{"paper_id":"3c9fa99c-41a1-4f49-b5f3-94113c4cbd99","body_text":"PREPRINT\nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 23/07/2024\nDOI: https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e132792\nEcosystem Services in the Milpa System: A\nSystematic Review\nAline Romero-Natale,  Otilio Acevedo-Sandoval,  Arturo Sanchez-Porras\n\nEcosystem Services in the Milpa System: A\nSystematic Review\nAline Romero-Natale , Otilio Arturo Acevedo-Sandoval , Arturo Sanchez-Porras\n‡ Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo, Pachuca, Mexico\n§ Escuela Nacional de Estudios Superiores Unidad Mérida, Mérida, Mexico\nCorresponding author: Aline Romero-Natale (aline_natale@hotmail.com)\nAbstract\nThe  Milpa  System  is  a  millenary  agroecosystem  that  has  played  a  crucial  role  in\nMesoamerican agriculture for over 9,000 years. This system provides essential ecosystem\nservices such as food production, soil quality restoration and the transmission of ecological\nknowledge. The objective of this paper is to inventory the potential ecosystem services\nprovided by the milpa system, based on a systematic review of the literature. The review\nwas  conducted  using  the  PRISMA  methodology,  ensuring  reproducible  and  structured\nresearch. Despite the milpa system has been vital for Mexican agriculture, there is a\nsignificant lack of research on its ecosystem services. Because of this, the review was\nbroadened to involve other types of polyculture agroecosystems that include maize as an\nintegral part of their composition, resulting in the review of 47 articles encompassing 38\necosystem services. Among these, five Provisioning services were identified, with 32 of the\narticles  mentioning  food  provision.  Twenty  Regulation  and  Maintenance  services  are\nmentioned in 24 articles, while Cultural services are the least studied, appearing in only 12\narticles. Although there is not enough research done on the potential of the milpa system to\nprovide with ecosystem services, it remains a cornerstone of Mexican agriculture and\nsocial  identity.  Preserving  and  promoting  the  milpa  system  is  essential  for  enhancing\nagricultural resilience, ensuring food security and conserving biodiversity.\nKeywords\nAgroecosystem, ecosystem services, milpa system, native maize, sustainability, traditional\ncultivation\nIntroduction\nThe Milpa System (MS) is an ancestral agroecosystem of Mesoamerican origin that plays a\ncrucial  role  in  agriculture.  Its  approach  goes  beyond  food  production  by  holistically\nintegrating natural and cultural components with the environment ( Harguindeguy 2021 ).\n‡ ‡ §\n© Romero-Natale A et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License\n(CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source\nare credited.\nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 23/07/2024. DOI:  \nhttps://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e132792\n\nThis traditional method of agriculture focuses on the cultivation of maize (Zea mays L.)\nintercropped with various companion plants (Castillo López et al. 2022). With a history of at\nleast 9,000 years, the MS is considered a cornerstone of Mexican agricultural history (\nFranco and Galindo 2023, Toledo and Barrera-Bassols 2020).\nOne of the distinctive features of the MS is its biological diversity. The best-known and\noldest MS in Mexico is the joint planting of maize with beans (Phaseolus spp.) and squash\n(Cucurbita spp.), known as the triada Mesoamericana (Mesoamerican triad). The planting\nof these three crops in the same field creates an agricultural synergy where each plant\nperforms a specific ecological function: beans fix nitrogen in the soil, improving its fertility,\nwhile squash acts as ground cover, helping to retain soil moisture and control unwanted\nweeds (Sánchez-Velázquez et al. 2023). In some cases, crops such as chili (Capsicum spp\n.)  and  tomatoes  (Solanum  lycopersicum),  as  well  as  fruit  and  timber  trees,  are  also\nintegrated, contributing to the biodiversity and resilience of the system ( Fonteyne et al.\n2023).\nRooted in traditions and local knowledge, this system has withstood the test of time by\nplaying a vital role in the food culture and nutritional security of indigenous and peasant\ncommunities (Méndez-Flores et al. 2023 , Ramírez-Maces et al. 2023 , Sánchez Morales et\nal.  2018).  According  to Guzmán-Mendoza  et  al.  (2023),  the  prevalence  of  the  MS  in\nMexico manifests as a tangible expression of the harmonious interaction between humans\nand nature, a symbiosis that has shaped agricultural landscapes throughout the country.\nThe sustainable functioning of the MS largely depends on the ecosystem services (ES)\nthat this agroecosystem continuously provides. ES are defined as the direct and indirect\nbenefits that ecosystems provide to humans ( Costanza 2020). The proper functioning of\nES is also crucial for the conservation of native maize and other local crops ( Alpuche-\nÁlvarez et al. 2019 , Berdugo et al. 2019 ). A review of recent literature indicates little\nresearch has been done that summarizes the intersection of ES with the MS, which is\nimportant to highlight the need for its protection and conservation. Thus the objective of\nthis review is to present an analysis of the available literature on the provision of ES in\npolycultures that include maize as part of their structure.\nThe systematic review positions itself as an essential tool to synthesize existing evidence,\nidentify patterns, and offer recommendations for future research, thus contributing to the\nunderstanding  and  sustainable  promotion  of  this  valuable  agroecosystem.  This\nmethodological approach allows not only for a comprehensive analysis of the relationship\nbetween biodiversity and the ES provided by the MS but also provides a solid foundation\nfor the design of sustainable management strategies for agroecosystems which work under\na similar principle.\nData resources\nLiterature Search \n2\nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 23/07/2024. DOI:  \nhttps://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e132792\n\nThis  systematic  review  follows  the  principles  established  in  the  PRISMA  (Preferred\nReporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement ( Page et al. 2021),\nwhich guided the research team through a clear, transparent, and reproducible sequence,\nthus facilitating the presentation of the results in this article. The literature search was\nconducted in October 2023 on the Scopus portal due to its vast collection of scientific\nliterature.  The  following  search  terms  were  used  in  the  title,  abstract,  and  keywords:\n(“ecosystem services” AND “milpa”) and (“ecosystem services” AND “maize”) for articles\npublished between 2017 and 2023. The results were restricted to publications in Spanish\nand English. After applying this filter, 8 and 251 results were obtained, respectively, for\neach search term.\nSelection Criteria \nThe article selection process began with the review of the abstracts of the 259 selected\nworks. The software Abstrackr ( Wallace et al. 2012 ) was used to manage the abstracts\nreview by assigning an equal number of abstracts to two independent reviewers. The\nreviewers  identified  the  potential  relevance  of  the  articles  according  to  the  topics\naddressed  in  the  abstract.  Considering  the  objective  of  this  research,  the  following\nexclusion criteria were set at this stage:\n• Abstracts focused on monocultures.\n• Abstracts focused on crop rotation strategies.\n• Abstracts related to agroecosystems that do not include maize.\n• Abstracts that do not mention ES in an agroecosystem.\nThe application of these criteria resulted in a reduced list of articles that were subjected to\na thorough review by two independent researchers. The specific objective of the extensive\nreview was to identify the ES present in the studied agroecosystems. The process of the\nreview is presented in Fig. 1.\nThis extensive review generated the formulation of additional exclusion criteria, this time\nfocusing on the detailed description of ES:\n• Lack of specification of ES.\n• Presence of biased or tendentious information.\n• Poor methodology.\n• No identification of ES in milpas or polycultures.\nData Collection \nA spreadsheet was created to compile essential information from the articles (i.e., title,\njournal, authors). In this sheet, each reviewer concisely summarized the content of the\ndocuments,  including  the  filling  out  of  the  column  included  to  list  mentioned  ES.\nAdditionally, the number of incidences of each service was recorded. To achieve this, the\nservices described in the various articles were standardized based on the most recent\nCommon International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) ( Haines-Young and\nPotschin 2018). The CICES classification was chosen because it is an international effort\n3\nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 23/07/2024. DOI:  \nhttps://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e132792\n\nto present a common framework to measure, quantify, and evaluate the provision of ES in\ndifferent environments. According to this classification, there are three main classes of\nservices: Provisioning, Regulation and Maintenance, and Cultural. Provisioning services\nare material outputs from the ecosystem and the abiotic environment; Regulation and\nMaintenance services are ways in which living organisms can moderate or regulate the\nenvironment, thus affecting human health, safety, and comfort; finally, Cultural services are\nintangible,  non-consumable  benefits  that  are  not  subject  to  competition,  which  affect\npeople's mental and physical states ( Haines-Young and Potschin 2018 ). In this way, the\nservices  described  by  different  authors  were  placed  into  broad  categories  and\nsubsequently into specific classes, to make an equitable evaluation among the different\nreports.\nData Synthesis \nWith the information from the analyzed articles, a detailed description of the final products\nobtained  from  each  ES  was  prepared.  The  synthesis  was  focused  on  the  services\nmentioned in more than four articles, considering how this value is the median frequency of\nthe total fo mentions in the analyzed documents.In addition to the systematic literature\nreview, a bibliometric analysis was conducted to identify thematic trends in the research\narea. The bibliometric analysis was performed using the Science Mapping Process. For\nthis  study,  the  implementation  for  R  of  Bibliometrix  (i.e.  Biblioshiny)  was  used,  which\nfacilitated the execution of the science mapping process in the final steps of data analysis\nand visualization ( Aria and Cuccurullo 2017 ). The choice of this tool was relevant for the\nliterature review, as it provided with an overview of the current state of research in the area\nand  allowed  the  identification  of  emerging  trends  that  help  to  understand  the  most\npromising research areas. Moreover, this review aimed to provide a comprehensive view of\nthe challenges associated with the valuation of the ES offered by the MS. To this end, the\ncascade model developed by Potschin et al. (2016)  has been adopted, which considers\nthat  the  physical  structure  and  biophysical  processes  of  an  ecosystem  determine  its\nfunctions. These functions are defined as the crucial ecological interactions that sustain the\necosystem's  capacity  to  provide  services.  ES,  in  turn,  represents  the  flow  of  these\nfunctions,  ultimately  contributing  to  human  well-being.  The  end  of  this  flow  can  be\ninterpreted  as  specific  social  benefits.  This  model  facilitated  the  understanding  of  the\nmultidimensional interconnection of the MS with ES, biodiversity, and human well-being.\nAdditionally, it enabled the understanding of how impacts at a specific level of the cascade\ncould affect the other levels Fig. 2.\nResults and Discussion\nThe annual publication rate of research articles on the analyzed topic showed relative\nstability. An average of seven articles per year were identified, with two notable exceptions:\nin 2017, only two were recorded, while in 2021, there was a significant increase, with a\ntotal  of  ten  publications.  It  is  noteworthy  that  more  than  one-fifth  of  the  articles  are\npublished by corresponding authors affiliated with institutions in China (n = 10), closely\nfollowed by studies from the United States (n = 9). Corresponding authors from Mexico and\n4\nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 23/07/2024. DOI:  \nhttps://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e132792\n\nGermany rank third in terms of contributions, with a total of four articles each. Furthermore,\nexamining the geographical distribution of all authors involved in the reviewed articles\nreveals that Mexican authors constitute the largest group (n = 54), followed by American (n\n= 47) and Chinese (n = 43) authors Fig. 3 .\nThe examined studies presented a wide range of ES, highlighting both their diversity and\nthe scarce repetition of themes among them. Some articles even chose to move away from\nthe traditional focus solely on food production, by exploring other types of services more\ndeeply, ranging from cultural aspects to ecosystem regulation. This outlook reflected a\ngrowing attention to the diversity of services that agroecosystems can provide.\nIn 2017, two relevant studies were examined, that mentioned cultural ES and pollination, a\nregulation service essential for biodiversity and ecosystems stability. In 2018, there was an\nincrease in researcher interest with seven published articles mentioning the importance of\nmaize  agroecosystems  for  sustainable  agriculture  and  how  the  implementation  of\npolycultures increased yields compared to monocultures. For 2019, seven studies were\nreviewed,  all  of  which  mentioned  biodiversity  conservation  as  a  significant  benefit  of\npolyculture agroecosystems, while three of them also mentioned cultural ES.\nThe  articles  published  in  2020  mentioned  the  conservation  of  traditional  agricultural\npractices as a tool to restore degraded ecosystems and recover the loss of ES, focusing on\ncultural and regulation services, with an emphasis on pest control. In 2021, there was a\nhigher  number  of  publications  compared  to  the  average  of  the  other  years  analyzed.\nAlthough these publications addressed a narrower range of ES, they revealed a broader\ndistribution  of  services  within  the  three  considered  categories.  In  2022,  most  studies\nfocused  on  how  polycultures  could  contribute  to  food  security  and  climate  change\nmitigation. Finally, in 2023, seven studies were analyzed that explored the relationship\nbetween  polyculture  agroecosystems,  food  security,  increasing  yields,  and  biodiversity\nconservation as key for agricultural diversity and natural pest control.\nRegarding Provisioning ES, the research on polycuture systems has demonstrated how\nthe implementation of such agroecosystems can significantly improve crop yields. Chikowo\net al. (2020)  made clear the importance of polycultures for increasing yield in areas with\nlimited  land,  compared  to  monocultures  and  added  how  these  systems  can  improve\nbiodiversity  protection and nitrogen fixation in the soil. Hunter et al. (2019)  performed a\nmeta-analysis that evidenced that polycultures could positively influence yield by providing\nmultiple ES without compromising food production. These studies complied with the results\nby Colbach et al. (2018), Li et al. (2023), Sun et al. (2021) and Ulcuango et al. (2021) who\nconcluded that polycultures generated higher food yields and economic gains, with the\nadded benefit of promoting biodiversity conservation.\nDaryanto  et  al.  (2020)  proposed  that  polycultures  represent  a  new  green  revolution\nfocused  on  sustainability  and  noted  the  importance  of  an  agricultural  paradigm  shift\ntowards their implementation. The studies by Novotny et al. (2021) and Pierre et al. (2022)\nfound this to be true for Mexico, where the milpa had become fundamental in ensuring food\nsecurity,  biodiversity  conservation  and  resilience  to  climate  change.  For  instance,\n5\nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 23/07/2024. DOI:  \nhttps://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e132792\n\npolycultures in Yucatán not only met the basic needs of more than 50,000 families but also\npresented yields between 31% and 53% higher compared to maize monocultures ( Pierre\net al. 2022).\nMany studies made the point of mentioning how even though food production is the main\ngoal of these agroecosystems they provided with a broad spectrum of additional ES. Some\nof the mentioned services include efficient water and soil nutrients use ( Drinkwater et al.\n2021, Mcharo and Maghenda 2021, Oyeogbe 2021, Pradhan et al. 2018, Shah et al. 2019\n), microclimate and greenhouse gas emissions regulation ( Augstburger and Rist 2020 , \nRusere et al. 2022 ), biodiversity conservation ( Augstburger and Rist 2020 , Li et al. 2019 , \nSun et al. 2021 , Ulcuango et al. 2021 ) and even cultural ES such as aesthetic beauty,\neducation and recreation ( Augstburger and Rist 2020 ). Delaquis et al. (2018)  identified 25\npositive impacts when transitioning from monoculture to polyculture, indicating that this\ntransition promoted a balance between productivity, resilience, and environmental health.\nCultural ES provided by polycultures are relevant for their capacity to strengthen cultural\nidentity and the community sense. According to several studies there are objective and\nsubjective values linked to the sense of identity for rural communities that participate in the\ndevelopment  of  traditional  polycultures  (Barrasa  García  2017,  Falkowski  and  Diemont\n2021,  Soleri  et  al.  2022 ).  Nevertheless,  this  situation  was  not  exclusive  to  Mexican\ncommunities, as Mthembu et al. (2018)  discussed, issues such as the need to strengthen\nsocial  relationships  and  transmitting  knowledge  systems  that  would  maintain  their\ntraditional crop system are faced by Mexican as well as South African producers. Lastly,\nAlpuche-Álvarez et al. (2019) argued that maintaining the milpa would not only preserve an\nagricultural system but also provide a range of cultural services encompassing social\nidentity, physical and mental health, community cohesion, and spiritual and intellectual\nstimulation.\nFalkowski et al. (2019)  focused their research on the importance of preserving traditional\necological knowledge applied in milpa agriculture in the Lacandon Jungle through elements\nlike songs, stories, and beliefs, and their relevance within the local culture, which was\nbacked up by similar studies such as Augstburger and Rist (2020)  and Falkowski et al.\n(2020). Vannoppen et al. (2021)  focused on the \"scenic attractiveness\" as a cultural ES,\nevaluating  the  impact  of  maize  cultivation  and  highlighting  the  improved  landscape\nperception through polycultures and winter cover crops. Lastly, Soto-Pinto and Jiménez-\nFerrer (2018) accentuated the cultural aspect of ES in a study for a combination of milpa\nwith the production of timber trees. This combination not only generated aesthetic value\nbut also promoted biodiversity conservation and increased yields by combining food and\ntimber production in one site.\nFinally, on the topic of regulation and maintenance ES, several studies mentioned the\neffects that polyculture agroecosystems had on the regulation of mass flows and extreme\nevents such as underground water recharge and conservation ( Hong et al. 2018 , Mcharo\nand Maghenda 2021 , Shah et al. 2019 , Vignola et al. 2022 ). van Tuinen et al. (2020)\nexplored the implementation of polycultures with trees to enhance ES, and even though\nthe focus of the study was on the influence of roots on soil microorganisms, they also\n6\nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 23/07/2024. DOI:  \nhttps://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e132792\n\nmentioned wind and erosion control due to presence of trees. Other studies that mentioned\nthe contribution of polyculture to soil quality were made by Pradhan et al. (2018) and Wang\net al. (2020)  addressing fertility and the contribution of arbuscular mycorrhiza present in\nthese systems. Similarly, Ansari et al. (2022)  added composting to the polyculture to help\nin stabilizing soil properties and improving its fertility. In the same study and others, it was\nmentioned  how polycultures  improved  the  carbon  sequestration  levels  and  aided  on\nleveraging the impacts of monocultures (Ansari et al. 2022, Jeswani et al. 2018).\nAjibade et al. (2023) emphasized the need to address the increasing vulnerability of soil to\nclimate change and biodiversity loss. This call was supported by the study of Babu et al.\n(2023), who, through a three-year experimental analysis, demonstrated that polycultures,\nparticularly the combination of maize with beans and buckwheat, produced a total carbon\ndeposit of over 24.9 and 23.0 tons/ha at soil depths of 0-10 cm and 10-20 cm, respectively.\nAccording to these results, this polyculture not only improved agricultural yields but also\ncontributed to other ES, such as carbon sequestration and climate change mitigation. Ma\net al. (2023) , demonstrated the importance of integrating legumes into maize polycultures\nwith a 36-year mathematical simulation, learning how it could potentially increase soil\ncarbon  levels  by  7%  and  reduce  nitrogen  leaching  loss  by  41%  compared  to  other\nmonoculture  techniques,  bringing  attention  to  its  economic  and  yield  potential.  These\nresults supported the idea that maize polycultures are not only crucial for food security but\nalso  necessary  for  environmental  sustainability,  in  contrast  to  intensive  practices  that\nthreaten soil fertility and cause environmental degradation.\nAs  previously  mentioned,  Augstburger  and  Rist  (2020)  studied  the  ES  provided  by\npolycultures from a multidisciplinary approach which allowed them to see the importance of\nintercropping  to  biodiversity  conservation,  idea  that  was  repeated  on  studies  such  as\nAjibade et al. (2023) , Goettsch et al. (2021) , Helms et al. (2021) , Lami et al. (2023)  and \nWang et al. (2020)  who accentuated the importance of the polycultures such as the milpa\nsystem for genetic diversity. Similarly, Landaverde-González et al. (2017)  and Dively et al.\n(2020) advocated  for  the  recovery  of  traditional  crops,  including  wildflowers  to  attract\npollinators  that  contribute  to  maintaining  biodiversity  and  the  health  and  stability  of\necosystems.\nPokharel et al. (2023)  and Vogel et al. (2023)  demonstrated that intercropping for tea\nplantations with maize, and maize with beans, respectively, promote biological pest control\nby increasing the presence of pests natural enemies; in addition, improvements in soil\nquality and resistance to extreme weather conditions were observed. Helms et al. (2021) , \nOuyang et al. (2020)  and Stoltz et al. (2018)  stated how the presence of a multilayered\ncrop structure provides with favorable habitats for pest predators, thus enhancing natural\npest control. The studies by Otieno et al. (2022) and Lami et al. (2023) were more specific,\nby focusing on the presence of beneficial arthropods within maize agroecosystems. The\nresults proved that arthropods have a positive role in sustainability by avoiding the need of\nusing synthetic pesticides and improved resilience in the plantation.\nKc et al. (2022)  performed a scoping review for ES in the context of agroforestry and\nchanges to landuse in the Himalayas. They mentioned how each type of ecosystem (i.e.\n7\nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 23/07/2024. DOI:  \nhttps://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e132792\n\nagroforestry, agriculture, forests) performed better or worse in the provision of certain ES.\nFor instance, the provision of food was better with both agriculture and agroforestry, than\nwith forests; but, on the other hand, the risk for erosion, avalanches and landslides was\nreduced when considering forests and agroforestry, in comparison with agriculture. While\nthese comments may not seem surprising, they highlighted the fact that due to climate\nchange  the  temperature  and  precipitation  regimes  are  changing  and  areas  usually\nreserved for forestry are becoming available for agriculture, endangering the provision of\nforest-specific ES. The authors concluded that a balanced approach, such as the provided\nby agroforestry, would enhance some services such as food provision and ecological\nknowledge,  while  maintaining  others  like  soil  quality,  erosion  reduction  and  flood\nprevention.\nThrough the systematic evaluation of the articles, a total of 38 different ES were identified,\nrevealing a characteristic pattern in the classification of ES linked to the MS. According to\nthe three CICES categories, most of the identified ES are predominantly grouped in the\n\"Regulation and Maintenance\" category, with a total of 20 services documented on 151\noccasions.  Among  these,  biodiversity  conservation  (mentioned  in  24  articles)  and  soil\nfertility support processes (cited in 23 articles) stood out as the most frequent Table 1.\nIn the category of cultural services, a total of 13 services were recorded, with 51 mentions.\nThe most notable include aesthetic beauty (mentioned in 9 articles), education, cultural\nidentity, and recreation Table 2.\nFinally, concerning \"Provisioning\" services, five services were identified with 48 mentions,\nwith  the provision  of  plant-based  food  being  the  most  recurrent.  This  finding  was\nconsistent,  given  that  this  study  focused  on  an  agroecosystem  specialized  in  food\nproduction Table 3. Fig. 4 presents the frequency of mentions for each ES included in the\nsystematic review.\nAs previously established, this study focuses on describing ES related to the MS, an\nagroecosystem  designed  to  optimize  soil  productivity  in  terms  of  plant  products.\nConsequently, it is not surprising that the most frequently mentioned ES is food provision,\nwhich has been addressed in 32 different studies. Similarly, the next two most mentioned\nES are biodiversity conservation and soil fertility, which fall within the \"Regulation and\nMaintenance\"  category.  Biodiversity  conservation  plays  a  crucial  role  in  maintaining\nsuitable conditions for plant species that provide food or habitat for animal species acting\nas pest predators, such as insects and fungi. On the other hand, maintaining soil fertility is\nvital for the optimal functioning of the milpa, especially when considered as an organic\nsystem that avoids the use of agrochemicals for its proper development.\nBased on the analysis of the reviewed documents, it can be argued that the provisioning\nES contributed by the MS mainly focus on plant production, including plants for food, wood,\nand medicinal purposes. Conversely, the regulation and maintenance ES of the MS extend\nto various subsystems or compartments, encompassing soil (e.g., soil fertility and soil\nbiodiversity conservation, as well as erosion control), water (such as water conservation\nand aquifer recharge), the biosphere (including biodiversity conservation, pest and weed\n8\nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 23/07/2024. DOI:  \nhttps://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e132792\n\ncontrol,  and  seed  dispersal),  as  well  as  the  abiotic  interface  surrounding  the  system\n(emphasizing carbon sequestration, microclimate regulation, flood mitigation, and wind\ncontrol). These ES demonstrate the multifunctionality and integral importance of the MS in\nproviding and maintaining essential ES.\nThe  scope  of  cultural  ES  encompasses  a  broad  perspective,  as  it  involves  human\ninteraction with the environment in two distinct contexts. First, it relates to the active or\npassive appreciation of the ecosystem's features, including elements such as its aesthetic\nbeauty, potential for tourism, and recreation. Second, it connects to community creation\nthrough these experiences, encompassing aspects such as inspiration, the development of\ncampesino identity, and the influence of religious elements.\nFollowing  the  ecosystem  services  cascade  model  proposed  by  Haines-Young  and\nPotschin-Young (2010), it is observed that the final cultural service provided by the MS\ndepends on how each specific plot is configured. For example, a milpa integrated into an\nagroforestry system may offer greater aesthetic value compared to an agricultural area that\nincludes cover crops, and even more so in relation to one that only cultivates the basic\nproducts of maize, beans, and squash. Similarly, an agroecosystem that has maintained\nstable food production for a population over several years is more likely to become a\nreference point for creating a campesino identity, an identity rooted in traditional farming\npractices and community values, as opposed to one that requires constant fertilization and\nmay endanger the health of producers who encounter it. This perspective underscores the\ninterconnection between cultural aspects and the specific configuration of the MS in the\nprovision of ES.\nThe limitations identified in this study emphasize the lack of research on the MS outside of\nMexico, which restricts the generalization of the findings beyond Mexican borders, despite\nthe benefits this agroecosystem offers to both farmers and consumers.\nThe main limitation lies in the scarcity of publications addressing the relationship between\nthe MS and the ES. To tackle this challenge, we have broadened the scope of the research\nto include studies focused on ES in agroecosystems in general, and then narrowed down\nto  those  involving  the  production  of  maize  along  with  additional  crops.  Although  this\nimplies a deviation from the focus of the study, it allowed us to explore a wider range of\nservices that the MS can provide by comparing it with other similar agroecosystems.\nThe loss of ES dependent on biodiversity could potentially limit access to basic necessities\nfor a healthy life, highlighting inequality in the most vulnerable sectors, especially in areas\nwith high levels of marginalization and poverty.\nCultural ES are the least studied, with only 12 articles mentioning them. In general, other\nstudies  indicate  that  these  services  are  the  least  researched  due  to  the  difficulty  in\nquantifying them. Their study is greatly influenced by the subjectivity of each community\nand culture, complicating the creation of standardized quantification methods. Even when\nevaluation tools exist, they are subject to the subjective interpretation and valuation of each\ncommunity and individual.\n9\nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 23/07/2024. DOI:  \nhttps://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e132792\n\nAnother complication in the quantification of cultural ES lies on their economic valuation,\nwhich implies a challenge because these are intangible and often lack direct market value,\nmaking the use of economic evaluation tools difficult. However, their conservation is crucial\nas they contribute to human well-being by providing aesthetic, recreational, and spiritual\nexperiences, and cultural identity through traditional practices, ceremonies, and spiritual\nconnections. They also promote sustainable tourism that benefits both the community and\nbiodiversity.  The  inclusion  of  cultural  perspectives  in  ecosystem  management  and\nconservation is essential to ensure a sustainable balance between human needs and\nenvironmental health.\nConsidering that the primary objective of the MS is to optimize production primarily for food\nprovision,  it  is  important  to  point  it  out  as  a  final  service.  Thus,  the  ES  refers  to  a\nconnection of ecosystem events and functions, followed by the valuation of benefits such\nas the nutritional value of these foods and the economic resources that can derive from\nselling surplus production. This reflection shows how, in the context of ES, the line between\nthe service and its utilization can be blurred and cause confusion. However, it is important\nto consider the context in which we are working to more clearly identify the occurrence of\nthe service.\nConclusion\nThis  systematic  review  provides  a  comprehensive  insight  into  the  current  state  of\nknowledge  on  how  diversity  in  the  MS  contributes  to  system  health,  agricultural\nproductivity, human well-being, preservation of traditions and cultural aspects, as well as\nresilience to climate change. Through the systematic review of 47 articles collected from\nthe Scopus database, 38 distinct ES were identified, according to the CICES classification.\nFood provision stands out as the most mentioned ES, followed by biodiversity conservation\nand  soil  fertility.  The  reported  services  are  predominantly  grouped  in  the  category  of\n\"Regulation and Maintenance\", demonstrating the integral importance of the MS in the\nprovision and maintenance of essential ES. Additionally, cultural ES play a crucial role,\nconnecting aspects such as aesthetic beauty, education, cultural identity, and recreation,\nhighlighting the relevance of cultural aspects and the specific configuration of the MS in the\nprovision of ES.\nDespite the scarcity of studies conducted, both outside and within Mexico, that relate the\nMS and ES, this review provides a solid foundation for understanding the importance of\ndiversity in the MS in the global context. Furthermore, it emphasizes the need to promote\nsustainable agricultural practices, such as polycultures, to enhance agricultural system\nresilience and ensure food security and biodiversity preservation in a context of climate\nchange.\n10\nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 23/07/2024. DOI:  \nhttps://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e132792\n\nAcknowledgements\nThe authors wish to acknowledge the support of CONAHCYT for the development of this\nresearch. The authors also extend their gratitude to Dr. Eduardo Torres for his valuable\ninput which improved the quality of this manuscript.\nAuthor contributions\nAline Romero-Natale: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Writing - Original Draft,\nEditing; Otilio  Arturo  Acevedo-Sandoval:  Conceptualization,  Validation,  Writing  -\nReview; Arturo Sanchez-Porras: Methodology, Software, Writing - Original Draft, Editing\nConflicts of interest\nThe authors have declared that no competing interests exist.\nReferences\n• Ajibade S, Simon B, Gulyas M, Balint C (2023) Sustainable intensification of agriculture\nas a tool to promote food security: A bibliometric analysis. Frontiers in Sustainable Food\nSystems 7 https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1101528\n• Alpuche-Álvarez Y, Ochoa-Gaona S, Monzón-Alvarado C, Cortina-Villar S (2019)\nModernización agrícola y valoración sociocultural de los servicios ecosistémicos en\npaisajes mayas del sureste de México. Ecología austral 29 (2): 223‑238. https://doi.org/\nhttps://doi.org/1025260/EA.19.29.2.0.774\n• Ansari M, Babu S, Choudhary J, Ravisankar N, Panwar A (2022) Soil quality restoration\nand yield stabilization in acidic soils of northeastern Himalayas: Five years impact of\ngreen manuring and crop residue management. Frontiers in Environmental Science 10\nhttps://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.940349\n• Aria M, Cuccurullo C (2017) bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping\nanalysis. Journal of Informetrics 11 (4): 959‑975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.\n2017.08.007\n• Augstburger H, Rist S (2020) Assessing the capacity of three Bolivian food systems to\nprovide farm-based agroecosystem services. Journal of Land Use Science 15 (2-3):\n142‑171. https://doi.org/10.1080/1747423X.2019.1651414\n• Babu S, Singh R, Avasthe R, Kumar S, Rathore S, Singh V, Ansari M, Valente D,\nPetrosillo I (2023) Soil carbon dynamics under organic farming: Impact of tillage and\ncropping diversity. Ecological Indicators 147 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.\n2023.109940\n• Barrasa García S (2017) De montaña, milpa y cañaveral. Transformaciones percibidas\nde los paisajes en la costa de Chiapas. Investigaciones geográficas https://doi.org/\n10.14350/rig.54775\n11\nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 23/07/2024. DOI:  \nhttps://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e132792\n\n• Berdugo SEB, Gómez SPM, Ausique VFF, Pulido SYP, Mena RAM, Guzmán MCV,\nLeiva MLP (2019) Capítulo 1: Introducción al estado del arte de los servicios\necosistémicos en la región occidental Colombiana. Libros Universidad Nacional Abierta\ny a Distancia20‑33. https://doi.org/10.22490/9789586516358.01\n• Castillo López S, Torres Carral GA, Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, Mexico (2022)\nMilpa y saberes mayas en San Sebastián Yaxché, Peto, Yucatán. Estudios de Cultura\nMaya 59: 171‑189. https://doi.org/10.19130/iifl.ecm.59.22X876\n• Chikowo R, Chimonyo V, Gwenambira C, Snapp S (2020) Chapter 9 - Ecosystem\nservices in doubled-up legume systems. In: Rusinamhodzi L (Ed.) The Role of\nEcosystem Services in Sustainable Food Systems. URL: https://\nwww.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128164365000093 [ISBN\n978-0-12-816436-5].\n• Colbach N, Cordeau S, Garrido A, Granger S, Laughlin D, Ricci B, Thomson F,\nMesséan A (2018) Landsharing vs landsparing: How to reconcile crop production and\nbiodiversity? A simulation study focusing on weed impacts. Agriculture, Ecosystems &\nEnvironment 251: 203‑217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.09.005\n• Costanza R (2020) Valuing natural capital and ecosystem services toward the goals of\nefficiency, fairness, and sustainability. Ecosystem Services 43 https://doi.org/10.1016/\nj.ecoser.2020.101096\n• Daryanto S, Fu B, Zhao W, Wang S, Jacinthe P, Wang L (2020) Ecosystem service\nprovision of grain legume and cereal intercropping in Africa. Agricultural Systems 178\nhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102761\n• Delaquis E, de Haan S, Wyckhuys KG (2018) On-farm diversity offsets environmental\npressures in tropical agro-ecosystems: A synthetic review for cassava-based systems.\nAgriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 251: 226‑235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.\n2017.09.037\n• Dively G, Leslie A, Hooks CR (2020) Evaluating wildflowers for use in conservation\ngrass buffers to augment natural enemies in neighboring cornfields. Ecological\nEngineering 144 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2019.105703\n• Drinkwater L, Midega CO, Awuor R, Nyagol D, Khan Z (2021) Perennial legume\nintercrops provide multiple belowground ecosystem services in smallholder farming\nsystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 320 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.\n2021.107566\n• Falkowski T, Chankin A, Diemont SW, Pedian R (2019) More than just corn and\ncalories: a comprehensive assessment of the yield and nutritional content of a\ntraditional Lacandon Maya milpa. Food Security 11 (2): 389‑404. https://doi.org/\n10.1007/s12571-019-00901-6\n• Falkowski T, Chankin A, Diemont SW (2020) Successional changes in vegetation and\nlitter structure in traditional Lacandon Maya agroforests. Agroecology and Sustainable\nFood Systems URL: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/\n10.1080/21683565.2019.1649784\n• Falkowski T, Diemont SW (2021) Cultural Ecosystem Services in Agroforests. In:\nUdawatta R, Jose S (Eds) Agroforestry and Ecosystem Services. URL: https://\nlink.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-80060-4 [ISBN 978-3-030-80059-8].\n• Fonteyne S, Castillo Caamal J, Lopez-Ridaura S, Van Loon J, Espidio Balbuena J,\nOsorio Alcalá L, Martínez Hernández F, Odjo S, Verhulst N (2023) Review of agronomic\n12\nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 23/07/2024. DOI:  \nhttps://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e132792\n\nresearch on the milpa, the traditional polyculture system of Mesoamerica. Frontiers in\nAgronomy 5 https://doi.org/10.3389/fagro.2023.1115490\n• Franco AG, Galindo AAG (2023) La milpa y la alimentación en México. Educación\nQuímica 34 https://doi.org/10.22201/fq.18708404e.2023.4.86339e\n• Goettsch B, Urquiza-Haas T, Koleff P, Acevedo Gasman F, Aguilar-Meléndez A, Alavez\nV, Alejandre-Iturbide G, Aragón Cuevas F, Azurdia Pérez C, Carr J, Castellanos-\nMorales G, Cerén G, Contreras-Toledo A, Correa-Cano ME, De la Cruz Larios L,\nDebouck D, Delgado-Salinas A, Gómez-Ruiz E, González-Ledesma M, González-Pérez\nE, Hernández-Apolinar M, Herrera-Cabrera B, Jefferson M, Kell S, Lira-Saade R, Lorea-\nHernández F, Martínez M, Mastretta-Yanes A, Maxted N, Menjívar J, de los Ángeles\nMérida Guzmán M, Morales Herrera A, Oliveros-Galindo O, Orjuela-R. MA, Pollock C,\nQuintana-Camargo M, Rodríguez A, Ruiz Corral JA, Sánchez González JdJ, Sánchez-\nde la Vega G, Superina M, Tobón Niedfeldt W, Tognelli M, Vargas-Ponce O, Vega M,\nWegier A, Zamora Tavares P, Jenkins RB (2021) Extinction risk of Mesoamerican crop\nwild relatives. PLANTS, PEOPLE, PLANET 3 (6): 775‑795. https://doi.org/10.1002/\nppp3.10225\n• Guzmán-Mendoza R, Calzonzi-Marín J, Leyte-Manrique A, Salas-Araiza MD (2023)\nAnálisis multifactorial de la milpa mazahua como base fundamental para el desarrollo\nagroecológico. Mundo Amazónico 14 (1): 180‑196. https://doi.org/10.15446/\nma.v14n1.95354\n• Haines-Young R, Potschin-Young M (2010) The links between biodiversity, ecosystem\nservice and human well-being. In: Raffaelli D, Frid CJ (Eds) Ecosystem Ecology: A New\nSynthesis. [ISBN 978-0-521-51349-4].\n• Haines-Young R, Potschin MB (2018) Common International Classification of\nEcosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised\nStructure.\n• Harguindeguy LC (2021) La milpa como alternativa sustentable orientada al buen vivir.\nScripta Ethnologica XLIII: 9‑36. \n• Helms J, Smith J, Clark S, Knupp K, Haddad N (2021) Ant Communities and Ecosystem\nServices in Organic Versus Conventional Agriculture in the U.S. Corn Belt.\nEnvironmental Entomology 50 (6): 1276‑1285. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvab105\n• Hong Z, Mkonda M, He X (2018) Conservation Agriculture for Environmental\nSustainability in A Semiarid Agroecological Zone under Climate Change Scenarios.\nSustainability 10 (5). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051430\n• Hunter M, Schipanski M, Burgess M, LaChance J, Bradley B, Barbercheck M, Kaye J,\nMortensen D (2019) Cover Crop Mixture Effects on Maize, Soybean, and Wheat Yield in\nRotation. Agricultural & Environmental Letters 4 (1). https://doi.org/10.2134/\nael2018.10.0051\n• Jeswani HK, Hellweg S, Azapagic A (2018) Accounting for land use, biodiversity and\necosystem services in life cycle assessment: Impacts of breakfast cereals. Science of\nThe Total Environment 645: 51‑59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.088\n• Kc KB, Tzadok E, Pant L (2022) Himalayan ecosystem services and climate change\ndriven agricultural frontiers: a scoping review. Discover Sustainability 3 (1). https://\ndoi.org/10.1007/s43621-022-00103-9\n• Lami F, Burgio G, Magagnoli S, Sommaggio D, Horváth R, Nagy D, Masetti A (2023)\nGround-dwelling arthropods as biodiversity indicators in maize agroecosystems of\nNorthern Italy. Ecological Indicators 152 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110352\n13\nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 23/07/2024. DOI:  \nhttps://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e132792\n\n• Landaverde-González P, Quezada-Euán J, Theodorou P, Murray T, Husemann M, Ayala\nR, Moo-Valle H, Vandame R, Paxton R (2017) Sweat bees on hot chillies: provision of\npollination services by native bees in traditional slash-and-burn agriculture in the\nYucatán Peninsula of tropical Mexico. Journal of Applied Ecology 54 (6): 1814‑1824. \nhttps://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12860\n• Li C, Stomph T, Makowski D, Li H, Zhang C, Zhang F, van der Werf W (2023) The\nproductive performance of intercropping. Proceedings of the National Academy of\nSciences of the United States of America 120 (2). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.\n2201886120\n• Li R, Lin H, Niu H, Chen Y, Zhao S, Fan L (2019) Smallholder preference and\nagroecosystem service trade-offs: A case study in Xinzheng County, China. Agricultural\nSystems 168: 19‑26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.10.002\n• Ma J, Anthoni P, Olin S, Rabin S, Bayer A, Xia L, Arneth A (2023) Estimating the Global\nInfluence of Cover Crops on Ecosystem Service Indicators in Croplands With the LPJ-\nGUESS Model. Earth's Future 11 (5). https://doi.org/10.1029/2022EF003142\n• Mcharo M, Maghenda M (2021) Cost-benefit analysis of sustainable land and water\nmanagement practices in selected highland water catchments of Kenya. Scientific\nAfrican 12 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2021.e00779\n• Méndez-Flores O, Ochoa-Díaz López H, Castro-Quezada I, Olivo-Vidal Z, García-\nMiranda R, Rodríguez-Robles U, Irecta-Nájera C, López-Ramírez G, Sánchez-Chino X\n(2023) The Milpa as A Supplier of Bioactive Compounds: A Review. Food Reviews\nInternational 39 (3): 1359‑1376. https://doi.org/10.1080/87559129.2021.1934001\n• Mthembu B, Everson T, Everson C (2018) Intercropping for enhancement and\nprovisioning of ecosystem services in smallholder, rural farming systems in KwaZulu-\nNatal Province, South Africa: a review. Journal of Crop Improvement 33: 1‑32. https://\ndoi.org/10.1080/15427528.2018.1547806\n• Novotny I, Tittonell P, Fuentes-Ponce M, López-Ridaura S, Rossing WH (2021) The\nimportance of the traditional milpa in food security and nutritional self-sufficiency in the\nhighlands of Oaxaca, Mexico. PLOS ONE 16 (2). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.\n0246281\n• Otieno NE, Jacobs SM, Pryke JS (2022) Small-scale traditional maize farming fosters\ngreater arthropod diversity value than conventional maize farming. Journal of Insect\nConservation 26 (3): 477‑489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-021-00330-x\n• Ouyang F, Su W, Zhang Y, Liu X, Su J, Zhang Q, Men X, Ju Q, Ge F (2020) Ecological\ncontrol service of the predatory natural enemy and its maintaining mechanism in\nrotation-intercropping ecosystem via wheat-maize-cotton. Agriculture, Ecosystems &\nEnvironment 301 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.107024\n• Oyeogbe A (2021) Diversification of maize-based intercropping systems in tropical\nrainforest agroecosystem of Nigeria: productivity, profitability and soil fertility. Future of\nFood: Journal on Food, Agriculture and Society 9 (1). URL: https://\nwww.thefutureoffoodjournal.com/index.php/FOFJ/article/view/328\n• Page M, McKenzie J, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Hoffmann T, Mulrow C, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff\nJ, Akl E, Brennan S, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw J, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu M, Li T,\nLoder E, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness L, Stewart L, Thomas J, Tricco A,\nWelch V, Whiting P, Moher D, Yepes-Nuñez JJ, Urrútia G, Romero-García M, Alonso-\nFernández S (2021) Declaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la\n14\nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 23/07/2024. DOI:  \nhttps://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e132792\n\npublicación de revisiones sistemáticas. Revista Española de Cardiología 74 (9):\n790‑799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.recesp.2021.06.016\n• Pierre JF, Latournerie-Moreno L, Garruña-Hernández R, Jacobsen K, Guevara-\nHernández F, Laboski CM, Ruiz-Sánchez E (2022) Maize legume intercropping systems\nin southern Mexico: A review of benefits and challenges. Ciência Rural 52 https://\ndoi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20210409\n• Pokharel SS, Yu H, Fang W, Parajulee M, Chen F (2023) Intercropping Cover Crops for\na Vital Ecosystem Service: A Review of the Biocontrol of Insect Pests in Tea\nAgroecosystems. Plants 12 (12). https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12122361\n• Potschin M, Haines-Young R, Fish R, Turner RK (2016) Routledge Handbook of\nEcosystem Services. Routledge\n• Pradhan A, Chan C, Roul PK, Halbrendt J, Sipes B (2018) Potential of conservation\nagriculture (CA) for climate change adaptation and food security under rainfed uplands\nof India: A transdisciplinary approach. Agricultural Systems 163: 27‑35. https://doi.org/\n10.1016/j.agsy.2017.01.002\n• Ramírez-Maces H, Tadeo-Robledo M, Villegas-Aparicio Y, Aragón-Cuevas F, Martínez-\nGutiérrez A, Rodríguez-Ortiz G, Carrillo-Rodríguez J, Espinosa-Calderón A, Olán M\n(2023) Diversidad biológica del sistema milpa y su papel en la seguridad alimentaria en\nla Sierra Mixe, Oaxaca. Revista Fitotecnia Mexicana 46 (2): 105‑113. https://doi.org/\n10.35196/rfm.2023.2.105\n• Rusere F, Dicks L, Mkuhlani S, Crespo O (2022) Integrating a crop model with a\ngreenhouse gas calculator to identify low carbon agricultural intensification options for\nsmallholder farmers in rural South Africa. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy\n24 (6): 1663‑1680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-022-02272-7\n• Sánchez Morales P, Romero Arenas O, Romero Arenas O (2018) Evaluación de la\nsustentabilidad del sistema milpa en el estado de Tlaxcala, México. Revista de El\nColegio de San Luis 8 (15): 107‑134. URL: http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?\nscript=sci_abstract&pid=S1665-899X2018000100107&lng=es&nrm=iso&tlng=es\n• Sánchez-Velázquez OA, Luna-Vital DA, Morales-Hernandez N, Contreras J, Villaseñor-\nTapia EC, Fragoso-Medina JA, Mojica L (2023) Nutritional, bioactive components and\nhealth properties of the milpa triad system seeds (corn, common bean and pumpkin).\nFrontiers in Nutrition 10 https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2023.1169675\n• Shah SM, Liu G, Yang Q, Wang X, Casazza M, Agostinho F, Lombardi GV, Giannetti B\n(2019) Emergy-based valuation of agriculture ecosystem services and dis-services.\nJournal of Cleaner Production 239 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118019\n• Soleri D, Aragón Cuevas F, Castro García H, Cleveland D, Smith S (2022) The\nHousehold Context of In Situ Conservation in a Center of Crop Diversity: Self-Reported\nPractices and Perceptions of Maize and Phaseolus Bean Farmers in Oaxaca, Mexico.\nSustainability 14 (12). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127148\n• Soto-Pinto L, Jiménez-Ferrer G (2018) Socio-environmental contradictions in carbon\nmitigation processes in agroforestry systems. Madera y bosques 24 (spe). https://\ndoi.org/10.21829/myb.2018.2401887\n• Stoltz E, Wallenhammar A, Nadeau E (2018) Functional divergence effects of\nintercropped faba bean and maize in organic production for forage increase mineral\ncontents and reduces leaf spots. Agricultural and Food Science in Finland 27 https://\ndoi.org/10.23986/afsci.66541\n15\nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 23/07/2024. DOI:  \nhttps://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e132792\n\n• Sun T, Feng X, Lal R, Cao T, Guo J, Deng A, Zheng C, Zhang J, Song Z, Zhang W\n(2021) Crop diversification practice faces a tradeoff between increasing productivity and\nreducing carbon footprints. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 321 https://doi.org/\n10.1016/j.agee.2021.107614\n• Toledo V, Barrera-Bassols N (2020) La milpa y la memoria biocultural de mesoamérica.\nIn: Ma. CP, F. KDS (Eds) A conservação das sementes crioulas: uma visão\ninterdisciplinar da agrobiodiversidade. 4. [ISBN 978-65-5725-007-5].\n• Ulcuango K, Navas M, Centurión N, Ibañez MÁ, Hontoria C, Mariscal-Sancho I (2021)\nInteraction of Inherited Microbiota from Cover Crops with Cash Crops. Agronomy 11\n(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11112199\n• Vannoppen A, Degerickx J, Gobin A (2021) Evaluating Landscape Attractiveness with\nGeospatial Data, A Case Study in Flanders, Belgium. Land 10 (7). https://doi.org/\n10.3390/land10070703\n• van Tuinen D, Tranchand E, Hirissou F, Wipf D, Courty P (2020) Carbon partitioning in a\nwalnut-maize agroforestry system through arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Rhizosphere\n15 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rhisph.2020.100230\n• Vignola R, Esquivel MJ, Harvey C, Rapidel B, Bautista-Solis P, Alpizar F, Donatti C,\nAvelino J (2022) Ecosystem-Based Practices for Smallholders’ Adaptation to Climate\nExtremes: Evidence of Benefits and Knowledge Gaps in Latin America. Agronomy 12\n(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12102535\n• Vogel C, Poveda K, Iverson A, Boetzl F, Mkandawire T, Chunga T, Küstner G, Keller A,\nBezner Kerr R, Steffan-Dewenter I (2023) The effects of crop type, landscape\ncomposition and agroecological practices on biodiversity and ecosystem services in\ntropical smallholder farms. Journal of Applied Ecology 60 (5): 859‑874. https://doi.org/\n10.1111/1365-2664.14380\n• Wallace B, Small K, Brodley C, Lau J, Trikalinos T (2012) Deploying an interactive\nmachine learning system in an evidence-based practice center: abstrackr. Proceedings\nof the 2nd ACM SIGHIT International Health Informatics Symposium. [ISBN\n978-1-4503-0781-9]. https://doi.org/10.1145/2110363.2110464\n• Wang X, Hoffland E, Feng G, Kuyper T (2020) Arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis\nincreases phosphorus uptake and productivity of mixtures of maize varieties compared\nto monocultures. Journal of Applied Ecology 57 (11): 2203‑2211. https://doi.org/\n10.1111/1365-2664.13739\n16\nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 23/07/2024. DOI:  \nhttps://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e132792\n\nFigure 1. \nFlow diagram of the methodology and selection processes used for this systematic review. It\nfollows the template of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews).\n17\nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 23/07/2024. DOI:  \nhttps://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e132792\n\nFigure 2. \nEcosystem services cascade model in the natural and socioeconomic context of the milpa\nsystem.\n18\nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 23/07/2024. DOI:  \nhttps://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e132792\n\nFigure 3. \na) Affiliation country of corresponding authors; SCP indicates Single Country Publications and\nMCP states Multiple Countries Publications; and b) Geographic distribution of all contributing\nauthors of the reviewed literature. \n19\nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 23/07/2024. DOI:  \nhttps://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e132792\n\nFigure 4. \nNumber of mentions for each ES in the reviewed literature. The services with higher number of\nmentions in each category are highlighted.\n20\nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 23/07/2024. DOI:  \nhttps://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e132792\n\nCICES Class CICES\nCode Identified Services Mentions\nControl of erosion rates 2.2.1.1 Soil Erosion Control 8\nBuffering and attenuation of mass movement 2.2.1.2 Wind Reduction 1\nHydrological cycle and water flow regulation (Including flood\ncontrol) 2.2.1.3\nDrought Regulation 1\nFlood Regulation 2\nPollination (or 'gamete' dispersal in a marine context) 2.2.2.1 Pollination 12\nSeed dispersal 2.2.2.2 Seed Dispersal 1\nMaintaining nursery populations and habitats (Including gene\npool protection) 2.2.2.3\nSoil Biodiversity\nConservation 3\nBiodiversity Conservation 24\nPest control (including invasive species) 2.2.3.1 Weed Control 13\nDisease control 2.2.3.2 Pest and Disease Control 17\nWeathering processes and their effects on soil quality 2.2.4.1 Soil Conservation 7\nDecomposition and fixation processes and their effects on soil\nquality 2.2.4.2\nSoil Fertility 23\nNitrogen Fixation 10\nDecomposition and fixation processes and their effects on soil\nquality 2.2.4.3 Carbon Sequestration 14\nRegulation of the chemical condition of freshwaters by living\nprocesses 2.2.5.1 Water Quality 3\nRegulation of chemical composition of atmosphere 2.2.6.1 Atmospheric Oxygen 1\nRegulation of temperature and humidity, including ventilation\nand transpiration 2.2.6.2 Microclimate Regulation 2\nTable 1. \nRegulation and Maintenance Services in Polyculture Agroecosystems. \n21\nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 23/07/2024. DOI:  \nhttps://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e132792\n\nOther types of regulation and maintenance services provided by\nbiotic processes 2.3.x.x Climate Change\nMitigation 4\nMaintenance and regulation by inorganic natural chemical and\nphysical processes 5.2.2.1\nWell Recharge 1\nWater Conservation 4\n22\nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 23/07/2024. DOI:  \nhttps://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e132792\n\nCICES Class CICES\nCode Identified Services Mentions\nCharacteristics of living systems that enable activities promoting\nhealth, recuperation or enjoyment through active or immersive\ninteractions\n3.1.1.1 Tourism 4\n3.1.1.2 Physical and Mental\nHealth 3\nCharacteristics of living systems that enable scientific investigation or\nthe creation of traditional ecological knowledge 3.1.2.1 Stories 1\nCharacteristics of living systems that enable education and training 3.1.2.2\nSpiritual and\nIntellectual\nStimulation\n4\nEducation 6\nCharacteristics of living systems that are resonant in terms of culture\nor heritage 3.1.2.3\nSocial Cohesion 3\nCultural Heritage 4\nCultural Identity and\nValues 6\nCharacteristics of living systems that enable aesthetic experiences 3.1.2.4 Aesthetic 9\nElements of living systems that have symbolic meaning 3.2.1.1\nSongs 1\nCultural Inspiration 1\nElements of living systems that have sacred or religious meaning 3.2.1.2 Religious 3\nElements of living systems used for entertainment or representation 3.2.1.3 Recreation 6\nTable 2. \nCultural Services in Polyculture Agroecosystems. \n23\nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 23/07/2024. DOI:  \nhttps://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e132792\n\nCICES Class CICES\nCode\nIdentified\nServices Mentions\nCultivated terrestrial plants (including fungi, algae) grown for nutritional\npurposes 1.1.1.1 Food provision 32\nFibres and other materials from cultivated plants, fungi, algae and bacteria\nfor direct use or processing 1.1.1.2 Biomass 7\nCultivated plants (including fungi, algae) grown as a source of energy 1.1.1.3 Fuel (Wood) 4\nCultivated plants for health purposes 1.1.1.X Medicinal\nPlants 2\nSurface water used as material (non drinking purposes) 4.2.1.2 Water Supply 3\nTable 3. \nProvisioning Services in Polyculture Agroecosystems.\n24\nAuthor-formatted, not peer-reviewed document posted on 23/07/2024. DOI:  \nhttps://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e132792","source_license":"CC-BY-4.0","license_restricted":false}