Ecological Indicators 142 (2022) 109218

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

Agroecosystem services: A review of concepts, indicators, assessment

methods and future research perspectives
Qinghua Liu a, Xiao Sun a, *, Wenbin Wu a, Zhenhuan Liu b, Guangji Fang a, Peng Yang a, *
a
Key Laboratory of Agricultural Remote Sensing (AGRIRS), Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs/Institute of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, Chinese
Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China
b
School of Geography and Planning, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Agroecosystems benefit from many ecosystem services and are frequently managed to increase productivity. In
Agroecosystem recent years, agricultural industrialization has caused the loss of some important ecosystem services in agro­
Agroecosystem services (AES) ecosystems, hindering some sustainable development goals (SDGs). In order to promote sustainable agricultural
Indicators
development, it is necessary to restore the damaged agroecosystems and improve agroecosystem services (AES).
Quantitative methods
Sustainable agricultural development
However, there are relatively few studies on AES, and fewer studies concerning the definition or connotation of
AES. Therefore, this paper reviews current AES research, indicators, and assessment methods, as well as di­
rections for future research. AES are determined by agroecosystem functions and human agricultural practices,
with both positive and negative effects, scale effects, and trade-offs and synergies between AES. AES indicators
can be classified as provisioning services, regulating services, and cultural services, with a few studies including
supporting services. Currently, the main AES assessment methods include public participation, empirical model,
mechanism model, and value estimation. Multi-source data fusion for integrated models to assess multiple AES
will be the future research trend. In addition, AES research should develop additional promising topics, including
considering both AES and agroecosystem disservices (AEDS); assessing AES supply, demand, and flow; and
analyzing AES trade-offs and synergies comprehensively. This will extend the research field to the links between
AES and SDGs and their applications in agricultural landscape planning and governance. This review highlights
the importance of AES research to more effectively manage agroecosystems and promote sustainable agricultural
development.

1. Introduction Therefore, alleviating the conflict between agricultural production and

environmental protection has become the main concern of sustainable
Today, climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution threaten the agricultural development.
well-being of about 40 % of the global population (United Nations Agricultural production is highly dependent on ecosystem services,
Environment Programme (UNEP), 2021). The environmental issues such as soil structure and fertility, nutrient cycling, pollination, and pest
caused by social and economic activities have raised serious concerns. control (Power, 2010). These services regulate the whole growth process
Among these social and economic activities, agriculture is one of the of crops. Improving these related ecosystem services may help to in­
main factors driving global environmental change (Sinha et al., 2022). crease the food supply and reduce the dependence of agriculture on
To meet the increasing food demand due to rapid population growth, external inputs, which can effectively alleviate the conflict between
farmers have improved productivity through agricultural intensification agricultural production and environmental problems (Dyer, 2014).
and scale management (Liu et al., 2021). However, this has led to However, research on improving ecosystem services has mainly
detrimental environmental impacts that will threaten the food security concentrated on urban ecosystems, forest ecosystems, wetland ecosys­
in the long run, such as greenhouse gas emissions, soil degradation, tems, or river ecosystems (Wu et al., 2019; Mann et al., 2021; Long et al.,
water pollution, and biodiversity loss (Taylor and Rising, 2021). 2022). Studies on improving agroecosystem services (AES) have not

* Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (Q. Liu), [email protected] (X. Sun), [email protected] (W. Wu), [email protected] (Z. Liu), 82101212107@
caas.cn (G. Fang), [email protected] (P. Yang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109218
Received 7 June 2022; Received in revised form 20 July 2022; Accepted 23 July 2022
Available online 30 July 2022
1470-160X/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
Q. Liu et al. Ecological Indicators 142 (2022) 109218

received enough attention. Therefore, it is necessary to further elucidate of research theories, methods, and practical applications of AES, this
AES and quantify AES dynamics under different management practices paper aimed to clarify the AES research status and answer several key
in order to implement sustainable management of agroecosystems. questions on AES through literature review (Fig. 1). The research ob­
Since the concept of ecosystem services was first put forward, the jectives mainly included: (1) to understand the connotation of AES and
interaction between ecosystem services and agriculture has attracted the summarize AES indicators; (2) to classify the current AES assessment
attention of agricultural ecologists, who have promoted AES research methods and put forward possible innovative methods for AES assess­
(Dale and Polasky, 2007). Studies on AES have mainly focused on in­ ment; and (3) to propose future AES research directions and discuss the
dicators, quantitative assessment, and driving factor analysis. Zhang possible challenges facing sustainable agricultural development.
et al. (2007) and Power (2010) focused on AES at an earlier time, and
suggested that agriculture not only benefited from a variety of 2. Methods
ecosystem services delivered by natural ecosystems, but also provided
many ecosystem services itself. Based on the preliminary understanding This review analyzed the AES research status using bibliometrics.
of AES, some scholars began to assess the spatiotemporal patterns of Based on the Web of Science Core Collection, the topics of “agricultural
AES. In addition to assessing the initial provisioning services, some ecosystem service*” OR “agroecosystem service*” OR “agro-ecosystem
important regulating services such as pest control, pollination, nutrient service*” OR “ “ecosystem service*” AND “in agricultural ecosystem” ”
cycling, and soil erosion (Schipanski et al., 2014; Schulp et al., 2014), as OR “ “ecosystem service*” AND “in agroecosystem” ” OR “ “ecosystem
well as cultural services, have become the focus of study (Hanaček and service*” AND “in agro-ecosystem” ” OR “ “service*” AND “in agricul­
Rodríguez-Labajos, 2018). Participatory methods, empirical models, tural ecosystem” ” OR “ “service*” AND “in agroecosystem” ” OR “
mechanism models, and value estimation are commonly used as “service*” AND “in agro-ecosystem” ” OR “ “ecosystem service*” AND
assessment methods, from which most AES indicators can be quantified “in agricultural landscape*” ” were used to search for relevant publi­
(Burkhard et al., 2012; Maharjan et al., 2018; Rega et al., 2018). cations. In total, 764 relevant articles were collected and saved in a text
On the basis of assessing spatiotemporal changes in AES, analyzing format. In order to better understand AES research status in the field of
the driving factors behind them is the premise for AES optimization and ecosystem services (ES) research, we also searched for publications on
sustainable agricultural management. Studies have shown that agricul­ ES using the topic of “ecosystem service*”, and 45,000 publications were
tural practices are the most influential factors affecting AES. For collected in total.
example, cover crop was found to improve eight types of ecosystem Using the analyzing result function of Web of Science, the number of
services without yield loss (Schipanski et al., 2014). Increasing crop publications in every year and every country were counted, and thus the
diversity and rotation diversity can enhance the ecological function of historical trends and global distribution were obtained. Vosviewer
underground biological communities and improve the overall AES (https://www.vosviewer.com/) was used to analyze the AES research
(Tiemann et al., 2015). In addition, natural factors such as climate hot spots. By extracting the titles and abstracts of 764 relevant articles,
change and terrain also influence AES. For example, changes in tem­ the research hot spots was visualized in the form of network. Besides, we
perature and precipitation lead to fluctuations in crop yield, and drought also analyzed the research hot spots in different regions by using Vos­
may increase the risk of diseases and pests (Derocles et al., 2018). viewer multiple times.
Agricultural practices and natural factors often work together to affect
AES, but they usually have different impacts on AES. Therefore, it is 3. Results from the literature search
important to distinguish the leading factors that drive changes in AES
(Yu et al., 2018). 3.1. Historical trends
Although some progress has been made in AES research, there is still
no clear connotation or definition of AES. AES indicators have been As shown in Fig. 2, AES studies were reported with the emergence of
listed in many studies, but without a uniform standard when selecting research on ecosystem services (Costanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997; MEA,
AES indicators due to the lack of a consistent understanding of AES. The 2005). Since 2000s, AES began to attract increasing attention because
methods used for AES assessment are relatively diversified but are too ecological processes within agroecosystems can support provisioning
scattered to integrate, causing inconvenience to users. In view of the lack services (Zhang et al., 2007). Publications on AES showed a small peak

Fig. 1. Agroecosystem services (AES) study framework and procedures.

2
Q. Liu et al. Ecological Indicators 142 (2022) 109218

Fig. 2. Number of publications on agroecosystem services (AES) and ecosystem services (ES) over time.

in 2015, probably because of the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodi­ 3.2. Research hot spots
versity (TEEB) initiative. In addition to this, the Intergovernmental
Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) As shown in Fig. 3, the hot spots are generally grouped into three
was established, and mentioned the impact of agricultural activities on categories represented by blue, green, and red. The first category (blue)
biodiversity. The publications had a sudden increase in 2018 and indicated the ecosystem services related to soil. From the key words like
maintained stability in the next two years. This was probably due to the “tillage”, “cover crop”, “mixture” and “treatment”, it can be inferred that
proposal of sustainable development goals (SDGs), with many SDGs the research hot spots on the relationships between AES like soil carbon
related to agroecosystems. In 2017, the United Nations adopted the sequestration, weed control, soil nutrient and farming practices. These
SDGs Global Indicator Framework (SGIF) and began to assess and words of “abundance”, “species richness”, “natural enemy”, and “polli­
monitor the indicators, which may promote the research on sustainable nator” in the second category (green) are noticeable, indicating the
agricultural development. As the deadline of SDGs (2015–2030) ecosystem services related to biodiversity. Besides, they all link to these
approached, the number of publications on AES also showed a signifi­ words of “semi nature habitat”, “heterogeneity”, “flower strip”, and
cant growth in 2021. “crop yield”, which suggests the existence of relationships between
landscape heterogeneity, biodiversity, and crop yield. For the third

Fig. 3. Research hot spots of agroecosystem services (AES). The bubble size represents the word frequency, and the curves represent the links between words.

3
Q. Liu et al. Ecological Indicators 142 (2022) 109218

category (red), there are more sociology words like “policy”, “sustain­ important role in the maintenance of the productivity and stability of
ability”, “assessment”, “framework”, “farmer”, “conflict”, and “gover­ agroecosystems (Power, 2010). The output of agricultural products re­
nance”, suggesting the research hot spots on agricultural sustainable sults in the great loss of nutrients from agroecosystems, so external in­
development policies, such as ecological compensation policies or puts are needed to maintain the nutrient balance of agroecosystems
agricultural landscape planning and governance. (Gliessman, 1990). Compared with artificial ecosystems, such as urban
Fig. 4 shows the publications on AES are globally unevenly distrib­ ecosystems, the dependence of agroecosystems on humans is relatively
uted, and the countries in southern hemisphere generally pay less limited. Agroecosystems include complete components of producers,
attention to AES than that in northern hemisphere. AES are mostly consumers, and decomposers that can complete material circulation and
studied in the European countries, especially the UK, Germany, France energy transformation independently (Zhu et al., 2017). Therefore, the
and Italy, followed by the USA. China, Australia and Canada rank the agroecosystem can be seen as a semi-natural ecosystem that have
third, fourth and fifth. By contrast, the publications in Brazil, Argentina, characteristics of both natural and artificial ecosystem and aim to ach­
Kenya and South Africa are relatively fewer. ieve agricultural production under the joint control of humans and
The research hot spots of AES in different regions also vary (Fig. S1). nature.
Research on AES in the USA and Europe are more comprehensive An agroecosystem consists of three sub-systems: the productive
compared with other countries. The USA and Europe have similar focus subsystem, referring to managed farmlands; the semi-natural or natural
on the relationships between landscape heterogeneity, species abun­ habitats subsystem surrounding the fields; and the human subsystem
dance, pollination services and crop yields. Besides, the Europe seems to composed of settlements and infrastructure (Fig. 5). These three sub­
pay more attention to the conflicts between farmer and wildlife. In systems are intermingled and interact strongly. The semi-natural sub­
China, the relationships between landscape heterogeneity, biodiversity system is mainly focused on biodiversity conservation, whereas the
and AES have been noticed but with little research, and the main focus is productive subsystem often has a negative impact on the biodiversity.
agroecosystem service value. Canada seems to focus more on the multi- The human subsystem is the decision-making unit, and decides the
functionality of agroecosystem, such as soil health, crop and biodiver­ agricultural practices and finally influences the other two subsystems
sity. As for Australia, Africa and south America, these regions are more (Moonen and Bàrberi, 2008).
interested in studying the relationships between biological control, The ecosystem has three major functions: material circulation, en­
pollination service or biodiversity and trees, forests or native vegetation. ergy flow, and information transmission. These ecological functions
provide numerous kinds of goods and services necessary for human
4. Cognition of AES survival (Daily, 1997). These goods or services are called ecosystem
services, which are often defined as tangible or intangible benefits ob­
4.1. Understanding the connotation and typical characteristics of AES tained from ecosystems by humans (Costanza et al., 1997; Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), 2005). For agroecosystems, the ecolog­
The concept of agroecosystem came into being when Tansley (1935) ical processes and functions are greatly influenced by human agricul­
put forward the concept of ecosystem. Compared with natural ecosys­ tural practices, thus influencing the supply of goods and services (Dale
tems, humans, mainly referring to farmers, are the main body of agro­ and Polasky, 2007). Therefore, AES can be understood as follows:
ecosystems. Most agroecosystem components are manually selected, humans obtain tangible or intangible benefits from agroecosystems that
while some natural components such as shrubs, herbivores, predators, are determined by agroecosystem functions and human agricultural
microorganisms, and other organisms are retained, which plays an practices.

Fig. 4. Global distribution of publications on agroecosystem services (AES).

4
Q. Liu et al. Ecological Indicators 142 (2022) 109218

Fig. 5. Ecosystem services within the agroecosystem. Biodiversity is the basis of agroecosystem, and provide many ecosystem services which are usually affected by
social management.

AES show the following typical characteristics: regulation, water purification, and soil retention services are mainly
delivered at the landscape scale (Zhang et al., 2007). Consequently, the
(1) AES have both positive and negative effects. trade-off between the same pair of AES varies when the spatial scale
changes (Yang et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2022). As evidenced by Yang
Besides providing beneficial services such as food, fiber, soil con­ et al. (2021), the interaction between soil conservation and grain pro­
servation, and aesthetic landscapes, agroecosystems may also produce a ductivity showed a synergistic relationship at the 1 km grid scale, but
variety of negative services (Power, 2010). This mainly depends on the mainly exhibited a trade-off relationship at other grid scales and
agricultural practices used. For example, fertilizer application can in­ administrative division scales. This may be due to the fact that the
crease soil nutrients, while excessive fertilization will produce negative agricultural practices like conservation tillage at a small scale is
ecological effects such as water pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, or conducive to soil conservation, thereby promoting grain productivity
soil degradation (Zabala et al., 2021). (Buschiazzo et al., 1998). While the land use change at a large scale for
the purpose of increasing productivity may cause soil erosion, such as
(2) Trade-off and synergy exist between AES indicators. the transformation from woodland to farmland (Peng et al., 2019).
Therefore, the dominant factors that influence AES trade-offs also show
There are highly non-linear relationships between AES indicators, a scale effect.
usually manifesting as trade-offs (one increases while another decreases)
or synergies (mutual gain) affected by agroecosystem management
4.2. Classifying and interpreting the key indicators of AES
(Zheng et al., 2019). For example, intensive agriculture maximizes food
production but weakens regulating services and cultural services, and
For the classification of AES, most studies have adopted the classi­
the trade-offs between ecosystem services become obvious. In contrast,
fication results of the MEA (2005). AES are generally classified into
the sustainable intensification of agriculture strives to improve regu­
provisioning services, regulating services, supporting services, and cul­
lating services and cultural services without reducing yield, so as to
tural services. However, the indicators selected for AES are inconsistent.
realize the synergies between ecosystem services (Pretty et al., 2018).
Some researchers have focused on the interaction between fields and
their surrounding semi-natural or natural habitats, and classify
(3) AES exhibit a scale effect.
ecosystem services as services provided to and by agriculture. For
example, Zhang et al. (2007) and Power (2010) suggested that the
The AES indicators, trade-offs, and driving factors all exhibit scale
natural habitat adjacent to farmland provides supporting services
effects. Specifically, the dominant ecosystem services vary at different
including soil fertility, nutrient cycling, water, and genetic diversity; and
spatial scales. For example, soil nutrient cycling, pollination, and pest
regulating services including soil protection, pollination, pest control,
control services are mainly provided at the field scale, while climate
gas regulation, and water purification to agroecosystems.

5
Q. Liu et al. Ecological Indicators 142 (2022) 109218

Agroecosystems also provide many ecosystem services, including food Table 1

production, climate regulation, soil conservation, landscape aesthetics, Key indicators and detailed explanations of agroecosystem services (AES).
and habitat maintenance. Huang et al. (2015) distinguished six groups AES Indicators Detailed explanations
of services and disservices, including consumer-oriented services from
Provisioning Food Agroecosystems provide humans with a variety
agriculture, regulating services to agriculture from surrounding eco­ services Fodder and of goods. Grain, crops, domestic animals, and
systems, regulating services to and from agriculture, supporting fiber fisheries provide food. Cash crops such as cotton,
ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes, ecosystem disservices to Raw materials hemp, ginseng, rape, and peanut provide
agriculture, and agricultural disservices to surrounding ecosystems. Medicine industrial raw materials, medicinal materials,
Energy and energy, and fuel1, 2.
Some researchers have concluded that AES were provided only by fuel
farmland, without considering ecosystem service flows from the sur­ Regulating Carbon Carbon sequestration in agroecosystems through
rounding habitats. For example, Zabala et al. (2021) suggested the services sequestration crop photosynthesis and increasing soil organic
farmland provides provisioning services, including food production; matter2.
Local climate The transpiration of crops and other plant
regulating services, including climate regulation, water purification,
regulation components, and evaporation from farmland
waste treatment, soil conservation, biodiversity, and resilience; and irrigation, can effectively decline the heat island
cultural services, including aesthetics, leisure, and entertainment. Other effect2, 3.
researchers were more focused on AES at the scale of agricultural Waste Soil microorganisms and invertebrates
landscape, and do not distinguish the ecosystem services “to” or “from” decomposition decompose dead tissues such as roots, stems and
leaves of crops or other plants, as well as organic
agriculture. For example, O’Brien et al. (2020) analyzed the influence of fertilizers1, 4, 5.
land use change and agricultural practices on ecosystem services such as Soil The covering of crops, herbaceous plants and
soil erosion, runoff regulation, and carbon sequestration in agricultural conservation shrubs, and the retention of stubble and straw
landscapes. after crop harvest can maintain soil by reducing
erosion1, 2, 5.
The difference in understanding the boundary of agroecosystem is
Supporting Soil structure Soil pore structure, soil aggregation and organic
the main reason of the inconsistent indicators of AES. Some researchers services and fertility matter are fundamental to nutrient acquisition
think of agroecosystems as farmland alone, while others believe that an by crops, as well as water retention1, 2, 6.
agroecosystem should not be limited to a farmland, but should include Nutrient The cycling of nutrition elements such as
the settlements and surrounding semi-natural or natural habitats. In any cycling nitrogen and phosphorus between the soil, crops
and microorganism, is basis
case, it is undeniable that the maintenance of provisioning services
formaintaining soil fertility and productivity1, 5,
provided by the farmland is dependent on ecosystem service flows from 7
.
the surrounding habitats (Kazemi et al., 2018). Many farmlands are Biological The predators in agroecosystems, such as
embedded within the natural ecosystem to form a continuous agricul­ control arthropod predators, insectivorous birds, bats,
and microbial pathogens, act as natural enemies
tural landscape in which the ecological processes are continuous be­
to agricultural pests 1, 2, 4, 5.
tween the farmlands and semi-natural habitats, so the ecosystem Pollination The pollinators, such as bees and butterflies,
services are delivered by both farmlands and semi-natural habitats help to fertilize crops by pollination, and is key
(Kremen, 2020). On this basis, this paper views AES as ecosystem ser­ to maintain a stable production for animal-
vices that occur in a wide range of agroecosystems or agricultural pollinated crops1, 4, 5.
Weed control The seed predators like birds, crickets, ants and
landscapes. Table 1 lists the specific indicators of AES, and Fig. 5 dis­
beetles, prevent weed seeds from entering the
plays the sources and the flows of ecosystem services within soil seed bank and reduces the potential weed
agroecosystems. infestation in the crops6.
Cultural Aesthetic value Agricultural landscapes may also meet human
services needs for an appealing aesthetic, as evidenced by
5. Quantification of AES
the well-managed croplands that dominate the
pastoral aesthetic8.
5.1. Summarizing the existing methods for AES assessment Recreations Entertainment based on agricultural resources
and tourism and rural life and culture, such as harvesting and
Table 2 shows that participatory methods, sample plot observation, fishing1, 2.
Cultural A unique agroecosystem created through the
empirical model, mechanism models, and value estimation methods are heritage long-term coordinated development of humans
often used in AES assessment. Each method focuses on different AES due and the environment, such as
to its individual principle or approach when assessing AES. The sample Hani terraced landscape in China9.
observation method mainly assesses pollination and pest control ser­ Spiritual and Agricultural folklore that is derived from the folk
religious value belief and worship, such as sacrificial activities
vices, and is costly and labor-intensive. Empirical modeling without
integrated with agricultural production10
involving complex processes and participatory methods relying on the Science and People gain knowledge about agriculture
participants’ experiences are both simple methods that can assess mul­ education through agricultural practice or scientific
tiple AES. The mechanism model concentrates on the influence of soil research10.
physicochemical processes on crop growth, and is mainly used to assess Refs.: 1 Rana et al., 2018. 2 Zabala et al., 2021. 3 Kumar et al., 2017. 4 Zhang
AES related to food production and soil process. In addition to the et al., 2007. 5 Huang et al., 2015. 6 Schumacher et al., 2020. 7 Holland et al.,
observed values, statistical values, indexes, or simulation values that are 2018. 8O’Brien et al., 2020. 9 Liu et al., 2018. 10 Hanaček and Rodríguez-Labajos,
capable of quantifying AES, the value estimation is also an important 2018.
method used to assess AES.
face interviews or online social media, the hot and cold spots of AES
(1) Participatory methods. perceived by participants can be obtained (Vreese et al., 2016). In
general, participatory methods are simple to operate and thus can be
Participatory methods include questionnaire investigation and used to assess almost all AES. However, as these methods depend on the
expert knowledge. Expert knowledge is an effective way to assess AES subjective experience of participants, the accuracy of the results needs to
when there is a lack of data. Based on expert knowledge, a relatively be further verified.
objective spatial distribution of AES can be obtained by scoring the
ability of each land use type to provide AES (Burkhard et al., 2012). The (2) Sample observation method.
questionnaire investigation is not limited to experts. Through face-to-

6
Q. Liu et al. Ecological Indicators 142 (2022) 109218

Table 2
Overview of the methods used to assess multiple agroecosystem services (AES).
Methods Specific method PS RS SS CS

FP CS WD SC SF NC PL BC AS RT

Participatory Questionnaire investigation1 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

method Experts’ knowledge2 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Sample plot observation Predator abundance3, 4 ✓
Pollinator visits5 ✓
Pollen deposition6 ✓
Empirical model Regression model7, 8, 9 ✓ ✓ ✓
RUSLE10 ✓
Pollination probability model11 ✓
Pest Control Potential index12 ✓
Recreation potential supply13, 14 ✓ ✓
Mechanism model InVEST15 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Cycles16 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
DNDC17 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
APSIM18 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
DSSAT19 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
EPIC20 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Value estimation The equivalent factor method21 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Monetary valuation22 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Emergy analysis23 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Note: PS: provisioning services; RS: regulating services; SS: supporting services; CS: cultural services; FP: food production; CS: carbon sequestration; WD: waste
decomposition; SC: soil conservation; SF: soil structure and fertility; NC: nutrient cycling; PL: pollination; BC: biological control; AS: aesthetics; RT: recreation and
tourism.
Refs.: 1 Vreese et al., 2016. 2 Burkhard et al., 2012. 3 Griffin et al, 2013. 4 Katano et al., 2015. 5 Sutter and Albrecht, 2016. 6 Kremen et al., 2010. 7 Moreira et al., 2015. 8
Milligan et al., 2016. 9 Meng et al., 2019. 10 Rosas and Gutierrez, 2020. 11 Schulp et al., 2014. 12 Rega et al., 2018. 13 Bing et al., 2021. 14 Liu et al., 2021. 15 Tallis and
Polasky, 2009. 16 Schipanski et al., 2014. 17Li et al., 2017. 18 Sharpley and Williams, 1990. 19 Jones et al., 2003. 20 Palmer et al., 2017. 21 Kang et al., 2022. 22 Swinton
et al., 2007. 23 Ma et al., 2015.

The sample observation method aims to assess pollination and pest the empirical model quantifies AES conveniently, the results lack cali­
control services. Usually, the number of pollinator visits to a sample plot bration with the observed data, and the accuracy of the results is
during a set period are recorded (Sutter and Albrecht, 2016). Some therefore difficult to determine.
studies multiply the pollination efficiency of pollinators to obtain the
pollen deposition in a specific time so as to more closely represent the (4) Mechanism model.
pollination service (Kremen et al., 2010). For pest control services, the
abundance and diversity of natural enemies such as ladybugs are among The mechanism model consists of a series of modules that simulate
the key factors for pest control prediction. Greater abundances and di­ biochemical and physical processes. APSIM, DSSAT, and EPIC are classic
versity of natural enemies is linked to lower diversity in pests, indicating models used to simulate the agroecosystem ecological processes that
that an agroecosystem has a stronger pest control function (Griffin et al., include soil water balance, soil nitrogen and phosphorus transport, and
2013; Katano et al., 2015). Data based on sample plot observation are crop yield. APSIM has wider application and higher accuracy compared
reliable and accurate, but the observation process is time-consuming to other models because it considers the cumulative effects of cropping
and high-cost, so it is difficult to carry out in a larger area. systems such as rotation, stubble, and fallow fields on soil (Sharpley and
Williams, 1990; Jones et al., 2003; Palmer et al., 2017). The Cycles
(3) Empirical model. model simulates the water, carbon, and nitrogen balance of soil–crop
systems affected by climate and human management, and predicts crop
The empirical model is also called the black box model, mainly yields and environmental effects such as carbon sequestration, NO2 gas
referring to the regression models or empirical formulas in this paper. emission, and nutrient cycling (Schipanski et al., 2014).
Regression models, whether linear or nonlinear, are widely used in yield The mechanism models described above usually operate at the field
estimation (Meng et al., 2019), and in pest control and pollination ser­ scale, which are limited when assessing AES on the regional scale. In
vice assessment (Moreira et al., 2015; Milligan et al., 2016). Regression contrast, DNDC can be applied at both field and regional scales to
models are relatively simple. Choosing appropriate explanatory vari­ simulate the influence of changes in surface biochemical processes on
ables and regression models is the key to obtaining accurate predictions. soil fertility and greenhouse gas emissions, and predict crop yield (Li
Empirical formulas are also commonly used to assess AES. Selecting et al., 2017). In addition, the InVEST model is a typical watershed model
parameters that are closely related to AES is the key to establishing an that can be used to assess AES such as food production, carbon seques­
empirical formula. For example, studies show that landscape complexity tration, soil erosion, water purification, and pollination (Tallis and
and habitat distance are key factors affecting pollination and pest con­ Polasky, 2009). Most mechanism models are based on observed data,
trol services (Grab et al., 2019; Walton et al., 2020), so the parameters and the simulation results are relatively reliable. However, mechanism
are selected from these two aspects to construct a pest control potential models need to input many parameters and will be limited when some
index and pollination model, respectively (Schulp et al., 2014; Rega parameters are difficult to obtain.
et al., 2018). The RUSLE model is a classical model in soil erosion
assessment that considers rainfall and soil erodibility, vegetation cover, (5) Value estimation.
terrain, and other factors closely related to soil erosion (Rosas and
Gutierrez, 2020). Cultural services are closely related to the features and The value estimation methods take monetary as the measurement
accessibility of the landscape (Bing et al., 2021). The index set from unit of AES value, so different AES can be compared. The equivalent
these two aspects are usually selected to establish the index of recreation factor method based on the value per unit area of different land use types
potential supply to assess cultural services (Liu et al., 2021). Although is commonly used to assess the AES value. The default AES value is the

7
Q. Liu et al. Ecological Indicators 142 (2022) 109218

farmland ecosystem service value, which ignores the diversity of agro­ to learn to apply many methods when assessing different AES, resulting
ecosystems (Kang et al., 2022). Another way to estimate AES value is the in great inconvenience. In addition, for a specific AES, the quantitative
product price method, among which the market value method is used to results vary when using different methods. Moreover, as these results
estimate the value of provisioning services while the alternative cost, have not yet been compared, the advantages and disadvantages of each
production cost, travel cost or the willingness to pay method estimate method remain unclear. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop a
the value of regulating and cultural services. For example, the value of model that can assess multiple AES at the same time by integrating
pest control service is replaced by the annual cost of agricultural pest different assessment modules. Furthermore, this model can be inte­
control. The values of carbon sequestration and oxygen release of grated into the smart agriculture platform, from which the generation
agroecosystems can be measured by the afforest cost and industrial mechanism of AES in agroecosystem can be understood and the real-
oxygen-producing cost. Similarly, the entertainment value of agricul­ time dynamic change in AES can be monitored, thus allowing farmers
tural tourism can be estimated by tourists’ spending (Swinton et al., and governments to make rational, scientifically based management
2007). decisions.
Different from above methods, the emergy analysis is an ecological
valuation method that translates different inputs and outputs of agro­ 6. Prospects for AES
ecosystems into the same solar emergy (sej), and then estimate the AES
value by dividing the “emergy/$ ratio”. Since the emergy theory esti­ Based on the review of AES progress, indicators, methods, and case
mates the ecological value rather than the human centric value, the studies, this paper proposes five topics worth studying in the future and
results are more objective than that of other methods (Ma et al., 2015). illustrates the relationships between them, which highlights the use­
fulness of a combination of multi-discipline and multi-field methods
(Fig. 6). Based on the goal of sustainable agricultural development, this
5.2. Exploring possible innovative methods for AES assessment
paper suggests that future research should focus on agroecosystem dis­
services (AEDS); the trade-offs and synergies of AES; and the supply,
The methods used to assess AES are relatively diverse, and most AES
demand, and flows of AES. Focusing on these aspects of AES may help
are quantifiable using the methods summarized in section 5.1. AES such
solve the problems of low comprehensive benefits, mismatches between
as pollination, pest control, and soil nutrient cycling are assessed mostly
supply and demand, and significant trade-offs between AES. AES place a
at the field scale but rarely at the regional scale. Another deficiency is
greater emphasis on ecological function recovery and achieving
that most services are calculated based on an annual average, and this
ecological benefits, which will help to achieve multiple SDGs. Agro­
method cannot accurately detect changes in monthly or even smaller
ecosystem management based on SDGs will promote the coordination
intervals, which does not provide sufficient information for managers to
between environment, society and economy in agroecosystems (Huang
make decisions in a timely manner (Kanter et al., 2016). This is mainly
et al., 2018). Considering this, the links between AES and SDGs should
because the data used in these assessing methods are limited on the
be focused on in future research. Finally, in order to realize the above
temporal and spatial scales. The development of data assimilation
desired goals, agricultural landscape planning and governance will be an
technology; making full use of the advantages of ground observation
important approach worthy of exploration in future agroecosystem
data, remote sensing data, and statistical data; and outputting data with
management.
high spatial and temporal resolution will improve the temporal and
spatial accuracy of model output (Tolomio and Casa, 2020). This is
particularly important for AES assessments based on multi-source data 6.1. Considering both AES and AEDS to identify agroecosystem
assimilation, and is likely to become the dominant trend in the future.
Currently, the AES assessment methods are too scattered. Users need Ecosystem services have long been an issue of concern in academic

Fig. 6. Relationships between future research directions.

8
Q. Liu et al. Ecological Indicators 142 (2022) 109218

circles, while ecosystem disservices have been recognized only in recent (Yang et al., 2019). Therefore, in order to further improve the well-being
years. Ecosystem disservices refer to the cognitive or actual negative of residents, it is necessary to study the AES demand and the balance
impact on human well-being derived from ecosystem functions, pro­ between supply and demand.
cesses, or attributes (Saunders, 2020). In some cases, the cost of Research on the supply–demand balance still cannot solve and ex­
ecosystem disservices exceeds the value of ecosystem services, espe­ press the problem of spatial mismatch between the supply and demand
cially for agroecosystems (Zhang and Zhou, 2018). As shown in Table 3, of AES. Ecosystem service flows can effectively link the supply and de­
AEDS are mainly classified into provisioning disservices, regulating mand with spatial heterogeneity, and have become a current research
disservices, and supporting disservices, which will threaten agricultural hot spot (Shakya et al., 2021). In the context of regional sustainable
production and other ecosystems if not managed well. Therefore, there development, it is necessary to concentrate on the delivery path and
is an urgent need to pay attention to AEDS and assess their spatiotem­ flow loss of ecosystem services between urban and rural areas, and be­
poral distribution. Based on this, conducting a comprehensive assess­ tween agroecosystems, urban ecosystems, forest ecosystems, and other
ment of AES and AEDS will contribute to clarifying the actual supply and ecosystems; to clarify the damaged and blocked ecosystem service flows;
comprehensive benefits of AES (Fischer et al., 2018). and finally to identify the priority areas for ecological restoration and
Compared to AES research, studies on AEDS are relatively few at protection. However, because the delivery process of ecosystem services
present. AEDS assessments focusing on greenhouse gas emissions, water is complex and affected by many factors (García-nieto et al., 2013), the
consumption, and nutrient loss make up the greatest proportion of AEDS delivery mechanism from supply to demand areas is still unclear, which
assessments reported to date, while habitat loss, pests and diseases, may be a key challenge facing research on AES flows.
weeds, and other AEDS are rarely assessed (Hardaker et al., 2020). Most
of these disservices are transformed into economic losses through 6.3. Reconciling the trade-off relationships among AES indicators
quantification by economic methods such as the market value, non-
market value, or emergy method (Zabala et al., 2021). On the whole, The trade-offs and synergies between ecosystem services have been
the methods for assessing AEDS are still lacking, and developing more studied for a long time (Zheng et al., 2019), especially for the trade-offs
methods to assess AEDS will be a great challenge. between provisioning services, regulating services, and cultural services.
Research has shown that the increase of crop yield is usually at the
expense of other ecosystem services (Geng et al., 2022). In recent years,
6.2. Assessing and managing the whole process of AES supply, flows, and a variety of alternative farming approaches to conventional intensifi­
demand cation have been explored to optimize these trade-offs, among which
organic farming, conservation agriculture, and agroforestry are the most
With further study on the relationship between ecosystem services common alternative approaches (Fig. 7) (Palm et al., 2014; Pretty, 2018;
and human well-being, the ecosystem service demand and sup­ Boone et al., 2019). Facing the challenges of climate change and
ply–demand relationship have attracted increasing attention in recent biodiversity loss, the agroforestry has been extensively researched
years (Tao et al., 2022). Because agroecosystems are mainly distributed recently since agroforestry has been found to improve carbon seques­
in rural areas, ecosystem services such as pollination, pest control, soil tration, soil conservation, and water yield while providing a variety of
conservation, nutrient cycling, and soil carbon sequestration are closely products (Kay et al., 2019). However, current studies mainly consider
linked with rural residents’ vital interests, such as the crop yield, eco­ the trade-offs between AES, but the trade-offs between AES and AEDS
nomic income, happiness and security. However, few studies have are rarely considered. Therefore, there is a need to consider AEDS when
considered the rural residents’ demand for these ecosystem services studying AES trade-offs, and to explore more theories and practices for
AES trade-off optimization, so as to comprehensively recognize the
Table 3 trade-offs between agricultural production and ecological benefit (Shi
The key indicators and detailed explanations of agroecosystem disservices et al., 2019).
(AEDS). Current studies mostly focus on the trade-offs from the supply side of
AEDS Indicators Detailed explanations ecosystem services, but research on the trade-offs from the demand side
Provisioning Water resource Water consumption from agricultural or between supply and demand remains lacking. The demand for AES
disservices consumption irrigation, especially in arid and semi-arid mainly comes from rural residents (Iniesta-Arandia et al., 2014).
areas1, 2. Studying the trade-offs from the demand side helps to incorporate the
Agricultural The waste produced in agricultural
preferences of rural residents for AES into local agroecosystem man­
waste production, such as the plastic film and
straw3. agement and policy-making. However, the final trade-off decision-
Regulating Water pollution The excessive use of of chemical fertilizers making scheme still lags behind the ideal scheme due to the limitations
disservices and pesticides causes water eutrophication of the imagination and the complexity of social-ecological systems.
and nitrate pollution in groundwater1, 2. Developing more scientific trade-off decision-making methods will be a
Soil pollution The heavy metal pollution of farmland
caused by sewage irrigation, pesticide,
major challenge for AES trade-off analysis.
plastic film, sludge, and organic fertilizer3.
Greenhouse gas The greenhouse gases emissions from 6.4. Linking the management of AES to the achievement of SDGs
emission agricultural cultivation, breeding and
agricultural machinery 1, 4.
Ecosystem services reflect benefits that human obtain from nature
Supporting Pest and disease The yield reduction and economic loss
disservices caused by pests or diseases3, 5. and contribute to achieving SDGs. A study by Wood et al. (2018) in­
Weeds cover Weeds and crops compete for water, dicates that ecosystem services contribute to 12 SDGs and 41 sub-SDGs.
nutrition, sunlight or and pollination6. Agroecosystems provide ecosystem services or disservices that are
Habitat loss The disappear of non-crop habitats in closely related to SDG1 (no poverty), SDG2 (zero hunger), SDG5 (gender
agroecosystems, such as woodland,
hedgerows, and flower belts7, 8.
equality), SDG6 (clean water and sanitation), SDG10 (reduced in­
Biodiversity loss The abundance and diversity of equalities), SDG12 (responsible consumption and production), SDG13
agricultural species have declined due (climate action), SDG14 (life below water), and SDG15 (life on land)
habitat loss and overuse of pesticides2, 8. (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2021).
Refs.: 1 Hardaker et al., 2020. 2 Zabala et al., 2021. 3 Zhang and Zhou, 2018. 4 Ma Although ecosystem services are critical for some SDGs, they do not
et al., 2015. 5 Huang et al., 2015. 6 Gaba et al., 2017. 7 Zhang et al., 2007. 8 always match spatially. Xu (2021) found that the SDG indicators of
Power, 2010. poverty and health in Guangdong province generally performed poorly

9
Q. Liu et al. Ecological Indicators 142 (2022) 109218

Fig. 7. Comparison of conventional intensification (shown in red) and alternative farming approaches (shown in gray) for AES trade-offs. (For interpretation of the
references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

in the areas with a high level of ecosystem services, while the SDG in­ urgent need for agroecosystem planning and governance at the land­
dicators were the highest in the areas with a lower level of ecosystem scape level to improve biodiversity-based ecosystem services, so as to
services. The mismatch was mainly caused by land management options promote the sustainable food production of agroecosystems.
(McElwee et al., 2020). In addition, McElwee et al. (2020) have found Research has shown that with the increase of the agricultural land­
that agroforestry can enhance a variety of ecosystem services, such as scape complexity, which is usually measured by crop types as well as the
pollination and soil and water conservation, and can achieve multiple number of non-crop habitats and their spatial configuration, biodiver­
SDGs, such as reducing poverty, reducing hunger, and increasing sity will increase and thus promote multiple ecosystem services (Fahrig
nutritional balance, which promotes the synergy between multiple et al., 2011; Burel et al., 2013). Therefore, spatial and temporal het­
ecosystem services and SDGs, while other options result in trade-offs erogeneity should be considered in agricultural landscape planning in
between ecosystem services and SDGs. Therefore, it can be concluded the following ways: (1) spatial heterogeneity: at the field scale, buffer
that land management options are the key to achieving a spatial match zones such as flower belts should be set at the edge of the field to attract
between ecosystem services and SDGs. Land management options that pollinators and natural enemies; at the landscape scale, resources for
consider the feedback of both society and ecology will help to promote animals need to be considered, such as increasing semi-natural habitats
synergy between ecosystem services and SDGs, while options only or planting complementary crop types to increase crop diversity (Haan
focusing on SDGs or ecosystem services will lead to trade-offs between et al., 2021), so as to facilitate the movement of arthropods between
ecosystem services and SDGs and cause them to be spatially different habitats and obtain a variety of resources. (2) Temporal het­
mismatched. erogeneity: the crop phenology and rotation system should be consid­
Given that AES is related to multiple SDGs, integrating AES into SDGs ered to ensure the temporal continuity of resources required by
research is urgent. Paying more attention to the interactions and spatial organisms, such as food and habitat (Pufal et al., 2017). However, Most
matching between ecosystem services and SDGs, and adopting inte­ agricultural landscapes are used and shaped by the actions and practices
grated management methods based on social-ecological feedback will of multiple stakeholders, often with no coordination among them. It is
promote synergy between AES and SDGs (Johnson et al., 2019), which difficult to reshape agricultural landscape patterns without collabora­
will be the trend for future agroecosystem management. However, this tive governance at the landscape level (Selman, 2006). Therefore,
feedback does not generally occur naturally. An effective institutional collaboration among farmers, land owners, nature conservation groups,
system is the key to ensuring that ecosystem services equally flow into and public agencies should be encouraged to integrate their different
social members with different interest demands, which is also among the visions, interests, and stakes. Finally, agricultural landscape practices
most difficult challenges in agroecosystem management. from individual to collective practices should be regulated by public
agencies using different public policy tools in order to achieve landscape
planning objectives.
6.5. Planning and governing agricultural landscapes for biodiversity- One typical example of agricultural landscape planning and gover­
based ecosystem services nance is the coexistence of migratory birds and paddy fields designed by
Japan, in which the concept of nature-based solutions is adopted, and
Agricultural landscapes are usually composed of a mosaic of crops, co-governance by the government, farmers, and nature conservation
grasslands, freshwater, and forested systems (Vialatte et al., 2019). associations is promoted. Although the crop yields have decreased
However, the non-crop habitats in agricultural landscape are fast dis­ slightly, the farmers’ income has increased through developing ecolog­
appearing with agricultural industrialization, resulting in biodiversity ical products and ecotourism, thereby achieving favorable outcomes for
loss (Landis, 2017). The biodiversity in agroecosystems including plants, both biodiversity protection (SDG15) and poverty reduction (SDG2)
animals and microorganism provide many important ecosystem ser­ (Ramsar, 2006). Therefore, agricultural landscape planning and gover­
vices, such as soil nutrient cycling, pollination, and pest control. These nance based on SDGs will be the key in future to achieve favorable
missing services are often replaced by the overuse of fertilizers, pesti­ outcomes with both social and ecological benefits. However, this strat­
cides, and herbicides, which improves crop yield in the short term but egy will often involve conflicts among different stakeholders. Managing
hinders agricultural sustainability in the long run. Therefore, there is an

10
Q. Liu et al. Ecological Indicators 142 (2022) 109218

these conflicts and searching for new solutions for the protection and Derocles, S.A.P., Lunt, D.H., Berthe, S.C.F., Nichols, P.C., Moss, E.D., Evans, D.M., 2018.
Climate warming alters the structure of farmland tritrophic ecological networks and
enhancement of agricultural landscapes is therefore a key challenge
reduces crop yield. Mol. Ecol. 27 (23), 4931–4946.
facing landscape planning and governance (Primdahl et al., 2020). Dyer, A., 2014. Ecosystem Farming: Letting Nature Do the Work. In: Chasing the Red
Queen. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 159–171.
Fahrig, L., Baudry, J., Brotons, L., Burel, F.G., Crist, T.O., Fuller, R.J., Sirami, C.,
7. Conclusions Siriwardena, G.M., Martin, J., 2011. Ecol. Lett. 14, 101–112.
Fischer, C., Gayer, C., Kurucz, K., Riesch, F., Tscharntke, T., Batáry, P., 2018. Ecosystem
AES is worthy of attention and further exploration in agriculture. The services and disservices provided by small rodents in arable fields: Effects of local
and landscape management. J. Appl. Ecol. 55, 548–558.
indicators selected for AES highlight the characteristics of agriculture, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2021. Tracking progress
and a few studies have taken AEDS into account. With the support of on food and agriculture-related SDG indicators 2021: A report on the indicators
geographic information system, the visualization of AES dynamic under FAO custodianship.
Gaba, S., Perronne, R., Fried, G., Gardarin, A., Bretagnolle, F., Biju-Duval, L., Colbach, N.,
changes can provide a scientific reference for decision-makers. How­
Cordeau, S., Fernández-Aparicio, M., Gauvrit, C., Gibot-Leclerc, S., Guillemin, J.P.,
ever, studies on AES still face many challenges. For example, the defi­ Moreau, D., Munier-Jolain, N., Strbik, F., Reboud, X., 2017. Response and effect
nition and connotations of AES remain unclear, and mature assessment traits of arable weeds in agro-ecosystems: a review of current knowledge. Weed Res.
57 (3), 123–147.
methods are lacking. On the whole, the study of AES is in the primary
García-Nieto, A.P., García-Llorente, M., Iniesta-Arandia, I., Martín-López, B., 2013.
stage, and there are relatively unexplored research topics worthy of Mapping forest ecosystem services: from providing units to beneficiaries. Ecosyst.
further discussion, such as AEDS, trade-offs and synergies, the links Serv. 4, 126–138.
between AES and SDGs, and agricultural landscape planning and Geng, W., Li, Y., Zhang, P., Yang, D., Jing, W., Rong, T., 2022. Analyzing spatio-temporal
changes and trade-offs/synergies among ecosystem services in the Yellow River
governance. Therefore, researchers should consider the connotation of Basin, China. Ecol. Indic. 138, 108825.
AES further, and use multi-source data and appropriate methods to Gliessman, S.R., 1990. Agroecology: Researching the ecological basis for sustainable
assess AES at different temporal and spatial scales. This will help to agriculture. Springer-Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, BerlinFRG.
Grab, H., Branstetter, M.G., Amon, N., Urban-Mead, K.R., Park, M.G., Gibbs, J., Blitzer, E.
promote further research on AES and improve agroecosystem manage­ J., Poveda, K., Loeb, G., Danforth, B.N., 2019. Agriculturally dominated landscapes
ment and sustainable development. reduce bee phylogenetic diversity and pollination services. Science 363 (6424),
282–284.
Griffin, J.N., Byrnes, J.E.K., Cardinale, B.J., 2013. Effects of predator richness on prey
suppression: a meta-analysis. Ecology 94, 2180–2187.
Declaration of Competing Interest
Haan, N.L., Iuliano, B.G., Gratton, C., Landis, D.A., 2021. Designing agricultural
landscapes for arthropod-based ecosystem services in North America. Adv. Ecol. Res.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial 64, 191–250.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence Hanaček, K., Rodríguez-Labajos, B., 2018. Impacts of land-use and management changes
on cultural agroecosystem services and environmental conflicts-a global review. Reg.
the work reported in this paper. Environ. Change. 50, 41–59.
Hardaker, A., Pagella, T., Rayment, M., 2020. Integrated assessment, valuation and
Data availability mapping of ecosystem services and dis-services from upland land use in Wales.
Ecosyst. Serv. 43, 101098.
Holland, J.E., Bennett, A.E., Newton, A.C., White, P.J., Mckenzie, B.M., George, T.S.,
No data was used for the research described in the article. Pakeman, R.J., Bailey, J.S., Fornara, D.A., Hayes, R.C., 2018. Liming impacts on
soils, crops and biodiversity in the UK: a review. Sci. Total Environ. 610–611,
316–332.
Acknowledgements Huang, L., Cao, W., Xu, X., Fan, J., Wang, J., 2018. Linking the benefits of ecosystem
services to sustainable spatial planning of ecological conservation strategies.
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation J. Environ. Manage. 222, 385–395.
Huang, J., Tichit, M., Poulot, M., Darly, S., Li, S.C., Petit, C., Aubry, C., 2015.
of China (Grant No. 41901227 and U1901601), Young Elite Scientist Comparative review of multifunctionality and ecosystem services in sustainable
Sponsorship Program by Cast (Grant No. 2021QNRC001), and the Open agriculture. J. Environ. Manage. 149, 138–147.
Foundation of the State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology Iniesta-Arandia, I., Garcia-Llorente, M., Aguilera, P.A., Montes, C., Martín-López, B.,
2014. Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services: uncovering the links between
of China (Grant No. SKLURE2020-2-1). values, drivers of change, and human well-being. Ecol. Econ. 108, 36–48.
Johnson, J.A., Jones, S.K., Wood, S.L.R., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Hawthorne, P.L.,
Mulligan, M., Pennington, D., DeClerck, F.A., 2019. Mapping Ecosystem Services to
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Human Well-being: a toolkit to support integrated landscape management for the
SDGs. Ecol. Appl. 29 (8), e01985.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. Jones, J.W., Hoogenboom, G., Porter, C.H., Boote, K.J., Batchelor, W.D., Hunt, L.A.,
org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109218. Wilkens, P.W., Singh, U., Gijsman, A.J., Ritchie, J.T., 2003. The DSSAT cropping
system model. Eur. J. Agron. 18 (3–4), 235–265.
Kang, N., Hou, L., Huang, J., Liu, H., 2022. Ecosystem services valuation in China: A
References meta-analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 809, 151122.
Kanter, D.R., Musumba, M., Wood, S., Palm, C., Antle, J., Balvanera, P., Dale, V.H.,
Havlik, P., Kline, K.L., Scholes, R.J., Thornton, P., Tittonell, P., Andelman, S., 2016.
Bing, Z., Qiu, Y., Huang, H., Chen, T., Zhong, W., Jiang, H., 2021. Spatial distribution of
Evaluating agricultural trade-offs in the age of sustainable development. Agric. Syst.
cultural ecosystem services demand and supply in urban and suburban areas: A case
163, 73–88.
study from Shanghai, China. Ecol. Indic. 127, 107720.
Katano, I., Doi, H., Eriksson, B.K., Hillebrand, H., 2015. A cross-system meta-analysis
Boone, L., Roldán-Ruiz, I., linden, V.V., Muylle, H., Dewulf, J., 2019. Environmental
reveals coupled predation effects on prey biomass and diversity. Oikos 124 (11),
sustainability of conventional and organic farming: Accounting for ecosystem
1427–1435.
services in life cycle assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 695, 133841.
Kay, S., Rega, C., Moreno, G., den Herder, M., Palma, J.H.N., Borek, R., Crous-Duran, J.,
Burel, F., Aviron, S., Baudry, J., Le Féon, V., Vasseur, C., 2013. The Structure and
Freese, D., Giannitsopoulos, M., Graves, A., Jäger, M., Lamersdorf, N.,
Dynamics of Agricultural Landscapes as Drivers of Biodiversity. In: Fu, B., Jones, K.
Memedemin, D., Mosquera-Losada, R., Pantera, A., Paracchini, M.L., Paris, P., Roces-
(Eds.), Landscape Ecology for Sustainable Environment and Culture. Springer,
Díaz, J.V., Roloc, V., Rosati, A., Sandor, M., Smith, J., Szerencsits, E., Varga, A.,
Dordrecht, pp. 285–308.
Viaud, V., Wawer, R., Burgess, P.J., Herzog, F., 2019. Agroforestry creates carbon
Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S., Müller, F., 2012. Mapping ecosystem service supply,
sinks whilst enhancing the environment in agricultural landscapes in Europe. Land
demand and budgets. Ecol. Indic. 21, 17–29.
Use Policy 83, 581–593.
Buschiazzo, D.E., Panigatti, J.L., Unger, P.W., 1998. Tillage effects on soil properties and
Kazemi, H., Klug, H., Kamkar, B., 2018. New services and roles of biodiversity in modern
crop production in the sub-humid and semiarid Argentinean Pampas. Soil Till Res.
agroecosystems: A review. Ecol. Indic. 93, 1126–1135.
49(1-2), 105–116.
Kremen, C., 2020. Ecological intensification and diversification approaches to maintain
Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K.,
biodiversity, ecosystem services and food production in a changing world. Emerg.
Naeem, S., O’Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., Belt, M., 1997. The
Top Life Sci. 4 (2), 229–240.
Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. Nature. 387, 253–260.
Kremen, C., Williams, N.M., Bugg, R.L., Fay, J.P., Thorp, R.W., 2010. The area
Daily, G.C., 1997. Nature’s Service: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystem. Island
requirements of an ecosystem service: crop pollination by native bee communities in
Press, Washington, DC.
California. Ecol. Lett. 7 (11), 1109–1119.
Dale, V.H., Polasky, S., 2007. Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on
ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 64, 286–296.

11
Q. Liu et al. Ecological Indicators 142 (2022) 109218

Kumar, R., Mishra, V., Buzan, J., Kumar, R., Shindell, D., Huber, M., 2017. Dominant Shakya, B., Uddin, K., Yi, S., Bhatta, L.D., Lodhi, M.S., Htun, N.Z., Yang, Y., 2021.
control of agriculture and irrigation on urban heat island in India. Sci. Rep. 7, 14054. Mapping of the ecosystem services flow from three protected areas in the far-eastern
Landis, D.A., 2017. Designing agricultural landscapes for biodiversity-based ecosystem himalayan landscape: an impetus to regional cooperation. Ecosyst. Serv. 47, 101222.
services. Basic Appl. Ecol. 18, 1–12. Sharpley, A.N., Williams, J.R., 1990. EPIC-erosion/productivity impact calculator: 1.
Li, H., Wang, L., Li, J., Gao, M., Zhang, J., Zhang, J., Qiu, J., Deng, J., Li, C., Frolking, S., Model documentation. Technical Bulletin-United States Department of. Agriculture,
2017. The development of China-DNCN and review of its applications for sustaining 1768 Pt1.
Chinese agriculture. Ecol. Model. 348, 1–13. Shi, Y., Wang, J., Roux, X.L., Mu, C., Ao, Y., Gao, S., Zhang, J., Knops, J.M.H., 2019.
Liu, M., Yang, L., Bai, Y., Min, Q., 2018. The impacts of farmers’ livelihood endowments Trade-offs and synergies between seed yield, forage yield, and N-related disservices
on their participation in eco-compensation policies: Globally important agricultural for a semi-arid perennial grassland under different nitrogen fertilization strategies.
heritage systems case studies from China. Land Use Policy 77, 231–239. Biol. Fertil. Soils. 55, 497–509.
Liu, L., Zheng, X., Wei, X., Kai, Z., Xu, Y., 2021. Excessive application of chemical Sinha, E., Calvin, K.V., Kyle, P.G., Hejazi, M.I., Waldhoff, S.T., Huang, M.,
fertilizer and organophosphorus pesticides induced total phosphorus loss from Vishwakarma, S., Zhang, X., 2022. Implication of imposing fertilizer limitations on
planting causing surface water eutrophication. Sci. Rep. 11, 1–7. energy, agriculture, and land systems. J. Environ. Manage. 305, 114391.
Long, X., Lin, H., An, X., Chen, S., Qi, S., Zhang, M., 2022. Evaluation and analysis of Sutter, L., Albrecht, M., 2016. Synergistic interactions of ecosystem services: florivorous
ecosystem service value based on land use/cover change in Dongting Lake wetland. pest control boosts crop yield increase through insect pollination. Proc. Biol. Sci. 283
Ecol. Indic. 136, 108619. (1824), 20152529.
Ma, F., Eneji, A.E., Liu, J., 2015. Assessment of ecosystem services and dis-services of an Swinton, S.M., Lupi, F., Robertson, G.P., Hamilton, S.K., 2007. Ecosystem services and
agro-ecosystem based on extended emergy framework: A case study of Luancheng agriculture: Cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits. Ecol. Econ. 64
county, North China. Ecol. Eng. 82, 241–251. (2), 245–252.
Maharjan, G.R., Prescher, A.K., Nendel, C., Ewert, F., Mboh, C.M., Gaiser, T., Seidela, S. Tallis, H., Polasky, S., 2009. Mapping and valuing ecosystem services as an approach for
J., 2018. Approaches to model the impact of tillage implements on soil physical and conservation and natural-resource management. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1162,
nutrient properties in different agro-ecosystem models. Soil Tillage Res. 180, 265–283.
210–221. Tansley, A.G., 1935. The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology 16
Mann, C., Loft, L., Hernndez-Morcillo, M., 2021. Assessing forest governance innovations (3), 284–307.
in Europe: needs, challenges and ways forward for sustainable forest ecosystem Tao, Y., Tao, Q., Sun, X., Qiu, J., Pueppke, S., Ou, W., Guo, J., Qi, J., 2022. Mapping
service provision. Ecosyst. Serv. 52, 101384. ecosystem service supply and demand dynamics under rapid urban expansion: A case
Mcelwee, P., Calvin, K., Campbell, D., et al., 2020. The impact of interventions in the study in the Yangtze River Delta of China. Ecosyst. Serv. 56, 101448.
global land and agri-food sectors on Nature’s Contributions to People and the UN Taylor, C.A., Rising, J., 2021. Tipping point dynamics in global land use. Environ. Res.
Sustainable Development Goals. Glob. Chang Biol. 26, 4691–4721. Lett. 16, 125012.
Meng, L., Liu, H., Zhang, X., Ren, C., Ustin, S., Qiu, Z., Xu, M., Guo, D., 2019. Assessment Tiemann, L.K., Grandy, A.S., Atkinson, E.E., Marin-Spiotta, E., McDaniel, M.D., 2015.
of the effectiveness of spatiotemporal fusion of multi-source satellite images for Crop rotational diversity enhances belowground communities and functions in an
cotton yield estimation. Comput. Electron. Agric. 162, 44–52. agroecosystem. Ecol. Lett. 18 (8), 761–771.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Tolomio, M., Casa, R., 2020. Dynamic crop models and remote sensing irrigation
Synthesis. Island Press/World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. decision support systems: a review of water stress concepts for improved estimation
Milligan, M.C., Johnson, M.D., Garfinkel, M., Smith, C.J., Njoroge, P., 2016. Quantifying of water requirements. Remote Sens-Basel. 12, 3945.
pest control services by birds and ants in kenyan coffee farms. Biol. Conserv. 194, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2021.
58–65. Becoming#GenerationRestoration: Ecosystem restoration for people, nature and
Moonen, A.C., Bàrberi, P., 2008. Functional biodiversity: An agroecosystem approach. climate. https://www.preventionweb.net/publication/becoming-
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 127 (1–2), 7–21. generationrestoration-ecosystem-restoration-people-nature-and-climate.
Moreira, E.F., Boscolo, D., Viana, B.F., 2015. Spatial heterogeneity regulates plant- Vialatte, A., Barnaud, C., Blanco, J., Ouin, A., Choisis, J., Andrieu, E., Sheeren, D.,
pollinator networks across multiple landscape scales. PLoS One 10 (4), e0123628. Ladet, S., Deconchat, M., Clément, F., Esquerré, D., Sirami, C., 2019. A conceptual
O’Brien, P.L., Hatfield, J.L., Dold, C., Kistner-Thomas, E.J., Wacha, K.M., 2020. Cropping framework for the governance of multiple ecosystem services in agricultural
pattern changes diminish agroecosystem services in North and South Dakota, USA. landscapes. Landscape Ecol. 34, 1653–1673.
Agron. J. 112, 1–24. Vreese, R.D., Leys, M., Fontaine, C.M., Dendoncker, N., 2016. Social mapping of
Palm, C., Blanco-Canqui, H., DeClerck, F., Gatere, L., Grace, P., 2014. Conservation perceived ecosystem services supply – The role of social landscape metrics and social
agriculture and ecosystem services: an overview. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 187, hot spots for integrated ecosystem services assessment, landscape planning and
87–105. management. Ecol. Indic. 66, 517–533.
Palmer, J., Thorburn, P.J., Biggs, J.S., Dominati, E.J., Probert, M.E., Meie, E.A., Huth, N. Walton, R.E., Sayer, C.D., Bennion, H., Axmacher, J.C., 2020. Nocturnal pollinators
I., Dodd, M., Snow, V., Larsen, J.R., William, J.P., 2017. Nitrogen Cycling from strongly contribute to pollen transport of wild flowers in an agricultural landscape.
Increased Soil Organic Carbon Contributes Both Positively and Negatively to Biol. Lett. 16 (5), 20190877.
Ecosystem Services in Wheat Agro-Ecosystems. Front. Plant Sci. 8, 731. Wood, S.L.R., Jones, S.K., Johnson, J.A., Brauman, K.A., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Fremier, A.,
Peng, J., Hu, X., Wang, X., Meersmans, J., Liu, Y., Qiu, S., 2019. Simulating the impact of Girvetz, E., Gordon, L.J., Kappel, C.V., Mandle, L., Mulligan, M., O’Farrell, P.,
Grain-for-Green Programme on ecosystem services trade-offs in Northwestern Smith, W.K., Willemen, L., Zhang, W., DeClerck, F.A., 2018. Distilling the role of
Yunnan, China. Ecosyst. Serv. 39, 100998. ecosystem services in the Sustainable Development Goals. Ecosyst. Serv. 29, 70–82.
Power, A.G., 2010. Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philos. Wu, Y., Tao, Y., Yang, G., Ou, W., Pueppke, S., Sun, X., Chen, G., Tao, Q., 2019. Impact of
Trans. R Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 365 (1554), 2959–2971. land use change on multiple ecosystem services in the rapidly urbanizing Kunshan
Pretty, J., 2018. Intensification for redesigned and sustainable agricultural systems. City of China: Past trajectories and future projections. Land Use Policy 85, 419–427.
Science. 362, 908. Xu, Z.H., 2021. Spatial correlations between ecosystem services and the Sustainable
Primdahl, J., Eetvelde, V.V., Pinto-Correia, T., 2020. Rural Landscapes—Challenges and Development Goals: a social-ecological zoning approach. https://qndxlt2021.aconf.
Solutions to Landscape Governance. Land. 9, 521. cn/presentation/1945.html.
Pufal, G., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Klein, A.M., 2017. Crop pollination services at the Yang, M., Gao, X., Zhao, X., Wu, P., 2021. Scale effect and spatially explicit drivers of
landscape scale. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 21, 91–97. interactions between ecosystem services—a case study from the Loess Plateau. Sci.
Ramsar, 2006. Japan names 20 new Wetlands of International Importance. https://www. Total Environ. 785, 147389.
ramsar.org/news/japan-names-20-new-wetlands-of-international-importance. Yang, S., Zhao, W., Pereira, P., Liu, Y., 2019. Socio-cultural valuation of rural and urban
Rana, K., Goyal, N., Sharma, G.P., 2018. Staging stewards of agro-ecosystems in the perception on ecosystem services and human well-being in yanhe watershed of
ecosystem services framework. Ecosyst. Serv. 33, 89–101. China. J. Environ. Manage. 251, 109615.
Rega, C., Bartual, A.M., Bocci, G., Sutter, L., Albrecht, M., Moonen, A.C., Jeanneret, P., Yu, D., Qiao, J., Shi, P., 2018. Spatiotemporal patterns, relationships, and drivers of
van der Werf, W., Pfister, S.C., Holland, J.M., Paracchini, M.L., 2018. Quantifying China’s AES from 1980 to 2010: a multiscale analysis. Landsc. Ecol. 33, 575–595.
and mapping ecosystem services: Demand and supply of pollination in the European Zabala, J.A., Martínez-Paz, J.M., Alcon, F., 2021. Comprehensive approach for
Union. Ecol. Indic. 90, 653–664. agroecosystem services and disservices valuation. Sci. Total Environ. 768, 1–14.
Rosas, M.A., Gutierrez, R.R., 2020. Assessing soil erosion risk at national scale in Zhang, C., Li, Z., Zeng, H., 2022. Scale effects on ecosystem service trade-off and its
developing countries: the technical challenges, a proposed methodology, and a case influencing factors based on wavelet transform: A case study in the Pearl River Delta,
history. Sci. Total Environ. 703, 135474. China. Geogr. Res. 41 (5), 1279–1297 in Chinese.
Saunders, M.E., 2020. Conceptual ambiguity hinders measurement and management of Zhang, W., Ricketts, T.H., Kremen, C., Carney, K., Swinton, S.M., 2007. Ecosystem
ecosystem disservices. J. Appl. Ecol. 57 (9), 1840–1846. services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecol. Econ. 64, 253–260.
Schipanski, M.E., Barbercheck, M., Douglas, M.R., Finney, D.M., Haider, K., 2014. Zhang, N., Zhou, Z., 2018. Positive and negative agro-ecosystem services evaluation in
A framework for evaluating ecosystem services provided by cover crops in urbanizing area: A case study of Chang’an District. Arid. Land Geo. 41 (2), 410–418
agroecosystems. Agric. Syst. 125, 12–22. in Chinese.
Schulp, C.J.E., Lautenbachb, S., Verburg, P.H., 2014. Quantifying and mapping Zheng, H., Wang, L., Wu, T., 2019. Coordinating ecosystem service trade-offs to achieve
ecosystem services: Demand and supply of pollination in the European Union. Ecol. win–win outcomes: A review of the approaches. J. Environ. Sci. (China) 82,
Indic. 36, 131–141. 103–112.
Schumacher, M., Dieterich, M., Gerhards, R., 2020. Effects of weed biodiversity on the Zhu, Y.G., Reid, B.J., Meharg, A.A., Banwart, S.A., Fu, B.J., 2017. Optimizing peri-urban
ecosystem service of weed seed predation along a farming intensity gradient. Glob. ecosystems (pure) to re-couple urban-rural symbiosis. Sci. Total Environ. 586,
Ecol. Conserv. 24, e01316. 1085–1090.
Selman, P., 2006. Planning at the landscape scale, vol 12. RTPI library series edition,
Routledge, New York.

12