TRANSLATING THE MULTI-ACTOR APPROACH TO RESEARCH INTO PRACTICE USING A WORKSHOP APPROACH FOCUSING ON SPECIES MIXTURES

doi:10.15302/J-FASE-2021416

Front. Agr. Sci. Eng.

2021, Vol. 8

Issue (3) : 460-473 https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FASE-2021416

RESEARCH ARTICLE

TRANSLATING THE MULTI-ACTOR APPROACH TO RESEARCH INTO PRACTICE USING A WORKSHOP APPROACH FOCUSING ON SPECIES MIXTURES

Henrik HAUGGAARD-NIELSEN¹(

), Søren LUND¹, Ane K. AARE¹, Christine A. WATSON², Laurent BEDOUSSAC³, Jean-Noël AUBERTOT⁴, Iman R. CHONGTHAM⁵, Natalia BELLOSTAS⁶, Cairistiona F. E. TOPP⁷, Pierre HOHMANN⁸, Erik S. JENSEN⁵, Maureen STADEL⁹, Bertrand PINEL⁹, Eric JUSTES¹⁰

¹. Department of People and Technology, Roskilde University, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark
². Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC), Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom
³. AGIR, Univ Toulouse, ENSFEA, INRAE, Castanet-Tolosan, France
⁴. AGIR, Univ Toulouse, INRAE, Castanet-Tolosan, France
⁵. Department of Biosystems and Technology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-23053 Alnarp, Sweden
⁶. Instituto Navarro de Tecnologías e Infraestructuras Agroalimentarias (INTIA), 31610 VILLAVA (NAVARRA), Spain
⁷. SRUC, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom
⁸. Department of Crop Sciences, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), CH-5070 Frick, Switzerland
⁹. TERRENA, Ancenis, France
¹⁰. CIRAD, Persyst Department, Montpellier, France

Download: PDF(1941 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

● Challenges in reconciling multi disciplinarity with clear expressions of single disciplinary concerns.

● Participant involvement was created bridging the gap between academia and practice.

● Collaboration potentials with actor networks to co-produce shared visions were recognized.

● A common language was developed concerning unfounded perceptions of barriers for change.

● The workshop was effective for producing a shared picture of research needs.

The EIP-Agri multiactor approach was exemplified during a 3-day workshop with 63 project participants from the EU H2020 funded project “Redesigning European cropping systems based on species MIXtures”. The objective was to share firsthand experience of participatory research among researchers who were mostly not familiar with this approach. Workshop participants were divided into smaller multidisciplinary groups and given the opportunity to interact with representatives from eight actor positions in the value chain of the agrifood cooperative Terrena located in Western France. The four stages of the workshop were: (1) key actor interviews, (2) sharing proposed solutions for overcoming barriers, and (3) developing possible interdisciplinary concepts. Expressions of frustration were recorded serving both as a motivation for group members to become more aware of the scientific concerns and practices of their colleagues, as well as a recognition that some researchers have better skills integrating qualitative approaches than others. Nevertheless, the workshop format was an effective way to gain a common understanding of the pertinent issues that need to be addressed to meet overall multiactor-approach objectives. Working with the actor networks was identified and emphasized as a means to overcome existing barriers between academia and practice in order to coproduce a shared vision of the benefits of species mixture benefits.

Keywords agroecology codesign intercropping knowledge sharing participatory methods

Corresponding Author(s): Henrik HAUGGAARD-NIELSEN

Just Accepted Date: 13 August 2021 Online First Date: 07 September 2021 Issue Date: 26 September 2021

Cite this article:

Henrik HAUGGAARD-NIELSEN,Søren LUND,Ane K. AARE, et al. TRANSLATING THE MULTI-ACTOR APPROACH TO RESEARCH INTO PRACTICE USING A WORKSHOP APPROACH FOCUSING ON SPECIES MIXTURES[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2021, 8(3): 460-473.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fase/EN/10.15302/J-FASE-2021416
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fase/EN/Y2021/V8/I3/460

Fig.1 The Terrena value chain based upon a defined strategy outlined in several companies (e.g., Agréom, Evelia and Inveja) and departments to support the production of food and feed to fulfill the economic interests of both consumers and farmer members. The numbers indicate the eight types of actors (positions) in the value chain: (1) an organic farmer, (2) a conventional farmer, (3) an agricultural advisor, (4) a logistic (storage) manager, (5) a miller, (6) a food ingredient producer, (7) a commercial director of agricultural machinery, and (8) the cooperative director.

Fig.2 Word clouds based upon a final narrative produced by the workshop organizers from collected minutes from each group verified by both the specific participants and the Terrena actor representatives and categorized for the benefits (a) and risks (b) across actor narratives using the R packages SnowballC^[²⁹^] and tm^[³⁰^] with pre-processed text and stop words removed including stemming and lemmatization to reduce inflectional forms and sometimes derivationally related forms of a word to a common base form. Words that only appeared once were removed.

Actor	Actor	Biological/technical	Social	Economic
Organic farmer (1)	Benefits	Improved soil fertility since including lupin in cereal cropping, less diseases, improved soil biodiversity, more pollinators, soil structure improvement, improving climate adaptation.	Improved relationships with consumers and environmental organizations by showing willingness to change, open farming welcoming visitors, well-being, and better health.	Income stability, cost limitation, improved gross margins.
Organic farmer (1)	Risks	Sowing techniques and weed management difficulties, lack of knowledge of suitable cultivars, combine harvester settings, grain separation, storage.	Critical neighbors with very little support for new strategies, conflict with other tasks on the farm in terms of timing.	Dependence on Terrena, spending more time and money on weed control and harvest/storage, no insurance for species mixtures.
Conventional farmer (2)	Benefits	Reduced soil erosion, improved water storage and soil health, modification of microclimate, increase in natural pollinators, reduced pesticide use.	Public approval for using less pesticides in order to help answer to health concerns, environmental protection, ground water protection, diversification and personal motivation.	Reduction in pesticide and fertilizer use, improved income, increasing on farm fodder production, (potential transition cost is not a relevant concern).
Conventional farmer (2)	Risks	Difficult sowing strategy, requires special equipment like sowing machinery, higher risk of weed infestation, companion crops require frost to disappear.	Low cost of pesticides is an obstacle for innovation, change in government policies in relation to subsidies, increasing public pressure for reduced pesticide use.	Extra cost for farm machinery, extra cost for seeds, reduction in government subsidies (pesticides are cheap).
Crop advisor (3)	Benefits	Lower risk of total crop losses, improved natural weed control, greater diversity across the crop sequence, disease reductions, reduction of pests despite less chemical control options, climate mitigation.	Fewer chemical inputs, consumer support, fulfill public legislative requirements, aesthetic landscape diversity and values, farmer knowledge sharing and inspiration.	Yield stability (of protein crops) and reliable income, minimal inputs and lower production costs, on-farm protein production, plant protein subsidy as a support for mixtures.
Crop advisor (3)	Risks	Lack of competent advisors, knowledge gaps, lack of suitable cultivars, cultivars and breeding programs, lack of knowledge of rotation impacts on species mixtures.	Species mixture enthusiasts contradicted by traditionalists, lack of training at many levels, low government regulation understanding, viewed as knowledge and time intensive.	Government payments discriminate against species mixtures, current machinery not usually adapted, time consuming management (time is money).
Logistics (4)	Benefits	Farmer opportunity to benefit from natural processes, follows Terrena business strategy, new options with revision of storage system, support from processors and market.	NM	Increased yields and farmer income, novel product development, unique product label promoting environmental benefits, sold with a premium offsetting additional cost.
Logistics (4)	Risks	Double labor requirement, problematic storage capacity, need for separate storage of allergen products, increased processing time, management of impurities, lack of quality standards.	NM	Restructuring of the storage facility, equipment updating, additional labor costs, allergen issues in final products, retailer misbeliefs, difficult to commercially benefit from.
Miller (5)	Benefits	A little improvement of flour quality, higher protein content, less inputs required than for monocultures, better overall quality profile of the flour.	Better nutritional profile, “greener” product (notably pesticide free), positive for the climate.	Reaching specific markets (production under specifications), more stable quality of mixtures, benefit from storytelling (agroecology principles)
Miller (5)	Risks	New techniques required, optimum fertilization is not possible, pesticide spraying challenging, processing can be more complex, technological risks including additional processing steps.	Allergy risks due to mixtures, demand for consistent taste of products harder to fulfill, mindset lock-ins in key value chain actors according to mixture potentials (taste and ecosystem).	Proportional uncertainty in harvested mixture, quality differences against standardized customer demand, limited market space, consumer reaction risks.
Ingredients (6)	Benefits	Less pesticide use, improved seed quality (protein content), ensure local feedstock production (enhance organic farming development).	Use for corporate social responsibility of companies – marketing, promotion of local produce, local feedstock of high quality, fulfill consumers expectations (low input).	High-end value chain possibilities, promising niche markets, attract consumers interested in paying extra.
	Risks	Increased impurities, problems with seed size homogeneity, mixtures and lack of gluten-free requirements.	Risk for farmers if consumers are not ready to pay (outside organic markets), mistrust of consumers with regards to environmental impacts, speculative health/quality benefits.	Cost of raw material with adequate purity (but ready to pay if it comes clean).
Machinery advisor (7)	Benefits	Balance with nature, improved self-regulation, reduced inputs.	Form farmer groups and cooperation to share few machines.	Lower inputs but higher productivity.
Machinery advisor (7)	Risks	No existing machines for optimum management, different regulations of pesticides in EU influence competition, safety and legislation reduce machine prototyping.	Consumers want cheap food products.	High investment cost in new machinery, mechanical solutions is more expensive than other inputs, no market drivers, demand side needs stimulation.
Director (8)	Benefits	Reduced pests due to intra species interactions, weed suppression, yield advantages with two components, earlier grain legume maturity, easier harvest.	New supply chain for mixed products opens the field for motivated and innovative farmers to try things out, network of forward-looking farmers.	Simultaneous sowing, no additional sowing necessary, no additional costs, only benefits.
Director (8)	Risks	Difficult to separate grains, companion cropping not enough to suppress weeds, regrowth of companion crops, double costs: herbicides and new undersowing.	Slow adoption rates for companion cropping, intensity of change influence farmers interests and ability, simple species mixtures to start followed by more advanced systems.	Separating costs from 10 to 20 EUR·t ⁻¹, lupin is allergenic, so strict separation needed for human consumption, mixed products very specific and small markets.

Tab.1 Benefits and risks identified by the Terrena value chain actors interviewed

Tab.2 Categorized actions needed at each actor level to increase the use of species mixtures in Europe

Tab.3 Policy suggestions in subcategories for the promotion of species mixtures in Europe

Fig.3 Responses from 78% of the 63 participants to questions about the ReMIX workshop. LEARNING—You learnt something interesting, relevant and useful for your future work/collaboration. APPRECIATION—You appreciated the workshop format. AIM—The workshop aim was clear. INSTRUCTIONS—The instructions were clear. FORMAT—The format was suitable for this exercise. MATERIALS—The provided materials were useful. Scale: A, strongly disagree; B, disagree; C, agree; D, strongly agree.

1	M A Altieri, C I Nicholls, A Henao, M A Lana. Agroecology and the design of climate change-resilient farming systems. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2015, 35( 3): 869– 890 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0285-2
2	S Gliessman, P Tittonell. Agroecology for food security and nutrition. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 2015, 39( 2): 131– 133 https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2014.972001
3	A Wezel, M Casagrande, F Celette, J F Vian, A Ferrer, J Peigné. Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2014, 34( 1): 1– 20 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0180-7
4	M A Altieri. Linking ecologists and traditional farmers in the search for sustainable agriculture. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2004, 2( 1): 35– 42 https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2004)002[0035:LEATFI]2.0.CO;2
5	Vandermeer J H. The Ecology of Intercropping. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989, 237
6	Y Yu, T J Stomph, D Makowski, W van der Werf. Temporal niche differentiation increases the land equivalent ratio of annual intercrops: A meta-analysis. Field Crops Research, 2015, 184 : 133– 144 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2015.09.010
7	L Bedoussac, E P Journet, H Hauggaard-Nielsen, C Naudin, G Corre-Hellou, E S Jensen, L Prieur, E Justes. Ecological principles underlying the increase of productivity achieved by cereal-grain legume intercrops in organic farming. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2015, 35( 3): 911– 935 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-014-0277-7
8	R W Brooker, A E Bennett, W F Cong, T J Daniell, T S George, P D Hallett, C Hawes, P P M Iannetta, H G Jones, A J Karley, L Li, B M McKenzie, R J Pakeman, E Paterson, C Schöb, J Shen, G Squire, C A Watson, C Zhang, F Zhang, J Zhang, P J White. Improving intercropping: a synthesis of research in agronomy, plant physiology and ecology. New Phytologist, 2015, 206( 1): 107– 117 https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13132
9	M Raseduzzaman, E S Jensen. Does intercropping enhance yield stability in arable crop production? A meta-analysis.. European Journal of Agronomy, 2017, 91 : 25– 33 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2017.09.009
10	H Hauggaard-Nielsen, B Jørnsgaard, J Kinane, E S Jensen. Grain legume—cereal intercropping: the practical application of diversity, competition and facilitation in arable and organic cropping systems. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 2008, 23( 1): 3– 12 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170507002025
11	F Zhang, L Li. Using competitive and facilitative interactions in intercropping systems enhances crop productivity and nutrient-use efficiency. Plant and Soil, 2003, 248( 1/2): 305– 312 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022352229863
12	M Govindaraj, M Vetriventhan, M Srinivasan. Importance of genetic diversity assessment in crop plants and its recent advances: an overview of its analytical perspectives. Genetics Research International, 2015, 2015 : 431487 https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/431487
13	A R B Joao, F Luzardo, T X Vanderson. An interdisciplinary framework to study farmers decisions on adoption of innovation: insights from Expected Utility Theory and Theory of Planned Behavior. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 2015, 10( 29): 2814– 2825 https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2015.9650
14	Q Toffolini, M Jeuffroy, P Mischler, J Pernel, L Prost. Farmers’ use of fundamental knowledge to re-design their cropping systems: situated contextualisation processes. Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 2017, 80( 1): 37– 47 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2016.11.004
15	F W Geels, J Schot. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 2007, 36( 3): 399– 417 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003
16	W Geertsema, W A H Rossing, D A Landis, F J J A Bianchi, Rijn P C J van, J H J Schaminée, T Tscharntke, der Werf W van. Actionable knowledge for ecological intensification of agriculture. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2016, 14( 4): 209– 216 https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1258
17	Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartman S, Scott P, Trow M. The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: SAGE Publications Ltd., 1994, 192
18	B S Nielsen, K A Nielsen, P Olsén. From silent to talkative participants: a discussion of technique as social construction. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 1996, 17( 3): 359– 386 https://doi.org/10.1177/0143831X96173003
19	H Nowotny, P Scott, M Gibbons. Introduction: ‘Mode 2’ revisited: the new production of knowledge. Minerva, 2003, 41( 3): 179– 194 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025505528250
20	Gibbons M. Mode 1, Mode 2, and Innovation. In: Carayannis E G, ed. Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York: Springer, 2013, 1285–1292
21	L M Campbell. Overcoming obstacles to interdisciplinary research. Conservation Biology, 2005, 19( 2): 574– 577 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00058.x
22	C Cvitanovic, M Howden, R M Colvin, A Norström, A M Meadow, P F E Addison. Maximising the benefits of participatory climate adaptation research by understanding and managing the associated challenges and risks. Environmental Science & Policy, 2019, 94 : 20– 31 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.028
23	J Bruneel, P D’Este, A Salter. Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university-industry collaboration. Research Policy, 2010, 39( 7): 858– 868 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.03.006
24	B Koole. Trusting to learn and learning to trust. A framework for analyzing the interactions of trust and learning in arrangements dedicated to instigating social change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2020, 161 : 120260 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120260
25	V E Méndez, M Caswell, S R Gliessman, R Cohen. Integrating agroecology and participatory action research (PAR): lessons from Central America. Sustainability, 2017, 9( 5): 705 https://doi.org/10.3390/su9050705
26	A K Aare, H Cooreman, C V Garayoa, E S Arrieta, N Bellostas, F Marchand, H Hauggaard-Nielsen. Methodological reflections on monitoring interactive knowledge creation during farming demonstrations by means of surveys and observations. Sustainability, 2020, 12( 14): 5739 https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145739
27	Darnhofer I, Gibbon D, Dedieu B. Farming Systems Research into the 21st Century: The New Dynamic. Springer, 2012
28	C Folke. Resilience (Republished). Ecology and Society, 2016, 21( 4): 44 https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09088-210444
29	Bouchet-Valat M. SnowballC: Snowball Stemmers based on the C Libstemmer UTF-8 Library (Version 0.5-1). 2014.
30	Feinerer I, Hornik K. Tm: Text Mining Package (Version 0.7-1). 2017.
31	G P Podesta, C E Natenzon, C Hidalgo, F Ruiz Toranzo. Interdisciplinary production of knowledge with participation of stakeholders: a case study of a collaborative project on climate variability, human decisions and agricultural ecosystems in the Argentine Pampas. Environmental Science & Technology, 2013, 26 : 40– 48
32	H Bridle, A Vrieling, M Cardillo, Y Araya, L Hinojosa. Preparing for an interdisciplinary future: a perspective from early-career researchers. Futures, 2013, 53 : 22– 32 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2013.09.003
33	N Priaulx, M Weinel. Connective knowledge: what we need to know about other fields to ‘envision’ cross-disciplinary collaboration. European Journal of Futures Research, 2018, 6( 1): 21 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40309-018-0150-z
34	M Eames, J Egmose. Community foresight for urban sustainability: insights from the Citizens Science for Sustainability (SuScit) project. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2011, 78( 5): 769– 784 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2010.09.002
35	J O Karlsson, G Carlsson, M Lindberg, T Sjunnestrand, E Röös. Designing a future food vision for the Nordics through a participatory modeling approach. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2018, 38( 6): 59 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-018-0528-0
36	O Husson, Quoc H Tran, S Boulakia, A Chabanne, F Tivet, S Bouzinac, P Lienhard, R Michellon, S Chabierski, J Boyer, F Enjalric, N Rakotondramanana, F Moussa, O Jullien, B Balarabe, J C Rattanatray, H Castella, L Charpentier. Co-designing innovative cropping systems that match biophysical and socio-economic diversity: the DATE approach to Conservation Agriculture in Madagascar, Lao PDR and Cambodia. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 2016, 31( 5): 452– 470 https://doi.org/10.1017/S174217051500037X
37	D Tilman, K G Cassman, P A Matson, R Naylor, S Polasky. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature, 2002, 418( 6898): 671– 677 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01014
38	R Lal. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science, 2004, 304( 5677): 1623– 1627 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1097396
39	J M Meynard, M H Jeuffroy, Bail M Le, A Lefèvre, M B Magrini, C Michon. Designing coupled innovations for the sustainability transition of agrifood systems. Agricultural Systems, 2017, 157 : 330– 339 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.08.002
40	Mbow C, Rosenzweig C, Barioni L G, Benton T G, Herrero M, Krishnapillai M, Liwenga E, Pradhan P, Rivera-Ferre M G, Sapkota T, Tubiello F N, Xu Y. Food Security. In: Shukla P R, Skea J, Calvo Buendia E, Masson-Delmotte V, Pörtner H O, Roberts D C, Zhai P, Slade R, Connors S, van Diemen R, Ferrat M, Haughey E, Luz S, Neogi S, Pathak M, Petzold J, Portugal Pereira J, Vyas P, Huntley E, Kissick K, Belkacemi M, Malley J, eds. Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. IPCC, 2019
41	E S Jensen. Grain yield, symbiotic N2 fixation and interspecific competition for inorganic N in pea–barley intercrops. Plant and Soil, 1996, 182( 1): 25– 38 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00010992
42	R A Gonzalez, J Thomas, M Chang. Translating agroecology into policy: the case of France and the United Kingdom. Sustainability, 2018, 10( 8): 2930 https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082930
43	M S Clancy, G Moschini. Intellectual property rights and the ascent of proprietary innovation in agriculture. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 2017, 9( 1): 53– 74 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100516-053524
44	J R Lamichhane, S Dachbrodt-Saaydeh, P Kudsk, A Messéan. Toward a reduced reliance on conventional pesticides in European agriculture. Plant Disease, 2016, 100( 1): 10– 24 https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-05-15-0574-FE
45	J P Reganold, J M Wachter. Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nature Plants, 2016, 2( 2): 15221 https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2015.221
46	M Lechenet, F Dessaint, G Py, D Makowski, N Munier-Jolain. Reducing pesticide use while preserving crop productivity and profitability on arable farms. Nature Plants, 2017, 3( 3): 17008 https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2017.8
47	E S Jensen, H Hauggaard-Nielsen. How can increased use of biological N2 fixation in agriculture benefit the environment. Plant and Soil, 2003, 252( 1): 177– 186 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024189029226
48	T E Crews, M B Peoples. Legume versus fertilizer sources of nitrogen: ecological tradeoffs and human needs. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2004, 102( 3): 279– 297 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2003.09.018
49	D F Herridge, M B Peoples, R M Boddey. Global inputs of biological nitrogen fixation in agricultural systems. Plant and Soil, 2008, 311( 1−2): 1– 18 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-008-9668-3
50	E S Jensen, L Bedoussac, G Carlsson, E Journet, E Justes, H Hauggaard-Nielsen. Enhancing yields in organic crop production by eco-functional intensification. Sustainable Agriculture Research, 2015, 4( 3): 42– 50 https://doi.org/10.5539/sar.v4n3p42
51	S Gliessman. Agroecology: growing the roots of resistance. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 2013, 37( 1): 19– 31
52	A Wezel, S Bellon, T Doré, C Francis, D Vallod, C David. Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2009, 29( 4): 503– 515 https://doi.org/10.1051/agro/2009004
53	A K Killion, K Sterle, E Bondank, J Drabik, A Bera, S Alian, K Goodrich, M Hale, R A Myer, Q Phung, A M Shew, A W Thayer. Preparing the next generation of sustainability scientists. Ecology and Society, 2018, 23( 4): art39 https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10395-230439
54	M Cerf, M H Jeuffroy, L Prost, J M Meynard. Participatory design of agricultural decision support tools: taking account of the use situations. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2012, 32( 4): 899– 910 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-012-0091-z
55	C Ravier, M H Jeuffroy, J M Meynard. Mismatch between a science-based decision tool and its use: the case of the balance-sheet method for nitrogen fertilization in France. NJAS Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 2016, 79( 1): 31– 40 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2016.10.001

[1]	Wopke VAN DER WERF, Lizhen ZHANG, Chunjie LI, Ping CHEN, Chen FENG, Zhan XU, Chaochun ZHANG, Chunfeng GU, Lammert BASTIAANS, David MAKOWSKI, TjeerdJan STOMPH. COMPARING PERFORMANCE OF CROP SPECIES MIXTURES AND PURE STANDS[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2021, 8(3): 481-489.
[2]	Antoine MESSÉAN, Loïc VIGUIER, Lise PARESYS, Jean-Noël AUBERTOT, Stefano CANALI, Pietro IANNETTA, Eric JUSTES, Alison KARLEY, Beatrix KEILLOR, Laura KEMPER, Frédéric MUEL, Barbara PANCINO, Didier STILMANT, Christine WATSON, Helga WILLER, Raúl ZORNOZA. ENABLING CROP DIVERSIFICATION TO SUPPORT TRANSITIONS TOWARD MORE SUSTAINABLE EUROPEAN AGRIFOOD SYSTEMS[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2021, 8(3): 474-480.
[3]	Qi WANG, Zhanxiang SUN, Wei BAI, Dongsheng ZHANG, Yue ZHANG, Ruonan WANG, Wopke VAN DER WERF, Jochem B. EVERS, Tjeerd-Jan STOMPH, Jianping GUO, Lizhen ZHANG. LIGHT INTERCEPTION AND USE EFFICIENCY DIFFER WITH MAIZE PLANT DENSITY IN MAIZE-PEANUT INTERCROPPING[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2021, 8(3): 432-446.
[4]	Hao YANG, Weiping ZHANG, Long LI. INTERCROPPING: FEED MORE PEOPLE AND BUILD MORE SUSTAINABLE AGROECOSYSTEMS[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2021, 8(3): 373-386.
[5]	Yadong YANG, Xiaomin FENG, Yuegao HU, Zhaohai ZENG. The diazotrophic community in oat rhizosphere: effects of legume intercropping and crop growth stage[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2019, 6(2): 162-171.
[6]	Yuanmei ZUO,Zhenjiao ZHANG,Caihong LIU,Weina ZHANG. Achieving food security and high production of bioenergy crops through intercropping with efficient resource use in China[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2015, 2(2): 134-143.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed