literature review in agriculture project

Agriculture Research Guide

• Find Journal Articles
• In The News
• Websites and Organizations
• Reference Books

A Review of the Literature

Literature review examples.

• The Research Process
• APA Citations

Subject Guide

1. Introduction

Not to be confused with a book review, a  literature review  surveys scholarly articles, books and other sources (e.g. dissertations, conference proceedings, reports) relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, providing a description, summary, and critical evaluation of each work. The purpose is to offer an overview of and background on significant literature published on a topic.

2. Components

Similar to primary research, development of the literature review requires four stages:

• Literature search—finding materials relevant to the subject being explored
• Data evaluation—determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic
• Analysis and interpretation—discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature

Literature reviews should comprise the following elements:

• An overview of the subject, issue or theory under consideration, along with the objectives of the literature review
• Division of works under review into categories (e.g. those in support of a particular position, those against, and those offering alternative theses entirely)
• Explanation of how each work is similar to and how it varies from the others
• Conclusions as to which pieces are best considered in their argument, and make the greatest contribution to the understanding and development of their area of research

3. Definition and Use/Purpose

A literature review may constitute an essential chapter of a thesis or dissertation, or may be a self-contained review of writings on a subject. In either case, its purpose is to:

• Place each work in the context of its contribution to the understanding of the subject under review
• Describe the relationship of each work to the others under consideration
• Identify new ways to interpret, and shed light on any gaps in, previous research
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies
• Identify areas of prior scholarship to prevent duplication of effort
• Point the way forward for further research
• Place one's original work (in the case of theses or dissertations) in the context of existing literature

The literature review itself, however, does not present new  primary  scholarship. 

Information adapted from UC Santa Cruz University Library .

• Master's Theses Database of master's theses written by CSU, Chico students, from 2009 on. Many of these will contain published examples of literature reviews.
• Proquest Dissertations and Theses: The Humanities and Social Sciences Collection Containes over 2 million dissertations and theses with abstracts, 24 page free previews, and full-text PDF, if available, for dissertations and theses dating back to 1637.
• Sample APA Paper (lit. review begins page 3) Purdue University Online Writing Lab (OWL)
• << Previous: Find Books
• Next: The Research Process >>
• Last Updated: Jul 25, 2024 10:05 AM
• URL: https://libguides.csuchico.edu/agriculture_dg

Meriam Library | CSU, Chico

MSU Libraries

Research guides.

• Need help? Ask Us

Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics Research (AFRE): Literature Review

• Getting Started
• Database Search Tips
• Working Papers
• Books, Ebooks, and OER
• Dissertations
• Data & Statistics
• When to Cite?
• Citing & Citation Management
• Journal Impact Factors
• Citation Programs
• International Resources
• Satellite Data
• Literature Review
• eTextbook, OER
• AFRE History

What is a literature review

The term "literature review" can mean different things in different contexts.  All share in common the idea of examining the scholarly literature on a topic.  It is the end result that differs:

An Annotated Bibliography is " a bibliography that includes brief explanations or notes for each reference" (from Dictionary.com )  The notes may be evaluative or simply a summary.

A literature review can be free-standing article. "A review article or review of the literature article considers the state and progress of current literature on a given topic or problem by organizing, integrating, and evaluating previously published books and articles. In short, a review article is a critical evaluation of material that has already been published." ( Writing Literature Reviews )  "The purpose is to offer an overview of significant literature published on a topic." (Write a Literature Review )

A literature review is a vital part of research papers including theses and dissertations.  "Surveying the literature is necessary because scholarship is cumulative -- no matter what you write, you are standing on someone else's shoulders. Scholars must say something new while connecting what they say to what has already been said." ( Writing Literature Reviews );

Below are some useful links for writing a literature review.

Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting It - University of Toronto

Online Articles & Chapters on Lit Reviews

• Conducting a Literature Review — The Example of Sustainability in Supply Chains Dr. Stefan Seuring et al. Research Methodologies in Supply Chain Management 2005, pp 91-106. [Chapter]
• Writing a Literature Review by Roy F. Baumeister. The Portable Mentor, 2013, pp 119-132. [Chapter]
• Literature Reviews: Analysis, Planning, and Query Techniques. by Wilhelm, William J. and Kaunelis, Davis. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal; Spring / Summer 2005, Vol. 47 Issue 2, p91-106, 16p more... less... This article presents proper techniques for planning, organizing and conducting a reliable literature search using electronic databases that index business education scholarly publications.
• A Critical Realist Guide to Developing Theory with Systematic Literature Reviews. Okoli, Chitu. Rochester: Social Science Research Network, 2012. [Working Paper]
• Doing a Literature Review Knopf, Jeffrey W. PS, Political Science & Politics 39.1 (2006): 127-32. [Article]

• Literature Review / Richard Race Source: The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods / Lisa M. Given (2008). Database: Sage Research Methods

Related interest

• Research Writing Teams as a Form of Mentoring for Graduate Students by Fanni L. Coward, Stacy A. Jacob . Dimensions in Mentoring, 2012, pp 167-179 [Chapter]
• Practical recommendations to help students bridge the research-implementation gap and promote conservation. Pietri, D. M., et al. (2013). Conservation Biology, 27(5), 958-967.

Video Summarizing the Literature Review Process

Click here to open

Courtesy of the University of North Carolina State University Libraries

Ebooks on lit reviews

Print resouces on lit reviews

• << Previous: Satellite Data
• Next: eTextbook, OER >>
• Last Updated: Aug 14, 2024 1:45 PM
• URL: https://libguides.lib.msu.edu/afre

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Environ Res Public Health

Farming for Life Quality and Sustainability: A Literature Review of Green Care Research Trends in Europe

Marina garcía-llorente.

1 Department of Applied Research and Agricultural Extension, Madrid Institute for Rural, Agricultural and Food Research and Development (IMIDRA), Finca Experimental ‘‘El Encín’’Ctra N-II, Km 38, Madrid 28800, Spain

Radha Rubio-Olivar

2 Social-Ecological Systems Laboratory, Department of Ecology, Edificio de Biología, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, C/Darwin 2, Madrid 28049, Spain; [email protected] (R.R.O.); [email protected] (I.G.B.)

Inés Gutierrez-Briceño

Associated data.

Green care is an innovative approach that combines simultaneously caring for people and caring for land through three elements that have not been previously connected: (1) multifunctional agriculture and recognition of the plurality of agricultural system values; (2) social services and health care; and (3) the possibility of strengthening the farming sector and local communities. The current research provides a comprehensive overview of green care in Europe as a scientific discipline through a literature review ( n = 98 studies). According to our results, the Netherlands, the UK, Norway and Sweden followed by Italy have led the scientific studies published in English. Green care research comprises a wide range of perspectives and frameworks (social farming, care farming, nature-based solutions, etc.) with differences in their specificities. Green care studies have mainly focused on measuring the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions. Studies that evaluate its relevance in socio-economic and environmental terms are still limited. According to our results, the most common users studied were people suffering from psychological and mental ill health, while the most common activities were horticulture, animal husbandry and gardening. Finally, we discuss the potential of green care to reconnect people with nature and to diversify the farming sector providing new public services associated with the relational values society obtains from the contact with agricultural systems.

1. Introduction

Agriculture has been performed by our species for approximately 10,000 years [ 1 ], and practices have been altered according to human needs and preferences. The agricultural industrialization of the 20th century dramatically changed agricultural activities and relations between agriculture and our culture; for example, agriculture now focuses largely on the maximization of both production and profit [ 2 ]. This change has become even more severe over the last 50 years, during the green revolution, with the intensification of large-scale agricultural production and the abandonment of the countryside in traditionally agricultural rural areas [ 3 , 4 ].

The consequences of this transition not only has environmental impacts (i.e., loss of agricultural landscapes, water pollution, loss of genetic heritage related to local varieties and breeds), economic impacts (i.e., loss in profitability) and cultural impacts (i.e., loss of local knowledge and identity linked to agricultural management) but also affects our general nutrition, relationships, health and quality of life. The value and importance of the relation between humans and nature has been overlooked during recent decades. However, currently, it is known that contact with nature has a positive influence on quality of life in terms of both physical and psychological health [ 5 , 6 , 7 ]. Nevertheless, this disconnection (in terms of access and appreciation) with agroecosystems and the ecosystem services that agroecosystems provide is increasing in western and urbanized societies. It is argued by Pretty [ 8 ] that as urbanized societies we have become disconnected from the land that sustains us and we cultivate; thus, we are losing part of our culture and identity.

Human beings, as part of nature, have always coexisted with it; thus, the association between people and nature has always existed. This concept has been formalized in the academic world through the study of social-ecological systems [ 9 ]. Following the biophilia theory [ 10 ], this connection should be more important and integrated into our lives, but the ability to connect with and understand nature often depends on our experiences as children, and such experiences should be reinforced in our society [ 11 ]. In addition to the biophilia theory, Kaplan’s attention restoration theory [ 12 ] and Ulrich’s psycho-evolutionary theory [ 13 ] should be highlighted, as these theories defend and explain why and how our surrounding natural environment influences our lives and is important for us. In socio-cultural terms, the current individualist lifestyle in western societies has resulted in a disregard for social well-being, deriving in a disconnection from other people and lack of community [ 14 ]. According to Spain’s Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, in recent decades in urbanized societies’ good social relations have deteriorated, with a specific tendency toward the loss of social cohesion and an increase in individualistic, sedentary and isolated lifestyles [ 15 ]. These trends are reflected by various indicators such the number of people living alone and the amount of television consumption [ 3 ]. This situation affects the most vulnerable people in the system more dramatically, placing them at risk of social exclusion.

Green care is an approach that aims to combine, simultaneously, caring for people and caring for land. It promotes health and well-being for people at risk of social exclusion through the use of natural environments as the central element [ 14 , 16 ]. In green care, a series of activities are carried out in the context of agricultural and natural environments where activities and interactions with nature take place (i.e., activities performed on farms, orchards and gardens, forests, etc.) to produce physical, psychological, emotional, social, cognitive-educational, social and labor-integration benefits for people at risk of social exclusion [ 7 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 18 ]. At those interventions, diverse social groups could be involved, including elderly people, people with mental disabilities, people with various mental disorders or mental health problems (i.e., dementia, stress, anxiety, depression and schizophrenia), refugees, teenagers with problems, ex-prisoners, people with addiction or abuse problems, women suffering from male violence, people with various physical disorders (cancer, obesity, hearing impairment and other disabilities), migrants with difficulties, long-term unemployed people, persons belonging to ethnic minorities, etc.

Green care is an inclusive and umbrella term that includes a broad variety of interventions such as nature-based rehabilitation, care farming, social farming, therapeutic horticulture, animal-assisted intervention, etc. While these concepts are sometimes used as synonyms, all of them are sustained by different backgrounds and theories and have different representations in each country. In this study we will refer to the term green care in order to cover a broad area of research. Over recent decades, in many European countries, the use of agriculture as a tool of public health and social integration has been developed in different forms. Many projects and initiatives have arisen, with the existence of more than 170 care farms in the UK as of 2011 [ 19 ], nearly 600 care farms in the Netherlands as of 2005 [ 20 ], and nearly 700 social farms in Italy [ 17 ]. In this way, in many European countries, green care is a practice with a long history; however, numerous research projects and studies have been developed to formalize the concept only in the last decade. In fact, in 2007, a cost action called “COST Action 866 Green Care in Agriculture” was created as one of the first attempts to increase scientific knowledge of green care, as one of the main limitations of green care has been the lack of evidence about the effectiveness of its various practices [ 16 ].

Since the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century, there has been an increase in the number of scientific studies focused on green care throughout Europe. Therefore, the current paper uses Europe as a case study with the intention of better understanding the main research trends and pathways that have been taken in terms of green care development to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the progress and dimensions of this new discipline in Europe. The proposed specific objectives of this systematic review have focused on analyzing: (1) which countries have published more, within which approach and which research areas have been emphasized by studies related to green care; (2) the temporal evolution of these studies and the research objectives investigated; (3) the targeted populations of green care studies as well as the activities carried out with each population; and (4) the methods used for assessing green care interventions. Finally, we discuss how our analysis can contribute to future research and green care practices.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. search procedure.

The methodology of this study consists of a systematic review of the existing scientific literature on green care in Europe. Specifically, we gathered and selected all studies published in peer-reviewed journals via the search engine Web of Science. To encompass the spectrum of terminology used to refer to green care, we considered this term as well as all related terms that have been used. The complete list of English keywords included “care farm”, “ecotherapy”, “farm animal-assisted”, “gardening-based intervention”, “green care”, “horticultural therapy”, “nature-based rehabilitation”, “nature-assisted therapy”, “social farm”, “therapeutic garden”, “therapeutic horticulture”, “working in nature”.

The search was restricted according to the following criteria: (1) all studies published until 2017 were included to avoid incomplete years (i.e., 2018); (2) original articles were from scientific journals to avoid double counting (and excluded short communications, letters to the editor or editorials, communications in congresses and reviews); (3) scientific articles were restricted to those published in English; and (4) scientific articles were published in European countries.

Initially, 128 scientific articles were gathered in the search. Following the application of the above selection criteria and an inspection of the abstracts, 98 valid articles were selected ( Supplementary material, Table S1 ). The remaining articles were excluded from the study because they did not meet any of the above criteria or because a read through of the publication indicated that they did not correspond to the topic in question ( Figure 1 ).

Flow diagram with the different phases of a systematic review (adapted from PRISMA, [ 21 ]).

2.2. Database Generation and Analysis

We extracted the following information from these publications: (1) publication identification (title, authors, year and journal); (2) discipline (level of disciplinary integration, i.e., uni-disciplinary or interdisciplinary, discipline area and research labels); (3) study characteristics (country studied, study type—theoretical or empirical); (4) study approach (following the terminology used in the study) and purpose; (5) target population; (6) type of activities conducted; and (7) methodological approach used to assess the intervention (when an intervention was implemented) ( Table 1 ).

List of variables extracted from the database.

Regarding the purpose of publications, the published studies were classified into three main categories: (1) therapeutic assessments, including all the studies from the health sector that analyzed the effectiveness of different interventions; (2) concept, development and relevance of green care, including all the studies that practically or theoretically addressed the emergence of this new approach or aimed to define concepts, hypothesize potential benefits, or consider the impacts of its implementation; and (3) publications where the professionals were the cornerstone of the article and defined their preferences, views, needs to provide this health and social service as well as their networks (i.e., how are they organized).

First, we explored the current state of knowledge of green care through a general descriptive analysis of all included studies. To do so, we analyzed the countries that have published more studies, the theoretical framework used (care farming, nature-based rehabilitation, etc.), the field-specific disciplines related to the subject, the temporal evolution of the studies that included green care as their main research goal, the activities conducted, the main stakeholders and the methods used. Then, chi-square tests were performed to detect significant associations between specific variables. Specifically, chi-square tests were used to assess the relationship between countries and theoretical frameworks used, countries and discipline areas, countries and user types, countries and activities conducted, and finally, between activities and user types.

3.1. Overview of the Scientific Studies on Green Care Carried out in Europe

A comparison of the studies published in different European countries showed that four countries led the scientific research on green care: the Netherlands (24%), the UK (22%), Norway (17%) and Sweden (16%). These top four countries were followed by Italy, which accounted for 7% of the publications, and other countries, such as Denmark, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Finland and France, which had low representation (approximately 1–4% each) (see Figure 2 ). The differences in the percentages of studies published in different countries may be due to the language restrictions used during the search process, as we analyzed only papers published in English.

Number of publications per country, including the approach used.

Green care research comprises a wide range of perspectives and frameworks with differences in their specificities. In this regard, we identified seven different terminologies associated with those frameworks: care farming (used at 31% of the publications), nature-based rehabilitation (which includes forest interventions and ecotherapy, used at 16% of the publications), green care (15%), therapeutic horticulture (13%), therapeutic gardening (11%), social farming (8%) and farm animal-assisted interventions (5%). We detected significant differences performing chi-squared contingency-table test showing that some countries follow specific approaches. In this regard, the Netherlands used green care concept in its broadest sense more than other terms in their research studies (χ 2 = 27.46; p < 0.05). In the UK most of the studies came from the therapeutic horticulture approach (χ 2 = 21.64; p < 0.05). In Norway we found a significantly higher number of studies using the farm animal-assisted intervention approach (χ 2 = 30.06; p < 0.05). Publications conducted in Sweden used the term nature-based rehabilitation significantly more than other terms (χ 2 = 52.87; p < 0.05). Finally, studies from Italy used mainly the term social farming (χ 2 = 35.46; p < 0.05) ( Figure 2 ).

Most of the articles (63% of the studies analyzed) were interdisciplinary in nature, which allowed for a holistic approach to assessing the field of green care. Concerning the disciplines that assessed the subject of green care, health sciences and environmental sciences were the dominant areas (45% each of them), followed by social sciences (10%). In Europe, green care has been frequently framed in the field of health sciences (including areas such as rehabilitation, geriatrics and gerontology, occupational health, public health, psychiatry, dietetic and nutrition and oncology) and has included research on the therapeutic effects of green care and its impact on indicators of health and well-being. Such research includes publications on the impacts of therapeutic landscapes for older people [ 22 ], horticulture for clinical depression [ 23 ], and farm animal-assisted interventions for people with clinical depression [ 24 ]. From the environmental perspective (including researchers from the fields of vegetal science, agriculture, ecology and forest science), examples of published studies have focused on the values of landscapes and their management [ 25 ] or on the conceptualization of terms and the capacity of green care farms to promote social-ecological sustainability and ecosystem services [ 26 ]. A lower number of authors came from social sciences backgrounds emphasizing socioeconomic aspects; such as analyzing the economic impacts of green care, including indicators of expenditure and employment [ 27 ]; or investigating the evolution of rural social cooperatives engaged in green care farm practices [ 28 ]. When we performed the chi-squared contingency table test we detected significant differences, showing that the Netherlands and the UK were specialized in specific research areas. Such specialization was specifically seen in the Netherlands, where there was a predominance of studies coming from the environmental sciences (χ 2 = 9.21; p < 0.05). In the UK most of the studies came from the health sector (χ 2 = 11.88; p < 0.05), which is consistent with the therapeutic horticulture approach used with clear health goals defined ( Figure 2 ).

3.2. Temporal Evolution of Green Care Studies and Their Research Objectives

The first study was published in the UK in 1979, and it focused on the requirements of horticultural training programs for people with mental health disabilities [ 29 ]. During the 1990s, two studies were published in relation to the concept, development and relevance of green care. These two theoretical studies were conducted in the health sector and explored the role of horticultural therapy [ 30 ] and gardens [ 31 ] in supporting people with disabilities, and they emphasized the elderly population. These types of studies had the purpose of providing confidence to caregivers regarding the use of green tools in human well-being interventions. Since 2004, a progressive increase in the number of studies has been observed, and this increase has been exponential since 2010 ( Figure 3 ). In 2004, a network was created to promote knowledge sharing in European countries; it was the community of practice (Cop) “farming for health”. Later, in 2007, a project called “COST Action 866 Green Care in Agriculture” was launched, and it aimed to further investigate the concept of green care and its development in different European countries. The COST Action 866 Green Care Initiative was born in 2007 as a network in which researchers, engineers and scientists cooperated and whose main objective was to increase knowledge within the framework of green care. This project involved researchers from 22 countries, and it aimed to promote scientific knowledge in relation to green care, develop and deepen the concept, and highlight the potential of this new discipline in different European countries [ 16 ]). Thus, COST 866 was one of the first initiatives to formalize green care as a scientific discipline. Subsequently, at the scientific level, the European SoFar (Social Farming in Multifunctional Farms) project was financed by the Sixth Framework Programme during the 2006–2009 period. More recently, the SoFab Project (Social Farming across Borders) has been approved and implemented (2014–2017) in Ireland and Northern Ireland through INTERREG IVA Cross-border Programme funding. All these academic initiatives may explain the increase in the number of published studies.

Temporal trends in published research by the study purpose.

Considering the general purposes of these publications, articles assessing health interventions have a long tradition, while studies exploring the concept, development and implementation of this discipline have been present but to a much lesser extent. During recent years, articles from the perspective of green care providers and how they are organized have become more visible ( Figure 3 ). In our sample, we found that 58% of the studies were assessments on therapeutic intervention. Specifically, these studies from the health sector analyze the effectiveness of different treatments with different user types. Währborg et al. conducted a study comparing the effects of therapeutic gardening with the effects of conventional therapy on the rehabilitation of people suffering from depression or stress [ 32 ]. The results obtained after therapy concluded that people who had been treated in nature required less medical help than the other group. The study carried out by [ 33 ] aimed to evaluate whether the results of therapy that used activities in boreal forests could be utilized for the rehabilitation of patients suffering from exhaustion disorder. One of the results obtained suggested that the effect of this therapy is transitory, indicating that activities in nature should not be temporary in our lives; rather, these activities should be incorporated into our daily lives. The influence of contact with nature on children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder was examined by [ 34 ]. The way in which women with stress-related illnesses experienced rehabilitation in a therapeutic garden was described by [ 35 ].

Then, 27% of the studies emphasized the concept, development and relevance of green care and included practical or theoretical publications that addressed the emergence of this novel approach; these studies aimed to identify the concepts and potential benefits, implementation possibilities and legislative frames that supported its implementation. These aspects differed by country, and many of these studies analyzed the evolution of green care in different countries that had their own particularities and trends, as seen by the evolution in the Netherlands [ 36 , 37 ], Flanders [ 36 ], Italy [ 28 ], and Switzerland [ 38 ]. Finally, in 15% of the publications, professionals were the cornerstone of the research, and they defined their preferences, views, need to provide this social service and health care, as well as their networks and organizational strategies and the benefits that they could obtain by including green care (mainly care and social farms) in their enterprises [ 39 , 40 , 41 ].

3.3. Target Population and Greem Care Activities

Green care research covers a wide range of users who benefit from the interventions in which they participate. Following our sample, 10 categories of users have been identified, and two of these categories stand out ( Figure 4 ): people suffering from psychological health illnesses such as depression, burnout and/or stress (e.g., [ 35 , 42 ]; in 30% of the studies), and people suffering from mental health illnesses, such as cases of dementia, schizophrenia, personality and behavioral disorders and other mental health problems (e.g., [ 43 , 44 ]; in 21% of the studies). Other publications focused on children and young people at risk of exclusion (e.g., those with behavioral problems or with dysfunctional family backgrounds; such as [ 11 ]; in 8% of the studies), on people with learning disabilities (e.g., [ 45 ]; in 7% of the studies), on elderly populations (e.g., [ 22 ]; in 7% of the studies), and on people suffering from physical disabilities or physical health illnesses (e.g., people with chronic muscle pain, coronary and pulmonary diseases or cancer; [ 46 ]; in 6% of the studies). Finally, a more limited number of studies focused on people suffering from addictions (4%), offenders (e.g., [ 47 ]; in 3% of the studies), people experiencing long-term unemployment (e.g., [ 48 ]; in 1% of the studies), and refugees and displaced people (e.g., [ 49 ]; in 1% of the studies).

Type of users involved in green care programs.

Most of the studies were concentrated on a particular type of user (in 90% of the studies). We found a higher number of studies on people suffering from mental health illnesses in the Netherlands than in other countries (χ 2 = 4.71; p < 0.05). We found a significantly higher number of studies focused on people suffering from psychological health illnesses in Sweden than in other countries (χ 2 = 23.67; p < 0.001). Finally, we found a significantly higher number of studies focused on people with learning disabilities in the UK than in other countries (χ 2 = 7.74; p < 0.05).

A wide variety of activities and tasks have been analyzed in the literature review conducted. Horticulture stands out as the most widely performed activity (32%), followed by animal husbandry by feeding and taking care of farm animals and working in stables (27%), gardening (26%), and outdoor activities, such as forest walks and other physical activities in green spaces (24%; Figure 5 ). Other types of activities that were carried out included being in contact with nature (e.g., passive exposure to vegetated environments) and contemplation (12%); food processing, cooking and preparing meals from farm products for sale (9%); agriculture production, including viticulture and olive orchards (9%); relaxation (6%); conversation with the farmers, other staff and the farm community (7%); firewood collection (2%) and equine-assisted therapy (2%). There were also mentions of training and educational activities through combined workshops (e.g., textile, carpentry, ceramics and art) focused on agricultural education and user training for labor market integration.

Green care activities carried out during interventions.

In 60% of the publications analyzed, a unique principal activity was studied, with 27% of the studies having two or three activities and 13% of the publications describing more than four activities. The typology of activities also differed from country to country in some cases, and we found a higher number of studies on engaging in outdoor activities (χ 2 = 6.73; p < 0.05), relaxation activities in nature (χ 2 = 18.38; p < 0.001) and gardening (χ 2 = 6.03; p < 0.001) in Sweden than in other countries. Gardening was significantly more studied in the UK than in other countries (χ 2 = 5.11; p < 0.05). In addition, Norway and the Netherlands produced more studies related to animal-assisted interventions, including activities such as animal husbandry (χ 2 = 7.36 and χ 2 = 5.25, respectively; p < 0.05). Finally, we tested associations between activities and user types. Following chi-square tests, we found that research publications studied the impact of relaxation activities on people suffering from psychological health illness (χ 2 = 7.00; p < 0.05).

3.4. Methodological Tools for Assessing Green Care Interventions

The most common methods used to evaluate green care interventions were interviews (43%) and surveys (41%; Figure 6 ). Interviews involved semi-structured guides and open-ended questions to explore users’ experiences with green care practices. This was the case in the work conducted by [ 50 ], who analyzed forest-based rehabilitation through semi-structured interviews and analyzed the results from the perspective of the grounded theory. Interviews were carried out by [ 51 ] with care farmer professionals to explore the characteristics of diverse types of care farms in the Netherlands. Interviews were conducted by [ 52 ] with therapeutic garden users who had stress-related disorders to explore how they experienced the rehabilitation process.

Methodological tools to assess intervention effectiveness.

Other studies have used quantitative data collected from questionnaires using experimental or quasi-experimental designs at clinical assesments. How a woodland program improved the psychological well-being of members of deprived urban communities was assessed by [ 53 ] using the perceived stress scale. Horticultural therapy as a physical health, mental health and social interaction with patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain was used by [ 54 ]. They used an experimental design and assessed indicators measured by the West Haven-Yale multidimensional pain inventory or the hospital anxiety and depression scale. A lower number of other studies gathered information from participant observations (8%), official statistics (7%), focal groups (7%), participatory methods (2%) and recordings (2%).

4. Discussion

4.1. overview of green care discipline across europe.

This study builds on previous literature reviews of green care interventions. A literature review was completed by [ 55 ] ( n = 38 studies) on nature-assisted therapy that used controlled and observational studies to evaluate the scientific evidence, while five other publications were dedicated to specific user groups. The impacts on military veterans of sport and physical activity, including nature-based physical activities, were analyzed by [ 56 ] , ( n = 11 studies). In the same way, [ 57 ] focused their literature review ( n = 20 studies) on military veterans suffering traumatic experiences after active service and their participation in nature-assisted therapies. The evidence on the effectiveness of farm-based interventions for people with mental health disorders was reviewed by [ 58 ] ( n = 11 studies). The benefits of gardening-based mental health interventions was evaluated by [ 59 ] ( n = 10). Regarding dementia care, Whear et al. used qualitative and qualitative studies to examine the impacts of gardens and outdoor spaces on people with dementia ([ 60 ]; n = 17 studies), while González et al. evaluated the benefits of sensory gardens and horticultural activities ([ 61 ]; n = 16). Those reviews aimed to evaluate evidence that supported the effectiveness of green care interventions to significantly improve public health, mainly the health of specific users. Finally, a descriptive review was conducted by [ 62 ] of research on care farms for adults with mental health problems in Norway.

This research provides the first attempt to complete a comprehensive review of green care as a scientific discipline and includes studies assessing not only the effectiveness of interventions from the perspective of health but also other key aspects that require scientific attention, such as the concept, development and relevance of green care, as well as publications where professionals’ preferences, views, needs and networks were explored. Here, we analyzed trends in green care research using 98 publications that were conducted in different European countries. Although this study covered all Europe, we specifically reviewed scientific articles published in English. This limit provided a systematic method of searching for publications and avoided duplication; simultaneously, there was a limitation imposed by not collecting works published in other languages. For instance, there is evidence concerning the situation of green care under the approach of social farming in Catalonia in studies written in Spanish [ 63 ] or Catalan [ 64 ]. Much research conducted in Italy, mainly within the framework of social farming, has been published in Italian [ 17 ]; thus, such research has been underrepresented in the current study. In addition, Pawelczyk et al. attributed the lack of knowledge and research in Poland to the lack of knowledge about the usefulness of farming activities as a tool for tackling socio-health problems [ 65 ].

In this study we decided to use the broadest framework (green care) in order to cover the larger number of studies developed in Europe. However, as presented in our findings and also pointed out by other authors, there is a diversity of terms associated with different interpretations of the synergy between being in contact with natural and agricultural landscapes and the promotion of health together with other quality of life dimensions (e.g., employment, good social relationships, equity, education) [ 14 , 48 , 66 ]. Here, we identified seven terms used in research publications, the most popular being care farming. Nevertheless there were differences among countries, for example the green care term was used more in the Netherlands research, therapeutic horticulture approach in UK, farm animal-assisted intervention in Norway, the concept of nature-based rehabilitation in Sweden, and studies from Italy mainly used the term social farming. Some of the differences between those approaches are in the level of care and therapy provided [ 16 ]. Those interventions done within structured rehabilitation or health programs with clearly defined patient-orientated goals are commonly defined with the terms therapy or care such as therapeutic horticulture, therapeutic gardening or care farming [ 67 ]. In care farming and social farming the objectives are more related to conducting meaningful occupational activities and achieving employment goals at real production and commercial farms [ 40 ] and especially within social farming the therapeutic intent is not so explicit, with the aim being to promote innovation and collaboration pathways between sectors in local communities following social and employment inclusion and integration principles [ 68 ]. Other studies differ by the key element or tool used during the intervention, such as being in contact with nature at outdoor surroundings (at nature-based rehabilitation, [ 50 ]) or farm animal-assisted therapy being essential to the interactions established with animals (such as empathy, expression emotions or not being judged; [ 69 ]). In this way, green care is an umbrella term that represents a complex interaction between nature–people with different goals and specificities that determines the formalization of the approach. Green care is a dynamic concept, that has developed rapidly during the last 10 years and that will continue in progress as it represents a mirror of the different European countries and societies in terms of its culture, path dependence, needs and future expectations. This study reflects the green care research trends, giving the opportunity to offer an overview of the recent years and present time and to draw conclusions for the future. As presented by Di Iacovo et al., in Europe there are two models derived from two welfare systems: the northern European specialized model and the Mediterranean communitarian one. While in the first (followed by countries such as Sweden and the Netherlands), green care farms provide a health service (delivered by specialized facilities and skills) in private farms they receive direct payments (from the state or from the market being directly paid by users) for those services [ 70 ]. In the Mediterranean model (e.g., Italy or Spain) usually farmers do not receive a direct payment but receive other benefits more related with enhancing their reputation and expanding their networks. In this model, the goals pursued are more linked to social inclusion and justice than therapy. This situation may also explain the larger number of studies found in northern countries compared with those in the Mediterranean area; the number of studies being higher when the green care activities are more explicitly defined and where it is essential to measure the therapeutic effectiveness of the interventions conducted. In fact, there are small cooperatives or enterprises operating at the agrifood sector sustained by social economy and following agroecological principles (e.g., community supported agriculture) which are closely connected with social farming (e.g., justice, inclusion, solidarity, promotion of rural economies) but this is not explicitly stated, and it would be interesting to study the association between both approaches.

4.2. Target Population and Green Care Activities

It has increasingly been seen that green care responds to the needs of diverse groups, such as the training and working skills required by people who have experienced long-term unemployment or low employability, and the social integration of marginalized communities or spaces for community dialogue and interaction [ 71 ]. It improves not only their health but also their physical, psychological and emotional well-being (e.g., [ 55 ]). Green care provides opportunities to allow people to actively participate in society and agricultural landscape conservation. Green care has the potential to stress the relationships established between people and nature, uncovering the relational values obtained from agricultural landscapes. In an increasingly urban society, spending time in more natural, greener and more rural environments can help to meet new food, labor and social needs [ 72 ]. It has been proposed that to go beyond the classical duality to sustain landscape conservation based on intrinsic vs. instrumental values, policies should take into consideration relational values derived from the relationships establish between people and nature (e.g., cultural identity, stewardship principles), including relationships that are between people but involve natural surroundings (e.g., social cohesion) [ 73 ]. Active exposure to nature can promote a healthier lifestyle in the long term, which can help people cope with the effects of rapid lifestyles experienced in cities (e.g., stress, depression, fatigue) and address problems (quality food or lack of physical activity) facing people with increasingly sedentary futures [ 74 ].

Regarding green care activities, according to our findings, the most researched activities are horticulture, feeding and taking care of farm animals, gardening activities and outdoor activities, such as forest walks and green exercise. We found some significant associations between users and activities. In this regard, [ 75 ] analyzed different green care farming activities in terms of their suitability for different type of users taking into account aspects such as previous knowledge needed, need of support, risk due to the use of tools, etc. It would be a step forward to carry out further research to connect practices and specific well-being objectives to reach different users.

5. Conclusions

Some of the difficulties that a new science, movement and practice such as green care can face include gaining scientific, political and social credibility. Despite the advances in research publications, the potential of green care is still poorly understood [ 19 , 38 ]. As shown, in the last decade, researchers have started to study the effectiveness of green care compared to other therapeutic processes. However, since green care (mainly its orientation through social farming) contributes to rural revitalization—and the conservation of the agricultural landscape—it requires more scientific research that evaluates its relevance in socio-economic and environmental terms. It has been stressed that there is a need to recognize the complexity of views required to evaluate green care and to go beyond health indicators, since the mainstream measures of those indicators could mask and underestimate key components necessary to assess the development of green care practices (e.g., management procedures, networks of actors involved, certifications, consumer knowledge and acceptance of green care farms products, private or public policies to support them, etc.) [ 76 ]. Further research that proposes indicators and measures to analyses it as an innovative practice to diversify the farming sector, conserve agricultural landscapes and improve human well-being is required to ensure its establishment. In this regard, green care farming can be a major source of income for farmers [ 19 , 20 ] and a way to increase their visibility and reputation [ 26 ], which can stimulate the economy of the sector. It is necessary to determine which strategies farmers use, whether they are sufficiently innovative and whether they favor economic development [ 77 ]. It is also important to analyze the key factors that contribute to the success of green care projects by focusing on the point of view of producers and their willingness to innovate [ 40 ]. According to our findings, during recent years, the number of publications from the perspective of green care providers has been increasing ( Figure 3 ). A shift in production models on farms can attract new types of workers by offering diversified activities through other approaches, skills, interests, benefits and resources that break with traditional farming and livestock activities. The diversification of agricultural activities can offer farm owners opportunities to provide new services. Green care, together with agro-tourism, has also been seen as motivation for women to diversify farming activities and promote female succession in farm properties in Norway, helping to counterbalance the masculinization of rural areas [ 78 ]. This can provide an incentive to significantly halt population declines in rural areas and could stimulate an increase in the number of women owners at the head of green care activities that occur on farms.

Green care activities can play a key role in enhancing life quality and sustainability in rural areas by providing economic and social benefits, as seen by recent cases of rural social cooperatives that have emerged in Italy [ 28 ]. Such cooperatives create a new relationship between urban and rural areas, as urban people are attracted to local markets in which they can find organic and ethical products with added social value. As was shown by [ 79 ], people were willing to support a green care initiative in the UK and were willing to contribute their money and voluntary time. Similarly, Carbone, A. et al. found that consumers’ buying groups in short food supply chains in Italy hold a strong concern for ethical issues when purchasing products and had an interest in supporting social farming products [ 80 ]. Unlike other economic sectors, agricultural activity can be understood as a transversal field with the capacity to influence a diversity of well-being components, not only in terms of production but also in terms of nutritional, educational, social and relational components as well as a new way of understanding the food system and our relationship with natural environments. This viewpoint aims to intensify social capital over intensive technological capital. From this perspective, farmers are essential actors since they can provide new services to society.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the two anonymous referees for providing thoughtful and valuable comments and suggestions.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/6/1282/s1 , Table S1: Publications included in the systematic review.

Author Contributions

M.G.L. conceived and designed the study; R.R.O. and I.G.B. conducted the literature review and data extraction; M.G.L. provided conceptual and analytical advice; R.R.O., I.G.B. and M.G.L. conducted the data analysis, M.G.L. wrote most of the paper.

This research was funded by a grant from the Spanish National Institute for Agriculture and Food Research and Technology, co-funded by the Social European Fund (Doc-INIA CCAA); and the IMIDRA research projects: Social Farming viability at the Madrid Region (FP16 VAS) and Assessment of Ecosystem Services provided by Agroecosystems (FP16 ECO).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Regenerative agriculture—a literature review on the practices and mechanisms used to improve soil health.

1. Introduction

• Capturing soil carbon through the photosynthesis of high-biomass-producing plants.
• Improving symbiotic soil microbiota–plant interactions.
• Using biological systems to enhance soil structure and water retention.
• Including livestock, with an anticipated positive impact on ecosystem services.

Significance of Regenerative Agriculture to Western Australian Farming Systems

2. potential benefits of ra for soil health, 2.1. increased soil carbon, 2.1.1. minimum/no tillage, no tillage and yield improvement, no-tillage and nitrous oxide (n 2 o) emissions, 2.1.2. cover crops, 2.1.3. stubble retention, 2.1.4. crop rotation and diversity, 2.1.5. rotational grazing, 2.2. som-mediated improvement of soil moisture/water uptake, 2.3. increased soil biodiversity and microbial function, 2.3.1. role of microbes in stable organic carbon fraction, 2.3.2. nutrient cycling and acquisition, phosphorus (p), potassium (k), sulphur (s), 3. pest, pathogen, and weed control/suppression, 4. mechanisms involved in improved microbial functions, 4.1. liquid carbon pathway, 4.2. improved uptake of water, 4.2.1. drought tolerance, 4.2.2. nutrient uptake, 4.2.3. role of soil microbes in enhanced aggregates, plant growth, and photosynthesis, 5. effect of management practices on microbial activity, 5.1. role of biofertilisers and biostimulants, 5.2. effect of synthetic inputs on soil microbial activity, 6. nutrient-dense food, 7. climate mitigation, 8. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Gabel, M. Ho-Ping: A World Scenario for Food Production ; World Game Institute: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1979. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rodale, R. Learning to Think Regeneratively. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 1986 , 6 , 6–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Francis, C.A.; Harwood, R.R.; Parr, J.F. The potential for regenerative agriculture in the developing world. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 1986 , 1 , 65–74. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Duchin, F. Drawdown the Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming. Science 2017 , 356 , 811. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Sherwood, S.; Uphoff, N. Soil health: Research, practice and policy for a more regenerative agriculture. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2000 , 15 , 85–97. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rhodes, C.J. The Imperative for Regenerative Agriculture. Sci. Prog. 2017 , 100 , 80–129. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zoveda, F.; Garcia, S.; Pandey, S.; Thomas, G.; Soto, D.; Bianchi, G.; Faures, J.M.; Griffin, J.; Lipper, L.; Vahanen, T.; et al. Building a Common Vision for Sustainable Food and Agriculture ; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2014; p. 56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Burgess, P.J.; Harris, J.G. Regenerative Agriculture: Identifying the Impact, Enabling the Potential. Cranfield, UK. 2019. Available online: http://www.scb.se/statistik/_publikationer/OV9999_2004A01_BR_X97OP0402.pdf (accessed on 5 June 2020).
• Schreefel, L.; Schulte, R.P.; De Boer, I.J.; Schrijver, A.P.; Van Zanten, H.H. Regenerative agriculture–the soil is the base. Glob. Food Secur. 2020 , 26 , 100404. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Newton, P.; Civita, N.; Frankel-Goldwater, L.; Bartel, K.; Johns, C. What Is Regenerative Agriculture? A Review of Scholar and Practitioner Definitions Based on Processes and Outcomes. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020 , 4 , 194. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Anon. 2020. Available online: https://www.desmog.com/2020/09/11/regenerative-agriculture-criticisms-and-concerns/ (accessed on 18 January 2022).
• Anon. Available online: http://www.australiancollaboration.com.au/pdf/FactSheets/Land-degradation-FactSheet.pdf (accessed on 24 June 2022).
• Kingwell, R.; Carter, C.; Elliott, P.; White, P.; Russia’s Wheat Industry: Implications for Australia. Policy Brief, AEGIC, Australia Department of Agriculture and Food, Perth: Australia Grain Research and Development Corporation GRDC. 2016. Available online: https://aegic.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Russia-wheat-industry-Implications-for-Australia.pdf (accessed on 20 January 2022).
• Doran, J.; Sarrantonio, M.; Liebig, M. Soil Health and Sustainability. Adv. Agron. 1996 , 56 , 1–54. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Doran, J.W. Soil health and global sustainability: Translating science into practice. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2002 , 88 , 119–127. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• ITPS 2020. Towards a Definition of Soil Health. Available online: https://www.fao.org/documents/card/fr/c/cb1110en/ (accessed on 13 March 2022).
• Tilman, D.; Fargione, J.; Wolff, B.; D′Antonio, C.; Dobson, A.; Howarth, R.; Schindler, D.; Schlesinger, W.H.; Simberloff, D.; Swackhamer, D. Forecasting Agriculturally Driven Global Environmental Change. Science 2001 , 292 , 281–284. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Bender, S.F.; Wagg, C.; van der Heijden, M.G. An underground revolution: Biodiversity and soil ecological engineering for ag-ricultural sustainability. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2016 , 31 , 440–452. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wagg, C.; Bender, S.F.; Widmer, F.; van der Heijden, M.G.A. Soil biodiversity and soil community composition determine ecosystem multifunctionality. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014 , 111 , 5266–5270. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Reeves, D. The role of soil organic matter in maintaining soil quality in continuous cropping systems. Soil Tillage Res. 1997 , 43 , 131–167. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Robertson, F.; Armstrong, R.; Partington, D.; Perris, R.; Oliver, I.; Aumann, C.; Crawford, D.; Rees, D. Effect of cropping practices on soil organic carbon: Evidence from long-term field experiments in Victoria, Australia. Soil Res. 2015 , 53 , 636–646. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chabbi, A.; Lehmann, J.; Ciais, P.; Loescher, H.W.; Cotrufo, M.F.; Don, A.; SanClements, M.; Schipper, L.; Six, J.; Smith, P.; et al. Aligning agriculture and climate policy. Nat. Clim. Change 2017 , 7 , 307–309. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Poulton, P.; Johnston, J.; Macdonald, A.; White, R.; Powlson, D. Major limitations to achieving “4 per 1000” increases in soil organic carbon stock in temperate regions: Evidence from long-term experiments at Rothamsted Research, United Kingdom. Glob. Change Biol. 2018 , 24 , 2563–2584. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• De Vries, W. Soil carbon 4 per mille: A good initiative but let′s manage not only the soil but also the expectations: Comment on Minasny et al. Geoderma 292: 59–86. Geoderma 2018 , 309 , 111–112. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lal, R. Promoting “4 Per Thousand” and “Adapting African Agriculture” by south-south cooperation: Conservation agri-culture and sustainable intensification. Soil Tillage Res. 2019 , 188 , 27–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rumpel, C.; Amiraslani, F.; Chenu, C.; Garcia Cardenas, M.; Kaonga, M.; Koutika, L.S.; Ladha, J.; Madari, B.; Shirato, Y.; Smith, P.; et al. The 4p1000 initiative: Opportunities, limitations and challenges for implementing soil organic carbon sequestration as a sustainable development strategy. Ambio 2020 , 49 , 350–360. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Francaviglia, R.; Di Bene, C.; Farina, R.; Salvati, L.; Vicente-Vicente, J.L. Assessing “4 per 1000” soil organic carbon storage rates under Mediterranean climate: A comprehensive data analysis. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Change 2019 , 24 , 795–818. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Oldfield, E.E.; Bradford, M.A.; Wood, S.A. Global meta-analysis of the relationship between soil organic matter and crop yields. Soil 2019 , 5 , 15–32. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Kane, D.A.; Bradford, M.A.; Fuller, E.; Oldfield, E.E.; Wood, S.A. Soil organic matter protects US maize yields and lowers crop in-surance payouts under drought. Environ. Res. Lett. 2021 , 16 , 044018. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hoyle, F.C.; O’Leary, R.A.; Murphy, D.V. Spatially governed climate factors dominate management in determining the quantity and distribution of soil organic carbon in dryland agricultural systems. Sci. Rep. 2016 , 6 , 31468. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Wielemaker, W.G.; Lansu, A.L.E. Land-Use Changes Affecting Classification of a Costa Rican Soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1991 , 55 , 1621–1624. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Anderson-Teixeira, K.J.; Davis, S.C.; Masters, M.D.; Delucia, E.H. Changes in soil organic carbon under biofuel crops. GCB Bioenergy 2009 , 1 , 75–96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nyiraneza, J.; Thompson, B.; Geng, X.; He, J.; Jiang, Y.; Fillmore, S.; Stiles, K. Changes in soil organic matter over 18 year in Prince Edward Island, Canada. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2017 , 97 , 745–756. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sapkota, T.B.; Jat, M.L.; Aryal, J.P.; Jat, R.K.; Khatri-Chhetri, A. Climate change adaptation, greenhouse gas mitigation and economic profitability of conservation agriculture: Some examples from cereal systems of Indo-Gangetic Plains. J. Integr. Agric. 2015 , 14 , 1524–1533. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Yang, X.; Drury, C.F.; Wander, M.M. A wide view of no-tillage practices and soil organic carbon sequestration. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B Soil Plant Sci. 2013 , 63 , 523–530. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, Y.; Li, Z.; Chang, S.X.; Cui, S.; Jagadamma, S.; Zhang, Q.; Cai, Y. Residue retention promotes soil carbon accumulation in minimum tillage systems: Implications for conservation agriculture. Sci. Total. Environ. 2020 , 740 , 140147. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Haddaway, N.R.; Hedlund, K.; Jackson, L.E.; Kätterer, T.; Lugato, E.; Thomsen, I.K.; Jørgensen, H.B.; Isberg, P.-E. How does tillage intensity affect soil organic carbon? A systematic review. Environ. Evid. 2017 , 6 , 30. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Deen, W.; Kataki, P.K. Carbon sequestration in a long-term conventional versus conservation tillage experiment. Soil Tillage Res. 2003 , 74 , 143–150. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chan, K.Y.; Heenan, D.P.; So, H.B. Sequestration of carbon and changes in soil quality under conservation tillage on light-textured soils in Australia: A review. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2003 , 43 , 325–334. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Young, R.R.; Wilson, B.; Harden, S.; Bernardi, A. Accumulation of soil carbon under zero tillage cropping and perennial vegetation on the Liverpool Plains, eastern Australia. Soil Res. 2009 , 47 , 273–285. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Van Rees, H.; Jackman, A.; Baldock, J. Can Soil Organic Carbon Be Increased in a Continuous Cropping System in the Low to Medium Rainfall Zone? 2017. Available online: https://www.hartfieldsite.org.au/media/2017%20TRIAL%20RESULTS/Hart_Trial_Results_2017_Can_soil_carbon_be_increased_in_a_continuous_cropping_system_in_the_low_to_medium_rainfall_zone.pdf (accessed on 23 February 2022).
• Dalal, R.; Strong, W.; Weston, E.; Cooper, J.; Lehane, K.; King, A.; Chicken, C. Sustaining productivity of a Vertisol at Warra, Queensland, with fertilisers, no-tillage, or legumes. 1. Organic matter status. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 1995 , 35 , 903–913. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cooper, H.V.; Sjögersten, S.; Lark, R.M.; Girkin, N.T.; Vane, C.H.; Calonego, J.C.; Rosolem, C.; Mooney, S.J. Long-term zero-tillage en-hances the protection of soil carbon in tropical agriculture. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2021 , 72 , 2477–2492. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chivenge, P.; Murwira, H.; Giller, K.; Mapfumo, P.; Six, J. Long-term impact of reduced tillage and residue management on soil carbon stabilization: Implications for conservation agriculture on contrasting soils. Soil Tillage Res. 2007 , 94 , 328–337. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Baker, J.M.; Ochsner, T.E.; Venterea, R.T.; Griffis, T.J. Tillage and soil carbon sequestration—What do we really know? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2007 , 118 , 1–5. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Martínez, E.; Fuentes, J.P.; Pino, V.; Silva, P.; Acevedo, E. Chemical and biological properties as affected by no-tillage and con-ventional tillage systems in an irrigated Haploxeroll of Central Chile. Soil Tillage Res. 2013 , 126 , 238–245. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Powlson, D.S.; Stirling, C.M.; Jat, M.L.; Gerard, B.G.; Palm, C.A.; Sanchez, P.A.; Cassman, K.G. Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation. Nat. Clim. Change 2014 , 4 , 678–683. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Baker, J.; Griffis, T. Examining strategies to improve the carbon balance of corn/soybean agriculture using eddy covariance and mass balance techniques. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2005 , 128 , 163–177. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huang, Y.; Ren, W.; Wang, L.; Hui, D.; Grove, J.H.; Yang, X.; Tao, B.; Goff, B. Greenhouse gas emissions and crop yield in no-tillage systems: A meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018 , 268 , 144–153. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kitonyo, O.M.; Sadras, V.O.; Zhou, Y.; Denton, M.D. Evaluation of historic Australian wheat varieties reveals increased grain yield and changes in senescence patterns but limited adaptation to tillage systems. Field Crops Res. 2017 , 206 , 65–73. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nouri, A.; Lee, J.; Yin, X.; Tyler, D.D.; Saxton, A.M. Thirty-four years of no-tillage and cover crops improve soil quality and increase cotton yield in Alfisols, Southeastern USA. Geoderma 2018 , 337 , 998–1008. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Roper, M.M.; Gupta, V.V.S.R.; Murphy, D.V. Tillage practices altered labile soil organic carbon and microbial function without affecting crop yields. Soil Res. 2010 , 48 , 274–285. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pittelkow, C.M.; Liang, X.; Linquist, B.A.; van Groenigen, K.J.; Lee, J.; Lundy, M.E.; van Gestel, N.; Six, J.; Venterea, R.T.; van Kessel, C. Productivity limits and potentials of the principles of conservation agriculture. Nature 2015 , 517 , 365–368. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Radford, B.J.; Thornton, C.M. Effects of 27 years of reduced tillage practices on soil properties and crop performance in the semi-arid subtropics of Australia. Int. J. Energy Environ. Econ. 2011 , 19 , 565. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sun, W.; Canadell, J.G.; Yu, L.; Yu, L.; Zhang, W.; Smith, P.; Fischer, T.; Huang, Y. Climate drives global soil carbon sequestration and crop yield changes under conservation agriculture. Glob. Change Biol. 2020 , 26 , 3325–3335. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dalal, R.C.; Allen, D.E.; Wang, W.J.; Reeves, S.; Gibson, I. Organic carbon and total nitrogen stocks in a Vertisol following 40 years of no-tillage, crop residue retention and nitrogen fertilisation. Soil Tillage Res. 2011 , 112 , 133–139. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mohammad, W.; Shah, S.M.; Shehzadi, S.; Shah, S.A. Effect of tillage, rotation and crop residues on wheat crop productivity, ferti-lizer nitrogen and water use efficiency and soil organic carbon status in dry area (rainfed) of north-west Pakistan. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2012 , 12 , 715–727. [ Google Scholar ]
• Page, K.L.; Dang, Y.P.; Dalal, R.C.; Reeves, S.; Thomas, G.; Wang, W.; Thompson, J. Changes in soil water storage with no-tillage and crop residue retention on a Vertisol: Impact on productivity and profitability over a 50 year period. Soil Till. Res. 2019 , 194 , 104319. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lorenz, K.; Lal, R. Biochar application to soil for climate change mitigation by soil organic carbon sequestration. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2014 , 177 , 651–670. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Lal, R. Regenerative agriculture for food and climate. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2020 , 75 , 123A–124A. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Smith, P.; Goulding, K.; Smith, K.; Powlson, D.; Smith, J.; Falloon, P.; Coleman, K. Including trace gas fluxes in estimates of the carbon mitigation potential of UK agricultural land. Soil Use Manag. 2000 , 16 , 251–259. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Steinbach, H.S.; Alvarez, R. Changes in Soil Organic Carbon Contents and Nitrous Oxide Emissions after Introduction of No-Till in Pampean Agroecosystems. J. Environ. Qual. 2006 , 35 , 3–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Burford, J.R.; Bremner, J.M. Relationships between the denitrification capacities of soils and total, water-soluble and readily de-composable soil organic matter. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1975 , 7 , 389–394. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bergstrom, D.W.; Tenuta, M.; Beauchamp, E.G. Increase in nitrous oxide production in soil induced by ammonium and organic carbon. Biol. Fertil. Soils 1994 , 18 , 1–6. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wrage, N.; Velthof, G.L.; van Beusichem, M.L.; Oenema, O. Role of nitrifier denitrification in the production of nitrous oxide. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2001 , 33 , 1723–1732. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thilakarathna, S.K.; Hernandez-Ramirez, G. Primings of soil organic matter and denitrification mediate the effects of moisture on nitrous oxide production. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2021 , 155 , 108166. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Weiler, D.A.; Tornquist, C.G.; Parton, W.; dos Santos, H.P.; Santi, A.; Bayer, C. Crop Biomass, Soil Carbon, and Nitrous Oxide as Affected by Management and Climate: A DayCent Application in Brazil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2017 , 81 , 945–955. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thilakarathna, S.K.; Hernandez-Ramirez, G.; Puurveen, D.; Kryzanowski, L.; Lohstraeter, G.; Powers, L.; Quan, N.; Tenuta, M. Nitrous oxide emissions and nitrogen use efficiency in wheat: Nitrogen fertilization timing and formulation, soil nitrogen, and weather effects. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2020 , 84 , 1910–1927. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Scott, D.A.; Eckhoff, K.D.; Baer, S.G. Plant diversity decreases potential nitrous oxide emissions from restored agricultural soil. Pedobiologia 2020 , 83 , 150670. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barneze, A.S.; Whitaker, J.; McNamara, N.P.; Ostle, N.J. Legumes increase grassland productivity with no effect on nitrous oxide emissions. Plant Soil 2019 , 446 , 163–177. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Yang, Q.; Liu, P.; Dong, S.; Zhang, J.; Zhao, B. Combined application of organic and inorganic fertilizers mitigates ammonia and nitrous oxide emissions in a maize field. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2020 , 117 , 13–27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cole, C.; Duxbury, J.; Freney, J.; Heinemeyer, O.; Minami, K.; Mosier, A.; Paustian, K.; Rosenberg, N.; Sampson, N.; Sauerbeck, D.; et al. Global estimates of potential mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions by agriculture. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 1997 , 49 , 221–228. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Swanton, C.J.; Weise, S.F. Integrated Weed Management: The Rationale and Approach. Weed Technol. 1991 , 5 , 657–663. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kumar, H.D.; Aloke, P. Role of biostimulant formulations in crop production: An overview. Int. J. Appl. Res. Vet. M. 2020 , 8 , 38–46. [ Google Scholar ]
• Summers, H.; Karsten, H.D.; Curran, W.; Malcolm, G.M. Integrated weed management with reduced herbicides in a no-till dairy rotation. Agron. J. 2021 , 113 , 3418–3433. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Finney, D.M.; Murrell, E.G.; White, C.M.; Baraibar, B.; Barbercheck, M.E.; Bradley, B.A.; Cornelisse, S.; Hunter, M.C.; Kaye, J.P.; Mortensen, D.A.; et al. Ecosystem services and disservices are bundled in simple and diverse cover cropping sys-tems. Agric. Environ. Lett. 2017 , 2 , 170033. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kaye, J.P.; Quemada, M. Using cover crops to mitigate and adapt to climate change. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2017 , 37 , 4. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• McDaniel, M.D.; Tiemann, L.K.; Grandy, A.S. Does agricultural crop diversity enhance soil microbial biomass and organic matter dynamics? A meta-analysis. Ecol. Appl. 2014 , 24 , 560–570. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Poeplau, C.; Don, A. Carbon sequestration in agricultural soils via cultivation of cover crops—A meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015 , 200 , 33–41. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ghimire, R.; Ghimire, B.; Mesbah, A.O.; Idowu, O.J.; O’Neill, M.K.; Angadi, S.V.; Shukla, M.K. Current status, opportunities, and chal-lenges of cover cropping for sustainable dryland farming in the Southern Great Plains. J. Crops Improv. 2018 , 32 , 579–598. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chahal, I.; Vyn, R.J.; Mayers, D.; Van Eerd, L.L. Cumulative impact of cover crops on soil carbon sequestration and profitability in a temperate humid climate. Sci. Rep. 2020 , 10 , 13381. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Alvarez, R.; Steinbach, H.S.; De Paepe, J.L. Cover crop effects on soils and subsequent crops in the pampas: A meta-analysis. Soil Tillage Res. 2017 , 170 , 53–65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hassink, J.; Whitmore, A.P. A model of the physical protection of organic matter in soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1997 , 61 , 131–139. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Berhe, A.A.; Harte, J.; Harden, J.W.; Torn, M.S. The Significance of the Erosion-induced Terrestrial Carbon Sink. Bioscience 2007 , 57 , 337–346. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Olson, K.; Ebelhar, S.A.; Lang, J.M. Long-Term Effects of Cover Crops on Crop Yields, Soil Organic Carbon Stocks and Sequestration. Open J. Soil Sci. 2014 , 4 , 284–292. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Jian, J.; Du, X.; Reiter, M.S.; Stewart, R.D. A meta-analysis of global cropland soil carbon changes due to cover cropping. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2020 , 143 , 107735. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Beillouin, D.; Ben-Ari, T.; Malézieux, E.; Seufert, V.; Makowski, D. Positive but variable effects of crop diversification on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Glob. Change Biol. 2021 , 27 , 4697–4710. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Miguez, F.E.; Bollero, G.A. Review of Corn Yield Response under Winter Cover Cropping Systems Using Meta-Analytic Methods. Crop Sci. 2005 , 45 , 2318–2329. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Chen, X.; Chen, H.Y.H.; Chen, C.; Ma, Z.; Searle, E.B.; Yu, Z.; Huang, Z. Effects of plant diversity on soil carbon in diverse ecosystems: A global meta-analysis. Biol. Rev. 2019 , 95 , 167–183. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cordeiro, C.F.D.S.; Rodrigues, D.R.; da Silva, G.F.; Echer, F.R.; Calonego, J.C. Soil organic carbon stock is improved by cover crops in a tropical sandy soil. Agron. J. 2022 , 114 , 1546–1556. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Seitz, D.; Fischer, L.M.; Dechow, R.; Wiesmeier, M.; Don, A. The potential of cover crops to increase soil organic carbon storage in German croplands. Plant Soil 2022 , 1–17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Olson, K.R.; Ebelhar, S.A.; Lang, J.M. Cover Crop Effects on Crop Yields and Soil Organic Carbon Content. Soil Sci. 2010 , 175 , 89–98. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Nielsen, D.C.; Lyon, D.J.; Higgins, R.K.; Hergert, G.W.; Holman, J.D.; Vigil, M.F. Cover Crop Effect on Subsequent Wheat Yield in the Central Great Plains. Agron. J. 2016 , 108 , 243–256. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Flower, K.; Ward, P.; Cordingley, N.; Micin, S.; Craig, N. Rainfall, rotations and residue level affect no-tillage wheat yield and gross margin in a Mediterranean-type environment. Field Crops Res. 2017 , 208 , 1–10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Myers, R.; Watts, C. Progress and perspectives with cover crops: Interpreting three years of farmer surveys on cover crops. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2015 , 70 , 125A–129A. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Blanco-Canqui, H.; Claassen, M.M.; Presley, D.R. Summer cover crops fix nitrogen, increase crop yield, and improve soil–crop relationships. Agron. J. 2012 , 104 , 137–147. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Motisi, N.; Montfort, F.; Faloya, V.; Lucas, P.; Doré, T. Growing Brassica juncea as a cover crop, then incorporating its residues provide complementary control of Rhizoctonia root rot of sugar beet. Field Crops Res. 2009 , 113 , 238–245. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Duff, J.; Firrell, M. Biofumigation: A Cover Crop Option 12 Months of the Year to Manage Three Soilborne Pathogens Ailing the Australian Vegetable Industry. Glob. J. Agric. Innov. Res. Dev. 2021 , 8 , 104–116. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Packer, I.; Hamilton, G.; Koen, T. Runoff, soil loss and soil physical property changes of light textured surface soils from long term tillage treatments. Soil Res. 1992 , 30 , 789–806. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Harper, R.; Gilkes, R.; Hill, M.; Carter, D. Wind erosion and soil carbon dynamics in south-western Australia. Aeolian Res. 2010 , 1 , 129–141. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Saffigna, P.; Powlson, D.; Brookes, P.; Thomas, G. Influence of sorghum residues and tillage on soil organic matter and soil microbial biomass in an australian vertisol. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1989 , 21 , 759–765. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cotrufo, M.F.; Soong, J.L.; Horton, A.J.; Campbell, E.E.; Haddix, M.L.; Wall, D.H.; Parton, W.J. Formation of soil organic matter via bio-chemical and physical pathways of litter mass loss. Nat. Geosci. 2015 , 8 , 776–779. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Horwath, W.R.; Kuzyakov, Y. The Potential for Soils to Mitigate Climate Change Through Carbon Sequestration. In Developments in Soil Science ; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; Volume 35, pp. 61–92. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jha, P.; Hati, K.; Dalal, R.C.; Dang, Y.P.; Kopittke, P.M.; Menzies, N.W. Soil carbon and nitrogen dynamics in a Vertisol following 50 years of no-tillage, crop stubble retention and nitrogen fertilization. Geoderma 2019 , 358 , 113996. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Somasundaram, J.; Reeves, S.; Wang, W.; Heenan, M.; Dalal, R. Impact of 47 years of no tillage and stubble retention on soil ag-gregation and carbon distribution in a vertisol. Land Degrad. Dev. 2017 , 28 , 1589–1602. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hati, K.M.; Jha, P.; Dalal, R.C.; Jayaraman, S.; Dang, Y.P.; Kopittke, P.M.; Kirchhof, G.; Menzies, N.W. 50 years of continuous no-tillage, stubble retention and nitrogen fertilization enhanced macro-aggregate formation and stabilisation in a Vertisol. Soil Tillage Res. 2021 , 214 , 105163. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wakelin, S.A.; Colloff, M.J.; Harvey, P.R.; Marschner, P.; Gregg, A.L.; Rogers, S.L. The effects of stubble retention and nitrogen appli-cation on soil microbial community structure and functional gene abundance under irrigated maize. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2007 , 59 , 661–670. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Paustian, K.A.O.J.H.; Andren, O.; Janzen, H.H.; Lal, R.; Smith, P.; Tian, G.; Tiessen, H.; van Noordwijk, M.; Woomer, P.L. Agricultural soils as a sink to mitigate CO2 emissions. Soil Use Manag. 1997 , 13 , 230–244. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dalal, R.C.; Chan, K.Y. Soil organic matter in rainfed cropping systems of the Australian cereal belt. Soil Res. 2001 , 39 , 435–464. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pandey, C. Management of crop residue for sustaining soil fertility and foodgrains production in India. Acta Sci. Agric. 2019 , 3 , 188–195. [ Google Scholar ]
• Passaris, N.; Flower, K.; Ward, P.; Cordingley, N. Effect of crop rotation diversity and windrow burning of residue on soil chemical composition under long-term no-tillage. Soil Tillage Res. 2021 , 213 , 105153. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chan, Y. Increasing soil organic carbon of agricultural land. Primefact 2008 , 735 , 1–5. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tomar, V.P.S.; Narain, P.; Dadhwal, K.S. Effect of perennial mulches on moisture conservation and soil-building properties through agroforestry. Agrofor. Syst. 1992 , 19 , 241–252. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Freibauer, A.; Rounsevell, M.D.; Smith, P.; Verhagen, J. Carbon sequestration in the agricultural soils of Europe. Geoderma 2004 , 122 , 1–23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, D.L.; Anwar, M.R.; O′Leary, G.; Conyers, M.K. Managing wheat stubble as an effective approach to se-quester soil carbon in a semi-arid environment: Spatial modelling. Geoderma 2014 , 214 , 50–61. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Campbell, C.A.; Gregorich, E.G.; Zentner, R.P.; Roloff, R.; Janzen, H.H.; Paustian, K.; Smith, W.; Liang, B.C.; McConkey, M.G. Carbon sequestration in the Canadian Prairies: Quantification of Short-Term Dynamics. SSSA Spec. Publ. 2001 , 57 , 93–114. [ Google Scholar ]
• Xia, L.; Lam, S.K.; Wolf, B.; Kiese, R.; Chen, D.; Butterbach-Bahl, K. Trade-offs between soil carbon sequestration and reactive nitrogen losses under straw return in global agroecosystems. Glob. Change Biol. 2018 , 24 , 5919–5932. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shi, J.; Wang, S.; Li, S.; Tian, X. Increasing soil organic carbon sequestration and yield stability by no-tillage and straw-returning in wheat–maize rotation. Agron. J. 2022 , 114 , 1534–1545. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Di Bene, C.; Marchetti, A.; Francaviglia, R.; Farina, R. Soil organic carbon dynamics in typical durum wheat-based crop rotations of Southern Italy. Ital. J. Agron. 2016 , 11 , 209–216. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Jarecki, M.K.; Lal, R. Crop Management for Soil Carbon Sequestration. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2003 , 22 , 471–502. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huang, M.; Shao, M.; Zhang, L.; Li, Y. Water use efficiency and sustainability of different long-term crop rotation systems in the Loess Plateau of China. Soil Tillage Res. 2003 , 72 , 95–104. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, M.; Guo, J.; Ren, T.; Luo, G.; Shen, Q.; Lu, J.; Guo, S.; Ling, N. Crop rotation history constrains soil biodiversity and multifunctionality relationships. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2021 , 319 , 107550. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Blair, N.; Crocker, G.J. Crop rotation effects on soil carbon and physical fertility of two Australian soils. Soil Res. 2000 , 38 , 71–84. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Singh, K.; Whelan, B. Soil carbon change across ten New South Wales farms under different farm management regimes in Australia. Soil Use Manag. 2020 , 36 , 616–632. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• López-Bellido, L.; López-Bellido, R.; Fernández-García, P.; Muñoz-Romero, V.; Lopez-Bellido, F.J. Carbon storage in a rainfed Med-iterranean vertisol: Effects of tillage and crop rotation in a long-term experiment. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2020 , 71 , 472–483. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• West, T.O.; Post, W.M. Soil organic carbon sequestration rates by tillage and crop rotation: A global data analysis. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2002 , 66 , 1930–1946. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Franzluebbers, A.J.; Arshad, M.A. Soil Organic Matter Pools during Early Adoption of Conservation Tillage in Northwestern Canada. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1996 , 60 , 1422–1427. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lal, R. Carbon Sequestration in Dryland Ecosystems. Environ. Manag. 2003 , 33 , 528–544. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wochesländer, R.; Harper, R.J.; Sochacki, S.R.; Ward, P.R.; Revell, C. Tagasaste ( Cytisus proliferus Link. ) reforestation as an option for carbon mitigation in dryland farming systems. Ecol. Eng. 2016 , 97 , 610–618. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoyle, F.C.; D′Antuono, M.; Overheu, T.; Murphy, D.V. Capacity for increasing soil organic carbon stocks in dryland agricultural systems. Soil Res. 2013 , 51 , 657–667. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Havlin, J.L.; Kissel, D.E.; Maddux, L.D.; Claassen, M.M.; Long, J.H. Crop Rotation and Tillage Effects on Soil Organic Carbon and Nitrogen. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1990 , 54 , 448–452. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, K.; Bandara, M.; Hamel, C.; Knight, J.D.; Gan, Y. Intensifying crop rotations with pulse crops enhances system productivity and soil organic carbon in semi-arid environments. Field Crops Res. 2019 , 248 , 107657. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sanderman, J. Can management induced changes in the carbonate system drive soil carbon sequestration? A review with particular focus on Australia. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012 , 155 , 70–77. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Seó, H.L.S.; Filho, L.C.P.M.; Brugnara, D. Rationally Managed Pastures Stock More Carbon than No-Tillage Fields. Front. Environ. Sci. 2017 , 5 , 87. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Díaz-Solís, H.; Grant, W.; Kothmann, M.; Teague, W.; Díaz-García, J. Adaptive management of stocking rates to reduce effects of drought on cow-calf production systems in semi-arid rangelands. Agric. Syst. 2009 , 100 , 43–50. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Teague, R.; Provenza, F.; Norton, B.; Steffens, T.; Barnes, M.; Kothmann, M.; Roath, R. Benefits of Multi-Paddock Grazing Management on Rangelands: Limitations of Experimental Grazing Research and Knowledge Gaps. Grasslands: Ecology, Management and Restoration ; Nova Science Publishers: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 41–80. [ Google Scholar ]
• Teague, W.; Dowhower, S.; Baker, S.; Haile, N.; DeLaune, P.; Conover, D. Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011 , 141 , 310–322. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Byrnes, R.C.; Eastburn, D.J.; Tate, K.W.; Roche, L.M. A Global Meta-Analysis of Grazing Impacts on Soil Health Indicators. J. Environ. Qual. 2018 , 47 , 758–765. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Conant, R.T.; Paustian, K.; Elliott, E.T. Grassland management and conversion into grassland: Effects on soil carbon. Ecol. Appl. 2001 , 11 , 343–355. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Follett, R.; Stewart, C.; Bradford, J.; Pruessner, E.; Sims, P.L.; Vigil, M. Long-term pasture management impacts on eolian sand soils in the southern mixed-grass prairie. Quat. Int. 2020 , 565 , 84–93. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chan, K.Y.; Oates, A.; Li, G.D.; Conyers, M.K.; Prangnell, R.J.; Poile, G.; Liu, D.L.; Barchia, I.M. Soil carbon stocks under different pastures and pasture management in the higher rainfall areas of south-eastern Australia. Soil Res. 2010 , 48 , 7–15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sanderman, J.; Reseigh, J.; Wurst, M.; Young, M.-A.; Austin, J. Impacts of Rotational Grazing on Soil Carbon in Native Grass-Based Pastures in Southern Australia. PLoS ONE 2015 , 10 , e0136157. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Mosier, S.; Apfelbaum, S.; Byck, P.; Calderon, F.; Teague, R.; Thompson, R.; Cotrufo, M.F. Adaptive multi-paddock grazing enhances soil carbon and nitrogen stocks and stabilization through mineral association in southeastern U.S. grazing lands. J. Environ. Manag. 2021 , 288 , 112409. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hiernaux, P.; Bielders, C.L.; Valentin, C.; Bationo, A.; Fernández-Rivera, S. Effects of livestock grazing on physical and chemical properties of sandy soils in Sahelian rangelands. J. Arid. Environ. 1999 , 41 , 231–245. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Reeder, J.; Schuman, G. Influence of livestock grazing on C sequestration in semi-arid mixed-grass and short-grass rangelands. Environ. Pollut. 2001 , 116 , 457–463. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abdalla, M.; Hastings, A.; Chadwick, D.; Jones, D.; Evans, C.; Jones, M.; Rees, R.; Smith, P. Critical review of the impacts of grazing intensity on soil organic carbon storage and other soil quality indicators in extensively managed grasslands. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2017 , 253 , 62–81. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Bai, Y.; Cotrufo, M.F. Grassland soil carbon sequestration: Current understanding, challenges, and solutions. Science 2022 , 377 , 603–608. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Maestre, F.T.; Le Bagousse-Pinguet, Y.; Delgado-Baquerizo, M.; Eldridge, D.J.; Saiz, H.; Berdugo, M.; Gozalo, B.; Ochoa, V.; Guirado, E.; García-Gómez, M.; et al. Grazing and ecosystem service delivery in global drylands. Science 2022 , 378 , 915–920. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thomasson, A.J.; Carter, A.D. Current and future uses of the UK soil water retention dataset. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Indirect Methods for Estimating the Hydraulic Properties of Unsaturated Soils, Riverside, CA, USA, 11 October 1989; pp. 355–358. [ Google Scholar ]
• Loveland, P.; Webb, J. Is there a critical level of organic matter in the agricultural soils of temperate regions: A review. Soil Tillage Res. 2003 , 70 , 1–8. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lal, R. Physical properties and moisture retention characteristics of some nigerian soils. Geoderma 1978 , 21 , 209–223. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Danalatos, N.; Kosmas, C.; Driessen, P.; Yassoglou, N. Estimation of the draining soil moisture characteristic from standard data as recorded in routine soil surveys. Geoderma 1994 , 64 , 155–165. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Maynard, A.A. Compost: The process and research. Bull. Conn. Agric. Exp. Stn. 2000 , 13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hudson, B.D. Soil organic matter and available water capacity. J. Soil Water Conserv. 1994 , 49 , 189–194. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rawls, W.; Pachepsky, Y.; Ritchie, J.; Sobecki, T.; Bloodworth, H. Effect of soil organic carbon on soil water retention. Geoderma 2003 , 116 , 61–76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• De Jong, R.; Campbell, C.A.; Nicholaichuk, W. Water retention equations and their relationship to soil organic matter and particle size distribution for disturbed samples. Can. J. Soil Sci. 1983 , 63 , 291–302. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Haynes, R.; Naidu, R. Influence of lime, fertilizer and manure applications on soil organic matter content and soil physical conditions: A review. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 1998 , 51 , 123–137. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wolf, B.; Snyder, G. Sustainable Soils: The Place of Organic Matter in Sustaining Soils and Their Productivity ; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Emerson, W.W.; McGarry, D. Organic carbon and soil porosity. Soil Res. 2003 , 41 , 107–118. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Libohova, Z.; Seybold, C.; Wysocki, D.; Wills, S.; Schoeneberger, P.; Williams, C.; Lindbo, D.; Stott, D.; Owens, P. Reevaluating the effects of soil organic matter and other properties on available water-holding capacity using the National Cooperative Soil Survey Characterization Database. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2018 , 73 , 411–421. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Minasny, B.; McBratney, A.B. Limited effect of organic matter on soil available water capacity. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2018 , 69 , 39–47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Stewart, C.E.; Paustian, K.; Conant, R.; Plante, A.; Six, J. Soil carbon saturation: Concept, evidence and evaluation. Biogeochemistry 2007 , 86 , 19–31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Williams, A.; Hunter, M.C.; Kammerer, M.; Kane, D.A.; Jordan, N.R.; Mortensen, D.A.; Smith, R.G.; Snapp, S.; Davis, A.S. Soil water holding capacity mitigates downside risk and volatility in US rainfed maize: Time to invest in soil organic matter? PLoS ONE 2016 , 11 , e0160974. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Bhadha, J.H.; Capasso, J.M.; Khatiwada, R.; Swanson, S.; LaBorde, C. Raising Soil Organic Matter Content to Improve Water Holding Capacity ; University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences: Gainesville, FL, USA, 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Oldfield, E.E.; Wood, S.A.; Bradford, M.A. Direct evidence using a controlled greenhouse study for threshold effects of soil organic matter on crop growth. Ecol. Appl. 2020 , 30 , e02073. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Parr, J.; Bertrand, A. Water Infiltration into Soils. Adv. Agron. 1960 , 12 , 311–363. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• De Vries, F.T.; Thébault, E.; Liiri, M.; Birkhofer, K.; Tsiafouli, M.A.; Bjørnlund, L.; Bracht Jørgensen, H.; Brady, M.V.; Christensen, S.; De Ruiter, P.C.; et al. Soil food web properties explain ecosystem services across European land use systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013 , 110 , 14296–14301. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Lehmann, A.; Zheng, W.; Rillig, M.C. Soil biota contributions to soil aggregation. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2017 , 1 , 1828–1835. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Calegari, A.; Darolt, M.R.; Ferro, M. Towards sustainable agriculture with a no-tillage system. Adv. GeoEcol. 1998 , 31 , 1205–1210. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eden, M.; Gerke, H.H.; Houot, S. Organic waste recycling in agriculture and related effects on soil water retention and plant available water: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2017 , 37 , 11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Li, Y.; Shao, M.; Wang, J.; Li, T. Effects of earthworm cast application on water evaporation and storage in loess soil column ex-periments. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 3112. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hallam, J.; Hodson, M.E. Impact of different earthworm ecotypes on water stable aggregates and soil water holding capacity. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2020 , 56 , 607–617. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Liang, C.; Balser, T.C. Microbial production of recalcitrant organic matter in global soils: Implications for productivity and climate policy. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2011 , 9 , 75. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Lal, R. Soil organic matter and water retention. Agron. J. 2020 , 112 , 3265–3277. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Al-Kaisi, M.M.; Douelle, A.; Kwaw-Mensah, D. Soil microaggregate and macroaggregate decay over time and soil carbon change as influenced by different tillage systems. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2014 , 69 , 574–580. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Bardgett, R.D.; van der Putten, W.H. Belowground biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Nature 2014 , 515 , 505–511. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wagg, C.; Schlaeppi, K.; Banerjee, S.; Kuramae, E.E.; Van Der Heijden, M.G.A. Fungal-bacterial diversity and microbiome complexity predict ecosystem functioning. Nat. Commun. 2019 , 10 , 4841. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Brussaard, L.; de Ruiter, P.C.; Brown, G.G. Soil biodiversity for agricultural sustainability. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2007 , 121 , 233–244. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wagg, C.; van Erk, A.; Fava, E.; Comeau, L.-P.; Mitterboeck, T.F.; Goyer, C.; Li, S.; McKenzie-Gopsill, A.; Mills, A. Full-Season Cover Crops and Their Traits That Promote Agroecosystem Services. Agriculture 2021 , 11 , 830. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nannipieri, P.; Ascher, J.; Ceccherini, M.T.; Landi, L.; Pietramellara, G.; Renella, G. Microbial diversity and soil functions. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2003 , 54 , 655–670. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tiedje, J.M.; Asuming-Brempong, S.; Nüsslein, K.; Marsh, T.L.; Flynn, S.J. Opening the black box of soil microbial diversity. Appl. Soil Ecol. 1999 , 13 , 109–122. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jastrow, J.D.; Amonette, J.E.; Bailey, V.L. Mechanisms controlling soil carbon turnover and their potential application for enhancing carbon sequestration. Clim. Change 2006 , 80 , 5–23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Graham, E.B.; Knelman, J.E.; Schindlbacher, A.; Siciliano, S.; Breulmann, M.; Yannarell, A.; Beman, J.M.; Abell, G.; Philippot, L.; Prosser, J.; et al. Microbes as engines of ecosystem function: When does community structure enhance predictions of ecosystem processes? Front. Microbiol. 2016 , 7 , 214. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Lamanna, C.; Blonder, B.; Violle, C.; Kraft, N.J.; Sandel, B.; Šímová, I.; Donoghue, J.C.; Svenning, J.C.; McGill, B.J.; Boyle, B.; et al. Functional trait space and the latitudinal diversity gradient. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014 , 111 , 13745–13750. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Brady, N.C. The Nature and Properties of Soils ; Macmillan Publishing Company: New York, NY, USA, 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
• Duxbury, J.M. Soil organic matter as a source and a sink of plant nutrients. In Dynamics of Soil Organic Matter in Tropical Ecosystems ; NifTAL Project, University Hawaii: Maui, HI, USA, 1989. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sidorova, I.; Voronina, E. Microbiome-Driven Nutrient Fortification in Plants: The Role of Microbiota in Chemical Transfor-mation and Nutrient Mobilization. In The Plant Microbiome in Sustainable Agriculture ; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2020; pp. 211–230. [ Google Scholar ]
• Veresoglou, S.D.; Halley, J.M.; Rillig, M.C. Extinction risk of soil biota. Nat. Commun. 2015 , 6 , 8862. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Orgiazzi, A.; Panagos, P.; Yigini, Y.; Dunbar, M.B.; Gardi, C.; Montanarella, L.; Ballabio, C. A knowledge-based approach to estimating the magnitude and spatial patterns of potential threats to soil biodiversity. Sci. Total. Environ. 2016 , 545–546 , 11–20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Tibbett, M.; Fraser, T.D.; Duddigan, S. Identifying potential threats to soil biodiversity. PeerJ 2020 , 8 , e9271. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Rees, R.M.; Ball, B.C.; Campbell, C.D.; Watson, C.A. Sustaining soil organic matter. In Sustainable Management of Soil Organic Matter ; Cabi Publishing: Wallingford, UK, 2001; pp. 413–425. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bardgett, R.D.; Hobbs, P.J.; Frostegård, Å. Changes in soil fungal: Bacterial biomass ratios following reductions in the intensity of management of an upland grassland. Biol. Fertil. Soils 1996 , 22 , 261–264. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sinsabaugh, R.L.; Manzoni, S.; Moorhead, D.L.; Richter, A. Carbon use efficiency of microbial communities: Stoichiometry, methodology and modelling. Ecol. Lett. 2013 , 16 , 930–939. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Strickland, M.S.; Rousk, J. Considering fungal: Bacterial dominance in soils–methods, controls, and ecosystem implications. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2010 , 42 , 1385–1395. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Waring, B.G.; Averill, C.; Hawkes, C.V. Differences in fungal and bacterial physiology alter soil carbon and nitrogen cycling: Insights from meta-analysis and theoretical models. Ecol. Lett. 2013 , 16 , 887–894. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dalal, R.C. Soil microbial biomass—What do the numbers really mean? Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 1998 , 38 , 649–665. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, X.; Thornton, P.E.; Post, W.M. A global analysis of soil microbial biomass carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus in terrestrial ecosystems. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2013 , 22 , 737–749. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Miltner, A.; Bombach, P.; Schmidt-Brücken, B.; Kästner, M. SOM genesis: Microbial biomass as a significant source. Biodegradation 2012 , 111 , 41–55. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liang, C.; Schimel, J.P.; Jastrow, J.D. The importance of anabolism in microbial control over soil carbon storage. Nat. Microbiol. 2017 , 2 , 17105. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, B.; An, S.; Liang, C.; Liu, Y.; Kuzyakov, Y. Microbial necromass as the source of soil organic carbon in global ecosystems. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2021 , 162 , 108422. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Prommer, J.; Walker, T.W.N.; Wanek, W.; Braun, J.; Zezula, D.; Hu, Y.; Hofhansl, F.; Richter, A. Increased microbial growth, biomass, and turnover drive soil organic carbon accumulation at higher plant diversity. Glob. Change Biol. 2019 , 26 , 669–681. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Kallenbach, C.M.; Frey, S.D.; Grandy, A.S. Direct evidence for microbial-derived soil organic matter formation and its ecophysio-logical controls. Nat. Commun. 2016 , 7 , 13630. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Liang, C.; Amelung, W.; Lehmann, J.; Kästner, M. Quantitative assessment of microbial necromass contribution to soil organic matter. Glob. Change Biol. 2019 , 25 , 3578–3590. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Whalen, E.D.; Grandy, A.S.; Sokol, N.W.; Keiluweit, M.; Ernakovich, J.; Smith, R.G.; Frey, S.D. Clarifying the evidence for microbial-and plant-derived soil organic matter, and the path toward a more quantitative understanding. Glob. Change Biol. 2022 , 28 , 7167–7185. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Buckeridge, K.M.; Mason, K.E.; McNamara, N.P.; Ostle, N.; Puissant, J.; Goodall, T.; Griffiths, R.I.; Stott, A.W.; Whitaker, J. Environmental and microbial controls on microbial necromass recycling, an important precursor for soil carbon stabilization. Commun. Earth Environ. 2020 , 1 , 36. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Delgado-Baquerizo, M.; Maestre, F.T.; Reich, P.B.; Jeffries, T.C.; Gaitan, J.J.; Encinar, D.; Berdugo, M.; Campbell, C.D.; Singh, B.K. Microbial diversity drives multifunctionality in terrestrial ecosystems. Nat. Commun. 2016 , 7 , 10541. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Finn, D.; Kopittke, P.M.; Dennis, P.G.; Dalal, R.C. Microbial energy and matter transformation in agricultural soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2017 , 111 , 176–192. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Janus, L.R.; Angeloni, N.L.; McCormack, J.; Rier, S.T.; Tuchman, N.C.; Kelly, J.J. Elevated atmospheric CO2 alters soil microbial communities associated with trembling aspen ( Populus tremuloides ) roots. Microb. Ecol. 2005 , 50 , 102–109. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Sofi, J.A.; Bhat, A.G.; Kirmai, N.A.; Wani, J.A.; Lone, A.H.; Ganie, M.A.; Dar, G.I.H. Soil quality index as affected by different cropping systems in northwestern Himalayas. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2016 , 188 , 161. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Schimel, J.P.; Gulledge, J.M.; Clein-Curley, J.S.; Lindstrom, J.E.; Braddock, J.F. Moisture effects on microbial activity and community structure in decomposing birch litter in the Alaskan taiga. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1999 , 31 , 831–838. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Coccina, A.; Cavagnaro, T.R.; Pellegrino, E.; Ercoli, L.; McLaughlin, M.J.; Watts-Williams, S.J. The mycorrhizal pathway of zinc uptake contributes to zinc accumulation in barley and wheat grain. BMC Plant Biol. 2019 , 19 , 133. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Ryan, M.H.; Kirkegaard, J.A. The agronomic relevance of arbuscular mycorrhizas in the fertility of Australian extensive cropping systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012 , 163 , 37–53. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nyamwange, M.M.; Njeru, E.M.; Mucheru-Muna, M.; Ngetich, F. Soil management practices affect arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi propagules, root colonization and growth of rainfed maize. AIMS Agric. Food 2018 , 3 , 120–134. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, L.-J.; Zhu-Barker, X.; Ye, R.; Doane, T.A.; Horwath, W.R. Soil microbial biomass size and soil carbon influence the priming effect from carbon inputs depending on nitrogen availability. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2018 , 119 , 41–49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Boyd, E.S.; Peters, J.W. New insights into the evolutionary history of biological nitrogen fixation. Front. Microbiol. 2013 , 4 , 201. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Howard, J.B.; Rees, D.C. Structural Basis of Biological Nitrogen Fixation. Chem. Rev. 1996 , 96 , 2965–2982. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jensen, E.S. Role of Grain Legume N₂ Fixation in the Nitrogen Cycling of Temperate Cropping Systems. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Denmark, 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• McCallum, M.H.; Peoples, M.B.; Connor, D.J. Contributions of nitrogen by field pea ( Pisum sativum L.) in a continuous cropping sequence compared with a lucerne ( Medicago sativa L.)-based pasture ley in the Victorian Wimmera. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 2000 , 51 , 13–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zheng, M.; Zhou, Z.; Luo, Y.; Zhao, P.; Mo, J. Global pattern and controls of biological nitrogen fixation under nutrient enrichment: A meta-analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 2019 , 25 , 3018–3030. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Mohammad, W.; Shehzadi, S.; Shah, S.M.; Shah, Z. Effect of tillage and crop residues management on mung bean ( Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek) crop yield, nitrogen fixation and water use efficiency in rain fed areas. Pak. J. Bot. 2010 , 42 , 1781–1789. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hu, H.; Li, H.; Hao, M.; Ren, Y.; Zhang, M.; Liu, R.; Zhang, Y.; Li, G.; Chen, J.; Ning, T.; et al. Nitrogen fixation and crop productivity enhancements co-driven by intercrop root exudates and key rhizosphere bacteria. J. Appl. Ecol. 2021 , 58 , 2243–2255. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Smercina, D.N.; Evans, S.E.; Friesen, M.L.; Tiemann, L.K. To fix or not to fix: Controls on free-living nitrogen fixation in the rhizo-sphere. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2019 , 85 , e02546-18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Orr, C.H.; James, A.; Leifert, C.; Cooper, J.M.; Cummings, S.P. Diversity and Activity of Free-Living Nitrogen-Fixing Bacteria and Total Bacteria in Organic and Conventionally Managed Soils. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2011 , 77 , 911–919. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Bergersen, F.J.; Peoples, M.B.; Turner, G.L. A role for poly-β-hydroxybutyrate in bacteroids of soybean root nodules. Proc. R. Soc. B Boil. Sci. 1991 , 245 , 59–64. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vadakattu, G.; Paterson, J. Free-living bacteria lift soil nitrogen supply. Farming Ahead 2006 , 169 , 40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dynarski, K.A.; Houlton, B.Z. Nutrient limitation of terrestrial free-living nitrogen fixation. N. Phytol. 2017 , 217 , 1050–1061. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Patel, P.; Panchal, K. Effect of Free-Living Nitrogen Fixing and Phosphate Solubilizing Bacteria on Growth of Gossypium hirsutum L. Asian J. Biol. Life Sci. 2020 , 9 , 169–176. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gupta, V.V.; Roper, M.M. Protection of free-living nitrogen-fixing bacteria within the soil matrix. Soil Tillage Res. 2010 , 109 , 50–54. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kennedy, I.R.; Choudhury, A.T.; Kecskés, M.L. Non-symbiotic bacterial diazotrophs in crop-farming systems: Can their potential for plant growth promotion be better exploited? Soil Biol. Biochem. 2004 , 36 , 1229–1244. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chaudhary, D.; Narula, N.; Sindhu, S.S.; Behl, R.K. Plant growth stimulation of wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) by inoculation of salinity tolerant Azotobacter strains. Physiol. Mol. Biol. Plants 2013 , 19 , 515–519. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Köberl, M.; Erlacher, A.; Ramadan, E.M.; El-Arabi, T.F.; Müller, H.; Bragina, A.; Berg, G. Comparisons of diazotrophic communities in native and agricultural desert ecosystems reveal plants as important drivers in diversity. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2015 , 92 , fiv166. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ayangbenro, A.S.; Babalola, O.O. Reclamation of arid and semi-arid soils: The role of plant growth-promoting archaea and bac-teria. Curr. Plant Biol. 2021 , 25 , 100173. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Begmatov, S.A.; Berestovskaja, Y.Y.; Vasileva, L.V.; Selitskaya, O.V. Isolation, Screening and Identification of Free-Living Diazotrophic Bacteria from Salinated Arid Soils. Microbiology 2020 , 89 , 374–377. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gupta, V.V.; Zhang, B.; Penton, C.R.; Yu, J.; Tiedje, J.M. Diazotroph diversity and nitrogen fixation in summer active perennial grasses in a Mediterranean region agricultural soil. Front. Mol. Biosci. 2019 , 6 , 115. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Six, J.; Elliott, E.T.; Paustian, K. Aggregate and Soil Organic Matter Dynamics under Conventional and No-Tillage Systems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1999 , 63 , 1350–1358. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Young, I.; Ritz, K. Tillage, habitat space and function of soil microbes. Soil Tillage Res. 2000 , 53 , 201–213. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Roper, M.M.; Gupta, V.V.S.R. Enhancing Non-symbiotic N2 Fixation in Agriculture. Open Agric. J. 2016 , 10 , 7–27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Rosenblueth, M.; Ormeño-Orrillo, E.; López-López, A.; Rogel, M.A.; Reyes-Hernandez, B.J.; Martínez-Romero, J.C.; Reddy, P.M.; Martinez-Romero, E. Nitrogen Fixation in Cereals. Front. Microbiol. 2018 , 9 , 1794. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Richardson, A.E.; Simpson, R.J. Soil Microorganisms Mediating Phosphorus Availability Update on Microbial Phosphorus. Plant Physiol. 2011 , 156 , 989–996. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Banik, S.; Dey, B.K. Available phosphate content of an alluvial soil as influenced by inoculation of some isolated phosphate-solubilizing micro-organisms. Plant Soil 1982 , 69 , 353–364. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kucey, R.; Janzen, H.; Leggett, M. Microbially Mediated Increases in Plant-Available Phosphorus. Adv. Agron. 1989 , 42 , 199–228. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gyaneshwar, P.; Kumar, G.N.; Parekh, L.J.; Poole, P.S. Role of soil microorganisms in improving P nutrition of plants. Plant Soil 2002 , 245 , 83–93. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hayman, D.S. Plant growth responses to vesiculararbuscular Mycorrhiza: VI effect of light and temperature. N. Phytol. 1974 , 73 , 71–80. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bolan, N.S. A critical review on the role of mycorrhizal fungi in the uptake of phosphorus by plants. Plant Soil 1991 , 134 , 189–207. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Van Der Heijden, M.G.; Bardgett, R.D.; Van Straalen, N.M. The unseen majority: Soil microbes as drivers of plant diversity and productivity in terrestrial ecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 2008 , 11 , 296–310. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rao, N.S. (Ed.) Advances in Agricultural Microbiology ; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldstein, A.H. Bacterial solubilization of mineral phosphates: Historical perspective and future prospects. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 1986 , 1 , 51–57. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rodríguez, H.; Fraga, R. Phosphate solubilizing bacteria and their role in plant growth promotion. Biotechnol. Adv. 1999 , 17 , 319–339. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• De Oliveira Mendes, G.; Moreira de Freitas, A.L.; Liparini Pereira, O.; Ribeiro da Silva, I.; Bojkov Vassilev, N.; Dutra Costa, M. Mechanisms of phosphate solubilization by fungal isolates when exposed to different P sources. Ann. Microbiol. 2014 , 64 , 239–249. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Prabhu, N.; Borkar, S.; Garg, S. Phosphate solubilization by microorganisms: Overview, mechanisms, applications and ad-vances. Adv. Biol. Sci. Res. 2019 , 161–176. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sharma, S.B.; Sayyed, R.Z.; Trivedi, M.H.; Gobi, T.A. Phosphate solubilizing microbes: Sustainable approach for managing phosphorus deficiency in agricultural soils. SpringerPlus 2013 , 2 , 587. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Sattar, A.; Naveed, M.; Ali, M.; Zahir, Z.A.; Nadeem, S.M.; Yaseen, M.; Meena, V.S.; Farooq, M.; Singh, R.; Rahman, M.; et al. Perspectives of potassium solubilizing microbes in sustainable food production system: A review. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2018 , 133 , 146–159. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vidyalakshmi, R.; Paranthaman, R.; Bhakyaraj, R. Sulphur Oxidizing Bacteria and Pulse Nutrition—A Review. World J. Agric. Sci. 2009 , 5 , 270–278. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tourna, M.; Maclean, P.; Condron, L.; O′Callaghan, M.; Wakelin, S.A. Links between sulphur oxidation and sulphur-oxidising bacteria abundance and diversity in soil microcosms based on soxB functional gene analysis. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2014 , 88 , 538–549. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Anandham, R.; Gandhi, P.I.; SenthilKumar, M.; Sridar, R.; Nalayini, P.; Sa, T.-M. Sulfur-oxidizing Bacteria: A Novel Bioinoculant for Sulfur Nutrition and Crop Production. In Bacteria in Agrobiology: Plant Nutrient Management ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 81–107. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Panchal, S.; Chitrakar, R.; Thompson, B.K.; Obulareddy, N.; Roy, D.; Hambright, W.S.; Melotto, M. Regulation of Stomatal Defense by Air Relative Humidity. Plant Physiol. 2016 , 172 , 2021–2032. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Huot, B.; Castroverde, C.D.M.; Velásquez, A.C.; Hubbard, E.; Pulman, J.A.; Yao, J.; Childs, K.L.; Tsuda, K.; Montgomery, B.L.; He, S.Y. Dual impact of elevated temperature on plant defence and bacterial virulence in Arabidopsis. Nat. Commun. 2017 , 8 , 1808–1812. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Williams, A.; Pétriacq, P.; Schwarzenbacher, R.E.; Beerling, D.J.; Ton, J. Mechanisms of glacial-to-future atmospheric CO 2 effects on plant immunity. N. Phytol. 2018 , 218 , 752–761. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Sun, Y.; Wang, M.; Mur, L.A.J.; Shen, Q.; Guo, S. Unravelling the Roles of Nitrogen Nutrition in Plant Disease Defences. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020 , 21 , 572. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Ruiu, L. Microbial Biopesticides in Agroecosystems. Agronomy 2018 , 8 , 235. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Babikova, Z.; Gilbert, L.; Bruce, T.J.A.; Birkett, M.; Caulfield, J.C.; Woodcock, C.; Pickett, J.A.; Johnson, D. Underground signals carried through common mycelial networks warn neighbouring plants of aphid attack. Ecol. Lett. 2013 , 16 , 835–843. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Schellhorn, N.A.; Gagic, V.; Bommarco, R. Time will tell: Resource continuity bolsters ecosystem services. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2015 , 30 , 524–530. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Birkhofer, K.; Arvidsson, F.; Ehlers, D.; Mader, V.L.; Bengtsson, J.; Smith, H.G. Organic farming affects the biological control of hemipteran pests and yields in spring barley independent of landscape complexity. Landsc. Ecol. 2015 , 31 , 567–579. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dassou, A.G.; Tixier, P. Response of pest control by generalist predators to local-scale plant diversity: A meta-analysis. Ecol. Evol. 2016 , 6 , 1143–1153. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Rivers, A.; Barbercheck, M.; Govaerts, B.; Verhulst, N. Conservation agriculture affects arthropod community composition in a rainfed maize–wheat system in central Mexico. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2016 , 100 , 81–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Favrelière, E.; Ronceux, A.; Pernel, J.; Meynard, J.-M. Nonchemical control of a perennial weed, Cirsium arvense , in arable cropping systems: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2020 , 40 , 31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wagner, M.; Mitschunas, N. Fungal effects on seed bank persistence and potential applications in weed biocontrol: A review. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2008 , 9 , 191–203. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Harding, D.P.; Raizada, M.N. Controlling weeds with fungi, bacteria and viruses: A review. Front. Plant Sci. 2015 , 6 , 659. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Lazzaro, M.; Bàrberi, P.; Dell’Acqua, M.; Pè, M.E.; Limonta, M.; Barabaschi, D.; Cattivelli, L.; Laino, P.; Vaccino, P. Unraveling diversity in wheat competitive ability traits can improve integrated weed management. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2019 , 39 , 6. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Aharon, S.; Peleg, Z.; Argaman, E.; Ben-David, R.; Lati, R. Image-Based High-Throughput Phenotyping of Cereals Early Vigor and Weed-Competitiveness Traits. Remote Sens. 2020 , 12 , 3877. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mwendwa, J.M.; Brown, W.B.; Weidenhamer, J.D.; Weston, P.A.; Quinn, J.C.; Wu, H.; Weston, L.A. Evaluation of Commercial Wheat Cultivars for Canopy Architecture, Early Vigour, Weed Suppression, and Yield. Agronomy 2020 , 10 , 983. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gerhards, R.; Kollenda, B.; Machleb, J.; Möller, K.; Butz, A.; Reiser, D.; Griegentrog, H.-W. Camera-guided Weed Hoeing in Winter Cereals with Narrow Row Distance. Gesunde Pflanz. 2020 , 72 , 403–411. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, L.; Ma, B.; Wu, F. Effects of wheat stubble on runoff, infiltration, and erosion of farmland on the Loess Plateau, China, subjected to simulated rainfall. Solid Earth 2017 , 8 , 281–290. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Nautiyal, P.; Rajput, R.; Pandey, D.; Arunachalam, K.; Arunachalam, A. Role of glomalin in soil carbon storage and its variation across land uses in temperate Himalayan regime. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2019 , 21 , 101311. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Villarino, S.H.; Pinto, P.; Jackson, R.B.; Piñeiro, G. Plant rhizodeposition: A key factor for soil organic matter formation in stable fractions. Sci. Adv. 2021 , 7 , eabd3176. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Zhu, X.; Jackson, R.D.; DeLucia, E.H.; Tiedje, J.M.; Liang, C. The soil microbial carbon pump: From conceptual insights to em-pirical assessments. Glob. Change Biol. 2020 , 26 , 6032–6039. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Gardner, W.K.; Barber, D.A.; Parbery, D.G. The acquisition of phosphorus by Lupinus albus L. Plant Soil 1983 , 70 , 107–124. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kuzyakov, Y.; Domanski, G. Carbon input by plants into the soil. Rev. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2000 , 163 , 421–431. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sun, H.; Jiang, S.; Jiang, C.; Wu, C.; Gao, M.; Wang, Q. A review of root exudates and rhizosphere microbiome for crop production. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021 , 28 , 54497–54510. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Neal, A.L.; Ton, J. Systemic defense priming by Pseudomonas putida KT2440 in maize depends on benzoxazinoid exudation from the roots. Plant Signal. Behav. 2013 , 8 , e22655. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Lombardi, N.; Vitale, S.; Turrà, D.; Reverberi, M.; Fanelli, C.; Vinale, F.; Marra, R.; Ruocco, M.; Pascale, A.; D’Errico, G.; et al. Root Exudates of Stressed Plants Stimulate and Attract Trichoderma Soil Fungi. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 2018 , 31 , 982–994. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Allen, M.F. Mycorrhizal Fungi: Highways for Water and Nutrients in Arid Soils. Vadose Zone J. 2007 , 6 , 291–297. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Püschel, D.; Bitterlich, M.; Rydlová, J.; Jansa, J. Facilitation of plant water uptake by an arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus: A Gordian knot of roots and hyphae. Mycorrhiza 2020 , 30 , 299–313. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bárzana, G.; Aroca, R.; Paz, J.A.; Chaumont, F.; Martinez-Ballesta, M.C.; Carvajal, M.; Ruiz-Lozano, J.M. Arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis increases relative apoplastic water flow in roots of the host plant under both well-watered and drought stress con-ditions. Ann. Bot. 2012 , 109 , 1009–1017. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kaya, C.; Higgs, D.; Kirnak, H.; Tas, I. Mycorrhizal colonisation improves fruit yield and water use efficiency in watermelon ( Citrullus lanatus Thunb. ) grown under well-watered and water-stressed conditions. Plant Soil 2003 , 253 , 287–292. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ruiz-Lozano, J.M.; Aroca, R. Host Response to Osmotic Stresses: Stomatal Behaviour and Water Use Efficiency of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Plants. In Arbuscular Mycorrhizas: Physiology and Function ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 239–256. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marulanda, A.; Azcon, R.; Ruiz-Lozano, J.M. Contribution of six arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal isolates to water uptake by Lactuca sativa plants under drought stress. Physiol. Plant. 2003 , 119 , 526–533. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kakouridis, A.; Hagen, J.A.; Kan, M.P.; Mambelli, S.; Feldman, L.J.; Herman, D.J.; Weber, P.K.; Pett-Ridge, J.; Firestone, M.K. Routes to roots: Direct evidence of water transport by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi to host plants. N. Phytol. 2022 , 236 , 210–221. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lau, J.A.; Lennon, J.T. Rapid responses of soil microorganisms improve plant fitness in novel environments. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012 , 109 , 14058–14062. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Xu, L.; Naylor, D.; Dong, Z.; Simmons, T.; Pierroz, G.; Hixson, K.K.; Kim, Y.-M.; Zink, E.M.; Engbrecht, K.M.; Wang, Y.; et al. Drought delays development of the sorghum root microbiome and enriches for monoderm bacteria. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018 , 115 , E4284–E4293. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• De Vries, F.T.; Griffiths, R.I.; Knight, C.G.; Nicolitch, O.; Williams, A. Harnessing rhizosphere microbiomes for drought-resilient crop production. Science 2020 , 368 , 270–274. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Naylor, D.; Degraaf, S.; Purdom, E.; Coleman-Derr, D. Drought and host selection influence bacterial community dynamics in the grass root microbiome. ISME J. 2017 , 11 , 2691–2704. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Naseem, H.; Bano, A. Role of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria and their exopolysaccharide in drought tolerance of maize. J. Plant Interact. 2014 , 9 , 689–701. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Rolli, E.; Marasco, R.; Vigani, G.; Ettoumi, B.; Mapelli, F.; Deangelis, M.L.; Gandolfi, C.; Casati, E.; Previtali, F.; Gerbino, R.; et al. Improved plant resistance to drought is promoted by the root-associated microbiome as a water stress-dependent trait. Environ. Microbiol. 2014 , 17 , 316–331. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vigani, G.; Rolli, E.; Marasco, R.; Dell′Orto, M.; Michoud, G.; Soussi, A.; Raddadi, N.; Borin, S.; Sorlini, C.; Zocchi, G.; et al. Root bacterial endophytes confer drought resistance and enhance expression and activity of a vacuolar H+-pumping pyro-phosphatase in pepper plants. Environ. Microbiol. 2019 , 21 , 3212–3228. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Jayakumar, A.; Padmakumar, P.; Nair, I.C.; Radhakrishnan, E.K. Drought tolerant bacterial endophytes with potential plant probiotic effects from Ananas comosus. Biologia 2020 , 75 , 1769–1778. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ortiz, N.; Armada, E.; Duque, E.; Roldán, A.; Azcón, R. Contribution of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and/or bacteria to enhancing plant drought tolerance under natural soil conditions: Effectiveness of autochthonous or allochthonous strains. J. Plant Physiol. 2015 , 174 , 87–96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Porcel, R.; Ruiz-Lozano, J.M. Arbuscular mycorrhizal influence on leaf water potential, solute accumulation, and oxidative stress in soybean plants subjected to drought stress. J. Exp. Bot. 2004 , 55 , 1743–1750. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Abbaspour, H.; Saeidi-Sar, S.; Afshari, H.; Abdel-Wahhab, M. Tolerance of Mycorrhiza infected Pistachio ( Pistacia vera L.) seedling to drought stress under glasshouse conditions. J. Plant Physiol. 2012 , 169 , 704–709. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chareesri, A.; De Deyn, G.B.; Sergeeva, L.; Polthanee, A.; Kuyper, T.W. Increased arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal colonization reduces yield loss of rice ( Oryza sativa L.) under drought. Mycorrhiza 2020 , 30 , 315–328. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Hu, Y.; Xie, W.; Chen, B. Arbuscular mycorrhiza improved drought tolerance of maize seedlings by altering photosystem II efficiency and the levels of key metabolites. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 2020 , 7 , 20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Darrah, P.R. The rhizosphere and plant nutrition: A quantitative approach. Plant Soil 1993 , 155 , 3–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barber, S.A. Soil Nutrient Bioavailability: A Mechanistic Approach ; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hodge, A. The plastic plant: Root responses to heterogeneous supplies of nutrients. N. Phytol. 2004 , 162 , 9–24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gahoonia, T.S.; Nielsen, N.E. Phosphorus (P) uptake and growth of a root hairless barley mutant (bald root barley, brb) and wild type in low-and high-P. soils. Plant Cell Environ. 2003 , 26 , 1759–1766. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Hill, J.O.; Simpson, R.J.; Moore, A.; Chapman, D.F. Morphology and response of roots of pasture species to phosphorus and nitrogen nutrition. Plant Soil 2006 , 286 , 7–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lambers, H.; Shane, M.W.; Cramer, M.D.; Pearse, S.J.; Veneklaas, E.J. Root Structure and Functioning for Efficient Acquisition of Phosphorus: Matching Morphological and Physiological Traits. Ann. Bot. 2006 , 98 , 693–713. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• White, J.F.; Kingsley, K.L.; Verma, S.K.; Kowalski, K.P. Rhizophagy Cycle: An Oxidative Process in Plants for Nutrient Extraction from Symbiotic Microbes. Microorganisms 2018 , 6 , 95. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Richardson, A.E. Soil microorganisms and phosphorus availability. In Soil Biota: Management in Sustainable Farming Systems ; CSIRO Information Services: Melbourne, Australia, 1994; pp. 50–62. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jacoby, R.; Peukert, M.; Succurro, A.; Koprivova, A.; Kopriva, S. The role of soil microorganisms in plant mineral nutrition—Current knowledge and future directions. Front. Plant Sci. 2017 , 8 , 1617. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Abdel-Lateif, K.; Bogusz, D.; Hocher, V. The role of flavonoids in the establishment of plant roots endosymbioses with arbuscular mycorrhiza fungi, rhizobia and Frankia bacteria. Plant Signal. Behav. 2012 , 7 , 636–641. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Hassan, S.; Mathesius, U. The role of flavonoids in root–rhizosphere signalling: Opportunities and challenges for improving plant–microbe interactions. J. Exp. Bot. 2012 , 63 , 3429–3444. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Fierer, N.; Leff, J.W.; Adams, B.J.; Nielsen, U.N.; Bates, S.T.; Lauber, C.L.; Owens, S.; Gilbert, J.A.; Wall, D.H.; Caporaso, J.G. Cross-biome metagenomic analyses of soil microbial communities and their functional attributes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012 , 109 , 21390–21395. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Marschener, H. Role of root growth, arbuscular mycorrhiza, and root exudates for the efficiency in nutrient acquisition. Field Crop. Res. 1998 , 56 , 203–207. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Degens, B.P. Macro-aggregation of soils by biological bonding and binding mechanisms and the factors affecting these: A review. Soil Res. 1997 , 35 , 431. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, F.; Xue, C.; Qiu, P.; Liu, Y.; Shi, J.; Shen, B.; Yang, X.; Shen, Q. Soil aggregate size mediates the responses of microbial communities to crop rotation. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2018 , 88 , 48–56. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rashid, M.I.; Mujawar, L.H.; Shahzad, T.; Almeelbi, T.; Ismail, I.M.; Oves, M. Bacteria and fungi can contribute to nutrients bioavailability and aggregate formation in degraded soils. Microbiol. Res. 2016 , 183 , 26–41. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tang, J.; Mo, Y.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, R. Influence of biological aggregating agents associated with microbial population on soil aggregate stability. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2011 , 47 , 153–159. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Baumert, V.L.; Vasilyeva, N.; Vladimirov, A.A.; Meier, I.C.; Kögel-Knabner, I.; Mueller, C.W. Root Exudates Induce Soil Macroaggregation Facilitated by Fungi in Subsoil. Front. Environ. Sci. 2018 , 6 , 140. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rillig, M.C.; Wright, S.F.; Eviner, V. The role of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and glomalin in soil aggregation: Comparing effects of five plant species. Plant Soil 2002 , 238 , 325–333. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Egamberdiyeva, D. The effect of plant growth promoting bacteria on growth and nutrient uptake of maize in two different soils. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2007 , 36 , 184–189. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Santoyo, G.; Orozco-Mosqueda, M.D.; Govindappa, M. Mechanisms of biocontrol and plant growth-promoting activity in soil bacterial species of Bacillus and Pseudomonas: A review. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2012 , 22 , 855–872. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bitas, V.; Kim, H.-S.; Bennett, J.W.; Kang, S. Sniffing on Microbes: Diverse Roles of Microbial Volatile Organic Compounds in Plant Health. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 2013 , 26 , 835–843. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Knowles, C.J. Microorganisms and cyanide. Bacteriol. Rev. 1976 , 40 , 652–680. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Harman, G.E.; Uphoff, N. Symbiotic Root-Endophytic Soil Microbes Improve Crop Productivity and Provide Environmental Benefits. Scientifica 2019 , 2019 , 9106395. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Mo, Y.; Wang, Y.; Yang, R.; Zheng, J.; Liu, C.; Li, H.; Ma, J.; Zhang, Y.; Wei, C.; Zhang, X. Regulation of Plant Growth, Photosynthesis, Antioxidation and Osmosis by an Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungus in Watermelon Seedlings under Well-Watered and Drought Conditions. Front. Plant Sci. 2016 , 7 , 644. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Panhwar, Q.A.; Radziah, O.; Zaharah, A.R.; Sariah, M.; Razi, I.M. Role of phosphate solubilizing bacteria on rock phosphate solubility and growth of aerobic rice. J. Environ. Biol. 2011 , 32 , 607. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
• Wu, F.; Li, J.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, S.; Shi, X.; Li, L.; Liang, J. Effects of Phosphate Solubilizing Bacteria on the Growth, Photosynthesis, and Nutrient Uptake of Camellia oleifera Abel. Forests 2019 , 10 , 348. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Tsiafouli, M.A.; Thébault, E.; Sgardelis, S.P.; de Ruiter, P.C.; van der Putten, W.H.; Birkhofer, K.; Hemerik, L.; de Vries, F.T.; Bardgett, R.D.; Brady, M.V.; et al. Intensive agriculture reduces soil biodiversity across Europe. Glob. Change Biol. 2014 , 21 , 973–985. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• DeBruyn, J.M.; Nixon, L.T.; Fawaz, M.N.; Johnson, A.M.; Radosevich, M. Global biogeography and quantitative seasonal dy-namics of Gemmatimonadetes in soil. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2011 , 77 , 6295–6300. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Ashworth, A.; DeBruyn, J.; Allen, F.; Radosevich, M.; Owens, P. Microbial community structure is affected by cropping sequences and poultry litter under long-term no-tillage. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2017 , 114 , 210–219. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• D’Acunto, L.; Andrade, J.F.; Poggio, S.L.; Semmartin, M. Diversifying crop rotation increased metabolic soil diversity and activity of the microbial community. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018 , 257 , 159–164. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim, N.; Zabaloy, M.C.; Guan, K.; Villamil, M.B. Do cover crops benefit soil microbiome? A meta-analysis of current research. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2020 , 142 , 107701. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Drost, S.M.; Rutgers, M.; Wouterse, M.; de Boer, W.; Bodelier, P.L. Decomposition of mixtures of cover crop residues increases microbial functional diversity. Geoderma 2019 , 361 , 114060. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dos Santos Cordeiro, C.F.; Echer, F.R.; Araujo, F.F. Cover crops impact crops yields by improving microbiological activity and fertility in sandy soil. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2021 , 21 , 1968–1977. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Carrera, L.; Buyer, J.; Vinyard, B.; Abdul-Baki, A.; Sikora, L.; Teasdale, J. Effects of cover crops, compost, and manure amendments on soil microbial community structure in tomato production systems. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2007 , 37 , 247–255. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Daryanto, S.; Fu, B.; Wang, L.; Jacinthe, P.-A.; Zhao, W. Quantitative synthesis on the ecosystem services of cover crops. Earth Sci. Rev. 2018 , 185 , 357–373. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thapa, V.; Ghimire, R.; Marsalis, M. Cover Crops for Resilience of a Limited-Irrigation Winter Wheat–Sorghum–Fallow Rotation: Soil Carbon, Nitrogen, and Sorghum Yield Responses. Agronomy 2021 , 11 , 762. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wortman, S.E.; Francis, C.A.; Lindquist, J.L. Cover Crop Mixtures for the Western Corn Belt: Opportunities for Increased Productivity and Stability. Agron. J. 2012 , 104 , 699–705. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Hagan, J.G.; Vanschoenwinkel, B.; Gamfeldt, L. We should not necessarily expect positive relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in observational field data. Ecol. Lett. 2021 , 24 , 2537–2548. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Finney, D.; Buyer, J.; Kaye, J. Living cover crops have immediate impacts on soil microbial community structure and function. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2017 , 72 , 361–373. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Gentsch, N.; Boy, J.; Batalla, J.D.; Heuermann, D.; von Wirén, N.; Schweneker, D.; Feuerstein, U.; Groß, J.; Bauer, B.; Reinhold-Hurek, B.; et al. Catch crop diversity increases rhizosphere carbon input and soil microbial biomass. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2020 , 56 , 943–957. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, Q.; Wang, X.; Shen, Y.; Philp, J. Functional diversity of soil microbial communities in response to tillage and crop residue retention in an eroded Loess soil. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2013 , 59 , 311–321. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Hoyle, F.; Murphy, D.; Fillery, I. Temperature and stubble management influence microbial CO2–C evolution and gross N transformation rates. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2006 , 38 , 71–80. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Govaerts, B.; Mezzalama, M.; Unno, Y.; Sayre, K.D.; Luna-Guido, M.; Vanherck, K.; Dendooven, L.; Deckers, J. Influence of tillage, residue management, and crop rotation on soil microbial biomass and catabolic diversity. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2007 , 37 , 18–30. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nannipieri, P.; Kandeler, E.; Ruggiero, P. Enzyme activities and microbiological and biochemical processes in soil. In Enzymes in the Environment ; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2002; pp. 1–33. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang, P.; Chen, X.; Wei, T.; Yang, Z.; Jia, Z.; Yang, B.; Han, Q.; Ren, X. Effects of straw incorporation on the soil nutrient contents, enzyme activities, and crop yield in a semiarid region of China. Soil Tillage Res. 2016 , 160 , 65–72. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Balota, E.L.; Calegari, A.; Nakatani, A.S.; Coyne, M.S. Benefits of winter cover crops and no-tillage for microbial parameters in a Brazilian Oxisol: A long-term study. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014 , 197 , 31–40. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Borase, D.; Nath, C.; Hazra, K.; Senthilkumar, M.; Singh, S.; Praharaj, C.; Singh, U.; Kumar, N. Long-term impact of diversified crop rotations and nutrient management practices on soil microbial functions and soil enzymes activity. Ecol. Indic. 2020 , 114 , 106322. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mendes, I.C.; Bandick, A.K.; Dick, R.P.; Bottomley, P.J. Microbial Biomass and Activities in Soil Aggregates Affected by Winter Cover Crops. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1999 , 63 , 873–881. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sainju, U.; Whitehead, W.F.; Singh, B.P. Cover crops and nitrogen fertilization effects on soil aggregation and carbon and nitrogen pools. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2003 , 83 , 155–165. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jiang, X.; Wright, A.; Wang, J.; Li, Z. Long-term tillage effects on the distribution patterns of microbial biomass and activities within soil aggregates. Catena 2011 , 87 , 276–280. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nakamoto, T.; Komatsuzaki, M.; Hirata, T.; Araki, H. Effects of tillage and winter cover cropping on microbial substrate-induced respiration and soil aggregation in two Japanese fields. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2012 , 58 , 70–82. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Morugán-Coronado, A.; Pérez-Rodríguez, P.; Insolia, E.; Soto-Gómez, D.; Fernández-Calviño, D.; Zornoza, R. The impact of crop diversification, tillage and fertilization type on soil total microbial, fungal and bacterial abundance: A worldwide meta-analysis of agricultural sites. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2022 , 329 , 107867. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Andrade, D.S.; Colozzi-Filho, A.; Giller, K. The soil microbial community and soil tillage. In Soil Tillage in Agroecosystems ; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2003; pp. 51–81. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vázquez, E.; Benito, M.; Espejo, R.; Teutscherova, N. No-tillage and liming increase the root mycorrhizal colonization, plant biomass and N content of a mixed oat and vetch crop. Soil Tillage Res. 2020 , 200 , 104623. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Doran, J.W. Microbial biomass and mineralizable nitrogen distributions in no-tillage and plowed soils. Biol. Fertil. Soils 1987 , 5 , 68–75. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Beare, M.H.; Parmelee, R.W.; Hendrix, P.F.; Cheng, W.; Coleman, D.C.; Crossley, D.A., Jr. Microbial and faunal interactions and effects on litter nitrogen and decomposition in agroecosystems. Ecol. Monogr. 1992 , 62 , 569–591. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Gupta, V.V.; Roper, M.M.; Kirkegaard, J.A.; Angus, J.F. Changes in microbial biomass and organic matter levels during the first year of modified tillage and stubble management practices on a red earth. Soil Res. 1994 , 32 , 1339–1354. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bell, J.M.; Smith, J.L.; Bailey, V.L.; Bolton, H. Priming effect and C storage in semi-arid no-till spring crop rotations. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2003 , 37 , 237–244. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Six, J.; Frey, S.D.; Thiet, R.K.; Batten, K.M. Bacterial and Fungal Contributions to Carbon Sequestration in Agroecosystems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2006 , 70 , 555–569. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bailey, V.L.; Smith, J.L.; Bolton, H., Jr. Fungal-to-bacterial ratios in soils investigated for enhanced C sequestration. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2002 , 34 , 997–1007. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pankhurst, C.; Kirkby, C.; Hawke, B.; Harch, B. Impact of a change in tillage and crop residue management practice on soil chemical and microbiological properties in a cereal-producing red duplex soil in NSW, Australia. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2002 , 35 , 189–196. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yakhin, O.I.; Lubyanov, A.A.; Yakhin, I.A.; Brown, P.H. Biostimulants in Plant Science: A Global Perspective. Front. Plant Sci. 2017 , 7 , 2049. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Rouphael, Y.; Colla, G. Editorial: Biostimulants in Agriculture. Front. Plant Sci. 2020 , 11 , 40. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Abbott, L.K.; Macdonald, L.M.; Wong, M.T.; Webb, M.J.; Jenkins, S.N.; Farrell, M. Potential roles of biological amendments for profitable grain production—A review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018 , 256 , 34–50. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Anon. 2021. Available online: https://www.meticulousresearch.com/product/biostimulants-market-5057 (accessed on 7 July 2022).
• Laurent, E.-A.; Ahmed, N.; Durieu, C.; Grieu, P.; Lamaze, T. Marine and fungal biostimulants improve grain yield, nitrogen absorption and allocation in durum wheat plants. J. Agric. Sci. 2020 , 158 , 279–287. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Parađiković, N.; Vinković, T.; Vinković Vrček, I.; Žuntar, I.; Bojić, M.; Medić-Šarić, M. Effect of natural biostimulants on yield and nutritional quality: An example of sweet yellow pepper ( Capsicum annuum L.) plants. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2011 , 91 , 2146–2152. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kocira, S. Effect of amino acid biostimulant on the yield and nutraceutical potential of soybean. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2019 , 79 , 17–25. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Popko, M.; Michalak, I.; Wilk, R.; Gramza, M.; Chojnacka, K.; Górecki, H. Effect of the New Plant Growth Biostimulants Based on Amino Acids on Yield and Grain Quality of Winter Wheat. Molecules 2018 , 23 , 470. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Wang, S.; Tian, X.; Liu, Q. The Effectiveness of Foliar Applications of Zinc and Biostimulants to Increase Zinc Concentration and Bioavailability of Wheat Grain. Agronomy 2020 , 10 , 178. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Powlson, D.; Cai, Z.; Lemanceau, P. Soil Carbon Dynamics and Nutrient Cycling. Soil Carbon Sci. Manag. Policy Mult. Benefits 2014 , 71 , 98. [ Google Scholar ]
• Devi, Y.B.; Meetei, T.T.; Kumari, N. Impact of Pesticides on Soil Microbial Diversity and Enzymes: A Review. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2018 , 7 , 952–958. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Karas, P.; Baguelin, C.; Pertile, G.; Papadopoulou, E.; Nikolaki, S.; Storck, V.; Ferrari, F.; Trevisan, M.; Ferrarini, A.; Fornasier, F.; et al. Assessment of the impact of three pesticides on microbial dynamics and functions in a lab-to-field experimental approach. Sci. Total. Environ. 2018 , 637–638 , 636–646. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sánchez-Bayo, F. Indirect Effect of Pesticides on Insects and Other Arthropods. Toxics 2021 , 9 , 177. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kuthubutheen, A.; Pugh, G. The effects of fungicides on soil fungal populations. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1979 , 11 , 297–303. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kosel, K.; Collins, H. Foliar Fungicides Reduce Short Term Non-Target Soil Microbial Activity and Community Structure. FASEB J. 2020 , 34 , 1. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, X.; Lu, Z.; Miller, H.; Liu, J.; Hou, Z.; Liang, S.; Zhao, X.; Zhang, H.; Borch, T. Fungicide azoxystrobin induced changes on the soil microbiome. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2019 , 145 , 103343. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, C.; Zhou, T.; Zhu, L.; Juhasz, A.; Du, Z.; Li, B.; Wang, J.; Wang, J. Response of soil microbes after direct contact with py-raclostrobin in fluvo-aquic soil. Environ. Pollut. 2019 , 255 , 113164. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Katsoula, A.; Vasileiadis, S.; Sapountzi, M.; Karpouzas, D.G. The response of soil and phyllosphere microbial communities to repeated application of the fungicide iprodione: Accelerated biodegradation or toxicity? FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2020 , 96 , fiaa056. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wu, X.; Yin, Y.; Wang, S.; Yu, Y. Accumulation of chlorothalonil and its metabolite, 4-hydroxychlorothalonil, in soil after repeated applications and its effects on soil microbial activities under greenhouse conditions. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2013 , 21 , 3452–3459. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schreiner, R.P.; Bethlenfalvay, G.J. Mycorrhizae, biocides, and biocontrol 3. Effects of three different fungicides on developmental stages of three AM fungi. Biol. Fertil. Soils 1997 , 24 , 18–26. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Channabasava, A.; Lakshman, H.; Jorquera, M. Effect of fungicides on association of arbuscular mycorrhiza fungus Rhizophagus fasciculatus and growth of Proso millet ( Panicum miliaceum L.). J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2015 , 15 , 35–45. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Ding, H.; Zheng, X.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, Y.; Yu, J.; Chen, D. Influence of chlorothalonil and carbendazim fungicides on the transformation processes of urea nitrogen and related microbial populations in soil. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019 , 26 , 31133–31141. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wilson, G.; Williamson, M. Topsin-M: The new benomyl for mycorrhizal-suppression experiments. Mycologia 2008 , 100 , 548–554. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Madhaiyan, M.; Poonguzhali, S.; Hari, K.; Saravanan, V.; Sa, T. Influence of pesticides on the growth rate and plant-growth promoting traits of Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus . Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2006 , 84 , 143–154. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sarnaik, S.S.; Kanekar, P.P.; Raut, V.M.; Taware, S.P.; Chavan, K.S.; Bhadbhade, B.J. Effect of application of different pesticides to soybean on the soil microflora. J. Environ. Biol. 2006 , 27 , 423–426. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tang, T.; Chen, G.; Liu, F.; Bu, C.; Liu, L.; Zhao, X. Effects of transgenic glufosinate-tolerant rapeseed ( Brassica napus L.) and the associated herbicide application on rhizospheric bacterial communities. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2019 , 106 , 246–252. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Khan, M.S.; Zaidi, A.; Rizvi, P.Q. Biotoxic Effects of Herbicides on Growth, Nodulation, Nitrogenase Activity, and Seed Production in Chickpeas. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2006 , 37 , 1783–1793. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Treseder, K.K.; Allen, M.F. Direct nitrogen and phosphorus limitation of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi: A model and field test. N. Phytol. 2002 , 155 , 507–515. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Ge, Y.; Zhang, J.-B.; Zhang, L.; Yang, M.; He, J.-Z. Long-term fertilization regimes affect bacterial community structure and diversity of an agricultural soil in northern China. J. Soils Sediments 2008 , 8 , 43–50. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Verbruggen, E.; Heijden, M.G.A.; Rillig, M.C.; Kiers, E.T. Mycorrhizal fungal establishment in agricultural soils: Factors determining inoculation success. N. Phytol. 2012 , 197 , 1104–1109. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Albizua, A.; Williams, A.; Hedlund, K.; Pascual, U. Crop rotations including ley and manure can promote ecosystem services in conventional farming systems. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2015 , 95 , 54–61. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tian, H.; Drijber, R.; Zhang, J.; Li, X. Impact of long-term nitrogen fertilization and rotation with soybean on the diversity and phosphorus metabolism of indigenous arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi within the roots of maize ( Zea mays L.). Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2013 , 164 , 53–61. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Williams, A.; Börjesson, G.; Hedlund, K. The effects of 55 years of different inorganic fertiliser regimes on soil properties and microbial community composition. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2013 , 67 , 41–46. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wuest, S.B.; Caesar-TonThat, T.; Wright, S.F.; Williams, J.D. Organic matter addition, N, and residue burning effects on infiltration, biological, and physical properties of an intensively tilled silt-loam soil. Soil Tillage Res. 2005 , 84 , 154–167. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Feldman, E.V. Impact of Nitrogen Fertilization on Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Abundance in Association with Panicum Virgatum. Inq. J. 2015 , 7 . Available online: http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=1184 (accessed on 30 November 2022).
• Olsson, P.A.; Baath, E.; Jakobsen, I. Phosphorus effects on the mycelium and storage structures of an arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus as studied in the soil and roots by analysis of Fatty Acid signatures. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1997 , 63 , 3531–3538. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Nagahashi, G.; Douds, D.D. Partial separation of root exudate components and their effects upon the growth of germinated spores of AM fungi. Mycol. Res. 2000 , 104 , 1453–1464. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bünemann, E.K.; Schwenke, G.D.; Van Zwieten, L. Impact of agricultural inputs on soil organisms—a review. Soil Res. 2006 , 44 , 379–406. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Cheng, Y.; Ishimoto, K.; Kuriyama, Y.; Osaki, M.; Ezawa, T. Ninety-year-, but not single, application of phosphorus fertilizer has a major impact on arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal communities. Plant Soil 2012 , 365 , 397–407. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Williams, A.; Manoharan, L.; Rosenstock, N.P.; Olsson, P.A.; Hedlund, K. Long-term agricultural fertilization alters arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal community composition and barley ( Hordeum vulgare ) mycorrhizal carbon and phosphorus exchange. N. Phytol. 2017 , 213 , 874–885. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, G.M.; Stribley, D.P.; Tinker, P.B.; Walker, C. Effects of pH on arbuscular mycorrhiza I. Field observations on the long-term liming experiments at Rothamsted and Woburn. N. Phytol. 1993 , 124 , 465–472. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rousk, J.; Brookes, P.C.; Bååth, E. The microbial PLFA composition as affected by pH in an arable soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2010 , 42 , 516–520. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Klironomos, J.N.; Hart, M.M.; Gurney, J.E.; Moutoglis, P. Interspecific differences in the tolerance of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi to freezing and drying. Can. J. Bot. 2001 , 79 , 1161–1166. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gai, J.P.; Cai, X.B.; Feng, G.; Christie, P.; Li, X.L. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi associated with sedges on the Tibetan plateau. Mycorrhiza 2006 , 16 , 151–157. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Smith, S.E.; Read, D.J. Mycorrhizal Symbiosis ; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kobae, Y.; Ohmori, Y.; Saito, C.; Yano, K.; Ohtomo, R.; Fujiwara, T. Phosphate treatment strongly inhibits new arbuscule de-velopment but not the maintenance of arbuscule in mycorrhizal rice roots. Plant Physiol. 2016 , 171 , 566–579. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Corkidi, L.; Rowland, D.L.; Johnson, N.C.; Allen, E.B. Nitrogen fertilization alters the functioning of arbuscular mycorrhizas at two semiarid grasslands. Plant Soil 2002 , 240 , 299–310. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lin, X.; Feng, Y.; Zhang, H.; Chen, R.; Wang, J.; Zhang, J.; Chu, H. Long-term balanced fertilization decreases arbuscular my-corrhizal fungal diversity in an arable soil in North China revealed by 454 pyrosequencing. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012 , 46 , 5764–5771. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Weese, D.J.; Heath, K.D.; Dentinger, B.T.; Lau, J.A. Long-term nitrogen addition causes the evolution of less-cooperative mutu-alists. Evolution 2015 , 69 , 631–642. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Huang, R.; McGrath, S.P.; Hirsch, P.R.; Clark, I.M.; Storkey, J.; Wu, L.; Zhou, J.; Liang, Y. Plant–microbe networks in soil are weakened by century-long use of inorganic fertilizers. Microb. Biotechnol. 2019 , 12 , 1464–1475. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Riah, W.; Laval, K.; Laroche-Ajzenberg, E.; Mougin, C.; Latour, X.; Trinsoutrot-Gattin, I. Effects of pesticides on soil enzymes: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2014 , 12 , 257–273. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Atlas, R.; Pramer, D.; Bartha, R. Assessment of pesticide effects on non-target soil microorganisms. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1978 , 10 , 231–239. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kinney, C.A.; Mandernack, K.W.; Mosier, A.R. Laboratory investigations into the effects of the pesticides mancozeb, chlorothalonil, and prosulfuron on nitrous oxide and nitric oxide production in fertilized soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2005 , 37 , 837–850. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Edlinger, A.; Garland, G.; Hartman, K.; Banerjee, S.; Degrune, F.; García-Palacios, P.; Hallin, S.; Valzano-Held, A.; Herzog, C.; Jansa, J.; et al. Agricultural management and pesticide use reduce the functioning of beneficial plant symbionts. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2022 , 6 , 1145–1154. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chumley, H.; Hewlings, S. The effects of elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide [CO2] on micronutrient concentration, specifically iron (Fe) and zinc (Zn) in rice—A systematic review. J. Plant Nutr. 2020 , 43 , 1571–1578. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marler, J.B.; Wallin, J.R. Human Health, the Nutritional Quality of Harvested Food and Sustainable Farming Systems ; Nutrition Security Institute: Bellevue, WA, USA, 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marles, R.J. Mineral nutrient composition of vegetables, fruits and grains: The context of reports of apparent historical declines. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2017 , 56 , 93–103. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mayer, A.-M.B.; Trenchard, L.; Rayns, F. Historical changes in the mineral content of fruit and vegetables in the UK from 1940 to 2019: A concern for human nutrition and agriculture. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021 , 73 , 315–326. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cunningham, J.; Milligan, G.; Trevisan, L. Minerals in Australian Fruits and Vegetables ; Food Standards Australia New Zealand: Canberra, Australia, 2001. Available online: http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/publications/documents/minerals_report.pdf (accessed on 21 April 2022).
• Fan, M.-S.; Zhao, F.-J.; Fairweather-Tait, S.J.; Poulton, P.R.; Dunham, S.J.; McGrath, S.P. Evidence of decreasing mineral density in wheat grain over the last 160 years. J. Trace Elem. Med. Biol. 2008 , 22 , 315–324. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Fan, M.-S.; Zhao, F.-J.; Poulton, P.R.; McGrath, S. Historical changes in the concentrations of selenium in soil and wheat grain from the Broadbalk experiment over the last 160 years. Sci. Total. Environ. 2008 , 389 , 532–538. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• McIntyre, B.; Bouldin, D.; Urey, G.; Kizito, F. Modeling cropping strategies to improve human nutrition in Uganda. Agric. Syst. 2001 , 67 , 105–120. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Welch, R.M.; Graham, R.D. Agriculture: The real nexus for enhancing bioavailable micronutrients in food crops. J. Trace Elem. Med. Biol. 2005 , 18 , 299–307. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gregory, P.J.; Wahbi, A.; Adu-Gyamfi, J.; Heiling, M.; Gruber, R.; Joy, E.J.; Broadley, M.R. Approaches to reduce zinc and iron deficits in food systems. Glob. Food Secur. 2017 , 15 , 1–10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• McConkey, B.G.; Curtin, D.; A Campbell, C.; A Brandt, S.; Selles, F. Crop and soil nitrogen status of tilled and no-tillage systems in semiarid regions of Saskatchewan. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2002 , 82 , 489–498. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mustafa, M.A.; Mabhaudhi, T.; Massawe, F. Building a resilient and sustainable food system in a changing world—A case for climate-smart and nutrient dense crops. Glob. Food Secur. 2020 , 28 , 100477. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Delgado, J.A.; Groffman, P.M.; Nearing, M.A.; Goddard, T.; Reicosky, D.; Lal, R.; Kitchen, N.R.; Rice, C.W.; Towery, D.; Salon, P. Conservation practices to mitigate and adapt to climate change. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2011 , 66 , 118A–129A. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Albrecht, A.; Kandji, S.T. Carbon sequestration in tropical agroforestry systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2003 , 99 , 15–27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tiefenbacher, A.; Sandén, T.; Haslmayr, H.-P.; Miloczki, J.; Wenzel, W.; Spiegel, H. Optimizing Carbon Sequestration in Croplands: A Synthesis. Agronomy 2021 , 11 , 882. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Panchasara, H.; Samrat, N.; Islam, N. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trends and Mitigation Measures in Australian Agriculture Sector—A Review. Agriculture 2021 , 11 , 85. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Olander, L.; Wollenberg, E.; Tubiello, F.; Herold, M. Advancing agricultural greenhouse gas quantification. Environ. Res. Lett. 2013 , 8 , 011002. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dickie, A.; Streck, C.; Roe, S. Strategies for Mitigating Climate Change in Agriculture: Recommendations for Philanthropy—Executive Summary. Climate Focus and California Environmental Associates, Prepared with the Support of the Climate and Land Use Alliance. 2014. Available online: www.agriculturalmitigation.org (accessed on 20 October 2022).
• Paustian, K.; Collier, S.; Baldock, J.; Burgess, R.; Creque, J.; DeLonge, M.; Dungait, J.; Ellert, B.; Frank, S.; Goddard, T.; et al. Quantifying carbon for agricultural soil management: From the current status toward a global soil information system. Carbon Manag. 2019 , 10 , 567–587. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Wiesmeier, M.; Urbanski, L.; Hobley, E.; Lang, B.; von Lützow, M.; Marin-Spiotta, E.; van Wesemael, B.; Rabot, E.; Ließ, M.; Garcia-Franco, N.; et al. Soil organic carbon storage as a key function of soils—A review of drivers and indicators at various scales. Geoderma 2018 , 333 , 149–162. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Smith, P.; Soussana, J.-F.; Angers, D.; Schipper, L.; Chenu, C.; Rasse, D.P.; Batjes, N.H.; van Egmond, F.; McNeill, S.; Kuhnert, M.; et al. How to measure, report and verify soil carbon change to realize the potential of soil carbon sequestration for atmospheric greenhouse gas removal. Glob. Change Biol. 2020 , 26 , 219–241. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Kenne, G.J.; Kloot, R.W. The Carbon Sequestration Potential of Regenerative Farming Practices in South Carolina, USA. Am. J. Clim. Change 2019 , 8 , 157–172. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Jordon, M.W.; Smith, P.; Long, P.R.; Bürkner, P.-C.; Petrokofsky, G.; Willis, K.J. Can Regenerative Agriculture increase national soil carbon stocks? Simulated country-scale adoption of reduced tillage, cover cropping, and ley-arable integration using RothC. Sci. Total. Environ. 2022 , 825 , 153955. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bennett, A. A Review of the Economics of Regenerative Agriculture in Western Australia. Available online: https://library.dpird.wa.gov.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1171&context=pubns (accessed on 15 February 2022).
• Hayward, C.T. The Financial Implications of Regenerative Agriculture in the Southern Cape and the Subsequent Impact on Future Animal and Winter Cereal Crop Production. Ph.D. Thesis, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa, March 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown, K.; Schirmer, J.; Upton, P. Can regenerative agriculture support successful adaptation to climate change and im-proved landscape health through building farmer self-efficacy and wellbeing? Curr. Res. Environ. Sustain. 2022 , 4 , 100170. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schulte, L.A.; Dale, B.E.; Bozzetto, S.; Liebman, M.; Souza, G.M.; Haddad, N.; Richard, T.L.; Basso, B.; Brown, R.C.; Hilbert, J.A.; et al. Meeting global challenges with regenerative agriculture producing food and energy. Nat. Sustain. 2021 , 5 , 384–388. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Khangura, R.; Ferris, D.; Wagg, C.; Bowyer, J. Regenerative Agriculture—A Literature Review on the Practices and Mechanisms Used to Improve Soil Health. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 2338. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032338

Khangura R, Ferris D, Wagg C, Bowyer J. Regenerative Agriculture—A Literature Review on the Practices and Mechanisms Used to Improve Soil Health. Sustainability . 2023; 15(3):2338. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032338

Khangura, Ravjit, David Ferris, Cameron Wagg, and Jamie Bowyer. 2023. "Regenerative Agriculture—A Literature Review on the Practices and Mechanisms Used to Improve Soil Health" Sustainability 15, no. 3: 2338. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032338

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Why Publish?
• About Research Evaluation
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

1. introduction, 2. analytical framework, 3. literature search, 5. discussion, 6. conclusion, acknowledgement.

• < Previous

Research impact assessment in agriculture—A review of approaches and impact areas

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Peter Weißhuhn, Katharina Helming, Johanna Ferretti, Research impact assessment in agriculture—A review of approaches and impact areas, Research Evaluation , Volume 27, Issue 1, January 2018, Pages 36–42, https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx034

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Research has a role to play in society’s endeavour for sustainable development. This is particularly true for agricultural research, since agriculture is at the nexus between numerous sustainable development goals. Yet, generally accepted methods for linking research outcomes to sustainability impacts are missing. We conducted a review of scientific literature to analyse how impacts of agricultural research were assessed and what types of impacts were covered. A total of 171 papers published between 2008 and 2016 were reviewed. Our analytical framework covered three categories: (1) the assessment level of research (policy, programme, organization, project, technology, or other); (2) the type of assessment method (conceptual, qualitative, or quantitative); and (3) the impact areas (economic, social, environmental, or sustainability). The analysis revealed that most papers (56%) addressed economic impacts, such as cost-effectiveness of research funding or macroeconomic effects. In total, 42% analysed social impacts, like food security or aspects of equity. Very few papers (2%) examined environmental impacts, such as climate effects or ecosystem change. Only one paper considered all three sustainability dimensions. We found a majority of papers assessing research impacts at the level of technologies, particularly for economic impacts. There was a tendency of preferring quantitative methods for economic impacts, and qualitative methods for social impacts. The most striking finding was the ‘blind eye’ towards environmental and sustainability implications in research impact assessments. Efforts have to be made to close this gap and to develop integrated research assessment approaches, such as those available for policy impact assessments.

Research has multiple impacts on society. In the light of the international discourse on grand societal challenges and sustainable development, the debate is reinforced about the role of research on economic growth, societal well-being, and environmental integrity ( 1 ). Research impact assessment (RIA) is a key instrument to exploring this role ( 2 ).

A number of countries have begun using RIA to base decisions for allocation of funding on it, and to justify the value of investments in research to taxpayers ( 3 ). The so-called scientometric assessments with a focus on bibliometric and exploitable results such as patents are the main basis for current RIA practices ( 4–6 ). However, neither academic values of science, based on the assumption of ‘knowledge as progress’, nor market values frameworks (‘profit as progress’) seem adequate for achieving and assessing broader public values ( 7 ). Those approaches do not explicitly acknowledge the contribution of research to solving societal challenges, although they are sufficient to measure scientific excellence ( 8 ) or academic impact.

RIA may however represent a vital element for designing socially responsible research processes with orientation towards responsibility for a sustainable development ( 9 , 10 ). In the past, RIAs occurred to focus on output indicators and on links between science and productivity while hardly exploring the wider societal impacts of science ( 11 ). RIA should entail the consideration of intended and non-intended, positive and negative, and long- and short-term impacts of research ( 12 ). Indeed, there has been a broadening of impact assessments to include, for example, cultural and social returns to society ( 13 ). RIA is conceptually and methodologically not yet sufficiently equipped to capture wider societal implications, though ( 14 ). This is due to the specific challenges associated with RIA, including inter alia unknown time lags between research processes and their impacts ( 15–17 ). Independent from their orientation, RIAs are likely to influence research policies for years to come ( 18 ).

Research on RIA and its potential to cover wider societal impacts has examined assessment methods and approaches in specific fields of research, and in specific research organizations. The European Science Foundation ( 19 ) and Guthrie et al. ( 20 ) provided overviews of a range of methods usable in assessment exercises. They discuss generic methods (e.g. economic analyses, surveys, and case studies) with view to their selection for RIAs. Methods need to fit the objectives of the assessment and the characteristics of the disciplines examined. Econometric methods consider the rate of return over investment ( 21 ), indicators for ‘productive interactions’ between the stakeholders try to capture the social impact of research ( 22 ), and case study-based approaches map the ‘public values’ of research programmes ( 8 , 23 ). No approach is generally favourable over another, while challenges exist in understanding which impact areas are relevant in what contexts. Penfield et al. ( 6 ) looked at the different methods and frameworks employed in assessment approaches worldwide, with a focus on the UK Research Excellence Framework. They argue that there is a need for RIA approaches based on types of impact rather than research discipline. They point to the need for tools and systems to assist in RIAs and highlight different types of information needed along the output-outcome-impact-chain to provide for a comprehensive assessment. In the field of public health research, a minority of RIAs exhibit a wider scope on impacts, and these studies highlight the relevance of case studies ( 24 ). However, case studies often rely on principal investigator interviews and/or peer review, not taking into account the views of end users. Evaluation practices in environment-related research organizations tend to focus on research uptake and management processes, but partially show a broader scope and longer-term outcomes. Establishing attribution of environmental research to different types of impacts was identified to be a key challenge ( 25 ). Other authors tested impact frameworks or impact patterns in disciplinary public research organizations. For example, Gaunand et al. ( 26 ) analysed an internal database of the French Agricultural research organization INRA with 1,048 entries to identify seven impact areas, with five going beyond traditional types of impacts (e.g. conservation of natural resources or scientific advice). Besides, for the case of agricultural research, no systematic review of RIA methods exists in the academic literature that would allow for an overview of available approaches covering different impact areas of research.

Against this background, the objective of this study was to review in how far RIAs of agricultural research capture wider societal implications. We understand agricultural research as being a prime example for the consideration of wider research impacts. This is because agriculture is a sector which has direct and severe implications for a range of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. It has a strong practice orientation and is just beginning to develop a common understanding of innovation processes ( 27 ).

The analysis of the identified literature on agricultural RIA (for details, see next section ‘Literature search’) built on a framework from a preliminary study presented at the ImpAR Conference 2015 ( 28 ). It was based on three categories to explore the impact areas that were addressed and the design of RIA. In particular, the analytical framework consisted of: ( 1 ) the assessment level of research; ( 2 ) the type of assessment method; and ( 3 ) the impact areas covered. On the side, we additionally explored the time dimension of RIA, i.e. whether the assessment was done ex ante or ex post (see Fig. 1 ).

Analytical framework for the review of non-scientometric impact assessment literature of agricultural research.

Agricultural research and the ramifications following from that refer to different levels of assessment (or levels of evaluation, ( 29 )). We defined six assessment levels that can be the subject of a RIA: policy, programme, organization, project, technology, and other. The assessment level of the RIA is a relevant category, since it shapes the approach to the RIA (e.g. the impact chain of a research project differs to that at policy level). The assessment level was clearly stated in all of the analysed papers and in no case more than one assessment level was addressed. Articles were assigned to the policy level, if a certain public technology policy ( 30 ) or science policy, implemented by governments to directly or indirectly affect the conduct of science, was considered. Exemplary topics are research funding, transfer of research results to application, or contribution to economic development. Research programmes were understood as instruments that are adopted by government departments, or other organizational entities to implement research policies and fund research activities in a specific research field (e.g. programmes to promote research on a certain crop or cultivation technique). Articles dealing with the organizational level assess the impact of research activities of a specific research organization. The term research organization comprises public or private research institutes, associations, networks, or partnerships (e.g. the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and its research centres). A research project is the level at which research is actually carried out, e.g. as part of a research programme. The assessment of a research project would consider the impacts of the whole project, from planning through implementation to evaluation instead of focusing on a specific project output, like a certain agricultural innovation. The technology level was considered to be complementary to the other assessment levels of research and comprises studies with a strong focus on specific agricultural machinery or other agricultural innovation such as new crops or crop rotations, fertilizer applications, pest control, or tillage practices, irrespective of the agricultural system (e.g. smallholder or high-technology farming, or organic, integrated, or conventional farming). The category ‘other’ included one article addressing RIA at the level of individual researchers (see ( 31 )).

We categorized the impact areas along the three dimensions of sustainable development by drawing upon the European Commission’s impact assessment guidelines (cf. ( 32 )). The guidelines entail a list of 7 environmental impacts, such as natural resource use, climate change, or aspects of nature conservation; 12 social impacts, such as employment and working conditions, security, education, or aspects of equity; and 10 economic impacts, including business competitiveness, increased trade, and several macroeconomic aspects. The European Commission’s impact assessment guidelines were used as a classification framework because it is one of the most advanced impact assessment frameworks established until to date ( 33 ). In addition, we opened a separate category for those articles exploring joint impacts on the three sustainability dimensions. Few articles addressed impacts in two sustainability dimensions which we assigned to the dominating impact area.

To categorize the type of RIA method, we distinguished between conceptual, qualitative, and quantitative. Conceptual analyses include the development of frameworks or concepts for measuring impacts of agricultural research (e.g. tracking of innovation pathways or the identification of barriers and supporting factors for impact generation). Qualitative and quantitative methods were identified by the use of qualitative data or quantitative data, respectively (cf. ( 34–36 )). Qualitative data can be scaled nominally or ordinally. It is generated by interviews, questionnaires, surveys or choice experiments to gauge stakeholder attitudes to new technologies, their willingness to pay, and their preference for adoption measures. The generation of quantitative data involves a numeric measurement in a standardized way. Such data are on a metric scale and are often used for modelling. The used categorization is rather simple. We assigned approaches which employed mixed-method approaches according to their dominant method. We preferred this over more sophisticated typologies to achieve a high level of abstraction and because the focus of our analysis was on impact areas rather than methods. However, to show consistencies with existing typologies of impact assessment methods ( 19 , 37 ), we provide an overview of the categorization chosen and give examples of the most relevant types of methods.

To additionally explore the approach of the assessment ( 38 ), the dimensions ex ante and ex post were identified. The two approaches are complementary: whereas ex ante impact assessments are usually conducted for strategic and planning purposes to set priorities, ex post impact assessments serve as accountability validation and control against a baseline. The studies in our sample that employed an ex ante approach to RIA usually made this explicit, while in the majority of ex post impact assessments, this was indicated rather implicitly.

This study was performed as a literature review based on Thomson Reuters Web of Science TM Core Collection, indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-Exp) and the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). The motivation for restricting the analysis to articles from ISI-listed journals was to stay within the boundaries of internationally accepted scientific quality management and worldwide access. The advantages of a search based on Elsevier’s Scopus ® (more journals and alternative publications, and more articles from social and health science covered) would not apply for this literature review, with regard to the drawbacks of an index system based on abstracts instead of citation indexes, which is not as transparent as the Core Collection regarding the database definable by the user. We selected the years of 2008 to mid-2016 for the analysis (numbers last updated on 2 June 2016) . First, because most performance-based funding systems have been introduced since 2000, allowing sufficient time for the RIA approaches to evolve and literature to be published. Secondly, in 2008 two key publications on RIA of agricultural research triggered the topic: Kelley, et al. ( 38 ) published the lessons learned from the Standing Panel on Impact Assessment of CGIAR; Watts, et al. ( 39 ) summarized several central pitfalls of impact assessment concerning agricultural research. We took these publications as a starting point for the literature search. We searched in TOPIC and therefore, the terms had to appear in the title, abstract, author keywords, or keywords plus ® . The search query 1 filtered for agricultural research in relation to research impact. To cover similar expressions, we used science, ‘R&D’, and innovation interchangeably with research, and we searched for assessment, evaluation, criteria, benefit, adoption, or adaptation of research.

We combined the TOPIC search with a less strict search query 2 in TITLE using the same groups of terms, as these searches contained approximately two-thirds non-overlapping papers. Together they consisted of 315 papers. Of these, we reviewed 282 after excluding all document types other than articles and reviews (19 papers were not peer-reviewed journal articles) and all papers not written in English language (14 papers). After going through them, 171 proved to be topic-relevant and were included in the analysis.

Analysis matrix showing the number of reviewed articles, each categorized to an assessment level and an impact area (social, economic, environmental, or all three (sustainability)). Additionally, the type of analytical method (conceptual, quantitative, and qualitative) is itemized

In the agricultural RIA, the core assessment level of the reviewed articles was technology (39%), while the other levels were almost equally represented (with the exception of ‘other’). Generally, most papers (56%) addressed economic research impacts, closely followed by social research impacts (42%); however, only three papers (2%) addressed environmental research impacts and only 1 of 171 papers addressed all three dimensions of sustainable development. Assessments at the level of research policy slightly emphasized social impacts over economic impacts (18 papers, or 58%), whereas assessments at the level of technology clearly focused primarily on economic impacts (46 papers, or 68%).

The methods used for agricultural RIA showed no preference for one method type (see Table 1 ). Approximately 31% of the papers assessed research impacts quantitatively, whereas 37% used qualitative methods. Conceptual considerations on research impact were applied by 32% of the studies. A noticeable high number of qualitative studies were conducted to assess social impacts. At the evaluation level of research policy and research programmes, we found a focus on quantitative methods, if economic impacts were assessed.

Overview on type of methods used for agricultural RIA

a Mix of conceptual and qualitative methods.

b Mix of conceptual, qualitative, and quantitative methods.

Additionally, 37 ex ante studies, compared to 134 ex post studies, revealed that the latter clearly dominated, but no robust relation to any other investigated characteristic was found. Of the three environmental impact studies, none assessed ex ante , while the one study exploring sustainability impacts did. The share of ex ante assessments regarding social impacts was very similar to those regarding economic impacts. Within the assessment levels of research (excluding ‘others’ with only one paper), no notable difference between the shares of ex ante assessments occurred as they ranged between 13 and 28%.

The most relevant outcome of the review analysis was that only 3 of the 171 papers focus on the environmental impacts of agricultural research. This seems surprising because agriculture is dependent on an intact environment. However, this finding is supported by two recent reviews: one from Bennett, et al. ( 40 ) and one from Maredia and Raitzer ( 41 ). Both note that not only international agricultural research in general but also research on natural resource management shows a lack regarding large-scale assessments of environmental impacts. The CGIAR also recognized the necessity to deepen the understanding of the environmental impacts of its work because RIAs had largely ignored environmental benefits ( 42 ).

A few papers explicitly include environmental impacts of research in addition to their main focus. Raitzer and Maredia ( 43 ) address water depletion, greenhouse gas emissions, and landscape effects; however, their overall focus is on poverty reduction. Ajayi et al. ( 44 ) report the improvement of soil physical properties and soil biodiversity from introducing fertilizer trees but predominantly measure economic and social effects. Cavallo, et al. ( 45 ) investigate users’ attitudes towards the environmental impact of agricultural tractors (considered as technological innovation) but do not measure the environmental impact. Briones, et al. ( 46 ) configure an environmental ‘modification’ of economic surplus analysis, but they do not prioritize environmental impacts.

Of course, the environmental impacts of agricultural practices were the topic of many studies in recent decades, such as Kyllmar, et al. ( 47 ), Skinner, et al. ( 48 ), Van der Werf and Petit ( 49 ), among many others. However, we found very little evidence for the impact of agricultural research on the environment. A study on environmental management systems that examined technology adoption rates though not the environmental impacts is exemplarily for this ( 50 ). One possible explanation is based on the observation made by Morris, et al. ( 51 ) and Watts, et al. ( 39 ). They see impact assessments tending to accentuate the success stories because studies are often commissioned strategically as to demonstrate a certain outcome. This would mean to avoid carving out negative environmental impacts that conflict with, when indicated, the positive economic or societal impacts of the assessed research activity. In analogy to policy impact assessments, this points to the need of incentives to equally explore intended and unintended, expected and non-expected impacts from scratch ( 52 ). From those tasked with an RIA, this again requires an open attitude in ‘doing RIA’ and towards the findings of their RIA.

Another possible explanation was given by Bennett, et al. ( 40 ): a lack of skills in ecology or environmental economics to cope with the technically complex and data-intensive integration of environmental impacts. Although such a lack of skills or data could also apply to social and economic impacts, continuous monitoring of environmental data related to agricultural practices is particularly scarce. A third possible explanation is a conceptual oversight, as environmental impacts may be thought to be covered by the plenty of environmental impact assessments of agricultural activities itself.

The impression of a ‘blind eye’ on the environment in agricultural RIA may change when publications beyond Web of Science TM Core Collection are considered ( 53 ) or sources other than peer-reviewed journal articles are analysed (e.g. reports; conference proceedings). See, for example, Kelley, et al. ( 38 ), Maredia and Pingali ( 54 ), or FAO ( 55 ). Additionally, scientific publications of the highest quality standard (indicated by reviews and articles being listed in the Web of Science TM Core Collection) seem to not yet reflect experiences and advancements from assessment applications on research and innovation policy that usually include the environmental impact ( 56 ).

Since their beginnings, RIAs have begun to move away from narrow exercises concerned with economic impacts ( 11 ) and expanded their scope to social impacts. However, we only found one sustainability approach in our review that would cover all three impact areas of agricultural research (see ( 57 )). In contrast, progressive approaches to policy impact assessment largely attempt to cover the full range of environmental, social, and economic impacts of policy ( 33 , 58 ). RIAs may learn from them.

Additionally, the focus of agricultural research on technological innovation seems evident. Although the word innovation is sometimes still used for new technology (as in ‘diffusion of innovations’), it is increasingly used for the process of technical and institutional change at the farm level and higher levels of impact. Technology production increasingly is embedded in innovation systems ( 59 ).

The review revealed a diversity of methods (see Table 2 ) applied in impact assessments of agricultural research. In the early phases of RIA, the methods drawn from agricultural economics were considered as good standard for an impact assessment of international agricultural research ( 39 ). However, quantitative methods most often address economic impacts. In addition, the reliability of assessments based on econometric models is often disputed because of strong relationships between modelling assumptions and respective results.

Regarding environmental (or sustainability) impacts of agricultural research, the portfolio of assessment methods could be extended by learning from RIAs in other impact areas. In our literature sample, only review, framework development (e.g. key barrier typologies, environmental costing, or payments for ecosystem services), life-cycle assessment, and semi-structured interviews were used for environmental impacts of agricultural research.

In total, 42 of the 171 analysed papers assessed the impact of participatory research. A co-management of public research acknowledges the influence of the surrounding ecological, social, and political system and allows different types of stakeholder knowledge to shape innovation ( 60 ). Schut, et al. ( 36 ) conceptualize an agricultural innovation support system, which considers multi-stakeholder dynamics next to multilevel interactions within the agricultural system and multiple dimensions of the agricultural problem. Another type of participation in RIAs is the involvement of stakeholders to the evaluation process. A comparatively low number of six papers considered participatory evaluation of research impact, of them three in combination with impact assessment of participatory research.

Approximately 22% of the articles in our sample on agricultural research reported that they conducted their assessments ex ante , but most studies were ex post assessments. Watts, et al. ( 39 ) considered ex ante impact assessment to be more instructive than ex post assessment because it can directly guide the design of research towards maximizing beneficial impacts. This is particularly true when an ex ante assessment is conducted as a comparative assessment comprising a set of alternative options ( 61 ).

Many authors of the studies analysed were not explicit about the time frames considered in their ex post studies. The potential latency of impacts from research points to the need for ex post (and ex ante) studies to account for and analyse longer time periods, either considering ‘decades’ ( 62 , 63 ) or a lag distribution covering up to 50 years, with a peak approximately in the middle of the impact period ( 64 ). This finding is in line with the perspective of impact assessments as an ongoing process throughout a project’s life cycle and not as a one-off process at the end ( 51 ). Nevertheless, ex post assessments are an important component of a comprehensive evaluation package, which includes ex ante impact assessment, impact pathway analysis, programme peer reviews, performance monitoring and evaluation, and process evaluations, among others ( 38 ).

RIA is conceptually and methodologically not yet sufficiently equipped to capture wider societal implications, though ( 14 ). This is due to the specific challenges associated with RIA, including inter alia unknown time lags between research processes and their impacts ( 15–17 ). Independent from their orientation, RIAs are likely to influence research policies for years to come ( 18 ).

However, in the cases in which a RIA is carried out, an increase in the positive impacts (or avoidance of negative impacts) of agricultural research does not follow automatically. Lilja and Dixon ( 65 ) state the following methodological reasons for the missing impact of impact studies: no accountability with internal learning, no developed scaling out, the overlap of monitoring and evaluation and impact assessment, the intrinsic nature of functional and empowering farmer participation, the persistent lack of widespread attention to gender, and the operational and political complexity of multi-stakeholder impact assessment. In contrast, a desired impact of research could be reached or boosted by specific measures without making an impact assessment at all. Kristjanson, et al. ( 66 ), for example, proposed seven framework conditions for agricultural research to bridge the gap between scientific knowledge and action towards sustainable development. RIA should develop into process-oriented evaluations, in contrast to outcome-oriented evaluation ( 67 ), for addressing the intended kind of impacts, the scope of assessment, and for choosing the appropriate assessment method ( 19 ).

This review aimed at providing an overview of impact assessment activities reported in academic agricultural literature with regard to their coverage of impact areas and type of assessment method used. We found a remarkable body of non-scientometric RIA at all evaluation levels of agricultural research but a major interest in economic impacts of new agricultural technologies. These are closely followed by an interest in social impacts at multiple assessments levels that usually focus on food security and poverty reduction and rely slightly more on qualitative assessment methods. In contrast, the assessment of the environmental impacts of agricultural research or comprehensive sustainability assessments was exceptionally limited. They may have been systematically overlooked in the past, for the reason of expected negative results, thought to be covered by other impact studies or methodological challenges. RIA could learn from user-oriented policy impact assessments that usually include environmental impacts. Frameworks for RIA should avoid narrowing the assessment focus and instead considering intended and unintended impacts in several impact areas equally. It seems fruitful to invest in assessment teams’ environmental analytic skills and to expand several of the already developed methods for economic or social impact to the environmental impacts. Only then, the complex and comprehensive contribution of agricultural research to sustainable development can be revealed.

The authors would like to thank Jana Rumler and Claus Dalchow for their support in the Web of Science analysis and Melanie Gutschker for her support in the quantitative literature analysis.

This work was supported by the project LIAISE (Linking Impact Assessment to Sustainability Expertise, www.liaisenoe.eu ), which was funded by Framework Programme 7 of the European Commission and co-funded by the Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research. The research was further inspired and supported by funding from the ‘Guidelines for Sustainability Management’ project for non-university research institutes in Germany (‘Leitfaden Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement’, BMBF grant 311 number 13NKE003A).

Seidl R. et al.  ( 2013 ) ‘ Science with Society in the Anthropocene ’, Ambio , 42 / 1 : 5 – 12 .

Google Scholar

OECD . ( 2010 ) ‘Performance-Based Funding for Public Research in Tertiary Education Institutions’, Workshop Proceedings ' 2010. Paris : Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development .

Hicks D. ( 2012 ) ‘ Performance-based University Research Funding Systems ’, Research Policy , 41 / 2 : 251 – 61 .

Martin B. R. ( 1996 ) ‘ The Use of Multiple Indicators in the Assessment of Basic Research ’, Scientometrics , 36 / 3 : 343 – 62 .

Moed H. F. , Halevi G. ( 2015 ) ‘ Multidimensional Assessment of Scholarly Research Impact ’, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 66 : 1988 – 2002 .

Penfield T. et al.  ( 2014 ) ‘ Assessment, Evaluations, and Definitions of Research Impact: A Review ’, Research Evaluation , 23 / 1 : 21 – 32 .

Meyer R. ( 2011 ) ‘ The Public Values Failures of Climate Science in the US ’, Minerva , 49 / 1 : 47 – 70 .

Bozeman B. , Sarewitz D. ( 2011 ) ‘ Public Value Mapping and Science Policy Evaluation ’, Minerva , 49 / 1 : 1 – 23 .

Helming K. et al.  ( 2016 ) ‘ Forschen für nachhaltige Entwicklung. Kriterien für gesellschaftlich verantwortliche Forschungsprozesse (Research for Sustainable Development. Criteria for Socially Responsible Research Processes) ’, GAIA , 25 / 3 : 161 – 5 .

Cagnin C. , Amanatidou E. , Keenan M. ( 2012 ) ‘ Orienting European Innovation Systems Towards Grand Challenges and the Roles that FTA Can Play ’, Science and Public Policy , 39 / 2 : 140 – 52 .

Godin B. , Doré C. ( 2004 ) Measuring the Impacts of Science: Beyond the Economic Dimension . Montréal (Québec) : Centre Urbanisation Culture Société (INRS) .

Ferretti J. et al.  ( 2016 ) Reflexionsrahmen für Forschen in gesellschaftlicher Verantwortung. (Framework for Reflecting Research in Societal Responsibility) . Berlin : Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) .

Jacobsson S. , Vico E. P. , Hellsmark H. ( 2014 ) ‘ The Many Ways of Academic Researchers: How is Science Made Useful? ’, Science and Public Policy , 41 : 641 – 57 .

Levitt R. et al.  ( 2010 ) Assessing the Impact of Arts and Humanities Research at the University of Cambridge . Cambridge : University of Cambridge .

Donovan C. ( 2011 ) ‘ State of the Art in Assessing Research Impact: Introduction to a Special Issue ’, Research Evaluation , 20 / 3 : 175 – 9 .

Ekboir J. ( 2003 ) ‘ Why Impact Analysis Should not be Used for Research Evaluation and what the Alternatives Are ’, Agricultural Systems , 78 / 2 : 166 – 84 .

Morton S. ( 2015 ) ‘ Progressing Research Impact Assessment: A ‘Contributions’ Approach ’, Research Evaluation , 24 : 405 – 19 .

Reinhardt A. ( 2013 ) ‘Different Pathways to Impact? “Impact” and Research Fund Allocation in Selected European Countries’, in Dean A. , Wykes M. , Stevens H. (eds) 7 Essays on Impact. DESCRIBE Project Report for Jisc , pp. 88 – 101 . Exeter : University of Exeter .

Google Preview

European Science Foundation . ( 2012 ) The Challenges of Impact Assessment. Working Group 2: Impact Assessment . Strasbourg : European Science Foundation .

Guthrie S. et al.  ( 2013 ) Measuring Research. A Guide to Research Evaluation Frameworks and Tools . Cambridge : RAND Corporation .

Alston J. M. et al.  ( 2011 ) ‘ The Economic Returns to US Public Agricultural Research ’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics , 93 / 5 : 1257 – 77 .

Spaapen J. , Drooge L. ( 2011 ) ‘ Introducing' Productive Interactions' in Social Impact Assessment ’, Research Evaluation , 20 / 3 : 211 – 18 .

Bozeman B. ( 2003 ) Public Value Mapping of Science Outcomes: Theory and Method . Washington : Center for Science, Policy and Outcomes .

Milat A. J. , Bauman A. E. , Redman S. ( 2015 ) ‘ A Narrative Review of Research Impact Assessment Models and Methods ’, Health Research Policy and Systems , 13 / 1 : 18.

Bell S. , Shaw B. , Boaz A. ( 2011 ) ‘ Real-world Approaches to Assessing the Impact of Environmental Research on Policy ’, Research Evaluation , 20 / 3 : 227 – 37 .

Gaunand A. et al.  ( 2015 ) ‘ How Does Public Agricultural Research Impact Society? A Characterization of Various Patterns ’, Research Policy , 44 / 4 : 849 – 61 .

Bokelmann W. et al.  ( 2012 ) Sector Study on the Analysis of the Innovation of German Agriculture (Sektorstudie zur Untersuchung des Innovationssystems der deutschen Landwirtschaft) . Berlin : Federal Office for Agriculture and Food (BLE) .

Weißhuhn P. , Helming K. ( 2015 ) ‘Methods for Assessing the Non-Scientometric Impacts of Agricultural Research: A Review’. In ImpAR Conference 2015: Impacts of Agricultural Research-Towards an Approach of Societal V alues. Paris: INRA.

European Science Foundation . ( 2009 ) Evaluation in National Research Funding Agencies: Approaches, Experiences and Case Studies . Strasbourg : European Science Foundation .

Bozeman B. ( 2000 ) ‘ Technology Transfer and Public Policy: A Review of Research and Theory ’, Research Policy , 29 / 4 : 627 – 55 .

Hummer K. E. , Hancock J. F. ( 2015 ) ‘ Vavilovian Centers of Plant Diversity: Implications and Impacts ’, Hortscience , 50 / 6 : 780 – 3 .

EC . ( 2015 ) Better Regulation “Toolbox” . Brussels : European Commission .

Helming K. et al.  ( 2013 ) ‘ Mainstreaming Ecosystem Services in European Policy Impact Assessment ’, Ecosystem Services in EIA and SEA , 40 : 82 – 7 .

Thapa D. B. et al.  ( 2009 ) ‘ Identifying Superior Wheat Cultivars in Participatory Research on Resource Poor Farms ’, Field Crops Research , 112 / 2–3 : 124 – 30 .

Holdsworth M. et al.  ( 2015 ) ‘ African Stakeholders' Views of Research Options to Improve Nutritional Status in Sub-Saharan Africa ’, Health Policy and Planning , 30 / 7 : 863 – 74 .

Schut M. et al.  ( 2015 ) ‘ RAAIS: Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Innovation Systems (Part I). A Diagnostic Tool for Integrated Analysis of Complex Problems and Innovation Capacity ’, Agricultural Systems , 132 : 1 – 11 .

Jones M. M. , Grant J. ( 2013 ) ’Making the Grade: Methodologies for assessing and evidencing research impact’. In Dean A. , Wykes M. , Stevens H. (eds) 7 Essays on Impact. DESCRIBE Project Report for Jisc , pp. 25 – 43 . Exeter : University of Exeter .

Kelley T. , Ryan J. , Gregersen H. ( 2008 ) ‘ Enhancing Ex Post Impact Assessment of Agricultural Research: The CGIAR Experience ’, Research Evaluation , 17 / 3 : 201 – 12 .

Watts J. et al.  ( 2008 ) ‘ Transforming Impact Assessment: Beginning the Quiet Revolution of Institutional Learning and Change ’, Experimental Agriculture , 44 / 1 : 21 – 35 .

Bennett J. W. , Kelley T. G. , Maredia M. K. ( 2012 ) ‘ Integration of Environmental Impacts Into Ex-post Assessments of International Agricultural Research: Conceptual Issues, Applications, and the Way Forward ’, Research Evaluation , 21 / 3 : 216 – 28 .

Maredia M. K. , Raitzer D. A. ( 2012 ) ‘ Review and Analysis of Documented Patterns of Agricultural Research Impacts in Southeast Asia ’, Agricultural Systems , 106 / 1 : 46 – 58 .

Renkow M. , Byerlee D. ( 2010 ) ‘ The Impacts of CGIAR Research: A Review of Recent Evidence ’, Food Policy , 35 / 5 : 391 – 402 .

Raitzer D. A. , Maredia M. K. ( 2012 ) ‘ Analysis of Agricultural Research Investment Priorities for Sustainable Poverty Reduction in Southeast Asia ’, Food Policy , 37 / 4 : 412 – 26 .

Ajayi O. C. et al.  ( 2011 ) ‘ Agricultural Success from Africa: The Case of Fertilizer Tree Systems in Southern Africa (Malawi, Tanzania, Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe) ’, International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability , 9 / 1 : 129 – 36 .

Cavallo E. et al.  ( 2014 ) ‘ Strategic Management Implications for the Adoption of Technological Innovations in Agricultural Tractor: The Role of Scale Factors and Environmental Attitude ’, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management , 26 / 7 : 765 – 79 .

Briones R. M. et al.  ( 2008 ) ‘ Priority Setting for Research on Aquatic Resources: An Application of Modified Economic Surplus Analysis to Natural Resource Systems ’, Agricultural Economics , 39 / 2 : 231 – 43 .

Kyllmar K. et al.  ( 2014 ) ‘ Small Agricultural Monitoring Catchments in Sweden Representing Environmental Impact ’, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment , 198 : 25 – 35 .

Skinner J. et al.  ( 1997 ) ‘ An Overview of the Environmental Impact of Agriculture in the UK ’, Journal of Environmental Management , 50 / 2 : 111 – 28 .

Van der Werf H. M. , Petit J. ( 2002 ) ‘ Evaluation of the Environmental Impact of Agriculture at the Farm Level: A Comparison and Analysis of 12 Indicator-based Methods ’, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment , 93 / 1 : 131 – 45 .

Carruthers G. , Vanclay F. ( 2012 ) ‘ The Intrinsic Features of Environmental Management Systems that Facilitate Adoption and Encourage Innovation in Primary Industries ’, Journal of Environmental Management , 110 : 125 – 34 .

Morris M. et al.  ( 2003 ) ‘ Assessing the Impact of Agricultural Research: An Overview ’, Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture , 42 / 2 : 127 – 48 .

Podhora A. et al.  ( 2013 ) ‘ The Policy-Relevancy of Impact Assessment Tools: Evaluating Nine Years of European Research Funding ’, Environmental Science and Policy , 31 : 85 – 95 .

Rodrigues G. S. , de Almeida Buschinelli C. C. , Dias Avila A. F. ( 2010 ) ‘ An Environmental Impact Assessment System for Agricultural Research and Development II: Institutional Learning Experience at Embrapa ’, Journal of Technology Management and Innovation , 5 / 4 : 38 – 56 .

Maredia M. , Pingali P. ( 2001 ) Environmental Impacts of Productivity-Enhancing Crop Research: A Critical Review . Durban : CGIAR .

FAO . ( 2011 ) ‘ Environmental Impact Assessment', Guideline for FAO field projects . Rome : Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations .

Miedzinski M. et al.  ( 2013 ) Assessing Environmental Impacts of Research and Innovation Policy .

Ervin D. E. , Glenna L. L. , Jussaume R. A. ( 2011 ) ‘ The Theory and Practice of Genetically Engineered Crops and Agricultural Sustainability ’, Sustainability , 3 / 6 : 847 – 74 .

Jacob K. et al.  ( 2012 ) ‘Sustainability in Impact Assessments - A Review of Impact Assessment Systems in selected OECD countries and the European Commission’ . Paris : Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development .

Röling N. ( 2009 ) ‘ Pathways for Impact: Scientists' Different Perspectives on Agricultural Innovation ’, International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability , 7 / 2 : 83 – 94 .

Dentoni D. , Klerkx L. ( 2015 ) ‘ Co-managing Public Research in Australian Fisheries Through Convergence-Divergence Processes ’, Marine Policy , 60 : 259 – 71 .

Helming K. et al.  ( 2011 ) ‘ Ex Ante Impact Assessment of Policies Affecting Land Use, Part A: Analytical Framework ’, Ecology and Society , 16 / 1 : 27 .

Stads G. J. , Beintema N. ( 2015 ) ‘ Agricultural R&D Expenditure in Africa: An Analysis of Growth and Volatility ’, European Journal of Development Research , 27 / 3 : 391 – 406 .

Raitzer D. A. , Kelley T. G. ( 2008 ) ‘ Benefit-cost Meta-analysis of Investment in the International Agricultural Research Centers of the CGIAR ’, Agricultural Systems , 96 / 1-3 : 108 – 23 .

Andersen M. A. ( 2015 ) ‘ Public Investment in US Agricultural R&D and the Economic Benefits ’, Food Policy , 51 : 38 – 43 .

Lilja N. , Dixon J. ( 2008 ) ‘ Responding to the Challenges of Impact Assessment of Participatory Research and Gender Analysis ’, Experimental Agriculture , 44 / 1 : 3 – 19 .

Kristjanson P. et al.  ( 2009 ) ‘ Linking International Agricultural Research Knowledge with Action for Sustainable Development ’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences United States of America , 106 / 13 : 5047 – 52 .

Upton S. , Vallance P. , Goddard J. ( 2014 ) ‘ From Outcomes to Process: Evidence for a New Approach to Research Impact Assessment ’, Research Evaluation , 23 : 352 – 65 .

The exact TOPIC query was: agricult* NEAR/1 (research* OR *scien* OR "R&D" OR innovati*) AND (research* OR *scien* OR "R&D" OR innovati*) NEAR/2 (impact* OR assess* OR evaluat* OR criteria* OR benefit* OR adoption* OR adaptation*)

The exact TITLE query was: agricult* AND (research* OR *scien* OR "R&D" OR innovati*) AND (impact* OR assess* OR evaluat* OR criteria* OR benefit* OR adoption* OR adaptation*)

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1471-5449
• Print ISSN 0958-2029
• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Sustainable Agile Project Management in Complex Agriculture Projects: An Institutional Theory Perspective

Advanced Project Management, 21(3)

7 Pages Posted: 20 Apr 2021

University of Southampton

Nicholas Dacre

Adrian bailey.

University of Exeter

Date Written: 2021

Complex agriculture projects directly affect the welfare of over half the world’s population, are a key Sustainable Development Goal (SDG), and account for the single most extensive human activity across 40% of the world’s surface. Furthermore, they are highly susceptible to environmental, social, and economic pressures such as climate change, cyclical pandemics, market disruptions, and diminishing arable land. These issues are also becoming increasingly vital in dint of the fact that population growth is placing increasing pressure on sustainable priorities. However, a recent scientometric review indicates a significant paucity in the extant literature on agriculture projects, with a pressing need for further research to examine sustainable project management practices from an institutional perspective. This research, therefore, aims to respond to this gap in the literature by drawing on Institutional Theory through a multi-case study of Agriculture Co-operative Institutions (ACIs). These are often viewed as valuable vehicles to deliver agricultural projects which can benefit communities, especially in emerging markets. Initial findings from two rounds of fieldwork as well as an extensive literature review suggest that ACIs as value-based organisations embedded within institutional contexts help stimulate elements of agility in project management processes, to deliver sustainable outcomes for their members and external stakeholders. Agile ACI project managers can also stimulate innovative outcomes across broader sustainable agriculture projects. It is the aim of this research also to undertake a larger cross-country comparison with international research cases. Therefore, this study will aim to not only contribute to critical project management discourse and knowledge but also to uncover agile project management practices for future pressing policy development and implementation to help foster greater sustainable agriculture project processes.

Keywords: Project Management, Sustainable, Co-Operative, Coop, Sustainability, Agile, Agriculture, Institutional Theory

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

University of Southampton ( email )

University Rd. Southampton SO17 1BJ, Hampshire SO17 1LP United Kingdom

Nicholas Dacre (Contact Author)

University of exeter ( email ).

Northcote House The Queen's Drive Exeter, Devon EX4 4QJ United Kingdom

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, new institutional economics ejournal.

Subscribe to this free journal for more curated articles on this topic

Project & Program Management eJournal

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Food Industry eJournal

Sustainability at work ejournal, agricultural & natural resource economics ejournal, agricultural sustainability & security ejournal, food sustainability & security ejournal, food product development & processing ejournal.

• My Favorites

You have successfully logged in but...

... your login credentials do not authorize you to access this content in the selected format. Access to this content in this format requires a current subscription or a prior purchase. Please select the WEB or READ option instead (if available). Or consider purchasing the publication.

OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers

The digitalisation of agriculture.

NB. No. 1 to No. 58 were released under the previous series title OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Working Papers .

• Agriculture and Food
• ISSN: 18156797 (online)
• https://doi.org/10.1787/18156797
• Subscribe to the RSS feed Subscribe to the RSS feed

A literature review and emerging policy issues

Digitalisation offers the potential to help address the productivity, sustainability and resilience challenges facing agriculture. Evidence on the adoption and impacts of digital agriculture in OECD countries from national surveys and the literature indicates broad use of digital technologies in row crop farms, but less evidence is available on uptake for livestock and speciality crops. Common barriers to adoption include costs (up-front investment and recurring maintenance expenses), relevance and limited use cases, user-friendliness, high operator skill requirements, mistrust of algorithms, and technological risk. National governments have an important role in addressing bottlenecks to adoption, such as by ensuring better information about costs and benefits of various technologies (including intangible benefits such as quality of life improvements); investing in human capital; ensuring appropriate incentives for innovation; serving as knowledge brokers and facilitators of data-sharing to spur inclusive, secure and representative data ecosystems; and promoting competitive markets.

• Click to access:
• Click to download PDF - 2.07MB PDF

Cite this content as:

Author(s) Jonathan McFadden i , Francesca Casalini ii , Terry Griffin iii  and Jesús Antón ii i University of Oklahoma ii OECD iii Kansas State University

13 Apr 2022

This site uses cookies to optimize functionality and give you the best possible experience. If you continue to navigate this website beyond this page, cookies will be placed on your browser. To learn more about cookies, click here .

• Cette page n'est pas disponible en Français

The digitalisation of agriculture

• Agriculture and fisheries
• OECD standards for agriculture
• Agricultural policy monitoring
• Agricultural trade and markets
• Fisheries and aquaculture
• Food systems
• Monitoring international trade
• Food systems, food security and nutrition

Cite this content as:

Digitalisation offers the potential to help address the productivity, sustainability and resilience challenges facing agriculture. Evidence on the adoption and impacts of digital agriculture in OECD countries from national surveys and the literature indicates broad use of digital technologies in row crop farms, but less evidence is available on uptake for livestock and speciality crops. Common barriers to adoption include costs (up-front investment and recurring maintenance expenses), relevance and limited use cases, user-friendliness, high operator skill requirements, mistrust of algorithms, and technological risk. National governments have an important role in addressing bottlenecks to adoption, such as by ensuring better information about costs and benefits of various technologies (including intangible benefits such as quality of life improvements); investing in human capital; ensuring appropriate incentives for innovation; serving as knowledge brokers and facilitators of data-sharing to spur inclusive, secure and representative data ecosystems; and promoting competitive markets.

In the same series

Related publications

Agriculture and Development: A Brief Review of the Literature

• January 2011
• Economic Systems 36(2)

• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

Abstract and Figures

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Yashwanth B S

• Andrzej Jędruchniewicz

• Daesik Jeong
• Viet Ha Trinh Thi
• Baohua Zhang
• Yongliang Qiao
• Chunmei Zhou
• Huaxiang Song

• ENVIRON SCI POLICY
• Junyu Zhang

• Lionel Demery

• Carl K. Eicher
• AM J AGR ECON
• Marvin Miracle

• B.F. Johnston
• J.W. Mellor
• John C.H. Fei
• J.M. Cypher

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up