Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Sommaire -- Avant-propos -- Préambule -- Préface -- Remerciements -- Introduction -- Chapitre 1. Décliner les principes de l'agroécologie à la protection -- Les contours de l'agroécologie -- L'agroécologie, science de la révolution agricole du xxie siècle ? -- L'agroécologie vue par un écologue évolutionniste -- L'agronomie est-elle soluble dans l'agroécologie ? -- Agroécologie et cadres de référence : une lecture épistémologique -- Évolution de la protection des cultures -- Regard critique d'un historien des sciences sur l'évolution de la protection des cultures -- Passer de la protection intégrée à la protection agroécologique des cultures -- La protection agroécologique des cultures : à l'interface de l'agroécologie, de la protection des cultures et de la gestion de la biodiversité -- Application de l'agroécologie à la protection des cultures -- Axes directeurs de la protection agroécologique des cultures -- Rôle de la biodiversité dans le fonctionnement des agroécosystèmes -- Définition et stratégie de mise en œuvre de la PAEC -- La lutte biologique par conservation -- Conclusion -- Chapitre 2. Application en cultures maraîchères : l'expérience Gamour -- Introduction -- Contexte et enjeux -- Les mouches des légumes : ravageurs n° 1 de l'agriculture réunionnaise -- Une réponse chimique systématique et inefficace -- Sortir de l'impasse par la gestion agroécologique des ravageurs -- Les enjeux scientifiques et socioéconomiques du projet Gamour -- La plus-value de l'association des différents partenaires du projet -- Une étape majeure vers une agriculture réunionnaise durable et rentable -- Conception du projet Gamour -- Une concertation inter-acteurs longue et précieuse -- Des financements multiples, un partenariat diversifié -- Une structuration des actions adaptée aux objectifs.

Des programmes et projets de lutte intégrée ont été exécutés dans la plupart des pays en Afrique subsaharienne. Cependant les succès de ces projets sont restés limités au delà de leur mise en oeuvre en raison de nombreuses contraintes. Cette situation est analysée dans la présente communication en prenant pour exemples les cas de projets exécutés au cours des deux dernières décennies en Afrique de l'Ouest et du Centre. Il s'agit du Projet CILSS/USAID/FAO exécuté dans 9 pays Sahéliens (1980-1987), du Projet de lutte intégrée en culture de sorgho au Mali et au Burkina Faso (1996-2000) et du Projet Régional BAD/CBLT dans le Bassin du Lac Tchad (2003-2005). La particularité commune de ces projets est d'avoir bénéficié de financements extérieurs (USAID, Commission Européenne, BAD). Les pays bénéficiaires ont contribué à travers les infrastructures et le personnel (chercheurs, agents de vulgarisation et paysans) pour l'exécution de ces projets. Les succès enregistrés ont reposé sur le renforcement des capacités humaines à travers des formations académiques et professionnelles des acteurs, l'accroissement des rendements des cultures cibles, l'amélioration des revenus des paysans et la réduction de l'usage des pesticides toxiques pour un meilleur environnement. Les contraintes majeures découlent de l'absence d'une politique nationale en matière de lutte intégrée, de structure organisationnelle et de revenus suffisants des paysans pour appliquer les technologies développées. A cela s'ajoute l'absence de financement des pays bénéficiaires pour étendre et perpétuer les acquis au delà de la fin des projets. Des perspectives, défis et recommandations sont dégagés à la lumière de cette analyse afin de permettre à la gestion intégrée des ravageurs de continuer à jouer un grand rôle pour aider les pays à atteindre la sécurité alimentaire et à faire face aux changements climatiques. (Texte intégral)

Agriculture in the twenty-first century faces the challenge of meeting food demands while satisfying sustainability goals. The challenge is further complicated by climate change which affects the distribution of crop pests (intended as insects, plants, and pathogenic agents injurious to crops) and the severity of their outbreaks. Increasing concerns over health and the environment as well as new legislation on pesticide use, particularly in the European Union, urge us to find sustainable alternatives to pesticide-based pest management. Here, we review the effect of climate change on crop protection and propose strategies to reduce the impact of future invasive as well as rapidly evolving resident populations. The major points are the following: (1) the main consequence of climate change and globalization is a heightened level of unpredictability of spatial and temporal interactions between weather, cropping systems, and pests; (2) the unpredictable adaptation of pests to a changing environment primarily creates uncertainty and projected changes do not automatically translate into doom and gloom scenarios; (3) faced with uncertainty, policy, research, and extension should prepare for worst-case scenarios following a "no regrets" approach that promotes resilience vis-A -vis pests which, at the biophysical level, entails uncovering what currently makes cropping systems resilient, while at the organizational level, the capacity to adapt needs to be recognized and strengthened; (4) more collective approaches involving extension and other stakeholders will help meet the challenge of developing more robust cropping systems; (5) farmers can take advantage of Web 2.0 and other new technologies to make the exchange of updated information quicker and easier; (6) cooperation between historically compartmentalized experts in plant health and crop protection could help develop anticipation strategies; and (7) the current decline in skilled crop protection specialists in Europe should be reversed, and shortcomings in local human and financial resources can be overcome by pooling resources across borders.

Climate change is increasingly perceived as one of the major constraints that limit agricultural productivity. Crop losses due to climate change could be direct, such as damages through flooding or storms, or indirect such as altered distribution of crop pests. The real impact of climate change at global level is yet uncertain and likely variable from one region to another. Within this context, it is difficult to predict effects of climate change, particularly when long-term datasets from the past are missing to develop and test predictive models for the future. Nevertheless, our knowledge of plant-disease interactions, population genetics of pathogens as well as crops, and examples of overwhelming establishment of new diseases in a given region provides insights into how climate change may affect disease incidence and severity. Here we report examples of pest populations which have been established across regions previously considered detrimental for their survival and yield losses associated to these pests. Faced with the uncertainty regarding the effects of changing climate on crop protection, here we propose a number of action points that, to our opinion, may help improve current plant protection strategies. Given this uncertainty, policy, research, and extension should be prepared to promote resilience vis-à-vis pests which, at the biophysical level, entails uncovering what currently makes cropping systems resilient, while at the organizational level, the capacity to adapt needs to be recognized and strengthened (Lamichhane et al 2014). Such action points include increase in human resources, development of resilient cropping systems, more focus on crop-weed competition, anticipating of risks and international monitoring, and more effort on breeding for resistance, development of biological control strategies and pest risks analysis. This diversification could be achieved by improving current plant protection practices which might help mitigate the effect of climate change in future crop protection, particularly in the EU, but also at global level. The vision presented here is that of the ENDURE European Research Group, which brings together some of Europe's leading agricultural research, teaching, and extension institutes with a special interest in IPM.

Climate change is increasingly perceived as one of the major constraints that limit agricultural productivity. Crop losses due to climate change could be direct, such as damages through flooding or storms, or indirect such as altered distribution of crop pests. The real impact of climate change at global level is yet uncertain and likely variable from one region to another. Within this context, it is difficult to predict effects of climate change, particularly when long-term datasets from the past are missing to develop and test predictive models for the future. Nevertheless, our knowledge of plant-disease interactions, population genetics of pathogens as well as crops, and examples of overwhelming establishment of new diseases in a given region provides insights into how climate change may affect disease incidence and severity. Here we report examples of pest populations which have been established across regions previously considered detrimental for their survival and yield losses associated to these pests. Faced with the uncertainty regarding the effects of changing climate on crop protection, here we propose a number of action points that, to our opinion, may help improve current plant protection strategies. Given this uncertainty, policy, research, and extension should be prepared to promote resilience vis-à-vis pests which, at the biophysical level, entails uncovering what currently makes cropping systems resilient, while at the organizational level, the capacity to adapt needs to be recognized and strengthened (Lamichhane et al 2014). Such action points include increase in human resources, development of resilient cropping systems, more focus on crop-weed competition, anticipating of risks and international monitoring, and more effort on breeding for resistance, development of biological control strategies and pest risks analysis. This diversification could be achieved by improving current plant protection practices which might help mitigate the effect of climate change in future crop protection, particularly in the EU, but also at global level. The vision presented here is that of the ENDURE European Research Group, which brings together some of Europe's leading agricultural research, teaching, and extension institutes with a special interest in IPM.

Climate change is increasingly perceived as one of the major constraints that limit agricultural productivity. Crop losses due to climate change could be direct, such as damages through flooding or storms, or indirect such as altered distribution of crop pests. The real impact of climate change at global level is yet uncertain and likely variable from one region to another. Within this context, it is difficult to predict effects of climate change, particularly when long-term datasets from the past are missing to develop and test predictive models for the future. Nevertheless, our knowledge of plant-disease interactions, population genetics of pathogens as well as crops, and examples of overwhelming establishment of new diseases in a given region provides insights into how climate change may affect disease incidence and severity. Here we report examples of pest populations which have been established across regions previously considered detrimental for their survival and yield losses associated to these pests. Faced with the uncertainty regarding the effects of changing climate on crop protection, here we propose a number of action points that, to our opinion, may help improve current plant protection strategies. Given this uncertainty, policy, research, and extension should be prepared to promote resilience vis-à-vis pests which, at the biophysical level, entails uncovering what currently makes cropping systems resilient, while at the organizational level, the capacity to adapt needs to be recognized and strengthened (Lamichhane et al 2014). Such action points include increase in human resources, development of resilient cropping systems, more focus on crop-weed competition, anticipating of risks and international monitoring, and more effort on breeding for resistance, development of biological control strategies and pest risks analysis. This diversification could be achieved by improving current plant protection practices which might help mitigate the effect of climate change in future crop protection, particularly in the EU, but also at global level. The vision presented here is that of the ENDURE European Research Group, which brings together some of Europe's leading agricultural research, teaching, and extension institutes with a special interest in IPM.

Climate change is increasingly perceived as one of the major constraints that limit agricultural productivity. Crop losses due to climate change could be direct, such as damages through flooding or storms, or indirect such as altered distribution of crop pests. The real impact of climate change at global level is yet uncertain and likely variable from one region to another. Within this context, it is difficult to predict effects of climate change, particularly when long-term datasets from the past are missing to develop and test predictive models for the future. Nevertheless, our knowledge of plant-disease interactions, population genetics of pathogens as well as crops, and examples of overwhelming establishment of new diseases in a given region provides insights into how climate change may affect disease incidence and severity. Here we report examples of pest populations which have been established across regions previously considered detrimental for their survival and yield losses associated to these pests. Faced with the uncertainty regarding the effects of changing climate on crop protection, here we propose a number of action points that, to our opinion, may help improve current plant protection strategies. Given this uncertainty, policy, research, and extension should be prepared to promote resilience vis-à-vis pests which, at the biophysical level, entails uncovering what currently makes cropping systems resilient, while at the organizational level, the capacity to adapt needs to be recognized and strengthened (Lamichhane et al 2014). Such action points include increase in human resources, development of resilient cropping systems, more focus on crop-weed competition, anticipating of risks and international monitoring, and more effort on breeding for resistance, development of biological control strategies and pest risks analysis. This diversification could be achieved by improving current plant protection practices which might help mitigate the effect of climate change in future crop protection, particularly in the EU, but also at global level. The vision presented here is that of the ENDURE European Research Group, which brings together some of Europe's leading agricultural research, teaching, and extension institutes with a special interest in IPM.

Agriculture in the twenty-first century faces the challenge of meeting food demands while satisfying sustainability goals. The challenge is further complicated by climate change which affects the distribution of crop pests (intended as insects, plants, and pathogenic agents injurious to crops) and the severity of their outbreaks. Increasing concerns over health and the environment as well as new legislation on pesticide use, particularly in the European Union, urge us to find sustainable alternatives to pesticide-based pest management. Here, we review the effect of climate change on crop protection and propose strategies to reduce the impact of future invasive as well as rapidly evolving resident populations. The major points are the following: (1) the main consequence of climate change and globalization is a heightened level of unpredictability of spatial and temporal interactions between weather, cropping systems, and pests; (2) the unpredictable adaptation of pests to a changing environment primarily creates uncertainty and projected changes do not automatically translate into doom and gloom scenarios; (3) faced with uncertainty, policy, research, and extension should prepare for worst-case scenarios following a "no regrets" approach that promotes resilience vis-à-vis pests which, at the biophysical level, entails uncovering what currently makes cropping systems resilient, while at the organizational level, the capacity to adapt needs to be recognized and strengthened; (4) more collective approaches involving extension and other stakeholders will help meet the challenge of developing more robust cropping systems; (5) farmers can take advantage of Web 2.0 and other new technologies to make the exchange of updated information quicker and easier; (6) cooperation between historically compartmentalized experts in plant health and crop protection could help develop anticipation strategies; and (7) the current decline in skilled crop protection specialists in Europe should be reversed, and shortcomings in local human and financial resources can be overcome by pooling resources across borders.

Climate change is increasingly perceived as one of the major constraints that limit agricultural productivity. Crop losses due to climate change could be direct, such as damages through flooding or storms, or indirect such as altered distribution of crop pests. The real impact of climate change at global level is yet uncertain and likely variable from one region to another. Within this context, it is difficult to predict effects of climate change, particularly when long-term datasets from the past are missing to develop and test predictive models for the future. Nevertheless, our knowledge of plant-disease interactions, population genetics of pathogens as well as crops, and examples of overwhelming establishment of new diseases in a given region provides insights into how climate change may affect disease incidence and severity. Here we report examples of pest populations which have been established across regions previously considered detrimental for their survival and yield losses associated to these pests. Faced with the uncertainty regarding the effects of changing climate on crop protection, here we propose a number of action points that, to our opinion, may help improve current plant protection strategies. Given this uncertainty, policy, research, and extension should be prepared to promote resilience vis-à-vis pests which, at the biophysical level, entails uncovering what currently makes cropping systems resilient, while at the organizational level, the capacity to adapt needs to be recognized and strengthened (Lamichhane et al 2014). Such action points include increase in human resources, development of resilient cropping systems, more focus on crop-weed competition, anticipating of risks and international monitoring, and more effort on breeding for resistance, development of biological control strategies and pest risks analysis. This diversification could be achieved by improving current plant protection practices which might help mitigate the effect of climate change in future crop protection, particularly in the EU, but also at global level. The vision presented here is that of the ENDURE European Research Group, which brings together some of Europe's leading agricultural research, teaching, and extension institutes with a special interest in IPM.

International audience ; Agriculture in the twenty-first century faces the challenge of meeting food demands while satisfying sustainability goals. The challenge is further complicated by climate change which affects the distribution of crop pests (intended as insects, plants, and pathogenic agents injurious to crops) and the severity of their outbreaks. Increasing concerns over health and the environment as well as new legislation on pesticide use, particularly in the European Union, urge us to find sustainable alternatives to pesticide-based pest management. Here, we review the effect of climate change on crop protection and propose strategies to reduce the impact of future invasive as well as rapidly evolving resident populations. The major points are the following: (1) the main consequence of climate change and globalization is a heightened level of unpredictability of spatial and temporal interactions between weather, cropping systems, and pests; (2) the unpredictable adaptation of pests to a changing environment primarily creates uncertainty and projected changes do not automatically translate into doom and gloom scenarios; (3) faced with uncertainty, policy, research, and extension should prepare for worst-case scenarios following a "no regrets" approach that promotes resilience vis-à-vis pests which, at the biophysical level, entails uncovering what currently makes cropping systems resilient, while at the organizational level, the capacity to adapt needs to be recognized and strengthened; (4) more collective approaches involving extension and other stakeholders will help meet the challenge of developing more robust cropping systems; (5) farmers can take advantage of Web 2.0 and other new technologies to make the exchange of updated information quicker and easier; (6) cooperation between historically compartmentalized experts in plant health and crop protection could help develop anticipation strategies; and (7) the current decline in skilled crop protection specialists in Europe should be reversed, and ...

The use of pesticides made it possible to increase yields, simplify cropping systems, and forego more complicated crop protection strategies. Over-reliance on chemical control, however, is associated with contamination of ecosystems and undesirable health effects. The future of crop production is now also threatened by emergence of pest resistance and declining availability of active substances. There is therefore a need to design cropping systems less dependent on synthetic pesticides. Consequently, the European Union requires the application of eight principles (P) of Integrated Pest Management that fit within sustainable farm management. Here, we propose to farmers, advisors, and researchers a dynamic and flexible approach that accounts for the diversity of farming situations and the complexities of agroecosystems and that can improve the resilience of cropping systems and our capacity to adapt crop protection to local realities. For each principle (P), we suggest that (P1) the design of inherently robust cropping systems using a combination of agronomic levers is key to prevention. (P2) Local availability of monitoring, warning, and forecasting systems is a reality to contendwith. (P3) The decision-making process can integrate cropping system factors to develop longer-term strategies. (P4) The combination of non-chemical methods that may be individually less efficient than pesticides can generate valuable synergies. (P5) Development of new biological agents and products and the use of existing databases offer options for the selection of products minimizing impact on health, the environment, and biological regulation of pests. (P6) Reduced pesticide use can be effectively combined with other tactics. (P7) Addressing the root causes of pesticide resistance is the best way to find sustainable crop protection solutions. And (P8) integration of multi-season effects and trade-offs in evaluation criteria will help developsustainable solutions.

The use of pesticides made it possible to increase yields, simplify cropping systems, and forego more complicated crop protection strategies. Over-reliance on chemical control, however, is associated with contamination of ecosystems and undesirable health effects. The future of crop production is now also threatened by emergence of pest resistance and declining availability of active substances. There is therefore a need to design cropping systems less dependent on synthetic pesticides. Consequently, the European Union requires the application of eight principles (P) of Integrated Pest Management that fit within sustainable farm management. Here, we propose to farmers, advisors, and researchers a dynamic and flexible approach that accounts for the diversity of farming situations and the complexities of agroecosystems and that can improve the resilience of cropping systems and our capacity to adapt crop protection to local realities. For each principle (P), we suggest that (P1) the design of inherently robust cropping systems using a combination of agronomic levers is key to prevention. (P2) Local availability of monitoring, warning, and forecasting systems is a reality to contendwith. (P3) The decision-making process can integrate cropping system factors to develop longer-term strategies. (P4) The combination of non-chemical methods that may be individually less efficient than pesticides can generate valuable synergies. (P5) Development of new biological agents and products and the use of existing databases offer options for the selection of products minimizing impact on health, the environment, and biological regulation of pests. (P6) Reduced pesticide use can be effectively combined with other tactics. (P7) Addressing the root causes of pesticide resistance is the best way to find sustainable crop protection solutions. And (P8) integration of multi-season effects and trade-offs in evaluation criteria will help developsustainable solutions.

The use of pesticides made it possible to increase yields, simplify cropping systems, and forego more complicated crop protection strategies. Over-reliance on chemical control, however, is associated with contamination of ecosystems and undesirable health effects. The future of crop production is now also threatened by emergence of pest resistance and declining availability of active substances. There is therefore a need to design cropping systems less dependent on synthetic pesticides. Consequently, the European Union requires the application of eight principles (P) of Integrated Pest Management that fit within sustainable farm management. Here, we propose to farmers, advisors, and researchers a dynamic and flexible approach that accounts for the diversity of farming situations and the complexities of agroecosystems and that can improve the resilience of cropping systems and our capacity to adapt crop protection to local realities. For each principle (P), we suggest that (P1) the design of inherently robust cropping systems using a combination of agronomic levers is key to prevention. (P2) Local availability of monitoring, warning, and forecasting systems is a reality to contend with. (P3) The decision-making process can integrate cropping system factors to develop longer-term strategies. (P4) The combination of non-chemical methods that may be individually less efficient than pesticides can generate valuable synergies. (P5) Development of new biological agents and products and the use of existing databases offer options for the selection of products minimizing impact on health, the environment, and biological regulation of pests. (P6) Reduced pesticide use can be effectively combined with other tactics. (P7) Addressing the root causes of pesticide resistance is the best way to find sustainable crop protection solutions. And (P8) integration of multi-season effects and trade-offs in evaluation criteria will help develop sustainable solutions.

The use of pesticides made it possible to increase yields, simplify cropping systems, and forego more complicated crop protection strategies. Over-reliance on chemical control, however, is associated with contamination of ecosystems and undesirable health effects. The future of crop production is now also threatened by emergence of pest resistance and declining availability of active substances. There is therefore a need to design cropping systems less dependent on synthetic pesticides. Consequently, the European Union requires the application of eight principles (P) of Integrated Pest Management that fit within sustainable farm management. Here, we propose to farmers, advisors, and researchers a dynamic and flexible approach that accounts for the diversity of farming situations and the complexities of agroecosystems and that can improve the resilience of cropping systems and our capacity to adapt crop protection to local realities. For each principle (P), we suggest that (P1) the design of inherently robust cropping systems using a combination of agronomic levers is key to prevention. (P2) Local availability of monitoring, warning, and forecasting systems is a reality to contend with. (P3) The decision-making process can integrate cropping system factors to develop longer-term strategies. (P4) The combination of non-chemical methods that may be individually less efficient than pesticides can generate valuable synergies. (P5) Development of new biological agents and products and the use of existing databases offer options for the selection of products minimizing impact on health, the environment, and biological regulation of pests. (P6) Reduced pesticide use can be effectively combined with other tactics. (P7) Addressing the root causes of pesticide resistance is the best way to find sustainable crop protection solutions. And (P8) integration of multi-season effects and trade-offs in evaluation criteria will help develop sustainable solutions.