When the Medicine Feeds the Problem; Do Nitrogen Fertilisers and Pesticides Enhance the Nutritional Quality of Crops for Their Pests and Pathogens?

The challenge of maximising agricultural productivity encourages growers to apply high volumes of nitrogen (N) fertilisers and pesticides in order to promote and protect yields. Despite these inputs, pests and pathogens (P&Ps) continue to cause economic losses and challenge food security at local, national, and global scales. P&Ps are a particular problem in industrial agricultural environments, where large-scale monocultures facilitate rapid growth of crop-adapted P&P populations. P&P population growth is strongly dependent upon acquisition of N-resources (e.g., amino acids) from crop tissues, and concentrations of these compounds depend on the metabolic state of the crop which, in turn, is influenced by its growth stage, by environmental conditions, and by agrochemical inputs. In this study we demonstrate that routine applications of pesticides and/or N-fertilisers may inadvertently reinforce the problem of P&P damage in agriculture by enhancing the nutritional quality of crops for these organisms. N-fertilisation has diverse influences on crops' susceptibility to P&P damage; N-fertilisers enhance the nutritional quality and “attractiveness” of crops for P&Ps, and they can also alter crops' expression of the defensive traits (both morphological and chemical) that serve to protect them against these organisms. Exposure of crops to pesticides (including commonly used insecticide, fungicide, and herbicide products) can result in significant metabolic disruption and, consequently, in accumulation of nutritionally valuable amino acids within crop tissues. Importantly, these metabolic changes may not cause visible signs of stress or toxicity in the crop, and may represent an “invisible” mechanism underlying persistent P&P pressure in the field. Given the intensity of their use worldwide, their far-reaching and destructive consequences for wildlife and overall ecosystem health, and the continued prevalence of P&P-associated crop damage in agriculture, we recommend that the impacts of these cornerstone agricultural inputs on the nutritional relationship between crops and their P&Ps are closely examined in order to inform appropriate management for a more secure and sustainable food system

Impacts of glyphosate-based herbicides on disease resistance and health of crops: a review

Abstract Based on experimental data from laboratory and field, numerous authors have raised concern that exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) may pre-dispose crops to damage by microbial pathogens. In this review, we distinguish and evaluate two principal pathways by which GBHs may affect the susceptibility of crops to disease: pathway 1—via disruptions to rhizosphere microbial ecology, and pathway 2—via restriction of nutrients to crops. We conclude that GBHs have the potential to undermine crop health in a number of ways, including: (i) impairment of the innate physiological defences of glyphosate-sensitive (GS) cultivars by interruption of the shikimic acid pathway; (ii) impairment of physiological disease defences has also been shown to occur in some glyphosate-resistant (GR) cultivars, despite their engineered resistance to glyphosate’s primary mode of action; (iii) interference with rhizosphere microbial ecology (in particular, GBHs have the potential to enhance the population and/or virulence of some phytopathogenic microbial species in the crop rhizosphere); and finally, (iv) the as yet incompletely elucidated reduction in the uptake and utilisation of nutrient metals by crops. Future progress will best be achieved when growers, regulators and industry collaborate to develop products, practices and policies that minimise the use of herbicides as far as possible and maximise their effectiveness when used, while facilitating optimised food production and security

Call to restrict neonicotinoids

On 28 April 2018 the European Parliament voted for a complete and permanent ban on all outdoor uses of the three most commonly used neonicotinoid pesticides. With the partial exception of the state of Ontario, Canada, governments elsewhere have failed to take action. Below is a letter, signed by 232 scientists from around the world, urgently calling for global action by policy makers to address this issue