| Titre : | Mapping agricultural ecosystem services. A systematic review (2025) |
| Auteurs : | M. Inácio ; E. Baltranaite ; M. Meisutovic-Akhtarieva ; D. Barcelo ; W. Zhao ; P. Pereira |
| Type de document : | Article |
| Dans : | Science of the Total Environment (vol. 981, June 2025) |
| Article en page(s) : | p. 179499 |
| Langues : | Anglais |
| Langues du résumé : | Anglais |
| Catégories : |
Catégories principales 07 - ENVIRONNEMENT ; 7.4 - Ressources Naturelles : Paysage, Biodiversité, Patrimoine naturelThésaurus IAMM SERVICE ECOSYSTEMIQUE ; CARTOGRAPHIE ; AGRICULTURE ; IMPACT SUR L'ENVIRONNEMENT |
| Résumé : | Agriculture is one of the major drivers of land degradation and climate change. It is known that it can have positive impacts on provisioning ecosystem services (ES) (e.g., food production); however, it has as well detrimental effects on regulation and maintenance (e.g., carbon sequestration) and cultural ES (e.g., landscape aesthetics). Mapping helps us to understand the spatio-temporal impacts on agriculture ES. Nevertheless, no global assessment on mapping agriculture ES was conducted. To fill this gap, this work aims to review the studies systematically focused on mapping agriculture ES, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement protocol. Overall, 52 studies were considered in this analysis. The results showed an increase in research from 2013 to 2024, mainly developed in Europe and Asia, with a special focus on the rural regions of the countries. Most studies did not follow a specific ES classification, focused on ES supply and assessed one ES dimension. Cultivated terrestrial plants for nutrition, materials or energy was the most mapped provisioning ES group. Regulation of baseline flows and extreme events and Intellectual and representative interactions with the natural environment were the most analysed regulation & maintenance and cultural ES groups, respectively. Regarding the methodology, the majority of studies applied mixed approaches. Finally, a large proportion of works did not consider any tradeoffs, drivers of change, and future predictions and did not validate the obtained ES model results. This work is key to understanding the areas where agricultural ES were mapped and supporting policymaking to identify informed decisions. |
| Cote : | Réservé lecteur CIHEAM |
| URL / DOI : | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.179499 |
Accueil
Sélection de la langue
Adresse
ÉQUIPE
Nous contacter
Informations pratiques
contact
