/
Blog Posts
Data extracted in May 2022
Note to the reader: This general fiche summarises 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 obtained through a systematic literature search strategy, according to the inclusion criteria reported in section 4.
As each synthesis research paper involves a number of individual papers - ranging from 9 to 300, the assessment of impacts relies on a large number of results obtained mainly in field experiments (carried out in situations close to real farming environment), and 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]. |
Key descriptors | · 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 covers 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[3] 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. - 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)7. - Isolated trees are non-productive trees occurring dispersed / scattered in croplands and/or grasslands, typically as legacies of historical vegetation and land uses[8]. - Ponds are small surface depressions covered by water and possibly a narrow strip of wetland vegetation, embedded in an agricultural landscape[9]. - 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[10]. - 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[11]. - 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[12]. - 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. · 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. In the case of the class landscape features in general, comparisons between landscapes with high and low cover of landscape features were also considered. 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. DESCRIPTION OF THE IMPACTS OF THE FARMING PRACTICE ON CLIMATE AND THE ENVIRONMENT
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 reporting positive, negative or no effect, based on the statistical comparison of the intervention and the control. In addition, we include the number of systematic reviews 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 can be found in the methodology section of this WIKI.
Out of the 36 synthesis papers selected, 30 reported studies conducted in Europe and 28 have a quality score higher than 50%. Some synthesis papers reported more than one impact.
Table 1. 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.
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 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 (0) | |
Terraces | 1 (1) | 0 | 1 (1) | 0 | |
Decrease nutrient leaching and run-off | Buffer strips | 4 (4) | 0 | 0 | 1 (0) |
Ditches and ponds | 1 (1) | 0 | 0 | 1 (0) | |
Field margins | 1 (1) | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Hedgerows | 1 (1) | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Small wetlands | 1 (1) | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Decrease pests and diseases | Landscape features in general | 2 (2) | 0 | 2 (2) | 0 |
Field margins | 2 (2) | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Flower strips | 1 (1) | o | o | o | |
Hedgerows | 2 (2) | 0 | 3 (3) | 0 | |
Increase biodiversity*2 | Landscape features in general | 1 (1) | 0 | 0 | 1(1) |
Buffer strips | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 (0) | |
Flower strips | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 (0) | |
Hedgerows | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 (0) | |
Isolated trees | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 (0) | |
Trees in group | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 (0) | |
Increase pollination | Landscape features in general | 2 (2) | 0 | 1 (1) | 0 |
Field margins | 3 (3) | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Flower strips | 3 (3) | 0 | 3 (3) | 0 | |
Hedgerows | 0 | 0 | 1 (1) | 0 | |
Decrease soil erosion | Buffer strips | 3 (2) | 0 | 1 (0) | 2 (0) |
Field margins | 2 (2) | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Hedgerows | 3 (3) | 0 | 1 (1) | 0 | |
Terraces | 4 (3) | 0 | 1 (0) | 1 (0) | |
Trees in group | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 (0) | |
Increase soil nutrients | Hedgerows | 1 (1) | 0 | 1 (1) | 0 |
Terraces | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 (0) | |
Increase water quality | Landscape features in general | 1 (1) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Buffer strips | 1 (1) | 0 | 0 | 1 (0) | |
Ditches | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 (0) | |
Small wetlands | 1 (1) | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Increase soil water retention | Terraces | 1 (1) | 0 | 0 | 1 (0) |
Increase animal production | Hedgerows | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 (0) |
Isolated trees | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 (0) | |
Increase crop yield | Field margins | 1 (1) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Flower strips | 0 | 0 | 3 (3) | 0 | |
Hedgerows | 0 | 0 | 1 (1) | 2 (1) | |
Isolated trees | 0 | 0 | 2 (2) | 0 | |
Terraces | 1 (1) | 1 (1) | 1 (1) | 1 (0) | |
Trees in group | 1 (1) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
*1 Number of systematic reviews that report relevant results but without statistical test comparison of the intervention and the control.
*2 The 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.
Impact | Factors |
Increase carbon sequestration | Duration of intervention (ref 4), 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) |
Increase pollination | Distance to field edge (ref 5), Time since treatment (ref 5), Flowering plant species richness (ref 5), Field edge management (ref 10), Field edge vegetation type (ref 10), Pollinator species (ref 10), Ecological contrast (difference in richness of plant communities between field margins and crop) (ref 13), Landscape structure (proportion of semi-natural habitats) (ref 13), Number of flower species in strip (ref 26) |
Decrease soil erosion | Duration of intervention (ref 4), Land use (ref 18), Terrace type (ref 18), Geographical area (ref 18), Slope (ref 18, 19), Field edge vegetation type (ref 19), Field edge width (ref 20), Buffer width (ref 33, 34), Buffer slope (ref 33, 34), Buffer vegetation type (ref 33) |
Increase water quality | Buffer width (ref 33) |
Increase soil water retention | Land use (ref 7) |
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
Keywords | Different searches were conducted with the following search strings:
or TITLE-ABS-KEY: ("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 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*)
or TITLE-ABS-KEY: (“creek*” OR "ditch*" OR "earth bund*" 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*")
or TITLE-ABS-KEY: ("pond*" OR “soda pan*” OR “reedbed*” OR “small near/4 lake*” OR “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 TITLE-ABS-KEY: ("agric*" OR "cultiv*" OR "crop*" OR "farm*")
merged with TS= (“margin strip*” OR "windbreak*" OR "shelterbelt*" OR "hedgerow*" OR “road verge*” OR "riparian buffer*" OR "riparian vegetation" OR "riparian woodland*" OR "buffer zone*" OR "riparian zone*" "vegetated filter strip*") 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: ((“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 TITLE-ABS-KEY: ("agric*" OR "cultiv*" OR "crop*" OR "farm*") merged with TITLE-ABS-KEY: (“margin strip*” OR "windbreak*" OR "shelterbelt*" OR "hedgerow*" OR “road verge*” OR "riparian buffer*" OR "riparian vegetation" OR "riparian woodland*" OR "buffer zone*" OR "riparian zone*" "vegetated filter strip*") 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 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" OR "research synthesis") AND TS= ("agric*" OR "cultiv*" OR "crop*" OR "farm*") or TITLE-ABS-KEY: ((“patch*” OR “islet*” OR “island*” OR “remnant*” OR “group*” OR “copse*” OR “coppice*”) W/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 TITLE-ABS-KEY: ("woodland creation*" OR "mid-field islet*" OR "environmental island*" OR "refuge*" OR "scattered tree*" OR "shading tree*") 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*")
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*")
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 |
Credits: © weise_maxim / Adobe Stock 365166359 |
Credits: © olgamazina / Adobe Stock 350149400 |
Ditches | Field margins |
Credits: © Ruud Morijn / Adobe Stock 363181077 |
Credits: © pioregur / Adobe Stock 5080466 |
Flower strips | Hedgerows |
Credits: © Martin Grimm / Adobe Stock 307740656 |
Credits: © allenpaul1000 / Adobe Stock 193427780 |
Isolated trees | Trees in group and field copses |
Credits: © milosz_g / Adobe Stock 233463882 |
Credits: © darekb22 / Adobe Stock 204219760 |
Terraces |
|
Credits: © Alberto Masnovo / Adobe Stock 287561080
Credits: © Simon / Adobe Stock 234075189 |
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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 slope farmland: A meta-analysis | LAND DEGRADATION AND DEVELOPMENT, 30(6), 706-716. | 10.1002/ldr.3258 |
13 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | Chaplin-Kramer, R; 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 |
[1] Synthesis research papers include either meta-analysis or systematic reviews with quantitative results.
[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] Prevedello et al., 2018. The importance of scattered trees for biodiversity conservation: A global meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology, 55,205-214.
[9] 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.
[10] Vymazal, 2007. Removal of nutrients in various types of constructed wetlands. Science of Total Environment, 380(1-3), 48-65.
[11] Manenti, 2014. Dry stone walls favour biodiversity: a case-study from the Appennines. Biodiversity and Conservation, 23, 1879–1893.
[12] Wei et al., 2016. Global synthesis of the classifications, distributions, benefits and issues of terracing. Earth-Science Reviews, 159, 388-40