Search

Agri-food supply chains are increasingly exposed to overlapping disruptions arising from climate variability, geopolitical instability, pandemic effects, price volatility, labour shortages, and changing consumer demand. These pressures have intensified interest in resilience-oriented technologies that can help supply chains anticipate disruption, absorb shocks, adapt operations, and recover service continuity. Artificial intelligence has emerged as a prominent candidate because it can transform fragmented supply chain data into forecasts, alerts, recommendations, and operational decisions. This systematic review examines how artificial intelligence is being applied to strengthen agri-food supply chain resilience. The review focuses on four functional domains: forecasting, traceability, risk detection, and decision support. It asks whether current AI applications merely improve isolated technical tasks or whether they provide demonstrable evidence of resilience improvement across agri-food supply systems. The review follows a systematic design informed by PRISMA reporting principles and structured literature review procedures. A corpus of 32 peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2017 and 2025 was synthesised. The selected studies cover AI forecasting models, blockchain-enabled traceability, quality and safety monitoring, logistics optimisation, supply chain decision support, and review-methodology guidance. The synthesis shows that forecasting research is technically advanced, especially in price prediction, demand forecasting, and quality-sensitive perishable supply chain management. Traceability and risk detection studies show strong growth around blockchain, IoT, big data, computer vision, and food safety monitoring. Decision support research connects AI to resilience more directly, but most evidence remains conceptual, model-based, or function-specific rather than validated through real disruption events. The review concludes that AI has substantial potential to support agri-food supply chain resilience, but the evidence base remains fragmented. Existing studies tend to focus on single functions such as forecasting accuracy, provenance visibility, or routing efficiency, while system-level resilience outcomes are rarely measured. Future research should therefore move from isolated AI applications toward integrated, empirically validated, resilience-focused agri-food intelligence systems.

Circular food systems require a shift from linear models of production, consumption, disposal, and remediation toward systems that continuously recover value from biological materials. This conceptual article argues that such a transition cannot rely on policy, behavioural change, or technological substitution alone. It also requires an intelligence layer capable of sensing waste generation, interpreting material quality, identifying recovery options, and coordinating decisions across fragmented food-system actors. Artificial intelligence offers this intelligence layer by enabling predictive, diagnostic, and decision-support capacities across the food chain. Rather than treating AI as a narrow automation tool, this article positions AI as cognitive infrastructure for circular food economies. Its role is to connect data on food loss, by-product composition, logistics, environmental impacts, recovery technologies, and stakeholder constraints. The article develops a conceptual framework for AI-enabled circular food systems. The framework integrates five functions: waste detection, valorisation pathway selection, resource recovery, sustainability-oriented decision support, and cross-actor coordination. These functions are presented as mutually reinforcing layers that allow food materials to be tracked, evaluated, redirected, and valorised before they become unmanaged waste. The article contributes to sustainability and circular economy scholarship by linking food-waste valorisation with material flow intelligence and multi-criteria decision support. It highlights how AI can support real-time evaluation of waste streams, match heterogeneous residues with suitable recovery pathways, and improve the coordination of producers, processors, retailers, consumers, waste managers, and policymakers. It also clarifies the risks of fragmented digitalisation when data systems are not aligned with circular outcomes. The proposed framework is intended for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers seeking to design circular food systems that are adaptive, evidence-based, and sustainability-oriented. It does not present new empirical data. Instead, it provides a conceptual basis for future empirical testing, digital platform development, policy design, and interdisciplinary research on AI-enabled food circularity.

Digital twins are increasingly proposed as cyber-physical representations that may support precision agriculture through monitoring, simulation, prediction, optimization, and decision support. However, agricultural systems described as digital twins vary substantially in data quality, interoperability, synchronization, modelling depth, predictive reliability, decision functionality, validation, and operational governance. This article proposes a conceptual maturity framework that evaluates agricultural digital twins through capability progression rather than technology adoption alone. The framework begins with descriptive monitoring and advances through real-time farm representation, simulation and scenario analysis, prediction and optimization, and supervised autonomous decision support. Monitoring maturity depends on reliable sensing, remote sensing, Internet of Things integration, data fusion, spatial and temporal adequacy, traceability, and human-interpretable representation. Simulation and prediction maturity require explicit farm-system boundaries, calibrated models, uncertainty estimation, local validation, and evidence that analytical outputs remain valid for their intended context. Optimization maturity additionally requires transparent objectives, constraints, robustness assessment, and distinction between predictive accuracy and decision value. The highest proposed level permits only narrowly bounded and supervised decision initiation supported by human authority, explainability, safety mechanisms, governance, cybersecurity where relevant, and continuous feedback. The framework does not constitute a validated maturity standard or establish agronomic, environmental, economic, or autonomous decision benefits. Its principal contribution is an integrated structure for assessing capability readiness, identifying progression barriers, and preventing monitoring, simulation, prediction, or optimization functions from being overinterpreted as evidence of deployment-ready autonomy.

Generative artificial intelligence is emerging as a potentially important component of precision agriculture through its capacity to create synthetic data, generate agricultural imagery, retrieve and reformulate knowledge, support conversational advisory interfaces, and assist decision-support workflows. However, evidence of technical feasibility is developing faster than evidence of agronomic validity, reliability, farmer-centred usefulness, and responsible deployment. This critical review evaluates generative AI as a distinct agricultural technology class, with particular attention to generative adversarial networks, diffusion models, variational autoencoders, large language models, vision-language models, foundation models, fine-tuning, prompting, domain adaptation, and retrieval-augmented generation. It critically examines the proposed use of synthetic crop, disease, weed, pest, and remote-sensing data for augmentation, class-imbalance mitigation, and label-scarcity support, while emphasizing image realism, biological plausibility, source-data quality, and synthetic-real domain gaps. The review also assesses generative decision support and advisory systems, distinguishing accessible language generation and knowledge retrieval from agronomically validated recommendations. Reliability concerns include hallucination, factual inaccuracy, uncertainty underreporting, poor local adaptation, robustness limitations, benchmark insufficiency, and failures of human oversight. Responsible deployment further requires data governance, privacy protection, accountability, transparency, explainability, farmer trust, digital inclusion, risk monitoring, and assessment of computational and sustainability costs. The review contributes an integrated opportunity-risk interpretation and identifies priorities for domain-specific benchmarks, synthetic-data validation, hallucination measurement, uncertainty-aware assistance, human-in-the-loop evaluation, farmer-centred design, governance documentation, and cautious field-readiness assessment.

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.

Generative artificial intelligence is expanding the conversational and interpretive functions available within precision-farming decision support, yet fluent responses may contain factual inaccuracies, unsupported claims, fabricated evidence, agronomically invalid interpretations, local-context mismatches, or understated uncertainty. This article develops a conceptual artificial-intelligence safety framework for managing these risks in generative agricultural decision-support systems. The framework treats hallucination risk as a socio-technical safety problem rather than solely as a language-model defect. It links agricultural use-case definition, advisory-output classification, farm-level consequence assessment, data and knowledge provenance, retrieval and response grounding, hallucination screening, factual verification, agronomic-validity review, uncertainty communication, human oversight, expert escalation, farmer feedback, traceability, accountability, monitoring, and controlled updating. Generative outputs are differentiated according to whether they provide information, interpretation, scenario explanation, or recommendation-like content, because the evidentiary and review requirements increase with potential consequence. Validation is similarly separated into factual checking, external evaluation, local-context assessment, agronomic review, and future field-validation planning. The framework establishes decision boundaries against unsupported agronomic advice, autonomous farm action, hallucination-elimination claims, safety guarantees, and deployment-readiness claims. It also allocates responsibilities among developers, platform providers, data stewards, knowledge-base curators, agricultural reviewers, and farmers while preserving farmer autonomy. The main contribution is an integrated safety model for structuring how hallucination-prone generative outputs may be interpreted, reviewed, restricted, escalated, recorded, and updated within precision-farming decision support. The framework is conceptual and does not independently establish advisory correctness, operational safety, legal compliance, or deployment readiness.

Regenerative agriculture is increasingly associated with soil improvement, ecological restoration, climate adaptation, and more resilient farming systems, yet these outcomes cannot be inferred from a management label or from digital measurement alone. This article develops a conceptual framework for data-driven regenerative agriculture that links precision farming, soil health monitoring, biodiversity monitoring, ecological feedback, climate-risk interpretation, farmer participation, and responsible decision support. The framework approach treats regeneration as a context-dependent monitoring and interpretation problem involving heterogeneous data, multiple spatial and temporal scales, uncertain ecological relationships, and explicit claim boundaries. Precision farming contributes spatially and temporally resolved observations from sensors, remote sensing, soil sampling, crop monitoring, water data, and farm-management records, while soil-health interpretation requires function-linked indicators, longitudinal baselines, local validation, and separation of monitoring from verified restoration or carbon-accounting claims. Biodiversity monitoring is organized around agrobiodiversity, functional biodiversity, habitat conditions, landscape context, ecological indicators, and field-validated observation methods. Climate resilience is framed through hazards, exposure, vulnerability, adaptive capacity, farm-system adaptation, and uncertainty rather than as a guaranteed outcome. Regenerative decision support integrates these domains through data-quality review, provenance, interoperability, ecological interpretation, farmer knowledge, human oversight, sustainability feedback, and iterative framework updating. The principal contribution is a structured conceptual architecture for connecting digital agricultural capabilities with cautious ecological reasoning. The framework supports research design and monitoring-system development but does not independently verify regenerative outcomes, environmental performance, biodiversity recovery, soil restoration, carbon sequestration, climate resilience, operational safety, or deployment readiness.