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.168660 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0034 https://doi.org/10.1080/00380768.1991.10415032 https://doi.org/10.1080/00380768.1991.10415032 https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v91i2.111578 https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v91i2.111578 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0017 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0017 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009705813669 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009705813669 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01054333 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01054333 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40003-017-0267-5 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40003-017-0267-5 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.10.013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.10.013 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0072 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0072 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0063 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0063 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0063 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0069 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0069 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0069 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0058 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0058 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0058 http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2590-1230(25)01702-5/sbref0058 A critical review on rice cultivation and mechanization level in Indian perspective 1 Introduction 2 Mechanization level in Indian agriculture 3 Rice cultivation methods in India 4 Field preparation and crop establishment 5 Mechanical rice transplanting 6 Advantages and drawbacks of mechanical rice transplanter 7 Direct seeding of rice 8 Nutrient management techniques in rice 9 AI and IoT in Modern Agricultural Mechanization 10 Conclusions CRediT authorship contribution statement Declaration of competing interest Funding Information Ethics and Consent to Participate declarations Data availability References