A G R I C U LT U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E Agricultural and Food Science (2022) 31: 54–69 54 https://doi.org/10.23986/afsci.112827 The use of chemical plant protection products in field vegetable farms in a central industrial vegetable growing area in Finland Kati Räsänen1, Asko Hannukkala2, Sirpa Kurppa2, Marja Aaltonen2, Anne Rahkonen2, Jussi V.K. Kukkonen3 and Irene Vänninen2 1Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Bioeconomy and environment / Sustainability science and indicators, Survontie 9A, 40500 Jyväskylä, FINLAND 2Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Natural resources / Plant health, Tietotie 4, 31600 Jokioinen, FINLAND 3University of Eastern Finland, Department of Environmental and Biological Sciences, P.O. Box 1627, FI-70211 Kuopio, FINLAND e-mail: kati.rasanen@luke.fi Progress in the reduction of environmental and health risks of PPPs (plant protection products) using Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in the EU needs to be gauged. Here, we report, for the first time, the exact quantities of PPP used in carrot, potato, swede, and fresh pea production in southwestern Finland from 2003 to 2019. Fresh peas and swede represent exceptionally low or decreasing use of PPPs, respectively. The number of treatments per field showed an increasing trend for fungicides used on potato, despite per unit area treatments having not increased. Furthermore, for carrots, insecticide and herbicide spray frequencies increased more than treatment volumes. The results of this study form a basis for analyzing ecotoxicological risks of PPP use in the studied crops because usage and spray fre- quencies alone do not convey the risk levels accurately. Research needs to be continued to better guide the record- ing of farmers’ plant protection activities and corresponding analysis to verify the impacts of IPM implementation. Key words: Integrated Pest Management (IPM), PPP usage data, plant protection product (PPP), vegetable crops Introduction Since 2014, the implementation of IPM (Integrated Pest Management) in conventional crop production has been mandatory for all farmers in the EU, in accordance with the National Action Plans (NAPs) of each MS (EC 2009a). The NAPs are formulated to encourage professional users of PPPs to adopt practices and products that represent the lowest risk to human health and the environment from among those available for the same pest problem. Fur- thermore, the EU Member States (MS) must measure the progress achieved in the reduction of risks and adverse impacts from PPP (plant protection product) use for human health and the environment (EC 2009a, EC 2019). In addition, the EU’s strategy of farm-to-fork has set a goal to halve the use and risk of pesticides by 2030. This re- quires understanding current, location-specific quantities of chemical pesticide use and reasons for their use to make efficient plans for reducing it (EC 2020). To be able to fully apply quantitative information on PPP use for risk management purposes and draw appropriate policy conclusions, it is not only necessary to know how much pesticides are used at the national level, but also why, where, when and how they are used, in order to account for situational effects of PPP use on the environment and human health. See, for example, Andert et al. (2015), Bürger et al. (2012) and Dirksmeyer et al. (2005) on the multitude of situational factors that influence pesticide use on farms, including vegetable farms. In 2017, over four million tonnes of PPPs were used globally, the EU accounting for about 9% (FAO 2021) and Fin- land about 0.1% (Finnish Safety and Chemicals Agency 2021a). In 2021, 454 active pesticide compounds were au- thorized in the EU pesticides database (EC 2021a). Pesticide sales data (EC 2021b) and, from 2013, also the pesti- cide usage data in the MS, must be collected in accordance with the Community legislation concerning statistics on PPPs (EC 2009b). However, the EU’s public pesticide data still concerns only sales data (EC 2021b). Some infor- mation for PPP on-farm usage can be found only from some EU countries, e.g. Finland, where such official data are collected every 5 years from a specific number of farms. In Finland, the public data were collected in 2013 and 2018 and the next time will be in 2023. Farmers must specify which active ingredients, in what quantities (kg) and in how large field areas (ha) of each crop they have used PPPs in given years (EC 2009b). The public data do not cover information about individual products and are not location specific. Received 16 December 2021 / Accepted 8 March 2022 The Scientific Agricultural Society of Finland ©This is an open access article under the CC BY 4.0 K. Räsänen et al. 55 The current paper represents the basis for quantifying the local environmental impacts of PPPs, which will be pre- sented later in a subsequent paper. Our longitudinal study (17 years) utilizes a database that contains records of the use of PPPs on vegetable farms in southwestern Finland. Three questions were formulated for the research: A: Which PPPs were used? B: How much PPPs were used? C: To what extent were anti-resistance strategies possible with the available PPPs? The nature and amounts of PPPs used and the possibilities of managing pesticide resistance of pests with the available selection of compounds together form an important part of IPM that aims at minimizing risks of plant protection to human health and the environment. Materials and methods The data represent a geographically limited, but temporally extended and, for some crops, even comparatively large sample of vegetable farms, in Finland. This particular area is a significant region for industrial vegetable growing. The database and the crops studied The data cover chemical plant protection activities in 2003–2019 as reported from over 100 field vegetable farms in southwestern Finland. All the farms included in this study deliver their products to the local food processing company Apetit Ruoka Ltd., which is a long-established company and plays a major role in Finland for business and export. These contract farmers record the data for their plant protection activities for the contract crops they grow in the virtual system of the company. The company gave confidential rights to use the data to the Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) (the agreement between Luke and Apetit Ruoka Ltd. 2703/12 01 01 06/2019). For confidentiality reasons detailed in the agreement made with Apetit Ruoka Ltd., the location of an individual fields cannot be revealed. Thus, maps of the field location are not shown, even by municipalities. During the study, the database and results were discussed several times with Apetit Ruoka Ltd. experts. Four crop species in the database provided a sufficient annual number of separate fields, with cultivation practices and pest profiles, to enable valid conclusions to be made in this study: carrot (Daucus carota), potato (Solanum tuberosum), swede (for human consumption, Brassica napus) and fresh pea (Pisum sativum, Table 1). These four crops have an established place in the consumer products of Apetit Ruoka Ltd., the majority being sold in frozen form. The contract farmers of the company have decades of experience of producing these crops under local cli- matic and edaphic conditions. The number of fields included in the study per year, in 2003–2019, was 49–80 for carrot (total cultivated area on average 182.0 ha year-1, 11.0% of the total area of carrot in Finland annually (Nat- ural Resources Institute Finland 2021a, b), 19–67 for potato (on average 129.0 ha year-1,3.8% of the total area of processed food potato), 8–18 for swede (on average 43.0 ha year-1, 11.2% of the total area of swede) and 87–200 for fresh pea (on average 796.0 ha year-1, 27.0% of the total area of garden pea). The growing season usually starts in late April or early May and ends in October, depending on year, in Säkylä Finland (longitude 22.344830; latitude 61.045231), one example location for the farms in this study (database of Luke originating from the Finnish Meteorological Institute, Venäläinen et al. 2005, results not shown). In Säkylä daylight reaches 19 hours 18 minutes in the middle of the growing season (21 June 2021) (Timeanddate 2021). However, there are large differences among growing seasons in the effective temperature sum and precipitation in the study area (database of Luke originating from the Finnish Meteorological Institute, Venäläinen et al. 2005, results not shown). Agricultural and Food Science (2022) 31: 54–69 56 The parameters utilized in PPP use calculations The use of PPPs by the contract farmers of Apetit Ruoka Ltd. was documented since 2003, i.e. long before similar records became obligatory for all EU farmers in 2014 (EC 2009a). The parameters utilized in PPP use calculations were: unique crop field identifiers, field area (ha), year, crop identifiers (species, product and production type), sowing/planting date, and PPP information for each application: commercial product name(s), dose rate/ha, date of application, and target weeds/pests of each application. This database includes information on the fields where at least one PPP was used, thus we do not have informa- tion of the proportion of nil-application fields. We assume such totally untreated fields were only few as far as the key pests of each crop species are concerned. Pests tend to occur frequently in areas with a concentration of fields with such commonly cultivated crops. Crop field IDs are not revealed in the paper, in accordance with con- fidentiality agreements. The database was divided into two because the electronic register was renewed to make it user-friendlier after 2008. Both datasets (2003–2008 and 2009–2019) contained the same information but in the newer dataset PPPs were selected from a drop-down menu to reduce the possibility of farmers making re- cording errors. The study included only active ingredients (a.i.) that were applied by the growers during the grow- ing season, and thus seed dressing products were excluded from PPP use calculations. Most of the seed material used by farmers had been treated with PPPs by the seed companies, but this information was not available in the database. Growth regulators were not used on these crops. Overall, the data used for the study contained over 6700 observations in 2003–2008 and over 17500 in 2009–2019. Table 1. General recommendations for crop management for carrot, potato, swede and fresh pea crops in Finland (Natural Resources Institute Finland 2021c) Crop Sowing/ Planting (S/P) Harvesting time (H) Emergence and early development time Most potential need of PPPs between sowing and harvest Recommended crop rotation scheme Carrot S/P: Beginning of May. H: September–October Early development slow. Seed germination can take 21 days. Full crop green coverage rarely achieved before mid-July. Frequent herbicide applications are needed at the beginning of growth period. At the very early development stages frequent insecticide applications are needed for sufficient psyllid control, mid-season insecticide applications are often needed for carrot fly control. Towards the end of season leaf blight injuries may increase and fungicide applications are needed for disease control. 4–5 years Potato S/P: The latter half of May. H: End of August to early October. Emergence 3–4 weeks. Crop development rapid, full crop canopy achieved in early July. Weed control normally before or soon after crop emergence. Fungicide applications against late blight at 7–10-day intervals from the beginning of July to close to the harvest. 3–5 years Swede S / P : E a r l y M a y , sometimes re-sowing needed due to damage by e.g., flea beetles or hard rains in some loam soil types. H : O c t o b e r o r e a r l y November. Early development in May. Clubroot fungus must be controlled by crop rotation. Chemical control and crop rotation against cabbage root flies. Symptoms of boron deficiency, that can make swede more susceptible to pests, are managed by cultivar selection and boron fertilization. 5–6 years Fresh pea, frozen S/P: Sowings are staged from the beginning to the end of June to enable synchronizing fresh pea harvesting and Apetit Ruoka Ltd. ‘s freezing capacity. H: End of July to late August-early September. The growing period is only 60–80 days. Monitoring of the pea moth with pheromone traps and pea moth management by 0-1 pyrethroid sprayings. 5–6 years K. Räsänen et al. 57 Indicators To answer research question A (Which PPPs were used?), we compared which active ingredients were used by the farmers in the database in each of the crops and which active ingredients were registered on the market (Finnish Safety and Chemicals Agency 2021b) during the entire study period 2003–2019. Also, those that could be used according to product derogations (Finnish Safety and Chemicals Agency 2021c) were included. To answer research question B (How much PPPs were used?), the active ingredient used per hectare in kilograms, and the application frequency per a.i. per field (number of sprays per field) were calculated for each year from the database. More than one active ingredient could be sprayed on the field simultaneously when this was ap- propriate. In such cases when PPP was used containing more than one active ingredient or at least several PPPs were used simultaneously as a tank mix, the number of sprays was considered to be the same as the total num- ber of active ingredients used. In addition, the number of visits to the fields during the growing season was cal- culated to take into consideration that one spray could, in some cases, contain more than one active ingredient. To answer research question C (To what extent were anti-resistance strategies possible with the available PPPs?), the availability of PPPs from different ‘Mode of Action’ (MoA) groups was used as a proxy indicator for the risk of pesticide resistance development in the target organisms. The fewer PPPs available for rotation from different MoA groups, the higher the risk of resistance development in the target pest. The PPPs of the database were first grouped by their target organisms (fungicides=F, herbicides=H, insecticides=I) and then by their MoA. Explanations for the MoA codes can be found from the web pages of the Resistance Action Committee (Fungicide, Herbicide and Insecticide Resistance Action Committee 2021). The minimum criterion to estimate the resistance risk potential was to see if there were active ingredients from only one or more MoA groups for a given pest (Jutsum et al. 1998). Statistical analysis Statistical analyses were performed using the GLM procedure of the SAS Enterprise Guide version 7.15 (SAS Insti- tute Inc., USA). Trends in spray frequencies (n) and volumes of PPPs (kg ha-1) for fungicides, herbicides and insec- ticides over the years in each crop were examined using a regression model using year as an explanatory variable. The pest profiles and usage of PPPs on different farms, situated close to each other, are prone to be similar within each year, whereas the variation between years and over time for farms pooled over the whole area is of greater interest. Residuals were checked through figures, and in the case of skewed distributions, a logarithmic transfor- mation was used. A significance level of p <0.05 was used for all analyses. Results and discussion Which PPPs were used? A total of 58 different active ingredients were used in the studied crops in 2003–2019 (Tables 2–4). There were two derogations (Finnish Safety and Chemicals Agency 2021c): insecticide chlorantraniliprole (2019) and herbi- cide clomazone (2014–2019) for carrot and swede. Table 2. The most common weeds (Natural Resources Institute Finland 2021c) and the herbicides used for control in carrot, potato, swede and fresh pea crops (the database of Apetit Ruoka Ltd.), the year of registration and withdrawal from the Finnish market, and derogations of non-registered PPPs (Finnish Safety and Chemicals Agency 2021c). The substances are arranged according to their selectivity, such that the first ones are the least selective and the last the most selective compounds. Carrot Potato Swede Fresh pea Registered in Finland since Withdrawn in Finland Most common target weeds Matricaria spp., Chenopodium spp., Polygonum aviculare, Fallopia convolvulus, Elymus repens Chenopodium spp., Fallopia convolvulus, Polygonum aviculare, Matricaria spp., Fumaria spp. Chenopodium spp., Matricaria spp., Polygonum aviculare, Persicaria lapathifolia, Elymus repens Chenopodium spp., Matricaria spp., Galeopsis spp., Polygonum aviculare, Cirsium spp. Agricultural and Food Science (2022) 31: 54–69 58 Herbicides used for pre and/or post emergence spray application Diquat (2003–2019) Diquat (2003–2019) Diquat (2012–2016) Diquat (2003) 1960s 2020 Clomazone (2014–2019) Clomazone (2014–2019) derogation Pendimethalin (2004–2019) 2003 Terbutryne + Terbuthylazine (2003–2004) Terbutryne + Terbuthylazine (2003–2004) 1970s 2004 Carfentrazone–ethyl (2013–2018) 2012 Metobromuron (2019) 2018 Napropamide (2005–2019) 2004 Trifluralin (2003–2009) 1970s 2008 Metazachlor (2003–2019) 1980s Metribuzin (2003–2019) Metribuzin (2003–2019) Metribuzin (2003–2019) 1970s Aclonifen (2003–2019) Aclonifen (2003–2019) Aclonifen (2003–2019) 1990s Linuron (2003–2013) Linuron (2003–2013) 1970s 2013 Glufosinate– ammonium (2003–2012) Glufosinate– ammonium (2003–2010) 1990s 2012 Prosulfocarb (2005–2019) 2004 Rimsulfuron (2003–2018) 1990s Sulfosulfuron (2003–2018) 1990s Clopyralid (2003–2018) 1980s Pyridate (2008) 2007 Bentazone (2003–2019) 1970s Bentazone+MCPA (2003–2019) 1970s Herbicides against grass weeds, mid-season spray application Fluazifop-P-butyl (2003–2013) Fluazifop-P-butyl (2018) Fluazifop-P-butyl (2019) Fluazifop-P-butyl (2018) 1980s Quizalofop-P-ethyl (2003–2019) Quizalofop-P-ethyl (2005–2017) Quizalofop–P–ethyl (2011–2019) Quizalofop-P-ethyl (2007–2019) 1990s Propaquizafop (2003–2019) Propaquizafop (2008–2017) Propaquizafop (2004–2013) Propaquizafop (2019) 1990s Clethodim (2008–2019) 2008 Tepraloxydim (2012–2013) 2011 2016 K. Räsänen et al. 59 Products of 11 active a.i. were withdrawn from the market in Finland during the study period. There were also four a.i. that were withdrawn from the markets after 2003–2019. For example, the herbicide linuron was used on carrot and on potato (2003–2013), by spraying it before seedling emergence in the spring. On carrot, it was the second most used PPP (kg ha-1) (27.7% from all PPPs), with an application frequency of 1.6 (standard devia- tion [SD] 0.4) times per year in 2003–2019. On potato, it was used to a lesser extent (5.4% from all PPPs), with an application frequency of 0.3 (SD 0.2) times per year in 2003–2019. The use of linuron negatively affects the ger- mination of carrots in the subsequent 1–2 years (Heinonen-Tanski et al. 1986). Thus, currently there are usage limits on the product label. For edible vegetables, the product must not be used in successive years on the same field due to the risk of residues. Table 3. The most common insect pests (Natural Resources Institute Finland 2021c) and the insecticides used for their control in studied crops (the database of Apetit Ruoka Ltd.), the year of registration and withdrawal from the Finnish market, and derogations of non-registered PPPs (Finnish Safety and Chemicals Agency 2021c). Carrot Potato Swede Fresh pea Registered in Finland since Withdrawn in Finland Most common target insects Trioza apicalis, Psila rosae, Lygus spp., Phyllotreta spp. Aphid species (Myzus persicae, Aulacorthum solani, Aphis frangulae, Aphis nasturtii, Aphis gossypii, Aphis fabae, Rhopalosiphum padi, Macrosiphum euphorbiae), Lygus spp. Phyllotreta spp., Lygus spp., Delia spp., Plutella xylostella, Pieris brassicae, Meligethes spp. Cydia nigricana, Acyrthosiphon pisum, Sitona spp. Insecticides belonging to pyrethrins and pyrethroids (MoA 3A) Esfenvalerate (2005–2019) Esfenvalerate (2017) Esfenvalerate (2005–2015) Esfenvalerate (2011, 2019) 1990s Lambda-Cyhalothrin (2003–2019) Lambda–Cyhalothrin (2016–2018) Lambda-Cyhalothrin (2003–2019) Lambda-Cyhalothrin (2003–2019) 1990s Alpha–Cypermethrin (2003–2019) Alpha-Cypermethrin (2003–2015) Alpha-Cypermethrin (2003–2019) 1990s Cypermethrin (2012–2019) Cypermethrin (2013–2016) Cypermethrin (2012–2017) 1990s Deltamethrin (2003–2019) Deltamethrin (2003–2019) Deltamethrin (2003–2019) 1980s Tau-Fluvalinate (2003–2019) Tau-Fluvalinate (2003–2018) Tau-Fluvalinate (2003–2017) 1990s Pyrethrins (2015) 1970s Insecticides belonging to organophosphates (MoA 1B) Dimethoate (2003–2006) Dimethoate (2003–2018) 1970s 2020 Malathion (2003–2006) 1950s 2008 Insecticides belonging to other MoA groups Chlorantraniliprole (2019) Chlorantraniliprole (2019) derogation Flonicamid (2019) 2018 Thiacloprid (2015–2019) 2015 2021 Spirotetramat (2018–2019) 2016 Paraffin oil (2019) 1980s Agricultural and Food Science (2022) 31: 54–69 60 In 2020, four additional active ingredients were withdrawn from the market in Finland. These included the organophosphate dimethoate that was used on carrot (2003–2006) and on swede (2003–2018) against car- rot flies and cabbage/turnip root flies, respectively. On swede it was the most used PPP (kg ha-1) (44.7 % from all PPPs) that was sprayed about twice a year in 2003–2019. According to the Apetit Ruoka Ltd. experts, the use of dimethoate was discontinued even before the active substance was withdrawn from the market. Table 4. The most common diseases (Natural Resources Institute Finland 2021c) and the fungicides used for their control in studied crops (the database of Apetit Ruoka Ltd.), the year of registration and withdrawal from the Finnish market, and derogations of non-registered PPPs (Finnish Safety and Chemicals Agency 2021c). Carrot Potato Swede Fresh pea Registered in Finland since Withdrawn in Finland Diseases Leaf diseases (Alternaria dauci, Cercospora carotae, Mycocenrospora acerina) Early blight (Alternaria solani, A. alternata), Late blight (Phytophthora infestans) Leaf diseases: powdery mildews, downy mildews Leaf diseases (Didymella spp., Peronospora viciae) Fungicides sprayed against various fungal leaf diseases Azoxystrobin (2005–2019) Azoxystrobin (2013–2019) Azoxystrobin (2012–2019) Azoxystrobin (2005–2015) 2004 Azoxystrobin + Difenoconazole (2011–2019) Azoxystrobin + Difenoconazole (2014) Azoxystrobin + Difenoconazole (2014–2015) 2010 Boscalid + Pyraclostrobin (2011–2019) Boscalid + Pyraclostrobin (2016–2017) 2015 Mandipropamid + Difenoconazole (2014–2019) 2014 Iprodione (2008–2012) 1980s 2011 Fungicides for control of potato late blight, mancozeb products for potato Mancozeb (2003–2019) 1953 Mancozeb + Cymoxanil (2009–2015) 2009 2017 Mancozeb + Dimethomorph (2003–2018) 1997 Mancozeb + Metaxyl–M (2003–2018) 1984 Mancozeb + Propamocarb–HCl (2003–2009) 1994 2012 Mancozeb + Zoxamide (2004–2008) 2004 2017 Fungicides for control of potato late blight, fluazinam products for potato Fluazinam (2003–2019) 1995 Fluazinam + Dimethomorph (2015–2017) 2014 Fluazinam + Metalaxyl–M (2003–2019) 1999 2020 Fungicides for control of potato late blight, propamocarb-HCl products for potato Propamocarb–HCl + Fenamidone (2009–2019) 2008 Propamocarb–HCl + Fluopicolide (2015–2019) 2014 Fungicides for control of potato late blight, other products for potato Amisulbrom (2014–2019) 2013 Cyazofamid (2005–2019) 2004 Cymoxanil (2018–2019) 2016 Cymoxanil + Famoxadone (2005–2011) 2004 2014 Mandipropamid (2008–2019) 2007 Mandipropamid + Difenoconazole (2014–2019) 2013 K. Räsänen et al. 61 It seems that there is no equivalent compound to replace dimethoate. Lately, the company’s farmers have started to use insect nets to protect swedes against cabbage root flies. Our data showed that PPPs used in the vegetable fields correspond to those registered on the market. However, in a few fields two products were reported in the database to have been used against target pests they were not registered for. In 2014 and 2015, the fungicides azoxystrobin and difenoconazole were reported to have been used on swede in three different fields (0.3% from all use cases in the 2009–2019 database on swede). In 2014 and 2018, the same products were reported to have been used on potato in five different fields in (0.3% of all use cases in the 2009– 2019 database on potato). According to the Apetit Ruoka Ltd. experts, the reason for this might have been a re- cording mistake made by the farmer in the register. To minimize the effects of the most hazardous PPPs, these products have been banned or restricted by authori- ties (EC 2009c) due to their environmental and health effects, and many more are expected to be phased out in the coming years due to the reformed EU hazard-based legislation concerning PPPs (Robin and Marchand 2019). This way the plant protection authorities strive to reduce PPP risks through their evaluation, and thus influence the availability of PPPs and their role among plant protection methods. As an example, because some PPPs, such as linuron, are no longer used, new PPPs that have been registered in their place, which are more specific, do not therefore necessarily correspond to the same degree of environmental effects as for the previously used PPPs. Moreover, a tank mixture of the herbicides aclonifen and metribuzin is now used instead of linuron alone and thus two compounds are now needed instead of one. In addition to the use rate, the environmental impact depends on the nature of the PPP (Wustenberghs et al. 2012, Räsänen et al. 2015, Möhring et al. 2020). Consequently, environmental and health impacts of new PPPs may be different from those of the old individual withdrawn PPP. How much PPP was used? Amount of active ingredient (kg ha-1) The highest quantity of PPPs (kg ha-1) was used on potatoes, on which 34 different active ingredients at an aver- age of 3.5 kg ha-1 (SD 0.6) per year were used in 2003–2019 (Fig. 1). The temporal trend of PPP used on potato was slightly increasing (slope 0.012, p <0.01). The second highest quantity of PPP was used on swede (on aver- age 2.7 kg ha-1 (SD 0.8) per year with 20 different active ingredients), showing a decreasing trend (slope -0.11, p <0.01) (Fig. 1). Carrot was third, with 1.6 kg ha-1 (SD 0.2) per year and 30 different active ingredients (slope 0.03, p <0.001) (Fig. 1). On fresh peas, 18 different active ingredients at an average of 0.8 kg ha-1 (SD 0.2) per year of PPPs were used (slope 0.01, p <0.001) (Fig. 1). Thus, the trend of total amount of PPP usage decreased only on swede, but increased on potato, carrot and fresh pea. In addition, according to Apetit Ruoka Ltd. experts, no PPP residues were found from in the company’s raw materials, based on results of residue analyses. PPP usage figures on the entire potato area in Finland in 2013 (14000 ha) were similar to our data (2.65 kg ha-1 vs. 2.64 kg ha-1), but in 2018 (12500 ha) they were less than for our data (2.16 kg ha-1 vs. 3.68 kg ha-1) (Natural Resources Institute Finland 2021d). For potato, in our data, fungicides (77.3% of all PPPs on potato in our data) were the most used PPPs, and herbicides (22.7% in our data) were the second most used; their order was the same for the entire potato area in Finland (Natural Resources Institute Finland 2021d). PPP usage on potato in Figure 1. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 PP P am ou nt (k g ha -1 ) Potato Swede Carrot Pea Fig.1. Total active ingredient usage of PPP (kg ha-1) on potato, swede, carrot and pea crops in 2003–2019 Agricultural and Food Science (2022) 31: 54–69 62 Sweden in 2017 was at the same level, or 3.3 kg ha-1, with fungicides in the first place and herbicides in the second (Swedish Chemicals Agency 2017). While, in Scotland 9.3 kg ha-1 PPPs were used on ware potato, which was much more than was used in Finland or Sweden in 2018 (Wardlaw et al. 2018). Total usage for carrots in Finland, in both 2013 (1580 ha) and 2018 (1850 ha), was higher than was reflected by our data (2.21 kg ha-1 vs. 1.68 kg ha-1, and 2.01 kg ha-1 vs. 1.64 kg ha-1, respectively). In Scotland 7.15 kg ha-1 was much more PPPs than were used on carrot in Finland according to our data for 2019 (Wardlaw et al. 2019). Overall, in Finland on carrots, herbicides (87.3% of all PPPs on carrot in our data) were the most used PPPs, fungicides (6.0% in our data) were second, and insec- ticides (6.7% in our data) were the least used (Natural Resources Institute Finland 2021d). On fresh pea, PPP use in the whole country in 2013 (2780 ha) was higher than indicated by our data (1.27 kg ha-1 vs. 0.86 kg ha-1), but in 2018 (4 980 ha) Apetit Ruoka Ltd. growers used slightly more PPPs (0.59 kg ha-1 vs. 0.79 kg ha-1) (Natural Resources Institute Finland 2021d). In the whole country and in our data, herbicides (98.6% of all PPPs on fresh pea in our data) were the most used PPPs on fresh pea, while insecticides (1.2% in our data) were second and fungicides the least used (Natural Resources Institute Finland 2021d). In our data, for swede, on average 2.6 kg ha-1 PPPs were used during the total time period and the figure was 1.4 kg ha-1 in 2019. Most of the insecticides (measured in kg ha-1) were used on swede (91.6% from all insecticides on all four crops) even though herbicides (52.6%) were the most used PPPs on this crop. There were no data available for overall PPP usage on swede in Finland. However, data were found from Scotland, where 1.86 kg ha-1 PPPs was used on swede in 2019 (Wardlaw et al. 2019). Swe- den was chosen for comparison because it is a neighboring country and geographically similar to Finland. Scotland was selected to provide comparative data for swede. Number of sprays per field Carrot was sprayed most often (Fig. 2); on average 10.1 (SD 3.6) times per year. Note that each a.i. in such cases is considered as a single spray, as explained in the Material and methods. The number of sprayings increased from 7.7 (SD 0.7) in 2003 to 14.9 (SD 1.0) in 2019 (slope 0.67, p <0.001), mainly due to increase in the number of treatments with herbicides and insecticides (Fig. 3A). In Scotland carrot was sprayed on average 9.6 times in 2019 (Wardlaw et al. 2019). Swede was sprayed the second most often (Fig. 2), at an average of 9.3 (SD 2.1) times per year, but it was associated with a decreasing trend in the total number of treatments per field, being 10.1 (SD 1.0) in 2003, 6.6 (SD 0.7) in 2018, and 9.1 (SD 1.1) in 2019 (slope -0.23, p <0.001), mainly due to decreasing sprays of insecticides during the whole time period (Fig. 3C). In Scotland swede was sprayed on average 5.6 times in 2019 (Wardlaw et al. 2019). On potato, an average of 8.7 (SD 1.8) sprayings were made per year, and the number of sprayings increased over the time period (Fig. 2), being 7.1 (SD 0.8) in 2003 and 10.4 (SD 0.6) in 2019 (slope 0.27, p<0.001), mainly due to an increase in fungicide use (Fig. 3B). In Scotland ware potato was sprayed on average 12.6 times in 2018 (Wardlaw et al. 2018). On fresh peas, PPPs were sprayed on average 3.2 (SD 0.6) times per sum- mer, which remained close to this level in all years (slope 0.06, p<0.001), (Fig. 2). The number of visits per field was smaller than the number of PPP sprayings because more than one active ingredient per visit was sometimes sprayed per field (on average per year on carrot 98%, potato 79%, swede 97% and pea 98%). Fig. 2. PPP application frequency per active ingredient per field (number of sprays per field) on potato, swede, carrot and pea crops in 2003–2019. Note that several different PPPs could be sprayed simultaneously as tank mixes when this was appropriate; each a.i. in such cases is considered as one spray. Figure 2. 0 5 10 15 20 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 N um be r of s pr ay s pe r fie ld Potato Swede Carrot Pea K. Räsänen et al. 63 Fig. 3. PPP application frequency per active ingredient per field (number of sprays per field) for fungicides, herbicides and insecticides on carrot (A), potato, (B) swede (C) and fresh pea (D) in 2003–2019 Figure 3B. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 N um be r of s pr ay s pe r fie ld Potato Fungicide Herbicide Insecticide Figure 3D. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019N um be r of s pr ay s pe r fi el d Fresh pea Fungicide Herbicide Insecticide Figure 3A. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 N um be r of s pr ay s pe r fie ld Carrot Fungicide Herbicide Insecticide Figure 3C. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019N um be r of s pr ay s pe r fi el d Swede Fungicide Herbicide Insecticide A B D C Agricultural and Food Science (2022) 31: 54–69 64 The number of insecticide treatments per field on carrot (slope 0.21, p<0.001) and the number of fungicide treat- ments per field on potato (slope 0,19, p<0.001) increased, but on swede the trend for the total number of in- secticides decreased (slope -0.09, p<0.01). Insect nets are currently perceived as the viable solution to prevent damage by carrot psyllid and cabbage root flies (Nissinen et al. 2020) due to suspected decreases in the efficacy of PPPs against these pests (Apetit Ruoka Ltd. experts). The use of nets with carrots only started in 2020 in the contract farmers of Apetit Ruoka Ltd., so there was no information available on their use for our work. In con- trast, on swede, the use of insect nets against cabbage root flies began in 2012 on some farms, which we suspect contributed to the decreasing use of insecticides in this crop. However, the high purchase price of the insect nets (Munyaneza et al. 2014) and complications that they cause for weed control have slowed down the wider adop- tion of nets by contract farms according to the Apetit Ruoka Ltd. experts. Fresh peas differ from the other crops in a positive respect: PPPs were used the least and the rate of use varied little over the years (Fig. 2 and 3D). The advantages of fresh peas, in Finland, might be the short growth period and a systematic long crop rotation (5–6 years) by the contract farmers according to the Apetit Ruoka Ltd. experts, which helps to slow pest reproduction and prevent pest occurrence. The changes in the kg ha-1 use rates did not always reflect the changes in spray frequency (Table 5). A PPP can be withdrawn and replaced with one or two substitutes that have different use rates compared with the withdrawn ones or have a lower/higher or shorter/longer efficacy, and must therefore be used more/less often, even if use rates per treatment are similar. In addition, spot treatments can be done instead of treating the whole field, which does not affect number of treatments but reduces use rate. Thus, the use of PPPs in terms of kg per ha alone, therefore, does not describe the complete reality of PPP usage. Pesticide resistance management We assumed that if there were active ingredients only from one MoA group to be used against a pest, it would mean a higher risk of resistance development (Jutsum et al. 1998). Products from more than one MoA group would mean the risk of resistance development was smaller. This is, of course, a crude estimation for a proxy of the risk of resistance development because its speed is influenced by several factors associated, among other things, with the compound, the target pest and its biology, success of coverage of the crop by the application, and the number of repeated applications (van den Bosch et al. 2014, Beckie et al. 2021, Corkley et al. 2022). Table 5. The change in trends (slopes and p-values) for amount of active ingredient (kg ha-1) of PPPs and number of sprays per field in carrot, swede, potato and pea crops in 2003–2019. The largest differences between amounts and spray frequencies are in bold. Amount of active ingredient (kg ha-1) Number of sprays per field Carrot Total slope 0.03, p<0.001 slope 0.67, p<0.001 Fungicide slope 0.007, p=0.6 slope 0.07, p<0.001 Herbicide slope 0.008, p<0.05 (0.048) slope 0.38, p<0.001 Insecticide slope 0.02, p<0.001 slope 0.21, p<0.001 Swede Total slope -0.11, p<0.01 slope -0.23, p<0.001 Fungicide slope -0.0003, p=0.8 slope -0.0003, p=0.2 Herbicide slope -0.005, p=0.8 slope 0.0004, p=0.3 Insecticide slope -0.103, p<0.001 slope -0.09, p<0.01 Potato Total slope 0.012, p<0.01 slope 0.27, p<0.001 Fungicide slope -0.02, p=0.06 slope 0.19, p<0.001 Herbicide slope 0.03, p<0.001 slope 0.07, p<0.001 Insecticide slope 0.0008, p=0.8 slope -0.08, p=0.2 Pea Total slope 0.01, p<0.001 slope 0.06, p<0.001 Fungicide Herbicide slope 0.02, p<0.001 slope 0.08, p=0.3 Insecticide slope -0.006, p<0.001 slope -0.01, p<0.01 K. Räsänen et al. 65 There are indications of insecticide resistance development in the carrot psyllid to pyrethroids that were, for a long time, the only MoA group available against this pest on carrots (Fig. 4). The data on the increase of insec- ticide treatments against the carrot psyllid are supported by the comments of experts from Apetit Ruoka Ltd. According to them, carrot psyllid in particular has been causing increasing problems recently, and a suspicion of resistance development was expressed in the review by Jalli et al. (2019). Scientific evidence on insecticide resistance in field vegetable pests in Finland dates, however, to as long back in time as the 1980s, when cab- bage root fly (Delia radicum) maggots were shown to be resistant to dimethoate (Varis and Dalman 1980). In the absence of sufficient availability of PPPs with differing MoAs, crop rotation can be used to reduce the need for in- secticide applications, but its success will vary according to dispersal ranges of insect pest species. For example, cabbage root flies disperse 2–3 km (see Helenius 1997, and references therein), but carrot flies disperse only 50–100 m/day. Even so, to get effective results, the distance between the old and new crop fields may need to be a kilometer or more to avoid infestations of the new fields by the carrot fly (Collier et al. 2003, Finch and Collier 2004). In the last few years, insecticides other than pyrethroids from four other MoA groups (Table 3) were used on carrots against the carrot psyllid. This could decrease the resistance risk in the longer run if the newer PPPs are effective against the pest. According to the Apetit Ruoka Ltd. experts, the growing season of 2020 was the first when carrot producers used nets against insect pests of the crop. The efficacy of the nets was recently shown by Nissinen et al. (2020). Insect nets have also been used on swede during recent years, according to the experts of Apetit Ruoka Ltd. This could explain the decreasing trend in the frequency of insecticide use on swede (Fig. 3C). The four crops harbor different weeds, and there were herbicides from several MoA groups available for all crops during the study period. Even so, we showed earlier that on carrots the number of herbicide treatments increased during the study period (Fig. 3A). The reasons for this are unclear to date. However, some reasons, in addition to resistance, could be agronomic in nature, for example insufficient coverage of weed spectrum by herbicide treat- ments or unfavorable weather conditions following a treatment, or newly registered active ingredients with lower overall efficacy. There are proven observations of resistance in some weed species against herbicides in Finland, including sulfonylurea-resistant Stellaria media in cereals (Uusitalo et al. 2013), but research is lacking on herbi- cide resistance in weeds that are common in vegetable crops. Such research should be a future priority. The frequency of spraying potato has exhibited an increasing trend, according to our data, from 2014 onwards (Fig. 2 and 3B). Fungal diseases, and particularly late blight (Phytophthora infestans), must be regularly controlled in potato, but fungicides from different MoA groups were available for rotation to slow down resistance develop- ment. In Finland, resistance in late blight of potato has been found only for the fungicide metalaxyl at the end of the 1990s (Hermansen et al. 2000). Due to the earlier start of epidemics, and soil-borne inoculum becoming the prevalent primary infection source of late blight, which is associated with lack of proper crop rotation, the use of fungicides against late blight in potato increased four-fold in Finland between the 1980s and 2002 (Hannukkala et al. 2007). The number of fungicide treatments per field has increased more than the number of visits per field, which indicates that tank mixes of two or more active ingredients, with more selective target action, have become more common, and achieve good control of early and late blight. Forecasts for late blight are not com- monly used in Finland because the time window to treat potato crops is very narrow, due to the shortness of the growing season. The disease needs to be controlled prophylactically before any symptoms occur in the crop, and a false negative decision would, with a high level of certainty, result in serious crop losses (Cooke et al. 2011). Thus, subjective risk probability, conditioned for example by the frequent occurrence of the disease in previ- ous summers that were conducive for late blight development, can override the more objective risk probability. Fig. 4. The number of different MoA groups for fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides used on carrot in 2003–2019 Figure 4. 0 2 4 6 8 10 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 M oA g ro up in g Carrot Fungicide Herbicide Insecticide Agricultural and Food Science (2022) 31: 54–69 66 Even when using forecasts, the uncertainty regarding development of such serious pests can prompt growers to spray, despite the forecast recommending the opposite (Möhring et al. 2020). The reasons for the trends in increased numbers of insecticide and fungicide treatments for carrot and potato, respectively, were deemed different: suspected resistance to pyrethroids in the case of the carrot psyllid, but the withdrawal of broad-spectrum fungicides and their replacement with more selective ones in the case of potato, resulting in more frequent sprayings because different chemicals are needed for late and early blight. The latter reason might have contributed also to the increased use of herbicides in carrot when the broad-spectrum herbi- cide linuron was phased out from the market and more selective herbicides replaced it. Conclusions Our results are the first to report exact quantities of PPPs (plant protection product) used in Finnish vegetable crops over a long time period (17 years) in southwestern Finland. PPP use reflected specific protection needs of each crop. The number of treatments per field showed an increasing trend for insecticides and herbicides in carrots and fungicides in potato, for different reasons. Fresh peas and swede represent exceptionally low or decreasing use of PPPs, respectively, again for different reasons: a short growth period and a long crop rotation (5–6 years) for peas, and mechanical insect control for swede. In addition, despite the change in trends of PPP treatment fre- quencies, total treatment amounts (kg ha-1) did not always behave similarly. The possibilities for rotating different active ingredients to control weeds and fungal diseases, within and between years, was considered relatively good. Resistance problems were not experienced by farmers and were not the reason for increased use rates of PPPs in potato. This conclusion should be supported by research on the occur- rence of actual resistance, to exclude agronomic reasons and reasons associated with increases in the number of treatments due to selectivity issues of PPPs in recent years. For insecticides, rotation possibilities in carrots have been extremely limited for a long time due to very restricted availability of active ingredients from different MoA groups. Inclusion of non-chemical options, however, may not be considered feasible by growers for logistical and cost reasons until resistance problems become very severe and force the uptake of non-chemical methods. It has been shown that economic characteristics (profit orientation, agricultural income, technological investment be- haviour and farm labour) have the strongest effects on both uptake and intentions to take up novel technologies (Toma et al. 2018). From the farmer’s perspective, getting costs of a new technology covered would be a strong incentive for its adoption, but often this has been difficult in cases of adopting IPM technologies that are more costly than chemical PPPs (Lefebvre et al. 2015). Kilogram-based use of PPPs is a central starting point when evaluating ecological and social impacts of IPM (Inte- grated Pest Management) through such parameters as residues in the environment, products and drinking water. Spray frequencies complement the information on pesticide loads: how often, under what kind of conditions and in which combinations of active ingredients is the environment exposed to PPPs. Spray frequency also influences the risk of resistance development in target pests. According to Apetit Ruoka Ltd. and their residue analyses, no residues of PPPs have been found from the company’s raw materials. This criterion indicates that the use of PPPs in the company’s contract farms has been successful according to the principles and practices of IPM. In addition to this, PPPs have been used according to the principles of resistance management whenever PPPs from more than one MoA group have been available to control a certain pest. Resistance problems are suspected, however, in some pest species for which PPPs from only one MoA group have been available for a long period of time. In some farms, such limitations have resulted already in the uptake of non-chemical control methods despite the higher costs and increased labor requirements. In some crops the kg ha-1 use of PPPs had decreased, but the number of sprays per growing season had increased. From the point of view of IPM impacts, such development is not neutral: the use of several selective PPPs in a row can have more detrimental environmental impacts than one treatment with a less-selective PPP. Furthermore, an increase in spray frequencies can reflect resistance development in pests. Thus, kg ha-1 use or spray frequency do not directly indicate the extent of risks of PPP use to the environment and/or human health. The use of risk in- dicators that consider the toxicological characteristics of PPPs is thus desirable for obtaining an accurate picture on the sustainability of PPP use. Such information is currently lacking from the farms monitored in this study and from regions where the farms are located. In addition, the discrepancy between the use rates (kg ha-1) and the number of treatments per field, combined with the fact that treatment frequencies are influenced by various fac- tors, indicates that individual quantitative measurements alone do not necessarily accurately reflect the level of implementing IPM principles when using PPPs as part of an IPM program. K. Räsänen et al. 67 Results of the current study will be employed to calculate ecotoxicological risks of PPP use in vegetable crops in the study areas. Such analyses would benefit from information on farm-level PPP use and ecotoxicological risk evalua- tions in similar crops in other parts of Finland and in other European countries. Such future research needs serve the better understanding of ultimate ecological and social impacts of IPM that are not captured solely through kg ha-1 use or spray frequencies of PPPs. Lastly, the use of different non-chemical control methods would be an important addition to such databases as were used in our study because such data would help in understanding why PPP use is changing. Research needs to be continued to better guide the recording of farmers’ plant protec- tion activities and their analysis to verify the impacts of IPM implementation. Acknowledgements We thank Apetit Ruoka Ltd. for the excellent data and good cooperation. Thank you for Maa- ja Vesitekniikan Tuki ry, which gave a grant for this study. We would particularly like to thank the following researchers at Natural Re- sources Institute Finland (Luke): Pentti Ruuttunen and Janne Kaseva, who kindly helped us with data and (statis- tical) calculations, respectively. We also thank Jonathan Robinson for language revision. References Andert, S., Bürger, J. & Gerowitt, B. 2015. On-farm pesticide use in four Northern German regions as influenced by farm and pro- duction conditions. Crop Protection 75: 1–10. https://doi.org//10.1016/j.cropro.2015.05.002 Beckie, H.J., Busi, R., Lopez-Ruiz, F.J. & Umina, P.A. 2021. Herbicide resistance management strategies: how do they compare with those for insecticides, fungicides and antibiotics? Pest Management Science 77: 3049–3056. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.6395 Bürger, J., de Mol, F. & Gerowitt, B. 2012. Influence of cropping system factors on pesticide use intensity-A multivariate analysis of on-farm data in North East Germany. European Journal of Agronomy 40: 54–63. https://doi.org//10.1016/j.eja.2012.02.008 Collier, R., Finch, S. & Davies, J. 2003. New ways of manipulating field populations of the carrot fly. Integrated Control in Field Vegetable Crops. IOBC/WPRS Bulletin 26: 57–60. Cooke, L.R., Schepers, H.T.A.M., Hermansen, A., Bain, R.A., Bradshaw, N.J., Ritchie, F., Shaw, D.S., Evenhuis, A., Kessel, G.J.T., Wander, J.G.N., Andersson, B., Hansen, J.G., Hannukkala, A., Nærstad, R. & Nielsen, B.J. 2011. Epidemiology and Integrated Con- trol of Potato Late Blight in Europe Potato Research 54: 183–222 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11540-011-9187-0 Corkley, I., Fraaije, B. & Hawkins, N. 2022. Fungicide resistance management: Maximizing the effective life of plant protection products. Plant Pathology 71: 150–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppa.13467 Dirksmeyer, W., Waibel, H., den Belder, E. & Esbjerg, P. 2005. Comparison of pest control practices in open field vegetables among three European countries. Comptes Redus de la Réunion 28: 83–99. EC 2009a. Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex- %3A32009L0128. Accessed 3 November 2021. EC 2009b. REGULATION (EC) No 1185/2009/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 25 November 2009 concerning statistics on pesticide. http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:324:0001:0022:EN:PDF. Accessed 3 November 2021. EC 2009c. Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC. https://eur-lex. europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32009R1107. Accessed 3 November 2021. EC 2019. Commission Directive (EU) 2019/782 of 15 May 2019 amending Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the establishment of harmonised risk indicators. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/782/oj. Accessed 3 November 2021. EC 2020. COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS. A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmental- ly-friendly food system. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0381. Accessed 28 January 2022. EC 2021a. EU Pesticides database. https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/eu-pesticides-db_en. Accessed 3 November 2021. EC 2021b. EUROSTAT. Agri-environmental indicator - consumption of pesticides. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/ index.php/Agri-environmental_indicator_-_consumption_of_pesticides. Accessed 3 November 2021. FAO 2021. FAOSTAT. Pesticides Use. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/RP. Accessed 3 November 2021. Finch, S. & Collier, R.H. 2004. A simple method-based on the carrot fly-for studying the movement of pest insects. Entomologia experimentalis et applicata 110: 201–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0013-8703.2004.00136.x Finnish Safety and Chemicals Agency 2021a. Sales volumes of plant protection products. https://tukes.fi/en/chemicals/plant-pro- tection-products/sales-volumes. Accessed 3 November 2021. Finnish Safety and Chemicals Agency 2021b. Plant protection products register. https://www.kemidigi.fi/kasvinsuojeluainerekis- teri/haku. Accessed 3 November 2021. Agricultural and Food Science (2022) 31: 54–69 68 Finnish Safety and Chemicals Agency 2021c. Derogations of plant protection products. https://tukes.fi/en/chemicals/plant-pro- tection-products/authorised-products/derogations-in-emergency-situations. Accessed 3 November 2021. Fungicide Resistance Action Committee 2021. Fungicides sorted by mode of action. https://www.frac.info/docs/default-source/ publications/frac-code-list/frac-code-list-2021--final.pdf?sfvrsn=f7ec499a_2. Accessed 7 March 2022. Hannukkala, A.O., Kaukoranta, T., Lehtinen, A. & Rahkonen, A. 2007. Late-blight epidemics on potato in Finland, 1933-2002; in- creased and earlier occurrence of epidemics associated with climate change and lack of rotation. Plant Pathology 56: 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3059.2006.01451.x Heinonen-Tanski, H., Siltanen, H., Kilpi, S., Simojoki, P., Rosenberg, C. & Mäkinen, S. 1986. The effect of the annual use of some pesticides on soil microorganisms, pesticide residues in soil and carrot yields. Pesticide Science 17: 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.2780170210 Helenius, J. 1997. Spatial scales in ecological pest management (EPM): importance of regional crop rotations. Biological Agricul- ture & Horticulture 15: 162–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/01448765.1997.9755190 Herbicide Resistance Action Committee 2021. Herbicides sorted by mode of action. https://hracglobal.com/files/HRAC_MOA_ Poster_January_6_2022.pdf. Accessed 7 March 2022. Hermansen, A., Hannukkala, A., Nærstad, R.H. & Brurberg, M.B. 2000. Variation in populations of Phytophthora infestans in Finland and Norway: mating type, metalaxyl resistance and virulence phenotype. Plant Pathology 49: 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3059.2000.00426.x Insecticide Resistance Action Committee 2021. Insecticides sorted by mode of action. https://irac-online.org/modes-of-action/. Accessed 7 March 2022. Jalli, H., Ketola, J., Rahkonen, A. & Ohralahti, K. 2019. Kasvintuhoojien torjunta-ainekestävyys. Luonnonvara- ja biotalouden tutkimus 15/2019. Report of Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke). Helsinki. 21 p. https://jukuri.luke.fi/bitstream/han- dle/10024/543842/luke-luobio_15_2019.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. (in Finnish). Jutsum, A.R., Heaney, S.P., Perrin, B.M. & Wege, P.J. 1998. Pesticide resistance: assessment of risk and the development and implementation of effective management strategies. Pesticide Science 54: 435–446. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9063(199812)54:4<435::AID-PS844>3.0.CO;2-K Lefebvre, M., Langrell, S.R., & Gomez-y-Paloma, S. 2015. Incentives and policies for integrated pest management in Europe: a re- view. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 35: 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-014-0237-2 Munyaneza, J.E., Sengoda, V.G., Sundheim, L. & Meadow, R. 2014. Survey of “Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum” in car- rot crops affected by the Psyllid Trioza apicalis (Hemiptera: Triozidae) in Norway. Journal of Plant Pathology 96: 397–402. https://doi.org/10.4454/JPP.V96I2.019 Möhring, N., Bozzola, M., Hirsch, S. & Finger, R. 2020. Are pesticides risk decreasing? The relevance of pesticide indicator choice in empirical analysis. Agricultural Economics 51: 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12563 Natural Resources Institute Finland 2021a. Statistics database: Horticultural Statistics in Finland. https://stat.luke.fi/en/horticul- tural-statistics. Accessed 3 November 2021. Natural Resources Institute Finland 2021b. Statistics database: Crop Production Statistics in Finland. https://stat.luke.fi/en/crop-pro- duction-statistics. Accessed 3 November 2021. Natural Resources Institute Finland 2021c. Vihannesten kasvinterveysoppaat (in Finnish). https://ipm-oppaat.luke.fi/. Accessed 3 November 2021. Natural Resources Institute Finland 2021d. Statistics database: Use of pesticides in agriculture in Finland. https://stat.luke.fi/en/ tilasto/4083. Accessed 3 November 2021. Nissinen, A., Pihlava, J.-M., Latvala, S. & Jauhiainen, L. 2020. Assessment of the efficiency of different control programs to reduce Trioza apicalis Först. (Triozidae: Hemiptera) feeding damage and the spread of “Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum” on car- rots (Daucus carota ssp. sativus L.). Annals of Applied Biology 2020: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/aab.12603 Robin, D. & Marchand, P.A. 2019. Evolution of Regulation (EU) No. 540/2011 since its entry into force. Journal of Regulatory Science 7: 1–7. https://doi.org/10.21423/jrs-v07robin Räsänen, K., Mattila, T., Porvari, P., Kurppa, S. & Tiilikkala, K. 2015. Estimating the development of ecotoxicological pressure on water systems from pesticides in Finland 2000-2011. Journal of Cleaner Production 89: 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.00 Swedish Chemicals Agency 2017. Pesticides in agriculture and horticulture. Use on crops. https://www.scb.se/en/finding-sta- tistics/statistics-by-subject-area/environment/sales-and-use-of-chemicals/use-of-pesticides-in-arable-crops/pong/publications/ pesticides-in-agriculture-and-horticulture.-use-on-crops. Accessed 3 November 2021 Timeanddate 2021. Sunrise and Sunset Calculator - City Lookup. https://www.timeanddate.com/sun. Accessed 3 November 2021. Toma, L., Barnes, A.P., Sutherland, L.A., Thomson, S., Burnett, F. & Mathews, K. 2018. Impact of information transfer on farmers’ uptake of innovative crop technologies: a structural equation model applied to survey data. The Journal of Technology Transfer 43: 864–881. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9520-5 Uusitalo, T., Saarinen, A. & Mäkelä, P.S.A. 2013. Effect of management of sulfonylurea resistant Stellaria media on barley yield. International Scholarly Research Notices 2013: 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/310764 van den Bosch, F., Oliver, R., van den Berg, F. & Paveley, N. 2014. Governing principles can guide fungicide-resistance management tactics. Annual Review of Phytopathology 5: 175–195. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-phyto-102313-050158 Varis, A.-L. & Dalman, P. 1980. The efficacy of lindane and dimethoate against cabbage maggots in Finland. Journal of the scien- tific agricultural society of Finland 52: 7–13. https://doi.org/10.23986/afsci.72025 K. Räsänen et al. 69 Venäläinen, A., Tuomenvirta, H., Pirinen, P. & Drebs, A. 2005. A basic Finnish climate data set 1961-2000- Description and il- lustrations. Finnish Meteorological Institute. Helsinki. 27 p. https://www.oulu.fi/oulugis/doc/data_description.pdf. Accessed 3 November 2021. Wardlaw, J., Davis, C., Monie, C. & Reay, G. 2018. Pesticide Usage in Scotland - Arable crops and Potato stores 2018. A National Statistics Publication for Scotland. Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture (SASA). Roddinglaw Road, Edinburgh, Scotland, EH12 9FJ. https://www.gov.scot/publications/pesticide-usage-scotland-arable-crops-potato-stores-2018/documents/ Wardlaw, J., Davis, C., Monie, C. & Reay, G. 2019. Pesticide Usage in Scotland - Outdoor Vegetable Crops 2019. A National Statis- tics Publication for Scotland. Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture (SASA). Roddinglaw Road, Edinburgh, Scotland, EH12 9FJ https://www.sasa.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Outdoor%20Vegetable%20Crops%202019.pdf Wustenberghs, H., Delcour, I., D’haene, K., Lauwers, L., Marchand, F., Steurbaut, W. & Spanoghe, P. 2012. A dual indicator set to help farms achieve more sustainable crop protection. Pest Management Science 68: 1130–1140. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.3332 The use of chemical plant protection products in field vegetablefarms in a central industrial vegetable growing area in Finland Introduction Materials and methods The database and the crops studied The parameters utilized in PPP use calculations Indicators Statistical analysis Results and discussion Which PPPs were used? How much PPP was used? Amount of active ingredient (kg ha-1) Number of sprays per field Conclusions Acknowledgements References