Document Sample
IPM_Floriculture_Europe Powered By Docstoc
					 A European perspective of IPM
in glasshouses, with emphasis on

                    Irene Vänninen
              Agrifood Research Finland
     5th National IPM Symposium, St. Louis, USA, April 4-6, 2006
 Presentation at minisymposium: ” ”Are alternative IPM approaches for
                greenhouse and nursery pests feasible”

                                           Rikalan puutarhasäätiö
                                           Borisoffin Puutarhasäätiö
   1. Glasshouse technology in Europe
                                                      North Scandinavia (Finland)
Glasshouse structures:

                                                          single-span houses

The Netherlands, NW-Europe

                                                                             Spain (Almeria)

wide-span houses

                                                        shade cloth + plastic houses
       Map image courtesy:    Image courtesy:
Artificial Lighting: NO, FI (DK, NL, UK)

  Supplementary lights                                          Yield of AYR
  between plant rows to
  illuminate lower leaves                                       kg/m per
                           Whiteflies, thrips,
                            powdery mildew.
                         Behaviour of beneficials
                              Costs of IPM

                                      Finland: 30 % of cucs
                                      area and 25 % of tomato
                                      area with ArtLight
  Photo by Tom Murmann                 Photo by Tom Murmann

  tomato and cucumber 180-250 W/m2, in cucumber even 300 W/m2
  (=about 16000-22000-28000 lux), rose, gerbera 180-220 W/m2
                      Size of glasshouses
The NL:                                                        Elsewhere:

                                  Photo by Pauliina Laitinen

                                  Average size e.g. 0.25 ha Finland,
Average size: > 1ha
                                  0.3 ha Germany
              Size-related problems…
The NL:

          Scouting in dense crops or in mobile
             beds (roses, chrysanthemum).
           Economics of scale in terms of IPM
                      per unit area
                     Degree of specialisation
     The NL with high exports of flowers:

                               IPM less complicated in
                                 one-crop companies

Plant species and cultivar selection at Her-   Plant species selection at Dion ten
burg rosenkwekerij (NL): 3 ha of Passion.      Have’s company: 3 ha Campanula.
                            Degree of specialisation
Countries producing mostly for domestic markets: Heikkilä, Turku, Finland

                                   IPM more complicated in
                                   multiple-crop companies

     Photo by Pauliina Laitinen                                                   Photo by Pauliina Laitinen
                                              …and more…

                                  Photo by Pauliina Laitinen

     Photo by Pauliina Laitinen                                Photo by Pauliina Laitinen
  Domestic, relatively small market many sorts of plants  less possibilities
  for mechanisation  production is labor intensive  higher labor costs
                       Degree of mechanisation
      The NL: high specialisation                   Elsewhere (but not everywhere):
      high mechanisation

                            Hand-packing allows last look Photos        by Pauliina Laitinen

                             on pests in plants  discard
                                    infested ones

Mobile growing tables, mobile beds (gerbera, rose,
tulip, chrysanth.), transport systems, sorting and          Less but increasing, particularly
bunching machines, camera-based spacing of pots             in big new units
               Degree of mechanisation
The NL:                                                              Elsewhere:

                                        Photo by Pauliina Laitinen

                                        Manually operated hydraulic
                                        sprayers, cold-foggers

                     In the NL, labor costs of spraying not as important
                                    a cost factor as before 
                       in relative terms, labor for applic. of beneficials
                              an important cost factor nowadays!
          Spray robots
 Computer-controlled climate regulation
The NL:                               North-west/North Europe:

          Pest monitoring results are put in the
                  computer on the spot.
                                 Photo by Pauliina Laitinen
          Documentation and submission of data
                   required by certified
           label organizations is computerized

                                       Photo by Pauliina Laitinen
       European glasshouse horticulture
in the 21st century – anticipated developments
Focus on biotechnol. & breeding (pest resistance);                  Scandinavia: high quality regional niche
biosensors for tracking quality-changes in prod-                    production (products vulnerable to trans-
ucts; computerized production control & robotics                    port; emphasis on selling, not producing;
in large units; closed climate-controlled g-houses                  ”Recreational horticulture” (Garden Cen-
                                                                    ters etc.)

Degeneration of horticultural
education! (loss of knowledge
among academics, decrease
in the number of students with                                              A new horticult. cluster will form in
academic education)                                                         northern Poland – development
                                                                            with Dutch & Danish money,
                                                                            exports to elsewhere in Europe

                                                                           Hungary exporting to the
                                                                           countries of Balkan?
Production expands
along the Mediterranean

  Source and image courtesy Rolf Larsen
2. Use of IPM in European floriculture

     Crops & production acreages

      Status of IPM in the NL, UK, and Scandinavia (with brief look
       on other countries) and reasons for differences

      Costs of IPM

      Future prospects of IPM in European floriculture
    Top-10 producers of glasshouse
  ornamentals areawise (ha) in Europe
                               Trends in flower production in the most
                               advanced production countries:

                               •production area is slowly declining
                      300      •number of growers is decreasing
                    322        •average company size is increasing
                               •total production is stable
       1022                 5700
                                             Italy     NL: emphasis on
                                             Spain     cut flowers
                                             France    Other countries:
                                             UK        emphasis on
                                             Poland    potted flowering
                                             Belgium   plants & bedding
                                             Denmark   plants
                                     =95 % of total area of
                3014                 about 23 000 ha
Interfaces influencing the adoption and success of IPM
I Plant protection problems:     Pesticide availability & efficacy, environ-
                                 mental & health issues
  factors that necessitate IPM

II Grower: adoption and suc-     Geography, pest complexes, growing
                                 systems, types of glasshouse; grower
   success of IPM                psychology, skills & educational level

                                 Extension system & resources, research
III Support: implementation
                                 in local conditions (resources), availabil-
    and success of IPM           ity & efficacy of BCAs & selective pestic-

IV Market: continuity of         Costs of other PP strategies, imago bran-
                                 ding, trademarking (added value of prod.),
   IPM                           certified labels in response to consumer/
                                 retailer demands

V Legislative: obligations,      Binding legislation, agreements between
  incentives                     stakeholders, cross compliance within EU
The road to IPM in ornamentals in The NL
                              5700 ha
                              6400 companies

                              Cut flowers 60% of flower area: Rose,
                              chrysanthemum, Alstroemeria, Freesia,
                              Lily, Gerbera,orchids, Anthurium,
                              carnation, many others

                              Pot plants 24%; of which 40% foliage: Fi
Reasons to implement IPM:     cus, Dracaena, Hedera, Schefflera, palms;
                              60% flowering: kalanchoe, orchids, chrys.,
Environmental issues          gerbera, roses, begonia, Campanula,saint-
                              paulia, Primula, Hortensia, cyclamen…
Pesticide resistance
                              Other flowers 16%
Retailers’ criteria on pro-
duction system’s quality
    The road to IPM in ornamentals in The NL:
       agreements between stakeholders
                          Convenant Glastuinbouw en Milieu (GLAMI)
                          (1997-2010). Agreement on glasshouse crop
                          production and Environment (all relevant
                          stakeholders): set goals to reduce the use of
                          energy, pesticides and fertilizers. Milieu Plan
                          obligatory in companies.
                                           Convenant Gewasbescherming
   Legislative + PP problems               (2003): stimulation of IPM
   interfaces very important
                                                       1.1.2005 Resolution on
                                                       the principles of IPM

Meerjarenplan Gewasbescherming
(1991-2000): initial step to reduce
use of pesticides & emissions                           Telen met toekomst

      MPS (Milieu
    Project Sierteelt)                                       Strateeg
         1993                                               2004-07
      The road to IPM in ornamentals in The NL:
              role of support interface
                 <1% area with IPM
                                         guidelines for environmentally friendly
          MPS (Milieu                     production certification: MPS certification
         Project Sierteelt)               system
             1993                       use of biocontrol encouraged to reduce
                                          pesticide use
                 10% area with IPM

          SIGNatuur                      Demonstration project on the possibilities
          1997-2000                       of IPM in greenhouse ornamentals

                                             Gov. withdrew from knowledge transfer  break-
                  20% area with IPM          up of the traditional knowledge transfer triptych
                  M o b i l i s a t i o n!   Research-Extension-Education

           Strateeg              Telen met toekomst
                                                               now 38% area with IPM
           2004-07                     2003-07
                                                               (goal: 80 % by 2010)
Grower network for participat-   Socio-technical network: Testing
ive and stepwise learning        and delivery of ”Best Practices”
 The road to IPM in ornamentals in The NL:
market interface (quality assurance schemes)
                     ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION based on the usage of
                     energy, PPPs and fertilizers and trmt of waste. A, B & C
    MPS-A,B,C        categories based on what kinds of pesticides are used;
                     MPS-MIND is the indication system for the hazard level
                     of pesticides.

    MPS-GAP          Corresponds to EurepGap quality assurance scheme
                     (retailers’ demands on production systems)

                                                       MPS also in: DK, BE
                     MPS-SQ. Socially qualified production conditions.
                     MPS-Quality of products and services.

                                    More info:

     MPS-Florimark   Top growers with MPS-A, MPS-GAP, MPS-SQ, MPS-
                                               Image courtesy:
Other quality assurance schemes:

                                                     (also ornamentals)

                                  Quality assurance demands by
                                  large retailers (supermarket chains)

                                  Mostly in use: UK, NL, BE, AU, IT, ES

    Elements of IPM in European floriculture

•   Quarantine                    • Oils, soaps, other
•   Monitoring                      biorationals
•   Hygiene                       • Selective pesticides
•   Screening of vents            • Spatial integration:
•   Biocontrol                      chemicals on leaves,
                                    biocontrol in soil or vice
•   Insect pathogenic fungi in      versa
    propagation areas
                                  • Temporal integration:
•   Mechanized application          biocontrol in mother stocks,
    methods of beneficials          chemical in sales plants
•   Regular inundative releases   • Educated personnel
•   Banker plants                 • Emphasis on ”easy” crops
•   Host plant resistance
             IPM in use in the NL:
      Rosenkwekerij Joop van de Nauweland
         The most important
          thing is scouting!

                        3 ha of roses (Sphinx, Explosion). Company has MPS-
                        Biol. control: spider mites, citrus spider mites, thrips.
                        Chemical control: whiteflies, scales, aphids, powdery
                        mildew (spot treatments). Sulphur fumigation for 4
                        hours only after powdery mildew trmts.

Crop manager Arend      Monitoring: 3-5 hours weekly. Two persons+
Book: 15 years expe-    the whole staff monitors when maintaining the crop.
rience on IPM.          Written record sheet at the end of all beds.
Amblyseius cucumeris against thrips.             Old flowers are removed regularly in
Action threshold level for corrective            summertime to hinder development
chemical trmts 10 thrips per sticky              of thrips population.
trap (1 trap/1000 m2). swirskii is in trials.

                   An advisor visits
                   once in two weeks,
                   1,5 hours at a time          A. californicus is applied against citrus
                                                spider mites (in photo: damage by this mite).
IPM in chrysanthemum in the NL: combined role
 of market, support and PP problems interfaces

Rapid changeover taking place – in two years almost 50% of chrys. area
under IPM

IPM program developed by Syngenta a keyto succes of IPM in this crop.
IPM enables continuous efficacy of Vertimec with alleviated resistance prob-
lems (Vertimec=abamectin-based acaricide/insecticide).

 big areas attract biocontrol producers (R&D, advice),
 in the NL several domestic producers of biocontrol agents offer their
 products for chrysanthemum

Best practices of plant protection of chrysanthemums developed:

                  IPM program outline for cut chrysanthemums:
                IPM in ornamentals in the UK
 Map image courtesy:

                                   Cut flowers (160 ha=16% of total area of 1022ha):
                                   chrysanthemum, Alstroemeria, carnations, pinks,

                                   Pot plants: chrysanthemum, begonia, poinset-
                                   tia, foliage plants

                                   Bedding plants: Fuchsia, Geranium, Pansy
Important factors for advancement of IPM:

 early start in the end of 1980s (Les Wardlaw pioneering) (=support interface)
 enthusiastic IPM specialists transferring knowledge (now reduced in numbers
  due to privatization) (Jude Bennison, ADAS and her coworkers) (=support interface)
 resistance problems (=PP problems interface)
 retail pressure to reduce pesticide use (but no financial premium for IPM) (=market
  interface)  ”Best practices” for most important crops
large domestic biocontrol producers  advising+biocontrol products
                                              see also
                                              British Orn.Producers certification scheme
                     IPM in the UK ornamentals

    Use of IPM in glasshouse horticulture, UK

          Crop                         % of area under IPM*        Beneficials used most often:
          Tomato                                 79,4
          Cucumber                               91,2              Encarsia formosa
          Peppers                                 89
                                                                   Phytoseiulus persimilis
          Strawberries                           50,5
          Other fruit                            66,3              Aphidius colemani
          Pot chrysanthemum                      58,5              Amblyseius sp.
          Other pot plants**                      70               Aphidoletes aphidimyza
          Alstroemeria                            55               Hypoaspis miles
          Hardy nursery stock                    17,4
          Other flowers & foliage                 16
          * IPM=at least one species of biocontrol agent                in 1999 only 30 %
          was used in the crop (Jude Bennison, ADAS, pers.
          * begonia, cyclamen, ferns, fuchsia, gerbera,
          hydrangea, ivy, kalanchoe, poinsettia

Source: Pesticide Usage Survey Report 196. Protected crops
(edible and ornamental) in Great Britain. D.G. Garthwaite & M. R. Thomas.
National Statistics. Central Science Laboratory.
  IPM in glasshouse floriculture: Scandinavia
       relatively small acreages of glasshouse floriculture:
           Denmark 322 (pot plants)
           Finland 175 ha (bedding plants, pot plants, cut rose)
           Norway 106 ha (pot plants, cut rose)
           Sweden   16 ha (pot plants, bedding plants)

Environmental pressures not      certified labels not very explicit conc.
excessive to reduce pesticide    pesticide use or IPM (except in Den-
use in glasshouse crops          mark, where MPS label is owned by
                                 several growers)
Pesticide reduction plans: DK,
SE, FI (but emphasis in arable   expensive beneficials (shipment costs)
crops)                           in Norway, Sweden, Finland (but now
                                 one Finnish producer)
small number of registered       In Denmark, domestic producers of bc-
pesticides  resistance prob-    agents.
lems push towards IPM
 IPM in Norwegian glasshouse floriculture

 Cut roses – a special case in IPM of ornamentals in Norway: 50 % IPM
 (Annichen Smith-Eriksen, pers. communic.)

                                        small area (15 ha)

                                        concentrated in Rogaland

  Photo: Annichen Smith-Eriksen         very narrow selection of
                                        pesticides IPM is the only
Rose growers in Norway learning from    possibility
each other.
                                        two successive knowledge-
in other types of ornamentals           transfer projects that included
<10% IPM                                roses
          IPM in Finnish glasshouse floriculture
    no legislavite incentives for IPM                                       IPM starting in cut roses (10
    tight economical situation of growers                                   companies (50% of total area)
    big resistance problems in cut roses                                    participate in the knowledge
                                                                            transfer project INTO
        Extent of biocontrol and IPM in Finnish glasshouse crops
                               (% of area)
            (Grönroos & Nikander 2002, questionnaire survey )

        Cut flowers

         Pot plants

   Other vegetables

  Potted vegetables



                   0%       20 %      40 %         60 %     80 %    100 %
                                                                            Banker plants for rearing aphid
               Biological   IPM    Only chemical     Not reported           parasitoids above potted roses

+ phone survey in 2004: 28 % used IPM (cut flowers + pot plants + bedding plants) (Korkala 2005)
                                     AYR production: winter con-
                                     ditions not favourable to all
                                     beneficials despite artificial

Photo: Marika Linnamäki

                          Denmark: 30-35 % IPM (pot plants,
                          which comprise 75% of the total area
                          of glasshouse ornamentals 322 ha)
                          (Eilenberg et al. 2000)
3. Costs of IPM in European floriculture
                 IPM costs in cut roses in two German and two Finnish
                                     cut rose crops    Note: Germany IPM: labor costs
                                                                included, Finland IPM: not included

                   2000        2001        2002          2003        2004        2005
                                                  Year           average cost of chemical control in
                                                                 Finland: 2.35 e/m2 (labor incl.)
                      Finland A             Germany A                 Germany B
                      Conventional PP, A    Conventional PP, B        Finland B

German source: Horstmann, Richter, Klose & Sell 2006. Long-term costs in biological pest control with
beneficial organisms in cut flower roses. Nachrichtenblatt des deutschen Pflanzenschutzdienstens.(in
press). Finnish source: bookkeeping of the greenhouse companies
                   Proportional costs for different pests, Finnish cut
                                       rose crop (IPM) Achievable goal: IPM
                                                        with developed know-
                 6,00                                   ledge basis, excl.
                                                        labor (Lepaa Hort. Coll.)
                                                                Powdery mildew


                                                                Spider mites
                 0,00                                        Average chemical
                            2004               2005          control per m2, incl.
                                      Year                   labor (2002-06)

after having ”tasted” the totality of benefits of IPM, growers want to stick to it
and try to:
      • Reduce costs by deepening the knowledge basis 
      • move from the safe side of application rates to lower rates of beneficials
      • rely on economics of scale (reduced costs per m2 with increase in area
      under IPM)
   Economics of scale of using beneficials
                in cut roses

                                                      Ellen Richter, BBA,
                                                      coord. of Nützlinge
                                                      I & II

                Glasshouse area, m2

   (Ellen Richter, BBA, Germany)
Costs of plant protection in poinsettia in
  Germany (commercial greenhouses)
                                                     Cost per
   Company             PP methods                  1000 plants,                  Pests
             Only beneficials: 15 x Encfor (1
      1      per 3-6 plants), 1 x Steinernema         1,64        whiteflies, fungus gnats
             Like 1, but for 4 weeks 1                            whiteflies (heavy infestation),
                                                      1,84        fungus gnats
                                                                  whiteflies (heaviest infestation),
      3      Like 1 + 1 x Confidor                    1,94        fungus gnats
             Like 1 + 3 fungicide trmts: 2 x                      whiteflies, fungus gnats,
             Rovral, 1 X Previcur
                                                      3,64        Rhizoctonia, Botrytis, Pythium
                                                                  heavy whitefly infestation, fungus
             Like 2 + 3 fungicide trmts: 2 x
             Rovral, 1 X Previcur
                                                      3,84        gnats, Rhizoctonia, Botrytis,
                                                                  heaviest whitefly infestation,
             Like 3 + 3 fungicide trmts: 2 X
             Rovral, 1 x Previcur
                                                      3,94        fungus gnats, Rhizoctonia,
                                                                  Botrytis, Pythium
             Chemical: 2 x Confidor, 1 X
                                                                  whiteflies, Rhizoctonia, Botrytis,
      7      Nomolt, 2 x Rovral, 1 x Previcur, 1      4,10        Pythium, fungus gnats
             x Steinernema (5000/pot)
             Control from 1987: 46 pesticide
                                                                  whiteflies, Rhizoctonia, Botrytis,
      8      trmts(!) (Ambush, Thiodan,               15,5        Pythium
             Malathion, Benomyl, Previcur)

          Source: Krodel, K. 1996. Gartenbauwissenschaft 1/96, 37-46
4. Future prospects of floriculture IPM
   in Europe

                           UK up to 70%
                           under IPM depend-
                           ing on crop

                           NL 38%

                           Denmark 30-35%

                           FI 30% pot plants,
                           <10% cut roses)

                           NO: 50 % cut roses,
      What about others?   <5% pot plants
      Extent of IPM in some other countries

                                            Switzerland < 5 % (230 ha)
                                            SE <25% pot plants
      Poland <5%?              655
                      1022                          5700
France < 5 %   2215
Germany 5 %                                                            Denmark

                                                           Italy <5?
           Spain < 5%?                     The big producers of ornamentals are the
                                           challenge re. the changeover to IPM in Europe
? =no exact data available
       On-going knowledge transfer projects in floriculture
                                                                          ”Integrated Pest
         Biological pest control in cut roses                             Management in
           and cucumber grown with new                                 Ornamentals” (INTO)
                  lighting methods                            
                                             (coord. Irene Vänninen)
               (coord. Nina Johansen)

                            + less organized, but by no means
                                not less efficient knowledge
                                transfer in UK, DK, AU, SE…
                                                                 Nützlinge I+II
                                                             (coord. Ellen Richter)
Strateeg (coord.
        Annelies Hooijmans)
                                                                     Pest Control
        Telen met toekomst                                                             Nsf?Open
       (coord. Ellen Beerling)                          (coord. Marc Vissers,Liesbet Blindeman

     Threat: government support to advisory/extension systems
                       decreasing everywhere
                 EU-level incentives encouranging IPM?:

      Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides

    -Finalizing in May 2006?

    -Seems to end up only recommending national schemes to be

    -Hardly a strong incentive for glasshouse floriculture IPM – natio-
     nal schemes more important

    -NL, UK, DE, DK, SE, FI, BE: National Pesticide Reduction Plans (but
     emphasis clearly on edible crops)

EU-project REBECA aims at developing a balanced system
of regulation of biocontrol agents to promote the implementation of
biological control in European countries
  Market demands pushing floriculture towards IPM?
   Organic flowers?                            Fair flowers and plants?
   Estimation of achievable
   market share (DE, NL, CH,
   AU): 3-5 % (Billmann & Schmid

                                                Image courtesy:

                                                - 49 companies in South-Africa,
                                                  Kenya, Ecuador, Portugal (1000 ha)

                                                - IPM not explicitly mentioned in
                                                  standards, but…
Production guidelines in several
countries                                       -…companies in these countries are
Image courtesy:     moving towards IPM  pressure for
/3824-02OE265-ble-igz-2003-stecklinge.pdf        European floriculture to follow??
Acknowledgements:                         Growers of ornamental plants:
                                          Leo Holstein, Holstein Flowers, NL
Staff of INTO-project, FI:                Arend Book, Rosenkwekerij Joop van de
Pauliina Laitinen, Agropolis Ltd.         Nauweland, NL
Marika Linnamäki, Agropolis Ltd.          Marco Herburg, Herburg Rosenkwekerij, NL
                                          Ike Vlielander, FIDES, NL
IPM specialists in different countries:   Dion ten Have, NL
Annelies Hooijmans, Groeiservice, NL      Sirpa Anttila, Viherlandia, FI
Ellen Beerling, WUR, NL                   Martin Tarhat Oy, FI
Filip van Noort, WUR, NL                  Ylitalo Oy, FI
Ruud van Leeuwen, Strateeg-project, NL    Heikkilän kauppapuutarha, FI
Jude Bennison, ADAS, UK                   Lepolan puutarha, FI
Monica Tomiczek, ADAS, UK                 Huiskula Oy, FI
Annichen Smith-Eriksen, NO                Ruusutarhat Oy, FI
Ellen Richter, BBA, DE
Martin Hommes, BBA, DE                    Organizers of the symposium
Annie Enkegaard, Danmarks Jordbrugs       ”Delivering a promise” (5th National IPM
Forskning, DK                             Symposium, USA, St. Louis)
Leszek Orlikowski,Inst. Pomology and
Floriculture, PL
Roselyne Souriau, Gie La Croix, FR
Mireille Piron, Koppert B.V., FR
Celine Gilli, Swiss Agric. Res., CH
Sirpa Kurppa, Agrifood Research Finland

Shared By: