Next Article in Journal
Research on Collaborative Performance of Green Supply Chain Enabled by New Quality Productivity
Previous Article in Journal
Green Credit, Digital Economy and Enterprise Pollution Reduction
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Perspective

Challenges and Opportunities for New Frontiers and Technologies to Guarantee Food Production

by
José Cleydson Ferreira Silva
1,2,*,
Kleiton Lima de Godoy Machado
1,3,
Anna Flavia de Souza Silva
1,4,5,
Raquel Dias
2,*,
Victor Ricardo Bodnar
1,
Wallison Oliveira Vieira
1,6,7,
Maria Alejandra Moreno-Pizani
1,8,
Jenifer Dias Ramos
1,9,
Ivani Pauli
1 and
Lucas Cavalcante da Costa
1,10
1
TFF Science Squad Brazil, The Thought for Food® Foundation, Birmingham, AL 35205-4009, USA
2
Department of Microbiology and Cell Science, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, 1052 Museum Road, Gainesville, FL 32611-0700, USA
3
Departamento de Biologia Vegetal, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Campus Universitário, Viçosa 36570-900, MG, Brazil
4
Protein Transition Department, Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Sciences, Agora 1, P.O. Box 1528, 8934 CJ Leeuwarden, The Netherlands
5
Food Technology Department, University of Applied Sciences van Hall, Larensteinselaan 26-A, 6882 CT Velp, The Netherlands
6
Departamento de Pesquisa Desenvolvimento e Inovação, Bioworld Soluções Regenerativas, Avenida José Conrado de Araújo, 731—Rosa Elze, São Cristóvão 49100-000, SE, Brazil
7
Departamento de Agronomia, Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Dois Irmãos, Recife 52171-900, PE, Brazil
8
Instituto de Pesquisas e Educação Continuada em Economia e Gestão de Empresas (PECEGE), Piracicaba 13418-445, SP, Brazil
9
Embrapa Meio Ambiente, Rodovia SP-340, Km 127.5, Jaguariúna 13918-110, SP, Brazil
10
Laboratório de Ecofisiologia Vegetal, Universidade Federal Rural da Amazônia, Campus Capitão Poço, Capitão Poço 68650-000, PA, Brazil
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(9), 3792; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17093792
Submission received: 24 January 2025 / Revised: 18 March 2025 / Accepted: 18 April 2025 / Published: 23 April 2025

Abstract

:
The global food production sector is under immense pressure due to rapid population growth and climate change, demanding innovative solutions for food security and sustainability. This review explores innovative advancements in agriculture and food technology, from urban farming (e.g., vertical farming, aquaponics, and hydroponics) to regenerative agriculture and agroforestry practices that enhance soil health and biodiversity. We also examine food production in extreme environments, including desert agriculture and space agriculture, as well as advances in biotechnology, synthetic biology, and nanotechnology, that enable improved crop yields and nutrition. The transformative role of AI in precision farming, predictive analytics, and water management is highlighted, as well as the importance of bioproducts and eco-friendly innovations. Finally, we discuss the vital role of policy, regulation, and community-driven approaches in shaping a resilient global food system. Through the integration of technology with sustainable practices, this review aims to inspire research into solutions that ensure future food security while preserving our planet.

1. Introduction

One of agriculture’s biggest challenges for the next 50 years is to find a way to double worldwide food production, in order to satisfy the demands associated with the forecasted exponential population growth [1]. Over this timeframe, water deficits, the scarcity of soil nutrients, and increases in both atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperatures are expected to restrict the food supply chain in many countries, to some extent [2]. In this context, efforts have been made to find a way to meet the global food demand through innovative technologies, plans, and actions in a manner that does not undermine environmental ecosystems [3,4]. To achieve such goals, a growing body of disruptive technologies has emerged [5,6], thereby creating a new milestone in this important sector of society.
In this review, we highlight breakthroughs in promising technologies that are expected to pave the way for resilient, sustainable, and eco-friendly food production systems that are capable of meeting the global food demand that is anticipated by the end of this century. We also further discuss multiple aspects of food production systems, including urban farming, regenerative agriculture, desert agriculture, food production in space, plant engineering, synthetic biology, nanotechnology, enriched foods, bioproducts for agriculture, water management, food security, artificial intelligence (AI), and public policy and food regulation, with the aim of fostering research and innovation to ensure future food security while protecting the health and sustainability of our planet. Altogether, we provide compelling evidence regarding how science and technology are contributing to dealing with food security for this and the next generations, including the idea that the success of such efforts depends on public policies and community participation.

2. New Agricultural Frontiers

The expansion of agricultural frontiers has always raised concerns regarding the preservation of natural biomes worldwide [7,8,9]. In this context, the genetic manipulation of cultivated species and the use of technologies for resilient crops, such as regenerative agriculture, aquaponics, aeroponics, and urban and vertical agriculture, allows us to rethink the food production model in a more sustainable and economically viable manner (Figure 1a). Regenerative agriculture proposes a sustainable food system that is capable of sustaining the health of the soil through restoring its carbon content, consequently improving yield [10]. Furthermore, it can help to mitigate climate change-related issues, with it being estimated that regenerative annual cropping could reduce or sequester 14.5–22 gigatons of CO2 by 2050 (Project Drawdown, 2021 [11]).
Aquaponics has been widespread worldwide, introducing the concept of sustainability and efficient use of water, integrating fish and plants produced in a quasi-closed recirculating system [12]. Meanwhile, aeroponics is considered a modern plant cultivation technology, in which plants grow without the use of soil or substrate [13,14]. Furthermore, urban agriculture has been shown to make food production more sustainable and resilient, improving food security in low-income countries [15,16].
Other challenges in agriculture around the world are related to extending agricultural areas and crops to dry, saline soil environments with elevated temperatures during the day and low temperatures at night, as conditions typical of desert regions. However, there is still a strong dependence on plant selection and genetic modifications.

2.1. Urban Farming Technologies

The increase in the world’s population, as well as the need for high-quality products that are sustainably produced, has led to a necessity for innovative crop culture methods to reach such objectives [17]. Innovative methods could require less water and space, increased yield, and provide opportunities to develop annually continuous food supply systems [18,19]. One of these innovative methods is aeroponics. This method involves growing crops without soil in an aeroponic chamber, where suspended roots are periodically misted with a nutrient-rich solution in a controlled, dark environment [20]. There are several benefits associated with the use of aeroponics, such as better use of the space related to the cultivation and decreases in water, fertilizer, and pesticide usage (by 98, 60, and 100%, respectively) [21]. According to Al Shrouf, 2017 [21], plants that grow in aeroponics systems may present a better nutritional value and increased spatial efficiency and yield. Another benefit is related to the lower incidence of pathogens. The nutrient solution in aeroponics systems provides more oxygen to plant roots, which increases root growth and prevents the incidence of diseases [22] (Figure 1a).
Aquaponics is a consortium between aquaculture and hydroponics, which is considered a sustainable and alternative food production system (FAO, 1998) [23,24,25]. Due to the use of recirculating aquaculture systems (RASs), allowing for the re-use of water, aquaponics is considered an efficient and eco-friendly means of farming (FAO, 2014) [26]. Aquaponics is characterized by the production of both plant and animal biomass simultaneously. The wastes derived from aquatic animals are converted into nutrients by micro-organisms. Subsequently, plants absorb these nutrients and consequently refine the water quality for the production of the animals, resulting in a constant and sustainable cycle [27,28]. Both designs and methods for aquaponics food systems that produce at different levels have been developed, in order to control nutrients (e.g., fertilizers), plant evapotranspiration, and water consumption.
Aquaponics techniques can be applied in various settings, such as open systems, domestic purposes, demonstrations, and commercial farms [29] (Figure 1a). Open-pond aquaponics systems (OPSs) have been developed due to the low-cost production of catfish, tilapia, and herbivorous fish such as grass, silver, and bighead carp [30]. OPSs have been broadly used in East Asia—mainly Thailand, India, and Bangladesh—for animal polyculture and growing okra, spinach, eggplant, tomato, pudina, and other crops [31,32]. In contrast, demonstration and domestic systems are typically used for the small-scale production of aquatic animals, and are commonly adopted in the context of family farming and urban areas, as resources for the production of food [33]. Meanwhile, large-scale systems have undergone various modifications, including the concept of aquaponics or hydroponics farming 4.0, with the introduction of IoT monitoring using sensors and AI [27,34]. The adoption of IoT in aquaponics systems could bring benefits such as better evaluations of water pH and water temperature, thus decreasing the need for human intervention, consequently improving the management and efficiency of the system [35,36].

2.2. Agroforestry and Regenerative Agriculture

Regenerative agriculture (Reg-ag) aims to improve soil health and restore degraded soil (e.g., through the addition of soil organic carbon), which accordingly benefits the quality of water, local vegetation, and yields [37]. Reg-ag facilitates soil–mineral cycles that provide nutrients, promote water cycling, and benefit microbiome–soil–plant–animal communities, restoring ecological relationships in food production. In this context, the new concept of regenerative–ecological agriculture (Reg-eco-ag) has been introduced (Figure 1b). Reg-eco-ag includes ecosystem restoration through the introduction of native plants (e.g., herbaceous and woody crops), grazing, horticulture, and pollinators (FAO 2018) [37,38,39]. Reg-eco-ag is an innovative approach that combines regenerative agriculture principles—focusing on soil health restoration, biodiversity enhancement, and water cycle improvement—with ecological practices that reinforce the intricate relationships among soil, plants, animals, and micro-organisms. Through integrating these elements, Reg-eco-ag aims to create a more robust and environmentally friendly agricultural paradigm that not only allows for the production of food but also actively contributes to the health and vitality of the broader ecosystem. Reg-eco-ag integrates aspects of climate change mitigation and adaptation, implementing sustainable agricultural strategies to avoid impacts on the environment, consequently leading to climate-smart agriculture (CSA) as an outcome [40,41].
Reg-eco-ag is considered a major innovative initiative in Australia, with the adoption of a sustainable agroecological farming system using native grasslands, trees to avert floods, crop plants, and animals, and has become a priority for this century [42,43,44]. In the northern plains of the United States, regenerative corn production systems have shown positive effects in terms of soil conservation and pest management when compared with conventional agriculture. Insecticide-treated conventional cornfields have 10-fold more pests than insecticide-free regenerative farms [45]. In Europe, the consortium of regionally adapted species, such as olive groves, grasses, and forbs, has been suggested for use in global greening initiatives, and a wide inventory of species has been studied for ecosystem restoration [37]. Reg-eco-ag principles have been applied in different regions of Brazil, helping to restore impacted biomes, including the consortia of pineapple, banana, palm heart, and citrus in the Atlantic Forest; palm oil in the Amazon; horticulture, fruit, and coffee in the Brazilian savanna (“cerrado”); and tomato, pineapple, papaya, citrus, cacao, and mahogany in the Brazilian savanna and the Atlantic Rain Forest [46].
Africa and the Middle East present the biggest challenges for Reg-eco-ag. A futurist animation has envisioned “What if we terraformed the Sahara Desert?” based on projects that are already being developed (http://twixar.me/snSm, www.afr100.org, accessed on 18 March 2025). For example, the initiative of the Millennium Villages Project (MVP) around Mbola, Tanzania, has intensified smallholder agriculture with legume cover crops or trees to promote mineral fertilizers as a source of carbon and nitrogen to rehabilitate soil organic matter [47,48]. Furthermore, there exist ambitious and challenging projects, such as the development of a Great Green Wall (https://thegreatgreenwall.org/, accessed on 18 March 2025) to contain the advance of the Sahara Desert, which extends from the Atlantic coast of Senegal to the Gulf of Aden in Djibouti [49,50,51] (Figure 1b). It has been estimated that, by 2030, this project can restore 100 million hectares of degraded land, create 10 million jobs, and sequester 250 million tons of carbon. Another similar disruptive initiative has transformed the Mediterranean coast in North Africa.
In Tunisia and Algeria, many attempts involving planting thousands of trees have been carried out to reduce the degradation of land [52,53]. In the coastal dunes in North Tunisia, the planting of stone pine (Pinus pinea L.) has been implemented for the reforestation of more than 21,000 ha, in order to regenerate litter thickness and provide a microclimate that allows for the growing of seedlings [54] (Figure 1b). Furthermore, Tunisian grapevines have been broadly planted, with studies showing that the soil microbiome is an important component promoting the growth of grape plants. Meanwhile, in the Sahara Desert in South Tunisia, olive trees have been shown to present great genetic diversity, reflecting their resilience and adaptation to abiotic stresses [55].

2.3. Agriculture in the Desert

Heat and salinity are common abiotic stresses in semi-arid and desert regions. Plant salinity tolerance mechanisms have been extensively studied, such as those related to the maintenance of plant water status, transpiration, and water efficiency [38,56,57,58], as well as seed germination and growth [59]. Furthermore, studies have observed that crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM) can be induced by high salinity in C3 plants [60,61]. CAM plants are those that possess a photosynthetic CO2 fixation mechanism, which occurs only during the night. CAM plants close their stomata during the day to reduce the loss of water through transpiration, which are otherwise opened during the night to capture atmospheric CO2 [61,62]. CAM photosynthesis induced by abiotic stresses presents challenges and opportunities for the genetic engineering and breeding of plants [63,64].
The genetic breeding of plants tolerant to heat, drought, and salt stresses has allowed for the practice of biosaline agriculture in different soils under saline conditions in desert areas [65,66]. Due to the relevance of biosaline agriculture, research centers have been dedicated to the study and development of genotypes that are tolerant to irrigation with saline water and salinized soils in dryland ecosystems. For instance, in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), the International Center for Biosaline Agriculture (ICBA; www.biosaline.org, accessed on 18 March 2025) performs research on quinoa genotypes. In Asia (Uzbekistan), the International Center for Biosaline Agriculture for Central Asia and Caucasus (ICBA-CAC) has a breeding program for salinity-adapted and climate-resilient quinoa [67].
In South America—specifically, in Northeastern Brazil—in semiarid areas characterized by poor rain distribution, the “Embrapa Semiarido” uses saline groundwater irrigation in areas with Caatinga vegetation and crops [68]. Other researchers from different institutions have studied strategies that allow for the application of biosaline agriculture associated with salt-tolerant plants irrigated with saline water and associated soil management systems. Such programs involve the selection of genotypes of saline-tolerant crops—as is the case for cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.), citrus, corn (Zea mays), and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor)—as well as the adoption of soil management models, including specific drainage systems, fertilization and aggregation of organic matter, and the use of forage plants, which are highly tolerant to salinity, such as Atriplex (Atriplex nummularia), that can absorb large amounts of salts and can later be offered to cattle, sheep, and goats [69]. These plant-breeding programs have changed the reality, food production, and life prospects of local producers.
In Australia, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) has identified different plant species living in two saline ecosystems, suggesting an important model organism with potential genes for further study and the development of transgenic crops for these saline regions. In summary, the genetics, genetic engineering, and molecular biology of plants are some of the areas of knowledge that will certainly allow for the development of capable cultivars adapted to arid, desert, and dry areas. Thus, many countries with desert areas could potentially serve as agricultural areas in the future. Satellite images have revealed a new potential agricultural cradle in Egypt’s Western Desert (i.e., the Sahara Desert), between the Nile, Northern Sudan, and Southeastern Libya [70] (Figure 1b).
Finally, large expanses of green patches can be seen from the International Space Station in many regions of the Sahara (see Table 1, www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov, accessed on 18 March 2025). Furthermore, other countries such as Saudi Arabia, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates have developed technologies for the implementation of irrigation systems that are able to reduce the water consumed during the cultivation of fodder, palm, quinoa, and potato crops [71,72] (see Table 1). Reg-ag has been able to not only regenerate the soil but also enable the cultivation of plants in different places on the planet, especially where water scarcity poses a significant challenge.

2.4. Deep-Space Food Technologies

Deep-space colonization is a major challenge for humanity in this century. Humans already inhabit low Earth orbit in the International Space Station (ISS) and, in this decade, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) mission to return to the Moon in 2025 and create a sustainable presence in 2028 is a reality with high potential [73] (Figure 1c). New approaches and insights into novel products have been suggested for human exploration and settlement on Mars [74]. Fresh food production is essential for long-duration space missions. Studies have been carried out on the food crops grown and alternative proteins in space using the Veggie life support system [75,76,77] (Figure 1c). The adaptation of plants to space is a great challenge, due to environmental conditions never experienced in their evolutionary cycle [78]. Based on this, projects such as the EDEN ISS project have developed new approaches for the development of fresh vegetable growing systems under the extremely low air pressure, cosmic radiation-exposed, and microgravity conditions characteristic of space missions. The Micro-Ecological Life Support Alternative (MELiSSA) Pilot Plant (MPP) project created a higher plant chamber, facilitating plant growth [62,63] (Figure 1c).
Life support systems in long-term human missions to the Moon and Mars are the underlying support for growing vegetables and other agricultural operations in the context of space exploration. Several species of plants have already been grown in space as a food source for astronauts, as well as for studies aiming to better understand their responses to the severe environment. The microgravity environment provides a series of challenges for plant development. Lettuce (Lactuca sativa) has been cultivated on the ISS, and many studies have been carried out to understand the responses of organisms to the influences of cosmic radiation and microgravity environments [79]. Studies on rice (Oryza sativa) under microgravity conditions at the ISS showed attenuated coleoptile growth, delaying and reducing germination [80,81]. Different strategies for germination have been tested for flax seed (Linum usitatissimum) to support seed germination, elongation, and root growth in space [82]. Other plant species, such as Chinese cabbage (Brassica rapa), wheat (Triticum aestivum), and potatoes (Solanum tuberosum), have aroused interest for long-term space shuttle missions or astro-agriculture [83,84,85,86].
The cultivation of plants in space is still a challenge, due to the cost of launching the experimental materials to ISS, which is being overcome with many studies. Arabidopsis is a model plant that has been tested extensively in space environments to unravel the molecular mechanisms through which plants respond to microgravity [87,88,89]. Microgravity exerts changes to global gene expression, proteome profiles, and, consequently, epigenetic mechanisms [87,90,91], while elevated radiation levels have been shown to induce mutations in plants and Drosophila [92]. Therefore, the crossing or self-fertilization of plants under exposure to high levels of radiation in space may not result in the expected phenotypic proportions in the context of Mendelian genetics. Therefore, plant breeding for adaptation to microgravity and elevated radiation levels serves as an attractive path for scientists focused on the production of food in deep space.

3. Technology and Innovation in Producing Food

3.1. Plant Engineering for Food Production

DNA—the information-rich molecule underpinning all life—governs the characteristics and functions of organisms. This genetic blueprint enables cells to respond to environmental challenges, influencing their adaptability and survival. Genes—distinct DNA segments within genomes—encode this vital information. While primarily directing protein synthesis, some genes play structural or regulatory roles. These diverse genetic functions collectively shape an organism’s ability to thrive under varying conditions [93]. Eukaryotic genes are made of coding regions (translated as amino acids) called exons, non-coding portions called introns, and regulatory sites including promoters, enhancers, and silencers [94] (for more information and details, see Stamm et al. [94]; Lynch [95]; Barash et al. [96]). Among the protein-coding genes, interesting features can be related to those seen in plants that help to resist fungal antagonists or herbicide actions [97,98]. Engineering molecular biology tools allows for the editing of genes in all regions, thus changing the genetic structure for functional gain or loss. Among the most-used gene-editing tools, the main strategies are zinc-finger nucleases (ZFNs), transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs), and the promising CRISPR–Cas9 RNA-guided technologies [99].
ZFNs are proteins that are capable of cutting DNA at specific points. This technology can delete gene pieces (promoters, exons, and so on), mainly to disable certain functions. The first applications of zinc-finger nucleases were for gene function studies in yeast [100]. At present, this technology can be used to change transgenes and genes in rice, such as herbicide resistance-related genes [101]; in soybean, affecting gene functions [102]; and even apple and fig trees, for gene deletion assays [103,104]. However, this technology may be replaced by others in the future, as it has a relatively major off-target probability and cytotoxicity [105]. As an alternative, TALEN proteins are also nucleases, discovered from Xanthomonas sp. bacteria, which have the ability to contribute to pathogen infestation through actions in the plant resistance gene promoters [106]. Moreover, an edited TALEN was used to generate rice variety resistance to this pathogen by activating a recessive gene, which would be difficult to achieve through interbreeding [107]. However, we still do not fully understand the off-target effects of TALEN technology. Finally, the CRISPR system was developed in 2012 and rapidly changed how molecular biologists edit genes and genomes. This tool was discovered as part of the adaptive immune systems of Archaea and Eubacteria against viruses, targeting their alien DNA [108,109].
The CRISPR-Cas9 system uses a synthetic ~20-nucleotide-long RNA as a guide, enabling targeting of the genomic region of interest and consequently adding deletions or insertions [104,110]. At present, the CRISPR-Cas9 technology has a huge potential to establish new crops to satisfy the demands of the constantly growing population (Figure 1d), as seen in sorghum, where a gene has been silenced in a manner that made the proteins more digestible for use as livestock feed [111] or protein content gain in wheat grains [112]. Furthermore, CRISPR has been used in plants to confer tolerance to environmental stresses, such as salinity in rice [112], and for disease tolerance, as seen in banana (Musa sp.) against the banana streak virus [113] and the resistance of tomato plants to bacteria speck [114]. As has been shown in the literature, CRISPR technology is a scientific breakthrough that is expected to be the future of gene editing, especially as it is relatively accessible.
Unpredictably, gene editing has opened a pathway of possibilities for us to study how organisms (and especially plants) deal with biotic and abiotic challenges for survival. The ability to understand how these outstanding organisms survive under such difficulties is expected to make it possible to feed the growing human population while decreasing the impacts of agriculture worldwide.

3.2. Synthetic Biology in Food Production

Advances in high-throughput DNA-sequencing technologies have allowed access to the human genome and those of other species, mainly plants, leading to the present “post-genomics era” in many areas of knowledge [115]. Meanwhile, the accumulated knowledge in system biology and plant molecular biology allows plant scientists to enter a new era with synthetic biology (SynBio) [116]. SynBio can play an important role in the food production system, as a disruptive and revolutionary technology in the context of agriculture and bioengineering [117]. SynBio is revolutionizing food production through enabling the design and construction of novel biological systems or the re-design of existing ones to create innovative functions [118]. In agriculture, SynBio’s potential is particularly transformative, allowing for the engineering of crops with enhanced traits, such as improved drought tolerance, elevated nutritional content, and increased resistance to pests and diseases [119]. Through the precise introduction of specific genes or gene pathways, this cutting-edge field offers a disruptive approach to bioengineering that promises to significantly contribute to the development of more resilient and sustainable food systems. Conventional plant breeding has achieved maximum yield, and SynBio mainly focuses on improving water-use, nutrient-use, and photosynthetic efficiency to improve spatial efficiency and yield in crops [120,121]. The improvement of photosynthesis has been concentrated in carbon-concentrating mechanisms (CCMs), as well as crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM) in C4 and C3 plants, to enhance the carbon gain and resource-use efficiency of photosynthesis, respectively [120,122]. Both strategies provide opportunities in the context of agricultural SynBio. However, there is still a long way to go until new studies and applications are realized [123] (Figure 1e).
SynBio food production has achieved a certain degree of progress, and the first food produced using this technology is expected to be available commercially in the period 2020–2030. Based on products from engineered cells, such as iron-containing heme and leghemoglobin, can result in a new eating experience for plant-based burgers [5]. Studies have shown that iron-containing heme is an important component for improving the taste of meat [124]. Furthermore, the use of yeast leghemoglobin in plant-based burgers provides flavors and aromas that are desirable to the human palate [5]. Other applications of SynBio in food production include pest control in agriculture, through the disruption of mating using insect sex pheromones [(Z)-hexadec-11-en-1-ol and (Z)-tetradec-9-en-1-ol] at the expense of insecticides [125]. These sex pheromones are produced in yeast (Yarrowia lipolytica) engineered via the oxidation of fermented fatty alcohols. This approach has been effective in the control of the cotton bollworm. The cotton bollworm is one of the most devastating pests in agriculture, which requires sophisticated control and handling. In addition, SynBio applications in the plant microbiome engineering of biofertilizers, biostimulants, and biocontrol agents in agriculture have been extensively studied [126].
Many countries have introduced new ways to produce enriched foods based on the inclusion of microalgae and cyanobacteria (e.g., Spirulina) in human diets. SynBio has allowed for the sustainable production of food and nutrients, such as proteins, lipids, and synthesized carbohydrates, through the engineering of cyanobacteria [127]. Significant progress in different aspects and prospective trends regarding the use of SynBio for food production have been achieved. However, the adoption of synthetic biology in different areas of knowledge will depend on professionals and other emerging areas, such as bioinformatics [128], biotechnology, and bio-AI [129,130,131,132].

3.3. Nanotechnology for Food Production

Nanoscience represents a multi-disciplinary field of study in which particles at a nanometric scale (i.e., 1 to 100 nm) are synthesized and utilized for various applications in many fields, such as agriculture (also known as agro-nanotechnology or agro-nanotech) [133,134]. The rise of agro-nanotech has been motivated by the need for increased food production and nutritional quality, playing a key role in the feasibility of food security in the near future [135]. In addition, motivations related to the rise of agro-nanotechnology include the development of agriculture 4.0, due to the possibility of integrating green and eco-friendly solutions (e.g., pesticides and fertilizers) into agricultural practices, as well as improving economic gains and being a cost-effective solution that is capable of reducing pollutant levels in the environment and promote sustainable practices [136].
In the context of agriculture, nanotechnology has been largely exploited in the field of precision agriculture, either using particle or sensor technology, especially concerning the application of fertilizers and pesticides [133,135,137]. Agro-nanotechnology enables efficient and balanced strategies for crop nutrition, as well as the smart application of chemicals in agriculture [136]. In this line, Zulfiqar et al. [136] have highlighted the ability of nano-fertilizers to increase tolerance against abiotic stresses in plants and promote their efficient use of nutrients (e.g., due to nutrient release over longer periods). Chhipa 2017 [138] conducted an investigation of carbon nanotube-based nano-fertilizers, considering the most common macro- and micronutrients for plants. The author identified that the application of these nanotubes represented a more efficient system for plant nutrition. Chhipa also investigated the composition of the nanoparticles (especially in terms of Ag, Cu, SiO2, and ZnO) for the formulation of nano-pesticides. Notably, the solutions based on nanotechnology presented a higher protective efficiency when compared to conventional pesticides.
The exploitation of nanoparticles for enhanced plant nutrition is also an emergent field of interest in precision agriculture. Savassa et al. [139] evaluated the effects of ZnO nanoparticles on the germination of common beans. In addition to the possibility of correcting the intrinsic deficiency of Zn (as observed in about 50% of soils worldwide), the authors highlighted that the nano-solution designed did not affect the germination rate. Another important conclusion of this study is the biotransformation of the ZnO nanoparticles into organically bound Zn, contributing to the enhancement of the nutritional quality of food that is delivered to consumers. Leonardi et al. [140] proposed the development of a new fertilizer for eco-friendly agriculture based on nanomaterials produced after the complexation of polyelectrolytes, composed of a sodium alginate complex, chitosan, and CuO nanoparticles. After characterization of the material synthesized, the authors highlighted the benefits of the composites for the development of plants. This process was described as being due to a synergic and beneficial role in seeding and germination.
Despite the many advantages that such technologies can bring to agriculture, there remain gaps to be addressed, such as quality assurance and adequate controls [141]. Other points that need to be further investigated, according to the same authors, include the impacts of these materials on field conditions, as well as their toxicity with respect to the environment and human health. Another important remark, highlighted by several researchers, is the central role of regulatory agencies in counteracting these limitations and preventively mitigating negative consequences for both the environment and human health [141,142,143].

3.4. Enriched Foods

The addition of nutrients to foods is already a well-established practice, which has been carried out since the 1920s. This has helped many countries overcome several public health problems, such as malnutrition, anemia, rickets, pellagra, and other nutrition-related chronic diseases [144]. The enrichment of food can also be performed voluntarily by food industries, which can lead to better engagement with specific target consumers, especially those oriented to the healthiness claim [145]. Some good examples of these practices were the addition of iodine to salt in 1923 in Switzerland and 1924 in the USA, resulting in drastic reductions of congenital hypothyroidism and goiter in those regions. In the following decades, several strategies were proposed and applied worldwide, and the diseases provoked by malnutrition were virtually eliminated in a major part of the world. At the end of the 1980s, the Codex alimentarius provided guidelines for the addition of these compounds in foods, as well as for the terminological nominations for the area [144].
Since then, several studies have been carried out worldwide to ensure the addition of the nutrients that are required to mitigate the consequences of malnutrition. Cormick et al. [146] have discussed the enrichment of foods with calcium, as its daily intake in low- and medium-income countries remains low, which can provoke not only the well-known bone diseases, but also disorders related to pregnancy, blood pressure, and cholesterol levels [146]. Nölle et al. [147] investigated how to enrich mushrooms with vitamin D. These researchers developed an interesting and cheap strategy based on ultraviolet B (UV-B) light and concluded that some simple processes in food technology (e.g., solar drying and slicing the referred foodstuff) associated with their exposure to ultraviolet radiation could boost the concentration of the desired vitamin in mushrooms [148].
Although many strategies have already been proposed regarding food enrichment, one study [147] pointed out that some micronutrients (i.e., vitamin A, iodine, iron, folic acid, and vitamin D) still represent a challenge regarding the global mitigation of malnutrition. Song et al. [149] also highlighted that this enrichment can also be segmented, considering the new demands of the consumers, and especially considering the older generations and their perceptions about healthy food and the adequate intake of proteins.

4. Innovation in Agricultural Management

4.1. Bioinputs to Benefit Food Production

A microbiome is a community of micro-organisms living in a specific environment. Microbiomes are important for plant survival, due to the symbiotic ecological relationships they develop with plant structures (roots, flowers, leaves, fruits, and stems), enhancing the availability of essential nutrients and defense [150]. Furthermore, the relationship between pollinators and plant microbiomes is responsible for insect attraction, allowing for the dispersion of pollen [151]. The introduction of beneficial micro-organisms into production areas is expected to become an increasingly adopted practice by ag-techs, as observed regarding the use of mycorrhizal fungi [152]. These fungi are capable of associating with plant roots, facilitating the uptake of both nutrients and water, relieving the plants of heavy metal toxicity, and contributing to the phytoremediation of soils affected by heavy metals [152,153].
Some micro-organisms produce metabolites that degrade and cause dysfunctions in other pathogenic organisms. Some bacteria release chitinase, an enzyme that metabolizes chitin, a main component of insect exoskeletons and fungal cell walls [154]. Bacteria of the genus Bacillus have great potential for application in agriculture. According to Amaresan et al. [155], when associated with different species of Bacillus, tomato plants produced better yields. This was attributed to some isolates producing indole acetic acid (AIA), which contributes to the growth and flowering of the tomato.
Furthermore, antagonistic effects for a wide range of pathogens allow for lower incidences of bacterial wilt, “damping off”, root rot, and leaf spots in these plants. As an example, Bacillus velezensis has been shown to act in the biocontrol of bitter apple rot, as an antagonist of Colletotrichum gloeosporioides [156]. Another micro-organism to be mentioned is the Trichoderma fungi, which are already available on the market as controllers of pests, diseases, and growth promoters; are widely used by farmers; and present a wide range of activities [157]. Bacteria and fungi are promising candidates for biocontrol and plant growth promotion, as they can enhance plant health, increase yield, and reduce the need for pesticides and synthetic nutrients through controlling diseases and improving water/nutrient uptake. Advances in microbiology have expanded the potential of this field, paving the way for farmers to develop and apply bioproducts based on these organisms in a practical and sustainable manner.

4.2. Artificial Intelligence in the Food Production

AI has positively impacted the sustainability and innovation of food systems [158,159], including precision agriculture, livestock management, detection of consumer patterns, food waste, and behavioral change [158,160,161,162,163,164]. AI technologies are also enhancing the efficiency of mechanical fruit-harvesting methods while reducing plant damage [165,166,167]. Beyond harvesting, AI is used for pesticide application, as well as image analysis for breeding, yield prediction, and plant disease recognition, such as the molecular characterization of plant–pathogen interactions [162,163,164,168,169,170]. These advancements provide non-destructive techniques that are applicable under diverse field conditions, offering global benefits in the context of food production.
AI is transforming the food-processing industry by enhancing the efficiency of quality control processes. AI-powered systems can inspect products in real-time, detecting defects or contaminants that might otherwise go unnoticed. For instance, computer vision technologies using deep-learning algorithms can analyze images of food products on the production line, thus identifying any irregularities or quality issues, improving the overall quality of the final product, and reducing the risk of food safety incidents. Companies such as TOMRA and Key Technology are already implementing such systems in various food-processing facilities, including those for fruits, vegetables, and meats [171]. Through analyzing data from various sources, including sensors, radio frequency identification (RFID) tags, and historical records, AI models can predict potential food safety risks and identify the origin of contaminated products quickly. For example, IBM’s Food Trust platform uses blockchain and AI to track food products from farm to table, enabling the rapid recall of contaminated items and reducing the risk of foodborne illnesses [172].
Integrative AI models can also analyze vast amounts of data on consumer preferences, nutritional requirements, and ingredient properties to suggest new and improved food recipes. Companies such as McCormick & Company are using AI to develop new flavor profiles and ingredients that meet changing consumer tastes and dietary needs [173]. This approach accelerates the product development process and ensures that new products are more likely to succeed in the market. AI can also significantly contribute to reducing food waste, a critical issue in the food production sector. Through analyzing data on production, storage, and consumption patterns, AI models can predict where and when food waste is likely to occur. For example, AI-powered platforms such as Afresh and Spoiler Alert use machine learning to optimize inventory management and predict demand, helping retailers and producers reduce the amount of food that goes to waste (www.spoileralert.com/, accessed on 18 March 2025). AI can help in the development of smart packaging that monitors the freshness and quality of food products as well, further reducing waste.
The future integration of AI with other emerging technologies such as the IoT, blockchain, and SynBio is expected to revolutionize food production. The use of IoT sensors in food-processing facilities can provide real-time data on temperature, humidity, and other environmental factors, which AI models can then analyze to optimize the production conditions. Blockchain allows for the real-time tracking of products as they move through the supply chain. Each step, from planting and harvesting to processing, packaging, and distribution, can be recorded on the blockchain and automatically evaluated using open-source AI-powered software. This transparency will enable stakeholders to trace the origin and movement of products, ensuring accountability and trust in the supply chain. The combination of AI with SynBio is also leading to the development of novel food products with enhanced nutritional profiles and sustainability [128,131,174,175]. As these technologies continue to evolve, they are expected to play a key role in ensuring a sustainable, efficient, and safe global food system.

4.3. Water Management and Food Security

Fresh water is a resource that is becoming precious due to its decreasing availability, in terms of both quality and quantity, highlighting its scarcity and overexploitation [176,177,178]. It is also considered a resource that affects economic development and ensures the protection of healthy environments [179]. Furthermore, proper water resource management stimulates economic growth, expanding the ability to provide water for various uses, increasing job creation, and positively impacting the quality of life of the population [180]. Therefore, it is necessary to manage water resources to strengthen the supply according to the food cycle [179]. The tools and strategies used to achieve food security should be aligned with food security and public health, as well as sustainability [181]. Food losses need to be eliminated, promoting the reduction of food waste to achieve sustainability, which is in line with the objectives of reducing the irrational use of resources and, thus, reducing environmental footprints [181].
In recent years, the role of quantification of environmental impacts and the study of processes and strategies to mitigate the impacts of anthropogenic actions on the environment has increased. The water footprint is one of the indicators that allows for the determination of the virtual amount of water in products and/or services [181]. This concept highlights water content in products and services, promoting sustainable production changes that impact both diets and trade. Water safety approaches include protecting the stability of ecosystems and development or ensuring access to water and risk protection [182]. The study [182] focused more on water and water pollution in agriculture, while FAO (2012) refers to WS in terms of sustainable water use for current and future generations. In addition, WS is associated with food security and energy security, with a very close link to the adaptability of human society, and it is considered that humans irreversibly alter the characteristics of water in the environment [183].
The AI-driven sustainable water management tools using AIDWRP and CMA can optimize urban water supply costs through integrating BBN and Markov decision-making approaches, considering regions facing water restrictions [179]. Unfortunately, many water-scarce countries suffer from a lack of proper agricultural planning and resource management. Some water-scarce countries have overexploited their non-renewable water sources for short-term economic benefits through agricultural exports [184,185].
This trade impacts water and food security, intertwining with national water-dependent development plans [185]. Reduced agricultural production lowers the national gross margin, reduces food self-sufficiency, and increases food import costs, making efficient water management a high priority with key socio-economic and safety considerations [185]. Water management projects require consideration of the various forms of water, including drinking water, wastewater, surface water, groundwater, and water for the environment [183]. AI-based applications in intelligent packaging and sensor implementations, such as, for example, those relating to gases, time, temperature indicators (TTI), and identification labels (e.g., RFID), have great potential to reduce food waste, thus improving food safety [181,186]. Another important aspect is water recycling, which has been studied as part of one of the key components of sustainable off-planet water management on the ISS. For NASA, as well as other business missions, it is necessary to remain in a partial gravity environment, and there already exist technologies that allow for water recovery in these specialized environments.
Biological approaches to water processing for future space applications have been investigated, with Americans using a steam compression distillation and urine processor (UPA), Russians employing a multi-filtration bed and rotary separator, and Chinese researchers integrating a bioreactor with activated charcoal, filtration, and distillation [187]. Other studies have reduced the number of moving parts through the use of a frontal osmosis membrane contact and a reverse osmosis module [188]. The challenges include enhancing water evaporation, developing greywater and sewage processing to recover gases and reduce waste, stabilizing urine in brine, and assessing the quality of the recovered water [189].

4.4. Economic Challenges: Adapting Solutions to an Unequal World

Economic analysis of innovative technologies, such as synthetic biology, nanotechnology, and artificial intelligence, presents a complex challenge due to global economic disparities. Developed countries possess the financial resources and infrastructure to invest in high-cost projects, while developing nations face prohibitive barriers [190,191]. For instance, desert agriculture, while successful in places such as Israel, Egypt, and North Africa, may require low-cost adaptations for implementation in resource-constrained regions [192,193].
When discussing these technologies, it is crucial to contextualize the costs and benefits relative to each region’s economic context. Artificial intelligence can optimize large-scale agriculture in developed countries, but may require simplified solutions in less-developed nations [194,195]. Enriched foods, aimed at combating malnutrition, have clearer benefits in regions with nutritional deficiencies but depend on efficient distribution and adequate policies [195,196]. Furthermore, consumer acceptance of new agricultural technologies such as synthetic biology, enriched foods, and space-based food production is crucial for their success [196]. Cultural differences in perceptions of safety, sustainability, and nutrition require clear communication to build trust [197,198]. These technologies also impact the job market, potentially reducing traditional labor while creating opportunities in the technology, engineering, and data science sectors. This shift necessitates workforce re-skilling and changes in education. Addressing both technical and social aspects is vital for a fair transition [199].
Global partnerships and technology transfer are essential to reduce inequalities [200]. Relevant analyses must acknowledge economic limitations while highlighting the transformative potential of technologies when adapted to different realities [196]. A critical focus on international cooperation and inclusive innovation processes is necessary in order to bridge the widening digital divide and ensure that developing countries are not left behind in the technological revolution.

5. Public Policy, Food Regulation, and Community Participation

Regardless of the government or political system, public policies serve as a fundamental basis for food security, as food must be a human right [201]. Public policies, community–government cooperation, and public–private partnerships are key to creating equitable, sustainable food systems, strengthening investments, and fostering innovative food production [202,203]. The active involvement of companies, scientists, and citizens is crucial for advancing studies, implementing suggestions, and guiding government decisions. However, the lack of engagement between scientists and smallholder farmers, along with their families, has raised concerns, particularly regarding neglected efforts to end hunger [204,205]. Nevertheless, the action of citizen science has been effective in reducing food loss and food waste in order to better monitor and implement the sustainable development goals through new modes of food production and novel agricultural approaches [206,207,208].
Looking to 2050, feeding 10 billion people poses significant challenges, with child malnutrition expected to persist in many countries. In this context, resilient food production and global food security will require effective public policies [209]. Due to climate change and population growth, technological advancements and emerging food production methods are prompting many countries to revise their public policies and regulations, particularly regarding genetics and nutrition, in order to meet the evolving demand for food [5,210,211]. A comprehensive review of the workable policies has been revised, suggesting that clinicians can help to implement a healthy food system even in the absence of government action [212]. These policies implemented by clinicians are effective. For example, the Brazilian pediatrician Dr. Zilda Arns Neumann was recognized internationally and nominated three times for the Nobel Peace Prize by the Brazilian government for fighting malnutrition and maternal–infant mortality in Brazil and Haiti [213,214]. Other actions have been implemented around the world regarding food and environment policies for improving the diets of children and adolescents [215].
Another important aspect related to food production is the regulation of GMOs. Recent technologies, such as SynBio and CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome-editing tools, have been broadly used in plants for the purposes of crop improvement [216]. The regulation of GMOs has been discussed in the EU, and can be determined as a “new future” for EU crop biotechnology [217]. However, countries such as the Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia, Portugal, and (mainly) Spain have cultivated maize MON810 at small scales. The GMO is an emergent technology for food enrichment. For instance, diabetes mellitus is a metabolic syndrome characterized by elevated blood glucose, where the general control of the disease is carried out through an invasive method, which consists of insulin application, and other alternatives have been studied. Transgenic rice plants have been shown to reduce blood glucose levels in this animal model, opening a promising path towards the treatment of diabetes mellitus based on food enrichment [218]. The GMO regulations in Australia and New Zealand enable the participation of citizens and farmers in auxiliary public participation, discussion, and democratic decision making by the relevant governmental bodies [219]. Popular participation in decision making can be a key element affecting GMO regulation and the integration of novel technologies into food production systems.

6. Conclusions and Future Perspectives

Technology is changing food production systems, being a key enabler of their transformation into more resilient, inclusive, and affordable processes. This transformation is also enabled through the promotion of transversal and multi-disciplinary approaches, allowing different scientific areas to interact and deliver important advances and benefits for agriculture, food security, and the environment, including nanotechnology, new agricultural frontiers, enriched foods, and disruptive technologies such as AI.
The convergence of AI, synthetic biology, and nanotechnology represents a frontier of unprecedented scientific potential, offering transformative possibilities across various industries while simultaneously presenting intricate ethical and environmental challenges [220]. This synergistic integration promises to revolutionize fields such as biofuel production, drug development, and environmental remediation through AI-driven genetic design and nanoscale manipulation of biological structures [221]. However, the same power that enables rapid advancements also necessitates the careful consideration of potential risks, including the ecological impacts of engineered nanoparticles on vital soil micro-organisms and the unpredictable consequences of releasing AI-designed synthetic organisms into complex ecosystems [222]. In the context of this technological renaissance, it is imperative that we approach these innovations with a balanced perspective, fostering groundbreaking research while implementing robust safeguards to ensure that our pursuit of scientific progress aligns harmoniously with the principles of environmental stewardship and sustainable development.
In particular, future research could explore the potential synergies and challenges of integrating AI, synthetic biology, and nanotechnology into food systems [223]. Notably, the transformative potential of these technologies indicates the necessity of future studies that address the ethical, environmental, and regulatory challenges associated with their application. For instance, research could further investigate the long-term ecological impacts of AI-designed synthetic organisms in agricultural ecosystems or develop frameworks for responsible innovation that balance technological advancement with sustainability and inclusivity. Providing such insights would enhance the relevant literature, guiding researchers towards critical areas that require deeper exploration.
Furthermore, the digital transformation of food systems can enhance the efficiency of agricultural practices towards sustainability and food security. However, the success of such technologies and management frameworks in feeding 10 billion people globally by 2050 relies on public policies and regulations, as well as community participation, represented by both ordinary citizens and key stakeholders [224]. Otherwise, the concentration of income and technological monopolies will leave us vulnerable, ultimately undermining all of the intended objectives.

Author Contributions

J.C.F.S., K.L.d.G.M., A.F.d.S.S., V.R.B., W.O.V., M.A.M.-P., J.D.R. and I.P. wrote the first draft of the manuscript. L.C.d.C. and R.D. contributed to the writing of the final version of the manuscript. J.C.F.S. conceptualized all the work and conceived and supervised all surveys on the reviewed topics. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank The Thought For Food® Foundation (https://thoughtforfood.org, accessed on 18 March 2025), The SpaceBio Initiative (www.spacebio.space, accessed on 18 March 2025), and the institutions of the authors. The authors are also grateful to Ellen Rodrigues dos Santos for formatting the references of the submitted preprint (https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202501.1140.v1). The authors are grateful to Gioia Massa (NASA) for providing the Veggie picture.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Long, S.P.; Marshall-Colon, A.; Zhu, X.-G. Meeting the Global Food Demand of the Future by Engineering Crop Photosynthesis and Yield Potential. Cell 2015, 161, 56–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Mittler, R.; Blumwald, E. Genetic Engineering for Modern Agriculture: Challenges and Perspectives. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2010, 61, 443–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Mueller, N.D.; Gerber, J.S.; Johnston, M.; Ray, D.K.; Ramankutty, N.; Foley, J.A. Closing Yield Gaps through Nutrient and Water Management. Nature 2012, 490, 254–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kaushal, M.; Atieno, M.; Odjo, S.; Baijukya, F.; Gebrehawaryat, Y.; Fadda, C. Nature-Positive Agriculture—A Way Forward Towards Resilient Agrifood Systems. Sustainability 2025, 17, 1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Voigt, C.A. Synthetic Biology 2020–2030: Six Commercially-Available Products That Are Changing Our World. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 6379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Tan, E.; Dan, S.; Shahzad, K. Guest Editorial: Bridging the Chasm between “What Could Be” and “What Is”: The Impact of Blockchain Technologies on Public Service Management. Int. J. Public Sect. Manag. 2025, 38, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Levis, C.; Flores, B.M.; Campos-Silva, J.V.; Peroni, N.; Staal, A.; Padgurschi, M.C.G.; Dorshow, W.; Moraes, B.; Schmidt, M.; Kuikuro, T.W.; et al. Contributions of Human Cultures to Biodiversity and Ecosystem Conservation. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2024, 8, 866–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zeng, Z.; Gower, D.B.; Wood, E.F. Accelerating Forest Loss in Southeast Asian Massif in the 21st Century: A Case Study in Nan Province, Thailand. Glob. Change Biol. 2018, 24, 4682–4695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Rabeschini, G.; Persson, U.M.; West, C.; Kastner, T. Choosing Fit-for-Purpose Biodiversity Impact Indicators for Agriculture in the Brazilian Cerrado Ecoregion. Nat. Commun. 2025, 16, 1799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Silcock, R.B.J. Call of the Reed Warbler. A New Agriculture, A New Earth. Rangel. J. 2018, 40, 297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Project Drawdown. Regenerative Annual Cropping. 2021. Available online: https://drawdown.org/solutions/regenerative-annual-cropping (accessed on 18 March 2025).
  12. Nair, C.S.; Manoharan, R.; Nishanth, D.; Subramanian, R.; Neumann, E.; Jaleel, A. Recent Advancements in Aquaponics with Special Emphasis on Its Sustainability. J. World Aquac. Soc. 2025, 56, e13116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lakhiar, I.A.; Jianmin, G.; Syed, T.N.; Chandio, F.A.; Buttar, N.A.; Qureshi, W.A. Monitoring and Control Systems in Agriculture Using Intelligent Sensor Techniques: A Review of the Aeroponic System. J. Sens. 2018, 2018, 8672769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Jeyabharath, R.; Tamilvani, P.; Karthikeyan, G.; Vijayakumar, P.; Rohini, J.; Mohammadha Hussaini, M.; Kavin Kumar, K. Smart Aeroponic Farms with IoT-Enabled Efficient Automation and Monitoring. In Proceedings of the 2024 2nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Applications Theme: Healthcare and Internet of Things (AIMLA), Namakkal, India, 15–16 March 2024; IEEE: Namakkal, India, 2024; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ferreira, A.J.D.; Guilherme, R.I.M.M.; Ferreira, C.S.S.; Oliveira, M.d.F.M.L.d. Urban Agriculture, a Tool towards More Resilient Urban Communities? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 2018, 5, 93–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Poulsen, M.N.; McNab, P.R.; Clayton, M.L.; Neff, R.A. A Systematic Review of Urban Agriculture and Food Security Impacts in Low-Income Countries. Food Policy 2015, 55, 131–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Galanakis, C.M. The Future of Food. Foods 2024, 13, 506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Oh, S.; Lu, C. Vertical Farming—Smart Urban Agriculture for Enhancing Resilience and Sustainability in Food Security. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2023, 98, 133–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zheng, Z.; Nguyen, H.L.; Hanikel, N.; Li, K.K.-Y.; Zhou, Z.; Ma, T.; Yaghi, O.M. High-Yield, Green and Scalable Methods for Producing MOF-303 for Water Harvesting from Desert Air. Nat. Protoc. 2023, 18, 136–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lakhiar, I.A.; Gao, J.; Syed, T.N.; Chandio, F.A.; Buttar, N.A. Modern Plant Cultivation Technologies in Agriculture under Controlled Environment: A Review on Aeroponics. J. Plant Interact. 2018, 13, 338–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Al Shrouf, A. Hydroponics, Aeroponic and Aquaponic as Compared with Conventional Farming. Am. Sci. Res. J. Eng. Technol. Sci. 2017, 27, 247–255. [Google Scholar]
  22. Ferentinos, K.P. Deep Learning Models for Plant Disease Detection and Diagnosis. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2018, 145, 311–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Roberts, S.; Jacquet, J.; Majluf, P.; Hayek, M.N. Feeding Global Aquaculture. Sci. Adv. 2024, 10, eadn9698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. European Parliament. Directorate General for Parliamentary Research Services. In Aquaculture: Overview for the EU: In Depth Analysis; Publications Office: Luxembourg, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  25. FAO; Edwards, P.; Demaine, H. Agricultural and Aquatic Systems Program; School of Environment, Resources and Development; Asian Institute of Technology: Bangkok, Thailand. Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Bangkok, Thailand, 1998; Available online: https://www.fao.org/4/x6941e/x6941e00.htm (accessed on 18 March 2025).
  26. FAO. Small-Scale Aquaponic Food Production: Integrate Fish and Plant Farming; FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 589; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2014; p. 262. [Google Scholar]
  27. Yanes, A.R.; Martinez, P.; Ahmad, R. Towards Automated Aquaponics: A Review on Monitoring, IoT, and Smart Systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 263, 121571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Devi, A.; Verma, M.; Saratale, G.D.; Saratale, R.G.; Ferreira, L.F.R.; Mulla, S.I.; Bharagava, R.N. Microalgae: A Green Eco-Friendly Agents for Bioremediation of Tannery Wastewater with Simultaneous Production of Value-Added Products. Chemosphere 2023, 336, 139192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Palm, H.W.; Knaus, U.; Appelbaum, S.; Goddek, S.; Strauch, S.M.; Vermeulen, T.; Haїssam Jijakli, M.; Kotzen, B. Towards Commercial Aquaponics: A Review of Systems, Designs, Scales and Nomenclature. Aquacult. Int. 2018, 26, 813–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bhujel, R.C. Tilapia Farming Systems. In Tilapia; Thompson, K., Shoemaker, C.A., Little, D.C., Eds.; CABI: Wallingford, UK; Boston, MA, USA, 2025; pp. 127–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Roy, M.; Salam, M.A.; Hossain, M.B.; Shamsuddin, M. Feasibility Study of Aquaponics in Polyculture Pond. World Appl. Sci. J. 2013, 23, 588–592. [Google Scholar]
  32. Vickers, N.J. Animal Communication: When I’m Calling You, Will You Answer Too? Curr. Biol. 2017, 27, R713–R715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kotzen, B.; Appelbaum, S. An Investigation of Aquaponics Using Brackish Water Resources in the Negev Desert. J. Appl. Aquac. 2010, 22, 297–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lauguico, S.C.; Concepcion, R.S., II; Alejandrino, J.D.; Tobias, R.R.; Macasaet, D.D.; Dadios, E.P. A Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning Algorithms Modeled from Machine Vision-Based Lettuce Growth Stage Classification in Smart Aquaponics. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Dev. 2020, 11, 442–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Manju, M.; Karthik, V.; Hariharan, S.; Sreekar, B. Real Time Monitoring of the Environmental Parameters of an Aquaponic System Based on Internet of Things. In Proceedings of the 2017 Third International Conference on Science Technology Engineering & Management (ICONSTEM), Chennai, India, 23–24 March 2017; IEEE: Chennai, India, 2017; pp. 943–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Abraham, S.; Shahbazian, A.; Dao, K.; Tran, H.; Thompson, P. An Internet of Things (IoT)-Based Aquaponics Facility. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC), San Jose, CA, USA, 19–22 October 2017; IEEE: San Jose, CA, USA, 2017; p. 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Jiménez-Alfaro, B.; Frischie, S.; Stolz, J.; Gálvez-Ramírez, C. Native Plants for Greening Mediterranean Agroecosystems. Nat. Plants 2020, 6, 209–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Harris, B.N.; Sadras, V.O.; Tester, M. A Water-Centred Framework to Assess the Effects of Salinity on the Growth and Yield of Wheat and Barley. Plant Soil 2010, 336, 377–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. FAO; Silva, J. Why Bees Matter: The Improtance of Bees and Other Pollinators for Food and Agriculture; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2018. Available online: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/0f47dba8-ab04-4968-a2bc-8a9c06218653/content (accessed on 18 March 2025).
  40. Gosnell, H.; Gill, N.; Voyer, M. Transformational Adaptation on the Farm: Processes of Change and Persistence in Transitions to ‘Climate-Smart’ Regenerative Agriculture. Glob. Environ. Change 2019, 59, 101965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lipper, L.; Thornton, P.; Campbell, B.M.; Baedeker, T.; Braimoh, A.; Bwalya, M.; Caron, P.; Cattaneo, A.; Garrity, D.; Henry, K.; et al. Climate-Smart Agriculture for Food Security. Nat. Clim Change 2014, 4, 1068–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Cross, R.; Ampt, P. Exploring Agroecological Sustainability: Unearthing Innovators and Documenting a Community of Practice in Southeast Australia. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2017, 30, 585–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Pearson, C.J. Regenerative, Semiclosed Systems: A Priority for Twenty-First-Century Agriculture. BioScience 2007, 57, 409–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Nichols, J.D.; Lee, S.M.; Reid, R.; Grant, J.C. Ecosystem Services from Agroforestry Systems in Australia. In Agroforestry and Ecosystem Services; Udawatta, R.P., Jose, S., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 431–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. LaCanne, C.E.; Lundgren, J.G. Regenerative Agriculture: Merging Farming and Natural Resource Conservation Profitably. PeerJ 2018, 6, e4428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Andrade, D.; Pasini, F.; Scarano, F.R. Syntropy and Innovation in Agriculture. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2020, 45, 20–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Palm, C.A.; Smukler, S.M.; Sullivan, C.C.; Mutuo, P.K.; Nyadzi, G.I.; Walsh, M.G. Identifying Potential Synergies and Trade-Offs for Meeting Food Security and Climate Change Objectives in Sub-Saharan Africa. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 19661–19666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sanchez, P.; Palm, C.; Sachs, J.; Denning, G.; Flor, R.; Harawa, R.; Jama, B.; Kiflemariam, T.; Konecky, B.; Kozar, R.; et al. The African Millennium Villages. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 16775–16780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bertolami, O.; Francisco, F. A Physical Framework for the Earth System in the Anthropocene: Towards an Accountancy System. arXiv 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Orou Sannou, R.; Guenther, E. Exploring the Resource Nexus between Forest-Based Land Restoration and Food Security: The Case of the African Great Green Wall Initiative Countries. Land Use Policy 2025, 151, 107499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Licata, F.; Thiaw, M.; Ndiaye, P.I.; Andreone, F.; Ficetola, G.F. Negative Responses of Two Dry-adapted Amphibians to Tree Planting Density in the Great Green Wall in Senegal. Restor. Ecol. 2025, e14389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Stanturf, J.A.; Mansourian, S. Forest Landscape Restoration: State of Play. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2020, 7, 201218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Liiv, J.; Mefti, M.; Poolakese, M.; Rikmann, E.; Shanskiy, M. Innovative Reforestation Strategies to Combat Desertification in Algeria: Insights from the Djelfa Region. Sustainability 2025, 17, 715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Adili, B.; El Aouni, M.H.; Balandier, P. Unravelling the Influence of Light, Litter and Understorey Vegetation on Pinus Pinea Natural Regeneration. Forestry 2013, 86, 297–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Saddoud Debbabi, O.; Rahmani Mnasri, S.; Ben Amar, F.; Ben Naceur, M.; Montemurro, C.; Miazzi, M.M. Applications of Microsatellite Markers for the Characterization of Olive Genetic Resources of Tunisia. Genes 2021, 12, 286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. This, D.; Comstock, J.; Courtois, B.; Xu, Y.; Ahmadi, N.; Vonhof, W.M.; Fleet, C.; Setter, T.; McCouch, S. Genetic Analysis of Water Use Efficiency in Rice (Oryza sativa L.) at the Leaf Level. Rice 2010, 3, 72–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Barbieri, G.; Vallone, S.; Orsini, F.; Paradiso, R.; De Pascale, S.; Negre-Zakharov, F.; Maggio, A. Stomatal Density and Metabolic Determinants Mediate Salt Stress Adaptation and Water Use Efficiency in Basil (Ocimum basilicum L.). J. Plant Physiol. 2012, 169, 1737–1746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Yamada, M.; Kasami, K.; Urushigaki, R.; Murillo-Amador, B.; Yamada, S. Mechanisms of Halophilic and Salt Tolerance in Suaeda Edulis Flores Olv. & Noguez. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2025, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Giménez Luque, E.; Delgado Fernández, I.C.; Gómez Mercado, F. Effect of Salinity and Temperature on Seed Germination in Limonium Cossonianum. Botany 2013, 91, 12–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Winter, K.; Holtum, J.A.M. Facultative Crassulacean Acid Metabolism (CAM) Plants: Powerful Tools for Unravelling the Functional Elements of CAM Photosynthesis. J. Exp. Bot. 2014, 65, 3425–3441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Yang, X.; Liu, Y.; Yuan, G.; Weston, D.J.; Tuskan, G.A. Engineering Crassulacean Acid Metabolism in C3 and C4 Plants. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2023, 16, a041674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Yang, X.; Cushman, J.C.; Borland, A.M.; Edwards, E.J.; Wullschleger, S.D.; Tuskan, G.A.; Owen, N.A.; Griffiths, H.; Smith, J.A.C.; De Paoli, H.C.; et al. A Roadmap for Research on Crassulacean Acid Metabolism (CAM) to Enhance Sustainable Food and Bioenergy Production in a Hotter, Drier World. New Phytol. 2015, 207, 491–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. DePaoli, H.C.; Borland, A.M.; Tuskan, G.A.; Cushman, J.C.; Yang, X. Synthetic Biology as It Relates to CAM Photosynthesis: Challenges and Opportunities. J. Exp. Bot. 2014, 65, 3381–3393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Perron, N.; Kirst, M.; Chen, S. Bringing CAM Photosynthesis to the Table: Paving the Way for Resilient and Productive Agricultural Systems in a Changing Climate. Plant Commun. 2024, 5, 100772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Rezzouk, F.Z.; Shahid, M.A.; Elouafi, I.A.; Zhou, B.; Araus, J.L.; Serret, M.D. Agronomical and Analytical Trait Data Assessed in a Set of Quinoa Genotypes Growing in the UAE under Different Irrigation Salinity Conditions. Data Brief 2020, 31, 105758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Du, B.; Franzisky, B.L.; Muhammad, W.; Alfarraj, S.; Geilfus, C.; Rennenberg, H. How to Cope with Stress in the Desert—The Date Palm Approach. Plant Cell Environ. 2025, 48, 768–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Toderich, K.N.; Mamadrahimov, A.A.; Khaitov, B.B.; Karimov, A.A.; Soliev, A.A.; Nanduri, K.R.; Shuyskaya, E.V. Differential Impact of Salinity Stress on Seeds Minerals, Storage Proteins, Fatty Acids, and Squalene Composition of New Quinoa Genotype, Grown in Hyper-Arid Desert Environments. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 607102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Dantas, B.F.; Ribeiro, R.C.; Matias, J.R.; Araújo, G.G.L. Germinative Metabolism of Caatinga Forest Species in Biosaline Agriculture. J. Seed Sci. 2014, 36, 194–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Leal, I.G.; Accioly, A.M.D.A.; Nascimento, C.W.A.D.; Freire, M.B.G.D.S.; Montenegro, A.A.D.A.; Ferreira, F.D.L. Fitorremediação de Solo Salino s Ódico Por Atriplex Nummularia e Gesso de Jazida. Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Solo 2008, 32, 1065–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. El Nahry, A.H.; Elewa, H.H.; Qaddah, A.A. Soil and Groundwater Capability of East Oweinat Area, Western Desert, Egypt Using GIS Spatial Modeling Techniques. Nat. Sci. 2010, 8, 8. [Google Scholar]
  71. Al-Omran, A.; Louki, I.; Alkhasha, A.; Abd El-Wahed, M.H.; Obadi, A. Water Saving and Yield of Potatoes under Partial Root-Zone Drying Drip Irrigation Technique: Field and Modelling Study Using SALTMED Model in Saudi Arabia. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Multsch, S.; Alquwaizany, A.S.; Alharbi, O.A.; Pahlow, M.; Frede, H.-G.; Breuer, L. Water-Saving Strategies for Irrigation Agriculture in Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2017, 33, 292–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Valente, M.; Caviggioli, F.; Agostini, L. Space Economy and Sustainability: A Systematic Review. Sustain. Dev. 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Rothschild, L.J. Synthetic Biology Meets Bioprinting: Enabling Technologies for Humans on Mars (and Earth). Biochem. Soc. Trans. 2016, 44, 1158–1164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Massa, G.D.; Dufour, N.F.; Carver, J.A.; Hummerick, M.E.; Wheeler, R.M.; Morrow, R.C.; Smith, T.M. VEG-01: Veggie Hardware Validation Testing on the International Space Station. Open Agric. 2017, 2, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kok, R.; Van Huis, A. Insect Food in Space. J. Insects Food Feed. 2021, 7, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Enfield, R.E.; Pandya, J.K.; Lu, J.; McClements, D.J.; Kinchla, A.J. The Future of 3D Food Printing: Opportunities for Space Applications. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2023, 63, 10079–10092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Khodadad, C.L.M.; Hummerick, M.E.; Spencer, L.E.; Dixit, A.R.; Richards, J.T.; Romeyn, M.W.; Smith, T.M.; Wheeler, R.M.; Massa, G.D. Microbiological and Nutritional Analysis of Lettuce Crops Grown on the International Space Station. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Hummerick, M.E.; Khodadad, C.L.M.; Dixit, A.R.; Spencer, L.E.; Maldonado-Vasquez, G.J.; Gooden, J.L.; Spern, C.J.; Fischer, J.A.; Dufour, N.; Wheeler, R.M.; et al. Spatial Characterization of Microbial Communities on Multi-Species Leafy Greens Grown Simultaneously in the Vegetable Production Systems on the International Space Station. Life 2021, 11, 1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kobayashi, A.; Kim, H.; Tomita, Y.; Miyazawa, Y.; Fujii, N.; Yano, S.; Yamazaki, C.; Kamada, M.; Kasahara, H.; Miyabayashi, S.; et al. Circumnutational Movement in Rice Coleoptiles Involves the Gravitropic Response: Analysis of an Agravitropic Mutant and Space-grown Seedlings. Physiol. Plant. 2019, 165, 464–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Sugimoto, M.; Oono, Y.; Kawahara, Y.; Gusev, O.; Maekawa, M.; Matsumoto, T.; Levinskikh, M.; Sychev, V.; Novikova, N.; Grigoriev, A. Gene Expression of Rice Seeds Surviving 13- and 20-Month Exposure to Space Environment. Life Sci. Space Res. 2016, 11, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Levine, H.G.; Anderson, K.; Boody, A.; Cox, D.; Kuznetsov, O.A.; Hasenstein, K.H. Germination and Elongation of Flax in Microgravity. Adv. Space Res. 2003, 31, 2261–2268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Berkovich, Y.A. Evaluation of Planting Surfaces for Crop Production in Microgravity. Adv. Space Res. 2000, 26, 271–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Berkovich, Y.A.; Krivobok, N.M.; Sinyak, Y.Y.; Smolyanina, S.O.; Grigoriev, Y.I.; Romanov, S.Y.; Guissenberg, A.S. Developing a Vitamin Greenhouse for the Life Support System of the International Space Station and for Future Interplanetary Missions. Adv. Space Res. 2004, 34, 1552–1557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Tripathy, B.C.; Brown, C.S.; Levine, H.G.; Krikorian, A.D. Growth and Photosynthetic Responses of Wheat Plants Grown in Space. Plant Physiol. 1996, 110, 801–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Wheeler, R.M.; Fitzpatrick, A.H.; Tibbitts, T.W. Potatoes as a Crop for Space Life Support: Effect of CO2, Irradiance, and Photoperiod on Leaf Photosynthesis and Stomatal Conductance. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 1632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Paul, A.-L.; Sng, N.J.; Zupanska, A.K.; Krishnamurthy, A.; Schultz, E.R.; Ferl, R.J. Genetic Dissection of the Arabidopsis Spaceflight Transcriptome: Are Some Responses Dispensable for the Physiological Adaptation of Plants to Spaceflight? PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0180186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Kruse, C.P.S.; Meyers, A.D.; Basu, P.; Hutchinson, S.; Luesse, D.R.; Wyatt, S.E. Spaceflight Induces Novel Regulatory Responses in Arabidopsis Seedling as Revealed by Combined Proteomic and Transcriptomic Analyses. BMC Plant Biol. 2020, 20, 237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Barker, R.; Kruse, C.P.S.; Johnson, C.; Saravia-Butler, A.; Fogle, H.; Chang, H.-S.; Trane, R.M.; Kinscherf, N.; Villacampa, A.; Manzano, A.; et al. Meta-Analysis of the Space Flight and Microgravity Response of the Arabidopsis Plant Transcriptome. npj Microgravity 2023, 9, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Ferl, R.J.; Koh, J.; Denison, F.; Paul, A.-L. Spaceflight Induces Specific Alterations in the Proteomes of Arabidopsis. Astrobiology 2015, 15, 32–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Xu, P.; Chen, H.; Jin, J.; Cai, W. Single-Base Resolution Methylome Analysis Shows Epigenetic Changes in Arabidopsis Seedlings Exposed to Microgravity Spaceflight Conditions on Board the SJ-10 Recoverable Satellite. npj Microgravity 2018, 4, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Majeed, A.; Muhammad, Z.; Rehmanullah; Siyar, S. The Role of Ionizing Radiation-Induced Mutations in the Development of Rice Cultivars. In New Frontiers in Stress Management for Durable Agriculture; Rakshit, A., Singh, H.B., Singh, A.K., Singh, U.S., Fraceto, L., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 129–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Clamp, M.; Fry, B.; Kamal, M.; Xie, X.; Cuff, J.; Lin, M.F.; Kellis, M.; Lindblad-Toh, K.; Lander, E.S. Distinguishing Protein-Coding and Noncoding Genes in the Human Genome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 19428–19433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Stamm, S.; Ben-Ari, S.; Rafalska, I.; Tang, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Toiber, D.; Thanaraj, T.A.; Soreq, H. Function of Alternative Splicing. Gene 2005, 344, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Lynch, M. The Origins of Eukaryotic Gene Structure. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2006, 23, 450–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Barash, Y.; Calarco, J.A.; Gao, W.; Pan, Q.; Wang, X.; Shai, O.; Blencowe, B.J.; Frey, B.J. Deciphering the Splicing Code. Nature 2010, 465, 53–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Meng, X.; Xu, J.; He, Y.; Yang, K.-Y.; Mordorski, B.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, S. Phosphorylation of an ERF Transcription Factor by Arabidopsis MPK3/MPK6 Regulates Plant Defense Gene Induction and Fungal Resistance. Plant Cell 2013, 25, 1126–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Butt, H.; Rao, G.S.; Sedeek, K.; Aman, R.; Kamel, R.; Mahfouz, M. Engineering Herbicide Resistance via Prime Editing in Rice. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2020, 18, 2370–2372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Ali, N.; Singh, S.; Garg, R. Unlocking Crops’ Genetic Potential: Advances in Genome and Epigenome Editing of Regulatory Regions. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2025, 83, 102669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Rothstein, R.J. One-Step Gene Disruption in Yeast. In Methods in Enzymology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1983; Volume 101, pp. 202–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Borphukan, B.; Khatun, M.; Fartyal, D.; James, D.; Reddy, M.K. A Gemini Virus-Derived Autonomously Replicating System for HDR-Mediated Genome Editing of the EPSP Synthase Gene in Indica Rice. Plants 2025, 14, 477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Curtin, S.J.; Zhang, F.; Sander, J.D.; Haun, W.J.; Starker, C.; Baltes, N.J.; Reyon, D.; Dahlborg, E.J.; Goodwin, M.J.; Coffman, A.P.; et al. Targeted Mutagenesis of Duplicated Genes in Soybean with Zinc-Finger Nucleases. Plant Physiol. 2011, 156, 466–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Peer, R.; Rivlin, G.; Golobovitch, S.; Lapidot, M.; Gal-On, A.; Vainstein, A.; Tzfira, T.; Flaishman, M.A. Targeted Mutagenesis Using Zinc-Finger Nucleases in Perennial Fruit Trees. Planta 2015, 241, 941–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Mukhtiar, A.; Mahmood, A.; Khan, M.A.; Ameen, M.; Al-Khayri, J.M.; Qari, S.H. Transforming Field Crops with CRISPR/Cas: A New Era in Genome Editing. Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei 2025, 36, 195–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Pattanayak, V.; Ramirez, C.L.; Joung, J.K.; Liu, D.R. Revealing Off-Target Cleavage Specificities of Zinc-Finger Nucleases by in Vitro Selection. Nat. Methods 2011, 8, 765–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Bogdanove, A.J.; Voytas, D.F. TAL Effectors: Customizable Proteins for DNA Targeting. Science 2011, 333, 1843–1846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Han, J.; Xia, Z.; Liu, P.; Li, C.; Wang, Y.; Guo, L.; Jiang, G.; Zhai, W. TALEN-Based Editing of TFIIAy5 Changes Rice Response to Xanthomonas Oryzae Pv. Oryzae. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 2036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Jinek, M.; Chylinski, K.; Fonfara, I.; Hauer, M.; Doudna, J.A.; Charpentier, E. A Programmable Dual-RNA–Guided DNA Endonuclease in Adaptive Bacterial Immunity. Science 2012, 337, 816–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Lander, E.S. The Heroes of CRISPR. Cell 2016, 164, 18–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Ran, F.A.; Hsu, P.D.; Wright, J.; Agarwala, V.; Scott, D.A.; Zhang, F. Genome Engineering Using the CRISPR-Cas9 System. Nat. Protoc. 2013, 8, 2281–2308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Li, A.; Jia, S.; Yobi, A.; Ge, Z.; Sato, S.J.; Zhang, C.; Angelovici, R.; Clemente, T.E.; Holding, D.R. Editing of an Alpha-Kafirin Gene Family Increases, Digestibility and Protein Quality in Sorghum. Plant Physiol. 2018, 177, 1425–1438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Zhang, Y.; Li, D.; Zhang, D.; Zhao, X.; Cao, X.; Dong, L.; Liu, J.; Chen, K.; Zhang, H.; Gao, C.; et al. Analysis of the Functions of Ta GW 2 Homoeologs in Wheat Grain Weight and Protein Content Traits. Plant J. 2018, 94, 857–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Tripathi, J.N.; Ntui, V.O.; Ron, M.; Muiruri, S.K.; Britt, A.; Tripathi, L. CRISPR/Cas9 Editing of Endogenous Banana Streak Virus in the B Genome of Musa spp. Overcomes a Major Challenge in Banana Breeding. Commun. Biol. 2019, 2, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Ortigosa, A.; Gimenez-Ibanez, S.; Leonhardt, N.; Solano, R. Design of a Bacterial Speck Resistant Tomato by CRISPR/Cas9-mediated Editing of Sl JAZ 2. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2019, 17, 665–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Gerstein, M.B.; Bruce, C.; Rozowsky, J.S.; Zheng, D.; Du, J.; Korbel, J.O.; Emanuelsson, O.; Zhang, Z.D.; Weissman, S.; Snyder, M. What Is a Gene, Post-ENCODE? History and Updated Definition. Genome Res. 2007, 17, 669–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Kong, C.; Yang, Y.; Qi, T.; Zhang, S. Predictive Genetic Circuit Design for Phenotype Reprogramming in Plants. Nat. Commun. 2025, 16, 715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Wurtzel, E.T.; Vickers, C.E.; Hanson, A.D.; Millar, A.H.; Cooper, M.; Voss-Fels, K.P.; Nikel, P.I.; Erb, T.J. Revolutionizing Agriculture with Synthetic Biology. Nat. Plants 2019, 5, 1207–1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Brophy, J.A.N.; Voigt, C.A. Principles of Genetic Circuit Design. Nat. Methods 2014, 11, 508–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Roell, M.-S.; Zurbriggen, M.D. The Impact of Synthetic Biology for Future Agriculture and Nutrition. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2020, 61, 102–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Borland, A.M.; Yang, X. Informing the Improvement and Biodesign of Crassulacean Acid Metabolism via System Dynamics Modelling. New Phytol. 2013, 200, 946–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Batista-Silva, W.; Da Fonseca-Pereira, P.; Martins, A.O.; Zsögön, A.; Nunes-Nesi, A.; Araújo, W.L. Engineering Improved Photosynthesis in the Era of Synthetic Biology. Plant Commun. 2020, 1, 100032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Maurino, V.G.; Weber, A.P.M. Engineering Photosynthesis in Plants and Synthetic Microorganisms. J. Exp. Bot. 2013, 64, 743–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Palacios, S.; Collins, J.J.; Del Vecchio, D. Machine Learning for Synthetic Gene Circuit Engineering. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2025, 92, 103263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Solomatin, S. CA (US) (72) Inventors: Ranjani Varadan, Fremont, CA (US). Available online: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/da/9b/f0/b07e4bb4a0765b/US11819041.pdf (accessed on 18 March 2025).
  125. Holkenbrink, C.; Ding, B.-J.; Wang, H.-L.; Dam, M.I.; Petkevicius, K.; Kildegaard, K.R.; Wenning, L.; Sinkwitz, C.; Lorántfy, B.; Koutsoumpeli, E.; et al. Production of Moth Sex Pheromones for Pest Control by Yeast Fermentation. Metab. Eng. 2020, 62, 312–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Ke, J.; Wang, B.; Yoshikuni, Y. Microbiome Engineering: Synthetic Biology of Plant-Associated Microbiomes in Sustainable Agriculture. Trends Biotechnol. 2021, 39, 244–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Liu, D.; Liberton, M.; Hendry, J.I.; Aminian-Dehkordi, J.; Maranas, C.D.; Pakrasi, H.B. Engineering Biology Approaches for Food and Nutrient Production by Cyanobacteria. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2021, 67, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Silva, J.C.F.; Teixeira, R.M.; Silva, F.F.; Brommonschenkel, S.H.; Fontes, E.P.B. Machine Learning Approaches and Their Current Application in Plant Molecular Biology: A Systematic Review. Plant Sci. 2019, 284, 37–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Milshteyn, A.; Colosimo, D.A.; Brady, S.F. Accessing Bioactive Natural Products from the Human Microbiome. Cell Host Microbe 2018, 23, 725–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Kautsar, S.A.; Suarez Duran, H.G.; Blin, K.; Osbourn, A.; Medema, M.H. plantiSMASH: Automated Identification, Annotation and Expression Analysis of Plant Biosynthetic Gene Clusters. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017, 45, W55–W63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Nesbeth, D.N.; Zaikin, A.; Saka, Y.; Romano, M.C.; Giuraniuc, C.V.; Kanakov, O.; Laptyeva, T. Synthetic Biology Routes to Bio-Artificial Intelligence. Essays Biochem. 2016, 60, 381–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Silva, J.C.F.; Ferreira, M.A.; Carvalho, T.F.M.; Silva, F.F.; De A. Silveira, S.; Brommonschenkel, S.H.; Fontes, E.P.B. RLPredictiOme, a Machine Learning-Derived Method for High-Throughput Prediction of Plant Receptor-like Proteins, Reveals Novel Classes of Transmembrane Receptors. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 12176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Shafi, A.; Qadir, J.; Sabir, S.; Zain Khan, M.; Rahman, M.M. Nanoagriculture: A Holistic Approach for Sustainable Development of Agriculture. In Handbook of Nanomaterials and Nanocomposites for Energy and Environmental Applications; Kharissova, O.V., Martínez, L.M.T., Kharisov, B.I., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Bayda, S.; Adeel, M.; Tuccinardi, T.; Cordani, M.; Rizzolio, F. The History of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology: From Chemical–Physical Applications to Nanomedicine. Molecules 2019, 25, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Food Applications of Nanotechnology, 1st ed.; Molina, G., Inamuddin, Pelissari, F.M., Asiri, A.M., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Zulfiqar, F.; Navarro, M.; Ashraf, M.; Akram, N.A.; Munné-Bosch, S. Nanofertilizer Use for Sustainable Agriculture: Advantages and Limitations. Plant Sci. 2019, 289, 110270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Li, J.; Wang, F.; Liu, J.; Bashir, S.; Ma, S.; Cao, M.; Guo, J.; Gao, Z.; Xu, Q.; Liu, S.; et al. ZnO Nanofertilizer Reduced Organic Phosphorus Transformation and Altered Microbial Function in Soil for Sustainable Agriculture. ACS Nano 2025, 19, 6942–6954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Chhipa, H. Nanofertilizers and Nanopesticides for Agriculture. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2017, 15, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Savassa, S.M.; Duran, N.M.; Rodrigues, E.S.; De Almeida, E.; Van Gestel, C.A.M.; Bompadre, T.F.V.; De Carvalho, H.W.P. Effects of ZnO Nanoparticles on Phaseolus Vulgaris Germination and Seedling Development Determined by X-Ray Spectroscopy. ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2018, 1, 6414–6426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Leonardi, M.; Caruso, G.M.; Carroccio, S.C.; Boninelli, S.; Curcuruto, G.; Zimbone, M.; Allegra, M.; Torrisi, B.; Ferlitoe, F.; Miritello, M. Smart Nanocomposites of Chitosan/Alginate Nanoparticles Loaded with Copper Oxide as Alternative Nanofertilizers. Environ. Sci. Nano 2021, 8, 174–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Kah, M.; Kookana, R.S.; Gogos, A.; Bucheli, T.D. A Critical Evaluation of Nanopesticides and Nanofertilizers against Their Conventional Analogues. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2018, 13, 677–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Kookana, R.S.; Boxall, A.B.A.; Reeves, P.T.; Ashauer, R.; Beulke, S.; Chaudhry, Q.; Cornelis, G.; Fernandes, T.F.; Gan, J.; Kah, M.; et al. Nanopesticides: Guiding Principles for Regulatory Evaluation of Environmental Risks. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2014, 62, 4227–4240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Walker, G.W.; Kookana, R.S.; Smith, N.E.; Kah, M.; Doolette, C.L.; Reeves, P.T.; Lovell, W.; Anderson, D.J.; Turney, T.W.; Navarro, D.A. Ecological Risk Assessment of Nano-Enabled Pesticides: A Perspective on Problem Formulation. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2018, 66, 6480–6486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Mannar, M.G.V.; Hurrel, R.F. Food Fortification in a Globalized World; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Olson, R.; Gavin-Smith, B.; Ferraboschi, C.; Kraemer, K. Food Fortification: The Advantages, Disadvantages and Lessons from Sight and Life Programs. Nutrients 2021, 13, 1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Cormick, G.; Betrán, A.P.; Metz, F.; Palacios, C.; Beltrán-Velazquez, F.; García-Casal, M.D.L.N.; Peña-Rosas, J.P.; Hofmeyr, G.J.; Belizán, J.M. Regulatory and Policy-Related Aspects of Calcium Fortification of Foods. Implications for Implementing National Strategies of Calcium Fortification. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Nölle, N.; Argyropoulos, D.; Ambacher, S.; Müller, J.; Biesalski, H.K. Vitamin D2 Enrichment in Mushrooms by Natural or Artificial UV-Light during Drying. LWT—Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 85, 400–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Libenská, L.; Kharoshka, A.; Pulkrabová, J.; Schulzová, V.; Drábová, L. Influence of UV-B and Culinary Treatment on Vitamin D2 and Agaritine in Button Mushrooms. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2025, 137, 106879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Song, X.; Pérez-Cueto, F.J.A.; Bølling Laugesen, S.M.; Van Der Zanden, L.D.T.; Giacalone, D. Older Consumers’ Attitudes towards Food Carriers for Protein-Enrichment. Appetite 2019, 135, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Vandenkoornhuyse, P.; Quaiser, A.; Duhamel, M.; Le Van, A.; Dufresne, A. The Importance of the Microbiome of the Plant Holobiont. New Phytol. 2015, 206, 1196–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  151. Lignon, V.A.; Mas, F.; Jones, E.E.; Kaiser, C.; Dhami, M.K. The Floral Interface: A Playground for Interactions between Insect Pollinators, Microbes, and Plants. N. Z. J. Zool. 2025, 52, 218–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Ferrol, N.; Tamayo, E.; Vargas, P. The Heavy Metal Paradox in Arbuscular Mycorrhizas: From Mechanisms to Biotechnological Applications. J. Exp. Bot. 2016, 67, 6253–6265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Elango, D.; Devi, K.D.; Jeyabalakrishnan, H.K.; Rajendran, K.; Thoomatti Haridass, V.K.; Dharmaraj, D.; Charuchandran, C.V.; Wang, W.; Fakude, M.; Mishra, R.; et al. Agronomic, Breeding, and Biotechnological Interventions to Mitigate Heavy Metal Toxicity Problems in Agriculture. J. Agric. Food Res. 2022, 10, 100374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Veliz, E.A.; Martínez-Hidalgo, P.; Hirsch, A.M. Chitinase-Producing Bacteria and Their Role in Biocontrol. AIMS Microbiol. 2017, 3, 689–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Amaresan, N.; Jayakumar, V.; Kumar, K.; Thajuddin, N. Biocontrol and Plant Growth-Promoting Ability of Plant-Associated Bacteria from Tomato (Lycopersicum Esculentum) under Field Condition. Microb. Pathog. 2019, 136, 103713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Kim, Y.S.; Lee, Y.; Cheon, W.; Park, J.; Kwon, H.-T.; Balaraju, K.; Kim, J.; Yoon, Y.J.; Jeon, Y. Characterization of Bacillus Velezensis AK-0 as a Biocontrol Agent against Apple Bitter Rot Caused by Colletotrichum Gloeosporioides. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Alfiky, A.; Weisskopf, L. Deciphering Trichoderma–Plant–Pathogen Interactions for Better Development of Biocontrol Applications. J. Fungi 2021, 7, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  158. Camaréna, S. Artificial Intelligence in the Design of the Transitions to Sustainable Food Systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 271, 122574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Marvin, H.J.P.; Bouzembrak, Y.; Van Der Fels-Klerx, H.J.; Kempenaar, C.; Veerkamp, R.; Chauhan, A.; Stroosnijder, S.; Top, J.; Simsek-Senel, G.; Vrolijk, H.; et al. Digitalisation and Artificial Intelligence for Sustainable Food Systems. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 120, 344–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Santana, T.E.Z.; Silva, J.C.F.; Silva, L.O.C.D.; Alvarenga, A.B.; Menezes, G.R.D.O.; Torres, R.A.A.; Duarte, M.D.S.; Silva, F.F.E. Genome-Enabled Classification of Stayability in Nellore Cattle under a Machine Learning Framework. Livest. Sci. 2022, 260, 104935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Onishi, Y.; Yoshida, T.; Kurita, H.; Fukao, T.; Arihara, H.; Iwai, A. An Automated Fruit Harvesting Robot by Using Deep Learning. Robomech J. 2019, 6, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Park, E. CRNet: A Multimodal Deep Convolutional Neural Network for Customer Revisit Prediction. J. Big Data 2023, 10, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  163. Silva, J.C.F.; Carvalho, T.F.M.; Basso, M.F.; Deguchi, M.; Pereira, W.A.; Sobrinho, R.R.; Vidigal, P.M.P.; Brustolini, O.J.B.; Silva, F.F.; Dal-Bianco, M.; et al. Geminivirus Data Warehouse: A Database Enriched with Machine Learning Approaches. BMC Bioinform. 2017, 18, 240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Silva, J.C.F.; Carvalho, T.F.M.; Fontes, E.P.B.; Cerqueira, F.R. Fangorn Forest (F2): A Machine Learning Approach to Classify Genes and Genera in the Family Geminiviridae. BMC Bioinform. 2017, 18, 431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Ansah, F.A.; Amodio, M.L.; Colelli, G. Quality of Fresh-cut Products as Affected by Harvest and Postharvest Operations. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2018, 98, 3614–3626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Yang, X. Application of Artificial Intelligence in Quality Test of Vibrating Fruit Harvesting Mechanical Operation. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 740, 012205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Miao, Z.; Yu, X.; Li, N.; Zhang, Z.; He, C.; Li, Z.; Deng, C.; Sun, T. Efficient Tomato Harvesting Robot Based on Image Processing and Deep Learning. Precis. Agric. 2023, 24, 254–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Jha, K.; Doshi, A.; Patel, P.; Shah, M. A Comprehensive Review on Automation in Agriculture Using Artificial Intelligence. Artif. Intell. Agric. 2019, 2, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Thao, L.Q.; Thien, N.D.; Bach, N.C.; Cuong, D.D.; Anh, L.D.; Khanh, D.G.; Hieu, N.H.M.; Minh, N.T.H. PesViT: A Deep Learning Approach for Detecting Misuse of Pesticides on Farm. J. Supercomput. 2023, 79, 15790–15813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Yang, R.; Yan, Y.; Wei, Z.; Wang, F.; Yang, G. Pesti-DGI-Net: A Multi-Modal Deep Learning Architecture Based on Dual Interpretability for Pesticide-Likeness Prediction. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2024, 217, 108660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Bhat, M.A.; Rather, M.Y.; Singh, P.; Hassan, S.; Hussain, N. Advances in Smart Food Authentication for Enhanced Safety and Quality. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2025, 155, 104800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Ahmad, R.W.; Ko, K.-M.; Rashid, A.; Rodrigues, J.J.P.C. Blockchain for Food Industry: Opportunities, Requirements, Case Studies, and Research Challenges. IEEE Access 2024, 12, 117363–117378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Queiroz, L.P.; Nogueira, I.B.R.; Ribeiro, A.M. Flavor Engineering: A Comprehensive Review of Biological Foundations, AI Integration, Industrial Development, and Socio-Cultural Dynamics. Food Res. Int. 2024, 196, 115100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Silva, J.C.F.; Schuster, L.; Sexson, N.; Kirst, M. InteracTor: A New Integrative Feature Extraction Toolkit for Improved Characterization of Protein Structural Properties. bioRxiv 2024, Online. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Gricourt, G.; Meyer, P.; Duigou, T.; Faulon, J.-L. Artificial Intelligence Methods and Models for Retro-Biosynthesis: A Scoping Review. ACS Synth. Biol. 2024, 13, 2276–2294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Van Oel, P.R.; Hoekstra, A.Y. Towards Quantification of the Water Footprint of Paper: A First Estimate of Its Consumptive Component. Water Resour Manag. 2012, 26, 733–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Zhang, G.P.; Hoekstra, A.Y.; Mathews, R.E. Water Footprint Assessment (WFA) for Better Water Governance and Sustainable Development. Water Resour. Ind. 2013, 1–2, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Lovarelli, D.; Bacenetti, J.; Fiala, M. Water Footprint of Crop Productions: A Review. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 548–549, 236–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Xiang, X.; Li, Q.; Khan, S.; Khalaf, O.I. Urban Water Resource Management for Sustainable Environment Planning Using Artificial Intelligence Techniques. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2021, 86, 106515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Moreno-Pizani, M.A. Water Management in Agricultural Production, the Economy, and Venezuelan Society. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 4, 624066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Vågsholm, I.; Arzoomand, N.S.; Boqvist, S. Food Security, Safety, and Sustainability—Getting the Trade-Offs Right. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020, 4, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Steduto, P.; Faurès, J.-M.; Hoogeveen, J.; Winpenny, J.T.; Burke, J.J. Coping with Water Scarcity: An Action Framework for Agriculture and Food Security; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2012; Available online: https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/titel/2014237 (accessed on 18 March 2025).
  183. Su, Y.; Gao, W.; Guan, D.; Zuo, T. Achieving Urban Water Security: A Review of Water Management Approach from Technology Perspective. Water Resour. Manag. 2020, 34, 4163–4179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Dalin, C.; Wada, Y.; Kastner, T.; Puma, M.J. Groundwater Depletion Embedded in International Food Trade. Nature 2017, 543, 700–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Abdelkader, A.; Elshorbagy, A. ACPAR: A Framework for Linking National Water and Food Security Management with Global Conditions. Adv. Water Resour. 2021, 147, 103809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Ganeson, K.; Mouriya, G.K.; Bhubalan, K.; Razifah, M.R.; Jasmine, R.; Sowmiya, S.; Amirul, A.-A.A.; Vigneswari, S.; Ramakrishna, S. Smart Packaging − A Pragmatic Solution to Approach Sustainable Food Waste Management. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2023, 36, 101044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Xie, B.; Zhu, G.; Liu, B.; Su, Q.; Deng, S.; Yang, L.; Liu, G.; Dong, C.; Wang, M.; Liu, H. The Water Treatment and Recycling in 105-Day Bioregenerative Life Support Experiment in the Lunar Palace 1. Acta Astronaut. 2017, 140, 420–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Meyer, C.; Schneider, W. NASA Advanced Explorations Systems: 2018 Advancements in Life Support Systems. In Proceedings of the 2018 AIAA SPACE and Astronautics Forum and Exposition, Orlando, FL, USA, 17–19 September 2018; American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics: Orlando, FL, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Arai, T.; Fricker, J. Electro-Oxidation of Urine and Constituent Analysis of Resulting Wastewater and Generated Gases for Water Recovery in Space. Acta Astronaut. 2021, 179, 415–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Xiao, A.; Xu, Z.; Skare, M.; Qin, Y.; Wang, X. Bridging the Digital Divide: The Impact of Technological Innovation on Income Inequality and Human Interactions. Humanit. Soc Sci. Commun. 2024, 11, 809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Dahdal, A.M.; Abdel Ghafar, A. The Digital Silk Road: “Tech-Diplomacy” as a Paradigm for Understanding Technological Adoption and Emerging Digital Regulations in MENA. Asian J. Law Soc. 2025, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Mihret, Y.C.; Takele, M.M.; Mintesinot, S.M. Advancements in Agriculture 4.0 and the Needs for Introduction and Adoption in Ethiopia: A Review. Adv. Agric. 2025, 2025, 8828400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Sharma, V.K.; Monteleone, G.; Braccio, G.; Anyanwu, C.N.; Aneke, N.N. A Comprehensive Review of Green Energy Technologies: Towards Sustainable Clean Energy Transition and Global Net-Zero Carbon Emissions. Processes 2024, 13, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Cho, H.; Ackom, E. Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Driven Approach to Climate Action and Sustainable Development. Nat. Commun. 2025, 16, 1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Katenova, M.; Turmaganbetova, K. Economic Consequences of Artificial Intelligence. In Advances in Finance, Accounting, and Economics; Günar, A., Ed.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2025; pp. 21–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Kraak, V.I.; Aschemann-Witzel, J. The Future of Plant-Based Diets: Aligning Healthy Marketplace Choices with Equitable, Resilient, and Sustainable Food Systems. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2024, 45, 253–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  197. Gostin, A.-I.; McNamara, P. Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Nutrition and Health Claims. In Nutrition Science, Marketing Nutrition, Health Claims, and Public Policy; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023; pp. 245–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Faccio, E.; Guiotto Nai Fovino, L. Food Neophobia or Distrust of Novelties? Exploring Consumers’ Attitudes toward GMOs, Insects and Cultured Meat. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Wang, K.-H.; Lu, W.-C. AI-Induced Job Impact: Complementary or Substitution? Empirical Insights and Sustainable Technology Considerations. Sustain. Technol. Entrep. 2025, 4, 100085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Nature Editorial. End the Glaring Inequity in International Science Collaborations. Nature 2023, 624, 473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Barichello, R. The Challenge of Achieving Food Security. In Current Issues in Global Agricultural and Trade Policy; WORLD SCIENTIFIC (EUROPE): London, UK, 2021; pp. 111–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Buckley Biggs, N.; Hafner, J.; Mashiri, F.E.; Huntsinger, L.; Lambin, E.F. Payments for Ecosystem Services within the Hybrid Governance Model: Evaluating Policy Alignment and Complementarity on California Rangelands. Ecol. Soc. 2021, 26, art19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Sani, D.; Picone, S.; Bianchini, A.; Fava, F.; Guarnieri, P.; Rossi, J. An Overview of the Transition to a Circular Economy in Emilia-Romagna Region, Italy Considering Technological, Legal–Regulatory and Financial Points of View: A Case Study. Sustainability 2021, 13, 596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Ending Hunger: Science Must Stop Neglecting Smallholder Farmers. Nature 2020, 586, 336. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  205. Feast and Famine in Agricultural Research. Nat. Plants 2020, 6, 1195. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  206. Pateman, R.M.; De Bruin, A.; Piirsalu, E.; Reynolds, C.; Stokeld, E.; West, S.E. Citizen Science for Quantifying and Reducing Food Loss and Food Waste. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020, 4, 589089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Fritz, S.; See, L.; Carlson, T.; Haklay, M.; Oliver, J.L.; Fraisl, D.; Mondardini, R.; Brocklehurst, M.; Shanley, L.A.; Schade, S.; et al. Citizen Science and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Sustain. 2019, 2, 922–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Ryan, S.F.; Adamson, N.L.; Aktipis, A.; Andersen, L.K.; Austin, R.; Barnes, L.; Beasley, M.R.; Bedell, K.D.; Briggs, S.; Chapman, B.; et al. The Role of Citizen Science in Addressing Grand Challenges in Food and Agriculture Research. Proc. R. Soc. B 2018, 285, 20181977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Rosegrant, M.W.; Cline, S.A. Global Food Security: Challenges and Policies. Science 2003, 302, 1917–1919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Ahmad, A.; Ghouri, M.Z.; Munawar, N.; Ismail, M.; Ashraf, S.; Aftab, S.O. Regulatory, Ethical, and Social Aspects of CRISPR Crops. In CRISPR Crops; Ahmad, A., Khan, S.H., Khan, Z., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 261–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Šutković, J.; Mahmutovic, L.; Huseinbegovic, E.; Adilovic, M.; Sinanovic, F.; Akcesme, F.B. Ethical, Legal and Social Implications of Genetically Modified Organism in the Shadow of Advanced Genetic Tools. Period. Eng. Nat. Sci. (PEN) 2020, 8, 2118–2128. [Google Scholar]
  212. Peeters, A. Obesity and the Future of Food Policies That Promote Healthy Diets. Nat. Rev. Endocrinol. 2018, 14, 430–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. McGuire, J.W. Democracy, Social Policy, and Mortality Decline in Brazil; Department of Government Wesleyan University Middletown: Middletown, CT, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  214. Lee, N. Global ChanGe Leaders Case Study; Coady International Institute: Antigonish, NS, Canada, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  215. Micha, R.; Karageorgou, D.; Bakogianni, I.; Trichia, E.; Whitsel, L.P.; Story, M.; Peñalvo, J.L.; Mozaffarian, D. Effectiveness of School Food Environment Policies on Children’s Dietary Behaviors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0194555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  216. Anastassiadou, M.; Devos, Y.; Dujardin, B.; Eskes, C.; Kouloura, E.; López-Gálvez, G.; Rizzi, V.; Gilsenan, M.B. Translating Data into Policy Informing Decisions: Current and Future Perspectives from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2025, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  217. Lubieniechi, S.A.; Van Eenennaam, A.L.; Smyth, S.J. Regulation of Animal and Plant Agricultural Biotechnology. Trends Biotechnol. 2025, 43, 511–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Park, J.-E.; Jeong, Y.J.; Park, J.B.; Kim, H.Y.; Yoo, Y.H.; Lee, K.S.; Yang, W.T.; Kim, D.H.; Kim, J.-M. Dietary Exposure to Transgenic Rice Expressing the Spider Silk Protein Fibroin Reduces Blood Glucose Levels in Diabetic Mice: The Potential Role of Insulin Receptor Substrate-1 Phosphorylation in Adipocytes. Dev. Reprod. 2019, 23, 223–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Hindmarsh, R.; Du Plessis, R. GMO Regulation and Civic Participation at the “Edge of the World”: The Case of Australia and New Zealand. New Genet. Soc. 2008, 27, 181–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Vindman, C.; Trump, B.; Cummings, C.; Smith, M.; Titus, A.J.; Oye, K.; Prado, V.; Turmus, E.; Linkov, I. The Convergence of AI and Synthetic Biology: The Looming Deluge. arXiv 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Padhiary, M.; Roy, D.; Dey, P. Mapping the Landscape of Biogenic Nanoparticles in Bioinformatics and Nanobiotechnology: AI-Driven Insights. In Advances in Chemical and Materials Engineering; Das, S., Khade, S.M., Roy, D.B., Trivedi, K., Eds.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2024; pp. 337–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Zelenka, N.R.; Di Cara, N.; Sharma, K.; Sarvaharman, S.; Ghataora, J.S.; Parmeggiani, F.; Nivala, J.; Abdallah, Z.S.; Marucci, L.; Gorochowski, T.E. Data Hazards in Synthetic Biology. Synth. Biol. 2024, 9, ysae010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. Syed, M.A. Microbiology in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: Nanotechnology, Quantum, and Next Generation Sequencing, 1st ed.; Taylor & Francis Group: Milton Keynes, UK, 2025. [Google Scholar]
  224. Nadathur, S.; Wanasundara, J.P.D.; Scanlin, L. Feeding the Globe Nutritious Food in 2050: Obligations and Ethical Choices. In Sustainable Protein Sources; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2024; pp. 649–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Overview of advanced agricultural and biotechnological approaches for sustainable food production. (a) Urban farming technologies: Innovations in urban agriculture, including aquaponics—an integrated fish and vegetable production system; aeroponics—an advanced method for efficient water and nutrient management; and vertical farming, enabling high-yield vegetable production in limited spaces. (b) Agriculture in arid regions and agroforestry: Strategies for sustainable farming and reforestation in desert environments. The first image shows a northern region of Tunisia, the second highlights reforestation efforts to combat the expansion of the Sahara Desert, and the third depicts a large-scale agricultural area in the Southern Sahara Desert, Egypt. (c) Plant cultivation in extreme environments: Technologies for growing crops in space, including experiments aboard the International Space Station (ISS). Featured projects include the European Space Agency’s MELiSSA (Micro-Ecological Life Support System Alternative) and NASA’s Veggie-5 initiative for space-based plant production. (d) Plant genetic engineering: Advances in genome editing, including the CRISPR–Cas9 RNA-guided system, for improving plant traits. (e) Synthetic biology: (1) Engineering microbial and plant communities for enhanced agricultural productivity. (2) Design of synthetic biological circuits for controlled metabolic processes. (3) Optimization of photosynthesis pathways, including C3, C4, and CAM plants. (4) Development of cloning vectors for transforming plants, bacteria, or yeast. (5) Applications of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in biotechnology, including yeast, bacteria, microalgae, and plants. (6) Industrial applications of GMOs, such as pharmaceuticals, agriculture, and bioengineered photosynthetic materials.
Figure 1. Overview of advanced agricultural and biotechnological approaches for sustainable food production. (a) Urban farming technologies: Innovations in urban agriculture, including aquaponics—an integrated fish and vegetable production system; aeroponics—an advanced method for efficient water and nutrient management; and vertical farming, enabling high-yield vegetable production in limited spaces. (b) Agriculture in arid regions and agroforestry: Strategies for sustainable farming and reforestation in desert environments. The first image shows a northern region of Tunisia, the second highlights reforestation efforts to combat the expansion of the Sahara Desert, and the third depicts a large-scale agricultural area in the Southern Sahara Desert, Egypt. (c) Plant cultivation in extreme environments: Technologies for growing crops in space, including experiments aboard the International Space Station (ISS). Featured projects include the European Space Agency’s MELiSSA (Micro-Ecological Life Support System Alternative) and NASA’s Veggie-5 initiative for space-based plant production. (d) Plant genetic engineering: Advances in genome editing, including the CRISPR–Cas9 RNA-guided system, for improving plant traits. (e) Synthetic biology: (1) Engineering microbial and plant communities for enhanced agricultural productivity. (2) Design of synthetic biological circuits for controlled metabolic processes. (3) Optimization of photosynthesis pathways, including C3, C4, and CAM plants. (4) Development of cloning vectors for transforming plants, bacteria, or yeast. (5) Applications of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in biotechnology, including yeast, bacteria, microalgae, and plants. (6) Industrial applications of GMOs, such as pharmaceuticals, agriculture, and bioengineered photosynthetic materials.
Sustainability 17 03792 g001
Table 1. Geographic positions of the desert agricultural areas.
Table 1. Geographic positions of the desert agricultural areas.
CountryLatitudeLongitudeMap View
Algeria27.290702−0.065070https://www.google.com/maps/place/27%C2%B017’47.6%22N+0%C2%B003’56.7%22W/, accessed on 18 March 2025
Libya26.41035114.348167https://www.google.com/maps/place/26%C2%B022’36.3%22N+14%C2%B027’57.5%22E/, accessed on 18 March 2025
Egypt22.61609928.543529https://www.google.com/maps/place/22%C2%B046’21.7%22N+28%C2%B032’56.4%22E, accessed on 18 March 2025
Saudi Arabia26.28130443.504683https://www.google.com/maps/place/26%C2%B016’52.7%22N+43%C2%B030’16.9%22E/, accessed on 18 March 2025
Oman18.25828853.828732https://www.google.com/maps/place/18%C2%B015’29.8%22N+53%C2%B049’43.4%22E/, accessed on 18 March 2025
United Arab Emirates24.498410655.349223https://www.google.com/maps/place/24%C2%B029’10.2%22N+55%C2%B032’47.6%22E/, accessed on 18 March 2025
California/Nevada26.28130643.504694https://www.google.com/maps/place/26%C2%B016’52.7%22N+43%C2%B030’16.9%22E/@26.2813056,43.463501, accessed on 18 March 2025
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Silva, J.C.F.; Machado, K.L.d.G.; Silva, A.F.d.S.; Dias, R.; Bodnar, V.R.; Vieira, W.O.; Moreno-Pizani, M.A.; Ramos, J.D.; Pauli, I.; Costa, L.C.d. Challenges and Opportunities for New Frontiers and Technologies to Guarantee Food Production. Sustainability 2025, 17, 3792. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17093792

AMA Style

Silva JCF, Machado KLdG, Silva AFdS, Dias R, Bodnar VR, Vieira WO, Moreno-Pizani MA, Ramos JD, Pauli I, Costa LCd. Challenges and Opportunities for New Frontiers and Technologies to Guarantee Food Production. Sustainability. 2025; 17(9):3792. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17093792

Chicago/Turabian Style

Silva, José Cleydson Ferreira, Kleiton Lima de Godoy Machado, Anna Flavia de Souza Silva, Raquel Dias, Victor Ricardo Bodnar, Wallison Oliveira Vieira, Maria Alejandra Moreno-Pizani, Jenifer Dias Ramos, Ivani Pauli, and Lucas Cavalcante da Costa. 2025. "Challenges and Opportunities for New Frontiers and Technologies to Guarantee Food Production" Sustainability 17, no. 9: 3792. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17093792

APA Style

Silva, J. C. F., Machado, K. L. d. G., Silva, A. F. d. S., Dias, R., Bodnar, V. R., Vieira, W. O., Moreno-Pizani, M. A., Ramos, J. D., Pauli, I., & Costa, L. C. d. (2025). Challenges and Opportunities for New Frontiers and Technologies to Guarantee Food Production. Sustainability, 17(9), 3792. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17093792

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop