ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2025
Measuring the socio-economic and environmental outcomes of regenerative agriculture across spatio-temporal scales.
Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Merging rigor and relevance in grazingland research: a comprehensive social-ecological monitoring approach.Carbon balance and management · 2026Article
- Key action areas for transforming the UK food system: insights from the Transforming UK Food Systems (TUKFS) Programme project portfolio.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Review
- Measuring the socio-economic and environmental outcomes of regenerative agriculture across spatio-temporal scales.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Food systems transformation: rationale and methodologies.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Regenerative agriculture aims to produce food while simultaneously improving soil health, supporting biodiversity, reducing input costs and enhancing climate resilience. Evidence on its environmental and socio-economic impacts across different systems and climates remains limited, with few studies measuring multiple outcomes following whole farming system transition. To be impactful, regenerative agriculture research must address farmers' knowledge needs and provide practically feasible, economically viable solutions. This can be achieved through action-based research, co-designed with farmer stakeholders in real-world settings. Such research is time-consuming and involves potential risk for farmers adopting new practice combinations. Here, we describe two UK research projects gathering evidence on regenerative agriculture in partnership with farmers, at different scales. One is a replicated large-plot trial that stacks regenerative principles, the other a farmer-led quasi-experiment, following the transition in active farm businesses and using a flexible scoring system based on regenerative principles. We highlight benefits, challenges and future research directions emerging from these projects, including: challenges defining regenerative agriculture; co-design and maximizing knowledge exchange; generalizing results beyond study sites, when practices and outcomes are context-dependent; the need for interdisciplinarity; and generating evidence on long-term transitions with time lags between system change and outcomes, in an environment of short-term funding.This article is part of the theme issue 'Transforming terrestrial food systems for human and planetary health'.
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.