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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The estimates fall into three categories, on three different data sheets:- 1. Production and farm-gate value of major hosts nationwide as, host-by-host: a - Production volume for the whole of India per annum b - Overall average farm-gate price - the price received by the farmer in rupees/KG. 2. Production and fruit fly losses, host-by-host for each different agro-ecological zone: 2A - Relative levels of production of each host across zones, estimated by awarding a score of “100” to the zone with the greatest level of production of that host, and then others for the other zones as a percentage of that. The role of the “Volume” values in Sheet 2 is therefore to allocate the RELATIVE incidence of production of different hosts to different areas (the absolute levels of production are in Sheet 1). Volume figures are levels of production by that host in that zone as a percentage of the production in the zone where it is most abundant. So if Zone A has most production it is awarded 100; Zone B may be 80% of A so gets 80; Zone C may be 15% of A so gets 15; Zone D may be 30% of Zone A so gets 30; and all the other zones have no production so all get 0. Imperial College will then adjust these by adding up the percentages, so of the total nationwide production A would account for 100/(100+80+15+30)=44%, B would account for 80/(100+80+15+30)=36%, C for 15/(100+80+15+30)=7%, D for 30/(100+80+15+30)=13%, and the others for 0%. (Enter “0” for cultivation of any host in any zone where cultivation is absent). 2B - Percentage losses to fruit flies, when hosts are not protected from them in any way. 2C - Percentage losses to fruit flies, when hosts are protected by local controls as currently in use. 2D - The percentage incidence of the local controls whose effect is assessed in 2C. “Control incidence” in Sheet 2 is the percentage of production of that particular host which is protected against fruit flies at farm level. Protection from fruit flies may be provided by controls such as cover sprays which are not directed at them, and these should be included 3. Prevalence in causing damage, relative to each other, of the various major fruit fly species, in the two broad categories of orchard fruit pests and cucurbit pests. This is estimated by, in each agroecological zone, grading the most prevalent fly species with a score of “100” and the other flies present with a prevalence as a percentage of that. Values in Table 3, in other words, are the RELATIVE levels of damage caused by different fly species to the two major host groups (fruit and cucurbits) in each zone. So, as an example, imagine that in any one particular zone dorsalis is most damaging, it is awarded 100, zonata causes about 3/4 of the damage of dorsalis and so it is awarded 75%, and correcta causes about a third of the damage of dorsalis and so is awarded 33%. Imperial College will then attribute damage to the species by adding up the percentages awarded, so here overall damage by dorsalis would be 100/(100+75+33)=48%, zonata would be 75/(100+75+33)=36%, and correcta would be 33/(100+75+33)=16%. As another example, if in a given zone the prevalence is of 50% of B cucurbitae, 30% of D ciliatus and 20% of B tau, scores would be awarded as “100” for cucurbitae, “60” (30/50) for ciliatus and “40” (20/50) for tau. Scoring is done in this way to allow values to be modified while under discussion without worrying whether they add up to 100; after the consultation is complete the totals for each species in IMFFI Fruit Fly Key Informant Survey Workplan and Data Sheets – Page 2 of 2
each zone will be divided by the total scores awarded in that zone to obtain final percentage values. These values, once collected from all participants, will allow the estimation of losses to flies across all hosts and zones. Respondents are requested to provide corrected values where they consider the values given to be in error, and next to each provisional, current value there is a vacant cell for the entry of corrections. Values which are considered to be correct may be left as they are. Please also indicate where a category, such as major host type under (1) or a major pest species under (3), has been omitted and needs to be added. The map below lists the major agro-ecological zones of India (the external boundaries of India on this map have not been authenticated and may not be correct). Your assistance in this Study is gratefully appreciated, and will contribute to a useful body of work. Best wishes, Himalayan Highlands West - J&K - Himachal - Uttaranchal Arid/Semi-Arid West - Rajasthan - Gujarat - D&D West-Central /Lava Plateau - Maharashtra - MP South - Goa - Karnataka - Tamil Nadu - Kerala Punjab/Ganga Plain - Punjab - Haryana - Delhi - UP - Bihar Bengal Basin - West Bengal - Assam Semi-Arid/Semi-Humid East - Orissa - Jharkand - Chhatisgarh - AP Himalayan Highlands East Principal Agroecological Zones of India John Stonehouse IMFFI Fruit Fly Key Informant Survey Workplan and Data Sheets – Page 3 of 3
Page 1: Dear Colleague, Integrated Manageme
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 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?