# How does winegrowers' management of fungal diseases involve collective action? Session: Farming Practice Diversity in Agroecological Transitions: From Typologies to Analytical Tools

Emma Crouzet, Servane Penvern, Marie Thiollet-Scholtus, Laure Hossard

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Emma Crouzet, Servane Penvern, Marie Thiollet-Scholtus, Laure Hossard. How does winegrowers' management of fungal diseases involve collective action? Session: Farming Practice Diversity in Agroecological Transitions: From Typologies to Analytical Tools. 8. International Farming System Design Conference, Aug 2025, Palaiseau, France. hal-05261841

HAL Id: hal-05261841

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05261841v1

Submitted on 15 Sep 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

8th International Farming System Design Conference
Palaiseau – 25-29 August 2025

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>
# How does winegrowers' management of fungal diseases involve collective action ?

Emma Crouzet¹, Servane Penvern¹, Marie Thiollet-Scholtus², Laure Hossard¹

¹Université de Montpellier, CIRAD, INRAE, Institut Agro, UMR Innovation — Montpellier, France

²Université de Lorraine, INRAE, UMR LAE — Colmar, France

be creative

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

INRAE

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

ideas

INITIATIVE FOR DESIGN
IN AGRIFOOD SYSTEMS
# Material and methods : the diagnosis of uses

* **Diagnosis of uses** (Cerf et al. 2012) :

* Identify the diversity of work situations + how users have incorporated existing tools into their decision-making and action processes

* Qualitative data on **winegrowers' decision-making processes** regarding fungal disease management practices :

* Representation of the agronomic problem

* Objectives

* Decision-making rules + Information collected

* Difficulties ...

* **40 semi-structured** interviews with winegrowers from two French regions (Languedoc and Alsace).

* **Quantitative data on treatments** to calculate usage indicators (e.g., TFI)

* **Inductive thematic analysis → Preliminary study** based on **24 interviews**

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>
# Result 1: Winegrowers collect information from a variety of stakeholders and integrate it into many decisions concerning fungal diseases management

## Type and source of information :

Information from an **extension service** (Agriculture Chamber or Pest Control Sales Representative):
**29%** Product/technical information
**8%** Maturity of downy mildew eggs
**4%** Average stage of the vineyard
**4%** Number of simultaneous cycles

Information from an **extension service** (Agriculture Chamber or Pest Control Sales Representative) **or from another winegrower**:
**88%** Presence of symptoms on another farm
**79%** Advice on a management practice
**21%** Risk of diseases
**8%** Knowledge about symptoms

Information from another **winegrower**
**88%** Management practices of another winegrower
**71%** Feedback
**13%** Local rainfall
**13%** Opinion on the farmer's own management practices

Information from the **cooperative winery or the consumers**:
**33%** Consumer or cooperative demand

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

## Integration into winegrower's decision-making process, which could contribute to choose :

**63%** The treatment **product**
**46%** The **dose** of a treatment
**42%** The date of **first treatment**

**29%** The **grape variety**
**25%** To initiate an **observation** on their farm
**25%** The **frequency** of treatment renewal

**4%** The protection end date
**4%** To implement **prophylaxis**
# Result 1: Winegrowers collect information from a variety of stakeholders and integrate it into many decisions concerning fungal diseases management

## Type and source of information :

Information from an **extension service** (Agriculture Chamber or Pest Control Sales Representative):
**29%** Product/technical information
**8%** Maturity of downy mildew eggs
**4%** Average stage of the vineyard
**4%** Number of simultaneous cycles

Information from an **extension service** (Agriculture Chamber or Pest Control Sales Representative) **or from another winegrower**:
**88%** Presence of symptoms on another farm
**79%** Advice on a management practice
**21%** Risk of diseases
**8%** Knowledge about symptoms

Information from another winegrower
**88%** Management practices of another winegrower
**71%** Feedback
**13%** Local rainfall

Information from the cooperative winery or the consumers :
**33%** Consumer or cooperative demand

The most frequently mentioned information is the presence of symptoms on another farm, management practices of another winegrower, feedback, and advice.

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

## Integration into winegrower's decision-making process, which could contribute to choose :

**63%** The treatment **product**
**46%** The **dose** of a treatment
**42%** The date of **first treatment**

**29%** The **grape variety**
**25%** To initiate an **observation** on their farm
**25%** The **frequency** of treatment renewal

**4%** The protection end date
**4%** To implement **prophylaxis**

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>
# Result 1: Winegrowers collect information from a variety of stakeholders and integrate it into many decisions concerning fungal diseases management

## Type and source of information :

Information from an **extension service** (Agriculture Chamber or Pest Control Sales Representative):
**29%** Product/technical information
**8%** Maturity of downy mildew eggs
**4%** Average stage of the vineyard
**4%** Number of simultaneous cycles

Information from an **extension service** (Agriculture Chamber or Pest Control Sales Representative) **or from another winegrower**:
**88%** Presence of symptoms on another farm
**79%** Advice on a management practice
**21%** Risk of diseases
**8%** Knowledge about symptoms

Information from another **winegrower**:
**88%** Management practices of another winegrower
**71%** Feedback
**13%** Local rainfall
**13%** Opinion on the farmer's own management practices

Information from the **cooperative winery or the consumers**:
**33%** Consumer or cooperative demand

Shared information influences many decisions, and the choice of the product is the most concerned.

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

## Integration into winegrower's decision-making process, which could contribute to choose :

**63%** The treatment **product**

**46%** The **dose** of a treatment

**42%** The date of **first treatment**

**29%** The grape **variety**

**25%** To initiate an **observation** on their farm

**25%** The **frequency** of treatment renewal

**4%** The protection end date

**4%** To implement **prophylaxis**

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>
# Result 2 : Winegrowers hear about the presence of symptoms mainly from other winegrowers and 57% mentioned using at least this information in a specific decision

88% of winegrowers mentioned they received the information "Presence of symptoms on another farm". For those winegrowers...

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>
# Result 2 : Winegrowers hear about the presence of symptoms mainly from other winegrowers and 57% mentioned using at least this information in a specific decision

88% of winegrowers mentioned they received the information "Presence of symptoms on another farm". For those winegrowers...

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

However, for many winegrowers, this information is not always precisely or at all integrated into a specific decision. Why ?

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>
## Results 3: Integration of the information “presence of symptoms” to the decision-making process depends on the disease

**Downy mildew** = **systematically integrated into** a **specific management decision** (mainly the **first treatment date**) + always initiated or is coupled with an **observation on the farm**.

**Powdery mildew** = **integrated** into a specific management decision **for only 60% of the winegrowers** (mainly the treatment dose) + initiated or is coupled with an observation on the farm for only **14% of the winegrowers**.

55% of winegrowers **do not specify the disease** → the information is often not linked to a specific decision (83% of them).

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /><figcaption>Symptoms of downy mildew
on a vine leaf
©IFV</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /><figcaption>Symptoms of powdery mildew
on a vine leaf
©IFV</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>
Result 4 : There is a diversity in how winegrowers collect and use collective information associated with a gradient in fungicide use

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /></figure>

Precise
information to
confirm a
decision

Information used to guide
management, feed into
management indicators

Advice-driven
management

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>
# Result 4 : There is a diversity in how winegrowers collect and use collective information associated with a gradient in fungicide use

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /></figure>

Few decisions

Many decisions

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /></figure>
Result 4 : There is a diversity in how winegrowers collect and use collective information associated with a gradient in fungicide use

<figure><img src="image_29.png" /></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Group 1</th><th>Group 2</th><th>Group 3</th><th>Group 4</th><th>Group 5</th><th>Group 6</th><th>Group 7</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Region</th><td>Both</td><td>Both but mainly Languedoc</td><td>Alsace only</td><td>Alsace only</td><td>Both but mainly Languedoc</td><td>Both but mainly Alsace</td><td>Both</td></tr><tr><th>Organic / conventional</th><td>Organic only</td><td>Both but mainly conventional</td><td>Organic only</td><td>Organic only</td><td>Both but mainly conventional</td><td>Both</td><td>Both</td></tr><tr><th>Cooperative members / independent winemakers</th><td>Independent winemakers only</td><td>Both but mainly independent winemakers</td><td>Both</td><td>Both</td><td>Both</td><td>Cooperative members only</td><td>Cooperative members only</td></tr><tr><th>% TFI excluding biocontrol</th><td>3.19</td><td>N.A</td><td>4.85 - 5.44</td><td>3.33 - 6.58</td><td>9.68</td><td>4.39 - 12.33</td><td>6.15-6.16</td></tr><tr><th>Alsace</th><td>3.78 - 4.92</td><td>5.51 - 7.82</td><td></td><td></td><td>4.93 - 7.75</td><td>7.19</td><td>10.3</td></tr><tr><th>Languedoc</th><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /></figure>
Discussion

* Some **decisions** are **more influenced** by shared information than others (e.g product choice vs prophylaxis). Collective action on preventive measures exists (Sherman et al., 2005).

→ Why is it less affected by exchanges ?

* The impact of shared information varies **depending on the fungal disease**

→ differences in decision-making processes for the two diseases ?

* **Variety of ways to select and integrate shared information** (groups), not explained by descriptive indicators

→ **Other aspects of winegrowers' decision-making processes could explain this**

<figure><img src="image_31.png" /></figure>
Conclusion and perspectives

* Part of a **design process** → **design collective action for managing fungal diseases** in viticulture.

* **Action paradigm of pragmatism** : “action and thought as two facets of the same process” (Lorino, 2018)

* **Decision-making** = link between action and thought

<figure><img src="image_32.png" /></figure>

* Need to **explore other aspects of the decision-making process**

<figure><img src="image_33.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_34.png" /></figure>