Version classiqueVersion mobile

What Works in Conservation 2021

William Junior Sutherland
Lynn V. Dicks
Silviu O. Petrovan
et al.

11. Someaspects of enhancing natural pest control

11. Someaspects of enhancing natural pest control

Hugh L. Wright, Joscelyne E. Ashpole, Lynn V. Dicks, James Hutchison, Caitlin G. Mccormack et William J. Sutherland

Texte intégral

1 Expert assessors

2 Barbara Smith, Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, UK

3 Tony Harding, Rothamsted Research, UK

4 Anthony Goggin, Linking Environment and Farming (LEAF), UK

5 Felix Wackers, BioBest/University of Lancaster, Belgium/UK

6 Melvyn Fidgett, Syngenta, UK

7 Michael Garratt, University of Reading, UK

8 Michelle Fountain, East Malling Research, UK

9 Phillip Effingham, Greentech Consultants, UK

10 Stephanie Williamson, Pesticides Action Network, UK

11 Toby Bruce, Rothamsted Research, UK

12 Andrew Wilby, University of Lancaster, UK

13 Eve Veromann, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Estonia

14 Mattias Jonsson, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden Vicky Kindemba, Buglife, UK

15 Steve Sait, University of Leeds, UK

16 Scope of assessment: 22 of 92 possible actions to enhance natural regulation of pests (including animals, plants, fungi, bacteria and viruses) in agricultural systems across the world.

17 Assessed: 2014.

18 Effectiveness measure is the median % score.

19 Certainty measure is the median % certainty of evidence, determined by the quantity and quality of the evidence in the synopsis.

20 Harm measure is the median % score for negative side-effects for the farmer such as reduced yield and profits or increased costs.



Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search