122418 research outputs found
Sort by
Affichage environnementale et Analyse de Cycle de Vie (ACV) - le nutriscore environnemental des produits alimentaires pour 2023
No full text
Agricultural adaptation to climate change through Small Irrigation Schemes (SIS) - The Bambey-Diourbel region case study (Senegal)
No full textShaping and sharing rivers with environmental flows: a comparative perspective between France and South Africa
No full textAt the end of Apartheid, South Africa has been pioneering the recognition of a right to water. This right is now enshrined in the democratic Constitution of the country (1996). South Africa is also perceived as a world leader with one of the most ambitious water Act, granting " water for the environment " (or an " ecological reserve ") alongside a human reserve (minimum water for daily human needs). This kind of environmental flow requirement has been experimented elsewhere too, in France amongst other countries. Yet, comparing environmental flows across countries can prove tricky as environmental flow indicators describe a reality that can differ greatly depending on the socio-historical context. In this paper, we put into perspective, in both countries, the implementation of environmental flows undertaken by water agencies in France and by their equivalent in South Africa, catchment management agencies. Despite enjoying different prerogatives, both organisations share the task of performing functions at the periphery of State regulatory action, which implies most often than not to master a more accommodating governing style. Indeed, in South Africa, if environmental flow requirements were initially determined by hydro-ecology experts commissioned by the department of Water Affairs, soon they were re-conceptualised by water managers who had to operationalise environmental flows when dealing with water allocation demands by different users. Environmental flows thus shifted from a hydro-ecology science towards more socio-hydrology knowledge taking into consideration various economic uses and mitigating ecological requirements with socio-economic goals for each river. It eventually led to a more adaptive management approach applied to environmental flows. In France, and more specifically in the southwest, designing and implementing minimum flows indicators can be understood as a dynamic process of co-production between specific knowledge about -and representation of- rivers on the one hand, and water sharing mechanisms between users on the other hand. Such indicators and the regulatory science that inform them, are instruments deployed by the Adour-Garonne Water Agency for the last 50 years. Their goal is to negotiate water flows that have been significantly framed, temporally and spatially, by electricity producers and by irrigators. These indicators are quite regularly contested within diverse local arenas. This, however, never leads to broadening the debate on the logics and legitimacy of the productive activities such indicators support. It has also often contributed to disarm environmental concerns. Such paradox can be explained because, in both countries, environmental flows not only produce knowledge about rivers but simultaneously they tend to sanction specific allocations of water amongst users-–although in a more concealed and discreet way-. Eventually we reflect on how environmental flow indicators rests on a type of knowledge allowing more space for trade-offs and negotiations among water users
Accelerating crop improvement in the face of climate emergency through advanced genome editing technologies
No full textOne of the main objectives of our research unit is to accelerate crop improvement programs. To achieve this, we leverage multiple approaches, ranging from functional gene analysis to the introduction of beneficial alleles into various crop species as proof-of-concept models. Genome editing technologies provide solutions at every stage of this process. Here, we outline the overall strategy we have adopted to enhance the effective use of these technologies (Fig1), illustrating it with concrete examples (Fig2)
Expérimentation affichage environnemental sur le secteur alimentaire - Groupe indicateurs – note n°5 : Sujets divers complémentaires à l'ACV
No full textCette note est issue des réflexions du groupe de travail transversal " Indicateurs ". Elle traite de différents sujets abordés par le groupe, mais avec un niveau d'approfondissement moindre (par manque de temps et/ou d'expertise) que les notes " thématiques " telles que celles sur la biodiversité ou les données spécifiques/génériques. Elle fait des premières recommandations sur ces sujets qui pourront être ajustées en fonction de l'avancée des réflexions et des résultats obtenus au cours de l'Expérimentation
Reducing initial cotton yield penalties in a transition to conservation agriculture through legume cover crop cultivation - evidence from Northern Benin
No full textMuch effort has been spent on promoting conservation agriculture (CA) in Northern Benin to sustain the transition of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) cropping systems toward agroecology. However, its limited adoption by farmers is often ascribed to initial yield penalties during the transition to CA and to trade-offs around crop biomass use. Here, we assess the effect of different CA-based cropping systems promoted in the region on water productivity and cotton yield in a three-year cotton/maize (Zea mays L.) crop rotation during the initial transition phase to CA. Three CA options were assessed combining different levels of soil disturbance and cover, and introducing cover crops to alleviate the biomass trade-offs. Direct seeding (DS), strip tillage (ST), and direct seeding mulched-based cropping systems (DMC) were compared with conventional tillage (CT) from 2017 to 2019 under a dominant soil type in the region, Haplic Lixisols. Two legume species, Stylosanthes guianensis (Aubl.) Sw. and Crotalaria retusa L. were grown as cover crops with maize under ST and DMC. The experiment followed a randomized block design comprising six replicates. After 2–3 years of DMC, the cotton yield advantage with respect to CT increased from 5 % to 7 %. Cotton yield penalties of respectively 11 % in 2018 and 26 % in 2019 were found for DS. ST treatment went from a yield advantage of 8 % in 2017 to a yield penalty of 20 % in 2019. The DMC and CT treatments gave similar and highest boll weights compared to the ST and DS treatments. The treatments had no significant difference regarding the number of bolls per plant. Soil water storage in the upper 30 cm depth and water use efficiency (WUE) were the highest in the plots with the DMC treatment compared to CT, ST, and DS. At 28 days of active vegetative stage (between 34 and 62 days after sowing), the WUE of seed cotton was 0.11 kg ha−1 mm−1 under DMC, while it was 0.08, 0.07, and 0.04 kg ha−1 mm−1 under DS, CT, and ST, respectively. The performance of DMC at increasing water productivity could be an argument to improve adoptability by farmers in northern Benin who are facing increased weather variability, given that the yield penalties often associated with early transitions to CA were not observed here with full DMC
AgriBALYSE. Guide de Collecte GDC - Version 5.0
No full textLe guide a pour objectif de répondre aux questions pratiques lors de la phase de collecte des données du programme Agri‐BALYSE. Il permet de garantir une collecte harmonisée entre les filières. Les règles du guide sont mises en oeuvre dans l'Outil Informatique de Saisie (OIS) développé par l'ART et l'INRA en collaboration avec les Instituts techniques partenaires, et auquel il est destiné pour la collecte des données. Ce guide de collecte est à la fois un guide de précisions pour la collecte (voir Partie A) et un guide explicitant " les bonnes pratiques de modélisation " à suivre (voir Partie B). Les règles indiquées dans ce guide sont le fruit des discussions entre les différentes filières de production couvertes par le programme Agri‐BALYSE et ont été définies collectivement ; leur but est de préciser la façon dont les données de pratiques agricoles doivent être renseignées. Les questions méthodologiques (allocation, modèles de calculs des émissions directes, etc.) seront traitées dans le rapport méthodologique d'Agri‐BALYSE (disponible fin 2011). Néanmoins, pour des raisons de compréhension, certaines indications sont déjà abordées dans ce rapport (ex : allocation pertinente), sans les traiter de façon exhaustive
