The relevance of the study is conditioned by the increase in the anthropogenic load on agrocenoses caused by the intensification of agriculture, the increase in chemical load and changes in the structure of land use. At the same time, these factors change the soil state, structure of the accompanying phytocenosis and the state of the biotic communities. This study aimed to systematise and compare the existing methodological approaches to assessing the effect of human impact on agrocenoses in the framework of the “pressures – state – impact” concept. A thematic synthesis of publications for 2019-2025 was carried out; sources that had clearly formulated indicators and an explicitly described procedure for their calculation were selected for the analysis. The generalisation was carried out according to the following analytical blocks: soil, biota, vegetation and geospatial tools. The results show that the most reliable estimates were obtained using a complex application of physical, chemical and biological indicators of the soil state; single-dimensional indicators lose their sensitivity to the management impact and do not reflect systemic changes. Bioindication based on enzymatic activity, microbial processes and reaction of soil fauna was found to be effective for early diagnostics of the degradation process and toxicological danger before irreversible changes in physico-chemical properties occur. Indices of plant diversity and dominance, as well as functional indicators, respond to the selective impact of intensification of agriculture and herbicide load, reflecting the simplification of communities and the change in the species composition. It was found that the application of geographic information systems and remote sensing of the Earth increases the comparability of estimates due to the possibility of spatial and temporal extrapolation, revealing within-field heterogeneity and risk zoning. Integral indices contribute to improving the comparability of territories; however, their application requires a harmonised interpretation of the direction of indicators, transparent weighting and an explicitly described uncertainty consideration. The results confirmed that a comprehensive approach that combines soil, biotic, plant and geospatial indicators is the most effective for monitoring, comparison of territories and decision-making for agrotechnical measures to minimise the negative environmental effect of agroproduction
Naumovska et al. (Tue,) studied this question.