We have food forests, and garden, and other garden. In Russian there’s this distinction of Ogorod (utility vegetable garden) vs Sad (where the trees and flowers are).
Lesosad (literally “forest garden”) is a garden in the forest, has a connotation of “pretty”. Gennady initially called a food forest a “lesosad” when Myron described it, but when he understood it better he stopped doing that and called it “Myron’s idea”.
What Myron does is call it “lesosad” and then he explains it from the ambiguity.
Herman's idea is to emphasize "bogatuy"—basically similar to how "nutrient-dense" emphasizes benefits. The Russian term he was proposing but seemed to appeal to existing Russian values and emphasize the improvement. He says лесные богатства, forest riches, is a commonly understood concept. If we talk about forest gardens as making a richer forest, that communicates it better.
This is a great zone 3 & 4 definition.
For zones 1 & 2 it wouldn’t apply, just as it wouldn’t make much sense to talk about zone 1 & 2 “food forests”.
But to any extent we talk about "food forests" in English, it's probably perfect since Russians already think of the forest as a resource, we're like "yeah we know how to amp that up”. We need a way to talk about zones 1 & 2, and integrate pastures, etc.… but Herman's idea seems to be a complete winner as far as it can apply.
Обогащение леса Обогащенный лес
For zones 1 & 2, Gennady’s got a good term: умный огород. We can make that mean what we want it to. It emphasizes design and the appropriate interventions we make. Which are exactly what we don't do outside of those zones.