Agrox

Autonomous & Chemical-Free Pest Management

Agrox product render
Team
Yuchen Zhang
Yi He
Role
UX Design
Hardware Concept
Timeline
Academic Project
2025
Domain
AgriTech
Robotics
01 — Research

Understanding the
core challenges.

We conducted field interviews with 5 small-scale organic farms — 4 at Forsyth Park Farmers Market and 1 in South Carolina — to understand how farmers actually detect and respond to pest problems day-to-day. We focused on four questions: their current pain points, how they judge crop conditions, what tools they use, and whether they'd accept technological intervention.

0
Farms at Forsyth Park
Farmers Market
0
Farm in
South Carolina
Field interview at Forsyth Park Farmers Market

Forsyth Park Farmers Market

Pest damage visible on bok choy leaves

Visible pest damage on produce

Hoop house greenhouse in South Carolina farm

South Carolina farm visit

Initial Hypothesis

Environmental pollution

We assumed that small organic farms were most burdened by soil contamination, water runoff, and pesticide regulation — issues frequently covered in agricultural policy discussions.

What Field Research Revealed

Pest management

Every farmer we interviewed brought up pests within the first few minutes — unprompted. The real crisis wasn't regulation compliance; it was the daily, unpredictable battle to protect crops without chemical tools.

The pivot mattered. Had we designed around our original assumption, we would have built a compliance or reporting tool — solving a problem farmers didn't feel urgently. The field research forced us to reframe the entire design question.

What farmers told us

Yeah. I mean, there's tons of risks, like pests. Sometimes we just… we're just picking bugs off by hand.

Manual removal is the default — not a choice, but a last resort.

We spray organic stuff — neem oil, BT — but when the pest pressure is high, it's hard not to use something stronger.

Organic methods fail under pressure, putting certification at risk.

Tend is super complicated. Too many features. It'd be nice if we could just choose the ones we need.

Existing software is built for scale, not for small farms with limited bandwidth.

Give me the date, what crop it was, what pest we saw, and maybe which garden it happened in. That's all I need.

Farmers want minimal, structured data — not comprehensive dashboards.

02 — The Problem

The burden of
organic pest control.

Globally, pests destroy 20–40% of crops annually. For organic farms, the constraint is even sharper: they cannot use synthetic pesticides, so when pest pressure spikes, their only options are labor-intensive manual methods or accepting crop loss.

What surprised us was that the problem isn't just about killing pests — it's about knowing where they are before the damage is visible. By the time a farmer walks the field and spots an outbreak, entire rows are already unmarketable.

Insight 01

No systematic tracking. Pest identification relies on intuition. There's no consistent record of where outbreaks occur, making prevention nearly impossible.

Insight 02

Organic methods break down at scale. Neem oil and BT work at low pressure, but farmers feel forced to choose between their certification and their crop.

Insight 03

Technology adoption fails at complexity. Tools like Tend are abandoned because the learning curve outweighs the benefit for small operations.

03 — Target User

Designing for the
everyday farmer.

"I want something that just works. I don't have time to learn another complicated app."

How Might We

How might we help organic farmers monitor and control pests with minimal effort, while keeping the process eco-friendly and data-informed?

Core Needs

  • A simple visual system to monitor outbreaks without walking every field.
  • A non-chemical control method aligning with organic certification.
  • An affordable, zero-training solution.
  • A way to track effectiveness of pest control over time.

Frustrations

  • Current solutions are too expensive or too complicated.
  • Manual scouting is exhausting and unreliable, especially during rainy days.
  • Lack of data to understand where pests are spreading or recurring.
04 — Technical Exploration

Six ideas before
one answer.

We didn't start with a robot. We began by surveying academic literature and existing technologies to find what was scientifically viable and organically compliant. This produced six distinct concepts — each grounded in a different intervention logic.

We evaluated each concept against 4 criteria

🌿Organic complianceMust leave zero chemical residue
📐ScalabilityWorks across crop types & field sizes
⚙️Technical feasibilityBuildable with available hardware
🧑‍🌾Farmer adoptionLow learning curve, low maintenance
PestVision concept sketch
Partially selected

PestVision

Field-mounted sensor with low-power camera + MEMS microphone for dual-mode pest detection.

Organic Scalable~ Feasible Farmer-friendly

Sound analysis proved too species-specific to validate. We moved forward with vision only.

CrawlerVac concept sketch
✓ Selected

CrawlerVac

Tracked robot with LiDAR navigation and vacuum intake to collect surface pests autonomously.

Organic Scalable Feasible Farmer-friendly

Validated by D-vac research from WSU and California Strawberry Commission. Chemical-free, broad-spectrum, autonomy-friendly.

VibeTrap concept sketch
Narrowed out

VibeTrap

60Hz AC stepped to 800V DC electrode grid to attract and eliminate spotted lanternfly.

Organic Scalable Feasible~ Farmer-friendly

Works only for one pest species. Fails the scalability criterion entirely.

LycormaHunter concept sketch
Narrowed out

LycormaHunter

Robotic arm with AI recognition to physically strike pests on tree trunks one by one.

Organic Scalable~ Feasible Farmer-friendly

Too slow for open-field crops. The arm mechanism adds cost and complexity beyond small farm budgets.

SteamBerry concept sketch
Merged into final

SteamBerry

Conveyor belt passes seedlings through a low-temperature steam chamber, killing mites at all life stages.

Organic Scalable Feasible~ Farmer-friendly

Steam treatment mechanism was validated and absorbed into SteamSoil. Too limited to seedling propagation alone.

SteamSoil concept sketch
✓ Selected

SteamSoil

Heat-retaining cover + injection pipe network sterilizes soil with high-temperature steam, killing eggs and nematodes.

Organic Scalable Feasible Farmer-friendly

Addresses the underground pest lifecycle — the gap that surface vacuuming alone can't solve. No residue, proven in literature.

CrawlerVac+SteamSoil+PestVision
The three selected concepts address different layers of the same problem: detect early with vision, remove surface adults by vacuum, sterilize underground eggs with steam — forming one integrated, chemical-free system.
05 — Information Architecture

How the app
is structured.

Before designing screens, we mapped the full app structure across three domains: real-time data, device control, and system configuration — minimizing navigation depth for time-sensitive field operations.

Information Architecture diagram
06 — The Product

Hardware & Interface.

Translating the technical requirements into a robust physical robot and an intuitive digital dashboard for the farmers.

A.I. Visual Pest Recognition

The robot's onboard cameras scan crops in real-time. The AI model identifies pest types and severity, logging the data to the farmer's dashboard without requiring manual field walks.

AI Visual Pest Recognition

Autonomous Pest Management

Once deployed, the robot navigates the farm autonomously. It uses a combination of bug vacuuming for adult insects and steam sterilization for soil-level eggs, ensuring a 100% chemical-free process.

Autonomous Pest Management

Pest Heatmap Dashboard

Data collected by the robot is visualized on a simple mobile and web app. Farmers can instantly see which areas of the farm have high pest pressure and track the effectiveness of the robot's interventions over time.

Pest Heatmap Dashboard
07 — Design Process

From sketch to reality.

01. Sketch

Agrox sketch 1Agrox sketch 2

02. Hifi

Agrox hifi overview

03. Model

Agrox physical model
08 — Reflection

What we learned.
What remains open.

Hardware constrains UI design

The vacuum and steam modules can't operate simultaneously — this physical constraint directly shaped how we designed the device status UI. Modes needed to be explicit and mutually exclusive, not hidden in settings.

Tablet over phone — a research-driven call

We initially prototyped a mobile interface. Field context changed our minds: farmers in muddy gloves need larger targets, better readability in sunlight, and a device they can prop up hands-free. iPad became the primary platform.

Still unresolved

AI recognition accuracy drops in low light and dense foliage — conditions common in real farms. Sound spectrum analysis (from PestVision) could supplement visual detection, but we didn't have time to validate the model. This is the most significant open question for a next iteration.

User adoption is untested

We designed for low technical literacy, but never ran usability tests with actual farmers. The gap between "intuitive in research" and "usable in a field" is real — and we know it.

Next ProjectNirvanaTeam Leader