Publikasjoner
NIBIOs ansatte publiserer flere hundre vitenskapelige artikler og forskningsrapporter hvert år. Her finner du referanser og lenker til publikasjoner og andre forsknings- og formidlingsaktiviteter. Samlingen oppdateres løpende med både nytt og historisk materiale. For mer informasjon om NIBIOs publikasjoner, besøk NIBIOs bibliotek.
2020
Sammendrag
The EU has developed a Directive on Sustainable Use of Chemical Pesticides (2009/128/EC) (SUD) that aims to enhance the use of non-chemical alternatives to pesticides like microbial plant protection products (PPP). The number of authorized microbial PPP for plant protection has increased globally during the last decade. There is, however, variation between different countries. Sweden and Denmark have for example each authorized 20 microbial PPP while Norway has only authorized four microbial PPP. Norway has also received significantly fewer applications for authorization of microbial PPP than the other Scandinavian countries. We explore possible explanations for the observed differences. Our results show that that the regulations in the three countries had similar requirements for the authorisation of microbial PPP. The size of the market is somewhat smaller in Norway than in Sweden and Denmark, and could therefore explain some of the differences. We suggest, however, that the most important explanation is implementation differences in terms of different decisions made in the authorization process. By comparing the authorization process for three microbial PPP in the Scandinavian countries, we found that Norway used more time for the product authorization decisions. Norway assess the same types of microbial PPP more restrictively with respect to environmental aspects and especially human health risks.
Forfattere
Arne Stensvand Vinh Hong Le Belachew Asalf Tadesse Andreas Myki Beachell Nina Trandem Nina JohansenSammendrag
Det er ikke registrert sammendrag
Sammendrag
Det er ikke registrert sammendrag
Sammendrag
Det er ikke registrert sammendrag
Sammendrag
Det er ikke registrert sammendrag
Sammendrag
Det er ikke registrert sammendrag
Sammendrag
Det er ikke registrert sammendrag
Forfattere
Anna Filipiak Solveig Haukeland Kamila S. Zając Dorota Lachowska-Cierlik Bjørn Arild HattelandSammendrag
A survey of helminths associated with terrestrial slugs focusing on the invasive Arion vulgaris and the native A. ater was conducted on populations from France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway and Poland. In total, 648 terrestrial slugs were collected from 18 sample sites, and identified by means of morphological examination, dissection of genitalia and molecular analysis using mitochondrial DNA. In addition to A. vulgaris and A. ater, also A. vulgaris/A. rufus hybrids and A. ater/A. rufus hybrids were collected. Helminth species were identified based on morphological features and sequencing of the 18S and ITS rDNA regions. The parasites included four nematode species: Alloionema appendiculatum, Angiostoma sp., Phasmarhabditis hermaphrodita, Entomelas sp., two trematode species: Brachylaima mesostoma, Eurytrema sp., and one cestode (tapeworm) species: Skrjabinia sp. Alloionema appendiculatum was the most common helminth in the investigated slug populations. Furthermore, we found higher prevalence of trematodes in the invasive A. vulgaris compared with the native A. ater, while differences in the prevalence for nematodes were not as clear.
Sammendrag
Det er ikke registrert sammendrag
Sammendrag
The worldwide decline in bees and other pollinating insects is a threat to biodiversity and food security, and it is urgent to take action. One of the causes for insect decline is the use of harmful pesticides in agriculture. In the presented study we use Norwegian apple production as a case-study to investigate which of the three groups: farmers, consumers and public authorities, have the most responsibility for protecting bees against harmful pesticides. The questions are investigated empirically with qualitative data material from Norwegian apple farmers, consumers and public authorities, and survey data from consumers and farmers. Our results indicate that consumers see public authorities and farmers as equally responsible for protecting the bees, while farmers are inclined to see themselves as more responsible. Neither groups consider consumers to have any large responsibility. Among the consumers there is also a high level of trust in both farmers and public authorities.