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.

Artificial intelligence is increasingly used across agriculture and food systems for precision farming, yield prediction, pest detection, supply-chain optimisation, quality control, decision support, and resource management. These applications are often promoted as tools for increasing productivity, reducing uncertainty, improving resource efficiency, and strengthening food-system resilience. As AI becomes embedded in farms, supply chains, laboratories, and food governance infrastructures, its consequences extend beyond technical performance. The central problem is that the benefits of agri-food AI are frequently assessed through accuracy, automation efficiency, profitability, or optimisation metrics, while broader ethical, equity, environmental, and governance implications receive less systematic attention. AI systems may alter farmer autonomy, labour relations, data ownership, market participation, environmental decision-making, and institutional accountability. Treating these consequences as secondary risks understates the degree to which AI changes relationships among people, technologies, land, food, and power. This critical review examines responsible AI in agriculture and food systems through four connected dimensions: ethics, equity, sustainability, and governance. It argues that responsible AI cannot be reduced to technical reliability or model performance because agri-food systems are socially embedded, ecologically consequential, and institutionally fragmented. The article therefore evaluates responsible AI as a socio-technical and governance challenge rather than as a purely computational problem. The article contributes a critical argument that responsible agri-food AI requires accountable design, inclusive access, sustainability-aware evaluation, and multi-level governance. It emphasises that trustworthy AI in agriculture and food systems depends on who controls data, who benefits from automation, who bears environmental and social risks, and who participates in decision-making. Responsible AI is therefore positioned as a core condition for equitable, sustainable, and publicly legitimate agri-food transformation.

Smart farming is increasingly promoted as a pathway for improving agricultural productivity, resource efficiency, climate responsiveness, and data-driven decision-making. Its core technologies include sensors, digital platforms, machine learning, remote sensing, robotics, automation, and decision-support systems. These tools are often presented as mechanisms for making agriculture more precise, predictable, and adaptive. However, smart farming is not only a technical shift in agricultural tools. It also changes how knowledge is produced, how decisions are justified, how risks are distributed, and how farmers interact with platforms, advisers, suppliers, regulators, and markets. A critical review perspective is therefore needed to examine the social, institutional, political, and ecological consequences of agricultural digitalization. This article critically reviews smart farming as a socio-technical transformation rather than a purely technical modernization process. It examines how datafication, digital governance, farmer adoption, platform dependency, power asymmetry, and sustainability tensions shape the meaning and consequences of smart farming. The central argument is that smart farming should be evaluated through its effects on data control, farmer agency, institutional accountability, and ecological responsibility. The review synthesizes scholarship on digital agriculture, precision agriculture, smart farming, data governance, adoption barriers, farmer-centered challenges, sustainability claims, and responsible innovation. It does not treat technology adoption as a simple matter of farmer willingness or technical readiness. Instead, it situates adoption within broader arrangements of infrastructure, affordability, trust, knowledge, governance, and market pressure. The article contributes a critical synthesis of smart farming evidence and develops a forward-looking agenda for research and governance. It argues that smart farming futures should be designed around transparency, participation, interoperability, accountable digital systems, social equity, and ecological care. The review therefore reframes smart farming as a contested transformation whose benefits depend on how digital systems are governed, adopted, and made accountable.