Agricultural robotics and artificial intelligence (AI) are becoming essential to building more sustainable, efficient, and resilient food systems. As climate change, food security pressures, and labour shortages intensify, the integration of intelligent technologies in agriculture has gained strategic importance. This systematic review provides a consolidated assessment of AI and robotics research in agriculture from 2000 to 2025, identifying major trends, methodological trajectories, and underexplored domains. A structured search was conducted in the Scopus database—which was selected for its broad coverage of engineering, computer science, and agricultural technology—and records were screened using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria across title, abstract, keywords, and eligibility levels. The final dataset was analysed through descriptive statistics and science-mapping techniques (VOSviewer, SciMAT). Out of 4894 retrieved records, 3673 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included. As with all bibliometric reviews, the synthesis reflects the scope of indexed publications and available metadata, and potential selection bias was mitigated through a multi-stage screening workflow. The analysis revealed four dominant research themes: deep-learning-based perception, UAV-enabled remote sensing, data-driven decision systems, and precision agriculture. Several strategically relevant but underdeveloped areas also emerged, including soft manipulation, multimodal sensing, sim-to-real transfer, and adaptive autonomy. Geographical patterns highlight a strong concentration of research in China and India, reflecting agricultural scale and investment dynamics. Overall, the field appears technologically mature in perception and aerial sensing but remains limited in physical interaction, uncertainty-aware control, and long-term autonomous operation. These gaps indicate concrete opportunities for advancing next-generation AI-driven robotic systems in agriculture. Funding sources are reported in the full manuscript.
Casini et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: