research papers in agriculture

Factors Influencing Ranging Behavior of Different Strains of Hens

• Brian Tainika
• Ahmet Şekeroğlu
• Samet Hasan Abacı

Response of Wheat and Faba Bean to Intercropping and Tillage System on a Mediterranean Rainfed Vertisol

• Rafael J. Lopez-Bellido
• Veronica Muñoz-Romero
• Luis Lopez-Bellido

Potentially Toxic Elements: Distribution, Ecological Risk Assessment and Sources Identification in a Himalayan Lake in India

• T. Banerjee

Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Improve Tolerance to Water Deficit in Indian Pennywort ( Centella asiatica ) by Promoting Physio-morphological and Biochemical Adaptations

• Patchara Praseartkul
• Rujira Tisarum
• Suriyan Cha-um

Response of Carrots ( Daucus carota ) on the Growth, Yield, and Nutritional Composition to Varying Poultry Manure Rates

• Festus Onyebuchi Eze
• Chisenga Emmanuel Mukosha
• Kayode Paul Baiyeri

Genetic Diversity and Population Structure in Chestnut ( Castanea spp.) Varieties Revealed by RAPD and SRAP Markers

• Un-Hyang Ho
• Chang-Hyok Kim
• Song-Hyok Pak

Effect of Spermidine and Salicylic Acid Application on the Morphological and Physiological Characteristics of Quinoa ( Chenopodium quinoa ) Under Salt Stress Conditions

• Alireza Reisizadeh
• Mohammadreza Amerian
• Ahmad Gholami

Effect of Fermentation Methods and Turning Interval on the Quality of Cocoa Beans ( Theobroma cacao )

• R. Arulmari
• R. Visvanathan

GGE Biplot Analysis of Exotic Sugarcane Genotypes in Major Sugarcane Producing Agro-ecologies of Ethiopia

• Esayas Tena
• Feyissa Tadesse
• Feven Million

An IoT-Enabled Smart pH Monitoring and Dispensing System for Precision Agriculture Application

• Lachit Dutta
• Swapna Bharali
• Amarprit Singh

Comparing the Efficiency of Sunflower, Marigold and Spinach Plants for Their Phytoextraction Ability of Zinc and Copper in Contaminated Soil

• Saubhagya Kumar Samal
• Siba Prasad Datta
• Punyavrat S. Pandey

Dynamics, Requirements, and Use Efficiency of Magnesium Throughout the Life Cycle of Acai Palm Plants

• Milton Garcia Costa
• Ismael de Jesus Matos Viégas
• Ricardo Augusto Martins Cordeiro

From Laboratory to Production: Innovating the Small-scale Mass Production of Spirulina ( Arthrospira platensis ) with an Alternative Culture Medium and Refined Culture Conditions

• Kaent Immanuel N. Uba
• Gaireen D. Gaid
• Ruth D. Gaid

Physico-Chemical Properties of Termitaria and their Surrounding Soils in Some Nigerian Ecozones

• Simon Idoko Okweche
• Hilili Patrick Matthew
• Chukwudi Nwaogu

Exploring Impact of Climate Change on Poultry Production in Nigeria

• Emeka Emmanuel Osuji
• Robert Ugochukwu Onyeneke
• Michael Olatunji Olaolu

Assessment of Variability and Genetic Factors among High Heritable Traits of Juglans regia (Walnut) from North Western Himalayan Regions

• Munish Sharma
• Munit Sharma

Tracking Varietal Authentication of Rice Brands in Bangladesh: Analyzing the Path from Farm to Market

• Mohammad Chhiddikur Rahman
• Md Shajedur Rahaman
• Md Shahjahan Kabir

Morphological, Pedological and Chemical Characterization and Classification of Soils in Morogoro District, Tanzania

• Emmanuely Z. Nungula
• Jayne Mugwe
• Harun I. Gitari

Enabling Smart Agriculture: An IoT-Based Framework for Real-Time Monitoring and Analysis of Agricultural Data

• Faruk Enes Oguz
• Mahmut Nedim Ekersular
• Ahmet Alkan

Physio-Morphological Characterization of Interspecific Hybridization-Derived Hull-Less Seeded Lines for Fruit and Seed Traits in Pumpkin

• Karmvir Singh Garcha
• Ajmer Singh Dhatt

Sorghum Yield Using Rectangular Versus Spherical zaï Pits and Integrated Soil Fertility Management in the Sahelian and Sudano-Sahelian Zones of Burkina Faso

• Abdoulaye Dabre
• Patrice Savadogo
• Hassan Bismarck Nacro

Prediction of Distribution of Dry Matter and Leaf Area of Faba Bean ( Vicia faba ) Using Nonlinear Regression Models

• Najibullah Ebrahimi
• Ahmad Reza Salihy
• Ibrahim Darwish

Nitrogen and Sulfur Fertilizer Application on Subsequent Storage Potential and Quality of Onion ( Allium cepa ) Bulb in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia

• Wegayehu Assefa Yebalework
• Nigussie Dechassa Robi
• Yibekal Alemayehu Abebe

The Influence of Plant Growth Modulators on Physiological Yield and Quality Traits of Sesame ( Sesamum indicum ) Cultivars Under Rainfed Conditions

• P. Ratnakumar

Soil Properties Shape the Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Status of Common Bean ( Phaseolus Vulgaris ) and Soil Mycorrhizal Potential in Kabare and Walungu Territories, Eastern DR Congo

• Adrien Byamungu Ndeko
• Géant Basimine Chuma
• Gustave Nachigera Mushagalusa

Effect of Different Maize ( Zea mays )/Cowpea ( Vigna unguiculata ) Intercropping Patterns and N Supply on Light Interception, Physiology and Productivity of Cowpea

• Jacques Fils Pierre
• Upendra Singh
• Esaú Ruiz–Sánchez

Meteorological Factor-Based Tomato Early Blight Prediction Using Hyperparameter Tuning of Intelligent Classifiers

• Ayushi Gupta
• Anuradha Chug
• Amit Prakash Singh

Local Agroecological Practices and Chemical Inputs used in Mint Farming Systems, Regions of Fez-Meknes and Casablanca-Settat, Morocco

• Wijdane Rhioui
• Jamila Al Figuigui
• Saadia Belmalha

The Role of Social Fairness Perceptions in Farmers’ Continued Participation in Environmental Governance: A China Scenario

Did Covid-19 Impacted Market Arrivals and Prices of Major Food Commodities in India: Evidence from Extended Time Series Analysis

• Dinesh Chand Meena
• Purushottam Sharma
• Md. Ejaz Anwer

Economic Assessment of Rhizobium tropici and Azospirillum brasilense Co-Inoculation in Common Bean

• Matheus Messias
• Enderson Petrônio de Brito Ferreira
• Alcido Elenor Wander

Methyl Jasmonate Treatment Relieves Chilling Injury and Improves the Postharvest Quality of Snap Bean by Regulating Antioxidant Metabolism

• Hao-yan Zhang

TAR: A Highly Accurate Machine-Learning Model to Predict the Cocoon Shell Weight of Tasar Silkworm Antheraea Mylitta

• Khasru Alam
• Jiaul H. Paik
• Raviraj V. Suresh

Potential of Wheat dwarf virus (Geminiviridae: Mastrevirus) Truncated Promoter for Improvement of Transgene Expression in Rice

• Marzieh Taghi-Malekshahi
• Khalil Alami-Saeid
• Mohamad Hamed Ghodoum Parizipour

Economic Analysis of Poultry Farming Using ANN Approach in the Rainfed Areas of Jammu Region of South Asia

• Vipal Bhagat
• Sudhakar Dwivedi

Image-based Appraisal of Woody Starch Reserves in Grapevine

• Daniel Grigorie Dinu
• Vitale Nuzzo
• Laura Rustioni

How Multiple Agricultural Production Systems Alter the Growth and Development of the Forage Cactus in a Semi-arid Environment

• Hygor Kristoph Muniz Nunes Alves
• Alexandre Maniçoba da Rosa Ferraz Jardim
• Thieres George Freire da Silva

Efficient and Sustainable Crop Intensification: An Assessment of Phenofit Algorithm and Envelope Crop Classification Method for its Monitoring

• Miguel Nolasco
• Gustavo Ovando
• Mónica Bocco

Zoning Suitable Land for the Cultivation of Rice, Wheat, and Barley by Integration of Artificial Intelligent Methods and Spatial Data

• Nikrooz Bagheri
• Ali Rajabipour
• Alireza Sabzevari

Effect of Pollen Quantity on Fruit Set, Seed Germination and Plantlet Vigor of Date Palm cv. Deglet Nour

• Mohammed Mesnoua
• Messaoud Roumani
• Aditya Parmar

Development and Application of a Tractor-Operated Side Dispensing Type Farmyard Manure Applicator for Organic Fertilizer Application in Vineyards

• Abhijit Khadatkar
• C. P. Sawant

Plant Phosphorous Requirements Determined by the Sorption Isotherm Models in the Calcareous Soils

• Khatereh Sarmasti
• Amir Bostani

Drought Tolerance Evaluation of ‘Zorzal,’ the Most Cultivated Common Bean in Chile, a Country Facing Desertification

• Vera Martínez-Barradas
• Claudio Inostroza-Blancheteau
• Patricio Arce-Johnson

Toward Drought Tolerance in Tomato: Selection of F 2 BC 1 Plants Obtained from Crosses Between Wild and Commercial Genotypes

• André Ricardo Zeist
• Juliane Macel Henschel
• Juliano Tadeu Vilela de Resende

A Useful Pathway for Gnetum Planting Material Production: Effect of Exogenous Application of Auxin on Root and Shoot Expression of Gnetum Cuttings

• Medueghue Fofou Apollin
• Minyaka Emile
• Lehman Leopold Gustave

Application of Si and Ag Green Nanoparticles, Epibrassinolide, and Methyl Jasmonate Causes Delay in Decay of Malus Domestica Fruits via Improving Postharvest Physiology at Ambient Conditions

• Sara Jelodarian
• Vahid Abdossi
• Kambiz Larijani

Comparison of the Antifungal Activity of Chlorine Dioxide, Peracetic Acid and Some Chemical Fungicides in Post-harvest Management of Penicillium digitatum and Botrytis cinerea Infecting Sweet Orange and Strawberry Fruits

• Sareh Hatamzadeh
• Nima Akbari Oghaz
• Fatemeh Noori

Characterising Productivity Factors Affecting Maize ( Zea mays ) Production in a Smallholder Crop-Livestock System

• Temnotfo L. Mncube
• Ethel E. Phiri
• Henry R. Mloza-Banda

Greenhouse Evaluation of Biochar-Based Controlled-Release Nitrogen Fertilizer in Corn Production

• Robiul Islam Rubel

Evaluation of water-energy productivity and nutritional traits in silage sorghum in arid regions

• Hamidreza Salemi
• Masoud Torabi
• Abolfazl Nasseri

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 28 February 2022

Effect of COVID-19 on agricultural production and food security: A scientometric analysis

• Collins C. Okolie   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6633-6717 1 &
• Abiodun A. Ogundeji   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7356-5668 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  9 , Article number:  64 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

27k Accesses

34 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Environmental studies

Coronavirus disease has created an unexpected negative situation globally, impacting the agricultural sector, economy, human health, and food security. This study examined research on COVID-19 in relation to agricultural production and food security. Research articles published in Web of Science and Scopus were sourced, considering critical situations and circumstance posed by COVID-19 pandemic with regards to the shortage of agricultural production activities and threat to food security systems. In total, 174 published papers in BibTeX format were downloaded for further study. To assess the relevant documents, authors used “effects of COVID-19 on agricultural production and food security (ECAP-FS) as a search keyword for research published between 2016 and April 2021 utilising bibliometric innovative methods. The findings indicated an annual growth rate of about 56.64%, indicating that research on ECAP-FS increased over time within the study period. Nevertheless, the research output on ECAP-FS varied with 2020 accounting for 38.5%, followed by 2021 with 37.9% as at April 2021. The proposed four stage processes for merging two databases for bibliometric analyses clearly showed that one can run collaboration network analyses, authors coupling among other analyses by following our procedure and finally using net2VOSviewer, which is embedded in Rstudio software package. The study concluded that interruptions in agricultural food supply as a result of the pandemic impacted supply and demand shocks with negative impacts on all the four pillars of food security.

Similar content being viewed by others

Exploring the evolving landscape of COVID-19 interfaced with livelihoods

Tong Li, Yanfen Wang, … Xiaoyong Cui

Perspectives of scholars on the origin, spread and consequences of COVID-19 are diverse but not polarized

Prakash Kumar Paudel, Rabin Bastola, … Subodh Adhikari

Big data visualisation in regional comprehensive economic partnership: a systematic review

Introduction.

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has created an unusual situation globally (Alam and Khatun, 2021 ). Barely a year ago early in the year 2020, the unusual nature of coronavirus caused most governments to implement stringent steps in their countries to restrain the virus’s spread. The novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) disease impacted economies throughout the world, disproportionately impacting individuals who were already susceptible to poverty and hunger (Laborde et al., 2020a ; Ceballos et al., 2020 ). In late December 2019, the virus was discovered in Wuhan City, Hubei Province, China. The pandemic caused by COVID-19 presented a major danger to human health, the economy, and food security in both industrialised and emerging nations (Mottaleb et al., 2020 ; Carroll et al., 2020 ; Alam and Khatun, 2021 ). Lessons learned from China revealed that various COVID-19 countermeasures such as lockdown in the country hampered production. This poses a significant risk to the long-term food supply (FAO, 2020 ), and has a negative impact on the economy, resulting in economic decline and crisis (Bai, 2020 ). It is important to understand that certain precautional and control efforts compromise agricultural production (Singh et al., 2021 ).

The virus wreaked havoc on the agricultural production sector, which is at the heart of the food chain (Pu and Zhong, 2020 ). The global spread of coronavirus resulted in the greatest economic downturn since World War Two (Hanna et al., 2020 ; Xu et al., 2021 ). The epidemic’s major impact on agricultural labour input was the restriction of labour mobility. Farmers were not permitted to just go out and gather in any way except to purchase essentials. This resulted in a manpower scarcity and reduced mass production efficiency. For instance, due to a scarcity of migrant experts, producers from Sichuan, Hunan, and Hubei in the grain-producing districts in China (south-eastern coastal district) were not able to sow their crops in good time (Pu and Zhong, 2020 ). Furthermore, wheat and pulse harvesting in northwest India was hampered due to a lack of migrant labour (Dev, 2020 ). Vegetable farmers in Ethiopia incurred not just financial loss as a result of overstocked items, but also from a lack of vital inputs (Tamru et al., 2020 ). Before the pandemic, suppliers may have planted six hectares in a single day, but due to the difficulties in finding tractor drivers during the pandemic, they were only able to cover three hectares a day (Pu and Zhong, 2020 ). Any interruptions in agricultural food supply will indeed result in supply and demand shocks, which will have an immediate effect on the agricultural sector of the economy with long-term economic performance and food security implications (Gregorio and Ancog, 2020 ).

Food security refers to a situation where all individuals at all time have continuous physical and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food to fulfil their dietary needs and food choices for an active and healthy lifestyle (Elsahoryi et al., 2020 ). Food security has been jeopardised both directly and indirectly as a result of the virus’s destabilisation of food systems and the effects of lockdowns on family revenue and physical access to food (Devereux et al., 2020 ). The presence of coronavirus disease has a negative impact on all the four pillars of food security, viz. availability of food, accessibility of food, utilisation of food, and stability of food (Nechifor et al., 2021 ; Laborde et al., 2020b ). According to Genkin and Mikheev ( 2020 ), the report by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), World Trade Organization, and World Health Organization (WHO) note the threat of a food catastrophe triggered by the current coronavirus pandemic, with a risk of a global “food shortage” owing to interruptions in the trade industry’s supply chain. According to the report, global commerce contracted by roughly 20% in 2020, with 90–120 million human beings falling into severe destitution and over 300 million facing food security issues in emerging nations. To combat the COVID-19 pandemic, world leaders implemented steps to decrease the number of commodities carried by sea, air and land, as well as labour migration at national and global levels. These variables contributed to a widespread disturbance in agricultural output and food distribution systems, posing challenges to the transportation of food and agricultural resources (Genkin and Mikheev, 2020 ).

Present literature centred on the effect of coronavirus on food security or effect of coronavirus on agricultural production (Elsahoryi et al., 2020 ; Nchanji and Lutomia, 2021 ). Despite the growing body of research on coronavirus, agricultural production, and food security, few studies have attempted to conduct a thorough assessment of the literature and map the present level of scientific knowledge on the effect of coronavirus on agricultural production and food security (ECAP-FS). Hence, the goal of this research was to examine the effect of coronavirus on agricultural production and food security by employing bibliometric analyses techniques to recognise keywords in connection to two core aspects, namely the most prolific or productive writers and the most collaborative nations, and then to examine the strength of their association over the study period. The study characterised intellectual processes further by visualising and recognising the advancement of the co-citation network, cooperation network, and trends in ECAP-FS research. This research will not only aid in the identification of present research on ECAP-FS, but also contributes to an improved comprehension of the scientific knowledge of coronavirus and its impact on agricultural production, food security, and the investigation of its evolution via published papers included in the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus databases. Because one database is unlikely to provide a comprehensive picture of knowledge and trends in a field, the authors recommend a four stage processes to achieve a merged database that integrates WoS and Scopus and then deletes identical publications using RStudio or R-package to perform author coupling, keywords co-occurrence network visualisation, university collaboration networks, and others using net2VOSviewer. This study will be among the few that explains how to integrate two datasets and utilise them to conduct different network associations in bibliometrix R-package (RStudio v.4.0.3 software).

Method and data collection

The scientometric technique was used to retrieve articles relating to the effect of coronavirus on agricultural production and food security. This method used resources from two different databases, WoS and Scopus, for the systematic reviews. Table 1 shows the eligibility and exclusion criteria that was used to access the relevant documents. The various steps employed in the review process were (databases, identification, screening, eligibility, merging, duplicate removal and included documents) (see Fig. 1 ). Processing and analysis of the data were then applied to the remaining documents. Scientometrics is defined as the research approach utilised in analysing and assessing science, innovation, and technology by applying statistics and quantitative analysis to explain the distribution and visualisation patterns of research within a specific nation, issue, field or institution (Orimoloye and Ololade, 2021 ). Scientometric evaluations have been used to analyse scientific trends and outputs, as well as the evolution of research, author productivity, journals, and nations, as well as to discover and measure international collaboration (Orimoloye and Ololade, 2021 ).

WoS: Web of Science.

WoS and Scopus were the two-database used for this study. WoS is a database collection administered by Thomson Reuters Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) that contains databases on humanities, social sciences, biology (i.e., Biosis), science (i.e., Core Collection) and computers (i.e., Inspec). WoS was previously the only and biggest accessible database for bibliometric analysis. However, Scopus that was launched by Elsevier, with ease of use in universities throughout the globe emerged as a key rival for doing such studies (Echchakoui, 2020 ). Scopus has the largest abstract and citation databases with over 22,800 journals from 5000 publishers worldwide was used in the review (Shaffril et al., 2018 ). Moreover, It is the most comprehensive interdisciplinary database of peer-reviewed literature in the social sciences, and is generally acknowledged and utilised for quantitative analyses (Guerrero-Baena et al., 2014 ).

Criteria for eligibility and exclusion

Various qualifying and exclusion criteria were considered. Title-based search for rapid visibility and retrieval was used. According to Ekundayo and Okoh ( 2018 ), a title-specific search offers the advantages of low loss, considerable retrieval, and sensitivity when compared to other types of searches such as a topic, field, or author search. First, concerning literature type, only journals and final articles were selected, which meant Article in Press, etc., were excluded. Secondly, non-English articles were excluded. Thirdly, a period of 6 years was used followed by the subject area, which focused on Environmental, Social, Agricultural, and Biological Sciences (Table 1 ) (Shaffril et al., 2018 ).

Systematic review process

To explore the current literature on ECAP-FS, we conducted a comprehensive literature review according to the rules provided by Tranfield et al. ( 2003 ). The systematic review process for this study involved four stages. The review process was performed in April 2021. The first stage was the selection of databases (WoS and Scopus). The second stage pinpointed keywords utilised for the search process. Based on prior research, keywords similar and related to the effect of COVID-19 on agricultural output and food security were used with a total of ( n  = 9, 421) published records found on WoS and Scopus, respectively (Table 2 ). The third stage was screening. Out of ( n  = 9, 421) papers eligible for evaluation at this stage, a total of ( n  = 7, 203) papers were excluded. The fourth stage was eligibility where the complete articles were accessible. Following a thorough review, a total of ( n  = 1, 46) publications were eliminated since some did not focus on the effect of coronavirus on agricultural production and food security. The fifth stage was merging the two documents ( n  = 6, 172 = 178). The sixth stage was the removal of duplicates ( n  = 4). The last round of evaluation yielded a total of ( n  = 174) papers for qualitative analysis (Fig. 1 ).

Processing and analysis of data

The research assessed data obtained for scientometric investigation utilising RStudio v.4.0.3 software with bibliometrix R-package and net2VOSviewer after reading the articles relevant to the study. The data were imported into RStudio, transformed to a bibliographic data frame, and normalised for duplicate matches (Aria and Cuccurullo, 2017 ; Ekundayo and Okoh, 2018 ). Net2VOSviewer (net,vos.path = NULL) embedded in RStudio v.4.0.3 software were used for visualisation. The VOSviewer programme created by Van Eck and Waltman ( 2009 ) is often used to visualise and evaluate a bibliometric network. Hamidah et al. ( 2021 ) and Zhang and Yuan ( 2019 ) made use of VOSviewer to analyse a bibliographic map on energy performance. Park and Nagy ( 2018 ) used VOSviewer to examine building control bibliographic data, and Van Eck and Waltman ( 2017 ) analysed citation-based clustering in the field of astronomy and astrophysics using VOSviewer. The research made use of Net2VOSviewer embedded in R studio to make visualisation maps, such as authors coupling, keyword co-occurrence network, and university collaboration network, based on bibliographic data. Each circle on the VOSviewer visual map represents a word. The term activity is represented by the circle and text size. The big circle and text show the chosen terms in a field. The distance between the two words reflects the degree of their association. In this case, the relationship between two words will be greater if the distance between them is small (Hamidah et al., 2021 ).

Web of Science and Scopus database merging for bibliometric analysis

The authors suggest the following four stage approach to combine the two databases shown in Fig. 1 and Table 3 .

As soon as required articles were sourced, we downloaded the documents separately from WoS and Scopus databases. For WoS, we clicked on export, which redirected us to another window where we selected “other file formats” under record content, and “BiTeX” under file format before we clicked export. For Scopus, we went to export document setting where we ticked all relevant boxes including “BibTeX” before clicking export. The second step was to transform (WoS.bib and Scopus.bib) to “bibtex” files. Here we used R or Rstudio software by loading the bibliometrix package “install.packages” (“bibliometrix”), and “library(bibliometrix)”, After that we specified the pathway using the command file1<- “path/savedrecs.bib” and file2 < - “path/scopus.bib” for WoS and Scopus files, respectively. After that we converted file (1&2) using command “f1<-convert2df(file1, dbsource = “isi”, format = “bibtex”)” and “f2<-convert2df(file2, dbsource = “scopus”, format = “bibtex”)” for WoS and Scopus respectively. We merged the two databases in R/Rstudio. For this operation to be successful, we used the command “j <-mergeDbSources(f1, f2, remove.duplicated = FALSE)”. Finally, the duplicate documents were removed using the command “M < -duplicatedMatching(j, Field = “TI”,tol = 0.95)”. We performed a bibliometric analysis for bibtex file in Rstudio, using Aria and Cuccurullo’s ( 2017 ) techniques and scripts in R, and utilising the net2VOSviewer for keywords co-occurrence network, collaboration networks of universities, authors coupling, amongst others.

Bibliometric analyses results

During the survey period, 174 papers were published on ECAP-FS; their characteristics are shown in Table 4 . The research had 851 authors, with a cooperation index of 5.1 and a document/author ratio of 0.20 (4.89 authors/document). Except for nine authors who published alone, all 842 authors were part of multi-author publications.

During the research period, an average of 6.0 citations per document were recorded. Lotka’s law scientific output for ECAP-FS study revealed a constant of 0.70 and beta coefficient of 3.88, with a Kolmogorov–Smirnoff goodness-of-fit of 0.94. Table 5 and Fig. 2 displays published research on ECAP-FS from 2016 to April 2021 in conjunction with the total citation of papers on average by year. The yearly pace of development was 56.64, with a mean overall of 12 ± 6, indicating that ECAP-FS research increased over time. This outcome agrees with the work of El Mohadebe et al. ( 2020 ) who stated that the number of published articles increased exponentially since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The rise in COVID-19 research reflects that it is a major danger to human health, the economy, and food security in industrialised and emerging nations (Carroll et al., 2020 ; Mottaleb et al., 2020 ; Alam and Khatun, 2021 ).

ATC/Y average total citations of articles published per year. NB: The yearly percentage rate of increase was 56.64.

During the survey period, research production varied, peaking in 2020 with 38.5% (67/174) of the total research output, followed by 2021 with 66 research articles accounting for 37.9% (66/174) during the same time. This result is liable to change when additional papers pertaining to ECAP-FS are published in 2021. The average total number of citations for published papers changed over time, peaking in 2016 (average = 11.8). Furthermore, the findings of this analysis identified the top 20 most prolific authors from 2016 to April 2021. Table 6 shows Gong B as the most productive author over the time, with six papers accounting for 3.45% of the total research publications on ECAP-FS. The following were placed second on the list: Baudron F, Peng W, and Zhang S who published three research articles each accounting for 1.7% of the total published research articles within the study period. The rest of the 17 authors published two articles within the same year. The quantity of a researcher’s academic output demonstrates their efficacy and propensity for conducting quality research (Orimoloye et al., 2021a )

Citation analysis reveals how many times a specific research article has been cited in other scientific articles. More cited research articles are considered significantly more influential than articles with fewer citations (Mishra et al., 2017 ; Nyam et al., 2020 ). Table 7 shows the top 20 papers on ECAP-FS in terms of citations in the field throughout the time. The list was compiled using the publications with the most citations (Echchakoui, 2020 ). In this research on ECAP-FS, Foyer et al. 2016 “Nature Plants” placed first with a total of 244 citations. Hart et al. 2018 “Functional Ecology” took second place with 60 citations, followed by Smiraglia D. 2016 “Environmental Research” with 52 citations during the same time period. Millar NS 2016 “Oecologia” and Tesfahunegn GB 2016 “Applied Geography” rated fourth and fifth with 43 and 42 citations, respectively. With 39, 23 and 21 citations, respectively, KC et al. 2018 “Plos One,” Pu and Zhong, 2020 “Global Food Security,” and Provenza FD 2019 “Frontiers in Nutrition” placed sixth, seventh, and eighth. As shown in Table 8 , the leading active writers were connected with institutions in both emerging and developed countries, including China (28), the United States (19), the United Kingdom (12), Italy (9), Spain (8), Australia (5), India (5), and Mexico (5). With the exception of China, the majority of the articles were from developed countries. China, the United States of America, United Kingdom, Italy, and Spain, among other countries, contributed the most articles in ECAP-FS, which is line with the work of Mottaleb et al. ( 2020 ). According to Orimoloye et al. ( 2021b ), research funding and scholarships have had a significant impact on the research output of many countries. As a result, this study indicates that economic assistance could help in the advancement of research in the area of ECAP-FS. Furthermore, during the research period, the total citation of published papers on average by each nation differed from one nation to another. Table 9 shows the top 20 citations by nation for ECAP-FS research papers. The data indicated that the most mentioned nations were industrialised ones, while China, a developing country, placed second among the most often referenced nations. The exceptional success of China research suggests that the nation performs well in sponsoring field research, possibly because the coronavirus originated in Wuhan City of China (Mottalab et al., 2020). Italy leads the way with 112 total citations and an average article citation of 12.44 for research papers published during the study duration, China was second with 107 citations and an average article citation of 3.82. During the same time period, the United States, the United Kingdom, Ethiopia, and Canada were placed third, fourth, fifth, and sixth, with total number of citations (average article citations) of 81 (4.26), 76 (6.33), 47 (23.50), and 40 (13.33), respectively.

This analysis also uncovered the most relevant sources for published academic research on ECAP-FS between 2016 and April 2021, as shown in Table 10 . Sustainability (Switzerland) was first with a total of 23 scientific papers on ECAP-FS. Agricultural Systems and Journal of Cleaner Production were ranked second and third with a total of 13 and 10 articles respectively. Global Food Security and Science of The Total Environment were rated fourth with eight articles each. Land was ranked fifth with five articles while Food Security, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Plos One were ranked sixth with four published articles each. Environmental Research and Journal of Integrative Agriculture rated seventh with three published articles on ECAP-FS throughout the review period.

Concerns are growing about the influence of COVID-19 on agricultural production, which could pose a significant threat to long-term food security and food supply (Pu and Zhong, 2020 ). Table 11 summarises the top 20 academics’ most relevant terms. In addition, Table 11 displays the most important keywords linked to ECAP-FS research, including keywords-plus (ID) as well as author keywords (DE). COVID-19, Food Security, Agriculture, Climate Change, Sustainable Development, Agricultural Production, Biodiversity, China, and Sustainability were among the nine keywords shared by keywords-plus (ID) and author keywords (DE). Eleven keywords were peculiar to authors’ keywords (Resilience, Ecosystem Services, Food Systems, COVID-19 Pandemic, Food Supply Chain, India, Land Take, Life Cycle Assessment, Nutrition, Conservation, and Dietary Diversity), and nine keywords were unique to keywords-Plus (Food Supply, Human, Article, Food Production, Land Use, Agricultural Robots, Agricultural Land, Controlled Study, and Cultivation). The distinct author keywords explicitly defined what COVID-19 affected as well as the means or elements engaged in the process (Nutrition, Dietary Diversity, Ecosystem Services, Resilience, Conservation, Food Systems, and Food Supply Chain of People). COVID-19 ( n  = 27, 15.5%), Food Security ( n  = 25, 14.4%), Agriculture ( n  = 18, 10.3%), Climate Change ( n  = 9, 5.2%), Sustainable Development ( n  = 5, 2.9%), Agricultural Production ( n  = 4, 2.3%), Biodiversity ( n  = 4, 2.3%), China ( n  = 4, 2.3%), COVID-19 Pandemic ( n  = 4, 2.3%) were author keyword phrases related with the detection of ECAP-FS.

The keyword analysis identified Food Security in 35 (20.1%) and 25 (14.4%) published papers by keyword-plus and author keyword, respectively, while Agricultural was found in 28 (16.1%) and 18 (10.3%) published papers by keyword-plus and author keyword, respectively. By author keyword and keyword-plus, Agricultural Production was detected in 4 (2.3%) and 28 (16.1%) publications, respectively. In the ECAP-FS study field, Climate Change was detected in 26 (14.9%) and 9 (5.2%) papers by keyword-plus and author keyword, respectively. The review indicates that research on ECAP-FS emphasised these agricultural-related issues several times, implying that COVID-19 has an effect on agriculture, agricultural production, sustainable development, food security, and food supply of the general public, which is exacerbated by climate change, and is a major danger to food security, economy and human health (Mottaleb et al., 2020 ).

The connection between influential authors, keywords, journals, and trending topics was investigated using co-citation network analysis (Leydesdorff, 2009 ). Articles are said to be co-cited when they are cited and appear in other publications’ reference lists (Nyam et al., 2020 ). The top 20 authors coupling in Fig. 3 explains the authors coupling on ECAP-FS-related research. Every node in the network symbolises a distinct author who is linked to others. Connecting lines reflect author-to-author linking routes. The number of lines from each node correlates to the number of published papers that referenced the writer. The cluster of authors network, which comprises 20 nodes (authors), has no less than 18 interconnections. Other indicators of often expressed ideas and frameworks linked to ECAP-FS include nation collaboration (Fig. 4 ) and university collaboration network (Fig. 5 ).

The top 20 authors coupling on agricultural production and food security published articles. (Every node in the network symbolises a distinct author who is linked to others. Connecting lines reflect author-to author linking routes).

The top 27 nation collaboration networks on agricultural production and food security. (Each node represents a country, and the lines represent their collaboration).

The top 20 university collaboration networks on agricultural production and food security research.

Authors with multiple affiliations have made significant contributions to nation and university collaborative networks (Figs. 4 and 5 ). Our findings indicated that studies on ECAP-FS were conducted at institutions in both advanced and developing nations between 2016 and April 2021. The Wageningen University (Netherland), the China Agricultural University (China), the Zhejiang University (Asia), and University of Pretoria (South Africa) had the greatest collaboration network on ECAP-FS studies followed by the University of Western Australia (Australia), University of Leeds (UK), University of Alberta (Canada), University of Sydney (Australia), Case Western Reserve University (USA), Chinese University of Hong Kong (China) and the International Crop Research Institute. The University of Oxford was the only university that did not collaborate with any of the universities during the study period. Figure 4 depicts the networks of collaboration on ECAP-FS for 27 countries. The number of collaboration paths varied from one to 17. The number of partnerships was highest in the USA ( n  = 17), followed by China (n = 10), Australia ( n  = 8), the United Kingdom ( n  = 8), Canada ( n  = 5), the Netherlands ( n  = 4), Germany ( n  = 4), South Africa ( n  = 4), Uganda ( n  = 3), India ( n  = 3), Malaysia ( n  = 2), Denmark ( n  = 2), France ( n  = 2), Spain ( n  = 2), and New Zealand ( n  = 2). The remaining nations had one collaboration network. This outcome is consistent with El Mohadab et al. ( 2020 ) as the analysis of a nation’s collaboration is a vital type of analysis, because it allows for the visualisation of the most influential nations in a given field of research, revealing the level of scientific cooperation between the countries. The following network colour codes were prominent: light green for the USA network; light blue for the China network; purple for the Australia network; orange for the United Kingdom network; and brown for the Spain network.

Figure 6 depicts the top 30 keywords of co-occurrence network, the related visualisation and the association strength of ECAP-FS. The co-occurrence of author keywords was examined to illustrate the research hotspots in ECAP-FS. The threshold for keyword co-occurrence was set at 10, and 30 keywords out of 708 were categorised as visualisation elements. The distance between the components of each pairings indicated topic similarity and relative strength. Individual term clusters were allocated different colours of circles. The network in Fig. 6 depicts three different clusters, each reflecting a branch of research in the ECAP-FS literature. The number of publications in which the keywords co-occurred was shown by the connections between specific keywords. The main themes with the highest overall connection strength in the ECAP-FS literature were COVID-19, Food Security, Agriculture, and Climate Change.

The co-occurrence network visualisation of 30 keywords and their relationship strength of agricultural production and food security research.

The ECAP-FS scientific field has three subfields (clusters of author keywords), which are as follows:

The blue cluster includes terms such as COVID-19, Food Supply, Food Production, China, Food Security, and Agricultural Production.’

The red cluster grouped the keywords Agricultural Land, Catering Services, Environmental Protection, Humans, Meat, Human, Food Industry, Article, Female, Priority Journal, Procedures, Controlled Study, and Environmental Sustainability.

The green cluster grouped the keywords Economic and Social Effects, Agriculture, Agricultural Robots, Sustainable Development, Climate Change, Land Use, Greenhouse Gases, Ecosystem, and Biodiversity. The findings revealed a significant variation in the co-occurrence of author keywords in individual articles in the ECAP-FS literature. This demonstrated the scientific field’s multifaceted and multidimensional nature. This result is agreement with the work of Orimoloye et al. ( 2021b ).

Figure 7 depicts the frequency of word occurrence of the top 70 most utilised title keywords in ECAP-FS studies. During the research, a word cloud was generated using the titles of published articles that contained the most frequently used keywords in ECAP-FS research. This revealed the most commonly used word or phrase in ECAP-FS research. Within the word cloud on ECAP-FS research, various regions of connections and the most significant words used were determined. For example, COVID-19, food security, agriculture, climate change, ecosystem services, resilience, agricultural production, sustainable development, food system, and China were recognised as the most prevalent or prominent themes in ECAP-FS studies.

Word cloud or frequency of word occurrence of the top 70 most often used title keywords in agricultural production and food security research.

The COVID-19 pandemic has received significant recognition since the outbreak, and serious effort has been expended by researchers around the world in various fields. The present bibliometric analysis of COVID-19 examined the resulting effects on agricultural production and food security research trends from 2016 to April 2021 by means of data acquired from WoS and Scopus. According to our findings in ECAP-FS, there has been an exponential rise in research publications. This indicates that studies on ECAP-FS received increasing attention during last few years especially in 2020 and 2021, most likely due to COVID-19 pandemic related research by authors from different counties of the world like China, USA and the United Kingdom. Furthermore, most of the productive authors in ECAP-FS at the time of this research were from China, possibly because the pandemic was first discovered in Wuhan City.

The findings of this analysis revealed that few articles came from Africa. In terms of country and institution collaboration networks, few of the countries and institutions collaborated with the countries in Africa except for the University of Pretoria, which had a strong collaboration network on ECAP-FS research during the period of study. According to the word cloud analysis and frequency analysis of the frequently used keywords and keyword-plus demonstrated that the most topical issues in ECAP-FS are COVID-19, food security, agriculture, climate change, agricultural production, sustainable development, biodiversity and sustainability. These results demonstrated the most persistent issues related to ECAP-FS; this was buttressed by another conceptual framework indicator such as keyword co-occurrence networks.

The bibliometric survey performed in this study has some limitations, such as the use of two databases (Scopus and WoS), the strictness of the search keywords and search approach employed, as well as the exclusion of other document types (e.g., conference papers, books chapters, reviews, abstracts, meetings and notes, etc.) and published articles in languages other than English (French, Dutch, Chinese). Despite the limitations, this research seems to be the first bibliometric analysis on ECAP-FS-related studies, which adds to the evidence base and will drive further studies. Furthermore, WoS and Scopus have greater coverage than other databases, dependable indexing technology that reduces the “indexer effect,” and are highly regarded by scientific communities. Other databases, such as ScienceDirect, Education Resource Information Center (ERIC), and Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), should be evaluated in future studies.

Data availability

All data analysed are contained in the paper.

Alam GM, Khatun MN (2021) Impact of COVID-19 on vegetable supply chain and food security: empirical evidence from Bangladesh. PLoS ONE 16(3):e0248120

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Aria M, Cuccurullo C (2017) bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J Informetr 11(4):959–975 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007

Article   Google Scholar  

Bai HM (2020) The Socio-economic implications of the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) A Review. ComFin Res 8(4):8–17

Carroll N, Sadowski A, Laila A, Hruska V, Nixon M, Ma DWL, Haines J (2020) The Impact of COVID-19 on Health Behavior, Stress, Financial and Food Security among Middle to High Income Canadian Families with Young Children. Nutrients. 12:2352 https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12082352

Article   CAS   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ceballos F, Kannan S, Kramer B (2020) Impacts of a national lockdown on smallholder farmers’ income and food security: empirical evidence from two states in India. World Dev 136:105069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105069

Dev SM (2020) Addressing COVID-19 impacts on agriculture, food security, and livelihoods in India, IFPRI book chapters, in: COVID-19 and global food security, ch. 7, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), p 33–35

Devereux S, Béné C, Hoddinott J (2020) Conceptualising COVID-19’s impacts on household food security. Food Secur 12(4):769–772

Echchakoui S (2020) Why and how to merge Scopus and Web of Science during bibliometric analysis: the case of sales force literature from 1912 to 2019. J Market Anal 8(3):165–184. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41270-020-00081-9

Ekundayo TC, Okoh AI (2018) A global bibliometric analysis of Plesiomonas-related research (1990–2017). PLoS ONE 13(11):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207655

El Mohadab M, Bouikhalene B, Safi S (2020) Bibliometric method for mapping the state of the art of scientific production in Covid-19. Chaos Solitons Fractals 139:110052

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Elsahoryi N, Al-sayyed H, Odeh M, Mcgrattan A, Hammad F (2020) Effect of Covid-19 on food security: a cross-sectional survey. Clin Nutr ESPEN 40:171–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnesp.2020.09.026

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Food and Agricultural Organisation (2020) Sustainable crop production and COVID-19. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca8807en

Foyer CH, Lam HM, Nguyen HT, Siddique KH, Varshney RK, Colmer TD, Considine MJ (2016) Neglecting legumes has compromised human health and sustainable food production. Nat Plants 2(8):1–10

Genkin AS, Mikheev AA (2020) Influence of coronavirus crisis on food industry economy. Foods Raw Mater 8: 2

Gong B (2018) Agricultural reforms and production in China: changes in provincial production function and productivity in 1978–2015 Stochastic frontier analysis. Semi-varying coefficient model China’s agricultural production and productivity. Rural reforms multi-segment industry. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2017.12.005

Gong B, Zhang S, Liu X, Chen KZ (2021) The Zoonotic diseases, agricultural production, and impact channels: evidence from China. Global Food Secur28:100463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100463

Gregorio GB, Ancog RC (2020) Assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on agricultural production in Southeast Asia. Toward Transform Change Agric Food Syst 17(1):1–14

Google Scholar  

Guerrero-Baena MD, Gómez-Limón JA, Fruet Cardozo JV (2014) Are multi-criteria decision-making techniques useful for solving corporate finance problems? A bibliometric analysis. Rev de Metod Cuantitativos para la Econ y la Empres 17:60–79

Hamidah I, Pawinanto RE, Mulyanti B, Yunas J (2021) A bibliometric analysis of micro electromechanical system energy harvester research. Heliyon 7(3):e06406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06406

Hanna R, Xu Y, Victor DG (2020) After COVID-19, green investment must deliver jobs to get political traction. Nature 582:178–180

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Hart MM, Antunes PM, Chaudhary VB, Abbott LK (2018) Fungal inoculants in the field: Is the reward greater than the risk? Funct Ecol 32(1):126–135

KC KB, Dias GM, Veeramani A, Swanton CJ, Fraser D, Steinke D, Fraser ED (2018) When too much isn’t enough: does current food production meet global nutritional needs? PLoS ONE 13(10):e0205683

Laborde D, Martin W, Vos R (2020a) Poverty and food insecurity could grow dramatically as COVID-19 spreads. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington

Book   Google Scholar  

Laborde D, Martin W, Swinnen J, Vos R (2020b) COVID-19 risks to global food security. Science 369(6503):500–502

Leydesdorff L (2009) How are new citation‐based journal indicators adding to the bibliometric toolbox? J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 60(7):1327–1336

Mishra D, Luo Z, Jiang S, Papadopoulos T, Dubey R (2017) A bibliographic study on big data: concepts, trends and challenges. Bus Process Manag J 23:555–573. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-10-2015-0149

Mottaleb KA, Mainuddin M, Sonobe T (2020) COVID-19 induced economic loss and ensuring food security for vulnerable groups: policy implications from Bangladesh. PLoS ONE 15(10):e0240709. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240709

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Nchanji EB, Lutomia CK (2021) Regional impact of COVID-19 on the production and food security of common bean smallholder farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa: implication for SDG’s. Global Food Secur 29:100524

Nechifor V, Priscila M, Ferrari E, Laichena J, Kihiu E, Omanyo D, Musamali R, Kiriga B (2021) Food security and welfare changes under COVID-19 in Sub-Saharan Africa: impacts and responses in Kenya. Global Food Secur 28:100514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100514

Nyam YS, Kotir JH, Jordaan AJ, Ogundeji AA, Adetoro AA, Orimoloye IR (2020) Towards understanding and sustaining natural resource systems through the systems perspective: a systematic evaluation. Sustainability 12(23):9871

Orimoloye IR, Ololade OO (2021) Global trends assessment of environmental health degradation studies from 1990 to 2018. Environ Dev Sustainabil 23(3):3251–3264

Orimoloye IR, Belle JA, Olusola AO, Busayo ET, Ololade OO (2021a) Spatial assessment of drought disasters, vulnerability, severity and water shortages: a potential drought disaster mitigation strategy. Nat Hazards 105(3):2735–2754

Orimoloye IR, Belle JA, Ololade OO (2021b) Exploring the emerging evolution trends of disaster risk reduction research: a global scenario. Int J Environ Sci Technol 18(3):673–690

Park JY, Nagy Z (2018) Comprehensive analysis of the relationship between thermal comfort and building control research—a data-driven literature review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 82:2664–2679

Petetin L (2020) The COVID-19 crisis: an opportunity to integrate food democracy into post-pandemic food systems. Eur J Risk Regul 11(2):326–336

Pu M, Zhong Y (2020) Rising concerns over agricultural production as COVID-19 spreads: lessons from China. Global Food Secur 26:100409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100409

Shaffril HAM, Krauss SE, Samsuddin SF (2018) A systematic review on Asian’s farmers’ adaptation practices towards climate change. Sci Total Environ 644:683–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.349

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Singh S, Kumar R, Panchal R, Tiwari MK (2021) Impact of COVID-19 on logistics systems and disruptions in food supply chain. Int J Prod Res 59(7):1993–2008. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2020.1792000

Tamru S, Hirvonen K, Minten B (2020) Impacts of the COVID-19 crisis on vegetable value chains in Ethiopia. IFPRI book chapters, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) pp 81–83. https://doi.org/10.2499/p15738coll2.133762_18

Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14(3):207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375

Van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2017) Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer. Scientometrics 111(2):1053–1070. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2300-7

Van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2009) VOSviewer: a computer program for bibliometric mapping. In: Larsen B, & Leta J (eds) 12th International conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, ISSI 2009, pp. 886–897

Xu Z, Elomri A, El Omri A, Kerbache L, Liu H (2021) The compounded effects of COVID-19 pandemic and desert locust outbreak on food security and food supply chain. Sustainability 13(3):1063

Zhang S, Wang S, Yuan L, Liu X, Gong B (2020) The impact of epidemics on agricultural production and forecast of COVID-19. China Agric Econ Rev Emerald Group Publishing 12(3):409–425

Zhang W, Yuan H (2019) A bibliometric analysis of energy performance contracting research from 2008 to 2018. Sustainability 11(13):3548

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Agricultural Economics, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa

Collins C. Okolie & Abiodun A. Ogundeji

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abiodun A. Ogundeji .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Additional information.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Okolie, C.C., Ogundeji, A.A. Effect of COVID-19 on agricultural production and food security: A scientometric analysis. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 9 , 64 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01080-0

Download citation

Received : 09 September 2021

Accepted : 08 February 2022

Published : 28 February 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01080-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Integrated modelling of the determinants of household food insecurity during the 2020–2021 covid-19 lockdown in uganda.

• Henry Musoke Semakula
• Jovia Nakato

Agriculture & Food Security (2024)

Mapping scientific knowledge discovery on COVID-19 pandemic and agriculture: a bibliometric analysis and future research directions

Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023)

Prediction of impacts and outbreak of COVID-19 on the society using distinct machine learning algorithms

• Taspia Tazri Chaity
• Md. Ashikur Rahman Khan
• Fardowsi Rahman

Iran Journal of Computer Science (2023)

Circular economy and agriculture: mapping scientific productivity, research pattern and future research direction

• Tabassum Ali

Environment, Development and Sustainability (2023)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Sage Choice

Regenerative Agriculture: An agronomic perspective

Ken e giller.

1 Plant Production Systems, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands

Renske Hijbeek

Jens a andersson, james sumberg.

2 Institute of Development Studies (IDS), University of Sussex, Brighton, UK

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

Introduction

Claims that the global food system is ‘in crisis’ or ‘broken’ are increasingly common. 1 , 2 Such claims point to a wide variety of ills, from hunger, poverty and obesity; through industrial farming, over dependence on chemical fertilizer and pesticides, poor quality (if not unsafe) food, environmental degradation, biodiversity loss, exploitative labour relations and animal welfare; to corporate dominance and a lack of resilience. It is in this context, where every aspect of farming and food production, distribution and consumption is being questioned, that the current interest in ‘Regenerative Agriculture’ and ‘Regenerative Farming’ 3 has taken root.

While the use of the adjective regenerative is expanding among activists, civil society groups and corporations as they call for renewal, transformation and revitalization of the global food system ( Duncan et al., 2021 ), in this paper we explore the calls for Regenerative Agriculture from an agronomic perspective . By this we mean a perspective steeped in the use of plant, soil, ecological and system sciences to support the production of food, feed and fibre in a sustainable manner. Specifically, we address two questions: 1) What is the agronomic problem analysis that motivates the Regenerative Agriculture movement and what is the evidence base for this analysis? 2) What agronomic solutions are proposed, and how well are these supported by evidence?

Our avowedly agronomic perspective on Regenerative Agriculture means that some important aspects of the ‘food system in crisis’ narrative are beyond the scope of this paper, such as food inequalities and labour relations. However, in addition to agronomic science, our analysis is rooted in historical and political economy perspectives. These suggest that the food system is best viewed as an integral part of the much broader network of economic, social and political relations. It follows that many of the faults ascribed to the food system – including hunger, food poverty, poor labour relations, corporate dominance – will not be successfully addressed by action within the food system, but only through higher level political and economic change.

The paper proceeds as follows. The next section explores the origins of Regenerative Agriculture, and the various ways it has been defined. Following this, the two crises that are central to the rationale for Regenerative Agriculture – soils and biodiversity – are interrogated. The subsequent section looks at the practices most commonly associated with Regenerative Agriculture and assesses their potential to solve the aforementioned crises. The final discussion section presents a series of questions that may be useful for research agronomists as they engage with the Regenerative Agriculture agenda.

The origins of regenerative agriculture

The adjective ‘regenerative’ has been associated with the nouns ‘agriculture’ and ‘farming’ since the late 1970s ( Gabel, 1979 ), but the terms Regenerative Agriculture and Regenerative Farming came into wider circulation in the early 1980s when they were picked up by the US-based Rodale Institute. Through its research and publications (including the magazine Organic Gardening and Farming ), the Rodale Institute has, over decades, been at the forefront of the organic farming movement.

Robert Rodale (1983) defined Regenerative Agriculture as ‘one that, at increasing levels of productivity, increases our land and soil biological production base. It has a high level of built-in economic and biological stability. It has minimal to no impact on the environment beyond the farm or field boundaries. It produces foodstuffs free from biocides. It provides for the productive contribution of increasingly large numbers of people during a transition to minimal reliance on non-renewable resources’.

Richard Harwood, an agronomist who made his name in the international farming systems research movement ( Escobar et al., 2000 ), was Director of Rodale Research Centre when he published an ‘international overview’ of Regenerative Agriculture ( Harwood, 1983 ). The review goes to great pains to contextualize Regenerative Agriculture in relation to the historical evolution of different schools of organic and biodynamic farming, but it also highlights Rodale’s suggestion that Regenerative Agriculture was beyond organic because it included changes in ‘macro structure’ and ‘social relevancy’, and seeks to increase rather than decrease productive resources ( Rodale, 1983 ). Harwood summarizes the ‘Regenerative Agriculture Philosophy’ in 10 points (Box 1). He further states that this philosophy emphasizes: ‘1) the inter-relatedness of all parts of a farming system, including the farmer and his family; 2) the importance of the innumerable biological balances in the system; and 3) the need to maximise desired biological relationships in the system, and minimise use of materials and practices which disrupt those relationships’.

Box 1. Points summarizing the Regenerative Agriculture Philosophy as presented by Harwood (1983 : 31).

• Agriculture should produce highly nutritional food, free from biocides, at high yields.
• Agriculture should increase rather than decrease soil productivity, by increasing the depth, fertility and physical characteristics of the upper soil layers.
• Nutrient-flow systems which fully integrate soil flora and fauna into the pattern of are more efficient and less destructive of the environment, and ensure better crop nutrition. Such systems accomplish a new upward flow of nutrients in the soil profile, reducing or eliminating adverse environmental impact. Such a process is, by definition, a soil genesis process.
• Crop production should be based on biological interactions for stability, eliminating the need for synthetic biocides.
• Substances which disrupt biological structuring of the farming system (such as present-day synthetic fertilizers) should not be used.
• Regenerative agriculture requires, in its biological structuring, an intimate relationship between manager/participants of the system and the system itself.
• Integrated systems which are largely self-reliant in nitrogen through biological nitrogen fixation should be utilized.
• Animals in agriculture should be fed and housed in such a manner as to preclude the use of hormones and the prophylactic use of antibiotics which are then present in human food.
• Agricultural production should generate increased levels of employment.
• A Regenerative Agriculture requires national-level planning but a high degree of local and regional self-reliance to close nutrient-flow loops.

In what is probably the first journal article on Regenerative Agriculture, Francis et al. (1986) link it closely to organic and ‘low external input agriculture’, and highlight the importance of biological structuring, progressive biological sequencing and integrative farm structuring. They also associate it with a number of ‘specific technologies and systems’ including nitrogen fixation, nutrient cycling, integrated nutrient management, crop rotation, integrated pest management (IPM) and ‘weed cycling’. Figure 1 depicts the Regenerative Agriculture theory of change as articulated by Francis et al. (1986) .

Early theory of Regenerative Agriculture in developing countries. Source: Authors’ interpretation of Francis et al. (1986) .

A shifting timeline of attention

After an initial flurry of interest, Regenerative Agriculture left the scene for almost two decades before regaining momentum. To illustrate this, we look at the extent to which the terms Regenerative Agriculture and Regenerative Farming have been integrated into both the public and academic spheres. For the public sphere we draw from Google Books (Ngram Viewer) and the Nexis Uni database, which searches more than 17,000 news sources. As seen in Figure 2 , the occurrence of these terms in books first peaked in the mid-late 1980s, but by the mid-2000s they had virtually disappeared. The occurrence of Regenerative Agriculture then increased dramatically after 2015. It is important to note that over the period 1972–2018, Regenerative Agriculture appears in books much less frequently than other terms such as sustainable agriculture, organic agriculture, organic farming and agroecology.

The frequency of key terms in books (3-year rolling averages). Source: Google NGram Viewer, Corpus ‘English 2019’ which includes books predominantly in the English language published in any country.

Regenerative Agriculture and Regenerative Farming first appear in the Nexus Uni database of news stories in 1983 and 1986 respectively, both with reference to the Rodale Institute ( Figure 3a ), and neither term occurred in more than 15 news items each year until 2009. Their use increased dramatically after 2016, and since then the combined occurrence of these terms has doubled each year, reaching 6163 news items in 2020. To place this in perspective, in 2020 organic agriculture and organic farming appeared in 6,870 and 18,301 news items respectively.

(a) Occurrence of Regenerative Agriculture or Regenerative Farming in news items and (b) Academic peer-reviewed publications on Regenerative Agriculture or Regenerative Farming. Sources: (a) Nexis Uni database, (b) Web of Science.

Turning to the more academic literature, in the first 30 years following the publication of Francis et al. (1986) , only seven other papers are identified by Web of Science having the terms Regenerative Agriculture or Regenerative Farming in their title or abstract ( Figure 3b ). The year 2016 marked a clear turning point in academic interest, and by 2020 a total of 52 academic papers had been published, and together these have been cited some 250 times.

Thus, while the terms Regenerative Agriculture and Regenerative Farming have been in use since the early 1980s, to date they have not been as widely used as other related terms such as sustainable agriculture or organic agriculture. Since 2016 their occurrence in books, news stories and on the internet has increased dramatically, which reflects the fact that they have now been adopted by a wide range of NGOs (e.g. The Nature Conservancy, 4 the World Wildlife Fund, 5 GreenPeace, 6 Friends of the Earth 7 ), multi-national companies (e.g. Danone, 8 General Mills, 9 Kellogg’s, 10 Patagonia, 11 the World Council for Sustainable Business Development 12 ) and charitable foundations (e.g. IKEA Foundation 13 ). In relation to this newfound popularity, Diana Martin, the Director of Communications of the Rodale Institute, cautioned ‘It’s [Regenerative Agriculture] the new buzzword. There is a danger of it getting greenwashed’. 14

While the academic literature referring to Regenerative Agriculture is growing, the published corpus remains very limited, and only a fraction of this corpus addresses what might be considered agronomic questions. It is likely that additional funding for agronomic research will accompany the public commitments to Regenerative Agriculture being made by NGOs, corporations and foundations. Navigating the rhetoric and potential for greenwash will be a major challenge for research agronomists who seek to work in this area.

Evolving definitions

Within the recent resurgence of interest in Regenerative Agriculture, there is a lack of consensus around any particular definition ( Merfield, 2019 ; Soloviev and Landua, 2016 ). Early (and continuing) efforts have struggled to draw a clear distinction between regenerative, organic and other ‘alternative’ agricultures (for example, Whyte, 1987 : 244): indeed the Rodale Institute continues to refer to ‘regenerative organic agriculture’ ( Rodale Institute, 2014 ).

Since the 1980s, both more broad and more narrow definitions of Regenerative Agriculture have been proposed, with most highlighting or developing one or more of the elements originally identified by Rodale (1983) . For example, some authors have emphasized the idea that regenerative systems are ‘semi-closed’, i.e. ‘those designed to minimize external inputs or external impacts of agronomy outside the farm’ ( Pearson, 2007 ) or ‘those in which inputs of energy, in the form of fertilisers and fuels, are minimised because these key agricultural elements are recycled as far as possible’ ( Rhodes, 2012 ). Regenerative Agriculture as ‘a system of principles and practices’ is central to some definitions, but not all. For Burgess et al. (2019) Regenerative Agriculture ‘generates agricultural products, sequesters carbon, and enhances biodiversity at the farm scale’, and for Terra Genesis International it ‘increases biodiversity, enriches soils, improves watersheds, and enhances ecosystem services’. 15

This raises the question whether Regenerative Agriculture is an end, or a means to an end. As noted by Burgess et al. (2019) a number of definitions of Regenerative Agriculture focus on the notion of ‘enhancement’, e.g. of soil organic matter (SOM) and soil biodiversity (California State University, 2017 16 ); of biodiversity, soils, watersheds, and ecosystem services (Terra Genesis, 2017 17 ); of biodiversity and the quantity of biomass ( Rhodes, 2017 ); and of soil health ( Sherwood and Uphoff, 2000 ). Carbon Underground argues that Regenerative Agriculture should be defined around the outcome, claiming that ‘Consensus is mounting for a single, standardized definition for food grown in a regenerative manner that restores and maintains natural systems, like water and carbon cycles, to enable land to continue to produce food in a manner that is healthier for people and the long-term health of the planet and its climate’. 18 Finally, the Rodale Institute comes back to the idea of a ‘holistic systems approach’, but now with an explicit nod to both innovation and wellbeing, suggesting that ‘regenerative organic agriculture […] encourages continual on-farm innovation for environmental, social, economic and spiritual wellbeing’ ( Rodale Institute, 2014 ). A specific certification scheme, Regenerative Organic Certified was established in 2017 in the USA under the auspices of the Regenerative Organic Alliance within which the Rodale Institute is a key player. 19 Certification is based on three pillars of Soil Health, Animal Welfare and Social Fairness – each of which, it is suggested, can be verified using existing certification standards. A perceived need to move beyond the standards of the USDA Organic Certification scheme has driven the establishment of this new standard. 20

In a review of peer-reviewed articles, the most commonly occurring themes associated with Regenerative Agriculture are improvements to soil health, the broader environment, human health and economic prosperity ( Schreefel et al., 2020 ). The authors go on to define Regenerative Agriculture as ‘an approach to farming that uses soil conservation as the entry point to regenerate and contribute to multiple provisioning, regulating and supporting ecosystem services, with the objective that this will enhance not only the environmental, but also the social and economic dimensions of sustainable food production’.

While for some organizations Regenerative Agriculture is unequivocally a form of organic agriculture, others are open to the judicious use of agrochemicals. Nevertheless, from an agronomic perspective the two challenges most frequently linked to Regenerative Agriculture are:

• Restoration of soil health, including, the capture of carbon (C) to mitigate climate change
• Reversal of biodiversity loss

Figure 4 shows what we understand to be the most common current articulation of the Regenerative Agriculture theory of change. For the purposes of this agronomically oriented paper, the critical question is: How far and in what contexts do the proposed regenerative practices restore soil health and/or reverse biodiversity loss? Given the diversity of understandings of Regenerative Agriculture, and the different contexts within which it is promoted, it should not be surprising that a wide variety of agronomic practices are promoted under the Regenerative Agriculture rubric. We return to these practices later, but first take a closer look at the two crises that Regenerative Agriculture aims to address.

Regenerative Agriculture: Authors’ interpretation of the commonly used theory of change in 2021. Our analysis focuses on the lower blue box: ‘agronomic considerations’.

The crises addressed by Regenerative Agriculture

In this section we briefly review the purported crises of (1) soil health (including C sequestration) and (2) biodiversity, which are central to most articulations of Regenerative Agriculture. In each case we discuss how the crisis is framed and the strength of the evidence to support this framing.

A crisis of soil health

Soil health receives particularly strong attention in narratives surrounding Regenerative Agriculture ( Schreefel et al., 2020 ; Sherwood and Uphoff, 2000 ). Indeed, the idea that soil, and soil life in particular, is under threat underpins most, if not all, calls for Regenerative Agriculture. Nonetheless, the term soil health is inherently problematic ( Powlson, 2020 ). Just like soil quality, soil health is a container concept, which requires disaggregation to be meaningful. While it can be understood as something positive to strive for, underlying soil functions need meaningful indicators which can be measured and monitored over long periods of time. Moreover, agronomic practices which benefit one aspect of soil health (such as soil life) often have negative effects on other functions (such as nitrate leaching, primary production or GHG emissions, ten Berge et al., 2019 ); there is usually not one direction in soil health, but multiple trade-offs.

Many websites and testimonials concerning Regenerative Agriculture highlight the importance of soil biodiversity, and in particular the macro- and micro-organisms which are responsible for the biological cycling of nutrients. Reports of declining soil biodiversity under intensive agriculture and the simplification of soil food webs ( de Vries et al., 2013 ; Tsiafouli et al., 2014 ) have led to widespread alarm concerning soil health. For example, a recent report of an advisory body to the Dutch government was entitled ‘De Bodem Bereikt’ 21  – literally, ‘The bottom has been reached’ – a double entendre based on the word ‘bodem’ that means both bottom and soil. The report argues that soil quality has declined to a critical point – at least partly due to loss of soil biodiversity. Whilst studies clearly reveal differences in soil food webs between cultivated fields, grasslands and (semi-) natural vegetation, the links with soil function are largely established through correlation – there is little evidence for any direct causal link between soil biodiversity and any loss in function (see Kuyper and Giller, 2011 ).

The mantra to ‘feed the soil, not the crop’ has long been central to organic agriculture while the importance of building soil organic matter was highlighted by the proponents of organic or biodynamic agriculture, and in more conventional agricultural discourses in the USA (e.g. USDA, 1938 , 1957 , 1987 ) and elsewhere. Soil takes centuries to form and significant soil loss through erosion is unsustainable. The Dust Bowl in the 1930s in the USA was a foundational experience for both the scientific and public appreciation of soil. It is commonly claimed that a quarter or more of the earth’s soils are degraded, although the precise numbers are contested ( Gibbs and Salmon, 2015 ). Commonly quoted estimates of soil loss through erosion are made using run-off plots which tend to overestimate the rates of loss as they do not account for deposition and transfer of soil across the landscape. Nonetheless, Evans et al. (2020) suggest that the rates of soil loss exceed those of soil formation by an order of magnitude, suggesting a lifespan less than 200 years for a third of the soils for which data were available.

A related long-term trend that draws attention to soils, is the reduction in the global soil C pool and its contribution to global warming. Recent modelling estimates the historic soil C loss due to human land use to be around 116 Pg C ( Sanderman et al., 2017 , 2018 ), comparable to roughly one-fifth of cumulative GHG emissions from industry. Most of these losses are due to changes in land use. Conversion from natural vegetation, especially forests, almost always results in a decrease in SOM content ( Poeplau and Don, 2015 ) due to non-permanent vegetation, export of biomass and consequently, reduced amounts of organic matter inputs. The loss of soil C through land use conversion is however a different matter than the losses or gains which can be made by altering management practices on existing agricultural land. We discuss the impacts of changing management practices below.

A crisis of biodiversity

Those who promote Regenerative Agriculture frame the crisis of biodiversity around the widespread use of monocultures along with strong dependence on external inputs and a lack of ‘biological cycling’ ( Francis et al., 1986 ). No doubt, large areas of genetically uniform crops can be susceptible to rapid spread of pests and diseases and add little value to the quality of rural landscapes.

If we consider biodiversity more broadly, there is little doubt that the earth has entered a sixth mass extinction ( Ceballos et al., 2020 ). The increase in the human population, the clearance of native habitats and the expansion of agriculture over the past century are clearly root causes. How best to arrest this loss of biodiversity is less clear. Optimistic projections suggest that the world’s population will peak at around 9.8 billion in 2060 ( Vollset et al., 2020 ), whereas the United Nations Population Programme projects a population of 11.4 billion by the end of the century. In either case, the increase in population will without doubt require the production of additional nutritious food. Moderating consumption patterns and changing diets can reduce the extent of this demand, as can reducing food loss and waste, but conservative estimates suggest that overall, global food production must increase by at least 25% ( Hunter et al., 2017 ).

In simple terms, there are two ways to meet this future food demand. The first is to increase production from the existing area of agricultural land: here, what is commonly termed a ‘land sparing’ strategy, involves closing yield gaps by increasing land productivity. The second is to increase the area of land under cultivation. But converting land use to agriculture has direct impacts in terms of habitat loss, as well as multiple indirect effects through altering biogeochemical and hydrological cycles ( Baudron and Giller, 2014 ). In many areas an expansion of agricultural lands to increase food production will mean that inherently less productive soils are brought under cultivation, requiring disproportionate land use conversion. Against this backdrop, calls for, and commitments to Zero (Net) Deforestation are changing to calls for Zero (Net) Land Conversion. 22 Both aim specifically to protect areas of high conservation value for biodiversity, with the latter focused on the use of degraded lands for any future expansion of agriculture, while restoring ecosystems with high value for biodiversity conservation.

Another major concern for impacts on biodiversity relates to the effects of the chemicals used for plant protection, and in particular insecticides. Despite increasingly stringent controls since Rachel Carson published ‘Silent Spring’ in 1962, concerns remain. Attention has been focused on impacts on non-target organisms, with considerable alarm at the loss of bees and other pollinators ( Hall and Martins, 2020 ). A recent report that attracted considerable attention in the media indicated a 75% decline in flying insect biomass in Germany in only 27 years ( Hallmann et al., 2017 ). A global meta-analysis painted a more complex picture, suggesting (still alarming) average declines of ∼9% per decade in terrestrial insect abundance, but ∼11% per decade increases in freshwater insect abundance, and strong regional differences ( van Klink et al., 2020 ). Echoing the concerns about DDT raised by Carson, declines in populations of insectivorous birds were found to be associated with higher concentrations of neonicotinoids in the environment ( Hallmann et al., 2014 ). Further, neonicotinoids have been implicated in a new pesticide treadmill, where pesticide resistance and reduced populations of natural enemies lead to increased dependence on chemical control ( Bakker et al., 2020b ). With respect to weed control, the introduction of glyphosate was widely lauded as it was seen as environmentally benign compared with alternative herbicides. However, its widespread use combined with ‘Round-up Ready’ varieties of maize, oilseed rape and soybean, and reduced tillage, has led to the proliferation of herbicide-resistant weeds ( Mortensen et al., 2012 ). With increasing concerns over human toxicity, glyphosate use has become highly controversial, leading to an earlier re-assessment of its license in the EU. 23

Regenerative Agriculture practices

The practices.

McGuire (2018) , Burgess et al. (2019) and Merfield (2019) provide lists of practices associated with different variants of Regenerative Agriculture which we order in Table 1 around agronomic principles. It should be noted, that to qualify as Regenerative Organic Agriculture, no chemical fertilizers or synthetic pesticides can be used and ‘soil-less’ cultivation methods are prohibited.

Agronomic principles and practices considered to be part of Regenerative Agriculture and their potential impacts on restoration of soil health and reversal of biodiversity loss.

Based on McGuire (2018) , Burgess et al. (2019) and Merfield (2019) .

Many practices associated with Regenerative Agriculture, such as crop rotations, cover crops, livestock integration, are (or in some contexts were) generally considered to be ‘Good Agricultural Practice’ and remain integral to conventional farming. Some are more problematic: conservation agriculture, for example, can be practiced within an organic framework or as GMO-based, herbicide and fertilizer intensive ( Giller et al., 2015 ). Others, such as permaculture, have rather limited applicability for the production of many agricultural commodities. Still others, such as holistic grazing are highly contentious in terms of the claims made for their broad applicability and ecological benefits in terms of soil C accumulation and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions ( Briske et al., 2014 ; Garnett et al., 2017 ). The potential of perennial grains has aroused substantial interest in relation to Regenerative Agriculture. Deep rooting perennial grasses such as intermediate wheatgrass ( Thinopyrum intermedium ), cereals (e.g. sorghum) or legumes (e.g. pigeonpea) have the advantage of supplying multiple products such as fodder as well as grain, and provide continuous soil cover that can arrest soil erosion and reduce nitrate leaching ( Glover et al., 2010 ). On the down side, perennial grains tend to yield less than annual varieties and share constraints with monocultures in terms of pest and disease build up. They may also encounter difficulties with weed control. Snapp et al. (2019) provide a nuanced analysis of the potential of perennial grains.

Regenerative Agriculture practices, the soil crisis and climate change

A majority of the Regenerative Agriculture practices focus on soil management, with a particular emphasis on increasing soil C, under the premise that it will increase crop yields and mitigate climate change. SOM is an important indicator of soil fertility ( Reeves, 1997 ) as it serves many functions within the soil, for example in the supply of nutrients, soil structure, water holding capacity, and supporting soil life ( Johnston et al., 2009 ; Watts and Dexter, 1997 ).

The amount of C stored in soil is largely a function of the amount of organic matter added to the soil and soil texture: clay soils can store much more C than sandy soils ( Chivenge et al., 2007 ). Soil tillage has only a minor effect ( Giller et al., 2009 ). The degree to which the amount of C stored in the soil can be increased depends on the starting conditions. A continuously cultivated, degraded clay soil, heavily depleted of soil C, can store much more extra C than a degraded sandy soil. A fertile soil may already be close to what is called its C ‘saturation potential’ ( Six et al., 2002 ). Thus under continuous cultivation, soil C can only be increased marginally by changing management practices, such as the use of animal manure, cultivation of green manures or return of crop residues ( Poulton et al., 2018 ). The greatest opportunities to increase soil C are found in low yielding regions, where increasing crop yields increase the available biomass stock and inputs of organic matter to the soil ( van der Esch et al., 2017 ). But even if SOM increases due to improved management, the rate of annual increase in soil C is temporary. As a new equilibrium is reached the rate of C accumulation attenuates ( Baveye et al., 2018 ) and this new equilibrium is reached at a lower level under cultivation than under natural vegetation cover. Limiting the conversion of forest and natural grasslands to agriculture is therefore essential to protect soil C stocks. Among the practices associated with Regenerative Agriculture, agroforestry in its many shapes and forms perhaps has the greatest potential to contribute to climate change mitigation through C capture both above- and below-ground ( Feliciano et al., 2018 ; Rosenstock et al., 2019 ).

A synthesis of 14 meta-analyses across the globe indicates that crop yields mainly benefit from increased SOM due to the nutrients, in particular N, which it supplies ( Hijbeek et al., 2018 ). Nevertheless, the global N budget over the last 50 years, suggests that half of the N taken up by cereals came from mineral fertilizers ( Ladha et al., 2016 ), indicating that global food production would collapse without external nutrients. If a field is used for crop production without any external source of nutrients, as espoused by some proponents of Regenerative Agriculture, this will degrade the soil resource base and lead to a decline in yields. Symbiotic nitrogen fixation through legumes can provide a truly renewable source of some N, but to sustain production in the long term, external sources of other nutrients are required to compensate for the nutrient offtake through harvested crops.

As with the external nutrient supply, other technical options can mimic, supplement or substitute for some of the contributions that SOM makes to soil fertility. Irrigation and tillage, for example, can have positive effects on soil water availability and soil structure respectively ( van Noordwijk et al., 1997 ). This is one of the reasons why increasing SOM does not always directly benefit soil fertility or crop yields ( Hijbeek, 2017 ). Additional SOM only increases crop yields in the short term if it alleviates an immediate constraint to crop growth. In the longer term it would be expected that increased SOM leads to crop yields that are more resilient to abiotic stresses due to improved soil physical structure, but evidence on this is scarce.

With current trends in greenhouse gas emissions, most IPCC scenarios include net negative emission technologies to limit global warming to a maximum of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels ( Rogelj et al., 2018 ). These technologies include carbon capture and storage, but also reforestation and soil C sequestration ( Rogelj et al., 2018 ). In this light, Regenerative Agriculture is said to hold a promise of ‘zero carbon farming’ or even offsetting GHG emissions from other sectors ( Hawken, 2017 ). The most recent offering from the Rodale Institute ‘confidently declares that global adoption of regenerative practices across both grasslands and arable acreage could sequester more than 100% of current anthropogenic emissions of CO 2 ’ ( Moyer et al., 2020 ). The confidence in this claim was rapidly dented by other protagonists of Regenerative Agriculture, who concluded the figure was probably closer to 10–15%. 24

A recent study in China investigated potential soil C sequestration across a range of different cropping systems. The results show that – for a wide range of crop rotations and management practices – soil C sequestration compensated on average for 10% of the total GHG emissions (N 2 O, CH 4 , CO 2 ), with a maximum of 30% ( Gao et al., 2018 ). Although there were many examples of soil C increasing in response to increased crop yields, the climate change benefits (expressed as CO 2 -equivalent) were considerably outweighed by the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the practices themselves, especially N fertilizer and irrigation. In the UK, Powlson et al. (2011) reported similar outcomes using data from the Broadbalk experiment: associated GHG emissions of crop management (tillage, fertilizers, irrigation, crop protection, etc.) were four-fold greater than the carbon sequestered. Of course, in Regenerative Agriculture the use of some of these GHG emitting crop management practices and external nutrient inputs, such as mineral fertilizers are abandoned. But while organic fertilizers such as manure can increase SOM and have additional yield benefits beyond nutrient supply, they are also more prone to nutrient losses. A recent global meta-analysis showed that manure application significantly increased N 2 O emissions by an average 32.7% (95% confidence interval: 5.1–58.2%) compared with mineral fertilizers ( Zhou et al., 2017 ), thereby offsetting the mitigation gains of soil C sequestration.

The exclusion of external inputs is even more problematic, considering that nutrients are needed to build SOM and sequester soil C ( Kirkby et al., 2011 ; Richardson et al., 2014 ). This phenomenon can be explained by stoichiometric arguments and has been coined ‘the nitrogen dilemma’ of soil C sequestration ( van Groenigen et al., 2017 ). As shown by Rice and MacCarthy (1991) , the elemental composition of SOM (ratios of C, H, O, N and S) has a narrow range. If C is added to a soil in which there is no surplus N, P or S, there will be no increase in SOM and the carbon will be lost to the atmosphere as CO 2 . Besides the associated energy requirements to build SOM, this also raises the question whether those nutrients are most useful to human society when stored in the soil, or when available for plant growth ( Janzen, 2006 ).

Regenerative Agriculture practices and the biodiversity crisis

Although reversing loss of biodiversity is a central tenet of Regenerative Agriculture, it receives surprisingly little attention in discussions of recommended practices. The principle ‘foster plant diversity’ is of course central, and is one means to address the principle to ‘avoid pesticides’. Yet little attention is paid to approaches such as integrated pest and disease management (IPM). The principles of IPM – to minimize chemical use and maximize the efficiency when used – are well established. Genetic resistance is key, and regular crop scouting is used to trigger responsive spraying when a particular threshold of the pest and disease is observed, rather than preventative spraying at particular times in the cropping calendar. Recommended practices such as rotations and (multi-species) cover crops fit within IPM, as do approaches such as intercropping and strip cropping which are largely ignored in discussions of Regenerative Agriculture. IPM is knowledge intensive, requires regular crop monitoring and the skill to identify early signs of outbreaks of multiple pests and diseases. The reasons for the lack of uptake of IPM approaches are complex, but include the perceived risk of crop damage ( Bakker et al., 2020a ). Alongside IPM, integrated weed control (IWM) combines the use of mechanical weeding through tillage and cover cropping with a much more strategic use of herbicides ( Mortensen et al., 2012 ). IWM is promoted as an environmentally friendly approach that can harness diversity to manage deleterious effects of weeds ( Adeux et al., 2019 ), but again, is highly knowledge intensive.

Whether it is possible to continue intensive forms of agriculture which will meet global demands for agricultural produce without the use of chemicals for plant protection is the subject of much debate. There is a danger that bans on the use of some products could lead to wider use of even more toxic ones, at least for a period before environmental controls catch up. Few could disagree with the aspiration to limit the use of chemicals in agriculture: in addition to biodiversity concerns, the misuse of pesticides in developing countries has serious negative effects on human health ( Boedeker et al., 2020 ; Jepson et al., 2014 ).

Finally, much of the discussion of Regenerative Agriculture, pesticides and biodiversity concerns biodiversity on-farm, rather than biodiversity across landscapes, or enhancing yields to spare land for biodiversity conservation and prevent the need for further land conversion to agriculture. This is a theme we return to when considering the broader implications of Regenerative Agriculture below.

Agriculture all over the world faces serious challenges, as governments, corporations, research agronomists, farmers and consumers seek to negotiate a critical but dynamic balance between human welfare (or the ‘right to food’), productivity, profitability, and environmental sustainability. However, given the high degree of diversity of agro-ecosystems, farm systems and policy contexts, the nature of these challenges can vary dramatically over time and space. This fact undermines any proposition that it is possible to identify one meaningful and widely relevant problem definition, or specific agronomic practices which could alleviate pressures on the food system everywhere.

Neither the ‘soil crisis’ nor the ‘biodiversity crisis’, both of which are central to the rationale for Regenerative Agriculture, is universal; and across those contexts where one, the other or both can be observed, their root causes and manifestations are not necessarily the same. This tension between, on the one hand, a compelling, high-level narrative that identifies a problem, its causes and how it should be addressed, and on the other, the complexity of divergent local realities, arises with all universalist schemes to ‘fix’ agriculture and the ‘failing’ food system. In this sense, Regenerative Agriculture, while using new language, is no different than sustainable agriculture, sustainable intensification, climate-smart agriculture, organic farming, agroecology and so on.

To date the discussion around Regenerative Agriculture has taken little account of the wide variety of initial starting points defined by the variation in local contexts and farming systems and the scales at which they operate. For example, the problems caused by over-use of fertilizer or manure in parts of North America, Europe and China may well allow for reductions in input use and result in significant environmental benefits, without necessarily compromising crop yields or farmer incomes. In contrast, in many developing countries, and especially in Africa, crop productivity, and thus the food security and/or incomes of farming households, is tightly constrained by nutrient availability (i.e. because of highly weathered soils, and the limited availability of fertilizer, manure and compostable organic matter) (e.g. Rufino et al., 2011 ). Under such circumstances continued cultivation inevitably leads to soil degradation, and the use of external inputs, including fertilizer, is essential to increase crop yields, sustain soils and build soil C ( Vanlauwe et al., 2014 , 2015 ).

Although not all interpretations of Regenerative Agriculture preclude the use of agrochemicals, all argue to reduce and minimize their use. In writings on Regenerative Agriculture, surprising little attention is paid to alternative methods of pest and disease control, although this appears to be one of the major challenges that farmers will face in order to reduce or phase out chemical control methods. Some interpretations of Regenerative Agriculture are uncompromisingly anti-GMO, despite the potential genetic engineering has to confer plant resistance and reduce the need for chemical sprays ( Giller et al., 2017 ; Lotz et al., 2020 ). Further, all types of agrochemicals are lumped into the same basket, whereas the concerns for both human and environmental health associated with pesticides and fertilizers are vastly different.

As academic and other research agronomists now seek to engage constructively with the individuals, organizations and corporations championing Regenerative Agriculture, we argue that for any given context there are five questions that must be addressed:

• What is the problem to which Regenerative Agriculture is meant to be the solution?
• What is to be regenerated?
• What agronomic mechanism will enable or facilitate this regeneration?
• Can this mechanism be integrated into an agronomic practice that is likely to be economically and socially viable in the specific context?
• What political, social and/or economic forces will drive use of the new agronomic practice?

These questions are meant to stimulate critical reflection on the agronomic aspects of the mechanisms and dynamics of regeneration, given that it is the conceptual core of Regenerative Agriculture. Without reflection along these lines, Regenerative Agriculture will continue to struggle to differentiate itself from other forms of ‘alternative’ agriculture, while the practices with which it is associated will (continue to) vary little if at all from those in the established canon of ‘Good Agricultural Practices’. The questions will also help to separate the philosophical baggage and some of the extraordinary claims that are linked to Regenerative Agriculture, from the areas and problems where agronomic research might make a significant contribution.

The growing enthusiasm for Regenerative Agriculture highlights the need for agronomists to be more explicit about the fact that many of the categories and dichotomies that frame public, and to some degree the scientific debates about agriculture, have little if any analytical purchase. These include e.g. alternative/conventional; family/industrial; regenerative/degenerative; and sustainable/unsustainable. Regardless of their currency in public discourse, these categories are far too broad and undefinable to have any place in guiding agronomic research (although the politics behind their use and abuse in discourse remains of considerable interest).

It is clear from many farmer’s testimonials on the Internet that their moves towards Regenerative Agriculture are underpinned by a philosophy that seeks to protect and enhance the environment. The core argument is most often around soil health, and in particular soil biological health, which is seen as being under threat and is attributed somewhat mythical properties. In much of the promotional material available in the public domain, exaggerated claims are made for the potency and functioning of soil microorganisms in particular. By contrast, for many campaigning NGOs, the locking up or sequestration of carbon in the soil is paramount, with a vision of an agriculture free of external inputs or GMOs, that mimics nature and contributes to solving the climate crisis. Not surprisingly the claimed potential of Regenerative Agriculture has attracted considerable critique – as McGuire (2018) aptly captures in his blog entitled ‘ Regenerative Agriculture: Solid Principles, Extraordinary Claims ’. It seems unlikely that Regenerative Agriculture can deliver all of the positive environmental benefits as well as the increase in global food production that is required. Reflective engagement by research agronomists is now critically important.

Acknowledgement

We thank David Powlson and Matthew Kessler for their critical reviews of an earlier version of this manuscript. All errors or omissions remain our responsibility.

1. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/01/our-food-system-is-broken-three-ways-to-fix-it/ .

2. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/28/global-food-system-is-broken-say-worlds-science-academies .

3. Hereon we use the term Regenerative Agriculture to encompass Regenerative Farming.

4. https://www.nature.org/en-us/what-we-do/our-insights/perspectives/the-next-agriculture-revolution-is-under-our-feet/ .

5. https://wwf.panda.org/discover/our_focus/food_practice/sustainable_production/ .

6. https://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/press-release/farmers-star-in-greenpeace-film/ .

7. https://foe.org/resources/regenerative-agriculture-campaign-position-paper/ .

8. https://www.danone.com/impact/planet/regenerative-agriculture.html .

9. https://www.generalmills.com/en/News/NewsReleases/Library/2019/March/Regen-Ag .

10. https://regenfarming.news/articles/kellogg-s-breakfast-boosts-regen-ag-to-farmers .

11. https://eu.patagonia.com/gb/en/actionworks/campaigns/regenerative-organic-agriculture-2/ .

12. https://www.wbcsd.org/Programs/Food-and-Nature/News/Nineteen-leading-companies-join-forces-to-step-up-alternative-farming-practices-and-protect-biodiversity-for-the-benefit-of-planet-and-people .

13. https://ikeafoundation.org/story/why-we-need-to-rethink-our-food-systems/ .

14. https://www.greenbiz.com/article/fight-define-regenerative-agriculture .

15. http://www.regenerativeagriculturedefinition.com/ .

16. https://www.csuchico.edu/regenerativeagriculture/_assets/documents/ra101-reg-ag-new-definition-press-release.pdf .

17. http://www.terra-genesis.com .

18. https://thecarbonunderground.org/our-initiative/definition/ .

19. https://regenorganic.org .

20. https://civileats.com/2018/03/12/what-does-the-new-regenerative-organic-certification-mean-for-the-future-of-good-food/ .

21. https://www.rli.nl/publicaties/2020/advies/de-bodem-bereikt .

22. https://accountability-framework.org/core-principles/1-protection-of-forests-and-other-natural-ecosystems/ .

23. https://www.ctgb.nl/onderwerpen/glyfosaat , https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/glyphosate/assessment-group_en .

24. https://civileats.com/2020/10/01/does-overselling-regenerative-ags-climate-benefits-undercut-its-potential/ .

Declaration of conflicting interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The NWO-WOTRO Strategic Partnership NL-CGIAR and the CGIAR Research Program on Maize through the CIMMYT grant ‘Rural livelihood-oriented research methodologies for social impact analyses of Sustainable Intensification interventions’.

Global Commodity Chains and the Pandemic

Labor-power in agricultural sectors in kenya and chile.

• Lara M. Espeter Technische Universität Berlin
• Patricia Retamal University of Chile, Chile

The availability of labor-power is a critical element of all commodity chains. This is especially true of labor-intensive production processes such as agriculture. The COVID-19 pandemic had a major impact on this, as well as on many other aspects of the economy and everyday life. The institutions of the modern world-system responded in various ways to the new situation influenced by COVID-19, taking measures to mitigate and avert the detrimental effects. This paper examines these responses and their impact on the availability of labor-power in the agricultural areas of Nakuru County, Kenya, and O’Higgins Region, Chile. By practically applying world-systems analysis, we shed light on the significance of institutions during periods of stagnation and their impact on the availability of labor-power in global commodity chains. This allows us to draw conclusions about the general impact of institutional responses to stagnation phases at the worker level. We show that the institutions studied responded in very different ways to the stagnation phase affected by COVID-19. As a result, O’Higgins Region experienced a labor-power shortage that Nakuru County had not, which may have a lasting impact on labor-power availability.

Author Biographies

Lara m. espeter, technische universität berlin.

Lara M. Espeter is a research associate in the project Apples and Flowers. Effects of Pandemics on the (Re-)Organization of Commodity Chains for Fresh Agricultural Products and an associate member at the Collaborate Research Centre Re-Figuration of Spaces (CRC 1265) at Technische Universität Berlin. Her research focuses on the origins and effects of social inequality by looking at current and historical structures of the world-economy.

Patricia Retamal, University of Chile, Chile

Patricia Retamal is a PhD candidate in the Territory, Space and Society program at the University of Chile and a thesis student in the regular Fondecyt program (N° 1210331) Extractive citizenships? Citizen practices in rural territories . She is currently the Gender Coordinator of the Vice-Rectory of Research and Development at the University of Chile. Her research focuses on the effects of agribusiness on the social reproduction of women in the workforce.

Antognini, Ana F., and Maria Paz Trebilcock. 2021. “Pandemia, inequidad y protección social neoliberal: Chile, un caso paradigmático.” Brazilian Journal of Latin American Studies (20): 189–209.

Associación de Exportadores de Fruitas de Chile A.G. “Avance de Temporada 2019-2020: Exportaciones de Frutas Chilenas superan las 1,7 millones de toneladas: Lejano Oriente principal destino.” Retrieved March 5, 2024 ( https://www.asoex.cl/component/content/article/25-noticias/736-avance-de-temporada-2019-2020-exportaciones-de-frutas-chilenas-superan-las-1-7-millones-de-toneladas-lejano-oriente-principal-destino.html) .

Associación de Exportadores de Fruitas de Chile A.G. 2021. “Buenas prácticas para la prevención de Coronavirus SARS CoV-2 en campos, packing predial y plantas frutícolas.” ( https://www.asoex.cl/images/documents/covid/GUIA_COVID_OCT2021.pdf) .

Bair, Jennifer, editor. 2014, vol. 20, The Political Economy of Commodity Chains.

Banco Central Chile. 2022. Indicadores de comercio exterior: Cuarto trimestre 2021. Retrieved March 5, 2024 ( https://www.bcentral.cl/documents/33528/3409132/ICE_cuarto_trimestre_2021.pdf/7da75032-35b3-94e3-5fc2-e7872ea63e91?t=1655149068297) .

Barrientos, Stephanie. 2001. “Gender, Flexibility and Global Value Chains.” IDS Bulletin 32(3): 83–93.

Barrientos, Stephanie, and Catherine Dolan. 2003. “A Gendered Value Chain Approach to Codes of Conduct in African Horticulture.” World Development 31(9):1511–26.

Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional de Chile, editor. 2021. Ley de protección al empleo por COVID-19. Retrieved April 9, 2023 ( https://www.bcn.cl/portal/leyfacil/recurso/ley-de-proteccion-al-empleo-por-covid-19) .

Boletín de fruta, octubre 2020. Retrieved March 5, 2024 ( https://www.odepa.gob.cl/publicaciones/boletines/boletin-de-fruta-octubre-2020) .

Cambero, Fabian. 2021. “Chilean government extends hardship payments once more.” Retrieved March 5, 2024 ( https://www.reuters.com/article/chile-economy-idUSL1N2N0311) .

Caro, Patricia, and Carol Toro Huerta. 2021. “Medidas implementadas en Chile para garantizar el acceso a los alimentos durante pandemia COVID-19.” Revista chilena de nutrición (48): 917–23.

CEO and Assistant Manager for PR at employer’s association. 2022. Interview Employers Organization 02 (AEA). Naivasha.

Ciccantell, Paul S., David A. Smith, and Elizabeth Sower. 2023. “Trade Wars and Disrupted Global Commodity Chains: Hallmarks of the Breakdown of the U.S. World Order and a New Era of Competition and Conflict?” Journal of World-Systems Research 29(2).

COAGRA. 2020. “En el sector agropecuario: Cómo cambian los mercados por la pandemia.” ( https://coagra.cl/cambios-mercados-por-pandemia/) .

Collins, Jane L. 2014. “A Feminist Approach to Overcoming the Closed Boxes of the Commodtiy Chain.” Pp. 27–37, in Gendered Commodity Chains: Seeing Women’s Work and Households in Global Production, edited by W. A. Dunaway. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Dunaway, Wilma A. 2001. “The Double Register of History: Situating the Forgotten Woman and Her Household in Capitalist Commodity Chains.” Journal of World-Systems Research 7(1): 2–29.

______. 2014a. “Introduction.” Pp. 1–24, in Gendered Commodity Chains: Seeing Women’s Work and Households in Global Production, edited by W. A. Dunaway. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

______. 2014b. “Through the Portal of the House hold: Conceptualizing Women’s Subsidies to Commodity Chains.” Pp. 55–71, in Gendered Commodity Chains: Seeing Women’s Work and Households in Global Production, edited by W. A. Dunaway. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Elad, Renata L., and Jack E. Houston. 2002. “Seasonal labor constraints and intra-household dynamics in the female fields of southern Cameroon.” Agricultural Economics (27): 23–32.

Estudio de impacto de la agroindustria chilena. Retrieved March 5, 2024 ( https://www.subrei.gob.cl/docs/default-source/estudios-y-documentos/otros-documentos/informeagroindustria.pdf?sfvrsn=e19f00a5_1) .

Fredenburgh, Jez. 2020. “How the Covid-19 pandemic hit the cut-flower chain.” Retrieved 05.03.204 ( https://www.bbc.com/future/bespoke/made-on-earth/how-the-covid-19-pandemic-hit-the-cut-flower-chain.html) .

Gereffi, Gary, and Miguel Korzeniewicz, editors. 1994. Commodity chains and global capitalism. Westport Conn.: Praeger.

Gereffi, Gary, editor. 2018. Development Trajectories in Global Value Chains, Global Value Chains and Development: Redefining the Contours of 21st Century Capitalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Grape Exporter. 2022. Interview Fruit Industry. Marchigüe.

Grape Industry Entrepreneur. 2023. Interview Fruit Farm. Marchigüe.

Gray, Kevin, and Barry K. Gills, editors. 2022. Post-Covid Transformations. London: Routledge.

Hivos. 2020a. “75.000 euro aid to cushion flower workers from COVID-19 effects.” Retrieved March 5, 2024 ( https://hivos.org/75000-euros-aid-worth-to-cushion-flower-workers-from-covid-19-effects/) .

______. 2020b. Impact of Covid-19 on Women Workers in the Horticulture Sector in Kenya. Retrieved March 5, 2024 ( https://hivos.org/document/a-rapid-assessment-on-the-prevalence-of-sexual-harassment-in-kenyas-informal-sector/) .

______. 2020c. “Hivos hosts a webinar to discuss the impact of COVID-19 on women workers in the horticultural sector.” Retrieved March 5, 2024 ( https://hivos.org/news/hivos-hosts-a-webinar-to-discuss-the-impact-of-covid-19-on-women-workers-in-the-horticultural-sector/) .

Instituto Nacional de Estadística Chile. 2018. “Web Diseminación Censo 2017: Liberator General Bernardo O’Higgins.” Retrieved March 5, 2024 ( http://resultados.censo2017.cl/Region?R=R06) .

Jensen, Magdalena. 2021. “Transformación De Los Sistemas Alimentarios En Chile: Cambio De Uso De Suelo Y Comercio Internacional.” Estudios Internacionales (199): 61–90.

La Asociación Nacional de Mujeres Rurales e Indígenas (ANAMURI). 2020. Análisis de coyuntura Nº1. Retrieved March 5, 2024 ( https://www.anamuri.cl/post/analisis-de-coyuntura-n%C2%BA1-julio-2020) .

Management Flower Farm 02. 2022. Interview Flower Farm 02. Naivasha.

Marlotti, Sergio. 2022. “A warning from the Russian–Ukrainian war: avoiding a future that rhymes with the past.” Journal of Industrial and Business Economics (49): 761–82.

Marx, Karl. 1887. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Book One: The Process of Production of Capital. Vol. 1. La Vergne: Wisehouse.

Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 2015 [1848]. The Communist manifesto. no. 20. London: Penguin Classics.

Ministry of Health. 2020. Press statements on COVID-19. Retrieved March 29, 2023 (www.health.go.ke/press-releases/).

Nakazibwe, Primarose, and Wim Pelupessy. 2014. “Towards a Gendered Agro-Commodity Approach.” American Sociological Association 20(2): 229–56.

Onsomu, Eldah, Boaz Munga, and Violet Nyabaro. 2021. “The impact of COVID-19 on industries without smokestacks in Kenya: The case of horticulture, ICT, and tourism sectors.” AGI Working Paper (35).

Oritz, Roberto. 2023. “Weathering the Crisis: Oil, Financialization, and Socio-Ecological Turbulence since the 1970s.” Journal of World-Systems Research 29(2): 431–56.

Ouma, Marion. 2021. “Kenya’s Social Policy Response to Covid-19: Tax Cuts, Cash Transfers and Public Works.” CRC 1342 Covid-19 Social Policy Response Series (27).

Our World in Data. 2022. “COVID-19: Google Mobility Trends: Workplace visitors.” Retrieved March 5, 2024 ( https://ourworldindata.org/covid-google-mobility-trends#workplace-visitors) .

______. 2024a. “School and workplace closures.” Retrieved March 5, 2024 ( https://ourworldindata.org/policy-responses-covid#school-and-workplace-closures) .

______. 2024b. “Number of peole who completed the initial Covid-19 vaccination protocol.” Retrieved March 5, 2024 ( https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/people-fully-vaccinated-covid?tab=chart&stackMode=absolute&region=World&country=~CHL) .

______. 2024c. “Chile: Coronavirus Pandemic Country Profile.” Retrieved March 5, 2024 ( https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/chile) .

______. 2024d. “Kenya: Coronavirus Pandemic Country Profile.” Retrieved March 5, 2024 ( https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/kenya) .

Patel-Campillo, Anouk. 2023. “Analyzing Global Commodity Chains and Social Reproduction: Mapping the Household within Multi-Sited and Hierarchical Capitalist Relations.” Journal of World-Systems Research 29(2): 331–50.

Ramamurthy, Priti. 2014. “Feminist Commodity Chain Analysis: A Framework to Conceptualize Calue and Interpret Perplexity.” Pp. 38–52, in Gendered Commodity Chains: Seeing Women’s Work and Households in Global Production, edited by W. A. Dunaway. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Reuters. 2020. “Chile records first confirmed case of coronavirus: health ministry.” Retrieved March 5, 2024 ( https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-chile-idUSKBN20Q2UU) .

Reyes G., Angeli. 2022. Cereza: temporada 2021/2022 en la República Popular China y diversificación de mercados.

Roser, Max. 2023. “Employment in Agriculture.” Retrieved March 5, 2024 ( https://ourworldindata.org/employment-in-agriculture) .

Servicio national de aduanas. 2020 . Comercio exterior y Covid-19: el primer semestre exportaciones cayeron 9,9% e importaciones disminuyeron 18,5%. Retrieved March 5, 2024 ( http://www.aduana.cl/comercio-exterior-y-covid-19-el-primer-semestre-exportaciones-cayeron/aduana/2020-07-07/155533.html) .

Subcontracted Worker, Union L. 2020. Interview Subconstracted Worker Fruit Industry and Union Leader. San Vincente.

Tejani, Sheba, and Sakiko Fukuda-Parr. 2021. “Gender and Covid-19: Workers in Global Value Chains.” International Labour Review 160(4): 649–67. doi:10.1111/ilr.12225.

Union Representatives. 2022. Double Interview Union. Naivasha.

Valdes, Ximena. 2020. De la dominación hacendal a la emancipación precaria: Historias y relatos de mujeres: inquilinas y temporeras. Santiago de Chile: Universidad Academia de Humanismo Cristiano.

Vice-President of the Agro Industry Union. 2020. Interview Agro Industry Union. San Vicente de Tagüa.

Wallerstein, Immanuel. 2006. World-System Analysis: An Introduction. 4th ed. Durham and London: Duke University Press.

______. 2011 [1974]. The Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.

______. 2011 [1980]. The Modern World-System II: Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World-Economy, 1600–1750. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.

Were, Maureen, and Kethi Ngoka. 2022. “An assessment of the effects of COVID-19 pandemic on Kenya’s trade.” WIDER Working Paper (8) ( http://hdl.handle.net/10419/259364) .

Wirtschaftskammer Österreich Abteilung für Statistik. 2022. “Länderprofil Chile.” Retrieved February 3, 2023 ( https://wko.at/statistik/laenderprofile/lp-chile.pdf) .

Worker. 2020. Interview Worker Fruit Industry. San Vincente.

Worker of the Municipality. 2020. Interview Worker Municipality. San Vicente de Tagüa.

How to Cite

• Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)

Copyright (c) 2024 Lara M. Espeter, Patricia Retamal

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License .

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

• The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
• Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
• Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
• The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
• Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
• Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
• the Work is the Author’s original work;
• the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
• the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
• the Work has not previously been published;
• the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
• the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
• The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.

Revised 7/16/2018. Revision Description: Removed outdated link. 

Funding data

• Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft,Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft Grant numbers BA 3488/10-1
• Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico, Tecnológico y de Innovación Tecnológica Grant numbers 1210331

Information

• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

This article is part of the research topic.

Consumer Behavior around Food Safety and Quality in the Context of Technological Innovation

The Impact of Agricultural Insurance on Consumer Food Safety: Empirical Evidence from Provincial-Level Data in China Provisionally Accepted

• 1 Wuhan University, China
• 2 Wuhan College, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

In the exploration of the efficacy of agricultural subsidy policies, agricultural insurance, as a key element of this policy system, has garnered widespread attention for its potential impact on consumer food safety. This paper delves into the influence of agricultural insurance on the safety of food consumed by individuals, based on provincial panel data in China from 2011 to 2021. The findings indicate that agricultural insurance significantly reduces the incidence of foodborne disease and enhances food safety. Mediating effect tests reveal that agricultural insurance effectively boosts food safety through two key pathways: promoting innovation in agricultural technology and reducing environmental pollution. Moreover, the analysis of moderating effects highlights that increased consumer confidence positively enhances the impact of agricultural insurance. Heterogeneity tests further show that in the provinces with higher levels of agricultural development and stronger government support for agriculture, the role of agricultural insurance in improving food safety is more pronounced. This research not only empirically verifies the effectiveness of agricultural insurance in enhancing food safety but also provides robust theoretical support and practical guidance for the precise formulation and effective implementation of agricultural subsidy policies, particularly agricultural insurance policies, offering significant reference value for policy-makers.

Keywords: Agricultural subsidies, Agricultural insurance, Food Safety, Agricultural Technological Innovation, Environmental Pollution, Consumer confidence

Received: 27 Feb 2024; Accepted: 15 Apr 2024.

Copyright: © 2024 Ruan, Yin and Zhang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Mx. Peiheng Ruan, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430072, Hubei Province, China

People also looked at