4 ipm cluster_accra2
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share
  • 454 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
454
Views on SlideShare
454
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

4 ipm cluster_accra2 Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Sevgan Subramanian, IPM cluster, icipe, Kenya Innovations in Bio-control based management of horticultural pests
  • 2. Climate change and ecosystem cluster Integrated vector and disease management cluster IPM cluster Staple Food Crop IPM Fruit IPM (Mango, Avocado) Vegetable IPM (French bean, Onion, Tomato, Crucifers etc) Plantation crop IPM (Coffee, Cashew) Post harvest IPM (Staples and Horticulture crops) Behavior and chemical ecology Arthropod pathology Molecular biology Capacity building Rearing and Containm ent Biosyste matics Techno- transfer Biostatisti cs GIS IPM cluster – overview and goals -Stabilize horticultural & staple food production -Reduce quantitative & qualitative pre- & post- harvest losses due to insect pests, mites, weeds, mycotoxin producing fungi & insect vectored diseases - Develop production systems less reliant on external inputs
  • 3. Our approach towards development of management strategies - Build on basic knowledge for developing IPM tactics - Understand the role of natural habitat and natural enemies in pest control - Develop & promote IPM for key crop pests through integration of classical/conservational biological control with other management options - Ensure participation of smallholders in horticultural export markets
  • 4. Technology Dissemination Adoption & impact Invasive Fruit fly IPM ParasitoidParasitoidOrchard sanitationOrchard sanitation BiopesticideBiopesticide Male annihilationMale annihilation Bait sprayBait spray Post harvestPost harvest  Improved yields  Income  Employment  Improved health  Low production costs  Access to inputs management options – invasive fruit flies - Putative aboriginal home: Sri Lanka - Invaded Africa in 2003 - Reported from over 28 African countries - Over 30 host record but mango is the preferred (80% loss) - Inter-African phytosanitary council of the AU: devastating quarantine pest MonitoringMonitoring
  • 5. intervention impact - fruit infestation Fopius arisanus 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Oct.2008 Nov.2008 Dec.2008 Jan.2008 Oct.2009 Nov.2009 Dec.2009 Jan.2009 Oct.2010 Nov.2010 Dec.2010 Jan.2010 Oct.2011 Nov.2011 Dec.2011 Jan.2012 Oct.2012 Nov.2012 Dec.2012 Jan.2013 Feb.2013 Mar.2013 B. invadens F. arisanus Values are no. of insects per kilogram of mango fruits
  • 6. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 MAT + OS MAT + BST Control %fruitinfestation(Mean±SE) MAT = Male annihilation technique BST = Bait spray technique OS = Orchard sanitation Farmers reduce mango fruit infestation by 55-60% intervention impact - fruit infestation Value of the yield gain due to reduced infestation is around 1000 – 1200 USD/ha
  • 7. fruit fly IPM adoption among growers IPM Options Mango growers Trained in IPM Learning sites (n=291) Exposed to IPM site participants (n=292) Randomly selected (n=288) MAT + OS 71% 57% 62 (21%) MAT + BS 15% 11% 11 (4%) OS + BS 9% 11% 12 (4%) MAT+OS+BS 5% 4% 5 (2%) Own method 0 17% 198 (68%) MAT = Male annihilation technique BST = Bait spray technique OS = Orchard sanitation 871 growers surveyed Total number of farmers adopting fruit fly IPM 624 among growers surveyed (71%) Total direct and indirect beneficiaries 1Average household size= 6; 2Average # farm workers involved in traps servicing, orchard sanitation and harvesting=5.5 >8500 116 Cucurbit farmers – Spill over
  • 8. Taiwan cabbage & kale: diamondback moth management Diadegma semiclausum Ethiopia Sudan Cameroon Kenya Tanzania DRC AFRICA South Africa Uganda Cotesia plutellae Taiwan 2001 2003 Mozambique Zambia Malawi Diadegma semiclausum Diamondback moth
  • 9. Parameters Economic impacts Reduction in number of sprays 73% Reduction in control cost 63% Increase in yield of cabbage 4.7 t/ha Estimated benefits (KN: 25yrs) 32.1 million $ Benefit – cost ratio 28:1 DIRECT & INDIRECT IMPACT  Increase productivity (more food); Extra produce for sale (income);  Investment in inputs (more food); Employment (trade chain);  Household health; Environment health  NARS capacity, to address other pest Nganga & Borgemeister (2011) Macharia et al (2006) economic impact of DBM biological control
  • 10. french beans tomato, onions-thrips IPM 65 – 70% yield loss in Beans 60% yield loss in onions 100% in Tomato due to Thrips and tospsovirus Invasive nature Resistance to pesticides Quality loss
  • 11. french beans, tomato, onions - thrips IPM Resistant cultivars Biopesticides Intercrop Attractant
  • 12. Biopesticide (Metarhizium anisopliae) for thrips management Field efficacy of Metarhizium anisopliae isolate ICIPE69 applied at concentrations of 10^13 spores per ml in reducing infestation of French beans by Western Flower thrips
  • 13. b d c c d a 0 50 100 150 200 250 Meanthripscount/20plants Treatment Weekly application of α-cypermethrin Fungus application at 300 thrips/trap/week Fungus application at 600 thrips/trap/week Fungus application at 900 thrips/trap/week weekly applicatio of fungus Control (Water spray) Biopesticide (Metarhizium anisopliae) for thrips management
  • 14. Current research focus Understanding potential climate change impacts on the pest and biological control Develop novel pest management strategies are under various stages of evaluation “Lure and infect”  Plant endophytes  Bionets for crop protection  Assess socio-economic impacts of IPM technologies widely adopted by farmers Counter risks due to emerging and alien invasive species eg. Tomato moth, Tuta absoluta Source: IAAPS
  • 15. Outreach and capacity building Enhance capacity among NARS partners for adoption of IPM strategies * * * * * ** * *** Enhanced capacity to understand pest diversity/dynamics Wide adoption of IPM technologies developed Enhance scientific capacity for IPM research in Africa and Europe
  • 16. Acknowledgement Key donors – for their support International and National research partners for their collaboration and inputs in our endeavors