| 
                 Published article 
                
                    Assessing the Impact of Farm-Management Practices on Ecosystem Services in European Agricultural Systems: A Rapid Evidence Assessment, Sustainability, 15:17
                
                
                     
                    
                Authors: 
                
            
           Kato Van Ruymbeke 
           
           Joana G. Ferreira 
           
           Vasileios  D. Gkisakis 
           
           Jochen Kantelhardt 
           
           Gordana Manevska-Tasevska 
           
           Peter Matthews 
           
           Andreas Niedermayr 
           
           Lena Schaller 
           
           Katarzyna Bankowska 
           
           Kewan Merteus 
           
           Liesbet Vranken 
           
           
                     
                     
          
                 Many farm-management practices focus on maximizing production, while others better reconcile production with the regulation of ecological processes and sociocultural identity through the provisioning of ecosystem services (ESs). Though many studies have evaluated the performance of management practices against ES supply, these studies often focused on only a few practices simultaneously. Here, we incorporate 23 distinct management practices in a rapid evidence assessment to draw more comprehensive conclusions on their supply potential across 14 ESs in European agriculture. The results are visualized using performance indicators that quantify the ES-supply potential of a given management practice. In total, 172 indicators are calculated, among which cover crops are found to have the strongest positive impact on pollination-supply potential, while extensive livestock management is found to have the strongest negative impact for the supply potential for habitat creation/protection. The indicators also provide insight into the state of the peer-reviewed literature. At both the farm and territorial levels, the literature noticeably fails to evaluate cultural services. Further, disparities between the number of indicators composed at the farm and territorial levels indicate a systematic bias in the literature toward the assessment of smaller spatial levels.  
                
             |