Leonard R. Ndibalema
Edmond Alavaisha3- 1The Department of Agriculture, School of Agriculture, Mwalimu Nyerere University of Agriculture and Technology, Musoma, Tanzania
- 2The Department of Crop Science and Beekeeping Technology, University of Dar es Salaam, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
- 3Institute of Resource Assessment, University of Dar es Salaam, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
- 4Centre for Research and Innovation, Zimbabwe Open University, Harare, Zimbabwe
Lablab (Lablab purpureus) is a resilient, multipurpose legume with potential to improve food and feed security, enhance soil fertility, and support climate-resilient agriculture in Tanzania’s dryland regions; however, comprehensive syntheses of its agronomic, socioeconomic, and ecological roles remain limited. To address this, a scoping review was conducted of studies published between January 2000 and June 2025 in Tanzania and comparable dryland agroecological zones in Sub-Saharan Africa. Systematic searches in Scopus and Google Scholar used structured Boolean strings including keywords related to lablab, dryland farming, forage, fodder, intercropping, nitrogen fixation, soil fertility, pests, diseases, market access, and adoption potential, and reference lists of included studies were screened manually. Of 120 full-text articles assessed, 85 met inclusion criteria and were analyzed thematically. Results show that lablab is well-adapted to semi-arid and dryland zones, contributes to soil health, supports livestock feed and human nutrition, and enhances climate-resilient farming systems, while adoption is constrained by limited farmer awareness, inadequate agronomic knowledge, scarcity of improved seeds, weak market linkages, and climate variability. These findings provide a structured evidence map of lablab’s roles, challenges, and potential, highlighting opportunities for coordinated interventions targeting seed systems, value chains, and extension services to facilitate mainstreaming, promote resilient low-input agricultural systems, and support sustainable livelihoods.
1 Introduction
Lablab [Lablab purpureus (L.) Sweet] is a resilient and multipurpose leguminous crop of global significance. Believed to have originated in Africa, it has been cultivated for centuries by farmers to improve soil fertility and provide livestock fodder during the dry seasons (Valenzuela and Smith, 2002; Hussain et al., 2010; Maass et al., 2010). Today, its cultivation spans Asia, the United States, Australia, and India, reflecting the growing recognition of its contributions to sustainable agriculture, particularly under climate change and soil degradation pressures (Maass et al., 2010; Thapa et al., 2023). In Australia, lablab is widely integrated into mixed pastures due to its drought tolerance and nitrogen-fixing capacity (Whitbread et al., 2005), whereas in Southeast Asia and India, it is intercropped with maize to enhance yields and soil quality (Tiwari et al., 2017).
In Sub-Saharan Africa, lablab has demonstrated multiple agronomic and ecological benefits, including improving soil fertility, providing high-quality livestock feed, and enhancing food and nutritional security, especially under low-input farming systems (Maass et al., 2010; Whitbread et al., 2011; Massawe et al., 2022). In Tanzania’s semi-arid and dryland agroecological zones, which are characterized by drought, erratic rainfall, rising temperatures, declining soil fertility, and chronic food insecurity, lablab emerges as a promising yet underutilized option for climate-smart agriculture (Maass et al., 2010; Padulosi et al., 2013; Massawe et al., 2022). Its resilience and its multifunctional utility position it as a strategic crop for improving sustainable agriculture, livelihoods, and farming system resilience.
Despite these advantages, the adoption of lablab in Tanzanian farming systems remains limited. Major constraints include weak extension services, poor agronomic practices, limited awareness, lack of improved seeds, susceptibility to pests and diseases, and weak market linkages (Letting et al., 2022; Chawe et al., 2019; Massawe et al., 2022). Majority of the locally grown varieties are landraces, with minimal formal breeding or research support (Maass et al., 2010). This lack of institutional backing has hindered the wider dissemination of improved seeds and limited the potential of this crop to contribute to sustainable, climate-resilient agriculture.
Although a growing body of literature documents the agronomic, nutritional, and socioeconomic benefits of lablab, majority of the studies are empirical, focusing on isolated aspects of production or utilization. Systematic syntheses, particularly scoping reviews, remain scarce. Scoping reviews are especially valuable for underexplored topics such as lablab as they provide a comprehensive mapping of the evidence, identify gaps in research, and inform future interventions across multiple domains. Addressing this gap, the present study conducts a scoping review to synthesize and map the scholarly evidence on lablab in Tanzania and comparable African agroecological zones from 2000 to 2025.
This review examines four interrelated thematic areas. Firstly, it maps the geographical distribution of lablab research to identify spatial coverage and gaps. Secondly, it analyzes the research trends, evaluating the volume and focus of studies over time. Thirdly, it assesses the research designs employed, including the experimental, observational, and participatory approaches. Finally, it addresses the contextual roles and challenges, focusing on the agronomic, nutritional, economic, and ecological functions of lablab; the barriers to its adoption; its potential contributions to sustainable agriculture and food security; and the extent to which policy and institutional frameworks support or constrain its scaling. By integrating agronomic, socioeconomic, nutritional, ecological, and policy perspectives, this study provides a novel, holistic evidence map that can guide strategies to mainstream lablab in Tanzanian dryland agriculture and similar contexts, advancing climate-smart and resilient farming systems.
2 Methodology
2.1 Scoping review approach
This scoping review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) (Peters et al., 2020; Anderson et al., 2008; Gusenbauer and Haddaway, 2020; Orji and Anunobi, 2019; Pham et al., 2014), which provides a rigorous, transparent framework for mapping evidence, identifying research gaps, and synthesizing heterogeneous studies without formal quality appraisal. Scoping reviews are particularly suitable for emerging topics such as lablab in dryland systems, where the literature spans agronomy, nutrition, socioeconomics, ecology, and policy (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005; Levac et al., 2010; Munn et al., 2018). The approach allowed capturing a broad evidence base while maintaining clarity and reproducibility.
2.2 Data sources and search strategy
We conducted systematic searches in Scopus and Google Scholar, complemented by manual searching of the reference lists. Scopus was selected for its advanced filtering and indexing of peer-reviewed journals (Burnham, 2006), while Google Scholar enabled the identification of region-specific publications (Bang et al., 2019; Brickley et al., 2019). The grey literature (e.g., theses, dissertations, and technical reports) was explicitly excluded to maintain quality and reproducibility. Keywords were developed around four major concepts: lablab, geographic scope, agricultural systems, and thematic dimensions. To ensure comprehensiveness, synonyms and related terms were included (Table 1). Boolean operators were applied to combine the terms into structured search strings. For example, in Scopus:
Table 1. Keywords and synonyms used.
TITLE-ABS-KEY ((“lablab” OR “Lablab purpureus” OR “hyacinth bean” OR “Dolichos lablab” OR “indigenous legume”)
AND (Tanzania OR “East Africa” OR “Sub-Saharan Africa” OR “dryland areas” OR “semi-arid zones”)
AND (“agricultural systems” OR “farming systems” OR “cropping systems” OR “agroecosystems”)
AND (“roles” OR “forage” OR “fodder” OR “intercropping” OR “nitrogen fixation” OR “soil fertility”)
AND (“challenges” OR “constraints” OR “pests” OR “diseases” OR “market access”)
AND (“potential” OR “opportunities” OR “prospects” OR “adoption” OR “value chain”)).
In Google Scholar, simplified natural-language searches were used. For example:
(“Lablab purpureus” OR “hyacinth bean”) AND (Tanzania OR “East Africa”) AND (“farming systems”) AND (roles OR challenges OR potential OR forage OR fodder OR intercropping OR nitrogen fixation OR soil fertility).
The searches were conducted between April and May 2025, with an update in June 2025 to include recently published studies. Only English-language peer-reviewed articles from 2000 to 2025 were included, capturing both foundational and contemporary evidence.
2.3 Eligibility criteria
Studies were included if they: 1) are peer-reviewed articles or review papers published in English between January 2000 and May 2025; 2) were conducted in Tanzania or comparable dryland agroecological zones in Sub-Saharan Africa; and 3) addressed at least one of the following thematic areas: agronomic performance, intercropping, soil fertility, forage/fodder production, nutritional/economic potential, adoption challenges, or policy/institutional support. Studies were excluded if they: 1) are grey literature (e.g., theses, dissertations, or reports); 2) are non-English; 3) are outside the time frame; and 4) are not related to lablab. All retrieved citations were managed in EndNote 20, with duplicates removed prior to screening.
2.4 Study selection and PRISMA flow
Screening followed a three-stage process: title screening, abstract screening, and full-text review. Two independent reviewers conducted each stage, with discrepancies resolved through discussion or consultation with a third reviewer. Out of 600 retrieved records (340 from Scopus, 200 from Google Scholar, and 60 from other sources), 61 duplicates/irrelevant articles were removed. Of the remaining 519 records, 219 were excluded after title and abstract screening. Full-text review of 120 articles identified 85 studies that met all of the inclusion criteria for data extraction. The reasons for exclusion were lack of relevance to lablab, non-peer-reviewed status, and unrelated agroecological settings. Figure 1 presents the updated PRISMA-ScR flow diagram reflecting these numbers.
Figure 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) flow diagram. Source: Author.
2.5 Data extraction and analysis
Data were extracted using a structured charting form that obtained the following information: author(s), year, title, country/region, and crop(s) studied; the study design (i.e., field trials, participatory research, and on-farm validation); the core thematic focus (e.g., agronomic performance, intercropping, soil fertility, forage/fodder, food security, and policy/institutional aspects); and the key findings and relevance to Tanzanian or Sub-Saharan Africa dryland systems. Thematic analysis was conducted deductively, with the categories Roles, Challenges, and Potential. Sub-themes emerged within each category (e.g., Roles: soil fertility, forage/fodder, and intercropping; Challenges: pests, diseases, and market access; Potential: adoption and value chain development) (Burnham, 2006). The findings were summarized descriptively to identify trends, research gaps, and implications for sustainable lablab adoption in dryland agriculture.
3 Results
3.1 Overview of the included studies
The researchers developed a tailored data charting form specifically for this review, which was deliberately prepared to facilitate efficient extraction and synthesis of the data. The data charting form guided the systematic summarization of the information extracted from the included studies on L. purpureus in Tanzania’s agricultural systems. Data were extracted according to predetermined categories including the author(s) name, the year of publication, the study objectives, the geographical location, the research design, the focus area (such as agronomic roles, nutritional uses, and soil fertility impacts), the identified challenges (e.g., biotic stresses and socioeconomic constraints), and the potentials or opportunities for scaling up lablab cultivation in dryland and semi-arid zones.
3.2 Scholarly article publication trend
This scoping review on lablab extracted data from scholarly articles published between January 2000 and June 2025, the intention of which was to establish the trend on publications regarding the entire lablab study. The results revealed a gradual yet meaningful evolution in research focus, as indicated in Table 2. The results showed that, from 2000 to 2009, there was a modest scholarly output of approximately 8.2% and largely addressed issues pertaining to the traditional roles of lablab, which are not limited to soil improvement, pest control, and the use of lablab crop as forage. Moreover, the results from the review showed that, from 2010 to 2014, research activities showed an increase of up to 12.9%, but started shifting in focus, with the studies concentrating mainly on climate-smart agriculture and biological nitrogen fixation, reflecting a growing interest in sustainable practices. A rapid increase was observed from 2015 to 2019 (21.2%), while the highest increase of up to 29.4% was reported from 2020 to2022, with 21.2% of the research focused on breeding, nutritional profiling, and environmental adaptability and 29.4% emphasized genomic studies, adoption dynamics, and sustainability, aligning with global concerns on food security and resilience. Emphasis with regard to value chain development, improved cultivars, and climate change adaptation strategies was the main focus from 2023 to June 2025, with 28.2% of the articles reviewed. In general, this scoping review identified that the research on L. purpureus has grown steadily from 2000 to 2025, with a notable increase in studies from 2015 onward. This trend reflects the increasing interest in its roles in climate resilience, nutrition, and sustainable agriculture.
Table 2. Scholarly article publication trend.
3.3 Geographical distribution of the included studies
The analysis of the geographical distribution of the studies included in this scoping review revealed a predominant focus on Africa, which contributed 57.6% of the total number of publications (n = 49). Within Africa, East Africa emerged as the leading sub-region, accounting for 61.3% of the African studies (n = 30), with Tanzania (n = 17), Kenya (n = 9), and Uganda (n = 4) being the most represented countries. This concentration reflects the role of East Africa as a center of lablab domestication and genetic diversity (Maass et al., 2010), where rich germplasm and traditional uses create a natural hub for agronomic and socioecological research, particularly in dryland systems. Ethiopia, which is regarded as a secondary center of diversity, contributed eight studies, further highlighting the central role of the crop in smallholder farming systems for food, feed, and soil fertility enhancement, especially in Tanzania. These findings align with Tanzania’s growing policy emphasis on climate-resilient crops across agroecological zones to sustain dryland agriculture.
Other African regions were less represented: West Africa contributed studies from Nigeria (n = 3), Ghana (n = 2), and Burkina Faso (n = 2), while Southern Africa contributed studies from Zimbabwe (n = 1) and South Africa (n = 2), offering complementary perspectives. North Africa was minimally represented, with only Egypt (n = 1, 1.36%), highlighting a significant research gap.
Asia accounted for 12.9% of the reviewed articles (n = 11), primarily from South Asia (India, n = 7; Bangladesh, n = 1) and Southeast Asia (Thailand, n = 2; Vietnam, n = 1). These studies largely focused on intercropping systems, rhizobia symbiosis, and climate change adaptation, offering transferable lessons for East African farming systems, including Tanzania, which face similar agroecological and socioeconomic challenges.
Studies from the Americas (n = 6, 7.1%) and Australia (n = 4, 4.7%) were included and can be partially justified due to the presence of comparable dryland agroecological zones relevant to lablab production and sustainability. In contrast, European studies, particularly from Germany (n = 1), the Netherlands (n = 2), and the United Kingdom (n = 2), accounted for 5.9% of the publications. The inclusion of these studies cannot be fully reconciled with the stated geographical eligibility criteria, as their primary focus was on advanced technical approaches such as genomic mapping, climate modeling, and biotechnology rather than context-specific African farming systems. While these European studies offer valuable insights into breeding technologies and climate adaptation tools, their direct relevance to African-led lablab research, particularly in Tanzania, is limited.
Finally, global or multi-regional studies contributed 14.8% (n = 8), providing cross-cutting syntheses and broad-scale reviews that contextualize lablab research within a global sustainability agenda and identify persistent knowledge gaps.
Overall, this distribution highlights both the concentration of lablab research in East Africa and the evolving thematic priorities across continents. Underrepresented regions, in particular North Africa and Europe, point to opportunities for expanded regional collaboration and targeted investment to fully realize the potential of lablab across diverse agroecologies (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Geographical distribution of the studies on Lablab purpureus. East Africa dominates, with Tanzania leading. Smaller contributions are shown from Asia, the Americas, and Australia. Source: Author.
Figure 3 summarizes the distribution of research designs across the 85 reviewed publications. The summary provides important information, which is extremely vital for identifying evidence gaps and directions for future studies. The results showed that majority of the reviewed studies, i.e., 40% (34 studies), employed experimental research designs, highlighting both field and laboratory trials, which commonly focused on evaluating the agronomic performance, pest and disease control, soil improvement, and the fodder value of lablab. Moreover, another design predominant in the reviewed studies is descriptive, encompassing observational or survey-based studies, which accounted for 15 studies, with 17.6% focusing on adoption trends, livelihood outcomes, and farming practices involving lablab cultivation, in particular in smallholder systems. Furthermore, the results reported 13 studies covering 15.3% of the reviewed studies for content review design, which focused on issues such as postharvest, processing, value chain analysis, climate, and soil and environmental adaptability. Only 9 (10.6%) studies employed mixed methods. A case study design (context-specific and/or targeted analytical investigations), e.g., simulation or modeling, molecular or genomics, and breeding, was employed in 7 (8.2%) studies. Similarly, explanatory research contributed 7 (8.2%) studies. The results indicate that experimental and observation research comprised the predominant research designs of the reviewed studies on lablab. The overall design distribution suggests a need for more integrative and systems-based research, particularly in the climate resilience, policy integration, and farmer-driven innovation pathways.
Figure 3. Research designs used in the included studies. Source: Author.
3.4 Origin, diffusion, and underuse of lablab: a global context for Tanzania
Lablab is believed to have originated in East Africa, which is considered its primary center of genetic diversity and domestication, where it is typically used for food and feed for livestock, especially in small holder systems (Maass et al., 2010). The reviewed scholarly articles revealed that, despite the potential of lablab, it has remained undervalued or underutilized, hence ignored in farming systems across much of Africa, including Tanzania, compared with its broader potential (Mgonja et al., 2020; Massawe et al., 2022). It is widely spread from East Africa across the continent, mainly in Eastern and Southern Africa, where it is highly valued for its drought tolerance and is commonly integrated into pasture systems to support livestock, especially goats. Thus, in these areas, it is traditionally cultivated for food, fodder, and soil improvement (Maass et al., 2010; Whitbread et al., 2005).
Over time, it was introduced in South Asia, particularly India, where lablab has its long history of use as a culinary crop and is also valued for its agronomic benefits in cropping systems. It is also used as a cover crop and as green manure, for soil health improvement, and in controlling erosion incidences, in addition to other uses such as food and forage (Tiwari et al., 2017). The drought tolerance and the climate adaptability of lablab are the main attributes for its spread to Australia, where it is valued for providing forage for sheep and cattle, particularly in dryland areas where its resilience to drought supports extensive grazing systems. Moreover, in some parts of the Caribbean and the Americas, lablab is cultivated in home gardens, is used as livestock forage, and is occasionally traded as a niche crop. These attributes made lablab a globally distributed legume adapted to diverse agroecological zones, especially in dryland and semi-arid regions (Maass et al., 2010) (see Figure 4). Today, lablab remains important in smallholder farming systems across Africa and Asia, valued for its multipurpose uses and its resilience under climate stress. However, its full potential in Africa, especially in Tanzania, is yet to be realized due to limited research, awareness, and adoption (Nord et al., 2020). In general, this global trajectory highlights how lablab has been successfully adapted and utilized in various regions, particularly in dryland farming systems. Understanding this broader context provides critical insights for unlocking its underexploited potential in Tanzania’s agricultural systems.
Figure 4. Global origin and spread of Lablab purpureus. Source: Maas et al. (2010).
The map highlights the East African origin of lablab, as well as its global diffusion and diverse uses, underscoring its potential in dryland systems.
3.5 Roles of lablab in agricultural systems
L. purpureus plays multifunctional roles in agricultural systems, contributing to food, feed, soil fertility, and ecosystem services. It serves as a dual-purpose crop in intercropping systems with staples such as maize and sorghum, providing ground cover and exhibiting drought tolerance and biological nitrogen fixation (Nord et al., 2020; Thaba, 2023a). Its role in livestock nutrition is significant, providing protein-rich fodder and silage that enhance animal productivity (Wangila et al., 2021; Singh et al., 2010; Bulyaba and Lenssen, 2017). The crop also improves soil fertility through biological nitrogen fixation, reducing dependence on industrial fertilizers and making it particularly suitable for low-input systems (Massawe et al., 2016; Malugu, 2021). In marginal environments, lablab contributes to ecosystem sustainability by improving the soil cover, reducing erosion, and adapting well to agroecosystems under stress (Loewen et al., 2025; Maass, 2016). Postharvest, lablab supports value addition through processing into flour, silage, and other nutritional products, enhancing household dietary diversity and food security (Minde, 2023b; Kamalasundari, 2023). Socioeconomic viability is supported by these multifunctional roles, particularly when combined with smallholder practices such as intercropping, crop–livestock integration, and low-input farming (see Table 3 for the roles, potentials, and adoption factors). Evidence from the reviewed studies indicates that lablab contributes to income generation, labor-efficient feed supply, and improved resilience of farming systems, substantiating its value beyond purely agronomic or ecological functions (Table 4) (Wangila et al., 2021; Bulyaba and Lenssen, 2017; Minde, 2023b).
Table 3. Key dimensions of lablab integration in Tanzanian agriculture.
Table 4. Thematic synthesis and quantitative overview.
3.6 Potentials of lablab
The potential of lablab stems from its genetic diversity, agronomic adaptability, nutritional quality, and climate resilience, offering opportunities for transforming marginal and dryland areas. Genetic studies have highlighted substantial variability among landraces, supporting breeding programs for climate-smart traits such as drought tolerance and stress resilience (Letting et al., 2022; Teshome et al., 2024). Participatory and molecular breeding approaches have yielded farmer-preferred varieties adapted to intercropping and dryland systems (Missanga et al., 2023; Ngure et al., 2021). In intercropping systems, lablab improves land use efficiency, which is measured through the land equivalent ratio (LER), conserves soil moisture, and enhances nutrient cycling (Atumo, 2022; Okumu, 2018). Its role as livestock feed increases animal productivity and nutrient use efficiency (Bulyaba and Lenssen, 2017), while postharvest processing into silage, flour, and other products adds economic and nutritional value (Valiño et al., 2015; Kamalasundari, 2023). Considering climate change impacts such as prolonged droughts, high temperatures, and rainfall variability, the resilience of lablab positions it as a key legume for climate-smart agriculture, conservation practices, and intercropping systems in East African drylands (Maass et al., 2016; Forsythe, 2019a).
3.7 Challenges limiting lablab integration into farming systems
Despite its roles and potential, several constraints limit the adoption of lablab among smallholder farmers. Key challenges include weak seed systems and limited access to diverse, high-quality germplasm, leading farmers to rely on unimproved landraces with low productivity and longer maturity periods, particularly under drought conditions (Missanga et al., 2023; Maass and Chapman, 2022). Effective biocontrol options for pest and disease pressures, including collar rot and storage pests, are limited (Khan et al., 2020; Ewansiha et al., 2016). The lack of resistant varieties and the poor extension support exacerbate these issues. Postharvest challenges, such as poor rehydration, low household acceptance, and inadequate storage infrastructure, reduce its utilization and marketability (Minde, 2023a; Pervin, 2008). Limited farmer knowledge on management practices such as rhizobia inoculation is linked to insufficient extension services (Malugu, 2021; Kamotho, 2015). Underdeveloped market and value chains, with low consumer awareness, poor road infrastructure, and limited aggregation or commercialization, hinder adoption (Shubha et al., 2024a). Addressing these challenges requires targeted interventions including improved seed systems, pest management, postharvest infrastructure, extension support, and value chain development (see Tables 4, 5 for thematic synthesis).
Table 5. Comprehensive thematic table on lablab research.
3.8 Adoption factors, research gaps, and policy necessities
The adoption of lablab by smallholder farmers is influenced by multiple factors. Agroecological suitability, practical benefits, knowledge dissemination, and compatibility with farming systems are key determinants (Minde, 2021; Forsythe, 2019a; Chawe et al., 2019). Drought-tolerant, dual-purpose varieties are preferred, particularly for intercropping with staple crops. Other adoption factors include extension access, seed availability, farm size, labor, and proximity to markets (Nyambati, 2002; Kabirizi et al., 2005). Mixed crop–livestock systems show higher adoption due to the role of lablab in soil fertility and feed integration.
The research gaps identified include the following:
1. No studies quantifying the contribution of lablab to soil carbon sequestration or ecosystem services, highlighting the need for long-term climate mitigation assessments;
2. Limited integration with digital advisory platforms or precision agriculture tools to support decision-making;
3. Minimal attention to gendered adoption patterns and youth engagement in lablab value chains;
4. Only a few climate simulations modeling lablab performance under RCP 4.5/8.5 scenarios; and
5. Lack of economic analyses on pricing, aggregation, and inclusive business models (see Tables 4, 5).
Policy and institutional necessities to enhance lablab adoption include the following:
1. Recognition of lablab as a strategic legume in climate-smart agriculture initiatives, guiding national planning and extension priorities; climate finance linkages, such as green bonds, carbon markets, and soil health credits, leveraging the role of lablab in sustainable farming;
2. Strengthening seed systems through farmer-led seed production, certification, and distribution of diverse landraces;
3. Promotion of intercropping guidelines via TARI manuals and institutionalized extension training; and
4. Integration into public procurement programs, such as school feeding and public food supply, to stimulate demand and adoption.
Collectively, these strategies, grounded in the evidence synthesized in Tables 3–5, provide a strong foundation for realizing the multifunctional benefits of lablab, supporting productivity, resilience, nutrition, and socioeconomic viability in Tanzanian smallholder systems.
4 Discussion
This scoping review reveals a widening research–practice gap for L. purpureus in Tanzanian dryland agriculture. While scholarly attention to its genetic diversity, agronomy, and forage potential has increased, practical adoption and systems-level uptake remain limited. Evidence from the reviewed studies demonstrates significant advances in the characterization of its morphological and molecular diversity (Maass and Chapman, 2016; Letting et al., 2022; Teshome et al., 2023, 2024). However, these innovations have not been fully translated into coordinated breeding pipelines, functional seed systems, or extension packages that reach smallholder farmers at scale (Tables 4, 5). This disconnect suggests that research outputs remain insufficiently linked to downstream actors, including national breeding programs, seed enterprises, extension services, and market actors, thereby limiting the potential contribution of lablab to resilient dryland farming systems.
This review highlights key social and institutional constraints that explain the low adoption in Tanzania. Gendered access to resources, youth exclusion from value chains, and weak infrastructure are recurrent themes. Women are central to planting and postharvest activities, but face structural barriers in land tenure, extension access, and market participation (Minde, 2021; Missanga et al., 2023; Chawe et al., 2019). Similarly, youth engagement in lablab value chains is nascent. While lablab-based enterprises show potential in fodder and processing (Forsythe, 2019a; Bulyaba and Lenssen, 2017), systemic support in finance, training, and market access is required to transform potential into employment and income opportunities. Seed systems emerged as a central bottleneck. Informal seed exchange dominates, with only a small fraction of farmers accessing certified seeds (Minde, 2022; Maass et al., 2010). Weak formal seed production and distribution systems limit the reach of improved genetics. Strengthening the seed production, certification, and distribution, alongside participatory breeding that incorporates farmer-preferred traits, is thus essential to translating research into adoption.
Extension services remain inadequate. Low agent-to-farmer ratios constrain knowledge transfer and training (Malugu, 2021; Kamotho, 2015). Integrating lablab-specific modules, digital advisory tools, and farmer field schools could improve adoption by bridging knowledge gaps. Market and value-chain limitations also constrain adoption. Evidence from Tanzania shows that black-seeded varieties can fetch premium prices in informal markets (Minde, 2022), indicating latent demand that could be leveraged through value addition, processing, aggregation, and market linkages. Investments in small-scale milling, feed pelletization, and lablab-based products can stimulate entrepreneurship, particularly for women and youth. Beyond adoption and markets, lablab provides clear agroecological and ecosystem services. It contributes to nitrogen fixation, soil cover, erosion reduction, and yield stabilization under variable rainfall (Nord et al., 2020; Thaba, 2023a; Massawe et al., 2016). These functions align with climate-smart agriculture objectives and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) related to food security, climate action, and land restoration. Despite these benefits, lablab remains largely absent from national policy instruments, such as ASDP-II and national seed strategies, limiting public investment in seed systems, participatory breeding, extension, and market support. Nutrition and consumption remain underexplored. Lablab grain is protein-rich (19%–28%) and contains essential amino acids (Minde, 2021; Wangila et al., 2021), but household consumption remains low, with the majority of the grain marketed rather than consumed (Letting et al., 2022). Increasing domestic consumption through school feeding programs, product development, and nutrition education is critical to translating production gains into dietary outcomes. The research gaps identified include: multi-season, cross-location trials to capture genotype × environment interactions; postharvest and processing studies; integrated pest management tailored to lablab; GIS-based suitability mapping; and gender- and youth-disaggregated adoption studies (Letting et al., 2022; Maass and Chapman, 2016) (Tables 4, 5). Addressing these gaps is essential for evidence-based scaling of lablab in Tanzanian drylands.
5 Conclusion
This scoping review confirms that L. purpureus is an underutilized yet multifunctional legume with substantial potential to enhance sustainable agriculture, climate adaptation, and food security in Tanzanian drylands. Its drought resilience, contribution to soil fertility, nutritional value for humans and livestock, and compatibility with mixed cropping systems make it an ideal candidate for climate-smart agriculture. Advances in genetic improvement, intercropping innovations, and participatory selection are encouraging; however, its adoption, value-chain integration, and market development remain limited. Strategic interventions targeting gender- and youth-inclusive value chains, market access, postharvest innovations, seed systems, and extension services are critical to unlocking the full potential of lablab.
6 Future recommendations
Based on the review findings, the following recommendations are proposed to strengthen the integration of lablab into Tanzanian agriculture:
1. Participatory breeding and genomic-assisted selection to release farmer-preferred, climate-resilient varieties;
2. Strengthen seed systems through public–private partnerships, community-based seed enterprises, and formal certification;
3. Reform extension services with lablab-specific modules, digital advisory tools, and farmer field schools;
4. Scale gender-responsive and youth-inclusive value chains, enhancing training, entrepreneurship, and market access;
5. Promote value addition and market integration, including product development, aggregation, and quality standards;
6. Nutrition-sensitive interventions such as school feeding programs, household nutrition education, and product development;
7. Prioritize multi-season, multi-location agronomic trials, socio-behavioral research, postharvest studies, and integrated pest and disease management;
8. Develop GIS-based suitability maps and climate-risk overlays to guide breeding, seed distribution, and extension targeting; and
9. Integrate lablab into national agricultural and climate policies, aligning with ASDP-II, food security strategies, and climate adaptation plans.
These actions provide a forward-looking roadmap for transforming lablab from a promising research crop into a widely adopted, resilient, and economically viable component of Tanzania’s dryland farming systems.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
LN: Software, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization, Visualization, Resources, Validation. EA: Methodology, Validation, Software, Investigation, Resources, Writing – review & editing, Visualization. EM: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MM: Visualization, Methodology, Software, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. CJ: Supervision, Resources, Investigation, Software, Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Conceptualization, Validation.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge the support and cooperation of the University of Dar es Salaam for granting the research clearance required to undertake this study. We also extend our sincere appreciation to the local government authorities in Butiama and Kondoa districts for their permission and assistance during data collection. Special thanks go to Dr. Edmond Alavaisha for designing and delivering an insightful training that guided the entire manuscript preparation and writing processes.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Correction note
This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the scientific content of the article.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. AI-assisted tools (e.g., ChatGPT by OpenAI) were used for language editing and formatting support. All content was reviewed and approved by the authors to ensure accuracy and integrity.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Adem A., Mekuriaw Y., and Asmare B. (2021). Fodder and grain yield in Lablab purpureus intercropping systems. Sustainability 13, 8307.
Aguilar-Garrido E., Martínez L., and Torres F. (2023). Soil cover and pest pressure reduction in Lablab purpureus cultivation. Crop Prot. 163, 106153. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2022.106153
Agyemang K., Owusu E., and Mensah A. (2000). Soil and environmental impact of Lablab purpureus cropping. Soil Biol. Biochem. 32, 557–562. doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(99)00191-0
Amel B., Singh R., and Patel D. (2014). Soil fertility improvement through Lablab purpureus rhizobia symbiosis. Plant Soil 374, 347–358. doi: 10.1007/s11104-013-1884-5
Amodu J. T., Bello M., and Ibrahim S. (2004). Livestock integration with Lablab purpureus fodder. Niger J. Anim. Sci. 6, 23–28.
Anderson S., Allen P., Peckham S., and Goodwin N. (2008). Asking the right questions: Scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services. Health Res. Policy Syst. 6, 7. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-6-7
Arksey H. and O’Malley L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Method. 8, 19–32. doi: 10.1080/1364557032000119616
Armstrong K. L. and Albrecht K. A. (2008). Spacing and sowing dates for Lablab purpureus. Field Crops Res. 107, 35–44.
Atumo T. T. (2022). Maize-Lablab purpureus intercropping effects on nutrient management. Agron. J. 114, 123–133.
Bang J., Sharma Y. K., and Kaur G. (2019). Evaluating academic search engines: Google Scholar vs. academic databases. Libr Philosoph Pract. 2019, 1–18. Available online at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/2586/ (Accessed July 15, 2025).
Brickley D., Burgess M., and Noy N. (2019). Google Scholar: Indexing scholarly content at scale. Int. J. Digit Librar. 20, 391–407. doi: 10.1007/s00799-018-0268-8
Bulyaba R. and Lenssen A. W. (2017). Feed intake and nutritive evaluation of Lablab purpureus. Trop. Grasslands - Forrajes Tropicales 5, 134–142.
Burnham J. F. (2006). Scopus database: A review. Biomed. Digit Librar 3, 1. doi: 10.1186/1742-5581-3-1
Chawe A., Massawe F., Mgonja M., and Maass B. L. (2019). Evaluation of drought tolerance and agronomic performance of lablab (Lablab purpureus) landraces in Tanzania. Tanzania J. Agric. Sci. 18, 33–45.
Davis K., Ekboir J., and Spielman D. J. (2010). Extension services and farmer access to technology. J. Agric. Educ. Extension 16, 359–369. doi: 10.1080/1389224X.2010.504550
Diribsa M., Taye H., and Bekele D. (2016). Supplementation effects of Lablab purpureus fodder in livestock. J. Anim. Sci. Technol. 58, 23. doi: 10.1186/s40781-016-0112-5
Ewansiha S. U., Ibrahim A., and Oladele O. I. (2008). Crop-livestock systems and smallholder adoption of Lablab purpureus. Trop. Grasslands 42, 103–111. doi: 10.1017/S0041977X00004877
Ewansiha S. U., Ogedegbe S. A., and Falodun E. J. (2016). Disease control and collar rot resistance in Lablab purpureus. Phytopathology 106, 1212–1220.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2013). Climate-smart agriculture sourcebook. (Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Available online at: https://www.fao.org/climate-smart-agriculture-sourcebook/en/.
Forsythe C. (2019a). Regional studies on smallholder Lablab purpureus adoption. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 074004.
Forsythe L. (2019b). Unlocking opportunities for youth in agribusiness: Lablab value chains in Tanzania. Int. Institute Trop. Agric. (IITA) Policy Brief. 47, 1–4.
Guretzki S. and Papenbrock J. (2014). Biotechnology tools applied to Lablab purpureus. Biotechnol. Adv. 32, 908–916.
Gusenbauer M. and Haddaway N. R. (2020). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and 26 other resources. Res. Synthes Methods 11, 181–217. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1378
Hill J. O., Robertson M. J., Pengelly B. C., Whitbread A. M., and Hall C. A. (2006). Environmental sustainability and Lablab purpureus dryland farming. Field Crops Res. 97, 144–154.
Hossain M. M. (2024). Pest management solutions for Lablab purpureus production. J. Agric. Sci. 16, 87–94.
Hussain F., Durrani M. J., and Zaman S. (2010). Forage productivity of lablab under various intercropping systems. Pakistan J. Bot. 42, 467–473.
Ingle S. M., Devmore J. P., Bhave S. G., and Thorat M. G. (2020). Genetic variability and molecular markers in Lablab purpureus. J. Crop Sci. Biotechnol. 23, 15–22.
Ishiaku Y. M., Bello M., and Abubakar S. (2020). Nutritional evaluation of Lablab purpureus in ruminant diets. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 269, 114615. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2020.114615
Kabirizi J., Mpairwe D., and Mutetikka D. (2005). Forage yield and crop productivity of Lablab purpureus. Afr. J. Range Forage Sci. 22, 119–125.
Kamalasundari A. (2023). Nutritive improvement and silage of Lablab purpureus fodder. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 107, 643–650.
Kamalo S. K. (2023). Breeding and genetic diversity of Lablab purpureus in East Africa. Agric. Sci. J. 14, 134–145.
Kamau E. M., Mwangi W., and Karanja N. (2021). Genotype by environment interaction of Lablab purpureus landraces in Kenya. Euphytica 217, 65. doi: 10.1007/s10681-021-02789-4
Kamotho G. (2015). Farmer adoption and cultivation trends of Lablab purpureus in East Africa. Sustainability 7, 1120–1132. doi: 10.3390/su7051120
Kankwatsa P. (2018). Irrigation and green manure effects in Lablab purpureus cropping. Afr. Crop Sci. J. 26, 485–495.
Khan A. U., Choudhury M. A. R., and Rahman S. (2020). Pest infestation and biocontrol in Lablab purpureus. Crop Prot. 131, 105108. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2020.105108
Kilonzi S. M., Mbugua P., and Wambua J. (2017). Silage quality and digestibility of Lablab purpureus fodder. Anim. Nutr. 3, 312–317. doi: 10.1016/j.aninu.2017.09.003
Kilonzi S. M., Wanjiru H., and Muturi J. (2020). Pod yield and postharvest quality in Lablab purpureus. J. Agric. Sci. 12, 150–159. doi: 10.5539/jas.v12n3p150
Letting F. K., Venkataramana P. B., and Ndakidemi P. A. (2022). Participatory plant selection and genetic diversity of Lablab purpureus. Front. Plant Sci. 13. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.784032
Letting N., Kisinyo P., and Onwonga R. N. (2022). Enhancing adoption of underutilized legumes in Kenya and Tanzania: Opportunities and challenges of Lablab purpureus. Int. J. Agric. Extension 10, 1–12.
Levac D., Colquhoun H., and O'Brien K. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 5, 69. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-69
Loewen S., Patel R., and Müller T. (2025). Simulation modeling and drought adaptation in Lablab purpureus systems. Agric. Water Manage. 300, 107185. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2025.107185
Maass B. L. and Chapman M. A. (2016). Climate-smart crop development and genomics of Lablab purpureus. Crop Sci. 56, 1202–1211. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2015.11.0665
Maass B. L. and Chapman M. A. (2022). Genomic approaches for the improvement of Lablab purpureus. Front. Plant Sci. 13. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.784032
Maass B. L., Knox M. R., Venkatesha S. C., Angessa T. T., Ramme S., and Pengelly B. C. (2010). Lablab purpureus – A crop lost for Africa? Trop. Plant Biol. 3, 123–135.
Malugu L. (2021). Biological nitrogen fixation in Lablab purpureus soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 151, 108061.
Maluleke M. H. (2005). Agronomic potential and utilization of Lablab purpureus as livestock feed in South Africa. South African Journal of Animal Science 35, 245–252.
Massawe F. J., Chikoye D., and Mligo C. (2016). Rhizobia characterization and nitrogen fixation in Lablab purpureus. Legume Res. 39, 395–401. doi: 10.18805/LR-3280
Massawe F., Mgonja M., and Chawe A. (2022). Unlocking the potential of Lablab purpureus for sustainable agriculture in Tanzania. Afr. Crop Sci. J. 30, 35–48.
Mays N., Roberts E., and Popay J. (2001). “Synthesising research evidence,” in Studying the organisation and delivery of health services: research methods. Eds. Fulop N., Allen P., Clarke A., and Black N. (London, United Kingdom: Routledge), 188–220.
Mgonja M., Massawe F., and Chawe A. (2020). The role of Lablab purpureus in climate-smart agriculture: A review. Tanzania J. Agric. Res. 19, 55–67.
Minde J. J. (2021). Livelihood assets and adoption trends in Lablab purpureus production. Food Secur. 13, 451–463.
Minde J. J. (2022). Farmer adoption and cultivation trends of Lablab purpureus in East Africa. Sustainability 14, 2701.
Minde J. J. (2023a). Regional studies on Lablab purpureus cultivation and adoption. Agriculture 13, 273.
Minde J. J. (2023b). Value addition and food quality improvements in Lablab purpureus. Food Sci. Nutr. 11, 1461–1470.
Missanga J. S., Venkataramana P. B., and Ndakidemi P. A. (2021). Genetic diversity and farmer adoption of Lablab purpureus in East Africa. Agronomy 11, 908.
Missanga J. S., Venkataramana P. B., and Ndakidemi P. A. (2023). Advances in breeding and farmer adoption of Lablab purpureus in Tanzania. Plant Genet. Resour. 21, 45–58.
Mthembu B. E., Everson T. M., and Everson C. S. (2018). Dryland cropping systems and soil nutrient management with Lablab purpureus. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 13, 1463–1470.
Mudege N. N., Jere P. M., and Findeis J. L. (2021). Structural constraints and gender disparities in agricultural decision-making in Southern Africa. Agric. Syst. 188, 103026.
Mugerwa S., KatushabeF E., and Namirembe S. (2024). Methane production and feed supplementation from Lablab purpureus fodder. J. Environ. Manage. 320, 115821. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.115821
Munn Z., Peters M. D. J., Stern C., Tufanaru C., McArthur A., and Aromataris E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med. Res. Method. 18, 143. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
Nahashon C. K., Onyango F., and Mwangi P. (2016). Biocontrol agents for Lablab purpureus diseases. Biol. Control 98, 31–38. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2016.01.004
Ngure D., Kinyua M., and Kiplagat O. (2021). Molecular characterization and drought tolerance in Lablab purpureus. J. Crop Improve. 35, 321–335.
Njarui D. M. G. and Mureithi J. G. (2010). Distribution and regional cultivation studies of Lablab purpureus. J. Food Agric. Environ. 8, 888–891.
Njeru E. M., Muriithi B. W., and Wambugu S. K. (2021). Gendered roles and their influence on technology adoption in smallholder farming systems in East Africa. J. Gender Agriculture Dev. 12, 45–60.
Nord A., Miller N. R., and Mariki W. (2020). Agronomic practices and intercropping systems involving Lablab purpureus. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4.
Nyambati E. M. (2002). Farmer preferences and cultivation patterns in Lablab purpureus. East Afr. Agric. J. 67, 171–177.
Odedara O. H., Adeyemi T., and Balogun S. (2008). Field pest resistance and management in Lablab purpureus. J. Agric. Sci. 146, 21–27. doi: 10.1017/S0021859607007276
Okogun J. A., Ojo D., and Adeoye G. (2005). Biological nitrogen fixation and rhizobia strains in Lablab purpureus. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 4, 1122–1129. doi: 10.5897/AJB2005.000-2156
Okumu O. O. (2018). Agronomic optimization in Lablab purpureus production. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 20, 1234–1240.
Orji C. D. and Anunobi C. V. (2019). Comparative evaluation of Google Scholar and Scopus: Lessons for researchers. Libr Philosoph Pract. 2019, 1–21. Available online at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/2607/ (Accessed July 15, 2025).
Orr A., Mwale B., and Chirwa E. (2020). Women’s participation in agricultural value chains and access to extension services: Evidence from Malawi. Dev. Policy Rev. 38, 599–617.
Padulosi S., Thompson J., and Rudebjer P. (2013). Fighting poverty, hunger and malnutrition with neglected and underutilized species: Needs, challenges and the way forward (Rome, Italy: Bioversity International).
Pervin S. and Islam M. S. (2017). Rhizobia diversity and soil fertility in Lablab purpureus cropping systems. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 17, 426–435.
Pervin S., Islam M. R., Rahman M. M., and Hossain M. A. (2008). Seed storage techniques for Lablab purpureus. Seed Sci. Technol. 36, 389–395. doi: 10.15258/sst.2008.36.2.14
Peters M. D. J., Godfrey C. M., McInerney P., Munn Z., Tricco A. C., and Khalil H. (2020). “Chapter 11: scoping reviews,” in JBI manual for evidence synthesis. Eds. Aromataris E. and Munn Z. (Adelaide, Australia: Joanna Briggs Institute). doi: 10.46658/JBIMES-20-12
Pham M. T., Rajić A., Greig J. D., Sargeant J. M., Papadopoulos A., and McEwen S. A. (2014). A scoping review of scoping reviews: Advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res. Synthes Methods 5, 371–385. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1123
Rajasekaran K., Ramesh S., and Kumar P. (2019). Aflatoxin inhibition in Lablab purpureus crops. Food Control 99, 19–25. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2018.11.021
Ramesh R. and Byregowda M. (2016). Genetic resources and breeding approaches in Lablab purpureus. Int. J. Plant Breed. Genet. 10, 110–125.
Rapholo E., Odhiambo J. O., and Nelson W. C. D. (2020). Crop productivity in Lablab purpureus-based systems. Agric. Syst. 177, 102699.
Sennhenn A., Müller T., and Richter H. (2017). Drought adaptation and environmental sustainability in Lablab purpureus. Agric. Syst. 151, 41–50. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2016.11.007
Shaahu D. T., Okello J., and Wanyama P. (2017). Crop-livestock integration involving Lablab purpureus. Livestock Res. Rural Dev. 29, 1–10. Available online at: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd29/9/dsha29101.htm (Accessed July 15, 2025).
Shubha K., Ramesh S., and Patel D. (2024a). Pest and disease control in Lablab purpureus value chains. Crop Prot. 157, 105960. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2024.105960
Shubha K., Ramesh S., and Patel D. (2024b). Processing and value chains for Lablab purpureus products. J. Food Process. Preserv. 48, e16983. doi: 10.1111/jfpp.16983
Singh S., Kundu S. S., Negi A. S., and Pachouri V. C. (2010). Nutritional quality of Lablab purpureus grains and leaves. J. Food Sci. Technol. 47, 245–250.
Teshome A., Bekele D., and Mekonnen T. (2023). Molecular marker analysis for drought tolerance in Lablab purpureus. Mol. Breed. 43, 21–33. doi: 10.1007/s11032-023-01421-3
Teshome A., Bekele D., and Mekonnen T. (2024). Genomic-assisted breeding approaches in Lablab purpureus. Plant Genome 17, e21085. doi: 10.1002/tpg2.21085
Thaba R. S. (2023a). Environmental resilience in Lablab purpureus dryland systems. J. Arid Environ. 215, 105090.
Thaba R. S. (2023b). Soil water and nitrogen dynamics in Lablab purpureus intercropping. J. Arid Environ 210, 104903.
Thapa S., Kim D. H., and Teshome A. (2023). Climate-smart attributes of Lablab: Potential for Africa’s drylands. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 7, 1134.
Tiwari A., Yadav R. S., and Singh V. (2017). Effect of intercropping lablab with maize on productivity and soil health. Indian J. Agron. 62, 428–432.
Tulu D. (2022). Biomass production and livestock feed evaluation in Lablab purpureus. Trop. Anim. Health Product. 54, 150.
United Nations (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (New York, NY, United States: United Nations). Available online at: https://sdgs.un.org/goals.
Vaghasiya Y. (2021). Production constraints and pest management in Lablab purpureus. Int. J. Pest Manage. 67, 345–352.
Valenzuela H. and Smith J. (2002). “Lablab purpureus (Dolichos bean),” in Specialty crops for pacific island agroforestry (Honolulu, HI, United States: University of Hawaii, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources).
Valiño E., Savón L., and Rodríguez M. (2015). Postharvest seed storage and nutritive quality of Lablab purpureus. J. Food Qual. 38, 340–350. doi: 10.1111/jfq.12123
Wangila A. J., Gachuiri C. K., Muthomi J. W., and Ojiem J. O. (2021). Nutritive value and feed evaluation of Lablab purpureus. Trop. Anim. Health Product. 53, 1–12.
Washaya S., Mupangwa J., and Muchenje V. (2018). Livestock fodder quality of Lablab purpureus. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 240, 93–101.
Whitbread A. M., Maass B. L., and Pengelly B. C. (2011). A review of Lablab purpureus: An underutilized legume with multiple benefits. Trop. Grasslands 45, 144–155.
Keywords: climate-resilient crop, dryland agriculture, farming systems, food security, forage, intercropping, Lablab purpureus
Citation: Ndibalema LR, Alavaisha E, Masama E, Manoko MLK and Joseph CO (2026) A scoping review of lablab production in Tanzania: global perspectives on roles, challenges, and opportunities. Front. Agron. 8:1722561. doi: 10.3389/fagro.2026.1722561
Received: 10 October 2025; Accepted: 06 January 2026; Revised: 04 January 2026;
Published: 06 February 2026; Corrected: 10 February 2026.
Edited by:
Jiban Shrestha, Nepal Agricultural Research Council, NepalCopyright © 2026 Ndibalema, Alavaisha, Masama, Manoko and Joseph. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Leonard R. Ndibalema, bGVvbmFyZG5kaWJhbGVtYTE4QGdtYWlsLmNvbQ==