Environmental Evidence最新文献

{"title":"Existing evidence on the effects of photovoltaic panels on biodiversity: a systematic map with critical appraisal of study validity","authors":"Alix Lafitte, Romain Sordello, Dakis-Yaoba Ouédraogo, Chloé Thierry, Geoffroy Marx, Jérémy Froidevaux, Bertrand Schatz, Christian Kerbiriou, Philippe Gourdain, Yorick Reyjol","doi":"10.1186/s13750-023-00318-x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-023-00318-x","url":null,"abstract":"To phase out fossil fuels and reach a carbon–neutral future, solar energy and notably photovoltaic (PV) installations are being rapidly scaled up. Unlike other types of renewable energies such as wind and hydroelectricity, evidence on the effects of PV installations on biodiversity has been building up only fairly recently and suggests that they may directly impact ecosystems and species through, for instance, habitat change and loss, mortality, behaviour alteration or population displacements. Hence, we conducted a systematic map of existing evidence aiming at answering the following question: what evidence exists regarding the effects of PV installations on wild terrestrial and semi-aquatic species? We searched for relevant citations on four online publication databases, on Google Scholar, on four specialised websites and through a call for grey literature. Citations were then screened for eligibility in order to only retain citations referring to wild terrestrial and semi-aquatic species as well as PV and solar thermal installations, therefore excluding concentrated solar power. Accepted articles were first split into studies (corresponding to one experimental design) subjected to critical appraisal and then further split into observations (i.e. one population and one outcome) during metadata extraction. The current state of the literature was characterised and knowledge clusters and gaps identified. Searching captured 8121 unique citations, which resulted in 158 relevant articles being accepted after screening. Even though the first article was published in 2005, the publication rate increased rapidly in 2020. The 97 included primary research and modelling articles were split into 137 unique studies and rated with either a low (43.8%), a high (41.6%) or an unclear overall risk of bias (14.6%) after internal validity assessment. Studies were further split into 434 observations, mainly carried out in the United States (23.0%) and the United Kingdom (21.0%), preferentially in temperate climates (64.5%). Plants and arthropods were the two most studied taxa (41.7% and 26.3%, respectively). Utility-scale solar energy (USSE) facilities were most often investigated (70.1%). Observations mainly focused on the effect of the presence of PV installations (51.8%). Species abundance, community composition and species diversity were the most common outcomes assessed (23.0%, 18.4% and 16.1%, respectively). Three knowledge clusters for which a systematic review should be contemplated were identified: (i) the effects of PV installations on plant and (ii) arthropod communities and, (iii) their effects at a larger ecosystem scale on overall species abundance. However, the currently available evidence regarding the effects of photovoltaic installations on biodiversity is still scarce. More research is urgently needed on non-flying mammals and bats as well as amphibians and reptiles. Solar thermal panels and floating PV installations should also be further investi","PeriodicalId":48621,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Evidence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138495273","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"What evidence exists on the impact of climate change on real estate valuation? A systematic map protocol","authors":"Fedra Vanhuyse, Tommaso Piseddu, Åsa Moberg","doi":"10.1186/s13750-023-00317-y","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-023-00317-y","url":null,"abstract":"As natural disasters increase in both frequency and magnitude because of climate change, assets, such as buildings and infrastructure, are exposed to physical climate risk. In addition, as our societies transition towards a greener economy, the transitional climate risk will manifest itself in different forms: reputational issues, market solutions that may drive out those that do not comply, technological disruptions and policy initiatives. How both risks, physical and transitional, impact the economic value of real estate assets is not well understood and will be investigated as the main scope of this systematic map. we use systematic mapping to collate and configure existing evidence on how climate risk has affected the economic value of real estate assets. After designing a search string, English language peer-reviewed publications will be retrieved from the two largest and most popular scientific research databases, as well as a database containing policy documents. This corpus will be tested for comprehensiveness using a benchmark of 50 highly relevant articles. Once the comprehensiveness test is passed, a consistency test will be carried out on the screening of a randomly selected list of 200 articles by three reviewers. If a kappa score of at least 0.6 is achieved, one of the reviewers will carry out the remainder of the screening, with another reviewer quality assuring 10% of the screening. The retained corpus will then be distributed over the three reviewers, who will carry out the extraction of metadata according to an agreed coding strategy. The final output of the coding will consist of a heat map, showcasing where substantial evidence is available, and research gaps, providing recommendations for further research. In addition, the results will provide insight into the methodology to quantify the impact of climate risk on real estate value. Figures and tables will be designed to make it easy to comprehend the results of the mapping.","PeriodicalId":48621,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Evidence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2023-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138495272","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"What is the carbon footprint of reverse osmosis in water treatment plants? A systematic review protocol","authors":"Samaneh Abolli, Esfandiar Ghordouei Milan, Parnia Bashardoust, Mahmood Alimohammadi","doi":"10.1186/s13750-023-00316-z","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-023-00316-z","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background “Carbon footprint” (CF) is a direct measure of greenhouse gas emissions caused by a defined activity and can demonstrate global warming effects. The emissions of Greenhouse gases (GHGs) in water projects start from the primary water sources, followed by transportation, construction, and operation phases in the final treatment plants. Due to their possible environmental impacts, the water treatment plants equipped with Reverse Osmosis (RO) units will be investigated for their carbon footprint. Methods The research question is “What is the carbon footprint of reverse osmosis in water treatment plants?”. The literature search in this study will be divided into two sequential sections; in the first section, the search will be limited to Scopus, Science Direct, EMBASE, and PubMed databases. The keywords of water, “water treatment plants”, “water purification”, desalination, “reverse osmosis”, RO, “carbon emission”, “carbon dioxide/CO 2 emission”, “carbon footprint”, “Life Cycle Assessment” and, LCA will be used. The carbon footprint of RO will be expressed based on the direct and indirect effects based on RO capacity. In the second section, the internet and specialist search will be done, and the search will be updated. No date limitation will be considered, and the main search will be done in English. When the search is completed, the screening will be performed. After removing duplicates, the title and abstract will be examined. The full text will be read if the title and abstract are not helpful for decision-making. In addition, the bibliography and references will proceed after the full-text screening. The Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) Critical Appraisal Tool will be used for risk of bias checking and study validity assessment. After full-text evaluation, data will be collected and categorized by two authors. If there is enough data, meta-analysis will be performed. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42022327572.","PeriodicalId":48621,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Evidence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134901395","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"How effective are interventions to reduce damage to agricultural crops from herbivorous wild birds and mammals? A systematic review protocol","authors":"Ann Eklund, Johan Månsson, Jens Frank","doi":"10.1186/s13750-023-00315-0","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-023-00315-0","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background An important conservation challenge is to mitigate negative impacts that wild birds and mammals can have on human practices and livelihoods, and not least on agricultural crops. Technical interventions to limit the number and severity of damages are available, but evaluations of intervention effectiveness are usually limited in scope, and meta-analyses are rare. This protocol describes a systematic review that seeks to answer the following question: How effective are evaluated interventions in reducing damage from herbivorous wild birds and mammals on agricultural crops? Methods The literature searches are made in the databases Scopus and Zoological Record. The search string is based on a Population-Intervention-Comparator-Outcome (PICO) formatted research question, and search terms fall within five categories: Wildlife type (Population), Damage object (Population), Counteraction (Intervention), Evaluation (Comparator), and Damage (Outcome). Initial scoping searches informed amendment of the search string. A set of 19 benchmark articles were used to estimate the ability of the scoping search to capture relevant literature. To be eligible for inclusion in the review, original articles should study cases where settings of exposure to interventions (measures implemented to reduce damages on agricultural crops caused by terrestrial birds and mammals) are compared to a control setting without exposure to interventions. Eligible studies will be subject to data extraction, systematically documented in an Excel spreadsheet. Associated risk of bias will be critically appraised for the included articles according to seven criteria: 1. risk of confounding biases, 2. risk of post-intervention selection biases, 3. risk of misclassified comparison biases (observational studies only), 4. risk of performance biases (experimental studies only), 5. risk of detection biases, 6. risk of outcome reporting biases, and 7. risk of outcome assessment biases. The results will be reported in narrative and, if possible, quantitative syntheses. The quantitative synthesis will include a summary statistic calculated based on the data of each study and illustrated graphically in a forest plot. If possible, meta-regression analyses will be conducted.","PeriodicalId":48621,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Evidence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135321599","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Assessing evidence on the impacts of nature-based interventions for climate change mitigation: a systematic map of primary and secondary research from subtropical and tropical terrestrial regions","authors":"Samantha H. Cheng, Sebastien Costedoat, Amanda Sigouin, Gabriel F. Calistro, Catherine J. Chamberlain, Peter Lichtenthal, Morena Mills, A. Justin Nowakowski, Eleanor J. Sterling, Jen Tinsman, Meredith Wiggins, Pedro H. S. Brancalion, Steven W. J. Canty, Allison Fritts-Penniman, Arundhati Jagadish, Kelly Jones, Michael B. Mascia, Ana Porzecanski, Chris Zganjar, Carlos L. Muñoz Brenes","doi":"10.1186/s13750-023-00312-3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-023-00312-3","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background Nature-based interventions (NbIs) for climate change mitigation include a diverse set of interventions aimed at conserving, restoring, and/or managing natural and modified ecosystems to improve their ability to store and sequester carbon and avoid greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Recent projections estimate that terrestrial NbIs can lead to more than one-third of the climate change mitigation necessary to meet the Paris Climate Agreement by 2030. Further, these interventions can provide co-benefits in the form of social and ecological outcomes. Despite growing recognition of the potential benefits, a clear characterization of the distribution and occurrence of evidence which supports linkages between different types of NbIs and outcomes for climate change mitigation, ecosystems, and people remains poorly understood. Methods This systematic map assesses the evidence base on the links between NbIs and climate change mitigation, social, and ecological outcomes in tropical and subtropical terrestrial regions. We searched three bibliographic databases, 65 organization websites, and conducted backward citation chasing within 39 existing evidence syntheses to identify relevant articles. Additionally, we reached out to key informants for additional sources of evidence. We then used machine learning to rank returned results by relevance at the title and abstract stage and manually screened for inclusion using predefined criteria at the title, abstract, and full text stages. We extracted relevant meta-data from included articles using an a priori coding scheme. Lastly, we conducted a targeted, complementary search to identify relevant review and synthesis articles to provide broader context for the findings of the systematic map. Review findings We included 948 articles in this systematic map. Most of the evidence base (56%) examined links between protection, natural resource management, and restoration interventions with changes to ‘proxy’ outcomes for climate change mitigation (changes to land condition, land cover, and/or land use). Other areas with high occurrence of articles included linkages between interventions within natural resource management and trees in croplands categories and changes to aboveground carbon storage and/or sequestration (17% of articles). A key knowledge gap was on measured changes in GHG emissions across all intervention types (6% of articles). Overall, articles in the evidence base did not often assess changes in co-benefits alongside direct or indirect changes for climate change mitigation (32%). In most cases, the evidence base contained studies which did not explicitly test for causal linkages using appropriate experimental or quasi-experimental designs. Conclusions The evidence base for NbIs is significant and growing; however, key gaps in knowledge hamper the ability to inform ongoing and future investment and implementation at scale. More comprehensive evidence is needed to support causal inference be","PeriodicalId":48621,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Evidence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135216045","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Evidence of anticipatory forest use behaviours under policy introduction: a systematic map protocol","authors":"Jorge Claudio Llopis, Neal Robert Haddaway, Nurzhan Omirbek, Blake Alexander Simmons, Rachael Garrett, Julia Patricia Gordon Jones","doi":"10.1186/s13750-023-00307-0","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-023-00307-0","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background Forest conservation is a major global policy goal, due to the role forests play in climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation. It is well recognized that the introduction of policies, whether aimed at forest conservation or with other objectives, has the potential to trigger unintended outcomes, such as displacement or leakage, which can undermine policy objectives. However, a set of outcomes that has escaped detailed scrutiny are anticipatory forest use behaviours, emerging when forest stakeholders anticipate policy implementation, deploying for example pre-emptive forest clearing, resulting in detrimental environmental outcomes. Lack of understanding of the extent and sectorial scope of these behaviours prevents us from devising strategies to address their potential detrimental consequences. Methods This protocol presents the methodology that will be followed to conduct a systematic map to identify, compile, review and describe the evidence available on anticipatory forest use behaviours in the context of policy introduction around the world. We will use two complementary search strategies, which we have tested before submitting this protocol. First, a systematic bibliographic search, and second, a citation chase approach. We will include articles based on a pre-defined set of criteria defined according to a Population, Intervention and Outcome (i.e. PIO) design. To support identification of knowledge gaps and clusters, we will report results of the systematic map in a narrative synthesis, an evidence atlas and other visualisations.","PeriodicalId":48621,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Evidence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134960785","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"What evidence exists on the ecological and physical effects of built structures in shallow, tropical coral reefs? A systematic map protocol","authors":"Avery B. Paxton, Todd M. Swannack, Candice D. Piercy, Safra Altman, Leanne Poussard, Brandon J. Puckett, Curt D. Storlazzi, T. Shay Viehman","doi":"10.1186/s13750-023-00313-2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-023-00313-2","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background Shallow, tropical coral reefs face compounding threats from habitat degradation due to coastal development and pollution, impacts from storms and sea-level rise, and pulse disturbances like blast fishing, mining, dredging, and ship groundings that reduce coral reefs’ height and variability. One approach toward restoring coral reef structure from these threats is deploying built structures. Built structures range from engineered modules and repurposed materials to underwater sculptures and intentionally placed natural rocks. Restoration practitioners and coastal managers increasingly consider incorporating built structures, including nature-based solutions, into coral reef-related applications. Yet, synthesized evidence on the ecological and physical performance of built structure interventions across a variety of contexts (e.g., restoration, coastal protection, mitigation, tourism) is not readily available to guide decisions. To help inform management decisions, here we aim to document the global evidence base on the ecological and physical performance of built structures in shallow (≤ 30 m) tropical (35° N to 35° S latitude) coral ecosystems. The collated evidence base on use cases and associated ecological and physical outcomes of built structure interventions can help inform future consideration of built structures in reef restoration design, siting, and implementation. Method To discover evidence on the performance of built structures in coral reef-related applications, such as restoration, mitigation, and coastal protection, primary literature will be searched across indexing platforms, bibliographic databases, open discovery citation indexes, a web-based search engine, a novel literature discovery tool, and organizational websites. The geographic scope of the search is global, and there is no limitation to temporal scope. Primary literature will be screened first at the level of title and abstract and then at the full text level against defined eligibility criteria for the population, intervention, study type, and outcomes of interest. Metadata will be extracted from studies that pass both screening levels. The resulting data will be analyzed to determine the distribution and abundance of evidence. Results will be made publicly available and reported in a systematic map that includes a narrative description, identifies evidence clusters and gaps, and outlines future research directions on the use of built structures in coral reef-related applications.","PeriodicalId":48621,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Evidence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135396548","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"How effective are protected areas for reducing threats to biodiversity? A systematic review protocol.","authors":"Katherine Pulido-Chadid, Elina Virtanen, Jonas Geldmann","doi":"10.1186/s13750-023-00311-4","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s13750-023-00311-4","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Protected areas (PAs) have become one of the most important instruments to preserve nature and, when effective, can significantly reduce human pressure and derived threats to biodiversity. However, evidence suggests that despite the growing number and coverage of PAs worldwide, biodiversity trends continue to deteriorate, and human pressure increases outside and inside PAs. While many studies have focused on the effectiveness of PAs in maintaining ecological features, less attention has been given to the threat reduction potential of PAs, despite threats being one of the main factors leading to the need to conserve biodiversity. It is therefore essential to understand PAs' role in addressing threats. In this paper, we describe the protocol for conducting a systematic review to explore and review the evidence surrounding the effectiveness of PAs as an intervention to reduce threats to biodiversity. We will examine the role of PAs in addressing several types of threats. Thus, our primary research question is: How effective are protected areas for reducing threats to biodiversity?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This protocol follows the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence guidelines for evidence synthesis and complies with the ROSES (Reporting Standards for Systematic Evidence Synthesis) reporting framework. We will use a comprehensive search, covering databases such as Web of Science-core collection and Scopus and organizational websites to capture relevant grey literature. Our search terms and strategies aim to find studies assessing change of threats given in PAs at any scale and ecosystem type capturing literature in English. Independent reviewers will screen search results at the title-abstract, and full text levels. In order to evaluate the relevance of the evidence, we will use the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Critical Appraisal Tool. The results will be presented as a narrative synthesis supported by quantitative data. Additionally, a meta-analysis, if possible, will be performed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48621,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Evidence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11378842/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44798267","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Are greenhouse gas fluxes lower from ley or perennial fallow than from arable organic soils? A systematic review protocol.","authors":"Alena Holzknecht, Örjan Berglund, Magnus Land, Jacynthe Dessureault-Rompré, Lars Elsgaard, Kristiina Lång","doi":"10.1186/s13750-023-00310-5","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s13750-023-00310-5","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cultivated peatlands are widespread in temperate and boreal climate zones. For example, in Europe about 15% of the pristine peatland area have been lost through drainage for agricultural use. When drained, these organic soils are a significant source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. To reach climate goals, the agricultural sector must reduce its GHG emissions, and one measure that has been discussed is changing land use from cropland to ley production or perennial green fallow. This management change leads to lower reported emissions, at least when using the IPCC default emission factors (EF) for croplands and grasslands on organic soils (IPCC 2014). However, there was a limited background dataset available for developing the EFs, and other variables than management affect the comparison of the land use options when the data originates from varying sites and years. Thus, the implications for future policies remain uncertain. This protocol describes the methodology to conduct a systematic review to answer the question of whether ley production or perennial green fallow can be suggested as a valid alternative to annual cropping to decrease GHG emissions on organic soils in temperate and boreal climate.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Publications will be searched in different databases and bibliographies of relevant review articles. The comprehensiveness of the search will be tested through a list of benchmark articles identified by the protocol development team. The screening will be performed at title and abstract level and at full text level, including repeatability tests. Eligible populations are organic agricultural soils in temperate and boreal climate regions. Interventions are grasslands without tillage for at least 3 years, and comparators are annual cropping systems within the same study as the intervention. The outcome must be gas fluxes of either carbon dioxide (CO₂), nitrous oxide (N₂O), or methane (CH₄), or any combination of these gases. Studies will go through critical appraisal, checking for internal and external validity, and finally data extraction. If possible, a meta-analysis about the climate impact of perennial green fallow compared to annual cropping on organic soils will be performed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48621,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Evidence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11378765/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41863151","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Synthesising results of meta-analyses to inform policy: a comparison of fast-track methods.","authors":"David Makowski, Rui Catarino, Mathilde Chen, Simona Bosco, Ana Montero-Castaño, Marta Pérez-Soba, Andrea Schievano, Giovanni Tamburini","doi":"10.1186/s13750-023-00309-y","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s13750-023-00309-y","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Statistical synthesis of data sets (meta-analysis, MA) has become a popular approach for providing scientific evidence to inform environmental and agricultural policy. As the number of published MAs is increasing exponentially, multiple MAs are now often available on a specific topic, delivering sometimes conflicting conclusions. To synthesise several MAs, a first approach is to extract the primary data of all the MAs and make a new MA of all data. However, this approach is not always compatible with the short period of time available to respond to a specific policy request. An alternative, and faster, approach is to synthesise the results of the MAs directly, without going back to the primary data. However, the reliability of this approach is not well known. In this paper, we evaluate three fast-track methods for synthesising the results of MAs without using the primary data. The performances of these methods are then compared to a global MA of primary data. Results show that two of the methods tested can yield similar conclusions when compared to global MA of primary data, especially when the level of redundancy between MAs is low. We show that the use of biased MAs can reduce the reliability of the conclusions derived from these methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":48621,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Evidence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11378786/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42213463","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}