Boosting the Defenses of Cultivated Plants
1. Presentation
Characterization of the technique
Description of the technique:
| Julien Halska | INRA | julien.halska(at)grignon.inra.fr | Dijon (21) |
Spam control: To use these addresses, replace (at) with @
Spread on the crop natural defense stimulators (NDS) that will trigger defense mechanisms in cultivated plants against bioagressors. These molecules can be of natural or synthetic origin. The use of NDS is preventive and must be done before parasite attack. It is advised to apply products on healthy plants. At the time of writing this sheet, three products are authorized: Iodus 2 Cereals based on laminarin, Bion 50 WG of synthetic origin (also marketed under other names, little or no use in large crops) and Stifenia based on Fenugreek (on vine only).
Example of implementation: On winter soft wheat, apply 0.5 l/ha of Iodus 2 cereals at the 1 cm ear stage (dilute the dose in 50 to 500 liters of water). 40 days after application, a fungicide protection can take over if necessary.
Details on the technique:
Durum wheat, winter Soft wheat, spring Soft wheat, winter Barley, spring Barley: Iodus 2 against powdery mildew, septoria and foot rot, synthetic NDS against powdery mildew.
Industrial Tomato: Bion 50 WG against bacterial disease.
Tobacco: Bion 50 WG against downy mildew.
Spinach: Bion 50 WG against anthracnose and downy mildew.
Implementation period On established crop
Spatial scale of implementation Plot
Application of the technique to...
All crops: Not generalizable
Currently, very few products are effectively available. However, stimulation of plants' natural defenses is potentially possible on a large number of species, even all.
All soil types: Easily generalizable
All climatic contexts: Easily generalizable
Regulation
The use of a plant defense stimulator for fighting diseases caused by fungi is subject to a CEPP sheet (action no. 7: Fight fungal diseases using a plant defense stimulator).
2. Services provided by the technique
3. Effects on the sustainability of the cropping system
"Environmental" criteria
Effect on air quality: Variable
phytosanitary emissions: VARIABLE
Effect on water quality: Variable
pesticides: VARIABLE
Effect on fossil resource consumption: Variable
fossil energy consumption: VARIABLE
Other: No effect (neutral)
Air : The use of NDS allows reducing the use of fungicides. In case NDS end up in the air, one must distinguish those of natural origin with very favorable toxicological and ecotoxicological profiles, from synthetic NDS, with a less favorable profile. Variations in GHG emissions depending on the effect on the number of passes. No increase with the main NDS used in arable crops.
Water: The use of NDS allows reducing the use of fungicides (which are however rarely found in waters). In case NDS end up in waters, one must distinguish those of natural origin with very favorable toxicological and ecotoxicological profiles, from synthetic NDS, with a less favorable profile.
Fossil energy: Depending on the effect on the number of passes. No increase with the main NDS used in arable crops.
"Agronomic" criteria
Productivity: No effect (neutral)
Little yield difference observed for the most used product in arable crops if used as a replacement for the first fungicide on winter soft wheat. One might suspect a reduction due to energy allocation to defense at the expense of biomass production, but this is not observed.
Soil fertility: Variable
Potential impact depends on the effect on soil fauna and flora, itself depending on the ecotoxicological profile of the molecule (favorable in the case of natural origin NDS).
Water stress: No effect (neutral)
Functional Biodiversity: Variable
Effect on biodiversity must be evaluated case by case. One must distinguish natural origin NDS with very favorable toxicological and ecotoxicological profiles, from synthetic NDS, with a less favorable profile.
Other agronomic criteria: Decreasing
Plant resistance to pathogens: Increase
Natural defenses triggered by NDS are not specific to particular pathogens. If products are approved for specific uses, they nevertheless confer a certain degree of protection against all pathogens (fungi, bacteria, viruses).
"Economic" criteria
Operational costs: Variable
Depending on product price and number of applications performed. In the case of Iodus 2, the price difference seems very small.
Mechanization costs: Variable
Depending on the effect on the number of passes. No increase with the main NDS used in arable crops.
Margin: No effect (neutral)
No effect in the case of Iodus 2, main NDS used in arable crops.
Other economic criteria: Variable
Fuel consumption: variable
Depending on the effect on the number of passes. No increase with the main NDS used in arable crops.
"Social" criteria
Working time: Variable
Depending on the effect on the number of passes. No increase with the main NDS used in arable crops.
Effect on farmer health: Increasing
Farmers' image quality: Increasing
Limited effect because the sprayer is still used.
Health risk: Decreasing
When the product is really less dangerous (case of Iodus 2) and allows reducing fungicide use.
Observation time: Variable
Depending on the effect on the number of passes. No increase with the main NDS used in arable crops.
4. Favored or disadvantaged organisms
Favored bioagressors
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Type | Details |
|---|
Disadvantaged bioagressors
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Type | Details |
|---|---|---|---|
| spinach anthracnose | pathogen (bioagressor) | ||
| bacterium | pathogen (bioagressor) | Bacterial diseases on tomato | |
| barley helminthosporiosis | MEDIUM | pathogen (bioagressor) | |
| spinach downy mildew | pathogen (bioagressor) | ||
| tobacco downy mildew | pathogen (bioagressor) | ||
| cereal powdery mildew | MEDIUM | pathogen (bioagressor) | |
| foot rot | MEDIUM | pathogen (bioagressor) | |
| leaf septoria | MEDIUM | pathogen (bioagressor) |
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. For further information
- Bion 50 WG
- -Ministry of Agriculture
Ministry of Agriculture, page visited 26/01/2012, Website, 2012
- Phytosanitary Index ACTA
- -ACTA
Book, 2009
- Laminarin & plant "vaccination"
- -Pugin A. (INRA); Paulin J.P. (INRA); Creemers P. (Gorsem Station, Belgium); Goëmar
Göemar, Multimedia
slideshow
- Plant protection by stimulating their natural defenses
- -Riou V. and Basset P. (Chamber of Agriculture of Maine et Loire)
Anjou Cultures no.147, April 2011 (Chamber of Agriculture of Maine et Loire), Technical brochure, 2011
- Stimulation of plants' natural defenses. A plant vaccine.
- -Maumené C. (Arvalis); Bousquet N. (Perspectives Agricoles)
Perspectives Agricoles no.355, April 2009, Press article, 2009
6. Keywords
Bioagressor control method: Biological control
Mode of action: Attenuation
Type of strategy regarding pesticide use: Substitution
Annexes
S'applique aux cultures suivantes
Défavorise les bioagresseurs suivants
