Next Article in Journal
A Novel Transcriptome Approach to the Investigation of the Molecular Pathology of Vitreous and Retinal Detachment
Next Article in Special Issue
Insights of Improved Aroma under Additional Nitrogen Application at Booting Stage in Fragrant Rice
Previous Article in Journal
Host Genetic Risk Factors Associated with COVID-19 Susceptibility and Severity in Vietnamese
Previous Article in Special Issue
Dissecting the Regulatory Network of Maize Phase Change in ZmEPC1 Mutant by Transcriptome Analysis
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

A Flashforward Look into Solutions for Fruit and Vegetable Production

1
Institute of Plant Sciences Paris-Saclay (IPS2), Université Paris-Saclay, INRAE, CNRS, University Evry, 91405 Orsay, France
2
Vilmorin & Cie, Route d’Ennezat, 63720 Chappes, France
3
Vilmorin & Cie, Paraje La Reserva, 04725 La Mojonera, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Submission received: 31 August 2022 / Revised: 26 September 2022 / Accepted: 13 October 2022 / Published: 18 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Genetic Control of Agronomic Traits in Plants)

Abstract

:
One of the most important challenges facing current and future generations is how climate change and continuous population growth adversely affect food security. To address this, the food system needs a complete transformation where more is produced in non-optimal and space-limited areas while reducing negative environmental impacts. Fruits and vegetables, essential for human health, are high-value-added crops, which are grown in both greenhouses and open field environments. Here, we review potential practices to reduce the impact of climate variation and ecosystem damages on fruit and vegetable crop yield, as well as highlight current bottlenecks for indoor and outdoor agrosystems. To obtain sustainability, high-tech greenhouses are increasingly important and biotechnological means are becoming instrumental in designing the crops of tomorrow. We discuss key traits that need to be studied to improve agrosystem sustainability and fruit yield.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

In 2019, the global annual temperature increased by 1.47 °C compared to the 1951–1980 normal climate period [1,2]. In 2022, the global annual temperature is forecast to continue the series of warmest years. Current agricultural practices need to be adapted to contend with the predicted extreme temperature increase [3] and the consequences of that increase on the environment [4]. This global warming is of particular concern for agriculture and food supply. Agriculture has become more invasive and destructive adversely affecting wild ecosystems, e.g., the decline of pollinator populations and pollination efficiency [5,6], in order to keep up with the worldwide increased demand for food due to global population growth.
Between 1990 and 2014, space dedicated to human occupation increased by more than 50% [7]. Agricultural areas have followed the growth tendency of the world’s population, which is estimated to reach 11 billion in 2100 [8]. Of the 149 million km2 of land on Earth, 104 million is habitable and half of this portion is dedicated to agriculture [2] (Figure 1).
Based on these statistics, solutions for the future of agriculture are crucial. Crop production must be designed to be more respectful of the environment while also producing more food. Meeting this goal remains a problem, especially in a sub-optimal and space-limited environment where most crops that are poorly malleable require specific growing conditions. Fruits and vegetables are good examples of such crops. Despite representing a small proportion of total crop production area compared to cereals and coarse grain (respectively 7.3% and 64% in 2014) [9], their fourfold yield (135,299 hg/ha, 189,348 hg/ha and 41,131 hg/ha, respectively, for fruits’, vegetables’ and cereals’ world production, in 2019) [2] and high added value make these crops of major concern. Fruits and vegetables are also grown worldwide using different farming methods. However, when it comes to biotechnological advances, fruits and vegetables are behind field crops.
In this review, we focused our investigation on fruit and vegetable cultivation, as they play a central role in human nutrition and health. We also considered two agricultural models: greenhouse and open field cultivations, which we referred to as indoor and outdoor production systems, respectively. We synthesized the major issues for both agrosystems and discussed the possible solutions. For the outdoor production system, we identified crop geographic distribution, biodiversity, pollination services, soil quality and water management as crucial topics. For the indoor production system, we selected the topics of inputs, energy and location, and technological and biotechnological means. From there, we emphasized the necessity of improving plant capacities for self-defense, nutrition, growth and fruit set. For all of these topics, we identified relevant keywords that we used to search and select more than 200 publications that we reviewed. Our research resulted in a comparison of cutting-edge new methodologies and existing production techniques. This allowed us to highlight promising leads for the next generation of agricultural production systems.

2. Solutions for Outdoor Production Systems to Reach Sustainability

2.1. Crop Migration and Adaptivity to Face Climate Change

The occurrence of extreme temperatures is increasing [3]. Although this phenomenon is currently mainly observed in tropical areas, it is predicted to become a worldwide problem [10]. Soon, a temperature that is currently the average in a certain region will become the average temperature of a more northern region, as global temperature increases. King et al. predict a northward shift of climate zones of up to 1200 km from today to 2099, producing new regions of arable land in northern latitudes [11]. This newly available land could mitigate the impact of such climate variations [12,13,14] by adjusting crop geographic distribution. However, crop reallocation may be difficult, requiring major social and political changes, especially for some fruit and vegetable crops depending on geographical designation (e.g., vine production) [12,15]. Tools, such as suitability land maps, have been developed to predict the optimal geographic localization regarding these crop varieties and could be extended to fruit crop species. Implementing more environmental parameters and proposing scalable solutions would also be required [16,17]. Only a few studies on cereals and vine production have assessed the true potential of growing new crops in new regions because the value of this practice is only now being considered [11]. Crop migration is also not sufficient to counteract strong climate variations, which are occurring more frequently and can drastically compromise entire production cycles [18].

2.2. Promoting Biodiversity

Another factor that must be considered when transforming crop production systems is ecosystem health and biodiversity. Grassland conversion to agricultural lands, deforestation and fragmentation of natural ecosystems have destroyed the habitats of many species, leading to decreased plant and animal biodiversity [19,20]. The increase in area used for food production and the high demand for bioresources such as biofuels are leading to competition for land use between food and non-food crops [21].
Increasing the arable land area to increase food production is only a temporary solution, and research aimed at improving agricultural efficiency should be favored. The promotion of biodiversity could be conducted using growing practices such as intercropping [22] (Figure 2).
Currently, the most common intercropping systems grow cereals with legumes, as the latter improve the nitrogen level in the soil, but there are also encouraging results with assays of intercropping fruit and vegetable [23]. Agroforestry, or crops and tree co-cultivation, increases soil fertility [24], biodiversity and carbon dioxide sequestration capacity and offers biological and mechanical protection to crops [25]. However, the main barriers to agroforestry expansion are the reduction of cultivation space for crops and light occulted by the tree canopy [26]. Changing agricultural practices requires time and money for farmers and harvesting fields can be more complex in the case of intercropping.

2.3. Safeguarding Pollinators

Fruit yield is dependent on flower fertilization, so the decline of pollinators, which confer an annual pollination service estimated to be about USD 235–577 billion in 2016 [27], directly impacts productivity [6]. A consequence of the harmful effect of pesticides on pollinators is the significant reduction of flower visitation, which has been shown to be correlated with a lower yield of marketable fruits in many crop species [28]. It has also been reported that for some species there is flowering three days early per 1 °C increase in the monthly temperature [29]. Consequently, asynchrony is emerging between pollinators and the flower life cycle, leading to a decrease in the effectiveness of pollination [30]. In an effective agro-ecological system model, pollination should be entirely performed by an abundance of various insect pollinators, and farmers should avoid the addition of chemicals. The most well-known crop pollinators are bees, but numerous other insect families, all functionally different, are involved in plant pollination [31]. Among 100 of the most consumed insect-pollinated fruits and vegetables, bees from the Apidae, Megachilidae and Halictidae families visit the largest amount of crop species (respectively, 93, 53 and 61). Still, more than half of these crops (56) are also pollinated by Syrphidae and a third (33) by Formicidae [31]. Positive correlations between an increase in pollinator biodiversity and fruit set, seed set and fruit quality were reported in various species worldwide [32,33,34,35,36]. The total area of crops pollinated by honeybees increased by 17% between 2005 and 2010, which was more than twice the increase rate of the honeybee population during the same period, showing that agriculture is more dependent than ever on pollinators [37]. Thus, better ecological management of land use, including the promotion of floral species’ diversity and reduction of chemical use, is required to maintain the biodiversity and the abundance of pollinators [38,39,40] (Figure 2).

2.4. Preserving Soil Health

Healthy ecosystems also include healthy soils. Soil is the habitat of complex associations of microorganisms. These microorganisms constitute the soil microbiome and are responsible for organic matter decomposition and carbon and nitrogen cycle regulation [41]. In agriculture, soil contamination mainly comes from chemical fertilizers, which pollute soils with their heavy metal content [42] (e.g., mercury, cadmium, and arsenic). Pesticide residues also add to soil contamination [43]. Phytoremediation, or the use of plants to remove pollutants, is a solution to decontaminate soils [42,44]. However, this technic suffers from low efficiency. To reduce soil damage in agriculture, investigations on clay-humic complexes, which control the mobility of toxic metals and the nutrient availability for plants [45,46], led to the development of humic products [47,48,49] or biostimulants [50]. Technologies such as alternative fertilizers, e.g., biochar and brown coal waste, are also being tested with promising results [51,52,53]. Alternative crop practices, such as conservation agriculture, regroup other solutions to limit soil nutrient depletion and soil compaction: a reduced or an absent tillage, crop rotation [54], crop cover [55,56,57,58,59,60] and integrated nutrient management [61,62]. In fruit and vegetable production, organic farming is increasingly developed. This eco-friendly system increases soil quality [60] but remains contested regarding its impact on yield [63,64,65,66]. Because microbiome composition has a major impact on crop yields, complementing the soil microbiota could be another means to improve soil quality. Metagenomic analyses can be used to identify associations of microorganisms present in a soil sample [67]. With such knowledge, the soil could be improved by inoculating specific microorganism species [48,68] and better understanding the association between plants and beneficial microbes in the rhizosphere [69] (Figure 2). However, plant–soil interactions are complex and highly dependent on environmental parameters. External inputs can be easily diluted or leached, making soil microbiome stabilization difficult to achieve. Soil conservation and reducing chemical pollution are also major issues for improving water use efficiency and reducing freshwater pollution.

2.5. Preserving Water Availability and Quality

Water availability is becoming more and more of a major concern for both rainfed and irrigated growing systems. Although the intensification of drought and flooding episodes [70,71,72,73,74,75] increases crop water requirements [76,77,78] and causes water stress-associated yield loss [79,80,81], anthropic pressure is the main factor of increased water demand [82]. Crop irrigation constitutes roughly 85% of global freshwater consumption [83], and the increase in the planting area is proportional to the water demand [82]. About 70 to 96% of fruit is water [84], and, thus, its availability is a limiting factor for fruit crop cultivation [85]. Although irrigated productions avoid yield loss due to water stress conditions [86], converting all current rainfed cropland to irrigated ones would not be possible given the water availability and water requirement ratio [87]. However, the impact of water availability could be reduced if crop water use efficiency (WUEc) is improved [88]. Moreover, nitrogen fertilization and crop evapotranspiration can lead to freshwater pollution [89] and salinization [83]. A sustainable agro-ecological system should both reduce water pollution and improve its WUEc. Less-polluting crop practices should be implemented; nitrogen recycling through wastewater treatment is one possibility [89]. This could be supplemented by desalinization [90] and wastewater reuse for crop irrigation, which would a priori confer a fruit production with a similar yield and quality [91]. More studies are required, though, to assess the potential risk of chemical and biological contamination in soil and food [92]. Water savings could also be obtained by building supplementary water harvesting structures [83,93]. Improving soil infiltration and retention capacity [94] can be achieved through the management of soil conservation practices, such as soil structure-adapted tillage [95], mulching, cover crop and canopy management [96]. The limit remains currently mitigated or lacking results on the effect of such practices on WUEc. To improve plant water absorption from the soil, another promising agricultural technique is grafting—already widely extended in solanaceous and cucurbits growing—where an increase in WUEc is obtained [97,98], though conferring mitigating results in the vineyard [96].
Better evaluation of crop water needs [99] also enabled the optimization and the development of more efficient irrigation. Crop vigor has been successfully improved by regulated deficit irrigation or partial root drying [93,100] in fruit trees and vines, where even improved fruit quality and more rapid fruit maturation were obtained [96,101,102]. Still, other species such as melon endured significant yield loss with this technique [103]. Surface irrigation, the most currently used technology, could also be replaced by higher efficiency irrigation systems [83] such as drip irrigation [83,104,105] or optimized subsurface systems [106]. These systems can, however, be unadapted for crops with high irrigation needs and require regular maintenance. Precision irrigation [107] and irrigation scheduling are also arising, with the development of plant-based indicators such as sap flow or stem diameter which estimate vegetable crop water stress, and also soil-based and weather-based indicators [85,108]. These parameters can be measured with innovative sensors, but this remains challenging in a fluctuating environment [85,109]. Such technologies are thereby up-and-coming for indoor agriculture.

3. Solution in Indoor Production Systems to Reach Sustainability

To develop climate-independent agriculture, in the 1950s indoor production was rapidly adopted, mainly for vegetable production. The four major species cultivated in greenhouses are tomato, pepper, cucumber and lettuce [110]. Such isolated systems enable optimized plant growth, yielding more marketable fruits than those produced in fields due to the controlled environmental parameters.

3.1. Needs for New Sustainable Indoor Growing Systems

Greenhouse production enables the use of optimized inputs in reduced quantities. Water consumption is decreased due to highly efficient water absorption and reduced leaf transpiration in enclosed spaces [111]. It should be noted that current indoor agriculture relies on high levels of plastic use and energy consumption [112,113]. The “Sea of Plastic” in Almeria, Spain, is the most illustrative example of plastic usage; in 2009, greenhouses with plastic coverings had a surface area of about 27,000 ha in this locale [111]. Polymers offer the advantages of light diffusion and a low weight [111], and the extension of their service life could increase their sustainability. In less sun-filled regions, the problem becomes that most sophisticated structures consume large amounts of electricity to regulate lighting and temperature [112]. In addition, current indoor production locations are frequently located far from consumer areas [111,114], raising food supply prices due to transportation and contributing to CO2 emissions. Urban agriculture using optimized greenhouses to reconcile increased food needs and urbanization has been proposed and implemented, for instance, in Montreal with the world’s largest urban rooftop greenhouse (https://montreal.lufa.com/, accessed on 20 September 2022) [115,116,117,118]. Innovative indoor systems such as vertical farming with multiple horizontal or vertical growing surfaces could provide a high production yield and close proximity of food supply to consumers while decreasing environmental consequences [119,120]. New growing systems such as aeroponic culture, an in-air water culture with nutrient-enriched spraying [121,122], or aquaponic culture, the growing of aquatic organisms with plants mainly fed by their wastes [123,124], would then facilitate the further development of indoor agriculture. Such soilless production can achieve higher and more consistent yields with less input [121,123]. Aquaponic systems have been elaborated mainly for leafy vegetables [125,126,127], and tomatoes in some cases [128], though assessing aquatic and plant species compatibility and providing optimal crop nutrient quantity remains challenging in this system [122]. In comparison, aeroponic systems enable a strict control of crop inputs and growing conditions, a greater yield in some crops, and they have been performed on a larger diversity of plant species while requiring less expertise [121,124,129,130,131,132]. However, further research should aim for a cost reduction of this system [124]. A sustainable urban production area could combine vertical farming systems with soilless production, all using non-fossil energy sources [133] (Figure 3). Only a few crop species are currently adapted for such an isolated system, and, to date, few life cycle cost analyses of urban greenhouses have been published. Thereby further research is needed to improve productivity and establish cost-effective indoor agrosystems [134,135].

3.2. High-Tech Indoor Agriculture

The optimization of indoor growing depends on precise environmental monitoring. Artificially controlled environments open the possibility of growing crops in any country, regardless of the climate. High-tech greenhouses enabled the Netherlands, a country with non-optimal weather for tomato or cucumber cultivation, to reach the highest production per hectare for the two species in the world in 2019 [2]. Various types of sensors and wireless technologies enable real-time control of the general greenhouse environment, such as temperature, humidity, solar radiation, substrate pH and irrigation [136,137]. Nanotechnologies applied to agriculture are also producing encouraging results for pest control [138], fertilization [139], plant health monitoring [140] and yield increase [141,142]. Algorithms have been developed to analyze the values reported by greenhouse sensors and to assist the farmer in regulating the growing parameters [143]. Deep learning and artificial intelligence (AI) are also increasingly being exploited to diagnose plant diseases [144], monitor crop growth and control fruit harvest [145]. While the idea of producing fruits and vegetables around the clock is appealing, the cost of production and environmental implications must be thoroughly examined. Some emerging technologies require hazardous base materials to manufacture and use. They can be also expensive to produce and energy intensive. Recycling them also adds new issues. Photovoltaic panels, for example, have a 25–30-year average lifespan and will be responsible for about 78 million tons of waste by 2050. Recycling the highest proportion of photovoltaic components, which are aluminum, silver, glass, copper, and rare metals (e.g., indium and gallium), although costly, is possible. However, from the recycling residues remain heavy metals (e.g., cadmium and lead) coming from batteries and solar cells, which then become hazardous waste, thereby being of major concern [146,147,148]. Another consideration is that little is known about the potential risks posed to plants [149], ecosystems or human health [138] when nanomaterials are released into the environment. According to current knowledge, nanoparticles can cause phytotoxicity due to crop uptake, translocation and accumulation into plant tissues and biotransformation of these highly reactive particles [139,150]. They can also decrease soil biomass [151,152,153], and the first safety margins are only being evaluated in some products [154]. As a result, comparative studies of the life cycle of these technologies and their impact on the environment are required to assess their utility.

3.3. New Crop Traits for Indoor Farming

Taking all of this into consideration, identifying plant needs for indoor growth seems to be a key point in enhancing productivity. Indeed, growing in restricted and isolated spaces requires new characteristics of fruits and vegetables. First, to grow plants in a smaller area, limiting crop size without lowering yield is necessary [120]. Second, rapid growth is desired to reduce the time to reach fruit maturity [120,155,156]. Third, in a controlled environment, plants should face fewer biotic and abiotic stresses but should still have optimized disease and pest resistance to avoid yield loss. The last standard for indoor crops relates to consumers. Growing fruits and vegetables with a limited shelf-life in an urban growing environment would shorten the commute from the production zone to the market, reducing waste [155]. Consumers also expect homogeneous product appearance (e.g., size, color, shape, firmness and absence of external defects) and taste [157,158,159], which would be more easily obtained inside a controlled environment [160,161].

4. Genetic Improvement of Cultivated Fruits and Vegetables

For decades, breeding and genetic engineering have been providing multiple possibilities for plant improvement, and current investigations could make vegetables and fruits more suitable for growth in future agriculture systems.

4.1. Improving Plant Defense Mechanisms

Plant defense mechanisms are the most extensively studied subject of plant biology (Figure 4a). The number of patents relating to improving plant resistance outnumbers those relating to other biological features (Figure 4b). Almost all transgenic plants cultivated today are modified for disease or herbicide resistance, owing to the economic costs associated with crop losses caused by pests and pathogens. These losses can be as high as 30% of the yield of some of the world’s most important crops [162]. Pesticide use, on the other hand, almost doubled between 1990 and 2018 [2]. Genetic resistance could be a leading solution for reducing chemicals in agriculture. Resistant plants could be developed by conventional breeding or biotechnological means. The most famous type of engineered resistance is Bt crops, producing the Bacillus thuringiensis toxin that is lethal to insect pests. Genome editing has also led to the development of effective resistance against powdery mildew [163] in tomatoes, potyviruses in cucumbers, and citrus canker [164]. Despite many breakthroughs, genetic resistance is often broken by emerging strains, highlighting the need for polygenic resistance.
Crop tolerance against abiotic stressors, such as extreme temperatures, flooding, drought and soil salinity [165], also needs to be developed. Thermo-tolerance has been obtained by regulating proteins (e.g., heat shock proteins) or using microRNA [166,167,168]. Transgenic plants such as tomatoes [169] and cabbage [170] with improved water absorption [170], leaf transpiration regulation or antioxidant enzyme levels [169] have demonstrated enhanced drought tolerance abilities. Similarly, salt stress tolerant vegetables [170,171] and fruits [172] have also been developed. The ability of a plant to cope with environmental variation, known as plasticity, is a trait that has not been well investigated in crop plants. Root plasticity has been improved in some species [173], but plasticity that extends to all plant organs still needs to be investigated. Given that climate change is expected to have an impact on plant disease resistance [174], it is instrumental to develop plants that are resilient both to biotic and abiotic stresses.

4.2. Improving Plant Nutrition Mechanisms

Improving the root system is important to enhance plant performance since root absorption capacity is vital for increasing nutrient and water intake (Figure 4c). Although increases in root hair biomass have been studied primarily in cereals, a correlation between increased root density and a higher yield was reported in some fruits and vegetables [175,176] so this trait needs further study. Stomates, which regulate water transpiration and gaseous exchange, also significantly impact water use efficiency and resistance to pathogenic bacteria [170,177,178]. Although it has been found that the acceleration of stomata opening and closing is correlated with increased water use efficiency and growth [177], research is mainly concerned with reducing stomate numbers or aperture to reduce transpiration and fight abiotic stresses [170,178]. Another interesting area in the field of agricultural engineering is the improvement in a crop’s photosynthetic capability. Photosynthesis is a chain of chemical reactions catalyzed by various enzymes and initiated by photosystem excitation. Improving the carbon dioxide (CO2) uptake by plants is currently being studied as a means of increasing energy conversion. It has been found that increasing the concentration of the most influential enzymes involved in controlling the CO2 flux, combined with a reduction in photorespiration, allows for higher CO2 assimilation [179]. In the model crop Nicotiana tabacum, an increase in the plant’s photosynthetic capacity resulted in a biomass increase of up to 37% [180]. Encouraging results were also reported in tomatoes [181] and lettuce [182]. Last but not least, plants with improved photosynthetic capabilities would also contribute to more carbon dioxide sequestration. Recent studies bring up the potential of enhancing crop–root relations to reduce greenhouse gas levels [183,184,185].

4.3. Growth Optimization for Space-Limited Environments

Semi-dwarf cereals have been developed for many years for lodging resistance [186], contributing to the Green Revolution. Fruit and vegetable plants could be dwarfed to better suit indoor farming (Figure 4c). Recently, Kwon et al. made a promising CRISPR-Cas9 gene edit in the tomato SELF PRUNING gene, responsible for short internode tomato plants. This mutant has a compact and short stature, rapid growth cycle and early flowering, making it suitable for indoor vertical farming [156]. A short stature and short life cycle characteristics were also obtained in a vine mutant [187], and comparable abilities have been investigated in melons [188], peanuts [189] and even in fruit tree species such as kiwi [190]. Currently, mainly leafy vegetables are grown indoors. More research is needed to see if new crops can be easily adapted. The elimination of possible secondary effects on the compacted plant must also be verified, such as reduced photosynthetic capacity [191] and increased pathogen development.

4.4. Improving Flowering and Fruit Set

Plant reproduction efficiency is another key parameter in improving crop productivity. A long flowering duration, which ideally should be independent of environmental conditions, the optimal quantity of flowers, and a high level of fertile flowers and fruit set are among the traits that have been investigated to improve fruit yields [192,193] (Figure 4c). For monoecious plants that develop separate female and male flowers, a positive correlation has been found between the number of staminate flowers and the fruit set yield. Consequently, controlling crop sex ratio is another major goal for optimizing fruit production in several species [194]. Another example of a flower-related trait impacting crop yield is flower fertility. Various factors can alter fertilization and lower the fruit set yield. Low pollen fertility or pollen germination [195] under adverse temperatures and incompatibility between pollen and pistil [196] are examples that reduce fruit set. Improving flower fertilization and fruit set under a wider range of temperatures can help achieve year-round cropping. However, flowering remains a complex mechanism that depends on numerous factors, such as plant nutrition, photoperiod and temperature. All of these factors must be considered when designing a plant with an increased fruit set.

4.5. Parthenocarpic Crops as a Solution for Both Outdoor and Indoor Growing

Parthenocarpy is the ability of a plant to produce fruits without ovule fertilization. Since pollinators and pollen are vulnerable to adverse weather conditions, both indoor and outdoor farming would benefit from parthenocarpic plants [197,198,199,200]. In particular, parthenocarpic cultivars could be a great choice for indoor farming systems because greenhouses are often insect-proof. Parthenocarpic fruit development could be induced by the exogenous application of hormonal treatments (e.g., N-(2-chloro-4-pyridyl)-N’-phenylurea (CPPU) [201,202] and gibberellic acids (GA) [201,203]). However, such practices may be unwelcome in an era when reducing the use of chemicals in agriculture is a worldwide objective. Breeding and genomic knowledge have enabled the selection of parthenocarpic fruits and vegetables without exogenous treatments, and some of these products are currently available on the food market (Table 1). Species such as bananas naturally exhibit obligatory parthenocarpy, and varieties such as Cavendish [204] were originally selected from parthenocarpic plants only capable of vegetative propagation. Other crops exhibit facultative parthenocarpy, which allows both sexual reproduction and parthenocarpic fruit set, in absence of ovule fertilization. In outdoor agriculture, facultative parthenocarpy would ensure a stable yield in poor climate conditions and remain compatible with insect pollination. Induced mutations leading to parthenocarpy have been identified (e.g., mutation of pat genes in tomatoes) [205]. Transgenic cultivars have also been created to optimize parthenocarpic performances (Table 1). For instance, DefH9-iaaM gene fusion, which induces parthenocarpy via auxin promotion, has been used in strawberry, raspberry [206], eggplant [207] and tomato [208] plants. Positive characteristics have also been reported in parthenocarpic crops. A yield increase was correlated with parthenocarpic abilities in several species, both indoor and outdoor [206,207,209]. Firmer fruits [210] and earlier fruit production [211] were also reported to be qualities induced by parthenocarpy. Additionally, parthenocarpic tomatoes have even been shown to enhance fruit set rates under extreme temperatures. However, issues such as fruit malformation [212,213] or reduction of fruit size and weight [214,215] have been also reported and should be addressed in future works. The use of parthenocarpic crops, which do not require chemicals, would greatly benefit both outdoor and indoor agriculture. The development of more commercial parthenocarpic varieties in the future is expected.

5. Conclusions

As described above, a combination of the various technical and genomic methods currently available is necessary in order to seriously develop sustainable agriculture. Developing indoor production systems that do not encroach on habitable lands and editing leader alleles enhancing yield and resilience will likely contribute to the required sustainability. Specifically, the ideal fruit crop for future indoor agricultural endeavors should include characteristics such as a rapid life cycle to improve productivity per year, a short stature to fit in space-limited growing areas, an efficient nutrition system to lower chemical inputs, and an optimized flowering and fruit set to ensure a high fruit yield. As an example, some parthenocarpic cucumber varieties already have a high yield of marketable fruits and low side-shoot growing, which reduces plant width and the need for pruning (e.g., Corinto [213]). Cucumbers also have a naturally short life cycle of about 50 to 90 days [226]. In this regard, the cucumber plant can serve as a model crop for fruit plant adaptation to indoor breeding. For field crops, the challenge of sustainability is more complex. Outdoor farming needs to reduce chemical inputs while maintaining high productivity. Establishing soil management means to prevent agricultural land from becoming poorly productive and improving crop resilience to cope with the deterioration of growing conditions that will only be exacerbated by global warming are other major challenges. Outdoor sustainable agriculture cannot exist without investigating crops’ ecological functions. Although much is known regarding the impact of agricultural systems on ecosystems, little is known about how crops’ ecological functions can be identified and applied to develop sustainable agriculture. In this regard, we have an open field of research that needs to be investigated. Since our review considered agricultural systems globally, more specific work is also required to identify regionalized issues and solutions for each agricultural system. Competition for land use between livestock, bioresources and crop production should also be studied to consider the needs of all agricultural systems.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.B. (Abdelhafid Bendahmane); investigation, L.M.; writing—original draft preparation, L.M.; writing—review and editing, A.B. (Abdelhafid Bendahmane), A.B. (Adnane Boualem), J.C. and L.M.; supervision, A.B. (Abdelhafid Bendahmane), A.B. (Adnane Boualem) and J.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by CIFRE grant N° 2019/1294 and by the Inititiative d’Excellence Paris-Saclay, grant Lidex-3P, ANR-11-IDEX-0003-02.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We thank Benoît Gorguet for his advice and for reviewing the writing. With thanks to the Academic Writing Center, Université Paris-Saclay for proofreading this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hansen, J.; Sato, M.; Ruedy, R. Perception of climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, E2415–E2423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. FAO. Available online: https://www.fao.org/faostat/fr/#data/ET (accessed on 27 October 2021).
  3. Sévellec, F.; Drijfhout, S.S. A novel probabilistic forecast system predicting anomalously warm 2018–2022 reinforcing the long-term global warming trend. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 3024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Arnell, N.W.; Gosling, S.N. The impacts of climate change on river flood risk at the global scale. Clim. Chang. 2016, 134, 387–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Potts, S.G.; Biesmeijer, J.C.; Kremen, C.; Neumann, P.; Schweiger, O.; Kunin, W.E. Global pollinator declines: Trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2010, 25, 345–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hallmann, C.A.; Ssymank, A.; Sorg, M.; de Kroon, H.; Jongejans, E. Insect biomass decline scaled to species diversity: General patterns derived from a hoverfly community. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2021, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Angel, S.; Blei, A.M.; Parent, J.; Lamson-Hall, P.; Galarza Sánchez, N. Atlas of Urban Expansion—2016 Edition, Volume 1: Areas and Densities; New York University: New York, NY, USA; UN-Habitat: Nairobi, Kenya; Lincoln Institute of Land Policy: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  8. United Nations; Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Population Division. In World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2019; ISBN 978-92-1-148316-1. [Google Scholar]
  9. Ritchie, H.; Roser, M. Land Use. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use (accessed on 11 March 2021).
  10. Buckley, L.B.; Huey, R.B. Temperature extremes: Geographic patterns, recent changes, and implications for organismal vulnerabilities. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2016, 22, 3829–3842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. King, M.; Altdorff, D.; Li, P.; Galagedara, L.; Holden, J.; Unc, A. Northward shift of the agricultural climate zone under 21st-century global climate change. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 7904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Seguin, B. Adaptation des systèmes de production agricole au changement climatique. C. R. Geosci. 2003, 335, 569–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Rising, J.; Devineni, N. Crop switching reduces agricultural losses from climate change in the United States by half under RCP 8.5. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 4991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Davis, K.F.; Rulli, M.C.; Seveso, A.; D’Odorico, P. Increased food production and reduced water use through optimized crop distribution. Nat. Geosci. 2017, 10, 919–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Dias, C.; Mendes, L. Protected Designation of Origin (PDO), Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) and Traditional Speciality Guaranteed (TSG): A bibiliometric analysis. Food Res. Int. Ott. Ont. 2018, 103, 492–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Mosedale, J.R.; Abernethy, K.E.; Smart, R.E.; Wilson, R.J.; Maclean, I.M.D. Climate change impacts and adaptive strategies: Lessons from the grapevine. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2016, 22, 3814–3828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Yue, Y.; Zhang, P.; Shang, Y. The potential global distribution and dynamics of wheat under multiple climate change scenarios. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 688, 1308–1318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Ray, D.K.; Gerber, J.S.; MacDonald, G.K.; West, P.C. Climate variation explains a third of global crop yield variability. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 5989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Shaffer, J.A.; Roth, C.L.; Mushet, D.M. Modeling effects of crop production, energy development and conservation-grassland loss on avian habitat. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0198382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  20. Nerlekar, A.N.; Veldman, J.W. High plant diversity and slow assembly of old-growth grasslands. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 18550–18556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Rathmann, R.; Szklo, A.; Schaeffer, R. Land use competition for production of food and liquid biofuels: An analysis of the arguments in the current debate. Renew. Energy 2010, 35, 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Brooker, R.W.; Bennett, A.E.; Cong, W.-F.; Daniell, T.J.; George, T.S.; Hallett, P.D.; Hawes, C.; Iannetta, P.P.M.; Jones, H.G.; Karley, A.J.; et al. Improving intercropping: A synthesis of research in agronomy, plant physiology and ecology. New Phytol. 2015, 206, 107–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Postma, J.A.; Lynch, J.P. Complementarity in root architecture for nutrient uptake in ancient maize/bean and maize/bean/squash polycultures. Ann. Bot. 2012, 110, 521–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Guo, J.; Wang, G.; Wu, Y.; Shi, Y.; Feng, Y.; Cao, F. Ginkgo agroforestry practices alter the fungal community structures at different soil depths in Eastern China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2019, 26, 21253–21263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Abbas, F.; Hammad, H.M.; Fahad, S.; Cerdà, A.; Rizwan, M.; Farhad, W.; Ehsan, S.; Bakhat, H.F. Agroforestry: A sustainable environmental practice for carbon sequestration under the climate change scenarios—A review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2017, 24, 11177–11191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Caron, B.O.; Pinheiro, M.V.M.; Korcelski, C.; Schwerz, F.; Elli, E.F.; Sgarbossa, J.; Tibolla, L.B. Agroforestry systems and understory harvest management: The impact on growth and productivity of dual-purpose wheat. An. Acad. Bras. Cienc. 2019, 91, e20180667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Potts, S.G. The Assessment Report on Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production: Summary for Policymakers; Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Bonn, Germany, 2016; ISBN 978-92-807-3568-0. [Google Scholar]
  28. Tschoeke, P.H.; Oliveira, E.E.; Dalcin, M.S.; Silveira-Tschoeke, M.C.A.C.; Sarmento, R.A.; Santos, G.R. Botanical and synthetic pesticides alter the flower visitation rates of pollinator bees in Neotropical melon fields. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 251, 591–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Miller-Rushing, A.J.; Primack, R.B. Global Warming and Flowering Times in Thoreau’s Concord: A Community Perspective. Ecology 2008, 89, 332–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Rafferty, N.E.; Ives, A.R. Pollinator effectiveness varies with experimental shifts in flowering time. Ecology 2012, 93, 803–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Rader, R.; Cunningham, S.A.; Howlett, B.G.; Inouye, D.W. Non-Bee Insects as Visitors and Pollinators of Crops: Biology, Ecology, and Management. Annu. Rev. Èntomol. 2020, 65, 391–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Hoehn, P.; Tscharntke, T.; Tylianakis, J.M.; Steffan-Dewenter, I. Functional group diversity of bee pollinators increases crop yield. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2008, 275, 2283–2291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Garibaldi, L.A.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Winfree, R.; Aizen, M.A.; Bommarco, R.; Cunningham, S.A.; Kremen, C.; Carvalheiro, L.G.; Harder, L.D.; Afik, O.; et al. Wild Pollinators Enhance Fruit Set of Crops Regardless of Honey Bee Abundance. Science 2013, 339, 1608–1611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Woodcock, B.A.; Garratt, M.P.D.; Powney, G.D.; Shaw, R.F.; Osborne, J.L.; Soroka, J.; Lindström, S.A.M.; Stanley, D.; Ouvrard, P.; Edwards, M.E.; et al. Meta-analysis reveals that pollinator functional diversity and abundance enhance crop pollination and yield. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 1481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Dainese, M.; Martin, E.A.; Aizen, M.A.; Albrecht, M.; Bartomeus, I.; Bommarco, R.; Carvalheiro, L.G.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Gagic, V.; Garibaldi, L.A.; et al. A global synthesis reveals biodiversity-mediated benefits for crop production. Sci. Adv. 2019, 5, eaax0121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Garibaldi, L.A.; Sáez, A.; Aizen, M.A.; Fijen, T.; Bartomeus, I. Crop pollination management needs flower-visitor monitoring and target values. J. Appl. Ecol. 2020, 57, 664–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Breeze, T.D.; Vaissière, B.E.; Bommarco, R.; Petanidou, T.; Seraphides, N.; Kozák, L.; Scheper, J.; Biesmeijer, J.C.; Kleijn, D.; Gyldenkaerne, S.; et al. Agricultural Policies Exacerbate Honeybee Pollination Service Supply-Demand Mismatches Across Europe. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e82996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Smith, G.W.; Debinski, D.M.; Scavo, N.A.; Lange, C.J.; Delaney, J.T.; Moranz, R.A.; Miller, J.R.; Engle, D.M.; Toth, A.L. Bee Abundance and Nutritional Status in Relation to Grassland Management Practices in an Agricultural Landscape. Environ. Èntomol. 2016, 45, 338–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Kovács-Hostyánszki, A.; Espíndola, A.; Vanbergen, A.J.; Settele, J.; Kremen, C.; Dicks, L.V. Ecological intensification to mitigate impacts of conventional intensive land use on pollinators and pollination. Ecol. Lett. 2017, 20, 673–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. Potts, S.G.; Imperatriz-Fonseca, V.; Ngo, H.T.; Aizen, M.A.; Biesmeijer, J.C.; Breeze, T.D.; Dicks, L.V.; Garibaldi, L.A.; Hill, R.; Settele, J.; et al. Safeguarding pollinators and their values to human well-being. Nature 2016, 540, 220–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  41. Fierer, N. Embracing the unknown: Disentangling the complexities of the soil microbiome. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2017, 15, 579–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Corzo Remigio, A.; Chaney, R.L.; Baker, A.J.M.; Edraki, M.; Erskine, P.D.; Echevarria, G.; van der Ent, A. Phytoextraction of high value elements and contaminants from mining and mineral wastes: Opportunities and limitations. Plant Soil 2020, 449, 11–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Yang, X.; Bento, C.P.M.; Chen, H.; Zhang, H.; Xue, S.; Lwanga, E.H.; Zomer, P.; Ritsema, C.J.; Geissen, V. Influence of microplastic addition on glyphosate decay and soil microbial activities in Chinese loess soil. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 242, 338–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bhargava, A.; Carmona, F.F.; Bhargava, M.; Srivastava, S. Approaches for enhanced phytoextraction of heavy metals. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 105, 103–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Martinez, R.E.; Sharma, P.; Kappler, A. Surface binding site analysis of Ca2+-homoionized clay–humic acid complexes. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2010, 352, 526–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Xu, Q.; Duan, D.; Cai, Q.; Shi, J. Influence of Humic Acid on Pb Uptake and Accumulation in Tea Plants. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2018, 66, 12327–12334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Paleckiene, R.; Navikaite, R.; Slinksiene, R. Peat as a Raw Material for Plant Nutrients and Humic Substances. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ekin, Z. Integrated Use of Humic Acid and Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria to Ensure Higher Potato Productivity in Sustainable Agriculture. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Yang, F.; Antonietti, M. Artificial Humic Acids: Sustainable Materials against Climate Change. Adv. Sci. 2020, 7, 1902992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  50. Jindo, K.; Olivares, F.L.; da Paixao Malcher, D.J.; Angel Sánchez-Monedero, M.; Kempenaar, C.; Canellas, L.P. From Lab to Field: Role of Humic Substances Under Open-Field and Greenhouse Conditions as Biostimulant and Biocontrol Agent. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Jiang, Z.; Lian, F.; Wang, Z.; Xing, B. The role of biochars in sustainable crop production and soil resiliency. J. Exp. Bot. 2020, 71, 520–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Amoah-Antwi, C.; Kwiatkowska-Malina, J.; Thornton, S.F.; Fenton, O.; Malina, G.; Szara, E. Restoration of soil quality using biochar and brown coal waste: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 722, 137852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Akhtar, S.S.; Li, G.; Andersen, M.N.; Liu, F. Biochar enhances yield and quality of tomato under reduced irrigation. Agric. Water Manag. 2014, 138, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. He, Z.; Zhang, M.; Zhao, A.; Olanya, O.M.; Larkin, R.P.; Honeycutt, C.W. Quantity and Nature of Water-Extractable Organic Matter from Sandy Loam Soils with Potato Cropping Management. Agric. Environ. Lett. 2016, 1, 160023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Guimarães Júnnyor, W.D.S.; Diserens, E.; De Maria, I.C.; Araujo-Junior, C.F.; Farhate, C.V.V.; de Souza, Z.M. Prediction of soil stresses and compaction due to agricultural machines in sugarcane cultivation systems with and without crop rotation. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 681, 424–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Jian, J.; Du, X.; Stewart, R.D. Quantifying cover crop effects on soil health and productivity. Data Brief 2020, 29, 105376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Kim, N.; Zabaloy, M.C.; Guan, K.; Villamil, M.B. Do cover crops benefit soil microbiome? A meta-analysis of current research. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2020, 142, 107701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Palm, C.; Blanco-Canqui, H.; DeClerck, F.; Gatere, L.; Grace, P. Conservation agriculture and ecosystem services: An overview. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014, 187, 87–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Kidd, P.; Mench, M.; Álvarez-López, V.; Bert, V.; Dimitriou, I.; Friesl-Hanl, W.; Herzig, R.; Olga Janssen, J.; Kolbas, A.; Müller, I.; et al. Agronomic Practices for Improving Gentle Remediation of Trace Element-Contaminated Soils. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2015, 17, 1005–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  60. Henneron, L.; Bernard, L.; Hedde, M.; Pelosi, C.; Villenave, C.; Chenu, C.; Bertrand, M.; Girardin, C.; Blanchart, E. Fourteen years of evidence for positive effects of conservation agriculture and organic farming on soil life. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 169–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Javaria, S.; Khan, M.Q. Impact of integrated nutrient management on tomato yield quality and soil environment. J. Plant Nutr. 2010, 34, 140–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kumari, R.; Kundu, M.; Das, A.; Rakshit, R.; Sahay, S.; Sengupta, S.; Ahmad, M.F. Long-Term Integrated Nutrient Management Improves Carbon Stock and Fruit Yield in a Subtropical Mango (Mangifera indica L.) Orchard. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2020, 20, 725–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Schrama, M.; de Haan, J.J.; Kroonen, M.; Verstegen, H.; Van der Putten, W.H. Crop yield gap and stability in organic and conventional farming systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 256, 123–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Bergström, L.; Kirchmann, H. Are the claimed benefits of organic agriculture justified? Nat. Plants 2016, 2, 16099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Muller, A.; Schader, C.; Scialabba, N.E.-H.; Brüggemann, J.; Isensee, A.; Erb, K.-H.; Smith, P.; Klocke, P.; Leiber, F.; Stolze, M.; et al. Strategies for feeding the world more sustainably with organic agriculture. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Connor, D.J. Organically grown crops do not a cropping system make and nor can organic agriculture nearly feed the world. Field Crop. Res. 2013, 144, 145–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Gopal, M.; Gupta, A. Building plant microbiome vault: A future biotechnological resource. Symbiosis 2019, 77, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Rouphael, Y.; Franken, P.; Schneider, C.; Schwarz, D.; Giovannetti, M.; Agnolucci, M.; De Pascale, S.; Bonini, P.; Colla, G. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi act as biostimulants in horticultural crops. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 196, 91–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Wang, L.; Li, X. Steering soil microbiome to enhance soil system resilience. Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 2019, 45, 743–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Schilling, J.; Hertig, E.; Tramblay, Y.; Scheffran, J. Climate change vulnerability, water resources and social implications in North Africa. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2020, 20, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Hänsel, S.; Ustrnul, Z.; Łupikasza, E.; Skalak, P. Assessing seasonal drought variations and trends over Central Europe. Adv. Water Resour. 2019, 127, 53–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Pfleiderer, P.; Schleussner, C.-F.; Kornhuber, K.; Coumou, D. Summer weather becomes more persistent in a 2 °C world. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2019, 9, 666–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Leng, G.; Tang, Q.; Rayburg, S. Climate change impacts on meteorological, agricultural and hydrological droughts in China. Glob. Planet. Chang. 2015, 126, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Konapala, G.; Mishra, A.K.; Wada, Y.; Mann, M.E. Climate change will affect global water availability through compounding changes in seasonal precipitation and evaporation. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 3044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Marengo, J.A.; Torres, R.R.; Alves, L.M. Drought in Northeast Brazil—Past, present, and future. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2017, 129, 1189–1200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Gbode, I.E.; Diro, G.T.; Intsiful, J.D.; Dudhia, J. Current Conditions and Projected Changes in Crop Water Demand, Irrigation Requirement, and Water Availability over West Africa. Atmosphere 2022, 13, 1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Crop Water Demand—European Environment Agency. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/water-requirement-2/assessment (accessed on 20 September 2022).
  78. Zhou, T.; Wu, P.; Sun, S.; Li, X.; Wang, Y.; Luan, X. Impact of Future Climate Change on Regional Crop Water Requirement—A Case Study of Hetao Irrigation District, China. Water 2017, 9, 429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Daryanto, S.; Wang, L.; Jacinthe, P.-A. Global Synthesis of Drought Effects on Food Legume Production. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0127401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Wein, A.; Mitchell, D.; Peters, J.; Rowden, J.; Tran, J.; Corsi, A.; Dinitz, L. Agricultural Damages and Losses from ARkStorm Scenario Flooding in California. Nat. Hazards Rev. 2016, 17, 15001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Wang, X.; Liu, Z.; Chen, H. Investigating Flood Impact on Crop Production under a Comprehensive and Spatially Explicit Risk Evaluation Framework. Agriculture 2022, 12, 484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Li, J.; Fei, L.; Li, S.; Xue, C.; Shi, Z.; Hinkelmann, R. Development of “water-suitable” agriculture based on a statistical analysis of factors affecting irrigation water demand. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 744, 140986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Rosa, L. Adapting agriculture to climate change via sustainable irrigation: Biophysical potentials and feedbacks. Environ. Res. Lett. 2022, 17, 063008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Popkin, B.M.; D’Anci, K.E.; Rosenberg, I.H. Water, hydration, and health: Nutrition Reviews©, Vol. 68, No. 8. Nutr. Rev. 2010, 68, 439–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Parkash, V.; Singh, S. A Review on Potential Plant-Based Water Stress Indicators for Vegetable Crops. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Saadi, S.; Todorovic, M.; Tanasijevic, L.; Pereira, L.S.; Pizzigalli, C.; Lionello, P. Climate change and Mediterranean agriculture: Impacts on winter wheat and tomato crop evapotranspiration, irrigation requirements and yield. Agric. Water Manag. 2015, 147, 103–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Elliott, J.; Deryng, D.; Müller, C.; Frieler, K.; Konzmann, M.; Gerten, D.; Glotter, M.; Flörke, M.; Wada, Y.; Best, N.; et al. Constraints and potentials of future irrigation water availability on agricultural production under climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 3239–3244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Hatfield, J.L.; Dold, C. Water-Use Efficiency: Advances and Challenges in a Changing Climate. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Yu, C.; Huang, X.; Chen, H.; Godfray, H.C.J.; Wright, J.S.; Hall, J.W.; Gong, P.; Ni, S.; Qiao, S.; Huang, G.; et al. Managing nitrogen to restore water quality in China. Nature 2019, 567, 516–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Quist-Jensen, C.A.; Macedonio, F.; Drioli, E. Membrane technology for water production in agricultura: Desalina-tion and wastewater reuse. Desalination 2015, 364, 17–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Libutti, A.; Gatta, G.; Gagliardi, A.; Vergine, P.; Pollice, A.; Beneduce, L.; Disciglio, G.; Tarantino, E. Agro-industrial wastewater reuse for irrigation of a vegetable crop succession under Mediterranean conditions. Agric. Water Manag. 2018, 196, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Becerra-Castro, C.; Lopes, A.R.; Vaz-Moreira, I.; Silva, E.F.; Manaia, C.M.; Nunes, O.C. Wastewater reuse in irrigation: A microbiological perspective on implications in soil fertility and human and environmental health. Environ. Int. 2015, 75, 117–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Mandal, S.; Vema, V.K.; Kurian, C.; Sudheer, K.P. Improving the crop productivity in rainfed areas with water harvesting structures and deficit irrigation strategies. J. Hydrol. 2020, 586, 124818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Assouline, S. A Simple Method to Design Irrigation Rate and Duration and Improve Water Use Efficiency. Water Resour. Res. 2019, 55, 6295–6301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Schneider, F.; Don, A.; Hennings, I.; Schmittmann, O.; Seidel, S.J. The effect of deep tillage on crop yield—What do we really know? Soil Tillage Res. 2017, 174, 193–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Medrano, H.; Tomás, M.; Martorell, S.; Escalona, J.-M.; Pou, A.; Fuentes, S.; Flexas, J.; Bota, J. Improving water use efficiency of vineyards in semi-arid regions. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 499–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Kumar, P.; Rouphael, Y.; Cardarelli, M.; Colla, G. Vegetable Grafting as a Tool to Improve Drought Resistance and Water Use Efficiency. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  98. Schwarz, D.; Öztekin, G.B.; Tüzel, Y.; Brückner, B.; Krumbein, A. Rootstocks can enhance tomato growth and quality characteristics at low potassium supply. Sci. Hortic. 2013, 149, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Puy, A.; Borgonovo, E.; Lo Piano, S.; Levin, S.A.; Saltelli, A. Irrigated areas drive irrigation water withdrawals. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 4525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Chai, Q.; Gan, Y.; Zhao, C.; Xu, H.-L.; Waskom, R.M.; Niu, Y.; Siddique, K.H.M. Regulated deficit irrigation for crop production under drought stress. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 36, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Fereres, E.; Soriano, M.A. Deficit irrigation for reducing agricultural water use. J. Exp. Bot. 2006, 58, 147–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Du, T.; Kang, S.; Zhang, J.; Davies, W.J. Deficit irrigation and sustainable water-resource strategies in agriculture for China’s food security. J. Exp. Bot. 2015, 66, 2253–2269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Sharma, S.P.; Leskovar, D.I.; Crosby, K.M.; Volder, A.; Ibrahim, A.M.H. Root growth, yield, and fruit quality responses of reticulatus and inodorus melons (Cucumis melo L.) to deficit subsurface drip irrigation. Agric. Water Manag. 2014, 136, 75–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Afzaal, H.; Farooque, A.A.; Abbas, F.; Acharya, B.; Esau, T. Precision Irrigation Strategies for Sustainable Water Budgeting of Potato Crop in Prince Edward Island. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. Ahmad, A.; Khan, S. Water and Energy Scarcity for Agriculture: Is Irrigation Modernization the Answer? Irrig. Drain. 2017, 66, 34–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Gunarathna, M.H.J.P.; Sakai, K.; Nakandakari, T.; Kazuro, M.; Onodera, T.; Kaneshiro, H.; Uehara, H.; Wakasugi, K. Optimized Subsurface Irrigation System (OPSIS): Beyond Traditional Subsurface Irrigation. Water 2017, 9, 599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Kashyap, P.K.; Kumar, S.; Jaiswal, A.; Prasad, M.; Gandomi, A.H. Towards Precision Agriculture: IoT-Enabled Intelligent Irrigation Systems Using Deep Learning Neural Network. IEEE Sens. J. 2021, 21, 17479–17491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Bwambale, E.; Abagale, F.K.; Anornu, G.K. Smart irrigation monitoring and control strategies for improving water use efficiency in precision agriculture: A review. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 260, 107324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Adeyemi, O.; Grove, I.; Peets, S.; Norton, T. Advanced Monitoring and Management Systems for Improving Sustainability in Precision Irrigation. Sustainability 2017, 9, 353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Sabir, N.; Singh, B. Protected Cultivation of Vegetables in Global Arena: A Review. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 2013, 83, 123–135. [Google Scholar]
  111. Papasolomontos, A.; Baudoin, W.; Lutaladio, N.; Castilla, N.; Baeza, E.; Montero, J.I.; Teitel, M.; Lopez, J.C.; Kacira, M.; Kittas, C.; et al. Good Agricultural Practices for Greenhouse Vegetable Crops Principles for Mediterranean Climate Areas; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2013; ISBN 978-92-5-107649-1. [Google Scholar]
  112. Golzar, F.; Heeren, N.; Hellweg, S.; Roshandel, R. A comparative study on the environmental impact of greenhouses: A probabilistic approach. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 675, 560–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Parlato, M.C.M.; Valenti, F.; Porto, S.M. Covering plastic films in greenhouses system: A GIS-based model to improve post use suistainable management. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 263, 110389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Huang, S. Global Trade Patterns in Fruits and Vegetables. SSRN Electron. J. 2004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  115. Orsini, F.; Kahane, R.; Nono-Womdim, R.; Gianquinto, G. Urban agriculture in the developing world: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 33, 695–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  116. Muñoz-Liesa, J.; Toboso-Chavero, S.; Mendoza Beltran, A.; Cuerva, E.; Gallo, E.; Gassó-Domingo, S.; Josa, A. Building-integrated agriculture: Are we shifting environmental impacts? An environmental assessment and structural improvement of urban greenhouses. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 169, 105526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Jing, R.; Hastings, A.; Guo, M. Sustainable Design of Urban Rooftop Food-Energy-Land Nexus. iScience 2020, 23, 101743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Gómez, C.; Currey, C.J.; Dickson, R.W.; Kim, H.-J.; Hernández, R.; Sabeh, N.C.; Raudales, R.E.; Brumfield, R.G.; Laury-Shaw, A.; Wilke, A.K.; et al. Controlled Environment Food Production for Urban Agriculture. HortScience 2019, 54, 1448–1458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Benke, K.; Tomkins, B. Future food-production systems: Vertical farming and controlled-environment agriculture. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2017, 13, 13–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  120. Beacham, A.M.; Vickers, L.H.; Monaghan, J.M. Vertical farming: A summary of approaches to growing skywards. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2019, 94, 277–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Tunio, M.H.; Gao, J.; Shaikh, S.A.; Lakhiar, I.A.; Qureshi, W.A.; Solangi, K.A.; Chandio, F.A. Potato production in aeroponics: An emerging food growing system in sustainable agriculture forfood security. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2020, 80, 118–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  122. Yep, B.; Zheng, Y. Aquaponic trends and challenges—A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 228, 1586–1599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Bailey, D.S.; Ferrarezi, R.S. Valuation of vegetable crops produced in the UVI Commercial Aquaponic System. Aquac. Rep. 2017, 7, 77–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Lakhiar, I.A.; Gao, J.; Syed, T.N.; Chandio, F.A.; Buttar, N.A. Modern plant cultivation technologies in agriculture under controlled environment: A review on aeroponics. J. Plant Interact. 2018, 13, 338–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  125. Thomas, R.M.; Verma, A.K.; Prakash, C.; Krishna, H.; Prakash, S.; Kumar, A. Utilization of Inland saline underground water for bio-integration of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) and spinach (Spinacia oleracea). Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 222, 154–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Monsees, H.; Suhl, J.; Paul, M.; Kloas, W.; Dannehl, D.; Würtz, S. Lettuce (Lactuca sativa, variety Salanova) production in decoupled aquaponic systems: Same yield and similar quality as in conventional hydroponic systems but drastically reduced greenhouse gas emissions by saving inorganic fertilizer. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0218368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  127. Pérez-Urrestarazu, L.; Lobillo-Eguíbar, J.; Fernández-Cañero, R.; Fernández-Cabanás, V.M. Suitability and optimization of FAO’s small-scale aquaponics systems for joint production of lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and fish (Carassius auratus). Aquac. Eng. 2019, 85, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Delaide, B.; Teerlinck, S.; Decombel, A.; Bleyaert, P. Effect of wastewater from a pikeperch (Sander lucioperca L.) recirculated aquaculture system on hydroponic tomato production and quality. Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 226, 5814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Eldridge, B.M.; Manzoni, L.R.; Graham, C.A.; Rodgers, B.; Farmer, J.R.; Dodd, A.N. Getting to the roots of aeroponic indoor farming. New Phytol. 2020, 228, 1183–1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Ferrini, F.; Fraternale, D.; Donati Zeppa, S.; Verardo, G.; Gorassini, A.; Carrabs, V.; Albertini, M.C.; Sestili, P. Yield, Characterization, and Possible Exploitation of Cannabis Sativa L. Roots Grown under Aeroponics Cultivation. Molecules 2021, 26, 4889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Li, Q.; Li, X.; Tang, B.; Gu, M. Growth Responses and Root Characteristics of Lettuce Grown in Aeroponics, Hydroponics, and Substrate Culture. Horticulturae 2018, 4, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  132. Chandra, S.; Khan, S.; Avula, B.; Lata, H.; Yang, M.H.; ElSohly, M.A.; Khan, I.A. Assessment of Total Phenolic and Flavonoid Content, Antioxidant Properties, and Yield of Aeroponically and Conventionally Grown Leafy Vegetables and Fruit Crops: A Comparative Study. Evid.-Based Complement. Altern. Med. ECAM 2014, 2014, 253875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  133. Liu, C.-H.; Ay, C.; Kan, J.-C.; Lee, M.-T. The Effect of Radiative Cooling on Reducing the Temperature of Greenhouses. Mater. Basel Switz. 2018, 11, 1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  134. Peña, A.; Rovira-Val, M.R.; Mendoza, J.M.F. Life cycle cost analysis of tomato production in innovative urban agriculture systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 367, 133037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Sanjuan-Delmás, D.; Llorach-Massana, P.; Nadal, A.; Ercilla-Montserrat, M.; Muñoz, P.; Ignacio Montero, J.; Josa, A.; Gabarrell, X.; Rieradevall, J. Environmental assessment of an integrated rooftop greenhouse for food production in cities. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 177, 326–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  136. Li, X.; Cheng, X.; Yan, K.; Gong, P. A Monitoring System for Vegetable Greenhouses based on a Wireless Sensor Network. Sensors 2010, 10, 8963–8980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Liang, M.-H.; He, Y.-F.; Chen, L.-J.; Du, S.-F. Greenhouse environment dynamic monitoring system based on WIFI. IFAC-Pap. 2018, 51, 736–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Zhao, X.; Cui, H.; Wang, Y.; Sun, C.; Cui, B.; Zeng, Z. Development Strategies and Prospects of Nano-based Smart Pesticide Formulation. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2018, 66, 6504–6512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Zulfiqar, F.; Navarro, M.; Ashraf, M.; Akram, N.A.; Munné-Bosch, S. Nanofertilizer use for sustainable agriculture: Advantages and limitations. Plant Sci. 2019, 289, 110270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Giraldo, J.P.; Wu, H.; Newkirk, G.M.; Kruss, S. Nanobiotechnology approaches for engineering smart plant sensors. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2019, 14, 541–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  141. Zahedi, S.M.; Karimi, M.; Teixeira Da Silva, J.A. The use of nanotechnology to increase quality and yield of fruit crops. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2019, 100, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Fu, L.; Wang, Z.; Dhankher, O.P.; Xing, B. Nanotechnology as a new sustainable approach for controlling crop diseases and increasing agricultural production. J. Exp. Bot. 2020, 71, 507–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Hemming, S.; De Zwart, F.; Elings, A.; Petropoulou, A.; Righini, I. Cherry Tomato Production in Intelligent Greenhouses—Sensors and AI for Control of Climate, Irrigation, Crop Yield, and Quality. Sensors 2020, 20, 6430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Too, E.C.; Yujian, L.; Njuki, S.; Yingchun, L. A comparative study of fine-tuning deep learning models for plant disease identification. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2019, 161, 272–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Zheng, Y.-Y.; Kong, J.-L.; Jin, X.-B.; Wang, X.-Y.; Su, T.-L.; Zuo, M. CropDeep: The Crop Vision Dataset for Deep-Learning-Based Classification and Detection in Precision Agriculture. Sensors 2019, 19, 1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  146. Xu, Y.; Li, J.; Tan, Q.; Peters, A.L.; Yang, C. Global status of recycling waste solar panels: A review. Waste Manag. 2018, 75, 450–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Chowdhury, M.S.; Rahman, K.S.; Chowdhury, T.; Nuthammachot, N.; Techato, K.; Akhtaruzzaman, M.; Tiong, S.K.; Sopian, K.; Amin, N. An overview of solar photovoltaic panels’ end-of-life material recycling. Energy Strat. Rev. 2020, 27, 100431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Tawalbeh, M.; Al-Othman, A.; Kafiah, F.; Abdelsalam, E.; Almomani, F.; Alkasrawi, M. Environmental impacts of solar photovoltaic systems: A critical review of recent progress and future outlook. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 759, 143528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  149. Hossain, Z.; Yasmeen, F.; Komatsu, S. Nanoparticles: Synthesis, Morphophysiological Effects, and Proteomic Responses of Crop Plants. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 3056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  150. Kranjc, E.; Drobne, D. Nanomaterials in Plants: A Review of Hazard and Applications in the Agri-Food Sector. Nanomater. Basel Switz. 2019, 9, 1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  151. Rajput, V.D.; Minkina, T.; Sushkova, S.; Tsitsuashvili, V.; Mandzhieva, S.; Gorovtsov, A.; Nevidomskyaya, D.; Gromakova, N. Effect of nanoparticles on crops and soil microbial communities. J. Soils Sediments 2018, 18, 2179–2187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Zhao, L.; Zhang, H.; White, J.C.; Chen, X.; Li, H.; Qu, X.; Ji, R. Metabolomics reveals that engineered nanomaterial exposure in soil alters both soil rhizosphere metabolite profiles and maize metabolic pathways. Environ. Sci. Nano 2019, 6, 1716–1727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Zhang, H.; Huang, M.; Zhang, W.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.L.; White, J.C.; Ji, R.; Zhao, L. Silver Nanoparticles Alter Soil Microbial Community Compositions and Metabolite Profiles in Unplanted and Cucumber-Planted Soils. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 3334–3342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Baranowska-Wójcik, E.; Szwajgier, D.; Oleszczuk, P.; Winiarska-Mieczan, A. Effects of Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles Exposure on Human Health—A Review. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2020, 193, 118–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  155. Runkle, E. Crops Suitable for Vertical Farming. Available online: https://gpnmag.com/article/crops-suitable-for-vertical-farming/ (accessed on 11 February 2021).
  156. Kwon, C.-T.; Heo, J.; Lemmon, Z.H.; Capua, Y.; Hutton, S.F.; Van Eck, J.; Park, S.J.; Lippman, Z.B. Rapid customization of Solanaceae fruit crops for urban agriculture. Nat. Biotechnol. 2020, 38, 182–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Jaeger, S.R.; Antúnez, L.; Ares, G.; Swaney-Stueve, M.; Jin, D.; Harker, F.R. Quality perceptions regarding external appearance of apples: Insights from experts and consumers in four countries. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2018, 146, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Tarancón, P.; Tárrega, A.; González, M.; Besada, C. External Quality of Mandarins: Influence of Fruit Appearance Characteristics on Consumer Choice. Foods 2021, 10, 2188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Normann, A.; Röding, M.; Wendin, K. Sustainable Fruit Consumption: The Influence of Color, Shape and Damage on Consumer Sensory Perception and Liking of Different Apples. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Gubbuk, H.; Gunes, E.; Güven, D. Comparison of open-field and protected banana cultivation for some morphological and yield features under subtropical conditions. Acta Hortic. 2018, 1196, 173–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Conti, S.; Villari, G.; Amico, E.; Caruso, G. Effects of production system and transplanting time on yield, quality and antioxidant content of organic winter squash (Cucurbita moschata Duch.). Sci. Hortic. 2015, 183, 136–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Savary, S.; Willocquet, L.; Pethybridge, S.J.; Esker, P.; McRoberts, N.; Nelson, A. The global burden of pathogens and pests on major food crops. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 3, 430–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  163. Nekrasov, V.; Wang, C.; Win, J.; Lanz, C.; Weigel, D.; Kamoun, S. Rapid generation of a transgene-free powdery mildew resistant tomato by genome deletion. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  164. Peng, A.; Chen, S.; Lei, T.; Xu, L.; He, Y.; Wu, L.; Yao, L.; Zou, X. Engineering canker-resistant plants through CRISPR/Cas9-targeted editing of the susceptibility gene CsLOB1 promoter in citrus. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2017, 15, 1509–1519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  165. Bailey-Serres, J.; Parker, J.E.; Ainsworth, E.A.; Oldroyd, G.E.D.; Schroeder, J.I. Genetic strategies for improving crop yields. Nature 2019, 575, 109–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  166. He, L.-H.; Chen, J.-Y.; Kuang, J.-F.; Lu, W.-J. Expression of three sHSP genes involved in heat pretreatment-induced chilling tolerance in banana fruit. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2012, 92, 1924–1930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Shi, X.; Jiang, F.; Wen, J.; Wu, Z. Overexpression of Solanum habrochaites microRNA319d (sha-miR319d) confers chilling and heat stress tolerance in tomato (S. lycopersicum). BMC Plant Biol. 2019, 19, 214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Huo, L.; Sun, X.; Guo, Z.; Jia, X.; Che, R.; Sun, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Wang, P.; Gong, X.; Ma, F. MdATG18a overexpression improves basal thermotolerance in transgenic apple by decreasing damage to chloroplasts. Hortic. Res. 2020, 7, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  169. Gao, Y.-F.; Liu, J.-K.; Yang, F.-M.; Zhang, G.-Y.; Wang, D.; Zhang, L.; Ou, Y.-B.; Yao, Y.-A. The WRKY transcription factor WRKY8 promotes resistance to pathogen infection and mediates drought and salt stress tolerance in Solanum lycopersicum. Physiol. Plant. 2020, 168, 98–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  170. Zhu, Z.; Sun, B.; Xu, X.; Chen, H.; Zou, L.; Chen, G.; Cao, B.; Chen, C.; Lei, J. Overexpression of AtEDT1/HDG11 in Chinese Kale (Brassica oleracea var. alboglabra) Enhances Drought and Osmotic Stress Tolerance. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 1285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  171. Wang, J.-Y.; Lai, L.-D.; Tong, S.-M.; Li, Q.-L. Constitutive and salt-inducible expression of SlBADH gene in transgenic tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L. cv. Micro-Tom) enhances salt tolerance. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2013, 432, 262–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  172. Hu, W.; Ding, Z.; Tie, W.; Yan, Y.; Liu, Y.; Wu, C.; Liu, J.; Wang, J.; Peng, M.; Xu, B.; et al. Comparative physiological and transcriptomic analyses provide integrated insight into osmotic, cold, and salt stress tolerance mechanisms in banana. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 43007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  173. Dwivedi, S.L.; Stoddard, F.L.; Ortiz, R. Genomic-based root plasticity to enhance abiotic stress adaptation and edible yield in grain crops. Plant Sci. 2020, 295, 10365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Trebicki, P. Climate change and plant virus epidemiology. Virus Res. 2020, 286, 198059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Alarcón, A.L.; Gómez-Bellot, M.J.; Bernabe, A.J.; Calvo, G.; Fernández Martín, F. Changes in root architecture and productivity of melon (Cucumis melo L. cv. Hispano Nunhems) promoted by Glomus iranicum var. tenuihypharum. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2020, 95, 364–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Rongsawat, T.; Peltier, J.-B.; Boyer, J.-C.; Véry, A.-A.; Sentenac, H. Looking for Root Hairs to Overcome Poor Soils. Trends Plant Sci. 2021, 26, 83–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Papanatsiou, M.; Petersen, J.; Henderson, L.; Wang, Y.; Christie, J.M.; Blatt, M.R. Optogenetic manipulation of stomatal kinetics improves carbon assimilation, water use, and growth. Science 2019, 363, 1456–1459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  178. Morales-Navarro, S.; Pérez-Díaz, R.; Ortega, A.; de Marcos, A.; Mena, M.; Fenoll, C.; González-Villanueva, E.; Ruiz-Lara, S. Overexpression of a SDD1-Like Gene from Wild Tomato Decreases Stomatal Density and Enhances Dehydration Avoidance in Arabidopsis and Cultivated Tomato. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  179. Simkin, A.J.; López-Calcagno, P.E.; Raines, C.A. Feeding the world: Improving photosynthetic efficiency for sustainable crop production. J. Exp. Bot. 2019, 70, 1119–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  180. South, P.F.; Cavanagh, A.P.; Liu, H.W.; Ort, D.R. Synthetic glycolate metabolism pathways stimulate crop growth and productivity in the field. Science 2019, 363, eaat9077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  181. Ding, F.; Wang, M.; Zhang, S.; Ai, X. Changes in SBPase activity influence photosynthetic capacity, growth, and tolerance to chilling stress in transgenic tomato plants. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 32741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  182. Ichikawa, Y.; Tamoi, M.; Sakuyama, H.; Maruta, T.; Ashida, H.; Yokota, A.; Shigeoka, S. Generation of transplastomic lettuce with enhanced growth and high yield. GM Crops 2010, 1, 322–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Kell, D.B. Breeding crop plants with deep roots: Their role in sustainable carbon, nutrient and water sequestration. Ann. Bot. 2011, 108, 407–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  184. Kätterer, T.; Bolinder, M.A.; Berglund, K.; Kirchmann, H. Strategies for carbon sequestration in agricultural soils in northern Europe. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. A—Anim. Sci. 2012, 62, 181–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Harman, G.E.; Uphoff, N. Symbiotic Root-Endophytic Soil Microbes Improve Crop Productivity and Provide Environmental Benefits. Scientifica 2019, 2019, 9106395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  186. Van De Velde, K.; Thomas, S.G.; Heyse, F.; Kaspar, R.; Van Der Straeten, D.; Rohde, A. N-terminal truncated RHT-1 proteins generated by translational reinitiation cause semi-dwarfing of wheat Green Revolution alleles. Mol. Plant 2021, 14, 679–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Chaïb, J.; Torregrosa, L.; MacKenzie, D.; Corena, P.; Bouquet, A.; Thomas, M.R. The grape microvine—A model system for rapid forward and reverse genetics of grapevines. Plant J. 2010, 62, 1083–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Yang, S.; Zhang, K.; Zhu, H.; Zhang, X.; Yan, W.; Xu, N.; Liu, D.; Hu, J.; Wu, Y.; Weng, Y.; et al. Melon short internode (CmSi) encodes an ERECTA-like receptor kinase regulating stem elongation through auxin signaling. Hortic. Res. 2020, 7, 202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Guo, F.; Ma, J.; Hou, L.; Shi, S.; Sun, J.; Li, G.; Zhao, C.; Xia, H.; Zhao, S.; Wang, X.; et al. Transcriptome profiling provides insights into molecular mechanism in Peanut semi-dwarf mutant. BMC Genom. 2020, 21, 211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  190. Varkonyi-Gasic, E.; Wang, T.; Voogd, C.; Jeon, S.; Drummond, R.S.M.; Gleave, A.P.; Allan, A.C. Mutagenesis of kiwifruit CENTRORADIALIS-like genes transforms a climbing woody perennial with long juvenility and axillary flowering into a compact plant with rapid terminal flowering. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2019, 17, 869–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  191. Jobson, E.M.; Johnston, R.E.; Oiestad, A.J.; Martin, J.M.; Giroux, M.J. The Impact of the Wheat Rht-B1b Semi-Dwarfing Allele on Photosynthesis and Seed Development Under Field Conditions. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  192. Weller, J.L.; Ortega, R. Genetic control of flowering time in legumes. Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  193. Zhan, Z.; Zhang, C.; Zhang, H.; Li, X.; Wen, C.; Liang, Y. Molecular cloning, expression analysis, and subcellular localization of FLOWERING LOCUS T (FT) in carrot (Daucus carota L.). Mol. Breed. 2017, 37, 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Palatty Allesh, S.; Varma, S.; Reshmi, K.S.; Aswathi, K.; Megha, P.P.; Jasna, T.V.; Nikhila Reshmi, M.V.; Sibisha, V.C. Effect of flower sex ratio on fruit set in pumpkin (Cucurbita maxima). Sci. Hortic. 2019, 246, 1005–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Jahed, K.R.; Hirst, P.M. Pollen Tube Growth and Fruit Set in Apple. HortScience 2017, 52, 1054–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  196. Radunić, M.; Jazbec, A.; Ercisli, S.; Čmelik, Z.; Ban, S.G. Pollen-pistil interaction influence on the fruit set of sweet cherry. Sci. Hortic. 2017, 224, 358–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Gustafson, F.G. Parthenocarpy: Natural and artificial. Bot. Rev. 1942, 8, 599–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Rylski, I.; Aloni, B. Parthenocarpic Fruit Set and Development in Cucurbitaceae and Solanaceae under Protected Cultivation in Mild Winter Climate. In Proceedings of the Acta Horticulturae, International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS), Leuven, Belgium, 1 May 1991; Volume 287, pp. 117–126. [Google Scholar]
  199. Picarella, M.E.; Mazzucato, A. The Occurrence of Seedlessness in Higher Plants; Insights on Roles and Mechanisms of Parthenocarpy. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 9, 1997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  200. Clepet, C.; Devani, R.S.; Boumlik, R.; Hao, Y.; Morin, H.; Marcel, F.; Verdenaud, M.; Mania, B.; Brisou, G.; Citerne, S.; et al. The miR166–SlHB15A regulatory module controls ovule development and parthenocarpic fruit set under adverse temperatures in tomato. Mol. Plant 2021, 14, 1185–1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  201. Qian, C.; Ren, N.; Wang, J.; Xu, Q.; Chen, X.; Qi, X. Effects of exogenous application of CPPU, NAA and GA 4+7 on parthenocarpy and fruit quality in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). Food Chem. 2018, 243, 410–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  202. Cong, L.; Wu, T.; Liu, H.; Wang, H.; Zhang, H.; Zhao, G.; Wen, Y.; Shi, Q.; Xu, L.; Wang, Z. CPPU may induce gibberellin-independent parthenocarpy associated with PbRR9 in ‘Dangshansu’ pear. Hortic. Res. 2020, 7, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  203. Galimba, K.D.; Bullock, D.G.; Dardick, C.; Liu, Z.; Callahan, A.M. Gibberellic acid induced parthenocarpic ‘Honeycrisp’ apples (Malus domestica) exhibit reduced ovary width and lower acidity. Hortic. Res. 2019, 6, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  204. Heslop-Harrison, J.S.; Schwarzacher, T. Domestication, Genomics and the Future for Banana. Ann. Bot. 2007, 100, 1073–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  205. Gorguet, B.; Van Heusden, A.W.; Lindhout, P. Parthenocarpic Fruit Development in Tomato. Plant Biol. 2005, 7, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Mezzetti, B.; Landi, L.; Pandolfini, T.; Spena, A. The defH9-iaaM auxin-synthesizing gene increases plant fecundity and fruit production in strawberry and raspberry. BMC Biotechnol. 2004, 4, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  207. Acciarri, N.; Restaino, F.; Vitelli, G.; Perrone, D.; Zottini, M.; Pandolfini, T.; Spena, A.; Rotino, G.L. Genetically modified parthenocarpic eggplants: Improved fruit productivity under both greenhouse and open field cultivation. BMC Biotechnol. 2002, 2, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  208. Rotino, G.L.; Acciarri, N.; Sabatini, E.; Mennella, G.; Lo Scalzo, R.; Maestrelli, A.; Molesini, B.; Pandolfini, T.; Scalzo, J.; Mezzetti, B.; et al. Open field trial of genetically modified parthenocarpic tomato: Seedlessness and fruit quality. BMC Biotechnol. 2005, 5, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  209. Shinozaki, Y.; Ezura, K.; Hu, J.; Okabe, Y.; Bénard, C.; Prodhomme, D.; Gibon, Y.; Sun, T.-P.; Ezura, H.; Ariizumi, T. Identification and functional study of a mild allele of SlDELLA gene conferring the potential for improved yield in tomato. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 12043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  210. Varoquaux, F.; Blanvillain, R.; Delseny, M.; Gallois, P. Less is better: New approaches for seedless fruit production. Trends Biotechnol. 2000, 18, 233–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Spena, A.; Rotino, G.L. Parthenocarpy. In Current Trends in the Embryology of Angiosperms; Bhojwani, S.S., Soh, W.-Y., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2001; pp. 435–450. ISBN 978-94-017-1203-3. [Google Scholar]
  212. Pandolfini, T.; Rotino, G.L.; Camerini, S.; Defez, R.; Spena, A. Optimisation of transgene action at the post-transcriptional level: High quality parthenocarpic fruits in industrial tomatoes. BMC Biotechnol. 2002, 2, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  213. Guan, W.; Maynard, E.T.; Aly, B.; Zakes, J.; Egel, D.S.; Ingwell, L.L. Parthenocarpic Cucumber Cultivar Evaluation in High-tunnel Production. HortTechnology 2019, 29, 634–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. dos Santos, R.C.; Nietsche, S.; Pereira, M.C.T.; Ribeiro, L.M.; Mercadante-Simões, M.O.; Carneiro dos Santos, B.H. Atemoya fruit development and cytological aspects of GA3-induced growth and parthenocarpy. Protoplasma 2019, 256, 1345–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  215. Kim, J.-S.; Ezura, K.; Lee, J.; Ariizumi, T.; Ezura, H. Genetic engineering of parthenocarpic tomato plants using transient SlIAA9 knockdown by novel tissue-specific promoters. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 18871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  216. Yao, J.-L.; Dong, Y.-H.; Morris, B.A.M. Parthenocarpic apple fruit production conferred by transposon insertion mutations in a MADS-box transcription factor. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2001, 98, 1306–1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Wada, M.; Oshino, H.; Tanaka, N.; Mimida, N.; Moriya-Tanaka, Y.; Honda, C.; Hanada, T.; Iwanami, H.; Komori, S. Expression and functional analysis of apple MdMADS13 on flower and fruit formation. Plant Biotechnol. 2018, 35, 207–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  218. Sardos, J.; Rouard, M.; Hueber, Y.; Cenci, A.; Hyma, K.E.; van den Houwe, I.; Hribova, E.; Courtois, B.; Roux, N. A Genome-Wide Association Study on the Seedless Phenotype in Banana (Musa spp.) Reveals the Potential of a Selected Panel to Detect Candidate Genes in a Vegetatively Propagated Crop. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0154448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  219. Boyaci, H.F.; Oguz, A.; Yazici, K.M.; Eren, A. The Efficacy of Endogenous Gibberellic Acid for Parthenocarpy in Eggplant (Solanum Melongena L.). Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2013, 10, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Zhang, S.; Shi, Q.; Albrecht, U.; Shatters, R.G.; Stange, R.; McCollum, G.; Zhang, S.; Fan, C.; Stover, E. Comparative transcriptome analysis during early fruit development between three seedy citrus genotypes and their seedless mutants. Hortic. Res. 2017, 4, 17041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Mesejo, C.; Yuste, R.; Martínez-Fuentes, A.; Reig, C.; Iglesias, D.J.; Primo-Millo, E.; Agustí, M. Self-pollination and parthenocarpic ability in developing ovaries of self-incompatible Clementine mandarins (Citrus clementina). Physiol. Plant. 2013, 148, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  222. Royo, C.; Carbonell-Bejerano, P.; Torres-Pérez, R.; Nebish, A.; Martínez, Ó.; Rey, M.; Aroutiounian, R.; Ibáñez, J.; Martínez-Zapater, J.M. Developmental, transcriptome, and genetic alterations associated with parthenocarpy in the grapevine seedless somatic variant Corinto bianco. J. Exp. Bot. 2016, 67, 259–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  223. Ledbetter, C.A.; Ramming, D.W. Seedlessness in Grapes. In Horticultural Reviews; Janick, J., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1989; Volume 11, pp. 159–184. ISBN 978-1-118-06084-1. [Google Scholar]
  224. Honda, I.; Matsunaga, H.; Kikuchi, K.; Matsuo, S.; Fukuda, M. Identification of pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) accessions with large or small fruit that have a high degree of parthenocarpy. Sci. Hortic. 2012, 135, 68–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  225. Nogueira, D.W.; Maluf, W.R.; dos Reis Figueira, A.; Maciel, G.M.; Gomes, L.A.A.; Benavente, C.A.T. Combining ability of summer-squash lines with different degrees of parthenocarpy and PRSV-W resistance. Genet. Mol. Biol. 2011, 34, 616–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Che, G.; Zhang, X. Molecular basis of cucumber fruit domestication. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2019, 47, 38–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. The increasing competition for land use. Habitable land use in 2018. The surface data come from FAO (www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data, accessed on 27 November 2021). The values were calculated for North America, South and Central America, Europe, Africa, Asia and Oceania, relative to the total habitable land area, which was the sum of agricultural lands, built-up areas, and non-aquatic forests and shrub areas that are not regularly flooded. The “Other” section contains forests and shrubs that are non-aquatic or regularly flooded. The “Built-up area” section represents 1% or less of the habitable land use for each geographic region.
Figure 1. The increasing competition for land use. Habitable land use in 2018. The surface data come from FAO (www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data, accessed on 27 November 2021). The values were calculated for North America, South and Central America, Europe, Africa, Asia and Oceania, relative to the total habitable land area, which was the sum of agricultural lands, built-up areas, and non-aquatic forests and shrub areas that are not regularly flooded. The “Other” section contains forests and shrubs that are non-aquatic or regularly flooded. The “Built-up area” section represents 1% or less of the habitable land use for each geographic region.
Genes 13 01886 g001
Figure 2. A sustainable agro-ecological system. The promotion of biodiversity includes the protection of various pollinator species and plant species in a given agro-ecological system. The reduction in chemical inputs implies that pest control and the use of fertilizers should be replaced by genetic improvement and alternative crop practices. Created with (BioRender.com).
Figure 2. A sustainable agro-ecological system. The promotion of biodiversity includes the protection of various pollinator species and plant species in a given agro-ecological system. The reduction in chemical inputs implies that pest control and the use of fertilizers should be replaced by genetic improvement and alternative crop practices. Created with (BioRender.com).
Genes 13 01886 g002
Figure 3. Model of an urban agriculture system. The scheme represents an indoor high-tech growing structure located on top of a building containing accommodation and a food shop. It highlights the benefits of indoor agriculture in an urban area, which includes avoiding food exportation. The sensors and input delivery system illustrate the use of nanofertilizers (on the roots, in gray), nanosensors and nanopesticides (on the leaves, in purple). The curved arrows symbolize the reduction in water transpiration losses. The solar panel illustrates the use of non-fossil energies; the beehives, an increase in insect pollination; and the red arrow, the short transition from the production area to consumption places. Created with BioRender.com.
Figure 3. Model of an urban agriculture system. The scheme represents an indoor high-tech growing structure located on top of a building containing accommodation and a food shop. It highlights the benefits of indoor agriculture in an urban area, which includes avoiding food exportation. The sensors and input delivery system illustrate the use of nanofertilizers (on the roots, in gray), nanosensors and nanopesticides (on the leaves, in purple). The curved arrows symbolize the reduction in water transpiration losses. The solar panel illustrates the use of non-fossil energies; the beehives, an increase in insect pollination; and the red arrow, the short transition from the production area to consumption places. Created with BioRender.com.
Genes 13 01886 g003
Figure 4. Genetic improvements to crops needed for sustainable agriculture. (a) The number of published patents and (b) research articles related to genetic improvement of fruits and vegetables and (c) traits to target in plant breeding. Created with BioRender.com. The data come from the Orbit Intelligence patent database (https://intelligence.orbit.com, accessed on 29 April 2021) and Web of Science (https://www.webofscience.com, accessed on 29 April 2021).
Figure 4. Genetic improvements to crops needed for sustainable agriculture. (a) The number of published patents and (b) research articles related to genetic improvement of fruits and vegetables and (c) traits to target in plant breeding. Created with BioRender.com. The data come from the Orbit Intelligence patent database (https://intelligence.orbit.com, accessed on 29 April 2021) and Web of Science (https://www.webofscience.com, accessed on 29 April 2021).
Genes 13 01886 g004
Table 1. List of plant species with parthenocarpic fruit development currently on the market.
Table 1. List of plant species with parthenocarpic fruit development currently on the market.
SpeciesGermplasm Name or Mutation DescriptionSource of
Parthenocarpy
AppleSpencer Seedless, Wellington Bloomless, Rae Ime [216]
Wickson [217]
Natural
BananaAll consumed bananas are parthenocarpic. Examples of variety names: Blue Java [218] and Cavendish [204]Natural (obligatory)
CucumberCamaro, Kalunga, Katrina, Socrates, Manny, Manar, Jawell, Picolino, Taurus, Tasty Jade, Tasty Green, Corinto, Lisboa, Alcazar, Sweet Success [213]Natural
EggplantTalina, Galine [219]Natural
Satsuma mandarinSeedless Fallglo [220]Induced mutation
ClementineMarisol, Clemenules [221]Natural
GrapeCorinto bianco [222], Black Corinth [223]Natural
GrapefruitHenderson, Marsh, Redblush [219]Induced mutations
PepperShishitoh [224]Natural
Summer squashWhitaker [225]Natural
Sweet orangeUS Seedless Pineapple [220]Induced mutation
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Maupilé, L.; Boualem, A.; Chaïb, J.; Bendahmane, A. A Flashforward Look into Solutions for Fruit and Vegetable Production. Genes 2022, 13, 1886. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/genes13101886

AMA Style

Maupilé L, Boualem A, Chaïb J, Bendahmane A. A Flashforward Look into Solutions for Fruit and Vegetable Production. Genes. 2022; 13(10):1886. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/genes13101886

Chicago/Turabian Style

Maupilé, Léa, Adnane Boualem, Jamila Chaïb, and Abdelhafid Bendahmane. 2022. "A Flashforward Look into Solutions for Fruit and Vegetable Production" Genes 13, no. 10: 1886. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/genes13101886

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop