logo

Quick View

OR SEARCH CITATIONS

My Activity
Recently Viewed
You have not visited any articles yet, Please visit some articles to see contents here.
Publications
CONTENT TYPES

Figure 1Loading Img
Download Hi-Res ImageDownload to MS-PowerPointCite This:Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 4, 1114-1119
RETURN TO ISSUEPREVPolicy AnalysisNEXT

Resource-Conserving Agriculture Increases Yields in Developing Countries

View Author Information
Department of Biological Sciences and Centre for Environment and Society, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester CO4 3SQ, U.K., International Water Management Institute (IWMI), P.O. Box 1025, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10903, Thailand, International Water Management Institute (IWMI), P.O. Box 2075, Colombo, Sri Lanka, Impact Targeting and Assessment Program, CIMMYT, Apdo. Postal 6-641, 06600 Mexico, Mexico, and International Project Office for Monsoon Asia Integrated Regional Study, Institute for Atmospheric Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 9804, Beijing, China
Cite this: Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 4, 1114–1119
Publication Date (Web):December 21, 2005
https://doi.org/10.1021/es051670d
Copyright © 2006 American Chemical Society
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Article Views
15404
Altmetric
-
Citations
294
LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICS

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

PDF (202 KB)
Supporting Info (1)»
SUBJECTS:

Abstract

Despite great recent progress, hunger and poverty remain widespread and agriculturally driven environmental damage is widely prevalent. The idea of agricultural sustainability centers on the need to develop technologies and practices that do not have adverse effects on environmental goods and services, and that lead to improvements in food productivity. Here we show the extent to which 286 recent interventions in 57 poor countries covering 37 M ha (3% of the cultivated area in developing countries) have increased productivity on 12.6 M farms while improving the supply of critical environmental services. The average crop yield increase was 79% (geometric mean 64%). All crops showed water use efficiency gains, with the highest improvement in rainfed crops. Potential carbon sequestered amounted to an average of 0.35 t C ha-1 y-1. If a quarter of the total area under these farming systems adopted sustainability enhancing practices, we estimate global sequestration could be 0.1 Gt C y-1. Of projects with pesticide data, 77% resulted in a decline in pesticide use by 71% while yields grew by 42%. Although it is uncertain whether these approaches can meet future food needs, there are grounds for cautious optimism, particularly as poor farm households benefit more from their adoption.

*

 Corresponding author e-mail:  [email protected]; tel:  +44-1206-873323; fax:  +44-1206-873416.

†

 University of Essex.

‡

 IWMI, Kasetsart University.

§

 IWMI, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

‖

 Impact Targeting and Assessment Program, CIMMYT.

⊥

 Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Introduction

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To
What is the best way to increase agricultural productivity in developing countries that still, despite efforts over several decades, have some 800 million people short of food? The question is controversial, with widely varying positions about the types of inputs and technologies likely to be effective (1−4). Great technological progress in the past half century has not been reflected in major reductions in hunger and poverty in developing countries.
However, many novel initiatives have emerged that are demonstrating that agriculture in poor countries can be greatly improved. Here we evaluate how farmers in 286 projects in 57 countries have improved food crop productivity since the early to mid 1990s, and at the same time increased both water use efficiency and carbon sequestration, and reduced pesticide use. These initiatives also offer the prospects of resource conserving agriculture both reducing adverse effects on the environment and contributing to important environmental goods and services (e.g., climate change mitigation).
In the past 40 years, per capita world food production has grown by 17%, with average per capita food consumption in 2003 of 2780 kcal day-1 (5), where a majority of the chronically hungry are small farmers who produce much of what they eat. Yet consumption in 33 poor countries is still less than 2200 kcal day-1. Food demand will both grow and shift in the coming decades, as (i) population growth increases absolute demand for food; (ii) economic growth increases people's purchasing power; (iii) growing urbanization encourages people to adopt new diets; and (iv) climate change threatens both land and water resources.
Increased food supply is a necessary though not sufficient condition for eliminating hunger and poverty. What is important is who produces the food, has access to the technology and knowledge to produce it, and has the purchasing power to acquire it. The great success of industrialized agriculture in recent decades has masked significant negative externalities, with environmental and health problems increasingly well-documented and costed, including in Ecuador, China, Germany, the Philippines, U.K. and United States (6−11). There are also growing concerns that such systems may not reduce food poverty. Poor farmers need low-cost and readily available technologies and practices to increase local food production and to raise their income. At the same time, land and water degradation is increasingly posing a threat to food security and the livelihoods of rural people who often live on degradation-prone lands (12).
The idea of agricultural sustainability centers on food production that makes the best use of nature's goods and services while not damaging these assets. Many different terms have come to be used to imply greater sustainability in some agricultural systems over prevailing ones (both pre-industrial and industrialized) (13). Agricultural sustainability in all cases, however, emphasizes the potential benefits that arise from making the best use of both good genotypes of crops and animals and their ecological management. Agricultural sustainability does not, therefore, mean ruling out any technologies or practices on ideological grounds (e.g., genetically modified crop, organic practice)provided they improve productivity for farmers, and do not harm the environment (12−16).
In this research, we concentrate on projects that have made use of a variety of packages of resource-conserving technologies and practices. These include the following:  (1) Integrated pest management, which uses ecosystem resilience and diversity for pest, disease, and weed control, and seeks only to use pesticides when other options are ineffective. (2) Integrated nutrient management, which seeks both to balance the need to fix nitrogen within farm systems with the need to import inorganic and organic sources of nutrients, and to reduce nutrient losses through erosion control. (3) Conservation tillage, which reduces the amount of tillage, sometimes to zero, so that soil can be conserved and available moisture used more efficiently. (4) Agroforestry, which incorporates multifunctional trees into agricultural systems, and collective management of nearby forest resources. (5) Aquaculture, which incorporates fish, shrimps, and other aquatic resources into farm systems, such as into irrigated rice fields and fish ponds, and so leads to increases in protein production. (6) Water harvesting in dryland areas, which can mean formerly abandoned and degraded lands can be cultivated, and additional crops can be grown on small patches of irrigated land owing to better rainwater retention. (7) Livestock integration into farming systems, such as dairy cattle and poultry, including using zero-grazing.
Here we show the extent to which recent successful interventions focusing on agricultural sustainability (sometimes called bright spots (17)) have increased total food crop productivity in developing regions. Our questions are as follows:  (i) To what extent can farmers increase per hectare and per farm food production by using low-cost and locally available technologies and inputs? (ii) What impacts do such methods have on environmental goods and services (in particular using the water use efficiency, carbon sequestra tion, and pesticide use as proxies to indicate changes in adverse effects on the environment)?

Methodology

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To
We used both questionnaires and published reports by projects to assess adoption of sustainable agriculture and changes over time. As in earlier research (18), data were triangulated from several sources, and cross-checked by external reviewers and regional experts. This study involves analysis of projects sampled once in time (n = 218) and those sampled twice over a 4 year period to assess temporal changes (n = 68). Not all proposed cases were accepted for the dataset, and rejections were based on a strict set of criteria (18). As this was a purposive sample of “best practice” initiatives, the findings are not representative of all farms in developing countries.
We used a novel typology of farming systems developed by FAO for the World Bank to classify these projects (19) into 8 broad categories based on the following social, economic, and biophysical criteria:  (i) the available natural resource base, including water, land, grazing areas, and forest; climate and altitude; landscape, including slope; farm size, tenure, and organizations; and access to services including markets; and (ii) the dominant patterns of farm activities and household livelihoods, including field crops, livestock, trees, aquaculture, hunting and gathering, processing, and off-farm activities; and the main technologies used, which determine the intensity of production and integration of crops, livestock and other activities.
Table 1 contains a summary of the global land area and population located in these eight major farm system categories. On average, these sustain 2.28 people per cultivated hectare of land (range 0.5−5.5). A total of 72 farming subsystems have been identified across the developing regions, some of which comprised similar systems occurring on different continents (e.g., wetland rice systems in East Asia/Pacific and in South Asia). A summary of all these systems and their locations is contained in the Supporting Information. In our study, system categories 2−5 are well-represented, with 40−95 projects in each. System categories 1, 6, and 8 have 15−20 projects each, and category 7 has only two.

Table 1.  Summary of FAO−World Bank Farming System Categories in Developing Regions and Number of Project Entries for This Studya

FAO farm system categorynumber of subsystemsland area (M ha)cultivated area (M ha)agricultural population (M)agricultural population per cultivated hectareno. project entries for each category
1. smallholder irrigated 1 219 15 30 2.0 16
2. wetland rice 3 330 155 860 5.5 55
3. smallholder rainfed humid 11 2013 160 400 2.5 95
4. smallholder rainfed highland 10 842 150 520 3.5 40
5. smallholder rainfed dry/cold 19 3478 231 490 2.1 43
6. dualistic mixed 16 3116 414 190 0.5 20
7. coastal artisanal 4 70 11 60 5.5 2
8. urban-based and kitchen garden 6 na na 40 na 15
total 72 10068 1136 2590 2.28 286

a From Dixon and Gulliver (19); na = not available.

Extent of Agricultural Sustainability and Impacts on Yields. Table 2 contains a summary of the location and extent of the 286 agricultural sustainability projects across the eight categories of farming systems in 57 countries. In all, some 12.6 million (M) farmers on 37 M ha were engaged in transitions toward agricultural sustainability in these 286 projects. This is just over 3% of the total cultivated area shown in Table 1. The largest number of farmers was in wetland rice-based systems, mainly in Asia (category 2), and the largest area was in dualistic mixed systems, mainly in southern Latin America (category 6).

Table 2.  Summary of Adoption and Impact of Agricultural Sustainability Technologies and Practices on 286 Projects in 57 Countriesa

FAO farm system categorynumber of  farmers adoptingnumber of hectares under sustainable agricultureaverage % increase in crop yields
1. smallholder irrigated 177,287 357,940 129.8 (±21.5)
2. wetland rice 8,711,236 7,007,564 22.3 (±2.8)
3. smallholder rainfed humid 1,704,958 1,081,071 102.2 (±9.0)
4. smallholder rainfed highland 401,699 725,535 107.3 (±14.7)
5. smallholder rainfed dry/cold 604,804 737,896 99.2 (±12.5)
6. dualistic mixed 537,311 26,846,750 76.5 (±12.6)
7. coastal artisanal 220,000 160,000 62.0 (±20.0)
8. urban-based and kitchen garden 207,479 36,147 146.0 (±32.9)
all projects 12,564,774 36,952,903 79.2 (±4.5)

a Yield data from 360 crop project combinations; reported as % increase (thus a 100% increase is a doubling of yields). Standard errors are given in brackets.

We were able to show that agricultural sustainability is spreading to more farmers and hectares. In the 68 randomly re-sampled projects from the original study, there was a 56% increase over the 4 years in the number of farmers (from 5.3 to 8.3 M), and 45% in the number of hectares (from 12.6 to 18.3 M). These resurveyed projects comprised 60% of the farmers and 44% of the hectares in the original sample of 208 projects (18). In the earlier study, we reported that 89 projects for which there was reliable yield data showed increases in per hectare food production.
For the 360 reliable yield comparisons from 198 projects that we now have, the mean relative increase was 79% across the very wide variety of systems and crop types (see Table B in the Supporting Information for full details of changes in each farming system category). However, there was a wide spread in results (Figure 1). While 25% of projects reported relative yields >2.0, (i.e., 100% increase), half of all the projects had yield increases of between 18% and 100%. The geometric mean is a better indicator of the average for such data with a positive skew, but this still shows a 64% increase in yield. However, the average hides large and statistically significant differences among the main crops (Figures 2 and 3). In nearly all cases there was an increase in yield with the project. Only in rice were there 3 reports where yields decreased, and the increase in rice was the lowest (mean = 1.35), although it constituted a third of all the crop data. Cotton showed a similarly small mean yield increase.

Figure 1 Histogram of change in crop yield after or with project, compared to before or without project (n = 360, mean = 1.79, SD 0.91, median = 1.50, geometric mean = 1.64).

High Resolution Image
Download MS PowerPoint Slide

Figure 2 Box and whisker plot of change in crop yield after or with project, compared to before or without project. Bold lines within boxes indicate median value, box limits indicate interquartile range (i.e., 50% of values lie within the box), whiskers indicate highest and lowest, excluding outliers (○, 1.5−3 × box length distance away from edge of box) or extremes (*, >3 × box length). “Other” group consists of sugar cane (n = 2), quinoa (1), oats (2).

High Resolution Image
Download MS PowerPoint Slide

Figure 3 Mean changes in crop yield after or with project, compared with before or without project. Vertical lines indicate ± SEM. “Other” group consists of sugar cane (n = 2), quinoa (1), oats (2).

High Resolution Image
Download MS PowerPoint Slide
The mean (2.84) and spread was largest in cassava and sweet potato crops, although the sample is small. Soybean and groundnut showed mean increases of about 50%. Maize, millet and sorghum, potatoes, and the other legumes group (beans, pigeon peas, cowpea, chickpea) all showed mean yield increases of >100%, significantly higher than those for cotton, rice, and groundnut (P < 0.05). For most of the main field crops that are well represented in the survey, those with low yields before intervention often showed larger relative improvements, either because of growth limiting environ ments, or perhaps reduced investment in developing these crops, although potato showed large increases across the range (Figure 4).

Figure 4 Relationship between relative changes in crop yield after (or with project) to yield before (or without project). Only field crops with n > 9 shown.

High Resolution Image
Download MS PowerPoint Slide
Though many technologies and practices were used in these projects, three types of technical improvement are likely to have played substantial roles in food production increases:  (i) more efficient water use in both dryland and irrigated farming; (ii) improvements in organic matter accumulation in soils and carbon sequestration; and (iii) pest, weed, and disease control emphasizing in-field biodiversity and reduced pesticide (insecticide, herbicide, and fungicide) use.
Impacts on Farm Water Use Efficiency. Widespread appreciation of the “global water crisis” recognizes that scarcity of clean water is affecting food production and conservation of ecosystems. By 2025 it is predicted that most developing countries will face either physical or economic water scarcity (20). Water diverted from rivers increased 6-fold between 1900 and 1995 (21), far outpacing population growth. Increasing demand for freshwater now threatens the integrity of many aquatic ecosystems, and their associated environmental services (22). As agriculture accounts for 70% of current water withdrawals from rivers, improving the productivity of water use in agriculture is a growing challenge.
The potential for increasing food production while maintaining water-related ecosystem services rests on capacity to increase water productivity (WP), i.e., by realizing more kg of food per unit of water. Sustainable agricultural practices may do this by (i) removing limitations on productivity by enhancing soil fertility; (ii) reducing soil evaporation through conservation tillage; (iii) using more water-efficient varieties; (iv) reducing water losses to unrecoverable sinks; (v) boosting productivity by supplemental irrigation in rainfed systems; and (vi) inducing microclimatic changes to reduce crop water requirements (23). We calculated changes in WP for field crops in 144 projects from the data set (Table 3) based on reported crop yields and average potential evapotranspiration (ETp), for each project location during the relevant growing season. Actual evapotranspiration (ETa) was assumed to equal 80% of ETp, and ETa to remain a constant at different levels of productivity.

Table 3.  Summary of Changes in Water Productivity by Major Crop Type Arising from Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Technologies and Practices in 144 Projectsa

cropwater productivity before intervention (kg food m-3 water ETa)water productivity after intervention (kg food m-3 water ETa)water productivity gain (kg food m-3 water ETa)% increase in WP
irrigated     
rice (n =18) 1.03 (±0.22) 1.19 (±0.12) 0.16 (±0.04) 15.5%
cotton (n = 8) 0.17 (±0.04) 0.22 (±0.05) 0.05 (±0.02) 29.4%
rainfed     
cereals (n = 80) 0.47 (±0.06) 0.80 (±0.09) 0.33 (±0.05) 70.2%
legumes (n=19) 0.43 (±0.07) 0.87 (±0.16) 0.44 (±0.11) 102.3%
roots and tubers (n=14) 2.79 (±0.73) 5.79 (±1.08) 3.00 (±0.65) 107.5%
urban and kitchen gardens     
vegetables and fruits (n=5)     
 0.83 (±0.29) 2.96 (±0.97) 2.13 (±0.71) 256.6%

a Standard errors in brackets.

WP gains were high in rainfed systems, and moderate in irrigated systems, and were in agreement with other studies reporting ranges of WP (23). The very large increase for the vegetables and fruits is probably an overestimate as we did not adjust ETp for new crops or lengthened cropping periods. Variability was high due to the wide variety of practices represented in the dataset, but do indicate that gains in WP are possible through adoption of sustainable farming technologies in a variety of crops and farm systems. Our results, and others (24−25), demonstrate that the greatest op portunity for improvement in water productivity is in rainfed agriculture. Better farm management, including supplemental irrigation and fertility management can significantly reduce uncertainty, and thus avoid chronic low productivity and crop failure that are characteristic of many rainfed systems.
Impacts on Carbon Sequestration. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change established an international policy context for the reduction of carbon emissions and increases in carbon sinks to address the global challenge of anthropogenic interference with the climate system. It is clear that both emission reductions and sink growth will be necessary for mitigation of current climate change trends (26−28). Carbon sequestra tion is defined as the capture and secure storage of carbon that would otherwise be emitted to or remain in the atmosphere (29).
One of the actions farmers can take is to increase carbon sinks in soil organic matter and above-ground biomass. We calculated the potential annual contributions being made in these 286 projects to carbon sink increases in soils and trees, using established carbon audit methods (30) (Table 4). As the focus is on what sustainable methods can do to increase quantities of soil and above-ground carbon, we did not take account of existing stocks of carbon. Soil carbon sequestration is corrected for climate, as rates are higher in humid compared with dry zones, and generally higher in temperate than tropical areas (28−29).

Table 4.  Summary of Potential Carbon Sequestered in Soils and Above-Ground Biomass in the 286 Projectsa

FAO farm system categorycarbon sequestered per hectare (t C ha-1 y-1)total carbon sequestered (Mt C y-1)carbon sequestered per household (t C y-1)
1. smallholder irrigated 0.15 (±0.012) 0.011 0.06
2. wetland rice 0.34 (±0.035) 2.53 0.29
3. smallholder rainfed humid 0.46 (±0.034) 0.34 0.20
4. smallholder rainfed highland 0.36 (±0.022) 0.23 0.56
5. smallholder rainfed dry/cold 0.26 (±0.035) 0.20 0.32
6. dualistic mixed 0.32 (±0.023) 8.03 14.95
7. coastal artisanal 0.20 (±0.001) 0.032 0.15
8. urban-based and kitchen garden 0.24 (±0.061) 0.015 0.07
total 0.35 (±0.016) 11.38 0.91

a Standard errors in brackets.

These projects were potentially sequestering 11.4 Mt C y-1 on 37 M ha. If scaled up, assuming that 25% of the areas under the different farming system categories globally (Table 1) adopted these same sustainability initiatives, this would result in sequestration of 100 (±4) Mt C y-1 The average gain was 0.35 t C ha-1 y-1, and an average per household gain of 0.91 t C y-1. The per hectare gains vary from 0.15 t C ha-1 y-1 for smallholder irrigated systems (category 1) to 0.46 t C ha-1 y-1 for category 3 systems. For most systems, per households gains were in the range 0.05−0.5 t C y-1, with the much larger farms of southern Latin America using zero-tillage achieving the most at 14.9 t C y-1. Such gains in carbon may offer new opportunities to households for income generation under emerging carbon trading schemes.
Impacts on Pesticide Use. Integrated pest management (IPM) programs are beginning to show how pesticide use can be reduced and modified without yield penalties in a variety of farm systems, such as in irrigated rice in Asia (31) and rainfed maize in Africa (32). In principle, there are four possible trajectories an agricultural system can take if IPM is introduced:  (i) both pesticide use and yields increase (A); (ii) pesticide use increases but yields decline (B); (iii) both pesticide use and yields fall (C); or (iv) pesticide use declines, but yields increase (D).
The conventional wisdom is that pesticide use and yields are positively correlated, and so only trajectories moving into A and C are likely (33−34). A change into sector B would be against economic rationale, as farmers' profits would invariably fall and behavior change. A shift into sector D would indicate that current pesticide use has negative yield effects. This could be possible with excessive use of herbicides or when pesticides cause outbreaks of secondary pests (35). We analyzed the 62 IPM initiatives in 21 developing countries in the dataset (Figure 5). The evidence on pesticide use is derived from data on both the number of sprays per hectare and the amount of active ingredient per hectare. There is only one case in sector B reported in recent literature (36), and so this was not included.

Figure 5 Changes in pesticide use and yields in 62 projects (A, n = 10; C, n = 5; D, n = 47).

High Resolution Image
Download MS PowerPoint Slide
Sector A contains 10 projects where pesticide use increased. These are mainly in zero-tillage and conservation agriculture systems, where reduced tillage creates benefits for soil health and reduces off-site pollution and flooding costs. These systems usually require increased use of herbicides for weed control (37), though there are examples of organic zero-tillage systems (38). The 5 cases in sector C show a 4.2% (±5.0) decline in yields with a 93.3% (±6.7) fall in pesticide use. Most cases, however, are in category D where pesticide use declined by 70.8% (±3.9) and yields increased by 41.6% (±10.5). While pesticide reduction is to be expected, as farmers substitute pesticides by information, the cause of yield increases induced by IPM are complex. It is likely that farmers who receive good quality field training will not only improve their pest management skills but also become more efficient in other agronomic and ecological management practices. They are also likely to invest cash saved from pesticides in other inputs such as higher quality seeds and fertilizers. This analysis indicates considerable potential for avoiding environmental costs.

Discussion

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To
It is uncertain whether progress toward agricultural sustainability, delivering benefits at the scale occurring in these projects, will result in enough food to meet the future food needs in developing countries after continued population growth, urbanization, and the dietary transition to meat-rich diets (39). Even the substantial increases reported here may not be enough. However, more widespread adoption of these resource conserving technologies, combined with other innovations in crop and livestock genotypes, would contribute to increased agricultural productivity (1, 16), particularly as evidence indicates that productivity can grow in many farming systems as natural, social, and human capital assets also grow (40). Our findings also show that poor households benefit substantially.
But improving agricultural sustainability alone will not solve all food poverty problems. The challenge is to find ways to improve all farmers' access to productive technologies and practices that are also resource conserving. The critical priority is now international, national, and local policy and institutional reforms (41) designed to benefit both food security and income growth at national and households levels, while improving the supply of critical technologies that improve the supply of environmental goods and services.

Supporting Information Available

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To
Table A1 containing full details of the classification system developed by FAO (Dixon and Gulliver, ref 19) for farming systems. This separates farming systems into 8 types (ir rigated; wetland rice based; smallholder rainfed humid; smallholder rainfed highland; smallholder rainfed dry/cold; dualistic; coastal artisanal fishing; urban-based) for six regions of the world (Sub-Saharan Africa; Middle East and North Africa; Europe and Central Asia; South Asia; East Asia and Pacific; Latin America and Caribbean). Table A2 summarizing the location of the 286 projects in this study in these farming systems types, and giving the impact of agricultural sustainability in each farming system. Part C containing profiles of 47 of the 286 projects (11 in Latin America, 17 in Africa, and 19 in Asia) as examples of how the technologies were adopted and their environmental and social outcomes. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.

Terms & Conditions

Electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. The American Chemical Society holds a copyright ownership interest in any copyrightable Supporting Information. Files available from the ACS website may be downloaded for personal use only. Users are not otherwise permitted to reproduce, republish, redistribute, or sell any Supporting Information from the ACS website, either in whole or in part, in either machine-readable form or any other form without permission from the American Chemical Society. For permission to reproduce, republish and redistribute this material, requesters must process their own requests via the RightsLink permission system. Information about how to use the RightsLink permission system can be found at http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Acknowledgment

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

We are grateful to all project staff and scientists who made data available on projects, to earlier comments and sug gestions from researchers involved in the IWMI Bright Spots research program, to Noel Aloysius for input for some of the research, to David Tilman for comments on an earlier manuscript, and to two referees for their helpful comments. The research was funded by the U.K. Department for International Development. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies of their organizations.

This article references 41 other publications.

  1. 1
    Trewevas, A. Malthus foiled again and again. Nature2002, 418, 668−670.
    [Crossref], [PubMed], Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  2. 2
    Smil, V. Feeding the World; MIT Press:  Cambridge MA, 2000.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  3. 3
    Tilman, D.; Cassman, K. G.; Matson, P. A.; Naylor, R.; Polasky, S. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 2002, 418, 671−677.
    [Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar
    3
    Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices
    Tilman, David; Cassman, Kenneth G.; Matson, Pamela A.; Naylor, Rosamond; Polasky, Stephen
    Nature (London, United Kingdom) (2002), 418 (6898), 671-677CODEN: NATUAS; ISSN:0028-0836. (Nature Publishing Group)
    A doubling in global food demand projected for the next 50 yr poses huge challenges for the sustainability both of food prodn. and of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and the services they provide to society. Agriculturalists are the principal managers of global useable lands and will shape, perhaps irreversibly, the surface of the Earth in the coming decades. New incentives and policies for ensuring the sustainability of agriculture and ecosystem services will be crucial if we are to meet the demands of improving yields without compromising environmental integrity or public health.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD38XlvVyltb0%253D&md5=a00803fe856cc3f77bde7f45a7a12cd6
  4. 4
    McNeely, J. A.; Scherr, S. J. Ecoagriculture; Island Press:  Washington, DC, 2003.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  5. 5
    FAO. FAOSTAT Database; Rome, 2005.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  6. 6
    Crissman, C. C., Antle, J. M., Capalbo, S. M., Eds. Economic, Environmental and Health Tradeoffs in Agriculture; CIP, Lima & Kluwer:  Boston, MA, 1998.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  7. 7
    Norse, D.; Ji, L.; Leshan, J.; Zheng, Z. Environmental Costs of Rice Production in China; Aileen Press:  Bethesda, MD, 2001.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  8. 8
    Waibel, H.; Fleischer, G.; Becker, H. The economic benefits of pesticides:  A case study from Germany. Agrarwirtschaft 1999, 48 (6), 219−230.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  9. 9
    Pingali, P. L.; Roger P. A. Impact of Pesticides on Farmers' Health and the Rice Environment; Kluwer:  Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1995.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  10. Pretty, J.; Brett, C.; Gee, D.; Hine, R.; Mason, C. F.; Morison, J. I. L.; Raven, H.; Rayment, M.; van der Bijl, G. An assessment of the total external costs of UK agriculture. Agric. Syst. 2000, 65 (2), 113−136.
    [Crossref], Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  11. 11
    Tegtmeier, E. M.; Duffy, M. D. External costs of agricultural production in the US. Int. J. Agric. Sust.2004, 2, 1−20.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  12. 12
    Uphoff N. Agroecological Innovations; Earthscan:  London, 2002.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  13. 13
    National Research Council. Our Common Journey; National Academy Press:  Washington, DC, 2000.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  14. 14
    Conway, G. R. The Doubly Green Revolution; Penguin:  London, 1997.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  15. 15
    Pretty, J. Agri-Culture:  Reconnecting People, Land and Nature; Earthscan:  London, 2002.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  16. 16
    Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The Use of Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries; London, 2004.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  17. 17
    Scherr, S. J.; Yadav, S. Land Degradation in the Developing World; IFPRI:  Washington, DC, 1996.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  18. 18
    Pretty, J.; Morison, J. I. L.; Hine, R. E. Reducing food poverty by increasing agricultural sustainability in developing countries. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.2003, 95 (1), 217−234.
    [Crossref], Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  19. 19
    Dixon, J.; Gulliver, A.; with Gibbon, D. Farming Systems and Poverty; FAO:  Rome, 2001.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  20. International Water Management Institute. World Water Scenarios Analyses; Rijsberman, F., Ed.; Earthscan:  London, 2000.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  21. 21
    Shiklomanov, L. A. World Water Resources:  An Appraisal for the 21st Century; UNESCO:  Paris, 1999.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  22. 22
    Costanza, R.; d'Arge, R.; de Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O'Neil, R. V.; Parvelo, J.; Raskin, R. G.; Sutton, P.; van den Belt, M. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature1997, 387, 253−260.
    [Crossref], [CAS], Google Scholar
    22
    The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital
    Costanza, Robert; d'Arge, Ralph; de Groot, Rudolf; Farber, Stephen; Grasso, Monica; Hannon, Bruce; Limburg, Karin; Naeem, Shahid; O'Neill, Robert V.; Paruelo, Jose; Raskin, Robert G.; Sutton, Paul; van den Belt, Marjan
    Nature (London) (1997), 387 (6630), 253-260CODEN: NATUAS; ISSN:0028-0836. (Macmillan Magazines)
    The services of ecol. systems and the natural capital stocks that produce them are crit. to the functioning of the Earth's life-support system. They contribute to human welfare, both directly and indirectly, and therefore represent part of the total economic value of the planet. We have estd. the current economic value of 17 ecosystem services for 16 biomes, based on published studies and a few original calcns. For the entire biosphere, the value (most of which is outside the market) is estd. to be in the range of US$16-54 trillion (1012) per yr, with an av. of US$33 trillion per yr. Because of the nature of the uncertainties, this must be considered a min. est. Global gross national product total is around US$18 trillion per yr.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADyaK2sXjtlShtbs%253D&md5=2ca143b3089a3a98f546fef09b75c06c
  23. 23
    Kijne, J. W., Barker, R., Molden, D., Eds. Water Productivity in Agriculture:  Limits and Opportunities for Improvement; CABI Publishing:  Wallingford, U.K., 2003.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  24. 24
    Agarwal, A.; Narain, S. Dying Wisdom; Thomson Press:  Faridabad, India, 1997.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  25. 25
    Rockström, J.; Falkenmark, M. Semiarid crop production from a hydrological perspective − gap between potential and actual yields. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci.2000, 19 (4), 319−346.
    [Crossref], Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  26. 26
    IPCC. Climate Change 2001:  Impacts, Adaptation and Vulner ability; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:  Geneva, 2001.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  27. 27
    Swingland, I., Ed. Carbon and Biodiversity; Earthscan:  London, 2003.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  28. 28
    Lal, R.; Griffin, M.; Apt, J.; Lave, L.; Morgan, M. G. Managing soil carbon. Science2004, 304, 393.
    [Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar
    28
    Ecology: Managing soil carbon
    Lal, Rattan; Griffin, Michael; Apt, Jay; Lave, Lester; Morgan, M. Granger
    Science (Washington, DC, United States) (2004), 304 (5669), 393CODEN: SCIEAS; ISSN:0036-8075. (American Association for the Advancement of Science)
    There is no expanded citation for this reference.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD2cXjt1Gisrc%253D&md5=2788e15dc016aa0dd2c6f3a6eab56ccb
  29. 29
    Watson, R. T.; Noble, I. R.; Bolin, B.; Ravindranath, N. H.; Verardo, D. J.; Dokken, D. J., Eds. IPCC Special Report on Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry; IPCC Secretariat:  Geneva, 2000.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  30. Pretty, J.; Ball, A. S.; Xiaoyun, L.; Ravindranath, N. H. The role of sustainable agriculture and renewable resource management in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing sinks in China and India. Philos.Trans. R. Soc., Ser. A2002, 360, 1741−1761.
    [Crossref], [CAS], Google Scholar
    The role of sustainable agriculture and renewable-resource management in reducing greenhouse-gas emissions and increasing sinks in China and India
    Pretty, J. N.; Ball, A. S.; Li, Xiaoyun; Ravindranath, N. H.
    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences (2002), 360 (1797), 1741-1761CODEN: PTRMAD; ISSN:1364-503X. (Royal Society)
    A review. This paper contains an anal. of the tech. options in agriculture for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions and increasing sinks, arising from three distinct mechanisms: (i) increasing carbon sinks in soil org. matter and above-ground biomass; (ii) avoiding carbon emissions from farms by reducing direct and indirect energy use; and (iii) increasing renewable-energy prodn. from biomass that either substitutes for consumption of fossil fuels or replaces inefficient burning of fuel-wood or crop residues, and so avoids carbon emissions, together with use of biogas digesters and improved cookstoves. We then review best-practice sustainable agriculture and renewable-resource-management projects and initiatives in China and India, and analyze the annual net sinks being created by these projects, and the potential market value of the carbon sequestered. We conclude with a summary of the policy and institutional conditions and reforms required for adoption of best sustainability practice in the agricultural sector to achieve the desired redns. in emissions and increases in sinks. A review of 40 sustainable agriculture and renewable-resource-management projects in China and India under the three mechanisms estd. a carbon mitigation potential of 64.8 MtC yr-1 from 5.5 Mha. The potential income for carbon mitigation is $324 million at $5 per ton of carbon. The potential exists to increase this by orders of magnitude, and so contribute significantly to greenhouse-gas abatement. Most agricultural mitigation options also provide several ancillary benefits. However, there are many tech., financial, policy, legal and institutional barriers to overcome.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD38Xntlektbg%253D&md5=26093ee3409c9be2f11692b518aea7c9
  31. 31
    Eveleens, K. The History of IPM in Asia; FAO:  Rome, 2004.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  32. 32
    Khan, Z. R.; Ampong-Nyarkko, K.; Chiliswa, P.; Hassanali, A.; Kimani, S.; Lwande, W.; Overholt, W. A.; Pickett, J. A.; Smart, L. E.; Wadhams, L. J.; Woodcock, M.Nature1997, 388, 631−632.
    [Crossref], [CAS], Google Scholar
    32
    Intercropping increases parasitism of pests
    Khan, Z. R.; Ampong-Nyarko, K.; Chiliswa, P.; Hassanali, A.; Kimani, S.; Lwande, W.; Overholt, W. A.; Pickett, J. A.; Smart, L. E.; Wadhams, L. J.; Woodcock, C. M.
    Nature (London) (1997), 388 (6643), 631-632CODEN: NATUAS; ISSN:0028-0836. (Macmillan Magazines)
    There is no expanded citation for this reference.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADyaK2sXlsV2ksLk%253D&md5=a8093d0fa2f835dc2cc2abbe71b4405b
  33. 33
    Knutson, R. D.; Taylor, C. R.; Penson, J. B.; Smith, E. S. Economic Impacts of Reduced Chemical Use; Knutson & Assoc.:  College Station, TX, 1990.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  34. 34
    Schmitz, P. M. Overview of cost-benefit assessment. In OECD Workshop on the Economics of Pesticide Risk Reduction in Agriculture; OECD:  Paris, 2001.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  35. 35
    Kenmore, P. E.; Carino, F. O.; Perez, C. A.; Dyck, V. A.; Gutierrez, A. P. J. Plant Prot. Tropics1984, 1 (1), 19−37.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  36. 36
    Feder, G.; Murgai, R.; Quizon, J. B. Sending farmers back to school:  the impact of Farmer Field Schools in Indonesia. Rev. Agric. Econ.2004, 26 (1), 45−62.
    [Crossref], Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  37. 37
    de Freitas, H. Transforming microcatchments in Santa Caterina, Brazil. In Fertile Ground; Hinchcliffe, F., Thompson, J., Pretty, J., Guijt, I., Shah, P., Eds.; IT Publications:  London, 1999.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  38. 38
    Petersen, P.; Tardin, J. M.; Marochi, F. Participatory development of no-tillage systems without herbicides for family farming. Environ. Dev. Sustainability2000, 1, 235−252.
    [Crossref], Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  39. 39
    Delgado, C.; Rosegrant, M.; Steinfield, H.; Ehui, S.; Courbois, C. Livestock to 2020:  The Next Food Revolution; IFPRI:  Washington, DC, 1999.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.
  40. Pretty, J. Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science2003, 302, 1912−1915.
    [Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar
    Social Capital and the Collective Management of Resources
    Pretty, Jules
    Science (Washington, DC, United States) (2003), 302 (5652), 1912-1915CODEN: SCIEAS; ISSN:0036-8075. (American Association for the Advancement of Science)
    The proposition that natural resources need protection from the destructive actions of people is widely accepted. Yet communities have shown in the past and increasingly today that they can collaborate for long-term resource management. The term social capital captures the idea that social bonds and norms are crit. for sustainability. Where social capital is high in formalized groups, people have the confidence to invest in collective activities, knowing that others will do so too. Some 0.4 to 0.5 million groups have been established since the early 1990s for watershed, forest, irrigation, pest, wildlife, fishery, and microfinance management. These offer a route to sustainable management and governance of common resources.
    >> More from SciFinder ®
    https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD3sXps1amsLY%253D&md5=d1e8736348f7d87c34ef8895edb21044
  41. 41
    Dasgupta, P. The economics of food. In Feeding the World Population of More Than Eight Billion People; Waterlow, J. C., Armstrong, D. G., Fowden, L., Riley, R., Eds.; Oxford University Press:  New York, 1998.
    Google Scholar
    There is no corresponding record for this reference.

Cited By

This article is cited by 294 publications.

  1. Jafet C. M. Andersson, Alexander J. B. Zehnder, Bernhard Wehrli, Graham P. W. Jewitt, Karim C. Abbaspour, and Hong Yang . Improving Crop Yield and Water Productivity by Ecological Sanitation and Water Harvesting in South Africa. Environmental Science & Technology 2013, 47 (9) , 4341-4348. https://doi.org/10.1021/es304585p
  2. Ben Phalan,, Ana S. L. Rodrigues, and, Andrew Balmford, , Rhys E. Green, , Robert M. Ewers. Comment on “Resource-Conserving Agriculture Increases Yields in Developing Countries”. Environmental Science & Technology 2007, 41 (3) , 1054-1055. https://doi.org/10.1021/es062097g
  3. J. Pretty,, R. E. Hine, and, J. I. L. Morison, , A. D. Noble, , D. Bossio, , J. Dixon, , F. W. T. Penning de Vries. Response to Comment on “Resource-Conserving Agriculture Increases Yields in Developing Countries”. Environmental Science & Technology 2007, 41 (3) , 1056-1057. https://doi.org/10.1021/es062733a
  4. Wilson M. Nguru, Stanley K. Ng’ang’a, Fekadu Gelaw, George M. Kanyenji, Evan H. Girvetz. Survey data on factors that constrain the adoption of soil carbon enhancing technologies in Ethiopia. Scientific Data 2020, 7 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0431-9
  5. Meng-Chun Tseng, Alvaro Roel, Enrique Deambrosi, José A. Terra, Gonzalo Zorrilla, Sara Riccetto, Cameron M. Pittelkow. Towards actionable research frameworks for sustainable intensification in high-yielding rice systems. Scientific Reports 2020, 10 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-63251-w
  6. Cheng Wei. Agroecology, Information and Communications Technology, and Smallholders’ Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Asian and African Studies 2020, 55 (8) , 1194-1208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021909620912784
  7. Yaella Depietri, Daniel E. Orenstein. Managing fire risk at the wildland-urban interface requires reconciliation of tradeoffs between regulating and cultural ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services 2020, 44 , 101108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101108
  8. Meha Jain, Divya Solomon, Hagan Capnerhurst, Anthony Arnold, Alice Elliott, Andrew T Kinzer, Collin Knauss, Maya Peters, Brett Rolf, Ari Weil, Charlotte Weinstein. How much can sustainable intensification increase yields across South Asia? a systematic review of the evidence. Environmental Research Letters 2020, 15 (8) , 083004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab8b10
  9. Mario Hanisch, Oliver Schweiger, Anna F. Cord, Martin Volk, Sonja Knapp, . Plant functional traits shape multiple ecosystem services, their trade‐offs and synergies in grasslands. Journal of Applied Ecology 2020, 57 (8) , 1535-1550. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13644
  10. R. Ugás. The development of organic agriculture and agroecology in Latin America. Acta Horticulturae 2020, (1286) , 1-10. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2020.1286.1
  11. Mauricio M. Núñez‐Regueiro, Sharmin F. Siddiqui, Robert J. Fletcher. Effects of bioenergy on biodiversity arising from land‐use change and crop type. Conservation Biology 2020, 61 https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13452
  12. Florencia Arancibia, Renata Campos Motta, Peter Clausing. The neglected burden of agricultural intensification: a contribution to the debate on land-use change. Journal of Land Use Science 2020, 15 (2-3) , 235-251. https://doi.org/10.1080/1747423X.2019.1659431
  13. Luis A. De los Santos-Montero, Boris E. Bravo-Ureta, Stephan von Cramon-Taubadel, Eva Hasiner. The performance of natural resource management interventions in agriculture: Evidence from alternative meta-regression analyses. Ecological Economics 2020, 171 , 106605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106605
  14. John R. Schramski, C. Brock Woodson, James H. Brown. Energy use and the sustainability of intensifying food production. Nature Sustainability 2020, 3 (4) , 257-259. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0503-z
  15. Byomkesh Talukder, Alison Blay-Palmer, Gary W. vanLoon, Keith W. Hipel. Towards Complexity of Agricultural Sustainability Assessment: Main Issues and Concerns. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators 2020, , 100038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2020.100038
  16. Andreas Hernandez. The emergence of agroecology as a political tool in the Brazilian Landless Movement. Local Environment 2020, 25 (3) , 205-227. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2020.1722990
  17. Brodie Evans, Hope Johnson. Responding to the problem of ‘food security’ in animal cruelty policy debates: building alliances between animal-centred and human-centred work on food system issues. Agriculture and Human Values 2020, 37 (1) , 161-174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-019-09979-2
  18. P. Deroulers, B. Gauffre, S. Emeriau, A. Harismendy, V. Bretagnolle. Towards a standardized experimental protocol to investigate interactions between weed seeds and ground beetles (Carabidae, Coleoptera). Arthropod-Plant Interactions 2020, 14 (1) , 127-138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11829-019-09721-z
  19. Pablo Baldassini, José María Paruelo. Deforestation and current management practices reduce soil organic carbon in the semi-arid Chaco, Argentina. Agricultural Systems 2020, 178 , 102749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102749
  20. Seabird McKeon, Louise Weber, Andrea J. Adams, Thomas L. Fleischner. Human Dimensions: Natural History as the Innate Foundation of Ecology. The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 2020, 101 (1) https://doi.org/10.1002/bes2.1656
  21. D. D. Dasig. Implementing IoT and Wireless Sensor Networks for Precision Agriculture. 2020,,, 23-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0663-5_2
  22. Jonas Jägermeyr. . Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 2020,,https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.00035
  23. Sosdito Mananze, Isabel Pôças, Mário Cunha. . Remote Sensing 2020,,, 1279. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12081279
  24. Kamel Louhichi, Laura Riesgo, Sergio Gomez y Paloma. Introduction. 2020,,, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42148-9_1
  25. Richard N. Onwonga. Carbon Sequestration: Pathway to Increased Agricultural Productivity and Zero Hunger for Developing Countries. 2020,,, 147-159. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95675-6_60
  26. Daniel Kpienbaareh, Moses Kansanga, Isaac Luginaah. Examining the potential of open source remote sensing for building effective decision support systems for precision agriculture in resource-poor settings. GeoJournal 2019, 84 (6) , 1481-1497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-018-9932-x
  27. Jing Fang, Yongzhong Su. Effects of Soils and Irrigation Volume on Maize Yield, Irrigation Water Productivity, and Nitrogen Uptake. Scientific Reports 2019, 9 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-41447-z
  28. Murat Sartas, Piet van Asten, Marc Schut, Mariette McCampbell, Moureen Awori, Perez Muchunguzi, Moses Tenywa, Sylvia Namazzi, Ana Sole Amat, Graham Thiele, Claudio Proietti, Andre Devaux, Cees Leeuwis, . Factors influencing participation dynamics in research for development interventions with multi-stakeholder platforms: A metric approach to studying stakeholder participation. PLOS ONE 2019, 14 (11) , e0223044. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223044
  29. Simon M. Kidane, Dayton M. Lambert, Neal S. Eash, Roland K. Roberts, Christian Thierfelder. Conservation Agriculture and Maize Production Risk: The Case of Mozambique Smallholders. Agronomy Journal 2019, 111 (6) , 2636-2646. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2018.05.0331
  30. Zhang, Li, Buyantuev, Bao, Zhang. How Do Trade-Offs and Synergies between Ecosystem Services Change in the Long Period? The Case Study of Uxin, Inner Mongolia, China. Sustainability 2019, 11 (21) , 6041. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11216041
  31. Harry W. Fischer. Policy innovations for pro-poor climate support: social protection, small-scale infrastructure, and active citizenship under India’s MGNREGA. Climate and Development 2019, 2 , 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2019.1676690
  32. Sylvia L. R. Wood, Mahbubul Alam, Jérôme Dupras. Multiple Pathways to More Sustainable Diets: Shifts in Diet Composition, Caloric Intake and Food Waste. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 2019, 3 https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00089
  33. François Cohen, Cameron J. Hepburn, Alexander Teytelboym. Is Natural Capital Really Substitutable?. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 2019, 44 (1) , 425-448. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033055
  34. Maarten Wynants, Claire Kelly, Kelvin Mtei, Linus Munishi, Aloyce Patrick, Anna Rabinovich, Mona Nasseri, David Gilvear, Neil Roberts, Pascal Boeckx, Geoff Wilson, William H. Blake, Patrick Ndakidemi. Drivers of increased soil erosion in East Africa’s agro-pastoral systems: changing interactions between the social, economic and natural domains. Regional Environmental Change 2019, 19 (7) , 1909-1921. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-01520-9
  35. Katya E. Kovalenko, Lucinda B. Johnson, Valerie J. Brady, Jan J. H. Ciborowski, Matthew J. Cooper, Joseph P. Gathman, Gary A. Lamberti, Ashley H. Moerke, Carl R. Ruetz, Donald G. Uzarski. Hotspots and bright spots in functional and taxonomic fish diversity. Freshwater Science 2019, 38 (3) , 480-490. https://doi.org/10.1086/704713
  36. Johanna Björklund, Karin Eksvärd, Christina Schaffer. Exploring the potential of edible forest gardens: experiences from a participatory action research project in Sweden. Agroforestry Systems 2019, 93 (3) , 1107-1118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-018-0208-8
  37. Rishikesh Singh, Hema Singh, A. S. Raghubanshi. Challenges and opportunities for agricultural sustainability in changing climate scenarios: a perspective on Indian agriculture. Tropical Ecology 2019, 60 (2) , 167-185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42965-019-00029-w
  38. Rosemary S. Hails, Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer, Elena Bennett, Brian Robinson, Gretchen Daily, Kate Brauman, Paul West. Determining the value of ecosystem services in agriculture. 2019,,, 60-89. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107705555.005
  39. Richard Ewbank. Conflicts and challenges to enhancing the resilience of small-scale farmers in developing economies. 2019,,, 135-158. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107705555.008
  40. Jonathan R. B. Fisher, Peter Kareiva. Using environmental metrics to promote sustainability and resilience in agriculture. 2019,,, 340-361. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107705555.017
  41. Sharmila Roy, A. K. Jaiswal, S. N. Sushil, A. Baitha, M. M. Roy. Landscape-Based Habitat Engineering for Sugarcane Ecosystem: A Green Technological Option for Pest Management. Sugar Tech 2019, 21 (2) , 213-226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-019-00705-0
  42. John Ringland, Martha Bohm, So-Ra Baek. Characterization of food cultivation along roadside transects with Google Street View imagery and deep learning. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 2019, 158 , 36-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2019.01.014
  43. James Stevenson, Bernard Vanlauwe, Karen Macours, Nancy Johnson, Lakshmi Krishnan, Frank Place, David Spielman, Karl Hughes, Paul Vlek. Farmer adoption of plot- and farm-level natural resource management practices: Between rhetoric and reality. Global Food Security 2019, 20 , 101-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2019.01.003
  44. L. Geeraert, G. Berecha, O. Honnay, R. Aerts. Organoleptic quality of Ethiopian Arabica coffee deteriorates with increasing intensity of coffee forest management. Journal of Environmental Management 2019, 231 , 282-288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.10.037
  45. Richard N. Onwonga. Carbon Sequestration: Pathway to Increased Agricultural Productivity and Zero Hunger for Devolping Countries. 2019,,, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69626-3_60-1
  46. Richard N. Onwonga. Carbon Sequestration: Pathway to Increased Agricultural Productivity and Zero Hunger for Developing Countries. 2019,,, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69626-3_60-2
  47. Dave Watson. Adaptation to Climate Change Through Adaptive Crop Management. 2019,,, 191-210. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77878-5_10
  48. Felix Kogan. Food Security: The Twenty-First Century Issue. 2019,,, 9-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96256-6_2
  49. Zeyaur R. Khan, Charles A. O. Midega, Jimmy Pittchar, John A. Pickett. Exploiting Chemical Ecology for Developing Novel Integrated Pest Management Strategies for Africa. 2019,,, 165-183. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99768-1_10
  50. Luis Saavedra Martinzez, Francisco Espasandin Bustelo, Juan Domingo Ganaza-Vargas. The Social Network of Researchers on the Topic “Hunger”. 2019,,, 227-238. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-7888-8.ch014
  51. Terry C.H. Sunderland, Dominic Rowland. Forests, Land Use, and Challenges to Climate Stability and Food Security. 2019,,, 95-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812134-4.00006-6
  52. . References. 2019,,, 279-293. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812134-4.00060-1
  53. Rishikesh Singh, Pratap Srivastava, Pardeep Singh, Shweta Upadhyay, Akhilesh Singh Raghubanshi. Human Overpopulation and Food Security. 2019,,, 439-467. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-8063-8.ch022
  54. Alem-meta Assefa Agidew, K. N. Singh. Determinants of food insecurity in the rural farm households in South Wollo Zone of Ethiopia: the case of the Teleyayen sub-watershed. Agricultural and Food Economics 2018, 6 (1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-018-0106-4
  55. Siavash Fallah-Alipour, Hossein Mehrabi Boshrabadi, Mohammad Reza Zare Mehrjerdi, Dariush Hayati. A Framework for Empirical Assessment of Agricultural Sustainability: The Case of Iran. Sustainability 2018, 10 (12) , 4823. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124823
  56. Michael J. Barrowclough, Jeffrey Alwang. Conservation agriculture in Ecuador’s highlands: a discrete choice experiment. Environment, Development and Sustainability 2018, 20 (6) , 2681-2705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-017-0011-0
  57. Jules Pretty. Intensification for redesigned and sustainable agricultural systems. Science 2018, 362 (6417) , eaav0294. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav0294
  58. Miren Onaindia, Lorena Peña, Beatriz Fernández de Manuel, Gloria Rodríguez-Loinaz, Iosu Madariaga, Igone Palacios-Agúndez, Ibone Ametzaga-Arregi. Land use efficiency through analysis of agrological capacity and ecosystem services in an industrialized region (Biscay, Spain). Land Use Policy 2018, 78 , 650-661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.06.049
  59. Leen Vellenga, Gregor Qualitz, Katrin Drastig. Farm Water Productivity in Conventional and Organic Farming: Case Studies of Cow-Calf Farming Systems in North Germany. Water 2018, 10 (10) , 1294. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10101294
  60. Jules Pretty, Tim G. Benton, Zareen Pervez Bharucha, Lynn V. Dicks, Cornelia Butler Flora, H. Charles J. Godfray, Dave Goulson, Sue Hartley, Nic Lampkin, Carol Morris, Gary Pierzynski, P. V. Vara Prasad, John Reganold, Johan Rockström, Pete Smith, Peter Thorne, Steve Wratten. Global assessment of agricultural system redesign for sustainable intensification. Nature Sustainability 2018, 1 (8) , 441-446. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0114-0
  61. Yanan Li, Chaoyang Liu, Jingdong Zhang, Fei Li. A bibliometric analysis and visualization of environmental damage research from 2000 to 2018. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 2018, 170 , 032079. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/170/3/032079
  62. Carlos Bautista-Capetillo, Hugo Márquez-Villagrana, Anuard Pacheco-Guerrero, Julián González-Trinidad, Hugo Júnez-Ferreira, Manuel Zavala-Trejo. Cropping System Diversification: Water Consumption against Crop Production. Sustainability 2018, 10 (7) , 2164. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072164
  63. R.A. Fischer, D.J. Connor. Issues for cropping and agricultural science in the next 20 years. Field Crops Research 2018, 222 , 121-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2018.03.008
  64. David R. Kanter, Mark Musumba, Sylvia L.R. Wood, Cheryl Palm, John Antle, Patricia Balvanera, Virginia H. Dale, Petr Havlik, Keith L. Kline, R.J. Scholes, Philip Thornton, Pablo Tittonell, Sandy Andelman. Evaluating agricultural trade-offs in the age of sustainable development. Agricultural Systems 2018, 163 , 73-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.09.010
  65. Le Clec’h Solen, Jégou Nicolas, Arnauld de Sartre Xavier, Decaens Thibaud, Dufour Simon, Grimaldi Michel, Oszwald Johan. Impacts of Agricultural Practices and Individual Life Characteristics on Ecosystem Services: A Case Study on Family Farmers in the Context of an Amazonian Pioneer Front. Environmental Management 2018, 61 (5) , 772-785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1004-y
  66. I M Fahmid, H Harun, M M Fahmid, Saadah, N Busthanul. Economy and political ecology perspective of Indonesian food security at South Sulawesi. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 2018, 157 , 012066. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/157/1/012066
  67. Deyi Hou, Zhenyu Ding, Guanghe Li, Longhua Wu, Pengjie Hu, Guanlin Guo, Xingrun Wang, Yan Ma, David O'Connor, Xianghui Wang. A Sustainability Assessment Framework for Agricultural Land Remediation in China. Land Degradation & Development 2018, 29 (4) , 1005-1018. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2748
  68. Eva Fraňková, Claudio Cattaneo. Organic farming in the past and today: sociometabolic perspective on a Central European case study. Regional Environmental Change 2018, 18 (4) , 951-963. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1099-8
  69. Jonathan Mockshell, Josey Kamanda. Beyond the agroecological and sustainable agricultural intensification debate: Is blended sustainability the way forward?. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 2018, 16 (2) , 127-149. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2018.1448047
  70. Jeferson Gabriel da Encarnação Coutinho, Lucas Alejandro Garibaldi, Blandina Felipe Viana. The influence of local and landscape scale on single response traits in bees: A meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 2018, 256 , 61-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.12.025
  71. Justice Nana Inkoom, Susanne Frank, Klaus Greve, Christine Fürst. A framework to assess landscape structural capacity to provide regulating ecosystem services in West Africa. Journal of Environmental Management 2018, 209 , 393-408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.12.027
  72. Adi Dunkelman, Meghann Kerr, Larry A. Swatuk. The New Green Revolution: Enhancing Rainfed for Food and Nutrition Security in Eastern Africa. 2018,,, 305-324. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64024-2_12
  73. John Gowing, Lisa Bunclark, Henry Mahoo, Frederick Kahimba. The ‘Majaluba’ Rice Production System: A Rainwater Harvesting ‘Bright Spot’ in Tanzania. 2018,,, 303-321. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66239-8_16
  74. Msafiri Yusuph Mkonda, Xinhua He. Soil Quality and Agricultural Sustainability in Semi-arid Areas. 2018,,, 229-246. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98914-3_9
  75. Saon Banerjee, Suman Samanta, Pramiti Kumar Chakraborti. Impact of Climate Change on Coastal Agro-Ecosystems. 2018,,, 115-133. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99076-7_4
  76. Puspendu Dutta. Seed Priming: New Vistas and Contemporary Perspectives. 2018,,, 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0032-5_1
  77. Hope Johnson. Path-Breaking or History-Repeating? Analysing the Paris Agreement’s Research and Development Paradigm for Climate-Smart Agriculture. 2018,,, 555-584. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2155-9_20
  78. . Bibliography. 2018,,, 333-347. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814383-4.16001-3
  79. Lisa Bunclark, John Gowing, Elizabeth Oughton, Korodjouma Ouattara, Sidonie Ouoba, Diane Benao. Understanding farmers’ decisions on adaptation to climate change: Exploring adoption of water harvesting technologies in Burkina Faso. Global Environmental Change 2018, 48 , 243-254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.12.004
  80. Alwin D’Souza, Ashok K. Mishra. Adoption and Abandonment of Partial Conservation Technologies in Developing Economies: The Case of South Asia. Land Use Policy 2018, 70 , 212-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.015
  81. Josue Mbonigaba. Comparing the Effects of Unsustainable Production and Consumption of Food on Health and Policy Across Developed and Less Developed Countries. 2018,,, 124-158. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-3631-4.ch006
  82. Edmundo Barrios, Vivian Valencia, Mattias Jonsson, Alain Brauman, Kurniatun Hairiah, Peter E. Mortimer, Satoru Okubo. Contribution of trees to the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 2018, 14 (1) , 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2017.1399167
  83. Ian Vázquez-Rowe, Gustavo Larrea-Gallegos, Pedro Villanueva-Rey, Alessandro Gilardino, . Climate change mitigation opportunities based on carbon footprint estimates of dietary patterns in Peru. PLOS ONE 2017, 12 (11) , e0188182. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188182
  84. Qi Wang, Dongsheng Zhang, Lizhen Zhang, Shuo Han, Wopke van der Werf, Jochem B. Evers, Zhicheng Su, Niels P.R. Anten. Spatial configuration drives complementary capture of light of the understory cotton in young jujube plantations. Field Crops Research 2017, 213 , 21-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.016
  85. Shuna Xu, Yanfang Liu, Xia Wang, Guangxia Zhang. Scale effect on spatial patterns of ecosystem services and associations among them in semi-arid area: A case study in Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, China. Science of The Total Environment 2017, 598 , 297-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.009
  86. Luis A. De los Santos-Montero, Boris E. Bravo-Ureta. Natural Resource Management and Household Well-being: The Case of POSAF-II in Nicaragua. World Development 2017, 99 , 42-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.07.001
  87. Luis A. De los Santos-Montero, Boris E. Bravo-Ureta. Productivity effects and natural resource management: econometric evidence from POSAF-II in Nicaragua. Natural Resources Forum 2017, 41 (4) , 220-233. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12133
  88. J. Ryschawy, C. Disenhaus, S. Bertrand, G. Allaire, O. Aznar, S. Plantureux, E. Josien, C. Guinot, J. Lasseur, C. Perrot, E. Tchakerian, C. Aubert, M. Tichit. Assessing multiple goods and services derived from livestock farming on a nation-wide gradient. animal 2017, 11 (10) , 1861-1872. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731117000829
  89. Kabirigi M., K. Ngetich F., K. Mwetu K., Rushemuka P., J. Wasige E., M. Ruganzu Vicky, L. Nabahungu N.. Implications of tillage practices, management of soil surface and fertilizer application on sustainable dryland agriculture: A case study of Eastern Rwanda. African Journal of Agricultural Research 2017, 12 (31) , 2524-2532. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2017.12289
  90. Jonas Jägermeyr, Amandine Pastor, Hester Biemans, Dieter Gerten. Reconciling irrigated food production with environmental flows for Sustainable Development Goals implementation. Nature Communications 2017, 8 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15900
  91. Eija Pehu, Cory Belden, Suvranil Majumdar, Teemu Jantunen. Increasing Crop, Livestock, and Fishery Productivity Through ICT. 2017,,, 97-126. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1002-2_Module5
  92. Barbara Bernard, Alexandra Lux. How to feed the world sustainably: an overview of the discourse on agroecology and sustainable intensification. Regional Environmental Change 2017, 17 (5) , 1279-1290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1027-y
  93. Md. Mahmudul Alam, Chamhuri Siwar, Basri Abdul Talib, Abu N.M. Wahid. Climatic changes and vulnerability of household food accessibility. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management 2017, 9 (3) , 387-401. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-06-2016-0075
  94. Zahra Asadolahi, Abdolrassoul Salmanmahiny, Yousef Sakieh. Hyrcanian forests conservation based on ecosystem services approach. Environmental Earth Sciences 2017, 76 (10) https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-017-6702-x
  95. Jennifer K. O'Leary, Fiorenza Micheli, Laura Airoldi, Charles Boch, Giulio De Leo, Robin Elahi, Francesco Ferretti, Nicholas A. J. Graham, Steven Y. Litvin, Natalie H. Low, Sarah Lummis, Kerry J. Nickols, Joanne Wong. The Resilience of Marine Ecosystems to Climatic Disturbances. BioScience 2017, 67 (3) , 208-220. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw161
  96. Clifton Makate, Marshall Makate, Nelson Mango. Smallholder Farmers’ Perceptions on Climate Change and the Use of Sustainable Agricultural Practices in the Chinyanja Triangle, Southern Africa. Social Sciences 2017, 6 (1) , 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci6010030
  97. Johan Rockström, John Williams, Gretchen Daily, Andrew Noble, Nathanial Matthews, Line Gordon, Hanna Wetterstrand, Fabrice DeClerck, Mihir Shah, Pasquale Steduto, Charlotte de Fraiture, Nuhu Hatibu, Olcay Unver, Jeremy Bird, Lindiwe Sibanda, Jimmy Smith. Sustainable intensification of agriculture for human prosperity and global sustainability. Ambio 2017, 46 (1) , 4-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0793-6
  98. Zeynab Jouzi, Hossein Azadi, Fatemeh Taheri, Kiumars Zarafshani, Kindeya Gebrehiwot, Steven Van Passel, Philippe Lebailly. Organic Farming and Small-Scale Farmers: Main Opportunities and Challenges. Ecological Economics 2017, 132 , 144-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.10.016
  99. Kelly Garbach, Jeffrey C. Milder, Fabrice A.J. DeClerck, Maywa Montenegro de Wit, Laura Driscoll, Barbara Gemmill-Herren. Examining multi-functionality for crop yield and ecosystem services in five systems of agroecological intensification. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 2017, 15 (1) , 11-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2016.1174810
  100. Linus Kendall, Andy Dearden. ICTs for Agroecology. 2017,,, 451-462. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59111-7_37
  101. Lucas A. Garibaldi, Barbara Gemmill-Herren, Raffaele D’Annolfo, Benjamin E. Graeub, Saul A. Cunningham, Tom D. Breeze. Farming Approaches for Greater Biodiversity, Livelihoods, and Food Security. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2017, 32 (1) , 68-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.10.001
  102. Rishikesh Singh, Pratap Srivastava, Pardeep Singh, Shweta Upadhyay, Akhilesh Singh Raghubanshi. Human Overpopulation and Food Security. 2017,,, 12-39. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-1683-5.ch002
  103. Felix Eigenbrod, Zhiyao Tang, Stephanie Eisner, Martina Flörke, Guanghua Zhao. Spatial covariance of ecosystem services and poverty in China. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 2017, 13 (1) , 422-433. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2017.1397750
  104. Hua Zheng, Yifeng Li, Brian E Robinson, Gang Liu, Dongchun Ma, Fengchun Wang, Fei Lu, Zhiyun Ouyang, Gretchen C Daily. Using ecosystem service trade-offs to inform water conservation policies and management practices. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2016, 14 (10) , 527-532. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1432
  105. Juliana Hipólito, Blandina Felipe Viana, Lucas A. Garibaldi. The value of pollinator-friendly practices: Synergies between natural and anthropogenic assets. Basic and Applied Ecology 2016, 17 (8) , 659-667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2016.09.003
  106. Joshua Farley, Alexey Voinov. Economics, socio-ecological resilience and ecosystem services. Journal of Environmental Management 2016, 183 , 389-398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.07.065
  107. Frances Moore Lappé. Farming for a Small Planet: Agroecology Now. Development 2016, 59 (3-4) , 299-307. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41301-017-0114-9
  108. Lauren Ponisio, Paul Ehrlich. Diversification, Yield and a New Agricultural Revolution: Problems and Prospects. Sustainability 2016, 8 (11) , 1118. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8111118
  109. A.C.D. Trevisan, A.L. Schmitt-Filho, J. Farley, A.C. Fantini, C. Longo. Farmer perceptions, policy and reforestation in Santa Catarina, Brazil. Ecological Economics 2016, 130 , 53-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.06.024
  110. Laurence G. Smith, Davide Tarsitano, Cairistiona F. E. Topp, Stephanie K. Jones, Catherine L. Gerrard, Bruce D. Pearce, Adrian G. Williams, Christine A. Watson. Predicting the effect of rotation design on N, P, K balances on organic farms using the NDICEA model. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 2016, 31 (5) , 471-484. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170515000381
  111. Andreas Rechkemmer, Ashley O'Connor, Abha Rai, Jessica L. Decker Sparks, Pranietha Mudliar, James M. Shultz. A complex social-ecological disaster: Environmentally induced forced migration. Disaster Health 2016, 3 (4) , 112-120. https://doi.org/10.1080/21665044.2016.1263519
  112. Joshua E. Cinner, Cindy Huchery, M. Aaron MacNeil, Nicholas A.J. Graham, Tim R. McClanahan, Joseph Maina, Eva Maire, John N. Kittinger, Christina C. Hicks, Camilo Mora, Edward H. Allison, Stephanie D’Agata, Andrew Hoey, David A. Feary, Larry Crowder, Ivor D. Williams, Michel Kulbicki, Laurent Vigliola, Laurent Wantiez, Graham Edgar, Rick D. Stuart-Smith, Stuart A. Sandin, Alison L. Green, Marah J. Hardt, Maria Beger, Alan Friedlander, Stuart J. Campbell, Katherine E. Holmes, Shaun K. Wilson, Eran Brokovich, Andrew J. Brooks, Juan J. Cruz-Motta, David J. Booth, Pascale Chabanet, Charlie Gough, Mark Tupper, Sebastian C. A. Ferse, U. Rashid Sumaila, David Mouillot. Bright spots among the world’s coral reefs. Nature 2016, 535 (7612) , 416-419. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18607
  113. Abigail K. Hart, Philip McMichael, Jeffrey C. Milder, Sara J. Scherr. Multi-functional landscapes from the grassroots? The role of rural producer movements. Agriculture and Human Values 2016, 33 (2) , 305-322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-015-9611-1
  114. Andrew Bell, Gregory Parkhurst, Klaus Droppelmann, Tim G. Benton. Scaling up pro-environmental agricultural practice using agglomeration payments: Proof of concept from an agent-based model. Ecological Economics 2016, 126 , 32-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.03.002
  115. Yakubu Issaka, Moses Antwi, Gladys Tawia. A Comparative Analysis of Productivity among Organic and Non-Organic farms in the West Mamprusi District of Ghana. Agriculture 2016, 6 (2) , 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture6020013
  116. Wayne Nelles, Supawan Visetnoi. Thailand's Department of Agricultural Extension and Agrochemical Dependency: Perspectives on Contributing Factors and Mitigation Strategies. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 2016, 22 (3) , 225-240. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2015.1063519
  117. Susana de Sousa Araújo, Stefania Paparella, Daniele Dondi, Antonio Bentivoglio, Daniela Carbonera, Alma Balestrazzi. Physical Methods for Seed Invigoration: Advantages and Challenges in Seed Technology. Frontiers in Plant Science 2016, 7 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00646
  118. Philip McMichael. Commentary: Food regime for thought. The Journal of Peasant Studies 2016, 43 (3) , 648-670. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2016.1143816
  119. R. Quentin Grafton, Mahala McLindin, Karen Hussey, Paul Wyrwoll, Dennis Wichelns, Claudia Ringler, Dustin Garrick, Jamie Pittock, Sarah Wheeler, Stuart Orr, Nathanial Matthews, Erik Ansink, Alice Aureli, Daniel Connell, Lucia De Stefano, Kate Dowsley, Stefano Farolfi, Jim Hall, Pamela Katic, Bruce Lankford, Hannah Leckie, Matthew McCartney, Huw Pohlner, Nazmun Ratna, Mark Henry Rubarenzya, Shriman Narayan Sai Raman, Kevin Wheeler, John Williams. Responding to Global Challenges in Food, Energy, Environment and Water: Risks and Options Assessment for Decision-Making. Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies 2016, 3 (2) , 275-299. https://doi.org/10.1002/app5.128
  120. Adinor José Capellesso, Ademir Antonio Cazella, Abdon Luiz Schmitt Filho, Joshua Farley, Diego Albino Martins. Economic and environmental impacts of production intensification in agriculture: comparing transgenic, conventional, and agroecological maize crops. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 2016, 40 (3) , 215-236. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2015.1128508
  121. Eskild H. Bennetzen, Pete Smith, John R. Porter. Agricultural production and greenhouse gas emissions from world regions—The major trends over 40 years. Global Environmental Change 2016, 37 , 43-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.12.004
  122. Geoff M. Gurr, Zhongxian Lu, Xusong Zheng, Hongxing Xu, Pingyang Zhu, Guihua Chen, Xiaoming Yao, Jiaan Cheng, Zengrong Zhu, Josie Lynn Catindig, Sylvia Villareal, Ho Van Chien, Le Quoc Cuong, Chairat Channoo, Nalinee Chengwattana, La Pham Lan, Le Huu Hai, Jintana Chaiwong, Helen I. Nicol, David J. Perovic, Steve D. Wratten, Kong Luen Heong. Multi-country evidence that crop diversification promotes ecological intensification of agriculture. Nature Plants 2016, 2 (3) https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2016.14
  123. Hector Valenzuela. Agroecology: A Global Paradigm to Challenge Mainstream Industrial Agriculture. Horticulturae 2016, 2 (1) , 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae2010002
  124. Ranjan Roy, Ngai Weng Chan, Stefanos Xenarios. Sustainability of rice production systems: an empirical evaluation to improve policy. Environment, Development and Sustainability 2016, 18 (1) , 257-278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-015-9638-x
  125. Silvia D. Matteucci, Mariana Totino, Pablo Arístide. Ecological and social consequences of the Forest Transition Theory as applied to the Argentinean Great Chaco. Land Use Policy 2016, 51 , 8-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.10.032
  126. Eskild H. Bennetzen, Pete Smith, John R. Porter. Decoupling of greenhouse gas emissions from global agricultural production: 1970-2050. Global Change Biology 2016, 22 (2) , 763-781. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13120
  127. J Jägermeyr, D Gerten, S Schaphoff, J Heinke, W Lucht, J Rockström. Integrated crop water management might sustainably halve the global food gap. Environmental Research Letters 2016, 11 (2) , 025002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/2/025002
  128. Maria Niedertscheider, Tamara Fetzel, Helmut Haberl, Fridolin Krausmann, Veronika Gaube, Simone Gingrich, Christian Lauk, Christoph Plutzar, Karl-Heinz Erb. Africa’s Land System Trajectories 1980–2005. 2016,,, 361-373. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33326-7_17
  129. Julia Kloos, Fabrice G. Renaud. Overview of Ecosystem-Based Approaches to Drought Risk Reduction Targeting Small-Scale Farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa. 2016,,, 199-226. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43633-3_9
  130. Helen Fyles, Chandra Madramootoo. Water Management. 2016,,, 117-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-78242-335-5.00006-8
  131. Barath Raghavan, Bonnie Nardi, Sarah T. Lovell, Juliet Norton, Bill Tomlinson, Donald J. Patterson. Computational Agroecology. 2016,,, 423-435. https://doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2892577
  132. Mohammad Zahangeer Alam, Md. Manjurul Haque, Md. Sirajul Islam, Emran Hossain, Sabiha Binta Hasan, Shahela Binte Hasan, Md. Sakhawat Hossain. Comparative Study of Integrated Pest Management and Farmers Practices on Sustainable Environment in the Rice Ecosystem. International Journal of Zoology 2016, 2016 , 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/7286040
  133. Fernando F. Goulart, Sonia Carvalho-Ribeiro, Britaldo Soares-Filho. Farming-Biodiversity Segregation or Integration? Revisiting Land Sparing versus Land Sharing Debate. Journal of Environmental Protection 2016, 07 (07) , 1016-1032. https://doi.org/10.4236/jep.2016.77090
  134. Heather Putnam, Roseann Cohen, Roberta Jaffe. Agroecology as a Food Security and Sovereignty Strategy in Coffee-Growing Communities: Opportunities and Challenges in San Ramon, Nicaragua. 2015,,, 193-216. https://doi.org/10.1201/b19500-13
  135. J. Nyaga, E. Barrios, C.W. Muthuri, I. Öborn, V. Matiru, F.L. Sinclair. Evaluating factors influencing heterogeneity in agroforestry adoption and practices within smallholder farms in Rift Valley, Kenya. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 2015, 212 , 106-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.06.013
  136. Shifeng Wang, Sicong Wang, Pete Smith. Quantifying impacts of onshore wind farms on ecosystem services at local and global scales. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2015, 52 , 1424-1428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.08.019
  137. Stefan Sieber, Karen Tscherning, Frieder Graef, Götz Uckert, Sergio Gomez y Paloma. Food security in the context of climate change and bioenergy production in Tanzania: methods, tools and applications. Regional Environmental Change 2015, 15 (7) , 1163-1168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0834-x
  138. Torsten Siegmeier, Benjamin Blumenstein, Detlev Möller. Farm biogas production in organic agriculture: System implications. Agricultural Systems 2015, 139 , 196-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2015.07.006
  139. Stefano Balbi, Agustin del Prado, Patricia Gallejones, Chandanathil Pappachan Geevan, Guillermo Pardo, Elena Pérez-Miñana, Rosa Manrique, Cuitlahuac Hernandez-Santiago, Ferdinando Villa. Modeling trade-offs among ecosystem services in agricultural production systems. Environmental Modelling & Software 2015, 72 , 314-326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.12.017
  140. STEPHEN C. MASON, NOURI MAMAN, SIÉBOU PALÉ. PEARL MILLET PRODUCTION PRACTICES IN SEMI-ARID WEST AFRICA: A REVIEW. Experimental Agriculture 2015, 51 (4) , 501-521. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479714000441
  141. Claire Kremen. Reframing the land-sparing/land-sharing debate for biodiversity conservation. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2015, 1355 (1) , 52-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12845
  142. Chris Henderson, Jonathan Casey. Scaling up Agroecology through Market Systems. 2015,,, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3362/9781780446554.001
  143. Kenneth A. Reinert. Food Security as Basic Goods Provision. World Medical & Health Policy 2015, 7 (3) , 171-186. https://doi.org/10.1002/wmh3.151
  144. Aslihan Arslan, Nancy McCarthy, Leslie Lipper, Solomon Asfaw, Andrea Cattaneo, Misael Kokwe. Climate Smart Agriculture? Assessing the Adaptation Implications in Zambia. Journal of Agricultural Economics 2015, 66 (3) , 753-780. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12107
  145. Sami Khanal, Rattan Lal. Precision Agriculture for Improving Water Quality under Changing Climate. 2015,,, 283-306. https://doi.org/10.1201/b18759-12
  146. Travis W. Reynolds, Stephen R. Waddington, C. Leigh Anderson, Alexander Chew, Zoe True, Alison Cullen. Environmental impacts and constraints associated with the production of major food crops in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Food Security 2015, 7 (4) , 795-822. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-015-0478-1
  147. Jodi Sugden. Climate-Smart Agriculture and Smallholder Farmers. 2015,,, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3362/9781780446332.001
  148. Philip McMichael. The Land Question in the Food Sovereignty Project. Globalizations 2015, 12 (4) , 434-451. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2014.971615
  149. Caroline King, Hadi Jaafar. Rapid assessment of the water–energy–food–climate nexus in six selected basins of North Africa and West Asia undergoing transitions and scarcity threats. International Journal of Water Resources Development 2015, 31 (3) , 343-359. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2015.1026436
  150. Mark Huxham, Lucy Emerton, James Kairo, Fridah Munyi, Hassan Abdirizak, Tabitha Muriuki, Fiona Nunan, Robert A. Briers. Applying Climate Compatible Development and economic valuation to coastal management: A case study of Kenya's mangrove forests. Journal of Environmental Management 2015, 157 , 168-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.04.018
  151. Anne Charpentier. Insights from life history theory for an explicit treatment of trade-offs in conservation biology. Conservation Biology 2015, 29 (3) , 738-747. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12442
  152. Phillip J. Blaen, Li Jia, Kelvin S.-H. Peh, Rob H. Field, Andrew Balmford, Michael A. MacDonald, Richard B. Bradbury, . Rapid Assessment of Ecosystem Services Provided by Two Mineral Extraction Sites Restored for Nature Conservation in an Agricultural Landscape in Eastern England. PLOS ONE 2015, 10 (4) , e0121010. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121010
  153. Rubens Onofre Nodari, Miguel Pedro Guerra. A agroecologia: estratégias de pesquisa e valores. Estudos Avançados 2015, 29 (83) , 183-207. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-40142015000100010
  154. Kerry L. Shannon, Brent F. Kim, Shawn E. McKenzie, Robert S. Lawrence. Food System Policy, Public Health, and Human Rights in the United States. Annual Review of Public Health 2015, 36 (1) , 151-173. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031914-122621
  155. Philip McMichael. A comment on Henry Bernstein's way with peasants, and food sovereignty. The Journal of Peasant Studies 2015, 42 (1) , 193-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2014.936853
  156. Hanson Nyantakyi-Frimpong, Rachel Bezner Kerr. A political ecology of high-input agriculture in northern Ghana. African Geographical Review 2015, 34 (1) , 13-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/19376812.2014.929971
  157. Shashi B. Sharma, John A. Wightman. Rethinking Agro-ecosystems and Diversity Within Farming Systems. 2015,,, 67-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23249-2_8
  158. Geoff M. Gurr, Zeng-Rong Zhu, Minsheng You. The Big Picture: Prospects for Ecological Engineering to Guide the Delivery of Ecosystem Services in Global Agriculture. 2015,,, 143-160. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9535-7_7
  159. Mathias Kirchner, Johannes Schmidt, Georg Kindermann, Veronika Kulmer, Hermine Mitter, Franz Prettenthaler, Johannes Rüdisser, Thomas Schauppenlehner, Martin Schönhart, Franziska Strauss, Ulrike Tappeiner, Erich Tasser, Erwin Schmid. Ecosystem services and economic development in Austrian agricultural landscapes — The impact of policy and climate change scenarios on trade-offs and synergies. Ecological Economics 2015, 109 , 161-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.11.005
  160. Adornis D. Nciizah, Isaiah I. C. Wakindiki. Climate Smart Agriculture: Achievements and Prospects in Africa. Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection 2015, 03 (06) , 99-105. https://doi.org/10.4236/gep.2015.36016
  161. Jules Pretty, Zareen Pervez Bharucha. Sustainable intensification in agricultural systems. Annals of Botany 2014, 114 (8) , 1571-1596. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcu205
  162. Lummina Horlings. Can Agroecological Practices Feed the World?: The Bio- and Ecoeconomic Paradigm in Agri-Food Production. 2014,,, 309-324. https://doi.org/10.1201/b17775-16
  163. Philip McMichael. Historicizing food sovereignty. The Journal of Peasant Studies 2014, 41 (6) , 933-957. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2013.876999
  164. Tira Foran, James R.A. Butler, Liana J. Williams, Wolf J. Wanjura, Andy Hall, Lucy Carter, Peter S. Carberry. Taking Complexity in Food Systems Seriously: An Interdisciplinary Analysis. World Development 2014, 61 , 85-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.023
  165. Lynn Epstein. Fifty Years Since Silent Spring. Annual Review of Phytopathology 2014, 52 (1) , 377-402. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-phyto-102313-045900
  166. Anna R. Renwick, Juliet A. Vickery, Simon G. Potts, Simon Bolwig, Dianah Nalwanga, Derek E. Pomeroy, David Mushabe, Philip W. Atkinson. Achieving production and conservation simultaneously in tropical agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 2014, 192 , 130-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.04.011
  167. Himlal Baral, Rodney J. Keenan, Sunil K. Sharma, Nigel E. Stork, Sabine Kasel. Economic evaluation of ecosystem goods and services under different landscape management scenarios. Land Use Policy 2014, 39 , 54-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.03.008
  168. Salvatore Ceccarelli. GM Crops, Organic Agriculture and Breeding for Sustainability. Sustainability 2014, 6 (7) , 4273-4286. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6074273
  169. Luong Van Pham, Carl Smith. Drivers of agricultural sustainability in developing countries: a review. Environment Systems and Decisions 2014, 34 (2) , 326-341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-014-9494-5
  170. Agnieszka Latawiec, Bernardo Strassburg. Conciliating Ecosystem Services and Human Needs through Improved Land Use. 2014,,, 93-108. https://doi.org/10.1201/b16701-7
  171. B. Dhanya, B.N. Sathish, Syam Viswanath, Seema Purushothaman. Ecosystem services of native trees: experiences from two traditional agroforestry systems in Karnataka, Southern India. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 2014, 10 (2) , 101-111. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2014.918057
  172. Sylvie M. Brouder, Helena Gomez-Macpherson. The impact of conservation agriculture on smallholder agricultural yields: A scoping review of the evidence. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 2014, 187 , 11-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.08.010
  173. Joshua J. Tewksbury, John G. T. Anderson, Jonathan D. Bakker, Timothy J. Billo, Peter W. Dunwiddie, Martha J. Groom, Stephanie E. Hampton, Steven G. Herman, Douglas J. Levey, Noelle J. Machnicki, Carlos Martínez del Rio, Mary E. Power, Kirsten Rowell, Anne K. Salomon, Liam Stacey, Stephen C. Trombulak, Terry A. Wheeler. Natural History's Place in Science and Society. BioScience 2014, 64 (4) , 300-310. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu032
  174. Adam Sneyd. Cameroon: Perspectives on Food Security and the Emerging Power Footprint. Sustainability 2014, 6 (4) , 1868-1895. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6041868
  175. Alice Beban. Is Organic Agriculture a Viable Strategy in Contexts of Rapid Agrarian Transition? Evidence from Cambodia. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development 2014, , 1-17. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2014.042.004
  176. Heather Putnam, Wendy Godek, Susanne Kissmann, Jean Luckson Pierre, Santos Humberto Alvarado Dzul, Hector Calix de Dios, Stephen Richard Gliessman. Coupling Agroecology and PAR to Identify Appropriate Food Security and Sovereignty Strategies in Indigenous Communities. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 2014, 38 (2) , 165-198. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2013.837422
  177. Richard Coe, Fergus Sinclair, Edmundo Barrios. Scaling up agroforestry requires research ‘in’ rather than ‘for’ development. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2014, 6 , 73-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.10.013
  178. Geoffrey Lawrence, Philip McMichael. Global Change and Food Security, Introduction. 2014,,, 667-676. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5784-4_114
  179. Adrian Muller, Claude Aubert. The Potential of Organic Agriculture to Mitigate the Influence of Agriculture on Global Warming—A Review. 2014,,, 239-259. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7927-3_13
  180. Ranjan Roy, Ngai Weng Chan, Ruslan Rainis. Rice farming sustainability assessment in Bangladesh. Sustainability Science 2014, 9 (1) , 31-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0234-4
  181. Yadvinder-Singh, Surinder S. Kukal, Mangi Lal Jat, Harminder S. Sidhu. Improving Water Productivity of Wheat-Based Cropping Systems in South Asia for Sustained Productivity. 2014,,, 157-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800131-8.00004-2
  182. K. Garbach, J.C. Milder, M. Montenegro, D.S. Karp, F.A.J. DeClerck. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Agroecosystems. 2014,,, 21-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-52512-3.00013-9
  183. Adrian Muller. Sustainable Farming of Bioenergy Crops. 2014,,, 407-417. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-59561-4.00023-1
  184. Yasuyuki Todo, Petr Matous, Dagne Mojo. Effects of Social Network Structure on the Diffusion and Adoption of Agricultural Technology: Evidence from Rural Ethiopia. SSRN Electronic Journal 2014, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2447208
  185. Ranjan Roy, Ngai Weng Chan. A Multi-Level Evaluation of Policy Integration of Human Resource Development in Agriculture Sector. Natural Resources 2014, 05 (04) , 119-129. https://doi.org/10.4236/nr.2014.54013
  186. Lieske Voget-Kleschin, Setareh Stephan. The Potential of Standards and Codes of Conduct in Governing Large-Scale Land Acquisition in Developing Countries Towards Sustainability. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2013, 26 (6) , 1157-1179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-013-9454-y
  187. R. Albajes, C. Cantero-Martínez, T. Capell, P. Christou, A. Farre, J. Galceran, F. López-Gatius, S. Marin, O. Martín-Belloso, Ma.-J. Motilva, C. Nogareda, J. Peman, J. Puy, J. Recasens, I. Romagosa, Ma.-P. Romero, V. Sanchis, R. Savin, G. A. Slafer, R. Soliva-Fortuny, I. Viñas, J. Voltas. Building bridges: an integrated strategy for sustainable food production throughout the value chain. Molecular Breeding 2013, 32 (4) , 743-770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-013-9915-z
  188. Maarten van Ginkel, Jeff Sayer, Fergus Sinclair, Aden Aw-Hassan, Deborah Bossio, Peter Craufurd, Mohammed El Mourid, Nasri Haddad, David Hoisington, Nancy Johnson, Carlos León Velarde, Víctor Mares, Andrew Mude, Ali Nefzaoui, Andrew Noble, K. P. C. Rao, Rachid Serraj, Shirley Tarawali, Raymond Vodouhe, Rodomiro Ortiz. An integrated agro-ecosystem and livelihood systems approach for the poor and vulnerable in dry areas. Food Security 2013, 5 (6) , 751-767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-013-0305-5
  189. Yihun Taddele Dile, Louise Karlberg, Melesse Temesgen, Johan Rockström. The role of water harvesting to achieve sustainable agricultural intensification and resilience against water related shocks in sub-Saharan Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 2013, 181 , 69-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.09.014
  190. Esperanza Arnés, Jesús Antonio, Ek del Val, Marta Astier. Sustainability and climate variability in low-input peasant maize systems in the central Mexican highlands. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 2013, 181 , 195-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.09.022
  191. Adam Sneyd. Food security perspectives and emerging powers in Africa: some recent literature. Canadian Journal of African Studies / Revue canadienne des études africaines 2013, 47 (3) , 555-566. https://doi.org/10.1080/00083968.2013.832629
  192. Ernest Dube, Cornelius Chiduza, Pardon Muchaonyerwa. Conservation agriculture effects on plant nutrients and maize grain yield after four years of maize–winter cover crop rotations. South African Journal of Plant and Soil 2013, 30 (4) , 227-232. https://doi.org/10.1080/02571862.2013.867458
  193. Philip McMichael. Historicizing the Agrarian Question. SOCIOLOGIA URBANA E RURALE 2013, (102) , 14-32. https://doi.org/10.3280/SUR2013-102002
  194. Timothy Johns, Bronwen Powell, Patrick Maundu, Pablo B Eyzaguirre. Agricultural biodiversity as a link between traditional food systems and contemporary development, social integrity and ecological health. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 2013, 93 (14) , 3433-3442. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.6351
  195. Peter H Verburg, Ole Mertz, Karl-Heinz Erb, Helmut Haberl, Wenbin Wu. Land system change and food security: towards multi-scale land system solutions. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2013, 5 (5) , 494-502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.07.003
  196. Stephan Barthel, Carole Crumley, Uno Svedin. Bio-cultural refugia—Safeguarding diversity of practices for food security and biodiversity. Global Environmental Change 2013, 23 (5) , 1142-1152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.001
  197. Hervé Guyomard. Les ressources mondiales en protéines seront-elles suffisantes ?. Pratiques en nutrition 2013, 9 (36) , 23-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pranut.2013.09.006
  198. Linda Kleemann, Awudu Abdulai. Organic certification, agro-ecological practices and return on investment: Evidence from pineapple producers in Ghana. Ecological Economics 2013, 93 , 330-341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.06.017
  199. Ying Pan, Zengrang Xu, Junxi Wu. Spatial differences of the supply of multiple ecosystem services and the environmental and land use factors affecting them. Ecosystem Services 2013, 5 , 4-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.06.002
  200. Tiziano Gomiero. Alternative Land Management Strategies and Their Impact on Soil Conservation. Agriculture 2013, 3 (3) , 464-483. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture3030464
  201. Mica Bennett, Steven Franzel. Can organic and resource-conserving agriculture improve livelihoods? A synthesis. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 2013, 11 (3) , 193-215. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2012.724925
  202. Chinwe Ifejika Speranza. Buffer capacity: capturing a dimension of resilience to climate change in African smallholder agriculture. Regional Environmental Change 2013, 13 (3) , 521-535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-012-0391-5
  203. Stacia M. Nordin, Marie Boyle, Teresa M. Kemmer. Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Nutrition Security in Developing Nations: Sustainable Food, Water, and Health. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 2013, 113 (4) , 581-595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2013.01.025
  204. David J. Connor. Organically grown crops do not a cropping system make and nor can organic agriculture nearly feed the world. Field Crops Research 2013, 144 , 145-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2012.12.013
  205. Marianela Fader, Dieter Gerten, Michael Krause, Wolfgang Lucht, Wolfgang Cramer. Spatial decoupling of agricultural production and consumption: quantifying dependences of countries on food imports due to domestic land and water constraints. Environmental Research Letters 2013, 8 (1) , 014046. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/014046
  206. Elin Enfors. Social–ecological traps and transformations in dryland agro-ecosystems: Using water system innovations to change the trajectory of development. Global Environmental Change 2013, 23 (1) , 51-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.10.007
  207. Philip McMichael. Land Grabbing as Security Mercantilism in International Relations. Globalizations 2013, 10 (1) , 47-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2013.760925
  208. M. Qadir, A. D. Noble, C. Chartres. ADAPTING TO CLIMATE CHANGE BY IMPROVING WATER PRODUCTIVITY OF SOILS IN DRY AREAS. Land Degradation & Development 2013, 24 (1) , 12-21. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.1091
  209. Vibha Dhawan. Sustainable Agriculture Practices for Food and Nutritional Security. 2013,,, 343-357. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5001-6_13
  210. Abdon Schmitt, Joshua Farley, Juan Alvez, Gisele Alarcon, Paola May Rebollar. Integrating Agroecology with Payments for Ecosystem Services in Santa Catarina’s Atlantic Forest. 2013,,, 333-355. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5176-7_17
  211. Keijiro Otsuka, Donald F. Larson, Peter B. R. Hazell. An Overview. 2013,,, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5760-8_1
  212. Étienne Hainzelin, Christine Nouaille. The Diversity of Living Organisms: The Engine for Ecological Functioning. 2013,,, 11-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7984-6_2
  213. Sanne Schoonbeek, Hossein Azadi, Hossein Mahmoudi, Ben Derudder, Philippe De Maeyer, Frank Witlox. Organic Agriculture and Undernourishment in Developing Countries: Main Potentials and Challenges. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 2013, 53 (9) , 917-928. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2011.573886
  214. Bradley J. Butterfield, Katharine N. Suding, . Single-trait functional indices outperform multi-trait indices in linking environmental gradients and ecosystem services in a complex landscape. Journal of Ecology 2013, 101 (1) , 9-17. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12013
  215. Philip McMichael. Prelims – Food Regimes and Agrarian Questions. 2013,,, i-xii. https://doi.org/10.3362/9781780448794.000
  216. Philip McMichael. The Food Regime Project. 2013,,, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3362/9781780448794.001
  217. Philip McMichael. Historical Forms of the Food Regime. 2013,,, 21-40. https://doi.org/10.3362/9781780448794.002
  218. Philip McMichael. The Corporate Food Regime. 2013,,, 41-61. https://doi.org/10.3362/9781780448794.003
  219. Philip McMichael. Food Regimes and the Agrarian Question. 2013,,, 62-83. https://doi.org/10.3362/9781780448794.004
  220. Philip McMichael. Food Regime Reformulations. 2013,,, 84-108. https://doi.org/10.3362/9781780448794.005
  221. Philip McMichael. Crisis and Restructuring. 2013,,, 109-130. https://doi.org/10.3362/9781780448794.006
  222. Philip McMichael. The Food Regime and Value Relations: Which Values?. 2013,,, 131-158. https://doi.org/10.3362/9781780448794.007
  223. Philip McMichael. Back Matter – Food Regimes and Agrarian Questions. 2013,,, 159-196. https://doi.org/10.3362/9781780448794.008
  224. Jacques Caplat. Vous avez dit « performances agricoles » ?. Revue du MAUSS 2013, 42 (2) , 183. https://doi.org/10.3917/rdm.042.0183
  225. David J. Connor, M. Inés Mínguez. Evolution not revolution of farming systems will best feed and green the world. Global Food Security 2012, 1 (2) , 106-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2012.10.004
  226. Robin Broad, John Cavanagh. The development and agriculture paradigms transformed: Reflections from the small-scale organic rice fields of the Philippines. Journal of Peasant Studies 2012, 39 (5) , 1181-1193. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2012.722082
  227. Martina Bavec, Michael Narodoslawsky, Franc Bavec, Matjaž Turinek. Ecological impact of wheat and spelt production under industrial and alternative farming systems. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 2012, 27 (3) , 242-250. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170511000354
  228. Johanna Björklund, Hailu Araya, Sue Edwards, André Goncalves, Karin Höök, Jakob Lundberg, Charito Medina. Ecosystem-Based Agriculture Combining Production and Conservation—A Viable Way to Feed the World in the Long Term?. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 2012, 36 (7) , 824-855. https://doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2012.705813
  229. Fernando Rafael Funes Monzote, Rasiel Bello, Aurelio Alvarez, Alberto Hernández, Egbert A. Lantinga, Herman van Keulen. Identifying agroecological mixed farming strategies for local conditions in San Antonio de Los Baños, Cuba. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 2012, 10 (3) , 208-229. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2012.692955
  230. Lincoln Zotarelli, Natalia P. Zatorre, Robert M. Boddey, Segundo Urquiaga, Claudia P. Jantalia, Julio C. Franchini, Bruno J.R. Alves. Influence of no-tillage and frequency of a green manure legume in crop rotations for balancing N outputs and preserving soil organic C stocks. Field Crops Research 2012, 132 , 185-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2011.12.013
  231. Geoff M. Gurr, William E. Snyder, Steve D. Wratten, Donna M. Y. Read. Conclusion: Biodiversity as an Asset rather than a Burden. 2012,,, 329-339. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118231838.ch20
  232. Li Jie He, Paolo Vincenzo Genovese. Using Multicriteria Evaluation and GIS for the Land-Use of Urban Agricultural Development in Delft, The Netherlands. Advanced Materials Research 2012, 518-523 , 6056-6060. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.518-523.6056
  233. Philip McMichael. Biofuels and world food and society issues. 2012,,, 357-378. https://doi.org/10.1201/b11836-12
  234. Olivier De Schutter. Agroecology, a Tool for the Realization of the Right to Food. 2012,,, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1905-7_1
  235. Meine van Noordwijk, Hesti Lestari Tata, Jianchu Xu, Sonya Dewi, Peter A. Minang. Segregate or Integrate for Multifunctionality and Sustained Change Through Rubber-Based Agroforestry in Indonesia and China. 2012,,, 69-104. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4676-3_8
  236. Grady Hanrahan. Green Chemistry and Sustainable Chemical Processes. 2012,,, 297-319. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374993-2.10010-X
  237. Mohammad Aslam Khan, S. Akhtar Ali Shah. Food Insecurity in Pakistan: Causes and Policy Response. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2011, 24 (5) , 493-509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-010-9274-2
  238. Piara Singh, Suhas Wani, Prabhakar Pathak, A Singh. Increasing crop productivity and water use efficiency in rainfed agriculture. 2011,,, 315-347. https://doi.org/10.1201/b11424-11
  239. Roni A. Neff, Cindy L. Parker, Frederick L. Kirschenmann, Jennifer Tinch, Robert S. Lawrence. Peak Oil, Food Systems, and Public Health. American Journal of Public Health 2011, 101 (9) , 1587-1597. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300123
  240. Philip McMichael. Food system sustainability: Questions of environmental governance in the new world (dis)order. Global Environmental Change 2011, 21 (3) , 804-812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.03.016
  241. Marta Astier, Erika N. Speelman, Santiago López-Ridaura, Omar R. Masera, Carlos E. Gonzalez-Esquivel. Sustainability indicators, alternative strategies and trade-offs in peasant agroecosystems: analysing 15 case studies from Latin America. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 2011, 9 (3) , 409-422. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2011.583481
  242. Ian Scoones, John Thompson. The Politics of Seed in Africa's Green Revolution: Alternative Narratives and Competing Pathways. IDS Bulletin 2011, 42 (4) , 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2011.00232.x
  243. L.G. Horlings, T.K. Marsden. Towards the real green revolution? Exploring the conceptual dimensions of a new ecological modernisation of agriculture that could ‘feed the world’. Global Environmental Change 2011, 21 (2) , 441-452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.004
  244. C. Devendra. Integrated Tree Crops-ruminants Systems in South East Asia: Advances in Productivity Enhancement and Environmental Sustainability. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 2011, 24 (5) , 587-602. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2011.r.07
  245. A. L. Cowie, T. D. Penman, L. Gorissen, M. D. Winslow, J. Lehmann, T. D. Tyrrell, S. Twomlow, A. Wilkes, R. Lal, J. W. Jones, A. Paulsch, K. Kellner, M. Akhtar-Schuster. Towards sustainable land management in the drylands: Scientific connections in monitoring and assessing dryland degradation, climate change and biodiversity. Land Degradation & Development 2011, 22 (2) , 248-260. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.1086
  246. Michael Jahi Chappell, Liliana A. LaValle. Food security and biodiversity: can we have both? An agroecological analysis. Agriculture and Human Values 2011, 28 (1) , 3-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-009-9251-4
  247. K. Padmavathy, G. Poyyamoli. Alternative Farming Techniques for Sustainable Food Production. 2011,,, 367-424. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1521-9_13
  248. J. Y. Wu, M. Martinov, Vito I. Sardo. Human Labour and Green Manure, Two Overlooked Factors for Energy Analysis in Agriculture. 2011,,, 215-229. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1521-9_7
  249. Ben Phalan, Andrew Balmford, Rhys E. Green, Jörn P.W. Scharlemann. Minimising the harm to biodiversity of producing more food globally. Food Policy 2011, 36 , S62-S71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.11.008
  250. Richard Murphy, Jeremy Woods, Mairi Black, Marcelle McManus. Global developments in the competition for land from biofuels. Food Policy 2011, 36 , S52-S61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.11.014
  251. Tiziano Gomiero, David Pimentel, Maurizio G. Paoletti. Environmental Impact of Different Agricultural Management Practices: Conventional vs. Organic Agriculture. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 2011, 30 (1-2) , 95-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352689.2011.554355
  252. Emile A. Frison, Jeremy Cherfas, Toby Hodgkin. Agricultural Biodiversity Is Essential for a Sustainable Improvement in Food and Nutrition Security. Sustainability 2011, 3 (1) , 238-253. https://doi.org/10.3390/su3010238
  253. Rashid Kulmatov, Mirabbos Hojamberdiev. Distribution of heavy metals in atmospheric air of the arid zones in Central Asia. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health 2010, 3 (4) , 183-194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-010-0067-6
  254. Carlos Ricardo Bojacá, Kris A.G. Wyckhuys, Rodrigo Gil, Jaime Jiménez, Eddie Schrevens. Sustainability aspects of vegetable production in the peri-urban environment of Bogotá, Colombia. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 2010, 17 (6) , 487-498. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2010.516890
  255. Glenn Davis Stone. The Anthropology of Genetically Modified Crops. Annual Review of Anthropology 2010, 39 (1) , 381-400. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.012809.105058
  256. Michael Reilly, Dirk Willenbockel. Managing uncertainty: a review of food system scenario analysis and modelling. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2010, 365 (1554) , 3049-3063. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0141
  257. Alison G. Power. Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2010, 365 (1554) , 2959-2971. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0143
  258. Kris A. G. Wyckhuys, Robert J. O’Neil. Social and ecological facets of pest management in Honduran subsistence agriculture: implications for IPM extension and natural resource management. Environment, Development and Sustainability 2010, 12 (3) , 297-311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-009-9195-2
  259. Cornelia Butler Flora. Food security in the context of energy and resource depletion: Sustainable agriculture in developing countries. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 2010, 25 (2) , 118-128. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170510000177
  260. Irene Ring, Bernd Hansjürgens, Thomas Elmqvist, Heidi Wittmer, Pavan Sukhdev. Challenges in framing the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: the TEEB initiative. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2010, 2 (1-2) , 15-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2010.03.005
  261. Deborah Bossio, Kim Geheb, William Critchley. Managing water by managing land: Addressing land degradation to improve water productivity and rural livelihoods. Agricultural Water Management 2010, 97 (4) , 536-542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2008.12.001
  262. Line J. Gordon, C. Max Finlayson, Malin Falkenmark. Managing water in agriculture for food production and other ecosystem services. Agricultural Water Management 2010, 97 (4) , 512-519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2009.03.017
  263. H. C. J. Godfray, J. R. Beddington, I. R. Crute, L. Haddad, D. Lawrence, J. F. Muir, J. Pretty, S. Robinson, S. M. Thomas, C. Toulmin. Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People. Science 2010, 327 (5967) , 812-818. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1185383
  264. S. Ramasamy. World Food Security: The Challenges of Climate Change and Bioenergy. 2010,,, 183-213. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9516-9_13
  265. Peter B.R. Hazell. Chapter 68 An Assessment of the Impact of Agricultural Research in South Asia Since the Green Revolution. 2010,,, 3469-3530. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0072(09)04068-7
  266. JEREMY D. WILSON, ANDREW D. EVANS, PHILIP V. GRICE. Bird conservation and agriculture: a pivotal moment?. Ibis 2010, 152 (1) , 176-179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2009.00992.x
  267. Elena M. Bennett, Garry D. Peterson, Line J. Gordon. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecology Letters 2009, 12 (12) , 1394-1404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01387.x
  268. Mohammed Mainuddin, Mac Kirby. Spatial and temporal trends of water productivity in the lower Mekong River Basin. Agricultural Water Management 2009, 96 (11) , 1567-1578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2009.06.013
  269. Philip McMichael. The Agrofuels Project at Large. Critical Sociology 2009, 35 (6) , 825-839. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920509343071
  270. Luis García-Barrios, Yankuic M. Galván-Miyoshi, Ingrid Abril Valsieso-Pérez, Omar R. Masera, Gerardo Bocco, John Vandermeer. Neotropical Forest Conservation, Agricultural Intensification, and Rural Out-migration: The Mexican Experience. BioScience 2009, 59 (10) , 863-873. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.10.8
  271. Bed Mani Dahal, Ingrid Nyborg, Bishal Kumar Sitaula, Roshan Man Bajracharya. Agricultural intensification: food insecurity to income security in a mid-hill watershed of Nepal. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 2009, 7 (4) , 249-260. https://doi.org/10.3763/ijas.2009.0436
  272. Les Firbank. C ommentary : It's not enough to develop agriculture that minimizes environmental impact. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 2009, 7 (3) , 151-152. https://doi.org/10.3763/ijas.2009.c5007
  273. Adrian Muller. Sustainable agriculture and the production of biomass for energy use. Climatic Change 2009, 94 (3-4) , 319-331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9501-2
  274. John Thompson, Ian Scoones. Addressing the dynamics of agri-food systems: an emerging agenda for social science research. Environmental Science & Policy 2009, 12 (4) , 386-397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2009.03.001
  275. F. R. Funes-Monzote, M. Monzote, E. A. Lantinga, C. J. F. Ter Braak, J. E. Sánchez, H. Van Keulen. Agro-Ecological Indicators (AEIs) for Dairy and Mixed Farming Systems Classification: Identifying Alternatives for the Cuban Livestock Sector. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 2009, 33 (4) , 435-460. https://doi.org/10.1080/10440040902835118
  276. PHILIP McMICHAEL. Banking on Agriculture: A Review of the World Development Report 2008. Journal of Agrarian Change 2009, 9 (2) , 235-246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0366.2009.00203.x
  277. C. Devendra. Intensification of Integrated Oil Palm–Ruminant Systems. Outlook on Agriculture 2009, 38 (1) , 71-81. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000009787762734
  278. Philip McMichael. A food regime genealogy. The Journal of Peasant Studies 2009, 36 (1) , 139-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150902820354
  279. Philip Mcmichael. The Peasant as ‘Canary’? Not too early warnings of global catastrophe. Development 2008, 51 (4) , 504-511. https://doi.org/10.1057/dev.2008.56
  280. Daniela Soleri, David A. Cleveland, Garrett Glasgow, Stuart H. Sweeney, Flavio Aragón Cuevas, Mario R. Fuentes, Humberto Ríos L.. Testing assumptions underlying economic research on transgenic food crops for Third World farmers: Evidence from Cuba, Guatemala and Mexico. Ecological Economics 2008, 67 (4) , 667-682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.01.031
  281. Samir Samman, Jessa W.Y. Chow, Meika J. Foster, Zia I. Ahmad, Jenny L. Phuyal, Peter Petocz. Fatty acid composition of edible oils derived from certified organic and conventional agricultural methods. Food Chemistry 2008, 109 (3) , 670-674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2007.12.067
  282. JOSHUA GRAFF-ZIVIN, LESLIE LIPPER. Poverty, risk, and the supply of soil carbon sequestration. Environment and Development Economics 2008, 13 (03) https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X08004300
  283. Khalil Abu Rabia, Elaine Solowey, Stefan Leu. Environmental and economic potential of Bedouin dryland agriculture. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 2008, 19 (3) , 353-366. https://doi.org/10.1108/14777830810866464
  284. J. W. Gowing, M. Palmer. Sustainable agricultural development in sub-Saharan Africa: the case for a paradigm shift in land husbandry. Soil Use and Management 2008, 24 (1) , 92-99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2007.00137.x
  285. Jules Pretty. Agricultural sustainability: concepts, principles and evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2008, 363 (1491) , 447-465. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2163
  286. Peter Hazell, Stanley Wood. Drivers of change in global agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2008, 363 (1491) , 495-515. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2166
  287. J.I.L Morison, N.R Baker, P.M Mullineaux, W.J Davies. Improving water use in crop production. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2008, 363 (1491) , 639-658. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2175
  288. U. T. Srinivasan, S. P. Carey, E. Hallstein, P. A. T. Higgins, A. C. Kerr, L. E. Koteen, A. B. Smith, R. Watson, J. Harte, R. B. Norgaard. The debt of nations and the distribution of ecological impacts from human activities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2008, 105 (5) , 1768-1773. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0709562104
  289. Stephen Twomlow, David Love, Sue Walker. The nexus between integrated natural resources management and integrated water resources management in southern Africa. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C 2008, 33 (8-13) , 889-898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2008.06.044
  290. Richard James Thomas. 10th Anniversary Review: Addressing land degradation and climate change in dryland agroecosystems through sustainable land management. Journal of Environmental Monitoring 2008, 10 (5) , 595. https://doi.org/10.1039/b801649f
  291. J. Pretty, G. Smith, K. W.T. Goulding, S. J. Groves, I. Henderson, R. E. Hine, V. King, J. van Oostrum, D. J. Pendlington, J. K. Vis, C. Walter. Multi-year assessment of Unilever's progress towards agricultural sustainability I: indicators, methodology and pilot farm results. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 2008, 6 (1) , 37-62. https://doi.org/10.3763/ijas.2007.0322
  292. J. Pretty, G. Smith, K. W.T. Goulding, S. J. Groves, I. Henderson, R. E. Hine, V. King, J. van Oostrum, D. J. Pendlington, J. K. Vis, C. Walter. Multi-year assessment of Unilever's progress towards agricultural sustainability II: outcomes for peas (UK), spinach (Germany, Italy), tomatoes (Australia, Brazil, Greece, USA), tea (Kenya, Tanzania, India) and oil palm (Ghana). International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 2008, 6 (1) , 63-88. https://doi.org/10.3763/ijas.2007.0323
  293. Ambuj D. Sagar, Sivan Kartha. Bioenergy and Sustainable Development?. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 2007, 32 (1) , 131-167. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.32.062706.132042
  294. Daniele Giovannucci. Salient Trends in Organic Standards: Opportunities and Challenges for Developing Countries. SSRN Electronic Journal 2006, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.996093

  • Figure 1 Histogram of change in crop yield after or with project, compared to before or without project (n = 360, mean = 1.79, SD 0.91, median = 1.50, geometric mean = 1.64).

    High Resolution Image
    Download MS PowerPoint Slide

    Figure 2 Box and whisker plot of change in crop yield after or with project, compared to before or without project. Bold lines within boxes indicate median value, box limits indicate interquartile range (i.e., 50% of values lie within the box), whiskers indicate highest and lowest, excluding outliers (○, 1.5−3 × box length distance away from edge of box) or extremes (*, >3 × box length). “Other” group consists of sugar cane (n = 2), quinoa (1), oats (2).

    High Resolution Image
    Download MS PowerPoint Slide

    Figure 3 Mean changes in crop yield after or with project, compared with before or without project. Vertical lines indicate ± SEM. “Other” group consists of sugar cane (n = 2), quinoa (1), oats (2).

    High Resolution Image
    Download MS PowerPoint Slide

    Figure 4 Relationship between relative changes in crop yield after (or with project) to yield before (or without project). Only field crops with n > 9 shown.

    High Resolution Image
    Download MS PowerPoint Slide

    Figure 5 Changes in pesticide use and yields in 62 projects (A, n = 10; C, n = 5; D, n = 47).

    High Resolution Image
    Download MS PowerPoint Slide

  • This article references 41 other publications.

    1. 1
      Trewevas, A. Malthus foiled again and again. Nature2002, 418, 668−670.
      [Crossref], [PubMed], Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    2. 2
      Smil, V. Feeding the World; MIT Press:  Cambridge MA, 2000.
      Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    3. 3
      Tilman, D.; Cassman, K. G.; Matson, P. A.; Naylor, R.; Polasky, S. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 2002, 418, 671−677.
      [Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar
      3
      Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices
      Tilman, David; Cassman, Kenneth G.; Matson, Pamela A.; Naylor, Rosamond; Polasky, Stephen
      Nature (London, United Kingdom) (2002), 418 (6898), 671-677CODEN: NATUAS; ISSN:0028-0836. (Nature Publishing Group)
      A doubling in global food demand projected for the next 50 yr poses huge challenges for the sustainability both of food prodn. and of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and the services they provide to society. Agriculturalists are the principal managers of global useable lands and will shape, perhaps irreversibly, the surface of the Earth in the coming decades. New incentives and policies for ensuring the sustainability of agriculture and ecosystem services will be crucial if we are to meet the demands of improving yields without compromising environmental integrity or public health.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD38XlvVyltb0%253D&md5=a00803fe856cc3f77bde7f45a7a12cd6
    4. 4
      McNeely, J. A.; Scherr, S. J. Ecoagriculture; Island Press:  Washington, DC, 2003.
      Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    5. 5
      FAO. FAOSTAT Database; Rome, 2005.
      Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    6. 6
      Crissman, C. C., Antle, J. M., Capalbo, S. M., Eds. Economic, Environmental and Health Tradeoffs in Agriculture; CIP, Lima & Kluwer:  Boston, MA, 1998.
      Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    7. 7
      Norse, D.; Ji, L.; Leshan, J.; Zheng, Z. Environmental Costs of Rice Production in China; Aileen Press:  Bethesda, MD, 2001.
      Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    8. 8
      Waibel, H.; Fleischer, G.; Becker, H. The economic benefits of pesticides:  A case study from Germany. Agrarwirtschaft 1999, 48 (6), 219−230.
      Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    9. 9
      Pingali, P. L.; Roger P. A. Impact of Pesticides on Farmers' Health and the Rice Environment; Kluwer:  Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1995.
      Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    10. Pretty, J.; Brett, C.; Gee, D.; Hine, R.; Mason, C. F.; Morison, J. I. L.; Raven, H.; Rayment, M.; van der Bijl, G. An assessment of the total external costs of UK agriculture. Agric. Syst. 2000, 65 (2), 113−136.
      [Crossref], Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    11. 11
      Tegtmeier, E. M.; Duffy, M. D. External costs of agricultural production in the US. Int. J. Agric. Sust.2004, 2, 1−20.
      Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    12. 12
      Uphoff N. Agroecological Innovations; Earthscan:  London, 2002.
      Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    13. 13
      National Research Council. Our Common Journey; National Academy Press:  Washington, DC, 2000.
      Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    14. 14
      Conway, G. R. The Doubly Green Revolution; Penguin:  London, 1997.
      Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    15. 15
      Pretty, J. Agri-Culture:  Reconnecting People, Land and Nature; Earthscan:  London, 2002.
      Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    16. 16
      Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The Use of Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries; London, 2004.
      Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    17. 17
      Scherr, S. J.; Yadav, S. Land Degradation in the Developing World; IFPRI:  Washington, DC, 1996.
      Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    18. 18
      Pretty, J.; Morison, J. I. L.; Hine, R. E. Reducing food poverty by increasing agricultural sustainability in developing countries. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.2003, 95 (1), 217−234.
      [Crossref], Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    19. 19
      Dixon, J.; Gulliver, A.; with Gibbon, D. Farming Systems and Poverty; FAO:  Rome, 2001.
      Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    20. International Water Management Institute. World Water Scenarios Analyses; Rijsberman, F., Ed.; Earthscan:  London, 2000.
      Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    21. 21
      Shiklomanov, L. A. World Water Resources:  An Appraisal for the 21st Century; UNESCO:  Paris, 1999.
      Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    22. 22
      Costanza, R.; d'Arge, R.; de Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O'Neil, R. V.; Parvelo, J.; Raskin, R. G.; Sutton, P.; van den Belt, M. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature1997, 387, 253−260.
      [Crossref], [CAS], Google Scholar
      22
      The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital
      Costanza, Robert; d'Arge, Ralph; de Groot, Rudolf; Farber, Stephen; Grasso, Monica; Hannon, Bruce; Limburg, Karin; Naeem, Shahid; O'Neill, Robert V.; Paruelo, Jose; Raskin, Robert G.; Sutton, Paul; van den Belt, Marjan
      Nature (London) (1997), 387 (6630), 253-260CODEN: NATUAS; ISSN:0028-0836. (Macmillan Magazines)
      The services of ecol. systems and the natural capital stocks that produce them are crit. to the functioning of the Earth's life-support system. They contribute to human welfare, both directly and indirectly, and therefore represent part of the total economic value of the planet. We have estd. the current economic value of 17 ecosystem services for 16 biomes, based on published studies and a few original calcns. For the entire biosphere, the value (most of which is outside the market) is estd. to be in the range of US$16-54 trillion (1012) per yr, with an av. of US$33 trillion per yr. Because of the nature of the uncertainties, this must be considered a min. est. Global gross national product total is around US$18 trillion per yr.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADyaK2sXjtlShtbs%253D&md5=2ca143b3089a3a98f546fef09b75c06c
    23. 23
      Kijne, J. W., Barker, R., Molden, D., Eds. Water Productivity in Agriculture:  Limits and Opportunities for Improvement; CABI Publishing:  Wallingford, U.K., 2003.
      Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    24. 24
      Agarwal, A.; Narain, S. Dying Wisdom; Thomson Press:  Faridabad, India, 1997.
      Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    25. 25
      Rockström, J.; Falkenmark, M. Semiarid crop production from a hydrological perspective − gap between potential and actual yields. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci.2000, 19 (4), 319−346.
      [Crossref], Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    26. 26
      IPCC. Climate Change 2001:  Impacts, Adaptation and Vulner ability; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:  Geneva, 2001.
      Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    27. 27
      Swingland, I., Ed. Carbon and Biodiversity; Earthscan:  London, 2003.
      Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    28. 28
      Lal, R.; Griffin, M.; Apt, J.; Lave, L.; Morgan, M. G. Managing soil carbon. Science2004, 304, 393.
      [Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar
      28
      Ecology: Managing soil carbon
      Lal, Rattan; Griffin, Michael; Apt, Jay; Lave, Lester; Morgan, M. Granger
      Science (Washington, DC, United States) (2004), 304 (5669), 393CODEN: SCIEAS; ISSN:0036-8075. (American Association for the Advancement of Science)
      There is no expanded citation for this reference.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD2cXjt1Gisrc%253D&md5=2788e15dc016aa0dd2c6f3a6eab56ccb
    29. 29
      Watson, R. T.; Noble, I. R.; Bolin, B.; Ravindranath, N. H.; Verardo, D. J.; Dokken, D. J., Eds. IPCC Special Report on Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry; IPCC Secretariat:  Geneva, 2000.
      Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    30. Pretty, J.; Ball, A. S.; Xiaoyun, L.; Ravindranath, N. H. The role of sustainable agriculture and renewable resource management in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing sinks in China and India. Philos.Trans. R. Soc., Ser. A2002, 360, 1741−1761.
      [Crossref], [CAS], Google Scholar
      The role of sustainable agriculture and renewable-resource management in reducing greenhouse-gas emissions and increasing sinks in China and India
      Pretty, J. N.; Ball, A. S.; Li, Xiaoyun; Ravindranath, N. H.
      Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences (2002), 360 (1797), 1741-1761CODEN: PTRMAD; ISSN:1364-503X. (Royal Society)
      A review. This paper contains an anal. of the tech. options in agriculture for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions and increasing sinks, arising from three distinct mechanisms: (i) increasing carbon sinks in soil org. matter and above-ground biomass; (ii) avoiding carbon emissions from farms by reducing direct and indirect energy use; and (iii) increasing renewable-energy prodn. from biomass that either substitutes for consumption of fossil fuels or replaces inefficient burning of fuel-wood or crop residues, and so avoids carbon emissions, together with use of biogas digesters and improved cookstoves. We then review best-practice sustainable agriculture and renewable-resource-management projects and initiatives in China and India, and analyze the annual net sinks being created by these projects, and the potential market value of the carbon sequestered. We conclude with a summary of the policy and institutional conditions and reforms required for adoption of best sustainability practice in the agricultural sector to achieve the desired redns. in emissions and increases in sinks. A review of 40 sustainable agriculture and renewable-resource-management projects in China and India under the three mechanisms estd. a carbon mitigation potential of 64.8 MtC yr-1 from 5.5 Mha. The potential income for carbon mitigation is $324 million at $5 per ton of carbon. The potential exists to increase this by orders of magnitude, and so contribute significantly to greenhouse-gas abatement. Most agricultural mitigation options also provide several ancillary benefits. However, there are many tech., financial, policy, legal and institutional barriers to overcome.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD38Xntlektbg%253D&md5=26093ee3409c9be2f11692b518aea7c9
    31. 31
      Eveleens, K. The History of IPM in Asia; FAO:  Rome, 2004.
      Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    32. 32
      Khan, Z. R.; Ampong-Nyarkko, K.; Chiliswa, P.; Hassanali, A.; Kimani, S.; Lwande, W.; Overholt, W. A.; Pickett, J. A.; Smart, L. E.; Wadhams, L. J.; Woodcock, M.Nature1997, 388, 631−632.
      [Crossref], [CAS], Google Scholar
      32
      Intercropping increases parasitism of pests
      Khan, Z. R.; Ampong-Nyarko, K.; Chiliswa, P.; Hassanali, A.; Kimani, S.; Lwande, W.; Overholt, W. A.; Pickett, J. A.; Smart, L. E.; Wadhams, L. J.; Woodcock, C. M.
      Nature (London) (1997), 388 (6643), 631-632CODEN: NATUAS; ISSN:0028-0836. (Macmillan Magazines)
      There is no expanded citation for this reference.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADyaK2sXlsV2ksLk%253D&md5=a8093d0fa2f835dc2cc2abbe71b4405b
    33. 33
      Knutson, R. D.; Taylor, C. R.; Penson, J. B.; Smith, E. S. Economic Impacts of Reduced Chemical Use; Knutson & Assoc.:  College Station, TX, 1990.
      Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    34. 34
      Schmitz, P. M. Overview of cost-benefit assessment. In OECD Workshop on the Economics of Pesticide Risk Reduction in Agriculture; OECD:  Paris, 2001.
      Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    35. 35
      Kenmore, P. E.; Carino, F. O.; Perez, C. A.; Dyck, V. A.; Gutierrez, A. P. J. Plant Prot. Tropics1984, 1 (1), 19−37.
      Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    36. 36
      Feder, G.; Murgai, R.; Quizon, J. B. Sending farmers back to school:  the impact of Farmer Field Schools in Indonesia. Rev. Agric. Econ.2004, 26 (1), 45−62.
      [Crossref], Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    37. 37
      de Freitas, H. Transforming microcatchments in Santa Caterina, Brazil. In Fertile Ground; Hinchcliffe, F., Thompson, J., Pretty, J., Guijt, I., Shah, P., Eds.; IT Publications:  London, 1999.
      Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    38. 38
      Petersen, P.; Tardin, J. M.; Marochi, F. Participatory development of no-tillage systems without herbicides for family farming. Environ. Dev. Sustainability2000, 1, 235−252.
      [Crossref], Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    39. 39
      Delgado, C.; Rosegrant, M.; Steinfield, H.; Ehui, S.; Courbois, C. Livestock to 2020:  The Next Food Revolution; IFPRI:  Washington, DC, 1999.
      Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.
    40. Pretty, J. Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science2003, 302, 1912−1915.
      [Crossref], [PubMed], [CAS], Google Scholar
      Social Capital and the Collective Management of Resources
      Pretty, Jules
      Science (Washington, DC, United States) (2003), 302 (5652), 1912-1915CODEN: SCIEAS; ISSN:0036-8075. (American Association for the Advancement of Science)
      The proposition that natural resources need protection from the destructive actions of people is widely accepted. Yet communities have shown in the past and increasingly today that they can collaborate for long-term resource management. The term social capital captures the idea that social bonds and norms are crit. for sustainability. Where social capital is high in formalized groups, people have the confidence to invest in collective activities, knowing that others will do so too. Some 0.4 to 0.5 million groups have been established since the early 1990s for watershed, forest, irrigation, pest, wildlife, fishery, and microfinance management. These offer a route to sustainable management and governance of common resources.
      >> More from SciFinder ®
      https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BD3sXps1amsLY%253D&md5=d1e8736348f7d87c34ef8895edb21044
    41. 41
      Dasgupta, P. The economics of food. In Feeding the World Population of More Than Eight Billion People; Waterlow, J. C., Armstrong, D. G., Fowden, L., Riley, R., Eds.; Oxford University Press:  New York, 1998.
      Google Scholar
      There is no corresponding record for this reference.

  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information Available

    ARTICLE SECTIONS
    Jump To
    Table A1 containing full details of the classification system developed by FAO (Dixon and Gulliver, ref 19) for farming systems. This separates farming systems into 8 types (ir rigated; wetland rice based; smallholder rainfed humid; smallholder rainfed highland; smallholder rainfed dry/cold; dualistic; coastal artisanal fishing; urban-based) for six regions of the world (Sub-Saharan Africa; Middle East and North Africa; Europe and Central Asia; South Asia; East Asia and Pacific; Latin America and Caribbean). Table A2 summarizing the location of the 286 projects in this study in these farming systems types, and giving the impact of agricultural sustainability in each farming system. Part C containing profiles of 47 of the 286 projects (11 in Latin America, 17 in Africa, and 19 in Asia) as examples of how the technologies were adopted and their environmental and social outcomes. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.

    Terms & Conditions

    Electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. The American Chemical Society holds a copyright ownership interest in any copyrightable Supporting Information. Files available from the ACS website may be downloaded for personal use only. Users are not otherwise permitted to reproduce, republish, redistribute, or sell any Supporting Information from the ACS website, either in whole or in part, in either machine-readable form or any other form without permission from the American Chemical Society. For permission to reproduce, republish and redistribute this material, requesters must process their own requests via the RightsLink permission system. Information about how to use the RightsLink permission system can be found at http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

PDF [ 202KB]

Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

You’ve supercharged your research process with ACS and Mendeley!

STEP 1:
Click to create an ACS ID

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

OOPS

You have to login with your ACS ID befor you can login with your Mendeley account.

MENDELEY PAIRING EXPIRED
Your Mendeley pairing has expired. Please reconnect

This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By continuing to use the site, you are accepting our use of cookies. Read the ACS privacy policy.

CONTINUE