Sowing / transplanting varieties less sensitive to pests
Presentation
Characterization of the technique
Description of the technique :
| François Dumoulin | Chambre d'Agriculture de l'Oise | françois.dumoulin(at)agri60.fr | Fresnoy le Luat (60) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Martine Despréaux-Robelin | Chambre d'Agriculture de Saône et Loire | mdespreaux(at)sl.chambagri.fr | Saint Germain du Bois (71) |
| Adeline Michel | CER FRANCE Normandy Maine | AMICHEL(at)50.cerfrance.fr | Fleury Sur Orne (14) |
| Julien Halska | INRA | julien.halska(at)grignon.inra.fr | Dijon (21) |
Spam control: To use these addresses, replace (at) with @
Taking into account the resistance or tolerance of varieties to pests when choosing varieties helps limit the risk of damage and consequently the use of pesticides (reduction in doses, number of treatments, skips). Information on pest sensitivity is sometimes available in documentation and from advisory structures. A key issue is to limit or delay as much as possible the overcoming of these genetic resistances, especially when they are monogenic. It is therefore recommended to vary resistance genes over time, during rotations, and in space, on the area of a crop in a territory, within a plot, or even within the variety itself thanks to multilined varieties or populations (a very little spread practice).
Example of implementation : The varieties of beet Julietta, Bison, and Adrianna KWS are resistant to both cyst nematodes and rhizomania. The potato varieties Annabelle and Cécile are resistant to the golden nematode Globodera rostochiensis.
Implementation period On established crop
Choices are made annually on the crop but reasoning benefits from being multi-annual to diversify genetics in succession and limit overcoming.
Spatial scale of implementation Plot
Choices are made at the plot level but benefit from being reasoned at the farm or even territory scale to diversify risks and slow pest spread.
Application of the technique to...
All crops : Sometimes difficult generalization
The offer of pest-resistant varieties is limited to a small number of species. However, one can always look for a somewhat hardier variety even if the ideal variety does not exist and choice criteria must be prioritized. It is more difficult for crops under contract with imposed varieties, often without consideration of agronomic criteria such as pest resistance.
All soil types : Easily generalizable
Whatever the soil type, one can always look for a somewhat hardier variety. But by adding an additional choice criterion (adaptation to a soil constraint), the range of possibilities is reduced.
All climatic contexts : Easily generalizable
Regulations
Transgenic maize varieties producing Bt toxin are banned in France. Part of the CVO is intended for programs of general interest and could therefore be used for the development of pest-resistant varieties. Regulation on GMOs. Mandatory Voluntary Contribution
Effects on the sustainability of the cropping system
“Environmental” criteria
Effect on air quality : Increasing
acidification : DECREASE
phytosanitary emissions : DECREASE
GHG emissions : DECREASE
particle emissions : DECREASE
Effect on water quality : Increasing
N.P. : DECREASE
pesticides : DECREASE
turbidity : DECREASE
Effect on fossil resource consumption : Decreasing
fossil energy consumption : DECREASE
phosphorus consumption : DECREASE
Other : No effect (neutral)
Reduction in pesticide use (transfer into water or air depending on molecules).
Reduction in CO2 emissions and fossil energy consumption if number of passes is reduced. A priori no effect on N2O.
“Agronomic” criteria
Productivity : Variable
Tolerant or resistant varieties are sometimes less productive or yield lower quality harvests, but this is not systematic.
Water stress : No effect (neutral)
Functional Biodiversity : Variable
Probable improvement in the diversity of insects (notably soil functional fauna) and possibly other species that would be disturbed by insecticides (poorly documented effect). Special case of some GMOs on which questions remain about their potential impact on biodiversity and the environment in general.
Other agronomic criteria : Increasing
Need to manage varietal resistances and tolerances: Increase
The more they are implemented, the greater the risk of overcoming. It is therefore necessary to take measures to vary selection pressures, and thus the resistances and tolerances implemented over time and space. The risk of overcoming monogenic resistances is higher, but they are easier to select. Relatively little information is disseminated to farmers about resistance characteristics.
Development of insect resistance to insecticides: Decrease
Limiting insecticide use limits the development of resistant populations.
“Economic” criteria
Operating costs : Variable
Variable, depending on the balance between reduced pesticide use and possible increased seed costs (notably GMOs).
Mechanization costs : Decreasing
Reduction if number of treatment passes is reduced.
Margin : Variable
Other economic criteria : Increasing
Cost of varietal selection: Increase
The high cost of varietal selection requires that seed users' demand be well formulated and that the potential market be sufficient to ensure breeders a return on investment.
Markets: Decrease
Varietal choice can in some cases be restricted by the targeted market.
“Social” criteria
Working time : Decreasing
Reduction if fewer passes.
Peak period : Decreasing
Reduction if fewer passes.
Effect on farmer health : Variable
Stress: variable
Seeing neighboring farmers treat and not intervening can be a stress factor, but a person who has perspective and knows the variety's resistance level may on the contrary be more relaxed, certain that there will be no problem.
Observation time : Variable
Possible increase if switching from a strategy with systematic treatments to a strategy of triggering treatments based on thresholds. Conversely, a resistant variety can allow skipping observation time when deciding to skip treatment.
For more information
Arvalis, Technical brochure, 2009
- Western corn rootworm in Europe : integrated pest management is the only sustainable solution
- -Papp Komaromi J., Kiss J. and Palinkas Z. (Plant Protection Institute, Szent István University, Hungary); Toepfer S. (CABI Europe, Switzerland)
ENDURE Maize Case Study – Guide Number 2 (French), Technical brochure, 2010
- Exploiting natural variation to identify insect-resistance genes
- -Broekgaarden C.; Snoeren T. A. L.; Dicke M.; Vosman B. (Wageningen University)
Plant Biotechnology Journal, Peer-reviewed article, 2011
- Risks to cover : pests
- -Chambre d'agriculture de Côte d'Or
Thèm'avert, Technical brochure, 2011
- Control of golden nematode
- -www.nematodes.be (PhytoDis, Phytofar, belgapom)
www.nematodes.be (PhytoDis, Phytofar, belgapom), Website, 2011
- Technical assistance memo for implementing good practices in plant health
- -Délos M. et al. (DRAAF- SRAl)
DRAAF-SRAl, 2011 version, Book, 2011
- Cyst nematodes and rhizomania : what sustainable management?
- -Technical Institute of Beet
La technique betteravière n°935 of 21 September 2010, Press article, 2010
Perspectives Agricoles n°310, March 2005, Press article, 2005
- Scutigera : combining techniques to compensate for the absence of a truly effective product
- -Thibord J. B. (Arvalis)
Perspectives Agricoles n°364, February 2010, Press article, 2010
Keywords
Bioaggressor control method : Genetic control
Mode of action : Mitigation
Type of strategy regarding pesticide use : Substitution
