↓ Skip to main content

5-Point programme for sustainable plant protection

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Sciences Europe, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
Title
5-Point programme for sustainable plant protection
Published in
Environmental Sciences Europe, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12302-018-0136-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tobias Frische, Sina Egerer, Steffen Matezki, Christina Pickl, Jörn Wogram

Abstract

This position paper intends to stimulate a profound rethinking of contemporary agricultural practice. We criticise the current intensity of chemical plant protection in Germany as ecologically unsustainable and thus threatening the achievement of key targets of environmental protection and nature conservation policies. In the first part of the paper, we provide background information on the use of plant protection products (PPP) in German agriculture, the role of agricultural policy, European pesticide legislation, the principles of and framework for environmental risk assessment and risk management of PPP, as well as environmental effects of PPP. The second part is presented against the backdrop of the European "Sustainable Use Directive" (2009/128/EC). This directive requires that "Member States shall adopt National Action Plans to set up their quantitative objectives, targets, measures, and timetables to reduce risks and impacts of pesticide use on human health and the environment and to encourage the development and introduction of integrated pest management and of alternative approaches or techniques to reduce dependency on the use of pesticides." Reflecting on the corresponding debate in Germany, we suggest the following five key principles for a sustainable use of PPP and provide recommendations for their implementation: (1) minimising use; (2) identifying, quantifying, and communicating risks; (3) optimising risk management; (4) compensating for unavoidable effects; (5) internalising external costs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 12%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Other 4 6%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 28 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 16%
Environmental Science 8 12%
Engineering 4 6%
Chemistry 4 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 27 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 March 2018.
All research outputs
#19,028,898
of 24,265,140 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Sciences Europe
#462
of 606 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#247,734
of 337,460 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Sciences Europe
#7
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,265,140 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 606 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.0. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 337,460 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.