Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31988120›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2020

Landscape context affects the sustainability of organic farming systems.

Olivia M Smith, Abigail L Cohen, John P Reganold, Matthew S Jones, Robert J Orpet, Joseph M Taylor, Jessa H Thurman, Kevin A Cornell, Rachel L Olsson, Yang Ge and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Olivia M SmithSchool of Biological Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164; olivia.m.smith@wsu.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-9404-0243
Abigail L CohenDepartment of Entomology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164.
John P ReganoldDepartment of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164.
Matthew S JonesDepartment of Entomology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164.
Robert J OrpetDepartment of Entomology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164.
Joseph M TaylorDepartment of Entomology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164.
Jessa H ThurmanDepartment of Entomology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164.
Kevin A CornellSchool of Biological Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164.
Rachel L OlssonDepartment of Entomology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164.
Yang GeDepartment of Entomology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164.
Christina M KennedyGlobal Lands Program, The Nature Conservancy, Fort Collins, CO 80524.
David W CrowderDepartment of Entomology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Organic agriculture promotes sustainability compared to conventional agriculture. However, the multifunctional sustainability benefits of organic farms might be mediated by landscape context. Assessing how landscape context affects sustainability may aid in targeting organic production to landscapes that promote high biodiversity, crop yields, and profitability. We addressed this using a meta-analysis spanning 60 crop types on six continents that assessed whether landscape context affected biodiversity, yield, and profitability of organic vs. conventional agroecosystems. We considered landscape metrics reflecting landscape composition (percent cropland), compositional heterogeneity (number and diversity of cover types), and configurational heterogeneity (spatial arrangement of cover types) across our study systems. Organic sites had greater biodiversity (34%) and profits (50%) than conventional sites, despite lower yields (18%). Biodiversity gains increased as average crop field size in the landscape increased, suggesting organic farms provide a "refuge" in intensive landscapes. In contrast, as crop field size increased, yield gaps between organic and conventional farms increased and profitability benefits of organic farming decreased. Profitability of organic systems, which we were only able to measure for studies conducted in the United States, varied across landscapes in conjunction with production costs and price premiums, suggesting socioeconomic factors mediated profitability. Our results show biodiversity benefits of organic farming respond differently to landscape context compared to yield and profitability benefits, suggesting these sustainability metrics are decoupled. More broadly, our results show that the ecological, but not the economic, sustainability benefits of organic agriculture are most pronounced in more intensive agricultural landscapes.

Indexed as

agriculturebiodiversitymeta-analysisprofitabilityyield

Identifiers

PMID31988120
PMCPMC7022164

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.