/
Blog Posts
Page History
| HTML |
|---|
<div class="banner_general_fiche"><div class="table-wrap"><table class="ficheTable" style="width: 99.1985%;"><colgroup><col style="width: 60%;"><col style="width: 20%;"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td class="confluenceTd"><h1 style="text-align: center;" title="" id="banner_title"></h1></td></tr></tbody></table></div></div>
<script>
var title = $('#title-text').find('a').text();
var mytitle = title.replace('_',' ');
$('#banner_title').text(mytitle + ' Fiche');
</script>
<style>
.banner_general_fiche {
height: 194px;
padding-right: 20px;
background-color: #00afef;
}
.banner_general_fiche h1 {
position: relative;
font-size: 1.7 !important;
font-family: corbel;
color: #ffffff !important;
letter-spacing: -0.01em;
font-weight: normal;
line-height: 1.25;
top: 64px;
font-weight: bold;
margin-left: 30px;
}
#banner_title {
text-transform: uppercase;
}
.table-wrap {
overflow-x: hidden;
overflow-y: hidden;
}
.banner_general_fiche td {
border: 0px !important;
height: 170px;
width: 100%;
}
.content-wrapper {
font-family: corbel;
position: relative;
}
</style>
<style>
.highlight-green {
color: #000000;
background-color: #92d050 !important;
}
table.confluenceTable td.confluenceTd.highlight-green>p {
background-color: #92d050 !important;
}
.highlight-red {
color: #000000 !important;
background-color: #ff0000 !important;
}
table.confluenceTable td.confluenceTd.highlight-red>p {
background-color: #ff0000 !important;
}
.highlight-yellow {
color: #000000;
background-color: #ffc000 !important;
}
table.confluenceTable td.confluenceTd.highlight-yellow>p {
background-color: #ffc000 !important;
}
.highlight-grey {
color: #000000 !important;
background-color: #a4a4a4 !important;
}
table.confluenceTable td.confluenceTd.highlight-grey>p {
background-color: #a4a4a4 !important;
}
#Agroforestry_GENERAL-GENERALFICHE-AGROFORESTRY {
color: #F8F8FF !important;
}
#main-content { font-family: corbel; }
.wiki-content img.confluence-embedded-image { cursor: default !important;}
</style> |
Data extracted in March 2021
Fiche created in November 2023
Note to the reader: This general fiche summarises all the environmental and climate impacts of PESTICIDE PESTICIDES REDUCTION STRATEGIES found in a systematic review of 10 synthesis research papers[1]. These papers were selected , from an initial number of 229 228 obtained through a systematic literature search strategy, according to the inclusion criteria reported in section 4. The impacts reported here are those for which there is scientific evidence available in published synthesis papers, what does not preclude the farming practice to have other impacts on the environment and climate still not covered by primary studies or by synthesis papers.
The synthesis papers review a number of primary studies ranging from 15 to 162. Therefore, the assessment of impacts As each synthesis research paper involves a number of primary research papers ranging from 15 to 16 [2], the assessment of impacts relies on a large number of results from the primary studies, obtained mainly in field experiments (carried out in situations close to real farming environment), and conditions, or sometimes in lab experiments or from model simulations.
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE FARMING PRACTICE
...
- Description:
- The goal of pesticide
...
- reduction strategies is to reduce the use of pesticides in cropping systems, while maintaining their productivity and economic profitability compared to systems based on intensive use of pesticides.
...
- Key descriptors
...
- :
- Pesticide reduction strategies (vs appropriate comparators) are implemented by combining pesticide reduction with different practices, in particular:
...
- Decision-Support-System-based control strategy (compared to calendar-based control strategy): pesticide applications are scheduled according to information on pest and disease risk levels, in contrast to calendar-based control strategy where the treatments are fixed and planned in advance regardless of local conditions,
...
- Genetically modified (GM) crops (compared to non-GM crops),
...
- Companion plants (compared to weeded control, i.e.
...
- systems where weeds are controlled by herbicide applications only): plants sown not to be harvested, but to provide added economic or environmental benefits, such as decreasing the risk of crop failure, controlling weeds and pests, and improving soil
...
- fertility[3
...
- ],
...
- Low-input systems (compared to conventional systems): systems seeking to minimize the use of purchased production inputs by optimizing the management of internal production inputs to lower production costs, to avoid pollution of surface and ground water, to reduce pesticide residues in food, to reduce the farmer’s overall risk, and to increase both short- and long-term farm
...
- profitability[
...
- 4],
...
- Integrated pest management (compared to no-integrated pest management): integrated pest management means careful consideration of all available plant protection methods and subsequent integration of appropriate measures that discourage the development of populations of harmful organisms and keep the use of plant protection products and other forms of intervention to levels that are economically and ecologically justified and reduce or minimise risks to human health and the
...
- environment[
...
...
- ,
- In this review, organic farming was excluded, as its impacts are assessed in a separate set of fiches.
...
2.
...
EFFECTS OF THE
...
FARMING PRACTICE ON
...
CLIMATE AND
...
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
We reviewed the impacts of different pesticide reduction strategies compared to systems based on intensive use of pesticides or herbicides (control) (Table 1). pesticides reduction strategies.
The table below shows The tables below show the number of synthesis papers reporting positive, negative or no effect, based on the statistical comparison of the intervention and the control. In addition, we include, if with statistical tests reporting i) a significant difference between the Intervention and the Comparator, that is to say, a significant statistical effect, which can be positive or negative; or ii) a non-statistically significant difference between the Intervention and the Comparator. In addition, we include, if any, the number of systematic reviews synthesis papers reporting relevant results but without statistical test of the effects (uncertain). The numbers between parenthesis indicate the number of synthesis papers with a quality score of at least 50%. Details on quality criteria can be found in in the methodology section of this WIKI. . Details on the quality assessment of the synthesis papers can be found in the methodology section of this WIKI.
Out of the 10 selected synthesis papers selected, 8 reported included studies conducted in Europe, and all 10 have a quality score higher than 50%. Some synthesis papers reported more than one impact.
Table 1: Summary of effects. Impacts ofdifferent pesticide reduction strategies compared to systems based on intensive use of pesticides or herbicides
...
Impact
...
Intervention
...
Comparator
...
Positive
...
Negative
...
No effect
...
Uncertain
...
Increase biodiversity
...
Low-input system
...
Conventional system
...
1 (1)
...
0
...
1 (1)
...
1 (1)
...
GM crop
...
Non-GM crop
...
1 (1)
...
1 (1)
...
0
...
0
...
Increase crop yield
...
Integrated pest management
...
No integrated pest management
...
2 (2)
...
0
...
1 (1)
...
1 (1)
...
GM crop
...
Non-GM crop
...
2 (2)
...
0
...
0
...
0
...
Companion plants
...
Weeded control
...
0
...
0
...
0
...
1 (1)
...
Low-input system
...
Conventional system
...
0
...
1 (1)
...
2 (2)
...
0
...
Decrease pests and diseases
...
Decision support system-based control strategy
...
Calendar-based control strategy
...
0
...
0
...
1 (1)
...
0 (0)
...
Integrated pest management
...
No integrated pest management
...
2 (2)
...
0
...
1 (1)
...
1 (1)
...
GM crop
...
Non-GM crop
...
1 (1)
...
0
...
0
...
0
...
Companion plants
...
Weeded control
...
0
...
0
...
0
...
1 (1)
...
Decrease pesticide use
...
GM crop
...
Non-GM crop
...
2 (2)
...
0
...
0
...
0
...
Low-input system
...
Conventional system
...
2 (2)
...
0
...
0
...
0
Number of synthesis papers reporting positive, negative or non-statistically significant effects on environmental and climate impacts. The number of synthesis papers reporting relevant results but without statistical test of the effects are also provided. When not all the synthesis papers reporting an effect are of high quality, the number of synthesis papers with a quality score of at least 50% is indicated in parentheses. Some synthesis papers may report effects for more than one impact, or more than one effect for the same impact.
|
|
|
| Statistically tested | Non-statistically tested | ||
Impact | Metric | Intervention | Comparator | Significantly positive | Significantly negative | Non-significant | |
Increase Biodiversity | Biodiversity | GM crop | Non-GM crop | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Low-input system | Conventional system | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||
Decrease Pesticide use | Pesticide use | GM crop | Non-GM crop | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Low-input system | Conventional system | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Decrease Pests and diseases | Pest and disease abundance | Companion plants | Weeded control | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
DSS-based control strategy | Calendar-based control strategy | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||
GM crop | Non-GM crop | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Integrated pest management | No integrated pest management | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||
Increase Crop yield | Crop yield | Companion plants | Weeded control | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
GM crop | Non-GM crop | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Integrated pest management | No integrated pest management | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||
Low-input system | Conventional system | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | ||
3. FACTORS INFLUENCING THE EFFECTS ON CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The factors significantly influencing the size and/or direction of the effects on the impacts, according to the synthesis papers included in this review, are reported below. Details about the factors can be found in the summaries of the meta-analyses available in this WIKI.
Table 2: List of factors reported to significantly affect the size and/or direction of the effects on environmental and climate impacts, according to the synthesis papers reviewed. The reference number of the synthesis papers where those factors are explored is given in parentheses.
Impact | Factors |
Pesticide use | Crop type (Ref9), and Variety (Ref5) |
Pests and diseases | Cultivar (Ref5), Interaction of time after plantation and region (Ref5), Intercropping (Ref7), Time after plantation (Ref4) and Type of pest and disease (Ref6) |
Crop yield | Intercropping (Ref6), Region/geographic area (Ref5), Time after plantation (Ref5), Type of country (Ref9) and Variety (Ref5) |
4. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW SEARCH STRATEGY
Table 3: Systematic review search strategy - methodology and search parameters.
Parameter | Details |
Keywords | WOS: |
Time reference | No time restriction. |
Databases | WOS: run on 02 March 2021 |
Exclusion criteria |
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE KEY FACTORS INFLUENCING THE SIZE OF THE EFFECT
Only the factors explicitly studied in the reviewed synthesis papers with a significant effect are reported below. Details regarding the factors can be found in the summaries of the meta-analyses.
...
Impact
...
Factors
...
Decrease pests and diseases
...
Time after plantation (Ref. 4), Interaction of time after plantation and region (Ref. 5), Cultivar (Ref. 5), Type of pest and disease (Ref. 6), Intercropping (Ref. 7)
...
Increase crop yield
...
Cultivar (Ref. 5), Time after plantation (Ref. 5), Region/geographic area (Ref. 5), Intercropping (Ref. 6), Type of country (Ref. 9)
...
Decrease pesticide use
...
Cultivar (Ref. 5), Crop type (Ref. 9)
4. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW SEARCH STRATEGY
Keywords
TS=("grazing*" OR "grassland*" OR "pasture*" OR "rangeland")) AND TS=(("meta-analy*" OR "systematic* review*" OR "evidence map" OR "global synthesis" OR "evidence synthesis" OR "research synthesis")
or
TITLE-ABS-KEY: ( "grazing*" OR "grassland*" OR "pasture*" OR "rangeland") AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "meta-analy*" OR "systematic* review*" OR "evidence map" OR "global synthesis" OR "evidence synthesis" OR "research synthesis")
Search dates
No time restrictions
Databases
Web of Science and Scopus, run in September 2021
The main criteria that led to the exclusion of a synthesis paper |
Each systematic search process provided 199, 58 and 110 synthesis papers. Deleting duplicates led to 227 papers
are: |
|
187 were excluded after reading the title and abstract, and |
14 after reading the full text according to the above-mentioned criteria. |
Finally, 10 synthesis papers were selected. |
5.
...
SYNTHESIS PAPERS INCLUDED IN
...
THE REVIEW
Table 4: List of synthesis papers included in this review. More details can be found in the summaries of the meta-analyses.
Ref Num |
Authors
Year
Title
Reference
DI
1
Lázaro, E; Makowski, D; Martínez-Minaya, J; Vicent, A
2020
Comparison of frequentist and Bayesian meta-analysis models for assessing the efficacy of decision support systems in reducing fungal disease incidence
AGRONOMY 10, 4
10.3390/agronomy10040560
2
Katayama, N; Bouam, I; Koshida, C; Baba, YG
2019
Biodiversity and yield under different land-use types in orchard/vineyard landscapes: A meta-analysis
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 229, 125-133
10.1016/j.biocon.2018.11.020
3
Davis, S; Mangold, J; Menalled, F; Orloff, N; Miller, Z; Lehnhoff, E
2018
A meta-analysis of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) management in annual and perennial systems
Author(s) | Year | Title | Journal | DOI | |
Ref1 | Lázaro E., Makowski D., Martínez-Minaya J., Vicent A. | 2020 | Comparison of frequentist and Bayesian meta-analysis models for assessing the efficacy of decision support systems in reducing fungal disease incidence | Agronomy 10, 4 | 10.3390/agronomy10040560 |
Ref2 | Katayama N., Bouam I., Koshida C., Baba Y.G. | 2019 | Biodiversity and yield under different land-use types in orchard/vineyard landscapes: A meta-analysis | Biological Conservation 229, 125-133 | 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.11.020 |
Ref3 | Davis S., Mangold J., Menalled F., Orloff N., Miller Z., Lehnhoff E.a | 2018 | A meta-analysis of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) management in annual and perennial systems | Weed Science 66 (4), 540-547 | 10.1017/wsc.2018.25 |
Ref4 | Davis S., Mangold J., Menalled F., Orloff N., Miller Z., Lehnhoff E.b | 2018 | A meta-analysis of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) management | Weed Science 66 (4), 548-557 |
10.1017/wsc.2018. |
6 |
4
Davis, S; Mangold, J; Menalled, F; Orloff, N; Miller, Z; Lehnhoff, E
2018
A meta-analysis of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) management
WEED SCIENCE 66 (4), 548-557
10.1017/wsc.2018.6
5
Fleming, D; Musser, F; Reisig, D; Greene, J; Taylor, S; Parajulee, M; Lorenz, G; Catchot, A; Gore, J; Kerns, D; Stewart, S; Boykin, D; Caprio, M; Little, N;
2018
Effects of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis cotton on insecticide use, heliothine counts, plant damage, and cotton yield: A meta-analysis, 1996-2015
PLOS ONE 13, 7
10.1371/journal.pone.0200131
6
Himmelstein, J; Ares, A; Gallagher, D; Myers, J
2017
A meta-analysis of intercropping in Africa: impacts on crop yield, farmer income, and integrated pest management effects
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 15 (1), 1-10
10.1080/14735903.2016.1242332
7
Hossard, L; Archer, DW; Bertrand, M; Colnenne-David, C; Debaeke, P; Ernfors, M; Jeuffroy, MH; Munier-Jolain, N; Nilsson, C; Sanford, GR; Snapp, SS; Jensen, ES; Makowski, D
Ref5 | Fleming D., Musser F., Reisig D., Greene J., Taylor S., Parajulee M., Lorenz G., Catchot A., Gore J., Kerns D., Stewart S., Boykin D., Caprio M., Little N. | 2018 | Effects of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis cotton on insecticide use, heliothine counts, plant damage, and cotton yield: A meta-analysis, 1996-2015 | Plos one 13, 7 | 10.1371/journal.pone.0200131 |
Ref6 | Himmelstein J., Ares A., Gallagher D., Myers J. | 2017 | A meta-analysis of intercropping in Africa: impacts on crop yield, farmer income, and integrated pest management effects | International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 15 (1), 1-10 | 10.1080/14735903.2016.1242332 |
Ref7 | Verret V., Gardarin A., Pelzer E., Médiène S., Makowski D., Valantin-Morison M. | 2017 | Can legume companion plants control weeds without decreasing crop yield? A meta-analysis | Field Crops Research 204, 158-168 | 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.01.010 |
Ref8 | Hossard L., Archer D.W., Bertrand M., Colnenne-David C., Debaeke P., Ernfors M., Jeuffroy M.-H., Munier-Jolain N., Nilsson C., Sanford G.R., Snapp S.S., Jensen E.S., Makowski D. | 2016 |
A meta-analysis of maize and wheat yields in low-input vs. |
conventional and organic |
systems | Agronomy Journal |
108 (3), 1155- |
1167 | 10.2134/agronj2015. |
0512 |
8
Verret, V; Gardarin, A; Pelzer, E; Médiène, S; Makowski, D; Valantin-Morison, M
2017
Can legume companion plants control weeds without decreasing crop yield? A meta-analysis
FIELD CROPS RESEARCH 204, 158-168
10.1016/j.fcr.2017.01.010
9
Klümper, W; Qaim, M
2014
A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops
PLOS ONE 9, 11
10.1371/journal.pone.0111629
10
Marvier, M; McCreedy, C; Regetz, J; Kareiva, P
2007
A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Bt Cotton and Maize on Nontarget Invertebrates
SCIENCE 316, 1475-1477
10.1126/science.1139208
Ref9 | Klümper W., Qaim M. | 2014 | A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops | Plos one 9, 11 | 10.1371/journal.pone.0111629 |
Ref10 | Marvier M., McCreedy C., Regetz J., Kareiva P. | 2007 | A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Bt Cotton and Maize on Nontarget Invertebrates | Science 316, 1475-1477 | 10.1126/science.1139208 |
Disclaimer: These fiches present a large amount of scientific knowledge synthesised to assess farming practices impacts on the environment, climate and productivity. The European Commission maintains this WIKI to enhance public access to information about its initiatives. Our goal is to keep this information timely and accurate. If errors are brought to our attention, we will try to correct them. However, the Commission accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever with regard to the information on these fiches and WIKI.
[1] Synthesis [1] Synthesis research papers include either meta-analysis or systematic reviews with quantitative results. Details can be found in the methodology section of the WIKI.
[2] A 'pesticide' ‘pesticide’ is something that prevents, destroys, or controls a harmful organism ('pest'‘pest’) or disease, or protects plants or plant products during production, storage and transport. The term includes, amongst others: herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, acaricides, nematicides, molluscicides, rodenticides, growth regulators, repellents, rodenticides and biocides. https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides_en#:~:text=A%20'pesticide'%20is%20something%20thatA%20’pesticide’%20is%20something%20that,during%20production%2C%20storage%20and%20transport
[3] Liebman and Dyck, 1993. Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management. Ecol. Appl. 3, 92.
[4] Verret et al., 2017. Can legume companion plants control weeds without decreasing crop yield? A meta-analysis. Field Crops Research 204, 158-168. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.01.010
[4[5] Parr et al., 1990. Sustainable agriculture in the United States. In: C.A. Edwards et al., editors, Sustainable agricultural systems. Soil and Water and Water Conserv. Soc., Ankeny, IA. p. 50–67 50–67.
[6] Hossard et al., 2016. A meta-analysis of maize and wheat yields in low-input vs. conventional and organic systems. AGRONOMY JOURNAL 108 (3), 1155-1167. doi: 10.2134/agronj2015.0512.[75] https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/sustainable_use_pesticides/ipm_en