ReviewHeliyon2022
A quantitative appraisal of selected agroforestry studies in the Sub-Saharan Africa.
Review in Heliyon, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The multiple ecosystem services and livelihood assets development challenges facing the world, including climate change, land degradation, and high poverty levels, have necessitated cross-cutting solutions. Such includes agroforestry technologies, where trees are integrated with crop and pasture lands to yield multiple ecosystem goods and services. Though an ancient approach to land management, agroforestry faces a modern and urgent demand for expansion to counter ecosystems-livelihoods imbalances in most regions across the globe. This paper sought to synthesize the dynamics and characteristics of agroforestry technologies in sub-Saharan Africa by adopting the systematic review approach. Eighty-six (86) agroforestry studies were reviewed, analysing variables such as the dominant agroforestry technologies, production systems, types of studies, and ecosystem services generated by different agroforestry technologies. It established that majority of the agroforestry studies are multiple (undefined) in nature at 36%, have moderately changed over the years, the dominant agroforestry study type is journal articles (59%), and they are mostly scientific in nature (57%). Further, income generation was the dominant provisioning service (31%), greenhouse gas emission reduction was the main regulatory service (31%), and soil fertility management was the key support service. Tradeoffs associated with agroforestry technologies, including increased deforestation rates, tree-crops competition, increased pests and diseases, and potential food insecurity due to reduced crop production were also identified. Barriers to agroforestry such as insecure land tenure systems and inadequate research development are discussed. Pathways towards increased agroforestry technologies adoption, such as creating a conducive institutional and policy environment, as well as developing business support services for agroforestry-related goods and services were identified. The study reiterates the need for increased agroforestry technologies adoption to create the ecosystems-livelihoods balances, with sufficient measures to minimize the potential tradeoffs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.