The concept of integrated pest management (IPM) has been accepted and incorporated in public policies and regulations in the European Union and elsewhere, but a holistic science of IPM has not yet ...been developed. Hence, current IPM programs may often be considerably less efficient than the sum of separately applied individual crop protection actions. Thus, there is a clear need to formulate general principles for synergistically combining traditional and novel IPM actions to improve efforts to optimize plant protection solutions. This paper addresses this need by presenting a conceptual framework for a modern science of IPM. The framework may assist attempts to realize the full potential of IPM and reduce risks of deficiencies in the implementation of new policies and regulations.
Integrated pest management is globally endorsed as the future paradigm for crop protection, but in practice it just means that several pest management elements are combined − not integrated.
Different pest management elements interact with each other, having synergistic or antagonistic effects when used together. The emerging science of IPM systematically studies the compatibility and optimization of the involved elements.
Most interactions within IPM involve effects of plant resistance on other pest management elements. By contrast, biological control is affected by almost all other elements.
The management of the anthropogenic water cycle must ensure the preservation of the quality and quantity of water resources and their careful allocation to the different uses. Protection of water ...resources requires the control of pollution sources that may deteriorate them. This is a challenging task in multi-stressed catchments. This work presents an approach that combines pesticide occurrence patterns and stable isotope analyses of nitrogen (δ15N-NO3−, δ15N-NH4+), oxygen (δ18O-NO3−), and boron (δ11B) to discriminate the origin of pesticides and nitrogen-pollution to tackle this challenge. The approach has been applied to a Mediterranean sub-catchment subject to a variety of natural and anthropogenic pressures. Combining the results from both analytical approaches in selected locations of the basin, the urban/industrial activity was identified as the main pressure on the quality of the surface water resources, and to a large extent also on the groundwater resources, although agriculture may play also an important role, mainly in terms of nitrate and ammonium pollution. Total pesticide concentrations in surface waters were one order of magnitude higher than in groundwaters and believed to originate mainly from soil and/or sediments desorption processes and urban and industrial use, as they were mainly associated with treated wastewaters. These findings were supported by the stable isotope results that pointed to an organic origin of nitrate in surface waters and most groundwater samples. Ammonium pollution observed in some aquifer locations is probably generated by nitrate reduction. Overall, no significant attenuation processes could be inferred for nitrate pollution. The approach presented here exemplifies the investigative monitoring envisioned in the Water Framework Directive.
Display omitted
•Assessment of pesticide and nitrogen pollution sources in a multistressed basin.•Combination of stable isotopes (δ15N−, δ18O, δ11B) and pesticide analysis.•Pesticide sources in surface water: soil/sediment desorption and urban use.•Nitrogen-species sources in surface and most groundwaters: organic origin.•Ammonium in aquifers associated with nitrate reduction.
This Guidance describes how to perform hazard identification for endocrine‐disrupting properties by following the scientific criteria which are outlined in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) ...2017/2100 and Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/605 for biocidal products and plant protection products, respectively.
This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2018.EN-1447/full
A core interest in studies of mutualistic interactions is the ‘effectiveness’ of mutualists in providing benefits to their partners. In plant‐animal mutualisms it is widely accepted that the total ...effect of a mutualist on its partner is estimated as (1) a ‘quantity’ component multiplied by (2) a ‘quality’ component, although the meanings of ‘effectiveness,’ ‘quantity,’ and ‘quality’ and which terms are applied to these metrics vary greatly across studies. In addition, a similar quantity × quality = total effect approach has not been applied to other types of mutualisms, although it could be informative. Lastly, when a total effect approach has been applied, it has invariably been from a phytocentric perspective, focussing on the effects of animal mutualists on their plant partner. This lack of a common framework of ‘effectiveness’ of mutualistic interactions limits generalisation and the development of a broader understanding of the ecology and evolution of mutualisms. In this paper, we propose a general framework and demonstrate its utility by applying it to both partners in five different types of mutualisms: pollination, seed dispersal, plant protection, rhizobial, and mycorrhizal mutualisms. We then briefly discuss the flexibility of the framework, potential limitations, and relationship to other approaches.
PDF
