Editorial

Editoria

Clusters for the regional evaluation and analysis of pesticide use intensity (CEPI) in arable crops

Die Analysen und regionalen Auswertungen der Intensität der Anwendung von Pflanzenschutzmitteln im Ackerbau im „Netz Vergleichsbetriebe Pflanzenschutz“ erfolgten bisher in Deutschland für die Großregionen Norden, Osten, Süden und Westen. Die Grundlage dafür bildeten die Boden-Klima-Räume. Allerdings ließen sich in den Großregionen die regionalen Spezifika oft nur unzureichend erklären. Deswegen wurde ein Vorschlag für eine neue Gebietsgliederung zur Berechnung regionaler Behandlungsindizes auf Grundlage der bestehenden Boden-Klima-Räume erarbeitet. Die Neugruppierung erfolgte anhand der geoklimatischen Hauptfaktoren für die Intensität der Anwendung von Pflanzenschutzmitteln. Mit einer Clusteranalyse wurden diese Faktoren aufgrund ihrer Ähnlichkeit gruppiert. Es entstanden acht Cluster, die hinsichtlich einer sinnvollen Anzahl von Erhebungsbetrieben pro Cluster für die Auswertung zu sechs Clustern für die regionale Erhebung und Analyse der Pflanzenschutzintensität (CEPI) im Ackerbau zusammengefasst wurden. Im Vergleich zu den Großregionen wird mit den CEPI eine bessere Aussagekraft zu regionalen Unterschieden der Behandlungsintensität erreicht. Regionale sowie jahresbedingte Unterschiede treten stärker hervor und ermöglichen somit eine valide wissenschaftliche Interpretation der Erhebungsergebnisse.To date, the analyses and regional evaluation of pesticide use intensity in arable crops in the Reference Farms Network were conducted based on the division of Germany into the large geographic regions, North, East, South and West. The soil-climate-areas formed the initial basis. The large geographic regions often explained only unsatisfactorily the regional specificities in the evaluation results. Hence, a new proposal was developed for a new regional spatial consolidation based on the existing soil-climate-areas. The geo-climatic key factors for pesticide use intensity served as attributes for the new consolidation of the soil-climate-areas. The factors were clustered based on their similarity in a cluster analysis. As a result of the cluster analysis eight clusters emerged and were merged to six clusters for regional evaluation and analysis of pesticide use intensity in arable crops (CEPI) after distributing the number of Reference Farms to the clusters and in order to enable a sound evaluation. The CEPI explain better the regional differences of the treatment index compared to the large geographic regions. Regional and annual differences are revealed more distinctively and enable a better scientific interpretation of the results

Preventive measures of crop protection in arable crops – a synthesis with a focus on arthropod conservation

Nutzarthropoden und deren Förderung sind Teil des Konzeptes des integrierten Pflanzenschutzes. Sie sind von einer Vielzahl pflanzenbaulicher Verfahren betroffen, auch von denen, die eine vorbeugende Wirkung gegenüber Schadorganismen haben. Die Möglichkeiten der Förderung von Arthropoden in Fruchtfolgen, durch Zwischen­früchte und Untersaaten, Bodenbearbeitungsverfahren, Stickstoffdüngung, Aussaatzeitpunkte sowie Aussaatdichten in den Hauptkulturen des Ackerbaus (Getreide, Winterraps und Mais), wurden anhand einer Literaturrecherche untersucht. Das Vorhandensein von struktureller Diversität auf der Bodenoberfläche sowie eine kleinräumige Verteilung der Anbauflächen und die Störungsintensität durch die Bodenbearbeitung sind wichtige Elemente für die Förderung von Nutzarthropoden. Je höher die Strukturvielfalt auf dem Feld durch Ernterückstände oder Mulch, desto mehr Lebensräume entstehen. Eine kleinräumige Verteilung der Fruchtfolge in der Landschaft ermöglicht es Arthropoden bei Störungen auf benachbarte Flächen auszuweichen. Eine wich­tige Ergänzung bilden nützlingsfördernde Maßnahmen. Damit Arthropodengesellschaften in der Agrarlandschaft überleben und die Ökosystemleistung von Nutzarthropoden auch abgerufen werden können, müssen die Bedingungen auf dem Feld entsprechend angepasst werden.Beneficial arthropods and their promotion are part of the concept of integrated pest management (IPM). Numerous agricultural practices effect beneficial arthropods, also those which are applied as preventive plant protection measures. In a literature review we searched for effects of measures, such as crop rotation, cover crops and under sowing, soil cultivation, Nitrogen fertilization, adapted sowing dates and crop densities on the promotion of arthropods or their conservation. Structural diversity as well as the intensity of disturbance by soil cultivation are important elements for the enhancement of beneficial arthropods. Increased structural diversity through management provide hiding places and habitats for arthropods. A small-scale diversified crop rotation in the landscape allows arthropods to migrate to adjacent fields in case of disturbance by cultural measures. In-field measures for biodiversity offer food and hiding places. The conditions in the field need to be adapted to ensure that arthropods can survive in the agricultural landscapes

Assessing pollen beetle dynamics in diversified agricultural landscapes with reduced pesticide management strategies: Exploring the potential of digital yellow water traps for continuous, high-resolution monitoring in oilseed rape

The European Farm to Fork strategy strives to reduce pesticide use and risk by 50% by 2030, preserving agricultural productivity, biodiversity, and human health. Novel research on crop diversification and new field arrangements, supported by digital technologies, offers sustainable innovations for pest control. This study evaluates digital yellow water traps, equipped with a camera and associated artificial intelligence model for continuous pollen beetle monitoring in diversified agricultural landscapes. Data were collected in oilseed rape from three harvest years (2021-2023) at the experimental site patchCROP, a landscape experiment established to study the effects of spatial and temporal crop diversification measures on yield, ecosystem services, and biodiversity. In patchCROP, crops were planted in smaller, 0.5 ha (72 × 72 m) squares called "patches" with different pesticide management strategies and were compared to surrounding commercial fields. The digital yellow water traps and AI were evaluated and found to be useful for gauging pollen beetle immigration into the crop. Across all years, higher insect pest pressure was recorded in the patches compared to commercial fields but did not necessarily compromise yields. Implementation of pesticide management strategies, including targeted insecticide applications at specific insect pest thresholds, were not associated with reduced yields in patches with flower strips. Future studies should consider examining the role of field size and alternative diversification approaches to fine-tune insecticide reduction strategies at the landscape scale

Netz Vergleichsbetriebe PflanzenschutzJahresbericht 2014Analyse der Ergebnisse der Jahre 2007 bis 2014

Network of reference farms for plant protectionAnnual Report 2014Analysis of Results of 2007 to 201

Sustainability of European winter wheat- and maize-based cropping systems: Economic, environmental and social ex-post assessment of conventional and IPM-based systems

In order to ensure higher sustainability of winter wheat and maize production in Europe, cropping systems featuring different levels of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) need to be tested in the field and validated for their sustainability before being adopted by farmers. However, the sustainability evaluation of cropping systems is difficult to perform effectively due to the complex economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainability. Within the EU research project PURE, nine long-term experiments were conducted in various European regions from 2011 to 2014, comparing two IPM levels against the conventional system (CS) in winter wheat- and maize-based cropping systems. IPM1 encompassed some pesticide use in semi-diverse crop rotations while IPM2 favoured reduced- and non-chemical methods in diverse rotations. The modified DEXiPM (DEXi Pest Management) model for arable cropping systems was used for ex-post assessments to compare the economic, environmental and social sustainability of these systems. The assessments showed that in six out of nine trials the CS was overall unsustainable because of low evaluation of the environmental sustainability that was mainly due to high pesticide use and simplified crop rotations where the choice of crops is primarily market-driven. In contrast, six IPM1 and five IPM2 systems could be classified as sustainable, achieving ‘medium’ or ‘high’ scores for all three sustainability dimensions. Differences in the socio-economic conditions across countries and/or climatic and soil conditions across experimental trials highlighted that IPM is based on general principles that must be adapted to address specific local conditions. Overall, IPM systems included more diverse crop rotations and practices compared to the CS, promoting IPM-based strategies with less pesticide use but also a reduced reliance on pesticides that could partially compensate for any yield reductions by the savings on pesticide and application costs. It is recommended that the results of the study should be disseminated to policy-makers, advisors and farmers and that their implementation should be considered on a regional level. Regional policies to encourage the adoption of more sustainable systems based on IPM principles, as well as better support by more closely involving the regional advisory services for the general implementation of IPM is further recommended. Ex-post analysis with DEXiPM also identified the constraints of the IPM1 and IPM2 systems evaluated as not sustainable. These were related to i) environmental issues for those IPM1 systems that still relied mainly on pesticide use and had less diverse crop rotations, and ii) economic issues for IPM2 systems, mainly due to the choice of less profitable crops in the rotation, as well as to yield penalties caused by the very low pesticide use or replacing pesticides with less effective non-chemical methods. The identification of these constraints is a valuable input to the local and regional discussion on how to adopt IPM and develop more sustainable cropping systems