CorText Manager around the world

@article{Toffolini2022,

title = {On-farm experimentation practices and associated farmer-researcher relationships: a systematic literature review},

author = {Quentin Toffolini and Marie-Hélène Jeuffroy},

url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13593-022-00845-w},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-022-00845-w},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-11-01},

journal = {Agronomy for Sustainable Development},

volume = {42},

number = {114},

issue = {2022},

abstract = {The convergence among the rise of digital technologies, the attention paid to the localized issues of transitions in practices toward agroecology, and the emergence of new open innovation models are renewing and reviving the scientific community’s interest in on-farm experimentation (OFE). This form of experimentation is claimed to be enhanced by digital tools as well as being an enabler of production of credible, salient, and legitimate science insofar as it embraces a farmer-centric perspective. However, the forms of research in which some experimental activities on farms are anchored vary greatly, notably with regard to the actual forms that interventions on farms take, the legitimacy of the actors involved and their roles, or the observations and instruments applied for interpretation. We propose a systematic review of the literature and an analytical framework in order to better understand this diversity of practices behind on-farm experimentation. Our analysis segregated six major publication clusters based on themes appearing in titles and abstracts. These themes guided a more in-depth analysis of representative articles, from which we identified seven types of OFE practices that are described and discussed here with regard to the knowledge targeted, roles of the various actors, and on-farm experimental space. Our typology provides an original basis for supporting reflexivity and building alignment between the above-mentioned dimensions and the ways in which new tools can support the experimental process.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Hernandez-Tenorio2022,

title = {Potential Strategies in the Biopesticide Formulations: A Bibliometric Analysis },

author = {Fabian Hernandez-Tenorio and Alejandra M. Miranda and Carlos A. Rodríguez and Catalina Giraldo-Estrada and Alex A. Sáez},

url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/12/11/2665

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/12/11/2665/pdf?version=1667202573},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12112665},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-10-01},

journal = {Agronomy},

volume = {12},

number = {11},

issue = {2665},

abstract = {Biopesticides are pest and pathogen management agents based on living microorganisms or natural products (botanical origin). Due to their natural origins, they stand out as an environmentally friendly tool, since they quickly decompose and minimize pollution problems produced by synthetic pesticides. However, these products present significant challenges that affect the bioactivities of the active components, due to the degradation of the biomass or bioactive metabolite by factors such as air, light, and temperature. Therefore, in this study, a systematic search of the Scopus database was conducted and scientometric tools were used to evaluate formulation techniques and approaches that seek to improve the bioactivities of natural preparations. The results showed that published research on biopesticides has significantly increased by 71.24% in the last decade (2011–2021). Likewise, the bibliometrics showed, through temporal flow analysis, and in the period from 2010 to 2021, investigations evolved have toward the use of nanotechnology, with the purpose of improving and potentiating the formulations of biopesticides. Consequently, nanotechnology tools can be classified as current strategies of interest that allow the increase and protection of bioefficacy to a greater extent than traditional biopesticide preparations. This review constitutes an important contribution to future research and expands the panorama in relation to biopesticide formulations for the control of agricultural pests.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {Agriculture at the Landscape Level: Scientific Background and Literature Overview},

author = {Davide Rizzo and Marta Debolini and Claudine Thenail and Sylvie Lardon and Elisa Marraccini },

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05263-7_1},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-09-01},

journal = {Landscape Agronomy},

pages = {1–23},

abstract = {Addressing agriculture at the landscape level leads to dealing with agricultural landscapes, defined here as landscapes that contain mainly agricultural land uses. In this chapter, we focus on how agronomy and other disciplines have addressed to date agriculture beyond field and farm management. The landscape agronomy framework suggests that addressing agriculture at the landscape level allows farmers to be included with other stakeholders involved in spatially explicit management of natural resources. This framework also bridges gaps with other disciplines that work to describe and understand agricultural landscapes and their management. In addition to this qualitative summary of the scientific background, we present results of a bibliometric analysis that used the CorTexT platform to explore research keywords, (inter)disciplinary bridges and emerging issues related to these topics. The results highlighted the emergence of climate change, ecosystem services and management practices in the literature related to agronomic terms, especially when landscape is explicitly mentioned in publications’ titles, abstracts or keywords. In the end, we draw conclusions about potential improvements to this conceptual framework and introduce the structure of the present book about advances and challenges of a territorial approach to agricultural issues.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Gotor2022,

title = {Innovative Pulses for Western European Temperate Regions: A Review },

author = {Alicia Ayerdi Gotor and Elisa Marraccini},

url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/12/1/170/htm},

doi = {10.3390/agronomy12010170},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-01-11},

urldate = {2021-12-15},

journal = {Agronomy},

volume = {12},

number = {170},

abstract = {In Europe, there is an increasing interest in pulses both for their beneficial effects in cropping systems and for human health. However, despite these advantages, the acreage dedicated to pulses has been declining and their diversity has reduced, particularly in European temperate regions, due to several social and economic factors. This decline has stimulated a political debate in the EU on the development of plant proteins. By contrast, in Southern countries, a large panel of minor pulses is still cropped in regional patterns of production and consumption. The aim of this paper is to investigate the potential for cultivation of minor pulses in European temperate regions as a complement to common pulses. Our assumption is that some of these crops could adapt to different pedoclimatic conditions, given their physiological adaptation capacity, and that these pulses might be of interest for the development of innovative local food chains in an EU policy context targeting protein autonomy. The research is based on a systematic review of 269 papers retrieved in the Scopus database (1974–2019), which allowed us to identify 41 pulses as candidate species with protein content higher than 20% that are already consumed as food. For each species, the main agronomic (e.g., temperature or water requirements) and nutritional characteristics (e.g., proteins or antinutritional contents) were identified in their growing regions. Following their agronomic characteristics, the candidate crops were confronted with variability in the annual growing conditions for spring crops in Western European temperate areas to determine the earliest potential sowing and latest harvest dates. Subsequently, the potential sum of temperatures was calculated with the Agri4cast database to establish the potential climatic suitability. For the first time, 21 minor pulses were selected to be grown in these temperate areas and appear worthy of investigation in terms of yield potential, nutritional characteristics or best management practices. },

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Malanski2019b,

title = {Characteristics of “work in agriculture” scientific communities. A bibliometric review},

author = {Priscila Duarte Malanski and Sandra Mara de Alencar Schiavi and Benoît Dedieu },

url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13593-019-0582-2},

doi = {10.1007/s13593-019-0582-2},

year  = {2019},

date = {2019-06-19},

urldate = {2019-06-19},

journal = {Agronomy for Sustainable Development},

volume = {39},

number = {36},

abstract = {Work is a central concern for sustainable farming systems and rural communities, especially regarding specific issues of the agricultural sector, as the strong decrease in rural employment and the less attractive working conditions. Many articles covering diverse related topics have been published. However, the few studies analyzing the state of worldwide scientific research on work in agriculture give only a fragmented view, since they focus on specialized topics and disciplines. To fill this knowledge gap, the aim of this study was to review the state of research on work in agriculture addressed by the scientific literature, through a bibliometric analysis by country, institution, journal, author, and keywords. Our main finds are that (1) work in agriculture issues is divided into six main research domains: occupational health and safety, labor market and rural employment, labor and farm sustainability, work organization, agricultural policy and agrarian changes, and labor and family farms; (2) these research domains are analyzed by five scientific communities: ergonomics, agricultural economics, livestock farming systems, rural sociology, and agricultural policy; (3) the reference authors, most-cited articles, and main journals were identified for each scientific community; (4) USA, France, and China arise as leaders in the scientific landscape. We show for the first time the characteristics of the main scientific communities worldwide that have performed the most relevant research related to work in agriculture over the past 10 years. This review provides a benchmark for future research on agricultural work-related topics and encourages collaborations between researchers from different scientific communities for interdisciplinary innovation, which support sustainable working conditions in agriculture.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{ruiz2015indicators,

title = {Indicators of agricultural intensity and intensification: a review of the literature},

author = {Irune Ruiz-Martinez and Elisa Marraccini and Marta Debolini and Enrico Bonari},

url = {https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01277628},

doi = {10.4081/ija.2015.656},

year  = {2015},

date = {2015-01-01},

urldate = {2015-01-01},

journal = {Italian Journal of Agronomy},

volume = {10},

number = {2},

pages = {74--84},

abstract = {Since the 1960s, research has dealt with agricultural intensification (AI) as a solution to ensure global food security. Recently, sustainable intensification (SI) has increasingly been used to describe those agricultural and farming systems that ensure adequate ecosystem service provision. Studies differ in terms of the application scales and methodologies, thus we aim to summarize the main findings from the literature on how AI and SI are assessed, from the farm to global levels. Our literature review is based on 7865 papers selected from the Web of Science database and analysed using CorText software. A further selection of 105 relevant papers was used for an in-depth full-text analysis on: i) farming systems studied; ii) related ecosystem services; iii) indicators of intensity; and iv) temporal and spatial scales of analysis. Through this two-step analysis we were able to highlight three main research gaps in the AI research indicators. Firstly, the farming systems analysed for assessing AI are often quite simplified or monoculture-oriented, and they do not take the diversity and complex organisation of farming systems into account. Secondly, these studies mainly focus on northern countries or developing countries, whereas there is a gap of knowledge in Mediterranean areas, which are the areas with a high complexity of farming systems and diversity in ecosystem services. Finally, AI is mostly assessed through nitrogen inputs and economic yield, which are used the most both at very local and global levels. Intermediate regional or local levels, which are relevant for policy implementation and local planning, are often neglected. },

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}