Restrict certain pesticides

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 2
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

50%
Certainty

5%
Harms

not assessed

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Certain agricultural pesticides and chemicals may have detrimental effects on farmland wildlife. This intervention involves restricting the use of certain chemicals either by using less harmful alternatives or limiting the extent of their use.

See also: ‘Reduce fertilizer, pesticide and herbicide use generally’.

Study locations

Key messages

A small scale study in the UK found that using the fungicides Propiconazole and Triadimefon reduced chick food insect abundance less than using Pyrazophos. A replicated, controlled trial in Switzerland found that applying metaldehyde slug pellets in a 50 cm band along the field edge adjacent to wildflower strips provided equivalent crop protection to broadcasting the pellets across the whole field.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A small scale study in 1984-1985 of cereal fields treated with foliar fungicides (fungicides for fungal leaf diseases) in the UK (Sotherton & Rands 1987) found that chick food insect abundance was reduced to a greater extent following applications of Pyrazophos compared to other fungicides. Compared to untreated crops, chick food insects were reduced by 31-70% in crops treated with Pyrazophos, 10% with Propiconazole and 3% with Triadimefon applications. The effect of Pyrazophos was greater when applied to crops at an earlier growth stage (GS) (GS37: 70% reduction in chick food insects, GS50: 45%, GS60: 31%). Following Pyrazophos applications, total predatory arthropods were reduced by 25-48%, aphid-specific predators 35-84% (17% with Triadimefon) and parasitoids 34-55%. Fungicides were sprayed at GS50 in winter wheat in 1984. Pyrazophos was also sprayed at GS60 in spring barley (1984) and GS37 in winter barley (1985). Chick food insects were sampled by sweep nets or suction sampling.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Sotherton N.W. & Rands M.R.W. (1987) Pesticide science and biotechnology. Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of Pesticide Chemistry. Ottawa, Canada, 10-15 August 1986, 433-436.
A replicated, controlled trial of slug (class: Gastropoda) control techniques in autumn 1996 in two oilseed rape Brassica napus arable fields near Bern, Switzerland (Friedli & Frank 1998), found that metaldehyde pellets applied in a 50 cm band alongside wildflower strips provided equivalent crop protection to broadcasting pellets across the entire field. Untreated control plots suffered severe crop damage. Slug sampling showed that Arion lusitanicus caused the majority of damage in plots 1 m from wildflower strips. The treatments trialled were broadcasting pellets across the entire plot at a density of 10 kg/ha, 50 cm of pellets alongside wildflower strips at 20 kg/ha and at 40 kg/ha, and control plots with no metaldehyde applied. Slugs were sampled on eight nights using bait stations.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Friedli J. & Frank T. (1998) Reduced applications of metaldehyde pellets for reliable control of the slug pests Arion lusitanicus and Deroceras reticulatum in oilseed rape adjacent to sown wildflower strips. Journal of Applied Ecology, 35, 504-513.

Please cite as:

Dicks, L.V., Ashpole, J.E., Dänhardt, J., James, K., Jönsson, A., Randall, N., Showler, D.A., Smith, R.K., Turpie, S., Williams, D.R. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Farmland Conservation. Pages 283-321 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Farmland Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Restrict certain pesticides Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	2	Synopsis Link
Buffer in-field ponds Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Reduce fertilizer, pesticide or herbicide use generally Action Link	Beneficial	47	Synopsis Link