Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T13:56:42.292Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

What is the prospect of a perennial grain revolution of agriculture?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 September 2024

Lennart Olsson*
Affiliation:
Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS), Box 170, 22100 Lund, Sweden
Elina Andersson
Affiliation:
Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS), Box 170, 22100 Lund, Sweden
Jonas Ardö
Affiliation:
Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science, Lund University, Sweden
Timothy Crews
Affiliation:
The Land Institute, Salina, KS, USA
Christophe David
Affiliation:
Department of Agroecology and Environment, ISARA, Lyon, France
Lee DeHaan
Affiliation:
The Land Institute, Salina, KS, USA
Axel Hilling
Affiliation:
Department of Business Law, Lund University, Sweden
Aubrey Streit Krug
Affiliation:
The Land Institute, Salina, KS, USA
Michael Palmgren
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Sergio Rey
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, San Diego State University, CA, USA
Torbern Tagesson
Affiliation:
Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science, Lund University, Sweden
Anna Westerbergh
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Biology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden
Patrik Vestin
Affiliation:
Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science, Lund University, Sweden
*
Corresponding author: Lennart Olsson; Email: [email protected]

Abstract

Non-technical summary

Agriculture has been dominated by annual plants, such as all cereals and oilseeds, since the very beginning of civilization over 10,000 years ago. Annual plants are planted and uprooted every year which results in severe disturbance of the soil and disrupts ecosystem services. Science has shown that it is possible to domesticate completely new perennial grain crops, i.e. planted once and harvested year after year. Such crops would solve many of the problems of agriculture, but their development and uptake would be at odds with the current agricultural technology industry.

Technical summary

Agriculture is arguably the most environmentally destructive innovation in human history. A root cause is the reliance on annual crops requiring uprooting and restarting every season. Most environmental predicaments of agriculture can be attributed to the use of annuals, as well as many social, political, and economic ones. Advances in domestication and breeding of novel perennial grain crops have demonstrated the possibility of a future agricultural shift from annual to perennial crops. Such a change could have many advantages over the current agricultural systems which are to over 80% based on annual crops mainly grown in monocultures. We analyze and review the prospects for such scientific advances to be adopted and scaled to a level where it is pertinent to talk about a perennial revolution. We follow the logic of E.O. Wright's approach of Envisioning Real Utopias by discussing the desirability, viability, and achievability of such a transition. Proceeding from Lakatos' theory of science and Lukes' three dimensions of power, we discuss the obstacles to such a transition. We apply a transition theory lens to formulate four reasons of optimism that a perennial revolution could be imminent within 3–5 decades and conclude with an invitation for research.

Type
Review Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NC
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original article is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained prior to any commercial use.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

1. The many problems of annual grain production

The Neolithic Revolution 12,000 to 7000 years ago, during which humans shifted from hunting and gathering to farming, was arguably the most decisive social transition in human history in terms of path dependency. This profound shift in the provision of food marked the rise of civilizations and the beginning of political organizations (Weisdorf, Reference Weisdorf2005), and was by some proposed as the onset of a new geological Epoch, the Anthropocene (Lewis & Maslin, Reference Lewis and Maslin2015). Its most important characteristic was the domestication of the annual grasses and forbs that still comprise the mainstay of our food, such as wheat, rice, maize, soya (together representing 50% of world croplands), barley, beans, millet, oat, rye, sesame, sorghum, and sunflower. It is hard to overstate the importance of agriculture for the development of civilization, but now agriculture and the world's food supply have reached a critical crossroad (Olsson et al., Reference Olsson, Crews, Franklin, King, Mirzabaev, Scown, Tengberg, Villarino and Wang2023).

The history of domestication has so far resulted in that most humans today depend on a few high-yielding staple crops in agricultural systems that are unsustainable (McIntyre et al., Reference McIntyre, Herren, Wakhungu and Watson2009), climate vulnerable (Bezner Kerr et al., Reference Bezner Kerr, Hasegawa, Lasco, Bhatt, Deryng, Farrell, Gurney-Smith, Ju, Lluch-Cota, Meza, Nelson and Neufeldt2022), nutrient poor (FAO et al., 2020; Gillespie et al., Reference Gillespie, van den Bold Gillespie and van den Bold2017), and inequitable (Krug et al., Reference Krug, Drummond, Van Tassel and Warschefsky2023). The global demand for food is projected to continue to increase because of a burgeoning population, shifting dietary preferences, over-consumption, and food wastage (van Dijk et al., Reference van Dijk, Morley, Rau and Saghai2021). The size of the demand for food by 2100 is contested, from a doubling, as argued by agroindustry (Steensland, Reference Steensland2021) to 40–55% as assumed by the FAO (FAO, 2019), and as low as 30% as suggested by some integrated models (van Dijk et al., Reference van Dijk, Morley, Rau and Saghai2021). Climate change, water scarcity, and land use change are expected to make it difficult to meet even the lowest of increased demands (Bezner Kerr et al., Reference Bezner Kerr, Hasegawa, Lasco, Bhatt, Deryng, Farrell, Gurney-Smith, Ju, Lluch-Cota, Meza, Nelson and Neufeldt2022; Mbow et al., Reference Mbow, Rosenzweig, Barioni, Benton, Herrero, Krishnapillai, Liwenga, Pradhan, Rivera-Ferre, Sapkota, Tubiello, Xu, Shukla, Skea and Al2019; Olsson et al., Reference Olsson, Barbosa, Bhadwal, Cowie, DeLusca, Flores-Renteria, Hermans, Jobbagy, Kurz, Li, Sonwa, Stringer, Shukla, Skea, Calvo Buendia, Masson-Delmotte, Pörtner, Roberts, Zhai, Slade, Connors, van Diemen, Ferrat, Haughey, Luz, Neogi, Pathak, Petzold, Portugal Pereira, Vyas, Huntley and Malley2019). Moreover, agriculture is already one of the most polluting sectors of society (Breitburg et al., Reference Breitburg, Levin, Oschlies, Grégoire, Chavez, Conley, Garçon, Gilbert, Gutiérrez, Isensee, Jacinto, Limburg, Montes, Naqvi, Pitcher, Rabalais, Roman, Rose, Seibel and Zhang2018; Foley et al., Reference Foley, Ramankutty, Brauman, Cassidy, Gerber, Johnston, Mueller, O'Connell, Ray, West, Balzer, Bennett, Carpenter, Hill, Monfreda, Polasky, Rockström, Sheehan, Siebert and Zaks2011; Ramankutty et al., Reference Ramankutty, Mehrabi, Waha, Jarvis, Kremen, Herrero and Rieseberg2018), and dominant trends in the sector are at odds with social goals such as health (Clark et al., Reference Clark, Springmann, Hill and Tilman2019), employment (White, Reference White2012), livelihood diversity, and social cohesion (Losch et al., Reference Losch, Freguin-Gresh and White2012). Most people living in extreme poverty are rural and employed in agriculture, a sector characterized by inequality and gender disparities (World Bank, Reference World Bank2018). In high-income countries farmers suffer from high and increasing debts, decreasing returns, and high levels of stress (Rudolphi, Reference Rudolphi2019; Rudolphi & Barnes, Reference Rudolphi and Barnes2019). At a very different level, agriculture is also the main culprit of the 400+ marine dead zones in coastal waters (Bailey et al., Reference Bailey, Meyer, Pettingell, Macie, Korstad, Bauddh, Kumar, Singh and Korstad2020; Foley et al., Reference Foley, Ramankutty, Brauman, Cassidy, Gerber, Johnston, Mueller, O'Connell, Ray, West, Balzer, Bennett, Carpenter, Hill, Monfreda, Polasky, Rockström, Sheehan, Siebert and Zaks2011). These challenges combined make a radical change in the agricultural sector imperative, and such a change must also respond to the increasing demands and expected deteriorating productivity due to climate change (Bezner Kerr et al., Reference Bezner Kerr, Hasegawa, Lasco, Bhatt, Deryng, Farrell, Gurney-Smith, Ju, Lluch-Cota, Meza, Nelson and Neufeldt2022; Challinor et al., Reference Challinor, Watson, Lobell, Howden, Smith and Chhetri2014; Mbow et al., Reference Mbow, Rosenzweig, Barioni, Benton, Herrero, Krishnapillai, Liwenga, Pradhan, Rivera-Ferre, Sapkota, Tubiello, Xu, Shukla, Skea and Al2019; Porter et al., Reference Porter, Xie, Challinor, Cochrane, Howden, Iqbal, Lobell, Travasso, Netra, Garrett, Ingram, Lipper, McCarthy, McGrath, Smith, Thorton, Watson, Ziska, Field, Barros, Dokken, Mach, Mastrandrea, Bilir, Chatterjee, Ebi, Otsuki Estrada, Genova, Girma, Kissel, Levy, MacCracken and Mastrandrea2014) and the nutritional quality of food (Zhu et al., Reference Zhu, Kobayashi, Loladze, Zhu, Jiang, Xu, Liu, Seneweera, Ebi, Drewnowski, Fukagawa and Ziska2018).

Modern agriculture is unsustainable first and foremost because of the reliance on low diversity annual cropping systems that require severe disruption of soil ecosystems every year to restart the production cycle (Baker, Reference Baker2017; Crews et al., Reference Crews, Carton and Olsson2018; Crews & Rumsey, Reference Crews and Rumsey2017; Eisler, Reference Eisler2019; Lubofsky, Reference Lubofsky2016; Rasche et al., Reference Rasche, Blagodatskaya, Emmerling, Belz, Musyoki, Zimmermann and Martin2017; Soto-Gómez & Pérez-Rodríguez, Reference Soto-Gómez and Pérez-Rodríguez2022). This is arguably a root cause of both environmental damage (erosion, nutrient leaching, greenhouse gas emissions, deteriorating soil biodiversity, and spreading of toxic substances) and many social predicaments, such as the high dependence on an industry of external inputs (seeds, agrochemicals, machinery, and fossil fuel). This makes agriculture a cost to society through a complex system of subsidies totaling about $600 billion per year worldwide (Laborde et al., Reference Laborde, Mamun, Martin, Piñeiro and Vos2021), or in the EU, about 35% of its total budget (Head, Reference Head2019; Scown et al., Reference Scown, Brady and Nicholas2020).

In order to attribute these predicaments to one specific factor, the reliance on annual grains, we turn to the concept path dependence for understanding the historical evolution of agriculture (Mahoney, Reference Mahoney2000). One reason why annual crops are favored in commercial plant breeding, is the opportunity to use patent protection as a way of reaping future benefits. Even if plants were exempted from the original patent legislation in 1836, the discovery of methods for creating hybrid seeds in the 1920s paved the way for patentability of seeds, and in 1930 the first patent of a seed was granted. The arguments for patentability of plants were primarily industrial (Seay, Reference Seay1988). Even if crops superior to the hybrids could have been achieved through selection of (not patentable) open-pollinates (Kloppenburg, Reference Kloppenburg2005; Paul, Reference Paul1989), the plant breeding industry focused on hybrids because of their patentability and hence commercial potential. Therefore, we can consider the 1930s decision to allow patents on plants as a contingent moment initiating a self-reinforcing sequence of plant breeding techniques (Mahoney, Reference Mahoney2000).

Agriculture has historically developed in both radical leaps (revolutions) and incremental changes. In the last 150 years we have distinguished at least four technological breakthroughs, sometimes referred to as revolutions, but with very different political and economic implications. The first was the invention and mass manufacture of the moldboard plow in the 1850s. With the steel plow it was possible to plow deeper into heavy soils, and to turn the soil over. This facilitated the expansion of agriculture into new areas. The second was the Haber Bosch process to manufacture plant-available nitrogen from atmospheric nitrogen in the 1910s (Smil, Reference Smil2004). The third was the Green Revolution in the 1960s which was primarily driven by advances in plant breeding supported by massive use of agrochemicals for the purpose of eradicating hunger (Evenson & Gollin, Reference Evenson and Gollin2003). The fourth agricultural revolution was the transgenic revolution primarily oriented towards producing new crops with agronomic traits to make cropping more cost effective – nearly all the commercially released transgenic crops are either herbicide tolerant or insect resistant varieties (van Acker et al., Reference van Acker, Rahman and Cici2017). These four revolutions have increased food production, averted famine, increased food security, and improved lives in many farming communities. Yet, over a longer time perspective the legacy of these agricultural revolutions is increasingly contested both in terms of the environmental trade-offs and social ramifications (Stone, Reference Stone2019). All four agricultural revolutions also contributed to creating the economic conditions that drive agriculture towards productivism, as will be elaborated below. In sum, modern agriculture is increasingly unable to generate desired benefits without negative costs, and its viability is increasingly undermined by climate change.

2. The many calls for a new agricultural vision

There is growing momentum in the UN (FAO et al., 2020), EU (Kelly & Naujokaityte, Reference Kelly and Naujokaityte2020), and USA (USDA, 2021) of the necessity for agriculture to change in order to better balance production of goods with conservation of natural resources. However, most of the proposed changes are incremental without addressing a root cause of unsustainability, namely the reliance on annual crops. Below we briefly review some of the most common discourses of sustainable agriculture, many of which overlap.

Importantly, these discourses have particular institutional links, both private and public. Climate Smart Agriculture is a concept primarily promoted by international organizations such as FAO, World Bank and the CGIAR. Smart Farming is heavily promoted by agricultural technology companies (agrochemicals and machinery). Organic agriculture originated as a biophilic philosophy that has since the early 1990s been codified as a business concept based on third party certification of products. Regenerative agriculture started as a social movement among farmers that is rapidly spreading to other sectors, and risks losing its original meaning (Bless et al., Reference Bless, Davila and Plant2023).

A fallacy, however, of all these approaches, at least from a soil carbon perspective, is the assumption that reversing degradation will restore soil carbon levels. It is well known that frequent and deep tillage in combination with leaving the soil surface exposed for long periods of time releases soil carbon to the atmosphere (Chi et al., Reference Chi, Waldo, Pressley, O'Keeffe, Huggins, Stöckle, Pan, Brooks and Lamb2016). But this does not mean that the soil carbon will come back if these detrimental practices are reversed. The soil carbon that accumulated in soils prior to cultivation were built by a diversity of perennial plants with dense and deep root systems. Only by reintroducing a diversity of deep-rooted plants can we hope to rebuild that soil carbon (Guan et al., Reference Guan, Turner, Song, Gu, Wang and Li2016; Ledo et al., Reference Ledo, Smith, Zerihun, Whitaker, Vicente-Vicente, Qin, McNamara, Zinn, Llorente, Liebig, Kuhnert, Dondini, Don, Diaz-Pines, Datta, Bakka, Aguilera and Hillier2020).

3. A perennial revolution as a new radical alternative

We argue that the agricultural systems that hold the greatest promise for improving on all unsustainable dimensions of annual grain agriculture are systems that feature perennial grains cultivated in mixtures – here called perennial polycultures (Baker, Reference Baker2017; Chapman et al., Reference Chapman, Thomsen, Tulloch, Correia, Luo, Najafi, DeHaan, Crews, Olsson, Lundquist, Westerbergh, Pedas, Knudsen and Palmgren2022; Crews et al., Reference Crews, Carton and Olsson2018; de Oliveira et al., Reference de Oliveira, Brunsell, Crews, DeHaan and Vico2019; Duchene et al., Reference Duchene, Celette, Ryan, DeHaan, Crews and David2019; Ryan et al., Reference Ryan, Crews, Culman, DeHaan, Hayes, Jungers and Bakker2018; Soto-Gómez & Pérez-Rodríguez, Reference Soto-Gómez and Pérez-Rodríguez2022). We argue that a perennial revolution is essential for long-term sustainable agriculture.

In envisioning this alternative to current agriculture, we take inspiration from Erik Olin Wright's framework for social change, ‘envisioning real utopias’ (Wright, Reference Wright2010). This involves a three-pronged approach:

  • A theoretically profound and systematic analysis of the current state-of-play. This means that we need to go beyond discussing the problems as such and ask the more fundamental question of why modern agriculture developed into the current system. What were the conditions and drivers of agriculture?

  • The formulation of an alternative to the current situation that is desirable (i.e. that it can generate the benefits we envision without negative side effects in terms of environment, agricultural communities, and society at large); viable (i.e. that it can be sustained over long periods of time without shifting problems into the future); and achievable (i.e. that it can be achieved in a reasonable timeframe).

  • A strategy for change by which the current system can be transformed into the new alternative. Such a strategy may have to first undermine or erode the power of the incumbent systems in order to pave the way for the new alternative (Wright, Reference Wright2019).

The realization of diverse, perennial grain agricultural systems would be revolutionary for both ecological and social reasons. Ecologically, novel agroecosystems of perennial polycultures could help repair the ecosystem harms of industrial annual agriculture and could help restore and retain vitally necessary natural ecosystem services while producing food for humans (Crews et al., Reference Crews, Carton and Olsson2018). Socially, a perennial revolution could fundamentally challenge the power structures that drive current agriculture by rendering much of the current agricultural inputs industry less important, or in some cases even superfluous, through agroecological transitions balancing production and environmental protection (Duru et al., Reference Duru, Therond and Fares2015). The more sustainable ecological, economic, and energetic infrastructure provided by perennial agriculture opens ethical possibilities for more just human cultures and relationships; while a ‘social perennial vision’ is not inevitable, it can be intentionally pursued (Krug & Tesdell, Reference Krug and Tesdell2021).

When the idea of shifting from annual crops to perennial crops was first expressed some 40 years ago (Eisler, Reference Eisler2019; Jackson, Reference Jackson1980) it was regarded by many as utopian. However, advances in plant breeding across subsequent decades have shown that it is possible to rapidly develop new perennial crops through wide hybridization of existing annual plants with wild perennial relatives (Cox et al., Reference Cox, Nabukalu, Paterson, Kong and Nakasagga2018; Cui et al., Reference Cui, Ren, Murray, Yan, Guo, Niu, Sun and Li2018; Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Huang, Zhang, Huang, Cheng, Wang, Zhang, Wang, Zhu, Yu, Tao, Hu, Yang, Qi, Li, Liu, Yang, Long, Harnpichitvitaya and Hu2019) and an alternative strategy, de novo domestication of wild plants now also seems possible (Chapman et al., Reference Chapman, Thomsen, Tulloch, Correia, Luo, Najafi, DeHaan, Crews, Olsson, Lundquist, Westerbergh, Pedas, Knudsen and Palmgren2022; Luo et al., Reference Luo, Najafi, Correia, Trinh, Chapman, Østerberg, Thomsen, Pedas, Larson, Gao, Poland, Knudsen, DeHaan and Palmgren2022). However, in a situation where most of the plant breeding is funded by the private sector looking for a return on investment, there is little economic incentive to develop perennial grains (Clancy & Moschini, Reference Clancy and Moschini2017; Coe et al., Reference Coe, Evans, Gasic and Main2020).

Doubts about and even objections to the idea of domesticating perennial grain crops (Denison, Reference Denison2012; Loomis, Reference Loomis2022; Smaje, Reference Smaje2015), are sometimes raised by referring to the phenotypic trade-off theory (or the ‘Y-model’) in ecology, popular in the 1980s and 90s (Roff & Fairbairn, Reference Roff and Fairbairn2007; Roff & Gelinas, Reference Roff and Gelinas2003). According to this theory perennial plants do not allocate enough energy to producing large seeds, but instead prioritize other plant functions, such as vegetative growth and soil exploration through an extensive root system. However, observed phenotypic trade-offs are not always supported by evolutionary theory because it is possible that natural selection in a competitive environment never favored the development of both longevity (large root system of perennials) and reproductive capacity (many spikes and large seeds) (Garland, Reference Garland2014). More recent research suggests that a quantitative genetic theory is a more appropriate for understanding trade-offs, and according to this theory plant breeding can promote both longevity (roots) and reproductive capacity (seeds). Evidence exists that the trade-off between perenniality and reproductive allocation is not fixed, for example, herbaceous perennial crops that produce 20 tons (plantain) to 50 tons (banana) of fruit per ha in the tropics (Kreitzman et al., Reference Kreitzman, Toensmeier, Chan, Smukler and Ramankutty2020). Olive trees, domesticated about 6000 years ago, sustain their yields for 300 to 500 years (Camarero et al., Reference Camarero, Colangelo, Gracia-Balaga, Ortega-Martínez and Büntgen2021). Wild perennial plants produce fewer or smaller seeds because of natural selection in a competitive environment where longevity is favored rather than because of physiologically optimized allocation (DeHaan et al., Reference DeHaan, Van Tassel and Cox2005). So even if most existing agricultural crops are annuals, there is no biological reason preventing the domestication of perennial grain crops (Bajgain et al., Reference Bajgain, Crain, Cattani, Larson, Altendorf, Anderson, Crews, Hu, Poland, Turner, Westerbergh, DeHaan and Goldman2022; Chapman et al., Reference Chapman, Thomsen, Tulloch, Correia, Luo, Najafi, DeHaan, Crews, Olsson, Lundquist, Westerbergh, Pedas, Knudsen and Palmgren2022; Ciotir et al., Reference Ciotir, Applequist, Crews, Cristea, DeHaan, Frawley, Herron, Magill, Miller, Roskov, Schlautman, Solomon, Townesmith, Van Tassel, Zarucchi and Miller2019; DeHaan et al., Reference DeHaan, Van Tassel and Cox2005, Reference DeHaan, Van Tassel, Anderson, Asselin, Barnes, Baute, Cattani, Culman, Dorn, Hulke, Kantar, Larson, David Marks, Miller, Poland, Ravetta, Rude, Ryan, Wyse and Zhang2016; DeHaan & Van Tassel, Reference DeHaan and Van Tassel2014; Van Tassel et al., Reference Van Tassel, Tesdell, Schlautman, Rubin, DeHaan, Crews and Streit Krug2020). However, if we use a political ecology lens the phenotypic trade-off theory can justify and support a continuation of conventional annual crops.

That a perennial revolution is possible can be illustrated by two recent developments: Kernza® grain, which is the result of domestication and traditional breeding of the wild perennial grass intermediate wheatgrass (hereafter called IWG; Thinopyrum intermedium) (Bajgain et al., Reference Bajgain, Zhang, Jungers, DeHaan, Heim, Sheaffer, Wyse and Anderson2020), and perennial rice which is the result of species-wide hybridization of Asian cultivated rice (Oryza sativa ssp. indica) with the African wild perennial relative Oryza longistaminata (Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Huang, Zhang, Lv, Wan, Liang, Feng, Dao, Wu, Zhang, Yang, Lian, Huang, Shao, Zhang, Qin, Tao, Crews, Sacks, Wade and Hu2023). The evidence from IWG is that grain yield and other domestication traits such as seed size, shatter resistance, and free threshing ability (i.e. that the seed separates cleanly from the chaff when threshing) can be increased rapidly in a previously wild perennial species using traditional breeding and modern genetic tools such as genomic selection (Fagnant et al., Reference Fagnant, Duchêne, Celette, David, Bindelle and Dumont2023; LeHeiget et al., Reference LeHeiget, McGeough, Biligetu and Cattani2023). The evidence from perennial rice is that wide hybridization of an existing annual crop and a perennial wild relative can generate a high yielding perennial crop. These proofs-of-concept are major and significant achievements, but many more perennial grain crops and cultivars are in the pipeline (Chapman et al., Reference Chapman, Thomsen, Tulloch, Correia, Luo, Najafi, DeHaan, Crews, Olsson, Lundquist, Westerbergh, Pedas, Knudsen and Palmgren2022; Crews et al., Reference Crews, Blesh, Culman, Hayes, Jensen, Mack, Peoples and Schipanski2016). Within one to three decades we expect to see a wide range of perennial grain crops making inroads into agriculture and becoming operational, such as barley, oil seeds, sorghum, wheat and legumes (Baker, Reference Baker2017; Ciotir et al., Reference Ciotir, Applequist, Crews, Cristea, DeHaan, Frawley, Herron, Magill, Miller, Roskov, Schlautman, Solomon, Townesmith, Van Tassel, Zarucchi and Miller2019; Crews et al., Reference Crews, Carton and Olsson2018; DeHaan et al., Reference DeHaan, Van Tassel, Anderson, Asselin, Barnes, Baute, Cattani, Culman, Dorn, Hulke, Kantar, Larson, David Marks, Miller, Poland, Ravetta, Rude, Ryan, Wyse and Zhang2016, Reference DeHaan, Larson, López-Marqués, Wenkel, Gao and Palmgren2020; Luo et al., Reference Luo, Najafi, Correia, Trinh, Chapman, Østerberg, Thomsen, Pedas, Larson, Gao, Poland, Knudsen, DeHaan and Palmgren2022; Westerbergh et al., Reference Westerbergh, Lerceteau-Köhler, Sameri, Bedada and Lundquist2018). Doubts about the lack of progress in breeding perennial grains were raised recently by Cassman & Connor (Cassman & Connor, Reference Cassman and Connor2022), but are contradicted by recent research showing rapid improvements in yield and other agronomic traits (Altendorf et al., Reference Altendorf, DeHaan and Anderson2022; Bajgain et al., Reference Bajgain, Crain, Cattani, Larson, Altendorf, Anderson, Crews, Hu, Poland, Turner, Westerbergh, DeHaan and Goldman2022; DeHaan et al., Reference DeHaan, Anderson, Bajgain, Basche, Cattani, Crain, Crews, David, Duchene, Gutknecht, Hayes, Hu, Jungers, Knudsen, Kong, Larson, Lundquist, Luo, Miller and Westerbergh2023).

A fundamental difference between annual and perennial plants is the root system (Roumet et al., Reference Roumet, Urcelay and Díaz2006). Annuals develop roots just for one season whereas perennials build and accumulate typically deeper and wider root systems over numerous years (Culman et al., Reference Culman, DuPont, Glover, Buckley, Fick, Ferris and Crews2010; Duchene et al., Reference Duchene, Celette, Barreiro, Mårtensson, Freschet and David2020; Monti & Zatta, Reference Monti and Zatta2009; Sainju et al., Reference Sainju, Allen, Lenssen and Ghimire2017). In Figure 1 we show the difference between the annual winter wheat ready to be harvested (left) compared with the newly domesticated perennial grain IWG after two seasons. One study has shown that root systems of IWG in its fourth year of growth were 15 times larger by weight and size than wheat (Sprunger et al., Reference Sprunger, Culman, Robertson and Snapp2018). Eddy covariance measurements have demonstrated that IWG can act as a strong carbon sink – the mean annual flux from the atmosphere was about 14 tons CO2 ha−1 year−1 (370 g C m−2) over a five-year period (de Oliveira et al., Reference de Oliveira, Brunsell, Sutherlin, Crews and DeHaan2018, Reference de Oliveira, Brunsell, Crews, DeHaan and Vico2019). Exactly how much of the assimilated carbon that remains in the soil for long periods of time is still a matter of discussion (Gregory, Reference Gregory2022; Peixoto et al., Reference Peixoto, Olesen, Elsgaard, Enggrob, Banfield, Dippold, Nicolaisen, Bak, Zang, Dresbøll, Thorup-Kristensen and Rasmussen2022). The extensive root system is also the reason why perennial crops reduce nutrient leaching to ground water, streams, lakes and ultimately oceans to virtually zero (Cosentino et al., Reference Cosentino, Copani, Scalici, Scordia and Testa2015; Culman et al., Reference Culman, Snapp, Ollenburger, Basso and DeHaan2013; DeHaan et al., Reference DeHaan, Van Tassel and Cox2005; Huddell et al., Reference Huddell, Ernfors, Crews, Vico and Menge2023; Jankauskas et al., Reference Jankauskas, Jankauskiene and Fullen2011; Vallebona et al., Reference Vallebona, Mantino and Bonari2016). Hence, shifting from annuals to perennials would have a tremendous effect on water quality and eventually ocean health (Beman et al., Reference Beman, Arrigo and Matson2005; Beusen et al., Reference Beusen, Bouwman, Van Beek, Mogollón and Middelburg2016).

Figure 1. Intermediate wheatgrass in its second year (right) compared with winter wheat ready to be harvested (left). Photo: The Land Institute.

Weeds have been a persistent problem in agriculture since its beginning, indeed they are both an ecological response of, and a reason for clearing the land with tillage every year. More recently, herbicide use has increased substantially (Damalas & Koutroubas, Reference Damalas and Koutroubas2024), e.g., the most widely used herbicide (glyphosate) has increased almost 15-fold globally since the introduction of glyphosate resistant crops (Benbrook, Reference Benbrook2016). One could hope that the increasing use of glyphosate could be balanced by reduced use of other more toxic herbicides, such as paraquat, but does not seem to be the case (Olsson et al., Reference Olsson, Crews, Franklin, King, Mirzabaev, Scown, Tengberg, Villarino and Wang2023). As a result, we experience an exponential increase in the number of weeds that are resistant to glyphosate, often called ‘superweeds’ (Bain et al., Reference Bain, Selfa, Dandachi and Velardi2017; Damalas & Koutroubas, Reference Damalas and Koutroubas2024). Contrary to cropping systems based on annuals, perennial cropping systems, once they are established, can effectively suppress weeds by more fully utilizing the plant resources of sunlight, water, and nutrients. In a controlled experiment during three years, weed biomass decreased by 88% in an IWG field without any weed removal (Zimbric et al., Reference Zimbric, Stoltenberg and Picasso2020). Therefore, IWG could also reduce weed development and species abundance over time through year-round soil cover and longer growing seasons (Duchene et al., Reference DeHaan, Anderson, Bajgain, Basche, Cattani, Crain, Crews, David, Duchene, Gutknecht, Hayes, Hu, Jungers, Knudsen, Kong, Larson, Lundquist, Luo, Miller and Westerbergh2023). Lanker et al. (Reference Lanker, Bell and Picasso2020) confirmed that weed suppression was considered by farmers as one of the most important benefits.

Crop rotation is a common practice for reducing the risk of agricultural pests in annual cropping systems, and pathogen pressure is often used as a counterargument against perennial cropping systems. Deploying crop diversity in time (crop rotation) can effectively disrupt insect or disease pest populations and thus reduce crop losses. However, inbred annual cultivars with low genetic diversity and cultivated in monocultures are always susceptible to pests. Strategically deploying crop diversity (inter and intraspecific) in space (intercrops/polycultures) has also been widely recognized as an effective strategy for regulating insect and disease populations (Deguine et al., Reference Deguine, Aubertot, Flor, Lescourret, Wyckhuys and Ratnadass2021; Ratnadass et al., Reference Ratnadass, Fernandes, Avelino and Habib2012). In addition to interspecific diversity, genetic diversity within crop species in agroecosystems (as seen in outcrossers such as IWG and other perennials, or among mixtures of cultivars) reduces pest and disease pressures and enhances yield production (Wan et al., Reference Wan, Fu, Dainese, Hu, Pødenphant Kiær, Isbell and Scherber2022).

Even if perennial grains are used, they are likely to be renewed at intervals of 3–7 years. Reasons for this could be to remove weeds or that plant breeding has resulted in new and higher yielding cultivars. Studies have also suggested the possibility of rejuvenating old perennial cultures through thinning, burning, grazing or other treatments, but more research is needed (Law et al., Reference Law, Pelzer, Wayman, Ditommaso and Ryan2021; Pinto et al., Reference Pinto, De Haan and Picasso2021).

The application of nutrients, either in the form of mineral fertilizers or as manure is another costly and labor-intensive part of growing annual crops. Nitrogen is a problem, often added at a rate of 120 to 250 kg ha−1year−1, and the manufacture of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers comprises the greatest fossil energy input into agriculture, and a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions. It is well-documented that typically <50% of the fertilizer-N applied to annual grains is used by plants (Ladha et al., Reference Ladha, Pathak, Krupnik, Six and van Kessel2005, Reference Ladha, Tirol-Padre, Reddy, Cassman, Verma, Powlson, van Kessel, de Richter, Chakraborty and Pathak2016) while the rest is lost to the environment as water soluble nitrate or in various gaseous forms including ammonia and nitrous oxide (Cameron et al., Reference Cameron, Di and Moir2013; Sharma & Bali, Reference Sharma and Bali2018). Cropping systems that feature deep-rooted perennial grains cultivated in mixed cultures or rotations with nitrogen (atmospheric N2) fixing legumes, such as clover or alfalfa, hold promise to drastically reduce or perhaps even replace the need for synthetic nitrogen applications (Huddell et al., Reference Huddell, Ernfors, Crews, Vico and Menge2023; Pugliese et al., Reference Pugliese, Culman and Sprunger2019). Fewer inputs through natural nitrogen fixation are needed when N losses are greatly reduced in an N-use efficient perennial cropping system. Phosphorous is another essential nutrient for crop production which is added in large quantities, typically 10–40 kg ha−1 year−1 in annual cropping systems. The known minable resources are finite and may be depleted in less than 100 years (Cordell et al., Reference Cordell, Drangert and White2009). However, agricultural soils commonly contain substantial reserves of phosphorus that are unavailable for our annual crops with shallow root systems. New perennial crops with deep and extensive root systems can potentially utilize such reserves (Stutter et al., Reference Stutter, Shand, George, Blackwell, Bol, MacKay, Richardson, Condron, Turner and Haygarth2012), and hence substantially reduce the need for external inputs of phosphorous. Also, with deeper roots natural reserves of phosphorus can be acquired from a larger soil volume, held in forms that are more plant-available, and prevented from contaminating water supplies due to soil erosion (Crews & Brookes, Reference Crews and Brookes2014). The ability of perennial grain crops to harness mycorrhiza for improved nutrient cycling is another potential major benefit (Duchene et al., Reference Duchene, Celette, Barreiro, Mårtensson, Freschet and David2020; Gregory, Reference Gregory2022; Strohm, Reference Strohm2021).

From a farming point of view, perennial grains could be described as a farmer's dream – a cultivar that is planted once and then harvested every season for several years with a minimum of land management in between. Instead of 4–10 tractor passes per year as with annual cultivars, only 1–5 for harvesting and nutrient, pest, and weed management, would be required. From a farm economics point of view, farming perennial grains could translate into a significant reduction in production costs, resulting in increasing total factor productivity. From a regional economic perspective, it could mean that a larger share of farmers' income would remain in the local economy as the need for purchased inputs such as seeds, agrochemicals, synthetic fertilizers, fuel, and machinery from external (often transnational) corporations are reduced. The retained income may stimulate local economic development through the creation of new businesses (Low et al., Reference Low, Adalja, Beaulieu, Key, Martinez, Melton, Perez, Ralston, Stewart, Suttles and Jablonski2015; Persky et al., Reference Persky, Ranney and Wiewel1993) that service the emerging perennial sector. Such local growth could play an important role in offering opportunities to workers in seasonal employment (i.e. tractor drivers) who may be displaced in the short run during this transition. In the long term, the transition to perennial grains could provide a basis for more diverse and thriving rural economies. Comparisons with existing perennial crops, e.g. sugarcane or horticulture, may be difficult to learn from because of their very different means of production and market structures.

While perennial grains hold considerable promise for addressing a wide range of ecological and social challenges in the future, the perennial crops, and cultivars themselves are in early stages of development relative to the annual grains and much research in plant breeding and in cropping systems is needed in the decades to come before the ‘utopia’ becomes a ‘real utopia’ (Wright, Reference Wright2010). But a strong momentum exists among plant breeders operating outside of the commercial seed industry around the world, and over 150 research groups on all continents are currently participating in research on perennial grain crops, cropping systems, sociocultural engagement, and supply chain and product development (DeHaan et al., Reference DeHaan, Anderson, Bajgain, Basche, Cattani, Crain, Crews, David, Duchene, Gutknecht, Hayes, Hu, Jungers, Knudsen, Kong, Larson, Lundquist, Luo, Miller and Westerbergh2023). Rapid advances in molecular biology and genetics are facilitating accelerated progress in breeding of perennial crops (Chapman et al., Reference Chapman, Thomsen, Tulloch, Correia, Luo, Najafi, DeHaan, Crews, Olsson, Lundquist, Westerbergh, Pedas, Knudsen and Palmgren2022; DeHaan et al., Reference DeHaan, Larson, López-Marqués, Wenkel, Gao and Palmgren2020; Luo et al., Reference Luo, Najafi, Correia, Trinh, Chapman, Østerberg, Thomsen, Pedas, Larson, Gao, Poland, Knudsen, DeHaan and Palmgren2022; Van Tassel et al., Reference Van Tassel, Tesdell, Schlautman, Rubin, DeHaan, Crews and Streit Krug2020). Perennial rice is already competitive in terms of yield compared with annual rice (Huang et al., Reference Huang, Qin, Zhang, Cai, Wu, Dao, Zhang, Huang, Harnpichitvitaya, Wade and Hu2018; Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Huang, Zhang, Lv, Wan, Liang, Feng, Dao, Wu, Zhang, Yang, Lian, Huang, Shao, Zhang, Qin, Tao, Crews, Sacks, Wade and Hu2023). For eight breeding cycles of IWG, yield has been increasing by 9% per cycle and is expected to match annual wheat in about 20 years if progress continues with genomic selection as a breeding tool (Bajgain et al., Reference Bajgain, Crain, Cattani, Larson, Altendorf, Anderson, Crews, Hu, Poland, Turner, Westerbergh, DeHaan and Goldman2022) along with other improvements of crop management (Fagnant et al., Reference Fagnant, Duchêne, Celette, David, Bindelle and Dumont2023). Finally, tools and technologies for new crop domestication can be integrated with methods that engage humans, as people are essential for plant domestication processes and cultural valuation and awareness can help drive support for crop development and adoption (Krug et al., Reference Krug, Drummond, Van Tassel and Warschefsky2023; Van Tassel et al., Reference Van Tassel, Tesdell, Schlautman, Rubin, DeHaan, Crews and Streit Krug2020).

Our conclusion is that a perennial revolution would be socially and environmentally desirable, economically viable, and scientifically achievable. However, a perennial revolution will not be achieved overnight but can hopefully be achieved within a timeframe like that of the Green Revolution, about 35 years (Kendall & Pimentel, Reference Kendall and Pimentel1994). Within two to three decades domestication and plant breeding, and other associated fields of research, if sufficiently funded, can probably achieve the necessary increases in yield and other traits that are required for ensuring global food security (DeHaan et al., Reference DeHaan, Anderson, Bajgain, Basche, Cattani, Crain, Crews, David, Duchene, Gutknecht, Hayes, Hu, Jungers, Knudsen, Kong, Larson, Lundquist, Luo, Miller and Westerbergh2023; Krug et al., Reference Krug, Drummond, Van Tassel and Warschefsky2023; Luo et al., Reference Luo, Najafi, Correia, Trinh, Chapman, Østerberg, Thomsen, Pedas, Larson, Gao, Poland, Knudsen, DeHaan and Palmgren2022).

Arguments against a shift to perennial grains based on the need for increasing food production in the next few decades are to some extent valid but should not deter us from looking at the longer term. World agricultural output growth rates are slowing and are now the lowest for at least six decades while the growth rate of Total Factor Productivity has declined in the last two decades (Morgan et al., Reference Morgan, Fuglie and Jelliffe2022). Explanations for the declining growth rates are not fully understood but impacts of climate change and degradation of natural resources are frequently invoked. Our current staple food crops will face unprecedented challenges and perhaps even complete failure towards the second half of this century (Liu et al., Reference Liu, Asseng, Müller, Ewert, Elliott, Lobell, Martre, Ruane, Wallach, Jones, Rosenzweig, Aggarwal, Alderman, Anothai, Basso, Biernath, Cammarano, Challinor, Deryng and Zhu2016; Zhao et al., Reference Zhao, Liu, Piao, Wang, Lobell, Huang, Huang, Yao, Bassu, Ciais, Durand, Elliott, Ewert, Janssens, Li, Lin, Liu, Martre, Müller and Asseng2017). Therefore, the development of completely new crops that are better adapted to the conditions of the Anthropocene should be an urgent priority (Kreitzman et al., Reference Kreitzman, Toensmeier, Chan, Smukler and Ramankutty2020).

4. Obstacles for change

A perennial revolution will challenge politically powerful conventional agriculture supported by economically concentrated agrochemical and seed industries. Inevitably, such radical changes will involve political and economic power struggles, and they are certain to be resisted by existing vested interests. So how can perennial polycultures make inroads into conventional agriculture and ultimately replace annual crops as the mainstay of our food systems? Below we will discuss four broad areas of challenges.

4.1 Interdisciplinary challenges

Competing paradigms are unusual in the core disciplines of the natural sciences, except during short periods of paradigmatic shifts. In many social sciences, however, competing paradigms, or at least perspectives, are the norm and they may persist over generations. In the more applied sciences (e.g. agriculture, energy, environment, and forestry) there are sometimes parallel and competing paradigms, (Persson et al., Reference Persson, Hornborg, Olsson and Thorén2018) each one supported by their vested economic and political interests (MoeSingh, Reference MoeSingh2012). Most obvious is the situation in agricultural sciences where there are two competing paradigms, often called the Productivism Paradigm (Karimi et al., Reference Karimi, Karami, Karami and Keshavarz2021) and the Ecological Paradigm (Kassam & Kassam, Reference Kassam, Kassam, Kassam and Kassam2021). The paradigms differ both in epistemological approaches (Böschen, Reference Böschen2009), and worldviews (Schurman & Munro, Reference Schurman and Munro2010). However, paradigms are not purely epistemic but also part of different, ever competing, food regimes (Friedmann, Reference Friedmann1993; McMichael, Reference McMichael2009). Regimes associated with productivism paradigm are tightly integrated with the food industry, which is one of the most globally consolidated production spheres (Howard, Reference Howard2015). Research and plant breeding within the productivism paradigm is well funded and supported by both state and private sources, while research in the ecological paradigm is substantially less funded and almost exclusively by state funding and philanthropy (Lindner, Reference Lindner2004). In searching for radical change, both paradigms offer necessary insights but neither of them is sufficient (Persson et al., Reference Persson, Hornborg, Olsson and Thorén2018) because neither seriously challenges the very core of agriculture – the overwhelming reliance on annual crops.

For understanding the dynamics of agricultural change, we turn to the concept of a research program by Imre Lakatos, which we believe is more suitable than Kuhn's paradigm (Gholson & Barker, Reference Gholson and Barker1985). Lakatos' view of science differed from that of a paradigm influencing (or even ruling) how science is practiced. Lakatos described the existing scientific knowledge as a hard core of central theses that are irrefutable (or at least highly resistant to refutation), and the core is surrounded by a protective belt of auxiliary hypotheses open for testing (Musgrave & Pigden, Reference Musgrave, Pigden, Zalta and Nodelman2021). An important difference between Lakatos' and our understanding of the world (or agriculture) is that while Lakatos only considered scientific protective belts, we understand the hard core being protected, not only by epistemic protective belts of hypotheses that can be verified or falsified, but protective belts of vested economic and political interests, Figure 2.

Figure 2. Conceptual view of how agricultural sciences can be understood as a research program with a hard core and protective belts of science and vested economic interests, inspired by Lakatos' concept of Research Program (Lakatos, Reference Lakatos1976). A radically different idea, such as domesticating and breeding completely new perennial crops, needs to confront both these protective belts.

In practice this makes change even harder than if the protective belt had been epistemic only. The hard core of agriculture is the annual crops, while the protective belts have multiple dimensions, such as scientific fields (e.g. agronomy, soil science, and plant science), economic (e.g. the agrochemical industrial complex), institutional (e.g. rural advisory services, and industry organizations), ideological (e.g. neoliberalism), and cultural (e.g. beliefs, traditions, and values). A perennial revolution needs to engage with all layers of the protective belts.

4.2 Politics of seeds and agrochemicals

Power over the sources and development of seeds is a key for understanding the evolution of modern agriculture (Kloppenburg, Reference Kloppenburg2005; Mooney, Reference Mooney1983; Peschard & Randeria, Reference Peschard and Randeria2020). From being a public good, often organized as co-operatives, seeds emerged as the linchpin of a commercialization of the agricultural inputs market in the 20th century (Dale, Reference Dale2004; Friedmann, Reference Friedmann1993; Howard, Reference Howard2015; Kloppenburg, Reference Kloppenburg2005). Pivotal moments were the granting of patents on Roundup Ready cultivars in the mid-1990s, and the ruling by the US Supreme Court in 2013, Bowman vs Monsanto (Haugo, Reference Haugo2015; Lim, Reference Lim2013). Against a strong industrial trend of increasing market consolidation and power, there is also a counter movement, seed activism (Peschard & Randeria, Reference Peschard and Randeria2020). Even if seed activism has been around for at least four decades (Mooney, Reference Mooney1983), it has grown stronger recently and is now receiving support from outside of farmers and agricultural activism (Peschard, Reference Peschard2022), to some extent supported by the spectacular legal cases against the agrochemical giant Monsanto/Bayer (Corporate Europe Observatory, 2020; McHenry, Reference McHenry2018). The reason why it is pertinent to talk about a perennial revolution is the profound effect on the seed industry the deployment of perennial crops and cultivars will have. The market for seeds will change dramatically, both in terms of size and in terms of organization, with perennial crops.

Controlling the sources of agricultural seeds has been crucial for achieving dominance of the agricultural inputs market, hence the recent spectacular wave of concentration and control over the seed industry (Bratspies, Reference Bratspies2017; Clapp, Reference Clapp2018, Reference Clapp2021; Dale, Reference Dale2004; Hendrickson et al., Reference Hendrickson, Howard and Constance2017, Reference Hendrickson, Howard, Miller and Constance2020; Kloppenburg, Reference Kloppenburg2005). The agriculture and food sectors are dominated by large firms that sell seeds and agrochemicals, machinery, and data services, and they thrive on the current agricultural model with heavy state subsidies (Bellmann, Reference Bellmann2019; Laborde et al., Reference Laborde, Mamun, Martin, Piñeiro and Vos2021; Lima & Monteiro, Reference Lima and Monteiro2015; Scown et al., Reference Scown, Brady and Nicholas2020). They have significant political power and a strong advantage over pioneers and niche innovations (Bruckner, Reference Bruckner2016; Clapp, Reference Clapp2018; Hendrickson et al., Reference Hendrickson, Howard and Constance2017; Howard, Reference Howard2015). Understanding these dynamics will be crucial for formulating strategies and pathways towards a perennial and more diverse and just agriculture of the future.

In addition to corporate maneuvering of mergers and takeovers, intellectual property rights are an important field for maintaining dominance over the agricultural inputs market. To obtain exclusive rights to a plant variety, it must meet criteria such as being new, distinct, uniform, and stable (Würtenberger, Reference Würtenberger, Matthews and Zech2017). Except for the US, plant varieties cannot be patented but can be protected under plant breeder's rights. However, a genetically modified plant can be protected by a patent. Both the DNA sequence and the organism into which the sequence has been introduced can be subject to patent protection. Therefore, a genetically modified plant may fall under both plant breeder's rights and a patent. Plant breeder's rights are protected for 25 years, while patent protection lasts for a maximum of 20 years in the USA (Le Buanec & Ricroch, Reference Le Buanec and Ricroch2021).

Legal protection of varieties and patents in plant breeding is essential for research and development. However, the fact that seeds can reproduce raises questions about whether it violates plant breeder's rights and/or patent protection when the buyer, typically a farmer, produces the seeds themselves. In contrast to patents, plant varieties protected by plant breeder's rights may be freely used for research and further breeding purposes. Thus, a plant breeding company can utilize a competitor's plant variety in its own crossbreeding efforts. However, with patented seeds, regulations are different. In the case of Bowman v. Monsanto, the United States Supreme Court argued that allowing simple copying as a protected use would undermine the value of patents and reduce innovation incentives (Simmons, Reference Simmons2013).

Considering that commercially cultivated seeds in modern agriculture are often genetically modified and patented, the Bowman case implies that farmers become highly dependent on patent holders, such as Bayer/Monsanto, for their farming operations. Challenging this system, such as saving seeds for future planting, can result in severe economic consequences, as seen in cases like Monsanto vs Scruggs. (Savich, Reference Savich2007).

The rights conferred by patent protection can be used not only to protect one's own inventions, such as GMOs, but also to hinder the development of competing products (Grzegorczyk & Głowiński, Reference Grzegorczyk and Głowiński2020). One conspicuous strategy is acquiring potential rival patents. However, it is also possible to obstruct product development through offensive patent strategies, such as the ‘patent picket fence strategy’ involving pursuing patents closely related to a competing product, thereby complicating matters for the competitor (Brown & Levitt, Reference Brown and Levitt2023). Small organizations with a limited patent portfolio may face challenges in sustaining their existence, as their long-term viability depends on the patents secured by their competitors.

Thus, the development of perennial crops is likely to be significantly delayed if stakeholders who prefer annual crops employ aggressive patent strategies to secure key patents, such as genes that control seed shattering of perennial varieties intended for future commercial use. Various patent strategies employed for commercial purposes can significantly impact innovation and development at the forefront of research. There are numerous examples discussed above that illustrate this effect. These strategies are typically costly, giving larger organizations and companies an advantage over smaller businesses and publicly funded research. This means that individual commercial interests may take precedence over research and development for the greater good. Intellectual property rights and other legislation that can be used (or misused) to acquire and strengthen market power can thus serve as significant protective belts, highlighting the need for international policy actions aimed at enabling innovation for sustainable transitions (Herrero et al., Reference Herrero, Thornton, Mason-D'Croz, Palmer, Benton, Bodirsky, Bogard, Hall, Lee, Nyborg, Pradhan, Bonnett, Bryan, Campbell, Christensen, Clark, Cook, de Boer, Downs and West2020). However, ideas and initiatives to prevent corporate domination over seeds are frequently discussed, the most advanced initiative so far being the Open Seed Initiative (Kloppenburg, Reference Kloppenburg2014; Kotschi & Horneburg, Reference Kotschi and Horneburg2018; Montenegro de Wit, Reference Montenegro de Wit2019).

There has been a strong trend in the concentration of the seed market globally, and not least in the US where only two firms control over 70% of the US corn seed market after mergers in 2012 (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Market share of the US corn seed market. The data for 2018–20 are estimated, and valid for Bayer instead of Monsanto (after the merger in 2018), Corteva instead of DuPont/Pioneer (after the merger in 2018). Source of data (Macdonald et al., Reference Macdonald, Dong and Fuglie2023).

Vested commercial and scientific interests evidently influence the ways in which science is practiced (Druker, Reference Druker2015; McHenry, Reference McHenry2018; Schurman & Munro, Reference Schurman and Munro2010). This can be described and analyzed aptly by Steven Lukes' typology of three dimensions of power (Lukes, Reference Lukes2005; Scherrer, Reference Scherrer, Teipen, Dünhaupt, Herr and Mehl2022). The first dimension, being decision making power (also expressed as ‘power over’ somebody), can be illustrated by several recent and on-going legal processes where market leading companies use their legal power to sue, or threaten to sue, farmers for infringing on patents. The second dimension is called non-decision-making power (also expressed as power to prevent/preempt, or agenda setting). It can be illustrated by the very active role that leading industries take in influencing political agendas about agriculture, e.g. the process of renewal of glyphosate in EU in 2023. The third dimension is called ideological power (also expressed as power to influence people's values, preferences, interests, and perceptions). It can be illustrated by the very active role leading industries take in sponsoring research. A more comprehensive list of examples of Lukes' three dimension is in the supplementary material.

4.3 Beyond seeds, the agricultural treadmill

Even if seeds play a very particular role in the evolution of the current dominant practices in agriculture, we need to look at the broad picture of agricultural technologies. This is best done through the lens of the Agricultural Treadmill Theory (ATM) formulated in 1958 by Willard Cochrane (Cochrane, Reference Cochrane1958; Crews et al., Reference Crews, Carton and Olsson2018). Even if the agricultural sector has changed substantially since its formulation, the ATM theory is still valid. In short, the ATM explains how technological development drives agriculture towards productivism and increasing use of unsustainable practices. According to ATM theory, agriculture is driven by a self-reinforcing cycle of technological change, which increases the efficiency of agricultural inputs and machinery and suppresses food prices (and farmer income), in turn leading to an impetus to increase farm sizes (corresponding to economic concentration in the farming sector) and further technological innovation (Crews et al., Reference Crews, Carton and Olsson2018). This process implies that a minority of early non-risk-aversive adopters reap the benefits of new agricultural technologies, while the majority of farmers are forced to adopt in order to reduce their costs under increasing competition and falling prices. As an illustration, the majority of small farms in the USA, approximately 90% of all farms, had negative profits in 2016, in sharp contrast to the 3% of large and very large farms (Crews et al., Reference Crews, Carton and Olsson2018). In theory, one could argue that the treadmill is driving agriculture towards greater resource use efficiency, more narrowly targeted pesticide inputs, and more energy efficiency. However, agriculture as a market is far from the perfect competition often assumed by economists (Sykuta, Reference Sykuta and James2013), instead it is characterized by rapid concentration (Clapp, Reference Clapp2018; Hendrickson et al., Reference Hendrickson, Heffernan, Howard and Heffernan2001, Reference Hendrickson, Howard and Constance2017, Reference Hendrickson, Howard, Miller and Constance2020; Howard, Reference Howard2009, Reference Howard2015) that drives agriculture towards higher yields rather than environmental sustainability (Clapp, Reference Clapp2021; Houser & Stuart, Reference Houser and Stuart2020).

The agrochemical industry has in recent decades forged a strong alliance with the seed industry through mergers and takeovers with enormous legal and political clout. Compared to the 1950s (when the ATM was formulated), we argue that the ATM has intensified because of the unprecedented structural transformation of the agrochemical and seed industry (Howard, Reference Howard2009, Reference Howard2015; Lianos, Reference Lianos, Tavassi and Muscolo2019). Hence it is tempting to make an analogy with the Military-Industrial Complex that President Eisenhower warned about in his farewell speech in 1961, i.e., an informal, and to a large extent covert, alliance between a nation's military apparatus and the weapons industry forming vested interests influencing public policy (Adams, Reference Adams1968). Three conditions for the existence of the military-industrial complex were essential: (i) a commodity of national strategic importance, (ii) strong regulatory regime, and (iii) state subsidies. The similarities with agriculture are striking, hence it is relevant to talk about the agrochemical industrial complex as a powerful strategic action field (Fligstein & McAdam, Reference Fligstein and McAdam2011; Olsson & Jerneck, Reference Olsson and Jerneck2018). A relevant example is the lobbying (worth over 45 M€ during 2019 and 2020) by the agrochemical industry to dilute EU's policy for sustainable farming, including the renewal of the license of glyphosate (De Lorenzo & Sherrington, Reference De Lorenzo and Sherrington2021). The prospect of developing perennial grains that would drastically reduce the market for seeds, herbicides, and machinery, may even be seen as an existential threat to the Agrochemical industrial complex.

4.4 Transition theory concerns

Transition theory, here used as an umbrella term including multi-level perspective (Geels, Reference Geels2019) and transition management (Loorbach et al., Reference Loorbach, Frantzeskaki and Huffenreuter2015), is a middle range theory aimed at understanding the conditions for social change. The strength of transition theory for this purpose is that it links structural conditions with agency (Geels, Reference Geels2019). Seen through the lens of transition theory, which helps synthesize the epistemic, political, and economic challenges described above, the perennial revolution faces three main barriers:

  • A perennial revolution is goal-oriented rather than an emergent transition, generating primarily collective goods (sustainability) rather than private goods (profits). Such transitions struggle to get traction because of the lack of clear and powerful actors to promote change in exchange for benefits. Beneficiaries would primarily be farmers who cannot keep up in the treadmill, because the farms are too small to justify investment in the latest and most efficient technologies, while large farms with high degree of mechanization (i.e. capital-intensive production) would not benefit, at least not in the first place, because of their high sunk costs (Barham & Chavas, Reference Barham and Chavas2019).

  • The new perennial crops and associated practices may not offer immediate benefits in terms of profit for the early adopters and may not match price/performance of existing technologies. Hence, they may not be able to replace existing systems without policy changes (e.g. taxes, subsidies, regulatory frameworks) that entail politics and power struggles. Powerful vested interests in the agricultural inputs industry may try to resist such changes.

  • The agriculture and food sector is dominated by large firms and alliances with many advantages such as access to distribution channels, advertising power, service networks, and complementary technologies (Hendrickson et al., Reference Hendrickson, Heffernan, Howard and Heffernan2001; Reference Hendrickson, Howard and Constance2017; Reference Hendrickson, Howard, Miller and Constance2020; Howard, Reference Howard2015). The incumbent regime has a strong position vis-à-vis pioneers in terms of knowledge, agricultural advisory services, and experimental farms that can generate evidence-based information.

5. Four reasons for optimism

Despite the many obstacles, we offer four reasons for optimism that a perennial revolution of agriculture is imminent in the next couple of decades. In addition to the rapid advance of plant breeding technologies that make perennial grains scientifically achievable, which is a fundamental priority and prerequisite for agricultural change, we understand the four reasons below as positive signals specifically because of their relevance to begin addressing the main political economy barriers.

5.1 Perennial polycultures are appealing to farmers

Even though the emerging new perennial crops may not yet offer immediate benefits to farmers and have not been promoted to them by powerful actors, there is interest in their adoption. As commercial perennial grain crops are not yet widely available, data on their performance in terms of economy and management is scarce. A few interview or survey-based investigations of farmers' attitudes towards perennial grains in France, Sweden and USA have been published (Adebiyi et al., Reference Adebiyi, Schmitt Olabisi and Snapp2016; Lanker et al., Reference Lanker, Bell and Picasso2020; Marquardt et al., Reference Marquardt, Vico, Glynn, Weih, Eksvärd, Dalin and Björkman2016; Wayman et al., Reference Wayman, Debray, Parry, David and Ryan2019). A general conclusion is that information and awareness of perennial grains (particularly IWG and perennial wheat) has already received considerable interest among farmers. Motivations or concerns about adopting new perennial grains vary among farmers, but fall within three main categories:

  • Economics: The potential to compete with conventional annual crops was among the most important responses in the on-line survey among farmers in France (n = 319) and the US (n = 88) (Wayman et al., Reference Wayman, Debray, Parry, David and Ryan2019) and in an interview-based study of farmers who have already adopted IWG (Lanker et al., Reference Lanker, Bell and Picasso2020) in the US. This contrasts with two interview studies in Sweden and USA (Michigan and Ohio) where low yield did not feature as a reason for not adopting the new crops (Adebiyi et al., Reference Adebiyi, Schmitt Olabisi and Snapp2016; Marquardt et al., Reference Marquardt, Vico, Glynn, Weih, Eksvärd, Dalin and Björkman2016).

  • Environment: In all the studies, the potential of improving soil health and reducing soil erosion was among the top priorities for adopting the new perennial grain crops. In all studies, farmers showed high awareness of the advantages of perennial crops.

  • Management: Reducing the time and cost for tillage, weed control, and spraying featured as a strong incentive for adopting (or testing) new perennial crops.

5.2 The legitimacy of contemporary agricultural and food industries is being challenged

Even though the current agriculture and food sector is powerful, its legitimacy is increasingly being questioned by the public due to the previously described problems. However, perennial grains offer new and unique opportunities to address some of these negative consequences.

Agricultural subsidies contribute to push farmers into the agricultural treadmill of productivism (Lima & Monteiro, Reference Lima and Monteiro2015) and subsidies are increasingly under attack for several reasons. They are accused of distorting the global trade system (Anderson & Martin, Reference Anderson and Martin2005; Hopewell, Reference Hopewell2019); driving the emission of greenhouse gases from agriculture (Laborde et al., Reference Laborde, Mamun, Martin, Piñeiro and Vos2021; Scown et al., Reference Scown, Brady and Nicholas2020); excluding small scale producers in the Global South from important agricultural markets (Clapp, Reference Clapp2006); and exacerbating consolidation of the farming sector towards fewer but bigger farms (Bruckner, Reference Bruckner2016). By reducing the cost of production, perennial grains offer an opportunity for farmers to break out of the agricultural treadmill, and ultimately the dependence on subsidies.

Consumers are increasingly aware of the negative environmental consequences of agriculture, particularly emission of greenhouse gases (European Commission, 2020). Concerns over the environmental consequences, such as emission of greenhouse gases, loss of biodiversity, eutrophication of coastal waters, and negative impacts on pollinators are increasingly raised. The main benefits of perennial grains are the possibilities to improve on a range of environmental performances as described above, and to reduce the workload required to grow food whether from human or animal labor, or fossil fuel powered machines. Furthermore, the pandemic and Russia's invasion of Ukraine 2022 have revealed the risks of being dependent on international commodity chains for food, let alone agricultural inputs such as fertilizers.

5.3 There is growing interest in soil health, which could be a collective goal and good

Even though collective goods are undervalued by contemporary societies, there is a complex opportunity at hand for working toward a collective sustainability good and goal in the valuation of soil and the ecological services soil provides. A perennial revolution that offers genuine potential for holding and healing soils aligns with the growing interest in soil health. Powerful actors could promote goal-oriented ecological change in exchange for benefits; however, if not challenged, they could also use this opportunity to retrench current economic systems that feature private profits over public goods.

Kuhnian paradigm shifts are rare, but in soil science we have witnessed a change in the understanding of soils which can be seen as a paradigm shift (Chapin et al., Reference Chapin, McFarland, David McGuire, Euskirchen, Ruess and Kielland2009; Dick, Reference Dick2018; Lehmann & Kleber, Reference Lehmann and Kleber2015), with important implications for agricultural practices and the political economy of agriculture (Chabbi et al., Reference Chabbi, Lehmann, Ciais, Loescher, Cotrufo, Don, Sanclements, Schipper, Six, Smith and Rumpel2017). Before some 20 years ago, soils were primarily understood and modelled as a physical-chemical entity (Chapin et al., Reference Chapin, McFarland, David McGuire, Euskirchen, Ruess and Kielland2009; Lavelle, Reference Lavelle2000) although early leaders of the nascent organic agriculture movement of the early 20th century (as a competing paradigm) held different viewpoints long before (Howard, Reference Howard1947). More recently, the understanding of soils as an ecosystem where the dynamics are primarily driven by biological processes have paved the way to the new concept of soil health (Swinnen, Reference Swinnen2018) defined as ‘the continued capacity of soil to function as a vital living ecosystem that sustains plants, animals, and humans’ (Swinnen, Reference Swinnen2018). Agricultural practices for improving soil health have been concretized as promoting four practices: minimize disturbance of the soil, maximize living roots, maximize soil cover, and maximize biodiversity, as promoted by organic regenerative agriculture (USDA NRCS, 2023). These four practices exactly mirror the functions of the diverse perennial vegetation of natural ecosystems that was responsible for building soil health in the first place.

The shift, subtle as it may sound to lay people, is profound. In a soil health view, soils are living ecosystems of extreme complexity – even more complex than the above-ground interaction of plants and animals. The paradigm shift in and of itself implies a critique of agriculture because most of the practices in conventional agriculture, such as frequent tilling, application of pesticides, excess supply of mineral fertilizers, and monocultures with short rotation, are detrimental to soil health (Olsson et al., Reference Olsson, Crews, Franklin, King, Mirzabaev, Scown, Tengberg, Villarino and Wang2023). The EU target to ‘ensure that 75% of soils are healthy by 2030’ (Veerman et al., Reference Veerman, Pinto Correira, Bastioli and Biro2020) is heavily based on promoting soil health, but arguably unrealistic within the <10 years left (Poulton et al., Reference Poulton, Johnston, Macdonald, White and Powlson2018; Schlesinger & Amundson, Reference Schlesinger and Amundson2018). However, in a somewhat longer time perspective, a shift to perennial crops would imply a game changer that would significantly improve the chances of achieving, and perhaps going beyond, such a goal.

5.4 There are signs of growing interest in public R&D funding

Public entities are beginning to understand the potential for agricultural research on perennial grains to provide public goods. While the 1980s to 2010s saw an increasing privatization of agricultural research, both in companies and universities (DeLonge et al., Reference DeLonge, Miles and Carlisle2016; Fuglie et al., Reference Fuglie, Heisey, King and Schimmelpfennig2012, Reference Fuglie, Clancy, Heisey, Kalaitzandonakes, Carayannis, Grigoroudis and Rozakis2018; Pray & Fuglie, Reference Pray and Fuglie2015), we are now seeing some signs of a reversal. For example the recent development of perennial rice was heavily supported by public funding (Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Huang, Zhang, Lv, Wan, Liang, Feng, Dao, Wu, Zhang, Yang, Lian, Huang, Shao, Zhang, Qin, Tao, Crews, Sacks, Wade and Hu2023). Presenting the opportunity to policymakers and voters, we are seeing a growing interest in public funds being used for research that will benefit soil, climate, wildlife, rural cultures, and human health, simultaneously (Minnesota Department of Agriculture, 2022; NIFA, 2020). This win-win opportunity has great potential to ignite a renaissance of public agricultural research. While public agricultural research has been on a downward trend with institutions shrinking their budgets for decades (Nelson & Fuglie, Reference Nelson and Fuglie2022), the opportunity to offer something of great value to society broadly is a great opportunity to reclaim the public-good mission for which some of these institutions were founded centuries ago. Public funding agencies over the past 5 years have just begun to support this research, an indication that democratic ideals may still influence scientific research. Many companies are striving to be at the forefront of climate solutions in agriculture. This presents a whole new array of challenges, for example as discussed above with increased interest in soil health valuation, but it is a clear opportunity to be used.

6. Concluding remark and research priorities

We believe that the time is ripe for the onset of a perennial revolution. The goal of this revolution is the rapid development of entirely new high-yielding perennial grain crops that can replace the current repertoire of annuals. As the diversity of viable perennial pulse, oilseed and cereal crops expands, so will opportunities to experiment with ecologically functional polycultures and other cropping systems thus facilitating the replacement of input intensification with ecological intensification. The result will be cropping systems that preserve the soil, store carbon efficiently, require minimal inputs in terms of commercial energy and machinery, utilize available water effectively, are increasingly self-sufficient in nitrogen and can unlock stores of phosphorous in agricultural soils. Engaging in this endeavor for the benefit of sustainable agriculture will be an exciting research challenge for plant scientists, probably more exciting than incrementally tweaking the existing annual cultivars. It will also foster social science, humanities, and transdisciplinary research on the new sociocultural and economic dynamics of rural societies before, under, and after a perennial revolution. Nevertheless, the revolution is likely to meet strong resistance from the agrochemical industrial complex and societal strategies to address this predicted challenge must be designed.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2024.27.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge The Pufendorf Institute for Advanced Studies at Lund University for providing financial means and intellectual inspiration within the two thematic projects of DOMESTICATION.

Author contributions

LO conceived and designed the manuscript and wrote the first draft. All other authors contributed equally to revising and editing the manuscript.

Funding statement

We acknowledge funding from the following research projects: ERC Advanced Grant No. 101096708 PERENNIAL (LO, EA, TC, CD, ASK, SR, AW). The Swedish Research Council Formas: Capturing Carbon in Perennial Cropping Systems, Grant No. 2021-00644 and 2022-00228 (JA, TT, PV). The Swedish National Space Agency, Grant No. 2021-00144 (TT)

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Research transparency and reproducibility

n/a.

References

Adams, W. (1968). The military-industrial complex and the new industrial state on JSTOR. The American Economic Review, 58(2), 652665.Google Scholar
Adebiyi, J., Schmitt Olabisi, L., & Snapp, S. (2016). Understanding perennial wheat adoption as a transformative technology: Evidence from the literature and farmers. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 31(2), 101110. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170515000150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, S. (2019). What climate-smart agriculture means to members of the global alliance for climate-smart agriculture. Future of Food: Journal on Food, Agriculture and Society, 7(1), 2130.Google Scholar
Altendorf, K. R., DeHaan, L. R., & Anderson, J. (2022). Genetic architecture of yield-component traits in the new perennial grain crop, intermediate wheatgrass. Crop Science, 62(2), 880892. https://doi.org/10.1002/CSC2.20716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, K., & Martin, W. (2005). Agricultural trade reform and the Doha development agenda. World Economy, 28(9), 13011327. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-9701.2005.00735.XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, A., Meyer, L., Pettingell, N., Macie, M., & Korstad, J. (2020). Agricultural practices contributing to aquatic dead zones. In Bauddh, K., Kumar, S., Singh, R. P., & Korstad, J. (Eds.), Ecological and practical applications for sustainable agriculture (pp. 373393). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3372-3_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bain, C., Selfa, T., Dandachi, T., & Velardi, S. (2017). ‘Superweeds’ or ‘survivors’? Framing the problem of glyphosate resistant weeds and genetically engineered crops. Journal of Rural Studies, 51, 211221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.03.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bajgain, P., Zhang, X., Jungers, J. M., DeHaan, L. R., Heim, B., Sheaffer, C. C., Wyse, D. L., & Anderson, J. A. (2020). ‘MN-Clearwater’, the first food-grade intermediate wheatgrass (Kernza perennial grain) cultivar. Journal of Plant Registrations, 3, 288297. https://doi.org/10.1002/plr2.20042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bajgain, P., Crain, J. L., Cattani, D. J., Larson, S. R., Altendorf, K. R., Anderson, J. A., Crews, T. E., Hu, Y., Poland, J. A., Turner, M. K., Westerbergh, A., & DeHaan, L. R. (2022). Breeding intermediate wheatgrass for grain production. In Goldman, I. (Ed.), Plant breeding reviews (Vol. 46, pp. 119217). Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, B. (2017). Can modern agriculture be sustainable? BioScience, 67(4), 325331. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barham, B. L., & Chavas, J.-P. (2019). Sunk costs and resource mobility: Implications for economic and policy analysis. In Food security, diversification and resource management: Refocusing the role of agriculture? (pp. 391400). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429457326-28Google Scholar
Bellmann, C. (2019). Subsidies and Sustainable Agriculture: Mapping the Policy Landscape. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2019/12/subsidies-and-sustainable-agriculture-mapping-policy-landscapeGoogle Scholar
Beman, J. M., Arrigo, K. R., & Matson, P. A. (2005). Agricultural runoff fuels large phytoplankton blooms in vulnerable areas of the ocean. Nature, 434(7030), 211214. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benbrook, C. M. (2016). Trends in glyphosate herbicide use in the United States and globally. Environmental Sciences Europe, 28(1), 115. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-016-0070-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beusen, A. H. W., Bouwman, A. F., Van Beek, L. P. H., Mogollón, J. M., & Middelburg, J. J. (2016). Global riverine N and P transport to ocean increased during the 20th century despite increased retention along the aquatic continuum. Biogeosciences (Online), 13(8), 24412451. https://doi.org/10.5194/BG-13-2441-2016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bezner Kerr, R., Hasegawa, T., Lasco, R., Bhatt, I., Deryng, D., Farrell, A., Gurney-Smith, H., Ju, H., Lluch-Cota, S., Meza, F., Nelson, G., Neufeldt, H., & , P. (2022). Food, fibre and other ecosystem products. In IPCC (Ed.), Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the 6th Assessment Repor ot the IPCC [Pörtner, H.-O. et al] (pp. 713906). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844.007Google Scholar
Bless, A., Davila, F., & Plant, R. (2023). A genealogy of sustainable agriculture narratives: Implications for the transformative potential of regenerative agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values, 40(4), 13791397. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10460-023-10444-4/FIGURES/1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bommarco, R., Kleijn, D., & Potts, S. G. (2013). Ecological intensification: Harnessing ecosystem services for food security. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 28(4), 230238. Elsevier Current Trends. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.10.012CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Böschen, S. (2009). Hybrid regimes of knowledge? Challenges for constructing scientific evidence in the context of the GMO-debate. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 16(5), 508520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-009-0164-yCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bratspies, R. (2017). Owning all the seeds: Consolidation and control in Agbiotech. Environmental Law, 47, 583608. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/envlnw47&id=617&div=23&collection=journalsGoogle Scholar
Breitburg, D., Levin, L. A., Oschlies, A., Grégoire, M., Chavez, F. P., Conley, D. J., Garçon, V., Gilbert, D., Gutiérrez, D., Isensee, K., Jacinto, G. S., Limburg, K. E., Montes, I., Naqvi, S. W. A., Pitcher, G. C., Rabalais, N. N., Roman, M. R., Rose, K. A., Seibel, B. A., … Zhang, J. (2018). Declining oxygen in the global ocean and coastal waters. Science (New York, N.Y.), 359(6371), eaam7240. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam7240CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, R. J., & Levitt, K. E. (2023). An effective patent strategy: What it is, and how to implement it. Intellectual Property Update, 3(4), 17.Google Scholar
Bruckner, T. (2016). Agricultural subsidies and farm consolidation. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 75(3), 623648. https://doi.org/10.1111/AJES.12151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camarero, J. J., Colangelo, M., Gracia-Balaga, A., Ortega-Martínez, M. A., & Büntgen, U. (2021). Demystifying the age of old olive trees. Dendrochronologia, 65, 125802. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.DENDRO.2020.125802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, K. C., Di, H. J., & Moir, J. L. (2013). Nitrogen losses from the soil/plant system: A review. Annals of Applied Biology, 162(2), 145173. https://doi.org/10.1111/aab.12014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassman, K. G., & Connor, D. J. (2022). Progress towards perennial grains for prairies and plains. Outlook on Agriculture, 51(1), 3238. https://doi.org/10.1177/00307270211073153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chabbi, A., Lehmann, J., Ciais, P., Loescher, H. W., Cotrufo, M. F., Don, A., Sanclements, M., Schipper, L., Six, J., Smith, P., & Rumpel, C. (2017). Aligning agriculture and climate policy. Nature Climate Change, 7(5), 307309. Nature Publishing Group. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Challinor, A. J., Watson, J., Lobell, D. B., Howden, S. M., Smith, D. R., & Chhetri, N. (2014). A meta-analysis of crop yield under climate change and adaptation. Nature Climate Change, 4(4), 287291. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapin, F. S., McFarland, J., David McGuire, A., Euskirchen, E. S., Ruess, R. W., & Kielland, K. (2009). The changing global carbon cycle: Linking plant-soil carbon dynamics to global consequences. Journal of Ecology, 97(5), 840850. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2009.01529.xGoogle Scholar
Chapman, E. A., Thomsen, H. C., Tulloch, S., Correia, P., Luo, G., Najafi, J., DeHaan, L., Crews, T. E., Olsson, L., Lundquist, P.-O., Westerbergh, A., Pedas, P. R., Knudsen, S., & Palmgren, M. (2022). Perennials as future crops: Opportunities and challenges. Frontiers in Plant Science, 13, 898769. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.898769CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chi, J., Waldo, S., Pressley, S., O'Keeffe, P., Huggins, D., Stöckle, C., Pan, W. L., Brooks, E., & Lamb, B. (2016). Assessing carbon and water dynamics of no-till and conventional tillage cropping systems in the inland pacific northwest US using the eddy covariance method. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 218–219, 3749. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AGRFORMET.2015.11.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ciotir, C., Applequist, W., Crews, T. E., Cristea, N., DeHaan, L. R., Frawley, E., Herron, S., Magill, R., Miller, J., Roskov, Y., Schlautman, B., Solomon, J., Townesmith, A., Van Tassel, D., Zarucchi, J., & Miller, A. J. (2019). Building a botanical foundation for perennial agriculture: Global inventory of wild, perennial herbaceous Fabaceae species. Plants, People, Planet, 1(4), 375386. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clancy, M. S., & Moschini, G. C. (2017). Intellectual property rights and the ascent of proprietary innovation in agriculture. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 9, 5374. https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-RESOURCE-100516-053524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clapp, J. (2006). WTO agriculture negotiations: Implications for the global south. Third World Quarterly, 27(4), 563577. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436590600720728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clapp, J. (2018). Mega-mergers on the menu: Corporate concentration and the politics of sustainability in the global food system. Global Environmental Politics, 18(2), 1233. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clapp, J. (2021). The problem with growing corporate concentration and power in the global food system. Nature Food, 2(6), 404408. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00297-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, M. A., Springmann, M., Hill, J., & Tilman, D. (2019). Multiple health and environmental impacts of foods. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(46), 2335723362. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1906908116CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cochrane, W. W. (1958). Farm prices: Myth and reality. University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Coe, M. T., Evans, K. M., Gasic, K., & Main, D. (2020). Plant breeding capacity in U.S. Public institutions. Crop Science, 60(5), 23732385. https://doi.org/10.1002/CSC2.20227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cordell, D., Drangert, J. O., & White, S. (2009). The story of phosphorus: Global food security and food for thought. Global Environmental Change, 19(2), 292305. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2008.10.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corporate Europe Observatory. (2020). FleishmanHillard's secret lobby campaign for Monsanto. https://corporateeurope.org/en/2019/09/fleishmanhillards-secret-lobby-campaign-monsantoGoogle Scholar
Cosentino, S. L., Copani, V., Scalici, G., Scordia, D., & Testa, G. (2015). Soil erosion mitigation by perennial species under Mediterranean environment. Bioenergy Research, 8(4), 15381547. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12155-015-9690-2/FIGURES/9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, S., Nabukalu, P., Paterson, A. H., Kong, W., & Nakasagga, S. (2018). Development of perennial grain Sorghum. Sustainability 10(1), 172. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU10010172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crews, T., & Brookes, P. C. (2014). Changes in soil phosphorus forms through time in perennial versus annual agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 184, 168181. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AGEE.2013.11.022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crews, T., & Rumsey, B. (2017). What agriculture can learn from native ecosystems in building soil organic matter: A review. Sustainability, 9(4), 578. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crews, T., Blesh, J., Culman, S. W., Hayes, R. C., Jensen, E. S., Mack, M. C., Peoples, M. B., & Schipanski, M. E. (2016). Going where no grains have gone before: From early to mid-succession. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 223, 223238. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AGEE.2016.03.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crews, T. E., Carton, W., & Olsson, L. (2018). Is the future of agriculture perennial? Imperatives and opportunities to reinvent agriculture by shifting from annual monocultures to perennial polycultures. Global Sustainability, 1, e11. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2018.11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cui, L., Ren, Y., Murray, T. D., Yan, W., Guo, Q., Niu, Y., Sun, Y., & Li, H. (2018). Development of perennial wheat through hybridization between wheat and wheatgrasses: A review. Engineering, 4(4), 507513. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENG.2018.07.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culman, S. W., DuPont, S. T., Glover, J. D., Buckley, D. H., Fick, G. W., Ferris, H., & Crews, T. E. (2010). Long-term impacts of high-input annual cropping and unfertilized perennial grass production on soil properties and belowground food webs in Kansas, USA. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 137(1–2), 1324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2009.11.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culman, S. W., Snapp, S. S., Ollenburger, M., Basso, B., & DeHaan, L. R. (2013). Soil and water quality rapidly responds to the perennial grain Kernza wheatgrass. Agronomy Journal, 105(3), 735744. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2012.0273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dale, P. J. (2004). Public-good plant breeding: What should be done next? Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 10(3), 199208. https://doi.org/10.1057/PALGRAVE.JCB.3040075/METRICSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damalas, C. A., & Koutroubas, S. D. (2024). Herbicide resistance evolution, fitness cost, and the fear of the superweeds. Plant Science, 339, 111934. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PLANTSCI.2023.111934CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deguine, J. P., Aubertot, J. N., Flor, R. J., Lescourret, F., Wyckhuys, K. A. G., & Ratnadass, A. (2021). Integrated pest management: Good intentions, hard realities. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 41(3), 135. https://doi.org/10.1007/S13593-021-00689-WCrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeHaan, L. R., & Van Tassel, D. L. (2014). Useful insights from evolutionary biology for developing perennial grain crops 1. American Journal of Botany, 101(10), 18011819. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1400084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeHaan, L. R., Van Tassel, D. L., & Cox, T. S. (2005). Perennial grain crops: A synthesis of ecology and plant breeding. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 20(01), 514. https://doi.org/10.1079/RAF200496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeHaan, L. R., Van Tassel, D. L., Anderson, J. A., Asselin, S. R., Barnes, R., Baute, G. J., Cattani, D. J., Culman, S. W., Dorn, K. M., Hulke, B. S., Kantar, M., Larson, S., David Marks, M., Miller, A. J., Poland, J., Ravetta, D. A., Rude, E., Ryan, M. R., Wyse, D., & Zhang, X. (2016). A pipeline strategy for grain crop domestication. Crop Science, 56(3), 917930. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2015.06.0356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeHaan, L., Larson, S., López-Marqués, R. L., Wenkel, S., Gao, C., & Palmgren, M. (2020). Roadmap for accelerated domestication of an emerging perennial grain crop. Trends in Plant Science, 25(6), 525537. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2020.02.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeHaan, L. R., Anderson, J. A., Bajgain, P., Basche, A., Cattani, D. J., Crain, J., Crews, T. E., David, C., Duchene, O., Gutknecht, J., Hayes, R. C., Hu, F., Jungers, J. M., Knudsen, S., Kong, W., Larson, S., Lundquist, P. O., Luo, G., Miller, A. J., … Westerbergh, A. (2023). Discussion: Prioritize perennial grain development for sustainable food production and environmental benefits. Science of The Total Environment, 895, 164975. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2023.164975CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeLonge, M. S., Miles, A., & Carlisle, L. (2016). Investing in the transition to sustainable agriculture. Environmental Science & Policy, 55, 266273. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2015.09.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Lorenzo, D., & Sherrington, R. (2021). Mapped: The Network of Powerful Agribusiness Groups Lobbying to Water Down the EU's Sustainable Farming Targets – DeSmog. DeSmog Report. https://www.desmog.com/2021/12/09/network-agribusiness-chemicals-pesticides-lobbying-eu-sustainable-climate-farming/Google Scholar
Denison, R. F. (2012). Darwinian agriculture: How understanding evolution can improve agriculture. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
de Oliveira, G., Brunsell, N. A., Sutherlin, C. E., Crews, T. E., & DeHaan, L. R. (2018). Energy, water and carbon exchange over a perennial Kernza wheatgrass crop. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 249, 120137. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AGRFORMET.2017.11.022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Oliveira, G., Brunsell, N. A., Crews, T. E., DeHaan, L. R., & Vico, G. (2019). Carbon and water relations in perennial Kernza (Thinopyrum intermedium): An overview. Plant Science 295, 110279. Elsevier Ireland Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2019.110279CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dick, R. (2018). Soil health: The theory of everything (terrestrial) or just another buzzword? CSA News, 63(11), 1217. https://doi.org/10.2134/csa2018.63.1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druker, S. M. (2015). Altered genes, twisted truths. Clear River Press.Google Scholar
Duchene, O., Celette, F., Ryan, M. R., DeHaan, L. R., Crews, T. E., & David, C. (2019). Integrating multipurpose perennial grains crops in Western European farming systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 284, 106591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.106591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duchene, O., Celette, F., Barreiro, A., Mårtensson, L. M. D., Freschet, G. T., & David, C. (2020). Introducing perennial grain in grain crops rotation: The role of rooting pattern in soil quality management. Agronomy 10(9), 1254. https://doi.org/10.3390/AGRONOMY10091254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duchene, O., Bathellier, C., Dumont, B., David, C., & Celette, F. (2023). Weed community shifts during the aging of perennial intermediate wheatgrass crops harvested for grain in arable fields. European Journal of Agronomy, 143, 126721. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EJA.2022.126721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duru, M., Therond, O., & Fares, M. (2015). Designing agroecological transitions; A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 35(4), 12371257. https://doi.org/10.1007/S13593-015-0318-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisler, R. (2019). Sustainable agriculture--going to the root of the problem: A conversation with Wes Jackson. Interdisciplinary Journal of Partnership Studies, 6(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.24926/ijps.v6i1.1983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission. (2020). Public opinion on the common agricultural policy | European Commission. The Eurobarometer Survey. https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-policy/cap-glance/eurobarometer_en#euagricultureandtheenvironmentGoogle Scholar
Evenson, R. E., & Gollin, D. (2003). Assessing the impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to 2000. Science (New York, N.Y.), 300(5620), 758762. https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIENCE.1078710/ASSET/4B81E052-332D-4728-BF5B-FA7743B5E8BC/ASSETS/GRAPHIC/SE1731473002.JPEGCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fagnant, L., Duchêne, O., Celette, F., David, C., Bindelle, J., & Dumont, B. (2023). Learning about the growing habits and reproductive strategy of Thinopyrum intermedium through the establishment of its critical nitrogen dilution curve. Field Crops Research, 291, 108802. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FCR.2022.108802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAO. (2019). The future of food and agriculture | FAO | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/publications/fofa/en/Google Scholar
FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, & WHO. (2020). The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2020. Transforming food systems for affordable healthy diets. FAO. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.4060/ca9692enGoogle Scholar
Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2011). Toward a general theory of strategic action fields. Sociological Theory, 29(1), 126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9558.2010.01385.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., Mueller, N. D., O'Connell, C., Ray, D. K., West, P. C., Balzer, C., Bennett, E. M., Carpenter, S. R., Hill, J., Monfreda, C., Polasky, S., Rockström, J., Sheehan, J., Siebert, S., … Zaks, D. P. M. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478(7369), 337342. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10452CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friedmann, H. (1993). The political economy of food: A global crisis. New Left Review, 197, 2957.Google Scholar
Fuglie, K., Heisey, P., King, J., & Schimmelpfennig, D. (2012). Rising concentration in agricultural input industries influences new farm technologies. USDA.Google Scholar
Fuglie, K. O., Clancy, M., & Heisey, P. W. (2018). Private-Sector research and development. In Kalaitzandonakes, N., Carayannis, E. G., Grigoroudis, E., & Rozakis, S. (Eds.), From agriscience to agribusiness, theories,policies and practices in technology transfer and commercialization (pp. 4173). Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garland, T. (2014). Trade-offs. Current Biology, 24(2), R60R61. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CUB.2013.11.036CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geels, F. W. (2019). Socio-technical transitions to sustainability: A review of criticisms and elaborations of the multi-level perspective. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 39, 187201. Elsevier B.V. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.06.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gholson, B., & Barker, P. (1985). Kuhn, Lakatos, and Laudan. Applications in the history of physics and psychology. American Psychologist, 40(7), 755769. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.40.7.755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giller, K. E., Hijbeek, R., Andersson, J. A., & Sumberg, J. (2021). Regenerative agriculture: An agronomic perspective. Outlook on Agriculture, 50(1), 1325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0030727021998063CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gillespie, S., van den Bold Gillespie, M. S., & van den Bold, M. (2017). Agriculture, food systems, and nutrition: Meeting the challenge. Global Challenges, 1(3), 1600002. https://doi.org/10.1002/GCH2.201600002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gregory, P. J. (2022). Russell review: Are plant roots only “in” soil or are they “of” it? Roots, soil formation and function. European Journal of Soil Science, 73(1), e13219. https://doi.org/10.1111/EJSS.13219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grzegorczyk, T., & Głowiński, R. (2020). Patent management strategies: A review. Journal of Economics and Management, 40, 3651. https://doi.org/10.22367/jem.2020.40.02CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guan, X. K., Turner, N. C., Song, L., Gu, Y. J., Wang, T. C., & Li, F. M. (2016). Soil carbon sequestration by three perennial legume pastures is greater in deeper soil layers than in the surface soil. Biogeosciences (Online), 13(2), 527534. https://doi.org/10.5194/BG-13-527-2016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugo, J. (2015). The future of farming after bowman v. Monsanto. Journal of Corporation Law, 739, 739757.Google Scholar
Head, J. W. (2019). A global corporate trust for agroecological integrity. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429289293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendrickson, M., Heffernan, W. D., Howard, P. H., & Heffernan, J. B. (2001). Consolidation in food retailing and dairy. British Food Journal, 103(10), 715728. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700110696742/FULL/PDFCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendrickson, M., Howard, P. H., & Constance, D. H. (2017). Power, food and agriculture: Implications for farmers, consumers and communities. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3066005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendrickson, M. K., Howard, P. H., Miller, E. M., & Constance, D. H. (2020). The food system: Concentration and its impacts. Family Farms Action Alliance. https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/s/Hendrickson-et-al-2020-Concentration-and-Its-Impacts-FINAL.pdfGoogle Scholar
Herrero, M., Thornton, P. K., Mason-D'Croz, D., Palmer, J., Benton, T. G., Bodirsky, B. L., Bogard, J. R., Hall, A., Lee, B., Nyborg, K., Pradhan, P., Bonnett, G. D., Bryan, B. A., Campbell, B. M., Christensen, S., Clark, M., Cook, M. T., de Boer, I. J. M., Downs, C., … West, P. C. (2020). Innovation can accelerate the transition towards a sustainable food system. Nature Food, 1(5), 266272. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0074-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopewell, K. (2019). US-China conflict in global trade governance: The new politics of agricultural subsidies at the WTO. Review of International Political Economy, 26(2), 207231. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2018.1560352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houser, M., & Stuart, D. (2020). An accelerating treadmill and an overlooked contradiction in industrial agriculture: Climate change and nitrogen fertilizer. Journal of Agrarian Change, 20(2), 215237. https://doi.org/10.1111/joac.12341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, A. (1947). The soil and health: A study of organic agriculture. The University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar
Howard, P. (2009). Visualizing consolidation in the global seed industry: 1996–2008. Sustainability, 1(4), 12661287. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1041266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, P. H. (2015). Intellectual property and consolidation in the seed industry. Crop Science, 55(6), 24892495. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2014.09.0669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, G., Qin, S., Zhang, S., Cai, X., Wu, S., Dao, J., Zhang, J., Huang, L., Harnpichitvitaya, D., Wade, L., & Hu, F. (2018). Performance, economics and potential impact of perennial rice PR23 relative to annual rice cultivars at multiple locations in Yunnan province of China. Sustainability, 10(4), 1086. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddell, A., Ernfors, M., Crews, T., Vico, G., & Menge, D. N. L. (2023). Nitrate leaching losses and the fate of 15N fertilizer in perennial intermediate wheatgrass and annual wheat – A field study. Science of The Total Environment, 857, 159255. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2022.159255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, W. (1980). New roots for agriculture. University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Jankauskas, B., Jankauskiene, G., & Fullen, M. A. (2011). Erosion-preventive crop rotations and water erosion rates on undulating slopes in Lithuania. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 84(2), 177186. https://doi.org/10.4141/S03-029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karimi, V., Karami, E., Karami, S., & Keshavarz, M. (2021). Adaptation to climate change through agricultural paradigm shift. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23(4), 54655485. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10668-020-00825-8/FIGURES/4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kassam, A., & Kassam, L. (2021). Paradigms of agriculture. In Kassam, A. & Kassam, L. (Eds.), Rethinking food and agriculture: New ways forward (pp. 181218). Woodhead Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816410-5.00010-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, E., & Naujokaityte, G. (2020). EU lifts lid on its five research moonshots | Science|Business. Science Business. https://sciencebusiness.net/framework-programmes/news/eu-lifts-lid-its-five-research-moonshotsGoogle Scholar
Kendall, H. W., & Pimentel, D. (1994). Constraints on the expansion of the global food supply. Ambio, 23(3), 198205.Google Scholar
Kloppenburg, J. R. (2005). First the seed: The political economy of plant biotechnology. University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Kloppenburg, J. (2014). Re-purposing the master's tools: The open source seed initiative and the struggle for seed sovereignty. Journal of Peasant Studies, 41(6), 12251246. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2013.875897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotschi, J., & Horneburg, B. (2018). The open source seed licence: A novel approach to safeguarding access to plant germplasm. PLOS Biology, 16(10), e3000023. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PBIO.3000023CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kreitzman, M., Toensmeier, E., Chan, K. M. A., Smukler, S., & Ramankutty, N. (2020). Perennial staple crops: Yields, distribution, and nutrition in the global food system. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4, 216. https://doi.org/10.3389/FSUFS.2020.588988/BIBTEXCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krug, A. S., & Tesdell, O. I. (2021). A social perennial vision: Transdisciplinary inquiry for the future of diverse, perennial grain agriculture. Plants, People, Planet, 3(4), 355362. https://doi.org/10.1002/PPP3.10175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krug, A. S., Drummond, E. B. M., Van Tassel, D. L., & Warschefsky, E. J. (2023). The next era of crop domestication starts now. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 120(14), e2205769120. https://doi.org/10.1073/PNAS.2205769120/SUPPL_FILE/PNAS.2205769120.SAPP.PDFCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laborde, D., Mamun, A., Martin, W., Piñeiro, V., & Vos, R. (2021). Agricultural subsidies and global greenhouse gas emissions. Nature Communications, 12(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22703-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ladha, J. K., Pathak, H., Krupnik, T. J., Six, J., & van Kessel, C. (2005). Efficiency of fertilizer nitrogen in cereal production: Retrospects and prospects. Advances in Agronomy, 87, 85156. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(05)87003-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladha, J. K., Tirol-Padre, A., Reddy, C. K., Cassman, K. G., Verma, S., Powlson, D. S., van Kessel, C., de Richter, D. B., Chakraborty, D., & Pathak, H. (2016). Global nitrogen budgets in cereals: A 50-year assessment for maize, rice, and wheat production systems. Scientific Reports, 6(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep19355CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lakatos, I. (1976). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. Can Theories Be Refuted?, 205259. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1863-0_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanker, M., Bell, M., & Picasso, V. D. (2020). Farmer perspectives and experiences introducing the novel perennial grain Kernza intermediate wheatgrass in the US Midwest. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 35(6), 653662. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170519000310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavelle, P. (2000). Ecological challenges for soil science. Soil Science, 165(1), 7386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law, E. P., Pelzer, C. J., Wayman, S., Ditommaso, A., & Ryan, M. R. (2021). Strip-tillage renovation of intermediate wheatgrass (Thinopyrum intermedium) for maintaining grain yield in mature stands. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 36(4), 321327. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170520000368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Buanec, B., & Ricroch, A. (2021). Intellectual property protection of plant innovation. In A. Ricroch, S. Chopra, & M. Kuntz (Eds.), Plant biotechnology: Experience and future prospects. (2nd ed., pp. 7186). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68345-0_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledo, A., Smith, P., Zerihun, A., Whitaker, J., Vicente-Vicente, J. L., Qin, Z., McNamara, N. P., Zinn, Y. L., Llorente, M., Liebig, M., Kuhnert, M., Dondini, M., Don, A., Diaz-Pines, E., Datta, A., Bakka, H., Aguilera, E., & Hillier, J. (2020). Changes in soil organic carbon under perennial crops. Global Change Biology, 26(7), 41584168. https://doi.org/10.1111/GCB.15120CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
LeHeiget, P. M., McGeough, E. J., Biligetu, B., & Cattani, D. J. (2023). Grain yield potential of intermediate wheatgrass in western Canada. Agriculture, 13(10), 1924. https://doi.org/10.3390/AGRICULTURE13101924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, J., & Kleber, M. (2015). The contentious nature of soil organic matter. Nature, 528(7580), 6068. Nature Publishing Group. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16069CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, S. L., & Maslin, M. A. (2015). Defining the anthropocene. Nature, 519(7542), 171180. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14258CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lianos, I. (2019). Agricultural mega-mergers and innovation – between competition law, regulation and IP rights. In Tavassi, G. & Muscolo, M. (Eds.), The interplay between competition law and intellectual property: An international perspective (pp. 149). Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Lim, D. (2013). Self-replicating technologies and the challenge for the patent and antitrust laws. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 32, 131224.Google Scholar
Lima, T., & Monteiro, R. E. (2015). Agricultural subsidies for non-farm interests: An analysis of the US agro-industrial complex. Agrarian South, 4(1), 5484. https://doi.org/10.1177/2277976015574799Google Scholar
Lindner, R. K. (2004). Economic issues for plant breeding – public funding and private ownership. Australasian Agribusiness Review, 12(6). https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/132081/Google Scholar
Lipper, L., Thornton, P., Campbell, B. M., Baedeker, T., Braimoh, A., Bwalya, M., Caron, P., Cattaneo, A., Garrity, D., Henry, K., Hottle, R., Jackson, L., Jarvis, A., Kossam, F., Mann, W., McCarthy, N., Meybeck, A., Neufeldt, H., Remington, T., … Torquebiau, E. F. (2014). Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nature Climate Change, 4(12), 10681072. Nature Publishing Group. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, B., Asseng, S., Müller, C., Ewert, F., Elliott, J., Lobell, D. B., Martre, P., Ruane, A. C., Wallach, D., Jones, J. W., Rosenzweig, C., Aggarwal, P. K., Alderman, P. D., Anothai, J., Basso, B., Biernath, C., Cammarano, D., Challinor, A., Deryng, D., … Zhu, Y. (2016). Similar estimates of temperature impacts on global wheat yield by three independent methods. Nature Climate Change, 6(12), 11301136. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loomis, R. S. (2022). Perils of production with perennial polycultures. Outlook on Agriculture, 51(1), 2231. https://doi.org/10.1177/00307270211063910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loorbach, D., Frantzeskaki, N., & Huffenreuter, R. L. (2015). Transition management: Taking stock from governance experimentation. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 58, 4866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Losch, B., Freguin-Gresh, S., & White, E. T. (2012). Structural transformation and rural change revisited. World Bank Publications. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-9512-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Low, S. A., Adalja, A., Beaulieu, E., Key, N., Martinez, S., Melton, A., Perez, A., Ralston, K., Stewart, H., Suttles, S., & Jablonski, B. B. R. (2015). Trends in U.S. local and regional food systems: A report to congress. AP-068, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. https://hdl.handle.net/1813/71388Google Scholar
Lubofsky, E. (2016). The promise of perennials: Working through the challenges of perennial grain crop development. CSA News, 61(11), 4. https://doi.org/10.2134/csa2016-61-11-1Google Scholar
Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A radical view. Red Globe Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, G., Najafi, J., Correia, P. M. P., Trinh, M. D. L., Chapman, E. A., Østerberg, J. T., Thomsen, H. C., Pedas, P. R., Larson, S., Gao, C., Poland, J., Knudsen, S., DeHaan, L., & Palmgren, M. (2022). Accelerated domestication of new crops: Yield is key. Plant and Cell Physiology, 63(11), 16241640. https://doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pcac065CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macdonald, J. M., Dong, X., & Fuglie, K. O. (2023). Concentration and Competition in U.S. Agribusiness. www.ers.usda.govGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, J. (2000). Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory and Society, 29(4), 507548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marquardt, K., Vico, G., Glynn, C., Weih, M., Eksvärd, K., Dalin, P., & Björkman, C. (2016). Farmer perspectives on introducing perennial cereal in Swedish farming systems: A sustainability analysis of plant traits, farm management, and ecological implications. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2016.1141146, 40(5), 432450. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2016.1141146Google Scholar
Mbow, C., Rosenzweig, C., Barioni, L. G., Benton, T. G., Herrero, M., Krishnapillai, M., Liwenga, E., Pradhan, P., Rivera-Ferre, M.-G., Sapkota, T., Tubiello, F. N., & Xu, Y. (2019). Food security. In Shukla, P. R., Skea, J., & Al, E. (Eds.), IPCC Special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems (pp. 437550). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McHenry, L. B. (2018). The Monsanto papers: Poisoning the scientific well. International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine, 29(3–4), 193205. https://doi.org/10.3233/JRS-180028CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McIntyre, B. D., Herren, H. R., Wakhungu, J., & Watson, R. T. (2009). Agriculture at a Crossroads. IAASTD Synthesis Report. Island Press.Google Scholar
McMichael, P. (2009). A food regime analysis of the ‘world food crisis.’ Agriculture and Human Values, 26(4), 281295. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10460-009-9218-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MoeSingh, E. (2012). Structural change, vested interests, and scandinavian energy policy-making: Why wind power struggles in Norway and not in Denmark. The Open Renewable Energy Journal, 5(1), 1931. https://doi.org/10.2174/1876387101205010019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montenegro de Wit, M. (2019). Beating the bounds: How does ‘open source’ become a seed commons? The Journal of Peasant Studies, 46(1), 4479. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2017.1383395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, D. R. (2017). Growing a revolution: Bringing our soil back to life. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.Google Scholar
Monti, A., & Zatta, A. (2009). Root distribution and soil moisture retrieval in perennial and annual energy crops in northern Italy. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 132(3–4), 252259. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AGEE.2009.04.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooney, P. R. (1983). The Law of the Seed – Another Development and Plant Genetic Resources.Google Scholar
Morgan, S., Fuglie, K., & Jelliffe, J. (2022, December 3). World agricultural output growth continues to slow, reaching lowest rate in six decades. USDA Economic Research Service. https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2022/december/world-agricultural-output-growth-continues-to-slow-reaching-lowest-rate-in-six-decades/Google Scholar
Musgrave, A., & Pigden, C. (2021). Imre lakatos. In Zalta, E. N., & Nodelman, U (Eds.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2023 Edition). Metaphysics Research Lab., Stanford University.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. P., & Fuglie, K. (2022, June 6). Investment in U.S. Public agricultural research and development has fallen by a third over past two decades, lags Major trade competitors. USDA Economic Research Service. https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2022/june/investment-in-u-s-public-agricultural-research-and-development-has-fallen-by-a-third-over-past-two-decades-lags-major-trade-competitors/Google Scholar
NIFA. (2020, September 23). Multi-state Coalition Aims to Advance Agriculture by Driving Research, Education, and Adoption of Nation's First Perennial Grain Crop. https://www.nifa.usda.gov/about-nifa/impacts/multi-state-coalition-aims-advance-agriculture-driving-research-educationGoogle Scholar
Olsson, L., & Jerneck, A. (2018). Social fields and natural systems: Integrating knowledge about society and nature. Ecology and Society, 23(3), art26. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10333-230326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, L., Barbosa, H., Bhadwal, S., Cowie, A., DeLusca, K., Flores-Renteria, D., Hermans, K., Jobbagy, E., Kurz, W., Li, D., Sonwa, J. D., & Stringer, L. (2019). Land degradation. In Shukla, P. R., Skea, J., Calvo Buendia, E., Masson-Delmotte, V., Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D., Zhai, P., Slade, R., Connors, S., van Diemen, R., Ferrat, M., Haughey, E., Luz, S., Neogi, S., Pathak, M., Petzold, J., Portugal Pereira, J., Vyas, P., Huntley, E., … Malley, J. (Eds.), Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems (pp. 345436). IPCC. https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/chapter-4/Google Scholar
Olsson, L., Crews, T. E., Franklin, J., King, A. E., Mirzabaev, A., Scown, M., Tengberg, A., Villarino, S., & Wang, Y. (2023). The state of the world's arable land. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 48, 451475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, D. B. (1989). First the seed: The political economy of plant biotechnology, by jack Ralph Kloppenburg Jr. Book review. Business History Review, 63(4), 959961. https://doi.org/10.2307/3115976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peixoto, L., Olesen, J. E., Elsgaard, L., Enggrob, K. L., Banfield, C. C., Dippold, M. A., Nicolaisen, M. H., Bak, F., Zang, H., Dresbøll, D. B., Thorup-Kristensen, K., & Rasmussen, J. (2022). Deep-rooted perennial crops differ in capacity to stabilize C inputs in deep soil layers. Scientific Reports 12(1), 110. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-09737-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Persky, J., Ranney, D., & Wiewel, W. (1993). Import substitution and local economic development 7(1), 1829. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124249300700103Google Scholar
Persson, J., Hornborg, A., Olsson, L., & Thorén, H. (2018). Toward an alternative dialogue between the social and natural sciences. Ecology and Society, 23(4), 14. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10498-230414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peschard, K. E. (2022). Seed activism: Patent politics and litigation in the global south. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peschard, K., & Randeria, S. (2020). ‘Keeping seeds in our hands’: The rise of seed activism. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 47(4), 613647. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2020.1753705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phalan, B., Onial, M., Balmford, A., & Green, R. E. (2011). Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation: Land sharing and land sparing compared. Science (New York, N.Y.), 333(6047), 12891291. https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIENCE.1208742/SUPPL_FILE/PHALAN.SOM.PDFCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinto, P., De Haan, L., & Picasso, V. (2021). Post-harvest management practices impact on light penetration and Kernza intermediate wheatgrass yield components. Agronomy, 11(3), 442. https://doi.org/10.3390/AGRONOMY11030442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, J., Xie, L., Challinor, A. J., Cochrane, K., Howden, S. M., Iqbal, M. M., Lobell, D. B., Travasso, M. I., Netra, C., Garrett, K., Ingram, J., Lipper, L., McCarthy, N., McGrath, J., Smith, D., Thorton, P., Watson, J., & Ziska, L. (2014). Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability: Working group II contribution to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. In Field, Christopher B., Barros, Vicente R., Dokken, David Jon, Mach, Katharine J., Mastrandrea, Michael D., Bilir, T. Eren, Chatterjee, M., Ebi, Kristie L., Otsuki Estrada, Yuka, Genova, Robert C., Girma, B., Kissel, Eric S., Levy, Andrew N., MacCracken, S., & Mastrandrea, Patricia R. (Eds.), Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: Global and sectoral aspects (pp. 485533). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Poulton, P., Johnston, J., Macdonald, A., White, R., & Powlson, D. (2018). Major limitations to achieving “4 per 1000” increases in soil organic carbon stock in temperate regions: Evidence from long-term experiments at Rothamsted Research, United Kingdom. Global Change Biology, 24(6), 25632584. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14066CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pray, C. E., & Fuglie, K. O. (2015). Agricultural research by the private sector. 7(1), 399424. https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-RESOURCE-100814-125115Google Scholar
Pretty, J. (2018). Intensification for redesigned and sustainable agricultural systems. Science (New York, N.Y.), 362(6417), 7. American Association for the Advancement of Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav0294CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pugliese, J. Y., Culman, S. W., & Sprunger, C. D. (2019). Harvesting forage of the perennial grain crop kernza (Thinopyrum intermedium) increases root biomass and soil nitrogen cycling. Plant and Soil, 437(1–2), 241254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-019-03974-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramankutty, N., Mehrabi, Z., Waha, K., Jarvis, L., Kremen, C., Herrero, M., & Rieseberg, L. H. (2018). Trends in global agricultural land use: Implications for environmental health and food security. Annual Review of Plant Biology, 69(1), 789815. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-arplant-042817-040256CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rasche, F., Blagodatskaya, E., Emmerling, C., Belz, R., Musyoki, M. K., Zimmermann, J., & Martin, K. (2017). A preview of perennial grain agriculture: Knowledge gain from biotic interactions in natural and agricultural ecosystems. Ecosphere (Washington, D.C), 8(12), e02048. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2048Google Scholar
Ratnadass, A., Fernandes, P., Avelino, J., & Habib, R. (2012). Plant species diversity for sustainable management of crop pests and diseases in agroecosystems: A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 32(1), 273303. https://doi.org/10.1007/S13593-011-0022-4/TABLES/3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reganold, J. P., & Wachter, J. M. (2016). Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nature Plants 2(2), 18. https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2015.221CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rhodes, C. J. (2013). Feeding and healing the world: Through regenerative agriculture and permaculture. Science Progress, 95(4), 345446. https://doi.org/10.3184/003685012X13504990668392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roff, D. A., & Fairbairn, D. J. (2007). The evolution of trade-offs: Where are we? Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 20(2), 433447. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1420-9101.2006.01255.XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roff, D. A., & Gelinas, M. B. (2003). Phenotypic plasticity and the evolution of trade-offs: The quantitative genetics of resource allocation in the wing dimorphic cricket, Gryllus firmus. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 16(1), 5563. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1420-9101.2003.00480.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roumet, C., Urcelay, C., & Díaz, S. (2006). Suites of root traits differ between annual and perennial species growing in the field. New Phytologist, 170(2), 357368. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1469-8137.2006.01667.XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rudolphi, J. (2019). Diversity of mental health issues in agriculture. Journal of Agromedicine, 25(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/1059924X.2020.1694821CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rudolphi, J. M., & Barnes, K. L. (2019). Farmers’ mental health: Perceptions from a farm show. Journal of Agromedine, 25(1), 147152. https://doi.org/10.1080/1059924X.2019.1674230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, M. R., Crews, T. E., Culman, S. W., DeHaan, L. R., Hayes, R. C., Jungers, J. M., & Bakker, M. G. (2018). Managing for multifunctionality in perennial grain crops. BioScience, 68(4), 294304. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biy014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sainju, U. M., Allen, B. L., Lenssen, A. W., & Ghimire, R. P. (2017). Root biomass, root/shoot ratio, and soil water content under perennial grasses with different nitrogen rates. Field Crops Research, 210, 183191. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FCR.2017.05.029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savich, J. (2007). Monsanto v Scruggs: The negative impact of patent exhaustion on self-replicating technology. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 22, 115136.Google Scholar
Scherrer, C. (2022). Embeddedness of power relations in global value chains. In Teipen, C., Dünhaupt, P., Herr, H., & Mehl, F. (Eds.), Economic and social upgrading in global value chains (pp. 121143). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87320-2_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlesinger, W. H., & Amundson, R. (2018). Managing for soil carbon sequestration: Let's get realistic. Global Change Biology, 25(2), gcb.14478. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14478Google ScholarPubMed
Schurman, R., & Munro, W. A. (2010). Fighting for the future of food: Activists versus agribusiness in the struggle over biotechnology. University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Scown, M. W., Brady, M. V., & Nicholas, K. A. (2020). Billions in misspent EU agricultural subsidies could support the sustainable development goals. One Earth, 3(2), 237250. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ONEEAR.2020.07.011CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seay, N. J. (1988). Protecting the seeds of innovation: Patenting plants. AIPLA Quarterly Journal, 16, 418441. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=true&handle=hein.journals/aiplaqj16&div=27&start_page=418&collection=journals&set_as_cursor=0&men_tab=srchresultsGoogle Scholar
Sharma, L. K., & Bali, S. K. (2018). A review of methods to improve nitrogen use efficiency in agriculture. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(1), 51. MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, W. J. (2013). Bowman v. Monsanto and the protection of patented replicative biologic technologies. Nature Biotechnology, 31(7), 602606. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smaje, C. (2015). The strong perennial vision: A critical review. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 39(5), 471499. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2015.1007200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smil, V. (2004). Enriching the Earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch, and the transformation of world food production. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Soto-Gómez, D., & Pérez-Rodríguez, P. (2022). Sustainable agriculture through perennial grains: Wheat, rice, maize, and other species. A review. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 325, 107747. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AGEE.2021.107747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprunger, C. D., Culman, S. W., Robertson, G. P., & Snapp, S. S. (2018). Perennial grain on a Midwest Alfisol shows no sign of early soil carbon gain. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 33(4), 360372. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170517000138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steensland, A. (2021). 2021 Global Agricultural Productivity Report: Climate for sustainable agricultural growth. https://globalagriculturalproductivity.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/2021-GAP-Report.pdfGoogle Scholar
Stone, G. D. (2019). Commentary: New histories of the Indian green revolution. The Geographical Journal, 185(2), 243250. https://doi.org/10.1111/GEOJ.12297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strohm, T. N. (2021). Possibilities & Potential of Perennial Wheat: A Comparison of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Diversity and Abundance between Winter Wheat and Kernza. Senior Projects Spring 2021. https://digitalcommons.bard.edu/senproj_s2021/158Google Scholar
Stutter, M. I., Shand, C. A., George, T. S., Blackwell, M. S. A., Bol, R., MacKay, R. L., Richardson, A. E., Condron, L. M., Turner, B. L., & Haygarth, P. M. (2012). Recovering phosphorus from soil: A root solution? Environmental Science and Technology, 46(4), 19771978. https://doi.org/10.1021/ES2044745/ASSET/IMAGES/LARGE/ES-2011-044745_0003.JPEGCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinnen, J. (2018). The political economy of agricultural and food policies. Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sykuta, M. E. (2013). The fallacy of “competition” in agriculture. In James, H. S. Jr. (Ed.), The ethics of economics of agrifood competition (Vol. 20, pp. 5573). Springer Science and Business Media B.V. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6274-9_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tittonell, P., El Mujtar, V., Felix, G., Kebede, Y., Laborda, L., Luján Soto, R., & de Vente, J. (2022). Regenerative agriculture – agroecology without politics? Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 6, 844261. https://doi.org/10.3389/FSUFS.2022.844261/BIBTEXCrossRefGoogle Scholar
USDA. (2021). Action Plan for Climate Adaptation and Resilience.Google Scholar
Vallebona, C., Mantino, A., & Bonari, E. (2016). Exploring the potential of perennial crops in reducing soil erosion: A GIS-based scenario analysis in southern Tuscany, Italy. Applied Geography, 66, 119131. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APGEOG.2015.11.015Google Scholar
van Acker, R., Rahman, M. M., & Cici, S. Z. H. (2017). Pros and cons of GMO crop farming. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/ACREFORE/9780199389414.013.217Google Scholar
van Dijk, M., Morley, T., Rau, M. L., & Saghai, Y. (2021). A meta-analysis of projected global food demand and population at risk of hunger for the period 2010–2050. Nature Food 2(7), 494501. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00322-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Tassel, D. L., Tesdell, O., Schlautman, B., Rubin, M. J., DeHaan, L. R., Crews, T. E., & Streit Krug, A. (2020). New food crop domestication in the age of gene editing: Genetic, agronomic and cultural change remain co-evolutionarily entangled. Frontiers in Plant Science, 11, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.00789CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veerman, C., Pinto Correira, T., Bastioli, C., & Biro, B. (2020). Caring for soil is caring for life: ensure 75% of soils are healthy by 2030 for food, people, nature and climate: report of the Mission board for Soil health and food. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/4ebd2586-fc85-11ea-b44f-01aa75ed71a1/Google Scholar
Walter, A.s, Finger, R., Huber, R., & Buchmann, N. (2017). Smart farming is key to developing sustainable agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(24), 61486150). National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707462114CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wan, N. F., Fu, L., Dainese, M., Hu, Y. Q., Pødenphant Kiær, L., Isbell, F., & Scherber, C. (2022). Plant genetic diversity affects multiple trophic levels and trophic interactions. Nature Communications, 13(1), 112. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-35087-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wayman, S., Debray, V., Parry, S., David, C., & Ryan, M. R. (2019). Perspectives on perennial grain crop production among organic and conventional farmers in France and the United States. Agriculture, 9(11), 244. https://doi.org/10.3390/AGRICULTURE9110244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisdorf, J. L. (2005). From foraging to farming: Explaining the neolithic revolution. Journal of Economic Surveys, 19(4), 561586. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.0950-0804.2005.00259.XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westerbergh, A., Lerceteau-Köhler, E., Sameri, M., Bedada, G., & Lundquist, P.-O. (2018). Towards the development of perennial barley for cold temperate climates – evaluation of wild barley relatives as genetic resources. Sustainability, 10(6), 1969. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, B. (2012). Agriculture and the generation problem: Rural youth, employment and the future of farming. IDS Bulletin, 43(6), 919. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1759-5436.2012.00375.XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Bank, (2018). Poverty and Shared Prosperity 2018: Piecing Together the Poverty Puzzle. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/104451542202552048/Poverty-and-Shared-Prosperity-2018-Piecing-Together-the-Poverty-PuzzleGoogle Scholar
Wright, E. O. (2010). Envisioning real utopias. Verso. https://www.versobooks.com/books/463-envisioning-real-utopiasGoogle Scholar
Wright, E. O. (2019). How to be an anticapitalist in the twenty-first century. Verso.Google Scholar
Würtenberger, G. (2017). Protection of plant innovations. In Matthews, D., & Zech, H. (Eds.), Research handbook on intellectual property and the life sciences: Research handbooks in intellectual property series (pp. 121131). Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783479450.00015Google Scholar
Zhang, S., Huang, G., Zhang, J., Huang, L., Cheng, M., Wang, Z., Zhang, Y., Wang, C., Zhu, P., Yu, X., Tao, K., Hu, J., Yang, F., Qi, H., Li, X., Liu, S., Yang, R., Long, Y., Harnpichitvitaya, D., … Hu, F. (2019). Genotype by environment interactions for performance of perennial rice genotypes (Oryza sativa L./Oryza longistaminata) relative to annual rice genotypes over regrowth cycles and locations in southern China. Field Crops Research, 241, 107556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2019.107556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, S., Huang, G., Zhang, Y., Lv, X., Wan, K., Liang, J., Feng, Y., Dao, J., Wu, S., Zhang, L., Yang, X., Lian, X., Huang, L., Shao, L., Zhang, J., Qin, S., Tao, D., Crews, T. E., Sacks, E. J., Wade, L, … Hu, F. (2023). Sustained productivity and agronomic potential of perennial rice. Nature Sustainability, 6, 2833. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00997-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, C., Liu, B., Piao, S., Wang, X., Lobell, D. B., Huang, Y., Huang, M., Yao, Y., Bassu, S., Ciais, P., Durand, J. L., Elliott, J., Ewert, F., Janssens, I. A., Li, T., Lin, E., Liu, Q., Martre, P., Müller, C., … Asseng, S. (2017). Temperature increase reduces global yields of major crops in four independent estimates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(35), 93269331. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1701762114CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhu, C., Kobayashi, K., Loladze, I., Zhu, J., Jiang, Q., Xu, X., Liu, G., Seneweera, S., Ebi, K. L., Drewnowski, A., Fukagawa, N. K., & Ziska, L. H. (2018). Carbon dioxide (CO2) levels this century will alter the protein, micronutrients, and vitamin content of rice grains with potential health consequences for the poorest rice-dependent countries. Science Advances, 4(5), eaaq1012. https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIADV.AAQ1012/SUPPL_FILE/AAQ1012_SM.PDFCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zimbric, J. W., Stoltenberg, D. E., & Picasso, V. D. (2020). Effective weed suppression in dual-use intermediate wheatgrass systems. Agronomy Journal, 112(3), 21642175. https://doi.org/10.1002/AGJ2.20194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Intermediate wheatgrass in its second year (right) compared with winter wheat ready to be harvested (left). Photo: The Land Institute.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Conceptual view of how agricultural sciences can be understood as a research program with a hard core and protective belts of science and vested economic interests, inspired by Lakatos' concept of Research Program (Lakatos, 1976). A radically different idea, such as domesticating and breeding completely new perennial crops, needs to confront both these protective belts.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Market share of the US corn seed market. The data for 2018–20 are estimated, and valid for Bayer instead of Monsanto (after the merger in 2018), Corteva instead of DuPont/Pioneer (after the merger in 2018). Source of data (Macdonald et al., 2023).

Supplementary material: File

Olsson et al. supplementary material

Olsson et al. supplementary material
Download Olsson et al. supplementary material(File)
File 72.9 KB