Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
HSAD integrated pest management
HSAD integrated pest management
HSAD integrated pest management
HSAD integrated pest management
HSAD integrated pest management
HSAD integrated pest management
HSAD integrated pest management
HSAD integrated pest management
HSAD integrated pest management
HSAD integrated pest management
HSAD integrated pest management
HSAD integrated pest management
HSAD integrated pest management
HSAD integrated pest management
HSAD integrated pest management
HSAD integrated pest management
HSAD integrated pest management
HSAD integrated pest management
HSAD integrated pest management
HSAD integrated pest management
HSAD integrated pest management
HSAD integrated pest management
HSAD integrated pest management
HSAD integrated pest management
HSAD integrated pest management
HSAD integrated pest management
HSAD integrated pest management
HSAD integrated pest management
HSAD integrated pest management
HSAD integrated pest management
HSAD integrated pest management
HSAD integrated pest management
HSAD integrated pest management
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

HSAD integrated pest management

399

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
399
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Integrated Farm Pest Management Dr.Nazar Alanbaky Plant Protection office / MoA Joint Work Shop/MoA & HSAD June 10-11-2014
  • 2. On-farm integrated management of Ascochyta blight on spring planted chickpea and variety evaluation in North Iraq Location/site: Nineveh (Alqoosh); Erbil /Ainkawa Objectives  To evaluate candidate chickpea varieties for their resistance to Ascochyta blight and Fusarium wilt;  To develop integrated management for Ascochyta blight and Fusarium wilt on spring planted chickpea  To dissect the Pathogenic variability of Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. ciceri
  • 3. On-farm evaluations of promising chickpea genotypes resistant to Ascochyta blight and wilt/root rot on spring planted chickpea in North Iraq Severe Ascochyta Blight
  • 4. Table 1. Agronomic traits of two chickpea genotypes tested at Alqoush during the growing season of 2012/13 Agronomic traits Genotypes FLIP 06-156C FLIP05-133C Flowering dates 70 72 Days to maturity 125 128 Pant height (cm) 50 51 100 seed weight(g) 30 31.5 Yield (T/h) 1.3 1.3
  • 5. Table 2: Influence of selected bio control agents & bio fertilizers on incidence of wilt on chickpea plants Treatments Disease incidence (%) Control efficiency(%) Rhizobium 20 50 Trichoderma 10 75 Pseudomonas 12 70 Bacillus 10 75 PGPR (Mixed bioagents) 15 63 Control 40
  • 6. On –Farm use of biofertilizer on wheat and chickpea (Location: Nineveh Alqoosh ). Objective: Evaluation of some biofertilizers to investigate their role as a safe and effective alternative to the chemical fertilizers and as plant growth promoter, on spring chickpea.
  • 7. Table 13: Effect of bio agents combination (bio fertilizer and bio pesticide) on chickpea growth and wilt disease. Treatments Dose Length of plant/cm Shoot dry weight/gm No. f pods/plant Seed weight/ gm/m^2 No. nodules/ plant Dry weight of nodules/mg Wilt incid ence (%)0* 1/4* 1/ 2* 0* 1/4* 1/2* 0* 1/4* 1/2* 0* 1/4* 1/2* 0* 1/4 * 1/2* 0* 1/4* 1/2* R 42 43 37 34.33 50.08 53.83 18.88 25.70 24.82 5.11 8.17 7.82 6 10 15 95 130 186 20 T+R 30 32 33 31.66 41.4 43.00 20.29 23.52 26.47 5.88 8.67 8.23 7 11 17 157 138 192 10 P+R 35 37 38 36.25 40.00 54.58 20.58 23.70 24.52 6.47 8.94 9.11 8 15 20 159 195 235 12 PGPR 39 33 35 28.53 35.25 44.33 18.86 20.58 22.94 5.52 6.82 6.7 6 11 16 133 136 135 10 B+R 32 34 38 31.66 35.75 40.58 19.55 22.35 27.65 6.04 7.76 8.05 7 14 14 140 205 200 15 CONTROL 25 29 30 28.5 32.5 33.83 15.7 14.70 16.17 4.82 5.58 7.11 3 6 6 54 80 87 40 0* = zero amount of chemical fertilizer. 1/4*= quarter of recommended amount of chemical fertilizer. 1/2*= half of recommended amount of chemical fertilizer
  • 8. Practical field activities
  • 9. IPM on Major Date Palm Insect Pests Objectives  Introducing at farmer’s level safe, effective and IPM compatible insecticides as alternative to conventional chemical insecticides for the control of Dubas Bug ,Lesser Date Moth (Alhumara) & Borers.  Raising ministry’s field staff and farmers’ awareness and knowledge regarding management of major date palm insect pests.  Improving date palm yield and quality.
  • 10. On-farm integrated management of Dubas bug on date palm Locations/sites: Baghdad/Abu-Ghraib, Babil /Hashimia, Mahaweel, Karbala/AinTemr
  • 11. Table 3 Field efficacies of selected botanical pesticides against nymphal stage of dubas bug O. lybicus. Babil Governorate, Spring generation 2013. Treatment Rate of Use/ Lit. Governorat e/site Area/ (h) Average Pre- Treatment Infestatio n (Nymph/ Leaflet) Average Post – Treatment Infestation (Nymph/ Leaflet) In Days Efficacy (%) 7 14 21 28 *Mixture(1:10) :Neem 1% Azadrachtin + Summer Oil 1.5 + 15 ml Babil/ Almahaweel 3 3.51 0.09 0.12 0.39 - 90 Control 3.51 2.20 4.33 3.79 - **Oxymatrine 2.4 EC 2 ml Babil/ Alhashimia 2 7.4 0.68 0.17 0.80 1.73 62 Control 7.44 2.29 18.95 13.18 4.54 *Experiment was conducted on May 13th, 2013 ** Experiment conducted on April 28th,
  • 12. Table.4. Field efficacies of selected botanical pesticides against nymphal stages of dubas bug O. lybicus. Karbala province, Spring 2013. Treatment Rate of Use/ Lit. Area (h) Average Pre- Treatment Infestation Egg/ Leaflet Average Post – Treatment Infestation Nymph/ Leaflet In Days 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 % Effic acy *Mixture (1:10): Neem 1% Azadrachtin + Summer Oil 1.5 + 15 ml 3.0 4.78 4.84 1.35 7.42 1.55 0.63 2.56 5.21 79 Oxymatrine 2.4 EC 2 ml 1.0 4.78 2.46 0.68 0.27 0.81 0.56 1.49 2.8 89 Control 2.0 4.78 4.85 1.71 13.11 7.32 5.56 21.29 24.77 *Treatment conducted on March 24th, 2013
  • 13. Table 5. Field efficacies of selected botanical insecticides against nymphal stages of dubas bug O. lybicus. Baghdad / Abu Ghraib Orchard no.1 (Spring 2013). Treatment Rate of Use ml/Lit Area (h) Pre- Treatment Nymph/Leaf let Post - Treatment Nymph/Leaflet (Days) % Efficacy 7 14 21 28 Oxymatrine 2.4 EC 2 2 108.37 5.66 2.78 0.16 1.03 93 Neem(1% Aza) 3 1 15.10 4.18 2.88 3.92 67 Mixture(1:10): Neem+ Summer Oil 1.5+ 15 1 108.37 28.58 12.41 3.42 3.44 86.5 Control 1 108.37 43.03 21.29 13.06 14.59
  • 14. Table 7. Effect of Different treatments on the productivity of some date palm varieties at selected Provinces (Spring 2013). Treatment Dates Variety Governorate No. Bunches / Tree Average bunch weight Kg Total Yield/ Kg/Tree No. Beneficiary Farmers Oxymatrine 2.4 EC Khestawy Karbella 13 13 169 4 Mixture(1:10) Neem 1% Aza + Summer Oil 13 12 156 Control 9 9 81 Oxymatrine 2.4 EC Khestawy Babil 8 30 240 2 Control 9 17 153 Oxymatrine 2.4 EC Barhee Baghdad 8 10 80 5 Neem 1% + Summer Oil 8 8 64 Neem 1% 6 6 36 Control 7 5 35 Oxymatrine 2.4 EC Khestawy Baghdad 14 13 182 5Neem 1% 8 10 80 Control 8 7 56
  • 15. Fig. 2 .Effect of Oxymatrine, Neem and mixture of Neem and Summer Oil on the yield of selected varieties of date palm
  • 16. On- farm integrated management of lesser date moth on date palm (LDM) Description: Disseminating the use of the Bio-Control agents as one package (BT as a spray, egg parasitoids, larvae parasitoids) for the control of Lesser date moth to more farmers and areas. Objectives: Select effective IPM options for the management of lesser date moth and dissemination to more farmers.
  • 17. Table 10. Influence of IPM package on infestation of LDM in different sites Province/Site %infestati on before treatment Treatment Infestation/ 2wks after tmt. Infestation/ one month after tmt. Infest. (%) Eff. control (% Infest. (%) Eff. control (%) Basra/Al- Nashwa 3.77 Bt.+egg&larvae parasitoid 5.9 62 9.7 62 Control 15.1 19.8 L.S.D(P < 0.05) For percent infestation ,Treatments=2.041, Dates =2.041, Interaction =2.887 Karbalaa/Ain- Tamr 5.1 Bt.+egg&larvae parasitoid 6.5 69 5.29 72 Control 18.9 18.4 L.S.D(P < 0.05) For percent infestation ,Treatments=2.288, Dates =2.288, Interaction =3.235 Al-Anbar/Al- Saqlawyia 4.5 Bt.+egg&larvae parasitoid 2.63 65 4.64 70 Control 7.39 15.38 L.S.D(P < 0.05) For percent infestation ,Treatments=2.214, Dates =2.214, Interaction =3.131 Mayssan/ Al-Kahlaa 7.1 Bt.+egg&lar vae parasitoid 5.06 61 7.5 57 Control 12.8 16.2 L.S.D(P < 0.05) For percent infestation ,Treatments=0.786, Dates =0.786, Interaction =3.235
  • 18. Field Release of Egg & Larval Parasitiods
  • 19. Province Treatments Parameters Mean no. fruits/ strands Weight of bunch (kg.) Yield /tree (kg.) Percent of yield increase (%) Basrah Bt.+egg&larvae parasitoid 21.5 6.425 79.5 33.6 control 15.7 4.736 59.58 Karbala Bt.+egg&larvae parasitoid 30.01 9.917 107.2 38.5 control 22.5 7.604 77.4 Mayssan Bt.+egg&larvae parasitoid 23.5 9.178 81.8 23.8 control 17.1 7.261 66.1 Al-Anbar Bt.+egg&larvae parasitoid 25.4 11.123 115.1 37 control 18.5 7.305 84 L.S.D(P < 0.05) 6.6 1.22 20.49 Table 11.Some yield components of date palm trees treated with combination of bioagents at different Provinces during 2013.
  • 20. On- farm integrated management on date palm borers Objective • Influence of Solar Traps and agriculture practices to reduce the number of borers in date palm fields and their impact on yield.
  • 21. Training on Composting & OF
  • 22. Table.13. Number of farmers benefiting or accepting the concept of IPM on date palm and area covered in different sites Activity Province/Site Area of experiment (H) Area of benefiting surrounding orchards (H) No. Farmers benefiting and accepting IPM technology on date palm in the site On-Farm IPM for dubas bug Baghdad/Fahama 4 200 35 Baghdad/Abu-Ghraib 3 14 10 Karbalaa/AinTamr 3 31 42 Karbalaa/Aun 3 61 51 Babil/Hashimia 2 35 45 Babil/Mahaweel 3 30 30 Total 18 371 213 On-Farm IPM for LDM Al-Anbar/Al-Saqlawyia 5 25 25 Karbalaa/Ain Tamr 5 30 18 Missan/Al-Kahlaa 3 25 12 Basra/Al-Nashwa 4 25 27 Total 17 105 82 On-Farm OF on date palm Karbalaa/AinTamt 1.5 10 10 Babil/Al-Mahaweel 1.5 3 6 Dewanyia/Dewanyia 1.5 15 10 Total 4.5 28 26 Grand Total 39.5 504 321
  • 23. PROJECT Training Course & SITE VISITS/IPM
  • 24. Table.14. Training in India DurationInstitute/City No. Trainees Title of trainingItem 6/6 – 20/6/ 2014 Centre for Agricultural Technologies, Assessment & Transfer (CATAT), Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), New Delhi 5 Bio- Fertilizers and Bio-pesticides in Agriculture1. 1/6/- 15/6/ 2014 National Bureau of Agriculturally Important Insects, (NBAII), Bangalore, Karnataka 7 Bio-intensive integrated pest and disease management (Mass rearing/Entomology)2. 6/6 – 20/6/ 2014 Centre for Agricultural Technologies, Assessment & Transfer (CATAT), Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), New Delhi 4 Bio –organic fertilization in Agriculture3. 16Total
  • 25. HARVEST OF HSAD ACTIVITIES
  • 26. Concluding Remarks Presented Field Data have strongly indicated that Botanical Insecticides ; Neem EC (1% Azadrachtin), Oxymatrine EC alone or in combination with Summer Oil were an effective alternative control measures against Dubas Bug .  Bio agents namely ; Bt, eggs & larval parasitiods were an effective IPM package to manage Lesser Date Moth .  Solar Traps was an effective tool for Monitoring & Control of major Date Palm Borers.  Bio pesticides ( Trichoderma) & Bio Fertilizers ( Rhizobium,Psedomonas & Bacillus and tolerant genotype gave dual effects by reducing Ascochyta & Fusarium wilt incidence and enhance productivity of Chickpea. Noticeable Role of HSAD Project on offering Research & New Technology Materials , as well as supporting Local & International Training Program.  Finally Two important Notes:  All most all HASAD IPM activities were based on the outcome of previously completed national & international Projects.  Both changing of HSAD Work Plan and the Urgency to show results (Rapid Impacts) caused negative impacts on the conduct of the project.
  • 27. Thanks for listening

×