SYNOPS, scaling up ex-post pesticide risk assessments at the individual crop level to the farm and regional levels ex-post assessments.

Similar documents
ON-FARM RISK ASSESSMENT OF AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDES

Structure. On-farm risk assessment for pesticides. Aquatic ecosystems in the UK agricultural landscape. Losses in drainflow

Probabilistic risk assessment Modelling exposure and effects

Site- and use-specific risk assessment for diffuse-source pesticide inputs into German surface waters

FOOTPRINT. Mitigation strategies to reduce pesticide inputs into groundand surface water and their effectiveness a state-of-the-art review

Dutch Registration Procedure for Plant Protection Products and criteria for water organisms Development of guidance in accordance with 91/414 and WFD

OECD Survey of National Pesticide Risk Indicators,

Impact and causes of decreasing nitrate contents in the groundwater of the canton of Berne

Generic guidance for FOCUS surface water Scenarios

Refinement of the FOCUS Stream Scenario

Exposure assessment for pesticide inputs into surface waters via surface runoff, erosion and drainage in Germany (GERDA)

National exposure assessment for the authorization of plant protection products (PPP) in Austria:

The examination of aquatic organisms risk trend on the Pesticides for paddy field estimated by the OECD risk indicator models in Japan

Evaluation of climate and land use changes on hydrologic processes in the Salt River Basin, Missouri, United States

Using PUR Data and the PRiME Tool To Assess Pest Management Practices

Pest Management Regulatory Agency: Aquatic exposure modelling for exposure assessment in support of the regulation of pest control products in Canada

Field scale drift studies to refine standard drift curve values and assumptions. Tim Pepper Cambridge Environmental Assessments

Complex Example. Page 1 of 8

Endangered Species Update

Canadian Approaches to Soil Risk Assessment

Innovative tools for pesticide risk management

Rainforest Alliance. Requirements for Aerial Fumigation. November 2017 Version 1.0

A SCENARIO FOR EXPOSURE OF WATER ORGANISMS IN THE NETHERLANDS

Pan-European Pollutant Fate and transport Modeling at the JRC : applications to pesticides. G.Bidoglio F.Bouraoui A.Pistocchi P.Vizcaino J.

ZOL 814 Chemodynamics

FOCUS Groundwater - Introduction (Part I)

Information, test or study provided Y/P/N #

Co-Occurrence Pesticide Species Tool (CoPST) Debra Denton (EPA R9), Rich Breuer (SWRCB), Gerco Hoogeweg and Marty Williams (Waterborne Inc.

TMDL Data Requirements for Agricultural Watersheds

Influence of scenario assumptions on exposure in FOCUS water bodies, as calculated with TOXSWA. Paulien Adriaanse, Alterra, NL

Drinking Water Case Studies

Proposed Rule on Conventional Pesticides (40 CFR Part 158) May 3-4, 2005 Holiday Inn Rosslyn 1900 N. Fort Myer Drive Arlington, VA 22209

ES/RP 531 Fundamentals of Environmental Toxicology Fall December 8, 2003 Lecture 24: Ecological Risk Characterization Probabilistic Perspectives

Considering Variability in Groundwater Exposure to Pesticides in LCA

Statistics in Risk Assessment

FyrisSKZ: Model support for estimating the cost efficiency of riparian buffer zones to reduce phosphorus losses from agricultural land

EFSA Draft Guidance Document on the Risk Assessment of Plant Protection Products on bees (Apis mellifera, Bombus spp. and solitary bees) 1

OECD, EU, US, CANADIAN, JAPANESE AND AUSTRALIAN NUMBERING SYSTEMS FOR DATA AND INFORMATION ON PHEROMONE AND OTHER SEMIOCHEMICAL FORMULATED PRODUCTS

Influence of environmental context: Assessing stream water quality under conditions of multiple chemical stress

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF SUGAR BEET PRODUCTION

Long-term monitoring of organic pollutants: pesticide residues in Swiss agricultural soils. 2017, Brno (CZ)

Long-term monitoring of organic pollutants: pesticide residues in Swiss agricultural soils. 2017, Brno (CZ)

Refined exposure estimation to support an Environmental Assessment for a veterinary medicine

Environmental toxicology: a tool for risk management

Assessment Schedule 2013 Agricultural and Horticultural Science: Analyse a New Zealand primary production environmental issue (91532)

Mapping the depth to groundwater in Europe. Lisbon, June 7, 2002 Torsten Hauck BASF AG, Limburgerhof

Models Overview: Purposes and Limitations

Environmental modelling and validation

Met. data interpolation with GIS Forecasting models & Risk maps summery & conclusion

Environmental Risk Management of diffuse pollution of mining origin

Guide to the City of San Francisco s Reduced Risk Pesticide List Revised February 2013

Use of the guidelines in protecting the environment

Pesticide Monitoring in Prince Edward Island

PESTEAUX: A PROJECT FOR BUILDING GIS-BASED TOOL FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF WATER POLLUTION RISKS AT LOCAL SCALE DUE TO PESTICIDES

An integrated approach to select and characterize benchmark watersheds for sustainable resources management in Libya

Measuring and Monitoring a Lack of Resilience, and Informing Resilience Operations

FOOTPRINT. Functional Tools for Pesticide Risk Assessment and Management

Manuela Tiramani. European Conference on Safe Use of Plant Protection Products June 18 19, Berlin

Environmental Risk Assessment

Questions and answers on the pesticides strategy

approach, specific protection goals and linking exposure to effects Info Session on Aquatic Guidance 6/7 November 2013

FOCUS groundwater Step4: Setting groundwater monitoring data into regulatory context by modelling

Management Scenario for the Critical Subwatersheds of Small Agricultural Watershed using SWAT model and GIS Technique

Environmental risk assessment of the pesticide Simplex with the active substances aminopyralid and fluroxypyr

Selection of Scenarios for Exposure of Soil Organisms to Plant Protection Products 1

SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON TOXICITY, ECOTOXICITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT (CSTEE)

M. Piniewski, I. Kardel, M. Giełczewski, P. Marcinkowski, T. Okruszko

TS. MIRTSKHULAVA WATER MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE OF GEORGIAN TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

Endangered Species Assessments Conducted Under FIFRA: Fomesafen Registration Review Case Study

CropLife America & RISE Spring Conference Crystal City, Virginia Kimberly Nesci & Mark Corbin Office of Pesticide Programs April 6, 2017

Dissolved Organic Carbon Augmentation:

Investigation of the human impact on regional groundwater systems

Soil Loss Estimation on a Local Scale for Soil Conservation Planning

Joint Research Centre (JRC)

Pesticide risk maps for targeting advice activity in Yorkshire Ouse catchment. March developed by:

Risk Assessment Report on 6-acetyl-1,1,2,4,4,7- hexamethyltertraline (AHTN) Environmental Part. CAS No.: or

Precision agriculture and the future of farming

PESTICIDE IMPACT RATING INDEX APESTICIDE RISK INDICATOR FOR WATER QUALITY

Otter Creek Watershed TMDL Project. Stakeholder Meeting June 6, 2013

Bio 430: Chemicals in the environment. Jeffrey Jenkins Department of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology Oregon State University

Mitigation of runoff in the FOCUS Surface Water Scenarios

NRCS s Soil Health Initiative and its Relationship to Water Quality

CHAPTER ONE : INTRODUCTION

NITRATE MONITORING RESULTS IN AGRICULTURAL CATCHMENTS

Guidance document on the preparation and submission of dossiers for plant protection products according to the risk envelope approach

The influence of width and vegetation characteristics on the effectiveness of buffer strips at mitigating diffuse water pollution from agriculture

Innovative IPM in pome fruit and strategies for implementation

6.3.2 Exposure Assessment

Pesticide risk maps for targeting advice activity in Wensum catchment. March developed by:

Individual NWRM. Strip cropping along contours

Dynamics to develop a new molecule and product Stewardship matters

Development of Groundwater Exposure Simulation Tool for Pesticides Used in Rice Paddy in China

Pesticide risk maps for targeting advice activity in Waveney catchment. March developed by:

MoRE Results and Modifications

Use of High Spatial and Temporal Resolution Monitoring Data to Improve Parameterization of Watershed Scale Drift Exposure Predictions

Expanding our knowledge of exposure as part of the Environmental Assessment for a veterinary medicine

Appendix 1 - Risk Assessment

Data requirements for active substances and formulations and tier 1 effects. Info Session on Aquatic Guidance 6/7 November 2013

CONSERVATION PLANNING AND PEST MANAGEMENT. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Dee Carlson

Chapter 2 Case Study 1: Phenological Trends in Germany

Transcription:

SYNOPS, scaling up ex-post pesticide risk assessments at the individual crop level to the farm and regional levels ex-post assessments. Jörn Strassemeyer, Burkhard Golla, Daniel Daehmlow, Peter Horney and Volkmar Gutsche SYNOPS Exposure soil surface water field margins Toxicity earthworm daphnia, algae, fish, lemna, chironomus bee, other arthropods active ingredient database a.i.1 LC50 ;NOEC a.i.2 LC50 ;NOEC New: Leaching to groundwater included in SYNOPS Risk(ETR)= calculated Exposure Toxicity model application within PURE SYNOPS-WEB (in PURE ex-ante or ex-post assessments) region specific scenarios based on GIS data application calendars from: IPM system definitions SYNOPS-GIS (in PURE ex-post assessments) field specific GIS-data application calendars form: field based surveys or distribution of IPM system definitions 1

modeled exposition pathways in SYNOPS volatilisation atmosphere application of pesicides interception spray drift run-off +erosion drainage Transport will be assessed with a separate catchment model. deposition to soil leaching to groundwater Spray drift (Ganzelmeier Tables + FOCUS functions) Run-Off (Model developed by Lutz 1984, REXTOX) Drainage (meta-model based on MACRO) Erosion (united soil loss equation according to FOCUS) Leaching to Groundwater (GeoPearl as implemented in HAIR2010) Exposure-Toxicity Ratio (surface water) ETR chronic = PEC tnoec NOEC ETR acute = PEC LC50 Max ( PEC tnoec NOEC { { t NOEC t NOEC day of vegetation period 2

Risk assessment of application pattern ingredient 1 application1 application 2 application 3 0,020 0,015 0,010 0,005 PEC 0,000 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 t NOEC { ingredient 2 application1 application 2 8,0E-06 6,0E-06 4,0E-06 PEC 2,0E-06 0,0E+00 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 t NOEC { Risk assessment of application patterns ingredient 1 application1 application 2 application 3 NOEC daphnia = 0.52 mg l -1 ingredient 2 application1 application 2 NOEC daphnia = 0.00002 mg l -1 0,020 0,300 PEC 0,250 ETR= 0,015 0,200 0,010 0,150 PEC tnoec NOEC 0,100 0,005 0,050 0,450 0,400 ETR Sum 0,000 0,000 0 50 50 100 100 150 150 200 200 250 0,350 250 300 300 350 350 0,300 0,250 0,200 0,450 0,150 0,400 PEC PEC tnoec ETR= 0,100 8,0E-06 0,350 NOEC 0,050 0,300 0,000 6,0E-06 0,250 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0,200 4,0E-06 0,150 0,100 2,0E-06 0,050 0,0E+00 0,000 00 50 50 100 100 150 200 250 300 350 ETRsum 3

Terrestrial and aquatic risk ETR aquatic = max( ETR algae, ETR daphnia, ETR fish, ETR lemna, ETR chironomus ) ETR terrestrial = max( ETR earthworm, ETR bee, ETR otherarthropods ) Four risk categories for SYNOPS results acute risk chronic risk very low risk ETR<0.01 ETR<0.1 low risk 0.01< ETR<0.1 0.1< ETR<1 medium risk 0.1< ETR<1.0 1< ETR<10 high risk ETR >1.0 ETR >10 4

Leaching risk GeoPEARLcalculates the nominal leaching concentration C L based on a regression equation, with the regression terms depending on compound properties and soil data for each application (i) of an active ingredient at a soil depth of 1 m. C Li nominal leaching concentration (µg dm -3 ) NSDF i net soildepositionfraction AR application rate (kg a.i./ha) DWC drinking water criterion (0.1 µg/l) i index denoting the application event number no RI groundwater < 1 yes RI groundwater > 1 Risk assassment with SYNOPS-WEB in PURE SYNOPS-WEB usedasenvironmental risk indicator in most work pakages. It was developed as an easy-to-use online tool, which can also be used by farmers, advisors and stakeholder. 5

Risk assassment with SYNOPS-WEB Necessary input parameters Environmental and field related data from GIS databases and/or defined scenarios connectivity to surface water (scenarios) soil data (EU-soil-database) slope (EU-database) climate data (EU-database, MARS-data) Risk assassment with SYNOPS-WEB environmental input parameters 6

Risk assassment with SYNOPS-WEB environmental input parameters Risk assassment with SYNOPS-WEB environmental input parameters Individual user login Storage ofsiteinformationon the server Refinement of site information and input paramaters is possible Export of information will be possible in formofxml files 7

Risk assassment with SYNOPS-WEB environmental input parameters Risk assassment with SYNOPS-WEB environmental input parameters 8

Risk assassment with SYNOPS-WEB environmental input parameters GIS-data Risk assassment with SYNOPS-WEB (GER) field specific input data from GIS databases Precipitation and temperature is derived from digital climate maps of the German Weather Service on monthly basis or from a set of 2800 climate stations on daily basis The main soil types are derived for each field from a digital soil map (BÜK1000). The average slope is calculated for each field using a digital elevation model (DGM-D). Minimal distance from the field to the edge of the surface water is derived with GIS procedures from ATKIS Geographical Database, ATKIS high resolution data set on land use and land cover Connect to GIS data bases Select and store inputdataofonefieldsite 9

Risk assassment with SYNOPS-WEB (PURE) field specific input data from GIS databases GIS-data Longterm average temperature and average precipitation have been spatially interpolated onto the MARS 25 km x 25 km grid (Mulligan and Bouraoui, 2007). European soil map includes organic carbon, soil ph, soil texture class, soil hydrological class. (1*1 km). The average slope is calculated using the global digital elevation model (DEM) derived from GTOPO30 (1*1 km) manual input of surface water parameters: minimal distance, width, depth, SW type ATKIS not available on EU level!! Connect to GIS databases Select and store input data corresponding to one grid cell Risk assassment with SYNOPS-WEB environmental input parameters 10

Risk assassment with SYNOPS-WEB environmental input parameters Risk assassment with SYNOPS-WEB Necessary input parameters Environmental and field related data from GIS databases and/or defined scenarios connectivity to surface water (scenarios) soil data (EU-soil-database) slope (EU-database) climate data (EU-database, MARS-data) Application calendars of used pesticides crop (EPPO code) product/active ingredient (CAS Nr.) application rate (g/ha) and date fraction of area treated (100% 1) formulation of product mitigation measures (drift reducing equipment) 11

Risk assassment with SYNOPS-WEB enter pesticide application calendars Crop selection (EPPO codes) Storage of application calendars on the server refinement of application calendars is possible Export of application calendars will be possible in form of XML files Risk assassment with SYNOPS-WEB enter pesticide application calendars 12

Risk assassment with SYNOPS-WEB enter pesticide application calendars Risk assassment with SYNOPS-WEB enter pesticide application calendars on European level the input will be changed from product to active ingredient. 13

NOEC NOEC GIS-data Risk assassment with SYNOPS-WEB (PURE) field specific input data from GIS databases Longtermaverage temperature and average precipitation have been spatially interpolated onto the MARS 25 km x 25 km grid (Mulligan and Bouraoui, 2007). European soil map includes organic carbon, soil ph, soil texture class, soil hydrological. (1*1 km). The average slope is calculated using the global digital elevation model (DEM) derived from GTOPO30 (1*1 km) manual input of surface water parameters: minimal distance, width, depth, SW type ATKIS not available on EU level!! Connect to GIS databases Select and store inputdataofgridcell a.i. date AR xxx 1.4.12 1,00 yyy 6.4.12 1,50. active ingredient database Enter and store applicationcalendar ETRacute SYNOPS C s o i l [ m g k g - 1 ] 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 = spec LC50species 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 t CT( t) 365 t-t lpec= max t= t tnoec 0.020 0.016 0.012 0.008 0.004 0.000 Run thesynops web- service C w a t e r [ m g l - 1 ] Risk assassment with SYNOPS-WEB enter pesticide application calendars After theinputiscompleted SYNOPS webservice is started to calculate the risk scores 14

Risk assassment with SYNOPS-WEB risk potential of the application calendar Results can be exported as XML files: For the complete application calendar For single active ingredients SYNOPS-WEB exported results risk potentials of the application scenarios aquatic no drift reduction terrestrial 3m 3m 20m 20m System appl_id a.i. acute chronic acute chronic acute chronic conventional 102 all 1.453 1.941 35.261 448.325 3.212 407.693 advanced 301 all 0.080 0.393 1.705 37.083 0.170 3.721 IPM 401 all 0.010 0.008 0.373 28.090 0.037 2.824 90% drift reduction System appl_id a.i. acute chronic acute chronic acute chronic conventional 102 all 0.200 1.343 3.560 45.937 0.532 46.074 advanced 301 all 0.080 0.393 0.171 3.732 0.018 0.397 IPM 401 all 0.001 0.003 0.037 2.833 0.004 0.307 15

SYNOPS-WEB exported results risk potentials of the single active ingredients no drift reduction 90% drift reduction aquatic aquatic terrestrial 3m 3m 20m 20m terrestrial 3m 3m 20m 20m System a.i. acute chronic acute chronic acute chronic acute chronic acute chronic acute chronic convetional Mancozeb 0.003 0.001 0.353 2.25 0.035 0.224 0.001 0.001 0.035 0.225 0.004 0.023 convetional Captan 0.029 0.005 2.211 3.471 0.222 0.35 0.003 0.005 0.223 0.351 0.025 0.04 convetional 2,4-D 0.001 0.001 0 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.001 0 0 0 0 convetional Diuron 0.002 0.002 0.816 3.205 0.169 0.662 0.002 0.002 0.109 0.426 0.044 0.172 convetional Dodin 0.003 0.006 20.275 7.885 2.321 0.902 0.002 0.006 2.327 0.904 0.532 0.207 convetional Mineralöle 0.08 0.393 0.921 9.128 0.092 0.91 0.08 0.393 0.092 0.913 0.009 0.091 convetional copper 0.036 0.036 0.906 3.927 0.108 0.468 0.004 0.014 0.108 0.47 0.029 0.124 convetional Schwefel 0.092 0.091 2.556 8.944 0.256 0.895 0.009 0.015 0.257 0.898 0.027 0.093 convetional Chlorpyrifos 0.635 0.987 35.261 422.72 3.212 385.683 0.2 0.987 3.56 42.273 0.361 43.574 convetional Glyphosat 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.003 0 0.001 0.001 0.001 0 0.001 0 0 convetional Bupirimat 0.001 0.002 0.019 0.075 0.002 0.008 0 0.002 0.002 0.008 0 0.001 convetional Deltamethrin 0.14 0.114 3.426 226.5 0.27 17.898 0.014 0.011 0.343 22.692 0.028 1.832 convetional Glufosinat 0 0 0.003 0.005 0.001 0.001 0 0 0 0.001 0 0 convetional Fenoxycarb 0.001 0.001 0.018 0.153 0.002 0.015 0 0 0.002 0.015 0 0.002 convetional Mecoprop-P 0.001 0.005 0.002 0.008 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.005 0 0.002 0 0.001 convetional Difenoconazol 0 0 0.037 1.321 0.004 0.133 0 0 0.004 0.133 0 0.014 convetional Cyprodinil 0.006 0.068 0.874 5.854 0.088 0.591 0.006 0.068 0.088 0.593 0.01 0.066 convetional Thiacloprid 0.015 0.021 0.001 0.029 0 0.003 0.002 0.021 0 0.003 0 0 convetional Spinosad 1.453 1.116 0.001 6.892 0 0.545 0.145 0.112 0 0.691 0 0.056 convetional Flonicamid 0.002 0 0 0.003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 advanced Mancozeb 0.002 0.001 0.09 0.576 0.009 0.057 0.001 0.001 0.009 0.058 0.001 0.006 advanced Dithianon 0.01 0.008 0.373 28.089 0.037 2.824 0.001 0.003 0.037 2.833 0.004 0.307 advanced Mineralöle 0.08 0.393 0.921 9.128 0.092 0.91 0.08 0.393 0.092 0.913 0.009 0.091 advanced Schwefel 0.066 0.065 1.705 5.966 0.17 0.596 0.007 0.009 0.171 0.598 0.018 0.061 advanced Bupirimat 0.001 0.002 0.019 0.075 0.002 0.008 0 0.002 0.002 0.008 0 0.001 advanced Flonicamid 0.002 0 0 0.005 0 0.001 0 0 0 0.001 0 0 advanced Granulosevirus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 advanced Pheromon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 advanced Mancozeb 0.002 0.001 0.09 0.576 0.009 0.057 0.001 0.001 0.009 0.058 0.001 0.006 advanced copper 0.036 0.036 0.906 3.927 0.108 0.468 0.004 0.014 0.108 0.47 0.029 0.124 advanced sulfur 0.066 0.065 1.705 5.966 0.17 0.596 0.007 0.009 0.171 0.598 0.018 0.061 advanced Flonicamid 0.002 0 0 0.005 0 0.001 0 0 0 0.001 0 0 advanced Granulosevirus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 advanced Pheromon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IPM Dithianon 0.01 0.008 0.373 28.089 0.037 2.824 0.001 0.003 0.037 2.833 0.004 0.307 IPM Flonicamid 0.001 0 0 0.003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IPM Granulosevirus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IPM Pheromon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Summary of SYNOPS-WEB Easy input parameter selection of environmental and field related data. Input data can be stored on server, edited and exported a XMLfile. Simple user interface to enter application scenarios. The user can enter and save a number of various field sites and application scenarios and calculate the aquatic and terrestrial risk potentials. SYNOPS-WEB can be used to plan and analyze new and innovative strategies, e.g. IPM strategies for specific fields with the focus on risk reduction The web service SYNOPS-WEB can also be used by other tools directly integrating it in the code. Export results in form of XML-Files, which can be used in to other PURE tools (DEXiPM, Premise) or upload to PURE database. 16

NOEC NOEC GIS-based assessments with SYNOPS (ex-post assessment) surface water orchard SYNOPS calculates the risk potential of all orchards within the considered region. regional approach input data for all fields in the considered region have to be available on field level the calculated field based risk potentials are then analysed or aggregated in the spatial dimension geographical databases + GIS procedures GIS based risk assessment with SYNOPS SYNOPS spec ETRacute = LC50species 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 C s o i l [ m g k g - 1 ] 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 t CT( t) 365 t-t lpec= max t= t tnoec 0.020 0.016 0.012 0.008 0.004 0.000 C w a t e r [ m g l - 1 ] field based risk assessment Spatial aggregation of risk indices PSMdatabase active ingredient database Precipitation and temperature is derived from digital climate maps of the German Weather Service on monthly basis or from a set of 2800 climate stations on daily basis The average slope is calculated for each field using a digital elevation model (DGM-D). Geographical Database, ATKIS high resolution data set on land use and land cover The application strategies are distributed randomly according to a field based survey Fruit crops are distributed randomly according to agricultural statistics on community level The main soil types are derived for each field from a digital soil map (BÜK1000). Minimal distance from the field to the edge of the surface water is derived with GIS procedures from ATKIS 17

aquatic risk potential: Lake Constance (GER) successive introduction of IPM systems Scenario 1 BS (70%) IPM1 (20%) IPM2 (10%) Scenario 2 frequency distribution of risk indices chronic aquatic risk 90th percentile 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 aquatic risk, 90th percentile 2.66 1.68 1.36 0.54 0.30 0.13 BS (50%) IPM1 (30%) IPM2 (20%) BS (20%) IPM1 (50%) IPM2 (30%) Scenario 3 Reduction compared to BS aquaticrisk, 90th percentile fraction of area with ETR>1 Scenario 1-36.98% -27.78% Scenario 2-48.69% -44.43% Scenario 3-79.69% -70.81% fraction of orchard area with ETR chronic >1 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% fraction of area with ETR>1 22.7% 16.4% 12.6% 6.6%2.8% 2.4% Thank you for your attention! 18