首页> 外文期刊>Communications in Agricultural and Applied Biological Sciences >INTEGRATED WEED MANAGEMENT (IWM): WILL IT REDUCE HERBICIDE USE?
【24h】

INTEGRATED WEED MANAGEMENT (IWM): WILL IT REDUCE HERBICIDE USE?

机译:综合杂草管理(IWM):会减少除草剂的使用吗?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

The Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive (2009/128/EC), part of the EU Thematic Strategy for Pesticides, requires Integrated Pest Management (IPM) to be actively promoted. A key objective is to give greater priority to non-chemical methods of plantprotection to reduce the impact of pesticides on human health and the environment. Integrated Weed Management (IWM) can be considered part of IPM, and many non-chemical methods are available. For example, a recent review of methods for control of Alopecurus myosuroides (black-grass) in winter wheat found the following mean annual levels of control: ploughing 67%; delayed drilling 37%; fallowing 70%; higher seed rates 30%; competitive cultivars 27%. In comparison with herbicides these efficacy levels are mediocre, and A. myosuroides would be classified as resistant (R) or moderately resistant (MR) to all these methods if the criteria used by the Chemicals Regulation Directorate in the UK for assigning ratings to herbicide efficacy were used. It is, therefore, not surprising that farmers are reluctant to embrace IWM and continue to place greater, reliance on herbicides as a more reliable and cost effective method of weed control. While non-chemical methods will not replace herbicides on most farms, reduced reliance on herbicides will be necessary both for practical (increasing resistance, lack of new herbicides) and political reasons (complying with EU legislation). Farmers will use non-chemical control methods when they have a major weed problem, andhave no alternative, but they must be encouraged to adopt IWM at an earlier stage. Research into IWM must be relevant and practical, and not simply conducted as some sort of 'academic' exercise. More effective knowledge transfer is vital, and this is achallenge due to the decline in independent, state funded, advisory services in many European countries. The question arises; is it possible to achieve reductions in pesticide use by simply promoting non-chemical methods of weed control, or will statutory limits on pesticides be needed to achieve this goal?
机译:欧盟农药主题战略的一部分,《农药的可持续利用指令》(2009/128 / EC)要求积极推进病虫害综合治理(IPM)。一个关键目标是将非化学方法的植物保护方法放在首位,以减少农药对人类健康和环境的影响。综合杂草管理(IWM)可被视为IPM的一部分,并且有许多非化学方法可供使用。例如,最近对冬小麦黑毛病控制方法的综述发现,每年的平均控制水平如下:耕作67%;耕作67%;耕作67%。延迟钻探37%;休假70%;更高的播种率30%;竞争品种27%。与除草剂相比,这些功效水平中等,如果英国化学物质管理总局使用除草剂功效等级的标准,则对所有这些方法,米曲霉被归类为抗药性(R)或中度抗药性(MR)。被使用。因此,不足为奇的是,农民不愿接受IWM并继续更加依赖除草剂作为除草剂的一种更可靠,更具成本效益的方法。尽管在大多数农场中,非化学方法无法替代除草剂,但出于实际(增加抵抗力,缺乏新除草剂)和政治原因(符合欧盟法律)的需要,必须减少对除草剂的依赖。农民在遇到重大杂草问题时将使用非化学控制方法,别无选择,但必须鼓励他们在早期采用IWM。对IWM的研究必须是相关和实用的,而不是简单地作为某种“学术”活动来进行。更有效的知识转移至关重要,而由于许多欧洲国家的独立,国家资助的咨询服务的减少,这是具有挑战性的。问题出现了;是否可以通过简单地采用非化学方法控制杂草来减少杀虫剂的使用,还是要达到该目标的法定杀虫剂限制?

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号