Assessing the risk of payment
The risk of lodging depends on the variety, sowing date and density, and the vigor of the plants related to nitrogen fertilization (the more developed the plants, the higher the risk of lodging). Soil type can also be taken into account. For winter wheat, the assessment is adjusted according to vegetative development (number of stems/m² at the 1 cm ear stage, then internode length at the 1-2 node stage). For winter oilseed rape, the risk is evaluated once in autumn and again in spring. For grain legumes, variety and sowing density play the biggest role, and possibly irrigation (which increases the risk).
Example of implementation:
For oilseed rape, example taken from the CETIOM online tool (link). First case: oilseed rape crop sown in Burgundy that had not reached the 6-leaf stage by October 10, the use of a growth regulator is pointless, regardless of variety sensitivity. Second case: plot sown in Burgundy with a moderately sensitive variety, which reached the 6-leaf stage by October 10, dense sowing, plenty of available nitrogen and well-developed oilseed rape, then the risk is medium. It is advised to intervene if possible from the 6-leaf stage, otherwise as early as possible and before the 7/8 leaf stage. For winter wheat: a tool like Farmstar allows risk assessment during the crop cycle via satellite measurements and model use.
Implementation period On established crop
Spatial scale of implementation Plot
Application of the technique to...
All crops: Sometimes difficult to generalize
Need for references, especially on other cereals than winter wheat (winter barley and two-row barley).
Winter wheat: main crop for which the method is well established
Other Cereal_straw_crops except barleys: method identical to winter wheat.
and spring barley: Method to be specified, lodging more difficult than for wheat
Oilseed rape
Grain legumes (winter peas and spring peas, winter and spring faba beans): Method to be specified, risk mainly depending on variety and sowing density.
All soil types: Easily generalizable
All climatic contexts: Easily generalizable
Regulation
2. Services provided by the technique
3. Effects on the sustainability of the cropping system
"Environmental" criteria
Effect on air quality: Increasing
GHG emissions: UNKNOWN
Particulate emissions: DECREASE
Effect on fossil resource consumption: Variable
Fossil energy consumption: VARIABLE
Other: No effect (neutral)
Air: Growth regulators are not among the most frequently detected molecules in the air. They are sometimes monitored, but it is relatively difficult to find data.
Water: Growth regulators are not among the most frequently detected molecules in water. They are sometimes monitored, but it is relatively difficult to find data.
Fossil energy: Possibly one or two fewer sprayer passes.
"Agronomic" criteria
Productivity: No effect (neutral)
Risk assessment and taking measures accordingly help avoid lodging (not using growth regulators in risky situations can cause harvesting difficulties, and a decrease in quantity and quality).
Soil fertility: No effect (neutral)
Water stress: No effect (neutral)
Functional Biodiversity: No knowledge on impact
The impact of growth regulators on biodiversity is poorly documented.
"Economic" criteria
Operating costs: Decreasing
Possible savings on growth regulators.
Mechanization costs: Decreasing
Possibly one or two fewer sprayer passes.
Margin: Increasing
Lodging is avoided and possibly one or more passes avoided.
"Social" criteria
Working time: Variable
Fewer mechanical passes (sprayer).
Effect on farmer health: Decreasing
Stress: increased stress from seeing the crop lodge (fear that should fade after 2 to 3 years of reduced regulator use).
Observation time: Increasing
Slight increase (sampling, monitoring) to judge whether to use a growth regulator or not.
4. Organisms favored or disadvantaged
Favored Bioagressors
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Type | Details |
|---|
Disadvantaged Bioagressors
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Type | Details |
|---|
Favored Auxiliaries
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Type | Details |
|---|
Disadvantaged Auxiliaries
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Type | Details |
|---|
Favored climatic and physiological accidents
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Details |
|---|
Disadvantaged climatic and physiological accidents
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Details |
|---|
5. To learn more
Perspectives Agricoles No. 331, 01/02/2007, pp 42-43, Press article, 2007
- Oilseed rape: growth regulators
- -Cetiom
page visited 21/06/2011, Website, 2011
- Growth regulator
- -Wikipedia
page consulted 01/08/2011, Website, 2017
- Growth regulators: better understanding their mode of action
Perspectives Agricoles No. 353, 01/02/2009, pp 40-45, Press article, 2009
- Winter cereal growth regulators: first estimate lodging risk
- -Ludovic Bonin (Arvalis) ; Gérard Citron (Arvalis) ; Jean-Paul Prévot (Arvalis)
Perspectives Agricoles No. 320, 01/02/2006, pp 50-55, Press article, 2006
6. Keywords
Bioagressor control method:
Mode of action:
Type of strategy regarding pesticide use:
Annexes
- Gérard Citron (Arvalis) gerard.citron@arvalisinstitutduvegetal.fr - Boigneville (91)
- Lionel Jouy (Arvalis) lionel.jouy@arvalisinstitutduvegetal.fr - Boigneville (91)
- Jacques Girard (Chamber of Agriculture of Calvados) j.girard@calvados.chambagri.fr - Caen (14)
- Sébastien Minette (Regional Chamber of Agriculture Poitou-Charentes) sebastien.minette@poitou-charentes.chambagri.fr - Lusignan (86)
- Julien Halska (INRA) julien.halska@grignon.inra.fr - Dijon (21)
La version initiale de cet article a été rédigée par Gérard Citron, Lionel Jouy, Jacques Girard, Sébastien Minette et Julien Halska.
