text: The application of the term "paludiculture" is debated as it is contingent on whether different peatland agricultural practices are considered sustainable. In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, how sustainable a paludiculture practice is deemed to be depends on the greenhouse gas measured, the species of plant and the water table level of the peatland. "Paludiculture" been used to refer to cultivating native and non-native crops on intact or re-wetted peatlands. In the EU's Common Agricultural Policy, it is defined as the productive land use of wet and rewetted peatlands that preserves the peat soil and thereby minimizes CO emissions and subsidence. A recent review of tropical peatland paludiculture from the National University of Singapore evaluated wet and re-wetted management pathways in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration and concluded that commercial paludiculture is only suited to re-wetted peatlands, where it is carbon negative or neutral, as opposed to intact peatlands, where it increases emissions. After decades of re-wetting, can still contribute to global warming to a greater extent than intact peatlands. Exceptions where paludiculture on intact peatlands may be sustainable are some traditions of cultivating native crops semi-wild in intact peat swamp forest, or gathering peatland products without active cultivation. The review also suggests that, to be sustainable, paludiculture should only use native vegetation to restore peatlands whilst producing biomass, as opposed to any wetland plants which have the possibility of surviving.  This is because using non-native species may create negative peatland conditions for other native plants, and non-native plants tend to have a lower yield and lifespan in undrained or re-wetted peatlands than when grown in their native habitats or drained wetlands.