Introduction
Australia has a diverse and unique native flora, spanning major biome types from tropical to arid to alpine, with thousands of edible plant taxa, many of which are wild relatives of important global food crops. Over the last 40 years, individuals have argued for the domestication and cultivation of edible Australian plants as crops (e.g. Yen, Reference Yen1993; Considine, Reference Considine1996; Bell et al., Reference Bell, Bennett, Ryan and Clarke2011; Abdelghany et al., Reference Abdelghany, Wurm, Hoang and Bellairs2021; Drake et al., Reference Drake, Keitel and Pattison2021), yet, the commercial cultivation of Australian plants for food remains limited. The Macadamia nut (Macadamia integrifolia Maiden & Betche, M. tetraphylla L.A.S. Johnson, and their hybrids), native to coastal areas of the states of Queensland and New South Wales and domesticated in Hawaii from the 1920s, remains the only widely grown food crop endemic to the Australian continent (Shigeura and Ooka, Reference Shigeura and Ooka1984; Johnson and Burchett, Reference Johnson and Burchett1996).
The lack of domesticated native Australian food crops is surprising, given that multiple food crops have been derived from the native flora of every other inhabited continent (Stalker et al., Reference Stalker, Warburton and Harlan2021). However, the absence of native Australian domesticates should not imply a lack of suitability of Australian plants to become food crops. In this review, we argue that there is considerable potential for the de novo domestication and cultivation of Australian plants as food crops and that investing in such domestication and cultivation could assist in diversifying Australian farming systems, providing environmental and economic sustainability benefits (Lin, Reference Lin2011; Kahane et al., Reference Kahane, Hodgkin, Jaenicke, Hoogendoorn, Hermann, Keatinge, Hughes, Padulosi and Looney2013; Isbell et al., Reference Isbell, Adler, Eisenhauer, Fornara, Kimmel, Kremen, Letourneau, Liebman, Polley and Quijas2017; Burchfield et al., Reference Burchfield, Nelson and Spangler2019). We review the prior research and development of Australian native food plants in light of international new crop development efforts and the factors that impact the success or failure of these efforts. Constraints to developing native Australian crops and associated farming industries are identified, along with a framework for overcoming these constraints.
The need for greater crop diversity in Australian farming systems
Australia has around 60 million hectares of actively cultivated farmland (ABARES, 2022a). Around one-third of this area, predominantly in the continent's southwest, south and east, comprises monocultures of rainfed, annual grain crops (ABARES 2022a, 2022b). Three crops, wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and canola (Brassica napus L.), represent approximately 90% of the planted area (ABARES, 2022a, 2022b), and contribute significantly to globally traded staple foods and international food security (ABARES, 2022a, 2022b; FAOSTAT, 2022). These intensive, high-input, low-diversity monocultures of annual crops are not considered sustainable, given their negative environmental impacts and lack of resilience to disturbances such as climate change (FAO, 2017; Pretty et al., Reference Pretty, Benton, Bharucha, Dicks, Flora, Godfray, Goulson, Hartley, Lampkin and Morris2018). Lack of diversity in agricultural systems is not limited to Australia: globally, farming systems are underpinned by an increasingly limited number of major annual crop taxa, and global diets are becoming less diverse, which negatively impacts the resilience of global food systems (Khoury et al., Reference Khoury, Bjorkman, Dempewolf, Ramirez-Villegas, Guarino, Jarvis, Rieseberg and Struik2014; Martin et al., Reference Martin, Cadotte, Isaac, Milla, Vile and Violle2019; Bentham et al., Reference Bentham, Singh, Danaei, Green, Lin, Stevens, Farzadfar, Bennett, Di Cesare and Dangour2020).
Factors such as interannual weather variability, water insecurity, soil degradation and loss, ecosystem disturbance, pests and diseases pressure and changing global markets for agricultural commodities threaten the long-term viability of Australian agricultural systems, and such disturbances are likely to worsen in the future (Keating and Carberry, Reference Keating and Carberry2010; Cresswell et al., Reference Cresswell, Janke and Johnston2021). Climate change poses a particularly serious challenge. Productivity in Australian grain farming has already been negatively impacted by the aridification of previously mesic production environments (Sudmeyer et al., Reference Sudmeyer, Edward, Fazakerley, Simpkin and Foster2016; Hochman et al., Reference Hochman, Gobbett and Horan2017). It is predicted that Australian agricultural industries and the agricultural sector worldwide will need to make significant changes to agronomic management and species selection to adapt to future climatic conditions (Howden et al., Reference Howden, Gifford, Meinke, Stokes and Howden2010).
Increasing agrobiodiversity is a well-recognized strategy to improve the resilience and sustainability of agricultural systems (Jacobsen et al., Reference Jacobsen, Sørensen, Pedersen and Weiner2015; Isbell et al., Reference Isbell, Adler, Eisenhauer, Fornara, Kimmel, Kremen, Letourneau, Liebman, Polley and Quijas2017; Li et al., Reference Li, Stomph, Makowski, Li, Zhang, Zhang and van der Werf2023). Agrobiodiversity can be increased through the production of minor crops, the introduction of exotic crops or the de novo domestication of new taxa (Massawe et al., Reference Massawe, Mayes and Cheng2016; Toensmeier, Reference Toensmeier2016; Mustafa et al., Reference Mustafa, Mayes, Massawe, Sarkar, Sensarma and vanLoon2019; N'Danikou and Tchokponhoue, Reference N'Danikou, Tchokponhoue, Leal Filho, Azul, Brandli, Özuyar and Wall2019). De novo domestication means the domestication and cultivation of species with little or no prior history of domestication or cultivation. New species provide opportunities for diversification of farming systems and enable transformational changes required for long-term sustainability (Rickards and Howden, Reference Rickards and Howden2012; Petersen and Snapp, Reference Petersen and Snapp2015; Pretty et al., Reference Pretty, Benton, Bharucha, Dicks, Flora, Godfray, Goulson, Hartley, Lampkin and Morris2018). For example, the use of high-diversity agricultural systems which favour perennial species, termed perennial polycultures, is proposed as one strategy for increased agricultural sustainability (Brummer et al., Reference Brummer, Barber, Collier, Cox, Johnson, Murray, Olsen, Pratt and Thro2011; Iverson et al., Reference Iverson, Marín, Ennis, Gonthier, Connor-Barrie, Remfert, Cardinale and Perfecto2014; Toensmeier, Reference Toensmeier2016; Crews et al., Reference Crews, Carton and Olsson2018), but is difficult to achieve in Australia given existing crop species options (Hatton and Nulsen, Reference Hatton and Nulsen1999; Hobbs and O'Connor, Reference Hobbs and O'Connor1999; Pate and Bell, Reference Pate and Bell1999; Bell et al., Reference Bell, Wade and Ewing2010; Loomis, Reference Loomis2022). Native Australian food crops could potentially provide economically viable perennial species that are well-adapted to local production environments, making perennial polycultures more feasible (Shelef et al., Reference Shelef, Weisberg and Provenza2017).
Many of Australia's most economically important agricultural industries were developed only recently (Nelson and Hawthorne, Reference Nelson and Hawthorne2000; Salisbury et al., Reference Salisbury, Cowling and Potter2016). Nearly three-quarters of the total value of crop production in Australia from the 1950s to 1990s is derived from new crops and emerging agricultural industries (Fletcher, Reference Fletcher, Janick and Whipkey2002; Salvin et al., Reference Salvin, Bourke, Byrne and Byrne2004; Foster, Reference Foster2014). Along with diversification benefits, native Australian food crops could, therefore, also lead to new, economically valuable agricultural industries. Globally, many governments and organizations recognize the value of new crops and invest in developing new crop species to enable similar economic opportunities (Janick et al., Reference Janick, Blase, Johnson, Jolliff and Myers1996; Williams, Reference Williams2005; Foster, Reference Foster2014).
Can Australian flora be a source of new food crops?
Australia's native flora comprises approximately 20 000 recognized taxa of vascular land plants, around 85% of which are endemic (DEWR, 2007; Chapman, Reference Chapman2009; Broadhurst and Coates, Reference Broadhurst and Coates2017). Many individual taxa are known to be edible, with all plant food groups represented – cereals, pulses, nuts, roots and tubers, fruits and vegetables (Isaacs, Reference Isaacs1987; Low, Reference Low1991; Latz, Reference Latz1995; Bindon, Reference Bindon1996). Lists of edible native Australian plants have been compiled, derived predominately from records of plants traditionally eaten by Indigenous Australians (e.g. Isaacs, Reference Isaacs1987; Low, Reference Low1991; Latz, Reference Latz1995; Bindon, Reference Bindon1996; Hansen and Horsfall, Reference Hansen and Horsfall2019). Hansen and Horsfall (Reference Hansen and Horsfall2019) and Latz (Reference Latz1995) provide comprehensive and regionally specific lists. The former documents approximately 400 edible taxa in southwest Western Australia, and the latter documents 110 taxa in the central desert region. Southwestern Australia has approximately 8000 native vascular plant taxa (FloraBase, 2021), and the central desert 1500 (FloraNT, 2021; AVH, 2023), suggesting 5–7% of local plant species are edible. This is comparable to or slightly lower than global estimates, suggesting that 10–20% of local flora in temperate regions globally could be edible (Rapoport and Drausal, Reference Rapoport, Drausal and Scheiner2013).
Lists of edible species are likely incomplete due to the loss of traditional Indigenous knowledge following European colonization, a lack of comprehensive documentation, cultural preferences in plant use and differing definitions of ‘edible’ (Rapoport and Drausal, Reference Rapoport, Drausal and Scheiner2013). To illustrate this, southwestern Australia has 39 genera in the legume sub-family Faboideae, representing 500 currently named taxa, with many endemic (FloraBase, 2021). Central Australia has 41 genera representing 138 currently named taxa in Faboideae (FloraNT, 2021). Hansen and Horsfall (Reference Hansen and Horsfall2019) and Latz (Reference Latz1995) do not report the seed of these taxa as having been traditionally eaten, and there are no widely published reports of the seed of any Faboideae being eaten elsewhere in Australia. This is despite some taxa being crop wild relatives, such as Glycine Willd. and Vigna Savi. The seed composition of Australian Faboideae is not well studied, but anti-nutritional and potentially toxic compounds commonly occur in legumes (Tiwari et al., Reference Tiwari, Gowen and McKenna2011; Kumar et al., Reference Kumar, Basu, Goswami, Devi, Shivhare and Vishwakarma2022), and may have limited the traditional use of Australian taxa as food. Such compounds have been reduced or eliminated via appropriate food preparation techniques and breeding in domesticated legumes and could potentially be eliminated in Australian native legumes (Bell et al., Reference Bell, Bennett, Ryan and Clarke2011; Bohra et al., Reference Bohra, Tiwari, Kaur, Ganie, Raza, Roorkiwal, Mir, Fernie, Smýkal and Varshney2022; Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Mascher, Abbo and Jayakodi2022). Many Australian Faboideae could, therefore, be considered ‘potentially edible’ and worth investigating for de novo domestication (Bell et al., Reference Bell, Bennett, Ryan and Clarke2011). Including even a small number of the Faboideae expands the edible proportion of Australian flora to the high end of global estimates (Rapoport and Drausal, Reference Rapoport, Drausal and Scheiner2013). This simple estimate illustrates how Australia could have 4000 or more plant species suitable for exploration as potential food crops.
What is the potential of edible Australian flora for producing new crops?
Various traits influence crop domestication potential, the specific traits favouring domestication vary between species and crop type (DeHaan et al., Reference DeHaan, Van Tassel, Anderson, Asselin, Barnes, Baute, Cattani, Culman, Dorn, Hulke, Kantar, Larson, Marks, Miller, Poland, Ravetta, Rude, Ryan, Wyse and Zhang2016; Fuller et al., Reference Fuller, Denham and Allaby2023), and some plant taxa are more straightforward to domesticate than others (DeHaan et al., Reference DeHaan, Van Tassel, Anderson, Asselin, Barnes, Baute, Cattani, Culman, Dorn, Hulke, Kantar, Larson, Marks, Miller, Poland, Ravetta, Rude, Ryan, Wyse and Zhang2016; Stalker et al., Reference Stalker, Warburton and Harlan2021). Given the diversity of edible plant taxa native to the continent, it seems probable that some Australian species will have a combination of traits favouring de novo domestication. The development and global success of the Macadamia nut industry illustrates that some Australian species have traits that make them suitable for domestication. Furthermore, related plant taxa have often been independently domesticated in geographically separate regions, most probably because these taxa share common traits favouring their domestication (Wang et al., Reference Wang, Yu, Haberer, Marri, Fan, Goicoechea, Zuccolo, Song, Kudrna and Ammiraju2014; Renny-Byfield et al., Reference Renny-Byfield, Page, Udall, Sanders, Peterson, Arick, Grover and Wendel2016; Wu et al., Reference Wu, Wang, Xu, Korban, Fei, Tao, Ming, Tai, Khan and Postman2018). At least 130 Australian taxa are crop wild relatives (Rapoport and Drausal, Reference Rapoport, Drausal and Scheiner2013; Norton et al., Reference Norton, Khoury, Sosa, Castañeda-Álvarez, Achicanoy and Sotelo2017), including species from Oryza L. (rice) (Henry, Reference Henry2019; Abdelghany et al., Reference Abdelghany, Wurm, Hoang and Bellairs2021), Sorghum (L.) Moench (Ananda et al., Reference Ananda, Myrans, Norton, Gleadow, Furtado and Henry2020), Vigna Savi (beans) (Lawn Reference Lawn, Redden, Yadav, Maxted, Dulloo, Guarino and Smith2015) and Glycine Willd. (soybean) (Hwang et al., Reference Hwang, Wei, Schroeder, Fickus, Quigley, Elia, Araya, Dong, Costa and Ferreira2019). As well as providing a genetic resource for associated breeding programmes of domestic crops (Henry, Reference Henry2023), such taxa are likely to share some traits that favoured their relatives’ domestication, increasing their potential for de novo domestication. This suggests that edible Australian flora has good potential for producing new crops.
An overview of the current Australian native food industry
Historical use of Australian plants as food by humans
Australia's edible native flora has been extensively utilized by people since their arrival on the continent some 65 000 years ago, although a debate about whether plant cultivation was practised on the Australian continent before European colonization is ongoing (Pascoe, Reference Pascoe2014; Keen Reference Keen2021; Sutton and Walshe, Reference Sutton and Walshe2021; Denham and Donohue, Reference Denham and Donohue2023). Plant domestication and cultivation, where plants have diverged morphologically and genetically from wild ancestors due to human selection and the reliance of human communities on these plants for most of their food intake, does not appear to have occurred in the Australian continent before the arrival of Europeans (Sutton and Walshe, Reference Sutton and Walshe2021). Plant domestication is a continuum, however, without a well-defined start and endpoint (Winterhalder and Kennett, Reference Winterhalder, Kennett, Kennett and Winterhalder2006; Meyer et al., Reference Meyer, DuVal and Jensen2012; Zeder, Reference Zeder2015; Stetter et al., Reference Stetter, Gates, Mei and Ross-Ibarra2017; Stalker et al., Reference Stalker, Warburton and Harlan2021; Fuller et al., Reference Fuller, Denham and Allaby2023). Some ‘early’ plant cultivation and domestication are not readily distinguished from other forms of plant exploitation, particularly in the archaeological record (Zeder, Reference Zeder2015; Denham and Donohue, Reference Denham and Donohue2023).
There is evidence for the intensive management and manipulation of Australian flora by people via practices such as the use of fire and the translocation of food plants (Hallam, Reference Hallam, Harris and Hillman1989; Bowman, Reference Bowman1998; Clarke, Reference Clarke2011; Ens et al., Reference Ens, Walsh, Clarke and Keith2017; Silcock, Reference Silcock2018; Lullfitz et al., Reference Lullfitz, Byrne, Knapp and Hopper2020a, Reference Lullfitz, Dabb, Reynolds, Knapp, Pettersen and Hopper2020b; Keen, Reference Keen2021; Fahey et al., Reference Fahey, Rossetto, Ens and Ford2022), and ‘non-agricultural’ cultures are also known to have engaged in ‘niche constructive’ behaviours that maintained or increased the productivity of their environments (Smith, Reference Smith2011; Anderson, Reference Anderson2013; Lightfoot et al., Reference Lightfoot, Cuthrell, Striplen and Hylkema2013; Thompson et al., Reference Thompson, Wright and Ivory2021a, Reference Thompson, Wright, Ivory, Choi, Nightingale, Mackay, Schilt, Otárola-Castillo, Mercader and Forman2021b). Such activities can result in lasting changes in the geographic distribution and genetic composition of plant taxa (Levis et al., Reference Levis, Costa, Bongers, Peña-Claros, Clement, Junqueira, Neves, Tamanaha, Figueiredo and Salomão2017; Coughlan and Nelson, Reference Coughlan and Nelson2018; Levis et al., Reference Levis, Flores, Moreira, Luize, Alves, Franco-Moraes, Lins, Konings, Peña-Claros and Bongers2018; Pavlik et al., Reference Pavlik, Louderback, Vernon, Yaworsky, Wilson, Clifford and Codding2021). This appears to have resulted in detectable changes in the genetics of some Australian taxa (Rangan et al., Reference Rangan, Bell, Baum, Fowler, McConvell, Saunders, Spronck, Kull and Murphy2015; Lullfitz et al., Reference Lullfitz, Byrne, Knapp and Hopper2020a, Reference Lullfitz, Dabb, Reynolds, Knapp, Pettersen and Hopper2020b) and may have also resulted in phenotypic changes. For example, it has been proposed that the large grain size in some native Australian Oryza may reflect human selection (Henry, Reference Henry2019). This may impact efforts to domestic Australian species as crops in the future.
Features of the current industry
The possibility of cultivating edible Australian plants as crops has been acknowledged for over a century (Maiden, Reference Maiden1889). However, the Australian ‘native foods industry’ did not commence until approximately the 1980s (Cherikoff and Brand, Reference Cherikoff and Brand1983; Brand-Miller and Cherikoff, Reference Brand-Miller and Cherikoff1985; Cherikoff and Brand, Reference Cherikoff and Brand1988). Commercial native food production now takes place in all Australian states and territories (Clarke, Reference Clarke2012; Sultanbawa and Sultanbawa, Reference Sultanbawa and Sultanbawa2016), but the current industry is small in terms of total production and economic value. Excluding Macadamia, total output was estimated to average only 8 tonnes in 2010 (Clarke, Reference Clarke2013), with a farm-gate value of $21 million in 2019 (Laurie, Reference Laurie2020), in comparison to the total gross value of Australian agriculture of $55 billion in 2015–16 (ABARES 2022a, 2022b).
Most of the production and economic value of the industry is represented by only 11 taxa (Table 1) (Clarke, Reference Clarke2013; Laurie, Reference Laurie2020). These came to dominate the industry through multiple ‘organic’ routes over four decades and are mainly used as ‘niche’ food additives or flavourants (i.e. herbs and spices) or are fruits that are processed into value-added products. Feedstock material used by the food industry is obtained from wild and cultivated sources (Clarke, Reference Clarke2013; Laurie, Reference Laurie2020). Most of the taxa are native to eastern and northern Australia's tropical, subtropical and oceanic climate zones (Fig. 1A), except for Solanum centrale (Fig. 1B), which grows in arid zones of Australia. Since the native ranges of the taxa do not overlap with the Australian grain production regions, these species offer little potential to diversify existing grain industries with locally adapted crops. Those taxa that do grow in the grain belt include Santalum acuminatum (Quandong) (Fig. 1C) and multiple species of Acacia (Table 1). Quandong is an obligate root hemiparasite that requires a host tree and produces a fleshy fruit with an edible nut (Ahmed and Johnson, Reference Ahmed and Johnson2000; Lee, Reference Lee2013). These traits give it limited potential for broadscale planting in grain-producing regions. Conversely, the various species of Acacia produce a grain legume (or pulse) and offer the prospect of large-scale planting for bulk food production (Ahmed and Johnson, Reference Ahmed and Johnson2000; Bartle et al., Reference Bartle, Cooper, Olsen and Carslake2002; Lee, Reference Lee2013). Aside from the taxa in Table 1, around 40 other Australian plant taxa are sold for food (Table 2) (CNFS, 2022; Tucker Bush, 2022). These represent a greater diversity of food types than the taxa in Table 1 and are native to a broader range of environments. However, the majority are native to eastern Australia and are used only as niche food additives.
Table 1. Plant taxa and their relatives that are the current focus of the Australian native food industry (Clarke, Reference Clarke2013; Laurie, Reference Laurie2020)
The approximate native range obtained from the Australasian Virtual Herbarium (AVH 2023).
WA, Western Australia; NT, Northern Territory; SA, South Australia; Qld, Queensland; NSW, New South Wales; Vic, Victoria; Tas, Tasmania; Af, Tropical rainforest; Am, Tropical monsoon; Aw, Tropic Savanna with dry winter; Bsh/Bsk, semi-arid hot; Bwh, arid hot; Cfa, humid sub-tropical; Cfb, oceanic; Csa, Mediterranean hot summer; Csb, Mediterranean warm summer; Cwa, dry-winter humid subtropical.
Figure 1. The maps in panels A–D show the distribution of taxa listed in Table 1. The maps are based on collection information from the Australian Virtual Herbarium (AVH 2023). The Australian grain production zone is shown in grey. The distribution of (a) Acronychia acidula and A. oblongifolia, Backhousia anisata (syn Syzygium anisatum) and B. citriodora, Citrus glauca (syn Eremocitrus glauca), C. australasica (syn Microcitrus australasica), Davidsonia jerseyana, D. johnsonii, D. pruriens, Kunzea pomifera, Tasmannia lanceolata and Terminalia ferdinandiana. (b) Solanum central; (c) Santalum acuminatum and S. spicatum, (d) Acacia victoriae; A. adsurgens; A. aneura; A. colei; A. coriacea; A. cowleana; A. kempeana; A. murrayana; A. tenuissim; A. pycnantha; A. retinodes; A. sophorae.
Table 2. The edible plant taxa sold by the Tuckerbush and Creative Native Food Service companies at the time of writing in 2023
WA, Western Australia, NT, Northern Territory, SA, South Australia, Qld, Queensland, NSW, New South Wales, Vic, Victoria, Tas, Tasmania.
Literature dating back to the late 1990s has examined the utilization of Australian native plants as food crops and the development of the native food industry. Authors have consistently concluded there is a good market potential for Australian food plants, especially those considered novel and with exceptional nutritional profiles (Cherikoff, Reference Cherikoff2000; Konczak et al., Reference Konczak, Zabaras, Dunstan, Aguas, Roulfe and Pavan2009; Clarke, Reference Clarke2012; Sultanbawa and Sultanbawa, Reference Sultanbawa and Sultanbawa2016; Birch et al., Reference Birch, Benkendorff, Liu and Luke2023). They also conclude that Australian plants offer valuable opportunities for diversifying the continent's agricultural systems with well-adapted new crops that can enhance environmental and economic sustainability (Considine, Reference Considine1996; Ahmed and Johnson, Reference Ahmed and Johnson2000; Bell et al., Reference Bell, Bennett, Ryan and Clarke2011; Abdelghany et al., Reference Abdelghany, Wurm, Hoang and Bellairs2021; Drake et al., Reference Drake, Keitel and Pattison2021; Canning, Reference Canning2022). However, the various authors have also identified significant challenges. The current emphasis on niche food markets makes them susceptible to oversupply (Clarke, Reference Clarke2012; Clarke, Reference Clarke2013), necessitating the development of new crops capable of supplying larger markets. The industry also grapples with inconsistent quantity and quality of supply, attributed mainly to a reliance on wild harvesting and the cultivation of unimproved germplasm, so there is a need for more active cultivation and the use of improved cultivars to address this problem (Stynes, Reference Stynes1997; Salvin et al., Reference Salvin, Bourke, Byrne and Byrne2004; Lee, Reference Lee2013; Abdelghany et al., Reference Abdelghany, Wurm, Hoang and Bellairs2021). Although some active cultivation efforts are underway, they face obstacles such as a lack of information on cultivation methods, challenges posed by pests and diseases and an overreliance on manual labour (Ahmed and Johnson, Reference Ahmed and Johnson2000; Clarke, Reference Clarke2012, Reference Clarke2013; Lee, Reference Lee2013; Sultanbawa and Sultanbawa, Reference Sultanbawa and Sultanbawa2016). To advance the industry, ongoing research is required, with a critical need for cultivar development, general agronomy and market development (Gorst, Reference Gorst2002; Salvin et al., Reference Salvin, Bourke, Byrne and Byrne2004; Lee and Six, Reference Lee and Six2010; Clarke, Reference Clarke2012, Reference Clarke2013; Sultanbawa and Sultanbawa, Reference Sultanbawa and Sultanbawa2016).
Research on individual taxa
To quantify the extent of research on individual taxa published in the 20 years between 2001 and 2021 (the time since the last scholarly review of the industry by Ahmed and Johnson, Reference Ahmed and Johnson2000), the Thomson Reuters Web of Science database was searched for publications in scholarly journals relating to the taxa in Table 1 and Table 2. We identified 234 research articles mentioning at least one of the taxa from Table 1 (Fig. 2). Acacia was excluded, given the large number of individual taxa in the genus, taxa found outside Australia and the non-food use of the species globally. No relevant published work was found for the taxa in Table 2. For comparison, the total research output for the taxa with the most published research is comparable to the Australian research output for minor crops like kiwifruit, with 41 papers (Actinidia), or Blueberry (Vaccinium), with 106 papers over the same period (ABARES, 2022a, 2022b). Publications covered by the Web of Science Core Collection are assigned to at least one subject area category. We found that the journal articles relating to the taxa mainly related to food sciences, chemistry or nutrition (Fig. 2). Papers addressing other areas relevant to the development of the industry, such as agronomy and genetics, represented only a quarter of all publications. Ahmed and Johnson (Reference Ahmed and Johnson2000) observed that most published research at the time of their review was focused on the compositional analysis of native food plants, and other critical areas were lacking. Our literature search shows this trend has continued, and whilst compositional analysis is essential for industry development, lack of research in other areas has likely contributed to the slow pace of industry development.
Figure 2. The number of scholarly journal articles in the Web of Science database that mention: (a) at least one of the plant taxa prioritized by the Australian native food industry (Table 1), published between 2001 and 2021. (b) The number of scholarly publications of Australian native species relating to individual Web of Science subject categories.
Agrifutures Australia, previously called the Rural Industries Research & Development Corporation (RIRDC), is a statutory authority established by the Australian Federal Government to support new and emerging industries. Since 2000, Agrifutures Australia has produced 43 reports dealing wholly or partly with different aspects of the Australian native foods industry (Agrifutures, 2022), but only one has been published since 2017 (Table 1). While agronomy and germplasm improvement are addressed more frequently than in the published literature, food science or compositional analyses remain the most common area of research (Fig. 3). Like the scientific literature, it is a relatively small number of publications for any individual taxon (Fig. 4).
Figure 3. The number of reports published by Agrifutures Australia that address subject matter relating to Australian native food plants.
Figure 4. The number of reports published by Agrifutures Australia that address the native food taxa.
Some individual edible taxa have had more concerted research aimed at their domestication as crops. Germplasm screening and selection, genetics and reproductive biology studies and some agronomy have been undertaken for Kunzea pomifera (Page, Reference Page2004; Page et al., Reference Page, Moore, Will and Halloran2006a, Reference Page, Moore, Will and Halloran2000b; Do et al., Reference Do, Panakera-Thorpe, Delaporte and Schultz2014, Reference Do, Delaporte, Pagay and Schultz2018a, Reference Do, Panakera-Thorpe, Delaporte, Croxford and Schultz2018b). Native Acacia have been the focus of development as a grain crop in Australia and elsewhere (Lister et al., Reference Lister, Holford, Haigh and Morrison1996; Maslin et al., Reference Maslin, Thomson, McDonald and Hamilton-Brown1998; Bartle et al., Reference Bartle, Cooper, Olsen and Carslake2002; Hele, Reference Hele2002; Rinaudo et al., Reference Rinaudo, Patel and Thomson2002; Midgley and Turnbull, Reference Midgley and Turnbull2003; Rinaudo and Cunningham, Reference Rinaudo and Cunningham2008). Native Australian legumes, aside from Acacia, have also been explored as pulses, with the examination of grain yield and seed composition (Rivett et al., Reference Rivett, Tucker and Jones1983; Bell et al., Reference Bell, Bennett, Ryan and Clarke2011; Ryan et al., Reference Ryan, Bell, Bennett, Collins and Clarke2011; Bell et al., Reference Bell, Ryan, Bennett, Collins and Clarke2012). Several commercial Citrus varieties have been developed by hybridizing Australian native Citrus spp. with domestic Citrus spp. (Sykes, Reference Sykes1997; Hele, Reference Hele2001; Agrifutures, 2017). Native Oryza spp. has been considered as source of germplasm for improving domestic rice, but germplasm collection and characterization and the systematic identification of research priorities have also taken place with the aim of de novo domestication (Henry et al., Reference Henry, Rice, Waters, Kasem, Ishikawa, Hao, Dillon, Crayn, Wing and Vaughan2010; Henry, Reference Henry2012; Henry, Reference Henry2019; Abdelghany et al., Reference Abdelghany, Wurm, Hoang and Bellairs2021). Germplasm screening (Davies et al., Reference Davies, Waugh and Lefory2005), genetic analysis (Shapter et al., Reference Shapter, Cross, Ablett, Malory, Chivers, King and Henry2013; Mitchell et al., Reference Mitchell, Stodart and Virgona2015) and commercialization of elite lines have been undertaken for Microlaena stipodes, a widespread native grass that produces an edible grain similar to rice (Chivers et al., Reference Chivers, Warrick, Bomman and Evans2015; Shapter and Chivers, Reference Shapter and Chivers2015). Several other grass species are also being actively investigated as potential grain crops (Khoddami et al., Reference Khoddami, Drake, Pattison, Craige, Badaoui, Keitel, Roth, Leung, Lee, Cross, Phillips and Bell2020; Drake et al., Reference Drake, Keitel and Pattison2021). Despite this research and development effort, a large-scale commercial agricultural industry has yet to develop for these taxa.
Indigenous engagement and benefit sharing
Australian plants can hold cultural and spiritual significance to people in the Indigenous Australian community (Clarke, Reference Clarke2011), but their engagement and benefit-sharing with the native foods industry has historically been limited (Considine, Reference Considine1996; Stynes, Reference Stynes1997; Ahmed and Johnson, Reference Ahmed and Johnson2000; Clarke, Reference Clarke2013; Lingard and Martin, Reference Lingard and Martin2016; Sultanbawa and Sultanbawa, Reference Sultanbawa and Sultanbawa2016; Drake et al., Reference Drake, Keitel and Pattison2021). ‘The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization’ aims to implement the access and benefits-sharing obligations of the International Convention on Biological Diversity (Lee, Reference Lee2013; Leha et al., Reference Leha, Cubillo and Janke2019; Sherman and Henry, Reference Sherman and Henry2020; Fyfe et al., Reference Fyfe, Smyth, Schirra, Rychlik and Sultanbawa2021). Australia ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity, and while it is not presently a participant in the Nagoya Protocol, current domestic measures purport to align with the principles outlined in the protocol (DCCEEW, 2021). However, others have found that traditional knowledge and intellectual property regarding edible native plants currently lack comprehensive legal protection in Australia or may not be adequately protected by existing laws (Leha et al., Reference Leha, Cubillo and Janke2019). Food is globally recognized as an intangible cultural heritage, eligible for special recognition and protection (Di Giovine and Brulotte, Reference Di Giovine, Brulotte, Brulotte and Di Giovine2016; Galanakis, Reference Galanakis2019). So even without clear intellectual property ownership or legal frameworks for protecting traditional biological knowledge, moral and ethical obligations remain for those seeking to develop native Australian food crops (Leha et al., Reference Leha, Cubillo and Janke2019; Jarvis et al., Reference Jarvis, Maclean and Woodward2021; Maclean et al., Reference Maclean, Woodward, Jarvis, Turpin, Rowland and Rist2022). Indigenous Australian support for developing native food industries is generally considered conditional on ensuring such industries recognize and respect culturally or spiritually significant plants, along with their traditional uses (NLE, 2022). Any research and development targeting Australian native food plants must, therefore, acknowledge the ongoing cultural connections of Indigenous Australian peoples with native flora and take steps to ensure Indigenous Australian communities have opportunities to engage, lead and benefit from the industry.
We believe current ambiguities around Indigenous Australian engagement and benefit sharing will likely hinder research and development activities, and this must be addressed if the industry is to develop. Firstly, even if legislation regarding intellectual property ownership and benefit-sharing is enacted, ownership of traditional knowledge and biological resources and appropriate avenues for benefit-sharing are often unclear. This is the case when information regarding taxa is well-documented, in the public domain, and has been so for a prolonged period. There is ambiguity in the Nagoya Protocol regarding historical germplasm collections and information (Sherman and Henry, Reference Sherman and Henry2020). Moreover, some edible plant taxa have wide native ranges spanning many Indigenous Australian communities, and under these circumstances, intellectual property ownership and appropriate benefit-sharing avenues are also unclear. Surveys of Indigenous Australian stakeholders have found that most respondents support the development of a native food industry (NLE, 2022). However, stakeholders still have divergent opinions about whether the commercial development of native food plants as crops should occur and what form the industry should take (Ahmed and Johnson, Reference Ahmed and Johnson2000; Clarke, Reference Clarke2013; Drake et al., Reference Drake, Keitel and Pattison2021). This makes it challenging to identify, engage and coordinate among owners of traditional biological knowledge and find consensus regarding the appropriate way to domesticate and cultivate some species.
The complexity of creating legal and ethical frameworks that both protect and allow the use of traditional ethnobotanical knowledge is a globally recognized problem, as is a lack of engagement and benefit sharing with traditional owners when commercializing traditional foods (Zimmerer and De Haan, Reference Zimmerer and De Haan2017; Antonelli, Reference Antonelli2023). A discussion of a possible framework for the ethical development of native Australian crops that can address the challenges described above is outside the scope of this review, but the challenges will act as a major obstacle to research and development activities, and nationally consistent legislation and best practice guidelines to address them are urgently needed.
What are the ways forward for native Australian food crops?
Six key areas stand out that would support the use of Australian native plants as food: (i) active cultivation; (ii) germplasm collection, characterization and improvement; (iii) basic research; (iv) sustained public funding of critical R&D; (v) greater diversity of food types and cultivation regions; (vi) engagement with Indigenous stakeholders and participatory approaches to research and (vii) consideration of the implications of domestication for conservation, and Indigenous traditional knowledge and use. These are discussed in detail below.
Active cultivation
Wild harvesting remains the primary source of material in the native food industry for many taxa. Wild harvests can provide economic returns to communities engaged in the collection and are attractive to those advocating for ‘ecological’ approaches to agribusiness industries (Ahmed and Johnson, Reference Ahmed and Johnson2000; Clarke, Reference Clarke2013; Lee, Reference Lee2013). However, wild harvesting is also associated with challenges such as inconsistent and unpredictable yields and product quality, limited supply, limited scope for expansion, high demand for labour and possible negative impacts on natural ecosystems (Miers, Reference Miers2004; RIRDC, 2008; Clarke, Reference Clarke2013; Sultanbawa and Sultanbawa, Reference Sultanbawa and Sultanbawa2016; Laurie, Reference Laurie2020). Additionally, wild harvesting is not risk-free for workers. For example, wild harvesting of native Oryza risks attack by saltwater crocodiles (Abdelghany et al., Reference Abdelghany, Wurm, Hoang and Bellairs2021). Consequently, although wild harvesting may be viable for specific regions and species, potentially augmented by ‘active management’ or ‘enrichment planting’ of otherwise wild plant communities (Lee and Courtenay, Reference Lee and Courtenay2016), industry growth will require active cultivation.
Germplasm collection, characterization and improvement
The wild phenotype of most, if not all, plant taxa is sub-optimal for commercial utilization (Wilson, Reference Wilson, Janick and Whipkey2007; Brummer et al., Reference Brummer, Barber, Collier, Cox, Johnson, Murray, Olsen, Pratt and Thro2011; DeHaan et al., Reference DeHaan, Van Tassel, Anderson, Asselin, Barnes, Baute, Cattani, Culman, Dorn, Hulke, Kantar, Larson, Marks, Miller, Poland, Ravetta, Rude, Ryan, Wyse and Zhang2016), and suboptimal germplasm is a significant obstacle to viable cultivation of edible Australian plants (Stynes, Reference Stynes1997; Salvin et al., Reference Salvin, Bourke, Byrne and Byrne2004; Lee, Reference Lee2013; Abdelghany et al., Reference Abdelghany, Wurm, Hoang and Bellairs2021). Germplasm screening and improvement will therefore be essential for the active cultivation of edible Australian plants to meet the needs of growers and consumers.
Even if wild taxa are identified that pose few challenges to de novo domestication, research and development will still be needed to address problematic traits (DeHaan et al., Reference DeHaan, Van Tassel, Anderson, Asselin, Barnes, Baute, Cattani, Culman, Dorn, Hulke, Kantar, Larson, Marks, Miller, Poland, Ravetta, Rude, Ryan, Wyse and Zhang2016; Toensmeier, Reference Toensmeier2016). Information regarding commercially important traits is unavailable for most Australian edible taxa, making it impossible to assess their potential as crops or to set research and development priorities. Furthermore, any available information often relates to germplasm of unknown provenance or collections with minimal genetic variation (e.g. see discussions in Sultanbawa and Sultanbawa (Reference Sultanbawa and Sultanbawa2016)). Many edible Australian taxa have broad distributions spanning a considerable range of climatic and edaphic conditions and display high genetic and morphological diversity, including variation in economically important traits (Davies et al., Reference Davies, Waugh and Lefory2005; Ariati et al., Reference Ariati, Murphy, Gardner and Ladiges2007; Mitchell et al., Reference Mitchell, Stodart and Virgona2015; Shapter and Chivers, Reference Shapter and Chivers2015; Broadhurst et al., Reference Broadhurst, Breed, Lowe, Bragg, Catullo, Coates, Encinas-Viso, Gellie, James and Krauss2017; Snowball et al., Reference Snowball, Norman and D'Antuono2021). Drawing conclusions regarding a species’ suitability for domestication from samples of minimal genetic diversity is, therefore, of limited value or even potentially misleading. For example, Ryan et al. (Reference Ryan, Bell, Bennett, Collins and Clarke2011) identified the representation of genetic diversity in germplasm collections and its evaluation under controlled conditions as a critical gap in assessments of Australian native pulses.
Assembling genetically diverse germplasm collections and then evaluating and selecting improved cultivars is an effective strategy for cultivar development, and remains an essential method for plant breeding globally (Murphy, Reference Murphy2007; Acquaah, Reference Acquaah, Al-Khayri, Jain and Johnson2015; Rebetzke et al., Reference Rebetzke, Ingvordsen, Bovill, Trethowan, Fletcher, Pratley and Kirkegaard2019), particularly for minor crops that lack resources for research and development (Jacobsen et al., Reference Jacobsen, Sørensen, Pedersen and Weiner2015). However, crop domestication initially involved, on average, the modification of only three major traits, which were controlled primarily by single genes (Meyer et al., Reference Meyer, DuVal and Jensen2012; Østerberg et al., Reference Østerberg, Xiang, Olsen, Edenbrandt, Vedel, Christiansen, Landes, Andersen, Pagh and Sandøe2017; Stetter et al., Reference Stetter, Gates, Mei and Ross-Ibarra2017). So, the use of molecular breeding techniques that target limited numbers of single gene traits to ‘mimic’ domestication events could increase the speed and efficiency of new crop development from Australian flora (Smýkal et al., Reference Smýkal, Nelson, Berger and Von Wettberg2018; Gasparini et al., Reference Gasparini, dos Reis Moreira, Peres and Zsögön2021; Luo et al., Reference Luo, Najafi, Correia, Trinh, Chapman, Østerberg, Thomsen, Pedas, Larson and Gao2022; Bartlett et al., Reference Bartlett, Moyers, Man, Subramaniam and Makunga2023; Henry, Reference Henry2023). Such approaches come with risks, though, including that a focus on single genes may over-simplify domestication or neglect the importance of agronomy and genotype-by-environment interactions in the crop phenotype (Passioura, Reference Passioura2020; Van Tassel et al., Reference Van Tassel, Tesdell, Schlautman, Rubin, DeHaan, Crews and Streit Krug2020; Bartlett et al., Reference Bartlett, Moyers, Man, Subramaniam and Makunga2023), and should therefore be used in conjunction with more traditional approaches. Centralized breeding may also not address the specific localized needs of growers (Fadda et al., Reference Fadda, Mengistu, Kidane, Dell'Acqua, Pè and Van Etten2020), or provide opportunities to engage with Indigenous communities (Bartlett et al., Reference Bartlett, Moyers, Man, Subramaniam and Makunga2023). Thus, we believe a range of strategies, including ‘traditional’ approaches in the early stages of crop development, genetic screening to ensure sufficient diversity and strategic investment in molecular breeding, are appropriate.
Germplasm collection and characterization must consider the historical use of taxa by people, which may have influenced the genetic diversity and geographic distribution of edible taxa. Taxa with high levels of anthropogenic translocation may show a lack of population genetic structure or a structure corresponding to human activity (Lullfitz et al., Reference Lullfitz, Byrne, Knapp and Hopper2020a, Reference Lullfitz, Dabb, Reynolds, Knapp, Pettersen and Hopper2020b). Therefore, phylogeographic patterns resulting from human translocation of food plants should be considered in germplasm collection documentation and activities. Plant populations from areas with intensive utilization could be targeted for germplasm collection because these populations may exhibit a higher frequency of individuals with useful genotypes. Further work is needed to investigate the anthropogenic influence on Australian plant genetics and phylogeographic patterns to inform germplasm collection, characterization and crop development activities.
Habitat loss due to clearing native vegetation for agriculture and subsequent land degradation has heavily impacted many ecosystems in Australia (Cresswell et al., Reference Cresswell, Janke and Johnston2021). As a result, the remaining native vegetation is often highly fragmented (Hobbs and Yates, Reference Hobbs and Yates2003; Hopper and Gioia, Reference Hopper and Gioia2004; Coates et al., Reference Coates, Byrne, Cochrane, Dunne, Gibson, Keighery, Lambers, Monks, Thiele, Yates and Lambers2014; Broadhurst and Coates, Reference Broadhurst and Coates2017), and faces ongoing pressure from pests, disease and climate change (Cresswell et al., Reference Cresswell, Janke and Johnston2021). Preservation of genetic diversity is essential for agricultural sustainability globally, as well as conservation efforts. Care must also be taken as the greater use of native plants as crops brings risks such as gene flow between domesticated and wild populations, posing potential threats to wild populations (Haygood et al., Reference Haygood, Ives and Andow2003), particularly if wild populations are small and highly fragmented.
The need for basic research
Poorly adapted germplasm, a lack of agronomic information and insufficient investment to address these issues are also commonly identified as significant obstacles to the growth and expansion of the Australian native food industry (Salvin et al., Reference Salvin, Bourke, Byrne and Byrne2004; Clarke, Reference Clarke2012; Clarke, Reference Clarke2013). Developing productive and economically viable farming systems in Australia and globally has relied on basic agricultural research (Hunt et al., Reference Hunt, Kirkegaard, Celestina, Porker, Pratley and Kirkegaard2019; Zaidi et al., Reference Zaidi, Vanderschuren, Qaim, Mahfouz, Kohli, Mansoor and Tester2019; Hunt et al., Reference Hunt, Kirkegaard, Harris, Porker, Rattey, Collins, Celestina, Cann, Hochman and Lilley2021). There is a need globally for more significant investment in basic research to increase agrobiodiversity and food security (Jacobsen et al., Reference Jacobsen, Sørensen, Pedersen and Weiner2015; Toensmeier, Reference Toensmeier2016), not just in Australia. Many wild plant taxa have been explored as potential crops (Janick, Reference Janick1996; Janick, Reference Janick and Janick1999; Janick and Whipkey, Reference Janick and Whipkey2002; Janick and Whipkey, Reference Janick and Whipkey2007), but few are now commercially viable and widely grown (DeHaan et al., Reference DeHaan, Van Tassel, Anderson, Asselin, Barnes, Baute, Cattani, Culman, Dorn, Hulke, Kantar, Larson, Marks, Miller, Poland, Ravetta, Rude, Ryan, Wyse and Zhang2016). A common issue is that basic research needed to understand and address problematic plant traits that inhibit economically viable production is missing, as is research to underpin commercially viable agronomy (Jolliff, Reference Jolliff, Janick and Simon1990; Blade and Slinkard, Reference Blade, Slinkard, Janick and Whipkey2002; Wilson, Reference Wilson, Janick and Whipkey2007; Abbo et al., Reference Abbo, van-Oss, Gopher, Saranga, Ofner and Peleg2014; DeHaan et al., Reference DeHaan, Van Tassel, Anderson, Asselin, Barnes, Baute, Cattani, Culman, Dorn, Hulke, Kantar, Larson, Marks, Miller, Poland, Ravetta, Rude, Ryan, Wyse and Zhang2016). Basic applied research will, therefore, be essential for developing the Australian native food industry.
The need for sustained public funding of R&D
Developing new crops and associated agricultural industries, particularly from undomesticated taxa, requires a sustained, long-term, and multidisciplinary research effort (Wollenweber et al., Reference Wollenweber, Porter and Lübberstedt2005; Runck et al., Reference Runck, Kantar, Jordan, Anderson, Wyse, Eckberg, Barnes, Lehman, DeHaan and Stupar2014; DeHaan et al., Reference DeHaan, Van Tassel, Anderson, Asselin, Barnes, Baute, Cattani, Culman, Dorn, Hulke, Kantar, Larson, Marks, Miller, Poland, Ravetta, Rude, Ryan, Wyse and Zhang2016). Successful new crop industries in Australia and elsewhere have relied on sustained public research investment in multi-decade and multi-disciplinary research programmes (Williams, Reference Williams2005; Collins and Norton, Reference Collins, Norton, Pratley and Kirkegaard2019; Pratley and Kirkegaard, Reference Pratley and Kirkegaard2019). This is illustrated by the introduction and development of canola (Brassica napus) (Colton and Potter, Reference Colton and Potter1999; Salisbury et al., Reference Salisbury, Cowling and Potter2016) and edible lines of lupins (Lupinus angustifolius) (Nelson and Hawthorne, Reference Nelson and Hawthorne2000). The successful development of native Australian crops will require similar research and development efforts. Public funding for such research work in Australia is relatively limited, unsustained or often non-existent and has also not attracted investment from private enterprises. This stands as a significant hurdle to the further development of the industry.
A possible funding and industry development model already exists in Australia in the form of the Research and Development Corporations (RDC). Supported partly by levies on producers, RDCs have brought demonstrable benefits to several agricultural industries (CRRDC, 2016). Agrifutures Australia is the RDC responsible for supporting research and industry development for edible Australian plants as part of a broader mandate to support new agricultural industries. However, it does not currently provide sustained funding of the sort needed for de novo domestication of food crops. Dedicating a specific RDC to native crop domestication could meet global calls for governments to support more diverse and locally adapted food systems built partly on non-conventional crops (Antonelli, Reference Antonelli2023). By administering research through national and regional RDC panels comprised of stakeholders, including members of the Indigenous Australian community, such a model could also provide a mechanism to address engagement and benefit-sharing challenges. When intellectual property ownership is complex, disputed or distributed, such a body could collect levies and administer a consolidated fund.
Greater diversity of food types and regions
The Australian native food industry is biased towards niche markets. Expanding the number of taxa under consideration to encompass more food types, such as grains or pulses, that can supply large-scale staple food markets and to include taxa adapted to a more diverse range of agroecosystems, particularly the grain production zones, will increase opportunities for large-scale native food production to diversify existing extensive agricultural industries. This necessitates research and development towards a more diverse range of edible species.
Participatory research approaches
Participatory germplasm improvement and agronomic research are increasingly common in Australia and globally (Walters et al., Reference Walters, Milne and Thompson2018; Snapp et al., Reference Snapp, DeDecker and Davis2019; Colley et al., Reference Colley, Dawson, McCluskey, Myers, Tracy and van Bueren2021; Lacoste et al., Reference Lacoste, Cook, McNee, Gale, Ingram, Bellon-Maurel, MacMillan, Sylvester-Bradley, Kindred, Bramley, Tremblay, Longchamps, Thompson, Ruiz, García, Maxwell, Griffin, Oberthür, Huyghe, Zhang, McNamara and Hall2022). Participatory research includes stakeholders in evaluating and selecting germplasm, developing research targets and conducting agronomic research to address industry constraints (Shelton et al., Reference Shelton, Tracy, Kapuscinski and Locke2016; Walters et al., Reference Walters, Milne and Thompson2018; Snapp et al., Reference Snapp, DeDecker and Davis2019; Lacoste et al., Reference Lacoste, Cook, McNee, Gale, Ingram, Bellon-Maurel, MacMillan, Sylvester-Bradley, Kindred, Bramley, Tremblay, Longchamps, Thompson, Ruiz, García, Maxwell, Griffin, Oberthür, Huyghe, Zhang, McNamara and Hall2022). Participatory breeding has been used successfully to improve the productivity and quality of crops in several regions, notably in some minor crops (Ceccarelli, Reference Ceccarelli2015; Shelton et al., Reference Shelton, Tracy, Kapuscinski and Locke2016; Ceccarelli and Grando, Reference Ceccarelli and Grando2020; Fadda et al., Reference Fadda, Mengistu, Kidane, Dell'Acqua, Pè and Van Etten2020). On-farm agronomic research can better understand and address complex genotype, management and environmental interactions (Rotili et al., Reference Rotili, de Voil, Eyre, Serafin, Aisthorpe, Maddonni and Rodríguez2020), identify industry needs, and encourage more rapid adoption of new crops and farming practices (Hunt et al., Reference Hunt, Kirkegaard, Celestina, Porker, Pratley and Kirkegaard2019). Participatory research can yield efficiencies in a stretched research funding environment, complement traditional research programmes and create additional avenues for engagement and empowerment of Australian Aboriginal communities.
Conclusions
There is considerable potential for the de novo domestication and cultivation of native Australian plants as food crops. Such crops could provide valuable new agricultural industries that increase the long-term sustainability of Australian agricultural systems and contribute to global food security. The primary impediment is inadequate funding and policy needed to underpin appropriate research and development, particularly basic cultivar development and agronomic research needed for active cultivation. Historically, successful new crop programmes show that developing native Australian food crops will require a sustained investment in publicly supported multidisciplinary research and development. This could happen through established Australian agricultural funding frameworks like the RDCs. Research and development activities must commence with collecting and evaluating a range of edible taxa, from throughout the continent, targeting species with the potential for large-scale staple food markets and adapted to a diverse range of agroecosystems. Finally, development programmes must also engage all relevant stakeholders and provide appropriate engagement and benefit-sharing opportunities with Indigenous communities.
Acknowledgements
We sincerely thank Dr Angela Pattison, The University of Sydney, and Professor Sally Thompson, The University of Western Australia, for providing comments on drafts of this review.
Author contributions
N. A. G. and K. D. conceived the review topic and N. A. G. researched and wrote the manuscript. S. J. B., R. C. and K. D. revised the manuscript and provided additional intellectual content.
Funding statement
This research did not receive any specific funding.
Competing interests
None.
Ethical standards
Not applicable.
Open access
