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.

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 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.