Relationships among multiple aspects of agriculture's environmental impact and productivity: a meta‐analysis to guide sustainable agriculture
Abstract
Given the pressures on land to produce ever more food, doing it ‘sustainably’ is growing in importance. However, ‘sustainable agriculture’ is complex to define, not least because agriculture impacts in many different ways and it is not clear how different aspects of sustainability may be in synergy or trade off against each other. We conducted a meta‐analysis to assess the relationships between multiple measures of sustainability using novel analytical methods, based around defining the efficiency frontier in the relationship between variables, as well as using correlation analysis. We define 20 grouped variables of agriculture's impact (e.g. on soil, greenhouse gas, water, biodiversity) and find evidence of both strong positive and negative correlations between them. Analysis based on the efficiency frontier suggests that trade‐offs can be ‘softened’ by exploiting the natural between‐study variation that arises from a combination of farming best practice and context. Nonetheless, the literature provides strong evidence of the relationship between yields and the negative externalities created by farming across a range of measures.
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?
The DiverIMPACTS framework was developed considering the complementarities found in the study by Sabourin [42] and German et al. [43], and additional indicators were integrated to cover SAFA-FAO themes and sub-themes relevant to crop diversification and actor needs.
“The DiverIMPACTS framework was developed considering the complementarities found in this study. However, additional indicators were integrated to cover SAFA-FAO themes and sub-themes considered relevant by the scientific community to assess crop diversification (i.e., EcosDiv, CropDiv, GenDiv) and to better respond to actor needs (i.e., LocVal; ProdQ).”
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 German et al. [43]
Cites
Unbiased Recursive Partitioning: A Conditional Inference Framework
Hothorn, T., Hornik, K., & Zeileis, A. (2006) · Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics · doi:10.1198/106186006x133933 · Cited by 4,021 · see citing works
Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Cameron, D., Chan, K. M., Daily, G. C., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P. M., et al. (2009) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1890/080023 · Cited by 2,389 · see citing works
Food consumption trends and drivers
Kearney, J. (2010) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0149 · Cited by 1,987 · see citing works
Empirical evaluation of agricultural sustainability using composite indicators
Gómez-Limón, J. A., & Sanchez-Fernandez, G. (2010) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.027 · Cited by 424 · see citing works
Cascading effects of long-term land-use changes on plant traits and ecosystem functioning
Laliberté, E., & Tylianakis, J. M. (2012) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/11-0338.1 · Cited by 163 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers
Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaq0216 · Cited by 6,085 · see citing works
Conservation agriculture as a sustainable system for soil health: a review
Cárceles Rodríguez, B., Durán-Zuazo, V. H., Soriano Rodríguez, M., García-Tejero, I. F., Gálvez Ruiz, B., & Cuadros Tavira, S. (2022) · Soil Systems · doi:10.3390/soilsystems6040087 · Cited by 337 · see citing works
Iocola, 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
“[43] with an expert/stakeholders survey.”
- Authors
- German, R. N., Thompson, C. E., & Benton, T. G.
- Affiliations
- University of Leeds (GB)
- Corresponding author
- German, Richard N.
- ORCID
- Benton, Tim G.
- Venue
- Biological Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-02-05
- Volume
- 92
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 716-738
- ISSN
- 0006-3231 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-7931
- 1469-185X
- OpenAlex
- W2253955340
- Cited by
- 144
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 4
- FWCI
- 1.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Biological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/J005851/1)
- Natural Environment Research Council
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Sustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Climate change impacts on agriculture
- Keywords
- sustainable agriculture, environmental impact of agriculture, agricultural productivity, efficient frontier, greenhouse gas emissions, soil quality, water consumption, biodiversity
- MeSH terms
- Agriculture, Conservation of Natural Resources, Environment, 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