Proceedings Edited by:Karim Maredia, Program DirectorDieudonné Baributsa, Program Associate

Central Asia

Integrated Pest Managementin Central Asia

Proceedings of the Central Asia Region IntegratedPest Management Stakeholders Forum

Sponsored by the USAID IPM-Collaborative Research Support Program (CRSP)

Dushanbe, Tajikistan. May 27 - 29, 2007

Proceedings Edited by:Dr. Karim M. Maredia and Dr. Dieudonné N. BaributsaCentral Asia IPM CRSP Program, Michigan State University

Acknowledgements:The financial support was from the USAID IPM Collaborative Research Support Program (CRSP) managed by the Virginia TechUniversity, CGIAR ICARDA-Project Facilitation Unit, and the Oxfam-Great Britain Office in Tajikistan. The Tajik Academy of Agri-cultural Sciences hosted the Forum and assisted with visa processing; we greatly appreciated their support. The programmaticand logistical support provided by the IPM CRSP team members based in Central Asia--Dr. Nurali Saidov, Dr. Murat Aitmatovand Dr. Barno Tashpulatova--contributed significantly to the success of this regional forum. Special thanks to Dr. Muniappan, Ms.Betty Watts, Ms. Patricia Sutherland and Ms. Dilshani Sarathchandra for reviewing and providing useful comments tothis proceeding.

Participants to the Central Asia Region IPM Forum, Dushanbe-Tajikistan; May 27-29, 2007.

Opening remarks by Dr. Robert Hedlundfrom USAID, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

Forum participants visiting a private biolaboratoryin Tajikistan

Sponsored by the USAID IPM-Collaborative ResearchSupport Program (CRSP)

Dushanbe, Tajikistan. May 27 - 29, 2007

Integrated Pest Managementin Central Asia

Proceedings of the Central Asia Region Integrated PestManagement Stakeholders Forum

Proceedings Edited by:Dr. Karim M. Maredia, Program Director

Dr. Dieudonné N. Baributsa, Program AssociateCentral Asia IPM CRSP Program, Michigan State University

Table of Contents

2 Foreword

PART ONE: Introduction

3 Welcoming remarks

4 Key note address

5 Summary of Recommendations by Stakeholders

PART TWO: Regional Collaborative IPM Program

6 Ecologically-Based Participatory and Collaborative Research and Capacity Building

in Integrated Pest Management Program in the Central Asia Region

13 A History of Habitat Management in the Former USSR and the Commonwealth of Independent

States and Current Research in Central Asia.

21 Enhancing the Efficiency and Product Lines of Biolaboratories in Central Asia

27 Development and Dissemination of IPM knowledge throught Outreach and

University Education Programs in Central Asia

PART THREE: National IPM Programs

31 Pest Management Practices and Strategies in Tajikistan

37 Current State and Prospects for Integrated Pest Management in Tajikistan

41 Integrated Pest Management in Uzbekistan

47 State of the Integrated System for Plant Protection in Kazakhstan

55 Integrated Pest Management Programs in Kyrgyzstan: Experience of the Advisory Training Center

59 Major Virus Diseases of Crops in Uzbekistan

PART FOUR: Linking Central Asia Region with International IPM Programs

61 Integrated Pest Management of Sunn Pest in West and Central Asia: Status and Future Plans

67 Preliminary Implementations of Information Technology in IPM

72 An Integrated Pest Management Approach for Mitigating the Impact of Thrips-borne

Tospoviruses in Vegetable Cropping Systems

79 Oxfam GB in Tajikistan. Current and Future Programs

PART FIVE: Special Workshops

83 Landscape Ecology and Management of Natural Enemies in IPM Systems

89 Connecting IPM Research with Extension

PART SIX: Program for Central Asia Region IPM Stakeholders Forumand list of Participants

91 Program for Central Asia Region IPM Stakeholders Forum

95 List of Participants: Central Asia Region IPM Stakeholders Forurm

1

2

The Central Asia region was isolated from the rest of the world for more than 50 yearsduring the former Soviet Union era. Central Asia is a center of diversity for many importantcrops, providing excellent opportunities for IPM and sustainable agriculture. Governmentpolicies are moving toward diversification of agriculture to meet the challenges of local foodsecurity, environmental quality, and natural resource management. To achieve this,countries in Central Asia are also looking for ecologically based, environmentally friendlyapproaches for crop production including Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programsthat rely less on chemical inputs and are sustainable.

In this context, through the funding from the USAID sponsored IPM CollaborativeResearch Support Program (CRSP) at Virginia Tech University and Michigan StateUniversity in collaboration with University of California-Davis, the International Center forAgricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), and other institutions in the Central Asiaregion are implementing a multi-year ecologically-based collaborative research andcapacity building program in IPM. This regional program is implemented through a ProjectFacilitation Unit (PFU) of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research(CGIAR) based at ICARDARegional office in Tashkent, Uzbekistan. The project has threecomponents: enhance the efficiency and product lines of biolaboratories, enhance biologicalcontrol of pests through landscape ecology/ habitat management, and strengthen IPMoutreach and education.

As a part of the regional networking and information sharing process, a regional IPMForum was held in Dushanbe, Tajikistan from May 27 – 29, 2007. The goal of this regionalforum was to share the knowledge and experiences of IPM CRSP projects and othernational and international programs with IPM stakeholders in the region. More than 50participants, including policymakers, researchers, representatives of international researchcenters and NGOs from four Central Asian countries (Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan,and Kyrgyzstan) attended this forum. The key recommendations that emerged from thisforum are included in this proceeding. The need for a long-term regional IPM program,continued networking and information exchange, and expansion of IPM programs tovegetable crops was greatly emphasized.

The Forum served as an excellent platform for networking and knowledge sharingamong IPM specialists in the region and the international IPM community. We hope thisproceeding will serve as a useful resource for enhancing the use and integration of newapproaches for IPM programs in the Central Asia Region.

With Best Wishes,

Karim M. MarediaProgram Director,Central Asia IPM CRSP ProgramMichigan State UniversityEast Lansing, U.S.A.

Foreword

3

PART ONE: Introduction

Welcoming Remarks

Dear participants!

On behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment Protection of the Republic ofTajikistan and the Academy of Agricultural Sciences of Tajikistan I would like to welcomeall of you to our Forum and wish you a pleasant stay in Dushanbe.

After the collapse of Soviet Union, Tajikistan farmers faced various problems. Currentlyone of the major problems in increasing agricultural production in our country is pestcontrol. Annually, 30—40% of crop yields are lost due to pest damage. The evidence is thatin Tajikistan alone more than 100,000 ha of agricultural crops were attacked by locusts in2006-2007. In this context, there is a need for increased use/adoption of Integrated PestManagement to control agricultural pests.

The implementation of the Central Asia IPM CRSP Project in Tajikistan is a valuablecontribution to increase researchers’ knowledge on conducting state-of-the-art researchand development of the pest control methods. Successful implementation of the IPM CRSPproject activities would trigger an increase in crop production, which is one of the mainvisions of Tajikistan Poverty Reduction Strategy and solving the food security problems.

I believe this Forum and its key recommendations on IPM would definitely helpstrengthen partnership and collaboration between the researchers of Central Asia andother countries.

I am sure that the fruitful cooperation of Central Asian researchers with the InternationalResearch Centers such as ICARDA and Michigan State University gives an impulse inexchanging experiences and implementation of progressive pest control methods in agri-culture within our region.

I wish the participants to this Forum fruitful work and success in maintaining sustainableagriculture development and strengthening of cooperation in the area of a science inour countries.

Dr. Tolib NabievAcademicianPresident of Academy of Agricultural ScienceMinistry of Agriculture and Natural Protection

4

Key Note Address

Dr. Tolib Nabiev, President of Tajik Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Dr. Karim Maredia,Leader of the Central Asia project of the Integrated Pest Management CollaborativeResearch Support Program, esteemed colleagues and participants from Central AsianRepublics, ICARDAand U.S. universities, it is my honor and pleasure to welcome you hereon behalf of the United States Agency for International Development and its IPM CRSP. Wevery much appreciate the support given to this workshop by our hosts here in Tajikistan.USAID is very pleased that this project was proposed through the IPM CRSP and that suchan impressive group of collaborators has been assembled.

The goals and objectives of the Central Asia IPM CRSP project focus on collaborativeresearch, outreach, and capacity building in IPM in Central Asia region with the followingobjectives:

� Help improve the efficiency and expand product lines of more than 800biolaboratories in the region.

� Initiate research in landscape ecology to enhance biodiversity and biological pestmanagement in the Central Asia region.

� Enhance the capacity of IPM specialists from the Central Asia region to provideleadership for promoting ecologically-based IPM research and outreach programs.

� Develop and integrate ecologically-based IPM information into educational packagesin crop management programs in the region through training the trainers approach.

� Synergize interaction among scientists and institutions in the region throughnetworking among IPM specialists and institutions and with the international IPMcommunity.

� Integrate socio-economic and gender issues in the program.

To achieve these objectives, the project is focusing on three major components:1) enhancing the efficiency and product lines of biolaboratories through collaborativeresearch with UC-Davis, 2) Enhancing biological control of pests through collaborativeresearch focusing on landscape ecology/habitat management, and 3) Strengthening of IPMoutreach/education programs through collaborative linkages with MSU, UC-Davis and otherlocal NGOs and universities.

Project Partners In Central Asia Region Include:

� Implementation is enhanced through the Project Facilitation Unit (PFU)-Tashkent,International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA)-Uzbekistan

� Advisory Training Center of Rural Advisory Service (ATC-RAS)-Kyrgyzstan

� Uzbek Institute for Plant Protection (IPP)-Uzbekistan

� Private Biolaboratory in Samarqand-Uzbekistan

� Botanical Research Institute of Academy of Sciences- Kyrgyzstan

� Bio-soil research Institute of Academy of Sciences-Kyrgyzstan

� Institute of Zoology and Parasitology Academy of Sciences-Tajikistan

� Tajik State Agrarian University Tajikistan

In the past couple of days I have seen significant impact of CRSP activities here inTajikistan. With such a large contingent of competent partners, I look forward to hearingabout your progress and plans throughout the region. Thank you for your participationand support.

—Dr. Robert Hedlund, USAID, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

5

Summary of Recommendations by the Stakeholders–Dr. Karim Maredia and Dr. Dieudonné Baributsa

Through an open and interactivediscussion, the stakeholders made thefollowing recommendations for enhancingand implementing IPM programs in theCentral Asia region.

� Need for a Long-term Regional IPMProgram: Develop a well-coordinated,long-term regional IPM Program incollaboration with all the stakeholdersin the Central Asia region.

� Foster Interactions among IPMStakeholders: Organize regularmeetings of IPM specialists, policymakers, researchers, NGO personneland other key stakeholders to developand implement action plans relevant tothe region.

� Expand ICARDA’s IPM Activities: Request ICARDA to expand their IPMprogram activities to include Tajikistanand Kyrgyzstan and seek ICARDA’ssupport for the dissemination of localfindings on entomophages andinvasive pest species.

� Develop and implement IPM Programsbeyond cotton crops: Develop IPMprograms for vegetable crops andnon-conventional techniques for pestcontrol that are affordable to farmers.

� Development of a Biolabs Network:Maintain contact and form collabora-tive network of biolabs for supplyingbiological control agents to farmers/extension centers across the region.

� Expand University educational curricu-lum: Provide in-service training pro-grams and vocational training touniversity faculty focusing onecologically-based IPM. Develop andprovide training materials for FarmerField Schools (FFS) and Training ofTrainers (ToT).

� Develop simple and rapid methodsfor virus detection: Expedite jointR&D efforts to build capacity forresearch on virus diseases detectionand management.

� English Language Training: Englishis not the native and official languageof communication. Support localprograms that provide English lan-guage training to IPM researchersand educators.

� Habitat management for enhancingBiological Control: Develop joint aproposal on the use of naturalhabitats for enhancing naturalenemies and biological control ofSunn pest (ICARDA, NARS of Westand Central Asia and MSU).

� Enhance research and extensionlinkages: Enhance research andextension linkages for transferringnew knowledge and technologiesefficiently to farmers. Includeparticipation of NGOs and farmersassociations.

� Regional IPM Data Network:Considering that the Central Asiancountries have many pest problemsin common, develop a regional net-work for exchanging research results.

� Publications and Information Sharing:Publish and make available news-letters and quarterly publications onIPM to share research results amongvarious stakeholders working onvarious aspects of IPM, and supportlocal scientists to publish theirresearch findings in internationaljournals.

6

PART TWO: Regional Collaborative IPM Program

Summary

Michigan State University (MSU) andthe University of California (UC)-Davis, incollaboration with the International Centerfor Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas(ICARDA) and various NationalAgricultural Research Institutions andUniversities in Central Asia areimplementing a regional Integrated PestManagement (IPM) Program. Thisprogram was designed based on thepriorities and the needs identified bystakeholders through a regional IPM forumorganized in Tashkent, Uzbekistan in May2005. The project takes an integrated andparticipatory approach and includes twocollaborative research projects and an IPMoutreach and education component. Thefirst research project focuses onenhancing efficiency and product lines ofCentral Asian biolaboratories. The secondproject is on landscape ecology andenhancing biological control of pests. TheIPM outreach and educational componentis targeting IPM specialists working withfarmers, NGOs, and local universities. Athree-member team of IPM specialistsfrom the Central Asia region is based atICARDA’s regional office in Tashkent toimplement the activities of this project. Tofoster networking, a directory of IPMspecialists from the region has beendeveloped and distributed. In addition, theproject has provided memberships in theInternational Association for the PlantProtection Sciences (IAPPS) to IPMspecialists from Central Asia. The overallgoal is to build a team and a regionalnetwork of IPM specialists and stake-holders that can continue to provideleadership in IPM research, education,and outreach in the region using ecologi-cally-based and innovative IPM approaches.

Ecologically-Based Participatory and Collaborative Researchand Capacity Building in Integrated PestManagement Programin the Central Asia Region1—Karim Maredia and Dieudonné BaributsaInstitute of International Agriculture, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824,USA.

Background On AgriculturalDevelopment Issues InCentral Asia

After more than 50 years of isolation,countries in the Central Asia region(Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) aretransitioning from the centrally plannedeconomy of the former Soviet Union to amarket-oriented system (Babu andPinstrup-Andersen, 2000). Agriculture isexpected to play a key role in the economicrevitalization of the region. During theSoviet Union era, countries in the CentralAsia followed a broad policy of regionallybased agriculture production thatpromoted monoculture through state-owned farms. The institutional linkagesand collaborations were generally very weak.

The policy reforms during the past 15years have led to land reforms from stateownership to private enterprises. Inaddition, the agricultural policies of thesecountries are moving away frommonoculture systems to more diversifiedsystems to meet the challenges of localfood security, environmental quality, andnatural resource management. With theagrarian reforms, farmers who are startingup their own farms need technicalassistance and institutional support withenterprise development and cropdiversification to restore sustainability,which has been severely damaged by thelarge-scale monocropping approach of theSoviet era.

As agriculture is expected to play a keyrole in the economic revitalization of theregion, this transition requires a well-organized and technically competentagricultural research, education, andoutreach system to assist farmers whoare emerging as private farm owners

1The Regional IPM Program in Central Asia is funded though a grant to Michigan State University fromthe USAID IPM Collaborative Research Support Program (CRSP) managed by the Virginia TechUniversity in the USA.

7

(Sulaiman and Hall, 2004). The practice ofmonoculture (e.g. cotton and wheat) duringthe Soviet era was accompanied by heavyreliance on applications of chemicalpesticides to help manage crop pests.While pesticides were extensively used inCentral Asian countries during the 1950s-70s, their use declined due to developmentof resistance, recognition of pesticidepollution and the loss of naturally occurringentomophages (biological control agents)(Sugonyaev 1994). Since independence in1991, economic challenges have furtherlimited pesticide use in Central Asia andpromoted a strong tradition of large-scalerearing and mass release of naturalenemies to control key pests. Manygovernments are enacting programs thatpromote the use of environmentally friendlytechnologies and new IPM and cropmanagement approaches to reducereliance on the excessive use of chemicalpesticides (Quamar, 2002).

Ecologically-based IPM that relies onbiological control can play an important rolein reducing losses due to pests, minimizingreliance on chemical pest control andthereby fostering the long-term sustain-ability of agro-ecosystems. Biolaboratoriesthat produced large-scale biological controlagents for pest control in cotton during theSoviet era still exist and shape the positiveattitude of scientists and policymakerstoward IPM in the region (Walter-Echols,2005). These biolaboratories are run eitherby the government or by private owners.Currently, the parasitoids Trichogrammaspp., Habrobracon hebetor and Chryso-perla carnea—the green lacewing—rearedin the extensive network of biolaboratoriesare the primary entomophages beingproduced for release. Various institutionsworking on these species would like toexpand their current research activities toimprove the efficiency of rearing methodsand introduce new biological agents todiversify their product lines.

There is increasing recognition amongbiological control researchers andpractitioners worldwide that conservation

of natural enemies via landscape manage-ment is a key to ecologically-based IPMsystems (Landis et al., 2000). Insectnatural enemies (predators and parasites)frequently require plant-based resourcessuch as pollen, nectar, and shelter toenhance their survival and fecundity inagricultural landscapes. However,agricultural systems often lack the non-crop habitats that provide these resources.Increasingly, research on landscapeecology is focusing on finding native plantsfor their use in habitat management that iscompatible with other functions in theagricultural landscape. Carefully selectednative plants may be incorporated intoagricultural landscapes to assess theirattractiveness to natural enemies andbiological control of crop pests inagricultural production systems.

In the former Soviet Union, agriculturalextension was designed for large-scalefarms run by the government. Thetransition from collectives to privateholdings requires a new approach indisseminating agricultural information tonewly formed individual farms and self-managed cooperatives. Participatorytraining methods in which farmers are inthe center of learning are most appropriateto empower farmers with skills andknowledge to help them make theirown decisions.

Currently, in the absence of formalgovernment-run extension system, non-governmental organizations (NGOs),farmers associations and biolaboratoriesare involved in providing training andoutreach services to farmers. Thegovernments in the region are alsoencouraging agricultural universities toplay a proactive role in outreach andextension education and services.Because agricultural ecosystems areconstantly changing and the metho-dologies of IPM continually improving, it isimperative to enhance the IPM capacity-building attributes of the existinginstitutions involved in training farmers andthe next generation of scientists/leaders.

8

Design And Formulation of aRegional IPM Program InCentral Asia

A. Background on IPMCRSP Program

The IPM CRSP was established in1993 through funding from the USAID.The IPM CRSP is a global program thatsupports agricultural research programsto improve crop yields throughecologically sound practices(http://www.oired.vt.edu/ipmcrsp). The pro-gram is funded in 5-year phases. Duringthe first phase, the program activitiesfocused in four countries (Uganda,Guatemala, Jamaica and the Philippines).During the second phase which began in1998, 6 more countries were added to theIPM CRSP (Honduras, Ecuador, Albania,Mali, India and Bangladesh). In October2004, the USAID through Virginia TechUniversity announced a US $12 milliongrant for Phase III of the program.

B. Approach and process of thedesign of a regional IPM program inCentral Asia

For Phase III of the IPM CRSP project,Virginia Tech initiated new activitiesthrough competitive Proposal PlanningGrant (PPG) for regional IPM Programsand IPM Global Themes. Michigan StateUniversity was awarded a PPG grant tovisit and interact with IPM stakeholders inCentral Asia Region. As part of the PPGgrant, MSU organized a regional IPMstakeholders forum in TashkentUzbekistan in May 2005. The goal of theIPM Forum was to assess the needs andidentify key collaborators for initiating acollaborative and participatory regionalIPM program. More than 50 participantsfrom Uzbekistan, Tajikistan andKyrgyzstan attended this regional forum.Participants represented governments,NGOs, universities, internationalorganizations, and inter-governmentalorganizations (see annex 1). During theforum, breakout sessions were formed to

identify constraints and priorities for IPMresearch and capacity building in theregion. The U.S. team also visitedresearch institutes, universities, and publicand private biolaboratories and met withfarmers in the Samarqand area. Theassessment of the stakeholders wasas follows:

1. Cotton is a dominant crop in manycountries in the region. Besides wheat, theimportance of other food crops such aspotatoes, tomatoes and fruit crops in theregion is growing. As a result of thesechanges, there is a need to conductresearch that assesses the impacts ofagricultural diversification on the dynamicsof pests and beneficial organisms.

2. The current emphasis of biologicalcontrol and IPM programs in Central Asiais on augmentation through mass rearingand release of bio-control agents by anetwork of insectaries known as'biolaboratories'. There are no programsthat promote conservation of naturalenemies and biodiversity in the agriculturallandscape. Therefore, there is a need toenhance IPM practices via landscapeecology and biodiversity.

3. Well-trained human resources areavailable. However, research facilities andinfrastructure need to be upgraded andmodernized. There is also a need todiversify the production of bioagents forpests in newly introduced food crops. Forexample, there are more than 800biolaboratories in Uzbekistan alone thatrear and provide bio-control agents tofarmers. These biolaboratories wouldbenefit from outside collaboration tointroduce new predatory mite species andto develop methodologies that would helpimprove their efficiency.

4. In the absence of a formal government-run extension system, NGOs andfarmer organizat ions provide farmertraining, technology transfer, and outreachservices. There is a lack of IPM compo-nents in these outreach and farmer train-

9

ing programs. There is a need to developIPM packages that can be integrated intofarmer field schools and other outreachprograms.

5. Although components of IPM programsare in place, there is a need forcollaboration among institutions andbetween countries to benefit from thesehuman resources and experiences.Communication and interaction with IPMspecialists outside the region is lacking dueto language barriers and limited financialresources. Therefore, there is a need forcollaborative projects and networkingactivities to foster interaction and exchangeof knowledge and information.

Using the inputs and feedback from theregional stakeholders, a full proposal wasdeveloped and MSU received a four-yeargrant for implementing a regional IPMprogram in Central Asia.

C. Program Goals and Objectives

The IPM CRSP project in Central Asiabegan on October 1, 2005 with a focus oncollaborative research, outreach, andcapacity building in IPM. The projectincludes the following objectives:

1. Help improve the efficiency and expandproduct lines of biolaboratories in the region.

2. Introduce emerging research conceptsof landscape ecology to enhance bio-diversity and biological pest management.

3. Train and build a team of IPM spec-ialists from the Central Asia region thatcould provide leadership and support tovarious stakeholders (e.g.,governments,universities, NGOs) for promotingecologically-based IPM research andoutreach programs in the region.

4. Develop and integrate ecologically-based IPM information into educational pack-ages in crop management programs in theregion through Training of Trainers (ToT)approach and Farmers Field Schools (FFS).

5. Help break the isolation of scientists andinstitutions in the region through network-ing among IPM specialists and institutionsin the region and with the international IPMcommunity.

6. Integrate socio-economic and genderissues in the program development andimplementation.

D. Program Implementation

For the project implementation, MSU isworking closely with ICARDA takingadvantage of its well-established ProjectFacilitation Unit (PFU) and a regionalnetwork in Central Asia. Through the IPMCRSP project MSU is the first U.S.university to become a member of theCGIAR-PFU Network in the Central Asiaregion. In cooperation with ICARDA-PFU,a three-member team from the CentralAsia region (Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, andUzbekistan) was identified through acompetitive process. This team is based atthe ICARDA-PFU in Tashkent, Uzbekistanand is implementing the project activitiesin collaboration with component leadersfrom MSU, UC-Davis and local/regionalpartners. The IPM CRSP team works with

research institutes, universities, NGOs,private sector and farmer associations inthe region.

The MSU-UC Davis-led consortium istaking a participatoryand integratedapproach

Figure 1: Collaboration framework for Central AsiaIPM Program

10

to research, training, outreach, andinstitutional capacity building (Figure 1).With limited funding from the IPM CRSPproject, our initial approach is to developand implement a collaborative research,extension, training and institutionalcapacity-building project in Uzbekistan,Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan and then scaleup to other countries in the regiondepending on the availability of financialresources.

MSU, UC-Davis, and ICARDA areworking with government institutions,universities, NGOs, and internationalorganizations for the implementation of theproject activities. The project partnersinclude: ICARDA-PFU in Uzbekistan, theAdvisory Training Center of Rural AdvisoryService (ATC-RAS) in Kyrgyzstan, theInstitute for Plant Protection (IPP) inUzbekistan, Private Biolaboratory inSamarqand in Uzbekistan, the BotanicalResearch Institute of Academy ofSciences in Kyrgyzstan, the Bio-soilresearch Institute of Academy of Sciencesin Kyrgyzstan, the Institute of Zoology andParasitology Academy of Sciences inTajikistan and the Institute of PlantProtection and Quarantine in Tajikistan.

E. Project components

Given the limited funding and based on thepriorities identified by the regionalstakeholders, the Regional IPM CRSP inCentral Asia is focusing on the followingthree components: a) Collaborativeresearch on enhancing efficiency andproduct lines of biolaboratories, b)Collaborative research on landscapeecology and biological control of pests,and c) Strengthening IPM outreach andeducational programs.

a. Collaborative research on enhancingefficiency and product lines ofbiolaboratories

As stated earlier, there are more than 800biolaboratories in Central Asia thatproduce entomphages for field release.Various institutions working on thesespecies would like to expand their currentresearch activities to address additional

pest problems. The focus of thiscomponent is to enhance the efficiency ofCentral Asian biolaboratories byintroducing new candidate entomophagesto control spider mites, thrips, leafminersand whiteflies of vegetables crops. Inaddition, this research component islooking at developing efficient methods forrearing the entomophages and identifyingappropriate timing and methods for theirrelease. This collaborative research isconducted by a research fellow fromUzbekistan, Dr. Barno Tashpulatova, incollaboration with Dr. Frank Zalom at theUC Davis and other biolaboratories in theregion (Tashpulatova and Zalom, 2007).

b. Collaborative research on landscapeecology and biological control of pests

The focus of the landscape ecologycollaborative research project is toenhance biological control through theapplication of the principles of landscapeecology and habitat management forenhancing biological control of pests. Thisapproach is new to the Central Asia region.This research project includesidentification, screening and field-testing ofnative plants from the Central Asia regionthat could be used in various croppingsystems. The research is focusing on fieldevaluation of the attractiveness of thesenative plants to natural enemies of croppests and identification of the plantcharacteristics most strongly associatedwith attractiveness. Once the mostattractive plants have been identified, theywould be tested individually in laboratoryor greenhouse settings to determine if theresources they provide actually enhancethe longevity or fecundity of naturalenemies. This collaborative research isconducted by a research fellow fromTajikistan, Dr. Nurali Saidov, incollaboration with Dr. Douglas Landis atMSU, Dr. Mustapha Bohssini at ICARDA,and other research institutes in the region(Saidov et al., 2007).

c. Strengthening IPM outreach andeducation programs

The IPM outreach/education component

11

aims at strengthening current cropmanagement outreach/education pro-grams by introducing ecologically-basedIPM information and materials into existingfarmers training programs such as thetraining of trainers (ToT), farmer fieldschools (FFS), and the development ofIPM educational materials (extensionbulletins, leaflets, flyers, etc). In addition,ecologically-based IPM educationalmaterials are introduced into localuniversity curriculum in the Central Asiaregion. An outreach fellow fromKyrgyzstan, Dr. Murat Aitmatov, coordi-nates this component in collaboration withDr. George Bird and Dr. Walter Pett atMSU and other NGOs, universities andresearch institutes in the region (Aitmatovet al., 2007).

Training and Team Building

To help promote and implement anecologically-based regional IPM programin Central Asia, the three team membersof the IPM CRSP Project were trained atMSU and UC-Davis in summer 2006.During this visit to the U.S., the three teammembers also attended the two-weekinternational short course on agroecology,IPM, and sustainable agriculture at MSU.In addition, the Deputy Director of WinrockInternational Farmer to Farmer program inUzbekistan also attended this course. Thetraining of the Deputy Director of WinrockInternational was aimed at helping to linkour project activities with alreadyestablished farmers training programs andthe network of NGOs in the region. Thethree IPM CRSP Project team membershave also attended various training pro-grams organized by ICARDA in the region.

Networking in the Regionand Internationally:

To foster networking among IPMspecialists in the region and withinternational IPM communities, the IPMCRSP project has provided membershipsin the International Association for thePlant Protection Sciences (IAPPS). Inaddition, a directory of IPM professionals/

stakeholders in the region was developedand distributed to key institutions and IPMspecialists in the region. This directory isalso posted on the IPM CRSP projectwebsite at: http://www.oired.vt.edu/ipmcrsp/regional/IPM%20Directory%202006Central%20Asia.pdfThe IPM CRSP team members regularly

attend regional meetings and conferencesto present the project activities. In addition,the team members have organized specialtraining programs in the region to explainand share the ecologically-based IPMapproach to scientists and outreachspecialists in the region. The projectprogress/achievements were presentedduring the 5th National IPM Symposium inSt. Louis, Missouri in April 2006. Efforts areunderway to foster collaboration betweenthe Central Asia regional IPM Program andother regional programs and GlobalThemes of the IPM CRSP Project. This willprovide opportunities for exchange of IPMexperiences and information within theglobal community. The ultimate goal of thisregional IPM program is to build a teamand network of IPM specialists in CentralAsia, which can carry forward ecologically-based IPM research, education andoutreach programs in the region.

Annex 1. National and InternationalInstitutions and NGOs representedat the Stakeholders IPM Forum inCentral Asia, May 4-6, 2005,Tashkent, Uzbekistan.

� Michigan State University, USA.

� University of California-Davis, USA.

� Virginia Tech University, USA.

� United States Agency for International

Development (USAID)

� The Science and Technology Centerof Ukraine (STCU), Uzbekistan

� Tashkent State Agrarian University,Uzbekistan

� Samarqand Agricultural University,Uzbekistan

� Institute for Plant Protection, Uzbekistan

12

� Institute of Genetics and Experimental

Biology, Uzbekistan

� Institute of Zoology, Uzbekistan

� Gulistan State University, Uzbekistan

� Institute of Microbiology, Uzbekistan

� Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry, Uzbekistan

� Winrock International, Uzbekistan

� Advisory Training Centre of the RuralAdvisory Service (ATC-RAS), Kyrgyzstan

� Training Extension System Center,Kyrgyzstan

� International Center for Agricultural

Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA)

� Asian Vegetable Research and

Development Center (AVRDC)

� International Finance Corporation

(IFC), The World Bank

� United Nation Development Program

(UNDP)

� International Potato Center (CIP)

� Japan International Cooperation Agency

(JICA)

� United Nations Educational, Scientific andCultural Organization (UNESCO)

� German Association of TechnicalCooperation (GTZ)

References

Aitmatov, M., G. Bird, and W. Pett. (2007). Developmentand Dissemination of IPM knowledge throughOutreach and University Education Program inthe Central Asia. Proceedings of the Central AsiaRegional IPM stakeholders Forum, Dushanbe,Tajikistan, May 27-29, 2007.

Babu, S., and P. Pinstrup-Andersen. (2000). Achievingfood security in Central Asia Current challengesand policy research needs. Food Policy 25:629-635.

Babu, S. and A. Tashmatov. (1999). Attaining food se-curity in Central Asia-Emerging issues and chal-lenges for policy research. Food Policy 24: 357-362.

Khan, A.R. (1996). The Transition to a Market Economyin Agriculture, in Keith Griffin, ed., Social Policyand Economic Transformation in Uzbekistan,Geneva: ILO.

Landis, D.A., S.D. Wratten, and G. M. Gurr.(2000).“Habitat management to conserve naturalenemies of arthropod pests in agriculture.”AnnualReview of Entomology 45: 175-201.

Quamar, M.K. (2002). Global trends in agriculturalextension: Challenges facing Asia and the Pacificregion. SD Dimensions: Knowledge: September2002 (Food and Agricultural Organization of theUnited Nations, Rome).http://www.fao.org/sd/2002/KN0903a_en.ht

Saidov, N., D. Landis and M. Bohssini.(2007). AHistoryof Habitat Management in the Former USSR andCommon Independent States and Current Re-search in Central Asia. Proceedings of theCentralAsia Regional IPM stakeholders Forum,Dushanbe, Tajikistan, May 27-29, 2007.

Sugonayaev, E.S. (1994). Cotton pest management:part 5. “A Commonwealth of Independent Statesperspective.” Annual Review of Entomology39:579-92.

Sulaiman, R. andA. Hall. (2004). Extension policy at thenational level inAsia.http://www.regional.org.au/au/cs/2004/symposia/4/4/

Sulaiman, V.R. and A. Hall. (2004). Towards extensionplus: Opportunities and challenges. Policy Brief #17, National Centre for Agricultural Economics andPolicy Research, New Delhi.

Tashpulatova, B., and F. Zalom. (2007). Enhancing theEfficiency and Product Lines of Biolaboratories inCentral Asia. Proceedings of the Central Asia Re-gional IPM stakeholders Forum, Dushanbe, Tajik-istan, May 27-29, 2007.

Walter-Echols, G. (2005). “Opportunities for IPM inTajikistan.” Consultancy Report. FAO/TCIE.

13

A History of Habitat Management in the Former USSR andthe Commonweatlh of Independent States and CurrentResearch in Central Asia

1 International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), IPM CRSP project, P.O. Box 4564,6 Murtazaev Str., Tashkent 700000 2Department of Entomology and Center for Integrated Plant Systems, MichiganState University, E. Lansing, Michigan 48824 3 International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas,ICARDA, Syria.

—Nurali S. Saidov1, Douglas A. Landis 2 and Mustapha Bohssini3

Literature Review

The early recommendations for the useof habitat management to enhancebiological control in this region preceded amodern understanding of the science.Skrzhinskaya (1936) pointed to the treatiseof Albert Veliki in the thirteenth century,which stated, "To avoid generating badanimals with vegetables... plant also inmany places amongst vegetables—particularly among cabbages—mint”. Amodern understanding of the advantagesof plant diversification to enhancebiological control was first published byFrederic (1932). He suggested that thepresence of artificial plantings near grapevineyards reduced tortricid moth damageby supporting alternate hosts for theirparasites and predators. Similarly, Telengaet al. (1936 a, b) noted increased para-sitism of a grape leaf-roller moth in Crimea(Ukraine) in proximity to forest plantationswhere they believed the parasitoid foundadditional food and shelter.

Melinichenko (1938) pointed out theuseful role of insectivorous birds inprotecting forest plantations from insects.Stark (1940 a, b) noted that tiphiid andscoliid wasps were particularly effectivewhere they were attracted to the plants onwhich they foraged for pollen and nectar;on this basis he recommended sowingattractive plants in proximity to where pestsoccur. Flandres (1940) reported that theparasitoid Anarhopus sydneyensis Timb.,introduced against Pseudococcusadonidum, performed best where theDracaena plant occurs in abundance.However, outside the range of this plant,either the parasite did not establish or wasotherwise less efficient. It is unclear if thiswas an observation of the parasitoid

utilizing the plant or a case of themrequiring similar abiotic conditions.

The composition and nature ofvegetation around agricultural crops canprovide natural enemies with additionalfood sources such as plant nectar.For example, the egg-parasitoidsMicrophanurus vassilievi Mayr. andM semistriatus Nees, which attack sunn-pest, benefit from the presence of variousApiaceae (Umbelliferae) around the field(Rubtsov, 1944). It has also been shownthat the bark of mulberry, apricot, andother trees form ridges where beneficialinsects congregate for overwintering(Rubtsov 1948). Finally, the wildflowersFerula assa-foetida, F. badrakema, Seneciosubdentatus, Lepidium draba and Anethumgraveolens attract parasitic Braconidaewasps in natural landscapes of Tajikistanand Turkmenistan (Tobias, 1964; Tobiaset al., 1992; Saidov, 1996, 2000).

Several researchers noted greaterabundance of parasitoids in proximity tonectar plants than in control fields.Schumakova (1959) found that theabsolute number of parasitoids ofAspidiotus californicus on apple trees as10 times higher in the presence ofphacelia than on trees in the control area.Feeding on nectariferous plants has alsobeen found to enhance the fecundity andlongevity of many natural enemies(Kopvillem, 1960, 1962; Adashkevich,1970). Adashkevich (1974) studied thepredator population dynamic onnectariferous plants in the steppes ofMoldova and found that they attractedprimarily predators.

Shumakov and Schepetilnikova (1970)suggested that it may be possible toincrease the efficiency of parasitoids bycreation of multi-tiered habitats consisting

14

of flowering plants, blooming bushes andhigh-density forest stands. Work at theMoscow station of the Soviet Union PlantProtection Institute (VIZR) and theVegetable Industry Institute showed thatthe Tachinid fly Ernestia sp. was attractedto flowering carrot, dill, and onion plants inproximity to cabbage and suppressed thecabbage moth up to 60-90%. Increasingthe concentration of Ageniaspis sp.(Hymenoptera, Encyrtidae) on dill andbuckwheat and Aphytis sp. (Hymenoptera,Aphelinidae) on phacelia plantations in agarden increased the efficiency of theseparasitoids in biological control of the fruitmoth and black pine-leaf scale (Aspidiotuscalifornicus). Thus, provision of pollen andnectar may be accomplished by carefulassociation of crop plants as well as non-crop plantings (Shumakov andSchepetilinikova 1970; Adashkevich,1971). Aliev (1971) also noted theimportance of flowering vegetation such aswhite mustard and clover in the attractionof insect parasitoids in Azerbaijan.Galunko and Dyadechko (1971) found thatin Ukraine’s woodlands and forest-stepperegion, seeding phacelia in pea plantationsattracted 86 different species of naturalenemies, many of which are important inreducing pea pests.

Eremenko (1971) found that thefecundity and efficiency of parasitoids ofthe winter moth (Agrotis segetum Schiff),such as Apanteles congestus Nees,Microplitis spectabilis Hal., Amblitelespanzeri Wesm, and tachinid fliesdepended on their feeding in adult stage.The results of his studies showed thatfeeding these parasitoids on a 20% sugarsolution, winter cress, carrot, or onionnectar increased their longevity 2-3 foldand promoted egg maturation. Inparticular, he noted that under fieldconditions of the Tashkent region ofUzbekistan, parasitism of caterpillars andpupae during the winter month was greaterin experimental plots close to nectariferousplants when compared with the control.Rogochaya (1971) conducted the studieson the food relationships of tachinid flies

with wild flowering vegetation andidentified 60 adult tachinid species feedingon 39 plant species from 15 families. Themost widespread were plants in the familyof Umbelliferae (13 species), Compositae(7 species) and Cruciferae (5 species).Among the tachinid flies collected onflowering cow parsnip, wild carrot, andbishop’s goutweed, the most numerouswere a species from the genera: Tachina,Limnaemyia, Frontina, Leskia,Cylindromyia, and others which containparasites of silkworms, cutworms,glasswings, leaf-roller moths, and othergarden pests.

Vorotynseva (1975) studied theinfluence of nectariferous plants onparasitism of the codling moth(Laspeyresia pomonella pomonella L.),and apple-leaf moths (Lithocolletiscorylipholiella Hb. and Lithocolletispyripholiella Gtsm.) for the purposeallocating flowering vegetation in complexorchard landscapes. The results of herstudies have shown that parasitism of thecodling moth by parasitoids in the generaMicrodus, Ascogaster and Pimpladecreased with the distance of apple treerows from nectariferous areas. Frunze(1988) recommended sowing early-blooming nectar plants such as; hyssop,celery and spring rape to attract predatorythrips in onion fields. Mikhalsev (1994)studied the influence of nectar plants oncabbage pests and their natural enemiesby planting cabbage at varying distancesfrom flowering plants. He determined thatnectar plants should be placed every 50-60m to enhance fecundity of the majorityof natural enemies. Finally, many years ofstudy by Nagirnyaka and Krasavina (2005)have shown that sowing peppermint -Mentha piperita, clary - Salvia selareamelissa- Melissa officinalis, sweet basil-Ocimum basilicum, caraway - Carum carvi,anise - Pimpinella anisum, onion - Alliumnutans, and leek - A. porrum is effective inattracting natural enemies of variousvegetable pests in north-west Russia.

15

Current Research inCentral Asia

Ecologically-based IPM seeks tomaximize the suppression of insect, weedand disease pests by enhancing theeffectiveness of their natural enemies.Priorresearch has shown that many naturalenemies are enhanced by landscapediversity (Lee et al., 2001; Thies et al.,2003). Recently, there has been asignificant interest in managing agriculturallandscapes to benefit natural enemycommunities, reduce reliance onpesticides, and increase agriculturalsustainability (Altieri and Letourneau,1982; Pickett and Bugg, 1998; Gurr et al.,2000; Landis et al., 2000). The presenceof diverse habitats in or near crops can beimportant in sustaining natural enemies ofcrop pests. In particular, plant pollen andnectar are frequently utilized by naturalenemies for energy and, reproduction, andto survive periods of prey scarcity. Diverseplant communities also provide shelter andalternate prey for many natural enemies(Landis et al., 2000).

Landscape diversity can be increasedby preserving, restoring, or creating plantcommunities that provide neededresources to natural enemies. In theintensively farmed landscapes of CentralAsia the latter is required while in parts ofthe region preservation or restoration maybe appropriate. The practice of managingplant communities for natural enemies istermed habitat management (Landis et al.,2000).

The specific objectives of our study were:

1. To adapt existing principles andpractices of landscape management toenhance IPM for use in Central Asianagricultural landscapes.

2. To research the use of native plants forconserving natural enemy communitiesand enhancing biological control of fieldcrop pests in Central Asia.

3. To investigate and implement the mostpromising landscape management tech-niques in partnership with governmentalagencies, universities, NGOs, and farmersin the region.

Methods

The experiment site was a researchfield located at the Institute of Zoology andParasitology of the Academy of Sciencesof Tajikistan in the Rudaki district of theHissar valley. This land was previouslyused for vegetable production for severalyears. The Hissar valley is one of the basicareas of agriculture in Tajikistan andconsists of typical sierozem and gray-brown soils (Tajikistan, Nature and NaturalResources, 1982). In the Hissar valley,high temperatures in the summer canreach 43-47°C, with the average monthlytemperature of the hottest month (July)between 29-31°C. The area receives 600-700 mm of rainfall per year and typicallyaccumulates 5000-5500 degree days.In 2006 we established preliminary re-search plots to test the attractiveness of12 known and potential resource plantscurrently available in Central Asia (table1). The experiment was conducted in acontinuous single block design with onereplicate of each plant species in a block.Plants were established in 2 m2 plotsspaced 0.5 m apart except for two plants,Ocimum basilicum L. and Helianthus an-nuus L., which were planted in narrow 0.5m strips 20 m in length and parallel withboth side blocks separately.

16

Table 1. List of plant species established at the research plot in Tajikistan, 2006.

From June through October 2006,arthropods were sampled weekly fromflowering plants between the hours of 8:00am-12:00 pm EST on windless, sunnydays. Insects were collected by standardentomological sweep nets (70 cm longwith a diameter of 45 cm, Tryapisin V.A. etal., 1982) with five samples from eachplant block. Insects were dividedseparately into natural enemies,herbivores, or other and were identified byfamily and counted. Insects from anyparasitic or predaceous family, or anygenus or species within a family known tobe parasitic or predaceous, were includedas natural enemies. Insects were countedas herbivores if they were a member of afamily known to be broadly herbivorous.Attractiveness here is based on thenumber of natural enemy arthropodscollected per sample; therefore, it includesboth arthropod attraction to the plant andsubsequent retention on it.

Results

Plant species were divided into twocategories according to their bloom period:mid season (15 June through 25 August)and late season (15 July through 31October) (table 2).

The proportion of total natural enemiescollected at all flowering plants by orderand family is summarized in tables 3 and4. The most numerous taxons by orderwere Hymenoptera (including the familiesof Braconidae, Aphidiidae, Chalcidoidea,Cynipoidea, Ichneumonidae, Sphecidaeand Vespidae), Diptera (Syrphidae andTachinidae) and Heteroptera (Antho-coridae and Nabidae). Most number oftaxons identified include the families ofSyrphidae, Anthocoridae, Coccinellidae,Chalcidoidea, Sphecidae, Braconidae andIchneumonidae.

## Family Genus and species Common Name

1 Apiaceae (Umbelliferae) Anethum graveolens L. Dill annual2 Apiaceae (Umbelliferae) Coriandrum sativum L. Coriander annual3 Asteraceae (Compositae) Calendula officinalis L. Marigold annual4 Amaranthaceae Celosia cristata L. Cockscomb forb5 Asteraceae (Compositae) Tagetes erecta L. African marigold annual6 Apiaceae (Umbelliferae) Foeniculum vulgareMill. Sweet fennel forb7 Balsaminaceae Impatiens balsamina L. Balsam forb8 Lamiaceae (Labiatae) Ziziphora interrupta Juz. Interrupta forb9 Asteraceae (Compositae) Aster Sp. Aster forb10 Amaranthaceae Celosia argentea L. Cockscomb forb11 Lamiaceae (Labiatae) Ocimum basilicum L. Sweet basil forb12 Asteraceae (Compositae) Helianthus annuus L. Common sunflower forb

PlantType

17

Week 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5Coriandrum sativum L

MidSeason

LateSeason

June July August September October

Anethum graveolens L.Ziziphora interrupta Juz.Ocimum basilicum L.Calendula officinalis L.Helianthus annuus L.Zinnia elegans Jacq.Celosia cristata L.Celosia argentea L.Impatiens balsamina L.Tagetes erecta L.Foeniculum vulgareMill.

Table 2. Flowering phenology of nectar plants 2006 in Tajikistan. Plants are listed in order of bloom.

= peak bloom date, = full bloom, = in bloom

— ——

—

———

———

— ——

—

———

——

———

——

—

—— ——— — —

—————

———

— —— —

— —— —

—�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

� �

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

�

�

��

�

�

�

�

�

� �

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�� �

�

��

�

�

�

� � � �

� �����

�

�

�

�

�

� � �

� � �

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

Coriandrum sativum L. 10 35 24 24 89 16 0 14 0 202Anethum graveolens L. 9 26 28 32 74 21 0 17 1 199Ziziphora interrupta Juz. 9 25 46 37 107 7 2 11 0 235Ocimum basilicum L. 12 35 46 45 96 17 2 12 0 253

Calendula officinalis L. 10 29 18 27 69 16 0 15 2 176

Helianthus annuus L. 8 10 8 5 16 14 1 5 4 63

Zinnia elegans Jacq. 13 15 25 46 52 12 4 13 3 170

Celosia cristata L. 12 20 14 21 64 2 3 17 0 141

Celosia argentea L. 11 17 11 30 45 5 1 15 0 124Impatiens balsamina L. 10 8 13 27 111 6 0 8 0 173Tagetes erecta L. 12 15 53 89 116 11 1 15 0 300Foeniculum vulgareMill. 12 21 26 80 116 15 2 13 0 273Total per taxa 256 312 463 955 142 16 155 10 2309

Table 3. Proportion of total natural enemies collected at all flowering plants by order.

Plant species

Num

berof

samples

Coleoptera

Heteroptera

Diptera

Hymenoptera

Neuroptera

Odonata

Arachnida

Mantoptera

Total

18

Coriandrumsativum

L.

1031

416

816

820

1712

616

144

160

140

202

Anethum

graveolensL.

923

321

727

514

1513

515

75

210

171

199

ZiziphorainterruptaJuz.

920

533

1323

1416

1521

422

236

72

110

235

Ocimum

basilicum

L.

1223

1235

1126

1918

719

720

169

172

120

253

Calendula

officinalisL.

1024

513

519

817

811

214

134

160

152

176

HelianthusannuusL.

810

07

15

00

00

00

106

141

54

63Zinn

iaelegansJacq.

1313

222

331

158

27

613

79

124

133

170

Celosia

cristataL.

1220

012

219

29

424

06

156

23

170

141

Celosia

argenteaL.

1117

011

020

107

015

05

144

51

150

124

Impatiens

balsam

inaL.

108

013

019

820

1040

217

166

60

80

173

TageteserectaL.

1210

550

366

2324

1614

820

2212

111

150

300

FoeniculumvulgareMill.

1219

226

059

2118

2032

614

206

152

130

273

Totalpertaxa

218

38259

53330

133

171

114

208

46162

177

7714216

155

102309

Table 4. Proportion of total natural enemies collected at all flowering plants by family.

ORDER

Plantspecies

Numberofsamples

Coccinellidae

Carabidae

Anthocoridae

Nabidae

Syrphidae

Tachinidae

Braconidae

Aphidiidae

Chalcidoidea

Cynipoidea

Ichneumonidae

Sphecidae

Vespidae

Chrysopidae

Odonata

Spider

Mantidae

Total

Coleoptera

Heteroptera

Diptera

Neuroptera

Odonata

Arachnida

Mantoptera

Total

Hymenoptera

19

Conclusions

Several of the plants tested in thispreliminary trial were very attractive to avariety of natural enemy taxa. Based onthis successful preliminary test, weestablished two larger trials in 2006-2007to test the attractiveness of a series ofplants native to the region using the bestof these plants and an unmanaged controlstrip of weedy vegetation. Initial resultssuggest that native plants may be similarlyattractive to natural enemies and holdpromise for habitat manipulation inCentral Asia.

References

Adashkevich, B.P. (1970). Proceeding of the MoldavianResearch institute on irrigation and vegetables.Kishinev, Publishing house Central Committee ofCommunistic Party of Moldavia, pp. 121-131.

Adashkevich, B.P. (1971). The role of nectariferous inattracting aphids natural enemies to pea fields. Inthe "Biological methods of protection fruit andvegetable crops from insect pest, diseases andweed as bases of the integrated systems". The-sis’s report, October 1971, Kishinev, pp. 4-6.

Adashkevich, B.P. (1974). Number dynamics of preda-tory insects on nectariferous plants. In the bulletinof research information. Kishinev, Publishinghouse Central Committee of Communistic Partyof Moldavia, pp. 11-18.

Adashkevich, B.P. (1982). The ecological principles ofthe using entomophages in extreme condition ofthe Republic of Central Asia. Thesis’ report on All-union counsel-seminar on experience of the intro-

ducing the biological control in integrated systemof cotton crop from pest and diseases. Tashkent,June 10-11 1982, pp. 15-20.

Altieri, M.A., and D.K Letourneau. (1982). Vegetationmanagement and biological control in agro-ecosystems. Crop Protection 1: 405-430.

Aliev, A.A. (1971). Importance of flowering vegetation inattraction of parasitical insect. In the annual “Bio-logical methods of protection fruit and vegetablecrops from insect pest, diseases and weed asbases of the integrated systems.” Thesis’s report,October 1971, Kishinev, pp. 8-9.

Galunko, V.I., and N.P. Dyadechko. (1971). About at-traction entomophages to pea fields. In the annual“Biological methods of protection fruit and veg-etable crops from insect pest, diseases and weedas bases of the integrated systems.” Thesis’s re-port, October 1971, Kishinev, pp. 24-25.

Gurr, G.M., S.D. Wratten, and P. Barbosa. (2000). Suc-cess in conservation biological control of arthro-pods. In: G.M. Gurr and S. D. Wratten (eds.).Biological Control: Measures of Success. KluwerAcademic Publishers, Dordrecht,The Netherlands,pp.105-132.

Eremenko, T.S. (1971). Importance of the adult parasitefeeding of winter moth in increasing their efficiency.In the annual “Biological methods of protectionfruit and vegetable crops from insect pest, dis-eases and weed as bases of the integrated sys-tems.” Thesis’ report, October 1971, Kishinev, pp.30-31. Kopvillem, H.G. (1960). Journal of PlantProtection, # 5.

Kopvillem, H.G. (1962). Biological method of controlwith pest and disease agricultural crops. Issue 1.Moscow, Selihozizdat, pp. 89-113.

Landis, D.A., S.D. Wratten, and G.M. Gurr. (2000).Habitat management to conserve natural enemiesof arthropod pests in agriculture. Annual Reviewof Entomology 45: 175-201.

Lee, J.C., F.D. Menalled, and D.A. Landis. (2001).Refuge habitats modify impact of insecticide dis-turbance on carabid beetle communities. Journalof Applied Ecology 38: 472-483.

Melinichenko, A.N. (1938). The birds of forest planta-tions in steppe Zavolzhiya and Privolzhiya andtheir economic importance. Scientific review Kuy-byshevsk. Government Pedagogical Universityname after V.V. Kuybysheva, volume 1, pp.3-38

Mikhalsev, V.P. (1994). The ecologically safe and pesti-cide-freetechnologies of plant-growing productionobtaining. The Materials of the “All-RussianScientific-production Conference”. Krasnodar, Au-gust 24-26, 1994. Part 1, Pushchino 1994, pp. 97-99.

Nagirnyak, A.F.and L.P. Krasavina. (2005). Use thenectar plants in the system of biological methodprotection of the plants. The second “All-Russiancongress on plant protection,” St. Petersburg,December 5-10 2005. Recovery of the plant-sani-tary of eco-landscape. The material of the con-gress, Volume 2, pp. 99-100.

Rogochaya, L.G. (1971). To question about food rela-tionship tachina flies with wild flowering vegetationand attraction them in orchards. In the annual “Bi-ological methods of protection fruit and vegetablecrops from insect pest, diseases and weed asbases of the integrated systems.”Thesis’s report,October 1971, Kishinev, pp. 86-87.

Rubtsov, I.A. (1944). Sunn pest egg parasitoid in Tajik-istan. Scientifically popular library, Tajik branch ofAcademy of USSR, Stalinabad, 4, pp. 1-56.

Rubtsov, I.A. (1948). Biological method of control withinsect pests. OGIZ Selikhozgiz, State publishersof the agricultural literature, Moscow, Leningrad,pp. 412

Saidov, N.Sh. (1996). Braconidae family in Tajikistan(Hymenoptera, Braconidae). Thesis on competi-tion degree candidate of the biological sciences.St. Petersburg, pp. 23.

Saidov, N.Sh. (2000). The fauna of Braconid wasps(Hymenoptera, Braconidae) in alfalfa biocenosisin the south of Tajikistan. In the annual “Secondconference young scientist of Tajikistan.”Dushanbe, pp. 169-171.

Skrzhinskaya, E. Ch. (1936). The century XIII. The Dis-quisition Aliberta Great About plants. In the annual"Agriculture in monument of the west muddleages", pp. 321.

20

Stark, V.N. (1940 a). Use scoliid wasps for controlcockchafer. Bulletin of Plant Protection, 1-2:120-143.

Stark, V.N. (1940 b). New in control with root pest.Forest Industry, 10:53-56.

Tarbinski, F.L. (1948). Key for the Identification Insect tofamily level. Leningrad, Russia, publishing house“Selkhozgiz”.

Telenga, N.A.and M.V. Bogunova, (1936 a). Expeditionon study and use parasite and predator of coccidsand aphids. Result of research work All SovietUnion Plant Protection Institute (VIZR), 1935, pp.270-271.

Telenga, N.A.and M.V. Bogunova, (1936 b). “The mainpredators of coccids and aphids in Ussuriyskoypart of the Far East Russia and way of their use.”Journal of Plant Protection, # 10:75-86.

Telenga, N.A. (1940). The Ecological conference onproblem mass duplications animal and their fore-cast. Thesis’ report. Kiev, volume 1 and 2.

Tobias, V.I. (1964). About daily activity of braconidwasps, in annual "Studies on biological method ofthe control of agricultural and forest industry”.Novosibirsk, pp. 173-195.

Tobias, V.I. and N. Sh. Saidov. (1992). Effect of wind ondaily activity of parasitic Hymenopterous insects(with Braconid wasps as an example) (Hymenop-tera Parasitica, Braconidae), Entomology review,volume 72:339-347.

Friderihs, K. (1932). The ecological bases to appliedzoology and entomology.Moscow – Leningrad, pp.1-671

Frunze, A.I. (1988). Importance of weed vegetation andnectariferous in seasonal cycle of trips(Thysanoptera), in the annual "Using thebiological methods of protection of the plants inagricultural production". Kishinev "Shtiinca", pp.114-119.

Chumakova, B.M. (1971). The role of the additionalfeeding in increasing of efficiency parasitic hy-menopterans in the agro biocenosis, in the annual"Biological methods of protection fruit and veg-etable cultures from pest, diseases and weed asbases of the integrated systems". Thesis’ report,October 1971, Kishinev, pp. 111-113.

Shumakov, E.M.and V.A. Schepetilinikova. (1970). Theinsects protect the plants, Publishing house"Znaniya", Moscow, pp. 32-33.Velikan, V.C. et al. ;(1982). Key for the Identification of harmful anduseful insects and acaridae vegetable crops inUSSR”, Leningrad, Russia.

Vorotynseva, A.F. (1975). The influence nectariferous oncontamination parasite to codling moth and apple-leaf moths, in the annual "Protection of the plantsfrom pest and diseases", Publishing house "Car-tiya Moldovenyaske", pp. 43-46.

Wilkinson, T. K., and D. A. Landis. (2005). Habitat Di-versification in Biological Control: The Role ofPlant Resources. In F. L. Wackers, P. C. J. vanRijn and J. Bruin [eds.], Plant-provided food forcarnivorous insects, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, UK; New York.

21

Introduction

Protecting plants from pests, diseases,and weeds is necessary to enhance cropproductivity, thereby assuring abundantfood products for the inhabitants of theRepublics of Central Asia as well as rawresources for their industries. However,plant protection must be approached withrespect for the environment, using anIntegrated Pest Management (IPM)approach. Ecological concerns with the useof chemical pesticides became widespreadthroughout the world during the 1960s(Maredia et al., 2003). It was during thattime and with shared concerns within theformer Soviet Union that biologists,agriculturalists, and ecologists beganaddressing problems of environmentalpollution from pesticides. These scientistsresearched alternative methods of plantprotection, building upon the foundation ofa number of 19th and early 20th centuryRussian scientists, who had studiedbiological control of key insect pests suchas Sunn pest and codling moth. The first ofthese pioneers of biological control was thefamous Russian scientist I. I. Mechnikovwho in 1879 studied the use of fungalpathogens against cereal beetles andsugar beet weevil (Rubtsov, 1948). In hispapers devoted to entomophages forcontrol of Sunn pest, I. A. Rubtsov,identified several species of naturalenemies including Telenomides andMicropharunus spp. (Starets, 1975). In1903, I. V. Vasiliev obtained 60 %parasitism of Sunn pest eggs following fieldreleases of Micropharunus.

Experiencing success in their ownresearch on alternative pest managementpractices, plant protection researchers ofthe former Soviet Union proposed that thegovernment take measures to reducepesticide use and instead emphasize the

Enhancing the Efficiency and Product Lines of Biolaboratoriesin Central Asia—Barno Tashpulatova1 and Frank Zalom2

1 International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA),IPM CRSP project, P.O. Box 4564, 6 Murtazaev Str., Tashkent 700000

2 Department of Entomology, UC Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616-8584

use of biological control agents, includingmicroorganisms, to control pest insectpopulations (Rubtsov, 1948; Starets, 1975;Tryapitsin, 1965). However, it wasrecognized that the complete elimination ofchemical controls would not be possible(Filippov, 1990). Therefore, thedevelopment and implementation of newstrategies to utilize chemical and biologicalmethods compatibly within an IPMprogram was initiated. Integrated PestManagement has been an important forcein shaping crop protection strategies inCentral Asia for the past three decades(Soper et al., 1990). Biological control hasremained the key to IPM as practiced inCentral Asia during this period, withconservation of natural enemies andaugmentation using predators andparasitoids as the most important tacticsemployed. However, to implement thisapproach successfully, it was necessary todevelop facilities and methods for mass-rearing biological control agents, and todetermine how to use them compatiblywith the chemical pesticides needed forplant protection (Alimukhamedov andAdilov, 1991).

In 1970, the government of the formerSoviet Union resolved to create a numberof biolaboratories for mass-producingentomophages to release on crops againstpest insects (Shepetilnikova andFedorinchik, 1968; Chenkin, 1997). Withthis resolution, about 70 biologicallaboratories and over 300 farm product linebiolaboratories were established for massrearing the parasitoid Trichogramma.Subsequently, the area of entomophagereleases in Central Asia increased everyyear. Micropathogen preparation ofBacillus thuriengensis bacteria was alsoinitiated on a large scale targetinglepidopteran pests. Concurrently, researchwas conducted to identify additional

22

species of biological control agents totarget other crop pests.

A number of important Soviet scientistsincluding I. A. Porginskiy, I. V. Vasiliev, I. V.Kurdyumov, I. Ya. Shevirev, V. P. Pospelovand others worked throughout the 1970sand 1980s, contributing greatly to theknowledge of entomophage species andtheir role in pest control, and eventuallyleading to effective methods for utilizingentomophages as biological control agents(Chenkin, 1997).

Because of the well known efficiency ofTrichogramma as a parasitoid in nature,there was considerable emphasis onimproving their mass rearing to increaseavailability for field releases (Adilov, 1986).In depth studies of Trichogramma releasesbegan in Central Asia in the early 20thcentury. In 1911, A. F. Radzedskiy inSamarqand made the first attempt to usethe Trichogramma species brought fromRussia (Povoljie) for codling moth control.At the Kiev Entomological Station in 1912,the famous Russian scientist V. P.Pospelov began to study the potential formass rearing and release ofTrichogramma. I. A. Porginskiy usedmethods identified by Shepetilnikova tocontribute to this work (Alimukhamedov,1986). Further research on Trichogrammabiology and ecology identified thesignificance of interspecific differences andthe importance of different climaticconditions on their success (Meier, 1941).Additional work during this timeemphasized additional aspects of artificialrearing and mass release of Trichogrammain the field (Telenga, 1959; Rusnak, 1988).

In 1926, the American scientist S. G.Flanders identified that Trichogrammacould be mass reared in the laboratory ongrain moth eggs, and from that time thisapproach to mass rearing became favoredin the Soviet Union as well (Adilov, 1971).Research on the rearing and use ofTrichogramma in the Soviet Union wasgreatly expanded in 1934, with theestablishment of the Biocontrol Laboratoryof the Soviet Institute of Plant Protection,

and later at the Scientific ResearchInstitute, which was headed by N. F. Meier(Meier, 1940).

The initial attempts to mass rear andrelease Trichogramma in the Soviet Unionin the manner done in the United Statesfailed as it was assumed that only oneTrichogramma species, T. evanescens,was available in the Soviet Union. Thisspecies was applied broadly against manyinsect pests and on many types of crops.The T. evanescens utilized for thesereleases was isolated from the cabbagemoth in the Krasnodar region, and massreared in Leningrad for distributionthroughout the country (Adilov, 1986).

Later, several scientists at the Sovietand Ukrainian Institutes of Plant Protectionidentified additional Trichogramma speciesand biotypes differing in their biologicalcharacteristics. These additionalTrichogramma species and biotypesproved successful in various regions of theSoviet Union and for different types ofpests and crops. At present, differentforms of T. evanescens are applied inmass releases that target the winter moth,cabbage moth and, other Lepidoptera(Adilov, 1986).

Scientists in the former Soviet Unionhave contributed considerably to thedevelopment of IPM of cotton pests. Theydeveloped economic damage thresholdsfor different insect pest species and mitesand contributed experimental data onbiological control, including entomophagespecies composition, ecology, and levelsof biological efficiency for naturallyoccurring entomophage populations,production, and application technologiesfor reared entomophages and use ofmicrobial control agents (Shepetilnikova,1968; Chenkin, 1997).

On the recommendation of V.A.Shepetilnikova of the Central AsiaScientific Research Institute of PlantProtection in 1967, further studies onTrichogramma applications wereconducted. This research focused oncomparisons of species and biotype

23

efficacy focusing on entomophagestargeting cotton bollworms and othersphytophagous species of cotton and othercrops. Additional studies on their biologicalfeatures and behaviors, release rates forTrichogramma application, and methodsfor their conservation were also conducted(Adilov, 1971). In 1970, the government ofTajikistan SSR established the CentralBiolaboratory in Dushanbe whereTrichogramma biotypes were mass-produced for application against croppests. Two biotypes introduced initially didnot survive the harsh climatic conditionsthere and soon died. However, aTrichogramma introduced from the UnitedStates proved to be acclimatized. Its fieldapplication was first made later that yearon a Tajikistan collective farm over an areaof 166 ha against the cotton bollworm oncotton, and it proved successful(Peregonchenko, 1970).

Scientists of the former Soviet UnionResearch Institute in Uzbekistan furtherimproved the mass rearing ofTrichogramma by conducting research thatled to a process for mechanical rearing ofthese parasitoids. The authors (S.VAndreev, et al.) of the mechanical line,together with Institute researchers,established a prototype for the large-scalemechanical mass rearing of Trichogrammaand its host, the grain moth, at the “Mikond”plant. In the Ministry of Agriculture of theformer Uzbekistan Soviet SocialistRepublic, a special department onassembly, delivery, repair, release, and usewas created to implement the mechanicalrearing approach. The scientific productiondepartment “Agropribor” was created fortechnical aspects of the program (Chenkin,1997).

During the 1960s, several scientists inRussia, Ukraine, and Moldova studied thebiology of additional species ofLepidopteran larval parasitoids andpredators. Most of these parasitoidsbelonged to the Hymenopteran familyBraconidae (Tobias, 1959). Adashkevichand others reported the beneficial features

of the parasitoid Habrobracon hebetor forcontrol of cabbage moth and codling moth,and proposed the development of massrearing methods for this species using waxmoths. They also acknowledged thesignificant role of predatory arthropodssuch as spiders, lady beetles, lacewings,and predaceous bugs, including Oriusspp., Podisus maculiventris and Perillusbioculatus for management of theColorado potato beetle and Leptinotarsadecemlineata on early potatoes andeggplants (Mangutova, 1970; Moiseev,1973; Adashkevich, 1974; Filippov, 1988,).

Research on braconid parasitoids forreleases in Central Asia were initiated in1961 by the Soviet scientist V.I. Tobias(Tobias, 1951). Especially significant washis work on H. hebetor. He found thisectoparasitoid to be a very effectivebiological control agent for a number ofdifferent lepidopteran pests. Since then,scientists in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistanhave reported that natural populations ofthis parasitoid could reduce the firstgeneration of bollworms on cotton by 10-18 %, with parasitism increasing to about50 % later in the season. They consideredthat the braconid complex, together withother native entomophages, were theprimary mortality factor limiting thebollworm population (Hamraev, 1961). Theparasitoid was also found to reduce thenumber of bollworms on corn by 15-25 %and by about 60 % on tomatoes. Thesestudies resulted in a resolution issued bythe government calling for the massrearing of H. hebetor in biolaboratories forrelease on the cotton crop (Adashkevich,1988).

In addition to these parasitoids, therewas considerable interest in apolyphagous predator, the green lacewingChrysopa carnea. The internationalliterature supported the effectiveness oflacewing releases against pest moths onpears and gardenia plants, and againstbollworms on cotton (Ridgway, 1968).Concurrently in the Soviet Union, scientificstudies indicated that lacewings could

24

reduce populations of a number of keyinsect pest species, and this research ledto a proposal for their mass rearing andrelease (Luppova, 1969). However, thisapproach could not be pursued initially inthe former Soviet Union because of thelack of suitable methods for mass rearing.A lacewing mass rearing techniquedeveloped in the United States and basedupon feeding the lacewing larvae witheggs and larvae of the potato tuber mothcould not be used in the Soviet Unionbecause the prey insect was not presentin the country and was considered apotential pest. In 1966, scientists of theBiocontrol Laboratory at the SovietResearch Institute of Phytopathology firstdeveloped the technique of mass rearingof lacewings applicable to the SovietUnion. In the 1970s, G. A. Beglyarov andothers further modified and improved themethod of lacewing rearing and evaluatedits efficiency (Beglyarov, 1967, 1972,Hizhdniak et al, 1971).

The ability to mass rear and release thetwo parasitoids and the green lacewing,and the apparent effect of these biologicalcontrol agents on pest insect populations,resulted in a decision by the Cabinet ofMinisters in Uzbekistan issued onSeptember 20, 1973, CP # 421, “onmeasures of enhancing scientific researchand the wide introduction into cropproduction of biological control of pests,diseases and weeds” which enabled theestablishment of biolaboratories on amassive scale. At the Central AsiaScientific Research Institute of PlantProtection in Tashkent in 1980, scientistsrepresenting several disciplines estab-lished a biolaboratory with the ability tomass produce a product line of localspecies of Trichogramma, H. hebetor, andthe green lacewing, C. carnea, foraugmentative release on a large area ofcotton fields for control of phytophagouspests and mites (Shepetilnikova, 1968).

The large-scale introduction of biologicalcontrol agents required extensive trainingof scientists, technicians, engineers, and

others professionals. Many of the labor-atory managers and their assistants weretrained in courses at institutions such asTashkent University, the Leningrad SovietInstitute of Plant Protection, the SovietInstitute of Biocontrol Plant Protection, theUkrainian Research Institute of PlantProtection and others (Luppova, 1969).By 1988, there were 730 biolaboratoriesand an additional 288 biofactories with 553mechanical mass rearing lines forTrichogramma in Uzbekistan alone, andmore than 3000 biocontrol specialists wereemployed for their operation.

Since its independence from the SovietUnion in 1991, Uzbekistan has maintainedits focus on biological control releases forthe cotton crop. Most biolaboratoriesestablished during the time of the formerSoviet Union remain in operation to thepresent time, but biofactories wheremechanical lines were installed for theproduction of entomophages have largelybeen abandoned due to the lack of partsneeded to maintain the equipment. Thereare still more than 900 biolaboratoriesfunctioning in Uzbekistan, andentomophages continue to be released onmore than 1.5 million ha of cotton.

The USAID IPM CRSP for Central Asiaproposal, of which this biolaboratorycomponent is one part was developedfollowing a Stakeholders Forum held inTashkent, Uzbekistan, in May 2005, atwhich the stakeholders present identifiedas priorities improving efficiency ofentomophage production, expandingbiolaboratory product lines to includeadditional entomophages targetingdifferent pest species than those currentlyproduced, and expanding the release ofentomophages to include pests ofadditional crops. The sources of newbiological control agents could includethose which are introduced, established(previously introduced and now endemic),or naturally occurring in the region, as wellas more effective or better acclimatizedstrains of those entomophages alreadyin production.

25

Methods

IPM CRSP Project is being conductedin partnership with ICARDA. The primaryfocus of the project is to enhance thepotential of the biolaboratories of CentralAsia by introducing new entomophages.Our initial focus was on mass rearing andrelease of predatory mites of the Acarifamily, Phytoseiidae, which aresuccessfully utilized in the United States,Europe, and the Middle East for control ofspider mites, thrips, and whiteflies. Theproject was initiated by the visit of Dr.Tashpulatova to the laboratory of Dr. Zalomat UC Davis in May and June of 2006, fortraining on predator mite rearing andresearch methodology. Subsequently, andafter obtaining an importation permit fromthe government of Uzbekistan, two speciesof Phytoseiid mites (Amblyseius cucumerisand Amblyseius swirskii) were brought toCentral Asia for further study. ThesePhytoseiid mites are producedcommercially both in the United States andEurope, and are sold and shippedthroughout the world. A. cucumeris isgenerally regarded as safe to release bythe European and Mediterranean PlantProtection Organization (EPPO) standards(OEPP/EPPO, 2002), which provideguidelines to national authorities in theEPPO region (including Europe, NorthAfrica, Russia, Turkey, Israel and Jordan)on the introduction and release of exoticbiological control agents in order to identifyand avoid hazards for agricultural andnatural ecosystems. These standards arebased on extensive previous knowledgeand experience of the use and introductionof entomophages sufficient to indicate theabsence of significant risks.

Results

Of the Phytoseiids introduced, only A.cucumeris has been successfully colonizedunder conditions present in thebiolaboratories in Uzbekistan andKyrgyzstan. Currently, this species is beingreared at both the Uzbekistan Institute for

Plant Protection and the KyrgyzstanCentre on Biological Facilities Productionfor Plant Protection. Results to datesuggest promise for its application tocommercial crops. Our studies haverevealed the optimal condition for rearingthese predatory mites, and the optimalpredator: prey ratios for their mass rearingin culture. For example, we establishedthat the optimal predator: prey ratio on theprey mite, Acarus siro, is 1:5 forA. swirskiiand 1:7 for A. cucumeris, and onTyrophagus putrescentiae 1:7 for A.swirskii and 1:10 for A. cucumeris.

In the fall of 2006, scientists of theKyrgyz biolaboratory conducted plots trialsof A. cucumeris on onions and in winter,2006-07 on flowers in laboratorygreenhouses against Thrips tabaci. Thedensity of thrips on the onion crop wasvery high, about 10 per leaf, and theentomophages could not suppress thepest population. However, satisfactoryresults were obtained on flowers in thegreenhouse releases, as the thripspopulation was low when the predatorswere introduced. With the establish-ment of mass rearing of A. cucumeristhere is potential for their application formanagement of spider mites, thrips, andwhiteflies on cotton, vegetable, fruit, andgreenhouse crops.

References

Adashkevich, B.P. (1974). Interaction of aphids and theirparasitoids and super parasitoids in agrobio-cenosis in vegetable crops, / Book: Entomophagesand Microorganisms in Plant Protection, “Bulletinof Science Technical Information”, pp. 3-20,Kishinev.

Adashkevich B.P., A.P. Shapova, Z.H. Saidova and S.Sh. Nurmuchamedova. (1988). Perspectivesof Bracon application for Control of CottonBollworm on Cotton Plants, Tashkent, UzSSR,NIINTI.

Adilov, Z.K. (1986). Application of Trichogramma forHeliothis control on the Cotton Crop in Uzbekistan,Tashkent,UzSSR.

Adilov, Z. K. (1986). General Information NIINTIITESGosplanUzSSR Trichogramma application forHeliothis sp. Control on Cotton Plants inUzbekistan, Tashkent, UzSSR.

26

Adilov, Z.K. (1971). Perspectives of Pests BiocontrolApplication; Matters of Improving CottonProtection from Pests and Diseases, p. 163-165,Fan, Tashkent, 1969, - P. 163-165, and Adilov Z.K.State and Perspectives of Ciological andIntegrated Pest and Diseases Management onCrops, p. 5-13, Fan, Tashkent, UzSSR.

Alimukhamedov, S., B. Adashkevich, Z. Adilov and S.Hodjaev. (1986). Biological Control of the MainPests in Cotton, Tashkent, UzSSR.

Alimukhamedov, S.and Z. Adilov. (1991). BiologicalControl and Problems of Ecology, Tashkent,Uz.SSR.

Beglyarov G.A., P.A. Vasiliev and P.I. Hloptseva. (1967).Methodology of Mass Rearing of Predator MitesPhytoseiulus and Testing Their Efficiency inControlling Spider Mites in CucumberGreenhouses, Moscow.

Beglyarov, G.A., Yu I. Kuznetsova and A.T. Ushekov.(1972). Methodology of Mass Rearing and Testingthe Efficiency of Lacewing. Moscow.

Chenkin, A.F. (1997). History of Development andProblems of Plant Protection, 769 p. Moscow.

Filippov, N.A.and B.P. Adashkevich. (1988).Development of Bracon Conservation,/Book:Application of Biological Control in CropProduction, p. 51-65, Kishinev.

Filippov, N.A. (1990). Place of Biocontrol in IPM in theFormer Union of Soviet Socialist Republics;Cotton-Integrated Pest Management: Proceedingsof a Symposium, September 3-9, 1990, Tashkent,UzSSR.

Hamraev, A.and H. Velnazarov. (1961). Entomophagesof Bollworms J. Cotton Production, V. 5, p. 20-21,1983 (Kurbanov G.G. and Kuliev G.A.). On theStudy of Mass Rearing in Laboratory Conditionsof the Parasitoid Habrobracon and some results.Izv. AN AzSSR, ser. Biology and Medicine ofSciences, V.8:37-51.

Hizhdniak, P.A., G.A. Begliarov, V.G. Statinkin, andA.M.Nikiforov. (1971). Chemical and Biological Control,211 p. Moscow.

Luppova, E.P. (1969). The Morphology and Biology ofthe Lacewing Chrysopa dubitans Mclachian(Neuroptera, Chrysopidae) in Tajikistan, Izv. AC.Sc.of Taj.SSR, V. 11(2).

Luppova, E.P. (1969). New for Central Asia LacewingSpecies (Chrizopa viridana Schneider)(Neurospora, Chrysopidae), “DAN of Taj.SSR”, V.11(2)

Mangutova, S.A. (1970). Coccinelids as Predators ofAphids on Fruit Crops in Karakalpakii, Aftoref.,/Dissertation, Tashkent, UzSSR.

Maredia, K.M., D. Dakouo and D. Mota-Sanchez.(2003). IPM in the Global Arena, CABI, UK.

Meier, N.F.and V.A. Tyumeneva. (1940). Influence ofchanging temperatures on terms of developmentof fertility and sex relations of Trichogramma(Trichogramma evanescens Westw), VestnikZashity Rasteniy, # 1-2.

Meier, N.F. (1941). Trichogramma: Ecology and Resultsof its Application for Pest Control,Leningrad.

Moiseev, E.G. (1973). Efficiency of Lacewings for AphidControl on Vegetable Crops in Greenhouses,/Dissertation, Leningrad. OEPP/EPPO. (2002).List of Biological Control Agents Widely Used inthe EPPO Region. OEPP/EPPO Bulletin, V.32:447-461.

Peregonchenko, B.M. (1970). Perspectives of BiocontrolUse in the system of IP and DM on Crops: Teth. ofReports, pp. 14-21, -Tashkent, UzSSR.

Ridgway, R.L.and S.L. Jones. (1968). Field CageReleases of Chrysopa carnea for suppression ofpopulations of the Bollworm and TobaccoBudworm on Cotton, Jornal of EconomicEntomology, 61(4).

Rubtsov, I.A. (1948). Book: Biological Control of PestInsects, 383 p. Leningrad.

Rubtsov, I.A. (1950). Book: Collection and Isolation ofPest Parasitoids. 150 p. Moscow.

Rusnak, A.F. (1988). Possibilities of Trichogrammawestwood (Hymenoptera, Trichomatidae) inOrchard Protection. Development of BraconConservation.” Application of Biological Control inCrop Production, pp. 51- 65,Kishinev.

Shepetilnikova, V.A. and N.S. Fedorinchik. (1968).Biological Control of Crop Pests, Colos, Moscow.

Soper, R.S., N.A. Filippov and S.N. Alinukhamedov.(1990). Foreword, Cotton- Integrated PestManagement: Proceedings of a Symposium,September 3-9, 1990, Tashkent, UzSSR.

Starets, I.V. (1975). Plant Protection of Pests, Kishenev.

Telenga, N.A. (1959). Taxonomic and EcologicalCharacteristics of Species of the GenusTrichogramma (Hymenoptera, Trichogram-matidae), Science works, Ukr.NIIIZR, 8:1224-1230

Tobias, V.I. (1959). Some Aspects on the Biology ofAdult Parasitoids in Connection with AdditionalFeeding on Flowering Plants, In Biological Controlof Pests, the Works of the Ukrainian Academy ofSciences, 350 p. Kiev.

Tobias, V.I. (1951). The Systematics and Biology ofBracon and Habrobracon Ashm. Genus(Hymenoptera, Braconidae) / Scientific works /VEO-1961, 48: 129-180. After Bogachev’s studies(Bogachev A.V.) Predators and Parasitoids,Eliminating Cotton Bollworm, Works of KrimAcademy of Sciences, V. 1:31-60.

Tryapitsin, V.A., I.D. Shapiro and V.A. Shepetilnikova.(1965). Parasitoids and Predators of Pests onCrops, 152 p. Leningrad.

27

Development and Dissemination of IPM knowledge throughOutreach and University Education Programs in Central Asia—Murat Aitmatov 1, George Bird2, Walter Pett2, and Dieudonné Baributsa3

1 International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), IPM CRSP project, P.O. Box 4564,6 Murtazaev Str.,Tashkent 700000

2 Department of Entomology and Center for Integrated Plant Systems, Michigan State University,East Lansing, Michigan 48824

3 Institute of International Agriculture, Michigan State University,East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA.

Introduction

After the collapse of the Soviet regimein the 1990s, many independent statesproceeded with land reform policies. In theformer Soviet Union system, agriculturalextension was non-existent. Cropmanagement was decided by managersand supporting technical staff of collectivefarms. After the transition from agriculturalcollectives to private farms, cropmanagement was thrust upon the newindividual farmers. Farmers were notprepared to make their own farm decisions.In addition, before the independence, pestmanagement was characterized byoveruse of pesticides. However, after 1991,the lack of income by individual farmers topurchase pesticides presented some realchallenges for pest management. Somecountries have initiated Integrated PestManagement (IPM) programs since it is acomprehensive approach that utilizes allavailable tools and methods for pestmanagement as an alternative to heavyuse of pesticides. Despite these efforts, theknowledge generated is insufficient andhardly reaches the end-users, i.e., theindividual farmers.

In the absence of a formal government-run extension system, NGOs and farmerorganizations provide farmer training,technology transfer, and outreach services.There is a lack of IPM components in theseoutreach and farmer training programs.The absence of a structured extensionsystem and lack of structured outreachservices have created some gaps inknowledge sharing and disseminationwithin these independent states.Participatory training methods, in whichfarmers are in the center of learning, aremost appropriate to empower them with

skills and knowledge for making their owndecisions. The IPM-Farmer Field School(FFS) concept, which has evolved over thelast 15 years, could be very appropriate toprovide information to farmers. Thiseducational approach emphasizes farmer-led learning and adaptation to changingconditions, which are necessary skills forfarmers to be successful in the neweconomic system. There is a need todevelop IPM packages that can beintegrated into farmer field schools andother outreach programs.

Because agricultural ecosystems areconstantly changing and themethodologies of IPM are continuallyimproving, it is imperative for all of thoseengaged in IPM education to maintain theircapacities in a way that best uses theirhuman resources and involves current IPMtechnology. This requires comprehensivetraining for both teachers and students inIPM, biological monitoring, environmentalmonitoring, information managementsystems, and the process of decision-making. The current level of expertise inthese components of IPM throughoutCentral Asia is variable and there is adistinct need to enhance the IPM capacity-building attributes of the existing institutions.

Currently, some governments in theregion are also encouraging agriculturaluniversities to play a proactive role inoutreach and extension education andservices. There is a lack of trainers andoutreach specialists with appropriatetraining and experience in IPM that goesbeyond biocontrol and integrates allavailable tools and approaches. Todevelop a comprehensive IPM outreachand extension program requires a strategyto build training capacity. It would requirea core group of ToT trainers who can tailor

28

the outreach and educational programs tothe needs of different cropping systems,and it requires a cadre of facilitators whocan spread the program to new areas.Trainers trained through Training ofTrainers (ToT) could serve in FFS forimplementing IPM programs.

To help address some of thechallenges, the IPM-CRSP Project inCentral Asia has initiated a project onstrengthening IPM outreach and universityeducation in the Central Asia region. Toachieve this, the project is partnering withlocal NGOs, national research institutionsand universities, and internationalorganizations. The goals of this projectare to:

1. Strengthen IPM outreach andeducation by developing IPM trainingmodules/materials that can be integratedinto crop management training programsoffered by the NGOs, and governmentinstitutions.

2. Further develop the capacity of ATC ofRAS in Kyrgyzstan, other NGOs, and stateinstitutions in Central Asia by developing apool of trainers that can support FarmerField Schools (FFS) and other outreachactivities.

Approach

Strengthening IPM Outreachand Education

In collaboration with ICARDA, NGOs,and local universities in the region, IPMtraining materials and modules for prioritycrops such as wheat, potatoes andtomatoes are being developed anddistributed to farmers. An inventory of IPMand crop management training materialsused by universities in Central Asia and atMichigan State University has beenconducted. This inventory is being used inintegrating new information, teaching tools,and methodologies into the existing IPMcurriculum. Initial contacts have beenmade with universities in the region toassess IPM curriculum development.Similarities and differences among IPM

training programs are being assessed.Based on this analysis, the content of apilot IPM course will be developed for theKyrgyz Agrarian University. In conjunctionwith the development of this course, aStudent Field School (SFS) was createdto provide hands-on experience in farmand pest management decision making.An IPM training program for SFS onvegetable and wheat has been developed.In collaboration with the project onlandscape ecology, successful local nectarplants that provide habitat to enemies ofpests will be introduced into existingvegetable farms systems.

Training of the Trainers and FarmerField Schools

After basic training materials aredeveloped, in collaboration with NARs,universities, and local NGOs, a Training ofTrainers (ToT) program is established. TheToT focuses on ecologically-based IPM,training methodology, and a mixture ofexperiments and practical exercisesrelevant to crop and pest problems ofCentral Asia. The ToT targets universityfaculty members who are being preparedto help manage Farmers Field Schoolsand Student Field Schools. IPMtechnologies developed by the IPM CRSPproject in Central Asia are being extendedto farmers through a participatoryapproach using farmer field schools (FFS).Various materials (pamphlets, brochures,leaflets, publications and electronicinformation) are being developed anddistributed to assist farmers inunderstanding pests and control methodsin field and vegetable crops. Pamphlets oninsect, disease, and weed identification willbe produced and printed in the appropriatelanguages.

Achievements

In collaboration with the Tajik Instituteof Plant Protection and Quarantine, theIPM-CRSP has opened a Farmer FieldSchool (FFS) in the Hissar District ofTajikistan where 13 women and 2 menhave been trained. Trainers from this

�

of research activities by 12 scientistsfrom Kyrgyzstan, 7 scientists fromKazakhstan and 1 from Uzbekistanduring the last five years is presentedin this document. Copies of thiselectronic catalogue will be distributedto the Kyrgyz Agrarian University, theKazakh Agrarian University and theTajik Institute of Plant Protection andQuarantine. This database includesalso a list of IPM researchers andresource persons in the region.

Many publications on IPM have beenproduced by the project in collabora-tion with the IPPQ, TSAU or ATC-RASand used for training farmers in theFFS. Calendars for three major veg-etable crops were developed (a calen-dar of cabbage damage by insects, acalendar of carrot damage by insects,and a calendar of tomato damage byinsects). To help farmers identify pests,a terminological dictionary of the maindiseases—pest of the cotton and veg-etable crops—was published in Latin,Russian, and Tajik. To help the trainersmanage the FFS, a brochure was pub-lished on “Organization and Manage-ment of the Farmer Field School onIPM” and two modules on FFS weredeveloped (Module 1—Introduction ofFFS, published in Russian, and Mod-ule 2—Biological Control Methods ofMain Insect Pests and Tomato Disease).

In addition, the project has publishedthe following documents:

• In collaboration with the AVRDC-CAC, an extension bulletin on “Weedsin vegetable crops in Central Asia” hasbeen published.

• A brochure on Sunn-pest developedby ICARDAwas translated into Kyrgyzfor distribution to farmers, IPM special-ists, and extension personnel.

• In collaboration with the project theATC has published two scoutin guides:

Determination of cucumber pestsand diseases (30 pages, in Russian) 29

FFS were selected from a group offaculty members and researchers whoparticipated in the ToT workshop.Participants in this workshop were fromthe Tajik State Agrarian University(TSAU), the Tajik Institute of Zoologyand Parasitology, and the Tajik Instituteof Plant Protection and Quarantine(IPPQ). This FFS in Hissar district has0.2 ha where various IPM experimentsare conducted. In collaboration withTSAU, the IPM-CRSP has developeda manual on creation and training ofToT and FFS. In addition, both partnerswill be conducting a training of trainersof scientists from various universitiesincluding the Andizhan AgricultureInstitute, Namagan and FerganaUniversities and the Nunkun StateUniversity. Discussions are underwaywith the TSAU to introduce IPM in theiragricultural education curriculum. Inaddition, a manual on pestmanagement in organic agriculture isbeing developed and will be widelydistributed to agricultural universitiesand NGOs in the Central Asia region.

A Student Field School (SFS) wascreated at the Kyrgyz Agrarian StateUniversity. Unlike the FFS, the SFS isproviding theoretical knowledge inaddition to practical knowledge onvarious subjects including entomology,pesticides, agroecology, biologicalcontrol methods, etc. This is going tobe a certificate program.

A flyer describing the project in greaterdetail was developed and published inRussian. This flyer was distributedelectronically and in hard copy to morethan 40 donors, NGOs, andgovernment organizations inKyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan.The project has developed anelectronic database of IPM publicationsby various institutions in Central Asia.The electronic catalogue “The work ofscientists and experts on IPM in theCentral Asia” covers Kyrgyzstan,Kazakhstan, andUzbekistan. Asummary

�

�

�

�

�

�

30

Determination of tomato pests anddiseases (30 pages, in Russian)

A survey was conducted on 35 farmersin Andreev Village of the Hissar districtin Tajikistan to assess the knowledgeand skills of farmers on IPM. The ques-tionnaire covered many aspects in-cluding decision-making for pestmanagement, use of pesticides, knowl-edge of vegetable pests and their nat-ural enemies, etc. Survey resultsrevealed that there was no assistancein pest management decision-making.Most farmers purchase pesticides frommarkets and no training on pesticidesuse and safety was provided. With re-gard to pests, farmers were familiaronly with cotton worm and had littleknowledge of vegetable pests. In addi-tion, a survey has been conducted on55 farmers in Kyrgyzstan to assesstheir knowledge and needs in IPMtools and techniques. The data is beingreviewed and analyzed.

�

Conclusion

In conclusion, training farmers using theFFS approach is much simpler and themost comprehensive method oftransferring IPM knowledge and skills tofarmers. Regular interaction with farmersduring the FFS meetings strengthensfarmers’ confidence in making decisions oncrop management including pestmanagement decision. The teachingmethodologies and content of Farmer FieldSchools are regularly improved basedupon farmers’ needs. The creation ofStudent Field Schools will help todisseminate IPM knowledge and createIPM interest in the younger generation ofagricultural professionals. Due to limitedfunding, one of the challenges includes thenon-expansion of FFS concept in othervillages or provinces. In addition, due tolack of access to the Internet by variousend-users, the information and materialdeveloped are not available to manyuniversities and private and state institutions.

�

31

PART THREE: National IPM Programs

Pest Management Practices and Strategies in Tajikistan—Abdussator S. Saidov1, Nurali S. Saidov2, V. K. Nazirov1

1Institute of zoology and Parasitology of the Academy of Sciences of Republic Tajikistan2International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), IPM CRSP project,P.O. Box 4564, 6 Murtazaev Str., Tashkent 700000

Introduction

Tajikistan is situated in Central Asia, farfrom seas and oceans between 360 40’’and 410 05’’ North latitude and 670 31’’ and750 14’’ East longitude. It lies in the samelatitudes as Greece and the southernregions of Italy and Spain. Tajikistanoccupies an area of over 143.1 squarekilometers, 93 % of which is mountainous.Its territory stretches 700 km from west toeast and 350 km from north to south. Onthe southeast Tajikistan bordersAfghanistan and China, on the west andnorth, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.According to 2006 data, the populationconsists of 7 million people, 72 % of whomlive in rural areas. Dushanbe, the capital ofsovereign Tajikistan, is located in thepicturesque and fertile Hissar valley at theheight of 750-930 m above the sea level.The climate in Tajikistan is dry, subtropical,and continental with warm winters and hotsummers. The average summertemperature is about 300 C and may reachas high as 45-500 C in the southern part ofthe country in June and July. The averageannual precipitation ranges from 150 to650 mm (Tajikistan, nature and naturalresources, 1982).

Agricultural in Tajikistan

Agriculture in Tajikistan is still thebackbone of the economy and continuesto be largest single sector and driving forcefor the growth of the national economy. Itaccounts for over 30-40 % of grossdomestic product (GDP) and about 50% ofthe country’s total exports. The total landfor agricultural production is 850,300hectares, with 720,000 hectares underirrigation (Tajik State Statistical Agency,2005-2006). The main crops are cottonand wheat (table 1). Other crops such asmaize, rice, potatoes, water-melons,sweetmelons, cucumbers, chickpeas,beans, tomatoes, onions, garlic, apples,pears, quince, apricots, peaches, cherries,grapes, pistachio nuts and pomegranatesare very important.

Table 1. Total area for wheat and cotton production in 2005-2006 growing seasons.

2005 2006Crops Planted (ha) Harvested (tons) Planted (ha) Harvested (tons)Wheat 167 644 360 996 199 290 437 927Cotton 288 655 447 918 262 893 437 898

32

Crop Pests And Their Economic Importance In Tajikistan

Migratory Pests: The desert(Schistocerca gregaria Forsh.), Moroccan–(Dociostaurus maroccanus Thnb.), andmigratory locusts (Locusta migratoria L) aresporadic pests that cause substantial croplosses in Tajikistan. During 2006-2007,more than 100,000 ha of agricultural cropswere attacked by locusts in the north andsouth of Tajikistan. The loss of crops in thelocust-affected area forced the governmentof Tajikistan to spend significant funds forchemical control of locusts in more than80,000 ha in 2007 (Newspaper Asia Plus,2007).

Invasive Pests: Recently, new andquarantined pests were migrating fromneighboring countries to Tajikistan.Noteworthy and most dangerous amongtherse pests are the Colorado beetle(Leptinotarsa decemlineata Say) inpotatoes (Qakharov, 2004; Saidov et al.,2004; Saidov, 2006), the whitefly (Bemisiatabaci Gen) in cotton and vegetable crops(Tashpulatov at al. 1998), the mulberry moth(Margaronia piloalis Dem) in mulberry trees(Tadjibaev, 1998, Saidov and Tadjibaev,1998), and the melon fly (Miopardalispardalina Big) in sweet melons and watermelons.

Storage Pests: Over the last decade, inconnection with trade liberalization and thechange of structure of crop rotation, therewas an increase of harmful rodents(Rodentia). The most dangerous rodents in

cotton, grain, leguminous and vegetablecrops, and in warehouses are the housemouse (Musmusculus) and three species ofrats (Rattus turkestanicus,Nesokia indicaandMeriones libica) (SaidovA., 2001).

General Situation of Pest Management

In Tajikistan, the different agro-ecological zones and climatic conditionsmake the country profitable for growing awide range of agricultural crops,including subtropical crops. In thelowland agro-ecological zone, farmersgrow and harvest crops twice a year onthe same land. These conditions allowthe continuous presence of certain pestsand diseases and cause more seriousproblems. An estimated 30-35% of cropsare lost to pests in the field.Chemical control: In the last

decade, pesticides were used as themost powerful tool for pest control inTajikistan (figure 1). A major part of thepesticides were used for control of cottonpests. However, a significant reductionof pesticide use has been noticed for thepast few years (figure 1) due to highprices and lack of income for farmers.Biological control: There are 10

biolaboratories in Tajikistan whichproduce three beneficial insects for pestcontrol in cotton fields (table 2). In 2006,beneficial insectswere applied onmore than130,000 ha.

28.2

40.3

6.23.7

4.66.4

0.820.120

0.17 0.016

25.7

18.5

Sum total (thousands of tons)

On 1 hectare irrigation land (kg)

Per Capita (kg)

1983 1988 1993 2006

Figure 1. Trend in use of Pesticides in Tajikistan from 1983 to 2006

33

Integrated Pest Management (IPM)

Long-term application of pesticides invarious agricultural systems has led tolarge-scale environmental contamination.Therefore, researchers at the Institute ofZoology and Parasitology in Tajikistan(IZ&P), have been developing andimplementing new methods for pest controlwhich are based on minimal use ofpesticides. The methods are based onbiocenosis approach and designed formaximal use of natural mechanisms toregulate the number of harmful organisms.The IZ&P started to implementenvironmentally-friendly methods of pestcontrol in Tajikistan in 1967. The institute isthe initiator of the development andintroduction of IPM in cotton andhorticultural crops in Tajikistan.

Studies at the IZ&P on the fauna ofinvertebrate animals in cotton landscapefound 320 species of arthropods(Narzikulov at al., 1977). Among thesespecies, the most dangerous to cottoncrops are: spider mites (Tetranychustelarius L), black alfalfa aphids (Aphiscraccivora Koch), melon aphids (Aphisgossypii Geov), big cotton aphid(Acyrthosiphon gossypii Mordv), cottoncutworms (Heliothis armigera Hb), wintercutworms (Agrotis segetum Schifh)(Mukhitdinov, 2007), green cutworms(Spodoptera exigua Hbn), alfalfa bugs(Adelphocoris lineolatus G), field bugs(Lygus pratensis L), and tobacco thrips(Thrips tabaci Lind).

Table 2. Beneficial insect and controlled pests.

Beneficial insects Controlled Pests

Chrysopa carnea Steph. Aphis gossypii GloverAphis craccivora Korch

Trichogramma sp. Heliothis armigera Hb.Agrotis segetum SchiffLaspeyresia pomonella L.

Bracon hebetor Say Heliothis armigera Hb.Agrotis segetum SchiffLaspeyresia pomonella L.Polychrosis botrana Schiff

The most effective natural enemiesagainst cotton pests in Tajikistan arelacewing (Chrysopa carnea Steph), spidereating thrips (Scolothrips acariphagusYakh), Coccinellidae (Coccinella septem-punctata L. and Stethorus punctillumWeise) and several species from the familyof Syrphidae, Ichneumonidae, andBraconidae (Narzikulov et al., 1977;Saidov, 1996). In 1976, recommendationsby scientists of the IZ&P and the Ministry ofAgriculture, for the use of IPM in cotton,decreased cotton pests in Tajikistan. In the1990s, IPM was used on more than 50,000ha of cotton. Similarly, in the 1990s, IPMmethods were also used on apple andgrape crops on more than 10,000 ha.However, the adoption of IPM has stronglydecreased with the collapse of USSR in1991 and the economic crisis in Tajikistanfrom 1992-1997.

Botanical Pesticides

Soil and climatic conditions of Tajikistanare favorable for various types of plants.More than 4,450 species of plants wereidentified, among which there are anumber of insecticide-containing plants(Ismoilov, 2002). In order to producebotanical pesticides, the IZ&P setup alaboratory in 2002 with the capacity ofpreparing botanical insecticides in the formof decoction and infusion.

34

The following plants are used:

— tobacco plant (Nicotiana tabacum L),waste from Dushanbe Tobacco factory;

—white mustard (Sinapis alba L),mustard powder;

—common wormwood (Artemisiaabsinthium L), above-ground part ofthe plant;

—ordinary milfoil (Achillea millefolium L),whole plant. Many botanical pesticidesare effective in controlling vegetableinsect pests (Saidov and Nazirov,2002 a, b; Saidov, 2003; Mukhitdinovet al., 2007).

Landscape Ecology andBiological pest management

Landscape diversity can be increasedby preserving, restoring, or creating plantcommunities that provide neededresources to natural enemies. Incollaboration with the International Centerfor Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas(ICARDA) and Michigan State University(MSU), and under the Central AsiaRegional IPM CRSP Project, the IZ&P ishosting a study on the evaluation of therole of native plants for conserving naturalenemy communities in agro landscapes.In 2006, (table 3) experiment plots wereestablished to test the attractiveness ofvarious native plants to beneficial insects.Several of the plants tested in thispreliminary trial were very attractive to avariety of natural enemy taxa (Saidov,2006). Initial results suggest that nativeplants may be similarly attractive tonatural enemies and hold promise forhabitat manipulation in Central Asia.

Main Crop Protection Problemsand Approaches to Solve Them

Some of the major concerns are mis-use and overuse of pesticides by farmers;and adverse effects on the environment,health of farmers, and consumers.

1. Inappropriate use of pesticide.Farmers tend to have a strong preferencefor pesticides that wipe out pests rapidly,thus using the most hazardous chemicals.

In addition, farmers often mix pesticideswith different active ingredients to save onlabor and to increase the concentration ofpesticides, which is perceived to providegreater protection.

2. Pesticide Resistance. Pesticideresistance is one of the serious problems.In intensively sprayed crops, insecticideresistant pest populations develop rapidly,particularly if the same pesticide is usedfrequently. As more frequent treatmentsand higher concentrations of insecticideshave to be applied when insects havedeveloped resistance, this has led to theoveruse of pesticides.

3. Adoption of IPM. The promotion ofcotton IPM tools by the IZ&P and Ministryof Agriculture was successful, but did notresult in a wider adoption of IPM whencompared to blanket use of syntheticpesticides.

Approach to Solve CropProtection Problems

The Ministry of Agriculture haspromoted IPM methods. The effortconcentrates on strengthening IPM infarmer associations with a high frequencyof pesticide application. The assumption isthat farmers are willing to adopt IPM,provided that alternative control methodsare almost as effective as syntheticpesticides and that consumer awarenessof hygienic and organic products increase.This approach encourages correct use ofpesticides by improving handling, storage,and application. The government, NGOs,and other private sector companies will dothe development and dissemination of IPMinformation. The government expects tosee an increase in the production and useof botanical pesticides to replace syntheticpesticides. More importantly, theDepartment of Agricultural Extensionshould concentrate its research effortsexclusively on the development anddissemination of information about IPMand stop advocating pesticides.

35

Pest Crop attacked Control measuresInsects and OthersAphis gossypii Glover (Aphididae) Cotton Cultural, chemicalAcyrthosiphon gossypiiMordv. (Aphididae) Cotton Cultural, chemicalAphis craccivora Korch (Aphididae) Wide range Cultural, chemicalBrevicornia brassicae L. (Aphididae) Cabbage Cultural, chemicalAphis pomi Deg. (Aphididae) Apple Cultural, chemicalThrips tabaci L. (Aeolothripidae) Wide range Cultural, chemicalHaplothrips tritici Kurd. (Aeolothripidae) Cereals Cultural, chemicalBemisia tabaci Gennadius (Aleyrodidae) Wide range Cultural, chemicalPseudococcus comstocki Kuw. (Pseudococcidae) Wide range Cultural, chemicalPseudococcus citri Russo (Pseudococcidae) Grape Cultural, chemicalQuadraspidiotus perniciosus Comst. (Diaspididae) Wide range Cultural, chemicalParlatoria oleae Colvee (Diaspididae) Wide range Cultural, chemicalAgrotis segetum Shiff (Noctuidae) Wide range Cultural, chem., biologicalHeliothis armigera Hbn. (Noctuidae) Wide range Cultural, chem., biologicalPlutella maculipennis Curt. (Plutellidae) Cabbage Cultural, chemicalPieris brassicae L. (Pieridae) Cabbage Cultural, chemicalPieris rapae L. (Pieridae) Cabbage Cultural, chemicalColeophora tadzhikilla Danilev (Coleophoridae) Wide range Cultural, chemicalOncocera (Salbria) semirubella Sc. (Phycitidae) Wide range Cultural, chemicalEuzophera punicaellaMoore (Phycitidae) Pomegranate Cultural, chemicalAlophia combustella H.S. (Phycitidae) Pistachio Cultural, chemicalHyponomeuta padellus L. (Hyponomeutidae) Wide range Cultural, chemicalLaspeyresia pomonella L. (Tortricidae) Apple and pear Cultural, chemicalPolychrosis botrana Schiff. (Tortricidae) Grape Cultural, chemicalPandemis chondrillana H.S. (Tortricidae) Wide range Cultural, chemicalMargaronia piloalis Dem. Mulberry Cultural, chemicalLeptinotarsa decemlineata Say Potato Cultural, ChemicalLema melanopus L. Wheat Cultural, ChemicalEurygaster intergriceps Put. (Hemiptera) Wheat Cultural, ChemicalTetranychus telarius L. (Tetranychidae) Wide range ChemicalDiseasesRhizoctonia solani Kuehn Wide range Cultural, ChemicalVerticillium dahliae Klev. Cotton Cultural, ChemicalFusarium oxysporym Schl. CottonTilletia triticiWint., Cereals Cultural, ChemicalTilletia triticoides Savul). Cereals Cultural, ChemicalUstilago tritici Jens. Cereals Cultural, ChemicalPhytophthora infestans dBy Potato& tomato Cultural, ChemicalPeronospora desfructor Casp Onion Cultural, Chemical

Table 3. Highlights of some major pests in Tajikistan and control methods (Saidov N., 2001).

36

References

Annual database report of Tajik State Statistical Agencyfor 2005-2006, Agricultural branch.

Ismoilov, M. (2002). On the endemics, relicts and rarespecies of vegetable kingdom (Plantae) of Tajik-istan. Material of second International ScientificConference “Ecological Peculiarity of Biological Diversity in the Republic of Tajikistan”. Dushanbe,Tajikistan, June 24-25, 2002, pp. 76-78.

Mukhitdinov, S.M. (2007). Management of cotton insectpests in Tajikistan. Area-Wide Control of InsectPests, IAEA, Austria 2007, p. 383-39

Mukhitdinov S.M., N.Sh. Saidov and Sh.B. Baratov.(2007). Manual on Biological method ofagricultural crop pest control. Publishing house“Nodir”, Dushanbe Tajikistan, 382 p.

Narzikulov, et al. (1977). Integrated Pest Managementagainst cotton pests in Tajikistan. Dushanbe, Don-ish 1977. Newspaper Asia Plus, Dushanbe, Tajik-istan, # 14, May, 2007.

Qakharov, Q. (2004). The injuriousness of Colorado potato beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata Say) on potato fields and control methods against its. Journalof “Kishovarz”, Tajik Agrarian University, # 2, p.35-39.

Saidov, A.S. (2001). The landscape distribution of ro-dents of South Tajikistan in connection withhuman impact. New Academy of Science of Tajik-istan, # 4 (145). Pp. 91-105.

Saidov, A.S., N.N. Muminov and Kh. Amirkulov. (2004).The alien fauna species of Tajikistan. Materials scientific conference “Fauna and ecology of Tajik-istan”. Dushanbe, pp. 35-44.

Saidov, A.S. (2006). The alien fauna species of Tajik-istan and the basic forms of their threats.4th European Conference on Biological invasions. Vienna(Austria), 27-29 September 2006. Abstracts, pp.229.

Saidov, N.Sh. (1996). Braconidae family in Tajikistan(Hymenoptera, Braconidae). The dissertation’s oncompetition degree candidate of the biologicalsciences. St. Petersburg-1996, 201 p.

Saidov, N.Sh., M. Tadjibaev. (1998). Bracon hebetorSay parasite of mulberry grass moth (Pyralididae).Bulletin Pedagogical University, Dushanbe,1998, 78 p.

Saidov, N.Sh. (2001). Tajikistan country report, pre-sented in International course on Integrated PestManagement,Wageningen.The Netherlands,19thMarch to 29th June 2001, 8 p.

Saidov, N.Sh.and V.K. Nazirov. (2002 a). Application ofnatural pesticides for control vegetable pests. Ma-terial of Second International Scientific Conference“Ecological Peculiarity of Biological Diversity in theRepublic of Tajikistan”. Dushanbe, Tajikistan, June24-25, 2002, pp.145-146.

Saidov, N.Sh. and V.K. Nazirov. (2002 b). The recom-mendations natural pesticides application for con-trol vegetable pests, Manual for farmers. MercyCorps, Dushanbe, 2002, 20 p.

Saidov, N.Sh. (2003). Application of natural pesticidesagainst the wheat pests in conditions of Tajikistan.The first Central Asian wheat conference, CIMMYT, Almaty, June 10-13, 2003, 2 p.

Saidov, N.Sh. (2006). Agricultural landscape manage-ment for enhancing biological pest control.Material of conference “Fauna and animal ecologyof Tajikistan”, Dushanbe, pp. 55-56.

Tadjibaev, M. (1998). Mulberry grass moth (Margoroniapiloalis Dew) and its in juriousness in Tajikistan.Material of International Scientific Conference“Ecological Peculiarity of Biological Diversity in theRepublic of Tajikistan and neighbor Territories”,Tajikistan, Khujand 1998, p. 162. Tajikistan, natureand natural resources. Publishing house “Donish”,Dusahanbe, Tajikistan, 1982, 601 p.

Tashpulatov, M.M., V.S. Madaminov and B.N. Abdullaev.(1998). Tobacco (cotton) whitefly in cotton crop.Material of International Scientific Conference“Ecological Peculiarity of Biological Diversity in theRepublic of Tajikistan and neighbor Territories”,Tajikistan, Khujand 1998, pp. 163.

37

Current State and Prospects for Integrated Pest Managementin Tajikistan—A.N. Jalilov and D.G. KhotamovInstitute of Plant Protection and quarantine of Tajik Academy of Agricultural Sciences (TAAS)

Agriculture is one of the vital sectors ofthe national economy of Tajikistan. Afterindependence, the Republic of Tajikistantook a market-oriented economy andstarted a reorganization of Soviet collectiveand state farms. Since January 2006 morethan 462,773 hectares of land weredistributed to 27,000 dekhkan farms(farmer economy) that now employ792,877 rural laborers. As the disbandmentof the state agricultural enterprises intoindividual farms proceeds, crop protectionfrom pests is a very important challenge.Before 1990, agriculture in Tajikistan widelyused Integrated Pest Managementresulting in significant reduction of chemicalpesticide applications, and selectiveapplications allowed the creation offavorable conditions for the build up ofnatural enemy populations of theagricultural crop pests.

At that time, the lowest level of pesticideapplication was achieved (2-2.5 timesagainst cotton cutworm, 0.8-1.2 timesagainst spider mite), whereas earlierpesticides were applied 15 times to savecrops from pests. The greater importancein control of agricultural crop pests wasobtained from protection by plants bybiological means. In 1976 the biologicalmethod was applied on a general area of30,000 hectares, and in 1986 the area wasincreased to more than 300,000 hectares.Now in Tajikistan, there are 10biolaboratories that mainly produceChrysopa carnea Steph., TrichogrammaSp., and Bracon hebetor Say for massrearing to control of cotton pest. In 2006,beneficial insects were released in morethan 130,000 hectares. The results of long-term industrial biolaboratories have shownthat application of beneficial insects allowsprotection of agricultural crops from pestsby minimal application of chemicals. Alongwith seasonal entomophages colonization,an arsenal of protection plants and

pheromone traps were used. The practicalvalue of pheromones was significant forforecasting of pests such as Heliothisarmigera Hb., Agrotis segetum Schiff,Laspeyresia pomonella L., and Polychrosisbotrana Schiff.

The pheromone traps helped todetermine exact time of emergence ofeach generation of the pests, to determinethe pest outbreaks, and the optimumperiods of chemical applications. As aresult, a high level of efficiency of plantprotection was achieved at less expensewhich did not pollute the environment. InTajikistan in 1986, pheromone traps wereused in horticulture crops on 20,000hectares and on 15,000 hectares on cottoncrops. In the same period microbialpreparations were also applied. However,the wide application of preparations suchas DNB and BTB were restrained becauseof the short term of their storage life.Researchers at the Institute of Zoologyand Parasitology at the Academy ofSciences of the Republic Tajikistan (IZ&P)studied in detail the fauna of invertebrateanimals in cotton fields and discovered320 species of arthropods. Based on thesefindings, Integrated Pest Managementmethods have been developed(Narziqulov et al., 1977).

Unfortunately, from 1993 to 2006 thecrop protection service budget wasreduced. The situation is aggravated bythe fact that farmers have limitedknowledge on pest control and there is nofunctioning agro-extension service at thecountry level. It is necessary to note thatin 2006 in Tajikistan alone, there were123.5 tons of pesticides belonging to thefollowing chemical groups: 15.5 tons offumigant; 79.7 tons of insecticides and38.3 tons of fungicides. The availableassortment of pesticides does not coverthe current requirements of pesticideapplications against agricultural pests.

38

Consequently, the phyto-sanitation conditionof agricultural crops in recent years hasworsened and the number and zones ofprevalence of plant diseases haveincreased. Therefore, the government ofTajikistan repeatedly requested technicalsupport from international organizationsfor renewal and introduction of IntegratedPest Management.

Today, the Institute of Plant Protectionand Quarantine, and the Institute ofZoology and Parasitology of the Academyof Sciences of Republic Tajikistan, incollaboration with International Center forAgricultural Research in the Dry Areas andMichigan State University, carry outresearch on improvement of the IPM inTajikistan under the Central Asia RegionalIPM CRSP project. Under this program,we established research plots onscreening of agro-characteristic nativeplants for conserving natural enemycommunities in agro-landscapes. Alongwith this research plot, we also establishednectar plant strips between wheat andcotton crops to determine the impact ontargeted crop pest populations (Fig.1). Incollaboration with farmers, we launched anexperiment to determine the impact ofexisting predators on cotton pestpopulations with cage effects Fig. 2, 3).

Additionally, researchers from theInstitute of Plant Protection study theinteraction of various crop hybrids withpests for selection of resistant lines. Thisresearch is conducted on wheat, potato,and cotton crops in cooperation with thescientists of the Plant Production(Farming) and Horticulture Institutes ofTAAS. Biological pest control methods areemphasized as it remains the maincomponent of the IPM and other activitiesincluding the restoration of biologicallaboratories.

Fig. 3. Cages in cotton field.

Fig 1. Nectar plant strip.

Fig. 2. Setting of cage.

39

Within the framework of the CentralAsia Regional IPM CRSP, and withfinancial support from USAID, the Instituteof Plant Protection provided a special IPMcourse in 2007, with elements of FarmerField School (FFS) (photo 4, 5). Therewere 16 local vegetable farmers involvedin the FFS that operated March- August2007 in the village of Andreev in the Hissardistrict which was chosen for the results ofthe analysis of the knowledge and skills ofthe farmers on growing vegetable cropsand pest management. Through farmers’initiative, studies were conducted on 0.04hectares for screening three pestresistants tomato varieties; “Novichok”,“Shedrost” and “Kaskader”. To promote thelandscape ecology concept, nectar plantssuch as Ocimum basilicum L., Ziziphorainterrupta Juz., Salvia sclarea L., Melissaofficinalis L. and Mentha asiatica Borisswere planted. During flowering, insectswere collected every seven days bystandard entomological net and preservedfor future taxonomy identification.

With the purpose of enhancing thefarmers’ understanding of IPM approacheson FFS sites, a number of experimentswere established:

� Integrated Pest Management;

� Farmer practices;

� Innovation variant for the given region.Then farmers following agronomical re-search methods subjected themselves toagro ecological analysis:

� First farmers developed a seasonal cal-endar for cultivation of tomatoes.

� The FFS farmers began with selectionand preparation of a seed material; thenusing a different seed material and seriesmethods of processing (chemical, biologi-cal, botanical), determined the seed ger-mination value;

� The large section is devoted to agro-ecological analysis of IPM and farmer-practice variants. Farmers collected thedata spending the weekly analysis on cropvegetations and distribution of insect pests,crop diseases and weeds and their severity.

Fig 4. One day of IPM FFS.

Fig. 5. IPM CRSP Forum Participantsvisit to FFS.

� One of the main directions of the IPMFFS is the conservation of a biodiversity inagro-landscapes, which is necessary toshow the farmers in practice all advan-tages in using botanical pesticides pre-pared from local plant resources.

� The other approach of training of theparticipants of the IPM in FFS is about thelife cycle of insect and their natural ene-mies through direct supervision and ma-nipulation of an insect zoo. Farmers werethus able to correctly distinguish basicpests and beneficial insects in the field.

� The most significant concern for farm-ers was the understanding of methods ofconservation and increase of number ofbeneficial insects in agro landscapes. Withthis goal in mind, farmers in Field Schoolof the IPM carried out an agro-ecologicalanalysis (7-14 days) on insects on 5 nectarplant species.

40

The IPM with elements of FFS coverstopics such as management of FFS, agro-ecological analysis, experiments, etc. Inthe last subcomponent, the farmers did notpass the large theoretical training on IPM.The main focus of the training wasdirected on management of FFS andleadership skills. The master trainers onthe experimental field fulfilled the mainparts of FFS: and approach. The givencomponent was held from March untilAugust, i.e., during the entire tomatogrowing season.

Thus, training farmers on the use ofFFS techniques is the most simple andaccessible method of transfer ofknowledge and skills of IPM. The regularcontact of the farmers among themselvesat FFS strengthens reliance andacceptance of the decisions on selectionof pest control methods. Consequently, thewide introduction of the IPM in Tajikistanwill allow improvement of phyto-sanitationconditions on agricultural fields and willenable the farmers to obtain increase inyields of agricultural crops.

Reference

Narziqulov M..N., et al. (1977). The bases of integratedprotection of cotton from the pest in the CentralAsia Dushanbe, Publishing House "Donish".

41

Integrated Pest Management in Uzbekistan—Barno TashpulatovaInternational Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), IPM CRSP project,P.O. Box 4564, 6 Murtazaev Str., Tashkent 700000

Introduction

The development of a theoretical andmethodological basis on Integrated PestManagement for crop protection is the mainstrategy for the government of Uzbekistan.The primary pests and diseases (speciescomposition, their distribution, economicimportance and biological features) ofcotton, alfalfa, cereals, vegetables andmelons and other crops have beencomprehensively studied for the last 20years in Uzbekistan. The level of scientificdevelopment on improvement of economic,cultural, chemical, and biological methodsof pest control in the republic is sufficient.For control of sucking pests (aphids, thrips,spider mites, whiteflies, bugs, and others)on cotton, fruit, vegetables and other crops,a wide assortment of low-toxic chemicalsand microbiological preparations availableare recommended for wide application.Seed treatments with several chemicalfungicides such as bronotak, panoktin aswell as local preparations developed in theUzbek Research Institute P-4 are appliedannually against root rot and bacterial blightdiseases. Avoidance of wilt diseases oncotton and other crops are achieved usingcropping systems such as crop rotation,planting of resistant varieties (C-9070, C-6524 and others), and fungicideapplication. There are about 20preparations that have been tested andapplied against crop diseases. The mosteffective domestically produced ones weredarmon, GMK, and P-4, which canincrease plant emergence anddevelopment by inhibiting microbialinfestation (Rashidov, 2001).

Cotton crop protection strategyin Uzbekistan

Cotton crop is one of major export cropsin Uzbekistan. All 13 regions in Uzbekistanare responsible for cotton production. In

each region there is a center of plantprotection with the major tasks of seedmultiplication, distribution of quality seedto conduct research work, and technologytransfer to the farmers. The area for cottonproduction is estimated to be 1.5 millionha. Scientists from research instituteshave identified about 20 species of pestinsects, 80 types of weeds, and 20 typesof diseases. Generally, about 30-40% ofcotton yield can be lost due to pests.Therefore IPM development is very muchin need for cotton production in all regionsin Uzbekistan (Alimukhamedov, 1991).Biological control: Biological control

is the leading method to control leaf-chewing pests in Uzbekistan. Its annualapplication on cotton crops, includingrepeated applications is 5.5-6.0 million perha. In many cases, beneficial insectsreleased together with other componentsregulate the numbers of seasonal pestsand provide an ecological balance soonerthan would occur under natural conditions.Trichogramma pintoi, Bracon hebetor andChrysopa carnea are used on cotton inconjunction with parameters developed atthe Uzbek Institute of Plant Protection.These entomophages are produced by anestimated 1000 biolaboratories in theRepublic and are released at the optimumrate of 60,000 moth eggs per hectare ofgrain infested by trichogramma and at thepest threshold of 20-25 Heliothis armigeraeggs/ 100 plants assuming 50% hatch. Toprovide control of pest eggs of threegenerations of Heliothis armigera, “flood”method of 3-4 times release every 15-20days is the normal (Adashkevich et al., 1991).

The effectiveness of Bracon andLacewing depends on several factorsincluding which crop borders cotton. Thus,if Bracon and lacewing are released in atomato field surrounded by a cotton cropand if they remain on tomatoes, biocontroleffect on cotton is high. If a vineyard, a

42

blossoming corn field or orchards surroundtomatoes fields the efficacy is decreased(Alimukhamedov, 2000). In Uzbekistan,alfalfa is the main ecologically importantentomophage conserving crop, which iscultivated in crop rotation with cotton orbordering of different crops. Alfalfa createsa suitable climate for development of manyentomophages, especially aphidophages(Chrysopidae, Coccinelidae, Syrphidae,Chamaemyodae and Aphididae)(Daminova, 2001). These differences mustbe taken into account in making Braconand Chrysopa releases. Parasitization of15-20% of Heliothis sp larvae by Braconrequires a release of 800 parasitoids/ha.The rate is higher (1000 parasitoids) whenthe parasitoids larvae occurs in 8-12%.

Chemical control: Chemical control ispracticed on 400-600 thousand haannually mainly against sucking pests. Inpast years researchers in the Institute ofPlant Protection have developed automaticmethods for short- and long-termpredictions of the duration anddevelopment cycle of the main cottonpests (boll worm, cut worm, winter moth

April-May June-July August-September

Pests Aphids, Agrotis segetum, Heliothis ArmigeraAgrotis segetum Heliothis Armigera Spider mites

Spider mites

Pesticides Fury 10%EC Omait, 57% ECMospilan 20%WP Nissoran, 5% ECAvaunt 15% SC Ortus, 5% SCDecis 2.5% ECKarate 5% EC

Beneficial Lacewing, Lacewing, TrichogrammaInsects trichogramma trichogramma lacewing

bracon bracon

Table 1. List of seasonal cotton pests and the control measures adopted in Uzbekistan

EC-Emulsion Concentrate; SC- Suspension Concentrate; WP – Wet Powder

etc). This technique is used in arrangingfor and planning of plant protection.

There are wilt tolerant cotton varietiesthat have been selected at the researchinstitutes. The method of plant-resistantconservation by enhancing their immunityusing physiological active substanceshelped to increase yield up to 2-2.4 c/ha.A method of cotton wilt resistancedetermination by moleculer-geneticanalysis of chloroplast DNA has beendeveloped (Rashidov, 2000).

Fusarium wilt (Fusarium oxysporumf.spp vasinfactum), Verticilium wilt(Verticillium dahliae), and virus diseasesare also starting to challenge not onlycotton but also vegetable and melonproduction. The technology of trichoderma

production for tomatoes, melons, andmangel seed pretreatment has beendeveloped. As many as 30 strains oftrichiderma have been isolated and areactive against soil pathogens (Rashidov,2001).

Scientists at research institutes havetested more than 62 preparations thatmeet requirements of pesticide ecology,

43

approximately half of which are included onthe list of Uzbekistan Republic Govchemcommission (Rashidov 2001). Thefollowing chemicals are used for seedtreatement including Gaucho-M;insecticides: konfidor, kalipso, adonis, fury,mospilan, and avaunt; acaricides:nissoran, ortus, demitan and vermitec; andherbicides: flurtomon, dahlor, and aramo(Table 2).

Wheat protection measuresin Uzbekistan

The increase of grain crop area hascaused significant changes in the agro-ecosystem. This change requires the studyof species composition, bio-ecology ofpests and their entomophages, selection ofeffective chemicals and microbiologicalpreparations with low toxicity, and therearing and application of beneficial insectsas biological control of pests on graincrops. There are about 16 species of wheatpests, of which the four most importantones are: Sunn pest, wheat thrips, aphids,and cereal leaf beetle. Sunn pest andcereal leaf beetle are found in the FerganaValley, Tashkent, Jjizah, Sirdarya, andKashkadarya regions and wheat thrips andaphids are found on wheat in all regions inUzbekistan.

The harmful effect of wheat pests isdependent upon the phases of wheatdevelopment. For example, wheat infested

Insecticides Acaricides Herbicides

Adonis 4% EC Omait 57% EC Alienza 60% CSFury 10%EC Nissoran 5% EC Dahlor 50% ECMospilan 20%WP Ortus 5% SC Aramo 5% ECAvaunt 15% SC Serum 80% WP Shogun 10% ECDecis 2.5% EC Dargit 57%EKarate 2.5ECNurell-D 55% EC

Table 2. Pesticides applied on cotton crop in Uzbekistan

with thrips in the stage of tube formationcauses 41% loss; in the earning phaseloss is about 28%; and in milky stage theyield loss is 3%. Tests conducted showedthat insecticides such as Regent, Buldok,Sumi-Alfa, and Arrivo were the mosteffective in controlling these pests. Redrust, loose, covered smuts, powderymildew, and other diseases haveappeared on dry and irrigated wheat crop

fields in Uzbekistan.In 2000, observations showed that in

the stages of wheat tube and ripening, theyellow rust is the most widespread diseaseon the crop field (Rashidov, 2001). Severedamage by this disease was noted in theSurhandarya, Tashkent and Syrdaryaregions. The severity was dependent oncrop varieties, crop protection strategies,and chemicals used. To control thesediseases the following fungicides arerecommended: rex, folikur, flamenko, tilt,and baileton. For weed control in graincrops the following herbicides arerecommended: granstar, starane, pardner,banvel. In 2005, more than 300 thousandha of wheat received applications ofherbicides (Sagdullaev, 2006).

In desert and dry areas pests such aslocusts occur every year and arewidespread, threatening agricultural cropsby yield loss. Italian, Morocco and desertlocusts are the major species of pestsencountered. Annually, 150 to 500

44

thousand ha are treated to control locusts.Researchers in Uzbekistan have studiedthe occurrence and outbreak period ofthese pests to develop short-term andlong-term predictions of their appearancefor application of ecologically-based pestcontrol methods. Thus there are dominantand subdominant species, the density oflocust, their emergence patterns anddevelopment have been studied inSurhandarya, Kashkadarya regions and inKarakalpakstan. Last year, Moroccolocusts were noticed in Surhandarya andKashkadarya regions where pupa densitywas 2.0-9.3 m-2. In Karakelpakstan, thedensity of Italian and Asian locusts was1.6-7.3 m-2. With expedition forces, thetotal area treated for locust control was243,700 ha. However, locusts that fly fromKazakhstan to the Tashkent region, fromTurkmenistan to the Kashkadarya regionand from Tajikistan, Afghanistan to theSurhandarya region present a significantdanger. To control these locusts, Fury,Regent, and Dimilin were tested todetermine the time of application andeffectiveness of these insecticides.

Fruit crop protection

On fruit crops, about 200 species ofpest organisms were identified. The mostdangerous are codling moth, scale insects,spider mites, leaf roller, and aphids. Spidermites on pumpkins during the summertime can produce 12-18 generations. Thedamage from spider mites can be noticedespecially during the second half of thesummer. Without timely control, yield losscan reach 25-30%. Farmers have beentrying to decrease the loss to 15-20% byconserving beneficial insects, using nectarferrous plants for biological control. Inrecent years 5 species of Trichogrammaand 3 species of predator mites have beenidentified. Researchers, farmers, andagronomists have developed a scheme forTrichogramma rearing and their release.Entomologists identified 6 species of scaleand false scale insects, among which themost dangerous include San Jose scale,

Violet scale and Plum false scale. Thereare several insecticides recommended tocontrol these pests, including Nurell-D,Fury, Match, Hostation, Cirax, and Omait.To control diseases fungicides such asvectra, topaz, and saprol have been applied;against weeds herbicides basta, fusilad,super, and others have been applied.

In 1994 in the Surhandarya regionMulberry pyralid (Diaphania pyloalisWalker, Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), a pest flyfrom Tajikistan, was identified for the firsttime. This pest has very big gluttonyfeatures and can not only defoliate leavesbut also buds, causing severe depletion offeeding material for silkworm production.The highest prevalence of this pest hasbeen noticed in the Fergana valley.Scientists in Uzbekistan have studied itsbiological and ecological features anddistribution for control recommendations.

Vegetable crop protection

In potatoes, the main pest is theColorado beetle. In some years, yield losscan reach up to 40-50%. To controlColorado beetle, chemical and culturalmeasures have been developed. Shortand long-term population predictionmethods have been developed.Insecticides such as Regent, Admiral,Buldok, Fury, and Dorsan-C have beenapplied to control Colorado beetles. Forweed control in potatoes Fusilad, Nabu,Goltix, Aroma and Titus have beenrecommended and applied (Zahidov, 2001).

Thrips tabaci on onion is a pest ofgreenhouse and field crops. Besidesonions, it also damages many other cropsincluding garlic. It overwinters in adultstage and stays on the ground under plantresidues and weeds. In summer it cancomplete up to seven generations. It candevelop the entire winter during storageand seriously damage onions (Sidorov etal., 1965).

Western flower thrips (WFT) Frankliniellaoccidentalis (Pergande) is presently recog-nized as the most dangerous pest onvegetables and decorative flowers in

45

greenhouses. Chemical treatment is verycomplicated as the pest is a very smallinsect (2 mm) and hides in flower budsunder the scaly flowers in plants; its massdevelopment can be noticed on leaves(Zahidov, 2001).

Farmers in the Tashkent region are themain suppliers of vegetables for cities. Themain pests in greenhouse crops are:aphids, whiteflies and spider mites. Sincethe 1970s, biological control of aphids andspider mites was achieved using theentomophages: lacewing and coccinelides. InUzbekistan there are several species ofwhiteflies on different crops; the two mostwidespread species are the greenhouseTrialeurodes vaporariorum Westu andcotton whitefly Bemissia tabaci. T.vaporariorum was recognized in theTashkent region for the first time in the1970s. But B. tabaci was widespread andcaused severe damages to many crops,especially on cotton in the north part ofUzbekistan since 1989. Natural enemiessuch as lacewings, Encarsia, and otherscannot suppress the increasingdevelopment of the whitefly to its highpotency. In greenhouses and fieldconditions the whitefly develops withoutundergoing diapause. Therefore, if a plantis infested with this pest it is recommendedto use chemicals (Zahidov, 2001).

In the past few years, the rusty miteAculops lycopersici (Eriophydae) causedserious damage to tomatoes andpotatoes. The pest was first found inKarakalpakstan greenhouses in 1986(Mamatov, 1993). Then, it has spread veryfast and now it is present in all regions ofUzbekistan, becoming as serious as theColorado potato beetle. Chemicalpreparations such as mitak, Malathion,talstar, karate, fosalon and others werevery effective against rusty mites ontomatoes (Mamatov, 1993).

Currently, the main objectives inUzbekistan agricultural institutions are:

� Improve techniques for forecastingpest development on agricultural cropsusing computers and multi media meth-ods;

� Conduct investigations on chemicalmethods of pest control using cheaperand less toxic preparations and reducingpesticide imports;

� Enhance the efficiency of biologicalmethods of crop protection and its devel-opment as a progressive, ecologically safetechnology for plant protection.

Pests Insecticides and acaricides

1. Whitefly Sumi-alfa5% CE2. Aphids, thrips, spider mites, whitefly Carbophos (malathion) Rus. 50% CE.3. Aphids, thrips, spider mites, whitefly Fufafon (malath). Den.57% CE4. Aphids, thrips, spider mites, whitefly Danadim 40% CE Denmark5. Aphids, spider mites, whitefly Talstar 10% CE6. Spider mites Flumait 20% CS7. Whitefly, heliothis sp, bugs, aphids Cipermetrin 25% CE8. Aphids, thrips, spider mites, whitefly Ciperphos 55% CE9. Whitefly, heliothis sp, bugs, aphids Cirax 25% CE10. Spider mites Uzmait 57% CE

Table 3 Insecticides and acaricides used in Uzbekistan

46

References

Alimukhamedov, S.N. (1991). Ecological measure inplant protection in Uzbekistan, J. Plant Protection(Zashita Rasteniy), # 9: 13-14;

Alimukhamedov, S.N. (2000). Research working out topractice, J. Plant Protection (Zashita Rasteniy),# 9:6-8;

Adashkevich, B.P., Z.K. Adilov and F.K. Rasulev. (1991).Biological control in action, J. Plant Protection(Zashita Rasteniy), # 7: 9-10;

Daminova, D.V. (2001). Significance of alfalfa in con-servation of natural entomophagoes, Proceedingsof conference “Plant protection from pest insectsand diseases”, 21 December, Tashkent, Pp.126-127;

Mamatov, K. (1993). The results on study of rusty mite,Proceedings IPM in avoidance of environment pollution, Tashkent, Uzbek Academy of AgriculturalResearch;

Rashidov, M.I. (2000). Research studies in Uzbekistan.J. Plant Protection (Zashita Rasteniy) # 6:25-27;

Rashidov, M.I. (2001). Status and perspectives of plantprotection in Uzbekistan, Proceedings of confer-ence “Plant protection from pest insects and dis-eases”, 21 December,Tashkent, p.p.3-9

Sagdullaev, A.U. (2006). Current status on wheat crop,J. Uzbekistan Agriculture, # 5:19-21

Sidorov, K.P., N.I. Hodosevich, Shapova, and S.Kuznev. (1965). Instruction on vegetable melonand potato crops protection against pests and dis-eases, Publisher “Uzbekistan”, Tashkent.

Zahidov, F.M. (2001). The monitoring of suctorial pestson vegetable crops in Tashkent region, Proceed-ings of conference “Plant protection from pestinsects and diseases”, 21 December, Tashkent,pp.125-126.

47

The Republic of Kazakhstan is anagrarian-industrial country where graincrops, primarily wheat, are the mostimportant sources of national wealth in therepublic. In 2005, the republic was sixth ingrain production among the grainproducing countries of the world, and hasannually exported up to 5 mln tons ofwheat to foreign countries. WhenKazakhstan enters the Worldwide TradeOrganization (WTO) the production ofgrain will increase due to the demand forKazakhstan wheat in C.I.S. and EScountries, particularly those in Central Asia.The other agricultural specialty of therepublic is the production of cotton whichtakes place in the most northern zone ofcotton growing countries in the world.

As N.A. Nazarbaev, president of therepublic noted in 2006, the creation ofcotton-textile production will promote thedevelopment of this industry and improvethe quality of cotton products from its rawstate up to the final product in order to becompetitive in world market. According toscientists’ data, the system of IntegratedPest Management (IPM) is not the firstdecennial event being introduced; in theUSA, for instance, by 2000 75% ofcropping areas were using IPM.Comprehensive programs of IPM arerealized with FAO facilities in nine Asiancountries. The World Bank in collaborationwith FAO has founded special internationalorganizations, which are working on IPM(Kempbell, 2003).

Natural-climatic conditions in theRepublic of Kazakhstan are suitable forgrowing many crops. However, someyears the crops are severely infected withdifferent phytopathogens and damaged bypests and weeds. In Kazakhstan there are50 types of polyphags and over 100specialized pest species, as many as 70types of diseases, and 120 species ofweeds which occur on agricultural crops

State of the Integrated System for Plant Protection in Kazakhstan—A.O. Sagitov

Institute of Plant Protection of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Academy of Science Republic of Kazakhstan

and pastures and cause significant harmfuleffects. According to the UNO, the worldloss on crop production is 35% of potentialyield, including 13.8% from pest, 9.2%from diseases, and 12.0% from weeds.During years of epiphytotic developmentsfrom fungal diseases alone, theagricultural crops yield decreased to 20-35% or higher. Similar losses of crop yieldoccurred from pests and weeds.

Cereals are infected with manydiseases, among which the most harmfulare rust, septoria spot, blight, root rot,powdery mildew, and others. For example,at the beginning of the 20th century, cropyield losses in Canada and the UnitedStates from stem rust were 82 mln centnerof grain (Golyshin, 1989).

Intensive studies on breeding resistantwheat lines to the Hessian fly have beenconducted in the USA, where prior tointroduction, annual losses from pestsaveraged $5- $25 million, reaching $100million some years (Hatchett, Stark, andWebster, 1987). In C.I.S. countriesincluding Kazakhstan, after the collapse ofthe Soviet eara (1992-1999), agriculturalintensification decline and the areas foragricultural production for grain wasreduced. Minimum technology andreduction in amount of soil treatment wasnecessary because of financial difficulties,including lack of facilities and mechanics,deterioration in park agricultural machines,inflated growth of prices of agriculturaltechnology, and others factors.

Integrated Pest Management as aprinciple approach and a long-standingpractical direction in plant protection has apositive effect on agriculture. However,formation of this method required facts,serious motivation, and deep all-roundphytosanitary analysis. The main trend ofscientific development of plant protectionin the world is the study and improvementof the integrated system of crop protection

48

from pest organisms by the rationalcombination of the different control methods(agro-technical, chemical, biological, sanitary-preventive, use of tolerant varieties, andothers) based on scientifically-motivatedphytosanitary monitoring of their numbersand harmful effects.

The scientists of our institute annuallyconduct phytosanitary monitoring onsowing of agricultural crops, grains inparticular. Based on the monitoring ofcrops between 2001-2005, it wasdetermined that in theAlmaty region yellowrust on winter wheat in 2001 and 2004developed in moderate degree (20-30%),in 2002-2003in high degree (50-75%), butin low degree in 2005 (1-5%) (figure 1).Similar data were obtained in southernKazakhstan.

Figure 1— Dynamics of yellow rust damagingon winter wheat in Almaty region

Yellow rust

Brown rust

Figure 1— level of brown rust development on winter andspring wheat 2001-2005 in north region

75

30 5 2050

100

80

60

40

20

0

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

winter wheat wspring wheat

49

Septoria spot Stem rust

In the northern part of the republicyellow rust was revealed on spring wheat in2002, but only in the region of Karaganda(10-25%) and Akmolinsk (25-50%).

In the Kostanay region brown rustdeveloped on spring wheat sowings in2003 and 2005 had reached the epiphytoticlevel of 75-100% and a moderate level of20-30% in 2001-2002, with depression ofdisease development occurring in 2004.Winter wheat damages caused by diseasereached 50% in 2002, but in 2003 it did notexceed 5%. In 2001, 2004, and 2005 therewas no disease revealed on wheat (fig. 2).In 2003-2005 in the Almaty region brownrust on winter and spring wheat developedfrom moderate (20-30%) to a high (50-75%) degree. In the northern part of therepublic, stem rust on spring wheat wasrevealed in 2001-2002 and 2005 andranged from 5 to 15%, but on winter wheatin 2002 it only appeared on 0-5%.

In 2001-2005 in Kostanay, Akmolinsk,and the north region of Kazakhstan,septoria spot on leaves developednoticeably from 10-25% to 50-75%. In theAlmatinsk and Zhambyl regions, septoriaspot developed moderately in 2001-2004,but in 2005 was at a low level (5-10%).During 12 years of studies in easternKazakhstan it was noted that on winter and

spring wheat diseases such as brown rust,septoria spot, and powdery mildew wereprevalent. In 1994-1996, 2001-2002, and2004-2005 they developed from moderateto high degree. Brown rust in 1997-1998and in 2003 developed in moderate andlow levels, but in 1999 no rust was noted;at the same time powdery mildewdeveloped in low degree and septoria spotin 1998 appeared in low degree but inmoderate degree in 1999 and 2001.

In northern Kazakhstan pests hiding instems (Swedish and Hessian flies andstem fleas) had the most harmful effect onwheat in 2001-2003 during a timecharacterized by increased rainfall in thespring and summer. The massreproduction of gray grain moth and itshigh level of harmful effects were noted in2003. The very dry conditions in 2004caused a decrease of pests, so theirnumber and harmful effects were very low.

In 2005, the growth of high numbers ofstem-hiding pests and gray grain mothwas registered. Pest such as wheat thripsdeveloped in mass during 2001-2003.Hierological monitoring has shown that

composition of weed species in sowing ofthe winter wheat and spring barley on thecrop in the southeast has presentedaccordingly 60 and 50 types of weeds,

50

representing 16 botanical families. Annualweeds are 66.1-71.8%, biennial are 10.0-11.3% and perennial are 18.2-22.6%, ofwhich stem sucker was 6.5-6.8% and rootsucker 11.4-16.1%. In northern region theweed component of the agro-ecosystemon spring wheat is presented with as muchas 82.3% of annual spring weeds and itsbiomass was 71% for biennial winter, overwintering weeds 3.8-4.8%, and perennial13.9-24.2%. Phytopathologists andentomologists of the institute conductedthe immunological estimate of localperspective wheat varieties and hybrids ontheir resistance to pests.

Pests

In 2002-2005 the estimation of springwheat samples with Kazakhstan andSiberian selective institutions on ecologicalvarieties test program of CIMMYT wasorganized. This is Kazakhstan-Siberiannurseries KASIP -2, 4, 6, as well as wheatlines of International test varieties (ITV),were given by CIMMYT. The evaluation ofthe main material of KASIP and ITV, 207samples in detail, has shown their mainamount to be weak resistant to Hessian fly.Tolerant and middle tolerant samples,basically, derived from selective institutionsof the south region in Kazakhstan.

As a rule, the samples taken from NorthKazakhstan and Siberia were not tolerantto pests, although among them there was

Hessian fly Wheat thrips

slight damage on plant samples noted.The big group of tolerant varieties wasrevealed from collection of ITV on samplestaken from China, USA and Canada.

The diseases

According to the program of KASIB1-6 screening of tolerant plant to brownand yellow rust, covered smut andseptoria spot, the 514 perspectivevarieties and hybrid lines of the springwheat breeding taken from Kazakhstanand Russian Federation (the regions WestSiberia and South Ural) has beenconducted. The complex of the abovementioned diseases has been estimated

on more than 2500 samples of the springsoft wheat, received through CIMMYT-Mexico, countries of the Latin America, andWestern Europe. Among them, more than100 samples were tolerant to 2-3 types ofthe rust, septoria, and covered and loosesmut diseases and have high productivityand adaptability to the arid conditions ofKazakhstan. In Kazakhstan-Mexicobreeding program for tolerance to brownrust, 595 hybrid lines and population of thespring soft wheat have been identified. Innorth and east regions in the republic theanalysis of the structure of Pucciniarecondita populations with the use ofisogenetic wheat lines on the base of theTatcher variety has been organized.

51

As far back as 1970, agriculturalpractices in foreign countries have shownthat one of the optimum ways to reduceenergy consumption is the use of methodssuch as reduced or non-treatment of soil.Minimum soil treatment leads to reductionof expenses (fuel, mechanization andothers - about 50% of total embedding) andparallels the use of pesticides to achievedesired results (Fadeev, Novozhilov, 1982).In 2004-2005 employees of the institutedeveloped and monitored the condition ofcrop production and the integrated systemof disease, pest, and weed managementon agricultural crops depending on thedifferent technologies of plant growing.

The treatment of crops with mixture ofpesticides against complexes of pest

Table 1 – The effect of complex facilities for plant protection on the yield of spring wheat growing ondifferent technologies of soil treatment (2005)

organisms vastly reduced the expensesand increased the profits. The greatestyield gain was obtained when a complexof chemicals for plant protection –herbicide +insecticide +fungicide- wereused. Under minimum treatments thewheat productivity was higher than undertraditional technology – 17.1 and 13.5c/ha- but the yield gain was 4.3 and 3.3c/ha accordingly.

Wheat growing with new technologyand using chemicals for plant protection,the increase in yield was 7.3 c/ha due tothe the following factors: treatment ofseeds with fungicides 2.7 c/ha, minimumsoil and pre sowing seed treatments 2.6c/ha, use herbicides 1.2 c/ha andinsecticides 0.8 c/ha (table 1).

Variant Traditional Technology Minimum Technology(Seed treatment with preparation Raxil rate 0.4 l/t)

Herbicide Insecticide Fungicide Yield Yield % to Yield Yield % toc/ha c/ha Control c/ha c/ha Control

Control (without treatment) 10.2 - 100 12.8 - 100

Secator,(0.1 kg/ha) +Puma super-100, (0.7 l/ha) — — 11.3 1.1 110.8 14.0 1.2 109.4

— Fastak, — 10.7 0.5 104.9 13.6 0.8 106.210% c.e.(0.1 l/ha)

— — Falkon, 11.9 1.7 116.6 15.5 2.7 122.6(0.5 l/ha)

Secator, Fastak,(0.1 kg/ha) + 10% k.3.Puma super-100, (0.7 l/ha) (0.1 l/ha) — 11.5 1.3 112.7 14.9 2.1 121.1

Secator,(0.1 kg/ha) +Puma super-100, (0.7 l/ha) — Falkon, 12.7 2.5 124.5 17.0 4.2 132.8

(0.5 l/ha)

Secator, Fastak, Falkon, 13.5 3.3 132.3 17.1 4.3 133.6(0.1 kg/ha) + 10% k.3. 0.5 l/haPuma super-100, (0.7 l/ha) (0.1 l/ha)

52

The studies on biological methodsremain a priority. Condition of thebiological method of protection of thecotton plant is necessary to note. Presentlybiological efficiency to trichogramma andbracon colonization, which mother materialis delivered from adjacent country and arereared in private biolaboratories is in lowstate, as much as 25-30%. This isexplained not following to technology theirmass production and maintains inspecified laboratory, as well as weakviability of the uterine material.

In southern-Kazakhstan, where cottonis grown on more than 200 thousand ha,our employees have been regularlyobserving the development of the mainpests on cotton. Complex monitoring ofplant protection has been conducted in2004-2005 using biological agents andinsectoacaricides against the main pestson the cotton plant (table 2).

It was determined that expenses forchemical protection against sucking andleaf-chewing pests on cotton was differentdepending on the sowing periods andquantity of the pesticides.

In the field in 2004, where a doubletreatment was conducted (first againstthrips and aphids, then against spidermites, cotton bollworms and cutworms),cost of the saved yield has exceeded theexpenses for the usual plant protection by6.7 times, but in the field with a one-timetreatment (against spider mites, cottonbollworms and cutworms) by 3.2 times.Under a three-phase treatment in 2005expenses for protection with chemicalsand biological control was 14190 tenge/ha,and the value of the harvest was 54800tenge/ha, which exceeded the expensesfor usual protection by 3.9 times (40610tenge/ha). It is established that dependingon the aspectual composition of the pests,their complexity and phases of treatment,clear income at protection of the cottonplant varied from 9547 to 40969 tenge/ha.

The Institute also developed andimproved an integrated system ofprotection of orchards from pestorganisms, reducing the number ofchemical treatments by 2-4 times toaccount for the use of biopreparation andbiological agents in order to get pesticideresidue free products and to meet themodern market requirements. To developpest and disease control methods in fruitorchards, biocenosis was adopted. Itallowed to solve complex problems in fruitgardens, by suppressing pests, diseasesand weeds development. This protectionmethod of crops from pest organisms isbeing used in Russia, Italy and otherscountries. This approach is known asadaptive-integrated system of plantprotection, which consists of the followinginterconnected elements: organizing-economic actions with consideration foreconomic practicability of therecommended measures, agrotechnicalmethods, chemical, biological pest controlof crops and others.

Our studies have shown that integratedsystem of protection of the garden fromcomplex of pest organisms, includingagrotechnical ways (rarefying of treecrowns, point entering of NPK,underground irrigation, weeds eliminationin areas near of stalk, collection of fallingleaves, clear of trunks from destroyedcortex), biological (the preparationshormonal actions or bio preparations,attraction of the birds, ant, planting ofnectar ferrous plants), organizing-economic (night treatment, small volumespraying, account of EPV) and chemical(application of preparations not causingnegative influence upon useful fauna)methods, has provided high efficiencyagainst the main dominant species ofpests and diseases, promoted theactivations of beneficial entomofauna, hasvastly improved the growth processes andproductivity to apple trees (table 3).

53

Year

Variant

Yield,

Income

Purchasing

Cost

Expenditurefor

Totalincome

Returnon

c/ha

ofyield,

price

ofyield

treatment

ofyield,tenge

expenditures,

c/ha

rowcotton,

income,

andbiomaterials,

once

tenge/c

tenge

tenge

2004

Control(withouttreatment)

17.9

—4500

——

——

Onephasetreatment

(Fastak,10%

21.0

3.1

13950

4376

9574

3.2

.–0.15l/ha)

Twophasetreatment

28.6

10.7

48150

2805+4376=7181

40969

6.7

(Nissoran,

10%p.–0.1kg/ha

+ Dimilin,48%s.–0.1l/ha)

2005

Control(check)

17.5

——

——

Biomethod

(60x80x60

+31.2

13.7

4000

54800

14190

40610

3.9

1000x2000x1000numbers/ha)

+ Threephasetreatment

(Flumait,20%s.-0.25l/ha+

Dimilin,48%s.c–0.1l/ha;

Nurell,-1.5l/ha;

Dimilin,48%s.c.–0.1l/ha)

Table 2. Economical efficiency of biological agent application and insectoacaricides application

against complexes of pests (southern-Kazak region, Maktaaralsk district)

54

Damage on fruits caused by applecodling moth on IPM variant was 2.5%, onchemical variant – 2.0%, comparing to28.3% in checking variant. The number ofgarden spider mite varied during the wholevegetative period: on IPM variant therewere 0, 5-2, 8 pest numbers on leave, onchemical - 0, 8-6, 7 numbers on leave.

The growth processes was improvedon IPM variant and the productivity wasincreased. The income of the harvest incomparison with checking variant wasfollowing: on IPM variant is as 23.3%, onchemical – 12.8%. Profit by 1 tenge ofexpenses from applied of complex undersystem of integrated action of the gardenprotection was 10, 1 tenge, under chemicalthat was 8, 0 tenge.

Table 3. Economical efficiency of plant protection complex measures for controlof pests in orchards (farm «Darmen»)

Indications Variants of test

Control Integrated Chemicalsystem system

Fruit damage In harvested yield, % 28.3 2.5 2.0Total yield, c/ha 80.4 103.7 93.2Expenditure for purchasing facilitiesFor protection and spraying, thous. tenge — 5.5 5.5Expenditure for planting nectaroferrous plants,delivering bird, treatments, thousand tenge — 4.5 —

Expenditure for harvest, transit and storageof additional yield, thousand tenge — 1.5 1.5

Total expenditure, thousand tenge — 11.5 108.0Yield income, c/ha — 23.3 12.8Total cost of yield, thousand tenge 402.0 518.5 466.0Pure income, thousand tenge — 116.5 64.0Profit per1 tenge/expense, tenge — 10.1 8.0

Regarding the above data of laboratoryand field studies, it was shown that eventhe use of solely efficient methods of plantprotection there cannot be permanentsuppression or complete elimination ofnumber of pest organisms. This parti-cularly can be reached only with allavailable actions in systematic complex ofmeasures that is the integrated pestmanagement.

55

Integrated Pest Management in Kyrgyzstan: Experience of theAdvisory Training Center—Gulnaz Kaseeva and Petra GeraedtsAdvisory Training Center of the Rural Advisory Services, Biskek, Kyrgyzstan

Background

In Kyrgyzstan, 3 million people-morethan 60% of its population-live in rural areasand are engaged in the agricultural sector.After the disintegration of the Soviet Union,farmers faced many difficulties. The changefrom collective farming to private farmscreated some new challenges and it tooksignificant time and effort for farmers toadapt. The lack of agricultural knowledgeand necessary information affected farmproductivity and, consequently, farmers’income. Farmers were spending a lot oftime and resources for crop cultivation, butyields were low. Thus, individual practicesand experience in rural areas promptedfarmers to acquire applied knowledge,information, and skills for agriculturalproduction, animal husbandry, andmanagement, planning, andmarketing skills.

Finally, there was a need to providecustomized training on Integrated PestManagement (IPM) programs inKyrgyzstan, as IPM aims at increasing cropproduction while preserving theenvironment and improving people’shealth. Thus, the Advisory Training Center(ATC), with the support of the World Bankand the Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO), launched the IPM Program in 2003.

Advisory Training Centre of the RuralAdvisory Services is an NGO that strives toincrease the efficiency of agriculturalproduction and processing in Central Asiathrough assistance to organizationsworking in the fields of livestockdevelopment and crop production byproviding educational, consulting andinformation services.

ATC has 4 basic activities:

� Educational activities including semi-nars, workshops and trainings

� Consultancy

� Publications of brochures and manuals

� Integrated Pest Management Program

How it all started-In 2002, during anInternational Conference on " Biologicaland indigenous methods of disease andpest management" in Jalalabat, the FAOand the Agricultural Supportive ServicesProject (ASSP) created the idea of FarmersField Schools (FFS) for ecologically clean andeconomically viable cotton production. In2003 the first Farmer Field School forcotton was opened in Jalalabat.

The objective of the IPM Program is theimprovement of farmer practices, so thatby acquiring knowledge farmers couldincrease their income. What does IPMmeans? IPM is directed towards searchingfor improved farmer practices, which wouldprovide greater profit along with preservingthe environment and improving thecommunity’s health.

The implementation of integratedvegetable production is based on fourfundamental principles:—Cultivation of healthy crops: Thisprinciple foresees knowledge of allaspects, which influence crop productivityand skills to choose the best options (forexample, optimum soil structure, croprotation, healthy seed, proper irrigation orwatering, disease and pest prevention,storage, etc).—Understanding agro-ecosystem: Thesecond principle implies that farmersshould understand the role of beneficialinsects in controlling a number of pestpopulations, therefore, whenever somepests are seen, it is not always necessaryto apply chemicals. Chemicals also killuseful insects, and with repeatedapplications, pests develop resistance.These actions are harmful to theenvironment and people’s health.Therefore, knowledge about agro-ecosystems is very important for cropproduction.

56

—Regular field observations: The farmersconduct agro-ecosystem analysis. Thisprinciple foresees that farmers constantlymonitoring their own fields can assess theoccurrence of pest population, soilhumidity, etc. Based on monitoring thesefindings, a farmer can make decisionsregarding the issue (e.g., the field requireswatering, the need for applying bio agents,the need for chemical spray, etc).—Farmer becomes a field expert: Thefourth principle means that farmersconstantly observe their own field,implement improved approaches, andlearn how to distinguish between harmfuland useful insects; hence, they becomethe experts.

IPM training developed in order torealize IPM in fields

An IPM educational plan consists of thefollowing parts:

� Agro-ecosystem analysis:A compulsory component of IPM trainingis agro-ecosystem analysis. For thispurpose, weekly sessions are held byfarmers to make observations onexperimental sites. Here they observewhether insects or disease can be foundon crops. Discussions are held onpreventative measures or treatment

methods, soil condition, etc. The brain-storming by farmers help them to makeproper decisions on how to protect crops.

� Field experiments:Each FFS has its site where farmersconduct experiments. One of the basicfieldexperiments in FFS sites is farmers’practice. For example, see chart below:

� Small experiments:The training plan also includes smallexperiments on insects and exercises onsoil composition. For example, if farmershave found some unkown pests and areunsure whether or not it is a useful insect,they can make specific insects zoos-i.e.,replant a crop item into a bucket, place theinsect in the bucket and observe itsbehavior.

� Specific topics:In the educational plan there are specifictopics such as viruses, insect life cycle,diseases, etc., which farmers may notknow. If the subject is very important,experts are invited for introduction ofspecial topics.

� Group dynamics:To ensure that training events are lesstheoretical and boring, an interactivemethod is applied. Farmers are dividedinto groups and practical tasks are imple-

Integrated Pest Management Farmer’s practices• Crop rotation• Applying organic fertilizers and additions • Farmers grow crops applying(compost, liquid manure, manure) methods of usual farmer practices

(i.e. traditional practices)• Planting scheme• Choosing healthy seed • The circuit of landing (planting)

• Applying biological methods for diseaseand pest control (e.g. trichodermin, etc).

• Applying biological methods for pestscontrol (e.g. trichogramma, pherormonetraps, habrobrakon, BT and other) and other

57

mented in a group. Additionally, there arespecial interactive exercises, which helpfarmers to better understand some topics.

� Field days:Twice a year, farmers conduct demon-stration field days, when other neighboringfarmers are invited to participate in FieldSchool demo exercises. Participatingfarmers explain to visitors what they couldlearn in FFS and demonstrate waysexperiments are implemented, etc.

How do we introduceIPM Program?

The IPM training approach means thefollowing: ATC sets up Training of TrainersCenter (ToT) to prepare and train thetrainers among active farmers. Trainers aretrained during the whole season practicallyand theoretically. Then, the trainees createFarmers’ Field Schools (FFS) in thevillages where they train farmers how togrow and produce healthy crops.

The IPM approach has raised theinterest of farmers and partnerorganizations; since 2003 the IPMProgram has extended both in terms ofcrops quantity and activity scope andgeography. Currently, in 5 regions of theKyrgyz Republic, IPM is implemented in 4crops: cotton, potatoes, tomatoes, andcucumbers. In the beginning of 2007,Farmers Field Schools on animalhusbandry were opened. Internationalexperts from Bangladesh, Nepal, andPakistan provided the technical support tothe ToT Center in the training andintroduction of IPM approaches. Thus, from2003 to 2006, 174 FFS were opened andapproximately 2,600 farmers and studentshave been trained. The approach of IPMToT / FFS has been successful, as it is abottom-up approach, where farmersconduct experiments and are able torecognize pests/diseases and beneficialinsects in their own fields.

Farmers participated in 18 trainingseminars during seasonal training sets.Within 18 training courses farmers carryout different experiments:

1. In the fields they test different cropvarieties for diseases and pestsresistance, and the effectiveness ofdifferent preparations (chemicals, bio-agents, indigenous methods, etc) againstpests).

2. Mini-experiments when farmers maketrials on determination of soil composition,observe the life cycles of insects, etc.

Thus, farmers learn by doing based ontheir observations.

Impact of IPM training:

According to the results of IPMseasonal training it was important to findout the level of effectiveness of IPMtraining for farmers regarding increasingthe yield. In this context, a survey offarmers who were trained in FFS on IPMwas conducted in October 2006. Theresults showed that the gross margin offarmers in 2006 increased by 33%compared to 2005. To ensure thatdifferences between the two years weredue to IPM practices, a secondary studywas carried out to compare IPMparticipants and farmers to non IPMparticipants. Results showed that thegross margin of IPM participant is 21%higher than of non-IPM participants. Theadditional important effect of IPM isstrengthening partnerships betweenfarmers, such as creation of self-helpgroups and cooperatives participation invarious trainings, and working togetherduring the whole season.

Sustainability:

There is a small fee of 80 Kyrgyz som(approximately US $2) for each farmer toparticipate in seasonal training in FFS.According to a survey, farmers are willingto pay more for training to guarantee thesalary of trained trainers. In addition, thereis a case when trained IPM trainersdecided to unite into “IPM Trainers”networks. Trainers held the generalmeeting independently and decided topromote IPM locally, seeking donor

58

organizations for training of farmers inFFS. Processing companies areinterested in IPM trainings as well.There are cases where processingcompanies will pay the salary for a trainerwho conducts FFS training for farmers.

Role of IPM in value chain:

If we talk about IPM program, we talkabout farmer income increase. Then itmeans not only to train farmers how togrow high-yield products, but also to helpthem with marketing, because farmerscan increase their income if they learnhow to sell their products favorably.Therefore, during IPM training weemphasize creating trust and goodrelationships between farmers andprocessing companies. Variousstakeholders are invited to planningmeeting of farmers, includingrepresentatives of processing companies,seed and fertilizer suppliers, and creditorganizations. They develop general plansof actions during the meeting. In addition,monthly meetings of the above-mentionedstakeholders are organized during thegrowing season. During these meetingsrepresentatives of these groups andorganizations can discuss various issuesas well as propose some actions. Alldiscussions and contracts are madethrough farmer group leaders. An agree-ment with a processing company isconcluded on behalf of the leader. The lead-er is also responsible for delivery of pro-ducts, provision of seeds and fertilizers, etc.

IPM constraints:

� We carry out good experiments usingbio preparations, which are provided by in-ternational experts. Preparations have agood effect and farmers are ready to buythem, but preparations are not available inlocal markets.

� There are problems with farmers’ at-tendance at meetings during seasonal ac-tivities such as irrigation and harvestingperiods.

� Sometimes the motivation of farmers isnot training itself but in getting credits, cof-fee breaks, grants, etc.

� There is no clear mechanism of FFStraining impact analysis.

In this context there aresuggested solutions:

� Closer cooperation with bio-laboratories

� Promotion of local businesses for bio-preparation import

� Introduction of student field schools intouniversities with a view of training futuretrainers

� Introduction of a simple system of im-pact analysis

References

Strategic development plan of the Advisory TrainingCentre (2006).

Kaseeva, G. (2006) Monthly information bulletin, April2006.

Geraedts, P., G. (2006) “Integrated Production Man-agement” informational leaflet.

Kaseeva, G., A.K. (2006) Yadov. Annual report on “Inte-grated Production Management”, in Chui oblast ofthe Kyrgyz Republic.

59

Uzbekistan is one of the agrarianrepublics of Central Asia. The basicagricultural crops include cotton, wheat,potatoes, vegetables, melons, and others.Warm winters, moist springs and steadyretention of viruses in nature are theprincipal reasons for widespread viruses inthe ecological conditions of Central Asia.Worldwide, more than 700 plant virusesare known and cause significant crop loss.In Uzbekistan, more than 50 viruses areknown and were identified in the period of1956-2006. Some of the important virusesin Uzbekistan are described in table 1.

Major Virus Diseases of Crops in Uzbekistan—Kadirova Zarifa Nasirovna

Institute of Genetics and Experimental Biology of Plants, Academy of Science of Uzbekistan

Crop Virus Year

Tobacco mosaic virus (S, Tsh, K isolates) 1972, 1976, 1984,Cucumber mosaic virus 1 2005, 2006Potato Virus–X

Cotton Cotton Leaf Curl Virus 1990, 2002

Turnip mosaic virusRadish mosaic virus 1980Cauliflower mosaic virusCucumber mosaic virus

Potato Virus – MPotatoLeaf Poll VirusPotato Virus–Y 2005Potato Virus – SPotato Virus–XPotato Virus–A

Wheat Barley Yellow Dwarf Virus(PAV, MAV, RPV, SGH isolates) 2002Wheat Streak Mosaic Virus 2005Barley Yellow Streak Mosaic VirusWheat Dwarf Virus

Maize Maize Dwarf Mosaic Virus 1980

Table 1. Identified viruses in Uzbekistan

In Uzbekistan, the study of virusdiseases in plants started in 1956 and1962. The first laboratory was created inthe Central Asian Institute ofPhytopathology. In 1972, the secondlaboratory was established in the Instituteof Microbiology of the Academy ofSciences of Republic of Uzbekistan. Twoadditional laboratories were created in theInstitute of Vegetable Crops and theInstitute of Fruit Crops. Thus, by 1991,there were four laboratories that wereinvestigating virus diseases of plants.

Tomato

Radish andCabbage

Potato

60

Recently, researchers in Uzbekistanhave started to study virus diseases ofwheat. The study of virus diseases ofwheat is important in two aspects: 1) tohelp determine dissemination methodsand identification of viruses; and 2) toreveal virus resistant wheat varieties.

To achieve these objectives, a fieldsurvey was conducted in Uzbekistan, inthe regions of Tashkent, Jizzah,Samarkand, and Kashkadarya. Moreextensive studies have been conducted onexperimental plots in the Institute of PlantIndustry, the Institute of Genetics andExperimental Plant Biology, TashkentAgricultural University (Tashkent region)and the Institute of “Zerno” (Jizzah region).Results revealed symptoms of virusdiseases on wheat including streakmosaic, yellowing of leaves, and yellowspots on leaves. Scientists found thatdwarf plants infected by viruses grew halfas large as the control and were not ableto produce grain.

We conducted virus diagnostics usingthe method of indicator plants, doublediffusion on agar, tissue-blot immunoassay(TBIA) on nitrocellulose membranes, andELISA. Serums of wheat viruses wereprovided by ICARDA in Syria and MoscowState University. Serological tests showedthat several viruses infect wheat plants inUzbekistan including Barley Yellow DwarfVirus (BYDV) (luteovirus), Wheat StreakMosaic Virus (potyvirus), Barley YellowStreak Mosaic Virus (rhabdovirus), andWheat Dwarf Virus (geminivirus) (Kadirovaet al, 2002). BYDV is the dominant virus;we identified PAV, MAV, SGH, RPVisolates of BYDV, but BYDV-PAV and itscarrier (aphid Sitobean avenae L), spreadeverywhere (Makkouk et al, 2002).

Field observation and serological testsshowed that weed (Polypogon Desf.,Cynodnon Rich, Sorghum halepense L.Pers, Pao L., Echinocloa crus-galli L., andPhragmites communis Trin) and maize areinfected by BYDV and play an importantrole in disseminating BYDV in ecologicalconditions in Uzbekistan. To test for

resistance of wheat varieties, we artificiallyinfected local wheat varieties such asSanzar, Unumli bugdoy, Demetra, Intensiv,Marjon, Dostlik, Boz Su, Knyagna,Yonbosh, Kupava and 54 of ICARDA’swheat and triticale lines with BYDV-PAV.Results showed that, all local varietieswere sensitive and ICARDA’s wheat lineswere resistant. Immune/tolerant lines werenot clearly recognized. We purified BYDV-PAV by using the Rochow process(Rochow, 1971). In conclusion, in theenvironment of Uzbekistan, severalviruses attack wheat. BYDV-PAV and itscarrier Sitobean avenae L. –aphid arewidely spread and important.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Drs.Holid Makkouk, Safaa Kumari and ViktorNovikov, K. A. Mozhaeva, T. V. Kastalyevafor supplying antiserums for wheat virusresearch and ICARDA office for providingwheat lines. The author would also like tothank Dr. Naidu A. Rayapati for hissupport. Finally, the author would like tothank the Uzbek Academy of Sciences forfunding this research.

References

Kadirova Z.N., A.A. Zueva and A. A. Abdukarimov.(2002). Identification of cereal viruses in Uzbek-istan. Barley Yellow. Barley Yellow Dwarf Disease:recent advances and future strategies, Mexico 1-5Sept., pp.108-109.

Makkouk K.M., S.G. Kumar, Z.N. Kadirova, and A.A.Zueva. (2002). First record of Barley YellowStriateMosaic Virus infecting wheat in Uzbekistan. PlantDisease.

Rochow W.F., I.E. Aapola, et al. (1971). Purification andantigenicity of three isolates of Barley YellowDwarf Virus. Virology: 46:117-126.

61

Introduction

Sunn pest (Eurygaster integricepsPuton) is a destructive insect pest of wheatin West and Central Asia and EasternEurope. Apart from the direct reduction inyield, the insect also inject chemicals intothe grain that greatly reduces the bakingquality of the dough. If as little as 2-3% ofthe grain is affected, the whole grain lotmight be rendered unacceptable forbaking. About US $150 million is spenteach year on pesticides in the Sunn pest-prone areas.

In collaboration with its partners in thenational agricultural research systems(NARS) in West Asia and Central Asia, theUniversity of Vermont (USA), CABIBioscience and the Natural ResourcesInstitute, University of Greenwich, UK, theInternational Center for AgriculturalResearch in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) hasbeen developing Integrated PestManagement (IPM) alternatives topesticide-based control for the manage-ment of Sunn Pest by making use ofnatural enemies, entomopathogenic fungi,host plant resistance, and cultural practices.

Major Achievements Of ThisCollaborative Program

1. Economic thresholds (ET) for Sunnpest populations assessed andimproved.

Experiments were conducted to refine theeconomic thresholds in Turkey, Iran andSyria. These studies, which were carriedout in the field, were based on quality

Integrated Pest Management of Sunn Pest in West and Central Asia:Status and Future Plans—M. El Bouhssini 1, B. L. Parker 2, M. Skinner 2, W. Reid 2, M. Nachit1, J. Valkoun1, M.Mosaad1,O. Abdallah1, A. Aw-Hassan1, A. Mazid 1, D. Moore 3, S. Edgington 3, D. Hall 4, M. Maafi 5, R. Canhilal 6,M. Abdel Hay 7, J. El-Haramein1, G. Zharmukhamedova 8, Z. Pulatov 9,and M. Dzhunusova10

1International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas, ICARDA, Syria; 2University of Vermont, USA;3CABI Bioscience, UK; 4 Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, UK; 5Plant Pests and DiseasesResearch Institute, Iran; 6Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey; 7General Commission for Scientific AgriculturalResearch, Syria; 8Plant Protection Research Institute, Kazakhstan; 9Plant Protection Research Institute,Tashkent, Uzbekistan; 10Crop Breeding Department, Agricultural Cooperative "MIS", Kant city, Kyrgyzstan.

PART FOUR: Linking Central Asia Region with International IPM Programs

damage caused by Sunn pest feeding. InTurkey, Sunn pest densities under 10nymphs/m2 did not cause significantdamage to wheat quality and thus controlshould be initiated only at densities ofabout 9 nymphs/m2. On the other hand,under Iranian conditions, a density of 7.2nymphs/m2 resulted in gluten degradation.Thus spraying insecticides should beinitiated only at about 6-nymphs/ m2 (El-Haramein et al., 2007; Canhilal et al.,2007). Future studies for refining the ETshould take into consideration the differentcropping systems, species (durum orbread wheat), and varieties.

2. The role of egg parasitoidsin suppressing Sunn pest popu-lations determined.

To determine the role of egg parasitoids insuppressing Sunn pest populations,studies were conducted in 1-ha fields inTurkey, Syria, and Iran. Sunn pest eggswere collected from each field after the firstegg was seen and collection continuedonce a week until harvest. Each egg masswas placed in a separate tube (plasticcapsule) and recorded for each field. Theeggs were kept in the lab and thepercentage of parasitism was recorded.

Another study was conducted todetermine the effect of pest and parasitoiddensities on the percentage of eggparasitism and wheat grain quality. Thisstudy was conducted in cages. At harvest,the grain from each plot was analyzed fortotal protein content and gluten quality.

The level of egg parasitism variedacross locations. In Iran, the percentage of

62

parasitism ranged from 8-21%; in Syriafrom 18-59%; and in Turkey 0-67%. Thewide variation could be due to the use ofpesticides, and the cropping system ineach location, irrigated vs. dry land, andmonoculture vs. polyculture in each system.

The percentage of parasitism rangedfrom 65% to 83% 4 wks-post exposurewhen 1, 2, or 3 egg parasitoids werepresent at Sunn pest densities of 2 and 4insects/m2. At 6 Sunn Pests/m2,significant differences in the percentage ofparasitism were only detectable for the 1egg parasitoid/m2 rate, indicating that thelevel of egg parasitism is robust to SunnPest densities up to 6 adults/m2 whenchallenged with a minimum of 2 Trissolcusgrandis per m2.

In general, gluten quality wassignificantly better and comparable to non-Sunn pest infested wheat when 1, 2, or 3egg parasitoids were present at Sunn pestdensities of 2 and 4 insects/m2. At 6 Sunnpests/m2, the same effect was found forlevels of 2 and 3 egg parasitoids/m2, whilethe SDS sedimentation value wassignificantly lower than the control wheatplot at the 6 Sunn pest/m2 densitychallenged with only 1 mature eggparasitoid (El Bouhssini et al., 2004; Trissiet al.; 2006, 2007).

The beneficial role of egg parasitoids inreducing Sunn pest populations has beenrecognized in Syria, Iran, and Turkey. As aresult these countries have started massrearing these natural enemies andreleasing them in wheat fields. This hasincreased awareness among farmers whohave started conservation/enhancementprograms for these natural enemiesthrough plantation of trees/shrubs aroundwheat fields.

3. Effectiveness of entomopathogenicfungi determined and promising fun-gal isolates formulated and evaluatedfor control of Sunn pest.

� Collections of over 250 insect-killingfungal isolates were made fromoverwintering Sunn pest adults in 9countries in West and Central Asia and

eastern Europe (Syria, Turkey, Iran,Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan,Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova and Russia)(Parker et al., 2003).

� Seven isolates of Beauveria bassianawere also obtained from Sunn pestcadavers collected from wheat fields insummer (Edgington et al., 2007).

� Isolates were purified, identified, andplaced in permanent storage (–80°C) atICARDA, the University of Vermont, andCABI Bioscience.

� Molecular analyses were conducted tobetter understand the genetic relationshipsamong the Sunn pest isolates collectedthroughout the region (Aquino et al., 2005).

� Bioassay methods were developed forlaboratory, greenhouse, and field testing ofisolates, providing standard procedures forregional testing.

� Fungi were assayed against Sunn pestin the laboratory (on leaf litter) and ingreenhouses (on plants), from which themost virulent were identified. Mortality ofover 90% was commonly obtained in litter,and up to 75% on plants within 10 days.

� Sunn pest isolates were characterizedfor spore production, growth andgermination rate – key traits for fieldperformance and mass production. Manydisplayed high sporulation rates, aprerequisite for large-scale use orcommercialization.

� Simple fungal mass productiontechniques, using appropriate substratesfor the region, were developed.

� A model insect pathology facility wasestablished at ICARDA to develop insect-killing fungi for IPM. This serves as a placeto produce fungi for large-scale field testsand a training site for regional capacity-building in this promising field of research.

� Fungal trials were conducted at Sunnpest overwintering sites in and aroundwheat fields in Turkey, Syria, and Iran todetermine efficacy and persistence.

63

Mortality rates of over 85% were achievedwith some of the test isolates (Skinner etal., 2007a).

� Innovative formulations (oil and granularbased on millet) were developed to improveefficacy and persistence in the field.

� Temperature, humidity, and rainfall weremonitored at overwintering sites in Syriaand Iran to determine appropriate times ofthe year to apply entomopathogenic fungi(Skinner et al., 2007b).

� Field trials at overwintering sites wereconducted in the fall and spring todetermine efficacy of fungi relative toenvironmental conditions and the length oftime adults were exposed to the pathogens.

� Millet-based granular formulations havedemonstrated the longest persistence inSunn pest overwintering sites, remainingeffective over a year after application.

The scope of expanding this work ispossible now that ICARDA has developeda new model facility with up-to-dateequipment, designed to fully adhere tosafety of the workers and production ofhigh quality pure conidia.

For the granular formulation, plans havebeen developed to move from small singlebush/tree treatment to larger plots (20 x 20m) using different formulations, includingone based on whey, containing 5% protein,and designed to prolong persistence andimprove efficacy.

The research on oil formulation has ledto a phase where two possible usestrategies need testing. The options are totarget the early season adults as theymigrate from the overwintering sites and asthey enter the fields or to obtain an isolatethat is more effective at high temperatures.In the former, a cordon sanitaire around theedges of wheat fields would be treated witha persistent isolate so that insects wouldpick up the inoculum as they pass through.The second option would treat the entirefields after the adults have laid all theireggs and would be the less preferredoption if efficient monitoring enabled

the first option to be effective. However, ifsituations arose where areas were heavilyinfested with Sunn pest, a mycoinsecticidethat was quick-acting and effective at highsummer temperatures would be a usefulmanagement tool to have. This is likely torequire a different isolate to the one beingpresently tested; other summer isolatesremain to be studied, with more to bediscovered.

4. The role of semiochemicals in hostand mate finding by Sunn pest estab-lished and their use in management ofthe pest evaluated

Effective systems for bioassaying theresponses of Sunn pest to olfactory stimuliwere developed based on a wind tunneland a Y-tube linear track olfactometer.However, extensive studies of responsesof male or female bugs to volatiles fromwheat or from male or female bugs failedto show consistent, strong behavioralresponses for any combination. Someattraction of females to males on wheatwas observed in the wind tunnel and themost marked effect with the Y-tube lineartrack olfactometer was attraction of femalebugs to high doses of volatiles collectedfrom male bugs. Females weresignificantly repelled by components of themetathoracic gland (MTG) secretion.

Male and female bugs were shown toproduce characteristic vibratory signals.Attraction of male bugs to signals fromboth males and females was observed in aY-track system, but results with recordedsound were inconsistent. No responses tovibratory signals were observed in thepresence of odor from male or female bugs.

Male bugs produce large amountsofhomo-y-bisabolene with bisabolene andvanillin as minor components. No ethylacrylate was detected although this hasbeen reported previously. Female bugs donot produce significant amounts of anyvolatile compounds. The homo-y-bisabolene is only produced by sexuallymature males and only during daylighthours when the bugs are most active and

64

mating takes place. These compoundswould thus seem to be involved in mating,but they were not detected by receptors onthe antennae of females in EAG studies.

Thus although it has beendemonstrated that both olfactory andvibratory signals are produced by adultSunn pest, the roles of these signals inlocation of mates and host plants are stillunclear. Observations that the bugs arepositively phototropic and negativelygeotropic and easily run up narrow tubesor cylinders, as found in the stems of hostplants, might suggest that this behavior isimportant in locating mates and thatolfactory and vibratory signal are usedmore for recognition than attraction. Suchbehavior would mean that syntheticsemiochemicals or even vibratory signalswould have limited potential inmanagement of the pest. However, thestrong repellency of the chemicals in theMTG secretion could be exploited. Thesynthetic compounds are cheap andreadily available (Athanassios et al., 2007;Hall et al., 2007; Green et al., 2007).

Future work should involve detailedobservation of how Sunn pest locatesmates and host-plants in the field. Thepositive results in the laboratory bioassayshould be followed up with much largerdoses of odor from bugs and host plants.The repellency of compounds in the MTGsecretion should be further investigated.

5. Sources of resistance to Sunn pestin wheat and its wild relatives iden-tified and germplasm developed

The screening test was conducted atthe ICARDA experimental station TelHadya under artificial infestation. Thismethod consists of using mesh screencages of 6 x 9 x 3 m. The test was carriedout in two stages, initial and advancedevaluation. In the initial screening testentries are planted in hill plots at the usualplanting time in the fall. Plants are infestedat the time of insects’ migration to wheatfields, around mid-March, using sixadults/m2.

Two scales from 1-6 are used, one for

visual infestation and one for damage, toassess vegetative stage damage (the %shoot and leaf damage and plant stunting).Entries with a score of 2 or less areclassified as resistant to Sunn pest feedingat the vegetative stage. The total numberof accessions/lines screened for Sunnpest resistance was 282 Aegilops spp., 93Triticum spp., 288-bread wheat and 434-durum wheat.

In the advanced screening, theselected wheat lines from the initial testwere planted in rows 2-m long. A separatecage was kept uninfested as control. Themethod of infestation consisted of addingtwo adults/m2 at the time of insectmigration to wheat fields and later thenumber of nymphs was adjusted to 8-10/m2. The evaluation is based on grainquality analysis: total protein content andSDS (Sodium Dodecyl Sulphate)sedimentation test.

Sources of resistance to Sunn pestfeeding at the vegetative stage have beenidentified in wild relatives (Aegilops andTriticum) and bread wheat and durumwheat. It appears from the screeningresults that only a very limited number ofwheat lines and wild relative accessionsshowed resistance to Sunn pest feeding atthe vegetative stage. Only 2% of theAegilops and 5% of the Triticum accessionstested were resistant. Out of the totalnumber of wheat lines tested, thepercentage of resistant lines identified forSunn pest was 2% and 3% for breadwheat and durum wheat, respectively.Four out of eight sources of resistance inbread wheat are synthetic wheat.

Most of the identified sources ofresistance of wheat, Aegilops and Triticum,originated from Sunn pest-prone areas inWest and Central Asia. These are the firstsources of resistance identified againstSunn pest feeding at the vegetative stage(El Bouhssini et al., 2007).

However, none of these sources ofresistance provides resistance at the grainlevel (quality). These sources of resistanceare being used in breeding programs todevelop resistant varieties to feeding bythe overwintered Sunn pest adults, which

65

causedamage towheatat thevegetativestage.

6. Appropriate IPM package testedon-farm and disseminated through afarmer participatory approach

Two IPM pilot sites including FarmerField Schools (FFS) were established inIran, Turkey and Syria. The 25-30 farmersper school were meeting on key eventsduring the growing season to learn aboutthe different aspects of Sunn pest IPM.NARS researchers and extensionpersonnel ran these FFS.

The establishment of IPM pilot sites andFFS in each country has been verysuccessful in teaching farmers the differentaspects of management of Sunn pest (thepest biology, damage, economic threshold,egg parasitoids, the advantage of earlyplanting and early harvesting). There hasbeen a noticeable increase in awarenessamong farmers on hazards associated withthe excessive use of insecticides on naturalenemies, health, and the environment.

As a result, farmers are now fullyparticipating in the implementation of IPMof Sunn pest. Because of the greatsuccess with FFS, the governments of Iranand Turkey have decided to use their ownmeans to have FFS established throughoutthe Sunn pest-prone areas. Syria isgraduallyincreasing the number of FFS.

7. NARS capacities in formulation ofIPM options strengthened.

NARS scientists, plant protectionistsand extension agents received IPM trainingat ICARDA, UVM, and through in-countryworkshops held in West and Central Asia.Around 500 persons have been trained onIPM of Sunn pest. The training covered awide range of categories of people(scientists, extension agents, plantprotectionists). In July 2004, ICARDA heldthe second international Sunn pestconference, which was attended by 150people from 23 countries.

8. Impact of the IPM program

The most significant outcome of thisprogram has been the revision of govern-

ment insecticide-use policies.When the program began, Sunn pest

management was the sole responsibility oflocal governments and was achievedthrough aerial spraying. This covered largeareas indiscriminately, killing some of thepests and most of the beneficials.

As a direct result of this project, relianceon insecticides was shown to be ineffectiveand even counter-productive. NARSscientists have used project results toconvince national policymakers thatground applications by farmers (based onrevised ETs) is cheaper, more ecologicallysound, and most importantly, moreeffective. This policy change has been fullyimplemented in Turkey and Iran on overthree million hectares, producingsignificant savings and decreased SunnPest damage.

These shifts in government policy haveresulted in targeted pesticide applications,which will help restore the natural enemycomplex. In turn, this increases theeffectiveness of other IPM components(fungi, predators, host-plant resistance,etc.) in reducing Sunn Pest populations.Without the changes in government policy,the goal of this research—implementationof sustainable IPM practices—would havebeen impeded. The success of this projectshould persuade governments throughoutthe region of the potential of compre-hensive, sustainable IPM systems forother crops.

Acknowledgments

This program has been funded by thefollowingdonors:Department for InternationalDevelopment (DFID), UK; U.S. Agency forInternational Development (USAID);Conservation, Food, and HealthFoundation, USA; Food and AgricultureOrganization (FAO); Islamic DevelopmentBank; United Nations Educational,Scientific and Cultural Organization(UNESCO); The Academy of Sciences forthe Developing World (TWAS).

66

References

Aquino de Muro, M., S. Elliott, D. Moore, M. Skinner, W.Reid, B.L. Parker, and M. El Bouhssini. (2005).Molecular characterization of Beauveria bassianaisolates obtained from overwintering sites of SunnPests (Eurygaster and Aelia spp). MycologicalResearch 109:294-306.

Athanassios, S., M.C.A. Downham, D. Farman, D.R.Hall, S.J. Phythian and M. El Bouhssini. (2007).Behavioural responses of Sunn pest, Eurygasterintegriceps, to volatiles from conspecific insectsand host plants. In: Sunn- pest management: Adecade of progress 1994-2004. B.L. Parker, M.Skinner, M. El Bouhssini and S. Kumari (eds.).Published by the Arab Society for Plant Protection,Beirut, Lebanon (in press).

Canhilal, R., H. Kutuk, A. Duran Kanat, M. Islamoglu, F.Jaby El-Haramein and M. El Bouhssini. (2007).Economic threshold for the Sunn pest, Eurygasterintegriceps Put, (Hemiptera: Scutelleridae), onwheat in Southeastern Turkey. Journal of Agricul-tural and Urban Entomology (in press).

Hall, D. R., A. Cork, M. C.A. Downham, D.I. Farman, P.Innocenzi and M. El Bouhssini. (2007). Chemicaland electrophysiological studies on Sunn pest,Eurygaster integriceps. In: Sunn pest manage-ment: A decade of progress 1994-2004. B.L.Parker, M. Skinner, M. El Bouhssini and S. Kumari(eds.). Published by the Arab Society for PlantProtection, Beirut, Lebanon (in press).

El Bouhssini, M., M. A. Hay and A. Babi. (2004). SunnPest (Hemiptera: Scutelleridae) Oviposition andEgg Parasitism in Syria. Pakistan Journal of Biolog-ical Sciences 7:934-936.

El Bouhssini, M. N., J. Valkoun, H. Ketata, O. Abdallah,M. Moussa, M. Abdulhai, B.L. Parker, F. Rihawi, A.Joubi, and F.J. El-Haramein. (2007). Evaluation ofwheat and its wild relatives for resistance to SunnPest under artificial infestation. In: Sunn pestmanagement: A decade of progress 1994-2004.B.L. Parker, M. Skinner, M. El Bouhssini and S.Kumari (eds.). Published by the Arab Society forPlant Protection, Beirut, Lebanon (in press).

Edgington, S., D. Moore, M. El Bouhssini and Z.Sayyadi. (2007) Beauveria bassiana for thecontrol of Sunn pest (Eurygaster integriceps)(Hemiptera: Scutelleridae) and aspects of the in-sect’s daily activity relevant to a mycoinsecticide.Biocontrol Science and Technology, 17:63-79.

El-Haramein, F., M. El Bouhssini, M. Amir-Maafi, R.Canhilal and H. Kutuk. (2007). The impact ofSunn pest density on grain and flour quality. In:Sunn pest management: A decade of progress1994-2004. B.L. Parker, M. Skinner, M. ElBouhssini and S. Kumari (eds.). Published by theArab Society for Plant Protection, Beirut, Lebanon(in press).

Parker, B. L., M. Skinner, S.D. Costa, S. Gouli, W. Reidand M. El Bouhssini. (2003). Entomopathogenicfungi of Eurygaster integriceps Puton (Hemiptera:Scutelleridae): collection and characterization fordevelopment. Biological Control 27:260-272.

Skinner, M., B.L. Parker, W. Reid, M. El Bouhssini andM. Amir-Maafi. (2007a). Enthomopathogenic fungifor management of Sunn pest: Efficacy trials inoverwintering sites. In: Sunn pest management: Adecade of progress 1994-2004. B.L. Parker, M.Skinner, M. El Bouhssini and S. Kumari (eds.).Published by the Arab Society for Plant Protection,Beirut, Lebanon (in press).

Skinner, M., B. L. Parker, W. Reid, Z. Sayyadi and M. ElBouhssini. (2007b). Temperature and Rainfall:Critical Factors for Management in OverwinteringSites. In: Sunn pest management: A decade ofprogress 1994-2004. B.L. Parker, M. Skinner, M.El Bouhssini and S. Kumari (eds.). Published bythe Arab Society for Plant Protection, Beirut,Lebanon (in press).

Green, S.V., M.C.A. Downham, D. I. Farman, D. R. Halland M. El Bouhssini. (2007). The role of vibratorysignals in mating behaviour of the Sunn pest. In:Sunn pest management: A decade of progress1994-2004. B.L. Parker, M. Skinner, M. ElBouhssini and S. Kumari (eds.). Published by theArab Society for Plant Protection, Beirut, Lebanon(in press).

Trissi, A., M. El Bouhssini, J. Ibrahem, M. Abdulhai, B.L.Parker, W. Reid and F.J. El Haramein. (2006). Ef-fect of egg parasitoid density on the populationsuppression of Sunn Pest, Eurygaster inegriceps(Hemiptera: Scutelleridae), and its resultingimpact on bread wheat grain quality. Journal ofPest Science 79:83-87.

Trissi, A., M. El Bouhssini, J. Ibrahem, M. Abdulhai andW. Reid, (2007). Survey of egg parasitoids ofSunn pest in northern Syria. In: Sunn pest man-agement: A decade of progress 1994-2004. B.L.Parker, M. Skinner, M. El Bouhssini and S. Kumari(eds.). Published by the Arab Society for PlantProtection, Beirut, Lebanon (in press).

67

Abstract

Many IPM issues, such as pestoccurrence, management technologiesand strategies, and knowledge ofinteractions among pests, their hosts, andtheir natural enemies, are regionally andglobally significant. Disseminating andsharing research results generated locallyto broader audiences is important to IPMacceptance, research, education, andtraining. Information technology (IT) andIPM-related databases must play a criticalrole in today’s world. Additionally, decisionsupport tools, data analysis software, GISand mapping, and other IT tools can play amuch broader role in IPM than simpleinformation delivery and communication.

This project is thus structured aroundthree aspects: (i) a Global IPM TechnologyDatabase (IPM Technology Databasehereafter), (ii) the application of IT inRegional Programs and other GlobalThemes (ITApplications hereafter), and (iii)capacity building in IT for IPM.

The IPM Technology Database istailored to the needs of developingcountries, especially those where IPMCRSP programs are present. The IPMTechnology Database will serve as (i) arepository for IPM technology developedfrom IPM CRSP programs and otherresearch, extension, education, andtraining programs around the world; (ii) aprimary source for researchers,extensionists, educators, and other IPMstakeholders for information about IPMtechnology and outreach materials; and (iii)an aid for training, pest identification,quarantine, and globalization/regionalization of IPM technologies. The ITApplications will serve to develop decisionsupport tools, GIS applications, Web anddatabase systems, data analysis, andother applications in collaboration with IPMCRSP Regional Programs and Global

Preliminary Implementations of Information Technology in IPM—Yulu Xia1, Ronald Stinner1, James Vankirk1, Don Mullins2, Michael Hammig3 and Merle Shepherd3

1NSF Center for IPM, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27519, USA; 2Virginia Tech; 3Clemson University

Themes. Capacity building will (i) trainparticipants to develop and use IT systemsand software tools; (ii) help InternationalAgricultural Research Centers (IARCs)and Host Country (HC) institutions to buildtheir information infrastructure; and (iii)develop expertise in IT for IPM indeveloping countries. We include trainingworkshops and novel pilot programs forimplementation of IT in IPM programs.

This project adopts a participatoryapproach in the development andexecution of our Plan Of Work (POW). Thetasks outlined above are the result of anappraisal and consultation process with allpartners and stakeholders involved. Thisparticipatory approach will continue duringproject execution. The expertise of the PI,Co-PIs, and other project participantscovers information technology anddatabase design and use, and disciplinesinvolved in the practice of IPM (e.g.,ecology, plant pathology, entomology,weed science, and economics).

Introduction

Many important agricultural pests, suchas soybean rust and codling moth, causeenormous economical and environmentaldamages across large geographical areas(http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/ep/soybean_rust). It is important to share informationabout the pests as well as managementtechnologies and tactics across countriesand regions. Although often site-specific,IPM technologies, strategies, and systemsare generally regionally or even globallyadaptable. This globalization, resultingfrom local research, is a key componentfor international IPM research programssuch as the IPM CRSP.

Many IPM practices, such as pestpopulation identification, monitoring,quarantine, and control measure selectionare time/spacecritical.WorldTradeOrganization

68

(WTO) agreement requirements placefurther demands on informationmanagement such as for phytosanitaryand food safety issues. It is essential toeffectively collect, report, and analyze dataon the locations, dynamics, and phenologyof pest populations, and then quickly passthe information to stakeholders fordecision-making. Inadequate capacity inthese areas places many developingcountries at particular socio-economic risk(Stinner 1999). A high capacity in datacollection, reporting, analysis, andinformation delivery both temporally andspatially is critical to IPM practice.

Information Technology (IT) can play asignificant role in IPM implementation. IThas been used for information delivery anddissemination, IPM communication, dataacquisition and analysis, and developmentof new technologies in the US and manyother countries (Stinner 1999, Xia etc2005, Knight 1999, Scott and Gilmore1992). These technologies show greatpotential in broader applications for IPMsuch as pest diagnostics(http://www.npdn.org), field applicationcontrol (Bongiovanni and Lowenberg,2004), pest alerts and reports(http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/ep/soybean_rust/), information management andstorage, invasive species monitoring andreporting (http://www.discoverlife.org/nh/tx/INVASIVES), and pest managementdecision support (MacLean, 2000). As anexample, the Internet and databasemanagement systems have changed theway we store, manage, and deliver IPMinformation and knowledge in developedcountries. Consequently, this has broughtabout major social, economic, andinstitutional behavioral changes.

Today, many databases have a spatialcomponent. Accordingly, one ITcomponent will focus on dynamic spatialdata acquisition and visualization (Ellsburyet al., 2000), mapping pest presence ordensity/activity (Fleischer, 1999),advances in regional IPM (Weisz et al.,1996), quarantine programs, export

agriculture, and local eradication programs(Midgarden, 1999). It also helps inprotecting the U.S. from invasive pests,and the infrastructure built for thesepurposes has relevance to bio-containment and invasive species. Weenvision this IT effort strengthening (i) theinstitutional capability of traceabilityprograms that will increasingly be neededfor agricultural export/import, and (ii)programs to deal with invasive species.

Approaches And Objectives

This program adopts a participatoryapproach in program design andimplementation. All tasks and procedures,such as objectives, timelines, and impactassessment, are identified in aparticipatory consultation process withinvolvement of all partners who had similarconsultation processes with theirstakeholders such as farmers and hostcountry’s institutions. The project involvesIT specialists, social scientists, andscientists in various disciplines of IPMsuch as ecologists, plant pathologists,entomologists, and weed scientists fromU.S. land grant universities, IARCs, NGO,international organizations, governmentalinstitutions of host countries, universities,and the private sector. The 1890institutions will have strong representationin the program through participation ofRegional Programs and other GlobalThemes.

Main US collaboration institutes includePenn State University and the Universityof Georgia. This program also works withall IPM CRSP regional programs andglobal themes on data sharing andanalysis, GIS, globalization, andregionalization through a global IPMtechnology database and links.Specifically, this program is working withfollowing three regional programs onspecific pest information sharingcomponents:

• West Africa Regional IPM CRSP, leadby Virginia Tech

69

• Southeast Asia Regional IPM CRSP,lead by Clemson University

• Central Asia Regional IPM CRSP, leadby Michigan State University

In addition, this program collaborateswith the Caribbean AgricultureDevelopment Authority (CADA) and anumber of institutions in the Caribbean touse GIS to monitor the movement andpopulation dynamics of the fruit fly.

Through the regional programs, wecollaborate with institutions in the followingcountries or regions: Jamaica, West Africa,Southeast Asia and Central Asia.

There are five objectives inthe program:

OBJECTIVE 1: Develop DecisionSupport Tools (to organize, analyze,communicate and store IPM information)

Decision support tools can play asignificant role in pest management. Thetypical tools in the category includedecision support systems (DSS), expertsystems, and databases. This GT willdevelop and link the decision support toolssuch as database and expert systems.Specifically, this program will focus on twocomponents under this objective: a) GlobalIPM Technology Database, and b) WestAfrica Regional IPM Network.

a) Global IPM Technology Database(GITD)

. Goals or functions of GITD include, butare not limited to:

• Central place to store and search IPMInformation relating to IPMCRSP programs

• Letting IPM CRSP programs, HC, andNCSU staff submit data/information

• Search pest and crop information, andIPM technology and experts online

• A main site for coordinating global-ization of the technology developed fromIPM CRSP

• Consisting of Data Entry System andpublic access site

• This GT will be responsible for pro-gramming, links, a part of the data entry

• RP and other GT will be responsiblefor entering some of the links andshared materials. No financial obligationto/from each other

b) West Africa Regional IPM Network(Whitefly Information System for W.Africa). Goals/functions of this networkinclude:

• Regional information sharing system

• Amajor pesticide safety education site

• W. Africa RP, HC, and this GT will beresponsible for programming and data entry

• Linking and incorporating whitefly infor-mation from U.S. and international sites

OBJECTIVE 2: Analyze data, modelinteractions, and provide visualizationand communication of results

• Establishing a regional web-baseddatabase for plant health surveillance andpest response systems.

• Developing interactive cartography foruse in monitoring and tracking pests andsupport the transfer of these technologies.Build from web-mapping tools currently inplace that use Delphi code, Active ServerPages, and MacroMedia Flash.

OBJECTIVE 3: A human and infor-mation technology infrastructure will beestablished for agricultural pest infor-mation storage and pest monitoring

• The main goal of this activity is to help HCand regional IPM organizations to build orimprove their capacity in IPM informationsharing and pest monitoring.

• Asian Regional Pest Information Shar-ing System.

OBJECTIVE 4: IT support and capacitybuilding

• This activity is to provide technicalsupport and layout a foundation forcommunication among the IPM CRSP pro-grams and HC. All RP and GT will be

70

involved in some way, but with emphasison LAC, W. Africa, and SE Asia.

OBJECTIVE 5: Link to USDA RegionalIPM Centers’ information and IPM CRSPreporting system

• General international and national IPMinformation systems such as IPM CRSPreports and the USDA Regional IPMCenters National Information System.

• Regional information system sites suchas CIPMNET in the Caribbean and otherregional IPM information systems thisprogram will help to develop.

• Major IPM-related technology sites suchas GIS tutorials.

• Where possible, actual data sharingthrough web services will be establishedto allow searching of multiple informationsources. At the least, this system willconnect in this way with the NationalSystem for the USDA Regional IPMCenters, the CSREES IPM Performance,Planning and Reporting System (currentlybeing rewritten) and the IPM CRSPReporting System.

Year One Results

Progresses are summarized based on theobjectives stated earlier:

OBJECTIVE 1. To develop DecisionSupport Tools (to organize, analyze,communicate and store IPM information)

• Global IPM Technology Databasehttp://www.ipmnetwork.net/

• Developed the capacity for searchingglobal pest information by crops and pestnames. User can search online pestmanagement information by using crop orpest names, or in combination of crop andpest name (http://www.ipmnetwork.net/).

• Developed the capacity for online searchbiocontrol materials. We have what maybe the most comprehensive collections ofonline biological control materials in theworld, containing over 2,500 biologicalreferences after screening over 20,000pest management online materials. We

are working on similar collections for otherIPM technologies (e.g. chemical control,and cultural control).

OBJECTIVE 2. To develop DecisionSupport Tools (to organize, analyze,communicate and store IPM information)

• Southeast Asia IPM Network and PestInformation Sharing

1. Training using IT for pest informationsharing in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.Over 20 representatives from south-east Asia countries.

2. Significant number of IPM materialswere collected and made searchable

• West Africa IPM Network

3. Developing IT infrastructure for pestand pesticide information sharing

4. Component of West Africa PesticideEducation has been developed

OBJECTIVE 3. Analyze data, modelinteractions, and provide visualizationand communication of results

• A workshop was held with over 40 atten-dees from institutions in the region

• Survey instrument refined

• All extension staff trained in survey andprotocol

• All sampling locations identified

• All trapping supplies procured (exceptMcphail traps, lure, strainers)

• Information and feedback supplied to JonVoortman to facilitate web databasedevelopment

71

References

Aziz, S.A. K. and H.S Barlow. (1992). Wallingford,Oxon, U.K.: CAB International, c1992. p. 371-381.

Bongiovanni, R. and D.J. Lowenberg (2004). Precisionagriculture and sustainability, Precision Agriculture.5:359-387.

Ellsbury, M. M., S.A. Clay, S.J. Fleischer, L.D. Chandler,and S.M. Schneider. (2000). Use of GIS/GPS sys-tems in IPM: Progress and reality. pp. 419-438.In Kennedy, G. C. and T. Sutton (eds.), EmergingTechnologies for Integrated Pest Management:Concepts, Research and Implementation, Ameri-can Phytopathological Society Press, St. Paul, MN.

Fleischer, S. J., P. E. Blom, and R. Weisz. (1999). Sampling in Precision IPM: When the objective is amap. Phytopathology 89: p.1112-1118.

Knight J.D. (1999). Information Technology for Crop Pro-tection, Association of Applied Biologists, Aspectsof Applied Biology 55. 23 September 1999. IACR-Rothamsted, Harpenden, Herts.

MacLean, D.A., K.B. Porter, W.E. MaKinnon, and K.P.Beaton. (2000). Spruce bud worm decisionsupport system:lessons learned in developmentand implementation. Comput electron agric. 27(1/3): 293-314.

Midgarden, D. (1999). Use of spatial information to manage insect populations at two scales: site-specificresistance management of Leptinotarsa decem-lineata (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) and area-wide control of Bactrocera carambolae (Diptera:Tephritidae). Ph. D. Diss., Pennsylvania StateUniversity, University Park, PA.

Scott, P.R. and J.H. Gilmore. (1992). Crop protectionand information technology in the year 2000, Cropprotection and the environment in 2000, Abdul (ed).

Stinner R.E. (1999). Information Management: Past,Present, and Future. Emerging Technologies for Integrated Pest Management - Concepts, research,and implementation. G.C. Kennedy and T.B.Sutton (ed.). Proceedings of a Conference, pp.474-481. March 8-10, 1999, Raleigh, NC.

Weisz, R., Z. Smilowitz and S. J. Fleischer. (1996). Eval-uating risk of Colorado potato beetle (Coleoptera:Chrysomelidae) infestation across a landscapeas a function of migratory distance. J. Econ.Entomology. 89:435-441.

Xia, Y., R.D. Magarey, K. Suiter, and R. Stinner. (2007).Applications of Information Technology in PestManagement. Ciancio, A and KG Mukerji (eds).pp209 – 225. General Concepts in Integrated Pestand DiseaseManagement Springer,The Netherlands.

72

Introduction. Diseases caused by agroup of plant viruses called tospoviruseshave received more attention becausethey cause serious damage to severalagronomic crops, ornamentals,vegetables, and fruits (Sherwood et al.,2000). In recent years, the incidence andspread of diseases caused bytospoviruses has increased significantly indifferent countries, reflecting their negativeimpact on agriculture worldwide.Consequently, tospoviruses areconsidered as the most aggressiveemerging plant viruses with estimatedglobal yield losses of up to US $1 billion ina wide range of crops (Goldbach andPeters, 1994). Although diseases nowattributed to Tomato spotted wilt virus(TSWV), the type species for the genusTospovirus, were first reported in tomatoesin Australia around 1915, it was not until1990s that scientists came to realize thatthere are distinct tospoviruses infecting abroad range of plants (Whitfield et al.,2005).

The term tospovirus is derived fromTomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV). Thus,all viruses with morphological and genomeproperties similar to TSWV are calledtospoviruses and grouped under thegenus Tospovirus in the familyBunyaviridae. During the past twodecades, several tospoviruses infectingdifferent plant species around the worldhave been characterized (Table 1). Manyother tospovirus-like viruses have beenreported in different countries; they are yetto be characterized completely in order todetermine whether these viruses arestrains or variants of currently knowntospoviruses or represent new virusspecies. Current knowledge indicates thatsome of the presently known tospoviruseshave a wide geographic range occurring

An Integrated Pest Management Approach for Mitigatingthe Impact of Thrips-borne Tospoviruses in VegetableCropping Systems—Naidu A. Rayapati

Department of Plant Pathology, Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center, Washington StateUniversity, Prosser, WA 99350, USA.E-mail: Naidu@wsu.edu

have a restricted distribution limited to afew countries (Mumford et al., 1996;Daughtrey et al., 1997; Peters, 2004;Jones, 2005; Persley et al., 2006; Gent etal., 2006). For example, TSWV hasbecome an economically important virus ina broad range of field crops, vegetables,and ornamentals in several countries ofNorth America, South America, Europe,Asia, and Australia. Peanut Bud NecrosisVirus (PBNV, also called Groundnut BudNecrosis Virus) has been documented asan economically important tospovirus on abroad range of field crops and vegetablesin India. Similarly, Impatiens Necrotic SpotVirus (INSV) has been documented onornamentals in several countries of NorthAmerica and Europe. In recent years, IrisYellow Spot Virus (IYSV) has beendocumented in onions in North and SouthAmerica, Europe and Middle East, and inIndia. Capsicum Chlorosis Virus (CaCV) isemerging as an important constraint totomatoes, peppers, and peanuts in manyAsian countries and in Australia. Thus,data from several reports published inrecent years clearly indicate thattospoviruses are expanding to favorablenew geographic environments from theiroriginal natural habitats by various means.Once introduced, tospoviruses canestablish themselves quickly in a newecosystem since many of them have abroad host range infecting valuable cropplants as well as weed hosts. However, itshould be remembered that the host rangevaries greatly with individual tospovirus.For example, TSWV can infect severalplant species and weed hosts (Parella etal., 2003), whereas others have a relativelynarrow host range.

Genome organization of tospo-viruses. With advances in molecularbiology, an understanding of the complexity

73

of tospoviruses began to emerge during the1990s. Tospoviruses have pleomorphicparticles of 80-110 nm in diameter. Eachparticle contains three genomic RNAsegments designated as Large (L),Medium (M) and Small (S) RNA (Goldbachand Peters, 1994; Adkins, 2000; Moyer,2000; Whitfield et al., 2005). The threegenomic RNAs are individually packagedor encapsidated by many copies of thenucleocapsid protein and ‘bound’ togetherby a host-derived lipid envelope membraneto form a virus particle. The envelopemembrane serves as a “shell” protectingthe viral genetic material. In addition to thethree genomic segments, each virusparticle contains a few copies of “replicase”protein inside the envelope. The “replicase”is essential for the virus to initiatereplication in a new host. Each virusparticle also contains two glycoproteins(GPs) that are integrated on the surface ofthe envelope membrane and seen asspike-like projections covering the surfaceof the virus particle. The two GPs containdifferent types of sugars (hence calledglycoproteins) and differ in their size. TheGPs play a critical role in different stages ofthe virus life cycle; for example, virusassembly in the host and virus acquisitionand transmission by insect vectors. Indeed,the tospovirus particles are hybridstructures, with proteins and genomicRNAs that are the product of virus geneticinformation while sugars in viralglycoproteins and the lipid envelopemembrane are produced by host cellsynthetic machinery (Naidu et al., 2004).Thus, the virus particles of tospovirusesare more complex than any other viruscurrently known to infect plants.

Spread of tospoviruses. The life cycleof tospoviruses involves spread from aninfected plant to a healthy plant by severalspecies of polyphagous thrips(Thysanoptera: Thripidae, Mound, 2005).Tospoviruses, however, are not transmittedthrough seed. Thrips (derived from Greekmeaning "woodworm") are very small (lessthan 1 mm in length) and their crypticbehavior makes them difficult to detecteither in the field or in fresh vegetables,

fruits, and ornamental flowers. Thrips areubiquitous and opportunistic insectsand have the ability to survive under abroad range of diverse ecologicalconditions. As a result, many species ofthrips have now spread from their originalnatural habitats and hosts to favorablenew environments of valuable crops. Thegeographic expansion of thrips hasincreased the potential to introduce andspread several non-indigenous tospo-viruses in regions where tospoviruseshave not been a concern before. Currently,there are at least twelve species of thrips(Table 1) that have been confirmed asvectors of one or more tospovirusesworldwide (Ullman et al., 2002; Mound,2005). There could be other potentialvector thrips species yet to bedocumented. From the table, it is clear thata single thrips species has the ability tospread different tospoviruses. Conversely,a single tospovirus can be spread bydifferent species of thrips. It is alsoimportant to note that many of thesephytophagous thrips species can causedirect damage as pests to agriculturalcrops (Welter et al., 1990); however, theireconomic impact is far greater as vectorsof tospoviruses (Mound, 2005). Currently,thrips are known to transmit severalviruses belonging to at least four plantvirus groups, viz. ilarviruses, sobemo-viruses, carmoviruses, and tospoviruses(Jones, 2005). Members of the first threegroups are pollen-borne and thripsfacilitate transmission by carrying pollenfrom infected plant to healthy plant duringfeeding. In contrast, thrips are “true”vectors of tospoviruses because there is amore intimate biological relationshipbetween tospoviruses and thrips. It shouldbe remembered that not all thrips have theability to transmit tospoviruses. Indeed,only about 12 out of 5500 known speciesof thrips (i.e. about 0.16%) have beenimplicated in the transmission of differenttospoviruses.

Tospoviruses are one of the few groupsof plant viruses that multiply in both plantsand thrips vectors. Thrips-mediatedtransmission of tospoviruses is unique

74

among plant viruses because successfultransmission of adult thrips occurs onlywhen the virus is acquired during the firstinstar (and early second instar) larvalstages (van de Wetering et al., 1996;Kritzman et al., 2002; de Assis Filho et al.,2002). Adult thrips have the ability toacquire the virus; however, such anacquisition during adult stage does notresult in transmission (deAssis Filho et al.,2004). Therefore, topsovirus acquisitionand subsequent transmission is closelylinked to the developmental stage ofvector thrips on plants. Indeed, this type ofinterdependency between vector life-stageand virus transmission is quite uniqueamong plant viruses. The factors thatcontribute to the acquisition andtransmission of tospoviruses by thripspopulations are complex and involveinteractions between virus, plant, andvector (Kritzman et al., 2002). Adult thripsthat acquire a tospovirus during the larvalstage remain viruliferous for life (whichmay be 20–40 days depending on theenvironmental conditions), and contributeto short- and long-distance spread of thevirus. Since tospoviruses replicate invector thrips, the insects not only have theability to spread the virus throughout theirlife but also serve as a virus host.However, viruliferous adults do nottransmit the virus to their progeny througheggs. Viruliferous males are reported toexhibit a higher transmission rate thanfemales (van der Wetering et al., 1998;Sakurai et al., 1998; Naidu et al., 2007),which suggests that their feeding behaviormay differ from that of females. Indeed,tospoviruses are only a few groups of plantviruses that have evolved a variety ofelegant mechanisms to multiply in bothplants and insects by devising “Trojanhorse” strategies to overcome vastlydifferent cellular and biochemical barriersof the two phylogenetically andbiochemically disparate hosts in order tomaintain a successful life cycle.

Several thrips species and tospo-viruses have expanded their geographicrange due to a variety of factors includingglobalization and increased trans-border

trade and commerce of agricultural cropsand horticultural products. For example,Frankliniella occidentalis, a vector thripsspecies native to the southwestern UnitedStates, has been implicated in the spreadof TSWV to many regions within andoutside the USA through the movement ofornamental greenhouse plants beginningin the mid-1980s (Mound, 1997). Similarly,melon thrips (T. palmi), a native to Javaand Sumatra islands of Indonesia, is nowpresent in several countries of Asia, andhas expanded to many Pacific Oceanislands, North Africa, Australia, Central andSouth America, and the Caribbean(Walker, 1994). T. palmi is reported as avector of several tospoviruses infectingagricultural crops in Asian countries andAustralia (Jones, 2005). T. tabaci is acosmopolitan pest of onions grownbetween sea level and 2000 m and isknown to transmit several tospoviruses,including IYSV in onion (Ullman et al.,2002; Gent et al., 2006).

Symptoms produced by tospo-viruses. Symptoms caused by tospo-viruses vary considerably, depending onthe virus, host plant species and theircultivars, age of the plant at which infectionoccurred as well as environmental factors.In general, plants infected withtospoviruses show a wide range ofsymptoms consisting of necrotic and/orchlorotic spots, rings and line patterns onleaves, bronzing and various types ofmottling and speckling of leaves, necroticstreaks and lesions on stems, and generalchlorosis, stunting, wilting, or necrosis ofplants. In many plant species, tospovirusinfection leads to necrosis of growing tipsresulting in ‘bud necrosis’ symptoms. Inaddition, different strains of a tospoviruscan induce different types of symptoms inthe same host. In some cases, virusinfection may not show obvious symptomscausing symptomless or latent infections.In general, virus infection during earlystages of crop season can cause severestunting of plants with no yield resulting intotal crop loss. Infection during later stagesof crop season, however, may affect cropperformance leading to a reduction in crop

75

yield. In the case of vegetables liketomatoes, infection after fruit set not onlyaffect the size of fruits but also thenutritional quality and shelf life of fruits. Inaddition, tospoviruses like TSWV, PBNVand CaCV cause fruit deformities intomatoes and the fruits from infected plantsexhibit various types of symptomsincluding chlorotic and necrotic ringsleading to poor marketability.

Detection of tospoviruses. Due tovariable symptom phenotype, symptom-based diagnosis is inadequate to confirma tospovirus infection. This is furtherconfounded by the fact that some of thesymptoms produced by tospovirusesmimic those of fungal and other viralpathogens. Inability to accurately diagnosediseases caused by tospoviruses couldundermine the economic significance of aparticular virus, result in misapplication ofagrochemicals, and impede progress inbreeding for virus resistance. Thus,accurate diagnosis of a tospovirus is thecornerstone for developing diseasemanagement strategies. Three differentmethods are commonly used fordiagnosing a tospovirus infection.Mechanical sap inoculations of extractsfrom a suspected plant tissue onto anindicator host (bioassay) provide anindication of tospovirus infection. Althoughthis assay is easy to perform underminimum facilities, the symptoms may notbe helpful in accurate identification of aspecific tospovirus due to similarsymptoms on indicator hosts produced bydistinct tospoviruses. Serological(antibody-based) and molecular (Reversetranscription-polymerase chain reaction orRT-PCR) assays can circumvent thislimitation by providing accurate diagnosisof infection by a specific tospovirus. Acombination of serological and moleculartechniques can provide additionalinformation on the prevalence of differentstrains of a particular virus and whether aplant is co-infected by more than onetospovirus.

Management of tospoviruses. Dis-eases caused by tospoviruses, like anyother viral disease, cannot be controlled

directly by treating infected plants withchemical agents analogous to treatingfungal diseases with fungicides. Theymust, instead, be controlled by othermanagement practices. These practicesinclude prevention or avoidance ofinfection by controlling thrips vectors,cultural practices like altering plantingdates, increasing crop density and rougingof infected plants to minimize spread of thedisease and deploying resistant cultivarsto reduce yield losses. It must beremembered that any one of these tacticsalone may not be effective in achieving thedesired results and in many cases acombination of these control measures arerequired to reduce the yield losses(Culbreath et al., 2003). An understandingof the epidemiology of tospoviruses andvector thrips species in a given croppingsystem can provide valuable informationon alternate hosts (both crop plants andweeds) that serve as a reservoir for off-season survival of tospoviruses and theirvectors, the influence of variousenvironmental factors on diseasedynamics, and diversity of tospovirusesand thrips vector species. This knowledgehelps to develop integrated controlmeasures appropriate to specific crops orcropping systems. Since the managementof virus diseases usually hinge on thecontrol of the vector, subsistence farmersin developing countries use pesticides asthe predominant tactic to control thrips.Because of their small size and ability todevelop resistance against pesticides,pesticide-based control tactics are lesseffective to prevent the spread of thrips-borne tospoviruses. Due to growingawareness of harmful effects of pesticideson human health, environment, andbiological diversity, Integrated PestManagement (IPM) has been acceptedgenerally as a better alternative for thecontrol of thrips-borne tospoviruses.

IPM utilizes a suite of tactics involvinghost plant resistance (developed byconventional breeding and/orbiotechnological approaches), cultural(crop sanitation, crop rotation, plantdensity, varietal mixtures, crop-free

76

periods, reflective mulches, barrier crops,phytoprophylaxis, etc.), and bio-pesticidal(eg. plant-based products) and biologicalcontrol measures (predators andparasites) that have different modes ofaction to achieve synergistic benefits formaximizing the likelihood that losses willremain below the ‘economic threshold’.IPM practices will enable the switch from apesticide-based mode of reducing lossesto an ecologically sustainable, eco-nomically feasible, and socially acceptableapproach in order to protect farmingsystems in developing countries.

The way forward. The Integrated PestManagement-Collaborative Research andSupport Program (IPM CRSP) of USAIDhas recently initiated a multi-disciplinaryand multi-institutional global project toprovide science-based knowledge fordeveloping sustainable and eco-friendlyIPM strategies to minimize crop lossesdue to thrips-borne tospoviruses. Theproject is currently focusing ontospoviruses in the South & SoutheastAsia (S&SEA) region because diseasescaused by this group of viruses haveincreasingly become a significant limitingfactor in the sustainable production ofvegetables in smallholder farming systemsof the region (Naidu et al., 2005). At leastten of the sixteen tospoviruses currentlycharacterized worldwide have been founddistributed in the region. Of the twelvethrips species implicated globally asvectors of tospoviruses, six species havebeen documented in the region. Thus,S&SEA region appears to be a ‘hot spot’for thrips-borne tospovirus diseases. Thespecific objectives of the project are to (i)conduct strategic research ontospoviruses and thrips vectors anddevelop host plant resistance, (ii) carry outapplied and adaptive research to deployeco-friendly integrated diseasemanagement strategies to controltospovirus diseases, and (iii) developstrategies for strengthening institutionalcapacities within host countries to conductproblem-oriented research on virusdiseases. The project places specialemphasis on the participatory model of

agricultural research to generate newknowledge and technologies for the benefitof host countries in the region. It alsopromotes global partnerships withresearch institutions in developedcountries and international agriculturalresearch centers for greater synergies inthe region and to deploy long-lastingsolutions for the management of diseasescaused by tospoviruses in vegetables.

The status of tospoviruses and thripsvectors and their economic significance inthe Central Asia (CA) region (Kazakhstan,Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, andUzbekistan) is poorly documented. Itshould be remembered that absence ofevidence for the presence of tospovirusesis not evidence of their absence in theregion. Indeed, a recent visit by the authorhas noticed symptoms on onions indicativeof the presence of IYSV in the region.Since the CA region grows a wide range ofvegetables including potatoes, tomatoes,onions, sweet peppers, and many leafyvegetables under diverse agro-ecologicalconditions, occurrence of tospoviruseshave implications for food security andenvironmental sustainability of the region.Several types of vegetables constitute anintegral part of dietary requirements of thepeople in the region. It is estimated thatvegetables like tomatoes, watermelons,cabbages, onions, cucumbers and carrotsoccupy more than four-fifths of the totalvegetable area in these countries. Basedon the current information availableworldwide, all these crops are vulnerableto infection by many debilitatingtospoviruses. Limiting production andreduced nutritional quality of vegetabledue to tospoviruses affect the rurallivelihoods, economic well-being of womenand children and export potential of qualityvegetables, ultimately impacting foodsecurity in the region. Thus, there is acritical need in Central Asian countries fordeveloping specialized scientific expertisein addressing disease problems due tothrips-borne tospoviruses. The IPM CRSPRegional Project in Central Asia, inpartnership with IPM CRSP global themeprojects on insect-transmitted viruses and

77

international centers like the InternationalCenter for Agricultural Research in the DryAreas (ICARDA) and the Asian VegetableResearch and Development Center(AVRDC), should expedite joint R&Defforts to build capacity for addressingtospovirus diseases and programs foreffective transfer of technologies to farmingcommunities and other stakeholders. Thiswould involve organizing group-basedshort-term training courses in one of thecountries in the region, training of youngscientists in advanced laboratories, andimprovement of facilities in the nationalprograms to conduct virus research. IPMCRSP has a comparative advantage intaking a leading role for developingscientific cooperation and networking toaddress tospovirus disease constraintsimpacting vegetable crops across theregion. Such a collaborative effort willbring opportunities to establish synergisticinteractions among cooperating institutionsin terms of sharing human and technicalexpertise to maximize research outputsfrom limited resources. The IPM CRSP iswell positioned to bring various institutionsinto a cohesive and singularly effectivegroup to develop collaborative R&D effortsthat will have mutual benefits for allcountries in the region.

Virus

Geographicdistribution

Thripsvectors

Capsicumchlorosisvirus

Thailand,Australia,India

Ceratothripoidesclaratris,T.palmi,F.schultzei

Callalilychloroticspotvirus

Taiwan

T.palmi

Chrysanthemum

stem

necrosisvirus

Brazil

F.occidentalis,F.schultzei

Groundnut(peanut)budnecrosisvirus

SouthandSoutheastAsia

F.schultzei,T.palmi,Scirtothripsdorsalis

Groundnutringspotvirus

SouthAfrica

F.occidentalis,F.schultzei,F.intonsa,F.gemina

Impatiensnecroticspotvirus

Americas,Europe

F.occidentalis,F.fusca,F.intosa

Irisyellowspotvirus

Worldwide

T.tabaci

Melonyellowspotvirus

Japan,Thailand

T.palmi

Peanutchloroticfanspotvirus

Taiwan

S.dorsalis

Peanutyellowspotvirus

India

S.dorsalis

Tomatochloroticspotvirus

Brazil

F.intonsa,F.occidentalis,F.schultzei

Tomatospottedwiltvirus

Worldwide

F.bispinosa,F.fusca,F.intonsa,F.occidentalis,

F.schultzei,T.setosus,T.tabaci,T.setosus,F.gemina,T.palmi

Tomatoyellowringvirus

Iran

T.tabaci(?)

Watermelonbudnecrosisvirus

India

T.palmi

Watermelonsilvermottlevirus

Japan,Taiwan,Thailand

T.palmi

Zucchinilethalchloroticvirus

Brazil

F.zucchini

1 Modifiedfrom

Whitfieldetal.(2005)andhttp://www.oznet.ksu.edu/tospovirus/tospo_list.htm

Table 1: List of currently recognized tospoviruses,their geographic distribution and thrips vectors1

78

References

Adkins, S. (2000). Tomato spotted wilt virus – positivesteps towards negative success. Molecular PlantPathology 1:151-157.

Culbreath, A.K., J.W. Todd and S.L. Brown. (2003). Epi-demiology and management of tomato spottedwilt in peanut. Annual Review of Phytopathology41:53-75.

Daughtrey, M. L., R.K. Jones, J.W. Moyer, M.E. Dauband J.R. Baker. (1997). Tospoviruses strike thegreenhouse industry: INSV has becomea major pathogen of flower crops. Plant Disease81:1220-1230.

de Assis Filho, F.M., R.A. Naidu, C.M. Deom, and J.L.Sherwood. (2002). Dynamics of Tomato spottedwilt virus Replication in the AlimentaryCanal of Two Thrips Species. Phytopathology 92:729-733.

de Assis Filho, F.M., C.M. Deom and J.L. Sherwood.(2004). Acquisition of Tomato spotted wilt virus byadults of two thrips species. Phy-topathology 94: 333-336.

Gent, D.H., L.J. du Toit, S.F. Fichtner, S. KrishnaMohan, H.R. Pappu and H.F. Schwartz. (2006). Irisyellow spot virus: An emerging threat toonion bulb and seed production. Plant Disease 90:1468-1480.

Goldbach, R. and D. Peters. (1994). Possible causesof the emergence of tospovirus diseases. Semi-nars in Virology 5: 113-120.

Jones, D.R. (2005). Plant viruses transmitted by thrips.European Journal of Plant Pathology 113: 119–157

Kritzman, A., A. Gera, B. Raccah, J.W.M. van Lent andD. Peters. (2002). The route of Tomato spotted wiltvirus inside the thrips body in relation to transmis-sion efficiency. Archives of Virology 1 4 7 : 2 1 4 3 -2156.

Mound, L.A. (1997). Biological diversity. In: Thrips asCrop Pests. Lewis T (ed.), pp 197-215.Wallingford,UK: CABI.

Mound, L.A. (2005). Thysanoptera: Diversity and Inter-actions. Annual Review of Entomology 50: 247-269.

Moyer, J. W. (2000). Tospoviruses. In Encyclopedia ofMicrobiology. Vol 4. R. Hull (ed.), pp 592-597. Ac-ademic Press: New York.

Mumford, R.A., I. Barker, and K.R. Wood. (1996). Thebiology of tospoviruses. Annals of Applied Biology128, p. 159–183.

Naidu, R.A., C.J. Ingle, C.M. Deom and J.L. Sherwood.(2004). The two envelope membrane glycoproteinsof Tomato spotted wilt virus show differences inlectin-binding properties and sensitivities to gly-cosidases. Virology 319:107-117.

Naidu, R.A., S. Adkins, K.S. Ravi, P. Chiemsombat, R.K.Jain, H.S. Savithri, O. Gajanandana, V. Mu-niyappa, and D.J. Riley. (2003). Epidemiology ofTospoviruses in South and Southeast Asia: Currentstatus and future prospects. VIII International Sym-posium on Thysanoptera and Tospoviruses, Sep-tember 11–15, 2005 Asilomar, Pacific Grove, Cali-fornia. Journal of Insect Science 7, no. 28, pp 49.2007. Available online: insectscience.org/7.28

Naidu, R.A., J.L. Sherwood and C.M. Deom. (2007).Characterization of a vector non-transmissible iso-late of Tomato spotted wilt virus. Plant Pathology(in press).

Parrella, G., P. Gognalons, K. Gebre-Selassiè, C. Vovlasand G. Marchoux. (2003). An update of the hostrange of Tomato spotted wilt virus. Journal of PlantPathology 85:227-264.

Persley, D.M., J. E. Thomas and M. Sharman. (2006).Tospoviruses—an Australian perspective. Aus-tralasian Plant Pathology 35:161–180.

Peters, D. (2004). Tospoviruses. In Virus and Virus-LikeDiseases of Major Crops in Developing Countries.G. Loebenstein and G. Thottapilly (eds.), pp. 719–742. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht.

Sakurai, T., T. Murai, T. Maeda and H. Tsumuki. (1998).Sexual differences in transmission and accumula-tion of Tomato spotted wilt virus in its vectorFrankliniella occidentalis (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Applied Entomology and Zoology 33:583-588.

Sherwood, J.L., T.L. German, J.W. Moyer, D.E. Ullmanand A.E. Whitfield, (2000). Tospoviruses. In: Ency-clopedia of Plant Pathology, O.C. Maloy and T. D.Murray (eds.), pp.1034-1040. John Wiley & Sons,New York.

Ullman, D.E., R. Meideros, L.R. Campbell, A.E. Whit-field, J.L. Sherwood and T.L. German. (2002).Thrips as vectors of tospoviruses. Advances inBotanical Research. R. Plumb (ed.), pp. 113–140.(Academic Press: San Diego).

Van der Wetering, F., J. Hulshof, K. Posthuma, P. Har-rewijn, R. Goldbach and D. Peters. (1998). Distinctfeeding behaviour between sexes of Frankliniellaoccidentalis results in higher scar production andlower tospovirus transmission of females. Ento-mologia Experimentalis et Applicata 88: 9-15.

Walker, A.K. (1994). A review of the pest status and nat-ural enemies of Thrips palmi. Biocontrol News andInformation 15:7-10.

Welter, S.C., J.A. Rosenheim, M.W. Johnson, R.F.L.Mau and L.R. Gusukuma-Minuto. (1990). Effects ofThrips palmi and western flower thrips(Thysanoptera: Thripidae) on yield, growth, andcarbon allocation pattern in cucumbers. Journal ofEconomic Entomology 83:2092-2101.

Whitfield, A.E., D.E. Ullman and T.L. German, (2005).Tospovirus-Thrips Interactions. Annual Review ofPhytopathol. 43:459-489.

79

This document intends to present to theIPM forum stakeholders the currentprograms we have in Tajikistan and whatwe want to do in the future and how it isrelated to IPM. Oxfam GB is aninternational NGO working in relief anddevelopment campaigns. Oxfam wascreated from famine relief committees setup in Oxford at the end of the SecondWorld War. It is a member of OxfamInternational, a confederation of 13organizations working together with over3,000 partners in more than 100 countriesto find lasting solutions to poverty,suffering, and injustice. Oxfam startedworking in Tajikistan in 2001 following twoyears of drought. Oxfam's work involvesimproving access to food, livelihoods,water, and healthcare for those in need.

Oxfam GB has 2 offices in Tajikistan; asupport office in Dushanbe and a fieldoffice in Kulyab. We run three differentprograms:

� Livelihood: mainly agriculture-relatedactivities and other income-generatingactivities

� Public health and water sanitation:drinking water supply, latrines, etc.

� Disaster management: to prepare com-munities to respond to natural disaster(landslides, floods, earthquakes)

This presentation focuses on ourLivelihood Program, as it is the one relatedto agriculture and therefore to IPM. Thereare 2 projects implemented currently andfunded by EC and Oxfam Novib. Theirobjective is to improve food security andhousehold livelihood. The main problemsaddressed in the project area are a lack ofaccess to good quality input, especiallyseeds and tools, and land accessproblems. On livelihood program, OxfamGB is currently working on actions inresponse to the urgent need to provideproduction means (inputs, tools, irrigated

Oxfam GB in Tajikistan: Current and Future Programs—Christophe Viltard and Peter PichlerOxfam GB, Dushanbe Tajikistan

drained land) and extension services onaccess and use of land for subsistenceagriculture. The current project’s impactwill be the improvement of food security inthe project area. The local communitieswill be able to manage their food securityand livelihood development with the helpof created structures (community- basedorganizations, community-managed agri-culture shops, seed farmers associations,etc.). This will be done by:

� Promoting crop rotation (identify, test,train farmers)

� Training on agriculture practices andappropriate use of inputs

� Selection of local high performance va-rieties for seed multiplication by farmers

� Support to rainfed agriculture, crop di-versification, and farmers with seeds,tools, inputs, and technical support.

Capacity-building activities are beingimplemented to ensure the sustainabilityof these activities, to give to thecommunities the structure to manage itsown food security and agriculturaldevelopment:

� Community-based organizations (CBO)have been trained to manage projects,community funds, and to address theneeds of their communities

� Support to income-generating activi-ties, women’s self-help groups, and activ-ities such as fruit preservation, sewing,vegetable production, cooking, etc.

� Three information centers will be es-tablished to provide training, technical as-sistance and services in agriculture, landright issues, gender, etc.

� Community-managed agricultureshops will be able to provide good qualityseeds and tools at affordable prices

� A seed farmers association will be cre-ated and will supply agriculture shops

80

With this project we expect that foodsecurity will be achieved in the project areaand the community will be able to manageit. But a very important threat couldendanger this food security:

� Unsustainable agriculture practices(fertility management, irrigation methods,degraded drainage infrastructure) lead toerosion and soil salinity

� Farmer debt and low access to inputs

� Land rights: lack of basic liberties inproduction and marketing in cotton grow-ing areas

In answer to these threats, our projectis to introduce organic agriculture conceptsalong the production chain, from farmproduction to marketing, including labelcreation and certification. We believe thatorganic agriculture will:

� Help to ensure environmental sustainability

� Reduce dependency toward expensiveimported inputs

� Improve market conditions for localagriculture products, especially when it isintroduced with fair trade concepts.

Oxfam GB and Avalon (a Dutch NGO)have conducted a study on the potentialinterest for organic farming projects inTajikistan. Avalon has experience inimplementing organic agriculture projectsin Eastern Europe and Central Asia.Several stakeholders from the agriculturesector have been met during this missionfrom ministries of agriculture to farmers,including international and local NGOs,academies of science, standardizationservices, researchers, teachers, students,agro processing companies, etc. All stake-holders gave a very positive feedback,and were really interested in OrganicAgriculture.

The planned activities are detailed inthe table below.

Activity Target groups Capacity building / instrumentsMarket chainFarming: Cotton, Dehkans Demonstration farms, On farm trainingVegetables private farmers Farm business plans, Identify leadersAnimals, Fruits, household/presid.land for exchange visits, Local seminars,Vineyards women’s groups Organic seeds, Bio pest control,Herbs, etc. Special machinery

Processing: Dehkans Training on standards and proceduresCotton, Wine existing processing plants On the spot technical adviceVegetables, Exchange visitsFruits, Herbs, etc. Local seminars

Marketing: Dehkans Training in market assessment,green market cities (private farmers) marketing mix, communication

Exchange visits

Common label: Dehkans Development/contest, Registration

domestic exports Private farmers, processors,traders, consumers, MoANP Use, Promotion, Local seminars

Certification: Dehkans, farmers, Training of inspectorsprocessors Working group on standard development,MoANP, Institute of Institutionalize inspection and certificationStandardization

81

Knowledge support Target groups Capacity building / instruments

Research: Acad. of Science Experimental fieldsUniversity Exchange between researchers

Visit international conferences(e.g. IFOAM)

Education: Universities, secondary Demonstration farmsschools, vocational training, Develop and implement curriculastudents on OAteachers

Farm advisory work: Government Extension Demonstration farmsService, private ext. Training of Trainersservices, leading farmers Exchange visits

Other support:

Promotion/publicity: Consumers, policy Training on communicationConsumer awareness, makers, farmers aspects of OAMedia CBO’s, NGO’s

Policy: Ministry of ANP, Creation of multi-stakeholderNational Action oblast, khokumat, working group, Training onPlan, legislation, Dehkans, CBO’s National Action Plan,land rights Regional seminars

(Micro-) financing: Dehkans, private farmers Development of credit instrumentprocessors

In addition to the changes in the market chain, knowledge/ information on organic farming will bestrengthened with following activities:

Related issues Target groups Capacity building / instruments

Integrated rural development: Farmers, MoANP, policy makers, Informationagri-environment, biodiversity, consumers, CBO’s, NGO’s seminarsrural tourism, climate change

Afforestation/erosion control Institute of Soil Science Information, seminars

Gender issues CBO’s, Dehkans, farmers Information, Seminars

Housing/energy use including: rural population Information, Seminarsisolation heating, solar systems

Food quality Inst. of Standardification Information, Seminars

Genetic Resources Inst. for Genetic Res Information, seminars

Health care: Institutions like Information Seminars Link with- care for handicapped Internat Kulyab food for kitchen Vocational training

Internat children Gizar

Other topics related to organic agriculture can or must be addressed in this program:

82

Erosion control and energy use in thehousehold are essential because theybelong to a vicious circle that needs to bebroken.

Following the collapse of the SovietUnion there was a drop in the energysupply (gas, electricity, etc.) and peoplehad to look for alternative fuel for cookingand to warm houses during winter. Thecutting of trees for wood and the burning ofcow dung increased, therefore decreasingthe availability of manure to fertilize fieldsat the same time access to chemicalfertilizer was reduced. These practices ledto deforestation, an increase in erosion,and a drop in soil fertility. As aconsequence the production of cottonsticks, which is a major combustible inhouseholds, is reduced, increasing theneed for new energy sources. We find itvery important to break this circle byimplementing activities related to energysaving, alternative energy sources, andafforestation.

In developing and implementing futurelivelihood programs, Oxfam GB will needto keep in touch with the IPM programbecause:

� Our projects cannot be successful with-out efficient pest management

� Knowledge and research in IPM arevaluable for organic farming because or-ganic agriculture proscribes the use ofchemical pesticides

Organic Agriculture IPM techniques

• Label / standard / Markets • Less risks for successful pest managementare more developed • Better economical yield

• Better impact on environment • No production drop during transitionand Health

• Less input costs

As a conclusion we could discuss and compare advantages of both methods-IPM andorganic-for farmers in Tajikistan. The following points could be discussed:

83

Introduction

There are three primary means bywhich managers influence biologicalcontrol of insects. Importation of naturalenemies against pests of exotic origin issometimes referred to as classicalbiological control, while augmentation isthe rearing and release of natural enemiesalready present to increase theireffectiveness. Conservation of naturalenemies involves improving conditions forexisting natural enemies by reducingfactors which interfere with naturalenemies or increasing access to resourcesthat they require to be successful (Ehler,1998). Habitat management is considereda subset of conservation practices thatfocus on manipulating habitats withinagricultural landscape to provide resourcesto enhance natural enemies (Landis et al.,2000).

Managing agricultural landscapes toimprove biological control relies on adetailed understanding of factors thatinfluence both pest and natural enemyabundance. We begin by examininglandscape processes that influence pestsand beneficial insects at larger spatialscales. Next we focus on processes thatinfluence these organisms and theirinteractions at local scales. Finally, wedetail steps that pest managers may taketo alter agricultural habitats andlandscapes to favor natural enemies in IPMsystems. Throughout, we attempt to showhow both temporal and spatial factorsinfluence the outcome of pest-enemyinteractions.

Landscape Processes And IPM

Agricultural landscapes consist of amosaic of crop and non-crop habitats. Thediversity and abundance of both pests and

Landscape Ecology and Management of Natural Enemies in IPM Systems—Douglas A. Landis1, Mary M. Gardiner1, Anna. K. Fiedler1, Alejandro C. Costamagna2 and Nurali Saidov3

1 Department of Entomology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA2 Current address: Department of Entomology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA3 IPM CRSP project Central Asia, ICARDA-PFU, Tashkent, Uzbekistan

PART FIVE: Special Workshops

natural enemies depend on the large-scalestructure of these landscapes. Severalpatterns have emerged that illustrate theimpact of landscape structure on pestsand beneficial insects. First, the diversityand abundance of predators andparasitoids often increase as landscapecomplexity and the proportion of non-crophabitat increase. Second, several studiessuggest that there may be thresholds inlandscape structure below which thesearch efficiency and the ability of naturalenemies to aggregate and control pests isdiminished. Finally, landscape characteristicsmay not influence all species equally, or atthe same scale.

Landscape Complexity

The diversity of habitats within alandscape can greatly affect communitiesof herbivores and their natural enemieswithin an agricultural crop (Marino andLandis, 1996; Ostman, 2002; Schmidt,Tscharntke, 2005; Tscharntke et al., 2005).A majority of studies finds a decrease inherbivore density and damage as theproportion of non-crop habitat in alandscape increases. The presence ofnon-crop habitats may increase naturalenemy abundance by providing resourcessuch as alternative prey or overwinteringhabitat. While pest abundance andherbivory generally decline with structuralcomplexity, the abundance and diversity ofpredators and parasitoids often increaseas non-crop habitat increases.

There is also temporal variation in theresponse of natural enemies to landscapestructure. Menalled et al. (2003) examinedparasitism of the armyworm, Pseudaletiaunipunctata (Noctuidae), by two braconidparasitoids, Glyptapanteles militaris andMeteorus communis (Braconidae) acrossfive years in simple and complex landscapes.

84

The simple landscape had 29% non-crophabitat, and the complex landscape had41% non-crop habitat and smaller cropfields. Although percentage parasitism inthe complex landscape was equal to orhigher than the simple landscape in 4 ofthe 5 years of the study, distribution of theparasitoids varied.Glyptapanteles militariswas most abundant in the simplelandscape during the last two years of thestudy while M. communis was thedominant species in the complexlandscape during the first three years ofthe study.

Habitat Thresholds

Several studies suggest thresholds inlandscape structure below which thesearch efficiency and ability of naturalenemies to aggregate and control pests isdiminished. Simulation experiments haveshown that search success of naturalenemies declined when suitable habitatfell below 20% (With and King, 1999). Thisobservation has also been documented inthe field; Thies and Tscharntke (1999)found that parasitism rates declined inagricultural landscapes when the non-croparea fell below 20%. Thies et al. (2003)found that in simple landscapes,parasitism of rape pollen beetle declinedbelow threshold levels needed forsuccessful biological control.

Edge Effects

Natural enemy populations may buildup in field borders and move into a cropwhen pest populations begin to build. Asubstantial amount of research has beenconducted to understand the role of fieldedges on the biological control of pests bynatural enemies. Overall, these data showthat measuring the activity and richness ofpredatory populations in field boundariescan, but does not always accuratelypredict their potential impact on herbivoresin neighboring crops (Hunter, 2002). Insome cases, field edges and neighboringhabitats contribute to within-field naturalenemy assemblages. In other cases, thepresence of non-crop habitats surrounding

agricultural fields either had no effect onnatural enemy density in the crop or had apositive effect on herbivore abundance.

Local Processes And IPM

Although potential pests and biologicalcontrol agents occur in a regional pool,local processes impact their interactionsand the outcome of biological control at thefield level. Some of these local processesinclude negative impacts of pesticideapplication and cultural practices such assoil cultivation on natural enemypopulations (Croft, 1990; DeBach andRosen, 1991; Barbosa, 1998; Stark andBanks, 2003). Here, we focus on severalphenomena that mediate the effect ofnatural enemies at the local scale andhave received relatively less attention,including timing between natural enemyand pest arrival and interactions withinmultiple enemy assemblages.

Early-season pest suppression

The difference in timing between thearrival of prey and their natural enemiesinto a crop often determines the outcomeof their interaction. Generalist naturalenemies have the potential to be presentin crops early in the season, before pestsarrive and experience population growth.However, such early season predationusually goes unnoticed due to therelatively low numbers of natural enemiesrequired to suppress initial pestpopulations. Landis and Van der Werf(1997) showed that the assemblage ofgeneralist predators present in sugar beetfields early in the season significantlyreduced aphid abundance and the impactof the aphid-vectored viruses. Usingpredator exclusion cages, several studieshave demonstrated strong suppressiveeffects of generalist predators on soybeanaphid, Aphis glycines, early in the season,both during outbreak and non-outbreakaphid years (Fox et al., 2004; Costamagnaand Landis, 2006; Desneux et al., 2006;Costamagna et al., 2007).

85

Interactions within multipleenemy assemblages

Natural enemy assemblages inagroecosystems are typically composed ofmultiple species, including both generalistsand specialists (Symondson et al., 2002).Within these diverse assemblages, positiveinteractions such as predator facilitationand negative interactions such as predatorinterference, cannibalism, predatoravoidance behavior, and intraguildpredation commonly occur and can modifythe level of herbivore pest suppression(Roland and Embree, 1995; Sih et al.,1998; Snyder and Wise, 1999; Prasad andSnyder, 2006; Gardiner and Landis, 2007).

Managing AgriculturalLandscapes To Increase PestSuppression

Given an understanding of landscapeand local processes affecting pestsuppression, pest managers may wish tomodify production practices to enhancenatural enemy populations. Selectivepesticide use is an accepted technique thatmay decrease natural enemy mortality(Croft, 1990; Ruberson et al., 1998;Johnson, Tabashnik, 1999). Altered culturalpractices, such as no-till production(Witmer et al., 2003) and strip cropping(Hossain et al., 2002; Weiser et al., 2003),may also decrease natural enemymortality. In addition to refuge fromdisturbance, natural enemies frequentlylive longer and are more fecund whenprovided access to shelter, overwinteringsites, alternate hosts, prey, and nectar andpollen (Ehler, 1998; Landis et al., 2000).Below we discuss the resources that arefrequently absent from agriculturallandscapes and their effects on thepresence of natural enemies, as well asmethods to increase habitat suitability fornatural enemies from field to landscapescales.

Overwintering Sites

Many natural enemy taxa require un-disturbed sites near crop fields to increaseoverwintering success. Pickett et al. (2004)

found that two aphelinid parasitoids,Eretmocerus eremicus and Encarsia spp.,moved from overwintering refuges intocantaloupe and cotton crops adjacent tothe refuge, where they parasitizedsweetpotato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci. Theyalso found that refuges harbored greaternumbers of sweetpotato whitefly thanaphelinid parasitoids early in the growingseason. This result illustrates the potentialof any overwintering site or refuge strip toharbor crop pests in addition to naturalenemies.

Alternate host and prey

Parasitoids and predators may alsorequire alternate hosts or prey to completetheir lifecycle, or when primary hosts orprey are not available. When alternatehosts live on specific plant species, plantsthat commonly harbor these species maybe planted near crops to increase pestcontrol nearby (e.g. Corbett andRosenheim, 1996). A greater diversity ofalternate hosts and prey may be availablein landscapes with more non-crop habitat.Menalled et al. (1999) examinedparasitoid diversity and parasitism rates insimple landscapes primarily composed ofcropland versus complex landscapes thatcontained cropland and successionalnoncrop habitats. They found nodifference between two of three pairedsimple and complex landscapes, but didfind an increase in both parasitoid diversityand rate of parasitism in a third landscapecomparison. Similarly, Elliott et al. (2002)found that aphid predator diversity wasaffected by landscape complexity. Thesestudies indicate that the availability ofmultiple alternate hosts or prey may begreater in more complex landscapes,increasing natural enemy abundance.

Nectar and pollen

Access to nectar and pollen has beenshown to significantly increase parasitoidlongevity in laboratory studies (Dyer andLandis, 1996; Baggen et al., 1999). Inaddition to feeding on prey, predators feedon pollen (Harmon et al., 2000), which can

86

increase fecundity (Hickman and Wratten,1996) and may be required for eggmaturation (Ehler, 1998). Some speciesalso use plant resources such as phloemfluids to supplement their diet (Eubanksand Denno, 1999). Multiple studies havefound increased natural enemyabundance in the presence of floweringplants (Colley and Luna, 2000; Frank,Shrewsbury, 2004; Lee, Heimpel, 2005;Rebek et al., 2005; Forehand et al., 2006;Pontin et al., 2006). Fiedler and Landis(2007a) compared native Michigan plantspecies with several exotic species thatwere commonly used for habitatmanagement in the past. They found thatnatural enemy abundance at floweringnative plants was equal to or greater thanabundance at flowering exotic species.The most attractive plant of the 51 plantspecies tested was the native boneset,Eupatorium maculatum, with an averageof 199 natural enemies / m2 during fullbloom. In addition, they found that floralarea per m2 explained 20% of thevariability in natural enemy abundance atnative plants (Fiedler and Landis, 2007b).

Shelter

Disturbances including cultivation andpesticide use are frequent within fields inagricultural systems. Refuge from thesedisturbances can be promoted outside ofthe crop field, and may decrease naturalenemy mortality rate (Gurr et al., 1998).Lee et al. (2001) examined the effects ofnon-crop refuge strips on carabidpopulations in corn with and withoutpesticide application. In pesticide treatedareas, they found greater ground beetleabundance in refuge strips than in corn-planted control strips. As the growingseason progressed, ground beetles werealso more abundant in pesticide treatedcrops near refuge strips. These resultsindicate that refuge strips containingperennial flowering plants, legumes, andgrasses benefit ground beetle populationsexposed to in-field disturbances.

Summary

Agricultural landscapes are a mosaic ofcrop and non-crop habitats that supportunique pools of insect pests and theirnatural enemies. The relative abundanceand diversity of these species depends onthe diversity of habitats within thelandscape as well as habitat patch size,arrangement, and connectivity.Understanding the relative ability of alandscape to provide biocontrol agents is acritical first step in implementing anintegrated pest management strategy. Atlocal scales, the relative timing of pest andnatural enemy arrival into the crop, enemyinteractions such as intraguild predation,and the occurrence of key natural enemiesall influence the outcome of pest enemyinteractions. By understanding theresources natural enemies need in orderto be effective, mangers can manipulatelocal cropping systems and the agriculturallandscapes in which they are embeddedto enhance biological control.

87

References

Baggen, L. R., G.M. Gurr, and A. Meats. (1999). Flow-ers in tri-trophic systems: mechanisms allowing se-lective exploitation by insect natural enemies forconservation biological control. Entomologia Ex-perimentalis et Applicata, 91:155-161.

Barbosa, P. (1998). Conservation biological control,396p.. Academic Press, San Diego, California. Colley,M.R., J.M. Luna. (2000). Relative attractivenessof potential beneficial insectary plants to aphi-dophagous hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae). Envi-ronmental Entomology, 29:1054-1059.

Corbett, A. and J.A. Rosenheim. (1996). Impact of a nat-ural enemy overwintering refuge and its interactionwith the surrounding landscape. Ecological Ento-mology, 21:155-164.

Costamagna, A.C. and D.A. Landis. (2006). Predatorsexert top-down control of soybean aphid across agradient of agricultural management systems. Eco-logical Applications, 16:1619-1628.

Costamagna, A. C., D.A. Landis and C.D. DiFonzo.(2007). Suppression of A. glycines by generalistpredators results in a trophic cascade in soybean.Ecological Applications, (in press).

Croft, B. A. (1990). Arthropod Biological Control Agentsand Pesticides, John Wile & Sons, New York.

DeBach, P. and D. Rosen. (1991). Biological Control byNatural Enemies, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Desneux, N., R.J. O'Neil and H.J.S. Yoo. (2006). Sup-pression of population growth of the soybeanaphid, Aphis glycines Matsumura, by predators:The identification of a key preda-tor and the effectsof prey dispersion, predator abundance, and tem-perature. Environmental Entomology, 35:1342-1349.

Dyer, L. E. and D.A. Landis. (1996). Effects of habitat,temperature, and sugar availability on longevity ofEriborus terebrans (Hymenoptera: Ichneu-monidae). Environmental Entomology, 25:1192-1201.

Ehler, L. E. (1998). Conservation biological control: Past,present, and future. In: Conservation BiologicalControl (ed.) P. Barbosa, pp. 1-8. Academic Press,San Diego.

Elliott, N. C., R.W. Kieckhefer, G.J. Michels and K.L.Giles. (2002). Predator abundance in alfalfa fieldsinrelation to aphids, within-field vegetation, andlandscape matrix. Environmental Entomology, 31:253-260.

Eubanks, M.D. and R.F. Denno. (1999). The ecologicalconsequences of variation in plants and prey for anomnivorous insect. Ecology, 80: 1253-1266.Fiedler, A.K. and D.A. Landis. (2007a). At-tractiveness of Michigan Native Plants to ArthropodNatural Enemies and Herbivores. EnvironmentalEntomology,Accepted.

Fiedler, A.K. and D.A. Landis. (2007b). Plant character-istics associated with natural enemy attractivenessto Michigan native plants. Environmental Entomol-ogy,Accepted.

Forehand, L.M., D.B. Orr and H.M. Linker. (2006). Eval-uation of a commercially available beneficial insecthabitat for management of Lepidoptera pests. Jour-nal of Economic Entomology, 99, p. 641-647.

Fox, T.B., D.A. Landis, F.F. Cardoso and C.D. DiFonzo.(2004). Predators suppress Aphis glycines Mat-sumura population growth in soybean. Environ-mental Entomology, 33:608-618.

Frank, S.D. and P.M. Shrewsbury. (2004). Effect of con-servation strips on the abundance and distributionof natural enemies and predation of Agrotisipsilon(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on golf course fair ways.Environmental Entomology, 33:1662-1672.

Gardiner, M.M. and D.A. Landis. (2007). Impact of in-traguild predation by adult Harmonia axyridis(Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) on Aphis glycines(Hemiptera: Aphididae) biological control in cagestudies. Biological Control, 40:386-395.

Gurr, G.M., H.F. van Emden and S.D. Wratten. (1998).Habitat manipulation and natural enemy efficiency:implications for the control of pests. In: Conserva-tion Biological Control (ed.) P. Barbosa, pp.155-183. Academic Press, San Diego.

Harmon, J. P., A.R. Ives, J.E. Losey, A.C. Olson and K.S.Rauwald. (2000). Coleomegilla maculata(Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) predation on peaaphids promoted by proximity to dandelions. Oe-cologia, 125:543-548.

Hickman, J.M. and S.D. Wratten. (1996). Use ofPhacelia tanacetifolia strips to enhance biologicacontrol of aphids by hoverfly larvae in cereal fields.Journal of Economic Entomology, 89:832-840.

Hossain, Z., G.M. Gurr, S.D. Wratten and A. Raman.(2002). Habitat manipulation in lucerneMedicagosativa: arthropod population dynamics in harvestedand 'refuge' crop strips.Journal of Applied Ecology,39:445-454.

Hunter, M.D. (2002). Landscape structure, habitat frag-mentation, and the ecology of insects. Agriculturaland Forest Entomology, 4:159-166.

Johnson, M.W. and B.E. Tabashnik. (1999). Enhancedcontrol through pesticide selectivity. In: Handbookof Biological Control (eds.) T.S.J. Bellows and T.W.Fisher), pp. 297-317. Academic Press, San Diego.

88

Landis, D.A. and W. Van der Werf. (1997). Early-sea-son predation impacts the establishment of aphidsand spread of beet yellows virus in sugar beet. En-tomophaga, 42:499-516.

Landis, D.A., S.D. Wratten and G.M. Gurr. (2000). Habi-tat management to conserve natural enemies ofarthropod pests in agriculture. Annual Reviewof Entomology, 45:175-201.

Lee, J.C. andG.E. Heimpel. (2005). Impact of flower-ing buckwheat on Lepidopteran cabbage pestsand their parasitoids at two spatial scales. Biolog-ical Control, 34:290-301.

Lee, J.C., F.B. Menalled and D.A. Landis. (2001).Refuge habitats modify impact of insecticide dis-turbance on carabid beetle communities. Journalof Applied Ecology, 38:472-483.

Marino, P.C. and D.A. Landis. (1996). Effect of land-scape structure on parasitoid diversity and para-sitism in agroecosystems. Ecological Applications,6: 276-284.

Menalled, F.D., A.C. Costamagna, P.C. Marino and D.A.Landis. (2003). Temporal variation in the responseof parasitoids to agricultural landscape structure.Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment, 96: 29-35.

Menalled, F.D., P.C. Marino, S.H. Gage and D.A. Lan-dis. (1999). Does agricultural landscape structureaffect parasitism and parasitoid diversity? Eco-logical Applications, 9:634-641.

Ostman, O. (2002). Distribution of bird cherry-oataphids (Rhopalosiphum padi (L) in relation to landscape and farming practices. AgricultureEcosystems & Environment, 93: 67-71.

Pickett, C.H., W. Roltsch, and A. Corbett. (2004). Therole of a rubidium marked natural enemy refuge inthe establishment and movement of Bemisia par-asitoids. International Journal of Pest Manage-ment, 50: 183-191.

Pontin, D.R., M.R. Wade, P. Kehrli and S.D. Wratten.(2006). Attractiveness of single and multiplespecies flower patches to beneficial insects inagroecosystems. Annals of Applied Biology,148:39-47.

Prasad, R.P. and W.E. Snyder. (2006). Polyphagycomplicates conservation biological control thattargets generalist predators. Journal of AppliedEcology, 43:343-352.

Rebek, E.J., C.S. Sadof and L.M. Hanks. (2005). Ma-nipulating the abundance of natural enemies inornamental landscapes with floral resource plants.Biological Control, 33:203-216.

Roland, J. and D.G. Embree. (1995). Biological controlof the winter moth. Annual Review of entomology,40:475-492.

Ruberson, J.R., H. Nemoto and Y. Hirose. (1998). Pes-ticides and conservation of natural enemies in pestmanagement. Conservation Biological Control(ed.). P. Barbosa, pp. 207-220. Academic Press,San Diego.

Schmidt, M.H. and T. Tscharntke. (2005). Landscapecontext of sheetweb spider(Araneae: Linyphiidae)abundance in cereal fields. Journal of Biogeog-raphy, 32: 467-473.

Sih, A., G. Englund and D. Wooster. (1998). Emergentimpacts of multiple predators on prey. Trends inEcology & Evolution, 13: 350-355.

Snyder, W.E.and D.H. Wise. (1999). Predator inter-ference and the establishment of generalist pred-ator populations for biocontrol. Biological Control,15:283-292.

Stark, J.D. and J.E. Banks. (2003). Population-leveleffects of pesticides and other toxicants on arthro-pods. Annual Review of Entomology, 48: 505-519.

Symondson, W.O.C., K.D. Sunderland, M.H. Greenstone. (2002). Can generalist predators be effec-tive biocontrol agents? Annual Review of Ento-mology, 47: 561594.

Thies, C., I. Steffan-Dewenter and T. Tscharntke.(2003). Effects of landscape context on herbivoryand parasitism at different spatial scales. Oikos,101, p. 18-25.

Thies, C. and T. Tscharntke. (1999). Landscape struc-ture and biological control in agroecosystems.Science, 285: 893-895.

Tscharntke, T., A.M. Klein, A. Kruess, I. Steffan-Dewenter and C. Thies. (2005). Landscape perspectiveson agricultural intensification and biodiversity—ecosystem service management. Ecology Letters,8: 857-874.

Weiser, L.A., J.J. Obrycki and K.L. Giles. (2003).Within field manipulation of potato leafhopper(Homoptera: Cicadellidae) and insect predatorpopulations using an uncut alfalfa strip. Journal ofEconomic Entomology, 96: 1184-1192.

Wilkinson, T.K. and D.A. Landis (2005). Habitat di-versification in biological control: the role of plantresources. In: Plant-provided food for carnivorousinsects (eds.) F.L.Wackers P.C.J. van Rijnand J.Bruin), pp. 305-325. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, UK; New York.

With, K.A.and A.W. King. (1999). Extinction thresh-olds for species in fractal landscapes, Conserva-tion Biology, 13: 314-326.

Witmer, J.E., J.A. Hough-Goldstein and J.D. Pesek.(2003). Ground-dwelling and foliararthropods infour cropping systems, Environmental Entomology,32:366-376.

89

Agricultural Researchand Funding

The U.S. agricultural system isorganized at Federal, State, University,Private, and Commodity Group levels. TheU.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is afederal agency that funds researchprojects of national or regional relevance.The USDA also plays a regulatory role atthe national level. All 50 states haveagencies similar to the federal USDA.These agencies fund research projectsthat have relevance to individual state’sneeds. They also are responsible for andenforce state regulations. In Michigan, thisagency is titled the Michigan Departmentof Agriculture (MDA). Each state has atleast one Land-Grant University that isdedicated to agricultural development. InMichigan, Michigan State University is theuniversity charged with the mission to meetthe agricultural needs of the state. Theprivate sector funds agricultural researchprojects related to their own interests.Examples would include insecticide,herbicide, and fungicide trials, as well asother projects. Commodity groups fundresearch projects that meet their specificneeds. Monies for these projects areusually obtained by adding a tariff,collected by the commodity group, to theamount of the commodity produced.

Background on the U.S.Land-Grant University Systemand Extension

The U.S. Congress passed the “MorrillAct” in 1862. This act established the LandGrant University System whereby landswere set aside for the development ofinstitutes of higher education to promoteagricultural education. The “Hatch Act”(1887) created the Agricultural ExperimentStation and this act established a methodof using federal monies to fund agriculturalresearch at the university level. In 1914,

Connecting IPM Research with Extension—Walter Pett

Department of Entomology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA

the “Smith LeverAct” was enacted establishingthe Cooperative Extension Service. Thesethree acts set the framework for the LandGrant University Systems leading to ourpresent day mission of Research, Teaching,and Extension.

Michigan State University

Michigan State University is recognizedas the premier land grant public university.It was founded in East Lansing, Michiganin 1885 (Fig 1). The College of Agricultureand Natural Resources (CANR) was thefirst college of the university meeting therole of the land grant mission. Today thereare 17 degree-granting colleges offeringstudies from fine arts to human medicine.

The College of Agriculture and NaturalResources is the lead college for 14departments including Animal Science,Crop and Soil Science, Entomology,Forestry, Horticulture, Plant Pathology, andeight additional departments. Facultymembers of these departments have splitappointments where their time is dividedbetween research, teaching, andextension. This arrangement allows for ameans of disseminating informationobtained from research to the agriculturecommunity through the extension system.

MSU Extension

The mission of MSU Extension is:“Helping people improve their livesthrough an educational process thatapplies knowledge to critical needs,issues, and opportunities”. MSU extensionhas a statewide presence. There are 83counties in Michigan and each county hasan Extension Educator. These educatorsare funded by the county and MSU. Tounderstand the agricultural needs of thestate, Area of Expertise Teams meetperiodically to discuss such issues. Theseteams include faculty members from theuniversity, county extension educators,people from the private sector, andcommodity group personnel.

90

There are 29 Area of Expertise Teams (Table 1) examining issues related to topics rangingfrom the beef industry to water quality.

Figure 1. Map of the U.S. and the State of Michigan.

Beef Food safety Youth developmentChristmas tree Forage/pastures/grazing Land useCommunity development Forestry LeadershipDairy Fruit ManureEconomic development Fisheries and wildlife OrnamentalsEquine Human development PorkFamily resource mang. Tourism PoultryFarm management Vegetables SheepField crops Volunteerism State and local gov.Food nutrition and health Water quality

Table 1. Area of Expertise Teams

Information Dissemination

Information from research isdisseminated by various methods. Theworld-wide-web is a useful tool forproviding information in real time. Weeklynewsletters pertaining to current issuesare published on-line as well as mailed tosubscribers. Faculty members, as well asextension educators, write articles fortrade journals and visit farm sites whereproblems exist. Researchers andeducators from Area of Expertise Teamshave demonstration plots on growers’fields, or at one or more of the university

farms, and conduct field days where theyinteract with the agriculture community.Winter conferences are also a means ofproviding information to growers. At theseconferences researchers from in state aswell as from neighboring states presentfindings from their research efforts.

The Land Grant University system linksresearch and extension by combining theAgricultural Experiment Station, theCooperative Extension System, andcampus and field staff to disseminateinformation to the agricultural community.

Integrated Pest ManagementStakeholders Forumfor Central Asia RegionDushanbe, TajikistanMay 27-29, 2007

Organized by:Institute of International Agriculture, Michigan State Universityand:USAID Integrated Pest ManagementCollaborative Research Support Program (IPM CRSP)

in collaboration with:

• Plant Protection and Quarantine Research Institute of Tajik Academy of Agricultural Science• Institute of zoology and parasitology Academy of Science of Tajikistan• ICARDA/PFU-CGIAR• Oxfam• University of California-Davis, U.S.A.

PART SIX: Program for Central Asia Region IPM Stakeholders Forum

91

92

Program for Central Asia RegionIPM Stakeholders ForumMay 27 - 29, 2007, Dushanbe, Tajikistan

Forum Venue: Kokhi Vakhdat, Rudaki Ave. 105, floor 3,and conference hall 123, Dushanbe, Tajikistan

Sunday, May 27

Chairperson: Dr. Nurali Saidov

8:30 a.m.: Registration

9:00 a.m.: Welcoming RemarksDr. Tolib Nabiev - President of Tajik Academyof Agricultural Science.

9:10 a.m.: Opening RemarksDr. Robert Hedlund, USAID/EGAT/NRM

9:20 am: Introduction of Participants

Session I: Central Asia Region IPM Crsp Program

Chairperson: Dr. George Bird

9:30 a.m. Overview of the IPM CRSP ProgramDr. Karim Maredia and Dr. Dieudonne Baributsa

9:45 a.m. Landscape Ecology and Biological ControlDr. Nurali Saidov and Dr. Doug Landis

10:15 a.m. Coffee/Tea Break

10:45 a.m. Enhancing the Efficiency and Product Lines ofBiolaboratories in Central AsiaDr. Barno Tashpulatova and Dr. Frank Zalom

11:15 a.m. Strengthening IPM Outreach/ Education in theCentral Asia RegionDr. Murat Aitmatov, Dr. George Bird and Dr. Walter Pett

11:45 a.m. Open Discussion

12:00 noon Lunch

93

Session Ii : Linking Central Asia Region WithInternational IPM Programs

Chairperson: Dr. Sagitov Urazovich

1:00 p.m. IPM of Sunn Pest: Current Status and Future PlansDr. Mustapha El Bohssini, ICARDA Syria

1:20 p.m. Applications of Information Technology and Databases in IPMDr. Yulu Xia and Dr. Ron Stinner, IPM-CRSP, North CarolinaState University

1:40 p.m. Integrated Management of Thrips-borne Tospovirus Diseasesin Vegetables CropsDr. Naidu A. Rayapati, IPM-CRSP, Washington St. University

2:00 p.m. OXFAM TajikistanMr. Christophe Viltard and Mr. Peter Pichler

2:30 p.m. Coffee/Tea Break

Session Iii: Country Presentations Of IPM Programs

Chairperson: Dr. Murat Aitmatov

3:00 p.m. IPM Programs in TajikistanDr. Abdusattor Saidov, Institute of Zoology and Parasitology

3:20 p.m. Current State and the prospect for IPM in TajikistanDr. Anvar Jalilov, Vice Director of IPPQ

3:40 p.m. IPM Programs in KazakhstanDr. Sagitov Abai Urazovich, Director of Instituteof Plant Protection

4:00 p.m. IPM Programs in KyrgyzstanDr. Tumanov Janubai Tumanovich—Director of Central Biolaboratory

4:20 p.m. IPM Programs in Kyrgyzstan—ATC PerspectiveMs. Gulnaz Kaseeva- Advisory Training Center

4:40 p.m. Virus Diseases of Plants in UzbekistanDr. Kadirova Zarifa—Institute of Genetics and PlantExperimental Biology

5:00 p.m. General Discussion

5:30 p.m. Adjourn

7:00 p.m. Networking Dinner at Hotel Avesto or at Tea house “Rohat”

94

Monday, May 28

Special Workshops

Chairperson: Dr. Barno Tashpulatova

8:30 a.m. Landscape Ecology and Sustainable AgricultureDr. Doug Landis

10:00 a.m. Coffee/Tea Break

10:30 a.m. Soil Quality Renovation and Maintenance StrategiesDr. George Bird

12:00 noon Lunch

Chairperson: Ms. Gulnaz Kaseeva

1:30 pm. Enhancing Beneficial Insects with Flowering PlantsDr. Doug Landis, MSU and Dr. Nurali Saidov

2:30 p.m. Coffee/Tea Break

3:00 p.m. Plant Parasitic Nematode Management PracticesDr. George Bird

4:00 p.m. Connecting IPM Research with ExtensionDr. Walter Pett

Tuesday, May 29

Field Trips

� Visit to a Research site with Native plants at the Institute of Zoology andParasitology of Tajik Academy of Sciences.

� Visit to Farmer Field School (FFS) site in the Plant Protection and QuarantineResearch Institute of Tajik Academy of Agricultural Sciences (TAAS).

� Visit to a local vegetables farm in Tursunzoda district.

95

Tajikistan

Dr. Tolib Nabiyev, PresidentTajik Academy of Agricultural Sciences44, Rudaki pr. Dushanbe, TajikistanTel.: +992 372 217004, 213757Fax: +992372 215794/510037213757E-mail: taskhn@tojikiston.com

Dr. Khurshed KarimovVice PresidentTajik Academy of Agricultural ScienceAini str. 299/2 Dushanbe, TajikistanTel.: +992 372 258083, 213763E-mail: asrtkarimov@mail.ru

Dr. K. KaharovInstitute of Plant Protection&Quarantine17, Giprozem, Dushanbe, TajikistanTel: +992 372 998811822Mobile: (992-37) 445-04-0464Email: kaharjon@mail.ru

Dr. Ahmadov KhukmatulloMain Scientific SecretaryTajik Academy of Agricultural Science44, Rudaki pr. Dushanbe, TajikistanTel: +992 372 217004, 213757Fax: +992372 215794/510037 213757

Dr. Mustafoqulov U., DirectorInstitute of Plant Protection&Quarantine17, Giprozem, Dushanbe, TajikistanTel: +992 372 998811822Mobile: (992-918) 649884E-mail: taskhn@tojikiston.com

Mr. Murodov UsufHead of Department of Plant protectionand AgrochemicalsMinistry of Agriculture (MA&NPT)74/1, Apart 54, Somoni av.Dushanbe, TajikistanTel.: (992 372) 337127

List of Participants

Central Asia Region IPM Stakeholders ForumMay 27-29, 2007Dushanbe, Tajikistan

Dr. Voris MadaminovHead of Department of Plant QuarantineMinistry of Agriculture (MA&NPT)735004, Shark str., Dushanbe, TajikistanTel.: (992 372) 240416; 249045

Dr. Anvar JalilovVice DirectorPlant Protection and Quarantine Institute17, Giprozem, Dushanbe, TajikistanTel: (992 372) 998811822E-mail: taskhn@tojikiston.com

Dr. Abdusattor SaidovDirectorInstitute Zoology and Parasitology734025, P.O Box 70, Dushanbe,TajikistanTel: (992-372) 4453031Mobile: (992-918) 666893E-mail: abdusattor.s@mail.ru

Dr. Salokhudin MukhidinovHead of Department of SericultureTajik Agricultural University734063, Giprozem str. 1, Apart 1.Dushanbe, TajikistanTel: (992-372) 310773Mr. Osimov ShavkatHead of Department of Plant Protectionof Sogd regionMinistry of Agriculture (MA&NPT)4, Gafurov str., Dushanbe, TajikistanMobile: (992-372) 962001948

Mr. Khasanov MukhtorHead of Department of Plant Protectionof Khatlon RegionMinistry of Agriculture (MA&NPT)Bohtar district, Farm S.SafarovTajikistanTel: (992-919) 062893

96

Mr. Mamadrizohonov KushvarHead of Department of Plant Protectionof Gornobadakhshan Autonomy OblastMinistry of Agriculture (MA&NPT)4, Aini str., HorogTajikistanTel: 233-71-27

Mr. Davlatov SirojidinHead of Department of Plant Protectionof Rasht regionMinistry of Agriculture (MA&NPT)Tajikabad District, farm KizikchiTajikistan

Mr. Kholmatov SaidaliHead of Department of Plant Protectionof Tursunzjda DistrictMinistry of Agriculture (MA&NPT)88, Lomonosov av.,Apart 49Tajikistan

Dr. Muhamadi TashpulatovHead Department of Plant protectionTajik Agricultural University734017, 144, Rudaki av., Dushanbe,Tajikistan

Dr. Taigunsho BulbulshoevDirector the Pamirs Research StationTajik Academy of Agricultural Science700001, Khorog, Lenin av., 15TajikistanTel: (992-352-20) 60-21E-mail: bulbulshoev@mail.ru

Dr. Rizoeva ZeboDirector Sugd Branch of ZiroatkorTajik Academy of Agricultural ScienceKhojent, Lenin av., 127TajikistanMobile: (992-927) 700350

Mr. Azam IbodoeAssist of Reg Director.Coordinator of DWHH32 Pavlojastvet, DushanbeTel: (992 372) 24-2454E-mail: azamjonibadou@mail.zu

Mr. Erov AhmadHead Department of cereals cultural,Hatlon Branch of Ziroatkor,Tajik Academy of Agricultural ScienceTajikistan

Dr. Muminov N.N.Head of Department of InvertebrateAnimal SystematicInstitute of Zoology and Parasitology734025, P.O Box 70,Dushanbe, TajikistanTel: (992-372) 4453031

Mr. Vokhid NazirovInstitute of Zoology and Parasitology734025, P.Box 70, Dushanbe,TajikistanTel: (992-372) 4453031

Mr. Dilshod HotamovInstitute of Plant Protection & Quarantine17, Giprozem, Dushanbe,TajikistanEmail:dilsod.1982.07@mail.ruPhone: (99291)-9194406

Kazakhstan

Dr. Sagitov Abai UrazovichDirectorPlant Protection InstituteMinistry of AgricultureAlmata, KazakhstanTel: 73272 295609E-mail: a.sagitov@mail.ru

Kyrgyzstan

Mr. Tumanov Janibai TumanovichDirectorCentral BiolaboratoryMinistry of AgricultureJuiski region Sokulukski District,KyrgyzstanTel: +996 (0) 312 624268; 624269Mobile: +996 0502 550671E-mail: biocenter@netmail.kg

97

Turkmenistan

Dr. Geldiev MeridgeldiHead of Department of Plant ProtectionMinistry of Agriculture744020, 2060 (30) Str. Ashgabat,TurkmenistanTel.: (993-12) 351393

Uzbekistan

Dr. Sagdullaev A. Umarovich, DirectorPlant Protection InstituteMinistry of Agriculture and Water IndustryUzNIIZR-140, Tashkent, UzbekistanTel: (998 712) 637520Fax: (998 712) 636894Mobile: (998-9897) 7021766E-mail: biolab@mail.ru

Dr. Kadirova ZarifaInst. of Genetics and Plant Exper. BiologyAcademy of Sciences of UzbekistanUzbekistanE-mail: zarifakodirova@yahoo.comPhone: (998712)-647655Fax: (998712)-2642230

USA

Dr. Robert HedlundIPM and Natural Resources ManagementUSAID/EGAT/NRMRm. 2.11-91, Ronald Reagan Building1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NWWashington, D.C. 20523-2110Tel: (202) 712-4188Fax: (202) 216-3010E-mail: rhedlund@usaid.gov

Dr. Karim MarediaDirector of IPM CRSP ProjectInstitute of International Agriculture416 Plant & Soil Sciences BuildingMichigan State UniversityEast Lansing, MI 48824, USATel: 517-353-5262Fax: 517-432-1982E-mail: kmaredia@msu.edu

Dr. George BirdDepartment of Entomology38A Natural Science BuildingMichigan State UniversityEast Lansing, MI 48824, USAPhone: (517) 353-3890Email: birdg@msu.edu

Dr. Walter Pett439 Natural Science BuildingDepartment of EntomologyMichigan State UniversityEast Lansing, Michigan 48824, USAPhone: (517) 4323-0900Email: pett@msu.eduDr. Douglas LandisDepartment of EntomologyMichigan State University204 CIPS, MSU, E. Lansing, MI 48824,USATel: 517-353-1829/Fax: 517-353-5598E-mail: landisd@msu.edu

Dr. Dieudonne BaributsaProgram Assistant, IPM CRSP ProjectInstitute of International Agriculture332 Natural Science BuildingMichigan State UniversityEast Lansing, MI 48824, USATel: 517-432-5525Fax: 517-353-1888E-mail: baributs@msu.edu

Dr. Ron StinnerDirector, NSF Center for IPMNorth Carolina State University1730 Varsity Dr. Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27606, U.S.A.Tel: 919-513-8178, Fax: 919-513-1114E-mail: rstinner@cipm.info

Dr.Yulu Xia, Assistant DirectorInternational Programs, NSF Center forIPMNorth Carolina State University1730 Varsity Dr. Suite 110Raleigh, NC 27606, U.S.A.Tel: 919-513-8187, Fax: 919-513-1114E-mail: yulu_xia@ncsu.edu

98

Dr. Naidu A.RayapatiDepartment of Plant PathologyIrrigated Agriculture Research &Experiment StationWashington State UniversityProsser, WA 99350, U.S.A.Phone: 509-786-9215Fax: 509-786-9370E-mail: naidu@wsu.edu

ICARDA-PFU

Dr. Surendra BeniwalHead ICARDA PFU-CGIARP.O. Box 4564, 6 Murtazaev Str.,Tashkent 700000, UZBEKISTANTel: 998 71 137 2130 137 2169

Dr. Mustafa EL BouhssiniSenior EntomologistICARDA-HQP.O. Box 5466, Tel Hadya,Aleppo, SYRIATel: (963 21) 221 3433/2225012/2225112Fax: 963 21 221 3490E-mail: m.bohssini@cgiar.org

Dr. Nurali SaidovIPM CRSP Program Team Leader forCentral Asia Region, ICARDA-CACP.O. Box 4564, 6 Murtazaev Str.,Tashkent 700000, UZBEKISTANTel: 998 71 137 2130 137 2169Fax: 998 71 120 7125E-mail: n.saidov@cgiar.org

Dr. Barno TashpulatovaResearch Fellow IPM CRSP ProgramICARDA-CACP.O. Box 4564, 6 Murtazaev Str.,Tashkent 700000,UZBEKISTANTel: 998 71 137 2130 137 2169Fax: 998 71 120 7125E-mail: b.tashpulatova@cgiar.org

Dr. Murat AitmatovEducation Fellow IPM CRSP ProgramICARDA-CACP.O. Box 4564, 6 Murtazaev Str.,Tashkent 700000, UZBEKISTANTel: 998 71 137 2130 137 2169Fax: 998 71 120 7125E-mail: m.aitmatov@cgiar.org

NGOs and Farmers

Ms. Petra GeraedtsInternational AdvisorHelvetas Advisory Training Center43/1, Grajdanskaya st. 720022, Bishkek,KyrgyzstanTel: 996 (0) 312 682027; 682021Fax : 996 (0) 312 682027Mobile: 0517 774524E-mail: ksap-atc@helvetas.kg

Ms. Gulnaz KaseevaIPM Coordinator – ATC-RAS43/1, Grajdanskaya st. 720022, Bishkek,KyrgyzstanTel: 996 (0) 312 682027; 682021E-mail: atc@atc.org.kg

Mr. Gaffor TolibzodaTraining CoordinatorTacis/SITAF, KulobKyrgyzstanE-mail: gtolibzoda@mail.ru

Mr. Peter PichlerCountry Program ManagerOxfam GB – Tajikistan53, Ibn Sino StreetP.O.Box 183 Dushanbe, 734025KyrgyzstanTEL: 992 372 24 53 53 / 21 22 42 ext 103FAX: 992 372 24 76 42Mobile 992 907 716 212E-mail: ppichler@oxfam.org.uk

Mr. Steven A. ZyckCountry DirectorACTED15, Rajabov Street,Dushanbe, KyrgyzstanE-mail: steven.zyck@acted.org

99

Dr. Negmatullo SafarovNational CoordinatorConvention of BiodiversityTajikistan

Mr. Christophe ViltardCoordinatorFood Security and Livelihood programOxfam GB Tajikistan, KulyabP.O.Box 183 Dushanbe, 734025KyrgyzstanCell Phone: +992 918 98 56 17Email: CViltard@oxfam.org.uk

Mr. Uwe ScholzInternational advisorAgricultural Extension Training Center(TES) Osh, KyrgyzstanE-mail: uwemscholz@netscape.net