Sharing decision-making tools for pest management may foster implementation of Integrated Pest Management
-
Published:2023-10-07
Issue:6
Volume:15
Page:1459-1474
-
ISSN:1876-4517
-
Container-title:Food Security
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Food Sec.
Author:
Rossi VittorioORCID, Caffi TitoORCID, Salotti IreneORCID, Fedele GiorgiaORCID
Abstract
AbstractAgriculture needs to reduce its current dependence toward pesticides while reducing crop losses caused by pests and ensuring food security; Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is considered the most appropriate approach to achieve the goal. More specifically, growers should use tools that enable informed decisions on whether and when crop protection is needed, and which methods should be used. These tools include risk algorithms, decision rules, intervention thresholds, and decision support systems (DSSs), collectively named decision tools (DTs). A large number of DTs have been developed and made available to advisors and farmers, mainly through Internet-based systems. The adoption rate of these systems, however, has been low because of technical limitations and farmer perceptions. Fragmentation of the DTs offered, poor local implementation, and restriction to particular users are among the causes for low adoption. If properly mobilised, the use and effects of DTs could substantially be increased. Sharing of IPM DTs has a strong potential for providing wider access to the existing knowledge, for fostering IPM implementation, and for supporting plant health policies. In this article, we outline an overall approach to develop a web-based platform, in which DTs are shared and made widely available. Such a platform can include a range of ready-to-use DTs, i.e. DTs which are currently available, that have been field-validated, and which are already being used in some agricultural contexts. The platform also provides open, full documentation of DTs, makes DTs available for validation and adaptation in different agricultural contexts, and makes DTs easily available for multiple kinds of end-users involved in IPM (farmers, IPM experts, public and private information and service providers, and policy makers). We also consider how DT sharing can reduce both the technological and behavioural limitations of existing plant health management systems.
Funder
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Agronomy and Crop Science,Development,Food Science
Reference74 articles.
1. Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471–499. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466601164939 2. Ascough, J., Mcmaster, G. S., Dunn, G. H., & Andales, A. A. (2010). The GPFARM DS for agroecosystem sustainability: The past, future, and lessons learned. In T. F. D.A. Swayne, W. Yang, A.A. Voinov, A. Rizzoli (Ed.), Environmental Modeling International Conference Proceedings. International Modeling and Environmental Software Society, Modelling for Environment’s Sake. 3. Barzman, M., Bàrberi, P., Birch, A. N. E., Boonekamp, P., Dachbrodt-Saaydeh, S., Graf, B., et al. (2015). Eight principles of integrated pest management. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 35(4), 1199–1215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0327-9 4. Been, T. H., Consiglio, A. B., Evans, N., Gouache, D., Gutsche, V., Jensen, J. E., et al. (2009). Review of New technologies critical to effective implementation of Decision Support Systems (DSS’s) and Farm Management Systems (FMS’s). Endure, (March), 128. 5. Bentley, J. W., Castaño-Zapata, J., & Andrews, K. L. (1995). World integrated pathogen and pest management and sustainable agriculture in the developing world. Advances in Plant Pathology, 11, 250–271.
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|