Agronomy for Sustainable Development最新文献

Climate-resilient crop varieties are exceedingly important for global food security. High-accuracy predictions of crop phenology in future climate scenarios require a more precise description of putative crop-environment interactions. While the accuracy of these predictions is affected by three primary sources of uncertainty — the phenology model, the climate scenario data, and their interaction — commonly used approaches consider only the phenology model as a source of uncertainty, while uncertainties arising from climate scenario data and their interaction with the model are commonly neglected. To address this gap, we developed a novel dynamic crop phenology model framework that simultaneously integrates uncertainties arising from all three sources. This model framework was developed using a large dataset of winter wheat phenology ratings and environmental covariate observations, encompassing more than 2500 locations spanning more than 80 years. It incorporates and combines up to seven environmental covariates in an additive manner, resulting in a large set of possible models from which to select. For each model, the phenological development follows a defined response curve per environmental covariate. Using climate scenario projections in Switzerland, our proposed effective model selection process helps to find the best model that reduces uncertainties in predicting future crop phenology. In addition to predictions, the model can pinpoint the driving environmental covariates for different phenological phases. Four major phenological stages are predicted for an independent subset of the large dataset and future climate scenario projections. Predictions for future climate scenario projections indicate a 22-day earlier heading for 2070–2099 compared to the reference period (1981–2010). Ignoring uncertainties arising from climate data results in contradictory predictions. These findings underscore the importance of considering all three uncertainty sources — phenology model, climate scenario data, and their interaction — in accurately predicting phenology under future climates.

Straw return improves soil and nutrient cycling but may aggravate diseases if mismanaged. However, the comprehensive impact of different straw return methods on plant diseases remains unclear. This study aims to clarify the effects of straw return on plant diseases and explore appropriate straw return methods. This study evaluated the effect of straw return on the reduction of plant diseases by summarizing 1352 pairs of observations from 165 peer-reviewed publications. It further analyzed the effects of straw return conditions, disease types, and plant species on plant diseases. Overall, the study’s findings showed that, with significant variation among return treatments, straw return reduced plant disease severity by 40.55% and increased plant biomass by 29.05%. Direct straw return of different crops, along with the application of biochar and compost, reduce plant disease severity by 21.89%, 43.67%, and 53.09%, while increasing plant growth by 14.91%, 21.05%, and 66.20%, respectively. The fact that the direct straw return of same crops significantly reduced plant growth by 5.73% and increased plant disease severity by 34.31% is concerning. Research indicates that the most significant suppression of economic crop diseases occurs when the direct straw return of different crops application rate was 0–25%, the return depth was 0–20 cm, and the application duration was within 1 year. Straw biochar produced at temperatures below 350 °C exhibits the strongest suppression of cereal crop diseases when applied at a rate of 1–3%. Moreover, when the application rate of straw compost exceeds 20%, it can effectively suppress diseases in trees and cash crops. Applying straw after pretreatment can reduce crop diseases. This study provides a basis for integrated application of direct straw return with biochar and compost, facilitating sustainable agriculture and global utilization of organic agricultural waste.

There is growing recognition of agroforestry’s potential to help mitigate and provide resilience to the climate and biodiversity crises. Beyond its environmental benefits, agroforestry can also enhance production and profits, making it a sustainable farming solution that is scalable. Despite this, uptake within Europe is low, and many knowledge gaps remain that need to be addressed to promote adoption and optimize the management and implementation of agroforestry systems. We co-developed a research agenda for agroforestry using a multi-actor approach and a modified Delphi method in 2023. 156 UK-based stakeholders contributed to this process, including farmers, advisors, policy makers, NGOs, and researchers. An initial list of 238 research priorities (high-priority research questions) was submitted via a survey and a workshop. This was shortened during a second workshop with 48 participants. The final list included 40 research priorities across the themes “environment and production,” “human livelihoods, knowledge, and perceptions,” and “policy, financing, and markets.” There was high agreement about which priorities to include, with questions on policy incentives, knowledge-exchange, agroforestry design (e.g., tree/crop selection), biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, well-being, markets, and food security. We identified a need for landscape-scale and longer-term research. Our agenda is a rare example of a research-prioritization process that includes farmers and other agricultural stakeholders throughout the research process. The value of this approach can be seen in the inclusion of research priorities that are grounded in the real world and relevant to different actors. Our agenda goes beyond existing evidence syntheses in scope, and should be used alongside them to identify stakeholder-relevant gaps for future primary research and evidence synthesis. By guiding researchers and funding bodies to impactful areas of enquiry, it can promote evidence-based agroforestry practice and policy. Addressing this research agenda requires better support for long-term, transdisciplinary, multi-stakeholder research, and funded demonstration sites or living labs.

Agricultural intensification has increased food production but has also caused significant environmental degradation and biodiversity loss. Diversification practices can mitigate these impacts while sustaining yields. While previous meta-analyses have examined their effects on arthropod populations and associated ecosystem services, focusing on individual practices or treating them as a whole, this is the first study to compare a wide range of diversification strategies across specific arthropod groups and assess how management factors, such as plant diversity, spatial configuration, and sowing time, modulate their outcome. Clarifying these mechanisms is crucial for optimizing diversification practices and enhancing their adoption by farmers. We conducted the most up-to-date and comprehensive meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of four diversification practices (agroforestry, intercropping, flower resource addition, and maintaining semi-natural habitats) on arthropods (parasitoids, predators, pollinators, and herbivores), their associated ecosystem services (predation, parasitism, pollination), and disservices (herbivory), using 19,421 data points from 449 publications. On average, all diversification practices increased beneficial arthropod populations and their services by 41%, compared to a non-diverse control, and reduced herbivore abundance and plant damage by 33%. Intercropping was particularly effective, reducing herbivore abundance and damage by 39% and 30%, respectively, while increasing predator and parasitoid populations by 48% and 56%. Other practices showed no consistent effects, likely due to high variability across studies. For the first time, we tested the influence of management factors and found complex effects on parasitoid abundance and parasitism, highlighting the need for context-specific approaches. These results highlight the importance of tailored policies and targeted research to support the adoption of diversification practices. Effective implementation can reduce reliance on insecticides while simultaneously promoting ecosystem services and supporting the transition to sustainable agricultural systems.

The seed bank is a crucial component of weed populations and a key factor in determining future weed infestations in arable fields. Sustainable agricultural practices have been widely promoted as environmentally friendly cultivation methods and have significant impacts on the seed bank. But the effects of sustainable agricultural practices on the seed bank remain inconclusive, posing challenges to the development of effective and precise weed management strategies. To address this uncertainty, we collected 1,604 experimental records from 146 publications and carried out a meta-analysis to quantitatively assess the effects of five sustainable agricultural practices on weed seed banks. Results showed that the average impacts of cover cropping, intercropping, reduced tillage, residue return and rotation on the seed bank density were -49%, -44%, 33%, -22%, and -18%, respectively. And the average impacts of these five practices on the seed bank species richness were -5%, -12%, 14%, 3%, and -11%, respectively. Cover cropping and intercropping reduced the density proportion of dominant weed seeds compared to the control group. The impact of sustainable agricultural practices on the seed bank varied across agricultural systems (e.g., paddy vs non-paddy fields) and management practices (e.g., residue return rates). Further analysis suggested that combining reduced tillage with other practices could mitigate its associated increase in seed bank density, with potential additive effects when multiple practices are simultaneously applied. This is the first comprehensive analysis of the impacts of common sustainable agricultural practices on weed seed density and species richness of the weed seed bank, and provides a reference for sustainable weed management strategies at the farm scale from the perspective of the seed bank.

The agroecological transition of agriculture is slow despite the wealth of knowledge produced to support it. Given the complexity and uncertainty of changing situations, the deterministic approach aimed at defining ideal transition pathways to speed up the transition seems fruitless to us. Our view is that paths are made by walking, tracing a singular route that depends on the surprises that arise. However, actors are currently not equipped to march into the unknown, a march toward greater sustainability. The challenge is to equip actors to implement agroecological principles in local, changing, complex, and uncertain situations. To this end, we propose 10 principles drawn from an argued review of pragmatic philosophy and formulated on the basis of 16 years’ experience in participatory research with French farmers in agroecological transition in the Roquefort area. Pragmatic philosophy is a theory of action rooted in a democratic ideal. It offers a universal, normative and coherent framework for conducting individual, and collective inquiries to establish what is possible, what works, and what is desirable in a situation of change. The 10 pragmatic principles we propose will enable farmers, intermediaries and consumers to create sustainable production and consumption practices. They will also be useful for those who accompany them in the transition, such as advisors, researchers, sales representatives, and employees of local authorities. Pragmatism represents a paradigm shift away from the project logic and planning that currently dominate change management. Such a shift must be accompanied by in-depth education to develop the collective skills needed to envision that another world is possible, to manage complexity and uncertainty, by being able to deliberate democratically and cooperate in action.

The unsustainable and excessive use of pesticides in agriculture causes multi-faceted environmental and human health problems worldwide. Numerous strategies have been proposed to reduce pesticide use; however, the knowledge regarding their performance is scattered. To move forward, it is crucial to evaluate pesticide reduction strategies and identify the most efficient ones. The objective of this work is to globally synthesize published literature on pesticide reduction strategies in order to describe their main characteristics and assess their performances across a wide range of indicators. Based on a systematic review of ten papers from the secondary literature involving generalized linear mixed-effect models and text mining techniques, we reviewed 97 primary research papers reporting 135 studies assessing pesticide reduction strategies. Sixteen types of individual strategy were identified, among which the most investigated strategies were site-specific pesticide application, physical/mechanical control, and advanced machinery. Herbicide was the most studied pesticide group regarding pesticide reduction. The most frequent method used to assess pesticide reduction strategies was field experiment (83%). Fifty-one indicators reflecting the impacts of pesticide reduction strategies were grouped into four categories: economic output, pest control efficacy, pesticide related input, and side effects. Pesticide reduction strategies had a higher likelihood to reduce pesticide input and side effects than to improve economic output and pest control efficacy. The primary literature was then allocated to two main topics: topic 1 includes weed management in cereals, and topic 2 concerns insect and disease management in fruits. Studies focusing on topic 2 and studies combining several pesticide reduction strategies had higher probabilities to report positive effects from pesticide reduction strategies than topic 1 and single strategies, respectively. We also found that organic systems produce more positive results than low-input systems, especially regarding side effects.

Soybean yields have remained below 2.0 t ha⁻¹ for over 30 years in Asian countries; however, few studies have analyzed national statistical data in detail to explore the underlying factors. This is the first study to analyze precisely and comprehensively factors involved in the historical soybean yield suppression in Japan by using national production-cost and other statistics, coupled with a crop model. Panel data of 5–6 land-size sections for 1987–2018 were prepared to analyze the regression of actual yield against 13 production input-related variables, model-predicted potential yield, and agricultural social capital score by each data class for the whole country (i.e., Japan), two climatic regions (temperate and subarctic), and two field types (converted paddy and upland). Although potential yield rose by 8% for the studied 32 years at the country/national level, actual yield declined by 18%, and this was primarily attributed to trends in converted paddy fields in the temperate region. Panel regression analyses showed that for this field type and region, a total of 14–21% actual yield reduction occurred with decreased water management input, as well as increases in weed control failure and converted paddy fields, resulting in a 16% reduction at the country level. In contrast, the increased potential yield, mainly due to climatic changes (warming), contributed to improving actual yields by 7–8% in the region and country, thereby partially offsetting the above yield reduction. Against our expectation, no actual yield improvement was observed with increased agricultural social capital score, but rather a 19% reduction for the country. Implications of the results for policymakers and scientists aiming to improve country-level soybean yields in Japan were discussed, as well as the importance of potential yield as an explanatory variable and that of spatial error model for panel data of land-size sections.

Long-term studies are crucial for evaluating how intercropping affects the agronomic, environmental, and socio-economic sustainability of sugarcane systems. Intercropping with cover crops is expected to improve soil fertility and reduce herbicide use; however, its long-term effects on yield, weed dynamics, and production costs remain unclear, particularly under tropical conditions. Weed pressure has been hypothesized to drive yield decline over time, yet the temporal evolution of weed communities and their consequences for system sustainability remain poorly understood. We hypothesized that intercropping would modify ecosystem functions and services by increasing weed diversity and soil fertility, reducing herbicide use, and also increasing labor and production costs. To test this hypothesis, we conducted the first 7-year field experiment on Reunion Island, comparing four sugarcane intercropping systems with conventional chemical and low weed control systems. A multi-criteria approach assessed weed community dynamics, soil fertility, sugarcane yield and quality, herbicide use, labor, and economic performance over a complete crop cycle, including multiple ratoons. We show that weed pressure increased over time in both chemical and intercropping systems due to greater weed cover and species richness. Weed community structure differed during the first 3 years but later homogenized under sugarcane dominance. This increase led to more manual weeding in intercropping systems and to increased herbicide use in chemical ones, resulting in a 61% reduction in herbicide use under intercropping. After 7 years, soil chemical and biological fertility remained unchanged, while physical fertility improved with companion crop and weed development. Sugarcane yield and sucrose content were maintained, but production costs and working hours increased. This study demonstrates that sugarcane intercropping reduces herbicide dependence without compromising yield, though at higher labor costs. Systems maintaining spontaneous flora in inter-rows appear to offer a promising compromise for sustainable weed management. Further research on this system should be conducted in different pedoclimatic conditions.

Addressing environmental degradation and fostering agricultural sustainability are critical challenges of the twenty-first century. Agroecological practices such as organic and biodynamic farming are vital for transforming agriculture and enhancing ecosystem services by avoiding synthetic inputs. While often criticized for lower yields, little is known about how these systems adapt and perform over extended periods under varying climatic conditions, particularly for perennial crops such as grapevines. This represents a major knowledge gap, as understanding their long-term adaptive capacity is essential for designing resilient and sustainable production systems under climate change. This 18-year field trial in Geisenheim, Germany, addresses this gap by assessing the long-term effects of organic, biodynamic, and integrated management on Vitis vinifera cv. Riesling. It represents the only long-term study on perennial crops to systematically compare these systems’ impact on agronomic parameters, plant performance, and grape quality, observing their evolution post-conversion and response to climatic variability. Initially, organic (−17%) and biodynamic (−14%) systems showed lower yields and reduced vine vigor compared to integrated management. However, yield gaps narrowed significantly after approximately a decade. Change point analysis revealed improved relative yields in organic and biodynamic plots 8–9 years after conversion, accompanied by stable or improved Ravaz index values. Notably, in hot, dry vintages, organic and biodynamic systems exhibited enhanced yield effect sizes (+2.3% and +9.0%, respectively) and increased yeast-available nitrogen. Conversely, yield gaps persisted in cooler, wetter vintages, likely due to pathogen-induced losses. Nutrient deficiencies were not the primary cause of initial yield reductions, and grape quality parameters showed minimal treatment differences. These long-term findings demonstrate that organic and biodynamic viticulture can overcome initial yield deficits and potentially outperform integrated management under increasingly warm, dry conditions. The results highlight the adaptive capacity and climate resilience of agroecological systems, offering a sustainable path for future perennial agriculture.