4.2 Article

Efficacy of insect nets for cabbage production and pest management depending on the net removal frequency and microclimate

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PEST MANAGEMENT
卷 60, 期 3, 页码 208-216

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09670874.2014.956844

关键词

mesh size; cabbage; subequatorial climate; insect net; pest management; Mediterranean climate

资金

  1. United States Agency for International Development (USAID) [EPP-A-00-09-00004]
  2. Michigan State University
  3. Centre de cooperation internationale en recherche agronomique pour le developpement (CIRAD)
  4. A to Z Textile Mills in Tanzania
  5. Institut National des Recherches Agricoles du Benin (INRAB)
  6. Association des Personnes Renovatrices des Technologies Traditionnelles (APRETECTRA) in Benin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In Africa, synthetic pesticide applications are overly frequent and above labelled rates. We assessed the efficacy of an insect net physical control system on field cabbage (Brassica oleracea var. capitata) production in France and Benin. Various mesh sizes and netting removal frequencies were compared under contrasting climatic conditions. Studies under Mediterranean climatic conditions (spring season) compared two mesh sizes (0.73 mm and 1.6 mm). Studies under subequatorial climatic conditions (cool and hot seasons) tested nets of mesh size 0.4 mm and 0.9 mm used either as permanent cover, removed daily, or 3days per week. The results showed that a fine mesh did not improve the netting efficacy against pests but had a major impact on the microclimate. In Mediterranean climatic conditions, the netting efficacy and beneficial microclimate improved crop yields. In subequatorial conditions, crop yields were lowest with permanent net protection due to high temperatures under the nets and poor aphid and Spodoptera littoralis control. Removing the nets 3days per week was a good technical/economic trade-off, ensuring acceptable efficacy with minimal effects on the microclimate.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据