Cited by 846Plant and soil sciencesOrganic Food and AgricultureSustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis

Land‐use intensity and the effects of organic farming on biodiversity: a hierarchical meta‐analysis

Open access
Tuck, Sean L., Winqvist, Camilla, Mota, Flávia, Ahnström, Johan, Turnbull, Lindsay A., Bengtsson, Janne·2014·Journal of Applied Ecology

Abstract

Summary: The benefits of organic farming to biodiversity in agricultural landscapes continue to be hotly debated, emphasizing the importance of precisely quantifying the effect of organic vs. conventional farming. We conducted an updated hierarchical meta‐analysis of studies that compared biodiversity under organic and conventional farming methods, measured as species richness. We calculated effect sizes for 184 observations garnered from 94 studies, and for each study, we obtained three standardized measures reflecting land‐use intensity. We investigated the stability of effect sizes through time, publication bias due to the ‘file drawer’ problem, and consider whether the current literature is representative of global organic farming patterns. On average, organic farming increased species richness by about 30%. This result has been robust over the last 30 years of published studies and shows no sign of diminishing. Organic farming had a greater effect on biodiversity as the percentage of the landscape consisting of arable fields increased, that is, it is higher in intensively farmed regions. The average effect size and the response to agricultural intensification depend on taxonomic group, functional group and crop type. There is some evidence for publication bias in the literature; however, our results are robust to its impact. Current studies are heavily biased towards northern and western Europe and North America, while other regions with large areas of organic farming remain poorly investigated. Synthesis and applications . Our analysis affirms that organic farming has large positive effects on biodiversity compared with conventional farming, but that the effect size varies with the organism group and crop studied, and is greater in landscapes with higher land‐use intensity. Decisions about where to site organic farms to maximize biodiversity will, however, depend on the costs as well as the potential benefits. Current studies have been heavily biased towards agricultural systems in the developed world. We recommend that future studies pay greater attention to other regions, in particular, areas with tropical, subtropical and Mediterranean climates, in which very few studies have been conducted.

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 · 10.1111/1365-2664.12219

Cites

65 of 65 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?

  • Organic farms have been shown to be associated with higher on-farm biodiversity, although variation is large and outcomes depend on surrounding landscapes.

    “Organic farms have also been shown to be associated with higher on-farm biodiversity, although the variation is large and outcomes are dependent on surrounding landscapes (Tuck et al. 2014).”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Dobermann, A. (2012) Getting back to the field. Nature, 485, 176– 177. 22575951
  2. Mota, F.K.P. (2010) The effects of organic farming on biodiversity: a meta‐analysis. Unpublished Master's thesis, Institute of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
  3. Tuck, S.L., Winqvist, C., Mota, F., Ahnström, J., Turnbull, L.A. & Bengtsson, J. (2014) Data from: land‐use intensity and the effects of organic farming on biodiversity: a hierarchical meta‐analysis. Dryad Digital Repository, doi: 10.5061/dryad.609t7. PMC4299503 25653457 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tuck, S. L., Winqvist, C., Mota, F., Ahnström, J., Turnbull, L. A., & Bengtsson, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SE)
  • University of Zurich (CH)
Corresponding author
Tuck, Sean L.
Venue
Journal of Applied Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-02-07
Volume
51
Issue
3
Pages
746-755
ISSN
  • 0021-8901 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2664
OpenAlex
W2105272443
Cited by
846
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 64 · 2025: 75 · 2024: 78 · 2023: 73 · 2022: 82 · 2021: 64 · 2020: 77 · 2019: 96 · 2018: 61 · 2017: 49 · 2016: 59 · 2015: 47 · 2014: 20 · 2012: 1
FWCI
150.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Applied Ecology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas
  • Vetenskapsrådet
  • Ekhagastiftelsen
  • Natural Environment Research Council (1282072)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant and soil sciences
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Organic Food and Agriculture
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Sustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis
Keywords
organic farming, conventional farming, biodiversity, species richness, land use intensity, agricultural intensification, arable land, publication bias, taxonomic groups, functional groups, crop types

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