# Ecosystem services of organic versus inorganic ground cover in peach orchards: A meta-analysis

Shingirai Mudare, Mengqi Li, Jasper Kanomanyanga, Jay Ram Lamichhane, Prakash Lakshmanan, Wen-feng Cong

► To cite this version:

Shingirai Mudare, Mengqi Li, Jasper Kanomanyanga, Jay Ram Lamichhane, Prakash Lakshmanan, et al. Ecosystem services of organic versus inorganic ground cover in peach orchards: A meta-analysis. Food and Energy Security, 2023, 17p. 10.1002/fes3.463. hal-04094034

HAL Id: hal-04094034

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-04094034

Submitted on 10 May 2023

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>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
REVIEW

Food and Energy Security

Open-Access

WILEY

# Ecosystem services of organic versus inorganic ground cover in peach orchards: A meta-analysis

Shingirai Mudare<fnref n="1" />

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Mengqi Li<fnref n="1" />

Jasper Kanomanyanga<fnref n="1" />

Jay Ram Lamichhane<fnref n="2" />

Prakash Lakshmanan<fnref n="3" />,<fnref n="4" />,<fnref n="5" />

Wen-Feng Cong<fnref n="1" />

Correspondence

Wen-Feng Cong, National Academy of Agriculture Green Development, Department of Plant Nutrition, College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China.

Email: wenfeng.cong@cau.edu.cn

Funding information

Program of Advanced Discipline Construction in Beijing (Agriculture Green Development); Program of Introducing Talents of Discipline to Universities (Plant-Soil Interactions Innovative Research Platform 1031-00100701); Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Grant/Award Number: 32072676

Abstract

Several organic (e.g., compost, hay, straw, grass) and inorganic (e.g., plastic film) ground cover (GC) forms are used in peach orchards worldwide. Yet, there is a lack of quantitative studies on peach orchard ecosystem services comprising fruit yields and quality, soil health indicators, and biological pest control. To fill this knowledge gap, we performed a meta-analysis of 55 peer-reviewed research. Overall, inorganic GC increased peach yields by 7.7±1.8%, while organic GC reduced it, though not statistically significant (p > 0.05), by 1.7±3%. Both forms of GC have enhanced single fruit mass, with a greater increase in inorganic (4.2±1.7%) than in organic GC (1.2±1.2%), and soluble solids content by 5.9±0.9% and 3.2±0.7%, respectively. Inorganic GC did not significantly affect titratable acid and fruit hardness, while organic GC reduced titratable acid (13.7±2.1%), and fruit hardness (89±2.9%). Soil temperature has increased in orchards with inorganic GC (2.8±2.9%) and reduced with organic GC (8.3±2.4%). Inorganic GC marginally increased soil water storage, while organic GC increased it by 9.3±2.1%. Both organic and inorganic GC increased soil water content by 13.1±2.4% and 26.1±3.4%, respectively. Unlike inorganic GC, organic GC increased soil organic matter, available nitrogen, available phosphorus, and available potassium by 28.3±3.3%, 25.1±2.7%, 23.5±4.6%, and 30.9±3.3%, respectively. Equally significantly, organic GC increased predator abundance (47.5±5.9%) and reduced pest incidence (2.4±1.8%). Overall, inorganic GC systems slightly increased peach yield but are not sustainable due to their negative soil health and environmental impacts. In contrast, organic GC systems delivered an acceptable yield level while providing numerous ecosystem services, enabling sustainable long-term peach production.

KEYWORDS

ground cover, nutrient cycling, peach, pest abundance, soluble solids content, yield

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

This is an open access article under the terms of the [Creative Commons Attribution License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2023 The Authors. *Food and Energy Security* published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

<footnote n="1">¹National Academy of Agriculture Green Development, Department of Plant Nutrition, College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²INRAE, Université Fédérale de Toulouse, UMR AGIR, Castanet-Tolosan Cedex, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Sugarcane Research Institute, Guangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanning, China</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴Interdisciplinary Research Center for Agriculture Green Development in Yangtze River Basin, College of Resources and Environment, Southwest University, Chongqing, China</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia</footnote>
# 1 INTRODUCTION

In recent decades, agrobiodiversity has been threatened by various factors, including industrial agriculture, urbanization, and climate change. As a result, many ecosystem services linked with agrobiodiversity have deteriorated, negatively impacting human well-being and agricultural system sustainability (Landis et al., 2000; Tscharntke et al., 2005). For example, agricultural intensification in monoculture cropping systems has been associated with excessive use of agrochemicals, which has resulted in problems such as loss of agrobiodiversity, a decline in natural pest control, and environmental pollution (Batáry et al., 2017; Gagic et al., 2012). To this end, there is growing interest in promoting agrobiodiversity to improve ecosystem services and agricultural system sustainability. This has resulted in the adoption of ecological intensification practices like agroforestry, conservation agriculture, crop rotations, intercropping, trap crops, ground cover (GC), etc., all of which aim to enhance agrobiodiversity to provide numerous ecosystem services (Bowles et al., 2017; Harvey et al., 2014; Wan, Ji, et al., 2019). Several research on these approaches have proven that they increase multiple ecosystem services in various ways. Diverse cropping strategies such as crop rotation and intercropping, for example, have been shown to boost crop yield and land use efficiency (Mudare et al., 2022; Zhao et al., 2022). Meanwhile, trap cropping has been found to provide a natural habitat for predators, lowering pest outbreaks while enhancing arthropod community variety and stability (Wan, Ji, Gu, et al., 2014).

The selection of GC in managed agroecosystems significantly impacts the quantity and quality of agricultural ecosystem services, especially in orchards (Swinton et al., 2007). The peach (Prunus persica) fruit production industry contributes largely to agriculture development, rural economic growth, and poverty reduction worldwide (Guo et al., 2018; Reeve et al., 2017). Peach production can provide various agroecosystem services, which are broadly classified as provisioning, supporting, and regulatory services (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Zhang et al., 2007). Peach orchard provisioning services include peach fruits as a source of food and nutrients (Corollaro et al., 2015). In addition to food provision, peach orchards provide regulating services (water regulation, pest regulation, weed suppression, etc.) and supporting services such as soil nutrient cycling (Gordon et al., 2010). However, the type and extent of these ecosystem services depend on orchard management practices, which ultimately affect soil nutrient supply, water use efficiency, soil stability, and general agrobiodiversity (Montanaro et al., 2017; Robertson et al., 2007). Ground cover as a management practice in peach orchards can result in trade-offs between food and

nutrient provision and other ecosystem services and disservices (Power, 2010). As such, a desirable outcome would be having a sustainable GC strategy with increased ecosystem services and reduced disservices, or at least increasing other services without compromising provisioning services.

Italy, the United States, Greece, Spain, France, and Russia are the world's largest producers of peaches (Gupta et al., 2016). North America produced the highest peach yield (20.1 t/ha) in 2020, followed by Asia, Europe, South America, Africa, and Oceania with 19, 17.9, 15.7, 14.5, and 7.4 t/ha, respectively (FAOSTAT, 2022). However, intensive peach production systems under conventional soil management are an important source of greenhouse gas emissions and their carbon footprints are high across major peach-producing regions (Michos et al., 2012). Therefore, there is an urgent need to improve or even replace these practices with more environmentally sustainable systems. The use of an appropriate GC represents one of the sustainable orchard management practices that can play an important role in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and environmental pollution (Gao et al., 2019). Ground cover can be of organic (composts, hay, straw, grasses, etc.) or inorganic forms (e.g., plastic film mulch) (Forge et al., 2003). The inorganic form of GC includes white transparent film, black plastic film, biodegradable plastic film, and water-permeable plastic film (Li et al., 2012). Organic forms of GC reduce soil temperature fluctuations (Nagy et al., 2013) while increasing soil total nitrogen, microbial biomass, and soil available nitrogen (Nikiema et al., 2012). The use of organic GC, in combination with other orchard management practices, reduces pest pressure in peach orchards thereby reducing reliance on conventional pesticides while increasing fruit size, yield, and quality (Bussi et al., 2016; Johnson et al., 2002). In contrast to the benefits of organic GC, mostly related to soil health indicators, inorganic GC such as plastic film mulch in fruit orchards have been reported to increase fruit quality parameters (e.g., soluble solid content, better fruit color, early ripening) (Layne et al., 2001; Meinhold et al., 2010), especially with the use of reflective film mulch (Funke & Blanke, 2004).

In recent years, plastic film for mulching has been increasingly used worldwide, given its direct reported impact on fruit yield and quality parameters. India has the most mismanaged plastic waste (12.99 million tons per year), followed by China (12.27 million tons per year), while Brazil, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Egypt have about 1.4 million tons per year (Our World in Data, 2022). China alone consumes 60% of the world share of agricultural plastic film (Yang et al., 2015), which has resulted in a heightened level of “white pollution” (Liu, He, & Yan, 2014), including deterioration of soil physical properties as well as reduction of water and fertilizer use efficiency (Li et al., 2004). The persistent use
of plastic mulch has been linked to significant changes in soil chemical properties, such as lowering soil pH (Dale & Polasky, 2007) and adverse human health effects (Halden, 2010). It has recently been estimated that without control measures, the concentration of microplastics in agricultural soils in Germany will more than triple the current 30 mg/kg dry weight in at least 2% of the agricultural areas used (Henseler et al., 2022). China's national film residue standard is 75 kg ha⁻¹ with in some areas reaching very high levels (e.g., Xinjiang with a maximum residue amount of 502 kg ha⁻¹), which is not environmentally sustainable. Each hour, in crop fields in the same region, approximately 50–269 kg of residual plastic film accumulates per square meter in the topsoil (Liu, Wang, et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2016). Studies from mulched fields in India have reported that plastic mulch residues in the form of films, fiber, and microplastic occupied the top 30 cm of the soil profile (Kumar & Sheela, 2021). Meta-analysis has shown that agricultural productivity is dramatically reduced in soils with plastic residues larger than 240 kg ha⁻¹ (Gao et al., 2019). Therefore, there is a need for organic forms of GC as alternatives to plastic film mulching. Understanding how organic and inorganic GC management drives agroecosystem services, such as in peach orchards, is critical in determining the best sustainable option based on relative economic and environmental merits.

Quantitative synthesis of global data across agroecosystems, forests, marine, grasslands, and wetlands has proven that plant genetic diversity influences plant performance by lowering pressure from antagonists across trophic levels of different plants (Wan, Cavalieri, et al., 2022). Similarly, meta-analysis studies have indicated that the abundance of plant species promotes pest regulatory services by enhancing predator and parasitoid abundance, predation, and parasitism (Wan et al., 2021). Field studies in orchard management revealed that organic GC boosted fruit yield by 10% while decreasing pesticide use by 51% (Ji et al., 2022). In addition, using border crops in urban agriculture has shown that insecticide use reduced while crop yields increased (Wan, Cai, et al., 2018). Another study in peach orchards found that ecological engineering of ground cover by *T. repens* promoted biocontrol services in peach orchards when compared to bare orchards (Wan, Ji, & Jiang, 2014). Pest populations in peach orchard ecosystems were reduced in similar research employing sunflower and maize as trap crops (Wan et al., 2016). Although several meta-analysis studies have demonstrated that plant diversity enhances pest regulatory services, it remains unknown to what extent GC promotes biocontrol services as well as other ecosystem services in peach orchards.

The results of individual field experiments on ecosystem services and the mitigation of the disservices driven by

organic and inorganic forms of GC in peach orchards are often contradictory. This is probably due to environmental conditions and orchard management practices that differ greatly worldwide. Furthermore, short-term studies may not provide a clear picture of changes in agroecosystem support services such as soil nutrients, especially since soil carbon requires at least 8–10 years to detect meaningful changes (Birkhofer et al., 2015). Therefore, more research is needed to determine whether organic GC has the potential to drive levels of ecosystem services comparable to or greater than inorganic GC forms in a wide range of environmental conditions and orchard management practices. Quantifying ecosystem services provided by agroecosystems such as peach orchards is critical in policymaking and management (Dale & Polasky, 2007). To fill this knowledge gap, here we used a meta-analytical approach to quantify and synthesize results from individual studies as this approach allows us to elicit an overall pattern at global, or regional scales (Hedges et al., 1999). We hypothesized that (1) organic GC might promote comparable or higher levels of peach fruit yield and quality than inorganic GC (i.e., provisioning services); (2) organic GC has the potential to improve soil physical characteristics and nutrient cycling (i.e., supporting services), lowering the requirement for less sustainable GC techniques; and (3) organic GC enhances agrobiodiversity by regulating soil water, soil temperature, and insect biocontrol (i.e., regulatory services) at a similar or higher level than inorganic GC. This study has important implications for fostering agrobiodiversity not only in peach orchards, but all orchard management and diverse agroecosystems.

## 2 | MATERIALS AND METHODS

### 2.1 | Data collection

An extensive literature search was conducted to collect relevant information from two databases, Web of Science (WOS) and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) published until 2021. In the Web of Science in the topic field, we used various combinations of keywords such as “peach” AND “mulch*”; “peach” AND “grass cover*”; “peach AND “ground cover*” and finally “peach” AND “groundcover*”. The combinations resulted in a total of 387 articles published in English for further screening. We excluded many articles on different GC forms in peach orchards published in other languages around the world by selecting only WOS articles published in English. In order to carry out the search procedure in the CNKI database, we translated the keywords used in the WOS. In the CNKI database, we searched for a combination of keywords “覆盖” OR “覆膜” OR “覆秸秆” OR “生草” AND “桃”. The
search produced 81 articles, which were then screened. We excluded 231 articles from both English and Chinese publications that did not address GC in peach orchards, including press articles, conference papers, reviews, and meta-analyses. To be eligible for selection, an article had to meet the following criteria: (i) The experiment had to be conducted in a field or orchard rather than a greenhouse or pot experiment. (ii) The study reported data on both the control (bare ground, tilled ground, or herbicide-controlled mulch) and the treatment, which included any type of GC such as plastic film mulch (all colors), biodegradable film, straw mulch, natural or planted grass or residues. The residues included sawdust, pine bark, manure, or small rotten branches. (iii) The experiment included replications. (iv) An article was chosen that described field trials on GC effects in peach orchards and the effects on soil physical, chemical, and biological properties, as well as fruit yield quantity and quality indices.

Finally, we chose 55 peer-reviewed articles that met the selection criteria, including 22 in Chinese and 33 in English publications. Multiple data records were extracted from multiple experiments in each study and multiple treatments in each experiment. This study used 177 observations on peach yield, 133 on peach quality, and 449 on soil physiochemical properties. When data were presented in the form of tables, we extracted the data directly for each observation consisting of paired data on the mean of treatment and control under the same site and year. Most studies did not include a measure of error (standard deviation, standard error, etc.). Limiting our dataset to studies that provided a measure of error would drastically limit the number of publications and may impact the results. Data presented in form of figures were extracted using WebPlot Digitizer (Version 4.3). Most studies were published in Asia, with China dominating followed by the United States of America, with only one study reported from Africa and another from Australia (Methods A-B, Figure S1). Even though the selected papers report on a variety of response variables, we recognize their limitations in the absence of sufficient information on important explanatory variables. For example, the effect of climate and anthropogenic factors, such as fertilizer input, pruning, and bagging, on the selected response variables was significantly small to estimate due to the small sample sizes. Understanding how these components interact and ranking their importance is critical for orchard design and management. We found 15 studies on soil organic matter, six studies on soil total nitrogen, eight studies on available nitrogen, four studies on available phosphorus, and 10 studies on available potassium in our database. Only eight studies reported the nitrogen input rate, while six reported both the phosphorus and potassium input rates. Because these factors were not reported evenly for each response variable, conducting

a robust meta-regression for all variables was impossible. Only three of the seven studies reporting on plant densities were specific to peach yield, so the combined effect of plant density and GC forms was not included in the analysis. A global map was created with QGIS (Version 3.16.1) using the experimental location information reported in the selected publications (Methods C, Figure S2).

## 2.2 | Response variables

We categorized the response variables into three major groups of ecosystem services, which included; (i) provisioning, (ii) supporting, and (iii) regulatory services, and used models to estimate the GC effects on these services (Table. 1). The model selection and grouping of response variables were based on the availability of data for the required variable. For the provisioning services, we studied the influence of GC on peach yield, single fruit mass, soluble solids content, titratable acid content, and fruit hardness. Some GC-supporting services were considered, either as soil formation that is, soil pH, soil organic matter, soil bulk density, etc., or nutrient cycling. The latter included soil-available nitrogen, soil-available phosphorus, and soil-available potassium. We also considered the regulatory effect of GC in three subgroups, that is, (1) water regulation, for example, soil water storage, soil water content, and water infiltration rate. (2) soil temperature regulation and finally (3) pest regulation, for example, pest abundance and predator abundance.

## 2.3 | Explanatory variables

These variables included two broad categories of GC practices, that is, organic and inorganic GC. Organic GC consisted of various materials such as wild grass (weeds), artificially planted grasses, and plant residues (straw, branches, and other living mulch). Inorganic GC consisted of plastic film mulch (either in black, white, or others). Various GC forms were reported on various response variables in the selected studies. As a result, the sample size required to determine an effective effect size for specific GC forms was small in some cases. Therefore, whenever possible, GC forms were classified as organic or inorganic to ensure an appropriate analysis from a sufficient sample size. The effects of the duration of the experiment and the texture of the soil on peach yield and the mass of the single fruit were investigated. Data were collected in the form of paired observations that demonstrated the effect of control and GC forms on a specific response variable. Furthermore, the data were treated separately when an article contained multiple experiments recorded in different years or locations.
<table><caption>TABLE 1 Specification of the mixed-effects models fitted to the data</caption><thead><tr><th>Model</th><th>Equation</th><th>Data</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Yield <i>ijk</i> = β<sub>0</sub> + ai + bij + εijk</td><td>All data on yield</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Yield <i>ijk</i> = β<sub>0</sub> + β<sub>1</sub>*Materials <i>i</i><sup>2</sup> + ai + bij + εijk</td><td>All individual materials used as ground cover</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>(SFM, SSC, TA, hardness) <i>ijk</i> = β<sub>0</sub> + β<sub>1</sub>*Ground coveri<sup>2</sup> + ai + bij + εijk</td><td>Only for records with full information (no missing data) on quality parameters</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>(AN, AP, AK) <i>ijk</i> = β<sub>0</sub> + β<sub>1</sub>*Ground coveri<sup>2</sup> + ai + bij + εijk</td><td>Only for records with full information (no missing data) on nutrient cycling</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>(pH, SOM, porosity, BD) <i>ijk</i> = β<sub>0</sub> + β<sub>1</sub>*Ground coveri<sup>2</sup> + ai + bij + εijk</td><td>Only for records with full information (no missing data) in either organic or inorganic ground cover</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>(SWS, SWC, IR) <i>ijk</i> = β<sub>0</sub> + β<sub>1</sub>*Ground coveri<sup>2</sup> + ai + bij + εijk</td><td>Only for records with full information (no missing data) on soil water changes</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>(Pest, predator abundance) <i>ijk</i> = β<sub>0</sub> + β<sub>1</sub>*Ground coveri<sup>2</sup> + ai + bij + εijk</td><td>Only for records with full information (no missing data) on pest control</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Yield <i>ijk</i> = β<sub>0</sub> + β<sub>1</sub>*Ground coveri<sup>2</sup> + β<sub>2</sub>*Duration + ai + bij + εijk</td><td>All ground cover forms and their length of experimentation</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: The indices *i*, *j*, and *k* represent publication, experiment, treatment ID, respectively. In all mixed effect models, *ai* is a random publication effect. *bij* is a random experiment effect nested within the *i*th publication. *ai* and *bij* are assumed normally distributed with constant variances. *εijk* is a residual error assumed normally distributed with a constant variance. The variance terms *ai*, *bij* and *εijk* are all assumed independent. Superscript 2 in model 2 represent different GC materials and different GC situations in models 3–7.

Abbreviations: IR, infiltration rate; SFM, single fruit mass; SOM, soil organic matter; SSC, soluble solids content; SWC, soil water content; SWS, soil water storage; TA, titratable acids.

## 2.4 | Effect size

We calculated the natural logarithm of the response ratio as the effect size to quantify the influence of various forms of GC on a given variable:

$$ \ln E = \ln X_t - \ln X_c $$

where $X_t$ and $X_c$ are the treatment (i.e., under specific GC) and corresponding control value, respectively, for the given variable. The effect of GC in the treatment over the control was considered statistically significant ($p < 0.05$) only when the 95% confidence interval did not overlap with 0 (Hedges et al., 1999). The same concept was applied when the data were analyzed for different categories of GC (Xia et al., 2017). The response ratio was converted to a percent change ($E^+$) to represent the impact of different forms of GC on various response variables in order to better express the results:

$$ E^+ = (\exp^{\ln E} - 1) \times 100 $$

A positive percentage value indicates an increase in the variable due to GC, while a negative percentage represents a decrease in the value of the variable. Based on the integrity of the precision measures reported in the database, the effect size can be weighted either using the inverse of pooled variances (Yang et al., 2016) or the number of replications (Lam et al., 2012). In our analysis, the weights were calculated using the replication-based method (Lam et al., 2012):

$$ \text{Weight} = \frac{N_c \times N_t}{N_c + N_t} $$

where $N_c$ and $N_t$ represent the number of replicates in the treatment and control groups, respectively. Mean effect sizes and the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed by bootstrapping procedure with 4999 iterations using MetaWin (Version 2.1) software (Rosenberg et al., 2000). To verify the robustness of the meta-analysis, we removed outlier studies and compared them with the results of the original analysis. We then plotted a funnel plot that relates the effect sizes to the sample sizes to determine any publication bias. The results from the funnel plot consisted of a few studies that resulted in a slightly asymmetrical shape, showing the presence of a slight publication bias (Figure S3) (Philibert et al., 2012).

# 3 | RESULTS

## 3.1 | Effect of groundcover systems on ecosystem services

### 3.1.1 | Fruit yield and quality—Provision services

Our results show that in general, yields were not significantly affected by GC. Organic GC reduced peach yields by 1.7±3%. On the contrary, the inorganic system significantly increased peach yield by 7.7±1.8% (Figure 1).
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 1** Changes in peach yield as influenced by various ground cover forms. The letter “n” indicates the number of data points. Horizontal lines represent error bars at a 95% confidence interval.</figcaption></figure>

We observed that individually, the material used as GC affected peach yields differently. We show here that using wild grass or sown grass reduced yields by 21.9±3.6% and 12.3±3.3%, respectively. The best option for the organic GC material used was straw (17.6±5.5%) (Figure 1). The black film mulching had the greatest effect on yield increase for all inorganic materials included in this study. Black film mulching increased yields by 11.7±2.1%, whereas white film mulching increased yields by 3.6±0.4% (Figure 1). Peach yields also varied depending on the duration of the experiment, the GC forms and the texture of the soil, with organic GC in sandy loam soil increasing the yields over time (Figures S3–S5).

Inorganic GC increased the average single fruit mass by 4.2±1.7% compared with the organic GC (1.2±1.2%, Figure 2a). The best option for organic GC material used for single fruit mass was straw with an increase of

8.6±1.4%. Sown and wild grass reduced single fruit mass by 4.8±3.3% and 4.9±1.3%, respectively. Inorganic GC using either black or white film increased single fruit mass by 5.1±3.4% and 6.4±0.6%, respectively, but not significantly different from straw. Single fruit mass was also increased in loam soils with organic GC over time (Figure S3). Our results showed high levels of soluble solid content in both organic and inorganic GC, although no significant effect of inorganic GC on titratable acids was observed. Both organic GC and inorganic GC increased soluble solids content by 3.2±0.7% and 5.9±0.9%, respectively (Figure 2b). However, using straw (6.1±0.6%) was statistically similar to white film (6.4±0.6%). In addition, the black film contributed even lower (4.7±1.1%) to soluble solids content. In general, organic GC reduced the titratable acid content (13.7±2.1%, Figure 2c), and fruit hardness (82±2.9%). Fruit hardness was 1.2±0.7%
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 2** Effect of ground cover forms on single fruit mass (a), soluble solids content (b), and titratable acids (c). The letter “n” indicates the number of data points. Horizontal lines represent error bars at a 95% confidence interval.</figcaption></figure>

under inorganic GC, although the effect was not significant (Figure S5).

### 3.1.2 | Physical properties of the soil—
Supporting services

Organic GC significantly reduced bulk density by 5.1 ± 1.2% (Figure 3a). Overall, GC significantly increased soil porosity (Figure 3a). The highest increase in porosity was observed in organic GC (3.5 ± 1.4%) than inorganic GC (0.5 ± 0.8%). Inorganic GC increased the soil temperature (2.8 ± 2.9%), although the effect was not significant. In contrast, organic GC significantly reduced soil temperature by 8.3 ± 2.4%, (Figure 3b).

### 3.1.3 | Soil water, soil nutrient cycling, and
pest control services

Soil water storage was not significantly affected by inorganic GC. Organic GC, however, increased soil water storage by 9.3 ± 2.1% (Figure 3b). All systems had significant positive effects on soil water content, with higher levels observed in inorganic GC (26.1 ± 3.4%) than in organic GC (13.1 ± 2.4%) (Figure 3b). We also estimated the GC effect on soil infiltration rate only using organic GC materials due to a shortage in data points for inorganic GC material. The results showed that organic GC increased the infiltration rate by 20.6 ± 6% (Figure S5), although the effect was not significant. The soil pH was not significantly affected by organic GC.
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

FIGURE 3 Groundcover effects on soil supporting services (a) and soil temperature and water regulation services (b). SWS, SWC and SOM represent soil water storage, soil water content, and soil organic matter, respectively. The letter “n” indicates the number of data points. Horizontal lines represent error bars at a 95% confidence interval.

While inorganic GC reduced SOM by 5.5±1.5%, organic GC significantly increased SOM by 28.3±3.3% (Figure 3a). All GC systems had a significant positive effect on soil available nitrogen (Figure 3a). The effect was much more pronounced in organic GC (25.1±2.7%) than in inorganic GC (17.2±5.6%). Organic GC also increased both available phosphorus and available potassium by 23.5±4.6%, and 30.9±3.3%, respectively. However, inorganic GC reduced available phosphorus (3.6±3.6%), but not significantly, and increased available potassium (16.2±1.1%). The data on GC effects on pest management were available only from the organic systems. The results showed that organic GC reduced pest abundance by 2.4±1.8%, though not statistically significant, while the

abundance of predators increased significantly increased by 47.5±5.9% (Figure S5).

4 | DISCUSSION

4.1 | Implications of groundcover on peach orchard production services

Our results indicate that GC in peach orchards increased peach fruit yields, even though the overall effect was not statistically significant. Organic GC reduced peach yields, particularly wild grass or sown grass. The explanation could be that both wild grass and sown grass
compete with peach trees for resources such as water and
nutrients, decreasing peach yield (Zhang et al., 2010).
Weeds that grow naturally compete for resources with
peach trees, and their negative effects are magnified
in drought conditions. This corroborates the results by
Tu et al. (2021), who reported fruit yield reduction of
~32.2–41.7% in a long-term organic GC using full grass
mulching. However, using straw increased peach yields
more than wild grass and sown grass. Straw has been
suggested as a viable alternative to plastic film mulching
(Shah & Wu, 2020). Our results were in line with those
of Wang, Wang, Zhao, Chen, and Wang (2015), who re-
ported that GC increases single fruit mass when organic
forms such as straw are used. The use of straw in or-
chards may affect peach yields in many ways, especially
in arid conditions. First, straw mulching reduces the
rate of surface runoff, thus increasing soil water infiltra-
tion which in turn ensures water availability for peach
trees. Second, in cold weather, straw mulch functions
as an insulator, decreasing temperature changes in the
soil (Liu, Zhu, et al., 2014). Finally, straw mulching im-
proves soil quality as nutrients are released from straw
during decomposition. The decomposition of straw in-
creases the available nitrogen, available phosphorus,
and available potassium in the soil which consequently
improves peach productivity (Huang et al., 2021).

Overall, inorganic GC boosted peach yield more than
organic GC forms evaluated in this study. Several re-
ports indicate the advantages of film mulching in terms
of improved crop yields, especially across arid regions
(Yan et al., 2014). More importantly, in our study, black
film mulch had a greater effect on peach yield than
white film. This could be because black film mulching
enables weed suppression by smothering germinated
weed seedlings and depriving them of sunlight. Second,
black film mulch can raise soil temperatures to levels
where disease-causing pathogens cannot survive, hence
reducing the incidence of viral and bacterial diseases
that would otherwise lead to flower and fruit abortion,
fruit rot, and fruit drop which ultimately reduces peach
yields (Campi et al., 2020; Shah & Wu, 2020). In addi-
tion, in the soil, black film increases soil temperature
and water-holding capacity and decreases water loss
through evapotranspiration, thus improving peach pro-
ductivity. Gupta et al. (2022) discovered that black poly-
thene mulch outperformed white polythene mulch or
atrazine-controlled treatments in terms of fruit yield and
volume. Despite having a lower effect than black film
mulch, white film mulch was found to be more effective
on peach yield than other GC forms such as wild grass or
sown grass in our study. The white film, like black film,
has been widely adopted by peach farmers due to its pos-
itive yield effects. White film mulching, like black film

mulch, has similar mechanisms for weed and pest con-
trol and moisture conservation. According to research
conducted in India, both black and white polythene
mulch can produce high yields (Gupta et al., 2016).
While some researchers, for example, Suo et al. (2019)
found that film mulching reduced yield, and Losciale
et al. (2020), observed no effect of reflective plastic film
on yield, our study has shown that, in general, plastic
film mulch greatly increases peach yield.

Parameters such as the content of soluble solids and
titratable acids are largely related to the quality of the fruit
and indicate the levels of sweetness and sourness in the
fruit (Antonucci et al., 2011; Belisle et al., 2018). Gupta
et al. (2022) found that in terms of soluble solids content, vi-
tamin C, and sugars, black polythene mulch outperformed
white polythene mulch or atrazine-controlled treatments.
However, in this study, white film mulch outperformed
black film mulch in terms of single fruit mass and soluble
solids content. In general, white or reflective film has high
reflectivity and also cools the tree basins, which improves
fruit quality (Amare & Desta, 2021; Parshant et al., 2015).
Inorganic GC with reusable reflective mulching has
been reported to increase fruit size (Losciale et al., 2020).
Studies have reported that reflective mulching results
in higher soluble solids content, and significantly lower
firmness than the control in the first season. Previously,
Pande et al. (2005) discovered that apples with organic
mulch had lower soluble solids content than apples with
black polythene mulch. In Greece, for example, a study
found that the use of reflective mulching under deficit ir-
rigation increased peach quality, particularly the content
of soluble solids (Pliakoni & Nanos, 2010). Although both
wild grass and sown grass reduced single fruit mass, our
study demonstrated that the use of straw can increase sin-
gle fruit mass. Furthermore, it has been suggested that
fruits grown under black polythene mulch have low acid
levels because they are converted to sugars in this system
(Gupta et al., 2022). Inorganic GC did not affect titratable
acids in our study. Others have reported that total acidity
in both mulched and unmulched peaches was insignifi-
cant (Andreotti et al., 2009, 2010). Similar levels of straw
to both black and white film mulch on fruit quality sug-
gest that using straw in peach orchards to improve fruit
quality may be sustainable. As previously stated, notwithstanding the yield gains, plastic film still poses significant
environmental concerns due to the repeated fragmentation of plastic mulch (Ramos et al., 2015).

Even though our study was not designed to investigate
the levels of plastic film pollution, their presence in the soil
facilitates the absorption of heavy metals and pesticides,
which can have negative consequences when absorbed by
soil microbes (Avio et al., 2015). The use of dead organic
mulch in orchards can help with weed suppression, soil
moisture retention, and, most importantly, the diversity of beneficial insects, reducing the need for herbicides and pesticides while not compromising yield or increasing it, as straw mulch does (Arvidsson et al., 2020). Plastic film mulching can also severely affect long-term crop yield (Gao et al., 2019), as it does not readily degrade in soil (Briassoulis et al., 2015). The use of biodegradable film in combination with organic GC forms such as straw may represent an alternative to plastic film mulching for improved environmental sustainability (Han et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2021).

## 4.2 | Organic ground cover materials affect soil physiochemical properties

Peach orchards with plastic film mulching hinder vegetation growth, thus limiting agrobiodiversity and affecting the supply of SOM into the soil, resulting in soil structure deterioration and impoverished soil fertility. In contrast, organic GC significantly improves soil formation when the material decomposes, thereby increasing SOM content and soil porosity. This was evident in our study, where inorganic GC did not affect both porosity and bulk density, and organic GC increased porosity while reducing bulk density. A soil structure with increased compactness and reduced porosity is not ideal for peach production as it promotes excessive surface runoff and reduced infiltration (Jiang et al., 2017). Soils with high bulk density generally limit root expansion as well as optimal air circulation. To promote soil formation with a good structure and improve soil fertility, the adoption of organic GC in orchards, particularly using both live and dead vegetative material since 1990 has been recommended (Wilson et al., 2010). Both live and dead vegetation (grass or straw) readily decompose into the soil, adding SOM stock which is important for soil fertility. However, one major disadvantage of living grass cover is that they compete with the crop for nutrients and water, particularly in the early phases of crop growth (Zhang et al., 2010). While there are notable disadvantages of sown grass or natural weeds on peach yield in this study, diverse plant communities still support pollinators such as bees, butterflies, and birds, which are essential for crop pollination. Some plant species help maintain soil health by fixing nitrogen, reducing erosion, and improving soil structure. Identifying plant species which may be used as trap crops, or border crops to promote agrobiodiversity without compromising yield is still an area to be explored. We showed that organic GC significantly reduced soil temperature, affecting various functions in the soil, including microbial activities, enzyme functions, plant root respiration, etc. Organic GC in the form of straw has been associated with low soil temperatures in the early stages of plant growth (Chen et al., 2007;

Wang, Wang, Zhao, & Wang, 2015) and this generally slows the soil formation processes. However, diverse plant communities can help to mitigate climate change by seeking carbon in the soil and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In contrast, similar to bare soils, plastic film mulching in orchards has been reported to increase soil temperature compared to orchards with wild grass. Generally, as opposed to freezing or excessively hot soil temperatures, higher soil temperatures aid in faster soil formation. However, the use of inorganic mulch such as plastic film is still unsustainable as it adds less value to soil fertility. Therefore, we recommend the use of organic GC for soil improvement and to ensure the long-term sustainability of peach fruit production.

Organic material mulching is a method for recoupling nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium pools in agroecosystems (Drinkwater & Snapp, 2007; Power, 2010). The choice of GC material to be used determines the soil quality, as it changes the composition of microbial communities (Chen et al., 2014; Zheng et al., 2018). Soil microorganisms are important in maintaining soil fertility and productivity, thanks to their role in plant residue decomposition, soil organic carbon, and nitrogen retention (Liang et al., 2017; Verzeaux et al., 2016; Wang, Huang, et al., 2020). We found that, unlike inorganic GC, organic GC increases the microbiological functional diversity of the soil linked to the carbon and nitrogen cycle as high soil microfauna is available (Birkhofer et al., 2019; Huang et al., 2021). Besides increasing available nitrogen, inorganic GC did not affect soil available phosphorus and reduced available potassium. This finding partly contradicts the results of Gu et al. (2018), who reported higher enzyme activity, available nitrogen, available phosphorus, and available potassium as a result of plastic film mulching. However, the presence of similar levels of available nitrogen with the use of inorganic GC, compared to organic GC, is not surprising. Ma et al. (2018) reported that plastic film mulching increased nitrate concentration in the 0–20 cm of topsoil while slightly decreasing soil organic carbon in the 0–10 cm of the topsoil layer. Even though inorganic nitrogen is higher in plastic mulch due to high mineralization, this comes at a cost of accelerated escape of carbon monoxide and nitrous oxide into the atmosphere (Cuello et al., 2015). Potassium deficiency can lead to limited growth, metabolism, and stress defense (Wang et al., 2013). Plants that have potassium deficiencies are more susceptible to pest damage (Wang et al., 2013; West & Nansen, 2014). Our results show that organic GC enhances available potassium in peach orchards boosting the crop defense against pests. Nonetheless, this study demonstrated that organic GC improves soil structure and nutrient cycling, implying the possibility of achieving both high nutrient cycling and good soil structure.
## 4.3 | Effects of ground cover systems on soil water regulation

We found in our study that overall, GC increased both soil water content and soil water storage more than when no GC was used. This reduces irrigation costs and improves water use efficiency in arid or semi-arid areas by minimizing soil evaporation (Zribi et al., 2015). Although our results indicated that inorganic GC did not affect soil water storage, other studies have reported that reusable reflective mulching increased water use efficiency and productivity in peach orchards (Losciale et al., 2020). Biodegradable plastic mulching has been found to have positive effects on soil and overall groundwater quality (Sintim et al., 2021) than polythene mulch (Flury & Narayan, 2021). Plastic film mulch, when compared to paper, straw, or grasses, can save 25-30% of water in crop production by inhibiting evapotranspiration (Ingman et al., 2015), and this may explain why soil water content was higher in inorganic GC than organic GC. Even though soil water content was high for inorganic GC in our study, others have reported that an increase in soil water content due to plastic film mulching adversely affected fruit yield and water use efficiency (Suo et al., 2019). Under plastic film, the soil can become ultra-dumped allowing fungi growth. Furthermore, the availability of plastic mulch may result in inefficient rainwater use. As the amount of residual plastic film in the soil increases, so does the bulk density of the soil, resulting in uneven water movement. As a result of poor soil quality, plant growth slows and nutrient uptake is hampered, resulting in low crop productivity (Zhang et al., 2007). Wang, Wang, Zhao, Chen, and Wang (2015) concluded that soil water content increased significantly when organic GC was used in peach orchards compared to without GC, similar to our findings. We found no overall significant effect of GC on water infiltration rate except for sown grass and straw, which conforms to the finding of (Lordan et al., 2015). While both organic and inorganic GC forms had a high soil water content in our study, for sustainable peach production, adopting organic GC is preferable owing to its water-saving and other environmental benefits. Natural weeds, on the other hand, compete for water with peach trees and their negative effects are exacerbated in drought conditions. As a result, dead organic mulch would be the best option for water conservation as moisture competition is one of the ecosystem's disservices.

## 4.4 | Effects of ground cover forms on peach orchard pests

Organic GC reduced the pest population while enhancing that of predators. The natural enemy hypothesis,

which suggests that biodiversity can promote ecosystem services by increasing the diversity and effectiveness of natural enemies, such as predators and parasites, which can help control populations of herbivores or other pests could explain this phenomenon (Letourneau, 1987; Staudacher et al., 2013). One mechanism is temporal and spatial heterogeneity, that is, diverse plant communities create diverse and complex natural habitats, in which natural enemies may be better able to persist and reproduce (Collins et al., 2018; Vinatier et al., 2011), which can lead to more effective and long-term pest control (Wan, Fu, et al., 2022). Insect pest populations generally reduce in peach orchards due to an increase in the population of natural predators, facilitated by diversified groundcover vegetation compared to non-diversified annual groundcover vegetation (Wan, Ji, et al., 2018; Wan, Li, et al., 2019). Pest control by predators such as birds, spiders, wasps, and mantis not only reduces pest damage but also increases peach yield or limits pest yield losses in the short term. Unlike inorganic GC, biological GC forms in peach orchards have been linked with enhanced diversity and stability of peach canopy arthropod communities (Tebeau et al., 2017; Wan, Ji, Gu, et al., 2014). Facilitation is another mechanism which helps to improve peach productivity. First, organic GC facilitates the growth and peach trees by providing shade on the tree basement which reduces excessive evapotranspiration, providing nutrients through decomposition as well as maintaining soil health by promoting the life of soil-dwelling organisms like earthworms. Second, organic GC may indirectly affect other ecosystem services by altering microbial and other abiotic properties of the soil (Wang, Liu, et al., 2020). The abundance of natural enemies in peach orchards, especially with annual vegetation, has previously been reported (Wan, Gu, Ji, et al., 2014; Wyss, 1996). Long-term regulatory benefits also include the preservation of an ecological balance, which prevents herbivorous insects from becoming pests (Zhang et al., 2007). Taken together, organic GC using vegetation promotes biocontrol in peach orchards by shaping the niche of herbivores and natural enemies (Wan, Li, et al., 2019). Organic GC thus has the potential to improve above- and below-ground biodiversity and the environmental benefits of organic GC may outweigh those of inorganic GC.

## 4.5 | Limitations and future perspectives

Our study provides evidence on how different forms of GC drive the ecosystem services in agroecosystems like peach orchards. Due to a lack of sufficient information on soil fertility, chemical fertilizer management, plant densities, pruning, and irrigation among others, we could
not determine how the interaction of GC and these other management factors influence various ecosystem services or disservices. Future research is needed to fill these knowledge gaps that may offer new insights into the overall sustainability of peach production. Furthermore, we stress the need for more research on biodegradable plastic film mulch combined with organic GC, as both can help reducing the environmental impact of plastic mulching (Li et al., 2012; Shen et al., 2012). Our study had only a few observations on this GC combination, and therefore we could not conclude its effect on ecosystem services.

5 | CONCLUSION

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate how organic and inorganic GC management affects the various ecosystem services provided by the peach orchard agroecosystem. For provisioning services, we found that inorganic GC is more effective in increasing peach yield compared to organic GC. Inorganic GC increased peach yield by 7.7%, but there was no significant yield reduction with organic GC. Also, inorganic GC positively affected fruit quality, particularly single fruit mass and soluble solids content. Our study confirms that inorganic GC promotes soil water content and thus water regulation in peach orchards. Inorganic GC can be useful in achieving high peach yields while promoting a few supporting and regulatory services, depending on resource availability and production requirements. Nonetheless, our research shows that, while inorganic GC promotes provisioning services, it does so at the expense of both supporting and regulatory services. This was evident in this study, as inorganic GC did not significantly improve porosity, reduced SOM, available phosphorus, and available potassium, and was ineffective in increasing soil temperature and soil water storage. Our study also reported that, despite having no overall significant effect on peach yields, the use of straw is a good alternative for achieving high peach yields in contrast to inorganic GC forms. The soluble solids content of the fruits was also raised by 3.2% under organic GC forms. Straw, in particular, was found to be effective in increasing single fruit mass, as much as 8.6%. On the other hand, organic GC forms were important in promoting soil fertility characteristics such as available nitrogen (25.1%), available phosphorus (23.5%), and available potassium (30.9%). Additionally, organic GC increased soil organic matter by 28.3%, while inorganic GC reduced it by 5.5%. Furthermore, organic GC promoted regulatory services such as soil water content and soil water storage. Finally, natural predators can be used to reduce the overuse of chemical pesticides in peach production, which was increased by 54.4% under organic GC in this study. Thus,

organic GC can be used to enhance ecosystem services while still maintaining acceptable yields. Based on this evidence, this study concludes that organic GC is a promising practice for long-term sustainable peach production. However, future research should focus on how other factors, such as inorganic fertilizer management, irrigation, soil physiochemical characteristics, and GC, interact to impact multiple ecosystem services.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Wen-Feng Cong, and J.J. carried out conceptualization. Shingirai Mudare, Mengqi Li, Jasper Kanomanyanga, and Wen-Feng Cong carried out methodology. Mengqi Li, Shingirai Mudare, and Jasper Kanomanyanga were involved in investigation. Shingirai Mudare wrote the original draft. Wen-Feng Cong, Shingirai Mudare, Prakash Lakshmanan, and Jay Ram Lamichhane were involved in supervision. Wen-Feng Cong, Jasper Kanomanyanga, Shingirai Mudare, Prakash Lakshmanan, and Jay Ram Lamichhane carried out writing—reviewing and editing. Wen-Feng Cong carried out resources, project administration, and funding acquisition.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors acknowledge China Agriculture University for providing an enabling environment to carry out this research. This work was supported by the Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (32072676), the Program of Introducing Talents of Discipline to Universities (Plant-Soil Interactions Innovative Research Platform 1031-00100701), and the Program of Advanced Discipline Construction in Beijing (Agriculture Green Development).

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data used in this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

ORCID

Shingirai Mudare https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6352-4886

REFERENCES

Amare, G., & Desta, B. (2021). Coloured plastic mulches: Impact on soil properties and crop productivity. *Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture, 8*, 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s4053 8-020-00201-8

Andreotti, C., Ravaglia, D., & Costa, G. (2009). Innovative light management to improve production sustainability, overall quality, and the phenolics composition of nectarine (*Prunus*
*persica* cv. Stark red gold). *The Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology*, **84**, 145–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/14620316.2009.11512612

Andreotti, C., Ravaglia, D., & Costa, G. (2010). Effects of fruit load and reflective mulch on phenolic compounds accumulation in nectarine fruit. *European Journal of Horticultural Science*, **72**, 53–59.

Antonucci, F., Pallottino, F., Paglia, G., Palma, A., D'Aquino, S., & Menesatti, P. (2011). Non-destructive estimation of mandarin maturity status through portable VIS-NIR spectrophotometer. *Food and Bioprocess Technology*, **4**, 809–813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11947-010-0414-5

Arvidsson, F., Addison, P., Addison, M., Haddad, C. R., & Birkhofer, K. (2020). Weed species, not mulching, affect web-building spiders and their prey in organic fruit orchards in South Africa. *Ecosphere*, **11**, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3059

Avio, C. G., Gorbi, S., & Regoli, F. (2015). Experimental development of a new protocol for extraction and characterization of micro-plastics in fish tissues: First observations in commercial species from Adriatic Sea. *Marine Environmental Research*, **111**, 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2015.06.014

Batáry, P., Gallé, R., Riesch, F., Fischer, C., Dormann, C. F., Mußhoff, O., Császár, P., Fusaro, S., Gayer, C., Happe, A.-K., Kurucz, K., Molnár, D., Rösch, V., Wietzke, A., & Tscharntke, T. (2017). The former iron curtain still drives biodiversity–profit trade-offs in German agriculture. *Nature Ecology & Evolution*, **1**, 9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0272-x

Belisle, C., Phan, U. T. X., Adhikari, K., & Chavez, D. J. (2018). A fruit quality survey of peach cultivars grown in the southeastern United States. *HortTechnology*, **28**, 189–201. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH03870-17

Birkhofer, K., Addison, M. F., Arvidsson, F., Bazelet, C., Bengtsson, J., Boosyen, R., Conlong, D., Haddad, C., Janion-Scheepers, C., Kapp, C., Lindborg, R., Louw, S., Malan, A. P., Storey, S. G., Swart, W. J., & Addison, P. (2019). Effects of ground cover management on biotic communities, ecosystem services and disservices in organic deciduous fruit orchards in South Africa. *Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 3*, 107. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00107

Birkhofer, K., Diehl, E., Andersson, J., Ekroos, J., Früh-Müller, A., Machnikowski, F., Mader, V. L., Nilsson, L., Sasaki, K., Rundlöf, M., Wolters, V., & Smith, H. G. (2015). Ecosystem services—Current challenges and opportunities for ecological research. *Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution*, **2**, 1–12. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2014.00087

Bowles, T. M., Jackson, L. E., Loeher, M., & Cavagnaro, T. R. (2017). Ecological intensification and arbuscular mycorrhizas: A meta-analysis of tillage and cover crop effects. *Journal of Applied Ecology*, **54**, 1785–1793. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12815

Briassoulis, D., Babou, E., Hiskakis, M., & Kyrikou, I. (2015). Analysis of long-term degradation behaviour of polyethylene mulching films with pro-oxidants under real cultivation and soil burial conditions. *Environmental Science and Pollution Research International*, **22**, 2584–2598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-3464-9

Bussi, C., Parveaud, C.-E., Mercier, V., & Lescourret, F. (2016). Effects of irrigation deprivation and ground cover (*Trifolium repens*) in the tree row on brown rot incidence in peach. *Crop Protection*, **88**, 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2016.05.010

Campi, P., Gaeta, L., Mastrorilli, M., & Losciale, P. (2020). Innovative soil management and micro-climate modulation for saving water in peach orchards. *Frontiers in Plant Science*, **11**, 1052. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.01052

Chen, S. Y., Zhang, X. Y., Pei, D., Sun, H. Y., & Chen, S. L. (2007). Effects of straw mulching on soil temperature, evaporation and yield of winter wheat: Field experiments on the North China plain. *Annals of Applied Biology*, **150**, 261–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.2007.00144.x

Chen, Y., Wen, X., Sun, Y., Zhang, J., Wu, W., & Liao, Y. (2014). Mulching practices altered soil bacterial community structure and improved orchard productivity and apple quality after five growing seasons. *Scientia Horticulturae*, **172**, 248–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2014.04.010

Collins, S. L., Avolio, M. L., Gries, C., Hallett, L. M., Koerner, S. E., La Pierre, K. J., Rypel, A. L., Sokol, E. R., Fey, S. B., Flynn, D. F. B., Jones, S. K., Ladwig, L. M., Ripplinger, J., & Jones, M. B. (2018). Temporal heterogeneity increases with spatial heterogeneity in ecological communities. *Ecology*, **99**, 858–865. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2154

Corolaro, M., Manfrini, L., Endrizzi, I., Aprea, E., Demattè, M. L., Charles, M., Bergamaschi, M., Biasioli, F., Zibordi, M., Grappadelli, L., & Gasperi, F. (2015). The effect of two orchard light management practices on the sensory quality of apple: Fruit thinning by shading or photo-selective nets. *Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology*, **90**, 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/14620316.2015.11513159

Cuello, J. P., Hwang, H. Y., Gutierrez, J., Kim, S. Y., & Kim, P. J. (2015). Impact of plastic film mulching on increasing greenhouse gas emissions in temperate upland soil during maize cultivation. *Applied Soil Ecology*, **91**, 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2015.02.007

Dale, V. H., & Polasky, S. (2007). Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services. *Ecological Economics*, **64**, 286–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.05.009

Drinkwater, L. E., & Snapp, S. S. (2007). Nutrients in agroecosystems: Rethinking the management paradigm. In D. L. Sparks (Ed.), *Advances in agronomy* (Vol. 92, pp. 163–186). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(04)92003-2

FAOSTAT. (2022). *Food and agricultural organization of the United Nations*. https://www.fao.org/fastat/en/#compare

Flury, M., & Narayan, R. (2021). Biodegradable plastic as an integral part of the solution to plastic waste pollution of the environment. *Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry*, **30**, 100490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsc.2021.100490

Forge, T. A., Hogue, E., Neilsen, G., & Neilsen, D. (2003). Effects of organic mulches on soil microfauna in the root zone of apple: Implications for nutrient fluxes and functional diversity of the soil food web. *Applied Soil Ecology*, **22**, 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0929-1393(02)00111-7

Funke, K., & Blanke, M. (2004). Can reflective ground cover enhance fruit quality and colouration? *Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment*, **3**, 203–206.

Gagic, V., Hänke, S., Thies, C., Scherber, C., Tomanović, Ž., & Tscharntke, T. (2012). Agricultural intensification and cereal aphid–parasitoid–hyperparasitoid food webs: Network complexity, temporal variability and parasitism rates. *Oecologia*, **170**, 1099–1109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-012-2366-0

Gao, H., Yan, C., Liu, Q., Ding, W., Chen, B., & Li, Z. (2019). Effects of plastic mulching and plastic residue on agricultural production:
A meta-analysis. *Science of the Total Environment*, **651**, 484–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.105

Gordon, L. J., Finlayson, C. M., & Falkenmark, M. (2010). Managing water in agriculture for food production and other ecosystem services. *Agricultural Water Management*, **97**, 512–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2009.03.017

Gu, X., Li, Y., & Du, Y. (2018). Film-mulched continuous ridge-furrow planting improves soil temperature, nutrient content and enzymatic activity in a winter oilseed rape field, Northwest China. *Journal of Arid Land, 10*, 362–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40333-018-0055-5

Guo, C., Wang, X., Li, Y., He, X., Zhang, W., Wang, J., Shi, X., Chen, X., & Zhang, Y. (2018). Carbon footprint analyses and potential carbon emission reduction in China's major peach orchards. *Sustainability, 10*, 2908. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082908

Gupta, P., Bhat, D., Wali, V., Bakshi, P., Bhat, A., & Jasrotia, A. (2016). Cost and return analysis of different treatments of mulching and herbicide application on peach (*Prunus persica* (L.) Batsch) cv. Shan-e-Punjab. *Economic Affairs, 61*, 481. https://doi.org/10.5958/0976-4666.2016.00060.7

Gupta, P., Bhat, D. J., Bakshi, P., Wali, V. K., Sharma, N., Arya, V. M., Sood, K. K., & Jasrotia, A. (2022). Mulching and herbicidal treatment impact on weed growth and performance of low chilling peach under sub-tropical condition. *Journal of Crop and Weed, 18*, 77–84. https://doi.org/10.22271/09746315.2022.v18.i2.1576

Halden, R. U. (2010). Plastics and health risks. *Annual Review of Public Health*, **31**, 179–194. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.012809.103714

Han, J., Jia, Z., Han, Q., & Zhang, J. (2013). Application of mulching materials of rainfall harvesting system for improving soil water and corn growth in northwest of China. *Journal of Integrative Agriculture*, **12**, 1712–1721. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(13)60342-1

Harvey, C. A., Chacón, M., Donatti, C. I., Garen, E., Hannah, L., Andrade, A., Bede, L., Brown, D., Calle, A., Chará, J., Clement, C., Gray, E., Hoang, M. H., Minang, P., Rodríguez, A. M., Seeberg-Elverfeldt, C., Semroc, B., Shames, S., Smukler, S., ... Wollenberg, E. (2014). Climate-smart landscapes: Opportunities and challenges for integrating adaptation and mitigation in tropical agriculture. *Conservation Letters*, **7**, 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12066

Hedges, L. V., Gurevitch, J., & Curtis, P. S. (1999). The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. *Ecology*, **80**, 1150–1156. https://doi.org/10.2307/177062

Henseler, M., Gallagher, M. B., & Kreins, P. (2022). Microplastic pollution in agricultural soils and abatement measures—A model-based assessment for Germany. *Environmental Modeling & Assessment*, **27**, 553–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-022-09826-5

Huang, T., Yang, N., Lu, C., Qin, X., & Siddique, K. H. M. (2021). Soil organic carbon, total nitrogen, available nutrients, and yield under different straw returning methods. *Soil and Tillage Research*, **214**, 105171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2021.105171

Ingman, M., Santelmann, M. V., & Tilt, B. (2015). Agricultural water conservation in China: Plastic mulch and traditional irrigation. *Ecosystem Health and Sustainability*, **1**, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1890/EHS14-0018.1

Ji, X., Wang, J., Dainese, M., Zhang, H., Chen, Y., Cavalieri, A., Jiang, J., & Wan, N. (2022). Ground cover vegetation promotes biological control and yield in pear orchards. *Journal of Applied Entomology*, **146**, 262–271. https://doi.org/10.1111/jen.12965

Jiang, X. J., Liu, W., Wang, E., Zhou, T., & Xin, P. (2017). Residual plastic mulch fragments effects on soil physical properties and water flow behavior in the Minqin oasis, northwestern China. *Soil and Tillage Research*, **166**, 100–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2016.10.011

Johnson, D., Lewis, B., McCraw, B. D., Carroll, B., Jervis, B., Striegler, K., Boozer, B., Mulder, P., Foshee, W., McVay, J., & Mizell, R. (2002). Development and implementation of a peach integrated pest management program in the southern USA. *Acta Horticulturae*, **592**, 681–688. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortoric.2002.592.95

Kumar, M. V., & Sheela, A. M. (2021). Effect of plastic film mulching on the distribution of plastic residues in agricultural fields. *Chemosphere*, **273**, 128590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128590

Lam, S. K., Chen, D., Norton, R., Armstrong, R., & Mosier, A. R. (2012). Nitrogen dynamics in grain crop and legume pasture systems under elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration: A meta-analysis. *Global Change Biology*, **18**, 2853–2859. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02758.x

Landis, D., Wratten, S., & Gurr, G. (2000). Habitat management to conserve natural enemies of arthropod pests in agriculture. *Annual Review of Entomology*, **45**, 175–201. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.45.1.175

Layne, D., Jiang, Z., & Rushing, J. (2001). Tree fruit reflective film improves red skin coloration and advances maturity in peach. *HortTechnology*, **11**, 234–242. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTT ECH.11.2.234

Letourneau, D. K. (1987). The enemies hypothesis: Tritrophic interactions and vegetational diversity in tropical agroecosystems. *Ecology*, **68**, 1616–1622. https://doi.org/10.2307/1939853

Li, F.-M., Song, Q.-H., Ijemba, P. K., & Shi, Y.-C. (2004). Dynamics of soil microbial biomass C and soil fertility in cropland mulched with plastic film in a semiarid agro-ecosystem. *Soil Biology and Biochemistry*, **36**, 1893–1902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2004.04.040

Li, R., Hou, X., Jia, Z., Han, Q., Yang, B., Li, R., Hou, X., Jia, Z., Han, Q., & Yang, B. (2012). Effects of rainfall harvesting and mulching technologies on soil water, temperature, and maize yield in loess plateau region of China. *Soil Research, 50*, 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR11331

Liang, C., Schimel, J. P., & Jastrow, J. D. (2017). The importance of anabolism in microbial control over soil carbon storage. *Nature Microbiology*, **2**(8), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmicrobiol.2017.105

Liu, E., He, W., & Yan, C. (2014). “White revolution” to ‘white pollution’—Agricultural plastic film mulch in China. *Environmental Research Letters*, **9**, 091001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/9/091001

Liu, J., Zhu, L., Luo, S., Bu, L., Chen, X., Yue, S., & Li, S. (2014). Response of nitrous oxide emission to soil mulching and nitrogen fertilization in semi-arid farmland. *Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment*, **188**, 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.02.010

Liu, Y., Wang, J., Liu, D., Li, Z., Zhang, G., Tao, Y., Xie, J., Pan, J., & Chen, F. (2014). Straw mulching reduces the harmful effects
of extreme hydrological and temperature conditions in citrus orchards. *PLoS One*, 9, e87094. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087094

Lordan, J., Pascual, M., Villar, J. M., Fonseca, F., Papió, J., Montilla, V., & Rufat, J. (2015). Use of organic mulch to enhance water-use efficiency and peach production under limiting soil conditions in a three-year-old orchard. *Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research*, 13, e0904. https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/20153430914

Losciale, P., Gaeta, L., Manfrini, L., Tarricone, L., & Campi, P. (2020). Orchard floor management affects tree functionality, productivity and water consumption of a late ripening peach orchard under semi-arid conditions. *Applied Sciences*, 10, 8135. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10228135

Ma, D., Chen, L., Qu, H., Wang, Y., Misselbrook, T., & Jiang, R. (2018). Impacts of plastic film mulching on crop yields, soil water, nitrate, and organic carbon in northwestern China: A meta-analysis. *Agricultural Water Management*, 202, 166-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2018.02.001

Meinhold, T., Richters, J.-P., Damerow, L., & Blanke, M. M. (2010). Optical properties of reflection ground covers with potential for enhancing fruit colouration. *Biosystems Engineering*, 107, 155-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2010.07.006

Michos, M. C., Mamolos, A. P., Menexes, G. C., Tsatsarelis, C. A., Tsirakoglou, V. M., & Kalburtji, K. L. (2012). Energy inputs, outputs and greenhouse gas emissions in organic, integrated and conventional peach orchards. *Ecological Indicators*, 13, 22-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.05.002

Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). *Millennium ecosystem assessment synthesis report*. Island Press.

Montanaro, G., Xiloyannis, C., Nuzzo, V., & Dichio, B. (2017). Orchard management, soil organic carbon and ecosystem services in Mediterranean fruit tree crops. *Scientia Horticulturae*, 217, 92-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2017.01.012

Mudare, S., Kanomanyanga, J., Jiao, X., Mabasa, S., Lamichhane, J. R., Jing, J., & Cong, W.-F. (2022). Yield and fertilizer benefits of maize/grain legume intercropping in China and Africa: A meta-analysis. *Agronomy for Sustainable Development*, 42, 81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-022-00816-1

Nagy, P. T., Bíró, T., Nyéki, J., & Szabó, Z. (2013). Groundcover as a useful tool for efficient resource management and sustainable production. *Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis*, 44, 688-695. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2012.748008

Nikiema, P., Nzokou, P., Rothstein, D., & Ngouajio, M. (2012). Soil microbial biomass as affected by groundcover management in a Fraser fir (Abies fraseri [Pursh] Poir) plantation after 1 year. *Biology and Fertility of Soils*, 48, 727-733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-012-0666-5

Our World in Data. (2022). *Data explorer: Plastic waste and pollution*. Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/plastic-pollution

Pande, K. K., Dimri, D. C., & Prashant, K. (2005). Effect of various mulches on growth, yield and quality of apple. *Indian Journal of Horticulture*, 62, 154-147.

Parshant, B., Vinod, K. W., Mudasir, I., Amit, J., Kiran, K., Rafiq, A., & Manish, B. (2015). Sustainable fruit production by soil moisture conservation with different mulches: A review. *African Journal of Agricultural Research*, 10, 4718-4729. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2014.9149

Philibert, A., Loyce, C., & Makowski, D. (2012). Assessment of the quality of meta-analysis in agronomy. *Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment*, 148, 72-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.12.003

Pliakoni, E. D., & Nanos, G. D. (2010). Deficit irrigation and reflective mulch effects on peach and nectarine fruit quality and storage ability. *Acta Horticulturae*, 877, 215-222. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2010.877.22

Power, A. G. (2010). Ecosystem services and agriculture: Tradeoffs and synergies. *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences*, 365, 2959-2971. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0143

Ramos, L., Berenstein, G., Hughes, E. A., Zalts, A., & Montserrat, J. M. (2015). Polyethylene film incorporation into the horticultural soil of small periurban production units in Argentina. *Science of the Total Environment*, 523, 74-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.03.142

Reeve, J. R., Culumber, C. M., Black, B. L., Tebeau, A., Ransom, C. V., Alston, D., Rowley, M., & Lindstrom, T. (2017). Establishing peach trees for organic production in Utah and the intermountain West. *Scientia Horticulturae*, 214, 242-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2016.11.040

Robertson, G. P., Burger, J. L. W., Kling, C. L., Lowrance, R., & Mulla, D. J. (2007). New approaches to environmental management research at landscape and watershed scales. In M. Schnepf & C. Cox (Eds.), *Managing agricultural landscapes for environmental quality* (pp. 27-50). Soil and Water Conservation Soc.

Rosenberg, M., Adams, D., & Gurevitch, J. (2000). *MetaWin: Statistical software for meta-analysis*. Version 2.0. Sinauer Associates.

Shah, F., & Wu, W. (2020). Use of plastic mulch in agriculture and strategies to mitigate the associated environmental concerns. In D.L. Sparks (Ed.), *Advances in agronomy* (Vol. 164, pp. 231-287). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.2020.06.005

Shen, L., Wang, P., & Zhang, L. (2012). Degradation property of degradable film and its effect on soil temperature and moisture and maize growth. *Nongye Gongcheng Xuebao/Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering*, 28, 111-116. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-6819.2012.04.018

Sintim, H. Y., Bandopadhyay, S., English, M. E., Bary, A., Gonzalez, J. E. L. Y., DeBruyn, J. M., Schaeffer, S. M., Miles, C. A., & Flury, M. (2021). Four years of continuous use of soil-biodegradable plastic mulch: Impact on soil and groundwater quality. *Geoderma*, 381, 114665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114665

Staudacher, K., Schallhart, N., Thalinger, B., Wallinger, C., Juen, A., & Traugott, M. (2013). Plant diversity affects behavior of generalist root herbivores, reduces crop damage, and enhances crop yield. *Ecological Applications*, 23, 1135-1145. https://doi.org/10.1890/13-0018.1

Suo, G.-D., Xie, Y.-S., Zhang, Y., & Luo, H. (2019). Long-term effects of different surface mulching techniques on soil water and fruit yield in an apple orchard on the Loess plateau of China. *Scientia Horticulturae*, 246, 643-651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2018.11.028

Swinton, S. M., Lupi, F., Robertson, G. P., & Hamilton, S. K. (2007). Ecosystem services and agriculture: Cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits. *Ecological Economics*, 64, 245-252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.09.020
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

Tebeau, A. S., Alston, D. G., Ransom, C. V., Black, B. L., Reeve, J. R., & Culumber, C. M. (2017). Effects of floor vegetation and fertility management on weed biomass and diversity in organic peach orchards. *Weed Technology, **31***, 404–415. https://doi.org/10.1017/wet.2017.32

Tscharntke, T., Klein, A. M., Kruess, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., & Thies, C. (2005). Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity—Ecosystem service management. *Ecology Letters, **8***, 857–874. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00782.x

Tu, A., Xie, S., Zheng, H., Li, H., Li, Y., & Mo, M. (2021). Long-term effects of living grass mulching on soil and water conservation and fruit yield of citrus orchard in South China. *Agricultural Water Management, **252***, 106897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2021.106897

Verzeaux, J., Alahmad, A., Habbib, H., Nivelle, E., Roger, D., Lacoux, J., Decocq, G., Hirel, B., Catterou, M., Spicher, F., Dubois, F., Duclercq, J., & Tetu, T. (2016). Cover crops prevent the deleterious effect of nitrogen fertilisation on bacterial diversity by maintaining the carbon content of ploughed soil. *Geoderma, **281***, 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.06.035

Vinatier, F., Tixier, P., Duyck, P.-F., & Lescourret, F. (2011). Factors and mechanisms explaining spatial heterogeneity: A review of methods for insect populations. *Methods in Ecology and Evolution, **2***, 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00059.x

Wan, N.-F., Cai, Y.-M., Shen, Y.-J., Ji, X.-Y., Wu, X.-W., Zheng, X.-R., Cheng, W., Li, J., Jiang, Y.-P., Chen, X., Weiner, J., Jiang, J.-X., Nie, M., Ju, R.-T., Yuan, T., Tang, J.-J., Tian, W.-D., Zhang, H., & Li, B. (2018). Increasing plant diversity with border crops reduces insecticide use and increases crop yield in urban agriculture. *Life, **7***, e35103. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.35103

Wan, N.-F., Cavalieri, A., Siemann, E., Dainese, M., Li, W.-W., & Jiang, J.-X. (2022). Spatial aggregation of herbivores and predators enhances tri-trophic cascades in paddy fields: Rice monoculture versus rice-fish co-culture. *Journal of Applied Ecology, **59***, 2036–2045.

Wan, N.-F., Fu, L., Dainese, M., Hu, Y.-Q., Pødenphant Kiær, L., Isbell, F., & Scherber, C. (2022). Plant genetic diversity affects multiple trophic levels and trophic interactions. *Nature Communications, **13***, 7312. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-35087-7

Wan, N.-F., Gu, X.-J., Ji, X.-Y., Jiang, J.-X., Wu, J.-H., & Li, B. (2014). Ecological engineering of ground cover vegetation enhances the diversity and stability of peach orchard canopy arthropod communities. *Ecological Engineering, **70***, 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.05.010

Wan, N.-F., Ji, X.-Y., Deng, J.-Y., Kiær, L. P., Cai, Y.-M., & Jiang, J.-X. (2019). Plant diversification promotes biocontrol services in peach orchards by shaping the ecological niches of insect herbivores and their natural enemies. *Ecological Indicators, **99***, 387–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.11.047

Wan, N.-F., Ji, X.-Y., Gu, X.-J., Jiang, J.-X., Wu, J.-H., & Li, B. (2014). Ecological engineering of ground cover vegetation promotes biocontrol services in peach orchards. *Ecological Engineering, **64***, 62–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.12.033

Wan, N.-F., Ji, X.-Y., & Jiang, J.-X. (2014). Testing the enemies hypothesis in peach orchards in two different geographic areas in eastern China: The role of ground cover vegetation. *PLoS One, **9***, e99850. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0099850

Wan, N.-F., Ji, X.-Y., Kiær, L. P., Liu, S.-S., Deng, J.-Y., Jiang, J.-X., & Li, B. (2018). Ground cover increases spatial aggregation and association of insect herbivores and their predators in an agricultural landscape. *Landscape Ecology, **33***, 799–809. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0635-y

Wan, N.-F., Li, S.-X., Li, T., Cavalieri, A., Weiner, J., Zheng, X.-Q., Ji, X.-Y., Zhang, J.-Q., Zhang, H.-L., Zhang, H., Bai, N.-L., Chen, Y.-J., Zhang, H.-Y., Tao, X.-B., Zhang, H.-L., Lv, W.-G., Jiang, J.-X., & Li, B. (2019). Ecological intensification of rice production through rice-fish co-culture. *Journal of Cleaner Production, **234***, 1002–1012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.238

Wan, N.-F., Zhang, Y.-M., Huang, K.-H., Ji, X.-Y., & Jiang, J.-X. (2016). Ecological engineering of trap cropping promotes biocontrol services in peach orchard ecosystems. *Ecological Engineering, **90***, 427–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.01.045

Wan, N.-F., Zheng, X.-R., Fu, L., Kiær, L., Zhang, Z., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Dainese, M., Tan, J., Qiu, S.-Y., Hu, Y.-Q., Tian, W.-D., Nie, M., Ju, R.-T., Deng, J.-Y., Jiang, J.-X., Cai, Y.-M., & Li, B. (2021). Global synthesis of effects of plant species diversity on trophic groups and interactions. *Nature Plants, **6***, 503–510.

Wang, C., Wang, H., Zhao, X., Chen, B., & Wang, F. (2015). Mulching affects photosynthetic and chlorophyll a fluorescence characteristic during stage III of peach fruit growth on the rain-fed semiarid loess plateau of China. *Scientia Horticulturae, **194***, 246–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciencia.2015.08.012

Wang, H., Wang, C., Zhao, X., & Wang, F. (2015). Mulching increases water-use efficiency of peach production on the rainfed semiarid Loess plateau of China. *Agricultural Water Management, **154***, 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2015.02.010

Wang, M., Zheng, Q., Shen, Q., & Guo, S. (2013). The critical role of potassium in plant stress response. *International Journal of Molecular Sciences, **14***, 7370–7390. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms14047370

Wang, Y., Huang, Q., Liu, C., Ding, Y., Liu, L., Tian, Y., Wu, X., Li, H., Awasthi, M. K., & Zhao, Z. (2020). Mulching practices alter soil microbial functional diversity and benefit to soil quality in orchards on the Loess plateau. *Journal of Environmental Management, **271***, 110985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvm an.2020.110985

Wang, Y., Liu, L., Yang, J., Duan, Y., Luo, Y., Taherzadeh, M. J., Li, Y., Li, H., Awasthi, M. K., & Zhao, Z. (2020). The diversity of microbial community and function varied in response to different agricultural residues composting. *Science of the Total Environment, **715***, 136983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scito tenv.2020.136983

West, K., & Nansen, C. (2014). Smart-use of fertilizers to manage spider mites (Acari: Tetrachynidae) and other arthropod pests. *Plant Science Today, **1***, 161–164. https://doi.org/10.14719/ pst.2014.1.3.56

Wilson, A., Nzokou, P., & Clegg, B. (2010). Ground covers in Fraser fir (*Abies fraseri* [Pursh] Poir.) production systems: Effects on soil fertility, tree morphology and foliar nutrient status. *European Journal of Horticultural Science, **75***, 269–277.

Wyss, E. (1996). The effects of artificial weed strips on diversity and abundance of the arthropod fauna in a Swiss experimental apple orchard. *Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, **60***, 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(96)01060-2

Xia, L., Lam, S. K., Chen, D., Wang, J., Tang, Q., & Yan, X. (2017). Can knowledge-based N management produce more staple grain
with lower greenhouse gas emission and reactive nitrogen pol-
lution? A meta-analysis. *Global Change Biology*, **23**, 1917–1925.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13455

Yan, C., Liu, E., & Shu, F. (2014). Review of agricultural plastic mulching and its residual pollution and prevention measures in China. *Journal of Agricultural Resources and Environment*, **31**, 95–102.

Yang, M., Fang, Y., Sun, D., & Shi, Y. (2016). Efficiency of two ni-
trification inhibitors (dicyandiamide and 3, 4-dimethypyrazole
phosphate) on soil nitrogen transformations and plant produc-
tivity: A meta-analysis. *Scientific Reports*, **6**, 22075. https://doi.
org/10.1038/srep22075

Yang, N., Sun, Z.-X., Feng, L.-S., Zheng, M.-Z., Chi, D.-C., Meng, W.-Z., Hou, Z.-Y., Bai, W., & Li, K.-Y. (2015). Plastic film mulching for water-efficient agricultural applications and degradable films materials development research. *Materials and Manufacturing Processes*, **30**, 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2014.930958

Zhang, D., Liu, H., Hu, W., Qin, X., Ma, X., Yan, C., & Wang, H. (2016). The status and distribution characteristics of residual mulching film in Xinjiang, China. *Journal of Integrative Agriculture*, **15**, 2639–2646. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(15)61240-0

Zhang, H., Miles, C., Gerdeman, B., LaHue, D. G., & DeVetter, L. (2021). Plastic mulch use in perennial fruit cropping systems—A review. *Scientia Horticulturae*, **281**, 109975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2021.109975

Zhang, W., Ricketts, T. H., Kremen, C., Carney, K., & Swinton, S. M. (2007). Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. *Ecological Economics*, **64**, 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.024

Zhang, Y., Xie, Y.-S., Hao, M.-D., & She, X.-Y. (2010). Effects of differ-
ent patterns surface mulching on soil properties and fruit trees
growth and yield in an apple orchard. *Ying Yong Sheng Tai Xue
Bao = The Journal of Applied Ecology*, **21**, 279–286.

Zhao, J., Chen, J., Beillouin, D., Lambers, H., Yang, Y., Smith, P., Zeng, Z., Olesen, J. E., & Zang, H. (2022). Global systematic review with meta-analysis reveals yield advantage of legume-based rotations and its drivers. *Nature. Communications*, **13**, 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-32464-0

Zheng, W., Gong, Q., Zhao, Z., Liu, J., Zhai, B., Wang, Z., & Li, Z. (2018). Changes in the soil bacterial community structure and enzyme activities after intercrop mulch with cover crop for eight years in an orchard. *European Journal of Soil Biology*, **86**, 34–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2018.01.009

Zribi, W., Aragüés, R., Medina, E., & Faci, J. M. (2015). Efficiency of inorganic and organic mulching materials for soil evaporation control. *Soil and Tillage Research*, **148**, 40–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2014.12.003

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Additional supporting information can be found online
in the Supporting Information section at the end of this
article.

How to cite this article: Mudare, S., Li, M., Kanomanyanga, J., Lamichhane, J. R., Lakshmanan, P., & Cong, W.-F. (2023). Ecosystem services of organic versus inorganic ground cover in peach orchards: A meta-analysis. *Food and Energy Security, 00*, e0463. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.463