Advertisement

Closed and Semi-closed Systems in Agriculture

  • Ebrahim Hadavi
  • Noushin Ghazijahani
Chapter
Part of the Sustainable Agriculture Reviews book series (SARV, volume 33)

Abstract

Agriculture is the endeavor that served for thousands of years as a cradle for human civilizations. However, it may also act as a brake. Indeed, climate change is increasingly constraining the available pool of land and water resources. The current agriculture has become highly dependent on a flow of chemical input from pesticide and insecticide industry, itself remaining as a source of a problem both for human and global health. Protected agriculture is among the answers to the looming crisis in water and climate change.

We reviewed the current systems of protected agriculture as they migrate from ‘open’ to ‘semi-closed’ and ‘fully-closed’ systems of plant production from the sustainability point of view. Not a long time ago, the problems related to the soil-borne diseases acted as a trigger for a remarkable shift to use of simpler growth media. Now the plant factories and similar approaches are applying the state of the art techniques of fertilization and lighting to deliver a clean product; but still they remain dependent on a large flow of external inputs, as well as an intensive monitoring and management platform. On the other side are the emerging agro-ecological perspectives that are in support of a concept of disease management based on higher biodiversity in the plant culture media and the surrounding environment. Such systems try to address the pest and disease issue by use of a much more complex media, and a high biodiversity in the production environment that could reduce the management intensity and thus reduce the cost. As these systems are more self-sufficient, they have the ability to create more ‘closed’ systems of production. However, there is no a consensus in the scientific society in this regard, therefore a clear dilemma between a selection of simple or complex growing media exists, which determines the technologies to be developed and used. The same problem persists in the studies of bio-regenerative life support system where sophisticated designs for plant production units destined for potential use in outer space are attempted. This review tries to shed light on the future image of both approaches from the sustainability outlook based on the degree of inherent self-sufficiency or recyclability of inputs, which could be further interpreted as the level of ‘closed-ness’ of the systems.

Keywords

Food security Agroecology Soil rehabilitation Livestock Innovation systems Transitions 

References

  1. Andre M, Chagvardieff P (1997) CELSS research: interaction between space and terrestrial approaches in plant science. In: Plant production in closed ecosystems. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 245–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkin K, Nichols M (2003) Organic hydroponics. South Pacific Soilless Culture Conference-SPSCC, vol 648, ISHS, Leuven, pp 121–127Google Scholar
  3. Barta D, Henninger D (1994) Regenerative life support systems—why do we need them? Adv Space Res 14:403–410CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Blüm V (1992) C.E.B.A.S., a closed equilibrated biological aquatic system as a possible precursor for a long-term life support system? Adv Space Res 12:193–204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Blüm V, Gitelson J, Horneck G, Kreuzberg K (1994) Opportunities and constraints of closed man-made ecological systems on the moon. Adv Space Res 14:271–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brentlinger D (2005) New trends in hydroponic crop production in the US. In: International conference and exhibition on soilless culture: ICESC, vol 2005742, pp 31–33Google Scholar
  7. Brooke LL (2000) The organic-hydroponic debate. In: Best of growing edge: popular hydroponics and gardening for small commercial growers, vol 2, New Moon Publishing, Corvallis, p 204Google Scholar
  8. Bubenheim D, Wydeven T (1994) Approaches to resource recovery in controlled ecological life support systems. Adv Space Res 14:113–123CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Castilla N, Hernandez J (2006) Greenhouse technological packages for high-quality crop production. In: XXVII international horticultural congress-IHC2006: international symposium on advances in environmental control, automation, vol 761, pp 285–297Google Scholar
  10. Cordell D, Drangert JO, White S (2009) The story of phosphorus: global food security and food for thought. Glob Environ Chang 19(2):292–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dalrymple D (1973) A global review of greenhouse food production. United States Department of Agriculture, BoletínGoogle Scholar
  12. Diver S (2000) Aquaponics-integration of hydroponics with aquaculture. Attra, FayettevilleGoogle Scholar
  13. Eigenbrod C, Gruda N (2015) Urban vegetable for food security in cities. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 35(2):483–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Enduta A, Jusoh A, Ali N, Wan Nik W (2011) Nutrient removal from aquaculture wastewater by vegetable production in aquaponics recirculation system. Desalin Water Treat 32:422–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. FAO (2013) Good agricultural practices for greenhouse vegetable crops. Principles for mediterranean climate areas. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  16. Farajollahzadeh Z, Hadavi E, Khandan-Mirkohi A (2013) Introducing a potentially organic hydroponics system in production of pot gerbera flowers. Acta Hortic 1037:1075–1082Google Scholar
  17. Fujiwara K, Aoyama C, Takano M, Shinohara M (2012) Suppression of Ralstonia solanacearum bacterial wilt disease by an organic hydroponic system. J Gen Plant Pathol 78:217–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Garland J, Mackowiak C, Strayer R, Finger B (1997) Integration of waste processing and biomass production systems as part of the KSC breadboard project. Adv Space Res 20:1821–1826CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Glenn E, Frye R (1990) Soil bed reactors as endogenous control systems of CELSS. In: Workshop on artificial ecological systems, pp 41–58Google Scholar
  20. Goto E (1997) Environmental control for plant production in space CELSS. In: Plant production in closed ecosystems. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 279–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goto E, Kurata K, Hayashi M, Sase S (2013) Plant production in closed ecosystems. In: The international symposium on plant production in closed ecosystems held in Narita, Japan, August 26–29, 1996. Springer Science & Business Media, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  22. Graham T, Bamsey M (2016) Editor’s note for the topical issue ‘agriculture in space’. Open Agric 1Google Scholar
  23. Grewal HS, Maheshwari B, Parks SE (2011) Water and nutrient use efficiency of a low-cost hydroponic greenhouse for a cucumber crop: an Australian case study. Agric Water Manag 98:841–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haeuplik-Meusburger S, Paterson C, Schubert D, Zabel P (2014) Greenhouses and their humanizing synergies. Acta Astronaut 96:138–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hashimoto Y (1991) Computer integrated plant growth factory for agriculture and horticulture. In: Hashimoto Y, Day W (eds) Mathematical and control applications in agriculture and horticulture. Pergamon, Oxford, pp 105–110Google Scholar
  26. Ivanova TN, Bercovich YA, Mashinskiy AL, Meleshko GI (1993) The first “space” vegetables have been grown in the “SVET” greenhouse using controlled environmental conditions. Acta Astronaut 29:639–644CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Jensen MH (1997a) Food production in greenhouses. In: Goto E, Kurata K, Hayashi M, Sase S (eds) Plant production in closed ecosystems: the international symposium on plant production in closed ecosystems held in Narita, Japan, August 26–29, 1996. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1–14Google Scholar
  28. Jensen MH (1997b) Hydroponics worldwide. In: International symposium on growing media and hydroponics, vol 481, pp 719–730Google Scholar
  29. Jiang W-J, Yu H (2006) Twenty years development of soilless culture in mainland China, In: XXVII international horticultural congress-IHC2006: global horticulture: diversity and harmony, an introduction to IHC2006, vol 759, pp 181–186Google Scholar
  30. Jiang W, Qu D, Mu D, Wang L (2004a) Protected cultivation of horticultural crops in China. In: Horticultural reviews. Wiley, New York, pp 115–162Google Scholar
  31. Jiang W, Qu D, Mu D, Wang L (2004b) Protected cultivation of horticultural crops in China. Hortic Rev 30:115–162Google Scholar
  32. Jones WL (1975) Life-support systems for interplanetary spacecraft and space stations for long-term use. In: Calvin M, Gazenko OG (eds) Fondations of space biology and medicine. NASA/HAYKA, Washington/Moscow, pp 247–273Google Scholar
  33. Klinger D, Naylor R (2012) Searching for solutions in aquaculture: charting a sustainable course. Annu Rev Environ Resour 37:247–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kozai T, Fujiwara K (2016) Moving toward self-learning closed plant production systems. In: LED lighting for urban agriculture. Springer, Singapore, pp 445–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kozai T, Kubota C, Kitaya Y (1997) Greenhouse technology for saving the earth in the 21st century. In: Plant production in closed ecosystems. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 139–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Li W, Li Z (2009) In situ nutrient removal from aquaculture wastewater by aquatic vegetable Ipomoea aquatica on floating beds. Water Sci Technol 59:1937–1943CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Lovell ST (2010) Multifunctional urban agriculture for sustainable land use planning in the United States. Sustainability 2:2499–2522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Macelroy RD, Tremor J, Bubenheim DL, Gale J (1989) The CELSS research program – a brief review of recent activities. In: Lunar base agriculture: soils for plant growth. American Society of Agronomy, Inc., Crop Science Society of America, Inc., and Soil Science Society of America, Inc., Madison, pp 165–172Google Scholar
  39. Mitchell CA (1994) Bioregenerative life-support systems. Am J Clin Nutr 60:820S–824SCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Muktamar Z, Setyowati N, Sudjatmiko S, Chozin M (2016) Selected macronutrient uptake by sweet corn under different rates of liquid organic fertilizer in closed agriculture system. Int J Adv Sci Eng Inf Technol 6:258–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nelson M, Dempster WF (1995) Living in space: results from biosphere 2’s initial closure, an early testbed for closed ecological systems on Mars. Life Support Biosph Sci 2:81–102PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Nelson M, Burgess TL, Alling A, Alvarez-Romo N, Dempster WF, Walford RL, Allen JP (1993) Using a closed ecological system to study earth’s biosphere. Bioscience 43:225–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nelson M, Dempster W, Allen J (2008) Integration of lessons from recent research for “Earth to Mars” life support systems. Adv Space Res 41:675–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Neset TSS, Cordell D (2012) Global phosphorus scarcity: identifying synergies for a sustainable future. J Sci Food Agric 92(1):2–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Pechurkin N, Shirobokova I (2001) Closed artificial ecosystems as a means of ecosystem studies for earth and space needs. Adv Space Res 27:1497–1504CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Reddy PP (2016) Greenhouse technology. In: Sustainable crop protection under protected cultivation, Springer Singapore, Singapore, pp 13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ristaino JB, Thomas W (1997) Agriculture, methyl bromide, and the ozone hole: can we fill the gaps? Plant Dis 81:964–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Salisbury FB, Gitelson JI, Lisovsky GM (1997) Bios-3: Siberian experiments in bioregenerative life support attempts to purify air and grow food for space exploration in a sealed environment began in 1972. Bioscience 47:575–585CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Schwartzkopf SH, Cullingford HS (1990) Conceptual design for a lunar-base CELSSGoogle Scholar
  50. Schwartzkopf SH, Stroup TL, Williams DW (1993) Anaerobically-processed waste as a nutrient source for higher plants in a controlled ecological life support system. SAE Tech Pap 102, 1464(1)Google Scholar
  51. Schwingel W, Sager J (1996) Anaerobic degradation of inedible crop residues produced in a controlled ecological life support system. Adv Space Res 18:293–297CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Shinohara M, Aoyama C, Fujiwara K, Watanabe A, Ohmori H, Uehara Y, Takano M (2011) Microbial mineralization of organic nitrogen into nitrate to allow the use of organic fertilizer in hydroponics. Soil Sci Plant Nutr 57:190–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Strayer R, Finger B, Alazraki M (1997) Evaluation of an anaerobic digestion system for processing CELSS crop residues for resource recovery. Adv Space Res 20:2009–2015CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Sun Y, Xie B, Wang M, Dong C, Du X, Fu Y, Liu H (2016) Microbial community structure and succession of airborne microbes in closed artificial ecosystem. Ecol Eng 88:165–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thiéry J (1994) Can technology make life-support systems more stable than isolated terrestrial ecosystems? Life Sci Res Space: 227Google Scholar
  56. Tibbits T, Alford D (1982) Controlled ecological life support system: use of higher plants. NASA Scientific and Technical Information Branch, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  57. Tibbitts T, Henninger D (1997) Food production in space: challenges and perspectives. In: Plant production in closed ecosystems. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 189–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tsuruoka H, Kanenko T, Takatsuji M (1984) Lighting design for a 3-dimensional plant factory. Trans Soc Instrum Control Eng 20:734–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vaccari DA (2009) Phosphorus: a looming crisis. Sci Am 300(6):54–59CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Vance CP (2001) Symbiotic nitrogen fixation and phosphorus acquisition. Plant nutrition in a world of declining renewable resources. Plant Physiol 127(2):390–397CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. van Kooten O, Heuvelink E, Stanghellini C (2006) New developments in greenhouse technology can mitigate the water shortage problem of the 21st century. In: XXVII international horticultural congress-IHC2006: international symposium on sustainability through integrated and organic, vol 767, pp 45–52Google Scholar
  62. Van Os E, Gieling TH, Lieth J (2008) Technical equipment in soilless production systems, soilless culture: theory and practice. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 157–207Google Scholar
  63. Voogt W, Sonneveld C (1997) Nutrient management in closed growing systems for greenhouse production. In: Plant production in closed ecosystems. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 83–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wheeler RM (2017) Agriculture for space: people and places paving the way. Open Agric 2:14–32Google Scholar
  65. Wheeler RM, Sager JC (2006) Crop production for advanced life support systems. Technical reports, 1Google Scholar
  66. Withrow R, Withrow A (1948) Nutriculture. Purdue University Agricultural Experiment Station. Boletín 328Google Scholar
  67. Wohanka W (2002) Nutrient solution disinfection. In: Savvas D, Passam HC (eds) Hydroponic production of vegetables and ornamentals. Embryo Publications, Athens, pp 345–372Google Scholar
  68. Yoshida H, Mizuta D, Fukuda N, Hikosaka S, Goto E (2016) Effects of varying light quality from single-peak blue and red light-emitting diodes during nursery period on flowering, photosynthesis, growth, and fruit yield of everbearing strawberry. Plant Biotechnol 33(4):267–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Horticultural Science, Karaj BranchIslamic Azad UniversityKarajIran
  2. 2.Department of Microbiology, Karaj BranchIslamic Azad UniversityKarajIran

Personalised recommendations