Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 373

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 216 of the 216 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A review of the ecosystem functions in oil palm plantations, using forests as a reference system

Open access
Dislich, Claudia, Keyel, Alexander C., Salecker, Jan, Kisel, Yael, Meyer, Katrin M., Auliya, Mark, Barnes, Andrew D., Corre, Marife D., Darras, Kevin, Faust, Heiko, Hess, Bastian, Klasen, Stephan, Knohl, Alexander, Kreft, Holger, Meijide, Ana, Nurdiansyah, Fuad, Otten, Fenna, Pe'er, Guy, Steinebach, Stefanie, Tarigan, Suria, Tölle, Merja H., Tscharntke, Teja, Wiegand, Kerstin·2017·Biological Reviews
DOI 10.1111/brv.12295
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Oil palm plantations have expanded rapidly in recent decades. This large‐scale land‐use change has had great ecological, economic, and social impacts on both the areas converted to oil palm and their surroundings. However, research on the impacts of oil palm cultivation is scattered and patchy, and no clear overview exists. We address this gap through a systematic and comprehensive literature review of all ecosystem functions in oil palm plantations, including several (genetic, medicinal and ornamental resources, information functions) not included in previous systematic reviews. We compare ecosystem functions in oil palm plantations to those in forests, as the conversion of forest to oil palm is prevalent in the tropics. We find that oil palm plantations generally have reduced ecosystem functioning compared to forests: 11 out of 14 ecosystem functions show a net decrease in level of function. Some functions show decreases with potentially irreversible global impacts (e.g. reductions in gas and climate regulation, habitat and nursery functions, genetic resources, medicinal resources, and information functions). The most serious impacts occur when forest is cleared to establish new plantations, and immediately afterwards, especially on peat soils. To variable degrees, specific plantation management measures can prevent or reduce losses of some ecosystem functions (e.g. avoid illegal land clearing via fire, avoid draining of peat, use of integrated pest management, use of cover crops, mulch, and compost) and we highlight synergistic mitigation measures that can improve multiple ecosystem functions simultaneously. The only ecosystem function which increases in oil palm plantations is, unsurprisingly, the production of marketable goods. Our review highlights numerous research gaps. In particular, there are significant gaps with respect to socio‐cultural information functions. Further, there is a need for more empirical data on the importance of spatial and temporal scales, such as differences among plantations in different environments, of different sizes, and of different ages, as our review has identified examples where ecosystem functions vary spatially and temporally. Finally, more research is needed on developing management practices that can offset the losses of ecosystem functions. Our findings should stimulate research to address the identified gaps, and provide a foundation for more systematic research and discussion on ways to minimize the negative impacts and maximize the positive impacts of oil palm cultivation.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/brv.12295

Cites

216 of 216 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Cited by

See all 373

Metadata

Authors
Dislich, C., Keyel, A. C., Salecker, J., Kisel, Y., Meyer, K. M., Auliya, M., Barnes, A. D., Corre, M. D., Darras, K., Faust, H., Hess, B., Klasen, S., Knohl, A., Kreft, H., Meijide, A., Nurdiansyah, F., Otten, F., Pe'er, G., Steinebach, S., Tarigan, S., Tölle, M. H., Tscharntke, T., & Wiegand, K.
Venue
Biological Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-08-11
Volume
92
Issue
3
Pages
1539-1569
ISSN
  • 0006-3231 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-7931
  • 1469-185X
DOI
10.1111/brv.12295
OpenAlex
W2513911593
Cited by
373
References
216
FWCI
3.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.