On the effects that motivate pesticide use in perspective of designing a cropping system without pesticides but with mineral fertilizer—a review

Isabell Pergner; Christian Lippert

doi:10.1007/s13593-023-00877-w

On the effects that motivate pesticide use in perspective of designing a cropping system without pesticides but with mineral fertilizer—a review

Pergner, Isabell; Lippert, Christian 2023-04-01 00:00:00 In the future, a cropping system that guarantees food security by delivering high yields and, simultaneously, protects our environment is desperately needed. This can be achieved through a cropping system that waives chemical synthetic plant protection products, which endanger, for example, biodiversity and water resources. However, such a system, referred to here as the mineral-ecological cropping system (MECS), should still allow for the usage of mineral fertilizers to ensure high yields. It can be thought of as a compromise between the current conventional and organic cropping systems. This article presents a comprehensive literature review on the economic, social, and environmental effects of pesticides and the result- ing reasons farmers have to use (or not use) them. Hereby, regarding future pesticide reduction, we identify hindrances and potential benefits that could be mobilized to design the MECS. The major points are the following: in a MECS, (1) it is expected that yields and temporal stability of yields will be higher than in organic farming, but lower than in conventional farming; (2) profitability might suffer due to high input costs and energy consumption; (3) it is expected that soil fertility and biodiversity protection will increase along with the promotion of alternative disease and pest control measures; (4) crop rotations will be wider and more diverse than in conventional farming; (5) mineral fertilizer cannot be optimally used by the crops unless a balanced supply of nitrogen is achieved. Farmers who want to switch to MECS should be compensated as they are likely to experience higher costs and lower yield and yield stability. The lessons learned from this review will help to progress toward an innovative and sustainable cropping system. Further research should focus on rational farmers’ adaptation possibilities when abandoning pesticides while still using mineral fertilizers. Keywords Innovative cropping systems · Comparison · Sustainability · Pesticide-free agriculture Contents 3.1.6 Resistance to pesticides 3.1.7 Minor uses 1. Introduction 3.2 Social reasons 2. Material and methods 3.2.1 Lock in effect 3. Results and discussion 3.2.2 More work, but better distributed? 3.1 Economic reasons 3.2.3 Food security 3.1.1 Risk aversion 3.2.4 Risk for consumers and producers 3.1.2 The optimal pesticide input level 3.3 Environmental effects and reasons 3.1.3 Resource efficiency 3.3.1 The importance of crop rotation and innovation 3.1.4 Comparison of yields 3.3.2 Adverse effects on the environment 3.1.5 Yield stability 3.4 The importance of mineral fertilizer and its interaction with plant pests 4. Conclusion * Isabell Pergner Declarations isabell.pergner@uni-hohenheim.de References Dept. of Production Theory and Resource Economics (410A), University of Hohenheim, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 24 Page 2 of 22 I. Pergner, C. Lippert using the latest automated and digitalized technologies, 1 Introduction and following most principles of organic agriculture, how- ever, without banning mineral fertilizer (Zimmermann et al. In the recent past, the use of pesticides in agriculture has 2021). Therefore, MECS can be thought of as a middle been repeatedly criticized due to their effects on the environ- ground between conventional and organic cropping systems. ment and on human health. A recent report, for instance, by With regard to implementing such a cropping system, it is the German Ministry for the Environment (Bundesministe- important to thoroughly assess and summarize all economic, rium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit) and social, and environmental effects and motivations related to Bundesamt für Naturschutz states that for approximately one pesticide usage or bans. As this has not yet been done in a third of the brood-bird species that require the agriculturally systematic way and as the corresponding knowledge is dis- used area for breeding the populations have decreased in the persed over many publications, a comprehensive literature past 12 years (BMU 2020). Essential causes of this develop- review of the corresponding effects and reasons is provided ment are especially high nutrient and pesticide inputs and here. Our focus is mostly on the main field crops grown in the intensification or abandonment of land use, including tra- the temperate climate zone. Based on this review, one can ditional forms of land use. This concern has resulted in strict draw conclusions that could later be mobilized to design a government regulation of pesticides and increased demand MECS. for organic agriculture (Sexton 2007). At first glance, farmers use pesticides because of their However, this stands in contrast to the insufficient food positive effects on crop yields and crop qualities. However, supply in some regions of the world. In addition, agricultural these positive effects may be accompanied by some negative land is also used for purposes other than growing food crops, side effects. By “effect,” we understand a perceived or an for example, for the production of biofuels. This puts more expected impact, which (being either positive or negative) pressure on agriculture and makes increased productivity has a certain direction and a certain magnitude. In addition necessary (Sexton 2007). Several scholars express the need to the (physical) effects of pesticides, we are particularly for a practical farming system that simultaneously ensures interested in the related (economic and social) reasons farm- livelihoods for farmers, food security, and reduced environ- ers have to use pesticides, as well as in the (environmental mental impact (Foley et al. 2011; Seufert et al. 2012; Sexton and social) reasons against using them. These reasons are 2007; Worzewski 2022). Hence, even though this topic is important to understand current cultivation practices. They highly relevant, to our knowledge, there is no existing com- determine the motivation for pesticide use and need to be prehensive review of the literature on it. accounted for when designing an innovative cropping sys- Against this backdrop, researchers are currently devel- tem that is accepted by farmers. Hence, answering the ques- oping the concept of a mineral-ecological cropping system tion of why farmers use pesticides is necessary. Only if the (MECS) (see Fig. 1). MECS aims at a possible solution needs of farmers are satisfied will they accept an innovative to the above-outlined dilemma by abandoning pesticides, Fig 1 a Example of a mineral ecological cropping system, soy is grown with mineral fertilizer, without pesticides. b Soy grown with fertilizer and with pesticides. Link to the website of the project: https:// nocsps. uni- hohen heim. de/ (pictures: Isabell Pergner/University of Hohenheim) 1 3 On the effects that motivate pesticide use in perspective of designing a cropping system without… Page 3 of 22 24 farming system (Moss 2019). In this context, this work also Table 1 Research string on innovative cropping systems and pesticide usage. investigates whether there is a relationship between pesticide and mineral fertilizer usage and whether there is a so-called Keywords Searched databases insurance aspect when applying pesticides. On this ground, New/innovative cropping system Google Scholar assumptions will be made on how MECS may alter con- Agricultural system of the future AgEcon Search ventional cropping system techniques to be economically Chemical‐synthetic crop protection Scopus feasible and environmentally sustainable. Thus, the follow- Nonchemical alternatives to pesticides Science Direct ing research questions are raised: (1) What are the main rea- Pesticides Research Gate sons that determine pesticide usage? (2) How important are PURE (Pesticide Use-and-risk Reduction in mineral fertilizers for high and stable yields, and is there a European farming systems with Integrated Pest correlation between fertilizer use and pesticide input (e.g., Management) resulting from an interaction between nitrogen input and Optimal pesticide usage pests)? (3) What are the main recommendations that can be Pesticides, yield/yield stability distilled from the literature to design the MECS? Crop rotation This literature review is structured as follows: In Sec- Lock in effect tion 2, we explain the material and methods used. In Sec- Break crops tion 3, the results of the literature review about crop losses Non-pesticide management (NPM) and pesticide usage in general with a focus on the questions Crop rotation risk analysis of why (or why not) farmers do use pesticides are presented Integrated pest management (IPM) and discussed. In Section 4, we summarize the answers to Health risks of pesticides the above research questions and give recommendations for Environmental risks of pesticides designing the MECS. Farmers and pesticide use 2 Material and methods the way a particular field is managed over time with certain crops, crop rotations, and management techniques (Lamich- This review builds on researched literature in order to pro- hane et al. 2016). It should be noted that the main concern was about open-field crops (i.e., excluding horticulture in vide an overview of the latest knowledge. The overall goal is to review the literature with the aim of drawing economi- greenhouses, etc.). Our screening generated a list of 58 articles about the cally, socially, and ecologically motivated conclusions for designing MECSs. effects and reasons for pesticide usage or rejection, which is the basis for this work (see Tables 2 and 3). It should be First, this work concentrates on pesticide usage. The approach includes a systematic literature review of mostly noted that some articles gave both reasons for and reasons against pesticide usage. In total, 33 articles gave reasons peer-reviewed scientific papers. Academic search databases were searched using the keywords given in Table 1. For exam- for pesticide use, and 37 gave reasons for rejection. To reflect the current knowledge, mainly papers published ple, reports on the use of innovative plant protection methods and trials of no pesticide usage were screened. In addition, after 2000 were considered. Although this keeps the num- ber of articles within limits, we are confident to address all attention was also paid to articles dealing with sustainable crop protection practices such as integrated pest management relevant aspects. Figure 2 shows the categorization (eco- nomic, social, and environmental according to the three (IPM), as one may derive important insights from cropping systems similar to MECS. Information was also obtained from dimensions of sustainability) of the literature, illustrating that some articles give more than one reason in various public institutions such as the German Federal Ministry for the Environment (BMU), that deal with this topic. For a better categories. Therefore, the figures of the categories overlap. There is a lot of research that focuses on the economic overview, the reviewed literature is classified into economic, social, and environmental categories, (see the tables below). effects of and reasons for pesticide use, and less litera- ture that addresses environmental aspects (see Fig. 2a). In However, it needs to be recognized that certain pesticide effects are relevant for two categories. contrast, Fig. 2b shows that among the articles with argu- ments against pesticide use, most address environmental In this work, the term pesticides refer to chemical syn- thetic plant protection products and cover the following cat- concerns. Our second focus is on cropping systems with mineral egories: herbicides, fungicides, bactericides, insecticides and acaricides, haulm destructors and moss killers, mollus- fertilizer and its interaction with plant pests, as the usage of mineral fertilizers is allowed in MECS whereas pesti- cicides, plant growth regulators, and other plant protection products. Furthermore, the term “cropping system” denotes cides are forbidden. Thus, a literature review of recent 1 3 24 Page 4 of 22 I. Pergner, C. Lippert Table 2 Detailed literature overview of pesticide usage in chronological order. Source: own compilation. Category Literature Content Economic Crissman et al. (1994) Case study about pesticide usage in potato production Pesticides are necessary for potato production, but there is a tradeoff between farmer’s health and high yields Economic Wilson and Tisdell (2001) One reason for pesticide usage is higher yields due to pesticides, also farmers are locked into Social using unsustainable techniques (pesticides) because switching is very costly, it takes exten- sion services, and an industry that provides resistant varieties Economic Oerke (2006) Analysis of crop losses due to pests of main crops (wheat, rice, maize, potatoes, soy, cotton) grown in the world and definition of quantitative and qualitative losses, estimations of how much of the yields are saved due to pesticides (yield loss in %) Economic Cooper and Dobson (2007) Analysis of the benefits of pesticides identifies a number of primary and secondary benefits, Social including higher yield, better crop quality, and higher efficiency, which contributes to food Environment security and food safety Reduced soil erosion due to less tillage Economic Deike et al. (2008) Case study of two experiments in Germany and Denmark about crop rotations, soil tillage, and pesticide usage: They find that yield is more influenced by crop rotation than by pesti- cides or tillage; pesticides can increase yield, energy and nitrogen use efficiency Social Chikowo et al. (2009) Data from 6 years of integrated weed management experiment with 4 cropping systems: higher complexity of the systems when no fungicides were used Social Lamine et al. (2010) Analysis of decreasing pesticide dependency in several countries in Europe All stakeholders along the chain have to support a transition toward sustainable farming in order to break the lock-in effect Social Meissle et al. (2010) Data from eleven regions in Europe where maize is grown in order to understand the use of pesticide alternatives Farmer would switch to alternative methods if there was more trained labor and if they had suitable equipment and extension services that provide knowledge Social Lamine (2011) Paper about prerequisites of changing to integrated pest management or organic agriculture Escaping the lock-in effect by getting involved with extension services, support from public policies, and changing consumption of costumers Economic Jacquet et al. (2011) Analysis of the effects of decreasing pesticide usage by farmers in France and the possibil- Social ity of reducing pesticides by 30% without compromising the income of the farmers; but farmers are reluctant to decrease pesticide use due to their risk-averse attitude and using pesticides is more convenient; another reason for pesticide usage is the lock-in effect Economic Bürger et al. (2012) Analysis of winter wheat grown in 2001–2007 in Germany; the amount of pesticides used is influenced by agronomic conditions (weather, soil), as well as by the farmer’s risk attitude Economic Ponti et al. (2012) Literature review that compares datasets of conventional and organic yield On average, organic yield is 20% lower than conventional yield, but this varies strongly among crops and regions Economic Seufert et al. (2012) Analysis of yield data: in some cases, organic yield can nearly be as high as conventional depending on crop types and regional and management conditions, but in general, organic yield is up to 34% lower than conventional yield Economic Nave et al. (2013) Interview of 71 farmers in France about their reluctance to switch to farming with less pesti- Social cides The authors found that farmers who use high amounts of pesticides want to achieve high profitability, but low-input- and medium-input farmers achieve higher profitability; the study shows that extension services and knowledge have an important role in converting to low-pesticide agriculture Economic Noleppa and von Witzke (2013) Analysis of two scenarios: first, farming with fungicide compared to a situation where no Social fungicide is used, and second, conventional arable agriculture compared to organic: the Environment authors conclude that pesticides in general and especially fungicides are important for high yield and higher (energy) efficiency for the main crops grown in Germany; this also plays a role for food security and lower greenhouse gas emissions Economic Hossard et al. (2014) Analysis of yield loss due to reduced pesticide use in winter wheat in France; 5–13% yield losses due to a pesticide reduction of 50%, zero pesticide usage results in 24.3–33% yield loss Economic Skevas et al. (2014) Analysis of the performance of farms from 2003–2007 in the Netherlands with a focus on pesticide use and its negative effects on the environment: Results show that many farms overuse inputs (fertilizer and pesticides), farmers overuse risk-reducing inputs in order to manage risks 1 3 On the effects that motivate pesticide use in perspective of designing a cropping system without… Page 5 of 22 24 Table 2 (continued) Category Literature Content Social Le Bail et al. (2014) French paper about the lock in effect on diversifying crops Consistent and organized action from all stakeholders in the agricultural sector is needed in order to break out of the lock in effect Economic Lechenet et al. (2014) Assessment of different cropping systems in France: organic farming is less energy efficient Social and has lower productivity than agriculture with pesticides, farming with pesticides is less work intensive Economic Colnenne-David and Doré (2015) Analysis of the design of three arable farming systems: (1) no pesticides, but with mineral Environment fertilizer; (2) reduced fossil energy or greenhouse gas emission by 50%; (3) maximizing yields, the systems with pesticide usage have higher yields and better soil health Environment Colnenne-David et al. (2017) Continued analysis of Colnenne-David and Doré (2015) Find that not using pesticides causes lower carbon sequestration due to high usage of tillage (soil health) Economic Carpentier and Reboud (2018) Analyzed a simple choice situation to assess farmers’ attitudes toward pest risk Farmers use pesticides in order to achieve high profits when pesticide prices are low Economic Tamm et al. (2018) Scenario analysis: what would happen if Swiss agriculture switched to 100% organic farming In arable farming, 98.5% of pesticides would be waived, but yields would decrease and some crops, such as sugar beet, could not be grown Economic Cellier et al. (2018) Evaluation of the Rés0Pest project: the energy efficiency without pesticides is evaluated as Social low, some farmers complain about the higher work load of farming without pesticides, and Environment frequent tillage is decreasing soil macro fauna Social Schwarz et al. (2018) Long-term experiment of the Julius-Kühn Institute about integrated plant protection Reducing pesticides is possible but needs a high workload; using no pesticides results in high-yield losses Economic Knapp and van der Heijden (2018) Meta-analysis about temporal yield stability Organic yields are less stable than conventional yields, but the gap in yield stability can be decreased by enhanced fertilization Economic Moss (2019) Investigates through literature research why farmers are reluctant to waive herbicides: in a Social box, the reasons are listed, like higher, immediate profitability; however, also risk aversion Environment is mentioned as one reason, another is a lack of information and trained labor Environmental effects such as soil erosion as a consequence of non-chemical weed control Economic Seufert (2019) Literature review that compares organic and conventional farming; states that there is evi- dence for higher yield stability in conventional farming Social Möhring et al. (2020) Analysis of the relationship between crop insurance and pesticide input; results suggest that without insurance pesticide input would be lower Social Wuepper et al. (2021) Analysis of Swiss fruit farmers; the results suggest that farmers who receive advice from public extension services, are more likely to use preventive measures; farmers who receive advice from private extension services are more likely to use insecticides Economic Kaiser and Burger (2022) Analysis of interviews with farmers and plant protection experts about farmers’ usual pesti- cide usage Identification of reasons why farmers use pesticides and which policies for reduction would be feasible Social Jacquet et al. (2022) Explanation of why a new research paradigm for pesticide-free agriculture is needed and which strategies should be followed Economic Möhring and Finger (2022) Analysis of a new cropping system (no pesticides in wheat production); results suggest that risk-averse farmers are less likely to adopt it experiments is presented, but some older literature was also results on the interaction between mineral fertilizer input reviewed (see Table 4). We found and screened 17 sources. and pest occurrence/pesticide use. Again, academic search databases were searched using dif- ferent keywords (see Table 5). Of particular interest in this context is the impact of mineral fertilizer on yield and yield 3 Results and discussion stability, its effects on pests, and its possible correlation to pesticide usage. The amount of literature found on this topic From the 1950s on, the green revolution caused a tremen- was less than the literature dealing with pesticide use in gen- dous increase in food production, mainly in the yield of eral. Astonishingly, we did not find many recent research grains such as wheat, rice, and maize (Tilman 1999). This 1 3 24 Page 6 of 22 I. Pergner, C. Lippert Table 3 Detailed literature overview of pesticide rejection in chronological order. Source: own compilation. Category Literature Content Social Pimentel et al. (1992) Study from the USA that assesses the direct and indirect Environment costs of pesticide usage Economic There are health risks, threats to biodiversity and food safety, also water quality suffering, and pests develop- ing resistances that cause indirect costs Social Antle and Pingali (1994) Case study from the Philippines shows that pesticides can have negative impact on farmers’ health Social Crissman et al. (1994) Analyses of pesticide usage in potato production in Ecuador, which is bad for farmer’s health but crucial for potato production, hence there is a tradeoff between both aspects Social de Souza Filho et al. (1999) Study from Brazil about the determining factors that Environment are necessary for farmers to switch to arable farming; farmers are more likely to adopt sustainable agricul- ture when they have knowledge of the negative effects of pesticides, are part of a farmer’s organization, employ family members, or have a farm with good soil Environment Wood et al. (2000) Analysis of global ecosystems; states that pesticides can have a negative impact on the environment Economic Mäder et al. (2002) Report of an experiment that lasted for 21 years and Environment compared organic and conventional agriculture; in organic agriculture, similar yields to conventional farming are possible depending on the crop; profits are similar in both systems; soils in organic agricul- ture show higher biological activity Economic Pimentel et al. (2005) Comparison of different farming types (two organic Social and one conventional), data from an experiment that Environment lasted over 22 years; yields were similar in all farming systems, but organic farming is more drought resistant and shows lower economic risk and savings in costs, better environmental effects, the results depend on crops, region, and technology Environment Kolbe (2006) Summarizes effects of crop rotations and highlights the importance of diverse crops in order to reduce pesticides Social Sexton (2007) Assessment of effects of pesticide usage, some effects Environment are resistance development of pests toward pesticides, Economic health risks, and loss of biodiversity Environment Bright et al. (2008) Review of negative effects that pesticides have on birds Social Abhilash and Singh (2009) Review of risks (health and environment) due to pes- Environment ticide application and recommendations to mitigate those in India Economic Bürger and Gerowitt (2009) Analyze pesticide usage in winter wheat and oilseed rape in northeast Germany between 2000 and 2004; they find that pesticide usage can be reduced by applying pesticides less frequently, using fewer mix- tures of various pesticides, or using lower application rates Environment Chikowo et al. (2009) Experiment that lasted for 6 years in order to analyze integrated weed management practices and highlights the importance of a wide crop rotation; less environ- mental impact of integrated weed management Social Pardo et al. (2010) Analysis of the implementation of integrated weed management, which then shows a lower workload 1 3 On the effects that motivate pesticide use in perspective of designing a cropping system without… Page 7 of 22 24 Table 3 (continued) Category Literature Content Economic Jahn et al. (2010) Long term experiment analyzing reduced fungicide applications; it highlights that crop resistance toward fungi is important for fungicides reduction Environment Foley et al. (2011) Study discusses agricultural practices on a global scale and offers solutions to problems associated with the environmental effect of pesticides Economic Boussemart et al. (2011) Data from 600 farms in France over a period of 12 years are analyzed in order to estimate the impact of using different amounts of pesticides; reduction in pesticide usage is possible in most cases and would reduce the production cost Economic Jacquet et al. (2011) Study about the effects of decreasing pesticide use in French agriculture: reducing pesticides results in increasing gross margin (moving from high input to medium input farming); pesticides reduction of 10 to 30% is feasible Economic Bürger et al. (2012) Study of data from German wheat fields in 2001–2007 to analyze arable farming measures of integrated pest management; some farmers use integrated pest man- agement in order to save production costs Economic Delbridge et al. (2013) Comparison of profitability of conventional and organic agriculture in the USA Similar yields and high profitability in organic agricul- ture are possible (highly dependent on management and region) Environment Melander et al. (2013) Review on how agriculture can be less dependent on herbicides, for example, by applying strategies like wide and diverse crop rotations; additionally, innova- tive measures are introduced, such as thermal control Social Nave et al. (2013) Survey of wheat farmers in France; pesticide usage is Environment high when farmers do not employ family labor and when farmers do not participate in advisory groups; pesticide usage is lower when farmers care for health risks and the environment Economic Lechenet et al. (2014) French study that analyses different arable farming Social systems and their sustainability; using less pesticide Environment results in better water quality, less energy consump- tion, and cost savings; it does not result in a higher workload and has no impact on profitability or productivity; crop rotations support financial stability through a more diverse rotation Economic Le Bail et al. (2014) Review states that the absence of pesticides for certain crops (minor crops) hinders a transition toward a more diverse rotation Economic Lamichhane et al. (2015) There is a lack of pesticides for minor crops, so-called minor use; one solution to fight pests in minor uses is integrated pest management practices Economic Lechenet et al. (2017) Assessment of data from 946 farms in France shows that high yields are possible with low levels of pesti- cide use Reduction of 42% is possible without compromising yields, hence, yields similar to conventional farming are feasible Economic Colnenne-David et al. (2017) Four agricultural farming systems are designed and tested in one rotation; one system tests cropping without pesticides The no-pest system shows high gross margins and the same energy use efficiency compared to the other systems 1 3 24 Page 8 of 22 I. Pergner, C. Lippert Table 3 (continued) Category Literature Content Social Lammoglia et al. (2017) Assessment of conventional and innovative agriculture that leads to the result that low-input agriculture reduces health risks due to pesticide usage Social Cellier et al. (2018) Evaluation of the Rés0Pest project shows that farming without pesticides meets farmers’ expectations to not handle dangerous products (pesticides) Economic Moss (2019) Review of reasons why farmers do not want to apply integrated weed management practices; an action plan is introduced to improve uptakes of integrated weed management measures Social Sharma et al. (2019) Literature research on pesticide usage in the world, Environment which can harm ecosystems and is a risk to health Environment BMU (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Natur- Assessment of the state of nature in Germany; land use schutz und nukleare Sicherheit) and Bundesamt change and agricultural intensification are the main für Naturschutz (2020) drivers for biodiversity loss and decreasing water quality Environment Sud (2020) OECD paper about managing the effects of pesticides and fertilizer and corresponding costs that arise through damage to the environment and human health; policy instruments are reviewed and case stud- ies are presented Environment Chèze et al. (2020) Choice experiment in order to understand why farmers are not switching to decreased pesticide usage Farmers who believe that pesticides are bad for the environment and for their health are more likely to reduce pesticides input Economic Dachbrodt-Saaydeh et al. (2021) Analyzed German farm network, and concluded that there is still potential to reduce pesticide applications, especially for insecticide use Social Jacquet et al. (2022) Explanation of why a new research paradigm for pesticide-free agriculture is needed and which strategies should be followed Environment Möhring and Finger (2022) Analysis of a new cropping system (no pesticides in wheat production); results suggest that farmers who believe the new system is more sustainable are more likely to adopt it success is essentially due to three characteristics of modern things (irrigation, crop species, fertilization, etc.) constant, farming: the development of cultivars through modifying and actual loss, which describes the loss of yield although their genetics, enhanced fertility due to artificial fertilizers crop protection measures are in place (Oerke and Dehne and irrigation, and control of diseases, weeds, and insects 2004). Oerke and Dehne (2004) calculated that from 1996 by means of pesticides (Tilman 1999). These three features to 1998, the overall loss potential was approximately 67% were developed to protect the crops from losses and, there- worldwide. This is reduced to 32% actual losses of attainable fore, increase production (Tilman 1999). Artificial fertilizer yield due to plant protection measures. The losses vary among and irrigation have yield-increasing effects, while pesticides cultivars and regions (Oerke and Dehne 2004). Furthermore, have mainly yield-securing effects (Claupein 1993). Some crop losses are categorized into quantitative and/or qualitative pesticides, such as fungicides, also have an indirect yield- losses (Oerke 2006). Oerke (2006) describes qualitative losses increasing effect (Priestley 1981). Yield increases due to fun- as characteristics such as reduced content of valued ingre- gicide treatment can be credited not only to disease reduction dients, increased content of toxic substances, less appealing alone but also to delayed senescence (Priestley 1981). external appearances, or reduced suitability for storage. Quan- Crop loss is divided into two terms: loss potential is the titative loss is defined as a yield below the yield potential. no-control scenario in which there is no biological, chemi- In general, it can be said that farmers depend on pesticides cal, or physical protection, at the same time, holding all other to safeguard their crops from damage caused by insects, 1 3 On the effects that motivate pesticide use in perspective of designing a cropping system without… Page 9 of 22 24 Fig. 2 Total number of reviewed articles treating economic, social, therefore bubbles overlap. Note: economic = articles give reasons and environmental effects of and reasons for a pesticide use and for pesticide use that concern the economic situation of the farmer, a b pesticide rejection. Source: own compilation. The figures show country, or in general. Environment = articles give effects or reasons the number of articles that give environmental, economic, or social that concern nature. Social = articles treat aspects of pesticide use effects and the resulting reasons for a pesticide use and b pesticide that concern the general well-being of farmers and society. rejection. Some articles give several reasons in various categories, weeds, and diseases that reduce yield and crop quality (Lam- (Kaiser and Burger 2022). Hence, there is a relationship ichhane et al. 2016). Increasing or sustaining profitability between risk aversion and the usage of pesticides (Car- is a major reason for using pesticides (see Table 6). How- pentier and Reboud 2018). Weather, pests, and diseases, ever, also positive impacts of nonchemical plant protection as well as policies and market conditions, determine the measures and reasons why farmers avoid using pesticides production risk (Iyer et al. 2020). Farmers cannot influ- are identified (see Table 7 and Fig. 3). There is, for exam- ence most of these risks. Therefore, they protect their yield ple, evidence that systems without pesticides have benec fi ial by using pesticides (Cooper and Dobson 2007). The risk environmental effects, such as increased water quality and aversion of farmers leads to the assumption that there is higher biodiversity (Sanders and Heß 2019; Stein-Bachinger an insurance aspect due to which farmers use (i) pesticides et al. 2021). Reasons for pesticide use and reasons for their at all, (ii) more pesticides than necessary, or (iii) various rejection are presented in the following. mixtures of pesticides to insure themselves against higher or extreme yield losses. 3.1 Economic reasons This means that, in practice, farmers sometimes do not act according to damage thresholds but rather are moti- The literature review reveals some more positive effects vated by securing a certain yield level (Carpentier and beyond higher yield and crop quality that give farmers rea- Reboud 2018). They have an aversion against increased sons to use pesticides (see Table 6). In their analysis, Carpen- risk of production losses and believe that high yields can- tier and Reboud (2018) point out that economic factors are not be achieved while reducing pesticides (Chèze et al. determinants of today’s levels of pesticide applications. This 2020). In this way, they want to achieve high profits and means, on the one hand, that farmers use pesticides because attain a psychologically comfortable level of crop pro- it is a cheap way to protect their crops and to achieve high tection (Carpentier and Reboud 2018; Iyer et al. 2020). profits. On the other hand, farmers would reduce pesticide This means that farmers are likely to perceive the risk of applications if these pesticides were too costly and accept increased yield losses as a psychological cost, no matter resulting losses due to insects, weeds, and diseases instead. the actual financial outcome (Chèze et al. 2020). Möhring and Finger (2022) suggest that for adopting a new crop- 3.1.1 Risk aversion ping system, such as farming without pesticides, farmers’ perception of risk is crucial. If they expect high reductions Farmers are considered to behave in a risk-averse man- in yield, then the probability increases that they will not ner (Iyer et al. 2020). For farmers, pesticides represent a participate in this new cropping system. In this regard, way to reduce the risk of qualitative or quantitative losses Chèze et al. (2020) advise implementing a production-risk 1 3 24 Page 10 of 22 I. Pergner, C. Lippert Table 4 Detailed literature overview of fertilizer usage and its correlation with pesticides in chronological order. Source: own compilation. Category Literature Content Economic Büschbell and Hoffmann (1992) Experiment with the effects of various nitrogen inputs on pathogens in winter wheat; they find that at low N rates, pesticide usage is not economically sensible (low yield) Economic Claupein (1993) Long-term experiment about N fertilization and pesticide input; the results suggest that growth factors have to be combined in optimal amounts in order to reach maximal resource use efficiency; without pesticides, N fertilizer cannot be used in an optimal way by the crops Economic Mäder et al. (2002) Analysis of a 21-year-old experiment that compares cropping systems the results show that lower yields are mainly caused by lower N inputs Economic Olesen et al. (2003a) A total of 3 years of experiments were to investigate the optimal rate of N fertilization and fungicide input timing in winter wheat; estimations show that early-applied N fertilizer increases demand for pest control; furthermore, the optimal fungicide rate increases linearly with applied N fertilizer Economic Olesen et al. (2003b) Same experiment as in Olesen et al. (2003a); the analysis suggests that disease severities of septoria leaf spot and powdery mildew are increased by higher N fertilizer applica- tion Social Sheriff (2005) This review shows that farmers oversupply fertilizer due to uncertainty of agricultural Environment production; this over application might have adverse effects on the environment Economic Walters and Bingham (2007) Review on mineral fertilizer that supports diseases in crops; the results show that over- supplying nutrients, especially N can cause severe diseases and reduce yield and quality Economic Social Meyer-Aurich et al. (2009) An analysis of tillage effects and fertilizer use shows that risk aversion is a determinant of high fertilizer input Economic Roberts (2009) Review on the importance of mineral fertilizers in agricultural production; especially cereal yields depend on N fertilizer increasing the crop yield by 30 to 50% Environment Savci (2012) Review of adverse effects of chemical fertilizer on soil, water, and air Economic Stewart and Roberts (2012) Analysis of yield gap and how mineral fertilizer can close this gap; the authors stress the Social importance of mineral fertilizer for world food security Economic Huber et al. (2012) Paper on the interaction of fertilizer and pests; undersupply and oversupply can have adverse effects; it should be aimed at a balanced supply of nutrients Economic Lechenet et al. (2014) The authors assess the sustainability of various cropping systems; their results show that Social cropping systems without pesticides rely less on N fertilization than agriculture with Environment pesticide input due to a more diversified crop rotation Economic Knapp and van der Heijden (2018) Meta-analysis that assesses temporal yield in organic and conventional agriculture; the results show that organic agriculture has lower yield stability, but this stability gap can be reduced by enhanced fertilization Economic Meyer-Aurich and Karatay (2019) Analysis of optimal N fertilizer levels and its impact on production risk in wheat produc- Social tion farmers aim at high grain quality and, therefore, increase N input Economic Macholdt et al. (2019) A total of 60 years of experiments on production risk and yield stability; the authors highlight that mineral fertilization is crucial for plants to compensate for environmental stress Economic Zhang et al. (2020) Study on determinants of corn yield; the amount of pesticide input has the biggest impact on corn yield; mineral fertilization is also important but not as crucial as pesticides premium to compensate for the increased risk of yield from the network of reference farms for plant protection losses due to pesticide reduction and to secure farmers’ (Dachbrodt-Saaydeh et al. 2021). income. This network contains approximately 90 representative farms in Germany (Dachbrodt-Saaydeh et al. 2021). Ger- 3.1.2 The optimal pesticide input level many’s National Action Plan (NAP) target to reduce appli- cations of pesticides is the quota of “95% conformity with Testing the hypothesis that farmers behave according to the necessary-minimum requirement” (Federal Ministry of the insurance aspect is not an easy task due to the lack Food, Agriculture, and Consumer Protection 2013). The of literature and observation on this subject. For the “necessary-minimum requirement” describes the amount of past 11 years, the German Julius Kühn-Institute (JKI) pesticides that are necessary to achieve a yield that makes has been collecting data on the use of crop protection farming economically feasible, given that all alternative 1 3 On the effects that motivate pesticide use in perspective of designing a cropping system without… Page 11 of 22 24 Table 5 Research string on mineral fertilizer and its interaction with (Lechenet et al. 2017). Lechenet et al. (2017) estimate that plant pests and pesticides. the reduction of pesticide usage by 42% has neither a nega- tive impact on profitability nor on productivity in 59% of the Keywords Searched databases farms. This means that farmers did not attain the optimum Mineral fertilizer Google Scholar before the pesticide reduction. In particular, livestock farms Nitrogen AgEcon Search that mainly cultivate maize and grassland have the highest Optimal fertilizer usage Scopus potential to reduce pesticide use. However, farms that grow- Interaction of pesticides and fertilizer Science Direct input intensive crops such as potatoes and sugar beets depend Environmental risks of fertilizer Research Gate on large amounts of pesticides to maintain yields. Other stud- Fertilizer and pest occurrence ies, for example, from Nave et al. (2013), support the hypoth- Fertilizer and fungi esis from Lechenet et al. (2017) that a high input of pesticides Development/history of mineral fertilizer is not economically reasonable and can be reduced. Fertilizer, yield/yield stability Nave et al. (2013) show that 33% of the farmers inves- tigated in their study use high amounts of pesticides and receive moderate yields of wheat, while 38% of the farm- options for plant protection have been considered and the ers use moderate amounts of pesticides and produce high protection of operators, the environment, and consumers is yields. Their network consists of farmers from a French assured (Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture, and Con- region known for high cereal production. Nave et al. (2013) sumer Protection 2013). The analyses show that the applica- identify three types of management: high input, moderate tion of pesticides is determined by regional characteristics input, and low input. In this experiment, the most efficient of pest occurrence and that the use of pesticides was mostly cropping system is the moderate-input type because it has appropriate and moderate over the past 11 years (Dachbrodt- been observed that this type of farming has higher yields, Saaydeh et al. 2021). In winter wheat, 88% of pesticide lower inputs, and a higher gross margin than the other two applications are within the necessary level; in winter bar- types (Nave et al. 2013). ley, it is 90%; and in winter rapeseed, it is 87% (Dachbrodt- Saaydeh et al. 2021). This means that there is still potential 3.1.3 Resource efficiency to reduce pesticide applications in these crops, especially for insecticide use (Dachbrodt-Saaydeh et al. 2021). The study by Deike et al. (2008) aimed to evaluate the pro- There are several economic analyses that investigate pes- ductivity and environmental effects of different cropping sys- ticide use reduction: For example, a French study examines tems. The trials included variations in crop rotation systems a 50% reduction and zero pesticide application in wheat in and cropping management. The results show that the type comparison with current pesticide input levels (Hossard of crops the rotation consists of is important for yield, sus- et al. 2014). Such a reduction is not profitable for farmers, tainability, and management decisions. However, an interac- as a yield loss of 5 to 13% is predicted and the subsequent tion between pesticide use intensity and crop rotation could pesticide cost reduction cannot compensate for yield loss not be confirmed (Deike et al. 2008). Deike et al. (2008) at current wheat prices. Zero pesticide application would demonstrate that pesticide usage, which is situation-related reduce current yields by 24.3 to 33% (Hossard et al. 2014). will increase yield. In addition, the efficiency of energy and These results are supported by an earlier French study, which nitrogen use is improved. Pesticide use that follows guide- shows that a pesticide use reduction of 10 to 30% is feasi- lines of integrated pest management (IPM) has a low-risk ble in arable farming while maintaining profitability, but a potential for the environment, and this risk is reduced by reduction of 50% would cause a higher reduction in yield a further decrease in pesticide input. This study highlights and farmer income (Jacquet et al. 2011). Bürger and Ger- that a diversified crop rotation has the potential for decreased owitt (2009) analyze pesticide usage in winter wheat and pesticide and fertilizer usage or reduced intensity of tillage oilseed rape in Germany. They found that pesticide input without compromising the overall production capacity. can be reduced by applying pesticides less frequently, using Several other scholars that examine low- or zero-pes- fewer mixtures of various pesticides, or using lower applica- ticide systems report higher energy consumption in those tion rates. low-input systems. Lechenet et al. (2014) compare organic, Another important contribution about reducing pesti- integrated, and conventional agriculture and find that cides while preserving yields is the work of Lechenet et al. organic systems are not as productive and not as energy (2017). This study suggests that there is no conflict between efficient as the other systems. Moreover, it may not be the reduced use of pesticides and both high profitability and profitable: zero-pesticide systems have no pesticide costs high productivity in 77% of 946 analyzed farms in France but increased costs due to mechanical weeding, which is 1 3 24 Page 12 of 22 I. Pergner, C. Lippert Table 6 Categorization of the literature on the usage of pesticides. tional farming is prevalent, and equipment for plant protection without Definitions: High yield: produces higher yield compared to other crop- pesticides and labor that is trained to handle this equipment is scarce. ping systems. High profitability: gains more profit than other cropping Ignorance/lack of information: farmers are not informed about alterna- systems. High crop quality: the quality of crops is increased. Higher tive cropping systems. Recommended practice: extension services and (energy) efficiency: factors of production are used in a more efficient sales representatives recommend practices with pesticides. Administra- way (less energy is needed to perform the same task). Risk aversion, tive burden: converting to another cropping system can be accompanied psychological costs, and yield stability: risk-averse farmers prefer out- by increased controls and administration to verify compliance. Simplic- comes with low uncertainty. They can reduce the risk by using pesti- ity, convenience of using pesticides, and lower workload: applying pes- cides and stabilize their yield. They perceive psychological costs when ticides is accompanied by easier work tasks and a lower workload. Crop there is high pest pressure, while they cannot reduce the risk with pes- insurance: gives an incentive to grow more pesticide intensive-crops. ticides. Lock in effect: describes the situation when a farmer has cho- Food security: conventional farming is more suitable to fight food inse- sen a certain cropping system in the past and cannot convert to another curity. Food safety: applying pesticides enhances crop quality and fights cropping system without substantial costs or inconvenience. The lock- pests that might harm consumers. Low greenhouse gas emissions: sys- in effect comprises other reasons, such as high-yielding varieties: crops tems that use pesticides emit less greenhouse gas emissions. Pesticides bred for high yields are more susceptible to pests and can hardly be are better for soil health: farming without pesticides relies on tillage, grown without pesticides. Lack of trained labor and equipment: conven- which might decrease soil health. Source: own compilation. Category Reason Literature Economic High yield Crissman et al. (1994); Wilson and Tisdell (2001); Oerke (2006); Cooper and Dobson (2007); Deike et al. (2008); Ponti et al. (2012); Seufert et al. (2012); Noleppa and von Witzke (2013); Lechenet et al. (2014); Hossard et al. (2014); Colnenne-David and Doré (2015); Tamm et al. (2018); Chèze et al. (2020) High profitability Nave et al. (2013); Carpentier and Reboud (2018); Moss (2019) High crop quality Cooper and Dobson (2007) Higher (energy) efficiency Cooper and Dobson (2007); Deike et al. (2008); Noleppa and von Witzke (2013); Lechenet et al. (2014); Cellier et al. (2018) Risk aversion, psychological costs, Jacquet et al. (2011); Bürger et al. (2012); Nave et al. (2013); Skevas et al. (2014); Carpentier and yield stability and Reboud (2018); Knapp and van der Heijden (2018); Seufert (2019); Moss (2019); Chèze et al. (2020); Kaiser and Burger (2022); Möhring and Finger (2022) Social Lock in effect Wilson and Tisdell (2001); Lamine et al. (2010); Jacquet et al. (2011); Lamine (2011); Le Bail et al. (2014) High yielding varieties Wilson and Tisdell (2001) Lack of trained labor and equipment Moss (2019); Meissle et al. (2010) Ignorance/lack of information Wilson and Tisdell (2001); Nave et al. (2013); Lamine (2011); Meissle et al. (2010) Recommended practice Nave et al. (2013); Moss (2019); Jacquet et al. (2022); Wuepper et al. (2021) Administrative burden Chèze et al. (2020) Simplicity, convenience of using Chikowo et al. (2009); Jacquet et al. (2011); Nave et al. (2013); Lechenet et al. (2014); pesticides, and lower work load Schwarz et al. (2018); Cellier et al. (2018); Moss (2019) Crop insurance Möhring et al. (2020) Food security Cooper and Dobson (2007); Noleppa and von Witzke (2013) Food safety Cooper and Dobson (2007) Environment Low greenhouse gas emissions Noleppa and von Witzke (2013) Pesticides better for soil health Cooper and Dobson (2007); Colnenne-David and Doré (2015); Colnenne-David et al. (2017); Cellier et al. (2018); Moss (2019) necessary for a cropping system without herbicides. The agriculture. Costs can be reduced by 25.4% if farmers savings from pesticide cost reduction cannot compensate adopt agricultural extensification practices and by 13.1% for these costs, in addition to reduced productivity. if they convert to agricultural intensification. In regard to In contrast, several authors have argued that low- or pesticide input, potential reductions can be up to 29% of zero-pesticide systems have economic benefits. Bous - the current situation. semart et al. (2011) concentrated on the costs of cropping systems and showed that extensive agriculture is more 3.1.4 Comparison of yields cost-effective than intensive agriculture. Boussemart et al. (2011) evaluate farms in France and their inputs In general, organic yields can be similar to conventional (e.g., seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides) to compare their yields, depending on the type of cultivar, soil, and weather current situation with converting to extensive or intensive (Pimentel et al. 2005). Mäder et al. (2002) present the 1 3 On the effects that motivate pesticide use in perspective of designing a cropping system without… Page 13 of 22 24 Table 7 Categorization of the literature on the rejection of pesticide pesticides might be toxic to producers. Food safety: consuming food usage. Definitions: Savings in production cost and energy: waiving that is grown with pesticides might be toxic. Caring for future gen- pesticides reduces costs for chemical plant protection and energy erations: farmers, who have families and children, care more about input. Lower economic risks: renouncing pesticides lowers the eco- the future and reject pesticides due to their possible negative effects. nomic risk due to alternative farming practices. Similar yield: farm- Knowledge: farmers, who rely upon an extension service know more ing without pesticides can produce similar yields as farming with about pesticides and therefore reject pesticides. Biodiversity, protec- pesticides. High profitability: farming without pesticides gains more tion of animals (bees, birds, and fishes), beneficial microorganisms, profit. Pests develop resistance: pests can develop resistances toward and invertebrates: pesticides can cause harm to the environment; pesticides. Crop resistance: new cultivars can obtain resistance therefore, pesticides might be rejected. Soil organic matter: pesticides toward pests due to breeding, which makes pesticides unnecessary. might have negative effects on soil organic matter. Water quality: pes- Minor uses: some crops are not cultivated much; therefore, the finan- ticides can leach from the soil and reduce water quality. Crop rota- cial incentive for pesticide industries is missing to produce pesticides tion: a wide and diverse crop rotation is a prerequisite for farming for these crops. Workload: waiving pesticides is accompanied by a without pesticides. Source: own compilation. workload that is evenly spread over the year. Health risks: applying Category Reason Literature Economic Savings in production cost and energy Pimentel et al. (2005); Boussemart et al. (2011); Jacquet et al. (2011); Bürger et al. (2012); Lechenet et al. (2014); Colnenne-David et al. (2017); Dachbrodt-Saaydeh et al. (2021) Lower economic risks Pimentel et al. (2005); Lechenet et al. (2014) Similar yield Mäder et al. (2002); Pimentel et al. (2005); Delbridge et al. (2013); Lechenet et al. (2014); Lechenet et al. (2017) High profitability Mäder et al. (2002); Pimentel et al. (2005); Lechenet et al. (2014); Colnenne-David et al. (2017) Pests develop resistance Pimentel et al. (1992); Sexton (2007); Moss (2019) Crop resistance Jahn et al. (2010) Minor uses Le Bail et al. (2014); Lamichhane et al. (2015) Social Workload Pimentel et al. (2005); Pardo et al. (2010); Lechenet et al. (2014) Health risks Pimentel et al. (1992); Antle and Pingali (1994); Crissman et al. (1994); Sexton (2007); Abhilash and Singh (2009); Nave et al. (2013); Lam- moglia et al. (2017); Cellier et al. (2018); Sharma et al. (2019) Food safety Pimentel et al. (1992) Caring for future generations de Souza Filho et al. (1999); Nave et al. (2013) Knowledge de Souza Filho et al. (1999); Nave et al. (2013); Jacquet et al. (2022) Environment Biodiversity, protection of animals, (bees, birds, and Pimentel et al. (1992); de Souza Filho et al. (1999); Wood et al. (2000); fishes), beneficial microorganisms, and inverte- Mäder et al. (2002); Sexton (2007); Bright et al. (2008); Abhilash and brates Singh (2009); Chikowo et al. (2009); Nave et al. (2013); Sharma et al. (2019); BMU (2020); Sud (2020); Chèze et al. (2020); Möhring and Finger (2022) Soil organic matter Mäder et al. (2002); Pimentel et al. (2005) Water quality Pimentel et al. (1992); Foley et al. (2011); Lechenet et al. (2014); Sharma et al. (2019); BMU (2020) Crop rotation Pimentel et al. (2005); Kolbe (2006); Chikowo et al. (2009); Melander et al. (2013); Lechenet et al. (2014) results from a trial that lasted for 21 years and compared lower than conventional yields but not as low as expected conventional and organic cropping systems. The authors and higher than yields in organic agriculture. Neverthe- show that potato yields of organic systems are approxi- less, profitability suffers due to high seed and mechaniza- mately 58 to 66% lower, winter wheat yields are reduced tion costs. by approximately 10%, and grass-clover yields have only marginal differences compared to conventional farming. 3.1.5 Yield stability However, organic cash crops cannot be cultivated as often as conventional cash crops due to the need for a more High yields and stable yields over time are important for diverse crop rotation (Pimentel et al. 2005). Cellier et al. farmers (at least as long as farmers are risk averse); how- (2018) evaluated a cropping system similar to MECS, ever, there are only a few studies that compare the temporal which also uses mineral fertilizer but lacks pesticides. yield stability of organic and conventional cropping systems They conclude that yields of the zero-pesticide systems are (Seufert 2019). To our knowledge, there is no literature about 1 3 24 Page 14 of 22 I. Pergner, C. Lippert Fig. 3 Overview of the effects of a mineral ecological cropping system. Note: Circles = instru- ments of a mineral ecological cropping system; rectangles = objectives; “+” or “−” = strong or well-established positive or negative effects; “+/−” = ambiguous effect. Source: own compilation. yield stability over time of a cropping system such as MECS. varieties are a decisive factor in the need for control. Espe- The comprehensive work from Seufert (2019) reviews the cially for winter rye and winter barley, due to the low level literature about organic versus conventional yield stability of resistance to the dominant diseases, at least one fungicide over time. She concludes that there is some evidence for application was required in all years of their trial (11 years). higher temporal yield stability in conventional farming and some evidence that there is no difference between the crop-3.1.7 Minor uses ping systems. There is little evidence for higher yield stabil- ity over time in organic cropping systems. Knapp and van Another reason why farmers do not use pesticides is that der Heijden (2018) also analyzed the temporal yield stability there are no pesticides available for certain crops due to their of various cropping systems in a meta-analysis based on 193 low scope of application (so-called minor uses) (Lamichhane studies. They concluded that organic cropping systems have et al. 2015). This is because of the low economic value of the lower temporal yield stability than conventional agriculture. corresponding crops and the costly risk assessment needed Nevertheless, this yield stability gap between organic and for official approval of the pesticides (Lamichhane et al. conventional cropping systems can be reduced by enhanced 2015; Le Bail et al. 2014). This means that some pesticides fertilization. are not available on the market, although these pesticides would be important for farmers to protect their crops (Lam- 3.1.6 Resistance to pesticides ichhane et al. 2015). Therefore, nonchemical plant protection or IPM solutions are crucial in these cases to substitute for Furthermore, nonchemical measures against pests are fre- nonexistent pesticides (Lamichhane et al. 2015). quently adopted to compensate for the inefficiencies of pesti- cides (Moss 2019). Pests develop resistance to certain pesti-3.2 Social reasons cides, which is why these protection measures are no longer as effective and there is an absence of new pesticides that Defining the social dimension in agriculture is not an easy serve as substitutes for the old ones (Moss 2019; Pimentel task (Janker and Mann 2020). In this work, social reasons et al. 1992; Sexton 2007). Oerke and Dehne (2004) argue for using pesticides or rejecting their usage are any factors that crop losses increase over time, despite the increased use that consider human health, well-being, and quality of life. of pesticides. However, according to these authors, resist- This includes topics on a global scale that have an impact ance that pests develop against pesticides contributes only on society, such as food security, as well as on a personal little to this phenomenon. Changes in farming practices, for scale, such as workload. instance, less diverse crop rotations, increased monocrop- ping, and the use of high-yielding varieties that are suscep-3.2.1 Lock in effect tible to diseases, are mainly responsible for increased crop losses. In contrast, for reduced fungicide treatment, Jahn One widely discussed reason why farmers reject converting et al. (2010) find that the resistance characteristics of crop to a cropping system with reduced or without pesticides is 1 3 On the effects that motivate pesticide use in perspective of designing a cropping system without… Page 15 of 22 24 the so-called lock-in effect: farmers are locked in conven- complex (Le Bail et al. 2014). Moss (2019) calls this the tional farming because it is their initial farming practice. inconvenience factor. Higher complexity and time-consum- Changing it to another system is costly and requires all ing tasks of nonchemical plant protection are mainly caused actors in the agricultural sector to change. This problem has by a more diversified crop rotation and increased monitor - been observed by several scholars (see Table 6). Since the ing of the fields, which are prerequisites for reduced or zero 1960s, the agricultural sector (plant breeders, researchers, pesticide application (Lechenet et al. 2014). Hence, pesticide extension services, etc.) developed intensive farming strate- usage reduces the workload of farmers (Cellier et al. 2018; gies to increase yield (Lamine et al. 2010). This means that Schwarz et al. 2018). On the other hand, Pardo et al. (2010) farmers, who want to switch to zero pesticide usage face find for zero herbicide systems that the working hours are several obstacles, such as extension services exclusively rec- better distributed over the year so that there is no peak time ommending conventional practices (Moss 2019; Nave et al. in labor. This finding is supported by several scholars who 2013). This leads to a lack of knowledge or to ignorance argue that the work is allocated more evenly over the year about the unsustainability of pesticides. Nave et al. (2013) in the case of a more diverse crop rotation (Lechenet et al. find that acquiring information through extension groups 2014; Pardo et al. 2010; Pimentel et al. 2005). encourages pesticide use reduction. Furthermore, Wuepper et al. (2021) suggest that the type of extension service also 3.2.3 Food security matters for adopting alternative crop protection. Farmers who work with private extension services are more likely Food security is an important aspect of agricultural produc- to use pesticides. Farmers who receive advice from public tion because of the increasing world population that demands extension services will probably adopt preventive measures. higher yields in the future (Sexton 2007). Therefore, some Additionally, farmers can experience a lack of crop seeds authors advocate high-yielding conventional farming to that are resistant to pests because in recent years only crops achieve worldwide food security (Cooper and Dobson 2007; were cultivated suitable to achieve high yields (Lamine et al. Noleppa and von Witzke 2013). Noleppa and von Witzke 2010). These high-yielding cultivars are more susceptible (2013) highlight that although Germany is a comparatively to diseases and dependent on pesticides (Wilson and Tis- small country, a complete conversion to organic farming can dell 2001). Another issue is the availability of employees change the entire food supply and threaten food security. who are trained to use nonchemical measures and the right Immense harvest losses would occur due to the absence of equipment for low pesticide measures, which is not always modern crop protection and fertilizers. These losses are to given (Lamine et al. 2010; Meissle et al. 2010; Moss 2019). be expected for potatoes (minus 44% yield), maize (minus Chèze et al. (2020) find that farmers often oppose the admin- 51% yield), and wheat (minus 54% yield) when compared to istrative commitments that may come along with low- or the yields of conventional agriculture in Germany (Noleppa zero-pesticide measures. In this context, contracts and cer- and von Witzke 2013). tification processes with public authorities that ensure farm- ers’ compliance with zero or reduced pesticide usage are 3.2.4 Risk for consumers and producers considered a burden and less of a chance to integrate into a network or receive support. Furthermore, a development Various reasons for rejecting pesticides can also be found period where farmers learn how to handle the innovative in the literature: One study discusses the exposure of con- farming system can occur (Cellier et al. 2018). During this sumers to pesticides via food and water (Pimentel et al. time, high pest and weed pressure are likely (Cellier et al. 1992). This can be an argument for rejecting pesticides. In 2018). Therefore, Jacquet et al. (2022) recommend compen- contrast, Cooper and Dobson (2007) mention higher food sating farmers in this transition period. Furthermore, crop safety through pesticides due to reduced fungal toxins. insurance and pesticide use can have a positive or negative Although pesticide residues in food often occur, in most relationship (Möhring et al. 2020). Möhring et al. (2020) cases the maximum levels allowed are observed and food find that crop insurance leads to higher pesticide use because is classified as safe (European Food Safety Authority et al. insurance gives the incentive to use more pesticide-intensive 2020). Sharma et al. (2019) note that pesticides are harmful crops. Their results suggest that pesticide input would be to organisms. Farmers who do not apply pesticides appro- reduced by 6 to 11% without crop insurance. priately are exposed to health risks (Abhilash and Singh 2009). Being aware of these risks leads to reduced usage of 3.2.2 More work, but better distributed? pesticides (Nave et al. 2013). Systems with zero pesticide applications meet farmers’ expectations of not handling dan- One reason for using pesticides may be the convenience of gerous products (Cellier et al. 2018). using them: nonchemical solutions for crop protection often Other social factors and reasons for rejecting pesticide exist for many cultivars, but their implementation is more inputs are investigated by Nave et al. (2013), who conduct an 1 3 24 Page 16 of 22 I. Pergner, C. Lippert analysis that shows why farmers reduce chemical inputs. The strategies mainly use mechanical weed control and only partly authors interviewed 71 farmers in France who grow winter apply herbicides (Chikowo et al. 2009). Chikowo et al. (2009) wheat. Farmers often implement low-input practices when examine IWM measures and find that they can control weeds they have a family or own the land they are farming because in the long term and that the environmental impact can be they care more about the environment and the future. As reduced while mostly maintaining yields. Nevertheless, IWM mentioned before, taking part in extension groups and hav- practices such as mechanical weed control and false seedbed ing access to various information sources encourages low- preparation increase complexity and workload. Melander et al. input agriculture. These findings are supported by de Souza (2013) stress the importance of reducing weeds with nonchem- Filho et al. (1999) and Lamine et al. (2010). ical measures by means of crop rotations and innovations, such as thermal control or intercropping. However, more research is necessary on these innovative methods. 3.3 Environmental effects and reasons 3.3.2 Adverse effects on the environment Moss (2019) reports that farmers may reject alternative plant protection measures because they fear that they have a nega- Pesticides can be a problem for ecosystems because they tive impact on the environment. Indeed, Noleppa and von harm not only weeds, insects, and pests but also other organ- Witzke (2013) argue that pesticides emit only a few green- isms that are not targeted (Sharma et al. 2019). In the report house gases, but conversion to a farming system without of the BMU, it is concluded that the state of essential parts pesticides would cause an increase in greenhouse gas emis- of biodiversity in Germany is critical (BMU 2020). Many sions due to decreased yields that need to be compensated habitats and species have an unfavorable-inadequate or poor by converting forests into farmland. In addition, waiving state of preservation. In addition, for approximately one- pesticides reduces soil organic matter because plowing needs third of the brood bird species the populations decreased to be done more often. This is supported by findings from in recent years. The main causes of this development are, two other studies (Cellier et al. 2018; Colnenne-David and among others, high nutrient and pesticide inputs, intensifi - Doré 2015). Pimentel et al. (2005) compare conventional cation or abandonment of land use, including the abandon- and organic farming and disagree with this statement. They ment of traditional land use forms, changes in the hydrology find higher soil organic matter in systems without chemical and morphology of water bodies, drainage, and groundwater input instead. This is supported by Mäder et al. (2002), who extraction. Sud (2020), Wood et al. (2000), and Abhilash also compared organic and conventional cropping systems. and Singh (2009) report similar negative effects on land and They conclude that organic agriculture results in enhanced water organisms due to pesticides in many other developed soil fertility and biodiversity. and developing countries. In contrast, agriculture with low or zero pesticide usage has a low impact on water and soil 3.3.1 The importance of crop rotation and innovation quality (Lechenet et al. 2014). According to Möhring and Finger (2022), the environmental benefits of a cropping As mentioned before, crop diversification is a prerequisite system are important for farmers. These authors find that for low- or zero-pesticide farming (Lechenet et al. 2014). A farmers who believe that a new cropping system without wider crop rotation increases biodiversity, decreases inci- pesticides is more environmentally friendly are more likely dences of pests, and therefore reduces pesticide input and to participate in this system. negative impacts on the environment (Lechenet et al. 2014). Using a more diversified crop rotation and cover crops also 3.4 The importance of mineral fertilizer and its has the benefit of reducing soil erosion (Pimentel et al. 2005). interaction with plant pests Kolbe (2006) also recognized that unfavorable crop rotations promote weeds, diseases, and pests, which have an impact on An interesting topic is the use of mineral fertilizers in rela- crop yield and quality. This affects especially organic and low- tion to plant pests and countering pesticides, as mineral input agriculture. Therefore, Kolbe (2006) further develops fertilizers are allowed in MECS whereas pesticides are crop sequences that help to decrease dependence on pesticides. forbidden. Both mineral fertilizers and pesticides are deter- Conventional crop production relies heavily on the usage minants of high-input cropping systems (Fess et al. 2011). of herbicides (Melander et al. 2013). Among the different pes - The review about the development of mineral fertilizers by ticide categories (herbicide, fungicide, and insecticide), her- Russel and Williams (1977) shows that organic and mineral bicide reduction has the highest risk of causing yield losses fertilizers have been used by humans for centuries. Mod- (Lechenet et al. 2017). Efforts are being made to reduce the ern fertilizer production started in 1840 with the invention dependency on herbicides, for example, with the help of inte- of superphosphate (Russel and Williams 1977). During grated weed management (IWM) (Chikowo et al. 2009). IWM the green revolution from 1950 on, artificial fertilizers and 1 3 On the effects that motivate pesticide use in perspective of designing a cropping system without… Page 17 of 22 24 pesticides simultaneously contributed to the tremendous especially cereal yields depend on fertilizer applications increase in crop production (Tilman 1999). Since then, the (Roberts 2009). This is one reason why organic agriculture effects of mineral fertilizer on yield, risk perception of farm- is criticized as unfit to feed the world’s population in the ers, and optimal fertilizer input have been widely discussed future (Connor 2018). by scientists. The application of artificial fertilizers is important to Whereas the average yield-increasing effect of mineral mitigate the uncertainty of crop production (Sheriff 2005). fertilizer is undisputed, the interaction between the resulting The production-increasing effects are shown by a study nutrient supply and plant diseases is far from clear-cut, as by Macholdt et al. (2019), who present an experiment that the effect of additional nutrient supply on disease incidence lasted over 60 years. They analyze the production risk, risk depends on both the overall level of nutrient supply and the development, and stability of crop yields fertilized with dif- corresponding pathogen. In the case of nitrogen, this can ferent combinations and amounts of NPK (nitrogen, phos- lead to a U-shaped relationship between fertilization and phorus, and potassium) and manure. They find that yield disease incidence (for an illustration and discussion of this stability and production risk are mainly impacted by climate, relationship along with literature references from crop sci- followed by added NPK fertilizer and manure fertilization. ences, see Huber et al. 2012 p.284f.). On the one hand, there Sufficient N availability helps crops to compensate for envi - are clearly positive correlations between nitrogen (N) supply ronmental stress, which contributes to yield stability. High and, e.g., the incidence of certain obligate biotrophic fun- levels of mineral fertilizer (NPK) contribute to high yield gal parasites such as powdery mildew (Erysiphe graminis), and stability, resulting in lower production risk when com- which calls for increased fungicide use at higher N fertiliza- pared to lower fertilization levels (i.e., 50% less or no ferti- tion levels. On the other hand, for other (facultative) para- lizer). This is also supported by a study by Knapp and van sites and at relatively low N supply levels, this correlation der Heijden (2018). was found to be negative, as in the case of leaf spot diseases Another long-term experiment by Mäder et al. (2002) (Alternaria ssp.). In this context, Huber et al. (2012) state compares yields of conventional and organic cropping sys- that “[u]sually, a “balanced” nutrient supply that ensures tems. The authors show that the yield of organic wheat and optimal plant growth is also optimal for plant resistance” other cereals are reduced by 30 to 50%. It is assumed that and that “[…] plants suffering from nutrient deficiency have lower yields are mainly caused by lower N inputs. The NPK lower tolerance to diseases and pests, and tolerance can be level of the organic systems was between 34 and 51% lower increased by supplying the deficient nutrient”. A plant being than that of the conventional system. The trials by Macholdt undersupplied is more susceptible to certain diseases caused et al. (2019) and Mäder et al. (2002) demonstrate the impor- by necrotrophic pathogens. For biotrophic pathogens, under- tance of healthy plants due to mineral fertilizer for high and supplied plants are less “interesting” because there is less to stable yields. However, the interaction between pests and feed upon. plant nutrition is complex and differs among plant types, the As a MECS aims at a spatially and temporally balanced growing stage of the plant, and pathogen species (Walters supply of nitrogen, rather low nutrient inputs should be and Bingham 2007). There is evidence that oversupplying avoided as they result in reduced yields. We emphasize in nutrients, especially N, can cause severe diseases and reduce our review the positive correlation between nutrient supply yield and quality (Walters and Bingham 2007). Therefore, and incidences of certain plant diseases at higher nutrient balanced fertilization based on the needs of the plants is levels. crucial (Walters and Bingham 2007). Contemporary organic agriculture is a cropping system The relationship between pesticides and mineral fer- that forbids the application of pesticides and mineral ferti- tilizers is of particular relevance regarding MECS. Both lizers (Connor 2018). Mineral fertilizers are an important mineral fertilizers and pesticides have an important role in component of crop yield and quality (Stewart and Roberts high and stable yields (Zhang et al. 2020). Organic crop- 2012). Nevertheless, mineral fertilizer can damage the envi- ping systems rely less on nitrogen fertilization than agri- ronment when farmers apply it to fields in an inappropriate culture with pesticide input (Lechenet et al. 2014). This is way (Savci 2012; Sheriff 2005). For example, this can lead due to lower yield targets of organic agriculture and a more to eutrophication (Rockström et al. 2009). There are also diversified crop rotation, which incorporates crops such as sources that suggest that farmers may overapply fertilizer legumes that are less reliant on nitrogen input (Lechenet to reduce risk (Meyer-Aurich et al. 2009; Meyer-Aurich and et al. 2014). At higher nutrient supply and yield levels, Karatay 2019). In organic agricultural systems, N can only there is a correlation between fertilizer application and cer- be added to the system by intercropping leguminous plants tain plant diseases, which may lead to increased pesticide or by fertilization with manure, which leads to lower yields usage. That would mean if farmers use artificial fertilizers, compared to fertilization with mineral fertilizer (Connor then they also use more pesticides because of the increased 2018). Mineral fertilizers increase crop yield by 30 to 50%; need for plant protection at higher cropping intensities (also 1 3 24 Page 18 of 22 I. Pergner, C. Lippert involving high-yielding varieties and straw-shortening some farmers use pesticides and why others reject them. growth regulators). In this way, the determinants of pesticide use are identi- There is further evidence in the literature for a positive fied, and important insights are drawn from the reviewed correlation between nutrient supply and pesticide use also studies that may be important for MECS. Thus, our ini- because of the higher crop value at stake when the targeted tially presented research questions are answered in the yield levels are greater. Thus, the optimal pesticide doses following: depend not only on the amount of fertilizer applied to the (1) What are the main reasons that determine pesticide crops but also on the prices of fertilizer and the revenue a usage? crop yields: Büschbell and Hoffmann (1992) analyze the In particular, economic aspects, such as the profitability effect of different N supplies (40, 80, and 160 kg N/ha) on of a cropping system, are important for farmers’ decisions diseases in wheat in two successive years. They stress that to continue with current farming practices or to convert to the relationship between potential yield and the number of a zero-pesticide system. In addition, environmental aspects fungicide treatments is important. At low N supply (40 kg can be crucial. Research in the literature shows that pesti- N/ha), the yield is so low that it does not make economical cide use can be reduced without compromising yield and sense to apply fungicides. Fungicide usage is economically profitability. However, no consensus among scholars can be reasonable at higher N rates of 80 kg N/ha. In particular, identified to what extent a pesticide reduction is feasible the spread of powdery mildew increases with the increas- without prohibitive farm losses. It can be assumed that the ing N rates that are applied. This is supported by Olesen feasible reduction depends on regional (climate and soil- et al. (2003b), who performe a similar analysis on N sup- related) conditions and management practices. Addition- ply in crops and its effects on diseases. They find that the ally, farmers may want to assure stable yields over time and, disease severities of septoria leaf spot and powdery mildew therefore, apply pesticides as insurance against yield losses are increased by higher N fertilizer applications. Further- and not according to damage thresholds. However, there is more, Olesen et al. (2003a) find that the optimal fungicide little empirical evidence to verify this assumption. In con- level increases nearly linearly with the N fertilizer rate that trast, according to Dachbrodt-Saaydeh et al. (2021), most is applied. The optimal amount of fungicide and N level pesticide applications from 2007 to 2017 corresponded to is defined as those doses that give the highest economic the necessary level, and only a few pesticide applications return. Hence, the optimal fungicide dose also depends on were unnecessary. crop prices. The authors point out that there is an interac- The literature review suggests that the reasons for pes- tion between the amount and timing of N application on the ticide use are manifold and not only related to high yield optimal fungicide dose. Early-applied N fertilizer causes a and profits. The lock-in effect, for example, is an important higher need for pesticides but also a higher yield. This is and complex issue that hinders farmers from converting to supported by Claupein (1993), who suspects that there is low-input agriculture. Furthermore, the MECS will change an interaction between N fertilization and pesticides. If so, conventional farming practices. A wider crop rotation, for pesticides can be reduced by decreased N application. In instance, can partly compensate for renouncing pesticides. contrast, waving pesticides means that crops may not make There are guidelines for favorable crop sequences (see Sec- optimal use of N fertilization due to diminished N uptake tion 3.3.1). However, there is also contradictory evidence and increased incidences of certain plant diseases. regarding how much a wider crop rotation increases work- load and complexity. Weeds are particularly problematic for many crops. Therefore, herbicide applications may be quite 4 Conclusion important to prevent yield losses and maintain quality. For MECS, an increase in soil fertility and biodiversity Agricultural systems, such as organic agriculture, are criti- can be expected compared to conventional farming. This cized for not being able to feed a growing world popu- could be a convincing reason for environmentally sensitive lation. Conversely, conventional farming is criticized farmers to change their farming practices. for causing environmental problems, and this literature (2) How important are mineral fertilizers for high and research shows that negative impacts on the environment stable yields, and is there a correlation between fertilizer are well documented. Therefore, a hybrid system, MECS, use and pesticide input? is proposed. This innovative system rejects pesticides to Mineral fertilizers are important for high and stable avoid environmental damage. However, mineral fertiliz- yields, but using a dose that is too large can cause harm to ers are permitted to achieve high yields. It is important the environment and facilitate plant diseases. The literature that farmers accept this new farming system so that it can suggests that cropping systems without pesticides are less eventually be put into practice. Therefore, in this litera- dependent on nitrogen fertilization due to a more diversified ture review, among others, we summarize the reasons why crop rotation and lower yield targets. Nave et al. (2013) and 1 3 On the effects that motivate pesticide use in perspective of designing a cropping system without… Page 19 of 22 24 Kavita et al. (2018) show that high yields can be achieved In the future, more research should be done to assess with increased fertilizer input without increasing pesticide how the abandonment of pesticides affects systems of usage. Nevertheless, the literature also shows that without rationally acting farmers. To analyze profitability and risk pesticides, N fertilizer cannot be used in an optimal way by aspects, future research should also rely upon mathemati- crops. There seems to be a correlation between the usage of cal programming models to compare total contribution pesticides and fertilizer. Consequently, in MECS, a balanced margins and their variances for different cropping sys- supply of nitrogen (both spatially and temporally) should be tems. Apart from that, questions arise, such as how will aimed. This would mean that mineral fertilizers should be the whole agricultural system change if minimal or zero applied at lower levels than in conventional farming. Lower doses of pesticides are applied in the future? From the nitrogen application is, after all, coupled with the predicted example of “minor uses,” we can see that it is not econom- reduced yield. In the future, it will be necessary to perform ically reasonable for industries to sell small amounts of further research on pest effects at high nitrogen applications seldomly used pesticides. Furthermore, the question arises in the MECS. of which crop shares will decrease when there are no pesti- Furthermore, there are several known problems posed by cides available. Remarkably, there is no consensus among mineral fertilizers that should be considered when design- scholars on whether reduced or zero pesticide practices are ing a MECS. First, the most important nutrients for crops more labor-intensive. Therefore, it will be interesting to (i.e., NPK) are not produced in a sustainable way. They are compare the workload that is necessary for MECS and for either mined (P and K) or produced via the Haber-Bosch other cropping systems. Finally, the crop- and site-specific process (N), which is extremely energy intensive. Second, conditions under which (a positive or negative) correla- phosphate sources will be depleted sooner or later (Gilbert tion between fertilizer application and pesticide usage is 2009). However, innovative recycling processes could solve relevant need to be further investigated in future studies. these problems by recovering nutrients from sewage and pro- ducing mineral fertilizers out of these recovered nutrients. Authors' contributions I. Pergner: Conceptualization, investigation, This technique and farmers’ attitude toward such recycling formal analysis, methodology, writing—original draft, and writing— are already being researched (Utai et al. 2022). review and editing. C. Lippert: Conceptualization, supervision, writ- ing—review and editing. (3) What are the main recommendations that can be dis- tilled from the literature to design the MECS? Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt The lessons learned from this review will help to pro- DEAL. This research was funded by the German Federal Ministry of gress toward an innovative and sustainable cropping sys- Education and Research (BMBF) through the program Agricultural Systems of the Future under Grant No. 031B0731A “Agriculture 4.0 tem. For MECS, we presume that the yields are lower without Chemical-Synthetic Plant Protection (NOcsPS)”. than conventional yields, but not as low as expected, and higher than yields in organic agriculture. A more diverse Data availability All data generated or analyzed during this study are crop rotation is an important measure to reduce the over- included in this published article (and its supplementary information files). all yield variance in cropping systems without pesticides. Therefore, rotations will be more diverse in the MECS Materials availability All data generated or analyzed during this study than in conventional farming. However, profitability suf- are included in this published article (and its supplementary informa- fers due to high costs for seeds and mechanization and, tion files). simultaneously, because of reduced options to fight pests. Code availability Not applicable. Therefore, it is recommended to initially compensate farmers who want to switch to the MECS. In addition, Declarations increased energy consumption and less net carbon seques- tration might occur. There are controversial claims from Ethics approval Not applicable. scholars investigating workload in low- and zero-pesticide Consent to participate Not applicable. systems. To our knowledge, there is no literature that ana- lyzes yield stability over time in a cropping system with Consent for publication Not applicable. mineral fertilizer but without pesticides. However, it can be assumed that the temporal yield stability in the MECS Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests. might be higher than that in organic cropping systems due to mineral fertilizer input but lower than that in conven- Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- tional farming due to the lack of pesticides. Thus, there tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long is a need for innovations in cultivars that are resistant to as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, dominant diseases or for technical innovations that allow provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes for mechanical control methods. were made. The images or other third party material in this article are 1 3 24 Page 20 of 22 I. Pergner, C. Lippert included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated Colnenne-David C, Grandeau G, Jeuffroy M-H, Dore T (2017) Ambi- otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in tious environmental and economic goals for the future of agricul- the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not ture are unequally achieved by innovative cropping systems. Field permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will Crops Res 210:114–128. https://doi. or g/10. 1016/j. fcr .2017. 05. 009 need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a Connor DJ (2018) Organic agriculture and food security: a decade copy of this licence, visit http://cr eativ ecommons. or g/licen ses/ b y/4.0/ . of unreason finally implodes. Field Crops Res 225:128–129. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. fcr. 2018. 06. 008 Cooper J, Dobson H (2007) The benefits of pesticides to mankind and the environment. Crop Prot 26:1337–1348. https:// doi. org/ References 10. 1016/j. cropro. 2007. 03. 022 Crissman CC, Cole DC, Carpio F (1994) Pesticide use and farm Abhilash PC, Singh N (2009) Pesticide use and application: an worker health in Ecuadorian potato production. Amer J Agr Indian scenario. J Hazard Mater 165:1–12. https:// doi. org/ 10. Econ 76:593–597 1016/j. jhazm at. 2008. 10. 061 Dachbrodt-Saaydeh S, Sellmann J, Schwarz J, Klocke B, Krengel S, Antle JM, Pingali PL (1994) Pesticides, productivity, and farmer Kehlenbeck H (2021) Netz Vergleichsbetriebe Pflanzenschutz : health: a Philippine case study. Amer J Agr Econ 76:418–430 Jahresbericht 2017; Analyse der Ergebnisse der Jahre 2007 bis BMU (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare 2017. Berichte Aus Dem Julius Kühn-Institut. https:// doi. org/ Sicherheit) and Bundesamt für Naturschutz (2020) Die Lage 10. 5073/ 20210 309- 134538 der Natur in Deutschland: Ergebnisse von EU-Vogelschutz- und Deike S, Pallutt B, Melander B, Strassemeyer J, Christen O (2008) FFH-Bericht, Berlin, Bonn. www .bmu. de . Accessed 3 Nov 2020 Long-term productivity and environmental effects of arable Boussemart J-P, Leleu H, Ojo O (2011) Could society’s willingness farming as affected by crop rotation, soil tillage intensity and to reduce pesticide use be aligned with farmers’ economic self- strategy of pesticide use: a case-study of two long-term field interest? Ecol Econ 70:1797–1804. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. experiments in Germany and Denmark. Eur J Agron 29:191– ecole con. 2011. 05. 005 199. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. eja. 2008. 06. 001 Bright JA, Morris AJ, Winspear R (2008) A review of indirect effects Delbridge TA, Fernholz C, King RP, Lazarus W (2013) A whole- of pesticides on birds and mitigating land-management prac- farm profitability analysis of organic and conventional cropping tices, Bedfordshire. https:// ww2. rspb. or g. uk/ Imag es/ br ight_ systems. Agric Syst 122:1–10. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agsy. mo r r is _wi ns pe ar _t cm 9-1 92 45 7.pd f. Accessed 7 December 20222013. 07. 007 Bürger J, Gerowitt B (2009) Anwendungsmuster von Pflanzens- de Ponti T, Rijk B, van Ittersum MK (2012) The crop yield gap chutzmitteln in Winterweizen und Winterraps. Gesunde Pflanz between organic and conventional agriculture. Agric Syst 61:11–17. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10343- 009- 0200-3 108:1–9. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agsy. 2011. 12. 004 Bürger J, de Mol F, Gerowitt B (2012) Influence of cropping system de Souza Filho HM, Young T, Burton MP (1999) Factors influencing factors on pesticide use intensity – a multivariate analysis of the adoption of sustainable agricultural technologies: evidence on-farm data in North East Germany. Eur J Agron 40:54–63. from the state of Espìrito Santo, Brazil. Technol Forecast Soc https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. eja. 2012. 02. 008 Change:97–112. https://d oi.o rg/1 0.1 016/S 0040-1 625(98)0 0040-7 Büschbell T, Hoffmann GM (1992) Die Effekte unterschiedlicher European Food Safety Authority, Medina-Pastor P, Triacchini G N-Versorgung auf die epidemiologische Entwicklung von (2020) The 2018 European Union report on pesticide residues in Krankheitserregern in Winterweizen und deren Bekämpfung / food. EFSA J 18:103. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2903/j. efsa. 2020. 6057 The effects of different nitrogen regimes on the epidemiological Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection development of pathogens on winter wheat and their control. J (2013) National action plan on sustainable use of plant protec- Plant Dis Prot 99:381–403 tion products. www. bmelv. de. Accessed 2 November 2022 Carpentier A, Reboud X (2018) Why farmers consider pesticides the Fess TL, Kotcon JB, Benedito VA (2011) Crop breeding for low ultimate in crop protection: economic and behavioral insights. input agriculture: a sustainable response to feed a growing Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Colum- world population. Sustainability 3:1742–1772. https:// doi. org/ bia 277528, International Association of Agricultural Econo-10. 3390/ su310 1742 mists. https:// doi. org/ 10. 22004/ ag. econ. 27752 Foley JA, Ramankutty N, Brauman KA, Cassidy ES, Gerber JS, Cellier V, Berthier A, Colnenne-David C, Darras S, Deytieux V, Johnston M, Mueller ND, O’Connell C, Ray DK, West PC, Savoie A, Aubertot J-N (2018) Évaluation multicritère de Balzer C, Bennett EM, Carpenter SR, Hill J, Monfreda C, systèmes de culture zéro-pesticides en grande culture et poly- Polasky S, Rockström J, Sheehan J, Siebert S, Tilman D, Zaks culture-élevage (Réseau Rés0Pest). Innov agron 70:273–289. DPM (2011) Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478:337– https:// doi. org/ 10. 15454/ y8fy5s 342. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ natur e10452 Chèze B, David M, Martinet V (2020) Understanding farmers’ reluc- Gilbert N (2009) Environment: the disappearing nutrient. Nature tance to reduce pesticide use: a choice experiment. Ecol Econ 461:716–713. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ 46171 6a 167:106349. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ecole con. 2019. 06. 004 Hossard L, Philibert A, Bertrand M, Colnenne-David C, Debaeke P, Chikowo R, Faloya V, Petit S, Munier-Jolain NM (2009) Integrated Munier-Jolain N, Jeuffroy MH, Richard G, Makowski D (2014) weed management systems allow reduced reliance on herbicides Effects of halving pesticide use on wheat production. Sci Rep and long-term weed control. Agric Ecosyst Environ 132:237– 4. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ srep0 4405 242. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agee. 2009. 04. 009 Huber D, Römheld V, Weinmann M (2012) Relationship between Claupein W (1993) Stickstoffdüngung und chemischer Pflanzens- nutrition, plant diseases and pests. Marschner’s Mineral Nutri- chutz in einem Dauerfeldversuch und die Ertragsgesetze von tion of Higher Plants (Third Edition) 3:283–298 LIEBIG, LIEBSCHER, WOLLNY und MITSCHERLlCH. J Iyer P, Bozzola M, Hirsch S, Meraner M, Finger R (2020) Measuring Agron Crop Sci 171:102–113 farmer risk preferences in Europe: a systematic review. J Agric Colnenne-David C, Doré T (2015) Designing innovative productive Econ 71:3–26. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 1477- 9552. 12325 cropping systems with quantified and ambitious environmental Jacquet F, Butault J-P, Guichard L (2011) An economic analysis of the goals. Renew Agric Food Syst 30:487–502. https:// doi. org/ 10. possibility of reducing pesticides in French field crops. Ecol Econ 1017/ S1742 17051 40003 13 70:1638–1648. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ecole con. 2011. 04. 003 1 3 On the effects that motivate pesticide use in perspective of designing a cropping system without… Page 21 of 22 24 Jacquet F, Jeuffroy M-H, Jouan J, Le Cadre E, Litrico I, Malausa T, Mäder P, Fliessbach A, Dubois D, Gunst L, Fried P, Niggli U (2002) Reboud X, Huyghe C (2022) Pesticide-free agriculture as a new Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science paradigm for research. Agron Sustain Dev 42. https:// doi. org/ 10. 296:1694–1697. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1126/ scien ce. 10711 48 1007/ s13593- 021- 00742-8 Meissle M, Mouron P, Musa T, Bigler F, Pons X, Vasileiadis VP, Otto Jahn M, Wagner C, Moll E, Pallutt B (2010) Auftreten und Bekämp- S, Antichi D, Kiss J, Pálinkás Z, Dorner Z, van der Weide R, fung von Krankheiten in Wintergetreide in einem Dauerfeldver- Groten J, Czembor E, Adamczyk J, Thibord J-B, Melander B, such auf dem Versuchsfeld Dahnsdorf. J Kulturpflanzen 62:248– Nielsen GC, Poulsen RT, Zimmermann O, Verschwele A, Old- 258. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5073/ JfK. 2010. 07. 03 enburg E (2010) Pests, pesticide use and alternative options in Janker J, Mann S (2020) Understanding the social dimension of sus- European maize production: current status and future prospects. J tainability in agriculture: a critical review of sustainability assess- Appl Entomol 134:357–375. https://doi. or g/10. 1111/j. 1439- 0418. ment tools. Environ Dev Sustain 22:1671–1691. https:// doi. org/ 2009. 01491.x 10. 1007/ s10668- 018- 0282-0 Melander B, Munier-Jolain N, Charles R, Wirth J, Schwarz J, van der Kaiser A, Burger P (2022) Understanding diversity in farmers’ routi- Weide R, Bonin L, Jensen PK, Kudsk P (2013) European per- nized crop protection practices. J Rural Stud 89:149–160. https:// spectives on the adoption of nonchemical weed management in doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jrurs tud. 2021. 12. 002 reduced-tillage systems for arable crops. Weed Technol 27:231– Kavita DM, SinghBabita, S (2018) Measuring impacts of fertilizers and 240. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1614/ WT-D- 12- 00066.1 pesticides on the agricultural production. Indian J Health Well- Meyer-Aurich A, Karatay YN (2019) Effects of uncertainty and farm- Being 9:895–899 ers’ risk aversion on optimal N fertilizer supply in wheat pro- Knapp S, van der Heijden MGA (2018) A global meta-analysis of yield duction in Germany. Agric Syst 173:130–139. https:// doi. org/ 10. stability in organic and conservation agriculture. Nat Commun 1016/j. agsy. 2019. 02. 010 9:3632. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s41467- 018- 05956-1 Meyer-Aurich A, Gandorfer M, Gerl G, Kainz M (2009) Tillage and Kolbe H (2006) Fruchtfolgegestaltung im ökologischen und extensiven fertilizer effects on yield, profitability, and risk in a corn-wheat- Landbau: Bewertung von Vorfruchtwirkungen. Pflanzenbauwiss potato-wheat rotation. Agron J 101:1538–1547. https:// doi. org/ 10:82–8910. 2134/ agron j2008. 0126x Lamichhane JR, Arendse W, Dachbrodt-Saaydeh S, Kudsk P, Roman Möhring N, Finger R (2022) Pesticide-free but not organic: adoption JC, van Bijsterveldt-Gels JE, Wick M, Messéan A (2015) Chal- of a large-scale wheat production standard in Switzerland. Food lenges and opportunities for integrated pest management in Policy 106. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. foodp ol. 2021. 102188 Europe: a telling example of minor uses. Crop Prot 74:42–47. Möhring N, Dalhaus T, Enjolras G, Finger R (2020) Crop insurance https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cropro. 2015. 04. 005 and pesticide use in European agriculture. Agric Syst 184. https:// Lamichhane JR, Dachbrodt-Saaydeh S, Kudsk P, Messéan A (2016) doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agsy. 2020. 102902 Toward a reduced reliance on conventional pesticides in Euro- Moss S (2019) Integrated weed management (IWM): why are farmers pean agriculture. Plant Dis 100:10–24. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1094/ reluctant to adopt non-chemical alternatives to herbicides? Pest PDIS- 05- 15- 0574- FE Manag Sci 75:1205–1211. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ ps. 5267 Lamine C (2011) Transition pathways towards a robust ecologization of Nave S, Jacquet F, Jeuffroy M-H (2013) Why wheat farmers could agriculture and the need for system redesign. Cases from organic reduce chemical inputs: evidence from social, economic, and farming and IPM. J Rural Stud 27:209–219. https:// doi. org/ 10. agronomic analysis. Agron Sustain Dev 33:795–807. https:// doi. 1016/j. jrurs tud. 2011. 02. 001org/ 10. 1007/ s13593- 013- 0144-y Lamine C, Barbiera M, Blanc J, Buurma J, Haynes I, Lehota J, Marac- Noleppa S, von Witzke H (2013) Der gesamtgesellschaftliche Nutzen cini E, Noe E, Paratte R, Szabo Z, Wierzbicka A (2010) Reducing von Pflanzenschutz in Deutschland. https:// pflan zensc huetz er. ch/ the dependence on pesticides: a matter of transitions within the wp-c onten t/u pload s/N olepp a-2 013-I VA-B rosch%C 3%B Cre-g esel whole agri‐food system, 9th European IFSA Symposium. https:// lscha ftlic her- Nutzen- PSM. pdf. Accessed 2 November 2022 hal. inrae. fr/ hal- 02757 881. Accessed 8 December 2020 Oerke E-C (2006) Crop losses to pests. J Agric Sci 144:31–43. https:// Lammoglia S-K, Kennedy MC, Barriuso E, Alletto L, Justes E, doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S0021 85960 50057 08 Munier-Jolain N, Mamy L (2017) Assessing human health risks Oerke E-C, Dehne H-W (2004) Safeguarding production—losses in from pesticide use in conventional and innovative cropping sys- major crops and the role of crop protection. Crop Prot 23:275– tems with the BROWSE model. Environ Int 105:66–78. https:// 285. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cropro. 2003. 10. 001 doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. envint. 2017. 04. 012 Olesen JE, Jorgensen LN, Petersen J, Mortensen JV (2003a) Effects of Lechenet M, Bretagnolle V, Bockstaller C, Boissinot F, Petit M-S, rate and timing of nitrogen fertilizer on disease control by fungi- Petit S, Munier-Jolain NM (2014) Reconciling pesticide reduc- cides in winter wheat. 1. Grain yield and foliar disease control. J tion with economic and environmental sustainability in arable Agric Sci 140:1–13. https://doi. or g/10. 1017/ S0021 85960 20028 85 farming. PLoS One 9:e97922. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. Olesen JE, Jorgensen LN, Petersen J, Mortensen JV (2003b) Effects of pone. 00979 22 rates and timing of nitrogen fertilizer on disease control by fungi- Lechenet M, Dessaint F, Py G, Makowski D, Munier-Jolain N (2017) cides in winter wheat. 2. Crop growth and disease development. Reducing pesticide use while preserving crop productivity and J Agric Sci:15–29. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S0021 85960 20028 97 profitability on arable farms. Nat Plants 3:17008. https:// doi. org/ Pardo G, Riravololona M, Munier-Jolain NM (2010) Using a farming 10. 1038/ nplan ts. 2017.8 system model to evaluate cropping system prototypes: are labour Le Bail M, Magrini M-B, Fares M, Messean A, Charlier A, Charrier F, constraints and economic performances hampering the adoption Meynard JM (2014) How to break out the lock-in on crop diversi- of integrated weed management? Eur J Agron 33:24–32. https:// fication in France?, 11th European IFSA Symposium. https://hal. doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. eja. 2010. 02. 003 archi ves- ouver tes. fr/ hal- 01173 316. Accessed 8 December 2022 Pimentel D, Hepperly P, Hanson J, Douds D, Seidel R (2005) Envi- Macholdt J, Piepho H-P, Honermeier B (2019) Does fertilization ronmental, energetic, and economic comparisons of organic impact production risk and yield stability across an entire crop and conventional farming systems. Bioscience 55:573–582. rotation? Insights from a long-term experiment. Field Crops Res https://doi. or g/10. 1641/ 0006- 3568(2005) 055[0573: EEAEC O] 238:82–92. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. fcr. 2019. 04. 0142.0. CO;2 1 3 24 Page 22 of 22 I. Pergner, C. Lippert Pimentel D, Acquay H, Biltonen M, Rice P, Silva M, Nelson J, Lipner Sud M (2020) Managing the biodiversity impacts of fertiliser and pes- V, Giordano S, Horowitz A, D´Amore M (1992) Environmental ticide use: overview and insights from trends and policies across and economic costs of pesticide use. Bioscience 42(10):750–760 selected OECD countries: OECD environment working papers no. Priestley R (1981) Fungicide treatment increases yield of cereal cul- 155. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1787/ 63942 249- en tivars by reducing disease and delaying senescence1. EPPO Bull Tamm L, Speiser B, Niggli U (2018) Reduktion von Pflanzenschutz- 11:357–363 mitteln in der Schweiz: Beitrag des Biolandbaus. Agrarforschung Roberts TL (2009) The role of fertilizer in growing the world’s food. Schweiz 9:52–59 Better Crops 93:12–15 Tilman D (1999) Global environmental impacts of agricultural expan- Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson A, Chapin FS, Lambin EF, sion: the need for sustainable and efficient practices. Proc Natl Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, Nykvist B, de Acad Sci U S A 96:5995–6000. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1073/ pnas. 96. Wit CA, Hughes T, van der Leeuw S, Rodhe H, Sörlin S, Snyder 11. 5995 PK, Costanza R, Svedin U, Falkenmark M, Karlberg L, Corell Utai K, Narjes M, Krimly T, Lippert C (2022) Farmers’ preferences RW, Fabry VJ, Hansen J, Walker B, Liverman D, Richardson K, for fertilizers derived from domestic sewage and kitchen waste Crutzen P, Foley JA (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. – a discrete choice experiment in Germany. Ger J Agric Econ Nature 461:472–475. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ 46147 2a 71(169):183. https:// doi. org/ 10. 30430/ gjae. 2022. 0235 Russel DA, Williams GG (1977) History of chemical fertilizer develop- Walters DR, Bingham IJ (2007) Influence of nutrition on disease devel- ment. Soil Sci Soc Am J 41:260–265 opment caused by fungal pathogens: implications for plant disease Sanders J, Heß J (2019) Leistungen des ökologischen Landbaus für control. Ann Appl Biol 151:307–324. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. Umwelt und Gesellschaft. Johann Heinrich Von Thünen-Institut. 1744- 7348. 2007. 00176.x https:// doi. org/ 10. 3220/ REP15 47040 572000 Wilson C, Tisdell C (2001) Why farmers continue to use pesticides Savci S (2012) An agricultural pollutant: chemical fertilizer. J Environ despite environmental, health and sustainability costs. Ecol Econ Sci Dev 3:77–80. https:// doi. org/ 10. 7763/ IJESD. 2012. V3. 191 449:462. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0921- 8009(01) 00238-5 Schwarz J, Klocke B, Wagner C, Krengel S (2018) Untersuchungen Wood S, Sebastian KL, Scherr SJ (2000) Pilot analysis of global eco- zum notwendigen Maß bei der Anwendung von Pflanzenschutz- systems: agroecosystems. International Food Policy Research mitteln in Winterweizen in den Jahren 2004 bis 2016. Gesunde Institute and World Resources Institute Washington, DC Pflanz. 70:119–127. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10343- 018- 0422-3 Worzewski T (2022) „Wir können nicht in der Bioblase vor uns her Seufert V, Ramankutty N, Foley JA (2012) Comparing the yields träumen“. Ein Pionier des Ökoanbaus erklärt, warum Lösungen of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature 485:229–232. für die Ernährungskrise nicht mehr warten können – und die Gen- https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ natur e11069 schere dafür benötigt wird. https:// www. faz. net/ aktue ll/ wissen/ Seufert V (2019) Comparing yields: organic versus conventional gente chnik- und- oekoa nbau- agrar wisse nscha ftler- im- inter view- agriculture. In: Encyclopedia of Food Security and Sustainabil-17779 173. html. Accessed 14 February 2022 ity: Volume 3: Sustainable Food Systems and Agriculture, pp. Wuepper D, Roleff N, Finger R (2021) Does it matter who advises 169–208 farmers? Pest management choices with public and private exten- Sexton SE (2007) The economics of pesticides and pest control. Int sion. Food Policy 99:101995. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. foodp ol. Rev Environ Resour Econ 1:271–326. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1561/ 2020. 101995 101. 00000 007 Zhang Q, Dong W, Wen C, Li T (2020) Study on factors affecting Sharma A, Kumar V, Shahzad B, Tanveer M, Sidhu GPS, Handa N, corn yield based on the Cobb-Douglas production function. Agric Kohli SK, Yadav P, Bali AS, Parihar RD, Dar OI, Singh K, Jasro- Water Manag 228. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agwat. 2019. 105869 tia S, Bakshi P, Ramakrishnan M, Kumar S, Bhardwaj R, Thukral Zimmermann B, Claß-Mahler I, Cossel M von, Lewandowski I, Weik AK (2019) Worldwide pesticide usage and its impacts on ecosys- J, Spiller A, Nitzko S, Lippert C, Krimly T, Pergner I, Zörb C, tem. SN Appl Sci 1. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s42452- 019- 1485-1 Wimmer MA, Dier M, Schurr FM, Pagel J, Riemenschneider A, Sheriff G (2005) Efficient waste? why farmers over-apply nutrients and Kehlenbeck H, Feike T, Klocke B, Lieb R, Kühne S, Krengel- the implications for policy design. Rev Agric Econ 27:542–557. Horney S, Gitzel J, El-Hasan A, Thomas S, Rieker M, Schmid K, https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1467- 9353. 2005. 00263.x Streck T, Ingwersen J, Ludewig U, Neumann G, Maywald N, Mül- Skevas T, Stefanou SE, Oude Lansink A (2014) Pesticide use, envi- ler T, Bradáčová K, Göbel M, Kandeler E, Marhan S, Schuster R, ronmental spillovers and efficiency: a DEA risk-adjusted effi- Griepentrog H-W, Reiser D, Stana A, Graeff-Hönninger S, Munz ciency approach applied to Dutch arable farming. Eur J Oper Res S, Otto D, Gerhards R, Saile M, Hermann W, Schwarz J, Frank 237:658–664. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ejor. 2014. 01. 046 M, Kruse M, Piepho H-P, Rosenkranz P, Wallner K, Zikeli S, Stein-Bachinger K, Gottwald F, Haub A, Schmidt E (2021) To what Petschenka G, Schönleber N, Vögele RT, Bahrs E (2021) Mineral- extent does organic farming promote species richness and abun- ecological cropping systems—a new approach to improve ecosys- dance in temperate climates? A review. Org Agr 11:1–12. https:// tem services by farming without chemical synthetic plant protec- doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s13165- 020- 00279-2 tion. Agronomy 11. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ agron omy11 091710 Stewart WM, Roberts TL (2012) Food security and the role of fertilizer in supporting it. Procedia Eng 46:76–82. https://doi. or g/10. 1016/j. Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to proeng. 2012. 09. 448 jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 1 3 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Agronomy for Sustainable Development Springer Journals http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/springer-journals/on-the-effects-that-motivate-pesticide-use-in-perspective-of-designing-VyiBPxbhDm

Loading next page...

Publisher: Springer Journals
Copyright: Copyright © The Author(s) 2023
ISSN: 1774-0746
eISSN: 1773-0155
DOI: 10.1007/s13593-023-00877-w
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

In the future, a cropping system that guarantees food security by delivering high yields and, simultaneously, protects our environment is desperately needed. This can be achieved through a cropping system that waives chemical synthetic plant protection products, which endanger, for example, biodiversity and water resources. However, such a system, referred to here as the mineral-ecological cropping system (MECS), should still allow for the usage of mineral fertilizers to ensure high yields. It can be thought of as a compromise between the current conventional and organic cropping systems. This article presents a comprehensive literature review on the economic, social, and environmental effects of pesticides and the result- ing reasons farmers have to use (or not use) them. Hereby, regarding future pesticide reduction, we identify hindrances and potential benefits that could be mobilized to design the MECS. The major points are the following: in a MECS, (1) it is expected that yields and temporal stability of yields will be higher than in organic farming, but lower than in conventional farming; (2) profitability might suffer due to high input costs and energy consumption; (3) it is expected that soil fertility and biodiversity protection will increase along with the promotion of alternative disease and pest control measures; (4) crop rotations will be wider and more diverse than in conventional farming; (5) mineral fertilizer cannot be optimally used by the crops unless a balanced supply of nitrogen is achieved. Farmers who want to switch to MECS should be compensated as they are likely to experience higher costs and lower yield and yield stability. The lessons learned from this review will help to progress toward an innovative and sustainable cropping system. Further research should focus on rational farmers’ adaptation possibilities when abandoning pesticides while still using mineral fertilizers. Keywords Innovative cropping systems · Comparison · Sustainability · Pesticide-free agriculture Contents 3.1.6 Resistance to pesticides 3.1.7 Minor uses 1. Introduction 3.2 Social reasons 2. Material and methods 3.2.1 Lock in effect 3. Results and discussion 3.2.2 More work, but better distributed? 3.1 Economic reasons 3.2.3 Food security 3.1.1 Risk aversion 3.2.4 Risk for consumers and producers 3.1.2 The optimal pesticide input level 3.3 Environmental effects and reasons 3.1.3 Resource efficiency 3.3.1 The importance of crop rotation and innovation 3.1.4 Comparison of yields 3.3.2 Adverse effects on the environment 3.1.5 Yield stability 3.4 The importance of mineral fertilizer and its interaction with plant pests 4. Conclusion * Isabell Pergner Declarations isabell.pergner@uni-hohenheim.de References Dept. of Production Theory and Resource Economics (410A), University of Hohenheim, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 24 Page 2 of 22 I. Pergner, C. Lippert using the latest automated and digitalized technologies, 1 Introduction and following most principles of organic agriculture, how- ever, without banning mineral fertilizer (Zimmermann et al. In the recent past, the use of pesticides in agriculture has 2021). Therefore, MECS can be thought of as a middle been repeatedly criticized due to their effects on the environ- ground between conventional and organic cropping systems. ment and on human health. A recent report, for instance, by With regard to implementing such a cropping system, it is the German Ministry for the Environment (Bundesministe- important to thoroughly assess and summarize all economic, rium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit) and social, and environmental effects and motivations related to Bundesamt für Naturschutz states that for approximately one pesticide usage or bans. As this has not yet been done in a third of the brood-bird species that require the agriculturally systematic way and as the corresponding knowledge is dis- used area for breeding the populations have decreased in the persed over many publications, a comprehensive literature past 12 years (BMU 2020). Essential causes of this develop- review of the corresponding effects and reasons is provided ment are especially high nutrient and pesticide inputs and here. Our focus is mostly on the main field crops grown in the intensification or abandonment of land use, including tra- the temperate climate zone. Based on this review, one can ditional forms of land use. This concern has resulted in strict draw conclusions that could later be mobilized to design a government regulation of pesticides and increased demand MECS. for organic agriculture (Sexton 2007). At first glance, farmers use pesticides because of their However, this stands in contrast to the insufficient food positive effects on crop yields and crop qualities. However, supply in some regions of the world. In addition, agricultural these positive effects may be accompanied by some negative land is also used for purposes other than growing food crops, side effects. By “effect,” we understand a perceived or an for example, for the production of biofuels. This puts more expected impact, which (being either positive or negative) pressure on agriculture and makes increased productivity has a certain direction and a certain magnitude. In addition necessary (Sexton 2007). Several scholars express the need to the (physical) effects of pesticides, we are particularly for a practical farming system that simultaneously ensures interested in the related (economic and social) reasons farm- livelihoods for farmers, food security, and reduced environ- ers have to use pesticides, as well as in the (environmental mental impact (Foley et al. 2011; Seufert et al. 2012; Sexton and social) reasons against using them. These reasons are 2007; Worzewski 2022). Hence, even though this topic is important to understand current cultivation practices. They highly relevant, to our knowledge, there is no existing com- determine the motivation for pesticide use and need to be prehensive review of the literature on it. accounted for when designing an innovative cropping sys- Against this backdrop, researchers are currently devel- tem that is accepted by farmers. Hence, answering the ques- oping the concept of a mineral-ecological cropping system tion of why farmers use pesticides is necessary. Only if the (MECS) (see Fig. 1). MECS aims at a possible solution needs of farmers are satisfied will they accept an innovative to the above-outlined dilemma by abandoning pesticides, Fig 1 a Example of a mineral ecological cropping system, soy is grown with mineral fertilizer, without pesticides. b Soy grown with fertilizer and with pesticides. Link to the website of the project: https:// nocsps. uni- hohen heim. de/ (pictures: Isabell Pergner/University of Hohenheim) 1 3 On the effects that motivate pesticide use in perspective of designing a cropping system without… Page 3 of 22 24 farming system (Moss 2019). In this context, this work also Table 1 Research string on innovative cropping systems and pesticide usage. investigates whether there is a relationship between pesticide and mineral fertilizer usage and whether there is a so-called Keywords Searched databases insurance aspect when applying pesticides. On this ground, New/innovative cropping system Google Scholar assumptions will be made on how MECS may alter con- Agricultural system of the future AgEcon Search ventional cropping system techniques to be economically Chemical‐synthetic crop protection Scopus feasible and environmentally sustainable. Thus, the follow- Nonchemical alternatives to pesticides Science Direct ing research questions are raised: (1) What are the main rea- Pesticides Research Gate sons that determine pesticide usage? (2) How important are PURE (Pesticide Use-and-risk Reduction in mineral fertilizers for high and stable yields, and is there a European farming systems with Integrated Pest correlation between fertilizer use and pesticide input (e.g., Management) resulting from an interaction between nitrogen input and Optimal pesticide usage pests)? (3) What are the main recommendations that can be Pesticides, yield/yield stability distilled from the literature to design the MECS? Crop rotation This literature review is structured as follows: In Sec- Lock in effect tion 2, we explain the material and methods used. In Sec- Break crops tion 3, the results of the literature review about crop losses Non-pesticide management (NPM) and pesticide usage in general with a focus on the questions Crop rotation risk analysis of why (or why not) farmers do use pesticides are presented Integrated pest management (IPM) and discussed. In Section 4, we summarize the answers to Health risks of pesticides the above research questions and give recommendations for Environmental risks of pesticides designing the MECS. Farmers and pesticide use 2 Material and methods the way a particular field is managed over time with certain crops, crop rotations, and management techniques (Lamich- This review builds on researched literature in order to pro- hane et al. 2016). It should be noted that the main concern was about open-field crops (i.e., excluding horticulture in vide an overview of the latest knowledge. The overall goal is to review the literature with the aim of drawing economi- greenhouses, etc.). Our screening generated a list of 58 articles about the cally, socially, and ecologically motivated conclusions for designing MECSs. effects and reasons for pesticide usage or rejection, which is the basis for this work (see Tables 2 and 3). It should be First, this work concentrates on pesticide usage. The approach includes a systematic literature review of mostly noted that some articles gave both reasons for and reasons against pesticide usage. In total, 33 articles gave reasons peer-reviewed scientific papers. Academic search databases were searched using the keywords given in Table 1. For exam- for pesticide use, and 37 gave reasons for rejection. To reflect the current knowledge, mainly papers published ple, reports on the use of innovative plant protection methods and trials of no pesticide usage were screened. In addition, after 2000 were considered. Although this keeps the num- ber of articles within limits, we are confident to address all attention was also paid to articles dealing with sustainable crop protection practices such as integrated pest management relevant aspects. Figure 2 shows the categorization (eco- nomic, social, and environmental according to the three (IPM), as one may derive important insights from cropping systems similar to MECS. Information was also obtained from dimensions of sustainability) of the literature, illustrating that some articles give more than one reason in various public institutions such as the German Federal Ministry for the Environment (BMU), that deal with this topic. For a better categories. Therefore, the figures of the categories overlap. There is a lot of research that focuses on the economic overview, the reviewed literature is classified into economic, social, and environmental categories, (see the tables below). effects of and reasons for pesticide use, and less litera- ture that addresses environmental aspects (see Fig. 2a). In However, it needs to be recognized that certain pesticide effects are relevant for two categories. contrast, Fig. 2b shows that among the articles with argu- ments against pesticide use, most address environmental In this work, the term pesticides refer to chemical syn- thetic plant protection products and cover the following cat- concerns. Our second focus is on cropping systems with mineral egories: herbicides, fungicides, bactericides, insecticides and acaricides, haulm destructors and moss killers, mollus- fertilizer and its interaction with plant pests, as the usage of mineral fertilizers is allowed in MECS whereas pesti- cicides, plant growth regulators, and other plant protection products. Furthermore, the term “cropping system” denotes cides are forbidden. Thus, a literature review of recent 1 3 24 Page 4 of 22 I. Pergner, C. Lippert Table 2 Detailed literature overview of pesticide usage in chronological order. Source: own compilation. Category Literature Content Economic Crissman et al. (1994) Case study about pesticide usage in potato production Pesticides are necessary for potato production, but there is a tradeoff between farmer’s health and high yields Economic Wilson and Tisdell (2001) One reason for pesticide usage is higher yields due to pesticides, also farmers are locked into Social using unsustainable techniques (pesticides) because switching is very costly, it takes exten- sion services, and an industry that provides resistant varieties Economic Oerke (2006) Analysis of crop losses due to pests of main crops (wheat, rice, maize, potatoes, soy, cotton) grown in the world and definition of quantitative and qualitative losses, estimations of how much of the yields are saved due to pesticides (yield loss in %) Economic Cooper and Dobson (2007) Analysis of the benefits of pesticides identifies a number of primary and secondary benefits, Social including higher yield, better crop quality, and higher efficiency, which contributes to food Environment security and food safety Reduced soil erosion due to less tillage Economic Deike et al. (2008) Case study of two experiments in Germany and Denmark about crop rotations, soil tillage, and pesticide usage: They find that yield is more influenced by crop rotation than by pesti- cides or tillage; pesticides can increase yield, energy and nitrogen use efficiency Social Chikowo et al. (2009) Data from 6 years of integrated weed management experiment with 4 cropping systems: higher complexity of the systems when no fungicides were used Social Lamine et al. (2010) Analysis of decreasing pesticide dependency in several countries in Europe All stakeholders along the chain have to support a transition toward sustainable farming in order to break the lock-in effect Social Meissle et al. (2010) Data from eleven regions in Europe where maize is grown in order to understand the use of pesticide alternatives Farmer would switch to alternative methods if there was more trained labor and if they had suitable equipment and extension services that provide knowledge Social Lamine (2011) Paper about prerequisites of changing to integrated pest management or organic agriculture Escaping the lock-in effect by getting involved with extension services, support from public policies, and changing consumption of costumers Economic Jacquet et al. (2011) Analysis of the effects of decreasing pesticide usage by farmers in France and the possibil- Social ity of reducing pesticides by 30% without compromising the income of the farmers; but farmers are reluctant to decrease pesticide use due to their risk-averse attitude and using pesticides is more convenient; another reason for pesticide usage is the lock-in effect Economic Bürger et al. (2012) Analysis of winter wheat grown in 2001–2007 in Germany; the amount of pesticides used is influenced by agronomic conditions (weather, soil), as well as by the farmer’s risk attitude Economic Ponti et al. (2012) Literature review that compares datasets of conventional and organic yield On average, organic yield is 20% lower than conventional yield, but this varies strongly among crops and regions Economic Seufert et al. (2012) Analysis of yield data: in some cases, organic yield can nearly be as high as conventional depending on crop types and regional and management conditions, but in general, organic yield is up to 34% lower than conventional yield Economic Nave et al. (2013) Interview of 71 farmers in France about their reluctance to switch to farming with less pesti- Social cides The authors found that farmers who use high amounts of pesticides want to achieve high profitability, but low-input- and medium-input farmers achieve higher profitability; the study shows that extension services and knowledge have an important role in converting to low-pesticide agriculture Economic Noleppa and von Witzke (2013) Analysis of two scenarios: first, farming with fungicide compared to a situation where no Social fungicide is used, and second, conventional arable agriculture compared to organic: the Environment authors conclude that pesticides in general and especially fungicides are important for high yield and higher (energy) efficiency for the main crops grown in Germany; this also plays a role for food security and lower greenhouse gas emissions Economic Hossard et al. (2014) Analysis of yield loss due to reduced pesticide use in winter wheat in France; 5–13% yield losses due to a pesticide reduction of 50%, zero pesticide usage results in 24.3–33% yield loss Economic Skevas et al. (2014) Analysis of the performance of farms from 2003–2007 in the Netherlands with a focus on pesticide use and its negative effects on the environment: Results show that many farms overuse inputs (fertilizer and pesticides), farmers overuse risk-reducing inputs in order to manage risks 1 3 On the effects that motivate pesticide use in perspective of designing a cropping system without… Page 5 of 22 24 Table 2 (continued) Category Literature Content Social Le Bail et al. (2014) French paper about the lock in effect on diversifying crops Consistent and organized action from all stakeholders in the agricultural sector is needed in order to break out of the lock in effect Economic Lechenet et al. (2014) Assessment of different cropping systems in France: organic farming is less energy efficient Social and has lower productivity than agriculture with pesticides, farming with pesticides is less work intensive Economic Colnenne-David and Doré (2015) Analysis of the design of three arable farming systems: (1) no pesticides, but with mineral Environment fertilizer; (2) reduced fossil energy or greenhouse gas emission by 50%; (3) maximizing yields, the systems with pesticide usage have higher yields and better soil health Environment Colnenne-David et al. (2017) Continued analysis of Colnenne-David and Doré (2015) Find that not using pesticides causes lower carbon sequestration due to high usage of tillage (soil health) Economic Carpentier and Reboud (2018) Analyzed a simple choice situation to assess farmers’ attitudes toward pest risk Farmers use pesticides in order to achieve high profits when pesticide prices are low Economic Tamm et al. (2018) Scenario analysis: what would happen if Swiss agriculture switched to 100% organic farming In arable farming, 98.5% of pesticides would be waived, but yields would decrease and some crops, such as sugar beet, could not be grown Economic Cellier et al. (2018) Evaluation of the Rés0Pest project: the energy efficiency without pesticides is evaluated as Social low, some farmers complain about the higher work load of farming without pesticides, and Environment frequent tillage is decreasing soil macro fauna Social Schwarz et al. (2018) Long-term experiment of the Julius-Kühn Institute about integrated plant protection Reducing pesticides is possible but needs a high workload; using no pesticides results in high-yield losses Economic Knapp and van der Heijden (2018) Meta-analysis about temporal yield stability Organic yields are less stable than conventional yields, but the gap in yield stability can be decreased by enhanced fertilization Economic Moss (2019) Investigates through literature research why farmers are reluctant to waive herbicides: in a Social box, the reasons are listed, like higher, immediate profitability; however, also risk aversion Environment is mentioned as one reason, another is a lack of information and trained labor Environmental effects such as soil erosion as a consequence of non-chemical weed control Economic Seufert (2019) Literature review that compares organic and conventional farming; states that there is evi- dence for higher yield stability in conventional farming Social Möhring et al. (2020) Analysis of the relationship between crop insurance and pesticide input; results suggest that without insurance pesticide input would be lower Social Wuepper et al. (2021) Analysis of Swiss fruit farmers; the results suggest that farmers who receive advice from public extension services, are more likely to use preventive measures; farmers who receive advice from private extension services are more likely to use insecticides Economic Kaiser and Burger (2022) Analysis of interviews with farmers and plant protection experts about farmers’ usual pesti- cide usage Identification of reasons why farmers use pesticides and which policies for reduction would be feasible Social Jacquet et al. (2022) Explanation of why a new research paradigm for pesticide-free agriculture is needed and which strategies should be followed Economic Möhring and Finger (2022) Analysis of a new cropping system (no pesticides in wheat production); results suggest that risk-averse farmers are less likely to adopt it experiments is presented, but some older literature was also results on the interaction between mineral fertilizer input reviewed (see Table 4). We found and screened 17 sources. and pest occurrence/pesticide use. Again, academic search databases were searched using dif- ferent keywords (see Table 5). Of particular interest in this context is the impact of mineral fertilizer on yield and yield 3 Results and discussion stability, its effects on pests, and its possible correlation to pesticide usage. The amount of literature found on this topic From the 1950s on, the green revolution caused a tremen- was less than the literature dealing with pesticide use in gen- dous increase in food production, mainly in the yield of eral. Astonishingly, we did not find many recent research grains such as wheat, rice, and maize (Tilman 1999). This 1 3 24 Page 6 of 22 I. Pergner, C. Lippert Table 3 Detailed literature overview of pesticide rejection in chronological order. Source: own compilation. Category Literature Content Social Pimentel et al. (1992) Study from the USA that assesses the direct and indirect Environment costs of pesticide usage Economic There are health risks, threats to biodiversity and food safety, also water quality suffering, and pests develop- ing resistances that cause indirect costs Social Antle and Pingali (1994) Case study from the Philippines shows that pesticides can have negative impact on farmers’ health Social Crissman et al. (1994) Analyses of pesticide usage in potato production in Ecuador, which is bad for farmer’s health but crucial for potato production, hence there is a tradeoff between both aspects Social de Souza Filho et al. (1999) Study from Brazil about the determining factors that Environment are necessary for farmers to switch to arable farming; farmers are more likely to adopt sustainable agricul- ture when they have knowledge of the negative effects of pesticides, are part of a farmer’s organization, employ family members, or have a farm with good soil Environment Wood et al. (2000) Analysis of global ecosystems; states that pesticides can have a negative impact on the environment Economic Mäder et al. (2002) Report of an experiment that lasted for 21 years and Environment compared organic and conventional agriculture; in organic agriculture, similar yields to conventional farming are possible depending on the crop; profits are similar in both systems; soils in organic agricul- ture show higher biological activity Economic Pimentel et al. (2005) Comparison of different farming types (two organic Social and one conventional), data from an experiment that Environment lasted over 22 years; yields were similar in all farming systems, but organic farming is more drought resistant and shows lower economic risk and savings in costs, better environmental effects, the results depend on crops, region, and technology Environment Kolbe (2006) Summarizes effects of crop rotations and highlights the importance of diverse crops in order to reduce pesticides Social Sexton (2007) Assessment of effects of pesticide usage, some effects Environment are resistance development of pests toward pesticides, Economic health risks, and loss of biodiversity Environment Bright et al. (2008) Review of negative effects that pesticides have on birds Social Abhilash and Singh (2009) Review of risks (health and environment) due to pes- Environment ticide application and recommendations to mitigate those in India Economic Bürger and Gerowitt (2009) Analyze pesticide usage in winter wheat and oilseed rape in northeast Germany between 2000 and 2004; they find that pesticide usage can be reduced by applying pesticides less frequently, using fewer mix- tures of various pesticides, or using lower application rates Environment Chikowo et al. (2009) Experiment that lasted for 6 years in order to analyze integrated weed management practices and highlights the importance of a wide crop rotation; less environ- mental impact of integrated weed management Social Pardo et al. (2010) Analysis of the implementation of integrated weed management, which then shows a lower workload 1 3 On the effects that motivate pesticide use in perspective of designing a cropping system without… Page 7 of 22 24 Table 3 (continued) Category Literature Content Economic Jahn et al. (2010) Long term experiment analyzing reduced fungicide applications; it highlights that crop resistance toward fungi is important for fungicides reduction Environment Foley et al. (2011) Study discusses agricultural practices on a global scale and offers solutions to problems associated with the environmental effect of pesticides Economic Boussemart et al. (2011) Data from 600 farms in France over a period of 12 years are analyzed in order to estimate the impact of using different amounts of pesticides; reduction in pesticide usage is possible in most cases and would reduce the production cost Economic Jacquet et al. (2011) Study about the effects of decreasing pesticide use in French agriculture: reducing pesticides results in increasing gross margin (moving from high input to medium input farming); pesticides reduction of 10 to 30% is feasible Economic Bürger et al. (2012) Study of data from German wheat fields in 2001–2007 to analyze arable farming measures of integrated pest management; some farmers use integrated pest man- agement in order to save production costs Economic Delbridge et al. (2013) Comparison of profitability of conventional and organic agriculture in the USA Similar yields and high profitability in organic agricul- ture are possible (highly dependent on management and region) Environment Melander et al. (2013) Review on how agriculture can be less dependent on herbicides, for example, by applying strategies like wide and diverse crop rotations; additionally, innova- tive measures are introduced, such as thermal control Social Nave et al. (2013) Survey of wheat farmers in France; pesticide usage is Environment high when farmers do not employ family labor and when farmers do not participate in advisory groups; pesticide usage is lower when farmers care for health risks and the environment Economic Lechenet et al. (2014) French study that analyses different arable farming Social systems and their sustainability; using less pesticide Environment results in better water quality, less energy consump- tion, and cost savings; it does not result in a higher workload and has no impact on profitability or productivity; crop rotations support financial stability through a more diverse rotation Economic Le Bail et al. (2014) Review states that the absence of pesticides for certain crops (minor crops) hinders a transition toward a more diverse rotation Economic Lamichhane et al. (2015) There is a lack of pesticides for minor crops, so-called minor use; one solution to fight pests in minor uses is integrated pest management practices Economic Lechenet et al. (2017) Assessment of data from 946 farms in France shows that high yields are possible with low levels of pesti- cide use Reduction of 42% is possible without compromising yields, hence, yields similar to conventional farming are feasible Economic Colnenne-David et al. (2017) Four agricultural farming systems are designed and tested in one rotation; one system tests cropping without pesticides The no-pest system shows high gross margins and the same energy use efficiency compared to the other systems 1 3 24 Page 8 of 22 I. Pergner, C. Lippert Table 3 (continued) Category Literature Content Social Lammoglia et al. (2017) Assessment of conventional and innovative agriculture that leads to the result that low-input agriculture reduces health risks due to pesticide usage Social Cellier et al. (2018) Evaluation of the Rés0Pest project shows that farming without pesticides meets farmers’ expectations to not handle dangerous products (pesticides) Economic Moss (2019) Review of reasons why farmers do not want to apply integrated weed management practices; an action plan is introduced to improve uptakes of integrated weed management measures Social Sharma et al. (2019) Literature research on pesticide usage in the world, Environment which can harm ecosystems and is a risk to health Environment BMU (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Natur- Assessment of the state of nature in Germany; land use schutz und nukleare Sicherheit) and Bundesamt change and agricultural intensification are the main für Naturschutz (2020) drivers for biodiversity loss and decreasing water quality Environment Sud (2020) OECD paper about managing the effects of pesticides and fertilizer and corresponding costs that arise through damage to the environment and human health; policy instruments are reviewed and case stud- ies are presented Environment Chèze et al. (2020) Choice experiment in order to understand why farmers are not switching to decreased pesticide usage Farmers who believe that pesticides are bad for the environment and for their health are more likely to reduce pesticides input Economic Dachbrodt-Saaydeh et al. (2021) Analyzed German farm network, and concluded that there is still potential to reduce pesticide applications, especially for insecticide use Social Jacquet et al. (2022) Explanation of why a new research paradigm for pesticide-free agriculture is needed and which strategies should be followed Environment Möhring and Finger (2022) Analysis of a new cropping system (no pesticides in wheat production); results suggest that farmers who believe the new system is more sustainable are more likely to adopt it success is essentially due to three characteristics of modern things (irrigation, crop species, fertilization, etc.) constant, farming: the development of cultivars through modifying and actual loss, which describes the loss of yield although their genetics, enhanced fertility due to artificial fertilizers crop protection measures are in place (Oerke and Dehne and irrigation, and control of diseases, weeds, and insects 2004). Oerke and Dehne (2004) calculated that from 1996 by means of pesticides (Tilman 1999). These three features to 1998, the overall loss potential was approximately 67% were developed to protect the crops from losses and, there- worldwide. This is reduced to 32% actual losses of attainable fore, increase production (Tilman 1999). Artificial fertilizer yield due to plant protection measures. The losses vary among and irrigation have yield-increasing effects, while pesticides cultivars and regions (Oerke and Dehne 2004). Furthermore, have mainly yield-securing effects (Claupein 1993). Some crop losses are categorized into quantitative and/or qualitative pesticides, such as fungicides, also have an indirect yield- losses (Oerke 2006). Oerke (2006) describes qualitative losses increasing effect (Priestley 1981). Yield increases due to fun- as characteristics such as reduced content of valued ingre- gicide treatment can be credited not only to disease reduction dients, increased content of toxic substances, less appealing alone but also to delayed senescence (Priestley 1981). external appearances, or reduced suitability for storage. Quan- Crop loss is divided into two terms: loss potential is the titative loss is defined as a yield below the yield potential. no-control scenario in which there is no biological, chemi- In general, it can be said that farmers depend on pesticides cal, or physical protection, at the same time, holding all other to safeguard their crops from damage caused by insects, 1 3 On the effects that motivate pesticide use in perspective of designing a cropping system without… Page 9 of 22 24 Fig. 2 Total number of reviewed articles treating economic, social, therefore bubbles overlap. Note: economic = articles give reasons and environmental effects of and reasons for a pesticide use and for pesticide use that concern the economic situation of the farmer, a b pesticide rejection. Source: own compilation. The figures show country, or in general. Environment = articles give effects or reasons the number of articles that give environmental, economic, or social that concern nature. Social = articles treat aspects of pesticide use effects and the resulting reasons for a pesticide use and b pesticide that concern the general well-being of farmers and society. rejection. Some articles give several reasons in various categories, weeds, and diseases that reduce yield and crop quality (Lam- (Kaiser and Burger 2022). Hence, there is a relationship ichhane et al. 2016). Increasing or sustaining profitability between risk aversion and the usage of pesticides (Car- is a major reason for using pesticides (see Table 6). How- pentier and Reboud 2018). Weather, pests, and diseases, ever, also positive impacts of nonchemical plant protection as well as policies and market conditions, determine the measures and reasons why farmers avoid using pesticides production risk (Iyer et al. 2020). Farmers cannot influ- are identified (see Table 7 and Fig. 3). There is, for exam- ence most of these risks. Therefore, they protect their yield ple, evidence that systems without pesticides have benec fi ial by using pesticides (Cooper and Dobson 2007). The risk environmental effects, such as increased water quality and aversion of farmers leads to the assumption that there is higher biodiversity (Sanders and Heß 2019; Stein-Bachinger an insurance aspect due to which farmers use (i) pesticides et al. 2021). Reasons for pesticide use and reasons for their at all, (ii) more pesticides than necessary, or (iii) various rejection are presented in the following. mixtures of pesticides to insure themselves against higher or extreme yield losses. 3.1 Economic reasons This means that, in practice, farmers sometimes do not act according to damage thresholds but rather are moti- The literature review reveals some more positive effects vated by securing a certain yield level (Carpentier and beyond higher yield and crop quality that give farmers rea- Reboud 2018). They have an aversion against increased sons to use pesticides (see Table 6). In their analysis, Carpen- risk of production losses and believe that high yields can- tier and Reboud (2018) point out that economic factors are not be achieved while reducing pesticides (Chèze et al. determinants of today’s levels of pesticide applications. This 2020). In this way, they want to achieve high profits and means, on the one hand, that farmers use pesticides because attain a psychologically comfortable level of crop pro- it is a cheap way to protect their crops and to achieve high tection (Carpentier and Reboud 2018; Iyer et al. 2020). profits. On the other hand, farmers would reduce pesticide This means that farmers are likely to perceive the risk of applications if these pesticides were too costly and accept increased yield losses as a psychological cost, no matter resulting losses due to insects, weeds, and diseases instead. the actual financial outcome (Chèze et al. 2020). Möhring and Finger (2022) suggest that for adopting a new crop- 3.1.1 Risk aversion ping system, such as farming without pesticides, farmers’ perception of risk is crucial. If they expect high reductions Farmers are considered to behave in a risk-averse man- in yield, then the probability increases that they will not ner (Iyer et al. 2020). For farmers, pesticides represent a participate in this new cropping system. In this regard, way to reduce the risk of qualitative or quantitative losses Chèze et al. (2020) advise implementing a production-risk 1 3 24 Page 10 of 22 I. Pergner, C. Lippert Table 4 Detailed literature overview of fertilizer usage and its correlation with pesticides in chronological order. Source: own compilation. Category Literature Content Economic Büschbell and Hoffmann (1992) Experiment with the effects of various nitrogen inputs on pathogens in winter wheat; they find that at low N rates, pesticide usage is not economically sensible (low yield) Economic Claupein (1993) Long-term experiment about N fertilization and pesticide input; the results suggest that growth factors have to be combined in optimal amounts in order to reach maximal resource use efficiency; without pesticides, N fertilizer cannot be used in an optimal way by the crops Economic Mäder et al. (2002) Analysis of a 21-year-old experiment that compares cropping systems the results show that lower yields are mainly caused by lower N inputs Economic Olesen et al. (2003a) A total of 3 years of experiments were to investigate the optimal rate of N fertilization and fungicide input timing in winter wheat; estimations show that early-applied N fertilizer increases demand for pest control; furthermore, the optimal fungicide rate increases linearly with applied N fertilizer Economic Olesen et al. (2003b) Same experiment as in Olesen et al. (2003a); the analysis suggests that disease severities of septoria leaf spot and powdery mildew are increased by higher N fertilizer applica- tion Social Sheriff (2005) This review shows that farmers oversupply fertilizer due to uncertainty of agricultural Environment production; this over application might have adverse effects on the environment Economic Walters and Bingham (2007) Review on mineral fertilizer that supports diseases in crops; the results show that over- supplying nutrients, especially N can cause severe diseases and reduce yield and quality Economic Social Meyer-Aurich et al. (2009) An analysis of tillage effects and fertilizer use shows that risk aversion is a determinant of high fertilizer input Economic Roberts (2009) Review on the importance of mineral fertilizers in agricultural production; especially cereal yields depend on N fertilizer increasing the crop yield by 30 to 50% Environment Savci (2012) Review of adverse effects of chemical fertilizer on soil, water, and air Economic Stewart and Roberts (2012) Analysis of yield gap and how mineral fertilizer can close this gap; the authors stress the Social importance of mineral fertilizer for world food security Economic Huber et al. (2012) Paper on the interaction of fertilizer and pests; undersupply and oversupply can have adverse effects; it should be aimed at a balanced supply of nutrients Economic Lechenet et al. (2014) The authors assess the sustainability of various cropping systems; their results show that Social cropping systems without pesticides rely less on N fertilization than agriculture with Environment pesticide input due to a more diversified crop rotation Economic Knapp and van der Heijden (2018) Meta-analysis that assesses temporal yield in organic and conventional agriculture; the results show that organic agriculture has lower yield stability, but this stability gap can be reduced by enhanced fertilization Economic Meyer-Aurich and Karatay (2019) Analysis of optimal N fertilizer levels and its impact on production risk in wheat produc- Social tion farmers aim at high grain quality and, therefore, increase N input Economic Macholdt et al. (2019) A total of 60 years of experiments on production risk and yield stability; the authors highlight that mineral fertilization is crucial for plants to compensate for environmental stress Economic Zhang et al. (2020) Study on determinants of corn yield; the amount of pesticide input has the biggest impact on corn yield; mineral fertilization is also important but not as crucial as pesticides premium to compensate for the increased risk of yield from the network of reference farms for plant protection losses due to pesticide reduction and to secure farmers’ (Dachbrodt-Saaydeh et al. 2021). income. This network contains approximately 90 representative farms in Germany (Dachbrodt-Saaydeh et al. 2021). Ger- 3.1.2 The optimal pesticide input level many’s National Action Plan (NAP) target to reduce appli- cations of pesticides is the quota of “95% conformity with Testing the hypothesis that farmers behave according to the necessary-minimum requirement” (Federal Ministry of the insurance aspect is not an easy task due to the lack Food, Agriculture, and Consumer Protection 2013). The of literature and observation on this subject. For the “necessary-minimum requirement” describes the amount of past 11 years, the German Julius Kühn-Institute (JKI) pesticides that are necessary to achieve a yield that makes has been collecting data on the use of crop protection farming economically feasible, given that all alternative 1 3 On the effects that motivate pesticide use in perspective of designing a cropping system without… Page 11 of 22 24 Table 5 Research string on mineral fertilizer and its interaction with (Lechenet et al. 2017). Lechenet et al. (2017) estimate that plant pests and pesticides. the reduction of pesticide usage by 42% has neither a nega- tive impact on profitability nor on productivity in 59% of the Keywords Searched databases farms. This means that farmers did not attain the optimum Mineral fertilizer Google Scholar before the pesticide reduction. In particular, livestock farms Nitrogen AgEcon Search that mainly cultivate maize and grassland have the highest Optimal fertilizer usage Scopus potential to reduce pesticide use. However, farms that grow- Interaction of pesticides and fertilizer Science Direct input intensive crops such as potatoes and sugar beets depend Environmental risks of fertilizer Research Gate on large amounts of pesticides to maintain yields. Other stud- Fertilizer and pest occurrence ies, for example, from Nave et al. (2013), support the hypoth- Fertilizer and fungi esis from Lechenet et al. (2017) that a high input of pesticides Development/history of mineral fertilizer is not economically reasonable and can be reduced. Fertilizer, yield/yield stability Nave et al. (2013) show that 33% of the farmers inves- tigated in their study use high amounts of pesticides and receive moderate yields of wheat, while 38% of the farm- options for plant protection have been considered and the ers use moderate amounts of pesticides and produce high protection of operators, the environment, and consumers is yields. Their network consists of farmers from a French assured (Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture, and Con- region known for high cereal production. Nave et al. (2013) sumer Protection 2013). The analyses show that the applica- identify three types of management: high input, moderate tion of pesticides is determined by regional characteristics input, and low input. In this experiment, the most efficient of pest occurrence and that the use of pesticides was mostly cropping system is the moderate-input type because it has appropriate and moderate over the past 11 years (Dachbrodt- been observed that this type of farming has higher yields, Saaydeh et al. 2021). In winter wheat, 88% of pesticide lower inputs, and a higher gross margin than the other two applications are within the necessary level; in winter bar- types (Nave et al. 2013). ley, it is 90%; and in winter rapeseed, it is 87% (Dachbrodt- Saaydeh et al. 2021). This means that there is still potential 3.1.3 Resource efficiency to reduce pesticide applications in these crops, especially for insecticide use (Dachbrodt-Saaydeh et al. 2021). The study by Deike et al. (2008) aimed to evaluate the pro- There are several economic analyses that investigate pes- ductivity and environmental effects of different cropping sys- ticide use reduction: For example, a French study examines tems. The trials included variations in crop rotation systems a 50% reduction and zero pesticide application in wheat in and cropping management. The results show that the type comparison with current pesticide input levels (Hossard of crops the rotation consists of is important for yield, sus- et al. 2014). Such a reduction is not profitable for farmers, tainability, and management decisions. However, an interac- as a yield loss of 5 to 13% is predicted and the subsequent tion between pesticide use intensity and crop rotation could pesticide cost reduction cannot compensate for yield loss not be confirmed (Deike et al. 2008). Deike et al. (2008) at current wheat prices. Zero pesticide application would demonstrate that pesticide usage, which is situation-related reduce current yields by 24.3 to 33% (Hossard et al. 2014). will increase yield. In addition, the efficiency of energy and These results are supported by an earlier French study, which nitrogen use is improved. Pesticide use that follows guide- shows that a pesticide use reduction of 10 to 30% is feasi- lines of integrated pest management (IPM) has a low-risk ble in arable farming while maintaining profitability, but a potential for the environment, and this risk is reduced by reduction of 50% would cause a higher reduction in yield a further decrease in pesticide input. This study highlights and farmer income (Jacquet et al. 2011). Bürger and Ger- that a diversified crop rotation has the potential for decreased owitt (2009) analyze pesticide usage in winter wheat and pesticide and fertilizer usage or reduced intensity of tillage oilseed rape in Germany. They found that pesticide input without compromising the overall production capacity. can be reduced by applying pesticides less frequently, using Several other scholars that examine low- or zero-pes- fewer mixtures of various pesticides, or using lower applica- ticide systems report higher energy consumption in those tion rates. low-input systems. Lechenet et al. (2014) compare organic, Another important contribution about reducing pesti- integrated, and conventional agriculture and find that cides while preserving yields is the work of Lechenet et al. organic systems are not as productive and not as energy (2017). This study suggests that there is no conflict between efficient as the other systems. Moreover, it may not be the reduced use of pesticides and both high profitability and profitable: zero-pesticide systems have no pesticide costs high productivity in 77% of 946 analyzed farms in France but increased costs due to mechanical weeding, which is 1 3 24 Page 12 of 22 I. Pergner, C. Lippert Table 6 Categorization of the literature on the usage of pesticides. tional farming is prevalent, and equipment for plant protection without Definitions: High yield: produces higher yield compared to other crop- pesticides and labor that is trained to handle this equipment is scarce. ping systems. High profitability: gains more profit than other cropping Ignorance/lack of information: farmers are not informed about alterna- systems. High crop quality: the quality of crops is increased. Higher tive cropping systems. Recommended practice: extension services and (energy) efficiency: factors of production are used in a more efficient sales representatives recommend practices with pesticides. Administra- way (less energy is needed to perform the same task). Risk aversion, tive burden: converting to another cropping system can be accompanied psychological costs, and yield stability: risk-averse farmers prefer out- by increased controls and administration to verify compliance. Simplic- comes with low uncertainty. They can reduce the risk by using pesti- ity, convenience of using pesticides, and lower workload: applying pes- cides and stabilize their yield. They perceive psychological costs when ticides is accompanied by easier work tasks and a lower workload. Crop there is high pest pressure, while they cannot reduce the risk with pes- insurance: gives an incentive to grow more pesticide intensive-crops. ticides. Lock in effect: describes the situation when a farmer has cho- Food security: conventional farming is more suitable to fight food inse- sen a certain cropping system in the past and cannot convert to another curity. Food safety: applying pesticides enhances crop quality and fights cropping system without substantial costs or inconvenience. The lock- pests that might harm consumers. Low greenhouse gas emissions: sys- in effect comprises other reasons, such as high-yielding varieties: crops tems that use pesticides emit less greenhouse gas emissions. Pesticides bred for high yields are more susceptible to pests and can hardly be are better for soil health: farming without pesticides relies on tillage, grown without pesticides. Lack of trained labor and equipment: conven- which might decrease soil health. Source: own compilation. Category Reason Literature Economic High yield Crissman et al. (1994); Wilson and Tisdell (2001); Oerke (2006); Cooper and Dobson (2007); Deike et al. (2008); Ponti et al. (2012); Seufert et al. (2012); Noleppa and von Witzke (2013); Lechenet et al. (2014); Hossard et al. (2014); Colnenne-David and Doré (2015); Tamm et al. (2018); Chèze et al. (2020) High profitability Nave et al. (2013); Carpentier and Reboud (2018); Moss (2019) High crop quality Cooper and Dobson (2007) Higher (energy) efficiency Cooper and Dobson (2007); Deike et al. (2008); Noleppa and von Witzke (2013); Lechenet et al. (2014); Cellier et al. (2018) Risk aversion, psychological costs, Jacquet et al. (2011); Bürger et al. (2012); Nave et al. (2013); Skevas et al. (2014); Carpentier and yield stability and Reboud (2018); Knapp and van der Heijden (2018); Seufert (2019); Moss (2019); Chèze et al. (2020); Kaiser and Burger (2022); Möhring and Finger (2022) Social Lock in effect Wilson and Tisdell (2001); Lamine et al. (2010); Jacquet et al. (2011); Lamine (2011); Le Bail et al. (2014) High yielding varieties Wilson and Tisdell (2001) Lack of trained labor and equipment Moss (2019); Meissle et al. (2010) Ignorance/lack of information Wilson and Tisdell (2001); Nave et al. (2013); Lamine (2011); Meissle et al. (2010) Recommended practice Nave et al. (2013); Moss (2019); Jacquet et al. (2022); Wuepper et al. (2021) Administrative burden Chèze et al. (2020) Simplicity, convenience of using Chikowo et al. (2009); Jacquet et al. (2011); Nave et al. (2013); Lechenet et al. (2014); pesticides, and lower work load Schwarz et al. (2018); Cellier et al. (2018); Moss (2019) Crop insurance Möhring et al. (2020) Food security Cooper and Dobson (2007); Noleppa and von Witzke (2013) Food safety Cooper and Dobson (2007) Environment Low greenhouse gas emissions Noleppa and von Witzke (2013) Pesticides better for soil health Cooper and Dobson (2007); Colnenne-David and Doré (2015); Colnenne-David et al. (2017); Cellier et al. (2018); Moss (2019) necessary for a cropping system without herbicides. The agriculture. Costs can be reduced by 25.4% if farmers savings from pesticide cost reduction cannot compensate adopt agricultural extensification practices and by 13.1% for these costs, in addition to reduced productivity. if they convert to agricultural intensification. In regard to In contrast, several authors have argued that low- or pesticide input, potential reductions can be up to 29% of zero-pesticide systems have economic benefits. Bous - the current situation. semart et al. (2011) concentrated on the costs of cropping systems and showed that extensive agriculture is more 3.1.4 Comparison of yields cost-effective than intensive agriculture. Boussemart et al. (2011) evaluate farms in France and their inputs In general, organic yields can be similar to conventional (e.g., seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides) to compare their yields, depending on the type of cultivar, soil, and weather current situation with converting to extensive or intensive (Pimentel et al. 2005). Mäder et al. (2002) present the 1 3 On the effects that motivate pesticide use in perspective of designing a cropping system without… Page 13 of 22 24 Table 7 Categorization of the literature on the rejection of pesticide pesticides might be toxic to producers. Food safety: consuming food usage. Definitions: Savings in production cost and energy: waiving that is grown with pesticides might be toxic. Caring for future gen- pesticides reduces costs for chemical plant protection and energy erations: farmers, who have families and children, care more about input. Lower economic risks: renouncing pesticides lowers the eco- the future and reject pesticides due to their possible negative effects. nomic risk due to alternative farming practices. Similar yield: farm- Knowledge: farmers, who rely upon an extension service know more ing without pesticides can produce similar yields as farming with about pesticides and therefore reject pesticides. Biodiversity, protec- pesticides. High profitability: farming without pesticides gains more tion of animals (bees, birds, and fishes), beneficial microorganisms, profit. Pests develop resistance: pests can develop resistances toward and invertebrates: pesticides can cause harm to the environment; pesticides. Crop resistance: new cultivars can obtain resistance therefore, pesticides might be rejected. Soil organic matter: pesticides toward pests due to breeding, which makes pesticides unnecessary. might have negative effects on soil organic matter. Water quality: pes- Minor uses: some crops are not cultivated much; therefore, the finan- ticides can leach from the soil and reduce water quality. Crop rota- cial incentive for pesticide industries is missing to produce pesticides tion: a wide and diverse crop rotation is a prerequisite for farming for these crops. Workload: waiving pesticides is accompanied by a without pesticides. Source: own compilation. workload that is evenly spread over the year. Health risks: applying Category Reason Literature Economic Savings in production cost and energy Pimentel et al. (2005); Boussemart et al. (2011); Jacquet et al. (2011); Bürger et al. (2012); Lechenet et al. (2014); Colnenne-David et al. (2017); Dachbrodt-Saaydeh et al. (2021) Lower economic risks Pimentel et al. (2005); Lechenet et al. (2014) Similar yield Mäder et al. (2002); Pimentel et al. (2005); Delbridge et al. (2013); Lechenet et al. (2014); Lechenet et al. (2017) High profitability Mäder et al. (2002); Pimentel et al. (2005); Lechenet et al. (2014); Colnenne-David et al. (2017) Pests develop resistance Pimentel et al. (1992); Sexton (2007); Moss (2019) Crop resistance Jahn et al. (2010) Minor uses Le Bail et al. (2014); Lamichhane et al. (2015) Social Workload Pimentel et al. (2005); Pardo et al. (2010); Lechenet et al. (2014) Health risks Pimentel et al. (1992); Antle and Pingali (1994); Crissman et al. (1994); Sexton (2007); Abhilash and Singh (2009); Nave et al. (2013); Lam- moglia et al. (2017); Cellier et al. (2018); Sharma et al. (2019) Food safety Pimentel et al. (1992) Caring for future generations de Souza Filho et al. (1999); Nave et al. (2013) Knowledge de Souza Filho et al. (1999); Nave et al. (2013); Jacquet et al. (2022) Environment Biodiversity, protection of animals, (bees, birds, and Pimentel et al. (1992); de Souza Filho et al. (1999); Wood et al. (2000); fishes), beneficial microorganisms, and inverte- Mäder et al. (2002); Sexton (2007); Bright et al. (2008); Abhilash and brates Singh (2009); Chikowo et al. (2009); Nave et al. (2013); Sharma et al. (2019); BMU (2020); Sud (2020); Chèze et al. (2020); Möhring and Finger (2022) Soil organic matter Mäder et al. (2002); Pimentel et al. (2005) Water quality Pimentel et al. (1992); Foley et al. (2011); Lechenet et al. (2014); Sharma et al. (2019); BMU (2020) Crop rotation Pimentel et al. (2005); Kolbe (2006); Chikowo et al. (2009); Melander et al. (2013); Lechenet et al. (2014) results from a trial that lasted for 21 years and compared lower than conventional yields but not as low as expected conventional and organic cropping systems. The authors and higher than yields in organic agriculture. Neverthe- show that potato yields of organic systems are approxi- less, profitability suffers due to high seed and mechaniza- mately 58 to 66% lower, winter wheat yields are reduced tion costs. by approximately 10%, and grass-clover yields have only marginal differences compared to conventional farming. 3.1.5 Yield stability However, organic cash crops cannot be cultivated as often as conventional cash crops due to the need for a more High yields and stable yields over time are important for diverse crop rotation (Pimentel et al. 2005). Cellier et al. farmers (at least as long as farmers are risk averse); how- (2018) evaluated a cropping system similar to MECS, ever, there are only a few studies that compare the temporal which also uses mineral fertilizer but lacks pesticides. yield stability of organic and conventional cropping systems They conclude that yields of the zero-pesticide systems are (Seufert 2019). To our knowledge, there is no literature about 1 3 24 Page 14 of 22 I. Pergner, C. Lippert Fig. 3 Overview of the effects of a mineral ecological cropping system. Note: Circles = instru- ments of a mineral ecological cropping system; rectangles = objectives; “+” or “−” = strong or well-established positive or negative effects; “+/−” = ambiguous effect. Source: own compilation. yield stability over time of a cropping system such as MECS. varieties are a decisive factor in the need for control. Espe- The comprehensive work from Seufert (2019) reviews the cially for winter rye and winter barley, due to the low level literature about organic versus conventional yield stability of resistance to the dominant diseases, at least one fungicide over time. She concludes that there is some evidence for application was required in all years of their trial (11 years). higher temporal yield stability in conventional farming and some evidence that there is no difference between the crop-3.1.7 Minor uses ping systems. There is little evidence for higher yield stabil- ity over time in organic cropping systems. Knapp and van Another reason why farmers do not use pesticides is that der Heijden (2018) also analyzed the temporal yield stability there are no pesticides available for certain crops due to their of various cropping systems in a meta-analysis based on 193 low scope of application (so-called minor uses) (Lamichhane studies. They concluded that organic cropping systems have et al. 2015). This is because of the low economic value of the lower temporal yield stability than conventional agriculture. corresponding crops and the costly risk assessment needed Nevertheless, this yield stability gap between organic and for official approval of the pesticides (Lamichhane et al. conventional cropping systems can be reduced by enhanced 2015; Le Bail et al. 2014). This means that some pesticides fertilization. are not available on the market, although these pesticides would be important for farmers to protect their crops (Lam- 3.1.6 Resistance to pesticides ichhane et al. 2015). Therefore, nonchemical plant protection or IPM solutions are crucial in these cases to substitute for Furthermore, nonchemical measures against pests are fre- nonexistent pesticides (Lamichhane et al. 2015). quently adopted to compensate for the inefficiencies of pesti- cides (Moss 2019). Pests develop resistance to certain pesti-3.2 Social reasons cides, which is why these protection measures are no longer as effective and there is an absence of new pesticides that Defining the social dimension in agriculture is not an easy serve as substitutes for the old ones (Moss 2019; Pimentel task (Janker and Mann 2020). In this work, social reasons et al. 1992; Sexton 2007). Oerke and Dehne (2004) argue for using pesticides or rejecting their usage are any factors that crop losses increase over time, despite the increased use that consider human health, well-being, and quality of life. of pesticides. However, according to these authors, resist- This includes topics on a global scale that have an impact ance that pests develop against pesticides contributes only on society, such as food security, as well as on a personal little to this phenomenon. Changes in farming practices, for scale, such as workload. instance, less diverse crop rotations, increased monocrop- ping, and the use of high-yielding varieties that are suscep-3.2.1 Lock in effect tible to diseases, are mainly responsible for increased crop losses. In contrast, for reduced fungicide treatment, Jahn One widely discussed reason why farmers reject converting et al. (2010) find that the resistance characteristics of crop to a cropping system with reduced or without pesticides is 1 3 On the effects that motivate pesticide use in perspective of designing a cropping system without… Page 15 of 22 24 the so-called lock-in effect: farmers are locked in conven- complex (Le Bail et al. 2014). Moss (2019) calls this the tional farming because it is their initial farming practice. inconvenience factor. Higher complexity and time-consum- Changing it to another system is costly and requires all ing tasks of nonchemical plant protection are mainly caused actors in the agricultural sector to change. This problem has by a more diversified crop rotation and increased monitor - been observed by several scholars (see Table 6). Since the ing of the fields, which are prerequisites for reduced or zero 1960s, the agricultural sector (plant breeders, researchers, pesticide application (Lechenet et al. 2014). Hence, pesticide extension services, etc.) developed intensive farming strate- usage reduces the workload of farmers (Cellier et al. 2018; gies to increase yield (Lamine et al. 2010). This means that Schwarz et al. 2018). On the other hand, Pardo et al. (2010) farmers, who want to switch to zero pesticide usage face find for zero herbicide systems that the working hours are several obstacles, such as extension services exclusively rec- better distributed over the year so that there is no peak time ommending conventional practices (Moss 2019; Nave et al. in labor. This finding is supported by several scholars who 2013). This leads to a lack of knowledge or to ignorance argue that the work is allocated more evenly over the year about the unsustainability of pesticides. Nave et al. (2013) in the case of a more diverse crop rotation (Lechenet et al. find that acquiring information through extension groups 2014; Pardo et al. 2010; Pimentel et al. 2005). encourages pesticide use reduction. Furthermore, Wuepper et al. (2021) suggest that the type of extension service also 3.2.3 Food security matters for adopting alternative crop protection. Farmers who work with private extension services are more likely Food security is an important aspect of agricultural produc- to use pesticides. Farmers who receive advice from public tion because of the increasing world population that demands extension services will probably adopt preventive measures. higher yields in the future (Sexton 2007). Therefore, some Additionally, farmers can experience a lack of crop seeds authors advocate high-yielding conventional farming to that are resistant to pests because in recent years only crops achieve worldwide food security (Cooper and Dobson 2007; were cultivated suitable to achieve high yields (Lamine et al. Noleppa and von Witzke 2013). Noleppa and von Witzke 2010). These high-yielding cultivars are more susceptible (2013) highlight that although Germany is a comparatively to diseases and dependent on pesticides (Wilson and Tis- small country, a complete conversion to organic farming can dell 2001). Another issue is the availability of employees change the entire food supply and threaten food security. who are trained to use nonchemical measures and the right Immense harvest losses would occur due to the absence of equipment for low pesticide measures, which is not always modern crop protection and fertilizers. These losses are to given (Lamine et al. 2010; Meissle et al. 2010; Moss 2019). be expected for potatoes (minus 44% yield), maize (minus Chèze et al. (2020) find that farmers often oppose the admin- 51% yield), and wheat (minus 54% yield) when compared to istrative commitments that may come along with low- or the yields of conventional agriculture in Germany (Noleppa zero-pesticide measures. In this context, contracts and cer- and von Witzke 2013). tification processes with public authorities that ensure farm- ers’ compliance with zero or reduced pesticide usage are 3.2.4 Risk for consumers and producers considered a burden and less of a chance to integrate into a network or receive support. Furthermore, a development Various reasons for rejecting pesticides can also be found period where farmers learn how to handle the innovative in the literature: One study discusses the exposure of con- farming system can occur (Cellier et al. 2018). During this sumers to pesticides via food and water (Pimentel et al. time, high pest and weed pressure are likely (Cellier et al. 1992). This can be an argument for rejecting pesticides. In 2018). Therefore, Jacquet et al. (2022) recommend compen- contrast, Cooper and Dobson (2007) mention higher food sating farmers in this transition period. Furthermore, crop safety through pesticides due to reduced fungal toxins. insurance and pesticide use can have a positive or negative Although pesticide residues in food often occur, in most relationship (Möhring et al. 2020). Möhring et al. (2020) cases the maximum levels allowed are observed and food find that crop insurance leads to higher pesticide use because is classified as safe (European Food Safety Authority et al. insurance gives the incentive to use more pesticide-intensive 2020). Sharma et al. (2019) note that pesticides are harmful crops. Their results suggest that pesticide input would be to organisms. Farmers who do not apply pesticides appro- reduced by 6 to 11% without crop insurance. priately are exposed to health risks (Abhilash and Singh 2009). Being aware of these risks leads to reduced usage of 3.2.2 More work, but better distributed? pesticides (Nave et al. 2013). Systems with zero pesticide applications meet farmers’ expectations of not handling dan- One reason for using pesticides may be the convenience of gerous products (Cellier et al. 2018). using them: nonchemical solutions for crop protection often Other social factors and reasons for rejecting pesticide exist for many cultivars, but their implementation is more inputs are investigated by Nave et al. (2013), who conduct an 1 3 24 Page 16 of 22 I. Pergner, C. Lippert analysis that shows why farmers reduce chemical inputs. The strategies mainly use mechanical weed control and only partly authors interviewed 71 farmers in France who grow winter apply herbicides (Chikowo et al. 2009). Chikowo et al. (2009) wheat. Farmers often implement low-input practices when examine IWM measures and find that they can control weeds they have a family or own the land they are farming because in the long term and that the environmental impact can be they care more about the environment and the future. As reduced while mostly maintaining yields. Nevertheless, IWM mentioned before, taking part in extension groups and hav- practices such as mechanical weed control and false seedbed ing access to various information sources encourages low- preparation increase complexity and workload. Melander et al. input agriculture. These findings are supported by de Souza (2013) stress the importance of reducing weeds with nonchem- Filho et al. (1999) and Lamine et al. (2010). ical measures by means of crop rotations and innovations, such as thermal control or intercropping. However, more research is necessary on these innovative methods. 3.3 Environmental effects and reasons 3.3.2 Adverse effects on the environment Moss (2019) reports that farmers may reject alternative plant protection measures because they fear that they have a nega- Pesticides can be a problem for ecosystems because they tive impact on the environment. Indeed, Noleppa and von harm not only weeds, insects, and pests but also other organ- Witzke (2013) argue that pesticides emit only a few green- isms that are not targeted (Sharma et al. 2019). In the report house gases, but conversion to a farming system without of the BMU, it is concluded that the state of essential parts pesticides would cause an increase in greenhouse gas emis- of biodiversity in Germany is critical (BMU 2020). Many sions due to decreased yields that need to be compensated habitats and species have an unfavorable-inadequate or poor by converting forests into farmland. In addition, waiving state of preservation. In addition, for approximately one- pesticides reduces soil organic matter because plowing needs third of the brood bird species the populations decreased to be done more often. This is supported by findings from in recent years. The main causes of this development are, two other studies (Cellier et al. 2018; Colnenne-David and among others, high nutrient and pesticide inputs, intensifi - Doré 2015). Pimentel et al. (2005) compare conventional cation or abandonment of land use, including the abandon- and organic farming and disagree with this statement. They ment of traditional land use forms, changes in the hydrology find higher soil organic matter in systems without chemical and morphology of water bodies, drainage, and groundwater input instead. This is supported by Mäder et al. (2002), who extraction. Sud (2020), Wood et al. (2000), and Abhilash also compared organic and conventional cropping systems. and Singh (2009) report similar negative effects on land and They conclude that organic agriculture results in enhanced water organisms due to pesticides in many other developed soil fertility and biodiversity. and developing countries. In contrast, agriculture with low or zero pesticide usage has a low impact on water and soil 3.3.1 The importance of crop rotation and innovation quality (Lechenet et al. 2014). According to Möhring and Finger (2022), the environmental benefits of a cropping As mentioned before, crop diversification is a prerequisite system are important for farmers. These authors find that for low- or zero-pesticide farming (Lechenet et al. 2014). A farmers who believe that a new cropping system without wider crop rotation increases biodiversity, decreases inci- pesticides is more environmentally friendly are more likely dences of pests, and therefore reduces pesticide input and to participate in this system. negative impacts on the environment (Lechenet et al. 2014). Using a more diversified crop rotation and cover crops also 3.4 The importance of mineral fertilizer and its has the benefit of reducing soil erosion (Pimentel et al. 2005). interaction with plant pests Kolbe (2006) also recognized that unfavorable crop rotations promote weeds, diseases, and pests, which have an impact on An interesting topic is the use of mineral fertilizers in rela- crop yield and quality. This affects especially organic and low- tion to plant pests and countering pesticides, as mineral input agriculture. Therefore, Kolbe (2006) further develops fertilizers are allowed in MECS whereas pesticides are crop sequences that help to decrease dependence on pesticides. forbidden. Both mineral fertilizers and pesticides are deter- Conventional crop production relies heavily on the usage minants of high-input cropping systems (Fess et al. 2011). of herbicides (Melander et al. 2013). Among the different pes - The review about the development of mineral fertilizers by ticide categories (herbicide, fungicide, and insecticide), her- Russel and Williams (1977) shows that organic and mineral bicide reduction has the highest risk of causing yield losses fertilizers have been used by humans for centuries. Mod- (Lechenet et al. 2017). Efforts are being made to reduce the ern fertilizer production started in 1840 with the invention dependency on herbicides, for example, with the help of inte- of superphosphate (Russel and Williams 1977). During grated weed management (IWM) (Chikowo et al. 2009). IWM the green revolution from 1950 on, artificial fertilizers and 1 3 On the effects that motivate pesticide use in perspective of designing a cropping system without… Page 17 of 22 24 pesticides simultaneously contributed to the tremendous especially cereal yields depend on fertilizer applications increase in crop production (Tilman 1999). Since then, the (Roberts 2009). This is one reason why organic agriculture effects of mineral fertilizer on yield, risk perception of farm- is criticized as unfit to feed the world’s population in the ers, and optimal fertilizer input have been widely discussed future (Connor 2018). by scientists. The application of artificial fertilizers is important to Whereas the average yield-increasing effect of mineral mitigate the uncertainty of crop production (Sheriff 2005). fertilizer is undisputed, the interaction between the resulting The production-increasing effects are shown by a study nutrient supply and plant diseases is far from clear-cut, as by Macholdt et al. (2019), who present an experiment that the effect of additional nutrient supply on disease incidence lasted over 60 years. They analyze the production risk, risk depends on both the overall level of nutrient supply and the development, and stability of crop yields fertilized with dif- corresponding pathogen. In the case of nitrogen, this can ferent combinations and amounts of NPK (nitrogen, phos- lead to a U-shaped relationship between fertilization and phorus, and potassium) and manure. They find that yield disease incidence (for an illustration and discussion of this stability and production risk are mainly impacted by climate, relationship along with literature references from crop sci- followed by added NPK fertilizer and manure fertilization. ences, see Huber et al. 2012 p.284f.). On the one hand, there Sufficient N availability helps crops to compensate for envi - are clearly positive correlations between nitrogen (N) supply ronmental stress, which contributes to yield stability. High and, e.g., the incidence of certain obligate biotrophic fun- levels of mineral fertilizer (NPK) contribute to high yield gal parasites such as powdery mildew (Erysiphe graminis), and stability, resulting in lower production risk when com- which calls for increased fungicide use at higher N fertiliza- pared to lower fertilization levels (i.e., 50% less or no ferti- tion levels. On the other hand, for other (facultative) para- lizer). This is also supported by a study by Knapp and van sites and at relatively low N supply levels, this correlation der Heijden (2018). was found to be negative, as in the case of leaf spot diseases Another long-term experiment by Mäder et al. (2002) (Alternaria ssp.). In this context, Huber et al. (2012) state compares yields of conventional and organic cropping sys- that “[u]sually, a “balanced” nutrient supply that ensures tems. The authors show that the yield of organic wheat and optimal plant growth is also optimal for plant resistance” other cereals are reduced by 30 to 50%. It is assumed that and that “[…] plants suffering from nutrient deficiency have lower yields are mainly caused by lower N inputs. The NPK lower tolerance to diseases and pests, and tolerance can be level of the organic systems was between 34 and 51% lower increased by supplying the deficient nutrient”. A plant being than that of the conventional system. The trials by Macholdt undersupplied is more susceptible to certain diseases caused et al. (2019) and Mäder et al. (2002) demonstrate the impor- by necrotrophic pathogens. For biotrophic pathogens, under- tance of healthy plants due to mineral fertilizer for high and supplied plants are less “interesting” because there is less to stable yields. However, the interaction between pests and feed upon. plant nutrition is complex and differs among plant types, the As a MECS aims at a spatially and temporally balanced growing stage of the plant, and pathogen species (Walters supply of nitrogen, rather low nutrient inputs should be and Bingham 2007). There is evidence that oversupplying avoided as they result in reduced yields. We emphasize in nutrients, especially N, can cause severe diseases and reduce our review the positive correlation between nutrient supply yield and quality (Walters and Bingham 2007). Therefore, and incidences of certain plant diseases at higher nutrient balanced fertilization based on the needs of the plants is levels. crucial (Walters and Bingham 2007). Contemporary organic agriculture is a cropping system The relationship between pesticides and mineral fer- that forbids the application of pesticides and mineral ferti- tilizers is of particular relevance regarding MECS. Both lizers (Connor 2018). Mineral fertilizers are an important mineral fertilizers and pesticides have an important role in component of crop yield and quality (Stewart and Roberts high and stable yields (Zhang et al. 2020). Organic crop- 2012). Nevertheless, mineral fertilizer can damage the envi- ping systems rely less on nitrogen fertilization than agri- ronment when farmers apply it to fields in an inappropriate culture with pesticide input (Lechenet et al. 2014). This is way (Savci 2012; Sheriff 2005). For example, this can lead due to lower yield targets of organic agriculture and a more to eutrophication (Rockström et al. 2009). There are also diversified crop rotation, which incorporates crops such as sources that suggest that farmers may overapply fertilizer legumes that are less reliant on nitrogen input (Lechenet to reduce risk (Meyer-Aurich et al. 2009; Meyer-Aurich and et al. 2014). At higher nutrient supply and yield levels, Karatay 2019). In organic agricultural systems, N can only there is a correlation between fertilizer application and cer- be added to the system by intercropping leguminous plants tain plant diseases, which may lead to increased pesticide or by fertilization with manure, which leads to lower yields usage. That would mean if farmers use artificial fertilizers, compared to fertilization with mineral fertilizer (Connor then they also use more pesticides because of the increased 2018). Mineral fertilizers increase crop yield by 30 to 50%; need for plant protection at higher cropping intensities (also 1 3 24 Page 18 of 22 I. Pergner, C. Lippert involving high-yielding varieties and straw-shortening some farmers use pesticides and why others reject them. growth regulators). In this way, the determinants of pesticide use are identi- There is further evidence in the literature for a positive fied, and important insights are drawn from the reviewed correlation between nutrient supply and pesticide use also studies that may be important for MECS. Thus, our ini- because of the higher crop value at stake when the targeted tially presented research questions are answered in the yield levels are greater. Thus, the optimal pesticide doses following: depend not only on the amount of fertilizer applied to the (1) What are the main reasons that determine pesticide crops but also on the prices of fertilizer and the revenue a usage? crop yields: Büschbell and Hoffmann (1992) analyze the In particular, economic aspects, such as the profitability effect of different N supplies (40, 80, and 160 kg N/ha) on of a cropping system, are important for farmers’ decisions diseases in wheat in two successive years. They stress that to continue with current farming practices or to convert to the relationship between potential yield and the number of a zero-pesticide system. In addition, environmental aspects fungicide treatments is important. At low N supply (40 kg can be crucial. Research in the literature shows that pesti- N/ha), the yield is so low that it does not make economical cide use can be reduced without compromising yield and sense to apply fungicides. Fungicide usage is economically profitability. However, no consensus among scholars can be reasonable at higher N rates of 80 kg N/ha. In particular, identified to what extent a pesticide reduction is feasible the spread of powdery mildew increases with the increas- without prohibitive farm losses. It can be assumed that the ing N rates that are applied. This is supported by Olesen feasible reduction depends on regional (climate and soil- et al. (2003b), who performe a similar analysis on N sup- related) conditions and management practices. Addition- ply in crops and its effects on diseases. They find that the ally, farmers may want to assure stable yields over time and, disease severities of septoria leaf spot and powdery mildew therefore, apply pesticides as insurance against yield losses are increased by higher N fertilizer applications. Further- and not according to damage thresholds. However, there is more, Olesen et al. (2003a) find that the optimal fungicide little empirical evidence to verify this assumption. In con- level increases nearly linearly with the N fertilizer rate that trast, according to Dachbrodt-Saaydeh et al. (2021), most is applied. The optimal amount of fungicide and N level pesticide applications from 2007 to 2017 corresponded to is defined as those doses that give the highest economic the necessary level, and only a few pesticide applications return. Hence, the optimal fungicide dose also depends on were unnecessary. crop prices. The authors point out that there is an interac- The literature review suggests that the reasons for pes- tion between the amount and timing of N application on the ticide use are manifold and not only related to high yield optimal fungicide dose. Early-applied N fertilizer causes a and profits. The lock-in effect, for example, is an important higher need for pesticides but also a higher yield. This is and complex issue that hinders farmers from converting to supported by Claupein (1993), who suspects that there is low-input agriculture. Furthermore, the MECS will change an interaction between N fertilization and pesticides. If so, conventional farming practices. A wider crop rotation, for pesticides can be reduced by decreased N application. In instance, can partly compensate for renouncing pesticides. contrast, waving pesticides means that crops may not make There are guidelines for favorable crop sequences (see Sec- optimal use of N fertilization due to diminished N uptake tion 3.3.1). However, there is also contradictory evidence and increased incidences of certain plant diseases. regarding how much a wider crop rotation increases work- load and complexity. Weeds are particularly problematic for many crops. Therefore, herbicide applications may be quite 4 Conclusion important to prevent yield losses and maintain quality. For MECS, an increase in soil fertility and biodiversity Agricultural systems, such as organic agriculture, are criti- can be expected compared to conventional farming. This cized for not being able to feed a growing world popu- could be a convincing reason for environmentally sensitive lation. Conversely, conventional farming is criticized farmers to change their farming practices. for causing environmental problems, and this literature (2) How important are mineral fertilizers for high and research shows that negative impacts on the environment stable yields, and is there a correlation between fertilizer are well documented. Therefore, a hybrid system, MECS, use and pesticide input? is proposed. This innovative system rejects pesticides to Mineral fertilizers are important for high and stable avoid environmental damage. However, mineral fertiliz- yields, but using a dose that is too large can cause harm to ers are permitted to achieve high yields. It is important the environment and facilitate plant diseases. The literature that farmers accept this new farming system so that it can suggests that cropping systems without pesticides are less eventually be put into practice. Therefore, in this litera- dependent on nitrogen fertilization due to a more diversified ture review, among others, we summarize the reasons why crop rotation and lower yield targets. Nave et al. (2013) and 1 3 On the effects that motivate pesticide use in perspective of designing a cropping system without… Page 19 of 22 24 Kavita et al. (2018) show that high yields can be achieved In the future, more research should be done to assess with increased fertilizer input without increasing pesticide how the abandonment of pesticides affects systems of usage. Nevertheless, the literature also shows that without rationally acting farmers. To analyze profitability and risk pesticides, N fertilizer cannot be used in an optimal way by aspects, future research should also rely upon mathemati- crops. There seems to be a correlation between the usage of cal programming models to compare total contribution pesticides and fertilizer. Consequently, in MECS, a balanced margins and their variances for different cropping sys- supply of nitrogen (both spatially and temporally) should be tems. Apart from that, questions arise, such as how will aimed. This would mean that mineral fertilizers should be the whole agricultural system change if minimal or zero applied at lower levels than in conventional farming. Lower doses of pesticides are applied in the future? From the nitrogen application is, after all, coupled with the predicted example of “minor uses,” we can see that it is not econom- reduced yield. In the future, it will be necessary to perform ically reasonable for industries to sell small amounts of further research on pest effects at high nitrogen applications seldomly used pesticides. Furthermore, the question arises in the MECS. of which crop shares will decrease when there are no pesti- Furthermore, there are several known problems posed by cides available. Remarkably, there is no consensus among mineral fertilizers that should be considered when design- scholars on whether reduced or zero pesticide practices are ing a MECS. First, the most important nutrients for crops more labor-intensive. Therefore, it will be interesting to (i.e., NPK) are not produced in a sustainable way. They are compare the workload that is necessary for MECS and for either mined (P and K) or produced via the Haber-Bosch other cropping systems. Finally, the crop- and site-specific process (N), which is extremely energy intensive. Second, conditions under which (a positive or negative) correla- phosphate sources will be depleted sooner or later (Gilbert tion between fertilizer application and pesticide usage is 2009). However, innovative recycling processes could solve relevant need to be further investigated in future studies. these problems by recovering nutrients from sewage and pro- ducing mineral fertilizers out of these recovered nutrients. Authors' contributions I. Pergner: Conceptualization, investigation, This technique and farmers’ attitude toward such recycling formal analysis, methodology, writing—original draft, and writing— are already being researched (Utai et al. 2022). review and editing. C. Lippert: Conceptualization, supervision, writ- ing—review and editing. (3) What are the main recommendations that can be dis- tilled from the literature to design the MECS? Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt The lessons learned from this review will help to pro- DEAL. This research was funded by the German Federal Ministry of gress toward an innovative and sustainable cropping sys- Education and Research (BMBF) through the program Agricultural Systems of the Future under Grant No. 031B0731A “Agriculture 4.0 tem. For MECS, we presume that the yields are lower without Chemical-Synthetic Plant Protection (NOcsPS)”. than conventional yields, but not as low as expected, and higher than yields in organic agriculture. A more diverse Data availability All data generated or analyzed during this study are crop rotation is an important measure to reduce the over- included in this published article (and its supplementary information files). all yield variance in cropping systems without pesticides. Therefore, rotations will be more diverse in the MECS Materials availability All data generated or analyzed during this study than in conventional farming. However, profitability suf- are included in this published article (and its supplementary informa- fers due to high costs for seeds and mechanization and, tion files). simultaneously, because of reduced options to fight pests. Code availability Not applicable. Therefore, it is recommended to initially compensate farmers who want to switch to the MECS. In addition, Declarations increased energy consumption and less net carbon seques- tration might occur. There are controversial claims from Ethics approval Not applicable. scholars investigating workload in low- and zero-pesticide Consent to participate Not applicable. systems. To our knowledge, there is no literature that ana- lyzes yield stability over time in a cropping system with Consent for publication Not applicable. mineral fertilizer but without pesticides. However, it can be assumed that the temporal yield stability in the MECS Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests. might be higher than that in organic cropping systems due to mineral fertilizer input but lower than that in conven- Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- tional farming due to the lack of pesticides. Thus, there tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long is a need for innovations in cultivars that are resistant to as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, dominant diseases or for technical innovations that allow provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes for mechanical control methods. were made. The images or other third party material in this article are 1 3 24 Page 20 of 22 I. Pergner, C. Lippert included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated Colnenne-David C, Grandeau G, Jeuffroy M-H, Dore T (2017) Ambi- otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in tious environmental and economic goals for the future of agricul- the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not ture are unequally achieved by innovative cropping systems. Field permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will Crops Res 210:114–128. https://doi. or g/10. 1016/j. fcr .2017. 05. 009 need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a Connor DJ (2018) Organic agriculture and food security: a decade copy of this licence, visit http://cr eativ ecommons. or g/licen ses/ b y/4.0/ . of unreason finally implodes. Field Crops Res 225:128–129. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. fcr. 2018. 06. 008 Cooper J, Dobson H (2007) The benefits of pesticides to mankind and the environment. Crop Prot 26:1337–1348. https:// doi. org/ References 10. 1016/j. cropro. 2007. 03. 022 Crissman CC, Cole DC, Carpio F (1994) Pesticide use and farm Abhilash PC, Singh N (2009) Pesticide use and application: an worker health in Ecuadorian potato production. Amer J Agr Indian scenario. J Hazard Mater 165:1–12. https:// doi. org/ 10. Econ 76:593–597 1016/j. jhazm at. 2008. 10. 061 Dachbrodt-Saaydeh S, Sellmann J, Schwarz J, Klocke B, Krengel S, Antle JM, Pingali PL (1994) Pesticides, productivity, and farmer Kehlenbeck H (2021) Netz Vergleichsbetriebe Pflanzenschutz : health: a Philippine case study. Amer J Agr Econ 76:418–430 Jahresbericht 2017; Analyse der Ergebnisse der Jahre 2007 bis BMU (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare 2017. Berichte Aus Dem Julius Kühn-Institut. https:// doi. org/ Sicherheit) and Bundesamt für Naturschutz (2020) Die Lage 10. 5073/ 20210 309- 134538 der Natur in Deutschland: Ergebnisse von EU-Vogelschutz- und Deike S, Pallutt B, Melander B, Strassemeyer J, Christen O (2008) FFH-Bericht, Berlin, Bonn. www .bmu. de . Accessed 3 Nov 2020 Long-term productivity and environmental effects of arable Boussemart J-P, Leleu H, Ojo O (2011) Could society’s willingness farming as affected by crop rotation, soil tillage intensity and to reduce pesticide use be aligned with farmers’ economic self- strategy of pesticide use: a case-study of two long-term field interest? Ecol Econ 70:1797–1804. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. experiments in Germany and Denmark. Eur J Agron 29:191– ecole con. 2011. 05. 005 199. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. eja. 2008. 06. 001 Bright JA, Morris AJ, Winspear R (2008) A review of indirect effects Delbridge TA, Fernholz C, King RP, Lazarus W (2013) A whole- of pesticides on birds and mitigating land-management prac- farm profitability analysis of organic and conventional cropping tices, Bedfordshire. https:// ww2. rspb. or g. uk/ Imag es/ br ight_ systems. Agric Syst 122:1–10. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agsy. mo r r is _wi ns pe ar _t cm 9-1 92 45 7.pd f. Accessed 7 December 20222013. 07. 007 Bürger J, Gerowitt B (2009) Anwendungsmuster von Pflanzens- de Ponti T, Rijk B, van Ittersum MK (2012) The crop yield gap chutzmitteln in Winterweizen und Winterraps. Gesunde Pflanz between organic and conventional agriculture. Agric Syst 61:11–17. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10343- 009- 0200-3 108:1–9. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agsy. 2011. 12. 004 Bürger J, de Mol F, Gerowitt B (2012) Influence of cropping system de Souza Filho HM, Young T, Burton MP (1999) Factors influencing factors on pesticide use intensity – a multivariate analysis of the adoption of sustainable agricultural technologies: evidence on-farm data in North East Germany. Eur J Agron 40:54–63. from the state of Espìrito Santo, Brazil. Technol Forecast Soc https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. eja. 2012. 02. 008 Change:97–112. https://d oi.o rg/1 0.1 016/S 0040-1 625(98)0 0040-7 Büschbell T, Hoffmann GM (1992) Die Effekte unterschiedlicher European Food Safety Authority, Medina-Pastor P, Triacchini G N-Versorgung auf die epidemiologische Entwicklung von (2020) The 2018 European Union report on pesticide residues in Krankheitserregern in Winterweizen und deren Bekämpfung / food. EFSA J 18:103. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2903/j. efsa. 2020. 6057 The effects of different nitrogen regimes on the epidemiological Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection development of pathogens on winter wheat and their control. J (2013) National action plan on sustainable use of plant protec- Plant Dis Prot 99:381–403 tion products. www. bmelv. de. Accessed 2 November 2022 Carpentier A, Reboud X (2018) Why farmers consider pesticides the Fess TL, Kotcon JB, Benedito VA (2011) Crop breeding for low ultimate in crop protection: economic and behavioral insights. input agriculture: a sustainable response to feed a growing Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Colum- world population. Sustainability 3:1742–1772. https:// doi. org/ bia 277528, International Association of Agricultural Econo-10. 3390/ su310 1742 mists. https:// doi. org/ 10. 22004/ ag. econ. 27752 Foley JA, Ramankutty N, Brauman KA, Cassidy ES, Gerber JS, Cellier V, Berthier A, Colnenne-David C, Darras S, Deytieux V, Johnston M, Mueller ND, O’Connell C, Ray DK, West PC, Savoie A, Aubertot J-N (2018) Évaluation multicritère de Balzer C, Bennett EM, Carpenter SR, Hill J, Monfreda C, systèmes de culture zéro-pesticides en grande culture et poly- Polasky S, Rockström J, Sheehan J, Siebert S, Tilman D, Zaks culture-élevage (Réseau Rés0Pest). Innov agron 70:273–289. DPM (2011) Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478:337– https:// doi. org/ 10. 15454/ y8fy5s 342. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ natur e10452 Chèze B, David M, Martinet V (2020) Understanding farmers’ reluc- Gilbert N (2009) Environment: the disappearing nutrient. Nature tance to reduce pesticide use: a choice experiment. Ecol Econ 461:716–713. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ 46171 6a 167:106349. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ecole con. 2019. 06. 004 Hossard L, Philibert A, Bertrand M, Colnenne-David C, Debaeke P, Chikowo R, Faloya V, Petit S, Munier-Jolain NM (2009) Integrated Munier-Jolain N, Jeuffroy MH, Richard G, Makowski D (2014) weed management systems allow reduced reliance on herbicides Effects of halving pesticide use on wheat production. Sci Rep and long-term weed control. Agric Ecosyst Environ 132:237– 4. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ srep0 4405 242. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agee. 2009. 04. 009 Huber D, Römheld V, Weinmann M (2012) Relationship between Claupein W (1993) Stickstoffdüngung und chemischer Pflanzens- nutrition, plant diseases and pests. Marschner’s Mineral Nutri- chutz in einem Dauerfeldversuch und die Ertragsgesetze von tion of Higher Plants (Third Edition) 3:283–298 LIEBIG, LIEBSCHER, WOLLNY und MITSCHERLlCH. J Iyer P, Bozzola M, Hirsch S, Meraner M, Finger R (2020) Measuring Agron Crop Sci 171:102–113 farmer risk preferences in Europe: a systematic review. J Agric Colnenne-David C, Doré T (2015) Designing innovative productive Econ 71:3–26. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 1477- 9552. 12325 cropping systems with quantified and ambitious environmental Jacquet F, Butault J-P, Guichard L (2011) An economic analysis of the goals. Renew Agric Food Syst 30:487–502. https:// doi. org/ 10. possibility of reducing pesticides in French field crops. Ecol Econ 1017/ S1742 17051 40003 13 70:1638–1648. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ecole con. 2011. 04. 003 1 3 On the effects that motivate pesticide use in perspective of designing a cropping system without… Page 21 of 22 24 Jacquet F, Jeuffroy M-H, Jouan J, Le Cadre E, Litrico I, Malausa T, Mäder P, Fliessbach A, Dubois D, Gunst L, Fried P, Niggli U (2002) Reboud X, Huyghe C (2022) Pesticide-free agriculture as a new Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science paradigm for research. Agron Sustain Dev 42. https:// doi. org/ 10. 296:1694–1697. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1126/ scien ce. 10711 48 1007/ s13593- 021- 00742-8 Meissle M, Mouron P, Musa T, Bigler F, Pons X, Vasileiadis VP, Otto Jahn M, Wagner C, Moll E, Pallutt B (2010) Auftreten und Bekämp- S, Antichi D, Kiss J, Pálinkás Z, Dorner Z, van der Weide R, fung von Krankheiten in Wintergetreide in einem Dauerfeldver- Groten J, Czembor E, Adamczyk J, Thibord J-B, Melander B, such auf dem Versuchsfeld Dahnsdorf. J Kulturpflanzen 62:248– Nielsen GC, Poulsen RT, Zimmermann O, Verschwele A, Old- 258. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5073/ JfK. 2010. 07. 03 enburg E (2010) Pests, pesticide use and alternative options in Janker J, Mann S (2020) Understanding the social dimension of sus- European maize production: current status and future prospects. J tainability in agriculture: a critical review of sustainability assess- Appl Entomol 134:357–375. https://doi. or g/10. 1111/j. 1439- 0418. ment tools. Environ Dev Sustain 22:1671–1691. https:// doi. org/ 2009. 01491.x 10. 1007/ s10668- 018- 0282-0 Melander B, Munier-Jolain N, Charles R, Wirth J, Schwarz J, van der Kaiser A, Burger P (2022) Understanding diversity in farmers’ routi- Weide R, Bonin L, Jensen PK, Kudsk P (2013) European per- nized crop protection practices. J Rural Stud 89:149–160. https:// spectives on the adoption of nonchemical weed management in doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jrurs tud. 2021. 12. 002 reduced-tillage systems for arable crops. Weed Technol 27:231– Kavita DM, SinghBabita, S (2018) Measuring impacts of fertilizers and 240. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1614/ WT-D- 12- 00066.1 pesticides on the agricultural production. Indian J Health Well- Meyer-Aurich A, Karatay YN (2019) Effects of uncertainty and farm- Being 9:895–899 ers’ risk aversion on optimal N fertilizer supply in wheat pro- Knapp S, van der Heijden MGA (2018) A global meta-analysis of yield duction in Germany. Agric Syst 173:130–139. https:// doi. org/ 10. stability in organic and conservation agriculture. Nat Commun 1016/j. agsy. 2019. 02. 010 9:3632. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s41467- 018- 05956-1 Meyer-Aurich A, Gandorfer M, Gerl G, Kainz M (2009) Tillage and Kolbe H (2006) Fruchtfolgegestaltung im ökologischen und extensiven fertilizer effects on yield, profitability, and risk in a corn-wheat- Landbau: Bewertung von Vorfruchtwirkungen. Pflanzenbauwiss potato-wheat rotation. Agron J 101:1538–1547. https:// doi. org/ 10:82–8910. 2134/ agron j2008. 0126x Lamichhane JR, Arendse W, Dachbrodt-Saaydeh S, Kudsk P, Roman Möhring N, Finger R (2022) Pesticide-free but not organic: adoption JC, van Bijsterveldt-Gels JE, Wick M, Messéan A (2015) Chal- of a large-scale wheat production standard in Switzerland. Food lenges and opportunities for integrated pest management in Policy 106. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. foodp ol. 2021. 102188 Europe: a telling example of minor uses. Crop Prot 74:42–47. Möhring N, Dalhaus T, Enjolras G, Finger R (2020) Crop insurance https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cropro. 2015. 04. 005 and pesticide use in European agriculture. Agric Syst 184. https:// Lamichhane JR, Dachbrodt-Saaydeh S, Kudsk P, Messéan A (2016) doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agsy. 2020. 102902 Toward a reduced reliance on conventional pesticides in Euro- Moss S (2019) Integrated weed management (IWM): why are farmers pean agriculture. Plant Dis 100:10–24. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1094/ reluctant to adopt non-chemical alternatives to herbicides? Pest PDIS- 05- 15- 0574- FE Manag Sci 75:1205–1211. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ ps. 5267 Lamine C (2011) Transition pathways towards a robust ecologization of Nave S, Jacquet F, Jeuffroy M-H (2013) Why wheat farmers could agriculture and the need for system redesign. Cases from organic reduce chemical inputs: evidence from social, economic, and farming and IPM. J Rural Stud 27:209–219. https:// doi. org/ 10. agronomic analysis. Agron Sustain Dev 33:795–807. https:// doi. 1016/j. jrurs tud. 2011. 02. 001org/ 10. 1007/ s13593- 013- 0144-y Lamine C, Barbiera M, Blanc J, Buurma J, Haynes I, Lehota J, Marac- Noleppa S, von Witzke H (2013) Der gesamtgesellschaftliche Nutzen cini E, Noe E, Paratte R, Szabo Z, Wierzbicka A (2010) Reducing von Pflanzenschutz in Deutschland. https:// pflan zensc huetz er. ch/ the dependence on pesticides: a matter of transitions within the wp-c onten t/u pload s/N olepp a-2 013-I VA-B rosch%C 3%B Cre-g esel whole agri‐food system, 9th European IFSA Symposium. https:// lscha ftlic her- Nutzen- PSM. pdf. Accessed 2 November 2022 hal. inrae. fr/ hal- 02757 881. Accessed 8 December 2020 Oerke E-C (2006) Crop losses to pests. J Agric Sci 144:31–43. https:// Lammoglia S-K, Kennedy MC, Barriuso E, Alletto L, Justes E, doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S0021 85960 50057 08 Munier-Jolain N, Mamy L (2017) Assessing human health risks Oerke E-C, Dehne H-W (2004) Safeguarding production—losses in from pesticide use in conventional and innovative cropping sys- major crops and the role of crop protection. Crop Prot 23:275– tems with the BROWSE model. Environ Int 105:66–78. https:// 285. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cropro. 2003. 10. 001 doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. envint. 2017. 04. 012 Olesen JE, Jorgensen LN, Petersen J, Mortensen JV (2003a) Effects of Lechenet M, Bretagnolle V, Bockstaller C, Boissinot F, Petit M-S, rate and timing of nitrogen fertilizer on disease control by fungi- Petit S, Munier-Jolain NM (2014) Reconciling pesticide reduc- cides in winter wheat. 1. Grain yield and foliar disease control. J tion with economic and environmental sustainability in arable Agric Sci 140:1–13. https://doi. or g/10. 1017/ S0021 85960 20028 85 farming. PLoS One 9:e97922. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. Olesen JE, Jorgensen LN, Petersen J, Mortensen JV (2003b) Effects of pone. 00979 22 rates and timing of nitrogen fertilizer on disease control by fungi- Lechenet M, Dessaint F, Py G, Makowski D, Munier-Jolain N (2017) cides in winter wheat. 2. Crop growth and disease development. Reducing pesticide use while preserving crop productivity and J Agric Sci:15–29. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S0021 85960 20028 97 profitability on arable farms. Nat Plants 3:17008. https:// doi. org/ Pardo G, Riravololona M, Munier-Jolain NM (2010) Using a farming 10. 1038/ nplan ts. 2017.8 system model to evaluate cropping system prototypes: are labour Le Bail M, Magrini M-B, Fares M, Messean A, Charlier A, Charrier F, constraints and economic performances hampering the adoption Meynard JM (2014) How to break out the lock-in on crop diversi- of integrated weed management? Eur J Agron 33:24–32. https:// fication in France?, 11th European IFSA Symposium. https://hal. doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. eja. 2010. 02. 003 archi ves- ouver tes. fr/ hal- 01173 316. Accessed 8 December 2022 Pimentel D, Hepperly P, Hanson J, Douds D, Seidel R (2005) Envi- Macholdt J, Piepho H-P, Honermeier B (2019) Does fertilization ronmental, energetic, and economic comparisons of organic impact production risk and yield stability across an entire crop and conventional farming systems. Bioscience 55:573–582. rotation? Insights from a long-term experiment. Field Crops Res https://doi. or g/10. 1641/ 0006- 3568(2005) 055[0573: EEAEC O] 238:82–92. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. fcr. 2019. 04. 0142.0. CO;2 1 3 24 Page 22 of 22 I. Pergner, C. Lippert Pimentel D, Acquay H, Biltonen M, Rice P, Silva M, Nelson J, Lipner Sud M (2020) Managing the biodiversity impacts of fertiliser and pes- V, Giordano S, Horowitz A, D´Amore M (1992) Environmental ticide use: overview and insights from trends and policies across and economic costs of pesticide use. Bioscience 42(10):750–760 selected OECD countries: OECD environment working papers no. Priestley R (1981) Fungicide treatment increases yield of cereal cul- 155. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1787/ 63942 249- en tivars by reducing disease and delaying senescence1. EPPO Bull Tamm L, Speiser B, Niggli U (2018) Reduktion von Pflanzenschutz- 11:357–363 mitteln in der Schweiz: Beitrag des Biolandbaus. Agrarforschung Roberts TL (2009) The role of fertilizer in growing the world’s food. Schweiz 9:52–59 Better Crops 93:12–15 Tilman D (1999) Global environmental impacts of agricultural expan- Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson A, Chapin FS, Lambin EF, sion: the need for sustainable and efficient practices. Proc Natl Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, Nykvist B, de Acad Sci U S A 96:5995–6000. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1073/ pnas. 96. Wit CA, Hughes T, van der Leeuw S, Rodhe H, Sörlin S, Snyder 11. 5995 PK, Costanza R, Svedin U, Falkenmark M, Karlberg L, Corell Utai K, Narjes M, Krimly T, Lippert C (2022) Farmers’ preferences RW, Fabry VJ, Hansen J, Walker B, Liverman D, Richardson K, for fertilizers derived from domestic sewage and kitchen waste Crutzen P, Foley JA (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. – a discrete choice experiment in Germany. Ger J Agric Econ Nature 461:472–475. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ 46147 2a 71(169):183. https:// doi. org/ 10. 30430/ gjae. 2022. 0235 Russel DA, Williams GG (1977) History of chemical fertilizer develop- Walters DR, Bingham IJ (2007) Influence of nutrition on disease devel- ment. Soil Sci Soc Am J 41:260–265 opment caused by fungal pathogens: implications for plant disease Sanders J, Heß J (2019) Leistungen des ökologischen Landbaus für control. Ann Appl Biol 151:307–324. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. Umwelt und Gesellschaft. Johann Heinrich Von Thünen-Institut. 1744- 7348. 2007. 00176.x https:// doi. org/ 10. 3220/ REP15 47040 572000 Wilson C, Tisdell C (2001) Why farmers continue to use pesticides Savci S (2012) An agricultural pollutant: chemical fertilizer. J Environ despite environmental, health and sustainability costs. Ecol Econ Sci Dev 3:77–80. https:// doi. org/ 10. 7763/ IJESD. 2012. V3. 191 449:462. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0921- 8009(01) 00238-5 Schwarz J, Klocke B, Wagner C, Krengel S (2018) Untersuchungen Wood S, Sebastian KL, Scherr SJ (2000) Pilot analysis of global eco- zum notwendigen Maß bei der Anwendung von Pflanzenschutz- systems: agroecosystems. International Food Policy Research mitteln in Winterweizen in den Jahren 2004 bis 2016. Gesunde Institute and World Resources Institute Washington, DC Pflanz. 70:119–127. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10343- 018- 0422-3 Worzewski T (2022) „Wir können nicht in der Bioblase vor uns her Seufert V, Ramankutty N, Foley JA (2012) Comparing the yields träumen“. Ein Pionier des Ökoanbaus erklärt, warum Lösungen of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature 485:229–232. für die Ernährungskrise nicht mehr warten können – und die Gen- https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ natur e11069 schere dafür benötigt wird. https:// www. faz. net/ aktue ll/ wissen/ Seufert V (2019) Comparing yields: organic versus conventional gente chnik- und- oekoa nbau- agrar wisse nscha ftler- im- inter view- agriculture. In: Encyclopedia of Food Security and Sustainabil-17779 173. html. Accessed 14 February 2022 ity: Volume 3: Sustainable Food Systems and Agriculture, pp. Wuepper D, Roleff N, Finger R (2021) Does it matter who advises 169–208 farmers? Pest management choices with public and private exten- Sexton SE (2007) The economics of pesticides and pest control. Int sion. Food Policy 99:101995. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. foodp ol. Rev Environ Resour Econ 1:271–326. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1561/ 2020. 101995 101. 00000 007 Zhang Q, Dong W, Wen C, Li T (2020) Study on factors affecting Sharma A, Kumar V, Shahzad B, Tanveer M, Sidhu GPS, Handa N, corn yield based on the Cobb-Douglas production function. Agric Kohli SK, Yadav P, Bali AS, Parihar RD, Dar OI, Singh K, Jasro- Water Manag 228. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agwat. 2019. 105869 tia S, Bakshi P, Ramakrishnan M, Kumar S, Bhardwaj R, Thukral Zimmermann B, Claß-Mahler I, Cossel M von, Lewandowski I, Weik AK (2019) Worldwide pesticide usage and its impacts on ecosys- J, Spiller A, Nitzko S, Lippert C, Krimly T, Pergner I, Zörb C, tem. SN Appl Sci 1. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s42452- 019- 1485-1 Wimmer MA, Dier M, Schurr FM, Pagel J, Riemenschneider A, Sheriff G (2005) Efficient waste? why farmers over-apply nutrients and Kehlenbeck H, Feike T, Klocke B, Lieb R, Kühne S, Krengel- the implications for policy design. Rev Agric Econ 27:542–557. Horney S, Gitzel J, El-Hasan A, Thomas S, Rieker M, Schmid K, https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1467- 9353. 2005. 00263.x Streck T, Ingwersen J, Ludewig U, Neumann G, Maywald N, Mül- Skevas T, Stefanou SE, Oude Lansink A (2014) Pesticide use, envi- ler T, Bradáčová K, Göbel M, Kandeler E, Marhan S, Schuster R, ronmental spillovers and efficiency: a DEA risk-adjusted effi- Griepentrog H-W, Reiser D, Stana A, Graeff-Hönninger S, Munz ciency approach applied to Dutch arable farming. Eur J Oper Res S, Otto D, Gerhards R, Saile M, Hermann W, Schwarz J, Frank 237:658–664. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ejor. 2014. 01. 046 M, Kruse M, Piepho H-P, Rosenkranz P, Wallner K, Zikeli S, Stein-Bachinger K, Gottwald F, Haub A, Schmidt E (2021) To what Petschenka G, Schönleber N, Vögele RT, Bahrs E (2021) Mineral- extent does organic farming promote species richness and abun- ecological cropping systems—a new approach to improve ecosys- dance in temperate climates? A review. Org Agr 11:1–12. https:// tem services by farming without chemical synthetic plant protec- doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s13165- 020- 00279-2 tion. Agronomy 11. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ agron omy11 091710 Stewart WM, Roberts TL (2012) Food security and the role of fertilizer in supporting it. Procedia Eng 46:76–82. https://doi. or g/10. 1016/j. Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to proeng. 2012. 09. 448 jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 1 3

Journal

Agronomy for Sustainable Development – Springer Journals

Published: Apr 1, 2023

Keywords: Innovative cropping systems; Comparison; Sustainability; Pesticide-free agriculture

References

Pesticide use and application: an Indian scenario

Abhilash, PC; Singh, N
Pesticides, productivity, and farmer health: a Philippine case study

Antle, JM; Pingali, PL
Could society’s willingness to reduce pesticide use be aligned with farmers' economic self-interest?

Boussemart, J-P; Leleu, H; Ojo, O
Anwendungsmuster von Pflanzenschutzmitteln in Winterweizen und Winterraps

Bürger, J; Gerowitt, B
Influence of cropping system factors on pesticide use intensity – a multivariate analysis of on-farm data in North East Germany

Bürger, J; de Mol, F; Gerowitt, B
Die Effekte unterschiedlicher N-Versorgung auf die epidemiologische Entwicklung von Krankheitserregern in Winterweizen und deren Bekämpfung / The effects of different nitrogen regimes on the epidemiological development of pathogens on winter wheat and their control

Büschbell, T; Hoffmann, GM
Évaluation multicritère de systèmes de culture zéro-pesticides en grande culture et polyculture-élevage (Réseau Rés0Pest)

Cellier, V; Berthier, A; Colnenne-David, C; Darras, S; Deytieux, V; Savoie, A; Aubertot, J-N
Understanding farmers’ reluctance to reduce pesticide use: a choice experiment

Chèze, B; David, M; Martinet, V
Integrated weed management systems allow reduced reliance on herbicides and long-term weed control

Chikowo, R; Faloya, V; Petit, S; Munier-Jolain, NM
Stickstoffdüngung und chemischer Pflanzenschutz in einem Dauerfeldversuch und die Ertragsgesetze von LIEBIG, LIEBSCHER, WOLLNY und MITSCHERLlCH

Claupein, W
Designing innovative productive cropping systems with quantified and ambitious environmental goals

Colnenne-David, C; Doré, T
Ambitious environmental and economic goals for the future of agriculture are unequally achieved by innovative cropping systems

Colnenne-David, C; Grandeau, G; Jeuffroy, M-H; Dore, T
Organic agriculture and food security: a decade of unreason finally implodes

Connor, DJ
The benefits of pesticides to mankind and the environment

Cooper, J; Dobson, H
Pesticide use and farm worker health in Ecuadorian potato production

Crissman, CC; Cole, DC; Carpio, F
Netz Vergleichsbetriebe Pflanzenschutz : Jahresbericht 2017; Analyse der Ergebnisse der Jahre 2007 bis 2017

Dachbrodt-Saaydeh, S; Sellmann, J; Schwarz, J; Klocke, B; Krengel, S; Kehlenbeck, H
Long-term productivity and environmental effects of arable farming as affected by crop rotation, soil tillage intensity and strategy of pesticide use: a case-study of two long-term field experiments in Germany and Denmark

Deike, S; Pallutt, B; Melander, B; Strassemeyer, J; Christen, O
A whole-farm profitability analysis of organic and conventional cropping systems

Delbridge, TA; Fernholz, C; King, RP; Lazarus, W
The crop yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture

de Ponti, T; Rijk, B; van Ittersum, MK
The 2018 European Union report on pesticide residues in food

Medina-Pastor, P; Triacchini, G
Crop breeding for low input agriculture: a sustainable response to feed a growing world population

Fess, TL; Kotcon, JB; Benedito, VA
Solutions for a cultivated planet

Foley, JA; Ramankutty, N; Brauman, KA; Cassidy, ES; Gerber, JS; Johnston, M; Mueller, ND; O'Connell, C; Ray, DK; West, PC; Balzer, C; Bennett, EM; Carpenter, SR; Hill, J; Monfreda, C; Polasky, S; Rockström, J; Sheehan, J; Siebert, S; Tilman, D; Zaks, DPM
Environment: the disappearing nutrient

Gilbert, N
Measuring farmer risk preferences in Europe: a systematic review

Iyer, P; Bozzola, M; Hirsch, S; Meraner, M; Finger, R
An economic analysis of the possibility of reducing pesticides in French field crops

Jacquet, F; Butault, J-P; Guichard, L
Auftreten und Bekämpfung von Krankheiten in Wintergetreide in einem Dauerfeldversuch auf dem Versuchsfeld Dahnsdorf

Jahn, M; Wagner, C; Moll, E; Pallutt, B
Understanding the social dimension of sustainability in agriculture: a critical review of sustainability assessment tools

Janker, J; Mann, S
Understanding diversity in farmers’ routinized crop protection practices

Kaiser, A; Burger, P
Measuring impacts of fertilizers and pesticides on the agricultural production

Kavita, DM; SinghBabita,, S
A global meta-analysis of yield stability in organic and conservation agriculture

Knapp, S; van der Heijden, MGA
Fruchtfolgegestaltung im ökologischen und extensiven Landbau: Bewertung von Vorfruchtwirkungen

Kolbe, H
Challenges and opportunities for integrated pest management in Europe: a telling example of minor uses

Lamichhane, JR; Arendse, W; Dachbrodt-Saaydeh, S; Kudsk, P; Roman, JC; van Bijsterveldt-Gels, JE; Wick, M; Messéan, A
Toward a reduced reliance on conventional pesticides in European agriculture

Lamichhane, JR; Dachbrodt-Saaydeh, S; Kudsk, P; Messéan, A
Transition pathways towards a robust ecologization of agriculture and the need for system redesign. Cases from organic farming and IPM

Lamine, C
Assessing human health risks from pesticide use in conventional and innovative cropping systems with the BROWSE model

Lammoglia, S-K; Kennedy, MC; Barriuso, E; Alletto, L; Justes, E; Munier-Jolain, N; Mamy, L
Reconciling pesticide reduction with economic and environmental sustainability in arable farming

Lechenet, M; Bretagnolle, V; Bockstaller, C; Boissinot, F; Petit, M-S; Petit, S; Munier-Jolain, NM
Reducing pesticide use while preserving crop productivity and profitability on arable farms

Lechenet, M; Dessaint, F; Py, G; Makowski, D; Munier-Jolain, N
Does fertilization impact production risk and yield stability across an entire crop rotation? Insights from a long-term experiment

Macholdt, J; Piepho, H-P; Honermeier, B
Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming

Mäder, P; Fliessbach, A; Dubois, D; Gunst, L; Fried, P; Niggli, U
Pests, pesticide use and alternative options in European maize production: current status and future prospects

Meissle, M; Mouron, P; Musa, T; Bigler, F; Pons, X; Vasileiadis, VP; Otto, S; Antichi, D; Kiss, J; Pálinkás, Z; Dorner, Z; van der Weide, R; Groten, J; Czembor, E; Adamczyk, J; Thibord, J-B; Melander, B; Nielsen, GC; Poulsen, RT; Zimmermann, O; Verschwele, A; Oldenburg, E
European perspectives on the adoption of nonchemical weed management in reduced-tillage systems for arable crops

Melander, B; Munier-Jolain, N; Charles, R; Wirth, J; Schwarz, J; van der Weide, R; Bonin, L; Jensen, PK; Kudsk, P
Effects of uncertainty and farmers’ risk aversion on optimal N fertilizer supply in wheat production in Germany

Meyer-Aurich, A; Karatay, YN
Tillage and fertilizer effects on yield, profitability, and risk in a corn-wheat-potato-wheat rotation

Meyer-Aurich, A; Gandorfer, M; Gerl, G; Kainz, M
Integrated weed management (IWM): why are farmers reluctant to adopt non-chemical alternatives to herbicides?

Moss, S
Why wheat farmers could reduce chemical inputs: evidence from social, economic, and agronomic analysis

Nave, S; Jacquet, F; Jeuffroy, M-H
Crop losses to pests

Oerke, E-C
Safeguarding production—losses in major crops and the role of crop protection

Oerke, E-C; Dehne, H-W
Effects of rate and timing of nitrogen fertilizer on disease control by fungicides in winter wheat. 1. Grain yield and foliar disease control

Olesen, JE; Jorgensen, LN; Petersen, J; Mortensen, JV
Using a farming system model to evaluate cropping system prototypes: are labour constraints and economic performances hampering the adoption of integrated weed management?

Pardo, G; Riravololona, M; Munier-Jolain, NM
Environmental, energetic, and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems

Pimentel, D; Hepperly, P; Hanson, J; Douds, D; Seidel, R
Fungicide treatment increases yield of cereal cultivars by reducing disease and delaying senescence1

Priestley, R
The role of fertilizer in growing the world’s food

Roberts, TL
A safe operating space for humanity

Rockström, J; Steffen, W; Noone, K; Persson, A; Chapin, FS; Lambin, EF; Lenton, TM; Scheffer, M; Folke, C; Schellnhuber, HJ; Nykvist, B; de Wit, CA; Hughes, T; van der Leeuw, S; Rodhe, H; Sörlin, S; Snyder, PK; Costanza, R; Svedin, U; Falkenmark, M; Karlberg, L; Corell, RW; Fabry, VJ; Hansen, J; Walker, B; Liverman, D; Richardson, K; Crutzen, P; Foley, JA
History of chemical fertilizer development

Russel, DA; Williams, GG
Leistungen des ökologischen Landbaus für Umwelt und Gesellschaft

Sanders, J; Heß, J
An agricultural pollutant: chemical fertilizer

Savci, S
Untersuchungen zum notwendigen Maß bei der Anwendung von Pflanzenschutzmitteln in Winterweizen in den Jahren 2004 bis 2016

Schwarz, J; Klocke, B; Wagner, C; Krengel, S
Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture

Seufert, V; Ramankutty, N; Foley, JA
The economics of pesticides and pest control

Sexton, SE
Efficient waste? why farmers over-apply nutrients and the implications for policy design

Sheriff, G
Pesticide use, environmental spillovers and efficiency: a DEA risk-adjusted efficiency approach applied to Dutch arable farming

Skevas, T; Stefanou, SE; Oude Lansink, A
To what extent does organic farming promote species richness and abundance in temperate climates? A review

Stein-Bachinger, K; Gottwald, F; Haub, A; Schmidt, E
Food security and the role of fertilizer in supporting it

Stewart, WM; Roberts, TL
Reduktion von Pflanzenschutzmitteln in der Schweiz: Beitrag des Biolandbaus

Tamm, L; Speiser, B; Niggli, U
Global environmental impacts of agricultural expansion: the need for sustainable and efficient practices

Tilman, D
Farmers’ preferences for fertilizers derived from domestic sewage and kitchen waste – a discrete choice experiment in Germany

Utai, K; Narjes, M; Krimly, T; Lippert, C
Influence of nutrition on disease development caused by fungal pathogens: implications for plant disease control

Walters, DR; Bingham, IJ
Why farmers continue to use pesticides despite environmental, health and sustainability costs

Wilson, C; Tisdell, C

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

On the effects that motivate pesticide use in perspective of designing a cropping system without pesticides but with mineral fertilizer—a review

On the effects that motivate pesticide use in perspective of designing a cropping system without pesticides but with mineral fertilizer—a review

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

On the effects that motivate pesticide use in perspective of designing a cropping system without pesticides but with mineral fertilizer—a review

On the effects that motivate pesticide use in perspective of designing a cropping system without pesticides but with mineral fertilizer—a review

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

References

Our policy towards the use of cookies