Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Review Articles

Vol. 13 No. 3 (2026)

Multifunctional agroforestry systems and ecosystem services: A comparative review of ecological performance

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.16640
Submitted
8 July 2026
Published
30-08-2026 — Updated on 08-09-2026
Versions

Abstract

Multifunctional agroforestry (MFA) systems are sustainable land-use systems that combine trees with crops and/or livestock to provide multiple ecological, economic and social benefits. However, evidence regarding their multifunctional ecosystem-service performance relative to conventional agroforestry (AF) and monocropping (MC) systems remains fragmented. Therefore, this review aimed to evaluate the ecological functions and ecosystem-service contributions of MFA systems through an evidence-based narrative review approach Literature published between 1990 and 2025 was reviewed to compare MFA, AF and MC systems for carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, biodiversity conservation and soil-water conservation, with emphasis on widely used tree species such as Gliricidia sepium (Jacq.) Kunth, Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.) de Wit, Faidherbia albida (Delile) A.Chev., Azadirachta indica A.Juss., Pongamia pinnata (L.) Pierre and Grevillea robusta A.Cunn. ex R.Br. The review indicates that MFA systems generally exhibit greater carbon storage, higher annual sequestration potential, improved nutrient retention and recycling, enhanced biodiversity and superior soil and water conservation functions compared with AF and MC systems. These benefits are primarily associated with structural diversity, multilayer vegetation, continuous biomass inputs and stronger ecological interactions. However, system performance varies according to climate, soil conditions, species composition, management practices and system age. Overall, MFA systems represent a promising approach for climate-resilient agriculture and sustainable land management, although further long-term studies and standardised monitoring frameworks are required to strengthen evidence-based adoption and policy implementation.

References

  1. 1. Roghan HB, Murugesh M, Sekar I, Suganya K, Hemaprabha K, Kiruba M, et al. The current role and importance of agroforestry: a review article. Appl Ecol Environ Res. 2024;22(5):3907–18. https://doi.org/10.15666/aeer/2205_39073918
  2. 2. Nair PKR. State-of-the-art of agroforestry research and education. Agrofor Syst. 1993;23(2):95–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00704909
  3. 3. Leakey RRB. Multifunctional agriculture and agroforestry. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2017.
  4. 4. De Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex. 2010;7(3):260–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006
  5. 5. Jose S. Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: an overview. Agrofor Syst. 2009;76(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-009-9229-7
  6. 6. Altieri MA. The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. In: Collins WW, Qualset CO, editors. Biodiversity in agroecosystems. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1999. p. 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(99)00028-6
  7. 7. Lin BB. Resilience in agriculture through crop diversification: adaptive management for environmental change. Bioscience. 2011;61(3):183–93. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.3.4
  8. 8. Leakey RRB. Socially modified organisms in multifunctional agriculture: addressing the needs of smallholder farmers in Africa. Arch Crop Sci. 2017;1(1):20–29. https://doi.org/10.36959/718/598
  9. 9. Sanchez R. Strategic flexibility in product competition. Strateg Manag J. 1995;16(S1):135–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250160921
  10. 10. Montagnini F, Nair PKR. Carbon sequestration: an underexploited environmental benefit of agroforestry systems. Agrofor Syst. 2004;61(1–3):281–95. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AGFO.0000029005.92691.79
  11. 11. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being: wetlands and water. Washington (DC): World Resources Institute; 2005.
  12. 12. Zomer RJ, Neufeldt H, Xu J, Ahrends A, Bossio D, Trabucco A, et al. Global tree cover and biomass carbon on agricultural land: the contribution of agroforestry to global and national carbon budgets. Sci Rep. 2016;6:29987. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep29987
  13. 13. Nair VD, Nair PKR, Dari B, Freitas AM, Chatterjee N, Pinheiro FM. Biochar in the agroecosystem–climate change–sustainability nexus. Front Plant Sci. 2017;8:2051. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.02051
  14. 14. Nesha K, Herold M, De Sy V, Duchelle AE, Martius C, Branthomme A, et al. An assessment of data sources, data quality and changes in national forest monitoring capacities in the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005–2020. Environ Res Lett. 2021;16(5):054029. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abd81b
  15. 15. Albrecht A, Kandji ST. Carbon sequestration in tropical agroforestry systems. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2003;99(1–3):15–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(03)00138-5
  16. 16. Lal R. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science. 2004;304(5677):1623–27. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1097396
  17. 17. Nair PKR, Kumar BM, Nair VD. Soil organic matter (SOM) and nutrient cycling. In: An introduction to agroforestry: four decades of scientific developments. Cham: Springer; 2022. p. 383–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75358-0_16
  18. 18. Palm CA, Gachengo CN, Delve RJ, Cadisch G, Giller KE. Organic inputs for soil fertility management in tropical agroecosystems: application of an organic resource database. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2001;83(1–2):27–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(00)00267-X
  19. 19. Canadell JG, Le Quéré C, Raupach MR, Field CB, Buitenhuis ET, Ciais P, et al. Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO₂ growth from economic activity, carbon intensity and efficiency of natural sinks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104(47):18866–70. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702737104
  20. 20. Lehmann J, Schroth G. Nutrient leaching. In: Schroth G, Sinclair FL, editors. Trees, crops and soil fertility: concepts and research methods. Wallingford: CABI Publishing; 2002. p. 151–66. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851995939.0151
  21. 21. Lal R. Restoring soil quality to mitigate soil degradation. Sustainability. 2015;7(5):5875–95. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7055875
  22. 22. Verchot LV, Van Noordwijk M, Kandji ST, Tomich TP, Ong CK, Albrecht A, et al. Climate change: linking adaptation and mitigation through agroforestry. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change. 2007;12(5):901–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-007-9105-6
  23. 23. Cardinael R, Mao Z, Prieto I, Stokes A, Dupraz C, Kim JH, et al. Competition with winter crops induces deeper rooting of walnut trees in a Mediterranean alley cropping agroforestry system. Plant Soil. 2015;391(1):219–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-015-2422-8
  24. 24. Young A. Agroforestry for soil management. 2nd ed. Wallingford: CAB International; 1997. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851991894.0000
  25. 25. Garrity DP. Agroforestry and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. Agrofor Syst. 2004;61(1–3):5–17. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AGFO.0000028986.37502.7c
  26. 26. Young A. Agroforestry for soil conservation. Wallingford: CAB International; 1989.
  27. 27. Simpson EH. Measurement of diversity. Nature. 1949;163(4148):688. https://doi.org/10.1038/163688a0
  28. 28. Telila H, Haji A, Tilahun A, Kumsa L. Diversity and carbon stock potential of woody plants across diverse land uses in farmscape of South East Oromia, Ethiopia. Agrofor Syst. 2026;100(1):4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-025-01383-6
  29. 29. Shannon CE. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J. 1948;27:379–423. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x
  30. 30. Wiener N. Cybernetics: or control and communication in the animal and the machine. New York: Wiley; 1948.
  31. 31. Yamada T. Effects of agroforestry systems on biodiversity and ecosystem services in subtropical agricultural landscapes. Agroecol Res. 2025;1(1):15–27.
  32. 32. Pielou EC. Shannon's formula as a measure of specific diversity: its use and misuse. Am Nat. 1966;100(914):463–5. https://doi.org/10.1086/282439
  33. 33. Ortolan E, Maciel EA, Martins VF. Biodiversity in agroforestry systems implemented in tropical ecoregions: a systematic review. J Environ Manage. 2025;382:125317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.125317
  34. 34. Margalef R. Temporal succession and spatial heterogeneity in natural phytoplankton. In: Perspectives in marine biology. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1958. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520350281-024
  35. 35. Ruticumugambi JA, Kaplin BA, Blondeel H, Mukuralinda A, Ndoli A, Verdoodt A, et al. Diversity and composition of agroforestry species in two agro-ecological zones of Rwanda. Agrofor Syst. 2024;98(6):1421–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-024-01011-9
  36. 36. Ilstedt U, Malmer A, Verbeeten E, Murdiyarso D. The effect of afforestation on water infiltration in the tropics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. For Ecol Manage. 2007;251(1–2):45–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.06.014
  37. 37. Nair PKR, Kumar BM, Nair VD. Agroforestry as a strategy for carbon sequestration. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci. 2009;172(1):10–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.200800030

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.