ReviewGlobal change biology2026
Global Bias-Aware Synthesis of Meta-Analyses Reveals Agroforestry's Potential for Improving Soil Health.
Review in Global change biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Agroforestry systems (AFS), which integrate trees into agricultural landscapes, offer a promising strategy for climate change mitigation and biodiversity restoration. The trees can access additional resources, improving soil functions and contributing to soil regeneration through increased organic matter inputs. However, evidence is scattered and thus hindering unified global quantification of impacts. Here, we present the first bias-adjusted global quantitative synthesis of agroforestry effects on distinct soil and water attributes, drawing on 1590 primary studies summarized in 26 meta-analyses. We evaluated each meta-analysis against 16 standardized quality criteria. Less than half of the meta-analyses met > 75% of these criteria, while most did not weigh effect-sizes or assess heterogeneity and publication bias. We quantified primary studies overlap, finding an overall redundancy of 18% across all soil parameters, most of which arise from studies reporting on soil carbon. Accounting for meta-analysis quality and bias, AFS tend to increase soil organic carbon by 20%, improve chemical soil quality by 59%, physical soil quality by 22%, and enhance water regulation by 71%. Biological soil quality (86%), nutrient leaching reduction (67%), and erosion control (6%) also benefit from AFS, though with higher heterogeneity. Evidence is extensive for soil organic carbon and chemical properties (73% of studies), whereas it remains limited for AFS effects on biological (< 12%), physical (< 19%), and water-regulation traits (< 27%). 58% of meta-analyses report no details at all on system characteristics, such as stand age, species diversity, or tree density, limiting the identification of AFS management practices that maximize soil health attributes and highlight the need for standardized definitions of agroforestry and consistent sampling protocols. By systematically evaluating meta-analysis quality and study overlap, this synthesis provides a robust framework to distinguish reliable from uncertain outcomes and demonstrates the capacity of agroforestry to deliver multifunctional benefits, particularly regarding soil 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.