Search

Crop diseases constitute a danger to worldwide food stability, diminishing harvest yield, grade, and total farming efficiency. Conventionally, the identification of plant ailments has depended on lengthy visual assessments by specialists, a method that frequently results in mistakes. Machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI), in particular Vision Transformers (ViTs) and Convolutional Neural Networks, deliver a swifter, automated substitute for recognizing plant illnesses through leaf image analysis. However, these frameworks are regularly faulted for their "black box" character, which curbs confidence in their outputs due to a lack of clarity. Our outcomes indicate that integrating Explainable AI (XAI) approaches like Grad-CAM, Integrated Gradients, and LIME notably boosts model explainability, rendering it simpler for users to detect the fundamental indicators of plant sicknesses. This investigation not only adds to the area of plant disease recognition but also supplies an original viewpoint on advancing AI openness in actual farming settings through the application of XAI methods. With training accuracy rates of 100.00% for ViT, 96.88% for EfficientNetB7, 93.75% for EfficientNetB0, and 87.50% for ResNet50, and equivalent validation accuracy rates of 96.39% for ViT, 86.98% for EfficientNetB7, and 82.00% for EfficientNetB0, our suggested architectures exceed earlier studies performed on the identical dataset. This illustrates a considerable leap in model capability while upholding clarity and dependability by way of explainable and trustworthy decision procedures.

Artificial intelligence is increasingly used in food safety systems to support contamination detection, shelf-life prediction, quality classification, inspection prioritisation, and risk scoring. These applications promise faster, more sensitive, and more scalable decision support across complex food supply chains. However, the same predictive complexity that makes AI useful can also make its outputs difficult for food safety professionals, regulators, and operators to interpret. The central problem addressed in this framework article is that AI-supported food safety decisions may become opaque, uncontestable, and weakly aligned with existing structures of regulatory responsibility. When risk scores or alerts cannot be understood, challenged, or traced to relevant evidence, they may undermine rather than strengthen food safety governance. This problem is especially serious because food safety decisions involve direct public health consequences, market consequences, and legal accountability. The objective of this article is to develop an original Explainable AI Framework tailored to food safety decision systems. The framework integrates four interdependent dimensions: risk interpretation, regulatory confidence, operational accountability, and human review. It treats explainability not only as a technical property of models but also as a governance condition for responsible food safety decision-making. The article is based on a conceptual synthesis of 27 peer-reviewed articles published between 2017 and 2025 across food safety, explainable artificial intelligence, algorithmic accountability, risk assessment, and digital food safety systems. It does not present new empirical data. Instead, it constructs a design and governance framework that can guide the development, validation, deployment, and oversight of AI-supported food safety tools. The proposed framework defines four pillars: interpretable risk communication, transparent regulatory evidence, accountable operational responsibility, and contestable human review. Together, these pillars show how food safety AI systems can become not only predictive but also auditable, trustworthy, and practically usable. The article argues that embedding explainability into food safety AI is a governance and trust-building imperative rather than a purely technical enhancement.

Agri-food systems increasingly rely on analytics, artificial intelligence, machine learning, environmental monitoring, and decision-support tools to evaluate sustainability performance. These systems can estimate resource use, model environmental impacts, detect risks, and inform actions across farms, supply chains, markets, and governance settings. As analytics become embedded in sustainability decisions, their outputs increasingly shape how environmental problems are recognised and acted upon. Yet sustainability analytics does not become useful or responsible simply because it produces indicators, predictions, rankings, or dashboards. Environmental metrics may be technically sophisticated while remaining difficult for farmers, firms, auditors, regulators, and communities to interpret or challenge. This creates an explainability problem in which users need to understand not only what an analytic system reports, but also how the result was produced, what assumptions it contains, and what consequences may follow from acting on it. This article develops a conceptual framework for explainable sustainability analytics in agri-food systems. The framework treats explainability as a system-level requirement for linking environmental impact interpretation, risk explanation, responsibility attribution, human review, and accountability safeguards. It argues that sustainability analytics should be evaluated not only by predictive performance or measurement coverage, but also by whether it supports transparent, contestable, and context-sensitive decision-making. The article contributes a structured framework for interpreting environmental impact, explaining risk, attributing responsibility, and supporting accountable review in agri-food decision contexts. It positions explainable sustainability analytics as an approach that connects data, models, indicators, explanation mechanisms, human judgement, and governance safeguards. In doing so, it provides a foundation for sustainability analytics that is more interpretable, trustworthy, and actionable.

Artificial intelligence is increasingly embedded in smart farming through decision-support systems that integrate sensor data, remote sensing, machinery data, farm records, and predictive analytics. Yet agricultural decision-making cannot be reduced to automated recommendations because farm decisions are shaped by agronomic uncertainty, local field conditions, economic constraints, environmental goals, labor availability, machinery limitations, farmer experience, advisory relationships, and risk preferences. This conceptual framework article develops a farmer-centered account of human-in-the-loop intelligence for AI decision support in smart farming. The framework positions AI not as a substitute for farmer judgment but as one component of an iterative socio-technical decision process. It emphasizes farmer judgment, experiential knowledge, contextual validation, explainability, uncertainty communication, human oversight, trust calibration, advisor mediation, feedback, accountability, and adaptive decision-making. The article argues that human-in-the-loop intelligence is more than human approval of algorithmic outputs; it involves interpretation, questioning, correction, practical adaptation, and responsibility for situated decisions. By integrating agricultural AI, precision agriculture decision support, farmer knowledge, responsible innovation, and human-centered design perspectives, the manuscript contributes a structured conceptual basis for designing smart farming systems that preserve farmer agency while improving the practical relevance, transparency, and accountability of AI-supported decisions.

Precision agriculture is increasingly shaped by sensors, remote sensing, artificial intelligence, automated machinery, digital platforms, and data-driven decision support. However, technical capability alone does not establish whether a smart farming system is usable, locally appropriate, socially responsible, environmentally beneficial, resilient under disruption, or worthy of farmer reliance. This conceptual article proposes a human-centered precision agriculture framework that places farmers, farm workers, agricultural advisors, local knowledge, farm conditions, usability, accessibility, explainability, decision confidence, human oversight, and responsible governance at the center of system design. The framework integrates sustainability and resilience assessment with user-centered artificial intelligence, participatory design, transparent data practices, uncertainty communication, accountable decision support, and iterative learning. It distinguishes decision confidence from decision quality, explainability from guaranteed trust, participation from assured adoption, and technological potential from demonstrated sustainability or resilience. The proposed structure organizes human-centered smart farming into interconnected stages covering problem definition, stakeholder mapping, farmer-needs assessment, data and system context, sustainability and resilience requirements, explainability design, participation, oversight, governance, evaluation, and feedback. Its main contribution is a socio-technical framework for structuring research and design priorities while maintaining explicit boundaries around empirical validation, farmer autonomy, responsible implementation, and claims of system readiness.

Decision-support systems are increasingly positioned as mechanisms for translating agricultural data and analytical models into farm-management recommendations, yet their methodological quality cannot be judged through predictive performance alone. This article proposes an original methodological framework for designing and evaluating decision-support systems in precision agriculture. The framework integrates farm-management decision-context definition, stakeholder mapping, data-quality and provenance assessment, model and recommendation-logic documentation, explainability and interpretability requirements, usability and farmer-centered design, validation planning, decision-reliability assessment, adoption-barrier analysis, implementation-condition assessment, human oversight, and iterative feedback. Explainability is treated as a role-sensitive design requirement involving input visibility, output explanation, decision rationale, uncertainty communication, traceability, and appropriate explanation timing and format. Usability is addressed through farmer participation, co-design, workflow integration, accessibility, local relevance, manageable decision-support workload, training, and feedback mechanisms. Validation is extended beyond internal model testing to include external and local validation, calibration, error analysis, field-validation planning, drift monitoring, and review of the complete recommendation pathway. Adoption is interpreted as a contextual and voluntary process shaped by perceived usefulness, trust, affordability, infrastructure, digital capability, interoperability, support, and governance. Human oversight remains necessary because neither technical performance nor explanation quality independently establishes decision reliability. The framework contributes a structured method for coordinating design and evaluation activities while retaining explicit boundaries against claims of guaranteed decision quality, adoption, or deployment readiness.

Artificial intelligence is increasingly embedded in smart farming systems, yet explanation requirements are often treated as a single technical attribute rather than as stakeholder-dependent needs. This article develops a conceptual taxonomy of explainability requirements across agricultural decision contexts. The taxonomy approach distinguishes stakeholders by their roles, decision consequences, explanation purposes, required explanation objects, usability expectations, accountability needs, trust risks, and implementation boundaries. Farmers may require accessible, locally relevant, actionable, and uncertainty-aware explanations that preserve autonomy. Agronomists and advisors may require model logic, input relevance, data-quality information, output rationale, limitations, and evidence supporting professional validation. Regulatory stakeholders may require traceability, documentation, auditability, risk justification, and clear responsibility allocation. Platform providers, technology providers, data intermediaries, system operators, and data stewards may require lifecycle transparency, monitoring information, provenance records, version histories, and incident reconstruction. Supply-chain and sustainability actors may require interpretable provenance and decision boundaries without treating explanation as proof of quality, sustainability, or compliance. The taxonomy also identifies failures including under-explanation, over-explanation, misleading explanations, uncertainty omission, explanation overload, false confidence, provenance opacity, accountability gaps, and trust miscalibration. Its main contribution is a structured account of how explanation requirements change across stakeholders and decision settings. The taxonomy is conceptual and requires stakeholder validation, usability testing, governance assessment, and domain-specific evaluation before operational application.