Challenges facing European agriculture and possible biotechnological solutions

Abstract

Agriculture faces many challenges to maximize yields while it is required to operate in an environmentally sustainable manner. In the present study, we analyze the major agricultural challenges identified by European farmers (primarily related to biotic stresses) in 13 countries, namely Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, UK and Turkey, for nine major crops (barley, beet, grapevine, maize, oilseed rape, olive, potato, sunflower and wheat). Most biotic stresses (BSs) are related to fungi or insects, but viral diseases, bacterial diseases and even parasitic plants have an important impact on yield and harvest quality. We examine how these challenges have been addressed by public and private research sectors, using either conventional breeding, marker-assisted selection, transgenesis, cisgenesis, RNAi technology or mutagenesis. Both national surveys and scientific literature analysis followed by text mining were employed to evaluate genetic engineering (GE) and non-GE approaches. This is the first report of text mining of the scientific literature on plant breeding and agricultural biotechnology research. For the nine major crops in Europe, 128 BS challenges were identified with 40% of these addressed neither in the scientific literature nor in recent European public research programs. We found evidence that the private sector was addressing only a few of these "neglected" challenges. Consequently, there are considerable gaps between farmer's needs and current breeding and biotechnology research. We also provide evidence that the current political situation in certain European countries is an impediment to GE research in order to address these agricultural challenges in the future. This study should also contribute to the decision-making process on future pertinent international consortia to fill the identified research gaps.

Strategies for Enhanced Crop Resistance to Insect Pests

“…The application of the wealth of knowledge and developing technologies to crop resistance strategies is dependent not only on the science, but also on the regulatory framework for the commercial release of novel crops. Regulation is necessarily conservative for the protection of the environment and human health (for different perspectives on this topic, see References 128 and 129), but the cost and regional variation in regulatory procedures are major constraints on the translation of innovation to product (57,101,110). As CRISPR and other genetic technologies come to the fore and metabolic engineering and microbiome science yield more reliable benefits for crop production, there is a new opportunity for regulation policy to achieve the optimal balance between protection against the hazards of new technologies and the need for sustainable intensification of food production (33,57,76).…”

Azole Resistance in Aspergillus fumigatus: A Consequence of Antifungal Use in Agriculture?

“…Agriculture undergoes many challenges comprising pests, diseases and abiotic stresses, which drastically decrease crop yield (Ricroch et al, 2016). This contributes to important losses to farmers and threatens global food production capacity.…”

Stress-Responsive Alternative Sigma Factor SigB Plays a Positive Role in the Antifungal Proficiency of Bacillus subtilis

“…These microbial interactions can be synergistic, neutral, or antagonistic and might positively or negatively affect the colonization of a given niche or host by a specific microbe (2)(3)(4). In particular, an antagonistic interaction between bacteria and fungi would be beneficial to protect plants of agronomical importance against phytopathogenic fungi that reduces the yield and quality of crops (5)(6)(7). One strategy to achieve this goal is to control soilborne plant diseases via the utilization of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPRs), which have the ability to maintain the population of plant-pathogenic microbes below the disease threshold level in soil and plant tissues (8)(9)(10)(11)(12).…”