Agroforestry for Food Security and Public Health: A Comprehensive Review
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
Procedures of Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Cluster 1 (Red): Agroforestry Systems, Biodiversity, and Agriculture
3.2. Cluster 2 (Green): Smallholder Farmers, Soil Fertility, Adoption, and Africa
3.3. Cluster 3 (Blue): Ecosystem Services, Sustainability, and Conservation
3.4. Cluster 4 (Yellow Cluster): Livelihoods, Community, and Income
3.5. Cluster 5 (Purple): Technology, Systems, and Agroforestry Adoption
3.6. Nutrition and Public Health
4. Discussion
4.1. Longitudinal Health Impact Studies
4.2. Climate–Health Interactions
4.3. Policy–Health Integration
4.4. Socioeconomic Determinants of Health Outcomes
4.5. Economic and Nutritional Trade-Offs
4.6. Nutrition and Public Health Outcomes
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2023: Urbanization, Agrifood Systems Transformation and Healthy Diets Across the Rural-Urban Continuum; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2022: Repurposing Food and Agricultural Policies to Make Healthy Diets More Affordable; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vermeulen, S.J.; Zougmoré, R.B.; Wollenberg, E.K.; Thornton, P.K.; Nelson, G.C.; Kristjanson, P.M.; Kinyangi, J.; Jarvis, A.; Ghimire, M.; Khanal, A.; et al. Agroforestry systems in Nepal: Enhancing food security and rural livelihoods—A comprehensive review. Food Energy Secur. 2024, 13, e524. [Google Scholar]
- Fanzo, J.; Davis, C.; McLaren, R.; Choufani, J. The effect of climate change across food systems: Implications for nutrition outcomes. Glob. Food Secur. 2018, 18, 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansen, J.; Challinor, A.J.; Campbell, B.M.; Aggarwal, P. Climate change, agriculture and food security: A global partnership to link research and action for low-income agricultural producers and consumers. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2012, 4, 128–133. [Google Scholar]
- Dhakal, A.; Rai, R.K. Potential of Agroforestry Systems for Food Security, Climate Change Mitigation, Landscape Restoration and Disaster Risk Reduction in Nepal. In Agroforestry for Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture in Asia and Africa; Dagar, J.C., Gupta, S.R., Sileshi, G.W., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2023; pp. 145–165. [Google Scholar]
- Jose, S. Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: An overview. Agroforest. Syst. 2009, 76, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kwesiga, F.; Akinnifesi, F.; Mafongoya, P.; McDermott, M.; Agumya, A. Agroforestry research and development in southern Africa during the 1990s: Review and challenges ahead. Agroforest. Syst. 2003, 59, 173–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- HLPE. Food Security and Nutrition: Building a Global Narrative Towards 2030; A Report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security: Rome, Italy, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, S.E.; Miller, D.C.; Ordonez, P.J.; Baylis, K. Evidence for the impacts of agroforestry on agricultural productivity, ecosystem services, and human well-being in high-income countries: A systematic map protocol. Environ. Evid. 2018, 7, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quandt, A. Contribution of agroforestry trees for climate change adaptation: Narratives from smallholder farmers in Isiolo, Kenya. Agroforest. Syst. 2020, 94, 2125–2136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sudomo, A.; Leksono, B.; Tata, H.L.; Rahayu, A.A.D.; Umroni, A.; Rianawati, H.; Asmaliyah; Krisnawati; Setyayudi, A.; Utomo, M.M.B.; et al. Can Agroforestry Contribute to Food and Livelihood Security for Indonesia’s Smallholders in the Climate Change Era? Agriculture 2023, 13, 1896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santafe-Troncoso, V.; Loring, P.A. Indigenous food sovereignty and tourism: The Chakra Route in the Amazon region of Ecuador. J. Sustain. Tour. 2021, 29, 392–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duffy, C.; Toth, G.G.; Hagan, R.P.O.; McKeown, P.C.; Rahman, S.A.; Widyaningsih, Y.; Sunderland, T.; Spillane, C. Agroforestry contributions to smallholder farmer food security in Indonesia. Agroforest. Syst. 2021, 95, 1065–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paul, J.; Lim, W.M.; O’Cass, A.; Hao, A.W.; Bresciani, S. Scientific procedures and rationales for systematic literature reviews (SPAR-4-SLR). Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2021, 45, O1–O16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, V.K.; Singh, P.; Karmakar, M.; Leta, J.; Mayr, P. The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics 2021, 126, 5113–5142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pickering, C.; Byrne, J. The benefits of publishing systematic quantitative literature reviews for PhD candidates and other early-career researchers. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2014, 33, 534–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, P.; Choudhary, B.B.; Dwivedi, R.P.; Arunachalam, A.; Kumar, S.; Dev, I. Agroforestry improves food security and reduces income variability in semi-arid tropics of central India. Agroforest. Syst. 2023, 97, 509–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shennan-Farpón, Y.; Mills, M.; Souza, A.; Homewood, K. The role of agroforestry in restoring Brazil’s Atlantic Forest: Opportunities and challenges for smallholder farmers. People Nat. 2022, 4, 462–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nyong, A.P.; Ngankam, T.M.; Felicite, T.L. Enhancement of resilience to climate variability and change through agroforestry practices in smallholder farming systems in Cameroon. Agroforest. Syst. 2020, 94, 687–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fu, Y.; Chen, A.; Liu, W.; Lee, J.S.H. Agrobiodiversity loss and livelihood vulnerability as a consequence of converting from traditional farming systems to rubber plantations in Xishuangbanna, China. Land Degrad. Dev. 2010, 21, 274–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mayorga, I.; Vargas de Mendonça, J.L.; Hajian-Forooshani, Z.; Lugo-Perez, J.; Perfecto, I. Trade-offs and synergies among ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, and food production in coffee agroforestry. Front. For. Glob. Change 2022, 5, 690164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sileshi, G.; Akinnifesi, F.K.; Ajayi, O.C.; Place, F. Meta-analysis of maize yield response to woody and herbaceous legumes in sub-Saharan Africa. Plant Soil 2008, 307, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mbow, C.; Noordwijk, M.V.; Prabhu, R.; Simons, T. Knowledge gaps and research needs concerning agroforestry’s contribution to Sustainable Development Goals in Africa. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2014, 6, 162–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI). UNEP FI 2021 Annual Overview; UNEP FI: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021; Available online: https://www.unepfi.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/UNEP-FI-2021-Annual-Overview.pdf (accessed on 2 April 2025).
- Jacobson, M.; Ham, C. The (un)broken promise of agroforestry: A case study of improved fallows in Zambia. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2020, 22, 8247–8260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bose, P. Land tenure and forest rights of rural and indigenous women in Latin America: Empirical evidence. Women’s Stud. Int. Forum 2017, 65, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bruck, H.; Kuusela, K. Addressing land insecurity and cultural views in agroforestry promotion. Agroforest. Syst. 2021, 95, 1079–1093. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF). UNICEF Annual Report 2022; UNICEF: New York, NY, USA, 2022; Available online: https://www.unicef.org/media/141001/file/UNICEF%20Annual%20Report%202022%20EN.pdf (accessed on 2 April 2025).
- Imoro, Z.A.; Imoro, A.Z.; Duwiejuah, A.B.; Abukari, A. Harnessing Indigenous Technologies for Sustainable Management of Land, Water, and Food Resources Amidst Climate Change. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 691603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oyawole, F.P.; Dipeolu, A.O.; Shittu, A.M.; Obayelu, A.E.; Fabunmi, T.O. Adoption of agricultural practices with climate smart agriculture potentials and food security among farm households in northern Nigeria. Open Agric. 2020, 5, 751–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Global Report 2022; UNHCR: Geneva, Switzerland, 2022; Available online: https://reporting.unhcr.org/global-report-2022 (accessed on 2 March 2025).
- Ahmad, S.; Xu, H.; Ekanayake, E.M.B.P. Socio-economic determinants and perceptions of smallholder farmers towards agroforestry adoption in Northern Irrigated Plain, Pakistan. Land 2023, 12, 813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Velasco-Muñoz, J.F.; Mendoza, J.M.F.; Aznar-Sánchez, J.A.; Gallego-Schmid, A. Circular economy implementation in the agricultural sector: Definition, strategies and indicators. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 170, 105618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Premanandh, J. Factors affecting food security and contribution of modern technology in food sustainability. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2011, 91, 2707–2714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Global Connectivity Report 2022; ITU: Geneva, Switzerland, 2022; Available online: https://www.itu.int/hub/publication/d-ind-global-01-2022/ (accessed on 2 April 2025).
- Bertin, T.; Zacharie, T.; Ann, D.; Ebenezar, A.; Alain, T. Scaling-up Sustainable Land Management Practices through the Concept of the Rural Resource Centre: Reconciling Farmers’ Interests with Research Agendas. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2014, 20, 463–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsufac, A.R.; Awazi, N.P.; Yerima, B.P.K. Characterization of agroforestry systems and their effectiveness in soil fertility enhancement in the south-west region of Cameroon. Curr. Res. Environ. Sustain. 2021, 3, 100024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luna, M.; Barcellos-Paula, L. Structured equations to assess the socio-economic and business factors influencing the financial sustainability of traditional Amazonian Chakra in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soto-Pinto, L.; Escobar Colmenares, S.; Benítez Kanter, M.; López Cruz, A.; Estrada Lugo, E.; Herrera Hernández, B.; Jiménez-Soto, E. Contributions of Agroforestry Systems to Food Provisioning of Peasant Households: Conflicts and Synergies in Chiapas, Mexico. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 756611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jemal, O.M.; Callo-Concha, D.; van Noordwijk, M. Coffee Agroforestry and the Food and Nutrition Security of Small Farmers of South-Western Ethiopia. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 608868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghosh-Jerath, S.; Kapoor, R.; Ghosh, U.; Singh, A.; Downs, S.; Fanzo, J. Pathways of Climate Change Impact on Agroforestry, Food Consumption Pattern, and Dietary Diversity Among Indigenous Subsistence Farmers of Sauria Paharia Tribal Community of India: A Mixed Methods Study. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 667297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albrecht, S.; Wiek, A. Food forests: Their services and sustainability. J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev. 2021, 10, 91–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lovell, S.T.; Krishnaswamy, K.; Lin, C.-H.; Meier, N.; Revord, R.S.; Thomas, A.L. Nuts and berries from agroforestry systems in temperate regions can form the foundation for a healthier human diet and improved outcomes from diet-related diseases. Agroforest. Syst. 2023, 97, 1347–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gonçalves, C.D.B.Q.; Schlindwein, M.M.; Martinelli, G.D.C. Agroforestry Systems: A Systematic Review Focusing on Traditional Indigenous Practices, Food and Nutrition Security, Economic Viability, and the Role of Women. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cluster | Key Indicator | Food Security Impact | Public Health Impact | Environmental Impact | Source |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Systems, Biodiversity | Tree Density | +0.231% per 1% increase | 18% less vitamin A deficiency | 1.5 Mg C/ha/year sequestration | [7,18] |
2. Smallholders, Fertility | Soil Nitrogen | 15% higher maize yields | 10% less anemia | 50–70% less erosion | [8] |
3. Ecosystem Services | Shade Coverage | 20–30% pollinator yield boost | 25–35% less heat stress | 0.5–2 Mg C/ha/year | [10] |
4. Livelihoods, Income | Income Increase | 40% higher revenue | 20% less depression | 50% less soil degradation | [12] |
5. Technology, Adoption | Tech-Supported Yields | 15% higher vitamin C | 10% fewer respiratory cases | 25% less pesticide use | [19] |
6. Nutrition, Health | Dietary Diversity | 30% more calories | 15–20% less stunting | 70+ species/ha biodiversity | [11] |
Source | Research Gap | Current Evidence | Missing Metric | Proposed Approach |
---|---|---|---|---|
[11] | Longitudinal Health Impacts. | 15–20% stunting drop. | HALYs for chronic diseases. | 10-year cohort study, 5000 households. |
[10] | Climate–Health Interactions. | 2–5 °C cooling. | Malaria incidence reduction (%). | GIS-based vector modeling, tropics. |
[14] | Policy–Health Integration. | 10% strategies link health. | Nutrition-focused subsidy adoption. | Policy analysis across 50 countries. |
[6] | Socioeconomic Determinants. | 25% diet boost with tenure. | Stunting variance by tenure type. | Regression analysis, 10 regions. |
[21] | Economic–Nutritional Trade-offs. | 25% diversity loss. | Cost–benefit ratio (nutrition vs. profit). | Comparative trials, 5 systems. |
[40] | Understanding the varying food-related experiences based on agrarian social positions (e.g., land ownership status). | Landless laborers within AFS are more vulnerable to food insecurity than peasant farmers or migrants who own land elsewhere. | Detailed comparative food security/access data based on land tenure status within specific AFS contexts. | Further research on the relationship between land access, social position, and food security for migrant/landless laborers in AFS regions. Secure land access for laborers. |
[40] | How to effectively balance market demands and household provisioning needs in peasant AFS. | Peasants struggle to articulate both market production and household subsistence from AFS due to external pressures (markets, policies). | Metrics quantifying the trade-offs and potential synergies between cash crop production and subsistence farming within diverse AFS. | Revalue the non-monetary benefits of AFS and promote agroecological food production and equitable relationships through transdisciplinary collaboration involving policymakers, academics, NGOs, businesses, and civil society. |
[41] | Limited understanding of how specific AFP attributes influence individual nutritional status, especially in children. | AFP diversity attributes (species richness, structural complexity) correlate with household food access and dietary diversity, particularly during food shortage seasons. | Specific linkages between consumption of diverse AFS products and individual/child anthropometric measures or micronutrient status. | Promote diversity within AFPs, focusing on helpful plant groups, including edible and storable crops needed during shortage seasons. |
[42] | Lack of information on climate change impacts and adaptation strategies for marginalized indigenous communities. | Indigenous communities perceive climate variability impacts (erratic rainfall, drought) on agroforestry, leading to reduced yields, biodiversity loss, economic hardship, and dietary changes. | Quantitative data systematically links specific climatic changes to agroforestry productivity, biodiversity, and nutritional outcomes in specific indigenous contexts. Standardized methods for assessing FADI. | Support community-identified sustainable adaptation strategies (e.g., climate-resilient indigenous crops, seed saving, forest foods). Provide knowledge and technology to improve farm resilience. |
[43] | Economic viability and business models for food forests, particularly for scaling up. | Most food forests perform well environmentally and socially but struggle economically. Mature sites with diverse income streams or specific high-value products/services show viability. | Comprehensive financial data, yield tracking, and standardized business performance metrics for food forests. Quantification/monetization of ecosystem services. | Develop specific training on food forest business practices. Explore cooperative ownership models (cooperatives, land trusts, foundations). Compensate for ecosystem services. |
[44] | Optimizing phytochemical content in agroforestry nuts and berries through breeding and processing. | Nuts and berries from temperate AFS contain beneficial phytochemicals linked to reduced risk of CVD, hypertension, and type II diabetes. | Data on how specific breeding programs or processing techniques affect the concentration and bioavailability of key phytonutrients in AFS products. | Implement plant breeding programs focused on biofortification of health-promoting compounds. Select/develop processing techniques that preserve phytonutrients—reorient food policies to prioritize these systems. |
[45] | Lack of economic/financial analysis of indigenous agroforestry models focusing on food security. | Agroforestry is a traditional indigenous practice crucial for subsistence, income, medicine, and culture. Economic studies show viability, often higher than monoculture. | Detailed economic and financial viability assessments (NPV, IRR, CBR, etc.) are specifically designed for indigenous agroforestry models with food security as a primary goal. | Conduct economic viability analyses tailored to indigenous contexts, species, and food security goals—structure AFS arrangements to provide short-, medium-, and long-term returns. |
[40,45] | Understanding barriers to agroforestry adoption by farmers, including indigenous communities. | Barriers include land tenure insecurity, focus on immediate needs over long-term benefits, lack of financial resources, and cultural/ethnic factors influencing management practices. | Comparative analysis of adoption rates and influencing factors across different cultural and socioeconomic groups. | Develop public policies focused on specific community needs, including immediate returns. Address land tenure issues. Incorporate traditional knowledge and ethnic preferences in AFS design. |
[45] | Gender disparities in agroforestry management and decision-making within indigenous communities. | Women are crucial for labor, food security, and income generation but often excluded from decision-making and face barriers like unequal land access. | Quantified data on women’s vs. men’s labor input, income control, and decision-making power in diverse indigenous agroforestry contexts. | Promote gender equality in AFS through targeted policies and extension services. Empower women as agents of transformation. Address land ownership inequalities. |
Contribution | Quantified Impact | Scientific Advance | Real-World Potential |
---|---|---|---|
Dual-impact quantification | 0.231% food security per 1% trees | Merges agriculture and epidemiology | 10% global malnutrition cut by 2040 |
Synergy identification | 15–20% stunting, 0.5–2 Mg C/ha | Links biodiversity to health | USD 50B health savings, 1 Gt C stored |
Transdisciplinary framework | 15% heat death reduction | New HALYs/carbon/nutrition metric | Policy shifts in 20 nations by 2035 |
Documents AFS food provisioning in Chiapas peasant/migrant households; highlights conflicts between traditional and industrial food systems. | 108 plant species recorded; 62.5% of families face seasonal food budget shortages; coffee AFS food species richness correlated with shade species richness (p < 0.05). | Integrates analysis of agrobiodiversity, food provisioning, socioeconomic pressures (markets, policy), and dietary shifts; distinct analysis of peasant vs. semi-proletarian migrant food experiences. | Informs policy by highlighting the need to value local food systems/knowledge and secure land access for laborers; guides agroecological transitions by identifying conflicts (e.g., food preference changes). |
Assesses trade-offs between coffee AFS and Food and Nutrition Security (FNS) for Ethiopian smallholders, comparing different AFS types across seasons. | Species richness/stories correlated with food access security; home-garden structure/exotic species correlated with child biometrics (shortage season); combining 3 AFP types improved dietary diversity. | Quantifies links between specific AFS attributes (diversity, structure) and FNS dimensions (access, diet, child biometrics); demonstrates synergy: combining multiple AFS types enhances resilience more than single systems. | Recommends promoting diverse edible/storable crops within AFS for seasonal FNS; advises caution against over-specialization in commodity AFS; offers metrics for evaluating FNS impacts of AFS interventions. |
Investigate perceived climate change impacts on AFS, diet, and diversity in an indigenous Indian community; identify mixed-method adaptation strategies. | Low agroforestry diversity (FADI = 0.21 ± 0.15); cereal-dominant diets observed; 85% HHs receive partial PDS aid; 52% HHs in debt. | Integrates community climate perceptions with quantitative AFS diversity (FADI) and diet data; develops pathway model linking climate -> AFS -> socioeconomics -> diet; documents sustainable and potentially maladaptive coping strategies. | Underscores the need for policy supporting indigenous traditional knowledge and climate-resilient crops; highlights the vulnerability of specific groups to climate impacts on food systems; points to potential conflict between hybrid promotion and biodiversity. |
Compiles global evidence on food forest services and assesses their sustainability (social, environmental, economic) via literature (>200 sites) and case studies [14]. | Sample (n = 209): 40% focus on education, 32% community, 11% food production. Assessed 14 sites: generally strong social/environmental scores, but 8/14 economically weak (lacked business plans). | Systematically catalogues food forest services; develops and applies a multi-criteria sustainability assessment framework for food forests; identifies standard organizational models and management issues. | Provides practical insights for food forest development (entrepreneurs, officials); identifies the need for economic viability improvements via training and business planning; suggests cooperative ownership models for scaling. |
Reviews literature on health benefits (CVD, diabetes, hypertension) of nuts/berries from temperate AFS, linking AFS products to disease prevention. | Cites evidence for walnuts reducing coronary heart disease risk; cites the potential for berries in mitigating hypertension, type II diabetes, CVD. | Synthesizes evidence connecting specific temperate AFS products (nuts, berries) to diet-related disease mitigation; explicitly proposes designing AFS for health outcomes via biofortification and processing. | Offers health rationale for selecting specific species in temperate AFS design; suggests policy reorientation toward production systems with health benefits; highlights market potential for value-added processing preserving phytonutrients. |
Systematically reviews AFS adoption by indigenous peoples (2010–2020), focusing on traditional practices, FNS, economic viability, and women’s roles. | Reviewed 92 works. Found AFS is often more economically viable and less risky than monoculture. Found women vital but often lack decision power/land rights. | Synthesizes evidence across multiple dimensions for indigenous AFS; confirms economic viability but notes gap in analyses tailored to indigenous FNS goals; emphasizes integral cultural/spiritual role of AFS. | Validates the importance of AFS as a traditional indigenous practice for subsistence, culture, and biodiversity; informs policies promoting AFS for FNS and poverty reduction in indigenous contexts; highlights the need to address gender inequality in AFS projects. |
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. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Jung, D.R.; Vendrametto, O. Agroforestry for Food Security and Public Health: A Comprehensive Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2025, 22, 645. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22040645
Jung DR, Vendrametto O. Agroforestry for Food Security and Public Health: A Comprehensive Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2025; 22(4):645. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22040645
Chicago/Turabian StyleJung, Daniel Roberto, and Oduvaldo Vendrametto. 2025. "Agroforestry for Food Security and Public Health: A Comprehensive Review" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 22, no. 4: 645. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22040645
APA StyleJung, D. R., & Vendrametto, O. (2025). Agroforestry for Food Security and Public Health: A Comprehensive Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 22(4), 645. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22040645