The DOI matches its Crossref record; 91 of the 91 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Farming Approaches for Greater Biodiversity, Livelihoods, and Food Security
Open accessAbstract
Scientists and policy-makers globally are calling for alternative approaches to conventional intensification of agriculture that enhance ecosystem services provided by biodiversity. The evidence reviewed here suggests that alternative approaches can achieve high crop yields and profits, but the performance of other socioeconomic indicators (as well as long-term trends) is surprisingly poorly documented. Consequently, the implementation of conventional intensification and the discussion of alternative approaches are not based on quantitative evidence of their simultaneous ecological and socioeconomic impacts across the globe. To close this knowledge gap, we propose a participatory assessment framework. Given the impacts of conventional intensification on biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas emissions, such evidence is urgently needed to direct science-policy initiatives, such as the United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Too often organic practices or environmental sustainability in an agricultural production system are prioritized at the cost of the human and social aspects of food systems [4], resulting in barriers for disadvantaged consumers who cannot access, afford, nor identify with food from these alternative agri-food systems [4,5].”
From Agroecological Transition: A Territorial Examination of the Simultaneity of Limited Farmer Livelihoods and Food Insecurity (2022) · cites this paper as [4]
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.
Citations
Cites
Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Desa, U. (2018) · Springer Publishing Company eBooks · doi:10.1891/9780826190123.ap02 · Cited by 19,478
Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People
Godfray, H. C. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S. M., & Toulmin, C. (2010) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1185383 · Cited by 11,943
Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis
Assessment, M. E. (2005) · Island Press · doi:10.5281/zenodo.18167309 · Cited by 10,665
Solutions for a cultivated planet
Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., Mueller, N. D., O’Connell, C., Ray, D. K., West, P. C., et al. (2011) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature10452 · Cited by 8,476
Levesque, R. J. R. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-32132-5_447-2 · Cited by 4,060
Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity
Lambin, E. F., & Meyfroidt, P. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1100480108 · Cited by 3,160
The IPBES Conceptual Framework — connecting nature and people
Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., Larigauderie, A., Adhikari, J. R., Arico, S., Báldi, A., et al. (2015) · Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability · doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002 · Cited by 2,617
The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems
Altieri, M. A. (1999) · Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment · doi:10.1016/s0167-8809(99)00028-6 · Cited by 2,561
Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture
Seufert, V., Ramankutty, N., & Foley, J. A. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11069 · Cited by 2,342
Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification
Tscharntke, T., Clough, Y., Wanger, T. C., Jackson, L., Motzke, I., Perfecto, I., Vandermeer, J. H., & Whitbread, A. M. (2012) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2012.01.068 · Cited by 2,229
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Zabel, F., Delzeit, R., Schneider, J. M., Seppelt, R., Mauser, W., & Václavík, T. (2019) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-019-10775-z · Cited by 784
Klerkx, L., & Rose, D. C. (2019) · Global Food Security · doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2019.100347 · Cited by 698
Global Environment Outlook – GEO-6: Healthy Planet, Healthy People
McClain, S. N., McMullen, C., Abiodun, B. J., Armiento, G., Bailey, R., Balasubramanian, R., Barra, R., Bowen, K. J., Crump, J., Dankelman, I., et al. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108627146 · Cited by 748
Ecological Intensification: Bridging the Gap between Science and Practice
Kleijn, D., Bommarco, R., Fijen, T. P. M., Garibaldi, L. A., Potts, S. G., & van der Putten, W. H. (2019) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2018.11.002 · Cited by 548
Self-citationCultural evolutionary theory: How culture evolves and why it matters
Creanza, N., Kolodny, O., & Feldman, M. W. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1620732114 · Cited by 482
Metadata
- Authors
- Garibaldi, L. A., Gemmill-Herren, B., D’Annolfo, R., Graeub, B. E., Cunningham, S. A., & Breeze, T. D.
- Affiliations
- Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (AR)
- Biovision – Foundation for Ecological Development (CH)
- Australian National University (AU)
- University of Reading (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Garibaldi, Lucas A.
- Venue
- Trends in Ecology & Evolution
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-01
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 68-80
- ISSN
- 0169-5347 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2533630581
- Cited by
- 380
- References
- 90
- Citations by year
- 2026: 28 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 19
- FWCI
- 2.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Trends in Ecology & Evolution (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
- LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- CONICET Digital (CONICET) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- Funders
- Universidad Nacional de Río Negro (40-B-399, PI 40-B-399)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Sustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant and soil sciences
- Keywords
- agricultural intensification, biodiversity conservation, food security, livelihoods, ecosystem services, socio-economic impacts, greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity loss, sustainable development, crop yield, science-policy interface
- MeSH terms
- Agriculture, Conservation of Natural Resources, Food Supply, Ecosystem, Biodiversity
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
