ArticleScientific reports2025
Trade-offs between agricultural production and ecosystem services under different land management scenarios in the Loess Plateau of China.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Land management practices play a crucial role in balancing agricultural production and ecosystem services. This study evaluated the trade-offs between provisioning ecosystem services (crop yields) and other key ecosystem services including regulating services (water yield, soil conservation, carbon sequestration) and supporting services (biodiversity) under three land management scenarios in the Loess Plateau of China. An integrated assessment framework combining biophysical models, economic valuation, and trade-off analysis was applied. The results showed significant trade-offs between provisioning ecosystem services (agricultural production) and regulating and supporting ecosystem services (water yield, soil conservation, carbon sequestration, and biodiversity). The ecological restoration scenario maximized regulating and supporting services but reduced agricultural output by 15%, while the sustainable intensification scenario increased agricultural production by 15% with moderate ecosystem service provision. The business-as-usual scenario showed intermediate performance for both. Trade-offs were driven by land use intensity, landscape configuration, biogeochemical cycles, and hydrological processes. We propose strategies including sustainable intensification practices, landscape multifunctionality enhancement, ecosystem-based adaptation, participatory land-use planning, and improved monitoring systems. These findings highlight the need for integrated approaches that balance food production and environmental sustainability, providing insights for land management policies aligned with UN Sustainable Development Goals.
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.