Farming faces challenges that increase the adverse effects on farms’ economics, labor, and the environment. Smart farming technologies (SFTs) are expected to assist in reverting this situation. In this work, 1064 SFTs were derived from scientific papers, research projects, and industrial products. They were classified by technology readiness level (TRL), typology, and field operation, and they were assessed for their economic, environmental, and labor impact, as well as their adoption readiness from end-users. It was shown that scientific articles dealt with SFTs of lower TRL than research projects. In scientific articles, researchers investigated mostly recording technologies, while, in research projects, they focused primarily on farm management information systems and robotic/automation systems. Scouting technologies were the main SFT type in scientific papers and research projects, but variable rate application technologies were mostly located in commercial products. In scientific papers, there was limited analysis of economic, environmental, and labor impact of the SFTs under investigation, while, in research projects, these impacts were studied thoroughly. Further, in commercial SFTs, the focus was on economic impact and less on labor and environmental issues. With respect to adoption readiness, it was found that all of the factors to facilitate SFT adoption became more positive moving from SFTs in scientific papers to fully functional commercial SFTs, indicating that SFTs reach the market when most of these factors are addressed for the benefit of the farmers. This SFT analysis is expected to inform researchers on adapting their research, as well as help policy-makers adjust their strategy toward digitized agriculture adoption and farmers with the current situation and future trends of SFTs.

Summary: Farmers have access to many data‐intensive technologies to help them monitor and control weeds and pests. Data collection, data modelling and analysis, and data sharing have become core challenges in weed control and crop protection. We review the challenges and opportunities of Big Data in agriculture: the nature of data collected, Big Data analytics and tools to present the analyses that allow improved crop management decisions for weed control and crop protection. Big Data storage and querying incurs significant challenges, due to the need to distribute data across several machines, as well as due to constantly growing and evolving data from different sources. Semantic technologies are helpful when data from several sources are combined, which involves the challenge of detecting interactions of potential agronomic importance and establishing relationships between data items in terms of meanings and units. Data ownership is analysed using the ethical matrix method to identify the concerns of farmers, agribusiness owners, consumers and the environment. Big Data analytics models are outlined, together with numerical algorithms for training them. Advances and tools to present processed Big Data in the form of actionable information to farmers are reviewed, and a success story from the Netherlands is highlighted. Finally, it is argued that the potential utility of Big Data for weed control is large, especially for invasive, parasitic and herbicide‐resistant weeds. This potential can only be realised when agricultural scientists collaborate with data scientists and when organisational, ethical and legal arrangements of data sharing are established.

For farmers, the application of Precision Agriculture (PA) technology is expected to lead to an increase in profitability. For society, PA is expected to lead to increased sustainability. The objective of this paper is to determine for a number of common PA practices how much they increase profitability and sustainability. For potato production in The Netherlands, we considered variable rate application (VRA) of soil herbicide, fungicide for late blight control, sidedress N, and haulm killing herbicide. For olive production in Greece, we considered spatially variable application of P and K fertilizer and lime. For each of the above scenarios, we quantified the value of outputs, the cost of inputs, and the environmental costs. This allowed us to calculate profit as well as social profit, where the latter is defined as revenues minus conventional costs minus the external costs of production. Social profit can be considered an overall measure of sustainability. Our calculations show that PA in potatoes increases profit by 21% (420 € ha⁻¹) and social profit by 26%. In olives, VRA application of P, K, and lime leads to a strong reduction in nutrient use and although this leads to an increase in sustainability, it has only a small effect on profit and on social profit. In conclusion, PA increases sustainability in olives and both profitability and sustainability in potatoes.