#CIRCULI AUSTRIACI PARS OCCIDENTALIOR DOWNLOAD#

View full-textĪutumn applications of sulphur – a new approach to control the pear leaf blister mite Eriophyes pyri Herbstapplikationen mit Schwefel – eine neue Möglichkeit zur Bekämpfung der Bir-nenpockenmilbe Eriophyes pyri Abstract The pear leaf blister mite can cause severe damages to pear trees.

This study concluded that the use of surfactants in spray pesticides may increase the amount of retention as a function of leaf area and the surfactant used. By cons on small pieces of barley leaves, the amount was increased by the use of surfactants but not to the same scale. The retention tests on whole plants show that it is tripled by the first surfactant and doubled by the second. Fluorescein retained by the leaves in both cases is then measured by a spectrofluoremeter. The three slurries of fluorescein contained in an amount of 0.2 g / l.

Spraying was done in three ways: water without surfactant, water with Break-Thru® S240 and water with Li700®. We performed tests of retention on whole barley plants on BBCH-scale 12 and small pieces of barley leaves at the same stage of growth. They contribute to change the impact typs and thus the amount of spray retained by the leaves of the treated plant. Surfactants are nowadays very useful additives to improve the effectiveness of phytosanitary treatments. Different leaf structures such as wax, hairs, edges and veins are important impingement and retention variables. Leaf morphology may play an important role in spray. These can be divided in physical and chemical properties of either the target or the drop. Phenomena governing spray retention on plants are investigated for a very long time in order to optimise pesticide application. The droplet size distribution of agricultural sprays is a key parameter during the plant protection product applications.

#CIRCULI AUSTRIACI PARS OCCIDENTALIOR DOWNLOAD#

The complete collection of papers are freely available to read and download online. What research needs to be conducted to sufficiently quantitatively answer all the above questions?.

If non-Apis bees were to be included in the pesticide risk assessment for estimating the exposure, what are the most suitable surrogates* for solitary bees and social non-Apis bees? (*Selection should consider availability, ability to thrive under laboratory conditions suitability for measuring exposure and effects at individual and population levels, and ability to extrapolate effects from individual to population, etc.).Can such routes of exposure be readily quantified/estimated empirically (e.g., consumption rates of pollen and nectar for all bee ages, contact rates via leaves/mud in nests, etc.) in the same manner as for honey bees (e.g., in BeeRex model USEPA 2015)? If so, how well are these estimates covered by those used for honey bee risk assessments?.What are dominant exposure routes and secondary exposure routes to pesticides for solitary bees and social non-Apis bees?.What is currently known about non‐Apis species and how their life history‐traits differ from honey bees in relation to exposure to pesticides?.Forty scientists from Europe, Brazil, Canada, and the United States who ar e experts in non-Apis bee biology, ecology, ecotoxicology, and risk assessment distributed over academia, regulators, and industry were assembled with the goal to address the following questions: A workshop that was held in January 2017 and was designed to understand and identify pesticide exposure to non-Apis bees.

Circuli austriaci pars occidentalior