Research Team

University of Kent: Alastair Bailey, Iain Fraser, Abhijit Sharma, Marco Bertaglia & Elodie Douarin

Imperial College, London: Charles Godfray & Georgianne Griffiths

Penn State US: Matt Thomas

Rothamstead Research: John Pickett, Wilf Powell, Lester Wadhams Sam Cook & Toby Bruce

G&WCT: John Holland, Barbara Smith & Heather Oaten.

RELU: Re-bugging the System - Promoting Adoption of Alternative Pest Management Strategies in Field Crop Systems

Overarching Research Objectives

• Understand why ‘biocontrol’ has not seen extensive commercial adoption in UK cereal farming

– problem with the ‘science’ - scaling the science? or– problem with ‘economics’ - economic decision to adopt?

• Use “Conservation Bio-Control” & “Semiochemicals” as examples of IPM component technologies.

Non-crop habitats provide resources for beneficial insect species

Semiochemicals influence spatial distribution of pest & beneficial insects

Both influence pest populations.

- Difference species have differing efficacy, there is some complementarity

- Semiochemicals help scale/distance effects – improve commercial viability

Rove beetles SpidersGround beetles

Manage the Abundance and Distribution of:

Generalist predators

Aphid specific predators Hoverflies

Lacewings Ladybirds

Parasitic wasps

Economics – a market failure?

• Adoption decision process dominated by private cost/benefit considerations. BUT social & network cost/benefits likely to be significant. – The problem is a technology replacement decision where the

incumbent technology is effective, well understood and economic to the decision maker.

– New technology has uncertain efficacy, is not well understood and may not be economic for the early adopter.

– Chemical technology may be ‘locked-in’ on a ‘path dependent’ course.

• Agri-Environmental Policy (AEP) could break the path dependency

Current policy setting• The Voluntary Initiative• Agri-environmental policy – ELS

– Points system to qualify – implicit pricing of environmental management options

Popularity of ELS options by agreement holdersOption Aggregate PopularityCrop protection management plan HighNutrient management plan HighSoil management plan HighBoundary 1 side HighBoudary 2 side High6m buffer strips, Field corner, Conservation headlands MediumManure management plan MediumBoundary Enhanced Medium4m buffer strips & buffering in-field ponds in arable land LowWild bird seed mixture & Pollen and nectar mixture all Low2m buffer strips on cultivated land LowBeetle banks Very Low

• Policy is helping to promote IPM techniques

• Many valuable IPM options are less popular

• But:– Contracts awarded on simple points threshold– Applications considered farm-by-farm – no scale or network

externalities are considered

IPM Adoption Current State• Pest management practice survey of UK cereal farmers

– Average number & types of practices used and under consideration were reported

• Principle Components used to discover which work, or are adopted, together

• A promising picture of IPM Portfolio adoption driven by:– AEP incentives

– Farm specific plant protection problems

– Background landscape and ecology

– Organic/Conventional status

– Source of insecticide use advice

‘Intra Crop Bio-controlers’

‘Chemical "Users" / Conservers’

‘Extra Crop Conservation Bio-

controlers’‘Weed Focused

Farmers’

Trap Crops Pheromones Field Margins Cultivate WeedsMixed Varieties Different Varieties Floral Strips Crop RotationIntroductions Resistant Varieties Beetle Bank Timing of

OperationsPheromones Spot Spraying Hand RougingDifferent Varieties Treated Seeds

Rotate Pesticide Classes

Effect on Insecticidal Application

• Future Directions & Effort

• DEFRA: Potential need to revisit AEP incentive design & cooperative applications

• Farmers & Advisors: Demonstrate IPM success

• Scientists & Extension workers: Identify early & appropriate IPM adoptors

• Need to consider IPM in context of changing climate, invasive pests and inertia in chemical R&D & regulator fields

- Need to find resilience and adaptation from Conservation Bio-control systems

• Some forms of IPM can reduce insecticide use/reliance

• ELS membership appears to increase insecticide use

• However:

• AES has helped to encourage IPM component adoption

• Farmers are open to consider alternative IPM technologies

Determinants of Insecticidal ApplicationDependent Var

Independent Var Beta t

(Constant) -1.33 -2.07‘Intra Crop Biocontrolers’ -0.07 -2.09Chemical "Users" / Conservers’ 0.07 2.25‘Extra Crop Conservation Biocontrolers’ 0.04 1.26‘Weed Focused Farmers’ 0.02 0.75Membership of: CSS -0.06 -0.97

ELS 0.33 5.05HLS -0.08 -0.61

VI 0.11 1.62Proportion of farm 'Conventional' 0.97 1.52Independent Advice 0.11 1.7Arable 0.22 3.55

Spray Application/Crop