# Reconciling Productivity, Maintaining Biodiversity and Human Well-being: How Will Tomorrow's Agriculture

Florian Kletty

► To cite this version:

Florian Kletty. Reconciling Productivity, Maintaining Biodiversity and Human Well-being: How Will Tomorrow's Agriculture. Dobigny Laure; Robyns Benoît. Rethinking Networks in Times of Transition: Ecological, Energy and Social Issues, Wiley, 2025, 978-1-83669-018-4. hal-05479209

HAL Id: hal-05479209

https://univ-catholille.hal.science/hal-05479209v1

Submitted on 27 Jan 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
Chapter 2

Reconciling Productivity, Maintaining
Biodiversity and Human Well-being:
How Will Tomorrow's Agriculture
Solve this Equation?<fnref n="1" />

**2.1. Introduction**

Arable farming in temperate climates has undergone major changes over the last decades, particularly in areas dominated by arable crops. The predominantly industrial and intensive farming practices have given rise to a number of problems. Biodiversity in agricultural environments has been particularly affected. A 75% collapse in insect populations in favourable environments close to agricultural plots has been observed over a period of 27 years (Hallmann et al., 2017). Specialist bird species are in decline, and this is most marked for farmland specialists (Rigal et al., 2023). This is not just a question of protecting biodiversity, but also of its capacity to provide services, particularly for agricultural production. For example, the decline in pollinating insects and natural predators of pests leads to a drop in agricultural yields (Dainese et al., 2019). This decline in invertebrates providing ecosystem services is linked in particular to the simplification of agricultural landscapes, i.e. the proportion of cultivated plots compared to other habitats, particularly semi-natural habitats, such as hedgerows, woodlands, grass strips, and meadows. The use of pesticides is also at issue, for instance reducing pollination services as much as they increase yields (Catarino et al., 2019a). The race for yield in this intensive agriculture is not

<footnote n="1">¹ Author: Kletty Florian, ICL, Junia, Université Catholique de Lille, LITL, F-59000 Lille, France. Corresponding author: Florian KLETTY florian.kletty@univ-catholille.fr</footnote>
synonymous with profitability for farmers, whose financial situation is often
complicated.

Moreover, the negative effects of this type of farming are not confined to agricultural plots. The use of pesticides affects air quality, the health of nearby residents, and generates conflicts with the farming community. 25% of French population is directly exposed to pesticide treatments and 5% is highly exposed, while most of the population live in cities (Nowak and Marliac, 2024). Furthermore, from 20 to 30% of waters in Europe are subject to diffuse pollution linked to agriculture, particularly nitrogen and pesticides (European Environment Agency, 2021). Unhealthy soils are prone to erosion and have more difficulty managing excess or shortages of water, which contributes to mudflows, floods and droughts. The nutritional quality of agricultural production has also declined over the decades (Davis et al., 2004; Mariem et al., 2020). This has a negative impact on access to good quality food and good human health. Finally, agricultural landscapes have become more uniform, with an increase in the size of plots, a reduction in the diversity of crops, and the presence of semi-natural habitats.

In this context, this chapter sets out alternative agricultural practices and models to the intensive industrial agriculture that has now become ‘conventional’, the benefits they can bring at different scales, and the limits, obstacles and levers that exist for their development.

**2.2. Alternative agricultural practices and models**

**2.2.1.Agricultural practices**

**2.2.1.1. Grasslands, crops and species**

The choice of implanted species can alter agricultural practices. Grasslands cover 70% of global agricultural surfaces (Smith et al., 2016). They provide numerous agronomic and environmental services, depending on their type and management (Dumont et al., 2019). Croplands would benefit from diversification through the implementation of grasslands and from crop diversification. While three crops produce more than the half of calories from agriculture, there are hundreds of species suitable for crop production and about 7000 species have once been cultivated or collected for food (FAO, 1997). Crop rotation diversification and rotation is thus possible and would bring many advantages (Beillouin et al., 2021a; Tamburini et al., 2020). Furthermore, perennial crops can be grown instead of annual ones to improve soil health and optimize resource use (Glover et al., 2010). Legume crops fix atmospheric nitrogen (Hartwig and Ammon, 2002). Water, input, pesticide, and soil
work requirements vary among crops, impacting the ecological performance of the system.

#### 2.2.1.2. Cover crops

Annual crops, which make up the majority of arable land, are grown on plots for a limited part of the year. In temperate climates, winter crops are generally grown in autumn, winter and spring, while spring crops are grown in spring and summer. This means that agricultural plots can remain without a cash crop for a large part of the year, particularly when a spring crop is grown after a winter crop. Cover crops are plant species that grow during this intermediate period. Various objectives are sought: limit nitrate leaching and pollution to soil and water; provide nitrate or other nutrients to following crop; limit the development of weeds; limit soil erosion; improve soil health and structure; provide resources to feed livestock or for biogas production; provide organic matter to the soil and living organisms; regulate certain pests or favour their predators; favour biodiversity (Blanco-Canqui et al., 2015).

#### 2.2.1.3. Intercropping

Plant diversification can be achieved through spatial or temporal association, known as intercropping or several other names such as crop associations or mixed crops. These species may be the main crop (cash crop) with other plant species (service crop) such as those used in cover crops, or several cash crops grown together. (Gardarin et al., 2022; Hartwig and Ammon, 2002). These crops can be grown synchronously in the field or not. An example of synchronous intercropping can be a wheat-pea intercropping, both sown in autumn, either fully mixed or with alternating strips, and harvested in early summer (Lopes et al., 2015). Performing a cultivar mixture of a given crop can also improve farming practices but the benefits are still reduced in comparison with species diversification (Beillouin et al., 2021b). Asynchronous intercropping can be implemented by the sowing of cash crop in a service crop then called living mulch, by the under-seeding of service crop before the harvest of the cash crop, or by relay cropping (Gardarin et al., 2022). Relay cropping consists in the seeding of a crop in a field where another crop is already growing, so that the two crops will be present simultaneously for only part of their cycle (Tanveer et al., 2017). For instance, a wheat-soybean relay-cropping can be performed by seeding wheat in autumn, rows of soybean in spring, harvesting wheat in early summer and soybean in early autumn (Duncan and Schapaugh Jr., 1997).

#### 2.2.1.4. Reduced tillage and no-tillage

Ploughing, and tillage in general, destroy aggregates, compact the soil, disrupt biological communities, reduce the activity of micro-organisms and the quantity of organic carbon in soil, etc. (Bronick and Lal, 2005; Plante and McGill, 2002). It is possible to perform reduced tillage which consists in superficial tillage without soil
inversion. No-tillage is also possible for many crops, the seeds being directly sown
without tillage, and weeds being managed in a different way (herbicides, cover crops).

2.2.1.5. *Chemical pesticide and fertiliser avoidance*

Given the impact of pesticides and fertilisers on biodiversity, environment and human health, stopping their use is desirable. This can be through a total avoidance of chemical molecules, like performed by organic agriculture (see §2.2.2.2), or by banning the most harmful ones (Geiger et al., 2010). It is also possible to limit their use, by diminishing the doses while maintaining their efficiency (Catarino et al., 2019b). Limitation can also occur through spatial disruption, with untreated field borders then called ‘conservation headlands’ (Stoate et al., 2001). Alternative practices can also help chemical pesticide and fertiliser avoidance. Manuring can limit or avoid the use of chemical fertilizers. Mechanical weeding can avoid the use of herbicides. Biocontrol, like releasing beneficial arthropods or entomopathogens, limits or avoids the use of insecticides or fungicides.

2.2.1.6. Seminatural habitats

The diversification of habitats, ecosystem structures and ecological conditions in
arable landscape is important. This can be done with different ecological structures.
i) The promotion of grassed or flowered vegetation through meadows (see 2.2.1.1),
grassed fields and paths verges, riverbanks or even the implementation of flowered
strips in or around fields. ii) The implementation of trees at the vicinity of crops, i.e.
agroforestry. This can be done by developing hedgerows around the fields, but also
by implementing trees inside the fields like in arable alley-cropping systems (Kletty
et al., 2023). iii) The conservation or restauration of rivers, marshes and ponds in the
agricultural landscape. iv) The improvement of habitat diversity in existing structures,
like with embankments, dead wood and logs, leaf litter and stones (Lecq et al., 2017).

**2.2.2. Agricultural models**

2.2.2.1. Agroecology

Agroecology is a set of practices that aims to improve the agricultural system by
creating synergies with the other components of the agroecosystem (biodiversity,
local and renewable resources, local farmer's knowledge), thus taking advantage of,
and trying to maximise many ecosystem services (Wezel et al., 2018). It is therefore
a model that is particularly desirable but in practice little defined or delimited, and it
includes other models discussed below. Moreover, the term agroecology refers not
only to this agricultural model but also to agroecology as a science, and as an
innovative farming movement (Wezel et al., 2018).
#### 2.2.2.2. Organic agriculture

Organic farming is an agricultural model that operates without the use of chemical inputs like pesticides or synthetic fertilisers, although few mineral-based pesticides, such as copper-based products, are allowed. But it goes far beyond that, with prohibition of GMOs, some additives, and regulation about animal welfare. Beyond a controlled and labelled agricultural model, organic agriculture is a model that aims to foster biodiversity, take care of environment, people and farmers (Migliorini and Wezel, 2017).

#### 2.2.2.3. Conservation agriculture.

Conservation agriculture is an agricultural model whose initial aim is to conserve the soil and optimise its functionality. It is based on three main principles: minimal soil disturbance (no ploughing, reduced or no-tillage), maximisation of soil cover by plants, and the diversification of crop species (FAO, 2017). This is a nature-based agricultural model which promotes biodiversity and related services. Thus, conservation agriculture aims to reduce pesticides use (especially insecticides and fungicides) to maintain ecosystem functions, although this is not part of the three definition pillars.

#### 2.2.2.4. Mixed crop and livestock farming

Many farming areas have specialised in certain types of agricultural production, and livestock farming areas are often far from arable farming areas (Dumont et al., 2019). However, this specialisation is not always desirable, and it is possible to combine crops and livestock within the same agricultural landscape. In particular, this leads to better management of nitrogen resources, with livestock effluents used as fertiliser for crops rather than creating dependence on chemical inputs on the one hand and nitrate pollution on the other. Livestock farming favours the use of temporary grassland in rotation with crops, allowing plots to benefit from several years without tillage and with permanent cover. The use or harvest of crop combinations is easier for livestock than for human consumption. In addition, livestock can interact with cultivated plots, for example by grazing the plant cover. This provides a way to manage the cover crops, as well as a food source in lean periods. Animals can also be used to weed crops. This has traditionally been done with rice and ducks (Men et al., 2002), but is also possible with crops such as wheat using sheep, for example, enabling the plot to be cleaned and fertilised without significant negative impact on yields (Emile et al., 2011).

#### 2.2.2.5. Permaculture

Permaculture is also an agricultural model, since it constitutes a set of different agricultural practices, and since it goes beyond the agricultural technic. It is a nature-based solution to live and cultivate in harmony with the territory where it is
implemented (Ferguson and Lovell, 2014). It requires an ecological coherence
through biodiversity, resources and people full integration in the model. It relies on
organic agriculture with few or no mechanisation, and the minimum of perturbation
in the production system. It means no or few tillage, crop associations, cover cropping,
and often association with livestock, use of perennial crops and agroforestry. The
scale of such systems is therefore much smaller than other models mentioned. It
allows to go deeper in developing naturality and natural processes, but is much more
at break with conventional systems.

## 2.3. Benefits of alternative practices and models

### 2.3.1. Biodiversity

Living organisms need to find food resources and protection in their environment. The agricultural practices and models mentioned above make this possible, through the compositional and structural diversification of plots and the agricultural landscape. Moreover, soil protection and the addition of organic matter favour soil organisms.

A multitude of studies indicate how biodiversity can be enhanced by these
agricultural practices and models. In the case of silvoarable agroforestry, for example,
existing studies looking at biodiversity conservation have all shown a positive effect
(flying and ground invertebrates, plants, birds, small mammals, etc.) (Kletty et al.,
2023). More generally, crop diversification strategies (agroforestry, crop rotation,
cover crops, intercropping, cultivar mixture) increase by 24% on average the crop
associated biodiversity (Beillouin et al., 2021a). Benefits on biodiversity can be seen
at different trophic levels. For instance, organic agriculture or reduced tillage
associated to herbicide reduction increases abundance or activity of vertebrates like
bats and birds (Barré et al., 2018a, 2018b). Thus, it indicates at the same time that
such agricultural systems improve also prey species abundance, like invertebrates.
Permaculture improves abundance or richness of plant, microorganisms, earthworms
and birds (Reiff et al., 2024). Despite the knowledge already gathered, many questions
remain unanswered: what is the relative impact between taxonomic groups? What
parameters are affected (abundance, species diversity, community composition,
ecosystem functionality)? What are the effects of the interaction of different practices?
### 2.3.2. Global environment

#### 2.3.2.1. Carbon storage

Atmospheric carbon can be recovered by plants and incorporated into biomass or soils, in the form of free or bound organic matter (Jones and Donnelly, 2004). Grasslands are among the systems that store the most carbon in soils, particularly when compared with croplands (Guo and Gifford, 2002). The presence of trees also contributes to this through storage in the aerial and root parts of trees, but also by improving carbon storage in soils (Mayer et al., 2022). No or reduced tillage improves C storage by more than 40% in four years, in comparison with conventional tillage (Fiorini et al., 2020). Cover crops increase soil organic carbon (SOC) by 0.1 to 1 tonne per hectare and per year (Blanco-Canqui et al., 2015). Therefore, benefits of conservation agriculture for C storage in soils has been recognized in France with the label "Au Cœur des Sols", for farms in conservation agriculture, being recognized as a low carbon label ("Du Carbone Au Cœur des Sols 2023/2027 | Label bas carbone - Ministère de la transition énergétique," 2023). Meanwhile, permaculture has already shown on SOC and C storage capacity (Reiff et al., 2024). Enhancing soil carbon storage through improved agricultural practices is the objective of the « 4 per 1000 » initiative, considering that an annual increase of 0.4% of soil organic carbon in agricultural area would compensate all the annual anthropogenic emissions.

#### 2.3.2.2. Water quality

A reanalyse of 7 meta-analyses on 1399 experiments shows that crop diversification, through diversified practices like cover-cropping or agroforestry, improves water quality by 51% on average (Beillouin et al., 2021a). Such water quality refers mostly to nitrate and pesticides in water. Obviously, pesticide reduction improves water quality in terms of pesticide pollution, but soil health can also improve it through better pesticide retention or degradation. Both tillage reduction and pasture integration in crop rotation reduce nitrogen losses without impacting crop production (Walkup et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020).

### 2.3.3. Farmers

Agricultural production relies on the ability of crops to grow on soil. Avoiding soil loss and improve soil health is therefore necessary and sometime actively targeted by farmers. Soil erosion and runoffs are greatly reduced with no-tillage (Carretta et al., 2021; Soane et al., 2012) and also with cover cropping (Blanco-Canqui et al., 2015). Meanwhile, in most cases cover crops have no effect or increase yields of the following crop (Blanco-Canqui et al., 2015). Both tillage reduction and no tillage
seam to improve yields on the long time (Fiorini et al., 2020). This improves margins thanks to the economies of time and fuel brought by reduced or no tillage.

Farmers can also benefit from increased margins and subsequent profits by pesticides or fertilisation reduction. Indeed, these inputs do not necessarily improve profit, since their cost may outweigh their benefits on yields (Catarino et al., 2019b). Nitrogen can be brought by legume crops instead of mineral fertilisation, which improves farmers margins (Carof et al., 2019). Crop rotations including legumes are mostly financially competitive in comparison with the ones without (Preissel et al., 2015). While pesticides reduce pollination performance, a better pollination also improves yields (Catarino et al., 2019a).

The introduction of conservation headlands increases the services provided by wildlife and thus yields, leading to similar or higher yields even when the non-productive areas required for their introduction are included (Pywell et al., 2015). The cost of hedgerow implementation can be balanced in only seven years thank to insecticides savings and pollination services (Morandin et al., 2016). In general, improvement of resources and habitat for biodiversity increases the benefits brought to farmers with ecosystem services like biocontrol or pollination. This can be illustrated at landscape scale with the meta-analysis of Dainese et al. (2019). It demonstrates that landscape simplification (percentage of cropland in the landscape) decreases both pollination and pest control, through a decrease of abundance and richness of pollinators and natural enemies of pests. It also showed that these pollination and pest control reductions negatively affect subsequent yields. At the field scale, the second-order meta-analysis from Beillouin et al. (2021a) examined 54500 paired observations from 95 meta-analyses and showed that most of diversification strategies like agroforestry, intercropping, crop rotations, and cover crops improved ecosystem services and subsequent agricultural production.

The implementation of crop associations can also improve total yields, increasing land use efficiency along with economic profitability. This is usually measured by the Land Equivalent Ratio (LER), which compares the required area between monocropping and diversified systems, to rich similar yields. For instance, LER of 1.3 to 1.6 have been found in silvoarable agroforestry system over 20 years, indicating that such 100 ha agroforestry farm with crops and walnuts intercropped produces as much as a 130 to 160 ha of a farm where crops and walnuts fields would have been separated (Lovell et al., 2018). Relay-cropping systems also permit a good LER, from 1.4 to 1.8 for 3 case studies (Tanveer et al., 2017). Not only combination of two crops can improve land efficiency, but also the implementation of a high crop diversity, like perform in Permaculture. LER calculated in permaculture systems are 1.4 in comparison with organic systems (Reiff et al., 2025).
In addition to the services already mentioned, trees and hedges can remobilize deep-seated nutrients to the surface, play a role in regulating erosion and bad weather (wind and cold), serve as natural enclosures for livestock, enable the production of firewood, chipped wood for fertilization, materials for basketry, leaves for livestock or fruit production, etc. (e.g. Jose, 2009). They are thus a good example of multifunctionality of green infrastructures.

### 2.3.4. Whole society

Improving water and air quality improves public health. In addition, the cost of treating drinking water due to agricultural pollution is very high. Improving agricultural practices therefore generates significant financial savings for local authorities. In addition, reducing the use of pesticides improves the quality of life of citizens and limits conflicts with farmers. The nutritional quality of food can also be improved. Conservation agriculture increases the micronutrient composition of vegetal foods and even meat (Montgomery et al., 2022).

The aesthetic value of agricultural landscapes must also be taken into account. Grasslands are an essential component of the most remarkable agricultural landscapes (Beudou et al., 2017). Vegetation cover, grassy strips and even flower beds, but above all the presence of trees and hedges, improve users' perception of these spaces. Indeed, the diversity of species observed, and especially the structure and heterogeneity of the landscape, are key elements in human appreciation of our environment (Lindemann-Matthies et al., 2010; Meyer-Grandbastien et al., 2020). Crop diversification, a pillar of conservation agriculture in particular, or mixed crop and livestock farming, are agricultural models that promote the well-being of rural citizens and users.

Considering the negative impact of agricultural practices on society as a whole also makes it possible to realize the benefits of improving practices. For agroforestry, for example, the reduction in the societal cost linked to sediment loss and the benefit linked to carbon sequestration makes this model financially attractive, under a variety of climatic conditions (Kay et al., 2019).

## 2.4. Limits, hinders and levers for transition

### 2.4.1. Time and uncertainty

Changing practices induces benefits, which are expected to be higher than the related costs. However, negative impacts are rapidly occurring (soil compaction, weeds and pest colonisation, etc.) while beneficial modifications in the agroecosystem
take time. No-tillage soil structuring requires the development and subsequent functioning of a variety of different organisms, themselves dependent on improved environmental conditions. In comparison with ploughing, for example, yields were lower in the first few years after ploughing was stopped, but recovered and even exceeded those of ploughing control after around ten years (Fiorini et al., 2020; Nouri et al., 2020). The benefits of creating seminatural habitats like flowered strips have a similar evolution. Pollination services increase with the age of the infrastructure, and continue to do so for several years (Albrecht et al., 2020). The agricultural transition phase can therefore be a complicated time for farmers, due to a transitory decline in ecosystem services and even yields. A certain amount of time is needed for a balanced and generally favourable system to be established.

In addition, there are major uncertainties surrounding both this transition phase and the viability of the targeted model. A study of various permaculture farms showed that, on average, they were more productive per hectare than usual organic farms (LER=1.44), but the land equivalent ratio (LER) varied widely, ranging from 0.5 to 2.7, and was less than 1 in half the cases (Reiff et al., 2025). This type of variability has also been observed in other agricultural models, such as conservation agriculture (Chabert and Sarthou, 2020), or practices like cover crops (Blanco-Canqui et al., 2015). Projecting ahead thus seems difficult for farmers motivated by the transition, and many uncertainties and influencing factors are at work. More detailed knowledge of the parameters influencing this variability would help limit the reluctance of some farmers to embark on the transition.

### 2.4.2. Financial cost and subsidies

In addition to the potential losses and uncertainties associated with the transition to new farming practices or models, there are also costs associated with changes in equipment and machinery. Direct seeding or strip-tilling, for example, require specific equipment, while hedge planting can be costly, as can the launch of new activities such as livestock farming to diversify activities and the agricultural landscape. Subsidies for farmers would make such transitions possible more often.

Another parameter to consider concerns negative externalities, i.e. the negative impacts of agriculture on society as a whole. The agricultural practices and models mentioned above help to limit these negative externalities. However, farmers' choices are mostly influenced by a cost-benefit balance that takes into account direct benefits but not the reduction of negative externalities. In the case of agroforestry, for example, the financial benefits are low or non-existent if we consider only labour and machinery costs, but become interesting if we include ecosystem services such as pollution reduction or carbon storage (Kay et al., 2019).
To encourage agricultural practices that limit negative externalities and promote positive ones, three mechanisms have been described (Pretty et al., 2001): i) environmental taxes to internalize the costs associated with agricultural production; ii) the introduction of subsidies and incentive reforms, which may involve making subsidies conditional upon the implementation of certain practices or the achievement of defined results; iii) communication and learning about the issues associated with agricultural practices, facilitating exchanges between stakeholders and enabling voluntary, joint and participatory decision-making.

### 2.4.3. Complexity of ecological systems and knowledge

The knowledge acquired and available in the scientific community is not always well known and transmitted to farmers. Communication and popularisation of information is therefore necessary. This is all the more true as farming systems based on biodiversity are intrinsically more complex than those dominated by chemistry and mechanization. The beneficial effect on biodiversity of the abandonment of tillage can only be seen when combined with the limitation or absence of pesticide use, and this for different taxonomic groups (Bai et al., 2018; Barré et al., 2018a). In a similar way, agroforestry can in some cases show positive effects when implemented following organic farming, and negative or no effects with conventional farming (Boinot et al., 2020, 2019). A review on cover crops indicates that effects on yield can be positive or negative, as a function of diverse factors like precipitations, growing season, tillage system or age of the system (Blanco-Canqui et al., 2015). Agricultural models such as soil conservation agriculture thus appear to provide important ecosystem services for agricultural production, but pest-predator relationships are still largely misunderstood to sufficiently limit crop damage (Kletty et al., 2025). In silvoarable agroforestry, a multitude of factors that can influence biodiversity or the services it provides have been identified, but only some of them have been studied to date, in a limited number of studies, and therefore in a very incomplete way (Kletty et al., 2023). Given the complexity of the networks of interactions within ecosystems based on the functioning of biodiversity, it is therefore necessary to significantly develop the studies carried out and the knowledge acquired, to better understand the phenomena and better help farmers face the difficulties they encounter.

### 2.4.4. Customer support

The potential power of consumers over agricultural models is significant. However, a first limitation lies in the choice and ability of consumers to pay more for products to support a particular mode of production. To overcome this, it is important to enable more sustainable practices to compete financially (see §2.4.2.). Secondly, it is currently difficult for farmers to valorise the ecological benefits and ecosystem
services they promote to consumers (Dumont et al., 2019). The organic farming label
is widely recognized and deployed, but this is not the case for other equally virtuous
production methods. Better communication and recognition of more sustainable
agricultural practices and models would therefore be necessary to encourage their
development through informed consumer choice. Another possibility is to forge closer
links between producers and consumers. This can be achieved through the
development of Community Supported Agriculture, like the French AMAP
(Association for the Maintenance of a Peasant Agriculture) system (Wezel et al.,
2018). In such short circuits, consumer choices are passed on directly to the farmer
and the practices put in place, making it possible to realize the added value of the
choices made.

2.4.5. Law and politics

Political will and the implementation of appropriate laws and regulations are
needed to support and encourage the necessary agricultural transition. Policies along
these lines have already been put in place, such as the greening of the Common
Agricultural Policy and pesticide reduction plans. However, concrete achievements
have often failed to live up to the ambitions or rhetoric (Hossard et al., 2017; Pe'er et
al., 2014). More than a financial issue, the reason is often linked to the policy of
allocating resources, which is not sufficient (Pe'er et al., 2014). It is now necessary to
implement ambitious programs, decisions and regulations that break with the current
status quo, to enable the large-scale development of another form of agriculture,
beneficial both to farmers and to the environment and society as a whole.

Conclusion

To deal with the problems raised by today's predominantly industrial agriculture,
different agr

icultural practices and models can be developed. These can bring numerous
benefits in terms of protecting biodiversity and the environment, agricultural
production and farmers' incomes, as well as the health and well-being of citizens. In
this way, the same solutions can address different issues for different stakeholders.
Although there are limits to the development of these nature-based solutions, it is
important to take into account cost-benefit considerations at a global scale, rather than
in a compartmentalized way. This would be a real lever for developing such promising
solutions. This also reaches the One Health concept, which stresses the need to have
an unified approach of human, animal and ecosystem health (OHHLEP, 2021). Thus,
it is through a holistic vision linking agricultural production, biodiversity and its
associated services, and human well-being that the fairest, most favourable and most
effective transition possible can be achieved.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to the reviewer who commented on this work and helped to improve
this chapter.

References

Albrecht, M., Kleijn, D., Williams, N., Tschumi, M., Blaauw, B., Bommarco, R., Campbell, A., Dainese, M., Drummond, F., Entling, M., Ganser, D., De Groot, A., Goulson, D., Grab, H., Hamilton, H., Herzog, F., Isaacs, R., Jacot, K., Jeanneret, P., Jonsson, M., Knop, E., Kremen, C., Landis, D., Loeb, G., Marini, L., McKerchar, M., Morandin, L., Pfister, S., Potts, S., Rundlöf, M., Sardiñas, H., Sciligo, A., Thies, C., Tscharntke, T., Venturini, E., Veromann, E., Vollhardt, I., Wäckers, F., Ward, K., Wilby, A., Woltz, M., Wratten, S., Sutter, L., 2020. Global synthesis of the effectiveness of flower strips and hedgerows on pest control, pollination services and crop yield. Ecology Letters. https://doi.org/10.22541/au.158618502.29242370

Bai, Z., Caspari, T., Gonzalez, M.R., Batjes, N.H., Mäder, P., Bünemann, E.K., de Goede, R., Brussaard, L., Xu, M., Ferreira, C.S.S., Reintam, E., Fan, H., Mihelič, R., Glavan, M., Tóth, Z., 2018. Effects of agricultural management practices on soil quality: A review of long-term experiments for Europe and China. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 265, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2018.05.028

Barré, K., Le Viol, I., Julliard, R., Chiron, F., Kerbiriou, C., 2018a. Tillage and herbicide reduction mitigate the gap between conventional and organic farming effects on foraging activity of insectivorous bats. Ecol Evol 8, 1496–1506. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3688

Barré, K., Le Viol, I., Julliard, R., Kerbiriou, C., 2018b. Weed control method drives conservation tillage efficiency on farmland breeding birds. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 256, 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2018.01.004

Beillouin, D., Ben-Ari, T., Malezieux, E., Seufert, V., Makowski, D., 2021a. Positive but variable effects of crop diversification on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 4697–4710. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15747

Beillouin, D., Ben-Ari, T., Malezieux, E., Seufert, V., Makowski, D., 2021b. Positive but variable effects of crop diversification on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 4697–4710. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15747

Beudou, J., Martin, G., Ryschawy, J., 2017. Cultural and territorial vitality services play a key role in livestock agroecological transition in France. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 37, 36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0436-8
Blanco-Canqui, H., Shaver, T.M., Lindquist, J.L., Shapiro, C.A., Elmore, R.W., Francis, C.A., Hergert, G.W., 2015. Cover Crops and Ecosystem Services: Insights from Studies in Temperate Soils. Agron. J. 107, 2449–2474. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj15.0086

Boinot, S., Fried, G., Storkey, J., Metcalfe, H., Barkaoui, K., Lauri, P.-E., Meziere, D., 2019. Alley cropping agroforestry systems: Reservoirs for weeds or refugia for plant diversity? *AGRICULTURE* & *ECOSYSTEMS* & *ENVIRONMENT*. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.106584

Boinot, S., Meziere, D., Poulmarc’h, J., Saintilan, A., Lauri, P.-E., Sarthou, J.-P., 2020. Promoting generalist predators of crop pests in alley cropping agroforestry fields: Farming system matters. *ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING*. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2020.106041

Bronick, C.J., Lal, R., 2005. Soil structure and management: a review. *Geoderma* 124, 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2004.03.005

Carof, M., Godinot, O., Ridier, A., 2019. Diversity of protein-crop management in western France. *Agron. Sustain. Dev.* 39, 15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-019-0561-7

Carretta, L., Tarolli, P., Cardinali, A., Nasta, P., Romano, N., Masin, R., 2021. Evaluation of runoff and soil erosion under conventional tillage and no-till management: A case study in northeast Italy. *CATENA* 197, 104972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2020.104972

Catarino, R., Bretagnolle, V., Perrot, T., Vialoux, F., Gaba, S., 2019a. Bee pollination outperforms pesticides for oilseed crop production and profitability. *Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences* 286, 20191550. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.1550

Catarino, R., Gaba, S., Bretagnolle, V., 2019b. Experimental and empirical evidence shows that reducing weed control in winter cereal fields is a viable strategy for farmers. *Sci Rep* 9, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-45315-8

Chabert, A., Sarthou, J.-P., 2020. Conservation agriculture as a promising trade-off between conventional and organic agriculture in bundling ecosystem services. *Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment* 292, 106815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.106815
Dainese, M., Martin, E.A., Aizen, M.A., Albrecht, M., Bartomeus, I., Bommarco, R., Carvalheiro, L.G., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Gagic, V., Garibaldi, L.A., Ghazoul, J., Grab, H., Jonsson, M., Karp, D.S., Kennedy, C.M., Kleijn, D., Kremen, C., Landis, D.A., Letourneau, D.K., Marini, L., Poveda, K., Rader, R., Smith, H.G., Tscharntke, T., Andersson, G.K.S., Badenhausser, I., Baensch, S., Bezerra, A.D.M., Bianchi, F.J.J.A., Boreux, V., Bretagnolle, V., Caballero-Lopez, B., Cavigliasso, P., Ćetković, A., Chacoff, N.P., Classen, A., Cusser, S., Silva, F.D. da S. e, Groot, G.A. de, Dudenhöffer, J.H., Ekroos, J., Fijen, T., Franck, P., Freitas, B.M., Garratt, M.P.D., Gratton, C., Hipólito, J., Holzschuh, A., Hunt, L., Iverson, A.L., Jha, S., Keasar, T., Kim, T.N., Kishinevsky, M., Klatt, B.K., Klein, A.-M., Krewenka, K.M., Krishnan, S., Larsen, A.E., Lavigne, C., Liere, H., Maas, B., Mallinger, R.E., Pachon, E.M., Martínez-Salinas, A., Meehan, T.D., Mitchell, M.G.E., Molina, G.A.R., Nesper, M., Nilsson, L., O'Rourke, M.E., Peters, M.K., Plećaš, M., Potts, S.G., Ramos, D. de L., Rosenheim, J.A., Rundlöf, M., Rusch, A., Sáez, A., Scheper, J., Schleuning, M., Schmack, J.M., Sciligo, A.R., Seymour, C., Stanley, D.A., Stewart, R., Stout, J.C., Sutter, L., Takada, M.B., Taki, H., Tamburini, G., Tschumi, M., Viana, B.F., Westphal, C., Willcox, B.K., Wratten, S.D., Yoshioka, A., Zaragoza-Trello, C., Zhang, W., Zou, Y., Steffan-Dewenter, I., 2019. A global synthesis reveals biodiversity-mediated benefits for crop production. Science Advances 5, eaax0121. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aax0121

Davis, D.R., Epp, M.D., Riordan, H.D., 2004. Changes in USDA food composition data for 43 garden crops, 1950 to 1999. J Am Coll Nutr 23, 669-682.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07315724.2004.10719409

Du Carbone Au Cœur des Sols 2023/2027 | Label bas carbone - Ministère de la transition énergétique [WWW Document], 2023. URL https://label-bas-carbone.ecologie.gouv.fr/projets/du-carbone-au-coeur-des-sols-20232027 (accessed 2.20.25).

Dumont, B., Ryschawy, J., Duru, M., Benoit, M., Chatellier, V., Delaby, L., Donnars, C., Dupraz, P., Lemauviel-Lavenant, S., Méda, B., Vollet, D., Sabatier, R., 2019. Review: Associations among goods, impacts and ecosystem services provided by livestock farming. animal 13, 1773-1784. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731118002586

Duncan, S.R., Schapaugh Jr., W.T., 1997. Relay-Intercropped Soybean in Different Water Regimes, Planting Patterns, and Winter Wheat Cultivars. Journal of Production Agriculture 10, 123-129. https://doi.org/10.2134/jpa1997.0123

Emile, J.C., WALCZAK, P., TRILLAUD, A., NOVAK, S., 2011. Pâturer une céréale sans trop pénaliser le rendement grain: effet de la date d'exploitation et de l'espèce. Renc. Rech. Ruminants. Institut de l'Elevage & INRAE, France. https://journees3r.fr/textes3r/20110528-paturer-une-cereale-sans-trop-penaliser-le-rendement-grain-effet-de-la-date-dexploitation-et-de-lespece/.

European Environment Agency, 2021. Drivers of and pressures arising from selected key water management challenges — A European overview [WWW Document]. URL https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/publications/drivers-of-and-pressures-arising (accessed 3.10.25).

FAO, 2017. Conservation Agriculture - Revised version. FAO, Rome, Italy.

FAO, 1997. State of the World's Plant Genetic Resources.
Ferguson, R.S., Lovell, S.T., 2014. Permaculture for agroecology: design, movement, practice, and worldview. A review. *Agron. Sustain. Dev.* 34, 251–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0181-6

Fiorini, A., Boselli, R., Maris, S.C., Santelli, S., Ardenti, F., Capra, F., Tabaglio, V., 2020. May conservation tillage enhance soil C and N accumulation without decreasing yield in intensive irrigated croplands? Results from an eight-year maize monoculture. *Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment* 296, 106926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.106926

Gardarin, A., Celette, F., Naudin, C., Piva, G., Valantin-Morison, M., Vrignon-Brenas, S., Verret, V., Médiène, S., 2022. Intercropping with service crops provides multiple services in temperate arable systems: a review. *Agron. Sustain. Dev.* 42, 39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-022-00771-x

Geiger, F., Bengtsson, J., Berendse, F., Weisser, W.W., Emmerson, M., Morales, M.B., Ceryngier, P., Liira, J., Tscharntke, T., Winqvist, C., Eggers, S., Bommarco, R., Pärt, T., Bretagnolle, V., Plantegenest, M., Clement, L.W., Dennis, C., Palmer, C., Oñate, J.J., Guerrero, I., Hawro, V., Aavik, T., Thies, C., Flohre, A., Hänke, S., Fischer, C., Goedhart, P.W., Inchausti, P., 2010. Persistent negative effects of pesticides on biodiversity and biological control potential on European farmland. *Basic and Applied Ecology* 11, 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2009.12.001

Glover, J.D., Reganold, J.P., Bell, L.W., Borevitz, J., Brummer, E.C., Buckler, E.S., Cox, C.M., Cox, T.S., Crews, T.E., Culman, S.W., DeHaan, L.R., Eriksson, D., Gill, B.S., Holland, J., Hu, F., Hulke, B.S., Ibrahim, A.M.H., Jackson, W., Jones, S.S., Murray, S.C., Paterson, A.H., Ploschuk, E., Sacks, E.J., Snapp, S., Tao, D., Tassel, D.L.V., Wade, L.J., Wyse, D.L., Xu, Y., 2010. Increased Food and Ecosystem Security via Perennial Grains. *Science* 328, 1638–1639. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1188761

Guo, L.B., Gifford, R.M., 2002. Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta analysis. *Global Change Biology* 8, 345–360. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1354-1013.2002.00486.x

Hallmann, C.A., Sorg, M., Jongejans, E., Siepel, H., Hofland, N., Schwan, H., Stenmans, W., Müller, A., Sumser, H., Hörren, T., Goulson, D., Kroon, H. de, 2017. More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. *PLOS ONE* 12, e0185809. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185809

Hartwig, N.L., Ammon, H.U., 2002. Cover crops and living mulches. *wees* 50, 688–699. https://doi.org/10.1614/0043-1745(2002)050[0688:AIACCA]2.0.CO;2

Hossard, L., Guichard, L., Pelosi, C., Makowski, D., 2017. Lack of evidence for a decrease in synthetic pesticide use on the main arable crops in France. *Sci. Total Environ.* 575, 152–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.008

Jones, M.B., Donnelly, A., 2004. Carbon sequestration in temperate grassland ecosystems and the influence of management, climate and elevated CO2. *New Phytologist* 164, 423–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01201.x

Jose, S., 2009. Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: an overview. *Agroforest Syst* 76, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-009-9229-7
Kay, S., Graves, A., Palma, J.H.N., Moreno, G., Roces-Díaz, J.V., Aviron, S., Chouvardas, D., Crous-Duran, J., Ferreiro-Domínguez, N., García de Jalón, S., Măcicășan, V., Mosquera-Losada, M.R., Pantera, A., Santiago-Freijanes, J.J., Szerencsits, E., Torralba, M., Burgess, P.J., Herzog, F., 2019. Agroforestry is paying off – Economic evaluation of ecosystem services in European landscapes with and without agroforestry systems. Ecosystem Services 36, 100896.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100896

Kletty, F., Deville, P., Devigne, C., Machelart, S., Benamrouz-Vanneste, Vanhée, B., 2025. Ground beetles in agroforestry system show functional traits and activity-density differences according to distance to trees. preprint.

Kletty, F., Rozan, A., Habold, C., 2023. Biodiversity in temperate silvoarable systems: A systematic review. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 351, 108480.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2023.108480

Lecq, S., Loisel, A., Brischoux, F., Mullin, S.J., Bonnet, X., 2017. Importance of ground refuges for the biodiversity in agricultural hedgerows. Ecol. Indic. 72, 615-626.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.08.032

Lindemann-Matthies, P., Junge, X., Matthies, D., 2010. The influence of plant diversity on people's perception and aesthetic appreciation of grassland vegetation. Biological Conservation 143, 195-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.10.003

Lopes, T., Bodson, B., Francis, F., 2015. Associations of Wheat with Pea Can Reduce Aphid Infestations. Neotrop Entomol 44, 286-293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13744-015-0282-9

Lovell, S.T., Dupraz, C., Gold, M., Jose, S., Revord, R., Stanek, E., Wolz, K.J., 2018. Temperate agroforestry research: considering multifunctional woody polycultures and the design of long-term field trials. Agroforest Syst 92, 1397-1415.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-0087-4

Mariem, S.B., Gámez, A.L., Larraya, L., Fuertes-Mendizabal, T., Cañameras, N., Araus, J.L., McGrath, S.P., Hawkesford, M.J., Murua, C.G., Gaudeul, M., Medina, L., Paton, A., Cattivelli, L., Fangmeier, A., Bunce, J., Tausz-Posch, S., Macdonald, A.J., Aranjuelo, I., 2020. Assessing the evolution of wheat grain traits during the last 166 years using archived samples. Sci Rep 10, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-78504-x

Mayer, S., Wiesmeier, M., Sakamoto, E., Hübner, R., Cardinael, R., Kühnel, A., Kögel-Knabner, I., 2022. Soil organic carbon sequestration in temperate agroforestry systems – A meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 323, 107689.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2021.107689

Men, B.X., Ogle, R.B., Lindberg, J.E., 2002. Studies on Integrated Duck-Rice Systems in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 20, 27-40.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J064v20n01_05

Meyer-Grandbastien, A., Burel, F., Hellier, E., Bergerot, B., 2020. A step towards understanding the relationship between species diversity and psychological restoration of visitors in urban green spaces using landscape heterogeneity. Landscape and Urban Planning 195, 103728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103728
Migliorini, P., Wezel, A., 2017. Converging and diverging principles and practices of organic agriculture regulations and agroecology. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 37, 63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0472-4

Montgomery, D.R., Biklé, A., Archuleta, R., Brown, P., Jordan, J., 2022. Soil health and nutrient density: preliminary comparison of regenerative and conventional farming. PeerJ 10, e12848. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.12848

Morandin, L.A., Long, R.F., Kremen, C., 2016. Pest Control and Pollination Cost–Benefit Analysis of Hedgerow Restoration in a Simplified Agricultural Landscape. J Econ Entomol 109, 1020–1027. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/tow086

Nouri, A., Lee, J., Yoder, D.C., Jagadamma, S., Walker, F.R., Yin, X., Arelli, P., 2020. Management duration controls the synergistic effect of tillage, cover crop, and nitrogen rate on cotton yield and yield stability. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 301, 107007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.107007

Nowak, B., Marliac, G., 2024. Assessment of population exposure to pesticide applications with a high-resolution map of pesticide use intensity for mainland France. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.11.25.624818

OHHLEP, 2021. Joint Tripartite (FAO, OIE, WHO) and UNEP Statement - Tripartite and UNEP support OHHLEP’s definition of “One Health.”

Pe'er, G., Dicks, L.V., Visconti, P., Arlettaz, R., Báldi, A., Benton, T.G., Collins, S., Dieterich, M., Gregory, R.D., Hartig, F., Henle, K., Hobson, P.R., Kleijn, D., Neumann, R.K., Robijns, T., Schmidt, J., Shwartz, A., Sutherland, W.J., Turbé, A., Wulf, F., Scott, A.V., 2014. EU agricultural reform fails on biodiversity. Science 344, 1090–1092. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1253425

Plante, A.F., McGill, W.B., 2002. Soil aggregate dynamics and the retention of organic matter in laboratory-incubated soil with differing simulated tillage frequencies. Soil and Tillage Research 66, 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(02)00015-6

Preissel, S., Reckling, M., Schläfke, N., Zander, P., 2015. Magnitude and farm-economic value of grain legume pre-crop benefits in Europe: A review. Field Crops Research 175, 64–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2015.01.012

Pretty, J., Brett, C., Gee, D., Hine, R., Mason, C., Morison, J., Rayment, M., Bijl, G.V.D., Dobbs, T., 2001. Policy Challenges and Priorities for Internalizing the Externalities of Modern Agriculture. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 44, 263–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560123782

Pywell, R.F., Heard, M.S., Woodcock, B.A., Hinsley, S., Ridding, L., Nowakowski, M., Bullock, J.M., 2015. Wildlife-friendly farming increases crop yield: evidence for ecological intensification. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 282, 20151740. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.1740
Reiff, J., Jungkunst, H.F., Antes, N., Entling, M.H., 2025. Crop productivity of Central European Permaculture is within the range of organic and conventional agriculture. Peer Community Journal 5. https://doi.org/10.24072/pcjournal.521

Reiff, J., Jungkunst, H.F., Mauser, K.M., Kampel, S., Regending, S., Rösch, V., Zaller, J.G., Entling, M.H., 2024. Permaculture enhances carbon stocks, soil quality and biodiversity in Central Europe. Commun Earth Environ 5, 305. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01405-8

Rigal, S., Dakos, V., Alonso, H., Auniņš, A., Benkő, Z., Brotons, L., Chodkiewicz, T., Chylarecki, P., de Carli, E., del Moral, J.C., Domşa, C., Escandell, V., Fontaine, B., Foppen, R., Gregory, R., Harris, S., Herrando, S., Husby, M., Ieronymidou, C., Jiguet, F., Kennedy, J., Klvaňová, A., Kmecl, P., Kuczyński, L., Kurlavičius, P., Kâlâs, J.A., Lehikoinen, A., Lindström, Å., Lorrillière, R., Moshøj, C., Nellis, R., Noble, D., Eskildsen, D.P., Paquet, J.-Y., Pélissié, M., Pladevall, C., Portolou, D., Reif, J., Schmid, H., Seaman, B., Szabo, Z.D., Szép, T., Florenzano, G.T., Teufelbauer, N., Trautmann, S., van Turnhout, C., Vermouzek, Z., Vikström, T., Voříšek, P., Weiserbs, A., Devictor, V., 2023. Farmland practices are driving bird population decline across Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120, e2216573120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2216573120

Smith, P., House, J.I., Bustamante, M., Sobocká, J., Harper, R., Pan, G., West, P.C., Clark, J.M., Adhya, T., Rumpel, C., Paustian, K., Kuikman, P., Cotrufo, M.F., Elliott, J.A., McDowell, R., Griffiths, R.I., Asakawa, S., Bondeau, A., Jain, A.K., Meersmans, J., Pugh, T.A.M., 2016. Global change pressures on soils from land use and management. Glob Chang Biol 22, 1008–1028. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13068

Soane, B.D., Ball, B.C., Arvidsson, J., Basch, G., Moreno, F., Roger-Estrade, J., 2012. No-till in northern, western and south-western Europe: A review of problems and opportunities for crop production and the environment. Soil Tillage Res. 118, 66–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2011.10.015

Stoate, C., Boatman, N.D., Borralho, R.J., Carvalho, C.R., de Snoo, G.R., Eden, P., 2001. Ecological impacts of arable intensification in Europe. J. Environ. Manage. 63, 337–365.

Tamburini, G., Bommarco, R., Wanger, T.C., Kremen, C., van der Heijden, M.G.A., Liebman, M., Hallin, S., 2020. Agricultural diversification promotes multiple ecosystem services without compromising yield. Science Advances 6, eaba1715. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba1715

Tanveer, M., Anjum, S.A., Hussain, S., Cerdà, A., Ashraf, U., 2017. Relay cropping as a sustainable approach: problems and opportunities for sustainable crop production. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24, 6973–6988. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-8371-4

Walkup, J., Freedman, Z., Kotcon, J., Morrissey, E.M., 2020. Pasture in crop rotations influences microbial biodiversity and function reducing the potential for nitrogen loss from compost. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 304, 107122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.107122

Wezel, A., Goette, J., Lagneaux, E., Passuello, G., Reisman, E., Rodier, C., Turpin, G., 2018. Agroecology in Europe: Research, Education, Collective Action Networks, and Alternative Food Systems. Sustainability 10, 1214. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041214
Zhang, Y., Xie, D., Ni, J., Zeng, X., 2020. Conservation tillage practices reduce nitrogen losses in the sloping upland of the Three Gorges Reservoir area: No-till is better than mulch-till. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 300, 107003.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.107003