New evidence mapping on agroforestry shows need for a more holistic approach

Deforestation combined with intensive agricultural practices – such as monocultures and the widespread use of agrochemicals –is driving biodiversity losses and climate change. Agroforestry, which integrates trees with crops and/or livestock, aims to reverse these trends.

Agroforestry has been proposed as a sustainable solution with positive outcomes on climate change mitigation (CCM), climate change adaptation (CCA) and biodiversity. However, what is the evidence of agroforestry’s impact on these outcomes?

A new systematic mapping review by the Juno Evidence Alliance fills this knowledge gap.

Mapping the evidence: key findings

The evidence review screened nearly 2,100 studies on agroforestry interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, only 61studies simultaneously address the three outcomes: biodiversity, climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation. This indicates that although agroforestry is widely studied, integrated assessments that consider these three interconnected outcomes remain relatively scarce.

A concentration on agrosilviculture systems

Agroforestry as an intervention combines three practices:

• Agrosilviculture, which integrates trees and crops;

• Silvopasture, combining trees with livestock; and

• Agrosilvopastoral systems, which mix trees, crops and livestock.

The evidence mapping showed a concentration of studies on agrosilviculture systems, while silvopastoral and agrosilvopastoral systems are comparatively underrepresented.

Limited geographic coverage

Research is predominantly concentrated in South and Southeast Asia with a concentration of studies in India, China, and Indonesia. Fewer studies from sub-Saharan Africa and South America reflect imbalances in research capacity and funding distribution. Expanding geographic coverage is essential to build a more representative global knowledge base.

Biodiversity not sufficiently incorporated

Agroforestry studies should more systematically incorporate biodiversity metrics into research on climate mitigation and adaptation. Biodiversity assessments included were largely limited to plants and soil microbiota. However, indicators such as species richness, diversity indices, and functional biodiversity are needed.

Methodological inconsistencies

Methodological inconsistencies, particularly in soil depth sampling, biodiversity metrics, and system classification, complicated cross-study comparisons andhindered evidence synthesis.The surge in publications on nature-based solutions, especially after 2018, highlights the need for greater methodological standardization.

The results are available as an interactive map with details about study location and design, data type, agroforestry, and outcomes reported.

Recommendations for policy makers

To support effective, evidence-based implementation of agroforestry systems, the following policy pathways are recommend:

• Broaden agroforestry research. Expand agroforestry research in LMICS beyond crops and trees (agrosilviculture) to include systems that integrate livestock (silvopasture and agrosilvopastoral). A broader focus will foster more inclusive evidence base and prevent overly narrow development pathways.

• Integrate biodiversity and climate objectives. Design policies that explicitly link biodiversity conservation with climate mitigation and adaptation. Adopting a systems-based approach enables ecologically sustainable agroforestry strategies that deliver multiple benefits.

• Embed agroforestry in national climate frameworks. Integrate agroforestry into climate policy mechanisms including Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs),and REDD. Policy makers should also strengthen institutional capacity for ecological monitoring.

• Include biodiversity metrics in agroforestry policy. Develop policies that explicitly include biodiversity indicators, such as species richness, native speciesabundance, and habitat connectivity. This will positioning agroforestry as a tool for ecosystem restoration

Agroforestry offers a powerful set of tools for restoring ecosystems and improving livelihoods. However, to unlock its full potential, more holistic, long-term studies are needed that measure biodiversity, carbon, and adaptation outcomes together.