Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Responsible artificial intelligence in agriculture requires systemic understanding of risks and externalities

Nature Machine Intelligence volume 4, pages 104–109 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Global agriculture is poised to benefit from the rapid advance and diffusion of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. AI in agriculture could improve crop management and agricultural productivity through plant phenotyping, rapid diagnosis of plant disease, efficient application of agrochemicals and assistance for growers with location-relevant agronomic advice. However, the ramifications of machine learning (ML) models, expert systems and autonomous machines for farms, farmers and food security are poorly understood and under-appreciated. Here, we consider systemic risk factors of AI in agriculture. Namely, we review risks relating to interoperability, reliability and relevance of agricultural data, unintended socio-ecological consequences resulting from ML models optimized for yields, and safety and security concerns associated with deployment of ML platforms at scale. As a response, we suggest risk-mitigation measures, including inviting rural anthropologists and applied ecologists into the technology design process, applying frameworks for responsible and human-centred innovation, setting data cooperatives for improved data transparency and ownership rights, and initial deployment of agricultural AI in digital sandboxes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020: Transforming Food Systems for Affordable Healthy Diets (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, WHO, 2020).

  2. Cole, M. B., Augustin, M. A., Robertson, M. J. & Manners, J. M. The science of food security. NPJ Sci. Food 2, 14 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Matson, P. A., Parton, W. J., Power, A. G. & Swift, M. J. Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties. Science 277, 504–509 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Quinton, J. N., Govers, G., Van Oost, K. & Bardgett, R. D. The impact of agricultural soil erosion on biogeochemical cycling. Nat. Geosci. 3, 311–314 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Singh, R. B. Environmental consequences of agricultural development: a case study from the Green Revolution state of Haryana, India. Agricult. Ecosyst. Environment 82, 97–103 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. The State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (FAO, 2010).

  7. Semchuk, K. M., Love, E. J. & Lee, R. G. Parkinson’s disease and exposure to agricultural work and pesticide chemicals. Neurology 42, 1328–1328 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Campbell, J. In Topical Research Digest: Human Rights and Contemporary Slavery 131–141 (Univ. Denver, 2008).

  9. Nguyen, H. Q. & Warr, P. Land consolidation as technical change: economic impacts in rural Vietnam. World Dev. 127, 104750 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Nilsson, P. The role of land use consolidation in improving crop yields among farm households in Rwanda. J. Dev. Stud. 55, 1726–1740 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Du, X., Zhang, X. & Jin, X. Assessing the effectiveness of land consolidation for improving agricultural productivity in China. Land Use Policy 70, 360–367 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Schmitz, A., & Moss, C. B. Mechanized agriculture: Machine adoption, farm size, and labor displacement. AgBioForum 18, 278–296 (2015).

  13. Wilde, P. Food Policy in the United States: An Introduction (Routledge, 2013).

  14. Tadele, Z. Orphan crops: their importance and the urgency of improvement. Planta 250, 677–694 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lugo-Morin, D. Indigenous communities and their food systems: a contribution to the current debate. J. Ethn. Food 7, 6 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Akinola, R., Pereira, L. M., Mabhaudhi, T., de Bruin, F. M. & Rusch, L. A review of indigenous food crops in Africa and the implications for more sustainable and healthy food systems. Sustainability 12, 3493 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jose, S. Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: an overview. Agrofor. Syst. 76, 1–10 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Talaviya, T., Shah, D., Patel, N., Yagnik, H. & Shah, M. Implementation of artificial intelligence in agriculture for optimisation of irrigation and application of pesticides and herbicides. Artif. Intell. Agricult. 4, 58–73 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Palacios-Lopez, A., Christiaensen, L., & Kilic, T. How much of the labor in African agriculture is provided by women? Food Policy 67, 52–63 (2017).

  20. Alkon, A. H., & Agyeman, J. (eds) Cultivating Food Justice: Race, Class, and Sustainability (MIT Press, 2011).

  21. Edmonds, E. V. & Pavcnik, N. The effect of trade liberalization on child labor. J. Int. Econ. 65, 401–419 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Child Labour in Agriculture (International Labor Organization, 2021).

  23. Lowder, S. K., Skoet, J. & Raney, T. The number, size, and distribution of farms, smallholder farms, and family farms worldwide. World Dev. 87, 16–29 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Mehrabi, Z. et al. The global divide in data-driven farming. Nat. Sustain. 4, 154–160 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hennessy, T., Läpple, D. & Moran, B. The digital divide in farming: A problem of access or engagement? Appl. Econ. Persp. Policy 38, 474–491 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Klerkx, L., Jakku, E., Labarthe, P. A review of social science on digital agriculture, smart farming and agriculture 4.0: New contributions and a future research agenda. NJAS Wageningen J. Life Sci. 90–91, 100315 (2019).

  27. Wolfert, S., Ge, L., Verdouw, C. & Bogaardt, M. J. Big data in smart farming–a review. Agric. Syst. 153, 69–80 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Levins, R. & Cochrane, W. The treadmill revisited. Land Econ. 72, 550–553 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sontowski, S. et al. Cyber attacks on smart farming infrastructure. In 2020 IEEE 6th Int. Conf. on Collaboration and Internet Computing (CIC) 135–143 (IEEE, 2020).

  30. Cyber-attack hits JBS meat works in Australia, North America. Reuters https://www.reuters.com/technology/cyber-attack-hits-jbs-meat-works-australia-north-america-2021-05-31/ (1 June 2021)

  31. Sharma, A. $5.9 million ransomware attack on farming co-op may cause food shortage. Ars Technica https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2021/09/5-9-million-ransomware-attack-on-farming-co-op-may-cause-food-shortage/ (21 September 2021)

  32. Rahwan, I. et al. Machine behaviour. Nature 568, 477–486 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Johnson, N. et al. Abrupt rise of new machine ecology beyond human response time. Sci. Rep. 3, 2627 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Gold, E. R. The fall of the innovation empire and its possible rise through open science. Res. Policy 50, 104226 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Majumdar, J., Naraseeyappa, S. & Ankalaki, S. Analysis of agriculture data using data mining techniques: application of big data. J. Big Data 4, 20 (2017).

  36. CGIAR GARDIAN Data Ecosystem https://gardian.bigdata.cgiar.org (CGIAR Platform for Big Data in Agriculture, 2021).

  37. Yara and IBM. IBM https://www.ibm.com/services/client-stories/yara (accessed 18 August 2021).

  38. Stilgoe, J., Owen, R. & Macnaghten, P. in The Ethics of Nanotechnology, Geoengineering and Clean Energy 347–359 (Routledge, 2020).

  39. Theodorou, A. & Dignum, V. Towards ethical and socio-legal governance in AI. Nat. Mach. Intell. 2, 10–12 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kamle, S. & Ali, S. Genetically modified crops: detection strategies and biosafety issues. Gene 522, 123–132 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper was made possible through the support of a grant from Templeton World Charity Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Templeton World Charity Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Asaf Tzachor, Shahar Avin & Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh

  2. School of Sustainability, Reichman University (IDC Herzliya), Herzliya, Israel

    Asaf Tzachor

  3. Platform for Big Data in Agriculture, CGIAR, Cali, Colombia

    Medha Devare & Brian King

  4. International Institute for Tropical Agriculture, CGIAR, Ibadan, Nigeria

    Medha Devare

  5. Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh

Authors
  1. Asaf Tzachor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Medha Devare
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brian King
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shahar Avin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.T., M.D., B.K., S.A. and S.Ó.H, developed the paper jointly and all contributed equally to the writing of the text.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Asaf Tzachor or Seán Ó hÉigeartaigh.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Machine Intelligence thanks Matthew McCabe and John Quinn for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tzachor, A., Devare, M., King, B. et al. Responsible artificial intelligence in agriculture requires systemic understanding of risks and externalities. Nat Mach Intell 4, 104–109 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-022-00440-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-022-00440-4

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing