Organic and conventional tomato cropping systems.

Among several alternative agricultural systems have been developed, organic agriculture has deserved increasing interest from. The objective of this paper was comparing both organic (OS) and conventional (CS) tomato cropping systems for varieties Débora and Santa Clara, through an interdisciplinary study. The experiment was set up in a randomized blocks design with six replicates, in a dystrophic Ultisol plots measuring 25 ´ 17 m. Cropping procedures followed by either local conventional or organic growers practices recommendations. Fertilization in the OS was done with organic compost, single superphosphate, dolomitic limes (5L, 60 g, and 60 g per pit), and sprayed twice a week with biofertilizer. Fertilization in the CS was done with 200 g 4-14-8 (NPK) per pit and, after planting, 30 g N, 33 g K and 10.5 g P per pit; from 52 days after planting forth, plants were sprayed once a week with foliar fertilizer. In the CS, a blend of insecticides, fungicides and miticides was sprayed twice a week, after planting. In the OS, extracts of black pepper, garlic, and Eucalyptus; Bordeaux mixture, and biofertilizer, were applied twice a week to control diseases and pests. Tomato spotted wilt was the most important disease in the OS, resulting in smaller plant development, number of flower clusters and yield. In the CS, the disease was kept under control, and the population of thrips, the virus vector, occurred at lower levels than in the OS. Variety Santa Clara presented greater incidence of the viral disease, and for this reason had a poorer performance than 'Débora', especially in the OS. Occurrence of Liriomyza spp. was significantly smaller in the OS, possibly because of the greater frequency of Chrysoperla. The CS had smaller incidence of leaf spots caused by Septoria lycopersici and Xanthomonas vesicatoria. However, early blight and fruit rot caused by Alternaria solani occurred in larger numbers. No differences were observed with regard to the communities of fungi and bacteria in the phylloplane, and to the occurrence of weeds

The role of citizen science in addressing grand challenges in food and agriculture research

The power of citizen science to contribute to both science and society is gaining increased recognition, particularly in physics and biology. Although there is a long history of public engagement in agriculture and food science, the term ‘citizen science’ has rarely been applied to these efforts. Similarly, in the emerging field of citizen science, most new citizen science projects do not focus on food or agriculture. Here, we convened thought leaders from a broad range of fields related to citizen science, agriculture, and food science to highlight key opportunities for bridging these overlapping yet disconnected communities/fields and identify ways to leverage their respective strengths. Specifically, we show that (i) citizen science projects are addressing many grand challenges facing our food systems, as outlined by the United States National Institute of Food and Agriculture, as well as broader Sustainable Development Goals set by the United Nations Development Programme, (ii) there exist emerging opportunities and unique challenges for citizen science in agriculture/food research, and (iii) the greatest opportunities for the development of citizen science projects in agriculture and food science will be gained by using the existing infrastructure and tools of Extension programmes and through the engagement of urban communities. Further, we argue there is no better time to foster greater collaboration between these fields given the trend of shrinking Extension programmes, the increasing need to apply innovative solutions to address rising demands on agricultural systems, and the exponential growth of the field of citizen science.This working group was partially funded from the NCSU Plant Sciences Initiative, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences ‘Big Ideas’ grant, National Science Foundation grant to R.R.D. (NSF no. 1319293), and a United States Department of Food and Agriculture-National Institute of Food and Agriculture grant to S.F.R., USDA-NIFA Post Doctoral Fellowships grant no. 2017-67012-26999.http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.orghj2018Forestry and Agricultural Biotechnology Institute (FABI