ReviewAgronomy for sustainable development2025
Farm resilience to climatic risk. A review.
Review in Agronomy for sustainable development, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers 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
Increasing our understanding of farm resilience drivers to climate-related risks is critical for designing innovative farm systems, especially for smallholders that are highly vulnerable to climatic hazards and expected to follow a pathway toward sustainable development. However, the literature is fragmented on the concepts and methods to measure farm resilience. Moreover, quantitative assessments of options to enhance farm resilience to climate risks are scarce. Resilience can be defined as the ability of a system to recover, reorganize and evolve following external stresses and disturbances. Such definition can be applied to farm systems. In this study, we systematically reviewed how changes in resilience-enhancing attributes (reserves, openness, modularity, tightness of feedbacks and diversity) impacted farm performance and resilience to climate-related risks, with a specific attention to smallholder farms. Our analysis showed that reviewed studies assessed farm resilience using the agricultural and economic dimensions of performance, often excluding the socio-environmental dimensions. To assess performance, the average value of indicators was most commonly employed, sometimes combined with variability metrics or the probability of exceeding a critical threshold. Improving one resilience attribute increased one dimension of farm performance for a given metric in most of the studies, but some studies showed the opposite effect. The lack of comprehensive assessments exploring different attributes and their impact on several dimensions of performance using diverse metrics prevents a robust conclusion on how to improve farm resilience to climate-related risks. Therefore, we recommend to pay more attention to quantitative assessments of farm resilience, including a systematic investigation of the temporal variability of performance and the socio-environmental dimensions of performance. Finally, we emphasize the need to focus on the recovery of smallholder farms after a disturbance, with the goal of achieving growth in farm performance rather than simply reverting to their current state of food insecurity and poverty. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13593-024-00998-w.
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.