Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42695097›Full record

ArticleOutlook on agriculture2026

The governance of artificial intelligence in agriculture: A review and future research directions.

Michelle Ragany, Sjaak Wolfert, Rozita Dara

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Outlook on agriculture, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Michelle RaganySchool of Computer Science, College of Computational, Mathematical, and Physical Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5209-522X
Sjaak WolfertWageningen Social & Economic Research, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5126-0206
Rozita DaraSchool of Computer Science, College of Computational, Mathematical, and Physical Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3728-0275

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Adopting artificial intelligence (AI) tools and technologies may be favourable for the agriculture sector in addressing food security and sustainability. As AI gains popularity, there are clear benefits to using AI in the agriculture sector. However, without effective governance, there are risks and challenges that can limit the benefits that can be obtained from using AI. For instance, ineffective policies that fail to outline liability in the event of adverse outcomes, such as crop loss resulting from ineffective decision-making by an AI technology or tool. We present a definition of AI governance in agriculture, in addition to a novel taxonomy which is comprised of nine principles: inclusivity & education, trustworthiness, custodianship & liability, law, sustainable & ethical development, transparency, privacy & security, bias, and data quality. Following a scoping review methodology, we conduct an analysis of the existing literature on AI governance in agriculture through the lens of the nine principles. Additionally, we uncover factors which support the principles of AI governance outlined in the discussion. Furthermore, identifying research gaps provides a clear road map for future directions, which can support researchers, policymakers, and practitioners. This study supports the ongoing development of AI governance and sheds light on the critical need for tailored governance for the agriculture sector.

Indexed as

agricultureAI governanceArtificial intelligencefarmer-centricresponsible innovation

Identifiers

PMID42695097
PMCPMC13541240

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.