Introduction
Push-pull technology is a strategy that has been used for a long period of time. This technique involves controlling agricultural pests by using repellent “push” plants and attractive “pull” or trap plants (Pretty and Williams, 2015, p. 24). For instance, cereal crops such as maize and sorghum are often infested by stem borers. Grass planted around the perimeter of the crop attracts the insects and is used to trap the pests. The technology was developed at the International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (Pretty and Williams, 2015, p. 24), with assistance from Rothamsted Research in the United Kingdom and national partners. The main premise of the approach is the use of a combination of crops planted around and among maize and sorghum (Pretty and Williams, 2015, p. 24).
Domestic as well as wild grasses can contribute to crop protection because they attract and trap stem borers (Pretty and Williams, 2015, p. 24). These grasses are planted around the border of the maize crop and form the “pull” component of the push-pull strategy (Koumoundouros et al. 2016, p. 25). They may also provide habitat for natural enemies of the borers. Good trap crops include well-known grasses such as Napier grass and Sudan grass. Napier grass is particularly important because of the way it defends itself against pests (Hara et al. 2013, p. 339). Once attacked by borer larvae, it secretes a sticky substance that can physically trap the larvae. The “push” component is provided by intercropped plants that emit chemicals which repel stem-borer moths.
These moths are therefore pushed away from the main crops, including maize and sorghum. The repellent properties are associated with species from the leguminous genus Desmodium (Pretty and Williams, 2015, p. 24). Desmodium is planted between rows of maize or sorghum (Hagiwara et al. 2017, p. 223). One of the key features of push-pull technology is the use of behavior-modifying stimuli to manipulate the distribution and abundance of stem borers.
Beneficial insects can also contribute to the management of stem-borer pests (Pretty and Williams, 2015, p. 24). These concepts are based on an in-depth understanding of chemical ecology and plant-plant and insect-plant interactions (Pretty and Williams, 2015, p. 24). In the case of gravid stem-borer moths, females are repelled from the main crop while being attracted to the trap crop (Pretty and Williams, 2015, p. 24). Napier grass produces attractive volatile compounds, and the amount of some of these compounds can increase substantially during the relevant period (Pretty and Williams, 2015, p. 24).
Production of these compounds occurs around nightfall. In particular, the first hour after nightfall is extremely important (Kurokura et al. 2014, p. 273), because this is when stem borers locate host plants (Pretty and Williams, 2015, p. 24). Thus, the technique has been considered very effective for pest control (Guo et al. 2016, p. 19). There is increasing interest among researchers in determining whether related techniques can be applied in aquatic systems. An important consideration is how such methods might contribute to food security (Pretty and Williams, 2015, p. 24). Push-pull parasite control could potentially provide additional options for improving food security (Guillou et al. 2015, p. 351).
There is a need to develop new methods that can produce better results in aquatic safety and aquaculture management (Grima et al. 2014, p. 377). Because aquatic systems are increasingly under pressure, new methods that allow better control are needed (Kurokura et al. 2014, p. 273). Effective use of resources is necessary, but improving parasite control and managing resistance are also key issues discussed in this paper (Lavens and Sorgeloos, 2016, p. 54). The research also examines whether changes in parasite behavior might make push-pull control effective in other species (Erdahl et al. 2016, p. 341). A key issue is how to achieve an appropriate balance among control mechanisms in these systems (Pretty and Williams, 2015, p. 24).
Methods And Results
One of the key issues in push-pull parasite control is developing an understanding of how the technology works (Balmford et al. 2014, p. 15). Once this basic understanding is established, the next step is to determine how the technology can be implemented in other pest-control systems (Balmford et al. 2014, p. 15). The central question of this research is whether push-pull parasite control can be effective in an aquatic environment (Balmford et al. 2014, p. 15). One proposed method is to investigate how the technology could be implemented at the larval stage (Balmford et al. 2014, p. 15). At present, there is limited innovation in some aspects of aquaculture maintenance (Balmford et al. 2014, p. 15).
The research examines whether the push-pull method for pest control can also be applied in aquaculture systems (Lawrence and Block, 2018, p. 65). To do this, current methods used for the preservation and management of aquaculture are considered (Dosdat et al. 2015, p. 84). Once this information is established, the next phase examines whether these methods, together with pest control, can maintain overall water quality in the long run (Balmford et al. 2014, p. 15). The aim is to devise new methods for better pest control (Phillips and Lardy, 2014, p. 404) and determine whether they can be implemented in an economically viable manner on a larger scale. Another important issue is the management of antibiotic resistance (Balmford et al. 2014, p. 15).
Core Methodology Of The Research
In push-pull systems for controlling stem borers, a repellent intercrop is used together with an attractive trap plant (Pretty et al. 2013, p. 234). Harmful insects are repelled from the food crop while being attracted to the trap crop (Pretty et al. 2013, p. 234). The basic idea is to control stem borers. An additional advantage is that some of the trap crops also provide quality fodder for livestock.
This is an important advantage in pest management (Desrosier and Desrosier, 2017, p. 4). At the same time, a major concern when using any fertilizer or pest-control method is its effect on soil fertility (Pretty et al., 2013, p. 234). Empirical evidence suggests that push-pull systems can maintain or improve soil fertility (Ron and Padilla, 2015, p. 297). Desmodium also produces volatile chemicals (Pretty et al. 2013, p. 234). Compounds including (E)-ß-ocimene and (E)-4,8-dimethyl-1,3,7-nonatriene contribute to repelling stem-borer moths from maize. Another important consideration is the chemical profile of the trap grass (Dan et al. 2012, p. 115). Napier grass, for instance, produces volatile compounds including octanal, nonanal, naphthalene, 4-allyl anisole, eugenol, and linalool, which attract female moths (“pull”) to lay eggs. Desmodium roots, on the other hand, produce chemicals that stimulate Striga seed germination.
The chemical compounds involved include 4”,5”-dihydro-5,2′,4′-trihydroxy-5”-isopropenylfurano-(2”,3”;7,6)-isoflavanone and other compounds that inhibit attachment to maize roots, such as 4”,5”-dihydro-2′-methoxy-5,4′-dihydroxy-5”-isopropenylfurano-(2”,3”;7,6)-isoflavanone (suicidal germination) (Cutter and Renwick, 2016, p. 3). Legumes can also improve soil fertility through nitrogen fixation (Pretty et al. 2013, p. 234). The chemicals cause Striga seeds to germinate while preventing successful attachment to maize roots, thereby promoting suicidal germination and reducing infestation (Coser et al. 2013, p. 387). Thus, their effectiveness in pest control has already been demonstrated (Pretty et al. 2013, p.234).
The question is how broad pest control and environmental protection can be achieved simultaneously. At present, one of the major environmental concerns is pollution associated with aquaculture (Williams et al. 2012, p. 45). According to some estimates, about 90% of aquaculture production originates in Asia, and the sector is not exempt from disease problems (Williams et al. 2012, p. 45). These problems are associated in part with the high levels of intensification seen today (Ramgareeb et al., 2014, p. 262). Intensification includes the culture of different marine species and large-scale movement of aquatic organisms, both of which affect aquaculture systems (Saad et al. 2013, p. 133). Large-scale international movement of fingerlings and juveniles is another concern for the sustainability of aquaculture (Ramgareeb et al., 2014, p. 262). Thus, the central idea of the research is to determine whether push-pull technology can be used effectively in aquaculture and, if not, what alternative methods are needed to achieve better control (Ramgareeb et al., 2014, p. 262).
Literature Analysis
This section examines what the existing literature says about the preservation and management of aquaculture (Smith and Onions, 2014, p. 2). A major issue is that some efforts to increase agricultural or aquacultural yields can conflict with environmental sustainability (Ramgareeb et al., 2014, p. 262). Push-pull technology has achieved a certain level of success in crop pest control (Stanwood and Bass, 2016, p. 54). Despite this, there is no conclusive evidence that the same technique can address the problems associated with aquaculture (Ramgareeb et al., 2014, p. 262). It is therefore important to develop alternative methods and innovations for aquaculture management (Corley and Brandhorst, 2014, p. 363), because current methods and practices may not be sufficient to address all of these concerns (Zhang et al. 2013, p. 163). It is therefore useful to investigate other methods that could support sustainable practices and appropriate ecosystem management (Zhang et al. 2013, p. 163).
Interaction Of The Building Blocks And Conservation Of The Biodiversity
In aquaculture management, policymakers seek to ensure both sustainability and the preservation of biodiversity (Raguso et al. 2015, p. 617). Another important objective is improving the livelihoods of local communities (Raguso et al. 2015, p. 617). Current work seeks to involve local community members in developing MPA management plans.
The main premise of such plans is to promote conservation and the sustainable use of biodiversity (Chao et al. 2015, p. 406). They may also include activities such as promoting aquaculture and ensuring sufficient awareness of how aquaculture can be maintained and preserved (Truscott et al. 2018, p. 372). One approach used to achieve this is the value-chain approach (Raguso et al. 2015, p. 617). With this approach, the different steps in the aquaculture value chain must be managed appropriately, including the provision of strong technical support (Raguso et al. 2015, p. 617). Another premise is to ensure involvement from the private sector (Pickett et al. 2012, p.2).
Feasibility analysis has shown that using a value-chain approach may improve the environmental capacity of a site (Pickett et al. 2012, p. 2). It may also help sustain the profitability of the business (Pickett et al. 2012, p. 2). What is needed, however, is a shared vision and a value-chain approach that is sustainable in the long run (Bozkurt and Secer, 2015, p. 54). Such an approach can also help ensure that biodiversity is considered at every level of the aquaculture value chain. Its success depends partly on how effectively the private sector is involved (Pickett et al. 2012, p. 2).
Better Understanding Of The Ecological Benefits Of The Aquaculture
A common perception is that aquaculture can be beneficial to ecosystems and the environment. However, distinctions need to be made among different aquaculture practices (Bolla et al. 2017, p. 374). Some practices can benefit the environment, while others, such as some forms of shrimp farming in mangroves, have been shown to be harmful to long-term environmental sustainability (Bardach et al. 2014, p. 44).
Considering the filtering capacity of shellfish aquaculture, shellfish can contribute to improving water quality (Pickett et al. 2012, p. 2; Assavaaree et al. 2015, p. 39). The extent of this effect can be illustrated by the filtering capacity of a single oyster, which can filter approximately 15 gallons of water and remove a considerable number of algal cells (Pickett et al. 2012, p. 2). As these cells are removed, shellfish can also remove nitrogen and other nutrients from the water (Pickett et al. 2012, p. 2). Some nutrients are retained or recovered, while other waste accumulates on the bottom (Asahida et al. 2016, p. 727).
When shellfish are harvested, some nitrogen and other nutrients are removed from the system (Waterfield and Zilberman, 2012, p. 223). Thus, value-chain management remains important throughout the process. Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus can be directly removed from the water (Waterfield and Zilberman, 2012, p. 223). However, nutrient-rich waste and low dissolved oxygen can also affect aquatic species. This creates a potential dilemma: even when water quality improves in some respects, biodiversity can still be affected (Andrade et al. 2015, p. 179). This is one of the challenges associated with evaluating the ecological effects of aquaculture (Waterfield and Zilberman, 2012, p. 223).
Ecological Functionality And Aquaculture With Regards To Pest Control
Well-developed aquaculture can create ecological functions that benefit organisms in an area. For example, shellfish beds and cages can provide habitat structure (Waterfield and Zilberman, 2012, p. 223). This structure can provide shelter to invertebrates, small fish, and crustaceans and can potentially increase their abundance and local biodiversity (Waterfield and Zilberman, 2012, p. 223). Increased shelter can also support prey-fish stocks and small crustaceans.
These effects can create economic opportunities for people living in those regions. According to some estimates, 10 square metres of oyster reef may enhance local biomass by about 3 kg. Shellfish are also preyed upon by herbivores and other organisms (Herren et al. 2017, p. 65). These food-web interactions can shift energy from primary producers to higher trophic levels and influence biomass throughout the ecosystem (Hastie et al. 2014, p. 179; Cruz-Rivera and Friedlander, 2015, p. 218).
Effects Of The Stocking At The Molecular Genetic Level
The case of natural tilapia diversity in Tanzania is particularly important because the region is a hotspot for aquatic biodiversity (Waterfield and Zilberman, 2012, p. 223). The effect of stocking at the molecular genetic level can be assessed by comparing the genomes of native and stocked forms (Waterfield and Zilberman, 2012, p. 223). Recommendations can then be developed for in situ and ex situ conservation (Ingvarsdottir et al. 2016, p. 537).
These considerations are important for pond culture and for management of genetic resources such as sperm banks. Growth rates of pure and hybrid forms can also be estimated. Once environmental effects have been assessed, a subsequent phase can examine how push-pull technology might contribute to pest control in the region (Waterfield and Zilberman, 2012, p. 223). The aim is to make predictions about the implementation of push-pull technology in these systems and determine what mechanisms would be required (Welladsen et al. 2014, p. 247). Ecological niches and hybrid strains can also be investigated using stable-isotope ratios. Ultimately, the research seeks to determine the effects of push-pull technology in these systems (Johnstone et al. 2013, p. 98).
Effects Of The Push And Pull Technology In The Aquaculture
There is a considerable difference between achieving pest control in agriculture and achieving comparable control in aquaculture (Waterfield and Zilberman, 2012, p. 223). The research results were mixed. Initial trials in aquaculture produced some encouraging observations, but the effects on forage, water quality, and ecosystem function require careful evaluation (Waterfield and Zilberman, 2012, p. 223). Widespread implementation would require an attract-repel system adapted specifically to aquatic organisms and capable of providing control without disrupting non-target species.
A key issue is how intercropping or analogous habitat manipulation can be adapted to aquatic systems. In agricultural systems, maize combined with repellent plants can reduce stem-borer density and increase parasitism rates (Nelson et al. 2014, p. 57; Romney et al. 2013, p. 31). If analogous strategies can be designed appropriately for aquaculture, they could potentially improve pest control. The major concern, however, is how biodiversity would be managed.
Many living organisms are important for water quality and the eventual survival of species in aquatic systems (Nelson et al. 2014, p. 57). If pest control is carried out too broadly, it may disrupt organisms that are important to the ecological and environmental functioning of aquaculture (Nelson et al. 2014, p. 57). Therefore, any decline in water quality or biodiversity associated with push-pull technology must be carefully investigated. At present, the technology has not reached the stage at which specific combinations of aquatic plant species can reliably provide the required level of control without unintended effects (Nelson et al. 2014, p. 57).
One proposed idea is to develop attractant plants or other effective traps that target only organisms harmful to the aquaculture system (Nelson et al. 2014, p. 57). Another method is to develop an appropriate analogue of intercropping that can reduce pest mortality and economic losses without harming desirable organisms. Initial results justify further research to identify suitable combinations so that pest control can be achieved while maintaining aquaculture biodiversity (Nelson et al. 2014, p. 57).
Conclusion And Consideration For Future Research
Among recent technologies developed for pest control, push-pull control is a promising management mechanism. It has been shown to provide pest control while also supporting soil quality in agricultural systems (Pretty and Bharucha, 2014, p. 65). Several stem-borer species can be managed using this approach. One reason the technology has been used extensively in agriculture is that crop cultivars and agricultural yields can be maintained while pest pressure is reduced (Pretty and Bharucha, 2014, p. 65). In some areas, pest control has reached approximately 80%.
Its relative success in agriculture, combined with concerns about aquaculture, has prompted researchers to investigate whether push-pull technology can be adapted to aquatic systems (Pretty and Bharucha, 2014, p. 65). Recent cases in which parasites and other organisms have caused considerable damage to aquaculture strengthen the need for new approaches. Although aquaculture can provide environmental and food-production benefits, current systems can also have significant environmental impacts, especially when aquaculture is carried out in inland waters (Pretty and Bharucha, 2014, p. 65). Inland-water aquaculture can also affect wild fisheries. Even when waste management is addressed, other concerns across the value chain need to be considered (Kumar et al. 2013, p. 50).
There are several ways in which pest-control mechanisms can be developed while preserving biodiversity, which is one of the defining features of healthy aquatic systems (Pretty and Bharucha, 2014, p. 65). At present, efforts are being made to improve aquaculture value-chain systems. Development and management of aquatic food webs are additional areas in which improvement can occur (Pretty and Bharucha, 2014, p. 65). Better stakeholder coordination may also help. Improvements in the value chain could support productivity while reducing negative effects on biodiversity (Pretty and Bharucha, 2014, p.65).
Cost-benefit analysis implies that such practices may be expensive, and without involvement from the private sector and investors, large-scale implementation may be difficult (Sassenrath et al. 2016, p. 285). As far as push-pull technology for aquaculture pest management is concerned, initial reports and results are encouraging. Some early trials suggest that appropriately designed systems may achieve pest control without necessarily reducing water quality. The major unresolved problem is how biodiversity will be affected (Khan et al. 2015, p. 76). Because biodiversity has long-term implications for water quality and economic productivity, it must be preserved. There is considerable scope for future research into how appropriate combinations of organisms and habitat-management methods can provide better control while maintaining biodiversity (Sassenrath et al. 2016, p. 285).
References
Andrade, T.P., Redman, R.M. and Lightner, D.V., 2015. Evaluation of the preservation of shrimp samples with Davidson’s AFA fixative for infectious myonecrosis virus (IMNV) in situ hybridization. Aquaculture, 278(1-4), pp. 179-183.
Asahida, T., Kobayashi, T., Saitoh, K. and Nakayama, I., 2016. Tissue preservation and total DNA extraction form fish stored at ambient temperature using buffers containing high concentration of urea. Fisheries science, 62(5), pp. 727-730.
Assavaaree, M., Hagiwara, A., Ide, K., Maruyama, K. and Lubzens, E., 2015. Low‐temperature preservation (at 4° C) of marine rotifer Brachionus. Aquaculture Research, 32(1), pp. 29-39.
Balmford, A., Green, R. and Phalan, B., 2014. What conservationists need to know about farming. Proc. R. Soc. B, p.rspb20120515.
Bardach, J.E., Ryther, J.H. and McLarney, W.O., 2014. Aquaculture. The farming and husbandry of freshwater and marine organisms. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Bolla, S., Holmefjord, I. and Refstie, T., 2017. Cryogenic preservation of Atlantic halibut sperm. Aquaculture, 65(3-4), pp. 371-374.
Bozkurt, Y. and Secer, S., 2015. Effect of short-term preservation of mirror carp (Cyprinus carpio) semen on motility, fertilization, and hatching rates.
Chao, N.H., Chen, H.P. and Liao, I.C., 2015. Study on cryogenic preservation of grey mullet sperm. Aquaculture, 5(4), pp. 389-406.
Corley‐Smith, G.E. and Brandhorst, B.P., 2014. Preservation of endangered species and populations: a role for genome banking, somatic cell cloning, and androgenesis?. Molecular reproduction and development, 53(3), pp. 363-367.
Coser, A.M., Godinho, H. and Ribeiro, D., 2013. Cryogenic preservation of spermatozoa from Prochilodus scrofa and Salminus maxillosus. Aquaculture, 37(4), pp. 387-390.
Cruz-Rivera, E. and Friedlander, M., 2015. Feeding preferences of mesograzers on aquacultured Gracilaria and sympatric algae. Aquaculture, 322, pp. 218-222.
Cutter, S.L. and Renwick, W.H., 2016. Exploitation, conservation, preservation: a geographic perspective on natural resource use (No. Ed. 3). John Wiley and Sons.
Dan, X.M., Lin, X.T., Yan, Y.X., Teng, N., Tan, Z.L. and Li, A.X., 2012. A technique for the preservation of Cryptocaryon irritans at low temperatures. Aquaculture, 297(1-4), pp. 112-115.
Desrosier, N.W. and Desrosier, J.N., 2017. The technology of food preservation (No. Ed. 4). AVI Publishing Company, Inc.
Dosdat, A., Gaumet, F. and Chartois, H., 2015. Marine aquaculture effluent monitoring: methodological approach to the evaluation of nitrogen and phosphorus excretion by fish. Aquacultural Engineering, 14(1), pp. 59-84.
Erdahl, A.W., Erdahl, D.A. and Graham, E.F., 2016. Some factors affecting the preservation of salmonid spermatozoa. Aquaculture, 43(1-3), pp. 341-350.
Grima, E.M., Pérez, J.S., Camacho, F.G., Fernández, F.A., Alonso, D.L. and Del Castillo, C.S., 2014. Preservation of the marine microalga, Isochrysis galbana: influence on the fatty acid profile. Aquaculture, 123(3-4), pp. 377-385.
Guillou, A., Khalil, M. and Adambounou, L., 2015. Effects of silage preservation on astaxanthin forms and fatty acid profiles of processed shrimp (Pandalus borealis) waste. Aquaculture, 130(4), pp. 351-360.
Guo, X., Ford, S.E. and Zhang, F., 2016. Molluscan aquaculture in China. Journal of Shellfish Research, 18(1), pp. 19-31.
Hagiwara, A., Balompapueng, M.D., Munuswamy, N. and Hirayama, K., 2017. Mass production and preservation of the resting eggs of the euryhaline rotifer Brachionus plicatilis and B. rotundiformis. Aquaculture, 155(1-4), pp. 223-230.
Hara, S., Canto Jr, J.T. and Almendras, J.M., 2013. A comparative study of various extenders for milkfish, Chanos chanos (Forsskål), sperm preservation. Aquaculture, 28(3-4), pp. 339-346.
Hastie, L.C., Wallace, C., Birkett, M.A., Douglas, A., Jones, O., Mordue, A.J., Ritchie, G., Pickett, J.A., Webster, J.L. and Bowman, A.S., 2014. Prevalence and infection intensity of sea lice (Lepeophtheirus salmonis) on Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) host is reduced by the non-host compound 2-aminoacetophenone. Aquaculture, 410, pp. 179-183.
Herren, H.R., Bassi, A.M., Tan, Z. and Binns, W.P., 2017. Green jobs for a revitalized food and agriculture sector. Nature Resources Management and Environment Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Ingvarsdottir, A., Birkett, M.A., Duce, I., Genna, R.L., Mordue, W., Pickett, J.A. and Wadhams, L.J., 2016. Semiochemical strategies for sea louse control: host location cues. Pest management science, 58(6), pp. 537-545.
Johnstone, R.T., 2013. Occupational Diseases. Diagnosis, Medicolegal Aspects and Treatment. Occupational Diseases. Diagnosis, Medicolegal Aspects and Treatment.
Khan, Z.R., Pickett, J.A., Hamilton, M.L., Hassanali, A., Hooper, A.M., Kuate, S.P., Midega, C.A.O., Pittchar, J. and Torto, B., 2015. Control of stem borers and Striga in African cereals: a low input push-pull approach with rapidly expanding impact. Aspects of Applied Biology, (96), pp. 71-76.
Koumoundouros, G., Divanach, P., Savaki, A. and Kentouri, M., 2016. Effects of three preservation methods on the evolution of swimbladder radiographic appearance in sea bass and sea bream juveniles. Aquaculture, 182(1-2), pp. 17-25.
Kumar, V.J.F., Durairaj, C.D. and Salokhe, V.M., 2013. Ergonomic evaluation of hand weeder operation using simulated actuary motion. International Agricultural Engineering Journal, 9(1), pp. 41-50.
Kurokura, H., Hirano, R., Tomita, M. and Iwahashi, M., 2014. Cryopreservation of carp sperm. Aquaculture, 37(3), pp. 267-273.
Lavens, P. and Sorgeloos, P., 2016. Manual on the production and use of live food for aquaculture (No. 361). Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
Lawrence, C.A. and Block, S.S., 2018. Disinfection, sterilization, and preservation. Disinfection, sterilization, and preservation.
Nelson, K.C., Kibata, G., Muhammad, L., Okuro, J.O., Muyekho, F., Odindo, M., Ely, A. and Waquil, J.M., 2014. Problem formulation and options assessment (PFOA) for genetically modified organisms: the Kenya case study. Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified organisms, 1, pp. 57-82.
Phillips, P.H. and Lardy, H.A., 2014. A yolk-buffer pabulum for the preservation of bull sperm. Journal of Dairy Science, 23, pp. 399-404.
Pickett, J.A., ARADOTTIR, G.I., Birkett, M.A., Bruce, T.J., Chamberlain, K., Khan, Z.R., Midega, C.A., Smart, L.E. and Woodcock, C.M., 2012. Aspects of insect chemical ecology: exploitation of reception and detection as tools for deception of pests and beneficial insects. Physiological Entomology, 37(1), pp. 2-9.
Pretty, J. and Bharucha, Z.P., 2014. Sustainable intensification in agricultural systems. Annals of Botany, 114(8), pp. 1571-1596.
Pretty, J., Toulmin, C. and Williams, S., 2015. Sustainable intensification in African agriculture. International journal of agricultural sustainability, 9(1), pp. 5-24.
Pretty, J.N., Morison, J.I. and Hine, R.E., 2013. Reducing food poverty by increasing agricultural sustainability in developing countries. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 95(1), pp. 217-234.
Raguso, R.A., Agrawal, A.A., Douglas, A.E., Jander, G., Kessler, A., Poveda, K. and Thaler, J.S., 2015. The raison d’être of chemical ecology. Ecology, 96(3), pp. 617-630.
Ramgareeb, S., McFarlane, S.A., Conlong, D.E. and Rutherford, R.S., 2014. Identification of herbivore induced plant volatiles from push-pull plants and Fusarium species: aids for the management of Eldana saccharina Walker (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in sugarcane?. In Proceedings of the Annual Congress-South African Sugar Technologists’ Association (No. 83, pp. 262-266). South African Sugar Technologists’ Association.
Romney, D., Day, R., Faheem, M., Finegold, C., LaMontagne-Godwin, J. and Negussie, E., 2013. Plantwise: putting innovation systems principles into practice. Agriculture for Development, (18), pp. 27-31.
Ron, J. and Padilla, J.E., 2015. Preservation or conversion? Valuation and evaluation of a mangrove forest in the Philippines. Environmental and Resource Economics, 14(3), pp. 297-331.
Saad, A., Billard, R., Theron, M.C. and Hollebecq, M.G., 2013. Short-term preservation of carp (Cyprinus carpio) semen. Aquaculture, 71(1-2), pp. 133-150.
Sassenrath, G.F., Heilman, P., Luschei, E., Bennett, G.L., Fitzgerald, G., Klesius, P., Tracy, W., Williford, J.R. and Zimba, P.V., 2016. Technology, complexity and change in agricultural production systems. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 23(4), pp. 285-295.
Smith, D. and Onions, A.H., 2014. The preservation and maintenance of living fungi (No. Ed. 2). CAB international.
Stanwood, P.C. and Bass, L.N., 2016. Seed germplasm preservation using liquid nitrogen. Seed Science and Technology (Netherlands).
Truscott, B., Idler, D.R., Hoyle, R.J. and Freeman, H.C., 2018. Sub-zero preservation of Atlantic salmon sperm. Journal of the Fisheries Board of Canada, 25(2), pp. 363-372.
Waterfield, G. and Zilberman, D., 2012. Pest management in food systems: an economic perspective. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37, pp. 223-245.
Welladsen, H., Kent, M., Mangott, A. and Li, Y., 2014. Shelf-life assessment of microalgae concentrates: effect of cold preservation on microalgal nutrition profiles. Aquaculture, 430, pp. 241-247.
Williams, S., Toulmin, C. and Pretty, J.N., 2012. Sustainable intensification: increasing productivity in African food and agricultural systems. Routledge.
Zhang, J., Shen, G. and Yang, B., 2013. Design and implementation of information service system for rural science and technology based on push-and-pull technology. Guizhou Agricultural Sciences, (2), pp. 161-163.
Academic Master Education Team is a group of academic editors and subject specialists responsible for producing structured, research-backed essays across multiple disciplines. Each article is developed following Academic Master’s Editorial Policy and supported by credible academic references. The team ensures clarity, citation accuracy, and adherence to ethical academic writing standards
Content reviewed under Academic Master Editorial Policy.
