Preprint
Review

This version is not peer-reviewed.

Sustainable Advances in Agroecosystems and the Impact on Crop Production

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

Submitted:

04 February 2025

Posted:

06 February 2025

You are already at the latest version

Abstract

Agroecosystems support food production through ecosystem services, agricul- tural activities and socio-aspects such as traditional knowledge and technology. These agroecological practices benefit the agroecosystem such as biodiversity, pest control and soil conservation, water conservation and climate change mit-igation. The review aims to investigate the recent advances in sustainable crop production that have emerged over the years such as agroecological practices and precision agriculture. Some agroecological practices reviewed include co-ver crops, intercropping, crop rotations and agroforestry. The practices that were found to have advanced than others were intercropping followed by crop rotation and agroforestry. Factors influencing farmers' adoption or non-adop-tion of these practices such as farm or land size, age, sex, skills and knowledge are also explained. The farm size followed age, skills, and knowledge followed by age and sex were the dominant factors that were responsible for adoption and non-adoption. The various types of crop diversification had an impact on the environment, crop growth and yield.

Keywords: 
;  ;  ;  ;  ;  ;  

1. Introduction

Agroecosystems are defined as ecosystems that support food production directly through human activities in systems such as farms or gardens. They are socio-ecological systems characterised by three interacting components such as the managed fields characterised by agricultural activities, the semi-natural or natural habitats of the ecosystem, and the human-derived capital which is characterised by knowledge, cultural traditions, technologies, settlements, and infrastructures [1]. Biodiversity supports the agroecosystem functioning by providing food, feed, timber, fibres, and other products. Currently, agroecosystem sustainability is mainly challenged by unsustainable agricultural practices that lead to land degradation and climate change [2].
The growth in human population led to increased agricultural production to improve food security and resulted in agricultural intensification [3]. As the demand for food resources increased it resulted in the Green Revolution. The Green Revolution brought a lot of agricultural intensification to alleviate hunger and improve food security. Intensive agriculture also regarded as conventional agriculture is characterised by higher levels of inputs such as labour and agrochemicals, and outputs which are higher crop yields. However, conventional agriculture and food systems that came along with the Green Revolution succeeded in markedly increasing the production of staple crops, but this came with a lot of costs to human health and the environment [4,5,6,7]. The environmental challenges include biodiversity loss, greenhouse gas emissions, excessive pesticide and fertiliser usage, soil degradation, water logging, erosion, water pollution, air pollution, heavy metal pollution, and the outbreak of pests and diseases [Sudarshan et al., 2024). Therefore, there was a need to address these challenges.
Agroecosystems must be protected through sustainable agricultural and agroecological practices, whereby agricultural systems are designed and managed for productivity whilst conserving natural resources such as soil and water. Sustainable agriculture can help to protect our agroecosystems by integrating appropriate natural biological cycles to sustain the economic viability of farm operations whilst enhancing the quality of life for farmers and society [9]. Sustainable agriculture is encompassed by three main dimensions which are environmental, economic, and social aspects. Sustainability in agriculture is achieved when a balance of these 3 dimensions is in tandem [10]. A sustainable farm produces adequate amounts of high-quality food, protects its resources and is both environmentally safe and profitable [9]. Agroecological practices include agricultural landscaping which is the altering of existing designs of gardens and farms by planting or adding different trees or plants. Other agroecological practices include farm diversification, intercropping, crop pasture rotation, organic farming, silvopasture, integrated aquaculture, the planting of cover crops, and avoiding the use of synthetic inputs like fertilizers and pesticides [11,12].
However, with the rise in demand for food production due to increasing human population, agricultural technologies for better food production have been introduced. The Internet of Things (IoT) has emerged as one of the most vital components of modern information technology that makes farming systems possible [13]. The Internet of Things includes the use of artificial intelligence brilliance, precision agriculture, the wonders of Agri biotechnology, the power of robotics, the agility of drones, remote sensing, Big Data Artificial Intelligence and technology connectivity [6,13]. Agricultural technology innovation speeds up the agro-industries, mitigating risks, tracking real-time progress, and optimising costs while preserving food quality [6].
Solving the problem of agricultural food production and environmental protection has become the main concern of sustainable agriculture. The current review aims to identify the recent methods and technologies that have been applied or developed to mitigate the effects of agricultural intensification and climate change.

2. Crop Diversification

One way to improve the agroecosystems is to minimize or stop the loss of biodiversity from intensive farming. Increasing agrobiodiversity is essential for productivity and adaptability of species, global food production, food security and sustainable agricultural development. For instance, more crop diversity enhances microbial populations, which can promote plant growth and increase agricultural output [14].
Many of the ecosystem functions provided by biodiversity, like pollination, nutrient retention, weed control, or disease suppression, are important for agricultural crop production and hence can be classified as agroecosystem services [15]. A higher diversity is beneficial to crops and the surrounding environment. Crop diversification entails planting cover crops after harvest of the main crop, crop rotations, multiple cropping, intercropping, cultivar mixtures, and agroforestry. All these practices have been shown to enhance ecosystem functioning such as increased yield and stability, increased resource-use efficiency, enhanced soil fertility, reduced crop disease, and minimized environmental costs [16,17,18].

2.1. Cover crops

Cover crops are any plant species grown for purposes beyond primary grain or forage production and are generally classified as leguminous broadleaves, non-leguminous broadleaves, brassicas or grasses [19,20]. They protect and improve the soil between regular annual crop production or between trees in orchards and vines in vineyards [19]. Cover crops are planted with or after the main crop and are usually removed before the next crop is planted. Winter-planted cover crops are considered an in-field best management practice, which does not typically require taking land out of cash crop production. They are usually planted after the harvesting of cash crops, with planting generally occurring in the fall and followed by mechanical or chemical termination before planting a summer cash crop [21]. Cover crops are also green manures, catch crops, or living mulch. Cover crops provide in-field benefits such as erosion prevention, improvements in soil quality and nutrient retention, improved water quality by reducing soil and nutrient losses, increase biodiversity in an agroecosystem, and contribute to landscape scale environmental benefits such as decreasing sediment run-off [18,21,22]. Besides providing ground protection, cover crops can provide weed and pest suppression [20]. Cover crops can also assist farmers in fighting against climate change as they offer carbon sequestration [20,23,24].
Moreover, cover crop biomass also contributes to waste material that enters the soil, leading to increased carbon and nitrogen content in the soil. A study conducted by McClelland et al. [25] found that cover crops in temperate climates can help to increase the storage of soil organic matter and carbon. The stored carbon and nitrogen could become available for the next crops [16,26]. Integration of livestock is also an important factor in driving cover crops as cover crops enhance forage opportunities for many livestock [21].
Some farmers adopted cover crops whilst some did not due to several reasons such as skills, knowledge, socio-influence and risk fear [20,21,27]. Some farmers may choose not to practice cover cropping due to production costs and fear of taking risks. Knowledge of how to use cover crops and the skills required have a huge influence on adoption.

2.2. Intercropping

Intercropping is the practice of planting two or more crops in the same field during the same growing season with the primary goal of increasing production on a specific piece of land by making use of resources that would otherwise go unused by a single crop [28]. It is a diverse type of cropping system where two or more crops are planted. It involves planting annual plants with annual plants, annual plants with perennial plants and perennial plants with perennial plants. Planting may take two forms, row-intercropping where two or more crops are planted simultaneously in regular rows, and mixed-intercropping which involves growing two or more crops simultaneously with no distinct row arrangement.
Strip-intercropping involves growing two or more crops simultaneously in different strips wide enough to permit independent cultivation but narrow enough for the crops to interact ergonomically and relay-intercropping is where two or more crops are planted simultaneously during part of the life cycle of each [29,30,31]. Alternate intercropping, or transposition intercropping, is a new intercropping pattern in which two crops are intercropped in a wide strip with planting positions rotated annually on the same land [36]. Alternate intercropping combines rotation with intercropping to effectively benefit yield increases and the efficiency is further enhanced by the rotation [34]. Annual rotations of the adjacent maize- and soybean-strips intercrops increased the grain yield of the next seasonal maize whilst improving the absorption of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium of the maize [33].
A study conducted by [32] found that strip intercropping enhanced biodiversity and controlled insect pests. Rotational strip intercropping is a compound planting system involving annual intercropping and interannual rotation of intercropped strips and has been shown to offer better crop productivity than monoculture [38,39].
Figure 1. Strip intercropping of maize, soybean and oat crops [35].
Figure 1. Strip intercropping of maize, soybean and oat crops [35].
Preprints 148260 g001
A study by Baker et al. [37] examined the growth of sorghum intercropped with a legume under weeding and no weeding conditions and concluded that the intercropping pattern significantly affects plant height and chlorophyll content with weeding having a significant effect on the agronomic indicators. Moreover, intercropping not only improves crop yield but also reduces competition for major soil /nutrients, increases beneficial soil microorganisms, improves N status and N use efficiency and reduces pathogenic microorganisms [31,40,42]. It assists in reducing the attack of insect pests, checks the incidence of diseases, restricts weed population and thus minimises the use of protection plant chemicals (45].
Push-pull intercropping is an advanced agroecological technique which involves the use of repellent properties of an intercrop (push) and attractive properties of a border crop (pull) surrounding the field for pest control. The focal crop is usually maize, or sorghum planted with a legume of the Desmodium genus which helps to reduce herbivore attacks and suppresses the growth of the parasitic weeds [46,47,48,49].
Figure 2. Push-pull intercropping with brachia grass as a border crop [50].
Figure 2. Push-pull intercropping with brachia grass as a border crop [50].
Preprints 148260 g002
Regarding soil nutrients, intercropping was shown to increase the contents of soil labile phosphorous, stable phosphorous, solution phosphorous, hydrolysable phosphorous and exchangeable phosphorous [43]. The legume Cowpea is a crop used mostly for intercropping by farmers in African countries. Legume-cereal rotations are commonly adopted in sub-Saharan Africa to maintain soil fertility to compensate for the limited access to inorganic fertilizers [44]. Furthermore, intercropping systems have the potential to ensure the regulation of climatic factors, maintain efficient soil moisture utilisation, maximise the use of solar radiation, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote more carbon sequestration [51]. Intercrops have an impact on the gross income of the crops, and they promote land use efficiency [52].
Some farmers adopt intercropping systems as they improve yield quality [53,54,55]. Compared with traditional intercropping or rotation, transposition intercropping may lead to an increase in yield [36]. Intercropping improves weed and disease reduction, conserves water and improves N content in the soil [56,57,58,59]. The adoption of intercropping practice is influenced by farm characteristics, such as farm size and income, which might shape intercropping intervention [58,60]. Although intercropping is regarded to be good and beneficial, some farmers have not adopted it and still practice monocropping practice. Monocropping is simple, with less landscaping requirements, and less financial burdens. Other farmers believe it has no contribution to yield gain in cash crops. Another challenge in intercropping relates to incorporating more than two crops in a field where irrigation is required but the underground water needs for each crop are different. Though it may not offer the benefits that come with intercropping and crop rotation systems, some commercial farmers still practice monocropping yield and use some herbicides and pesticides to manage weeds and pests.

2.3. Crop rotation

Crop rotation involves growing different crops in consecutive planting seasons in the same field. Two types of crop rotations are commonly encountered. Exhaustive rotation involves more exhaustive crops which take up a lot of nutrients and leave the soil poor in fertility, e.g., wheat, cotton, and maize among others, while restorative rotation includes leguminous crops which improve soil fertility [61]. Crop rotation ensures crops are planted in a regular order one after the other on the same piece of land keeping in view that the fertility of land may not be adversely affected. Studies have shown that crop rotation increases N availability. Smith et al. [62] reported increasing crop rotational diversity can increase cereal yields and found that the deeper roots of winter wheat are better at reducing N leaching and provide better yield benefits to subsequent crops. Other studies have also reported that crop rotation has the potential to increase crop yields without increasing overreliance on chemical fertilizers [63,64,65].
An advancement such as multiple crop rotation generator models is a diversified type of crop rotation devised to explore alternative rotations. The model generates agronomically feasible rotations based on a list of candidate crops and a set of agronomic rules [66,67]. Diversifying crop rotations increases food production such as planting traditional cereal monoculture with cash crops and legumes, increasing yield and reducing N2O emissions [68]. Diversified crop rotations also improve soil health and microbial diversity [68]. The advancements in crop rotation are very important for sustainable food production. Crop rotation is also beneficial as it breaks the life cycle of pests thereby reducing pest infestations [67,69]. Rotating the crops disrupts insect and pathogen reproduction and therefore disrupts their life cycle [70,71].
Crop rotation is an old farming practice which farmers continue to apply. However, farmers need the knowledge and skills on how to best practice diverse crop rotations and which types of crops to plant seasonally. The skills and knowledge will inform farmers when to practice restorative rotation and when to use crop rotation as a method of integrated pest management.

2.4. Agroforestry

Agroforestry is a diverse type of farming method where woody perennials are grown with arable crops, livestock, or fodder in the same piece of land resulting in the promotion of the efficient use of resources. The integration of trees provides several soil-related ecological services such as soil fertility improvement and climate change mitigation [72,73]. Due to environmental and climatic challenges, agroforestry stands out as a promising approach that enhances agricultural production while promoting the sustainable management of natural resources [74].
Agroforestry minimises soil erosion, and N loss due to soil erosion, boosts crop productivity, increases crop diversity, assists in pest control, improves water content in the soil, assists in crop pollination, improves forage, controls crop destruction by winds and assists in climate change mitigation [74,75,76]. A study that was conducted in some rural areas of Nepal by Ghimire et al. [77] on agroforestry practices amongst family farming found that agroforestry increases food production, environmental conservation, and economic returns. On the contrary, a review of the economic benefits of agroforestry in Europe and North America by Thiesmeier & Zander [79] found that conventional farming provided the highest economic benefits for farmers whilst agroforestry could offer more benefits in ecosystem services. Some farmers in Europe had adopted agroforestry systems such as traditional silvopastoral in Mediterranean regions [79]. Other agroforestry practices include Agrisilvihorticulture, Agrosilvopastoral, and Hortiagriculture [77].
Although agroforestry systems have emerged as promising alternative measures for addressing major environmental issues, their use, especially in Africa, remains below anticipated levels [74]. Some farmers in Malawi adopted agroforestry by planting fertilizer trees known as G. sepium and F. albida with their crops [80].
A study conducted by Ahmad et al. [81] found that socio-economic factors such as family size, land ownership and age had either a positive or negative influence on the choice to adopt or not to adopt agroforestry. The study found that families with large farm sizes, old family members, and large families were likely to adopt agroforestry [81,82].
Figure 3. Agroforestry practice of coffee shrub trees and trees [78].
Figure 3. Agroforestry practice of coffee shrub trees and trees [78].
Preprints 148260 g003
Greater knowledge of agroforestry practices or higher incomes were significantly more willing to adopt agroforestry practices, while participants with larger farms were less likely to adopt agroforestry [83]. A study on the adoption of agroforestry practices among rural households in Kwazulu-Natal South Africa by Zaca et al. [84] found that non-adoption choices were due to time constraints, financial constraints and the lack of technical skills required.
Some advancements in agroforestry, such as agrisilviculture, which integrates trees and crops, are used as a land management strategy, and an agrosilvopastoral system that incorporates trees, livestock, and crops offers economic and ecological benefits [85]. Table 1 provides a list of various crop diversification studies from different geographical areas found in the literature, their impact on the agroecosystem and crop production and how the practices have contributed to the fight against climate change

3. Sustainable soil management

Soil is important for many ecological processes such as maintaining biodiversity and sustaining life. Soil health management is important for protecting biodiversity and safeguarding sustainable agriculture, and if the soil is compromised the production of plants and crops will be compromised [112]. Soil health may be affected in several ways. Soil health parameters include soil organic carbon content (SOC), soil nutrient status (total nitrogen available forms of phosphorus, potassium, and magnesium), soil acidification and soil microelements [113].
Chemical fertilisers are applied in the soil to increase nitrogen, phosphate and potassium ultimately improving soil fertility [112]. However, these fertilisers negatively affect soil by altering its physicochemical and biological properties (112,114]. Herbicides and pesticides also contribute to the pollution of agricultural soil. Excessive use of pesticides to manage pests has detrimental effects on crop production as it pollutes and hardens the soil, reduces soil fertility and decreases soil nutrients and minerals [112,115,116].
To mitigate the negative effects of chemical fertilisers, enhanced efficiency fertilisers (EEFs) were developed to make fertilisers less problematic to the environment by reducing their solubility by reacting them with other chemical compounds to yield products with lower solubility or by coating them with hydrophobic materials [117]. Enhanced efficiency fertilisers generally increase soil nutrients, crop yield, and N use efficiency whilst reducing N leaching, and emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollutants [118].
As inorganic fertilisers pose a threat to the environment, biofertilisers and biopesticides are eco-friendly alternatives to inorganic fertilisers that are used in sustainable agriculture and offer beneficial effects on plant growth and crop yield [119]. Some examples of biofertilisers include rhizobium, azotobacter, azospirillum, blue-green algae, azolla, and mycorrhizae [115].
Bioremediation is an eco-friendly and cost-effective approach to remediate the environment using living organisms, including but not limited to, bacteria, fungi, plants, or enzymes [120]. Phytoremediation and vermiremediation are also bioremediation methods used to reduce or eliminate harmful contaminants in soil and water [121,122]. Physical and chemical remediation techniques such as soil replacement, soil isolation, vitrification, electrokinetic, immobilisation and soil washing are high-cost and destroy soil microorganisms [123,124].
The type of inventions such as enhanced efficiency fertilisers, biofertilisers, biopesticides and bioremediation have an impact on the environment and soil health and the health of the soil will result in safer and better crop production. These technologies have been widely adopted by farmers as they do not come with the problems of using chemical fertilisers and pesticides.

4. Integrated Pest and Management

Integrated pest management (IPM) is a sustainable strategy for managing pests with a primary focus on the evolutionary and ecological aspects of pest management [125]. IPM implementation depends on various factors including the level of education, economic and social conditions, environmental awareness, and government policies [125,126]. Pests have become a big agricultural challenge due to the resistance they have developed against herbicides and pesticides. Pesticides include herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, rodenticides, molluscicides, nematicides, and plant growth regulators [116].
Weeds have become resistant and affect crops such as wheat, rice, barley, maize, and chickpea. They have become resistant to herbicides and compete with the crops, affecting their growth [127]. The integration of sustainable weed control methods such as crop rotation, mulches, intercrops, planting date and pattern, tillage, herbicides, resistant crop cultivars and allelopathy can lead to their effective management [127,128]. With all these interventions, the control of weeds is still a challenge and recent developments in the management of weeds include strategies such as the Weed Surveillance Plan which assists in the early detection of invasive weeds in a new geographic area [128].
Insects have become resistant to insecticides, and they affect the production of crops resulting in lower yields. Some insects have grown resistant to some insecticides, and they include fall armyworms, potato beetles and oriental fruit flies which have become resistant to chlorantraniliprole, carbofuran and organophosphorus respectively [129]. Climate change conditions such as increased temperatures have made insect pests adapt to different climatic conditions and increased their populations rapidly [130,131].
The development of biopesticides from bacteria, fungi, plant exudates, essential oils, leaves, bark, and nanotechnology for the control of pests has helped to reduce the toxic effects of pesticides on agroecosystems and most have been registered commercially in arthropod pest control [133,134,135]. Moreover, the deliberate addition of natural enemies can help to regulate insect pest populations [132]. A study conducted by Ofuya et al. [136] on the management of pests found in vegetable crops reported that using a combination of IPM practices and the application of aqueous extracts of A. Indica and P. guineense seeds as a biopesticide protected the crop plants against several pest species.
Integrated pest management can help to alleviate the environmental problems that have been caused by using herbicides and insecticides. It uses natural or biological methods to control the pests. Sustainable weed control can help to protect the crops from herbicides which can affect the growth of the crops.

5. Sustainable water resource management

The management of water resources for both rain-fed and irrigated agriculture is becoming and critical issue for sustainable agriculture worldwide due to water scarcity challenges that were caused by global warming and climate change [137]. Climate-smart water technologies such as drip irrigation and central pivot irrigation are some of the developments in agriculture that address the problem of water scarcity [137].
For farming to be sustainable, farmers need to know the water needs of their crops and how much water is being used or saved. Water use efficiency (WUE) calculations where hydrological variables serve as multiple WUE indicators are used to quantify agricultural water use in agroecosystem [138]. Research to determine the resilience of irrigated agriculture was conducted by Lankford et al. [139] by testing test the WUE to drought by calculating variables such as irrigation area, irrigation efficiency and water storage in a semi-arid catchment in South Africa. The study found that irrigators have adapted to drought events through the construction of water storage and the adoption of more efficient irrigation practices.
Hydroponics is another smart-climate type of irrigation used in the sustainable management of water as it can save up to 90% of water [140]. The development of precision irrigation through the Internet of Things (IoT) plays an important environmental role in farming as it reduces water and electricity consumption whilst increasing food production [141]. Water Need Estimation (WNE) determines how much, when, and where to irrigate and WNE and it involves obtaining reliable data dealing with uncertainties caused by environmental and technical conditions whilst considering plant, soil, and water interactions [141].
The challenges that could be faced by farmers in determining WUE are climatic factors such as frost or snow in winter, inconsistent precipitation levels and extremely hot temperatures. For instance, an extremely hot or windy type of weather may result in lower water use efficiency.

6. Precision Agriculture in Agroecosystem Management

Precision agriculture (PA) is a framework that aims to make the most of the potential of natural, human, and mechanical resources with minimal disruption to the agroecosystem by assisting farmers to reduce costs and get more out of their land [142]. It is a crucial agricultural management system that requires the combined use of robotics and sensors, drones, advanced GPS and GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite Systems), IoT, weather modelling and how farmers can save water and reduce the use of chemicals on land [142]. The Internet of Things (IoT) and Wireless Sensor Networks (WSN) can be utilised to more effectively monitor crop fields and make quick choices for sustainable agriculture, leading to improved crop yields and economic return [143,144].
The integration of IoT devices and machine learning algorithms facilitates real-time data analysis which leads to improved resource use and reduced environmental impacts [145]. The integration of IoT devices and machine learning algorithms facilitates real-time data analysis which leads to improved resource use and reduced environmental impacts [145].
Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) technology has improved the use of motes and sensor nodes to monitor ecological occurrences across a vast geographic area [144]. The sensors in IoT are installed in crop fields and can gather data such as the occurrence of pests, a lack of water supply, and plant diseases [146,147]. Furthermore, in-situ sensors such as weather stations and soil moisture sensors provide information about the variability of weather and soil parameters whilst crop parameters can be measured with proximal and remote sensors [148]. Remote sensors can monitor parameters such as crop growth, health, and yield [148].
One of the latest advances recently in precision agriculture is Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) technology. LiDAR has been the most innovative subject in laser scanning, remote sensing, and object detection systems. This technology can pinpoint structures or zones of interest in millimeter detail and can highlight variations and irregularities such as surface degradation and vegetation growth [149]. Another technology is called the RGB colour model where the red, green, and blue primary colours of light are added together to reproduce a broad array of colours. The light or optical sensors detect specific wavelength bands of light and convert them into electrical signals and are applied for phenotyping such as moisture content, pigment content, photosynthesis rates, and morphological characteristics from the target by detecting the reflection of light [150].
In terms of water management, Internet of Things (IoT) irrigation is an automatic irrigation system based on managing the pump for water storage of groundwater in the farmer’s field and tracking the soil humidity, pressure and temperature conditions on a field farm [151]. The Internet of Things also involves variable rate application (VRA), yield monitors, and remote sensing are examples of agricultural production practices or systems that use information technology to customise input utilisation to achieve desired outcomes.
Africa is one of the continents that has been affected by climate change and the farmers had to find strategies to help in the fight against climate change effects such as drought by managing water resources. Table 2 is a summary of some recent Internet of Things (IoTs), and Wireless Sensor Networks (WSN) technologies used in precision agriculture. A study by Erekalo et al. [152] focusing on the contribution of farming practices and technologies towards climate-smart agricultural outcomes in Europe found that agroecological farming practices involving precision fertilisation, precision irrigation and variable rate of irrigation contributed to higher crop production. Farmers use other precision agriculture technologies such as drones, machine learning and data management to improve their farming although there are still challenges for some farmers with issues like cost technology adoption and cost-effectiveness [153].

7. Conclusions Remarks

This review study provided an in-depth picture of how sustainable management of agroecosystems influences crop production. The diversification of crops in agroecosystems has an impact on crop production. The most practised methods of crop diversification were discovered to be intercropping, cover cropping, crop rotation, row cropping and agroforestry. These methods benefit agroecosystems and the surrounding environment with processes such as weed control, disease and pest management, pollinator diversity, improved soil health and the conservation of available water. Most importantly, the review study found that crop diversity such as intercropping with legumes such as cowpeas helps in nitrogen fixation and assists in soil health by maintaining soil natural microbes and suppressing the growth of weeds, hence reducing the need for herbicide use. Planting trees, fruit trees, vegetables and shrubs which are agroforestry plays a huge role in mitigating the effects of climate change as more carbon from the atmosphere is eventually stored in the soil, roots, and plant biomass. Climate change mitigation is very important as this helps to improve food security.
Asia and Europe were found to have more agroforestry practices in literature as compared to other geographical areas. Agroforestry is a big and key component of sustainable agriculture since it uses sustainable farming approaches. It bridges the gap between agriculture and forestry by developing integrated systems that serve both environmental and economic aims. Since most literature describes agroforestry to be practised in family farming and that it is influenced by farm size, skills, knowledge and age, there needs to be further research on how agroecology can be incorporated into large-scale or commercial farming for sustainable crop production.
Furthermore, there needs to be research that focuses on distinguishing how agroforestry is similar or different according to geographic areas and the reasons that could account for those differences. If farmers were to be supported socio-economically to practice agroforestry, this would result in better environmental conditions.
Innovations like the Internet of Things such as the use of information technology and wireless technology have been a great advancement in agriculture. Wireless Sensor Networks (WSN) monitor environmental parameters like soil moisture content which is a good invention for drought-stricken areas. The less privileged farmers facing financial barriers could be assisted with the use of such technologies and they must be educated on how the technologies work so that they can also improve their farming conditions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.T.M. and S.K.K.; methodology, Z.A.; software, Z.A.; validation, Z.A, and S.K.K.; formal analysis, Z.A.; investigation, Z.A.; resources, A.T.M and S.K.K; data curation, Z.A.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.A.; writing—and editing, Z.A. and S.K.K.; visualization, Z.A.; supervision, A.T.T. and S.K.K.; project administration, A.T.M., and S.K.K.; funding acquisition A.T.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing is not applicable. No new data was created or analysed in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Semeraro, T.; Scarano, A.; Leggieri, A.; Calisi, A.; De Caroli, M. Impact of Climate Change on Agroecosystems and Potential Adaptation Strategies. Land 2023, 12, 1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kumawat, A.; Yadav, D.; Srivastava, P.; Babu, S.; Kumar, D.; Singh, D.; Vishwakarma, D. K.; Sharma, V. K.; Madhu, M. Restoration of agroecosystems with conservation agriculture for food security to achieve sustain-able development goals. Land Degrad Dev. 2023, 34, 3079–3097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Sudarshan, S.; Niveditha, M.P.; Alekhya Gunturi, S.; Chethan Babu, R.T.; KB, C.K. Effects of intensive agricultural management practices on soil biodiversity and implications for ecosystem functioning: A review. Int. J. Res. Agron. 2024, 7, 166–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. FAO. Agriculture and climate change: challenges and opportunities at the global and local Level—collaboration on climate-smart agriculture. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization. 2019, p. 52.
  5. Soria-Lopez, A.; Garcia-Perez, P.; Carpena, M.; Garcia-Oliveira, P.; Otero, P.; Fraga-Corral, M.; Cao, H.; Prieto, M.A.; Simal-Gandara, J. Challenges for future food systems: From the Green Revolution to food supply chains with a special focus on sustainability. Food Front. 2022, 4, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Vishnoi, S.; Goel, R.K. Climate smart agriculture for sustainable productivity and healthy landscapes. Environ. Sci. Policy 2023, 151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Volken, S.; Bottazzi, P. Sustainable farm work in agroecology: how do systemic factors matter? Agric. Hum. Values 2024, 41, 1037–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Purakayastha, T.J.; Bhaduri, D.; Kumar, D.; Yadav, R.; Trivedi, A. Soil and Plant Nutrition. In: Ghosh, P.K., Das, A., Saxena, R., Banerjee, K., Kar, G., Vijay, D. (eds) Trajectory of 75 years of Indian Agriculture after Inde-pendence. Springer, Singapore. 2023.
  9. Velten, S.; Leventon, J.; Jager, N.; Newig, J. What Is Sustainable Agriculture? A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2015, 7, 7833–7865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bathaei, A.; Štreimikienė, D. A Systematic Review of Agricultural Sustainability Indicators. Agriculture 2023, 13, 241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wezel, A.; Herren, B.G.; Kerr, R.B.; Barrios, E.; Gonçalves, A.L.R.; Sinclair, F. Agroecological principles and elements and their implications for transitioning to sustainable food systems. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 40, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Baldwin-Kordick, R.; De, M.; Lopez, M. D.; Liebman, M.; Lauter, N.; Marino, J.; McDaniel, M.D. Com-prehensive impacts of diversified cropping on soil health and sustainability. Agroecol Sust Food Syst. 2022, 46, 331–363. [Google Scholar]
  13. Duguma, A.L.; Bai, X. Contribution of Internet of Things (IoT) in improving agricultural systems. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023, 21, 2195–2208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Çakmakçı, R.; Haliloglu, K.; Türkoğlu, A.; Özkan, G.; Kutlu, M.; Varmazyari, A.; Molnar, Z.; Jamshidi, B.; Pour-Aboughadareh, A.; Bocianowski, J. Effect of Different Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria on Biological Soil Properties, Growth, Yield and Quality of Oregano (Origanum onites L.). Agronomy 2023, 13, 2511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Manning, P.; Loos, J.; Barnes, A.D.; Batáry, P.; Bianchi, F.J.; Buchmann, N.; De Deyn, G.B.; Ebeling, A.; Eisenhauer, N.; Fischer, M.; et al.
  16. Yang, H.; Zhang, W.; Li, L. INTERCROPPING: FEED MORE PEOPLE AND BUILD MORE SUSTAINABLE AGROECOSYSTEMS. Front. Agric. Sci. Eng. 2021, 8, 373–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hernández-Ochoa, I.M.; Gaiser, T.; Kersebaum, K.C.; Webber, H.; Seidel, S.J.; Grahmann, K.; Ewert, F. Model-based design of crop diversification through new field arrangements in spatially heterogeneous land-scapes. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2022, 42, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Yu, R.; Yang, H.; Xing, X.; Zhang, W.; Lambers, H. Belowground processes and sustainability in agroecosys-tems with intercropping. Plant Soil. 2022, 476, 263–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Koudahe, K.; Allen, S.C.; Djaman, K. Critical review of the impact of cover crops on soil properties. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2022, 10, 343–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Han, G.; Niles, M.T. An adoption spectrum for sustainable agriculture practices: A new framework applied to cover crop adoption. Agric. Syst. 2023, 212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Roesch-McNally, G.E.; Basche, A.D.; Arbuckle, J.; Tyndall, J.C.; Miguez, F.E.; Bowman, T.; Clay, R. The trouble with cover crops: Farmers’ experiences with overcoming barriers to adoption. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2017, 33, 322–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Van Eerd, L.L.; Chahal, I.; Peng, Y.; Awrey, J.C. Influence of cover crops at the four spheres: A review of ecosystem services, potential barriers, and future directions for North America. Sci. Total. Environ. 2022, 858, 159990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Blanco-Canqui, H. Cover crops and carbon sequestration: Lessons from U.S. studies. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2022, 86, 501–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ishtiaque, A. US farmers’ adaptations to climate change: a systematic review of adaptation-focused studies in the US agriculture context. Environ. Res. Clim. 2023, 2, 022001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. McClelland, S.C.; Paustian, K.; Schipanski, M.E. Management of cover crops in temperate climates influences soil organic carbon stocks: a meta-analysis. Ecol. Appl. 2020, 31, e2278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Quintarelli, V.; Radicetti, E.; Allevato, E.; Stazi, S.R.; Haider, G.; Abideen, Z.; Bibi, S.; Jamal, A.; Mancinelli, R. Cover Crops for Sustainable Cropping Systems: A Review. Agriculture 2022, 12, 2076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Apio, A.T.; Thiam, D.R.; Dinar, A. Farming Under Drought: An Analysis of the Factors Influencing Farmers’ Multiple Adoption of Water Conservation Practices to Mitigate Farm-Level Water Scarcity. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 2023, 55, 432–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Pierre, J.F.; Latournerie-Moreno, L.; Garruña, R.; Jacobsen, K.L.; Laboski, C.A.M.; Us-Santamaría, R.; Ruiz-Sánchez, E. Effect of Maize–Legume Intercropping on Maize Physio-Agronomic Parameters and Beneficial Insect Abundance. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mousavi, S.R.; Eskandari, H. A General Overview on Intercropping and Its Advantages in Sustainable Agriculture. JAEBS. 2011, 1, 482–486. [Google Scholar]
  30. Feng, W.; Ge, J.; Rodríguez, A.R.S.; Zhao, B.; Wang, X.; Peixoto, L.; Yang, Y.; Zeng, Z.; Zang, H. Oat/soybean strip intercrop-ping benefits crop yield and stability in semi-arid regions: A multi-site and multi-year assessment. Field Crops Res. 2024, 318, 109560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ma, Q.; Wu, Y.; Liu, Y.; Shen, Y.; Wang, Z. Interspecific interaction and productivity in a dryland wheat/alfalfa strip intercropping. Field Crop. Res. 2024, 309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Alarcón-Segura, V.; Grass, I.; Breustedt, G.; Rohlfs, M.; Tscharntke, T. Strip intercropping of wheat and oilseed rape enhances biodiversity and biological pest control in a conventionally managed farm scenario. J. Appl. Ecol. 2022, 59, 1513–1523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. DU, J.-B.; Han, T.-F.; Gai, J.-Y.; Yong, T.-W.; Sun, X.; Wang, X.-C.; Yang, F.; Liu, J.; Shu, K.; Liu, W.-G.; et al. Maize-soybean strip intercropping: Achieved a balance between high productivity and sustainability. J. Integr. Agric. 2018, 17, 747–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chi, B.; Liu, J.; Dai, J.; Li, Z.; Zhang, D.; Xu, S.; Nie, J.; Wan, S.; Li, C.; Dong, H. Alternate intercropping of cotton and peanut increases productivity by increasing canopy photosynthesis and nutrient uptake under the influence of rhi-zobacteria. Field Crops Res. 2023, 302, 109059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Prepp By Collegdunia. Strip Intercropping—Agriculture Notes. Available online: https://prepp.in/news/e-492-strip-intercropping-agriculture-notes (accessed on 5 December 2024).
  36. Lv, Q.; Chi, B.; He, N.; Zhang, D.; Dai, J.; Zhang, Y.; Dong, H. Cotton-based rotation, intercropping, and alternate intercropping increase yields by improving root–shoot relations. Agronomy. 2023, 13, 413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Baker, C.; Modi, A. T.; Nciizah, A. D. Weeding Frequency Effects on Growth and Yield of Dry Bean Inter-cropped with Sweet Sorghum and Cowpea under a Dryland Area. Sustainability. 2021, 13, 12328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zou, X.-X.; Shi, P.-X.; Zhang, C.-J.; Si, T.; Wang, Y.-F.; Zhang, X.-J.; Yu, X.-N.; Wang, H.-X.; Wang, M.-L. Rotational strip intercropping of maize and peanuts has multiple benefits for agricultural production in the northern agropastoral ecotone region of China. Eur. J. Agron. 2021, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zou, X.; Liu, Y.; Huang, M.; Li, F.; Si, T.; Wang, Y.; Yu, X.; Zhang, X.; Wang, H.; Shi, P. Rotational strip intercropping of maize and peanut enhances productivity by improving crop photosynthetic production and optimizing soil nutrients and bacterial communities. Field Crop. Res. 2022, 291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Qian, X.; Zhou, J.; Luo, B.; Dai, H.; Hu, Y.; Ren, C.; Peixoto, L.; Guo, L.; Wang, C.; Zamanian, K.; et al. Yield advantage and carbon footprint of oat/sunflower relay strip intercropping depending on nitrogen fertilization. Plant Soil 2022, 481, 581–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ma, H.; Zhou, J.; Ge, J.; Nie, J.; Zhao, J.; Xue, Z.; Hu, Y.; Yang, Y.; Peixoto, L.; Zang, H.; et al. Intercropping improves soil ecosystem multifunctionality through enhanced available nutrients but depends on regional factors. Plant Soil 2022, 480, 71–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Nasar, J.; Zhao, C.J.; Khan, R.; Gul, H.; Gitari, H.; Shao, Z.; Abbas, G.; Haider, I.; Iqbal, Z.; Ahmed, W.; et al. Maize-soybean intercropping at optimal N fertilization increases the N uptake, N yield and N use efficiency of maize crop by regulating the N assimilatory enzymes. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 13, 1077948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Yang, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, H.; Zhu, Q.; Yan, B.; Fei, J.; Xiangmin, R.; Peng, J.; Luo, G. Intercropping regulation of soil phosphorus composition and microbially-driven dynamics facilitates maize phosphorus uptake and produc-tivity improvement. Field Crops Res. 2022, 287, 108666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Basalirwa, D.; Wacal, C.; Murongo, M.F.; Tsubo, M.; Nishihara, E. Agronomic potential of maize stover biochar under cowpea–maize sequential cropping in Northern Uganda. Discov. Agric. 2024, 2, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Maitra, S.; Jnana Bharati Palai, J.B.; Manasa, P.; Kumar, D.P. Potential of Intercropping System in Sustaining Crop Productivity. IJAEB. 2019, 12, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Librán-Embid, F.; Olagoke, A.; Martin, E.A. Combining Milpa and Push-Pull Technology for sustainable food production in smallholder agriculture. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2023, 43, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Liu, H.; Cheng, Y.; Wang, Q.; Liu, X.; Fu, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, J. Push–pull plants in wheat intercropping system to manage Spodoptera frugiperda. J. Pest Sci. 2023, 96, 1579–1593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Erdei, A.L.; David, A.B.; Savvidou, E.C.; Džemedžionaitė, V.; Chakravarthy, A.; Molnár, B.P.; Dekker, T. The push–pull intercrop Desmodium does not repel, but intercepts and kills pests. eLife 2024, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lang, J.; Ramos, S.E.; Reichert, L.; Amboka, G.M.; Apel, C.; Chidawanyika, F.; Detebo, A.; Librán-Embid, F.; Meinhof, D.; Bigler, L.; et al. Push–Pull Intercropping Increases the Antiherbivore Benzoxazinoid Glycoside Content in Maize Leaf Tissue. ACS Agric. Sci. Technol. 2024, 4, 1074–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (icipe). Available online: https://www.icipe.org/news/icipe-push-pull-technology-halts-fall-armyworm-rampage (accessed on 20 Janu-ary 2025).
  51. Maitra, S.; Sahoo, U.; Sairam, M.; Gitari, H.I.; Rezaei-Chiyaneh, E.; Battaglia, M.L.; Hossain5, A. Cultivating sustainability: A comprehensive review on intercropping in a changing climate. Res. Crop. 2023, UME 24, 702–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. El-Mehy, A.A.; Shehata, M.A.; Mohamed, A.S.; Saleh, S.A.; Suliman, A.A. Relay intercropping of maize with common dry beans to rationalize nitrogen fertilizer. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2023, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Iqbal, M.A.; Hamid, A.; Ahmad, T.; Siddiqui, M.H.; Hussain, I.; Ali, S.; Ali, A.; Ahmad, Z. Forage sor-ghum-legumes intercropping effect on growth, yields, nutritional quality and economic returns. Bragantia. 2018, 78, 82–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Wang, X.; Shen, L.; Liu, T.; Wei, W.; Zhang, S.; Tuerti, T.; Li, L.; Zhang, W. Juvenile plumcot tree can improve fruit quality and economic benefits by intercropping with alfalfa in semi-arid areas. Agric. Syst. 2022, 205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zhang, G.; Yang, H.; Zhang, W.; Bezemer, T.M.; Liang, W.; Li, Q.; Li, L. Interspecific interactions between crops influence soil functional groups and networks in a maize/soybean intercropping system. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2023, 355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hauggaard-Nielsen, H.; Jørnsgaard, B.; Kinane, J.; Jensen, E. S. Grain legume–cereal intercropping: The practical application of diversity, competition and facilitation in arable and organic cropping systems. Renew Agr Food Syst. 2008, 23, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Raza, M.A.; Zhiqi, W.; Yasin, H.S.; Gul, H.; Qin, R.; Rehman, S.U.; Mahmood, A.; Iqbal, Z.; Ahmed, Z.; Luo, S.; et al. Effect of crop combination on yield performance, nutrient uptake, and land use advantage of cereal/legume intercropping systems. Field Crop. Res. 2023, 304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Mwebaze, P.; Macfadyen, S.; De Barro, P.; Bua, A.; Kalyebi, A.; Bayiyana, I.; Tairo, F.; Colvin, J. Adoption determinants of improved cassava varieties and intercropping among East and Central African smallholder farmers. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. Assoc. 2024, 3, 292–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Toker, P.; Canci, H.; Turhan, I.; Isci, A.; Scherzinger, M.; Kordrostami, M.; Yol, E. The advantages of intercropping to improve productivity in food and forage production—a review. Plant Prod. Sci. 2024, 27, 155–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ha, T.M.; Manevska-Tasevska, G.; Jäck, O.; Weih, M.; Hansson, H. Farmers’ intention towards intercropping adoption: the role of socioeconomic and behavioural drivers. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2023, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Tanveer, A.; Ikram, R.M.; Ali, H.H.
  62. Smith, M.E.; Vico, G.; Costa, A.; Bowles, T.; Gaudin, A.C.M.; Hallin, S.; Watson, C.A.; Alarcòn, R.; Berti, A.; Blecharczyk, A.; et al. Increasing crop rotational diversity can enhance cereal yields. Commun. Earth Environ. 2023, 4, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Liu, Q.; Zhao, Y.; Li, T.; Chen, L.; Chen, Y.; Sui, P. Changes in soil microbial biomass, diversity, and activity with crop rotation in cropping systems: A global synthesis. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2023, 186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. de Bruyn, M.; Nel, A.; van Niekerk, J. The effect of crop rotation on agricultural sustainability in the North-Western Free State, South Africa. AJSAD. 2024, 5, 32–45. [Google Scholar]
  65. Mwila, M.; Silva, J.V.; Kalala, K.; Simutowe, E.; Ngoma, H.; Nyagumbo, I.; Mataa, M.; Thierfelder, C. Do rotations and intercrops matter? Opportunities for intensification and diversification of maize-based cropping systems in Zambia. Field Crop. Res. 2024, 314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Liang, C.; Du, G.; Faye, B. The influence of cultivated land transfer and Internet use on crop rotation. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2023, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Zou, Y.; Liu, Z.; Chen, Y.; Wang, Y.; Feng, S. Crop Rotation and Diversification in China: Enhancing Sustainable Agriculture and Resilience. Agriculture 2024, 14, 1465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Yang, X.; Xiong, J.; Du, T.; Ju, X.; Gan, Y.; Li, S.; Xia, L.; Shen, Y.; Pacenka, S.; Steenhuis, T.S.; et al. Diversifying crop rotation increases food production, reduces net greenhouse gas emissions and improves soil health. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Mukherjee, T.; Kao, N. PLA Based Biopolymer Reinforced with Natural Fibre: A Review. J. Polym. Environ. 2011, 19, 714–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Li, J.; Huang, L.; Zhang, J.; Coulter, J.A.; Li, L.; Gan, Y. Diversifying crop rotation improves system robustness. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 39, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Shah, K.K.; Modi, B.; Pandey, H.P.; Subedi, A.; Aryal, G.; Pandey, M.; Shrestha, J. Diversified Crop Rotation: An Approach for Sustainable Agriculture Production. Adv. Agric. 2021, 2021, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Fahad, S.; Chavan, S.B.; Chichaghare, A.R.; Uthappa, A.R.; Kumar, M.; Kakade, V.; Pradhan, A.; Jinger, D.; Rawale, G.; Yadav, D.K.; et al. Agroforestry Systems for Soil Health Improvement and Maintenance. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Hart, D.E.T.; Yeo, S.; Almaraz, M.; Beillouin, D.; Cardinael, R.; Garcia, E.; Kay, S.; Lovell, S.T.; Rosenstock, T.S.; Sprenkle-Hyppolite, S.; et al. Priority science can accelerate agroforestry as a natural climate solution. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2023, 13, 1179–1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Kpoviwanou, M.R.J.H.; Sourou, B.N.K.; Ouinsavi, C.A.I.N. Challenges in adoption and wide use of agroforestry technologies in Africa and pathways for improvement: A systematic review. Trees, For. People 2024, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Bogale, G.A.; Bekele, S.E. Sustainability of Agroforestry Practices and their Resilience to Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Review. Ekologia 2023, 42, 179–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Datta, P.; Behera, B.; Rahut, D.B. India's approach to agroforestry as an effective strategy in the context of climate change: An evaluation of 28 state climate change action plans. Agric. Syst. 2023, 214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ghimire, M.; Khanal, A.; Bhatt, D.; Dahal, D.; Giri, S. Agroforestry systems in Nepal: Enhancing food security and rural livelihoods—a comprehensive review. Food Energy Secur. 2024, 13, e524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Global Coffee Report. Agroforestry steps into the light. Available online: https://www.gcrmag.com/agroforestry-steps-into-the-light/ (accessed on 21 November 2024).
  79. Thiesmeier, A.; Zander, P. Can agroforestry compete? A scoping review of the economic performance of agroforestry practices in Europe and North America. For. Policy Econ. 2023, 150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Coulibalya, J.Y.; Chiputwaa, B.; Nakelseb, T.; Kundhland, G. Adoption of agroforestry and the impact on household food security among farmers in Malawi. Agric. Syst. 2017, 155, 52–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Ahmad, S.; Xu, H.; Ekanayake, E.M.B.P. Socioeconomic Determinants and Perceptions of Smallholder Farmers towards Agroforestry Adoption in Northern Irrigated Plain, Pakistan. Land 2023, 12, 813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Tega, M.; Bojago, E. Determinants of smallholder farmers’ adoption of agroforestry practices: Sodo Zuriya District, southern Ethiopia. Agrofor. Syst. 2024, 98, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Stubblefield, K.; Smith, M.; Lovell, S.; Wilson, K.; Hendrickson, M.; Cai, Z. Factors affecting Missouri land managers’ willingness-to-adopt agroforestry practices. Agrofor. Syst. 2024, 99, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Zaca, F.N.; Ngidi, M.S.C.; Chipfupa, U.; Ojo, T.O.; Managa, L.R. Factors influencing the uptake of agroforestry practices among rural households: Empirical Evidence from the KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa. Forests. 2023, 2, 2056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Chappa, L.R.; Nungula, E.Z.; Makwinja, Y.H.; Ranjan, S.; Sow, S.; Alnemari, A.M.; Maitra, S.; Seleiman, M.F.; Mwadalu, R.; Gitari, H.I.
  86. Daneel, M.; Engelbrecht, E.; Fourie, H.; Ahuja, P. The host status of Brassicaceae to Meloidogyne and their effects as cover and biofumigant crops on root-knot nematode populations associated with potato and tomato under South African field conditions. Crop. Prot. 2018, 110, 198–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Garba, I.I.; Bell, L.W.; Chauhan, B.S.; Williams, A. Optimizing ecosystem function multifunctionality with cover crops for improved agronomic and environmental outcomes in dryland cropping systems. Agric. Syst. 2023, 214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Torun, H. The use of cover crop for weed suppression and competition in limited-irrigation vineyards. Phytoparasitica 2024, 52, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Smit, E.H.; Strauss, J.A.; Swanepoel, P.A. Utilisation of cover crops: implications for conservation agriculture systems in a mediterranean climate region of South Africa. Plant Soil 2021, 462, 207–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Singh, A.; Ghimire, R.; Acharya, P. Soil profile carbon sequestration and nutrient responses varied with cover crops in irrigated forage rotations. Soil Tillage Res. 2024, 238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Zhu, S.; Sainju, U.M.; Zhang, S.; Tan, G.; Wen, M.; Dou, Y.; Yang, R.; Chen, J.; Zhao, F.; Wang, J. Cover cropping promotes soil carbon sequestration by enhancing microaggregate-protected and mineral-associated carbon. Sci. Total. Environ. 2023, 908, 168330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Xu, S.; Zhang, W.; Goodwin, P.H.; Wang, Y.; Zheng, S.-J.; Li, X. Effect of cover crop on soil fertility and bacterial diversity in a banana plantation in southwestern China. Soil Tillage Res. 2024, 240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Raza, M.A.; Din, A.M.U.; Shah, G.A.; Zhiqi, W.; Feng, L.Y.; Gul, H.; Yasin, H.S.; Rahman, M.S.U.; Juan, C.; Liang, X.; et al. Legume choice and planting configuration influence intercrop nutrient and yield gains through complementarity and selection effects in legume-based wheat intercropping systems. Agric. Syst. 2024, 220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Buakong, W.; Suwanmanee, P.; Ruttajorn, K.; Asawatreratanakul, K.; Leake, J.E. Sustainable Rubber Production Intercrop with Mixed Fruits to Improve Physiological Factors, Productivity, and Income. ASEAN J. Sci. Technol. Rep. 2024, 27, e254945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Kinyua, M.; Kihara, J.; Bekunda, M.; Bolo, P.; Mairura, F.; Fischer, G.; Mucheru-Muna, M. Agronomic and economic performance of legume-legume and cereal-legume intercropping systems in Northern Tanzania. Agric. Syst. 2022, 205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Lang, J.; Ramos, S.E.; Reichert, L.; Amboka, G.M.; Apel, C.; Chidawanyika, F.; Detebo, A.; Librán-Embid, F.; Meinhof, D.; Bigler, L.; et al. Push–Pull Intercropping Increases the Antiherbivore Benzoxazinoid Glycoside Content in Maize Leaf Tissue. ACS Agric. Sci. Technol. 2024, 4, 1074–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Aguilera-Huertas, J.; Parras-Alcántara, L.; González-Rosado, M.; Lozano-García, B. Intercropping in rainfed Mediterranean olive groves contributes to improving soil quality and soil organic carbon storage. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2023, 361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Mogale, T.E.; Ayisi,K.K.; Munjonji, L.; Kifle, Y.G.; Mabitsela, K.E. Understanding the Impact of the Intercrop-ping System on Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions and Soil Carbon Stocks in Limpopo Province, South Africa. Hindawi Int. J. Agron. 2023, Article ID 6307673. [CrossRef]
  99. Sanfo, A.; Zampaligre’, N.; Kulo, A.E.; Some’, S.; Traore’, K.; Rios, E.F.; Dubeux, J.C.B.; Boote, K.J.; Adesogan, A. Performance of food–feed maize and cowpea cultivars under monoculture and intercropping systems: Grain yield, fodder biomass, and nutritive value. Front. Anim. Sci. 2023, 3, 998012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Dimande, P.; Arrobas, M.; Rodrigues, M.Â. Intercropped Maize and Cowpea Increased the Land Equivalent Ratio and Enhanced Crop Access to More Nitrogen and Phosphorus Compared to Cultivation as Sole Crops. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Nurgi, N.; Tana, T.; Dechassa, N.; Tesso, B.; Alemayehu, Y. Effect of spatial arrangement of faba bean variety intercropping with maize on yield and yield components of the crops. Heliyon 2023, 9, e16751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Wang, J.; Yin, M.; Duan, Y.; Wang, Y.; Ma, Y.; Wan, H.; Kang, Y.; Qi, G.; Jia, Q. Enhancing Water and Soil Resources Utilization via Wolfberry–Alfalfa Intercropping. Plants 2024, 13, 2374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Leoni, F.; Carlesi, S.; Triacca, A.; Koskey, G.; Croceri, G.; Antichi, D.; Moonen, A.-C. A three-stage approach for co-designing diversified cropping systems with farmers: the case study of lentil-wheat intercropping. Ital. J. Agron. 2023, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Samaddar, S.; Schmidt, R.; Tautges, N.E.; Scow, K. Adding alfalfa to an annual crop rotation shifts the composition and functional responses of tomato rhizosphere microbial communities. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2021, 167, 104102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Pofu, K.M.; Mashela, P.W.; Venter, S.L. Dry bean cultivars with the potential for use in potato–dry bean crop rotation systems for managing root-knot nematodes in South Africa. South Afr. J. Plant Soil 2019, 36, 315–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Guo, C.; Yang, C.; Fu, J.; Song, Y.; Chen, S.; Li, H.; Ma, C. Effects of crop rotation on sugar beet growth through improving soil physicochemical properties and microbiome. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2024, 212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Qi, D.; Wu, Z.; Chen, B.; Zhang, X.; Yang, C.; Fu, Q. Integrative cultivation pattern, distribution, yield and potential benefit of rubber based agroforestry system in China. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2024, 220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Vaupel, A.; Küsters, M.; Toups, J.; Herwig, N.; Bösel, B.; Beule, L. Trees shape the soil microbiome of a temperate agrosilvopastoral and syntropic agroforestry system. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Tilinti, B.; Negash, M.; Asfaw, Z.; Woldeamanuel, T. Variations in carbon stocks across traditional and improved agroforestry in reference to agroforestry and households’ characteristics in Southeastern Ethiopia. Heliyon 2025, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Kimaro, O.D.; Desie, E.; Verbist, B.; Kimaro, D.N.; Vancampenhout, K.; Feger, K.-H. Soil organic carbon stocks and fertility in smallholder indigenous agroforestry systems of the North-Eastern mountains, Tanzania. Geoderma Reg. 2024, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Nascimento, M.d.S.; Barreto-Garcia, P.A.B.; Monroe, P.H.M.; Pereira, M.G.; Barros, W.T.; Nunes, M.R. Carbon in soil macroaggregates under coffee agroforestry systems: Modeling the effect of edaphic fauna and residue input. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2024, 202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Pahalvi, H.N.; Rafiya, L.; Rashid, S.; Nisar, B.; Kamili, A.N. Chemical Fertilizers and Their Impact on Soil Health. In: Dar, G.H., Bhat, R.A., Mehmood, M.A., Hakeem, K.R. (eds) Microbiota and Biofertilizers, Vol 2. Springer, Cham. 2021.
  113. Szymańska, M.; Gubiec, W.; Smreczak, B.; Ukalska-Jaruga, A.; Sosulski, T. How Does Specialization in Agricultural Production Affect Soil Health? Agriculture 2024, 14, 424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Atuchin, V.V.; Asyakina, L.K.; Serazetdinova, Y.R.; Frolova, A.S.; Velichkovich, N.S.; Prosekov, A.Y. Microorganisms for Bioremediation of Soils Contaminated with Heavy Metals. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Jote, C. A. The impacts of using inorganic chemical fertilizers on the environment and human health. Organ Med Chem Int J. 2023, 13, 555864. [Google Scholar]
  116. Shahid, M.; Khan, M.S.; Singh, U.B. Pesticide-tolerant microbial consortia: Potential candidates for remedia-tion/clean-up of pesticide-contaminated agricultural soil Environ. Res. 2023, 236, 116724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Asadu, C.O.; Ezema, C.A.; Ekwueme, B.N.; Onu, C.E.; Onoh, I.M.; Adejoh, T.; Ezeorba, T.P.C.; Ogbonna, C.C.; Otuh, P.I.; Okoye, J.O.; et al. Enhanced efficiency fertilizers: Overview of production methods, materials used, nutrients release mechanisms, benefits and considerations. J. Environ. Pollut. Manag. 2024, 1, 32–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Chen, M.; Schievano, A.; Bosco, S.; Montero-Castaño, A.; Tamburini, G.; Pérez-Soba, M.; Makowski, D. Evidence map of the benefits of enhanced-efficiency fertilisers for the environment, nutrient use efficiency, soil fertility, and crop production. Environ. Res. Lett. 2023, 18, 043005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Hassan, T.; Rashid, G. Biofertilisers and Biopesticides: Approaches Towards Sustainable Development. In: Dar, G.H., Bhat, R.A., Mehmood, M.A. (eds) Microbiomes for the Management of Agricultural Sustainability. Springer, Cham. 2023.
  120. Rafeeq, H.; Riaz, Z.; Shahzadi, A.; Gul, S.; Idress, F.; Ashraf, S.; Hussain, A.
  121. Mokrani, S.; Houali, K.; Yadav, K.K.; Arabi, A.I.A.; Eltayeb, L.B.; AwjanAlreshidi, M.; Benguerba, Y.; Cabral-Pinto, M.M.; Nabti, E.-H. Bioremediation techniques for soil organic pollution: Mechanisms, microorganisms, and technologies - A comprehensive review. Ecol. Eng. 2024, 207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Tagliabue, F.; Marini, E.; De Bernardi, A.; Vischetti, C.; Casucci, C. A Systematic Review on Earthworms in Soil Bioremediation. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 10239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Prakash, P.; Chandran, S.S. Nano-Phytoremediation of Heavy Metals from Soil: A Critical Review. Pollutants. 2023, 3, 360–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Yadav, R.; Singh, G.; Santal, A.R.; Singh, N.P. Omics approaches in effective selection and generation of potential plants for phytoremediation of heavy metal from contaminated resources. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 336, 117730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Dara, S.K. The New Integrated Pest Management Paradigm for the Modern Age. J. Integr. Pest Manag. 2019, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Daraban, G.M.; Hlihor, R.-M.; Suteu, D. Pesticides vs. Biopesticides: From Pest Management to Toxicity and Impacts on the Environment and Human Health. Toxics 2023, 11, 983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Nosratti, I.; Korres, N.E.; Cordeau, S. Knowledge of Cover Crop Seed Traits and Treatments to Enhance Weed Suppression: A Narrative Review. Agronomy 2023, 13, 1683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Nath, C.P.; Singh, R.G.; Choudhary, V.K.; Datta, D.; Nandan, R.; Singh, S.S. Challenges and Alternatives of Herbicide-Based Weed Management. Agronomy 2024, 14, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Siddiqui, J.A.; Fan, R.; Naz, H.; Bamisile, B.S.; Hafeez, M.; Ghani, M.I.; Wei, Y.; Xu, Y.; Chen, X. Insights into insecticide-resistance mechanisms in invasive species: Challenges and control strategies. Front. Physiol. 2023, 13, 1112278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Skendžić, S.; Zovko, M.; Živković, I.P.; Lešić, V.; Lemić, D. The impact of climate change on agricultural insects pests. Insects 2021, 12, 440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. John, A.; Riat, A.K.; Bhat, K.A.; Ganie, S.A.; Endarto, O.; Nugroho, C.; Handoko, H.; Wani, A.K. Adapting to climate extremes: Implications for insect populations and sustainable solutions. J. Nat. Conserv. 2024, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Subedi, B.; Poudel, A.; Aryal, S. The impact of climate change on insect pest biology and ecology: Implications for pest management strategies, crop production, and food security. J. Agric. Food Res. 2023, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Ayilara, M.S.; Adeleke, B.S.; Akinola, S.A.; Fayose, C.A.; Adeyemi, U.T.; Gbadegesin, L.A.; Omole, R.K.; Johnson, R.M.; Uthman, Q.O.; Babalola, O.O. Biopesticides as a promising alternative to synthetic pesticides: A case for microbial pesticides, phytopesticides, and nanobiopesticides. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1040901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Smagghe, F.; Spooner-Hart, R.; Chen, Z.-H.; Donovan-Mak, M. Biological control of arthropod pests in protected cropping by employing entomopathogens: Efficiency, production and safety. Biol. Control. 2023, 186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Yousef, H.A.; Fahmy, H.M.; Arafa, F.N.; Abd Allah, M.Y.; Tawfik, Y.M.; El Halwany, K.K.; El-Ashmanty, B.A.; Al-Anany, F.S.; Mohamed, M.A.; Bassily, M.E. Nanotechnology in pest management: advantages, applications, and challenges. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 2023, 43, 1387–1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Ofuya, T.I.; Okunlola, A.I.; Mbata, G.N. A Review of Insect Pest Management in Vegetable Crop Production in Nigeria. Insects 2023, 14, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Chouhan, S.; Kumari, S.; Kumar, R.; Chaudhary, P.L. Climate Resilient Water Management for Sustainable Agriculture. Int. J. Environ. Clim. Chang. 2023, 13, 411–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. David L. Hoover, Lori J. Abendroth, Dawn M. Browning, Amartya Saha, Keirith Snyder, Pradeep Wagle, Lindsey Witthaus, Claire Baffaut, Joel A. Biederman, David D. Bosch, Rosvel Bracho, Dennis Busch, Patrick Clark, Patrick Ellsworth, Philip A. Fay, Gerald Flerchinger, Sean Kearney, Lucia Levers, Nicanor Saliendra, Marty Schmer, Harry Schomberg, Russell L. Scott,Indicators of water use efficiency across diverse agroecosystems and spatiotemporal scales,Science of The Total Environment,Volume 864,2023,160992,ISSN 0048-9697. [CrossRef]
  139. Lankford, B.; Pringle, C.; McCosh, J.; Shabalala, M.; Hess, T.; Knox, J.W. Irrigation area, efficiency and water storage mediate the drought resilience of irrigated agriculture in a semi-arid catchment. Sci. Total. Environ. 2022, 859, 160263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Elmulthum, N.A.; Zeineldin, F.I.; Al-Khateeb, S.A.; Al-Barrak, K.M.; Mohammed, T.A.; Sattar, M.N.; Mohmand, A.S. Water Use Efficiency and Economic Evaluation of the Hydroponic versus Conventional Cul-tivation Systems for Green Fodder Production in Saudi Arabia. Sustainability. 2023, 15, 822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Togneri, R.; Prati, R.; Nagano, H.; Kamienski, C. Data-driven water need estimation for IoT-based smart irrigation: A survey. Expert Syst. Appl. 2023, 225. 120194. [CrossRef]
  142. Petrović, B.; Bumbálek, R.; Zoubek, T.; Kuneš, R.; Smutný, L.; Bartoš, P. Application of precision agriculture technologies in Central Europe-review. J. Agric. Food Res. 2024, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Agrawal, A.V.; Magulur, L.P.S.; Priya, G.; Kaur, A.; Singh, G.; Boopathi, S. Handbook of Research on Data Science and Cybersecurity Innovations in Industry 4.0 Technologies. 2023. pp 524-540.
  144. Artificial Intelligence Tools and Technologies for Smart Farming and Agriculture Practices; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, United States, 2023; ISBN: 9781466641778.
  145. Akintuyi, O.B. Adaptive AI in precision agriculture: A review: Investigating the use of self-learning algorithms in optimizing farm operations based on real-time data. Open Access Res. J. Sci. Technol. 2024, 7, 016–030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Li, X.; Hou, B.; Zhang, R.; Liu, Y. A Review of RGB Image-Based Internet of Things in Smart Agriculture. IEEE Sensors J. 2023, 23, 24107–24122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Kasera, R.K.; Gour, S.; Acharjee, T. A. comprehensive survey on IoT and AI-based applications in different pre-harvest, during-harvest and post-harvest activities of smart agriculture. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2024, 216, 108522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Kganyago, M.; Adjorlolo, C.; Mhangara, P.; Tsoeleng, L. Optical remote sensing of crop biophysical and biochemical parameters: An overview of advances in sensor technologies and machine learning algorithms for precision agriculture. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2024, 218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Rivera, G.; Porras, R.; Florencia, R.; Sánchez-Solís, J.P. LiDAR applications in precision agriculture for cultivating crops: A review of recent advances. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2023, 207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Kim, J.; Chung, Y.S. A short review of RGB sensor applications for accessible high-throughput phenotyping. J. Crop. Sci. Biotechnol. 2021, 24, 495–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Sangeetha, S.K.B.; Mani, P.; Maheshwari, V.; Jayagopal, P.; Kumar, M.S.; Allayear, S.M. Design and Analysis of Multilayered Neural Network-Based Intrusion Detection System in the Internet of Things Network. Comput. Intell. Neurosci. 2022, 2022, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Erekalo, K.T.; Pedersen, S.M.; Christensen, T.; Denver, S.; Gemtou, M.; Fountas, S.; Isakhanyan, G. Review on the contribution of farming practices and technologies towards climate-smart agricultural outcomes in a Eu-ropean context. Smart Agricultural Technology. 2024, 7, 100413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Karunathilake, E.M.B.M.; Le, A.T.; Heo, S.; Chung, Y.S.; Mansoor, S. The Path to Smart Farming: Innovations and Opportunities in Precision Agriculture. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Adamides, G.; Kalatzis, N.; Stylianou, A.; Marianos, N.; Chatzipapadopoulos, F.; Giannakopoulou, M.; Papadavid, G.; Vassiliou, V.; Neocleous, D. Smart Farming Techniques for Climate Change Adaptation in Cyprus. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Benzaouia, M.; Hajji, B.; Rabhi, A.; Benzaouia, S.; Mellit, A. Real-time Super Twisting Algorithm based fuzzy logic dynamic power management strategy for Hybrid Power Generation System. J. Energy Storage 2023, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Dlamini, P.P.; Momi, S.; Chizema, T.; Van Grenuen, D. Implementing a cost-effective soil monitoring system using wireless sensor networks to enhance farming practices for small-scale farmers in developing economy countries. WJAFS. 2024, ISSN: 2960-0227.
  157. Langa, R.M.; Moeti, M.N. “An IoT-Based Automated Farming Irrigation System for Farmers in Limpopo Province,” JINITA. 2024, 6, 12–27. [CrossRef]
  158. Mogale, T.E.; Ayisi, K.K.; Munjonji, L.; Kifle, Y.G.; Mabitsela, K.E. Understanding the Impact of the Inter-cropping System on Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions and Soil Carbon Stocks in Limpopo Province, South Africa. Hindawi Int. J. Agron. 2023, Article ID 6307673. [CrossRef]
  159. Kihoma, L.L.; Churi, A.J.; Sanga, C.A.; Tisselli, E. Examining the continued intention of using the Ugunduzi app in farmer-led research of agro-ecological practices among smallholder farmers in selected areas, Tanzania. Afr. J. Sci. Technol. Innov. Dev. 2023, 15, 720–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Crop diversification practices from different geographical areas.
Table 1. Crop diversification practices from different geographical areas.
Practices Countries Impact on agroecosystem Impact on crop production Contribution to climate change mitigation References
Cover cropping potatoes and tomatoes with Brassicaceae plants such as oil seed radish and rocket salad S. Africa Reduced population densities of the root-knot nematodes M. incognita and M. javanica Increase in crop biomass Not specified Daneel et al. [86]
Cover cropping legume or oat crops incomplete Australia N cycling and fixation, C cycling, water conservation, pest reduction Cover crop biomass production and food production profitability Reduced pesticides Garba et al. [87]
Torun [88]
Cover cropping wheat with legume S. Africa Soil quality was improved and N fixation Increased wheat grain quality Decreased use of N fertilizers after improved N fixation Smit et al. [89]
Cover cropping sorghum and maize with annual ryegrass, winter triticale, turnip, daikon radish and pea Mexico Improved organic carbon and nitrogen in the soil and increased soil fertility Improved crop yields Increased carbon sequestration Singh et al. [90]
Cover crops such as soybean, sudangrass and soybean-sudangrass mixture before wheat planting each year. China Improved soil minerals, soil carbon stabilisation and enhanced soil aggregation Not specified Increased carbon sequestration Zhu et al. [91]
Bananas grown with goosegrass and siratro cover crops China Soil organic increase, total nitrogen and total phosphorus increase and increased phosphatase, catalase, invertase and urease activities from soil bacteria communities Not specified Not specified Xu et al. [92]
Wheat and chickpea intercropping Pakistan N and P increase in the soil Wheat and chickpea grain quality improved and biomass increased Not specified Raza et al. [93]
Intercropping
rubber, timber fruit, and shrub trees
Thailand Improved the soil quality Higher fruit production Reduced temperature (lowered light intensity) and increased humidity Buakong et al. [94]
Cowpea and wheat intercropping Tanzania Improved soil fertility, weed control, decrease in pests and crop diseases Improved crop yield Higher radiation interception Kinyua et al. [95]
Desmodium spp. employed as intercrop and Brachiaria or Napier grass employed as border crops with maize Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda Increased maize resistance to herbivore attacks, insect and weed pests’ control and increased N fixation by Desmodium Improved maize yields Not specified Lang et al. [96]
Intercropping olive with Crocus sativus, Vicia sativa, Avena sativa in and Lavandula intermedia with olive orchards Spain Soil-improved carbon storage, N fixation No effects on crop yield detected Increased carbon sequestration in the soil Aguilera-Huerts et al. [97]
Sorghum-cowpea intercropping in a no-tillage system S. Africa Reduced carbon emissions and improved carbon storage in the soil N-fixation in the soil,
C storage in the soil
Less CO2 emissions in the atmosphere Mogale et al. [98]
Maize and Cowpea intercropping Burkina Faso, Mozambique Weed reduction increased N fixation, increased phosphorous in the soil Increased maize production, increased maize and fodder production Not specified Sanfo et al. [99]
Dimande et al. [100]
Maize and faba bean intercropping Ethiopia Not specified Maize grain yield increase and biomass increase Not specified Nurgi et al. [101]
Wolfberry intercropped with alfalfa China Improved water use efficiency (WUE) by the tree leaves, reduced soil water loss Increase in Wolfberry biomass Not specified Wang et al. [102]
Relay intercropping of winter durum wheat with lentil Italy Weed suppression,
increased nutrient availability and improved soil microbial matter
Increase in wheat and lentil yields Not specified Leoni et al. [103]
Tomato and alfalfa crop rotation America Enhanced soil nutrient availability, pest suppression Improved quality yield of tomato crops N and C soil fixation reducing atmospheric N and C Samaddar et al. [104]
Crop rotation of potato cultivars with dry bean cultivars South Africa Reduced levels of Meloidogyne pest Increase in yields
Reduced infestation by
Meloidogyne spp in one cultivar
Not specified Pofu et al. [105]
Rubber dandelion and sugar beet crop rotation China Enhanced soil microbiome and increased abundance of Actinobacteria and Streptomyces. Increased sugar beet biomass, increased urease activity in the soil, N fixation, phosphorous and potassium increase Not specified Guo et al. [106]
Agroforestry practice of planting rubber trees with different types of trees and fruit trees China Water and soil conservation increased light-use efficiency Increase in the fruit yield in fruit trees Not specified Qi et al. [107]
Agrosilvopastoral system of trees, crops, and livestock and a syntropic agroforestry system of trees, shrub species, and forage crops. Germany Improved soil microbiome and a reduction in plant diseases Not specified Soil organic carbon storage increases under syntropic agroforestry Vaupel et al. [108]
Homegarden agroforestry Ethiopia Improved soil properties such as pH and improved soil density Fruit yield not specified but improvement in stem density and tree height The home gardens act as carbon sinks Tilinti et al. [109]
Ginger and mixed spices agroforestry Tanzania Improved soil fertility Soil organic carbon sequestration Kimaro et al. [110]
Coffee agroforestry systems Brazil Improved soil microfauna and improved organic matter Not specified Soil organic carbon storage dos Santos Nascimento et al. [111]
Table 2. Summary of some recent Internet of Things technologies.
Table 2. Summary of some recent Internet of Things technologies.
Technological advancement Application approach Country Contribution to agroecosystem
References
Data collection using sensors in the field using the Gaiasense system Automatic field stations Cyprus Detection of soil moisture, temperature, humidity, wind, precipitation and atmospheric pressure Adamides et al. [154]
Fuzzy logic (FL) controller, and long-range data transmission and monitoring via the LoRa protocol Smart precision irrigation Morocco Saving water and energy Benzaouia et al. [155]
Wireless Sensor Networks (WSN) using Arduino UNO WiFi Rev2 board server
Soil monitoring system South Africa Monitoring of soil conditions, weather patterns, and crop development Dlamini et al. [156]
Data collection technology using Arduino ESP Wi-Fi technology Automated irrigation South Africa Detects soil moisture and assists in water-use efficiency Langa et al. [157]
GMP343 used with MI70 data logger Measurement of CO2 emissions South Africa Determination of carbon stocks between intercropping and monocropping systems Mogale et al. [158]
Ugunduzi Mobile App To conduct field research Tanzania Monitoring maize and cassava crops through gathering, visualization & statistical analysis of soil fertility, conservation and biodiversity Kihoma et al. [159]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

Privacy Settings

© 2025 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated