Recently, a research team led by Dr. Tida Ge from Xinjiang University and Ningbo University conducted a pot experiment to explore this question. The study selected peas as the experimental crop and examined two types of microplastics: traditional microplastics (polypropylene (PP) and polyethylene (PE)) and biodegradable microplastics (polycaprolactone (PCL) and polybutylene adipate terephthalate (PBAT)). These were added to the soil at doses of 0%, 0.1%, and 1% (w/w) to observe the growth status of peas during three critical growth stages: seedling, flowering, and maturity. The study also analyzed soil nutrients, microbial activity, and community changes. The study has been published in Frontiers of Agricultural Science and Engineering (DOI: 10.15302/J-FASE-2025626).

Professor Ji Ma from China Agricultural University and his colleagues have provided insights into this issue through a review paper that systematically examines the “duality” of agricultural plastics. The article has been published in Frontiers of Agricultural Science and Engineering (DOI: 10.15302/J-FASE-2025625).

Recently, a team led by Professor Davey L. Jones from Bangor University conducted a study that systematically revealed the effects of oxo-degradable plastics of different sizes and concentrations on soil and corn growth, providing important evidence to address these concerns. The study has been published in Frontiers of Agricultural Science and Engineering (DOI: 10.15302/J-FASE-2025623).

Despite their critical role in turf maintenance and because they aren’t pest management tools, wetting agents do not go through the same federal registration and labeling process as herbicides, fungicides, or insecticides, resulting in less research data about what they are and how they work. In the absence of such data, marketing terminology such as “penetrant” or “retainer,” along with anecdotal evidence, have been used instead. After several years of research, the results are in on the difference in turfgrass soil surfactants that are marketed as “penetrants” and “retainers.” The study titled “Penetrants Versus Retainers: Comparing Soil Surfactant Terminology to Performance in Sand-Based Putting Greens” found that differences between soil surfactants marketed as “penetrants” or “retainers” were inconsistent, if present at all.

Every time Fred Below and Connor Sible (CPSC) meet with Illinois farmers, they get the same question. “What’s the story with these biologicals? Do they work?” The confusion of new products and unclear terminology prompted the team to embark on a deep dive into the world of biologicals and biostimulants, publishing their commentary in Agricultural and Environmental Letters.

At the center of the study is Indigo, a 235-acre master-planned community in Fort Bend County, Texas, where residents will begin to move later this month. The neighborhood will have 42 acres dedicated to agriculture, including crop fields and a livestock pasture. Plans also emphasize walkability, with more than half of the land dedicated to car-free green spaces. The study will recruit 350 participants total, comprised of 175 Indigo residents and 175 residents of a comparison community in Fort Bend County. Located about 20 miles away from Indigo, the comparison neighborhood has similar demographics but is a traditional planned community without the features of an agrihood. Participants will complete a comprehensive survey about their lifestyle before moving in to establish a baseline and will be surveyed again at three and six months.