Integrated Crop Protection - ICP Notes PDF

University of Livingstonia KANING’INA CAMPUS DEPARTMENT OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE Integrated Crop Protection - SAG 3503 INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT (IPM) 1.0 Definitions of IPM: Selection, integration, and i...

University of Livingstonia KANING’INA CAMPUS DEPARTMENT OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE Integrated Crop Protection - SAG 3503 INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT (IPM) 1.0 Definitions of IPM: Selection, integration, and implementation of pest control based on predicted economic, ecological, and sociological consequences. A comprehensive approach to pest control that uses combined means to reduce the status of pests to tolerable levels while maintaining a quality environment. The optimization of pest control in an economically and ecologically sound manner, accomplished by the coordinated use of multiple tactics to assure stable crop production and to maintain pest damage below the economic injury level while minimizing risks to man and the environment. A sustainable approach to manage pests by combining biological, cultural, physical and chemical tools in a way that minimizes economic, health and environmental risks. IPM is not implemented in isolation from other management activities; rather, it is one component of the total crop production system of physical, biological, and management functions all interacting to determine the yield of a cultivated crop. Thus, IPM, like nutrient management, is a component of integrated crop management (lCM). Integrated means that a broad interdisciplinary approach is taken using scientific principles of crop protection to combine into a single cropping system a variety of management strategies and tactics to reduce pest populations. Strategies are the general approaches used to implement coordinated systems of multiple tactics. Examples are containment, preventive, corrective or remedial, and eradication. Tactics are the specific methods used to achieve pest control. These include cultural, biological, physical, genetic, chemical, and regulatory procedures. Management implies a process by which information is collected and used to make good management decisions to reduce pest populations in a planned, coordinated way. IPM requires a more tolerant management approach than traditional pesticide-based programs. Eliminating all pests from a crop is the not the objective - IPM emphasizes pest suppression rather than annihilation. This approach allow for the conservation of natural control factors and the establishment of a pest refuge for resistance management. Pests include insects, mites, nematodes, weeds, bacteria, fungi, viruses, vertebrates, etc. Any plant or animal whose activities interfere with human health, convenience, comfort, or profits. Broadly defined to include pests affecting food, fiber, and shelter; pests of public health importance; and nuisance pests. 1|Page 1.1 How do plants and animals become pests? Introduction of foreign pests Host shifts in native organisms Changes in cropping systems Changes in food quality standards 1.2 Four general types of insect damage Indirect Damage - Feeds on nonmarketable portion of plant, causing yield loss. (i.e. potato beetles, root and seed maggot, aphids) Direct Damage - Feeds on marketable portion of plant, causing primarily quality loss. (i.e. earworm in sweet corn ears, cabbage worms) Vector Diseases - Insect transmits organism that causes plant disease, causing yield and quality losses. Contamination - Presence of insects, insect parts, or insect products makes produce less valuable, causing quality loss. 2.0 JUSTIFICATION FOR IPM A unilateral approach using pesticides has limitations; thus a socially acceptable and economically practical approach to crop protection is needed. 2.1 Problems with pesticides Economic and energy costs Resistance to pesticides Disruption of natural control Target pest resurgence Induced secondary pest outbreaks Human health hazards - acute and chronic effects - user and consumer risks Environmental pollution and effects on wildlife Effects on pollinators 3.0 GOALS OF IPM (AND LCM) a. Increase Farm Profitability (increase net profit) Prevent or avoid crop and pest problems before economic losses occur. Eliminate crop input expenses by avoiding unnecessary management actions. Improve the efficiency of management actions by adopting better application practices. b. Improve Environmental Quality Judicious use of pesticides and fertilizers based on identified needs. Use selective chemicals or application methods where possible to reduce risk to non-target 2|Page  organisms. c. Improve Public Image of Agriculture Far-reaching “side benefits” of reducing further regulatory and societal restrictions on the use of pesticides below economic levels, then pesticides in combination with other tactics are used as a last resort. Less than 100% control is desirable to leave a permanent pest residue for natural enemies and as a refuge for susceptible pests to reduce the chances of resistance development. 4.0 PEST MONITORING SUIVELLANCE SCOUTING AND ACTION THRESHOLDS 4.1 Pest monitoring - denotes an effort to actively track the presence, population, and movement of a pest within a specified geography. Monitoring activities may be organized and implemented at various scales— most typically by governments, through trained technical personnel who systematically gather data to inform policymakers and practitioners about the presence and severity of the pest across a given area. However, more localized measurements, such as data from farmers with their own pheromone traps, can also be aggregated and incorporated into broader, formal monitoring schemes. 4.1.1 Pheromone Trap There are a variety of pheromone traps that can be used for monitoring FAW populations. When choosing a trap, consider not only the cost, but also the durability of the trap. Consider the strength and weakness of the trap. Some inexpensive pheromone traps are disposable after one use. Other more expensive traps can be used for five to twenty years (Figure 1). Delta traps are inexpensive and disposable. The Universal bucket traps are moderately male FAW moths are attracted to the lure and get expensive, but they can be reused for about 5 stuck on the sticky bottom board. The sticky years. The moths are attracted to the lure bottom has to be replaced when choked with dead suspended above the funnel, then flutter down moths or dust, sometimes as often as once per into a dry chamber below. Inside the chamber week. This raises the maintenance cost. is an insecticide strip. Insecticide strips must be replaced every 3-4 months. This increases maintenance costs. 3|Page Figure 1. Types of pheromone traps 4.2 Surveillance denotes the informal, passive detection of pest presence and other issues. Surveillance is typically performed by farmers at the farm level and assumes no special training or approach. The importance of surveillance should not be overlooked. History shows that farmers in the field are often among the first to identify emerging problems, and when a mechanism exists to collect and track surveillance reports as they arise, this can lead to more rapid response to invasive pests. The collective feedback of thousands of farmers can provide powerful information about the dynamics of pest infestation 4.3 Scouting refers to an activity conducted according to science-based protocols by a trained individual—typically by a farmer, trained at the farmer field school or extension level, observing his or her own fields for the pest. Scouting allows the farmer to precisely assess pest pressure (e.g., the intensity of FAW infestation) and crop performance in the field. Scouting is typically performed to evaluate both the economic risk of pest infestation and the potential efficacy of pest control interventions within the immediate field context, with the goal of informing practical crop management decisions at the individual field and farm level. As noted above, however, localized scouting data can also be aggregated and incorporated into formal monitoring schemes at broader geographic scales. 4.3.1 Scouting procedure for fall armyworm Determine the field to be sampled. For a smallholder, this is typically less than 2 ha. If the fields were planted at different times, with different varieties, or with different conditions (intercropping, fertilization, etc.), then each plot should be sampled differently. In the field, walk a letter “W”, covering the entire field (Figure 2). Figure 2. W scouting pattern At the start, at every turn, and at the end, inspect 10 plants in a row. These ten plants are called a “station”. Look carefully in the whorl of each plant for signs of recent leaf damage or fresh frass in the whorl. These indicate a live larva, probably FAW, in the whorl. Do NOT include plants with some damage to older leaves, but with no clear signs of current damage. Only currently infested plants need be counted. Keep track of the number of plants currently infested in this way (in this example FAW infested plants are marked with an “X”) as shown in Table 1. 4|Page Table 1. FAW scouting results STATION 1 STATION 2 STATION 3 STATION 4 STATION 5 Plant no. Plant no. Plant no. Plant no. Plant no. Infested? Infested? Infested? Infested? Infested? 1X 1X 1 1X 1X 2 2 2 2 2 3X 3 3X 3X 3 4X 4X 4X 4X 4X 5 5 5 5 5X 6X 6X 6 6 6X 7 7 7 7 7X 8X 8 8X 8X 8X 9 9 9 9 9 10 X 10 X 10 X 10 X 10 X 6 4 4 5 7 Total number of plants infested in the 50 plants counted is 6+4+4+5+7= 26.So in 100 plants it would be double: 26 * 2 = 52, or 52% of the plants infested. Because we are looking for signs of FAW presence (fresh leaf damage or frass in whorl), the sampling doesn’t depend of finding the larvae. So the sampling is fast, non-destructive and can be done any time of the day. While scouting for FAW-infested plants, it is also important to make an overall assessment of the fields, the crops, and for FAW, especially for natural enemies. There are many naturally-occurring “farmers’ friends” that help control FAW – predators (ants, earwigs, pirate bugs, birds, etc.), parasitoids (wasps that kill eggs and larvae), and pathogens (bacteria, fungi, and virus). Farmers should look for uneven darkened eggs and any larvae killed by parasitoids (white silken cocoons) or pathogens (hard or soft larval cadavers). As farmers learn about their friends and observe their effectiveness in the field, they can begin to appreciate their activity and learn how to favor their populations in the field. Farmers can begin to understand how to create the conditions to favor natural enemies, and even how to increase their populations. Information collected during field scouting should be carefully recorded, ideally in a mobile app, so that it can be shared and used for early warning. When the level of FAW infestation is calculated, along with observations about the general health of the crop, the farmer may want to know: ‘Is the FAW infestation level so high that it will significantly reduce my yield?’ 4.4 Economic Injury Level and Economic Threshold concepts The basic goal of IPM is to control populations of pests so as to minimize economic losses resulting from their damage. A key concept used for decision making in IPM is the concept of the Economic Injury Level (EIL). This concept was first introduced by Stern et al. (1959), who defined it as “The lowest population density of a pest that will cause economic damage; or the amount of pest injury which will justify the cost of control.” IPM decision-making; whether or not to take action to suppress a pest population—in nonorganic systems is dependent on this concept. 5|Page The EIL is usually expressed as a pest density, but actually it is a level of injury that is indexed by pest numbers. Insect numbers (counts) are used because they typically correlate well with injury; both current and future and it is often easier to count insects than to quantify injury. Because the results of control measures against insect pests are delayed somewhat after the detection of economically damaging populations, a second concept important to IPM decision-making is required: the Economic Threshold. The Economic Threshold (ET) is the pest abundance at which the EIL is likely to be equalled or exceeded unless the decision to implement control measures is taken; it typically occurs at a pest abundance below the EIL. Pest abundances or injury levels that reach the ET trigger the implementation of reactive control measures because those populations are predicted to result in economic losses if not controlled, whereas pest abundances or injury levels below the ET do not merit intervention. These concepts are illustrated in Figure 3. Figure 3. The Economic Injury Level (EIL) is the pest abundance (or level of damage) at which the monetary cost of crop yield loss to the pest begins to exceed the dollar cost of controlling the pest. The Economic Threshold (ET) is the pest abundance (or damage level) at which the EIL is likely to be equalled or exceeded if left unmanaged. The ET is almost always lower than the EIL, and is considered to be the point at which action against the pest is economically justified. The ET is sometimes called an Action Threshold (AT). 6|Page