At least that's my understanding from the little i read about permaculture, but i have no specific knowledge of that field so please correct me if something is off.
And the way it gets typcially used in agro-industry does in turn have even more negative consequences then what you mention (which as far as I'm aware is correct); erosion for instance is getting a serious problem in some places. Combined with heavy sustained percipation in areas which don't usually see that (also as a result of climate change) it can lead to the complete topsoil just flooding away. And then more fertilizer is needed to make the land useful again, while the part which flooded away is fertlizing/polluting downstream areas. And so on, and so on. There's quite a lot of these chains/cycles all contrbuting to, in the most pessimistic view, a man-made complete downgrade of the whole planet.
Such robots are mostly on a prototype stage, and not applied widely in agriculture today, so they are a possible problem of tomorrow rather than a present problem. Fertilizer run off is very much a present problem.
Also, the robots will typically replace a combination of herbicides and manual labor. It is not like farmers let the weed grow freely today. As such they may be an improvement over current practices.
Here is an interesting article from 2018 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6371/eaam7240 Short form " Ocean dead zones with zero oxygen have quadrupled in size since 1950, partly due to Rising nutrient loads"
Longer quote: "Over the past 50 years ... Open-ocean oxygen-minimum zones (OMZs) have expanded by an area about the size of the European Union ... and the volume of water completely devoid of oxygen (anoxic) has more than quadrupled over the same period ... "Agricultural production has greatly increased ..., resulting in a 10-fold increase in global fertilizer use over the same period (47). Nitrogen discharges from rivers to coastal waters increased by 43% in just 30 years from 1970 to 2000 (48), "
Less meat means less land for crops, which means less fertilizer use or fewer fields with laser robots ;).
And actually yes maintaining a variety of weeds/bush around crops has been shown to be beneficial in certain circumstances: more insects attract more predators of all kinds and as such can create an ecosystem which lead to less plagues on the crops. Not gonna work for insanely large monocultures, but tossing away the idea is also not needed.
Those in combination with pesticides and insecticides are the main theat to diversity.
From the point of an ecosystem, those fields are desserts, cutting of different systems, so most species cannot travel and connect, which is something they need to.
I don't think you can "program" a robot to avoid loosing micro-particles of its shell, or to prevent leaky/self-flammable batteries. Also i'm pretty sure the manufacture of the robot would incur processes that are much more devastating to the environment, eg. extracting and refining materials.
All in all, i agree with your point that chemical fertilizers and mechanized monocultures are slowly turning our soils into a desert, but i don't think "robots" are the future of many things.
Maybe some forms of eco-friendly robots can have a future in an eco-friendly society although i doubt it. But for that you'd need to build robots from widely-available and very recyclable materials, which is the opposite direction that the industry has taken by introducing over a hundred rare earths and metals in most electronics products.
Let's just say i have conflicted feelings about solarpunk: my gut tells me "cool" but my brain tells me "this is how we destroy nature". Although i do note some segments of the solarpunk community are more low-tech and would laugh at the idea of using robots for agriculture.
[0] https://iotsecurity.engin.umich.edu/physical-adversarial-exa...
Maybe you’re right, but introducing additional data, information, or argument is more helpful to the discussion than just saying “Yuh-huh”
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/60/9/685/237929
The key line would be this, from a cursory reading:
"Long-term (millennia) C sequestration can be achieved when C from aboveground biomass transfers to the roots and enters the pool of SOC or SIC (hereafter SC, for soil C)."
Obviously there's more context, but this is why old growth forests are huge carbon sinks: because they have undergone the process of sequestering carbon into the soil uninterrupted for such a long time.
Again, apologies for taking the above for granted. Maybe it is less well known than I thought.