An agricultural perspective on One Health

Abstract

The One Health approach encourages us to sustainably balance and optimize four health spheres (human, animal, plant, and environmental health), based on the many interconnections and interdependencies among them. Here, a series of reflections on One Health from an agricultural perspective are presented. The overarching objective is not to place agricultural research under the protective umbrella of the now salient One Health approach (for all intent and purposes, there is no doubt that agriculture is a key element of the One Health arena), but rather to explore the possible contribution of the One Health concept to the development of a much needed sustainable and resilient agriculture, and vice versa, the possible contribution of agriculture to the One Health concept. In this latter sense, we present a somewhat provocative hypothesis, namely, that agroecosystems, being highly-managed key socio-ecological systems, are ideal candidates for demonstrating the usefulness of the One Health approach in sustainably balancing and optimizing the four health spheres by means of implementing agricultural One Health Living Labs.

1 Introduction on One Health

The purpose of this section is to provide a brief overview of definitions and concepts related to One Health. It is then appropriate to start with the definition of One Health that appears to have the highest level of support: The One Health High-Level Expert Panel (OHHLEP), established by The One Health Quadripartite (World Health Organization—WHO, the World Organization for Animal Health—WOAH, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations—FAO, and the United Nations Environment Programme—UNEP), defined One Health as “an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals, and ecosystems. It recognizes that the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants, and the wider environment (including ecosystems) are closely linked and interdependent. The approach mobilizes multiple sectors, disciplines, and communities at varying levels of society to work together to foster well-being and tackle threats to health and ecosystems, while addressing the collective need for healthy food, water, energy, and air, taking action on climate change and contributing to sustainable development” (Adisasmito et al., 2022). There have been different attempts to expand the scope of action under the One Health framework by, for instance, increasing community and social engagement, recognizing and entwining dissimilar worldviews, and incorporating a plurality of disciplines (Mumford et al., 2023), or by including microbial diversity within its ecological and evolutionary context (Ginnan et al., 2025). Likewise, Alkorta and Garbisu (2024) proposed to expand the One Health concept to include not only human, animal, plant, and environmental health, but also the Earth-system processes of the planetary boundaries framework.

The first part of the OHHLEP’s definition (i.e., the first two sentences) emphasizes two key aspects of the One Health approach: (i) the importance of sustainably balancing and optimizing the four health spheres (human, animal, plant, and environmental health), a matter of the utmost complexity since it implies that, in many cases, an exercise of pondering and prioritizing among the different “beneficiaries” (humans, animals, plants, and environments-ecosystems) may be required, an issue that is sure to frequently emerge as unresolved or, worse still, unsolvable (i.e., constrained, or even prevented, by the fact that the items can be incomparable or incommensurable, in other words, “comparing apples with oranges”); and (ii) the inextricable interdependence among the four health spheres, which, in many cases, will be of an omnidirectional nature and always, inevitably, of a dynamic character, adding a further level of complexity to the abovementioned matter, particularly taking into consideration the existence of mutual reliance and interconnectedness among the four health spheres. Pertaining to this second aspect, the existence of links and interdependencies among the different health spheres, it is certainly not a new and surprising discovery, as the existence of such connections and interdependencies has been known for decades. Table 1 includes some examples of connections and interdependencies that have long been known.

What is really distinctive about the One Health approach is its ambitious aim to “sustainably balance and optimize the health of people, animals, and ecosystems” and, in this way, overcome the exclusively anthropocentric approach traditionally associated with the term “health” and, instead, from an anthropocentric-biocentric-ecocentric perspective, understand and embrace the interdependence, interconnectedness, and mutual reliance between humans and nature, specifically, between human health in all its dimensions (physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, social) and the health of all the other species with which we share this planet and the health of the ecosystems where they live, reproduce, and evolve. Needless to say, this is easier said than done because, understandably but not admirably, the anthropocentric perspective has been an entrenched standing in our beliefs, culture, and history, being particularly embedded in many Western religions and philosophies.

On the other hand, in the last years, some factors (e.g., environmental degradation, human population growth, climate change, biodiversity loss, land-use change, etc.) have modified, often for the worse, the many-sided interactions among people, animals, plants, and the environment, explaining the popularity and salience of the One Health approach in recent years. Regarding the degradation of our planet, a very worrying fact to highlight is that, since 1961, humanity’s global ecological footprint has doubled; actually, at this moment in time, we are consuming renewable resources 20–50% faster than the planet can regenerate them, while it has been estimated that, within just a few decades, the resource capacity of our planet will need to almost double to keep pace with the rate of human population growth, production, and consumption (Koh et al., 2016; Eufrasio Espinosa and Lenny Koh, 2024). In the same line of concern, some disturbing findings recently revealed in the latest Planetary Health Check (Planetary Boundaries Science, 2025) are: (i) seven out of the nine planetary boundaries have been breached, and those seven show trends of increasing pressure; (ii) atmospheric CO₂ is currently at 423 ppm, far above the established planetary boundary of 350 ppm; (iii) human appropriation of net primary production sits at 30%, tripling the 10% planetary boundary; (iv) the rate of species extinction (i.e., the rate of biodiversity loss) remains above 100 extinctions per million species per year, 10 times the planetary boundary of 10 extinctions per million species per year; (v) global forest cover has fallen to approximately 59%, below the 75% safe minimum; (vi) more than a fifth of global land area is facing significant dry or wet deviations in streamflow (22.6%) and soil moisture (22.0%), far beyond the safe levels of 12.9 and 12.4%, respectively; (vii) regional phosphorus application is circa 18.2 Tg P year⁻¹, while intentional N₂ fixation is ca. 165 Tg N year⁻¹; both metrics are in the high risk zone and showing worsening trends; (viii) each year, thousands of insufficiently tested chemicals, plastics, and other novel entities are released into the environment with potentially adverse consequences still largely unknown; (ix) for the first time, the planetary boundary for ocean acidification has been transgressed, i.e., the global mean surface aragonite saturation state is now 2.84, compared to the 2.86 boundary; and (x) we keep on moving closer to the point where planet Earth exceeds the zone of increasing risk and enters the high risk zone.

Intriguingly (or not), the focus that the definition of One Health places on the interconnections and interdependences among elements traditionally treated as separate entities and realities (i.e., the four health spheres) coincides with the contemporary trend of thoughts, ideas, and beliefs, i.e., as a zeitgeist of our era, which seeks to overcome traditional reductionist and atomistic views and, instead, embrace holistic visions centered on interrelationships, interactions, interconnections, interdependencies, and so on. Within that zeitgeist, ecosystem degradation is often viewed as the occurrence of discontinuity or breakdown of the interconnectedness within ecosystems, where organisms create profusely entangled and intertwined communities, form multifarious networks of connections with highly complex and dynamic patterns, and their existence and activity are ontologically interdependent. In connection with the holism concept, the term holon can be viewed as an attempt to overcome the dichotomy between parts and wholes, as it refers to something that is simultaneously a whole and a part. Holons are often discussed in the context of self-organizing holarchic open systems (Kay et al., 1999). It is relevant to call to mind here that human and ecological systems have both been portrayed as self-organizing holarchic open systems (Kay et al., 1999). Agricultural farms have been proposed as compelling examples of holons within an agroecology context (Bland and Bell, 2007). The notion of holism is linked to the concept of emergence and emergent properties, the latter being impervious to reductive analysis. Human health has been proposed as an emergent state that results from adaptive social and biological network interactions (Sturmberg et al., 2019), and the very concept of One Health itself has been asked to recognize emergent properties within human-environment systems (Saleem and Jan, 2023).

The OHHLEP’s definition of One Health requires an understanding (better, but improbable, an agreement) on the meaning of each one of the four health spheres in it included. In order to avoid opening Pandora’s box on the subject of definitions (note: definitions are commonly imperfect, vague, tautologous, incomplete, changeable, contextual, subjective, biased, etc., and, to make matters worse, they may lead to categorizations that can overlook important gradations; an array of imprecise definitions sometimes only reflects semantic differences and dissertations, but other times it reflects unsolved conceptual indeterminacies), here we adhere, as much as possible, to the definitions fostered by the corresponding Quadripartite institutions. Nonetheless, it is germane to note that definitions and conceptualizations often exhibit a degree of flexibility and an evolving nature, in order to cope with the changes, scenarios, novel perspectives, or interests to come (Garbisu et al., 2025). This is not an aspect of abstruse philosophical trivia but an aspect of the utmost importance as it demands an open mind and the ability to iteratively embrace changes in paradigms and principles, as well as to understand that there is often no unique correct explanation for a given explanandum.

The WHO has defined human health as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” (Schramme, 2023). Nevertheless, several authors (Lefrançois et al., 2025) have claimed that a new definition of human health is needed to better implement the One Health approach, because, nowadays, human health must be understood in “a holistic and inseparable way from climate, environment, biodiversity, agriculture, and food systems for joint benefits for humans, animals, plants, and ecosystems” (Lefrançois et al., 2025), thus shifting from the traditional purely anthropocentric approach to human health to a more trailblazing, human-led holistic approach to health for both the planet and the people. After all, the degradation of our planet is quickly and destructively affecting the environmental and social determinants of human health through, for example, the deterioration of ecosystems and the propagation of diseases (Lefrançois et al., 2025). In particular, climate change is seriously damaging the natural and human systems on which our society relies for good health; as an example, the land area impacted by extreme drought increased from 18% in 1951–1960 to 47% in 2013–2022, thus jeopardizing water security, sanitation, and food production (Romanello et al., 2023). Climate change is also increasing the risk of life-threatening infectious diseases, such as dengue, malaria, vibriosis, West Nile virus, etc. (Romanello et al., 2023). In the last decades, West Nile virus has emerged in the Americas and expanded in Europe (Hadfield et al., 2019; Bakonyi and Haussig, 2020). Similarly, cases of dengue have doubled every decade since 1990, and almost half of the world population is currently at risk from this dangerous disease (Stanaway et al., 2016; Romanello et al., 2023). Likewise, non-communicable disease mortality has increased by 30% in the last two decades; most importantly, 50% of these non-communicable diseases could be avoided via increased prevention and intervention on environmental, behavioural, and biological factors (Lefrançois et al., 2025).

Concerning the degradation of ecosystems and environmental matrices, it must be recalled that the different spheres of the Earth (i.e., atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, geosphere) constantly pass through us humans (also, naturally, through animals and plants), thus subjecting people to their deterioration, that is, deleteriously affecting human health. For instance, soil contamination is a well-documented threat to human and environmental health, both of which are known to be closely related. Soil contamination is also a threat to food security, a very important aspect to take into consideration, especially bearing in mind that as the human population continues to grow and living standards get better, it has been estimated that global food production needs to increase by 35 to 56% by 2050 (van Dijk et al., 2021). Hou et al. (2025) reported that 14 to 17% of cropland is affected by soil metal contamination and that between 0.9 and 1.4 billion people live in regions of increased public health and ecological risks. The bioaccumulation of potentially toxic heavy metals in crops and farm animals can affect productivity, cause detrimental health effects, and exacerbate poverty (Hou et al., 2025). Similarly, the analysis of agricultural soils sampled under the EU LUCAS survey showed that 80% of European agricultural soils contain pesticide residues, with 58% of them presenting a mixture of pesticides residues (FAO and UNEP, 2021). The adverse effects exerted by soil contaminants on human and environmental health are often exacerbated when organic pollutants (pesticides, petroleum hydrocarbons, etc.) and inorganic compounds (metals, metalloids, etc.) coexist, a phenomenon known as mixed pollution or co-pollution (Lacalle et al., 2020a). Traditional physicochemical methods of soil remediation are frequently expensive and environmentally-disruptive (Lacalle et al., 2020b) and, then, gentle remediation options, such as bioremediation, phytoremediation, and vermiremediation are receiving considerable attention in recent years as cost-effective, environmentally-friendly remediation solutions to soil pollution (Lacalle et al., 2020a).

On the other hand, thanks to the development of advanced molecular and sequencing technologies, in the last years, it has become apparent that microbiomes are connected within and transferred among different habitats and abiotic and biotic environments, and most importantly, that microbiome interconnectedness throughout the different environments can have crucial consequences, of both a positive and negative nature, for human and planet health, a phenomenon of great interest from the One Health perspective (Sessitsch et al., 2023).

Regarding animal health, the definition provided by the WOAH for animal health management indirectly incorporates its definition of animal health: “a system designed to optimize the physical and behavioural health and welfare of animals. It includes the prevention, treatment and control of diseases and conditions affecting the individual animal and herd or flock, including the recording of illness, injuries, mortalities and medical treatments where appropriate.” Animal health has also been defined as “the state of the animal regarding the animal’s attempts to cope with pathology, including physical, mental, and social factors, i.e., not merely the impact of sickness and ailments” (Goetschel, 2024). Both definitions presuppose adequate and ethical animal welfare, an issue that has been argued to be integrated into the OHHLEP committee as the basis of One Health (Goetschel, 2024). There is no doubt that animal welfare is closely linked to animal health (and, hence, human health) and, importantly, constitutes an aspect of animal food production systems that is increasingly demanded by consumers from a predominantly ethical perspective. For example, more than 80% of the Europeans find animal welfare an issue, believe that it should be better protected, and find the current legislation insufficient to adequately account for the animals’ well-being (European Commission, 2015, 2022; Eichner and Runkel, 2025). Interestingly, a One Welfare approach has also been proposed, encompassing human, animal, and social welfare, based on their intrinsic interconnections (Colonius and Earley, 2013). The multilayered issue of animal welfare is undergoing profound developments thanks to, among other aspects, its interaction with numerous concepts such as, for instance: (i) umwelt, sensu Jakob von Uexküll, i.e., the specific way in which organisms of a species experience the world shaped by their sensory capabilities; (ii) biosemiotics, a field of semiotics and biology focused on the countless forms of communication and signification found in and between living systems; in particular, with zoosemiotics, sensu Thomas Sebeok; and (iii) heterophenomenology, sensu Daniel Dennett, which studies consciousness from a third-person objective point of view as opposed to a first-person subjective point of view or auto-phenomenology (Burghardt, 2024; Lewis, 2025).

As regards plants, the term plant health, as defined by the FAO, refers to the overall well-being and condition of plants, including their ability to resist and recover from stresses, such as pests, diseases and environmental factors, i.e., biotic and abiotic stresses. Given that the very concept of health itself, not only plant health, is a highly complex and evolving construct, the idea of plant health has inevitably long been debated, trenchantly criticized, incisively discussed, and even structured using ideas from conflicting schools involved in the conceptualization of human health: naturalist vs. normativist approaches, reductionist vs. holistic perspectives, materialist vs. vitalist approaches, biocentric vs. anthropocentric views, etc. (Döring et al., 2012). Probably due to the fact that the One Health framework originated from the One Medicine idea focused on the links and interdependences between human and veterinary medicine (King, 2021), for a long time, and even today, plant health has been relegated to a secondary role, if not completely forgotten, in many One Health reports. In fact, none of the 12 Manhattan Principles, defined during the “Building Interdisciplinary Bridges to Health in a Globalized World” meeting (Wildlife Conservation Society, The Rockefeller University, New York City, 2004) where the One Health trans-disciplinary approach emerged, incorporates plant health. Opportunely, in the Berlin Principles on One Health, an update of the Manhattan Principles, plant health is already included and thoughtfully taken into consideration (Gruetzmacher et al., 2021). However, plant health and protection (Lorenzini and Nali, 2025) are still often overlooked in many discussions on One Health which are primarily focused on zoonotic diseases, antimicrobial resistance, and similar topics dealing with the links between animal and human health (Lorenzini and Nali, 2025). In effect, many logos representing the One Health approach still do not feature plant health, but only human, animal, and environmental health. It seems that we have not yet cured our plant blindness (i.e., “the inability to notice plants in one’s environment, recognize their importance or appreciate their unique biological features”) (Wandersee and Schussler, 1999), despite being an unresolved matter long identified (Bobo-Pinilla et al., 2023; Jose et al., 2019).

Finally, although the UNEP does not explicitly define environmental health, it consistently addresses, as it could not be otherwise, such concept through its focus on the interconnectedness of environmental issues and human health and well-being. Initially, the field of environmental health dealt primarily with contamination-derived risks to human health, but the UNEP nowadays covers a wide variety of topics, owing to its focus on the triple planetary crisis: crisis of climate change, crisis of nature, land and biodiversity loss, and crisis of pollution and waste. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (United States Department of Health and Human Services) defines environmental health as “the science of identifying and understanding the impacts of environmental exposures to hazardous physical, chemical, and biological agents in air, water, soil, food, as well as social stressors that may adversely affect human health. The goal of environmental health is to prevent human injury and illness and promote well-being” (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 2025). As is customarily the case, the concept of environmental health has evolved. Thus, some authors (Santos et al., 2019) proposed that it needs to adequately include key issues of the environmental agenda, such as climate change, human mobility, digital and robotic systems, and propagation of disease vectors and infectious agents worldwide, among others. But, despite the synergistic vision of the One Health framework, the topics of human health, animal health, plant health, and environmental health are still most frequently tackled in isolation, and then it has recently been accentuated that we should embrace the complexity of pertinently integrating the environment into One Health approaches (Lynggaard et al., 2025).

Adding complexity to the issue at hand, although the debate on the need to include microbiome health within the One Health approach (Martiny et al., 2025) is not within the scope of this article, it is at the very least relevant to point out that microbiomes, and the dynamic, intricate, and interactive networks they form, are fundamental health components that exert many of their crucial effects through complex interactions at interfaces with their human, animal, and plant hosts (interfaces critical to One Health), and then, thanks to the development in microbiome research, microbiome-interventions are expected to deliver great benefits in terms of One Health outcomes (Law et al., 2024). In any event, the vital role of microbiota in human health and diseases has been highlighted by numerous studies (Hou et al., 2022; Ma et al., 2024; Ogunrinola et al., 2020).

As a final point, and since many documents on One Health indistinctly use the terms environmental health and ecosystem health, it is worth clarifying here the difference between environment and ecosystem. Simplifying, the term environment covers all of the external factors influencing an organism, including physical, chemical, and biological conditions. An ecosystem, however, is the complex of living organisms, their physical environment, and all their interrelationships in a particular unit of space. Based on Costanza’s (1992) explanation of ecosystem health, i.e., “ecosystem health is closely linked to the idea of sustainability, which is seen to be a comprehensive, multi-scale, dynamic measure of system resilience, organization, and vigor,” Lu et al. (2015) defined ecosystem health as “the status and potential of an ecosystem to maintain its organizational structure, its vigor of function and resilience under stress, and to continuously provide quality ecosystem services for present and future generations in perpetuity.” Costanza (1992) stated that “an ecological system is healthy and free from distress syndrome if it is stable and sustainable, i.e., if it is active and maintains its organization and autonomy over time and is resilient to stress.” At any rate, the notion of ecosystem health has, yet again, been much discussed, criticized, and cogently supported (Sfara and El-Hani, 2023).

Due to their being socio-ecological systems (“complex, integrated systems that emerge through the continuous interaction of human societies with ecosystems”; Redman et al., 2004), agroecosystem health intrinsically requires a dual perspective, anthropocentric and bio-ecocentric, and an understanding of the dynamic relationships and trade-offs between human activities and interests and natural-ecological processes and integrity. As part of its functional integrity and resilience, a healthy agroecosystem is expected to show sustained and sustainable crop productivity at an optimum level, as well as to sustainably provide other essential ecosystem services, while respecting the ecological cycles and balances existing in nature. Through the adjustment and change of agricultural practices, agroecosystems have the potential to be productive wildlife habitats (Alkorta et al., 2003), even a safe haven for some wildlife, and, given the biodiversity crisis we are experiencing, we have an ethical obligation to deploy and realize that potential. Agroecosystem health, defined from an anthropocentric perspective as “the extent to which an agroecosystem can meet human needs for all of its residents over time” (Hoy, 2015), can be demarcated by different properties, such as resilience, stability, sustainability, equitability, productivity, autonomy, etc., and has been canonically characterized from a variety of perspectives related to agroecosystem structure, function, organization, and dynamics (Xu and Mage, 2001).

One of the unquestionable key components of agroecosystem health is soil health (Alkorta et al., 2004). Based on the definition of soil quality by Doran and Parkin (1994, 1996), a definition heavily criticized (Bünemann et al., 2018; Letey et al., 2003; Sojka and Upchurch, 1999; Sojka et al., 2003), soil health has been defined by the FAO as “the capacity of soil to function as a living system, with ecosystem and land use boundaries, to sustain plant and animal productivity, maintain or enhance water and air quality, and promote plant and animal health” (FAO, 2008). Garbisu et al. (2011) defined soil health as “the capacity of a given soil to sustainably perform its ecological processes, functions and ecosystem services, and maintain a suite of essential ecosystem attributes of ecological relevance (vigor, organization, stability, suppressiveness, redundancy) at a level similar to that of a reference soil, without causing an adverse impact on the proper functioning of surrounding ecosystems or human health,” thus linking soil health to ecosystem and human health. Not surprisingly, it has been asserted that a better understanding of soil health and its relationship to agricultural practices could prove foundational to many of the problems that the One Health approach aims to address (Montgomery et al., 2024).

After this brief introduction to One Health and some related concepts, the following section reflects on the One Health approach from an agricultural perspective. The overarching objective is not to place agricultural research under the protective umbrella of the now “fashionable” One Health approach (in a perfectly understandable and acceptable attempt to attract more funds for agricultural research), but rather to explore, through reflective and reflexive thinking supported by an analysis of scientific literature, (i) the possible contribution of the One Health concept to the development of a much needed sustainable and resilient agriculture; and (ii) vice versa, to the possible contribution of agriculture to the One Health concept (Figure 1). In this latter sense, we present a somewhat provocative hypothesis, namely, that agroecosystems, being highly-managed key socio-ecological systems, are ideal candidates for demonstrating the usefulness of the One Health concept in sustainably balancing and optimizing the four health spheres by means of implementing agricultural One Health Living Labs.

Figure 1

2 An agricultural perspective on One Health

As mentioned above, those of us working in agricultural research sometimes emphasize that many of our lines of research fall within the scope of One Health, in an attempt to attract funding and interest to our area of expertise. Certainly, there is no doubt that many of the key issues that appear in most of the lists of One Health areas and topics of research are closely related with agricultural matters, settings, practices, systems, etc. As an example, the following issues, often included in those lists (for instance, in documents by WHO and CDC), can easily be linked to agroecosystems: antimicrobial resistance, diseases of zoonotic origin, food safety and security, vector-borne diseases, environmental contamination, and climate change. These issues can be easily identified (as a matter of fact, they form a large part of its backbone) in the six action tracks of the One Health Joint Plan of Action 2022–2026 of the Quadripartite (FAO, UNEP, WHO, and WOAH, 2022): (1) Enhancing One Health capacities to strengthen health systems; (2) Reducing the risks from emerging and re-emerging zoonotic epidemics and pandemics; (3) Controlling and eliminating endemic zoonotic, neglected tropical and vector-borne diseases; (4) Strengthening the assessment, management and communication of food safety risks; (5) Curbing the silent pandemic of antimicrobial resistance; and (6) Integrating the environment into One Health. Table 2 includes some examples of the importance of agriculture in One Health. As can be seen in Table 2, it is very easy for those of us involved in agricultural research (e.g., agronomists, veterinarians, plant pathologists, agroecologists, microbial ecologists, ethologists, etc.) to justify our fundamental role in the One Health field. Clearly, One Health is not an issue that concerns only medical doctors and veterinarians; many other fields of knowledge must participate and contribute to its implementation and development. In this respect, it has been reported (Gittleman, 2024) that the One Health approach needs ecology, because ecology is a unifying science that integrates knowledge of the Earth, as well as the animal—human connections with it (it is not possible to separate human health from the health of the natural world and the planet).

But, can the One Health approach contribute to the main objective of our current agriculture, namely, to become a much more sustainable activity, with much less environmental impact, while having the required resilience against the global environmental problems, especially, climate change? In the field of agriculture, as in many (most?) fields, the “three-legged stool” often used to represent the three pillars of sustainability (economy, society, environment) has many times been characterized by legs of unacceptably different lengths, with those corresponding to societal equity and environmental sustainability being much shorter than that representing economic profit. Its local and global environmental impact (e.g., its contribution to climate change and the catastrophic loss of biodiversity) is probably the main source of criticism and controversy for agriculture (Garbisu et al., 2025). Without getting into a debate about the foundation and accuracy of some of the criticism (given our nature, it is inevitable that some of it will be unfortunate, unabashedly biased, blatantly flawed, dismally misinformed, etc.; on the other hand, others see any criticism of the traditional agricultural practices as tantamount to outright treason), there is no doubt whatsoever that a considerable percentage of the agricultural activity carried out to date has had a substantial impact on the environment, nature, and the ecosystem services on which our survival and well-being depend. Therefore, it is urgent to address the challenge of the environmental sustainability of our agricultural activities and systems, because the reality is that, despite some opinionated rhetoric claiming the opposite, agriculture is still dominated by an imbalanced narrative that privileges production over conservation (Hunter et al., 2017). Luckily, a variety of agricultural movements and schools of thought (e.g., regenerative agriculture, ecological agriculture, organic farming, agroecology, holistic management, etc.) are promoting environmental sustainability in agriculture. Many indicators (e.g., greenhouse gases emissions, blue water consumption, nitrogen and phosphorus application, non-renewable energy use, biodiversity footprint, land use, acidification potential, etc.) have traditionally been proposed to assess the impact of agriculture on environmental sustainability. Interestingly, Jwaideh and Dalin (2025) recently developed PLANTdex, a crop environmental sustainability index that includes globally standardized indicators of environmental impacts assessing water stress and biodiversity loss via five emissions pathways, i.e., greenhouse gas emissions, water consumption, land occupation, and nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer application. Likewise, since agriculture and human health are closely linked in many ways (Hawkes and Ruel, 2006), a variety of indicators are often used to measure this link, e.g., microbial contamination (Salmonella, Escherichia coli, Listeria, etc.), vitamin and mineral content, pesticide and antibiotic residues, metal contaminants, presence of mycotoxins, etc.

In response to the question above, below are three examples (i.e., antibiotic resistance, use of pesticides, plant biodiversity) to show that the One Health approach can indeed contribute, actually it is already contributing, to a more sustainable and resilient agriculture, and, in this way, to the health of people, animals, plants, and the environment. It seems appropriate to start with an example based on the archetype of One Health: antibiotic resistance. Actually, antibiotic resistance has been claimed to be the quintessential One Health issue (Robinson et al., 2016).

2.1 Antibiotic resistance

The term antimicrobial resistance (AMR) refers to the fact that many pathogenic bacteria, fungi, parasites, and viruses do not longer respond to antimicrobial compounds. Due to their criticality for human and animal medicine, a criticality that is certainly difficult to overstate, antibiotic resistance is the main focus of many antimicrobial resistance initiatives. Apart from their role in the control of infectious bacteria, antibiotics are a central element of modern medicine, since chemotherapy, transplantation, surgery, and many other medical practices depend, to a great extent, on the availability of effective antibiotics. Antibiotic consumption showed a 16.3% increase (from 29.5 to 34.3 billion defined daily doses) from 2016 to 2023, reflecting a 10.6% increase in the consumption rate from 13.7 to 15.2 defined daily doses per 1,000 inhabitants per day (Klein et al., 2024). It has been estimated that by 2030 global antibiotic consumption will increase by 52.3% from an estimated 49.3 billion in 2023 to 75.1 billion defined daily doses in 2030 (Klein et al., 2024). Regrettably, the use, abuse, and inappropriate use of antibiotics have caused, and keep on causing, the emergence and spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria (ARB), owing mainly to evolutionary selection pressure on antibiotic-exposed bacteria. Disturbingly, some ARB show resistance to many (multiresistant) or even all (panresistant) known antibiotics. Thus, the WHO repeatedly warns that the existence of antimicrobial resistance is one of the most important public health problems. The most tragic outcome is unquestionably the irreparable loss of human lives. It is estimated that, in 2021, 4.7 million deaths were associated with bacterial antimicrobial resistance and 1.14 million deaths were attributable to bacterial antimicrobial resistance (GBD 2021 Antimicrobial Resistance Collaborators, 2024). In the period 1990–2021, meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus increased the most: from 261,000 associated deaths and 57,200 attributable deaths in 1990 to 550,000 associated deaths and 130,000 attributable deaths in 2021. Regarding Gram-negative bacteria, resistance to carbapenems increased more than any other antibiotic class, from 619,000 associated deaths in 1990 to 1.03 million associated deaths in 2021, and from 127,000 attributable deaths in 1990 to 216,000 attributable deaths in 2021 (GBD 2021 Antimicrobial Resistance Collaborators, 2024). If no action is taken, it has been estimated that, by the year 2050, antimicrobial resistant microbes could kill more than 10 million people each year, making them the leading cause of death, even before heart disease or cancer (O’Neill, 2016). Understandably, most of the attention garnered by the antibiotic resistance problem has been directed to hospital settings. But 70–80% of the antibiotics used worldwide are administered to animals, not humans (Schar et al., 2020; Van Boeckel et al., 2017). Most antibiotics administered to humans and livestock are not fully metabolized and, in consequence, they are released, together with their transformation products, into the environment along with the faeces and urine (Kumar et al., 2005). As a consequence, disturbingly, the environment is now one of the main reservoirs of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) (Larsson and Flach, 2022). This is a matter of the utmost concern because the environmental and human resistomes (note: the resistome encompasses “all types of ARGs, their precursors, and some potential resistance mechanisms within microbial communities that require evolution or alterations in the expression context to confer resistance”; Kim and Cha, 2021) are connected, as reflected by the fact that ARGs are shared among humans and the environment (Lim et al., 2018). We scientists are sometimes accused of being alarmist (it is fiendishly difficult not to be when one is alarmed), but the magnitude and seriousness of the data on antimicrobial resistance compel us, as a deontological obligation, to adequately emphasize the significance and urgency of the antibiotic resistance problem through direct language, because, to put it plainly, it would be dishonest and unethical to do otherwise. This does not mean framing serious problems, such as the one in question, as a dichotomy between dystopia (coming in various options: post-apocalyptic, eco-dystopia, Orwellian, Huxleyan, Kafkaesque, Phildickian, etc.) vs. eutopia, but rather treating citizens with respect for their sensibleness, maturity, and personal growth. For example, and leaving antibiotic resistance aside for a moment, to merely state that the degradation of the biosphere is a problem would be a monumental and imprudent understatement; it is an existential threat, a global catastrophic risk, a civilization-threatening phenomenon.

Returning to the subject at hand, within agroecosystems, although antibiotics are mainly used for animal health and production purposes, they are also used to combat plant disease (e.g., to control fire blight caused by Erwinia amylovora in fruit trees, or Huanglongbing disease—citrus greening disease—in commercial citrus caused by “Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus”) (Miller et al., 2022). Regarding livestock, as indicated above, it must be emphasized that 70–80% of the antibiotics are administered to animals for veterinary or food production purposes (Schar et al., 2020; Van Boeckel et al., 2017). Pertaining to animals intended for human food production, the use of antibiotics can leave residues or metabolites in meat, milk, eggs, etc. (De Briyne et al., 2014). But antibiotics are often poorly metabolized in animal bodies and, as a consequence, 30–90% of the administered dose can be excreted through urine and faeces (Sarmah et al., 2006). Therefore, the use of animal manure, slurry, and compost as organic fertilizers, a very common agricultural practice (Epelde et al., 2018; Urra et al., 2019), can result in soil contamination with antibiotics and their transformation products, as well as with ARB and ARGs (Jauregi et al., 2021b; 2023). Antibiotics and their transformation products then exert a selective pressure on exposed soil bacteria, resulting in the emergence and dissemination of ARB and ARGs in manure-amended soils (Urra et al., 2019). Interestingly, the use of inorganic nitrogen fertilizers has also been often linked to the presence of ARGs in agricultural soils (Cui et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2020, 2025). It is very important to highlight that not all ARGs pose serious threats to public health; actually, many genes believed to confer antibiotic resistance are ubiquitous in bacteria, where they can fulfill different roles, such as efflux systems or cell–cell signaling (Zhang A. N. et al., 2021). Much more attention must then be paid to the identification, among the thousands of presumptive ARGs, of high-risk ARGs with high enrichment in human-associated environments, high mobility, and host pathogenicity (Zhang A. N. et al., 2021).

Antibiotic resistant bacteria and ARGs can then be transferred to crop plants intended for human consumption with potential risks for human health (Jauregi et al., 2021b; 2023). Specifically, one of the main concerns is for ARGs from environmental bacteria (e.g., manure, soil, or plant bacteria) to be transferred by horizontal gene transfer (HGT) to a potential human bacterial pathogen. Horizontal gene transfer can occur via a variety of mobile genetic elements (MGEs), such as plasmids, transposons, integrative conjugative elements, phages, integrons, genomic islands, etc. (Álvarez-Rodríguez et al., 2020). Also, antibiotic residues present in manure fertilizers can affect soil microbial communities (Cycoń et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2023), with concomitant effects for soil processes and soil ecosystem functioning, as microorganisms are known to have a key role in soil functioning and, hence, soil health.

On the other hand, soil microbiomes are known to be connected to crop microbiomes (after all, soil is the ultimate source from which plants recruit microorganisms for the rhizosphere, phyllosphere, and endosphere), and later to human microbiomes via food ingestion (Blum et al., 2019; Hirt, 2020). Thus, it is readily apparent than the use of antibiotics for livestock health purposes can potentially affect, through for instance the use of animal manure as organic fertilizer, soil health (and, hence, environmental health), plant health, and human health, which justifies to name antibiotic resistance the quintessential One Health issue (Robinson et al., 2016). Although it is not the subject of this article, it is difficult to overstate the importance of conserving and protecting agricultural soil, e.g., from erosion, contamination, compaction, salinization, etc., for the functionality and long-term sustainability of agroecosystems. Here, it must be remembered that 95% of global food production depends on the presence of healthy soils, thus making access to fertile soil a crucial factor in the fight against hunger (Anlauf et al., 2024). Upsettingly, worldwide, around one-third of soils are degraded and in the European Union more than 60% of soils are now classified as damaged (Anlauf et al., 2024). This leads to the imperative and urgent need to promote agricultural systems that, among other sustainable practices, encourage minimum tillage or no-tillage and avoid fallow periods keeping the soil covered with vegetation at all times, using for example cover crops or green manure.

Simplifying, there are two main antibiotic-resistance routes of connection among the four health spheres: (1) antibiotics and their residues, as well as ARB and ARGs, can move from livestock to its urine and faeces, then to soil, to crops, and, finally, to humans; and (ii) the microbiomes of livestock, manure, soil, crops, and humans are connected, which implies that, for instance, their alteration caused by antibiotic use in animal production systems can then be transferred to the other microbiomes. Nowadays, the established importance of microbiomes for human, animal, plants, and soil health is a matter of much research and interest (Banerjee and van der Heijden, 2023; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2024; Ma et al., 2023).

Nonetheless, there are many other routes of possible connection among the four health spheres in different directions. For instance, many crops are used for animal feed, thus connecting plants and animals in the opposite direction to the one mentioned above (from plants to animals vs. from animals to plants), concerning both antibiotic resistance and microbiome alterations. On the other hand, grazing livestock animals are known to ingest soil while eating, thus opening a link from soils to animals. Similarly, human soil ingestion, the involuntary or voluntary consumption of soil by humans, is an exposure route for contaminants, including both chemical (e.g., antibiotics and their transformation products) and biological (ARB, ARGs) emerging contaminants. It is advisable to bring to mind here that biological contaminants, unlike chemical contaminants, can make copies of themselves and, if we are addressing ARGs in particular, they can also be transferred by HGT from non-pathogenic to human pathogenic bacteria. Also, after crop harvest, the decomposition of roots, and if it is the case the decomposition of stubble, opens another route of transmission of ARGs and altered microbiomes from plants to soils. Likewise, the soil is linked to aquifers through, for example, soil water erosion, as well as to the atmosphere through soil wind erosion, thus opening up routes of exposure among environmental compartments, which in turn are also connected to plants, animals, and humans, potentially affecting their health. There is even possibility of connection in the direction “from humans to plants,” as sewage sludge from wastewater treatment facilities is used as organic fertilizer (Jauregi et al., 2021a), thus linking the chemical and biological emerging contaminants present in human faeces and urine with the different agroecosystem compartments (soil, plants, animals). Alas, wastewater treatment plants are not designed to efficiently remove emerging contaminants and, then, they are regarded as hotspot for the emergence and dissemination of antibiotic resistance (Rizzo et al., 2013), with potential environmental risks for aquatic ecosystems receiving their effluents and, concomitantly, for human health via ingestion of river or sea water, food (e.g., fish, algae, shellfish) or other routes of exposure. Antibiotic residues can also be directly discharged, together with ARB and ARGs, into the aquatic environment through untreated wastewaters. Sewage sludge is a source of ARGs and MGEs, resulting in an increased risk of antibiotic resistance dissemination (Jauregi et al., 2021a). Besides, the use of treated wastewater for irrigation, an increasingly common practice in areas where climate change is causing prolonged extreme droughts, poses a similar risk of spreading antibiotic resistance from humans to agroecosystems (Gatica and Cytryn, 2013). It must be taken into consideration that, according to some estimations, the rates of wastewater production will increase by 50% by 2050 (Soo and Shon, 2024). Due to climate change-derived droughts, many countries are already adopting water reuse for agricultural irrigation (Hashem and Qi, 2021). The market for reclaimed water is globally dominated by agricultural irrigation uses (32%) (Expósito et al., 2024).

As can be seen, there are numerous possible connections among the four health spheres, all of which potentially relevant to the health of people, animals, plants, and ecosystems. But, probably, one of the most worrying is the transmission of antibiotic-resistant zoonotic pathogens between animals and humans (Dafale et al., 2020). More than 60% of known infectious diseases are zoonotic in origin, and ca. 75% of new diseases originate from wild or domestic animals (Karesh et al., 2012; Salyer et al., 2017). Zoonotic diseases affect more than two billion people globally each year, causing approximately two million deaths and huge economic losses (Sun et al., 2024). This risk is particularly high in countries and farms where there is close contact between humans and livestock. In particular, much attention must be paid to the risk of zoonosis with multidrug-resistant bacteria and zoonotic clinically relevant WHO priority pathogens (Meade et al., 2024). Attention must also be paid to potential transmission of antibiotic resistance at the wildlife-livestock interface (Lee et al., 2022), since cattle often graze on pastures that are shared by a variety of wildlife species, allowing for cross-species transmission of bacteria through either direct contact or indirect mechanisms (e.g., via shared food or water sources).

How can we use the One Health approach, an approach that encourages and drives us to pay attention to all these antibiotic resistance links between people, animals, plants, and ecosystems, to improve the environmental sustainability and resilience of agroecosystems? As abovementioned, the lack of or insufficient environmental sustainability is probably the main source of criticism and controversy for agriculture. There is no doubt that much of the agricultural activity carried out to date has had a considerable impact on the environment, nature, and the ecosystem services on which our survival and well-being depend (Fusco et al., 2023; Ma et al., 2022). Although it has been recognized for decades that agricultural activity has a significant impact on the environment and nature (e.g., contamination from an excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides, loss of biodiversity and habitats, greenhouse gas emissions, etc.), the reality is that insufficient progress has been made during this period, in terms of environmental sustainability, to minimize such impact. In agriculture, as in many other areas, it is clear that the three pillars of sustainability are inextricably linked, but the insufficient, unsatisfactory progress in the environmental sustainability pillar can be explained, in large part, by the everlasting conflicts “production vs. conservation,” “economy vs. ecology,” “short-term vs. long-term benefits,” “anthropocentric vs. bio-ecocentric approach,” and alike. Due to our nature as humans, it is common for us to get caught up and mired in sundry Byzantine discussions, dogmatic stubbornness, ideological diatribes, cognitive biases, cultural prejudices, more or less spurious interests, and so on. But it is time to embrace the “cooperation is better than conflict” motto, it is time to overcome fictitious dualities and simplistic visions, it is time to overcome ontological reductionism, it is time to deconstruct false dichotomies that present different entities and categories as opposing ontological planes, and it is about time to overcome the erroneous, obsolete, and pernicious conflict “economy vs. ecology”; after all, economy depends on nature, natural resources, and ecosystem services (Costanza et al., 1997; Dardonville et al., 2022). The never-ending contention between production and conservation in agricultural forums is surely, like many others, a topic with many facets, imperfections, uncertainties, and grey areas, but it is also true that there are some “whites,” the most important being that, for agriculture to survive in the long term and not be replaced, partially or utterly, by innovative food production systems (e.g., indoor, soil-less, high-tech, food-production systems), it must minimize its environmental impact and respect and promote biodiversity and the ecological processes on which the functional integrity of ecosystems and the biosphere depend. Alternately, corporate food production systems might even envision agricultural farms without farmers, supporting and justifying their view and strategy, at least in part, on the lack of or insufficient environmental sustainability of many current agricultural systems. It is definitely not easy to change the way we see and do things, and that is why recalcitrance to change in farmers and agronomists is a common phenomenon, but we must not forget that recognizing our limits, acknowledging our mistakes, being aware of our ignorance (remember Socrates), questioning our certainties, setting aside our prejudices, understanding that some differences make a difference, fathoming that we are often tightly tethered by our limited experiences, practicing respectful dialogue, and embracing intellectual humility are not only crucial for progress, for survival in times of uncertainty, for opening windows of opportunity, but also are the key to the lock of knowledge and continuous learning. Leaving aside the complexity of this extant debate, what does seem clear is that all of us, or at least the vast majority, are concerned about our own health. Therefore, it is very likely that those who, for various reasons, are not concerned about the degradation of ecosystems, the environmental pollution, or the health of plants or animals, are instead deeply concerned about their own health and that of their loved ones. This is where the One Health approach comes in to promote the environmental sustainability of agricultural practices, as it teaches us that the same agricultural practices that threaten the health of the environment and ecosystems also directly or indirectly can degrade our own health. And we are not talking about minor health issues, but rather, as we have seen above, some of the most significant medical problems of our time (e.g., antimicrobial resistance) are linked to agricultural practices. If your ethics are focused exclusively on humans, without considering any of the other species with which we share this planet (on which, incidentally, we depend for our survival) or ecosystems or the biosphere in general, you should still be very concerned about the environmental impact of agricultural practices because, as the One Health concept emphasizes, they can have an adverse effect, to a lesser or greater extent, on human health.

In relation to the possibility that the One Health approach will boost interest in the resilience of agroecosystems, soil health is a topic of utmost importance. There is no doubt that soil is one of the most critical components for sustainable agriculture and resilient agroecosystems. Without entering into the debate on the meaning and appropriateness of the term resilience, as opposed to, for example, ecological stability in its three-fold component of resistance, resilience, and tolerance (nor into the “biodiversity-resilience” debate, which, in turn, involves considering the debate on the concept of biodiversity), to simplify, we can assume that biodiversity contributes to the resilience of ecosystems, particularly the resilience of the soil ecosystem. Currently, within more sustainable agricultural systems (e.g., regenerative agriculture, agroecology, etc.), a great deal of attention is being paid to soil biota and, specifically, to the diversity of microorganisms, microfauna, mesofauna, and macrofauna. Soil is likely home to 59 ± 15% of the species on Earth, with an estimation of 9.5 × 10⁵, 4.3 × 10⁸, and 3.3 × 10⁹ bacterial species in soil at the lower, central, and upper level of prediction, respectively (Anthony et al., 2023). The relationship between soil bacterial diversity and the problem of antibiotic resistance can be addressed by conceptualizing the ARB present in organic fertilizers as invasive species. In this sense, a high diversity of microorganisms (e.g., bacterial species) in the soil receiving the organic fertilizers can act as a barrier to the establishment and subsequent spread of the invasive ARB (a way to preempt the invasion), through mechanisms of antibiosis or competition for nutrients and space. Thus, those agricultural practices that promote soil microbial diversity can help us in the fight against the spread of ARB and ARGs. Although, logically, when talking about ARB the first association that comes to mind when discussing soil biodiversity is soil bacterial species, Garbisu and Alkorta (2023) reported that, when ARB enter soils as a result of the application of organic fertilizers, it is crucial to know their fate along the soil food web, that is, throughout that network of feeding interactions among members of the soil biota that has decisive effects on species richness and ecosystem productivity and stability. In other words, it is essential to study how the ARB that enter the soil, via for instance manure application, can reach other taxonomical groups (such as fungi, protists, nematodes, arthropods, and earthworms), and to pay special attention to their presence in the gut microbiomes of mesofauna and macrofauna, as well as to the risk for HGT of ARGs.

On the other hand, among the threats to our health, we tend to fear pathogens (bacteria, viruses, etc.) more than the usually delayed effects that certain chemical contaminants can have on our health, unless the latter are extremely toxic. Therefore, the problem of ARB is a perfect example of the impact of certain agricultural practices on our health, beyond their environmental unsustainability. Perhaps the debate is not “economy vs. ecology” but “economy vs. human health.” It is certainly worth reflecting on. In any event, the reality is that this dichotomy (economy vs. human health, which could also be accompanied by similar dichotomies, e.g., economy vs. survival or economy vs. civilizational collapse) is as false as the one commonly put forward by many of “economy vs. ecology” (production vs. conservation), because there are unquestionable connections between the economy and human health. Possibly, the most important thing to remember is that choosing one of the two extremes (economy or ecology, production or conservation) is easy and does not require much effort. What is truly complex and commendable is “sustainably balancing and optimizing” both issues, just like the challenge posed by the One Health approach with the four spheres of health. Interestingly, reducing dichotomous thinking (“black and white thinking,” a cognitive distortion in which we see things dichotomously) has been reported to foster intellectual humility; and fostering dialectical thinking can represent a feasible approach to boosting intellectual humility, thus freeing us from the grip of our egos, and allow people to appreciate the shades of grey between the boundaries of black and white (O’Connor et al., 2025). Of course, this does not mean that, in the face of these debates, we should show equidistance, but rather equanimity. Finally, it should be mentioned that, like many other problems, the issue of antibiotic resistance affects developing countries with fewer resources much more severely, as they woefully lack the economic and clinical means to deal with infections caused by resistant bacteria, especially those that are multi-resistant or pan-resistant. Once again, this is an issue of great ethical relevance, even for those who are exclusively human-centered.

2.2 Use of pesticides

Although it is true that we are usually more concerned about human pathogens than chemical contaminants, a second example of the usefulness of the One Health approach in promoting sustainable agriculture, given its relevance in agriculture, is the use of pesticides (note: also, the contamination of water by nitrate, resulting largely from the widespread use of nitrogenous fertilizers, has traditionally been a topic of much concern; Garbisu et al., 1992). Among the main inputs used in agriculture (i.e., water for irrigation, fertilizers, and pesticides), synthetic chemical pesticides are, in all probability, the most controversial in terms of their (eco)toxic impact on biota, ecosystems, and humans. After all, chemical pesticides (herbicides, insecticides, fungicides) are biocides specifically designed to kill or limit the growth of organisms considered pests due to their potential negative effect on agricultural crop output. As indicated above, 80% of European agricultural soils contain pesticide residues, with 58% of them presenting a mixture of pesticides residues (FAO and UNEP, 2021). According to the FAO (FAO, 2024), in 2022, the use of pesticides in agriculture was 3.70 million tonnes of active ingredients, i.e., a 4% increase with respect to 2021, a 13% increase in a decade, and a doubling since 1990. Importantly, between 1990 and 2022, the use of pesticides per cropland area increased by 94%, the use per value of agricultural production by 5%, and, finally, the use per person by 35% (FAO, 2024).

Pesticides in agriculture are used specifically to protect plant health (i.e., the health of agricultural crops), but thanks to the One Health approach, increasing attention is being paid to their potential adverse effects on the health of animals, ecosystems, and people (Ahmad et al., 2024; Mesnage and Séralini, 2018; Shekhar et al., 2024). With regard to humans, there is particular concern about their adverse effects on the health of those who apply them (not rarely, the farmers themselves), as this activity can expose them to high doses of these biocides (Athukorala et al., 2023; de-Assis et al., 2021). Furthermore, society is becoming increasingly aware of the possible presence of pesticide residues in the food we consume, with potentially negative consequences for our health (Beyuo et al., 2024; Lazarević-Pašti et al., 2025). Regarding the presence of pesticides residues in the European Union, after analysing 12 of the most consumed food products in the EU, the European Food Safety Authority found that 99% of the analyzed samples were compliant with EU legislation: 70% were free of quantifiable levels of residues, 28% contained one or more residues within legal limits, and maximum residue levels were only exceeded in 2% of samples, of which 1% were non-compliant after taking into account the measurement uncertainty (EFSA, 2025). From a meta-analysis based on reputable international databases (Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science), Ahmadi et al. (2024) reported that (i) the mean pesticide concentration in vegetables was 0.24 mg kg⁻¹; and (ii) the concentration of pesticides in the studied vegetables followed the following order: fungicide > herbicide > ovacide > insecticide > acaricide > nematicide > miticide.

Moreover, the consumption of pesticide-treated plants by livestock can be an additional route of exposure to these biocides from plants to animals to the people who consume animal products, with adverse consequences for both animals and humans. Due to their ecotoxic nature, pesticides have negative effects on ecological processes on which the functional integrity of ecosystems depends, including the soil ecosystem (Swaine et al., 2025). There are numerous studies on the negative impact of pesticides on soil microorganisms and soil health (Lo, 2010; Muñoz-Leoz et al., 2013; Ni et al., 2025; Walder et al., 2022). Logically, the toxicity and ecotoxicity of pesticides depend on their composition, dosage, frequency, and timing and mode of application, among other factors (Riedo et al., 2025). Interestingly, it has been reported (Muñoz-Leoz et al., 2021) that fertilizers can modify pesticide degradation rates and their non-target effects on soil microbial communities. In relation to the archetype of the One Health concept (antibiotic resistance), cases of co-selection between pesticide and antibiotic resistance have been reported (Murray et al., 2024; Qiu et al., 2022; Xing et al., 2020, 2021). For example, it has been reported that the most widely used herbicide worldwide, i.e., glyphosate, can generate antibiotic resistance by co-selection mechanisms (Kurenbach et al., 2015; Liao et al., 2021; Raoult et al., 2021; Zhang H. et al., 2021), although other authors have questioned such findings (Bearson et al., 2025). It must be remembered that glyphosate, in addition to as a herbicide, was also patented as a metal chelator (in fact, it was initially patented as a metal chelator) and antimicrobial agent. Heavy metals have long been known to be capable of inducing antibiotic resistance by a variety of co-selection mechanisms (Engin et al., 2023; Gillieatt and Coleman, 2024; Zhang et al., 2018). Glyphosate inhibits the 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3 phosphate synthase, an enzyme in the shikimate pathway that is required for the synthesis of the aromatic amino acids, phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan (El-Mergawi et al., 2025). The shikimate pathway is a metabolic route crucial not only for plants but also for some microorganisms. Actually, although not found in mammals, the shikimate pathway is a metabolic pathway present in bacteria, archaea, and fungi, which can explain glyphosate adverse effects on soil microbial communities and, hence, soil health (de Bueno Mesquita et al., 2023; Li et al., 2025; Mijangos et al., 2009; Nguyen et al., 2016). As mentioned above, the microbiota of soil, plants, animals, and humans is connected by various routes and pathways, so the effects of glyphosate or any other pesticide on environmental or plant microbiota can ultimately have negative effects on the human microbiota, particularly our gut microbiota, which, as is well known, plays a key role in our physical and mental health.

Again, for those who are not concerned about the environmental or ecological impact of pesticides, the One Health approach serves as a vital reminder that their adverse effects on human health go beyond the possible presence of toxic pesticide residues in food products or their direct effect on those workers involved in their application, as we may all end up suffering from an antibiotic-resistant bacterial infection linked to pesticide use by co-selection or a disease resulting from an alteration (dysbiosis) of our gut microbiota related to the ecotoxicity of pesticides on microbiota. Therefore, agricultural systems that promote the reduction, rationalisation or elimination of chemical pesticides (e.g., organic farming, agroecology, regenerative agriculture, etc.), via management practices, precision farming, or the use of biostimulants (microorganisms with the capacity for biocontrol of phytopathogens), not only have a beneficial impact on the environment and the health of agroecosystems, but also on our health. Undoubtedly, focusing on the various links between pesticide use and human health can stimulate the sustainability of agroecosystems under the One Health framework.

2.3 Plant biodiversity

As a third and final example of the usefulness of the One Health approach in promoting agricultural sustainability and resilience, we raise here the issue of the conservation and promotion of plant biodiversity (i.e., diversity of crops, varieties, hedges, hedgerows, tree and flower islands, segetal plants, etc.) (Kratschmer et al., 2024; Sutcliffe et al., 2024; Tscharntke et al., 2024) often discussed in the context of pollinators and auxiliary fauna (Bishop et al., 2023; Garratt et al., 2017). The One Health approach encourages us to realize that plant biodiversity in agricultural settings, beyond benefiting pollinators and auxiliary fauna with the advantages that this entails (insects have a key ecological role in trophic webs and the presence of auxiliary fauna helps control phytopathogens, thereby reducing the need for the application of pesticides), also plays a key role in the sustainability and resilience of agroecosystems. From the point of view of agroecosystem resilience, among all the many components of biodiversity (e.g., genetic, phylogenetic, species, ecosystems, functional, structural, traits, complementarity, etc.), perhaps the one most frequently highlighted in agricultural forums is intraspecific genetic diversity. Intraspecific and intra-variety genetic diversity is fundamental for the much needed adaptation of our crops to climate change and, in general, to global change.

Crop rotation and diversification, in addition to opening up alternative business opportunities to traditional crops, as well as their well-known benefits in terms of enhancing soil fertility and minimizing pest and disease incidence, are key in this same sense, that is, to provide resilience and guarantee food supply in an era marked by climate change in which droughts, heat waves, emerging pests, etc. will put food production at risk in many areas of our planet (Gregory et al., 2005; Leisner, 2020). Also, a more varied and balanced diet of agricultural crops can be beneficial for the health of both animals and humans, by guaranteeing the intake of a wide range of essential nutrients and microbiota vital for the proper functioning of the body in general and the immune system in particular.

Likewise, plant biodiversity generates a variety of different niches in the soil, as a result of the different types of roots and exudates, with the consequent benefit in terms of belowground biodiversity and, hence, soil health (De Deyn and Van der Putten, 2005; Gao et al., 2024; Hyvönen et al., 2021; Martins et al., 2024). Interestingly, a high soil microbial diversity can result in the control of phytopathogens as a consequence of the emergence of suppressiveness (Nishisaka et al., 2025; Todorović et al., 2023; van Elsas et al., 2012), thus reducing the need for pesticides. Importantly, soil microbial diversity determines the invasion of soil by bacterial pathogens (van Elsas et al., 2012), a phenomenon which can be applied to the possibility of soil invasion by ARB present in, for instance, organic manure or sewage sludge. It has been reported that a high soil microbial diversity can act as a biological barrier against the propagation of ARB and ARGs throughout the soil ecosystem (Chen et al., 2019). Accordingly, soil microbial diversity has been claimed to be an important factor in limiting the success of invasion and proliferation of ARB (Goryluk-Salmonowicz and Popowska, 2022; van Elsas et al., 2007, 2012).

Also, a high diversity of plant species increases the possibility that, when faced with adverse growing conditions, some of them will be able to tolerate the disturbances and continue growing, thus controlling soil erosion and ensuring the entry of vital organic matter into the soil. Similarly, a high species richness of plants in agroecosystems, achieved through hedges, trees, flower islands, etc., often promotes the presence of fauna (birds, small mammals, reptiles, etc.) as a result of the creation of habitats. Concerning the topic under consideration, it is pertinent to underline that the present loss of biodiversity has been linked to an increased risk of human exposure to new and already established zoonotic pathogens, by means of, for instance, the so-called dilution effect (Civitello et al., 2015; Keesing and Ostfeld, 2021; McCallum, 2015); for a critique, see Randolph and Dobson (2012). And. logically, the lower the number of infections, the lower the need for antibiotics. Also, when biodiversity is adversely affected, the species most likely to disappear are often large-bodied species with slower life histories; instead, smaller-bodied species with fast life histories tend to increase in abundance and these fast-lived species are more likely to spread zoonotic pathogens (Hutchings et al., 2012; Keesing and Young, 2014; Plourde et al., 2017). In consequence, zoonotic pathogens can arrive from taxa that proliferate as a result of human impact on biodiversity (Keesing and Ostfeld, 2021).

But one of the most important harmful impact of the loss of soil microbial biodiversity stems from the fact that most of the antibiotics we use today were found in soil bacteria, in particular soil actinobacteria, and then with every soil bacterial species that becomes extinct, we are decreasing the probability of discovering new antibiotics (note: mainly for commercial reasons, there has been a dearth of new classes of antibiotics for decades). Relevantly, as a consequence of decades of research on soil actinobacteria, over 5,000 compounds have been reported from this group of Gram-positive bacteria that contributed to the development of 90% of the commercial antibiotics being used for either clinical or research needs (Jose and Jha, 2016). Streptomyces, a genus of Gram-positive actinobacteria, is well-known for its outstanding capacity to produce antibiotics and similar bioactive secondary metabolites, such as antifungals, antivirals, etc. (de Lima Procópio et al., 2012). In an attempt to estimate the number of undiscovered antimicrobials from Streptomyces, Watve et al. (2001) concluded that this bacterial genus was capable of producing around 100,000 antimicrobial compounds. Another key taxonomic group of soil biota, i.e., fungi, can produce a wide range of antibiotics and other bioactive compounds with pharmaceutical applications (Nielsen et al., 2017). Not surprisingly, since there is an emerging realization that the Earth’s microbial biodiversity is under threat, several authors advocate for the conservation and restoration of soil microorganisms (Averill et al., 2022).

Once again, linking plant biodiversity to human health (through the reduction in pesticide use due to the presence of auxiliary fauna; the suppression of phytopathogens and, therefore, the reduction in phytosanitary products and their impact in terms of toxicity; the dilution effect for the control of zoonosis; the beneficial effects for human health in terms of nutrients and microbiota; etc.), within the One Health approach, can stimulate the use of sustainable agricultural practices that maintain and promote plant biodiversity. In this respect, we must not forget that agriculture is an important cause of the biodiversity crisis. Within the land-sparing vs. land-sharing debate (Fischer et al., 2014; Sidemo-Holm et al., 2021), it has been reported that intensifying farming does not lead to sparing more biodiversity-rich land, since higher yields are a great incentive to expand agriculture (Tscharntke et al., 2024). Although, theoretically speaking, agricultural intensification could allow land-sparing for wilderness and biodiversity, the sad reality is that land-sparing hardly ever happens without stringent explicit enforcement of specifically related set-aside policies (Daum et al., 2023; Goulart et al., 2023). Lamentably, some people interpret the term land-sparing as a green light to do whatever one wants in the areas dedicated to high-yield farming, without any concern for ecological impacts (Garbisu et al., 2025).

3 Conclusion

In the previous section, three examples have been used to emphasize how the One Health approach can facilitate the achievement of one of the most important challenges, but not an insurmountable one, in agriculture: its ecological transition towards a form of agriculture that is much more respectful of the environment, ecosystems, ecological processes and, in general, biodiversity and the functioning of the biosphere. Apart from these three examples (antibiotic resistance, use of pesticides, and plant diversity), we have also discussed the critical importance of protecting the soil and promoting its biodiversity. Interestingly, many of the practices recommended and promoted for a more sustainable agriculture are also proposed when agricultural systems are analyzed from a One Health perspective, i.e., no-tillage or minimum tillage; reduction in the application of pesticides and fertilizers via the use of biostimulants with plant growth-promoting microorganisms or through innovative precision agriculture techniques and strategies; increase plant diversity (e.g., use of multispecies cover crops, creation of edge habitats, flowering fields, combination of annuals and perennials); elimination of bare soil and fallow events; rotational grazing to enhance soil health; incorporation to the soil of high-quality organic matter to provide nutrients and sequester carbon, increase the soil’s water holding potential, enhance soil structure, stimulate soil biological activity, etc.; and so on.

In recent years, the concept of “living labs” has gained burgeoning interest in the field of research. The European Network of Livings Labs has defined them as “open innovation ecosystems in real-life environments based on a systematic user co-creation approach that integrates research and innovation activities in communities and/or multi-stakeholder environments, placing citizens and/or end-users at the centre of the innovation process”.¹ As such, they are real-life test and experimentation environments, where co-creation and open innovation among the main actors (e.g., academia, industry, citizens, government) is fostered. Based on this concept of Living Labs, we propose here that agroecosystems are ideal candidates for creating One Health Living Labs, given that many of them involve people (farmers), animals (livestock), plants (crops), and ecosystems (e.g., the soil ecosystem). The ultimate goal of these living labs would be to learn how to integrate and balance the health of people, animals, plants, and ecosystems for their sustainable functioning. In this regard, experts in human health (medical doctors), animal health (veterinarians), plant health (plant physiologists, agronomists), and soil health (agronomists, soil scientists, soil ecologists, etc.), among others, should closely collaborate within these agricultural One Health Living Labs, together with other stakeholders (first and foremost, farmers, without them the living labs would be doomed to fail, but also citizens as food consumers, managers, administration, etc.), to try to sustainability balance and optimize the four health spheres covered under the One Health paradigm through the exchange of knowledge and points of view, some mundane, some significant, and some even game-changing.

Science is largely a collective human activity and, in the same way, the success of these living labs depends on all of us understanding that they need to be collective enterprises. Given the nature, casuistry, and crucial relevance of agroecosystems, both environmentally-speaking and for the human species itself (as providers of our food), it is difficult to imagine better settings for One Health Living Labs, especially when we are talking about large-scale farms.

However, to sustainably balance and optimize the four health spheres, we all need to evolve in relation to our vision of the agricultural world, while remaining both pragmatic and idealistic (head and heart working in tandem), but painstakingly even-handed and marshalling our ideas rationally without chasing ghosts. For example, it is vital to change the view of those who still view the soil as an inert matrix, rather than a matrix teeming with hidden life and home to an enormous underground biodiversity. It is sad to think that, probably, many farmers have never experienced a fully functioning soil, in part due to the negative impact of many agricultural practices on the soil biota. The soil is still a largely unknown ecosystem, in part owing to the limitations of the current analytical tools and the lack of solid theoretical foundations that are preventing us from understanding it (Garbisu et al., 2024). We must compellingly support soil research, particularly that research characterized by multidisciplinary character, creativity, critical thinking, and holistic vision (Garbisu et al., 2024). After all, there are still many questions on soil functioning to which the state of scientific knowledge gives only dim glimpses of.

Although living labs are indeed contemplated as real-life test and experimentation environments, that does not mean that they only need to pay attention to practical aspects of innovation. They should also focus on the pursuit of theoretical knowledge, as theory and praxis feed into each other. Besides, we need (i) both vision and action (actions change our beliefs, as much as beliefs change our actions); (ii) a combination of conceptual substance and practical knowledge as the key to responding to the current agricultural challenges (knowledge is often a salutary antidote to eventually disastrous or catastrophic societal tendencies); and (iii) research and innovations born of necessity and curiosity, for agricultural models that heal the future as opposed to those that steal the future. Importantly, on pain of vacuity, these living labs must devise a methodology for a proper assessment of what is relevant for sustainably balancing and optimizing the four health spheres under the specific circumstances of the agricultural system under consideration. Not all a priori sustainable practices are good everywhere and at all times, and hence their supposed benefits must be corroborated for the specific agroecosystem under consideration (Garbisu et al., 2025).

It is then crucial that, as soon as possible, we learn to sustainably balance and optimize the four health spheres as requested by the One Health approach, even more so when the Quadripartite reminds us of the commonalities and synergies between One Health and the United Nations Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework, and in particular the Sustainable Development Goals 2030 (FAO, UNEP, WHO, and WOAH, 2023). And, to this purpose, agricultural One Health Living Labs show much promise and potential. It is possible that we will not always beget “win-win-win-win” outcomes (there is no rose without thorns, no ointment without a fly) but the One Health vision encourages us to look for them.

Implementing an agricultural One Health Living Lab will involve not only the usual challenges associated with any Living Lab (e.g., aligning interests among the different actors, maintaining participation and funding over time, managing expectations and conflicts, defining suitable indicators, demarcating decision-making processes, infrastructure costs, etc.) but also those specifically associated with farming systems, such as the limited time and availability of farmers, their possible lack of trust in researchers or other external actors, their reluctance to share farm data, their resistance to change and innovation, the plausible difficulty in balancing scientific rigor with farm practicality, the imperative need to translate scientific concepts and tools into farmer-friendly language and tools, the level of digital literacy of the different actors, the limited connectivity in some rural areas, etc. as well as the unique complexities of working under real field conditions, e.g., seasonal constraints, weather unpredictability, long innovation cycles, difficulties controlling experimental variables, etc.

References

• 1

  AdisasmitoW. B.AlmuhairiS.BehraveshC. B.BilivoguiP.BukachiS. A.CasasN.et al. (2022). One Health: a new definition for a sustainable and healthy future. PLoS Pathog.18:e1010537. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1010537,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  AhmadM. F.AhmadF. A.AlsayeghA. A.ZeyaullahM.AlShahraniA. M.MuzammilK.et al. (2024). Pesticides impacts on human health and the environment with their mechanisms of action and possible countermeasures. Heliyon10:e29128. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29128,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  AhmadiS.KhazaeiS.Fereshteh MehriF. (2024). The concentration of pesticide residues in vegetables: a systematic review and meta-analyses. J. Agric. Food Res.15:101027. doi: 10.1016/j.jafr.2024.101027

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  AlkortaI.AlbizuI.AmezagaI.OnaindiaM.BuchnerV.GarbisuC. (2004). Climbing a ladder: a step-by-step approach to understanding the concept of agroecosystem health. Rev. Environ. Health19, 141–159. doi: 10.1515/reveh.2004.19.2.141,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  AlkortaI.AlbizuI.GarbisuC. (2003). Biodiversity and agroecosystems. Biodivers. Conserv.12, 2521–2522. doi: 10.1023/A:1025872003951

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  AlkortaI.GarbisuC. (2024). Expanding the focus of the One Health concept: links between the earth-system processes of the planetary boundaries framework and antibiotic resistance. Rev. Environ. Health40, 159–173. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2024-0013,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  Álvarez-RodríguezI.AranaL.Ugarte-UribeB.Gómez-RubioE.Martín-SantamaríaS.GarbisuC.et al. (2020). Type IV coupling proteins as potential targets to control the dissemination of antibiotic resistance. Front. Mol. Biosci.7:201. doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2020.0020

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  AnlaufA.BabaK.BassermannL.BetgeD.BrunnerJ.CastilloV.et al. (2024). “Soil atlas. Facts and figures about a vital resources” in Soil Atlas 2024. eds. LiugL.Stiem-BhatiaL.. 1st ed (Berlin: Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung & TMG Think Thank for Sustainability), 56.

  • Google Scholar

• 9

  AnthonyM. A.BenderS. F.van der HeijdenM. G. A. (2023). Enumerating soil biodiversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.120:e2304663120. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2304663120,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  AthukoralaW.LeeB. L.WilsonC.FujiiH.ManagiS. (2023). Measuring the impact of pesticide exposure on farmers’ health and farm productivity. Econ. Anal. Policy77, 851–862. doi: 10.1016/j.eap.2022.12.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  AverillC.AnthonyM. A.BaldrianP.FinkbeinerF.van den HoogenJ.KiersT.et al. (2022). Defending Earth’s terrestrial microbiome. Nat. Microbiol.7, 1717–1725. doi: 10.1038/s41564-022-01228-3,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  BakonyiT.HaussigJ. M. (2020). West Nile virus keeps on moving up in Europe. Euro Surveill.25:2001938. doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.46.2001938,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  BanerjeeS.van der HeijdenM. G. A. (2023). Soil microbiomes and One Health. Nat. Rev. Microbiol.21, 6–20. doi: 10.1038/s41579-022-00779-w

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  BearsonB. L.DouglassC. H.DukeS. O.MoormanT. B.TranelP. J. (2025). Effects of glyphosate on antibiotic resistance in soil bacteria and its potential significance: a review. J. Environ. Qual.54, 160–180. doi: 10.1002/jeq2.20655,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  BeyuoJ.SackeyL. N. A.YeboahC.KayoungP. Y.KoudadjeD. (2024). The implications of pesticide residue in food crops on human health: a critical review. Discov. Agric.2:123. doi: 10.1007/s44279-024-00141-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  BishopG. A.FijenT. P. M.DesposatoB. N.ScheperJ.KleijnD. (2023). Hedgerows have contrasting effects on pollinators and natural enemies and limited spillover effects on apple production. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.346:108364. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2023.108364,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  BlandW. L.BellM. M. (2007). A Holon approach to agroecology. Int. J. Agric. Sustain.5, 280–294. doi: 10.1080/14735903.2007.9684828

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  BlumW. E. H.Zechmeister-BoltensternS.KeiblingerK. M. (2019). Does soil contribute to the human gut microbiome?Microorganisms7:287. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms7090287,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  Bobo-PinillaJ.Marcos-WaliasJ.Delgado IglesiasJ.Reinoso-TapiaR. (2023). Overcoming plant blindness: are the future teachers ready?J. Biol. Educ.58, 1–15. doi: 10.1080/00219266.2023.2255197

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  BünemannE. K.BongiornoG.BaiZ.CreamerR. E.De DeynG.de GoeR.et al. (2018). Soil quality—a critical review. Soil Biol. Biochem.120, 105–125. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.01.030

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  BurghardtG. (2024). Jakob von Uexküll, heterophenomenology, and behavior systems I: core ethology and Merleau-Ponty. Biosemiotics17, 387–406. doi: 10.1007/s12304-024-09575-w,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  CandolinU.FilippiniT. (2025). Light pollution and its impact on human health and wildlife. BMC Environ. Sci.2:1. doi: 10.1186/s44329-025-00017-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  ChenQ. L.AnX. L.ZhengB. X.GillingsM.PeñuelasJ.CuiL.et al. (2019). Loss of soil microbial diversity exacerbates spread of antibiotic resistance. Soil Ecol. Lett.1, 3–13. doi: 10.1007/s42832-019-0011-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  ChenJ.ZhuB.ZhangY. (2023). A meta-analysis on the responses of soil microbial biomass and community structure to antibiotics. Appl. Soil Ecol.184:104786. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2022.104786

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  CivitelloD. J.CohenJ.FatimaH.RohrJ. R.LirianoJ.McMahonT. A.et al. (2015). Biodiversity inhibits parasites: broad evidence for the dilution effect. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.112, 8667–8671. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1506279112,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  ColoniusT. J.EarleyR. W. (2013). One welfare: a call to develop a broader framework of thought and action. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc.242, 309–310. doi: 10.2460/javma.242.3.309,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  CostanzaR. (1992). “Towards an operational definition of ecosystem health” in Ecosystem health: new goals for environmental management. ed. CostanzaR. (Washington, DC: Island Press), 237–256.

  • Google Scholar

• 28

  CostanzaR.d’ArgeR.de GrootR.FarberS.GrassoM.HannonB.et al. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature387, 253–260. doi: 10.1038/387253a0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  CuiE.ZhouZ.CuiB.FanX.AbidA. A.ChenT.et al. (2024). Effects of nitrogen fertilization on the fate of high-risk antibiotic resistance genes in reclaimed water-irrigated soil and plants. Environ. Int.190:108834. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2024.108834,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  CycońM.MrozikA.Piotrowska-SegetZ. (2019). Antibiotics in the soil environment-degradation and their impact on microbial activity and diversity. Front. Microbiol.10:338. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00338,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  DafaleN. A.SrivastavS.PurohitH. J. (2020). Zoonosis: an emerging link to antibiotic resistance under “One Health approach”. Indian J. Microbiol.60, 139–152. doi: 10.1007/s12088-020-00860-z,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  DardonvilleM.LegrandB.ClivotH.BernardinC.BockstallerC.TherondO. (2022). Assessment of ecosystem services and natural capital dynamics in agroecosystems. Ecosystem Serv.54:101415. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101415

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  DaumT.BaudronF.BirnerR.QaimM.GrassI. (2023). Addressing agricultural labour issues is key to biodiversity-smart farming. Biol. Conserv.284:110165. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110165

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  De BriyneN.AtkinsonJ.PokludováL.BorrielloS. P. (2014). Antibiotics used most commonly to treat animals in Europe. Vet. Rec.175:325. doi: 10.1136/vr.102462,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  de Bueno MesquitaC. P.SolonA. J.BarfieldA.MastrangeloC. F.TubmanA. J.VincentK.et al. (2023). Adverse impacts of roundup on soil bacteria, soil chemistry and mycorrhizal fungi during restoration of a Colorado grassland. Appl. Soil Ecol.185:104778. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2022.104778

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  De DeynG. B.Van der PuttenW. H. (2005). Linking aboveground and belowground diversity. Trends Ecol. Evol.20, 625–633. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2005.08.009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  de Lima ProcópioR. E.da SilvaI. R.MartinsM. K.de AzevedoJ. L.AraújoJ. M. (2012). Antibiotics produced by Streptomyces. Braz. J. Infect. Dis.16, 466–471. doi: 10.1016/j.bjid.2012.08.014

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  de-AssisM. P.BarcellaR. C.PadilhaJ. C.PohlH. H.KrugS. B. F. (2021). Health problems in agricultural workers occupationally exposed to pesticides. Rev. Bras. Med. Trab.18, 352–363. doi: 10.47626/1679-4435-2020-532,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  DoranJ. W.ParkinT. B. (1994). “Defining and assessing soil quality” in Defining soil quality for a sustainable environment. eds. DoranJ. W.ColemanD. C.BezdicekD. F.StewartB. A. (Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America), 3–21.

  • Google Scholar

• 40

  DoranJ. W.ParkinT. B. (1996). “Quantitative indicators of soil quality: a minimum data set” in Methods for assessing soil quality. eds. DoranJ. W.JonesA. J. (Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America), 25–37.

  • Google Scholar

• 41

  DöringT.PautassoM.FinckhM.WolfeM. (2012). Concepts of plant health—reviewing and challenging the foundations of plant protection. Plant Pathol.61, 1–15. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3059.2011.02501.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  EFSA (2025). European Food Safety Authority—national summary reports on pesticide residue analyses performed in 2023. EFSA Supporting Publ.22:9320E. doi: 10.2903/sp.efsa.2025.EN-9320

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  EichnerT.RunkelM. (2025). Animal welfare, moral consumers and the optimal regulation of animal food production. Ecol. Econ.228:108434. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108434

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  El-DairiR.OutinenO.KankaanpääH. (2024). Anthropogenic underwater noise: a review on physiological and molecular responses of marine biota. Mar. Pollut. Bull.199:115978. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.115978,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  El-MergawiR.El-DabaaM.ElkhawagaF. (2025). Effect of splitting the sub-lethal dose of glyphosate on plant growth shikimate pathway-related metabolites and antioxidant status in faba beans. Sci. Rep.15:10792. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-87799-7,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  EnginA. B.EnginE. D.EnginA. (2023). Effects of co-selection of antibiotic-resistance and metal-resistance genes on antibiotic-resistance potency of environmental bacteria and related ecological risk factors. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol.98:104081. doi: 10.1016/j.etap.2023.10408,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  EpeldeL.JauregiL.UrraJ.IbarretxeL.RomoJ.GoikoetxeaI.et al. (2018). Characterization of composted organic amendments for agricultural use. Front. Sustain. Food Syst.2:44. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2018.00044

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  Eufrasio EspinosaR. M.Lenny KohS. C. (2024). Forecasting the ecological footprint of G20 countries in the next 30 years. Sci. Rep.14:8298. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-57994-z,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  European Commission. (2015). European Commission: Special eurobarometer 442: attitudes of Europeans towards animal welfare. Available online at: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9bc3a0b7-ec17-11e5-8a81-01aa75ed71a1/language-en (Accessed September 30, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 50

  European Commission. (2022). European Commission: Factual summary report of the online public consultation in support to the fitness check and revision of the EU animal welfare legislation. Available online at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12950-Animal-welfare-revision-of-EU-legislation/public-consultation_de (Accessed October 5, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 51

  ExpósitoA.Díaz-CanoE.BerbelJ. (2024). The potential use of reclaimed water for irrigation purposes: is it overestimated?Water Resour. Manag.38, 4541–4554. doi: 10.1007/s11269-024-03878-w

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  FabryV. F.SeibelB. A.FeelyR. A.OrrJ. C. (2008). Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna and ecosystem processes. ICES J. Mar. Sci.65, 414–432. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsn048

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  FAO (2008). “An international technical workshop investing in sustainable crop intensification the case for improving soil health” in Integrated crop management (Rome: FAO).

  • Google Scholar

• 54

  FAO (2024). Pesticides use and trade—1990–2022. FAOSTAT Analytical Briefs, No. 89. Rome: FAO.

  • Google Scholar

• 55

  FAO and UNEP, and UNEP (2021). Global assessment of soil pollution—summary for policy makers. Rome: FAO.

  • Google Scholar

• 56

  FAO, UNEP, WHO, and WOAH (2022). One Health joint plan of action (2022–2026). Working together for the health of humans, animals, plants and the environment. Rome: FAO, UNEP, WHO, and WOAH.

  • Google Scholar

• 57

  FAO, UNEP, WHO, and WOAH (2023). One Health and the United Nations sustainable development cooperation framework. Guidance for United Nations country teams. Rome: FAO, UNEP, WHO, and WOAH.

  • Google Scholar

• 58

  FischerJ.AbsonD. J.ButsicV.ChappellM. J.EkroosJ.HanspachJ.et al. (2014). Land sparing versus land sharing: moving forward. Conserv. Lett.7, 149–157. doi: 10.1111/conl.12084

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  FuscoG.CampobassoF.LauretiL.FrittelliM.ValenteD.PetrosilloI. (2023). The environmental impact of agriculture: an instrument to support public policy. Ecol. Indic.147:109961. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.109961

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  GaoJ.YangB.BabuS. (2024). Editorial: ecological links between aboveground and underground ecosystems under global change. Front. Ecol. Evol.12:1347653. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2024.1347653

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  GarbisuC.AlkortaI. (2023). A case for the importance of following antibiotic resistant bacteria throughout the soil food web. BioEssays45:e2300153. doi: 10.1002/bies.202300153,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  GarbisuC.AlkortaI.EpeldeL. (2011). Assessment of soil quality using microbial properties and attributes of ecological relevance. Appl. Soil Ecol.49, 1–4. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2011.04.018

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  GarbisuC.AlkortaI.UnamunzagaO. (2024). Soils: the final frontier recedes. Front. Soil Sci.4:1495941. doi: 10.3389/fsoil.2024.1495941

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  GarbisuC.HallD. O.SerraJ. L. (1992). Nitrate and nitrite uptake by free-living and immobilized N-started cells of Phormidium laminosum. J. Appl. Phycol.4, 139–148. doi: 10.1007/BF02442462

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  GarbisuC.UnamunzagaO.AlkortaI. (2025). Generating regenerative agriculture. Front. Sustain. Food Syst.9:1545811. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2025.1545811

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  GarrattM. P. D.SenapathiD.CostonD. J.MortimerS. R.PottsS. G. (2017). The benefits of hedgerows for pollinators and natural enemies depends on hedge quality and landscape context. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.247, 363–370. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2017.06.048

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  GarveyM. (2019). Food pollution: a comprehensive review of chemical and biological sources of food contamination and impact on human health. Nutrire44:1. doi: 10.1186/s41110-019-0096-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  GaticaJ.CytrynE. (2013). Impact of treated wastewater irrigation on antibiotic resistance in the soil microbiome. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int.20, 3529–3538. doi: 10.1007/s11356-013-1505-4,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  GBD 2021 Antimicrobial Resistance Collaborators (2024). Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance 1990–2021: a systematic analysis with forecasts to 2050. Lancet404, 1199–1226. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(24)01867-1,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  GillieattB. F.ColemanN. V. (2024). Unravelling the mechanisms of antibiotic and heavy metal resistance co-selection in environmental bacteria. FEMS Microbiol. Rev.48:fuae017. doi: 10.1093/femsre/fuae017,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  GinnanN.CrandallS. G.ImchenM.Dini-AndreoteF.MiyashiroT. I.SinghV.et al. (2025). Ecologically expanding the One Health framework to unify the microbiome sciences. MBio16:e03147-24. doi: 10.1128/mbio.03147-24,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  GittlemanJ. L. (2024). “One health” needs ecology. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.121:e2413367121. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2413367121,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  GoblerC. J.DrinkwaterR. W.AnthonyA.GoleskiJ. A.Famularo-PecoraA. M. E.WallaceM. K.et al. (2024). Sewage-and fertilizer-derived nutrients alter the intensity, diversity, and toxicity of harmful cyanobacterial blooms in eutrophic lakes. Front. Microbiol.15:1464686. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2024.1464686,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  GoetschelA. (2024). Animal welfare as the basis of One Health: a UN convention on animal welfare, health, and protection poses a realistic solution to improved animal welfare and human health. CABI One Health3:1. doi: 10.1079/cabionehealth.2024.0003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  Goryluk-SalmonowiczA.PopowskaM. (2022). Factors promoting and limiting antimicrobial resistance in the environment—existing knowledge gaps. Front. Microbiol.13:992268. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.992268,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  GoulartF. F.ChappellM. J.MertensF.Soares-FilhoB. (2023). Sparing or expanding? The effects of agricultural yields on farm expansion and deforestation in the tropics. Biodivers. Conserv.32, 1089–1104. doi: 10.1007/s10531-022-02540-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  GregoryP. J.IngramJ. S.BrklacichM. (2005). Climate change and food security. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B360, 2139–2148. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2005.1745,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  GruetzmacherK.KareshW. B.AmuasiJ. H.ArshadA.FarlowA.GabryschS.et al. (2021). The Berlin principles on One Health—bridging global health and conservation. Sci. Total Environ.764:142919. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142919,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  HadfieldJ.BritoA. F.SwetnamD. M.VogelsC. B. F.TokarzR. E.AndersenK. G.et al. (2019). Twenty years of West Nile virus spread and evolution in the Americas visualized by Nextstrain. PLoS Pathog.15:e1008042. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1008042,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  HashemM. S.QiX. (2021). Treated wastewater irrigation—a review. Water13:1527. doi: 10.3390/w13111527

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  HawkesC.RuelM. (2006). The links between agriculture and health: an intersectoral opportunity to improve the health and livelihoods of the poor. Bull. World Health Organ.84, 984–990. doi: 10.2471/blt.05.025650,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  HirtH. (2020). Healthy soils for healthy plants for healthy humans: how beneficial microbes in the soil, food and gut are interconnected and how agriculture can contribute to human health. EMBO Rep.21:e51069. doi: 10.15252/embr.202051069,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  HouD.JiaX.WangL.McGrathS. P.ZhuY. G.HuQ.et al. (2025). Global soil pollution by toxic metals threatens agriculture and human health. Science388, 316–321. doi: 10.1126/science.adr5214,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  HouK.WuZ. X.ChenX. Y.WangJ.-Q.ZhangD.XiaoC.et al. (2022). Microbiota in health and diseases. Sig. Transduct. Target. Ther.7:135. doi: 10.1038/s41392-022-00974-4,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  HoyC. W. (2015). Agroecosystem health, agroecosystem resilience, and food security. J. Environ. Stud. Sci.5, 623–635. doi: 10.1007/s13412-015-0322-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  HunterM. C.SmithR. G.SchipanskiM. E.AtwoodL. W.MortensenD. A. (2017). Agriculture in 2050: recalibrating targets for sustainable intensification. Bioscience67, 386–391. doi: 10.1093/biosci/bix010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  HutchingsJ. A.MyersR. A.GarcíaV. B.LuciforaL. O.KuparinenA. (2012). Life-history correlates of extinction risk and recovery potential. Ecol. Appl.22, 1061–1067. doi: 10.1890/11-1313.1,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  HyvönenT.HuuselaE.KuussaariM.NiemiM.UusitaloR.NuutinenV. (2021). Aboveground and belowground biodiversity responses to seed mixtures and mowing in a long-term set-aside experiment. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.322:107656. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2021.107656

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  JauregiL.EpeldeL.AlkortaI.GarbisuC. (2021a). Agricultural soils amended with thermally-dried anaerobically-digested sewage sludge showed increased risk of antibiotic resistance dissemination. Front. Microbiol.12:666854. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.666854,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  JauregiL.EpeldeL.ArtamendiM.BlancoF.GarbisuC. (2023). Induced development of oxytetracycline tolerance in bacterial communities from soil amended with well-aged cow manure. Ecotoxicology32, 418–428. doi: 10.1007/s10646-023-02650-x,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  JauregiL.EpeldeL.GonzálezA.LavínJ. L.GarbisuC. (2021b). Reduction of the resistome risk from cow slurry and manure microbiomes to soil and vegetable microbiomes. Environ. Microbiol.23, 7643–7660. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.15842,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  JoseP. A.JhaB. (2016). New dimensions of research on actinomycetes: quest for next generation antibiotics. Front. Microbiol.7:1295. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.01295,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  JoseS. B.WuC.-H.KamounS. (2019). Overcoming plant blindness in science, education, and society. Plants People Planet1, 169–172. doi: 10.1002/ppp3.51,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94

  JwaidehM. A. A.DalinC. (2025). The multi-dimensional environmental impact of global crop commodities. Nat. Sustain.8:725. doi: 10.1038/s41893-025-01553-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95

  KareshW. B.DobsonA.Lloyd-SmithJ. O.LubrothJ.DixonM. A.BennettM.et al. (2012). Ecology of zoonoses: natural and unnatural histories. Lancet380, 1936–1945. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(12)61678-x,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  KayJ. J.RegierH. A.BoyleM.FrancisG. (1999). An ecosystem approach for sustainability: addressing the challenge of complexity. Futures31, 721–742. doi: 10.1016/S0016-3287(99)00029-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97

  KeesingF.OstfeldR. S. (2021). Impacts of biodiversity and biodiversity loss on zoonotic diseases. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.118:e2023540118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2023540118,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 98

  KeesingF.YoungT. P. (2014). Cascading consequences of the loss of large mammals in an African savanna. Bioscience64, 487–495. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biu059

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99

  KimD. W.ChaC. J. (2021). Antibiotic resistome from the one-health perspective: understanding and controlling antimicrobial resistance transmission. Exp. Mol. Med.53, 301–309. doi: 10.1038/s12276-021-00569-z,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100

  KingT. A. (2021). The one medicine concept: its emergence from history as a systematic approach to re-integrate human and veterinary medicine. Emerg. Top. Life Sci.5, 643–654. doi: 10.1042/ETLS20200353,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 101

  KleinE. Y.ImpalliI.PoleonS.DenoelP.CiprianoM.Van BoeckelT. P.et al. (2024). Global trends in antibiotic consumption during 2016–2023 and future projections through 2030. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.121:e2411919121. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2411919121,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  KohS. C. L.MorrisJ.EbrahimiS. M.ObayiR. (2016). Integrated resource efficiency: measurement and management. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag.36, 1576–1600. doi: 10.1108/IJOPM-05-2015-0266

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 103

  KratschmerS.HauerJ.ZallerJ. G.DürrA.WeningerT. (2024). Hedgerow structural diversity is key to promoting biodiversity and ecosystem services: a systematic review of central European studies. Basic Appl. Ecol.78, 28–38. doi: 10.1016/j.baae.2024.04.010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104

  KumarK.GuptaS. C.ChanderY.SinghA. K. (2005). Antibiotic use in agriculture and its impact on the terrestrial environment. Adv. Agron.87, 1–54. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2113(05)87001-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105

  KurenbachB.MarjoshiD.Amábile-CuevasC. F.FergusonG. C.GodsoeW.GibsonP.et al. (2015). Sublethal exposure to commercial formulations of the herbicides dicamba, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, and glyphosate cause changes in antibiotic susceptibility in Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. mBio6:e00009-15. doi: 10.1128/mBio.00009-15,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106

  LacalleR. G.AparicioJ. D.ArtetxeU.UrionabarrenetxeaE.PoltiM. A.SotoM.et al. (2020a). Gentle remediation options for soil with mixed chromium (VI) and lindane pollution: biostimulation, bioaugmentation, phytoremediation and vermiremediation. Heliyon6:e04550. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04550,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107

  LacalleR. G.BecerrilJ. M.GarbisuC. (2020b). Biological methods of polluted soil remediation for an effective economically-optimal recovery of soil health and ecosystem services. J. Environ. Sci. Public Health4, 112–133. doi: 10.26502/jesph.96120089

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 108

  LarssonD.FlachC. F. (2022). Antibiotic resistance in the environment. Nat. Rev. Microbiol.20, 257–269. doi: 10.1038/s41579-021-00649-x,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 109

  LawS. R.MathesF.PatenA. M.AlexandreP. A.RegmiR.ReidC.et al. (2024). Life at the borderlands: microbiomes of interfaces critical to One Health. FEMS Microbiol. Rev.48:fuae008. doi: 10.1093/femsre/fuae008,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110

  Lazarević-PaštiT.MilankovićV.TasićT.PetrovićS.LeskovacA. (2025). With or without you?—a critical review on pesticides in food. Foods14:1128. doi: 10.3390/foods14071128,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111

  LeeS.FanP.LiuT.YangA.BoughtonR. K.PepinK. M.et al. (2022). Transmission of antibiotic resistance at the wildlife-livestock interface. Commun. Biol.5:585. doi: 10.1038/s42003-022-03520-8,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112

  LefrançoisT.AngotJ.-L.AutranB.BukachiS. A.de Saint-MartinE. C.GiraudouxP.et al. (2025). A new definition of human health is needed to better implement One Health. Lancet406, 672–675. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(25)01015-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 113

  LeisnerC. P. (2020). Climate change impacts on food security- focus on perennial cropping systems and nutritional value. Plant Sci.293:110412. doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2020.110412

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114

  LeteyJ.SojkaR. E.UpchurchD. R.CasselD. K.OlsonK. R.PayneW. A.et al. (2003). Deficiencies in the soil quality concept and its application. J. Soil Water Conserv.58, 180–187. doi: 10.1080/00224561.2003.12457525

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115

  LewisA. (2025). A response to Burghardt (2024): why heterophenomenology could improve animal welfare. Biosemiotics18, 187–192. doi: 10.1007/s12304-025-09601-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116

  LiW.WangK.WangP.YangP.XuS.TongJ.et al. (2025). Impact of glyphosate on soil bacterial communities and degradation mechanisms in large-leaf tea plantations. J. Hazard. Mater.483:136626. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.136626,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 117

  LiaoH.LiX.YangQ.BaiY.CuiP.WenC.et al. (2021). Herbicide selection promotes antibiotic resistance in soil microbiomes. Mol. Biol. Evol.38, 2337–2350. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msab029,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118

  LimM.-Y.ChoY.RhoM. (2018). Diverse distribution of resistomes in the human and environmental microbiomes. Curr. Genomics19, 701–711. doi: 10.2174/1389202919666180911130845,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119

  LinL.YangH.XuX. (2022). Effects of water pollution on human health and disease heterogeneity: a review. Front. Environ. Sci.10:880246. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2022.880246

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 120

  LoC. C. (2010). Effect of pesticides on soil microbial community. J. Environ. Sci. Health B45, 348–359. doi: 10.1080/10934520903467873,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 121

  LorenziniG.NaliC. (2025). Plant protection, the Cinderella of the One Health strategy?One Health20:101080. doi: 10.1016/j.onehlt.2025.101080,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 122

  LuY.WangR.ZhangY.SuH.WangP.JenkinsA.et al. (2015). Ecosystem health towards sustainability. Ecosyst. Health Sustain.1, 1–15. doi: 10.1890/EHS14-0013.1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 123

  LynggaardC.GogartenJ. F.JokelainenP. (2025). Integrating environment into One Health approaches: embracing the complexity. One Health20:101021. doi: 10.1016/j.onehlt.2025.101021,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 124

  MaL.ZhangY.ChenS.YuL.ZhuY. (2022). Environmental effects and their causes of agricultural production: evidence from the farming regions of China. Ecol. Indic.144:109549. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109549

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 125

  MaL.-C.ZhaoH.-Q.WuL. B.ChengZ.-L.LiuC. (2023). Impact of the microbiome on human, animal, and environmental health from a One Health perspective. Sci. One Health2:100037. doi: 10.1016/j.soh.2023.100037,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 126

  MaZ.ZuoT.FreyN.RangrezA. Y. (2024). A systematic framework for understanding the microbiome in human health and disease: from basic principles to clinical translation. Sig. Transduct. Target. Ther.9:237. doi: 10.1038/s41392-024-01946-6,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 127

  ManisalidisI.StavropoulouE.StavropoulosA.BezirtzoglouE. (2020). Environmental and health impacts of air pollution: a review. Front. Public Health8:14. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.00014,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 128

  MarcharlaE.VinayagamS.GnanasekaranL.Soto-MoscosoM.ChenW.-H.ThanigaivelS.et al. (2024). Microplastics in marine ecosystems: a comprehensive review of biological and ecological implications and its mitigation approach using nanotechnology for the sustainable environment. Environ. Res.256:119181. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2024.119181,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 129

  MartinsC. S. C.Delgado-BaquerizoM.JayaramaiahR. H.TaoD.WangJ. T.Sáez-SandinoT.et al. (2024). Aboveground and belowground biodiversity have complementary effects on ecosystem functions across global grasslands. PLoS Biol.22:e3002736. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002736,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 130

  MartinyJ. B. H.CouradeauE.FontaineF.BrechotC.BonnevilleM.CallensK. (2025). Microbiomes should be incorporated into the One Health joint plan of action. Open Access Gov.46, 53–55. doi: 10.56367/OAG-046-11717

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 131

  McCallumH. I. (2015). Lose biodiversity, gain disease. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.112, 8523–8524. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1510607112,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 132

  MeadeE.SlatteryM. A.GarveyM. (2024). Antimicrobial resistance profile of zoonotic clinically relevant WHO priority pathogens. Pathogens13:1006. doi: 10.3390/pathogens13111006,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 133

  MesnageR.SéraliniG. E. (2018). Editorial: toxicity of pesticides on health and environment. Front. Public Health6:268. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00268,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 134

  MijangosI.BecerrilJ. M.AlbizuI.EpeldeL.GarbisuC. (2009). Effects of glyphosate on rhizosphere soil microbial communities under two different plant compositions by cultivation-dependent and -independent methodologies. Soil Biol. Biochem.41, 505–513. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.12.009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 135

  MillerS. A.FerreiraJ. P.LeJeuneJ. T. (2022). Antimicrobial use and resistance in plant agriculture: a One Health perspective. Agriculture12:289. doi: 10.3390/agriculture12020289

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 136

  MishraR. K.MenthaS. S.MisraY.DwivediN. (2023). Emerging pollutants of severe environmental concern in water and wastewater: a comprehensive review on current developments and future research. Water-Energy Nexus6, 74–95. doi: 10.1016/j.wen.2023.08.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 137

  MontgomeryD. R.RabinowitzP.SiposY.WheatE. E. (2024). Soil health: a common focus for One Health and planetary health interventions. One Health18:100673. doi: 10.1016/j.onehlt.2023.100673,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 138

  MumfordE. L.MartinezD. J.Tyance-HassellK.CookA.HansenG. R.LabontéR.et al. (2023). Evolution and expansion of the One Health approach to promote sustainable and resilient health and well-being: a call to action. Front. Public Health10:1056459. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1056459,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 139

  Muñoz-LeozB.GarbisuC.AntigüedadI.Ruiz-RomeraE. (2021). Fertilization can modify the non-target effects of pesticides on soil microbial communities. Soil Biol. Biochem.48, 125–134. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.01.021

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 140

  Muñoz-LeozB.GarbisuC.CharcossetJ. Y.Sánchez-PérezJ. M.AntigüedadI.Ruiz-RomeraE. (2013). Non-target effects of three formulated pesticides on microbially-mediated processes in a clay-loam soil. Sci. Total Environ.449, 345–354. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.01.079,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 141

  MurrayL. M.HayesA.SnapeJ.Kasprzyk-HordernB.GazeW. H.MurrayA. K. (2024). Co-selection for antibiotic resistance by environmental contaminants. npj Antimicrob. Resist.2:9. doi: 10.1038/s44259-024-00026-7,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 142

  National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2024). Exploring linkages between soil health and human health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 143

  National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. (2025). Glossary term: environmental health. Global environmental health newsletter. Available online at: https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/programs/geh/geh_newsletter/2024/11/glossary/environmental-health. (Accessed November 11, 2025)

  • Google Scholar

• 144

  NguyenD. B.RoseM. T.RoseT. J.MorrisS. G.van ZwietenL. (2016). Impact of glyphosate on soil microbial biomass and respiration: a meta-analysis. Soil Biol. Biochem.92, 50–57. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.09.014

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 145

  NiB.XiaoL.LinD.ZhangT.ZhangQ.LiuY. (2025). Increasing pesticide diversity impairs soil microbial functions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.122:e2419917122. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2419917122,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 146

  NielsenJ. S.GrijseelsS.PrigentS.JiB.DainatJ.NielsenK. F.et al. (2017). Global analysis of biosynthetic gene clusters reveals vast potential of secondary metabolite production in Penicillium species. Nat. Microbiol.2:17044. doi: 10.1038/nmicrobiol.2017.44,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 147

  NishisakaC. S.QuevedoH. D.VenturaJ. P.AndreoteF. D.MauchlineT. H.MendesR. (2025). Soil microbial diversity: a key factor in pathogen suppression and inoculant performance. Geoderma460:117444. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2025.117444,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 148

  O’ConnorP. J.SparkA.AwanY.MossJ.ChandraJ. (2025). Beyond black and white: reducing dichotomous thinking to foster intellectual humility. Think. Skills Creat.57:101841. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2025.101841

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 149

  O’NeillJ. (2016). Tackling drug-resistant infections globally: final report and recommendations. London: Wellcome Trust, 84.

  • Google Scholar

• 150

  OgunrinolaG. A.OyewaleJ. O.OshamikaO. O.OlasehindeG. I. (2020). The human microbiome and its impacts on health. Int. J. Microbiol.2020:8045646. doi: 10.1155/2020/8045646,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 151

  Planetary Boundaries Science2025Planetary health check 2025Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)Potsdam

  • Google Scholar

• 152

  PlourdeB. T.BurgessT. L.EskewE. A.RothT. M.StephensonN.FoleyJ. E. (2017). Are disease reservoirs special? Taxonomic and life history characteristics. PLoS One12:e0180716. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0180716,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 153

  QiuD.KeM.ZhangQ.ZhangF.LuT.SunL.et al. (2022). Response of microbial antibiotic resistance to pesticides: an emerging health threat. Sci. Total Environ.850:158057. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158057,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 154

  RandolphS. E.DobsonA. D. (2012). Pangloss revisited: a critique of the dilution effect and the biodiversity-buffers-disease paradigm. Parasitology139, 847–863. doi: 10.1017/S0031182012000200,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 155

  RaoultD.HadjadjL.BaronS. A.RolainJ.-M. (2021). Role of glyphosate in the emergence of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria?J. Antimicrob. Chemother.76, 1655–1657. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkab102,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 156

  RedmanC. L.GroveJ. M.KubyL. H. (2004). Integrating social science into the long-term ecological research (LTER) network: social dimensions of ecological change and ecological dimensions of social change. Ecosystems7, 161–171. doi: 10.1007/s10021-003-0215-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 157

  RiedoJ.DueñasJ. F.MbediS.SparmannS.RilligM. C. (2025). Abrupt versus gradual application of pesticides: effects on soil bacterial and fungal communities. Environ. Pollut.383:126859. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2025.126859,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 158

  RizzoL.ManaiaC.MerlinC.SchwartzT.DagotC.PloyM. C.et al. (2013). Urban wastewater treatment plants as hotspots for antibiotic resistant bacteria and genes spread into the environment: a review. Sci. Total Environ.447, 345–360. doi: 10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2013.01.032,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 159

  RobinsonT. P.BuD. P.Carrique-MasJ.FèvreE. M.GilbertM.GraceD.et al. (2016). Antibiotic resistance is the quintessential One Health issue. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg.110, 377–380. doi: 10.1093/trstmh/trw048,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 160

  RomanelloM.NapoliCD.GreenC.KennardH.LampardP.ScammanD.et al. (2023). The 2023 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: the imperative for a health-centred response in a world facing irreversible harms. Lancet.402, 2346–2394. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01859-7,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 161

  SaleemS. M.JanS. S. (2023). Advancing One Health: embracing complexity and interdisciplinary collaboration. J. Fam. Med. Prim. Care12, 2526–2527. doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1160_23,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 162

  SalyerS. J.SilverR.SimoneK.BartonB. C. (2017). Prioritizing zoonoses for global health capacity building-themes from One Health zoonotic disease workshops in 7 countries, 2014-2016. Emerg. Infect. Dis.23, S55–S64. doi: 10.3201/eid2313.170418,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 163

  SanthoshK.KamalaK.RamasamyP.MusthafaM. S.AlmujriS. S.AsdaqS. M. B.et al. (2024). Unveiling the silent threat: heavy metal toxicity devastating impact on aquatic organisms and DNA damage. Mar. Pollut. Bull.200:116139. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2024.116139,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 164

  SantosO.VirgolinoA.SantosR. R.CostaJ.RodriguesA.Vaz-CarneiroA. (2019). “Environmental health: an overview on the evolution of the concept and its definitions” in Encyclopedia of environmental health. ed. NriaguJ. (Amsterdam: Elsevier), 466–474.

  • Google Scholar

• 165

  SarmahA. K.MeyerM. T.BoxallA. B. A. (2006). A global perspective on the use, sales, exposure pathways, occurrence, fate and effects of veterinary antibiotics (VAs) in the environment. Chemosphere65, 725–759. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.03.026,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 166

  ScharD.KleinE. Y.LaxminarayanR.GilbertM.Van BoeckelT. P. (2020). Global trends in antimicrobial use in aquaculture. Sci. Rep.10:21878. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-78849-3,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 167

  SchrammeT. (2023). Health as complete well-being: the WHO definition and beyond. Public Health Ethics16, 210–218. doi: 10.1093/phe/phad017,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 168

  SessitschA.WakelinS.SchloterM.MaguinE.CernavaT.Champomier-VergesM. C.et al. (2023). Microbiome interconnectedness throughout environments with major consequences for healthy people and a healthy planet. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev.87:e0021222. doi: 10.1128/mmbr.00212-22,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 169

  SfaraE.El-HaniC. N. (2023). Ecosystem health and malfunctions: an organisational perspective. Biol. Philos.38:37. doi: 10.1007/s10539-023-09927-9,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 170

  ShekharC.KhosyaR.ThakurK.MahajanD.KumarR.KumarS.et al. (2024). A systematic review of pesticide exposure, associated risks, and long-term human health impacts. Toxicol. Rep.13:101840. doi: 10.1016/j.toxrep.2024.101840,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 171

  Sidemo-HolmW.EkroosJ.SmithH. G. (2021). Land sharing versus land sparing—what outcomes are compared between which land uses?Conserv. Sci. Pract.3:e530. doi: 10.1111/csp2.530

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 172

  SojkaR. E.UpchurchD. R. (1999). Reservations regarding the soil quality concept. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.63, 1039–1054. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1999.6351039x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 173

  SojkaR. E.UpchurchD. R.BorlaugN. E. (2003). Quality soil management or soil quality management: performance versus semantics. Adv. Agron.79, 1–68. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2113(02)79001-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 174

  SooA.ShonH. K. (2024). A nutrient circular economy framework for wastewater treatment plants. Desalination592:118090. doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2024.118090,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 175

  StanawayJ. D.ShepardD. S.UndurragaE. A.HalasaY. A.CoffengL. E.BradyO. J.et al. (2016). The global burden of dengue: an analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet Infect. Dis.16, 712–723. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(16)00026-8,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 176

  SturmbergJ. P.PicardM.AronD. C.BennettJ. M.BircherJ.De HavenM. J.et al. (2019). Health and disease—emergent states resulting from adaptive social and biological network interactions. Front. Med.6:59. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2019.00059,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 177

  SunZ. S.WanE. Y.AgbanaY. L.ZhaoH. Q.YinJ. X.JiangT. G.et al. (2024). Global One Health index for zoonoses: a performance assessment in 160 countries and territories. iScience27:109297. doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2024.109297

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 178

  SutcliffeL. M. E.SchellenbergJ.MeyerS.LeuschnerC. (2024). Close to the edge: spatial variation in plant diversity, biomass and floral resources in conventional and agri-environment cereal fields. J. Appl. Ecol.61, 2075–2086. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.14737

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 179

  SwaineM.BergnaA.OysermanB.VasileiadisS.KarasP. A.ScrepantiC.et al. (2025). Impact of pesticides on soil health: identification of key soil microbial indicators for ecotoxicological assessment strategies through meta-analysis. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol.101:fiaf052. doi: 10.1093/femsec/fiaf052,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 180

  TodorovićI.Moënne-LoccozY.RaičevićV.Jovičić-PetrovićJ.MullerD. (2023). Microbial diversity in soils suppressive to Fusarium diseases. Front. Plant Sci.14:1228749. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2023.1228749,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 181

  TourayM.BakirciS.UlugD.GulsenS. H.CimenH.YavasogluS. I.et al. (2023). Arthropod vectors of disease agents: their role in public and veterinary health in Türkiye and their control measures. Acta Trop.243:106893. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2023.106893,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 182

  TscharntkeT.BatáryP.GrassI. (2024). Mixing on- and off-field measures for biodiversity conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol.39, 726–733. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2024.04.003,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 183

  UrraJ.AlkortaI.GarbisuC. (2019). Potential benefits and risks for soil health derived from the use of organic amendments in agriculture. Agronomy9:542. doi: 10.3390/agronomy9090542

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 184

  Van BoeckelT. P.GlennonE. E.ChenD.GilbertM.RobinsonT. P.GrenfellB. T.et al. (2017). Reducing antimicrobial use in food animals. Science357, 1350–1352. doi: 10.1126/science.aao1495,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 185

  van DijkM.MorleyT.RauM. L.SaghaiY. (2021). A meta-analysis of projected global food demand and population at risk of hunger for the period 2010–2050. Nat. Food2, 494–501. doi: 10.1038/s43016-021-00322-9,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 186

  van ElsasJ. D.ChiurazziM.MallonC. A.ElhottovaD.KristufekV.SallesJ. F. (2012). Microbial diversity determines the invasion of soil by a bacterial pathogen. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.109, 1159–1164. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1109326109,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 187

  van ElsasJ. D.HillP.ChronákováA.GrekovaM.TopalovaY.ElhottováD.et al. (2007). Survival of genetically marked Escherichia coli O157:H7 in soil as affected by soil microbial community shifts. ISME J.1, 204–214. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2007.21,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 188

  WalderF.SchmidM. W.RiedoJ.Valzano-HeldA. Y.BanerjeeS.BüchiL.et al. (2022). Soil microbiome signatures are associated with pesticide residues in arable landscapes. Soil Biol. Biochem.174:108830. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2022.108830

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 189

  WanderseeJ.SchusslerE. (1999). Preventing plant blindness. Am. Biol. Teach.61, 82–86. doi: 10.2307/4450624

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 190

  WangY.ChenX.JinJ.GuoB.QiuG.WangX.et al. (2025). Effects of nitrogen fertilization on antibiotic resistance gene spread from soil to floodwater in paddy fields. Environ. Res.274:121345. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2025.121345,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 191

  WangF.HanW.ChenS.DongW.QiaoM.HuC.et al. (2020). Fifteen-year application of manure and chemical fertilizers differently impacts soil ARGs and microbial community structure. Front. Microbiol.11:62. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.00062,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 192

  WatveM. G.TickooR.JogM. M.BholeB. D. (2001). How many antibiotics are produced by the genus Streptomyces?Arch. Microbiol.176, 386–390. doi: 10.1007/s002030100345,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 193

  XingY.KangX.ZhangS.MenY. (2021). Specific phenotypic, genomic, and fitness evolutionary trajectories towards streptomycin resistance induced by pesticide co-stressors in Escherichia coli. ISME Commun.1:39. doi: 10.1038/s43705-021-00041-z,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 194

  XingY.WuS.MenY. (2020). Exposure to environmental level pesticides stimulates and diversifies evolution in Escherichia coli towards greater antibiotic resistance. Environ. Sci. Technol.54, 8770–8778. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.0c01155,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 195

  XuW.MageJ. A. (2001). A review of concepts and criteria for assessing agroecosystem health including a preliminary case study of southern Ontario. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.83, 215–233. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(00)00159-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 196

  ZhangA. N.GastonJ. M.DaiC. L.ZhaoS.PoyetM.GroussinM.et al. (2021). An omics-based framework for assessing the health risk of antimicrobial resistance genes. Nat. Commun.12:4765. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-25096-3,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 197

  ZhangY.GuA. Z.CenT.LiX.HeM.LiD.et al. (2018). Sub-inhibitory concentrations of heavy metals facilitate the horizontal transfer of plasmid-mediated antibiotic resistance genes in water environment. Environ. Pollut.237, 74–82. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.01.032,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 198

  ZhangH.LiuJ.WangL.ZhaiZ. (2021). Glyphosate escalates horizontal transfer of conjugative plasmid harboring antibiotic resistance genes. Bioengineered12, 63–69. doi: 10.1080/21655979.2020.18629,

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar