5 Province Directorate of the Min. of Agric. and Rural Affairs, Aydın/Turkey

Key words: Tomato, cucumber, pepper, eggplant, natural control, IPM, implementation problems.

The integrated pest manegement (IPM) has been carried out since 1994 in İzmir, 1995 in Muğla and 1996 in Aydın provinces. The diseases and insects were observed in the tomato, pepper, cucumber and eggplant glasshouses weekly. The sampling and counts are made by the technicians according to the IPM technical instructions. The control methods were applied by the growers. The IPM were carried out in 1.3(1995), 3.7(1996) and 4.8(1997) ha greenhouses in Aegean Region. The chemical application is minimized and qualified yield production is achieved. The IPM implementation can be spread out throughout the region only by taken some technical, training and administrative measures. In this manner, the environment and human health will be saved, qualified and healthy production will be increased.

1. Introduction

The protected vegetable crops has been cultivated in 17,865 ha area in Turkey. Vegetables are grown in 95 % of the greenhouses. Of this, tomato has grown in 57 %, cucumber in 27 %, pepper 8 % and the others 8 %. In Aegean Region, vegetable houses occupy 2,755.4 ha, the production is 269,796 t. The chemical treatment is the essential control agent used against pests. The broad spectrum pesticides have been applied frequently in the vegetable greenhouses. Considering the side effects of the chemicals, the government has decided to opt for a strong reduction in their usage during this decade. Consequently, IPM(Integrated pest management) projects were planned for the cultures which have an economic importance in Turkey. The protected vegetable crop is one of these IPM project and implemented since 1994.

Project began as a demonstration in the growers greenhouses and a cooperative effort involving research, extension service and interested growers. The consultants of Plant Protection extension services of Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA) were undertake surveillance and application of the IPM programmes. The consultants formed a sound link between the researchers and growers. The consultants selected either biological or chemical control methods based on sampling protocols and decision thresholds provided by technical instructions for vegetable pest management.

The major pests of the vegetable greenhouses are given in table 1. The control methods used in IPM programme against pests are also shown in table 1. The diseases and insects were observed in the tomato, pepper, cucumber and egg plant glasshouses weekly. The sampling and counts are made by the technicians according to the IPM technical instructions. The control methods were applied by the growers. In the IPM implementation the main point is to take preventive measures, preserve natural enemies, place yellow sticky traps and spray selected chemicals that has least side effects. The preventive measures are; 1- international and home quarantina, 2- seedlings free from pests, 3-soil disinfection 4- well cultivation after harvest and deep ploughing at least two times, 5-remove plant debris and their roots after harvest 6- clean greenhouse, 7- crop rotation in 3-4 years interval, 8-avoid from close planting, 9- drip irrigation, 10- optimum temperature and humidity for the variety, 11-remove infested plants, 12-optimum ventilation, 13-optimum fertilization, 14- weed control, 15-vector control, 16-cover the ventilation openings, 17-mulching.

Training course were organized once in a year for consultants. The growers carried out IPM project trained either practically while the IPM programme were implemented in the glasshouses or theoretically in a meeting for a group of growers.

The IPM programme applied in 6 tomato greenhouse in 1995, in 16 tomato greenhouses in 1996 and in 27 (20 tomato, 3 eggplant, 1 pepper, 3 cucumber) in 1997 in vegetables greenhouses. These greenhouses served as a model and the IPM implemented greenhouses were increased to 13 in 1995, 37 in 1996 and 48 in 1997 by the implementation of other growers around the IPM growers.

The soil disinfection was carried out by solarization mostly in the south and fumigation in the north of the region. Mocap 10G was applied in nematode infected 3 greenhouses before planting in 1995. Diseases did not cause severe damage in spring and autumn tomato growing in 1995. Only, powdery mildew and early blight of tomato were the main phytosanitary problems, fungicides were sprayed 1-2 times during the season. In 1996, in addition to mentioned diseases, the temperature and humidity were in favour of mildew and there were 3-4 fungicide applications in spring crop growing. Fungicides applications were between 0-5 in 1996-1997. In single crop growing, the main problem was grey mold and the fungicides were sprayed at most 5 times in a season. Early blight and powdery mildew also appeared in some greenhouses, fungicides were sprayed 1-2 times in 1996. Mildew also problem in single crop growing in 1997 at most 3 applications were made. In the single crop growing, fungicide applications were at most 6 in 1996 and 8 times in 1997. There were 2 greenhouses in which no treatments were applied.

In cucumber greenhouses, powdery mildew was treated with selected chemicals at most 4-6 times in the spring crop growing. In pepper and eggplant greenhouses, there was no use of fungicides during spring crop growing.

In the tomato greenhouses, yellow sticky traps were placed for leaf miner and whitefly. Leaf miner population was suppressed by parasite, Diglyphus iseae (Walker) at the rate of 25-100 %. The whitefly populations in most of the greenhouses, in particular spring crop growing was suppressed by Macrolophus caliginosus Wgn.(0.01-1.5 nimph/leaf). The parasitism ratio of whitefly ( Encarsia. formosa Gahan ) was very low at 1-2 %. The whitefly exceeded the treatment threshold in that the initial population was high due to migration from neighbors and M. caliginosus was not found or at a low level. In the meantime, at most 1-2 spot treatments were applied in a season, especially in the side parts of the greenhouse where continuous infection occurred. The required chemicals were not available, therefore, Endosulfan was sprayed in a few greenhouses.

In one of the cucumber greenhouses, there was a Lygus sp. problem at the beginning and an insecticide was applied, afterward IPM implementation was disturb and thrips couldn’t control by the insecticides and needed to be sprayed 8 times. There was no application of insecticide in the other cucumber greenhouses.

There were some minor insects outbrakes in favorable conditions on tomato in some years. In 1995 spidermite occured in one of the greenhouses, in 1996 aphid and tomato rust mite occured in three greenhouses. In 1997 spidermite, aphid and tomato rust mite occured in one of the 3 greenhouses. The spot treatment was applied. Generally in tomato greenhouses, there was no chemical treatments against insects but in a few greenhouse there were at most 2 insecticide application as a spot application.

In pepper greenhouse no insectiside applications were carried out. In eggplant greenhouses there was an insecticide and acaricide treatment against aphid and spidermite in one of the greenhouses and in the other no chemical application was carried out.

Bacterial diseases were appeared in 1996. P. corrygata was determined in 2 greenhouses in spring growing. P. corrygata and C. michiganensis were recorded in a single growings. TMV and TSWV viruses were appeared in a few greenhouses in 1996 in single growing and 1997 in both spring and single crop growing. The sanitation and cultural measures were applied.

During the studies a few growers didn’t obey the recommendations and excluded from IPM projects.

During the three years the number of monitored greenhouses has increased and data has been obtained from some of them. Caring crop management and the application of the selected chemical within the IPM program reduced the chemical treatments. In the spring tomato growing, there were some untreated insecticides greenhouses, only fungicide was applied at most 5 times. In favorable conditions, aphid and spidermite were seen in a few greenhouses only spot-treatments were applied. In the autumn and single crop growing, insecticides were sprayed on infested parts against whitefly 1-2 times in a few greenhouse. Fungicide was applied at most 8 times in single crop growing. Our surveillance showed that growers normally apply pesticides at least once in a week during the vegetation.

The growers, carried out the IPM program received the benefits and incomes of the project. The neighbors approach were also positive on the non-chemical use. They follow the IPM programs and try to apply them in their greenhouses. However, IPM programs are using seasonal applications do require a confusing surveillance methods and threshold practices. The growers are eager to implement the IPM program but they couldn’t achieved by themselves, they needed to be directed by consultants. But, there is a lack of the adequate consultant and equipment in MARA. There is no private agricultural or grower organization actively assisting the IPM implementation. Thus, the implementation of the IPM remain limited.

If the biological agents are available and other alternatives of the IPM methods are improved; the demonstrations and the grower training are widened, the implementation of the IPM can be spread out in the region in a short time. Because the growers are persuaded with the limited training courses in a demonstration greenhouses when they follow the successful implementation and provide the alternative control agents easily, they apply in their greenhouses. Although the alternative control agents are limited they are often not available in the market. In these cases growers seek effective alternatives and they use unwanted broad spectrum pesticides and disturb the IPM program.

The chemical companies approach are also positive. They have iniated the IPM project on some other crops and tried to apply them. They have also begun to registrate alternative products to broad spectrum pesticides recently. But these kind of activities are very limited.

Consumers should be made aware of the studies. They should be informed about the method of cultivation and production. Environment conscious and chemical free production should be explained. Consumer should consider the safe products rather than attractive ones.

Lenteren.(1994), mentioned that the initial target group of an IPM program may be government policy makers an politicians and the final target groups may be growers.

Lenteren (1994) recorded and Martin(1990) confirmed that for main factors for the successfull implementation of IPM are; 1-the availability (quantity) and quality of the natural enemies 2-changes in the availability of pesticides 3-the complexity of the IPM programme, 4-the advisory service and the transfer of information to growers.

In our studies, the growers have been the first target and the policy makers have been the last. There is no research background of IPM implementation. The alternative control methods to chemical control were chosen and applied directly in the growers greenhouse. Alternative IPM techniques and methods have not been adequate, only preventive measures, yellow sticky-traps, chemical selection and natural control can be used as an alternative control methods. Due to these drawbacks, the implementation remain in a limited area and it is difficult to make growers apply the IPM programs. Despite all of these drawbacks, chemical treatment was reduced to an important extent and the IPM programs were applied by the other growers. From this point of view it can be said that the IPM program has been successively carried out.

Governmental bodies are the only ones able to make the growers apply the IPM programs and be widened it. There should be some legistations, regulations to incite or constrain to make the growers apply the IPM method.

The following points should be recognized as IPM implementation is spread throughout the region: -availability of selected chemicals in the market, availability of alternative control methods, -provision of sufficient high quality natural enemies, -the registration of compatible pesticides to broad spectrum pesticides, -abrogation of taxe refund for pesticides, -taxation of pesticides for environmental pollution, -included side-effect labels on pesticides,-fines for incorrect uses of pesticides, -fines or incents for the IPM implementation, -evaluation of the IPM products, -reliable analyzes of chemical residues in a short time, -using prescribe in pesticide sale, -training in all level (growers, consultants, researcher, policy makers and consumers), -available pamphlets, handbook and books for the growers application and consumer information, - permanent extension workers do require in the region, -the support of the establishment of which carrying out the project such as plant protection research institute and plant protection subdirectorate of the ministry.