Will AI replace Soil and Plant Scientists?

Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 27 official task statements scored for Soil and Plant Scientists (United States, SOC 19-1013), 3% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 28 out of 100 (range 21–34, band: low). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.

Which tasks in “Soil and Plant Scientists” can AI already do?

The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Research technical requirements or environmental impacts of urban green spaces, such as green roof installations” (75/100, high); “Provide advice regarding the development of regulatory standards for land reclamation or soil conservation” (56/100, partial); “Develop methods of conserving or managing soil that can be applied by farmers or forestry companies” (43/100, partial). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.

Which tasks in “Soil and Plant Scientists” stay human?

About 80% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Conduct experiments investigating how soil forms, changes, or interacts with land-based ecosystems or living organisms” (0/100, minimal); “Conduct experiments regarding causes of bee diseases or factors affecting yields of nectar or pollen” (8/100, minimal); “Conduct experiments to investigate the underlying mechanisms of plant growth and response to the environment” (10/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.

What should someone working in “Soil and Plant Scientists” do about AI?

Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 3% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 80% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.

How is the AI exposure score for Soil and Plant Scientists calculated?

Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 27 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.

US dataswitch to UK

Soil and Plant Scientists

communicating research or project results to other professionals or the public or teaching related courses, providing advice regarding the development of regulatory standards for land reclamation or soil conservation and studying soil characteristics to classify soils on the basis of factors. If that's your week, this page is about your job.

The honest answer

AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: conducting experiments to investigate the underlying mechanisms of plant growth and response to the environment is work software can't reach.

Your move: what you can actually do about this ↓

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 3%
changing shape: 17%
staying human: 80%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

Whole-job exposure score 28 out of 100 (21–34 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 27 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.

How we know this

What is measured: Every published task statement for soil and plant scientists is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-05. Read the full method.

What shifts is researching technical requirements or environmental impacts of urban green spaces: the overhead at the edges, not the middle you trained for.

Your week, as this page understands it

Conduct research in breeding, physiology, production, yield, and management of crops and agricultural plants or trees, shrubs, and nursery stock, their growth in soils, and control of pests; or study the chemical, physical, biological, and mineralogical composition of soils as they relate to plant or crop growth. May classify and map soils and investigate effects of alternative practices on soil and crop productivity. The job title says “soil” or “plant scientists”: officially one job, two names. The real job is the part underneath: conducting experiments to investigate the underlying mechanisms of plant growth and response to the environment. That is the thing someone has to be right about.

The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But soil and plant scientists is not one task. It is 27 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is conducting experiments to investigate the underlying mechanisms of plant growth and response to the environment, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 3%
changing shape: 17%
staying human: 80%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

How we know this

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-05. Read the full method.

Your job, task by task

These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.

1 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.

Shifting to AI

1 task

Tasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.

Researching technical requirements or environmental impacts of urban green spaces
This is reading one thing and writing another: technical requirements in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Research technical requirements or environmental impacts of urban green spaces, such as green roof installations.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Researching green roof requirements and impacts is literature and data work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Changing shape

5 tasks

Tasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.

Studying ways to improve agricultural sustainability
The software now makes the first pass at ways, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Study ways to improve agricultural sustainability, such as the use of new methods of composting.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Reviewing and proposing sustainability improvements is largely reading and writing, with trials to confirm.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing advice regarding the development of regulatory standards for land reclamation or soil conservation
The software now makes the first pass at advice regarding the development of regulatory standards, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Provide advice regarding the development of regulatory standards for land reclamation or soil conservation.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Advising on regulatory standards is written analysis of published evidence and rules.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing methods of conserving or managing soil that can be applied by farmers or forestry companies
The software now makes the first pass at methods, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Develop methods of conserving or managing soil that can be applied by farmers or forestry companies.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Conservation methods draft well from published research, but they need testing against real local conditions.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing ways of altering soils to suit different types of plants
The software now makes the first pass at ways of altering soils, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Develop ways of altering soils to suit different types of plants.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Soil improvement approaches draft from published agronomy, but they need checking on the ground.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Identifying or classifying species of insects or allied forms
The software now makes the first pass at species of insects, but part of it still happens in the physical world. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Identify or classify species of insects or allied forms, such as mites or spiders.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 41 out of 100 (34–48 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Insect identification from images is something software now does well, though specimens often need a microscope.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.

Staying human

21 tasks

Tasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.

Communicating research or project results to other professionals or the public or teaching related courses
The value here is that a specific person handles research and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Communicate research or project results to other professionals or the public or teach related courses, seminars, or workshops.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 39 out of 100 (32–46 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Turning results into papers, talks and course material is writing work software does well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing information or recommendations to farmers or other landowners regarding ways in which they can best use land
The value here is that a specific person handles information and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Provide information or recommendations to farmers or other landowners regarding ways in which they can best use land, promote plant growth, or avoid or correct problems such as erosion.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: General advice is easy to generate; what works on a particular farm depends on knowing that land and farmer.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conducting experiments to investigate the underlying mechanisms of plant growth and response to the environment
This work happens in the physical world: experiments, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Conduct experiments to investigate the underlying mechanisms of plant growth and response to the environment.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (6–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Plant growth experiments need someone growing and measuring real plants.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Investigating soil problems or poor water quality to determine sources and effects
This work happens in the physical world: soil problems, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Investigate soil problems or poor water quality to determine sources and effects.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 25 out of 100 (18–32 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: The analysis is documented science, but finding the source of a soil or water problem means sampling on site.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Show the other 17 tasks

Studying soil characteristics to classify soils on the basis of factors
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: soil characteristics, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Study soil characteristics to classify soils on the basis of factors such as geographic location, landscape position, or soil properties.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 38 out of 100 (31–45 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Soil classification follows a published system, but describing a profile usually means digging and feeling the soil.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Studying insect distribution or habitat and recommending methods to prevent importation or spread of injurious species
staying human
The ratings behind this row put insect distribution well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Study insect distribution or habitat and recommend methods to prevent importation or spread of injurious species.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 38 out of 100 (31–45 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Distribution data and control options are documented, but field survey work is still needed.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Investigating responses of soils to specific management practices to determine the use capabilities of soils and the effects of alternative practices on soil productivity
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: responses of soils, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Investigate responses of soils to specific management practices to determine the use capabilities of soils and the effects of alternative practices on soil productivity.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 29 out of 100 (22–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Trial design and analysis are well documented, though the field trials themselves take place outdoors.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting research to determine best methods of planting
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: research, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Conduct research to determine best methods of planting, spraying, cultivating, harvesting, storing, processing, or transporting horticultural products.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 29 out of 100 (22–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: The literature is rich, but comparing growing and handling methods means running real trials.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting research into the use of plant species as green fuels or in the production of green fuels
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: research, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 2 · Supplemental
Source: “Conduct research into the use of plant species as green fuels or in the production of green fuels.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 29 out of 100 (22–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Biofuel crop research draws on a big literature but still needs growing and lab work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Identifying degraded or contaminated soils and developing plans to improve their chemical
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: degraded, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Identify degraded or contaminated soils and develop plans to improve their chemical, biological, or physical characteristics.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 25 out of 100 (18–32 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Remediation plans draft from published methods, but identifying contaminated ground means sampling it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Surveying undisturbed or disturbed lands
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: undisturbed, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Survey undisturbed or disturbed lands for classification, inventory, mapping, environmental impact assessments, environmental protection planning, conservation planning, or reclamation planning.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 25 out of 100 (18–32 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Mapping and classification lean on satellite and survey data, but ground truthing means walking the land.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Consulting with engineers or other technical personnel working on construction projects about the effects of soil problems and possible solutions to these problems
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles engineers and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Consult with engineers or other technical personnel working on construction projects about the effects of soil problems and possible solutions to these problems.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Advising engineers turns on site specific ground conditions and a working relationship with the project team.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Planning or supervising waste management programs for composting or farming
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: waste management programs, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Plan or supervise waste management programs for composting or farming.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 19 out of 100 (12–26 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Composting and waste programs can be planned on paper, but running them means being on site.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Planning or supervising land conservation or reclamation programs for industrial development projects
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: land conservation, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Plan or supervise land conservation or reclamation programs for industrial development projects.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 19 out of 100 (12–26 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Reclamation plans draft well, but supervising the work means being at the site.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Developing new or improved methods or products for controlling or eliminating weeds
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: new or improved methods or products, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Develop new or improved methods or products for controlling or eliminating weeds, crop diseases, or insect pests.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: New pest and weed controls come from lab and field testing, not from writing.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing environmentally safe methods or products for controlling or eliminating weeds
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: safe methods, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Develop environmentally safe methods or products for controlling or eliminating weeds, crop diseases, or pests.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Environmentally safe pest controls have to be developed and tested physically.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing improved measurement techniques, soil conservation methods, soil sampling devices or related technology
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: improved measurement techniques, soil conservation methods, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Develop improved measurement techniques, soil conservation methods, soil sampling devices, or related technology.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 16 out of 100 (9–23 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Inventing better sampling devices and measurement methods needs building and trying them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conducting experiments to develop new or improved varieties of field crops
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: experiments, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 4 · Core
Source: “Conduct experiments to develop new or improved varieties of field crops, focusing on characteristics such as yield, quality, disease resistance, nutritional value, or adaptation to specific soils or climates.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (6–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Breeding trials happen in fields and greenhouses over whole seasons.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Performing chemical analyses of the microorganism content of soils to determine microbial reactions or chemical mineralogical relationships to plant growth
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: chemical analyses of the microorganism content of soils, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Perform chemical analyses of the microorganism content of soils to determine microbial reactions or chemical mineralogical relationships to plant growth.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (6–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Soil chemistry and microbiology analyses are done at a bench with real samples.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting experiments regarding causes of bee diseases or factors affecting yields of nectar or pollen
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: experiments regarding causes of bee diseases, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Supplemental
Source: “Conduct experiments regarding causes of bee diseases or factors affecting yields of nectar or pollen.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (4–12 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Bee disease and pollen yield experiments need hives and someone tending them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conducting experiments investigating how soil forms
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: experiments investigating how soil forms, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 3 · Core
Source: “Conduct experiments investigating how soil forms, changes, or interacts with land-based ecosystems or living organisms.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Soil formation experiments are set up and run physically.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay: $78,850a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this
Source: bls-oews
Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
Rounding: Shown as published.
People doing this job: 15,730in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)

What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.

Why this is shifting

The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: technical requirements in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: researching technical requirements or environmental impacts of urban green spaces and studying ways to improve agricultural sustainability. What it cannot do is be there in the room, and that is still where experiments get done. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.

Your move

Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend

Start with what does not change: conducting experiments to investigate the underlying mechanisms of plant growth and response to the environment is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.

So, given all that: 3% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 17% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 80% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 27 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.

So the thing worth your attention is not the job going away. It is the layer around it. Researching technical requirements or environmental impacts of urban green spaces is the part turning into software, and being the person who understands that layer is worth money.

This week: one thing

Ask the one question. Find whoever is bringing new software into your workplace (the manager, the office, whoever runs the system) and ask them what it is meant to do to technical requirements, and what it is not meant to touch. Ten minutes, this week, before anyone decides it for you.

What you end up holding: a straight answer about what is actually being rolled out, and when
How long it takes: ten minutes

If there’s nobody obvious to ask, or you’d rather not ask your manager: Put the same question to your union rep, your shift lead or the person who has been there longest, in person, over a break. Same ten minutes, same answer, and you will usually get a straighter one. Write down what they say. The note is the artifact, and it tells you whether experiments are in scope or not. Nothing to log into, no license needed.

Over the next 90 days

Get inside the tool rollout rather than waiting for it. Over the next ninety days, ask to be in the group that tests, checks or signs off whatever new system arrives near studying ways to improve agricultural sustainability. It is usually an unglamorous seat that nobody fights for, and it is the one that decides how the software is used on your job rather than to it.

Over the next 12 months

On this evidence I would not retrain out of this job, and I will say that plainly rather than hedge it. The task list here is dominated by work that stays with a person. What I would do with a year is get formally recognised for the layer around it (the systems, the compliance, the planning), so you are the one who understands the software instead of the one it is done to. Before you pay for anything, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.

The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them

I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.

I checked the 12 nearest US occupations to soil and plant scientists (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was urban and regional planners: only about 1% of its durable work is work you already do. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 28/100 here, with only 3% of the task list in the top band, and “communicate research or project results to other professionals or the public or…” is not work that hands over cleanly. None of them beats deepening what you already have.

How that was checked: this job was compared against all 830 US occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.

3 moves I checked and rejected

These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.

Urban and Regional Planners
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already plan or supervise land conservation or reclamation programs for industrial development projects, and their equivalent is to discuss with planning officials the purpose of land use projects. Across both published task lists that is about 1% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 1% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Agricultural Engineers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already plan or supervise land conservation or reclamation programs for industrial development projects, and their equivalent is to design and supervise environmental and land reclamation projects in agriculture and related industries. Across both published task lists that is about 1% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 1% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. And it is a narrow door: about 1,480 of those jobs against 15,730 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 9% as many seats.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Geoscientists, Except Hydrologists and Geographers
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already consult with engineers or other technical personnel working on construction projects about the…, and their equivalent is to inspect construction projects to analyze engineering problems, using test equipment or drilling machinery. Across both published task lists that is about 1% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 1% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Look at that job’s page anyway →

What I’d stop worrying about

A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.

The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 3% of its task weight, across 27 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The headlines about your trade disappearing
They are usually about the technology, not the timetable. Changes to work like conducting experiments to investigate the underlying mechanisms of plant growth and response to the environment arrive through rules, insurance and money, slowly and visibly. This page tracks the task evidence and will move when it moves.
Retraining out of a job that is holding up
On this evidence I would not spend money leaving. Spend it on the layer around the job instead: the tools, the paperwork, the planning. That is where the change actually is.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.

You are reading the United States figures

The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Natural and social science professionals n.e.c. is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.

Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match

The other groups this work is counted across:

In UK official statistics this job is counted as Natural and social science professionals n.e.c., Biological scientists, Other researchers, unspecified discipline and Biochemists and biomedical scientists. Pay is shown separately for each of those groups (medians cannot be averaged together), while the task list and the scores on this page are for this group only.

Your route through this

Where to go next, and what it costs

Free, and complete

The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.

Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
American Job Center locator
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
- CareerOneStop local help hub
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop
Free

Why there is no community here

Collab365, who build this site, run paid Spaces for a small number of subjects, and none of them is built for this job. We are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.

So the free services listed on this page are the whole answer, and it is the same answer we would give a friend.

Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for soil / plant scientists launches. Nothing else.

That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.

We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.

No Space for soil / plant scientists yet. Should there be one?

Collab365 Spaces is built by the same people as this site. We find the problems that AI and automation are creating inside one kind of work, then solve them as short courses, briefings and Blueprints. Each Space is the community too, so the research and the people doing your job are in the same place.

What a Space actually is, in full

Collab365 launches new communities where the need is real. If one for soil / plant scientists existed, with researched problems, courses and people in the same boat, would you want in?

Your email

We use your email address for one thing: to tell you if a Space for soil / plant scientists launches. We never sell it, never use it for unrelated marketing, and every email has a one-click unsubscribe. Our privacy policy has the full version.

This unlocks nothing. Every figure, every row and every step on this page is already yours, whether you fill this in or not.

No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.

Questions people ask about this job

Will AI replace Soil and Plant Scientists?: Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 27 official task statements scored for Soil and Plant Scientists (United States, SOC 19-1013), 3% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 28 out of 100 (range 21–34, band: low). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
Which tasks in “Soil and Plant Scientists” can AI already do?: The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Research technical requirements or environmental impacts of urban green spaces, such as green roof installations” (75/100, high); “Provide advice regarding the development of regulatory standards for land reclamation or soil conservation” (56/100, partial); “Develop methods of conserving or managing soil that can be applied by farmers or forestry companies” (43/100, partial). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
Which tasks in “Soil and Plant Scientists” stay human?: About 80% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Conduct experiments investigating how soil forms, changes, or interacts with land-based ecosystems or living organisms” (0/100, minimal); “Conduct experiments regarding causes of bee diseases or factors affecting yields of nectar or pollen” (8/100, minimal); “Conduct experiments to investigate the underlying mechanisms of plant growth and response to the environment” (10/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
What should someone working in “Soil and Plant Scientists” do about AI?: Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 3% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 80% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
How is the AI exposure score for Soil and Plant Scientists calculated?: Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 27 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.

Where these numbers come from

Worth knowing about these figures

The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
1 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.

Task statements: onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
Task weights: onet-db (im-rt)
Scores: Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
Pay and employment: bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))

Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.

The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.

The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.

How we score a job Download this release Look up another job

Using these figures?

Cite this

Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.

Plain text

Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).

BibTeX

@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
  title        = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
  author       = {{Collab365}},
  year         = {2026},
  url          = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
  note         = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}

Permalink

https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1

Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.