| Literature DB >> 27504826 |
Theresa Liebig1,2,3, Laurence Jassogne2, Eric Rahn1,2,4, Peter Läderach1, Hans-Michael Poehling3, Patrick Kucel5, Piet Van Asten2, Jacques Avelino6,7,8,9.
Abstract
The scientific community has recognized the importance of integrating farmer's perceptions and knowledge (FPK) for the development of sustainable pest and disease management strategies. However, the knowledge gap between indigenous and scientific knowledge still contributes to misidentification of plant health constraints and poor adoption of management solutions. This is particularly the case in the context of smallholder farming in developing countries. In this paper, we present a case study on coffee production in Uganda, a sector depending mostly on smallholder farming facing a simultaneous and increasing number of socio-ecological pressures. The objectives of this study were (i) to examine and relate FPK on Arabica Coffee Pests and Diseases (CPaD) to altitude and the vegetation structure of the production systems; (ii) to contrast results with perceptions from experts and (iii) to compare results with field observations, in order to identify constraints for improving the information flow between scientists and farmers. Data were acquired by means of interviews and workshops. One hundred and fifty farmer households managing coffee either at sun exposure, under shade trees or inter-cropped with bananas and spread across an altitudinal gradient were selected. Field sampling of the two most important CPaD was conducted on a subset of 34 plots. The study revealed the following findings: (i) Perceptions on CPaD with respect to their distribution across altitudes and perceived impact are partially concordant among farmers, experts and field observations (ii) There are discrepancies among farmers and experts regarding management practices and the development of CPaD issues of the previous years. (iii) Field observations comparing CPaD in different altitudes and production systems indicate ambiguity of the role of shade trees. According to the locality-specific variability in CPaD pressure as well as in FPK, the importance of developing spatially variable and relevant CPaD control practices is proposed.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27504826 PMCID: PMC4978507 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159392
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Study area.
Location of the study area within the Ugandan Mount Elgon area and the districts of the study area (Bulambuli, Kapchorwa and Sironko) with indicated sub counties and three altitude ranges determined by means of a cluster analysis.
Fig 2Methodological framework of the study.
Comparison between FPK, expert knowledge and field observations with regard to a selection of variables related to CPaD and along a gradient of altitude and production system. Horizontal dashed arrows indicate between which levels (Farmers, Experts, Field) the variables have been compared to. Roman and Arabic numerals correspond to collection and analysis of data as described in the subsequent sections. (i) Farmer survey, (ii) Expert workshop, (iii) Pest and disease field assessments, 1-7 correspond to the sequence of questions asked to farmers shown in Table 1.
List of questions posed to the farmers.
| 1 | Is CPaD present? |
| 2 | How severe is CPaD? Please score severity (1 = CPaD present but not a problem; 2 = minor problem; 3 = intermediate problem; 4 = severe problem; 5 = major problem) |
| 3 | Has the severity of CPaD changed over the last 5 years? |
| 4 | How do you control CPaD? |
| 5 | Do you think that the applied control strategies are effective? |
| 6 | Have you met an extension officer in the last year? If yes, which recommendations did you get? |
| 7 | Do you think that shade trees or bananas can influence CPaD? If yes, why? |
Questions 1 - 7 where asked for each of the 9 CPaD
List of Coffee pests and diseases (CPaD) used in interview survey.
| CPaD | Scientific name | Aberration |
|---|---|---|
| White coffee stem borer | WCSB | |
| Coffee berry borer | CBB | |
| Antestia bug | AB | |
| Coffee berry moth | CBM | |
| Root mealy bug | RMB | |
| Coffee leaf miner | CLM | |
| Green scales | GS | |
| Coffee leaf rust | CLR | |
| Coffee berry disease | CBD |
Characteristics of production typologies generated by K-means Clustering.
| Coffee Production System | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CB | CO | CT | ||||
| Variables used for cluster analysis | ||||||
| Number of banana mats per ha | 1554a | 686 | 36b | 135 | 192b | 458 |
| Number of shade trees per ha | 51a | 40 | 64a | 44 | 157b | 114 |
| Number of shade tree species | 2.8a | 1.7 | 3.0a | 1.8 | 6.2b | 2.7 |
| Canopy closure (%) | 28a | 10 | 22b | 10 | 49c | 14 |
CB = Coffee-Banana System, n = 45; CO = Coffee-Open System, n = 54; CT = Coffee-Tree System, n = 47. M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation. Means with different letters indicate significant differences. Mann-Whitney test (p < 0.001).
Fig 3CPaD occurrence perceived by farmers.
Proportion of farmers who reported CPaD to be present to farmers where CPaD were not present per altitude range. Low altitude n = 57; Mid altitude n = 41; High altitude n = 50. Fishers’ exact test (* significant at p < 0.05; ** significant at p < 0.005; *** significant at p < 0.0001).
Comparison of perceived impact scores between altitude ranges.
| Low | Mid | High | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CPaD | Mdn | MAD | n | Mdn | MAD | n | Mdn | MAD | n |
| WSCB | 0.18 | 56 | 0.26 | 37 | 0.30 | 40 | |||
| CBB | 3 | 0.34 | 32 | 2 | 0.31 | 29 | 2 | 0.32 | 27 |
| AB | 2 | 0.32 | 34 | 3 | 0.28 | 28 | 3 | 0.30 | 35 |
| CBM | 3 | 0.24 | 42 | 3 | 0.27 | 31 | 3 | 0.27 | 31 |
| RMB | 2 | 0.34 | 29 | 3 | 0.31 | 31 | 3 | 0.40 | 21 |
| CLM | 2 | 0.24 | 46 | 2 | 0.28 | 32 | 2 | 0.35 | 28 |
| GS | 1.5 | 0.24 | 46 | 2 | 0.32 | 35 | 2.5 | 0.31 | 36 |
| CLR | 3 | 0.25 | 55 | 3 | 0.21 | 39 | 2.5 | 0.31 | 34 |
| CBD | 0.70 | 10 | 0.33 | 24 | 0.30 | 37 | |||
Impact scores: 1 = present but not a problem; 2 = minor problem; 3 = intermediate problem; 4 = severe problem; 5 = major problem. Mdn = Median, MAD = Median absolute deviation, n = Sub-sample size. Bold labelled rows indicate significant differences between altitude ranges (Kruskal-Wallis test, significant at p < 0.1 and p < 0.05 respectively
Farmers’ CPaD management practices.
| CPaD | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control Measure | WCSB | CBB | AB | CBM | RMB | CLM | GS | CLR | CBD |
| No control (%) | 12 | 39 | 35 | 39 | 36 | 51 | 41 | 48 | 49 |
| Insecticides (%) | 53 | 57 | 60 | 52 | 31 | 44 | 56 | 15 | 17 |
| Fungicides (%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 31 | 20 |
| Cultural (%) | 28 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 28 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 10 |
| Traditional (%) | 7 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 4 |
Percentages are based on the total number of respondents (n = 148). Traditional practices included plant extracts such as chilli tincture, diverse herbal extracts or manure.
CPaD control practices proposed by experts.
| CPaD | Control practice |
|---|---|
| Stem banding, wrapping, stumping, chemical, stem smoothening | |
| Biological, cultural (picking infested berries) | |
| Chemical, cultural (removal of bugs and eggs) | |
| Chemical, cultural (removal of infested berries) | |
| Cultural (trapping, inter-cropping with legumes), chemical, mineral fertilizer, organic manure | |
| Chemical, cultural, improve plant nutrition, encourage natural enemies | |
| Cultural (manipulating use of mulch to control attendant ants), chemical (stem banding using insecticide) | |
| Chemical (copper-based), regulation of shade intensity, resistant varieties | |
| Chemical (copper-based), resistant varieties |
Quasi-binomial model results examining individual and interaction effects of altitude range and production system on WCSB incidence.
| Coefficient | Std. Error | Odds Ratio | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low Altitude | 0.499 | 1.233 | 1.65 |
| Mid Altitude | 2.234 | 1.121 | 9.33 |
| Coffee Open | −1.253 | 1.703 | 0.29 |
| Coffee Tree | 3.165 | 1.108 | 23.69 |
| Low Altitude x Coffee Open | 2.557 | 1.904 | 12.89 |
| Mid Altitude x Coffee Open | 0.442 | 1.861 | 1.56 |
| Low Altitude x Coffee Tree | −1.179 | 1.393 | 0.30 |
| Mid Altitude x Coffee Tree | −3.286 | 1.309 | 0.04 |
| Constant | −2.639 | 0.999 | 0.07 |
*p < 0.1;
**p < .05;
***p < 0.01. 35 Observations, Φ (estimated dispersion parameter) = 1.86, Likelihood ratio test: p <.001. Constant refers to the logit mean at high altitude and the CB system (reference level), the remaining coefficients are differences of the given level to the reference level (at logit scale).
Fig 4Interaction plots of the least-squares means (back-transformed by inverse-link function to original response scale) based on the fitted models.
Effect of coffee production systems on predicted probability of WCSB incidence (A) and predicted number of lost berries due to CBD (B) at different altitude ranges. Production systems with the same letter do not differ significantly (Tukey-type comparisons of glm-parameters, p < 0.05, tested separately for each altitude range). An interaction is given if the difference between coffee systems of one altitude range differs significantly from the difference between coffee systems of another altitude range. CB = Coffee-Banana System, CO = Coffee-Open System, CT = Coffee-Tree System.
Negative-binomial model results examining individual and interaction effects of altitude range and production system on CBD intensity.
| Coefficient | Std. Error | |
|---|---|---|
| Mid Altitude | −0.514 | 0.479 |
| Highest Altitude | −0.791 | 0.681 |
| Coffee Open | 1.289 | 0.465 |
| Coffee Tree | −0.109 | 0.474 |
| Mid Altitude x Coffee Open | −1.659 | 0.642 |
| Highest x Coffee Open | −0.264 | 0.826 |
| Mid Altitude x Coffee Tree | −1.072 | 0.667 |
| Highest Altitude x Coffee Tree | −0.314 | 0.972 |
| Constant | −2.520 | 0.364 |
***p < 0.01. 21 Observations, Log Likelihood = −88.754, θ = 4.041***, (1.440) (dispersion parameter of the negative binomial family, std.error in parentheses), Akaike Inf. Crit. = 195.507, Likelihood ratio test: p < .001. Constant is the mean count at log scale at low altitude and CB system.