Search

Digital twins are increasingly discussed as a next step in smart farming because they promise to connect physical agricultural systems with digital representations, sensor data, simulation models, analytics, and decision-support functions. However, the agricultural literature remains uneven in how it defines, architects, enables, and applies digital twins across crop, livestock, greenhouse, irrigation, and farm-management systems. This original scoping review maps the peer-reviewed literature on digital twins in smart farming with attention to architecture types, enabling technologies, data requirements, application domains, implementation challenges, and research gaps. The review follows a scoping logic rather than an effect-estimation or performance-benchmarking design: it charts how studies conceptualize digital twins, distinguishes full or emerging digital twin capability from static models and monitoring dashboards, and classifies evidence by architecture, technology, data pipeline, analytics function, feedback mechanism, implementation stage, and limitation. The synthesis shows that agricultural digital twins are commonly positioned as cyber-physical and decision-support infrastructures that may combine IoT sensing, remote sensing, machinery and environmental data, cloud or edge computing, simulation, AI analytics, visualization, and farm-management interfaces. Application clusters are strongest in controlled-environment agriculture, irrigation and water management, crop monitoring, aquaponics, livestock monitoring, greenhouse visualization, and emerging optimization or automation settings. Across the mapped literature, the main contribution is a structured classification of digital twin architectures and application patterns while preserving conceptual caution: real-time data, AI prediction, or visualization alone does not create a digital twin. The review identifies future research needs in architecture standardization, semantic interoperability, field validation, real-time updating, uncertainty communication, data governance, farmer-centered usability, scalability, and sustainability assessment.

Foundation models are increasingly investigated as reusable architecture-level systems for agricultural sensing, remote-sensing interpretation, multimodal learning, knowledge access, phenotyping, monitoring, and decision-support assistance. However, the evidence remains dispersed across model families, data modalities, agricultural applications, and validation settings. This systematic review synthesises the technical architectures, data requirements, opportunities, risks, deployment challenges, evidence gaps, and research priorities associated with foundation models in smart farming and precision agriculture. Peer-reviewed journal literature was identified through structured database and publisher-platform searches, supplementary reference checking, predefined eligibility criteria, sequential screening, claim-specific evidence extraction, and thematic synthesis. Evidence was organised across language, vision, vision-language, multimodal, geospatial, remote-sensing, time-series, self-supervised, transfer-learning, and domain-adaptation approaches. The reviewed literature indicates that foundation-model approaches may support transferable representation learning, reduced annotation dependence, multimodal data integration, crop and livestock monitoring, remote-sensing analysis, plant phenotyping, agricultural knowledge services, and bounded decision-support workflows. Nevertheless, reported results are commonly task-, dataset-, region-, sensor-, or application-specific. Important limitations include agricultural data scarcity and heterogeneity, geographic and temporal domain shift, uncertain generalisation, bias, weak explainability, inadequate uncertainty communication, privacy and cybersecurity risks, unclear accountability, computing demands, and limited farmer-centred or operational evaluation. Priorities include agricultural benchmark suites, domain-specific pretraining resources, multimodal and spatiotemporal adaptation, low-resource representation, robustness testing, calibrated uncertainty, human-in-the-loop evaluation, privacy-preserving development, sustainable-computing assessment, and lifecycle governance. Foundation models represent a promising research direction, but benchmark performance or pretraining scale alone does not establish agronomic validity, operational safety, farmer trust, or deployment readiness.