Untitled

Impact Assessment of Biological Control-Based Integrated Pest Management in Rice and Maize in the Greater Mekong Subregion

“…It is known that, in addition to agronomic aspects, a number of social, political, economic, and ecological factors determine whether or not IPM can work, or not work. Specifically, it has been demonstrated by Morse and Buhler [25] that often, resource-poor farmers do not match the necessary criteria for the implementation of IPM programmes. Factors driving uptake of IPM practices in the two projects were not clear, though it was noted that some of the IPM measures adopted (e.g., use of free Trichogramma cards, reduced number of pesticide sprays) were likely to reduce the costs of production for smallholder farmers focused on subsistence farming and local markets.…”

“…Factors driving uptake of IPM practices in the two projects were not clear, though it was noted that some of the IPM measures adopted (e.g., use of free Trichogramma cards, reduced number of pesticide sprays) were likely to reduce the costs of production for smallholder farmers focused on subsistence farming and local markets. Morse and Buhler [25], and Pingali and Gerpacio [26], observed that labour intensive practices can also be a disincentive, particularly when the cost of labour is high, and the markets, weak. The two measures implemented by farmers (biocontrol and installation of traps) are in fact not time-consuming, and even linked to reduced time needed for applying pesticides, but labour could have been a factor for other IPM measures not being implemented.…”

Integrated pest management: good intentions, hard realities. A review

“…Experiences vary from country to country. The benefits of participatory extension have primarily been reaped in the Southern Hemisphere, where (often illiterate) smallholder farmers operate in heterogeneous farm settings and thus have diverse needs (Alwang et al 2019;Morse and Buhler 1997). Group-based learning processes, e.g., as promoted through FFS take time and the ensuing innovation tends to proceed at a slow pace (Rebaudo and Dangles 2011), but ongoing experimentation by individual farmers can yield valuable, locally adapted technologies (van Mele et al 2005).…”

“…For decades, systems-approaches have been advocated to advance the development and implementation of IPM, while integrated multi-stakeholder, multi-level projects are increasingly seen as vital to attain measurable change at scale (Altieri et al 1983;Lewis et al 1997;Rodenburg et al 2015;Schut et al 2014). Yet, the bulk of IPM scientists continue to operate in silos, adopt a pest-centric perspective, exhibit increasing 'niche' specialization and tend to focus on their "mandatory" crop and/or pest system (Alwang et al 2019;Coll and Wajnberg 2017b;Ehler 2006;Morse and Buhler 1997;Rosenheim and Coll 2008;Vanloqueren and Baret 2009;Warner et al 2011). Also, reaching out across disciplinary boundaries is still an unusual act: even though economic ornithology experienced a bonanza during the late nineteenth century (Kronenberg 2014), only scant attention is now paid to valuing the contribution of bird-or insect-mediated biological control to IPM (Garcia et al 2020;Naranjo et al 2015).…”

Impact of integrated pest management in rice and maize in the Greater Mekong Subregion

“…In developed countries, IPM is most commonly used for high value crops, in relatively simple agroecosystems where mono-cropping is practised over large areas of land. Morse and Buhler (1997) have demonstrated that resource-poor farmers often do not match the necessary economic and ecological criteria for the successful implementation of IPM programmes. It is important to consider the context of IPM project interventions -including the socio-economic situation of farmers, current availability and cost of agricultural inputs, and climatic conditions in the target area -to ensure the biocontrol agent has potential for widespread adoption and effective pest control.…”