Institution
International Food Policy Research Institute
Nonprofit•Washington D.C., District of Columbia, United States•
About: International Food Policy Research Institute is a nonprofit organization based out in Washington D.C., District of Columbia, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Food security & Agriculture. The organization has 1217 authors who have published 4952 publications receiving 218436 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
University of Göttingen1, University of British Columbia2, Stanford University3, CGIAR4, University of Wisconsin-Madison5, University of Maryland, College Park6, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences7, University of California, Berkeley8, University of Würzburg9, Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza10, National Ecological Observatory Network11, Virginia Tech12, Cornell University13, University of California, Davis14, Institut national de la recherche agronomique15, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation16, Lincoln University (New Zealand)17, International Food Policy Research Institute18
TL;DR: In this article, the authors identify five hypotheses for when and why natural habitat can fail to support biological pest control, and illustrate each with case studies from the literature: (1) pest populations have no effective natural enemies in the region, (2) natural habitat is a greater source of pests than natural enemies, (3) crops provide more resources for natural enemies than does natural habitat, (4) natural habitats is insufficient in amount, proximity, composition, or configuration to provide large enough enemy populations needed for pest control and (5) agricultural practices counteract enemy establishment and bioc
400 citations
••
Daniel S. Karp1, Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer2, Timothy D. Meehan3, Emily A. Martin4 +153 more•Institutions (81)
TL;DR: Analysis of the largest pest-control database of its kind shows that surrounding noncrop habitat does not consistently improve pest management, meaning habitat conservation may bolster production in some systems and depress yields in others.
Abstract: The idea that noncrop habitat enhances pest control and represents a win-win opportunity to conserve biodiversity and bolster yields has emerged as an agroecological paradigm. However, while noncrop habitat in landscapes surrounding farms sometimes benefits pest predators, natural enemy responses remain heterogeneous across studies and effects on pests are inconclusive. The observed heterogeneity in species responses to noncrop habitat may be biological in origin or could result from variation in how habitat and biocontrol are measured. Here, we use a pest-control database encompassing 132 studies and 6,759 sites worldwide to model natural enemy and pest abundances, predation rates, and crop damage as a function of landscape composition. Our results showed that although landscape composition explained significant variation within studies, pest and enemy abundances, predation rates, crop damage, and yields each exhibited different responses across studies, sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing in landscapes with more noncrop habitat but overall showing no consistent trend. Thus, models that used landscape-composition variables to predict pest-control dynamics demonstrated little potential to explain variation across studies, though prediction did improve when comparing studies with similar crop and landscape features. Overall, our work shows that surrounding noncrop habitat does not consistently improve pest management, meaning habitat conservation may bolster production in some systems and depress yields in others. Future efforts to develop tools that inform farmers when habitat conservation truly represents a win-win would benefit from increased understanding of how landscape effects are modulated by local farm management and the biology of pests and their enemies.
398 citations
••
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examined the role of RPOs in supporting smallholder commercialization, and the extent to which principles of an inclusive, bottom-up approach relate to their marketing performance.
398 citations
••
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examined the relationship between women empowerment in agriculture, measured using the Women's Empowerment in Agriculture Index, and per capita calorie availability, dietary diversity, and adult body mass index (BMI).
395 citations
••
01 May 2003TL;DR: Biofortification provides a truly feasible means of reaching malnourished populations in relatively remote rural areas, delivering naturally-fortified foods to population groups with limited access to commercially-marketed fortified foods that are more readily available in urban areas.
Abstract: Can commonly-eaten food staple crops be developed that fortify their seeds with essential minerals and vitamins? Can farmers be induced to grow such varieties? If so, would this result in a marked improvement in human nutrition at a lower cost than existing nutrition interventions? An interdisciplinary international effort is underway to breed for mineral- and vitamin-dense varieties of rice, wheat, maize, beans and cassava for release to farmers in developing countries. The biofortification strategy seeks to take advantage of the consistent daily consumption of large amounts of food staples by all family members, including women and children as they are most at risk for micronutrient malnutrition. As a consequence of the predominance of food staples in the diets of the poor, this strategy implicitly targets low-income households. After the one-time investment is made to develop seeds that fortify themselves, recurrent costs are low and germplasm may be shared internationally. It is this multiplier aspect of plant breeding across time and distance that makes it so cost-effective. Once in place, the biofortified crop system is highly sustainable. Nutritionally-improved varieties will continue to be grown and consumed year after year, even if government attention and international funding for micronutrient issues fades. Biofortification provides a truly feasible means of reaching malnourished populations in relatively remote rural areas, delivering naturally-fortified foods to population groups with limited access to commercially-marketed fortified foods that are more readily available in urban areas. Biofortification and commercial fortification are, therefore, highly complementary. Breeding for higher trace mineral density in seeds will not incur a yield penalty. Mineral-packed seeds sell themselves to farmers because, as recent research has shown, these trace minerals are essential in helping plants resist disease and other environmental stresses. More seedlings survive and initial growth is more rapid. Ultimately, yields are higher, particularly in trace mineral-'deficient' soils in arid regions.
392 citations
Authors
Showing all 1269 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Michael B. Zimmermann | 83 | 437 | 23563 |
Kenneth H. Brown | 79 | 353 | 23199 |
Thomas Reardon | 79 | 285 | 25458 |
Marie T. Ruel | 77 | 300 | 22862 |
John Hoddinott | 75 | 357 | 21372 |
Mark W. Rosegrant | 73 | 315 | 22194 |
Agnes R. Quisumbing | 72 | 311 | 18433 |
Johan F.M. Swinnen | 70 | 570 | 20039 |
Stefan Dercon | 69 | 259 | 17696 |
Jikun Huang | 69 | 430 | 18496 |
Gregory J. Seymour | 66 | 385 | 17744 |
Lawrence Haddad | 65 | 243 | 24931 |
Rebecca J. Stoltzfus | 61 | 224 | 13711 |
Ravi Kanbur | 61 | 498 | 19422 |
Ruth Meinzen-Dick | 61 | 237 | 13707 |