Neuhoff Daniel, Neumann Günter, Weinmann Markus
Department Agroecology & Organic Farming, Institute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Department of Nutritional Crop Physiology (340h), Institute of Crop Science, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.
Front Plant Sci. 2024 Jan 16;14:1324665. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2023.1324665. eCollection 2023.
In the European Union and worldwide there are a burgeoning markets for plant growth promoting microorganisms (PGPM) and other biological agents as soil improvers, bio-fertilizers, plant bio-stimulants, and biological control agents or bio-pesticides. Microbial agents have a major share in this development. The use of such products is often advertised with the promise of contributing to sustainable agricultural practices by increasing crop growth and yield and offering an alternative or substitute to decrease the dependency of agriculture on hazardeous agrochemicals. In contrast to registered microbial plant protection products, PGPM that are marketed in the EU as soil improvers or plant biostimulants, are not strictly required to have proven minimum efficacy levels under field conditions. Manufacturers only have to ensure that these products do not pose unacceptable risks to human, animal or plant health, safety or the environment. Uniform guidelines comparable to the EPPO - standards (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organisation) to test the efficacy in field trials are not available. This paper attempts to fill the gap. It proposes guidelines for PGPM field trial design and implementation, as well as recommendations for the type and scope of data collection and evaluation. Selected research papers from literature were evaluated to analyze, whether and to what extent the requirements are already met. The majority of the papers had a clear experimental design followed by proper data evaluation. Frequent deficiencies were the low number of tested environments and crop species, insufficient site and agronomic management description and missing data on soil humidity and temperature. Using the suggested standards is assumed to increase the expressive power of tested microbial products.
在欧盟以及全球范围内,作为土壤改良剂、生物肥料、植物生物刺激剂、生物防治剂或生物农药的促进植物生长的微生物(PGPM)和其他生物制剂的市场正在蓬勃发展。微生物制剂在这一发展中占据主要份额。此类产品的使用常常宣称有助于可持续农业实践,即通过促进作物生长和提高产量,提供一种替代方案或替代品,以减少农业对有害农用化学品的依赖。与已注册的微生物植物保护产品不同,在欧盟作为土壤改良剂或植物生物刺激剂销售的PGPM,在田间条件下并不严格要求具备已证实的最低功效水平。制造商只需确保这些产品不会对人类、动物或植物的健康、安全或环境构成不可接受的风险。目前尚无类似于欧洲和地中海植物保护组织(EPPO)标准的统一指南来测试田间试验的功效。本文试图填补这一空白。它提出了PGPM田间试验设计与实施的指南,以及数据收集和评估的类型与范围的建议。对文献中选定的研究论文进行了评估,以分析是否以及在何种程度上满足了这些要求。大多数论文都有清晰的实验设计,并随后进行了适当的数据评估。常见的不足之处在于测试环境和作物种类数量较少、场地和农艺管理描述不足以及土壤湿度和温度数据缺失。采用建议的标准有望提高测试微生物产品的表达能力。