# Incorporating Artificial Intelligence Technology in Smart Greenhouses: Current State of the Art
## 2 Artificial Intelligence Technologies for Smart Greenhouses
### Robotics and Algorithms for Precision Agriculture and Smart Greenhouses
#### 2.4.1 Role of AI Technologies and Biological Pesticide Compounds in IPM
Moreover, the domino health benefits for humans and cost savings in commercial farming are unquantifiable. The latter evidence affirms there were justifiable grounds for the transition from traditional to intelligent IPM methods. The paradigm shift would benefit global agriculture, considering that pests and diseases accounted for up to 40% of global crop losses [14]. In contrast to the cost-related issues highlighted by Ni and Punjab [115], continuous and excessive pesticide use has a detrimental impact on pest management, given the high risk of pesticide resistance. Pesticide resistance and incompatibility have partly led to the spread of the South American tomato pinworm _Tuta absoluta_[61] and mites. The current strains of the South American tomato pinworm can only be eradicated using strong and toxic pesticides, such as chlorpyrifos-methyl and Spinosad [61]. Even though pesticide toxicity and resistance risk can be mitigated with biopesticide formulations, adoption has remained low owing to their variable effectiveness across different classes of pests and diseases. For example, succinic acid and methanolic extract of _Rosmarinus officinalis_ were  
Figure 5: Key attributes of the intelligent IPM system [14]. only proven effective against _Aphis gossypii_ in cucumber grown in greenhouses [96]. The lack of broad-spectrum biopesticides may partly explain why the demand for chemical pesticides remained unchanged; this phenomenon introduced new constraints, considering industrial greenhouses cannot be used in isolation. [PERSON] et al. proposed an alternative approach, focusing on less-potent chemical pesticides, such as Confidor Extra and Nocturne. On the downside, these pesticides were only effective against the phytoseiid mite _Neoseiulus barkeri_ [PERSON], and their efficacy was limited to approximately 25% [117]. According to the data in Table 2, the mortality rate for the mites was notably higher for avermectin pesticide (>93%) (see Table 2). The application of Confidor, Actellic, Scelta, and malathion did not yield mortality rates comparable to avermectin. The data suggested that pest mortality rates were proportional to the strength of the pesticides [117]. The estimates provided by [117] were comparable to experimental data drawn from Turkey [118; 119]. Turkish farmers had recorded high levels of red spider mite (_Tetranyclus Utrica_) resistance to Bifenazate and Abametcin (acaricides) [118; 119]. Higher mite mortality rates (>90%) were observed with the adoption of aggressive pest management techniques, including mite-dipping and leaf dipping. The widespread pesticide resistance further validates the need for intelligent IPM systems. Drawing from the IPM management practices for _Aphis gossypii_ and phytoseiid mite _Neoseiulus barkeri_ [PERSON] reported by [96; 117], farmers with commercial greenhouses were faced with a dilemma. On the one hand, law regulations advocated using less toxic pesticides [127]. However, ecologically benign biopesticides were not broad-acting. On the other hand, chemical pesticides with broad-spectrum activity against pests and diseases were toxic to the environment [117; 121; 122; 124]. In light of the critical shortcomings of traditional pesticides in greenhouse agriculture, the proactive management of powdery