Fig 1 - uploaded by Christopher M Bacon
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
This Special Issue on Diversified Farming Systems is motivated by a desire to understand how agriculture designed according to whole systems, agroecological principles can contribute to creating a more sustainable, socially just, and secure global food system. We first define Diversified Farming Systems (DFS) as farming practices and landscapes tha...
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... Special Feature on Diversified Farming Systems (Kremen et al. 1012 a ) is motivated by a desire to understand how agriculture designed according to whole-systems, agroecological principles can contribute to creating a more sustainable, socially just, and secure global food system. “How to feed the world” is an increasingly urgent and looming concern voiced by many people, from local community groups to national and international governing bodies. By 2050, the world population is projected to rise to 9+ billion and food demands to double from current levels. At the same time, climate change, interacting with increasingly uneven access to declining oil, water, and phosphorus supplies, will greatly exacerbate the year-to-year unpredictability of agricultural production, potentially undermining the entire agricultural enterprise (Cribb 2010, Childers et al. 2011). Meanwhile, industrialized agricultural techniques are exacting a huge toll on surrounding environments, polluting waterways, creating dead zones in the oceans, destroying biodiverse habitats, releasing toxins into food chains, endangering public health via disease outbreaks and pesticide exposures, and contributing to climate warming (Horrigan et al. 2002, Tilman et al. 2002, Diaz and Rosenberg 2008, Marks et al. 2010, Foley et al. 2011). Moreover, industrial agricultural methods are inherently unsustainable in mining soils (Lal 2004, Tegtmeier and Duffy 2005, Montgomery 2007) and aquifers (Gordon et al. 2008) far more quickly than they can be replenished, and in their high use of fossil fuels (Lynch et al. 2011). These numerous environmental and social externalities create a huge economic cost that industrialized food producers seldom pay. For instance, pesticide use alone causes up to $10 billion in damage to humans and ecosystems in the United States every year (Pimentel 2005). Finally, although the agricultural sector currently produces more than enough calories to feed humanity, one billion people remain hungry and an additional one billion have micronutrient deficiencies (Welch and Graham 1999). This paradoxical situation occurs because many people still lack access to sufficiently diverse and healthy food, or the means to produce it, which is primarily a problem of distribution rather than production (IAAKSTD 2009). As further evidence of this paradox, global obesity rates have more than doubled since 1980 (WHO 2012), reflecting an overproduction of food in industrialized countries that creates strong incentives for agrifood companies to absorb excess food production into processed foods and to market and distribute them to customers in supersized portions (Nestle 2003). This series of articles examines the proposition that diversified farming systems, with their focus on local production, local and agroecological knowledge, and whole systems approaches reduce negative environmental externalities and decrease social costs associated with industrialized monocultures, enhance the sustainability and resilience of agriculture, and contribute significantly to global food security and health. We refer to a farming system as “diversified” when it intentionally includes functional biodiversity at multiple spatial and/or temporal scales, through practices developed via traditional and/or agroecological scientific knowledge. Farmers manage this functional biodiversity to generate critical ecosystem services to agriculture (Zhang et al. 2007). At the plot (i.e., within-field) scale, diversified farming systems (DFS) may include multiple genetic varieties of a given crop and/or multiple crops grown together as polycultures, and may stimulate biodiversity within the soil through addition of compost or manure (Figure 1). By crops, we mean either annual or perennial crops, including tree crops. At the field scale, DFS may include polycultures, noncrop plantings such as insectary strips, integration of livestock or fish with crops (mixed cropping systems), and/or rotation of crops or livestock over time, including cover cropping and rotational grazing. Around the field, DFS may incorporate noncrop plantings on field borders such as living fences and hedgerows. At the landscape scale, DFS may include natural or semi-natural communities of plants and animals within the cropped landscape/region, such as fallow fields, riparian buffers, pastures, meadows, woodlots, ponds, marshes, streams, rivers, and lakes, or combinations thereof (see also Kremen and Miles 2012). The resulting heterogeneous landscapes support both desired (beneficial) components of biodiversity and “associated biodiversity”; together these two elements make up agrobiodiversity (Perfecto et al. 2005). Components of the agrobiodiversity within DFS interact with one another and/or the physical environment to supply critical ecosystem services to the farming process, such as soil building, nitrogen fixation, nutrient cycling, water infiltration, pest or disease suppression, and pollination, thereby achieving a more sustainable form of agriculture that relies primarily upon inputs generated and regenerated within the agroecosystem, rather than primarily on external, often nonrenewable, inputs (Pearson 2007, Shennan 2008). Spatial considerations are important, since different components of the system must be in sufficient proximity, at each relevant scale, to create needed interactions and synergies. For example, the utility of intercropping for reducing belowground soil disease depends on spacing the different crops such that their root systems interact (Hiddink et al. 2010). Similarly, wild bee communities can only provide complete crop pollination services when a sufficient proportion of their natural habitat occurs within a given distance of crop fields (Kremen et al. 2004). A DFS is not only spatially heterogeneous, but is variable across time, due both to human actions (e.g., harvest, crop rotations, fallows, and other management practices or land use changes), and natural successional processes. Figure 1 presents the conceptual model of a DFS. The term agroecology goes back more than 80 years and originally referred to the ecological study of agricultural systems (Gliessman 2007). Much agroecological work seeks to bring Western scientific knowledge into respectful dialogue with the local and indigenous knowledge that farmers use in managing ecological processes in existing agroecosystems (Gliessman et al. 1981, Altieri and Toledo 2011). More recently this hybrid science has evolved to include the social and economic dimensions of food systems (Francis et al. 2003). Partly in response to the industrialized agriculture of the Green Revolution (Box 1), agroecology also came to mean the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices (see Box 2), and became an integral component of various social movements seeking alternatives to industrial agri-food systems. Thus agroecology currently holds multiple meanings, and can refer to an inter- or transdisciplinary science, a set of sustainable farming practices, and/or a social movement (Wezel et al. 2009). DFS is not an alternative to agroecology. Rather, DFS is a framework that draws from agroecological, social, and conservation sciences to focus analytical and action-oriented attention toward farming systems in which cross-scale ecological diversification is a major mechanism for generating and regenerating ecosystem services and supplying critical inputs to farming. Agroecological principles and methods can be used to evaluate DFS and to design or revive processes of diversification (Altieri 2002). In this essay and series of articles, we explore the ramifications of DFS for both ecological health and socioeconomic welfare, as well as examining the intersection of DFS with existing industrialized agricultural systems, supply chains, and national and international ...
Context 2
... Special Feature on Diversified Farming Systems (Kremen et al. 1012 a ) is motivated by a desire to understand how agriculture designed according to whole-systems, agroecological principles can contribute to creating a more sustainable, socially just, and secure global food system. “How to feed the world” is an increasingly urgent and looming concern voiced by many people, from local community groups to national and international governing bodies. By 2050, the world population is projected to rise to 9+ billion and food demands to double from current levels. At the same time, climate change, interacting with increasingly uneven access to declining oil, water, and phosphorus supplies, will greatly exacerbate the year-to-year unpredictability of agricultural production, potentially undermining the entire agricultural enterprise (Cribb 2010, Childers et al. 2011). Meanwhile, industrialized agricultural techniques are exacting a huge toll on surrounding environments, polluting waterways, creating dead zones in the oceans, destroying biodiverse habitats, releasing toxins into food chains, endangering public health via disease outbreaks and pesticide exposures, and contributing to climate warming (Horrigan et al. 2002, Tilman et al. 2002, Diaz and Rosenberg 2008, Marks et al. 2010, Foley et al. 2011). Moreover, industrial agricultural methods are inherently unsustainable in mining soils (Lal 2004, Tegtmeier and Duffy 2005, Montgomery 2007) and aquifers (Gordon et al. 2008) far more quickly than they can be replenished, and in their high use of fossil fuels (Lynch et al. 2011). These numerous environmental and social externalities create a huge economic cost that industrialized food producers seldom pay. For instance, pesticide use alone causes up to $10 billion in damage to humans and ecosystems in the United States every year (Pimentel 2005). Finally, although the agricultural sector currently produces more than enough calories to feed humanity, one billion people remain hungry and an additional one billion have micronutrient deficiencies (Welch and Graham 1999). This paradoxical situation occurs because many people still lack access to sufficiently diverse and healthy food, or the means to produce it, which is primarily a problem of distribution rather than production (IAAKSTD 2009). As further evidence of this paradox, global obesity rates have more than doubled since 1980 (WHO 2012), reflecting an overproduction of food in industrialized countries that creates strong incentives for agrifood companies to absorb excess food production into processed foods and to market and distribute them to customers in supersized portions (Nestle 2003). This series of articles examines the proposition that diversified farming systems, with their focus on local production, local and agroecological knowledge, and whole systems approaches reduce negative environmental externalities and decrease social costs associated with industrialized monocultures, enhance the sustainability and resilience of agriculture, and contribute significantly to global food security and health. We refer to a farming system as “diversified” when it intentionally includes functional biodiversity at multiple spatial and/or temporal scales, through practices developed via traditional and/or agroecological scientific knowledge. Farmers manage this functional biodiversity to generate critical ecosystem services to agriculture (Zhang et al. 2007). At the plot (i.e., within-field) scale, diversified farming systems (DFS) may include multiple genetic varieties of a given crop and/or multiple crops grown together as polycultures, and may stimulate biodiversity within the soil through addition of compost or manure (Figure 1). By crops, we mean either annual or perennial crops, including tree crops. At the field scale, DFS may include polycultures, noncrop plantings such as insectary strips, integration of livestock or fish with crops (mixed cropping systems), and/or rotation of crops or livestock over time, including cover cropping and rotational grazing. Around the field, DFS may incorporate noncrop plantings on field borders such as living fences and hedgerows. At the landscape scale, DFS may include natural or semi-natural communities of plants and animals within the cropped landscape/region, such as fallow fields, riparian buffers, pastures, meadows, woodlots, ponds, marshes, streams, rivers, and lakes, or combinations thereof (see also Kremen and Miles 2012). The resulting heterogeneous landscapes support both desired (beneficial) components of biodiversity and “associated biodiversity”; together these two elements make up agrobiodiversity (Perfecto et al. 2005). Components of the agrobiodiversity within DFS interact with one another and/or the physical environment to supply critical ecosystem services to the farming process, such as soil building, nitrogen fixation, nutrient cycling, water infiltration, pest or disease suppression, and pollination, thereby achieving a more sustainable form of agriculture that relies primarily upon inputs generated and regenerated within the agroecosystem, rather than primarily on external, often nonrenewable, inputs (Pearson 2007, Shennan 2008). Spatial considerations are important, since different components of the system must be in sufficient proximity, at each relevant scale, to create needed interactions and synergies. For example, the utility of intercropping for reducing belowground soil disease depends on spacing the different crops such that their root systems interact (Hiddink et al. 2010). Similarly, wild bee communities can only provide complete crop pollination services when a sufficient proportion of their natural habitat occurs within a given distance of crop fields (Kremen et al. 2004). A DFS is not only spatially heterogeneous, but is variable across time, due both to human actions (e.g., harvest, crop rotations, fallows, and other management practices or land use changes), and natural successional processes. Figure 1 presents the conceptual model of a DFS. The term agroecology goes back more than 80 years and originally referred to the ecological study of agricultural systems (Gliessman 2007). Much agroecological work seeks to bring Western scientific knowledge into respectful dialogue with the local and indigenous knowledge that farmers use in managing ecological processes in existing agroecosystems (Gliessman et al. 1981, Altieri and Toledo 2011). More recently this hybrid science has evolved to include the social and economic dimensions of food systems (Francis et al. 2003). Partly in response to the industrialized agriculture of the Green Revolution (Box 1), agroecology also came to mean the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices (see Box 2), and became an integral component of various social movements seeking alternatives to industrial agri-food systems. Thus agroecology currently holds multiple meanings, and can refer to an inter- or transdisciplinary science, a set of sustainable farming practices, and/or a social movement (Wezel et al. 2009). DFS is not an alternative to agroecology. Rather, DFS is a framework that draws from agroecological, social, and conservation sciences to focus analytical and action-oriented attention toward farming systems in which cross-scale ecological diversification is a major mechanism for generating and regenerating ecosystem services and supplying critical inputs to farming. Agroecological principles and methods can be used to evaluate DFS and to design or revive processes of diversification (Altieri 2002). In this essay and series of articles, we explore the ramifications of DFS for both ecological health and socioeconomic welfare, as well as examining the intersection of DFS with existing industrialized agricultural systems, supply chains, and national and international ...
Similar publications
Concerns about the negative impacts of productivist agriculture have led to the emergence of two forms of ecological modernisation of agriculture. The first, efficiency-substitution agriculture, aims to improve input use efficiency and to minimise environmental impacts of modern farming systems. It is currently the dominant modernisation pathway. T...
Citations
... Modern agricultural systems are increasingly dependent on monoculture farming systems that constantly require external input and infrastructure (Altieri and Sustainability, 1999). These systems generally view the integration of biodiversity as a competition for resources, hindering productivity (Kremen et al., 2012). Large-scale adoption of such farming systems has contributed to improved biomass production but at an expensive environmental cost. ...
... It is a carefully planned approach that considers the functional biodiversity and biotic interactions of the system. Thus, they are capable of coexisting with threatened and marginal landscapes, maximizing the benefits of ecosystem services for a productive and sustainable agricultural system (Kremen et al., 2012). ...
Underutilized crops are an important part of agro-biodiversity, and they have the potential to help poor rural communities adapt to climate change, enhance food security, and gain food sovereignty. Despite increased interest in research, they remain on the peripheries of the agricultural mainstream. Its main goal is to give policy suggestions for supporting the production, conservation, and expanded use of underutilized crops for improved food and livelihood security, particularly for Ethiopia's rural poor. A survey study and literature analysis were used to assess the state of Ethiopia's underutilized crops in order to identify existing gaps, opportunities, challenges, and potential future policy suggestions and guidelines. According to the study, Ethiopia's food and agricultural legislation and policy frameworks allow certain opportunities for the development and use of underutilized crops, but the majority of them do not support or favor these crop products. From agricultural research, production, and extension to agricultural marketing and the country's approach to food security, Ethiopia's policy planning is tilted towards promoting the large crops at the expense of the rural poor people's crops-the underutilized crops. This is unfortunate because many Ethiopian households, especially those in rural areas where the majority of the population resides, rely on these crops not just for food and nutrition but also for income and overall stability. Reforming Ethiopia's food and agricultural policy is also crucial to ensuring that underutilized crops are adequately supported in order to improve Ethiopians' food and livelihood security, particularly in rural areas. It's crucial to identify underutilized crops with the greatest potential for success and the ability to be incorporated into a variety of production or cropping systems, as well as to prioritize them for future research, development, and innovation
... However, the frequency of extreme weather events associated with climate change leading to large-scale crop failures is increasing, e.g. in Germany (Webber et al., 2020). In response to these challenges, alternative farming approaches, that prioritize ecological sustainability and regenerative practices are gaining increased attention, such as agroecology (Barrios et al., 2020), regenerative agriculture (Schreefel et al., 2020) or diversified farming systems (Kremen et al., 2012). A promising framework for the design and management of those food production systems is permaculture (Mollison, 1992;Ferguson & Lovell, 2014;Krebs & Bach, 2018). ...
... This approach focuses on minimising environmental impacts and maximising productivity through precision technologies and substituting chemical inputs with organic or genetically modified alternatives (Spiertz 2012;Rains et al. 2011;Singh et al. 2011;Godfray et al. 2010;Duru et al. 2015b). It has, however, been questioned whether the use of sensors is indeed necessarily aligned with specific agricultural paradigms or whether and how sensors might be able to support biodiversity-based strategies towards an agroecological vision of agriculture, which is based on a radical reduction and eventual elimination of exogenous inputs through high biological diversification and intensified ecological interactions to enhance fertility, productivity, and resilience (Kremen et al. 2012;Bellon and Hemptinne 2012;Malézieux 2012;Duru et al. 2015a). ...
... The second factor included strategies for reducing chemical inputs, such as working with organic manure. We also assessed how well their practices aligned with sustainable agriculture principles, as outlined by Altieri (1999), Kassam et al. (2011), andKremen et al. (2012). These principles include increasing plant diversity and soil cover, minimising soil disturbances, and organising landscape structures to enhance biological regulation. ...
While sustainability in farming is increasingly recognised, practical implementation faces obstacles, including knowledge gaps that hinder farmers’ effective adaptation. Agricultural sensors have emerged as tools to assist farmers in offering real-time monitoring capabilities, which can provide information to support decision-making towards sustainable crop production. However, critical analyses point out that innovation in agricultural equipment predominantly focuses on optimising the dominant intensification model, while sensors might also facilitate biodiversity-based strategies toward agricultural sustainability, which aim to replace chemical inputs through intensified ecological interactions. In this article, we examine the intricate relationship between technology and practice, recognising that the functionality of sensors is contingent upon the user, manner of use, and implementation context. We employ social practice theory to examine farmers’ current sensor usage and broader sensing practices in farming system strategies that align either more with efficiency/substitution-based or with biodiversity-based approaches toward agricultural sustainability. Through this approach, we elucidate how sensors and sensing practices contribute to knowledge production and management in both farming systems. Drawing on 11 semi-structured interviews with Dutch farmers, we identify diverse sensing practices that can enable different types of knowledge: oversight—enabling farmers to optimise the efficiency of production—and insight—offering a holistic and long-term understanding of ecological relations and how they affect production. We conclude by discussing the implications of these sensing practices and types of knowledge for strategies for agricultural sustainability.
... Integrating modern technologies, such as precision farming tools, remote sensing, and digital platforms, can enhance the efficiency and sustainability of natural farming [81]. These technologies can help monitor soil health, optimize resource use, and provide timely information to farmers [82]. ...
Natural farming, a sustainable agricultural practice that eschews the use of synthetic inputs, has gained traction in recent years due to its potential to address environmental and socioeconomic challenges. This chapter explores the current state, challenges, and future prospects of natural farming in India. We examine the principles and practices of natural farming, its ecological and economic benefits, and the hurdles faced by farmers in adopting this approach. The chapter highlights the need for supportive policies, research, and extension services to scale up natural farming and realize its full potential. We discuss the role of traditional knowledge, farmer-led innovations, and scientific advancements in shaping the future of natural farming. The chapter emphasizes the importance of building resilient agroecosystems, enhancing soil health, conserving biodiversity, and empowering small and marginal farmers through natural farming. We conclude by outlining a roadmap for mainstreaming natural farming as a viable alternative to conventional agriculture, contributing to food security, environmental sustainability, and rural development in India.
... increased attention, such as agroecology (Barrios et al. 2020), regenerative agriculture (Schreefel et al. 2020) or diversified farming systems (Kremen et al. 2012). A promising framework for the design and management of those food production systems is permaculture (Mollison 1992;Ferguson and Lovell 2014;Krebs and Bach 2018). ...
... IPES-Food (2016) defines it as the upkeep of "multiple sources of production" and the diversification of cultivated crops across farming landscapes through practices like intercropping and over time via crop rotation. Crop diversification can reduce reliance on synthetic inputs, minimize environmental impacts, and boost resilience in both crop production and farming systems, contributing to a transition to more sustainable agrifood systems (Kremen et al. 2012;Tamburini et al. 2020;Paas et al. 2021;Messéan et al. 2021;Babu et al. 2023b). In agricultural settings, it is suggested that diversifying agricultural production systems spatially, temporally, and genetically can enhance ecosystem functioning, services, and biodiversity. ...
This chapter explores the crucial topic of crop diversification using legumes for the purpose of achieving sustainable production with environmental gain. Faced with the environmental drawbacks of monoculture, the integration of legumes proves revolutionary. Crop diversification, strategically achieved through practices like intercropping and rotation, not only optimizes yields but also mitigates risks associated with pests and market fluctuations. Legumes provide a beneficial influence on cropping systems by suppressing diseases, facilitating alternative pest management, and enhancing nitrogen retention; thanks to their nitrogen-fixing capabilities. The integration of legumes in the cropping system improves resilience and decreases the overall environmental impact of farming. This sustainable approach offers a viable alternative to address the increasing global food needs.
... Although narrative reviews are not reproductible, like systematic reviews are, they can be appropriate for reviewing current state of knowledge in broad emerging fields or on topics with few published articles, or to explore a heterogeneous topic area by highlighting the different ways in which researchers have studied it [44], which is the case for agroecological performance evaluation. For the purpose of this narrative review, any study assessing livestock systems adopting one or many of the following practices was considered to be addressing alternative livestock systems: raising multiple species, relying on silvopasture, pasture on semi-natural grassland or marginal land, integrating crop and livestock production, using food waste or byproducts as feed for monogastric animals, raising traditional or heritage breeds, limiting the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, limiting the reliance on technology, infrastructure, and capital, operating at a small scale, as well as marketing through short supply chains [42,[45][46][47]. Since agroecological principles are not indicators, we categorized the practices of alternative livestock farms found in the literature based on their correspondence with those principles, thereby painting a partial picture of the agroecological contribution of alternative livestock farms. ...
Agroecology is increasingly used to study the evolution of farms and food systems, in which livestock plays a significant part. While large-scale specialized livestock farms are sometimes criticized for their contribution to climate change and nutrient cycle disruption, interest in alternative practices such as raising multiple species, integrating crop and livestock, relying on pasture, and marketing through short supply chains is growing. Through a narrative review, we aimed to determine if the scientific literature allowed for an evaluation of the agroecological contribution of alternative livestock farming practices. Taking advantage of ruminants’ capacity to digest human-inedible plant material such as hay and pasture on marginal land reduces the competition between livestock feed and human food for arable land. Taking advantage of monogastric animals’ capacity to digest food waste or byproducts limits the need for grain feed. Pasturing spreads manure di-rectly on the field and allows for the expression of natural animal behavior. Animals raised on alternative livestock farms, however, grow slower and live longer than those raised on large specialized farms. This causes them to consume more feed and to emit more greenhouse gases per unit of meat produced. Direct or short supply chain marketing fosters geographical and relational proximity, but alternative livestock farms’ contribu-tion to the social equity and responsibility principles of agroecology are not well docu-mented. Policy aimed at promoting practices currently in place on alternative livestock farms is compatible with agroecology but has to be envisioned in parallel with a reduction in animal consumption in order to balance nutrient and carbon cycles.
... The second alternative refers to bio-diversified agriculture, or diversified farming systems (Kremen, Iles, and Bacon 2012), which are based on the multi-functionality of agriculture and ecosystem services, and thus are inevitably linked to a low dependence on manufactured or industrial inputs. It has also been termed as "biodiversity-based agriculture," "ecologically intensive agriculture," or "eco-functional intensification" (Duru, Therond, and Fares 2015). ...
The current food systems require an urgent transition toward more sustainable food landscapes. One key discussion arising is on the potential of territorial approaches to foster the sustainability of agri-food systems, for which this paper provides a review. This systematic literature review is based on bibliometric methods which allowed us to identify in a fairly unbiased manner the most impactful authors, papers, and research trends. Three distinctive scientific fronts are identified, revealing research specializations defined by their distinctive social-territorial approach: sustainable agroecosystems at the farm level; agroecological initiatives at the community level; and transformation of the food system and societal values at the regional/national level. We expect this review will trigger and enrich further discussions about future trends and opportunities for enhancing the sustainability of agri-food systems. This is especially urgent since research on these topics is relatively recent, and conflicting approaches are identified for which an overall understanding of potential solutions is largely missing. Reconciling agricultural and biodiversity sustainability stands on top of current political agendas, and thus providing an overall picture of how territorial approaches confront this problem shall prove key in guiding better-informed land policy and management decisions.
... There are various methods that can help to improve food security, food system diversification being one of them. Diversification involves exploring growing new crops, intercropping or generating new end products (Kremen, Iles, and Bacon 2012). This helps to boost resilience in agriculture, as various species perform different functions in different environments, which is key for agriculture in unstable environments due to climate change (Mustafa, Mayes, and Massawe 2019). ...
Hunger remains a prevalent issue worldwide, and with a changing climate, it is expected to become an even greater problem that our food systems are not adapted to. There is therefore a need to investigate strategies to fortify our foods and food systems. Underutilized crops are farmed regionally, are often adapted to stresses, including droughts, and have great nutritional profiles, potentially being key for food security. One of these crops, Lablab purpureus L Sweet, or lablab, is a legume grown for humans or as fodder and shows remarkable drought tolerance. Understanding of lablab's molecular responses to drought and drought's effects on its nutritional qualities is limited and affects breeding potential. Using transcriptomics at three time points, changes in gene expression in response to drought were investigated in wild and domesticated lablab. The effect of drought on the elemental profile of lablab leaves was investigated using ionomics to assess drought's impact on nutritional quality. Differences in drought response between wild and domesticated lablab accessions were revealed, which were mainly due to differences in the expression of genes related to phosphorus metabolic response, cell wall organization, and cellular signaling. The leaves of wild and domesticated lablab accessions differed significantly in their elemental concentrations, with wild accessions having higher protein, zinc, and iron concentrations. Drought affected the concentration of some elements, with potential implications for the use of lablab under different environments. Overall, this study is an important first step in understanding drought response in lablab with implications for breeding and improvement of drought‐tolerant lablab.
... 12 Industrial-scale farming has significantly increased global food production, reducing hunger and improving affordability through mechanization, chemical inputs, and monoculture efficiencies. However, this model often prioritises profit over sustainability, leading to biodiversity loss, soil degradation, water pollution, and social inequities, including the marginalisation of smallholders and rural depopulation (Giller et al., 2021b;Kremen et al., 2012). ...