Full Text:   <1943>

CLC number: S48

On-line Access: 2011-03-09

Received: 2009-08-27

Revision Accepted: 2010-08-31

Crosschecked: 2011-01-25

Cited: 4

Clicked: 4671

Citations:  Bibtex RefMan EndNote GB/T7714

-   Go to

Article info.
1. Reference List
Open peer comments

Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE B 2011 Vol.12 No.3 P.226-246

http://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.B0900264


An index method to evaluate growers’ pesticide use for identifying on-farm innovations and effective alternative pest management strategies: a case study of winegrape in Madera County, California


Author(s):  Wen-juan Li, Zhi-hao Qin, Ming-hua Zhang, Joe Browde

Affiliation(s):  Institute of Agro-Resources and Regional Planning, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China, Internatinal Institute for Earth System Sciences, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China, Department of Land, Air and Water Resources, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA, California Association of Winegrape Growers, Sacramento, CA 95825, USA

Corresponding email(s):   zhihaoqin@163.com

Key Words:  Pesticide use index, Toxicity, Compound, Pesticide environmental risk, California


Share this article to: More <<< Previous Article|

Wen-juan Li, Zhi-hao Qin, Ming-hua Zhang, Joe Browde. An index method to evaluate growers’ pesticide use for identifying on-farm innovations and effective alternative pest management strategies: a case study of winegrape in Madera County, California[J]. Journal of Zhejiang University Science B, 2011, 12(3): 226-246.

@article{title="An index method to evaluate growers’ pesticide use for identifying on-farm innovations and effective alternative pest management strategies: a case study of winegrape in Madera County, California",
author="Wen-juan Li, Zhi-hao Qin, Ming-hua Zhang, Joe Browde",
journal="Journal of Zhejiang University Science B",
volume="12",
number="3",
pages="226-246",
year="2011",
publisher="Zhejiang University Press & Springer",
doi="10.1631/jzus.B0900264"
}

%0 Journal Article
%T An index method to evaluate growers’ pesticide use for identifying on-farm innovations and effective alternative pest management strategies: a case study of winegrape in Madera County, California
%A Wen-juan Li
%A Zhi-hao Qin
%A Ming-hua Zhang
%A Joe Browde
%J Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE B
%V 12
%N 3
%P 226-246
%@ 1673-1581
%D 2011
%I Zhejiang University Press & Springer
%DOI 10.1631/jzus.B0900264

TY - JOUR
T1 - An index method to evaluate growers’ pesticide use for identifying on-farm innovations and effective alternative pest management strategies: a case study of winegrape in Madera County, California
A1 - Wen-juan Li
A1 - Zhi-hao Qin
A1 - Ming-hua Zhang
A1 - Joe Browde
J0 - Journal of Zhejiang University Science B
VL - 12
IS - 3
SP - 226
EP - 246
%@ 1673-1581
Y1 - 2011
PB - Zhejiang University Press & Springer
ER -
DOI - 10.1631/jzus.B0900264


Abstract: 
Winegrape is an important perennial crop in california, USA. Each year california winegrape farming consumes about 20 million kilograms of pesticides that have been a pollutant source to the fresh water systems of the state. The variation of pesticide use among winegrape growers has been significant. It has been observed that some growers have developed effective ways to reduce pesticide use, yet control pests efficiently to ensure harvest. Identification of the growers with low and high pesticide use is very helpful to extension programs that aim on reducing pesticide environmental risk. In this study, an index approach is proposed to quantitatively measure pesticide use intensity at grower level. An integrated pesticide use index is developed by taking pesticide quantity and toxicity into account. An additive formula and a multiplying formula were used to calculate the pesticide use index, i.e., PUI and PUIM. It was found that both PUI and PUIM were capable of identifying the low and high pesticide users while PUI was slightly more conservative than PUIM. All pesticides used in california winegrape farming were taken into account for calculating the indices. Madera County, one of the largest winegrape producers in california, was taken as an example to test the proposed approach. In year 2000, among the total 208 winegrape growers, 28 with PUI≤10 and 34 with 10<PUI≤20 were identified as low pesticide users who were characterized with both low quantity and low toxicity of pesticide use. Most of the growers had small-sized vineyards, i.e., one field and small planted areas. Furthermore, they had very low pesticide use intensity, used only 1–2 types of pesticides (mainly fungicides), applied few pesticides (1–3 only), and emphasized the use of low toxicity compounds. Meanwhile, 19 growers with PUI>60, identified as high pesticide users, had large-sized vineyards, i.e., more fields and large planted areas. They used all types of pesticides and many compounds, which indicated that their pest controls heavily depended on pesticides rather than on-farm management. Through the case study, the proposed approach proved to be useful for analyzing the growers’ pesticide use intensities and interpreting their pesticide use behaviors, which led to a new start point for further investigation of searching ways to reduce pesticide environmental risk.

Darkslateblue:Affiliate; Royal Blue:Author; Turquoise:Article

Reference

[1]Bugg, R.L., van Horn, M., 1998. Ecological Soil Management and Soil Fauna: Best Practices in California Vineyards. In: Hamilton, R., Tassie, L., Hayes, P. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Viticulture Seminar: Viticultural Best Practices. Mildura Arts Centre, Mildura, Victoria, Australia, p.22-34.

[2]CDPR (California Department of Pesticide Regulation), 2000. Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data Indexed by Chemical and by Commodity: 1990–1999. CDPR, Sacramento, CA, p.108.

[3]CDPR (California Department of Pesticide Regulation), 2001. Pesticide Use Reporting, an Overview of California Unique Full Reporting System. CDPR, Sacramento, CA, p.58.

[4]Clark, M.S., Ferris, H., Klonsky, K., Lanini, W.T., van Bruggen, A.H.C., Zalom, F.G., 1998. Agronomic, economic, and environmental comparison of pest management in conventional and alternative tomato and corn systems in northern California. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 68(1-2):51-71.

[5]Cory, J.S., 2000. Assessing the risks of releasing genetically modified virus insecticides: progress to date. Crop Prot., 19(8-10):779-785.

[6]Domagalski, J., 1996. Pesticides and pesticide degradation products in stormwater runoff: Sacramento River Basin, California. Water Res. Bull., 32(5):953-964.

[7]Domagalski, J., 1997a. Pesticides in Surface and Ground Water of the San Joaquin-Tulare Basins, California: Analysis of Available Data, 1996 through 1992. US Geological Survey (USGS), Sacramento, CA, p.74.

[8]Domagalski, J., 1997b. Results of a prototype surface water network design for pesticides developed for the San Joaquin River Basin, California. J. Hydrol., 192(1-4):33-50.

[9]Domagalski, J.L., Dubrovsky, N.M., 1992. Pesticide residues in ground water of the San Joaquin Valley, California. J. Hydrol., 130(1-4):299-338.

[10]Epstein, L., Bassein, S., Zalom, F.G., 2000. Almond and stone fruit growers reduce OP, increase pyrethroid use in dormant sprays. California Agric., 54(6):14-19.

[11]Epstein, L., Bassein, S., Zalom, F.G., Wilhoit, L.R., 2001. Changes in pest management practice in almond orchards during the rainy season in California, USA. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 83(1-2):111-120.

[12]Fitt, G.P., 2000. An Australian approach to IPM in cotton: integrating new technologies to minimize insecticide dependence. Crop Prot., 19(8-10):793-800.

[13]Gamliel, A., Austerweil, M., Kritzman, G., 2000. Non-chemical approach to soilborne pest management organic amendments. Crop Prot., 19(8-10):847-853.

[14]Giesy, J.P., Solomon, K.R., Coates, J.R., Dixon, K.R., Giddings, J.M., Kenaga, E.E., 1999. Chlorpyrifos: ecological risk assessment in North American aquatic environments. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 160:1-129.

[15]Hall, L.W.J., Scott, M.C., Killen, W.D., Unger, M.A., 2000. A probabilistic ecological risk assessment of tributyltin in surface waters of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess., 6(1):141-179.

[16]Hendricks, L.C., 1995. Almond growers reduce pesticide use in Merced County field trials. California Agric., 49(1):5-10.

[17]Kong, D.Y., Zhu, Z.L., Shi, L.L., Shan, Z.J., Cai, D.J., 2004. Effect of pesticides on groundwater under sweet potato-based cropping systems in Northern China. J. Agro-Environ. Sci., 23(5):1017-1020 (in Chinese).

[18]Leonard, P.K., 2000. Resistance risk evaluation: a European regulatory perspective. Crop Prot., 19(8-10):905-909.

[19]Levitan, L., 2000. “How to” and “why”: assessing the environ-social impacts of pesticides. Crop Prot., 19(8-10):629-636.

[20]Levitan, L., Merwin, I., 1995. Assessing the relative environmental impacts of agricultural pesticides: the quest for a holistic method. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 55(3):153-168.

[21]Lewis, K.A., Newbold, M.J., Hall, A.M., Broom, C.E., 1997a. Eco-rating system for optimizing pesticide use at farm level: Part 1: theory and development. J. Agric. Eng. Res., 68(3):271-279.

[22]Lewis, K.A., Newbold, M.J., Broom, C.E., 1997b. Eco-rating system for optimizing pesticide use at farm level: Part 2: evaluation, examples and piloting. J. Agric. Eng. Res., 68(3):281-289.

[23]MacHardy, W.E., 2000. Current status of IPM in apple orchards. Crop Prot., 19(8-10):801-806.

[24]Meister, R.T., Sine, C., Sharp, D.T., Ponilkvar, E., Wank, B.L., Gill, J.A., Williamson, L.B., Naegely, S.K., et al. (Eds.), 2001. Farm Chemical Handbook 2001. Meister Publishing Company, Willoughby, OH, USA, p.685.

[25]Pence, R.A., Grieshop, J.I., 2001. Mapping the road for voluntary change: partnerships in agricultural extension. Agric. Hum. Val., 18(2):209-217.

[26]Reus, J.A.W.A., Leendertse, P.C., 2000. The environmental yardstick for pesticides: a practical indicator used in the Netherlands. Crop Prot., 19(8-10):637-641.

[27]Reus, J., Leendertse, P., Bockstaller, C., Fomsgaard, I., Gutsche, V., Lewise, K., Nilsson, C., Pussemier, L., Trevisan, M., van der Werf, H., et al., 2002. Comparison and evaluation of eight pesticide environmental risk indicators developed in Europe and recommendations for future use. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 90(2):177-187.

[28]Santer, L., 1995. BIOS for Almonds: A Practical Guide to Biologically Integrated Orchard Systems Management. Community Alliance with Family Farmers Foundation and the Almond Board of California, Davis, CA, p.104.

[29]SETAC (Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry), 1994. Pesticide Risk and Mitigation. Final Report of the Aquatic Risk Assessment and Mitigation Dialog Group. SETAC Foundation for Environmental Education, Pensacola, FL, p.220.

[30]Solomon, K.R., Baker, D.B., Richards, P., Dixon, K.R., Klaine, S.J., La Point, T.W., Kendall, R.J., Giddings, J.M., Giesy, J.P., Hall, L.W.J., et al., 1996. Ecological risk assessment of atrazine in North American surface waters. Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 15(1):31-76.

[31]Solomon, K., Giesy, J., Jones, R., 2000. Probabilistic risk assessment of agrochemicals in the environment. Crop Prot., 19(8-10):649-655.

[32]Thrupp, L.A., 1990. Entrapment and escape from fruitless insecticide use: lessons from the banana sector of Costa Rica. Int. J. Environ. Studies, 36(3):173-189.

[33]Thrupp, L.A., 1991. Long-term losses from accumulation of pesticide residues: a case of persistent copper toxicity in soils of Costa Rica. Geoforum, 22(1):1-15.

[34]Vercruysse, F., Steurbaut, W., 2002. POCER, the pesticide occupational and environmental risk indicator. Crop Prot., 21(4):307-315.

[35]Zhang, M., Geng, S., Ustin, S.L., Tanji, K.K., 1997. Pesticide occurrence in groundwater in Tulare County, California. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 45(2):101-127.

Open peer comments: Debate/Discuss/Question/Opinion

<1>

Please provide your name, email address and a comment





Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE, 38 Zheda Road, Hangzhou 310027, China
Tel: +86-571-87952783; E-mail: cjzhang@zju.edu.cn
Copyright © 2000 - 2022 Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE