Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
1,327
result(s) for
"AGRICULTURAL INTENSIFICATION"
Sort by:
Food for all in Africa : sustainable intensification for African farmers
\"Describes how Africa's farmers can be helped not only to feed themselves and their families but also to gain income by producing food and other crops and livestock products for sale to Africa's growing urban and export markets\"-- Provided by publisher.
Book
What is Sustainable Agriculture? Critical Analysis of the International Political Discourse
The concepts, ‘sustainable development’ and ‘sustainable agriculture’, have been shaped by both political discourses of the United Nations and scientific discourses. Using critical discourse and content analysis, we trace the meaning of ‘sustainable agriculture’ in both international political and in scientific discourses to examine and identify key elements of the representation of sustainable agriculture. We found that the meanings of the concept of sustainable agriculture vary markedly: International political actors primarily produce discourses on sustainable development in agriculture and on sustainable agricultural intensification. Scientists tend to emphasise issues of environmental management. Based on our findings, we highlight the differences in the meaning of sustainable agriculture between the political and scientific discourses and attempt to explain them. In addition, discursive gaps are shown that have the potential to hinder the systematic operationalization of ‘sustainable agriculture’, such as the integration of a social dimension of sustainable agriculture.
Journal Article
Hapa irrigation for promoting sustainable agricultural intensification
This research examines the implications of rainwater harvesting structure hapa in the Bankura district of West Bengal, India. The paper finds that proper management and harvesting of surface and subsurface runoffs in hapas can facilitate groundwater recharge and increase both net irrigated area and moisture in soil leading to higher cropping intensity and yield in dryland areas. However, dissected plateau and residual hillocks can reduce irrigation efficiency of hapas. Although sprinkler or drip irrigation along with cultivation of drought and lateritic resilient, low moisture crop can help in coping up with geophysical and climatic vulnerability, appropriate crop diversification is also necessary. There is also a need for regular maintenance and desiltation of hapas. The water user groups should play an active role for this, especially for hapas in common land. Further, scientific guidance is necessary for designing appropriate structure of hapas in different geo-physical conditions.
Journal Article
Decreased small mammals species diversity and increased population abundance along a gradient of agricultural intensification
Agricultural intensification has been widespread worldwide over the last decades and has lead to a loss of semi-natural habitats. These changes are likely to have affected both the composition and diversity of small mammal communities living in agricultural landscapes. In this context, we compared population abundance (expressed as an index of relative abundance), species richness (S), and species diversity (expressed as Shannon and Pielou indexes) of small mammal assemblages (i.e. sub-sets of the entire small mammal community) living in three areas in North-East Italy positioned along a gradient of agricultural land-use intensification (measured with the Landscape Conservation Index). We expected that assemblages would be less diverse and dominated by generalist species where the landscape was more intensely cultivated and where semi-natural habitats were less common. In the three areas, from a total of 4630 trap-nights, 668 individuals were captured with Sherman traps, belonging to four species (Apodemus agrarius, A. flavicollis, A. sylvaticus and Microtus arvalis). The results showed that population abundance, type of species present (but not species richness), and species diversity were affected by agricultural intensification and landscape naturalness. In particular, moving from less natural to more natural landscapes, we observed no effect on richness of species but increasing diversity due to a greater abundance of the more specialist species, such as A. agrarius and, partially, A. flavicollis, the latter only present in the most natural area. Generalist species, namely A. sylvaticus, and those associated with disturbed environments, such as M. arvalis, were instead more abundant in less natural landscapes. When considering population abundance, the highest overall abundance of small mammals was found in the most disturbed landscape. The results were consistent with those of research carried out in other agroecosystems of Europe and highlight the controversial effect of the anthropogenic impact on small mammal assemblages, since a decrease in species diversity may be associated with an increased overall population abundance, due to the success of few generalist species.
Journal Article
Sustainable intensification of agriculture for human prosperity and global sustainability
There is an ongoing debate on what constitutes sustainable intensification of agriculture (SIA). In this paper, we propose that a paradigm for sustainable intensification can be defined and translated into an operational framework for agricultural development. We argue that this paradigm must now be defined—at all scales—in the context of rapidly rising global environmental changes in the Anthropocene, while focusing on eradicating poverty and hunger and contributing to human wellbeing. The criteria and approach we propose, for a paradigm shift towards sustainable intensification of agriculture, integrates the dual and interdependent goals of using sustainable practices to meet rising human needs while contributing to resilience and sustainability of landscapes, the biosphere, and the Earth system. Both of these, in turn, are required to sustain the future viability of agriculture. This paradigm shift aims at repositioning world agriculture from its current role as the world's single largest driver of global environmental change, to becoming a key contributor of a global transition to a sustainable world within a safe operating space on Earth.
Journal Article
Hidden miners – the roles of cover crops and soil microorganisms in phosphorus cycling through agroecosystems
Background
Phosphorus (P) is a limiting nutrient in many agroecosystems and costly fertilizer inputs can cause negative environmental impacts. Cover crops constitute a promising management option for sustainable intensification of agriculture. However, their interactions with the soil microbial community, which is a key driver of P cycling, and their effects on the following crop, have not yet been systematically assessed.
Scope
We conducted a meta-analysis of published field studies on cover crops and P cycling, focusing on plant-microbe interactions.
Conclusions
We describe several distinct, simultaneous mechanisms of P benefits for the main crop. Decomposition dynamics, governed by P concentration, are critical for the transfer of P from cover crop residues to the main crop. Cover crops may enhance the soil microbial community by providing a legacy of increased mycorrhizal abundance, microbial biomass P, and phosphatase activity. Cover crops are generally most effective in systems low in available P, and may access ‘unavailable’ P pools. However, their effects on P availability are difficult to detect by standard soil P tests, except for increases after the use of
Lupinus
sp. Agricultural management (i.e. cover crop species selection, tillage, fertilization) can improve cover crop effects. In summary, cover cropping has the potential to tighten nutrient cycling in agricultural systems under different conditions, increasing crop P nutrition and yield.
Journal Article
Sustainable intensification in agricultural systems
BackgroundAgricultural systems are amended ecosystems with a variety of properties. Modern agroecosystems have tended towards high through-flow systems, with energy supplied by fossil fuels directed out of the system (either deliberately for harvests or accidentally through side effects). In the coming decades, resource constraints over water, soil, biodiversity and land will affect agricultural systems. Sustainable agroecosystems are those tending to have a positive impact on natural, social and human capital, while unsustainable systems feed back to deplete these assets, leaving fewer for the future. Sustainable intensification (SI) is defined as a process or system where agricultural yields are increased without adverse environmental impact and without the conversion of additional non-agricultural land. The concept does not articulate or privilege any particular vision or method of agricultural production. Rather, it emphasizes ends rather than means, and does not pre-determine technologies, species mix or particular design components. The combination of the terms ‘sustainable’ and ‘intensification’ is an attempt to indicate that desirable outcomes around both more food and improved environmental goods and services could be achieved by a variety of means. Nonetheless, it remains controversial to some.Scope and ConclusionsThis review analyses recent evidence of the impacts of SI in both developing and industrialized countries, and demonstrates that both yield and natural capital dividends can occur. The review begins with analysis of the emergence of combined agricultural–environmental systems, the environmental and social outcomes of recent agricultural revolutions, and analyses the challenges for food production this century as populations grow and consumption patterns change. Emergent criticisms are highlighted, and the positive impacts of SI on food outputs and renewable capital assets detailed. It concludes with observations on policies and incentives necessary for the wider adoption of SI, and indicates how SI could both promote transitions towards greener economies as well as benefit from progress in other sectors.
Journal Article
The role of agri-environment schemes in conservation and environmental management
Over half of the European landscape is under agricultural management and has been for millennia. Many species and ecosystems of conservation concern in Europe depend on agricultural management and are showing ongoing declines. Agri-environment schemes (AES) are designed partly to address this. They are a major source of nature conservation funding within the European Union (EU) and the highest conservation expenditure in Europe. We reviewed the structure of current AES across Europe. Since a 2003 review questioned the overall effectiveness of AES for biodiversity, there has been a plethora of case studies and meta-analyses examining their effectiveness. Most syntheses demonstrate general increases in farmland biodiversity in response to AES, with the size of the effect depending on the structure and management of the surrounding landscape. This is important in the light of successive EU enlargement and ongoing reforms of AES. We examined the change in effect size over time by merging the data sets of 3 recent meta-analyses and found that schemes implemented after revision of the EU's agri-environmental programs in 2007 were not more effective than schemes implemented before revision. Furthermore, schemes aimed at areas out of production (such as field margins and hedgerows) are more effective at enhancing species richness than those aimed at productive areas (such as arable crops or grasslands). Outstanding research questions include whether AES enhance ecosystem services, whether they are more effective in agriculturally marginal areas than in intensively farmed areas, whether they are more or less cost-effective for farmland biodiversity than protected areas, and how much their effectiveness is influenced by farmer training and advice? The general lesson from the European experience is that AES can be effective for conserving wildlife on farmland, but they are expensive and need to be carefully designed and targeted.
Journal Article
Sustainable Intensification in Agriculture: Premises and Policies
Clearer understanding is needed of the premises underlying SI and how it relates to food-system priorities. Food security is high on the global policy agenda. Demand for food is increasing as populations grow and gain wealth to purchase more varied and resource-intensive diets. There is increased competition for land, water, energy, and other inputs into food production. Climate change poses challenges to agriculture, particularly in developing countries ( 1 ), and many current farming practices damage the environment and are a major source of greenhouse gases (GHG). In an increasingly globalized world, food insecurity in one region can have widespread political and economic ramifications ( 2 ).
Journal Article
Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination
Wild and managed bees are well documented as effective pollinators of global crops of economic importance. However, the contributions by pollinators other than bees have been little explored despite their potential to contribute to crop production and stability in the face of environmental change. Non-bee pollinators include flies, beetles, moths, butterflies, wasps, ants, birds, and bats, among others. Here we focus on non-bee insects and synthesize 39 field studies from five continents that directly measured the crop pollination services provided by non-bees, honey bees, and other bees to compare the relative contributions of these taxa. Non-bees performed 25–50% of the total number of flower visits. Although non-bees were less effective pollinators than bees per flower visit, they made more visits; thus these two factors compensated for each other, resulting in pollination services rendered by non-bees that were similar to those provided by bees. In the subset of studies that measured fruit set, fruit set increased with non-bee insect visits independently of bee visitation rates, indicating that non-bee insects provide a unique benefit that is not provided by bees. We also show that non-bee insects are not as reliant as bees on the presence of remnant natural or seminatural habitat in the surrounding landscape. These results strongly suggest that non-bee insect pollinators play a significant role in global crop production and respond differently than bees to landscape structure, probably making their crop pollination services more robust to changes in land use. Non-bee insects provide a valuable service and provide potential insurance against bee population declines.
Journal Article