We use cookies on our website. Some are necessary for the operation of the website. You can also allow cookies for statistical purposes. You can adjust the data protection settings or agree to all cookies directly.
Data Protection Declaration
Imprint
Long-term field trial on scenarios of plant protection
Project
Project code: JKI-SF-08-1289
Contract period: 01.01.2020
- 31.12.2022
Purpose of research: Inventory & Assessment
Plant protection is facing major changes in the coming years. In 2014, integrated crop protection was introduced as mandatory in Germany. However, in the current public and political debate, see glyphosate, further demands have been made. Compared with the earlier demands for a reduction in the quantity of crop protection products, some people reject chemical synthetic crop protection completely, or demand that entire groups of plant protection products be banned (e.g. azoles). Against this background, the Chemical Pesticide Reduction Programme (BS4) was redesigned to compare plant protection scenarios.
In comparison to the strategy "Comparison of environmentally friendly plant protection (BS1)", this trial examines "hard" cuts in plant protection in close spatial proximity.
The following scenarios could be realised in the fielld trial:
Scenario 1:
Without chemical synthetic plant protection (the previous variant 1 is retained due to the character of long-term field trials), i.e. it can be based on results since 2002. The preparations of organic farming can be used.
This scenario reflects a total ban on chemical-synthetic plant protection. Of particular interest are the cumulative effects (e.g. on weeds), which can only be achieved and assessed by continuous field trials.
Scenario 2:
Integrated crop protection, here an attempt is made to work in a way that is usual in practice, i.e. regional-typical pesticides and application rates, taking into account the principles of integrated crop protection.
This scenario serves as a reference, e.g. to check the yield effectiveness of other strategies. Here too, it is possible to build on the results since the experiment was established (cf. previous variant 2). As a side-effect, this strategy allows a long-term yield statement to be made at the Dahnsdorf site.
Scenario 3:
Renouncement of active substances from the list of CFS candidates (candidates for substitution), see: http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/approval_active_substances/docs/draft_list_cfs_en.pdf
This scenario assumes that this list is implemented 1:1 and that the concrete choice of means would thus be considerably restricted. Using this scenario, the effects on pest infestation (weeds, fungi, animal pests) and yields of the crops studied can be quantified. Such experiments are particularly valuable in the context of crop rotation and before a longer period of observation.
Scenario 4:
Use of "alternative methods" in the field of plant protection. This is a very demanding and difficult scenario. In this scenario, the use of chemical crop protection is replaced - as far as practicable - by alternative measures, e.g. herbicides by mechanical measures, seed dressing by electron treatment, insecticide use by nematodes, etc. In order to ensure a differentiation from scenarion 1 and 2, clear decision criteria are established (e.g. minimum efficiency of the alternative, always preferable alternative, etc.). In contrast to scenario 1, this scenarion may result in a mixture of chemical and "alternative" plant protection.
Section overview
Subjects
- Crop Protection
