Holst, Carsten

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","20"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","24"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","22"],["dc.contributor.author","Heinrich, Barbara"],["dc.contributor.author","Holst, Carsten"],["dc.contributor.author","Lakner, Sebastian"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T09:30:08Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T09:30:08Z"],["dc.date.issued","2013"],["dc.identifier.isi","000316589700006"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/31229"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Oekom Verlag"],["dc.relation.issn","0940-5550"],["dc.title","The Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy: On the Right Track to Become Greener and Fairer?"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.seriesnr","1304"],["dc.contributor.author","Lakner, Sebastian"],["dc.contributor.author","Holst, Carsten"],["dc.contributor.author","Brümmer, Bernhard"],["dc.contributor.author","von Cramon-Taubadel, Stephan"],["dc.contributor.author","Theuvsen, Ludwig"],["dc.contributor.author","Musshoff, Oliver"],["dc.contributor.author","Tscharntke, Teja"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-01-16T14:05:07Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-01-16T14:05:07Z"],["dc.date.issued","2013"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/11666"],["dc.language.iso","de"],["dc.notes.status","final"],["dc.publisher","Department für Agrarökonomie und Rurale Entwicklung"],["dc.publisher.place","Göttingen"],["dc.relation.crisseries","Diskussionsbeiträge (Department für Agrarökonomie und Rurale Entwicklung Göttingen)"],["dc.title","Zahlungen für Landwirte an gesellschaftliche Leistungen koppeln! - Ein Kommentar zum aktuellen Stand der EU-Agrarreform"],["dc.type","working_paper"],["dc.type.internalPublication","unknown"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Frontiers in Plant Science"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","9"],["dc.contributor.author","Vogel, Johannes"],["dc.contributor.author","Kenter, Christine"],["dc.contributor.author","Holst, Carsten"],["dc.contributor.author","Märländer, Bernward"],["dc.date.accessioned","2020-12-10T18:44:38Z"],["dc.date.available","2020-12-10T18:44:38Z"],["dc.date.issued","2018"],["dc.description.abstract","Cercospora leaf spot (CLS) epidemics in sugar beet have been increasing in recent years causing higher use of fungicides. Concomitantly, the availability of effective fungicides is at risk because of resistance development in the fungus, the lack of new active ingredients as well as restrictive approval practices. A key option for an integrated management of CLS is cultivation of resistant varieties. Because of the yield penalty in resistant varieties, acceptance in commercial practice so far has been low. The aim of our study was to characterize recent sugar beet varieties registered in Germany in terms of resistance and tolerance to CLS and their value for integrated pest management. The genetic basis of CLS resistance in varieties is protected by intellectual property rights even after variety registration and not open to the public due to economic competition. To gain reliable data for cultivation, varieties have to be tested for their resistance traits under field conditions at varying levels of infection with Cercospora beticola. In collaboration with variety related stakeholders, 15 sugar beet varieties were tested in 49 field trials in Germany from 2014 to 2016 for their yield response to CLS. The trials were set up in a split-plot design with and without infection (i.e., with and without fungicide). The classification of varietal reaction to CLS is based on symptomatic leaf area (susceptibility) and the resulting relative yield loss (tolerance). Since the relation between both parameters varied among varieties, it was used as an additional parameter to describe tolerance. On this basis, three groups of varieties were identified. They can be characterized as a susceptible, a resistant and a presumably tolerant cluster. A comparison of the data with an older dataset originating from 2009 to 2011 revealed that yield performance of recent varieties with resistance to C. beticola caught up with susceptible varieties due to breeding progress. They showed no yield penalty in the absence of the disease and better economic performance than susceptible varieties. It is assumed that these varieties will allow a substantial reduction of fungicide use for an advanced integrated pest management under central European conditions."],["dc.identifier.doi","10.3389/fpls.2018.00222"],["dc.identifier.eissn","1664-462X"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/78541"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI Import GROB-354"],["dc.publisher","Frontiers Media S.A."],["dc.relation.eissn","1664-462X"],["dc.rights","http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"],["dc.title","New Generation of Resistant Sugar Beet Varieties for Advanced Integrated Management of Cercospora Leaf Spot in Central Europe"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","1"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","37"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.seriesnr","1401"],["dc.contributor.author","Lakner, Sebastian"],["dc.contributor.author","Holst, Carsten"],["dc.contributor.author","Barkmann, Jan"],["dc.contributor.author","Isselstein, Johannes"],["dc.contributor.author","Spiller, Achim"],["dc.date.accessioned","2017-09-07T11:51:21Z"],["dc.date.available","2017-09-07T11:51:21Z"],["dc.date.issued","2014"],["dc.description.abstract","Der vorliegende Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit der Umsetzung der GAP-Reform 2013 in Deutschland und Niedersachsen: Hierbei wird zunächst der Aufschlag für die ersten 46 Hektare diskutiert. Eine ausführliche politische Begründung dieser Maßnahme von Seiten der Agrarpolitik liegt bisher nicht vor. Es werden mögliche wissenschaftliche Begründung für eine solche Maßnahmen wie eine sozialpolitische Begründung oder eine Begründung mit Hilfe von öffentlichen Gütern diskutiert: Beide Begründungen werden verworfen, so dass das Fazit der Analyse kritisch gegenüber Hektaroption ausfällt. Auch die Wirkung der Hektaroption ist teilweise problematisch, da sie z.B. sehr große Betriebe gegenüber der Option von Degression und Kappung besser stellt. Auch die Junglandwirte-Prämie wird kritisch diskutiert, da sie kaum ein geeignetes Instrument zur Förderung von Berufseinsteigern in die Landwirtschaft darstellt. Die Umverteilung von Mitteln von der I. in die II. Säule wird dagegen positiv bewertet, da die Programme der ländlichen Entwicklung mehr Potenzial für eine zielgerichtete und effiziente Maßnahmen bietet. Abschließend wird der Konflikt zwischen Gesellschaft und Landwirtschaft bei den Themen artgerechte Haltung und umweltfreundliche Agrarproduktion dargestellt."],["dc.identifier.gro","3147977"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/5315"],["dc.language.iso","de"],["dc.notes.status","final"],["dc.notes.submitter","chake"],["dc.publisher","Department für Agrarökonomie und Rurale Entwicklung, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen"],["dc.publisher.place","Göttingen"],["dc.relation.crisseries","Diskussionsbeiträge (Department für Agrarökonomie und Rurale Entwicklung Göttingen)"],["dc.title","Perspektiven der Niedersächsischen Agrarpolitik nach 2013 - Empfehlungen Göttinger Agrarwissenschaftler für die Landespolitik"],["dc.type","working_paper"],["dc.type.internalPublication","unknown"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","no"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]