Agronomy For Sustainable Development

---
name: agronomy-for-sustainable-development
description: Use when targeting Agronomy for Sustainable Development or deciding whether an agronomy / farming-systems manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, the explicit-and-evidenced sustainability-contribution bar, evidence and data-reporting expectations, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.
---

# Agronomy for Sustainable Development (agronomy-for-sustainable-development)

## Journal positioning

Agronomy for Sustainable Development (ASD), published by Springer, is an agronomy journal
defined by an **explicit sustainability framing**: cropping and farming systems studied
because, and insofar as, they advance the sustainability of agriculture — environmental,
economic, and social. It publishes field research alongside reviews and meta-analyses, but in
every case the **sustainability contribution must be explicit and evidenced**, not asserted in
the abstract and dropped thereafter. A competent agronomy study whose only contribution is a
yield or management result, with sustainability mentioned as decoration, is a poor fit. This
skill is a **fit / venue-selection / re-framing** tool. It does not replace the journal's
current author guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live ASD author guidance.

## When to trigger

- The author names ASD and wants a fit/framing check for a sustainability-oriented agronomy or
  farming-systems paper.
- An agronomy result must be re-framed so its sustainability contribution is explicit,
  measured, and load-bearing rather than rhetorical.
- The author is planning a review or meta-analysis of sustainable cropping/farming systems and
  needs the venue's synthesis bar.
- The author is choosing between ASD, `field-crops-research`, and
  `agriculture-ecosystems-and-environment`.

## Scope & topic fit

- Cropping and farming systems designed or evaluated for sustainability: diversification,
  conservation agriculture, agroecology, organic and integrated systems.
- Resource-use efficiency and input reduction (nutrients, water, pesticides, energy) tied to
  sustainability outcomes and trade-offs.
- Soil health, biodiversity, and ecosystem-service outcomes of agronomic management framed for
  sustainability.
- Climate-change adaptation and mitigation in agronomic systems, including carbon and GHG
  considerations.
- Reviews and meta-analyses that synthesize evidence on sustainable practices across studies
  and regions.
- Socio-economic and multi-criteria assessments of farming systems where they evidence the
  sustainability contribution.

## Method & evidence bar

- The **sustainability contribution must be explicit and evidenced**: the relevant
  environmental, economic, and/or social dimension is measured or analyzed, with trade-offs
  acknowledged, not asserted.
- Field studies need adequate replication and design and, where claims generalize, multi-site/
  multi-season or systems-level evidence; pseudoreplication is disqualifying.
- Reviews and meta-analyses need a reproducible, transparent protocol: search strategy,
  inclusion criteria, effect-size handling, heterogeneity, and bias assessment.
- Statistics must match the design (mixed models for multi-environment data; appropriate
  meta-analytic models) with uncertainty reported.
- Data and, for syntheses, the extracted dataset/code should be available per Springer policy;
  agronomic and environmental metadata must be documented.

## Structure & house style

- Standard structured article (research or review/meta-analysis); ASD favours a clearly stated
  novel sustainability contribution highlighted up front; re-check current article types and
  highlight/graphical-abstract conventions on the live guide.
- The introduction must state the sustainability problem and the specific, evidenced
  contribution — what dimension is improved and how it is measured.
- Figures/tables should carry the sustainability argument (trade-off plots, effect-size
  forests for syntheses, multi-criteria comparisons) with variability shown.
- A data-availability statement and complete methodological/agronomic metadata are expected;
  for syntheses, the full protocol and dataset belong in supplementary material.

## Official-submission checklist

- Before giving submission-ready advice, read `../../resources/source-basis.md` and
  `../../resources/official-source-map.md`; start from the official source anchors, then
  cite the current Agronomy for Sustainable Development page you checked.
- Search the live site for "Agronomy for Sustainable Development submission guidelines" and
  follow the current Springer version.
- Re-check article types (research vs. review/meta-analysis), structure, highlights/graphical
  abstract, and word/figure expectations.
- Confirm the data-availability/repository policy and, for syntheses, protocol-reporting
  expectations.
- Re-check competing-interests, funding, author-contribution, and AI-use disclosure, and
  open-access terms.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions
  win.

## Pre-submission self-check

- [ ] The sustainability contribution is explicit, measured, and load-bearing — not decoration.
- [ ] The relevant environmental/economic/social dimension is evidenced, with trade-offs acknowledged.
- [ ] Field claims have adequate replication/design and systems- or multi-environment-level support.
- [ ] Reviews/meta-analyses follow a transparent, reproducible protocol with bias assessment.
- [ ] Statistics match the design (mixed/meta-analytic models) with uncertainty reported.
- [ ] Data-availability statement, metadata, and (for syntheses) the extracted dataset are prepared.

## Common desk-reject triggers

- A competent agronomy result with sustainability asserted but never measured.
- A single site-year or pseudoreplicated trial generalized to a sustainability claim.
- A "review" or meta-analysis with no transparent protocol, inclusion criteria, or bias assessment.
- Trade-offs ignored — a one-dimensional gain presented as overall sustainability.
- Scope mismatch: a pure yield/management or pure soil-mechanism paper with no sustainability framing.

## Re-routing decision

- Yield/agronomy and resource-use efficiency without a sustainability contribution → `field-crops-research`.
- Agroecosystem environmental outcomes (GHG, nutrient losses, biodiversity) at field-landscape scale → `agriculture-ecosystems-and-environment`.
- Soil-process mechanism (SOM, microbial function, nutrient cycling) is the core → `soil-biology-and-biochemistry`.
- Broad food-systems significance → `nature-food`.
- Large-scale climate/global-change ecosystem process dominant → `global-change-biology`.

## Output format

```text
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Agronomy for Sustainable Development
[Article type] Research / Review / Meta-analysis
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest sustainable-agronomy topics>
[Sustainability contribution] <the measured dimension improved and the evidence + trade-offs>
[Method/evidence] <does design or synthesis protocol clear ASD's bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <article type / highlights / data + protocol policy / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>
```