Diversity of methodologies to experiment Integrated Pest Management in arable cropping systems: Analysis and reflections based on a European network |
| |
Affiliation: | 1. Agroécologie, AgroSup Dijon, INRA, Univ. Bourgogne Franche-Comté, F-21000, Dijon, France;2. INRA, UE 115 Domaine Expérimental d’Epoisses, F-21110, Bretenière, France;3. Centro di Ricerche Agro-Ambientali Enrico Avanzi (CIRAA), University of Pisa, Via Vecchia di Marina 6, 56122 San Piero a Grado, Pisa, Italy;4. INRA, UMR1248 AGIR, BP 52627, F-31326, Castanet Tolosan Cedex, France;5. Institute of Life Sciences, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna (SSSA), Piazza Martiri della Libertà 33, 56127, Pisa, Italy;6. UMR Agronomie, INRA, AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, 78850, Thiverval Grignon, France;7. Agroscope, Institute for Plant Production Sciences, BP1012, 1260, Nyon, Switzerland;8. JKI − Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants Institute for Strategies and Technology Assessment, Stahnsdorfer Damm 81, 14532, Kleinmachnow, Germany;9. CSIC, Instituto de Ciencias Agrarias, Serrano 115B, 28006, Madrid, Spain;10. The James Hutton Institute, Invergowrie, Dundee, DD2 5DA, UK;11. ARVALIS Institut du végétal, Service Agronomie, Economie, Environnement, F-91720, Boigneville, France;12. Weed Science and Plant Protection Department, Institute of Plant Protection – National Research Institute Władysława Węgorka 20, 60-318, Poznań, Poland;13. Aarhus University, Dept. of Agroecology, Flakkebjerg, DK-4200, Slagelse, Denmark;14. Eco-Innov Research Unit, INRA, Thiverval-Grignon, France;15. INRA, UR1115, Plantes et Systèmes de Culture Horticoles, Domaine Saint Paul, site Agroparc, F-84914, Avignon, France;p. National Research Council (CNR), Institute of Agro-Environmental and Forest Biology, Viale dell’Università 16, 35020,Legnaro (PD), Italy;1. School of Agriculture and Food Sciences, The University of Queensland, Gatton, Queensland 4343, Australia;2. The Centre for Plant Science, Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation, The University of Queensland, Gatton/Toowoomba, Queensland 4343/4350, Australia;3. The University of Sydney, Narrabri, NSW 2390, Australia;1. INRAE, Université Fédérale de Toulouse, UMR 1248 AGIR, F-31326, Castanet-Tolosan, France;2. Formerly INRA, UPR1158 Agro-Impact, site d’Estrées-Mons, F-80203, Péronne, France;3. INRAE, UAR1241 DEPE, 147 rue de l’Université, 75338, PARIS Cedex 07, France;1. INRAE, Plantes et Systèmes de culture Horticoles, 84000 Avignon, France;2. INRAE, Biostatistiques et Processus Spatiaux, 84000 Avignon, France;3. INRAE, ISVV, Bordeaux Sciences Agro, Santé et Agroécologie du Vignoble, 33140 Villenave d’Ornon, France;1. Inra, UMR 211 Agronomie, 78850 Thiverval-Grignon, France;2. AgroParisTech, UMR 211 Agronomie, 78850 Thiverval-Grignon;1. RSK ADAS Ltd, Battle Gate Road, Cambridge CB234NN, United Kingdom;2. RSK ADAS Ltd, Gleadthorpe, Meden Vale, Mansfield, Nottingham NG20 9PD, United Kingdom;3. RSK ADAS Ltd, High Mowthorpe Duggleby, Malton, North Yorkshire YO17 8BP, United Kingdom;1. Agroécologie, INRAE, Institut Agro, Univ. Bourgogne, Univ. Bourgogne-Franche-Comté, F-21000 Dijon, France;2. AgroParisTech, 75005 Paris, France;3. INRAE, U2E, Unité Expérimentale du domaine d’Epoisses, F-21110 Bretenière, France |
| |
Abstract: | Integrated Pest Management (IPM) aims to promote physical and biological regulation strategies that help farmers contain populations of pests (pathogens, animal pests and weeds) and to finally reduce the reliance on pesticides. It is based on the holistic combination of multiple management measures rather than on the sum of single methods, each of them having only small effects on pests reduction. Thus, to analyse the interactions between IPM measures and to evaluate the sustainability of their implementation, we require an approach considering the whole cropping system (CS), i.e. a functional entity whose complexity is more than the sum of its parts. A network of European experiments at the CS level was set up recently, and aimed at sharing data and expertise to enhance knowledge of IPM. Comparison of existing methodologies highlighted a diversity of CS designs and experimental layouts. We deduced that the concept of CS itself was viewed differently among scientists, and this affected experimental protocols. Other differences were related to the research context and objectives. Some experiments aimed to explore very innovative strategies and generated knowledge on both their effects on the agroecosystem and their ability to satisfy a set of performance targets, while others aimed to provide quickly adoptable solutions for local farmers in line with the current socio-economic constraints. In some research programmes, the experiment was part of the CS design process — and tested CS were regularly revised based on an continuous improvement loop — while in other cases CS were kept stable across years so as to enable the evaluation of their long-term cumulative effects. A critical aspect contributing to the diversity among CS experiments was the distinction between a factorial design of experimental CS and systemic approaches: factorial experiments allowed quantification of the effects of each IPM component regardless of the consistency between components defining the CS. In contrast, systemic approaches focused on the overall evaluation of CS designed with consideration of their consistency, hence maximising their ability to meet the objectives. Because CS experiments represent a huge investment in terms of economics and time, preliminary reflections of the relevance of the experimental strategy is of critical importance. |
| |
Keywords: | Cropping system Field experiment Integrated pest management Agroecology SWOT analysis |
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录! |
|