Farmer Perceptions and Management of Rice Planthoppers in Cambodia

Abstract

Solving big problems requires accurate information. Rice in the area of Cambodia near Vietnam was extensively damaged by the brown planthopper (BPH) from 2007 to 2009, with all districts in Takeo province in the area of Cambodia near Vietnam severely affected. How did farmers learn of methods to protect rice plants? This study seeks to reveal how methods to control the BPH were diffused in Cambodia through interviews with farmers, local governmental officials, and village chiefs in the target province. The farmers stated that they controlled the BPH with nets and beating as physical controls and spraying mixed oil & ash and chemical pesticides as chemical controls. They tended to source their own information and experiences of neighbors, government officials, and pesticide sellers, while farmers in three communes very severely affected by the BPH infestation followed the advice of sellers in employing pesticides. Further, most local government officials and village chiefs recommended using nets and spraying oil mixtures and chemical pesticides. The flow of information from the resource to individual farmers seemed to be linked to the level of BPH infestation.

Rapid assessments of the rice brown planthopper (Nilaparvata lugens Stal) outbreak in Semarang District, Central Java: Effects of farmers' low KAP

“…Most farmers selected pesticides with the help of kiosk salespersons, often leading to improper pesticide use as dealers prioritize their most profitable over the best recommendation. A study by Matsukawa et al (2015) demonstrated that farmers severely affected by BPH followed the advice of sellers in pesticide selection. According to Matsukawa-Nakata et al (2019), the application of selective insecticides did not contribute to reducing the planthoppers densities; instead it indicated that improper insecticide application could potentially lead to the development of insecticide resistance.…”

The Technological Trajectory of Integrated Pest Management for Rice in Cambodia

“…An aspect that creates confusion in this institutionalization at the policy level is where a policy would tend to be implemented as a top-down strategy, but IPM builds upon the knowledge developed at the farm level in a participatory way [33]. For example, between 2006 and 2010, in the period of widespread infestation of Brown Planthopper (BPH), the Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) launched campaigns for BPH control, using nets [46]. While the national campaign was developed to avoid over-reliance on pesticides, there was no sustained and widespread adoption among farmers, partly due to mixed messages, with farmers still resorting to pesticides [46].…”

“…For example, between 2006 and 2010, in the period of widespread infestation of Brown Planthopper (BPH), the Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) launched campaigns for BPH control, using nets [46]. While the national campaign was developed to avoid over-reliance on pesticides, there was no sustained and widespread adoption among farmers, partly due to mixed messages, with farmers still resorting to pesticides [46]. Over the years, the national IPM program with various international partners and NGOs continued to promote IPM (Table 3).…”

Growth Performances and Grain Yield Response of Rice Varieties (<em>Oryza sativa</em> L.) Established at Different Seed Broadcasting Rates in Irrigated Fields of Low Country Dry Zone of Sri Lanka

“…Yield damages of rice have been reported more than 50 % under the most favorable microenvironments for fungal growth. Favorable conditions such as high humidity and low temperature created due to high plant density may tend to spread infections rapidly (Matsukawa et al 2015;Sivasubramaniam et al 2018). Sheath blight is a major soil borne disease which is caused by the fungus Rhizoctonia solani and threat to rice productivity (Wu et al 2014).…”