Suppr超能文献

综合杂草管理(IWM):它会减少除草剂的使用吗?

Integrated weed management (IWM): will it reduce herbicide use?

作者信息

Moss S R

机构信息

Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, Hertfordshire AL5 2JQ, United Kingdom.

出版信息

Commun Agric Appl Biol Sci. 2010;75(2):9-17.

Abstract

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 plant protection 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 nonchemical control methods when they have a major weed problem, and have 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 a challenge 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?

摘要

《农药可持续使用指令》(2009/128/EC)是欧盟农药主题战略的一部分,要求积极推广综合虫害管理(IPM)。一个关键目标是更加优先考虑非化学植物保护方法,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,最近一项关于冬小麦田看麦娘(黑麦草)防治方法的综述发现了以下年均防治水平:深耕67%;延迟播种37%;休耕70%;增加播种量30%;使用竞争性品种27%。与除草剂相比,这些防治效果一般,如果采用英国化学品管理局用于评定除草剂药效的标准,看麦娘对所有这些方法都可被归类为抗性(R)或中度抗性(MR)。因此,农民不愿采用IWM并继续更依赖除草剂作为一种更可靠且具成本效益的杂草防治方法也就不足为奇了。虽然在大多数农场非化学方法不会取代除草剂,但出于实际原因(抗性增加、新除草剂缺乏)和政治原因(遵守欧盟法规),减少对除草剂的依赖将是必要的。当农民面临严重杂草问题且别无选择时,他们会使用非化学防治方法,但必须鼓励他们在更早阶段采用IWM。对IWM的研究必须具有相关性和实用性,而不能仅仅作为某种“学术”活动来进行。更有效的知识传播至关重要,而由于许多欧洲国家独立的、国家资助的咨询服务减少,这是一项挑战。问题来了:仅仅通过推广非化学杂草防治方法能否实现农药使用量的减少,还是需要对农药设定法定限制才能实现这一目标?

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验