scholarly journals Basic substances – an effective supplement to crop protection methods

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Crop Protection ◽  
Basic Substances

scholarly journals Characterization of Thyme and Tansy Extracts Used as Basic Substances in Zucchini Crop Protection

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 95
Author(s):  
Claudio Beni ◽  
Laura Casorri ◽  
Eva Masciarelli ◽  
Barbara Ficociello ◽  
Olimpia Masetti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antioxidant Activity ◽  
Plant Extracts ◽  
Field Trial ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Crop Protection ◽  
Control Plant ◽  
Elemental Content ◽  
Dpph Method ◽  
Basic Substances

Bio-sourced substances used for crop protection in natural and organic farming have a positive impact both on human and environment health: plant extracts are effective to stimulate plant defense against pests and diseases, with no toxic effect and they could be classified as basic substances. The chemical characterization of thyme and tansy extracts were carried out with ICP and NMR techniques for the analysis of elemental content and organic components. Antioxidant activity was evaluated by DPPH method. Phytostimulant effects of extracts were evaluated on zucchini crop in a preliminary field test. Vegetative plant conditions were assessed by measuring the chlorophyll content. The 1% extracts were chosen for field trial because of their maximum antioxidant activity (over 80%) and their cheapness compared to 2% concentration. NMR showed that the spectrum of tansy highlighted the phenolic fraction in 6-9 ppm region and, in particular, at 5.9 ppm the signals of thymol, a peculiar antioxidant compound; while the spectrum of thyme is less significant. The field trial results showed a higher fruit yield and a positive effect on plant growth in treated plants respect to control ones, due to the composition and antioxidant activity of both plant extracts. In fact, thyme extract treated plants showed a yield equal to 6,4 kg per plant, higher than no treated ones, 5,1 kg per plant; also tansy extract induced a higher yield respect to control plant, respectively 5,6 and 3,9 kg per plant. The results obtained indicate the role of the extracts investigated as basic substances.

scholarly journals The major interest for crop protection of agrochemical substances without maximum residue limit (MRL)

2019 ◽  
pp. 22-29
Author(s):  
Mathilde Charon ◽  
Diane Robin ◽  
Patrice A. Marchand
Keyword(s):  
Time Management ◽  
Plant Protection ◽  
Cydia Pomonella ◽  
Crop Protection ◽  
Plant Protection Products ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Maximum Residue Limit ◽  
Major Interest ◽  
Maximum Residue Limits ◽  
Basic Substances

Description of the subject. The real-time management of residues of plant protection products is a general issue for food producers and/or exporters. Authorized pesticides under European Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (Reg. 1107/2009) are granted a maximum residue limit (MRL) defined by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). These maximum residue limits are managed by the European Commission and listed in EC Regulation No 396/2005. MRLs for newly approved substances are set for pesticide residues present in products or groups of products covered by Annex I with a default value of 0.01 mg·kg-1, unless they have been considered, elaborated upon on approval and affected in one of the six other Annexes (II to VII). Substances listed in Annex IV are favoured in the selection of substances to be used by producers as it is for substances with very low potential impacts (low-risk substances [Art. 22 of Reg. 1107/2009] which therefore require no MRL; basic substances [Art. 23 of Reg. 1107/2009]; and microorganisms). The number of substances affected by this lack of an MRL (without residues survey requirement) has been steadily increasing since the publication of the SANCO/11188/2013 Guideline. Many biocontrol agents are listed in Annex IV, including microbial insecticides (e.g. Bacillus thuringiensis, Cydia pomonella granulosis virus), semiochemicals used in traps (e.g. ammonium acetate, putrescine) and some natural substances (e.g. sulphur) as well as all the currently listed basic substances. Objectives. To show that plant protection may be achieved with less concern or control (auto + external) than with certain agrochemical pesticides, including those without maximum residue limits (MRL). Method. Analysis of EU Pesticide Database and EU Regulation (EU) No 540/2011. Results. All approved pesticide active substances with no MRL included in Annex IV of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, listed by substance status type (active, low-risk or basic) and category (microorganism, semiochemical or natural). Conclusions. These results may be used to help achieve plant protection with much less risk of contaminations, while noting the necessity for controls, analytical issues, positive controls, as well as the possibility of downgrading and withdrawal of approval from the market.

scholarly journals Basic substances under EC 1107/2009 phytochemical regulation: experience with non-biocide and food products as biorationals

2016 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 312-318 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrice A. Marchand
Keyword(s):  
Plant Protection ◽  
Crop Protection ◽  
Food Products ◽  
Plant Protection Products ◽  
Animal Origin ◽  
Plant Protection Product ◽  
Basic Substance ◽  
Low Profile ◽  
Agricultural Safety ◽  
Basic Substances

Abstract Basic Substances are a newly effective category of Plant Protection Product under EC Regulation No 1107/2009. The first approved application of Equisetum arvense L. opened Part C of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, which lists the basic substance approved. Although E. arvense was described as a fungicide extract, subsequent applications like chitosan were related to non-biocide molecules. Consequently, plant protection product data were collected from research on alternative or traditional crop protection methods. They are notably issued or derived from foodstuffs (plants, plant by-products, plant derived products, substances and derived substances from animal origin). Applications are currently submitted by our Institute, under evaluation at different stages of the approval process or already approved. Remarkably, this Basic Substance category under pesticide EU Regulation was surprisingly designed for these non-biocidal plant protection products. In fact, components described as the “active substance” of most of the actual applications are food products like sugars and lecithin. Basic Substance applications for these foodstuffs are therefore a straightforward way of easily gaining approval for them. Here we describe the approval context and detail the agricultural uses of theses food products as Biological Control Agents (BCAs) or biorationals for crop protection. From all deposited or approved Basic Substance Application (BSA), a proof has been provided that non-biocide and food products via physical barrier or lure effects may be effective plant protection products with an acceptable low profile of concern for public and agricultural safety.

scholarly journals Calcium disodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate as a safe compound for crop protection with the potential to extend the basic substances group

2020 ◽  
Vol 56 (No. 2) ◽  
pp. 123-131
Author(s):  
Martin Žabka
Keyword(s):  
Plant Protection ◽  
Crop Protection ◽  
Environmental Safety ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Chitosan Hydrochloride ◽  
Excellent Candidate ◽  
Environmentally Sound ◽  
High Antifungal Activity ◽  
Basic Substances ◽  
Disodium Ethylenediaminetetraacetate

Excessive use of commercial synthetic fungicides in agriculture is a globally discussed issue. This topic is seen as particularly important in modern plant protection and cultivation systems, where the total fungicide burden of the agroecosystem should be controlled and reduced. Basic substances (BSs) are a relatively novel, legally recognised group of substances which can be applied. The present study tested calcium disodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate (CaNa<sub>2</sub>-EDTA), a substance whose properties and environmental safety make it another useful alternative for plant protection in modern farming. The study demonstrated the high antifungal activity of the substance against Pyrenophora (anamorph: Drechslera) tritici-repentis (Died.) Drechsler, (MIC50 0.195–0.223 mg/ml), safety for plant tissue and especially for non-target organisms, and positive effects on the yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum Linnaeus). CaNa<sub>2</sub>-EDTA surpassed the effect of chitosan hydrochloride, a registered and utilised substance, and a synthetic conventional fungicide. CaNa<sub>2</sub>-EDTA is an excellent candidate for registering within the BS group, with benefits for environmentally sound systems in plant protection.

Identifying Natural Products (NPs) as potential UPR inhibitors for crop protection

Planta Medica ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 81 (S 01) ◽  
pp. S1-S381 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Bruguière ◽  
AM Le Ray ◽  
D Bréard ◽  
N Blon ◽  
N Bataillé ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Natural Products ◽  
Crop Protection

Challenges of Aircraft and Drone Spray Applications

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 83-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernando K. Carvalho ◽  
Rodolfo G. Chechetto ◽  
Alisson A. B. Mota ◽  
Ulisses R. Antuniassi
Keyword(s):  
Smallholder Farmers ◽  
Crop Protection ◽  
Crop Canopy ◽  
Target Species ◽  
Buffer Zones ◽  
Correct Dose ◽  
Knapsack Sprayer ◽  
Water Courses ◽  
Low Toxicity ◽  
Heavy Loads

Crop protection on major crops is now required to follow the principles of integrated pest management so the timing and accuracy of any application of a pesticide or biopesticide has to be more precise to minimize adverse effects on non-target species. The development of UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) provides a means of providing a more targeted application of the correct dose, especially by using formulations that are more persistent, thus minimizing loss of spray in areas subject to rain. Avoiding use of too high a dosage allows greater survival of natural enemies and reduces the selection pressure for pests becoming resistant to specific modes of action. The downward flow of air from a UAV should also provide better distribution and impaction of droplets within a crop canopy, reduce soil impaction caused by taking heavy loads of spray applied with 200 l ha–1 of water, and allow treatments when fields are too wet to access with ground equipment. In Asia, many smallholder farmers are using a drone in preference to using a knapsack sprayer. According to Matthews, it has been shown that ULV spraying can be effective, but it needs a narrow droplet spectrum with the droplets remaining stable and not shrinking to become too small. Formulation research can reduce the volatility of the spray, hence the success of oil-based sprays. However, instead of petroleum-based oils, there is a chance to develop vegetable oil carriers with micro-sized particle suspensions to deliver low toxicity pesticides in droplets that can be deposited within the crop and not drift beyond the crop boundary. Oil deposits will be less prone to loss after rain so less should be lost in neighbouring ditches and water courses, especially as rainfall patterns are forecast to change. More studies are needed to evaluate the swath for deposition, buffer zones, formulation, nozzle selection, to guide future specific legislation for UAV applications.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document