Ecological Intensification: Bridging the Gap between Science and Practice
Open accessAbstract
There is worldwide concern about the environmental costs of conventional intensification of agriculture. Growing evidence suggests that ecological intensification of mainstream farming can safeguard food production, with accompanying environmental benefits; however, the approach is rarely adopted by farmers. Our review of the evidence for replacing external inputs with ecosystem services shows that scientists tend to focus on processes (e.g., pollination) rather than outcomes (e.g., profits), and express benefits at spatio-temporal scales that are not always relevant to farmers. This results in mismatches in perceived benefits of ecological intensification between scientists and farmers, which hinders its uptake. We provide recommendations for overcoming these mismatches and highlight important additional factors driving uptake of nature-based management practices, such as social acceptability of farming.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Multiple barriers to the implementation of crop diversification have emerged, linked to the overall functioning of the dominant agro-industrial system.
“However, in spite of potential ecological and economic benefits provided by crop diversification, multiple barriers to its implementation have emerged, linked to the overall functioning of the dominant agro-industrial system [9,10].”
From An Actor-Oriented Multi-Criteria Assessment Framework to Support a Transition towards Sustainable Agricultural Systems Based on Crop Diversification (2020) · cites this paper as [10]
Cites
Global Consequences of Land Use
Foley, J. A., DeFries, R., Asner, G. P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S. R., Chapin, F. S., Coe, M. T., Daily, G. C., Gibbs, H. K., et al. (2005) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1111772 · Cited by 13,272 · see citing works
Biodiversity and ecosystem productivity in a fluctuating environment: The insurance hypothesis
Yachi, S., & Loreau, M. (1999) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.96.4.1463 · Cited by 3,211 · see citing works
Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis.
Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0035661 · Cited by 1,981 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Farmers may, however, also adopt functional biodiversity-enhancing practices without clear evidence of economic benefits, as human behaviour is not solely driven by economic or other rational considerations [95].”
BackgroundProductivity limits and potentials of the principles of conservation agriculture
Pittelkow, C. M., Liang, X., Linquist, B. A., van Groenigen, K. J., Lee, J., Lundy, M. E., van Gestel, N., Six, J., Venterea, R. T., & van Kessel, C. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature13809 · Cited by 1,688 · see citing works
Kennedy, C. M., Lonsdorf, E., Neel, M. C., Williams, N. M., Ricketts, T. H., Winfree, R., Bommarco, R., Brittain, C., Burley, A. L., Cariveau, D., et al. (2013) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/ele.12082 · Cited by 1,255 · see citing works
Self-citationA meta-analysis of crop pest and natural enemy response to landscape complexity
Chaplin‐Kramer, R., O’Rourke, M. E., Blitzer, E. J., & Kremen, C. (2011) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01642.x · Cited by 1,037 · see citing works
Delivery of crop pollination services is an insufficient argument for wild pollinator conservation
Kleijn, D., Winfree, R., Bartomeus, I., Carvalheiro, L. G., Henry, M., Isaacs, R., Klein, A.-M., Kremen, C., M'Gonigle, L. K., Rader, R., et al. (2015) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms8414 · Cited by 982 · see citing works
Self-citationMcDaniel, M. D., Tiemann, L. K., & Grandy, A. S. (2014) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/13-0616.1 · Cited by 846 · see citing works
Forest bolsters bird abundance, pest control and coffee yield
Karp, D. S., Mendenhall, C. D., Sandí, R. F., Chaumont, N., Ehrlich, P. R., Hadly, E. A., & Daily, G. C. (2013) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/ele.12173 · Cited by 432 · see citing works
Farming approaches for greater biodiversity, livelihoods, and food security
Garibaldi, L. A., Gemmill-Herren, B., D’Annolfo, R., Graeub, B. E., Cunningham, S. A., & Breeze, T. D. (2017) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2016.10.001 · Cited by 380 · see citing works
Self-citationHigh effectiveness of tailored flower strips in reducing pests and crop plant damage
Tschumi, M., Albrecht, M., Entling, M. H., & Jacot, K. (2015) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2015.1369 · Cited by 271 · see citing works
Rusch, A., Bommarco, R., Jonsson, M., Smith, H. G., & Ekbom, B. (2013) · Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12055 · Cited by 252 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Most of the species providing pollination or pest regulation services are mobile and can be influenced by semi-natural habitats or crops up to several kilometres away from the target location [29,38,47,57,78].”
BackgroundSelf-citationIverson, A. L., Marín, L. E., Ennis, K. K., Gonthier, D. J., Connor‐Barrie, B. T., Remfert, J. L., Cardinale, B. J., & Perfecto, I. (2014) · Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12334 · Cited by 214 · see citing works
Understanding spatiotemporal lags in ecosystem services to improve incentives
Fremier, A. K., DeClerck, F. A. J., Bosque-Pérez, N. A., Carmona, N. E., Hill, R., Joyal, T., Keesecker, L., Klos, P. Z., Martínez-Salinas, A., Niemeyer, R., et al. (2013) · BioScience · doi:10.1525/bio.2013.63.6.9 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Agricultural diversification promotes multiple ecosystem services without compromising yield
Tamburini, G., Bommarco, R., Wanger, T. C., Kremen, C., van der Heijden, M. G. A., Liebman, M., & Hallin, S. (2020) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.aba1715 · Cited by 1,110 · see citing works
Self-citationMartin, E. A., Dainese, M., Clough, Y., Báldi, A., Bommarco, R., Gagic, V., Garratt, M. P. D., Holzschuh, A., Kleijn, D., Kovács‐Hostyánszki, A., et al. (2019) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/ele.13265 · Cited by 648 · see citing works
Self-citationIocola, I., Angevin, F., Bockstaller, C., Catarino, R., Curran, M., Messéan, A., Schader, C., Stilmant, D., Van Stappen, F., Vanhove, P., et al. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12135434 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
“However, in spite of potential ecological and economic benefits provided by crop diversification, multiple barriers to its implementation have emerged, linked to the overall functioning of the dominant agro-industrial system [9,10].”
Background
- Authors
- Kleijn, D., Bommarco, R., Fijen, T. P. M., Garibaldi, L. A., Potts, S. G., & van der Putten, W. H.
- Affiliations
- Wageningen University & Research (NL)
- Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SE)
- Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (AR)
- University of Reading (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Kleijn, David
- Venue
- Trends in Ecology & Evolution
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-02
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 154-166
- ISSN
- 0169-5347 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2903359327
- Cited by
- 548
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2026: 48 · 2025: 64 · 2024: 99 · 2023: 69 · 2022: 82 · 2021: 91 · 2020: 73 · 2019: 22
- FWCI
- 5.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Trends in Ecology & Evolution (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- KNAW research portal (Royal Academy of Art and Sciences (KNAW)) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- KNAW Research Portal (The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
- CentAUR (University of Reading) (submittedVersion)
- Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Americanae (AECID Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- European Union (311781)
- Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Sustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Agronomic Practices and Intercropping Systems
- Keywords
- ecological intensification, ecosystem services, farmer adoption, research-practice gap, pollination, sustainable food production
- MeSH terms
- Agriculture, Conservation of Natural Resources, Ecology, Perception, Ecosystem
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
