Artikel Alle Rechte vorbehalten
referiert
Veröffentlicht

Farmers’ management of functional biodiversity goes beyond pest management in organic European apple orchards

Zugehörigkeit
INRA, Centre de Recherche PACA, UR Ecodeveloppement, Avignon, France
Penvern, S.;
Zugehörigkeit
INRA, Centre de Recherche PACA, UR Ecodeveloppement, Avignon, France
Fernique, S.;
Zugehörigkeit
INRA, Centre de Recherche PACA, UR Ecodeveloppement, Avignon, France
Cardona, A.;
GND
115662456
Zugehörigkeit
Julius Kühn Institut (JKI), Heinrichstraße 243, Darmstadt, Germany
Herz, Annette;
Zugehörigkeit
University of Copenhagen, Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Thorvaldsensvej 40, Frederiksberg C, Denmark
Ahrenfeldt, E.;
Zugehörigkeit
INRA, Centre de Recherche PACA, UR Ecodeveloppement, Avignon, France
Dufils, A.;
Zugehörigkeit
Centre Wallon de Recherches Agronomiques (CRA-W), Département Sciences du vivant, Rue Liroux 4, Gembloux, Belgium
Jamar, L.; Korsgaard, M.;
Zugehörigkeit
Research Institute of Horticulture (Inhort), Konstytucji 3 Maja, Skierniewice, Poland
Kruczyńska, D.;
GND
1182495273
Zugehörigkeit
Julius Kühn Institut (JKI), Heinrichstraße 243, Darmstadt, Germany
Mátray, Silvia;
Zugehörigkeit
Latvian Plant Protection Research Centre (LPPRC), Struktoru Lela 14 A, Riga, Latvia
Ozolina-Pole, L.;
Zugehörigkeit
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Plant Protection Biology, P.O. Box 102, Alnarp, Sweden
Porcel, M.;
Zugehörigkeit
Latvian Plant Protection Research Centre (LPPRC), Struktoru Lela 14 A, Riga, Latvia
Ralle, B.;
Zugehörigkeit
Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Department of Crop Science, Ackerstrasse, 113, P.O. Box 219, Frick, Switzerland
Steinemann, B.;
Zugehörigkeit
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Plant Protection Biology, P.O. Box 102, Alnarp, Sweden
Świergiel, W.;
Zugehörigkeit
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Plant Protection Biology, P.O. Box 102, Alnarp, Sweden
Tasin, M.;
Zugehörigkeit
Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry, Laimburg, Ora/Auer, Italy
Telfser, J.;
Zugehörigkeit
Groupe de Recherche en Agriculture Biologique (GRAB), Maison de la Bio, 255 chemin de la Castelette, Avignon, France
Warlop, F.;
Zugehörigkeit
University of Copenhagen, Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Thorvaldsensvej 40, Frederiksberg C, Denmark
Sigsgaard, L.

Supporting functional biodiversity (FB), which provides natural pest regulation, is an environmentally sound and promising approach to reduce pesticide use in perennial cultures such as apple, especially in organic farming. However, little is known about farmers’ practices and motivations to implement techniques that favor FB, especially whether or not they really expect anything from FB in terms of pest regulation. In fact, FB-supporting techniques (FB-techniques) are massively questioned by practitioners due to inadequate information about their effectiveness. An interview survey was performed in eight European countries(i) to describe farmers’ practices and identify promising FB-techniques: (ii) to better understand their perceptions of and values associated with FB; and (iii) to identify potential drivers of (non-)adoption. Fifty-five advisors and 125 orchard managers with various degrees of experience and convictions about FB were interviewed and a total of 24 different FB-techniques which can be assigned to three different categories (ecological infrastructures, farming practices and redesign techniques) were described. Some were well-established measures (e.g., hedges and bird houses), while others were more marginal and more recent (e.g., animal introduction and compost). On average, farmers combined more than four techniques that had been implemented over a period of 13 years, especially during their establishment or conversion period. In general, it was difficult for farmers to evaluate the effectiveness of individual FB-techniques on pest regulation. They considered FB-techniques as a whole, targeting multiple species, and valued multiple ecosystem services in addition to pest regulation. The techniques implemented and their associated values differed among farmers who adopted various approaches towards FB. Three different approaches were defined: passive, active and integrated. Their appraisal of FB is even more complex because it may change with time and experience. These findings provide empirical evidence that the practical implementation of promising techniques remains a challenge, considering the diversity of situations and evaluation criteria. Increased cooperation between researchers, farmers and advisors should more effectively target research, advisory support and communication to meet farmers’ needs and perceptions.

Dateien

Zitieren

Zitierform:
Zitierform konnte nicht geladen werden.

Zugriffsstatistik

Gesamt:
Volltextzugriffe:
Metadatenansicht:
12 Monate:
Volltextzugriffe:
Metadatenansicht:

Rechte

Rechteinhaber: 2019 Elsevier B.V.

Nutzung und Vervielfältigung:
Alle Rechte vorbehalten