Page History

HTML

<div class="banner_general_fiche"><div class="table-wrap"><table class="ficheTable" style="width: 99.1985%;"><colgroup><col style="width: 60%;"><col style="width: 20%;"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td class="confluenceTd"><h1 style="text-align: center;" title="" id="banner_title"></h1></td></tr></tbody></table></div></div>


<script>
var title = $('#title-text').find('a').text();
var mytitle = title.replace('_',' ');
$('#banner_title').text(mytitle + ' Fiche');

</script>

<style>
.banner_general_fiche { 
  height: 194px;  
  padding-right: 20px;
  background-color: #00afef;
 }
.banner_general_fiche h1 {
  position: relative;
  font-size: 1.7 !important;
  font-family: corbel;
  color: #ffffff !important;
  letter-spacing: -0.01em;
  font-weight: normal;
  line-height: 1.25;
  top: 64px;
  font-weight: bold;
  margin-left: 30px;
}
#banner_title {
   text-transform: uppercase; 
}
.table-wrap {
    overflow-x: hidden;
    overflow-y: hidden;
}
.banner_general_fiche td { 
    border: 0px !important;
	height: 170px;
	width: 100%;
}  
.content-wrapper {
  font-family: corbel;
  position: relative;
}
</style>

<style>
.highlight-green {
   color: #000000;
   background-color: #92d050 !important;
}
table.confluenceTable td.confluenceTd.highlight-green>p {
    background-color: #92d050 !important;
}
.highlight-red {
   color: #000000 !important;
   background-color: #ff0000 !important;
}
table.confluenceTable td.confluenceTd.highlight-red>p {
    background-color: #ff0000 !important;
}
.highlight-yellow {
   color: #000000;
   background-color: #ffc000 !important;
}
table.confluenceTable td.confluenceTd.highlight-yellow>p {
    background-color: #ffc000 !important;
}
.highlight-grey {
   color: #000000 !important;
   background-color: #a4a4a4 !important;
}
table.confluenceTable td.confluenceTd.highlight-grey>p {
    background-color: #a4a4a4 !important;
}

#Agroforestry_GENERAL-GENERALFICHE-AGROFORESTRY {
  color: #F8F8FF !important;

}
#main-content { font-family: corbel; }

.wiki-content img.confluence-embedded-image { cursor: default !important;}  

</style>

Data extracted in May 2022 2022
Fiche created in December 2023

Note to the reader: This general fiche summarises all the environmental and climate impacts of LANDSCAPE FEATURES found in a systematic review of 36 synthesis research papers[1]. These papers were selected from an initial number of 449 455 obtained through a systematic literature search strategy, according to the inclusion criteria reported in section 4. The impacts reported here are those for which there is scientific evidence available in published synthesis papers, what does not preclude the farming practice to have other impacts on the environment and climate still not covered by primary studies or by synthesis papers.

The synthesis papers review a number of primary studies As each synthesis research paper involves a number of individual papers - ranging from 9 to 300. Therefore, the assessment of impacts relies on a large number of results from the primary studies, obtained mainly in field experiments (carried out in situations close to real farming environment), and sometimes in lab experiments or from conditions, or sometimes in lab experiments or from model simulations.

1. DESCRIPTION OF THE FARMING PRACTICE

...

Description:
...
Landscape features are small fragments of natural or semi-natural vegetation in agricultural landscape, which provide ecosystem services and support for biodiversity. Historically, farmers have taken advantage of the natural elements already present in the agricultural landscapes or have created them for various purposes: to use their wood, to create shelter for crops and livestock as well as windbreak barriers, to delimit parcels, or to be able to cultivate on land with steep slope.[2]
...
...
In most policy documents landscape features are defined as a group/list of subtypes (“features”), such as hedges, ponds, ditches, trees in line, in group or isolated, field margins, terraces, dry-stone or earth walls, vegetated areas, individual monumental trees, water streams, springs or historic canal networks. Nevertheless, there is no standard definition and typology of landscape features, and there are different interpretations in the various sectors and disciplines.
This review applies an ad hoc “typology”, synthesized from the feature types addressed in the scientific literature (i.e., it is not an exhaustive list but comprises only the features found in the literature that meet the requirements to be included in our review). This typology includes twelve (in some cases, partly overlapping) classes of landscape features:
...
Landscape features in general
...
cover all features comprising small areas of permanent non-productive semi-natural vegetation embedded in farmlands, as well as anthropogenic structures such as stone walls. This broad class can involve various types of vegetation (woody, grassy, or wetland), either as historical legacies/remnants
...
or newly established habitat islands. This class covers a large fraction of other more specific
...
Landscape feature classes (e.g.
...
hedgerows, field margins), in order to host studies that did not make the distinction between the finer classes below.[3]
...
Buffer strips are narrow linear non-cultivated areas interposed between fields and water streams covered in semi-natural (typically grassland or wetland) vegetation, which are created / retained / managed in order to intercept and treat the waters leaving the cropland[4]
...
...
Ditches are small human-made linear surface depressions covered by water and/or wetland vegetation, embedded in an agricultural landscape. Ditches are typically created for the purpose of irrigation, drainage, and/or soil erosion prevention[5]
...
...
Field margins are narrow linear areas on agricultural ﬁeld borders covered in permanent herbaceous vegetation, which are never intentionally fertilized, sprayed, or tilled.[6]
...
...
Flower strips are small, often linear parts of arable fields that are intentionally sown by the farmers with non-productive flowering plants for biodiversity benefits[7]
...
...
Hedgerows are narrow linear areas on agricultural ﬁeld borders covered in unfertilized perennial woody vegetation (shrubs and/or trees)[
...
8]
...
...
Isolated trees are non-productive trees occurring dispersed / scattered in croplands and/or grasslands, typically as legacies of historical vegetation and land uses[
...
9]
...
...
Ponds are small surface depressions covered by water and possibly a narrow strip of wetland vegetation, embedded in an agricultural landscape[
...
10]
...
...
Small wetlands are small transiently flooded surface depressions covered in wetland vegetation and embedded in an agricultural landscape. This class includes the remnants of historical wetland or freshwater ecosystems, and human-made “constructed wetlands” created for treating wastewaters or as a refuge for species[
...
11]
...
...
Stone walls are rocky vertical surfaces with a variety of typologies. These long-standing anthropogenic structures are used since prehistory as retaining walls and/or as field boundaries. The ages of stone walls has increased their likelihood of exposure to various biotic and abiotic factors, allowing for the establishment of peculiar communities[
...
12]
...
...
Terraces are anthropogenic structures on sloping terrains created to permit or facilitate cultivation and to reduce the risk of erosion. Terraces consist of one or more “steps” (steep sections covered permanent woody or grassy vegetation or stone walls) and “land blocks” (flat sections that are used for agricultural production, separated by the steps). The specific size, appearance, choice of construction material (i.e., earth, stone or brick), age, land use/vegetation cover of terracing may differ across biogeographical areas.[
...
13]
...
...
Trees in group are small patchy areas of woody vegetation (including trees, shrubs and herbs) embedded in an agricultural landscape. They can range from ancient native woodland remnants, to new plantations of non-native species
...
Key descriptors:
...
This review includes spatial and temporal comparisons between agricultural land (cropland or grassland) with and without landscape features embedded within the farm or with and without landscape features within the surrounding agricultural landscape.
...
That is, studies at the landscape scale were only considered if the landscape surrounding the cropland or grassland has an agricultural use (e.g., no urban or forested landscapes were considered). Spatial comparisons were simultaneously conducted between nearby agricultural lands. Temporal comparisons were conducted in the same agricultural land before and after the establishment or creation of the landscape feature.
...
This review only includes impacts measured in the cropland or grassland with the landscape features embedded or in their surrounding agricultural landscape. The effect of landscape features in other land uses are not included.
This review does not include studies in agroforestry nor in fallowing, which are assessed in separate sets of fiches.
2.
...
     EFFECTS OF THE FARMING PRACTICE ON
...
CLIMATE AND
...
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
We reviewed the impacts of different landscape features in agricultural land (cropland or grassland) compared to agricultural land without the corresponding landscape features.
The table below shows the number of synthesis papers with statistical tests reporting positive, negative or no effect, based on the statistical comparison of the intervention and the controli) a significant difference between the Intervention and the Comparator, that is to say, a significant statistical effect, which can be positive or negative; or ii) a non-statistically significant difference between the Intervention and the Comparator. In addition, we include, if any, the number of systematic reviews synthesis papers reporting relevant results , but without statistical test of the effects (“uncertain”). The numbers between parentheses indicate the number of synthesis papers with a quality score of at least 50%. Details on quality criteria . Details on the quality assessment of the synthesis papers can be found in the methodology section of this WIKI.
Out of the 36 selected synthesis papers selected, 30 reported included studies conducted in Europe, and 28 29 have a quality score higher than 50%. Some synthesis papers reported more than one impact.
Table 1: Summary of effects. Impacts of the presence of landscape features in cropland or grassland compared to cropland or grassland without landscape features embedded or in their surrounding landscape.Number of synthesis papers reporting positive, negative or non-statistically significant effects on environmental and climate impacts. The number of synthesis papers reporting relevant results but without statistical test of the effects are also provided. When not all the synthesis papers reporting an effect are of high quality, the number of synthesis papers with a quality score of at least 50% is indicated in parentheses. Some synthesis papers may report effects for more than one impact, or more than one effect for the same impact.

Statistically tested
Non-statistically tested
Impact
Metric
Intervention
Comparator
Significantly positive
Significantly negative
Non-significant
Increase Animal production
Animal production
Hedgerows
No hedgerows
0
0
0
Impact
Intervention
Positive
Negative
No effect
**Uncertain*¹**
Increase carbon sequestration
Field margins
1 (1)
0
0
0
Hedgerows
3 (3)
0
1(0)
1 (0)
Isolated trees
No isolated trees
0
0
0
1 (0)
Increase Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Buffer strips
No buffer strips
0
0
Terraces
1 (1)
0
1 (
1
0)
0
Decrease nutrient leaching and run-off
Buffer strips
Flower strips
No flower strips
0
4 (4)
0
0
1 (0)
Ditches and ponds
1 (1)
Hedgerows
No hedgerows
0
0
0
1 (0)
Field margins
1 (1)
Isolated trees
No isolated trees
0
0
0
Hedgerows
1 (
1
0)
0
0
0
Small wetlands
1 (1)
Landscape features in general
No semi-natural habitat features
1
0
0
0
Decrease pests and diseases
Landscape features in general
1
Trees in group
No trees in group or field copses
0
0
2 (2)
0
2
1 (
2
0)
0
Increase Carbon sequestration
Carbon sequestration
Field margins
2 (2)
No field margins
1
0
0
0
Hedgerows
No hedgerows
3
0
1
Flower strips
1 (
1
0)
o
o
o
Isolated trees
No isolated trees
0
0
Hedgerows
2 (2)
0
3
1 (
3
0)
Terraces
0
Increase biodiversity²
Landscape features in general
1 (1)
0
0
1(1)
Buffer strips
No terraces
1
0
1
0
Increase Grassland production
Grassland production
Hedgerows
No hedgerows
0
0
0
1 (0)
Flower
Decrease Nutrient leaching and run-off
Nutrient leaching
Buffer strips
No buffer strips
0
1
0
0
1 (0)
Hedgerows
Field margins
No field margins
1
0
0
0
1 (0)
Isolated trees
0
Hedgerows
No hedgerows
1
0
0
1 (
0
)
Trees in group
0
Decrease Pests and diseases
Pest control
Field margins
No field margins
2
0
0
1 (
0
)
Field margins
3 (3)
Increase pollination
Landscape features in general
2 (2)
0
1 (1)
0
Flower strips
No flower strips
1
0
0
0
0
Hedgerows
Flower strips
3 (3)
No hedgerows
2
0
3 (
3
)
0
Landscape features in general
No semi-natural habitat features
1
Hedgerows
0
0
1 (
1
)
0
Decrease
soil erosion
Buffer strips
Pests and diseases
Pests and diseases
Landscape features in general
No semi-natural habitat features
1
3 (2)
0
1
(
0
)
Increase Pollination
Pollination
2 (0)
Field margins
No field margins
2 (2)
3
0
0
0
Flower strips
No flower strips
3
Hedgerows
3 (3)
0
1 (1)
3
0
Terraces
Hedgerows
No hedgerows
4 (3)
0
1 (
0
)
1
(
0
)
Trees
Landscape features in
group
0
0
general
No semi-natural habitat features
2
0
1
(
0
)
Increase soil nutrients
Hedgerows
1 (1)
0
Decrease Soil erosion
Soil erosion
Buffer strips
No buffer strips
3 (2
1 (1
)
0
Terraces
1 (0)
0
0
1
2 (0)
Increase water quality
Landscape features in general
Field margins
No field margins
2
1
(1)
0
0
0
Buffer strips
1 (1)
0
Hedgerows
No hedgerows
3
0
1
(
0
)
Ditches
Terraces
0
0
No terraces
4 (3)
0
1 (0)
Small wetlands
1 (
1
0)
0
0
0
Increase soil water retention
Terraces
1 (1)
Trees in group
No trees in group or field copses
0
0
0
1 (0)
Increase
animal production
Soil nutrients
Soil nutrients
Hedgerows
0
No hedgerows
0
1
0
1
(
0
)Isolated trees
Terraces
No terraces
0
0
0
1 (0)
Increase
crop yield
Field margins
Soil water retention
Water retention
Terraces
No terraces
1
1 (1)
0
0
1 (0
)
Increase Water quality
Nutrient removal
Buffer strips
No buffer strips
2
Flower strips
0
0
3 (3)
0
Hedgerows
0
Ditches and ponds
Before ditches or ponds
1
0
0
1 (
1)
0)
Small wetlands
Before small wetlands
2
(1)
Isolated trees
0
0
0
2 (2)
0
Terraces
Increase Water quality
Water quality
Buffer strips
No buffer strips
1
0
0
1 (1)
1 (
1)
0)
Ditches and ponds
Before ditches or ponds
0
0
0
1 (1)
1 (0)
Trees in group
1 (1)
Landscape features in general
No semi-natural habitat features
1
0
0
0
Small wetlands
Before small wetlands
1
0
0
0
¹ Number of systematic reviews that report relevant results but without statistical test comparison of the intervention and the control.
²The few meta-analyses on the effect of landscape features on biodiversity represent a general knowledge gap for this fiche. More detailed information can be found in the single-impact fiche on biodiversity. Furthermore, it should be noted that the impacts on natural enemies and pollinators also contribute to the impact on biodiversity; these results are described in the single-impact fiches on biodiversity for pest control and pollination, respectively.
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE KEY FACTORS INFLUENCING THE SIZE OF THE EFFECT
Only the factors explicitly studied in the reviewed synthesis papers with a significant effect are reported below. Details regarding the factors can be found in the Summaries of the meta-analyses.
Increase Crop yield
Crop yield
Field margins
No field margins
1
0
0
0
Flower strips
No flower strips
0
0
3
0
Hedgerows
No hedgerows
1
0
0
0
Isolated trees
No isolated trees
0
0
2
0
Terraces
No terraces
1
1
1
1 (0)
Trees in group
No trees in group or field copses
1
0
0
0
3.      FACTORS INFLUENCING THE EFFECTS ON CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The factors significantly influencing the size and/or direction of the effects on the impacts, according to the synthesis papers included in this review, are reported below. Details about the factors can be found in the summaries of the meta-analyses available in this WIKI.
Table 2: List of factors reported to significantly affect the size and/or direction of the effects on environmental and climate impacts, according to the synthesis papers reviewed. The reference number of the synthesis papers where those factors are explored is given in parentheses.
Impact
Factors
Carbon sequestration
Distance to field edge (Ref20)
Nutrient leaching and run-off
Duration of treatment (Ref14) and Field edge width (Ref20)
Pests
Impact
Factors
Increase carbon sequestration
Distance to field edge (ref 20)
Decrease nutrient leaching and run-off
Temperature (ref 3, 21), Vegetation presence in ditch (ref 3), Construction material (ref 3), Inflow concentration (ref 3, 21), Duration of treatment (ref 14), Field edge width (ref 20), Hydraulic loading rate (ref 21), Wetland area (ref 21), Hydraulic loading (ref 21), Buffer width (ref 33, 35), Buffer vegetation type (ref 33, 35), Water flow path (ref 35)
Decrease pests
and diseases
Distance to field edge (
ref 5
Ref5)
Increase pollination
Pollination
Distance to field edge (
ref 5
Ref5),
Time since treatment (ref 5), Flowering plant species richness (ref 5
Ecological contrast (difference in richness of plant communities between field margins and crop) (Ref13), Field edge management (
ref 10
Ref10), Field edge vegetation type (
ref 10
Ref10),
Pollinator species (ref 10), Ecological contrast (difference in richness of plant communities between field margins and crop) (ref 13
Flowering plant species richness (Ref5), Landscape structure (proportion of semi-natural habitats) (
ref 13
Ref13), Number of flower species in strip
(ref 26)
(Ref26), Pollinator species (Ref10) and Time since treatment (Ref5)
Soil erosion
Buffer slope (Ref33, Ref34), Buffer vegetation type (Ref33), Buffer width (Ref33, Ref34
Decrease soil erosion
Land use (ref 18), Terrace type (ref 18), Geographical area (ref 18), Slope (ref 18, 19
), Field edge vegetation type (
ref 19
Ref19), Field edge width (
ref 20
Ref20),
Buffer width (ref 33, 34), Buffer slope (ref 33, 34), Buffer vegetation type (ref 33)
Geographical area (Ref18), Land use (Ref18), Slope (Ref18, Ref19) and Terrace type (Ref18)
Soil
Increase water quality
Buffer width (ref 33)
Increase soil
water retention
Land use (
ref 7
Ref7)
Increase crop yield
Buffer maturity (ref 2), Slope (ref 19), Distance to field edge (ref 20), Tree functional group (ref 25), Rainfall (ref 28)
4. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW SEARCH STRATEGY
Water quality
Buffer vegetation type (Ref33, Ref35), Buffer width (Ref33, Ref35), Construction material (Ref3), Hydraulic loading (Ref21), Hydraulic loading rate (Ref21), Inflow concentration (Ref3, Ref21), Temperature (Ref3, Ref21), Vegetation presence in ditch (Ref3), Water flow path (Ref35) and Wetland area (Ref21)
Crop yield
Buffer maturity (Ref2), Distance to field edge (Ref20), Rainfall (Ref28), Slope (Ref19) and Tree functional group (Ref25)
4.     SYSTEMATIC REVIEW SEARCH STRATEGY
Table 3: Systematic review search strategy - methodology and search parameters.
Parameter
Details
Keywords
WOS:
1) TS= ("terrac" OR "contour bund" OR "level bench" OR "level
Keywords
Different searches were conducted with the following search strings:
1)                   TS= ("terrac" OR "contour bund" OR "level bench" OR "level
ditch" OR "fish-scale pit" OR "dry-stone wall" OR "dry stone wall" OR "stone wall" OR "earth wall" OR "dry wall" OR "dry-wall" OR "rubble wall”) AND TS= ("meta-analy" OR "systematic review" OR "evidence map" OR "global synthesis" OR "evidence synthesis" OR "research synthesis") AND TS= (agric OR cultiv* OR crop* OR farm)
or
TITLE-ABS-KEY: ("terrac" OR "contour bund
2) TS= (“creek” OR "ditch" OR "
level bench
earth bund" OR
"level ditch" OR "fish-scale pit" OR "dry-stone wall" OR "dry stone wall" OR "stone wall" OR "earth wall" OR "dry wall" OR "dry-wall" OR "rubble wall”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY:
“open-channel” OR “intermittent W/4 stream” OR “small W/4 stream”) AND TS= ("meta-analy" OR "systematic review" OR "evidence map" OR "global synthesis" OR "evidence synthesis" OR "research synthesis") AND
TITLE-ABS-KEY: (
TS= ("agric" OR "cultiv" OR "crop" OR "farm")
2
3)

TS= (
“creek” OR
"
ditch
pond" OR
"earth bund" OR “open-channel” OR “intermittent
“soda pan” OR “reedbed” OR “small W/4
stream”
lake” OR “small W/4
stream”
wetland”) AND TS= ("meta-analy" OR "systematic review" OR "evidence map" OR "global synthesis" OR "evidence synthesis" OR "research synthesis") AND TS= ("agric" OR "cultiv" OR "crop" OR "farm")
or
TITLE-ABS-KEY: (“creek
4) TS=((“strip” OR
"ditch
“margin*
"
” OR
"earth bund
“hedge*
" OR “open-channel” OR “intermittent near/4 stream” OR “small near/4 stream”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY: ("meta-analy" OR "systematic review" OR "evidence map" OR "global synthesis" OR "evidence synthesis" OR "research synthesis") AND TITLE-ABS-KEY: ("agric" OR "cultiv" OR "crop" OR "farm")3)                   TS= ("pond" OR “soda pan” OR “reedbed” OR “small W/4 lake” OR “small W/4 wetland”) AND TS= ("meta-analy" OR "systematic review" OR "evidence map" OR "global synthesis" OR "evidence synthesis"
” OR “edge” OR “border” OR “band” OR “line” OR “verge” OR “row”) near/3 (“element” OR “feature” OR “flower” OR “vegetat” OR “tree” OR “shrub” OR “plant” OR “grass” OR “filter” OR “buffer” OR “wooded” OR “riparian” OR “field” OR “wildlife” OR “seminatural” OR “semi-natural” OR “semi natural”)) AND TS=("meta-analy" OR "systematic review" OR "evidence map" OR "global synthesis" OR "evidence synthesis" OR "research synthesis") AND TS= ("agric" OR "cultiv" OR "crop" OR "farm")
or
TITLE-ABS-KEY: ("pond" OR “soda pan
5) TS=((“patch” OR “islet” OR
“reedbed
“island” OR
“small near/4 lake
“remnant” OR
“small near/4 wetland”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY: ("meta-analy" OR "systematic* review"
“group” OR “copse” OR “coppice”) near/3 (“flower” OR “vegetat” OR “tree” OR “shrub” OR “grass” OR “forest” OR “wooded” OR “field” OR “wildlife” OR “seminatural” OR “semi-natural” OR “semi natural”)) AND TS=("meta-analy" OR "systematic* review" OR "evidence map" OR "global synthesis" OR "evidence synthesis" OR "research synthesis") AND
TITLE-ABS-KEY:
TS= ("agric" OR "cultiv" OR "crop" OR "farm")
4
6)

TS= (
(“strip” OR “margin” OR “hedge” OR “edge” OR “border” OR “band” OR “line” OR “verge” OR “row”) near/3 (“element” OR “feature” OR “flower” OR “vegetat” OR “tree” OR “shrub” OR “plant” OR “grass” OR “filter” OR “buffer” OR “wooded” OR “riparian” OR “field” OR “wildlife” OR “seminatural” OR “semi-natural” OR “semi natural”)) AND TS
"landscape feature" OR "landscape characteristic" OR "green infrastructure" OR "landscape connectivity" OR "landscape diversity" OR "landscape element" OR "landscape fragment" OR "landscape mosaic" OR "landscape structure" OR “landscape complexity” OR “landscape heterogeneity” OR “landscape composition” OR “landscape configuration” OR "nature-based feature" OR "linear feature") AND TS= ("meta-analy" OR "systematic review" OR "evidence map" OR "global synthesis" OR "evidence synthesis" OR "research synthesis") AND TS= ("agric" OR "cultiv" OR "crop" OR "farm")
merged with
7) TS= (
“margin strip
“cairn” OR “rock” OR “boulder” OR "
windbreak
secular stone"
OR "shelterbelt
) AND TS= ("meta-analy" OR "
hedgerow
systematic* review"
OR “road verge”
OR "
riparian buffer
evidence map" OR "
riparian vegetation
global synthes" OR "
riparian woodland
evidence synthes" OR "
buffer zone" OR "riparian zone" "vegetated filter strip
research synthes") AND TS= (
"meta-analy" OR "systematic review" OR "evidence map" OR "global synthesis" OR "evidence synthesis" OR
"
research synthesis") AND TS= ("
agric" OR "cultiv" OR "crop" OR "farm")

and
or

SCOPUS:
1) TITLE-ABS-KEY: (
(“strip
"terrac
”
" OR
“margin
"contour bund*
”
" OR
“hedge
"level bench*
”
" OR
“edge
"level ditch*
” OR “border” OR “band” OR “line” OR “verge” OR “row”) W/3 (“element” OR “feature” OR “flower” OR “vegetat” OR “tree” OR “shrub” OR “plant” OR “grass” OR “filter” OR “buffer” OR “wooded” OR “riparian” OR “field” OR “wildlife” OR “seminatural” OR “semi-natural” OR “semi natural”))
" OR "fish-scale pit" OR "dry-stone wall" OR "dry stone wall" OR "stone wall" OR "earth wall" OR "dry wall" OR "dry-wall" OR "rubble wall”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY: ("meta-analy" OR "systematic review" OR "evidence map" OR "global synthesis" OR "evidence synthesis" OR "research synthesis") AND TITLE-ABS-KEY: (
"
agric
"
OR
"
cultiv*
"
OR
"
crop*
"
OR
"
farm*
"
)
merged with
2) TITLE-ABS-KEY: (
“margin strip
“creek” OR "
windbreak
ditch" OR "
shelterbelt
earth bund" OR
"hedgerow" OR “road verge” OR "riparian buffer" OR "riparian vegetation" OR "riparian woodland" OR "buffer zone" OR "riparian zone" "vegetated filter strip"
“open-channel” OR “intermittent near/4 stream” OR “small near/4 stream”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY: ("meta-analy" OR "systematic review" OR "evidence map" OR "global synthesis" OR "evidence synthesis" OR "research synthesis") AND TITLE-ABS-KEY: ("agric" OR "cultiv" OR "crop" OR "farm")
5)                   TS=((“patch” OR “islet
3) TITLE-ABS-KEY: ("pond" OR “soda pan” OR
“island
“reedbed” OR
“remnant
“small near/4 lake” OR
“group” OR “copse” OR “coppice”) near/3 (“flower” OR “vegetat” OR “tree” OR “shrub” OR “grass” OR “forest” OR “wooded” OR “field” OR “wildlife” OR “seminatural” OR “semi-natural” OR “semi natural”)) AND TS=
“small near/4 wetland”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY: ("meta-analy" OR "systematic* review" OR "evidence map" OR "global synthesis" OR "evidence synthesis" OR "research synthesis") AND
TS=
TITLE-ABS-KEY: ("agric" OR "cultiv" OR "crop" OR "farm")
merged with
TS=("woodland creation" OR "mid-field islet" OR "environmental island" OR "refuge" OR "scattered tree" OR "shading tree") AND TS=("meta-analy" OR "systematic* review" OR "evidence map" OR "global synthesis" OR "evidence synthesis"
4) TITLE-ABS-KEY: ((“strip” OR “margin” OR “hedge” OR “edge” OR “border” OR “band” OR “line” OR “verge” OR “row”) W/3 (“element” OR “feature” OR “flower” OR “vegetat” OR “tree” OR “shrub” OR “plant” OR “grass” OR “filter” OR “buffer” OR “wooded” OR “riparian” OR “field” OR “wildlife” OR “seminatural” OR “semi-natural” OR “semi natural”)) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY: ("meta-analy" OR "systematic* review" OR "evidence map" OR "global synthesis" OR "evidence synthesis" OR "research synthesis") AND
TS=
TITLE-ABS-KEY: ("agric" OR "cultiv" OR "crop" OR "farm")
or
5) TITLE-ABS-KEY: ((“patch” OR “islet” OR “island” OR “remnant” OR “group” OR “copse” OR “coppice”) W/
3
3 (“flower” OR “vegetat” OR “tree” OR “shrub” OR “grass” OR “forest” OR “wooded” OR “field” OR “wildlife” OR “seminatural” OR “semi-natural” OR “semi natural”)) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY: ("meta-analy" OR "systematic* review" OR "evidence map" OR "global synthesis" OR "evidence synthesis" OR "research synthesis") AND TITLE-ABS-KEY: ("agric" OR "cultiv" OR "crop" OR "farm")
merged with
6) TITLE-ABS-KEY: (
"woodland creation" OR "mid-field islet" OR "environmental island" OR "refuge" OR "scattered tree" OR "shading tree
"landscape feature" OR "landscape characteristic" OR "green infrastructure" OR "landscape connectivity" OR "landscape diversity" OR "landscape element" OR "landscape fragment" OR "landscape mosaic" OR "landscape structure" OR “landscape complexity” OR “landscape heterogeneity” OR “landscape composition” OR “landscape configuration” OR "nature-based feature" OR "linear feature") AND TITLE-ABS-KEY: ("meta-analy" OR "systematic* review" OR "evidence map" OR "global synthesis" OR "evidence synthesis" OR "research synthesis") AND TITLE-ABS-KEY: ("agric" OR "cultiv" OR "crop" OR "farm")
6)                  TS= ("landscape feature" OR "landscape characteristic" OR "green infrastructure" OR "landscape connectivity" OR "landscape diversity" OR "landscape element" OR "landscape fragment" OR "landscape mosaic" OR "landscape structure" OR “landscape complexity” OR “landscape heterogeneity” OR “landscape composition” OR “landscape configuration” OR "nature-based feature" OR "linear feature"
7) TITLE-ABS-KEY: (“cairn” OR “rock” OR “boulder” OR "secular stone") AND TS= ("meta-analy" OR "systematic review" OR "evidence map" OR "global
synthesis
synthes" OR "evidence
synthesis
synthes" OR "research
synthesis
synthes") AND
TS=
TITLE-ABS-KEY: ("agric" OR "cultiv" OR "crop" OR "farm")
or
TITLE-ABS-KEY: ("landscape feature" OR "landscape characteristic" OR "green infrastructure" OR "landscape connectivity" OR "landscape diversity" OR "landscape element" OR "landscape fragment" OR "landscape mosaic" OR "landscape structure" OR “landscape complexity” OR “landscape heterogeneity” OR “landscape composition” OR “landscape configuration” OR "nature-based feature" OR "linear feature") AND TITLE-ABS-KEY: ("meta-analy" OR "systematic review" OR "evidence map" OR "global synthesis" OR "evidence synthesis" OR "research synthesis") AND TITLE-ABS-KEY: ("agric" OR "cultiv" OR "crop" OR "farm")
7)                   TS= (“cairn” OR “rock” OR “boulder” OR "secular stone") AND TS= ("meta-analy" OR "systematic* review" OR "evidence map" OR "global synthes" OR "evidence synthes" OR "research synthes") AND TS= ("agric" OR "cultiv" OR "crop" OR "farm")
or
TITLE-ABS-KEY: (“cairn” OR “rock” OR “boulder” OR "secular stone") AND TS= ("meta-analy" OR "systematic* review" OR "evidence map" OR "global synthes" OR "evidence synthes" OR "research synthes") AND TITLE-ABS-KEY: ("agric" OR "cultiv" OR "crop" OR "farm*")
Search dates
First search was conducted in October 2021. A search update was conducted in May 2022. The synthesis papers found in the new search implied the update of the General fiche and the single-impact fiches of Pests and diseases, Pollination and Water quality.
Databases
Web of Science and Scopus, run in May 2022
Selection criteria
The main criteria that led to the exclusion of a synthesis paper were when the paper: 1) does not deal with any landscape feature; 2) does not synthetise pairwise comparisons on the effect of landscape features; 3) does not include results for cropland or grassland; 4) deals with agroforestry; 5) is either a non-systematic review, a non-quantitative systematic review, or a meta-regression without mean effect sizes; 6) is not written in English. Synthesis papers that passed the relevance criteria were subject to critical appraisal carried out on a paper-by-paper basis.
The search returned 449 synthesis papers potentially relevant for the practice object of our fiche. From the 449 potentially relevant synthesis papers, 310 were excluded after reading the title and abstract, and 103 after reading the full text according to the above-mentioned criteria. Finally, 36 synthesis papers were selected for landscape features.
5. PICTURES
...
Buffer strips
...
Wetlands
...
Image Removed
Credits: © weise_maxim / Adobe Stock 365166359
...
Image Removed
Credits: © olgamazina / Adobe Stock 350149400
...
Ditches
...
Field margins
...
Image Removed
Credits: © Ruud Morijn / Adobe Stock 363181077
...
Image Removed
Credits: © pioregur / Adobe Stock 5080466
...
Flower strips
...
Hedgerows
...
Image Removed
Credits: © Martin Grimm / Adobe Stock 307740656
...
Image Removed
Credits: © allenpaul1000 / Adobe Stock 193427780
Time reference
No time restriction.
Databases
Web of Science and Scopus: run on 20 May 2022
Exclusion criteria
The main criteria that led to the exclusion of a synthesis paper are:
1) The paper is not written in English., 2) The paper is neither a systematic review nor a meta-analysis of primary research., 3) Land use is not cropland., 4) The analysis is not based on pairwise comparisons, 5) The topic of the meta-analysis is out of the scope of this review., 6) The topic is not on a/more specific landscape features., 7) The full text is not available and 8) The topic is agroforestry (but include group of trees, scattered trees, isolated trees...).

The search returned 444 synthesis papers from WOS and SCOPUS on Landscape features plus other 11 retrieved in the search of other farming practices, potentially relevant for the practice object of our fiche.
From the 455 potentially relevant synthesis papers, 316 were excluded after reading the title and abstract, and 79 after reading the full text according to the above-mentioned criteria. Finally, 36 synthesis papers were selected.
5.     SYNTHESIS PAPERS INCLUDED IN THE REVIEW
Table 4: List of synthesis papers included in this review. More details can be found in the summaries of the meta-analyses.
Ref Num
Author(s)
Year
Title
Journal
DOI
Ref1
...
Isolated trees
...
Trees in group and field copses
...
Image Removed
Credits: © milosz_g / Adobe Stock 233463882
...
Image Removed
Credits: © darekb22 / Adobe Stock 204219760
...
Terraces
...

...
Image Removed
Credits: © Alberto Masnovo / Adobe Stock 287561080
Image Removed
Credits: © Simon / Adobe Stock 234075189
...
Image Removed
Credits: © Jose Tomas Abalos / Adobe Stock 277981724
6. LIST OF SYNTHESIS PAPERS INCLUDED IN THE REVIEW
Ref. Num
Authors
Year
Title
Reference
DOI
1
Drexler, S; Gensior, A; Don, A
2021
Carbon sequestration in hedgerow biomass and soil in the temperate climate zone
REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE, 21(3), 74.
10.1007/s10113-021-01798-8
2
Ref2
Lowe, EB; Groves, R; Gratton, C
2021
Impacts of field-edge flower plantings on pollinator conservation and ecosystem service delivery - A meta-analysis
AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS AND ENVIRONMENT, 310, 107290.
10.1016/j.agee.2020.107290
3
Ref3
Shen, W; Li, S; Mi, M; Zhuang, Y; Zhang, L
2021
What makes ditches and ponds more efficient in nitrogen control?
AGRICULTURE, ECOSYSTEMS AND ENVIRONMENT, 314, 107409.
10.1016/j.agee.2021.107409
4
Ref4
Abera, W; Tamene, L; Tibebe, D; Adimassu, Z; Kassa, H; Hailu, H; Mekonnen, K; Desta, G; Sommer, R; Verchot, L
2020
Characterizing and evaluating the impacts of national land restoration initiatives on ecosystem services in Ethiopia
LAND DEGRADATION AND DEVELOPMENT, 31(1), 37-52.
10.1002/ldr.3424
5
Ref5
Albrecht, M; Kleijn, D; Williams, NM; Tschumi, M; Blaauw, BR; Bommarco, R; Campbell, AJ; Dainese, M; Drummond, FA; Entling, MH; Ganser, D
2020
The effectiveness of flower strips and hedgerows on pest control, pollination services and crop yield: a quantitative synthesis
ECOLOGY LETTERS, 23(10), 1488-1498.
10.1111/ele.13576
6
Ref6
Carstensen, MV; Hashemi, F; Hoffmann, CC; Zak, D; Audet, J; Kronvang, B
2020
Efficiency of mitigation measures targeting nutrient losses from agricultural drainage systems: A review
AMBIO, 49, 1820-1837.
10.1007/s13280-020-01345-5
7
Ref7
Chen, D; Wei, W; Chen, L
2020
How can terracing impact on soil moisture variation in China? A meta-analysis
AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT, 227, 105849.
10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105849
8
Ref8
England, JR; OGrady, AP; Fleming, A; Marais, Z; Mendham, D
2020
Trees on farms to support natural capital: An evidence-based review for grazed dairy systems
SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 704, 135345.
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135345
9
Ref9
Paiola, A; Assandri, G; Brambilla, M; Zottini, M; Pedrini, P; Nascimbene, J
2020
Exploring the potential of vineyards for biodiversity conservation and delivery of biodiversity-mediated ecosystem services: A global-scale systematic review
SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 706, 135839.
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135839
10
Ref10
Zamorano, J; Bartomeus, I; Grez, AA; Garibaldi, LA
2020
Field margin floral enhancements increase pollinator diversity at the field edge but show no consistent spillover into the crop field: a meta-analysis
INSECT CONSERVATION AND DIVERSITY, 13, 519-531.
10.1111/icad.12454
11
Ref11
Zheng, YL; Wang, HY; Qin, QQ; Wang, YG
2020
Effect of plant hedgerows on agricultural non-point source pollution: a meta-analysis
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH, 27(20), 24831-24847.
10.1007/s11356-020-08988-7
12
Ref12
Jia, L; Zhao, W; Fu, B; Daryanto, S; Wang, S; Liu, Y; Zhai, R
2019
Effects of minimum soil disturbance practices on controlling water erosion in
China’s
China's slope farmland: A meta-analysis
LAND DEGRADATION AND DEVELOPMENT, 30(6), 706-716.
10.1002/ldr.3258
13
Ref13
Marja, R; Kleijn, D; Tscharntke, T; Klein, AM; Frank, T; Batáry, P
2019
Effectiveness of agri-environmental management on pollinators is moderated more by ecological contrast than by landscape structure or land-use intensity
ECOLOGY LETTERS, 22, 1493-1500.
10.1111/ele.13339
14
Ref14
Valkama, E; Usva, K; Saarinen, M; Uusi-Kamppa, J
2019
A meta-analysis on nitrogen retention by buffer zones
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, 48(2), 270-279.
10.2134/jeq2018.03.0120
15
Ref15
Coutinho, JGD; Garibaldi, LA; Viana, BF
2018
The influence of local and landscape scale on single response traits in bees: A meta-analysis
AGRICULTURE, ECOSYSTEMS AND ENVIRONMENT, 256, 61-73.
10.1016/j.agee.2017.12.025
16
Ref16
Duarte, GT; Santos, PM; Cornelissen, TG; Ribeiro, MC; Paglia, AP
2018
The effects of landscape patterns on ecosystem services: meta-analyses of landscape services
LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY, 33(8), 1247-1257.
10.1007/s10980-018-0673-5
17
Ref17
Xiong, M; Sun, R; Chen, L
2018
Effects of soil conservation techniques on water erosion control: A global analysis
SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT, 645, 753-760.
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.124
18
Ref18
Chen, D; Wei, W; Chen, L
2017
Effects of terracing practices on water erosion control in China: A meta-analysis
EARTH-SCIENCE REVIEWS, 173, 109-121.
10.1016/j.earscirev.2017.08.007
19
Ref19
Mandal, D; Srivastava, P; Giri, N; Kaushal, R; Cerda, A; Alam, NM
2017
Reversing land degradation through grasses: a systematic meta-analysis in the Indian tropics
SOLID EARTH, 8(1), 217-233.
10.5194/se-8-217-2017
20
Ref20
Van Vooren, L; Reubens, B; Broekx, S; De Frenne, P; Nelissen, V; Pardon, P; Verheyen, K
2017
Ecosystem service delivery of agri-environment measures: A synthesis for hedgerows and grass strips on arable land
AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS AND ENVIRONMENT, 244 32-51.
10.1016/j.agee.2017.04.015
21
Ref21
Land, M; Graneli, W; Grimvall, A; Hoffmann, CC; Mitsch, WJ; Tonderski, KS; Verhoeven, JTA
2016
How effective are created or restored freshwater wetlands for nitrogen and phosphorus removal? A systematic review
ENVIRONMENTAL EVIDENCE, 5, 9.
10.1186/s13750-016-0060-0
22
Ref22
Wei, W; Chen, D; Wang, LX; Daryanto, S; Chen, LD; Yu, Y; Lu, YL; Sun, G; Feng, TJ
2016
Global synthesis of the classifications, distributions, benefits and issues of terracing
EARTH-SCIENCE REVIEWS, 159, 388-403.
10.1016/j.earscirev.2016.06.010
23
Ref23
Batáry, P; Dicks, LV; Kleijn, D; Sutherland, WJ
2015
The role of agri-environment schemes in conservation and environmental management
CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 29(4), 1006-1016.
10.1111/cobi.12536
24
Ref24
Dollinger, J; Dagès, C; Bailly, JS; Lagacherie, P; Voltz, M
2015
Managing ditches for agroecological engineering of landscape. A review
AGRONOMY FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, 35, 999-1020.
10.1007/s13593-015-0301-6
25
Ref25
Rivest, D; Paquette, A; Moreno, G; Messier, C
2013
A meta-analysis reveals mostly neutral influence of scattered trees on pasture yield along with some contrasted effects depending on functional groups and rainfall conditions
AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS AND ENVIRONMENT, 165, 74-79.
10.1016/j.agee.2012.12.010
26
Ref26
Scheper, J; Holzschuh, A; Kuussaari, M; Potts, SG; Rundlf, M; Smith, HG; Kleijn, D
2013
Environmental factors driving the effectiveness of European agri-environmental measures in mitigating pollinator loss – a meta-analysis
ECOLOGY LETTERS, 16(7), 912-20.
10.1111/ele.12128
27
Ref27
Shackelford, G; Steward, PR; Benton, TG; Kunin, WE; Potts, SG; Biesmeijer, JC; Sait, SM
2013
Comparison of pollinators and natural enemies. A meta-analysis of landscape and local effects on abundance and richness in crops
BIOLOGICAL REVIEWS, 88(4), 1002-1021.
10.1111/brv.12040
28
Ref28
Bayala, J; Sileshi, GW; Coe, R; Kalinganire, A; Tchoundjeu, Z; Sinclair, F; Garrity, D
2012
Cereal yield response to conservation agriculture practices in drylands of West Africa: A quantitative synthesis
JOURNAL OF ARID ENVIRONMENTS, 78, 13-25.
10.1016/j.jaridenv.2011.10.011
29
Ref29
Maetens, W; Poesen, J; Vanmaerck, M
2012
How effective are soil conservation techniques in reducing plot runoff and soil loss inEurope and the Mediterranean?
EARTH-SCIENCE REVIEWS, 115(1–2), 21-36.
10.1016/j.earscirev.2012.08.003
30
Ref30
Chaplin-Kramer, R;
O’Rourke
O'Rourke, ME; Blitzer, EJ; Kremen, C
2011
A meta-analysis of crop pest and natural enemy response to landscape complexity
ECOLOGY LETTERS, 14(9), 922-932.
10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01642.x
31
Ref31
Haaland, C; Naisbit, RE; Bersier, LF
2011
Sown wildflower strips for insect conservation: A review
INSECT CONSERVATION AND DIVERSITY, 4, 60–80.
10.1111/j.1752-4598.2010.00098.x
32
Ref32
Stehle, S; Elsaesser, D; Gregoire, C; Imfeld, G; Niehaus, E; Passeport, E; Payraudeau, S; Schafer, RB; Tournebize, J; Schulz, R
2011
Pesticide risk mitigation by vegetated treatment systems: A meta-analysis
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, 40(4), 1068-1080.
10.2134/jeq2010.0510
33
Ref33
Zhang, XY; Liu, XM; Zhang, MH; Dahlgren, RA; Eitzel, M
2010
Review of vegetated buffers and a meta-analysis of their mitigation efficacy in reducing nonpoint source pollution
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, 39, 76-84.
10.2134/jeq2008.0496
34
Ref34
Liu, XM; Mang, XY; Zhang, MH
2008
Major factors influencing the efficacy of vegetated buffers on sediment trapping: A review and analysis
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, 37(5), 1667-1674.
10.2134/jeq2007.0437
35
Ref35
Mayer, PM; Reynolds, SK; McCutchen, MD; Canfield, TJ
2007
Meta-analysis of nitrogen removal in riparian buffers
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, 36, 1172-1180.
10.2134/jeq2006.0462
36
Ref36
Dorioz, JM; Wang, D; Poulenard, J; Trévisan, D
2006
The eﬀect of grass buﬀer strips on phosphorus dynamics — a critical review and synthesis as a basis for application in agricultural landscapes in France
AGRICULTURE, ECOSYSTEMS AND ENVIRONMENT, 117(1), 4-21.
10.1016/j.agee.2006
.03.029
.03.029

Disclaimer: These fiches present a large amount of scientific knowledge synthesised to assess farming practices impacts on the environment, climate and productivity. The European Commission maintains this WIKI to enhance public access to information about its initiatives. Our goal is to keep this information timely and accurate. If errors are brought to our attention, we will try to correct them. However, the Commission accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever with regard to the information on these fiches and WIKI.

[1] Synthesis research papers include either meta-analysis or systematic reviews with quantitative results. Details can be found in the methodology section of the WIKI.
[2] Eurostat (2013). Archive: Agriculture -landscape features. Retrieved from: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Archive:Agriculture_-_landscape_features
[3] A remnant natural area, also known as remnant habitat, is an ecological community containing native flora and fauna that has not been significantly disturbed by activities such as tillage, logging, pollution, urbanization, modification of fire regime, or non-native species invasion.
[4] Borin et al., 2010. Multiple functions of buffer strips in farming areas. European Journal of Agronomy, 32(1), 103-111.
[5] Dollinger et al., 2015. Managing ditches for agroecological engineering of landscape. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 35, 999-1020.
[6] Van Vooren et al., 2017. Ecosystem service delivery of agri-environment measures: a synthesis for hedgerows and grass strips on arable land. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 244, 32-51.
[7] EIP-AGRI Focus Group. Benefits of landscape features for arable crop production. Final Report. 7 March 2016. https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/sites/default/files/eip-agri_fg_ecological-focus-areas_final-report_en.pdf
[8] EIP-AGRI Focus Group. Benefits of landscape features for arable crop production. Final Report. 7 March 2016. https://ec.[8europa.eu/eip/agriculture/sites/default/files/eip-agri_fg_ecological-focus-areas_final-report_en.pdf
[9] Prevedello et al., 2018. The importance of scattered trees for biodiversity conservation: A global meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology, 55,205-214.
[910] Chen et al., 2019. Farm ponds in southern China: Challenges and solutions for conserving a neglected wetland ecosystem. Science of The Total Environment, 659, 1322-1334.
[1011] Vymazal, 2007. Removal of nutrients in various types of constructed wetlands. Science of Total Environment, 380(1-3), 48-65.
[1112] Manenti, 2014. Dry stone walls favour biodiversity: a case-study from the Appennines. Biodiversity and Conservation, 23, 1879–1893.
[1213] Wei et al., 2016. Global synthesis of the classifications, distributions, benefits and issues of terracing. Earth-Science Reviews, 159, 388-403.

Space shortcuts

Blog Posts

Versions Compared

Old Version 36

New Version Current

Key

1. DESCRIPTION OF THE FARMING PRACTICE

2.

EFFECTS OF THE FARMING PRACTICE ON

CLIMATE AND

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE KEY FACTORS INFLUENCING THE SIZE OF THE EFFECT

3. FACTORS INFLUENCING THE EFFECTS ON CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

4. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW SEARCH STRATEGY

4. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW SEARCH STRATEGY

5. PICTURES

5. SYNTHESIS PAPERS INCLUDED IN THE REVIEW

6. LIST OF SYNTHESIS PAPERS INCLUDED IN THE REVIEW

				Statistically tested			Non-statistically tested
Impact	Metric	Intervention	Comparator	Significantly positive	Significantly negative	Non-significant	Non-statistically tested
Increase Animal production	Animal production	Hedgerows	No hedgerows	0	0	0


Increase Biodiversity	Biodiversity	Buffer strips	No buffer strips	0	0


Increase Carbon sequestration	Carbon sequestration	Field margins

No terraces	1	0	1	0
Increase Grassland production	Grassland production	Hedgerows	No hedgerows	0	0	0	1 (0)


Decrease Nutrient leaching and run-off	Nutrient leaching	Buffer strips	No buffer strips


Decrease Pests and diseases	Pest control	Field margins	No field margins	2	0	0


Landscape features in general	No semi-natural habitat features	1


Decrease Soil erosion	Soil erosion	Buffer strips	No buffer strips	3 (2

Trees in group	No trees in group or field copses	0	0	0	1 (0)
Increase

)
Increase Water quality	Nutrient removal	Buffer strips	No buffer strips	2


Increase Water quality	Water quality	Buffer strips	No buffer strips	1	0	0

Landscape features in general	No semi-natural habitat features	1	0	0	0
Small wetlands	Before small wetlands	1	0	0	0


Increase Crop yield	Crop yield	Field margins	No field margins	1	0	0	0
		Flower strips	No flower strips	0	0	3	0
		Hedgerows	No hedgerows	1	0	0	0
		Isolated trees	No isolated trees	0	0	2	0
		Terraces	No terraces	1	1	1	1 (0)
		Trees in group	No trees in group or field copses	1	0	0	0

Impact	Factors
Carbon sequestration	Distance to field edge (Ref20)
Nutrient leaching and run-off	Duration of treatment (Ref14) and Field edge width (Ref20)
Pests

(Ref26), Pollinator species (Ref10) and Time since treatment (Ref5)
Soil erosion	Buffer slope (Ref33, Ref34), Buffer vegetation type (Ref33), Buffer width (Ref33, Ref34

Water quality	Buffer vegetation type (Ref33, Ref35), Buffer width (Ref33, Ref35), Construction material (Ref3), Hydraulic loading (Ref21), Hydraulic loading rate (Ref21), Inflow concentration (Ref3, Ref21), Temperature (Ref3, Ref21), Vegetation presence in ditch (Ref3), Water flow path (Ref35) and Wetland area (Ref21)
Crop yield	Buffer maturity (Ref2), Distance to field edge (Ref20), Rainfall (Ref28), Slope (Ref19) and Tree functional group (Ref25)

Parameter	Details
Keywords	WOS: 1) TS= ("terrac" OR "contour bund" OR "level bench*" OR "level


Time reference	No time restriction.
Databases	Web of Science and Scopus: run on 20 May 2022
Exclusion criteria	The main criteria that led to the exclusion of a synthesis paper are: 1) The paper is not written in English., 2) The paper is neither a systematic review nor a meta-analysis of primary research., 3) Land use is not cropland., 4) The analysis is not based on pairwise comparisons, 5) The topic of the meta-analysis is out of the scope of this review., 6) The topic is not on a/more specific landscape features., 7) The full text is not available and 8) The topic is agroforestry (but include group of trees, scattered trees, isolated trees...). The search returned 444 synthesis papers from WOS and SCOPUS on Landscape features plus other 11 retrieved in the search of other farming practices, potentially relevant for the practice object of our fiche. From the 455 potentially relevant synthesis papers, 316 were excluded after reading the title and abstract, and 79 after reading the full text according to the above-mentioned criteria. Finally, 36 synthesis papers were selected.