Scotland's Rural College Review of evidence on Integrated Pest Management Adamson, Hannah; Turner, Carla; Cook, Eleanor; Creissen, Henry E.; Evans, Andy; Cook, Sarah; Ramsden, Mark; Gage, Ewan; Froud, Leila; Ritchie, Faye; Clarke, James Print publication: 30/03/2020 Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication Citation for pulished version (APA): Adamson, H., Turner, C., Cook, E., Creissen, H. E., Evans, A., Cook, S., Ramsden, M., Gage, E., Froud, L., Ritchie, F., & Clarke, J. (2020). Review of evidence on Integrated Pest Management. DEFRA. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ? Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 28. Sep. 2021 Defra Review of Evidence on Integrated Pest Management Final Report 30/03/2020 Defra 1 Review of evidence on Integrated Pest Management Project_ 27269 ADAS GENERAL NOTES Project No.: 27269 Title: Review of evidence on Integrated Pest Management Client: Defra Date: 22/03/2020 Office: ADAS, 4205 Park Approach, Leeds, LS15 8GB Status: Draft Hannah Adamson, Carla Turner, Eleanor Cook, Henry Creissen (SRUC), Andy Evans (SRUC), Sarah Cook, Mark Ramsden, Ewan Gage, Author Leila Froud, Faye Ritchie, James Clarke. Date: 30/03/2020 Technical Reviewer John Elliott, Neil Paveley Date: 30/03/2020 RSK ADAS Ltd (ADAS) has prepared this report for the sole use of the client, showing reasonable skill and care, for the intended purposes as stated in the agreement under which this work was completed. The report may not be relied upon by any other party without the express agreement of the client and ADAS. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report. Where any data supplied by the client or from other sources have been used, it has been assumed that the information is correct. No responsibility can be accepted by ADAS for inaccuracies in the data supplied by any other party. The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based on the assumption that all relevant information has been supplied by those bodies from whom it was requested. No part of this report may be copied or duplicated without the express permission of ADAS and the party for whom it was prepared. Where field investigations have been carried out, these have been restricted to a level of detail required to achieve the stated objectives of the work. This work has been undertaken in accordance with the quality management system of RSK ADAS Ltd. Defra 2 Review of evidence on Integrated Pest Management Project_ 27269 Executive Summary Background IPM is an integrated multi-layered approach which includes a number of tangible measures as well as attitudinal and husbandry behaviours, which in combination can form an effective approach to crop protection. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is an important part of the Government’s future vision of crop protection and currently part of important policy documents, including the 25 Year Environmental Plan, and legislation, transposed from the European Union Sustainable Use Directive. ADAS and SRUC have been commissioned by Defra to conduct a research study to: Enhance Defra’s understanding of what works in IPM through a comprehensive review of recent evidence; and Collect best practice examples that can inform communication with growers Methodology To meet these objectives twenty-one stakeholder interviews were conducting to inform a Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA). The interviews were semi-structured and with stakeholders in organisations from; farmer or grower member organisations, research institutes, Non-Governmental Organisations, the Ag-Chem industry and agronomists. Information from the interviews helped refine the methodology for the REA as well as provide key evidence from the stakeholders. Eight key research questions were developed as part of the REA protocol which set out a systematic way of searching, reviewing and synthesising the available evidence. Research question 1: Are IPM approaches effective at reducing pesticide use? The evidence was mostly consistent in showing a decrease in chemical pesticide use where an IPM approach had been taken. This was consistent across different countries, sectors and crops. Specific measures which reported a reduction in chemical pesticide use included; natural predators, the use of pest thresholds, crop rotation and later drilling amongst others. For some evidence the impact of IPM approaches on chemical pesticide use was not measured and instead seen as common knowledge which did not need to be proven. It highlighted that IPM provides a systematic approach which can help farmers and growers take a holistic approach to their pest control and highlight areas they may not have previously considered. Evidence gaps were identified including understanding the impact of new measures and combination of measures on chemical pesticide use. Research question 2: What combination of IPM measures are most effective at reducing pests? Key IPM measures and approaches were categorised within the framework of the eight IPM principles; prevention and suppression, monitoring, informed decision making, non- chemical methods, pesticide selection, reduced pesticide use, anti-resistance management and evaluation. Prevention and suppression measures are often most popular with farmers and growers as they are perceived as requiring fewer resources than other measures. A number of these measures were explored including, crop rotation, cover crops, pest resistant crop and plant varieties, soil cultivation and irrigation. Non-chemical methods Defra 3 Review of evidence on Integrated Pest Management Project_ 27269 focused on biopesticides, beneficial organisms, physical barriers and mechanical weeding. For monitoring using local and regional pest forecast data, crop walking and evidence on thresholds was explored. Thresholds were considered as useful for some crops, but not all depending on the crop type and pest characteristics. Various sources of information are available to crop protection decision makers, including agronomy advice, online decision support systems, levy bodies and personal networks. In some countries there is evidence which identified that support networks have been found to be successful at helping farmers make informed decision on pest management. A holistic approach to IPM requires the incorporation of all eight principles across the farm and over multiple seasons, to create a sustainable and productive cropping environment. Research question 3: What are the impacts of IPM on the wider environment? The majority of the evidence identified positive impacts on the wider environment from the adoption of IPM. Much of the focus was on the positive impact of decreasing chemical pesticide use on the wider environment. The evidence focusses on benefits to the wider environment, including resilience of yield, soil quality and soil organic carbon (SOC), and biodiversity. To a lesser extent benefits were related to climate change. Additionally, it highlights a small amount of evidence which focuses on the positive public perception of IPM. The evidence gaps for this research question focus on the impacts of the IPM measure on the wider environment and not just the impacts of the reduction of chemical pesticide use. Research question 4: What are the socio-economic impacts of IPM on the farming industry? The main socio-economic impacts identified within the evidence focussed on the reduction of costs for the farmer through decreasing the use of chemical pesticides. IPM adoption was also associated with building networks and sharing knowledge within the farming industry. However, the evidence also raised the farmer and growers perception of the potential to reduction of yield or income if they decreased their chemical pesticide use. Beyond environmental benefits, IPM was viewed as being a systems-based approach, which can help farming become more economically and socially sustainable, partly due to the wide range of measures available as part of IPM. There is a lack of research identified on the social impacts of IPM uptake including information on human and social capital. Research question 5 and 6: What are the barriers and enablers to uptake of IPM measures or approaches? IPM is considered by farmers as high risk in terms of protecting yield and economic returns from the crop. Moreover, the evidence highlighted that benefits from IPM can take a longer time to realise than chemical pesticides. This is amplified by the supply chain and consumer preference. IPM measures can be costly in terms of time, due to the additional effort required to research and implement in comparison to chemical pesticides. There is very consistent evidence that the lack of farmer knowledge is a significant barrier to the uptake of IPM. IPM measures are often more complex and