What resilience really looks like in a changing climate.
As climate change reshapes weather patterns across the globe, agriculture is being forced to adapt under growing pressure. Floods, droughts, heatwaves, and unpredictable seasons are no longer abstract risks — they are already altering how food is grown, where it can be grown, and who bears the cost when systems fail.
In a recent conversation, agroecologist Uriel Menalled offers a grounded, systems-level view of what resilience in agriculture actually means. His work doesn’t chase simple fixes or universal prescriptions. Instead, it asks harder questions: How do farms function as ecosystems? What role does biodiversity play in stabilising food production? And why do so many well-intentioned solutions fail when they ignore local context?
The result is a refreshingly honest perspective on farming in a changing climate — one that embraces complexity rather than trying to smooth it away. (If you want the full discussion in his own words, you can watch the interview and follow along with the themes below.)
The full conversation is available to watch on YouTube.
What agroecology really studies
Agroecology is often described simply as “the ecology of agriculture,” but that shorthand barely captures its scope. At its core, agroecology applies ecological thinking to food systems — recognising farms as living, interacting networks of plants, soils, microbes, insects, people, and economics.
Menalled’s research spans both field-based ecological science and social research with farmers. On the ground, that means studying how crop diversity, weed communities, soil organisms, and farm management practices interact. Beyond the field, it means asking what actually motivates farmers to change how they operate.
“Agriculture is inherently an interplay between nature and food production,” he explains. “Agroecology is about applying ecological understanding to make those systems more sustainable, ethical, and equitable.”
This dual focus — ecology and human decision-making — is central to his work. It recognises that resilience is not just a biological property of farms, but a social one as well.
Climate change and food security
One of the strongest drivers behind agroecological research today is food security. Climate change poses a direct threat to global calorie production, not only through gradual warming, but through sudden, extreme events. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns that food security risks rise as warming increases, with escalating impacts in many regions and populations that are already vulnerable.
“Climate change is a huge threat to food security,” Menalled says. “If we don’t have resilient systems, you can lose massive amounts of food very quickly.”
Resilience, in this context, is less about maximising output in perfect conditions and more about maintaining function under imperfect ones — the difference between a system that bends and one that breaks. (For a high-level synthesis of the evidence on climate impacts and food security, see the IPCC’s Working Group II Summary for Policymakers.)
Food systems are part of the climate problem — and the solution
There is another reason agroecology matters right now: food systems are not only affected by climate change, they also contribute to it. Estimates vary depending on definitions and boundaries, but agriculture, forestry, and other land use account for a significant share of global greenhouse gas emissions in the IPCC’s mitigation assessment.
That dual reality shapes the urgency of the work: farms need to reduce emissions where possible, while also building resilience to the changes that are already locked in. For a deeper dive into land-based emissions and mitigation options, see the IPCC’s Working Group III chapter on Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU).
Why weeds matter more than we think
Few words trigger a stronger reaction in agriculture than “weeds.” They are often framed as enemies to be eliminated at all costs. But Menalled’s research challenges the idea that all weeds — or weed communities — are equally problematic.
“Weeds are fascinating,” he says. “They’re one of the biggest sources of yield loss globally — but not all weeds are created equal.”
Some species compete aggressively with crops, especially during early growth stages. Others coexist with minimal impact. Understanding which weeds matter, when they matter, and under what conditions allows farmers to be more selective — reducing unnecessary intervention.
“You don’t need to kill every weed on your farm,” Menalled explains. “That costs time, money, fuel, and often involves practices that harm soil and human health.”
By studying weed communities rather than individual plants, agroecology opens the door to management strategies that conserve biodiversity while protecting yields.
Cover crops, diversity, and targeted management
One practical example of this systems thinking is the use of cover crops. These are plants grown not for harvest, but to protect soil, suppress weeds, and build long-term fertility. Major agricultural agencies describe cover crops as a multi-benefit practice — including improved soil health, reduced nutrient loss, erosion control, and weed suppression — when selected and managed appropriately.
Menalled is careful to stress that cover crops are not a universal fix. Their effectiveness depends heavily on climate, water availability, and farm context. In wetter regions, they can reduce erosion and protect soil structure. In arid systems, they can compete for scarce moisture.
“Cover crops when used correctly, are unquestionably a powerful tool of weed suppression,” he says — but “not a complete solution.”
Research backs up that nuance. Evidence syntheses and meta-analyses show that cover crops can suppress weeds, particularly around termination and early crop growth stages, while outcomes depend on species, biomass, and management decisions. (For an accessible overview of benefits and constraints, see the USDA NRCS Cover Crops Overview and, for peer-reviewed synthesis, a meta-analysis in Agronomy Journal.)
What makes cover crops especially interesting from an agroecological perspective is their potential to shape weed communities through ecological competition. “Cover crops don’t just suppress weeds,” Menalled notes. “They tend to suppress species that are closely related to them.” By choosing the right cover crop for a local context, farmers can sometimes target problematic weeds more precisely — aligning ecological dynamics with management goals.
No silver bullets
One of the most consistent themes throughout the conversation is a rejection of universal solutions. Practices like reduced tillage, organic systems, cover cropping, and reduced chemical use all have benefits — and limitations.
“There’s no one solution to food,” Menalled says plainly. “Agriculture is extremely context-dependent.”
What works in one region may fail in another. Climate, soils, crops, equipment access, and economics all shape outcomes. This is why oversimplified debates — organic versus conventional, chemicals versus none — often obscure more than they reveal.
Even organic systems, he points out, can rely heavily on tillage, which can accelerate erosion and degrade soil structure. Soil erosion remains a global concern, and large-scale assessments continue to document its scale and long-term risk to agricultural productivity. (For a global synthesis, see the FAO’s Global status, processes and trends in soil erosion.)
What actually motivates farm change
Beyond ecology, Menalled’s research explores the social dimensions of agricultural change. Surveys and on-farm studies often reveal a consistent pattern: farmers may be motivated less by abstract climate concerns and more by economics, equipment access, and trusted peer networks.
“What motivates me as a scientist is climate change,” he says. “But that’s not always what motivates farmers.”
This insight has practical implications for how research is communicated. Farmer-to-farmer knowledge exchange, on-farm trials, and extension services can be critical bridges between science and practice — especially when they translate evidence into local, operational reality.
Scaling resilience the responsible way
When asked what agricultural resilience should look like at a global scale, Menalled avoids grand prescriptions. Instead, he points to the importance of regional research and public-interest extension networks.
“It doesn’t make sense to apply conclusions from one place to another without understanding local context,” he says.
He argues for stronger investment in local research and education systems, so farmers can access region-specific guidance rather than generic advice. In the United States, the cooperative extension model is one example of a publicly oriented system designed to deliver research-based knowledge at community scale. (For a concise overview of extension as a public-facing knowledge network, see USDA NIFA’s Extension overview.)
Looking ahead
Menalled’s current work at Virginia Tech reflects an evolving perspective. Shifting from a sole focus on yield, he is now studying how farm practices influence food quality — beginning with apple orchards. It’s a reminder that sustainability isn’t only about producing more calories; it is also about producing food that supports long-term health.
“We need to feed everyone,” he says. “But with healthy food.”
As agriculture confronts an uncertain future, agroecology offers neither quick fixes nor easy answers. What it offers instead is a framework — one that values resilience over efficiency, diversity over uniformity, and long-term capacity over short-term gains.
The full conversation explores these ideas in greater depth and nuance. It is a reminder that sustainable farming is not about perfection, but about adaptability — and about learning to work with complexity rather than against it.
Watch the full interview to hear Uriel Menalled expand on these ideas in his own words.
Learn more about Uriel’s work: The Agroecology Lab