Biopesticides for Sustainable Agriculture: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Emmanuel O. Fenibo
,
Grace N. Ijoma
,
Tonderayi Matambo

Biopesticides are organisms or natural formulations that control or eliminate pests via diverse modes of action (MoA). They cover a wide range of organic products and formulations, such as predatory and parasitic species, biochemical compounds (and their chemical equivalents), and plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs). Biopesticides play critical roles in agriculture, which is the frontier sector driving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Apart from controlling agricultural pests and diseases, they are friendly to the environment, benign to beneficial organisms such as pollinators and plant growth-promoting microorganisms, promote crop productivity and are sensitive to resistant pests created by synthetic pesticides. In addition, biopesticides are very much compatible with the integrated pest management system, which only admits synthetic pesticides as a last resort. As organic formulations, biopesticides fit the defining criteria of Green Chemistry in that they are safe products synthesised from renewable substrates, produce non-toxic compounds and can be driven by minimal energy and biocatalysts.  

  • bio-controlling agents
  • biofertilizers
  • crop diseases
  • green chemistry
  • organic formulation
  • pests
  • pollinators
  • SDGs
  • synthetic pesticides

1. Biopesticides’ Definition and Suitability as Green Chemistry Agents

Organic extracts from shells, crustaceans, and algae function as signal molecules to trigger a defensive response in plants and animals, producing long-lasting effects against biotic infections. These substances are known as semiochemicals [1][2]. So, biopesticides include semiochemicals and biochemical analogues. However, if an organic product exerts its toxicity on pest neurological systems, it becomes a poison [3]. Based on this criterion, rotenone, nicotine, sabadilla, and pyrethrins are regarded as poisonous substances even though they are effective botanicals [4]. As green compounds, biopesticides are of great interest to the 12 Green Chemistry Principles (GCPs).
The overarching 12 GCPs were articulated by Anastas, P. and Warner, J. C. in 1998. These principles are the universal gold standard for developing environmentally friendly processes and products (Figure 1). Green Chemistry advocates methods that lessen the use of dangerous substances and minimise the development of toxic intermediates during chemical transformations. The 12 GCPs require that products are made from renewable feedstock (the focus of Principle 7) under the following conditions:
Sustainability 14 14417 g001 550
Figure 1. A simplified presentation of the production of a green product concerning the 12 Green Chemistry Principles (GCP). GCP 7: Renewable feedstock; GCP 3: Less harmful chemical synthesis; GCP 5: Benign solvent and auxiliary; GCP 6: Energy efficiency; GCP 8: Reduce derivatives; GCP 9: Catalysis; GCP 10: Degradation design; GCP 12: Inherently safer process; GCP 4: Safer chemical design; GCP 10: Design for degradation; GCP 1: Waste prevention; GCP 2: Atom economy; GCP 11: Real-time analysis.
  • Synthetic processes are safe, green, and use minimal energy;
  • The final products are environmentally friendly;
  • Wastes are prevented or minimized.
According to Fenibo et al. [5], the first condition is connected to the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 12th GCPs. The second condition is addressed by Principles 4 and 10, while Principles 1, 2 and 11 ensure waste prevention and minimization (condition three). The surest means of securing condition three is to ensure that the starting materials are integrated into the finished product [6]. As a green product, biopesticides are effective at low concentrations, biodegradable, and harmless to non-target biota. The use of reductases, transaminases, oxidases, hydrolases and other biocatalysts not only meets the minimum energy requirement but also benefits the environment and the economy. In this sense, biopesticides align with green technology and SA. The latter is characterised by the responsible consumption of resources, biodegradability, and productivity [7]. One important outcome of resource consumption in agriculture is the eradication of pests, as shown in Table 1. The conscious attempt to maintain these sustainable attributes implies integrating green chemistry principles into agricultural practices that previously relied on synthetic pesticides (SPs) for pest eradication.
Table 1. Notable examples of plant pests.
Pests Hosts Impact Reference
Weeds:
Annual: Ambrosia artemisiifolia, Abutilon theophrasti, Chenopodium album (Baconweed), Amaranthus spp. (Pigweeds), Digitaria spp.
Biannual: Ailanthus latissimus (Tree-of-heaven), Cirsium vulgare (Bull thistle),
Perennial: Convolvulus arvensis, Rubus spp. (Blackberries), Smilax spp. (Greenbrier), Phytolacca Americana (Pokeweed), Toxicodendron radicans (Poison Ivy).		 Varieties of crops including grains, wheat, rice, maize, beans, chickpeas, potatoes, vegetables, and cotton.
  • Reduces sunlight to crops;
  • Aggressively competes for water and nutrients;
  • Tends to grow faster than crops and crowd out actual crops;
  • Can produce certain chemicals that are toxic to crops or grazing animals.
 [8][9][10][11]
Nematodes:
Heterodera spp. and Globodera spp., (Plant-parasitic nematodes (PPN), Meloidogyne spp. (root-knot nematodes), Pratylenchus spp., Heterodera and Globodera spp. (cyst nematodes), Bursaphelenchus xylophilus (pine wilt nematode), Aphelenchoides besseyi, Radopholus similis (burrowing nematodes), Xiphinema index (virus vector nematode), Ditylenchus dipsaci, Nacobbus aberrans, Rotylenchulus reniformis (reniform nematode).		 Varieties of crops including peaches, nectarines, tomato, pepper, cucumber, almonds, squash, eggplant, okra, sugarcane, beetroot, and pineapple.
  • They attack plant roots and other below-ground parts and sometimes manipulate gene regulation and metabolism to their advantage;
  • They also attack stems and leaves reducing photosynthetic and water and nutrient translocation.
 [12][13][14]
Insects
Aphids, Mexican fruit flies (Anastrepha ludens), grasshoppers, whiteflies, spider mites, silkworms, desert locust (Schistocerca gregaria), migratory locust (Locusta migratoria), screwworm fly (Cochliomyia), tsetse flies (Glossina), uzi fly (Exorista bombycis), potato beetle, Banana- spotting bug (Amblypelta lutescens), European corn borer (Pyrausta nubilalis), Japanese beetle (Popillia japonica), alfalfa weevil (Hypera postica), alfalfa aphid (Therioaphis maculata).		 Varieties of crops including sugar beets and potatoes, maize, peanuts, chickpeas, and cotton.
  • They cause both direct and indirect injuries to growing crops;
  • Direct injury is caused by the insects eating the leaves, reducing photosynthetic activities and burrowing holes in shoots and stems which reduce nutrients and water translocation, burrowing holes in fruits and or/roots, thereby reducing product quality.
 [15][16][17]
Small vertebrates:
Field mice, house mice, rats, feral cats, bats, foxes, wild dogs, pigs, rabbits, snakes, dogs, pigeons.		 Varieties of crops including potatoes, grains, sugar beets, citrus and succulent fruits, peaches, plums, pears, strawberries, grapes, potatoes, and carrots.
  • Bites on fruits and root crops are entryways for pathogenic and spoilage microorganisms;
  • Their excrement and urine on food could be a source of poisoning and diseases;
  • Cause injury and kill cultivated plants.
 [18][19][20]
Fungi
Pythium and Phytophthora infestans (Fungal-like organisms), Fusarium spp., Fusarium graminearum, Fusarium oxysporum, Rhizoctonia solani, Tilletia spp., Plasmopara viticola, Puccinia graminis var. tritici, Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici, Blumeria graminis, Mycosphaerella graminicola, Botrytis cinerea, Ascosphaera spp., Ustilago maydis, Aspergillus spp., Magnaporthe oryzae, Puccinia spp., Colletotrichum spp., Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, Verticillium dahlia, Armillaria spp., Melampsora lini, Phakopsora pachyrhizi Blumeria graminis.		 Variety of crops including grains, rice, wheat, sorghum, potatoes, cassava, tomatoes, bananas, cucumber, grapes, strawberries, coffee, cacao, spices, mangos, and several nuts.
  • Fungi play converse roles of being pathogenic agents of diseases and some species are used as biopesticides;
  • Destruction of mature and senescent tissues of dicots including stored grains;
  • The growth of fungi on crops, fruits and tubers causes spoilage in the form of seedling damping-off, chlorosis, wilts, rots, rust, brown spots, black spots, smuts, mildew and dusty powder.
 [21][22][23]
Protozoa:
Phytomonas leptovasorum, Phytomonas stahelii, Phytomonas françai, Phytomonas serpens		 Variety of crops including, coffee beans, Coconut palm, oil palms, cassava, tomatoes.
  • These protists can cause phloem necrosis, hampering the transport and distribution of organic nutrients in plants. Visible symptoms are yellowing, drooping leaves, foliage desiccation, root die-back and eventual death of the tree.
 [24][25]
Bacteria:
Xanthomonas campestris, Psuedomonas syringae, Pseudomonas corrugate, Clavibacter michiganensis, Pseudomonas spp., Erwinia spp., Ralstonia solanacearum, Rhizomonas suberifaciens, Erwinia carotovora, Agrobacterium tumefaciens, Spiroplasma citri		 Variety of crops including, lettuce, cucurbits, cucumber, pumpkin, melon, tomatoes, chilli, potatoes, eggplant, rice, beans.
  • Bacterial infection occurs at points of injury on plants and is aided by free water;
  • They cause a variety of symptoms including, scabs, blights, soft rot, lesions, wilt, cankers, discolouration, disagreeable odours, and necrosis on infected areas.
 [26][27]
Viruses:
Cassava mosaic begomovirus, Citrus Tristeza closterovirus, Barley yellow dwarf luteovirus, Plum pox potyvirus, Potato leafroll polerovirus, Cacao swollen shoot badnavirus, Potato potexvirus X, Tobacco mosaic tobamovirus, Turnip crinkle carmovirus, Tomato spotted wilt virus, Cucumber green mottle mosaic virus, Pepino mosaic virus		 Variety of crops including, cassava, citrus fruits, barley, cucumber, lettuce, tomatoes, peppers
  • Viruses can initially be symptomless, or their symptoms may resemble other diseases of known aetiology making it difficult to differentiate and treat;
  • Some observable symptoms include chlorosis, mosaic leaf pattern, crinkled leaves, and yellowed leaves.
 [28][29][30]

2. Sustainability Attributes of Biopesticides

There are key parameters that promote agriculture and its related subjects. Constructive manipulations of these parameters in large-scale agriculture translate into sustainable agriculture (SA). The latter is understood as the prudent and continuous use of land and other factors of production in meeting the food needs of the populace and other dimensions such as economic productivity, environmental protection and socio-cultural acceptability. Some of these parameters serve as renewable feedstock and products used in agriculture, including biopesticides. Beyond these roles, biopesticides drive economic productivity and are harmless to non-target organisms, including plant growth-promoting microorganisms and pollinators [31]. These beneficial organisms interact closely with plants for mutual benefits. Plants benefit from the essential nutrients supplied by the microorganisms, which in turn gain energy and protection. In some cases, these rhizomicrobes (rhizobacteria) antagonise soil pests using bioactive substances they produce and metabolise carbon-rich pollutants as an energy source [32]. The majority of these growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) perform nitrogen fixation, mineral solubilization, generation of active metabolites, and induction of systemic resistance for the advantage of the concerned plants [33]. The assimilation of H2 during nitrogen fixation improves the growth of the associated plant [34]. Examples of PGPR (biofertilizers) are Azospirillum, Allorhizobium, Bacillus, Bradyrhizobium, Arthrobacter, Agrobacterium, Mesorrhizobium, Caulobacter, Rhizobium, Azotobacter, Frankia, Erwinia, Micrococcus, Serratia, and Flavobacterium [35]. Inoculation of PGPR to plants improves yield, and as a practice is becoming popular. The use of biofertilizers (PGPR) and biopesticides is essential to organic farming, conserves biodiversity and increases crop yield.
An increase in crop yield is partly attributed to insect pollination. Pollinators contribute to more than 75% of food crops, and 90% of wild angiosperms found in agro-fields benefit from most insect–plant interactions [36]. In addition, the interaction between pollinators and plants results in genetic variability, yield stability, early reproduction, and strong traits [37]. Adamidis et al. [38] established that honeybee-driven pollination contributed to a yield increase in sesame and cotton by 62%. Other significant pollinators are solitary bees, bumble bees, moths, and butterflies. Studies have shown that pollination services raise crop value by USD 17,174 per hectare, boost worldwide food production by 9.5%, with a net worth of USD 405 billion, and account for 67% of Tanzania’s food crops [39][40]. Apart from food, pollinators also contribute to the production of timber, biofuel, fibre, and medication [41]. Garratt et al. [42] noted that the gains from pollination services can only make sense where fertilisers are not limited. This implies that in the presence of sufficient plant nutrients (biofertilizers) and thinned pests, the many advantages of pollination can be fully realized.
From the preceding sections, it is clear that pests, nutrients, and pollinators are critical factors in agricultural practice. Water, the atmosphere, and humans are also critical factors in agriculture. The involvement of pesticides (biopesticides and SPs) improves agro-yield by mitigating pests. However, the other remaining factors respond differently to pesticides in general. Apart from their pest-controlling efficacy, SPs defile the air, soil, groundwater, and surface water. The polluted state of the environment normally leads to health challenges, the abandonment of natural resources, biodiversity losses, and high costs of remediation. Environmental chemical-instigated health challenges can lead to discomfort, fatigue, Parkinson’s disease, cancer, or even death [43]. Attina et al. [44] revealed that the negative impact of organophosphate pesticides costs the United States USD 44.7 billion/year. Earlier, Nowak and Greenfield [45] estimated damages caused by SPs in the following sectors: bird losses (USD 2.2 billion/year), crop losses (USD 1.4 billion/year), public health (USD 1.1 billion/year), pesticide resistance (USD 1.5 billion/year), and groundwater pollution (USD 2.0 billion/year). The high degree of soil and surface water contamination leads to abandonment or suspension of usage until remediation is carried out. Chemical remediation can be accomplished through conventional and bioremediation approaches. Though the bioremediation approach is considered the best option, both techniques cost money, time, and effort. The attenuation of a particular pesticide to a safer target level usually requires a period of 12 to 24 months. All these costs and negative effects of using SPs in agriculture could be avoided by utilising biopesticides instead. The application of biopesticides provides a safer environment and improves productivity. These are areas of concern for the sustainable development goals (SDGs).
The SDGs address 17 subject areas, poverty (SDG1), hunger, health, education, gender, clean water, energy, economic growth, infrastructure, inequality, communities, production and consumption, climate, life underwater, life on land, strong institutions and partnership (SDG 17) [46]. However, the ones that are of interest to agriculture are life under water (SDG 14) and on land (SDG 15). Each of them serves as a base for agricultural activities. Land, especially fallowed ones, can be cultivated while water bodies can be used for aquaculture for subsistence and commercial farming. Sustainable agriculture (SA) is driven by the conscious utilisation of water (SDG 6), nutrients, and energy (SDG 7) [47]. Agriculture-based skills and education (SDG 4) and responsible production of agro-products and consumption (SDG 12) optimise the impact and services that SA provides. Examples of services agriculture provide are the reduction of poverty (SDG 1), drastic hunger reduction (SDG 2), nutrient-linked health improvement (SDG 3) and the reduction of global warming (SDG 13) [48]. Vegetation helps reduce greenhouse gases by absorbing CO2. For this reason, research on CO2 capture and sequestration has been given priority attention in recent times to address global warming [49]. Strong institutions (SDG 16), which promote policies, peace, and justice, serve as enablers of SA improvement and support practitioners on an equal gender basis (SDG 5) to engage in agriculture as a decent profession for economic growth (SDG 8). In summary, it is instructive to conclude that SA platforms (SDG 14 and 15) provide services such as hunger eradication (SDG 2), poverty reduction (SDG 1), health improvement (SDG 3), and air purification (SDG 13). These services can be optimised by ensuring education (SDG 4) and judicious production and consumption (SDG 12) habits. Strong institutions serve as essential elements for all aspects. Conclusively, biopesticide-driven large-scale agriculture is linked to 11 of the 17 SDGs and guarantees food security, productivity, and environmental sustainability.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su142114417

References

  1. Cataldo, E.; Fucile, M.; Mattii, G.B. Biostimulants in viticulture: A sustainable approach against biotic and abiotic stresses. Plants 2022, 11, 162.
  2. Oguh, C.E.; Okpaka, C.O.; Ubani, C.S.; Okekeaji, U.; Joseph, P.S.; Amadi, E.U. Natural pesticides (biopesticides) and uses in pest management-a critical review. Asian J. Biotechnol. Genetic. Eng. 2019, 2, 1–18.
  3. Marrone, P.G. An effective biofungicide with novel modes of action. Pestic. Outlook 2002, 13, 193–194.
  4. Kumar, S.; Singh, A. Biopesticides: Present status and the future prospects. J. Fertil. Pestic. 2015, 6, 100–129.
  5. Fenibo, E.O.; Ijoma, G.N.; Matambo, T. Biopesticides in sustainable agriculture: A critical sustainable development driver governed by green chemistry principles. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 619058.
  6. Rai, P.K.; Lee, S.S.; Zhang, M.; Tsang, Y.F.; Kim, K.H. Heavy metals in food crops: Health risks, fate, mechanisms, and management. Environ. Intl. 2019, 125, 365–385.
  7. Bhandari, S.; Kasana, V. Fe3+-Montmorillonite K10 as an Efficient, green and reusable heterogeneous catalyst for synthesis of mannich type reaction under solvent-free condition. Int. Res. J. Pure Appl. Chem. 2018, 16, 1–11.
  8. Mubeen, K.; Shehzad, M.; Sarwar, N.; Rehman, H.U.; Yasir, T.A.; Wasaya, A.; Ahmad, M.; Hussain, M.; Abbas, M.B.; Yonas, M.W.; et al. The impact of horse purslane (Trianthema portulacastrum L.) infestation on soybean productivity in northern irrigated plains of Pakistan. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0257083.
  9. Badhai, S.; Gupta, A.K.; Maurya, S.P.; Koiri, B. Ecological/cultural measures of weed management for sustainable agriculture. J. Wastes Biomass. Manag. 2021, 3, 36–38.
  10. Schroeder, J.; Thomas, S.H.; Murray, L.W. Impacts of crop pests on weeds and weed–crop interactions. Weed Sci. 2005, 6, 918–922.
  11. Liebman, M.; Mohler, C.L.; Staver, C.P. Ecological management of agricultural weeds. Cambridge University Press: Cambride, MA, USA, 2001.
  12. Marro, N.; Caccia, M.; López-Ráez, J.A. Are strigolactones a key in plant–parasitic nematodes interactions? An intriguing question. Plant Soil 2021, 462, 591–601.
  13. Benzonan, N.C.; Dalisay, L.C.; Reponte, K.C.; Mapanao, C.P.; Alvarez, L.V.; Rendon, A.O.; Zurbano, L.Y. Plant-parasitic nematodes associated with pineapple (Ananas comosus) in selected Provinces in Luzon, Philippines. Eur. J. Mol. Clinical. Med. 2021, 8, 945–957.
  14. Charlier, J.; Thamsborg, S.M.; Bartley, D.J.; Skuce, P.J.; Kenyon, F.; Geurden, T.; Hoste, H.; Williams, A.R.; Sotiraki, S.; Höglund, J.; et al. Mind the gaps in research on the control of gastrointestinal nematodes of farmed ruminants and pigs. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2018, 65, 217–234.
  15. Ahmad, M.; Ali, Q.; Hafeez, M.M.; Malik, A. Improvement for biotic and abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants. Biol. Clin. Sci. Res. J. 2021, 2021, 1.
  16. Budiyanto, G.; Trisnawati, D.W.; Aisyah, S.N. Vegetation analysis of the middle slope geomorphic units on the southern flank of Mount Merapi. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2021.
  17. Burrows, M.; Franc, G.; Rush, C.; Blunt, T.; Ito, D.; Kinzer, K.; Olson, J.; O’Mara, J.; Price, J.; Tande, C.; et al. Occurrence of viruses in wheat in the Great Plains region. Plant Health Prog. 2008, 10, 14.
  18. Deniau, M.; Pihain, M.; Béchade, B.; Jung, V.; Brunellière, M.; Gouesbet, V.; Prinzing, A. Seeds and seedlings of oaks suffer from mammals and molluscs close to phylogenetically isolated, old adults. Ann. Bot. 2021, 127, 787–798.
  19. Matevski, D.; Glatthorn, J.; Kriegel, P.; Schuldt, A. Non-native Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) promotes sentinel prey attack rates in Central European forests. Forest Ecol. Manag. 2021, 489, 119099.
  20. Witmer, G.W. The ecology of vertebrate pests and integrated pest management (IPM). USDA Natl. Wildl. Res. Cent.-Staff. Publ. 2007, 17, 730.
  21. Sandle, T.; Vijayakumar, R.; Saleh, A.l.; Aboody, M.; Saravanakumar, S. In vitro fungicidal activity of biocides against pharmaceutical environmental fungal isolates. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2014, 117, 1267–1273.
  22. Paarlberg, R. African non-adopters. In Handbook on Agriculture, Biotechnology and Development; Edward Elgar Publishing: Chertenham, UK, 2014.
  23. Dean, R.; Van Kan, J.A.; Pretorius, Z.A.; Hammond-Kosack, K.E.; Di Pietro, A.; Spanu, P.D.; Rudd, J.J.; Dickman, M.; Kahmann, R.; Ellis, J.; et al. The top 10 fungal pathogens in molecular plant pathology. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2012, 13, 414–430.
  24. Zviahintseva, A.M. Major cucumber diseases and the crop immunity. Ukr. J. Ecol. 2021, 11, 46–54.
  25. Usta, C. Microorganisms in biological pest control—A review (bacterial toxin application and effect of environmental factors). Curr. Prog. Biol. Res. 2013, 13, 287–317.
  26. Holvoet, K.; Sampers, I.; Seynnaeve, M.; Jacxsens, L.; Uyttendaele, M. Agricultural and management practices and bacterial contamination in greenhouse versus open field lettuce production. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 32–63.
  27. Sharma, A.; Shankhdhar, D.; Shankhdhar, S.C. Growth promotion of the rice genotypes by PGPRs isolated from rice rhizosphere. J. Soil. Sci. Plant Nutr. 2014, 14, 505–517.
  28. Varanda, C.M.; Félix, M.D.R.; Campos, M.D.; Patanita, M.; Materatski, P. Plant viruses: From targets to tools for CRISPR. Viruses 2021, 13, 141.
  29. Nicaise, V. Crop immunity against viruses: Outcomes and future challenges. Front. Plant Sci. 2014, 5, 660.
  30. Murcia, N.; Serra, P.; Olmos, A.; Durán-Vila, N. A novel hybridization approach for detection of citrus viroids. Mol. Cellular. Probes. 2009, 23, 95–102.
  31. Ahirwar, S.; Malik, M.S.; Ahirwar, R.; Shukla, J.P. Identification of suitable sites and structures for artificial groundwater recharge for sustainable groundwater resource development and management. Groundw. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 11, 100388.
  32. Kalwani, M.; Chakdar, H.; Srivastava, A.; Pabbi, S.; Shukla, P. Effects of nanofertilizers on soil and plant-associated microbial communities: Emerging trends and perspectives. Chemosphere 2022, 287, 132107.
  33. Lata, R.K.; Divjot, K.; Nath, Y.A. Endophytic microbiomes: Biodiversity, ecological significance and biotechnological applications. Res. J. Biotechnol. 2019, 14, 10.
  34. Welbaum, G.E.; Sturz, A.V.; Dong, Z.; Nowak, J. Managing soil microorganisms to improve productivity of agro-ecosystems. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2004, 23, 175–193.
  35. Gupta, G.; Parihar, S.S.; Ahirwar, N.K.; Snehi, S.K.; Singh, V. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR): Current and future prospects for development of sustainable agriculture. J. Microb. Biochem. Technol. 2015, 7, 096–102.
  36. Bartomeus, C. Contribution of Insect Pollinators to Crop Yield and Quality Varies with Agricultural Intensification Vanbergen. A Report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Defra: London, UK, 2014.
  37. IPBES. Summary for Policymakers of the Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production; IPBES: Panama, Germany, 2016.
  38. Adamidis, G.C.; Cartar, R.V.; Melathopoulos, A.P.; Pernal, S.F.; Hoover, S.E. Pollinators enhance crop yield and shorten the growing season by modulating plant functional characteristics: A comparison of 23 canola varieties. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 14208.
  39. Porto, R.G.; de Almeida, R.F.; Cruz-Neto, O.; Tabarelli, M.; Viana, B.F.; Peres, C.A.; Lopes, A.V. Pollination ecosystem services: A comprehensive review of economic values, research funding and policy actions. Food Secur. 2020, 12, 1425–1442.
  40. Sawe, T.; Nielsen, A.; Eldegard, K. Crop pollination in small-scale agriculture in Tanzania: Household dependence, awareness and conservation. Sustain 2020, 12, 2228.
  41. Fijen, T.P.; Scheper, J.A.; Boom, T.M.; Janssen, N.; Raemakers, I.; Kleijn, D. Insect pollination is at least as important for marketable crop yield as plant quality in a seed crop. Ecol. Lett. 2018, 21, 1704–1713.
  42. Garratt, M.P.; Bishop, J.; Degani, E.; Potts, S.G.; Shaw, R.F.; Shi, A.; Roy, S. Insect pollination as an agronomic input: Strategies for oilseed rape production. J. Appl. Ecol. 2018, 55, 2834–2842.
  43. Centner, T.J. Pesticide usage is compromising people’s health in the United States: Ideas for reducing damages. Agriculture 2021, 11, 486.
  44. Attina, T.M.; Hauser, R.; Sathyanarayana, S.; Hunt, P.A.; Bourguignon, J.-P.; Myers, J.P.; Trasande, L. Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the USA: A population-based disease burden and cost analysis. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2016, 4, 996–1003.
  45. Nowak, D.J.; Greenfield, E.J. US urban forest statistics, values, and projections. J. For. 2018, 116, 164–177.
  46. Çelık, D.; Meral, M.E.; Waseem, M. A New Area Towards to Digitalization of Energy Systems: Enables, Challenges and Solutions. In Proceedings of the 2022 14th International Conference on Electronics, Computers and Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), Ploiesti, Romania, 30 June–1 July 2022; IEEE; pp. 1–6.
  47. Rao, N.C.; Bathla, S.; Kumar, A.; Jha, G.K. Agriculture and sustainable development goals: An overview and issues. Agric. Econ. Res. Rev. 2018, 31, 1–7.
  48. Hák, T.; Janoušková, S.; Moldan, B. Sustainable Development Goals: A need for relevant indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 60, 565–573.
  49. Madejski, P.; Chmiel, K.; Subramanian, N.; Kus, T. Methods and techniques for CO2 capture: Review of potential solutions and applications in modern energy technologies. Energies 2022, 15, 887.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service
Feedback