Soil health underpins agricultural productivity, nutrient cycling, water regulation and ecosystem functioning, yet intensive agricultural management can adversely affect several physical, chemical and biological soil properties when inputs and management practices are inappropriate or excessive. Natural farming (NF) has emerged as a low-external-input agroecological approach that emphasizes locally available farm resources, biological processes and practices such as Beejamrit, Jeevamrit, mulching and crop diversification. This review critically synthesizes current evidence on the effects of NF and its component practices on soil physical, chemical and biological properties and examines the mechanisms through which these changes may influence soil functions relevant to climate resilience. Available studies report improvements in selected indicators, including soil organic carbon, microbial activity, nutrient availability, soil aggregation and water-related properties under NF or associated bio-organic management practices. However, the magnitude and consistency of these responses vary with soil type, crop, climate, duration of management and the combination of inputs used, and some reported benefits cannot be attributed exclusively to NF because organic manures, microbial inoculants or reduced mineral-fertilizer inputs were applied concurrently. Potential improvements in soil organic matter, aggregation, water retention, nutrient cycling and biological activity may contribute to greater buffering against drought, heat and rainfall variability; nevertheless, direct long-term evidence demonstrating enhanced climate resilience under NF remains limited. Important research priorities include long-term and multi-location comparisons, nutrient budgeting, soil carbon stock assessment, greenhouse-gas measurements, standardization of NF formulations and evaluation of yield and economic trade-offs. Overall, current evidence indicates that NF has potential to support soil functions relevant to climate resilience, but the magnitude and persistence of these benefits require further rigorous, context-specific evaluation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sharma et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: