Search

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.

Remote sensing and machine learning have become prominent components of smart farming research, generating an expanding body of review literature across agricultural monitoring and prediction applications. This umbrella review synthesises review-level evidence concerning crop monitoring, disease detection, yield forecasting, and decision support while examining the methodological conditions that shape evidence strength and transferability. Peer-reviewed systematic reviews, scoping reviews, structured reviews, surveys, meta-reviews, and other eligible review-level articles were identified through searches of major academic databases and publisher platforms. Evidence was organised by application domain, sensing modality, analytical method, validation design, generalisation, uncertainty, reproducibility, and decision-support relevance. Crop-monitoring reviews describe extensive use of satellite, unmanned aerial vehicle, multispectral, hyperspectral, thermal, and multimodal data for crop mapping, growth assessment, phenotyping, stress monitoring, and related applications. Disease-detection reviews report rapid expansion of image-based machine learning and deep learning, but repeatedly identify data scarcity, class imbalance, curated-image dependence, and limited cross-context validation. Yield-forecasting reviews identify recurring integration of remote sensing, weather, soil, crop-model, and management information, although forecast horizons, spatial and temporal validation, uncertainty communication, and decision relevance remain inconsistent. Across domains, reported technical promise is moderated by heterogeneous datasets, benchmark inconsistency, review overlap, incomplete reproducibility, and limited evidence of transfer across crops, regions, seasons, and acquisition conditions. Review-level evidence supports a substantial research opportunity for remote sensing and machine learning in smart farming, but it does not independently establish field readiness, diagnostic reliability, operational forecasting performance, or deployment readiness. Stronger review reporting, external validation, transparent benchmarking, uncertainty assessment, reproducible workflows, and responsible decision-support evaluation are required.

Edge Artificial Intelligence and Tiny Machine Learning are increasingly discussed as approaches for moving selected analytical functions from remote cloud infrastructure to low-power devices located closer to agricultural data sources. Their potential relevance to precision agriculture lies in supporting local sensing, classification, monitoring, and decision-assistance functions where continuous connectivity, high-performance computing, or extensive data transmission may be impractical. This framework-oriented review examines Edge AI and TinyML through four connected dimensions: low-power intelligence, embedded farm systems, agricultural deployment constraints, and farm-scale applications and implementation barriers. The review distinguishes on-device inference and near-sensor intelligence from conventional agricultural Internet of Things sensing, generic wireless sensor networks, cloud-based artificial intelligence, and non-embedded machine-learning applications. It organizes the reviewed evidence around embedded hardware, model compression, memory, latency, energy use, sensor quality, connectivity, environmental exposure, calibration, maintenance, usability, affordability, local validation, cybersecurity, privacy, and human oversight. The synthesis indicates that compact inference can reduce reliance on continuous cloud access in appropriately designed systems, but miniaturized models alone do not establish accuracy, robustness, affordability, usability, sustainability, or deployment readiness. Farm-scale usefulness remains conditional on the quality of sensing systems, hardware-aware model design, environmental testing, lifecycle maintenance, locally relevant validation, and clear responsibility for system oversight. The main contribution is a framework that connects technical design choices with deployment conditions, implementation boundaries, and a research and practice agenda for evaluating low-power agricultural intelligence without converting prototype feasibility into unsupported operational claims.

Smart farming technologies are often presented as innovations whose adoption depends mainly on technical availability, economic advantage, or farmer willingness. Such interpretations do not adequately explain why similar technologies are adopted and sustained in some settings but resisted, selectively used, discontinued, or abandoned in others. This realist review develops an explanatory synthesis of smart farming adoption through context–mechanism–outcome reasoning. It examines how farm structure, farmer capability, financial resources, infrastructure, connectivity, advisory support, institutional conditions, social legitimacy, platform relations, and data governance influence farmers’ interpretations of technological opportunities and risks. Adoption is distinguished from technology acceptance, partial adoption, sustained use, discontinuance, abandonment, and implementation failure. Enabling mechanisms include perceived usefulness, compatibility, trust, decision confidence, credible value, and experiential learning. Constraining mechanisms include affordability concern, return uncertainty, complexity, privacy concern, autonomy concern, platform dependency, and maintenance burden. The synthesis indicates that no contextual factor or mechanism independently guarantees adoption or implementation success. Similar technologies may generate different outcomes because farmers encounter different resources, constraints, relationships, and implementation experiences. The review proposes a recursive programme theory in which appraisal, trial, implementation experience, feedback, and changing farm conditions continually reshape perceived value, trust, capability, and willingness to continue. Responsible implementation therefore requires context-sensitive evaluation, farmer-centered usability assessment, reliable infrastructure, credible advisory and technical support, interoperability, transparent data governance, and attention to exclusion. The proposed configurations support explanatory synthesis and empirical testing rather than universal prediction or implementation prescription.

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.

Smart farming platforms are frequently conceived around persistent connectivity, modern devices, scalable cloud services, specialized technical support, and the financial capacity to adopt integrated digital systems. These assumptions may not hold in smallholder and connectivity-constrained agricultural settings, where infrastructure gaps, uneven digital skills, limited advisory access, maintenance difficulties, data costs, language diversity, and uncertain platform governance shape whether digital services are usable or sustainable. This article develops a conceptual design science framework for low-resource smart farming platforms. The framework links problem relevance, contextual requirement definition, design principles, platform artifact logic, implementation conditions, evaluation needs, feedback, and framework updating. It focuses on affordability, transparent costs, incremental adoption, modular architecture, interoperability, offline-first operation, low-bandwidth communication, local usability, accessible interaction, advisory integration, maintenance capacity, farmer data control, and trust. The proposed approach treats smallholders as heterogeneous users operating within diverse production systems, infrastructures, institutions, and knowledge networks. Platform functions are therefore organized as configurable responses to identified conditions rather than as a universal technology package. The principal contribution is a structured design science logic for translating low-resource agricultural problems into bounded platform requirements and evaluable conceptual artifacts. The framework can guide platform design and research planning, but it does not independently demonstrate affordability, inclusion, adoption, scalability, sustainability, operational safety, or deployment readiness. These outcomes require local usability assessment, affordability analysis, governance review, maintenance evaluation, implementation research, and field validation involving intended users and supporting institutions.

Agricultural artificial intelligence increasingly combines sensor measurements, remote sensing, farm records, predictive modelling, and digital decision support. Yet agricultural context cannot be adequately represented through machine-readable data or model performance alone. Farming decisions are also shaped by tacit knowledge, farmer expertise, local ecological understanding, seasonal experience, farm history, cultural relationships, and institutional power. This article proposes a conceptual framework for integrating these dimensions into context-aware agricultural AI without treating local or Indigenous knowledge as extractable technical inputs. The framework begins with context-aware use-case definition and farm, agroecological, cultural, and historical context mapping. It then distinguishes tacit, experiential, situated, local, Indigenous, traditional ecological, scientific, and model-based knowledge while preserving differences in authority, representation, and validation. Participatory design, farmer-centered design, knowledge co-production, human oversight, local validation, knowledge sovereignty, Indigenous data sovereignty, access control, and ethical review are positioned as interconnected requirements rather than optional additions. The framework also addresses knowledge extraction, misappropriation, decontextualization, translation loss, contextual bias, algorithmic opacity, consent ambiguity, unequal benefit distribution, and trust overclaiming. Its principal contribution is a staged architecture that links knowledge plurality with contextual interpretation, governance safeguards, uncertainty communication, feedback, and explicit decision boundaries. The framework is intended to guide conceptual development and research design. It does not authorize knowledge use, establish community or Indigenous approval, validate Indigenous knowledge through AI, guarantee cultural appropriateness or trust, or demonstrate operational or deployment readiness.