Landscape features_GENERAL

Data extracted in May 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 review of 36 synthesis papers[1]. These papers were selected from an initial number of 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 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 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 i) 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 synthesis papers reporting relevant results but without statistical test of the effects. 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, 30 included studies conducted in Europe, and 29 have a quality score higher than 50%.

Table 1: Summary of effects. 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	Non-statistically tested
Increase Animal production	Animal production	Hedgerows	No hedgerows	0	0	0	1 (0)
Increase Animal production	Animal production	Isolated trees	No isolated trees	0	0	0	1 (0)
Increase Biodiversity	Biodiversity	Buffer strips	No buffer strips	0	0	0	1 (0)
		Flower strips	No flower strips	0	0	0	1 (0)
		Hedgerows	No hedgerows	0	0	0	1 (0)
		Isolated trees	No isolated trees	0	0	0	1 (0)
		Landscape features in general	No semi-natural habitat features	1	0	0	1
		Trees in group	No trees in group or field copses	0	0	0	1 (0)
Increase Carbon sequestration	Carbon sequestration	Field margins	No field margins	1	0	0	0
		Hedgerows	No hedgerows	3	0	1	1 (0)
		Isolated trees	No isolated trees	0	0	0	1 (0)
		Terraces	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	1	0	0	1 (0)
		Field margins	No field margins	1	0	0	0
		Hedgerows	No hedgerows	1	0	0	0
Decrease Pests and diseases	Pest control	Field margins	No field margins	2	0	0	0
		Flower strips	No flower strips	1	0	0	0
		Hedgerows	No hedgerows	2	0	3	0
		Landscape features in general	No semi-natural habitat features	1	0	1	0
Decrease Pests and diseases	Pests and diseases	Landscape features in general	No semi-natural habitat features	1	0	1	0
Increase Pollination	Pollination	Field margins	No field margins	3	0	0	0
		Flower strips	No flower strips	3	0	3	0
		Hedgerows	No hedgerows	0	0	1	0
		Landscape features in general	No semi-natural habitat features	2	0	1	0
Decrease Soil erosion	Soil erosion	Buffer strips	No buffer strips	3 (2)	0	1 (0)	2 (0)
		Field margins	No field margins	2 (1)	0	0	0
		Hedgerows	No hedgerows	3	0	1	0
		Terraces	No terraces	4 (3)	0	1 (0)	1 (0)
		Trees in group	No trees in group or field copses	0	0	0	1 (0)
Increase Soil nutrients	Soil nutrients	Hedgerows	No hedgerows	1	0	1	0
Increase Soil nutrients	Soil nutrients	Terraces	No terraces	0	0	0	1 (0)
Increase Soil water retention	Water retention	Terraces	No terraces	1	0	0	1 (0)
Increase Water quality	Nutrient removal	Buffer strips	No buffer strips	2	0	0	0
		Ditches and ponds	Before ditches or ponds	1	0	0	1 (0)
		Small wetlands	Before small wetlands	2	0	0	0
Increase Water quality	Water quality	Buffer strips	No buffer strips	1	0	0	1 (0)
		Ditches and ponds	Before ditches or ponds	0	0	0	1 (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

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 and diseases	Distance to field edge (Ref5)
Pollination	Distance to field edge (Ref5), Ecological contrast (difference in richness of plant communities between field margins and crop) (Ref13), Field edge management (Ref10), Field edge vegetation type (Ref10), Flowering plant species richness (Ref5), Landscape structure (proportion of semi-natural habitats) (Ref13), Number of flower species in strip (Ref26), Pollinator species (Ref10) and Time since treatment (Ref5)
Soil erosion	Buffer slope (Ref33, Ref34), Buffer vegetation type (Ref33), Buffer width (Ref33, Ref34), Field edge vegetation type (Ref19), Field edge width (Ref20), Geographical area (Ref18), Land use (Ref18), Slope (Ref18, Ref19) and Terrace type (Ref18)
Soil water retention	Land use (Ref7)
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 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) 2) TS= (“creek” OR "ditch" OR "earth bund" OR “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 TS= ("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 "research synthesis") AND TS= ("agric" OR "cultiv" OR "crop" OR "farm") 4) 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=("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") 5) TS=((“patch” OR “islet” OR “island” OR “remnant” 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=("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") 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") 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") 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") and SCOPUS: 1) 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) 2) 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") 3) 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") 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 TITLE-ABS-KEY: ("agric" OR "cultiv" OR "crop" OR "farm") 5) 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") 6) 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) 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*")
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	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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 slope farmland: A meta-analysis	LAND DEGRADATION AND DEVELOPMENT, 30(6), 706-716.	10.1002/ldr.3258
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Ref30	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
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
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
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
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
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
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

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.europa.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

[10] 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

[11] Vymazal, 2007. Removal of nutrients in various types of constructed wetlands. Science of Total Environment, 380(1-3), 48-65

[12] Manenti, 2014. Dry stone walls favour biodiversity: a case-study from the Appennines. Biodiversity and Conservation, 23, 1879–1893.

[13] Wei et al., 2016. Global synthesis of the classifications, distributions, benefits and issues of terracing. Earth-Science Reviews, 159, 388-403

Expand all Collapse all

Space shortcuts

Blog Posts

1. DESCRIPTION OF THE FARMING PRACTICE

2. EFFECTS OF THE FARMING PRACTICE ON CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

3. FACTORS INFLUENCING THE EFFECTS ON CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

4. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW SEARCH STRATEGY

5. SYNTHESIS PAPERS INCLUDED IN THE REVIEW