Next Article in Journal
Wildfire Susceptibility Mapping in Greece Using Ensemble Machine Learning
Previous Article in Journal
Monitoring and Future Prediction of Land Use Land Cover Dynamics in Northern Bangladesh Using Remote Sensing and CA-ANN Model
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Earth
Volume 6
Issue 3
10.3390/earth6030074
earth-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Agriculture-Livestock-Forestry Nexus: Pathways to Enhanced Incomes, Soil Health, Food Security and Climate Change Mitigation in Sub-Saharan Africa

by
Bonface O. Manono
1,* and
Zipporah Gichana
2
1
Colorado State University Extension, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA
2
Department of Environment, Natural Resources and Aquatic Sciences, School of Agriculture and Natural Resources Management, Kisii University, Kisii P.O. Box 408-40200, Kenya
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Earth 2025, 6(3), 74; https://doi.org/10.3390/earth6030074
Submission received: 14 May 2025 / Revised: 20 June 2025 / Accepted: 2 July 2025 / Published: 4 July 2025
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Increasing global population and threat from climate change are imposing economic, social, and ecological challenges to global food production. The demand for food is increasing, necessitating enhanced agricultural production with minimal environmental impacts. To meet this demand, sustainable intensification of both crops and livestock is necessary. This is more urgent in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), a region characterized by low productivity and environmentally degrading agriculture. Integrated Agriculture-livestock-forestry (ALF) systems could be a key form of intensification needed for achieving food security and economic and environmental sustainability. The synergetic interactions between ALF nexus provide a mechanism to foster interconnectedness and resource circulation where practices of one system influence the outcomes in another. These systems enhance long-term farm sustainability while serving the farmers’ environmental and economic goals. It provides opportunities for improving food security, farmer incomes, soil health, climate resilience and the achievement of several UN Sustainable Development Goals. It is therefore crucial to strengthen the evidence supporting the contribution of these systems. On this basis, this paper reviews the potential pathways through which ALF nexus can enhance incomes, food security and climate change mitigation in SSA. The paper discusses the pathways through which the integration of crops, livestock and trees enhance (i) food security, (ii) incomes, (iii) soil health and (iv) mitigation of climate change in SSA. We argue that implementing ALF systems will be accompanied by an advancement of enhanced food security, farmer livelihoods and ecological conservation. It will foster a more balanced and sustainable sub-Saharan African agricultural systems.

1. Introduction

The world’s population is projected to increase to 8.5 billion by 2030, 9.7 billion by 2050, and peak to about 10.4 billion people in the 2080s [1]. A significant portion of this growth will occur in developing countries including sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). This will require increased food production to merge demand in a sustainable way without compromising the future generations’ ability to acquire their food needs [2]. Furthermore, SSA) diets are shifting from mainly cereals and tubers to fruits, vegetables and animal products. This is driven by increasing incomes, urbanization and the need to address malnutrition [3,4,5,6]. Growing interest in animal products has made livestock a positive part of farming systems in the region. However, the extensive livestock production practices in Africa will not be able to meet this demand. For example, in West Africa, livestock graze native pastures and crop residues. On the other hand, native and sown forages are often combined with crop residues for both grazing and cut-and-carry to feed livestock in East, Central, and South Africa, [7]. Changing management from extensive to intensive livestock agriculture causes environmental pollution [8] and loss of biodiversity [9,10]. This makes it unsustainable to raise livestock separately [11]. Further, unsustainable practices have already deteriorated the soil environment for crop production [12,13,14].
Sub-Saharan African agriculture is faced with challenging production conditions. They include soil erosion, water depletion, soil fertility and biodiversity loss, persistent droughts, unreliable wet seasons, pests, and diseases [15,16,17,18,19,20,21]. These, together with inadequate institutional policies, poor infrastructure, limited financing opportunities, markets, and low technological intake enhance land degradation processes and agricultural vulnerability [22,23]. Moreover, as high potential land is becoming less available, farming is extending into marginal and environmentally fragile land [21]. The fact that more than 70% of the population of sub-Saharan countries, especially the poor, is dependent on agriculture exacerbates the problem. It should also be noted that long-term continued removal of crop biomass is unsustainable [24] even when manure from livestock is used to replenish the soil. In spite of these limitations, there is enormous potential for SSA to increase crop and livestock production [13,14,25]. To ensure food security and maintain the farmers’ stability and social wellbeing, it is crucial to engage in sustainable farming practices.
Integrating crops, livestock, and trees into an agriculture-livestock-forestry (ALF) system provides a viable strategy to rectify this remedy [26]. This is a farming practice that combines crops, fodder, livestock, and trees in the same land unit with the aim of complementing each other [27]. This way, “waste” from one system, becomes an input in another [28]. Thus, it increases the overall production for the entire farming system [29] through crop diversification, resource integration, and market linkage [30,31]. Smallholder farmers in developing countries have practiced this system for many years [32]. These synergetic interactions between agriculture, livestock and forestry nexus provide a mechanism that fosters interconnectedness and resource circulation [33]. Here, practices of one system often influence the outcomes in another [34]. These interactions create systems that not only enhance the farm’s long-term sustainability but also serve farmers’ environmental and economic goals [35,36] as shown in Table 1 and Figure 1. It provides opportunities for enhancing the efficiency of agricultural systems, improving food security, farmers’ incomes, soil health and climate resilience [35,37,38,39,40,41]. Thus, these systems can play a significant role towards achieving several UN Sustainable Development Goals [42,43,44]. They ensure efficient utilization of resources, reduced environmental impact and enhanced adaptive capacity to the changing climatic [45,46,47,48].
In this context, it is crucial to strengthen the evidence supporting the contribution of these systems among sub-Saharan African farmers. The scope of this review is limited to the potential roles of ALF nexus for enhanced incomes, food security and climate change mitigation in SSA. The objective is to discuss the pathways through which the integration of crops, livestock and trees can enhance (i) food security, (ii) incomes, (iii) soil health and (iv) mitigation of climate change in SSA. The results of this review are important in understanding the potential of ALF practices in tackling major agricultural sustainability challenges in the face of climate and environmental changes.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The focus of the study was SSA, the geographical and ethnographical region of all African countries and territories south of the Sahara, as illustrated in Figure 2. The region is bordered by the Atlantic Ocean to the west, the Sahara Desert to the north, and the Indian Ocean to the Southeast. The entire SSA region is located within the tropics but displays both tropical and subtropical climatological characteristics. SSA is characterized by widespread poverty and hunger, which are getting worse. As undernourishment prevalence increases, food availability is becoming more important than ever [88].

2.2. Literature Review Methodology

This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement checklist [89].

2.2.1. Eligibility Criteria

This review considered primary studies that assessed the benefits of agriculture-livestock-forestry (agroforestry) practices in SSA. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are reported in Table 2.

2.2.2. Information Search Strategy

The initial search was conducted in April 2024 with an update in November 2024 with the aim of identifying keywords and synonyms. Search strings included: agriculture-livestock-forestry nexus (ALF) with the acronym agroforestry, an “outcome” string, and a “study setting” string. Other search strings were created for “ALF practice,” “determinant,” and “benefit” outcomes. The location search string included sub-Sahara Africa. For each of these components, the Boolean “OR” and “AND” operators were used to combine search terms to enable a comprehensive search. Given the amount of available literature, accessibility and the ability of handling intricate search strings, only three databases: ScienceDirect, Web of Science, and Scopus were used in this study search. Finally, a manual search was conducted on relevant articles that were not identified in the electronic search.

2.2.3. Study Article Selection

The identified articles were exported into the EndNote reference manager (version X20) where duplicated items were deleted. This was followed by a two-stage screening to ascertain that selected articles relate to the study objectives. The first stage involved each reviewer assessing the titles and abstracts of the articles. In the second stage, full texts of the articles meeting the initial inclusion criteria were downloaded. The papers were then re-assessed using the same eligibility criteria. Any discrepancies in article selection during the screening stages were resolved through a discussion.

2.2.4. Diagrammatic Representation of Study Selection

The initial database search yielded 1864 articles. Out of these, 576 were duplicates and therefore they were removed from further screening. Following eligibility screening based on title and abstract, 127 articles remained. 13 papers were retrieved manually of which 7 were selected resulting in a total of 134 retained articles. A PRISMA illustration of the selection process is shown in Figure 3.

2.2.5. Data Extraction and Analysis

Extraction of data into a pre-prepared form was based on the study themes. It was then analyzed using thematic analysis.

3. Narrative Synthesis of Study Outcomes

3.1. Agriculture-Livestock-Forestry Systems—Key Interactions and Drivers

ALF systems also referred to as agroforestry intentionally integrate trees and/or shrubs into crop and animal farming systems. The aim is to create a more diverse, productive, and sustainable land-use system by combining the benefits of agriculture, livestock management, and forestry. Common ALF systems in SSA are represented in Table 3 below.

3.1.1. Key Interactions of ALF Systems

Demonstrated benefits of ALF systems for food security, enhanced livelihoods, climate change mitigation and soil health (Table 1) provide key drivers for their adoption. There are four key interactions within the ALF systems that can be exploited to enhance the provision of these benefits. They include:
(i)
Animal feed—tree leaves, crop residues, legume production and other fibrous by-products provide animal diets [51]. This is very critical, especially during droughts.
(ii)
Provision of soil nutrients—livestock manure, legume plants, and plant litter contribute towards the nutrient needs of crops and enhancement of soil health [55,56].
(iii)
Providing power—In spite of increased mechanization, animals play an important role in providing farm labor such as cultivation, harvesting, and other farm operations in SSA [58]. Trees also provide energy for cooking.
(iv)
Income and employment—cash income is obtained from selling livestock, crops or trees. This income can be invested back into the farm, e.g., buying farm inputs [61,62].

3.1.2. Increasing Urbanization and Diet Changes

Sub-Saharan African population is rising, and the trend has increased urbanization and rising incomes [1]. These are leading to diet shifts from less reliance on stables, cereals and tubers to high quality foods comprising more fruit, vegetables, and animal products [5]. Agricultural production, more so livestock production has not been sufficient to satisfy the demands of these expanding populations. Further, producing food to meet this demand presents socio-economic and environmental challenges including land and water degradation. It is necessary to increase food production to meet the needs of this growing population. Not meeting this demand locally means that more food will have to be imported. This will be detrimental to both sub-Saharan African countries’ economic growth and the countries’ smallholder farmers. ALF systems provide an opportunity to increase food production for human consumption and livestock nutrition from the same land unit and inputs to meet this demand.

3.1.3. Potential to Reduce Poverty and Enhance Livelihoods

Poverty forces sub-Saharan African farmers into a myriad of challenges. They include poor agroecological conditions, poor institutional governance, lack of input supply systems and dysfunctional markets [19]. A comprehensive integrated system to improve crop and livestock productivity offers huge potential for economic benefits if these conditions can be transformed and improved. In this system, the smallholder farmer produces crops and fodder, eliminating the need to source fodder from external markets. Hence, it enhances chances for their success and the benefits accrued contribute to the achievement of several SDGs (Figure 1).

3.1.4. Keeping Both Crops, Livestock and Trees in the Same Land Unit

Research, development and extension favor intensification of staple crops even when the high value of livestock products has been demonstrated [54]. The integration of livestock and crops will not only bring environmental benefits but also positive implications for residue use and manure production – key factors of the system [4]. Tree residues can be used to feed livestock or enhance soil organic matter for crop growth. They can also be used as fuel and for construction. Tree sales can generate income. ALF systems provide sustainable intensification solutions to maintaining the soil by increasing biomass productivity. Here, a variety of feed resources are used to feed livestock throughout the year, and livestock produce manure that is applied to soil. Income generated from crops, livestock and tree product sales, can be used to buy fertilizer for sustained crop productivity. Generally, this results in enhanced farm productivity.

3.1.5. Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Studies associate livestock production with water pollution and greenhouse gas emissions [53]. However, in ALF systems, the livestock component is critical in preventing negative environmental consequences associated with livestock farming including reduction of greenhouse gases [50,54]. This is because of the efficient use of resources associated with ALF.

3.2. ALF’s Pathways to Enhanced Incomes

From a socioeconomic perspective, ALF systems offer multiple advantages for rural communities and smallholder farmers. By diversifying income sources through the production of various crops, timber, fruits, nuts, and other non-timber forest products, agroforestry reduces farmers’ dependency on single commodities and markets [136]. This diversification buffers farmers against market fluctuations, price volatility, and environmental risks. Ultimately, it enhances their livelihoods and food security. For example, agrosilvopastoral systems that integrate Faidherbia albida trees into grazing lands for sheep and goats have been shown to improve livestock productivity [97]. Farmers reported higher milk yields, improved animal health, and reduced feed costs. This was attributed to the diverse forage resources provided by F. albida trees and enhanced grass species. Additionally, the shade offered by these trees alleviates heat stress in livestock during periods of intense heat, improving animal welfare [112]. Such systems also bolster farmers’ resilience to climate variability and extreme weather events, such as droughts. The presence of F. albida trees enhances soil moisture retention, which supports vegetation growth during dry periods. It ensures a consistent supply of forage for livestock and mitigates feed shortages and livestock losses [137,138]. However, it is important to note that lower yields of understory crops can limit farmers’ income and restrict their food-purchasing capacity [139].
Evidence from taungya farming in Nigeria suggests that agricultural production under this system is both profitable and technically efficient. It ensures the production of economically valuable tree species that provide continuous yields [140]. Additionally, ALF crops have been shown to increase farm income through higher crop yields and reduced input costs [141]. Through diversified income and cash crop systems, such as cocoa, coffee, and nuts, ALF systems enhance food security and provide better access to nutritious food. Trees on farms also contribute to reducing recovery times after natural disasters [142]. The systems play a significant role in supporting vulnerable female farmers by providing various resources from agriculture, livestock and forestry. Thus, they enhance their resilience to climate change. These integrated practices expand opportunities for women in many developing countries to improve their livelihoods and secure food production [143]. Implementing ALF systems also creates new job opportunities in rural areas for off-farm activities such as crop drying, woodworking, and furniture making [144]. These opportunities often benefit women, enhancing gender equality in rural areas [82]. Furthermore, increased rural job absorption can prevent rural-urban migration, strengthening rural economies [145].
Further, ALF systems contribute to the growth of human, financial, natural, and social capital within communities. For example, in western Kenya, school-based ALF initiatives demonstrate positive impacts on student attendance and academic achievement. These benefits extend beyond the school environment, resulting in improved child health, enhanced community understanding of ALF practices, increased household savings, and strengthened familial and community bonds [146]. Evidence from western Kenya indicates that agricultural extension programs focusing on ALF led to a notable increase in household assets among female participants [147]. In Ethiopia, the economic viability of apple production has catalyzed the development of essential infrastructure and services including communication, education, and healthcare. All these are fueled by the revenue generated from apple fruit and seedling sales [121]. More broadly, throughout SSA, trees are perceived as valuable assets. They provide farmers with a readily available resource to address household financial needs through sales [46].
ALF systems provide highly variable economic benefits, depending on specific contextual factors. For example, ALF parklands intercropped with sorghum, pearl millet, and sesame in Sudan, produced a higher net present value (NPV) than monoculture cultivation of these crops [112,113]. Similarly, when compared to the practice of maintaining scattered trees on farms, woodlot establishments provide significant financial returns even with lower investment costs [101,148]. Rotational woodlots had 6.3 times higher NPV than maize-fallow systems in Tanzania [101]. Finally, intercropping fodder grass with Acacia decurrens yielded 11 times more income than sole fodder production in Ethiopia [107].

3.3. ALF’s Pathways to Improved Soil Health

ALF systems exert variable influences on soil health, contingent upon crop type, climate, and geographical location. Trees within these systems significantly contribute to nutrient cycling, effectively recapturing leached nutrients via deep root systems, which act as barriers to nutrient loss. Furthermore, they enhance nutrient acquisition through atmospheric nutrient capture and dry deposition [149]. ALF also promotes soil carbon sequestration and mitigates carbon losses associated with intensive agriculture, tillage, and fertilization [150,151]. The integration of trees improves soil field capacity, potassium and phosphorus levels, and soil carbon, while reducing bulk density. These enhancements increase water holding capacity, providing a sustained water supply [150,152]. Trees improve soils through organic matter maintenance, nitrogen fixation, nutrient recycling, and enhanced nutrient uptake. Introducing trees into land use systems augments plant material supply to the soil via litter, pruning deposits, and root shedding. Fixation of nitrogen by leguminous crops within the system offers economic and environmental benefits [55,109,153] by improving soil quality and increasing yields. Deep-rooted legume plants extract nutrients from deeper layers of the soil while fibrous-rooted crops redistribute nutrients along the soil surface [154]. Further, their fibrous root structure enhances the soil’s stability and hydraulic properties [155]. Crop rotations enhance productivity and pasture quality by increasing nutrient cycling and organic matter in the soil [48].
Improved fallows, utilizing fast-growing, nitrogen-fixing trees or shrubs for 2–3 years, represent another strategy for enhancing soil health and fertility [20]. This technique taps deep soil nutrients and accumulates biomass for nutrient recycling. Arboreal fallows outperform herbaceous fallows, particularly in seasonally dry climates, facilitating rapid soil fertility restoration. Leguminous species such as Sesbania sesban, Tephrosia vogelii, Gliricidia sepium, and Leucaena leucocephala are effective nitrogen-fixing options [102,118]. In SSA, improved fallows are widely adopted for rapid soil fertility restoration compared to natural fallows [119]. Legume species enhance soil health through biological nitrogen fixation and nutrient release via litter or biomass incorporation, offering a cost-effective alternative to inorganic fertilizers [156,157]. A well-managed improved fallow system can contribute 100–200 kg of nitrogen per hectare annually, supporting maize yields of 4–5 tonnes per hectare with sufficient resources [153].
Empirical studies in SSA demonstrate the efficacy of improved fallows. In Zambia, Sesbania sesban fallows significantly increased maize production, yielding 5.0 and 6.0 metric tons per hectare after a 2–3-year fallow. It compares to 4.9 and 4.3 metric tons per hectare with chemical nitrogen application, and 1.2 and 1.9 metric tons per hectare without fertilization [118]. These fallows also exhibited long-term benefits, with cumulative yields reaching 12.8 metric tons per hectare over four cropping cycles. In contrast, continuous cultivation of unfertilized maize yielded only 7.6 metric tons per hectare over six cycles. Farmers in western Kenya reported doubling maize production due to improved fallows [120]. In Malawi, S. sesban rotational woodlots increased maize yields compared to inorganic nitrogen fertilization [102].
ALF parklands also enhance soil fertility and organic matter content. Trees in these systems promote nutrient cycling and soil aggregation, improving soil structure and fertility. Deep-rooted multipurpose tree species facilitate nutrient and water uptake, while leaf litter and organic residues enrich soil organic matter. The parklands play a crucial role in water conservation, particularly in semi-arid environments. Tree canopy cover reduces soil moisture evaporation, and root systems enhance water infiltration and groundwater recharge. These crucial services enable farmers to cope with droughts and water scarcity [156]. Additionally, trees bordering crops create a favorable microclimate that regulates temperature and humidity, protecting plants from extreme conditions [158]. They act as natural barriers against wind and water erosion [159], prevent soil moisture loss [64,137], and reduce mechanical stress on plants [110,160]. As a result, trees help retain essential nutrients by preventing erosion and nutrient leaching [161,162], thereby contributing to climate change mitigation [162].

3.4. ALF’s Pathways to Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation

Land management strategies that combine crops, livestock and trees as seen in ALF systems provide valuable approaches for mitigating the impact of greenhouse gas emissions. This is realized via augmented carbon capture and storage within the subterranean plant matter, alongside the enrichment of soil organic carbon reserves [163]. Integrating trees into conventional cropping and livestock systems substantially boosts carbon sequestration. Practices like home gardens, boundary plantings, fruit orchards, riverine plantings, hedgerows, woodlots, and firewood lots contribute to CO2 removal. ALF systems effectively support carbon storage through a variety of interconnected mechanisms. The arboreal components of these systems serve as significant primary carbon sinks. They mitigate climate change by absorbing carbon through photosynthesis and storing it in plant biomass, including leaves, branches, and trunks [92] as illustrated in Table 4.
The above-ground carbon sequestration is crucial in diminishing atmospheric carbon concentrations [168]. Furthermore, ALF systems enhance below-ground carbon storage as tree roots penetrate deeper soil layers, adding organic matter and enriching soil carbon content [169]. This process concurrently improves soil fertility and overall ecosystem health. The deposition of leaf litter, twigs, and other organic residues onto the soil surface further contributes to carbon sequestration. As these materials decompose, they release carbon into the soil, facilitating long-term carbon storage [170]. Besides, the synergistic interactions within ALF systems, i.e., the association of trees with crops or livestock, provide additional carbon-related benefits. For instance, tree shade can promote crop growth, thereby reducing reliance on carbon-intensive inputs like chemical fertilizers and irrigation [171].
Diverse ALF approaches, including inter-row planting, integrated livestock-tree systems, protective barriers, domestic gardens, and vertically stratified cultivations, markedly enhance carbon capture [170]. Studies demonstrate that agroforestry systems, such as parklands, living boundaries, and household gardens, exhibit significant carbon reservoirs. They represent a viable strategy for carbon sequestration [114]. An agroforestry system in Kenya involving the planting of over 3 million indigenous trees resulted in the sequestration of approximately 345,000 tons of CO2 between 2010 and 2016. The total carbon sequestered by this initiative is expected to reach approximately 2 million tons by 2030, when the project is completed [143].
The trees in ALF systems represent significant carbon sinks from their accumulated biomass, high productivity of their arboreal components, and their diverse multi-species composition (Figure 4) [172]. The magnitude of carbon sequestration within these systems is a complex function of their structural design, operational mechanisms, and specific agroforestry typology. These attributes are, in turn, modulated by a confluence of environmental and socio-economic variables [173]. Moreover, the selection of tree species and the implementation of strategic management practices are critical determinants of carbon storage capacity. The efficacy of carbon sequestration is further influenced by a range of factors, such as tree species, planting density, edaphic properties, climatic conditions, and management protocols [174]. Specifically, deep-rooted arboreal species facilitate increased carbon storage in subsoil horizons, while leguminous trees, which enhance nitrogen fixation, contribute to overall carbon accumulation within the system. Furthermore, agroforestry offers additional environmental benefits by reducing air pollution and regulating atmospheric temperature. This creates a resilient microclimate for crops and livestock [175].
Figure 4 highlights the role of trees in ALF systems in reducing soil microbial activity and the decomposition process, resulting in lower CO2 emissions from soils [73,111]. They also provide shade to animals and regulate heat production and metabolism, which affects enteric CH4 production [176]. Similarly, the high-quality nutritious fodder with improved palatability and digestibility obtained from ALF systems reduce livestock CH4 enteric emissions (Figure 4) [50,60,177,178]. The substitution of energy (fuel from wood) and fertilizer (biological nitrogen fixation and biomass) offsets greenhouse gases [21] through reduced pressure on natural forests. Thus, they indirectly contribute to climate change mitigation by preventing forest tree removal [21,179]. Finally, farm trees protect crops from wind and water damage, thereby enhancing profitability [180].

3.5. ALF’s Pathways to Enhanced Food and Feed Security

Food and feed security remain significant challenges in SSA, a region grappling with persistent malnutrition and hunger. Addressing these challenges requires sustainable and integrated approaches. ALF systems, which combine agriculture, livestock, and forestry provide pathways for enhancing food and feed security. These systems enhance productivity, resilience, and sustainability in food production by leveraging synergies among their components [82]. For instance, trees play a crucial role in improving soil fertility through nitrogen fixation and organic matter decomposition. On the other hand, livestock provides manure—a natural fertilizer essential for boosting agricultural productivity. They also extend their benefits beyond increased crop yields to strengthen food security by diversifying diets. The integration of trees with crops substantially increases access to nutrient-rich foods. These foods, i.e., fruits, nuts, vegetables, eggs, milk, and meat, effectively combat malnutrition. Additionally, by producing a variety of food crops, ALF reduces dependence on a single food source, mitigating risks of food shortages. Practices like intercropping and alley cropping further contribute to enhanced soil fertility, supporting the development of sustainable food systems with improved yields [181].
ALF provides a robust strategy for addressing food security challenges at multiple levels. It diversifies diets, enhances soil fertility, and provides additional income for farmers [82]. Through the integration of trees and food crops, ALFs increase the availability of nutrient-rich foods, directly targeting the root causes of malnutrition. Systems such as silvopastoral systems, agroforestry parks, and home gardens offer unique advantages to both ecosystems and local communities. Silvopastoral systems, which integrate trees, forages, and livestock on the same land, produce diverse outputs such as timber, fodder, and livestock products. They also enhance livestock productivity by providing shade, forage, and shelter. Agroforestry parks, particularly prevalent in arid and semi-arid regions, serve as biodiversity reservoirs while offering essential resources such as fuelwood, fodder, and medicinal plants [170]. Similarly, home gardens, characterized by their small scale and diverse vegetation, combine tree species, shrubs, and herbs for food, medicine, and other non-timber forest products. These gardens are pivotal in strengthening household food security. They provide diverse and nutritious foods throughout the year, improving health outcomes and resilience to food shortages [90].
In SSA, forests and trees are indispensable for food security in rural communities. They offer a wide array of edible resources with significant nutritional value. These include plant-based foods, such as leaves, fruits, seeds, nuts, roots, tubers, and mushrooms, as well as animal-based products like honey, game, and insects [182]. During periods of crop failure or between harvests, forest-derived foods often serve as critical sources of sustenance, bridging nutritional gaps and ensuring food security [182]. Numerous forest tree leaves are widely consumed as vegetables. For example, Gnetum africanum (African velvetleaf), rich in protein, iron, and vitamin A, is a common ingredient in traditional dishes. Similarly, Gnetum buchholzianum, with comparable nutritional value, is frequently used in local cuisines [182]. Other examples include bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), popular in Angola, Cameroon, and South Africa, and water fern (Ceratopteris thalictroides), a dietary staple in Madagascar and Swaziland. These plants highlight the essential role of forest tree leaves in addressing malnutrition and fostering food security across the region.
Some of the leguminous plants used to feed livestock include Stylosanthes and Mucuna Cajanus sp., Pterocarpus sp., Acacia sp., Stylosanthes sp., Mucuna sp., Leucaena sp. and Calliandra sp. [7,151]. When fed to livestock, the more nutritious legumes improve livestock productivity. An example is the push-pull system, which has been popularized because it integrates pest, weed, and soil management in cereal–livestock farming systems [183]. In this system, maize, sorghum/millet is planted alongside napier grass and a legume like Desmodium uncinatum. In this case, root exudates from Desmodium, inhibit the germination of the weed parasite Striga. Together with napier grass, it repels stemborer moths by attracting their natural enemies. This system has seen maize yields improve from below 1 t/ha to 3.5 t/ha while those of sorghum have improved from below 1 t/ha to 2 t/ha [183]. This is in addition to improved milk production from the high-quality fodder, clearly demonstrating a significant return to land and labor. The potential of Calliandra leaves to increase animal liveweight and milk production against commercial concentrated feed has been demonstrated [90]. When fed to livestock, they increase meat, milk, and fiber production and other significant functions that support the productivity and sustenance of the system [56]. Another example was demonstrated in Zimbabwe, where inclusion of sunflower seed cake into poultry rations markedly increased the nutritive value for poultry while reducing operation costs [184].
Fertilizer trees/shrubs have been demonstrated to double maize yield in a continuously cultivated maize field without external fertilization [185]. This technology has been consistent across the sub-Saharan African region [186]. The improved soil fertility leads to increased yields which subsequently enhance household food security and the farmers’ livelihoods [21]. The functional diversity and species interactions of these systems offer enhanced ecosystem services and resilience [64]. They produce nutrient-rich products with the potential of preventing diseases arising from micronutrients deficiency [187]. It should however be noted that management of available species affects production instability thereby affecting farmer incomes and food utilization [187,188,189]. For example, poorly designed systems can negatively impact crop productivity from delayed drying, increased competition, and pests [188].

4. Interaction of ALF Nexus Components

The integration of crops, livestock and trees on the same land is a widely practiced and increasingly promoted approach in many Sub-Saharan African countries. It can sometimes involve only two components, such as crop-livestock, crop-tree or tree-livestock. The review reveals that these systems form diverse nexuses. The components of individual nexus relate with each other in varied and complex ways whose accommodation may require adjustments to fit [42]. This integrated system creates a cycle where crops, livestock, and forestry practices mutually benefit each other. In the ALF nexus, crops play multi-faceted functions. They provide food for humans, livestock fodder, and crop residue that are used to improve soil health [46]. Animals provide manure for soil enrichment, draft power for farming tasks, and are a vital source of meat and dairy products for human consumption [5,41]. In contrast, trees contribute to soil health through shedding leaves and other organic matter. Wood from trees provide fodder to animals and a source of fuel for cooking and heating while edible products like fruits and nuts contribute to food security and nutrition. As essential components of ecosystems, trees provide several ecosystem services. These include air and water purification, climate regulation, habitat provision and natural hazard mitigation [21]. In addition,, trees combat climate change by absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere during photosynthesis and store it in their biomass (trunk, leaves, roots). Thus, they reduce greenhouse gases from the atmosphere [21]. These integrations significantly benefit farms and the environment by increasing food production, enhancing farm income, improving soil health, boosting biodiversity and building resilience to climate change. This approach offers a sustainable way to manage land, improve livelihoods, and mitigate environmental challenges.
While inherently interconnected, ALF can suffer from fragmentation due to various factors. This can hinder the nexus’s potential for integrated resource management and sustainable practices. The interconnectedness implies that actions in one area (agriculture, livestock, or forestry) can have a significant effect on the others and the overall system [33,34]. Table 5 presents several underlying factors that can challenge the coherence of these systems, leading to their fragmentation, thereby causing imbalances and inefficiencies. Addressing these factors is crucial for revitalizing the ALF nexus [35,42,70]. Promoting integrated approaches, fostering collaboration, and considering the interconnectedness of the nexus are essential steps towards achieving sustainable resource management and improved farmer livelihoods.
The ALF nexus, when managed sustainably, can significantly contribute to achieving several UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [42,44]. The system offers potential synergies across various SDGs, particularly those related to poverty reduction, hunger alleviation, and climate action. Thus, it can play a significant role towards achieving several UN SDG [42,43,44] (Figure 5). It ensures efficient utilization of resources, reduced environmental impact and enhanced adaptive capacity to the changing climatic [45,46,47,48]. Their documentation will play significant roles in influencing government policies in the development of these nexuses.
The AFL nexus offers pathways for improving farmer livelihoods, generating income and providing sustenance. By integrating crops, livestock and trees, farmers diversify their income sources. For example, farmers can earn from selling crops, livestock products (meat, milk, eggs), tree products (timber, fruits, nuts, fuelwood, and non-timber forest products). This diversification reduces their dependence on single income sources and buffer them from market fluctuations [62]. ALF systems lower the risk of crop failure, provide high-quality fodder and enhance soil health [38]. These integrated combinations offer a pathway to increased productivity. The diversified income sources play critical roles in poverty alleviation. However, targeted policy measures are necessary in navigating the complexities of ALF systems which present both challenges and opportunities. To effectively foster an enabling environment for successful ALF implementation, a concerted effort is required from multiple stakeholders. Examples include:
❖
Policy makers: Responsible for formulating and implementing policies. Their support for policies specifically tailored to specific ALF is essential in the creation of favorable regulations, providing financial incentives and investing in infrastructure.
❖
Researchers: Conduct research that addresses the challenges faced by farmers in adopting and sustaining ALF systems.
❖
Extension agents: Bridge the gap between research and practice. They provide farmers with practical information and technical assistance. This involve disseminating knowledge of new technologies and farming practices and offering training and support.
❖
Agricultural community: Actively participating in the process by adopting recommended practices and providing feedback to researchers and policymakers.

5. Future Prospects and Challenges to Adopt ALF in SSA

5.1. Future Prospects for ALF Adoption

5.1.1. Technological Advancements Precision Agriculture

Advancements in precision agriculture technologies offer promising prospects for ALF. The use of technology and data to optimize resource use efficiency will facilitate good decision-making processes [191]. Thus, integrating continued technological advancement (use of sensors, drones, GPS technology, and data analytics) into ALF systems can be leveraged to ensure successful adoption and upscaling. Farmers will benefit from real-time data on soil conditions, weather, health of crops and animals and market trends. This supports efficient resource use, reduces waste and ensures good decision-making processes. Hence, it will result in increased farm economic viability, productivity and profitability [192,193]. The challenge is to create user friendly and cost-effective tools [194].

5.1.2. Agricultural Sustainability

A combination of many factors, such as a growing global population, climate change and the negative impacts associated with conventional agriculture necessitates a rethink in agriculture. Agriculture is no longer just about long-term food security, but also environmental sustainability and the improvement of the farmer’s livelihood. This means agroecological principles will play significant roles in future ALF systems. These systems will tend to be more resilient and sustainable. They will promote biodiversity conservation and will be using fewer external resources [195,196].

5.1.3. Climate Smart Farming Practices

The changing climate is posing unpredictable challenges to Sub-Saharan African agriculture. Development and implementation of climate-smart farming practices will be crucial to guarantee production [197,198]. Selection of crop and animal varieties suited to the changing climatic conditions is expected to increase. Further, advancements in water harvesting technologies and the adoption of efficient irrigation techniques will be strengthened.

5.1.4. Government Support and Involvement

Government involvement is essential to realize ALF’s full potential. This is necessary in addressing the economic, environmental and social challenges currently facing these systems. Developing conducive policies and regulatory frameworks is essential to promote sustainable practices. Additionally, research and development activities are also dependent on public institutions. It is through the collaboration of the public, research institutions and the private sector that highly viable innovative ALF systems will be developed and adopted.

5.1.5. Extension Services and Capacity Building

Successful implementation of ALF systems depends on the knowledge and availability of the best practices. It is the role of extension services to ensure dissemination of this information to farmers. Therefore, extension should be enhanced and be integrated into other stakeholders and resources. This will ensure that farmers are appropriately empowered with the necessary skills required for successful ALF implementation.

5.1.6. Funding and Investment

The need for financial resources is critical for the successful implementation of ALF systems. More funding is required at various stages of the processes from research and development, piloting and upscaling. The purchase of inputs, machinery, and initial technology costs require capital investments.

5.1.7. Integrating ALF Products into the Value Chain

Integrating ALF products into existing and new markets will ensure that products find viable markets. Certifying institutions should ensure products meet market standards. Strong market linkages will help create demand for ALF products and enable them to fetch competitive prices. This will not only enhance their economic viability and farmer incomes but also encourage their adoption.

5.1.8. Risk Sharing and Insurance

ALF systems are faced with inherent risks emanating from climate-related uncertainties and market fluctuations [98]. The future will require the development of tools and instruments to mitigate these risks and encourage adoption of practices. Efficient risk-sharing mechanisms and insurance tools tailored for specific practices will be necessary.

5.2. Challenges to ALF Adoption

5.2.1. Financial Constraints

ALF systems have the potential to enhance the economic sustainability of farming systems. However, they are riddled with various challenges that hinder their adoption [148]. Their upfront initial and maintenance financial implications may impede widespread adoption [199].

5.2.2. Marketing Challenges

ALF generates diverse products from crops, livestock and trees [200]. However, it can be challenging for farmers to access and establish market chains or locate consumers appreciative of their products [201]. Further, farmers may have limited capacity and lack facilities to process products that may require value addition.

5.2.3. Access to Technology and Skills

Appropriate technologies and knowledge are necessary for the successful implementation of the ALF system. Individual farmers may struggle to access and integrate the right technology to modernize traditional farming practices into effective ALF systems [202]. For optimized efficiency, it is necessary to embrace technology that includes sensor monitoring, precision agriculture and associated automation of farming systems [203]. Unfortunately, this is challenging not only because of resistance to change, but also high initial costs, limited technical knowledge and its reliability [204]. These challenges are exacerbated by insufficient understanding of site-specific crop combinations.

5.2.4. Infrastructural Requirements

Successful Implementation of ALF systems requires specialized supportive infrastructure. Further, farmers may implement infrastructure that may not suit their particular needs. These scenarios affect the system functions and limit their impact and scale [205].

5.2.5. Unintended Ecological Consequences

Introducing new components and practices into ALF systems may lead to negative environmental impacts related to water use, biodiversity conservation and other unintended consequences [206]. An example is the potential introduction of water management issues when aquaculture is introduced into ALF systems [207]. When not well managed, water usage can cause ecological pollution and spreading of diseases [208,209]. Another example is potential ecological disruptions that may result from the introduction of new crops or livestock breeds. It can bring biodiversity changes by introducing new pests or changes to the soil composition [210]. Thus, farmers should take care of and monitor the process during and after adoption in order to mitigate these unintentional consequences.

5.2.6. Policy and Institutional Barriers

Successful adoption and scaling of ALF systems depends on a supportive policy and regulatory environment [211]. Sub-Saharan Africa is riddled with policy gaps, weak institutional support systems and limited incentives [198]. Unlike conventional agriculture, ALF systems receive insufficient attention within existing policy and institutional framework. Where policies exist, they are frequently misaligned with practical needs and realities of ALF systems. These impede its widespread adoption and call for policy reforms towards development of accommodative regulations that fit into the system feasibility and local situations [212]. For this to be successful, all stakeholders including farmers, research organizations, agricultural extensions services, governmental and non-governmental organizations, should work together [213]. Support should also be extended to transitioning farmers through knowledge dissemination and bottom-up stakeholder approaches.

6. Conclusions

Integrating crops, livestock, and trees, commonly known as ALF systems, is a promising approach to addressing the complex challenges that agriculture faces in SSA. This review demonstrated how ALF systems can significantly improve food security, increase farmer incomes, improve soil health, and address climate change adaptation and mitigation. ALF systems provide a viable path to sustainable intensification by promoting production diversity, optimizing resource use, and encouraging synergistic interactions among system components. This approach can help meet the increasing demands of a growing population while also preserving the natural resource base required for long-term agricultural productivity. ALF systems specifically contribute to food security by increasing dietary diversity, soil fertility, and overall farm output. The inclusion of nutrient-dense food sources from various system components helps combat malnutrition and reduces reliance on a single crop. Economically, ALF systems improve farmer livelihoods by diversifying income streams, lowering input costs, and providing a hedge against market and climate volatility. This results in increased financial resilience, empowerment of farming communities, and overall rural economic development.
Environmentally, these systems benefit soil health through enhanced nutrient cycling, carbon sequestration, water retention, and erosion control, all of which support long-term soil productivity and ecosystem stability. Furthermore, ALF systems are instrumental in addressing climate change by minimizing greenhouse gas emissions, storing carbon in biomass and soil, and strengthening resilience to climate variability and extreme weather conditions. With the potential to transform agriculture into a more resilient and sustainable sector, ALF systems aligns with several of the United Nations’ SDGs. However, realizing these benefits necessitates context-specific implementation, considering local ecological, economic, and social factors. To fully realize their potential, continued research and targeted investments in ALF practices tailored to various agroecological zones will be required.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed equally to conceptualization, original draft writing, review, and editorial inputs. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

All data and materials used in this study are available within this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
ALFAgriculture-livestock-forestry
NPVNet Present Value
PRISMAPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
SDGSustainable Development Goal
SSASub-Saharan Africa

References

  1. UNDESA. World Population Prospects 2022: Summary of Results. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. 2022. Available online: https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/content/World-Population-Prospects-2022 (accessed on 20 March 2025).
  2. Godfray, H.C.; Garnett, T. Food security and sustainable intensification. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2014, 369, 20120273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Duncan, A.J.; Tarawali, S.A.; Thorne, P.J.; Valbuena, D.; Descheemaeker, K.; Tui, S.H. Integrated crop-livestock systems-a key to sustainable intensification in Africa. Trop. Grassl.-Forrajes Trop. 2013, 1, 202–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lal, R. Integrating animal husbandry with crops and trees. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020, 4, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Noort, M.W.; Renzetti, S.; Linderhof, V.; du Rand, G.E.; Marx-Pienaar, N.J.; de Kock, H.L.; Magano, N.; Taylor, J.R. Towards sustainable shifts to healthy diets and food security in sub-Saharan Africa with climate-resilient crops in bread-type products: A food system analysis. Foods 2022, 11, 135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Headey, D.D.; Ecker, O.; Comstock, A.R.; Ruel, M.T. Poverty, price and preference barriers to improving diets in sub-Saharan Africa. Glob. Food Secur. 2023, 36, 100664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Rao, I.; Peters, M.; Castro, A.; Schultze-Kraft, R.; White, D.; Fisher, M.; Miles, J.; Lascano, C.; Blümmel, M.; Bungenstab, D.; et al. LivestockPlus—The sustainable intensification of forage-based agricultural systems to improve livelihoods and ecosystem services in the tropics. Trop. Grassl.-Forrajes Trop. 2015, 3, 59–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Manono, B.O.; Moller, H.; Benge, J.; Carey, P.; Lucock, D.; Manhire, J. Assessment of soil properties and earthworms in organic and conventional farming systems after seven years of dairy farm conversions in New Zealand. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2019, 43, 678–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Peyraud, J.L.; Peeters, A. The role of grassland based production system in the protein security. Grassl. Sci. Eur. 2016, 21, 29–43. [Google Scholar]
  10. Manono, B.O.; Moller, H. Effects of stock type, irrigation and effluent dispersal on earthworm species composition, densities and biomasses in New Zealand pastures. Pedobiologia 2015, 58, 187–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Broom, D.M.; Galindo, F.A.; Murgueitio, E. Sustainable, efficient livestock production with high biodiversity and good welfare for animals. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2013, 280, 20132025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Descheemaeker, K.; Amede, T.; Haileslassie, A. Improving water productivity in mixed crop–livestock farming systems of sub-Saharan Africa. Agric. Water Manag. 2010, 97, 579–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Slayi, M.; Zhou, L.; Dzvene, A.R.; Mpanyaro, Z. Drivers and Consequences of Land Degradation on Livestock Productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Literature Review. Land 2024, 13, 1402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Paul, B.K.; Mutegi, J.K.; Wironen, M.B.; Wood, S.A.; Peters, M.; Nyawira, S.S.; Misiko, M.T.; Dutta, S.K.; Zingore, S.; Oberthür, T.; et al. Livestock solutions to regenerate soils and landscapes for sustainable agri-food systems transformation in Africa. Outlook Agric. 2023, 52, 103–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kitavi, E.K.; Ndung’u, C.K.; Mwangi, M. The influence of intensive agriculture on soil properties and nutrient availability in Kauwi and Zombe wards of Kitui County, Kenya. East Afr. J. Agric. Biotechnol. 2024, 7, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Orek, C. A review of management of major arthropod pests affecting cassava production in Sub-Saharan Africa. Crop Prot. 2024, 175, 106465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ayugi, B.; Eresanya, E.O.; Onyango, A.O.; Ogou, F.K.; Okoro, E.C.; Okoye, C.O.; Anoruo, C.M.; Dike, V.N.; Ashiru, O.R.; Daramola, M.T.; et al. Review of meteorological drought in Africa: Historical trends, impacts, mitigation measures, and prospects. Pure Appl. Geophys. 2022, 179, 1365–1386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Diop, M.; Chirinda, N.; Beniaich, A.; El Gharous, M.; El Mejahed, K. Soil and water conservation in Africa: State of play and potential role in tackling soil degradation and building soil health in agricultural lands. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Eeswaran, R.; Nejadhashemi, A.P.; Faye, A.; Min, D.; Prasad, P.V.; Ciampitti, I.A. Current and future challenges and opportunities for livestock farming in West Africa: Perspectives from the case of Senegal. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mafongoya, P.; Gubba, A.; Moodley, V.; Chapoto, D.; Kisten, L.; Phophi, M. Climate change and rapidly evolving pests and diseases in Southern Africa. In New Frontiers in Natural Resources Management in Africa; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 41–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ajayi, O.C.; Akinnifesi, F.K.; Sileshi, G.; Chakeredza, S.; Mn’gomba, S.; Ajayi, O.; Chineke, T. Local solutions to global problems: The potential of agroforestry for climate change adaptation and mitigation in southern Africa. In Proceedings of the Tropical Forests and Climate Change Adaptation (TroFCCA) Regional Meeting “Knowledge and Action on Forests for Climate Change Adaptation in Africa”, Accra, Ghana, 18–20 November 2008. [Google Scholar]
  22. Kuyah, S.; Muoni, T.; Bayala, J.; Chopin, P.; Dahlin, A.S.; Hughes, K.; Jonsson, M.; Kumar, S.; Sileshi, G.W.; Dimobe, K.; et al. Grain legumes and dryland cereals contribute to carbon sequestration in the drylands of Africa and South Asia. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2023, 355, 108583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hirwa, H.; Li, F.; Qiao, Y.; Measho, S.; Muhirwa, F.; Tian, C.; Leng, P.; Ingabire, R.; Itangishaka, A.C.; Chen, G.; et al. Climate change–drylands–food security nexus in Africa: From the perspective of technical advances, challenges, and opportunities. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 851249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Valbuena, D.; Erenstein, O.; Tui, S.H.; Abdoulaye, T.; Claessens, L.; Duncan, A.J.; Gérard, B.; Rufino, M.C.; Teufel, N.; van Rooyen, A.; et al. Conservation agriculture in mixed crop–livestock systems: Scoping crop residue trade-offs in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Field Crops Res. 2012, 132, 175–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Birhanu, B.Z.; Desta, G.; Cofie, O.; Tilahun, S.A.; Mabhaudhi, T. Restoring degraded landscapes and sustaining livelihoods: Sustainability assessment (cum-review) of integrated landscape management in sub-Saharan Africa. Front. Clim. 2024, 6, 1338259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Peterson, C.A.; Deiss, L.; Gaudin, A.C. Commercial integrated crop-livestock systems achieve comparable crop yields to specialized production systems: A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0231840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. de Moraes, A.; de Faccio Carvalho, P.C.; Anghinoni, I.; Lustosa, S.B.; de Andrade, S.E.; Kunrath, T.R. Integrated crop–livestock systems in the Brazilian subtropics. Eur. J. Agron. 2014, 57, 4–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Fiebrig, I.; Zikeli, S.; Bach, S.; Gruber, S. Perspectives on permaculture for commercial farming: Aspirations and realities. Org. Agric. 2020, 10, 379–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Soni, R.P.; Katoch, M.; Ladohia, R. Integrated farming systems-a review. IOSR J. Agric. Vet. Sci. 2014, 7, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Capone, R.; El Bilali, H.; Debs, P.; Cardone, G.; Driouech, N. Food System Sustainability and Food Security: Connecting the Dots. J. Food Secur. 2014, 2, 13–22. [Google Scholar]
  31. El Bilali, H.; Callenius, C.; Strassner, C.; Probst, L. Food and nutrition security and sustainability transitions in food systems. Food Energy Secur. 2019, 8, e00154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Fieldsend, A.F.; Varga, E.; Biró, S.; Von Münchhausen, S.; Häring, A.M. Multi-actor co-innovation partnerships in agriculture, forestry and related sectors in Europe: Contrasting approaches to implementation. Agric. Syst. 2022, 202, 103472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Seddon, N.; Smith, A.; Smith, P.; Key, I.; Chausson, A.; Girardin, C.; House, J.; Srivastava, S.; Turner, B. Getting the message right on nature-based solutions to climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 2021, 27, 1518–1546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Barbier, E.B.; Delacote, P.; Wolfersberger, J. The economic analysis of the forest transition: A review. J. For. Econ. 2017, 27, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Altieri, M.A.; Nicholls, C.I.; Montalba, R. Technological approaches to sustainable agriculture at a crossroads: An agroecological perspective. Sustainability 2017, 9, 349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lemaire, G.; Franzluebbers, A.; de Faccio Carvalho, P.C.; Dedieu, B. Integrated crop–livestock systems: Strategies to achieve synergy between agricultural production and environmental quality. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014, 190, 4–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. de Faccio Carvalho, P.C.; da Silveira Pontes, L.; Barro, R.S.; Simões, V.J.; Dominschek, R.; dos Santos Cargnelutti, C.; Maurício, R.M.; de São José, J.F.; Bremm, C. Integrated crop-livestock-forestry systems as a nature-based solution for sustainable agriculture. Agrofor. Syst. 2024, 98, 2309–2323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Marchão, R.L.; Mendes, I.C.; Vilela, L.; Júnior, R.G.; Niva, C.C.; Pulrolnik, K.; Souza, K.W.; de Carvalho, A.M. Integrated crop–livestock–forestry systems for improved soil health, environmental benefits, and sustainable production. Soil Health Ser. Soil Health Sustain. Agric. Braz. 2024, 3, 19–61. [Google Scholar]
  39. Amejo, A.G.; Gebere, Y.M.; Kassa, H. Integrating crop and livestock in smallholder production systems for food security and poverty reduction in sub-Saharan Africa. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2018, 13, 1272–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mugwe, J.; Otieno, E.O. Integrated soil fertility management approaches for climate change adaptation, mitigation, and enhanced crop productivity. In Handbook of Climate Change Management: Research, Leadership, Transformation; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 1–22. [Google Scholar]
  41. Kabato, W.; Getnet, G.T.; Sinore, T.; Nemeth, A.; Molnár, Z. Towards Climate-Smart Agriculture: Strategies for Sustainable Agricultural Production, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Reduction. Agronomy 2025, 15, 565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Datta, P.; Behera, B.; Timsina, J. Achieving sustainable development through agriculture-forestry-livestock nexus in Bangladesh: Synergies and trade-offs. Agric. Syst. 2024, 215, 103854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Cernev, T.; Fenner, R. The importance of achieving foundational Sustainable Development Goals in reducing global risk. Futures 2020, 115, 102492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. van Noordwijk, M.; Duguma, L.A.; Dewiz, S.; Leimona, B.; Catacutan, D.C.; Lusiana, B.; Öborn, I.; Hairiah, K.; Minang, P.A. SDG synergy between agriculture and forestry in the food, energy, water and income nexus: Reinventing agroforestry? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2018, 34, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Mann, W.; Lipper, L.; Tennigkeit, T.; McCarthy, N.; Branca, G.; Paustian, K. Food Security and Agricultural Mitigation in Developing Countries: Options for Capturing Synergies; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  46. Kalovoto Damariis, M.; Kimiti Jacinta, M.; Manono Bonface, O. Influence of women empowerment on adoption of agroforestry technologies to counter climate change and variability in semi-arid Makueni County, Kenya. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Nat. Resour. 2020, 24, 47–55. [Google Scholar]
  47. Gninkplékpo, E.L.; Koura, B.I.; Lesse, P.; Toko, I.; Demblon, D.; Houinato, M.R.; Cabaraux, J.F. Small ruminant farmers’ feeding strategies to cope with climate change across five agroecological zones of Benin, West Africa. Heliyon 2024, 10, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Monteiro, A.; Barreto-Mendes, L.; Fanchone, A.; Morgavi, D.P.; Pedreira, B.C.; Magalhães, C.A.; Abdalla, A.L.; Eugène, M. Crop-livestock-forestry systems as a strategy for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing the sustainability of forage-based livestock systems in the Amazon biome. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 906, 167396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bale, J.S.; Van Lenteren, J.C.; Bigler, F. Biological control and sustainable food production. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2008, 363, 761–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Thornton, P.K.; Herrero, M. Potential for reduced methane and carbon dioxide emissions from livestock and pasture management in the tropics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 19667–19672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Abraham, G.; Kechero, Y.; Andualem, D.; Dingamo, T. Indigenous legume fodder trees and shrubs with emphasis on land use and agroecological zones: Identification, diversity, and distribution in semi-humid condition of southern Ethiopia. Vet. Med. Sci. 2022, 5, 2126–2137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Dimkpa, C.; Adzawla, W.; Pandey, R.; Atakora, W.K.; Kouame, A.K.; Jemo, M.; Bindraban, P.S. Fertilizers for food and nutrition security in sub-Saharan Africa: An overview of soil health implications. Front. Soil Sci. 2023, 3, 1123931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Manono, B.O.; Moller, H.; Morgan, R. Effects of irrigation, dairy effluent dispersal and stocking on soil properties of the Waimate District, New Zealand. Geoderma Reg. 2016, 7, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Bell, L.W.; Moore, A.D.; Kirkegaard, J.A. Evolution in crop–livestock integration systems that improve farm productivity and environmental performance in Australia. Eur. J. Agron. 2014, 57, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kebede, E. Contribution, utilization, and improvement of legumes-driven biological nitrogen fixation in agricultural systems. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 767998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Venkatesh, G.; Gopinath, K.A.; Ramana, D.B.; Kumari, V.V.; Srinivas, I.; Shanker, A.K.; Rao, K.V.; Prasad, J.V.; Reddy, K.S.; Sridhar, K.B.; et al. Agrosilvopastoral systems for improved crop and fodder productivity and soil health in the rainfed environments of South India. Agric. Syst. 2024, 214, 103812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Sharma, P.; Singh, A.; Kahlon, C.S.; Brar, A.S.; Grover, K.K.; Dia, M.; Steiner, R.L. The role of cover crops towards sustainable soil health and agriculture—A review paper. Am. J. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1935–1951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Daum, T.; Seidel, A.; Awoke, B.G.; Birner, R. Animal traction, two-wheel tractors, or four-wheel tractors? A best-fit approach to guide farm mechanization in Africa. Exp. Agric. 2023, 59, e12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Flax, V.L.; Ouma, E.A.; Baltenweck, I.; Omosa, E.; Girard, A.W.; Jensen, N.; Dominguez-Salas, P. Pathways from livestock to improved human nutrition: Lessons learned in East Africa. Food Secur. 2023, 5, 1293–1312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. 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]
  61. Derebe, B.; Alemu, A. Non-timber forest product types and its income contribution to rural households in the Horn of Africa: A systematic review. For. Sci. Technol. 2023, 19, 210–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hashmiu, I.; Adams, F.; Etuah, S.; Quaye, J. Food-cash crop diversification and farm household welfare in the Forest-Savannah Transition Zone of Ghana. Food Secur. 2024, 16, 487–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Quandt, A.; Neufeldt, H.; McCabe, J.T. Building livelihood resilience: What role does agroforestry play? Clim. Dev. 2019, 11, 485–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Duffy, C.; Toth, G.G.; Hagan, R.P.; McKeown, P.C.; Rahman, S.A.; Widyaningsih, Y.; Sunderland, T.C.; Spillane, C. Agroforestry contributions to smallholder farmer food security in Indonesia. Agrofor. Syst. 2021, 95, 1109–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Datta, P.; Behera, B. Climate change adaptation through agroforestry: Empirical evidence from Indian Eastern Himalayan Foothills. In Strategizing Agricultural Management for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 167–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Rahman, M.H.; Ahrends, H.E.; Raza, A.; Gaiser, T. Current approaches for modeling ecosystem services and biodiversity in agroforestry systems: Challenges and ways forward. Front. For. Glob. Chang. 2023, 5, 1032442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Lal, R. Managing soils and ecosystems for mitigating anthropogenic carbon emissions and advancing global food security. Bioscience 2010, 60, 708–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Soussana, J.F.; Lemaire, G. Coupling carbon and nitrogen cycles for environmentally sustainable intensification of grasslands and crop-livestock systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014, 190, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Goldstein, J.H.; Caldarone, G.; Duarte, T.K.; Ennaanay, D.; Hannahs, N.; Mendoza, G.; Polasky, S.; Wolny, S.; Daily, G.C. Integrating ecosystem-service tradeoffs into land-use decisions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 7565–7570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Salton, J.C.; Mercante, F.M.; Tomazi, M.; Zanatta, J.A.; Concenço, G.; Silva, W.M.; Retore, M. Integrated crop-livestock system in tropical Brazil: Toward a sustainable production system. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014, 190, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Maitima, J.M.; Mugatha, S.M.; Reid, R.S.; Gachimbi, L.N.; Majule, A.; Lyaruu, H.; Pomery, D.; Mathai, S.; Mugisha, S. The linkages between land use change, land degradation and biodiversity across East Africa. Afr. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 3, 10. [Google Scholar]
  72. Bretagnolle, V.; Villers, A.; Denonfoux, L.; Cornulier, T.; Inchausti, P.; Badenhausser, I. Rapid recovery of a depleted population of Little Bustards Tetrax tetrax following provision of alfalfa through an agri-environment scheme. Ibis 2011, 153, 4–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Khasabulli, B.D.; Mutisya, M.D.; Anyango, S.P.; Manono, B.O.; Odhiambo, D.G. Soil Microbial Biomass, Microbial Population and Diversity in Maize-Banana Based Agroforestry System in Kisii County, Kenya. Asian J. Res. Crop Sci. 2023, 8, 230–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Seo, S.N. Is an integrated farm more resilient against climate change? A micro-econometric analysis of portfolio diversification in African agriculture. Food Policy 2010, 35, 32–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Mburu, S.W.; Koskey, G.; Kimiti, J.M.; Ombori, O.; Maingi, J.M.; Njeru, E.M. Agrobiodiversity conservation enhances food security in subsistence-based farming systems of Eastern Kenya. Agric. Food Secur. 2016, 5, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Nie, Z.; McLean, T.; Clough, A.; Tocker, J.; Christy, B.; Harris, R.; Riffkin, P.; Clark, S.; McCaskill, M. Benefits, challenges and opportunities of integrated crop-livestock systems and their potential application in the high rainfall zone of southern Australia: A review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 235, 17–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Costa, M.P.; Schoeneboom, J.C.; Oliveira, S.A.; Vinas, R.S.; de Medeiros, G.A. A socio-eco-efficiency analysis of integrated and non-integrated crop-livestock-forestry systems in the Brazilian Cerrado based on LCA. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 171, 1460–1471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Hoagland, L.; Hodges, L.; Helmers, G.A.; Brandle, J.R.; Francis, C.A. Labor availability in an integrated agricultural system. J. Sustain. Agric. 2010, 34, 532–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Gonçalves, C.D.; Schlindwein, M.M.; Martinelli, G.D. 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]
  80. Smith, L.G.; Westaway, S.; Mullender, S.; Ghaley, B.B.; Xu, Y.; Lehmann, L.M.; Pisanelli, A.; Russo, G.; Borek, R.; Wawer, R.; et al. Assessing the multidimensional elements of sustainability in European agroforestry systems. Agric. Syst. 2022, 197, 103357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Bekele, M.; Mengistu, A.; Tamir, B. Livestock and feed water productivity in the mixed crop-livestock system. Animal 2017, 10, 1852–1860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kiptot, E.; Franzel, S.; Degrande, A. Gender, agroforestry and food security in Africa. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2014, 6, 104–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Nozdrovická, J.; Dostál, I.; Petrovič, F.; Jakab, I.; Havlíček, M.; Skokanová, H.; Falťan, V.; Mederly, P. Land-Use Dynamics in Transport-Impacted Urban Fabric: A Case Study of Martin–Vrútky, Slovakia. Land 2020, 9, 273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Manono, B.O. Effects of Irrigation, Effluent Dispersal and Organic Farming on Earthworms and Soil Microbes in New Zealand Dairy Farms. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, 2014. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/10523/5097 (accessed on 25 May 2025).
  85. Bonaudo, T.; Bendahan, A.B.; Sabatier, R.; Ryschawy, J.; Bellon, S.; Leger, F.; Magda, D.; Tichit, M. Agroecological principles for the redesign of integrated crop–livestock systems. Eur. J. Agron. 2014, 57, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Kumar, C.; Begeladze, S.; Calmon, M.; Saint-Laurent, C. Enhancing Food Security Through Forest Landscape Restoration: Lessons from Burkina Faso, Brazil, Guatemala, Viet Nam, Ghana, Ethiopia and Philippines; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 5–217. [Google Scholar]
  87. Sow, A.; Seye, D.; Faye, E.; Benoit, L.; Galan, M.; Haran, J.; Brévault, T. Birds and bats contribute to natural regulation of the millet head miner in tree-crop agroforestry systems. Crop Prot. 2020, 132, 105127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Clover, J. Food security in sub-Saharan Africa. Afr. Secur. Rev. 2003, 12, 5–15. [Google Scholar]
  89. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 29, 372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Franzel, S.C.; Wambugu, C.; Tuwei, P. The adoption and dissemination of fodder shrubs in central Kenya. In Proceedings of the NEPAD/IGAD regional conference “Agricultural Successes in the Greater Horn of Africa”, Nairobi, Kenya, 22–25 November 2004. [Google Scholar]
  91. Hafner, J.M.; Steinke, J.; Uckert, G.; Sieber, S.; Kimaro, A.A. Allometric equations for estimating on-farm fuel production of Gliricidia sepium (Gliricidia) shrubs and Cajanus cajan (pigeon pea) plants in semi-arid Tanzania. Energy Sustain. Soc. 2021, 11, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Albrecht, A.; Kandji, S.T. Carbon sequestration in tropical agroforestry systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2003, 99, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Bado, B.V.; Whitbread, A.; Manzo, M.L. Improving agricultural productivity using agroforestry systems: Performance of millet, cowpea, and ziziphus-based cropping systems in West Africa Sahel. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2021, 305, 107175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Kisaka, M.O.; Shisanya, C.; Cournac, L.; Manlay, J.R.; Gitari, H.; Muriuki, J. Integrating no-tillage with agroforestry augments soil quality indicators in Kenya’s dry-land agroecosystems. Soil Tillage Res. 2023, 227, 105586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Pinard, F.; Boffa, J.M.; Rwakagara, E. Scattered shade trees improve low-input smallholder Arabica coffee productivity in the Northern Lake Kivu region of Rwanda. Agrofor. Syst. 2014, 88, 707–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Gwali, S.; Agaba, H.; Balitta, P.; Hafashimana, D.; Nkandu, J.; Kuria, A.; Pinard, F.; Sinclair, F. Tree species diversity and abundance in coffee farms adjacent to areas of different disturbance histories in Mabira forest system, central Uganda. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2015, 11, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Roessler, R.; Cicek, H.; Cournac, L.; Gnissien, M.; Männle, J.; Koomson, E.; Founoune-Mboup, H.; Coulibaly, K.; Diouf, A.A.; Sanon, H.O.; et al. Towards transdisciplinary identification of suitable woody perennials for resilient agro-silvopastoral systems in the Sudano-Sahelian zone of West Africa. Agrofor. Syst. 2025, 99, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Rodenburg, J.; Mollee, E.; Coe, R.; Sinclair, F. Global analysis of yield benefits and risks from integrating trees with rice and implications for agroforestry research in Africa. Field Crops Res. 2022, 281, 108504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Mukangango, M.; Nduwamungu, J.; Naramabuye, F.X.; Nyberg, G.; Dahlin, A.S. Biomass production and nutrient content of three agroforestry tree species growing on an acid Anthropic Ferralsol under recurrent harvesting at different cutting heights. Agrofor. Syst. 2020, 94, 857–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Reppin, S.; Kuyah, S.; de Neergaard, A.; Oelofse, M.; Rosenstock, T.S. Contribution of agroforestry to climate change mitigation and livelihoods in Western Kenya. Agrofor. Syst. 2020, 94, 203–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Ramadhani, T.; Otsyina, R.; Franzel, S. Improving household incomes and reducing deforestation using rotational woodlots in Tabora district, Tanzania. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2002, 89, 229–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Kwesiga, F.R.; Franzel, S.; Place, F.; Phiri, D.; Simwanza, C.P. Sesbania sesban improved fallows in eastern Zambia: Their inception, development and farmer enthusiasm. Agrofor. Syst. 1999, 47, 49–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Vyamana, V.G.; Andrew, S.M.; Chamshama, S.A. Integration of indigenous agroforestry tree species in agricultural fields enhances fuelwood production in Tanzania. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 2023, 18, 100246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Chirwa, P.W.; Musokwa, M.; Mwale, S.E.; Handavu, F.; Nyamadzawo, G. Agroforestry systems for mitigating climate change and reducing carbon footprints of land-use systems in southern Africa. Carbon Footpr. 2023, 2, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Awazi, N.P. Agroforestry for climate change adaptation, resilience enhancement and vulnerability attenuation in smallholder farming systems in Cameroon. J. Atmos. Sci. Res. 2022, 5, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Hoffmeister, S.; Bohn Reckziegel, R.; Du Toit, B.; Hassler, S.K.; Kestel, F.; Maier, R.; Sheppard, J.P.; Zehe, E. Hydrological and pedological effects of combining Italian alder and blackberries in an agroforestry windbreak system in South Africa. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 2023, 28, 3963–3982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Mekonnen, M.; Worku, T.; Yitaferu, B.; Cerdà, A.; Keesstra, S. Economics of agroforestry land use system, Upper Blue Nile Basin, northwest Ethiopia. Agrofor. Syst. 2021, 97, 305–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Fungo, B.; Buyinza, J.; Sekatuba, J.; Nansereko, S.; Ongodia, G.; Kwaga, P.; Mudondo, S.; Eryau, K.; Akelem, R.; Musinguzi, P.; et al. Forage biomass and soil aggregate carbon under fodder banks with contrasting management regimes. Agrofor. Syst. 2020, 94, 1023–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Sarabia, L.; Solorio, F.J.; Ramírez, L.; Ayala, A.; Aguilar, C.; Ku, J.; Almeida, C.; Cassador, R.; Alves, B.J.; Boddey, R.M. Improving the nitrogen cycling in livestock systems through silvopastoral systems. In Nutrient Dynamics for Sustainable Crop Production; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 189–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Baker, T.; England, J.; Brooks, S.; Stewart, S.; Mendham, D. Effect of silvopasture, paddock trees and linear agroforestry systems on agricultural productivity: A global quantitative analysis. Agric. Syst. 2025, 224, 104240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Hoosbeek, M.R.; Remme, R.P.; Rusch, G.M. Trees enhance soil carbon sequestration and nutrient cycling in a silvopastoral system in south-western Nicaragua. Agrofor. Syst. 2018, 92, 263–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Fahmi, M.K.; Dafa-Alla, D.A.; Kanninen, M.; Luukkanen, O. Impact of agroforestry parklands on crop yield and income generation: Case study of rainfed farming in the semi-arid zone of Sudan. Agrofor. Syst. 2018, 92, 785–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Fadl, K.E.; Sheikh, S.E. Effect of Acacia Senegal on growth and yield of groundnut, sesame and roselle in an agroforestry system in North Kordofan state, Sudan. Agrofor. Syst. 2010, 78, 243–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Luedeling, E.; Sileshi, G.; Beedy, T.; Dietz, J. Carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry systems in Africa. In Carbon Sequestration Potential of Agroforestry Systems: Opportunities and Challenges; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 61–83. [Google Scholar]
  115. Manaye, A.; Tesfamariam, B.; Tesfaye, M.; Worku, A.; Gufi, Y. Tree diversity and carbon stocks in agroforestry systems in northern Ethiopia. Carbon Balance Manag. 2021, 16, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Fuchs, L.E.; Orero, L.; Ngoima, S.; Kuyah, S.; Neufeldt, H. Asset-based adaptation project promotes tree and shrub diversity and above-ground carbon stocks in smallholder agroforestry Systems in Western Kenya. Front. For. Glob. Change 2022, 4, 773170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Kpoviwanou, M.R.; Sourou, B.K.; OUINSAVI, C.A. Challenges in adoption and wide use of agroforestry technologies in Africa and pathways for improvement: A systematic review. Trees For. People 2024, 3, 100642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Kwesiga, F.; Franzel, S.; Mafongoya, P.; Ajayi, O.C.; Phiri, D.; Katanga, R.; Kuntashula, E.; Chirwa, T. Successes in African Agriculture: Case Study of Improved Fallows in Eastern Zambia; Environment and Production Technology Division (EPTD) Discussion Paper; International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; Volume 130, pp. 1–87. [Google Scholar]
  119. Bekele-Tesemma, A. Profitable Agroforestry Innovations for Eastern Africa; RELMA World Agroforestry Centre: Nairobi, Kenya, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  120. Ojiem, J.O.; Franke, A.C.; Vanlauwe, B.; De Ridder, N.; Giller, K.E. Benefits of legume–maize rotations: Assessing the impact of diversity on the productivity of smallholders in Western Kenya. Field Crops Res. 2014, 168, 75–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Admasu, T.G.; Jenberu, A.A. TheImpacts of Apple-based Agroforestry Practices on the Livelihoods of Smallholder Farmers in Southern Ethiopia. Trees For. People 2022, 7, 100205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Pawlak, K.; Kołodziejczak, M. The role of agriculture in ensuring food security in developing countries: Considerations in the context of the problem of sustainable food production. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Mazungwi, B.; Njoloma, J.P.; Khataza, R.R.; Mwase, W. Why do farmers wait so long before adopting fruit tree-based agroforestry technologies in Malawi? An application of hazard duration analysis. Agrofor. Syst. 2024, 98, 2973–2983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Angima, S.D.; Stott, D.E.; O’neill, M.K.; Ong, C.K.; Weesies, G.A. Use of calliandra–Napier grass contour hedges to control erosion in central Kenya. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2002, 91, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Cyamweshi, A.R.; Kuyah, S.; Mukuralinda, A.; Muthuri, C.W. Potential of Alnus acuminata based agroforestry for carbon sequestration and other ecosystem services in Rwanda. Agrofor. Syst. 2021, 95, 1125–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Kinyili, B.M.; Ndunda, E.; Kitur, E. Agroforestry stand age influence physical and chemical soil parameters. Trees For. People 2024, 18, 100694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Isaac, M.; Muhammad, L.; Joweria, N. Social and Ecological Contributions of the Taungya Agroforestry System in the Restoration of Mount Elgon National Park, Uganda. East Afr. J. For. Agrofor. 2024, 7, 343–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Zerihun, M.F. Agroforestry practices in livelihood improvement in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Acheampong, E.; Insaidoo, T.F.; Ros-Tonen, M.A. Management of Ghana’s modified taungya system: Challenges and strategies for improvement. Agrofor. Syst. 2016, 90, 659–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Ntawuruhunga, D.; Ngowi, E.E.; Mangi, H.O.; Salanga, R.J.; Shikuku, K.M. Climate-smart agroforestry systems and practices: A systematic review of what works, what doesn’t work, and why. For. Policy Econ. 2023, 150, 102937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Mlambo, D.; Sebata, A.; Chichinye, A.; Mabidi, A. Agroforestry and biodiversity conservation. In Agroforestry for Carbon and Ecosystem Management; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2024; pp. 63–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Soratto, R.P.; Perdoná, M.J.; Parecido, R.J.; Pinotti, R.N.; Gitari, H.I. Turning biennial into biannual harvest: Long-term assessment of Arabica coffee–macadamia intercropping and irrigation synergism by biological and economic indices. Food Energy Secur. 2022, 11, e365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Chirwa, P.W.; Araia, M.; Avana-Tientcheu, M.L.; Muledi, J.I.; Syampungani, S.; Akinnifesi, F.K.; Assogbadjo, A.E.; Chia, E.L. Trees in Multifunctional Landscapes: Definition, Classification, Systems, Structure, Functionality, Examples in Africa. In Trees in a Sub-Saharan Multi-Functional Landscape: Research, Management, and Policy; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 9–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. 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. Outlooks on major agroforestry systems. Agroforestry 2024, 15, 21–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Mahmud, A.A.; Raj, A.; Jhariya, M.K. Agroforestry systems in the tropics: A critical review. Agric. Biol. Res. 2021, 37, 83–87. [Google Scholar]
  136. Mukhlis, I.; Rizaludin, M.S.; Hidayah, I. Understanding socio-economic and environmental impacts of agroforestry on rural communities. Forests 2022, 13, 556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Jemal, O.; Callo-Concha, D.; Van Noordwijk, M. Local agroforestry practices for food and nutrition security of smallholder farm households in southwestern Ethiopia. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Kinyili, B.M.; Ndunda, E.; Kitur, E. Influence of Agroforestry on Rural Income and Livelihood of Smallholder Farmers in the Semi-Arid Region of Sub Saharan Africa. J. Trop. For. Environ. 2020, 10, 87–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Ahmad, A.; Rahman, M.; Khan, S. Impact of understory crop yields on farmers’ income and food security in agroforestry systems. J. Sustain. Agric. 2021, 45, 123–135. [Google Scholar]
  140. Oluwadare, O.S. Taungya farming-a strategy for sustainable land management and agricultural development in Nigeria. Adv. For. Lett. 2014, 3, 16–22. [Google Scholar]
  141. Duffy, R.; Datta, P. The economic and environmental benefits of alley cropping: A review of agroforestry practices in sustainable agriculture. Agrofor. Syst. 2021, 45, 567–582. [Google Scholar]
  142. Simelton, E.; Dam, B.V.; Catacutan, D. Trees and agroforestry for coping with extreme weather events: Experiences from northern and central Viet Nam. Agrofor. Syst. 2015, 89, 1065–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Agroforestry Network. Scaling Up Agroforestry: Potential, Challenges and Barriers. A Review of Environmental, Social and Economic Aspects on the Farmer, Community and Landscape Level; Agroforestry Network: Stockholm, Sweden, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  144. Iskandar, J.; Iskandar, B.S.; Partasasmita, R. Responses to environmental and socio-economic changes in the Karangwangi traditional agroforestry system, South Cianjur, West Java. Biodiversitas J. Biol. Divers. 2016, 17, 332–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Ollinaho, O.I.; Kröger, M. Agroforestry transitions: The good, the bad and the ugly. J. Rural Stud. 2021, 82, 210–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Borish, D.; King, N.; Dewey, C. Enhanced community capital from primary school feeding and agroforestry program in Kenya. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 2017, 52, 10–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Hughes, K.; Morgan, S.; Baylis, K.; Oduol, J.; Smith-Dumont, E.; Vågen, T.G.; Kegode, H. Assessing the downstream socioeconomic impacts of agroforestry in Kenya. World Dev. 2020, 128, 104835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Duguma, L.A. Financial analysis of agroforestry land uses and its implications for smallholder farmers livelihood improvement in Ethiopia. Agrofor. Syst. 2013, 87, 217–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Schroth, G.; Burkhard, J. Nutrient leaching. In Trees, Crops and Soil Fertility—Concepts and Research Methods; Schroth, G., Sinclair, F.L., Eds.; CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  150. Chatterjee, N.; Nair, P.R.; Chakraborty, S.; Nair, V.D. Changes in soil carbon stocks across the Forest-Agroforest-Agriculture/Pasture continuum in various agroecological regions: A meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 266, 55–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Khasabulli, B.D.; David, M.M.; Phoebe, S.A.; Manono, B.O. Soil carbon and nutrient dynamics in a maize-banana based agroforestry system in Kisii County, Kenya. IAR J. Agric. Res. Life Sci. 2023, 4, 14–31. [Google Scholar]
  152. Hailu, G. A review on the comparative advantage of intercropping systems. J. Biol. Agric. Healthc. 2015, 5, 28–38. [Google Scholar]
  153. Amadalo, B.; Jama, B. Improved Fallows for Western Kenya: An Extension Guideline; World Agroforestry Centre: Nairobi, Kenya, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  154. Borges, W.L.; Calonego, J.C.; Rosolem, C.A. Impact of crop-livestock-forest integration on soil quality. Agrofor. Syst. 2019, 93, 2111–2119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Kumari, V.V.; Balloli, S.S.; Ramana, D.B.; Kumar, M.; Maruthi, V.; Prabhakar, M.; Osman, M.; Indoria, A.K.; Manjunath, M.; Chary, G.R.; et al. Crop and livestock productivity, soil health improvement and insect dynamics: Impact of different fodder-based cropping systems in a rainfed region of India. Agric. Syst. 2023, 208, 103646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Sanginga, N. Role of biological nitrogen fixation in legume based cropping systems; a case study of West Africa farming systems. Plant Soil 2003, 252, 25–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Mowo, J.; Bishaw, B.; Abdelkadir, A. Agroforestry in Kenya and Ethiopia. In Farmers’ Strategies for Adapting to and Mitigating Climate Variability and Change Through Agroforestry in Ethiopia and Kenya; Caryn, M.D., Bernart, B., Dmitriev, A., Eds.; Forestry Communications Group, Oregon State University: Corvallis, OR, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  158. Jacobs, S.; Webber, H.; Niether, W.; Grahmann, K.; Luettschwager, D.; Schwartz, C.; Breuer, L.; Bellingrath-Kimura, S. Modification of the microclimate and water balance through the integration of trees into temperate cropping systems. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2022, 323, 109065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Muhie, S.H. Novel approaches and practices to sustainable agriculture. J. Agric. Food Res. 2022, 10, 100446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Wei, W.; Liu, T.; Zhang, S.; Shen, L.; Wang, X.; Li, L.; Zhu, Y.; Zhang, W. Root spatial distribution and belowground competition in an apple/ ryegrass agroforestry system. Agric. Syst. 2024, 215, 103869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Muchane, M.N.; Sileshi, G.W.; Gripenberg, S.; Jonsson, M.; Pumariño, L.; Barrios, E. Agroforestry boosts soil health in the humid and sub-humid tropics: A meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2020, 295, 106899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Kim, D.G.; Isaac, M.E. Nitrogen dynamics in agroforestry systems. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2022, 42, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. IPCC. 2019: Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems. 2019. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/ (accessed on 20 March 2025).
  164. Betemariyam, M.; Negash, M.; Worku, A. Comparative analysis of carbon stocks in home garden and adjacent coffee based agroforestry systems in Ethiopia. Small-Scale For. 2020, 19, 319–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. David, S.; Raussen, T. The agronomic and economic potential of tree fallows on scoured terrace benches in the humid highlands of Southwestern Uganda. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2003, 95, 359–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Dilla, A.M.; Smethurst, P.J.; Barry, K.; Parsons, D. Preliminary estimate of carbon sequestration potential of Faidherbia albida (Delile) A. Chev in an agroforestry parkland in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. For. Trees Livelihoods 2019, 28, 79–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Hagos, H.; Tesfay, G.; Brhane, E.; Abrha, H.; Bezabh, T.; Tesfay, B.; Yisehak, B. Comparison of carbon stock potential of farmland trees in the midlands of Hawzen, Northern Ethiopia. Sustain. Environ. 2021, 7, 1973696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Atangana, A.; Khasa, D.; Chang, S.; Degrande, A.; Atangana, A.; Khasa, D.; Chang, S.; Degrande, A. Carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems. Trop. Agrofor. 2014, 108, 237–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Dissanayaka, D.M.; Udumann, S.S.; Atapattu, A.J. Synergies Between Tree Crops and Ecosystems in Tropical Agroforestry. Agroforestry 2024, 49–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Nair, R.; Mehta, C.R.; Sharma, S. Carbon sequestration in soils-A Review. Agric. Rev. 2015, 36, 81–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Aba, S.C.; Ndukwe, O.O.; Amu, C.J.; Baiyeri, K.P. The role of trees and plantation agriculture in mitigating global climate change. Afr. J. Food Agric. Nutr. Dev. 2017, 17, 12691–12707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Lorenz, K.; Lal, R. Soil organic carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 34, 443–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Kumar, B.M.; Nair, P.R. (Eds.) CARBON Sequestration Potential of Agroforestry Systems: Opportunities and Challenges; Advances in Agronomy; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2011; Volume 108, pp. 1–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Jandl, R.; Lindner, M.; Vesterdal, L.; Bauwens, B.; Baritz, R.; Hagedorn, F.; Johnson, D.W.; Minkkinen, K.; Byrne, K.A. How strongly can forest management influence soil carbon sequestration? Geoderma 2007, 137, 253–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Lebrazi, S.; Fikri-Benbrahim, K. Potential of tree legumes in agroforestry systems and soil conservation. In Advances in Legumes for Sustainable Intensification; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022; pp. 461–482. [Google Scholar]
  176. Brouwer, E. Report of sub-committee on constants and factors. In Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Energy Metabolism; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1965. [Google Scholar]
  177. Devendra, C.; Sevilla, C.C. Availability and use of feed resources in crop–animal systems in Asia. Agric. Syst. 2002, 71, 59–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Torres, C.M.; Jacovine, L.A.; Nolasco de Olivera Neto, S.; Fraisse, C.W.; Soares, C.P.; de Castro Neto, F.; Ferreira, L.R.; Zanuncio, J.C.; Lemes, P.G. Greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration by agroforestry systems in southeastern Brazil. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 16738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Meijer, S.S.; Sileshi, G.W.; Catacutan, D.; Nieuwenhuis, M. Agroforestry and deforestation in Malawi: Inter-linkages between attitudes, beliefs and behaviours. Agrofor. Syst. 2016, 90, 645–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Mbow, C.; Smithz, P.; Skole, D.; Duguma, L.; Bustamante, M. Achieving mitigation and adaptation to climate change through sustainable agroforestry practices in Africa. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2014, 6, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Garrity, D.P.; Akinnifesi, F.K.; Ajayi, O.C.; Weldesemayat, S.G.; Mowo, J.G.; Kalinganire, A.; Larwanou, M.; Bayala, J. Evergreen Agriculture: A robust approach to sustainable food security in Africa. Food Secur. 2010, 2, 197–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Aju, P.C. The role of forestry in agriculture and food security. Am. J. Agric. 2014, 2, 109–121. [Google Scholar]
  183. Khan, Z.R.; Midega, C.A.; Pittchar, J.O.; Murage, A.W.; Birkett, M.A.; Bruce, T.J.; Pickett, J.A. Achieving food security for one million sub-Saharan African poor through push–pull innovation by 2020. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2014, 369, 20120284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Lenné, J.M.; Thomas, D. Integrating Crop—Livestock Research and Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: Option, Imperative or Impossible? Outlook Agric. 2006, 35, 167–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Akinnifesi, F.K.; Chirwa, P.W.; Ajayi, O.C.; Sileshi, G.; Matakala, P.; Kwesiga, F.R.; Harawa, H.; Makumba, W. Contributions of agroforestry research to livelihood of smallholder farmers in Southern Africa: 1. Taking stock of the adaptation, adoption and impact of fertilizer tree options. Agric. J. 2008, 3, 58–75. [Google Scholar]
  186. 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, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Rosenstock, T.S.; Dawson, I.K.; Aynekulu, E.; Chomba, S.; Degrande, A.; Fornace, K.; Jamnadass, R.; Kimaro, A.; Kindt, R.; Lamanna, C.; et al. A planetary health perspective on agroforestry in Sub-Saharan Africa. One Earth 2019, 1, 330–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Raj, A.; Jhariya, M.K.; Bargali, S.S. Bund Based Agroforestry Using Eucalyptus Species: A Review. Curr. Agric. Res. J. 2016, 4, 148–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Ponnusamy, K.; Devi, M.K. Impact of integrated farming system approach on doubling farmers’ income. Agric. Econ. Res. Rev. 2017, 30, 233–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Kouassi, J.L.; Kouassi, A.; Bene, Y.; Konan, D.; Tondoh, E.J.; Kouame, C. Exploring barriers to agroforestry adoption by cocoa farmers in South-Western Côte d’Ivoire. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Karunathilake, E.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]
  192. Demestichas, K.; Daskalakis, E. Data lifecycle management in precision agriculture supported by information and communication technology. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Redhu, N.S.; Thakur, Z.; Yashveer, S.; Mor, P. Artificial intelligence: A way forward for agricultural sciences. In Bioinformatics in Agriculture; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022; pp. 641–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Gómez-Carmona, O.; Buján-Carballal, D.; Casado-Mansilla, D.; López-de-Ipiña, D.; Cano-Benito, J.; Cimmino, A.; Poveda-Villalón, M.; García-Castro, R.; Almela-Miralles, J.; Apostolidis, D.; et al. Mind the gap: The AURORAL ecosystem for the digital transformation of smart communities and rural areas. Technol. Soc. 2023, 74, 102304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Bezner Kerr, R.; Liebert, J.; Kansanga, M.; Kpienbaareh, D. Human and social values in agroecology: A review. Elem. Sci. Anth. 2022, 10, 00090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Manono, B. Agro-ecological role of earthworms (Oligochaetes) in sustainable agriculture and nutrient use efficiency: A review. J. Agric. Ecol. Res. Int. 2016, 8, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Scherr, S.J.; Shames, S.; Friedman, R. From climate-smart agriculture to climate-smart landscapes. Agric. Food Secur. 2012, 1, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Manono, B.O.; Khan, S.; Kithaka, K.M. A Review of the Socio-Economic, Institutional, and Biophysical Factors Influencing Smallholder Farmers’ Adoption of Climate Smart Agricultural Practices in Sub-Saharan Africa. Earth 2025, 6, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Sánchez, A.C.; Kamau, H.N.; Grazioli, F.; Jones, S.K. Financial profitability of diversified farming systems: A global meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 2022, 201, 107595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Nuwarapaksha, T.D.; Udumann, S.S.; Dissanayaka, N.S.; Atapattu, A.J. Coconut-based livestock farming: A sustainable approach to enhancing food security in Sri Lanka. In Transitioning to Zero Hunger; MDPI Books: Basel, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 197–213. [Google Scholar]
  201. Lee, J.; Gereffi, G.; Beauvais, J. Global value chains and agrifood standards: Challenges and possibilities for smallholders in developing countries. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 12326–12331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Sharma, P.K.; Bali, A.S.; Sharma, B.C. Effect of intercropping systems and fertility levels of winter maize (Zea mays L.) on production potential and nutrient uptake by succeeding maize crop. J. Pharm. Innov. 2022, 11, 1860–1866. [Google Scholar]
  203. Adeyemi, O.; Grove, I.; Peets, S.; Norton, T. Advanced monitoring and management systems for improving sustainability in precision irrigation. Sustainability 2017, 9, 353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Altieri, M.A.; Nicholls, C.I.; Henao, A.; Lana, M.A. Agroecology and the design of climate change-resilient farming systems. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 869–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Berti, G.; Mulligan, C. Competitiveness of small farms and innovative food supply chains: The role of food hubs in creating sustainable regional and local food systems. Sustainability 2016, 8, 616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Pretty, J. Intensification for redesigned and sustainable agricultural systems. Science 2018, 362, eaav0294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Edwards, P. Aquaculture environment interactions: Past, present and likely future trends. Aquaculture 2015, 447, 2–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Akhtar, N.; Syakir Ishak, M.I.; Bhawani, S.A.; Umar, K. Various natural and anthropogenic factors responsible for water quality degradation: A review. Water 2021, 13, 2660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Manono, B.O. Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane emissions from the Waimate District (New Zealand) pasture soils as influenced by irrigation, effluent dispersal and earthworms. Cogent Environ. Sci. 2016, 2, 1256564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Emmerson, M.; Morales, M.B.; Oñate, J.J.; Batary, P.; Berendse, F.; Liira, J.; Aavik, T.; Guerrero, I.; Bommarco, R.; Eggers, S.; et al. How agricultural intensification affects biodiversity and ecosystem services. In Advances in Ecological Research; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016; Volume 55, pp. 43–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Šūmane, S.; Kunda, I.; Knickel, K.; Strauss, A.; Tisenkopfs, T.; des Ios Rios, I.; Rivera, M.; Chebach, T.; Ashkenazy, A. Local and farmers’ knowledge matters! How integrating informal and formal knowledge enhances sustainable and resilient agriculture. J. Rural Stud. 2018, 59, 232–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Delphin, S.; Snyder, K.A.; Tanner, S.; Musálem, K.; Marsh, S.E.; Soto, J.R. Obstacles to the development of integrated land-use planning in developing countries: The case of Paraguay. Land 2022, 11, 1339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Manono, B.O. New Zealand dairy farm effluent, irrigation and soil biota management for sustainability: Farmer priorities and monitoring. Cogent Food Agric. 2016, 2, 1221636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Earth 06 00074 g001
Figure 1. Representation of the benefits of agriculture-livestock-forestry nexus (agroforestry) systems to farmers (enhanced incomes, food security, ecological benefits).
Figure 1. Representation of the benefits of agriculture-livestock-forestry nexus (agroforestry) systems to farmers (enhanced incomes, food security, ecological benefits).
Earth 06 00074 g001
Earth 06 00074 g002
Figure 2. Map of Africa with the dark green region showing the SSA region. Sudan (light green) also forms part of North Africa. (Source, SSA definition UN.png).
Figure 2. Map of Africa with the dark green region showing the SSA region. Sudan (light green) also forms part of North Africa. (Source, SSA definition UN.png).
Earth 06 00074 g002
Earth 06 00074 g003
Figure 3. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow chart illustrating the process of selecting the studies included in this review.
Figure 3. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow chart illustrating the process of selecting the studies included in this review.
Earth 06 00074 g003
Earth 06 00074 g004
Figure 4. Above and below-ground carbon sequestration potential and its main drivers in an ALF system nexus.
Figure 4. Above and below-ground carbon sequestration potential and its main drivers in an ALF system nexus.
Earth 06 00074 g004
Earth 06 00074 g005
Figure 5. A diagrammatic representation of the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations advanced by ALF systems. ALF systems enhance the achievement of Goal 15: “Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss”. In turn, these facilitate the achievement of the other Goals.
Figure 5. A diagrammatic representation of the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations advanced by ALF systems. ALF systems enhance the achievement of Goal 15: “Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss”. In turn, these facilitate the achievement of the other Goals.
Earth 06 00074 g005
Table 1. Benefits of combining crops, livestock, and trees in an agriculture-livestock-forestry (ALF) system in a single land unit.
Table 1. Benefits of combining crops, livestock, and trees in an agriculture-livestock-forestry (ALF) system in a single land unit.
BenefitHow It Is Achieved Effect References
Provision of food and feed
❖
Crops provide diverse foods; animals provide meat, eggs, and dairy for human consumption.
❖
Crop residues, straw and other fibrous crop by-products provide feed for animals
❖
Enhance food and nutritional security and stability for both humans and animals.
[24,49,50,51]
Improved soil health
❖
Crop litter, animal manure and urine improve soil fertility through nutrient cycling.
❖
Legumes integrated in the system fix atmospheric nitrogen.
❖
Cover crops and trees protect the soil from both water and wind erosion.
❖
Improves soil physical, chemical, and biological properties; enhances water infiltration and retention, reduces soil nutrient losses; enhances nutrient use efficiency.
[49,52,53,54,55,56,57]
Provision of power
❖
Domesticated animals provide power in agricultural tasks like ploughing, planting, harvesting, etc.
❖
Trees provide wood.
❖
Saves farmers’ money and provides labor for farming operations.
❖
Wood is used as fuel and for construction.
[46,58,59,60]
Provision of cash flows
❖
Sale of tree products, livestock, and other farm products.
❖
Cash availability increases the farmers’ purchasing power and food stability.
❖
Farmers get cash income.
❖
Varied products complement each other and reduce market risks.
❖
Alleviates risks of crop or livestock failure.
❖
Available cash increases farmers’ purchasing power.
❖
Enhanced farm sustainability by investing back into the farm.
[46,61,62,63,64,65]
Removing atmospheric CO2
❖
Trees capture CO2 from the atmosphere.
❖
Legume trees capture nitrogen
❖
Strategic management of these systems can enhance carbon storage in soil and vegetation.
❖
Sequesters CO2 in plant biomass and soil.
❖
Reduces CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions.
❖
Presence of trees in ALF system reduces the environmental footprint of livestock in the same unit.
[66,67,68,69]
Reclamation of degraded lands
❖
Reclaimed by crop residual fertility.
❖
Obtained cash used to restore the land.
❖
Livestock can be grazed on land not suitable for crop production.
[4,70]
Enhanced biodiversity
❖
ALF systems provide diverse and continuous landscape mosaics that favor a range of species from plants, microbiota, insects, small animals, and birds.
❖
More diverse landscapes are more productive and resilient. Example, permanent vegetation within fields can control meta-population dynamics in the field.
[48,71,72,73,74,75]
Efficient labor utilization
❖
The improved synergistic association between systems enhance system productivity and environmental quality.
❖
Generate economic viability of the farm.
❖
Creates on-farm employment opportunities.
❖
Increases the flexibility of the production systems.
❖
Promotes food security, thereby bolstering local and regional economies.
[36,76,77,78,79,80]
Higher water productivity
❖
Modifies the microclimate.
❖
Enhances water holding capacity.
❖
Reduces evaporation.
[12,81]
Promotes gender equality
❖
ALF systems empower women operations.
❖
Enhances profits and sustainability of women-operated enterprises.
[46,82]
Increased productivity
❖
Enhance farm productivity.
❖
The multi-story diversity architecture enhances efficient use of available space and interaction between biotic and abiotic components.
[83,84,85]
Controls pests and diseases
❖
provides an environment that controls pests, diseases, and pathogens.
❖
The combination of crops, livestock and trees regulate pests and suppresses weeds, reducing pesticide and herbicide use.
❖
For example, insectivorous birds present in wooded areas have been effective in controlling crop pests, although some trees can harbor pests.
[49,57,86,87]
Table 2. Review study inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Table 2. Review study inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Inclusion CriteriaExclusion Criteria
Studies published in EnglishStudies published in other languages
Studies focused on countries in the SSA regionStudies focused on other regions
Studies relevant to ALF benefitsStudies not relevant to ALF benefits
Studies that reported data relevant to at least one of the selected outcomesStudies that did not report on any relevant data.
Peer reviewed studiesGrey literature and reports
Table 3. Commonly used ALF (agroforestry) practices in SSA.
Table 3. Commonly used ALF (agroforestry) practices in SSA.
Agroforestry System/PracticeDescriptionReferences
Home gardensThese are perennial crops cultivated near the homestead in association with livestock. [60,90]
Alley cropping/Hedgerow intercropping In these systems, rows of woody plants are grown along annual crops in alleys. Trees are spaced at regular intervals and are pruned regularly to reduce shading and provide mulch for the cultivated alleys. The mulch reduces soil water loss (evaporation), suppresses weeds and provides organic matter into the soil. When nitrogen fixing plants are used, they naturally fix nitrogen to the soil. [91,92,93,94]
Perennial tree-crop systemsCash crops such as coffee, tea, cacao and coconut are intercropped with a multipurpose tree or shade tolerant herbaceous crops as the main components. The cash crops generate income. This system optimizes land use to enhance productivity and ecological resilience. [93,95,96,97,98]
WoodlotsThis is a section within the farm entirely dedicated to trees. It can comprise either single or mixed tree species. They can sometimes be intercropped with vegetables in the initial years before they fully establish.[99,100,101,102]
Agroforestry Fuelwood ProductionIn this system, several fuelwood species are interplanted on or near the farming area. The main purpose is to generate firewood. However, the trees can serve as barriers, windbreaks and boundary markers. They serve the farmer by providing their energy needs while supplying their traditional agricultural needs. Firewood trees frequently utilized include Eucalyptus tereticornis, Acacia nilotica, Casuarina equisetifolia, Prosopis juliflora, Cassia siamea, Dalbergia sissoo, and Albizia lebbek.[103,104]
WindbreaksThis is the deliberate cultivation of trees to create barriers whose main purpose is to protect crops from wind damage and soil from erosion. They also create a microclimate that optimizes crop growth within the agroforestry framework.[105,106]
Scattered trees on farmScattered trees grown on cropland. They may either be random or linear.[100,107]
Silvopastoral systemsThis system involves the integration of trees with livestock. Animals either roam and graze under natural tree stands in croplands or are fed with forage from farm-grown fodder trees/shrubs. [46,56,89,108,109,110,111]
AgrisilvicultureThis system integrates trees with crops within the same land to boost overall productivity and sustainability.[46]
Parkland agroforestry systemsIn this system, scattered multipurpose trees are retained on cultivated or recently fallowed land. Crops are grown beneath the tree crowns. [112,113,114]
Boundary plantingIn this system, trees are planted in rows on farm boundaries. Other products can be derived from the tree’s pruning.[100,115,116,117]
Improved fallowIn this system, fast-growing tree species are grown on land rested from cultivation for varied timespans (single to multi-year). The objective is to enhance soil fertility by fixing nitrogen, restoring the depleted nutrients and adding organic matter. Trees commonly used include Calliandra calothyrsus, Sesbania sesban, and Prosopis chilensis.[20,73,102,117,118,119,120]
Fruit tree-based agroforestryIn this system, annual or perennial crops are integrated with fruit plants on the same land area. Examples are orchards or low intensity home gardens with apple (Malus domestica), mango (Mangifera indica), avocado (Persea americana) intercropped with staples.[121,122,123]
Trees on soil conservation structuresThis system involves planting trees on soil-conservation structures with the aim of mitigating soil loss, enhancing soil health while stabilizing the structures. This way, land utilization is maximized. Examples of these systems include tree strips, grass strips with trees, planted trees on bench terraces and progressive terraces or soil bunds. This system enhances the ecological resilience of the land.[18,124,125,126]
Taungya systemThis system originated from Southeast Asia but is widely used in SSA. It entails concurrent cultivation of trees and crops on the same land area. Trees are planted and crops are cultivated between rows of the newly established trees. As the trees mature, farmers generate income from cultivated crops. When the trees mature, crop cultivation stops and allows the establishment of a forest. Mature trees yield forest products such as timber.[127,128,129]
Multispecies Tree GardensThis involves cultivating a wide variety of tree species together. The objective is to produce food, wood products, and livestock fodder. They are often irregularly dispersed or arranged on terraces, bunds. In some cases, they are planted on boundaries to demarcate land, as a fence or providing other social values. Common woody species planted in this system include Syzygium aromaticum, Acacia catechu, Acacia albida, Cocos nucifera, Casuarina equisetifolia, Artocarpus spp., Leucaena leucocephala, Areca catechu, Phoenix dactilifera, Cassia siamea, and Mangifera indica.[130,131,132,133]
ShelterbeltsThis agroforestry system involves planting trees for the purpose of providing protection through enhanced microclimate conditions and landscape resilience. For example, they can protect crops from wind damage.[134,135]
Riparian bufferIn this system, tree components are deliberately integrated along water bodies. The intention is to protect aquatic ecosystems and enhance water quality by reducing nutrient runoff and sedimentation.[116,131]
Table 4. Estimates of above-ground biomass carbon (Mg C ha−1) and soil organic carbon (0–60 cm depth, Mg C ha−1) in major agroforestry practices in SSA. The values are mean ± standard error.
Table 4. Estimates of above-ground biomass carbon (Mg C ha−1) and soil organic carbon (0–60 cm depth, Mg C ha−1) in major agroforestry practices in SSA. The values are mean ± standard error.
Agroforestry PracticeAboveground CarbonSoil Organic CarbonReferences
Boundary planting26.7 ± 14.1112.7[100,115,116]
Hedgerows2.5 ± 0.2 [116]
Homegarden agroforestry28.2 ± 6.0115.7 ± 15.1[100,115,164]
Improved fallow14.1 ± 1.7 [165,166]
Parkland systems4.9 ± 2.541.6 ± 11.3[115,166]
Perennial treecrop systems23.7 ± 10.0110.9 ± 30.3[164]
Scattered trees on farm8.2 ± 1.452.5 ± 23.4[100,167]
Silvopasture2.1 ± 0.0173.0 ± 35.6[100]
Woodlot25.0 ± 5.658.6 ± 8.5[115]
Table 5. Factors that can challenge the coherence of ALF systems.
Table 5. Factors that can challenge the coherence of ALF systems.
FactorDescriptionReferences
Land use changesChanges in land use, such as deforestation or conversion of land for agriculture, can physically divide areas and disrupt the interconnectedness of the ALF nexus.[76,117,143]
Habitat fragmentationHabitat fragmentation, whether naturally or through human activity, can isolate different components of the ecosystem, reducing the effectiveness of the nexus.[46]
Stakeholder disagreementsDiffering values and priorities among stakeholders (farmers, foresters, etc.) can lead to fragmented approaches and hinder collaborative solutions.[19,129]
Socio-economic factorsIssues like population growth, land ownership patterns, and market dynamics can contribute to the division of land and resources, impacting the ALF nexus. Short term gain over long term sustainability[46]
Policy fragmentationSeparately developed policies for agriculture, livestock, and forestry can inadvertently create silos and impede integrated management.[190]
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Manono, B.O.; Gichana, Z. Agriculture-Livestock-Forestry Nexus: Pathways to Enhanced Incomes, Soil Health, Food Security and Climate Change Mitigation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Earth 2025, 6, 74. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth6030074

AMA Style

Manono BO, Gichana Z. Agriculture-Livestock-Forestry Nexus: Pathways to Enhanced Incomes, Soil Health, Food Security and Climate Change Mitigation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Earth. 2025; 6(3):74. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth6030074

Chicago/Turabian Style

Manono, Bonface O., and Zipporah Gichana. 2025. "Agriculture-Livestock-Forestry Nexus: Pathways to Enhanced Incomes, Soil Health, Food Security and Climate Change Mitigation in Sub-Saharan Africa" Earth 6, no. 3: 74. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth6030074

APA Style

Manono, B. O., & Gichana, Z. (2025). Agriculture-Livestock-Forestry Nexus: Pathways to Enhanced Incomes, Soil Health, Food Security and Climate Change Mitigation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Earth, 6(3), 74. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth6030074

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop