Abstract
For millennia, food systems worldwide have employed practices befitting a circular economy: recycling of agricultural and food waste or byproducts, environmentally sustainable production methods, and food preservation to reduce waste. Many modern-day agricultural practices may also contribute to a circular economy through the reuse of waste products and/or reducing agricultural inputs. There are, however, food safety impacts. This paper describes two sustainable agricultural practices that have unintended positive and negative impacts on food safety: alternative rice cultivation practices and no-till agriculture. We highlight how alternative rice cultivation practices have intended benefits of water conservation and economic savings, yet also unintended effects on food safety by reducing foodborne arsenic levels while increasing cadmium levels. No-till agriculture reduces soil erosion and repurposes crop residues, but can lead to increased foodborne mycotoxin levels. Trade-offs, future research, and policy recommendations are discussed as we explore the duality of sustainable agricultural practices and food safety.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Agriculture in the circular economy is often referenced in terms of sustainable food systems. While minimizing food waste, food loss, and pollution is often the introductory entry point into the discussion of food, the interconnectedness of the principles of the circular economy also includes repurposing/reusing products and materials and regenerating natural systems1,2,3.
Yet another important component of sustainability is health—not only the health of ecosystems but also human health. Agricultural practices focused on advancing the usefulness of byproducts, like crop residuals and soil management, and/or practices that focus on regenerative cultivation techniques to conserve water and limit inputs, like alternate wetting–drying cultivation (AWD) and furrow irrigation (FI), can have important unintended impacts on food safety—with either human health risks or benefits. Figure 1 demonstrates where these issues fit conceptually within the circular economy. In this paper, we present the evidence of unintended food safety impacts stemming from agricultural practices generally regarded as sustainable: alternative cultivation practices for rice (ACP) and no-till agriculture, in the circular economy and the resulting food system.
Figure shows the progression of sustainable production in an orange circle containing a self-loop and a progression to a blue sustainable use circle. Sustainable use circle contains a self-loop and a progression to yellow circle recycling/reusing. Recycling/reusing is linked to sustainable production. No-till agriculture text box is placed within the recycling/reusing circle. Alternative cultivation practices for rice text boxes are placed in the sustainable production circle. The figure demonstrates alternative cultivation practices for rice are a form of sustainable production through reduced water use, no-till agriculture prevents soil erosion and reuses crop residue for soil protection and nutrients, and sustainable use of water and residues relates to both these practices. Authors original creation referencing van Buren et al.3 and Helgason et al.2.
The current global food system is arguably less oriented around sustainability and more focused on economic viability and food availability. As a result of this emphasis, agricultural production has increasingly moved towards large-scale production, crop monocultures, mechanized farming, and yield maximization. Conventional market production for agricultural products is both highly resource-intensive (land, water, chemical inputs, fossil fuels) and impactful to the environment. A shift in agricultural production away from conventional practices can help to abate these concerns. For many, novel agricultural practices that are integrated into the circular economy paradigm represent the way forward: a focus on sustainability in the food system while improving access to safe, sufficient, healthy, and nutritious food for the world’s growing population.
In the circular economy, a change in agricultural policy or practice that is focused on one aspect of the food system sector can have numerous unintended impacts in other areas. For example, previous work focusing on agricultural products resulting from the circular economy includes the promotion of oilcakes that reduce food waste having unintended anti-nutritional impacts on human food and animal feed4. By contrast, plant byproducts in the application of the circular economy in the food system can have positive unintended impacts through human consumption of more nutritional products5 or environmental benefits of using fewer chemical inputs6. Other scholars have noted that targeted changes focusing exclusively on food safety can have widespread unintended impacts throughout the economy and food system7.
However, in this area of growing scientific inquiry, little attention has been given to how agricultural practices regarded as sustainable may have unintended consequences on food safety. In the examples presented below, we demonstrate how those risks can unintentionally be decreased with ACP of rice or increased with no-till cultivation.
Alternative cultivation practices for rice: reduced water use and food safety benefits and risks
For thousands of years, rice has been cultivated around the world in highly water-intensive ways: most often, farmers will keep paddies continuously flooded from early rice plant growth stages through to harvest. Indeed, continuous flooding can be regarded as the conventional rice production method worldwide. Alternative cultivation practices for rice (ACPs), on the other hand, are methods to reduce water use throughout the rice growing season. Two practices that are receiving growing attention in this area are alternate wetting–drying (AWD) and furrow irrigation (FI) cultivation. AWD is the practice of intermittent flooding of fields as opposed to keeping a field flooded throughout the growing stages of the crop. FI is the practice of cultivating rice along elevated beds to deliver water to plant roots from an irrigation system pumping water into furrows without flooding the entire field.
These ACPs have gained traction for three primary reasons relating to the circular economy paradigm: water conservation, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and reduced input costs. However, the traditional continuous flooding method of rice production had its rationale in maximizing yield and reducing weed damage. Therefore, a reasonable concern is whether ACPs can provide rice yields similar to those afforded by conventional continuous flooding production.
In addition to these economic considerations, an important question is whether using ACPs can reduce the uptake of soilborne arsenic into rice. Arsenic, a naturally occurring metalloid in soil and water, has been known for thousands of years to cause toxicological effects in humans and other animals. Today, humans worldwide are exposed to arsenic through drinking water and food. Under continuously flooded conditions, rice plants take up soilborne arsenic easily through all parts of the plant, including the rice grains. If the soil is not continually wet, arsenic uptake is reduced. Hence, in both AWD and FI cultivation practices, lower arsenic levels may accumulate in rice. This would be an additional benefit of these ACPs. Conversely, however, any soilborne cadmium (also naturally occurring in water and soil) may be taken up more easily when soil is dry: the difference in these cases is that soilborne arsenic is often in the form of anionic metalloids (more easily taken up by plants in wet conditions), while soilborne cadmium is in the form of cationic metal ions (more easily taken up by plants in dry conditions).
No-till agriculture and the risk of foodborne mycotoxins
No-till agriculture refers simply to the practice of forgoing tilling (turning over the soil) on farmlands, either before planting, after harvest, or both. Tilling is common on agricultural fields to remove weeds at the start of the planting season, as well as to remove crop residues after harvest. This practice can, however, increase risks of soil erosion and loss of important soil nutrients for crop plants. No-till agriculture is seen as a potentially more sustainable method of farming; crop residues after harvest are left on the soil to protect nutrients and to prevent erosion.
However, when crop residues are left on farm fields, they can harbor microorganisms and fungal sclerotia, which can then infect the crops planted on those fields in the next season. In the case of overwintering fungi that then colonize crops in the next season, the risk is that some of these fungi produce mycotoxins (fungal toxins) that cause a variety of adverse health effects to humans and animals. The state of the evidence linking no-till practices to mycotoxin risks in subsequent seasons is explored in this paper.
Results
Alternative cultivation practices for rice: impacts on yield, water use, and arsenic levels
The link between alternative cultivation practices (ACPs) for rice production and targeted outcomes (both positive and negative) has been examined in multiple studies, shown in Table 1. These ACPs—specifically, alternate wetting–drying and furrow irrigation—have been tested extensively and shown to reduce water usage and abate water scarcity concerns8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25. The practices are useful for the environmental conservation of fresh water and reducing the economic costs of farmers by reducing the use of inputs (like fuel used to power irrigation in AWD)8,15,26,27,28,29. The practices reduce run-off from fields and aid in rainfall capture efificacy8,15,25,30,31. AWD and FI have also been shown to reduce greenhouse gases and emissions compared to continuous flooding10,32,33,34,35,36,37. These benefits are notable, given evidence that suggests that, under the proper conditions, there is no reduction in yield in AWD or FI rice compared to continuous flooding cultivation8,10,11,12,13,14,17,18,19,20,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45. These are practical financial and environmental reasons for ACPs to further the principles of the circular economy while preserving rice farmers’ overall profitability.
Nonetheless, it is important to consider the food safety impacts of these ACPs. In continuous flooding (conventional) cultivation, the anaerobic conditions lead to increased phyto availability and uptake of soilborne arsenic by rice plants46,47,48,49. Arsenic is a metalloid that occurs naturally in soils and water worldwide and causes multiple adverse effects in humans: acute toxicity at high doses, several human cancers—most notably lung cancer, skin cancer, and bladder cancer, hyperkeratosis and black foot disease, and cardiovascular disease50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59. In multiple studies worldwide, AWD and FI cultivation practices have shown reduced arsenic levels in rice8,10,15,30,39,43,44,45,46,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70. These studies are summarized, with corresponding arsenic reductions in ACPs vs. continuously flooded rice, in Table 2. In practice, therefore, these ACPs could reduce human exposures to foodborne arsenic, with potentially significant health effects—especially for populations where rice is a dietary staple. Indeed, policymakers worldwide are increasingly focusing on reducing arsenic in food. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is implementing a Closer-to-Zero Action Plan, with the intent of setting action levels for foodborne arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury by 2024. This was followed by a US Congressional Report in 2021, describing high levels of arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury in infant foods pulled from grocery shelves71,72,73,74. As rice is a common component not just in adult diets but in infant foods, it is all the more critical to find methods to reduce arsenic levels in rice.
ACPs, however, are not uniformly beneficial to human welfare and the environment. ACPs can be tactically demanding compared to continuously flooding rice8,10,12,75,76. If a field has soils that dry out quickly, yields can be reduced substantially, even if the other benefits of the practice, such as arsenic reduction, are increased10,12,23. In general, ACPs are often associated with reduced yields compared to continuous flooding cultivation12,44,66,77,78. Many studies have examined the relationship between rice yields under conventional vs. alternative cultivation practices, summarized in Table 3. Adoption of ACPs has been slow because they are often difficult to scale up, and, in the case of quickly drying soils, present potential economic risks to farmers who cannot afford to switch rice cultivation techniques for a relatively unproven practice8,10,12,13,27,28,79. Some studies suggest that ACPs may be related to decreased carbon availability in soils80,81,82.
There is a countervailing potential food safety risk as well, in that drier soils have increased bioavailability of cadmium that can be taken up by the plants, thereby increasing the consumption of the harmful metals and metalloids in diets39,66,68,83,84,85. Several studies have demonstrated the link between ACPs and increased cadmium uptake in rice, as shown in Table 4. Cadmium exposure has been associated with diverse cancers and with neurotoxic and nephrotoxic effects86. This is far from an ideal solution, with increased exposure to cadmium as arsenic decreases in alternate wetting-drying rice production. Even so, from a public food safety risk perspective, arsenic is generally regarded as the more toxic element compared to cadmium, from a human health perspective87. Moreover, interestingly, cadmium uptake in rice has been shown to be correlated with other essential elements such as copper and selenium88, which may help to reduce the biologically effective dose of cadmium in the body. Hence, in a literal ‘pick your poison’ decision, reducing arsenic levels through ACP has been considered preferable to reducing cadmium levels in continuous flooding cultivation39,68,87. Nevertheless, ACPs are not all-or-nothing strategies, and farmers must often weigh the specific amount of flooding and dry field management in a manner that provides an optimal reduction in both arsenic and cadmium uptake by their crops39,68,87,88,89.
No-till crop cultivation: impacts on mycotoxin concentrations in crops
Mycotoxins are toxic and carcinogenic chemicals produced by fungi that colonize crops90. Among the most agriculturally important mycotoxins worldwide are aflatoxins, produced primarily by Aspergillus flavus and A. parasiticus; fumonisins, produced primarily by Fusarium verticillioides and F. proliferatum; deoxynivalenol (DON, vomitoxin) and zearalenone, produced primarily by F. graminearum and F. culmorum; and ochratoxin A, produced by Penicillium verrucosum and A. ochraceus91. These mycotoxins, which can co-occur in field conditions92, cause a diversity of harmful health effects in humans and animals, ranging from liver cancer to neural tube defects in babies to immunosuppression and growth impairment. These fungi frequently colonize crops such as maize, nuts, and cereal grains in the field, where they may produce these mycotoxins; and can also continue to grow in storage or to overwinter in fields, particularly if crop residues are still present.
One growing practice that is often discussed in the context of the circular agricultural economy is no-till agriculture—in which crop residues play a key role. No-till agriculture is a practice of soil management that involves minimal disruption of the topsoil both before planting and after harvest. Where much of the conventional contemporary farming practices involve turning over the topsoil and crop residues following the harvest to prepare the soil for the next season’s crops, no-till farming involves minimal soil disturbance between harvest and planting and typically means leaving crop residue on fields. The practice of no-till agriculture has several important economic, environmental, and health benefits: it can preserve soil organic carbon, improve biodiversity, reduce soil erosion, reduce labor and agricultural input costs, and reduce emissions of PM2.593,94,95,96,97.
However, the discourse around no-till farming has almost exclusively focused on comparison to conventional tilling of agricultural and environmental outcomes, such as yields, soil health, weed abundance, and ecosystem services; with little attention given to the quality and safety of the food crops produced in each scenario98,99,100,101. Indeed, non-tilled soils may retain harmful characteristics that conventional tilling could reduce or eliminate. It has been shown that pathogens may survive more efficiently and colonize the following season’s crops under no-till conditions102,103,104,105. Untilled soil may result in immobilized nutrients, leading to problems with crop nutrition availability and uptake105,106,107. In many commercial fields, no-till cultivation has led to greater use of chemical controls for pests and weeds because these are not cleared from the field as they would be if tilled; which may increase human health and ecosystem risks from pesticide and herbicide exposures101,108. Specific to food and feed safety, the primary concern of no-till agriculture’s effect on the crops grown in following seasons is what some authors have described as ‘the mycotoxin problem’109,110,111.
Under no-till agricultural cultivation, crop residues left in the field serve as a refuge for fungal sclerotia to overwinter in the field: to survive between harvest and the next planting. These sclerotia can serve as an inoculum for fungal infection on crops grown in the following season110,111,112,113,114. This can pose a food safety danger in that certain fungi produce mycotoxins that contribute to cancer, immunosuppression, and growth impairment in humans; as well as economic losses to farmers115,116,117,118. The explicit link between the targeted fungal species/fungal mycotoxins and no-till agriculture has been examined in a wide variety of contexts—mycotoxins, fungi, crops, and different geographic regions worldwide—shown in Table 5. While several studies did not find any significant differences in fungal infection rates and mycotoxin levels in no-till vs. conventionally tilled fields, the preponderance of evidence to date is that no-till agriculture results in higher levels of fungal infection and subsequent mycotoxin contamination in crops grown in no-till agricultural conditions.
Given the food safety (and other previously mentioned) concerns, a careful balance between ecological, health, and economic factors must be calculated by farmers in choosing a tillage system for their crops. This is simultaneously a public health, agricultural science, and livelihood-economic calculation. If the agricultural products that farmers produce exceed the limits of consumable mycotoxins, they cannot be sold for human or animal consumption, due to regulations on allowable mycotoxin levels in over 100 nations worldwide. Further complicating the matter is that mycotoxins are expected to become a greater risk in the future due to near-term climate change impacts118,119,120,121.
Discussion
When the agricultural circular economy is discussed in the context of sustainable food production, it is important to consider food safety and food quality impacts. In 2016, Stahel122 wrote of the circular economy paradigm: “It would change economic logic because it replaces production with sufficiency: reuse what you can recycle what cannot be reused, repair what is broken, remanufacture what cannot be repaired.” Later, he states that this paradigm applies to “arable land;” grouped with his discussions of cars, buildings, mobile phones, and cultural heritage. Indeed, since this writing, agricultural studies have examined applications of the circular economy to promote sustainable food production practices. However, somewhat differently from other applications of the circular economy listed in Stahel’s article, food safety and its attendant human health effects must be key considerations when it comes to agricultural contexts.
In this review, we described two very different and arguably sustainable agricultural practices befitting of the “circular economy” designation: alternative cultivation practices (ACPs) for rice production that use significantly less water than the conventional continuous flooding method and no-till farming. In both cases, these practices reduce certain important agricultural inputs such as water and labor, and foster other environmental benefits such as reduced carbon emissions and reduced soil erosion and PM2.5 emissions. However, the food safety effects of these practices must be considered in a truly circular paradigm.
In the case of alternate wetting–drying and furrow irrigation production methods of rice production, a key food safety benefit is the reduced uptake of soilborne arsenic into rice grains. This could translate into significantly lower foodborne arsenic exposures, which could lead to meaningful health benefits in populations worldwide where rice is a dietary staple. On the other hand, there is some evidence of increased cadmium uptake in rice grains when ACPs are employed—a tradeoff resulting from the anionic vs. cationic natures of arsenic vs. cadmium in wet or dry soil. The extent to which these concentrations may differ in rice grains under different cultivation practices and the imputed human health effects are important areas to study in the future; as around the world, rice farmers may adopt these ACPs at higher rates due to meeting new food safety standards. Other means of reducing arsenic and cadmium exposure through rice include removal of the hull and bran, which typically bioaccumulate more of these metals; and soaking rice grains and discarding the water before cooking.
In the case of no-till agriculture, diverse microorganisms, including mycotoxigenic fungi, are more likely to survive in fields that contain crop residues—which are common in untilled fields. The overwintering fungi can then colonize the crops planted in the subsequent season, and produce mycotoxins on those crops that pose health risks to humans and animals. There is a large body of evidence for the five most agriculturally important mycotoxins—aflatoxins, fumonisins, deoxynivelanol, zearalenone, and ochratoxin A—that no-till agriculture increases the risk that the fungi that produce these toxins will colonize food crops. Because the aforementioned mycotoxins cause such a wide diversity of serious health effects, this food safety issue must be taken into account when considering the benefits and costs of adopting no-till farming systems. While tilling is far from the only solution to reduce mycotoxin risks—others include good agricultural practices in the field, improved (cool, dry, pest-free) food storage practices, and a variety of plant breeding and chemical application strategies—tillage choices by farmers can have an important impact on this key food safety risk.
Incorporating food safety considerations into sustainable agricultural practices is crucial and, in fact, fulfills the true “circular economy” paradigm by extending to human health effects. Healthier populations are better able to sustainably produce safe and nutritious food worldwide, and the circular nature of human health and agricultural production can result in improved food security while protecting environmental resources.
Methods
We conducted a systematic review of the published literature on alternative vs. conventional rice production practices, with a focus on alternate wetting–drying and furrow irrigation compared with continuous flooding (the traditional and conventional method of rice production). We examined the evidence for a variety of economic and environmental outcomes, as well as the evidence for arsenic and cadmium uptake in each of these cultivation practices. We also conducted a systematic review of the literature on the impact of tilling vs. no-till agriculture on the concentrations of five agriculturally important mycotoxins—aflatoxins, fumonisins, deoxynivalenol, zearalenone, and ochratoxin A—in a diversity of crops. We compared results across studies for concentrations of these mycotoxins in tilled vs. no-till fields.
Boolean search terms were used to conduct a systematic literature review to identify extractable data sources for summary tables for ACP rice/grain impacts and no-till agriculture/mycotoxin relationships. The review consisted of a systematic and additional examination of relevant sources and citations from these documents for additional references (see refs. 1,2,3,4,5). Searching took place in Google Scholar and the Michigan State University Library database search tool. The Michigan State University (MSU) Library database search tool allowed for simultaneous searching from multiple databases. The top identified databases where articles were sourced were Complementary Index; Environmental Complete; Academic Search Complete; and Springer Nature Journals. In total, 7 searches took place (reference in Fig. 2a and b): (1) alternate wetting–drying cultivation of rice (AWD) and reduced arsenic; (2) furrow irrigation (FI) and reduced arsenic; (3) AWD and yield; (4) FI and yield; (5) AWD and increased cadmium; (6) FI and increased cadmium; and (7) no-till agriculture and mycotoxin occurrence. Peer-reviewed publications from the last 30 years (since 1994) were considered for review for the alternative cultivation practices’ (ACP) impacts. Detailed review of 143 sources allowed for the identification of 28 sources with extractable data. A study is needed to provide synthesizable evidence of ACP compared to conventional cultivation for the desired impact, arsenic/cadmium content, or yield to be included in our review. For the no-till and mycotoxin review, selection criteria were not limited to the last 30 years and the search criteria stipulated peer-reviewed sources.
Panel A shows the selection and inclusion criteria of studies related to rice production methods. Search numbers refer to (1) alternate wetting-drying cultivation of rice (AWD) and reduced arsenic; (2) furrow irrigation (FI) and reduced arsenic; (3) AWD and yield; (4) FI and yield; (5) AWD and increased cadmium; and (6) FI and increased cadmium. 1, 3, and 5 on the left with 159 initial records. The primary search term was “alternate wetting-drying” with secondary terms OR “alternative wetting drying” or “AWD rice”. The number of studies evaluated at each step is included in the boxes. Panel B shows the selection and inclusion criteria of studies related to no-till agriculture and mycotoxin occurrence (Search 7). The primary search term was “no-till agriculture” with secondary “no-till agriculture” or “tillage”. Progresses to 2 records excluded due to language/subject review; leading to 11 records assessed. Right side demonstrates 100 initial records identified with “mycotoxin occurrence” in the title. Secondary terms were “mycotoxin concentration”, “aflatoxin”, “fumonisin”, “deoxynivalenol”, “zearalenone”, or “ochratoxin A”. The number of studies evaluated at each step is included in the boxes.
The systematic inclusion/exclusion process of studies related to rice cultivation practices and diverse effects, and no-till agriculture and mycotoxin risks, can be seen in Fig. 2a and b, respectively. Our review consisted of extensive consideration of in-text citations and referenced studies drawing from the initial systematic search. However, despite extensive searching, evaluating, and reference-checking, there is a potential for introduced bias in utilizing peer-reviewed publications that are indexed in the MSU database registry and in Google Scholar. By only including indexed, peer-reviewed, and English-language publications, potential alternative perspectives and non-traditional theoretical/methodological approaches may have been excluded from our analysis and presentation of findings.
Data availability
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its references.
References
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Cities and Circular Economy For Food (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, New York, NY, 2019).
Helgason, K. S., Iversen, K. & Julca, A. Circular agriculture for sustainable rural development. In World Social Report 2021: Reconsidering Rural Development (United Nations, 2021).
van Buren, N., Demmers, M., van der Heijden, R. & Witlox, F. Towards a circular economy: the role of Dutch logistics industries and governments. Sustainability 8, 647 (2016).
Hodgson, A., Alper, J., & Maxon, M. E. The U.S. Bioeconomy: Charting a Course for a Resilient and Competitive Future. (Schmidt Futures, New York, NY, 2022).
Wang, Y. & Jian, C. Sustainable plant-based ingredients as wheat flour substitutes in bread making. npj Sci. Food 6, 49 (2022).
Kusnierek, K., Heltoft, P., Mollerhagen, P. J. & Woznicki, T. Hydroponic potato production in wood fiber for food security. npj Sci. Food 7, 24 (2023).
Imanian, B. et al. The power, potential, benefits, and challenges of implementing high-throughput sequencing in food safety systems. NPJ Sci. Food 6, 1–6 (2022).
Massey, J. H., Walker, T. W., Anders, M. M., Smith, M. C. & Avila, L. A. Farmer adaptation of intermittent flooding using multiple-inlet rice irrigation in Mississippi. Agric. Water Manag 146, 297–304 (2014).
Henry, C. et al. Using Alternate Wetting & Drying (AWD) Rice Flood Management (University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, 2017).
Linquist, B. A. et al. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions, water use, and grain arsenic levels in rice systems. Glob. Chang. Biol. 21, 407–417 (2015).
LaHue, G. T., Chaney, R. L., Adviento-Borbe, M. A. & Linquist, B. A. Alternate wetting and drying in high yielding direct-seeded rice systems accomplishes multiple environmental and agronomic objectives. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 229, 30–39 (2016).
Carrijo, D. R., Lundy, M. E. & Linquist, B. A. Rice yields and water use under alternate wetting and drying irrigation: a meta-analysis. Field Crop. Res. 203, 173–180 (2017).
Lampayan, R. M., Rejesus, R. M., Singleton, G. R. & Bouman, B. A. M. Adoption and economics of alternate wetting and drying water management for irrigated lowland rice. Field Crop. Res. 170, 95–108 (2015).
Bouman, B. A. M., Lampayan, R. M. & Tuong, T. P. Water management in irrigated rice. In: Coping with Water Scarcity (International Rice Research Institute, Los Banos, Philippines, 2007).
Duxbury, J. M. & Panaullah, G. M. Remediation of Arsenic for Agriculture Sustainability, Food Security and Health in Bangladesh (FAO, 2007).
Massey, J. H., Reba, M. L., Adviento-Borbe, M. A., Chiu, Y. L. & Payne, G. K. Direct comparisons of four irrigation systems on a commercial rice farm: Irrigation water use efficiencies and water dynamics. Agric. Water Manag. 266, 107606 (2022).
Chlapecka, J. L., Hardke, J. T., Roberts, T. L., Mann, M. G. & Ablao, A. Scheduling rice irrigation using soil moisture thresholds for furrow irrigation and intermittent flooding. Agron. J. 113, 1258–1270 (2021).
Belder, P. et al. Effect of water-saving irrigation on rice yield and water use in typical lowland conditions in Asia. Agric. Water Manag. 65, 193–210 (2004).
de Vries, M. E. et al. Rice production with less irrigation water is possible in a Sahelian environment. Field Crop. Res. 116, 154–164 (2010).
Yao, F. et al. Agronomic performance of high-yielding rice variety grown under alternate wetting and drying irrigation. Field Crop. Res. 126, 16–22 (2012).
Liu, L. et al. Combination of site-specific nitrogen management and alternate wetting and drying irrigation increases grain yield and nitrogen and water use efficiency in super rice. Field Crop. Res. 154, 226–235 (2013).
Bouman, B. A. M. et al. Aerobic rice (Han Dao): a new way of growing rice in water-short areas. In 12th Annual International Soil Conservation Organization Conference 175–181 (Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 2002) https://topsoil.nserl.purdue.edu/isco/isco12/VolumeIII/AerobicRiceHanDao.pdf.
Bouman, B. A. M. & Tuong, T. P. Field water management to save water and increase its productivity in irrigated lowland rice. Agric. Water Manag. 49, 11–30 (2001).
Dong, B. et al. Water productivity in Zhanghe irrigation system: issues of scale. In Water-saving Irrigation for Rice: Proceeding of an International Workshop (eds. Barker, R. et al.) 97–115 (International Water Management Institute, Sri Lanka, 2001).
Li, Y. H. Research practice of water-saving irrigation for rice in China. In Water-saving Irrigation for Rice: Proceeding of an International Workshop (eds Barker, R., Loeve, R., Li, Y. & Tuong, T.) (International Water Management Institute, 2001).
Hogan, R., Stiles, S., Tacker, P., Vories, E. & Bryant, K. Estimating Irrigation Costs (University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service, 2007).
Nalley, L., Linquist, B., Kovacs, K. & Anders, M. The economic viability of alternative wetting and drying irrigation in Arkansas rice production. Agron. J. 107, 579–587 (2015).
Kürschner, E. et al. Water Saving in Rice Production—Dissemination, Adoption and Short Term Impacts of Alternate Wetting and Drying (AWD) in Bangladesh (SLE, 2010).
Vories, E., Counce, P. & Keisling, T. Comparison of flooded and furrow-irrigated rice on clay. Irrig. Sci. 21, 139–144 (2002).
Martini, L. F. D. et al. Imazethapyr and imazapic runoff under continuous and intermittent irrigation of paddy rice. Agric. Water Manag. 125, 26–34 (2013).
Majumdar, A., Kumar, J. S., Sheena & Bose, S. Agricultural water management practices and environmental influences on arsenic dynamics in rice field BT—arsenic in drinking water and food. In Arsenic in Drinking Water and Food (ed. Srivastava, S.) 425–443 (Springer, Singapore, 2020).
Yan, X., Yagi, K., Akiyama, H. & Akimoto, H. Statistical analysis of the major variables controlling methane emission from rice fields. Glob. Chang. Biol. 11, 1131–1141 (2005).
Feng, J. et al. Impacts of cropping practices on yield-scaled greenhouse gas emissions from rice fields in China: a meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 164, 220–228 (2013).
Lindau, C. W., Bollich, P. K. & DeLaune, R. D. Effect of rice variety on methane emission from Louisiana rice. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 54, 109–114 (1995).
Wassmann, R. et al. Characterization of methane emissions from rice fields in Asia. II. Differences among irrigated, rainfed, and deepwater rice. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 58, 13–22 (2000).
Wassmann, R. et al. Rice and global climate change. In Rice in the Global Economy: Strategic Research and Policy Issues for Food Security (eds. Pandley, S. et al.) 411–432 (International Rice Research Institute, 2010).
Li, C., Salas, W., DeAngelo, B. & Rose, S. Assessing alternatives for mitigating net greenhouse gas emissions and increasing yields from rice production in China over the next twenty years. J. Environ. Qual. 35, 1554–1565 (2006).
Yang, J., Huang, D., Duan, H., Tan, G. & Zhang, J. Alternate wetting and moderate soil drying increases grain yield and reduces cadmium accumulation in rice grains. J. Sci. Food Agric. 89, 1728–1736 (2009).
Li, C. et al. Impact of alternate wetting and drying irrigation on arsenic uptake and speciation in flooded rice systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 272, 188–198 (2019).
Carrijo, D. R. et al. Impacts of variable soil drying in alternate wetting and drying rice systems on yields, grain arsenic concentration and soil moisture dynamics. Field Crop. Res. 222, 101–110 (2018).
Li, Z. et al. Promising role of moderate soil drying and subsequent recovery through moderate wetting at grain-filling stage for rice yield enhancement. J. Plant Growth Regul. 35, 838–850 (2016).
Yang, J. & Zhang, J. Grain filling of cereals under soil drying. N. Phytol. 169, 223–236 (2006).
Li, R. Y., Stroud, J. L., Ma, J. F., Mcgrath, S. P. & Zhao, F. J. Mitigation of arsenic accumulation in rice with water management and silicon fertilization. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 3778–3783 (2009).
Bouman, B. A. M., Peng, S., Castañeda, A. R. & Visperas, R. M. Yield and water use of irrigated tropical aerobic rice systems. Agric. Water Manag. 74, 87–105 (2005).
Xu, X. Y., McGrath, S. P., Meharg, A. A. & Zhao, F. J. Growing rice aerobically markedly decreases arsenic accumulation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 5574–5579 (2008).
Takahashi, Y. et al. Arsenic behavior in paddy fields during the cycle of flooded and non-flooded periods. Environ. Sci. Technol. 38, 1038–1044 (2004).
Feng Ma, J. et al. Transporters of arsenite in rice and their role in arsenic accumulation in rice grain. PNAS 105, 9931–9935 (2008).
Zhao, F. J., McGrath, S. P. & Meharg, A. A. Arsenic as a food chain contaminant: mechanisms of plant uptake and metabolism and mitigation strategies. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 61, 535–559 (2010).
Meharg, A. & Zhao, F. Arsenic & Rice (Springer, 2012).
Mandal, B. K. & Suzuki, K. T. Arsenic round the world: a review. Talanta 58, 201–235 (2002).
Banerjee, M. et al. High arsenic in rice is associated with elevated genotoxic effects in humans. Sci. Rep. 3, 1–8 (2013).
Williams, P. N. et al. Increase in rice grain arsenic for regions of Bangladesh irrigating paddies with elevated arsenic in groundwaters. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 4903–4908 (2006).
Smith, A. H., Lopipero, P. A., Bates, M. N. & Steinmaus, C. M. Arsenic epidemiology and drinking water standards. Science (80-.) 296, 2145–2146 (2002).
Oberoi, S., Barchowsky, A. A. & Wu, F. The global burden of disease for skin, lung and bladder cancer caused by arsenic in food. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 23, 1187–1194 (2014).
Zavala, Y. J., Gerads, R., Gürleyük, H. & Duxbury, J. M. Arsenic in rice: II. Arsenic speciation in USA grain and implications for human health. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 3861–3866 (2008).
Mondal, D. & Polya, D. A. Rice is a major exposure route for arsenic in Chakdaha block, Nadia district, West Bengal, India: a probabilistic risk assessment. Appl. Geochem. 23, 2987–2998 (2008).
Das, H. K. et al. Arsenic concentrations in rice, vegetables, and fish in Bangladesh: a preliminary study. Environ. Int. 30, 383–387 (2004).
Duxbury, J. M., Mayer, A. B., Lauren, J. G. & Hassan, N. Food chain aspects of arsenic contamination in Bangladesh: effects on quality and productivity of rice. J. Environ. Sci. Health—Part A 38, 61–69 (2003).
Williams, P. N. et al. Variation in arsenic speciation and concentration in paddy rice related to dietary exposure. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39, 5531–5540 (2005).
Price, A. H. et al. Alternate wetting and drying irrigation for rice in Bangladesh: is it sustainable and has plant breeding something to offer? Food Energy Secur. 2, 120–129 (2013).
Rahman, M., Islam, M., Hassan, M., Islam, S. & Zaman, S. Impact of water management on the arsenic content of rice grain and cultivated soil in an arsenic contaminated area of Bangladesh. J. Environ. Sci. Nat. Resour. 7, 43–46 (2015).
Aide, M. & Beighley, D. Arsenic uptake by rice (Oryza sativa L.) having different irrigation regimes involving two southeastern Missouri soils. Int. J. Appl. Res. 11, 71–81 (2016).
Stevens, W., Rhine, M. & Vories, E. Effect of irrigation and silicon fertilizer on total rice grain arsenic content and yield. Crop Forage Turfgrass Manag. 3, 1–6 (2017).
Talukder, A. S. M. H. M. et al. Effect of water management, arsenic and phosphorus levels on rice in a high-arsenic soil-water system: II. Arsenic uptake. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 80, 145–151 (2012).
Das, S., Chou, M. L., Jean, J. S., Liu, C. C. & Yang, H. J. Water management impacts on arsenic behavior and rhizosphere bacterial communities and activities in a rice agro-ecosystem. Sci. Total Environ. 542, 642–652 (2016).
Hu, P. et al. Effects of water management on arsenic and cadmium speciation and accumulation in an upland rice cultivar. J. Environ. Sci. 27, 225–231 (2015).
Somenahally, A. C., Hollister, E. B., Yan, W., Gentry, T. J. & Loeppert, R. H. Water management impacts on arsenic speciation and iron-reducing bacteria in contrasting rice-rhizosphere compartments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 8328–8335 (2011).
Hu, P. et al. Water management affects arsenic and cadmium accumulation in different rice cultivars. Environ. Geochem. Health 35, 767–778 (2013).
Hua, B., Yan, W., Wang, J., Deng, B. & Yang, J. Arsenic accumulation in rice grains: effects of cultivars and water management practices. Environ. Eng. Sci. 28, 591–596 (2011).
Williams, P. N. et al. Greatly enhanced arsenic shoot assimilation in rice leads to elevated grain levels compared to wheat and barley. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 6854–6859 (2007).
FDA. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Supporting Document for Action Level for Inorganic Arsenic in Rice Cereals for Infants (FDA, 2020).
United Nations. Codex Alimentarius Commission, 37th Session (United Nations, 2014).
US House of Representatives. Baby Foods Are Tainted with Dangerous Levels of Arsenic, Lead, Cadmium, and Mercury (Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, 2021).
FDA (US Food and Drug Administration). Closer to Zero: Reducing Childhood Exposure to Contaminants from Foods FDA (US Food and Drug Administration, 2023).
Stevens, G., Rhine, M. & Heiser, J. Rice production with furrow irrigation in the Mississippi River Delta Region of the USA. In Rice Crop—Current Developments (eds Shah, F., Khan, Z. H. & Iqbal, A.) Ch. 5 (IntechOpen, 2018).
Miller, T. et al. Mississippi’s Rice Growers’ Guide (Mississippi State University, 2008).
Yamaguchi, N., Ohkura, T., Takahashi, Y., Maejima, Y. & Arao, T. Arsenic distribution and speciation near rice roots influenced by iron plaques and redox conditions of the soil matrix. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 1549–1556 (2014).
Wang, G., Zhang, Q. C., Witt, C. & Buresh, R. J. Indigenous nutrient supply and nutrient efficiency in intensive rice systems of Zhejiang Province, China. In Agronomy, Environment, and Food Security for the 21st Century: First International Agronomy Congress (1998).
Cabangon, R., Lampayan, R., Bouman, B. & To, P. T. Water saving technologies for rice production in the Asian region. Ext. Bull. Fertil. Technol. Cent. 1522, https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13061522 (2012).
Pan, G., Xu, X., Smith, P., Pan, W. & Lal, R. An increase in topsoil SOC stock of China’s croplands between 1985 and 2006 revealed by soil monitoring. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 136, 133–138 (2010).
Wu, J. Carbon accumulation in paddy ecosystems in subtropical China: evidence from landscape studies. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 62, 29–34 (2011).
Witt, C. et al. Crop rotation and residue management effects on carbon sequestration, nitrogen cycling and productivity of irrigated rice systems. Plant Soil 225, 263–278 (2000).
Arao, T., Kawasaki, A., Baba, K., Mori, S. & Matsumoto, S. Effects of water management on cadmium and arsenic accumulation and dimethylarsinic acid concentrations in Japanese rice. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 9361–9367 (2009).
Honma, T. et al. Optimal soil Eh, pH, and water management for simultaneously minimizing arsenic and cadmium concentrations in rice grains. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 4178–4185 (2016).
Hu, P. et al. Effect of water management on cadmium and arsenic accumulation by rice (Oryza sativa L.) with different metal accumulation capacities. J. Soils Sediment. 13, 916–924 (2013).
Pokharel, A. & Wu, F. Dietary exposure to cadmium from six common foods in the United States. Food Chem. Toxicol. 178, 113873 (2023).
Zhao, F. J. & Wang, P. Arsenic and cadmium accumulation in rice and mitigation strategies. Plant Soil 446, 1–21 (2020).
Meharg, A. A. et al. Rice grain identifies a close association of essential elements copper, selenium and molybdenum with cadmium. Exposure Health 15, 505–518 (2023).
Carrijo, D. R., LaHue, G. T., Parikh, S. J., Chaney, R. L. & Linquist, B. A. Mitigating the accumulation of arsenic and cadmium in rice grain: a quantitative review of the role of water management. Sci. Total Environ. 839, 156245 (2022).
Wu, F. Perspective: time to face the fungal threat. Nature 516, S7 (2014).
Miller, J. D. Fungi and mycotoxins in grain: implications for stored product research. J. Stored Prod. Res. 31, 1–16 (1995).
Liverpool-Tasie, L., Saha Turna, N., Ademola, O., Obadina, A. & Wu, F. The occurrence and co-occurrence of aflatoxin and fumonisin along the maize value chain in southwest Nigeria. Food Chem. Toxicol. 129, 458–465 (2019).
Barug, D. et al. The Mycotoxin Factbook: Food and Feed Topics (Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2006).
Pokharel, A., Hennessy, D. A. & Wu, F. Health burden associated with tillage-related PM2.5 pollution in the United States, and mitigation strategies. Sci. Total Environ. 903, 166161 (2023).
Mupangwa, W. et al. Crop productivity, nutritional and economic benefits of no-till systems in smallholder farms of Ethiopia. Agronomy 13, 115 (2023).
Fuentes-Llanillo, R. et al. Profitability of no-till grain production systems. Semin. Agrar 39, 77–86 (2018).
Carretta, L., Cardinali, A., Onofri, A., Masin, R. & Zanin, G. Dynamics of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid in soil under conventional and conservation tillage. Int. J. Environ. Res. 15, 1037–1055 (2021).
Jayaraman, S. & Dalal, R. C. No-till farming: prospects, challenges— productivity, soil health, and ecosystem services. Soil Res. 60, 435–441 (2022).
Dang, Y. P., Dalal, R. C. & Menzies, N. W. No-till Farming Systems for Sustainable Agriculture: Challenges and Opportunities (Springer International Publishing, 2020).
Hall, A. Restructuring, environmentalism and the problem of farm safety. Sociol. Ruralis 47, 343–368 (2007).
Dang, Y. P., Page, K. L., Dalal, R. C. & Menzies, N. W. No-till farming systems for sustainable agriculture: a overview. In No-till Farming Systems for Sustianable Agriculture: Challenges and Opportunities (eds Dang, Y. P., Dalal, R. C. & Menzies, N. W.) 3–20 (Springer International Publishing, 2020).
Ropera, M. M. & Guptab, V. V. S. R. Soil biology and biochemistry management practices and soil biota. Aust. J. Soil Res. 33, 321–360 (1995).
Bockus, W. W. & Shroyer, J. P. The impact of reduced tillage on soilborne plant pathogens. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 36, 485–500 (1998).
Sumner, D. R., Doupnik, B. & Boosalis, M. G. Effects of reduced tillage and multiple cropping on plant diseases. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 19, 167–187 (1981).
Firth, A. G. et al. Soil bacterial community dynamics in plots managed with cover crops and no-till farming in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley, USA. J. Appl. Microbiol. 134, 1–13 (2023).
Pierce, F. J., Fortin, M.-C. & Staton, M. J. Periodic plowing effects on soil properties in a no-till farming system. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58, 1782 (1994).
Garcia, J. P., Wortmann, C. S., Mamo, M., Drijber, R. & Tarkalson, D. One-time tillage of no-till: effects on nutrients, mycorrhizae, and phosphorus uptake. Agron. J. 99, 1093–1103 (2007).
Friedrich, T. & Kassam, A. No-till farming and the environment: do no-till systems require more chemicals? Outlooks Pest Manag. 23, 153–157 (2012).
Rosner, J., Zwatz, E., Klik, A. & Gyuricza, C. Conservation tillage systems-soil-nutrient-and herbicide loss in lower Austria and the mycotoxin problem. Substance 2, 0–6 (2008).
Abbas, H. K. et al. Dynamics of mycotoxin and Aspergillus flavus levels in aging Bt and non-Bt corn residues under Mississippi no-till conditions. J. Agric. Food Chem. 56, 7578–7585 (2008).
Burgess, L. & Bryden, W. Fusarium: a ubiquitous fungus of global significance. Microbiol. Aust. 33, 22 (2012).
Jaime-Garcia, R. & Cotty, P. J. Aspergillus flavus in soils and corncobs in South Texas: implications for management of aflatoxins in corn–cotton rotations. Plant Dis. 88, 1366–1371 (2004).
Dill-Macky, R. & Jones, R. K. The effect of previous crop residues and tillage on fusarium head blight of wheat. Plant Dis. 84, 71–77 (2000).
Abbas, H. K. et al. Ecology of Aspergillus flavus, regulation of aflatoxin production, and management strategies to reduce aflatoxin contamination of corn. Toxin Rev. 28, 142–153 (2009).
Wu, F., Groopman, J. D. & Pestka, J. J. Public health impacts of foodborne mycotoxins. Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol. 5, 351–372 (2014).
Council for Agriculture Science and Technology. Mycotoxins Risks in Plant, Animal, and Human Systems (CAST, 2003).
Chen, C., Riley, R. T. & Wu, F. Dietary fumonisin and growth impairment in children and animals: a review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 17, 1448–1464 (2018).
Wu, F. & Mitchell, N. J. How climate change and regulations can affect the economics of mycotoxins. World Mycotoxin J. 9, 653–663 (2016).
Battilani, P. et al. Aflatoxin B1 contamination in maize in Europe increases due to climate change. Sci. Rep. 12, 24328 (2016).
Liu, C. & Van der Fels-Klerx, H. J. Quantitative modeling of climate change impacts on mycotoxins in cereals: a review. Toxins (Basel) 13, 276 (2021).
Yu, J., Hennessy, D. A., Tack, J. & Wu, F. The impact of climate change on aflatoxin contamination in US corn. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 054017 (2022).
Stahel, W. J. The circular economy. Nature 531, 435–438 (2016).
Williams, P. N., Raab, A., Feldmann, J. & Meharg, A. A. Market basket survey shows elevated levels of as in South Central U.S. processed rice compared to California: consequences for human dietary exposure. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 2178–2183 (2007).
Spanu, A., Daga, L., Orlandoni, A. M. & Sanna, G. The role of irrigation techniques in arsenic bioaccumulation in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 8333–8340 (2012).
Zablotowicz, R. M., Abbas, H. K. & Locke, M. A. Population ecology of Aspergillus flavus associated with Mississippi Delta soils. Food Addit. Contam. 24, 1102–1108 (2007).
Accinelli, C., Abbas, H. K., Zablotowicz, R. M. & Wilkinson, J. R. Aspergillus flavus aflatoxin occurrence and expression of aflatoxin biosynthesis genes in soil. Can. J. Microbiol. 54, 371–379 (2008).
Mejía-Teniente, L., Chapa-Oliver, A. M., Vazquez-Cruz, M. A., Torres-Pacheco, I. & Guevara-González, R. G. Aflatoxins biochemistry and molecular biology-biotechnological approaches for control in crops. In Aflatoxins-Detection, Measurement and Control (ed. Torres-Pacheco, I.) 317–354 (InTech, 2011).
Griffin, G. J., Garren, K. H. & Taylor, J. D. Influence of crop rotation and minimum tillage on the population of Aspergillus flavus group in peanut field soil. Plant Dis. 65, 898–900 (1981).
Horn, B. W. & Dorner, J. W. Soil populations of Aspergillus species from section Flavi along a transect through peanut-growing regions of the United States. Mycologia 90, 767–776 (1998).
Abbas, H. K., Zablotowicz, R. M. & Locke, M. A. Spatial variability of Aspergillus flavus soil populations under different crops and corn grain colonization and aflatoxins. Can. J. Bot. 82, 1768–1775 (2004).
Nesci, A., Barros, G., Castillo, C. & Etcheverry, M. Soil fungal population in preharvest maize ecosystem in different tillage practices in Argentina. Soil Tillage Res. 91, 143–149 (2006).
Angle, J. S., Dunn, K. A. & Wagner, G. H. Effect of cultural practices on the soil population of Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 46, 301–304 (1982).
McGee, D., Olanya, O., Hoyos, G. & Tiffany, L. Populations of Aspergillus flavus in the Iowa cornfield ecosystem in years not favorable for aflatoxin contamination of corn grain. Plant Dis. 80, 742–747 (1996).
Torres, A., Ramirez, M. L., Reynoso, M. M., Rodriguez, M. Y. & Chulze, S. Natural co-occurence of Fusarium species (Section Liseola) and Apergillus flavus group species, fumonisin and aflatoxin in Argentinian corn. Cereal Res. Commun. 25, 389–392 (1997).
Chulze, S. N., Ramirez, M. L., Torres, A. & Leslie, J. F. Genetic variation in Fusarium section liseola from no-till maize in Argentina. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 66, 5312–5315 (2000).
Marocco, A., Gavazzi, C., Pietri, A. & Tabaglio, V. On fumonisin incidence in monoculture maize under no-till, conventional tillage and two nitrogen fertilisation levels. J. Sci. Food Agric. 88, 1217–1221 (2008).
Arino, A. et al. Influence of agricultural practices on the contamination of maize by fumonisin. Mycotoxins J. Food Prot. 72, 898–902 (2009).
Obst, A., Lepschy-von Gleissenthall, J. & Beck, R. On the etiology of Fusarium head blight of wheat in South Germany—preceding crops, weather conditions for inoculum production and head infection, proneness of the crop to infection and mycotoxin production. Cereal Res. Commun. 25, 699–704 (1997).
Flett, B. C. & Wehner, F. C. Incidence of Stenocarpella and Fusarium Cob rots in monoculture maize under different tillage systems. J. Phytopathol. 133, 327–333 (1991).
Flett, B. C., McLaren, N. W. & Wehner, F. C. Incidence of ear rot pathogens under alternating corn tillage practices. Plant Dis. 82, 781–784 (1998).
Mabuza, L. M., Janse van Rensburg, B., Flett, B. C. & Rose, L. J. Accumulation of toxigenic Fusarium species and Stenocarpella maydis in maize grain grown under different cropping systems. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 152, 297–308 (2018).
Ramirez, M. L., Torres, A., Rodriguez, M., Castillo, C. & Chulze, S. Fusarium and fumonisins in corn at harvest time: effect of fertilization and planting area. Cereal Res. Commun. 25, 381–383 (1997).
Schaafsma, A. W., Ilinic, L. T., Miller, J. D. & Hooker, D. C. Agronomic considerations for reducing deoxynivalenol in wheat grain. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 23, 279–285 (2001).
Labreuche, J., Maumene, C. & Caron, D. Wheat after Maize—Mycotoxin Risk Management. Selected Papers of Arvalis Institut du végétal—No. 2, 14–16 (Arvalis Institut du végétal, 2005).
Spolti, P., Shah, D. A., Fernandes, J. M. C., Bergstrom, G. C. & Del Ponte, E. M. Disease risk, spatial patterns, and incidence-severity relationships of Fusarium head blight in no-till spring wheat following maize or soybean. Plant Dis. 99, 1360–1366 (2015).
Edwards, S. G. Influence of agricultural practices on fusarium infection of cereals and subsequent contamination of grain by trichothecene mycotoxins. Toxicol. Lett. 153, 29–35 (2004).
Burgess, L. W. et al. Long-term effects of stubble management on the incidence of infection of wheat by Fusarium graminearum Schw. Group 1. Anim. Prod. Sci. 33, 451–456 (1993).
Smiley, R. W. & Patterson, L. M. Pathogenic fungi associated with fusarium foot rot of winter wheat in the semiarid Pacific Northwest. Plant Dis. 80, 944–949 (1996).
Miller, D. J. et al. Effect of tillage practice on fusarium head blight of wheat. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 20, 95–103 (1998).
Del Ponte, E. M. et al. Regional and field-specific factors affect the composition of fusarium head blight pathogens in subtropical no-till wheat agroecosystem of Brazil. Phytopathology 105, 246–254 (2015).
Pereyra, S. A. & Dill-Macky, R. Colonization of the residues of diverse plant species by Gibberella zeae and their contribution to fusarium head blight inoculum. Plant Dis. 92, 800–807 (2008).
Lori, G. A., Sisterna, M. N., Sarandón, S. J., Rizzo, I. & Chidichimo, H. Fusarium head blight in wheat: impact of tillage and other agronomic practices under natural infection. Crop Prot. 28, 495–502 (2009).
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences (IAFNS) through contract IAFNS-MICHIGANSTATE-20220328; and US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Grant MICL02527. IAFNS is a nonprofit science organization that pools funding from industry collaborators and advances science through in-kind and financial contributions from public and private sector participants. IAFNS and USDA had no role in the design, analysis, interpretation, or presentation of the data and results.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
F.W. conceived and developed research questions. C.K.S. preformed analysis and literature review. C.K.S. and F.W. drafted and edited the paper. C.K.S. prepared figures and tables. F.W. provided expertise feedback and project administration/supervision.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Scott, C.K., Wu, F. Unintended food safety impacts of agricultural circular economies, with case studies in arsenic and mycotoxins. npj Sci Food 8, 52 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-024-00293-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-024-00293-8
