The importance of legume crops in global agricultural systems is inevitable; conversely, less than 4% of European agricultural lands are dedicated for these plants. Besides total loss of biodiversity, agrobiodiversity is also in danger. The production of legumes diversifies arable plant production and supports the nutrient management of the agroecosystem, as well as that of the whole ecosystem. Increasing soybean production area means that other pulses are grown on smaller areas, that means a reduced resiliency of the whole production system. Expanding environmental stresses of climate change and intensive agricultural practices are easier to counteract with help of diversity on species and on genetic level as well. As a consequence of climate change and targeted breeding of the last decade, agricultural lands appropriate for soybean production shows an increase in Europe. The self-sufficiency rates of the European Union concerning single protein sources shows fluctuations. The easier utilization of soy-based products as forage displaces the use of other pulses, which are traditionally produced as protein crops. Besides protein flow, these leguminous plants have an important role in different levels of agricultural systems as well. Several recent initiatives aim to reduce the serious protein exposure of the EU. These programs, beyond the introduction and technological development of soybean production, always mention the strengthening of the role of other pulses. In this study, the last decades of EU pulse utilization were analyzed, using crop yield, crop harvested area, certified seed yield, seed production area, number of registered varieties, and the number of scientific publications as indicators to summarize trends of EU field bean, field pea, lupin, chickpea, lentil, and soybean production in the view of targeted protein initiatives.

Closed plant production systems are generally considered sustainable. Such systems are capable of minimizing externalities due to resource recycling. There are two systems, apparently diverging, recently considered as the counterparts of today’s conventional agricultural practice: organic farming (OF) and plant factories (PFs). With a strong regulatory background, OF integrates plant production into natural ecosystems by minimizing agrochemical use, while PFs create an artificial environment where all factors can be fine-tuned according to the needs of the crop. In this study, both systems are investigated based on their similarities and constraints; for this, three pillars of production were selected as indicators and reviewed for sustainability based on literature data: I. regulatory background, II. growing media use, III. species use, along with certain socio-economic factors. The reasons for co-existence were highlighted in every aspect. Alternatives for sustainable growing media use are introduced. PF-targeted species selection and variety breeding are necessary to maximize facility utilization. The main barriers to system interoperability are identified in growing media use and regulatory restrictions. The present global processes envisage the trends of the future, such as threats of living ecosystems, plant species allocation, urbanization impacts, agricultural intensification, economics of PFs, local supply chains, education about OF and PFs, consumer acceptance of OF and PF products, and discrepancies in global regulations. These aspects will certainly trigger further research in the scientific community.

Ever-growing cities constantly increase the distance between suburban regions and semi-urban areas on the perimeter of the cities, where traditional crop production can take place with relatively fewer restrictions. The implementation of ultra-short supply chains implies moving the means of crop production as close to inhabitants as possible. Two main directions can be identified as effective for increasing the food resilience of densely populated suburban areas; these are soil-based traditional urban agriculture and high-tech plant factories. Both approaches to crop production offer a certain level of integration with the built environment; however, these alternatives differ in terms of their contributions to environment modulation, agrobiodiversity, social well-being, and food resilience. Vertical farms can produce a high amount of nutritionally rich crops for direct use, although the involvement of inhabitants is minimal; therefore, they can be considered a service function without social advantages. Open-field plant production can contribute to the well-being of locals, but the yields are considered rather supplementary. The combination of both production approaches to strengthen common advantages is less likely; automated production technologies require a low number of highly qualified personnel; therefore, community plant factories cannot be considered possible contributors to urban social well-being in the future.