/
Blog Posts
Data extracted in March 2021
Note to the reader: This general fiche summarises all the environmental impacts of PESTICIDE REDUCTION STRATEGIES found in a systematic review of 10 synthesis research papers [1]. These papers were selected, from an initial number of 229 obtained through a systematic literature search strategy, according to the inclusion criteria reported in section 4.
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 obtained mainly in field experiments (carried out in situations close to real farming environment), and sometimes in lab experiments or from model simulations.
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE FARMING PRACTICE
Description |
|
Key descriptors | Pesticide reduction strategies (vs appropriate comparators) are implemented by combining pesticide reduction with different practices, in particular:
|
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE IMPACTS OF THE FARMING PRACTICE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE
We reviewed the impacts of different pesticide reduction strategies compared to systems based on intensive use of pesticides or herbicides (control) (Table 1).
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 any, the number of systematic reviews 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.
Out of the 10 synthesis papers selected, 8 reported studies conducted in Europe and all have a quality score higher than 50%. Some synthesis papers reported more than one impact.
Table 1. Impacts of different 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 |
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 |
Selection criteria | The main criteria that led to the exclusion of a synthesis paper were when the paper: 1) did not deal with terrestrial grasslands or the effects on grasslands could not be disentangled from other land uses; 2) did not deal with grazing management; 3) was either a non-systematic review, a non-quantitative systematic review, or a meta-regression without mean effect sizes; 4) was not written in English. Due to the high number of potentially valid synthesis papers, we applied additional exclusion criteria: 5) the paper did not include studies conducted in Europe; 6) the paper only reported impacts on grassland or animal production, but any environmental impacts. Synthesis papers that passed the relevance criteria were subject to critical appraisal carried out on a paper-by-paper basis. The search returned 1022 synthesis papers potentially relevant for the practice object of our fiche. From the 1022 potentially relevant synthesis papers, 661 were excluded after reading the title and abstract, and 330 after reading the full text according to the above-mentioned criteria. Finally, 31 synthesis papers were selected for grazing. |
5. LIST OF SYNTHESIS PAPERS INCLUDED IN THE REVIEW
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 | WEED SCIENCE 66 (4), 540-547 | 10.1017/wsc.2018.25 |
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 | 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 |
[1] Synthesis research papers include either meta-analysis or systematic reviews with quantitative results.
[2] A 'pesticide' is something that prevents, destroys, or controls a harmful organism ('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%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
[5] Parr et al., 1990. Sustainable agriculture in the United States. In: C.A. Edwards et al., editors, Sustainable agricultural systems. Soil and Water Conserv. Soc., Ankeny, IA. p. 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.
[7] https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/sustainable_use_pesticides/ipm_en