Evaluating ecosystem services for agricultural wetlands: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Globally, the extent of inland wetlands has declined by approximately 70% since the start of the twentieth century, resulting in the loss of important wetland-associated ecosystem services. We evaluate the drivers of wetland values in agricultural landscapes to increase the effectiveness and reliability of benefit transfer tools to assign values to local wetland services. We reviewed 668 studies that analyzed wetland ecosystem services within agricultural environments and identified 45 studies across 22 countries that provided sufficient economic information to be included in a quantitative meta-analysis. We developed meta-regression models to represent provisioning and regulating wetland ecosystem services and identify the main drivers of these ecosystem service categories. Provisioning wetland ecosystem service values were best explained (direction of effects in parenthesis) by high-income variable (+), peer-reviewed journal publications (+), agricultural total factor productivity index (−) and population density (+), while agricultural total factor productivity index (−), income level ( +) and wetland area (−) had significant effects on regulating wetland ecosystem service values. Our models can help estimate wetland values more reliably across similar regions because they have significantly lower transfer errors (66 and 185% absolute percentage error for the provisioning and regulating models, respectively) than the errors from unit value transfers. Model predicted wetland values ($/Ha/Year) range from $0.62 to $11,216 for regulating services and $0.95 to $2,122 for provisioning services and vary based on the differences in the levels of the variables (in the wetland locations) that best explained the estimated models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".