Search

Climate stress is reshaping the operational conditions under which agricultural decisions are made. Drought, heat, flooding, salinity, and increasingly variable weather patterns intensify uncertainty around irrigation, fertilisation, pest management, crop selection, and yield planning. Precision agriculture has therefore become a central domain in which artificial intelligence is expected to support adaptive, data-driven decision-making. This systematic review examines how artificial intelligence decision models are used in precision agriculture under climate stress. The review focuses on three connected dimensions: the model families used to support decisions, the data sources on which these models depend, and the sustainability outcomes that are reported. The objective is to clarify whether current evidence supports the claim that artificial intelligence can deliver more resilient and sustainable agricultural management. The review synthesises peer-reviewed journal articles published. The study selection followed a PRISMA-oriented logic, using predefined search strings, inclusion criteria, and screening stages to identify relevant work on machine learning, deep learning, remote sensing, sensor-based agriculture, irrigation optimisation, yield prediction, crop disease detection, and sustainability assessment. No new empirical field data were generated. The evidence base shows rapid expansion in machine learning and deep learning applications, especially for yield prediction, irrigation management, crop monitoring, plant disease detection, and smart farming decision support. Satellite imagery, UAV data, IoT sensors, weather variables, soil information, and farm-management records appear as the dominant data sources. However, the review also identifies uneven attention to climate stress conditions, limited integration of long-term climate projections, and inconsistent reporting of sustainability outcomes.The review concludes that artificial intelligence for precision agriculture under climate stress is technically promising but methodologically fragmented. Most studies emphasise model accuracy, yield improvement, or input optimisation, while fewer evaluate environmental trade-offs, social impacts, farmer livelihoods, or long-term resilience. A more rigorous, transparent, and sustainability-centred research agenda is needed to move the field beyond predictive performance toward climate-resilient agricultural decision systems.

Agricultural artificial intelligence is increasingly shaped by a precision paradigm that treats good farming as the increasingly fine-grained optimization of inputs, outputs, risks, and operational decisions. This paradigm is attractive because it promises measurable efficiency, predictive control, and scalable decision support across complex farming systems. In climate-sensitive agriculture, however, the same orientation can narrow what counts as a good decision. The problem is that climate-sensitive farming is not merely a technical setting in which better data automatically produce better outcomes. Farmers must act under uncertainty, ecological variability, long time horizons, and ethically contested trade-offs involving productivity, resilience, livelihoods, and environmental stewardship. These conditions expose the limits of optimization as a sufficient guide for responsible agricultural AI. This article develops a conceptual framework that shifts the guiding principle of agricultural AI from precision to prudence. Prudence is understood as practical wisdom: the capacity to deliberate well about what is fitting, responsible, and contextually appropriate when action is necessary but certainty is unavailable. The framework therefore reorients AI from prescribing optimal decisions to supporting wise and accountable judgment. The article is based on a conceptual synthesis peer-reviewed publications across agricultural ethics, responsible innovation, precision agriculture, AI governance, climate adaptation, and science and technology studies. It critiques precision agriculture as an optimization paradigm, articulates prudence as a responsible AI principle, and develops a framework for climate-sensitive decision support. Two tables contrast the precision and prudence paradigms and present the proposed conceptual framework. The central argument is not that agricultural AI should abandon data, modelling, prediction, or decision support. Rather, responsible AI for climate-sensitive farming should use these capacities to enlarge human judgment rather than replace it. A prudent AI system helps farmers deliberate under uncertainty, compare trade-offs, question recommendations, and remain accountable for decisions that are ecological, social, and moral as well as technical.