4 ipm cluster_accra2

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



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