IPM of mirids in Australian cotton: Why and when pest managers spray for mirids
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) aims to maintain pests below an economic threshold to avoid yield loss without resorting to unnecessary insecticide applications, rather than eradicate all pests in a crop. However, convincing growers to spray only if pest numbers exceed a threshold can be difficult, especially if the threshold changes in response to external factors, as in the case of mirids. The aim of this work was to establish if the mirid thresholds were adhered to by growers, and if not, when they were relaxed. The results showed that pest managers in this survey were following the guidelines recommended for mirid management, but in a conservative manner. Pest managers accepted the threshold for mirid numbers developed for visual surveys, but not the threshold developed for beatsheets. When retention rate and mirid numbers were low, the fruit retention threshold was used to trigger a spray application; but there was no evidence that high retention rates were used to withhold a spray application. There was a high reliance on Fipronil (Regent) to control mirids. This chemical accounted for 63% of the insecticides in the 2006/2007 survey, and was often applied multiple times to fields at low rates. There was no cost to yield in following the mirid thresholds, vindicating the recommended thresholds for mirids. The ultimate aim of this work is to support the further development of IPM in cotton. A discussion of IPM revealed that the cotton industry in Australia is well positioned to support and further develop IPM in cotton, especially given its policy to develop Best Management Practice (BMP). However, differences in interpretive knowledge by the stakeholders appeared to be inhibiting the development of mirid IPM. This common problem in multi-disciplined groups may account for the reluctance of pest managers to adjust their mirid threshold in respect to sampling method.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Sydorovych, Olha & Wossink, Ada, 2008. "The meaning of agricultural sustainability: Evidence from a conjoint choice survey," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 10-20, July.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:104:y:2011:i:1:p:30-41. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamier, Wendy)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.