PiotrowskiS, EsselR, CarusM, DammerL, EngelL. Nachhaltig nutzbare Potenziale für Biokraftstoffe in Nutzungskonkurrenz zur Lebens- und Futtermittelproduktion, Bioenergie sowie zur stofflichen Nutzung in Deutschland, Europa und der Welt. Available at: http://bio-based.eu/ markets/#Biomassepotenziale (Last accessed October2020).
2.
CarusM, PorcO, ChinthapalliR. How much biomass do biobased plastics need? (2020). Available at: http://bio-based.eu/downloads/how-much-biomass-do-bio-based-plastics-need/ (Last accessed September2020).
3.
RayDK, MuellerND, WestPC, FoleyJA. Yield trends are insufficient to double global crop production by 2050. PLoS One, 2013; 8(6):e66428.
4.
GodfrayHCJ, BeddingtonJR, CruteIR, et al.Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science, 2013; 327:812–818.
5.
PhalanB, BalmfordA, GreenRE, ScharlemannJPW. Minimising the harm to biodiversity of producing more food globally. Food Policy, 2011; 36:62–71.
6.
TscharntkeT, CloughY, WangerTC, JacksonL, MotzkeI. Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification. Biological Conservation, 2012; 151(1):53–59.
7.
MouraS, VasconcelosM, FerreiraA, MoreiraF. Use of plant protection products in agriculture. Millenium, 2017; 2(2):73–83.
8.
OerkeEC.Crop losses to pests. J Agric Sci, 2006; 144:31–43.
9.
CarvalhoFP.Pesticides, environment, and food safety. Food Energ Security, 2017; 6(2):48–60.
10.
MesnageR, SéraliniGE. Editorial: Toxicity of pesticides on health and environment. Frontiers Public Health, 2018; 6:268.
11.
VinocurB, AltmanA. Recent advances in engineering plant tolerance to abiotic stress: Achievements and limitations. Curr Opin Biotechnol, 2005; 16:123–132.
12.
KoevoetsIT, VenemaJH, ElzengaJTM, TesterinkC. Roots withstanding their environment: Exploiting root system architecture responses to abiotic stress to improve crop tolerance. Front Plant Sci, 2016; 7:1335. 10.3389/fpls.2016.01335
13.
SinghalP, JanAT, AzamM, HaqQMR. Plant abiotic stress: A prospective strategy of exploiting promoters as alternative to overcome the escalating burden. Frontiers Life Sci, 2016; 9(1):52–63.
14.
Wissenschaftliche Dienste des Deutschen Bundestages (WDDDB) 2004: Nachhaltigkeit, Der aktuelle Begriff 06/3004, 6. April 2004
15.
ISO (International Standard Organization) 2006. ISO 14040: Environmental Management–Life Cycle Assessment–Principles and Framework. CEN European Committee for Standardization, Brussels
16.
KlöpfferW, GrahlB. Life cycle assessment (LCA): A guide to best practice. Wiley-VCH, 2014.
17.
CurranMA. Life Cycle Assessment Handbook – A Guide for Environmentally Sustainable Products. Scrivener Publishing LLC, 2012.
18.
European Union. ILCD Handbook General Guide for Life cycle Assessment–Detailed Guidance, 2010
19.
European Union. Agriculture, forestry and fishery statistics. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018
20.
European Union. Farm structure survey 2016 (2018). Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/9028470/5- 28062018-AP-EN.pdf/8d97f49b-81c0-4f87-bdde-03fe8c3b8ec2 (Last accessed January2018).
21.
Aldanondo-OchoaAM, Almansa-SáezC. The private provision of public environment: Consumer preferences for organic production systems. Land Use Policy, 2009; 26(3):669–682.
22.
GraciaA, de MagistrisT. The demand for organic foods in the South of Italy: A discrete choice model. Food Policy, 2018; 33(5):386–396.
23.
ThomassenMA, van CalkerKJ, SmitsMCJ, LepemaGL, de BoerIJM. Life cycle assessment of conventional and organic milk production in the Netherlands. Agric Systems, 2008; 96(1–3):95–107.
24.
LeinonenI, WilliamsAG, WisemanJ, GuyJ, KyriazakisI. Predicting the environmental impacts of chicken systems in the United Kingdom through a life cycle assessment: Egg production systems. Poultry Sc, 2011; 91(1):26–40.
25.
GrandlF, AligM, NemecekT, GaillardG. Ökobilanz von Rind-, Schweine- und Geflügelfleisch aus konventionellen, tierfreundlichen und biologischen Produktionssystemen, 2013.
26.
FoteinisS, ChatzisymeonE. Life cycle assessment of organic versus conventional agriculture. A case study of lettuce cultivation in Greece. J Cleaner Production, 2016; 112:2462–2471.
27.
TuomistoHL, HodgeID, RiordanP, MacdonaldDW. Does organic farming reduce environmental impacts? A meta-analysis of European research. J Environ Manage, 2012; 112:309–320.
28.
MeierMS, StoesselF, JungluthN, et al.Environmental impacts of organic and conventional agricultural products–Are the differences captured by life cycle assessment?. J Environ Manage, 2015; 149:193–208.
29.
VDI (Verein Deutscher Ingenieure) (2017): VDI 4605. Evaluation of Sustainability.
30.
ElevitchCR, MazaroliDN, RagoneD.Agroforestry standards for regenerative agriculture. Sustainability, 2018; 10(9)3337.
ScanlonK. Trends in sustainability: Regenerative agriculture (2018). Rainforest Alliance. Available at: https://rainforest-alliance.org/business/blog/2018/10/18/trends-in-sustainability-regenerative-agriculture/ (Last accessed January2019).
33.
FAO. 2018 Food Outlook - Biannual Report on Global Food Markets - November 2018. Rome. 104 pp. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.
34.
Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung. Fleischatlas 2018 – Rezepte für eine bessere Tierhaltung. 3. Auflage, Bonifatios GmbH Druck – Buch – Verlag, 2018.
35.
HalloranA, HansenHH, JensenLS, BruunS. Comparing environmental impacts from insects for feed and food as an alternative to animal production. In: HalloranA, FloreR, VantommeP, Roos N (eds). Edible Insects in Sustainable Food Systems. Springer, Cham, 2018.
36.
OonincxDGAB, de BoerIJM. Environmental impact of the production of mealworms as protein source for humans–A life cycle assessment. PLoS ONE, 2012; 7(12):e51145.
37.
Food and Agriculture Organization. Livestock and Landscapes (2012). Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/ar591e/ar591e.pdf (Last accessed December2018).
38.
PostM.Cultured meat from stem cells: Challenges and prospects. Meat Sci, 2012; 92(3):297–301.
39.
HalloranA, RoosN, EilenbergJ, CeruttiA, BruunS. Life cycle assessment of edible insects for food protein: a review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2016; 36(4):57.
40.
van HuisA, Van ItterbeeckJ, KlunderH, et al.Edible insects: Future prospects for food and feed security. FAO: Rome, Italy, 2013.
41.
LundyME, ParrellaMP. Crickets are not a free lunch: Protein capture from scalable organic side-streams via high-density populations of Acheta domesticus. PLoS One, 2017; 10(4):e0118785.
42.
de VriesM, de BoerIJM. Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: A review of life cycle assessments. Livestock Sci, 2010; 128(1–3):1–11.
43.
HalloranA, HanboonsongY, RoosN, BruunS. Life cycle assessment of cricket farming in north-eastern Thailand. J Clean Prod, 2017; 156:83–94.
44.
DerrienC, BoccuniA.Current status on the insect producing industry in Europe. In: HalloranA, FloreR, VantommeP, RoosN (eds) Edible Insects in Sustainable Food Systems. Springer, Cham, 2018.
45.
BirbrairA, DelbonoO. Pericytes are essential for skeletal muscle formation. Stem Cell Rev Rep, 2015; 11(4):547–548.
46.
KadiF, CharifiN, DenisC, et al.The behaviour of satellite cells in response to exercise: What have we learned from human studies?. Pflügers Archive – European J Physiol, 2005; 451(2):319–327.
47.
MattickCS, LandisAE, AllenbyBR, GenoveseNJ. Anticipatory life cycle analysis of in vitro biomass cultivation for cultured meat production in the United States. Environ Sci Technol, 2015; 49(19):11941–11949.
48.
TuomistoHL, EllisMJ, HaastrupP. Environmental impacts of cultured meat: Alternative production scenarios. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector, 2014.
GaydhaneMK, MahantaU, SharmaCS, KhandelwalM, RamakrishnaS.Cultured meat: State of the art and future. Biomanufacturing Rev, 2018; 3(1).
51.
TuomistoHL, Teixeira de MattosMJ. Environmental impacts of cultured meat production. Environ Sci Technol, 2011; 45(14):6117–6123.
52.
BlackmoreS, GodwinRJ, FountasS. The analysis of spatial and temporal trends in yield map data over six years. Biosyst Eng, 2003; 84(4):455–466.
53.
ZhangC, KovacsJM. The application of small unmanned aerial systems for precision agriculture: A review. Precision Ag, 2012; 13(6):693–712.
54.
BaioFHR, NevesDC, SouzaHB, et al.Variable rate spraying application on cotton using an electronic flow controller. Precision Ag, 2018; 19(5):912–928.
55.
GilesD, KlassenP, NiederholzerF, DowneyD. 2011. “Smart” sprayer technology provides environmental and economic benefits in California orchards. Calif Agr, 65(2):85–89. https://doi.org/10.3733/ca.v065n02p85.
56.
BalafoutisAT, KoundourasS, AnastasiouE. FountasS, ArvanitisK.Life cycle assessment of two vineyards after the application of precision viticulture techniques: A case study. Sustainability, 2017; 9(11):1997.
57.
GassoV, OudshoornFW, SorensenCAG, PedersenHH. An environmental life cycle assessment of controlled traffic farming. J Cleaner Prod, 2013; 73:175–182.
58.
TaylorJH.Benefits of permanent traffic lanes in a controlled traffic crop production system. Soil Tillage Res, 1983; 3(4):385–395.
59.
BatteMT, Van BurenFN. Precision farming–Factors influencing profitability. Paper presented at the Northern Ohio Crops Day meeting, Wood County, Ohio, January 21, 1999: pp. 1–18
60.
de CarbonA. Precision agriculture: Its benefits and limitations (2016). Available at: https://carrhure.com/precision-agriculture-benefits-limitations/ (Last accessed 18 January 2019).
61.
WagnerP.Wirtschaftlichkeit von Precision Farming–Methoden und Möglichkeiten der Wirtschaftlichkeitsprüfung im landwirtschaftlichen Unternehmen. In: Precision Farming, Analyse, Planung, Umsetzung in der Praxis. KTBL-Schrift, 2004; 419:31–53.
62.
OndouaRN, WalshO. Precision agriculture advances and limitations: Lessons to the stakeholders. Crops & Soils, 2017; 50:40–47. https://doi.org/10.2134/cs2017.50.0408
63.
Al-KodmanyK.The vertical farm: A review of developments and implications for the vertical city. Buildings, 2018; 8(24).
64.
ChoR. Vertical farms: From vision to reality. State of the Planet, Blogs from Earth Institute, 13 October 2011. Available at: https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/10/13/ vertical-farms-from-vision-to-reality/ (Las accessed December2018).
65.
Food and Agriculture Organization. Good Agricultural Practices for Greenhouse Vegetable Crops: Principles for Mediterranean Climate Areas. FAO: Rome, Italy, 2013; Chapter 15.
66.
WangR. Farming the Bronx: The Potential for Controlled- Environment Agriculture to Address Environmental Degradation and Urban Social Issues. Student Theses 2015-present, 73.
67.
BenkeK, TomkinsB. Future food-production systems: Vertical farming and controlled-environment agriculture. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 2017; 13(1):13–26.
68.
KikuchiY, KanematsuY, YoshikawaN, OkuboT, TakagakiM. Environmental and resource use analysis of plant factories with energy technology options: A case study in Japan. J Cleaner Prod, 2018; 186:703–717.
69.
LiuT, YangM, HanZ, OwDW. Rooftop production of leafy vegetables can be profitable and less contaminated than farm-grown vegetables. Agron Sustainable Dev, 2016; 36(3):41.
70.
Carlsson-KanyamaA.Food consumption patterns and their influence on climate change: Greenhouse gas emissions in the life-cycle of tomatoes and carrots consumed in Sweden. Ambio, 1999; 27:528–534.
71.
MolinE, MartinM.Reviewing the energy and environmental performance of vertical farming systems in urban environments. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, 2018.
72.
CarvalhoSD, CastilloJA. Influence of light on plant-Phyllosphere interaction. Frontiers in Plant Sci, 2018; 9:16–51.
73.
WellsK.LED lighting and its effect on plants, growers and the world. Greenhouse Product News (2015). Available at: https://gpnmag.com/article/led-lighting-and-its-effect-plants-growers-and-world/ (Last accessed January2019).
74.
GraamansL, BaezaE, van den DobbelsteenA, TasfarasI, StrangehlliniC. Plant factories versus greenhouses: Comparison of resource use efficiency. Agricultural Syst, 2018; 160:31–43.
75.
Harvest to Table 2017. Vegetable crop yields, plants per person, and crop spacing. Available at: https://harvesttotable.com/vegetable_crop_yields_plants_p/ (Last accessed December2018).
76.
TouliatosD, DoddC, McAinshM. Vertical farming increases lettuce yield per unit area compared to conventional horizontal hydroponics. Food Energ Security, 2016; 5(3):184–191.
77.
Lages BarbosaG, GadelhaF, KublikN, et al.Comparison of land, water and energy requirements of lettuce grown using hydroponic vs. conventional agricultural methods. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2015; 12(6):6879–6891.
78.
TuriniT, CahnM, CantwellM, et al.Iceberg lettuce production in California (2011). Davis: US Vegetable Research & Information Center
79.
OgbodoE, OkorieP, UtoboE.Growth and yield of lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) at Abakaliki Agro-Ecological Zone of Southeastern Nigeria. World J Agric Sci, 2010; 6(2):141–148.
80.
MocciaA, ChiesaA, ObertA, TittonellP. Yield and quality of sequentially grown cherry tomato and lettuce under long-term conventional, low-input and organic soil management systems. European J Horticultural Sci PubHort, 2006; 71(4):183–191.
81.
BurgosS, StapelM. CO2Emissions Scoping Report–Comparison between different farming methods in lettuce production (2018). OneFarm B.V. Research & Development Department, Amsterdam.
NonomuraAM, BensonAA. The path of carbon in photosynthesis: Improved crop yields with methanol. PNAS USA, 1992; 89:9794–9798.
84.
DrieverSM, SimkinAJ, AlotaibiS, et al.Increased SBPase activity improves photosynthesis and grain yield in wheat grown in greenhouse conditions. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 2017; 372(1730):20160384
85.
ParryMAJ, ReynoldsM, SalvucciME, et al.Raising yield potential of wheat. II. Increasing photosynthetic capacity and efficiency. J Exper Botany, 2010; 62(2):453–467.
86.
MulvaneyRL, KhanSA, EllsworthTR. Synthetic nitrogen fertilizers deplete soil nitrogen: A global dilemma for sustainable cereal production. J Environ Qual, 2009; 2295–2314.
87.
McAllisterCH, BeattyPH, GoodAG. Engineering nitrogen use efficient crop plants: The current status. Plant Biotechnol J, 2012; 10:1011–1025.
88.
StrangeA, ParkJ, BennettR, PhippsR. The use of life-cycle assessment to evaluate the environmental impacts of growing genetically modified, nitrogen use-efficient canola. Plant Biotechnol J, 2008; 6(4):337–345.
89.
VaeckM, ReynaertsA, HöfteH, et al.Transgenic plants protected from insect attack. Nature, 1987; 328(2):33–37.
90.
BrookesG, BarfootP. Environmental impacts of genetically modified (GM) crop use 1996–2015: Impacts on pesticide use and carbon emissions. GM Crops & Food, 2017; 7(2):84–116.
91.
ReddyKN, NandulaVK. Herbicide resistant crops: History, development and current technologies. Indian J Agronomy, 2012; 57(1):1–7.
92.
JamesC. Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2010. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) Brief 42-2010: Executive Summary.
93.
de BeusN, SkoczinskiP. Genetic modified crops: Cultivation areas, experiences and breeding targets. Presentation at Revolution in Food and Biomass Production (REFAB), 2018, Cologne, Maritim-Hotel.
94.
KlümperW, QaimM. A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops. PLoS One, 2014; 9(11):e111629.
95.
WenderBA, FoleyRW, HottleTA, et al.Anticipatory life-cycle assessment for responsible research and innovation. J Responsible Innovation, 2014; 1(2):200–207.
96.
MaederP, FließbachA, DuboisD, et al.Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science, 2002; 296:1694.
97.
StolzeM, PiorrA, HäringA, DabbertS. The environmental impacts of organic farming in Europe. In: Organic Farming in Europe: Economics and Policy Volume 6. Stuttgart-Hohenheim: 2000.
98.
SundrumA.Organic livestock farming–A critical review. Livestock Production Sci, 2000; 67:207–215.
99.
FormanJ, SilversteinJ. Organic foods: Health and environmental advantages and disadvantages. Pediatrics, 2012; 130(5):e1406–e1415.
100.
LaironD.Nutritional quality and safety of organic food. A review. Agronomy Sustain Devel, 2009; 30(1):33–41.
101.
van der WeeleC, DriessenC. Emerging profiles for cultured meat; Ethics through and as Design. Animals, 2013; 3(3):647–662.
102.
van HuisA.Edible insects: Marketing the impossible?. J Insects Food Feed, 2017; 3(2):67–68.
103.
BryantC, BarnettJ. Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: A systematic review. Meat Sci, 2018; 143:8–17.
104.
TuomistoHL, RoyAG. Could cultured meat reduce environmental impact of agriculture in Europe? 8th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector, Rennes, France 2–4 Oct, 2012.
105.
SmetanaS, MathysA, KnochA, HeinzV. Meat alternatives: Life cycle assessment of most known meat substitutes. Int J Life Cycle Assessment, 2015; 20:1254–1267.
106.
DespommierD. The vertical farm: Feeding the world in the 21st century. Macmillan, 2010.
107.
KrishnaKR.Precision Farming–Soil Fertility and Productivity Aspects. 1st Edition, 2013. New York: Apple Academic Press
108.
BarnesA, De SotoI, EoryV, et al.Influencing factors and incentives on the intention to adopt precision agricultural technologies within arable farming systems. Environ Sci Policy, 2019; 93:66–74.
109.
DavisonJ.GM plants: Science, politics and EX regulations. Plant Sci, 2010; 178(2):9498.
110.
LuchtJM.Public acceptance of plant biotechnology and GM crops. Viruses, 2015; 7(8):4254–4281.
111.
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops in 2017: Biotech Crop Adoption Surges as Economic Benefits Accumulate in 22 Years. ISAAA Brief No. 53, ISAAA: Ithaca, NY
112.
Statista 2019: Total global cropland area from 2010 to 2025 (in million hectares). Available at: https://statista.com/statistics/201774/projection-for-total-global-cropland-area-from-2010/ (Last accessed February2019).
113.
BenjaminC. Scientists engineer shortcut for photosynthetic glitch, boost crop growth by 40 percent. Realizing Increased Photosynthetic Efficiency (RIPE), January 3 2019. Available at: https://ripe.illinois.edu/press/press-releases/scientists-engineer-shortcut-photosynthetic-glitch-boost-crop-growth-40 (Last accessed February2019).
114.
DalePJ, ClarkeB, FontesEMG. Potential for the environmental impact of transgenic crops. Nature Biotechnol, 2002; 20(8):567–574.
115.
GatehouseAMR, FerryN, EdwardsMG, BellHA. Insect-resistant crops and their impacts on beneficial arthropods. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 2011; 366(1569):1438–1452.
116.
HorsbølA.Green conflicts in environmental discourse. A topos based integrative analysis of critical voices. Critical Discourse Studies, 2019; 1–18.
117.
SchweisfurthKL. Organic: A climate saviour? The foodwatch report on the greenhouse effect of conventional and organic farming in Germany (2009). Available at: https://foodwatch. org/uploads/media/foodwatch_report_on_the_greenhouse_effect_of_farming_05_2009_01.pdf (Last accessed October2020).