A bibliometric analysis of agroecological practices: trends, impacts, and future directions

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4861038/v1

Download PDF

Systematic Review

A bibliometric analysis of agroecological practices: trends, impacts, and future directions

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4861038/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Agroecological practices play a vital role in sustainable agriculture. They enhance biodiversity, improve soil health, and reduce reliance on chemical inputs, all while bolstering resilience to climate change. By promoting diverse cropping systems and engaging local communities, agroecology ensures economic viability while adapting to specific ecological contexts. This comprehensive bibliometric study, spanning from 1981 to 2024, delves into the scientific landscape of agroecological practices within the context of sustainable agriculture. It scrutinizes influential works, emerging trends, and key themes across 376 publications. Employing bibliometric techniques like co-word map analysis and network visualization, the study uncovers clusters of research topics - ranging from adoption and application to sustainable agriculture and review. Notably, it reveals the interconnectedness of concepts related to agroecology, shedding light on essential areas of interest. Furthermore, the study traces the evolution of research interests over time and identifies promising avenues for future exploration. Policymakers can leverage this insightful map to inform strategic decisions and foster collaborative efforts in agroecological research.

Agroecology

Agronomy

agroecological practices

sustainable agriculture

bibliometric analysis

VOSviewer

Agroecological practices are essential for sustainable agriculture, harmonizing human needs with ecological balance^1–3. These practices optimize local resources and knowledge, promoting biodiversity, soil health, and resilience⁴. By integrating diverse crops and livestock, farmers enhance soil vitality and manage pests naturally^1–3,5. Techniques like cover cropping and reduced tillage foster healthy soils, while agroforestry and crop rotations contribute to ecosystem stability^6–9. Agroecology adapts to local contexts, recognizing that there’s no one-size-fits-all solution^1,10,10–15. Amidst the shifting climate, agriculture faces formidable trials. Seven key factors—yield losses, water scarcity, heat stress, pests, soil health, biodiversity decline, and adaptation hurdles—demand urgent attention^16–20. Solutions lie in a blend of strategies: agroecology, climate-smart practices, and robust policies^21–24. Escalating temperatures and erratic rainfall disrupt crop and livestock yields, affecting food security and livelihoods. Heat stress takes its toll on crops, animals, and farmers. Meanwhile, evolving pest dynamics pose new challenges^{16,17,19–21,25,26}. Soil erosion, compaction, and nutrient depletion underscore the need for resilient soils. Altered ecosystems disrupt pollinators and natural balance^27–29. To thrive in this changing landscape, farmers must adapt, armed with knowledge, resources, and supportive policies^{18,21,25,26,30–35}.

While the scholarly landscape has seen its share of studies exploring the marriage between agroecological practices and sustainable agriculture, gaps persist like hidden valleys waiting to be explored^1,2,14. These gaps—fragmented analyses, a dearth of interdisciplinary perspectives, and a tendency to overlook emerging regions and innovative approaches—beckon for deeper inquiry. Enter the present research, armed with a rigorous bibliometric analysis^36–38. By untangling research themes, illuminating knowledge constellations, and pointing the way forward, this study enriches our understanding of how agroecology nurtures sustainable farming³⁹. Consider it a compass guiding future exploration.

In this comprehensive bibliometric review, our focus lies squarely on agroecological practices within the context of sustainable agriculture. By meticulously analyzing scientific publications, we aim to unveil key themes, identify influential authors and articles, map intricate knowledge networks, and trace research trends over time. Through this rigorous analysis, a panoramic understanding of the scientific landscape surrounding agroecological practices and sustainable agriculture will emerge. This newfound knowledge holds immense value for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers alike. For those engaged in agricultural development and sustainable policy formulation, our study provides invaluable insights. By synthesizing existing literature, we illuminate current knowledge, emerging trends, and critical research gaps. Practitioners, in turn, gain valuable perspectives on innovative approaches, best practices, and potential areas for intervention in promoting sustainable agriculture and agroecosystem development. Furthermore, by spotlighting knowledge networks and fostering interdisciplinary dialogue, our research seeks to address the multifaceted challenges faced by agriculture. Ultimately, the results of our study can propel scientific discourse, shape policy agendas, and contribute significantly to the global transformation of agroecosystems.

2.1. Agroecological practices

Agroecological practices encompass sustainable agricultural approaches that integrate ecological principles, local knowledge, and social dynamics¹⁴. These practices vary based on specific contexts, ecosystems, and cultural factors. Six key aspects are relevant to our discussion: crop diversity, soil health, agroforestry, water management, livestock integration, and local knowledge with participatory approaches^40,41.

Agroecology promotes diverse cropping systems, including intercropping, crop rotation, and polycultures^42–44. By incorporating various plant species, agroecological practices enhance soil health, reduce pests, and improve overall resilience^1,14,45–47. Techniques like cover cropping, reduced tillage, and organic matter incorporation contribute to soil fertility, structure, and microbial activity, supporting plant growth and efficient nutrient cycling^9,48,49.

Combining trees with crops or livestock on the same land provides benefits such as shade, windbreaks, and increased biodiversity^50–52. Agroecology also emphasizes efficient water use, rainwater harvesting, and avoiding excessive irrigation. Integrating livestock into cropping systems (e.g., rotational grazing) enhances nutrient cycling while minimizing waste^50,53–57. Furthermore, agroecology underscores farmer participation, indigenous knowledge, and community-based decision-making^58–61.

2.2. Sustainability

Sustainability encompasses the long-term well-being and coexistence on Earth, achieved through a delicate balance of environmental, economic, and social factors^62–66. These interconnected dimensions form the foundation for a resilient and harmonious world.

In the environmental dimension, sustainability addresses critical challenges such as climate change and biodiversity loss^67,68. Sustainable practices aim to reduce our ecological footprint and safeguard natural resources^69–72. Meanwhile, the economic aspect of sustainability remains a topic of debate⁷³. Scholars discuss weak and strong sustainability, recognizing the importance of economic growth while seeking ways to decouple it from environmental harm^74–76. This involves using fewer resources per unit of output while still promoting overall development.

Lastly, social sustainability ensures that people do not encounter structural barriers^77,78. It encompasses health, influence, competence, impartiality, and meaning-making⁷⁹. Emphasizing equity, social justice, and community well-being, social sustainability contributes to a holistic vision of a sustainable world^80–83.

2.3. Sustainable agriculture

Sustainable agriculture represents a holistic approach to farming, aiming to meet current food needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs^84–92. It integrates three primary goals: environmental health, economic profitability, and social equity^85,93–95.

Practices such as crop rotation, agroforestry, and organic farming play a pivotal role in maintaining soil health, reducing erosion, and enhancing biodiversity^7,96,97. By optimizing resource use and minimizing reliance on nonrenewable inputs, sustainable agriculture ensures long-term profitability⁹⁵.

Moreover, it emphasizes fair treatment and good working conditions for farmers and workers, thereby supporting local communities⁹⁸. Given its critical role in ensuring food security and environmental well-being, continued research and innovation are essential for widespread adoption of sustainable practices^32,99,100.

To comprehensively analyze scientific publications related to agroecological practices and sustainable agriculture, a systematic approach was employed. The process began by identifying relevant literature across various academic databases, including Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, Dimensions, Lens, and Google Scholar. The search strategy combined keywords and controlled vocabulary terms such as ‘agroecological practices,’ ‘sustainable agriculture,’ and associated synonyms.

The inclusion criteria encompassed peer-reviewed articles, conference proceedings, book chapters, and journals published within the specified period (1981–2024). During data extraction, bibliographic information, citation counts, author affiliations, keywords, and abstracts were recorded for each relevant publication. Subsequently, rigorous bibliometric techniques—such as co-citation analysis, citation mapping, and network visualization—were applied to the collected data.

These techniques allowed for the identification of research themes, influential authors, and knowledge clusters. By adopting this methodological approach, the study aims to provide an overview of the academic landscape concerning agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture. Furthermore, it facilitates an understanding of research trends, knowledge gaps, and emerging areas of interest.

3.1. Preparing the analysis tool

In the context of data analysis using VOSViewer, several applications come into play. Initially, we utilize the Mapping tool, sourced from the open-source application VOSViewer. Our study employs VOSViewer as a means to visually map the analyzed data. Additionally, we consider a reference management application—specifically, Publish or Perish and Zotero. These tools facilitate the collection of research data, which is subsequently subjected to bibliometric analysis using VOSViewer¹⁰¹.

3.2. Data Retrieval

In this study, journal publication data related to agroecological practices were collected using the reference management application, Publish or Perish. The application facilitated a comprehensive literature review on the chosen theme, resulting in a database of related research themes.

Publish or Perish allowed us to identify the most cited authors, determine the oldest and most recent publication years, and obtain bibliometric records for each search. Notably, the application provides multiple data sources, including Crossref, Google Scholar, Google Scholar Profile, PubMed, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, and Web of Science¹⁰¹. For our analysis, we utilized Google Scholar data.

3.3. Research Data Mapping

In this study, the digital mapping application VOSviewer was employed to map the data. After processing the data to align with the desired keywords, it was input into VOSviewer, which generated an interconnected data map.

Researchers utilize scientometric analysis to advance agricultural sustainability. This approach evaluates published literature, examining new research directions, temporal development, and geographical and institutional distribution¹⁰². Additionally, the study incorporated a three-stage bibliometric analysis¹⁰³.

Step 1 - The Scientific Mapping Tool

In the context of literature mapping, the present study opted for VOSviewer version 1.6.18 from a plethora of scientific software tools available, including CitNetExplorer, CiteSpace, Gephi, BibExcel, and VantagePoint. VOSviewer, an open-source software, stands out due to its multifaceted capabilities—from bibliometric network visualization to scientific network mapping^104,105. Researchers across various domains, including^104,106,107 have leveraged VOSviewer for scientometric analyses. Notably, VOSviewer prioritizes the visualization of bibliographic networks over other programs that analyze text units and similarity matrices¹⁰⁸. Its interactive nature allows hands-on exploration of bibliometric network data, including citation counts and correlations between key concepts and phrases. Additionally, researchers can directly input bibliographic records from Scopus, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and PubMed into VOSviewer¹⁰⁹. Given its unique features and widespread adoption, VOSviewer proves relevant and valuable for achieving the study’s objectives.

Step 2 - Retrieval of the bibliometric data

In this study, we selected a suitable database for retrieving bibliometric data related to agroecological practices that promote sustainable agriculture. The main search engine used was Publish or Perish in conjunction with Google Scholar. Publish or Perish provides access to a comprehensive citation and abstract database that continues to expand and enrich the literature.

During this phase of the study, we extracted and analyzed bibliometric data from Publish or Perish. To obtain information on agroecological practices within the field of agroecology, we employed keywords such as ‘practices,’ ‘agroecology,’ ‘sustainability,’ ‘agriculture,’ and ‘agroecological.’ Our search was not restricted by temporal limitations, resulting in 376 relevant publications retrieved as of July 20, 2024. We focused on English-language articles and journals, ensuring the inclusion of high-quality, relevant literature related to agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture. The bibliometric data was downloaded in CSV and RIS formats.

Step 3 - Procedure of the analysis

To systematically map the current literature on agroecological practices promoting sustainable agriculture, we integrated the CSV file into VOSViewer. After importing the data, we generated maps and tables for analysis. These visual representations evaluate key journals, co-occurrence networks, co-authors, productive countries, main keywords, and citation patterns related to documents on agroecological practices.

Using VOSViewer’s ‘Create a map from text data’ function, we constructed a text-data map to reveal keyword co-occurrence clusters. While the initial colors in the figure suggest several clusters, further exploration of the VOSViewer results may unveil additional hidden clusters. Notably, previous studies, such as³⁸, have successfully employed text mapping to extract core clusters in research on ‘sustainable agriculture’ and ‘rural development.’ The article concludes by discussing the existing literature.

4.1. Research Data Matriks

According to Google Scholar’s database, research on agroecological practices has been a recurring topic over the past 43 years (from 1981 to 2024). During this period, a total of 376 research papers were published, receiving a cumulative 4048 citations. On average, each paper received approximately 94 citations per year. The average number of papers per author was 161.31, reflecting author productivity. The h-index, which measures research impact, stands at 27, indicating that there are 27 papers with at least 27 citations each. Additionally, the g-index considers the cumulative impact of the top g papers, with g being 60 in this case. On average, there were approximately 3.22 authors per paper. The normalized h-index, accounting for citation distribution across papers, is 13. The annual h-index, reflecting changes over time, is 0.3. Finally, the distribution of papers based on the number of authors shows that 112 papers had a single author, while 84 had two authors (Table 1). These metrics collectively provide insights into the productivity, impact, and collaboration in research related to agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture. Policymakers should monitor emerging trends and adapt policies accordingly.

Table 1

Research data metrics.
Publication years	1981–2024
Citation years	43 (1981–2024)
Paper	376
Citations	4048
Cites/year	94.14
Cites/paper	10.77
Cites/author	1115.07
Papers/author	161.31
Author/paper	3.22
h-index	27
g-index	60
hI,norm	13
hI,annual	0.3
hA-index	11
Papers with ACC	1,2,5,10,20:112,84,37,11,4

Source: Publish or Perish Output, 2024.

4.2. Continuing to publish on agroecological practices

The solid green line in the graph represents the trend in the frequency of publishing on agroecological practices over the years (Fig. 1). Overall, the curve exhibits an upward trajectory, indicating a growing interest in agroecological practices. Notably, there is a significant surge in publications after 2010. The dotted trend line follows the equation: y = 0.7588x − 893.76, where ‘x’ represents the year of publication, and ‘y’ represents the number of publications. The positive coefficient (0.7588) suggests that the number of publications tends to increase annually. The R² value (coefficient of determination) stands at 0.5625, indicating a moderate fit for the trend line. This graph provides insights into productivity, impact, and collaboration in research related to sustainable agriculture through agroecological practices. The upward trend suggests a growing interest and development in this field.

The upward trend in agroecological research signifies a growing commitment to sustainable agriculture. Policymakers should delve into the reasons behind this surge, considering targeted support for agroecological studies during this pivotal period. Engaging with researchers will help policymakers understand the real-world impact of these publications on policy formulation. Furthermore, the collaborative efforts among authors underscore the need for interdisciplinary approaches to tackle complex agricultural challenges effectively. Policymakers can leverage this positive trend to advocate for increased funding, capacity-building, and widespread knowledge dissemination in agroecology. By fostering research networks and encouraging cross-sectoral collaboration, policymakers contribute to a resilient and ecologically sound food system.

4.3. Network visualization

The map visually represents the interconnectedness of agroecological concepts, providing researchers with a navigational guide through the landscape of agroecological practices. At its center, the large red text emphasizes “agroecological practice” as the core theme. Surrounding this central node, related terms - such as “agroecology,” “system,” “soil,” “sustainable agriculture,” and “management practice”- are connected by lines. These color-coded clusters (five in total) highlight key areas of interest and explore connections between concepts. Overall, the map serves as a valuable tool for understanding the relationships within agroecological research.

The map displays various colors, each representing a cluster of related topics frequently associated with the literature (Fig. 2).

Cluster 1 (Red): This central and significant cluster revolves around “agroecological practices.” Related terms include “adoption,” “agroecological farming practice,” “agroecology,” “case,” and “context.” It suggests a focus on adoption processes and innovative aspects within contextual agroecological practices.

Cluster 2 (Green): The green cluster includes terms like “agroecological zone,” “farming practice,” “management practice,” “soil,” and “system.” It emphasizes management practices, soil dynamics, and their relationship to farming practices.

Cluster 3 (Blue), represented by blue, this cluster contains “agroecological system” and “application.” It implies the practical application of agroecological principles within agroecosystems.

Cluster 4: This smaller cluster combines “example” and “field.”

Cluster 5 (Purple), The purple cluster features “review” and “sustainable agriculture.”

The map visually highlights the interconnectedness of concepts related to agroecological practices, aiding in identifying key themes and areas of interest.

The concept map serves as a valuable navigational tool for researchers, allowing them to explore the intricate landscape of agroecological practices. Policymakers can also benefit from this visual representation, gaining a comprehensive understanding of the depth and breadth of agroecological research. At the heart of this map lies the central node labeled ‘agroecological practice,’ which serves as a pivotal theme. Policymakers should recognize it as the foundation for sustainable agricultural approaches. Focusing on adoption processes and innovative practices within specific contexts is essential. Understanding adoption dynamics informs effective policy implementation. Additionally, policymakers must consider soil health and its impact on farming systems. Sustainable soil management plays a critical role in ensuring long-term agricultural resilience. Encouraging the practical application of agroecological principles within agroecosystems ensures that research findings translate into actionable policies.

Policymakers can derive context-specific knowledge from real-world examples and field studies, which inform evidence-based decision-making. To prioritize sustainability in agriculture, regular reviews of agroecological practices are essential. Policymakers should remain informed and adapt policies accordingly. Recognizing the interconnectedness of these clusters is crucial. Effective policies require a holistic consideration of multiple dimensions within agroecology. In summary, policymakers can leverage this concept map to shape policies that promote sustainable agricultural practices, foster innovation, and enhance ecosystem resilience.

4.4. Overlay visualization

The central focus of this visualization is "agroecological practice." The network map includes a timeline that illustrates the evolution of research interests or focus areas related to agroecology over time. The timeline spans from 2015 to 2020, with colors ranging from blue to red, indicating the prominence of different terms in the research literature during specific periods. Surrounding the central node, we encounter related terms such as "System" (referring to agroecosystems and their components), "Adoption" (highlighting adoption aspects of agroecological practices), "Application" (indicating practical implementation), "Soil" (emphasizing soil health within agroecology), and "Sustainable agriculture" (an overarching goal) (Fig. 3).

The color gradient - from blue (earlier years) to red (more recent years) - suggests a temporal aspect. It indicates how these terms have been associated over time within the field of agroecological practices. As a result, 6 years were detected: 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020.

In 2015, the darkest blue nodes in the visualization highlighted areas that were highly relevant during that year. Terms like “agroecological zone,” “management practice,” and “sustainable agriculture” likely represent foundational research topics at the outset of this period. This suggests that early research efforts focused on establishing the principles of agroecological zones, understanding their management practices, and exploring the implications of sustainable agriculture. The concept of sustainable agriculture serves as the overarching goal within agroecological practices.

Moving to 2016, the transition from dark blue to sky blue nodes indicates a shift in focus. Topics such as “example” and “review” emerge, building upon the foundational work from 2015.

By 2017, represented by true green nodes, research appears to solidify around the practical implementation of agroecological practices. Terms related to “field” and “application” gain prominence, emphasizing real-world application.

Approaching 2018, we observe a mix of green and yellow nodes, suggesting an evolution toward understanding agroecology as a whole. Concepts like “agroecological system” and simply “system” indicate an interest in studying agricultural systems, likely referring to agroecosystems and their various components.

In 2019, the colors in the visualization range from orange to vivid red. Key topics include “farming practice,” “agroecological farming practice,” “soil,” and “agroecological practice.” This period marked a significant surge in interest and emphasis on agroecological practices, particularly highlighting soil health within the context of agroecology.

By 2020, the visualization predominantly features red nodes, signifying a culmination or the current frontier of research interests. Notably, terms like “case” and “context” stand out, suggesting a strong interest in understanding how contextual factors contribute to or enhance the adoption of agroecological practices. Towards the end of this period, research appears to have shifted towards integrating and emphasizing adoption aspects within the field of agroecology.

Overall, this visualization provides an insightful overview of how interconnected concepts related to agroecological practices have evolved based on literature data.

The color gradient from blue to red represents a temporal dimension, illustrating how certain terms have gained prominence over time in agroecological research. Policymakers should acknowledge the field’s evolution and recognize that specific concepts have become central recently. The central node labeled ‘agroecological practice’ serves as the foundation, encompassing various aspects of sustainable agricultural practices. Policymakers must consider the interconnectedness of terms, including agroecosystems, adoption, practical implementation, soil health, and the overarching goal of sustainable agriculture. By leveraging this concept map, policymakers can identify gaps, adapt policies, and foster interdisciplinary collaboration. Ultimately, evidence-based policies can promote innovation and enhance ecosystem resilience.

In 2015, the darkest blue nodes in the visualization highlighted areas that were highly relevant during that year. Terms like ‘agroecological zone,’ ‘management practice,’ and ‘sustainable agriculture’ likely represent foundational research topics at the outset of this period. This suggests that early research efforts focused on establishing the principles of agroecological zones, understanding their management practices, and exploring the implications of sustainable agriculture. Policymakers should appreciate the significance of delineating agroecological zones, considering local contexts, ecological factors, and socio-economic conditions. Policies can encourage tailored approaches based on specific zones. Recognizing the importance of effective management practices within agroecosystems is crucial, as these practices impact productivity, resilience, and sustainability. Policymakers should view sustainable agriculture as the overarching goal, encompassing ecological, economic, and social dimensions. Policies should align with long-term sustainability, considering both environmental and human well-being. Allocating resources to foundational research areas and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration can enhance management practices. Ultimately, policies should promote sustainable practices that align with the broader goal of sustainable agriculture.

As the nodes transition from dark blue to sky blue, there is a noticeable shift in research focus. Policymakers should acknowledge that the field has evolved beyond foundational concepts. Terms like ‘example’ and ‘review’ indicate a move toward practical applications and critical assessments. Policymakers can explore how real-world examples—such as successful case studies and demonstrations—are being utilized. Encouraging the dissemination of these examples can inspire the adoption of agroecological practices. The emergence of ‘review’ signals a growing interest in synthesizing existing knowledge. Policymakers should value literature reviews and support systematic analyses to inform evidence-based policies. Collaboration between researchers and practitioners is essential for creating practical examples. Prioritizing critical reviews ensures that policies align with the latest research findings. In summary, policymakers can leverage this transition to refine policies, emphasizing practical examples and evidence-based reviews within agroecological practices.

The transition from dark blue to true green nodes in 2017 signifies a shift toward practical implementation within agroecological research. Policymakers should recognize that efforts are now emphasizing real-world application rather than theoretical discussions. Terms related to ‘field’ and ‘application’ gain prominence, indicating a move beyond controlled environments. The term ‘field’ implies research conducted in actual agricultural settings, while ‘application’ reflects a desire to translate findings into actionable practices. Policymakers can encourage agroecological principles’ adoption on farms. Supporting field trials and demonstrations validates these practices. Policies should incentivize farmers, considering local contexts and ecological factors. Collaboration with practitioners and extension services is crucial for successful implementation. In summary, policymakers can leverage this practical focus to shape policies promoting agroecological practices, fostering sustainability and resilience.

As we transition to 2018, a mix of green and yellow nodes suggests an evolution toward understanding agroecology as a whole. Policymakers should recognize that research now considers broader contexts beyond individual practices. Concepts like ‘agroecological system’ and simply ‘system’ indicate an interest in studying agricultural systems as interconnected entities. Policymakers must appreciate the significance of agroecosystems—the dynamic interactions between crops, livestock, soil, water, and biodiversity. Understanding system components (such as crop rotations, nutrient cycling, and pest management) informs effective policies. Encouraging interdisciplinary research that examines entire agroecosystems is crucial. Ultimately, policies can promote sustainable practices that enhance system resilience and productivity. Collaboration with experts in ecology, agronomy, and socio-economic aspects is essential. In summary, policymakers can leverage this holistic perspective to shape policies addressing complex agricultural challenges, considering the interconnectedness of agroecological systems.

The transition to vivid red nodes in 2019 signifies heightened interest in agroecological practices. Policymakers should acknowledge this surge. Terms like ‘farming practice’ and ‘agroecological farming practice’ underscore the importance of sustainable approaches. Prioritizing soil health within the context of agroecology is crucial. Healthy soils form the foundation for resilient and productive agricultural systems. Policies should encourage practices that enhance soil fertility, reduce erosion, and promote biodiversity. Allocating resources to research and extension services that promote agroecological practices is essential. Incentivizing farmers to adopt soil-friendly techniques (such as cover cropping and reduced tillage) is a key policy goal. Collaboration with soil scientists, agronomists, and local communities ensures effective implementation. In summary, policymakers should seize this momentum to shape policies fostering sustainable farming practices, with a strong emphasis on soil health.

As we approach 2020, the visualization predominantly features red nodes, signifying a culmination or the current frontier of research interests. Notably, terms like ‘case’ and ‘context’ stand out, suggesting a strong interest in understanding how contextual factors contribute to or enhance the adoption of agroecological practices. Towards the end of this period, research appears to have shifted towards integrating and emphasizing adoption aspects within the field of agroecology. Policymakers should recognize that the field has matured, and key themes are now well-established. Understanding contextual factors—such as local conditions, socio-economic context, and cultural nuances—is crucial for successful adoption. Therefore, policies should prioritize facilitating adoption by addressing barriers, providing incentives, and considering farmer perspectives. Collaboration with extension services allows tailored recommendations for specific contexts, while incentivizing farmers through subsidies, training, and knowledge-sharing enhances adoption. Ultimately, integrating adoption research into broader sustainability goals ensures effective policy implementation. In summary, policymakers should seize this momentum to shape evidence-based policies that drive sustainable agricultural practices forward, emphasizing both context and adoption.

4.5. Citation analysis

The table presents various literature works alongside their corresponding citation scores, which serve as indicators of impact and relevance within the scientific community. Notably, these scores span a range from 1278 (the highest) to 57 (the lowest). For instance: (i) A. Wezel, M. Casagrande, F. Celette: Their work titled “Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture: A review” achieved an impressive citation score of 1278 in 2014; (ii) J.F. Vian, K. Hell, K.F. Cardwell: Their study on aflatoxin contamination in maize across different agroecological zones in Benin received a citation score of 537 in 2000; (iii) P. Romero, J.M. Navarro, P.B. Ordaz: Their research explored deficit irrigation strategies and agroecological practices in Mediterranean vineyards, earning a score of 110 in 2017 (Table 2).

Over time, the research landscape evolved: (i) in 2015, foundational topics centered around “agroecological zone,” “management practice,” and “sustainable agriculture.” By 2016, the focus shifted towards themes like “example” and “review.” In 2017, practical implementation related to fields and applications gained prominence. The subsequent years saw an evolution towards understanding agroecological systems (2018), emphasizing soil health within agroecology (2019), and exploring context and adoption aspects (2020). This table provides valuable insights into influential research trends related to agroecological practices.

Table 2

Top 10 impactful literatures.
Cites	Authors	Title	Year
1278	A Wezel, M Casagrande, F Celette, JF Vian…	Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture. A review	2014
537	K Hell, KF Cardwell, M Setamou…	The influence of storage practices on aflatoxin contamination in maize in four agroecological zones of Benin, West Africa	2000
110	P Romero, JM Navarro, PB Ordaz	Towards a sustainable viticulture: The combination of deficit irrigation strategies and agroecological practices in Mediterranean vineyards. A review and update	2022
94	S Palomo-Campesino, JA González, M García-Llorente	Exploring the connections between agroecological practices and ecosystem services: A systematic literature review	2018
82	Y Amekawa, H Sseguya, S Onzere…	Delineating the multifunctional role of agroecological practices: toward sustainable livelihoods for smallholder farmers in developing countries	2010
73	E Revilla, E Alonso, V Kovac	The content of catechins and procyanidins in grapes and wines as affected by agroecological factors and technological practices	1997
72	M Garcia, B Condori, CD Castillo	Agroecological and agronomic cultural practices of quinoa in South America	2015
62	I Bertrand, V Viaud, T Daufresne, S Pellerin…	Stoichiometry constraints challenge the potential of agroecological practices for the soil C storage. A review	2019
59	P Antwi-Agyei, EM Abalo, AJ Dougill…	… to the adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices by smallholder farmers: Evidence from the transitional and savannah agroecological zones of Ghana	2021
59	AM Abdallah, HS Jat, M Choudhary, EF Abdelaty…	Conservation agriculture effects on soil water holding capacity and water-saving varied with management practices and agroecological conditions: A Review	2021
57	C Bessou, A Verwilghen, L Beaudouin-Ollivier…	Agroecological practices in oil palm plantations: examples from the field	2017
57	V Gkisakis, N Volakakis, D Kollaros, P Bàrberi…	Soil arthropod community in the olive agroecosystem: Determined by environment and farming practices in different management systems and agroecological zones	2016

Source: Publish or Perish Output, 2024.

Policymakers should recognize that citation scores reflect the impact and relevance of scientific works. High scores (e.g., 1278) indicate influential research that has shaped the field, while lower scores (e.g., 57) may represent less widely cited studies. Notably, A. Wezel, M. Casagrande, F. Celette’s review on “Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture” garnered substantial attention (1278 citations in 2014). Policymakers can consider its findings for policy formulation. Additionally, J.F. Vian, K. Hell, K.F. Cardwell’s study on aflatoxin contamination (537 citations in 2000) highlights a critical issue, making policies addressing food safety and crop protection highly relevant. Furthermore, P. Romero, J.M. Navarro, P.B. Ordaz’s research on deficit irrigation and agroecological practices (110 citations in 2017) informs water management policies. In summary, policymakers should leverage both high-impact reviews and context-specific studies to shape evidence-based policies promoting sustainable agricultural practices.

Policymakers should recognize the dynamic evolution of research interests over time. From foundational concepts (2015) to practical implementation (2017) and context-specific adoption (2020), the field has matured. Notably, the prominence of terms like “agroecological zone,” “management practice,” and “sustainable agriculture” in 2015 highlights foundational topics. Subsequently, the shift towards “example” and “review” in 2016 indicates a move towards practical applications and critical assessments. Furthermore, understanding agroecological systems (2018) and emphasizing soil health (2019) are crucial for sustainable practices. Policymakers can allocate resources based on these trends, supporting foundational research and practical examples, prioritizing soil health initiatives, and tailoring policies to specific contexts to foster adoption. In summary, agroecology research has made significant progress, and policymakers should integrate these insights to drive sustainable agricultural practices forward.

4.6. Density visualization

The color-coded word map density visualization depicts various terms associated with agricultural practices. At its center, the phrase “agroecological practice system” stands out prominently in red and yellow tones, indicating its high density or frequency within the dataset. This term likely represents a fundamental concept in the context of sustainable farming practices (Fig. 4).

Around this central phrase, we encounter other relevant words:

Adoption: Highlighted in blue, suggesting its relevance, albeit with less frequent occurrence.
Application: Also, in blue, emphasizing practical implementation.
Sustainable agriculture: Represented in green, signifying an overarching goal.
Review: Another blue term, indicating scholarly examination.

The varying colors and their intensity provide insights into the interconnectedness of these terms within the literature or data analyzed. Overall, this visualization visually represents the relationships and prominence of concepts related to agroecological practices.

Policymakers should recognize that color intensity reflects term relevance. Blue terms (like “adoption” and “review”) are relevant but occur less frequently. Green (“sustainable agriculture”) signifies an overarching goal. Notably, prioritizing policies that encourage farmers to adopt agroecological practices is crucial. Additionally, practical implementation matters, and policies should facilitate on-farm application. Policymakers must align policies with long-term sustainability goals, considering soil health, biodiversity, and ecosystem resilience. Collaborating with researchers and practitioners ensures effective policy implementation. In summary, policymakers should integrate these insights to drive sustainable agricultural practices forward.

This study, with its analytical focus on trends, impacts, and future directions for agroecological practices, underscores the effectiveness of VOSviewer as a mapping tool for bibliometric data. By analyzing data extracted from the Google Scholar database via Publish or Perish, the study examined 376 documents spanning the years from 1981 to 2024. Collectively, these parameters shed light on research productivity, impact, and collaboration in sustainable agriculture through agroecological practices. The fluctuating publication trends over time reflect the dynamic landscape of research interest and development in this field. Notably, the upward trajectory indicates a growing emphasis on agroecological practices. The network visualization reveals five distinct groups within the research map. At its core lies “agro-ecological practice,” surrounded by interconnected terms like “agroecology,” “system,” “soil,” “sustainable agriculture,” and “management practice.” These groups highlight key areas of interest and illuminate the connections between concepts. Policymakers can leverage this map to inform strategic decisions and foster collaborative efforts in agroecological research.

Acknowledgments

Les auteurs remercient tous les reviseurs pour avoir ménager aucun effort pour l’amélioration de ce papier.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Wezel, A. et al. Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 34, 1–20 (2014).
Boutagayout, A., Belmalha, S., Rehali, M., Nassiri, L. & Bouiamrine, E. H. Agroecology as Agricultural Practices for Sustainable Management in North African Countries. Int. J. Plant Prod. 17, 389–436 (2023).
Wezel, A. Agroecological Practices For Sustainable Agriculture: Principles, Applications, And Making The Transition. (World Scientific, 2017).
Chimi, P. M. et al. Factors affecting decision-making to strengthen climate resilience of smallholder farms in the Centre Region of Cameroon. Clim. Smart Agric. 100004 (2024).
George, P. T. & Jafri, A. Handbook on agroecology: farmer’s manual on sustainable practices. (2014).
Quintarelli, V. et al. Cover crops for sustainable cropping systems: a review. Agriculture 12, 2076 (2022).
Tully, K. L. & McAskill, C. Promoting soil health in organically managed systems: a review. Org. Agric. 10, 339–358 (2020).
Rehman, A., Farooq, M., Lee, D.-J. & Siddique, K. H. M. Sustainable agricultural practices for food security and ecosystem services. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 29, 84076–84095 (2022).
Scavo, A. et al. The role of cover crops in improving soil fertility and plant nutritional status in temperate climates. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 42, 93 (2022).
Sachet, E. et al. Agroecological Transitions: A Systematic Review of Research Approaches and Prospects for Participatory Action Methods. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 5, (2021).
Gliessman, S. R., Méndez, V. E., Izzo, V. M. & Engles, E. W. Agroecology: Leading the Transformation to a Just and Sustainable Food System. (CRC Press, 2022).
Dumont, A. M., Wartenberg, A. C. & Baret, P. V. Bridging the gap between the agroecological ideal and its implementation into practice. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 41, 32 (2021).
Liere, H., Jha, S. & Philpott, S. M. Intersection between biodiversity conservation, agroecology, and ecosystem services. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 41, 723–760 (2017).
Wezel, A. et al. Agroecological principles and elements and their implications for transitioning to sustainable food systems. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 40, 40 (2020).
Wezel, A. et al. Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 29, 503–515 (2009).
Kar, S. K., Sharma, A., Kar, S. & Dey, A. Impact on Agricultural Crop Production Under Climate Change Scenario. in Technological Approaches for Climate Smart Agriculture (eds. Kumar, P. & Aishwarya) 109–132 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2024). doi:10.1007/978-3-031-52708-1_6.
He, L. & Rosa, L. Solutions to agricultural green water scarcity under climate change. PNAS Nexus 2, pgad117 (2023).
Teixeira, E., Fischer, G., van Velthuizen, H. T., Walter, C. & Ewert, F. Global hot-spots of heat stress on agricultural crops due to climate change. Agric. For. Meteorol. 170, 206–215 (2013).
Kaushik, K., Tare, K., Sherpa, T. L. & Baruah, K. Unveiling Indigenous Traditional Knowledge (ITKs) Using Different Available Plants by the Local People of South Sikkim, India. Int. J. Plant Soil Sci. 35, 605–616 (2023).
Ahmad, Z. et al. Climate Change and Global Crop Production. in Climate-Resilient Agriculture, Vol 1: Crop Responses and Agroecological Perspectives (ed. Hasanuzzaman, M.) 27–56 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2023). doi:10.1007/978-3-031-37424-1_2.
Belmin, R., Paulin, M. & Malézieux, E. Adapting agriculture to climate change: which pathways behind policy initiatives? Agron. Sustain. Dev. 43, 59 (2023).
Saj, S., Torquebiau, E., Hainzelin, E., Pages, J. & Maraux, F. The way forward: An agroecological perspective for Climate-Smart Agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 250, 20–24 (2017).
Hellin, J., Fisher, E., Taylor, M., Bhasme, S. & Loboguerrero, A. M. Transformative adaptation: from climate-smart to climate-resilient agriculture. CABI Agric. Biosci. 4, 30 (2023).
Sileshi, G. W., Dagar, J. C., Nath, A. J. & Kuntashula, E. Agroforestry as a Climate-Smart Agriculture: Strategic Interventions, Current Practices and Policies. in Agroforestry for Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture in Asia and Africa (eds. Dagar, J. C., Gupta, S. R. & Sileshi, G. W.) 589–640 (Springer Nature, Singapore, 2023). doi:10.1007/978-981-19-4602-8_18.
Skendžić, S., Zovko, M., Živković, I. P., Lešić, V. & Lemić, D. The Impact of Climate Change on Agricultural Insect Pests. Insects 12, 440 (2021).
Verma, S. et al. Novel approaches to mitigate heat stress impacts on crop growth and development. Plant Physiol. Rep. 25, 627–644 (2020).
Trunschke, J. et al. Effects of climate change on plant-pollinator interactions and its multitrophic consequences. Alp. Bot. (2024) doi:10.1007/s00035-024-00316-w.
Nakweya, G. Climate-induced decline in pollinators threatens key tropical crops. Nat. Afr. (2023) doi:10.1038/d44148-023-00320-y.
Jamieson, M. A., Trowbridge, A. M., Raffa, K. F. & Lindroth, R. L. Consequences of Climate Warming and Altered Precipitation Patterns for Plant-Insect and Multitrophic Interactions. Plant Physiol. 160, 1719–1727 (2012).
Renaudeau, D. et al. Adaptation to hot climate and strategies to alleviate heat stress in livestock production. Animal 6, 707–728 (2012).
Stringer, L. C. et al. Adaptation and development pathways for different types of farmers. Environ. Sci. Policy 104, 174–189 (2020).
Rizzo, G., Migliore, G., Schifani, G. & Vecchio, R. Key factors influencing farmers’ adoption of sustainable innovations: a systematic literature review and research agenda. Org. Agric. 14, 57–84 (2024).
Baumgard, L. H. et al. Impact of climate change on livestock production. in Environmental Stress and Amelioration in Livestock Production vol. 9783642292057 413–468 (Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2012).
Grossi, G., Goglio, P., Vitali, A. & Williams, A. G. Livestock and climate change: impact of livestock on climate and mitigation strategies. Anim. Front. 9, 69–76 (2019).
Chimi, P. M. et al. Climate change perception and local adaptation of natural resource management in a farming community of Cameroon: A case study. Environ. Chall. 8, 100539 (2022).
Bhandari, S., Yadav, B., Yadav, P. K., Lahutiya, V. & Koirala, S. Exploring Agroecological Approaches for Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development: A Comprehensive Review. Asian J. Res. Agric. For. 10, 79–90 (2024).
Baldanov, A., Kiminami, L. & Furuzawa, S. Literature Review on Human Development, Human Capital, Agriculture and Rural Development. in Agriculture and Rural Development in Russia Since the 2000s 7–13 (Springer Singapore, Singapore, 2020). doi:10.1007/978-981-15-4665-5_2.
Rusdiyana, E., Sutrisno, E. & Harsono, I. A Bibliometric Review of Sustainable Agriculture in Rural Development. West Sci. Interdiscip. Stud. 2, 630–637 (2024).
Chimi, P. M. et al. Indigenous agroecological knowledge and practices for climate change adaptation in the forest-savanna transition zone at Batchenga in the Centre Region of Cameroon. Available SSRN 4854172 (2024).
Martin, G. et al. Crop–livestock integration beyond the farm level: a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 36, 53 (2016).
Peterson, C. A., Bell, L. W., Carvalho, P. C. de F. & Gaudin, A. C. M. Resilience of an Integrated Crop–Livestock System to Climate Change: A Simulation Analysis of Cover Crop Grazing in Southern Brazil. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4, (2020).
Yang, X. et al. Diversifying crop rotation increases food production, reduces net greenhouse gas emissions and improves soil health. Nat. Commun. 15, 198 (2024).
Mazzafera, P., Favarin, J. L. & Andrade, S. A. L. de. Editorial: Intercropping Systems in Sustainable Agriculture. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 5, (2021).
Tang, Y., Qiu, Y., Li, Y., Xu, H. & Li, X.-F. Research on intercropping from 1995 to 2021: a worldwide bibliographic review. Plant Soil (2024) doi:10.1007/s11104-024-06542-9.
Altieri, M. A., Nicholls, C. I., Henao, A. & Lana, M. A. Agroecology and the design of climate change-resilient farming systems. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 35, 869–890 (2015).
Adedibu, P. A. Ecological problems of agriculture: impacts and sustainable solutions <br/> <br/> <br/>. Sci. Prepr. (2023) doi:10.14293/PR2199.000145.v1.
Sintim, H. Y., Shahzad, K. & Yin, X. Editorial: Innovative agricultural practices to improve soil health and sustain food production. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 6, (2022).
Gabasawa, A. I., Abubakar, G. A. & Obemah, D. N. Soil Regeneration and Microbial Community on Terrestrial Food Chain. in Prospects for Soil Regeneration and Its Impact on Environmental Protection (eds. Aransiola, S. A., Babaniyi, B. R., Aransiola, A. B. & Maddela, N. R.) 243–267 (Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2024). doi:10.1007/978-3-031-53270-2_11.
Sousa, R. N. de, Moreira, L. A., Sousa, R. N. de & Moreira, L. A. Plant Nutrition Optimization: Integrated Soil Management and Fertilization Practices. in Strategic Tillage and Soil Management - New Perspectives (IntechOpen, 2024). doi:10.5772/intechopen.114848.
Hastings Silao, Z., Ocloo, X. S., Chapman, M., Hunt, L. & Stenger, K. Trends in agroforestry research over 4 decades. Elem. Sci. Anthr. 11, 00151 (2023).
Marie-Laure, A.-G. Agroforestry in the European Union. (2020).
Castle, S. E., Miller, D. C., Merten, N., Ordonez, P. J. & Baylis, K. Evidence for the impacts of agroforestry on ecosystem services and human well-being in high-income countries: a systematic map. Environ. Evid. 11, 10 (2022).
Rodrigues, A. M., Formiga, K. T. M. & Milograna, J. Integrated systems for rainwater harvesting and greywater reuse: a systematic review of urban water management strategies. Water Supply 23, 4112–4125 (2023).
Velasco-Muñoz, J. F., Aznar-Sánchez, J. A., Batlles-delaFuente, A. & Fidelibus, M. D. Rainwater Harvesting for Agricultural Irrigation: An Analysis of Global Research. Water 11, 1320 (2019).
Nikzaad, R. M., Nusrathali, N., Nikzaad, R. M. & Nusrathali, N. Integrating Livestock and Crop Systems for Enhanced Productivity and Grassland Conservation in Developing Countries. in Grasslands - Conservation and Development (IntechOpen, 2023). doi:10.5772/intechopen.113109.
Wartalska, K. et al. The Potential of RainWater Harvesting Systems in Europe – Current State of Art and Future Perspectives. Water Resour. Manag. (2024) doi:10.1007/s11269-024-03882-0.
Pantera, Α., Mosquera-Losada, M. R., Herzog, F. & den Herder, M. Agroforestry and the environment. Agrofor. Syst. 95, 767–774 (2021).
Maughan, C. & Anderson, C. R. “A shared human endeavor”: farmer participation and knowledge co-production in agroecological research. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 7, (2023).
Smith, G., Chowenga, M. & Karsters, J. Local knowledge matters: understanding the decision-making processes of communities under climate change in Suriname. Front. Clim. 5, (2024).
Bisht, I. S. et al. Agroecological Approach to Farming for Sustainable Development: The Indian Scenario. in Biodiversity of Ecosystems (IntechOpen, 2021). doi:10.5772/intechopen.100281.
Price, M. J. et al. Agroecology in the North: Centering Indigenous food sovereignty and land stewardship in agriculture “frontiers”. Agric. Hum. Values 39, 1191–1206 (2022).
Hundloe, T. Sustainability Perspectives: Ecological, Economic and Social. in Environmental Impact Assessment: Incorporating Sustainability Principles (ed. Hundloe, T.) 49–80 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2021). doi:10.1007/978-3-030-80942-3_3.
Babu, G. & Satya, S. Understanding the Inherent Interconnectedness and other Salient Characteristics of Nature crucial for Sustainability. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 26, 2493–2505 (2024).
Laurent, É. Prologue: From Economic to Holistic Sustainability. in Toward Social-Ecological Well-Being: Rethinking Sustainability Economics for the 21st Century (ed. Laurent, É.) 1–15 (Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2023). doi:10.1007/978-3-031-38989-4_1.
Vivien, S. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: BALANCING ECONOMIC PROSPERITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS. Sustain. Dev. 24, (2023).
Huete-Alcocer, N., López-Ruiz, V. R., Alfaro-Navarro, J. L. & Nevado-Peña, D. The Role of Environmental, Economic, and Social Dimensions of Sustainability in the Quality of Life in Spain. Appl. Res. Qual. Life (2024) doi:10.1007/s11482-024-10317-w.
Wudu, K., Abegaz, A., Ayele, L. & Ybabe, M. The impacts of climate change on biodiversity loss and its remedial measures using nature based conservation approach: a global perspective. Biodivers. Conserv. 32, 3681–3701 (2023).
Weiskopf, S. R. et al. Biodiversity loss reduces global terrestrial carbon storage. Nat. Commun. 15, 4354 (2024).
Chakraborty, T. & Thakur, B. K. Ecological Footprint and Sustainable Development: A Two Way Approach. in Affordable and Clean Energy (eds. Leal Filho, W., Azul, A. M., Brandli, L., Özuyar, P. G. & Wall, T.) 1–9 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2019). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-71057-0_41-1.
Galli, A., Lin, D., Wackernagel, M., Gressot, M. & Winkler, S. Humanity’s growing Ecological Footprint: sustainable development implications. Glob. Footpr. Netw. (2015).
Wiedmann, T. & Barrett, J. A Review of the Ecological Footprint Indicator—Perceptions and Methods. Sustainability 2, 1645–1693 (2010).
Gonzalez-Redin, J., Gordon, I. J., Polhill, J. G., Dawson, T. P. & Hill, R. Navigating Sustainability: Revealing Hidden Forces in Social–Ecological Systems. Sustainability 16, 1132 (2024).
Wilson, J. Ecological Footprint. in Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research (ed. Maggino, F.) 1967–1971 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2023). doi:10.1007/978-3-031-17299-1_3333.
Hediger, W. Weak and Strong Sustainability, Environmental Conservation and Economic Growth. Nat. Resour. Model. 19, 359–394 (2006).
Neumayer, E. Weak Versus Strong Sustainability: Exploring the Limits of Two Opposing Paradigms. (Edward Elgar, 2013).
Islar, M., Koch, M., Raphael, R. & Paulsson, A. Degrowth: a path to transformative solutions for socio-ecological sustainability. Glob. Sustain. 7, e20 (2024).
Social Sustainability in Unsustainable Society: Concepts, Critiques and Counter-Narratives. vol. 67 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2023).
Miller, F. The best books on social sustainability. Shepherd https://shepherd.com/best-books/social-sustainability (2023).
Wolff, L.-A. & Ehrström, P. Social Sustainability and Transformation in Higher Educational Settings: A Utopia or Possibility? Sustainability 12, 4176 (2020).
The Palgrave Handbook of Social Sustainability in Business Education. (Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2024). doi:10.1007/978-3-031-50168-5.
Amster, R. Social Justice and Sustainability. in No Poverty (eds. Leal Filho, W. et al.) 1–9 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2020). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-69625-6_12-1.
Partridge, E. Social Sustainability. in Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research (ed. Michalos, A. C.) 6178–6186 (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2014). doi:10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_2790.
Husgafvel, R. Exploring Social Sustainability Handprint—Part 2: Sustainable Development and Sustainability. Sustainability 13, 11051 (2021).
Altieri, M. A., Nicholls, C. I. & Montalba, R. Technological approaches to sustainable agriculture at a crossroads: An agroecological perspective. Sustainability 9, 349 (2017).
Velten, S., Leventon, J., Jager, N. & Newig, J. What Is Sustainable Agriculture? A Systematic Review. Sustainability 7, 7833–7865 (2015).
Rajput, V. D., Singh, A., Ghazaryan, K., Minkina, T. M. & Al-Tawaha, A. R. M. Sustainable Agriculture: Nanotechnology and Biotechnology for Crop Production and Protection. (Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG, 2024).
Rajput, A. et al. Exploring sustainable practices in modern agronomy and their environmental impact-A Review. Int. J. Environ. Clim. Change 13, 3146–3161 (2023).
Muhie, S. H. Novel approaches and practices to sustainable agriculture. J. Agric. Food Res. 10, 100446 (2022).
Koutsouris, A. Sustainability, Crossdisciplinarity and Higher Education–From an Agronomic Point of View. Online Submiss. 6, 13–27 (2009).
Mason, J. Sustainable Agriculture. (Landlinks Press, 2003).
Gomiero, T., Pimentel, D. & Paoletti, M. G. Is There a Need for a More Sustainable Agriculture? Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 30, 6–23 (2011).
Sustainable Agriculture. (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2009). doi:10.1007/978-90-481-2666-8.
Chen, K.-L., Kong, W.-H., Chen, C.-C. & Liou, J.-L. Evaluating Benefits of Eco-Agriculture: The Cases of Farms along Taiwan’s East Coast in Yilan and Hualien. Sustainability 13, 10889 (2021).
Czyżewski, B. & Kryszak, Ł. Definitions and Origins of the Concept of Sustainable Agriculture. in Sustainable Agriculture Policies for Human Well-Being: Integrated Efficiency Approach (eds. Czyżewski, B. & Kryszak, Ł.) 1–21 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2022). doi:10.1007/978-3-031-09796-6_1.
Dönmez, D., Isak, M. A., İzgü, T. & Şimşek, Ö. Green Horizons: Navigating the Future of Agriculture through Sustainable Practices. Sustainability 16, 3505 (2024).
Lekberg, Y. et al. Substantial and Rapid Increase in Soil Health across Crops with Conversion from Conventional to Regenerative Practices. Sustainability 16, 5509 (2024).
Ngaba, M. J. Y. et al. Meta-analysis unveils differential effects of agroforestry on soil properties in different zonobiomes. Plant Soil 496, 589–607 (2024).
Dragusanu, R., Giovannucci, D. & Nunn, N. The Economics of Fair Trade. J. Econ. Perspect. 28, 217–236 (2014).
Sarfraz, S., Ali, F., Hameed, A., Ahmad, Z. & Riaz, K. Sustainable Agriculture Through Technological Innovations. in Sustainable Agriculture in the Era of the OMICs Revolution (eds. Prakash, C. S., Fiaz, S., Nadeem, M. A., Baloch, F. S. & Qayyum, A.) 223–239 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2023). doi:10.1007/978-3-031-15568-0_10.
Farsani, E. D., Choobchian, S. & Naghani, M. S. Unlocking Agricultural Innovation: A Roadmap for Growth and Sustainability. J. Knowl. Econ. (2024) doi:10.1007/s13132-024-01860-w.
Al Husaeni, D. N., Al Husaeni, D. F., Nandiyanto, A. B. D. & Al-Obaidi, A. S. M. Introducing ASEAN Journal of Science and Engineering Education: A bibliometric analysis study for understanding internationalization. Data Metadata 1, 43–43 (2022).
Mooghali, A., Alijani, R., Karami, N. & Khasseh, A. A. Scientometric analysis of the scientometric literature. Int. J. Inf. Sci. Manag. IJISM 9, 19–31 (2011).
Hosseini, M. R. et al. Critical evaluation of off-site construction research: A Scientometric analysis. Autom. Constr. 87, 235–247 (2018).
Osei-Kyei, R., Wuni, I. Y., Xia, B. & Minh, T. T. Research Trend on Retirement Village Development for the Elderly: A Scientometric Analysis. J. Aging Environ. 34, 402–416 (2020).
Osei-Kyei, R., Jin, X., Nnaji, C., Akomea-Frimpong, I. & Wuni, I. Y. Review of risk management studies in public-private partnerships: a scientometric analysis. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 23, 2419–2430 (2023).
Wuni, I. Y., Shen, G. Q. & Osei-Kyei, R. Scientometric review of global research trends on green buildings in construction journals from 1992 to 2018. Energy Build. 190, 69–85 (2019).
Roberts, C. J., Edwards, D. J., Hosseini, M. R., Mateo-Garcia, M. & Owusu-Manu, D.-G. Post-occupancy evaluation: a review of literature. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 26, 2084–2106 (2019).
Van Eck, N. J. & Waltman, L. Visualizing Bibliometric Networks. in Measuring Scholarly Impact (eds. Ding, Y., Rousseau, R. & Wolfram, D.) 285–320 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10377-8_13.
Makabate, C. T., Musonda, I., Okoro, C. S. & Chileshe, N. Scientometric analysis of BIM adoption by SMEs in the architecture, construction and engineering sector. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 29, 179–203 (2022).

The authors declare no competing interests.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

A bibliometric analysis of agroecological practices: trends, impacts, and future directions

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

2. Literature review

2.1. Agroecological practices

2.2. Sustainability

2.3. Sustainable agriculture

3. Methodology

3.1. Preparing the analysis tool

3.2. Data Retrieval

3.3. Research Data Mapping

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Research Data Matriks

4.2. Continuing to publish on agroecological practices

4.3. Network visualization

4.4. Overlay visualization

4.5. Citation analysis

4.6. Density visualization

5. Conclusion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1