Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42153981›Full record

SynthesisBiological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society2026

Orchard netting impacts on biodiversity leading to cascading effects at the ecosystem level.

Corrado Alessandrini, Karan Sethi, Emanuela Granata, Ekaterina Mogilnaia, Valeria Vitangeli, Giovanni Zanfei, Chiara Fedrigotti, Paolo Biella, Dino Scaravelli, Luigi Marchesi and 4 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

14 authors.

Corrado AlessandriniDepartment of Environmental Science and Policy, University of Milan, Via Celoria, 26, Milan, I-20133, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4737-9436
Karan SethiDepartment of Environmental Science and Policy, University of Milan, Via Celoria, 26, Milan, I-20133, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-2220-1284
Emanuela GranataDepartment of Environmental Science and Policy, University of Milan, Via Celoria, 26, Milan, I-20133, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-8300-416X
Ekaterina MogilnaiaDepartment of Environmental Science and Policy, University of Milan, Via Celoria, 26, Milan, I-20133, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-9809-7389
Valeria VitangeliBiologia della Conservazione, Museo delle Scienze di Trento - MUSE, Corso del Lavoro e della Scienza 3, Trento, I-38122, Italy.
Giovanni ZanfeiBiologia della Conservazione, Museo delle Scienze di Trento - MUSE, Corso del Lavoro e della Scienza 3, Trento, I-38122, Italy.
Chiara FedrigottiBiologia della Conservazione, Museo delle Scienze di Trento - MUSE, Corso del Lavoro e della Scienza 3, Trento, I-38122, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-4382-3254
Paolo BiellaDepartment of Biotechnology and Biosciences, ZooPlantLab, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, I-20126, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2297-006X
Dino ScaravelliDipartimento di Scienze Biologiche, Geologiche ed Ambientali - BiGeA, University of Bologna, Via Zamboni, 33, Bologna, I-40126, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0733-8480
Luigi MarchesiBiologia della Conservazione, Museo delle Scienze di Trento - MUSE, Corso del Lavoro e della Scienza 3, Trento, I-38122, Italy.
Péter BatáryFaunistics and Wildlife Conservation, Department of Agriculture, Ecotrophology, and Landscape Development, Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Bernburg, DE-06406, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1017-6996
Diego RuboliniDepartment of Environmental Science and Policy, University of Milan, Via Celoria, 26, Milan, I-20133, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2703-5783
Paolo PedriniBiologia della Conservazione, Museo delle Scienze di Trento - MUSE, Corso del Lavoro e della Scienza 3, Trento, I-38122, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1305-5559
Mattia BrambillaDepartment of Environmental Science and Policy, University of Milan, Via Celoria, 26, Milan, I-20133, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7643-4652

Funding

European Union - NextGenerationEU
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Agriculture must ensure food production without further compromising the ecosystem functions upon which it depends. Agricultural practices should therefore avoid harming farmland biodiversity, especially of taxa that supply the key ecosystem services (e.g. pollination, pest control and nutrient uptake) that ultimately support crop production. Orchards are among the largest permanent plantations worldwide and are increasingly characterised by the spread of plastic nets used to protect fruits/nuts from either abiotic (anti-hail, anti-rain, shade nets) or biotic (exclusion nets) hazards. Despite having received little attention to date, these nets may impact natural communities, acting both as physical barriers and as drivers of habitat changes to which biota must respond. Species-level responses to netting depend on the organism's ability to enter the netted environment and successfully exploit available resources. Net-mediated ecological filtering and plastic behavioural responses may alter species interactions, leading to cascading ecological impacts that may create species-poorer 'netted communities' with simplified ecological networks. Such changes may erode biological control potential, other ecosystem functions, and overall system stability. We conducted a systematic review on the effects of protection nets on biota, and reported novel empirical evidence on anti-hail nets' impacts on communities of orchard-dwelling birds, flower-visiting insects, and rodents. In total, we identified 48 studies from the literature, however this literature was strongly biased towards apple orchards, western countries, and pest taxa. Net deployment was highly effective in deterring target pest species, in some cases regardless of their original function, as even weather-protection nets limited pest populations. Side effects on non-target taxa were also often reported, such as decreases in pollinators and natural enemies, and/or increases in secondary pests or microbial diseases. However, most assessments largely disregarded non-pest taxa and the broader ecological consequences of netting. The few studies that addressed the effects of nets at the guild/community level, including our empirical study, confirmed that orchard netting resulted in species-poor assemblages, with possible ecosystem-level consequences. We propose that future assessments should pay more attention to the indirect effects of netting on non-target taxa, and on the supply of crop-supporting ecosystem services mediated by wild species occurring in agroecosystems. Due to the trade-offs between these services and net-mediated crop protection, integrated alternatives should be tested to improve the environmental sustainability of food production and biodiversity conservation in farmed landscapes.

Indexed as

AgricultureBiodiversityEcosystemAnimalsagroecologyecosystem servicespermanent cropspest controlpollinationpome fruitsprotection coversprotective netsspecies‐specific environmental filteringvineyards

Identifiers

PMID42153981
PMCPMC13542310

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.