Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39036712›Full record

ArticleLand2021

Evaluation of Land Suitability Methods with Reference to Neglected and Underutilised Crop Species: A Scoping Review.

Hillary Mugiyo, Vimbayi G P Chimonyo, Mbulisi Sibanda, Richard Kunz, Cecilia R Masemola, Albert T Modi, Tafadzwanashe Mabhaudhi

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Land, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Why participatory plant research now?Quantitative plant biology · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

7 authors.

Hillary MugiyoCentre for Transformative Agricultural and Food Systems, School of Agricultural, Earth & Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, P/Bag X01, Pietermaritzburg 3209, South Africa.
Vimbayi G P ChimonyoCentre for Transformative Agricultural and Food Systems, School of Agricultural, Earth & Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, P/Bag X01, Pietermaritzburg 3209, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9912-9848
Mbulisi SibandaCentre for Transformative Agricultural and Food Systems, School of Agricultural, Earth & Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, P/Bag X01, Pietermaritzburg 3209, South Africa.
Richard KunzCentre for Water Resources Research, School of Agricultural, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, P/Bag X01, Pietermaritzburg 3209, South Africa.
Cecilia R MasemolaCentre for Transformative Agricultural and Food Systems, School of Agricultural, Earth & Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, P/Bag X01, Pietermaritzburg 3209, South Africa.
Albert T ModiCentre for Transformative Agricultural and Food Systems, School of Agricultural, Earth & Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, P/Bag X01, Pietermaritzburg 3209, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6887-1721
Tafadzwanashe MabhaudhiCentre for Transformative Agricultural and Food Systems, School of Agricultural, Earth & Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, P/Bag X01, Pietermaritzburg 3209, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9323-8127

Funding

Wellcome Trust 205200
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In agriculture, land use and land classification address questions such as "where", "why" and "when" a particular crop is grown within a particular agroecology. To date, there are several land suitability analysis (LSA) methods, but there is no consensus on the best method for crop suitability analysis. We conducted a scoping review to evaluate methodological strategies for LSA. Secondary to this, we assessed which of these would be suitable for neglected and underutilised crop species (NUS). The review classified LSA methods reported in articles as traditional (26.6%) and modern (63.4%). Modern approaches, including multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods such as analytical hierarchy process (AHP) (14.9%) and fuzzy methods (12.9%); crop simulation models (9.9%) and machine learning related methods (25.7%) are gaining popularity over traditional methods. The MCDM methods, namely AHP and fuzzy, are commonly applied to LSA while crop models and machine learning related methods are gaining popularity. A total of 67 parameters from climatic, hydrology, soil, socio-economic and landscape properties are essential in LSA. Unavailability and the inclusion of categorical datasets from social sources is a challenge. Using big data and Internet of Things (IoT) improves the accuracy and reliability of LSA methods. The review expects to provide researchers and decision-makers with the most robust methods and standard parameters required in developing LSA for NUS. Qualitative and quantitative approaches must be integrated into unique hybrid land evaluation systems to improve LSA.

Indexed as

hybrid land evaluation systemsland managementmachine learningMCDMNUS

Identifiers

PMID39036712
PMCPMC7616268

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.