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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

choice chambers, so allowing extraneous differences, such as time of day, fly age, nutrition and the order of testing, to be discounted. Comparisons were made in a series of two-way choices, between two potted young melon plants treated with different bait formulations and placed at opposite ends of a long cage arena. On the cage centre line, equidistant between the two treated plants, freshly-emerged adult flies were released, and subsequent fall of dead flies recorded on either side of the centre line, to give a relative estimate of the power of each deposit to attract and kill flies. Each cage was 2m long, 0.5m wide and 0.5m high, with painted wood frame, floor and ceiling, walled with glass on one side and with wire gauze at the other and at either end. Doors in the glass side allowed flies in jars to be placed on the centre line and then released. Each cage contained a dish with a sugar-water wick placed on the centre line. Between the two treated plants at the cage extremities, the arenas were filled with untreated potted young melon plants, to mimic a melon field in which only a fraction of plants have been treated, and to evaluate realistically the powers of the deposits to attract and kill flies at a distance through a stand of untreated plants. Plants were about 15cm high, and were selected and positioned to maximise the symmetry of the stand about the centre line. The arenas were positioned to be symmetrical to light and warmth, and their facing directions adjusted until daily catches by two identical preparations were evenly divided. Six arenas were used as replicates, in three pairs built one on top of the other and standing on legs in dishes of water to prevent ant raids. In each cage pair the two treatments were placed at opposite ends in a Latin square design. The cages are illustrated in a preliminary graphical report elsewhere (Zia et al., 2001). Insects were from a laboratory culture of melon flies, Bactrocera cucurbitae Coquillet, from a stock taken near Karachi. Emerged adults from pupae taken from the culture were fed sugar water only until experimental release. Ten males and ten females were released in each run. Each comparison lasted until no live flies were observed, typically five to ten days. Not all of the 20 flies released in each experiment were always recovered; the missing ones were inferred to have expired in the soil in the melon pots. Records were taken of the maximum and minimum temperatures and of the time elapsed before each experiment ended. Treated melon plants were destroyed; untreated plants were reused, but rotated through the greenhouse to refresh them. The cages were washed with soap and water at the end of each experiment. The protein dosage was based on an unpublished survey of the literature (Stonehouse, J.M., Mumford, J.D., 1998, Protein Bait Spray Control of Fruit Flies: A Survey of Recommended Doses and Application Rates, Imperial College, London, 5pp, available from j.stonehouse@ic.ac.uk). It comprised 30ml of commercial protein hydrolysate (International Pheromone Systems Ltd, Ellesmere Port, South Wirral, CH65 4TY, UK. ips_ltd@btconnect.com) and 3ml of malathion 57% active ingredient emulsifiable concentrate (“Fifinone” obtained locally) made up to 1l with water. The preparation of animal protein was based on that recommended by the FAO Afghanistan Rural Development Programme. It comprised 0.75l of broth made from 300g cheap beef meat, boiled for two hours, stood overnight and skimmed of fat, 0.125l boiled and mashed cucumber filtrate liquid, mixed with 50g of urea and stood to ferment for two days, with 3ml of malathion (Fifinone), made up to 1l with water. In order to ensure homogeneity of non-experimental variables, the preparations of commercial hydrolysate bait, meat preparation bait, cucumber extract, urea and insecticide were made initially in a single batch, and all frozen in compartmented ice cube trays, and then thawed out and mixed with other ingredients when needed. The literature survey found a typical application rate of protein hydrolysate bait to be 7.5lha -1 (0.75mlm -2 ), repeated every 10 days. Each half of a cage arena was approximately 0.5m 2 and so each treated plant was treated with 0.5ml of mixture, applied to the leaves with a pipette in droplets of approximately 1mm diameter. Six comparisons were performed, between March and July 1999. First were two to test the validity of the method; subsequently, baits were compared to test four questions of crop protection importance. i - Two identical bait preparations (method check). Protein hydrolysate with malathion was compared with itself to see if flies confronted with two theoretically equally attractive options fell dead evenly about the centre line. ii - Bait preparation compared with nothing (method check). Protein hydrolysate with malathion was compared with an untreated plant to see if larger numbers of dead flies fell on the side of the centre line facing the putatively more effective mixture. iii - Bait preparation compared with insecticide without bait. Protein hydrolysate with malathion was compared with a preparation of the same strength of malathion with no bait, to confirm whether bait significantly attracted flies to the deposit. iv - Commercial and home-made bait preparations. Protein hydrolysate formulation was compared with standard animal protein formulation, to evaluate the ability of home-made animal protein baits to attract and kill flies as efficiently as commercial preparations. v - Value of urea component. Standard meat preparation mix was compared with an identical preparation without urea, to see if the urea may be omitted to simplify and economise the preparation with no severe loss of efficacy. 50
vi - Value of cucurbit extract component. Standard meat preparation mix was compared with an identical preparation without cucumber extract, to see if the latter may be omitted. Results and discussion The results of the six comparisons are given in Table IV.A.1, showing the average numbers, over the six replicates of each comparison, of dead flies found in the half of the arena with each treatment. These were recorded separately for males and females. Analysis for each treatment comparison was by two-way replicated analysis of variance to compare treatment, fly sex and interaction between them. This found sex effects and their interaction with treatments to be insignificant (all twelve F ratios were less than unity). As a result, the table shows only the total numbers of dead flies and F values for treatment differences. Table IV.A.1. Results of laboratory assessments of different bait preparations, as numbers of flies out of an initial release of 20 found dead in the end of choice chamber cages containing each treatment, as means and standard deviations (S.D.) from six replicates, and the outcome of an analysis of variance (with in each case 1 and 20 degrees of freedom) to compare them. Treatments Mean S.D. F Commercial hydrolysate + malathion 9.17 ±2.32 0.014 Commercial hydrolysate + malathion 9.33 ±2.25 ns Commercial hydrolysate + malathion 14.17 ±1.47 183.253 Nothing 1.17 ±0.75 *** Commercial hydrolysate + malathion 14.83 ±1.00 240.874 Malathion only 1.00 ±1.27 *** Commercial hydrolysate + malathion 11.17 ±2.32 7.63 Full home-made mix + malathion 7.67 ±1.63 * Full home-made mix + malathion 9.17 ±1.72 0.000 Home-made mix minus urea + malathion 9.17 ±1.33 ns Full home-made mix + malathion 8.83 ±0.41 0.031 Home-made mix minus cucumber + malathion 9.00 ±1.27 ns The initial two comparisons provided evidence of the validity of the methodology - the comparison of two identical treatments obtained an even distribution of dead flies between the two, and that of treated and untreated plants obtained many more flies in the treated part of the arena. The third comparison showed that insecticide without bait attracted only a small fraction of the flies of the bait mixture. The fourth showed that the attracting and killing power of the home-made mixture as a fraction of the commercial one was 7.67/11.17=68.7%, with a 95% confidence interval, conventionally derived by parametric methods, between 53.3 and 92.9%. The final two comparisons implied that the urea and cucurbit odour source were not worthwhile additions to the homemade mix. It was concluded that the home-made broth bait had roughly two-thirds of the efficacy of commercial hydrolysate - potentially a useful effect when its greatly reduced cost is considered. The addition of urea and cucurbit extract did not give a significant improvement. More generally, the two-treatment comparison of “killing points” appeared able quickly and reliably to compare the effectiveness of bait treatments. The accuracy of the method may be reduced when the lethal agent in the mixture evaluated has a relatively slow knock-down time, with such insecticides as spinosad, fiprinile and insect growth regulators, as the location of the fly corpse may not be a suitable index of attractant efficacy in these cases. In cases where it is feared that cultured flies may lose natural responses to attractants, the technique could be used with wild flies, reared directly from infested hosts. Acknowledgements Thanks are due to Drs Barry Stride, Umar Baloch and David Huggett and an anonymous reviewer for Crop Protection. This document is an output from a project funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID) for the benefit of developing countries (R6924 and R7447, Crop Protection Programme). The work of this project provided the winning entry for the DFID Renewable Natural Resources Research Strategy Annual Award Scheme, 2000. The views are not necessarily those of DFID, and all errors and omissions remain the responsibility of the authors. 51
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 and 134: tiers. It is proposed to replace th
Page 135 and 136: general benefit. Socially-cooperati
Page 137 and 138: greater than the sum of their parts
Page 139: Appendix IV. Prior Scientific Paper
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?