4.2 Article

Impact of integrated pest management farmer field school programs in the subtropics of Jammu and Kashmir, India

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09670874.2022.2111617

关键词

Integrated pest management; farmer field school; impact evaluation; adoption; pesticide use

资金

  1. ICAR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study revealed significant differences in pesticide use between rice and vegetable farmers in the subtropical region of Jammu and Kashmir. Rice farmers did not use insecticides and fungicides, while vegetable farmers reduced the number of pesticide applications but increased the amount of pesticide active ingredients used, mainly due to increased fungicide use. Additionally, vegetable farmers trained for a longer period reported using more pesticides compared to those trained for a shorter period.
To quantify the long-term impacts of integrated pest management farmer field school (IPM-FFS) program on rice and vegetables in the subtropics of Jammu and Kashmir, we conducted a field study using latitudinal comparison (with vs. without FFS) and cross-sectional longitudinal comparisons. Our results show contrasting use of pesticides by both rice and vegetable farmers in the subtropical region of Jammu. Rice cultivation in the study area was found to be free of insecticides and fungicides. In vegetable crops, IPM-FFS farmers reduced the number of pesticide applications by 7% but used 27.8% higher amounts of pesticide active ingredients resulting in 59% higher field use environmental impact quotient of pesticide use, mainly driven by the higher fungicide use. Over time, the impact of IPM-FFS fleet as the farmers trained 4-8 years before the survey reported significantly higher number of pesticide applications in vegetable crops (by 49%) compared to those trained 1-3 years. We suggest that IPM dissemination should be reoriented for rationalizing pesticide use, as long-term outcomes of reduced pesticide use do not present a positive impact.

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