Search

Agriculture occupies 38% of the planet’s terrestrial surface, using 70% of freshwater resources. Its modern practice is dominated by an industrial–productivist discourse, which has contributed to the simplification and degradation of human and ecological systems. As such, agricultural transformation is essential for creating more sustainable food systems. This paper focuses on discursive change. A prominent discursive alternative to industrial–productivist agriculture is regenerative agriculture. Regenerative discourses are emergent, radically evolving and diverse. It is unclear whether they have the potential to generate the changes required to shift industrial–productivist agriculture. This paper presents a literature-based discourse analysis to illustrate key thematic characteristics of regenerative agricultural discourses. The analysis finds that such discourses: situate agricultural work within nested, complex living systems; position farms as relational, characterised by co-evolution between humans and other landscape biota; perceive the innate potential of living systems as place-sourced; maintain a transformative openness to alternative thinking and practice; believe that multiple regenerative cultures are necessary for deeply regenerative agriculture; and depart from industrialism to varying degrees. The paper concludes by reviewing three transformative opportunities for regenerative discourses—discourse coalitions, translocal organising and collective learning. Supplementary Information The online version supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10460-021-10276-0.

AIM To examine the interconnection between the rise of modern industrial agriculture, the Anthropocene epoch, and impacts on human health. To examine the impact of the emerging field of regenerative agriculture in addressing the mounting negative planetary and human health challenges. METHODS Structured interviews in social research for a PhD with over 80 regenerative farmers and industrial farmers in the field; and subsequent interviews with 40 other farmers. Literature search into the rise of modern human and animal diseases, the Anthropocene, and cognitive and paradigm change. RESULTS As Earth slips further into the human-caused Anthropocene epoch due to The Great Acceleration post-1950, there is a directly connected exponential rise in modern human diseases. Despite the emergence of Western agriculture and modern industrial society, our bodies are still adapted to the environment of our Palaeolithic past. Industrial agriculture and harmful agricultural practices are stripping essential nutrients from our foods while also lacing them with novel chemicals we are not adapted for. Consequently, the functioning of our gut microbiome has become destabilised. Evidence continues to mount that this is a key reason behind the exponential rise of many modern diseases. CONCLUSION To address what constitute evolutionary mismatch diseases due to cultural Dysevolution, a return to healthy regenerative agriculture, with foods rich in diverse nutrients and free of novel chemicals, provides a clear pathway to begin healing both the planetary systems and humans.

In recent years, interest has increased in regenerative practices as a strategy for transforming food systems and solving major environmental problems such as biodiversity loss and climate change. However, debates persist regarding these practices and how they ought to be defined. This paper presents a framework for exploring the regenerative potential of food systems, focusing on how food systems activities and technologies are organized rather than the specific technologies or practices being employed. The paper begins with a brief review of debates over sustainable food systems and the varying ways that regenerative food systems have been defined and theorized. Then, it provides the theoretical backing of the framework—the conservation of change principle—which is an interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics and theories of adaptive change as relevant to the regenerative capacity of living systems. Next, the paper introduces the framework itself, which comprises two independent but intersecting dimensions of food systems organization: resource diversity and livelihood flexibility. These two dimensions result in four archetypical regimes for food systems: degenerative, regenerative, impoverished, and coerced. The paper defines each and offers real-world examples. Finally, the paper concludes with a discussion of pathways for transforming food systems and opportunities for additional research.

In India the demand of sustainable energy is growing at a fragmented level. The demand of rural electrification and economic growth requires high production of energy. Hence, the use of renewable energy may help to mitigate air pollution, and allow specific regenerative agriculture, waste, and forest biomass for producing the energy and achieving sustainable development goals. In the current work, we have selected a district of Maharashtra state of India as a case study and mapped the different land cover categories, and their estimated biomass. Based on this we have prepared the biomass thematic maps for the study area. These biomass maps have been prepared in the GIS environment and they displayed the biomass of crops, forests, and wastelands. The studied district has huge potential for agricultural biomass and can act as biofuel and biomass economies. These maps may play a crucial role in upgrading biomass sites focused on generating power from plants in the district Akola of Maharashtra, India.

Understanding what motivates farmers to adopt “climate-smart” regenerative practices is critical for developing the right policies, incentives, outreach, and support mechanisms. This article explores factors that motivated farmers in NSW Australia to transition from conventional to regenerative agriculture (RA), focusing on the role that their perceptions of agrochemicals and the microbiome played. Drawing on integral theory, the article takes a holistic approach to analyzing how farmer interiorities in personal and collective realms interacted with external behavior and the larger social-ecological system in which food and fiber is produced. A key finding is that negative experiences with agrochemicals associated with increasing costs and declining results were an important driver of change. Conversely, positive experiences learning about the microbiome and practicing ecological approaches to fertilization and pest control engendered enthusiasm and commitment to a transition away from high-input agriculture and a transformation in mindset. Further, conviviality associated with communities of practice, e.g. microscope groups, played an important role in the transition process, as farmers solidified new identities and participated in ongoing social learning. Based on these results, I argue that farmers’ feelings of kinship with nature (animals, plants, microbes) resulting from learning about and working with soil are underappreciated drivers of behavioral change and powerful leverage points for larger-scale social-ecological transformation. The integral model facilitates recognition of the connections between soil condition, farmers’ perceptions of and feelings about its condition, ensuing behavior including participation in new networks, and the creation of new norms, all of which create space for the emergence of institutional and systemic change.

Soil degradation is a global problem. A third of the planet’s land is already severely degraded, and soil is being degraded at a speed that threatens the health of the planet and the civilizations that depend on it (Whitmee et al. 2015). Depletion of soil organic carbon (SOC) resulting from extractive agriculture is a key driver of soil degradation (Lal et al. 2015). Much of this SOC has been released to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide (CO2), a potent greenhouse gas contributing to ongoing climate change, including extreme weather events. Soil degradation also diminishes water infiltration and retention, biodiversity, watershed functions, and the nutritional value of food. Reversing soil degradation is a top global priority (UNCCD 2017). Yields of major crops have increased substantially in the last century, primarily through intensive chemical fertilization. However, the greater aboveground plant biomass production resulting from chemical fertilization has usually not led to proportional gains in plant inputs to soil and soil organic matter (SOM) accrual (Khan et al. 2007; Man et al. 2021). Instead, these practices, in concert with other intensive agricultural practices such as intensive tillage, monoculture, application of pesticides, and bare fallows, have caused declines in SOM, increases in greenhouse gas emissions, and pollution of waterways (Loisel et al. 2019). However, adopting regenerative agricultural …

Agriculture is in crisis. Soil health is collapsing. Biodiversity faces the sixth mass extinction. Crop yields are plateauing. Against this crisis narrative swells a clarion call for Regenerative Agriculture. But what is Regenerative Agriculture, and why is it gaining such prominence? Which problems does it solve, and how? Here we address these questions from an agronomic perspective. The term Regenerative Agriculture has actually been in use for some time, but there has been a resurgence of interest over the past 5 years. It is supported from what are often considered opposite poles of the debate on agriculture and food. Regenerative Agriculture has been promoted strongly by civil society and NGOs as well as by many of the major multi-national food companies. Many practices promoted as regenerative, including crop residue retention, cover cropping and reduced tillage are central to the canon of ‘good agricultural practices’, while others are contested and at best niche (e.g. permaculture, holistic grazing). Worryingly, these practices are generally promoted with little regard to context. Practices most often encouraged (such as no tillage, no pesticides or no external nutrient inputs) are unlikely to lead to the benefits claimed in all places. We argue that the resurgence of interest in Regenerative Agriculture represents a re-framing of what have been considered to be two contrasting approaches to agricultural futures, namely agroecology and sustainable intensification, under the same banner. This is more likely to confuse than to clarify the public debate. More importantly, it draws attention away from more fundamental challenges. We conclude by providing guidance for research agronomists who want to engage with Regenerative Agriculture.

The importance and relevance of sustainable development for modern society and the environment are highlighted. The importance of the production of medicinal plants in today's conditions and the need for its development are revealed. The relationship between sustainable development and the production of medicinal plants is revealed. In particular, emphasis is placed on the relationship between the functions of the medicinal plant industry and the goals and objectives of sustainable development. It is noted that the production of medicinal plants has a direct impact on the implementation of environmental goals of sustainable development. Alternative methods of agricultural production are presented, among which regenerative agriculture is singled out. The role and significance of regenerative agriculture and its connection with the production of medicinal plants are revealed. The goals and principles of regenerative agriculture are highlighted. In particular, it is stated: the practical meaning of regenerative agriculture is that farmers use a system of crop rotation, diversify crops and animals, minimize tillage, do not contaminate soil and water with chemicals. It is emphasized that regenerative agriculture as an approach to management is really complex. It envisages not only the restoration of ecosystems and biodiversity, but also the improvement of economic performance of agricultural producers. It is revealed that the basic principles of regenerative agriculture correspond to the production of medicinal plants. In this regard, the principles of functioning of the industry of production medicinal plants are also presented. An analysis of «Sustainable Development Goals: Ukraine» was made. He confirmed that the need to develop the production of medicinal plants on the basis of regenerative agriculture is extremely important for Ukraine. A set of tools for sustainable development in general and agricultural production in particular has been formed. It is substantiated that the observance of the set of methodological principles of regenerative agriculture and the field of production of medicinal plants can lead to a positive synergetic effect.

Regenerative farming offers the promise of rapid carbon sequestration at global scale. Also called regenerative agriculture, it is largely absent in social science environmental discussions. Learning and teaching about regenerative farming has been left outside educational channels at many levels until now. Pastoral farmers themselves have been at the forefront of a renewal movement educating other land users how to farm beyond conventional Western modern systems. Regenerative farming challenges ‘industrial’ or ‘capitalist farming’ models that continue to degrade natural systems across the world’s pasturelands. This article describes ground-up learning processes and value propositions of farmers involved in regenerative farming. They see it as a solution to the normative shift in recent decades positioning farmers as ‘bad guys’: reducing biodiversity, degrading land systems by erosion and excess fertilisers, over-using water catchments and lowering water quality for urban communities. Understanding the claims and potential of regenerative farming enables environmental educators to be more specific in identifying potential strengths, without neglecting academic evaluation and critique to bear on this strategic climate innovation.

Regenerative agriculture is both an attitude and a suite of practices that restores and maintains soil health and fertility, supports biodiversity, protects watersheds, and improves ecological and economic resilience. It focuses on creating the conditions for life above and below ground and takes its cues from nature, which has a very long track record of successfully growing things. By re‐carbonizing soils via photosynthesis and biology, particularly on degraded land, regenerative agriculture can also sequester increasing quantities of atmospheric carbon (CO2) underground, making it a low‐cost “shovel‐ready” solution to climate change. Its multiple co‐benefits, including the production of healthy, nutritious food, means it will be a critical component of our response to rising climate instability.

The development of modern, industrial agriculture and its high input-high output carbon energy model is rendering agricultural landscapes less resilient. The expected continued increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, in conjunction with declining soil health and biodiversity losses, could make food more expensive to produce. The United Nations has called for global action by establishing 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs), four of which are linked to food production and security: declining biodiversity (SDG 15), loss of ecosystem services and agroecosystem stability caused by increasing stress from food production intensification and climate change (SDG 13), declining soil health caused by agricultural practices (SDGs 2 and 6), and dependence on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides to maintain high productivity (SDG 2). To achieve these SDGs, the agriculture sector must take a leading role in reversing the many negative environmental trends apparent in today's agricultural landscapes to ensure that they will adapt and be resilient to climate change in 2030 and beyond. This will demand fundamental changes in how we practice agriculture from an environmental standpoint. Here, we present a perspective focused on the implementation of an agrosystem approach, which we define to promote regenerative agriculture, an integrative approach that provides greater resilience to a changing climate, reverses biodiversity loss, and improves soil health; honors Indigenous ways of knowing and a holistic approach to living off and learning from the land; and supports the establishment of emerging circular economies and community well-being. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2022;18:1199-1205. © 2021 SETAC.

Ergothioneine (ERGO) is a potent antioxidant and anti-inflammatory amino acid that is produced in nature mainly by non-yeast fungi, cyanobacteria, and mycobacteria. Mounting evidence suggests that ERGO can be considered a longevity vitamin that can mitigate chronic diseases of aging and thereby increase life expectancy. Humans must obtain ERGO from their diet, and it is therefore important to know which foods contain it. Although ERGO is not produced by plants it is found in plant products such as grain, apparently because detrital or symbiotic soil fungi pass on ERGO to plants through their roots. Besides differences between plant species in their ability to accumulate ERGO, how they are managed might also affect its concentration. Soil tillage has been shown to reduce soil fungal biomass, and therefore ERGO contents in maize, soybeans, and oats grown in soil managed with annual moldboard plowing (most intensive), chisel/disking (less intensive), or no-tillage (least intensive) in crop rotation were compared. ERGO concentrations declined in all three crops as tillage intensity increased, with reductions from no till to moldboard plow of approximately 30% in all three crops. Because crop yield was also negatively impacted by intensive tillage, ERGO yield per hectare was reduced even more due to increasing tillage intensity. This study is one of the first to show that soil health improving practices that minimize soil disturbance can directly enhance a key dietary factor associated with long-term human health.

Coffee is highly vulnerable to climate change, thus impacting coffee-dependent livelihoods and economies. As rising temperatures continue to reduce the suitability of many historical coffee-growing regions, some farmers are practicing regenerative, organic coffee farming as a means of climate change mitigation. In the Central Highlands, the primary coffee growing region of Vietnam, conventional sun-grown, monocrop coffee requires intensive inputs, including fertilizers, pesticides and water. However, some farmers are converting their conventional sun farms to organic shade farms utilizing regenerative farming techniques for both environmental and economic reasons. This study examined regenerative farming practices and sustainable coffee in a small ethnic minority village in Lâm Ðồng province. The comparative analysis between soil samples taken from a regenerative shade-grown coffee farm and two conventional sun-grown coffee farms revealed that the soil of the regenerative farm, enriched with organic manure, is comparable to, or healthier than, the soil on the conventional farms enriched with chemical fertilizers. The results indicate that regenerative farming practices promote biodiversity; however, they also maintain microclimates that promote the growth of Roya fungus, which can decrease coffee yields. The economic analysis of farm costs and net returns found that regenerative farming practices decrease external inputs through a system of crop diversification and integrated livestock production that improves productivity and economic performance while preserving the ecological and environmental integrity of the landscape. Regenerative agriculture is an important step toward climate change adaptation and mitigation; however, in order for the farm communities in the Central Highlands to make the transition to regenerative agriculture, the success factors and benefits of this method must be demonstrated to the coffee farmers.

Regenerative agriculture has become a social movement in farming. It embraces the environmental basis of farming. Land, water and nutrients are viewed as an ecological whole. This includes bacteria and mycorrhiza as essential to soil health and plant diversity, and mob stocking and no-till farming above ground. Regen ag, as regenerative agriculture is often called, is a paradigm shift for farmers, who are often perceived as resistant. There is a mismatch between academic and policy interest focusing on the scientific need for and value of regenerative agriculture, and the social and human motivating benefits of regenerative agriculture. This crucial willingness, not simply the turn away from denialism, is the signal significance of this new form of farming. In New Zealand and globally, climate change and environmental degradation can be addressed much more quickly, more thoroughly and less contentiously if regenerative agriculture is supported and extended, even as science documentation is achieved over time.

Sustainable food systems are often defined by greenhouse gases, land use, effects on biodiversity, and water use. However, this approach does not recognize the reason food is produced—the provision of nutrients. Recently, the relationship between diets and sustainability has been recognized. Most accepted models of ‘sustainable diets’ focus on four domains: public health, the environment, food affordability, and cultural relevance. Aligned with the FAO’s perspective, truly sustainable diets comprise foods that are affordable, nutritious, developed with ingredients produced in an environmentally friendly manner, and consumer preferred. Identifying solutions to address all four domains simultaneously remains a challenge. Furthermore, the recent pandemic exposed the fragility of the food supply when food accessibility and affordability became primary concerns. There have been increasing calls for more nutrient-dense and sustainable foods, but scant recognition of the consumer’s role in adopting and integrating these foods into their diet. Dietary recommendations promoting sustainable themes often overlook how and why people eat what they do. Taste, cost, and health motivate consumer food purchase and the food system must address those considerations. Sustainable foods are perceived to be expensive, thus marginalizing acceptance by the people, which is needed for broad adoption into diets for impactful change. Transformational change is needed in food systems and supply chains to address the complex issues related to sustainability, taste, and cost. An emerging movement called regenerative agriculture (a holistic, nature-based approach to farming) provides a pathway to delivering sustainable foods at an affordable cost to consumers. A broad coalition among academia, government, and the food industry can help to ensure that the food supply concurrently prioritizes sustainability and nutrient density in the framework of consumer-preferred foods. The coalition can also help to ensure sustainable diets are broadly adopted by consumers. This commentary will focus on the challenges and opportunities for the food industry and partners to deliver a sustainable supply of nutrient-dense foods while meeting consumer expectations.

Regenerative agriculture aims to improve soil health and promote biodiversity while producing nutritious food profitably. Almonds are the dominant crop in California agriculture in terms of acreage and revenue generated, and are mostly farmed using practices that degrade the soil, deplete water resources, and reduce biodiversity in the orchard. We examined the soil health, biodiversity, yield, and profit of regenerative and conventional almond production systems that represented farmer-derived best management practices. Regenerative practices included abandoning some or all synthetic agrichemicals, planting perennial ground covers, integrating livestock, maintaining non-crop habitat, and using composts and compost teas. Total soil carbon, soil organic matter, total soil nitrogen, total soil phosphorous, calcium, sulfur, and soil health test scores were all significantly greater in regenerative soils. Water infiltrated regenerative soils six-fold faster than conventional soils. Total microbial biomass, total bacterial biomass, Gram + bacteria, and Actinobacteria were significantly greater in regenerative soils. There was more plant biomass, species diversity, and percent cover in regenerative orchards. Invertebrate richness and diversity, and earthworm abundance and biomass were significantly greater in regenerative orchards. Pest populations, yields, and nutrient density of the almonds were similar in the two systems. Profit was twice as high in the regenerative orchards relative to their conventional counterparts. No one practice was responsible for the success of regenerative farms; their success was the result of simultaneously combining multiple regenerative practices into a single, functional farm system. This style of farming may assist in combatting planetary scale problems (e.g., climate change, biodiversity loss, agricultural pollution, chronic human health problems, declining rural communities, etc.) while making farms more profitable and resilient.

In the current context of resource scarcity, global climate change, environmental degradation, and increasing food demand, the circular economy (CE) represents a promising strategy for supporting sustainable, restorative, and regenerative agriculture. A review of the literature on CE confirms the initial hypothesis that the theoretical CE framework has not yet been adapted to the field of agriculture. Therefore, this paper overcomes this gap in two ways: i) by adjusting the general CE framework to the agricultural sector's specificities, and ii) by analyzing the scope of the indicators available for measuring agricultural production systems’ circularity performance in supporting decision-making processes. Accordingly, the different elements in the theoretical CE framework are adapted to agricultural production systems. One major contribution of this paper is the definition of CE applied to agriculture. In addition, the principles of CE are adapted to the field, and CE strategies for agricultural activity are defined. Forty-one circularity indicators for application in agricultural systems were also comprehensively assessed to determine their strengths and weaknesses. Building on the key findings, future research paths and changes at the institutional and normative levels are proposed to facilitate CE implementation in agricultural production systems. For example, internationally recognized standards and adequate units of measurement must be defined, to develop meaningful studies and determine agricultural activities’ circularity performance.

The converging climate, biodiversity, public health and nutrition emergencies highlight the need for more regenerative food systems. Despite the recognition that regenerative food systems enhance resilience, resource efficiency, and equity, they continue to be dwarfed by extractive industrial approaches. One factor that is holding back regenerative food systems is their lack of access to financial capital. In response to this financing gap, social financiers have turned their attention to regenerative food systems. To date, the scholarship exploring the role of social financing in supporting regenerative food systems is limited. Yet, this is an important area of study for understanding the tools that could support pathways towards greater social and ecological resilience in our food systems. This paper develops propositions on the links between social financing and regenerative food systems, with qualitative insights used as illustrations. Six semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders related to social finance and regenerative food systems in the United States. Additionally, this paper draws on information gathered through presentations from the Regenerative Food System Investment (RSFI) forum. The analysis identified five observations that enrich the social finance and food systems literatures: (1) those who get funded are not necessarily the best placed to advance the goals of regenerative agriculture, (2) tensions exist between the way that scholars and practitioners view social finance, (3) impact metrics are in flux and must be approached thoughtfully, (4) the middle of the food value chain remains severely underfunded, (5) early steps are being taken to maintain diversity that is core to the resilience of regenerative food systems. Topics for further research in this emerging area are identified in the conclusion.

Environmental services of biodiversity, clean water, etc., have been considered byproducts of farming and grazing, but population pressures and a move from rural to peri-urban areas are changing land use practices, reducing these services and increasing land degradation. A range of ecosystem markets have been reversing this damage, but these are not widely institutionalized, so land managers do not see them as “real” in the way they do for traditional food and fiber products. There are difficulties defining and monitoring non-food/fiber ecosystem services so they can be reliably marketed, and those markets that do operate usually do so in a piecemeal single product way in the interest of simplicity for the buyer, and seldom adequately regulate or compensate land managers for non-market benefits. New profitable uses of degraded water and regenerating land are emerging, but they require technology transfer or supply chain development to facilitate adoption. There is a need for a transformational change in the way land and water are used to promote a broader approach, so environmental services become a mainstream activity for land managers. A far-sighted Philanthropist is required to support an International institution to take up the challenge of institutionalizing such a ‘brokerage’ system to operate globally.

First paragraphs: Regenerative agriculture is the latest phrase in the sustainable agriculture movement (Mer­field, 2019). Many early advocates have become disenchanted with the concept of sustainable agri­culture. Some claim it has been co-opted, misused, and essentially made useless by the defenders of industrial agriculture. However, regenerative agri­culture faces the same risks if it is not defined in terms that ensure agricultural sustainability. Others claim that sustainability is “not enough”—that we need better farming systems than we have today. They fail to recognize that farm systems that are not “good enough” are not sustainable. Authentic sustainability is the ability to meet the needs of the present without diminishing opportunities for the future (Ikerd, 2011). An agri­culture that does not meet the needs of the present is not good enough—for present or future generations. . . .

On the compliance with current requirements for the search for new alternative intensive models of agricultural production, the article has analyzed the structure of sown areas of farms in the Ukrainian Veld zone with an area of agricultural land up to 50 hectares; factors that indicate the need to optimize the structure of crops to meet the requirements of sustainable development and regenerative agriculture has been identified; the role of crop rotations in the system of modern agriculture has been revealed; the assumption that the tool of optimization of sown areas can be inclusion of medicinal plants in them has been put forward and substantiated; an optimization model has been built, with the help of which, based on production resources (land, labor, material, etc.), the optimal structure of sown areas of farms in the Ukrainian Steppe zone with an area of agricultural land up to 50 hectares has been determined; on the basis of the optimization economic-mathematical model with the help of the simplex method the increase of profitability of agricultural production has been calculated; the optimal structure of sown areas of the studied farms of the Ukrainian Veld zone with the introduction of medicinal plants has been developed.

This chapter highlights various challenges and developments related to our current global food production and consumption systems, followed by a number of research and innovation activities that actively support a transition to a sustainable, healthy, and just agri-food system. The first section identifies several important trends that may either limit, support, or influence such a transition (Sect. 6.1). Following this, I will provide an overview of several research and innovation activities that our research group is currently involved in, such as the Dutch national research programme (NWA) ‘Transition to a Sustainable Food System’ (Sect. 6.2), nature-inclusive and regenerative agriculture (Sect. 6.3), closing the gaps between citizens, farmers, and nature (Sect. 6.4), measuring sustainability and health aspects of our food supply chains (Sect. 6.5), and the South Holland Food Family, an open innovation and food transition network (Sect. 6.6). This last section also provides an example of TSEI-framework application to analyze institutional change during initiation, development, and implementation of the South Holland Food Family innovation network (Sect. 6.6).

Agricultural expansion has been the main driver of land-use change in the Atlantic Forest. Nowadays, more than 60% of the biome is dedicated to mostly unsustainable agricultural land-uses; however, most people live in urban areas and overall production is low. Here, we discuss the impacts of agriculture in shaping the landscape and its potential to restore socioecological interactions. The focus is on agroforestry, which is broadly understood as the integration of trees in productive systems and landscapes. In the first part of the chapter, we review the concept of agroforestry, benefits, its relation to urgent global issues, its role in Forest Landscape Restoration and achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. In the second part of the chapter, we present examples in the Atlantic Forest and discuss the opportunities and challenges for upscaling the adoption of agroforestry and overcome the apparent dichotomy between production and conservation.

Biosphere 2, the largest and most biodiverse closed ecological system facility yet created, has contributed vital lessons for living with our planetary biosphere and for long-term habitation in space. From the space life support perspective, Biosphere 2 contrasted with previous BLSS work by including areas based on Earth wilderness biomes in addition to its provision for human life support and by using a soil-based intensive agricultural system producing a complete human diet. No previous BLSS system had included domestic farm animals. All human and domestic animal wastes were also recycled and returned to the crop soils. Biosphere 2 was important as a first step towards learning how to miniaturize natural ecosystems and develop technological support systems compatible with life. Biosphere 2’s mostly successful operation for three years (1991-1994) changed thinking among space life support scientists and the public at large about the need for minibiospheres for long-term habitation in space. As an Earth systems laboratory, Biosphere 2 was one of the first attempts to make ecology an experimental science at a scale relevant to planetary issues such as climate change, regenerative agriculture, nutrient and water recycling, loss of biodiversity, and understanding of the roles wilderness biomes play in the Earth’s biosphere. Biosphere 2 aroused controversy because of narrow definitions and expectations of how science is to be conducted. The cooperation between engineers and ecologists and the requirement to design a technosphere that supported the life inside without harming it have enormous relevance to what is required in our global home. Applications of bioregenerative life support systems for near-term space applications such as initial Moon and/or Mars bases, will be severely limited by high costs of transport to space and so will rely on lighter weight, hydroponic systems of growing plants which will focus first on water and air regeneration and gradually increase its production of food required by astronauts or inhabitants. The conversion of these systems to more robust and sustainable systems will require advanced technologies, e.g., to capture sunlight for plant growth or process usable materials from the lunar or Martian atmosphere and regolith, leading to greater utilization of in situ space resources and less on transport from Earth. There are many approaches to the accomplishment of space life support. Significant progress has been made especially by two research efforts in China and the MELiSSA project of the European Space Agency. These approaches use cybernetic controls and the integration of intensive modules to accomplish food production, waste treatment and recycling, atmospheric regeneration, and in some systems, high-protein production from insects and larvae. Biosphere 2 employed a mix of ecological self-organization and human intervention to protect biodiversity for wilderness biomes with a tighter management of food crops in its agriculture. Biosphere 2’s aims were different than bioregenerative life support systems (BLSS) which have focused exclusively on human life support. Much more needs to be learned from both smaller, efficient ground-based BLSS for nearer-term habitation and from minibiospheric systems for long-term space application to transform humanity and Earth-life into truly multiplanet species.

Farmers are responsible for one-third of greenhouse gas emissions and there is no plan to deal with this; their impact on land and water resources, floods, droughts, and the global extinction of species also cries out for attention. Half of the humus that makes the Black Earth what it is has been pumped into the air and, with it, the soil’s capacity to receive rainfall, supply water to crops, and recharge streams and groundwater is diminished. Since 1970, soil carbon across the steppes has been run down by 2.4–3.8/tC/ha/yr (5 times more where the soil has been eroded). Taking the least of these figures, mineralization of soil organic carbon (SOC) has emitted 195 Gt or 25 ppm of atmospheric CO2. Adoption of Conservation Agriculture that includes a diverse crop rotation with perennial legumes and grasses offers carbon capture of 0.5–1 Gt/yr, arrest of soil erosion, and bigger crops. At present, there is no market for the perennial grasses and legumes needed to put the organic matter back into the soil. The old-fashioned answer is to integrate crops and livestock – farmyard manure doubles the benefit of crop rotation, integrating crops and livestock will regenerate rural communities, and the extra production will make space to restore degraded land for wildlife, water resources, and amenity. But the people and skills needed for livestock enterprises are now hard to come by. Alternatively, the green biomass can be converted to biogas: a ready market for all the green biomass that can be grown would transform farming systems. This would be a strategic investment that can easily be funded through Green Bonds.

Fil: Mueller, Lothar. Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research. Alemania. Fil: Eulenstein, Frank. Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research. Alemania. Fil: Mirschel, Wilfried. Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research. Alemania. Fil: Schindler, Uwe. Kuban State Agrarian University. Rusia. Fil: Sychev, Viktor G. Pryanishnikov-Institute for Agrochemistry. Rusia. Fil: Rukhovich, Olga V. Pryanishnikov-Institute for Agrochemistry. Rusia. Fil: Sheudzhen, Askhad K. Kuban State Agrarian University. Rusia. Fil: Romanenkov, Vladimir. Moscow Lomonosov State University. Rusia. Fil: Lukin, Sergey M. All Russian Research Institute for Organic Fertiliser and Peat. Rusia. Fil: McKenzie, Blair M. University of Dundee. Escocia. Fil: Jones, Michael. Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Noruega. Fil: Dannowski, Ralf. Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research. Alemania. Fil: Blum, Winfried E. H. University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences. Austria. Fil: Salnjikov, Elmira. Soil Science Institute. Serbia. Fil: Saparov, Abdulla. Kazakh Research Institute of Soil Science and Agrochemistry. Kazajistán. Fil: Pachikin, Konstantin. Kazakh Research Institute of Soil Science and Agrochemistry. Kazajistán. Fil: Hennings, Volker. Büro Für Bodenfunktionsbewertung. Alemania. Fil: Scherber, Christoph. Zoological Research Museum Alexander Koenig. Alemania. Fil: Hoffmann, Jörg. Institute for Strategies and Technology Assessment, Sustainable Agriculture and Biodiversity. Alemania. Fil: Antrop, Marc. Ghent University. Bélgica. Fil: Garibaldi, Lucas A. Universidad Nacional de Río Negro. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural. Río Negro, Argentina. Fil: Garibaldi, Lucas A. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural. Río Negro, Argentina. Fil: Gómez Carella, Dulce S. Universidad Nacional de Río Negro. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural. Río Negro, Argentina. Fil: Gómez Carella, Dulce S. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural. Río Negro, Argentina. Fil: Augstburger, Horacio. University of Bern. Suiza. Fil: Schwilch, Gudrun. University of Bern. Suiza. Fil: Angelstam, Per. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Suecia. Fil: Manton, Michael. Vytautas Magnus University. Lituania. Fil: Dronin, Nikolai M. Moscow Lomonosov State University. Rusia.

The advanced state of land degradation worldwide urges the large-scale adoption of sustainable land management (SLM). Social learning is considered an important precondition for the adoption of innovative and contextualized SLM. Involving farmers and researchers in participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) of innovative SLM such as regenerative agriculture is expected to enable social learning. Although there is a growing body of literature asserting the achievement of social learning through participatory processes, social learning has been loosely defined, sparsely assessed, and only partially covered when measured. Here, we assess how PM&E of regenerative agriculture, involving local farmers and researchers in southeast Spain, enabled social learning, effectively increasing knowledge exchange and shared understanding of regenerative agriculture effects among participating farmers. We measured whether social learning occurred by covering its social-cognitive (perceptions) and social-relational (social networks) dimensions, and discussed the potential of PM&E to foster SLM adoption and out-scaling. We used fuzzy cognitive mapping and social network analysis as graphical semiquantitative methods to assess changes in farmers¿ perceptions and shared fluxes of information on regenerative agriculture over approximately three years. Our results show that PM&E enabled social learning among participating farmers, who strengthened and enlarged their social networks for information sharing and presented a more complex and broader shared understanding of regenerative agriculture effects and benefits than pre PM&E. We argue that PM&E thereby creates crucial preconditions for SLM adoption and out-scaling. Our findings are relevant for the design of PM&E processes, living labs, and landscape restoration initiatives that aim to support farmers¿ adoption and out-scaling of innovative and contextualized SLM., This work was supported by “la Caixa” Foundation (ID100010434) through a PhD fellowship to RLS (LCF/BQ/ES17/11600008), and by the projects DECADE (Seneca Foundation, 20917/PI/18), XTREME (Ministry of Science and Innovation PID2019-109381RB-I00/AEI/10.13039/501100011033), and COASTAL (EU H2020 grant agreement 773782). For the Portuguese coauthors, this work was partially funded by National Funds through FCT - Foundation for Science and Technology under the Project UIDB/05183/2020

It is becoming increasingly clear that our food and agriculture system is not working for the vast majority of humans, other animals, and ecosystems. We need to shift from the present unsustainable paradigm of industrial agriculture to one that is ecologically sustainable (without which economic, social, and environmental sustainability is not possible). This chapter explores what such an ecologically sustainable agricultural paradigm might look like. It starts by discussing the origins and impacts of the current dominant paradigm—the industrial Green Revolution paradigm. It then reviews the origins and characteristics of some of the alternative agricultural paradigms that have developed alongside and in response to the industrial paradigm, namely Organic Agriculture, Agroecology, Regenerative Agriculture, and Conservation Agriculture. This is followed by an assessment of the compatibility of these alternative paradigms with ecological sustainability, and suggests ways to optimize their potential for sustainability. The chapter concludes with a discussion of ways forward and future prospects for alternative agriculture paradigms in the context of an “inclusively responsible” food and agriculture system.

Agriculture is a major contributor to environmental degradation and climate change. At the same time, a growing human population with changing dietary preferences is driving ever increasing demand for food. The need for urgent reform of agriculture is widely recognized and has resulted in a number of ambitious plans. However, there is credible evidence to suggest that these are unlikely to meet the twin objectives of keeping the increase in global temperature within the target of 2.0 °C above preindustrial levels set out in the Paris Agreement and delivering global food security. Here, we discuss a series of technological options to bring about change in agriculture for delivering food security and providing multiple routes to the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. These technologies include the use of silicate amendment of soils to sequester atmospheric CO2, agronomy technologies to increase soil organic carbon, and high-yielding resource-efficient crops to deliver increased agricultural yield, thus freeing land that is less suited for intensive cropping for land use practices that will further increase carbon storage. Such alternatives include less intensive regenerative agriculture, afforestation and bioenergy crops coupled with carbon capture and storage technologies.

Regenerative agriculture is a newly codified approach to agriculture that emphasizes reducing reliance on exogeneous inputs, as well as restoring and enhancing ecosystem services such as soil carbon (C) sequestration. These regenerative agriculture principles suggest that modern livestock systems can be redesigned to better capitalize on animals' ecological niche as biological up cyclers and may be necessary to fully regenerate some landscapes. One example is a multispecies pasture rotation (MSPR) system, which symbiotically stacks multiple animal production enterprises (i.e., chickens, cattle, sheep, and pigs) on one landscape. We conducted a whole-farm life cycle assessment (LCA) of an MSPR in the southeastern United States that was originally converted from degraded cropland. We compared the production outputs, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, land footprints, and soil health outcomes to a conventional, commodity (COM) production system of each respective species. Our 20-year MSPR chronosequence of soil C and other soil health indicators shows dramatic improvement since establishment, sequestering an average of 2.29 Mg C ha−1 yr−1. Incorporation of soil C sequestration into the LCA reduced net GHG emissions of the MSPR by 80%, resulting in a footprint 66% lower than COM. However, when comparing required land between the two systems for food production, MSPR required 2.5 times more land when compared to COM. Thus, while our model indicates that MSPR can simultaneously produce protein while regenerating land, a considerably greater land area is needed when compared to COM. Our results present an important yet paradoxical conclusion on land and food production balance. Should society prioritize an input-intensive, COM system that produces more food from a smaller yet degrading land base? Or, alternatively, should systems such as MSPR that produce less food on a larger, but more ecologically functional landscape be more highly prioritized? These complexities must be considered in the global debate of agricultural practice and land. Our results indicate MSPRs are a useful model for alternative livestock production systems with improved environmental outcomes, but in this study may present considerable land-use tradeoffs.

This chapter presents two reference points to provide a conceptual setting for the definition of sustainable agriculture and to show evolutionary trends in its development. The first reference point is placed in the early 1980s, with the emergence of the concepts of regenerative agriculture and the articulation of a sustainable agriculture. A second reference point is the increased use of the term sustainable, starting in 1987, to refer to a “stable” agriculture in the global sense, involving all facets of agriculture and its interaction with society. Agricultural evolution always has been guided by a perception of what should be, sometimes called the model, the goal, or even the ideology. The difference between that goal and agriculture as it exists presently is the development gap. US agriculture was in a major expansionist mode during the early 1900s. Agricultural development trends and breakthroughs up to and including the Green Revolution are interestingly summarized by Dahlberg.

Agriculture and ecosystems are tipping toward collapse due to land use and climate extremes. Irreversible feedbacks in the land system can lock in food insecurity, biodiversity loss and a hot house world. However regenerating agro-ecosystems is possible and can be profitable. In this talk, Prof Justin Borevitz will introduce the components of precision landscape regeneration, linking genotype, phenotype and environment, and the outsized role Australia can have in the world. The solutions are to both increase carbon capture via photosynthesis of grasses and trees and to reduce emissions from plant stress (autotrophic respiration) and soils (heterotrophic respiration). Smart farming practices including regenerative agriculture and ecosystem restoration can rebuild agro-ecosystems. This includes methods for boosting soil carbon with microbes and management. Integrating and scaling these land based solutions can build planetary health and resilience.

Over the past few decades, access to abundant and easily available fossil sources aided in remarkable advancements in technologies and rapid urbanization. The unparalleled growth in population and migration of rural residents to the urban areas have transformed cities to hotspots for major anthropogenic activities, seminal contact points between natural and socio-economic activities, and areas responsible for generation of more than 80% of gross domestic product (GDP). This has placed cities at a crossroad of facing environmental grand challenges posed by population expansion, climate change, and depleting resources. Ushered by these problems, cities are directing the course of waste utilization towards sustainable production and consumption strategies by adopting the principles of circular economy (CE). This organic waste generated in huge quantities can be considered as a valuable resource in the urban biocycles. The present article highlights the importance of looping back this biogenic organic waste (domestic) to a certain extent in a decentralized way. It offers an eco-centric view to adopt circular urban food practices by constructing and operating a keyhole garden (KHG) as a case study. This approach works in synergy with nature and adopts the principles of biomimicry and cradle to cradle, wherein waste is reintroduced into the system as input resources or is metamorphosed to valuable materials. It underlines the role of CE approaches to spark this transformation and strategically direct the flow of valuable domestic waste resources to close the urban nutrient loops in a decentralized and regenerative approach. While the solutions to close the loop and recycle wastes address the end of pipe problems, the community-based innovation strategies aim at building resilience, producing food more locally, limiting the use of fertilizers, conserving water, and also combating climate change. Graphical Abstract

In their report ‘A New Textiles Economy: Redesigning Fashion’s Future’ (Ellen MacArthur 2017a), the Ellen MacArthur Foundation describes the need for the global textile industry to mobilize ‘moonshot’ innovations. Natural Fiber Welding (NFW) is a disruptive technology and materials company that is answering this call. In particular, NFW is developing technologies which enable abundant natural materials to be utilized in applications that are presently dominated by resource intensive plastics. In so doing, NFW is connecting production of textiles and other materials to regenerative agriculture. This has the potential of greatly reducing plastic pollution, significantly reducing the carbon footprint of the industry, and offers new cost-effective options for circularity—all while providing material performance and tunability that was not possible before.

Food supply chain management is becoming a critical management and public policy agenda. Climate change, growing demand, and shifting patterns of food production, delivery, and consumption have elicited a series of new challenges, such as food security, safety, and system resiliency. This chapter first introduces the typical players in a food supply chain and examines the global food system characterized by consolidation and industrialization. It then discusses some critical topics of the sustainable food supply chain that aim to address these challenges. These topics include traceability, transparency, certification and standards, and alternatives to industrialized food systems, including cooperatives, community-supported agriculture, and roles of small and medium-sized growers in regenerative agriculture. The chapter ends with a discussion of several important emerging logistics management topics, including last-mile delivery, new technology, and cold chain management.

Regenerative agriculture is an alternative means of producing food that, its advocates claim, may have lower – or even net positive – environmental and/or social impacts. Regenerative agriculture has recently received significant attention from producers, retailers, researchers, and consumers, as well as politicians and the mainstream media. Despite widespread interest in regenerative agriculture, no legal or regulatory definition of the term ‘regenerative agriculture’ exists nor has a widely accepted definition emerged in common usage. This paper answers the research question: How have different scholars and practitioners defined regenerative agriculture? We reviewed 229 journal articles and 25 practitioner websites to characterize the term ‘regenerative agriculture’. Our review revealed that there were many definitions and descriptions of regenerative agriculture in usage. These were variously based on processes (e.g. use of cover crops, the integration of livestock, and reducing or eliminating tillage), outcomes (e.g. to improve soil health, to sequester carbon, and to increase biodiversity), or combinations of the two. Process-based definitions may imply that advocates or users of such definitions are open-minded about the possible outcomes of these processes. Similarly, outcome-based definitions may imply that users of such definitions are open-minded about the processes that may lead to those outcomes. We discuss the implications of these different forms of definition for policy, including for certification programs and for payments for carbon sequestration programs. More generally, wide variance in the definitions used may lead to uncertainty about what different actors mean when they talk about regenerative agriculture. We suggest that it may be helpful for individual users of the term ‘regenerative agriculture’ to define it comprehensively for their own purpose and context.

Herbivore-carnivore interactions have been fundamental to grassland ecosystem functionality and to the human cultures that have long depended on these ecosystems for their nutrition. However, a large literature has developed during the past century indicating that animal agriculture is responsible for numerous negative environmental impacts. In this paper, I review literature on some of the environmental impacts of two different livestock management approaches, industrial-conventional (IC) management and regenerative-multi-paddock (RM) management. I consider the null hypothesis that the environmental impacts of ruminant livestock production are independent of the approach used to manage animals and grazing lands. It evident in the literature that managed grazing ecosystems are complex, and for certain system attributes, such forage quality and community structure, determination of the better management system is difficult to discern. It is, furthermore, unclear whether more research will produce a more definitive answer. In other areas resolution was clearer. For instance, it would appear that the soils of RM grasslands exhibit higher microbial biomass and diversity, and higher fungal: bacterial ratios than IC soils. Several impacts associated with livestock production appear to have less to do with grazing, per se, and more to do with support factors, most notably feed production. Data from several sources suggest that changes in feed production use factors by pasture-based (RM) management may reduce blue withdrawals by >50% and GHG emissions by approximately 28% relative to conventional production. Life cycle assessment reveals that RM livestock finishing tends to be carbon negative due to high C-sequestration rates associated with grazing-land management, while IC finishing represents a substantial carbon source. Accumulating data suggest that a significant portion of the CO2-eq can be removed from the atmosphere and stored in the soil by applying RM management practices. While research design may affect the outcome of some studies, the quality and quantity of the science may not resolve discrepancies in the data. It is suggested that the viability and sustainability of animal agriculture may depend on broadening the goals of practitioners to include both food production and the maintenance of environmental health.

Ruminants including domestic livestock, have been accused of causing damaging impacts on the global environment and human well-being. However, with appropriate management, ruminant livestock can play a significant role in efforts to reverse environmental damages caused by human mismanagement and neglect. Worldwide, at least one billion people living in grazing ecosystems depend on them for their livelihoods, usually through livestock production, and for other ecosystem services that affect human well-being. For long-term rangeland sustainability and ecological resilience, agricultural production policies are urgently needed globally to transform current damaging industrial inorganic input agricultural practices to resource conservation practices that enhance ecosystem function. This is supported by evidence that farmers and ranchers who apply regenerative management practices to restore ecosystem functionality create sustainable, resilient agroecosystems cost-effectively. With enhanced management of grazing resources, domesticated ruminants can be used to produce higher permanent soil cover of litter and plants, which are effective in reducing soil erosion and increasing net biophysical carbon accumulation. Incorporating forages and ruminants into regeneratively managed cropping systems can also elevate soil organic carbon and improve soil ecological function and reduce production costs by eliminating the use of annual tillage, inorganic fertilizers and biocides. Ecosystem services that are enhanced using regenerative land management include soil stabilization and formation, water infiltration, carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling and availability, biodiversity, and wildlife habitat, which cumulatively result in increased ecosystem and economic stability and resilience. Scientists partnering with farmers and ranchers around the world who have improved their land resource base and excel financially have documented how such land managers produce sound environmental, social, and economic outcomes. Many of these producers have used Adaptive Multi-Paddock (AMP) grazing management as a highly effective approach for managing their grazing lands sustainably. This approach uses short-duration grazing periods, long adaptively varied post-grazing plant recovery periods requiring multiple paddocks per herd to ensure adequate residual biomass, and adjustment of animal numbers as environmental and economic conditions change. Using this approach, farmers and ranchers have achieved superior ecosystem and profitability outcomes. This manuscript summarizes the use of AMP grazing as regenerative tool for grazed and rotationally cropped lands.

This chapter examines agrobiodiversity as the product of an aesthetic order. In so doing, it seeks to explain the management of life in agriculture and food as part of a value achieving process laden with potential, in this case useful for addressing priority concerns over maternal and child nutrition in the highland Andes. In prioritizing concrete experience over abstract instrumental science, the authors seek to shed light on how three interventions based on the mobilization of agrobiodiversity in Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador reveal a commonly neglected or under-utilized potential for enabling novel human-nonhuman interactions and resulting material effects (e.g., N-fixation, food, fiber, wealth, and health) and subjective affects (flavor, taste, identity, and fulfilment) for purposes of rural development. Each case led to re-orderings that, while not always predictable or manageable, when in the hands of situated and empowered users, arguably contributed to the possibility of more regenerative agriculture, food, and nutrition.

‘Managed grazing’ is gaining attention for its potential to contribute to climate change mitigation by reducing bare ground and promoting perennialization, thereby enhancing soil carbon sequestration (SCS). Understanding why ranchers adopt managed grazing is key to developing the right incentives. In this paper, we explore principles and practices associated with the larger enterprise of ‘regenerative ranching’ (RR), which includes managed grazing but infuses the practice with holistic decision-making. We argue that this broader approach is appealing due to a suite of ecological, economic and social benefits, making climate change mitigation an afterthought, or ‘co-benefit’. RR is challenging, however, because it requires a deep understanding of ecological processes along with a set of skills related to monitoring and moving livestock and feeding the soil microbiome. We review the literature regarding links between RR and SCS, then present results of qualitative research focused on motivators, enablers and constraints associated with RR, drawing on interviews with 52 practitioners in New South Wales, Australia and the western United States. Our analysis is guided by a conceptual model of the social–ecological system associated with RR that identifies determinants of regenerative potential. We discuss implications for rancher engagement and conclude with a consideration of leverage points for global scalability.

In the upcoming United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, a global challenge for scientists and practitioners will be to develop a well-functioning seed production sector on the basis of a sound species-selection process. To balance crop production with biodiversity functions in Mediterranean woody crops, agroecological practices suggest the need to move towards the establishment of herbaceous ground covers. However, establishing such plants requires a supply of suitable native seeds, which is currently unavailable. Here, we present a comprehensive process for selecting regionally adapted species that also emphasizes considerations for seed production. Using olive groves as a target system, we found that research on ground covers for regenerative agriculture has largely overlooked native species at the expense of commercial and ill-suited varieties. Our assessment of native annuals showed that 85% of the grasses and forbs evaluated exhibit a suite of ecological and production traits that can be tailored to meet the requirements of farmers, seed producers and environmental agencies. These findings suggest that many native species are neglected in agronomic research, despite being potentially suitable for ground covers and for supporting a nature-based solution in restoration practice. The framework used here may be applied in other agroecosystems to follow global greening initiatives and to support native seed production to scale up restoration., This research was funded by the PEOPLE/Marie Curie Actions of the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013 under REA grant agreement number 607785 through the ITN project NASSTEC (www.nasstec.eu). B.J.-A. was further supported by the Marie Curie Clarín-COFUND programme of the Principality of Asturias and the European Union (ACB17-26) and the Asturias regional grant number FC-GRUPIN-IDI/2018/000151.

Improving the understanding and fostering large-scale adoption of regenerative agriculture (RA) requires soil quality monitoring systems that integrate farmers’ and researchers’ knowledge. This is especially relevant for participatory impact assessment in semiarid areas prone to land degradation that typically respond slowly to management changes, often resulting in low RA adoption rates. We developed a framework for the identification and selection of local and technical soil quality indicators and for the development of a visual soil assessment tool, to participatory monitor the impacts of RA by farmers and researchers. We applied this framework in a large-scale restoration project in southeast Spain together with almond farmers implementing RA. Local indicators selected by farmers focused mostly on water regulation, erosion control, soil fertility, crop performance and main supporting, regulating and provisioning ecosystem services. Technical indicators selected by researchers focused mostly on soil properties including aggregate stability, soil nutrients, microbial biomass and activity, and leaf nutrients, covering crucial supporting services. The combination of indicators provided complementary information, improving the feasibility of RA impact assessment. This integrated soil quality monitoring system offers a practical tool to enhance knowledge exchange and mutual learning to support the implementation of RA and optimize the delivery of ecosystem services., This work was supported by ”la Caixa” Foundation (ID100010434) through a PhD fellowship to RLS (LCF/BQ/ES17/ 11600008), and by the DECADE and CAMBIO projects (Seneca Foundation, Regional Research Agency of Murcia, Spain, 20917/PI/18 and 18933/JLI/13) and ADAPT project (Ministry of Science and Innovation with FEDER cofounds, CGL2013-42009-R).

There is mounting evidence for the potential for the natural dietary antioxidant and anti-inflammatory amino acid l-Ergothioneine (ERGO) to prevent or mitigate chronic diseases of aging. This has led to the suggestion that it could be considered a ‘longevity vitamin.’ ERGO is produced in nature only by certain fungi and a few other microbes. Mushrooms are, by far, the leading dietary source of ERGO, but it is found in small amounts throughout the food chain, most likely due to soil-borne fungi passing it on to plants. Because some common agricultural practices can disrupt beneficial fungus–plant root relationships, ERGO levels in foods grown under those conditions could be compromised. Thus, research is needed to further analyse the role agricultural practices play in the availability of ERGO in the human diet and its potential to improve our long-term health.

Regenerative agriculture (RA) is proposed as a solution towards sustainable food systems. A variety of actors perceive RA differently, and a clear scientific definition is lacking. We reviewed 28 studies to find convergence and divergence between objectives and activities that define RA. Our results show convergence related to objectives that enhance the environment and stress the importance of socio-economic dimensions that contribute to food security. The objectives of RA in relation to socio-economic dimensions, however, are general and lack a framework for implementation. From our analysis, we propose a provisional definition of RA as an approach to farming that uses soil conservation as the entry point to regenerate and contribute to multiple ecosystem services.