Explore the vast range of titles available.

Global support for Conservation Agriculture (CA) as a pathway to Sustainable Intensification is strong. CA revolves around three principles: no-till (or minimal soil disturbance), soil cover, and crop rotation. The benefits arising from the ease of crop management, energy/cost/time savings, and soil and water conservation led to widespread adoption of CA, particularly on large farms in the Americas and Australia, where farmers harness the tools of modern science: highly-sophisticated machines, potent agrochemicals, and biotechnology. Over the past 10 years CA has been promoted among smallholder farmers in the (sub-) tropics, often with disappointing results. Growing evidence challenges the claims that CA increases crop yields and builds-up soil carbon although increased stability of crop yields in dry climates is evident. Our analyses suggest pragmatic adoption on larger mechanized farms, and limited uptake of CA by smallholder farmers in developing countries. We propose a rigorous, context-sensitive approach based on Systems Agronomy to analyze and explore sustainable intensification options, including the potential of CA. There is an urgent need to move beyond dogma and prescriptive approaches to provide soil and crop management options for farmers to enable the Sustainable Intensification of agriculture.

East African highland bananas and climbing beans are important crops for food and income in the highlands of Uganda. Intercropping of banana with legume crops is a common practice, yet climbing bean intercropping with perennials has rarely been studied in Uganda. To understand how best to improve the production system, we assessed the effects of pruning of banana leaves on light availability for climbing beans, resulting effects on bean yields and potential differences in shade tolerance between two climbing bean varieties in the eastern and southwestern highlands of Uganda. Measurements of the transmission of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) through the banana canopy were combined with yield measurements of a local and improved climbing bean variety and with banana pseudostem girth in two seasons (2016A and 2016B). We also compared yields of intercropped with sole-cropped climbing beans. The mean fractions of PAR transmitted through the banana canopy – hence available for beans – were 0.43 on pruned and 0.38 on non-pruned subplots, a significant 15% difference. The improved light availability did not increase climbing bean yield. Although no direct relationship between light interception and bean yields was found, bean yields on the most and least shaded parts of the intercropped fields differed significantly, suggesting that beans do benefit from improved light availability in intercropping. Generally, yields of sole-cropped beans were significantly larger than of intercropped beans, but we could not single out the effects of competition for light, water, and/or nutrients. The bean varieties responded similarly to the pruning treatments. The local variety tended to perform relatively better in intercropping, the improved variety in sole cropping, though differences were not significant overall. Pruning and retention of eight banana leaves over the course of a season did not affect banana pseudostem girths in the mature banana plantations. Although light availability improved, farmers may not expect a major effect on bean yield. Future research may focus on the effects of a lower number of leaves retained, comparing a number of bean varieties for suitability in sole or intercropping, or on other factors influencing the relation between the two crops such as relative plant densities of beans and bananas.

The forecasted 9.1 billion population in 2050 will require an increase in food production for an additional two billion people. There is thus an active debate on new farming practices that could produce more food in a sustainable way. Here, we list agroecological cropping practices in temperate areas. We classify practices according to efficiency, substitution, and redesign. We analyse their advantages and drawbacks with emphasis on diversification. We evaluate the potential use of the practices for future agriculture. Our major findings are: (1) we distinguish 15 categories of agroecological practices (7 practices involve increasing efficiency or substitution, and 8 practices need a redesign often based on diversification). (2) The following agroecological practices are so far poorly integrated in actual agriculture: biofertilisers; natural pesticides; crop choice and rotations; intercropping and relay intercropping; agroforestry with timber, fruit, or nut trees; allelopathic plants; direct seeding into living cover crops or mulch; and integration of semi-natural landscape elements at field and farm or their management at landscape scale. These agroecological practices have only a moderate potential to be broadly implemented in the next decade. (3) By contrast, the following practices are already well integrated: organic fertilisation, split fertilisation, reduced tillage, drip irrigation, biological pest control, and cultivar choice.

AIMS: Small scale root-pore interactions require validation of their impact on effective hydraulic processes at the field scale. Our objective was to develop an interpretative framework linking root effects on macroscopic pore parameters with knowledge at the rhizosphere scale. METHODS: A field experiment with twelve species from different families was conducted. Parameters of Kosugi’s pore size distribution (PSD) model were determined inversely from tension infiltrometer data. Measured root traits were related to pore variables by regression analysis. A pore evolution model was used to analyze if observed pore dynamics followed a diffusion like process. RESULTS: Roots essentially conditioned soil properties at the field scale. Rooting densities higher than 0.5 % of pore space stabilized soil structure against pore loss. Coarse root systems increased macroporosity by 30 %. Species with dense fine root systems induced heterogenization of the pore space and higher micropore volume. We suggested particle re-orientation and aggregate coalescence as main underlying processes. The diffusion type pore evolution model could only partially capture the observed PSD dynamics. CONCLUSIONS: Root systems differing in axes morphology induced distinctive pore dynamics. Scaling between these effective hydraulic impacts and processes at the root-pore interface is essential for plant based management of soil structure.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: For the last decade, there has been an increasing global interest in using biochar to mitigate climate change by storing carbon in soil. However, there is a lack of detailed knowledge on the impact of biochar on the crop productivity in different agricultural systems. The objective of this study was to quantify the effect of biochar soil amendment (BSA) on crop productivity and to analyze the dependence of responses on experimental conditions. METHODS: A weighted meta-analysis was conducted based on data from 103 studies published up to April, 2013. The effect of BSA on crop productivity was quantified by characterizing experimental conditions. RESULTS: In the published experiments, with biochar amendment rates generally <30 t ha⁻¹, BSA increased crop productivity by 11.0 % on average, while the responses varied with experimental conditions. Greater responses were found in pot experiments than in field, in acid than in neutral soils, in sandy textured than in loam and silt soils. Crop response in field experiments was greater for dry land crops (10.6 % on average) than for paddy rice (5.6 % on average). This result, associated with the higher response in acid and sandy textured soils, suggests both a liming and an aggregating/moistening effect of BSA. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis suggests a promising role for BSA in improving crop productivity especially for dry land crops, and in acid, poor-structured soils though there was wide variation with soil, crop and biochar properties. Long-term field studies are needed to elucidate the persistence of BSA’s effect and the mechanisms for improving crop production in a wide range of agricultural conditions. At current prices and C-trading schemes, however, BSA would not be cost-effective unless persistent soil improvement and crop response can be demonstrated.

The realization of the contribution of peasant agriculture to food security in the midst of scenarios of climate change, economic and energy crisis, led to the concepts of food sovereignty and agroecologically based production systems to gain much attention in the developing world in the last two decades. New approaches and technologies involving application of blended modern agricultural science and indigenous knowledge systems and spearheaded by thousands of farmers, NGOs, and some government and academic institutions are proving to enhance food security while conserving agrobiodiversity soil and water resources conservation throughout hundreds of rural communities in the developing world. Case studies from Cuba, Brazil, Philippines, and Africa are presented to demonstrate how the agroecological development paradigm based on the revitalization of small farms which emphasizes diversity, synergy, recycling and integration, and social processes that value community participation and empowerment, proves to be perhaps one of the only viable options to meet present and future food needs. Given the present and predicted near future climate, energy and economic scenarios, agroecology has emerged as one of the most robust pathways towards designing biodiverse, productive, and resilient agroecosystems available today.

Farmers are facing serious plant protection issues and phytosanitary risks, in particular in the tropics. Such issues are food insecurity, lower income in traditional low-input agroecosystems, adverse effects of pesticide use on human health and on the environment in intensive systems and export restrictions due to strict regulations on quarantine pests and limits on pesticide residues. To provide more and better food to populations in both the southern and northern hemispheres in a sustainable manner, there is a need for a drastic reduction in pesticide use while keeping crop pest and disease damage under control. This can be achieved by breaking with industrial agriculture and using an agroecological approach, whose main pillar is the conservation or introduction of plant diversity in agroecosystems. Earlier literature suggest that increasing vegetational biodiversity in agroecosystems can reduce the impact of pests and diseases by the following mechanisms: (1) resource dilution and stimulo-deterrent diversion, (2) disruption of the spatial cycle, (3) disruption of the temporal cycle, (4) allelopathy effects, (5) general and specific soil suppressiveness, (6) crop physiological resistance, (7) conservation of natural enemies and facilitation of their action against aerial pests and (8) direct and indirect architectural/physical effects. Here we review the reported examples of such effects on a broad range of pathogens and pests, e.g. insects, mites, myriapods, nematodes, parasitic weeds, fungi, bacteria and viruses across different cropping systems. Our review confirms that it is not necessarily true that vegetational diversification reduces the incidence of pests and diseases. The ability of some pests and pathogens to use a wide range of plants as alternative hosts/reservoirs is the main limitation to the suppressive role of this strategy, but all other pathways identified for the control of pests and disease based on plant species diversity (PSD) also have certain limitations. Improving our understanding of the mechanisms involved should enable us to explain how, where and when exceptions to the above principle are likely to occur, with a view to developing sustainable agroecosystems based on enhanced ecological processes of pest and disease control by optimized vegetational diversification.

Feeding a growing world sustainably In the coming years, continued population growth, rising incomes, increasing meat and dairy consumption and expanding biofuel use will place unprecedented demands on the world's agriculture and natural resources. Can we meet society's growing food needs while reducing agriculture's environmental harm? Here, an international team of environmental and agricultural scientists uses new geospatial data and models to identify four strategies that could double food production while reducing environmental impacts. First, halt agricultural expansion. Second, close 'yield gaps' on underperforming lands. Third, increase cropping efficiency. And finally, we need to change our diets and shift crop production away from livestock feed, bioenergy crops and other non-food applications. Increasing population and consumption are placing unprecedented demands on agriculture and natural resources. Today, approximately a billion people are chronically malnourished while our agricultural systems are concurrently degrading land, water, biodiversity and climate on a global scale. To meet the world’s future food security and sustainability needs, food production must grow substantially while, at the same time, agriculture’s environmental footprint must shrink dramatically. Here we analyse solutions to this dilemma, showing that tremendous progress could be made by halting agricultural expansion, closing ‘yield gaps’ on underperforming lands, increasing cropping efficiency, shifting diets and reducing waste. Together, these strategies could double food production while greatly reducing the environmental impacts of agriculture.

A meta-analysis assessing the relative yields of organic and conventional agriculture shows that organic yields are on average lower, but that the magnitude of the difference is dependent on context. Crop yields compared There is much debate over the relative merits of conventional farming, which has a large environmental impact on the land it uses, and organic farming, which may require greater land use for the same yield. Central to this debate — and the subject of some controversy — are the relative yields of the two farming systems. Seufert et al . present a meta-analysis of the available scientific literature on organic-to-conventional yield comparisons, and conclude that organic yields are indeed lower, but that the difference varies substantially according to crop type, growing conditions and management practices. For instance, for perennials grown on favourable soils organic yields are just 5% lower than conventional yields, but the yield difference between the most comparable conventional and organic systems is as high as 34%. The authors conclude that the factors that limit organic yields need to be better understood to enable meaningful comparisons between the rival forms of agriculture. Numerous reports have emphasized the need for major changes in the global food system: agriculture must meet the twin challenge of feeding a growing population, with rising demand for meat and high-calorie diets, while simultaneously minimizing its global environmental impacts 1 , 2 . Organic farming—a system aimed at producing food with minimal harm to ecosystems, animals or humans—is often proposed as a solution 3 , 4 . However, critics argue that organic agriculture may have lower yields and would therefore need more land to produce the same amount of food as conventional farms, resulting in more widespread deforestation and biodiversity loss, and thus undermining the environmental benefits of organic practices 5 . Here we use a comprehensive meta-analysis to examine the relative yield performance of organic and conventional farming systems globally. Our analysis of available data shows that, overall, organic yields are typically lower than conventional yields. But these yield differences are highly contextual, depending on system and site characteristics, and range from 5% lower organic yields (rain-fed legumes and perennials on weak-acidic to weak-alkaline soils), 13% lower yields (when best organic practices are used), to 34% lower yields (when the conventional and organic systems are most comparable). Under certain conditions—that is, with good management practices, particular crop types and growing conditions—organic systems can thus nearly match conventional yields, whereas under others it at present cannot. To establish organic agriculture as an important tool in sustainable food production, the factors limiting organic yields need to be more fully understood, alongside assessments of the many social, environmental and economic benefits of organic farming systems.