Economic, Social and Environmental Impacts of The Potato and Its Beneficial Microorganism Interactions

• Autorzy: Mariusz Maciejczak , Tadeusz Filipiak

Warianty tytułu

Ekonomiczne, społeczne i środowiskowe efekty interakcji ziemniaka z jego pożytecznymi mikroorganizmami

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The primary objective of this paper was to identify the economic, social and environmental impacts of plants and their beneficial microorganism interactions. As a plant example, the potato (Solanum tuberosum) has been chosen due to its worldwide nutritional and economic importance. Based on a systematic literature review, high importance effects were identified. From an economic point of view these were an increase in plant immunity and yield along with cost reductions and a reduction of abiotic and biotic stresses. From a social point of view, the importance of healthier food, a cleaner environment and resistant ecosystem were identified. From an environmental perspective, the effects of the increase of soil fertility and biodiversity as well as bioremediation opportunities were found to be important. The cross impact analysis of the identified effects indicate the primary importance of the economic effects, however their occurrence is determined by social effects, while the environmental ones are in a supporting position. It is argued, therefore, that the successful implementation of innovative products and technologies in potato production based on the plant - beneficial microorganism interactions will require economic empirical evidence and will be driven by social tension.(original abstract)

Głównym celem artykułu jest identyfikacja ekonomicznych, społecznych i środowiskowych efektów interakcji pomiędzy roślinami uprawnymi i ich pożytecznymi mikroorganizmami. Analizy przeprowadzono na przykładzie ziemniaka ze względu na jego odżywcze i ekonomiczne znaczenie na świecie. Na podstawie systematycznego przeglądu literatury zidentyfikowano efekty interakcji o dużym znaczeniu. Z ekonomicznego punktu widzenia były to wzrost odporności oraz plonów roślin wraz z redukcją kosztów i zmniejszeniem stresu abiotycznego i biotycznego. Z społecznego punktu widzenia wskazano na znaczenie produkcji zdrowszej żywności oraz efekty czystszego środowiska i odpornego ekosystemu. W perspektywie środowiskowej uznano za istotne skutki wzrostu żyzności i różnorodności biologicznej gleb oraz możliwości bioremediacji. Analiza wzajemnych oddziaływań zidentyfikowanych efektów wskazała na pierwszorzędne znaczenie czynników ekonomicznych, jednak ich występowanie jest uzależnione od występowania efektów społecznych. Efekty środowiskowe jedynie wspierają te procesy. Stwierdzono, że skuteczne wdrożenie innowacyjnych produktów i technologii w produkcji ziemniaka opartych na interakcji rośliny i jej pożytecznych mikroorganizmów wymaga wykazania na potrzeby rolników empirycznych efektów ekonomicznych, a będzie warunkowane w znacznym stopniu potrzebami społecznymi.(abstrakt oryginalny)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Potatoes; Agriculture; Production

PL

Ziemniaki; Rolnictwo; Produkcja

• Czasopismo: Roczniki Naukowe Stowarzyszenia Ekonomistów Rolnictwa i Agrobiznesu
• Rocznik: 2020
• Tom: 22
• Numer: z. 4
• Strony: 140--150

Twórcy

autor

Mariusz Maciejczak

• Warsaw University of Life Sciences - SGGW, Poland

autor

Tadeusz Filipiak

• Warsaw University of Life Sciences - SGGW, Poland

Bibliografia

• 1. Ajar Nath Yadav, Verma Priyanka, Kour Divjot, Rana Kusam Lata, Kumar Vinod, Singh Bhanumati, Chauahan Vinay Singh, T.C.K. Sugitha, Saxena Anil Kumar, Dhaliwal Singh Harcharan. 2017. Plant microbiomes and its beneficial multifunctional, plant growth promoting attributes. International Journal of Environmental Sciences & Natural Resources 3 (1): 1-8. DOI: 10.19080/IJESNR.2017.03.555601.
• 2. Barnett Brittany A., David G. Holm, Jeffery W. Koym, Robert G. Wilson, Daniel K. Manter. 2015. Site and clone effects on the potato root-associated core microbiome and its relationship to tuber yield and nutrients. American Journal of Potato Research 92: 1-9. DOI 10.1007/s12230-014-9405-9.
• 3. Berg Gabrielle, Daria Rybakova, Doreen Fischer, Tomislav Cernava, Marie-Christine Vergès Champomier, et al. 2020. Microbiome definition re-visited: old concepts and new challenges. Microbiome 8: 103. DOI: 1186/s40168-020-00875-0.
• 4. Bhanumati Singh, Chauahan Vinay Singh, T.C.K. Sugitha, Kumar Saxena Anil, Singh Dhaliwal Harcharan. 2017. Plant microbiomes and its beneficial multifunctional, plant growth promoting attributes. International Journal of Environmental Sciences & Natural Resources 3 (1): 1-8. DOI: 10.19080/IJESNR.2017.03.555601.
• 5. Bruinsma Jelle. 2003. Agriculture and the environment: changing pressures, solutions and trade-offs. world agriculture: towards 2015/2030: an FAO Study (1st ed.). Earthscan. DOI: 10.4324/9781315083858.
• 6. Czyżewski Bazyli. 2017. Market treadmill in European agriculture. Warsaw: PWN.
• 7. Dyrdahl-Young Ruhiyyih, Emilie Cole, Marisol Quintanilla Tornel, Richard Weldon, Peter Di Gennaro. 2020. Economic assessment of nematode biological control agents in a potato production model. Nematology 1-9. DOI: 10.1163 / 15685411-00003339.
• 8. Farhana Syed Ab Rahmana Sharifah, Eugenie Singha, Corné M.J. Pieterseb, Peer M. Schenk. 2018. Emerging microbial biocontrol strategies for plant pathogens. Plant Science 267: 102-111.
• 9. Finkel Omri M., Gabriel Castrillo, Herrera Sur Paredes, Salas Isai Gonzalez, Jeffery L. Dangl. 2017. Understanding and exploiting plant beneficial microbes. Current Opinion in Plant Biology 38:155-163. DOI: 10.1016/j.pbi.2017.04.018.
• 10. Godheja Jai, Sudhir K. Shekhar. Dinesh R. Modi. 2017. Bacterial rhizoremediation of petroleum hydrocarbons (PHC). [In] Plant-microbe interactions in agro-ecological perspectives, eds. D.P. Singh et al., 495-519. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-10-6593-4_20.
• 11. Hijri Mohamed. 2016. Analysis of a large dataset of mycorrhiza inoculation field trials on potato shows highly significant increases in yield. Mycorrhiza 26: 209-214. DOI 10.1007/s00572-015-0661-4.
• 12. Jeanne Thomas, Serge-E´tienne Parent, Richard Hogue. 2019. Using a soil bacterial species balance index to estimate potato crop productivity. PLOS ONE 14 (3): e0214089. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214089.
• 13. Kannojia Pooja, P.K. Sharma, Abhijeet K. Kashyap, Nazia Manzar, Udai B. Singh, Kamal Chaudhary, Deepti Malviya, Shailendra Singh, Sushil K. Sharma. 2017. Microbe-Mediated Biotic Stress Management in Plants. [In] Plant-microbe interactions in agro-ecological perspectives, eds. D.P. Singh et al., 627-648. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-10-6593-4_26.
• 14. Kepler Ryan M., Jude E. Maul, Stephen A. Rehner. 2017. Managing the plant microbiome for biocontrol fungi: examples from Hypocreales. Current Opinion in Microbiology 37: 48-53. DOI: org/10.1016/j.mib.2017.03.006.
• 15. Kocira Sławomir, Agnieszka Szparaga, Patryk Hara, Krzysztof Treder, Pavol Findura, Petr Bartoš, Martin Filip. 2020. Biochemical and economical effect of application biostimulants containing seaweed extracts and amino acids as an element of agroecological management of bean cultivation. Scientific Reports 10: 17759. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-74959-0.
• 16. Kowalska Jolanta. 2016. Wpływ nawożenia oraz biostymulatorów mikrobilogicznych na zdrowotność i plonowanie ziemniaka w systemie ekologicznym (Effect of fertilization and microbiological bio-stimulators on healthiness and yield of organic potato). Progress in Plant Protection 56: 230-235. DOI: 10.14199/ppp-2016-039.
• 17. Maciejczak Mariusz 2018. Non-industrial sustainable intensification of agriculture. [In] From the research on socially-sustainable agriculture (48). Multi-Annual Programme 2015-2019, eds. Mariola Kwasek, Józef Zegar, 29-53. Warsaw: Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics National Research Institute.
• 18. Margulis Lynn, René Fester. 1991. Symbiosis as a source of evolutionary innovation. Speciation and morphogenesis. Cambridge, US: MIT Press.
• 19. Morrissey John P., J. Maxwell Dow, G. Louise Mark, Fergal O'Gara. 2004. Are microbes at the root of a solution to world food production? EMBO Reports 5 (10): 922-926. DOI: 10.1038/sj.embor.7400263.
• 20. Motaher Hossain M., Farjana Sultana, Shaikhul Islam. 2017. Plant Growth-Promoting Fungi (PGPF): phytostimulation and induced systemic resistance. [In] Plant-microbe interactions in agro-ecological perspectives, eds. D.P. Singh et al., 135-181. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-10-6593-4_6.
• 21. Muzaffer İpek, Ahmet Eşitken. 2017. The actions of PGPR on micronutrient availability in soil and plant under calcareous soil conditions: an evaluation over fe nutrition. [In] Plant-microbe interactions in agro-ecological perspectives, eds. D.P. Singh et al., 81-100. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-10-6593-4_4.
• 22. Nyiraneza Judith, Peters D. Rick, Rodd A. Vernon, Grimmett Mark G., Jiang Yefang. 2015. Improving productivity of managed potato cropping systems in Eastern Canada: crop rotation and nitrogen source effects. Agronomy Journal 107 (4): 1447-1457. DOI: 10.2134/agronj14.0430.
• 23. Obidiegwu Jude E., Glenn J. Bryan, Hamlyn G. Jones, Ankush Prashar. 2015. Coping with drought: stress and adaptive responses in potato and perspectives for improvement. Frontiers in Plant Sciences 6: 542. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2015.00542.
• 24. Parashar Alka, Rakesh Paliwal, P. Rambabu. 1997. Utility of fuzzy cross-impact simulation in environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 17 (6): 427-447. DOI: 10.1016/S0195-9255(97)00046-2.
• 25. Qiua Zhiguang, Eleonora Egidia, Hongwei Liua, Simranjit Kaur, Brajesh K. Singh. 2019. New frontiers in agriculture productivity: Optimised microbial inoculants and in situ microbiome engineering. Biotechnology Advances 37 (6): 107371. DOI: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2019.03.010.
• 26. Raymundo Rubí, Senthold Asseng, Richard Robertson, Athanasios Petsakos, Gerrit Hoogenboom, Roberto Quiroz, Guy Hareau, Joost Wolf. 2018. Climate change impact on global potato production. European Journal of Agronomy 100: 87-98. DOI: 10.1016/j.eja.2017.11.008.
• 27. Sánchez-Cañizares Carmen, Beatriz Jorrín, Philip Poole, Andrzej Tkacz. 2017. Understanding the holobiont: the interdependence of plants and their microbiome. Current Opinion in Microbiology, 38: 188-196. DOI: 10.1016/j.mib.2017.07.001.
• 28. Sindhu Satyavir S., Anju Sehrawat, Ruchi Sharma, Anupma Dahiya, Aakanksha Khandelwal. 2017. Below ground microbial crosstalk and rhizosphere biology. [In] Plant-microbe interactions in agro-ecological perspectives, eds. D.P. Singh et al., 695-752. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-10-6593-4_29.
• 29. Srinivasarao Ch., M. Manjunath. 2017. Potential of beneficial bacteria as ecofriendly options for chemical-free alternative agriculture. [In] Plant-microbe interactions in agro-ecological perspectives, eds. D.P. Singh et al., . DOI: 10.1007/978-981-10-6593-4_19.
• 30. Thomashow Linda S., Melissa K. LeTourneau, Youn-Sig Kwak, David M. Weller. 2019. The soil-borne legacy in the age of the holobiont. Microbial Biotechnology 12: 51-54. DOI: 10.1111/1751-7915.13325.
• 31. Trognitz Friederike, Evelyn Hackl, Siegrid Widhalm, Angela Sessitsch. 2016. The role of plant -microbiome interactions in weed establishment and control. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 92: 138. DOI: 10.1093/femsec/fiw138.
• 32. Wang Zhenshuo, Yan Li, Lubo Zhuang, Yue Yu, Jia Liu, Lixia Zhang, Zhenjiang Gao, Yufeng Wu, Wa Gao, Guo-Chun Ding, Qi Wang. 2019. a rhizosphere-derived consortium of Bacillus subtilis and Trichoderma harzianum suppresses common scab of potato and increases yield. Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal 17: 645-653. DOI: 10.1016/j.csbj.2019.05.003.
• 33. Xiao Yu, Maria Watson. 2017. Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of Planning Education and Research 39 (1): 93-112. DOI: 10.1177/0739456X17723971.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.5604/01.3001.0014.6032