Advertisement

Entomophaga

, Volume 41, Issue 3–4, pp 387–404 | Cite as

From researcher to farmer: The use of extension programs to transfer biological control technology in developed countries

  • D. L. Mahr
Article
  • 45 Downloads

Abstract

Effective use of biological control by the pest manager requires knowledge of the biologies of the pests and natural enemies, and their interactions with their environment and agronomic practices. Manufacturers provide information for products such as microbial pesticides and entomophagous arthropods used in augmentative biological control. However, information about process-oriented methods such as classical (importation) biological control and conservation of natural enemies is not often available to the farmer. Governmental extension programs are one method for providing practical biological control information, but availability in developed countries varies considerably. Examples of transfer of biological control information are provided for New Zealand, Canada, and Australia.

In the United States, the Extension Service, a branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, provides partial funding and coordination for pest management educational programs conducted at the national, regional, state and local levels. In a twelve-state region of the North Central United States, university extension and research entomologists have developed a coordinated program to educate county extension personnel, farmers, and private consultants about the use of biological controls in pest management. The details of this model program are discussed.

The paper concludes with a discussion of the educational constraints that must be overcome to successfully increase the adoption of biological control.

Key-words

technology transfer farmer education Extension Service natural enemies pest management policy IPM. 

Du chercheur au cultivateur : mise en place de programmes de vulgarisation pour le transfert de technologies en lutte biologique dans les pays industrialisés

Résumé

Afin d’utiliser au mieux la lutte biologique, tout responsable doit connaître la biologie des nuisibles et celle de leurs ennemis naturels, ainsi que leurs interactions avec l’environnement et les pratiques agronomiques. Les compagnies fournissent, certes, des informations concernant des produits comme les pesticides microbiens ou les arthropodes entomophages mis en oeuvre dans le cadre de la lutte biologique augmentative. Lorsqu’il s’agit de procédures plus complexes, comme la lutte biologique classique (importations) ou la conservation d’ennemis naturels, les informations adéquates ne sont en revanche pas souvent mises à disposition des cultivateurs. Les programmes gouvernementaux de vulgarisation représentent un bon moyen pour véhiculer des informations pratiques en matière de lutte biologique, mais leur degré de développement varie considérablement entre les pays industrialisés. Des exemples de transfert organisé d’informations en lutte biologique sont décrits tels qu’ils existent en Nouvelle-Zélande, Australie et Canada.

Aux Etats-Unis, le Service de Vulgarisation du Département Américain de l’Agriculture (USDA) finance et coordonne en partie des programmes de formation en gestion des populations de nuisibles aux niveaux national, régional, d’un état, voire local. Dans 12 états de la région centre-nord des Etats-Unis, les entomologistes responsables de la vulgarisation et de la recherche universitaires ont développé un programme coordonné de formation en matière d’utilisation de la lutte biologique dans la gestion des nuisibles s’adressant aux responsables de la vulgarisation dans les comtés, aux cultivateurs et aux consultants privés. Ce programme modèle est décrit en détail.

En conclusion, les contraintes qui doivent être surmontées en termes de formation afin d’augmenter de manière significative l’adoption de la lutte biologique sont discutées

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anon. - No date. Loosestrife on the loose. -Illinois Natural Hist. Surv., unnumbered publ.Google Scholar
  2. Corrigan, J. E. - - 1995. No date. Biological control of purple loosestrife: severe plant damage observed at release sites after three generations of beetle activity. -Biol. Control Lab., Univ. of Guelph, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  3. Delfosse, E. S., Lewis, R. C. &Hasan, S. - 1995. Release of Uromyces heliotropii in Australia: A key agent in the integrated pest management system for common heliotrope. - In:Delfosse E. S. &Scott, R. R. (eds). Proc. Eighth Internat. Symp. on Biol. Control of Weeds. -DSIR/CSIRO, Melbourne, 329–336.Google Scholar
  4. Edwards, C. R. &Ford, R. E. - 1992. Integrated pest management in the corn/soybean agroeco- system. In:Zalom F. G. &Fry, W. E. (eds). Food, crop pests, and the environment. -APS Press, St. Paul, Minn., 13–55.Google Scholar
  5. Fitzner, M. S. - 1993. The role of education in the transfer of biological control technologies. In:Lumsden R. D. & Vaughn, J. L. (eds). Pest management: biologically based techologies. -Amer. Chem. Soc., Washington, DC., 382-33 387.Google Scholar
  6. Freeman, T. E. & Charudattan, R. - 1984.Cercospora rodmanii Conway, a biocontrol agent for water hyacinth. -Univ. Florida, Gainesville Tech. Bull. 842, 18 p.Google Scholar
  7. Frisbie, R. E. - 1989. Critical issues facing IPM technology transfer. In: Proceedings, National Integrated Pest Management SymposiumNVorkshop, Las Vegas, Nevada, April 25–28, 1989. -Communications Services, New York State Agric. Exp. Sta., Cornell Univ., Geneva, N.Y 157–162.Google Scholar
  8. Frisbie, R. E., Hardee, D. D. & L. T. Wilson, L. T. - 1992. Biologically intensive integrated pest management: future choices for cotton. In:Zalom F. G. & Fry, W. E. (eds.). Food, crop pests, and the environment. -APS Press, St. Paul, Minn., 57–81.Google Scholar
  9. Frisbie, R. E. &McWhorter, G. M. - 1986. Implementing a statewide pest management program for Texas, U.S.A. In:Palti J. &Ausher, R. (eds). Advisory work in crop pest and disease management. -Springer-Verlag, N.Y., 234–262.Google Scholar
  10. Grieshop, J. L, Zalom, F. G. &Miyao, G. - 1988. Adoption and diffusion of Integrated Pest Management innovations in agriculture. -Bull. Entomol. Soc. Amer., 34: 72–78.Google Scholar
  11. Grindell, J, M. - 1995. Biological control of weeds extension programmes in New Zealand. In:Delfosse E. S. &Scott, R. R. (eds). Proc. Eighth Internat. Symp. on Biol. Control of Weeds. -DSIR/CSIRO, Melbourne, 617–620.Google Scholar
  12. Henderson, D. E. & Raworth, D. A. - 1991. Beneficial insects and common pests on strawberry and raspberry crops. -Agric. Canada Publ. 1863/E, 33 p.Google Scholar
  13. Van Lenteren, J. C. - 1989. Implementation and commercialization of biological control in West Europe. In: International symposium on biological control implementation, proceedings and ab- stracts. -N. Amer. Plant Protect. Org. Bull. No. 6, 50–70.Google Scholar
  14. Wintersteen, W., Giles, K., Higley, L., Rice, M. & Obrycki, J. - 1992. Biological control of the alfalfa weevil in Iowa. -Iowa State Univ. Ext. Publ. Pm-1484, 3 p.Google Scholar
  15. Wright, R. J.—1995. Biological control of insect and mite pests. -Univ. Nebr. Ext. Publ. G95-1251-A, 4 p.Google Scholar
  16. Zalom, F. G., & Fry, W. E. - 1992. Biologically intensive IPM for vegetable crops. In:Zalom F. G. & Fry, W. E. (eds). Food, crop pests, and the environment. -APS Press, St. Paul, Minn., 107–165.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Lavoisier Abonnements 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EntomologyUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations