*5.4. Limitations of the Map*

Though the systematic map was designed to be as robust as possible, by attempting to capture the relevant articles, it was not perfectly inclusive, because of the limited resources and time. We acknowledge the possibility of missed or biased evidence for several reasons, despite our effort to utilize diverse search and screening strategies. First, documents only written in English were covered in the systematic map owing to finite language barriers; however, it is likely to exist in a large volume of articles in other languages, for instance in Chinese, Indian, Malaysian, and so forth. Second, publication searches were conducted in only one database, SCOPUS, and we did not carry out a citation screening because of the time limitation and for better efficiency. Third, our search string may not include all relevant literature, because the preceding systematic reviews [22,35,37,71] that we referred to were typically about European agroforestry and other regions, and Asian agroforestry may have unique characters. Keywords (Tables 1 and 2) are also generated from major precedent

studies [38,40,41,45,57–59], also significantly reflecting the characteristics of European agroforestry systems and ecosystem services.

#### **6. Conclusions**

The number of agroforestry-related articles in the Asia-Pacific region has been fast-growing but is still small compared to all the literature in the world. India and China are hotspots of the research field with supporting policies and institutes [4,15,70] (Figure 3), whereas Western Asian countries have received little attention. Therefore, more targeted and comprehensive research is required to reduce the geographical gaps. Among the agroforestry practices, silvorable systems, especially plantation crop combinations and tree management (PC) and habitats for species/ biological control/ maintenance of genetic diversity/ gene-pool (HS) were the most popular. However, agrosilvopastoral and silvopastoral systems in the Asia-Pacific region have not received as much attention (Figure 4), in contrast with Europe where silvopastoral practices are predominant [35]. The linkage map expresses the occurrence of the evidence base but that does not mean that high frequency equals high or positive impacts, nor quality.

This map will contribute to designing policies, research, practical implementations, and save resources and time for decision making, by providing systematic evidence and frameworks. In particular, the heatmap offers insights to integrate ecosystem services around agroforestry systems into decision making, which is challenging [74,75]. We propose a wider range of additional studies for decision making on agroforestry works. Specifically, multiscale and upscale methods and approaches are essential to assess ecosystem services beyond biophysical approaches, in order to cover a broader range of ecosystem services including social services.

In conclusion, the systematic map identifies and describes the nature, volume, and characteristics of the research in the field of agroforestry and ecosystem services in the Asia-Pacific region. It pictures an existing evidence base on agroforestry and ecosystem service in the Asia-Pacific region. This comprehensive map could also be useful as a resource to enhance the knowledge of agroforestry–ecosystem service linkages. Furthermore, this map points out the gaps where further studies and investments should be focused.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, M.S.P.; data coding, S.S., K.T.S., H.L., T.H.K., S.L.; writing—original draft preparation, S.S., M.S.P.; writing—review and editing, S.S., K.T.S., H.L., T.H.K., S.L., M.S.P.; supervision, M.S.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This work was supported by the Creative-Pioneering Researchers Program through Seoul National University (SNU).

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

### **Appendix A**

#### **Table A1.** List of search terms in English language.

