Diverse model and approaches towards sustainable development goal 2.4 for a shared future

Introduction

Sustainability is a convoluted word, one that invokes images of humans living harmoniously with nature; or a system that benefits people, planet and profit (Henderson and Michel Loreau, 2023) [45] . The most comprehensive definition of sustainability refers to practices that allow the current population to meet their basic needs, without jeopardizing the needs of future generations (Henderson and Loreau, 2023) [45] . The aspect of sustainable development has become ubiquitous in the last 30 years (Salvia et al., 2019), however achieve such a goal, or whether it is even possible, remains a major unknown. The United Nations is dedicated to bringing countries together to solve international problems and to shape a better future (Henderson and Michel Loreau, 2023) [45] . One of the greatest challenges facing society today is meeting the population's basic needs, while protecting the environment, hence the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals can overcome current and future sustainability challenges. SDG 2 'Zero Hunger' has a specific objective to support sustainable agriculture and enhance food security at global level. SDG Target 2.4 has a clear aim to introduce latest proven sustainable food production systems and improved agricultural practices can be implemented by 2030 (Liu, 2023) [57] . In an age of frequent climate change, the agricultural system must become more prolific to keep pace with exponential population growth, increasing global food demand & changing diets ensuring access to nutritious food (McGinnis and Menachem, 2008; Saiz-Rubio and Rovira-Más, 2020; WHO, 2020) [61,83,102] . The present population of 7.5 billion (of which about 900 million are still undernourished) is expected to reach 8.5 billion in 2030, 9.7 billion in 2050 and 10.4 billion in 2030 (Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012; UN, 2017, Umesha et al., 2018) [, 2, 99, 98] . Cereal production needs to rise about 3 billion tonnes (Muhie, 2022) [64] and pulse production must climb by 39 metric tons (Aug 7, 2016, The Times of India) to keep stride. According to 'The economic times' 2019' food grain production in an agricultural economy like India was likely to become 291.95 million tonnes (Arora et al., 2022) [9] . Achieving above goal with depleting energy resources, reduced fresh water supply, depleting soil quality, extreme weather patterns, climate change, is virtually impossible using conventional agriculture. Increasing per capita food consumption, will pose further pressure on natural resources (i.e., water, soil, energy) and exacerbate human impact on the environment (i.e., agrochemicals, greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), biodiversity loss) (Pretty, 2008 [74,40,30,31,35,41,2,42,21] . Restructure of www.extensionjournal.com relevant policies are required as one of the key ways to achieve sustainable agriculture in order to have a resilient global food system and control and maintain the environment (Rukhsana and Alam, 2022) [81] .

Policy Orientation for Sustainable Development Goal 2.4

The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2023: Special edition serves as a compelling rallying cry, offering an honest evaluation of SDGs based on the most recent data and projections. However, the report cautions that the impacts of the climate crisis, a fragile global economy and lingering aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic have exposed vulnerabilities and impeded progress towards the Goals. It highlights that while stagnation is widespread, it is world's poorest and most marginalized who bear the brunt of these unpredicted global challenges. Urgent action is imperative, as the report identifies critical areas requiring intervention to rescue the SDGs and drive sustainable advancements for both humanity and the planet by 2030 (Source: The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2023) [97] Sustainable Development Goal 2.4 strive to establish sustainable food production systems and adopt resilient agricultural practices designed to boost productivity and yields, preserving ecosystems, bolster resilience against climate change, extreme weather events, droughts, floods and other calamities while progressively enhancing the quality of land and soil. In sustainable agriculture, several models and approaches focus on different aspects of the food production system, from soil health to the consumer's plate. Here are some key models and paradigms related to stable production, soil management, the farm-to-fork approach, and other aspects of sustainable agriculture.

Soil Health Models 1.1 No-Till Farming

No-Till Farming is a progressive agricultural practice aimed at minimizing soil disturbance during planting and harvesting processes, thereby safeguarding soil structure and health while mitigating erosion (Fig. 1). This method not only promotes sustainability but also offers significant economic advantages. By requiring less labour, energy, and machinery compared to conventional tillage systems, no-till farming reduces production costs. Moreover, its environmental benefits are substantial, with decreased erosion and runoff resulting in improved water quality and ecosystem health (Table 1). The adoption of no-till techniques contributes to a more sustainable and ecologically balanced approach to agriculture, aligning with the urgent need for environmentally conscious practices in modern farming. (Uri, 2000) [100] .

Conservation Agriculture

The concept of Conservation Agriculture (CA) aims to maintain permanent soil cover, diversify crop species, and minimize mechanical soil disturbance. CA is practiced on about 125 million hectares of land worldwide, covering approximately 9-10% of the global arable land surface. Moreover, FAO reports that CA accounts for 60% of arable cropland in South America, Australia, and New Zealand, 15% in the United States, 3% in Russia and Ukraine, about 1% in Asia, 0.5% in Europe, and 0.3% in Africa. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Conservation Agriculture (CA) offers a multitude of environmental advantages including soil and water conservation (Fig. 2), carbon sequestration, flood mitigation, and diminished pollution. It has been posited that CA proves to be less expensive and yields greater economic, environmental, and social benefits when executed effectively (Kassam et al., 2014; Friedrich and Kassam, 2012; Lal, 2015) [50,36,56] . www.extensionjournal.com [55] 2. Biodiversity Conservation Models 2.1 Integrated farming An "integrated farming system" (IFS) is an approach to farming that is more integrated than monoculture farming (Choudhary, 2013) [24] . IFS combines livestock and crop production, or fish and livestock production (Patra, 2016; Soni et al., 2014) [70,93] . This system creates a network of interconnected businesses, in which waste from one component is repurposed as input for another, reducing costs and improving productivity and/or revenue (Hathaway, 2016; Fiebrig et al., 2020) [44,33] . This approach not only reduces waste but also increases overall production for the entire farming system (Soni et al., 2014; Fiebrig et al., 2020; Pereira et al., 2012) [93,33,71] . The aim of integrated farming is to improve biological diversity by reducing competition for water, nutrients, and space, and implementing ecologically friendly practices (Kidd et al., 2015; Scavo and Mauromicale 2020) [51,87] . It simulates nature's idea of producing food by combining plants, animals, birds, fish, and other aquatic flora and fauna with crops (Patra, 2016) [70] . The benefits of using an integrated farming system include optimizing crop production and resource utilization through changes in farming practices, recycling farm waste for productive purposes within the integrated system, and other agricultural allied enterprises such as dairy, poultry, fishery, sericulture, suitable for the given agro-climatic and socio-economic conditions. (Behera et al., 2012; Rana et al., 2013 and Shah et al., 2019) [14,77,91] . To achieve this, IFS uses mixed cropping, crop rotation, crop combination, intercropping, and multi-story architecture to use available space and enhance interaction between biotic and abiotic components efficiently (Nozdrovická et al., 2020) [67] . By connecting subsystems, IFS components work together to improve farm productivity (Bonaudo et al., 2014) [19] . Sustainable farming system has attracted a significant number of small and vulnerable family farmers in resource-poor Asian and African countries. The goal of this system is to diversify farm produce, increase cash income, improve food quality and quantity, and make use of underutilized resources (Altieri et al., 2017 and Conway, 2013) [7,26] . It typically takes three to four years to build a well-integrated farm with good market ties that can provide food and nutrition security for a family's livelihood. Implementing IFS requires appropriate technology for long-term farming and food security (Ansar, 2018 and Keding et al., 2013) [8, ] , but there are obstacles to its adoption, including farmers' lack of comprehension, their limited ability to use agricultural technology, and inadequate financial assistance. Government support is necessary to generate chances to raise farm scale in line with farmers' incomes (Behera et [14,77,91,42,66,82] .

Integrated Pest Management (IPM)

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) stands as a costeffective and environmentally friendly approach to pest control, aiming to avert pest issues without resorting to unnecessary pesticide application (Kamaraj et al., 2018) [48] (Fig. 3). This method is designed to strike a balance www.extensionjournal.com between economic viability, environmental safety, and social acceptability, thereby facilitating sustainable intensification-increasing agricultural output while minimizing adverse environmental impacts and enhancing contributions to natural capital and environmental services (Pretty and Pervez, 2015; Fitt and Wilson, 2012; Luna and House, 2020) [73,34,59] . By integrating various pest management strategies including biological, cultural, mechanical, physical, and chemical methods, IPM not only reduces economic, health, and environmental risks but also curtails pesticide usage by up to 50% (Romeh, 2018) [80] . Fundamental to IPM are the principles of scouting and thresholds, ensuring that pesticide application is employed only when absolutely necessary rather than as a routine practice. Despite its numerous benefits, IPM remains underutilized in sustainable agriculture; however, with the development of a revised model for the twenty-first century, IPM's adoption is expected to increase (Gigon et al., 2016; Goda et al., 2015) [38,39] . This updated model embraces all facets of sustainable crop production, promoting more accessible IPM-based agricultural practices that align with contemporary global food production trends, as well as environmental and social considerations (Chappell et al., 2019; Kogan and Hilton, 2009) [22,53] . IPM systems act as the primary line of defence against pests, effectively managing crops, lawns, or interior spaces with minimal human and environmental impact (Reddy, 2017; Romeh, 2018) [78,80] . In IPM, pesticides such as neem formulations and plant-based bio-pesticides are reserved as a last resort when pest populations surpass economic threshold levels (Baker et al., 2020; Saxena et al., 2018) [11,86] . By implementing practical and cost-effective agricultural measures that minimize ecosystem disruption, IPM facilitates pest population control below economic threshold levels, thus ensuring sustainable agricultural productivity (Barzman et [13,18,43] .

Fig 3:

The foundational level of the IPM pyramid involves abiotic strategies implemented before or immediately after planting, extending through to harvest. Next, a circular tier encompasses crucial ecological components that underpin ecology-based IPM practices. At the apex of the pyramid are chemical pesticides, which should be used sparingly and only when lower-tier IPM methods do not effectively manage pest populations below the economic threshold (Stenberg, 2017) [94] 2.3 Biodynamic agriculture Biodynamic agriculture amalgamates organic and metaphysical principles derived from Rudolf Steiner's teachings. This method fosters ecological harmony by leveraging natural energies and rhythms, such as solar and lunar cycles, in agricultural practices. While closely akin to organic farming, biodynamic agriculture distinguishes itself through its holistic approach, which interconnects all living www.extensionjournal.com systems and eschews synthetic inputs (Muhie, 2022) [64] .

The main objective of biodynamic agriculture is to build a sustainable agricultural production with the combination of natural and ecological production gained since ancient times with the celestial impacts of the sun, stars, planets, and moon (Seid Hussen Muhie, 2022) [89] . In the same way, developing standards for natural sciences employed in manufacturing and observing the impact of spiritual realities (Karada\ug et al., 2019). The knowledge gained during the production stages can be applied to a variety of areas, including education and social life. Within the framework of "anthroposophical" approach, characterized as "spiritual development path," create value nature, people, and the environment, as well as protecting the balance and cleanliness of nature (Muhie, 2022) [64] . Biodynamic agriculture prioritizes ecological and ethical considerations, contrasting with traditional farming practices that degrade soil quality over time. It optimizes land's potential while restoring ecological balance and organic harmony, yielding sustainable, quality products. The increasing demand for healthier foods has boosted interest in biodynamic agriculture. Despite early scepticism, it has gained scientific recognition over the past two decades as a viable long-term alternative to conventional farming. Rooted in early 20 th century principles, it aims to enhance soil, animal, food, and human well-being, considering the farm as a self-sustaining ecosystem influenced by celestial cycles. Biodynamic farming contributes to agriculture's sustainability by improving soil quality, product quantity, nutritional value, and pest control, making it a potential path to integrated and sustainable agriculture in the future.

Farm-to-Fork Models

Farm to Fork (F2F) aims at resolving the issue of food sustainability and ensure support to the producers, i.e., the farmers and the fishermen. It combines both regulatory and nonregulatory initiatives to attain the objectives of making the entire food chain from production to consumption more sustainable and neutral in its impact on the environment. F2F includes ambitious and concrete targets on pesticides, fertilizers, nutrient losses, antimicrobial resistance, and organic farming to be achieved by 2030 and legislation carried out across the globe in preventing food loss and waste (Kiran et al., 2023) [52] . The Farm to Fork strategy revealed that research and innovation are key drivers in accelerating the transition to sustainable, healthy and inclusive food system from primary production to consumption (Riccaboni et al., 2021) [79] .

Organic Farming

Organic farming is a comprehensive approach to food production that aims to enhance the well-being of agroecosystems, biodiversity, organic cycles, and soil biological activity (FAO/WHO 2011) [103,102] . According to Bhat et al. (2021) [17] , there are currently over 600,000 farmers worldwide who cultivate 31 million hectares of agricultural land using organic farming practices. In addition, more than 62 million hectares have been certified for organic farming. Important component of organic farming are as follows (Umesha et al., 2018) [98]: 1. Soil and crop management 2. Agriculture waste recycling 3. Biological weed management 4. Industrial and domestic waste recycling 5. Energy reuse 6. Food quality improvement 7. Eco-agriculture 8. Integrated intensive farming system.

Integrated nutrient management

Integrated nutrient management (INM) is a sustainable agricultural strategy that promotes safe disposal of crop residues and production of high-quality compost by utilizing a balanced combination of organic and inorganic fertilizers. This approach ensures soil fertility and provides plants with optimal levels of nutrients throughout their life cycle, resulting in sustained yields (Bhardwaj et al., 2021 and Selim, 2020). [16,90] INM also aims to protect the environment for future generations by maximizing fertilizer and organic resource utilization efficiency (Sanginga and Woomer, 2009) [85] .

To achieve long-term food security, a balance between crop productivity and environmental sustainability must be struck, and INM offers a solution. INM is composed of four major components: A) consideration of all nutrient sources for developing nutrient input programs (Selim, 2020, Wu et al., 2015) [90,104] , B) analysis of soil nutrient content and its temporal and spatial availability, C) reduction of nutrient losses, particularly in intensive agriculture (Chen et al., 2011 and Wu et al., 2015) [23,104] taking into account all elements affecting the plant/nutrient connection to produce high yield production (Prasad et al., 2002) [72] .

Rather than focusing on a single crop, INM emphasizes maximizing nutritional resource usage across a cropping system or rotation, encouraging farmers to think long-term and consider environmental consequences (Bhardwaj et al., 2021 and Selim, 2020) [16,90] . INM helps maintain economic yield while minimizing impacts on soil fertility and pollution, as well as promoting environmentally friendly techniques like organic farming. This approach ensures the production of healthy, contaminant-free food while ensuring satisfactory economic returns. Overall, INM is an effective strategy for promoting sustainable agriculture and conserving soil productivity for future generations.

Precision Agriculture

Precision agriculture revolutionizes field-level management practices to foster sustainable food production system. It aims to boost farm profits through several means like, (1) variable rate application of nutrients, agrochemicals and water to enhance the use efficiency of resources (2) mitigation of crop yield losses during harvesting, (3) Reduction of environmental risks including reduced greenhouse gas emission and nutrient leaching, and (4) optimizing footprints of the farming inputs (e.g., carbon sequestration and soil organic matter). Potential of precision agriculture technologies in simultaneously boosting farm profits and safeguarding the environment hinges is in fact based on the site-specific application of agricultural inputs (Zaman, 2023) [106] . Precision agriculture (PA) has been developing since the 1990s, and it allows site-specific management (SSM) to be computerized in intensive agriculture owing to information technology (Ramírez and Maiti, 2016) [76] . Variable rate www.extensionjournal.com application (VRA), yield monitors, and remote sensing (Table 2) represent agricultural production techniques that leverage information technology to tailor input utilization for achieving specific objectives or measuring corresponding outcomes (Bongiovanni and Lowenberg-Deboer, 2004, Patil Shirish and Bhalerao 2013, Schrijver, 2016 and Salam, 2020) [20,69,88,84] . Availability of GPS and GNSS made precision agriculture a reality. Furthermore, precision agriculture makes extensive use of data and information to increase the efficiency of agricultural resources, yields, and crop quality (Mulla, 2013). [65] Farmers that employ precision agriculture technology are said to "use less to grow more" (El Bilali et al., 2019 and Coomes et al.,2019) [28,27] . Precision agriculture research aims to develop a decision support system (DSS) for wholefarm management that maximizes input returns while conserving resources (Ahmad et al., 2018 and Al-Mastawi et al., 2020) [1,5] .

Although PA has some limitations, such as high initial capital costs and demanding work, it is beneficial to the preservation of a healthier ecosystem. Increased yields, reduced fertilizer application through precise placement, minimized pesticide usage through efficient application, fuel conservation via reduced overlap and enhanced monitoring, and water conservation through improved detection of irrigation needs are the advantages of precision agriculture technology adoption. Optical imaging-derived metrics such as the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), Degrees above non-stressed canopy (DANS) and the soil adjusted vegetation index (SAVI) offer valuable insights into assessing water stress and soil moisture levels across various crops.

Sishodia et al., 2020 [92] , Ballester et al., 2018 [12] Estimation of irrigation water demand

The crop water stress index (CWSI) derived from thermal remote sensing. Sishodia et al., 2020 [92] N-management Normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), Normalized difference red edge (NDRE).

Commercially available remote sensors that use crop reflectance data to determine and apply spatially variable fertilizer rates in real-time include Green Seeker, Yara N-sensor, and Crop Circle. These sensors can be hand-held or tractor-mounted.

Sishodia et al., 2020 [92] Ali et al., 2017 [4] Irrigation management Red edge normalized difference vegetation index (RENDVI) Sishodia et al., 2020 [92] LAI estimation Mahlein et al., 2013 [60] , AL-Saddik et al.,

Red

ET Degrees above canopy threshold (DACT) Kullberg et al., 2017 [54] 3.4 Climate Smart Agriculture Climate change as an environmental hurdle affect smallholder agriculture across numerous tropical regions. Smallholder agriculture and climate change exhibit an interconnected relationship with visible effects on each other (Cohn et al., 2017) [25] through fluctuations in both high and reduced rainfall patterns and escalating temperatures, alongside recurring droughts (Lobell et [58,68,75] . Climate change could significantly impact agriculture, leading to substantial effects on food and nutrition security (Wheeler and von Braun, 2013, Hertel, 2016, Michler et al., 2019) [101,46,63] . Conversely, agricultural activities have the potential to worsen climate change through the release of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from unsustainable farming practices and inputs (Bennetzen et al., 2016, IPCC, 2019) [15,47] .

Embracing suitable climate-smart innovations represents a crucial stride in bolstering food security, fortifying climate resilience, and mitigating greenhouse gas emissions on smallholder farms. These measures are essential for sustaining agricultural livelihoods in a sustainable manner. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that global crop and livestock production will need to be 60% greater than it was in 2006 (McKenzie et al.,2015) [62] . In developing countries, improved yields and cropping intensity will account for roughly 80% of the required increase, while expansion of cultivable land will contribute only 20% (World Agriculture, 2021). The main objectives for promoting Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) are enhancing adaptation, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and sustainably increasing production and profitability, all of which contribute to sustainability (Table 3). emissions from smallholder farms to sustainably maintain agricultural livelihoods.

2023 [96] integrated agronomic management (e.g. dense planting, subsoiling tillage, manure amendments, nitrogen fertilizer optimization, and so on) (Northeastern China) sustainable maize production Higher grain yield nitrogen uses efficiency (partial factor productivity, PFPN), soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration, while less carbon emission Feng et al., 2023 [32] Crop diversification, irrigation, drought-tolerant and early-maturing crop varieties, integrated soil fertility management, and integrated pest management (Ethiopia) improve crop productivity, increase adaptivity capacity, and mitigate the adverse climate change effects in the study area Erekalo and Yadda, 2023 [29] Organic farming towards sustainable development: few global case studies Organic farming practice often The organic farming may largely exclude the use of chemical fertilizers and growth hormones for crops & feed additives for livestock.

Organic farming contributes towards SDG 2 by ending hunger, achieving food security and improving nutrition Gamage et al., 2023 [37] Precision agriculture towards sustainable development: few global case studies

References

1. Fereres E, Intrigliolo DS, et al. Evaluating spectral indices to detect water stress in fruit trees. Precis Agric. 2018;19:178-193.
2. Barzman M, Bàrberi P, Birch ANE, Boonekamp P, Dachbrodt-Saaydeh S, Graf B, et al. Eight principles of integrated pest management. Agron Sustain Dev. 2015;35:1199-1215.
3. Behera UK, Panigrahi P, Sarangi A. Multiple water use protocols in integrated farming system for enhancing productivity. Water Resour Manage. 2012;26:26052622.
4. Bennetzen EH, Smith P, Porter JR. Agricultural production and greenhouse gas emissions from world regions-Major trends over 40 years. Glob Environ Change. 2016;37:XX-XX (page range not provided; article listing only).
5. Bhardwaj AK, Rajwar D, Yadav RK, Chaudhari SK, Sharma DK. Nitrogen availability and use efficiency in wheat under integrated nutrient management. Front Plant Sci. 2021;12:634448.
6. Bhat S, Guthrie DA, Kasture A, et al. Tropane-based ibogaine analog rescues folding-deficient neurotransmitter transporters. ACS Pharmacol Transl Sci. 2021;4(2):503-516.
7. Birch E, Begg AN, Squire GR. How agro-ecological research helps address food security with IPM and pesticide reduction. J Exp Bot. 2011;62(10):3251-3263.
8. Bonaudo T, Bendahan AB, Sabatier R, et al. Agroecological principles for redesign of integrated crop-livestock systems. Eur J Agron. 2014;57:43-51.
9. Bongiovanni R, Lowenberg-DeBoer J. Precision agriculture and sustainability. Precis Agric. 2004;5:359387.
10. Campbell BM, Beare DJ, Bennett EM, et al. Agriculture production as a major driver of Earth system boundaries. Ecol Soc. 2017;22(4):8.
11. Chappell TM, Magarey RD, Kurtz RW, et al. Servicebased business models for efficient pesticide use. Pest Manag Sci. 2019;75(11):2865-2872.
12. Chen XP, Cui ZL, Vitousek PM, et al. Integrated soilcrop system management for food security. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:6399-6404.
13. Choudhary AK. Integrated farming systems for hills and mountain agro-ecosystems. In: Training ManualIFS. IARI; 2013. p. 63-75.
14. Cohn AS, Newton P, Gil JDB, et al. Smallholder agriculture and climate change. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 2017;42:347-383.
15. Conway G. Sustainable agriculture. In: Evidence for Hope. Routledge; 2013. p. 108-121.
16. Coomes OT, Barham BL, MacDonald GK, et al. Leveraging TFP growth for sustainable farming. Nat Sustain. 2019;2(1):22-28.
17. El Bilali H, Callenius C, Strassner C, Probst L. Food and nutrition security and sustainability transitions. Food Energy Secur. 2019;8:00154.
18. Erekalo KT, Yadda TA. Climate-smart agriculture in Ethiopia: Adoption of multiple practices. World Dev Sustain. 2023;100099.
19. FAO. Global Food Losses and Food Waste: Extent, Causes and Prevention. FAO; 2011.
20. FAO. The State of the World's Land and Water Resources for Food and Agriculture (SOLAW). FAO; 2011.
21. Feng X, Sun T, Guo J, et al. Climate-smart agriculture improves maize yield and reduces carbon footprint. Field Crops Res. 2023;302:109108.
22. Fiebrig I, Zikeli S, Bach S, Gruber S. Perspectives on permaculture for commercial farming. Org Agric. 2020;10:379-394.
23. Fitt G, Wilson L. Integrated pest management for sustainable agriculture. In: Integrated Pest Management. CABI; 2012. p. 27-40.
24. Foley JA, Ramankutty N, Brauman KA, et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature. 2011;478:337-342.
25. Friedrich T, Kassam A. No-till farming and the environment. Outlooks Pest Manage. 2012;23:153-157.
26. Gamage A, Gangahagedara R, et al. Role of organic farming in sustainability. Farming Syst. 2023;1(1):100005.
27. Gigon V, Camps C, Le Corff J. Biological control of Tetranychus urticae in tomatoes. Exp Appl Acarol. 2016;68:55-70.
28. Goda NF, El-Heneidy AH, Djelouah K, Hassan N. IPM of Tuta absoluta in Egypt. Egypt J Biol Pest Control. 2015;25(3):XX-XX (pages not provided).
29. Godfray C, Beddington J, Crute I, et al. Food security: feeding nine billion people. Science. 2010;27:812-818.
30. Gomiero T, Pimentel D, Paoletti MG. Need for sustainable agriculture. Crit Rev Plant Sci. 2011;30:623.
31. Gomiero T. Soil degradation and food security. Sustainability. 2016;8(3):281.
32. Harrison RD, Thierfelder C, et al. Agro-ecological options for fall armyworm management. J Environ Manage. 2019;243:318-330.
33. Hathaway MD. Agroecology and permaculture. J Environ Stud Sci. 2016;6(2):239-250.
34. Henderson K, Loreau M. Modeling SDGs for sustainability. Ecol Modell. 2023;475:110164.
35. Hertel TW. Food security under climate change. Nat Clim Chang. 2016;6:10-13.
36. IPCC. Climate Change and Land. IPCC; 2019.
37. Kamaraj C, Gandhi PR, et al. Neem gum nanoformulation effects on pests. Int J Biol Macromol. 2018;107:59-69.
38. Karadağ H, Ünal B, Aksüt B. Biodynamic agriculture. Int J Agric For Life Sci. 2019;3(2):345-349.
39. Kassam A, Derpsch R, Friedrich T. Global achievements in conservation agriculture. Int Soil Water Conserv Res. 2014;XX-XX (pages not provided).
40. Kidd P, Mench M, Álvarez-López V, Bert V, Dimitriou I, Friesl-Hanl W, et al. Agronomic practices for improving gentle remediation of trace elementcontaminated soils. Int J Phytoremediation. 2015;17(11):1005-1037.
41. Kiran BR, Prasad MNV, Mohan SV. Farm to fork: sustainable agrifood systems. In: Sustainable and Circular Management of Resources and Waste Towards a Green Deal. Elsevier; 2023. p. 25-38.
42. Kogan M, Hilton RJ. Conceptual framework for integrated pest management (IPM) of tree-fruit pests. In: Biorational Tree-Fruit Pest Management. www.extensionjournal.com Wallingford (UK): CABI; 2009. p. 1-31.
43. Kullberg EG, DeJonge KC, Chávez JL. Evaluation of thermal remote sensing indices to estimate crop evapotranspiration coefficients. Agric Water Manag. 2017;179:64-73.
44. Lal R. Soils and sustainable agriculture: A review. Agron Sustain Dev. 2008;28:57-64.
45. Lal R. Restoring soil quality to mitigate soil degradation. Sustainability. 2015;7:5875-5895.
46. Liu S. Towards a sustainable agriculture: Achievements and challenges of Sustainable Development Goal Indicator 2.4.1. Glob Food Sec. 2023;37:100694.
47. Lobell DB, Schlenker W, Costa-Roberts J. Climate trends and global crop production since 1980. Science. 2011;333(6042):616-620.
48. Luna JM, House GJ. Pest management in sustainable agricultural systems. In: Sustainable Agricultural Systems. CRC Press; 2020. p. 157-173.
49. Mahlein A-K, Rumpf T, Welke P, Dehne HW, Plümer L, Steiner U, et al. Development of spectral indices for detecting and identifying plant diseases. Remote Sens Environ. 2013;128:21-30.
50. McGinnis RL, Menachem E. Global challenges in energy and water supply: the promise of engineered osmosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008;105:86258629.
51. McKenzie FC, Williams J. Sustainable food production: constraints, challenges and choices by 2050. Food Secur. 2015;7(2):221-233.
52. Michler JD, Baylis K, Arends-Kuenning M, Mazvimavi K. Conservation agriculture and climate resilience. J Environ Econ Manag. 2019;93:148-169.
53. Muhie SH. Novel approaches and practices to sustainable agriculture. J Agric Food Res. 2022;100446.
54. Mulla DJ. Twenty-five years of remote sensing in precision agriculture: key advances and remaining knowledge gaps. Biosyst Eng. 2013;114(4):358-371.
55. Nguyen TPL, Mula L, Cortignani R, Seddaiu G, Dono G, Virdis SG, et al. Perceptions of present and future climate change impacts on water availability for agricultural systems in the western Mediterranean region. Water. 2016;8(11):523.
56. Nozdrovická J, Dostál I, Petrovič F, Jakab I, Havlíček M, Skokanová H, et al. Land-use dynamics in transport-impacted urban fabric: A case study of Martin-Vrútky, Slovakia. Land. 2020;9(8):273.
57. Ortiz-Bobea A, Ault TR, Carrillo CM, Chambers RG, Lobell DB. Anthropogenic climate change has slowed global agricultural productivity growth. Nat Clim Chang. 2021;11(4):306-312.
58. Patil S, Bhalerao SA. Precision farming: the most scientific and modern approach to sustainable agriculture. Int Res J Sci Eng. 2013;1(2).
59. Patra AK. Concept, scope and components of integrated farming system. In: Root and Tuber Crops Based Integrated Farming System: A Way Forward to Address Climate Change and Livelihood Improvement; 2016.
60. Pereira LS, Cordery I, Iacovides I. Improved indicators of water use performance and productivity for sustainable water conservation and saving. Agric Water Manag. 2012;108:39-51.
61. Prasad PVV, Satyanarayana V, Murthy VRK, Boote KJ. Maximizing yields in rice-groundnut cropping sequence through integrated nutrient management. Field Crops Res. 2002;75:9-21.
62. Pretty J, Pervez R, Bharucha ZP. Integrated pest management for sustainable intensification of agriculture in Asia and Africa. Insects. 2015;6(1):152182.
63. Pretty JN. Agricultural sustainability: concepts, principles and evidence. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2008;363:447-465.
64. Qiao L, Wang X, Smith P, Fan J, Lu Y, Emmett B, et al. Soil quality both increases crop production and improves resilience to climate change. Nat Clim Chang. 2022;12(6):574-580.
65. Ramírez JIS, Maiti R. Research trends in abiotic stress resistance of crops. Bioresour Stress Manag. 2016;131163 (book chapter; no volume/page span beyond chapter).
66. Rana SS, Chopra P. Integrated farming system. Palampur: CSK Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya; 2013. p. 1-90.
67. Reddy PP. Agro-ecological approaches to pest management for sustainable agriculture. Singapore: Springer; 2017. p. 29-41.
68. Riccaboni A, Neri E, Trovarelli F, Pulselli RM. Sustainability-oriented research and innovation in 'farm to fork' value chains. Curr Opin Food Sci. 2021;42:102-112.
69. Romeh AA. Integrated pest management for sustainable agriculture. In: Sustainability of Agricultural Environment in Egypt: Part II. Springer; 2018. p. 215234.
70. Alam AR. Agriculture, environment and sustainable development: An overview. In: Agriculture, Environment and Sustainable Development: Experiences and Case Studies. 2022. p. 3-9.
71. Ruppert KM, Kline RJ, Rahman MS. Past, present, and future perspectives of environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding: A systematic review. Glob Ecol Conserv. 2019;17:e00547.
72. Saiz-Rubio V, Rovira-Más F. From smart farming towards agriculture 5.0: A review on crop data management. Agronomy. 2020;10(2):207.
73. Salam A. Internet of things in agricultural innovation and security. In: Internet of Things for Sustainable Community Development. Springer; 2020. p. 71-112.
74. Sanginga N, Woomer PL, editors. Integrated Soil Fertility Management in Africa: Principles, Practices, and Developmental Process. CIAT; 2009.
75. Saxena RC, Jilani G, Kareem AA. Effects of neem on stored grain insects. In: 1988 Focus on Phytochemical Pesticides. CRC Press; 2018. p. 97-112.
76. Scavo A, Mauromicale G. Integrated weed management in herbaceous field crops. Agronomy. 2020;10(4):466.
77. Schrijver R. Precision Agriculture and the Future of Farming in Europe. Scientific Foresight Study. European Union; 2016.
78. Seid HM. Novel approaches and practices to sustainable agriculture. J Agric Food Res. 2022;10:100446.
79. Selim MM. Introduction to the integrated nutrient www.extensionjournal.com management strategies and their contribution to yield and soil properties. Int J Agron. 2020.
80. Shah F, Wu W. Soil and crop management strategies to ensure higher crop productivity within sustainable environments. Sustainability. 2019;11(5):1485.
81. Sishodia RP, Ray RL, Singh SK. Applications of remote sensing in precision agriculture: A review. Remote Sens. 2020;12(19):3136.
82. Soni RP, Katoch M, Ladohia R. Integrated farming systems-a review. IOSR J Agric Vet Sci. 2014;7(10):36-42.
83. Stenberg JA. A conceptual framework for integrated pest management. Trends Plant Sci. 2017;22(9):759769.
84. Tabe-Ojong MP, Aihounton DGB, Lokossou JC. Climate-smart agriculture and food security: Crosscountry evidence from West Africa. 2023.
85. Teklu A, Simane B, Bezabih M. Multiple adoption of climate-smart agriculture innovation for agricultural sustainability: Empirical evidence from the Upper Blue Nile Highlands of Ethiopia. Clim Risk Manag. 2023;39:100477.
86. United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals Report: Special Edition. 2023.
87. Umesha S, Manukumar HM, Chandrasekhar B. Sustainable agriculture and food security. In: Biotechnology for Sustainable Agriculture. Woodhead Publishing; 2018. p. 67-92.
88. United Nations. World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision, Key Findings and Advance Tables. Department of Economic and Social Affairs; 2017.
89. Uri ND. Perceptions on the use of no-till farming in production agriculture in the United States: An analysis of survey results. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2000;77(3):263-266.
90. Wheeler T, von Braun J. Climate change impacts on global food security. Science. 2013;341(6145):508-513.
91. World Health Organization (WHO). Regional Overview of Food Security in Latin America and the Caribbean: Towards Healthier Food Environments That Address All Forms of Malnutrition. 2020.
92. FAO. World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030 -An FAO Perspective. 2021.
93. Wu W, Ma B. Integrated nutrient management (INM) for sustaining crop productivity and reducing environmental impact: A review. Sci Total Environ. 2015;512-513:415-427.
94. Zain M, Ma H, Chaudhary S, Nuruzaman M, Azeem I, Mehmood F, et al. Nanotechnology in precision agriculture: Advancing towards sustainable crop production. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2023;108244.
95. Zaman QU. Precision agriculture technology: A pathway toward sustainable agriculture. In: Precision Agriculture. Academic Press; 2023. p. 1-17.