Pflanzenschutz im Zuckerrübenanbau in Deutschland – Situationsanalyse 2018

Ladewig, Erwin; Buhre, Cord; Kenter, Christine; Stockfisch, Nicol; Varrelmann, Mark; Mahlein, Anne-Katrin

doi:10.36961/si20130

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Integrated pest management in sugar beet cultivation is still oriented towards crop-specific requirements. It attempts to continue the use of so-called effective and “intelligent” solutions [ 19 ], such as seed dressing with the insecticidal active ingredient clothianidin from the group of neonicotinoids, permitted under an emergency use authorization under Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. This is what happened in numerous European member state countries in 2022, including Austria, where a temporary emergency authorization for the neonicotinoid treatment of beet seed was granted anew.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated Biological Control of the Sugar Beet Weevil Asproparthenis punctiventris with the Fungus Metarhizium brunneum: New Application Approaches

Zottele

Mayrhofer²,

Embleton³

et al. 2023

Pathogens

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The mass occurrence of the sugar beet weevil (Asproparthenis punctiventris, previously Bothynoderes punctiventris) has been endangering sugar beet cultivation in Austria for centuries. Exacerbated by climatic and political changes (warmer, drier spring and limited access to chemical pesticides), new approaches are needed to counter the problem. The aim of our work was to test whether the bioinsecticide Metarhizium brunneum Ma 43 (formerly M. anisopliae var. anisopliae BIPESCO 5/F52) can be used as a sustainable plant protection product against the sugar beet weevil. Our goal was to control the pest in all its development stages through multiple applications. Therefore, GranMetTM-P, a granular formulation of M. brunneum Ma 43, was applied in spring to establish the fungus in the soil, whereas GranMetTM-WP, a liquid formulation of the production strain, was used in early summer on trap ditches and leaves to target the adult weevils. Soil and plant samples as well as weevils were collected during the planting season from the trial sites to evaluate the development of the fungus and the mycosis of the treated weevils. In addition, data on hibernating weevils and their emigration from untreated field sites was collected. In all field sites, the Metarhizium spp. abundance increased above the background level (<1000 CFU g−1 soil dry weight) after application of the product. With an increasing number of treatments per plot, and thus an increased contact possibility between pest and the fungus, a rise in the mycosis rate was observed. In conclusion, the various Metarhizium application strategies, which are already available or in testing, must be implemented to ensure control in both old and new sugar beet fields. Metarhizium is a further asset in the successful control of this sugar beet pest.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated Biological Control of the Sugar Beet Weevil Asproparthenis punctiventris with the Fungus Metarhizium brunneum: New Application Approaches

Zottele

Mayrhofer²,

Embleton³

et al. 2023

Pathogens

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Until 2018, when the EU Commission banned all outdoor use of the neonicotinoid seed treatments containing thiamethoxam, clothianidin, or imidacloprid (European‐Commission, 2018a , 2018b , 2018c ), almost all conventionally cultivated sugar beet fields used neonicotinoid seed treatments (Hauer et al, 2017 ). Additional foliar insecticide applications during the growing period, for example, with carbamates or pyrethroids, were conducted only rarely (Hauer et al, 2017 ; Ladewig et al, 2018 ). Recent reports from across Europe have revealed that the impact of removing this seed treatment tool from farmers has resulted in up to 50% sugar beet crop loss as a result of virus yellows reported in France (USDA, 2020 ) and similar problems in other countries (Jha, 2020 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is there a risk to honeybees from use of thiamethoxam as a sugar beet seed treatment?

Thompson

Vaughan

Mahlein³

et al. 2021

Integr Envir Assess & Manag

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ban imposed by the European Union on the use of neonicotinoids as sugar beet seed treatments was based on the exposure of bees to residues of neonicotinoids in pollen and nectar of succeeding crops. To address this concern, residues of thiamethoxam (TMX) and clothianidin (CTD) were analyzed in soil collected from fields planted in at least the previous year with thiamethoxam-treated sugar beet seed. This soil monitoring program was conducted at 94 sites across Germany in two separate years. In addition, a succeeding crop study assessed residues in soil, guttation fluid, pollen, and nectar sampled from untreated succeeding crops planted in the season after thiamethoxam seed-treated sugar beet at eight field sites across five countries. The overall mean residues observed in soil monitoring were 8.0 ± 0.5 µg TMX + CTD/kg in the season after the use of treated sugar beet seed. Residue values decreased with increasing time interval between the latest thiamethoxam or clothianidin application before sugar beet drilling and with lower application frequency. Residues were detected in guttation fluid (2.0-37.7 µg TMX/L); however, the risk to pollinators from this route of exposure is likely to be low, based on the reported levels of consumption. Residues of thiamethoxam and clothianidin in pollen and nectar sampled from the succeeding crops were detected at or below the limit of quantification (0.5-1 µg a.i./kg) in 86.7% of pollen and 98.6% of nectar samples and, unlike guttation fluid residues, were not correlated with measured soil residues. Residues in pollen and nectar are lower than reported sublethal adverse effect concentrations in studies with honeybee and bumble bee individuals and colonies fed only thiamethoxam-treated sucrose, and are lower than those reported to result in no effects in honeybees, bumble bees, and solitary bees foraging on seed-treated crops.

show abstract

“…The emeregence of Cercospora beticola Sacc. isolates resistant to fungicides led to a substantial expansion of the Cercospora leaf spot disease(Ladewig et al 2018;Rangel et al 2020) Vogel et al (2018). reported up to 90% of the German sugar beet area infested by C. beticola.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigation of resistance against Ditylenchus dipsaci on sugar beet

Storelli¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The stem and bulb nematode Ditylenchus dipsaci (Kuhn 1857) Filipjev 1936 is a migratory endoparasite ranked in the top ten plant-parasitic nematodes worldwide. Ditylenchus dipsaci has emerged as an economically threatening pest in the European sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) production. In Germany and Switzerland, some major sugar beet growing regions are particularly affected by D. dipsaci. The nematode migrates into the plant in the spring and reproduces in the hypocotyl during the growing season. Soil-borne pathogens introduced by D. dipsaci leads to crown root rotting and plant death. The broad range of host plants of D. dipsaci hinders crop rotation strategies for a successful management of this nematode. To date, no sugar beet cultivars carrying resistance towards D. dipsaci are available for sugar beet producers, depriving them of effective measures against this nematode. The lack of control measures and the growing public demand for sustainable sugar production have encouraged breeders to develop resistant cultivars. For this reason, this thesis aimed to investigate resistance against D. dipsaci on sugar beet. Before investigating the interaction between sugar beet and the nematode, the development of an in vivo test system was required. It aimed to replace above-ground D. dipsaci inoculation with a soil inoculation more closely related to field conditions. The most suitable inoculation time point, inoculum level, and positioning on sugar beets, as well as rearing process on carrots, were determined. At a 15:8°C day:night temperature regime, penetration rates of D. dipsaci into sugar beet seedlings were at maximum following soil inoculation at plant emergence. High soil moisture increased nematode migration into seedlings when D. dipsaci inoculation was carried out in four holes 1 cm from the plant base. The nematode suspension was previously reared for 35 days on carrot discs to obtain active D. dipsaci inoculum. To find potentially resistant sugar beet restricting reproduction and penetration of D. dipsaci, in vivo bioassays were carried out with 15 pre‑breeding populations and 79 breeding lines. It could be demonstrated that none of the genotypes showed complete resistance towards D. dipsaci. However, a high variation of the penetration rate by D. dipsaci was observed among the genotypes. They also responded differently to the fresh biomass reduction caused by the nematode combined with soil-borne pathogens. Based on these results, candidates for partial resistance were further investigated in microplot experiments conducted in the Rhineland (DE) and Seeland (CH) regions. The sugar beet genotype effect on D. dipsaci penetration could not be validated. The genotypes did not show a sufficient tolerance towards the rotting of the plant tissue. Nematode pathogenicity and virulence differed depending on experiment locations and years. Finally, virulence and pathogenicity of four D. dipsaci populations were investigated under in vivo conditions. No difference was found in D. dipsaci penetration rate into sugar beet seedlings. However, Seeland (CH) population showed a significantly higher reproduction on sugar beets than the others populations, validating observations obtained in microplot experiments.

show abstract

Pflanzenschutz im Zuckerrübenanbau in Deutschland – Situationsanalyse 2018

Cited by 7 publications

References 25 publications

Integrated Biological Control of the Sugar Beet Weevil Asproparthenis punctiventris with the Fungus Metarhizium brunneum: New Application Approaches

Integrated Biological Control of the Sugar Beet Weevil Asproparthenis punctiventris with the Fungus Metarhizium brunneum: New Application Approaches

Is there a risk to honeybees from use of thiamethoxam as a sugar beet seed treatment?

Investigation of resistance against Ditylenchus dipsaci on sugar beet

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About