Foundation Models Meet Agriculture: Challenges Beyond Pretraining

Geospatial foundation models pretrained on satellite imagery promise broad generalization across remote sensing tasks and regions, but their geographic transferability has not been systematically tested, especially in agriculture applications. This paper presents a controlled benchmark that evaluates three models, Prithvi, SpectralGPT, and SatMAE, on multi-temporal crop segmentation and change detection across four U.S. states, Iowa, North Carolina, California, and Minnesota. By assigning each train, validation, and test split to a separate region, we measure how well each model transfers to land it has not seen. All three degrade sharply under regional distribution shift, predicting only the most common crops while missing rare ones. We further find that fitting these models to a shared input format affects each one differently, which complicates direct architectural comparison. These results expose key limitations of current geospatial foundation models for agriculture and point to region aware evaluation as a necessary standard.

Foundation models (FMs) have transformed machine learning from isolated task-specific model development toward general-purpose models pretrained on broad data and adapted to multiple downstream tasks. Earth observation (EO) is an important domain for this paradigm because satellite and airborne archives are large, high-revisit, and increasingly multimodal, while reliable field labels are often sparse. Remote sensing foundation models (RSFMs) cannot be transferred reliably/optimally without domain-specific adaptation. This is because EO data are governed by measurement physics and operational decision constraints. This chapter reviews the design principles arising from these domain-specific constraints. It first defines the FMs paradigm in remote sensing (RS), then synthesizes the current model landscape, pretraining objectives, architecture designs, downstream adaptation and trustworthiness requirements. The chapter also incorporates recent benchmark evidence showing that no single geospatial foundation model is universally best and that inconsistent evaluation remains a major issue to fair comparison and reliable deployment. In addition, two brief environmental monitoring case studies; physics-informed spectral targeted masking for harmful algal bloom prediction and reinforcement learning for adaptive environmental monitoring station selection to illustrate the FMs domain-guided principles in practice. This chapter posits that next-generation RSFMs should be evaluated not only by benchmark accuracy, but also by modality-aware transfer and physically plausible representations for trustworthy EO decisions.

Vision-language models (VLMs) show promise for agricultural classification, but zero-shot performance on disease, pest, damage, quality, and species identification remains poor, and it is unclear whether this reflects weak visual features or a failure to connect them to domain knowledge. We build a benchmark of 116 datasets, 834 classes, and 8,324 images spanning these tasks to isolate where the gap arises. Linear probing shows VLM vision encoders already encode agricultural features nearly as separable as a self-supervised DINOv3 baseline, ruling out weak visual representations as the primary bottleneck. Conditioning each model on an oracle reference description (an upper bound on its parametric knowledge) closes most of the gap left by an unaided lower bound, showing VLMs already know more about agriculture than they show. To close this gap without an oracle description at inference time, we structure test-time reasoning around a fixed, per-task diagnostic rubric: the model generates $K$ candidate responses and a Probabilistic Pivot Tournament (PPT) verifier, scored pairwise against the rubric, selects the best one. This nearly doubles judged F1 over the lower bound and matches or exceeds the upper bound on several tasks, notably pushing Gemma 4 E4B-it's disease F1 to 0.71, above its own upper bound of 0.60. However, the verifier's letter-scale confidence score has the opposite of its intended effect: filtering to its most confident predictions does not improve accuracy and correlates negatively with correctness across every model and pool size tested, so the score cannot serve as a measure of predictive uncertainty, and most of the observed gain likely comes from rubric-grounded generation rather than pairwise verification.