Cited by 164Land Use and Ecosystem ServicesSocioeconomics of Resources and ConservationSustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis

Actionable knowledge for ecological intensification of agriculture

Open access
Geertsema, Willemien, Rossing, Walter AH, Landis, Douglas A, Bianchi, Felix JJA, van Rijn, Paul CJ, Schaminée, Joop HJ, Tscharntke, Teja, van der Werf, Wopke·2016·Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment

Abstract

Ecological intensification of agriculture (EI) aims to conserve and promote biodiversity and the sustainable use of associated ecosystem services to support resource‐efficient production. In many cases EI requires fundamental changes in farm and landscape management as well as the organizations and institutions that support agriculture. Ecologists can facilitate EI by engaging with stakeholders and, in the process, by generating “actionable knowledge” (that is, knowledge that specifically supports stakeholder decision making and consequent actions). Using three case studies as examples, we propose four principles whereby science can improve the delivery of actionable knowledge for EI: (1) biodiversity conservation helps to ensure the delivery of ecosystem services, (2) management of ecosystem services benefits from a landscape‐scale approach, (3) ecosystem service trade‐offs and synergies need to be articulated, and (4) EI is associated with complex social dynamics involving farmers, governments, researchers, and related institutions. These principles have the potential to enhance adoption of EI, but institutional and policy challenges remain.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/fee.1258

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The networks of actors, barriers, and levers provide actionable knowledge by focusing on the agroecological initiative and its history.

    “Although the context characterization sketches the setting of agroecological initiative in the overarching agri-food system, the networks of actors, barriers, and levers provide actionable knowledge (Geertsema et al. 2016) by focusing on the agroecological initiative and its history.”

    From A heuristic framework to portray agroecological transition initiatives in reflexive arrangements, illustrated with a conservation agriculture network in Denmark (2025) · cites this paper as Geertsema et al. 2016

    The available indexed passages are bibliographic entries (labelled Abstract, with no page number), not discussion of the paper’s findings. Searches for actor networks, barriers, levers, and an initiative’s history returned no passage addressing whether these provide actionable knowledge. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Geertsema, W., Rossing, W. A., Landis, D. A., Bianchi, F. J., van Rijn, P. C., Schaminée, J. H., Tscharntke, T., & van der Werf, W.
Affiliations
  • Wageningen University & Research (NL)
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics (IBED) University of Amsterdam Amsterdam the Netherlands
  • University of Göttingen (DE)
  • Centre for Crop Systems Analysis Wageningen University Wageningen the Netherlands
Corresponding author
Geertsema, Willemien
Venue
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-05
Volume
14
Issue
4
Pages
209-216
ISSN
  • 1540-9295 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-9309
OpenAlex
W2346327216
Cited by
163
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1
FWCI
12.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
  • GRO (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
  • U.S. Department of Energy
  • National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Socioeconomics of Resources and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Sustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis
Keywords
ecological intensification, actionable knowledge, stakeholder engagement, biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services, landscape-scale management, ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies, science-policy interface, agricultural institutions, sustainable agriculture

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review