4 ipm cluster_accra2
TRANSCRIPT
Sevgan Subramanian,
IPM cluster,
icipe, Kenya
Innovations in Bio-control based management
of horticultural pests
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
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
Technology
Dissemination
Adoption &
impact Invasive Fruit fly
IPM
Parasitoid Parasitoid Orchard sanitation Orchard sanitation
Biopesticide Biopesticide
Male annihilation Male annihilation
Bait spray Bait spray
Post harvest Post 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
Monitoring Monitoring
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
.20
08
No
v.2
00
8
Dec
.20
08
Jan
.20
08
Oct
.20
09
No
v.2
00
9
Dec
.20
09
Jan
.20
09
Oct
.20
10
No
v.2
01
0
Dec
.20
10
Jan
.20
10
Oct
.20
11
No
v.2
01
1
Dec
.20
11
Jan
.20
12
Oct
.20
12
No
v.2
01
2
Dec
.20
12
Jan
.20
13
Feb
.20
13
Mar
.20
13
B. invadens F. arisanus
Values are no. of insects per kilogram of mango fruits
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
MAT + OS MAT + BST Control
% fru
it infe
sta
tion (
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
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
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
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
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
french beans, tomato, onions - thrips IPM
Resistant cultivars
Biopesticides
Intercrop
Attractant
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
b
d
c
c
d
a
0
50
100
150
200
250
Me
an
th
rip
s c
ou
nt
/20
pla
nts
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
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
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
Acknowledgement
Key donors – for their support
International and National research partners for their collaboration and
inputs in our endeavors