Objetivo
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Why a new action on Biological Control of Weeds in Europe?
During the past four decades, weed research has been oriented strongly towards herbicide use, which has partially contributed to the decline of good husbandry practices and almost complete dependence on herbicide use in European agriculture. Yield has been greatly increased during this period, but subsequent difficulties in controlling problem weeds, and increasing environmental contamination have obliged governmental authorities in many European countries to impose severe limitations on herbicide use. Satisfactory alternative control methods, however, are not yet generally available.
Biological control of weeds - the deliberate use of natural enemies and pathogens to reduce the population density of a target weed below its economic injury level - has traditionally been used, with some spectacular successes against weeds in pastures and aquatic habitats. Recently, fungal pathogens have been developed, registered and marketed as inundative control agents, i.e. mycoherbicides. They can be used in combination with other pesticides and mainly have been developed to control weeds in crops.
Up to now, most European researchers have been involved in biological control projects against plants of European origin, that have become problems elsewhere ("classical" or inoculative approach). The main Institutes and Organizations involved in such studies are IIBC (International Institute of Biological Control), United Kingdom and Switzerland; CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) and USDA-ARS (United States Department of Agriculture - Agricultural Research Service), France and ETHZ (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zrich), Switzerland. Very few and only regional projects have been set up to study the potential for biological control of weeds in Europe. Only one current research programme using the classical approach, the biological control project on bracken (Pteridium aquilinum) in the UK, is at an advanced stage. Recently, an application has been made to the UK Department of the Environment for the release of the noctuid moth Conservula cinisigna, and a further application is planned for a second moth species. With regard to the inundative approach, work has been mainly concentrated on the use of endemic fungi, due to regulatory problems for introducing foreign agents. In the Netherlands registration of a mycoherbicide (Chondrostereum purpureum) for the control of Prunus spp. in forests was applied for in 1991. Several projects are also well underway at the Long Ashton Research Station, Bristol, United Kingdom. Hence, great interest has been expressed repeatedly in co-ordinating activities on biological weed control in Europe by members of the Working Group on "Biological Control of Weeds", a main subject area of the "European Weed Research Society" (EWRS).
Biological control offers an environmentally benign weed control strategy and has an excellent track record for safety, efficacy and cost efficiency. It is a strategy which is basic to integrated pest management programmes.
1.2. Reasons for carrying out this new Action in the framework of COST co-operation
- Although most European countries are nowadays faced with the need for pesticide reductions, satisfactory alternatives have not yet been developed. Co-operation to avoid duplication in research on biological control and to extend the range of ecological conditions studied is essential.
- Herbicide resistance is being reported increasingly from most European countries, illustrating well the need for concerted actions to develop new control strategies.
- Few scientific undertakings are more interdisciplinary and international than biological control of weeds. Many weed species are widespread and biological control strategy involves the exchange of their natural enemies. International co-operation is therefore a prerequisite.
- Biological control projects require long term research and only co-operative, concerted efforts allow effective completion of projects within a reasonable period of time.
- Biological control (especially the classical approach) is akin to provision of a public or collective good. As only a small fraction of its economic benefits can generally be recouped by the providers (those who introduce and/or release the agents), public funding is needed, at least at the beginning of the programmes. Its benefits can easily be shared among most European countries.
- The Action complements related ongoing international programmes, especially the EC Framework Programmes on "Agricultural and horticultural production systems" and "Input for crop protection". Biological weed control is a basic tool for non- or low-chemical, as well as economically and ecologically sustainable, production systems.
Hence, co-operation through a COST Action provides an ideal framework for co-ordinating research in biological weed control.
2. AIMS OF THE NEW ACTION
2.1. General objectives
- to gather together European institutions which intend to co-operate in investigating the potential of biological weed control in crops;
- to promote a programme for scientific research and exchange. Four principal weed species in European crops, which are economically important and suitable targets for biological control, have been selected for detailed studies. These are 1) Amaranthus species (Amaranthaceae) (A.retroflexus L., A. hybridus L;, A. cruentus L. and A. bouchonii Thell.), 2) Chenopodium album L. (Chenopodiaceae), 3) Convolvulus spp. (C. arvensis L. and C. (Calystegia) sepium L.) (Convolvulaceae) and 4) Senecio vulgaris L. (Asteraceae). The study of the underlying principles of biological weed control, especially investigations on agent-weed population dynamics will be of primary importance. This involves studies on the impact of the agents at the level of
individual plants, populations and communities. So far, research by physiologists and ecologists has been very limited in this area, but a better understanding is greatly needed to render biological control more predictive;
- to draw up a general protocol for biological weed control in Europe, with regard to research procedure, production and commercialisation of bioherbicides, and importation of foreign agents into Europe and their establishment in various European countries.
2.2. Secondary objectives
- to integrate biological control into general weed management strategies. This involves the co-operation of scientists from private industry, universities and research stations working in areas such as plant population biology, genetics, physiology, weed science, agronomy, pathology and entomology, as well as formulation and fermentation chemistry;
- to establish a protocol to resolve potential conflicts of interests. Assessment of the status of a particular plant species may differ between government agencies, pastoral, agricultural and recreational associations, and individuals. In recent decades such conflicts increasingly have entered the legal and political arena. Public responses need to be invited on proposed biological control programmes, in order to allow decisions which are in the common interest;
- to establish a list of further European weed species with potential for biological control, including grass species such a Alopecurus myosuroides Hudson and Bromus sterilis L., and to help to establish new projects.
3. TOPICS FOR INTERDISCIPLINARY CO-OPERATION
Working groups and special meetings may be organized on all the topics listed below, but they should always be concentrated on one or several of the selected target species. Questions on legal and political procedures should, however, be addressed in a more general framework.
A. Target weeds
Based on an extended survey on weed frequency, abundance and economic importance of the most harmful weed species in each of the 10 major crops, covering most (31) European countries, and taking into account the characteristics that are known to be important in determining the suitability for biological control of a given weed species and the approach to apply, the following weed species have been considered as the most suitable targets and have been selected for the initial phase of this project. These target weed species allow application of three different approaches of biological weed control and should be considered as parts of the same project.
1. Amaranthus species (A. retroflexus, A. hybridus, A. cruentus and A. bouchonii). These annuals possibly all originate from South America, but have now an almost global distribution.
Problem in vegetables, vineyards, maize, sugar beet, potatoes, rape and other cruciferous crops, as well as waste land and set-aside land, usually on fertile soils.
Resistant against Atrazine.
Biocontrol strategy: classical and inundative.
2. Convolvulus spp. (C. arvensis and C. (Calystegia) sepium)
These perennials originate from S-Europe/W.-Asia and now have nearly worldwide distribution.
Problem in maize, berries, vineyards, orchards, set-aside land and railway tracks, and other open urban sites.
Biocontrol strategy: inundative (possibly also classical).
3. Chenopodium album
An annual with a nearly worldwide distribution.
Problem in vegetables, especially cruciferous crops, vineyards, maize, sugar beet and potatoes, as well as waste and set-aside land, usually on fertile soils.
Resistant against Atrazine.
Biocontrol strategy: inundative.
4. Senecio vulgaris
An annual of S-European origin, now with global distribution.
Problem in vegetables, summer crops, ornamental and tree seedling nurseries, usually on freshly disturbed sites and on fertile soils.
Resistant against Simazine.
Biocontrol strategy: inundative (possibly also augmentative).
B. Biological control approach
1. Classical approach
2. Inundative approach
3. Cultural approach (augmentation of native agents)
C. Types of biological control agents in study
1. Pathogens
2. Insects
3. Others, i.e. nematodes or mites.
D. Scientific research procedure
Typically the research phase of a biological control programme can be divided into four steps:
1. Studies in problem area (habitat, crop, country of introduction); Background work to establish the present status of the weed and its suitability for biological control; identify transitions in the life cycle of the weed to which equilibrium density is most sensitive, genetic structure of populations and mating systems;
2. Field surveys of the natural enemies attacking the weed (including its native range for exotics), involving the distribution, abundance and herbivore/pathogen load of the agents, as well as their antagonists;
3. Experimental investigation of the genetic structure (variation), detailed life history, host specificity (screening), impact and formulation (for mycoherbicides) of the agents; primary risk assessment and environmental impact studies.
4. Agent release and follow-up studies: Release, distribution/augmentation and monitoring. Careful verification of predicted potential host range after establishment of control agents; integrate biological control into general weed management techniques, develop predictive cumulative stress models including additional agents, cultural control methods and herbicides.
E. Legal and political procedures (general considerations)
1. Establish a protocol, by which conflicts of interest can be resolved;
2. Work on European and national regulations for importation and distribution of biological control agents.
4. DURATION, ORGANISATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE ACTION
The proposed research action will extend over at least 5 years. Although knowledge of the weeds and their natural enemies is partially available, biocontrol programmes are major undertakings that inevitably require long term research.
A detailed timetable, possible formation of projects and responsibilities, frequency of workshops and conferences, as well as arrangements for publication will be discussed and determined during the first meetings of the Management Committee.
5. ECONOMIC DIMENSION OF THE ACTION
The total number of man-years will be 40, which corresponds to around ECU 10 million for the planned five year period of this category B action.
Current status
This COST Action 816 is the result of a Swiss proposal (COST/266/92). The draft MoU has been approved by the Committee of Senior Officials on June 1993, and the MoU has been signed in Brussels on 2 February 1994 by Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Switzerland, The Netherlands, and United Kingdom. The inaugural meeting of the COST 816 Management Committee took place on 21 March 1994. H. Müller-Schärer (CH) was unanimously chosen as Chairman, and P.C. Scheepens (NL) as Vice-Chairman. In the same year, Croatia, Italy, Spain, and Slovakia, signed the MoU, followed in 1995 by Norway, and in 1996 by France and the Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel.
It was decided to form Working Groups around target weeds, and organise workshops on cross-related subject matters. The first Working Group - on Senecio-was established in 1994 (convenor J. Franzen). Three additional Working Group - on Amaranthus (convenor D. Schroeder), Convolvulus (convenor G. Défago), and Chenopodium (convenor P. Scheepens) - became active in 1995. In September 1996, D. Schroeder was replaced by H.-M. Bürki as convenor of the Amaranthus Working Group. In 1996, preparations were made for a fifth Working Group - on Orobanche - which will be established in February 1997.
D. Schroeder was assigned to administer the budget for Short-Term Scientific Missions (STSMs). In 1995, 8 SSTMs were approved by the Management Committee. In 1996, the approval of SSTMs was delegated to an evaluation Committee, consisting of D. Schroeder, Th. Eggers and P. Scheepens. Eleven SSTMs were approved for 1996.
Up to now, the Action has concentrated on basic research into the interactions between the target weeds and their natural antagonists in order to characterise the specific weed problems and potential control agents, and to elaborate the most suitable biological control approach. These have been identified for three of the four target weeds.
The next major challenge is to apply these findings in the development of practical control solutions. Besides these scientific tasks, we will continue to elaborate a general protocol for biological control of weeds in Europe, including the introduction and use of foreign control agents, and to promote better appreciation of the value and safety of this innovative pest control approach for sustainable agriculture.
Programa(s)
Programas de financiación plurianuales que definen las prioridades de la UE en materia de investigación e innovación.
Programas de financiación plurianuales que definen las prioridades de la UE en materia de investigación e innovación.
Tema(s)
Las convocatorias de propuestas se dividen en temas. Un tema define una materia o área específica para la que los solicitantes pueden presentar propuestas. La descripción de un tema comprende su alcance específico y la repercusión prevista del proyecto financiado.
Las convocatorias de propuestas se dividen en temas. Un tema define una materia o área específica para la que los solicitantes pueden presentar propuestas. La descripción de un tema comprende su alcance específico y la repercusión prevista del proyecto financiado.
Convocatoria de propuestas
Procedimiento para invitar a los solicitantes a presentar propuestas de proyectos con el objetivo de obtener financiación de la UE.
Datos no disponibles
Procedimiento para invitar a los solicitantes a presentar propuestas de proyectos con el objetivo de obtener financiación de la UE.
Régimen de financiación
Régimen de financiación (o «Tipo de acción») dentro de un programa con características comunes. Especifica: el alcance de lo que se financia; el porcentaje de reembolso; los criterios específicos de evaluación para optar a la financiación; y el uso de formas simplificadas de costes como los importes a tanto alzado.
Régimen de financiación (o «Tipo de acción») dentro de un programa con características comunes. Especifica: el alcance de lo que se financia; el porcentaje de reembolso; los criterios específicos de evaluación para optar a la financiación; y el uso de formas simplificadas de costes como los importes a tanto alzado.
Datos no disponibles
Coordinador
1700 Fribourg
Suiza
Los costes totales en que ha incurrido esta organización para participar en el proyecto, incluidos los costes directos e indirectos. Este importe es un subconjunto del presupuesto total del proyecto.