Crop protection practices and risks associated with infectious tropical parasitic diseases

Crop protection practices and risks associated with human fungal infectious diseases: a One Health perspective

“…However, crop protection practices may affect the health of humans, domestic animals and the environment in diverse ways. Specifically, they may affect (positively or negatively) the risk of infectious diseases in humans, as is the case for viral zoonoses (Ratnadass and Deguine, 2021), bacterial infections (Ratnadass and Deberdt, 2021) and parasitic diseases (Ratnadass and Martin, 2022). This review ends our series of literature reviews on the impact of crop protection practices on human infectious diseases.…”

“…In three recent literature reviews (Ratnadass and Deguine, 2021;Ratnadass and Deberdt, 2021;Ratnadass and Martin, 2022), we used the E-S-R framework proposed by Hill and MacRae (1996) to characterize the impacts of crop protection practices on viral zoonoses, human bacterial infectious diseases, and human parasitic diseases. The E-S-R framework, when applied to crop protection, comprises: (i) improvements to the Efficiency (E) of conventional crop protection practices (essentially agrochemical); (ii) Substitution (S) of these practices (mainly with genetic, physical/mechanical or biocontrol methods); and (iii) agroecosystem Redesign (R) to improve resilience to agricultural pests and pathogens (particularly via biological control through habitat conservation and management) (Tab.…”

“…We highlighted that: (i) agroecological crop protection practices (Deguine et al, 2023) generally resulted in a reduction in the risks of viral zoonoses, unlike conventional, agrochemical-based practices which tend to increase risks (Ratnadass and Deguine, 2021); (ii) substitution or biocontrol practices resulted in fewer health risks from infectious bacterial and parasitic diseases (Ratnadass and Deberdt, 2021;Ratnadass and Martin, 2022); (iii) conventional practices or those seeking to increase efficiency generally gave rise to an increased disease risk, whether viral, bacterial or parasitic (Ratnadass and Deguine, 2021;Ratnadass and Deberdt, 2021;Ratnadass and Martin, 2022).…”

Climatic Factor Differences and Mangosteen Fruit Quality between On- and Off-Season Productions

“…The trees begin to bear fruits 10-12 years after the seedling. The diameter of the mangosteen fruit is 5.08-7.62 cm with a thick reddishpurple rind that covers white, soft, juicy, sweet, aromatic, and edible segmented pulps [28,29]. Mangosteen fruits weighing greater than 80 g/fruit with a fresh green calyx, unbroken peduncle, no insect damage, no translucent flesh disorder, and no gamboge disorder are indices of market-able quality mangosteen.…”

“…Previous studies have reported that mangosteens have an average fruit weight of 75-150 g, fruit circumference of 15.95-23.92 cm, peel thickness of 6-10 mm, and the number of edible pulp segments of 4-8 segments. Fruit weight varies depending on the age of the tree (i.e., younger trees produce a smaller fruit size than older trees) and its geographical location (e.g., mangosteens from the south of the Philippines are larger than those of the Malay Peninsula) [2,29].…”