Advertisement
Advertisement

More Related Content

Advertisement

Similar to IPM for Pearl Millet in the Sahel: Augmentative on-farm releases of parasitoids to control the millet head miner in the Sahel(20)

More from ICRISAT(20)

Advertisement

IPM for Pearl Millet in the Sahel: Augmentative on-farm releases of parasitoids to control the millet head miner in the Sahel

  1. IPM  for  Pearl  Millet  in  the   Sahel:  Augmenta5ve  on-­‐farm   releases  of  parasitoids  to  control  the   millet  head  miner  in  the  Sahel.   Malick  Ba   ICRISAT  Niger  
  2. Pearl  millet,  Pennisetum   glaucum  (L.)  R.  Br.,  is  the   staple  crop  of  the  dry  regions   of  Africa.     Pearl  millet   3/26/15, 2:17 AM
  3. The  millet  head  miner,  Heliocheilus  albipunctella     (de  Joannis)  (Noctuidae),    
  4. The  millet  head  miner  damage   Ø  Damage  to  the  crop  is  due   to  larvae  that  feed  on  the   panicle  and  prevent  grain   formaFon.     Ø  As  the  larvae  chew   between  the  rachis  and   flowers,  they  liJ  the   destroyed  flowers  or   developing  grains,  leaving  a   characterisFc  spiral  paKern   on  the  millet  head.  
  5. Ø  Typical  yield  losses   range  from  40  to  85%   Ø  Almost  every  year   outbreaks  of  the  MHM   are  observed  in  the   Sahel  especially  on   early-­‐planted  millet  or   early  maturing  material     The  millet  head  miner  damage  
  6. Management  op5ons   •  Control  with  insecFcides  is  not  realisFc  for   subsistence  farmers  because  of  prohibiFve  cost   and  risk  to  health  and  the  environment.     •  Cultural  management  has  limited  applicability   •  Host  Plant  Resistance  is  sFll  under  invesFgaFon   •  EffecFve  biocontrol  agents  are  available  
  7. Biological  control   •  The  braconidae  parasitoid   wasp  Habrobracon   (=Bracon)  hebetor  Say   naturally  inflicted  significant   mortality  to  MHM.     •  But  parasiFsm  occurs  late  in   the  season  when  most  of   the  panicle  are  damaged   H.  Hebetor  developing  on  larvae     of  the  MHM  
  8. Augmenta5ve  biological  control   •  Colony  of  H.  hebetor  are  established  and  maintained  in  the   laboratory  on  an  alternate  host,  the  rice  moth  Corcyra     cephalonica     •  C.  cephalonica  is  reared  on  a  mixture  of  millet  flour  and   millet  grains     •  The  parasitoids  are  released  in  15  cm  ×  25  cm  jute  bags   (+200  g  of  millet  grains  +  100  g  of  millet  flour  +  25  larvae  of   the  rice  moth  Corcyra  cephalonica  (Stainton)  +  two  mated   H.  hebetor  females)   •  The  jute  bags  are  suspended  to  the  ceiling            of  tradiFonal  straw  granaries  
  9. How  augmenta5ve  releases  are  made?   §  Parasitoid  offspring’s  escaped   through  the  jute  meshes  and   straw  granaries  and  dispersed   to  millet  fields   •  A  set  of  15  bags  are  used  to   cover  5km2  area     •  Roughly  an  iniFal  number  of   1000  parasitoids  are  released  
  10. 0   5   10   15   20   25   30   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   Number  of  parasitoids  emerging  from  the   jute  bags   Days  aKer  confinement   Daily H. hebetor adults emerging from the jute bags Total:  70  parasitoids   Emerging  5me:  8  days  
  11. Effec5veness  in  controlling  the  head  miner   0   20   40   60   80   100   120   Burkina  Faso   Mali   Niger   %  parasi5zed  larvae     H.  hebetor  releases  villages   Control  (no  releases)   0   20   40   60   80   100   120   Burkina  Faso   Mali   Niger   %  parasi5zed  larvae     H.  hebetor  releases  villages   Control  (no  releases)   2007   2008  
  12. Challenges   •  Place  of  deployment  of  jute  bag  for  communiFes  where   granaries  are  made  of  clay,  which  could  not  enable   parasitoids  to  escape?   •  The  quanFty  of  millet  flour/grain  needed  for  formulaFng   the  parasitoid  bags?   •  Thus,  we  invesFgated:   –  effects  of  placing  jute  bags  directly  within  millet  fields  on  the   parasiFsm  of  MHM.     –  Reducing  the  seize  of  the  jute  bag  
  13. Reduc5on  of  bags  size  by  80%   0 4 8 12 16 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425 NumberofemergingH.hebetorper bag Number of days after confinement within jute bags 15 cmx25cm bags 7 cmx10cm bags T=57   T=70   Ba  et  al.,  2014  Biocontrol  
  14. Ba  et  al.,  2014  Biocontrol             Type  of  bag   Number   parasitoids   emerged   (Mean  ±  SE)     %  Parasi5sm     C.  cephalonica     (Mean  ±  SE)     H.  Hebetor   development   5me   (Mean  ±  SE)     25  x  15  cm   57.10  ±  5.01     80.77  ±  0.17     12.15  ±  0.34     10  x  7  cm   69.80  ±  5.57     87.19  ±  0.08     11.64  ±  0.31     T=  -­‐1.69   DF=  38   P=  0.10   T=  -­‐1.72   DF=  38   P=  0.09   T=  -­‐1.08   DF=118   P=0.27   Reduc5on  of  bags  size  by  80%  
  15. A B C a b c 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 7x10cm jute bags 15x25cm jute bags Control (no parasitoid released) %MHMlarvaeparasitized byH.hebetor Burkina Faso Niger Ba  et  al.,  2014  Biocontrol   Reduc5on  of  bags  size  by  80%  
  16. Displaying  bags  within  millet  fields   A   A   B   B   0   10   20   30   40   50   60   70   80   90   100   2011   2012   %  MHM  larvae  parasi5zed  by  H.  hebetor   Years   Parasitoid  bags  directly  placed  within  millet   crop   Control  (no  parasitoid  released)   Ba  et  al.,  2014  Biocontrol  
  17. Completely  damaged  panicles   Saved  panicles   Economic  advantages   Up  to  30%  grain  yield  gain     Baoua  et  al,  2013.  J.  Appl  Ento  
  18. Way  Forward   •  Establish  parasitoid  coKage  industry   •   Use  of  egg  parasitoids  for  enhancement  of  the   biocontrol  program   •  Use  of  pearl  millet  tolerant  varieFes        
  19. Thank you!
Advertisement