Premium
Monitoring and forecasting in plant protection in the German Democratic Republic
Author(s) -
SPAAR D.,
EBERT W.
Publication year - 1985
Publication title -
eppo bulletin
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.327
H-Index - 36
eISSN - 1365-2338
pISSN - 0250-8052
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2338.1985.tb00232.x
Subject(s) - environmental science , warning system , orchard , agriculture , service (business) , agricultural engineering , business , computer science , engineering , agronomy , ecology , biology , telecommunications , marketing
In the GDR, a regional pest monitoring scheme run by the State Plant Protection Service collects data on 87 pests for preparing national pest management warnings and recommendations and for strategic planning. Within each farm, plant protection specialists follow a field‐level crop monitoring procedure to guide them in their immediate decision making. Regional ‘standard values for control’, oriented according to national economic requirements, are adjusted in the light of immediate local ecological and agrotechnical conditions into ‘control thresholds’ used for local decision making. Simulation models assist in fixing these control indices. In particular, SIMPHYT I and SIMPHYT II calculate the course of Phytophthora infestans epidemics and provide the basis for the PHYTEB forecasting procedure. These systems have been operational in GDR since 1982 and in general result in saving at least one spray per season. SIMPHYT III, a new system under trial, incorporates fungicide behaviour as well, SIMLEP I has been operational since 1983 and provides forecasts of Colorado beetle populations. Five other such systems are at an advanced stage of development. In orchards control decisions will instead be based on locally installed automatic microchip‐based warning devices. These monitor temperature, humidity, leaf wetness and wind velocity and can be programmed for all the major orchard pests and diseases. Trials in five intensive orchards in 1982/84 have been given very promising results and it is suggested that one such device, representative of an area of 500–1000 ha, could save about 150,000 Marks per annum in reducing the number of ‘insurance’ sprays.