How Agroforestry mitigate climate change ?

Agroforestry may help in mitigating the climate change, as forest/trees absorb more CO2 than the crop itself. The reason is more number of leaves in trees which still belong to the trees even after crop is harvested. Generally, crop is harvested during mid or early summer while trees stands even in hard summer too which increase the times of stomatel opening and there by allowing trees to absorb more CO2. However, leaves from trees fall during winter while the crop which is growing can continue sinking CO2. Hence, in this way, agroforestry can continue sinking CO2 from the atmosphere and thus can help in mitigation of climate change.

However, there are some hurdles which affects application of agroforestry as:

1. Trees: Yes, trees have strong root system than crop hence they can absorb more nutrient and water and this may critical issue for crops especially during flowering time.

2. Shadows: shadows can affect evapotranspiration and photosynthesis as it do not allow or can strict light transfer to crops. Grain would not mature on time.

3. Unwanted guests: trees are home of birds, rats, insects, ants and fungus too during humidity time.

4.  Crop loss: fall of trees due to cyclone or heavy precipitation.

There are many models which can help to modeling of agroforestry such as:

1. APSIM

2. Hi-sAFe

3. SCUAF

4. EPIC for AF

5. SBELTS

6. WaNuLCAS

7. HyPAR

and there are many more according to their type like 2d, 3D, 1D, field level, landscape level (reference) and below figure showed the actual difference among them.

Reference:

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/11/11/2106

Frameworks for systematic reviews

 

Systematic reviews are a cornerstone of evidence-based practice, providing comprehensive and unbiased summaries of research on a particular topic. The use of structured frameworks is crucial in conducting these reviews to ensure consistency, reliability, and validity of the findings.

PICO framework

Use a framework like PICO when developing a good clinical research question:

P	I	C	O
Patient or problem	Intervention	Comparison Intervention	Outcome
Describe the patient or group of patients of interest as accurately as possible	What is the main intervention or therapy you'll consider?	Is there an alternative treatment to compare?	What is the clinical outcome?

PRISMA

PRISMA is an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

PRISMA Checklist  The 27 checklist items relate to the content of a systematic review and meta-analysis, which includes:

• Title
• Abstract
• Methods
• Results
• Discussion
• Funding

PRISMA-ScR

A PRISMA extension for scoping reviews, PRISMA-ScR, has been created to provide reporting guidance for this specific type of review. This extension is also intended to apply to evidence maps, as these share similarities with scoping reviews and involve a systematic search of a body of literature to identify knowledge gaps.

The PRISMA extension for scoping reviews contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items to include when completing a scoping review. Scoping reviews serve to synthesize evidence and assess the scope of literature on a topic. Among other objectives, scoping reviews help determine whether a systematic review of the literature is warranted.

SPIDER

The SPIDER question format was adapted from the PICO tool to search for qualitative and mixed-methods research.  Questions based on this format identify the following concepts:

1. Sample
2. Phenomenon of Interest
3. Design
4. Evaluation
5. Research type.

• Defining your question for finding qualitative research: SPIDER tool

Example: What are young parents’ experiences of attending antenatal education? 

S	young parents
P of I	antenatal education
D	questionnaire, survey, interview, focus group, case study, or observational study
E	experiences
R	qualitative or mixed method

Search for (S AND P of I AND (D OR E) AND R) (Cooke, Smith, & Booth, 2012).

Case Studies: Frameworks in Action

For instance, a systematic review on the efficacy of telemedicine interventions in chronic disease management could apply the PRISMA framework to ensure all relevant studies are accounted for and reported systematically. Alternatively, a review analyzing the effects of dietary supplements could utilize the Cochrane Handbook to assess the quality of evidence and provide a reliable conclusion.

Recent Developments and Future Directions

Recent updates to these frameworks have included considerations for new types of data and study designs, reflecting the evolving nature of research. Looking forward, it’s essential to adapt these frameworks to accommodate advancements in data analytics and research methodologies.

Concluding Thoughts

Choosing the right framework for a systematic review is pivotal to its success. By adhering to established guidelines, researchers can contribute valuable insights to their fields, ultimately influencing policy and practice.

Courstey:

https://uow.libguides.com/systematic-review/frameworks

Software tools for systematic reviews

• Covidence

  GW in 2019 has bought a subscription to this Cloud based tool for facilitating screening decisions, used by the Cochrane Collaboration. Register for an account.

• NVIVO for analysis of qualitative research

  NVIVO is used for coding interview data to identify common themes emerging from interviews with several participants. GW faculty, staff, and students may download NVIVO software.

• RedCAP

  RedCAP is software that can be used to create survey forms for research or data collection or data extraction. It has very detailed functionality to enable data exchange with Electronic Health Record Systems, and to integrate with study workflow such as scheduling follow up reminders for study participants.

• Systematic Review Toolbox

  Select the Healthcare discipline and features you want a tool to support.

• SRDR tool from AHRQ

  Free, web-based and has a training environment, tutorials, and example templates of systematic review data extraction forms

• RevMan 5

  RevMan 5 is the desktop version of the software used by Cochrane systematic review teams. RevMan 5 is free for academic use and can be downloaded and configured to run as stand alone software that does not connect with the Cochrane server if you follow the instructions at https://training.cochrane.org/online-learning/core-software-cochrane-reviews/revman/revman-5-download/non-cochrane-reviews

• Rayyan

  Free, web-based tool for collecting and screening citations. It has options to screen with multiple people, masking each other.

• GradePro

  Free, web application to create, manage and share summaries of research evidence (called Evidence Profiles and Summary of Findings Tables) for reviews or guidelines, uses the GRADE criteria to evaluate each paper under review.

• DistillerSR

  Needs subscription. Create coded data extraction forms from templates.

• EPPI Reviewer

  Needs subscription. Like DistillerSR, tool for text mining, data clustering, classification and term extraction

• SUMARI

  Needs subscription. Qualitative data analysis.

• Dedoose

  Needs subscription. Qualitative data analysis, similar to NVIVO in that it can be used to code interview transcripts, identify word co-occurence, cloud based.

• Meta-analysis software for statistical analysis of data for quantitative reviews

  SPSS, SAS, and STATA are popular analytical statistical software that include macros for carrying out meta-analysis. Himmelfarb has SPSS on some 3rd floor computers, and GW affiliates may download SAS to your own laptop from the Division of IT website. To perform mathematical analysis of big data sets there are statistical analysis software libraries in the R programming language available through GitHub and RStudio, but this requires advanced knowledge of the R and Python computer languages and data wrangling/cleaning.

• PRISMA 2020 flow diagram generator

  The PRISMA Statement website has a page listing example flow diagram templates and a link to software for creating PRISMA 2020 flow diagrams using R software.

GW researchers may want to consider using Refworks to manage citations, and GW Box to store the full text PDF's of review articles. You can also use online survey forms such as Qualtrics, RedCAP, or Survey Monkey, to design and create your own coded fillable forms, and export the data to Excel or one of the qualitative analytical software tools listed above.

References:

https://guides.mclibrary.duke.edu/sysreview/types

An overview of review methodology

Writing review manuscripts is not the easiest task. It requires lot of time and extensive work to search the previous related work. Therefore, to do so accurately should be a priority for all academics. However, this task has become increasingly complex. Here, i am trying to define the type of review and guidlines and provide the links for authors so that they can organize well.

Types of Review articles:

According to Snyder et al. 2019, there is three types:

1. Systematic

2. Semi systematic

3. Integrative

While, according to Duke University, There is 14 type of reviews:

1. Critical review

2. Literatur/narrative review

3. Mapping review/ systematic map

4. Meta-analysis

5. Mixed studies review/mixed methods review

6. Overview

7. Qualitative systematic review/qualitative evidence synthesis

8. Rapid review

9. Scoping review

10. State-of-the-art review

11. Systematic review

12. Systematic search and review

13. Systematized review

14. Umbrella review

Guidlines:

There are number of reported standards and guidelines  such as:

1. PRISMA, developed for systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses).

2. RAMSES, developed for systematic narrative reviews.

3. Guidelines for integrative reviews. 

References:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296319304564

https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-016-0343-0

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK481583/

https://guides.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/systematic_review/types

https://uow.libguides.com/systematic-review/types-of-systematic-reviews

Watch youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqGGUUnrmhw&ab_channel=Sage