Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Plant Science Today, ISSN 2348-1900 (online)
Introduction
Agriculture faces critical challenges, including biodiversity
loss, eutrophication, pesticide pollution and soil degradation
resulting from intensive farming practices, all of which
demand sustainable solutions (1). Conventional farming,
characterized by monocropping, synthetic inputs and
intensive tillage, has increased short-term yields but
disrupted essential ecosystem services such as biodiversity,
nutrient cycling, pest regulation and carbon storage (2).
The ecosystem services framework, first introduced in
1981 and further developed through initiatives like the
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (3), highlights the
critical connection between human well-being and
ecosystem health (4-6). The MEA, initiated by the United
Nations, provided a comprehensive evaluation of the state of
the world’s ecosystems and their services. It aimed to inform
decision-makers and the public about the consequences of
ecosystem change for human well-being. The assessment
underscored the rapid degradation of ecosystems due to
human activities and emphasized the urgent need for
sustainable management practices. Its findings have since
influenced policy-making, research and global awareness,
promoting the integration of ecosystem services into decision
-making processes. These services, ranging from provisioning
to regulatory and supporting services, are essential for
agricultural sustainability. However, modern agricultural
practices oen degrade these services, making the transition
to regenerative approaches increasingly urgent. This shi is
crucial to address challenges such as biodiversity loss,
climate change, water scarcity, and soil erosion (7–9).
In response to these challenges, agroecological
approaches, including regenerative practices and organic
farming, have gained importance. These practices integrate
biodiversity and ecosystem services into farming systems
(10). Regenerative agriculture employs techniques like crop
rotation, cover cropping and managed grazing to restore
ecosystem functions from the soil up, delivering broad
benefits for biodiversity, carbon sequestration and soil health
(11, 12). These regenerative practices focus on rebuilding soil
PLANT SCIENCE TODAY
Vol x(x): xx–xx
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.6498
eISSN 2348-1900
REVIEW ARTICLE
Exploring the scope of ecosystem services in diverse farming
systems for sustainable agriculture: A review
K Lokeshwar1, 2*, E Somasundaram3, M Suganthy4, R Krishnan4, P Janaki4, E Parameswari4, M Asritha1 & N Vinitha1
1Department of Agronomy, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, 641 003 Tamil Nadu, India
2Agroecology, World Vegetable Center, Tainan 74151, Taiwan
3Directorate of Agribusiness Development (DABD), Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore 641 003, Tamil Nadu, India
4Nammazhvar Organic Farming Research Centre, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore 641 003, Tamil Nadu, India
*Correspondence email - lokeshwarkesamreddy@gmail.com
Received: 09 December 2024; Accepted: 12 January 2025; Available online: Version 1.0: 26 April 2025
Cite this article: Lokeshwar K, Somasundaram E, Suganthy M, Krishnan R, Janaki P, Parameswari E, Asritha M, Vinitha N. Exploring the scope of
ecosystem services in diverse farming systems for sustainable agriculture: A review. Plant Science Today (Early Access).
https:/doi.org/10.14719/pst.6498
Abstract
Ecosystem services (ES) are fundamental to promoting agricultural sustainability, playing a vital role in enhancing resilience and
productivity within agricultural ecosystems. This review critically examines the interactions between biodiversity, farming practices and
ES delivery, presenting a novel synthesis of their roles in sustainable agriculture. Unlike existing literature focussing on isolated ES or
individual farming paradigms, this review integrates insights from multiple agricultural paradigms, including organic, regenerative and
conventional systems. It provides a comparative assessment of their eects on biodiversity and ecosystem functionality. It also
emphasizes the role of agricultural biodiversity as a nexus for enhancing ecosystem services.This review is structured into four main
sections. It begins by classifying key ecosystem services relevant to agricultural systems, underscoring their importance for environmental
sustainability. Second, it investigates various farming systems, with a particular focus on the role of biodiversity in enhancing ecosystem
services. Third, it conducts a comparative assessment of diverse farming systems follows, evaluating their impacts on biodiversity and
ecosystem functionality to inform evidence-based strategies for enhancing ES.This review bridges gaps in existing research by
highlighting synergies and proposing strategies to optimize diverse farming systems. These eorts aim to enhance ecosystem services and
contribute to sustainable agricultural landscapes.
Keywords: agroecosystem; biodiversity; ecosystem services; farming systems; sustainable agriculture
LOKESHWAR ET AL 2
https://plantsciencetoday.online
organic matter and structure, which supports natural soil
functions, improves yields, enhances water infiltration and
reduces erosion (13).
Diversified farming systems strategically manage
agrobiodiversity across multiple scales to enhance ecological
resilience (14). By incorporating practices from organic and
agroecological methods, these systems strengthen vital
ecosystem services including soil health, nutrient cycling,
pest control, carbon sequestration and water retention
capacity. Agroecological farming integrates ecological
principles to maintain yields while restoring ecosystem
function (15). Key practices include reduced tillage, cover
cropping, crop rotations and biodiversity conservation, which
significantly enhance ecosystem services compared to
conventional methods (11, 12).
Fundamental practices like no-till farming, compost
application and managed grazing synergistically recycle
nutrients, improve soil structure and stimulate soil carbon
storage, leading to enhanced soil health and agricultural
productivity (16, 17). More diverse farming systems, including
agroforestry and multi-cropping, further boost ecosystem
services by enhancing biodiversity, improving nutrient cycling,
and building climate resilience through increased system
complexity (10, 18, 19). For example, agroforestry systems
increase bird diversity by 100%, with bird species richness
more than doubling compared to open agricultural land (20).
These integrated systems demonstrate how ecological
principles can be successfully applied to create resilient and
sustainable agricultural systems that benefit both food
production and environmental conservation (Fig. 1).
Agricultural biodiversity serves as the cornerstone for
delivering essential ecosystem services and significantly
reducing dependency on external inputs through strategic
preservation across ecological, spatial and temporal scales
(21, 22). This approach encompasses key strategies such as
integrated agroforestry systems that combine trees, crops
and livestock; diverse polycultures that maximize land use
eiciency and targeted habitat conservation for beneficial
organisms that support natural ecosystem functions (18).
These methods promote complex ecological interactions,
enhance functional redundancy, improve system stability
and build resilience to environmental stresses (10).
Conservation biological control, implemented through
strategic habitat management, eectively minimizes reliance
on chemical insecticides by fostering and maintaining
populations of natural predators and parasitoids, thereby
enhancing natural pest regulation mechanisms (23).
Given the challenges of climate change and
environmental degradation, transitioning to regenerative
agricultural models (e.g., practices like no-till farming or
agroforestry are essential for future sustainability (24).
Scientific evidence demonstrates that regenerative methods
have significant carbon sequestration potential, with global
soils capable of storing an additional 114-242 Pg of carbon - a
quantity substantially reducing atmospheric greenhouse gas
concentrations (12). Agriculture both depends on and
influences critical ecosystem services, including pollination,
nutrient cycling and soil renewal (25). For example, studies
have shown that approximately 40% of insect pollinator
species are threatened with extinction, largely due to
agricultural intensification (26). Amid escalating
environmental crises, ecologically based farming systems
have emerged as vital for food security and resilience (27).
Studies demonstrate that diverse farming systems
provide substantial benefits, including improved soil quality,
carbon sequestration, pest control and enhanced pollination
(14). These systems support long-term productivity through
improved ecosystem services (28), by enhancing carbon
storage, reducing erosion and strengthening food security (29).
Recent research highlights the economic benefits of diversified
farming systems, such as reduced input costs, premium prices
for organic products and enhanced farm resilience to market
fluctuations. Furthermore, the increased on-farm biodiversity
associated with these practices strengthens ecosystem
resilience, supports pollinator populations and enhances
natural pest control mechanisms, all of which are fundamental
to sustainable agricultural systems (18).
Soil is being lost 10-40 times faster than it can
naturally replenish due to unsustainable farming practices
(30). This degradation is contributing to biodiversity loss, with
conventional farming reducing species richness by 8.9%
globally (31). Diversified and organic farming systems oer a
solution by boosting species richness, improving soil health
and enhancing ecosystem services. Diversified farming can
increase species richness by 26%, particularly benefiting
pollinators and predators (32). Organic farming increases
species richness by 34% and abundance by 50% (33), while
also improving crop species richness by 48% (34).
Furthermore, integrating crop diversification in organic
systems reduces yield gaps to just 8–9% (35). Transitioning to
sustainable farming is crucial for preserving soil, maintaining
biodiversity and ensuring long-term food security and
productivity.
The integrated approach of regenerative agriculture
represents a significant shift from conventional farming
methods, offering a pathway to both productive and
environmentally sustainable food systems. By focusing on soil
health as the foundation for agricultural success, these
practices create a positive feedback loop where improved
ecosystem services support better crop yields and
environmental outcomes simultaneously. This comprehensive
approach not only increases agricultural productivity but also
ensures long-term sustainability through ecological
intensification and resilience building.
Dierent terms used in the ecosystem services (Table 1)
Classification of Ecosystem Services in Agricultural Systems
Ecosystem services can be categorized into 4 types (Fig. 2);
provisioning, cultural, regulatory and supporting services (54).
Case study 1: Agroforestry and Payment for Ecosystem
Services (PES)
Agroforestry systems in Asia and Africa have successfully
implemented PES schemes, incentivizing farmers to maintain
forest patches and convert degraded lands into productive
agroforestry systems (39). These systems provide multiple
ecosystem services, including air purification and soil
enrichment (55).
3
Plant Science Today, ISSN 2348-1900 (online)
Fig. 1. This figure illustrates the comparative advantages and disadvantages of organic, regenerative and conventional farming systems in
enhancing ecosystem services. Conventional farming practices, such as monocropping, heavy pesticide use and intensive tillage, oen lead to
soil degradation, biodiversity loss and reduced ecosystem resilience. In contrast, organic and regenerative farming adopt sustainable practic-
es like crop rotation, reduced chemical inputs, cover cropping and agroforestry. These approaches improve soil health, increa se biodiversity,
enhance water infiltration and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The figure highlights key practices under each system and sug gests path-
ways to address conventional farming challenges through organic and regenerative techniques, ensuring the balance between productivity
and environmental sustainability.
LOKESHWAR ET AL 4
https://plantsciencetoday.online
Case study 2: Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs)
In California, GDEs support pollinator-dependent crops and
carbon storage, demonstrating the importance of groundwater
in sustaining agricultural productivity and ecological balance
(56).
Case study 3: Pollination services in riparian zones
A study in Karnataka, India found that pollinator visitation rates
decreased with distance from riparian zones. Bee colonies,
mainly Apis dorsata and Apis cerana, were found in riparian
zones, indicating their potential as pollinator habitats.
Conservation of riparian zones was found to increase
pollination services to adjacent coffee plantations. The study
highlights the importance of preserving riparian zones for
ecosystem services. Riparian zones can support biodiversity
and pollination in agricultural landscapes (57).
Case study 4: Pest control services through biological control
in Asian rice systems
A case study in the Greater Mekong Subregion introduced
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) for rice production, funded
by the European Union. The initiative established 12
Trichogramma spp. rearing facilities to control rice stem borers.
Implementation resulted in 2-10% higher rice yields, increased
natural enemy abundance and reduced insecticide applications.
Terms Definition Reference
Agroecology Ecological study of agricultural systems. (36)
Ecosystem functions The habitat, biological or system properties or processes of ecosystems. (37)
Ecosystem health The ability of an ecosystem to maintain key ecological processes, functions,
biodiversity and productivity over time at sustainable levels. (38)
Diversified Farming Systems
(DFS)
Farming practices and landscapes that intentionally include functional biodiversity
at multiple spatial and/or temporal scales to maintain ecosystem services that
provide critical inputs to agriculture, such as soil fertility, pest and disease control,
water use eiciency and pollination.
(21)
Agroforestry systems Land management systems that intentionally combine trees and/or shrubs with
crops and/or livestock in agricultural settings, accruing ecological and economic
benefits. (31, 32, 39)
Conservation agriculture
An approach to managing agro-ecosystems for improved and sustained
productivity, increased profits and food security that promotes minimum
disturbance of the soil, permanent soil cover with previous crop residues and crop
species diversification.
(41-43)
Organic farming A production system that sustains the health of soils, ecosystems and people relying
primarily on ecological processes and microorganisms, biodiversity and cycles
adapted to local conditions. (44-46)
Regenerative agriculture Farming and grazing practices that reverse climate change by rebuilding soil organic
matter and restoring biodiversity – resulting in both carbon drawdown and
improving the water cycle. (47-49)
Conventional farming Capital and input intensive farming system reliant on synthetic fertilizers and
pesticides with monocultures focused on maximizing productivity and eiciency. (14, 42,50)
Natural farming An ecological farming approach using no external synthetic inputs that activates
indigenous microorganisms and natural ecosystem services to optimize soil and
plant health. (51)
Precision agriculture Farm management system using digital techniques to account for in-field variability
aiming to optimize field-level management with respect to productivity and
environmental impact. (52)
Biodynamic farming Spiritual-ethical-ecological approach to agriculture emphasizing holistic farm
individuality, ethical economic associations and bioregulatory techniques
connecting cosmic and earthly elements to maximize farm health. (53)
Ecosystem Services
functional Spatial Unit
(ESSU)
It defines the smallest spatial unit that combines cultivated and wild biodiversity to
support a wide array of ecosystem services, encompassing interactions among
crops, trees, livestock, wildlife and semi-natural features like hedgerows and forest
patches.
(54)
Table 1. Various terms used in ecosystem services
Fig. 2. Types of ecosystems services (sourced from 3, 47 and 48).
5
Plant Science Today, ISSN 2348-1900 (online)
The project promoted IPM practices among 50 trainers and 6400
rice farmers. The case study demonstrates the potential of
advanced biological control-based IPM systems (58).
Diverse Farming Systems for Sustainable Agriculture
An agroecological transition is essential for placing food
systems on sustainable trajectories yet it requires
understanding the mechanisms in diverse farming models that
might balance productivity gains with provisioning of
ecosystem services (59). Multiple frameworks for sustainable
intensification exist from integrating agroforestry, organic
approaches, conservation agriculture or principles from
ecology and circular economies - though comparisons across
systems remain scarce (60). Crop diversification and targeted
agrobiodiversity are known to promote ecological resilience
and soil function (61). System modelling helps assess long-term
trade-offs between yield and environmental impacts that
empirical studies often overlook (62). Higher diversity in
multiple cropping systems creates microhabitat differentiation,
facilitating optimal species occupancy, promoting co-
existence. This fosters beneficial interactions, mitigates weed
dominance and enhances biological control mechanisms in
open agroecosystem habitats (63). Diverse farming systems
play a crucial role in sustainable agriculture and
agroecosystems by providing a range of ecosystem services.
These services include nutrient cycling, pest and disease
regulation, erosion control, biodiversity conservation, and
carbon sequestration. (54) The concept of Ecosystem Services
functional Spatial Unit (ESSU) is a framework developed to
facilitate the planning and assessment of agroforestry and
intercropping systems by emphasizing their ability to provide
ecosystem services. It defines the smallest spatial unit that
combines cultivated and wild biodiversity to support a wide
array of ecosystem services, encompassing interactions among
crops, trees, livestock, wildlife and semi-natural features like
hedgerows and forest patches (64).
Also, offers a tool for designing, modeling, monitoring
and auditing ecosystem services in diversified agroecosystems
(65). To promote diversified farming systems, it is important to
understand their ecological and economic consequences.
While diversified farming practices provide greater biodiversity
and ecosystem services, the economic benefits may not always
outweigh the costs in the short term (66).
Biodiversity indices are essential tools for quantifying
the variety and abundance of species within ecosystems (67).
They help gauge the health and complexity of an ecosystem by
evaluating aspects like species richness (the number of
different species), species evenness (the distribution of
individuals among species) and functional diversity (the range
of biological functions performed by species). Common
biodiversity indices include (68):
Shannon Index (H)
Measures both species richness and evenness. A higher
Shannon Index indicates greater biodiversity.
Example: In Jamaica, the Shannon Index revealed a decline in
crop diversification over time in mono-cropping systems,
whereas multiple cropping systems in certain parishes
maintained or increased crop diversification (69).
Simpson’s Diversity Index (D)
Measures the probability that two randomly selected
individuals belong to the same species. A lower D value
indicates higher diversity.
Species Richness (S)
A count of species in an area, regardless of abundance.
Acoustic Indices
Emerging methods like acoustic indices offer a novel way to
assess biodiversity by analysing soundscapes. However, their
effectiveness as proxies for biological diversity remains
debated, with studies showing variable results (70).
Role of Biodiversity, Soil Health and Other Ecosystem
Services in Enhancing Agricultural Systems
Biodiversity is widely recognized as the cornerstone of
productive and resilient agricultural systems (Table 2). Despite
this recognition, quantifying the relationships between
biodiversity, ecosystem stability, service provisioning and yield
gaps remains a key research challenge. Addressing these
concerns requires a complete understanding of ecological
principles, climate adaptation and socio-economic trade-offs
inherent in agricultural practices. Effective monitoring and
management indicators are crucial for assessing the impacts of
agroecological practices on ecosystem services (71). Below, are
strategies to integrate biodiversity into agricultural systems,
highlighting their benefits and trade-offs.
Agroforestry
Agroforestry integrates trees and shrubs into agricultural
landscapes, providing multiple ecological and economic
benefits. Trees enhance soil fertility, increase water retention
and act as windbreaks, protecting crops from extreme weather
events. Additionally, they support biodiversity by creating
habitats for various species and fostering multi-trophic
interactions essential for pest control (72).
Crop diversification
Crop diversification involves cultivating a variety of crops in a
single farming system to improve functional trait diversity,
stabilize yields and reduce risks of pest and disease outbreaks.
Diversified systems enhance soil health and promote ecosystem
services such as pollination and natural pest control (73).
Periphyton habitats such as vegetated strips or buffer
zones between fields, play a crucial role in enhancing
biodiversity, reduce erosion and act as natural barrier to pest
and disease spread. These habitats also contribute to water
quality improvement by filtering runoff (74).
Climate-resilient crop systems
Climate-resilient cropping systems leverage functional trait
diversity to stabilize yields under variable weather conditions.
Selecting drought-tolerant varieties or intercropping with
species that enhance water-use efficiency are examples of
strategies to mitigate climate change impacts (75).
Trade-offs
Implementing biodiversity-enhancing strategies in agriculture
involves several trade-offs (24). Agroforestry systems require
significant initial investments and long-term commitment, with
potential competition for light, water and nutrients between
LOKESHWAR ET AL 6
https://plantsciencetoday.online
trees and crops and necessitate additional farmer training.
Crop diversification demands careful planning to align crop
and variety combinations with environmental conditions and
market demands, often involving increased labour and
management complexity while providing lower short-term
economic returns compared to monocultures (76). Allocating
land for periphyton habitats reduces cultivation areas and
requires additional maintenance, posing risks such as
harbouring pests or invasive species if not managed effectively.
Climate-resilient crop systems, while stabilizing yields under
variable conditions, may have lower productivity during
normal weather, requiring extensive research and extension
services to balance short-term productivity with long-term
resilience.
The concept of ecosystem services is central to
conservation and environmental management, but practical
implementation for land use planning faces challenges in
quantifying biophysical trade-offs and considering
socioecological aspects (77). The integration of ecosystem
services into decision-making is crucial for framing
conservation and restoration strategies and contributing to
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) achievement (78, 79).
As shown in Table 3, sustainable farming practices are essential
for maintaining ecological balance, promoting biodiversity and
ensuring long-term agricultural productivity. Achieving
sustainable development involves transitioning ecosystem
services from an abstract concept to implementable, socially
equitable solutions supporting resilient socio-ecological
systems under uncertainty (80).
Influence of Different Farming Practices to Ecosystem
Services
Organic farming (OF) practices
Organic farming prohibits synthetic pesticide and fertilizer use,
instead utilizing techniques like intercropping, biological pest
control and compost application to manage soil fertility and
pest pressure. Meta-analyses consistently demonstrate that on
average, organic farming enhances biodiversity, soil organic
matter, water infiltration rates and carbon sequestration
compared to conventional agriculture (93). For example,
organic farming sequestered 40% more soil organic carbon
than integrated farming practices per ha per year (94). Organic
farming practices have been shown to significantly enhance
the resilience of agroecosystems (95). A vast number of studies
have compared the yield, species richness, biodiversity, carbon
sequestration differences between organic and conventional
agriculture (34, 94, 96). There is, however, a lack of detailed
understanding of how ES change and respond to different
farming systems, management practices and biodiversity
levels, particularly in the context of sustainable agriculture.
As shown in Table 4, organically managed soils often
exhibit higher concentrations and stocks of soil organic carbon
per ha, particularly in the topsoil layers, compared to
conventionally managed systems. This increase in soil organic
carbon is a key indicator of improved soil quality, reflecting the
positive impact of organic farming on soil structure, nutrient
cycling and overall ecosystem function. Additionally, the
enhanced soil organic matter content in organic systems
supports greater microbial diversity and activity, further
Farming System Benefits for Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services Examples References
Organic farming Increased species richness
and abundance for birds, plants, insect
pollinators, predatory insects across groups.
Higher species richness was identified in organic vs
conventional fields for bees, spiders, syrphids,
lacewings, ladybirds. (85)
Agroecological
systems Enhanced biodiversity across taxa with beneficial
spillovers from non-crop habitat.
Mixed crop-livestock systems hosted 40% more
bee species than input intensive cereal
monocultures. (86–88)
Agroforestry Additional niches and resources hosting more
plants, insects, birds and mammals.
Silvo-arable integrating trees and crops supported
11-14 more ground beetle species than open
croplands (89)
Regenerative Increased activity and species abundance for soil
macrofauna like earthworms and isopods. Long term no-till diversified cropping increased
earthworm density by 38% over 20 years. (90, 91)
Cover Crop
Usage Enriched resources augment rare and threatened
farmland bird/insect foraging habitats.
Vegetative cover increased per-capita seed
predation by 73% compared to bare plots which
validate existing evidence suggesting that cover
crops play a role in facilitating weed biocontrol.
(92)
Table 3. Farming systems and their impact on ecosystem services
Key Findings on Agricultural Biodiversity’s Role in Practical Implications for Farming Practices Reference
Increased landscape complexity and crop diversity enhanced
biodiversity and pest control services on farms by supporting
predator and parasitoid populations.
Encourages the adoption of diverse cropping systems and
landscape-level planning to enhance natural pest control. (81)
Crop diversification promoted soil biodiversity across organisms
which provide key services like nitrogen cycling, organic matter
decomposition and soil carbon storage.
Highlights the importance of integrating crop rotations and
polycultures to maintain soil health and fertility. (18)
Adding flowering field margins enhanced biodiversity of
multiple taxa including pollinators like bees and wasps that
provide crop pollination services.
Suggests implementing buer strips or flowering margins to
boost pollinator populations and improve crop yields. (82)
Complex crop-livestock systems with enhanced biodiversity
improved soil fertility and nutrient cycling functionality
compared to specialized production.
Promotes mixed farming systems that integrate crops and
livestock for better resource use eiciency and soil health. (66)
Crop diversification strategies boosted productivity through
ecological processes like complementarity in water and nutrient
use between species.
Encourages the use of intercropping and multi-species cover
crops to enhance resource use eiciency and farm resilience. (83)
Crop rotations and intercropping practices supported weed
regulation through increased competition and shis in soil
microbial communities.
Reinforces the value of crop rotation and intercropping for
sustainable weed management and soil health. (84)
Table 2. Connecting agricultural biodiversity to ecosystem services
7
Plant Science Today, ISSN 2348-1900 (online)
Farming Practice Eect Ecosystem Services Reference
Crop Rotation Organic farming boosted higher biodiversity than conven-
tional farming in 8 out of 10 cases, with an average increase
in species richness of approximately 30%.
Supporting Services
(Biodiversity, Habitats) (34, 51)
Composting Organic farming sequestered 40% more soil organic carbon
than integrated farming practices per hectare per year. Regulatory Services (Carbon
Sequestration) (94)
Manure Management Use of green manure plants enhances alkali-hydrolyzable
nitrogen and available phosphorus, improves microbial bio-
mass carbon (MBC) and soil enzyme activities.
Regulatory Services (Nutrient
Cycling) and Supporting Ser-
vices (Soil Formation) (113)
Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) Organic farming had significantly greater species evenness
and richness of native bees and butterflies. Supporting Services
(Biodiversity, Habitats) (114)
Cover Cropping Strategic combination of cover crops, compost and no-till
methods maximizes carbon sequestration, oering a promis-
ing approach for mitigating climate change.
Regulatory Services (Carbon
Sequestration, Erosion Con-
trol) (115)
Minimum Tillage or
No-Till Earthworm abundance and functional group diversity were
significantly higher in zero tillage systems with mob-grazing. Supporting Services (Soil For-
mation, Biodiversity) (116)
Organic Amendments Organic fertilizers provide a more balanced nutrient supply,
improve soil physical conditions and sequester more soil
organic carbon than chemical fertilizers.
Regulatory Services (Nutrient
Cycling, Carbon Sequestra-
tion) and Supporting Services
(Soil Formation)
(117, 118)
Biological Control Organic farming had significantly greater species evenness
and richness of native bees and butterflies. Supporting Services
(Biodiversity, Habitats) (114)
Mulching Organic farming practices sequestered 37.4% more soil or-
ganic carbon per year, while also improving soil structure.
Regulatory Services (Carbon
Sequestration), Supporting
Services (Soil Formation) (119)
Livestock Management Integrated livestock grazing and agroforestry practices im-
prove soil health and biodiversity while sequestering more
carbon.
Regulatory Services (Carbon
Sequestration), Supporting
Services (Soil Formation, Bio-
diversity)
(120, 121)
Agroforestry Agroforestry systems enhance biodiversity and sequester
more carbon, contributing to better soil health and ecosys-
tem stability.
Supporting Services
(Biodiversity, Habitats) and
Regulatory Services (Carbon
Sequestration)
(115, 120)
Minimum Use of External
Inputs
Organic systems with minimal external inputs have been
shown to maintain higher biodiversity and better soil health
compared to conventional systems.
Supporting Services
(Biodiversity, Soil Formation) (94, 117)
Incorporating Native
Species Incorporating native species in farming systems enhances
biodiversity and supports ecosystem resilience. Supporting Services
(Biodiversity, Habitats) (116)
Adaptive Management Adaptive management strategies in organic and regenerative
farming enhance ecosystem services by optimizing practices
based on real-time data.
Regulatory Services (Nutrient
Cycling) and Supporting Ser-
vices (Biodiversity) (118, 120)
Focus on Soil Health Practices that focus on soil health, such as composting, cover
cropping and reduced tillage, significantly enhance soil for-
mation and carbon sequestration.
Supporting Services (Soil For-
mation) and Regulatory Ser-
vices (Carbon Sequestration) (94, 119)
Biodiversity
Conservation
Biodiversity conservation practices in organic and regenera-
tive systems increase species richness and support habitats
for flora and fauna.
Supporting Services
(Biodiversity, Habitats) (34, 51)
Table 4. Contribution of organic farming practices to ecosystem services
LOKESHWAR ET AL 8
https://plantsciencetoday.online
contributing to the sustainability and resilience of
agroecosystems. Meta-analyses reveal that organic farming
systems have higher soil organic matter content and promote
both agro-biodiversity and natural biodiversity (97).
It was conducted a study focusing on the microbial
dynamics in organic and conventional farming systems and
their impact on soil-borne plant diseases (98). The
research carried out in a long-term field experiment managed
for 18 years, utilized amplicon sequencing to reveal a higher
abundance of biocontrol genera and increased bacterial
diversity in organic fields compared to conventional ones. The
study further validated the disease suppressive potential
through in planta experiments against Rhizoctonia solani and
Fusarium oxysporum, demonstrating lower disease severity in
plants treated with microbiome from organic fields. Key taxa
such as Flavobacterium, Bacillus, Pseudomonas and
Planctomycetes were identified with the potential to enhance
disease-suppressive potential in organic fields. The findings
suggest the prospect of developing synthetic microbial
communities for inducing disease suppressiveness in
otherwise conducive soils.
A studyrevealed the presence of 45 different bacteria
morphologies, with a totalpopulation ranging from 20 × 109 to
20 × 1011 CFU/g (99). The combination of 20 kg of organic
fertilizer and 100 ppm ofsalicylic acid demonstratedthe
highest bacterial diversity, providingnovel insights into the
abundance and diversity of bacteria in citrus plantations. A
comparative study was conducted to assess the impacts of
long-term organic )ORG) and conventional (CON) farming
practices on bacterial and fungal biomass, microbial activity,
soil CO2 emission and nitrogen forms in Helianthus annuus L.
cultivated soil (100). The study revealed that microbial biomass
was more active and abundant in the organic system, which
also exhibited higher soil CO₂ emissions. Despite being less
abundant, fungi exhibited higher activity than bacteria in both
systems. The ORG treatment showed significantly greater
bacterial richness in 16S rRNA gene sequencing, with
Cyanobacteria, Actinobacteria and Proteobacteria being the
most abundant phyla. These phyla are critical for nutrient
cycling and ecosystem functioning. However,the ORG
sunflower yield wassignificantly less compared to CON,
emphasizing thecomplex interplay between agricultural
practices, microbial dynamics andcrop productivity.
Regenerative farming practices
Distinct from organic farming, regenerative agriculture
explicitly seeks to rehabilitate degraded soils and ecosystems
through holistic land management. Beyond the production of
goods, regenerative agriculture seeks to establish a robust and
resilient farming system (47).
Regenerative agriculture (RA) can address urgent global
challenges like environmental degradation, climate change
and poverty by improving land use and agricultural practices. It
involves building agricultural systems that are regenerative,
biodiverse, climate-resilient, equitable and economically
sustainable (12). RA practices like organic amendments, cover
cropping and conservation tillage can increase soil organic
carbon (SOC) stocks in Southeast Asian croplands. However,
some practices may also increase greenhouse gas emissions,
offsetting SOC gains. Further research and data sharing are
needed to understand the net impact of regenerative
agriculture on SOC and greenhouse gas emissions. Five
principles that guide the approach are as follows:
✓ Minimise soil disturbance - Minimizing tillage and soil
disturbance fosters the growth of beneficial microorganisms,
enhancing soil health. This practice also boosts the soil’s
capacity to retain essential nutrients and water, improving
overall fertility and resilience.
✓ Keep the soil covered year-round- Strong root systems
promote soil biodiversity, facilitate nutrient cycling and
enhance the soil's ability to retain moisture. Perennial crops
play a crucial role in sustaining these living root networks,
supporting long-term soil health and resilience.
✓ Keep live plants and roots in the soil for as long as possible.
✓ Incorporate biodiversity- Growing the same crop repeatedly
in the same field depletes soil nutrients and creates favourable
conditions for pests to thrive.
✓ Integrate animals - Livestock play a vital role in maintaining
healthy soils and ecosystems. When managed correctly,
grazing can enhance both soil and plant health.
RA practices improve soil productivity and health by
restoring soil organic carbon (SOC) content. Besides increasing
SOC, regenerative agriculture practices are also expected to
restore soil fertility,increase crop yield and reduce greenhouse
gas emissions from croplands (12).Increasing SOC with
conservation tillage depends upon several factors including
precipitation, soil depth, crop yield, stubble retention and
decomposition rate (101).
No-till (NT) or reduced-till farming with native cover
crops in regenerative agriculture enhances ecosystem services
and economic indicators in rainfed almond crops. This
approach performs best in sustainability, acceptance and
stability compared to conventional management and seeded
cover crops. Regenerative agriculture with native cover crops
enhances biodiversity, soil health and water cycling while
reducing erosion and increasing crop yields. This holistic
method offers a viable alternative for farmers seeking to
improve ecosystem services while ensuring economic viability
through sustainable practices (102). NT farming enhances soil
biological properties by sequestering more carbon and
increasing SOC, leading to higher biological activity (103). While
NT farming improves soil health, its impact on climate change
mitigation is debated. It was suggested that its effects may be
overstated, highlighting the need for further research (104).
Regenerative agriculture also promotes ecosystem
resilience, improves water quality and enhances soil health.
This approach reduces the need for synthetic fertilizers and
pesticides, mitigating climate change impacts (105).
Natural farming practices
Natural farming is a holistic approach that avoids external
inputs by building indigenous soil microbial communities
through techniques such as fermented organic matter (106).
However, transition barriers exist, including high labour
demands for implementation and insufficient policy support to
incentivize adoption. Combining elements of natural farming
with agroecological innovations, such as crop diversification or
9
Plant Science Today, ISSN 2348-1900 (online)
agroforestry, tailored to local contexts, could provide
simultaneous productivity, ecological and social benefits.
In Iowa, researchers foundthat integrating prairie strips
with varying coverage levels intoconventionally managed corn
-soy landscapessignificantly increased site diversity, including
birds, pollinatorsand predators of crop pests (51, 107).The
benefits increased proportionally with the amount of natural
habitatadded. The researchers suggest integrating small
amountsof perennial habitat strategically within commodity
cropland couldstrike an optimalbalance between
maintaining crop production and supporting biodiversity.
Conventional farming practices
Conventional farming relies heavily on synthetic fertilizers,
pesticides, mechanization, monocultures and extraction of
water resources to maximize yields. These practices have
contributed to declines in key ecosystem services globally,
including loss of crop genetic diversity, decreased water quality
from nutrient runoff, altered pollinator communities, soil
degradation and rising carbon emissions (108). Incremental
tweaks such as those offered by precision agriculture, are
unlikely to reverse current negative trends without addressing
the root causes. More transformational shifts addressing root
causes are needed to transition conventional agriculture
toward integrated systems grounded in agroecology (109).
Human activities have strongly modified ecosystems
and biodiversity since the Neolithic Age. Over-exploitation of
natural resources has led to the loss of habitats and species,
consumption of fossil fuels, urbanisation, industrialisationand
agricultural intensification. Thesefactors have collectively
increased human impact on all ecosystems. Such alterations
could impactmajor ecological functions.
A study in western France, emphasizing the crucial
balance between economic considerations and environmental
concerns in weed control for crop production (110). The
researchers exploredthe increasing pressure on farmers'to
reduce herbicideusage due to growing environmental risks
associated with these chemicals. By analyzing 150 winter
wheat fields, their Bayesian hierarchical model, which
considered farmers’ behaviour, revealed no significant
relationship between herbicide use and crop yields.
Surprisingly, herbicides were found to be more effective
against rare plant species than abundant weeds, suggesting
that herbicide application may not be as targeted as assumed.
The study suggests that a 50% reduction in herbicide usage
could sustain crop production while promoting both food
security and weed biodiversity in intensive agriculture.
A study focusing on enhancing the sustainability of
agriculture by evaluating natural processes crucial for crop
production, such as pollination and pest control (111). The
research,conducted in arable fields surrounded by species-
rich field margins,examinedthe spatial dynamics of pest
control for wheat aphids and therelationship between oilseed
rape yield gains and pollinator visitation. Thestudy found that
species-rich field margins significantlyenhanced natural pest
control, with effects extending up to 50 minto the crop
demonstrating the wide-reaching benefits of biodiversity.
Whileoilseed rape yield gains werecorrelated with pollinator
visitation, there was no evidence thatyield benefits declined
with distance from the crop edge. Theresults suggest potential
strategies for integratedcrop management globally,
emphasizing the importance of targetedpesticide applications
to support biodiversity-mediated ecosystemservicesand
minimize environmental harm.
Although further in-depth research across various
production contexts is essential, existing studies indicate that
transitioning to diversified systems grounded in ecological
principles, such as organic and natural farming methods,
shows potential for balancing productivity, input efficiency and
key ecosystem services more effectively than conventional
farming focused primarily on yield. These systems show
heightened potential for soil carbon accumulation, biodiversity
preservation, water quality regulation and sustained resilience
over time.
Multiple meta-analyses and long-term experiments
comparing conventional agriculture to more diversified
agroecological systems generally show enhanced ecosystem
services in systems like organic farming, agroforestry,
intercropping and other approaches grounded in biodiversity
and natural soil processes (18, 72).
Meta-analyses consistently demonstrate positive
correlations between farm-level plant, insect and soil
biodiversity and both productivity and ecological sustainability
over time across contexts from smallholder systems to large
commercial operations (18). Valuing ecosystems solely through
economics is inadequate, as it fails to capture their true
importance to society. Biology, not economics, can determine
the significance of natural environments, as it reflects the
intrinsic value and functions ecosystems provide to society.
Economics can help design institutions that promote
conservation and provide incentives for protecting ecosystems.
This approach can ensure the long-term sustainability of
natural environments (112).
Deliberation
The growing emphasis on sustainable agriculture highlights the
need for farming systems that balance productivity with the
provision of essential ecosystem services, which are crucial for
long-term food security and resilience. However, quantifying
the impact of regenerative agriculture on ecosystem services
remains a knowledge gap (122). Recent research underscores
the transformative potential of alternative farming models that
diverge from conventional, input-intensive practices.
Unlike traditional farming, which often prioritizes short-
term yield gains, regenerative and organic approaches, rooted
in ecological principles have been shown to enhance
sustainability in the long run. Investigating the role of
biodiversity in enhancing ecosystem services is crucial for
understanding the complex interactions between ecological
factors influenced by different agricultural practices.
The integration of diverse and sustainable agricultural
practices, such as agroecology, agroforestry and regenerative
farming, not only begets habitat creation but also champions
the conservation of beneficial insects. Examining the trade-offs
between ecosystem services and agricultural productivity is
crucial to develop effective strategies for sustainable
agriculture (123).
LOKESHWAR ET AL 10
https://plantsciencetoday.online
Exploring the role of ecosystem services in these diverse
farming systems reveals a complex interplay of ecological
dynamics influenced by various agricultural practices. Soil
health is prioritized through ecologically informed practices
such as crop rotation, cover cropping and reduced tillage,
which collectively enhance soil organic matter, improve soil
structure and augment water infiltration. These strategies,
rooted in ecological principles, optimize soil conditions to
support sustainable agricultural productivity. The importance
of ecosystem services in sustainable agriculture is clear and
undeniable. Excessive reliance on synthetic fertilizers and
pesticides harms soil and aquatic ecosystems, leading to a
rapid decline in biodiversity (124). This underscores the need
for sustainable agricultural practices that prioritize ecosystem
services and soil health to mitigate environmental degradation
and promote ecological resilience.
Regenerative agriculture practices, as delineated (47),
synergistically elevate agricultural yields, fortify soil health and
confer resilience against pests and diseases. Developing
effective monitoring and assessment methods for ecosystem
services is necessary to evaluate the impact of these practices.
Organic farming, which relies on ecologically based
cultivation practices, holds significant potential for enhancing
biodiversity conservation, soil quality and carbon
sequestration compared to conventional approaches (94).
Meta-analyses have shown significant increases in species
richness and abundance across taxa, as well as higher annual
rates of soil carbon accumulation under organic management
(33). While there are trade-offs in yields, ecosystem service
gains can offset lower average productivity (45). To apply
ecological insights to practice, it is crucial to integrate
ecosystem services into agricultural decision-making. The
wider adoption of agroecological approaches oriented around
ecology, biodiversity and complex farm design also promotes
multiple ecosystem functions from soil conservation to climate
change resilience (36, 72). Heterogeneous farming systems,
which offer habitat diversity, support vertebrate pest
regulation and reduce the need for chemical inputs, contribute
to more sustainable agricultural practices. Understanding the
policy and governance frameworks that support the promotion
of ecosystem services is vital to encourage the adoption of
organic farming practices.
By connecting ecological principles with food
production, farming models like perennial polycultures,
silvopasture, conservation agriculture and agroforestry
enhance carbon sequestration, nutrient retention and
microclimate regulation, outperforming conventional
monoculture systems. These diverse systems also help prevent
pest outbreaks and improve production under varying climate
conditions. While input-intensive systems still yield more on
average, diversified systems offer a better balance across
provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural ecosystem
services (12, 40).
Biodiversity is integral for securing productive
agriculture over the long term by enabling services like soil
fertility, pest regulation and plant pollination (18). Strategies
that increase landscape complexity, crop diversification and
genetic diversity directly translate into ecological processes
that replace costly external inputs (83).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the critical review of ecosystem services
influenced by diverse farming systems highlights their
numerous benefits, including enhanced biodiversity, improved
soil health and increased climate resilience. These systems,
such as intercropping, agroforestry and crop rotations,
promote ecological balance, sustainable productivity and
economic and social benefits. However, challenges such as
higher labour demands, management complexities, short-term
yield reductions and limited market access for small-scale
farmers remain significant barriers to their widespread
adoption. Addressing these issues is essential to fully harness
the potential of diverse farming systems.
Farmers can adopt locally relevant practices like
intercropping and agroforestry, supported by training to
enhance sustainable methods. Policymakers should provide
targeted incentives, improve market access and align
agricultural and environmental policies to promote long-term
sustainability. Researchers must collaborate with farmers to
develop practical solutions and integrate traditional
knowledge with scientific innovations. A collaborative effort
among these stakeholders is essential to overcome challenges,
ensure food security and create resilient, environmentally
sustainable agroecosystems.
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the support of Tamil Nadu Agricultural
University in facilitating our literature review and analysis.
We are also grateful to the reviewers for their thoughtful
comments and feedback, which have helped refine our
manuscript.
Authors' contributions
KL, ES and MS were responsible for conceptualization,
writing the original dra and conducting the review and
editing. RK, PJ and EP contributed to writing, reviewing
and editing the manuscript. MA and NV participated in
editing the manuscript. All authors have read and
approved the final version of the manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest: Authors do not have any conflict of
interest to declare.
Ethical issues: None
Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted
technologies in the writing process: During the
preparation of this work, the authors utilized QuillBot (AI-
powered writing and editing soware) to enhance clarity,
grammar and sentence structure in specific sections.
Following the use of this tool, the authors meticulously
reviewed, revised and edited the content to ensure
accuracy, coherence and integrity. The authors take full
responsibility for the final content and its validity.
11
Plant Science Today, ISSN 2348-1900 (online)
References
1. Amundson R, Berhe AA, Hopmans JW, Olson C, Sztein AE, Sparks
DL. Soil and human security in the 21st century. Sci. 2015;348
(6235):1261071. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1261071
2. Bhattacharyya SS, Leite FFGD, France CL, Adekoya AO, Ros GH, de
Vries W, et al. Soil carbon sequestration, greenhouse gas
emissions, and water pollution under dierent tillage practices.
Science of the Total Environment. 2022;826:154161. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154161
3. Millennium ecosystem assessment MEA. Ecosystems and human
well-being. Vol. 5. Island press Washington, DC; 2005.
4. Song S, Xiong K, Chi Y. Grassland ecosystem service and its
enlightenment on the revitalization of rural ecological animal
husbandry in the rocky desertification area: a literature review.
Polish Journal of Environmental Studies. 2022;31(5):4499–510.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15244/pjoes/149742
5. Daily GR. Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural
ecosystems. Environment Values. 1998;7(3), 365-367.
6. Breslow SJ, Sojka B, Barnea R, Basurto X, Carothers C, Charnley S,
et al. Conceptualizing and operationalizing human wellbeing for
ecosystem assessment and management. Environmental Science
and Policy. 2016;66:250–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.envsci.2016.06.023
7. Lang Y, Song W, Zhang Y. Responses of the water-yield ecosystem
service to climate and land use change in Sancha River Basin,
China. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C.
2017;101:102–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2017.06.003
8. Schirpke U, Kohler M, Leitinger G, Fontana V, Tasser E, Tappeiner
U. Future impacts of changing land-use and climate on ecosystem
services of mountain grassland and their resilience. Ecosystem
Services. 2017;26:79–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecoser.2017.06.008
9. Rockström J, Edenhofer O, Gaertner J, DeClerck F. Planet-
proofing the global food system. Nature Food. 2020;1(1):3–5.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-019-0010-4
10. Isbell F, Adler PR, Eisenhauer N, Fornara D, Kimmel K, Kremen C,
et al. Benefits of increasing plant diversity in sustainable
agroecosystems. Journal of ecology. 2017;105(4):871–9. https://
doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12789
11. Lacoste M, Cook S, McNee M, Gale D, Ingram J, Bellon-Maurel V, et
al. On-farm experimentation to transform global agriculture.
Nature Food. 2022;3(1):11–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-
00424-4
12. Schulte LA, Dale BE, Bozzetto S, Liebman M, Souza GM, Haddad N,
et al. Meeting global challenges with regenerative agriculture
producing food and energy. Nature Sustainability. 2022;5(5):384–
8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00827-y
13. Francaviglia R, Almagro M, Vicente-Vicente JL. Conservation
agriculture and soil organic carbon: Principles, processes,
practices and policy options. Soil Systems. 2023;7(1):17. https://
doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems7010017
14. Kremen C, Miles A. Ecosystem services in biologically diversified
versus conventional farming systems: benefits, externalities, and
trade-os. Ecology and society. 2012;17(4):40. http://
www.jstor.org/stable/26269237
15. Altieri AH, Harrison SB, Seemann J, Collin R, Diaz RJ, Knowlton N.
Tropical dead zones and mass mortalities on coral reefs.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2017;114
(14):3660–5. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1621517114
16. Machmuller MB, Kramer MG, Cyle TK, Hill N, Hancock D,
Thompson A. Emerging land use practices rapidly increase soil
organic matter. Nature Communications. 2015;6(1):6995. https://
doi.org/10.1038/ncomms7995
17. Wang J, Vanga SK, Saxena R, Orsat V, Raghavan V. Eect of
climate change on the yield of cereal crops: A review. Climate.
2018;6(2):41. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli6020041
18. Tamburini G, Bommarco R, Wanger TC, Kremen C, Van Der
Heijden MGA, Liebman M, et al. Agricultural diversification
promotes multiple ecosystem services without compromising
yield. Science Advances. 2020;6(45):eaba1715. DOI: 10.1126/
sciadv.aba1715
19. Kremen C. Ecological intensification and diversification
approaches to maintain biodiversity, ecosystem services and food
production in a changing world. Emerging topics in life sciences.
2020;4(2):229–40. https://doi.org/10.1042/ETLS20190205
20. Edo M, Entling MH, Rösch V. Agroforestry supports high bird
diversity in European farmland. Agronomy for Sustainable
Development. 2024;44:1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-023-
00936-2
21. Zhang W, Ricketts TH, Kremen C, Carney K, Swinton SM.
Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecological
economics. 2007;64(2):253–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecolecon.2007.02.024
22. Tengö M, Belfrage K. Local management practices for dealing with
change and uncertainty: a cross-scale comparison of cases in
Sweden and Tanzania. Ecol and Society. 2004;9(3):4. https://
www.jstor.org/stable/26267678 . Accessed 20 Feb. 2025.
23. Gurr GM, Wratten SD, Landis DA, You M. Habitat management to
suppress pest populations: progress and prospects. Annual
Review of Entomology. 2017;62(1):91–109. https://
doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-031616-035050
24. Duru M, Therond O, Martin G, Martin-Clouaire R, Magne M-A,
Justes E, et al. How to implement biodiversity-based agriculture
to enhance ecosystem services: a review. Agronomy for
Sustainable Development. 2015;35:1259–81. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0306-1
25. Machnik A. Natural capital and ecological ecosystem services:
Methods of measuring socio-economic value of nature.
Responsible Consumption and Production. 2020;511–23. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95726-5_44
26. Manson S, Nekaris KAI, Hedger K, Balestri M, Ahmad N, Adinda E,
Budiadi B, Imron MA, Nijman V, Campera M. Flower visitation time
and number of visitor species are reduced by the use of
agrochemicals in coee home gardens. Agronomy. 2022;12:509.
https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12020509
27. Baert JM, Eisenhauer N, Janssen CR, De Laender F. Biodiversity
eects on ecosystem functioning respond unimodally to
environmental stress. Ecology Letters. 2018;21(8):1191–9. https://
doi.org/10.1111/ele.13088
28. Philip Robertson G, Gross KL, Hamilton SK, Landis DA, Schmidt
TM, Snapp SS, et al. Farming for ecosystem services: An ecological
approach to production agriculture. Bioscience. 2014;64(5):404–
15. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu037
29. Kazemi H, Klug H, Kamkar B. New services and roles of
biodiversity in modern agroecosystems: A review. Ecology
Indiccators. 2018;93:1126–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecolind.2018.06.018
30. Boix-Fayos C, de Vente J. Challenges and potential pathways
towards sustainable agriculture within the European Green Deal.
Agricultural Systems. 2023;207:103634. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.agsy.2023.103634
31. Sangothari A, Archana HA, Vasuki A, Surya R, Keerthana T.
Biodiversity Conservation in Agricultural Landscapes: The Role of
Integrated Farming Systems. International Journal of
Environment and Climate Change. 2024;14:577–583. https://
doi.org/10.9734/ijecc/2024/v14i23972
32. Maurer R. Comparing the eect of dierent agricultural land-use
systems on biodiversity. Land use policy. 2023;134:106929.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106929
LOKESHWAR ET AL 12
https://plantsciencetoday.online
33. Tuck SL, Winqvist C, Mota F, Ahnström J, Turnbull LA, Bengtsson
J. Land‐use intensity and the eects of organic farming on
biodiversity: a hierarchical meta-analysis. Journal of applied
ecology. 2014;51:746–755. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-
2664.12219
34. Tscharntke T, Grass I, Wanger TC, Westphal C, Batáry P. Beyond
organic farming–harnessing biodiversity-friendly landscapes.
Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2021;36:919–930. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2021.06.010
35. Ponisio LC, M’Gonigle LK, Mace KC, Palomino J, De Valpine P,
Kremen C. Diversification practices reduce organic to
conventional yield gap. Proceedings of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences. 2015;282:20141396. https://doi.org/10.1098/
rspb.2014.1396
36. Gliessman S. Defining agroecology. Vol. 42, Agroecology and
Sustainable Food Systems. Taylor & Francis; 2018. p. 599–600.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2018.1432329
37. Haines-Young R, Potschin M. The links between biodiversity,
ecosystem services and human well-being. Ecosystem Ecology: a
new synthesis. 2010;1:110–39.
38. Lu Y, Wang R, Zhang Y, Su H, Wang P, Jenkins A, et al. Ecosystem
health towards sustainability. Ecosystem Health and
Sustainability. 2015;1(1):1–15. DOI: 10.1890/EHS14-0013.1
39. Mbow C, Noordwijk VM, Luedeling E, Neufeldt H, Minang PA,
Kowero G. Agroforestry solutions to address food security and
climate change challenges in Africa. Curr Opinion in Environ
Sustain. 2014;6:61–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cosust.2013.10.014
40. Torralba M, Fagerholm N, Burgess PJ, Moreno G, Plieninger T. Do
European agroforestry systems enhance biodiversity and
ecosystem services? A meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems &
Environment. 2016;230:150–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.agee.2016.06.002
41. Ayyam V, Palanivel S, Chandrakasan S, Ayyam V, Palanivel S,
Chandrakasan S. Conservation Agriculture for Rehabilitation of
Agro-ecosystems. Coastal Ecosystems of the Tropics-Adaptive
Management. 2019;407–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-
8926-9
42. Cárceles Rodríguez B, Durán-Zuazo VH, Soriano Rodríguez M,
García-Tejero IF, Gálvez Ruiz B, Cuadros Tavira S. Conservation
agriculture as a sustainable system for soil health: A review. Soil
Systems. 2022;6(4):87. https://doi.org/10.3390/
soilsystems6040087
43. Bitew Y, Abera M. Conservation agriculture based annual
intercropping system for sustainable crop production: A review.
Indian Journal of Ecology. 2019;46(2):235–49.
44. Migliorini P, Wezel A. Converging and diverging principles and
practices of organic agriculture regulations and agroecology. A
review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 2017;37:1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0472-4
45. Reganold JP, Wachter JM. Organic agriculture in the twenty-first
century. Nature Plants. 2016;2(2):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/
nplants.2015.221
46. Smith OM, Cohen AL, Rieser CJ, Davis AG, Taylor JM, Adesanya
AW, et al. Organic farming provides reliable environmental
benefits but increases variability in crop yields: A global meta-
analysis. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 2019;3:82.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00082
47. Giller KE, Hijbeek R, Andersson JA, Sumberg J. Regenerative
agriculture: an agronomic perspective. Outlook Agric. 2021;50
(1):13–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0030727021998063
48. Rhodes CJ. The imperative for regenerative agriculture. Scientific
Programming. 2017;100(1):80–129. https://
doi.org/10.3184/003685017X14876775256165
49. Loconto AM, Fouilleux E. Defining agroecology: Exploring the
circulation of knowledge in FAO’s Global Dialogue. The
International journal of sociology of agriculture and food. 2019;25
(2):116–37. https://doi.org/10.48416/ijsaf.v25i2.27
50. Acs S, Berentsen P, Huirne R, Asseldonk VM. Eect of yield and
price risk on conversion from conventional to organic farming.
Australian J Agri and Resour Economics. 2009;53(3):393–411.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8489.2009.00458.x
51. Smith J, Yeluripati J, Smith P, Nayak DR. Potential yield
challenges to scale-up of zero budget natural farming. Nature
Sustainability. 2020;3(3):247–52. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-
019-0469-x
52. Gebbers R, Adamchuk VI. Precision agriculture and food
security. Science. 2010;327(5967):828–31. DOI: 10.1126/
science.1183899
53. Turinek M, Grobelnik-Mlakar S, Bavec M, Bavec F. Biodynamic
agriculture research progress and priorities. Renewable
agriculture and food systems. 2009;24(2):146–54. doi:10.1017/
S174217050900252X
54. Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P. Defining and classifying ecosystem
services for decision making. Ecological economics. 2009;68
(3):643–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014
55. Su B, Liu M. Study on extra services of integrated agricultural
landscapes: A case study conducted on the Coastal Bench Terrace
System. Ecology Indicators. 2022;145:109634. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109634
56. Sylla M. Ecosystem services contributing to local economic
sectors–conceptual framework of linking ecosystem services,
benefits and economic sectors. Ekonomia i Środowisko. 2023;
DOI: 10.34659/eis.2023.85.2.571
57. Deepthi N, Nagaraja BC, Paramesha M. Riparian Zones and
Pollination Service: A Case Study from Coee-Agrosystem Along
River Cauvery, South India. Nature Environment and Pollution
Technology. 2020;19: 1235–1240. https://doi.org/10.46488/
NEPT.2020.v19i03.038
58. Babendreier D, Hou M, Tang R, Zhang F, Vongsabouth T, Win KK,
Kang M, Peng H, Song K, Annamalai S. Biological control of
lepidopteran pests in rice: a multi-nation case study from Asia.
Journal of Integrated Pest Management. 2020;11:5. https://
doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12122958
59. Mehrabi Z, Delzeit R, Ignaciuk A, Levers C, Braich G, Bajaj K, et al.
Research priorities for global food security under extreme events.
One Earth. 2022;5(7):756–66.
60. Muhie SH. Novel approaches and practices to sustainable
agriculture. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research.
2022;10:100446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2022.100446
61. Duflot R, San-Cristobal M, Andrieu E, Choisis J-P, Esquerré D,
Ladet S, et al. Farming intensity indirectly reduces crop yield
through negative eects on agrobiodiversity and key ecological
functions. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment.
2022;326:107810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2021.107810
62. Collas L, Crastes dit Sourd R, Finch T, Green R, Hanley N, Balmford
A. The costs of delivering environmental outcomes with land
sharing and land sparing. People and Nature. 2023;5(1):228–40.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10422
63. Gliessman S. Why is ecological diversity important? Vol. 46,
Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems. Taylor & Francis;
2022. p. 329–330. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003304043
64. Ralegeau S, Gosme M, Barkaoui K, Garcia L, Allinne C, Deheuvels
O, et al. The ESSU concept for designing, modeling and auditing
ecosystem service provision in intercropping and agroforestry
systems. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development.
2023;43(4):43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-023-00894-9
65. Abakumov E, Suleymanov A, Guzov Y, Titov V, Vashuk A,
Shestakova E, et al. Ecosystem services of the cryogenic
environments: identification, evaluation and monetisation-A
13
Plant Science Today, ISSN 2348-1900 (online)
review. J Water and Land Develop. 2022;p. 1–8. DOI 10.24425/
jwld.2021.139937
66. Rosa-Schleich J, Loos J, Mußho O, Tscharntke T. Ecological-
economic trade-os of diversified farming systems–a review.
Ecological economics. 2019;160:251–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecolecon.2019.03.002
67. Hayek L-AC, Buzas MA. Surveying natural populations:
quantitative tools for assessing biodiversity. Columbia University
Press; 2010. https://doi.org/10.7312/haye14620
68. Carrasco RC, Candela G, Marco-Such M. Measuring the diversity of
data and metadata in digital libraries. arXiv preprint
arXiv:230101193. 2023; https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2301.01193
69. agroo V, Minott A, James L. A time series analysis using Shannon
Index of annual domestic crop production and area planted in
Jamaica from 2007 to 2021. Proceedings of the 4th International
Conference on Statistics: Theory and Applications (ICSTA'22);
2022 Jul 28-30. p. 166. DOI: 10.11159/icsta22.166
70. Thornbrugh D, Infante D, Tsang Y. Regional trends of biodiversity
indices in the temperate mesic United States: testing for
influences of anthropogenic land use on stream fish while
controlling for natural landscape variables. Water (Basel).
2023;15:1591. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15081591
71. Dardonville M, Legrand B, Clivot H, Bernardin C, Bockstaller C,
Therond O. Assessment of ecosystem services and natural capital
dynamics in agroecosystems. Ecosystem Services.
2022;54:101415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101415
72. Ratnadass A, Fernandes P, Avelino J, Habib R. Plant species
diversity for sustainable management of crop pests and diseases
in agroecosystems: a review. Agron for Sustain Develop.
2012;32:273–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-011-0022-4
73. Muchane MN, Sileshi GW, Gripenberg S, Jonsson M, Pumariño L,
Barrios E. Agroforestry boosts soil health in the humid and sub-
humid tropics: A meta-analysis. Agri, Ecosystem and Environ.
2020;295:106899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.106899
74. Karp DS, Chaplin-Kramer R, Meehan TD, Martin EA, DeClerck F,
Grab H, et al. Crop pests and predators exhibit inconsistent
responses to surrounding landscape composition. Proceed of the
Nat Acad of Sci. 2018;115(33):E7863–70. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1800042115
75. White HJ, Caplat P, Emmerson MC, Yearsley JM. Predicting future
stability of ecosystem functioning under climate change. Agri,
Ecosystem and Environ. 2021;320:107600. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2021.107600
76. Rehman A, Farooq M, Lee D-J, Siddique KHM. Sustainable
agricultural practices for food security and ecosystem services.
Environ Sci and Pollution Res. 2022;29(56):84076–95. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23635-z
77. Martín-López B, Felipe-Lucia MR, Bennett EM, Norström A,
Peterson G, Plieninger T, et al. A novel telecoupling framework to
assess social relations across spatial scales for ecosystem services
J Environ Manage. 2019;241:251–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jenvman.2019.04.029
78. Wood SLR, Jones SK, Johnson JA, Brauman KA, Chaplin-Kramer
R, Fremier A, et al. Distilling the role of ecosystem services in the
sustainable development goals. Ecosystem Services. 2018 Feb
1;29:70–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.010
79. Dangles O, Casas J. Ecosystem services provided by insects for
achieving sustainable development goals. Ecosystem Services.
2019;35:109–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.12.002
80. Wurtsbaugh WA, Paerl HW, Dodds WK. Nutrients, eutrophication
and harmful algal blooms along the freshwater to marine
continuum. Wiley Interdisciplinary Rev: Water. 2019 Sep 1;6
(5):1373. https://doi.org/10.1002/WAT2.1373
81. Dainese M, Martin EA, Aizen MA, Albrecht M, Bartomeus I,
Bommarco R, et al. A global synthesis reveals biodiversity-
mediated benefits for crop production. Science Advances. 2019;5
(10): eaax0121. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aax0121
82. Bullock JM, McCracken ME, Bowes MJ, Chapman RE, Graves AR,
Hinsley SA, et al. Does agri-environmental management enhance
biodiversity and multiple ecosystem services?: A farm-scale
experiment. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment.
2021;320:107582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2021.107582
83. Beillouin D, Ben-Ari T, Malézieux E, Seufert V, Makowski D. Positive
but variable eects of crop diversification on biodiversity and
ecosystem services. Global Change Biology. 2021;27(19):4697–
710. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15747
84. Liu C, Plaza-Bonilla D, Coulter JA, Kutcher HR, Beckie HJ, Wang L,
et al. Diversifying crop rotations enhances agroecosystem
services and resilience. Advances in Agronomy. 2022;173:299–335.
https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.2022.02.007
85. Lichtenberg EM, Kennedy CM, Kremen C, Batary P, Berendse F,
Bommarco R, et al. A global synthesis of the eects of diversified
farming systems on arthropod diversity within fields and across
agricultural landscapes. Global Change Biology. 2017;23(11):4946
–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13714
86. Kerr RB, Madsen S, Stüber M, Liebert J, Enloe S, Borghino N, et al.
Can agroecology improve food security and nutrition? A review.
Global Food Security. 2021;29:100540. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.gfs.2021.100540
87. Tittonell PA, Hara SM, Alvarez VE, Aramayo MVDL, Bruzzone OA,
Easdale MH, et al. Ecosystem services and disservices associated
with pastoral systems from Patagonia, Argentina– A review.
Cahiers Agricultures. 2021;30:43.https://doi.org/10.1051/
cagri/2021029
88. Rauw WM, Gomez-Raya L, Star L, Øverland M, Delezie E, Grivins M,
et al. Sustainable development in circular agriculture: An
illustrative bee- legume- poultry example. Sustainable
Development. 2023;31(2):639–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2435
89. Salve A, Tiwari C, Baghele L. Impact of agroforestry systems: A
review. Asian Journal of Microbiology, Biotechnology &
Environmental Sciences. 2022;24(2):214–23. DOI No.: http://
doi.org/10.53550/AJMBES.2022.v24i02.002
90. Calegari A, de Araujo AG, Tiecher T, Bartz MLC, Lanillo RF, dos
Santos DR, et al. No-till farming systems for sustainable
agriculture in South America. No-till Farming Systems for
Sustainable Agriculture: Challenges and Opportunities. 2020;533–
65. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46409-7_30
91. Crittenden SJ, Huerta E, De Goede RGM, Pulleman MM.
Earthworm assemblages as aected by field margin strips and
tillage intensity: An on-farm approach. European Journal of Soil
Biology. 2015;66:49–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ejsobi.2014.11.007
92. Blubaugh CK, Hagler JR, Machtley SA, Kaplan I. Cover crops
increase foraging activity of omnivorous predators in seed
patches and facilitate weed biological control. Agriculture,
Ecosystems & Environment. 2016;231:264–70. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.06.045
93. Chen J, Li J, Yang Y, Wang Y, Zhang Y, Wang P. Eects of
conventional and organic agriculture on soil arbuscular
mycorrhizal fungal community in low-quality farmland. Frontiers
in Microbiology. 2022;13:914627. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fmicb.2022.914627
94. Skinner C, Gattinger A, Krauss M, Krause H-M, Mayer J, Van Der
Heijden MGA, et al. The impact of long-term organic farming on
soil-derived greenhouse gas emissions. Scientific Reports. 2019;9
(1):1702. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-38207-w
95. Niggli U. Sustainability of organic food production: challenges
and innovations. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society. 2015;74
(1):83–8. doi:10.1017/S0029665114001438
LOKESHWAR ET AL 14
https://plantsciencetoday.online
96. Schrama M, De Haan JJ, Kroonen M, Verstegen H, Van der Putten
WH. Crop yield gap and stability in organic and conventional
farming systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment.
2018;256:123–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.12.023
97. Mondelaers K, Aertsens J, Van Huylenbroeck G. A meta‐analysis
of the dierences in environmental impacts between organic and
conventional farming. British food journal. 2009;111(10):1098–
119. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700910992925
98. Khatri S, Dubey S, Shivay YS, Jelsbak L, Sharma S. Organic
farming induces changes in bacterial community and disease
suppressiveness against fungal phytopathogens. Applied Soil
Ecology. 2023;181:104658. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.apsoil.2022.104658
99. Siswadi E, Sulistyono NBE, Firgiyanto R, Dinata GF. Exploration of
bacterial diversity from the soil of citrus plantations applied with
organic fertilizer and salicylic acid. In: IOP Conference Series:
Earth and Environmental Science. IOP Publishing; 2023. p.
012019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1168/1/012019
100. Santoni M, Verdi L, Imran Pathan S, Napoli M, Dalla Marta A, Dani
FR, et al. Soil microbiome biomass, activity, composition and CO2
emissions in a long‐term organic and conventional farming
systems. Soil Use Management. 2023;39(1):588–605. https://
doi.org/10.1111/sum.12836
101. Young RR, Wilson B, Harden S, Bernardi A. Accumulation of soil
carbon under zero tillage cropping and perennial vegetation on
the Liverpool Plains, eastern Australia. Soil Research. 2009;47
(3):273–85. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR08104
102. Van Oudenhove M, Martínez-Mena M, Almagro M, Díaz-Pereira E,
Carrillo E, de Vente J, et al. The Impact of Regenerative Agriculture
on Provisioning Ecosystem Services: An Example in Southeast
Spain. In: Biology and Life Sciences Forum. MDPI; 2024. p. 28.
https://doi.org/10.3390/IOCAG2023-17336
103. Martínez E, Fuentes JP, Pino V, Silva P, Acevedo E. Chemical and
biological properties as aected by no-tillage and conventional
tillage systems in an irrigated Haploxeroll of Central Chile. Soil
Tillage Research. 2013 Jan 1;126: 238–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.still.2012.07.014
104. Powlson DS, Stirling CM, Jat ML, Gerard BG, Palm CA, Sanchez PA,
et al. Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change
mitigation. Nature Climate Change. 2014;4(8):678–83. https://
doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2292
105. Wurz A, Tscharntke T, Martin DA, Osen K, Rakotomalala AANA,
Raveloaritiana E, et al. Win-win opportunities combining high
yields with high multi-taxa biodiversity in tropical agroforestry.
Nature Communications. 2022;13(1):4127. https://
doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-30866-8
106. Duddigan S, Collins CD, Hussain Z, Osbahr H, Shaw LJ, Sinclair F,
et al. Impact of zero budget natural farming on crop yields in
Andhra Pradesh, SE India. Sustainability. 2022;14(3):1689. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su14031689
107. Schulte LA, Niemi J, Helmers MJ, Liebman M, Arbuckle JG, James
DE, et al. Prairie strips improve biodiversity and the delivery of
multiple ecosystem services from corn–soybean croplands.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2017;114
(42):11247–52. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1620229114
108. Jayaraman S, Dang YP, Naorem A, Page KL, Dalal RC.
Conservation agriculture as a system to enhance ecosystem
services. Agriculture. 2021;11(8):718. https://doi.org/10.3390/
agriculture11080718
109. Barrios E, Gemmill-Herren B, Bicksler A, Siliprandi E, Brathwaite R,
Moller S, et al. The 10 Elements of Agroecology: enabling
transitions towards sustainable agriculture and food systems
through visual narratives. Ecosystems and People. 2020;16(1):230
–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2020.1808705
110. Gaba S, Gabriel E, Chadœuf J, Bonneu F, Bretagnolle V. Herbicides
do not ensure for higher wheat yield, but eliminate rare plant
species. Scientific Reports. 2016;6(1):30112. https://
doi.org/10.1038/srep30112
111. Woodcock BA, Bullock JM, McCracken M, Chapman RE, Ball SL,
Edwards ME, et al. Spill-over of pest control and pollination
services into arable crops. Agriculture, Ecosystems &
Environment. 2016;231:15–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.agee.2016.06.023
112. Heal G. Valuing ecosystem services. Ecosystems. 2000;24–30.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3658664
113. Wang F, Cui H, He F, Liu Q, Zhu Q, Wang W, et al. The green
manure (Astragalus sinicus L.) improved rice yield and quality and
changed soil microbial communities of rice in the karst mountains
area. Agronomy. 2022;12(8):1851. https://doi.org/10.3390/
agronomy12081851
114. Crowder DW, Reganold JP. Financial competitiveness of organic
agriculture on a global scale. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences. 2015;112(24):7611–6. https://
doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1423674112
115. Lorenz K, Lal R. Environmental impact of organic agriculture.
Advances in agronomy. 2016;139: 99–152. https://
doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.2016.05.003
116. Trickett T, Warner DJ. Earthworm abundance increased by mob-
grazing zero-tilled arable land in south-east england. Earth.
2022;3(3):895–906. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth3030052
117. Sun R, Guo X, Wang D, Chu H. Eects of long-term application of
chemical and organic fertilizers on the abundance of microbial
communities involved in the nitrogen cycle. Applied Soil Ecology.
2015;95:171–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2015.06.010
118. Crystal-Ornelas R, Thapa R, Tully KL. Soil organic carbon is
aected by organic amendments, conservation tillage, and cover
cropping in organic farming systems: A meta-analysis. Agriculture,
Ecosystems & Environment. 2021;312:107356. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2021.107356
119. Zhou M, Xiao Y, Zhang X, Xiao L, Ding G, Cruse RM, et al. Fieen
years of conservation tillage increases soil aggregate stability by
altering the contents and chemical composition of organic carbon
fractions in Mollisols. Land Degradation & Development. 2022;33
(15):2932–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.4365
120. Hamza A, Farooq MO, Razaq M, Shah FM. Organic farming of
maize crop enhances species evenness and diversity of hexapod
predators. Bulletin of Entomological Research. 2023;113(4):565–
73. doi:10.1017/S000748532300024X
121. Blanco-Canqui H, Francis CA, Galusha TD. Does organic farming
accumulate carbon in deeper soil profiles in the long term?
Geoderma. 2017;288:213–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.geoderma.2016.10.031
122. Durán AP, Smith M, Trippier B, Godoy K, Parra M, Lorca M, et al.
Implementing ecosystem service assessments within
agribusiness: Challenges and proposed solutions. Journal of
Applied Ecology. 2022;59(10):2468–75. https://
doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14250
123. Spake R, Lasseur R, Crouzat E, Bullock JM, Lavorel S, Parks KE, et
al. Unpacking ecosystem service bundles: Towards predictive
mapping of synergies and trade-os between ecosystem services.
Global Environmental Change. 2017;47:37–50. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.08.004
124. Dhuldhaj UP, Singh R, Singh VK. Pesticide contamination in agro-
ecosystems: toxicity, impacts, and bio-based management
strategies. Environmental Science and Pollution Research.
2023;30(4):9243–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-24381-y
15
Plant Science Today, ISSN 2348-1900 (online)
Additional information
Peer review: Publisher thanks Sectional Editor and the other anonymous
reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Reprints & permissions information is available at https://
horizonepublishing.com/journals/index.php/PST/open_access_policy
Publisher’s Note: Horizon e-Publishing Group remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional ailiations.
Indexing: Plant Science Today, published by Horizon e-Publishing Group, is
covered by Scopus, Web of Science, BIOSIS Previews, Clarivate Analytics,
NAAS, UGC Care, etc
See https://horizonepublishing.com/journals/index.php/PST/
indexing_abstracting
Copyright: © The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under
the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original author and source are credited (https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/)
Publisher information: Plant Science Today is published by HORIZON e-
Publishing Group with support from Empirion Publishers Private Limited,
Thiruvananthapuram, India.
