Sustainable cereal production through integrated crop management: a global review of current practices and future prospects

Among cereals, three crops namely maize, wheat, and rice account for 90% of the total cereal production, with global production levels of 791.2, 522.6, and 1229.63 million tons for wheat, rice and maize, respectively. The global challenges of food insecurity, climate variability, and unsustainable land use necessitate a redefined approach to cereal production, focusing on climate resilience, low vulnerability, and high productivity while establishing food and environmental safety. Integrated crop management (ICM) offers a holistic farming approach that integrates various agricultural practices to ensure long-term benefits and mitigate risks. This comprehensive review examined a total of 108 documented studies from existing literature pertaining to the last 23 years, besides case studies on ICM in rice, wheat, and maize production, analyzing its benefits, challenges, and future directions. In Asian countries, where rice is a staple food, ICM practices have effectively addressed challenges such as yield stagnation, declining profits, and crop failures. Nutrient and pest management, along with conservation agriculture (CA), have played a crucial role in overcoming these challenges. China’s implementation of site-specific management duly integrated with other practices, has successfully reduced excessive nitrogen use besides improved environmental and health outcomes. Sustainable corn production has been achieved in the USA and Africa through comprehensive implementation of CA and crop diversification. Globally, ICM has demonstrated yield increases of 10–19% for rice, 16–30% for wheat, and 13.5–30% for maize crops. Despite having ample potential, the widespread adoption of ICM faces technical, climate-related, and economic constraints. Overcoming these challenges requires targeted training, extension services, and supportive policies. Furthermore, future research should focus on addressing key knowledge gaps to facilitate the widespread implementation of ICM. While promoting climatic resilience and sustainability in cereal production systems, ICM can contribute to food security and environmental preservation globally.

1 Introduction

With over 700–800 million people uncertain about their next meal, the modern world is grappling with an unprecedented hunger and malnutrition crisis (FAO et al., 2022). The scale of this crisis has escalated drastically, with over 345 million people experiencing severe food insecurity in 2023, which is more than double the number in 2020. Factors such as conflicts, economic shocks, climate extremes, and rising fertilizer prices have combined to create an unprecedented food crisis (WFP, 2023). To ensure global food security, it is essential to manage and utilize resources like land, water, and nutrients sustainably, while also respecting planetary boundaries (Grote et al., 2021). Striking the right balance between food and nutritional security, environmental protection, and climate change mitigation poses a significant challenge for our food systems and the management of land and water resources (IPCC, 2019; Willett et al., 2019). Rice, wheat, and maize, the three staple crops, provide about 40% of our daily calories and form the foundation of human nutrition (Neumann et al., 2010; World Economic Forum, 2018). Although these crops contribute significantly to global cereal production, their current output falls short of meeting the requisite demand of a growing population, leading to significant environmental pressures (Vinci et al., 2022).

However, cereal production is not feasible without alarming consequences. It accounted for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) from the agro-food sector between 1961 and 2019 due to high reliance on synthetic pesticides, nitrogen (N) fertilizers, and the use of polluted irrigation water (Pillay et al., 2018; Hamel et al., 2020; Vinci et al., 2022). Addressing these environmental challenges, necessitates climate-smart agricultural practices that aim to reduce synthetic inputs, promote multiple production approaches, and enhance sustainability (Cambareri, 2017; Hamel et al., 2020). In this context, integrated crop management (ICM) emerges as a pragmatic approach to address the challenges associated with cereal production. ICM is a holistic farming approach that integrates various agricultural practices, including irrigation, nutrient management, pest management, and soil conservation (Choudhary et al., 2018; Singh et al., 2022). By combining these components, ICM could greatly optimize crop production, while minimizing negative environmental impacts (Math et al., 2018). It also offers several advantages over traditional methods, such as enhanced productivity, reduced input costs, improved soil health, pest and disease management, and resilience to climate variability (Ottoman et al., 1997; Khatun et al., 2018).

Despite these advantages, the full potential of ICM practices in cereal production remains largely unexplored due to various challenges. These challenges include high input costs (28–34%) associated with additional labor requirements, IPM practices, additional nutrient requirements in addition to lack of knowledge and awareness, resistance to change, limited government support, and climatic variability (Bagheri et al., 2019). Encouraging farmers to adopt ICM practices can revolutionize cereal production, besides protecting the health of individuals coupled with a safer environment. While some review papers have discussed the general question of feeding the growing world population, limited attention has been given to the specific role of staple food crops like rice, wheat, and maize (Shiferaw et al., 2011, 2013; Fukagawa and Ziska, 2019; Tadesse et al., 2019; Mishra et al., 2022). This review aims to fill that gap by exploring the ICM approaches being practiced in cereals globally, highlighting their challenges, and presenting futuristic directions for achieving sustainable cereal production while maintaining a cleaner and safe environment.

2 Background

The historical perspective of ICM can be traced back to the mid-20th century, when conventional agricultural practices heavily relied on chemical inputs (Blois, 2023). These systems were characterized by the intensive use of agrochemicals to maximize production, including extensive tillage, mono cropping, and limited recycling of materials (Sumberg and Giller, 2022). However, the overreliance and indiscriminate application of these inputs led to a range of environmental and health issues (Hemathilake and Gunathilake, 2022). The invention of organo-chlorine insecticides, particularly DDT, in the 1940’s revolutionized pest control practices (Pimentel, 1996). This was followed by the green revolution in the 1950’s and early 1960’s, which brought about a complete transformation of agriculture and a significant increase in food production (Pretty, 2018). During this period, there has been a shift away from understanding pest phenology, density, and natural enemies, and synthetic pesticides and fertilizers were seen as “the sole answer to world hunger” (Penn State Extension, 2022). However, this approach led to a high level of dependence on chemicals, resulting in increased selection pressure on pests and the development of resistance. Consequently, this has necessitated a growing demand to explore production practices that were environmentally friendly, economically viable, and socially responsible.

The earliest known developments in literature regarding integrated pest management (IPM), ICM, integrated production (IP), and integrated farming (IF) emerged during the 1950’s in many countries worldwide (Kneib and Schulz, 2006). Further research on IF in its various guises, such as integrated farming systems (IFS) and IPM, was conducted in the late 1970s (Rose et al., 2019). It was not until 1991 that ICM was first introduced as an attempt to address public perception of farming. In Great Britain, a new organization called linking environment and farming (LEAF) was formed with the aim of promoting good agriculture and reassuring consumers that the food they consumed was safe (Finch et al., 2014). In recent years, advancements in technology and the growing realization of the importance of regenerative agriculture have further propelled the adoption of ICM. Pioneering practices involving ICM, such as IP, IF, and IPM, have been developed as holistic concepts that encompass all crop and farming activities (Rossi et al., 2010). Furthermore, the integrated crop-livestock system (ICLS) has gained attention as an alternative management strategy that sustainably intensifies food production while benefiting producers, soil health, and the environment (Kumar et al., 2019). This historical perspective of ICM reflects a shift from conventional agricultural practices, which heavily rely on chemical inputs to a better holistic and sustainable approach. The integration of various practices, technologies, and ecological principles in ICM has allowed farmers to optimize crop production while minimizing environmental impacts and promoting long-term agricultural sustainability.

2.1 Global cereal production scenario

Cereals hold immense importance as the most traded commodities worldwide in terms of quantity, with the United States of America (USA) and Europe emerging as major exporters, while Asia stands as the largest importer (FAO et al., 2022). These crops cover half of the world’s harvested area, spanning over a vast area of 736 million hectares (m ha), and contributing a staggered total production of 2,996 MT. Among cereals, maize, wheat, and rice play pivotal roles, accounting for approximately 90% of the total cereal production. Maize, with its versatile applications, stands as a key player in global agriculture. The USA takes the lead in maize production, boasting a remarkable output of over 360 MT. China and Brazil follow closely behind, with maize productions of 260 MT and 104 MT, respectively (FAOSTAT, 2022). Wheat, often considered the “staff of life,” holds tremendous value in the global food system. China, India, and Russia have emerged as the major wheat producers, contributing significantly to the world’s wheat production. China leads the pack with a wheat production of 135 MT, followed by India with 107 MT and Russia with 86 MT. The details have been given in Figure 1 for better presentation.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Area, production and productivity of (a) Rice, (b) Wheat and (c) Maize over the past 25 years. Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, DAC&FW, GOI (2023).

Rice provides a substantial portion of the energy for being consumed by 2,700 million people in Asia, with China securing the position of the largest rice producer, with an impressive output of 213 MT; while India closely follows (155 MT).Other major rice producers include Indonesia, Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Thailand (FAOSTAT, 2022). Its production demands effective management strategies, including IPM and water conservation techniques, to ensure sustainable cultivation and meet the dietary needs of millions. The global production scenario of these cereals highlights their critical role in ensuring food security, sustainable agriculture, and economic stability. The adoption of ICM practices in cereals therefore becomes imperative to address the challenges posed by population growth, climate change, resource constraints, and environmental concerns. By implementing sustainable and integrated approaches, farmers can enhance productivity, reduce environmental impacts, and contribute to a resilient and sustainable future of cereal production with cleaner environment.

2.2 Evolution of ICM practices in cereals

The evolution of ICM practices in cereals, including rice, wheat, and maize, has witnessed a transition from conventional methods to more sustainable and integrated approaches. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) recognizes the significance and relevance of ICM, emphasizing its superiority over individual agronomic management approaches (Pooniya et al., 2022). However, specific practices may vary based on the crop and region. In rice production, the focus has shifted toward water management techniques aimed at optimizing water use efficiency (WUE) and reducing methane emissions. One promising technique is alternate wetting and drying (AWD), an economically viable and eco-friendly irrigation system (Ishfaq et al., 2020; Suwanmaneepong et al., 2023). AWD maximizes rainfall capture, reduces irrigation pumping, and maintains grain quality and yield (Howell et al., 2015; Henry et al., 2017). IPM strategies in rice emphasize upon biological control, resistant varieties, and cultural practices like synchronized planting, reducing the reliance on pesticides and promoting sustainable rice production (Enriquez et al., 2021).

In wheat production, there has been a greater emphasis on precision agriculture technologies, enabling targeted fertilizer application, site-specific crop management, and precise pesticide usage. Disease-resistant varieties, conservation tillage, and yield monitors are also utilized to ensure it (Mercer, 2019). Precision agriculture technologies can help farmers achieve consistent crops while reducing inputs like fertilizer and pesticides, thereby leading to improved sustainability and profitability (Finco et al., 2021). Maize production has also witnessed advancements in the use of cover crops (Effland et al., 2022), crop rotation, and intercropping, particularly with soybean (Iqbal et al., 2019). Optimized nutrient management practices have also been employed to enhance soil health and mitigate pest and disease pressures (Kumar et al., 2014a). Technological advances have played a significant role in increasing productivity and reducing costs on corn farms, ensuring food safety in regions where maize is a staple crop, such as East Africa (Mutiga et al., 2019). These advances have also contributed to the global expansion of maize production (Erenstein et al., 2022). Overall, the evolution of ICM practices in rice, wheat, and maize embraces a holistic and sustainable approach, incorporating site-specific technologies and practices to optimize yields, reduce inputs, and ensure long-term environmental and economic sustainability.

3 Methods

3.1 Search term strategy

In order to comprehensively assess the current practices and future prospects of ICM in sustainable cereal production, a systematic literature review was conducted. The search term strategy involved the following topics.

3.1.1 Keywords

Relevant keywords including “ICM,” “IPM,” “conservation agriculture (CA),” “water management,” “soil fertility,” and “nutrient management” were combined using Boolean operators to form the search string: ‘(ICM OR Integrated crop management) AND (IPM) AND (CA) AND (water management OR irrigation) AND (soil fertility OR soil health) AND (nutrient management OR fertilizer use efficiency)’. This string was used to retrieve the literature from various platforms such as Google Scholar, J-gate, CAB direct, and Scopus, covering the period from 2000 to 2023. This approach aimed to capture a wide range of scholarly works focusing on ICM practices within the context of specific cereal crops (rice, wheat and maize). In addition to academic databases, government websites and reports, notably the FAO and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), were extensively explored to gather valuable insights on ICM practices in cereal production. The search was conducted in English language to ensure accessibility and uniformity of the collected literature.

3.1.2 Publication filtering

After the initial collection of literature, a filtering process was employed to select publications that were most relevant to the objectives of this review. The filtering criteria included the (a) alignment of the publication with the scope of ICM in cereal production, (b) publication within the time frame of 2000–2023, (c) peer-reviewed status to ensure research quality, (d) focus on maize, wheat, and rice production systems, (e) exclusion of duplicate records and non-English publications. This step ensured that the selected literature would provide valuable insights for the analysis.

3.1.3 Selection of publications

To effectively present the ICM approaches of cereals at the global level, a total of 45 publications for rice, 28 publications for wheat, and 35 publications for maize were selected from the filtered literature. The selection criteria included: (a) relevance to ICM practices, (b) coverage of key topics such as IPM, CA, water management, and NUE, (c) inclusion of studies that provided quantitative or field-based evidence on the effectiveness of ICM practices, and (d) recent publications to ensure up-to-date information. The rejection criteria included: (a) studies that lacked direct relevance to ICM or cereal production, (b) duplicate publications or studies that were reviews without original data or analysis, (c) non-peer-reviewed sources. This rigorous selection process ensured that the chosen publications were both significant and relevant for analyzing current practices and advancements in ICM approaches for sustainable cereal production.

3.2 Analyzing the information

Once the literature collection was completed, a detailed analysis of the gathered information was conducted. Given the limited availability of extensive literature on the global evolution and advancement of ICM practices in cereal production, this review endeavors to bridge the knowledge gap through a rigorous analysis that enhances our understanding of ICM’s role in achieving sustainable cereal production. To enhance clarity and facilitate a better understanding, the collected literature was meticulously organized into subsections corresponding to specific cereal crops, namely rice, wheat, and maize, along with their respective ICM practices, background, challenges in adoption of ICM, success stories and future direction and recommendations. The analysis of the information aimed to achieve the objectives of this review, which included: (i) Evaluating current practices and challenges in cereal production, focusing on the adoption of ICM in rice, wheat, and maize. (ii) Analyzing success stories, challenges, and future research directions to foster sustainable cereal production through ICM; and (iii) Summarizing key findings to promote the widespread adoption of ICM practices in cereals.

4 Approaches to ICM in cereal production at global level

Agriculture contributes approximately 4% to the global gross domestic product (GDP) as per latest reports (Statista, 2023). In developing and developed countries, the agricultural GDP accounts for 8 and 25%, respectively (FAO, 2011). It is worth noting that around 2 billion people, comprising 26.7% of the world’s population, depend on agriculture for their livelihoods (FAO, 2018). Agricultural development plays a crucial role in eradicating extreme poverty, promoting shared prosperity, and feeding the projected 9.7 billion people by 2050. Furthermore, growth in the agricultural sector is 2–4 times more effective in raising income level among the poorest segments of society compared to other sectors (The World Bank, 2023). However, the increasing demand for food production to sustain a growing population poses significant challenges to agriculture, exacerbated by climate change and current agricultural practices. In this context, redefining cultivation approaches that address food security and climate resilience becomes imperative. ICM serves the purpose by combining the best aspects of traditional methods with appropriate modern technologies to achieve a balance between economic crop production and positive environmental management (Choudhary and Rana, 2018). ICM is referred to by different names in different countries, i.e., integrated crop and resource management in Indonesia; integrated crop management systems in European Union (Bradley et al., 2002). ICM offers a holistic framework that could integrate various practices to optimize cereal production while minimizing environmental impacts. This article has intended to explore the diverse approaches to ICM in cereal production at a global level, highlighting the strategies and initiatives implemented in different regions.

4.1 ICM practices in rice

Rice is a staple food in Asia, contributing to 90% of total production (Fukagawa and Ziska, 2019). Southeast Asia, also known as the rice-bowl of Asia, employs diverse rice ecosystems and cultivation methods, including lowland, upland, aerobic, submerged, and the system of rice intensification (SRI) (Settele et al., 2018; Yuan et al., 2022). While these approaches provide food security and promote biodiversity conservation, rice farmers face challenges such as stagnating yields, declining profits, water and labor shortages, adverse weather conditions, besides environmental concerns (Balasubramanian et al., 2005). To address these constraints in rice, ICM has emerged as a promising solution, delivering 10–19% higher yields and 70% higher nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) compared to conventional practices (Regmi and Ladha, 2006; Chu et al., 2016; Biswakarma et al., 2021). The information appended in Table 1 presents a review of several ICM models adopted worldwide in lieu of global adoption of ICM practices in rice.

Table 1

Table 1. Globally adopted ICM models in rice.

4.1.1 Soil fertility and nutrient management

ICM components like integrated soil fertility management (ISFM), integrated nutrient management (INM), site-specific nutrient management (SSNM), and green manuring improve soil fertility and nutrient management in rice cultivation, enhancing yields and long-term sustainability (Sharma and Sharma, 2004; Agegnehu and Amede, 2017; Urmi et al., 2022). Numerous studies mentioned in forthcoming paragraph highlight the significance of ICM and its components in enhancing soil fertility and nutrient management in rice.

In India focus areas include direct-seeded rice (DSR) with residue retention and improved nutrient practices, such as no-till (NT) and INM with 30% residue retention in the rice-wet to rice-dry system, leading to increased productivity and C: N sequestration in paddy soils of north-eastern India (Yadav et al., 2017; Biswakarma et al., 2021). Similarly, adopting ICM practices, such as increased plant density, decreased N application, and the use of alternate wetting and drying (AWD) irrigation has significantly improved agronomic nitrogen use efficiency (ANUE) of Chinese farmers (Chu et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2017). In Nepal, SSNM, practices based on leaf color chart (LCC) with a critical value of 4.0, and crop-need-based N application, have demonstrated substantial increases in NUE compared to farmer’s practice (Regmi and Ladha, 2006). Indonesian rice farmers have also successfully adopted ICM practices tailored to their agro-climatic conditions, including improved nutrient management, young single seedling planting, and intermittent irrigation, resulting in higher yields and better net returns (Wardana et al., 2002).

4.1.2 Water management

Water is crucial for rice cultivation, but traditional practices like continuous flooding often lead to water wastage (Dixit et al., 2016). In light of water scarcity, and the need to meet the food demands of Asia’s poor population, improved water management practices are essential (Facon, 2000). IWM an integral component of ICM promotes better irrigation practices through AWD and intermittent irrigation. These practices ensure efficient water use, minimize wastage and ensure sustainable water resources for rice production (Khatun et al., 2018). In China, farmers are adopting alternate wetting and moderate soil drying (AWMD) in combination with other ICM practices to augment water productivity. Studies by Zhang et al. (2018) demonstrated that AWMD reduced water input by 15.4 to 16.5% and increased irrigation water productivity (grain yield/ amount of irrigation water applied) compared to flood irrigation. Similarly, Zhang et al. (2019) implemented AWMD from 10 days after rice transplanting until maturity, which resulted in 29.9% increase in grain yield besides a 17.1% reduction in total methane emissions. Chu et al. (2016) also reported an increase to the tune of 27–28% in WUE using AWMD compared to flood irrigation. Thus, AWMD has been a proven technique to be an effective alternative to continuous flooding, improving productivity, conserving water resources, and enhancing rice yields in China (Xue et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2021).

In Indian context, several water management practices such as AWD, SRI and drip irrigation are being implemented to optimize water use, conserve resources, and enhance overall water productivity in rice cultivation (Surendran et al., 2021; Mallareddy et al., 2023). Studies have revealed significant water savings of 78.05 and 63.66%, when irrigation was applied through SRI [i.e., water application whenever hairline cracks (very thin, surface-level cracks that form when the soil dries out and shrinks, often due to loss of moisture or compaction) appear in field] and intermittent irrigation, respectively (Islam et al., 2014). These practices have been scientifically proven to improve WUE compared to traditional continuous flooding methods, leading to enhanced sustainable water management and increased productivity in rice production in India (Das et al., 2014; Biswas et al., 2021). In addition to India and China, Indonesian farmers have also adopted intermittent irrigation as a component of ICM to attain the aforementioned benefits (Wardana et al., 2010).

4.1.3 Crop diversification

Current rice production practices in Asia, specifically including India, often rely on continuous cultivation of rice or the rice-wheat cropping system (RWCS). However, these practices pose several challenges, such as nutrient depletion, soil degradation, pest and disease buildup, water scarcity, and reduced resilience to climate change (Papademetriou, 2000). The RWCS is extensively cultivated over a 13.5 m ha area in Asia, with 57% share located in South Asia, particularly the Indo-Gangetic plains (IGP) (Ladha et al., 2009; Banjara et al., 2021). Recognizing the need for enhanced productivity, resource utilization, and sustainable agriculture, crop diversification in rice-based cropping systems (RBCS) has emerged as an effective strategy (Singh et al., 2012). Crop diversification is a crucial component of ICM in rice cultivation as it manages risks, enhances soil health and nutrient management, besides reducing reliance on a single crop (Zhao et al., 2015). In China, the inclusion of legumes as a winter crop in rice rotations has been widely practiced to reduce nitrogen losses, greenhouse gas emissions, and maintain economic and environmental benefits (Xia et al., 2016; Cai et al., 2018).

Field studies conducted in Thailand, China, and Vietnam have clearly demonstrated the benefits of growing nectar-producing plants around rice fields. These practices have resulted in significant reductions in pest populations, a 70% decrease in insecticide applications, a 5% increase in grain yields, and a 7.5% economic advantage (Gurr et al., 2016).

4.1.4 Resource conservation technology and conservation agriculture

Improper management of rice fields has led to soil degradation, including reduced soil organic carbon (SOC) and deficiencies of macro and micronutrients (Das et al., 2014). In China, the extensive use of N, super rice, and hybrid rice varieties has contributed to significant progress in rice production (Zhu and Chen, 2002; Cao et al., 2010). Nevertheless, excessive use of N fertilizer (330 kg ha⁻¹) to maximize yields has caused soil and environmental pollution (Zhou et al., 2016; Gu et al., 2017). Achieving a balance between high rice yields and minimizing environmental consequences has now become a priority in China (Chen et al., 2014). By implementing ICM practices such as reducing N fertilizer by 10% (270 kg ha⁻¹), increasing plant density by 25%, applying organic manures, and increasing tillage depth, N losses have been reduced by 47.8% compared to conventional practices (Chen et al., 2021).

In India, prominent RBCS include rice-rice, rice-wheat, rice-pulse, and rice-potato systems (Deep et al., 2018). Among these, the RWCS is prominent in NWI and plays a vital role in the country’s food and nutritional security, contributing approximately 75% to the national food chain (Benbi and Senapati, 2010). However, continuous adoption of the RWCS has resulted in declining groundwater tables, soil degradation, and environmental issues. Puddling in rice cultivation, while effective for weed control, leads to soil structure damage and reduced permeability, negatively affecting subsequent crops like wheat. Similarly, stubble burning, a common practice to clear fields quickly, contributes to air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and the loss of valuable organic matter, posing significant health and environmental challenges (Dhanda et al., 2022; Khedwal et al., 2023). To ensure sustainable intervention in the RWCS and safeguard the food security of millions in South Asia, alternative agricultural practices such as direct-seeded rice followed by zero-tilled wheat (DSR-ZTW) need to be promoted. DSR-ZTW helps save irrigation water (20–25%), reduce production costs, and improve system yields (Raj et al., 2017; Jat et al., 2019). This CA-based ICM in the RWCS of the IGP in NWI helps enhance system productivity and soil health (Biswakarma et al., 2021). In the Northeastern region (NER) of India, continuous rice-rice (R-R) systems are being practiced due to abundant water availability (Yadav et al., 2016). However, farmers in the NER rely on sub-optimal fertilizer and manure application, primarily depending on inherent soil fertility and residue incorporation (Das et al., 2015; Patel et al., 2015). Nevertheless, climate change, frequent droughts, and occasional floods pose significant threat to farmers in this region. Conservation-effective tillage practices, such as NT, and INM with 30% residue retention have been found to be very effective in sustaining system productivity of these areas (Yadav et al., 2017). In addition to these practices, IWM and integrated pest and disease management (IPDM) through ICM are crucial for ensuring sustainable rice production in Asia. These approaches address the challenge of feeding the growing population while minimizing environmental impacts and preserving long-term agricultural productivity.

4.2 ICM practices in wheat

Wheat is a vital food source for approximately 35% of the global population (Grote et al., 2021). It is cultivated across diverse regions, including Europe, North America, and Asia. Wheat contributes 20% of the total calories consumed worldwide, and its versatility in culinary applications plays a crucial role in diets worldwide (Scott, 2014; Zhang et al., 2022b). While modern wheat varieties have high yield potential, conventional practices have led to soil degradation and reduced genetic diversity (Reynolds et al., 1994; Biswakarma et al., 2021). In response to these challenges, the FAO is actively promoting the adoption of ICM practices among wheat farmers globally, with the potential to increase crop yields by 16–30% globally (Tadesse et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2020; Singh, 2022). The information in Table 2 provides an overview of various ICM wheat models implemented worldwide, and the following section discusses different approaches to facilitate the successful adoption of ICM in wheat production.

Table 2

Table 2. Globally adopted ICM models in wheat.

4.2.1 Soil fertility and nutrient management

The use of chemical fertilizers and manures has significantly increased global food production, with N fertilizers alone being responsible for a 40–60% increase in wheat yield (Erenstein et al., 2008). However, concerns have arisen regarding the low NUE of wheat crops and the environmental impacts of current nutrient management practices. The N recovery rate of wheat is approximately 35–45% (Raigar et al., 2022), and excessive N application can lead to decreased grain yields and increased N loss in the wheat-soil system (Kubar et al., 2022). While efforts to develop stress-resistant wheat varieties are ongoing, adopting ICM practices is considered the best approach to redefine nutrient management for safe and sustainable wheat production (Dobermann and Cassman, 2002). Several studies have demonstrated the positive response to ICM components such as INM, SSNM, and green manuring in improving wheat yields.

In Indian Punjab, Khurana et al. (2008) tested the potential of SSNM in irrigated wheat and found increased grain yield from 4.2–4.8 tonnes ha⁻¹, NPK accumulation of 12–20, and 13% higher returns compared to farmer’s practice. Similar observations have been reported worldwide, highlighting the beneficial effects of SSNM on yield and quality (Jin and Jiang, 2002; Mauriya et al., 2013; Richards et al., 2015). In India, INM is widely adopted as a sustainable strategy under ICM, combining inorganic fertilizers with organic amendments such as Azolla compost, bio-fertilizers, and vermi-compost leading to improved wheat productivity and soil quality (Nehra et al., 2001; Devi et al., 2011; Bharali et al., 2017; Sharma et al., 2019). In China, excessive N fertilizer application by farmers aiming for high yields has resulted in reduced NUE and significant environmental impacts (Ju et al., 2009). Notably, in the North China Plain, wheat fields receive one of the most intensive N applications in the world, with farmers typically applying 300 kg N ha⁻¹ (Cui et al., 2008). Consequently, China is focusing on precision N management in wheat to improve NUE without compromising yields by designing suitable integrated crop N systems. Several studies suggest adopting integrated crop and soil management strategies, such as improved cultivars, early sowing, and applying N fertilizer at the stem elongation stage rather than the re-greening stage, to increase yields and NUE (Lu et al., 2016; Cai et al., 2021; Kubar et al., 2022; Li et al., 2023).

4.2.2 CA and crop diversification

In recent years, wheat yields have either plateaued or shown slower growth due to intensive cropping and excessive use of chemical inputs (Michel and Makowski, 2013). The increasing threat of recurring droughts, worsened by climate change, further challenges global wheat production. In India, the practice of growing wheat as a Rabi crop (winter season crop) following rice, maize, and soybean often leads to delayed sowings and exposure to high temperatures during grain filling, resulting in lower yields (Lobell et al., 2013; Newport et al., 2020). Burning rice residues is a common practice due to difficulties in tillage and sowing, which negatively affects air quality and health (Abdurrahman et al., 2020). To address these challenges, ZTW cultivation is being recommended to promote timely sowing of the wheat crop and incorporate rice stubbles, thereby providing substantial yield benefits (Jat et al., 2019). Studies in India have supported the adoption of ICM practices, such as raised bed planting or CA, in wheat production for improved yields, reduced costs, and environmental sustainability (Kumar et al., 2014b; Biswakarma et al., 2021; Pooniya et al., 2022; Singh, 2022).

In the USA and China, large-scale, energy-intensive production systems have dominated wheat farming. However, concerns have emerged regarding their negative environmental impacts, prompting scientists to suggest alternative practices using ICLS for wheat production in these countries. Practices such as sod-based rotations, sod intercropping, and incorporating dual-purpose cereal crops have shown success in achieving sustainability in wheat production in the USA (Sulc and Franzluebbers, 2014). Similarly, including wheat in systems based on rangelands in China has proven to be effective (Hou et al., 2008). These practices aim to improve environmental outcomes while maintaining productivity and economic viability in wheat production systems.

4.2.3 Pest and disease management

Plant pests and diseases have a significant impact on crop yields globally, causing an annual loss of 20–40%. Wheat is particularly affected, with average yield losses ranging from10.1to 28.1%, while in case of severe infestations it may exceed 50% (Oerke, 2006; Savary et al., 2019). In north-west Europe, fungal diseases accounted for 25% of the total wheat yield gap (Laidig et al., 2022). The recurring losses caused by a set of five fungal diseases alone resulted in a loss of approximately 62MT of wheat production annually, representing 8.5% of the world’s total wheat production (Chai et al., 2022). Continuous fungicide application is the predominant approach, though increased fungicide resistance poses challenges (Lynch et al., 2017; Jorgensen et al., 2018). ICM approaches offer solutions through strategies such as crop rotation, chemical and biological controls, and host plant resistance. Recent studies have also highlighted the effectiveness of these approaches, which utilize multiple methods to enhance pest and disease management in wheat (Pooniya et al., 2022).

One specific threat to wheat production is spot blotch, caused by Cochliobolus sativus, which significantly reduces yields in warmer non-traditional wheat-growing regions. This foliar disease annually results in substantial yield losses, averaging 15–20% in South Asia, and thus poses a threat to the livelihoods of millions of small farmers. With the increasing occurrence of heat stress in Asia, the level of disease damage is further amplified. Genetic improvement combined with integrated management strategies, such as using resistant varieties, timely seeding, appropriate fertilization, crop rotation, and judicious fungicide application etc. help to reduce yield losses caused by spot blotch (Duveiller and Sharma, 2009). Another economically important root disease of wheat worldwide is take-all, caused by the fungus Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici (Kwak and Weller, 2013). This disease affects the crop at all stages, and ICM practices such as late sowing, optimal planting, application of ammonical fertilizers, and straw burial have proven effective in controlling this disease (Colbach et al., 1997; Loyce et al., 2008). In addition to diseases, pests also cause significant yield losses in wheat (Daamen et al., 1989). Efficient crop management practices utilizing IPM approaches have been shown to effectively control pests (Malschi et al., 2015). For instance, a case study by Babendreier et al. (2022) in the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) of Southeast Asia demonstrated that implementing the IPM strategy led to 2–10% higher rice yields, a twofold increase in the abundance of natural enemies such as spiders, and 1.5 fewer insecticide applications.

4.3 ICM practices in maize

Maize, also known as the “queen of cereals,” holds significant global importance and is cultivated in approximately 155 countries (Revilla et al., 2021). Due to the wide adaptability and versatility, serving as food grains, animal feed, fodder, and raw material for various industrial products it has earned title of being a miracle crop (Dass et al., 2008). However, the intensive tillage required for maize cultivation contributes to around 25% of the total production cost, resulting in reduced net income (Hobbs et al., 2008). Therefore, the challenge lies in developing alternative production systems that are climate and resource resilient, ensuring sustained crop yields in the long term (Gathala et al., 2011). In recent years, attention has shifted toward improved maize-based systems such as ICLS, SSNM, CA, and ZT. These practices have gained prominence due to concerns about natural resource degradation and the need to mitigate production costs (Pariz et al., 2011; Saharawat et al., 2012). Maize cultivation offers great potential for harnessing the benefits of these ICM practices, as evidenced by various models presented in Table 3.

Table 3

Table 3. Globally adopted ICM models in maize.

4.3.1 Soil fertility and nutrient management

In many Asian countries, INM practices are being widely implemented, combining inorganic fertilizers with organic composts, green manures, and bio-fertilizers to improve soil quality and maize productivity (Abid et al., 2020; Bhandari et al., 2021). Studies conducted in India have clearly demonstrated the benefits of applying 25% recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) in combination with bio-fertilizers, green manuring with sun hemp (Crotalaria juncea), and the incorporation of compost at an appropriate rate, which in turn have resulted in improved soil nutrient status, better physic-chemical properties, and increased maize yields (Kalhapure et al., 2013). Similarly, the adoption of SSNM in Vietnam has shown positive outcomes (Huan et al., 2011). The use of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) has also been reported to enhance nutrient availability in maize cultivation in the USA (Adesemoye et al., 2008).

4.3.2 Crop diversification

Maize is a versatile crop that can be grown in diverse soil and climatic conditions, making it suitable for crop diversification. However, the intensive cultivation of maize in regions like Central US, combined with the vulnerability to climate change, increases the risk of extreme weather events such as drought (Ortiz-Bobea et al., 2018). Crop diversity has been increasingly recognized for its potential to mitigate risks associated with climate change (Renard and Tilman, 2019). Long-term studies in the US have demonstrated that farmers who adopt temporal and diverse crop rotations involving crops like alfalfa, rye, sorghum, and soybean observed improved yield besides regenerated soil health (McDaniel et al., 2014; Tiemann et al., 2015). Diverse crop rotations have led to significant increase of 28.1% in maize yields across different growing conditions and reduced yield declines during drought years by 14–89.9% in the USA (Bowles et al., 2020). Similarly, Renwick et al. (2021) also found that diversifying maize-soybean rotation with small grain cereals and cover crops not only mitigated maize water stress but also reduced drought-induced yield loss up to 17.1per cent.

In India, maize is grown throughout the year and serves as a solution to water scarcity and declining water tables in Rabi rice-growing regions of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu states. It also acts as an alternative crop to mitigate heat stress in wheat cultivation in Northern India. Spring maize, grown after the harvest of potato and sugarcane, has emerged as a profitable alternative to summer rice in NWI (Dass et al., 2012). In Brazil, the ICLS is a preferred approach for maize crop diversification. ICLS involves using the same production area for both agriculture and livestock production, either simultaneously or sequentially, to optimize land and environmental resource utilization (Carvalho et al., 2010). In Brazil, diversification efforts focus on selecting appropriate cover crops, particularly grasses that produce high biomass, which can be used as mulch to enhance level of soil organic matter. This promotes nutrient cycling, specifically N and carbon replenishment, water retention, and overall soil improvement (Ryschawy et al., 2017). Intercropping grasses such as Urochloa ruziziensis, Panicum maximum, and Brachiaria mutica with maize facilitates greater nutrient cycling, contributing to the sustainability of agricultural systems (de Castro Dias et al., 2020; Mingotte et al., 2020; Silva et al., 2020).

4.3.3 Conservation agriculture and crop establishment methods

Maize cultivation is widespread globally, primarily in the America, Asia, Africa and Europe regions (Erenstein et al., 2022). During 2020, approximately one-third of global farms cultivated maize, with a majority (84%) being small farms (<2 ha) in Asia, Africa, and South America, while larger farms were found in the USA and Brazil (Erenstein et al., 2021; Lowder et al., 2021). These regions encompass diverse agro-ecologies, ranging from drought-prone rainfed areas in sub-Saharan Africa to temperate highlands in Africa and irrigated off-season maize production in South Asia’s IGP (Indo-Gangetic Plain). To enhance the sustainability of maize production in these regions, conservation tillage and crop establishment methods are crucial. The US Corn Belt, spanning over 12 states with Iowa and Illinois serving as top corn producers, has witnessed the development of conservation tillage practices driven by the desire to reduce soil erosion and petroleum consumption (Campbell et al., 1984). Long-term conservation tillage practices in the US Corn Belt from 2005 to 2017 have also demonstrated a 3.3% increase in maize yield and an observed improvement in soil organic carbon sequestration (Deines et al., 2019). Several studies have also shown that minimum tillage practices, compared to conventional tillage, can significantly enhance maize yields and biomass returns in both mono cropping and rotation systems (Campbell et al., 1984; Mirsky et al., 2012; Fiorini et al., 2020).

The Songliao Plain in Northeast China, known for its black soils, has the largest maize cropland and is considered the nation’s “breadbasket” (Wang et al., 2023). However, water limitation in this region leads to huge yield variability (Liu et al., 2013). Conservation tillage practices, such as NT or ridge tillage (RT), have been successfully adopted in Northeast China to enhance soil quality, fertility, and address water-related challenges (Liang et al., 2007; Lou et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2015). In contrast, in arid zones like Xinjiang, where water scarcity is common, farmers are adopting plastic film mulching (PM) with drip irrigation instead of conservation tillage (Zhang et al., 2017). A meta-analysis on PM adoption revealed a significant increase in maize yield (36%) and NUE (34%) compared to conventional tillage. However, PM is suitable under specific hydro-thermal conditions (with precipitation <650 mm and temperature > 23°C), whereas conservation tillage can be applied under various environmental conditions (Zhang et al., 2022a). In India, which is also a major maize-producing country, different sowing methods such as raised bed planting, zero-till planting, conventional till flat planting, furrow planting, and transplanting have been used to achieve higher yields, cost reduction, and environmental sustainability (Choudhary et al., 2018).

4.3.4 Pest and disease management

Pests and diseases are significant threats to maize production globally, drastically impacting food security and economic stability. Insects like stalk borers and fall armyworm (FAW), and diseases like grey leaf spot, cause substantial yield losses besides reduced grain quality (Rahmawati et al., 2020). Factors such as monoculture, reduced or NT practices, excessive use of chemicals, and climate change have contributed to the severity of infestations, putting maize yields at risk. Integrated pest management, another component of ICM is essential for minimizing yield losses by managing insects and diseases below economic threshold levels (Nwilene et al., 2008). One notorious pest is the FAW, which poses significant global threat to maize crop, and many countries have adopted integrated methods to control it (Ahissou et al., 2021). This pest can cause extensive damage by feeding on maize plants, leading to yield loss and consequently financial hardships for farmers. In India, FAW has been first identified in Karnataka in 2018 and became an invasive pest. The Indian government has developed an IPM package that includes cultural, biological, chemical, and mechanical methods to control this pest (Kumar et al., 2014c). Effective control measures for FAW include monitoring, early-stage neem oil spray, pheromone traps, release of natural enemies like Trichogramma pretiosum, and judicious chemical use such as Spinosad and Emamectin benzoate (Mooventhan et al., 2019). In Cameroon, an IPM approach incorporating cultural practices, chemical control, botanical products, push-pull farming, and biological control have been employed to control FAW (Akeme et al., 2021).

Combined management options, such as conventional tillage, intercropping, and resistant varieties, have proven effective in reducing grey leaf spot severity and increase maize yield in Tanzania (Lyimo et al., 2012). Similarly, various ICM practices have effectively controlled different types of maize stalk borers by combining cultural, biological, and chemical control methods in a holistic and sustainable manner (Ndemah, 1999). By implementing these integrated approaches, farmers can reduce reliance on chemical pesticides, minimize yield losses, and ensure the long-term maize productivity (Mooventhan et al., 2019).

5 Success stories in adoption of ICM in cereals in various countries

ICM practices in cereal production have shown promising results worldwide, thus demonstrating their vast potential to enhance agricultural sustainability and productivity. For instance, India and China observed increased corn yields by 20–30 and 13.5%, respectively by employing ICM over farmer practices while minimizing the production costs (Wang et al., 2017; Wani et al., 2017). Few distinguished success stories have been mentioned below for a better understanding.

5.1 ICM for sustainable maize production in Zambia

In Zambia, the conservation agriculture scale up (CASU) project has been launched in alliance with the ministry of agriculture and FAO (Baudron et al., 2007). This initiative promoted ICM practices, including minimum tillage, legume-based rotations, crop residue retention, and precision input application primarily to ensure sustainable maize production among smallholder farmers. The program aimed to benefit approximately 229,000 Zambian farmers, with a particular emphasis on empowering women. While the program successfully reached its target farmer base, its actual impacts varied. Many farmers reported significant yield improvements, with some experiencing up to double maize yields compared to traditional practices. However, challenges such as inconsistent adoption of practices, limited access to inputs, and variable climatic conditions constrained the full realization of its goals, particularly regarding widespread long-term sustainability and gender-specific outcomes (Baudron et al., 2007; FAO, 2019; Listman, 2022).

5.2 ICM for sustainable rice production in Vietnam

Vietnam heavily relies on rice cultivation for socio-economic development, with more than 15 million smallholder farmers depending on rice as their primary source of income. However, conventional rice production practices in Vietnam have been resource-intensive and have led to low-quality output (IFC, 2019). To address these challenges, Rikolto, an international NGO, initiated a project to promote sustainable and inclusive rice production through ICM practices (Rikolto, 2023). This project aimed to improve the livelihoods of nearly 2 million smallholder farmers, particularly in the rice-rich Mekong Delta region. Farmers received training and support in adopting ICM practices, such as efficient nutrient management and simplified crop management techniques. While the project succeeded in training thousands of farmers and improving awareness of sustainable farming methods, its actual impacts varied. According to project assessments, many participating farmers reported moderate increases in income due to reduced input costs and better yields. However, achieving the scale of 2 million farmers proved challenging, with actual adoption rates lower than expected due to barriers such as limited access to inputs, financial constraints, and traditional farming habits. Despite these challenges, the project demonstrated measurable improvements in rice quality and sustainability practices, contributing positively to the livelihoods of a significant portion of the targeted farmers (IFC, 2019; Rikolto, 2023).

5.3 ICM for sustainable rice and wheat production in Philippines

The Philippine Rice Information System (PRiSM) project has been implemented to enhance rice production through ICM practices (Wang et al., 2017). This project utilizes remote sensing technology to monitor rice fields and provide farmers with real-time information on crop growth, pest infestations, and nutrient deficiencies. Equipped with this information, farmers can make informed decisions regarding crop management, including fertilization timing, pest control measures, and water management. The PRiSM project has successfully increased rice yield besides reduced production costs at farmer’s fields. Furthermore, ICM practices have also been explored in wheat production in the Philippines, where studies have demonstrated improved grain yield, better radiation use efficiency, and enhanced NUE in double-season rice crop. Overall, ICM practices have shown potential to bridge the yield gap and increase production in rice and wheat farming in the Philippines (Wang et al., 2017).

5.4 Farmer field school of ICM in Indonesia (FFS-ICM) for sustainable maize production

In Indonesia, the FFS-ICM program was launched in 2009 to improve corn production, drawing inspiration from the previous Farmer Field School of Integrated Pest Management (FFS-IPM). This initiative aimed to achieve self-sufficiency in rice and maize production. The FFS-ICM program provides farmers with training and capacity-building on ICM practices, encompassing efficient water management, balanced nutrient application, and proper crop residue management (Kariyasa and Dewi, 2013). Studies have indicated that the FFS-ICM program has led to increased corn productivity and improved input use efficiency in Indonesia. The success of the FFS-ICM program is contingent upon available infrastructure and government support in the respective implementation areas (Kariyasa, 2014). Overall, the FFS approach in Indonesia has served as a successful model for promoting ICM practices, resulting in improved crop yield, reduced production costs, and enhanced farmer income while fostering sustainable and inclusive agriculture (Van den Berg et al., 2020).

5.5 ICM for sustainable cereal production in India

India has successfully implemented ICM practices in cereal production, particularly in rice and wheat crops. One notable success story is the implementation of IPM practices by the consortium for e-resource in agriculture (CeRA) which played a significant role in promoting sustainable pest management practices, focusing on the use of biological control methods such as bio-pesticides and natural enemies (Pretty and Bharucha, 2015). This initiative has led to successful pest control outcomes in rice and wheat crops, particularly in the northwestern parts of the country (Vennila et al., 2016; Singh and Jasrotia, 2020). In the Nellore district of Andhra Pradesh, the adoption of SRI practices has resulted in increased rice yields by 29% and a remarkable 40% reduction in water usage. This has improved food security, reduced production costs, and increased income of rice farmers in the region (Adusumilli and Laxmi, 2011).

Similarly, in wheat production, the Punjab State Farmer’s Commission has actively promoted ICM practices to address declining soil fertility and curb excessive reliance on chemical inputs. Farmers in Punjab have adopted practices such as CA, balanced nutrient management, and IPM, leading to wheat yield increase of 20–30% and enhanced resource use efficiency, ultimately leading to sustainable intensification of wheat farming (Bagheri et al., 2019; Pooniya et al., 2022). Likewise, the Bihar rural livelihoods promotion society (BRLPS) has implemented an ICM project focused on maize production in Bihar (Vennila et al., 2016). This project aims to promote practices such as CA, INM, and improved seed varieties. Consequently, maize farmers in Bihar have experienced increased yield, better soil moisture conservation, and enhanced nutrient use efficiency, leading to improved food security, increased incomes, and enhanced resilience for smallholder farmers. These success stories highlight the immense potential of ICM practices in cereal production to enhance productivity, conserve resources, reduce environmental impact, and improve the livelihoods of farmers. By adopting a holistic and knowledge-based approach, farmer’s can establish sustainable and profitable cereal production systems (Bagheri et al., 2019).

6 Soil health card scheme and its role in enhancing ICM adoption

The Government of India introduced the Soil Health Card (SHC) scheme in 2015 to encourage balanced fertilizer use and promote sustainable agricultural practices. This initiative involved nationwide soil testing and the distribution of SHCs to farmers, offering crop-specific fertilizer recommendations tailored to improve productivity and reduce costs. The scheme has reached approximately 120 million farmers, with soil samples analyzed in laboratories across the country. SHCs provide critical data on soil’s physical and chemical characteristics, including soil type, GPS location, farm size, and 12 essential parameters. These cards also recommend suitable crops based on the soil’s nutrient status, enabling precise fertilizer application and sustainable land use. A notable impact of the SHC scheme is its contribution to reducing fertilizer misuse and improving crop yields. Pilot studies conducted in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh demonstrated significant increases in productivity, with yield improvements of 31–45% in chickpeas, 15–16% in cotton, 12–15% in paddy rice, and 8–9% in sugarcane (Chander et al., 2014; Fishman et al., 2016; Raju et al., 2015).

These outcomes align closely with the nutrient management principles of ICM, which emphasize site-specific, scientifically guided nutrient application. Furthermore, the scheme promotes the adoption of organic fertilizers and bio fertilizers, supporting soil health restoration while reducing reliance on synthetic inputs (Reddy, 2019). The SHC initiative also plays a vital role in enhancing farmer awareness and building capacity, both critical for strengthening ICM adoption. By educating farmers about soil health and its direct link to productivity, the scheme motivates the transition from conventional practices to resource-efficient and environmentally sound approaches. Additionally, its emphasis on balanced fertilization helps address economic challenges, such as high input costs, by enabling smallholder farmers to use resources more effectively. As a replicable model, the SHC scheme has significant potential for adoption in other developing countries facing challenges like soil degradation and nutrient imbalances (Reddy, 2019). Its integration into broader ICM frameworks offers a pathway to sustainable cereal production, improved soil health, and long-term agricultural resilience. This synergy between the SHC scheme and ICM accentuate the importance of policy-driven interventions in overcoming adoption barriers and fostering sustainable agricultural systems (Table 4).

Table 4

Table 4. Comparison of conventional practices and integrated crop management approaches.

7 Inclusion of pulses in ICM for sustainable agriculture

The incorporation of pulses, or grain legumes, into ICM systems offers substantial potential to enhance agricultural sustainability. Pulses contribute significantly to environmental health through their unique traits, such as biological nitrogen fixation, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, minimal reliance on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, and high water-use efficiency. Additionally, their ability to naturally enrich soil fertility aligns seamlessly with the core principles of ICM, which prioritize balanced nutrient management and soil health restoration (Reddy et al., 2023). Integrating pulses into cereal-based cropping systems, such as rice-wheat or maize-wheat rotations, provides both agronomic and environmental benefits. Diversifying crops with pulses reduces the prevalence of pests and diseases, improves soil structure, and enhances water efficiency. Practices like intercropping cereals with legumes or including pulses in crop rotations disrupt monoculture cycles, leading to increased soil organic matter and reduced land degradation (Kumar et al., 2023). These measures contribute to sustainable productivity and resilience, particularly in regions with resource constraints or vulnerability to climate variability.

Pulses are also integral to addressing food and nutritional security. Rich in protein, essential amino acids, and micronutrients, they are a critical dietary component, especially in developing countries such as India. Their inclusion in ICM systems not only supports sustainable farming practices but also diversifies farmers’ income sources while improving dietary quality (Hussain et al., 2023). Policy interventions, including subsidies for pulse cultivation and the promotion of bio fortified pulse varieties, have further incentivized their adoption within ICM frameworks. Integrating pulses into ICM facilitates the creation of balanced and sustainable agricultural systems, conserving natural resources, mitigating the effects of climate change, and contributing to global food security objectives. By incorporating pulses, ICM systems can achieve enhanced productivity, ecological balance, and economic viability, ensuring long-term agricultural sustainability.

8 Challenges in implementation of ICM in cereal production

The successful implementation of ICM practices in cereal production faces several obstacles globally. These can be categorized into technical, economic and climatic barriers, which must be addressed to achieve sustainable and resilient cereal production systems.

8.1 Technical challenges

One major technical challenge is the limited knowledge and skills necessary for effective implementation of ICM. Farmers, especially in developing nations, lack access to up-to-date information and training on IPM, INM, and other sustainable practices. This knowledge gap hinders their ability to embrace and execute ICM practices in an effective manner (Bagheri et al., 2019). For example, the emergence of FAW (Spodoptera frugiperda) as a major maize pest in Sub-Saharan Africa has caused significant yield losses (Matova et al., 2020). However, farmers in this region are still struggling to adopt IPM practices due to limited knowledge and access to appropriate control measures (Otim et al., 2021). Additionally, adapting ICM practices to site-specific conditions also poses a challenge. The applicability of ICM practices varies across regions due to differences in climate, soil types, and pest dynamics (Matteson, 2000).

Developing site-specific ICM recommendations and adapting them to local conditions can be particularly challenging in areas with limited scientific resources and research infrastructure especially when managing the disease pest interactions in Asian rice cultivation (Gianessi, 2014). To overcome these technical challenges, it is essential to enhance farmers’ technical knowledge through training and extension services. Extension support plays a pivotal role in promoting the adoption of new technologies among staple crop farmers. Developing region-specific ICM recommendations can immensely help crop growers in customizing ICM practices to suit their specific environments. Finally, improving data collection and monitoring systems can support evidence-based decision-making and the assessment of ICM practices outcomes (Pooniya et al., 2022).

8.2 Economic challenges

Farmers globally face various economic challenges when adopting ICM practices in cereal production. One significant issue is the upfront investment required for equipment, training, and other resources. Limited government support, such as subsidies and extension services, further hinders adoption (Rizal and Nordin, 2022). For instance, transitioning from conventional to ICM practices may entail additional costs, creating uncertainty about the economic feasibility of the transition (Bradley et al., 2002). Additionally, farmers face financial barriers, such as limited access to credit and financial services. Crop growers may struggle to secure loans due to factors such as lack of collateral, high-interest rates, and complex loan procedures (Viatte, 2001). While economic challenges relate to broader structural costs and policy gaps, financial challenges specifically pertain to the ability of individual farmers to access funds. Overcoming these interconnected burdens requires targeted financial incentives, a combination of policy interventions, and education and training programs to help farmers adopt ICM practices more effectively in cereal production (Bagheri et al., 2019).

8.3 Climatic barriers

Climatic barriers in implementing ICM practices arise from diverse and unpredictable weather conditions. Regions with erratic rainfall patterns like parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, may struggle with precise timing of irrigation and nutrient application (Bagheri et al., 2019). Extreme weather events like droughts, floods, and heat waves can disrupt ICM implementation and pose serious risks to crop productivity. Climate change can increase the incidence of crop diseases, which may affect yield drastically (Richard et al., 2022). Furthermore, changing climatic conditions alter pest, disease, and weed dynamics, making it challenging to adapt ICM strategies (Ahmed et al., 2019).

Overcoming climatic barriers requires climate-resilient approaches that account for local climatic conditions, such as utilizing drought-tolerant crop varieties, implementing water management strategies, and adhering to adaptive ICM practices that consider the changing climate dynamics. Additionally, the integration of climate information and early warning systems can assist farmers in making informed decisions regarding the timing and implementation of ICM practices in cereal production (Bakar et al., 2020).

The above mentioned challenges pose serious hurdles to the widespread adoption of ICM practices in cereals at the global level. Overcoming them requires collaborative efforts, including training and extension services to enhance technical knowledge, innovative financing mechanisms, climate-resilient approaches, supportive policies, and socially inclusive approaches to empower farmers and foster sustainable agricultural practices (Pooniya et al., 2022).

9 Futuristic research priorities

As the field of ICM in cereal production continues to advance, there has been an immense potential for improving cereal yields through the adoption of these practices. However, despite its established importance, ICM has not received the required attention it deserves. Several factors contribute to this, including the prevalence of conventional agriculture paradigms, limited awareness and understanding of ICM among farmers and policymakers, and the lack of supportive policies and incentives for its widespread adoption. Addressing these challenges requires focused research and efforts to disseminate knowledge (Bagheri et al., 2019). For successful implementation of ICM in cereal production and to achieve sustainable outcomes, it is crucial to address key knowledge gaps. Firstly, comprehensive studies are requisite to understand the interactions and synergies between different ICM practices in cereals. This includes investigating the combined effects of soil and nutrient management, water management, and pest and disease management on yield and sustainability. Additionally, further research is required to optimize the timing, dosage, and application methods of inputs, such as fertilizers, pesticides, and water, aiming to improve efficiency and minimize environmental impacts (Bradley et al., 2002). Moreover, there is a lack of knowledge regarding the long-term impacts of ICM practices on soil health, biodiversity, and ecosystem services. Therefore, comprehensive and multi-year studies are necessary to evaluate the long-term sustainability and resilience of ICM systems (Richard et al., 2008).

To prioritize the advancement of knowledge in this field, future research endeavors should focus on addressing key knowledge gaps and specific research needs to effectively implement ICM and achieve sustainable cereal production. Firstly, there is an urgent need for increased on-farm and participatory research to validate and adapt ICM practices according to local agro-ecological conditions and farming systems, ensuring their practicality and efficacy. This approach would help in tailoring ICM techniques to specific niches/contexts. Secondly, it is crucial to develop and evaluate innovative and context-specific ICM technologies and approaches, such as precision agriculture, digital platforms, and decision support systems. These advancements will enable real-time monitoring and data-driven decision-making in cereal production. Emphasizing the utilization of these tools can significantly enhance productivity and sustainability. Furthermore, interdisciplinary research is necessary to integrate agronomy, ecology, socio-economics, and policy analysis. This comprehensive approach will enable a deeper understanding of the barriers and incentives that influence farmer adoption of ICM practices. Such insights will inform the design of effective policies and strategies to promote ICM (Pooniya et al., 2022). It is essential to involve farmers and other stakeholders in the development of these practices to ensure their social acceptance and alignment with local community needs. Additionally, it is vital to develop practical methods that can deliver similar benefits across large areas without relying solely on site-specific modeling or extensive crop monitoring. By doing so, the scalability and widespread adoption of ICM practices can be facilitated, to enhance crop yields, sustainability, and resilience in the face of changing climatic and environmental conditions. While addressing these research needs and knowledge gaps, future efforts can lay the foundation for the widespread adoption and effective implementation of ICM in cereal production. This, in turn, will lead to improved yields, and enhanced sustainability, ultimately contributing to the overall goal of meeting global food demand besides minimizing environmental impact.

10 Conclusion

This review has attempted to provide a comprehensive analysis of existing knowledge on ICM practices, identifies challenges, and proposes future research directions. It highlights the positive impacts of ICM practices and various models adopted in rice, wheat, and maize production across different countries. Notably, India and China serve as exemplary cases of effective ICM implementation, achieving significant increase in corn yields by 13.5–30%. This success elucidates the potential of ICM in addressing challenges like the problem of RWCS in Asian countries through improved practices like DSR-ZTW and crop diversification. Beyond Asia, African nations have also benefited from ICM in maize production, with ICLS contributing to the sustainability of livelihoods. The United States has set an example by successfully adopting CA and diversification in wheat and maize production. Despite limited research on holistic approaches in cereal production, ICM holds tremendous potential for enhancing sustainability and climatic resilience. To effectively upscale ICM and realize its full potential, a clear “theory of change” is necessary. This includes addressing critical bottlenecks such as limited resource access, poor knowledge dissemination, and farmer resistance. Overcoming these challenges requires both technological and social interventions. Technologically, region-specific, cost-effective innovations such as DSR, ZTW, and precision agriculture tools can improve the accessibility and efficiency of ICM. On the social front, strengthening community-level networks and agricultural extension services, offering training, financial incentives, and policy support, will encourage adoption. Social acceptance can further enhanced by incentivizing early adopters and fostering knowledge exchange. By integrating these strategies, ICM practices can promote sustainable cereal production, improved yields, environmental conservation, and better farmer livelihoods.

Author contributions

VY: Writing – review & editing, Investigation, Resources, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft. KS: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MA: Resources, Writing – review & editing. AE: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Abdurrahman, M. I., Chaki, S., and Saini, G. (2020). Stubble burning: effects on health and environment, regulations and management practices. Environ. Adv. 2:100011. doi: 10.1016/j.envadv.2020.100011

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Abid, M., Batool, T., Siddique, G., Ali, S., Binyamin, R., Shahid, M. J., et al. (2020). Integrated nutrient management enhances soil quality and crop productivity in maize-based cropping system. Sustain. For. 12:10214. doi: 10.3390/su122310214

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Adesemoye, A. O., Torbert, H. A., and Kloepper, J. W. (2008). Enhanced plant nutrient use efficiency with PGPR and AMF in an integrated nutrient management system. Canadian J. Microbiol. 54, 876–886. doi: 10.1139/W08-081

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Adusumilli, R., and Laxmi, S. (2011). Potential of the system of rice intensification for systemic improvement in rice production and water use: the case of Andhra Pradesh, India. Paddy Water Environ. 9, 89–97. doi: 10.1007/s10333-010-0230-6

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Agegnehu, G., and Amede, T. (2017). Integrated soil fertility and plant nutrient management in tropical agro-ecosystems: a review. Pedosphere 27, 662–680. doi: 10.1016/S1002-0160(17)60382-5

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ahissou, B. R., Sawadogo, W. M., Bokonon-Ganta, A. H., Somda, I., and Verheggen, F. (2021). Integrated pest management options for the fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda in West Africa: challenges and opportunities. A review. BASE 25, 192–207. doi: 10.25518/1780-4507.19125

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ahmed, I., Ullah, A., Ur Rahman, M. H., Ahmad, B., Wajid, S. A., Ahmad, A., et al. (2019). Climate change impacts and adaptation strategies for agronomic crops. Climate Change Agric., 1–14. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.82697

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Akeme, C. N., Ngosong, C., Sumbele, S. A., Aslan, A., Tening, A. S., Krah, C. Y., et al. (2021). Different Controlling methods of fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) in maize farms of small-scale producers in Cameroon. IOP Conf. Ser. 911:012053. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/911/1/012053

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Babendreier, D., Tang, R., and Horgan, F. G. (2022). Prospects for integrating augmentative and conservation biological control of leaf folders and stem borers in rice. Agron 12:2958. doi: 10.3390/agronomy12122958

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bagheri, A., Bondori, A., and Damalas, C. A. (2019). Modeling cereal farmers’ intended and actual adoption of integrated crop management (ICM) practices. J. Rural Studies 70, 58–65. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.05.009

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bakar, B. A., Azis, A., Fitria, E., Rahmi, C. H., Ismail, M., Bubu, Y. G., et al. (2020). The study of technology adoption on integrated crop management (ICM) of paddy rice in Aceh Province. IOP Conf. Ser. 425:012063. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/425/1/012063 Fachruddin, and Fachruddin

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Balasubramanian, V., Rajendran, R., Ravi, V., Chellaiah, N., Castro, E., Chandrasekaran, B., et al. (2005). Integrated crop management for enhancing yield, factor productivity and profitability in Asian rice farms. IRC Newsl. 54, 63–73.

Google Scholar

Banjara, T. R., Bohra, J. S., Kumar, S., Singh, T., Shori, A., and Prajapat, K. (2021). Sustainable alternative crop rotations to the irrigated rice-wheat cropping system of indo-Gangetic Plains of India. Archiv. Agron. Soil Sci. 67, 1568–1585. 10.1080/03650340.2021.1912324

Google Scholar

Baudron, F., Mwanza, H., Triomphe, B., and Bwalya, M. (2007). “Conservation agriculture in Zambia: a case study of Southern Province” in Nairobi. African conservation tillage network (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations).

Google Scholar

Benbi, D. K., and Senapati, N. (2010). Soil aggregation and carbon and nitrogen stabilization in relation to residue and manure application in rice-wheat systems in Northwest India. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 87, 233–247. doi: 10.1007/s10705-009-9331-2

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bhandari, M. K., Regmi, N. R., Sahani, H., Sherpa, P., and Panthi, B. (2021). Integrated nutrient management in maize production-a review. Rev. Food Agric. 2, 27–30. doi: 10.26480/rfna.01.2021.27.30

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bharali, A., Baruah, K. K., Bhattacharyya, P., and Gorh, D. (2017). Integrated nutrient management in wheat grown in a Northeast India soil: impacts on soil organic carbon fractions in relation to grain yield. Soil Till. Res. 168, 81–91. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2016.12.001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Biswakarma, N., Pooniya, V., Zhiipao, R. R., Kumar, D., Verma, A. K., Shivay, Y. S., et al. (2021). Five years integrated crop management in direct seeded rice-zero till wheat rotation of North-Western India: effects on soil carbon dynamics, crop yields, water productivity and economic profitability. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 318:107492. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2021.107492

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Biswas, A., Mailapalli, D. R., Raghuwanshi, N. S., and Singh, R. (2021). Water use efficiencies, productivities, and footprints of rice under a system of rice intensification practice. ACS Agric. Sci. Technol. 1, 262–269. doi: 10.1021/acsagscitech.1c00046

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Blois, M. (2023). How technology is helping farmers grow more food with less chemicals. Agric. https://cen.acs.org/food/agriculture/technology-helping-farmers-grow-food/101/i15

Google Scholar

Bowles, T. M., Mooshammer, M., Socolar, Y., Calderón, F., Cavigelli, M. A., Culman, S. W., et al. (2020). Long-term evidence shows that crop-rotation diversification increases agricultural resilience to adverse growing conditions in North America. One Earth 2, 284–293. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2020.02.007

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bradley, B.D., Christodoulou, M., Caspari, C., and Di Luca, P. (2002). Integrated crop management systems in the EU. Agra CEAS consulting, march 2002. Chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj. Available ONLINE AT: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/agriculture/pdf/icm_finalreport.pdf

Google Scholar

Cai, T., Chen, Y., Pan, J., Ye, Y., Miao, Q., Zhang, H., et al. (2021). Improved crop management achieved high wheat yield and nitrogen use efficiency. Int. J. Plant Prod. 15, 317–324. doi: 10.1007/s42106-021-00139-3

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cai, S., Pittelkow, C. M., Zhao, X., and Wang, S. (2018). Winter legume-rice rotations can reduce nitrogen pollution and carbon footprint while maintaining net ecosystem economic benefits. J. Clean. Prod. 195, 289–300. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.115

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cambareri, G. S. (2017). Environmental challenges to adopt climate-smart agriculture for cereals cultivated in the south-eastern pampas of Argentina. MOJ Ecol. Environ. Sci. 2. doi: 10.15406/mojes.2017.02.00051

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Campbell, R. B., Karlen, D. L., and Sojka, R. E. (1984). Conservation tillage for maize production in the US southeastern coastal plain. Soil Till. Res. 4, 511–529. doi: 10.1016/0167-1987(84)90002-3

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cao, L. Y., Zhan, X. D., Chen, S. G., Feng, Y., Wu, W. M., Shen, X. H., et al. (2010). Breeding methodology and practice of super rice in China. Rice Sci. 17, 87–93. doi: 10.1016/S1672-6308(08)60109-2

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Carvalho, J. L. N., Avanzi, J. C., Silva, M. L. N., Mello, C. R. D., and Cerri, C. E. P. (2010). Potencial de sequestro de carbono em diferentes biomas do Brasil. Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Solo 34, 277–290. doi: 10.1590/S0100-06832010000200001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chai, Y., Senay, S., Horvath, D., and Pardey, P. (2022). Multi-peril pathogen risks to global wheat production: a probabilistic loss and investment assessment. Front. Plant Sci. 13:1034600. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.1034600

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chander, G., Wani, S. P., Sahrawat, K. L., Dixit, S., Venkateswarlu, B., Rajesh, C., et al. (2014). Soil test-based nutrient balancing improved crop productivity and rural livelihoods: case study from rainfed semi-arid tropics in Andhra Pradesh, India. Archives Agron. Soil Sci. 60, 1051–1066. doi: 10.1080/03650340.2013.871706

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chen, X., Cui, Z., Fan, M., Vitousek, P., Zhao, M., Ma, W., et al. (2014). Producing more grain with lower environmental costs. Nature 514, 486–489. doi: 10.1038/nature13609

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chen, L., Xie, H., Wang, G., Yuan, X., Qian, X., Wang, W., et al. (2021). Reducing environmental risk by improving crop management practices at high crop yield levels. Field Crop Res. 265:108123. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2021.108123

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Choudhary, A. K., Bana, R. S., and Pooniya, V. (2018). Integrated crop management practices for enhancing productivity, resource-use efficiency, soil health and livelihood security (ISBN 978–93–83168-32-3). New Delhi: ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, 217.

Google Scholar

Choudhary, A. K., and Rana, D. (2018). Importance, role and scope of integrated crop management in Indian agriculture. Integr. Crop Manag. Prac. 1, 1–4.

Google Scholar

Chu, G., Wang, Z., Zhang, H., Yang, J., and Zhang, J. (2016). Agronomic and physiological performance of rice under integrative crop management. Agron. J. 108, 117–128. doi: 10.2134/agronj15.0310

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Colbach, N., Lucas, P., and Meynard, J. M. (1997). Influence of crop management on take-all development and disease cycles on winter wheat. Phytopathology 87, 26–32. doi: 10.1094/PHYTO.1997.87.1.26

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cruz, R.T., Llanto, G.P., Castro, A.P., Barroga, K.E.T., Bordey, F.H., Redona, E.D., et al., (2005). Palay check: the Philippines’ rice integrated crop management system. Paper presented at a consultation workshop on Rice integrated crop management systems Rice check methodology for food security, livelihood improvement and environmental conservation, Ho chi minh, Viet Nam. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312976171_PalayCheck_the_Philippines’_rice_integrated_crop_management_system

Google Scholar

Cui, Z., Zhang, F., Chen, X., Miao, Y., Li, J., Shi, L., et al. (2008). On-farm evaluation of an in-season nitrogen management strategy based on soil Nmin test. Field Crop Res. 105, 48–55. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2007.07.008

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Daamen, R. A., Wijnands, F. G., and Vliet, G. V. (1989). Epidemics of diseases and pests of winter wheat at different levels of agrochemical input: a study on the possibilities for designing an integrated cropping system. J. Phytopathol. 125, 305–319. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0434.1989.tb01075.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Das, A., Layek, J., Ramkrushna, G. I., Patel, D. P., Choudhury, B. U., Chowdhury, S., et al. (2015). Raised and sunken bed land configuration for crop diversification and crop and water productivity enhancement in rice paddies of the north eastern region of India. Paddy Water Environ. 13, 571–580. doi: 10.1007/s10333-014-0472-9

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Das, A., Patel, D. P., Munda, G. C., Ramkrushna, G. I., Kumar, M., and Ngachan, S. V. (2014). Improving productivity, water and energy use efficiency in lowland rice (Oryza sativa) through appropriate establishment methods and nutrient management practices in the mid-altitude of north-East India. Exp. Agric. 50, 353–375. doi: 10.1017/S0014479713000483

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dass, S., Jat, M. L., Singh, K. P., and Rai, H. K. (2008). Agro-economic analysis of maize-based cropping systems in India. Indian J. Fert. 4:49.

Google Scholar

Dass, S., Kumar, A., Jat, S. L., Parihar, C. M., Singh, A. K., Chikkappa, G. K., et al. (2012). Maize holds potential for diversification and livelihood security. Indian J. Agron. 57, 32–37.

Google Scholar

de Castro Dias, M. B., Costa, K. A., Severiano, E., Bilego, U. O., Neto, A. E. F., Almeida, D. P., et al. (2020). Brachiaria and Panicum maximum in an integrated crop-livestock system and a second-crop maize system in succession with soybean. J. Agric. Sci. 158, 206–217. doi: 10.1017/S0021859620000532

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Deep, M., Kumar, R. M., Saha, S., and Singh, A. (2018). Rice-based cropping systems. Indian Farming 68, 27–30.

Google Scholar

Deines, J. M., Wang, S., and Lobell, D. B. (2019). Satellites reveal a small positive yield effect from conservation tillage across the US Corn Belt. Environ. Res. Letters 14:124038. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab503b

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Devi, K. N., Singh, M. S., Singh, N. G., and Athokpam, H. S. (2011). Effect of integrated nutrient management on growth and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). J. Crop Weed 7, 23–27.

Google Scholar

Dhanda, S., Yadav, A., Yadav, D. B., and Chauhan, B. S. (2022). Emerging issues and potential opportunities in the rice-wheat cropping system of North-Western India. Front. Plant Sci. 13:832683. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.832683

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dixit, S., Kumar, A., and Woldring, H. (2016). Water scarcity in rice cultivation: current scenario, possible solutions, and likely impact. Regional 3:1.

Google Scholar

Dobermann, A., and Cassman, K. G. (2002). Plant nutrient management for enhanced productivity in intensive grain production systems of the United States and Asia. Plant Soil 247, 153–175. doi: 10.1023/A:1021197525875

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Duveiller, E. M., and Sharma, R. C. (2009). Genetic improvement and crop management strategies to minimize yield losses in warm non-traditional wheat growing areas due to spot blotch pathogen Cochliobolus sativus. J. Phytopathol. 157, 521–534. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0434.2008.01534.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Effland, A., Saavoss, M., Capehart, T., McBride, W., and Boline, A. (2022). Innovations in seed and farming technologies drive productivity gains and costs on corn farms. Available online at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2022/april/innovations-in-seed-and-farming-technologies-drive-productivity-gains-and-costs-on-corn-farms/

Google Scholar

Enriquez, Y., Yadav, S., Evangelista, G. K., Villanueva, D., Burac, M. A., and Pede, V. (2021). Disentangling challenges to scaling alternate wetting and drying technology for rice cultivation: distilling lessons from 20 years of experience in the Philippines. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 5:675818. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2021.675818

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Erenstein, O., Chamberlin, J., and Sonder, K. (2021). Estimating the global number and distribution of maize and wheat farms. Global Food Sec. 30:100558. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100558

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Erenstein, O., Farooq, U., Malik, R. K., and Sharif, M. (2008). On-farm impacts of zero tillage wheat in South Asia’s rice-wheat systems. Field Crop Res. 105, 240–252. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2007.10.010

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Erenstein, O., Jaleta, M., Sonder, K., Mottaleb, K., and Prasanna, B. M. (2022). Global maize production, consumption and trade: trends and R&D implications. Food Secur. 14, 1295–1319. doi: 10.1007/s12571-022-01288-7

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Facon, T. (2000). Water management in rice in Asia: some issues for the future. Bridging the rice yield gap in the Asia-Pacific region 178. https://www.fao.org/3/x6905e/x6905e0g.htm

Google Scholar

FAO. (2011). Macro economy, part 1. Available online at: https://www.fao.org/3/i2490e/i2490e01c.pdf

Google Scholar

FAO. (2018). Statistical pocketbook 2018. Available online at: https://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/CA1796EN/

Google Scholar

FAO. (2019). Women farmers taking the lead in Zambia. Available online at: https://www.fao.org/3/ca1472en/CA1472EN.pdf

Google Scholar

FAO, I.F.A.D., United Nations Children’s Fund, WFP, World Health Organization. (2022). The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2022. Repurposing food and agricultural policies to make healthy diets more affordable. Available online at: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FS

Google Scholar

FAOSTAT. (2022). Production: Crops and livestock products. Available online at: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC.

Google Scholar

Finch, S., Samuel, A., and Lane, G. P. (2014). Lockhart and wiseman’s crop husbandry including grassland. 8th Edn: Elsevier. Available at: https://shop.elsevier.com/books/lockhart-and-wiseman-s-crop-husbandry-including-grassland/finch/978-1-85573-549-1

Google Scholar

Finco, A., Bucci, G., Belletti, M., and Bentivoglio, D. (2021). The economic results of investing in precision agriculture in durum wheat production: a case study in Central Italy. Agron. 11:1520. doi: 10.3390/agronomy11081520

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fiorini, A., Boselli, R., Maris, S. C., Santelli, S., Ardenti, F., Capra, F., et al. (2020). May conservation tillage enhance soil C and N accumulation without decreasing yield in intensive irrigated croplands? Results from an eight-year maize monoculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 296:106926. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2020.106926

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fishman, R., Kishore, A., Rothler, Y., Ward, P., Jha, S., and Singh, R. (2016). Can information help reduce imbalanced application of fertilizers in India. Experimental evidence from Bihar. Inter. Food Policy Res. Inst. :1517.

Google Scholar

Fukagawa, N. K., and Ziska, L. H. (2019). Rice: Importance for global nutrition. J. Nutr. Sci. Vitaminol. 65, S2–S3. doi: 10.3177/jnsv.65.S2

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gathala, M. K., Ladha, J. K., Saharawat, Y. S., Kumar, V., Kumar, V., and Sharma, P. K. (2011). Effect of tillage and crop establishment methods on physical properties of a medium-textured soil under a seven-year rice− wheat rotation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 75, 1851–1862. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2010.0362

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gianessi, L. P. (2014). Importance of pesticides for growing rice in south and South East Asia. Int. Pest. Benefit Case Study 108, 30–33.

Google Scholar

GOI (2023). Agricultural statistics at a glance. Ministry of Agriculture and farmers welfare Department of Agriculture, cooperation and farmers welfare. New Delhi, India: Directorate of Economics and Statistic https://agricoop.gov.in/.

Google Scholar

Grote, U., Fasse, A., Nguyen, T. T., and Erenstein, O. (2021). Food security and the dynamics of wheat and maize value chains in Africa and Asia. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4:617009. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2020.617009

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gu, J., Chen, Y., Zhang, H., Li, Z., Zhou, Q., Yu, C., et al. (2017). Canopy light and nitrogen distributions are related to grain yield and nitrogen use efficiency in rice. Field Crop Res. 206, 74–85. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.02.021

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gurr, G. M., Lu, Z., Zheng, X., Xu, H., Zhu, P., Chen, G., et al. (2016). Multi-country evidence that crop diversification promotes ecological intensification of agriculture. Nature Plants 2:16014. doi: 10.1038/nplants.2016.14

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hamel, D., Rozman, V., and Liška, A. (2020). Storage of cereals in warehouses with or without pesticides. Insects 11:846. doi: 10.3390/insects11120846

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hemathilake, D. M. K. S., and Gunathilake, D. M. C. C. (2022). “Agricultural productivity and food supply to meet increased demands” in Future foods (Academic Press), 539–553.

Google Scholar

Henry, C.G., Hardke, J., Krutz, L.J., Massey, J.H., Reba, M.L., and Adveinto-Borbe, M.A. (2017). Using alternate wetting-drying (AWD) rice flood management. Available online at: https://www.uaex.edu/farm-ranch/crops-commercial-horticulture/rice/2017%20Alternate%20Wetting%20and%20Drying%20Rice%20Management.Pdf.

Google Scholar

Hobbs, P. R., Sayre, K., and Gupta, R. (2008). The role of conservation agriculture in sustainable agriculture. Philosophical trans. Royal Soc. London. Series B. Biol. Sci. 363, 543–555. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2007.2169

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hou, F. J., Nan, Z. B., Xie, Y. Z., Li, X. L., Lin, H. L., and Ren, J. Z. (2008). Integrated crop-livestock production systems in China. Rangel. J. 30, 221–231. doi: 10.1071/RJ08018

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Howell, K. R., Shrestha, P., and Dodd, I. C. (2015). Alternate wetting and drying irrigation maintained rice yields despite half the irrigation volume, but is currently unlikely to be adopted by smallholder lowland rice farmers in Nepal. Food Energy Sec. 4, 144–157. doi: 10.1002/fes3.58

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Huan, T. T. N., Khuong, T. Q., and Van Ngau, N. (2011). Improving of maize yield and profitability through integrated crop management (ICM) with emphasis on site-specific nutrient management (SSNM) and planting density in Hau Giang province of Vietnam. Omonrice 18, 97–103.

Google Scholar

Hussain, M., Ul-Allah, S., and Farooq, S. (2023). Integrated crop management in sustainable agriculture. Agriculture 13:954. doi: 10.3390/agriculture13050954

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

IFC. (2019). Cultivating rice-and sustainable farming practices-in Vietnam. Available online at: https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/news_ext_content/ifc_external_corporate_site/news+and+events/news/impact-stories/vietnam-cultivating-rice-and-sustainable-farming-practices

Google Scholar

IPCC. (2019). 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. Available online at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/srccl/.

Google Scholar

Iqbal, N., Hussain, S., Ahmed, Z., Yang, F., Wang, X., Liu, W., et al. (2019). Comparative analysis of maize-soybean strip intercropping systems: a review. Plant Prod. Sci. 22, 131–142. doi: 10.1080/1343943X.2018.1541137

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ishfaq, M., Farooq, M., Zulfiqar, U., Hussain, S., Akbar, N., Nawaz, A., et al. (2020). Alternate wetting and drying: a water-saving and ecofriendly rice production system. Agric. Water Manag. 241:106363. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106363

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Islam, M., Nath, L. K., Patel, D. P., Das, A., Munda, G. C., Samajdar, T., et al. (2014). Productivity and socio-economic impact of system of rice intensification and integrated crop management over conventional methods of rice establishment in eastern Himalayas, India. Paddy Water Environ. 12, 193–202. doi: 10.1007/s10333-013-0377-z

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Jat, M. L., Gathala, M. K., Saharawat, Y. S., Ladha, J. K., and Singh, Y. (2019). Conservation agriculture in intensive rice-wheat rotation of western indo-Gangetic Plains: effect on crop physiology, yield, water productivity and economic profitability. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Natl Res. 18:555988. doi: 10.19080/IJESNR.2019.18.555988

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Jin, J., and Jiang, C. (2002). Spatial variability of soil nutrients and site-specific nutrient management in the PR China. Computers Electronics Agric. 36, 165–172. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1699(02)00099-6

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Jorgensen, L. N., Oliver, R. P., and Heick, T. M. (2018). “Occurrence and avoidance of fungicide resistance in cereal diseases” in Integrated disease management of wheat and barley (Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing), 255–280. doi: 10.19103/AS.2018.0039.13

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ju, X. T., Xing, G. X., Chen, X. P., Zhang, S. L., Zhang, L. J., Liu, X. J., et al. (2009). Reducing environmental risk by improving N management in intensive Chinese agricultural systems. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. United States of America 106, 3041–3046. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0813417106

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kalhapure, A. H., Shete, B. T., and Dhonde, M. B. (2013). Integrated nutrient management in maize (Zea mays L.) for increasing production with sustainability. Int. J. Agric. Food Sci. Technol. 4, 195–206.

Google Scholar

Kariyasa, I. K. (2014). Economic impact assessment of integrated crop management farmer field school program on corn production in Indonesia. Int. J. Food Agric. Econ. 2, 13–26. doi: 10.22004/ag.econ.190807

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kariyasa, K., and Dewi, Y. A. (2013). Analysis of factors affecting adoption of integrated crop management farmer field school (ICM-FFS) in swampy areas. Int. J. Food Agric. Econ. 1, 29–38. doi: 10.22004/ag.econ.160092

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Khatun, N., Rahman, M. A., and Devi, P. (2018). Integrated crop management (ICM) for increasing rice production in Barind area. African J. Agric. Res. 13, 886–889. doi: 10.5897/AJAR2017.12610

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Khedwal, R. S., Chaudhary, A., Sindhu, V. K., Yadav, D. B., Kumar, N., Chhokar, R. S., et al. (2023). Challenges and technological interventions in rice-wheat system for resilient food-water-energy-environment nexus in north-western indo-Gangetic Plains: a review. Cereal Res. Commun. 1-23, 1–23. doi: 10.1007/s42976-023-00355-9

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Khurana, H. S., Phillips, S. B., Bijay-Singh, M. M., Alley, M. M., Dobermann, A. S., Sidhu, A. S., et al. (2008). Agronomic and economic evaluation of site-specific nutrient management for irrigated wheat in Northwest India. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 82, 15–31. doi: 10.1007/s10705-008-9166-2

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kneib, G., and Schulz, G. (2006). The controlled integrated production of fruits and vegetables. 11th revised and extended policy, Federal Committee fruit and vegetables. Available online at: http://gemuesebau.org/download/IP_Richtlin ie.pdf

Google Scholar

Kubar, M. S., Alshallash, K. S., Asghar, M. A., Feng, M., Raza, A., Wang, C., et al. (2022). Improving winter wheat photosynthesis, nitrogen use efficiency, and yield by optimizing nitrogen fertilization. Life 12:1478. doi: 10.3390/life12101478

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kumar, S., Ansari, M. Q., Naresh, R. K., and Kumar, V. (2014b). Integrating crop and livestock management for enhanced productivity, profitability and sustainability of the rice-wheat system in north-West India. Int. J. Life Sci. Biotechnol. Pharma Res. 3:74.

Google Scholar

Kumar, S., Gopinath, K. A., Sheoran, S., Meena, R. S., Srinivasarao, C., Bedwal, S., et al. (2023). Pulse-based cropping systems for soil health restoration, resources conservation, and nutritional and environmental security in rainfed agroecosystems. Front. Microbiol. 13:1041124. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.1041124

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kumar, S., Kumar, P., Bana, J. K., Shekhar, M., Sushil, S. N., Sinha, A. K., et al. (2014c). “Integrated pest management package for maize” in National Centre for integrated Pest management, 44.

Google Scholar

Kumar, S., Shivani, K. S., and Bhatt, B. P. (2014a). “Recent advancement in maize production technology” in Technical bulletin no. R-49/PAT-30 (India: Indian Council of Agricultural Research).

Google Scholar

Kumar, S., Sieverding, H., Lai, L., Thandiwe, N., Wienhold, B., Redfearn, D., et al. (2019). Facilitating crop-livestock reintegration in the northern Great Plains. Agron. J. 111, 2141–2156. doi: 10.2134/AGRONJ2018.07.0441

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kwak, Y. S., and Weller, D. M. (2013). Take-all of wheat and natural disease suppression: a review. Plant Pathol. J. 29, 125–135. doi: 10.5423/PPJ.SI.07.2012.0112

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ladha, J. K., Kumar, V., Alam, M. M., Sharma, S., Gathala, M. K., Chandna, P., et al. (2009). “Integrating crop and resource management technologies for enhanced productivity, profitability and sustainability of the rice-wheat system in South Asia” in Integrated crop and resource management in the rice-wheat system of South Asia. eds. J. K. Ladha, Y. Singh, O. Erenstein, and B. Hardy (International Rice Research Institute), 69–108.

Google Scholar

Laidig, F., Feike, T., Klocke, B., Macholdt, J., Miedaner, T., Rentel, D., et al. (2022). Yield reduction due to diseases and lodging and impact of input intensity on yield in variety trials in five cereal crops. Euphytica 218:150. doi: 10.1007/s10681-022-03094-w

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Li, C., Yang, J., Li, Z., Wang, X., Guo, Z., Tian, Y., et al. (2023). Integrating crop and soil nutrient management for higher wheat grain yield and protein concentration in dryland areas. European J. Agron. 147:126827. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2023.126827

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Liang, A., Zhang, X., Fang, H., Yang, X., and Drury, C. F. (2007). Short-term effects of tillage practices on organic carbon in clay loam soil of Northeast China. Pedosphere 17, 619–623. doi: 10.1016/S1002-0160(07)60073-3

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Listman, M. (2022). Zambia officials promote sustainable maize cropping practices for small-scale farmers. Available online at: https://www.cimmyt.org/news/zambia-officials-promote-sustainable-maize-cropping-practices-for-small-scale-farmers/.CIMMYT

Google Scholar

Liu, S., Yang, J. Y., Zhang, X. Y., Drury, C. F., Reynolds, W. D., and Hoogenboom, G. (2013). Modelling crop yield, soil water content and soil temperature for a soybean-maize rotation under conventional and conservation tillage systems in Northeast China. Agric. Water Manag. 123, 32–44. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2013.03.001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lobell, D. B., Ortiz-Monasterio, J. I., Sibley, A. M., and Sohu, V. S. (2013). Satellite detection of earlier wheat sowing in India and implications for yield trends. Agric. Syst. 115, 137–143. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2012.09.003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lou, Y., Xu, M., Chen, X., He, X., and Zhao, K. (2012). Stratification of soil organic C, N and C: N ratio as affected by conservation tillage in two maize fields of China. Catena 95, 124–130. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2012.02.009

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lowder, S. K., Sánchez, M. V., and Bertini, R. (2021). Which farms feed the world and has farmland become more concentrated? World Dev. 142:105455. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105455

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Loyce, C., Meynard, J. M., Bouchard, C., Rolland, B., Lonnet, P., Bataillon, P., et al. (2008). Interaction between cultivar and crop management effects on winter wheat diseases, lodging, and yield. Crop Prot. 27, 1131–1142. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2008.02.001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lu, D., Yue, S., Lu, F., Cui, Z., Liu, Z., Zou, C., et al. (2016). Integrated crop-N system management to establish high wheat yield population. Field Crop Res. 191, 66–74. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2016.02.015

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lyimo, H. J. F., Pratt, R. C., and Mnyuku, R. S. O. W. (2012). An effective integrated crop management strategy for enhanced maize production in tropical agroecosystems prone to gray leaf spot. Crop Prot. 41, 57–63. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2012.05.003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lynch, J. P., Glynn, E., Kildea, S., and Spink, J. (2017). Yield and optimum fungicide dose rates for winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) varieties with contrasting ratings for resistance to Septoria tritici blotch. Field Crop Res. 204, 89–100. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.01.012

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mallareddy, M., Thirumalaikumar, R., Balasubramanian, P., Naseeruddin, R., Nithya, N., Mariadoss, A., et al. (2023). Maximizing water use efficiency in rice farming: a comprehensive review of innovative irrigation management technologies. Water 15:1802. doi: 10.3390/w15101802

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Malschi, D., Tarau, A. D., Kadar, R., Tritean, N., and Chetan, C. (2015). Climate warming in relation to wheat pest dynamics and their integrated control in Transylvanian crop management systems with no tillage and with agroforestry belts. Romanian Agric. Res. 32, 279–289.

Google Scholar

Math, G., Balol, G., Ashwini, T. M., and Jaggal, L. (2018). Validation of integrated crop management (ICM) practices over farmers’ practices in mungbean. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 7, 547–551. doi: 10.20546/ijcmas.2018.711.065

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Matova, P. M., Kamutando, C. N., Magorokosho, C., Kutywayo, D., Gutsa, F., and Labuschagne, M. (2020). Fall-armyworm invasion, control practices and resistance breeding in sub-Saharan Africa. Crop Sci. 60, 2951–2970. doi: 10.1002/csc2.20317

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Matteson, P. C. (2000). Insect pest management in tropical Asian irrigated rice. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 45, 549–574. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ento.45.1.549

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mauriya, A. K., Maurya, V. K., Tripathi, H. P., Verma, R. K., and Shyam, R. (2013). Effect of site-specific nutrient management on productivity and economics of rice (Oryza sativa)-wheat (Tritucum aestivum) system. Indian J. Agron. 58, 282–287.

Google Scholar

McDaniel, M. D., Tiemann, L. K., and Grandy, A. S. (2014). Does agricultural crop diversity enhance soil microbial biomass and organic matter dynamics? A meta-analysis. Ecol. Appl. 24, 560–570. doi: 10.1890/13-0616.1

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mercer, S. (2019). Precision agriculture advances sustainable wheat production. Available online at: https://www.uswheat.org/wheatletter/precision-agriculture-advances-sustainable-wheat-production/

Google Scholar

Michel, L., and Makowski, D. (2013). Comparison of statistical models for analyzing wheat yield time series. PLoS One 8:e78615. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0078615

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mingotte, F. L. C., Jardim, C. A., Yada, M. M., Amaral, C. B., Chiamolera, T. P. L. C., Coelho, A. P., et al. (2020). Impact of crop management and no-tillage system on grain and straw yield of maize crop. Cereal Res. Commun. 48, 399–407. doi: 10.1007/s42976-020-00051-y

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mirsky, S. B., Ryan, M. R., Curran, W. S., Teasdale, J. R., Maul, J., Spargo, J. T., et al. (2012). Conservation tillage issues: cover crop-based organic rotational no-till grain production in the mid-Atlantic region, USA. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 27, 31–40. doi: 10.1017/S1742170511000457

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mishra, A. K., Pede, V. O., Arouna, A., Labarta, R., Andrade, R., Veettil, P. C., et al. (2022). Helping feed the world with rice innovations: CGIAR research adoption and socioeconomic impact on farmers. Global Food Sec. 33:100628. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2022.100628

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mohamed, M. A., Steiner, J. J., Wright, S. D., Bhangoo, M. S., and Millhouse, D. E. (1990). Intensive crop management practices on wheat yield and quality. Agron. J. 82, 701–707. doi: 10.2134/agronj1990.00021962008200040011x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mooventhan, P., Baskaran, R., Kaushal, J., and Kumar, J. (2019). Integrated management of fall armyworm in maize (India: ICAR-National Institute of Biotic Stress Management, 225.

Google Scholar

Mutiga, S. K., Mushongi, A. A., and Kangéthe, E. K. (2019). Enhancing food safety through adoption of long-term technical advisory, financial, and storage support services in maize growing areas of East Africa. Sustain. For. 11:2827. doi: 10.3390/SU11102827

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ndemah, R.N. (1999). Towards an integrated crop management strategy for the African stalk borer, Busseola fusca (fuller) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in maize systems in Cameroon [PhD thesis].

Google Scholar

Nehra, A. S., Hooda, I. S., and Singh, K. P. (2001). Effect of integrated nutrient management on growth and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum). Indian J. Agron. 46, 112–117.

Google Scholar

Neumann, K., Verburg, P. H., Stehfest, E., and Müller, C. (2010). The yield gap of global grain production: a spatial analysis. Agric. Syst. 103, 316–326. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2010.02.004

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Newport, D., Lobell, D. B., Balwinder-Singh, A. K., Srivastava, A. K., Rao, P., Umashaanker, M., et al. (2020). Factors constraining timely sowing of wheat as an adaptation to climate change in eastern India. Weather Climate Soc. 12, 515–528. doi: 10.1175/WCAS-D-19-0122.1

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nwilene, F. E., Nwanze, K. F., and Youdeowei, A. (2008). Impact of integrated pest management on food and horticultural crops in Africa. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 128, 355–363. doi: 10.1111/j.1570-7458.2008.00744.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Oerke, E. C. (2006). Crop losses to pests. J. Agric. Sci. 144, 31–43. doi: 10.1017/S0021859605005708

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ortiz-Bobea, A., Knippenberg, E., and Chambers, R. G. (2018). Growing climatic sensitivity of US agriculture linked to technological change and regional specialization. Sci. Adv. 4:eaat4343. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aat4343

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Otim, M. H., Fiaboe, K. K. M., Akello, J., Mudde, B., Obonyom, A. T., Bruce, A. Y., et al. (2021). “Managing a transboundary pest: the fall armyworm on maize in Africa” in Moths and caterpillars (IntechOpen), 1–16.

Google Scholar

Ottoman, M. J., Husman, S. H., and Tickes, B. R. (1997). Intensive cereal Management for Durum Production. Buckeye and Yuma, 1996–1997.

Google Scholar

Papademetriou, M. K. (2000). Rice production in the Asia-Pacific region: issues and perspectives. Bridging Rice Yield Gap Asia-Pacific Region 220, 4–25.

Google Scholar

Pariz, C. M., Andreotti, M., Buzetti, S., Bergamaschine, A. F., Ulian, N. A., Furlan, L. C., et al. (2011). Straw decomposition of nitrogen-fertilized grasses intercropped with irrigated maize in an integrated crop-livestock system. Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Solo 35, 2029–2037. doi: 10.1590/S0100-06832011000600019

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Patel, D. P., Das, A., Kumar, M., Munda, G. C., Ngachan, S. V., Ramkrushna, G. I., et al. (2015). Continuous application of organic amendments enhances soil health, produce quality and system productivity of vegetable-based cropping systems in subtropical eastern Himalayas. Exp. Agric. 51, 85–106. doi: 10.1017/S0014479714000167

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Penn State Extension. (2022). Extension. A short history of pest management. The development of the field of integrated Pest management. Available online at: https://extension.psu.edu/a-short-history-of-pest-management

Google Scholar

Pham, S.T., Trinh, Q.K., and Tran, D.V. (2005). Integrated crop management for intensive irrigated rice in the mekong delta of Vietnam: case studies in Can Tho and Tien Giang provinces. Paper presented at a consultation workshop on rice integrated crop management systems-rice check methodology for food security, livelihood improvement and environmental conservation, Ho chi minh, Viet Nam.

Google Scholar

Pillay, A. E., Stephen, S., and Xavier, G. (2018). Heavy metal toxins in breakfast cereals-a baseline study using hybrid plasma mass spectrometry. J. Anal. Pharm. Res. 7, 478–482.

Google Scholar

Pimentel, D. (1996). Green revolution agriculture and chemical hazards. Sci. Total Environ. 188, S86–S98. doi: 10.1016/0048-9697(96)05280-1

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pooniya, V., Zhiipao, R. R., Biswakarma, N., Kumar, D., Shivay, Y. S., Babu, S., et al. (2022). Conservation agriculture based integrated crop management sustains productivity and economic profitability along with soil properties of the maize-wheat rotation. Sci. Rep. 12:1962. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-05962-w

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pretty, J. (2018). Intensification for redesigned and sustainable agricultural systems. Science 362:eaav0294. doi: 10.1126/science.aav0294

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pretty, J., and Bharucha, Z. P. (2015). Integrated pest management for sustainable intensification of agriculture in Asia and Africa. Insects 6, 152–182. doi: 10.3390/insects6010152

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rahmawati, D., and Samrin, B.Warda (2020). Major pests and diseases of maize and availability of control technology. IOP Conf. Ser. 484:012105. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/484/1/012105

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Raigar, O. P., Mondal, K., Sethi, M., Singh, M. P., Singh, J., Kumari, A., et al. (2022). Nitrogen use efficiency in wheat: genome to field. Wheat IntechOpen. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.103126

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Raj, R., Kumar, A., Solanki, I. S., Dhar, S., Dass, A., Gupta, A. K., et al. (2017). Influence of crop establishment methods on yield, economics and water productivity of rice cultivars under upland and lowland production ecologies of eastern indo-Gangetic Plains. Paddy Water Environ. 15, 861–877. doi: 10.1007/s10333-017-0598-7

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Raju, K. V., Gaur, A., and Wani, S. P. (2015). “A poverty reduction approach in South Asia: rejuvenating centuries old water bodies to improve rural livelihoods; a case of Karnataka State, India” in Research report IDC-1 (International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-arid Tropics).

Google Scholar

Reddy, A. A. (2019). The soil health card scheme in India: lessons learned and challenges for replication in other developing countries. J. Natural Resources Policy Res. 9, 124–156. doi: 10.5325/naturesopolirese.9.2.0124

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Reddy, A. A., Bhagwat, K. D., Tiwari, V. L., Kumar, N., and Dixit, G. P. (2023). Policies and incentives for promotion of pulses production and consumption: a review. J. Food Legumes 36, 209–228. doi: 10.59797/jfl.v36.i4.157

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Regmi, A. P., and Ladha, J. K. (2006). Enhancing productivity of rice-wheat system through integrated crop management in the eastern-Gangetic plains of South Asia. J. Crop Improv. 15, 147–170. doi: 10.1300/J411v15n01_11

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Renard, D., and Tilman, D. (2019). National food production stabilized by crop diversity. Nature 571, 257–260. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1316-y

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Renwick, L. L. R., Deen, W., Silva, L., Gilbert, M. E., Maxwell, T., Bowles, T. M., et al. (2021). Long-term crop rotation diversification enhances maize drought resistance through soil organic matter. Environ. Res. Letters 16:084067. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ac1468

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Revilla, P., Alves, M. L., Andelković, V., Balconi, C., Dinis, I., Mendes-Moreira, P., et al. (2021). Traditional foods from maize (Zea mays L.) in Europe. Front. Nutr. 8. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2021.683399

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Reynolds, M. P., Acevedo, E., Sayre, K. D., and Fischer, R. A. (1994). Yield potential in modern wheat varieties: its association with a less competitive ideotype. Field Crop Res. 37, 149–160. doi: 10.1016/0378-4290(94)90094-9

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Richard, O., Balasubramaniam, V., and Jones, M. (2008). Implementing integrated crop management (ICM) in Timor-Leste [University of Hawaii bulletin].

Google Scholar

Richard, B., Qi, A., and Fitt, B. D. L. (2022). Control of crop diseases through integrated crop management to deliver climate-smart farming systems for low-and high-input crop production. Plant Pathol. 71, 187–206. doi: 10.1111/ppa.13493

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Richards, M. B., Butterbach-Bahl, K., Jat, M. L., Lipinski, B., Ortiz-Monasterio, I., and Sapkota, T. (2015). “Site-specific nutrient management: implementation guidance for policymakers and investors” in Climate-smart agriculture practice brief (Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS)).

Google Scholar

Rikolto. (2023). Sustainable and inclusive rice in Vietnam. Available online at: https://www.rikolto.org/projects/sustainable-and-inclusive-rice-vietnam

Google Scholar

Rizal, A. R. A., and Nordin, S. M. (2022). Getting ahead of the pandemic curve: a systematic review of critical determining factors for innovation adoption in ensuring food security. Front. Nutr. 9:6324. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2022.986324

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rose, D. C., Sutherland, W. J., Barnes, A. P., Borthwick, F., Ffoulkes, C., Hall, C., et al. (2019). Integrated farm management for sustainable agriculture: lessons for knowledge exchange and policy. Land Use Policy 81, 834–842. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rossi, V., Meriggi, P., Caffi, T., Giosué, S., and Bettati, T. (2010). A web-based decision support system for managing durum wheat crops. doi: 10.5772/39386

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ryschawy, J., Martin, G., Moraine, M., Duru, M., and Therond, O. (2017). Designing crop-livestock integration at different levels: toward new agroecological models? Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 108, 5–20. doi: 10.1007/s10705-016-9815-9

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Saharawat, Y. S., Ladha, J. K., Pathak, H., Gathala, M. K., Chaudhary, N., and Jat, M. L. (2012). Simulation of resource-conserving technologies on productivity, income and greenhouse gas GHG emission in rice-wheat system. J. Soil Sci. Environ. Manag. 3, 9–22.

Google Scholar

Savary, S., Willocquet, L., Pethybridge, S. J., Esker, P., McRoberts, N., and Nelson, A. (2019). The global burden of pathogens and pests on major food crops. Nature Ecol. Evol. 3, 430–439. doi: 10.1038/s41559-018-0793-y

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Scott, A. (2014). Global food security: could wheat feed the world? In: The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America. Available online at: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2014/apr/01/international-wheat-yield-partnership-food-security.

Google Scholar

Settele, J., Heong, K. L., Kühn, I., Klotz, S., Spangenberg, J. H., Arida, G., et al. (2018). Rice ecosystem services in South-East Asia. Paddy Water Environ. 16, 211–224. doi: 10.1007/s10333-018-0656-9

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sharma, S., Padbhushan, R., and Kumar, U. (2019). Integrated nutrient management in rice-wheat cropping system: an evidence on sustainability in the Indian subcontinent through meta-analysis. Agron. 9:71. doi: 10.3390/agronomy9020071

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sharma, S. N., and Sharma, S. K. (2004). Role of crop diversification and integrated nutrient management in resilience of soil fertility under rice-wheat cropping system. Archiv. Agron. Soil Sci. 50, 345–352. doi: 10.1080/03650340310001634362

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Shiferaw, B., Prasanna, B. M., Hellin, J., and Bänziger, M. (2011). Crops that feed the world 6. Past successes and future challenges to the role played by maize in global food security. Food Sec. 3, 307–327. doi: 10.1007/s12571-011-0140-5

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Shiferaw, B., Smale, M., Braun, H. J., Duveiller, E., Reynolds, M., and Muricho, G. (2013). Crops that feed the world 10. Past successes and future challenges to the role played by wheat in global food security. Food Sec. 5, 291–317. doi: 10.1007/s12571-013-0263-y

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Silva, F. F. D. C., Ferreira, J. L. S., Ramos, T. V., and Calil, F. N. (2020). Maize yield in an integrated crop-livestock-forestry system in South Goiás, Brazil. Revista Ceres 67, 176–180. doi: 10.1590/0034-737X202067030002

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Singh, A. K. (2022). Integrated crop management practices of wheat through frontline demonstration in Bundelkhand region. Indian J. Ext. Edu. 58, 36–39. doi: 10.48165/IJEE.2022.58108

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Singh, B., and Jasrotia, P. (2020). Impact of integrated pest management (IPM) module on major insect-pests of wheat and their natural enemies in north-western plains of India. J. Cereal Res. 12, 114–119. doi: 10.25174/2582-2675/2020/100185

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Singh, S. S., Rakesh, M., and Renu, M. N. (2022). Impact of integrated crop management (ICM) technology on production and profitability of capsicum under protected and field condition of Uttarakhand. Indian J. 46, 523–528. doi: 10.5958/0974-4576.2022.00091.3

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Singh, R. D., Shivani Khan, A. R., and Chandra, N. (2012). Sustainable productivity and profitability of diversified rice-based cropping systems in an irrigated ecosystem. Archiv. Agron. Soil Sci. 58, 859–869. doi: 10.1080/03650340.2011.554403

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Statista. (2023). Share of economic sectors in the global gross domestic product (GDP) from 2011 to 2021. Available online at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/256563/share-of-economic-sectors-in-the-global-gross-domestic-product/

Google Scholar

Sulc, R. M., and Franzluebbers, A. J. (2014). Exploring integrated crop-livestock systems in different ecoregions of the United States. European J. Agron. 57, 21–30. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2013.10.007

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sumberg, J., and Giller, K. E. (2022). What is’conventional’agriculture? Global Food Sec. 32:100617. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2022.100617

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Surendran, U., Raja, P., Jayakumar, M., and Subramaniam, S. R. (2021). Use of efficient water saving techniques for production of rice in India under climate change scenario: a critical review. J. Clean. Prod. 309:127272. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127272

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Suwanmaneepong, S., Kultawanich, K., Khurnpoon, L., Sabaijai, P. E., Cavite, H. J., Llones, C., et al. (2023). Alternate wetting and drying as water-saving technology: an adoption intention in the perspective of good agricultural practices (GAP) suburban rice farmers in Thailand. Water 15:402. doi: 10.3390/w15030402

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tadesse, W., Bishaw, Z., and Assefa, S. (2019). Wheat production and breeding in sub-Saharan Africa: challenges and opportunities in the face of climate change. Int. J. Climate Change Strat. Manag. 11, 696–715. doi: 10.1108/IJCCSM-02-2018-0015

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tadesse, W., Halila, H., and Jamal, M. (2017). Role of sustainable wheat production to ensure food security in the CWANA region. J Exp Biol Agric Sci 5, 15–S32. doi: 10.18006/2017.5(Spl-1-SAFSAW).S15.S32

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

The World Bank. (2023). Agriculture and food. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/agriculture/overview

Google Scholar

Tiemann, L. K., Grandy, A. S., Atkinson, E. E., Marin-Spiotta, E., and McDaniel, M. D. (2015). Crop rotational diversity enhances belowground communities and functions in an agroecosystem. Ecol. Lett. 18, 761–771. doi: 10.1111/ele.12453

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Urmi, T. A., Rahman, M. M., Islam, M. M., Islam, M. A., Jahan, N. A., Mia, M. A. B., et al. (2022). Integrated nutrient management for rice yield, soil fertility, and carbon sequestration. Plan. Theory 11:138. doi: 10.3390/plants11010138

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Van den Berg, H., Ketelaar, J. W., Dicke, M., and Fredrix, M. (2020). Is the farmer field school still relevant? Case studies from Malawi and Indonesia. NJAS 92, 1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.njas.2020.100329

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Vennila, S., Ajanta, B., Vikas, K., and Chattopadhyay, C. (2016). Success stories of integrated pest management in India. India: Icar-National Research Centre for Integrated Pest Management, 110012.

Google Scholar

Viatte, G. (2001). “Adopting technologies for sustainable farming systems: an OECD perspective” in Adoption of Technologies for Sustainable Farming Systems Wageningen Workshop Proceedings, vol. 14 (OECD).

Google Scholar

Vinci, G., Ruggieri, R., Ruggeri, M., and Zaki, M. G. (2022). Application of life cycle assessment (LCA) to cereal production: an overview. IOP Conf. Ser. 1077:012004. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/1077/1/012004

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wang, D., Huang, J., Nie, L., Wang, F., Ling, X., Cui, K., et al. (2017). Integrated crop management practices for maximizing grain yield of double-season rice crop. Sci. Rep. 7:38982. doi: 10.1038/srep38982

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wang, R., Rong, G., Liu, C., Du, W., Zhang, J., Tong, Z., et al. (2023). Spatiotemporal characteristics and hazard assessments of maize (Zea mays L.) drought and waterlogging: a case study in Songliao plain of China. Remote Sens. 15:665. doi: 10.3390/rs15030665

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wani, S. P., Anantha, K. H., and Garg, K. K. (2017). Soil properties, crop yield, and economics under integrated crop management practices in Karnataka. Southern India. World Dev. 93, 43–61. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.12.012

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wardana, I. P., Bindraban, P. S., Gani, A., Makarim, A. K., and Las, I. (2002). Biophysical and economic implications of integrated crop and resource management for rice in Indonesia. Water-Wise Rice Prod., 39–49.

Google Scholar

Wardana, I. P., Gania, A., Abdulrachman, S., Bindraban, P. S., and Keulen, H. V. (2010). Enhancing water and fertilizer saving without compromising rice yield through integrated crop management. Indonesian J. Agric. Sci. 11:65. doi: 10.21082/ijas.v11n2.2010.p65-73

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

WFP. (2023). Global report on food crisis. Available online at: https://www.wfp.org/publications/global-report-food-crises-2023.

Google Scholar

Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., et al. (2019). Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-lancet commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393, 447–492. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

World Economic Forum (2018). Nearly half our calories comes from just three crops. This Needs to Change. Available online at: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/10/once-neglected-these-traditional-crops-are-our-new-rising-stars

Google Scholar

Xia, L., Xia, Y., Li, B., Wang, J., Wang, S., Zhou, W., et al. (2016). Integrating agronomic practices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while increasing the economic return in a rice-based cropping system. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 231, 24–33. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2016.06.020

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Xue, Y., Duan, H., Liu, L., Wang, Z., Yang, J., and Zhang, J. (2013). An improved crop management increases grain yield and nitrogen and water use efficiency in rice. Crop Sci. 53, 271–284. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2012.06.0360

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yadav, S. K., Babu, S., Yadav, G. S., Singh, R., and Yadav, M. K. (2016). Role of organic sources of nutrients in rice (Oryza sativa) based on high value cropping sequence. Organic Farming-à Promising Way Food Prod. 6, 174–182. doi: 10.5772/61841

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yadav, G. S., Datta, R., Imran Pathan, S., Lal, R., Meena, R. S., Babu, S., et al. (2017). Effects of conservation tillage and nutrient management practices on soil fertility and productivity of rice (Oryza sativa L.)-rice system in north eastern region of India. Sustain. For. 9:1816. doi: 10.3390/su9101816

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yuan, S., Stuart, A. M., Laborte, A. G., Rattalino Edreira, J. I., Dobermann, A., Kien, L. V. N., et al. (2022). Southeast Asia must narrow down the yield gap to continue to be a major rice bowl. Nature Food 3, 217–226. doi: 10.1038/s43016-022-00477-z

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhang, S., Chen, X., Jia, S., Liang, A., Zhang, X., Yang, X., et al. (2015). The potential mechanism of long-term conservation tillage effects on maize yield in the black soil of Northeast China. Soil Till. Res. 154, 84–90. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2015.06.002

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhang, M., Jia, R., Ma, M., Yang, T., Sun, Q., and Li, M. (2022b). Versatile wheat gluten: functional properties and application in the food-related industry. Critical Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 63, 10444–10460. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2022.2078785

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhang, K., Li, Y., Wei, H., Zhang, L., Li, F. M., and Zhang, F. (2022a). Conservation tillage or plastic film mulching? A comprehensive global meta-analysis based on maize yield and nitrogen use efficiency. Sci. Total Environ. 831:154869. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154869

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhang, H., Liu, H., Hou, D., Zhou, Y., Liu, M., Wang, Z., et al. (2019). The effect of integrative crop management on root growth and methane emission of paddy rice. Crop J. 7, 444–457. doi: 10.1016/j.cj.2018.12.011

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhang, G., Liu, C., Xiao, C., Xie, R., Ming, B., Hou, P., et al. (2017). Optimizing water use efficiency and economic return of super high yield spring maize under drip irrigation and plastic mulching in arid areas of China. Field Crop Res. 211, 137–146. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.05.026

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhang, J., Miao, Q., Xue, Y., Li, Z., and Cui, Z. (2020). Managing soils and crops for sustainable agricultural intensification in coastal saline zones. Agron. J. 112, 3076–3088. doi: 10.1002/agj2.20249

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhang, H., Yu, C., Kong, X., Hou, D., Gu, J., Liu, L., et al. (2018). Progressive integrative crop managements increase grain yield, nitrogen use efficiency and irrigation water productivity in rice. Field Crop Res. 215, 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.09.034

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhao, X., Wang, S., and Xing, G. (2015). Maintaining rice yield and reducing N pollution by substituting winter legume for wheat in a heavily-fertilized rice-based cropping system of Southeast China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 202, 79–89. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2015.01.002

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhou, W., Lyu, T. F., Yang, Z. P., Sun, H., Yang, L. J., Chen, Y., et al. (2016). Research advances on regulating soil nitrogen loss by the type of nitrogen fertilizer and its application strategy. Ying Yong Sheng Tai Xue Bao 27, 3051–3058. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201609.022

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhu, Z. L., and Chen, D. L. (2002). Nitrogen fertilizer use in China-contributions to food production, impacts on the environment and best management strategies. Nutrient Cycl. Agroecosyst. 63, 117–127. doi: 10.1023/A:1021107026067

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar