Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Long-term evidence for ecological intensification as a pathway to sustainable agriculture


Ecological intensification (EI) could help return agriculture into a ‘safe operating space’ for humanity. Using a novel application of meta-analysis to data from 30 long-term experiments from Europe and Africa (comprising 25,565 yield records), we investigated how field-scale EI practices interact with each other, and with N fertilizer and tillage, in their effects on long-term crop yields. Here we confirmed that EI practices (specifically, increasing crop diversity and adding fertility crops and organic matter) have generally positive effects on the yield of staple crops. However, we show that EI practices have a largely substitutive interaction with N fertilizer, so that EI practices substantially increase yield at low N fertilizer doses but have minimal or no effect on yield at high N fertilizer doses. EI practices had comparable effects across different tillage intensities, and reducing tillage did not strongly affect yields.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Estimated mean yield ratios for CD and FC.
Fig. 2: Estimated mean yield ratios for different OM amendments in different diversity contexts, tillage contexts and NF contexts.
Fig. 3: Estimated mean yield ratios for shifting from a reference tillage treatment to a reduced tillage comparison treatment.
Fig. 4: Estimated mean yield ratios for systems receiving a certain amount of NF compared with systems receiving a reduced quantity of fertilizer N in different diversity contexts, tillage contexts and OM contexts.
Fig. 5: A summary of the EI practices and combinations thereof that increase yields, have no effect on yields or may risk a yield decrease when implemented in either a low or high NF context.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets analysed during the current study are available from the authors on reasonable request. Please contact the corresponding author for assistance. Data from LTEs belonging to Rothamsted Research are available on reasonable request via the e-RA platform ( We have refrained from depositing data into a public repository due to the need for guidance to correctly interpret LTE designs and datasets and the need to ensure that the substantial investments by each institute in maintaining LTEs do not go unacknowledged when data are used.

Code availability

R scripts used in the analyses are also available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.


  1. Rockström, J. et al. Sustainable intensification of agriculture for human prosperity and global sustainability. Ambio 46, 4–17 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Steffen, W. et al. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347, 1259855 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Campbell, B. M. et al. Agriculture production as a major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries. Ecol. Soc. 22, 8 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hazell, P. & Wood, S. Drivers of change in global agriculture. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 363, 495–515 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lehmann, P. et al. Complex responses of global insect pests to climate warming. Front. Ecol. Environ. 18, 141–150 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Foley, J. A. et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–342 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Springmann, M. et al. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 562, 519–525 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hunter, M. C., Smith, R. G., Schipanski, M. E., Atwood, L. W. & Mortensen, D. A. Agriculture in 2050: recalibrating targets for sustainable intensification. Bioscience 67, 386–391 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005);

  10. Bommarco, R., Kleijn, D. & Potts, S. G. Ecological intensification: harnessing ecosystem services for food security. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 230–238 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kleijn, D. et al. Ecological intensification: bridging the gap between science and practice. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 154–166 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pingali, P. L. Green revolution: impacts, limits, and the path ahead. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 12302–12308 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Wezel, A. et al. Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. Sustain. Agric. 2, 27–43 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Garnett, T. et al. Sustainable intensification in agriculture: premises and policies. Science 341, 33–34 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lipper, L. et al. Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 1068–1072 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Tittonell, P. Ecological intensification of agriculture—sustainable by nature. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 8, 53–61 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jenkinson, D. S. The impact of humans on the nitrogen cycle, with focus on temperate arable agriculture. Plant Soil 228, 3–15 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Verheijen, F. G. A., Jones, R. J. A., Rickson, R. J. & Smith, C. J. Tolerable versus actual soil erosion rates in Europe. Earth Sci. Rev. 94, 23–38 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Peoples, M. B. et al. in Agroecosystem Diversity: Reconciling Contemporary Agriculture and Environmental Quality (eds Lemaire, G. et al.) 123–142 (Academic Press, 2019);

  20. Storkey, J., Bruce, T., McMillan, V. & Neve, P. in Agroecosystem Diversity: Reconciling Contemporary Agriculture and Environmental Quality (eds Lemaire, G. et al.) 199–209 (Academic Press, 2019);

  21. Schröder, J. Revisiting the agronomic benefits of manure: a correct assessment and exploitation of its fertilizer value spares the environment. Bioresour. Technol. 96, 253–261 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Mhlanga, B., Ercoli, L., Pellegrino, E., Onofri, A. & Thierfelder, C. The crucial role of mulch to enhance the stability and resilience of cropping systems in southern Africa. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 41, 29–43 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Barrett, C. B. & Bevis, L. E. M. The self-reinforcing feedback between low soil fertility and chronic poverty. Nat. Geosci. 8, 907–912 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Tittonell, P. & Giller, K. E. When yield gaps are poverty traps: the paradigm of ecological intensification in African smallholder agriculture. Field Crops Res. 143, 76–90 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Sandén, T. et al. European long-term field experiments: knowledge gained about alternative management practices. Soil Use Manage. 34, 167–176 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Storkey, J. et al. The unique contribution of Rothamsted to ecological research at large temporal scales. Adv. Ecol. Res. 55, 3–42 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Johnston, A. E. & Poulton, P. R. The importance of long-term experiments in agriculture: their management to ensure continued crop production and soil fertility; the Rothamsted experience. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 69, 113–125 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Bowles, T. M. et al. Long-term evidence shows that crop-rotation diversification increases agricultural resilience to adverse growing conditions in North America. One Earth 2, 284–293 (2020).

  29. Marini, L. et al. Crop rotations sustain cereal yields under a changing climate. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 124011 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lal, R. Carbon emission from farm operations. Environ. Int. 30, 981–990 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Cordell, D., Drangert, J. O. & White, S. The story of phosphorus: global food security and food for thought. Glob. Environ. Change 19, 292–305 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lechenet, M., Dessaint, F., Py, G., Makowski, D. & Munier-Jolain, N. Reducing pesticide use while preserving crop productivity and profitability on arable farms. Nat. Plants 3, 17008 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Bedoussac, L. et al. Ecological principles underlying the increase of productivity achieved by cereal-grain legume intercrops in organic farming. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 35, 911–935 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Storkey, J., Mead, A., Addy, J. & MacDonald, A. J. Agricultural intensification and climate change have increased the threat from weeds. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 2416–2425 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Vanlauwe, B. et al. in Integrated Plant Nutrient Management in Sub-Saharan Africa: From Concept to Practice (eds Vanlauwe, B. et al.) 173–184 (CABI, 2002).

  36. Hijbeek, R. et al. Do organic inputs matter—a meta-analysis of additional yield effects for arable crops in Europe. Plant Soil 411, 293–303 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Thierfelder, C. & Wall, P. C. Effects of conservation agriculture techniques on infiltration and soil water content in Zambia and Zimbabwe. Soil Tillage Res. 105, 217–227 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Gentile, R., Vanlauwe, B., Chivenge, P. & Six, J. Interactive effects from combining fertilizer and organic residue inputs on nitrogen transformations. Soil Biol. Biochem. 40, 2375–2384 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Mupangwa, W. et al. Maize yields from rotation and intercropping systems with different legumes under conservation agriculture in contrasting agro-ecologies. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 306, 107170 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Pittelkow, C. M. et al. Productivity limits and potentials of the principles of conservation agriculture. Nature 517, 365–368 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Steward, P. R. et al. The adaptive capacity of maize-based conservation agriculture systems to climate stress in tropical and subtropical environments: a meta-regression of yields. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 251, 194–202 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Pittelkow, C. M. et al. When does no-till yield more? A global meta-analysis. Field Crops Res. 183, 156–168 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Sun, W. et al. Climate drives global soil carbon sequestration and crop yield changes under conservation agriculture. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 3325–3335 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kirkegaard, J. A. et al. Sense and nonsense in conservation agriculture: principles, pragmatism and productivity in Australian mixed farming systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 187, 133–145 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Thierfelder, C. et al. Complementary practices supporting conservation agriculture in southern Africa. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 38, 16–37 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Alignier, A. et al. Configurational crop heterogeneity increases within-field plant diversity. J. Appl. Ecol. 57, 654–663 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Liebman, M. et al. Ecologically sustainable weed management: how do we get from proof-of-concept to adoption? Ecol. Appl. 26, 1352–1369 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Giller, K. E. The food security conundrum of sub-Saharan Africa. Glob. Food Sec. 26, 100431 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Addy, J. W. G., Ellis, R. H., Macdonald, A. J., Semenov, M. A. & Mead, A. Changes in agricultural climate in South-Eastern England from 1892 to 2016 and differences in cereal and permanent grassland yield. Agric. For. Meteorol. 308–309, 108560 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Bates, D., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S. & Baayen, H. Parsimonious mixed models. Preprint at (2018).

  52. MacLaren, C., Glendining, M., Poulton, P., Macdonald, A. & Clark, S. Woburn Ley-Arable Experiment: Yields of Wheat as First Test Crop, 1976–2018 (e-RA Rothamsted, 2022); .

  53. Lenth, R. emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means: R package version 1.7.2 (2020).

  54. Viechtbauer, W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J. Stat. Softw. 36, 1–48 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Lajeunesse, M. J. On the meta-analysis of response ratios for studies with correlated and multi-group designs. Ecology 92, 2049–2055 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (Springer-Verlag, 2016).

  57. Crain, C. M., Kroeker, K. & Halpern, B. S. Interactive and cumulative effects of multiple human stressors in marine systems. Ecol. Lett. 11, 1304–1315 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors thank everyone who has been involved in designing, maintaining, funding, and collecting and managing data from all LTEs included in this study. We are grateful to the GLTEN (, funded by the Thirty Percy Foundation for providing meta-data on the LTEs. The Rothamsted Long-term Experiments National Capability (LTE-NC) is supported by the UK BBSRC (BBS/E/C/000J0300) and the Lawes Agricultural Trust. LTEs belonging to SRUC are supported through Scottish Government RESAS Strategic Research Programme. C.M., J. Storkey, A.M. and L.C. were supported by the ‘GLTEN-Africa’ project (BB/R020663/1) funded by the Global Challenge Research Fund programme of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), and J. Six and A.M. also by the BBSRC Soils to Nutrition project (BBS/E/C/000I0320). For the purpose of open access, the authors have applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



C.M., J. Storkey, A.M. and L.C. conceptualized this study. D.v.B., A.E., J.d.H., W.H., O.J., T.K., J.L., Å.M., M.N., G.N., J. Six, J. Strauss, P.A.S., C. Thierfelder, C. Topp, F.T., H.V., R.W., M.W. and C.W. were involved in the management and collection of data from LTEs included. C.M. and A.M. undertook the analysis with input from J. Storkey. C.M. wrote the manuscript with input from all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chloe MacLaren.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Sustainability thanks Michael Beckmann, Timothy Bowles, Sileshi Weldesemayat and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Parts 1–3, Figs. 1.1–3.5 and Tables 1.1–3.10.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

MacLaren, C., Mead, A., van Balen, D. et al. Long-term evidence for ecological intensification as a pathway to sustainable agriculture. Nat Sustain 5, 770–779 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene