1. A European perspective of IPM
in glasshouses, with emphasis on
floriculture
Irene Vänninen
Agrifood Research Finland
5th National IPM Symposium, St. Louis, USA, April 4-6, 2006
Presentation at minisymposium: ” ”Are alternative IPM approaches for
greenhouse and nursery pests feasible”
Rikalan puutarhasäätiö
Borisoffin Puutarhasäätiö

2. 1. Glasshouse technology in Europe
North Scandinavia (Finland)
Glasshouse structures:
single-span houses
The Netherlands, NW-Europe
Spain (Almeria)
Venlo-blocks;
wide-span houses
shade cloth + plastic houses
Map image courtesy: http://www.europa.eu.int Image courtesy: http://clairepentecost.org

3. Artificial Lighting: NO, FI (DK, NL, UK)
Supplementary lights Yield of AYR
cucs/FI:
between plant rows to
120-140
illuminate lower leaves kg/m per
year
Whiteflies, thrips,
powdery mildew.
Behaviour of beneficials
Costs of IPM
Finland: 30 % of cucs
area and 25 % of tomato
area with ArtLight
Photo by Tom Murmann Photo by Tom Murmann
tomato and cucumber 180-250 W/m2, in cucumber even 300 W/m2
(=about 16000-22000-28000 lux), rose, gerbera 180-220 W/m2

4. Size of glasshouses
The NL: Elsewhere:
Photo by Pauliina Laitinen
Average size e.g. 0.25 ha Finland,
Average size: > 1ha
0.3 ha Germany

5. Size-related problems…
The NL:
Scouting in dense crops or in mobile
beds (roses, chrysanthemum).
Economics of scale in terms of IPM
per unit area

6. Degree of specialisation
The NL with high exports of flowers:
IPM less complicated in
one-crop companies
Plant species and cultivar selection at Her- Plant species selection at Dion ten
burg rosenkwekerij (NL): 3 ha of Passion. Have’s company: 3 ha Campanula.

7. Degree of specialisation
Countries producing mostly for domestic markets: Heikkilä, Turku, Finland
IPM more complicated in
multiple-crop companies
Photo by Pauliina Laitinen Photo by Pauliina Laitinen
…and more…
Photo by Pauliina Laitinen
Photo by Pauliina Laitinen Photo by Pauliina Laitinen
Domestic, relatively small market many sorts of plants less possibilities
for mechanisation production is labor intensive higher labor costs

8. Degree of mechanisation
The NL: high specialisation Elsewhere (but not everywhere):
high mechanisation
Hand-packing allows last look Photos by Pauliina Laitinen
on pests in plants discard
infested ones
Mobile growing tables, mobile beds (gerbera, rose,
tulip, chrysanth.), transport systems, sorting and Less but increasing, particularly
bunching machines, camera-based spacing of pots in big new units

9. Degree of mechanisation
The NL: Elsewhere:
Photo by Pauliina Laitinen
Manually operated hydraulic
sprayers, cold-foggers
In the NL, labor costs of spraying not as important
a cost factor as before
in relative terms, labor for applic. of beneficials
an important cost factor nowadays!
Spray robots

10. Computer-controlled climate regulation
The NL: North-west/North Europe:
Pest monitoring results are put in the
computer on the spot.
Photo by Pauliina Laitinen
Documentation and submission of data
required by certified
label organizations is computerized
Photo by Pauliina Laitinen

11. European glasshouse horticulture
in the 21st century – anticipated developments
Focus on biotechnol. & breeding (pest resistance); Scandinavia: high quality regional niche
biosensors for tracking quality-changes in prod- production (products vulnerable to trans-
ucts; computerized production control & robotics port; emphasis on selling, not producing;
in large units; closed climate-controlled g-houses ”Recreational horticulture” (Garden Cen-
ters etc.)
Degeneration of horticultural
education! (loss of knowledge
among academics, decrease
in the number of students with A new horticult. cluster will form in
academic education) northern Poland – development
with Dutch & Danish money,
money
exports to elsewhere in Europe
Hungary exporting to the
countries of Balkan?
Production expands
along the Mediterranean
coast
Source and image courtesy Rolf Larsen
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/hri2/newsandevents/oldernews/bewleylecture/rolf.pdf

12. 2. Use of IPM in European floriculture
Crops & production acreages
Status of IPM in the NL, UK, and Scandinavia (with brief look
on other countries) and reasons for differences
Costs of IPM
Future prospects of IPM in European floriculture

13. Top-10 producers of glasshouse
ornamentals areawise (ha) in Europe
Trends in flower production in the most
advanced production countries:
•production area is slowly declining
300 •number of growers is decreasing
322 •average company size is increasing
655
•total production is stable
850
1022 5700
NL
Italy NL: emphasis on
Spain cut flowers
2215
Germany
France Other countries:
UK emphasis on
Poland potted flowering
Belgium plants & bedding
2683 plants
Denmark
Ireland
4309
=95 % of total area of
3014 about 23 000 ha

14. Interfaces influencing the adoption and success of IPM
I Plant protection problems: Pesticide availability & efficacy, environ-
mental & health issues
factors that necessitate IPM
II Grower: adoption and suc- Geography, pest complexes, growing
systems, types of glasshouse; grower
success of IPM psychology, skills & educational level
Extension system & resources, research
III Support: implementation
in local conditions (resources), availabil-
and success of IPM ity & efficacy of BCAs & selective pestic-
ides
IV Market: continuity of Costs of other PP strategies, imago bran-
ding, trademarking (added value of prod.),
IPM certified labels in response to consumer/
retailer demands
V Legislative: obligations, Binding legislation, agreements between
incentives stakeholders, cross compliance within EU

15. The road to IPM in ornamentals in The NL
5700 ha
6400 companies
Cut flowers 60% of flower area: Rose,
chrysanthemum, Alstroemeria, Freesia,
Lily, Gerbera,orchids, Anthurium,
carnation, many others
Pot plants 24%; of which 40% foliage: Fi
Reasons to implement IPM: cus, Dracaena, Hedera, Schefflera, palms;
60% flowering: kalanchoe, orchids, chrys.,
Environmental issues gerbera, roses, begonia, Campanula,saint-
paulia, Primula, Hortensia, cyclamen…
Pesticide resistance
Other flowers 16%
Retailers’ criteria on pro-
duction system’s quality

16. The road to IPM in ornamentals in The NL:
agreements between stakeholders
Convenant Glastuinbouw en Milieu (GLAMI)
(1997-2010). Agreement on glasshouse crop
production and Environment (all relevant
stakeholders): set goals to reduce the use of
energy, pesticides and fertilizers. Milieu Plan
obligatory in companies.
Convenant Gewasbescherming
Legislative + PP problems (2003): stimulation of IPM
interfaces very important
1.1.2005 Resolution on
the principles of IPM
Meerjarenplan Gewasbescherming
(1991-2000): initial step to reduce
use of pesticides & emissions Telen met toekomst
2003-07
MPS (Milieu
SIGNatuur
Project Sierteelt) Strateeg
1997-2000
1993 2004-07

17. The road to IPM in ornamentals in The NL:
role of support interface
<1% area with IPM
guidelines for environmentally friendly
MPS (Milieu production certification: MPS certification
Project Sierteelt) system
1993 use of biocontrol encouraged to reduce
pesticide use
10% area with IPM
SIGNatuur Demonstration project on the possibilities
1997-2000 of IPM in greenhouse ornamentals
Gov. withdrew from knowledge transfer break-
20% area with IPM up of the traditional knowledge transfer triptych
M o b i l i s a t i o n! Research-Extension-Education
Strateeg Telen met toekomst
now 38% area with IPM
2004-07 2003-07
(goal: 80 % by 2010)
Grower network for participat- Socio-technical network: Testing
ive and stepwise learning and delivery of ”Best Practices”

18. The road to IPM in ornamentals in The NL:
market interface (quality assurance schemes)
ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION based on the usage of
energy, PPPs and fertilizers and trmt of waste. A, B & C
MPS-A,B,C categories based on what kinds of pesticides are used;
MPS-MIND is the indication system for the hazard level
of pesticides.
MPS-GAP Corresponds to EurepGap quality assurance scheme
(retailers’ demands on production systems)
MPS also in: DK, BE
MPS-SQ
MPS-SQ. Socially qualified production conditions.
MPS-QUALITY
MPS-Quality of products and services.
More info: p.vant.hoff@my-mps.com
MPS-Florimark Top growers with MPS-A, MPS-GAP, MPS-SQ, MPS-
QUALITY
Image courtesy: www.my-mps.com

19. Other quality assurance schemes:
(also ornamentals)
Quality assurance demands by
large retailers (supermarket chains)
Mostly in use: UK, NL, BE, AU, IT, ES
http://www.agribusinessonline.com/regulations/eurepprotocol.pdf

20. Elements of IPM in European floriculture
• Quarantine • Oils, soaps, other
• Monitoring biorationals
• Hygiene • Selective pesticides
• Screening of vents • Spatial integration:
• Biocontrol chemicals on leaves,
biocontrol in soil or vice
• Insect pathogenic fungi in versa
propagation areas
• Temporal integration:
• Mechanized application biocontrol in mother stocks,
methods of beneficials chemical in sales plants
• Regular inundative releases • Educated personnel
• Banker plants • Emphasis on ”easy” crops
• Host plant resistance

21. IPM in use in the NL:
Rosenkwekerij Joop van de Nauweland
The most
important thing is
scouting!
3 ha of roses (Sphinx, Explosion). Company has MPS-
certification.
Biol. control: spider mites, citrus spider mites, thrips.
Chemical control: whiteflies, scales, aphids, powdery
mildew (spot treatments). Sulphur fumigation for 4
hours only after powdery mildew trmts.
Crop manager Arend Monitoring: 3-5 hours weekly. Two persons+
Book: 15 years expe- the whole staff monitors when maintaining the crop.
rience on IPM. Written record sheet at the end of all beds.

22. Amblyseius cucumeris against thrips. Old flowers are removed regularly in
Action threshold level for corrective summertime to hinder development
chemical trmts 10 thrips per sticky of thrips population.
trap (1 trap/1000 m2). swirskii is in trials.
An advisor visits
once in two weeks,
1,5 hours at a time A. californicus is applied against citrus
spider mites (in photo: damage by this mite).

23. IPM in chrysanthemum in the NL: combined role
of market, support and PP problems interfaces
Rapid changeover taking place – in two years almost 50% of chrys. area
under IPM
IPM program developed by Syngenta a keyto succes of IPM in this crop.
IPM enables continuous efficacy of Vertimec with alleviated resistance prob-
lems (Vertimec=abamectin-based acaricide/insecticide).
big areas attract biocontrol producers (R&D, advice),
in the NL several domestic producers of biocontrol agents offer their
products for chrysanthemum
Best practices of plant protection of chrysanthemums developed:
www.telenmettoekomst.nl
IPM program outline for cut chrysanthemums:
http://www.syngentacropprotection.nl/gew/chrysant/

24. IPM in ornamentals in the UK
Map image courtesy: http://www.world66.com/myworld66/visitedEurope
Cut flowers (160 ha=16% of total area of 1022ha):
chrysanthemum, Alstroemeria, carnations, pinks,
others
Pot plants: chrysanthemum, begonia, poinset-
tia, foliage plants
Bedding plants: Fuchsia, Geranium, Pansy
Important factors for advancement of IPM:
early start in the end of 1980s (Les Wardlaw pioneering) (=support interface)
enthusiastic IPM specialists transferring knowledge (now reduced in numbers
due to privatization) (Jude Bennison, ADAS and her coworkers) (=support interface)
resistance problems (=PP problems interface)
retail pressure to reduce pesticide use (but no financial premium for IPM) (=market
interface) ”Best practices” for most important crops
large domestic biocontrol producers advising+biocontrol products
see also http://www.bopp.org.uk/home/
British Orn.Producers certification scheme

25. IPM in the UK ornamentals
Use of IPM in glasshouse horticulture, UK
Crop % of area under IPM* Beneficials used most often:
Tomato 79,4
Cucumber 91,2 Encarsia formosa
Peppers 89
Phytoseiulus persimilis
Strawberries 50,5
Other fruit 66,3 Aphidius colemani
Pot chrysanthemum 58,5 Amblyseius sp.
Other pot plants** 70 Aphidoletes aphidimyza
Alstroemeria 55 Hypoaspis miles
Hardy nursery stock 17,4
Other flowers & foliage 16
* IPM=at least one species of biocontrol agent in 1999 only 30 %
was used in the crop (Jude Bennison, ADAS, pers.
communic.)
* begonia, cyclamen, ferns, fuchsia, gerbera,
hydrangea, ivy, kalanchoe, poinsettia
Source: Pesticide Usage Survey Report 196. Protected crops
(edible and ornamental) in Great Britain. D.G. Garthwaite & M. R. Thomas.
National Statistics. Central Science Laboratory.

26. IPM in glasshouse floriculture: Scandinavia
relatively small acreages of glasshouse floriculture:
Denmark 322 (pot plants)
Finland 175 ha (bedding plants, pot plants, cut rose)
Norway 106 ha (pot plants, cut rose)
Sweden 16 ha (pot plants, bedding plants)
Environmental pressures not certified labels not very explicit conc.
excessive to reduce pesticide pesticide use or IPM (except in Den-
use in glasshouse crops mark, where MPS label is owned by
several growers)
Pesticide reduction plans: DK,
SE, FI (but emphasis in arable expensive beneficials (shipment costs)
crops) in Norway, Sweden, Finland (but now
one Finnish producer)
small number of registered In Denmark, domestic producers of bc-
pesticides resistance prob- agents.
lems push towards IPM

27. IPM in Norwegian glasshouse floriculture
Cut roses – a special case in IPM of ornamentals in Norway: 50 % IPM
(Annichen Smith-Eriksen, pers. communic.)
small area (15 ha)
concentrated in Rogaland
Photo: Annichen Smith-Eriksen very narrow selection of
pesticides IPM is the only
Rose growers in Norway learning from possibility
each other.
two successive knowledge-
in other types of ornamentals transfer projects that included
<10% IPM roses

28. IPM in Finnish glasshouse floriculture
no legislavite incentives for IPM IPM starting in cut roses (10
tight economical situation of growers companies (50% of total area)
big resistance problems in cut roses participate in the knowledge
transfer project INTO
Extent of biocontrol and IPM in Finnish glasshouse crops
(% of area)
(Grönroos & Nikander 2002, questionnaire survey )
Cut flowers
Pot plants
Other vegetables
Potted vegetables
Tomato
Cucumber
0% 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %
Banker plants for rearing aphid
Biological IPM Only chemical Not reported parasitoids above potted roses
+ phone survey in 2004: 28 % used IPM (cut flowers + pot plants + bedding plants) (Korkala 2005)

29. Finland:
AYR production: winter con-
ditions not favourable to all
beneficials despite artificial
lighting
Photo: Marika Linnamäki
Denmark: 30-35 % IPM (pot plants,
which comprise 75% of the total area
of glasshouse ornamentals 322 ha)
(Eilenberg et al. 2000)
http://www.dansk-ip.dk/

30. 3. Costs of IPM in European floriculture
IPM costs in cut roses in two German and two Finnish
cut rose crops Note: Germany IPM: labor costs
included, Finland IPM: not included
6
5
2
4
euros/m
3
2
1
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year average cost of chemical control in
Finland: 2.35 e/m2 (labor incl.)
Finland A Germany A Germany B
Conventional PP, A Conventional PP, B Finland B
German source: Horstmann, Richter, Klose & Sell 2006. Long-term costs in biological pest control with
beneficial organisms in cut flower roses. Nachrichtenblatt des deutschen Pflanzenschutzdienstens.(in
press). Finnish source: bookkeeping of the greenhouse companies

31. Proportional costs for different pests, Finnish cut
rose crop (IPM) Achievable goal: IPM
with developed know-
6,00 ledge basis, excl.
labor (Lepaa Hort. Coll.)
5,00
Powdery mildew
2
4,00
euros/m
Spider mites
3,00
Thrips
2,00
Aphids
1,00
0,00 Average chemical
2004 2005 control per m2, incl.
Year labor (2002-06)
after having ”tasted” the totality of benefits of IPM, growers want to stick to it
and try to:
• Reduce costs by deepening the knowledge basis
• move from the safe side of application rates to lower rates of beneficials
• rely on economics of scale (reduced costs per m2 with increase in area
under IPM)

32. Economics of scale of using beneficials
in cut roses
Costs
€/m2
Ellen Richter, BBA,
coord. of Nützlinge
I & II
Glasshouse area, m2
Source: http://www.bba.de/projekte/nuetzlinge/nuetzl_start1.htm
(Ellen Richter, BBA, Germany)

33. Costs of plant protection in poinsettia in
Germany (commercial greenhouses)
Cost per
Company PP methods 1000 plants, Pests
€
Only beneficials: 15 x Encfor (1
1 per 3-6 plants), 1 x Steinernema 1,64 whiteflies, fungus gnats
(5000/pot)
Like 1, but for 4 weeks 1 whiteflies (heavy infestation),
2
Encfor/plant
1,84 fungus gnats
whiteflies (heaviest infestation),
3 Like 1 + 1 x Confidor 1,94 fungus gnats
Like 1 + 3 fungicide trmts: 2 x whiteflies, fungus gnats,
4
Rovral, 1 X Previcur
3,64 Rhizoctonia, Botrytis, Pythium
heavy whitefly infestation, fungus
Like 2 + 3 fungicide trmts: 2 x
5
Rovral, 1 X Previcur 3,84 gnats, Rhizoctonia, Botrytis,
Pythium
heaviest whitefly infestation,
Like 3 + 3 fungicide trmts: 2 X
6
Rovral, 1 x Previcur 3,94 fungus gnats, Rhizoctonia,
Botrytis, Pythium
Chemical: 2 x Confidor, 1 X
whiteflies, Rhizoctonia, Botrytis,
7 Nomolt, 2 x Rovral, 1 x Previcur, 1 4,10 Pythium, fungus gnats
x Steinernema (5000/pot)
Control from 1987: 46 pesticide
whiteflies, Rhizoctonia, Botrytis,
8 trmts(!) (Ambush, Thiodan, 15,5 Pythium
Malathion, Benomyl, Previcur)
Source: Krodel, K. 1996. Gartenbauwissenschaft 1/96, 37-46

34. 4. Future prospects of floriculture IPM
in Europe
UK up to 70%
under IPM depend-
ing on crop
species
NL 38%
Denmark 30-35%
FI 30% pot plants,
<10% cut roses)
NO: 50 % cut roses,
What about others? <5% pot plants

35. Extent of IPM in some other countries
Switzerland < 5 % (230 ha)
300
322
SE <25% pot plants
Poland <5%? 655
850
1022 5700
NL
Italy
Spain
France < 5 % 2215
Germany
France
UK
Poland
Belgium
2683
Germany 5 % Denmark
Ireland
4309
3014 Italy <5?
Spain < 5%? The big producers of ornamentals are the
challenge re. the changeover to IPM in Europe
? =no exact data available

36. On-going knowledge transfer projects in floriculture
”Integrated Pest
Biological pest control in cut roses Management in
and cucumber grown with new Ornamentals” (INTO)
lighting methods www.agropolis.fi/into
www.bioforsk.no (coord. Irene Vänninen)
(coord. Nina Johansen)
+ less organized, but by no means
not less efficient knowledge
transfer in UK, DK, AU, SE…
Nützlinge I+II
www.bba.de/projekte/nuetzlinge/nuetzl.start1.htm
(coord. Ellen Richter)
Strateeg www.groeiservice.nl (coord.
Annelies Hooijmans)
Pest Control
Telen met toekomst http://www.pcsierteelt.be/hosting/pcs_site.
www.telenmettoekomst.nl Nsf?Open
(coord. Ellen Beerling) (coord. Marc Vissers,Liesbet Blindeman
Threat: government support to advisory/extension systems
decreasing everywhere

37. EU-level incentives encouranging IPM?:
Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides
-Finalizing in May 2006?
-Seems to end up only recommending national schemes to be
developed
-Hardly a strong incentive for glasshouse floriculture IPM – natio-
nal schemes more important
-NL, UK, DE, DK, SE, FI, BE: National Pesticide Reduction Plans (but
emphasis clearly on edible crops)
EU-project REBECA www.rebeca-net.de: aims at developing a balanced system
of regulation of biocontrol agents to promote the implementation of
biological control in European countries

38. Market demands pushing floriculture towards IPM?
Organic flowers? Fair flowers and plants?
Estimation of achievable
market share (DE, NL, CH,
AU): 3-5 % (Billmann & Schmid
1999 http://www.fibl.net
/forschung/anbautechnik-einjaehrig
/bioblumen/billmann1999.php
Image courtesy: http://www.fairflowers.de/
- 49 companies in South-Africa,
Kenya, Ecuador, Portugal (1000 ha)
- IPM not explicitly mentioned in
standards, but…
Production guidelines in several
countries -…companies in these countries are
Image courtesy: http://orgprints.org/3824/01 moving towards IPM pressure for
/3824-02OE265-ble-igz-2003-stecklinge.pdf European floriculture to follow??

39. Acknowledgements: Growers of ornamental plants:
Leo Holstein, Holstein Flowers, NL
Staff of INTO-project, FI: Arend Book, Rosenkwekerij Joop van de
Pauliina Laitinen, Agropolis Ltd. Nauweland, NL
Marika Linnamäki, Agropolis Ltd. Marco Herburg, Herburg Rosenkwekerij, NL
Ike Vlielander, FIDES, NL
IPM specialists in different countries: Dion ten Have, NL
Annelies Hooijmans, Groeiservice, NL Sirpa Anttila, Viherlandia, FI
Ellen Beerling, WUR, NL Martin Tarhat Oy, FI
Filip van Noort, WUR, NL Ylitalo Oy, FI
Ruud van Leeuwen, Strateeg-project, NL Heikkilän kauppapuutarha, FI
Jude Bennison, ADAS, UK Lepolan puutarha, FI
Monica Tomiczek, ADAS, UK Huiskula Oy, FI
Annichen Smith-Eriksen, NO Ruusutarhat Oy, FI
Ellen Richter, BBA, DE
Martin Hommes, BBA, DE Organizers of the symposium
Annie Enkegaard, Danmarks Jordbrugs ”Delivering a promise” (5th National IPM
Forskning, DK Symposium, USA, St. Louis)
Leszek Orlikowski,Inst. Pomology and
Floriculture, PL
Roselyne Souriau, Gie La Croix, FR
Mireille Piron, Koppert B.V., FR
Celine Gilli, Swiss Agric. Res., CH
Sirpa Kurppa, Agrifood Research Finland
MTT, FI