Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture.

A
review
Alexander Wezel, Marion Casagrande, Florian Celette, Jean-François Vian,
Aurélie Ferrer, Joséphine Peigné

To cite this version:

Alexander Wezel, Marion Casagrande, Florian Celette, Jean-François Vian, Aurélie Ferrer, et al..
Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Devel-
opment, Springer Verlag/EDP Sciences/INRA, 2014, 34 (1), pp.1-20. �10.1007/s13593-013-0180-7�.
�hal-01234800�

HAL Id: hal-01234800

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01234800
Submitted on 27 Nov 2015

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est

archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de
teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés.
Agron. Sustain. Dev. (2014) 34:1–20
DOI 10.1007/s13593-013-0180-7

REVIEW ARTICLE

Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture. A review

Alexander Wezel & Marion Casagrande & Florian Celette &
Jean-François Vian & Aurélie Ferrer & Joséphine Peigné

Accepted: 6 September 2013 / Published online: 27 September 2013

# INRA and Springer-Verlag France 2013

Abstract The forecasted 9.1 billion population in 2050 will Contents

require an increase in food production for an additional two 1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
billion people. There is thus an active debate on new farming 2. Definition of agroecological cropping practices and an-
practices that could produce more food in a sustainable way. alytical framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Here, we list agroecological cropping practices in temperate 3. Efficiency increase and substitution agroecological
areas. We classify practices according to efficiency, substitu- practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
tion, and redesign. We analyse their advantages and draw- 3.1. Crop choice, crop spatial distribution and crop
backs with emphasis on diversification. We evaluate the po- temporal successions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
tential use of the practices for future agriculture. Our major 3.2. Crop fertilisation management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
findings are: (1) we distinguish 15 categories of agroecolog- 3.3. Crop irrigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
ical practices (7 practices involve increasing efficiency or 3.4. Weed, pest and disease management. . . . . . . . . . . 9
substitution, and 8 practices need a redesign often based on 4. Redesign agroecological practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
diversification). (2) The following agroecological practices 4.1. Crop choice, crop spatial distribution, and crop
are so far poorly integrated in actual agriculture: biofertilisers; temporal succession. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
natural pesticides; crop choice and rotations; intercropping 4.1.1. Cover crop/green manure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
and relay intercropping; agroforestry with timber, fruit, or 4.1.2. Crop temporal successions. . . . . . . . . . . . .10
nut trees; allelopathic plants; direct seeding into living cover 4.1.3. Crop spatial distribution—intercropping and
crops or mulch; and integration of semi-natural landscape agroforestry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
elements at field and farm or their management at landscape 4.2. Weed, pest, and disease management—allelopathic
scale. These agroecological practices have only a moderate plants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
potential to be broadly implemented in the next decade. (3) By 4.3. Tillage management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
contrast, the following practices are already well integrated: 4.4. Management of landscape elements. . . . . . . . . . . .12
organic fertilisation, split fertilisation, reduced tillage, drip 5. Promising agroecological practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
irrigation, biological pest control, and cultivar choice. 5.1. Scales of application, system change. . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. Integration in today's agriculture and promising
Keywords Agroecology . Diversification of cropping agroecological practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
system . Efficiency increase . Substitution . Systems redesign 6. Outlook beyond agroecological practices. . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

A. Wezel (*) : M. Casagrande : F. Celette : J.<F. Vian : A. Ferrer : 1 Introduction

J. Peigné
Department of Agroecology and Environment, ISARA Lyon
The forecasted increase in world population of up to 9.1
(member of the University of Lyon), 23 rue Jean Baldassini,
69364 Lyon cedex 07, France billion in 2050 (United Nations 2009) will require a major
e-mail: [email protected] effort to increase food production for an additional two billion
2 A. Wezel et al.

people compared to today. Disregarding allocation problems,

overproduction and food waste in some world regions, this
would mean that about 30 % more food is needed at the global
level. Thus, world agriculture is facing major challenges in
producing this additional food. In addition, there has been an
increasing demand in the last decades to not only produce
larger quantities, but to also achieve development towards
sustainable agriculture where production is simultaneously
environmental friendly, socially fair, and economically bene-
ficial. It will be necessary to develop agricultural food pro-
duction practices for all types of agriculture, be it convention-
al, integrated, or organic agriculture.
There is a strongly contrasting, on-going debate around the
most appropriate agricultural production practices with which
to reach the goal of higher, and also sustainable food produc- Fig. 2 Landscape elements surrounding a cereal field, southeastern
tion (e.g. Borlaug 2000; Huang et al. 2002; McNeely and France. Woody landscape elements for example can have different func-
Scherr 2003; Médiène et al. 2011; Perfecto and Vandermeer tions such as protection against wind and water erosion, habitats for
beneficial insects and pollinators, production of timber and firewood,
2010; Phipps and Park 2002; Prasifka et al. 2009; ecological corridors in agricultural landscapes, and biodiversity conser-
Swaminathan 2007; Tilman et al. 2002). Agricultural options vation (photo by A. Wezel)
range from high technology-based practices to ecology-based
practices. On the one hand, precision farming (Srinivasan
2006) or use of genetically modified crops (e.g. Huang et al. practices that have been widely used for a long time.
2002; Phipps and Park 2002) could help match the future food However, during the last two decades, they have been increas-
demand. On the other hand, practices such as natural biolog- ingly described as agroecological practices (e.g. Altieri 1995;
ical control of pests (Fig. 1), such as integrating natural Arrignon 1987). The term “agroecological practices” emerged
landscape elements into agricultural landscapes (Fig. 2) in in the 1980s within the development of agroecology (Wezel
order to decrease pesticide use (e.g. Altieri and Nicholls et al. 2009). Today, agroecology as a practice is one of three
2004; Gurr et al. 2004) or no or reduced tillage, that increase major currents or interpretations of agroecology, the others
soil biota activity and improve soil fertility (Holland 2004), being a scientific discipline and a movement. Examples of
are other possible options. agroecological practices are already mentioned in literature,
Practices such as organic crop fertilisation, crop rotations, e.g. cover crops, green manure, intercropping, agroforestry,
or biological pest control are well-known agricultural biological control, resource and biodiversity conservation
practices, or livestock integration (Altieri 1995, 2002;
Arrignon 1987; Gliessman 1997; Wojtkowski 2006).
Nevertheless, we are still lacking to specify the characteristics
that identify them as agroecological practices. What are their
advantages and constraints, and which potential do they have
in the future? For example, agroforestry in developing coun-
tries, with the integration of trees into cropland, is not bene-
ficial per se when crop yields are strongly decreasing due to
loss of cropland or competition for light, nutrients, and water
with trees, therefore generating a risk for smallholder family
survival. Moreover, what are the more recently developed
practices that could be promising in developing a more sus-
tainable agricultural production, and could be considered as
innovative agroecological practices? An innovative practice
can be something completely new, but also a practice based on
age-old principles or techniques that have been little studied
Fig. 1 Conservation biological control: preservation or creation of hab- (Uphoff 2002) and which are newly adapted, thus creating a
itats near fields or in the larger landscape for reproduction, over-winter- novelty for improvement. The origins of innovative practices
ing, or shelter during different phases of life cycle of beneficial insects
which then can control pests. The present photo shows a ladybird beetles,
can be quite different. They may be something new (discov-
a natural predator of aphids, on organic wheat in southeastern France ered accidentally), something purposefully sought through
(photo by A. Wezel) experimentation (such as different potential practices), or they
Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture 3

may be the outcome of a radical change in thinking, or In this review, we present agroecological practices in tem-
approach, to establish a new system (e.g. biodynamic agricul- perate areas, and classify them according to the analytical
ture), thus creating innovations for the practical implementa- framework of Hill and MacRae (1995). It describes an agricul-
tion of the new system. tural transition towards sustainable agriculture by defining three
The aim of this review is to define agroecological practices (usually) consecutive stages: efficiency increase, substitution,
and present them with their constraints, advantages and their and redesign. Nevertheless, some farmers enter the third stage
potential in a concise manner. So far, agroecological practices directly when dramatically changing their cropping systems,
have been presented in books or papers, some with extensive e.g. moving to no tillage systems or agroforestry systems.
literature, but either only focusing on one practice or on only Efficiency increase refers to practices that reduce input
some of them, and in most cases only generally calling them consumption (e.g. water, pesticides, and fertilisers) and im-
agroecological practices without defining what qualifies them prove crop productivity. Substitution practices refer to the
as such. Also, a summarised evaluation of the potential of a substitution of an input or a practice (e.g. replacing chemical
large set of agroecological practices has, to our knowledge, pesticides by natural pesticides). Finally, redesign refers to the
not yet be made in a review paper. A final point is that change of the whole cropping or even farming system. Note
evaluating agroecological practices has been to a larger extent that one practice could correspond to one or more categories
done for practices which are mainly used in the tropics and of such a framework (Table 1).
subtropics, but so far this has only been done to a limited Furthermore, we distinguish between practices that are
extent focusing on temperate areas. either related to crop management or the management of
Therefore, in this paper, we define and present agroecolog- landscape elements. In the case of crop management practices,
ical cropping practices of crop-based farming systems in we distinguish different types: (1) practices addressing crop
temperate areas in analysing their potential and constraints, choice, crop spatial distribution, and crop temporal succes-
and in classifying them into efficiency increase, substitution, sions; (2) tillage practices; (3) fertilisation practices; (4) irri-
and redesign practices. We also analyse which practices are gation practices; and (5) weed, pest, and disease management
based on diversification of systems. In addition, we carry out a practices. In the case of landscape element management, we
detailed analysis of more recently developed agroecological distinguish between practices at the field/farm level and land-
practices by evaluating their potential and constraints to con- scape level. In Fig. 3, we summarise the categories of practices
tribute to the different goals of sustainable agriculture: to and show their scales of application.
provide sufficient food for a growing world population not In developing agroecological practices, the question of
to be at the detriment or risk to the environment and to assure diversification is inevitable, as these practices are based on
economic viability for farmers. ecological processes and provision of ecosystem services. In
the last decade, a growing number of scientists have claimed
that species diversity has to be (re)integrated into cropping
2 Definition of agroecological cropping practices systems for a host of reasons, e.g. higher agroecosystem
and analytical framework resilience to perturbation (Jackson et al. 2007; Loreau 2000;
Malézieux et al. 2009; Tilman et al. 2006; Vandermeer et al.
In our understanding, agroecological practices are agricul- 1998, 2002), decreased pest outbreaks (including weeds), or
tural practices aiming to produce significant amounts of biodiversity conservation (e.g. Médiène et al. 2011).
food, which valorise in the best way ecological processes Diversification refers to integration of more diverse culti-
and ecosystem services in integrating them as fundamental vars, crops or intercrops into the cropping systems, or
elements in the development of the practices, and not valorising natural biodiversity for agricultural purposes
simply relying on ordinary techniques, such as chemical such as conservation biological control. Thus, we also
fertiliser and synthetic pesticide application or technological specify in Table 1 if the presented practices lead to system
solutions, such as genetically modified organisms. Indeed, diversification.
agroecological practices contribute to improving the sus-
tainability of agroecosystems while being based on various
ecological processes and ecosystem services such as nutri- 3 Efficiency increase and substitution agroecological
ent cycling, biological N fixation, natural regulation of practices
pests, soil and water conservation, biodiversity conserva-
tion, and carbon sequestration. Some of these practices Efficiency increase refers to practices that reduce input con-
have already been applied in varying degrees in different sumption (e.g. water, pesticides, and fertilisers) and improve
regions of the world for years or decades, while others crop productivity. Substitution practices refer to the substitu-
were more recently developed and still have a limited rate tion of an input or a practice, e.g. replacing chemical pesti-
of application. cides by natural pesticides.
 4

Table 1 Agroecological crop and landscape element management practices. Each practice is briefly described and assessed according to the conceptual framework (efficiency increase, substitution,
redesign (ESR)). In case of diversification practice, a D is inserted in the D column

Type of management Definition—principles ESR Advantages and constraints D References

Efficiency increase and substitution practices

Crop choice, crop spatial distribution, and crop temporal successions
Cultivar choice Use of resistant crops to biotic and abiotic E, S Advantages: Increase and/or stabilization of yields, pest Tilman et al. (2002); Ryan et al. (2009)
stresses (and mixing them) or crops control, and resistance to water stress. Reduction of
with selected traits that enhance fertiliser or pesticide use.
rhizosphere activities (e.g. mycorrhiza, Constraints: availability and costs of new and adapted
plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria). varieties.
Crop fertilisation
Split fertilisation Fertiliser application (chemical and E Advantages: reduction of fertiliser use. Increased uptake Fageria and Baligar (2005); Zebarth et al. (2009)
organic) with several operations efficiency by crops. Reduction of risk of ground and
surface water contamination.
Constraints: increase in labour and energy demand due
to increase in fertiliser applications. Knowledge/
estimation of crop N demand.
Biofertiliser Application of living microorganisms E, S Advantages: reduction of fertiliser use. Improvement of Vessey (2003); Malusá et al. (2012)
to seed, plant surfaces, or soil nutrient availability.
Constraints: low scientific knowledge. Variable and
inconsistent effects. Low commercialization rate.
Organic fertilisation Application of exclusively organic or E, S, R Advantages: reduction of chemical fertiliser use. Sanchez et al. (2004); Birkhofer et al. (2008);
mixed with inorganic fertilisation Reduction of energy consumption for transport Steenwerth and Belina (2008)
when using on-farm manure or from nearby
cooperating farms. Reduction of risk of ground
and surface water contamination. Enhancement
of soil biological activity.
Constraints: increase in difficulties to optimise N
availability for crops with organic fertiliser
application. Costs for organic fertiliser or manure/
compost and transport if not available on the farm.
Crop irrigation
Drip irrigation Use of drip irrigation (without or in E Advantages: Increase of water use efficiency and Lopes et al. (2011)
combination with cover crops or reduction of water use. Less risk of salinization
mulch). of soils. Reduction of evaporation with cover
crops or mulch.
Constraints: increase in investment, equipment, and
management costs.
Weed, pest and disease management
Natural pesticides/ Botanical Pesticides derived from plants or plant S Advantages: decrease or absence of water or product Coulibaly et al. (2002); Charleston et al. (2005);
pesticides extracts contamination from synthetic pesticides. Decrease Sinzogan et al. (2006); Isman (2006, 2008);
in risk for human health. Usable in organic Regnault-Roger and Philogène (2008)
agriculture.
A. Wezel et al.
Table 1 (continued)

Type of management Definition—principles ESR Advantages and constraints D References

Constraints: variable efficiency to control pests.

Restricted availability. Low scientific knowledge.
National regulations and registrations. Costs.
Biological pest control Control of weeds, pests, and diseases S Advantages: reduction of soil and water contamination Hokkanen (1991); Gurr and Wratten (2000);
based on introduction of natural from pesticides. Reduction of risk for human health. Altieri and Nicholls (2004); Khan and
enemies, pheromones Constraints: variable efficiency depending on pests. Pickett (2004)
Knowledge and management intensive. Costs.
Redesign practices
Crop choice, crop spatial distribution, and crop temporal succession
Crop choice and rotations Integration of different crops in rotations S, RAdvantages: reduction of weed and pest infestation D Altieri (2000); Bàrberi (2002); Deike et al.
(including cover crops) and thus reduced use of pesticides. Reduction of (2008); Scholberg et al. (2010)
Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture

fertiliser use if leguminous crops are used. Increase

in soil biological activity. Reduction of leaching
and erosion with cover crops. Increase in diversity
of feed and food produced.
Constraints: management of a larger number of crops
(labour, knowledge, technical equipment, market
access). Risk of pest development with cover crops
(e.g. snails). Difficulties in destroying cover crops.
Intercropping and relay Intercropping: coexistence of two or more E, S, R Advantages: increase in land productivity. Reduction D Malézieux et al. (2009)
intercropping crops on the same field at the same of pest and disease impact. Improvement of nitrogen
time. Relay intercropping : content of soils in case of intercropping of legumes.
undersowing of relay crops in already Reduction of inputs. Improved soil structure and
existing crop (e.g. undersowing of fertility. In case of relay intercropping: mitigation
legumes in cereals) of competition risk for main crop and facilitation
of N nutrition for undersown crops.
Constraints: increase in labour demand for harvesting
and association management. Lack of technical
equipment for harvesting. Risk of inter-species
competition. Pest facilitation (e.g. slug). Increase
of complexity of system management.
Agroforestry with timber, Alley intercropping with crops and rows E, S, R Advantages: increase in land productivity. Decrease D Buck et al. (1998); Rigueiro-Rodrígues et al.
fruit or nut trees of woody vegetation. Scattered fruit in nutrient leaching and soil erosion. Diversity of (2009)
trees in meadows. production: wood (timber, firewood) or fruit trees and
crops. Provision of mulch material. Protection of
crops from intense solar radiation and wind. Increase
in animal and plant species diversity in fruit tree
meadows.
Constraints: loss of cropped area in case of wood
production. Adequate management of woody
rows. Risk of competition between crops and
woody vegetation. Increase in labour demand.
5
 6

Table 1 (continued)

Type of management Definition—principles ESR Advantages and constraints D References

Weed, pest and disease management

Allelopathic plants Integration of allelopathic plants in crop S, R Advantages: reduction of weed or pest pressure Hokkanen (1991); De Albuquerque et al. (2011);
rotation (including as intercrops or without use of pesticides. Reduction of soilborne Shelton and Badenes-Perez (2006); Médiène
cover crop). Trap crops or push-pull pests and diseases with biofumigation. et al. (2011); Ratnadass et al. (2012)
strategies. Constraints: results depend on local conditions.
Control of allelopathic plants. Lack of scientific
knowledge.
Tillage management
Direct seeding into living cover Planting of crops directly (no tillage) E, S, R Advantages: reduction of energy consumption for Soane et al. (2012);Holland (2004)
crops or mulch in preceeding cover crop (living or seedbed preparation. Decrease in wind and water
destroyed, i.e. mulched) or crop erosion. Reduction of soil compaction. Increase
residues. in soil biota activity. Increase in soil organic matter
and carbon sequestration. Limitation of weed
growth, reduction of herbicide use.
Constraints: difficulty to efficiently control weeds,
living mulch and cover crops. Increase in energy
consumption with mechanical weed control. Yield
reduction due to competition between crops and
cover crops/living mulch. Risk of environmental
impact when high amounts of herbicides are
applied for weed control.
Reduced tillage Use of only superficial tillage without E, S, R Advantages: reduction of energy consumption. Soane et al. (2012); Holland (2004)
soil inversion. Decrease in wind and water erosion. Reduction
of soil compaction. Increase in soil biota activity.
Increase in soil organic matter and carbon
sequestration.
Constraints: difficulty to efficiently control weeds.
Risk of environmental impact when high amounts
of herbicides are applied for weed control.
Management of landscape elements
Integration of semi-natural Planting and management of vegetation S, R Advantages: increase in natural control of pests D Thies and Tscharntke (1999); Östman et al.
landscape elements at field strips and hedges in fields and at (habitat creation). Biodiversity conservation. (2001); Altieri and Nicholls (2004);
or farm scale field borders. Improvement of pollination of crops. Reduction Tscharntke et al. (2007); Gardiner et al.
of pesticide use. Protection against surface water (2009); Obrycki et al. (2009)
contamination. Wind and soil erosion protection.
Constraints: risk of creating habitats for pest species.
Loss of crop area. Need for management of
landscape elements. Efficiency of pest control.
Planting or managing landscape Management of hedges, vegetation R Advantages: reduction of pest pressure. Increase in D Östman et al. (2001); Baudry and Jouin (2003);
elements strips and other landscape elements natural enemy densities, reduction of pesticide Thies et al. (2003); Altieri and Nicholls
at territory scale. use. Reduction of contamination of surface water. (2004); Gardiner et al. (2009); Wu
Increase in wind and soil erosion protection. et al. (2010)
A. Wezel et al.
Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture 7

3.1 Crop choice, crop spatial distribution, and crop temporal

successions

Choosing an adequate crop and cultivar can help to improve

crop resistance to abiotic stresses (N and water deficiency),
pathogens, and diseases (Tilman et al. 2002). Plant breeding
(hybrid and conventional breeding) is thus an option for
developing agroecological practices, considering both cost
and availability to farmers as important constraints (Table 1).
Moreover, crop resistance to a pathogen is likely to be transi-
D References

tory resistance, as new pathogens are concomitantly develop-

ing since crop resistance acts as a selective agent on pathogen
populations (Tilman et al. 2002). Nevertheless, combining
crop resistance to spatial or temporal crop diversity (rotation
and spatial allocation) is a good opportunity for reducing
Constraints: risk of creating habitats for pest species.

this risk.
Enhancement of biodiversity conservation. Use

landscape elements. Efficiency of natural pest

Another important point is to choose crop species or culti-

Loss of crop area. Need for management of

control. Requirement of multi-stakeholder

vars which favour the development of beneficial soil micro-

approach in combination with landscape

organisms. These beneficial microorganisms are mainly locat-

of woody biomass as energy source.

ed in the soil rhizosphere and stimulate plant growth by

different mechanisms (enhanced nutrient acquisition, protec-
tion against pathogens, and modulation of phytohormone
Advantages and constraints

synthesis). Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) constitute a

key functional group that favours crop growth and
agroecosystem sustainability. Soil characteristics, soil man-
management.

agement and plants influence their development and effective-

ness for plant productivity (Gianinazzi et al. 2010). Crop
choice and crop rotation are important factors to consider in
order to favour their development. The diversification of crop
rotations and the reduction of non-mycorrhizal crops (e.g.
ESR

rapeseed) could enhance arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi popu-

lations and diversity. Gianinazzi et al. (2010) also highlight the
importance of changing breeding strategies from a selection of
plants adapted to high fertilisers and biocide usage, to a
selection of plants adapted to AMF attributes. Plant growth-
promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) constitute another key func-
tional group that favours crop development by increasing the
Definition—principles

supply or availability of nutrients to the host plant or by

helping to control pathogenic organisms (Malusá et al. 2012;
Vessey 2003). Numerous cropping practices influence the
density and effectiveness of PGPR, for example, tillage, or-
ganic amendments, or liming. Crop species and cultivar also
influence these microbial communities (Hartmann et al.
2009). Breeding strategies and biotechnology, through the
manipulation of root exudates, have the potential to improve
plant nutrition and protect plants from stresses, but improve-
ment of nutrient availability has yet to be determined (Ryan
Type of management

et al. 2009).
Table 1 (continued)

In general, crop or cultivar choices help to improve the

efficiency of cropping systems, reduce pesticide use, and can
be implemented in a substitution stage. Resource use efficien-
cy can be improved by planting or sowing a crop with lower
needs after a nutrient or water demanding crop. Improving
8 A. Wezel et al.

Fig. 3 Different categories of Scale of application of

agroecological practices agroecological practice
identified in the review. Their
scale of application ranges from Management of landscape
field scale to landscape scale. Landscape
elements
Most practices are either applied scale Integration of semi-natural landscape
elements at field, farm, and
at the field or cropping system landscape scales
scale. The arrow with weed, pest,
and disease management
practices indicates that they are
Crop choice, spatial
also applied on the field scale and Weed, pest, and
Cropping distribution, and
landscape level disease
system temporal succession,
Agroforestry with timber, fruit, or nut management
scale trees, Natural pesticides,
Intercropping and relay intercropping, Biological pest control,
Crop choice and rotations, Allelopathic plants
Cultivar choice

Tillage Crop
management fertilisation Crop
Field Direct seeding into
Split fertilisation, irrigation
scale living cover crops or
Organic fertilisation, Drip irrigation
mulch,
Biofertilizer
Reduced tillage

water use efficiency in water-scarce conditions (particularly Commercialization of PGPR and AMF inoculants remains
rainfed water) is possible with relevant crop rotations (Pala low besides the utilisation of an Azospirillum inoculant, which
et al. 2007; Salado-Navarro and Sinclair 2009; Turner 2004). is available for a variety of crops in Europe and Africa (Vessey
Moreover, in conditions where rainfall events are sporadic and 2003). Some experiments have reported plant growth promo-
sometimes violent (storms in the Mediterranean climate, for tion, increased yield, and uptake of N and some other elements
example), cover crops can play an important role by reducing through PGPR inoculation (Singh et al. 2011) or AMF
surface runoff and permitting a better water infiltration, pos- inoculation (Ortas 2012; Pellegrino et al. 2011).
sibly gainful for the next crop (Celette et al. 2008; Gaudin Biofertilisers can decrease the use of synthetic fertilisers
et al. 2010). and reduce environmental pollution to a considerable
extent. But this technology needs further improvement
3.2 Crop fertilisation management and a better understanding of the different conditions
and features of the interrelationships in the soil–plant–
Splitting N fertiliser application is an effective means of microorganism system in the field (Malusá et al. 2012).
improving N use efficiency in agricultural crop production Indeed, the effect of biofertilisers on plant growth has
(Table 1). The objective is to match the supply of N to the crop been frequently hampered due to the variability and
N demand in time (Fageria and Baligar 2005; Zebarth et al. inconsistency of results between laboratory, greenhouse,
2009). The timing of applications could be triggered and field studies.
depending on the actual N uptake of the crop, which can be Organic fertilisation is a way of substituting inorganic
measured or estimated with the use of different tools (Lemaire fertilisers and of improving the efficiency of fertilisation by
et al. 2008). This improved matching of supply and demand improving general soil fertility. However, it can also lead to a
would help to improve the efficiency of the practice and to necessary redesign of the system. Application of organic
limit ground and surface water contamination by fertilisers. fertiliser causes enhanced soil biological activity (Birkhofer
However, it requires increased labour; the estimation of crop et al. 2008; Steenwerth and Belina 2008) and potentially
N demand might be difficult. increased soil mineralisation. Nevertheless, the constraints of
Utilisation of biofertilisers is another way to reduce these practices may include higher labour and energy
fertiliser inputs and improve nutrient availability. They are demands, and difficulty in optimising N availability in
“substances which contain living microorganisms which, soils with organic fertilisation as well as in matching plant
when applied to seed, plant surfaces, or soil, colonise the demand (Sanchez et al. 2004). Moreover, obtaining off-
rhizosphere or the interior of the plant, and promote growth farm organic fertilisers might be difficult, expensive, and
by increasing the supply or availability of primary nutrients to may even incur undesirable transport costs, e.g. manure.
the host plant” (Vessey 2003). Three major groups of micro- Finally, the introduction of more organic fertilisers into the
organisms are considered biofertilisers: AMF, PGPR, and cropping system may entail introducing livestock into the
nitrogen fixing rhizobia (Malusá et al. 2012). The latter is farm. This would imply a redesign of the whole farming
used with legumes and has existed for over a century. system.
Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture 9

3.3 Crop irrigation Biological pest control includes different agroecological

practices that reduce or replace pesticide use (Table 1).
Drip irrigation, especially in horticultural systems, offers a Biological pest control is based on the substitution of chemical
high potential to limit water inputs, to improve water use pesticides by releasing natural enemies into the agroecosystems.
efficiency, and to better match the crop water demand in time Using pheromones to disturb sexual reproduction of targeted
and space (Table 1). It also limits the risk of soil salinization. insect pests is another biological control option.
The major constraints are the high investment and manage- Natural pesticides and biological pest control reduce the
ment costs. A combination of drip irrigation and cover crops is risk of water pollution and risks to human health (e.g. Altieri
also possible by adding cover crop rows between crops to and Nicholls 2004; Gurr and Wratten 2000). They might be
reduce evaporation from bare soil, decrease soil erosion, in- difficult to apply as their efficiency and availability depends
crease soil organic matter, and increase N concentration if on the pest, because they involve increased management and
legumes are used (Lopes et al. 2011). Cover crops could also costs and require knowledge.
play the role of mulch. To summarise, we defined seven categories of agroecolog-
ical practices that rely either on increasing efficiency by
3.4 Weed, pest, and disease management reducing input consumption and increase crop productivity,
or on substitution practices that substitute an input or a prac-
The use of natural pesticides is an agroecological practice that tice. These agroecological practices are: crop choice, splitting
replaces synthetic pesticide use (Table 1). Natural pesticides, fertilisation, biofertilisers, organic fertilisation, drip irrigation,
often also called botanical pesticides or botanicals, have a high biological pest control, and natural pesticides.
potential as an alternative to synthetic pesticides and their
associated negative effects. Nevertheless, still not much is
known about them, particularly regarding larger-scale appli- 4 Redesign agroecological practices
cations in agriculture. Some of them may also cause environ-
mental pollution. Only a few natural pesticides are presently Redesign practices signifies that the whole, or at least a large
commercially used due to constraints of variable efficiency of part, of the cropping system should be rethought with the
pest control, availability, national regulations and registration, adoption of the practice in question. This redesign is often
and costs (Isman 2008). Among botanical pesticides are, for carried out together with a diversification of systems in in-
example, pesticides which are (1) derived from the seeds of creasing the diversity of cultivars, crops in the rotation, or in
the trees, (2) based on plant essential oils, (3) based on valorising natural biodiversity for conservation biological
pyrethrum extracted from flowers, (4) derived from crude control.
aqueous extracts of plants, and (5) based on extracts of trees
(Batish et al. 2008; Charleston et al. 2005; Coulibaly et al. 4.1 Crop choice, crop spatial distribution, and crop temporal
2002; Isman 2006, 2008; Mordue and Nisbet 2000; succession
Regnault-Roger and Philogène 2008; Sinzogan et al.
2006). Although these botanical pesticides are rather mar- 4.1.1 Cover crop/green manure
ginal compared to other biocontrol methods, they will be
of particular interest for the growing organic sector where Use of cover crops is a widely applied agroecological practice
synthetic pesticides are not allowed, as well as for tradi- to limit fertiliser inputs and reduce risk of water contamination
tional agriculture in developing countries, as many of due to a decreased risk of leaching (Sanchez et al. 2004;
them are derived from tropical or subtropical plants that Scholberg et al. 2010), and also to reduce soil or wind erosion.
grow naturally in such countries (Isman 2006, 2008; Integration of cover crops into the rotation automatically
Regnault-Roger and Philogène 2008). incurs crop diversification (Table 1). Soil biological activity
In addition to botanical pesticides, the so-called is also enhanced, and in the case of use of legumes, there is
biopesticides are also used. This includes the application of provision of N supply for the next crop (Birkhofer et al. 2008;
bacteria, AMF inoculants, or other fungi that can control Steenwerth and Belina 2008). Leguminous plants can be an
deleterious organisms (Vessey 2003; Whipps 2001). important source of easily absorbable nitrogen for other crops
Biopesticides impact pests by antibiosis, competition, induc- in the rotation due to their ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen
tion of plant resistance mechanisms, inactivation of pathogen (Fustec et al. 2010). They also release large amounts of labile
germination, and/or degradation of the pathogenicity of the carbon compounds promoting microbial growth and improv-
pathogens (Whipps 2001). Nevertheless, field application of- ing soil structure (Shepherd et al. 2002). However, cover crop
ten fails to counteract pathogen development due to insuffi- practice constraints include a higher labour demand and po-
cient rhizo- and/or endosphere colonisation (Compant et al. tential risk of pest development, e.g. snails under cover crops.
2010; Verbruggen et al. 2013). Certain species can also be incorporated into the crop rotation
10 A. Wezel et al.

in order to decrease pest pressure. For example, Brassica redesigning the crop rotation system is to maintain good farm
crops can function as cover and trap crops, but also as bio- productivity and profitability. This consists, then, in optimally
control, biofumigant, and biocidal agents against certain in- allocating resources, e.g. land, time, energy, fertilisers, and
sects and pathogens (Ahuja et al. 2010). water, to improve profitability, productivity, and ecological
services (Dogliotti et al. 2003; Dury et al. 2011).
4.1.2 Crop temporal successions
4.1.3 Crop spatial distribution—intercropping
Crop rotation is a more classic way to introduce crop diversity and agroforestry
into an agroecosystem. It consists in managing the crop suc-
cession to optimise positive interactions and synergies be- Intercropping may be defined as the coexistence of two or more
tween crops. As crop presence during the rotation is normally crops in the same field at the same time (Table 1). Different
sequential, interactions between species are mostly indirect, spatial arrangements of these species are possible; the intensity
and also depend on crop management and growth conditions. and type of interactions will depend on the chosen arrangement
In general, crop rotation affects soil fertility, therefore and associated species (Malézieux et al. 2009). Interactions can
influencing plant production as well as the prevalence of pests be positive (facilitation) or negative (competition). The sim-
and diseases (Altieri 1995). plest differentiated crop mixtures (or mixed intercropping) are
First, cropping sequences can be optimised to improve row and strip intercropping where at least one of the associated
nutrient availability and to limit fertiliser need. For example, crops is planted in a row (or strip). These arrangements consist
integration of leguminous plants into the rotation allows fixing of “full intercropping”, where interactions between associated
atmospheric nitrogen, and provides an important source of species occur throughout the crop cycle. This differs with relay
easily absorbable nitrogen for subsequent crops. Second, cer- intercropping, where two or more crops are grown together
tain crop rotations favour soil protection and conservation by only for part of their life cycles, thus limiting interactions
increasing soil cover, e.g. with the introduction of cover crops between species (Vandermeer 1989). Other categories some-
or favouring winter crops, but also by improving carbon times mentioned are associations partially composed of peren-
content and soil fertility which permits an increase in soil nial species (e.g. agroforestry—see below).
stability (Dogliotti et al. 2004; Watson et al. 2002). Root The intercropping systems are assumed to have potential
systems of the subsequent crop play an important role as their advantages in productivity, stability of outputs, resilience to
roots (as crop residues) stimulate soil biological activity and disturbance, and ecological sustainability, though they are
improve soil structural stability. Up to 40 % of the microbial generally considered harder to manage (Vandermeer 1989;
carbon uptake comes from root systems, e.g. exudates or root Fig. 4). The main issue in such a system is managing compe-
turnover (Richardson et al. 2009). In this sense, introduction tition for resources between the associated crops (Ong 1995;
of cover crops and catch crops into the rotation is a potentially Ozier-Lafontaine et al. 1998; Van Noordwijk et al. 1996;
good option (Bilbro 1991; Bruce et al. 1991; Nearing et al.
2005; Wu et al. 2010). Additionally, as mentioned before, they
can mitigate nitrate leaching and improve nutrient use effi-
ciency. Under temperate conditions, they are also likely to
improve water infiltration during the winter period and to
increase water availability for the following crops (Celette
et al. 2008; Justes et al. 2002).
Third, crop rotations can also be an efficient way to reduce
pest and disease prevalence by diversifying crops in the
cropping sequence while avoiding the presence of successive
host crops for diseases (Colbach et al. 1997a, b). In addition,
crop management, e.g. crop residues and fertilisation, play an
important role. Fourth, crop rotation is known to be an effi-
cient way to reduce weed infestation. This is due to the
specific ability of some crops to rapidly cover the soil, thus
competing with weeds for soil and light resources. In addition, Fig. 4 Relay intercropping of wheat and undersown clover in southeast-
crop management is important for weed control with different ern France. In relay intercropping, leguminous species are often sown
possible weeding interventions at different moments during some weeks after the crop to reduce the risk of competition between
crops. They assure a supplementary soil cover in particular after crop
the year (Anderson 2007; Bàrberi 2002; Koocheki et al. 2009). harvest. There, they limit nutrient leaching, wind, and water erosion, fix
Optimising ecological services cannot be the only approach Nitrogen, and can potentially be harvested as forage (photo by F.
to better manage crop rotations. An important point for Boissinot)
Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture 11

Willey 1990). The first interest of intercropping is to improve

land productivity by favouring complementarity of associated
crops. Intercropping generally permits improvement of re-
source use efficiency, notably radiation use (Bedoussac and
Justes 2010; Ozier-Lafontaine et al. 1997; Sinoquet and
Caldwell 1995). In some situations, increased resource use
efficiency is the consequence of a facilitation process (e.g.
association with legume species; Jensen et al. 2010; Köpke
and Nemecek 2009; Schmidtke et al. 2004). Root exudates of
some legume species can improve soil phosphorus availability
(Ae et al. 1990), solubilizing soil organic phosphorus, but also
improve organic fertilisation (Li et al. 2005; Midmore 1993).
Other types of facilitation may be observed when one of the
associated crops offers a service to the other. For example,
Fig. 5 Olive tree agroforestry system with undergrowth of leguminous
when wheat was associated with a clover grass, twice as much
species and grassland in Sardinia, Italy. This type of agroforestry system
earthworms were observed in the soil than with a sole crop allows combining different crops on the same field. Resource use effi-
(Schmidt et al. 2003). As another example, cereal crops can ciency is increased because of different root systems, better nutrient
help pea crops mitigate weed infestation due to their better cycling can be expected, legumes fix nitrogen, and below tree species
cover the soil and wind and water erosion (photo by M. Casagrande)
competitivity and higher resource use efficiency in an
intercropped system than as a sole pea crop (Hauggaard-
Nielsen et al. 2001, 2006). Intercropping also improves soil releasing noxious compounds during their life cycle, or an
physical structure and soil fertility. Compaction and penetra- indirect effect through the decomposition of their residues.
tion resistance are lower in such systems, and there is an Some crops such as rye, sorghum, or sunflower can be used as
improvement in structural stability (Carof et al. 2007; Latif green manure or cover crops due to their direct allelopathic
et al. 1992). Moreover, soil cover is generally increased with effects: inhibition of weed seed germination and/or develop-
intercropping, mitigating both soil crusting and erosion (Le ment due to the release of root exudates (De Albuquerque
Bissonnais et al. 2004). et al. 2011). An onion crop may be regarded as a “push” crop
Different types of agroforestry practices can be also con- because, when cropped together with carrot, it directly reduces
sidered agroecological practices since they reduce nutrient attacks of carrot fly by releasing deterrent compounds (Uvah
leaching, conserve soils, increase diversity of the production and Coaker 1984 cited in Ratnadass et al. 2012). In compar-
system, and produce complementary wood for various uses ison, Brassicaceous crops primarily act indirectly on weeds,
(e.g. Buck et al. 1998; Rigueiro-Rodrígues et al. 2009). In pests, and diseases through the decomposition of their resi-
Europe, there are different agroforestry systems that integrate dues in the soil (Médiène et al. 2011; Ratnadass et al. 2012).
crops and, more generally, woody plants (Rigueiro-Rodrígues This delayed allelopathic effect, called biofumigation, has the
et al. 2009; Fig. 5). However, there are also more specialised ability to reduce soil-borne pests and diseases such as fungi
systems that include fruit or nut tree integration. In some (Médiène et al. 2011), bacteria, and nematodes (Ratnadass
cases, these fruit or nut tree systems are coupled with exten- et al. 2012).
sive grazing of meadows below or between the trees. In Allelopathic effects are not only negative for organisms.
general, constraints for intercropping and agroforestry sys- Their positive effects can be used for managing pests and
tems are higher management needs, loss of cropped land for diseases. In that case, the allelopathic compounds attract the
the main crop, and often a higher labour demand. target organism(s) and the plant actually acts as a “trap” crop
(Hokkanen 1991; Shelton and Badenes-Perez 2006). For ex-
4.2 Weed, pest, and disease management—allelopathic plants ample, crops can be used as cover crops or intercrops because
they stimulate weed germination, thus reducing the soil seed
Some plant species have the ability to produce chemical bank (Scholte 2000a, b; Scholte and Vos 2000 cited in
compounds which negatively influence the growth and devel- Ratnadass et al. 2012). The push–pull strategy is based on
opment of weeds, pests, or diseases (De Albuquerque et al. repelling or deterring insect pests from crops (push), and then
2011; Kruidhof et al. 2008; Tabaglio et al. 2008; Weston attracting them with trap plants around or even within fields to
1996). Therefore, the introduction of so-called allelopathic “pull” them away from crops (e.g. Khan and Pickett 2004).
plants into crop rotations is a promising agroecological prac- Although there is a wide range of possibilities to benefit
tice intending to reduce pesticide use while providing good from allelopathic plants in temperate agroecosystems, so far,
crop yields. Allelopathic plants may be used as intercrops or this type of practice is not widely applied. First, there is a lack
cover crops. They have a direct effect on target organisms by of understanding of the biological processes. Second,
12 A. Wezel et al.

efficiency and results are highly variable depending on local favouring soil biodiversity to promote biological activity (Ball
conditions (De Albuquerque et al. 2011; Médiène et al. 2011), et al. 1998; Vian et al. 2009). For instance, with no tillage
and third and allelopathic crops can also behave as pathogen– more anecic earthworms were found (Capowiez et al. 2009;
host (Ratnadass et al. 2012). Peigné et al. 2009; Pelosi et al. 2009) which increased soil
porosity and thus improved water and root penetration into the
4.3 Tillage management soil. The impact of reduced tillage may also be found on
earthworm abundance, but to a lesser extent than under no
Shifting from conventional to reduced tillage or no tillage tillage management (Peigné et al. 2009). Moreover, a better
(direct seeding) helps to reduce energy consumption, de- control of certain pests can be expected because increased
creases wind and water erosion, reduces soil compaction, numbers of predators, such as ground beetles, are found in
increases soil biota activity, increases soil organic matter, no tillage conditions (Kromp 1999).
and thus carbon sequestration (Table 1). Although no tillage and reduced tillage are promising
No tillage corresponds to tillage practices without soil practices, there are still considerable constraints for adoption.
disturbance, such as direct seeding into a living crop or mulch A primary one is weed control. In conventional agriculture,
(Fig. 6). Specific machinery may be used, such as direct reduced tillage can also mean increased use of chemical
seeders, which are comprised of coulter discs or tines for fertilisers and pesticides to control weeds and maintain yields
cutting and opening furrows for seeding. Reduced tillage (Teasdale et al. 2007). For no tillage systems with direct
corresponds to minimal soil disturbance without soil inversion seeding into mulch, the increase of herbicides is due to
(in contrast to ploughing). The soil is only worked to a depth destroying the cover crop. In organic farming, reduced tillage
of 5–15 cm before seeding. The main goal is to reduce soil often results in increasing the machine traffic for weed control,
disturbance and preserve organic matter (fresh crop residues) and thus increasing labour time and energy costs (Peigné et al.
at the soil surface or in the first few centimetres of the soil. 2007). In temperate climates, soil compaction can occur due to
Many authors have discussed advantages of these practices for climatic and soil conditions, such as in the northern part of
improving soil fertility (El Titi 2003; Holland 2004), with a Europe (Soane et al. 2012). All these constraints result in no
high impact on soil fertility with no tillage and with a lower clear conclusion regarding their effect on crop yields.
impact on soil fertility with reduced tillage. Reduced or no According to Soane et al. (2012), in Europe, it seems that
tillage practices are currently spreading throughout the world, the yields of winter crops with no tillage or reduced tillage are
including temperate areas (Holland 2004; Peigné et al. 2007; comparable to conventional tillage with ploughing, whereas
Soane et al. 2012). the yields can decrease for spring crops.
Reduced or no tillage practices help reduce energy inputs To alleviate constraints and increase efficiency, introduc-
and thus increase cropping system efficiency. Other advan- tion of such practices implies redesigning the cropping sys-
tages are protecting the soil from erosion (organic matter at the tems. For instance, to better control weeds, it is necessary to
soil surface), stocking organic C (less C mineralisation), and rethink the cropping system as a whole, e.g. modifying the
choice of crops and crop rotations.

4.4 Management of landscape elements

More recent agroecological practices and approaches are the

integration, or re-integration, of natural or semi-natural land-
scape elements such as hedges and vegetation strips, either in
or around the field (Fig. 2), or at a landscape scale. Landscape
elements have good potential to provide habitats and
overwintering sites as well as resources such as alternative
prey for beneficial insects or other pest predators (Fig. 1), thus
reducing the need for pesticide applications. Due to higher
natural plant diversity and flowering, they can also positively
influence crop pollination as they attract pollinators and host
them outside the crop flowering period (Ricketts et al. 2008).
The in-field and around-field landscape elements also protect
Fig. 6 Direct sowing of soybean into rye in southeastern France. This against wind and soil erosion and against surface water con-
practice allows permanent soil cover and thus control weeds, decrease
nutrient leaching, wind, and water erosion. Also soil organic matter is
tamination (Baudry and Jouin 2003; Wu et al. 2010). In
increase and higher soil biota activity achieved which leads to improve addition, they generally assure biodiversity conservation in
soil fertility (photo by J. Peigné) agricultural areas. The major constraints of these landscape
Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture 13

elements are that they may also harbour habitats for pest To summarise, eight categories of agroecological practices
species, and that the efficiency for natural pest control may can be distinguished that need a redesign of the whole or part
vary considerably. In addition, they reduce the cropped area of the existing cropping system before they can be adopted.
and potential food production, and have to be managed by Often, this includes a diversification of the system. Among
farmers. these agroecological practices are crop choice and rotations;
Current research regarding the integration of landscape intercropping and relay intercropping; agroforestry with tim-
elements into agricultural landscapes faces the challenge of ber, fruit, or nut trees; allelopathic plants; direct seeding into
improving biological control of pests in order to reduce pes- living cover crops or mulch; reduced tillage; integration of
ticide use. In most cases, the diversity of habitats within semi-natural landscape elements at field or farm scale; and
landscapes greatly affects communities of herbivores and their management of landscape elements at landscape scale.
natural enemies within an agricultural crop (Altieri and
Nicholls 2004; Gardiner et al. 2009). The majority of studies
show that herbivore density and crop damage decreases with 5 Promising agroecological practices
increasing proportions of non-crop habitats in the landscape.
For example, Thies et al. (2003) found decreased plant dam- 5.1 Scales of application, system change
age and increased larval parasitism in structurally complex
landscapes. Östman et al. (2001) showed that regardless of A broad variety of agroecological practices that improve
conventional or organic farming practices, early season estab- agricultural production without an expense to the environment
lishment of aphids was lower in landscapes with abundant or biodiversity have existed for decades. Nevertheless, they
field margins and perennial crops. Altieri and Nicholls (2004) are applied to various extents in different parts of the world
and Obrycki et al. (2009) found that the introduction of and to different degrees within the prevailing regional or
flowering plants as strips within cropped fields enhances the national farming systems. Whereas agroecological practices
availability of pollen and nectar, necessary for optimal repro- are applied by a higher share of farmers practicing integrated
duction, fecundity, and longevity of many natural enemies of agriculture or organic agriculture, wide contrasts are found in
pests, leading to greater abundance of aphidophagous preda- conventional agriculture. In most of the highly industrialised
tors and reduced aphid populations. large-scale cropping and livestock systems, the use of agro-
Although many positive effects of landscape elements and ecological practices is still limited. In contrast, in less inten-
natural habitats on pest control have been observed, either in sive conventional systems, e.g. in less-favoured hilly or moun-
and around fields or at the landscape scale, the current chal- tainous areas, different agroecological practices have been
lenges are to preserve the existing landscape elements and to more widely applied for decades as these areas have lower
re-establish or increase introduction to present agroecosystems potential for intensive production.
and agricultural landscapes. Here, habitat thresholds play an The application of the different agroecological practices
important role. With and King (1999 cited in Gardiner et al. presented in this paper implies modifying the farming system,
2009) as well as Thies and Tscharntke (1999) showed that either at crop management scale or at the cropping or farming
search success of natural enemies and parasitism rates declined system scale. In the case of a single practice, the level of
when the non-crop area fell below 20 %. In addition, the change is usually low because only part of the crop manage-
impact of landscape structure is dependent not only on the ment has to be changed or adapted by the farmer (Table 2).
total amount of suitable habitats within landscapes, but also on This is usually the case when considering efficiency or sub-
the spatial arrangement of habitats as herbivorous pests and stitution practices. For example, applying split fertilisation
their natural enemies vary in their capacity for dispersal or changing crop cultivars that can be relatively easily
(Gardiner et al. 2009). In their review paper, Tscharntke et al. implemented. In contrast, when the practices require modifi-
(2007) clearly state that the enhancement of biological control cation of the cropping or farming system, the necessary level
needs a landscape perspective and consideration of possible of system change is normally medium or high because not
interacting effects between the landscape context and local only a single practice, but a much larger part of the system has
habitat quality. Even so, specific recommendations to design to be reorganised or redesigned. For example, direct seeding
appropriate agricultural landscapes that effectively assure bio- into living mulch might require a strong system change; new
logical control are needed. machinery is necessary to prepare fields and carry out seeding,
Integration and management of semi-natural elements at new types of mechanical weed management have to be ap-
the landscape scale demands multi-stakeholder agreement plied to avoid applying high amounts of herbicides, and crop
as this has to be implemented within territorial develop- rotations have to be redesigned to take into account mulch
ment. In this respect, this not is a single-operator practice benefits. This high level of system changes explains why this
compared to the other agroecological practices presented agroecological practice is not yet widely applied in current
in this paper. agriculture.
14 A. Wezel et al.

Table 2 Agroecological cropping practices, scale of application, level of system change, and integration in today's agriculture in Europe

Agroecological practice Scale of Level of system Level of integration Potential for the
applicationa change needed in today's agriculture next decade

Efficiency increase and substitution practices

Crop choice, crop spatial distribution, and crop temporal succession
Cultivar choice Practice Low High High
Crop fertilisation
Split fertilisation Practice, system Low High High
Biofertiliser Practice Low Low Medium
Organic fertilisation Practice, system Medium Medium Medium
Crop irrigation
Drip irrigation Practice High Medium High
Weed, pest, and disease management
Natural pesticides Practice Low Low Medium
Biological pest control System Medium Medium High
Redesign practices
Crop choice, crop spatial distribution and crop temporal succession
Crop choice and rotations System Medium Low High
Intercropping and relay intercropping Practice, system High Low Medium
Agroforestry with timber, fruit or nut trees System High Low Low
Weed, pest and disease management
Allelopathic plants Practice, system Low Low Medium
Tillage management
Direct seeding into living cover crops or mulch System, practice High Low Low/medium
Reduced tillage System, practice High Medium Medium/high
Management of landscape elements
Integration of semi-natural landscape elements at field or farm scale System, practice Medium Low Medium
Management of landscape elements at landscape scale Landscape High Low Low
a
Practice=only the specific practice has to be changed or adapted. System=the cropping or farming system has to be changed or adapted. Landscape=
multi-stakeholder agreement is necessary to apply management

Diversification plays an important role when implementing agriculture (Fig. 7). The two practices that are currently wide-
many agroecological practices. This is accomplished, for ex- ly applied are split fertilisation and use of cultivars from plant
ample, with the integration of more diverse cultivars, crops, or breeding. This seems to be due to their longer existence and
intercrops in the cropping system, use of agroforestry systems, the high level of experience and knowledge that have been
and valorisation of semi-natural landscape elements for con- developed for two or three decades, but also because they do
servation biological control. The overall objective is to valorise not require a high level of system change (Table 2).
different ecosystem services linked to diversification in order Integration of organic fertilisation, cover crops, drip irrigation,
to increase resilience of agroecosystems to perturbation, to and biological pest control has already reached a medium
decrease pest outbreaks (including weeds) or control them at level of integration in today's agriculture. The latter three,
an acceptable level, and to conserve (agro)biodiversity. together with split fertilisation and the use of plant breeding
Nevertheless, to implement the agroecological practices that cultivars, have, in our opinion, a high potential to be more
are based on diversification, a redesign of cropping systems is broadly implemented in the next decade because they already
often necessary because the general trend after the green rev- benefit from good scientific knowledge as well as broad
olution was, contrarily, to simplify production systems. experience of farmers.
In addition, legislative regulations and laws in Europe or at
5.2 Integration in today's agriculture and promising national levels, such as the Nitrate Directive, Water
agroecological practices Framework Directive, Pesticides Framework Directive, the
greening of the second pillar of the Common Agricultural
In general, most of the agroecological practices presented in Policy in Europe, and agri-environment schemes, will proba-
this paper remain today at a low level of application in bly boost implementation of more environmentally friendly
Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture 15

Fig. 7 Potential of Potential of agroecological practices

agroecological practices for the
Biological Split
next decade in relation to their pest control fertilisation
integration in today's agriculture.
Crop choice
Most practices have so far a low

high
and rotations Cultivar
Drip irrigation
integration in today's agriculture, choice
and only low or medium potential
for the next decade to be more Reduced
tillage
broadly implemented. In contrast, Biofertilizer
organic fertilisation, reduced
Natural
tillage, drip irrigation, biological pesticides Intercropping
pest control, cultivar choice, and and relay

medium
Allelopathic intercropping
split fertilisation have already plants Organic
medium or high integration levels fertilisation
in today's agriculture, and Integration of semi-natural
landscape elements at
medium or high potential for the field and farm scale
future
Direct seeding
into living cover
crops or mulch

Integration of semi-natural
landscape elements at
low

landscape scale

Agroforestry

low medium high

Integration in today’s agriculture

practices that are less polluting and less reliant on external conditions, as it involves a larger scale of management.
inputs. These regulations could enhance an extended use of Moreover, this type of agroecological practice/approach can
split fertilisation, cover crops, diversified crop rotation, and probably only be implemented in the framework of territorial
biological control. development projects and planning. The main constraints for
Nevertheless, most of the agroecological practices only the development of practices based on allelopathy are low
have a medium potential for a broad implementation in the scientific knowledge and practical experience, and difficulties
next decade. This is due to still-limited scientific knowledge to manage allelopathic plants. Although agroforestry systems
or low practical on-farm experience with practices such as exist in many European regions, the combined management of
direct seeding and relay intercropping, and the use of natural trees and meadows, for example, is considered an “old-fash-
pesticides and application of biopesticides in agriculture. A ioned” system without high yield potential. The surface areas
major constraint for direct seeding and intercropping is still of these systems are presently decreasing, although some
their agronomic performance as yields are very variable national support programs do exist (Rigueiro-Rodrígues
(Malézieux et al. 2009; Soane et al. 2012). Natural and botan- et al. 2009).
ical pesticides as well as biopesticide application will probably What can be generally expected from agroecological prac-
not be used on larger areas in the next decade. tices in the following years? Although some of them are
In contrast, practices such as direct seeding into living already quite well known, most of them will not be applied
mulch or cover crops and the integration of landscape ele- in the near future at larger scales. It seems more realistic that
ments around fields that we classified as medium or low we will still have to focus on core production areas with high
potential for the next decade might even develop much faster inputs to guarantee high yields, but in setting clear rules
than expected as much research is currently carried out on against environmental degradation and pollution as well as
these topics, but also because an increasing number of farmers biodiversity loss. A broader dissemination of agroecological
or farmer groups own the development of these practices. practices will probably happen first in less-favoured agricul-
Integration of allelopathic plants, biofertiliser, agroforestry tural areas or low potential production zones.
systems, and management of landscape elements at field scale In contrast to temperate zone agriculture, potential for yield
have a low level of integration in today's agriculture and will, increases with agroecological practices are much higher in
in our opinion, not be broadly implemented in the near future. developing countries as they are usually not at yield maxi-
A landscape-based integration of landscape elements will mums, except for irrigated rice systems. Pretty et al. (2003) and
strongly depend on the regional and national general De Schutter (2011, 2012) summarised such examples from
16 A. Wezel et al.

tropical and subtropical countries. Nevertheless, as in the case The most important parameters for a limited or broader
for temperate zone agriculture, many of these agroecological application today are if (1) the practices have already existed
practices with high potential in developing countries are not for a significant period of time, (2) there exists widespread
yet widely applied (Altieri 2000; Wezel and Rath 2002). farming and good scientific knowledge about the practices, (3)
To summarise, most agroecological practices have so far a there exists practical on-farm experience, and (4) a system
low integration in today's agriculture, and only low or medium change and redesign of cropping systems is required.
potential for the next decade to be more broadly implemented. To feed a growing world population, we need practices that
In contrast, organic fertilisation, reduced tillage, drip irrigation, provide sufficient food that are not at the detriment or risk to
biological pest control, cultivar choice, and split fertilisation the environment and that assure economic viability for
have already medium or high integration levels in today's farmers. Here, agroecological cropping practices can and
agriculture, and medium or high potential for the future. should play a central role.

Acknowledgments We highly appreciate the numerous discussions we

had with many colleagues in France and elsewhere in the world about
6 Outlook beyond agroecological practices
what constitute an agroecological practice, and which are qualifying
agricultural practices.
Even in widely applying and further developing agroecolog-
ical practices, and with this improving agricultural production
in terms of quantity and quality, more requirements are nec-
essary to feed the planet by 2050. According to the scenarios References
developed in the Agrimonde report (INRA and CIRAD 2009),
which are based on scenarios of the Millennium Ecosystem Ae N, Arihara J, Okada K, Yoshihara T, Johansen C (1990) Phosphorus
Assessment report (2005), it also requires (1) major shifts in uptake by pigeon pea and its role in cropping systems of the Indian
subcontinent. Science 248:477–480. doi:10.1126/science.248.4954.
food consumption trends, in particular breaking the relation- 477
ship between higher revenue and higher consumption of ani- Ahuja I, Rohloff J, Bones A (2010) Defence mechanisms of
mal products; (2) large investments in infrastructure, research, Brassicaceae: implications for plant-insect interactions and potential
and development not to only increase yields, but to develop for integrated pest management. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 30:
311–348. doi:10.1051/agro/2009025
agricultural systems that are compatible with ecosystem pres- Altieri MA (1995) Agroecology: the science of sustainable agriculture.
ervation and resistance to climate change; (3) proactive poli- Westview Press, Boulder
cies at different levels to improve structural development in Altieri MA (2000) Enhancing the productivity and multifunctionality of
agricultural systems and consumption, as well as to regulate traditional farming in Latin America. Int J Sustain Dev World 7:50–
61
food trade; and (4) reducing losses at all levels (storage, Altieri MA (2002) Agroecology: the science of natural resource manage-
transport, processing, distribution, and consumption). ment for poor farmers in marginal environments. Agric Ecosyst
Nevertheless, production practices remain the central and Environ 93:1–24
crucial point as they are the primary factor to produce food for Altieri MA, Nicholls CI (2004) Biodiversity and pest management in
agroecosystems. Food Product Press, New York
future generations. Here, agroecological cropping practices Anderson RL (2007) Managing weeds with a dualistic approach of
can and should play a central role. prevention and control. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 27:13–18.
doi:10.1051/agro:2006027
Arrignon J (1987) Agro-écologie des zones arides et sub-humides. G-P
Masonneuve & Larose/ACCT, Paris
7 Conclusions Ball BC, Tebrügge F, Sartori L, Giráldez JV, González P (1998) Influence
of no-tillage on physical, chemical and biological soil properties. In:
Most agroecological practices such as biofertilisers; natural Tebrügge F, Böhrnsen A (eds) Experiences with the applicability of
pesticides; crop choice and rotations; intercropping and relay no-tillage crop production in the West European countries, review
papers, summaries and conclusions of the concerted action. Justus-
intercropping; agroforestry with timber, fruit, or nut trees; Liebig University, Giessen, pp 7–27
allelopathic plants; direct seeding into living cover crops or Bàrberi P (2002) Weed management in organic agriculture: are we
mulch; and integration of semi-natural landscape elements at addressing the right issues? Weed Res 42:177–193. doi:10.1046/j.
field or farm scale; or their management at landscape scale 1365-3180.2002.00277.x
Batish DR, Sing HP, Kohli RK, Kaur S (2008) Eucalyptus essential oil as
have so far a low integration in today's agriculture. They have a natural pesticide. For Ecol Manag 256:2166–2174. doi:10.1016/j.
only low or medium potential to be more broadly implemented foreco.2008.08.008
in the next decade. In contrast, organic fertilisation, split Baudry J, Jouin A (2003) De la haie aux bocages. Organisation,
fertilisation, reduced tillage, drip irrigation, biological pest dynamique et gestion. INRA, Paris
Bedoussac L, Justes E (2010) Dynamic analysis of competition and
control, and cultivar choice have already medium or high complementarity for light and N use to understand the yield and
integration levels in today's agriculture, and medium or high the protein content of a durum wheat–winter pea intercrop. Plant
potential for the future. Soil 330:37–54. doi:10.1007/s11104-010-0303-8
Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture 17

Bilbro JD (1991) Cover crops for wind erosion control in semiarid Deike S, Pallutt B, Melander B, Strassemeyer J, Christen O (2008) Long-
regions. In: Hargrove WL (ed) Cover crops for clean water: the term productivity and environmental effects of arable farming as
proceedings of an international conference, West Tennessee affected by crop rotation, soil tillage intensity and strategy of pesticide
Experiment Station, April 9–11, 1991. Jackson, Tennessee, pp 36– use: a case study of two long-term field experiments in Germany and
38 Denmark. Eur J Agron 29:191–199. doi:10.1016/j.eja.2008.06.001
Birkhofer K, Bezemer TM, Bloem J, Bonkowski M, Christensen S, Dogliotti S, Rossing WAH, Van Ittersum MK (2003) ROTAT, a tool for
Dubois D, Ekelund F, Fließbach A, Gunst L, Hedlund K, Mäder P, systematically generating crop rotations. Eur J Agron 19:239–250.
Mikola J, Robin C, Setälä H, Tatin-Froux F, Van der Putten WH, doi:10.1016/S1161-0301(02)00047-3
Scheu S (2008) Long-term organic farming fosters below and Dogliotti S, Rossing WAH, van Ittersum MK (2004) Systematic design
aboveground biota: implications for soil quality, biological control and evaluation of crop rotations enhancing soil conservation, soil
and productivity. Soil Biol Biochem 40:2297–2308. doi:10.1016/j. fertility and farm income: a case study for vegetable farms in South
soilbio.2008.05.007 Uruguay. Agric Syst 80:277–302. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2003.08.001
Borlaug NE (2000) Ending world hunger. The promise of biotechnology Dury J, Schaller N, Garcia F, Reynaud A, Bergez J-E (2011) Models to
and the threat of antiscience zealotry. Plant Phys 124:487–490. doi: support cropping plan and crop rotation decisions. A review. Agron
10.1104/pp. 124.2.487 Sustain Dev 32:567–580. doi:10.1007/s13593-011-0037-x
Bruce RR, Hendrix PF, Langdale GW (1991) Role of cover crops in El Titi A (2003) Implications of soil tillage for weed communities. In: El
recovery and maintenance of soil productivity. In: Hargrove WL Titi A (ed) Soil tillage in agroecosystems. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
(ed) Cover crops for clean water: the proceedings of an international pp 147–185
conference, West Tennessee Experiment Station, April 9–11, 1991. Fageria NK, Baligar VC (2005) Enhancing nitrogen use efficiency in crop
Jackson, Tennessee, pp 109–115 plants. Adv Agron 88:97–185. doi:10.1016/S0065-2113(05)88004-6
Buck LE, Lassoie JP, Fernandes E (1998) Agroforestry in sustainable Fustec J, Lesuffleur F, Mahieu S, Cliquet J-B (2010) Nitrogen
agricultural systems. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 411 p rhizodeposition of legumes. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 30:57–
Capowiez Y, Cadoux S, Bouchant P, Ruy S, Roger-Estrade J, Richard G, 66. doi:10.1051/agro/2009003
Boizard H (2009) The effect of tillage type and cropping system on Gardiner MM, Fiedler AK, Costamagna AC, Landis DA (2009)
earthworm communities, macroporosity and water infiltration. Soil Integrating conservation biological control into IPM systems. In:
Till Res 105:209–216. doi:10.1016/j.still.2009.09.002 Radcliffe EB, Hutchison WD, Cancelado RE (eds) Integrated pest
Carof M, de Tourdonnet S, Saulas P, Le Floch D, Roger-Estrade J (2007) management. Concepts, tactics, strategies and case studies.
Undersowing wheat with different living mulches in a no-till system. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 151–162
I. Yield analysis. Agron Sustain Dev 27:347–356. doi:10.1051/ Gaudin R, Celette F, Gary C (2010) Contribution of runoff to incomplete
agro:2007016 off season soil water refilling in a Mediterranean vineyard. Agric
Celette F, Gaudin R, Gary C (2008) Spatial and temporal changes in the Wat Manag 97:1534–1540. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2010.05.007
water regime of a Mediterranean vineyard due to the adoption of Gianinazzi S, Gollotte A, Binet MN, van Tuinen D, Redecker D, Wipf D
cover cropping. Eur J Agron 29:153–162. doi:10.1016/j.eja.2008. (2010) Agroecology: the key role of arbuscular mycorrhizas in
04.007 ecosystem services. Mycorrhiza. doi:10.1007/s00572-010-0333-3
Charleston DS, Kfir R, Dicke M, Vet LEM (2005) Impact of botanical Gliessman SR (1997) Agroecology: ecological processes in sustainable
pesticides derived from Melia azedarach and Azadirachta indica on agriculture. CRC Press, Boca Raton
the biology of two parasitoid species of the diamond back moth. Gurr GM, Wratten SD (2000) Biological control: measure of success.
Biol Control 33:131–142. doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2005.02.007 Springer, Dordrecht
Colbach N, Duby C, Cavelier A, Meynard JM (1997a) Influence of Gurr GM, Wratten SD, Altieri MA (2004) Ecological engineering for pest
cropping systems on foot and root diseases of winter wheat: fitting management. Advances in habitat manipulation for arthropods.
of a statistical model. Eur J Agron 6:61–77. doi:10.1016/S1161- CSIRO, Australia
0301(96)02033-3 Hartmann A, Schmid M, van Tuinen D, Berg G (2009) Plant-driven
Colbach N, Lucas P, Cavelier N, Cavelier A (1997b) Influence of selection of microbes. Plant Soil 321:235–257. doi:10.1007/s11104-
cropping system on sharp eyespot in winter wheat. Crop Prot 16: 008-9814-y
415–422. doi:10.1016/S0261-2194(97)00018-5 Hauggaard-Nielsen H, Ambus P, Jensen ES (2001) Interspecific compe-
Compant S, Clément C, Sessitsch A (2010) Plant growth-promoting tition, N use and interference with weeds in pea–barley
bacteria in the rhizo- and endosphere of plants: their role, coloniza- intercropping. Field Crops Res 70:101–109. doi:10.1016/S0378-
tion, mechanisms involved and prospects for utilization. Soil Biol 4290(01)00126-5
Biochem 42:669–678. doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.11.024 Hauggaard-Nielsen H, Andersen MK, Jornsgaard B, Jensen ES (2006)
Coulibaly O, Mbila D, Sonwa JJ, Adesina A, Bakala J (2002) Density and relative frequency effects on competitive interactions
Responding to economic crisis in sub-Saharan Africa: new farmer- and resource use in pea–barley intercrops. Field Crops Res 95:256–
developed pest management strategies in cocoa-based plantations in 267. doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2005.03.003
Southern Cameroon. Integr Pest Manag Rev 7:165–172. doi:10. Hill SB, MacRae RJ (1995) Conceptual framework for the transition from
1023/B:IPMR.0000027500.24459.fe conventional to sustainable agriculture. J Sust Agric 7:81–87
De Albuquerque MB, Santos RC, Lima LM, Melo Filho PDA, Nogueira Hokkanen HMT (1991) Trap cropping in pest management. Annu Rev
RJMC, Câmara CAG, Ramos A (2011) Allelopathy, an alternative Entomol 36:119–138. doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.36.1.119
tool to improve cropping systems. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 31: Holland JM (2004) The environmental consequences of adopting conser-
379–395. doi:10.1051/agro/2010031 vation tillage in Europe: reviewing the evidence. Agric Ecosyst
De Schutter O (2011) Agroecology and the right to food. Report of the Environ 103:1–25. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2003.12.018
Special Rapporteur on the right to food. United Nations. http://www. Huang J, Pray C, Rozelle S (2002) Enhancing the crops to feed the poor.
srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/officialreports/20110308_a-hrc-16- Nature 418:678–684. doi:10.1038/nature01015
49_agroecology_en.pdf. Accessed October 2011 INRA, CIRAD (2009) Agrimonde. Scenarios and challenges for feeding
De Schutter O (2012) Agroecology, a tool for the realization of the right to the world in 2050. Summary report. Paris, France
food. In: Lichtfouse E (ed) Agroecology and strategies for climate Isman MB (2006) Botanical insecticides, deterrents, and repellents in
change. Sustainable agriculture reviews vol. 8. Springer, Dordrecht, modern agriculture and increasingly regulated world. Annu Rev
pp 1–16 Entomol 51:45–66. doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.51.110104.151146
18 A. Wezel et al.

Isman MB (2008) Botanical insecticides: for richer, for poorer. Pest Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-
Manag Sci 64:8–11. doi:10.1002/ps.1470 being: biodiversity synthesis. World Resource Institute, Washington,
Jackson LE, Pascual U, Hodgkin T (2007) Utilizing and conserving D.C
agrobiodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Agric Ecosyst Environ Mordue AJ, Nisbet AJ (2000) Azadirachtin from the Neem tree
121:196–210. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2006.12.017 Azadirachta indica: its action against insects. An Soc Entomol
Jensen ES, Peoples MB, Hauggaard-Nielsen H (2010) Faba bean in Brasil 29:615–632
cropping systems. Field Crops Res 115:203–216. doi:10.1016/j.fcr. Nearing MA, Jetten V, Baffaut C, Cerdan O, Couturier A, Hernandez M,
2009.10.008 Le Bissonnais Y, Nichols MH, Nunes JP, Renschle CS (2005)
Justes E, Dorsainvil F, Thiébeau P, Alexandre M (2002) Effect of catch Modeling response of soil erosion and runoff to changes in precip-
crops on the water budget of the fallow period and the succeeding itation and cover. Catena 61:131–154. doi:10.1016/j.catena.2005.
main crop. Proceedings 7th ESA Congress, Cordoba, Spain, pp 03.007
503–504 Obrycki JJ, Harwood JD, Kring TJ, O'Neil RJ (2009) Aphidophagy by
Khan ZR, Pickett JA (2004) The ‘push–pull’ strategy for stemborer Coccinellidae: application of biological control in agroecosystems.
management: a case study in exploiting biodiversity and chemical Biol Control 51:244–254. doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2009.05.009
ecology. In: Gurr GM, Wratten SD, Altieri MA (eds) Ecological Ong CK (1995) The “dark side” of intercropping: manipulation of soil
engineering for pest management. Advances in habitat manipulation resources. In: Sinoquet H, Cruz P (eds) Ecophysiology of tropical
for arthropods. CSIRO, Australia, pp 155–164 intercropping. INRA, Paris, pp 45–66
Koocheki A, Nassiri M, Alimoradi L, Ghorbani R (2009) Effect of Ortas I (2012) The effect of mycorrhizal fungal inoculation on plant yield,
cropping systems and crop rotations on weeds. Agron Sustain Dev nutrient uptake and inoculation effectiveness under long-term field
29:401–408. doi:10.1051/agro/2008061 conditions. Field Crops Res 125:35–48. doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2011.08.
Köpke U, Nemecek T (2009) Ecological services of faba bean. Field 005
Crops Res 115:217–233 Östman O, Ekbom B, Bengtsson J (2001) Landscape heterogeneity and
Kromp B (1999) Carabid beetles in sustainable agriculture: a review on farming practice influence biological control. Basic Appl Ecol 2:
pest control efficacy, cultivation impacts and enhancement. Agric 365–371. doi:10.1078/1439-1791-00072
Ecosyst Environ 74:187–228. doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(99)00037-7 Ozier-Lafontaine H, Vercambre G, Tournebize R (1997) Radiation and
Kruidhof H, Bastiaans L, Kropff MJ (2008) Ecological weed manage- transpiration partitioning in a maize–sorghum intercrop: test and
ment by cover cropping: effects on weed growth in autumn and evaluation of two models. Field Crops Res 49:127–145. doi:10.
weed establishment in spring. Weed Res 48:492–502. doi:10.1111/j. 1016/S0378-4290(96)01047-7
1365-3180.2008.00665.x Ozier-Lafontaine H, Lafolie F, Bruckler L, Tournebize R, Mollier A
Latif MA, Mehuys GR, Mackenzie AF, Alli I, Faris MA (1992) Effects of (1998) Modelling competition for water in intercrops: theory and
legumes on soil physical quality in a maize crop. Plant Soil 140:15– comparison with field experiments. Plant Soil 204:183–201. doi:10.
23. doi:10.1007/BF00012802 1023/A:1004399508452
Le Bissonnais Y, Lecomte V, Cerdan O (2004) Grass strip effects on Pala M, Ryan J, Zhang H, Singh M, Harris HC (2007) Water-use effi-
runoff and soil loss. Agronomie 24:129–136. doi:10.1051/ ciency of wheat-based rotation systems in a Mediterranean environ-
agro:2004010 ment. Agric Wat Manag 93:136–144. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2007.07.
Lemaire G, Jeuffroy M-H, Gastal F (2008) Diagnosis tool for plant and 001
crop N status in vegetative stage. Eur J Agron 28:614–624. doi:10. Peigné J, Ball B, Roger-Estrade J, David C (2007) Is conservation tillage
1016/j.eja.2008.01.005 suitable for organic farming? A review. Soil Use Manag 23:129–
Li W, Li L, Sun J, Guo T, Zhang F, Bao X, Peng A, Tang C (2005) Effects 144. doi:10.1111/j.1475-2743.2006.00082.x
of intercropping and nitrogen application on nitrate present in the Peigné J, Cannavaciuolo M, Gautronneau Y, Aveline A, Giteau JL,
profile of an Orthic anthrosol in northwest China. Agric Ecosyst Cluzeau D (2009) Earthworm populations under different tillage
Environ 105:483–491. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2004.07.008 systems in organic farming. Soil Tillage Res 104:207–214. doi:10.
Lopes CM, Santos TP, Monteiro A, Rodrígues ML, Costa JM, Chaves 1016/j.still.2009.02.011
MM (2011) Combining cover cropping with deficit irrigation in a Pellegrino E, Bedini S, Avio L, Bonari E, Giovannetti M (2011) Field
Mediterranean low vigor vineyard. Sci Hort 129:603–612. doi:10. inoculation effectiveness of native and exotic arbuscular mycorrhi-
1016/j.scienta.2011.04.033 zal fungi in a Mediterranean agricultural soil. Soil Biol Biochem 43:
Loreau M (2000) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: recent theo- 367–376. doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.11.002
retical advances. Oikos 91:3–17. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000. Pelosi C, Bertrand M, Roger-Estrade J (2009) Earthworm community in
910101.x conventional, organic and direct seeding with living mulch cropping
Malézieux E, Crozat Y, Dupraz C, Laurans M, Makowski D, Ozier- systems. Agron Sustain Dev 29:287–295. doi:10.1051/agro/
Lafontaine H, Rapidel B, de Tourdonnet S, Valantin-Morison M 2008069
(2009) Mixing plant species in cropping systems: concepts, tools Perfecto I, Vandermeer J (2010) The agroecological matrix as alternative
and models. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 29:43–62. doi:10.1051/ to the land-sparing/agriculture intensification model. Proc Natl Acad
agro:2007057 Sci 107:5786–5791. doi:10.1073/pnas.0905455107
Malusá E, Sas-Paszt L, Ciesielska J (2012) Technologies for beneficial Phipps RH, Park JR (2002) Environmental benefits of genetically mod-
microorganisms inocula used as biofertilizers. Sci World J. doi:10. ified crops: global and European perspectives on their ability to
1100/2012/491206 reduce pesticide use. J Anim Feed Sci 11:1–18
McNeely JA, Scherr SJ (2003) Ecoagriculture. Strategies to feed the Prasifka JR, Hellmich RL, Weiss MJ (2009) Role of biotechnology in
world and save biodiversity. Island Press, Washington D.C sustainable agriculture. In: Radcliffe EB, Hutchison WD, Cancelado
Médiène S, Valantin-Morison M, Sarthou J-P, de Tourdonnet S, Gosme M, RE (eds) Integrated pest management. Concepts, tactics, strategies and
Bertrand M, Roger-Estrade J, Aubertot J-N, Rusch A, Motisi N, Pelosi case studies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 260–272
C, Doré T (2011) Agroecosystem management and biotic interactions: Pretty JN, Morison JIL, Hine RE (2003) Reducing food poverty by
a review. Agron Sust Dev. doi:10.1007/s13593-011-0009-1 increasing agricultural sustainability in developing countries. Agric
Midmore DJ (1993) Agronomic modification of resource use and inter- Ecosyst Environ 95:217–234. doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(02)00087-7
crop productivity. Field Crops Res 34:357–380. doi:10.1016/0378- Ratnadass A, Fernandes P, Avelino J, Habib R (2012) Plant species
4290(93)90122-4 diversity for sustainable management of crop pests and diseases in
Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture 19

agroecosystems: a review. Agro Sust Dev 32:273–303. doi:10.1007/ bollworm control. Int J Trop Ins Sci 26:246–255. doi:10.1017/
s13593-011-0022-4 S1742758406415691
Regnault-Roger C, Philogène BJR (2008) Past and current prospects for the Soane BD, Ball BC, Arvidsson J, Basch G, Moreno F, Roger-Estrade J
use of botanicals and plant allelochemicals in integrated pest manage- (2012) No-till in northern, western and south-western Europe: a
ment. Pharm Biol 46:41–52. doi:10.1080/13880200701729794 review of problems and opportunities for crop production and the
Richardson AE, Barea JM, McNeill AM, Prigent-Combaret C (2009) environment. Soil Till Res 118:66–87. doi:10.1016/j.still.2011.10.015
Acquisition of phosphorus and nitrogen in the rhizosphere and plant Srinivasan A (2006) Handbook of precision agriculture: principles and
growth promotion by microorganisms. Plant Soil 321:305–339. doi: applications. Haworth Press, New York, USA
10.1007/s11104-009-9895-2 Steenwerth K, Belina KM (2008) Cover crops and cultivation: impacts on
Ricketts TH, Regetz J, Steffan-Dewenter I, Cunningham SA, Kremen C, soil N dynamics and microbiological function in a Mediterranean
Bogdanski A, Gemmill-Herren B, Greenleaf SS, Klein AM, Mayfield vineyard agroecosystem. App Soil Ecol 40:370–380. doi:10.1016/j.
MM, Morandin LA, Ochieng A, Viana BF (2008) Landscape effects apsoil.2008.06.004
on crop pollination services: are there general patterns? Ecol Lett 11: Swaminathan MS (2007) Can science and technology feed the world in
499–515. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01157.x 2025? Field Crop Res 104:3–9. doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2007.02.004
Rigueiro-Rodrígues A, McAdam J, Mosquera-Losada MR (2009) Tabaglio V, Gavazzi C, Schulz M, Marocco A (2008) Alternative weed
Agroforestry in Europe. Current status and future prospects. control using the allelopathic effect of natural benzoxazinoids from rye
Springer, Dordrecht mulch. Agron Sustain Dev 28:397–401. doi:10.1051/agro:2008004
Ryan PR, Dessaux Y, Thomashow LS, Weller DM (2009) Rhizosphere Teasdale JR, Coffman CB, Mangum RW (2007) Potential long-term benefits
engineering and management for sustainable agriculture. Plant Soil of no-tillage and organic cropping systems for grain production and soil
321:363–383. doi:10.1007/s11104-009-0001-6 improvement. Agron J 99:1297–1305. doi:10.2134/agronj2006.0362
Salado-Navarro LR, Sinclair TR (2009) Crop rotations in Argentina: Thies C, Tscharntke T (1999) Landscape structure and biological control
analysis of water balance and yield using crop models. Agric Syst in agroecosystems. Science 285:893–895. doi:10.1126/science.285.
102:11–16. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2009.06.004 5429.893
Sanchez JE, Harwood RR, Willson TC, Kizilkaya K, Smeenk J, Parker E, Thies C, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2003) Effects of landscape
Paul EA, Knezek BD, Robertson GP (2004) Managing soil carbon context on herbivory and parasitism at different spatialscales. Oikos
and nitrogen for productivity and environmental quality. Agron J 96: 101:18–25. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12567.x
769–775 Tilman D, Cassman KG, Matson PA, Naylor R, Polasky S (2002)
Schmidt O, Clements RO, Donaldson G (2003) Why do cereal–legume Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices.
intercrops support large earthworm populations? App Soil Ecol 22: Nature 418:671–677. doi:10.1038/nature01014
181–190. doi:10.1016/S0929-1393(02)00131-2 Tilman D, Reich PB, Knops J (2006) Biodiversity and ecosystem stability
Schmidtke K, Neumann A, Hof C, Rauber R (2004) Soil and atmospheric in a decade-long grassland experiment. Nature 441:629–632. doi:
nitrogen uptake by lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.) and barley 10.1038/nature04742
(Hordeum vulgare ssp. nudum L.) as monocrops and intercrops. Tscharntke T, Bommarco R, Clough Y, Crist TO, Kleijn D, Rand TA,
Field Crops Res 87:245–256. doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2003.11.006 Tyliankis JM, van Nouhuys S, Vidal S (2007) Conservation biolog-
Scholberg JMS, Dogliotti S, Leoni C, Cherr CM, Zotarelli L, Rossing ical control and enemy diversity on a landscape scale. Biol Control
WAH (2010) Cover crops for sustainable agrosystems in the 43:294–309. doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2007.08.006
Americas. In: Lichtfouse E (ed) Genetic engineering, biofer- Turner NC (2004) Agronomic options for improving rainfall-use efficien-
tilisation, soil quality and organic farming. Springer, Dordrecht, pp cy of crops in dryland farming systems. J Exp Bot 55:2413–2425.
23–58 doi:10.1093/jxb/erh154
Scholte K (2000a) Screening of non-tuber bearing Solanaceae for resis- United Nations (2009) World population prospects: the 2008 revision.
tance to and induction of juvenile hatch of potato cyst nematodes Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social
and their potential for trap cropping. Ann Appl Biol 136:239–246. Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat. http://esa.un.org/unpp.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-7348.2000.tb00030.x Accessed March 2011
Scholte K (2000b) Growth and development of plants with potential for Uphoff N (2002) Agroecological innovations. Increasing food production
use as trap crops for potato cyst nematodes and their effects on the with participatory development. Earthsan, London
number of juveniles in cysts. Ann Appl Biol 137:31–42. doi:10. Uvah III, Coaker TH (1984) Effect of mixed cropping on some insect
1111/j.1744-7348.2000.tb00054.x pests of carrots and onions. Entomol Exp Appl 36:159–167
Scholte K, Vos J (2000) Effects of potential trap crops and planting date Van Noordwijk M, Lawson GJ, Soumare A, Groot JJR, Hairiah K (1996)
on soil infestation with potato cyst nematodes and root-knot nema- Root distribution of tree and crops: competition and/or complementarity.
todes. Ann Appl Biol 137:153–164. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7348.2000. In: Ong CK, Huxley P (eds) Tree–crop interactions: a physiological
tb00047.x approach. CAB Int, Wallingford, pp 319–365
Shelton AM, Badenes-Perez FR (2006) Concepts and applications of trap Vandermeer J (1989) The ecology of intercropping. Cambridge
cropping in pest management. Annu Rev Entomol 51:285–308. doi: University Press, New York
10.1146/annurev.ento.51.110104.150959 Vandermeer J, van Noordwijk M, Anderson J, Ong C, Perfecto I (1998)
Shepherd MA, Harrison R, Webb J (2002) Managing soil organic matter: Global change and multi-species agroecosystems: concepts and
implications for soil structure on organic farms. Soil Use Manag 18: issues. Agric Ecosyst Environ 67:1–22. doi:10.1016/S0167-
284–292. doi:10.1079/SUM2002134 8809(97)00150-3
Singh JS, Pandey VC, Singh DP (2011) Efficient soil microorganisms: a Vandermeer J, Lawrence D, Symstad A, Hobbie S (2002) Effect of
new dimension for sustainable agriculture and environmental devel- biodiversity on ecosystem functioning in managed ecosystems. In:
opment. Agric Ecosyst Environ 140:339–353. doi:10.1016/j.agee. Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P (eds) Biodiversity and ecosystem
2011.01.017 functioning: synthesis and perspectives. Oxford University Press,
Sinoquet H, Caldwell RM (1995) Estimation of light capture and Oxford, pp 221–235
partitioning in intercropping systems. In: Sinoquet H, Cruz P (eds) Verbruggen E, van der Heijden MGA, Rillig MC, Kiers ET (2013)
Ecophysiology of tropical intercropping. INRA, Paris, pp 79–98 Mycorrhizal fungal establishment in agricultural soils: factors deter-
Sinzogan AAC, Kossou DK, Atachi P, van Huis A (2006) Participatory mining inoculation success. New Phytol 197:1104–1109. doi:10.
evaluation of synthetic and botanical pesticide mixtures for cotton 1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04348.x
20 A. Wezel et al.

Vessey JK (2003) Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria as biofertilizers. Whipps JM (2001) Microbial interactions and biocontrol in the rhizo-
Plant Soil 255:571–586. doi:10.1023/A:1026037216893 sphere. J Expe Bot 52:487–511
Vian JF, Peigne J, Chaussod R, Roger-Estrade J (2009) Effects of four tillage Willey RW (1990) Resource use in intercropping systems. Agric Wat
systems on soil structure and soil microbial biomass in organic farm- Manag 17:215–231. doi:10.1016/0378-3774(90)90069-B
ing. Soil Use Manag 25:1–10. doi:10.1111/j.1475-2743.2008.00176.x With JE, King AW (1999) Extinction thresholds for species in fractal
Watson CA, Atkinson D, Gosling P, Jackson LR, Rayns FW (2002) landscapes. Conserv Biol 13:314–326. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.
Managing soil fertility in organic farming systems. Soil Use 1999.013002314.x
Manag 18:239–247. doi:10.1079/SUM2002131 Wojtkowski PA (2006) Introduction to agroecology. Principles and prac-
Weston LA (1996) Utilization of allelopathy for weed management in tices. Haworth Press, Binghampton
agroecosystems. Agron J 88:860–866 Wu J, Huang D, Teng W, Sardo V (2010) Grass hedges to reduce
Wezel A, Rath T (2002) Resource conservation strategies in agro- overland flow and soil erosion. Agron Sustain Dev 30:481–485.
ecosystems of semi-arid West Africa. J Arid Env 51:383–400. doi: doi:10.1051/agro/2009037
10.1006/jare.2001.0968 Zebarth BJ, Drury CF, Tremblay N, Cambouris AN (2009)
Wezel A, Bellon S, Doré T, Francis C, Vallod D, David C (2009) Opportunities for improved fertilizer nitrogen management in
Agroecology as a science, a movement or a practice. A review. production of arable crops in eastern Canada: a review. Can J Soil
Agron Sustain Dev 29:503–515. doi:10.1051/agro/2009004 Sci 89:113–132