61 International Symposium on Crop Protection
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
ABSTRACTS 61st International Symposium on Crop Protection May 19, 2009 Gent Belgium HONORARY D. DEGHEELE (=), W. DEJONCKHEERE (=), CHAIRMEN A. GILLARD (=), R.H. KIPS (=), C. PELERENTS, J. POPPE, J. STRYCKERS (=) J. VAN DEN BRANDE (=), W. WELVAERT ORGANIZING W. STEURNBAUT (Chair), R. BULCKE, COMMITTEE P. DE CLERCQ, M. HÖFTE, M. MOENS, G. SMAGGHE, L. TIRRY P. SPANOGHE (Secretary-general), H. VAN BOST (Secretary) L. GOETEYN (Assistant-secretary) L. GOSSEYE (Assistant-secretary) ADVISORY A. CALUS, J. COOSEMANS, P. CORNELIS, COMMITTEE P. CREEMERS, B. DE CAUWER, W. DE COEN, R. DE VIS, B. GOBIN, E. PRINSEN, D. REHEUL, E. VAN BOCKSTAELE, Els VAN DAMME, J. VANDEN BROECK, G. VAN HUYLENBROECK, M.C. VAN LABEKE, W. VERSTRAETE Tel. no. + 32 9 264.60.09 (P. Spanoghe) Fax. no : + 32 9 264.62.49 E-mail : [email protected] Website: http://www.iscp.ugent.be II GENERAL PROGRAMME May, 18 15.00-18.00 REGISTRATION May, 19 08.00 REGISTRATION 09.30-11.00 PLENARY SESSION 11.00-13.00 ORAL SESSIONS 13.00-14.00 LUNCH 14.00-15.00 POSTER SESSION 15.00-17.20 ORAL SESSIONS 17.30 RECEPTION 19.30 BANQUET Het Pand Ghent University Onderbergen 1, 9000 Gent III THE SYMPOSIUM VENUE Blok Room Section Topic Floor (Building) No Session PS Plenary Session E first 1.002 SP Special Session on Drift A first 1.015 1 Application Technology A first 1.015 Insecticides 2 E first 1.012 Host Plant Resistance Agricultural Entomology 3 E first 1.015 Side-Effects 4 Herbology A ground 0.030 5 Nematology A second 2.097 Phytopathology and Integrated 6 E second 2.009 Control of Plant Diseases (1) Phytopathology and Integrated 7 E second 2.010 Control of Plant Diseases (2) 8 Fungicides E first 1.015 Posters Posters Application Technology A ground 0.041 A01-A05 Posters Pesticide Residues, Toxicology A ground 0.041 R01-R28 and Ecotoxicology Posters Agricultural Entomology A ground 0.041 E01-E43 and Acarology Poster Nematology A ground 0.041 N01-N21 Posters Herbology A ground 0.041 H01-H13 Posters Phytopathology A ground 0.041 P01-P57 IV CONTENT Oral 1 Plenary session 1 Special Session on Drift 5 Session 1 – Application Technology 15 Session 2 – Insecticides – Host-Plant Resistance 23 Session 3 – Agricultural Entomology – Side-effects 37 Session 4 – Herbology 45 Session 5 – Nematology 53 Session 6 – Phytopathology and Integrated Control of Plant Disease (1) 67 Session 7 – Phytopathology and Integrated Control of Plant Disease (2) 83 Session 8 – Fungicides 99 Posters 105 Application Technology Posters – A01-A05 105 Pesticide Residues, Toxicology and Ecotoxicology Posters – R01-R28 113 Entomology Posters – E01-E43 139 Nematology Posters – N01-N21 185 Herbology Posters – H01-H13 209 Phytopathology Posters – P01-P57 225 V VI Plenary session Plenary session 1 Plenary session 2 Plenary session ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT ON CROP PROTECTION OF THE "CUT-OFF CRITERIA" IN A NEW REGULATION FOR AUTHORISATION OF PLANT PROTECTION PRODUCTS D.M. RICHARDSON Pesticides Safety Directorate York, YO1 7PX, UK Plant Protection Products have been regulated under Directive 91/414/EEC which required a comprehensive risk assessment to ensure acceptable levels of safety before an active substance was authorised. In January 2009, European Parliament agreed a draft Regulation to replace 91/414. This Regulation, originally proposed in June 2006, maintained risk assessment but also introduced the concept of hazard assessment or ‘cut-off criteria’ for the approval of active substances. In addition it proposed the concept of comparative assessment and substitution for those active substances meeting certain ‘less stringent’ hazard criteria. The Commission’s impact assessment for the proposed Regulation did not consider the likely consequences of the hazard criteria and substitution provisions; nor did the Parliament provide an assessment of the implications of the amendments proposed in its first reading report. PSD therefore conducted and published an assessment of the impact of the proposals both on active substance availability and on agronomic aspects. This raised a number of serious concerns, particularly due to the likely loss of most triazole fungicides. At their most stringent, the proposals would have seriously undermined the viability of current commercial agriculture, with major impacts on yield and quality. Since publication of that assessment and through the second reading, there has been a substantive amelioration of many of the proposals. A revised PSD assessment indicated that up to 14% of active substances are likely to be lost as a result of the agreed (but not yet adopted) Regulation. The presentation will outline the concerns from the UK and provide an indication of the agronomic impact of the proposals. 3 Plenary session HOW DOES COVERED CROP TYPE INFLUENCE RISK FROM PESTICIDES TO THE ENVIRONMENT, CONSUMER, OPERATOR AND BYSTANDERS ? A REVIEW OF TRUE AND FALSE CONCERNS Ettore CAPRI Istituto di Chimica Agraria ed Ambientale Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Piacenza, Italy The goal of this paper is to report the status of the art of the relative impacts of covered crop systems such as greenhouses, glasshouses, tunnels, plastic shelters, based on current literature and discussion on going in different institutions and stakeholders associations. Relative impacts have been shown highly dependent on the selection of specific pesticides, crop management, water and soil management in the different systems placed in different climatic conditions. The lack of data on the covered crop distribution Europe, on the pesticide fate measurement and on tools such as scenario and models make difficult a reliable quantitative assessment although in theory appear clear the increment or decrement of the impact case by case. This means that the risk assessment could be improved by a careful selection of agronomic, climatic and pesticide parameters. Missing information might be available in the next future but in order to improve the relative impact calculations, future research in pesticide transfer are needed. The latter will benefit the implementation of the new regulation such the sustainable use of pesticide, the authorisation of the plant protection product and the land management regulations. 4 Special session on drift Special session on drift 5 Special session on drift 6 Special session on drift DEVELOPMENT OF INDICATORS THAT ALLOWS TO EVALUATE IN REAL TIME RISKS OF THE SPRAY DRIFT Marie-France DESTAIN1, Frédéric LEBEAU1, Bruno SCHIFFERS2 & Arnaud VERSTRAETE1 1 Department of Engineering and Construction, FUSAGx, Belgium 2 Laboratory of phytopharmacy, FUSAGx, Belgium During the spray application, the drift is considered as the most important secondary effect. To limit this negative impact on the environment, the final goal of this study is to develop indicators that evaluate in real conditions of spray the percentages of exceeding or of reduction of the drift in relation to the reference data (Ganzelmeier curves). The originality of this study is to make the tests on cultures, with a real mixture in order to come closer to the conditions really met by farmers. To collect data, a chain of sensors is mounted on a sprayer to measure boom height, sprayer speed, pressure, flow, boom movements, global position, wind speed, wind direction. What is more, a meteorological station is placed during the tests to collect data on temperature, hygrometry, wind speed, wind direction, turbulences. During tests, collectors in veil of glass are placed at vegetation level around the sprayed field at different distances. In the mixture, a tracer, in this case, the fluorescein, is added to quantify the drift. After the spray, collectors are analysed in a laboratory with a fluorimeter to quantify indirectly the quantity of plant-care products that are drifted. In a second phase, the signals stemming from the sensors are treated. From these data, the drift is predicted by the model RTDrift. This model is an adaptation of the Gaussian model used in atmospheric pollution to the drift of pesticides. It supposes that the panache disperses along a central line depending on dispersion coefficients. The result of the modelling is then compared to the results obtained in the field and parameters of the model are adjusted if it is necessary. The modelling will allow to map the spray drift and to see the areas where the drift is more important. According to that, farmers decide to spray or to put their spray off until later. At term, an electromechanical device on the sprayer will stop the spray if the meteorological conditions are bad. 7 Special session on drift THE WIND TUNNEL AS SUCCESSFUL TOOL TO EXAMINE DRIFT-AFFECTING FACTORS Mieke DE SCHAMPHELEIRE1, David NUYTTENS2, Donald DEKEYSER2, Pieter VERBOVEN3, Pieter SPANOGHE1, Wim CORNELIS4, Donald GABRIELS4, Walter STEURBAUT1 1 Ghent University, Laboratory of Crop Protection Chemistry Coupure links 653, BE-9000 Gent, Belgium 2 ILVO - Technology and Food, Agricultural Engineering Burg. Van Gansberghelaan 115, BE-9820 Merelbeke, Belgium 3 Catholic University of Leuven De Croylaan 42, BE-3001 Leuven, Belgium 4 Ghent University, Department of Soil Management and Soil Care Coupure links 653, BE-Gent, Belgium Spray drift is influenced by many factors, like spraying technique, weather conditions, crop type, surrounding characteristics and physicochemical properties of the spray liquid. Field experiments are laborious, time-consuming and costly. Wind tunnel under semi-realistic conditions can be used as a screening method, priory to field work. During the project “The efficiency of drift-mitigating measures to protect the Flemish environment”, numerous wind tunnel experiments were performed. In a first part, several spray nozzles types were measured at various spray pressures (factor ‘spraying technique’). Secondly, the effect of formulation type (EC, SC, WP, WG and SL) and the addition of a polymeric drift-retardant were evaluated (factor ‘physicochemistry’). Finally, the interception potentials of various artificial border structures and natural crops were determined (factor ‘surrounding characteristics’). The wind tunnel proved to be a successful tool to examine drift-affecting factors, and to evaluate drift-mitigation measures.