Overexploitation of resources makes the reutilization of waste a focal topic of modern society, and the question of the kind of wastes that can be used is continuously raised. Sewage sludge (SS) is derived from the wastewater treatment plants, considered important underused biomass, and can be used as a biofertilizer when properly stabilized due to the high content of inorganic matter, nitrate, and phosphorus. However, a wide range of pollutants can be present in these biosolids, limiting or prohibiting their use as biofertilizer, depending on the type and origin of industrial waste and household products. Long-term applications of these biosolids could substantially increase the concentration of contaminants, causing detrimental effects on the environment and induce hyperaccumulation or phytotoxicity in the produced crops. In this work, some critical parameters for soils and SS agronomic use, such as organic matter, nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium (NPK), and heavy metals concentration have been reviewed. Several cases of food crop production and the accumulation of heavy metals after SS application are also discussed. SS production, usage, and legislation in EU are assessed to determine the possibility of sustainable management of this bioresource. Additionally, the World Health Organization (WHO) and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) guidelines are addressed. The opportunity to produce bioenergy crops, employing sewage sludge to enhance degraded land, is also considered, due to energy security. Although there are numerous advantages of sewage sludge, proper screening for heavy metals in all the variants (biosolids, soil, food products) is a must. SS application requires appropriate strict guidelines with appropriate regulatory oversight to control contamination of agricultural soils.

Agricultural intensification and associated loss of high‐quality habitats are key drivers of insect pollinator declines. With the aim of decreasing the environmental impact of agriculture, the 2014 EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) defined a set of habitat and landscape features (Ecological Focus Areas: EFAs) farmers could select from as a requirement to receive basic farm payments. To inform the post‐2020 CAP, we performed a European‐scale evaluation to determine how different EFA options vary in their potential to support insect pollinators under standard and pollinator‐friendly management, as well as the extent of farmer uptake. A structured Delphi elicitation process engaged 22 experts from 18 European countries to evaluate EFAs options. By considering life cycle requirements of key pollinating taxa (i.e. bumble bees, solitary bees and hoverflies), each option was evaluated for its potential to provide forage, bee nesting sites and hoverfly larval resources. EFA options varied substantially in the resources they were perceived to provide and their effectiveness varied geographically and temporally. For example, field margins provide relatively good forage throughout the season in Southern and Eastern Europe but lacked early‐season forage in Northern and Western Europe. Under standard management, no single EFA option achieved high scores across resource categories and a scarcity of late season forage was perceived. Experts identified substantial opportunities to improve habitat quality by adopting pollinator‐friendly management. Improving management alone was, however, unlikely to ensure that all pollinator resource requirements were met. Our analyses suggest that a combination of poor management, differences in the inherent pollinator habitat quality and uptake bias towards catch crops and nitrogen‐fixing crops severely limit the potential of EFAs to support pollinators in European agricultural landscapes. Policy Implications. To conserve pollinators and help protect pollination services, our expert elicitation highlights the need to create a variety of interconnected, well‐managed habitats that complement each other in the resources they offer. To achieve this the Common Agricultural Policy post‐2020 should take a holistic view to implementation that integrates the different delivery vehicles aimed at protecting biodiversity (e.g. enhanced conditionality, eco‐schemes and agri‐environment and climate measures). To improve habitat quality we recommend an effective monitoring framework with target‐orientated indicators and to facilitate the spatial targeting of options collaboration between land managers should be incentivised.

Taro (Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott) is widely distributed in tropical and sub-tropical areas. However, its origin, diversification and dispersal remain unclear. While taro genetic diversity has been documented at the country and regional levels in Asia and the Pacific, few reports are available from Americas and Africa where it has been introduced through human migrations. We used eleven microsatellite markers to investigate the diversity and diversification of taro accessions from nineteen countries in Asia, the Pacific, Africa and America. The highest genetic diversity and number of private alleles were observed in Asian accessions, mainly from India. While taro has been diversified in Asia and the Pacific mostly via sexual reproduction, clonal reproduction with mutation appeared predominant in African and American countries investigated. Bayesian clustering revealed a first genetic group of diploids from the Asia-Pacific region and to a second diploid-triploid group mainly from India. Admixed cultivars between the two genetic pools were also found. In West Africa, most cultivars were found to have originated from India. Only one multi-locus lineage was assigned to the Asian pool, while cultivars in Madagascar originated from India and Indonesia. The South African cultivars shared lineages with Japan. The Caribbean Islands cultivars were found to have originated from the Pacific, while in Costa Rica they were from India or admixed between Indian and Asian groups. Taro dispersal in the different areas of Africa and America is thus discussed in the light of available records of voyages and settlements.

Encapsulation in agriculture today is practically focused on agrochemicals such as pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, or fertilizers to enhance the protective or nutritive aspects of the entrapped active ingredients. However, one of the most promising and environmentally friendly technologies, biostimulants, is hardly explored in this field. Encapsulation of biostimulants could indeed be an excellent means of counteracting the problems posed by their nature: they are easily biodegradable, and most of them run off through the soil, losing most of the compounds, thus becoming inaccessible to plants. In this respect, encapsulation seems to be a practical and profitable way to increase the stability and durability of biostimulants under field conditions. This review paper aims to provide researchers working on plant biostimulants with a quick overview of how to get started with encapsulation. Here we describe different techniques and offer protocols and suggestions for introduction to polymer science to improve the properties of biostimulants for future agricultural applications.