Bibliometric Analysis of Agricultural Productivity
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58812/wsis.v4i02.2664Keywords:
Agricultural Productivity, Bibliometric Analysis, Sustainable Agriculture, Precision Agriculture, VOSViewerAbstract
This study aims to map and analyze the intellectual structure and research trends of agricultural productivity through a bibliometric approach using the Scopus database and VOSviewer visualization techniques. The analysis explores keyword co-occurrence, overlay visualization, and density mapping to identify dominant themes, temporal evolution, and emerging research directions within the field. The findings indicate that agricultural productivity research is shaped by interconnected domains, including agronomic management, plant physiology, environmental sustainability, and digital agriculture technologies. Core themes such as soil fertility, crop production, and sustainable development remain highly influential, reflecting the continued importance of ecological resource management. Temporal analysis reveals a transition from traditional biological and nutrient-based studies toward contemporary topics such as machine learning, precision agriculture, and climate change adaptation. Density patterns further show that while conventional agronomic research still dominates the field, technological innovation is becoming increasingly prominent, signaling a shift toward data-driven agricultural systems. The study highlights the growing need for interdisciplinary integration to address global challenges related to food security, environmental resilience, and sustainable productivity enhancement. These findings provide a comprehensive overview of the evolving research landscape and offer insights for future studies aiming to develop more adaptive and technology-oriented agricultural productivity frameworks.
References
[1] E. Raji, T. I. Ijomah, and O. G. Eyieyien, “Improving agricultural practices and productivity through extension services and innovative training programs,” Int. J. Appl. Res. Soc. Sci., vol. 6, no. 7, pp. 1297–1309, 2024.
[2] H. F. Atlı, “Safety of agricultural machinery and tractor maintenance planning with fuzzy logic and MCDM for agricultural productivity,” Int. J. Agric. Environ. Food Sci., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 25–43, 2023.
[3] S. Wei and Y. Lu, “Adoption mode of agricultural machinery and food productivity: evidence from China,” Front. Sustain. Food Syst., vol. 7, p. 1257918, 2024.
[4] N. Donthu, S. Kumar, D. Mukherjee, N. Pandey, and W. M. Lim, “How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines,” J. Bus. Res., vol. 133, pp. 285–296, 2021.
[5] J. E. Olesen and M. Bindi, “Consequences of climate change for European agricultural productivity, land use and policy,” Eur. J. Agron., vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 239–262, 2002.
[6] R. E. Evenson and D. Gollin, Crop variety improvement and its effect on productivity: the impact of international agricultural research. 2003.
[7] M. W. Priyanto, A. P. Pratama, and I. Y. Prasada, “THE EFFECT OF FERTILIZER AND AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY SUBSIDIES ON PADDY PRODUCTIVITY: A FEASIBLE GENERALIZED LEAST SQUARES APPROACH,” SEPA J. Sos. Ekon. Pertan. dan Agribisnis, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 56–68.
[8] C. Kantor, J. D. Eisenback, and M. Kantor, “Biosecurity risks to human food supply associated with plant-parasitic nematodes,” Front. Plant Sci., vol. 15, 2024, doi: 10.3389/fpls.2024.1404335.
[9] H. J. Patil and M. K. Solanki, “Microbial inoculant: modern era of fertilizers and pesticides,” Microb. inoculants Sustain. Agric. Product. vol. 1 Res. Perspect., pp. 319–343, 2016.
[10] R. J. Diaz and R. Rosenberg, “Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine ecosystems,” Science (80-. )., vol. 321, no. 5891, pp. 926–929, 2008.
[11] M. Rodell et al., “The global land data assimilation system,” Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., vol. 85, no. 3, pp. 381–394, 2004.
[12] J. Lehmann and M. Kleber, “The contentious nature of soil organic matter,” Nature, vol. 528, no. 7580, pp. 60–68, 2015.
[13] P. Ciais et al., “Europe-wide reduction in primary productivity caused by the heat and drought in 2003,” Nature, vol. 437, no. 7058, pp. 529–533, 2005.
[14] L. Philippot, J. M. Raaijmakers, P. Lemanceau, and W. H. Van Der Putten, “Going back to the roots: the microbial ecology of the rhizosphere,” Nat. Rev. Microbiol., vol. 11, no. 11, pp. 789–799, 2013.
[15] T. Wheeler and J. Von Braun, “Climate change impacts on global food security,” Science (80-. )., vol. 341, no. 6145, pp. 508–513, 2013.
[16] W. M. Post and K. C. Kwon, “Soil carbon sequestration and land‐use change: processes and potential,” Glob. Chang. Biol., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 317–327, 2000.
[17] G. R. Van der Werf et al., “Global fire emissions and the contribution of deforestation, savanna, forest, agricultural, and peat fires (1997–2009),” Atmos. Chem. Phys., vol. 10, no. 23, pp. 11707–11735, 2010.
[18] Z. Zhu et al., “Greening of the Earth and its drivers,” Nat. Clim. Chang., vol. 6, no. 8, pp. 791–795, 2016.
[19] D. Bartels and R. Sunkar, “Drought and salt tolerance in plants,” CRC. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 23–58, 2005.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Loso Judijanto
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Facebook 
Instagram 
Twitter 
Youtube 
westscience.journals@gmail.com