Nature-positive agriculture for climate-resilient food systems: Concepts, indicators, practices and future research directions

Introduction

Food systems are under simultaneous pressure from climate change, biodiversity decline, land and water degradation, resource scarcity and the need to provide sufficient nutritious food. The challenge is no longer adequately described as increasing production alone. It is increasingly necessary to ask whether agricultural production can be maintained or improved while the ecological systems that support production are restored or strengthened. Recent work explicitly frames nature-positive agriculture as a pathway toward resilient agrifood systems, while the emerging 3N Agriculture framework links net-zero emissions, nature-positive outcomes and nutrient-balanced food production within one systems perspective (Kaushal et al., 2025; Field et al., 2026) [12,6] . The term nature-positive should nevertheless be used carefully. Sustainability generally emphasizes maintaining acceptable conditions and reducing negative impacts, whereas regeneration and nature-positive approaches emphasize improvement in ecological condition. Regenerative agriculture is particularly relevant because it focuses on rebuilding soil health, biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, although its terminology and practice definitions remain heterogeneous (Sher et al., 2024) [30] . Nature-based solutions similarly emphasize the use of ecosystem processes to address societal challenges, but their application to food systems must account for production, livelihoods and trade-offs rather than assuming that every ecological intervention produces universal benefits (Keesstra et al., 2023) [13] . The purpose of this review is to integrate these related concepts into a coherent framework for climate-resilient food systems. The specific objectives are to: (i) clarify the conceptual relationships among nature-positive agriculture and related approaches; (ii) organize indicators that can be used to assess nature-positive outcomes; (iii) synthesize evidence on major management practices and technologies; (iv) examine adaptation, socioeconomic and governance dimensions; and (v) identify research priorities for scaling credible nature-positive agriculture.

Review approach and conceptual scope

This article is a structured narrative review rather than a statistical meta-analysis. The supplied draft was reorganized around concepts, measurable outcomes, practices, climateresilience pathways and enabling conditions. References were cross-checked against publisher or journal pages, DOI records or accessible full-text records where available. Preference was given to recent peer-reviewed literature, while established conceptual literature was retained where it provides necessary foundations. Because nature-positive agriculture is a rapidly evolving field, the review emphasizes studies published from 2023 to 2026 while retaining selected earlier foundational studies.

The conceptual scope treats nature-positive agriculture as an outcome-oriented umbrella rather than as a single prescribed production system. Thus, a practice is considered potentially nature positive when it contributes, under specified conditions, to measurable improvement in one or more ecological outcomes without unacceptable trade-offs in productivity, livelihoods or other ecosystem functions. This distinction is important because the same intervention can generate different outcomes across soils, climates, crops, scales and management systems.

Conceptual foundations 3.1 From sustainable agriculture to regenerative and naturepositive agriculture

Sustainable agriculture commonly seeks to maintain productivity and resource availability while reducing environmental damage. Regenerative agriculture goes further by emphasizing restoration of soil and ecosystem functions. Recent reviews identify soil health, biodiversity, climate mitigation and socioeconomic outcomes as major components of regenerative agriculture, but also highlight the absence of a universally standardized definition (Sher et al., 2024; Caruso et al., 2025) [30, 4] . Nature-positive agriculture can be positioned as an outcome-oriented extension of this discussion: the central question is whether agricultural management produces a measurable improvement in the condition or functioning of nature rather than merely reducing the rate of degradation. This distinction has practical implications for research. Labels such as regenerative, organic, natural, conservation or climatesmart do not by themselves establish a nature-positive outcome. Evidence should instead demonstrate changes in indicators such as soil organic carbon, aggregate stability, nutrient cycling, habitat quality, species diversity, water-use efficiency, greenhouse-gas balance, farm profitability and resilience. The approach therefore shifts evaluation from practice adoption to verified outcomes.

Nature-based solutions and the food-system perspective

Nature-based solutions provide a complementary conceptual basis because they seek to use ecosystem processes to address environmental and societal challenges. Keesstra et al. (2023) [13] emphasize that nature-based solutions can function as building blocks for climate-resilient food systems, but their effectiveness depends on ecological and socioeconomic context. Agroforestry illustrates this multifunctionality: trees can contribute to carbon storage, erosion control, microclimate regulation and livelihood diversification, while competition for light, water or nutrients can reduce crop performance in some designs. Consequently, nature-positive management should be assessed using explicit objectives and trade-off analysis rather than generalized claims of benefit.

The 3N perspective

The recently proposed 3N Agriculture framework integrates Net-Zero, Nature-Positive and Nutrient-Balanced objectives (Field et al., 2026) [6] . This framework is useful because climate mitigation, biodiversity and nutrition are often treated separately even though they interact through land management, energy use, dietary patterns and resource allocation. A nature-positive food system should therefore be assessed across environmental and human outcomes rather than through a single carbon or biodiversity metric.

Indicators and monitoring framework

A credible nature-positive transition requires measurable baselines, defined direction of change and monitoring over an appropriate time period. The indicator system should be multidimensional because improvements in one domain may be accompanied by deterioration in another. Recent work has demonstrated the feasibility of combining farmer-selected and technical soil indicators, while ecosystem-service research has assembled large collections of field-based indicators suitable for direct empirical measurement (Soto et al., 2020; Leveau et al., 2025) [32,16] . [32] . Conservation agriculture can improve several physical, chemical and biological soil attributes, although magnitude and direction vary with climate, soil and management (Maqbool et al., 2025) [17] . [7] . Carbon should therefore be monitored with standardized sampling and mass-balance methods wherever possible. Claims about long-term sequestration should also account for permanence and possible reversibility.

Carbon and greenhouse gases

Biodiversity and ecosystem services

Biodiversity indicators should cover both compositional and functional dimensions. Crop and habitat diversity, pollinator abundance, natural-enemy activity, soil biological indicators and semi-natural habitat can be integrated with ecosystem-service indicators. Martínez-Jauregui et al. (2019) [18] showed that social perceptions of biodiversity and ecosystem services influence the relevance of indicators, while Leveau et al. (2025) [16] demonstrated the availability of 128 field-based indicators for provisioning and regulating ecosystem services. Such approaches support more transparent selection of indicators according to the service being evaluated.

Water and resource efficiency

Water is a critical resilience variable. Deficit irrigation and precision water management can reduce irrigation demand while maintaining acceptable yields when stress is carefully scheduled, and sensor-based systems can improve the spatial and temporal resolution of irrigation decisions (Jadhav et al., 2026) [9] . However, technology should be evaluated against total system costs, reliability, energy requirements and accessibility to smallholders rather than on technical performance alone. [5,20,1] . [29,25] . Diversity within agroforestry systems is also important. In coffee systems, simplification of shade-tree diversity reduced the resilience of nutrient cycling, illustrating that the ecological quality of tree cover can matter as much as tree presence itself (Nesper et al., 2019) [22] .

Socioeconomic and resilience indicators

Conservation agriculture and zero tillage

Conservation agriculture is commonly characterized by reduced soil disturbance, soil cover and crop diversification. Its potential contributions include improved soil structure, water retention, nutrient cycling and carbon storage. However, outcomes are not uniform, and pest dynamics can shift under residue retention and altered soil microclimate (Jasrotia et al., 2023) [10] . Zero tillage can support moisture conservation and erosion reduction, but performance depends on weed management, residue availability, machinery, soil conditions and cropping sequence (Kumari et al., 2023) [14] .

Organic, natural and agroecological systems

Organic farming, natural farming and agroecological systems emphasize ecological processes, biological regulation and reduced dependence on synthetic inputs. A recent review of organic farming identifies potential benefits for soil health, biodiversity and drought resilience but also recognizes yield gaps, weed pressure and transition costs (Panotra et al., 2026) [24] . Natural farming has similarly been proposed as a climateadaptation pathway through reduced external-input dependence and emphasis on soil and water conservation (Lakhani et al., 2024) [15] . These approaches should nevertheless be compared using measured outcomes rather than assumptions about input type alone.

Crop diversification and intercropping

Diversification can enhance ecological stability by increasing functional diversity and disrupting pest dynamics. Experimental evidence from Dutch organic cabbage systems showed that spatial and genetic diversity reduced herbivore feeding injury and maintained total yield in most tested designs (Juventia et al., 2021) [11] . A broader synthesis of agroecological practices identifies crop diversification, agroforestry, intercropping, cover crops, crop rotation and mixed farming as recurring resilienceoriented strategies, while emphasizing that responses depend strongly on local context (von Cossel et al., 2025) [35] .

Ecological pest management

Nature-positive plant protection seeks to increase biological regulation while reducing unnecessary chemical pressure. Diversified habitats, biological control, soil-mediated resistance and integrated pest management can contribute to this objective.

Recent synthesis emphasizes the need to examine biodiversitybased pest suppression, biocontrol networks and soil-mediated defense together rather than as isolated interventions (Tetarwal et al., 2026) [34] .

Precision agriculture, AI and smart irrigation

Digital agriculture can improve the spatial targeting and timing of inputs. Smart irrigation increasingly combines soil sensors, remote sensing, wireless networks and machine learning. Recent reviews identify machine-learning approaches and sensor integration as promising tools for adaptive irrigation, but also identify high initial costs, infrastructure limitations and digitalliteracy constraints (Irum & Hameed, 2025) [8] . AI-enabled climate-smart systems have also been proposed for crop forecasting, pest surveillance and resource optimization, although reported performance figures should be treated cautiously because they are often system-and dataset-specific (Roy et al., 2025) [27] . [5,1] . These findings reinforce the need to treat resilience as both a biophysical and institutional outcome.

Climate resilience and adaptation pathways

Traditional and Indigenous knowledge

Local knowledge can strengthen adaptation when it is combined with scientific assessment rather than treated as either infallible or irrelevant. Research in Ghana and Mexico illustrates the importance of locally adapted soil and water management, participatory knowledge and community institutions (Naazie et al., 2023; Reyes-Hernández et al., 2025) [21,26] . A systematic assessment of Indigenous Knowledge and ecosystem services in Ethiopia further indicates that institutional recognition, community ownership and participatory monitoring are important for successful integration (Yihune & Sangha, 2026) [36] .

Climate information and extension

Access to timely, understandable climate information can determine whether farmers are able to translate knowledge into action. Evidence from Northern Ghana shows that radio, extension, farmer networks and mobile communication can all contribute to information access, while limited localization, infrastructure and gender-related differences can restrict effectiveness (Mumuni et al., 2026) [19] . The implication is that digital systems should complement rather than automatically replace local extension and peer-learning networks.

Water management

Agricultural water management is a major climate-resilience pathway. Deficit irrigation, precision scheduling, soil-water conservation, mulching and improved infiltration can increase water productivity. Jadhav et al. (2026) [9] summarize evidence that appropriately designed deficit irrigation can reduce irrigation demand substantially while limiting yield penalties, but emphasize the need for long-term field validation, economic analysis and integration with real-time sensing.

Policy, finance and scaling

Adoption is not determined by technical performance alone. Policy coherence, finance, extension, markets, infrastructure and institutional capacity influence whether practices can move from experimental plots to farms and landscapes. Nepal's food-system transformation experience highlights policy incoherence, insufficient local capacity, limited research and weak empirical evidence as barriers to nature-positive transitions (Suwal et al., 2025) [33] . Global food-governance literature similarly emphasizes the influence of institutional legacies, power relations and competing interests on food-system transformation (Slater et al., 2026) [31] . Financial mechanisms can support transition where farmers face up-front costs or temporary yield risks. Access to agricultural financial services is associated with climate-smart agriculture adoption, but awareness does not necessarily translate into actual access because collateral, interest rates, distance and service design remain constraints (Mwanzia et al., 2025) [20] . Carbon markets and payments for ecosystem services may provide additional incentives, but credible monitoring, reporting and verification and fair benefit distribution are essential to avoid overstating environmental outcomes. Gender-responsive governance is also necessary. Women contribute substantially to soil management, water conservation, seed selection, livestock care and biodiversity stewardship, yet access to land, information, finance and decision-making can be unequal. Gender-responsive environmental policies can therefore improve both equity and the effectiveness of climate adaptation (Assan et al., 2026) [2] .

Integrated framework for nature-positive agriculture

The evidence reviewed here supports a five-step framework: baseline, intervention, outcome, trade-off and scaling. First, establish a baseline for soil, biodiversity, water, carbon, productivity and socioeconomic conditions. Second, select context-appropriate practices or combinations. Third, quantify changes in agreed indicators. Fourth, identify trade-offs and distributional effects. Fifth, scale only those interventions for which benefits are sufficiently robust and economically feasible. This approach avoids the common error of equating adoption of a named practice with achievement of a nature-positive outcome.

References

1. Abaynew H, Ahmed N, Mohammed A, Beyene A. Responding to a changing climate: a cross-sectional study of the determinants of smallholder farmers' adaptation strategies in eastern Ethiopia. Science Discovery. 2026;14(4):249-260. doi:10.11648/j.sd.20261404.21.
2. Assan N, Mukuwapasi BXB, Charachimwe RR, Sibanda J. Gender-responsive smallholder agricultural environmentalism: implications for climate adaptation, sustainable livelihoods, and rural transformation in subSaharan Africa. International Journal of Agriculture Sustainable Farming. 2026;2(2):58-67. doi:10.54660/IJASF.2026.2.2.58-67.
3. Bouma J. Measuring and assessing SDG-related indicators for ecosystem services focused on sustainable agriculture: a challenge for the scientific community. Sustainability. 2026;18(9):4169. doi:10.3390/su18094169.
4. Caruso E, Saidi A, Vecchio Y, Adinolfi F, Del Giudice T. Motivations behind regenerative agriculture: a systematic literature review. Outlook on Agriculture. 2025;54(4):358372. doi:10.1177/00307270251391440.
5. Cherinet A, Simane B, Asmare AM. Climate change adaptation strategies and determinants of adoption amongst smallholder farmers in Jemma sub-basin, central Ethiopia. IDRiM Journal. 2025;15(2). doi:10.5595/001c.143101.
6. Field DJ, Minasny B, McBratney AB. 3N Agriculture: growing the greenest tomorrow. Agricultural & Environmental Letters. 2026;11:e70068. doi:10.1002/ael2.70068.
7. Ibnmrhar M, Bouabdli A, Baghdad B, Moussadek R. Unlocking the potential of conservation agriculture for soil carbon sequestration influenced by soil texture and climate: a worldwide systematic review. Journal of Aridland Agriculture. 2023;9:108-131. doi:10.25081/jaa.2023.v9.8484.
8. Irum A, Hameed MA. Smart irrigation system for climate resilient agriculture: a systematic literature review. Gomal Journal of Agriculture and Biology. 2025;3(2):98-112. doi:10.66406/gjab02202587.
9. Jadhav S, Kamble S, Patil S, Raut D, Shende S. Deficit irrigation and precision water management: climate-smart strategies for sustainable agriculture. Journal of Experimental Agriculture International. 2026;48(5):610625. doi:10.9734/jeai/2026/v48i54254.
10. Jasrotia P, Kumari P, Malik K, Kashyap PL, Kumar S, Bhardwaj AK, et al. Conservation agriculture based crop management practices impact diversity and population dynamics of the insect-pests and their natural enemies in agroecosystems. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 2023;7:1173048. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2023.1173048.
11. Juventia SD, Rossing W, Ditzler L, van Apeldoorn DV. Spatial and genetic crop diversity support ecosystem service delivery: a case of yield and biocontrol in Dutch organic cabbage production. Field Crops Research. 2021;261:108015. doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2020.108015.
12. Kaushal M, Atieno M, Odjo S, Baijukya FP, Gebrehawaryat Y, Fadda C. Nature-positive agriculture-a way forward towards resilient agrifood systems. Sustainability. 2025;17(3):1151. doi:10.3390/su17031151.
13. Keesstra S, Veraart J, Verhagen J, Visser S, Kragt M, Groot A. Nature-based solutions as building blocks for the transition towards sustainable climate-resilient food systems. Sustainability. 2023;15(5):4475. doi:10.3390/su15054475.
14. Kumari A, Ashoka P, Tiwari P, Sachan P, Malla AK, Tripathy A, et al. Zero tillage lead to enhanced productivity and soil health. International Journal of Environment and Climate Change. 2023;13(10):3707-3715. doi:10.9734/ijecc/2023/v13i103042.
15. Lakhani H, Chinchure S, Geete M. Natural farming: a strategic tool for climate change adaptation. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2024;13(10):198-205. doi:10.20546/ijcmas.2024.1310.024.
16. Leveau L, Biot N, Lobet G, Bertin P. A collection of fieldbased indicators for assessing ecosystem services in crop fields. One Ecosystem. 2025;10:e151491. doi:10.3897/oneeco.10.e151491.
17. Maqbool Z, Farooq MS, Rafiq A, Uzair M, Hussain Q. Utilisation of climate-smart conservation agriculture practices for improved soil carbon sequestration, greenhouse gas mitigation and sustainable crop productivity. Soil Use and Management. 2025;41(2):e70103. doi:10.1111/sum.70103.
18. Martínez-Jauregui M, White P, Touza J, Soliño M. Untangling perceptions around indicators for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services. 2019;38:100952. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100952.
19. Mumuni E, Yussif K, Chentiba AT. Communication for climate smart agricultural adaptation among smallholder farmers in Northern Ghana: risk management implications. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 2026;10:1757702. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2026.1757702.
20. Mwanzia DK, Mbala S, Akuja TE. Impact of agricultural financial services accessibility on the adoption of climatesmart agriculture practices among smallholder farmers in Mwingi West Sub-County, Kitui County, Kenya. African Journal of Climate Change and Resource Sustainability. 2025;4(2):117-126. doi:10.37284/ajccrs.4.2.3549.
21. Naazie GK, Dakyaga F, Derbile EK. Agro-ecological intensification for climate change adaptation: tales on soil and water management practices of smallholder farmers in rural Ghana. Discover Sustainability. 2023;4:27. doi:10.1007/s43621-023-00142-w.
22. Nesper M, Kueffer C, Krishnan S, Kushalappa CG, Ghazoul J. Simplification of shade tree diversity reduces nutrient cycling resilience in coffee agroforestry. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2019;56:119-131. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13176.
23. Ngongolo KK, Sigala AA, Mrimi D. Resilient food systems in Sub-Saharan Africa: climate change impacts, adaptation hurdles, and nature-based solutions. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 2026;10:1857913. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2026.1857913.
24. Panotra N, Ashaq M, Mohanty LK, Saji S, Waghmare P, Kumar M, et al. Impact of organic farming practices on crop productivity and soil health: a review. Archives of Current Research International. 2026;26(4):152-170. doi:10.9734/acri/2026/v26i41812.
25. Ram A, Kumar N, Dev I, Yadav A, et al. Potential of agroforestry for climate change adaptation and mitigation. Indian Journal of Dryland Agricultural Research and Development. 2024;39(2):60-67. doi:10.5958/2231-6701.2024.00017.1.
26. Reyes-Hernández H, Hernández Alvarez CM, Bojórquez Vargas AR, Reyes Pérez Ó. Community-based strategies for climate adaptation in rural Mexico: the case of the Huasteca Potosina. Ethnobiology and Conservation. 2025;14:41. doi:10.15451/ec2025-12-14-41-1-18.
27. Roy S, Hoque A, Saikia P, Padhiary M. Climate-smart agriculture: AI-based solutions for enhancing crop resilience and reducing environmental impact. Asian Research Journal of Agriculture. 2025;18(1):291-310. doi:10.9734/arja/2025/v18i1665.
28. Sedhupathi K, Harisudan C, Baskaran R, Rathika S, Baskar M, Ramesh T. Crop microbiome: a way for climateresilience agriculture. Plant Science Today. 2026. doi:10.14719/pst.14917.
29. Sharma P, Jetawat RPS, Mohapatra R, Saikanth DRK, Ranjith R, Tiwari P, et al. Synergistic effects of agroforestry on carbon sequestration and climate adaptation: a comprehensive review. Asian Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition. 2025;11(1):454-471. doi:10.9734/ajsspn/2025/v11i1495.
30. Sher A, Li H, Ullah A, Hamid Y, Nasir B, Zhang J. Importance of regenerative agriculture: climate, soil health, biodiversity and its socioecological impact. Discover Sustainability. 2024;5:462. doi:10.1007/s43621-024-00662z.
31. Slater S, Lawrence M, Wood B, Nisbett N, Baker P. How has the global food governance system evolved, and what challenges does it currently pose for food systems transformation? A narrative review and synthesis of the literature. Globalization and Health. 2026;22:17. doi:10.1186/s12992-025-01172-x.
32. Soto RL, Cuéllar Padilla M, de Vente J. Participatory selection of soil quality indicators for monitoring the impacts of regenerative agriculture on ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services. 2020;45:101157. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101157.
33. Suwal R, Dahal KC, Dangol DR, Panta HK, Adhikari J. Food systems transformation in Nepal: commitments and challenges in boosting nature-positive food production. Nepalese Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2025;29(1):189208. doi:10.3126/nepjas.v29i01.85463.
34. Tetarwal O, Chopra N, Ghanswa R, Ghaswa R, Jat GR. Agroecological plant protection for climate-resilient food systems: integrating biodiversity-based pest suppression, biocontrol networks, and soil-mediated defense. Journal of Agriculture and Ecology Research International. 2026;27(4):157-173. doi:10.9734/jaeri/2026/v27i4772.
35. von Cossel M, Scordia D, Altieri M, Gresta F. Spotlight on agroecological cropping practices to improve the resilience of farming systems: a qualitative review of meta-analytic studies. Frontiers in Agronomy. 2025;7:1495846. doi:10.3389/fagro.2025.1495846.
36. Yihune E, Sangha KK. Integrating ecosystem services and indigenous knowledge for sustainable resource management and policy in Ethiopia. Sustainability. 2026;18(15):7513. doi:10.3390/su18157513.