Search

Background: Thanks to the changes in aquatic risk assessment within the marketing authorization (MA) process in France, the contamination of surface water through the subsurface drainage network is better accounted for. The measure adopted by risk regulations is to prohibit any use of selected pesticides on drained plots. Herbicide solutions on subsurface-drained plots are becoming scarce due to a limited number of innovations combined with the re-approvals process. Autumn weed management then becomes a major issue for winter cropping systems on drained plots. Unlike runoff prevention, few risk management measures are available to prevent the risks associated with drained plots., Results: We analyzed data from La Jaillière, an ARVALIS experimental site (nine plots, 1993 to 2017), representative of scenario D5 from the EU FOCUS Group, for four herbicides (isoproturon, aclonifen, diflufenican, flufenacet). Our study demonstrates the relevance of the time application management measure by showing the decreasing trend in the transfer of pesticides in drained plots. In addition, it validates, still on the La Jaillière site, the hypothesis of a management measure based on an indicator of soil profile saturation before drainage flow (soil wetness index, SWI)., Conclusions: A conservative measure consisting of restricting pesticide applications during autumn, when the SWI is <85% of saturation, reduces the risk by a factor of 4-12 for quantification above the predicted no-effect concentration and values of maximum or flow weight average concentrations by 70- and 27-fold, ratio of exported pesticide by 20-fold, and total flux by 32. This measure based on SWI threshold appears to be more efficient than those using other restriction factors. SWI can be easily calculated by considering the local weather data and soil properties for any drained field. © 2023 Society of Chemical Industry., (© 2023 Society of Chemical Industry.)

In the frame of the European TOPPS project (Train the Operator to prevent Pollution from Point Sources), 200 on farm audits and 300 tele interviews were performed in the Yser catchment area. The objective was to determine the critical points for point source pollution within the spraying process and to inform advisors, intermediaries and farmers on practical measures and achievable solutions to reduce the contamination of the surface water by Plant Protection Products (PPP) due to point source pollution. For the on farm auditing, the Aquasite tool (Arvalis-France) was used. This audit was performed on 100 farms in the Flemish Yser catchment and on 100 farms at the French side. This audit reveals the weak points in infrastructure and technology on the farm in relation to the spraying process. Next, 150 tele interviews were held in the respective catchment areas. These interviews assess the awareness and behaviour of the farmers on point source pollution. The strength of these studies is in giving a view on the real situation on the farms with respect to spraying. The critical points and risks for point source pollution were similar for both regions. Especially the filling and mixing of the sprayer, internal and external cleaning of the sprayer and the management of the waste fraction need specific training, demonstration and advice. However, there is a large difference in the risk perception of point source pollution between farmers on both sides of the border. The transgressing approach of the Yser catchment allows to make a comparison between both regions and allows to assess in which way the legislation had part in explaining the differences between the regions as the agriculture in both regions is similar. Also, the results stress the importance of trainings and sensibilisation at a regional scale.