Search

As urban landscaping advances, the struggle with garden pests and diseases grows more critical. Substantial interest has been drawn to large language models for their skill in interpreting what users mean and producing suitable responses. The addition of knowledge graphs has offered these models a well-organized, high-quality foundation of facts. This investigation merges knowledge graphs (KGs), large language models (LLMs), and similar tools to engineer a smart question-answering (Q&A) framework for garden pest and disease contexts. Forge a knowledge graph dedicated to garden pests and diseases by amassing dependable data through web scraping and scholarly review. Pinpoint central entities and their links to shape a conceptual schema. Employ the ERNIE-BiLSTM-CRF architecture to pull facts from unstructured text. Testing reveals the fact-extraction system advanced in this work scores above 92% on precision, recall, and F1 metrics, beating competing designs. Put forward a Q&A strategy that fuses the garden pest and disease KG with the ERNIE-Bot-turbo engine. Knowledge is turned into vectors, and the closest matches are located via similarity search; these top hits are then bundled with the query into cues fed to the language engine for natural language output. Trials stacking our technique against ERNIE-Bot-turbo and ChatGLM-6B showed strong results across easy, mid-level, and tough problems, sidestepping off-base replies to out-of-scope questions. It exceeded both baselines in correctness, hitting a 90% exact-answer mark for straightforward queries.

Generative artificial intelligence is creating new possibilities for conversational access to agricultural information, farm data, and decision-support resources. However, fluent interaction does not establish factual accuracy, agronomic validity, farmer trust, or operational safety. This article proposes an original conceptual architecture for generative AI-enabled farm advisory systems in precision agriculture. The architecture treats conversational decision support as a governed socio-technical process rather than a standalone chatbot function. It connects farm advisory use-case definition, farmer query interpretation, heterogeneous agricultural data inputs, curated knowledge retrieval, generative model layers, response grounding, advisory-output controls, uncertainty communication, human oversight, expert escalation, farmer feedback, monitoring, and controlled system updating. Sensor observations, remote-sensing products, weather information, soil and crop data, farm-management records, and textual agricultural knowledge are positioned behind data-quality, provenance, documentation, and access-control requirements. Foundation models, large language models, vision-language models, multimodal models, prompting, domain adaptation, and retrieval-augmented generation are treated as optional architectural components whose appropriateness depends on the bounded advisory task. The architecture further distinguishes factual checking from agronomic validity review and separates farmer-facing explanations from advisor-facing evidence assessment. Safety and trust requirements include risk classification, hallucination monitoring, privacy, cybersecurity, auditability, farmer autonomy, explicit advisory boundaries, and escalation pathways. The principal contribution is a structured framework for designing and evaluating conversational farm advisory systems without implying autonomous decision authority, validated agronomic advice, guaranteed trust, operational safety, or deployment readiness.