Eco-Friendly Nets and Floating Row Covers Reduce Pest Infestation and Improve Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) Yields for Smallholder Farmers in Kenya
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Site
2.2. Planting Material, Experimental Design, and Treatments
2.3. Land Preparation and Maintenance Practices
2.4. Data Collection
2.5. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Weed Population
3.2. Insect Pest Population
3.3. Yield
Treatment * | Leafminers (no./plant) DAT ** | Cotton bollworms (no./plant) DAT | Onion thrips (no./plant) DAT | Mites (no./plant) DAT | Silverleaf whiteflies (no./plant) DAT | Aphids (no./plant) DAT | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
30 | 93 | 30 | 93 | 30 | 93 | 30 | 93 | 30 | 93 | 30 | 93 | |
Season one | ||||||||||||
Untreated control | 0.64 a *** | 2.64 a | 0.39 ab | 3.00 a | 0.61 a | 3.53 a | 0.70 a | 6.84 a | 2.81 a | 8.13 a | 4.07 a | 9.00 a |
Treated control | 0.13 c | 0.20 b | 0.14 cd | 0.18 b | 0.30 bc | 0.29 b | 0.24 cde | 0.23 b | 0.44 cd | 0.24 b | 0.46 cd | 0.24 b |
FRC permanent | 0.14 c | 0.10 b | 0.14 cd | 0.16 b | 0.13 c | 0.17 b | 0.13 e | 0.16 b | 0.14 d | 0.13 b | 0.18 d | 0.16 b |
0.4-mm EFN permanent | 0.11 c | 0.17 b | 0.10 d | 0.14 b | 0.13 c | 0.11 b | 0.17 e | 0.29 b | 0.27 d | 0.35 b | 0.46 cd | 0.37 b |
0.9-mm EFN permanent | 0.23 bc | 0.36 b | 0.27 bc | 0.35 b | 0.30 c | 0.40 b | 0.43 bc | 0.39 b | 0.93 bc | 0.50 b | 0.81 bc | 0.46 b |
FRC opened | 0.37 b | 0.24 b | 0.36 ab | 0.21 b | 0.33 b | 0.33 b | 0.33 cd | 0.36 b | 0.62 bcd | 0.36 b | 0.44 cd | 0.30 b |
0.4-mm EFN opened | 0.27 bc | 0.33 b | 0.32 ab | 0.35 b | 0.58 a | 0.42 b | 0.63 ab | 0.35 b | 0.58 bcd | 0.64 b | 0.9 bc | 0.47 b |
0.9-mm EFN opened | 0.35 b | 0.36 b | 0.46 a | 0.33 b | 0.53 a | 0.42 b | 0.64 a | 0.40 b | 1.04 b | 0.60 b | 0.93 b | 0.58 b |
Season two | ||||||||||||
Untreated control | 0.66 a | 2.31 a | 0.49 a | 2.42 a | 0.74 a | 3.36 a | 0.84 a | 5.57 a | 2.73 a | 6.56 a | 3.60 a | 9.30 a |
Treated control | 0.30 cde | 0.31 bc | 0.24 bc | 0.49 cd | 0.37 bc | 0.34 bc | 0.36 bc | 0.40 cd | 0.60 d | 0.57 cd | 0.50 c | 0.39 de |
FRC permanent | 0.13 f | 0.11 c | 0.11 cd | 0.11 f | 0.17 d | 0.14 c | 0.14 c | 0.17 e | 0.20 f | 0.23 e | 0.23 e | 0.23 e |
0.4-mm EFN permanent | 0.14 ef | 0.16 c | 0.10 d | 0.20 ef | 0.23 cd | 0.18 c | 0.17 c | 0.29 de | 0.46 e | 0.40 de | 0.29 de | 0.33 de |
0.9-mm EFN permanent | 0.23 def | 0.33 bc | 0.26 b | 0.37 de | 0.37 bc | 0.33 bc | 0.42 b | 0.42 cd | 1.27 c | 0.57 cd | 0.53 bc | 0.50 cd |
FRC opened | 0.40 bc | 0.30 bc | 0.36 ab | 0.47 cd | 0.33 cd | 0.37 bc | 0.34 bc | 0.40 cd | 0.57 de | 0.54 cd | 0.44 cd | 0.42 de |
0.4-mm EFN opened | 0.36 bcd | 0.46 b | 0.34 ab | 0.64 bc | 0.61 a | 0.46 b | 0.67 a | 0.51 bc | 1.33 c | 0.71 bc | 0.63 bc | 0.68 bc |
0.9-mm EFN opened | 0.47 b | 0.51 b | 0.43 a | 0.74 b | 0.56 ab | 0.50 b | 0.76 a | 0.58 b | 1.65 b | 0.83 b | 0.71 b | 0.73 b |
Treatment * | Total fruit number (no./plant) | Marketable fruit number (no./plant) | Non-marketable fruit number (no./plant) | % Yield loss per plant |
---|---|---|---|---|
Untreated control | 20.6 bc ** | 15.9 e | 4.7 a | 22.8 a |
Treated control | 19.4 e | 17.7 d | 1.7 c | 8.8 c |
FRC permanent | 21.5 a | 21.0 a | 0.5 f | 2.3 g |
0.4-mm EFN permanent | 20.3 c | 19.5 b | 0.8 e | 3.9 f |
0.9-mm EFN permanent | 19.4 e | 17.9 cd | 1.4 d | 7.2 d |
FRC opened | 21.3 ab | 20.0 b | 1.3 d | 6.1 e |
0.4-mm EFN opened | 20.2 cd | 18.4 c | 1.8 c | 8.9 c |
0.9-mm EFN opened | 19.5 de | 17.4 d | 2.1 b | 10.7 b |
Treatment * | Total fresh weight (kg/plant) | Marketable fruit weight (kg/plant) | Non-marketable fruit weight (kg/plant) | % Yield loss per plant |
---|---|---|---|---|
Untreated control | 1.9 g ** | 1.5 f | 0.44 a | 21.1 a |
Treated control | 2.2 f | 2.0 e | 0.19 c | 9.1 c |
FRC permanent | 3.8 a | 3.7 a | 0.09 e | 2.6 g |
0.4-mm EFN permanent | 3.1 c | 3.0 c | 0.13 d | 3.2 f |
0.9-mm EFN permanent | 2.6 ed | 2.4 d | 0.19 c | 7.7 cd |
FRC opened | 3.4 b | 3.2 b | 0.21 c | 5.9 e |
0.4-mm EFN opened | 3.0 d | 2.4 d | 0.24 b | 7.4 de |
0.9-mm EFN opened | 2.4 ef | 2.1 e | 0.25 b | 12.5 b |
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ortiz, R.; Hartmann, P. Beyond Crop Technology: The Challenge for African Rural Development; International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA): Ibadan, Nigeria, 2003; p. 46. [Google Scholar]
- Abate, T.; van Huis, A.; Ampofo, J.K.O. Pest management strategies in traditional agriculture: An African perspective. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 2000, 45, 631–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tumwine, J.; Frinking, H.D.; Jedger, M.J. Integrated cultural control methods for tomato late blight (Phytophthora infestans) in Uganda. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2002, 14, 225–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, T.; Assogba-Komlan, F.; Houndete, T.; Hougard, J.M.; Chandre, F. Efficacy of mosquito netting for sustainable small holder’s cabbage production in Africa. J. Econ. Entomol. 2006, 99, 450–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bextine, B.; Wayadande, A. Effect of insect exclusion on the incidence of yellow vine disease and of the associated bacterium in squash. Plant Dis. 2001, 85, 875–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berlinger, M.J.; Taylor, R.A.J.; Lebiush-Mordechi, S.; Shalhevet, S.; Spharim, I. Efficiency of insect exclusion screens for preventing whitefly transmission of tomato yellow leaf curl virus of tomatoes in Israel. Bull. Entomol. Res. 2002, 92, 367–373. [Google Scholar]
- Boisclair, J.; Bernard, E. Insect pest management in organic agriculture: Acting in harmony with complexity. Phytoprotection 2006, 87, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Licciardi, S.; Assogba-Komlan, F.; Sidick, I.; Chandre, F.; Hougard, J.M.; Martin, T. A temporary tunnel screen as an eco-friendly method for small-scale farmers to protect cabbage crops in Benin. Intl. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 2007, 27, 152–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Majumdar, A. Large-Scale Net-House for Vegetable Production: Pest Management Successes and Challenges for a New Technology; Alabama Cooperative Extension System: Auburn, AL, USA, 2010; p. 350. [Google Scholar]
- Waterer, D.; Bantle, J.; Leray, K. Plant Growth Control by Photoselective Filters; Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food University of Saskatchewan: Saskatoon, SK, Canada, 2001; p. 200. [Google Scholar]
- Shahak, Y.; Gussakovsky, E.E.; Gal, E.; Ganelevin, R. ColorNets: Crop protection and light quality manipulation in one technology. ISHS Acta Horticult. 2004, 659, 143–151. [Google Scholar]
- Gogo, E.O.; Saidi, M.; Itulya, F.M.; Martin, T.; Ngouajio, M. Microclimate modification using eco-friendly nets for high quality tomato transplant production by small-scale farmers in East Africa. HortTechnology 2012, 22, 292–298. [Google Scholar]
- Muleke, E.M.; Saidi, M.; Itulya, F.M.; Martin, T.; Ngouajio, M. The assessment of the use of eco-friendly nets to ensure sustainable cabbage seedling production in Africa. Agronomy 2013, 3, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Joubert, G.; Poissonie, J. Tomatoes: Production under nets. Infos-Paris 1991, 69, 37–42. [Google Scholar]
- Kassilly, F.N. The fence as a moderator of wildlife menace in Kenya. Afr. J. Ecol. 2002, 40, 407–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naika, S.; de Jeude, J.; de Goffau, M.; Hilmi, M.; van Dam, B. Cultivation of Tomato: Production, Processing and Marketing; Agromisa Foundation and CTA: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2005; p. 91. [Google Scholar]
- Aoki, H. Present and future protected horticulture of vegetables. Faming Japan. 1995, 29, 20–24. [Google Scholar]
- Gordon, G.G. Effects of Color Plastic Mulches and Row Covers on the Growth and Production of Okra and Summer Squash. Master’s Thesis, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA, May 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Gaye, M.M.; Maurer, A.R. Modified transplant production techniques to increase yield and improve earliness of brussels sprouts. J. Am. Soc. Hortcult. Sci. 1991, 116, 210–214. [Google Scholar]
- El-Aidy, F.; Sidaros, S.A. The effect of protected tomato seedling on growth and yield of late summer tomato in Egypt. Cah. Options Mediterr. 1996, 31, 385–389. [Google Scholar]
- Nair, A.; Ngouajio, M. Integrating row covers and soil amendments for organic cucumber production: Implications on crop growth, yield, and microclimate. HortScience 2010, 45, 566–574. [Google Scholar]
© 2014 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
Share and Cite
Gogo, E.O.; Saidi, M.; Itulya, F.M.; Martin, T.; Ngouajio, M. Eco-Friendly Nets and Floating Row Covers Reduce Pest Infestation and Improve Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) Yields for Smallholder Farmers in Kenya. Agronomy 2014, 4, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy4010001
Gogo EO, Saidi M, Itulya FM, Martin T, Ngouajio M. Eco-Friendly Nets and Floating Row Covers Reduce Pest Infestation and Improve Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) Yields for Smallholder Farmers in Kenya. Agronomy. 2014; 4(1):1-12. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy4010001
Chicago/Turabian StyleGogo, Elisha O., Mwanarusi Saidi, Francis M. Itulya, Thibaud Martin, and Mathieu Ngouajio. 2014. "Eco-Friendly Nets and Floating Row Covers Reduce Pest Infestation and Improve Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) Yields for Smallholder Farmers in Kenya" Agronomy 4, no. 1: 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy4010001
APA StyleGogo, E. O., Saidi, M., Itulya, F. M., Martin, T., & Ngouajio, M. (2014). Eco-Friendly Nets and Floating Row Covers Reduce Pest Infestation and Improve Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) Yields for Smallholder Farmers in Kenya. Agronomy, 4(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy4010001