Assessment of agrobiodiversity in the intensive agriculture: a case study of the Indo-Gangetic Plains of India

Roul, Chhabilendra; Chand, Prem; Pal, Suresh; Naik, K. G. A.

doi:10.1007/s10531-021-02336-y

Cited by 5 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This method does not consider the discrepancy between the actual value of an indicator and the desired value. For this reason, some authors used the benchmark method, which defines lower and upper thresholds according to the least-desirable value and mostdesirable values pointed out in the scientific literature or targets set by the government or committees [37].…”

Section: Standardization Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Soulé et al [34] also compiled references and expert knowledge to establish quantitative correspondence to the qualitative classes composing their biodiversity indicators. The benchmark method confers the advantage, over other approaches, of making methods more robust and comparable across different agents and periods [37].…”

Section: Standardization Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the analyzed studies, it was frequently the assumption that the indicators were equally important, with no weights being applied in the calculation of composite indicators [7]. Although the study of Roul et al [37] considered equal weights, it also applied expert weights and principal component analysis (PCA) and factor analysis methodologies to assign weights when the indicators were correlated. It was concluded that PCA is not appropriate when the correlation among the indicators is low.…”

Section: Weighting Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Regarding the variables selected to describe the biodiversity status, it is worth mentioning that the more commonly used indexes for measuring the diversity of fauna and/or flora are the Shannon-Wiener index [7,36] and Simpson's index [37]. Xu, Qin, and Zhu [35] used multiple diversity indexes, namely, the Simpson index, the Shannon index, and Pielou's evenness index, to best describe the complexity of the studied agroecosystems.…”

Section: Covered Aspects Of Biodiversitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The most common criteria for indicator selection were an extensive consultation with stakeholders, research institutes, and academia [7], ease of obtaining [35], feasibility, practicability for non-professionals, suitability in covering different aspects of diversity, applicability on different spatial scales [36], review of the literature, and workshops of experts [37]. Ruckli et al [32] adapted the indicators of a previously developed tool to address the particularities of the analysis unit.…”

Section: Covered Aspects Of Biodiversitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Towards Sustainable Agriculture: A Critical Analysis of Agrobiodiversity Assessment Methods and Recommendations for Effective Implementation

Marcelino,

Gaspar,

do Paço

et al. 2024

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agriculture intensification has driven the loss of biodiversity at a global level. The implementation of strategies to conserve and promote biodiversity in agricultural areas can be favoured by adequate assessment methods that foster the awareness of decision makers about the impact of management practices. This paper presents a state-of-the-art review of assessment methods of the overall biodiversity in agricultural systems, focusing on the quantitative methods applied, indicators of biodiversity, and functionalities. It was concluded that compensation effects and difficulties in interpretation are associated with currently common methodologies of composite indicator calculation to assess biodiversity performance. This review allowed for the identification and critical analysis of current methodologies for biodiversity assessments in the agricultural sector, and it highlighted the need for more implementation-oriented approaches. By providing recommendations on what should be considered when formulating biodiversity assessment methods, this study can contribute to the formulation of appropriate assessment frameworks for agricultural management policies and strategies.

show abstract

Section: Standardization Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Standardization Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Weighting Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Covered Aspects Of Biodiversitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Covered Aspects Of Biodiversitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Towards Sustainable Agriculture: A Critical Analysis of Agrobiodiversity Assessment Methods and Recommendations for Effective Implementation

Marcelino,

Gaspar,

do Paço

et al. 2024

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Assessing and comparing the sustainability of organic and conventional wheat farming in India: An indicator-based approach

Priya,

Singh

2023

Journal of Cleaner Production

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Can common dietary assessment methods be better designed to capture the nutritional contribution of neglected, forest, and wild foods to diets?

Raneri,

Boedecker,

Fallas Conejo

et al. 2023

Front. Nutr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Food systems are the primary cause of biodiversity loss globally. Biodiversity and specifically, the role that wild, forest and neglected and underutilised species (NUS) foods might play in diet quality is gaining increased attention. The narrow focus on producing affordable staples for dietary energy has contributed to largely homogenous and unhealthy diets. To date, evidence to quantify the nutritional contribution of these biodiverse foods is limited. A scoping review was conducted to document the methods used to quantify the contribution of wild, forest and NUS foods. We found 37 relevant articles from 22 different countries, mainly from Africa (45%), the Americas (19%), and Asia (10%). There were 114 different classifications used for the foods, 73% of these were specifically related to wild or forest foods. Most dietary assessments were completed using a single day qualitative or quantitative 24 h open recall (n = 23), or a food frequency questionnaire (n = 12). There were 18 different diet related indicators used, mainly nutrient adequacy (n = 9) and dietary diversity scores (n = 9). Often, no specific nutritionally validated diet metric was used. There were 16 studies that presented results (semi) quantitatively to measure the contribution of wild, forest or NUS foods to dietary intakes. Of these, 38% were aggregated together with broader classifications of ‘traditional’ or ‘local’ foods, without definitions provided meaning it was not possible to determine if or to what extend wild, forest of NUS foods were included (or not). In almost all studies there was insufficient detail on the magnitude of the associations between wild, forest or NUS foods and dietary energy or nutrient intakes or the (qualitative) diet recall methodologies that were used inhibited the quantification of the contribution of these foods to diets. A set of six recommendations are put forward to strengthen the evidence on the contribution of wild, NUS, and forest foods to human diets.

show abstract

Assessment of agrobiodiversity in the intensive agriculture: a case study of the Indo-Gangetic Plains of India

Cited by 5 publications

References 22 publications

Towards Sustainable Agriculture: A Critical Analysis of Agrobiodiversity Assessment Methods and Recommendations for Effective Implementation

Towards Sustainable Agriculture: A Critical Analysis of Agrobiodiversity Assessment Methods and Recommendations for Effective Implementation

Assessing and comparing the sustainability of organic and conventional wheat farming in India: An indicator-based approach

Can common dietary assessment methods be better designed to capture the nutritional contribution of neglected, forest, and wild foods to diets?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About