Food Security and Intercropping Systems: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Peter Tang and Version 1 by Ana Angelica Feregrino-Perez.

Various environmental, food security and population health problems have been correlated with the use of intensive agriculture production systems around the world. This type of system leads to the loss of biodiversity and natural habitats, high usage rates of agrochemicals and natural resources, and affects soil composition, human health, and nutritional plant quality in rural areas. Agroecological intercropping systems that respect agrobiodiversity, on the other hand, can significantly benefit ecosystems, human health, and food security by modifying the nutritional profile and content of some health-promoting bioactive compounds in the species cultivated in this system.

  • food production
  • sustainable agriculture
  • human health
  • nutrients
  • bioactive compounds

1. Introduction

Global population growth and lifestyle changes have increased worldwide food demand [1,2][1][2]. Intensive food production systems like monoculture have been implemented to meet this demand. However, intensive agriculture has hurt the environment, causing a loss of biodiversity and natural habitats and making excessive use of agrochemicals and fertilizers, which leads to the loss of fertile soils by damaging the soil microbiota (plant-soil interaction) [3[3][4],4], while the contamination of aquifers affects the availability of nutrients required by crops [5,6,7][5][6][7]. Furthermore, intensive agriculture systems have yet to prove themselves capable of eradicating hunger in developing countries; even worse, this group of faulty agricultural practices results in low nutritional quality in the products intended for human and animal consumption, which could be related to health issues [8]. Thus, various food production strategies must be tested to guarantee a more adequate food supply. It has been stipulated that balancing biodiversity conservation and food security is the key to global sustainable development [3,9][3][9]. In this context, sustainable agriculture integrates multiple areas: it addresses environmental, market, policy, research and innovation concerns, along with several societal benefits [10], like improving the status of human health [11] by improving food quality [12]. In principle, the food produced under sustainable agriculture systems would be more accessible, affordable, safe, and equitable, which also meets the requirements of food security [13,14][13][14].
Intercropping systems are traditional farming practices in which two or more crops are planted together, through seed mixing or through various spatial arrangements, on the same land at the same time [15]. They may provide a viable form of sustainable food production thanks to their diversification [16]. What these systems purport to do is to achieve an interaction that benefits the different species involved and provides more regulation services to ecosystems [17,18][17][18]. Intercropping systems could have a positive impact on the environment and society by preventing soil erosion and improving soil fertility through enriched soil microbiota. Moreover, they can increase the biodiversity and conservation of natural habitats due to the different families of plants grown within the same area, which provide a natural habitat to many species, and naturally regulating pests, diseases, and weeds could considerably reduce the use of fertilizers and agrochemicals [18].
Furthermore, farmers may also benefit from socioeconomic gains and greater food security, since multi-cropping can improve yield [19], which would increase the availability of food or allow them to sell more of their produce [20,21,22][20][21][22]. All these characteristics have been widely studied over the years; nevertheless, few studies have analyzed the changes in the quantity and quality of nutrients and phytochemicals that benefit human health due to the interaction of the species involved in intercropping. One example is the amount of soluble and insoluble fiber, increased phenols and flavonoids, amino acids, and other phytochemicals found in fruits and/or flowers [9,23,24][9][23][24]. The study of these possible changes is relevant for food and nutritional security since, for developing countries, intercropping systems could supply a large portion of families’ nutritional needs [14].

2. Food Security and Intercropping Systems

In recent years, there has been greater awareness of the challenges and actions needed to eliminate hunger and malnutrition worldwide, including food system management. In this sense, agriculture plays a vital role in most developing countries. However, due to population growth, industrial development, and political factors, current food systems have proven insufficient to feed this growing population [2]. Despite the widespread use of intensive food production systems, the goal of eradicating world hunger has not been achieved [25]. Indeed, around the world, approximately 2.37 million people experienced food insecurity at a moderate or severe level in 2020 [26].

2.1. Food Security and the Importance of Sustainable Production

Food security is a term that was first introduced in 1970, and it has been successfully redefined to adapt to the needs of the current global population [27]. All existing reports generally agree that food security is defined as the provision of a sustained food supply [28]. The World Food Summit added that food security focuses on four main dimensions: availability, accessibility, utilization, and stability. These four dimensions do not necessarily coincide. For this reason, food security cannot be adequately measured with a single indicator. A multidimensional analysis is needed to assess and compare various food security indicators at the regional and national levels [29]. A widely accepted definition of food security, supplied by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), starting in the 1990s, was “a situation that exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” [30]. This was the first time that emphasis was placed on the importance of nutrient quality contained in foods for human consumption, considered crucial to the dimension of utilization [27]. However, it is also known that the nutritional quality of foods produced in intensive systems has decreased, causing a deficiency in the micronutrients available to the population [31]. Evidently, the “utilization” dimension is not fulfilled by current food production systems. Food security also considers how food production systems perform in terms of optimized cultivation intensity. However, growing environmental damage has changed how this indicator is measured in evaluating food security. More recently, the food security framework has incorporated two more dimensions: agency and sustainability [27]. Agency involves compliance with policies related to food security, especially when establishing political frameworks and institutions to defend the rights of the most vulnerable groups. Sustainability requires that food systems are appropriately managed to contribute to the long-term and present-day regeneration of natural, social, and economic systems, so that food sufficiency can be ensured for current and future generations [32]. Sustainability is a core component of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In 2021, it was a central objective of the United Nations Summit, where Food Systems issues were discussed. At this meeting, it was emphasized that healthier, more sustainable, and equitable food production systems are required worldwide. The search for new and better food production systems has become a global priority. One of the systems proposed in recent years is intercropping, a traditional farming system [33] that is considered to be a diversified and sustainable agricultural technique that optimizes cropping intensity. Many studies show that intercropping can offer different ecosystem services [34] because inputs and natural resources are better used to supply nutrients that protect plants against pathogens, pests, and weeds. It can also improve soil fertility, conserve biodiversity and natural habitats, and provide higher yields and more balanced production per unit area due to crop diversification [20,35][20][35]. Further research is necessary, but it has been suggested that the types of plants included in an intercropping system could increase or decrease the chemical composition of some bioactive compounds and nutrients. The health benefit is related to the possible nutraceutical effect that plant-based foods could obtain during their development in the crop [23,36,37][23][36][37]. This may provide the consumer with a greater quantity and quality of nutrients, thus helping to prevent illness or improve health [38], which would be especially beneficial to communities where food security and health status are currently compromised. Therefore, implementing sustainable agroecological systems like intercropping could have a positive environmental impact and produce healthier food, which coincides with food security policies and the SDGs.

2.2. Food Quality and Human Nutrition Related to Food Production Systems

One of humanity’s perennial challenges is developing food production systems that can ensure food security. Health status has been found to relate closely to diet and, therefore, to people’s nutrition. At present, nutrition is affected by many factors, including changes in people’s lifestyles, and everything else that comprises food security [11]. This is why, especially in developing countries, various health problems have emerged in connection with malnutrition [39,40][39][40]. These problems are attributed to the tendency to consume high quantities of fats, sugars, and processed foods with a high caloric density and low dietary fiber and water, since these tend to be foods that are economically accessible to the population. At the same time, the consumption of fruits, vegetables, and complex carbohydrates from essential food production in these developing countries is decreasing at an alarming rate [41,42][41][42]. This food transition also entails an epidemiological transition, with the rising incidence of different diseases related to these habits: cardiovascular diseases, various types of cancer, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), stroke, and many others associated with overweight and obesity [43,44,45,46][43][44][45][46]. In general, the population has been told that the sufficient and varied consumption of unprocessed foods and lifestyle changes can support the prevention of these diseases. For small farmers in developing countries, this variety of food could be obtained from subsistence agriculture, so their food and nutritional security depends on this. Nevertheless, the need to produce more food grows each year and has been the motive for the deployment of intensive monoculture systems around the world. At present, there are growing concerns about not only the quantity of food these systems produce, but also the nutritional quality of that food [31]. The indiscriminate use of monoculture has caused a significant deficit of micronutrients in the edible parts of food crops, which means that the population cannot be adequately nourished even by consuming unprocessed foods, nor can they avoid chronic degenerative diseases. This may ultimately result in a phenomenon known as hidden hunger [31], defined as a dietary deficit in the intake of vitamins and minerals, such that the food consumed is inadequate for optimal human health. In recent years, there has been a troubling increase in the prevalence of disease and illness in lower-income countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that, in 2023 [47], more than a quarter of the global population will suffer from one or more micronutrient deficiencies. The most common deficiencies of micronutrients registered are vitamin A, iron (Fe), zinc (Zn), and iodine (I) [48]. Micronutrient deficiencies could be a risk factor for many diseases, because without them the organism becomes less resistant to infections that cause severe illnesses, including anemia, mental retardation, blindness, and spinal and brain birth defects [49]. Another critical aspect of food security is guaranteeing the safety of the ingested produce and the entire process of obtaining that food. The first studies on the interaction between agrochemicals and human health are beginning to emerge in different countries, particularly the effects of the intensive application of pesticides [50]. Previously, the damage that exposure to these chemicals could cause to human health was unknown; however, new scientific evidence has alerted the population about the indiscriminate use of these substances. The symptomatology of acute poisoning due to excessive use of phytosanitary products such as fungicides and bactericides, herbicides, and insecticides, among others, may be well known, but the subclinical consequences related to prolonged exposure to these agrochemicals have been little studied. Few studies relate these chemicals to cognitive impairment, reproductive disorders, cancer, diabetes, neurobehavioral and neurodevelopmental disorders, congenital malformations, and cardiovascular, respiratory, and neurodegenerative diseases, such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s [51,52,53][51][52][53]. In addition, the use of agrochemicals is poorly regulated and controlled in some countries, which implies a greater risk for the population [50]. These health problems could be solved by restoring the diversity of agricultural ecosystems, managing crops effectively, and limiting deleterious environmental effects. If sustainable production systems are correctly implemented, the produce obtained will be of greater nutritional quality.

3. Modifying the Nutritional Profile in Intercropping Systems

Backyard production is a system for managing plants in traditional land use systems in areas close to homes in developing countries [54]. Promoting the creation of such spaces allows families to cultivate multiple species to cover their basic needs [55], providing most of their necessary daily nutrients. In situations of food scarcity, it is a critical practice [56,57][56][57]. Plant seeds and other edible plant parts are food sources that are rich in essential nutrients: lipids, peptides/proteins, amino acids, starch, dietary fiber, vitamins, and minerals [58]. Likewise, some bioactive compounds are derived from the plant’s seeds, fruits, roots, and leaves; these are phytochemicals like phenolic compounds (tocopherols, flavonoids, and phenolic acids), nitrogen compounds (alkaloids, chlorophyll derivatives, amino acids, and amines), carotenoids, or ascorbic acid, quinones, terpenoids and saponins [59,60][59][60]. In recent years, consumer preferences have shifted toward sustainable food production, similar to agricultural techniques in family gardens [61]. Interest in food quality, functional foods, and eating seasonally, locally, and organically has been growing [12,62,63][12][62][63]. Accordingly, the search for crops with high nutritional content has been a challenge worldwide [64]. The “sustainable diet” is a term that was established with sustainable food production in mind; this concept includes all dimensions of people’s health and well-being because it has a low environmental impact and is accessible, affordable, safe, and equitable, meaning it also conforms to requirements of food security [13]. Moreover, sustainable diets can preserve traditional regional cuisine as a part of the intangible heritage of societies and communities, and can play a key role in regional and local economies [65]. Mixed cropping, as a form of sustainable agriculture, can help low-income households to afford a more diverse diet, improving their daily intake of essential foods. Combinations of cereals, legumes/seeds, and oilseeds in intercropped systems can provide a large part of families’ caloric intake [14]; therefore, these systems can play a vital role in alleviating hunger, especially if they are implemented in a manner that augments the content of nutrients and bioactive phytonutrients [64]. Nevertheless, few studies have been conducted on the introduction of intercropping systems with an eye to improving the nutritional quality of the cultivated species. The existing studies on the nutritional quality and quantity of bioactive compounds and macronutrients that can be modified using intercropped systems find that a number of countries have implemented these systems according to their dietary needs and species of interest. It is interesting to analyze the methodologies used in these studies and the type of nutrient that was modified. Food quality is known to depend on genetic factors, environmental conditions, growing location, and agronomic practices. In this context, there are studies that emphasize the modification of bioactive compounds, while others focus on the change in the quantities of other nutrients, and others search both profiles.

4. Another Approach for Improving Nutritional Profile in Intercropping Systems

Sustainable agriculture can encompass various agricultural techniques, significantly affecting food production. This is a latent concern, since these systems must balance human needs with respect for natural resources [85][66]. In the arduous task of finding the ideal conditions for multiple cropping systems, a number of studies have been conducted, and researchers have already collected valuable information. A review in 2015 gathered several studies about the biotic interactions that could take place in different polyculture systems to provide more ecosystem services, and also offered information on how to implement a polyculture step by step based on other research [18]. These guidelines for designing multiple cropping systems combine ecological, agricultural, and genetic concepts and approaches. A similar review in 2021 emphasized the aspects that must be considered when implementing intercropping strategies for the purpose of enhancing food and environmental security. This study also highlighted the importance of different factors, such as the choice of crops and cultivars, sown proportions, and agronomic management, including water and nutrients [14]. Neither review supported a particular approach to change or ameliorate the nutritional profile of the crops for human benefit. However, both studies pointed to one latent problem where part of the research can be focused on improving the nutritional profile of the edible parts in this type of system: the availability of the trait values of cultivars and specific eco-physiological models for the adequate construction of an ideotype. An adequate construction of the ideotype (biological model that is expected to perform in a predictable manner within a defined environment or conditions) is necessary to ensure the crops’ competitive capacity, as well as identifying the different complementarity and facilitation processes of soils in intercropped systems by using key species to reduce inter-specific competition, and recognizing the key role of soil microorganisms [86][67]. The balance between these characteristics affects yield and promotes ecosystem efficiency, which are the overarching objectives of intercropping systems [14,18][14][18]. Another crucial area of research is plant immune systems. Relating the metabolic pathways associated with producing secondary metabolites to the type of stress that activates them is vital. Both the adaptive (eustress) and non-adaptive (distress) response to stress can significantly influence the effective channeling of plant energy into biomass production or the bioactive profile [87,88][68][69]. There is still much to study: the adaptive responses related to crop allelopathy [89][70]; plant–soil interactions due to vegetation patterns around the plants of interest [90][71]; where the different species used enrich the microbiota; the plant environment where species belonging to a region can interact and fit together better [91][72]; the plant–plant interaction [92][73]; and where physio-agronomic parameters are sought (cereals with legumes). Furthermore, the exact point at which the different qualities (improved yield, improved nutritional profile, soil health, etc.) are manifested in each crop study has been little studied at present, which is why the different types of stress exerted by these interactions are at the forefront of the current research in any type of food production system.

References

  1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Save and Grow—A Policymaker’s Guide to the Sustainable Intensification of Smallholder Crop Production; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2011; pp. 1–15.
  2. Priya; Verma, R.K.; Lakhawat, S.; Yadav, V.K.; Gacem, A.; Abbas, M.; Yadav, K.K.; Park, H.K.; Jeon, B.K.; Mishra, S. Millets: Sustainable treasure house of bioactive components. Int. J. Food Prop. 2023, 26, 1822–1840.
  3. Zhao, Q.; Yu, P.; Mahendran, R.; Huang, W.; Gao, Y.; Yang, Z.; Ye, T.; Wen, B.; Wu, Y.; Li, S.; et al. Global climate change and human health: Pathways and possible solutions. Eco-Environ. Health 2022, 1, 53–62.
  4. Yang, T.; Siddique, K.H.M.; Liu, K. Cropping systems in agriculture and their impact on soil health—A review. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2020, 23, e01118.
  5. de Souza Oliveira Filho, J.; dos Santos, O.A.Q.; Tavares, O.C.H.; de Souza Fagundes, H.; Diniz, Y.V.D.F.G.; Pinto, L.A.D.S.R.; da Silva Neto, E.C.; Pereira, M.G. Changes in soil phosphorus pools induced by drainage in tropical peatlands: Evidence in monoculture and intercropping long-term systems. Soil Tillage Res. 2021, 211, 105056.
  6. IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Edenhofer, O.R., Pichs-Madruga, Y., Sokona, E., Farahani, S., Kadner, K., Seyboth, A., Adler, I., Baum, S., Brunner, P., Eickemeier, B., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2014.
  7. Chaudhary, A.; Kastner, T. Land use biodiversity impacts embodied in international food trade. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2016, 38, 195–204.
  8. Singh, R.K.; Joshi, P.K.; Prasad Sinha, V.S.; Kumar, M. Indicator based assessment of food security in SAARC nations under the influence of climate change scenarios. Future Foods 2022, 5, 100122.
  9. Cunha-Chiamolera, T.P.L.; Cecílio Filho, A.B.; Santos, D.M.M.; Chiamolera, F.M.; Guevara-González, R.G.; Nicola, S.; Urrestarazu, M. Lettuce in Monoculture or in Intercropping with Tomato Changes the Antioxidant Enzyme Activities, Nutrients and Growth of Lettuce. Horticulturae 2023, 9, 783.
  10. Varela, R.P.; Balanay, R.M.; Halog, A. Changing the Way We Produce Food: An Overview of the Current Agricultural Food Production Industry and Worldwide Trends for Sustainable Production. In Climate Change and Resilient Food Systems; Hebsale Mallappa, V.K., Shirur, M., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2021.
  11. Souho, T.; Bomboma, D.; Compaoré, E.W.R.; Essowèréou, A.A.; Ouadja, B.; Kabassina, M.; Pilo, M.; Assa Epse Yao, R.R.; Amouzou, K.S. Grains production in high climate change impacted regions and its potential for the supply of critical nutrients for humans nutritional well being. Food Prod. Process. Nutr. 2023, 5, 31.
  12. Petrescu, D.C.; Vermeir, I.; Petrescu-Mag, R.M. Consumer understanding of food quality, healthiness, and environmental impact: A cross-national perspective. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 169.
  13. FAO; WHO. Sustainable Healthy Diets—Guiding Principles; WHO: Rome, Italy, 2019. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/ca6640en/ca6640en.pdf (accessed on 29 October 2023).
  14. Maitra, S.; Hossain, A.; Brestic, M.; Skalicky, M.; Ondrisik, P.; Gitari, H.; Brahmachari, K.; Shankar, T.; Bhadra, P.; Bharati Palai, J.; et al. Intercropping—A Low Input Agricultural Strategy for Food and Environmental Security. Agronomía 2021, 11, 343.
  15. Jodha, N.S. Intercropping in traditional farming systems. J. Dev. Stud. 1980, 16, 427–442.
  16. Sridhar, S.M.; Subramanian, E.; Gurusamy, A.; Kannan, P.; Sathishkumar, A. Study on root architecture of aerobic rice under intercropping system in different land configuration. Pharma Innov. J. 2021, 10, 1329–1333.
  17. Blessing, D.J.; Gu, Y.C.; Manjun, C.Y.; Wang, X.; Asante-Badu, B. Overview of the advantages and limitations of maize-soybean intercropping in sustainable agriculture and future prospects: A review. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2022, 82, 177–188.
  18. Gaba, S.; Lescourret, F.; Boudsocq, S.; Enjalbert, J.; Hinsinger, P.; Journet, E.P.; Navas, M.L.; Wery, J.; Louarn, G.; Malézieux, E.; et al. Multiple cropping systems as drivers for providing multiple ecosystem services: From concepts to design. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 607–623.
  19. Neugschwandtner, R.W.; Kaul, H.P. Concentrations and uptake of macronutrients by oat and pea in intercrops in response to N fertilization and sowing ratio. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2016, 62, 1236–1249.
  20. Xie, J.; Wang, L.; Li, L.; Anwar, S.; Luo, Z.; Zechariah, E.; Kwami Fudjoe, S. Yield, Economic Benefit, Soil Water Balance, and Water Use Efficiency of Intercropped Maize/Potato in Responses to Mulching Practices on the Semiarid Loess Plateau. Agriculture 2021, 11, 1100.
  21. Zhanbota, A.; Noor, R.S.; Khan, A.I.; Wang, G.; Waqas, M.M.; Shah, A.N.; Ullah, S.A. Two-Year Study on Yield and Yield Components of Maize-White Bean Intercropping Systems under Different Sowing Techniques. Agronomy 2022, 12, 240.
  22. Swamila, M.; Philip, D.; Akyoo, A.M.; Manda, J.; Mwinuka, L.; Smethurst, P.J.; Sieber, S.; Kimaro, A.A. Profitability of Gliricidia-Maize System in Selected Dryland Areas of Dodoma Region, Tanzania. Sustainability 2022, 14, 53.
  23. Méndez-Espinoza, C.; Vallejo Reyna, M.A. Mecanismos de respuesta al estrés abiótico: Hacia una perspectiva de las especies forestales. Rev. Mex. Cienc. For. 2019, 10, 33–64.
  24. Castagna, A.; Mariottini, G.; Gabriele, M.; Longo, V.; Souid, A.; Dauvergne, X.; Magné, C.; Foggi, G.; Conte, G.; Santin, M.; et al. Nutritional Composition and Bioactivity of Salicornia europaea L. Plants Grown in Monoculture or Intercropped with Tomato Plants in Salt-Affected Soils. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 828.
  25. Gitari, H.I.; Nyawade, S.O.; Kamau, S.; Gachene, C.K.K.; Karanja, N.N.; Schulte-Geldermann, E. Increasing potato equivalent yield increases returns to investment under potato-legume intercropping systems. Open Agric. 2019, 4, 623–629.
  26. FAO; IFAD; UNICEF; WFP; WHO. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2021. Available online: http://www.fao.org/publications/sofi/2021/en/ (accessed on 29 October 2023).
  27. Clapp, J.; Moseley, W.G.; Burlingame, B.; Termine, P. Viewpoint: The case for a six-dimensional food security framework. Food Policy 2022, 106, 102164.
  28. Singh, R.K.; Kumar, M. Assessing vulnerability of agriculture system to climate change in the SAARC region. Environ. Chall. 2021, 5, 100398.
  29. Napoli, M.; Muro, P.P.; De Mazziotta, P.M. Towards a Food Insecurity Multidimensional Index. In Master in Human Development and Food Security; Universita Degli Studi: Rome, Italy, 2011; pp. 1–72. Available online: https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ERP/uni/FIMI.pdf (accessed on 29 October 2023).
  30. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Introduction to the Basic Concepts of Food Security; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2008; pp. 1–3.
  31. Teklu, D.; Gashu, D.; Joy, E.J.M.; Amede, T.; Broadley, M.R. Effectiveness of Agronomic Biofortification Strategy in Fighting against Hidden Hunger. Agronomy 2023, 13, 2173.
  32. HLPE. Food Security and Nutrition: Building a Global Narrative Towards 2030; Report 15; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020; Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/ca9731en/ca9731en.pdf (accessed on 29 October 2023).
  33. Plucknett, D.L.; Smith, N.J.H. Historical perspectives on multiple cropping. In Multiple Cropping Systems; Francis, C.A., Ed.; MacMillan Publishing Company: New York, NY, USA, 1986.
  34. Zhao, C.; Fan, Z.; Coulter, J.A.; Yin, W.; Hu, F.; Yu, A. High Maize Density Alleviates the Inhibitory Effect of Soil Nitrogen on Intercropped Pea. Agronomy 2020, 10, 248.
  35. Hauggaard-Nielsen, H.; Jørnsgaard, B.; Kinane, J.; Jensen, E.S. Grain legume-cereal intercropping: The practical application of diversity, competition and facilitation in arable and organic cropping systems. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2008, 23, 3–12.
  36. Fallah, A.A.; Sarmast, E.; Jafari, T. Effect of dietary anthocyanins on biomarkers of oxidative stress and antioxidative capacity: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J. Funct. Foods 2020, 68, 103912.
  37. Santangelo, E.; Bergonzoli, S.; Papetti, P.; Mazzucato, A.; Del Giudice, A.; Scarfone, A.; Beni, C. The Profile of Bioactive Compounds in Two Tomato Lines (hp-2 and Atv_aft) When Grown under Low-Input Farming Conditions with or without Mulching and Intercropping. Agriculture 2023, 13, 280.
  38. Coelho, M.S.; Fernandes, S.S.; de las Mercedes Salas-Mellado, M. Association Between Diet, Health, and the Presence of Bioactive Compounds in Foods. Bioact. Compd. 2019, 159–183.
  39. Khan, M.A.B.; Hashim, M.J.; King, J.K.; Govender, R.D.; Mustafa, H.; Al Kaabi, J. Epidemiology of type 2 diabetes—Global burden of disease and forecasted trends. J. Epidemiol. Glob. Health 2020, 10, 107–111.
  40. Méndez-Flores, O.G.; Ochoa-Díaz López, H.; Castro-Quezada, I.; Olivo-Vidal, Z.E.; García-Miranda, R.; Rodríguez-Robles, U.; Irecta-Nájera, C.A.; López-Ramírez, G.; Sánchez-Chino, X.M. The Milpa as A Supplier of Bioactive Compounds: A Review. Food Rev. Int. 2023, 39, 1359–1376.
  41. Rivera, J.A.; Barquera, S.; González-Cossío, T.; Olaiz, G.; Sepúlveda, J. Nutrition Transition in Mexico and in Other Latin American Countries. Nutr. Rev. 2004, 62, 149–157.
  42. Moreno-Altamirano, L.; Hernández-Montoya, D.; Martín Silberman, M.; Capraro, S.; García-García, J.J.; Guadalupe Soto-Estrada, G.; Sandoval-Bosh, E. La transición alimentaria y la doble carga de malnutrición: Cambios en los patrones alimentarios de 1961 a 2009 en el contexto socioeconómico mexicano. Arch. Latinoam. Nutr. 2014, 64, 231–240.
  43. Montilva de Mendoza, M. Desafíos de la nutrición comunitaria en Latinoamérica. Rev. Esp. Nutr. Comunitaria 2010, 16, 41–44.
  44. Vasileva, L.V.; Marchev, A.S.; Georgiev, M.I. Causes and solutions to “globesity”: The new FA(S)T alarming global epidemic. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2018, 121, 173–193.
  45. Ahluwalia, M.K. Chrononutrition—When We Eat Is of the Essence in Tackling obesity. Nutrients 2022, 14, 5080.
  46. Markovikj, G.; Knights, V.; Gajdoš Kljusurić, J. Body Weight Loss Efficiency in Overweight and Obese Adults in the Ketogenic Reduction Diet Program—Case Study. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 10704.
  47. World Health Organization. Mineral Nutrition Information System. 2023. Available online: https://www.who.int/teams/nutrition-and-food-safety/databases/vitamin-and-mineral-nutrition-information-system (accessed on 28 October 2023).
  48. World Health Organization. Micronutrients. 2021. Available online: https://www.who.int/health-topics/micronutrients (accessed on 17 November 2022).
  49. Dhiman, K.; Sharma, D.; Kumari, R.; Tomar, P. Biofortification of crops using microbes—A promising sustainable agriculture strategy. J. Plant Nutr. 2023, 46, 2912–2935.
  50. Zúñiga-Venegas, L.; Saracini, C.; Pancetti, F.; Muñoz-Quezada, M.T.; Lucero, B.; Foerster, C.; Cortés, S. Exposición a plaguicidas en Chile y salud poblacional: Urgencia para la toma de decisiones. Gac. Sanit. 2021, 35, 480–487.
  51. Mostafalou, S.; Abdollahi, M. Pesticides: An update of human exposure and toxicity. Arch. Toxicol. 2017, 91, 549–599.
  52. Brühl, C.A.; Zaller, J.G. Biodiversity decline as a consequence of an inappropriate environmental risk assessment of pesticides. Front. Environ. Sci. 2019, 7, 177.
  53. Srivastava, A.K.; Kesavachandran, C. (Eds.) Health Effects of Pesticides; CRC Press: London, UK, 2019; p. 182.
  54. Nair, P.K.R.; Kumar, B.M.; Nair, V.D. An Introduction to Agroforestry: Four Decades of Scientific Developments; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021.
  55. Duffy, C.; Toth, G.G.; Hagan, R.P.O.; McKeown, P.C.; Rahman, S.A.; Widyaningsuh, Y.; Sunderland, T.C.H.; Spillane, C. Agroforestry contributions to smallholder farmer food security in Indonesia. Agrofor. Syst. 2021, 95, 1109–1124.
  56. Mattsson, E.; Ostwald, M.; Nissanka, S.P. What is good about Sri Lankan homegardens with regards to food security? A synthesis of the current scientific knowledge of a multifunctional land-use system. Agrofor. Syst. 2018, 92, 1469–1484.
  57. Mkhize, X.; Mthembu, B.E.; Napier, C. Transforming a local food system to address food and nutrition insecurity in an urban informal settlement area: A study in Umlazi Township in Durban, South Africa. J. Agric. Food Res. 2023, 12, 100565.
  58. Damude, H.G.; Kinney, A.J. Enhancing Plant Seed Oils for Human Nutrition. Plant Physiol. 2008, 147, 962–968.
  59. Rojas, J.; Buitrago, A. Antioxidant Activity of Phenolic Compounds Biosynthesized by Plants and Its Relationship with Prevention of Neurodegenerative Diseases. Bioact. Compd. 2019, 3–31.
  60. Esmeeta, A.; Adhikary, S.; Dharshnaa, V.; Swarnamughi, P.; Maqsummiya, Z.U.; Banerjee, A.; Pathak, S.; Duttaroy, A.K. Plant-derived bioactive compounds in colon cancer treatment: An updated review. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2022, 153, 113384.
  61. Johnston, J.L.; Fanzo, J.C.; Cogill, B. Understanding sustainable diets: A descriptive analysis of the determinants and processes that influence diets and their impact on health, food security, and environmental sustainability. Adv. Nutr. 2014, 5, 418–429.
  62. Meyerding, S.G.; Trajer, N.; Lehberger, M. What is local food? The case of consumer preferences for local food labeling of tomatoes in Germany. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 207, 30–43.
  63. da Costa Marques, S.C.; Carrijo-Mauad, J.R.; de Faria Domingues, C.H.; Rossi Borges, J.A.; Rosa da Silva, J. The importance of local food products attributes in Brazil consumer’s preferences. Future Foods 2022, 5, 100125.
  64. Sura, S.; Kodikara, C.; Acharya, S.; Sabra, A.; Wijekoon, C. Comparative Analysis of Bioactive Phenolic Compounds and Fatty Acids in Seeds and Seedlings of Canadian Alfalfa, Sainfoin, and Fenugreek. Appl. Biosci. 2023, 2, 477–492.
  65. Polleau, A.; Biermann, G. Eat local to save the planet? Contrasting scientific evidence and consumers’ perceptions of healthy and environmentally friendly diets. Curr. Res. Environ. Sustain. 2021, 3, 100054.
  66. Oberč, B.P.; Schnell, A.A. Approaches to Sustainable Agriculture. Exploring the Pathways towards the Future of Farming; IUCN European: Brussels, Belgium, 2020.
  67. Duchene, O.; Vian, J.F.; Celette, F. Intercropping with legume for agroecological cropping systems: Complementarity and facilitation processes and the importance of soil microorganisms. A review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2017, 240, 148–161.
  68. Jalal, A.; de Oliveira Junior, J.C.; Santos Ribeiro, J.; Fernandes, G.C.; Guerra Mariano, G.; Dias Rezende Trindade, V.; Rodrigues dos Reis, A. Hormesis in plants: Physiological and biochemical responses. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021, 207, 111225.
  69. Ozturk, M.; Altay, V.; Gönenç, T.M.; Unal, B.T.; Efe, R.; Akçiçek, E.; Bukhari, A. An Overview of Olive Cultivation in Turkey: Botanical Features, Eco-Physiology and Phytochemical Aspects. Agronomy 2021, 11, 295.
  70. Scavo, A.; Mauromicale, G. Crop Allelopathy for Sustainable Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Knowing the Present with a View to the Future. Agronomy 2021, 11, 2104.
  71. Luo, C.; Wang, R.; Dou, X.; Zheng, C. Soil Moisture, Nutrients, and Plant Growths under Various Irrigation and Fertilization Regimes during the Crop Replacement Period in an Alley Intercropping System on the Loess Plateau of China. Forests 2023, 14, 2153.
  72. Jin, J.; Bai, J.; Bao, A.; Han, H.; Li, J.; Chang, C.; Bao, J. Cost–Benefit Evaluation of Walnut and Jujube Orchards under Fruit Tree–Crop Intercropping Conditions in Southern Xinjiang. Forests 2023, 14, 2259.
  73. Lai, H.; Gao, F.; Su, H.; Zheng, P.; Li, Y.; Yao, H. Nitrogen Distribution and Soil Microbial Community Characteristics in a Legume–Cereal Intercropping System: A Review. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1900.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Video Production Service
Feedback