“Key Informant Survey” of Production, Value, Losses and ... - DfID

More documents

Recommendations

Info

square-metre quadrats beneath each tree, and the average of these, as a mean value per m2, divided by the tree’s estimated height to obtain an estimate of fallen fruit per cubic m of canopy. Differences in the tendency of fruit to fall will be compared by the ratio of fallen to tree fruit per m3 of canopy. iii - Fruit infestation Infestation of fruit will be assessed by three methods. 1 - Harvested fruit counted and categorised by the farmer into pristine, fly-attacked and not visibly attacked but spoiled by rot or similar. 2 - A formal sample of susceptible fruit taken from the field as late near harvest as possible (a previous one just at the beginning of control implementation may also be done, to allow researchers practice in techniques and to check for non-treatment differences between treated and untreated plots). These will comprise 30 fruit, as six fruit from each of five trees. Fruit will be inspected and classified into those unblemished, apparently oviposited, apparently exit-holed and rotting. 3 - The same fruit are to be kept in field laboratories for the collection of emerging flies. Fruit will be kept in cool rooms (checked by maximum-minimum thermometers), in individual containers, to allow the quantification of larval distribution among fruit and of numbers of fruit infested. These characteristics will be analysed by spreadsheet programmes. Additional to economic differences between treatments, the spreadsheet automatically tests the characteristics of larval distribution as outlined above. The three approaches complement each other by balancing precision and robustness: the formal samples (2 and 3) are relatively small (30 fruit) and taken not at harvest but before, whereas farmer assessments (1) are of the whole harvest taken as it was gathered; visual damage assessments by farmers (1) and researchers (2) are essentially subjective, and uncertain indicators of fly attack (oviposition punctures can resemble other blemishes; exit-holes can resemble bird and beetle attacks) but the rearing of larvae from fruit (3) while objective and certain, lacks robustness in field conditions where collection, transport and storage may affect larval mortality, for example if rearing laboratory temperature and humidity fluctuate beyond those in the field. These relative advantages are summarised in Table III.2. Table III.2. Fruit infestation methods scored as to advantageousness by criteria (1=low; 3=high) (adapted from Stonehouse et al., in prep. – Table IV.C.1). Criterion Farmer harvest Sample Sample estimate inspection Larva rearing Sample size 3 2 1 Proximity to harvest 3 1 1 Objective certitude 1 2 3 Robustness 3 3 1 Activity 3: Village-Level Trials Fruit flies are controlled in a coordinated way over large areas in many parts of the world, including Mauritius (where B. zonata has been controlled to “very low levels” by area-wide bait sprays, Permalloo et al., 2001), Israel (where 27000Ha are simultaneously treated, reducing medfly infestation of citrus to less than 0.05%, Gazit and Roessler, 2001) and South Africa (where an experimental use of Sterile Insect Technique over a single valley has obtained zero medfly infestation, Barnes, 2001). It is proposed to include a study of the extent to which economies of scale accrue when control is area-wide as opposed to on individual plots, and of how the benefits of area-wide controls may be most efficiently realised by social and economic structures. Economic “externalities” arise when the costs and benefits to the agent of a particular action are not the same as those to society at large: for example if a private trading company raises a navy to protect its ships from pirates, other ships enjoy protection without making a contribution, as "free riders". Such cases require communal action in order effectively and sustainably to share the costs of social action (Mumford and Stonehouse, 1994), ideally through voluntary “bottom-up” cooperation to contribute to shared costs for 44
general benefit. Socially-cooperative control offers great benefits in cost-effectiveness, but requires full cooperation to attain these (Enkerlin and Mumford, 1997). 3.1: Village-Level Institutional Study Village-level studies will begin with a survey of village-level institutions which may provide cooperation and concerted action by groups of farmers. This will require social organisation and thus entail a key role for coordinating institutions such as cooperatives, NGOs, government agencies, selfhelp organisations and traditional institutions such as religious bodies. Sadly, it is often the case that cooperative area-wide controls set up by state bodies, though highly profitable for and enthusiastically welcomed by farmers, are not carried on by individuals and voluntary organisations when state support is withdrawn, as is happening in Mauritius (Permalloo et al., 2001), and so the robustness and commitment of social organisations are critical for the sustainability of area-wide control even when its efficacy is proven. The study will assess how such institutions may productively, reliably and sustainably provide the cohesion required. India, with its particular wealth of social organisations and groupings such as these, offers a particularly promising location for a study of this sort into how exactly such organisations may realise economies of scale in the optimisation of pest management. The study will take the form of visits to candidate villages, with the establishment of cooperative links with farmers’ organisations, sounding out the possibilities of research cooperation in village level control, with the following draft question set for each: - Nature of organisation - Extent and budget - History and development - Goals, including any statement of principles - Essential operating philosophy, including any statement of principles - Extent of inclusiveness - to cover all residents or a specified subset - Level of success and public perception - Nature and functionality of relations with other organisations This may be supplemented by village-level group participatory rural appraisal (PRA) discussions of why and how people might find it profitable, practical and sustainable to carry out controls jointly. Village-Level Institutional Study: Material Requirements Access and contacts in candidate villages and organisations. Notebooks. 3.2: Village-Level Trials It is proposed in the second year of fieldwork to evaluate wide-area control at village level, in liaison with village organisations contacted and evaluated previously, such as extension services, cooperatives, NGOs, etc. Due to the difficulties of this research, few quantified studies of the minimum area suitable for area-wide control have been performed, so the current “best guess”, possibly awaiting future refinement, is for one square kilometre (suggested by Cunningham, 1989) - roughly a small village and its immediate garden environs. The objective is to implement season-long wide-area village-level control, and to assess its success by evaluating fly populations and damage (as described above) inside and outside the protected area(s). Village-level control will be assessed relative to not only no-treatment but also to farm-level control outside a village-level control context, to assess the added value of cooperative control. It may be that village level of a certain level of intensity will not eradicates flies, and so there may still be room for further improvement by farmers in the protected area carrying out on-farm controls on their own account as well, so that village- and farmlevel controls deployed together may obtain superior control to either alone. The current proposal is for a factorial design – at each of the eight experimental centres four villages will be assessed, two with and two without village- level control (to allow two replicates of each full treatment at each of the eight research centres). In each village one farm will receive farm-level control, and another will not. This design is intended to show the relative effectiveness of farm- and village-level control, and of 45
Page 1 and 2:
Dear Colleague, Integrated Manageme
Page 3 and 4:
each zone will be divided by the to
Page 5 and 6:
Sheet 2. Production and fruit fly l
Page 7 and 8:
Product: Muskmelon Himalayan Highla
Page 9 and 10:
Product: Snake Gourd Himalayan High
Page 11 and 12:
Integrated Management of Fruit Flie
Page 13 and 14:
Palanpur Pumpkin 2 Anand Bitter Gou
Page 15 and 16:
Integrated Management of Fruit Flie
Page 17 and 18:
Navsari Thiruvananthapuram
Page 19 and 20:
The power of parapheromones. This I
Page 21 and 22:
Cluster “Western” “Southern
Page 23 and 24:
Indian fruit fly control and the So
Page 25 and 26:
INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF FRUIT FLIE
Page 27 and 28:
They used to be nearer Ahmedabad, a
Page 29 and 30:
FRUIT FLY CONTROL: SPRAYS (i) Spray
Page 31 and 32:
fruit borer, little leaf (a mycopla
Page 33 and 34:
ores the vine from tender portion,
Page 35 and 36:
(DDVP). He is applying both ME and
Page 37 and 38:
CROPS He said that he is growing bi
Page 39 and 40:
that spraying insecticides is only
Page 41 and 42:
vegetables not by having greater wa
Page 43 and 44:
advantage of bitter gourd? He start
Page 45 and 46:
isk of complete failure of crop. Am
Page 47 and 48:
FF MANAGEMENT He said that he using
Page 49 and 50:
eady-to-harvest fruits. Farmers los
Page 51 and 52:
Gandevi. #G008 DATE: 03/01/04 TEAM:
Page 53 and 54:
#R004 DATE:08/03 TEAM: JT/CVV. He i
Page 55 and 56:
he has found this as very reasonabl
Page 57 and 58:
improving the fertility condition o
Page 59 and 60:
50 cents, banana intercropped in co
Page 61 and 62:
with grass. When the field is left
Page 63 and 64:
sells his own produce. CROPS He gro
Page 65 and 66:
it. When JS mimes a jumping FF magg
Page 67 and 68:
other pests). RICE AND ITS PESTS In
Page 69 and 70:
(mother) feed voraciously on leaf l
Page 71 and 72:
yellow and drop. On opening of the
Page 73 and 74:
including semilooper because fruit
Page 75 and 76:
off prematurely from plants. Thus p
Page 77 and 78:
PEST: FRUIT FLIES Losses: Bitter go
Page 79 and 80:
PEST: SEMILOOPER Creates problems i
Page 81 and 82:
semi looper pest bitter gourd at an
Page 83 and 84: FRUIT FLIES July sown crop suffers
Page 85 and 86: LEAF CURL He said that this serious
Page 87 and 88: only own farm total area five ha. N
Page 89 and 90: PEST 1 - MANGO HOPPER is number one
Page 91 and 92: PROJECT MEMORANDUM on behalf of the
Page 93 and 94: 4. Starting and finishing dates 1 J
Page 95 and 96: Fruit flies, although a serious pes
Page 97 and 98: Department of Agricultural Extensio
Page 99 and 100: SECTION C: SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND 17
Page 101 and 102: Pakistan-UK Fruit Fly Project 1998-
Page 103 and 104: This will connect the field researc
Page 105 and 106: Narrative Summary Goal Objectively
Page 107 and 108: YEAR 2 2002-2003 MONTH Activity A M
Page 109 and 110: Table I.2. Subjectively-derived syn
Page 111 and 112: Jujube 3 - S Bawal Dashad et al. (1
Page 113 and 114: Appendix II. Scientific Research on
Page 115 and 116: Museum has B. dorsalis specimens re
Page 117 and 118: and if neem can be used in attracta
Page 119 and 120: coast. In the Faisalabad area attac
Page 121 and 122: elative, and offer little real comm
Page 123 and 124: Appendix III. Work Plan ACTIVITIES
Page 125 and 126: 1.1.4: Tabulation of Controls Findi
Page 127 and 128: other methods. In fields where loss
Page 129 and 130: In addition to the Key Informant Su
Page 131 and 132: killing points”, and these techni
Page 133: tiers. It is proposed to replace th
Page 137 and 138: greater than the sum of their parts
Page 139 and 140: Appendix IV. Prior Scientific Paper
Page 141 and 142: vi - Value of cucurbit extract comp
Page 143 and 144: Methods The assessment of BAT and M
Page 145 and 146: surfaces - cotton cloth, plastic sh
Page 147 and 148: Table IV.B.4. Mean total catches (N
Page 149 and 150: Table IV.B.9. Catches over four to
Page 151 and 152: Many improvements may be made to th
Page 153 and 154: economic damage per fly will be gre
Page 155 and 156: Table IV.C.1. Fruit infestation ass
Page 157 and 158: factors (ecoregion, year, season, w
Page 159 and 160: Infestation (%) ANOVA F Tree Mean 3
Page 161 and 162: Appendix V. References Afzal, M, Ma
Page 163 and 164: Jalaluddin, SM, Natarajan, K, Sadak
Page 165 and 166: cucurbitae Coquillett) in cucumber.
Page 167 and 168: Sharma, VP, Lal, OP, Rohidas, SB, P
Page 169 and 170: Project Integrated Management of Fr
Page 171 and 172: Section 1: Indian Fruit and Vegetab
Page 173 and 174: Section 2: Indian Production of Fru
Page 175 and 176: Section 4: Fruit Fly Species Report
Page 177 and 178: 56 Gastrozona balioptera 57 G. fasc
Page 179 and 180: 114 P. tetrica 115 Indacilira basiv
Page 181 and 182: Section 5: Hosts of Tephritid Fruit
Page 183 and 184: 56 Cucumis melo var. utilissimus Cu
Page 185 and 186:
118 Physalis peruviana Solanaceae C
Page 187 and 188:
Bactrocera sp. T. dioica Mondouri,
Page 189 and 190:
B. cucurbitae Mogekai Karnataka Kum
Page 191 and 192:
B. carambolae Andaman Islands Ranga
Page 193 and 194:
Jujube 20 20 60 40 N Gujarat xi,xii
Page 195 and 196:
Mango 9.8 9.8 10 10 10 N Kanpur vi
Page 197 and 198:
Cucumber 6.2 6.2 6 6 6 S South Anda
Page 199 and 200:
Section 8: Population Dynamics and
Page 201 and 202:
B. dorsalis Mango Kanpur, Uttar Pra
Page 203 and 204:
C. vesuviana Jujube Haryana Lakra a
Page 205 and 206:
Meridarchis scyrodes, Carpomyia ves
Page 207 and 208:
B. cucurbitae Bitter gourd Thakur e
Page 209 and 210:
B. cucurbitae C melo, C callosus B.
Page 211 and 212:
B. correcta Guava Jalaluddin and 19
Page 213 and 214:
B. cucurbitae 82 cucurbits Nath et
Page 215 and 216:
B. cucurbitae Singh et al. 2000 The
Page 217 and 218:
B. cucurbitae Gowda et al. 1979 An
Page 219 and 220:
B. cucurbitae Kaur and Srivastava B
Page 221 and 222:
B. dorsalis Srivastava et al. 1989
Page 223 and 224:
B. dorsalis Prasad and Sethi 1981 T
Page 225 and 226:
Section 12: Natural Enemies Host En
Page 227 and 228:
Section 13: Cultural Controls Fly H
Page 229 and 230:
B. cucurbitae Bhagat and Koul B. cu
Page 231 and 232:
B. cucurbitae Bitter gourd Gupta an
Page 233 and 234:
B. zonata Peach Himachal Pradesh B.
Page 235 and 236:
B. cucurbitae Bitter gourd Mote 197
Page 237 and 238:
B. cucurbitae Ccumber, ridge gourd
Page 239 and 240:
Zaprionus paravittiger [Z. indianus
Page 241 and 242:
B. zonata Apple, peach Solan, Himac
Page 243 and 244:
B. cucurbitae B. cucurbitae B. cucu
Page 245 and 246:
Section 16: Pheromone and Colour Lu
Page 247 and 248:
B. dorsalis Mango Pantnagar Uttar P
Page 249 and 250:
B. cucurbitae Snake gourd Banglades
Page 251 and 252:
Bagle, B.G. Prasad, V.G. 1983 Effec
Page 253 and 254:
Borah, S.R. Dutta, S.K. 1997 Infest
Page 255 and 256:
Drew, R.A.I. Raghu, S. 2002 The fru
Page 257 and 258:
Gupta, K. Anand, M. 2002 Effect of
Page 259 and 260:
Kapoor, V.C. Grewal, J.S. Agarwal,
Page 261 and 262:
KrishnaMoorthy, P.N. Srinivasan, K.
Page 263 and 264:
Nair, S. Thomas, J. 2001 Ovipositio
Page 265 and 266:
Patel, R.K. Patel, C.B. 1998 Biolog
Page 267 and 268:
Rahman, S Singh, S.P.N. Agarwal, M.
Page 269 and 270:
Shivarkar, D.T. Dumbre, R.B. 1985 B
Page 271 and 272:
Srivastava, B.G. Pant, N.C. Chaudhr
Page 273 and 274:
Wadhwani, K. Khan, N.H. 1983 Effect
Page 275 and 276:
Anon. 1994 Distribution Maps of Pes
Page 277 and 278:
Anon. 1998 Population dynamics of B
show all

“Key Informant Survey” of Production, Value, Losses and ... - DfID

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?