Innovative IPM in pome fruit andInnovative IPM in pome fruit and strategies for implementationg p

Bart Heijne, Aude Alaphilippe, Vittorio Rossi, Imre Holb, TitoBart Heijne, Aude Alaphilippe, Vittorio Rossi, Imre Holb, Tito Caffi, Gabriele Fortino, Sylvaine Simon, Jan Buurma, Wil Hennen, Jörn Strassemeyer, Martina Mayus

Overview of the presentationp

introduction of PUREPesticide Use-and-risk Reduction in European farming systems with Integrated Pest ManagementFP7, March 2011 – March 2015

Françoise Lescourret INRA FranceFrançoise Lescourret, INRA, Francefirst results Innovative pome fruitstakeholder interactions

PURE objectivesj

scientific knowledge to design future solutionsscientific knowledge to design future solutionsbased on innovative research in challenging fields

t lb f h th d d t l ftoolbox of approaches, methods and tools for implementing efficient IPM solutions (flexibility)provide practical IPM solutions to reduce dependence on pesticides (farming system-specific)

design and test in real conditionsgoal: robustness

Guiding principlesg p p

solutions concretising the « Integrated» of IPMsolutions = combinations of tactics and strategiessystems approach

design-evaluation-adjustment process

Pure dynamicsy

Task 1Task 1

IPM Solutions

IPM design with IPM design with stakeholdersstakeholders

‐Wheat based

6 x WP6 x WP

Task 2Task 2ExEx‐‐ante assessment ante assessment 

includingincludingstakeholder inputstakeholder input

Task 3aTask 3aOn station On station 

Wheat based‐Maize based‐Field Vegetable‐Pome fruit‐Grapevine‐Protected vegetables

Task 3bTask 3bOnOn‐‐farm farm 

experimentationexperimentationg

Task 4Task 4ExEx‐‐post assessment post assessment 

including including stakeholders inputstakeholders input

experimentationexperimentation

Pillar 1

Design‐Assessment‐Adjustment cycle

Pillar 3

Dissemination and Co‐innovationPure dynamicsWP12WP12

DisseminationDisseminationWP13WP13

CoCo‐‐innovationinnovation

y

Task 1Task 1

IPM Solutions

IPM design with IPM design with stakeholdersstakeholders

‐Wheat based

6 x WP6 x WP

Task 2Task 2ExEx‐‐ante assessment ante assessment 

includingincludingstakeholder inputstakeholder input

Task 3aTask 3aOn station On station 

Wheat based‐Maize based‐Field Vegetable‐Pome fruit‐Grapevine‐Protected vegetables

Task 3bTask 3bOnOn‐‐farm farm 

experimentationexperimentationg

Task 4Task 4ExEx‐‐post assessment post assessment 

including including stakeholders inputstakeholders input

experimentationexperimentation

Pillar 1

Design‐Assessment‐Adjustment cycle

Pillar 3

Dissemination and Co‐innovationPure dynamicsWP12WP12

DisseminationDisseminationWP13WP13

CoCo‐‐innovationinnovationPillar 2 New knowledge &technologies for IPM

y

Task 1Task 1

IPM Solutions

technologies for IPM

Test and Test and  NewNewknowledge orknowledge or IPM design with IPM design with 

stakeholdersstakeholders

‐Wheat based

6 x WP6 x WP

Task 2Task 2ExEx‐‐ante assessment ante assessment 

includingincludingstakeholder inputstakeholder input

l

4 x WP4 x WP

DevelopmentDevelopment knowledge or knowledge or technologiestechnologies

Task 3aTask 3aOn station On station 

Wheat based‐Maize based‐Field Vegetable‐Pome fruit‐Grapevine‐Protected vegetables

Task 3bTask 3bOnOn‐‐farm farm 

‐Pest evolution‐Plant‐pest‐enemies interactions‐Ecological engineering‐Emerging technologies

Design and Design and refining of New refining of New knowledge and knowledge and 

experimentationexperimentationg

Task 4Task 4ExEx‐‐post assessment post assessment 

including including stakeholders inputstakeholders input

experimentationexperimentation

InIn‐‐field evaluationfield evaluation

technologiestechnologies

Pillar 1

Design‐Assessment‐Adjustment cycle

Work Package 5gInnovative IPM pome fruit systemsimplement an innovative system (multipest)implement an innovative system (multipest)

initially focus on key pestsultimately aiming at integration innovative IPM toolsultimately aiming at integration innovative IPM tools into system strategies

repetitive cylerepetitive cyledesign IPM strategy, testing, assessing, redesign

t d t t f IPMex-ante and ex-post assessement of IPM strategies

over-all, economic, environmental & health risksstakeholder interaction

WP 5 pome fruit subjectsp j

scab – apple: Imre Holb - Hongaryscab app e e o b o ga ycodling moth – apple: Aude Alaphillipe - Francebrown spot – pear: Vittorio Rossi - Italypear psylla – pear: Herman Helsen – Netherlandspear psylla pear: Herman Helsen Netherlands

ex-ante, ex-post evaluation, p

overall assessment – DEXiPMGabriele Fortino – INRA, France

environment SYNOPSenvironment - SYNOPSJörn Strassemeyer - JKI, Germany

economic - PREMISEWil Hennen – LEI NetherlandsWil Hennen LEI, Netherlands

Jan Buurma – LEI, Netherlands

Integrated apple scab managementg pp gsanitation measurements

urea, Vinasse at leaf fallleaf shredding

antagonists: reduction inoculum winterAtheliaMicrosphaeropsis

environmental friendly productsenvironmental friendly productsplant extractspotassium bicarbonatepotassium bicarbonate

Efficacy of H39 on apple scaby pp

Innovative management brown spot of pearg p pStemphylium vesicarium – Pleospora alliileaf infestation leaf dropleaf infestation – leaf dropfruit infestation – fruit rotsevere damage Italy, Spainincidental damage Belgium, Netherlands

Non-chemical methods to reduce the inoculum of Stemphylium vesicarium

Conference leaves collected at leaf fall from pear orchard not affected by brown spot (autumn)autoclaved & inoculated with S vesicariumautoclaved & inoculated with S. vesicarium2-days incubationtreated

leaves exposed outdoora grass randomised block design3 replicates

Leaf degradationg

Degradation leaf litterperiodically: from leaf fallto complete degradation in the summer

Leaf degradation in timeg

100

120

80

100Sv

treat 1

40

60

AULD

C treat 2

treat 3

20

40A

treat 4

treat 5

00 50 100 150 200 250

Day

Untreated control

Day

total AULDC (Area Under Leaf Degradation Curve)

15000 a a

14000

14500

bb

13000

13500b

b

12500

13000 c

11500

12000

Sv treat 1 treat 2 treat 3 treat 4 treat 5 Untreated

Total conidia of Stemphylium vesicariump y

Effects of codling moth exclusion nettingg gefficacy on codling motheffect on rosy apple aphideffect on rosy apple aphideffect on beneficials (natural enemies predating in rosyapple aphid colonies, predation and parasitism on eggspp p p p ggof codling moth)

Exclusion netting: on stationgNETSUNCOVEREDNETS winged formsUNCOVERED winged forms

120

Mean rosy apple aphid number per shoot (total)

12

(winged forms)UNCOVERED winged forms

80

100

8

10

40

60

4

6

0

20

0

2

Exclusion netting: on stationgmean number of natural enemies of rosy apple aphid per shoot

OtherCecidomyiidaeCoccinellidaeSyrphidae

Miridae & AnthocoridaeUNCOVERED

0 81

1.2NETS1

1.2

0 20.40.60.8

0 20.40.60.8

00.2

00.2

DEXi software (1)( )

Allows analysing a complex decision problemAllows analysing a complex decision problem breaking it into smaller thematic attributes organised hierarchically in a decision treeorganised hierarchically in a decision tree

SustainabilitySustainability

Economical sustainability

Social sustainability

Environmental sustainability

assessment tool DEXiPM

Lay-out DEXiyattributes scored: qualitative (high, medium, low)aggregated through utility functions (if then qualitative rules):aggregated through utility functions (if-then qualitative rules): weight of attribute on upper one

Very lowLow

Medium

Sustainability

HighVery high3333 33

Economical sustainability

Social sustainability

Environmental sustainability

Decision rulesEconomical sustainability

Social sustainability33%

Environmental sustainability

Overall sustainability

33%33%

33%y

Very low Very low Very low Very low

Low Medium Very low LowLow Medium Very low Low

Medium Very high Low Medium

Medium High Very high High

Very high High Very high Very high

DEXi Pomefruit overviewResource use Energy use

Non-renewable fertilizers

Water use

Land useAggregated attributesInput attributes

Environmental sustainability Biodiversity

Environmental quality

Non renewable fertilizers

FloraFunctional aerial biodiv.

Water qualityAir quality

Economical i bili

Real profitability

Environmental quality

Overall

Water qualitySoil quality

Production riskStability

Potential profitability

sustainability Viability

Production chain

sustainability StabilityInvestment

Technical supportAccess to inputs

Social sustainability Fruit grower

Job gratificationOperational difficulties

Health risks

Access to output market

Society

EmploymentLandscape perception

Accessibility of productAcceptance

Conclusion and perspective DEXi fruitp p

model is a research tool: continuously improvedmodel is a research tool: continuously improved1st version transferred to specialistto be tested and used as an assessment toolstructure, criteria, aggregation rules, etc. st uctu e, c te a, agg egat o u es, etcfeedbackfurther improvements will be implementedfurther improvements will be implementedspring-summer 2013

PREMISE; economic model for ex-ante ;assessment

goal: ex-ante evaluation IPM solutions orchardsstart prototype; case scab in apples NLstart prototype; case scab in apples NLPREMISE is a chain risk model with 3 stages:link epidemiology to economy

quiescence (saprophytic)ascospore (primary)conidia (secondary)( y)

situation on farm: conditions and measures

Specification: 3 types of variables

Conditions(fixed variables)

Indicators(result variables)

Measures(control variables)(fixed variables)

Climate (infection periods)Cultivars (susceptibility)Planting density (shadow)

(result variables)

Infestation levelInfected fruitsLabour costs

(control variables)

Leaf shreddingUrea / vinasseAntagonistPlanting density (shadow)

Grower skills (including decision support systems)Soil activity (earth worms, soil microflora, manure use)

Labour costsMachine costsDSS/advisory costsNumber of spraysKinds of fungicides

AntagonistFungicide A + featuresFungicide B + featuresFungicide C + features

, )Inoculum (ascospores, leaf infection, fruit infection)

Regional road

Kinds of fungicidesRisk potential• environment• workers• consumers

Driver

Linkages with SynopsgOrchard stars

Dashboard

Linkages with Synops

Dashboard data provide basis for ex-ante comparison

Jan Buurma + WP5-team

new version 6 June 2011

PREMISE: Example 1st stagep g

Three linesReference : worst case, conditions have worst value

PREMISE: Example 1st stagep g

Three linesReference : worst case conditions have worst valueReference : worst case, conditions have worst valueConditions only : actual condition value

PREMISE: Example 1st stagep g

Three linesReference : worst case, conditions have worst valueConditions only : actual condition value (below ref.)Effect : measures improve situation at condition

PREMISE: Effect of measures

PREMISE: Outcome

UncertaintyUncertaintynot 1 outcome-class but membership value (%) for more classes -- fuzzy sets

PREMISE: cost-benefit analysisy

Questions PREMISE may answer:Questions PREMISE may answer:

Is application of measure X cost-effective?Is application of measure X cost-effective?Does investment for measure X pay off?IPM solution A compared to IPM solution B?IPM solution A compared to IPM solution B?

Stakeholder interaction

Acknowledgementg

European CommissionEuropean Commission“The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community'sreceived funding from the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/ 2007-2013) under the grant agreement n°FP7 265865”2013) under the grant agreement n FP7-265865my co-authors

Thank you for your attentiona you o you atte t o

© Wageningen UR