Chiara Flora Bassignana
Valentina Bruno
Paola Migliorini- University of Gastronomic Sciences, Bra, Italy
Ecosystem services (ESs) are increasingly recognized as critical indicators of agricultural sustainability, yet existing assessment frameworks often lack applicability at farm level or fail to account for the synergistic effects of agroecological practices. In response, we developed the APES (Agroecological Practices for Ecosystem Services) framework within the Horizon 2020 RADIANT project. APES is a participatory, practice-based tool designed to assess 22 ecosystem services (eight provisioning and fourteen regulating/supporting) based on the implementation of agroecological practices. The framework was developed through a literature review and refined via participatory workshops with farmers and stakeholders in Greece and Scotland. Provisioning services are assessed through farmer perceptions and crop diversity, while regulating and supporting services are evaluated based on the degree of practice implementation. An illustrative case study on dairy farms in Northern Italy demonstrates the practical application of APES and highlights how ecosystem services emerge from the combination and interaction of multiple strategies within diversified systems. By making ESs visible and actionable, APES supports farmers, researchers, and advisors in driving agroecological transitions and informing more sustainable food system planning.
Highlights
● APES assesses 22 ecosystem services using farm-level agroecological practices.
● The framework links specific practices to ESs via literature and participatory input.
● Provisioning services are evaluated through farmer perception and crop diversity.
● Regulating/supporting services scored via a gradient of agroecological practice implementation.
● APES supports ecological visibility and agroecological transitions at farm scale as well as at territorial level.
1 Introduction
Agricultural systems are increasingly being recognized not only for their capacity to produce food, feed, and raw materials, but also for the broad array of ecosystem services (ESs) they generate or compromise. The concept of ecosystem services refers to the benefits humans derive from ecosystems, encompassing provisioning services - such as food, fiber, and energy - as well as regulating, supporting, and cultural services, including pollination, nutrient cycling, soil fertility, landscape heterogeneity, and climate regulation. As biodiversity loss, soil degradation, and climate change intensify, the ability of farming systems to maintain ecological functions has become a central concern in both science and policy (Mabhaudhi et al., 2022; Jenkins et al., 2023).
Assessing ecosystem services in agriculture is now considered essential to support transitions toward more sustainable and resilient food systems. Global policy agendas - including the EU Green Deal, the Biodiversity Strategy, and the Sustainable Development Goals - emphasize the multifunctionality of agriculture and call for evidence-based tools to guide land-use and farm-level decisions (Rodríguez-Ortega et al., 2014; Pascual et al., 2017). Evaluating how different farming practices impact ESs is crucial for identifying systems that promote resource efficiency, ecological resilience, and climate adaptation (Lungarska and Chakir, 2024). Moreover, making these services visible through assessment enables us not only to highlight the benefits of certain farming models, but also to expose the hidden environmental costs of intensive, input-dependent systems (Vidaller and Dutoit, 2022; Soulé et al., 2023).
In recent years, a growing number of frameworks have emerged to assess ecosystem services in agricultural systems. These include quantitative models based on biophysical or land-cover data, participatory approaches integrating local knowledge, and tools combining multiple sustainability indicators. For instance, the work of Boeraeve et al. (2020) highlights how agroecological systems contribute to bundles of ecosystem services, using a multi-criteria approach that integrates landscape and farm-level indicators. Similarly, the method developed by Soulé et al. (2023) seeks to link ecosystem service provision with environmental impacts, offering a decision-support tool at farm level. Other approaches, such as those by Andersson et al. (2015) and Rodríguez-Ortega et al. (2014), examine ES delivery through social–ecological lenses, emphasizing farmer perceptions, landscape structure, and livestock systems. While these contributions have significantly advanced our understanding, most existing ES frameworks face key limitations: they often prioritize provisioning services, lack specificity in linking practices to services, or require high levels of technical data and expertise that constrain their use by farmers (Schipanski et al., 2014; Vidaller and Dutoit, 2022).
In parallel, there is increasing interest in approaches that ground ecosystem service assessments in the actual practices implemented on farms, particularly those informed by agroecology. Agroecological systems are characterized by biodiversity enhancement, circular resource flows, and knowledge co-creation, and they depend on context-specific practices such as crop diversification, soil conservation, intercropping, agroforestry, and the use of local varieties. Yet the ecosystem services provided by these practices are often underrepresented in policy frameworks and undermeasured in conventional ES assessment tools (Temesgen and Wu, 2018; Boeraeve et al., 2020; Mabhaudhi et al., 2022).
While the ecosystem services framework offers a powerful lens to evaluate the ecological and societal benefits of farming systems, it is not without critique. Scholars have pointed out its inherently anthropocentric orientation, which tends to value nature primarily in terms of its utility to humans, often reducing complex ecological relationships to quantifiable outputs or economic proxies (Silvertown, 2015; Muradian and Gómez-Baggethun, 2021). This risk of instrumentalizing nature can obscure intrinsic values, ecological integrity, and the ethical dimensions of human–nature relations (Raymond et al., 2013; Arias-Arévalo et al., 2017). Furthermore, the ES framework has been critiqued for its tendency to simplify social–ecological complexity and undervalue situated knowledge systems, especially those embedded in rural or traditional agroecosystems (Buizer et al., 2016; Peredo Parada and Barrera Salas, 2024). Nonetheless, within the current socio-economic context, dominated by market logics, reductionist indicators, and externalized environmental costs, the ES framework remains a strategically valuable tool. It enables researchers, farmers, and policymakers to make visible the often-overlooked ecological functions and public goods generated by diversified and agroecological farming systems (Andersson et al., 2015; Balzan et al., 2020).
Agroecology offers a promising lens to overcome these limitations. As both a science and a practice-based approach, agroecology integrates ecological principles into farming systems, fostering biodiversity, circular resource flows, and context-specific knowledge. Agroecological practices, including intercropping, organic fertilization, conservation tillage, cover cropping, agroforestry, and the use of local seeds - are known to enhance ecosystem services across multiple domains, yet their contributions remain difficult to measure in a practical and systematic way (Wezel et al., 2014; Nicholls and Altieri, 2018).
In response to these gaps and critiques, we present a novel assessment tool: the APES – Agroecological Practices for Ecosystem Services framework. Developed within the Horizon 2020 RADIANT project, APES is a participatory, practice-based tool designed to assess ecosystem services generated through agroecological practices at farm level. The framework evaluates twenty-two ecosystem services - eight provisioning and fourteen regulating/supporting - by linking each service to specific agroecological practices. Designed to be accessible and adaptable, APES enables both farmers and researchers to assess not only the positive contributions but also the missed ecological opportunities associated with current management strategies. In doing so, it provides a concrete tool to support transitions toward agroecology by enhancing ecosystem visibility, enabling knowledge co-production, and informing more just and sustainable food systems.
2 Materials and methods
2.1 The APES framework development and general description
The development of the APES (Agroecological Practices for Ecosystem Services) framework followed a two-phase process involving both a comprehensive literature review and multi-actor participatory engagement. Initially, scientific literature provided the conceptual foundation for linking agroecological practices to ecosystem service (ES) provision. However, to ensure the framework’s relevance and usability across diverse agricultural contexts, its design was tested and refined through two participatory workshops conducted within the scope of the Horizon 2020 RADIANT project.
The first of these workshops took place during the CREATOR event in Athens, Greece, in June 2022, bringing together farmers, researchers, policy actors, and food chain stakeholders. The second workshop was held in Orkney, Scotland, in July 2022, as part of a similar CREATOR event. In both workshops, participants were invited to brainstorm collaboratively around two central questions: (1) Which ecosystem services are perceived as most important or under pressure in their farming systems? and (2) Which farming practices do they consider most influential in enhancing or degrading these services? Insights from these workshops proved crucial in grounding the framework in real-world farming experiences and socio-ecological contexts. Participants’ inputs helped refine the scope of relevant services and informed the final selection of practices to be included as indicators. This co-development process also contributed to the legitimacy and usability of the tool by incorporating knowledge from across the agricultural knowledge and innovation system (AKIS), including farmers, consumers, processors, advisors, and researchers. While geographically located in two specific countries, the Athens workshop included a diverse group of stakeholders from different Mediterranean and European regions. This allowed for a broader range of perspectives to inform the development of the framework, despite the limited number of workshop locations.
The APES framework, resulting from the above mentioned co-development process, is designed to quantify ecosystem service delivery through a series of practice-based indicators applied at farm level. In total, the framework evaluates twenty-two ecosystem services: eight provisioning services (e.g., food, feed, fiber, genetic resources) and fourteen regulating and supporting services (e.g., soil fertility, pest regulation, climate regulation, biodiversity conservation). These services were defined and categorized based on the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) (https://cices.eu/) to ensure consistency with widely recognized ES typologies (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Selected ecosystem services.
2.2 Assessment of provisioning ecosystem services with the APES framework
Given the diversity of provisioning ecosystem services and the challenge of capturing their value through conventional metrics, we adopted a qualitative, perception-based approach that draws on farmer-reported satisfaction with yields and crop diversity. This aligns with broader calls in the literature to expand and adapt provisioning service assessment beyond purely economic or production-based indicators (Anand and Gupta, 2020). The evaluation of provisioning ecosystem services in the APES framework is grounded in the principle that farmers are uniquely positioned to assess the productivity and performance of their systems. As a result, we adopted an approach based primarily on farmers’ perceptions of satisfaction with yields, complemented by quantitative measures of crop and varietal diversity for genetic resources. This method ensures that the evaluation reflects not only ecological performance but also context-specific knowledge and experience, which are critical in agroecological systems.
Provisioning services such as food, feed, fiber, raw materials, energy, cosmetics and medicines, and timber are evaluated through farmer self-assessment of yield satisfaction. During the participatory assessment, farmers are asked to rate their satisfaction on a three-point scale: 1: not satisfied, 2: moderately or averagely satisfied, 3: very satisfied.
This scale is used to score each provisioning service relevant to the farm’s production system. The emphasis on subjective yield satisfaction recognizes that agroecological productivity is often measured in terms that go beyond yield quantity, such as stability, diversity, cultural relevance, and input efficiency.
For genetic resource services, which are a crucial component of provisioning in agroecological systems, the evaluation is based on the number of species and varieties cultivated. This reflects the role of crop and varietal diversity in enhancing resilience, food security, and long-term sustainability. The number of crops (species) adopted at farm level is assessed using a scale from: 1: only one crop, 2: two to three crops, 3: more than three crops.
Likewise, the number of varieties per crop is assessed as follows: 1: one variety per crop, 2: two varieties per crop, 3: three or more varieties per crop.
This dual approach, combining qualitative self-assessment with quantitative diversity indicators, ensures that the provisioning dimension of ecosystem services is captured in a way that is both farmer-led and ecologically meaningful. The full system of assessment for provisioning ESs is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Indicators to assess the Provisioning Ecosystem Services.
The reliance on perception-based indicators for assessing provisioning ecosystem services reflects the importance of farmer knowledge in agroecological systems. This approach acknowledges that yield satisfaction is context-dependent, influenced by local conditions, goals, and resource availability. It offers an inclusive entry point for farm-level assessment, especially where quantitative yield data may be lacking. Moreover, the choice to adopt perception-based indicators was also intentional in order to keep the APES tool accessible, and not overly complex to apply for farmers and facilitators, therefore enhancing its usability in diverse real-world contexts.
2.3 Assessment of regulating and supporting ecosystem services through practices indicators
The set of sixteen agroecological practice indicators used to assess the provisioning of regulating and supporting ecosystem services in the APES framework was developed through an extensive literature review and synthesis of existing methodologies. These indicators reflect practices that are widely recognized for their potential to enhance key agroecosystem functions such as nutrient cycling, soil fertility, biodiversity, and climate regulation.
The selection of practices draws heavily on the OASIS system (Original Agroecological Survey Indicator System) proposed by Peeters et al (Peeters et al., 2021), which offers a simple yet comprehensive methodology for assessing agroecological transition at farm level. The OASIS framework served as a conceptual starting point for structuring the indicators and aligning them with internationally recognized categories of ecosystem services.
Further refinement was informed by foundational reviews on agroecological practices. For instance, Wezel et al. (2014) provided an extensive typology of practices - including crop diversification, agroforestry, green manures, and biological pest control - that have been shown to contribute to sustainable agriculture. Their work highlights how these practices operate synergistically to support regulating and supporting ESs, such as soil health and pest regulation. Similarly, Nicholls and Altieri (2018) emphasized the role of agroecological strategies in amplifying ecological functions at the landscape scale, reinforcing the importance of context-specific implementation.
The indicators also build on comparative analyses of agroecological and organic farming regulations by Migliorini and Wezel (2017), which identified convergences and divergences in practice-based standards and their implications for environmental outcomes. These insights were key to shaping the scope of the indicators used in the APES framework, ensuring they are both ecologically grounded and practically applicable across different farming systems.
Each of the sixteen indicators is applied at the farm level, where it is scored based on the degree to which the corresponding practice is implemented. This scoring system was developed from the literature and adapted to reflect observable gradients of adoption, ranging from non-implementation to full integration within a system-level agroecological design. The resulting scores serve as proxies for the expected contribution of each practice to specific ecosystem services, allowing for a structured and transparent evaluation of service delivery at farm scale.
The Indicators for assessing Regulating and Supporting Ecosystem Services, their relative descriptions and the scoring thresholds are displayed in Tables 2 and 3.
Table 2. The indicators for assessing regulating and supporting ecosystem services with relative descriptions.
Table 3. The Indicators for assessing regulating and supporting ecosystem services with relative scoring details.
To evaluate regulating and supporting ecosystem services (ESs) within the APES framework, each ES is assigned a score that reflects the degree to which relevant agroecological practices are implemented on the farm. Specifically, the score for each service is calculated as the average of the individual scores assigned to all practices identified as contributing to that service. This method ensures that the assessment captures the cumulative effect of multiple farming practices on the provision of a given ES, acknowledging the synergistic nature of agroecological systems. Therefore, all agroecological practices are assumed to contribute equally to each associated ecosystem service. This equal-weighting approach was chosen to ensure transparency and facilitate ease of use in participatory and farm-level contexts. However, it is important to acknowledge that in practice, the magnitude and relevance of each practice’s contribution to a given ecosystem service may vary depending on environmental conditions, implementation intensity, and interactions with other practices. Future versions of the framework could explore differentiated weighting schemes based on empirical data, expert judgment, or modeling approaches to better reflect the relative importance of each practice. Such refinements would enhance the analytical power of the tool while maintaining its usability for farmers, advisors, and policymakers. Methods for participatory workshops and farmer surveys should be described in greater detail to enable replication.
To establish robust and meaningful links between practices and ecosystem services, an extensive literature review was carried out. This review identified evidence-based associations between specific agroecological practices and the ESs they are known to support. The resulting matrix defines which practices contribute to which services, allowing for a transparent and consistent scoring process grounded in scientific and applied knowledge.
The outcome of this matching process, linking each of the sixteen agroecological practice indicators to the relevant regulating and supporting ESs, is visually presented in Figure 2, which forms the basis for calculating service-level scores in the APES framework. The detailed references and evidence used to justify the associations between agroecological practices and the ecosystem services they support are provided in Table 4, which displays the specific literature underpinning the matching process.
Figure 2. The Indicators for assessing regulating and supporting ecosystem services.
Table 4. Literature review linking practices indicators to regulating and supporting ecosystem services.
2.4 Testing the framework on a case study
The APES framework was implemented starting in July 2022 to evaluate ecosystem services through farm-level agroecological practices. As an illustrative example, we present here the results from one case study carried out during the development phase of the framework. This example is intended solely for demonstrative purposes, to show how the APES tool can be practically applied to assess ecosystem services.
The selected case study involved a group of livestock farms located in Northern Italy, primarily focused on forage-based dairy production. These farms are characterized by diversified meadow systems, which include the integration of leguminous forage crops. This diversification not only supports feed autonomy but also contributes to soil health, biodiversity, and overall ecosystem service provision. As such, the case study provides a relevant and practical example to demonstrate the functionality and applicability of the APES tool in a real-world farming context.
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Provisioning ecosystem services provided by the case study
The results (Figure 3) highlight that the selected case study provides high levels of provisioning ESs in relation to food and feed production.
Figure 3. Provisioning ecosystem services (ESs) evaluated in the case study. Scores (0 – 3) are based on the level of service provision for each category.
Food-animal products and feed and fodder both reached the maximum score (3), indicating that farmers are highly satisfied with the productivity and yield of these components. This reflects the strong focus of these livestock farms on dairy and forage production, particularly for high-value products like Parmigiano Reggiano.
In terms of genetic resources, the farms scored moderately: species diversity received a score of 2, suggesting that at least three different crop or livestock species are being cultivated or raised, which contributes to system resilience and feed autonomy. However, varietal diversity was rated lower (score 1), pointing to the use of only one variety per crop. This highlights an area where there is potential to expand genetic diversity, for example by introducing more varieties of alfalfa or other forage crops.
The farms did not report contributions to other provisioning services such as fibers and raw materials, cosmetics and medicines, timber, or energy, all of which received a score of 0. This is consistent with their specialized production model.
3.2 Regulating and supporting ecosystem services provided by the case study
In Table 5, we report the scores assigned to each practice indicator, based on the data collected in the field.
Table 5. Practice indicators scores assigned to the case study.
The case study displays a generally good level of adoption of agroecological practices across several key areas.
Crop rotation and intercropping received with a high score (2), indicating the implementation of diverse crop sequences and mixed cropping systems with use of leguminouse crops These practices are known to support nitrogen fixation, improve soil fertility, and reduce nutrient emissions.
Cover crops, water management practices, and sustainable animal manure management also scored 2, suggesting consistent efforts to maintain soil cover, conserve water, and recycle nutrients through well-timed and locally applied manure composting.
On the other hand, certain practices such as ecological infrastructure, agroforestry, wind protection, and fire protection received a score of 0, indicating that these areas are either not implemented or largely underutilized. These represent potential areas for future improvement to enhance landscape connectivity and climate resilience. Practices such as use of local breeds, on-farm forage production, and organic pest control achieved a high score (2), reflecting strong integration of agroecological principles in the livestock system - particularly in relation to feeding strategies and low-input animal health management. However, conservation tillage and biodiversity management at the landscape level showed limited implementation, with scores of 0 and 1 respectively, suggesting space for improvements in developing soil structure, improving carbon sequestration and enhancing habitat complexity. Figure 4 then shows the aggregated results, representing the final scores attributed to each ecosystem service evaluated in this case study.
Figure 4. Regulating and supporting ecosystem services (ESs) assessed through practice-based indicators and implementation scoring. Scores range from 0 (no implementation) to 3 (high implementation intensity).
The results of the regulating and supporting ecosystem services assessment reflect a moderate level of overall performance, with a mean score of 0.93 across all ecosystem services. Notable observations include: The highest-performing ecosystem services are nitrogen fixation (1.4), carbon sequestration (1.2), and reduction of carbon and nitrogen emissions (both 1.2), which align with the good adoption of practices like cover crops, crop rotation, and appropriate manure management. Soil fertility, pest and disease control, and nutrient cycling show medium-level scores (around 1.1 – 1.2), indicating functional but improvable contributions from farm practices. Climate regulation, wind protection, and fire protection received very low or zero scores (0.33 and 0 respectively), highlighting a lack of practices that contribute directly to climate resilience - such as agroforestry or shelterbelts. Pollination, water management, and biodiversity each scored 1.0 or slightly above, suggesting that while some supporting practices are in place, there’s space to enhance landscape complexity and ecological infrastructure to better sustain these services.
3.3 The synergistic value of agroecological practices in ecosystem service provision
The APES framework represents a valuable opportunity to support farmers and other agri-food system stakeholders in making visible the ecosystem services delivered by their management decisions. Rather than assessing outcomes in isolation, the framework focuses on the practices implemented at farm level, offering a practical and accessible entry point for understanding and enhancing agroecosystem performance. By channeling scientific knowledge into a tool that can be co-used and co-adapted by farmers, researchers, and advisors, APES contributes to building a shared language and methodology around ecosystem services that is grounded in lived farming realities (Rodríguez-Ortega et al., 2014; Boeraeve et al., 2020).
One of the key strengths of the APES framework is its ability to capture the synergistic nature of agroecological practices. Ecosystem services are rarely the result of single interventions; instead, they emerge from the combination and interaction of multiple practices embedded within a holistic farming strategy (Wezel et al., 2014; Nicholls and Altieri, 2018). For example, the integration of organic fertilization, cover cropping, and crop diversification not only supports soil fertility and nutrient cycling but also strengthens resilience to pests and climatic variability (Schipanski et al., 2014; Mabhaudhi et al., 2022). APES allows users to trace these connections between practices and ecological functions, reinforcing the idea that ecosystem service delivery is cumulative, relational, and context-specific. In this way, APES not only informs assessments and planning but also supports agroecological transition pathways, helping to align day-to-day farming practices with broader sustainability and policy goals. As the framework continues to evolve, its ability to empower users with actionable, farm-level insights will be critical for fostering resilient, multifunctional, and ecologically grounded food systems (Temesgen and Wu, 2018; Soulé et al., 2023).
While in the introduction we acknowledged common critiques of the ecosystem services framework, particularly its anthropocentric orientation and tendency to simplify complex ecological and social dynamics, it is important to revisit these issues in light of the APES methodology. By grounding the assessment of ecosystem services in concrete agroecological practices, the APES framework seeks to enhance an ecological understanding of agricultural systems. The practice-based indicators offer a more operational and accessible entry point for farmers and advisors, potentially democratizing knowledge and supporting decision-making rooted in daily agricultural management. However, this same pragmatism may risk reinforcing instrumental views of nature if not accompanied by broader reflection on values, meanings, and long-term systemic approaches. Moreover, the focus on regulating and supporting services still privileges those functions that are more easily linked to agronomic outcomes. To mitigate this, future iterations of APES could explore ways to integrate more nuanced dimensions, such as cultural values, traditional knowledge, and non-material benefits, without compromising usability. This balance remains an ongoing issue, but APES represents a step toward reconciling scientific rigor with contextual relevance in the assessment of ecosystem services.
Agroecological transition and agroecological food system transformations are very complex paths. Different strategy options (Röös et al., 2022) and key entry points (Wezel et al., 2020) domains and principles (Billen et al., 2024) have been identified: responsible governance, circular and solidarity economy, diversity, and co-creation and sharing of knowledge, relationship building and inclusivity.
APES through agroecological practices identification, helps to support multifunctional agricultural systems, which consider ecological relationships, resource recycling, and biodiversity management.
3.4 Limitations of the framework and future prospects
While APES demonstrates strong potential for informing sustainability assessments and agri-environmental monitoring schemes, it should currently be understood as a prototype tool. Its application to a single illustrative case study highlights its practical relevance and usability, but broader validation across farming systems, regions, is needed to assess its generalizability and scalability.
The perception-based indicators for assessing provisioning Ess are inherently subjective and may be influenced by biases or limited comparability across farms and regions. To address this, future versions of the APES framework could complement perception-based indicators with more objective measures, such as yield data, nutrient content, or resource-use efficiency, when available.
Moreover, socio-cultural ecosystem services were excluded from the current version of the APES framework due to the inherent complexity in capturing these dimensions through standardized and broadly applicable indicators. While for some practices, such as agroforestry maintained in traditional landscapes, the link to socio-cultural values is well documented, for many others the connection is far more nuanced, context-dependent, and difficult to generalize. This made it challenging to develop evidence-based indicators that could be applied across diverse farming systems without oversimplifying or misrepresenting these impacts.
4 Conclusions
This study introduced the APES (Agroecological Practices for Ecosystem Services) framework as a novel, practice-based tool to assess 22 ecosystem services in farming systems, grounded in both scientific literature and participatory input. By linking specific agroecological practices to provisioning, regulating, and supporting services, APES makes ecological functions visible and actionable at farm scale, while remaining adaptable to diverse agricultural contexts. Its application in a Northern Italian case study demonstrated its capacity to identify both strengths and gaps in ecosystem service provision, offering valuable insights for agroecological transitions. The framework shows strong potential for broader implementation in agri-environmental monitoring, sustainability assessments, and policy instruments such as eco-schemes or payment for ecosystem services. Further research could test APES across a wider range of farming systems and socio-ecological contexts, to validate and refine the practice-service linkages, and develop context-specific weighting systems.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by University of Gastronomic Sciences of Pollenzo. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
CB: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. VB: Data curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. PM: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This article has been funded by the Project Realizing Dynamic Value Chains for underutilized Crops (RADIANT), a Research and Innovation Action supported by European Commission’s Horizon 2020 program (Grant number 101000622).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Akinmoladun O. F., Muchenje V., Fon F. N., and Mpendulo C. T. (2019). Small ruminants: Farmers’ hope in a world threatened by water scarcity. Animals 9, 1–20. doi: 10.3390/ani9070456
Alasinrin S. Y., Salako F. K., Busari M. A., Sainju U. M., Badmus B. S., and Isimikalu T. O. (2025). Greenhouse gas emissions in response to tillage, nitrogen fertilization, and manure application in the tropics. Soil Tillage. Res. 245, 106296. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2024.106296
Alderson G. L. H. (2018). Conservation of breeds and maintenance of biodiversity: justification and methodology for the conservation of Animal Genetic Resources. Archivos. Zootecnia. 67, 300–309. doi: 10.21071/az.v67i258.3668
Altieri M. A., Nicholls C. I., Dinelli G., and Negri L. (2024). Towards an agroecological approach to crop health: reducing pest incidence through synergies between plant diversity and soil microbial ecology. NPJ Sustain. Agric. 2, 2–7. doi: 10.1038/s44264-024-00016-2
Anand S. and Gupta S. (2020). “Provisioning ecosystem services: Multitier bibliometric analysis and visualisation,” in Environmental and Sustainability Indicators. (Elsevier B.V.), 8. doi: 10.1016/j.indic.2020.100081
Andersson E., Nykvist B., Malinga R., Jaramillo F., and Lindborg R. (2015). A social–ecological analysis of ecosystem services in two different farming systems. Ambio 44, 102–112. doi: 10.1007/s13280-014-0603-y
Anglade J., Billen G., and Garnier J. (2015). Relationships for estimating N2 fixation in legumes: Incidence for N balance of legume-based cropping systems in europe. Ecosphere 6, 1–24. doi: 10.1890/ES14-00353.1
Arias-Arévalo P., Martín-López B., and Gómez-Baggethun E. (2017). Exploring intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values for sustainable management of social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 22. doi: 10.5751/ES-09812-220443
Badagliacca G., Testa G., La Malfa S. G., Cafaro V., Lo Presti E., and Monti M. (2024). Organic fertilizers and bio-waste for sustainable soil management to support crops and control greenhouse gas emissions in mediterranean agroecosystems: A review. Horticulturae 10. doi: 10.3390/horticulturae10050427
Bai Y. and Cotrufo M. F. (2022). Grassland soil carbon sequestration: Current understanding, challenges, and solutions. Sci. (1979). 377, 603–608. doi: 10.1126/science.abo2380
Balzan M. V., Sadula R., and Scalvenzi L. (2020). Assessing ecosystem services supplied by agroecosystems in mediterranean Europe: A literature review. Land. (Basel). 9. doi: 10.3390/LAND9080245
Barman S., Singh G., Das B. M., Varanasi S. T., and Pachani S. (2025). Resilience of Robust Agroforestry Ecosystems. 373–398. doi: 10.1007/978-981-96-2413-3_17
Bassignana C. F., Merante P., Belliére S. R., Vazzana C., and Migliorini P. (2022). Assessment of agricultural biodiversity in organic livestock farms in Italy. Agronomy 12, 1–17. doi: 10.3390/agronomy12030607
Belmain S. R., Tembo Y., Mkindi A. G., Arnold S. E. J., and Stevenson P. C. (2022). Elements of agroecological pest and disease management. Elementa 10, 1–14. doi: 10.1525/elementa.2021.00099
Berry L., Brye K. R., Sharpley A., Morrow R., Phillipp D., Glover T. A., et al. (2025). Winter hay-feeding effects on soil properties in a rotationally grazed pasture system in the Ozark Highlands. Crop. Forage. Turfgrass Manage. 11, 1–12. doi: 10.1002/cft2.70025
Bhadha J. H., Capasso J. M., Khatiwada R., Swanson S., and LaBorde C. (2017). Raising soil organic matter content to improve water holding capacity. Edis 2017, 1–5. doi: 10.32473/edis-ss661-2017
Biffi S., Chapman P. J., Grayson R. P., and Ziv G. (2022). Soil carbon sequestration potential of planting hedgerows in agricultural landscapes. J. Environ. Manage. 307, 114484. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114484
Billen G., Aguilera E., Einarsson R., Garnier J., Gingrich S., Grizzetti B., et al. (2024). Beyond the Farm to Fork Strategy: Methodology for designing a European agro-ecological future. Sci. Total. Environ. 908, 168160. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.168160
Boeraeve F., Dendoncker N., Cornélis J. T., Degrune F., and Dufrêne M. (2020). Contribution of agroecological farming systems to the delivery of ecosystem services. J. Environ. Manage. 260, 109576. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109576
Bommarco R. (2024). Ecological redesign of crop ecosystems for reliable crop protection. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 44, 1–17. doi: 10.1007/s13593-024-00987-z
Brandmeier J., Reininghaus H., and Scherber C. (2023). Multispecies crop mixtures increase insect biodiversity in an intercropping experiment. Ecol. Solutions. Evid. 4, 1–12. doi: 10.1002/2688-8319.12267
Brewer K. M. and Gaudin A. C. M. (2020). Potential of crop-livestock integration to enhance carbon sequestration and agroecosystem functioning in semi-arid croplands. Soil Biol. Biochem. 149. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2020.107936
Büchi L., Gebhard C. A., Liebisch F., Sinaj S., Ramseier H., and Charles R. (2015). Accumulation of biologically fixed nitrogen by legumes cultivated as cover crops in Switzerland. Plant Soil 393, 163–175. doi: 10.1007/s11104-015-2476-7
Buizer M., Elands B., and Vierikko K. (2016). Governing cities reflexively—The biocultural diversity concept as an alternative to ecosystem services. Environ. Sci. Policy 62, 7–13. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.03.003
Cao M., Xiang Y., Huang L., Li M., Jin C., He C., et al. (2024). Winter forage crops influence soil properties through establishing different arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi communities in paddy field. Adv. Biotechnol. 2. doi: 10.1007/s44307-024-00037-5
Carranca C., Pedra F., and Madeira M. (2022). Enhancing carbon sequestration in mediterranean agroforestry systems: A review. Agric. (Switzerland). 12, 1–16. doi: 10.3390/agriculture12101598
Carvalheiro L. G., Bartomeus I., Rollin O., Timóteo S., and Tinoco C. F. 2021 The role of soils on pollination and seed dispersal. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B.: Biol. Sci. 376 (1834), 1–9. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2020.0171
Chadwick D., Sommer S., Thorman R., Fangueiro D., Cardenas L., Amon B., et al. (2011). Manure management: Implications for greenhouse gas emissions. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 166–167, 514–531. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.036
Chalise D., Kumar L., Sharma R., and Kristiansen P. (2020). Assessing the impacts of tillage and mulch on soil erosion and corn yield. Agronomy 10, 1–13. doi: 10.3390/agronomy10010063
Chen K., Fijen T. P. M., Kleijn D., and Scheper J. (2021). Insect pollination and soil organic matter improve raspberry production independently of the effects of fertilizers. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 309, 107270. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2020.107270
Chen Z., Wei Y., Zhang Z., Wang G., and Li J. (2023). Organic carbon sequestration in Chinese croplands under compost application and its contribution to carbon neutrality. Environ. Sci. pollut. Res. 30, 9022–9035. doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-21254-2
Chivenge P., Mabhaudhi T., Modi A. T., and Mafongoya P. (2015). The potential role of neglected and underutilised crop species as future crops under water scarce conditions in Sub-Saharan Africa. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 12, 5685–5711. doi: 10.3390/ijerph120605685
Clement T., Bielders C. L., and Degré A. (2024). How much do conservation cropping practices mitigate runoff and soil erosion under Western European conditions: A focus on conservation tillage, tied ridging and winter cover crops. Soil Use Manag. 40, 1–18. doi: 10.1111/sum.13047
Coffey L. (2014). Integrating livestock and crops: Improving Soil, Solving Problems, Increasing Income. Attra. 1–16.
Cong W. F., Hoffland E., Li L., Six J., Sun J. H., Bao X. G., et al. (2015). Intercropping enhances soil carbon and nitrogen. Glob. Chang. Biol. 21, 1715–1726. doi: 10.1111/gcb.12738
Criscuoli I., Ventura M., Wiedner K., Glaser B., Panzacchi P., Ceccon C., et al. (2021). Stability of woodchips biochar and impact on soil carbon stocks: Results from a two-year field experiment. Forests 12. doi: 10.3390/f12101350
Damianidis C., Santiago-Freijanes J. J., den Herder M., Burgess P., Mosquera-Losada M. R., Graves A., et al. (2021). Agroforestry as a sustainable land use option to reduce wildfires risk in European Mediterranean areas. Agroforestry Syst. 95, 919–929. doi: 10.1007/s10457-020-00482-w
Delgado J. A., Barrera Mosquera V. H., Alwang J. R., Villacis-Aveiga A., and Cartagena Ayala Y. E. (2021). “Potential use of cover crops for soil and water conservation, nutrient management, and climate change adaptation across the tropics,” in Advances in Agronomy. 1st ed (Elsevier Inc.), 165. doi: 10.1016/bs.agron.2020.09.003
Doltra J., Villar A., Moros R., Salcedo G., Hutchings N. J., and Kristensen I. S. (2018). Forage management to improve on-farm feed production, nitrogen fluxes and greenhouse gas emissions from dairy systems in a wet temperate region. Agric. Syst. 160, 70–78. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2017.11.004
dos Santos P. M., dos Santos A. C., das Neves Neto D. N., de Oliveira W. H., Sousa L. F., and de Oliveira L. B. T. (2018). Implementation of silvopastoral systems under nutrient cycling in secondary vegetation in the amazon. J. Agric. Sci. 10, 124. doi: 10.5539/jas.v10n4p124
Drinkwater L. E. and Snapp S. S. (2022). Advancing the science and practice of ecological nutrient management for smallholder farmers. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 6. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2022.921216
Eberle C. A., Thom M. D., Nemec K. T., Forcella F., Lundgren J. G., Gesch R. W., et al. (2015). Using pennycress, camelina, and canola cash cover crops to provision pollinators. Ind. Crops Prod. 75, 20–25. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2015.06.026
Fernandez Pulido C. R., Rasmussen J., Eriksen J., and Abalos D. (2023). Cover crops for nitrogen loss reductions: functional groups, species identity and traits. Plant Soil. 507, 127–140. doi: 10.1007/s11104-023-05895-x
Fijen T. P. M., Eeraerts M., Osterman J., Beyer N., Hass A., Lundin O., et al. (2025). Crop diversification for pollinator conservation. Landsc. Ecol. 40, 1–14. doi: 10.1007/s10980-024-02027-3
Fonseca A., Zina V., Duarte G., Aguiar F. C., Rodríguez-González P. M., Ferreira M. T., et al. (2021). Riparian ecological infrastructures: Potential for biodiversity-related ecosystem services in mediterranean human-dominated landscapes. Sustainabil. (Switzerland). 13, 1–21. doi: 10.3390/su131910508
Fontana M., Johannes A., Zaccone C., Weisskopf P., Guillaume T., Bragazza L., et al. (2023). Improving crop nutrition, soil carbon storage and soil physical fertility using ramial wood chips. Environ. Technol. Innov. 31, 103143. doi: 10.1016/j.eti.2023.103143
Franzluebbers A. J. and Martin G. (2022). Farming with forages can reconnect crop and livestock operations to enhance circularity and foster ecosystem services. Grass. Forage. Sci. 77, 270–281. doi: 10.1111/gfs.12592
Fraser M. D. and Rosa García R. (2018). Mixed-species grazing management to improve sustainability and biodiversity. Rev. Sci. Tech. 37, 247–257. doi: 10.20506/rst.37.1.2755
Gao S.j., Li S., Zhou G.p., and Cao X. X. X. W. d. (2023). The potential of green manure to increase soil carbon sequestration and reduce the yield-scaled carbon footprint of rice production in southern China. J. Integr. Agric. 22, 2233–2247. doi: 10.1016/j.jia.2022.12.005
García-Ruiz J. M. (2010). The effects of land uses on soil erosion in Spain: A review. Catena. (Amst). 81, 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2010.01.001
Gui D., Zhang Y., Lv J., Guo J., and Sha Z. (2024). Effects of intercropping on soil greenhouse gas emissions -A global meta-analysis. Sci. Total. Environ. 918, 170632. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.170632
Guillaume T., Makowski D., Libohova Z., Elfouki S., Fontana M., Leifeld J., et al. (2022). Carbon storage in agricultural topsoils and subsoils is promoted by including temporary grasslands into the crop rotation. Geoderma 422, 115937. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2022.115937
Haider J., Srivastava K., and Rai A. B. (2023). Irrigation, a potential tool for insect pest management in horticultural crops -A review. Curr. Horticult. 11, 3–7. doi: 10.5958/2455-7560.2023.00001.8
Hartman K., van der Heijden M. G. A., Wittwer R. A., Banerjee S., Walser J. C., and Schlaeppi K. (2018). Cropping practices manipulate abundance patterns of root and soil microbiome members paving the way to smart farming. Microbiome 6, 1–14. doi: 10.1186/s40168-017-0389-9
Hayatu N. G., Liu Y. r. e. n., Han T. f. u., Daba N. A., Zhang L., Shen Z., et al. (2023). Carbon sequestration rate, nitrogen use efficiency and rice yield responses to long-term substitution of chemical fertilizer by organic manure in a rice–rice cropping system. J. Integr. Agric. 22, 2848–2864. doi: 10.1016/j.jia.2022.12.006
Helgason K. S., Iversen K., and Julca A. (2021). “Circular agriculture for sustainable rural development,” in Department of economic and Social Affairs, no. Policy Brief No 105, 1–7. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11433.93282
He H. m. i. n. g., Liu L. n. a., Munir S., Bashir N. H., Wang Y., Yang J., et al. (2019). Crop diversity and pest management in sustainable agriculture. J. Integr. Agric. 18, 1945–1952. doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(19)62689-4
Holgerson M. A., Ray N. E., and Russ C. (2023). High rates of carbon burial linked to autochthonous production in artificial ponds. Limnol. Oceanogr Lett. doi: 10.1002/lol2.10351
Hüber C., Zettl F., Hartung J., and Müller-Lindenlauf M. (2022). The impact of maize-bean intercropping on insect biodiversity. Basic. Appl. Ecol. 61, 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.baae.2022.03.005
Hussain S., Hussain S., Guo R., Sarwar M., Ren X., Krstic D., et al. (2021). Carbon sequestration to avoid soil degradation: A review on the role of conservation tillage. Plants 10, 1–16. doi: 10.3390/plants10102001
Jakhro M. I., Habib M., Zhai B., and Li Z. (2025). Advancing apple orchard management through soil organic carbon: A systems-based review. Soil Use Manag. 41, 1–19. doi: 10.1111/sum.70042
Jasrotia P., Kumari P., Malik K., Kashyap P. L., Kumar S., Bhardwaj A. K., et al. (2023). Conservation agriculture based crop management practices impact diversity and population dynamics of the insect-pests and their natural enemies in agroecosystems. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 7. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1173048
Jenkins T., Landschoot S., Dewitte K., Haesaert G., Reade J., and Randall N. (2023). Evidence of development of underutilised crops and their ecosystem services in Europe: a systematic mapping approach. CABI. Agric. Biosci. 4, 1–21. doi: 10.1186/s43170-023-00194-y
Jin D., Yan R., Li L., Qi J., Chen J., Xu H., et al. (2022). Stocking rate changed the magnitude of carbon sequestration and flow within the plant-soil system of a meadow steppe ecosystem. Plant Soil 473, 33–47. doi: 10.1007/s11104-021-05213-3
Jinger D., Kumar R., Kakade V., Dinesh D., Singh G., Pande V. C., et al. (2022). Agroforestry for controlling soil erosion and enhancing system productivity in ravine lands of Western India under climate change scenario. Environ. Monit. Assess. 194. doi: 10.1007/s10661-022-09910-z
Jug D., Jug I., Brozović B., Šeremešić S., Dolijanović Ž., Zsembeli J., et al. (2025). Conservation soil tillage: bridging science and farmer expectations—An overview from southern to northern europe. Agric. (Switzerland). 15, 1–31. doi: 10.3390/agriculture15030260
Kebede E. (2021). Contribution, utilization, and improvement of legumes-driven biological nitrogen fixation in agricultural systems. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 5. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2021.767998
Kedziora A. (2010). Landscape management practices for maintenance and enhancement of ecosystem services in a countryside. Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 10, 133–152. doi: 10.2478/v10104-011-0006-7
Khan W. A. and Wang G. (2023). Conservation tillage: A sustainable approach for carbon sequestration and soil preservation. A review. J. Agric. Sustainabil. Environ. 2, 1–24. doi: 10.56556/jase.v2i1.770
Kim D. G. and Isaac M. E. (2022). Nitrogen dynamics in agroforestry systems. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 42. doi: 10.1007/s13593-022-00791-7
Kocira A., Staniak M., Tomaszewska M., Kornas R., Cymerman J., Panasiewicz K., et al. (2020). Legume cover crops as one of the elements of strategic weed management and soil quality improvement. A review. Agriculture (Switzerland). 10 (9). doi: 10.3390/agriculture10090394
Kowalska A., Grobelak A., Almås Å. R., and Singh B. R. (2020). Effect of biowastes on soil remediation, plant productivity and soil organic carbon sequestration: A review. Energies. (Basel). 13, 1–24. doi: 10.3390/en13215813
Kumar S., Meena R. S., Lal R., Singh Yadav G., Mitran T., Meena B. L., et al. (2018). “Role of legumes in soil carbon sequestration,” in Legumes for soil health and sustainable management. Eds. Meena R. S., Das A., Yadav G. S., and Lal R. (Springer Singapore, Singapore), 109–138. doi: 10.1007/978-981-13-0253-4_4
Lazzerini G., Migliorini P., Moschini V., Pacini C., Merante P., and Vazzana C. (2014). A simplified method for the assessment of carbon balance in agriculture: An application in organic and conventional micro-agroecosystems in a long-term experiment in Tuscany, Italy. Ital. J. Agron. 9, 55–62. doi: 10.4081/ija.2014.566
Lemaire G., Franzluebbers A., de F. Carvalho P. C., and Dedieu B. (2014). Integrated crop-livestock systems: Strategies to achieve synergy between agricultural production and environmental quality. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 190, 4–8. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2013.08.009
Li Y., Chai Y., Ma J., Li R., Cheng H., Chang L., et al. (2022). Straw strip mulching in a semiarid rainfed agroecosystem achieves carbon sequestration and emission reduction from winter wheat fields. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 334, 107990. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2022.107990
Li X., Yadav R., and Siddique K. H. M. (2020). Neglected and underutilized crop species: the key to improving dietary diversity and fighting hunger and malnutrition in asia and the pacific. Front. Nutr. 7. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2020.593711
Li S., Ye S., Liu Z., Hassan M. U., Huang G., and Zhou Q. (2024). How does intercropping contribute to soil organic carbon accumulation? A global synthesis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 374, 109173. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2024.109173
Liang X., Rehman S. U., Zhiqi W., Raza M. A., Haider I., Khalid M. H. b. i. n., et al. (2024). Impacts of conservation tillage on agricultural land development: A review. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. doi: 10.1007/s42729-024-02142-9
Lin D., McCulley R. L., Nelson J. A., Jacobsen K. L., and Zhang D. (2020). Time in pasture rotation alters soil microbial community composition and function and increases carbon sequestration potential in a temperate agroecosystem. Sci. Total. Environ. 698, 134233. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134233
Liu Q., Sun X., Wu W., Liu Z., Fang G., Yang P., et al. (2022). Chapter Six - Diversifying crop rotations enhances agroecosystem services and resilience. Adv. Agron. 173, 299–335. doi: 10.1016/bs.agron.2022.02.007
Loges R., Vogeler I., Kluß C., Hasler M., and Taube F. (2024). Renovation of grasslands with grass and white clover – Effects on yield and carbon sequestration. Soil Tillage. Res. 240, 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2024.106076
Lungarska A. and Chakir R. (2024). Projections of climate change impacts on ecosystem services and the role of land use adaptation in France. Environ. Sustainabil. Indic. 22. doi: 10.1016/j.indic.2024.100369
Luo J., Beule L., Shao G., Veldkamp E., and Corre M. D. (2022). Reduced soil gross N2O emission driven by substrates rather than denitrification gene abundance in cropland agroforestry and monoculture. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 127, 1–16. doi: 10.1029/2021JG006629
Mabhaudhi T., Hlahla S., Chimonyo V. G. P., Henriksson R., Chibarabada T. P., Murugani V. G., et al. (2022). Diversity and diversification: ecosystem services derived from underutilized crops and their co-benefits for sustainable agricultural landscapes and resilient food systems in africa. Front. Agron. 4. doi: 10.3389/fagro.2022.859223
Maitra S., Sahoo U., Sairam M., Gitari H. I., Rezaei-Chiyaneh E., Battaglia M. L., et al. (2023). Cultivating sustainability: A comprehensive review on intercropping in a changing climate. Res. Crops 24, 702–715. doi: 10.31830/2348-7542.2023.ROC-1020
Manda R. R., Avinash Addanki V., and Srivastava S. (2021). Role of drip irrigation in plant health management, its importance and maintenance. Plant Arch. 21, 1294–1302. doi: 10.51470/plantarchives.2021.v21.s1.204
Martínez-Mena M., Carrillo-López E., Boix-Fayos C., Almagro M., García Franco N., Díaz-Pereira E., et al. (2020). Long-term effectiveness of sustainable land management practices to control runoff, soil erosion, and nutrient loss and the role of rainfall intensity in Mediterranean rainfed agroecosystems. Catena. (Amst). 187, 104352. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2019.104352
Mazzoncini M., Sapkota T. B., Bàrberi P., Antichi D., and Risaliti R. (2011). Long-term effect of tillage, nitrogen fertilization and cover crops on soil organic carbon and total nitrogen content. Soil Tillage. Res. 114, 165–174. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2011.05.001
McCravy K. W. (2018). A review of sampling and monitoring methods for beneficial arthropods in agroecosystems. Insects 9. doi: 10.3390/insects9040170
Meng X., Liu S., Zou J., and Osborne B. (2025). The effect of substituting inorganic fertilizer with manure on soil N2O and CH4 emissions and crop yields: A global meta-analysis. Field Crops Res. 326. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2025.109831
Migliorini P. and Wezel A. (2017). Converging and diverging principles and practices of organic agriculture regulations and agroecology. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 37. doi: 10.1007/s13593-017-0472-4
Montgomery I., Caruso T., and Reid N. (2020). Hedgerows as ecosystems: service delivery, management, and restoration. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 51, 81–102. doi: 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-012120-100346
Muhammad I., Sainju U. M., Zhao F., Khan A., Ghimire R., Fu X., et al. (2019). Regulation of soil CO2 and N2O emissions by cover crops: A meta-analysis. Soil Tillage. Res. 192, 103–112. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2019.04.020
Muradian R. and Gómez-Baggethun E. (2021). Beyond ecosystem services and nature’s contributions: Is it time to leave utilitarian environmentalism behind? Ecol. Econ. 185. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107038
Ngegba P. M., Cui G., Khalid M. Z., and Zhong G. (2022). Use of botanical pesticides in agriculture as an alternative to synthetic pesticides. Agriculture 12, 600. doi: 10.3390/agriculture12050600
Nicholls C. I. and Altieri M. A. (2018). Pathways for the amplification of agroecology. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 42, 1170–1193. doi: 10.1080/21683565.2018.1499578
Odeku O. A., Ogunniyi Q. A., Ogbole O. O., and Fettke J. (2024). Forgotten gems: exploring the untapped benefits of underutilized legumes in agriculture, nutrition, and environmental sustainability. Plants 13. doi: 10.3390/plants13091208
Oliveira A. S., Silva J. S., Guiomar N., Fernandes P., Nereu M., Gaspar J., et al. (2023). The effect of broadleaf forests in wildfire mitigation in the WUI – A simulation study. Int. J. Disaster. Risk Reduct. 93. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103788
Panettieri M., Moreno B., de Sosa L. L., Benítez E., and Madejón E. (2022). Soil management and compost amendment are the main drivers of carbon sequestration in rainfed olive trees agroecosystems: An evaluation of chemical and biological markers. Catena. (Amst). 214. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2022.106258
Pascual U., Balvanera P., Díaz S., Pataki G., Roth E., Stenseke M., et al. (2017). Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 26–27, 7–16. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006
Peeters A., Škorjanc K., Alexander W., and Migliorini P. (2021). OASIS, the Orig- inal Agroecological Survey Indicator System. A simple and comprehensive system for agroeco- logical transition assessment. Brussels.
Peredo Parada S. and Barrera Salas C. (2024). Multifunctional plants: ecosystem services and undervalued knowledge of biocultural diversity in rural communities—Local initiatives for agroecological transition in Chile. Land. (Basel). 13. doi: 10.3390/land13010039
Pilon C., Moore P. A., Pote D. H., Martin J. W., and DeLaune P. B. (2017). Effects of grazing management and buffer strips on metal runoff from pastures fertilized with poultry litter. J. Environ. Qual. 46, 402–410. doi: 10.2134/jeq2016.09.0379
Poeplau C. and Don A. (2015). Carbon sequestration in agricultural soils via cultivation of cover crops -A meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 200, 33–41. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2014.10.024
Rapiya M., Hawkins H. J., Muchenje V., Mupangwa J. F., Marufu M. C., Dzama K., et al. (2019). Rotational grazing approaches reduces external and internal parasite loads in cattle. Afr. J. Range Forage. Sci. 36, 151–159. doi: 10.2989/10220119.2019.1628104
Ravichandran M., Samiappan S. C., Pandiyan R., and Velu R. K. (2022). Improvement of crop and soil management practices through mulching for enhancement of soil fertility and environmental sustainability: A review. J. Exp. Biol. Agric. Sci. 10, 697–712. doi: 10.18006/2022.10(4).697.712
Raymond C. M., Singh G. G., Benessaiah K., Bernhardt J. R., Levine J., Nelson H., et al. (2013). Ecosystem services and beyond: Using multiple metaphors to understand human-environment relationships. Bioscience 63 (7), 536–546. doi: 10.1525/bio.2013.63.7.7
Reddy P. P. (2017). “Agro-ecological approaches to pest management for sustainable agriculture,” in Agro-ecological approaches to pest management for sustainable agriculture, 1–339. doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-4325-3
Rodríguez-Ortega T., Oteros-Rozas E., Ripoll-Bosch R., Tichit M., Martín-López B., and Bernués A. (2014). Applying the ecosystem services framework to pasture-based livestock farming systems in Europe. Animal 8, 1361–1372. doi: 10.1017/S1751731114000421
Röös E., Mayer A., Muller A., Kalt G., Ferguson S., Erb K.-H., et al. (2022). Agroecological practices in combination with healthy diets can help meet EU food system policy targets. Sci. Total. Environ. 847, 157612. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157612
Rosenfield M. F., Miedema Brown L., and Anand M. (2022). Increasing cover of natural areas at smaller scales can improve the provision of biodiversity and ecosystem services in agroecological mosaic landscapes. J. Environ. Manage. 303, 114248. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.114248
Sands B., Giroux L., Bruce J., and Darby H. (2024). Integrated parasite management (IPM) and the pasture ecosystem: Optimizing outcomes for cattle, insect biodiversity, and soil health. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 368, 109022. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2024.109022
Schipanski M. E., Barbercheck M., Douglas M. R., Finney D. M., Haider K., Kaye J. P., et al. (2014). A framework for evaluating ecosystem services provided by cover crops in agroecosystems. Agric. Syst. 125, 12–22. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2013.11.004
Seitz S., Goebes P., Puerta V. L., Pereira E. I. P., Wittwer R., Six J., et al. (2019). Conservation tillage and organic farming reduce soil erosion. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 39. doi: 10.1007/s13593-018-0545-z
Seitz D., Fischer L. M., Dechow R., Wiesmeier M., and Don A. (2023). The potential of cover crops to increase soil organic carbon storage in German croplands. Plant Soil 488, 157–173. doi: 10.1007/s11104-022-05438-w
Shao G., Martinson G. O., Corre M. D., Luo J., Niu D., Bischel X., et al. (2023). Impacts of monoculture cropland to alley cropping agroforestry conversion on soil N2O emissions. GCB. Bioenergy 15, 58–71. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.13007
Shekmohammed S. (2021). The role of agroforestry in ecosystem service and climate change regulation: A review. Middle. East. Res. J. Biol. Sci. 1 (1), 14–22. doi: 10.36348/merjbs.2021.v01i01.003
Shelef O., Weisberg P. J., and Provenza F. D. (2017). The value of native plants and local production in an era of global agriculture. Front. Plant Sci. 8. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.02069
Silvertown J. (2015). Have ecosystem services been oversold? Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 641–648. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2015.08.007
Singh U., Choudhary A. K., and Sharma S. (2020). Comparative performance of conservation agriculture vis-a-vis organic and conventional farming, in enhancing plant attributes and rhizospheric bacterial diversity in Cajanus cajan: A field study. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 99, 103197. doi: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2020.103197
Singh K. M., Meena M. S., Kumar A., and Singh R. K. P. (2013). An overview of gender issues in agriculture. SSRN. Electron. J. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2237993
Smith P. (2008). Land use change and soil organic carbon dynamics. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 81, 169–178. doi: 10.1007/s10705-007-9138-y
Smith P., Ashmore M. R., Black H. I. J., Burgess P. J., Evans C. D., Quine T. A., et al. (2013). REVIEW: The role of ecosystems and their management in regulating climate, and soil, water and air quality. J. Appl. Ecol. 50, 812–829. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12016
Soares Fioravanti M. C., Silva Freitas T. M., Moura M. I., Lage Costa G., Moraes Dias J., Kim Pires Guimarães L., et al. (2020). Resistance and resilience to diseases in local ruminant breeds: A focus on south america. Archivos. Zootecnia. 69, 338–352. doi: 10.21071/az.v69i267.5353
Song S., Chen X., Hu Z., Zan C., Liu T., de Maeyer P., et al. (2023). Deciphering the impact of wind erosion on ecosystem services: An integrated framework for assessment and spatiotemporal analysis in arid regions. Ecol. Indic. 154, 110693. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110693
Soria R., Rodríguez-Berbel N., Sánchez-Cañete E. P., Villafuerte A. B., Ortega R., and Miralles I. (2023). Organic amendments from recycled waste promote short-term carbon sequestration of restored soils in drylands. J. Environ. Manage. 327. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116873
Soulé E., Charbonnier R., Schlosser L., Michonneau P., Michel N., and Bockstaller C. (2023). A new method to assess sustainability of agricultural systems by integrating ecosystem services and environmental impacts. J. Clean. Prod. 415. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137784
Spadoni G. L., Moris J. V., Vacchiano G., Elia M., Garbarino M., Sibona E., et al. (2023). Active governance of agro-pastoral, forest and protected areas mitigates wildfire impacts in Italy. Sci. Total. Environ. 890. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.164281
Stagnari F., Maggio A., Galieni A., and Pisante M. (2017). Multiple benefits of legumes for agriculture sustainability: an overview. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 4, 1–13. doi: 10.1186/s40538-016-0085-1
St-Martin A. and Bommarco R. (2016). Soil compaction and insect pollination modify impacts of crop rotation on nitrogen fixation and yield. Basic. Appl. Ecol. 17, 617–626. doi: 10.1016/j.baae.2016.07.001
Tahat M. M., Alananbeh K. M., Othman Y. A., and Leskovar D. I. (2020). Soil health and sustainable agriculture. Sustainabil. (Switzerland). 12. doi: 10.3390/SU12124859
Teague R. and Kreuter U. (2020). Managing grazing to restore soil health, ecosystem function, and ecosystem services. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2020.534187
Temesgen H. and Wu W. (2018). Farmers’ value assessment of sociocultural and ecological ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes. Sustainabil. (Switzerland). 10. doi: 10.3390/su10030703
Thomas S. L., Bindhu S. P., Pillai J. S., Beena R., Biju J., and Sarada S. (2024). Nutrient dynamics and moisture distribution under drip irrigation system. J. Exp. Agric. Int. 46 (10), 485–493. doi: 10.9734/jeai/2024/v46i102972
Torres C. M. M. E., Jacovine L. A. G., Nolasco De Olivera Neto S., Fraisse C. W., Soares C. P. B., de Castro Neto F., et al. (2017). Greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration by agroforestry systems in southeastern Brazil. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–7. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-16821-4
Triberti L., Nastri A., and Baldoni G. (2016). Long-term effects of crop rotation, manure and mineral fertilisation on carbon sequestration and soil fertility. Eur. J. Agron. 74, 47–55. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2015.11.024
Tschanz P., Walter A., Keller T., and Albrecht M. (2024). A review of soil tillage impacts on ground-nesting wild bees – mechanisms, implications, and future research perspectives. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 375, 109224. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2024.109224
Tulu D., Gadissa S., and Hundessa F. (2023). Impact of water stress on adaptation and performance of sheep and goat in dryland regions under climate change scenarios: a systematic review. J. Anim. Behav. Biometeorol. 11. doi: 10.31893/JABB.23012
Udawatta R. P., Rankoth L. M., and Jose S. (2019). Agroforestry and biodiversity. Sustainabil. (Switzerland). 11. doi: 10.3390/su11102879
van Kessel C. and Hartley C. (2000). Agricultural management of grain legumes: Has it led to an increase in nitrogen fixation? Field Crops Res. 65, 165–181. doi: 10.1016/S0378-4290(99)00085-4
van Ramshorst J. G. V., Siebicke L., Baumeister M., Moyano F. E., Knohl A., and Markwitz C. (2022). Reducing wind erosion through agroforestry: A case study using large eddy simulations. Sustainabil. (Switzerland). 14, 1–24. doi: 10.3390/su142013372
Varah A., Jones H., Smith J., and Potts S. G. (2020). Temperate agroforestry systems provide greater pollination service than monoculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 301, 107031. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2020.107031
Vega D., Ibarra S., Varela Pardo R. A., and Poggio S. L. (2023). Agroecological management of crop diseases: a review. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 47, 919–949. doi: 10.1080/21683565.2023.2216149
Velado-Alonso E., Gomez-Sal A., Bernues A., and Martin-Collado D. (2021). Livestock breeds and ecosystem services. Animals 11, 1–10. doi: 10.3390/ani11092548
Vidaller C. and Dutoit T. (2022). Ecosystem services in conventional farming systems. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 42. doi: 10.1007/s13593-021-00740-w
Videira e Castro I., de Castro Silva M., Fernandez C., Colavolpe B., and MaChado H. (2019). The potential of nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the sustainability of agro-forestry ecosystems 71–82. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-17597-9_5
Wang Z., Zhang J., Li Z., Liu H., Wang L., Wang W., et al. (2021). Single grazing is more detrimental to grasslands than mixed grazing: evidence from the response of functional traits of dominant plants to grazing systems. Front. Ecol. Evol. 9. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2021.682289
Weninger T., Scheper S., Lackóová L., Kitzler B., Gartner K., King N. W., et al. (2021). Ecosystem services of tree windbreaks in rural landscapes -A systematic review. Environ. Res. Lett. 16. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ac1d0d
Wezel A., Casagrande M., Celette F., Vian J. F., Ferrer A., and Peigné J. (2014). Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 34, 1–20. doi: 10.1007/s13593-013-0180-7
Wezel A., Herren B. G., Kerr R. B., Barrios E., Gonçalves A. L. R., and Sinclair F. (2020). Agroecological principles and elements and their implications for transitioning to sustainable food systems. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 40, 40. doi: 10.1007/s13593-020-00646-z
Xiao L., Zhou S., Zhao R., and Wei C. (2023). The net and combined effects of minimum tillage and straw mulching on carbon accumulation in global croplands. Eur. J. Agron. 143, 126719. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2022.126719
Yang L., Luo Y., Lu B., Zhou G., Chang D., Gao S., et al. (2023). Long-term maize and pea intercropping improved subsoil carbon storage while reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 349, 108444. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2023.108444
Yang X., Xiong J., Du T., Ju X., Gan T., Li S., et al. (2024). Diversifying crop rotation increases food production, reduces net greenhouse gas emissions and improves soil health. Nat. Commun. 15. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-44464-9
Yasin G., Nawaz M. F., Zubair M., Azhar M. F., Mohsin Gilani M., Ashraf M. N., et al. (2023). Role of Traditional agroforestry systems in climate change mitigation through carbon sequestration: an investigation from the semi-arid region of Pakistan. Land. (Basel). 12. doi: 10.3390/land12020513
Yin W., Chai Q., Zhao C., Yu A., Fan Z., Hu F., et al. (2020). Water utilization in intercropping: A review. Agric. Water Manag. 241. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106335
Yu W., Zhao P., Li C., Wang D., Ming C., Chen L., et al. (2025). Intercropping achieves long-term dual goals of yield gains and soil N2O emission mitigation. Resour. Environ. Sustainabil. 20, 100210. doi: 10.1016/j.resenv.2025.100210
Yue K., Fornara D. A., Heděnec P., Wu Q., Peng Y., Peng X., et al. (2023). No tillage decreases GHG emissions with no crop yield tradeoff at the global scale. Soil Tillage. Res. 228. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2023.105643
Zarifa G. and Elmurod U. (2025). Biological methods of pest control. Asian J. Agric. & Biol. 1, 5–8. Available online at: https://topjournals.kz/index.php/AJIAB/article/view/2/2.
Zhang J., Yao W., Wen Y., Qian X., Peixoto L., Yang S., et al. (2025). Temporal and spatial patterns of N2O emissions in maize/legume strip intercropping: Effects of straw incorporation and crop interactions. Field Crops Res. 326, 109850. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2025.109850
Zhang Y.n., Wang Z., Liu P., and Wang C.j. (2022). Mixed cattle and sheep grazing reduces the root lifespan of the community in a desert steppe. Ecol. Indic. 143, 109422. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109422
Zhou Y., He J., Liu Y., Liu H., Wang T., Liu Y., et al. (2023). Aerated drip irrigation improves watermelon yield, quality, water and fertilizer use efficiency by changing plant biomass and nutrient partitioning. Irrig. Sci. 41, 739–748. doi: 10.1007/s00271-023-00853-y
Keywords: agroecology, ecosystem services assessment, sustainable farming systems, practice-based framework, farm level assessment
Citation: Bassignana CF, Bruno V and Migliorini P (2025) A novel framework for assessing ecosystem services through agroecological practices. Front. Agron. 7:1648022. doi: 10.3389/fagro.2025.1648022
Received: 16 June 2025; Accepted: 28 August 2025;
Published: 19 September 2025.
Edited by:
Helena Freitas, University of Coimbra, PortugalReviewed by:
Rui S. Oliveira, University of Coimbra, PortugalIoannis Gazoulis, Agricultural University of Athens, Greece
Copyright © 2025 Bassignana, Bruno and Migliorini. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Paola Migliorini, cC5taWdsaW9yaW5pQHVuaXNnLml0