ASABE Technical Library - Abstract

Click on “Download PDF” for the PDF version or on the title for the HTML version.
If you are not an ASABE member or if your employer has not arranged for access to the full-text, view access and subscription options

Ground Autonomous Agricultural Vehicles: A Review of Technology Trends, Safety Standards, and Australian Codes of Practice

Published by the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan www.asabe.org

Citation:  2026 ASABE Annual International Meeting  2601674.(doi:10.13031/aim.202601674)
Authors:   Asif Al Razi Nabil, Justine Baillie, Michael Scobie, Derek Long, Guangnan Chen
Keywords:   Autonomous agriculture; Ground autonomous vehicles; Machinery safety; Work health safety; Cybersecurity

Abstract. Ground autonomous agricultural vehicles (AAVs) are expanding rapidly across farm types, with platforms ranging from retrofit autonomy kits to purpose-built field robots and driverless tractors. This review synthesizes an updated evidence base consisting of (i) an inventory of 97 AAV offerings and (ii) a governance crosswalk of 175 standards and 52 Australian Codes of Practice (CoP)/equivalent guidance documents relevant to ground autonomy. After excluding aerial systems and discontinued entries, 80 active ground AAV offerings were analysed. Half of these offerings are commercially available (50%), with a further 15% reported as commercial with limited deployments. The dominant operation themes are weeding and crop protection (each 35% of active offerings), followed by orchard/vineyard operations (21%) and tillage/soil work (18%). Electrification is prevalent (55% of active offerings specify electric/battery power), while diesel remains common (29%). In terms of autonomy stack signals, 49% of offerings explicitly reference machine vision/cameras, 30% reference GNSS/RTK, and 21% reference remote supervision and/or AI/ML. The standards practice mapping indicates broad coverage across machinery safety, safety related control systems, and operational risk management, with 23 standards classified as directly applicable to ground AAV safety, complemented by 131 supporting and 21 transferable references. Australia‘s WHS framework provides a strong plant-safety baseline, and Queensland‘s Rural plant Code of Practice 2024 includes explicit guidance on “autonomous mobile machinery and robotics,” including operating zone access control, mode switching, remote supervision, and communications compromise (“…hacked communications”). However, because model WHS materials become legally binding only when separately implemented by each jurisdiction, autonomy-specific guidance and its legal status remain uneven across Australia, requiring jurisdiction aware interpretation for multi-state deployment and reporting. Cybersecurity is increasingly safety relevant for connected autonomy: industrial cybersecurity frameworks such as ISA/IEC 62443 provide lifecycle requirements that bridge operations/IT and process safety, while agriculture focused WHS guidance varies in how explicitly it translates these cybersecurity expectations into safety assurance evidence for autonomous functions. Finally, ISO 18497-4:2024 provides verification method and validation principle guidance for partially automated through autonomous agricultural machinery, but the principle level nature of this guidance can leave room for variability in what organizations present as “sufficient” verification/validation evidence, particularly for perception heavy autonomy operating in unstructured field conditions. Overall, the review provides a structured snapshot of current ground AAV capabilities and the associated safety governance landscape to support evidence-based assessment and reporting.

(Download PDF)    (Export to EndNotes)