Microbial Services in Restoration Ecology

Microbial Services in Restoration Ecology describes the role of microbial resources and their beneficial services in soil fertility and restoration of degraded ecosystems. The role of microbial interactions with crop plants which benefit agricultural productivity is also discussed. The book also includes significant advances in microbial based bio-pesticide production and strategies for high-density bio-inoculant cultivation to improve stress survivability of crop plants. This work provides next-generation molecular technologies for exploring complex microbial secondary metabolites and metabolic regulation in viability of plant–microbe interactions.

• Describes the role of microbial resources and their beneficial services in soil fertility and restoration of degraded ecosystems
• Discusses the role of microbial interactions with crop plants and how it benefits of agricultural productivity
• Includes significant advances in microbial based bio-pesticide production and strategies for high-density bio-inoculant cultivation to improve stress survivability of crop plants provides next-generation molecular technologies for exploring complex microbial secondary metabolites and metabolic regulation in viability of plant–microbe interactions

• Language: English
• Publisher: Elsevier Science
• Release date: Apr 21, 2020
• ISBN: 9780128204276

Book preview

Microbial Services in Restoration Ecology

Editors

Jay Shankar Singh, PHD

Assistant Professor, Department of Environmental Microbiology, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

Shobhit Raj Vimal, PHD

Department of Environmental Microbiology, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

Table of Contents

Cover image

Title page

Copyright

List of Contributors

Foreword

Preface

Chapter 1. Significant Advances in Biopesticide Production: Strategies for High-Density Bio-Inoculant Cultivation

1.1. Introduction

1.2. Biological Control

1.3. Types/Strategies of Biological Controls

1.4. Pesticides and Biopesticides

1.5. Classification/Examples of Pesticides and Biopesticides

1.6. Significant Advances in Biopesticide Production: Strategies for High-Density Bio-Inoculant Cultivation

1.7. Significant Advances in Biopesticide Production: Strategies for High-Density Bio-Inoculant Cultivation

1.8. Agroecological Trends in the Market and General Perspectives

Chapter 2. Biological Control Agents and Their Importance for the Plant Health

2.1. Introduction

2.2. The Effect of Biological Control Agents on the Plant Pathogens and Pests

2.3. Group of Biological Control Agents

2.4. Conclusions

Chapter 3. Microbial Secondary Metabolites and Defense of Plant Stress

3.1. Introduction

3.2. Types of Microbial Secondary Metabolites

3.3. Phytohormone Production by Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria Under Biotic and Abiotic Stress

3.4. Microbial Secondary Metabolites as Signalling Molecules

3.5. Role of Microbial Secondary Metabolites in Plant Defense

3.6. Conclusion

Chapter 4. Microbial Secondary Metabolites: Effectual Armors to Improve Stress Survivability in Crop Plants

4.1. Introduction

4.2. Abiotic and Biotic Challenges to Crop Plants

4.3. Microbe-Mediated Stress Management in Plants

4.4. Secondary Metabolites in Alleviation of Abiotic Stresses in Crop Plants

4.5. Biotic Stresses and Its Management Strategies

4.6. Conclusions

Chapter 5. Microbiome Community Interactions With Social Forestry and Agroforestry

5.1. Introduction

5.2. The Relationship Between Plants and Bacteria

5.3. Microbiome and Medicinal Plant Community Enhance Plant Health, Plant Quality, and Biomass Yield

5.4. Biofuel Production by Microbial Consortium

5.5. Biodegradation of Microbial Consortium in a Dairy Farm Resource

5.6. The Stable Biomass Production of Microbial Consortium for Combat Role in Desertification

5.7. Microbial Community Structure During Famous Festivals

5.8. Effective Crop Resilience of Aggregate Ecosystem and Plant Stress

5.9. The Fungal Community and Ecosystem Services

5.10. Biodiversity and Ecosystem: Endophyte Community Function

5.11. The Grassland Ecosystem: Productivity and Sustainability

5.12. The Forest and Cyanobacteria Communities

5.13. Community Assembly and the Functioning of Ecosystems

5.14. Plant Growth Promotion and the Expression of Stress-Responsive Genes

5.15. Conclusion and Future Prospects

Chapter 6. Advanced Tools to Assess Microbial Diversity and Their Functions in Restoration of Degraded Ecosystems

6.1. Introduction: Soil, a Major Microbial Natural Habitat

6.2. Assessment of Microbial Diversity

6.3. Molecular Techniques to Assess Microbial Structural Diversity

6.4. Culture-Independent Omics Techniques: Metagenomics (DNA) to Metabolomics (Metabolites) via Metatranscriptomics (Transcripts) and Metaproteomics (Protein)

6.5. Land Degradation and its Restoration

6.6. Role of Microbes in Restoring the Degraded Land Ecosystem

6.7. Instances Where Advanced Tools Are Used in the Restoration of Degraded Land Ecosystem

6.8. Conclusions and Future Prospects

Chapter 7. Microbial Secondary Metabolites: Natural Benediction Elements for Plants During Abiotic and Biotic Stress Conditions

7.1. Introduction

7.2. Microbial Consortia Associated With the Soil Ecosystem

7.3. Metabolic Pathways

7.4. Future Perspectives and Conclusions

Chapter 8. Endophytic Microbes and Their Role to Overcome Abiotic Stress in Crop Plants

8.1. Introduction

8.2. Different Types of Stresses for Plants

8.3. Adverse Effects of Major Abiotic Stresses in Crop Plants

8.4. Abiotic Stress–Responsive Genes for Stress Relief

8.5. Endophytic Microbes

8.6. How Do Endophytes Enter Into the Plant System?

8.7. Alleviation of Abiotic Stress by the Cooperation of Endophytes in Crop Plants

8.8. Conclusion

Chapter 9. Next-Generation Omics Technologies for Exploring Complex Metabolic Regulation During Plant-Microbe Interaction

9.1. Introduction

9.2. Omics Approach to Understand Plant-Microbe Interaction

9.3. In silico Approach for Predicting Plant-Microbe Interaction Network

9.4. Conclusions

Chapter 10. Use of Plant Growth–Promoting Burkholderia Species With Rock Phosphate–Solubilizing Potential Toward Crop Improvement

10.1. Introduction

10.2. Phosphate-Solubilizing Microorganisms

10.3. Burkholderia spp. as Potent Phosphate-Solubilizing Microorganisms

10.4. Rock Phosphates and Their Solubilization

10.5. Mechanism of Inorganic Phosphate Solubilization by Burkholderia sp.

10.6. Biofilm Formation on Rock Phosphate Granules During P Solubilization by Burkholderia

10.7. Other Plant Growth–Promoting Attributes of Burkholderia sp.

10.8. Improvement of Crop Production by Burkholderia sp.

10.9. Conclusions

Chapter 11. Microbial Services to Nurture Plant Health Under Stressed Soils

11.1. Introduction

11.2. Plant Growth–Promoting Rhizobacteria: A Model Microbe as Soil Bioinoculants

11.3. Bioformulation Development

11.4. Application of Developed Bioinoculants

11.5. Bioinoculants Application in Stress Agriculture Management

11.6. Bioinoculants Available in Global Market for Plant Growth and Disease Management

11.7. Conclusions and Future Prospects

Chapter 12. Changes in Perceptions Derived From Research on Trichoderma Species

12.1. Introduction

12.2. Classification of Microbe-Based Biopesticides

12.3. Biopesticide Formulation Techniques

12.4. Mechanism of Biological Control of Plant Diseases

12.5. Mechanism of Biological Control of Insect Pests

12.6. Trichoderma-Based Biopesticides

12.7. Uses of Trichoderma

12.8. Conclusions

Chapter 13. Fungal Bioagents in the Remediation of Degraded Soils

13.1. Introduction

13.2. Factors Affecting the Mycoremediation Process

13.3. Conclusions

Chapter 14. Microbes and Microbial Enzymes as a Sustainable Energy Source for Biofuel Production

14.1. Introduction

14.2. Microbes as Sources of Biofuels

14.3. Substrates Used by Microorganisms for Biofuel Production

14.4. Metabolic Engineering as an Effective Tool in Increasing Fuel Production

14.5. Effects of Fuel Production on the Host Organism and Strategies to Overcome it

14.6. Pathways Used in the Production of Some Major Biofuels

14.7. Conclusion

Chapter 15. Microbial Communities in Soils Under Natural Reforestation

15.1. Introduction

15.2. Forest Ecosystems of the Boreal Regions

15.3. Microbial Communities Changes Following Reforestation

15.4. Case Study: Cropland-to-Woodland Secondary Succession on Gray Forest Soil, Russia

15.5. Conclusions

Chapter 16. Microbial Detoxification of Polluted Soils and Agroecosystem

16.1. Detoxification of Polluted Soils Using Microbial Ecosystem

16.2. Microbial Activity in Polluted Soils

16.3. Role of Microbial Communities in Detoxification of Polluted Soils and Agroecosystems

16.4. Application of Genetically Engineered Microorganisms in Detoxification of Soils

16.5. Challenges and Future Perspectives

Chapter 17. Description of a Polyphasic Taxonomic Approach for Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR)

17.1. Introduction

17.2. Genome Processing and Analysis of Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria

17.3. Taxonomic Affiliation of Bacterial Species

17.4. Bioinformatic and Phylogenetic Tools Used in Bacterial Species Delineation

17.5. Practical Application of the Polyphasic Taxonomy of Prokaryotes

17.6. Conclusions

17.7. Perspectives

Chapter 18. Microbe-Mediated Mitigation of Plant Stress

18.1. Introduction

18.2. Types of Abiotic Stress in Plants

18.3. Types of Biotic Stress

18.4. Effect of Stresses and Responses in Plants

18.5. Microbe-Mediated Mitigation of Stresses

18.6. Strategies for Microbe-Mediated Mitigation of Abiotic Stresses in Plants

18.7. Conclusion

Chapter 19. A Review on Rhizoremediation: Plant-Microbe Interaction Enhances the Degradation of Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons

19.1. Introduction

19.2. Properties of Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon Compounds

19.3. Sources of Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon Compounds

19.4. Distribution and Fate of Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon Compounds

19.5. Toxicity and Effects of Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon Compounds

19.6. Effects of Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons on Human Beings

19.7. Remediation Techniques

19.8. Bioremediation

19.9. Growth Dilution due to Rhizo-Biodegradation

19.10. Conclusion

Chapter 20. Ensiling as Bioprocess for Bioconservation of Citrus Peels

20.1. Introduction

20.2. Methodology

20.3. Results and Discussion

20.4. Conclusions

Index

Copyright

Elsevier

Radarweg 29, PO Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, Netherlands

The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom

50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States

Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.

This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).

Notices

Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary.

Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.

To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-0-12-819978-7

For information on all Elsevier publications visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Joe Hayton

Acquisitions Editor: Kostas KI Marinakis

Editorial Project Manager: Mona Zahir

Production Project Manager: Sreejith Viswanathan

Cover designer: Alan Studholme

Typeset by TNQ Technologies

List of Contributors

Miguel A. Aguilar-González,     Bioprocesses and Bioproducts Research Group, Department of Food Research, School of Chemistry, Autonomous University of Coahuila, Saltillo, Coahuila, Mexico

Liliana Aguilar-Marcelino,     Centro Nacional de Investigación Disciplinaria en Salud Animal e Inocuidad, INIFAP, Jiutepec, Morelos, Mexico

Cristóbal Noé Aguilar, BSc, MSc, PhD ,     Professor, Bioprocesses and Bioproducts Research Group, Department of Food Research, School of Chemisty, Universidad Autónoma de Coahuila, Saltillo, Coahuila, Mexico

M. Nadeem Akhtar,     Plant Pathology, KrishiVigyan Kendra, Saharsa, Bihar, India

Laith Khalil Tawfeeq Al-Ani

Department of Plant Protection, College of Agriculture, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq

School of Biology Science, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Minden, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia

Jorge Angulo-López,     Professor, Bioprocesses and Bioproducts Research Group, Department of Food Research, School of Chemisty, Universidad Autónoma de Coahuila, Saltillo, Coahuila, Mexico

Rekha Balodi,     Biocontrol Laboratory, ICAR–National Research Centre for Integrated Pest Management, New Delhi, India

Sandipan Banerjee,     Mycology and Plant Pathology Research Laboratory, Department of Botany, Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, West Bengal, India

Asghari Bano,     Department of Biosciences, University of Wah, Wah Cantt, Punjab, Pakistan

German Bolivar,     Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology Research Group, Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia

Daniel Boone Villa,     Bioprocesses and Bioproducts Research Group, Department of Food Research, School of Chemistry, Autonomous University of Coahuila, Saltillo, Coahuila, Mexico

Siddharth Boudh,     Department of Environmental Microbiology, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

Preeti Chaturvedi, MSc, PhD ,     Senior Scientist, Aquatic Toxicology Laboratory, Environmental Toxicology Group, CSIR-Indian Institute of Toxicology Research (CSIR-IITR), Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

Deepshi Chaurasia,     Aquatic Toxicology Laboratory, Environmental Toxicology Group, CSIR-Indian Institute of Toxicology Research (CSIR-IITR), Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

Mónica Chávez-González,     Professor, Bioprocesses and Bioproducts Research Group, Department of Food Research, School of Chemisty, Universidad Autónoma de Coahuila, Saltillo, Coahuila, Mexico

Alcides Cintra,     Universidad Federal de Pernambuco Recife, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil

Avni Dahiya, MSc ,     Department of Bio & Nano Technology, Guru Jambheshwar University of Science & Technology, Hisar, Haryana, India

Željka Fiket,     Divison for Marine and Environmental Research, Ruđer Bošković Institute, Zagreb, Croatia

Jéssica Fiorotti,     Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências Veterinárias, Instituto de Veterinária, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Seropédica, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Carolina Flores-Gallegos,     Bioprocesses and Bioproducts Research Group, Department of Food Research, School of Chemistry, Autonomous University of Coahuila, Saltillo, Coahuila, Mexico

Edson Luiz Furtado,     Department of Plant Production, College of Agronomic Science Fazenda Experimental Lageado, São Paulo State University, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

Alfredo Ivanoe García-Galindo,     Bioprocesses and Bioproducts Research Group, Department of Food Research, School of Chemistry, Autonomous University of Coahuila, Saltillo, Coahuila, Mexico

Abhijeet Ghatak, PhD ,     Plant Pathology, Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour, Bhagalpur, Bihar, India

Ranjan Ghosh,     Department of Botany, Bankura Sammilani College, Bankura, West Bengal, India

Surendra K. Gond, PhD ,     Assistant Professor, Department of Botany, MMV, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India

Pralay S. Gorai, MSc ,     Senior Research Scholar, Mycology and Plant Pathology Research Laboratory, Department of Botany, Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, West Bengal, India

Ragini Gothalwal,     Department of Biotechnology, Barkatullah University, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India

Alfredo Herrera-Estrella,     Laboratorio Nacional de Genómica para la Biodiversidad, Center for Research and Advanced Studies, Mexico City, Mexico

Haleema Tariq Janjua,     Department of Biosciences, University of Wah, Wah Cantt, Punjab, Pakistan

Irina K. Kravchenko,     Leading Researcher, Laboratory of Microbial Survival, Winogradsky Institute of Microbiology, Federal Research Centre Fundamentals of Biotechnology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

Meenakshi Kushwaha, MSc

Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR), CSIR-National Botanical Research Institute (CSIR-NBRI) Campus, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

Plant Ecology and Climate Change Sciences Division, CSIR-National Botanical Research Institute, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

Liliana Londoño Hernández,     Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology Research Group, Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia

Narayan Chandra Mandal, PhD ,     Professor, Mycology and Plant Pathology Research Laboratory, Department of Botany, Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, West Bengal, India

José L. Martínez-Hernández,     Professor, Bioprocesses and Bioproducts Research Group, Department of Food Research, School of Chemisty, Universidad Autónoma de Coahuila, Saltillo, Coahuila, Mexico

Naina Marwa, MSc ,     Plant Ecology and Climate Change Sciences Division, CSIR-National Botanical Research Institute, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

Gordana Medunić,     Faculty of Science, Department of Geology, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

Himani Meena,     Department of Microbiology, School of Life Sciences, Pondicherry University, Puducherry, India

Samina Mehnaz, PhD ,     Professor, School of Life Sciences, Forman Christian College (A Chartered University), Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan

Vivek Mishra,     Hebei Collaborative Innovation Center of Coal Exploitation, Hebei University of Engineering, Handan, Hebei, China

Adi Nath

Dept. of Botany, Nehru Gram Bharati (Deemed to be University), Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh, India

Centre of Biotechnology, University of Allahabad, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh, India

Vivek Pandey, MSc, PhD

Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR), CSIR-National Botanical Research Institute (CSIR-NBRI) Campus, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

Plant Ecology and Climate Change Sciences Division, CSIR-National Botanical Research Institute, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

Fannie Isela Parra Cota, PhD ,     Campo Experimental Norman E. Borlaug, Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias (INIFAP), Mexico, Mexico

Cristina Ramírez del Toro,     Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology Research Group, Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia

Nathiely Ramírez-Guzmán,     Professor, Bioprocesses and Bioproducts Research Group, Department of Food Research, School of Chemisty, Universidad Autónoma de Coahuila, Saltillo, Coahuila, Mexico

Pramod W. Ramteke, MSc, PhD ,     Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture Science and Technology, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, India

Rosa Icela Robles Montoya, ING. ,     Instituto Tecnológico de Sonora, Ciudad Obregón, Sonora, Mexico

Raúl Rodríguez-Herrera,     Bioprocesses and Bioproducts Research Group, Department of Food Research, School of Chemistry, Autonomous University of Coahuila, Saltillo, Coahuila, Mexico

Muhammad Adnan Sabar,     Department of Microbiology, Quaid-I-Azam University, Islamabad, Islamabad Capital Territory, Pakistan

Sergio de los Santos-Villalobos, PhD ,     Instituto Tecnológico de Sonora, Ciudad Obregón, Sonora, Mexico

Gustavo Santoyo, PhD ,     Instituto de Investigaciones Químico Biológicas, Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo, Morelia, Michoacán, Mexico

Khan Mohd Sarim,     ICAR-National Bureau of Agriculturally Important Microorganisms, Mau, Uttar Pradesh, India

Mohammad Sharif Sarker,     Faculty of Agriculture Bangladesh Agricultural University, Department of Plant Pathology, Mymensingh, Bangladesh

Leonardo Sepúlveda-Torre,     Professor, Bioprocesses and Bioproducts Research Group, Department of Food Research, School of Chemisty, Universidad Autónoma de Coahuila, Saltillo, Coahuila, Mexico

Izzah Shahid,     Lecturer, Department of Biotechnology, Faculty of Life Science, University of Central Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan

Vivek Sharma,     University Centre for Research and Development, Gharuan, Punjab, India

Prashant Kumar Sharma,     Department of Biotechnology, Barkatullah University, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India

Praveen Sharma, PhD ,     Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Guru Jambheshwar University of Science and Technology, Hisar, Haryana, India

Busi Siddhardha, PhD ,     Department of Microbiology, School of Life Sciences, Pondicherry University, Puducherry, India

Jay Shankar Singh, PhD ,     Department of Environmental Microbiology, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

Namita Singh, PhD ,     Professor, Department of Bio & Nano Technology, Guru Jambheshwar University of Science & Technology, Hisar, Haryana, India

Nandita Singh, MSc, PhD

Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR), CSIR-National Botanical Research Institute (CSIR-NBRI) Campus, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

Plant Ecology and Climate Change Sciences Division, CSIR-National Botanical Research Institute, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

Ruchi Srivastava,     Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture Science and Technology, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, India

Shanthy Sundaram,     Centre of Biotechnology, University of Allahabad, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh, India

Surabhi, MSc ,     Plant Ecology and Climate Change Sciences Division, CSIR-National Botanical Research Institute, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

Ekaterina N. Tikhonova,     Researcher, Laboratory of Microbial Survival, Winogradsky Institute of Microbiology, Federal Research Centre Fundamentals of Biotechnology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

Cristian Torres-León,     Professor, Bioprocesses and Bioproducts Research Group, Department of Food Research, School of Chemisty, Universidad Autónoma de Coahuila, Saltillo, Coahuila, Mexico

Asad Ullah,     Department of Plant Sciences, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Islamabad Capital Territory, Pakistan

Ruchi Urana, MSc

Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Guru Jambheshwar University of Science and Technology, Hisar, Haryana, India

Department of Bio & Nano Technology, Guru Jambheshwar University of Science & Technology, Hisar, Haryana, India

Valeria Valenzuela Ruiz, ING. ,     Instituto Tecnológico de Sonora, Ciudad Obregón, Sonora, Mexico

Janeth Ventura-Sobrevilla,     Bioprocesses and Bioproducts Research Group, Department of Food Research, School of Chemistry, Autonomous University of Coahuila, Saltillo, Coahuila, Mexico

Shobhit Raj Vimal, PhD ,     Department of Environmental Microbiology, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

Nalin N. Wijayawardene,     Center for Yunnan Plateau Biological Resources Protection and Utilization, Qujing Normal University, Qujing, Yunnan, Republic of China

Foreword

The crucial factors such as anthropogenic disturbances, climate change, cattle grazing, and salinization cause agricultural land disturbances. Land degradation can result in the emission of greenhouse gases, eutrophication, reduced crop productivity, and loss of beneficial soil microbial diversity. Through restoration of degraded and disturbed lands, the problems related to global warming and food security can be minimized significantly. The book has been written on right time to find out viable options, tools, and technologies to restore the degraded ecosystems to preserve the agriculture and environment for future generations.

Microbial resources and their services are the very basis of life and driving force for survival of livings on the earth. Microbes facilitate soil nutrient availability to plants in various ecosystems through nutrient mineralization of various organic sources and plant growth–promoting activities. Furthermore, under disturbed ecosystems, plant-microbes associations played a tremendous role in restoration of degraded soil fertility and ecosystem productivity. Therefore, microbial diversity and its beneficial ecological services may be exploited in restoration ecology too. The book Microbial Services in Restoration Ecology includes the review articles from potential experts and would be useful to the current developments in the field of degraded soil restoration and ecosystems productivity.

In the market sector, microbial-based biofertilizers and biopesticides attracted the farmers and stakeholders to replace the harmful agrochemicals for agricultural use. Eco-friendly microbial applications as biofertilizers, biosorbents, and biopesticides have contributed significantly in the well-being of agriculture and environmental management around the globe. Diverse efficient and beneficial microbes proved their suitability in restoration of degraded and marginal lands. Furthermore, the microbial metabolic pathways and their secondary metabolites may be utilized under stressful environments as ideal options for ecological restoration. The editors Dr Jay Shankar Singh and Dr Shobhit Raj Vimal tried to include the microbial services in restoration of degraded ecosystems from the eminent subject specialists from reputed organizations.

(Bijendra Singh)

Preface

The main objective of compilation of this volume is to highlight the new and innovative progress made in the field of microbial services in soil fertility restoration and well-being of crop production and ecosystem developments. The microbial genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and bioengineering attract microbiologists for microbial resources application as biopesticide, biofertilizers, and environmental safety. In the 21st century, during the past few decades, a rapid growth in microbial-based technologies is clearly contributing in sustainability of agriculture and environmental status. The microbial-based bioformulation and bioinoculant technology provides an attractive subject for research and its implementation in stressed agriculture restoration. All these progresses in microbial-based resources and services provide the best time to review the related innovative tremendous scientific achievements in restoration ecology. The book will provide up-to-date information about the microbial services in improving food production, plant diseases control, crop stress removal, and management of disturbed ecosystems. We are confident that the book Microbial Services in Restoration Ecology will provide new and updated information related to microbial-mediated beneficial services in restoration of agroecosystems and environmental quality equally to undergraduate and postgraduate students, teachers, scientists, industrialists, and researchers studying and working in the area of microbial ecology, agriculture stress management, bioremediation, restoration ecology, and agricultural microbiology.

Jay Shankar Singh

Shobhit Raj Vimal

(Editors)

Chapter 1

Significant Advances in Biopesticide Production: Strategies for High-Density Bio-Inoculant Cultivation

Nathiely Ramírez-Guzmán, Mónica Chávez-González, Leonardo Sepúlveda-Torre, Cristian Torres-León, Alcides Cintra, Jorge Angulo-López, José L. Martínez-Hernández, and Cristóbal Noé Aguilar, Bsc, Msc, PhD

Abstract

Biopesticide production has become a topic of intense research because of the application and use of this kind of bioactive agents to replace some traditional pesticides that are synthesized chemically, which are applied to food commodities. Worldwide, the market of biopesticides grows annually at a rate of 45% in North America, 25% in Europe and Oceania, 15% in Latin and South American countries, and 7% in Asia. Trends in the modern agriculture reflect an increment of the use of fungal and bacterial biopesticides for which the design of efficient bioprocesses and strategies to improve the productivity and stability of these bioactive agents is a necessity. In this chapter, biological control is described in detail, with particular focus on the significant advances in the production of biopesticides. Also, biocontrol is focused as an alternative to some synthetic chemical treatments that cause environmental, human health, and food quality risks. Recent data about the state of the art of production of biopesticides by solid-state bioprocessing of agroindustrial wastes is discussed, and finally we describe some strategies for high-density bio-inoculant cultivation, describing the influence of water stress as one the best conditions for the production of fungal spores, which is an inexpensive biotechnologic option for modern agriculture in developing countries.

Keywords

Agroindustrial waste; Antagonisms; Biological control; Pathogens; Water stress

1.1. Introduction

In the recent years the agricultural economy has had great losses due to droughts, climatic changes, and pests that attack crops; during both the pre- and postharvest stages, diseases to crops can cause quantitative and qualitative losses (Nearing et al., 2017). Among the main methods of controlling postharvest diseases is the use of chemical fungicides, although at present they have generated various controversies owing to the negative consequences they represent at different levels (Ramírez et al., 2018). Therefore the field needs to reduce the use of this type of synthetic agents and increase the introduction of control systems of the biological type; implementing this type of systems is a viable alternative because it consists of using whole living organisms or their parts to combat the damage caused by other organisms such as pests, bacteria, and fungi (Cruz-Quiroz et al., 2019).

Among the different methods, the use of fungi, bacteria, or the metabolites produced by them can present different mechanisms of action to antagonize crop pathogens, including the most representative competition for nutrients and space, mycoparasitism, and antibiosis. Thus the methods of multiplication of these biological control agents are important, whether they are handmade or industrialized using biotechnologic techniques such as solid-state fermentation with its qualities, benefits, and challenges and use of a smaller amount of water unlike its counterpart liquid-state fermentation (Cruz-Quiroz et al., 2017; Torres-León et al., 2019). However, the greatest quality of this biotechnologic tool is the possibility of the valorization of agroindustrial by-products such as leftovers derived from cereals or fruit peels. Owing to the increased demand for food processing, the total amount of this waste is increasing, which will have a significant impact on the environment because most of the industries do not have methodologies to process the tons of waste they produce and to make sure the wastes do not end up in landfills (Torres-León et al., 2018). As industries are not fully exploiting the potential that lies in the large number of compounds of interest that wastes contain, such as fibers, sugars, proteins, lipids, and antioxidants, microorganisms known as biocontrollers can use these nutrients in a solid-state fermentation where they would be used as a substrate (Chávez-García et al., 2009). So in this chapter, generalities of biological control, trends, and techniques for the production of these agents are discussed (Ramírez et al., 2016).

1.2. Biological Control

1.2.1. General Aspects: Pests, Natural Control, and Biological Control

To better understand the definition of biological control, it is important to first understand the concept of pests, natural enemy, and natural control. First, a pest can be defined as any organism that diminishes the availability, quality, or value of some human resource (Flint and van den Bosch, 1981). It can be controlled by chemical, physical, biological, and mechanical agents; crop rotation; crops in traps; silviculture; among others (Eilenberg et al., 2001). A natural enemy is a living organism that fights a specific pest, and this characteristic is part of its evolution process. Natural control, as the name says, occurs naturally in different ecosystems; that is, it is the natural balance in which populations of living organisms are reduced in their environments by their predators, parasites, antagonists, and diseases (Flint and Driestadt, 1998; Hajek and Eilenberg, 2018). Biological control, different from natural control, occurs by the action of an external agent to the environment that needs to control a particular pest, and thus it constitutes the suppressive action of a specific pest population by using living organisms, natural enemies, to make it less abundant or less harmful, according to the purpose (Eilenberg et al., 2001). By suppressing populations of pests and weeds using living organisms, these organisms can also provide important protection against invasive species and protect the environment by reducing the need for pesticides (Heimpel and Mills, 2017).

Agents that exercise biological control are often called natural enemies (Hajek and Eilenberg, 2018). These agents may be predators (Hajek et al., 2016; Gaugler and Kaya, 2018), parasitoids (Gillespie et al., 2016), pathogens (Lacey et al., 2015), competitors (Carrillo and Siemann, 2016; Xiao et al., 2016), and a combination of parasitoids and pathogens (Mohammed and Hatcher, 2017).

The importance of biological control in a scenario of increased use of synthetic pesticides can be emphasized for several reasons, such as resistance of some pests to these pesticides and the environmental and human health damages they caused (Geometry and Analysis, 1991; Margni et al., 2002; Ruiu, 2018; Sabarwal et al., 2018; Lajmanovich et al., 2019). However, it is also worth noting that despite the benefits of biological control, it is not always appropriate to use, as it would not meet the needs. For example, (1) in the case of pests that are in extremely high density in the environment, that is, an outbreak; (2) in programs to eradicate certain pests, which usually require immediate and lethal action; and (3) when the level of economic damage of a crop is reached. Biological control is generally used in long-term applications, whereas for emergency actions, the use of synthetic chemical pesticides is more common. However, biopesticides are also used in some short-term applications (Jonsson et al., 2017; Hajek and Eilenberg, 2018).

1.2.2. Integrated Pest Management

Integrated pest management (IPM) emphasizes the growth of a healthy crop with the least possible interruption of agroecosystems and encourages the natural practice of integrated control mechanisms (WHO FAO, 2014). Some producers use high doses of chemical pesticides in order to obtain large productions, and thus the greatest possible profit, whereas consumers require better quality food. The IPM attempts to address these two situations, aiming at a more sustainable development, integrating several actions, in which the producer’s business is economically profitable and also reduces damages to human health and the environment (Owen et al., 2015; Stenberg, 2017; Altieri, 2018; Altieri and Nicholls, 2018). The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations defines IPM as the careful consideration of all available pest control techniques and subsequent integration of appropriate measures that discourage the development of pest populations and maintain pesticides and other interventions, at levels that are economically justifiable, and reduce or minimize risks to human health and the environment (WHO FAO, 2014). Some IPM principles are (1) prevention and suppression (which includes combinations of tactics and multipest approach, rotation, and crop management and ecology), (2) monitoring, (3) decision based on monitoring and thresholds, (4) nonchemical methods, (5) pesticide selection, (6) reduced pesticide use, (7) antiresistance strategies, and (8) evaluation (Barzman et al., 2015).

1.3. Types/Strategies of Biological Controls

The main types of biological control are classical biological control (import), conservation (inoculative), and increase (inductive). The objective of the different strategies of biological control is to reestablish the level of self-sustaining natural control (Hajek and Eilenberg, 2018). Classical or import biological control occurs by placing/introducing the natural enemy of the pest to stay permanently in a given environment (Heimpel and Cock, 2018; Messing and Brodeur, 2018; Valente et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2018). In the biological control of conservation or inoculative control, long-term measures are taken for the normal reestablishment of the natural enemies of the place (Torres and Bueno, 2018; Vandervoet et al., 2018; Shields et al., 2019). In the biological control of increase (or inductive control), a great amount of natural enemies are added, aiming for the fastest control of the pest; this measure usually aims at the short term (McEvoy, 2018; Michaud, 2018; Barbosa et al., 2019; Mirhosseini et al., 2019).

1.4. Pesticides and Biopesticides

Pesticide is any substance or a mixture of substances intended to prevent, destroy, or control any pest, including vectors of human or animal diseases and unwanted species of plants or animals, that causes damage during or otherwise interfere with the production, processing, storage, transport, or marketing of food, agricultural products, wood and wood products or animal feed, or substances that may be administered to animals for the control of insects, arachnids, or other pests in their bodies (WHO FAO, 2014) (Robinson, 2018; Watson, 2018). Pesticide can also be any substance or a mixture of substances used to prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate any pest; used as a plant regulator, defoliant, or desiccant; or used as a nitrogen stabilizer (EPA, 2019).

Despite the primary benefits of using pesticides to control pests and disease vectors, pesticides bring major secondary problems to human and environmental health. Table 1.1 presents some recent studies that describe some of the problems to human health.

The word biopesticide is a contraction for biological pesticide. According to the definition by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which already carries with it a classification, biopesticides include biochemical pesticides (natural substances that control pests), microbial pesticides (pest control microorganisms), and protectors incorporated into plants (PIPs) (pesticide substances produced by plants that had gene added) (EPA, 2019). The European Union defines as a form of pesticide based on microorganisms or natural products (European Union, 2019).

Table 1.1

1.5. Classification/Examples of Pesticides and Biopesticides

Pesticides are commonly classified based on their chemical composition into synthetic and natural. Synthetics (example in parentheses) include organochlorides (DDT), organophosphates (malathion), carbamates (propoxur), and pyrethroids (deltamethrin). Natural pesticides are those obtained from plants (e.g., pyrethrum, azadirachtin) (Mudasir and Nazir, 2016; Yadav and Devi, 2017 ; Kaur et al., 2019).

They can also be classified based on the type of pest they fight (example in parentheses): insecticides (Aldicarb), fungicides (azoxystrobin), bactericides (copper complexes), herbicides (atrazine), acaricides (bifenazate), rodenticides (warfarin), algaecides (copper sulfate), larvicides (methoprene), repellents (methiocarb), desiccants (boric acid), ovicides (benzoxazine), virucides (scytovirin), molluscicides (metaldehyde), nematicides (Aldicarb), avicides (Avitrol), mothballs (dichlorobenzene), lampricides (trifluoromethyl nitrophenol), piscicides (rotenone), silvicides (tebuthiuron), and termiticides (fipronil) (Mudasir and Nazir, 2016; Yadav and Devi, 2017 ).

Biopesticides can be classified as (Table 1.2) microbial pesticides, which include bacteria, fungi, viruses, and entomopathogenic nematodes (may include products of bacteria and fungi); biochemical pesticides, which include natural substances that control pests and microbial diseases; and PIPs, which are pesticide substances produced by plants that had gene added (EPA, 2019).

In addition to the aforementioned biopesticides, there are others, such as RNAi pesticides (interfering RNA), which are resistance genes inserted into cultures, for example, the Bt toxin gene (which is a gene of the active substance of Bacillus thuringiensis [Bt]), and new agents have been studied, such as the use of the CRISPR technique for gene editing, to make agricultural crops more resistant, with greater precision and less potential for undesirable side effects (Kumar and Gong, 2018; Seiber et al., 2018; Blyuss et al., 2019). The production and classification of some biopesticides varies and is controversial and, as such, raises many issues, especially in relation to genetic products, genetic editing of crops, and other related subjects (Hamer, 2003; Cherry, 2005; Seiber et al., 2018; EPA, 2019).

Table 1.2

a  The classification of biopesticides is still very controversial in several aspects, in the ordering of both the groups and the components belonging to each group.

b  Bacteria, fungi, viruses, and entomopathogenic nematodes.

c  Nematodes are part of this group, even being multicellular.

d  There are controversies about the inclusion of some bacterial and fungal products such as biopesticides.

e  Pyrethrum is different from synthetic pyrethroid pesticides.

f  Some agents in Table 1.2 are represented by organisms, molecules, or groups (extracts, oils, and semiochemicals).

1.6. Significant Advances in Biopesticide Production: Strategies for High-Density Bio-Inoculant Cultivation

In this section, recent data about the state of the art of production of biopesticides by solid-state bioprocessing of agroindustrial wastes is discussed, and finally we describe some strategies for high-density bio-inoculant cultivation, describing the influence of water stress as one the best conditions for production of fungal spores, which is an inexpensive biotechnologic option for modern agriculture in developing countries(De la Cruz-Quiroz, 2018).

1.6.1. New Implementation in Biological Control Agents

1.6.1.1. New technologies of biological control

For several decades the use of pesticides of chemical origin was the most efficient way to control various pests. The wide range of chemical pesticides generated has had a great acceptance and therefore a great economic benefit, as the practicality of their use as well as their effectiveness has kept them for years in the market (Lacey et al., 2015).

However, the excessive use of these pesticides has led to major environmental problems coupled with the generation of resistance by a large number of pests. In addition, it has been seen that residues are generated that are present in agricultural products compromising food safety (Castillo-Minjarez et al., 2019). This is why the recent years have seen the need to replace chemical pesticides with less toxic formulations with less environmental impact and especially to help control pests resistant to conventional pesticides. Biological control has proved to be one of the best alternatives to the use of chemical pesticides. The term biological control was coined by H.S. Smith in 1919 and is defined as the regulation of pest populations by natural enemies (Miranda-Hernández et al., 2017).

In the classification of biological control agents, known pathogenic microorganisms can be found that can cause either disease or insect death. They include bacteria, viruses, nematodes, and fungi. Particularly, entomopathogenic fungi are considered as the best proposal of biological control agents (Humber, 2016). One of the advantages of these fungi is the latent form of their reproductive cycle, the spores or conidia (Bernardo et al., 2018). The fungi generate millions of conidia in their growth and each one of them constitutes an infectious unit, which only needs to be deposited on the body of the insects to be able to begin its infectious process on the plagues. The process of attack of these entomopathogenic fungi continues with germination, penetration, and proliferation on the pest in particular (Miranda-Hernández et al., 2017). Another advantage of spore production is that millions of infectious units can be produced in short periods, and the production process is simple and easy to handle. On the other hand, these spores can be stored in small spaces (Roussos et al., 1991).

Among the biological control research works, fungi stand out for being the most studied (Lacey et al., 2015). The genera reported as entomopathogenic fungi are Trichoderma, Colletotrichum, Fusarium, Sclerotinia, Rhizoctonia, Metarhizium, Armillaria, Penicillium, and Botrytis (Goffré and Folgarait, 2015; Eckard et al., 2014; Braga et al., 2019).

The use of conidia of phytopathogenic fungi has been one of the most effective ways of biological control; some studies highlighting its effectiveness have shown that the conidia of Metarhizium brunneum against the pathogen Agriotes lineatus managed to kill about 73%–80% of pests (Eckard et al., 2014). Goffré and Folgarait (2015) reported the death of Acromyrmex lundii by 85.6% 6–7 days after the application of Purpureocillium lilacinum conidia.

Some other works have focused on evaluating sporulation capacity, cold tolerance, and UV tolerance (Khöl et al., 2019). Other works such as Locatelli et al. (2018) have opted to evaluate the viability of spores in encapsulated formulations, where they have found that viability has been extended for up to 14 months. Muñoz-Celaya et al. (2012) showed the viability of microencapsulation through spray-drying of Trichoderma harzianum conidia in polymeric carbohydrate matrices such as maltodextrin and gum arabic; they found 86% survival of the conidia for up to 8 weeks.

The production of entomopathogenic fungal spores can be carried out through fermentation or submerged culture and through solid-state fermentation (Méndez-González et al., 2018). The latter type of fermentation has shown that the growth of microorganisms and production of the products of interest are more efficient and require a shorter time compared with submerged fermentation. This type of fermentation system consists of the growth of microorganisms on solid substrates, with low levels of free water in the system (Roussos et al., 1997). Solid-state fermentation is an effective method for the production of spores of phytopathogenic fungi, as agroindustrial residues can be used for the development of fungi and they act as both the support and means of fermentation. Some authors have proposed subjecting biocontrol agents to water stress as a way to promote the virulence and viability of spores for a long time (Brand, 2006). The objective of promoting water stress in cropping systems is to increase yields of sporulation of entomopathogenic fungi (Hassouni, 2007).

1.7. Significant Advances in Biopesticide Production: Strategies for High-Density Bio-Inoculant Cultivation

1.7.1. Development of Molecular Technologies

Molecular technology for the development of biopesticides studies the mechanisms of action of microbial pathogens in the process of herbicide resistance and competition with crops, as well as the identification of insect receptors for pesticide detection (Chandler et al., 2011). The mechanisms of action to control pests are varied and depend on the nature of the biopesticide: they can be (1) induced resistance, (2) competition, (3) antibiosis, and (4) parasitism/hyperparasitism (Mandal, 2019). The natural defense of plants or animals can be improved by incorporating proteins or biomolecules that allow them to acquire an induced resistance against pest attacks (Deshmukh et al., 2006).

Biopesticides can be derived from animal or insect toxins (bee poisons, spiders, scorpion, etc.), hormones, and pheromones and from natural pests such as predators and parasites; these biopesticides eliminate pests without affecting crops (Leng et al., 2011). Some pathogens and nematodes introduced for biological control have managed to effectively control pests for an extended period (Goettel and Hajek, 2001). An example of these low-molecular weight-toxins is found in spider venom that inhibits monoamine oxidase and is toxic to pests and lethal to rats (Saidemberg et al., 2009).

Biopesticides can be classified (Leng et al., 2011) as follows:

• Microbial pesticides

• Viral insecticides

• Bacterial insecticides

• Fungal insecticides

• Parasitic nematodes

• Botanical pesticides

• Zooid pesticides

• Genetically modified plants

Among the first biopesticides developed are microbials, of which research has been advanced in countries such as the United States, Russia, Australia, and Japan (Leng et al., 2011). However, a few entomopathogens are used as biological control agents. Some microorganisms studied, such as Bt, have been applied for several years for the management of pests such as lepidoptera, diptera, and coleoptera insects, and new strains of Bt that host new types of genes are still being discovered (Kaur, 2000); 80% of the biological products used in agriculture are considered to be prepared with components of this microorganism (Roh et al., 2007; Shu et al., 2009). Bt can control insects and pests without affecting the environment, humans, or other living things; its consumption has increased from 1% to 2% in the global insecticide market, leaving $8 billion per year for the sector (Cundina College University, Chaparro-Giraldo and López-Pazos, 2013). The Trichoderma sp. has been extensively studied and used primarily as a biopesticide (Mausam et al., 2007).

Different alternatives have been developed in the delivery of Pseudomonas spp. and endophytes to increase permanence in the field of insecticidal crystalline proteins (ICPs) and improve insecticidal efficacy. The use of expression promoters and other regulatory elements has managed to increase ICP yields (Kaur, 2000).

Biopesticides derived from plants or that possess their active agents are known as botanical pesticides, which make the main use of secondary metabolites such as flavonoids, alkaloids, among others for weed control and insect removal (Leng et al., 2011). China is one of the countries that has led the study of these botanical pesticides and has reported different ingredients such as tobacco, derris, blood vine, and Celastraceae, with which a variety of botanical pesticides have been generated (Leng et al., 2011).

Zooid pesticides incorporate animal toxins, hormones, pheromones, or natural predators for pest control as an active agent; the use of some nematodes and pathogens has been successfully reported in pest control. In countries such as Thailand and India, the use of parasites and predators has been reported as phytosanitary controls for farmers, with excellent results (Goettel and Hajek, 2001; Laura et al., 2010).

Plants are genetically modified by taking a gene or genes with pesticide traits of some species and modified to produce toxins that are poisoned by being transferred to a plant. The gene must have the ability to inherit with stability in the plant host. Two types of phytosanitary crops can be found: (1) insect-resistant genetically modified crops and (2) herbicide-resistant crops. The most studied crops so far are maize, soybeans, cotton, and sugar beet; genetically modified crops are strictly regulated by one state agency in each country, as in the case of the EPA in the United States. Some countries that have been working on the development of genetically modified crops are Japan, United Kingdom, Australia, and Russia. This type of genetically tolerant crops is not considered as pesticides but can be considered a subtheme. Research that has been ahead in the sequence of pest genomes (Chandler et al., 2011) is on track to harness the potential of these crops in the development of agricultural biotechnology (Leng et al., 2011).

The production of biopesticides has increased in the recent years with the development of new techniques of molecular biology, genetic engineering, protein engineering, among other techniques that have increased market share with wide social and economic benefits.

Currently, biopesticides represent only 5% of the market for crop protection products. The market share of biopesticides is composed of 74% of biopesticides of bacterial origin, 10% fungal, 5% viral, 8% predators, and 3% others; this share is expected to continue to grow with an annual growth rate of 15%–20% by 2020 (Bautista et al., 2018). The development of the potential of these technologies will increase commercial use and market share, as well as the profitability of the industry, which involves the optimization of production (Kaur, 2000), the reduction of factors that limit its use such as regulation, costs, and effectiveness in the field in different climatic zones (Chandler et al., 2011; Glare and O'Callaghan, 2017).

1.8. Agroecological Trends in the Market and General Perspectives

Several authors mention that agroecology presents some foundations for its understanding and development; for example, plant and animal diversification within the agroecosystem, the recycling of nutrients and biomass, the management of organic matter and the stimulation of soil biology to provide optimal provision for crop growth and optimization of the loss of water and nutrients from the soil. The appropriation of preventive measures for the control of insects, pathogens, and weeds can be achieved by helping beneficial fauna, using allelopathy, and using a series of techniques developed by people for millennia. The synergies and symbiosis that emerge from the interactions between plants and animals can also be used (Girlado, 2015).

It is difficult to establish the scope and general trends of agroecology because each region or country has and proceeds through different public policies and has various factors that affect its development, such as population, strategies in field innovation, and climate change. However, the most important that are developed worldwide are cited in the following. The challenge is to project the principles of agroecology, with its technologic elements at different scales, so that small farmers, and their food systems, can move forward despite local and global barriers (Astier et al., 2015).

On the other hand, the different types of public policy for the benefit of family farmers identify three major dynamics. The first has to do with the visibility and recognition that the category of family farming has obtained in the recent decades. The second has to do with the allocation by governments of a specific budget for family farmers, ensuring guaranteed access to reserved resources. The third modality refers to the growing complexity of the policy fabric and of the institutions that affect family farming (Sabourin et al., 2017).

In another study, they mention some cultural and social indicators to measure trends in the food and agroecologic systems of indigenous peoples. These trends are directed toward access to the integrity of the land, water resources, and traditional habitats used for the production, harvesting, and/or collection of food; in abundance, shortage, and/or threats to seeds, food, plant medicines, and traditional animal foods; and preservation and continued use of language, songs, legends, ceremonies, traditional food names, and agroecologic processes.

In Argentina, one of the main perspectives focuses on the mobilization and organization of rural communities, alternatives to face a hegemonic model. An element that is playing positively for the development of agroecology is the awareness of the urban population about the effect of the application of pesticides on food and a growing demand to consume healthy food (Sarandón and Marasas, 2015). On the other hand, in Brazil, in the face of global trends that cause the concentration of wealth, environmental degradation, and the disarticulation of local cultures, the concept of food sovereignty associated with the fundamentals of agroecology emerges as a guiding approach to alternative policies aimed at restructuring agri-food systems and reshaping current rural development patterns (Caporal and Petersen, 2010). In Nicaragua, the government's position emerges as dual, seeing the orientations of the different public programs. If one of the priorities is to increase productivity, by facilitating access to producer credit, it is necessary to mention that there are initiatives that try to fully incorporate the concept of agroecology in producer support practices. There is a policy formulation in the benefit of agroecology and organic agriculture, in comparison with other countries that there is not even something that is stated in this way.

Other authors mention some theoretic methodological perspectives of agroecology, which are spaces for reflection and action that allow the construction of a transformative activity from the ecologic management of natural resources to develop strategies for confronting capitalist modernity. They mention three material bases:

1. The ethnoecosystem, as a material space for sociocultural construction.

2. Local identity, where, together with a specific local knowledge of it, scientific knowledge appears.

3. Repairing the ecologic crisis generated by their own mistakes; with the industrialization of the management that originally referred to the communal ecologic goods, the agroecologic process begins.

In addition, the theoretic methodological perspectives of agroecology appear diversified for analytic purposes in three instances: ecologicl and productive agronomic, socioeconomic and cultural perspective, and a sociopolitical and social emancipation perspective (Sevilla-Guzmán, 2017).

References

Altieri M, Nicholls C.  Biodiversity and Pest Management in Agroecosystems . 2018 doi: 10.1201/9781482277937.

Altieri M.A.  Agroecology: The Science of Sustainable Agriculture, Agroecology: The Science of Sustainable Agriculture . second ed. CRC Press; 2018 doi: 10.1201/9780429495465.

Anakwue R. Cardiotoxicity of pesticides: are Africans at risk?  Cardiovasc. Toxicol.  2019;19(2):95–104. doi: 10.1007/s12012-018-9486-7 Springer US.

Astier C, Argueta Q, Orozco-Ramírez Q, González S, Morales H, Guerritsen P, Escalona M.Historia de la agroecología en México.  Agroecologí . 2015;10(2):9–27.

Bachman P.M, et al. Ecological risk assessment for DvSnf7 RNA: a plant-incorporated protectant with targeted activity against western corn rootworm.  Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol.  2016;81:77–88. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2016.08.001 Elsevier Ltd.

Bachman P.M, et al. Characterization of the activity spectrum of MON 88702 and the plant-incorporated protectant Cry51Aa2.834-16.  PLoS One . 2017;12(1):1–20. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169409.

Barbosa R.H, et al. Tetrastischus howardi density and dispersal toward augmentation biological control of sugarcane borer.  Neotrop. Entomol.  2019;48(2):323–331. doi: 10.1007/s13744-018-0646-z.

Barzman M, et al. Eight principles of integrated pest management.  Agron. Sustain. Dev.  2015;35(4):1199–1215. doi: 10.1007/s13593-015-0327-9.

Bautista E, Mesa L, Gómez M. Alternatives for the production of microbial biopesticides based on fungi: the case of Latin America and the Caribbean.  Scientia Agropecuaria . 2018;9(4):585–604. doi: 10.17268/sci.agropecu.2018.04.15. .

Bernardo C.C, Barreto L.P, de Silva C.S.R, Luz C, Arruda W, Fernandes É.K.K. Conidia and blastospores of Metarhizium spp. and Beauveria bassiana s.l.: their development during the infection process and virulence against the tick Rhipicephalus microplus .  Ticks Tick-Borne Dis.  2018;9(5):1334–1342. doi: 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2018.06.001.

Blyuss K.B, et al. RNAi-based biocontrol of wheat nematodes using natural poly-component biostimulants.  Front. Plant Sci.  2019;10(April) doi: 10.3389/fpls.2019.00483.

Braga A.B.A.C, Costa C.J.M, Vilela A.W, Ribeiro E.J, Santos L.D, Zotarelli M.F.Evaluation of lethality temperature and use of different wall materials in the microencapsulation process of Trichoderma asperellum conidias by spray drying.  Powder Technol.  2019;347(1):199–206.

Brand D.  Utilization of Solid State Fermentation for the Production of Fungal Biological Control Agents: Case Study on Paecilomyces Lilacinus against Root-Knot Nematodes  Thèse Doctorat de l'Université de Provence, Marseille, France. 2006 188 pp..

Camarda A, et al. Efficacy of a novel neem oil formulation (RP03TM) to control the poultry red mite Dermanyssus gallinae .  Med. Vet. Entomol.  2018;32(3):290–297. doi: 10.1111/mve.12296.

Caporal F, Petersen P. Políticas públicas y alternativas agroecológicas en Brasil: perspectivas para la seguridad y soberanía alimentaria.  Revista de Economía Crítica . 2010:75–112.

Carrillo J, Siemann E. A Native plant competition mediates the biocontrol impact of above- and belowground herbivory on an invasive tree.  Ecol. Appl.  2016;26(7):2060–2071.

Castillo-Minjarez J.M, Garza-López P.M, Barrios-González J, Loera O. Free conidia of entomopathogenic fungi modify quality traits by changing glutathione levels after an oxidant stimulus.  Biol. Contr.  2019;137:104011. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2019.104011.

Chandler D, Bailey A.S, Mark Tatchell G, Davidson G, Greaves J, Grant W.P. The development, regulation and use of biopesticides for integrated pest management.  Phil. Trans. Biol. Sci.  2011;366(1573):1987–1998. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0390.

Chávez-García M, et al. Effects of substrate and light exposition in the production of Trichoderma sp..  Univ. Sci.  2009;13(3):245–251 Available at:. http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0122-74832008000300003&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=es.

Cherry A.  Biopesticides, a Global Perspective . Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); 2005.

De la Cruz-Quiroz R, et al. Solid-state fermentation in a bag bioreactor: effect of corn cob mixed with phytopathogen biomass on spore and cellulase production by Trichoderma asperellum .  Ferment. Process.  2017 doi: 10.5772/64643 February.

De la Cruz-Quiroz R, Roussos S, Tranier M.T, Rodríguez-Herrera R, Ramírez-Guzmán N, Aguilar C.N.Fungal spores production by solid-state fermentation under hydric stress condition.  J. BioProcess Chem. Technol.  2019;11(21):7–12.

De la Cruz-Quiroz R, Roussos S, Aguilar C.N. Production of a biological control agent: effect of a drying process of solid-state fermentation on viability of Trichoderma spores.  Int. J. Green Technol.  2018;4(1):01–06. doi: 10.30634/2414-2077.2018.04.1.

Deshmukh S, Hückelhoven R, Schäfer P, Imani J, Sharma M, Weiss M. The root endophytic fungus Piriformospora indica requires host cell death for proliferation during mutualistic symbiosis with barley.  Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA . 2006;103:18450–18457.

Dhananjayan V, et al. Assessment of genotoxicity and cholinesterase activity among women workers occupationally exposed to pesticides in tea garden.  Mutat. Res. Genet. Toxicol. Environ. Mutagen.  2019;841(February):1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2019.03.002 Elsevier.

Dziewirska E, et al. Human semen quality, sperm DNA damage, and the level of urinary concentrations of 1N and TCPY, the biomarkers of nonpersistent insecticides.  Am. J. Men's Health . 2019;13(1) doi: 10.1177/1557988318816598.

Eckard S, Ansari M.A, Bacher S, Butt T.M, Enkerli J, Grabenweger G. Virulence of in vivo and in vitro produced conidia of Metarhizium brunneum strains for control of wireworms.  Crop Protect.  2014;64:137–142. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2014.06.017.

Eilenberg J, Hajek A, Lomer C. Suggestions for unifying the terminology in biological control.  BioControl . 2001;46(4):387–400. doi: 10.1023/A:1014193329979.

EPA.  Biopesticides . EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency; 2019.

European Union.  European Union Pesticides Database . European Union: European Commission; 2019.

Feki A, et al. Cardiotoxicity and myocardial infarction-associated DNA damage induced by thiamethoxam in vitro and in vivo: protective role of Trigonella foenum-graecum seed-derived polysaccharide.  Environ. Toxicol.  2019;34(3):271–282. doi: 10.1002/tox.22682.

Flint M.L, Driestadt S.H.  Natural Enemies Handbook: The Illustrated Guide to Biological Pest Control . 1998.

Flint M.L, van den Bosch R.  Introduction to Integrated Pest Management . Springer; 1981.

Freire C, Koifman S. Pesticides, depression and suicide: a systematic review of the epidemiological evidence.  Int. J. Hyg Environ.