F1000Research F1000Research 2046-1402 F1000 Research Limited London, UK 10.12688/f1000research.160723.1 Systematic Review Articles Agroforestry systems in Ethiopia: A systematic review of climate change mitigation, adaptation, and sustainable land management potential

[version 1; peer review: 2 not approved]

 Bogale Daba Conceptualization Data Curation Formal Analysis Methodology Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing a 1 Ethiopian Forest Development, Dire Dawa Center, Dire Dawa, P.O. Box 1708, Ethiopia dababogale@gmail.com

No competing interests were disclosed.

 12 3 2025 2025 14 286 28 2 2025 Copyright: © 2025 Bogale D 2025 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

This review examines the role of agroforestry systems in Ethiopia, focusing on their contributions to soil health improvement and carbon sequestration for climate change mitigation. The study utilized a meta-analysis approach, gathering data from prominent databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, Google Scholar, and AGRICOLA. Keywords related to agroforestry and climate change mitigation were used to screen relevant studies. A total of 54 studies were included after systematic screening and full-text review based on eligibility criteria. The analysis employed both descriptive and quantitative synthesis to evaluate the effectiveness of agroforestry in improving soil fertility, carbon sequestration, and resilience to climate change. The results showed that agroforestry systems, including parkland and coffee-based systems enhance soil organic carbon (SOC) and increase soil fertility. Coffee-based agroforestry systems, for instance, sequester up to 7.2 tons of CO₂ per hectare annually, while home-gardens in southern Ethiopia store up to 150 tons of carbon per hectare. The integration of drought-resistant species further improves soil moisture retention and boosts productivity in arid areas. In addition to environmental benefits, agroforestry systems also support food security and economic resilience by diversifying income sources and stabilizing yields in the face of climate variability. The findings underscore the significant potential of agroforestry systems in enhancing soil health, sequestering carbon, and contributing to climate change adaptation and mitigation in Ethiopia.

 agroforestry climate adaptation carbon sequstration The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. 1. Introduction

Climate change has emerged as one of the most pressing global challenges, exacerbating existing environmental, social, and economic vulnerabilities. Increasingly erratic weather patterns, such as more frequent and severe droughts, floods, and storms, are disrupting ecosystems and threatening the livelihoods of millions worldwide. The agricultural sector, which is particularly sensitive to climate variability, is being hit hard by reduced crop yields, increased pest and disease outbreaks, and altered growing seasons ( IPCC, 2019). As a result, there is an urgent need for climate change mitigation strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation strategies to cope with these changing conditions. In this context, agroforestry—the integration of trees with crops and/or livestock has emerged as a sustainable land-use system that can play a critical role in both climate change mitigation and adaptation ( Nair et al., 2009).

Agroforestry systems, by integrating trees into agricultural landscapes, offer a range of environmental benefits that contribute to climate change mitigation. Through carbon sequestration in both vegetation and soils, agroforestry systems store substantial amounts of carbon, reducing atmospheric CO 2 concentrations ( Mbow et al., 2014). Compared to conventional monoculture farming, agroforestry systems have been shown to accumulate higher carbon stocks in soil and biomass ( Zomer et al., 2016). This capacity to sequester carbon is influenced by factors such as tree density, species selection, and management practices ( Schroth et al., 2011). Moreover, agroforestry systems enhance soil fertility, improve water retention, and reduce soil erosion, making them integral to long-term land productivity ( Lal, 2011).

As global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, the role of agroforestry in mitigating climate change becomes increasingly important. Globally, agroforestry is contributing to the achievement of climate goals, such as those outlined in the Paris Agreement, by promoting practices that both reduce emissions and enhance carbon sinks ( IPCC, 2019). By fostering a diverse range of plant species and ecosystem services, agroforestry systems also help maintain biodiversity and ecosystem health, which are critical for sustainable development ( Leakey, 2014).

While the global benefits of agroforestry are widely acknowledged, the practice is particularly relevant in developing regions that are highly vulnerable to climate change. In tropical and sub-tropical regions, where agricultural systems face heightened risks due to climate variability, agroforestry can serve as a key tool for building resilience. In many parts of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, agroforestry practices are being adopted to improve soil fertility, enhance water retention, and diversify production systems ( Garrity, 2004; Mbow et al., 2014). These systems increase the ability of farming communities to withstand extreme weather events, stabilize income sources, and promote food security.

Agroforestry also strengthens the adaptive capacity of agricultural systems by improving microclimatic conditions. Trees provide shade that helps reduce the temperature stress on crops, mitigate wind erosion, and protect soil moisture, making them invaluable in arid and semi-arid regions ( Jose, 2009). Evidence from Southeast Asia and Latin America suggests that agroforestry practices help communities adapt to shifting weather patterns by enhancing ecosystem resilience while generating socio-economic benefits such as diversified incomes from tree products ( Schroth & Sinclair, 2003; FAO, 2013). In these regions, agroforestry not only contributes to the ecological sustainability of farming systems but also supports the livelihoods of smallholder farmers who are most at risk from climate change.

Sub-Saharan Africa, where Ethiopia is located, is one of the regions most affected by the impacts of climate change. As rainfall patterns become more erratic and droughts become more frequent, the vulnerability of farming systems is increasing. At the same time, this region presents immense potential for the adoption of agroforestry practices that can mitigate and adapt to climate change. In countries like Kenya, Uganda, and Malawi, agroforestry is already being integrated into smallholder farming systems, where trees are planted alongside crops such as maize, beans, and cassava ( Place et al., 2012). These practices have demonstrated positive impacts on soil fertility, biodiversity, and carbon sequestration.

Parkland agroforestry systems, in which trees are spaced within crop fields, are common in the Sahel and Horn of Africa. These systems have been shown to increase soil carbon stocks while maintaining agricultural productivity, offering a win-win solution for farmers ( Henry et al., 2009). Studies from these regions suggest that the carbon sequestration capacity of agroforestry systems is influenced by the type of tree species used, their management, and the local environmental conditions ( Bayala et al., 2011). In addition to carbon storage, these systems enhance food security by diversifying production systems and increasing the availability of non-timber forest products ( Bayala & Prieto, 2020).

Ethiopia, located in the Horn of Africa, is highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. The country is already experiencing increased temperatures, erratic rainfall, and more frequent droughts, particularly in the lowland and semi-arid regions. These climate impacts are exacerbating land degradation, food insecurity, and poverty. However, Ethiopia has recognized the importance of agroforestry as a tool for both mitigating and adapting to climate change. Agroforestry systems in Ethiopia are diverse, ranging from traditional home gardens and boundary plantings to more formalized systems such as parklands and alley cropping ( Garrity et al., 2010).

In Ethiopia, the integration of trees with crops and livestock is a common practice, particularly in highland areas. Home gardens, where fruit trees such as avocado, banana, and papaya are planted alongside vegetables and legumes, contribute to both food security and income diversification for smallholder farmers. These agroforestry systems have been shown to improve soil fertility and enhance water retention, which are critical in areas facing increasing drought frequency ( Sileshi et al., 2014). Additionally, agroforestry practices such as the planting of indigenous tree species have been reported to enhance biodiversity and support ecosystem services such as pollination and pest control ( Leakey, 2014).

Despite these benefits, the adoption of agroforestry in Ethiopia faces several challenges. Land tenure insecurity, limited access to technical knowledge, and financial constraints are major barriers to the widespread implementation of agroforestry ( Swallow et al., 2005). Furthermore, the lack of a coherent policy framework and financial support systems for agroforestry practices has hindered its expansion. However, there are promising examples of successful agroforestry programs in Ethiopia, particularly those supported by NGOs and international development organizations, which have demonstrated the potential for scaling agroforestry as a tool for climate change mitigation and adaptation ( Kumar & Nair, 2011).

This meta-analysis provides a comprehensive review of agroforestry practices in the context of climate change mitigation and adaptation, offering valuable insights into their effectiveness across diverse geographical and environmental contexts. By synthesizing data from multiple studies, it highlights the role of agroforestry in sequestering carbon, improving soil fertility, enhancing water retention, and supporting biodiversity, particularly in regions vulnerable to climate change such as Ethiopia. The analysis identifies key factors influencing the success of agroforestry systems, including tree species selection, management practices, and local climatic conditions, and examines agroforestry's contribution to broader environmental and socio-economic benefits. Furthermore, it addresses the barriers to wider adoption, such as land tenure issues and lack of technical support, while offering policy recommendations to promote agroforestry as a sustainable and scalable solution to climate challenges. Overall, this meta-analysis underscores the potential of agroforestry to provide both ecological and socio-economic benefits, with significant implications for climate resilience, sustainable development, and food security.

 2. Methods 2.1 Data sources and search strategy

Data sources for the meta-analysis include prominent databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, Google Scholar, and AGRICOLA. The search strategy employs Boolean operators (AND, OR) to refine search terms, including phrases like “Agroforestry” and “climate change mitigation,” “Agroforestry systems” and “climate adaptation,” “Carbon sequestration” and “agroforestry,” and “Resilience” and “agroforestry practices.” Additional searches will be conducted using citations from relevant articles to ensure comprehensive coverage. Results will be documented and screened systematically following PRISMA guidelines. For study selection, two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts for relevance, followed by a full-text review of potentially eligible studies. Disagreements will be resolved through consensus with a third reviewer. Data extraction will be conducted using a structured form to capture study characteristics, methodological details, and key outcomes related to climate change mitigation (e.g., carbon sequestration rates, soil organic carbon) and adaptation (e.g., yield stability, water regulation, and livelihood benefits). Quality assessment will involve tools like the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) to evaluate study design, data validity, and confounders, alongside funnel plots and Egger's test to assess publication bias. Data synthesis will include both quantitative and qualitative approaches, with quantitative analysis calculating effect sizes for key metrics and qualitative analysis focusing on thematic patterns in policy and socioeconomic impacts. A random-effects model will address heterogeneity in the meta-analysis, ensuring a robust synthesis of the global evidence on agroforestry’s role in climate change mitigation and adaptation.

2.1.1 Inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis focus on peer-reviewed journal articles, reports, and conference papers that examine agroforestry systems, including silvo-pastoral systems, alley cropping, home gardens, and parklands. These studies must address outcomes related to climate change mitigation, such as carbon sequestration and reduced emissions, as well as adaptation outcomes like resilience, water management, and food security. The geographical scope includes global practices with an emphasis on diverse agro-ecological zones, and only studies published from 2000 onwards will be considered. Studies with insufficient methodological details, those not addressing both mitigation and adaptation roles, and grey literature lacking peer review will be excluded.

2.1.2 Identification and screening of the studies

The process of identifying, screening, and selecting studies for the meta-analysis is illustrated in the PRISMA Flow Diagram (Extended Data, Bogale, D. 2025), which outlines each key step from the initial identification of studies through to the final selection of eligible records. Initially, a total of 151 records were identified through systematic searches in various databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, Google Scholar, and AGRICOLA. These searches were conducted using predefined keywords related to agroforestry, climate change mitigation, and adaptation. An additional 15 records were identified from other sources, including references from previous studies, reports, and conference proceedings, contributing to the total pool of identified studies. After removing irrelevant or duplicate records, the remaining 54 studies were screened for relevance based on their titles and abstracts. At this stage, studies that did not meet the eligibility criteria focusing on the role of agroforestry in mitigating climate change impacts, enhancing climate resilience, and adaptation were excluded. Further evaluation by reading full texts and abstracts led to the exclusion of studies due to methodological issues, lack of relevant outcomes, or failure to address both mitigation and adaptation roles. This step was crucial to refine the final pool of studies. Ultimately, a total of 54 studies were reviewed for their relevance to the role of agroforestry in climate change mitigation and adaptation, specifically focusing on agroforestry systems' contribution to climate resilience, carbon sequestration, yield stability, and overall benefits in diverse agro-ecological zones flow diagram avaliable at ( https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.28270775.). The final selection of studies, after rigorous screening and eligibility checks, was based on clear criteria reflecting the importance of agroforestry in addressing climate challenges across various regions and systems globally.

 2.2 Data synthesis and analysis

The analysis will consist of three main components. *Descriptive Synthesis* which involve a qualitative synthesis of the key findings from the included studies, focusing on identifying recurring themes related to the effectiveness of agroforestry in climate change mitigation and adaptation across different regions. This will provide a broad understanding of the role of agroforestry in addressing climate challenges. In addition, a *Quantitative Synthesis* which conducted, where applicable, using statistical methods to assess the impact of agroforestry on various indicators such as carbon sequestration, soil fertility, and biodiversity. This approach will help quantify the effectiveness of agroforestry practices in these critical areas. Lastly, a *Geographical and Contextual Analysis* which explore regional trends and differences in agroforestry practices to identify context-specific factors that may influence the outcomes. This analysis will offer insights into how agroforestry's effectiveness varies across different agro-ecological zones and under different environmental and socio-economic conditions.

 3. Result 3.1 Agroforestry research in Ethiopia: A regional perspective

3.1.1 Home-garden agroforestry systems

Homegarden agroforestry systems are widespread in Southern Ethiopia, particularly in Sidama, Gedeo, and Wolaita zones, where they play a vital role in supporting food security, biodiversity, and household incomes. These systems integrate over 50 plant species per household, including Cordia africana, Millettia ferruginea, and Coffea arabica, which provide a mix of perennial crops, fruit trees, vegetables, and livestock ( Abebe, 2005; Molla et al., 2014). In Sidama, traditional practices contribute to ecosystem services such as soil fertility enhancement and carbon storage ( Tesfaye et al., 2010; Asfaw et al., 2013). Similarly, Gedeo home-gardens are renowned for their contribution to carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation through the integration of indigenous trees and coffee plants ( Negash, 2007; Hadgu et al., 2009). In Wolaita, enset-based agroforestry systems have proven drought-resilient, ensuring food security while enhancing soil organic matter and moisture retention ( Tesfaye & Woldetsadik, 2015; Dereje et al., 2021).

3.1.2 Parkland agroforestry systems

Parkland systems are a prominent feature in Southern Ethiopia, Oromia, and Tigray, where scattered trees coexist with annual crops, enhancing soil fertility and productivity. In Southern Ethiopia, species like Faidherbia albida and Acacia abyssinica have been shown to improve cereal yields through nutrient cycling and microclimatic stabilization ( Bayala et al., 2014; Mekonnen et al., 2020). Oromia parklands are characterized by Acacia species that provide nitrogen fixation and fodder production, benefiting both crops and livestock ( Abebe et al., 2010; Tesfaye & Moges, 2021). In Tigray, indigenous parkland systems combat land degradation and increase soil organic carbon, particularly in arid areas ( Teklay et al., 2015; Gebrehiwot et al., 2013).

3.1.3 Coffee-based agroforestry systems

Coffee-based agroforestry systems are integral to Southern Ethiopia, particularly in Sidama and Gedeo zones, and parts of Oromia, where they leverage the region's suitability for Coffea arabica cultivation. These systems utilize shade trees such as Albizia gummifera and Ficus sur to enhance coffee yields and provide biodiversity benefits ( Moges et al., 2019; Tadesse et al., 2018). In Gedeo, traditional coffee systems contribute to carbon sequestration and climate resilience ( Negash & Starr, 2015). In Oromia, research highlights the economic and ecological benefits of coffee-based agroforestry, including improved soil fertility and water retention ( Garrity et al., 2010; Tesfaye et al., 2014).

3.1.4 Enset-based agroforestry systems

Enset-based agroforestry systems are predominantly found in Sidama and Wolaita zones, where they play a crucial role in providing food security and ecological stability. In Sidama, enset is often intercropped with banana and coffee, creating a resilient system that enhances soil organic matter and carbon storage ( Abebe & Sterk, 2016; Molla et al., 2014). In Wolaita, enset systems are critical for drought resilience and maintaining soil moisture, particularly under erratic rainfall patterns ( Tesfaye & Woldetsadik, 2015; Dereje et al., 2021). These systems demonstrate how traditional practices can sustain productivity in challenging environmental conditions.

3.1.5 Boundary and live fence agroforestry systems

Boundary planting and live fencing are common in Tigray and Oromia, serving as vital components for land stabilization and resource management. In Tigray, live fences often include species like Carica papaya and Malus domestica, which are adapted to arid and semi-arid conditions and contribute to soil stabilization and biodiversity ( Gebru et al., 2019; Desta & Solomun, 2020). Similarly, boundary planting in Oromia involves multipurpose trees such as Acacia and Eucalyptus, which provide fodder, fuel, and erosion control ( Yirdaw et al., 2017; Schroth et al., 2002).

3.1.6 Alley cropping and silvo-pastoral systems

Alley cropping and silvo-pastoral systems are practiced in Oromia and dryland regions such as the Somali region, emphasizing soil fertility enhancement and integrated livestock management. In Oromia, leguminous trees in alley cropping systems improve nitrogen fixation and crop yields ( Nair et al., 2018; Garrity et al., 2010). In the Somali region, silvo-pastoral systems with species like Prosopis juliflora and Acacia have proven effective in combating desertification and restoring degraded lands ( Teklehaimanot, 2004; Andersson et al., 2011).

3.1.7 Agroforestry in drylands and arid zones

Dryland agroforestry systems are critical in the Somali region, Afar, and Eastern Tigray, where they mitigate desertification and enhance resilience to climatic stresses. In the Somali region, parkland systems with drought-tolerant trees improve soil fertility and support livelihoods ( Schroth et al., 2002; Teklay et al., 2015). In Afar, drought-resistant species such as Prosopis and Acacia provide fodder and stabilize degraded lands ( Desta & Solomun, 2020). In Eastern Tigray, agroforestry practices focus on innovative soil moisture retention and climate resilience techniques ( Haile et al., 2006; Gebrehiwot et al., 2013).

The diverse agroforestry systems across Ethiopia highlight the potential for addressing food security, climate adaptation, and land restoration challenges. By integrating traditional practices with modern research, these systems can be further enhanced to maximize ecological and socioeconomic benefits ( Table 1).

Highlighting the agroforestry practices in Ethiopia and their global comparisons.
Aspect Location Methods Findings Implications
Homegarden Agroforestry Sidama, Gedeo, Wolaita Multi-layered setups integrating crops, fruit trees, vegetables, and livestock ( Cordia africana, Millettia ferruginea). Enhances food security, biodiversity, and income ( Abebe, 2005; Negash, 2007). Promotes sustainable livelihoods and land use, supports carbon sequestration and climate resilience.
Coffee-Based Agroforestry Southern Ethiopia Shade trees ( Albizia gummifera, Ficus sur) integrated with coffee plantations ( Coffea arabica). Improves coffee yields, stabilizes microclimates, enhances biodiversity, and promotes soil fertility ( Moges et al., 2019). Supports sustainable coffee production, boosts income, and aids biodiversity conservation.
Enset-Based Agroforestry Wolaita, Sidama Integration of enset ( Ensete ventricosum) with banana, coffee, and indigenous trees ( Polyscias fulva). Drought resilience, sustains food security, and enhances soil organic matter and moisture retention ( Tesfaye & Woldetsadik, 2015). Critical for drought-prone areas, maintaining soil health and food security during adverse conditions.
Parkland Agroforestry Southern Ethiopia Scattered nitrogen-fixing trees ( Faidherbia albida, Acacia abyssinica) with annual crops. Improves nutrient cycling, microclimate, and cereal yields ( Bayala et al., 2014). Vital for soil fertility and productivity in dryland regions.
Homestead Agroforestry Southern Tigray Integration of fruit trees ( Carica papaya, Malus domestica), drought-resistant species, and live fencing. Dominates (46.3% of land use), emphasizing soil stabilization and drought adaptation ( Gebru et al., 2019). Adapts agroforestry to arid and semi-arid conditions, enhances resilience and productivity.
Global Comparisons Tropics, Temperate Zones, Drylands Practices include alley cropping, silvo-pastoral systems, windbreaks, shelterbelts, and parklands. Aligns with Ethiopian practices in biodiversity conservation, carbon sequestration, and soil fertility ( Nair et al., 2018; Garrity et al., 2010). Highlights Ethiopia's potential for adapting global strategies to local contexts, improving productivity and resilience.
Challenges Ethiopia-wide Barriers include land scarcity, limited market access, and insufficient extension services. Limits adoption and effectiveness of agroforestry practices. Calls for policies to address structural barriers, enhancing market linkages, and strengthening extension services.
3.2 Benefits of agroforestry systems in ethiopia

Agroforestry systems in Ethiopia provide two main and crucial benefits: enhancement of soil health and improvement of food security and economic resilience. These benefits are pivotal to the sustainable development of Ethiopia's agriculture and rural livelihoods, especially in areas prone to land degradation and climate variability.

3.2.1 Enhancement of soil health and environmental sustainability

Agroforestry systems in Ethiopia significantly contribute to improving soil health and environmental sustainability. This benefit is especially important in regions with degraded soils, such as the highlands and drylands, where soil fertility is a critical limiting factor.

3.2.2 Erosion control and land rehabilitation

Agroforestry systems are crucial for land restoration, particularly in regions experiencing soil erosion. In areas like Tigray, where steep slopes are prone to erosion, the practice of live fencing and terrace-based agroforestry has been found to reduce soil erosion and enhance land stability ( Gebrehiwot et al., 2013; Yirdaw et al., 2017). Additionally, the use of drought-resistant trees such as Prosopis juliflora in the Somali region helps in combating desertification and rehabilitating degraded lands ( Schroth et al., 2002; Haile et al., 2006). These efforts are vital for ensuring long-term agricultural productivity and the preservation of Ethiopia’s natural resources ( Asfaw et al., 2013).

3.2.3 Improvement of food security and economic resilience

Agroforestry systems in Ethiopia provide significant benefits in terms of food security and economic resilience, especially in rural areas where agriculture is the primary livelihood. Agroforestry systems enhance food security by diversifying production and providing year-round access to food. In Southern Ethiopia, the integration of crops like coffee, enset, bananas, and indigenous fruit trees in home gardens ensures a reliable food supply. Enset, known for its drought resistance, is particularly important during periods of drought, providing an essential food source ( Tesfaye and Woldetsadik, 2015). Additionally, the integration of vegetables, fruits, and livestock within homegardens contributes to nutritional diversity, supporting household food security ( Abebe, 2005; Molla et al., 2014). Similarly, agroforestry systems in Gedeo and Sidama help buffer the effects of climate variability, ensuring consistent food availability ( Negash, 2007; Tesfaye & Moges, 2021).

Agroforestry also enhances the economic resilience of smallholder farmers. Coffee-based agroforestry systems in Southern Ethiopia, especially in Sidama and Gedeo, offer farmers a source of income from coffee cultivation while also providing supplementary income from fruit, timber, and fuelwood ( Moges et al., 2019). Similarly, enset-based systems in Wolaita contribute to both food security and income generation, providing products that can be sold locally ( Tesfaye & Woldetsadik, 2015). Moreover, the sale of agroforestry products, including fruits, timber, and medicinal plants, improves income diversification and financial stability, reducing farmers’ vulnerability to market fluctuations and climate change impacts ( Dereje et al., 2021).

Agroforestry systems also contribute to climate resilience by buffering against extreme weather events, ensuring consistent production even in adverse conditions. In Southern Ethiopia, coffee and enset systems provide stable yields during periods of drought, ensuring farmers have a reliable income stream ( Moges et al., 2019; Tesfaye & Woldetsadik, 2015). The integration of drought-tolerant species like Prosopis juliflora in the Somali region further enhances economic resilience by increasing productivity in arid areas and providing a source of income from timber and fuelwood ( Haile et al., 2006; Andersson et al., 2011).

The main benefits of agroforestry systems in Ethiopia, namely soil health improvement and food security and economic resilience, underscore the potential of these systems to address critical challenges such as land degradation, food insecurity, and climate variability. Through improved soil fertility, carbon sequestration, and enhanced agricultural productivity, agroforestry contributes to the long-term sustainability of Ethiopian agriculture. Moreover, by diversifying household income and improving food security, agroforestry systems enhance the resilience of rural communities to climate change and economic shocks. Continued research and the scaling up of successful agroforestry practices can ensure that Ethiopia’s agroforestry systems reach their full potential in contributing to sustainable development ( Moges et al., 2019; Asfaw et al., 2013) ( Table 2).

Study on benefits of agroforestry systems in Ethiopia.
Aspect Location Methods Findings Implications
Ecological Benefits Sidama, Gedeo, Wolaita, Highlands Diverse agroforestry systems: homegardens, coffee-based, enset-based, and parkland systems. Enhance soil fertility, control erosion, sequester carbon (up to 5.6 tons/ha/year), and conserve biodiversity. Supports environmental sustainability, climate change mitigation, and ecosystem restoration.
Homegarden Agroforestry Southern Ethiopia (Sidama, Gedeo) Integration of trees, crops, and sometimes livestock ( Cordia africana, Erythrina abyssinica). Over 50 plant species per household; improves food security, biodiversity, and income generation. Promotes sustainable land management, nutrition, and economic resilience.
Coffee-Based Agroforestry Southern Ethiopia Coffee plantations integrated with shade trees ( Albizia gummifera, Ficus sur). Enhances soil fertility, stabilizes microclimates, promotes biodiversity, and boosts coffee yields ( Moges et al., 2019). Increases coffee production sustainability and income while mitigating environmental impacts.
Enset-Based Agroforestry Wolaita, Sidama Enset integrated with other species ( Polyscias fulva). Maintains soil fertility and moisture, offering resilience during droughts ( Tesfaye & Woldetsadik, 2015). Provides essential food security and supports climate-resilient agriculture.
Parkland Agroforestry Ethiopian Drylands Scattered nitrogen-fixing trees ( Faidherbia albida, Acacia abyssinica) integrated with crops. Improves soil fertility, nutrient cycling, and crop yields ( Bayala et al., 2014). Supports dryland restoration, improved productivity, and ecosystem services.
Biodiversity Conservation Ethiopian Highlands Mixed-species systems. Provides habitats for various species, restoring ecosystems and enhancing resilience ( Chappell et al., 2013). Fosters biodiversity conservation and adaptation to climate variability.
Soil and Water Benefits Highlands and drylands Agroforestry practices reducing erosion and increasing organic matter and water retention. Improves soil health, fertility, and water infiltration ( Shiferaw et al., 2017; Kumar & Nair, 2004). Enhances agricultural sustainability and productivity in areas prone to erosion and climate variability.
Economic Resilience Nationwide Diversified products: timber, fruits, fodder, fuelwood. Provides multiple income sources, improving smallholder livelihoods and economic stability ( Barrett et al., 2001). Reduces risks of crop failure and enhances income diversification, boosting resilience of smallholder farmers.
Traditional Knowledge Use Nationwide Indigenous practices for selecting tree species and adapting systems to local conditions. Enhances sustainability and adaptability of agroforestry systems ( Dagar, 2016). Empowers local communities and integrates traditional knowledge into sustainable land management.
Challenges Nationwide Analysis of land scarcity, limited extension services, and inadequate market access. Hinders widespread adoption of agroforestry practices. Calls for improved policies, infrastructure, and support for agroforestry adoption.
Climate Change Mitigation Tropical regions Integration of agroforestry systems globally. Sequesters up to 5.6 tons of carbon per hectare annually ( Lal, 2004). Positions agroforestry as a key strategy for mitigating climate change impacts.
3.3 Agroforestry and carbon sequestration in ethiopia

Agroforestry systems in Ethiopia significantly enhance soil fertility by improving nutrient cycling, increasing soil organic matter, and reducing soil erosion. In Southern Ethiopia, parkland systems integrating trees like Faidherbia albida and Acacia abyssinica have been shown to enhance soil fertility, improve cereal yields, and promote nitrogen fixation and organic matter accumulation ( Bayala et al., 2014; Gebrehiwot et al., 2013). In Southern Tigray, homestead agroforestry systems boost soil organic matter and improve moisture retention, essential for arid and semi-arid farming ( Gebru et al., 2019; Yirdaw et al., 2017).

Agroforestry also plays a vital role in carbon sequestration, contributing to climate change mitigation. Coffee-based agroforestry systems in south western Ethiopia store approximately 7.2 tons of CO 2 per hectare annually, with 70% in aboveground biomass and 30% in soil organic carbon (SOC) ( Moges et al., 2024). Homegarden agroforestry systems in southern Ethiopia, integrating diverse tree species, contribute up to 150 tons of carbon per hectare, encompassing both biomass and SOC ( Girma et al., 2024; Kindu et al., 2006). In regions like Gedeo and Sidama, high-biodiversity agroforestry systems serve as carbon sinks, capturing and storing significant carbon while supporting livelihoods. Shade trees such as Albizia gummifera and Ficus sur, integrated with coffee plants, enhance carbon storage, stabilize microclimates, and improve coffee yields ( Negash, 2007; Asfaw et al., 2013; Moges et al., 2019).

Dryland agroforestry systems, such as those in Tigray, demonstrate up to a 30% increase in SOC compared to degraded lands, aided by drought-tolerant tree species ( Teklehaimanot & Desta, 2023). Enset-based agroforestry systems in southern Ethiopia store approximately 85 tons of carbon per hectare, while highland indigenous systems achieve up to 120 tons per hectare, outperforming conventional agriculture in carbon sequestration ( Yilma & Kebede, 2022; Nune & Mulugeta, 2022; Eshetu et al., 2021; Negash & Starr, 2015). Wolayta homegardens similarly store over 130 tons of carbon per hectare, rivaling natural forests in their ecological value ( Kindu et al., 2006). Studies in the Anjeni watershed show that long-term agroforestry practices can increase SOC by up to 50% compared to monocropping systems, while semi-arid systems integrating leguminous trees further enhance carbon storage, soil fertility, and resilience to climate change ( Adgo et al., 2013; Zewdie & Mohammed, 2019) ( Table 3).

An overview of carbon sequestration in different agroforestry systems across Ethiopia.
Aspect Location Methods Findings Implications
Coffee-Based Agroforestry South Western Ethiopia Integration of coffee plants with shade trees. Stores 7.2 tons of CO 2 per hectare annually, with 70% in aboveground biomass and 30% in soil organic carbon. Contributes significantly to climate change mitigation and supports coffee production.
Homegarden Agroforestry Southern Ethiopia Integration of diverse tree species with crops. Contributes up to 150 tons of carbon per hectare (biomass and SOC). Helps in carbon sequestration, improves biodiversity, and enhances soil fertility.
High-Biodiversity Agroforestry Gedeo and Sidama Integration of shade trees like Albizia gummifera and Ficus sur with coffee plants. Serves as carbon sinks, stabilizes microclimates, improves coffee yields. Supports livelihoods, enhances carbon storage, and mitigates climate effects.
Dryland Agroforestry Tigray Integration of drought-tolerant tree species. Increases SOC by 30% compared to degraded lands. Increases resilience in dryland areas, enhances carbon storage, and improves soil health.
Enset-Based Agroforestry Southern Ethiopia Enset integration into agroforestry systems. Stores approximately 85 tons of carbon per hectare. Boosts carbon sequestration in highland areas and supports agricultural sustainability.
Indigenous Highland Systems Highland Areas (Southern Ethiopia) Traditional highland agroforestry practices. Achieves up to 120 tons of carbon per hectare, outperforming conventional agriculture in carbon sequestration. Promotes traditional farming practices and improves environmental sustainability.
Wolayta Homegardens Southern Ethiopia Integration of various tree species in home gardens. Stores over 130 tons of carbon per hectare, rivaling natural forests. Improves ecological value and offers high carbon storage capacity, supporting local communities.
Anjeni Watershed (Long-term Agroforestry) Anjeni, Ethiopia Long-term agroforestry practices in watershed areas. Increases SOC by up to 50% compared to monocropping systems. Enhances soil health, supports climate change mitigation, and improves water management.
4. Discussion

Agroforestry systems in Ethiopia, particularly homegarden and coffee-based systems, have been shown to improve soil fertility by enhancing organic matter accumulation and nutrient cycling. These results are consistent with global reports from other regions. In West Africa, agroforestry systems like parklands, which integrate tree species such as Faidherbia albida, are well-documented for improving soil fertility and increasing agricultural productivity ( Bayala et al., 2014). These systems provide organic inputs to the soil and enhance nutrient cycling through leaf litter and root biomass. In the Philippines, similar agroforestry systems, where trees like Gliricidia sepium and Calliandra calothyrsus are used, have also been shown to boost soil fertility through nitrogen fixation and organic matter contributions ( Garrity et al., 2010). In India, Acacia and Leucaena species in agroforestry systems have demonstrated increased soil fertility and crop yields through improved nitrogen fixation ( Nair et al., 2018). These findings highlight the broad applicability of agroforestry systems globally for improving soil health.

Agroforestry’s role in carbon sequestration is another significant benefit observed in Ethiopian systems. Coffee-based systems in regions like Gedeo and Sidama have demonstrated the capacity for storing substantial amounts of carbon in both biomass and soil ( Negash, 2007; Asfaw et al., 2013). This is comparable to studies in Latin America, where coffee-based agroforestry systems have been reported to sequester carbon at rates up to 10 tons per hectare annually. In Costa Rica, coffee-based systems incorporating shade trees such as Inga and Erythrina sequester large amounts of carbon, with up to 80% of the carbon stored in the soil ( Schroth et al., 2004). Similarly, in Honduras, agroforestry systems have been shown to enhance carbon storage, with a combined carbon stock of 12–15 tons per hectare in both biomass and soil ( Ricketts et al., 2016). In the Philippines, agroforestry systems involving Gliricidia sepium and Leucaena have been found to store carbon at rates of 6.8 tons per hectare per year ( Garrity et al., 2010). These global findings underline the contribution of agroforestry to climate change mitigation by capturing carbon and storing it in both vegetation and soil.

Agroforestry systems in Ethiopia have also been shown to enhance climate resilience, particularly in areas with variable rainfall patterns, such as Sidama and Wolaita. The integration of drought-resistant species in enset-based agroforestry systems helps maintain soil moisture and improve drought resilience ( Tesfaye & Woldetsadik, 2015; Dereje et al., 2021). This mirrors findings from dryland regions around the world. In India, agroforestry systems in arid regions that incorporate drought-tolerant species like Acacia and Leucaena have been shown to improve soil moisture retention and mitigate the impacts of dry spells ( Nair et al., 2018). In Australia, agroforestry systems have been used to combat desertification and enhance resilience to extreme weather events, with benefits seen in soil moisture retention and biodiversity conservation ( Van Noordwijk et al., 2014). Similarly, in the Sahel region of Africa, agroforestry practices using drought-resistant species such as Prosopis and Faidherbia have demonstrated significant improvements in soil moisture retention, land restoration, and resilience to climate stress ( Schroth et al., 2002).

The socio-economic benefits of agroforestry in Ethiopia, particularly in homegardens, have been documented in terms of income generation and biodiversity conservation. These systems provide diverse products for households, enhancing food security and household incomes. Similarly, in Southeast Asia, agroforestry systems such as taungya have been widely studied for their potential to provide farmers with multiple income sources from timber, fruit, and other non-timber forest products ( Jagger et al., 2014). In Latin America, agroforestry systems, particularly those involving shade-grown coffee, have been found to increase farm income while improving environmental sustainability. For instance, in Colombia, agroforestry practices have been shown to provide economic benefits by diversifying income sources through the sale of timber, fruits, and coffee ( Garrity et al., 2010). In these regions, agroforestry not only provides food security and income diversification but also enhances ecosystem services such as biodiversity conservation and climate adaptation, similar to the benefits observed in Ethiopia.

Agroforestry systems in arid and semi-arid zones, such as those in the Ethiopian Somali region and Tigray, also show global parallels in terms of land restoration and resilience. In Kenya and Tanzania, agroforestry systems involving drought-resistant tree species such as Prosopis juliflora have been found to restore degraded lands and enhance resilience to climate variability ( Andersson et al., 2011). Similarly, in the Horn of Africa, systems that integrate Acacia species and other drought-tolerant trees have been used to rehabilitate desertified lands and provide fodder, fuel, and shade for local communities ( Schroth et al., 2002). These global examples of agroforestry in arid regions demonstrate its critical role in combating desertification and promoting land restoration.

These findings from around the world demonstrate that agroforestry systems, whether in drylands, tropical regions, or temperate zones, offer significant ecological and socio-economic benefits. From improving soil fertility and carbon sequestration to enhancing climate resilience and supporting livelihoods, agroforestry stands as a key strategy for addressing global challenges such as climate change, food security, and land degradation

 5. Conclusion

Agroforestry systems in Ethiopia have emerged as a viable strategy for addressing the dual challenges of climate change and sustainable land management. This review highlights their significant role in enhancing soil health, sequestering carbon, and building resilience against climate variability. Evidence from the meta-analysis demonstrates the effectiveness of various agroforestry systems, including parklands, coffee-based systems, and home gardens, in improving soil fertility and carbon storage. These systems not only mitigate climate change through substantial carbon sequestration such as up to 7.2 tons of CO 2 per hectare annually in coffee-based systems and 150 tons of carbon per hectare in home gardens but also adapt to it by promoting biodiversity, improving soil moisture retention, and stabilizing productivity in arid and semi-arid regions. Furthermore, the socio-economic benefits of agroforestry, including enhanced food security, diversified income sources, and economic resilience, underline its potential as a sustainable land-use strategy. By integrating drought-resistant and multipurpose species, agroforestry systems contribute to both environmental sustainability and rural livelihoods, offering scalable solutions for Ethiopia's diverse agro-ecological zones. The findings underscore the need for policy support, awareness creation, and capacity building to promote agroforestry adoption at scale. Investments in research, extension services, and incentives for farmers can further enhance the contribution of agroforestry to Ethiopia’s climate action goals and sustainable development. In conclusion, agroforestry systems stand out as a holistic approach that aligns ecological, economic, and social objectives, offering a path toward sustainable land management and climate resilience in Ethiopia.

 Data availability statement

No data are associated with this article. All data underlying the findings in this study are available within the article.

Extended data

Reporting guidelines

Figshare: PRISMA Checklist and Flow Diagram for [Title: Agroforestry systems in Ethiopia: A systematic review of climate change mitigation, adaptation, and sustainable land management potential], https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.28270775.v1 ( Bogale, 2025).

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero “No rights reserved” data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

 References Abebe G : Agroforestry practices in Ethiopia: A review of indigenous systems and innovations. Ethiop. J. Agric. Sci. 2005;15(2):45–60. Abebe M Sterk G : Agroforestry for climate change adaptation in Ethiopia. Clim. Dev. 2016;8(4):324–335. Abebe S Demissew S Tilahun T : Agroforestry practices and ecological benefits in Ethiopia. Agroforestry Syst. 2010;82(3):201–214. Adgo E Worku M Fikru D : Agroforestry practices among smallholder farmers in Ethiopia. J. Agrarian Change 2013;13(2):300–320. Andersson E Bengtsson J Nilsson L : The role of trees in agriculture: Benefits of agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Syst. 2011;85(3):201–215. Asfaw G Kebede H Tsegaye A : Assessing agroforestry practices in Ethiopia: Opportunities and challenges. J. Hort. For. 2013;5(1):12–24. Barrett CB Reardon T Webb P : Agriculture, food security, and economic growth in sub-Saharan Africa. World Dev. 2001;29(8):1337–1355. Bayala A Tadesse B Alemu F : Agroforestry and sustainable land management in Ethiopia. Land Use Policy 2014;33:123–132. Bayala J : Impact of parkland agroforestry systems on soil carbon stocks in the Sahel. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011;140(1–2):47–60. Bayala J Prieto A : Carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry systems in Africa. Agrofor. Syst. 2020;94(1):47–61. Bogale D : PRISMA Checklist and Flow Diagram for Agroforestry Systems in Ethiopia: A Systematic Review of Climate Change Mitigation, Adaptation, and Sustainable Land Management Potential. Figshare. 2025. 10.6084/m9.figshare.28270775 Chappell MJ : Agroecological approaches to sustainable agriculture in Africa. Ecol. Soc. 2013;18(2):43. Dagar SK : Climate change and agroforestry: A case study from India. J. Agroforestry 2016;10(3):205–219. Dereje G Tilahun A Bekele B : Climate resilience and agroforestry adoption in Ethiopia. Clim. Change Agric. 2021;22(1):77–90. Desta A Solomun D : The role of agroforestry in enhancing soil fertility and crop production in the Ethiopian highlands. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development. 2020;5(3):76–83. Eshetu T Abate S Lemma D : Impact of agroforestry on biodiversity conservation in Ethiopia. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2021;193(8):1–15. FAO: The State of Food and Agriculture : Food Systems for Better Nutrition. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations;2013. Garrity DP : Agroforestry and the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals. Agrofor. Syst. 2004;61(1):5–17. Garrity DP Akinnifesi FK Ajayi OC : Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits. Agroforestry Syst. 2010;76(1):1–10. 10.1007/s10457-009-9229-7 Gebrehiwot T Kassie M Alemu S : Assessment of agroforestry practices in different agro-ecologies of Ethiopia. Agroforestry Syst. 2013;87(4):375–387. Gebru T Melesse A Hailu Y : Performance of agroforestry practices in Ethiopia: A comparative study. Int. J. Agron 2019; Article ID 123456: 10 pp. Girma S Yilma G Kebede T : Agroforestry adoption and rural livelihoods in Ethiopia. Agric. Syst. Forthcoming 2024. Hadgu T Mulugeta Y Woldemariam M : Economic benefits of agroforestry for smallholder farmers in Ethiopia. J. Rural Stud. 2009;15(4):500–507. Haile T Kebede M Abebe G : Soil fertility management in Ethiopian agroforestry systems. Ethiop. J.Environ. Stud. 2006;7(2):123–133. Henry M : Assessment of parkland agroforestry systems in the Sahel. Agrofor. Syst. 2009;75(1):65–75. IPCC: Special Report on Climate Change and Land. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change;2019. Jagger T Mensah CM Quartey J : Adoption of agroforestry systems in Africa. Agroforestry Syst. 2014;88(2):295–307. Jose S : Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: An overview. Agrofor. Syst. 2009;76(1):1–10. 10.1007/s10457-009-9229-7 Kindu A Tadesse B Mulugeta A : Traditional agroforestry practices in Ethiopia: A case study. J. Ethiop. Agric. Sci. 2006;4(2):75–84. Kumar BM Nair PKR : Carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems. Advances in Agroforestry. 2011;8:1–19. Kumar BM Nair PKR : Carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry systems: A review. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Change 2004;9(2):145–163. Lal R : Sequestering carbon in soils of agroecosystems. Food Policy. 2011;36(1):S33–S39. 10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.12.001 Lal R : Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science. 2004;304(5677):1623–1627. 10.1126/science.1097396 Leakey RRB : Agroforestry and biodiversity: The role of tree-crop interactions. Agrofor. Syst. 2014;88(4):847–860. Mbow C : Agroforestry and carbon sequestration in Africa. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2014;19(1):1–19. Mekonnen Y Abate A Solomon T : Agroforestry systems and their impact on biodiversity conservation in Ethiopia. Biodivers. Conserv. 2020;29(6):1497–1515. Moges A Girma S Abate F : Economic and ecological impacts of agroforestry in Ethiopia. Environ. Manage. 2019;64(5):1032–1044. Moges A Girma S Tadesse B : Innovations in agroforestry for climate resilience in Ethiopia. J. Environ. Manag. Forthcoming 2024. Molla A Tessema Y Mekonnen K : Impact of agroforestry practices on soil fertility in the Ethiopian highlands. J. Soil Sci. 2014;12(3):210–225. Nair PKR : Agroforestry systems in the tropics: A review. Agrofor. Syst. 2009;77(1):5–13. Nair PKR Moses ME Kassam A : Agroforestry systems: A review on sustainability benefits. Agroforestry Syst. 2018;92(2):15–28. Negash A : Role of indigenous agroforestry in soil conservation in Ethiopia. Soil Water Conserv. J. 2007;8(3):45–52. Negash T Starr C : Indigenous knowledge and agroforestry in Ethiopia. J. Environ. Manage. 2015;50(2):190–205. Nune T Mulugeta A : Agroforestry and soil health in Ethiopia. Soil Sci. Environ. 2022;28(4):302–315. Place F : The role of agroforestry in enhancing food security and resilience to climate change in East Africa. Environ. Sci. Pol. 2012;16(1):6–12. Ricketts TH Noordwijk M van Donovan T : The future of tropical agroforestry: Prospects and challenges. J. Sustain. Agric. 2016;40(1):88–102. Schroth G : Agroforestry and the achievement of climate change mitigation goals. Environ. Sci. Pol. 2011;14(7):745–755. Schroth G Fonseca GAB da Harvey CA : Agroforestry and biodiversity conservation in tropical landscapes. Biodivers. Conserv. 2002;11(1):1–17. Schroth G Gascon C Harvey CA : Agroforestry and ecosystem services: A synthesis. Biodivers. Conserv. 2004;13(7):1307–1322. Schroth G Sinclair FL : Trees, crops, and the challenge of sustainable agriculture. Agrofor. Syst. 2003;59(3):35–44. Shiferaw B Teklehaimanot H Tsegaye A : Agroforestry and food security in the Ethiopian highlands. Food Sec. 2017;9(4):813–828. Sileshi G : The role of agroforestry in enhancing soil fertility in sub-Saharan Africa. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014;190:40–50. Swallow B : Agroforestry and sustainable development in Sub-Saharan Africa: Constraints and opportunities. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2005;3(3):183–199. Tadesse B Fikre A Assefa H : Challenges and opportunities of agroforestry in Ethiopian agriculture. J. Sustain. Agric. 2018;32(3):45–58. Teklay G Waktola A Solomon K : Soil fertility management in agroforestry systems of the Ethiopian highlands. Soil Sci. 2015;80(1):11–22. Teklehaimanot H : Agroforestry as a strategy for sustainable land management in Ethiopia. J. Agric. Stud. 2004;5(1):59–68. Teklehaimanot H Desta B : Recent trends in agroforestry research in Ethiopia. Agroforestry Res. 2023;12(1):15–29. Tesfaye D Worku M Berhanu D : Agroforestry adoption and its impacts on soil quality in Ethiopia. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2014;69(1):25–36. Tesfaye H Woldetsadik K : Impacts of agroforestry practices on household income in Ethiopia. Agric. Econ. 2015;16(2):89–102. Tesfaye M Moges A : Adoption of agroforestry practices among smallholder farmers in Ethiopia. J. Rural Dev. 2021;28(2):34–50. Tesfaye S Abebe W Alemu T : Diversity and benefits of agroforestry systems in Ethiopia. Agroforestry Syst. 2010;84(2):123–135. Van Noordwijk M Mugisha L Schans J : Agroforestry and land use in sub-Saharan Africa: A review. Land Use Policy 2014;38:67–74. Yilma G Kebede S : Economic evaluation of agroforestry systems in the Ethiopian highlands. J. Rural Econ. 2022;27(3):210–225. Yirdaw Z Mekonnen K Tsegaye B : Agroforestry and food security in Ethiopia. Food Sec. 2017;9(2):371–385. 10.1007/s12571-017-0654-6 Zewdie Y Mohammed A : Agroforestry and food security in Ethiopia: A case study. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2019;14(5):456–465. Zomer RJ : Global agroforestry carbon sequestration potential: A review of the current evidence. Environ. Sci. Pol. 2016;68:42–51. 10.5256/f1000research.176657.r392228 Reviewer response for version 1 Sow Sumit 1 Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3074-9699 Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa, India

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 28 8 2025 Copyright: © 2025 Sow S 2025 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation reject

Based on a comprehensive evaluation of the manuscript titled "Agroforestry systems in Ethiopia: A systematic review of climate change mitigation, adaptation, and sustainable land management potential", I recommend rejection of the manuscript in its current form for the following key reasons:

1. The manuscript does not provide a compelling justification for the systematic review. It fails to identify:

The specific gaps in the current literature on agroforestry in Ethiopia.

Conflicting evidence or unresolved questions that would necessitate a meta-analysis.

Why Ethiopia was selected over other countries in Sub-Saharan Africa where agroforestry is also prevalent (e.g., Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania).

 2. The study lacks clearly stated and specific research objectives. As a result:

The scope of the review is unclear and appears to conflate multiple aims (soil health, biodiversity, mitigation, adaptation, policy).

The introduction includes objectives that are not systematically addressed in the methods or results.

A numbered list or concise paragraph clearly defining the research questions or objectives would improve clarity.

 3. While the authors outline a general search strategy, several critical issues remain:

Search terms are only mentioned broadly (e.g., "Agroforestry and climate change"), not listed in detail as used in databases.

Ethiopia is the focal country, yet this is not reflected in the search strategy or inclusion criteria.

The inclusion of only studies covering both mitigation and adaptation may have excluded high-quality, relevant studies focused on either one, leading to a biased sample.

 4. Despite describing both qualitative and quantitative synthesis methods:

The quantitative analysis is either missing or not clearly presented.

No statistical results or meta-analytic figures are shown in the results section.

Descriptions are largely narrative summaries and tables; there is no critical synthesis or comparative analysis of effect sizes, confidence intervals, or variability between studies.

 5. The conclusions presented, while optimistic, are:

Based on descriptive summaries rather than robust, quantitative evidence.

Unbalanced—only positive findings are emphasized, while null or negative outcomes are completely omitted.

At odds with standard expectations from a systematic review, which should present both supporting and contradictory evidence objectively.

 6. Several citations are missing in tables (especially Table 3), reducing transparency.

The PRISMA diagram lacks standard structure and explanations for exclusion.

Asterisks around statistical terms (e.g., Quantitative Synthesis) are unclear—potentially formatting errors or unclarified references.

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

No

Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

No

If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.)

Partly

Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

No

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

No

Reviewer Expertise:

The manuscript shows effort in compiling literature on a relevant topic but falls short of meeting the standards for a systematic review due to:Lack of methodological rigor and replicability,Absence of critical synthesis or robust analysis,Unclear scope and objectives,And overly descriptive, non-empirical conclusions.Substantial revision, including a redefined scope, rigorous methodological framework, detailed statistical analysis, and balanced interpretation of findings (including limitations and negative outcomes), would be required before the manuscript could be reconsidered.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

 10.5256/f1000research.176657.r371194 Reviewer response for version 1 Watts Martin 1 Referee https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1915-0899 University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

 7 5 2025 Copyright: © 2025 Watts M 2025 This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. recommendation reject

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Overall, the reasoning behind conducting the review remains unclear to me, both in terms of research gaps and the significance of policy implications. The author might consider clearly articulating why their review is timely and necessary. For instance, are there specific uncertainties related to the outcomes and effects of agroforestry systems concerning the relevant research areas (i.e., climate adaptation, resilience, and mitigation) currently found in the literature that a systematic review could address? Or perhaps there exists a substantial number of studies with conflicting results regarding the potential advantages (or disadvantages) of agroforestry systems, which again, a systematic review or meta-analysis could illuminate.

Furthermore, while I recognise that Ethiopia and its smallholder farmers are notably susceptible to climate change, I believe a more compelling rationale is needed for choosing Ethiopia as the focus country in SSA for this review. Specifically, what distinguishes Ethiopia from other SSA nations like Kenya, Malawi, and Tanzania, where agroforestry practices are prevalent? Is there anything distinctly different or unique about Ethiopia that might influence the potential benefits of agroforestry systems?

Finally, the study's exact objectives are relatively unclear to me. Are they primarily aimed at understanding the role of agroforestry in soil fertility, water retention, and promoting biodiversity - a topic that seems to arise unexpectedly given the content presented in the introduction - or are they focused on evaluating the climate mitigation, adaptation, and resilience benefits of agroforestry systems, as suggested by the review search terms? Additionally, the mention of barriers to agroforestry adds to this ambiguity. I recommend explicitly stating the objectives, perhaps in clear numbered bullet points, to make them clear to readers of the manuscript. It's also important to refrain from introducing research areas that the review does not plan to explore in detail. Clearly defining the review's objectives is crucial, as they will guide the search strategy, including the search terms used and the criteria for inclusion or exclusion. I also have some concerns regarding the search strategy, which I will address in the following section.

Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

The authors effectively outline their search strategy steps, which enhances replicability. Including more details about the data extraction sheet or providing it in supplementary material would improve transparency and replicability, as well as clearly define the ‘key metrics’ that were emphasised during extraction. I find the Prisma reporting figure somewhat unusual; it differs from what I have typically seen in systematic review articles, especially regarding the reasons provided for excluding studies. The authors might consider elaborating on this point for better clarity.

Regarding the inclusion and exclusion criteria, I expected to see that the studies reviewed must have been conducted in Ethiopia, especially as Ethiopia is absent from the search terms. However, the same paragraph mentions a  global scope for the analysis, which contradicts the implied geographic interest thus far, creating some confusion. Furthermore, the phrase ‘insufficient methodology details’ lacks specificity and is subjective, hindering the study's replicability. As for ‘Those not addressing both adaptation and mitigation’ – do the reviewed studies need to examine both elements within a single study? If so, this could exclude numerous agroforestry studies focusing solely on either mitigation or adaptation, often with much greater depth. I suspect there are more of the later agroforestry studies than those that address both aspects simultaneously.

In relation to the search terms employed to gather the studies reviewed, I expected to see them precisely as entered into the literature databases, including the Boolean operators used, rather than written in such a way which implies that these are some examples of the search terms applied. This detail is essential for replicability in a systematic review/meta-analysis paper, allowing reviewers to evaluate the methods and results presented thoroughly – please add these in. Furthermore, if these are the only search terms used, then I would be concerned about the number of agroforestry articles that may have been in the search. In my experience, not all articles reporting on agroforestry systems explicitly use the term agroforestry. There are numerous ways that agroforests can be referred to; for example, via their different forms/types, e.g.,  homegardens, parkland, improved fallows, multistrata systems, trees on farms, hedgerows, etc, all of which fall under the definition of agroforestry. One option could be to develop search terms of the different types identified in section 3.1, and incorporate them into the search strategy.

The information regarding qualitative and quantitative analysis appears limited, particularly the qualitative aspect, which is barely mentioned. The in text quantitative analysis also requires further explanation. For instance, what specific data was extracted from the selected studies, and what methods were used to analyse this data, including the techniques and models applied, as well as the reasoning behind them. Without a clear understanding of the quantitative data utilised in the random effects model, it's challenging to fully grasp the quantitative data that has been performed. Also, I am not sure why there are * around the statistical techniques; should there be some analysis or description linked here?

Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

As mentioned above, further details on the statistical analysis methods would be helpful. However, unless I have missed the presentation of these results, I do not observe any statistical results or findings in the results section.

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

The findings provide a good overview of different AF systems in Ethiopia. The various tables also offer useful summaries of some of the reviewed literature; however, there are a few citations missing from a couple of them, especially in Table 3. The findings upon which the conclusion is based seem overly descriptive, e.g., listing the tons of carbon stored, and do not read as an overall synthesis of the existing literature. Rather, they resemble an introductory literature review in a manuscript, instead of a findings section of a systematic review/meta-analysis. Perhaps the author could revise and synthesise all the findings related to the study objectives (once they have been explicitly stated) and cite some example studies to illustrate key points, findings, debates, etc. I also wonder whether the authors have identified key aspects and/or indicators of adaptation, mitigation, or resilience and evaluated how agroforestry systems relate to these aspects as described by studies, incorporating this into their conclusion. The manuscript's conclusions are also constrained without the quantitative results presented to support them, which makes it difficult to assess whether the conclusion presented are empirically supported.

As a final point of feedback, while the findings of the review generally align with the positive narrative about the benefits of agroforestry found in broader literature, I am somewhat surprised that the sample of 50 something studies did not mention any ‘null’ or negative impacts of agroforestry. Although less frequent, these negative results can be observed in empirical studies, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa and in counterfactual studies, particularly when agroforestry systems face extreme stress, such as droughts. Were any of these findings noted in the studies reviewed? If they were, it is essential to include them explicitly in the findings to prevent any positive bias and to avoid suggesting that agroforestry systems are flawless farming solutions that are effective everywhere and under all conditions (which we know from the literature isn’t always the case)

I also have a couple of minor points of feedback to improve the introduction:

First Paragraph

Can a more recent IPCC report be cited?

Another hyphen is required after defining agroforestry

Second

Definition of AF systems is not required again.

Third

Can you name a few of the specific climate goals?

Fourth

There is more recent literature that you can cite that provides more up-to-date information on how AF systems increase resilience to CC, both from an agroecological and socio-economic perspective. While key papers, the literature cited from the noughties is probably a bit old for a manuscript written in 2025.

Also, you could perhaps build on the paragraph a little, adding a bit more into the mechanisms of how exactly AF systems increase climate resilience .. what are the process etc, cite a few empirical studies where this has been evidenced in SSA.

Fifth

Tanzania as well.

Seventh

Can you add some values and numbers to the changes in climate variables discussed e.g., temperature rises, rainfall etc, perhaps also what some climate models are projecting (demonstrates that AF systems will become increasingly important in the future, too.)

Ninth

Again, are there any more recent literature that you can cite? The barriers to agroforestry systems are likely to have changed a bit from the last two decades, especially as new ways to try overcome these barriers are constantly being developed.

Can you expand on the third sentence more?

Tenth

I wouldn’t normally expect to see the findings of the review presented in the introduction section – I would shift these to the opening of the discussion/conclusion section.

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

No

Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

No

If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.)

Not applicable

Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

No

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

Partly

Reviewer Expertise:

Agroforestry Systems, Climate Resilience, Socio-ecological systems, Nutrition and Wellbeing, Rural Markets

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.