Citation
Pest and beneficial populations and returns from alternative small-scale corn and bean cropping systems in the Guatemalan Highlands

Material Information

Title:
Pest and beneficial populations and returns from alternative small-scale corn and bean cropping systems in the Guatemalan Highlands
Creator:
Larson Vasquez, Barbra C., 1964-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
2 v. (xxv, 277 leaves) : ill. ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Beans -- Yields ( fast )
Biological pest control agents ( fast )
Corn -- Yields ( fast )
Cropping systems ( fast )
Dissertations, Academic -- Entomology and Nematology -- UF ( lcsh )
Entomology and Nematology thesis, Ph.D ( lcsh )
Guatemala ( fast )
Corn ( jstor )
Intercrops ( jstor )
Monoculture ( jstor )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1998.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 253-276).
Additional Physical Form:
Also available online.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Barbra C. Larson-Vasquez.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Barbra C. Larson Vasquez. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
030024873 ( ALEPH )
41875659 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

pestbeneficialpo00lars ( .pdf )

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0091.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0060.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0106.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0132.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0054.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0096.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0212.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0207.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0196.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0175.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0156.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0178.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0040.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0103.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0226.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0000.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0004.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0061.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0171.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0214.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0134.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0164.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0248.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0101.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0231.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0274.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0006.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0234.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0016.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0044.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0181.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0208.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0027.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0294.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0090.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0022.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0277.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0137.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0107.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0189.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0300.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0177.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0140.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0269.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0195.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0168.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0275.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0184.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0102.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0058.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0080.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0073.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0037.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0121.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0259.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0041.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0257.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0243.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0233.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0289.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0222.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0109.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0220.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0254.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0159.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0034.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0228.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0017.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0012.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0075.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0240.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0237.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0077.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0209.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0221.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0118.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0170.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0284.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0093.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0210.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0024.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0147.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0112.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0050.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0298.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0183.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0108.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0089.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0117.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0069.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0225.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0227.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0179.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0197.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0286.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0065.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0204.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0088.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0302.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0070.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0273.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0219.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0139.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0296.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0035.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0092.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0008.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0185.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0287.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0087.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0272.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0007.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0003.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0245.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0174.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_pdf.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0141.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0063.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0166.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0201.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0079.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0047.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0133.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0217.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0074.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0241.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0205.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0247.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0253.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0215.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0238.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0230.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0169.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0011.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0250.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0135.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0172.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0025.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0161.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0223.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0288.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0013.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0151.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0136.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0188.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0203.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0162.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0110.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0163.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0005.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0256.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0085.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0105.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0021.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0299.txt

E5JO94YVO_A2M5NL_xml.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0015.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0173.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0010.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0267.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0281.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0128.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0130.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0149.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0167.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0192.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0213.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0268.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0001.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0086.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0252.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0084.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0285.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0200.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0187.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0242.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0157.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0124.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0055.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0026.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0297.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0152.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0176.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0097.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0190.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0279.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0059.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0028.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0078.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0126.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0122.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0039.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0182.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0094.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0115.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0198.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0261.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0211.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0265.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0290.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0236.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0113.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0062.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0145.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0076.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0263.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0229.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0082.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0030.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0120.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0046.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0249.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0068.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0098.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0218.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0160.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0280.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0271.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0180.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0119.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0020.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0194.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0282.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0099.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0067.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0071.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0142.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0116.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0191.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0276.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0095.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0081.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0043.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0129.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0114.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0246.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0232.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0251.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0023.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0049.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0216.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0045.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0036.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0264.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0186.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0111.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0199.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0153.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0193.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0029.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0144.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0127.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0072.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0270.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0002.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0033.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0104.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0052.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0123.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0165.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0266.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0064.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0018.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0125.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0244.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0100.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0032.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0042.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0295.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0235.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0262.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0206.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0019.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0083.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0057.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0066.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0303.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0138.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0301.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0053.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0283.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0155.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0158.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0255.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0150.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0014.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0031.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0260.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0143.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0048.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0131.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0009.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0202.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0146.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0038.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0292.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0154.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0258.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0293.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0051.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0291.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0056.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0278.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0224.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0148.txt

pestbeneficialpo00lars_0239.txt


Full Text










PEST AND BENEFICIAL POPULATIONS AND RETURNS FROM ALTERNATIVE SMALL-SCALE CORN AND BEAN CROPPING SYSTEMS IN THE GUATEMALAN HIGHLANDS












By

BARBRA C. LARSON VASQUEZ












A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1998














ACKNOWLEDGMENTS



I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor and committee chair, Dr. Jerry L. Stimac, without whose unyielding support this project would not have been possible. The academic excellence he demonstrated and imparted was a valuable part of my learning experience at the University of Florida. I also acknowledge additional financial support from the Department of Entomology and Nematology, the Tinker Foundation (through the Center for Latin American Studies), and the Dickinson Award in Tropical Agriculture (through IFAS).

The guidance and suggestions of my other committee members, Dr. Charles MacVean, Dr. Marilyn Swisher, Dr. Freddie Johnson and Dr. Carl Barfield are greatly appreciated. I especially thank Dr. C. MacVean for providing substantial assistance during the fieldwork, and Dr. Robert McSorley for advice and assistance with the nematode component.

I am immensely grateful to the director and staff of the Escuela de

Formaci6n Agricola (EFA) in Solola, for the use of field faciliites and living space and for assistance and support of the project. Much helpful advice was received at the Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, including the valuable recommendations of Dr. Robert Klein and the assistance in plant and nematode identifications by Dr. Ricardo Arjona and Dr. Marco Arevalo, respectively. Dr. Mike Wade provided advice on the fertilization plans.

ii









Special thanks go to Juan Gonzolo Tuy Toc and Jose Maria Ajquichich, two exceptional field workers, for their dedication to this project despite many obstacles in the field. Florencia Tocum and Toribio Cumez, in addition to translating, provided an inside view of the communities. I am grateful to the many men and women in Solola who took the time to listen and talk to me during interviews and discussions

I also thank Dr. Mike Thomas and staff at the Florida Department of

Agriculture and Consumer Services/Division of Plant Industry for help with the use of the Florida State Collection of Arthropods, and Dr. Greg Evans, Dr. C. Porter, Dr. L. Masner, Dr. Lionel Stange, Dr. Susan Halpert and Dr. Jack Schuster for insect identifications. Also, thanks go to John Frederick and Dorota Porazinska for assistance with nematode identifications and to Dr. Heather MacAuslane for use of the leaf area meter.

Finally, special thanks go to Edwin Vasquez for assistance in the field and support throughout this study.


















iii















TABLE OF CONTENTS

pace

ACKNOW LEDGMENTS....................................... ii

LIST OF TABLES ...................................... ........................................... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ................................. ............ .... .......... xiii

A B S T R A C T ....... ......... ................................................. ......................... xxiv

CHAPTERS

1 INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW .................................... 1

Effects of Changing Cropping Patterns on Western Guatemalan
Highland Communities ................ ..... ............................ ..... 1
Difficulties in Promoting Integrated Pest Management Programs
Among Resource-Poor Farmers .................................. ........ 6
Choosing Crops With Minimal Pest Problems as a Pest
Management Strategy ............ .... .................................. 9
Minimizing Pests in Crop Combinations ................................ 10
Maximizing Farmer Acceptance By Tailoring Cropping
Systems to Maximize Farmer Benefits ............................. 15
Study Objectives ................. ...................................... ...17

2 ASSESSMENT OF AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES AND FARMER
PERCEPTIONS IN THE STUDY AREA ............. ...................... 20

Introduction........................ ........................................ 20
M ethods and M aterials ................................... ............................ 23
Semi-Structured Interviews and Key Informants ........................ 24
Crop Preference Ranking ................................. ... ................... 26
Recognition and Perception of Insects in Local Cropping
Systems.................. ........................ 27
Soil and Botanical Analyses ............................ .......... 27



iv










Page

Results and Discussion .............. ........ .... ................. ...... 27
Agronomic Conditions, Crops, Yields and Management
Practices.................................. ........ 27
Attitudes and Perceptions of Cropping Systems ........................ 36
Principal Pests, Perceptions of Changing Pest Status and
Recognition of the Role of Beneficials............... .............. 51
Basis of Farmers' Agricultural Knowledge .................. ............ 57
C onclusio ns............................... ......... 6 1


3 INSECT PEST AND BENEFICIAL POPULATIONS, DISEASE AND
DAMAGE IN CORN MONOCULTURE AND TWO ALTERNATIVE
INTERCROPS .............. ................ ............. 63

Introduction ....................... ..................................... ..... .. 63
M ethods and M aterials ......................................................... ......... 68
Experimental Design and Agronomic Management of Field
P lots ....................................................................... 69
Insect, Disease and Damage Samples: Visual Observations...... 74
Insect, Disease and Damage Samples: Destructive Plant
Sam ples .............................................. ........... ........... 74
S o il S a m p le s ............. .. .... ..................................... .... ...... 7 5
Samples of Corn Ear Development and Damage ..................... 75
Samples of Community Composition ................................... 76
Statistical Analysis ........................................... 77
Results and Discussion ..... ............................................. 78
Insect Pest Populations on Corn................... ............... 78
Beneficial Insect Populations on Corn............... ............ 87
C o rn D ise ase s............................................................... ........... 9 1
Damage Estim ates ....................................................... ... 95
Insects and Diseases on Secondary Crops .......................... 101
C onclusions .......................................................... ... ..... 106

4 INSECT PEST AND BENEFICIAL POPULATIONS, DISEASE AND
DAMAGE IN BEAN MONOCULTURE AND TWO ALTERNATIVE
IN T E R C R O P S ......................................................... ......... 108

Introduction..................................... 108
Methods and Materials ................. ........... .......................... 110
Agronomic Management of Field Plots ................................ 112



V










paqe
Insect, Disease and Damage Samples: Visual Observations.... 114
Insect, Disease and Damage Samples: Destructive Plant
S a m p le s.............................................. 1 14
Soil and Pod Samples.................... ... .. ...... ..... 115
Samples of Community Composition ........... .............. 115
Statistical Analysis ............. ..................................... 116
Results and Discussion .......................................... 117
Insect Pest Populations on Bean...................................... 117
Beneficial Insect Populations on Bean ............................. 122
Bean D iseases ...................................... .......... ........... 123
Dam age to Bean.................. ......................................... 126
Insects and Diseases on Secondary Crops ........................... 129
Conclusions ...................................... ................... ............ 131


5 NEMATODE POPULATION DENSITIES IN ALTERNATIVE CORN- AND
BEAN-BASED CROPPING SYSTEMS .............................. 133

Introduction ........ .......................................................... 133
M ethods and M aterials ................................................................... 137
R esults and D iscussion ................................................................... 139
Plant Parasitic Community ............ ............................ 139
Total Nematode Community ............... .......................... 144
C onclusions.............................................. 148


6 ECONOMIC, ENERGETIC AND NUTRITIONAL RETURNS FROM
ALTERNATIVE CORN- AND BEAN-BASED CROPPING
SY ST EM S .......................................................................... ............ 150

Introduction........................................................................... .. ...... 150
M ethods and M aterials .............................................. ....................... 153
Yields....... .................................. 153
Economic Returns ...................... .................. 155
E n e rg y ........................................................................ 1 5 6
N utritio n ............................... ...... 158
Statistical Analysis ............................ ... ............ 159
R esults and D iscussion .................................................................. 159
Yields.. ........................... .......... 159
Economic Return ........................ ............... 165
E nergy............................. ............... 172
Nutrition ............................ ....180
Conclusions.......................................... 186

vi










paqe

7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................................... .......... 188

Relative Value of Alternative Corn- and Bean-Based Cropping
Systems in Minimizing Pest Problems ............. ..............- 188
Relative Value of Alternative Corn- and Bean-Based Cropping
Systems in Providing Economic and Nutritional Benefits to the
Farm er ........................... ...... ................... ... ......... 191
Concluding Remarks ........................................ ........ 193

APPENDICES

A DESCRIPTIONS OF SEASONAL TRENDS IN INSECT AND
BENEFICIAL POPULATION DENSITIES, DISEASE AND
DAMAGE ON CORN IN MONOCULTURE AND ALTERNATIVE
INTERCROPS..................................... 197

B DESCRIPTIONS OF SEASONAL TRENDS IN INSECT AND
BENEFICIAL POPULATION DENSITIES, DISEASE AND
DAMAGE ON BEAN IN MONOCULTURE AND ALTERNATIVE
INTER C RO PS ......................................... 226

C DESCRIPTIONS OF SEASONAL TRENDS IN NEMATODE
POPULATION DENSITIES IN CORN AND BEAN CROPPING
S Y S T E M S ............................................................. ........... 2 4 1

REFER ENC ES............................................................................................... 253


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ......... ................ .................. ..... 277













vii















LIST OF TABLES


Table page
2-1 Herbs commonly collected and utilized by small-scale farmers in two Solola com m unities ..................................................... 44

2-2 Intercrops utilized by farmers in two Solola communities .............. 47

2-3 Order of preference of 29 crops presented to farmers in two Sololi com m unities ................... ........................... .......... 50

2-4 Principal pests reported by interviewed farmers ............. ........ 54

3-1 Insect herbivores collected in corn-based cropping systems ............ 79

3-2 Densities (mean no. per 0.6-m row corn SEM) of insects on corn in monoculture, intercropped with black beans, faba beans and
broccoli (high-risk), and intercropped with black beans, amaranth
and cilantro (low-risk), for sampling dates where significant
differences were detected .................................. .............. 83

3-3 Seasonal mean densities of key insect pests (no. per 0.6-m row corn SEM) on corn in monoculture, intercropped with
black beans, faba beans and broccoli (high-risk intercrop) and intercropped with black beans, cilantro and amaranth (low-risk
intercrop), during the rainy season of 1996 ........................ 84

3-4 Insect natural enemies collected in corn-based cropping systems.... 88

3-5 Densities of spiders on corn in monoculture, intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli (high-risk intercrop) and intercropped with black beans, cilantro and amaranth (low-risk
intercrop), at 6 weeks after planting (mean no. per 0.6-m row
corn S E M ) ... ............ .. ................ .......................... 9 1






viii










Table page

3-6 Seasonal mean densities of key beneficials (no. per 0.6-m row corn SEM) on corn in monoculture, intercropped with black beans,
faba beans and broccoli (high-risk intercrop) and intercropped
with black beans, cilantro and amaranth (low-risk intercrop),
during the rainy season of 1996 ............................. .............. 92

3-7 Percentage of corn plants infested with rust when grown in monoculture, intercropped with black beans, faba beans and
broccoli (high-risk intercrop) and intercropped with black beans,
cilantro and amaranth (low-risk intercrop), at 6 weeks after
planting (mean SEM) ............. ...................................... 93

3-8 Seasonal mean percentage of corn plants (mean + SEM) with disease and damage in monoculture, intercropped with black
beans, faba beans and broccoli (high-risk intercrop) and
intercropped with black beans, cilantro and amaranth (low-risk
intercrop), during the rainy season of 1996 ............. ........... 96

3-9 Percentage of corn plants with insect damage (mean SEM) when grown in monoculture, intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli (high-risk) and intercropped with black
beans, amaranth and cilantro (low-risk) ................... ............ 98

3-10 Percentage of corn ears damaged by rotting when grown in monoculture, intercropped with black beans, faba beans and
broccoli (high-risk) and intercropped with black beans, amaranth
and cilantro (low-risk) (mean + SEM), November 13, 1996......... 99

3-11 Damage to corn ears sampled at harvest (November 26, 1996), by source of damage(mean % of ears SEM), for corn in
monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans
and broccoli (high-risk intercrop) and corn intercropped with
black beans, cilantro and amaranth (low-risk intercrop) ........... 102

3-12 Corn ear development and damage to kernels sampled at harvest (November 26, 1996), by source of damage (mean + SEM), for corn in monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans,
faba beans and broccoli (high-risk intercrop) and corn
intercropped with black beans, cilantro and amaranth (low-risk
intercrop) .................. ............. .............. ................ 103




ix










Table page

4-1 Insect herbivores collected in bean-based cropping systems......... 118
4-2 Seasonal mean densities of key insects (mean no. per 40 cm-row
beans SEM) and percent of plants infested with disease on
beans in monoculture, intercropped with tomato (high-risk
intercrop) and intercropped with husk tomato (low-risk
intercrop) ..................... .............................................. 119

4-3 Densities of Liriomyza hiudobrensis mines on beans in monoculture,
intercropped tomato (high-risk) and intercropped with
husk tomato (low-risk), at 9 weeks after planting
(m ean + S EM ) ................... ........................... ..... .... 120

4-4 Densities (mean no. per 0.4-m row bean + SEM ) of flea beetles
(Chaetocnema sp. adults ) on beans in monoculture,
intercropped with tomato (high-risk) and intercropped with husk
tomato (low-risk), at 9 and 15 weeks after planting ............... 121

4-5 Insect natural enemies collected in bean-based cropping systems... 124

4-6 Percentage of bean plants infested with rust (Uromyces phaseoli),
in monoculture, intercropped with tomato (high-risk), and
intercropped with husk tomato (low-risk), at 15 weeks after
planting (mean SEM) .............. ............ ............... 125

4-7 Mean root width, length and weight ( SEM) of black beans in
monoculture and intercropped with tomato (high-risk intercrop) and husk tomato (low-risk intercrop) during the dry season of
1997 ................... ................... .................. 127

4-8 Development and damage of bean in monoculture, bean intercropped
with tomato, and bean intercropped with husk tomato (mean + SEM)
during the dry season of 1997 ............. ............ 130

5-1 Ratio of final to initial nematode population densities (Pi/P) by genus
from 100 cm3 soil samples taken from monocultures (corn followed
by beans) and two alternative intercrops (high-risk intercrop of corn,
black bean, faba bean and broccoli followed by black bean and tomato, and low-risk intercrop of corn, black bean, cilantro and amaranth followed by black bean and husk tomato), May 1996April 1997 ................................ ................... ......... 140



x









Table page

5-2 Final densities (mean r SE) of Tylenchorhynchus per 100 cm3
soil from bean in monoculture, high-risk intercrop (beans with tomato) and low-risk intercrop (beans with husk tomato), April
1997 ............................... ............ ........ ......... 143

5-3 Nematode densities (mean + SE) by trophic group from 100
cm3 soil samples for sampling dates with differences among
cropping system treatments, taken from monocultures
(corn followed by beans) and two alternative intercrops (highrisk intercrop of corn, black bean, faba bean and broccoli
followed by black bean and tomato, and low-risk intercrop of
corn, black bean, cilantro and amaranth followed by black bean
and husk tomato) ...................... ... ........... 146

5-4 Ratio of final to initial nematode population densities (PJPf) by trophic group from 100 cm3 soil samples taken from monocultures (corn followed by beans) and two alternative intercrops (high-risk intercrop of corn, black bean, faba bean and broccoli followed by black bean and tomato, and low-risk intercrop of corn, black bean,
cilantro and amaranth followed by black bean and husk tomato),
M ay 1996-A pril 1997 ................................ ............ .......... 147

6-1 Yields of corn and black beans in monoculture and two alternative cropping systems (high-risk intercrop = corn with black beans, faba
beans and broccoli, followed by black beans with tomato; low-risk intercrop = corn with black beans, cilantro and amaranth, followed
by black beans with husk tomato) ................................ 161

6-2 Labor inputs (hours per plot) for monoculture and two alternative cropping systems, May 1996 April 1997 (high-risk intercrop =
corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, followed by black
beans with tomato; low-risk intercrop = corn with black beans,
cilantro and amaranth, followed by black beans with husk
tom ato) ..................... ................. ............... ......... 166

6-3 Total net economic return for monoculture and two alternative cropping systems, May 1996-April 1997, calculated for actual market prices
during experimental year and fluctuations of 25% (high-risk intercrop =
corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, followed by black
beans with tomato; low-risk intercrop = corn with black beans,
cilantro and amaranth, followed by black beans with husk
to m a to ) ............................................................................ 1 6 8


xi









Table page

6-4 Net economic return per day of labor for monoculture and two alternative cropping systems, May 1996 April 1997, calculated for
actual market prices and fluctuations of 25% (high-risk intercrop = corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, followed by black
beans with tomato; low-risk intercrop = corn with black beans,
cilantro and amaranth, followed by black beans with husk
to m a to ) ................................................. ........ .... .............. 16 9

6-5 Energy budgets for corn-based croppings systems, 1996 rainy season (high-risk intercrop = corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli; low-risk intercrop = corn with black beans, cilantro
and am aranth) .............. ....................... .... 173

6-6 Energy budgets for bean-based croppings systems, 1997 dry season (high-risk intercrop = black beans with tomato; low-risk
intercrop = black beans with husk tomato) ................ ....... 174

6-7 Energy efficiency ratios (output energy/input energy) for monoculture and two alternative cropping systems, May 1996 April 1997 (highrisk intercrop = corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli,
followed by black beans with tomato; low-risk intercrop = corn with black beans, cilantro and amaranth, followed by black beans with
husk tom ato) .. ........... .................. ................... .......... 178

6-8 Number of days the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) of selected nutrients is satisfied by yields per plot of monoculture (corn followed by bean) and two alternative cropping systems (high-risk intercrop =
corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, followed by black
beans with tomato; low-risk intercrop = corn with black beans,
cilantro and amaranth, followed by black beans with husk tomato)
during 1996-1997. ................... 181














xii














LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

1-1 Map of Guatemala, indicating western highlands and study area...... 2 2-1 Land area available to farm families, by percent of farmers responding. a.) San Jose Chacaya; b.) San Andrbs Semetebaj... 29 2-2 Cropping calendar for small-scale farmers in Solola (different bars represent range of time periods planted .............. ............. 31

2-3 Percent of interviewed farmers in two Solola communities reporting production of local crops (n=125), and of those reporting
production, mean percent of land planted to each crop........... 32

2-4 Yields of principal crops reported by farmers in two Solola communities............................ ...... ......... 33

2-5 Management practices utilized by farmers in two Solola communities....................... ........ ................ 35

2-6 Responses to open-ended question of basis of decision on what to plant, posed to farmers in two Solola communities .............. 38

2-7 Responses to open-ended question of reasons for changing crops, posed to farmers in two Solola communities ................. 39

2-8 Responses to open-ended question of opinion of traditional crops, posed to farmers in two Solola communities .......................... 41

2-9 Responses to open-ended question of opinion of non-traditional crops, posed to farmers in two Solola communities .............. 42

2-10 Responses to open-ended question of wild herbs collected, posed to farmers in two Solola communities .................................. 44

2-11 Responses to open-ended question of collected experience with intercropping beyond corn and beans, posed to farmers in
two Solola communities .................. ........... ........ 48

xiii









Figure page

2-12 Responses to open-ended question of postiive and negative aspects
of intercropping, posed to farmers in two Solola communities... 49

2-13 Responses to open-ended question of reasons for changes in
pest problems from past, posed to farmers in two Solola
communities............................. .......... 53

2-14 Mean percent of a.) pest and b.) beneficial insects identified by
their role in agroecosystems .............................................. 56

2-15 Responses to open-ended question of principal concern in
agriculture.............. ............................... 58

2-16 Responses to open-ended question of principal concern in
agriculture............................ ...... ......... 59

2-17 Responses to open-ended question of principal source of technical
advice, posed to farmers in two Solola communitiies ............. 60

3-1 Plant arrangements in experimental plots of corn-based cropping
systems, with treatments consisting of high-risk intercrop (A),
low-risk intercrop (B) and monoculture, with corn planted at
equal density ....... ........ ........................ ............... 70

3-2 Mean densities of Diphalauca wagneri adults from corn in
monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans
and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans, amaranth
and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996. Asterisks by
sampling dates indicate significant treatment differences ...... 86

3-3 Mean percentage of plants infested with rust (Puccinia sp.) on corn
in monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans, amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996. Asterisk indicates
date with significant treatment difference ............................ 94

3-4 Mean percentage of plants with insect damage on corn in monoculture,
corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli,
and corn intercropped with black beans, amaranth and cilantro,
during the rainy season of 1996. Asterisks by sampling dates
indicate significant treatment differences ........................... 97



xiv









Figure page

3-5 Mean percentage of corn plants lodged in monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, and
corn intercropped with black beans, amaranth and cilantro,
during the rainy season of 1996. No significant differences
were detected for any sampling date (alpha=0.05, ANOVA and
Student-Newman-Keuls test performed on square root
transformed data ................ ......................... ................ 100

3-6 Mean densities of Diphalauca wagneri on black beans intercropped with corn, faba beans and broccoli and black beans
intercropped with amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season
of 1996. Asterisks by sampling dates indicate significant
treatment differences .................. ........................ 105

4-1 Plant arrangements in experimental plots of bean-based cropping
systems, with treatments consisting of high-risk intercrop (A) low-risk intercrop (B), and monoculture, with bean planted at
equal density .................. ................................... 111

4-2 Mean percent defoliation from Chrysomelid beetles (Cerotoma spp.
and Diabrotica balteata adults) on black beans in monoculture,
intercropped with tomato, and intercropped with husk tomato,
during the dry season of 1997 .......................................... 128

6-1 Land productivity for corn and beans in monoculture and two
alternative cropping systems, May 1996-April 1997 (high-risk
intercrop = corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli,
followed by black beans with tomato; low-risk intercrop = corn
with black beans, cilantro and amaranth, followed by black
beans with husk tomato). No significant differences were detected for either product (Student-Newman-Keuls test,
alpha=0.05)............................... .... ......... 162

6-2 Mean yields (weight and monetary value) SE of crops in
corn-based cropping systems during the rainy season of
1996 ................... .............................. 163

6-3 Mean yields (weight and monetary value) SE of crops in
bean-based cropping systems during the dry season of
1997 ............ ............. ............................. 164




xv









Figure page

6-4 Labor productivity for corn and beans in monoculture and two
alternative cropping systems, May 1996-April 1997 (high-risk
intercrop = corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli,
followed by black beans with tomato; low-risk intercrop = corn
with black beans, cilantro and amaranth, followed by black
beans with husk tomato). Treatment means for each product
with the same letter are not significantly different (StudentNewman-Keuls test, alpha=0.05) ................. ............... 167

6-5 Capital productivity for corn and beans in monoculture and two
alternative cropping systems, May 1996-April 1997 (high-risk
intercrop = corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli,
followed by black beans with tomato; low-risk intercrop = corn
with black beans, cilantro and amaranth, followed by black
beans with husk tomato). Treatment means for each product with the same letter or no letter are not significantly different
(Student-Newman-Keuls test, alpha=0.05) ........................... 171

6-6 Percent of total energy inputs derived from labor for corn and bean
in monoculture and two alternative cropping systems, May
1996-April 1997 (high-risk intercrop = corn with black beans,
faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans with tomato;
low-risk intercrop = corn with black beans, cilantro and amaranth, followed by black beans with husk tomato).
Treatment means for each product with the same letter or no letter are not significantly different (Student-NewmanKeuls test, alpha=0.05) ..................................................... 176

6-7 Energy productivity for corn and beans in monoculture and two
alternative cropping systems, May 1996-April 1997 (high-risk
intercrop = corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli,
followed by black beans with tomato; low-risk intercrop = corn
with black beans, cilantro and amaranth, followed by black
beans with husk tomato). No significant differences were detected for either product (Student-Newman-Keuls test,
alpha=0.05) ....................................................... .......... 177

A-1 Mean densities of Spodoptera frugiperda larvae from corn in
monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans
and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans,
amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996....... 197



xvi









Figure page

A-2 Mean densities of aphids from corn in monoculture, corn
intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli,
and corn intercropped with black beans, amaranth and
cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996 ............... 198

A-3 Mean densities of leafhoppers from corn in monoculture, corn
intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli,
and corn intercropped with black beans, amaranth and
cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996 ............................. 199

A-4 Mean densities of leafmines from Liriomyza commelinae,
Liriomyza sp. and Agromyza sp. from corn in monoculture,
corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli,
and corn intercropped with black beans, amaranth and
cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996 .............................. 200

A-5 Mean densities of Helicoverpa zea larvae from corn in
monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans
and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans,
amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996........... 201

A-6 Mean densities of Collaria oleosa adults from corn in
monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans
and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans,
amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996....... 202

A-7 Mean densities of Diabrotica porracea adults from corn in
monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans
and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans,
amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996....... 203

A-8 Mean densities of Geraeus sp. adults from corn in
monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans
and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans,
amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996...... 204

A-9 Mean densities of Chaetocnema sp. adults from corn in
monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans
and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans,
amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996...... 205




xvii









Figure page

A-10 Mean densities of Brachypnoea sp adults from corn in
monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans
and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans,
amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996........ 206

A-11 Mean densities of Phyllophaga sp. eggs and larvae from soil of corn
roots in monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba
beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans,
amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996........... 207

A-12 Mean densities of Diabrotica porracea larvae from soil of corn
roots in monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba
beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans,
amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996........ 208

A-13 Mean densities of syrphids (Baccha sp. and Toxomerus sp. ) on
corn in monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba
beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans,
amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996........ 209

A-14 Mean densities of Hemerobius sp. on corn in monoculture,
corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans
and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans,
amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996........ 210

A-15 Mean densities of spiders on corn in monoculture, corn
intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli,
and corn intercropped with black beans, amaranth and
cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996 ............................ 211

A-16 Mean densities of Cycloneda sanguinea adults on corn in
monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans
and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans,
amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996........ 212

A-17 Mean densities of aphids mummies on corn in monoculture, corn
intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli,
and corn intercropped with black beans, amaranth and
cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996 ............................ 213





xviii









Figure page

A-18 Mean densities of Doru sp. on corn in monoculture, corn
intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli,
and corn intercropped with black beans, amaranth and
cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996 .............................. 214

A-1 9 Mean densities of Enoclerus salvini adults on corn in
monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans
and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans,
amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996........... 215

A-20 Mean densities of parasitoids of Spodoptera frugiperda
(Campoletis sp. and Diadegma sp.) adults on corn in
monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans
and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans,
amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996........ 216

A-21 Mean percent of plants infested with Helminthosporium sp. on
corn in monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba
beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans,
amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996....... 217

A-22 Mean percent of plants infested with Phyllachora maydis Maubl. on
corn in monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba
beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans,
amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996........ 218

A-23 Mean percent of plants with damage from Spodoptera frugiperda
on corn in monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans,
faba beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black
beans, amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of
1996 .............................................................. ...... 2 19

A-24 Percent of ears damaged, by source, in corn monoculture, corn
intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli,
and corn intercropped with black beans, cilantro and
amaranth, October 17, 1996 ................................................ 220

A-25 Percent of ears damaged, by source, in corn monoculture, corn
intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli,
and corn intercropped with black beans, cilantro and
amaranth, October 25, 1996 ............................................... 221



xix









Figure paqe

A-26 Percent of ears damaged, by source, in corn monoculture, corn
intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli,
and corn intercropped with black beans, cilantro and
amaranth, October 31, 1996 ............................................... 222

A-27 Percent of ears damaged, by source, in corn monoculture, corn
intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli,
and corn intercropped with black beans, cilantro and
amaranth, November 13, 1996 .......................................... 223

A-28 Percent of ears damaged, by source, in corn monoculture, corn
intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli,
and corn intercropped with black beans, cilantro and
amaranth, November 26, 1996 ............... ... .................... 224

B-1 Mean densities of Liriomyza huidobrensis mines on black beans
in monoculture, intercropped with tomato, and intercropped
with husk tomato, during the dry season of 1997 ............... 226

B-2 Mean densities of aphids on black beans
in monoculture, intercropped with tomato, and intercropped
with husk tomato, during the dry season of 1997 ............... 227

B-3 Mean densities of Chaetocnema sp. adults on black beans
in monoculture, intercropped with tomato, and intercropped
with husk tomato, during the dry season of 1997 .......... 228

B-4 Mean densities of leafhoppers on black beans
in monoculture, intercropped with tomato, and intercropped
with husk tomato, during the dry season of 1997 ............... 229

B-5 Mean densities of Empoasca sp. on black beans
in monoculture, intercropped with tomato, and intercropped
with husk tomato, during the dry season of 1997 ................ 230

B-6 Mean densities of Bemisia tabaci adults on black beans
in monoculture, intercropped with tomato, and intercropped
with husk tomato, during the dry season of 1997 ............... 231

B-7 Mean densities of Urbanus proteus on black beans
in monoculture, intercropped with tomato, and intercropped
with husk tomato, during the dry season of 1997 ............... 232


xx









Figure page

B-8 Mean densities of Diabrotica balteata adults on black beans
in monoculture, intercropped with tomato, and intercropped
with husk tomato, during the dry season of 1997 ............... 233

B-9 Mean densities of Cerotoma spp. adults on black beans
in monoculture, intercropped with tomato, and intercropped
with husk tomato, during the dry season of 1997 ............... 234

B-10 Mean densities of Phyllophaga sp. eggs and larvae on black
beans in monoculture, intercropped with tomato, and
intercropped with husk tomato, during the dry season of
19 9 7 ...................................... ........................... 2 3 5

B-11 Mean densities of coccinellids (Brachycantha lepida adults)
on black beans in monoculture, intercropped with tomato, and intercropped with husk tomato, during the dry season
of 1997 ....................... .............................. ........... 236

B-12 Mean percent of black bean plants infested with bean rust
(Uromyces phaseol) when grown in monoculture,
intercropped with tomato, and intercropped with husk
tomato, during the dry season of 1997 ................................ 237

B-13 Mean percent of black bean plants infested with leaf spot
when grown in monoculture, intercropped with tomato, and
intercropped with husk tomato, during the dry season of
1997 ................................................................ ... ... 238

B-14 Mean percent of black bean plants infested with root rot
(Rhizoctonia sp.) when grown in monoculture,
intercropped with tomato, and intercropped with husk
tomato, during the dry season of 1997 ........................... 239

C-1 Densities of Helicotylenchus spp. in soil samples from
monocultures (corn followed by bean) and two alternative
intercrops (high-risk intercrops of corn with black beans,
faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans and
tomato; low-risk intercrop of corn with black beans, cilantro
and amaranth, followed by black beans and husk tomato....... 241





xxi









Figure page

C-2 Densities of Meloidogyne spp. in soil samples from
monocultures (corn followed by bean) and two alternative
intercrops (high-risk intercrops of corn with black beans,
faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans and
tomato; low-risk intercrop of corn with black beans, cilantro
and amaranth, followed by black beans and husk tomato....... 242

C-3 Densities of Pratylenchus spp. in soil samples from
monocultures (corn followed by bean) and two alternative
intercrops (high-risk intercrops of corn with black beans,
faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans and
tomato; low-risk intercrop of corn with black beans, cilantro
and amaranth, followed by black beans and husk tomato....... 243

C-4 Densities of Trichodorus spp. in soil samples from
monocultures (corn followed by bean) and two alternative
intercrops (high-risk intercrops of corn with black beans,
faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans and
tomato; low-risk intercrop of corn with black beans, cilantro
and amaranth, followed by black beans and husk tomato....... 244

C-5 Densities of Tylenchorhynchus spp. in soil samples from
monocultures (corn followed by bean) and two alternative
intercrops (high-risk intercrops of corn with black beans,
faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans and
tomato; low-risk intercrop of corn with black beans, cilantro
and amaranth, followed by black beans and husk tomato ....... 245

C-6 Densities of Hemicycliophora spp. in soil samples from
monocultures (corn followed by bean) and two alternative
intercrops (high-risk intercrops of corn with black beans,
faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans and
tomato; low-risk intercrop of corn with black beans, cilantro
and amaranth, followed by black beans and husk tomato....... 246

C-7 Densities of plant parasitic nematodes in soil samples from
monocultures (corn followed by bean) and two alternative
intercrops (high-risk intercrops of corn with black beans,
faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans and
tomato; low-risk intercrop of corn with black beans, cilantro
and amaranth, followed by black beans and husk tomato....... 247



xxii









Figure pae

C-8 Densities of bactiverous nematodes in soil samples from
monocultures (corn followed by bean) and two alternative
intercrops (high-risk intercrops of corn with black beans,
faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans and
tomato; low-risk intercrop of corn with black beans, cilantro
and amaranth, followed by black beans and husk tomato ....... 248

C-9 Densities of fungivorous nematodes in soil samples from
monocultures (corn followed by bean) and two alternative
intercrops (high-risk intercrops of corn with black beans,
faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans and
tomato; low-risk intercrop of corn with black beans, cilantro
and amaranth, followed by black beans and husk tomato ....... 249

C-10 Densities of omnivorous nematodes in soil samples from
monocultures (corn followed by bean) and two alternative
intercrops (high-risk intercrops of corn with black beans,
faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans and
tomato; low-risk intercrop of corn with black beans, cilantro
and amaranth, followed by black beans and husk tomato....... 250

C-11 Densities of predatory nematodes in soil samples from
monocultures (corn followed by bean) and two alternative
intercrops (high-risk intercrops of corn with black beans,
faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans and
tomato; low-risk intercrop of corn with black beans, cilantro
and amaranth, followed by black beans and husk tomato....... 251

C-12 Densities of total nematodes in soil samples from
monocultures (corn followed by bean) and two alternative
intercrops (high-risk intercrops of corn with black beans,
faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans and
tomato; low-risk intercrop of corn with black beans, cilantro
and amaranth, followed by black beans and husk tomato ....... 252










xxiii









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

PEST AND BENEFICIAL POPULATIONS AND RETURNS FROM
ALTERNATIVE SMALL-SCALE CORN AND BEAN CROPPING SYSTEMS IN THE GUATEMALAN HIGHLANDS

By

Barbra C. Larson Vasquez

December 1998


Chairman: Dr. Jerry L. Stimac
Major Department: Entomology and Nematology

In the western Guatemalan highlands, increased cultivation of export

vegetables, especially broccoli (Brassica oleracea L.), threatens the production of the staple food crops, corn (Zea mays L.) and beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), jeopardizing food security. Furthermore, it creates greater obstacles to the adoption of ecological pest management strategies due to greater dependence on synthetic pesticides. Nevertheless, small-scale farmers seeking increased income are tempted to plant these crops. Cropping patterns that maintain corn and beans for their dietary and cultural value and integrate cash crops may be more appropriate for fulfilling needs of local farmers while avoiding dependence on chemical inputs.

This project evaluates corn and beans in monoculture and in association with secondary crops chosen for their value to the farmer, nutritional contributions, and market potential. Pest and beneficial insect population densities, nematode population densities, disease, damage, and yields were


xxiv









measured to determine which cropping system provides greater economic and nutritional returns without increasing key pests on the main crops.

The seasonal mean density of Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) was higher in the corn monoculture than the high-risk intercrop of corn with black beans, faba beans (Vicia faba L.) and broccoli. Consequently, the seasonal mean percent of plants with insect damage was higher in the corn monoculture than the intercrops. No other consistent differences were detected in insect pest and beneficial populations, nematode populations, disease, damage or yield in either the corn or bean cycles. Therefore, the addition of the secondary crops tested would not increase the need for pest control in the main crops. While pest densities and damage were not high enough to warrant chemical control on corn or beans, control of pests on secondary crops in the high-risk intercrop (beans, faba beans, broccoli and tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.)) would be recommended.

The low-risk intercrop in the bean cycle, beans with husk tomato (Physalis pruinosa), provided greater economic and nutritional returns than the monoculture, as was so for that treatment over the year, including the corn cycle. Therefore, at least one of the alternative intercrops tested provided greater returns without increasing the need for pest control.










xxv














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW



Changing environmental and socio-economic conditions in Central

America have applied pressures to traditional agricultural production systems. Emerging needs of small-scale farmers in the region can most appropriately be met by advancing sustainable pest management approaches that are compatible with intensive production and account for the multiple objectives and constraints of the farm families involved. The study of cropping systems in Sololi, Guatemala (Figure 1-1), described here, takes one approach to such a challenge, that of analyzing alternative cropping systems for their value both in minimizing pest problems and in maximizing tangible benefits for the farm family.



Effects of Changing Cropping Patterns on Western Guatemalan Highland Communities

Historically, intensive land management operations such as terracing and raised bed vegetable production have been prevalent in the western Guatemalan highlands, particularly in the state of SololI (Wilken 1971,1987, Mathewson 1984). In an early extensive study of the area, McBryde (1945) found that corn (Zea mays L.), the most important food plant in the country, was considered one of the principal market crops and was traded back and forth


1









2























"Fw BELIZE

MEXICO ,, .




S I t LL!



Te, ast 4tctque
V ,I. iat.r


S., s e l .





MEm CO s .qdwk
uPsa)
-aM ros
Fir Mds(

ansht ar P )

7 :HONDURAS"





Guatemala
,* le nan bconday e capta











Figure 1-1. Map of Guatemala, indicating western highlands( ) and study area (R).







3

between the highlands and Pacific coastal plain, due to differing harvest periods in each area. Black beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) were considered second in importance, with San Andres Semetebaj having high-quality production, while the lowlands produced poorer quality beans and had numerous insect pests. Although climbing varieties of black beans were common throughout the region, bush varieties (frijol de suelo) were most common around the township of San Andr6s Semetebaj, as were gOisquiles (vegetable pears, Sechium edule). Tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum L.) were more frequently observed in the lakeshore communities, where water could easily be drawn from the lake. Potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) were grown in areas above approximately 1900 m. Habas (broadbeans or faba beans, Vicia faba L.) were observed planted in the milpa (cornfield) in San Andr6s Sbmetebaj and separately at nearby Xepec. Anise (Pimpinella anisum L.) was also observed at that time, and described as a specialty crop grown almost exclusively in San Antonio Palop6 and San Andrbs Semetebaj. Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) dominated the landscape in much of the region, closely rivaling corn in production.

McBryde (1945) also described the tabl6n (raised bed) system of vegetable cultivation in SololA, from Panajachel to San Jos6 Chacaya. Dependent on irrigation, tabl6n production included primarily old world crops, dominated by onions (Allium cepa L.) and including garlic (Allium sativum L.), cauliflower (Brassica oleracea botrytis L.), carrots (Daucus carota L.), parsley (Petroselinum crispum L.), beets (Beta spp.), cabbage (Brassica oleracea capitata L.), turnips (Brassica rapa L.), radish (Raphanus sativus L.), lettuce






4

(Lactuca sativa L.) and potatoes. These vegetables were an early introduction from Europe into the area, although the tabl6n production system itself is thought to be pre-Columbian (McBryde 1945, Wilken 1971). Mathewson's (1984) later study detailing the tabl6n production system in Panajachel in the early 1980s cites the major crops as onions, garlic, strawberries (Fragaria spp.) and beans, with many plants intercropped with corn, including guisquil, manioc (Manihot spp.), sweet potatoes (Ipomoea batatas L.), chipilin (Crotelaria longirostrata Hook& Arm.), malanga (Xanthosoma spp.), and hierba buena (Mentha spp). Finally, governmental census data revealed that 66.9% of the land in vegetable production in the area in 1979 was planted in faba beans, which has traditionally been cultivated in association with other crops, particularly corn and black beans. The other major vegetables at that time were gOisquil (33%), potato (15.2%), carrots (5.0%) and onion (3.4%) (Proyecto ALA 1987).

Although a variety of vegetables has been cultivated in the region for years, not until recently did many small-scale growers in SololI and the surrounding region begin to adopt the production of vegetables destined for export markets. Broccoli (Brassica oleracea L. botrytris group) has been the principal export crop, but others have been promoted, including snow peas (Pisum sativum L. macrocarpon group), snap beans (P. vulgaris) and brussels sprouts (Brassica oleracea L. gemmifera group) (Morales et al. 1993). Many small-scale farmers in the western highland region have altered management strategies and crop choices, as a result of increasing population and limited land, greater need for cash income due to wider integration into the economic






5


and political facets of the national society, and other influences of modernization. These socio-economic factors can have profound effects on traditional cropping systems (Brush 1983, Deere and Wasserstrom 1981). While increases in yields may be the primary goal for policy makers and agricultural scientists, small-scale farmers may concentrate on other objectives such as risk avoidance and food security (Caesar 1990, Clawson 1985). Furthermore, although the production of staple food crops may not always provide the full nutritional requirements of the rural family, increases in income do not necessarily lead to improved nutrition (McCulloch and Futrell 1988, Dewey 1981). In the case of small-scale highland Guatemalan farmers, the improved incomes sometimes accompanying adoption of nontraditional export agriculture have not always improved the nutritional status of children, since disproportionately greater income generation has often gone toward the consumption of non-food items. Additionally, risk is very high for these export crops, and communities in which their adoption has been prevalent often experience rapid social differentiation and shifts from family to hired labor and from subsistence farmers to wage laborers (Rosset 1991). Furthermore, communities that lose or reduce the use of traditional crops and varieties lose valuable genetic diversity and tend to lose confidence in their own knowledge and management techniques (Thrupp 1989, Bentley 1989a).

The most profound change in management, motivated in part by these

cropping system changes, has been the introduction and prevalence of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Farmers adopting export crops tend to grow them in







6

monoculture with greater amounts of chemical inputs, partly because of the high cosmetic standards of foreign markets. Lack of regulation and access to information about proper use of these chemicals often leads to environmental contamination and safety risks for the entire farm household (ICAITI 1977).

Pesticide use in the region has grown substantially as a result of export crop production, and repeated detainment in the United States of products exceeding pesticide residue standards has resulted in large economic losses. Additional effects include high production costs for farmers, with the social consequences already mentioned, potential health problems, environmental contamination, and development of resistance in pest insects (Morales et al. 1993, Rosset 1991). For the individual farmer, production of broccoli and other fresh vegetables involves not only fulfilling requirements for using specified pesticides, but also a risk of crop failure or rejection by the export company. When crop loss occurs, the farmer may be left, not only with less corn, the staple crop, but with additional debts as well. Therefore, the adoption of export vegetable crops by small-scale farmers in highland communities can in some cases lead to greater economic instability, loss of integrity of the corn crop, and greater synthetic pesticide use.



Difficulties in Promoting Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Programs Amonq Resource-Poor Farmers

Pest management, as the concept of IPM was intended, involves

suppressing the target population to an equilibrium level consistently below the







7

economic threshold through a variety of tactics, particularly the encouragement of native natural enemies (Stern et al.1959, Stimac and Barfield 1979, Pimentel et al. 1989). Understanding the relationship between pest population densities, damage to crops, and yield is an important prerequisite to the concept of damage tolerance upon which pest management is based (Funderburk et al. 1993). IPM, a component of sustainable agriculture, has been increasingly emphasized in the field of community development, to achieve both long-term stability in production, and maintenance of environmental quality. The growing interest in agroecology-based IPM stems in part from a realization that reliance on chemical inputs is not only costly in energy and economic terms, but can lead to environmental, health and social degradation (Gliessman 1992, 1988, Altieri 1987, Edwards et al. 1993, Pimentel et al. 1989).

Conway (1987, 1994) defines sustainable agriculture within the context of agroecosystem properties (productivity, stability, sustainability and equitability), involving trade-offs in terms of social value. Compatibility with traditional social patterns, conservation of natural resources, and potential for long-term improvement in food production make it an important component of small-farmer development. However, a major obstacle to the promotion of IPM within sustainable agriculture is the lack of controlled field experiments conducted locally and combining traditional knowledge and community needs with scientific knowledge of ecologically-based pest management strategies (Bunch 1982, Altieri 1987, Brookfield and Padoch 1994, Woodley 1991, Thrupp 1989).






8

Dependence on chemical pesticides must be broken for ecologicallybased pest management strategies to be effective. One of the major problems facing small-scale agriculture in Central America is the misuse of pesticides. A lack of regulation of products and of extension information on proper use puts both the farm household and the environment at risk (ICAITI 1977, Popper 1994). Small-scale farmers have readily accepted synthetic pesticides because of the simplicity of their use and immediate effects (Barfield and Swisher 1994, Escalada and Heong 1993). However, misconceptions about the health effects of highly toxic compounds and lack of knowledge of proper usage (for example, insecticides used to combat fungal problems, and dosage based on the number of pests seen) have been documented in eastern Guatemalan communities and are not uncommon throughout the region (Popper 1994).

The reliance on pesticides as a result of the promotion of nontraditional export agriculture in Central America has contributed not only to ecological problems such as contamination of soil and water, but also to a wealth of problems for the small-scale producer, including pesticide resistant populations and secondary pest outbreaks, with resulting crop losses. Small-scale farmers tend to be disproportionately affected by these and other consequences of pesticide dependence, since they tend to lack the knowledge necessary to understand the risks involved (Rosset 1991, Murray 1991). Expectations of traditional farmers regarding the value of pesticides tend to be unrealistically high, further exacerbating the problem (Thurston 1992). Additionally, the






9

acceptance of certain damage levels inherent in IPM may not be compatible with farmers' perceptions of crop loss (Goodell 1984).

Furthermore, gaps in farmer knowledge of phenomena not easily

observed, such as insect life history stages, or parasites and predators, has made IPM programs slow to implement in Central America (Andrews et al. 1993; Bentley and Andrews 1991; Bentley 1989b). One of the most critical obstacles for the promotion of IPM among small-scale farmers is that of access to information. IPM is knowledge intensive, and extensive training is required, especially for small-scale tropical farmers (Odhiambo 1990, Goodell 1984). Not only is it difficult for farmers to develop a complete understanding of the concepts of IPM, but its implementation requires scientists and extension agents to have ample site-specific ecological information on pest populations (Barfield and O'Neil 1984, Poswal et al. 1993, Goodell 1984). Such information is rare for the western Guatemalan highlands. Therefore, the change to export vegetables has potentially serious consequences for the adoption of ecological pest management strategies in the area.



Choosing Crops with Minimal Pest Problems as a Pest Management Strategy

Traditional farmers have developed a variety of means of avoiding pests in their agroecosystems (Barfield and Swisher 1994). For example, avoiding specific pests by planting at the time of year when they are not prevalent is one form of cultural pest management. The use of cultural controls such as crop rotations and intercropping has been successfully implemented in some






10

situations where the goal was to reduce or completely eliminate the use of chemical pesticides (Flint and Roberts 1988, Theunissen 1997). In many cases involving small-scale resource-poor farmers, the lack of skills to adequately handle chemical pesticides has led to recommendations for developing alternatives involving multiple cropping and other cultural controls (Seshu Reddy 1990, Saxena et al. 1989). Given the previously discussed negative impacts of pesticide dependence on small-scale farmers in Central America, and the difficulties in implementing ecologically-based IPM programs, the most appropriate pest management tactics for these farmers are those that avoid pests to the greatest practical extent.

One way to avoid pests and simultaneously address the need for greater productivity is to design intercrops utilizing the staple food crops as the main crops and income-generating or additional food crops as the secondary crops, chosen for minimal potential pest damage. Plants native to an area may have higher resistance to insects and disease, since they have adapted to local environmental conditions (Altieri et al. 1987). Several traditional crops in Guatemala are potential candidates for inclusion in such cropping systems.



Minimizing Pests in Crop Combinations

In advancing beyond the simplistic reduction of pesticide use by

eliminating "calendar spraying," the study of IPM is increasingly directed toward greater ecological understanding. As a component of IPM and of sustainable agriculture, cultural pest management through habitat manipulation has received









heightened attention. In the past several decades, we have seen a surge of studies exploring herbivore and natural enemy responses in mixed cropping systems (see, for example, Coil and Bottrell 1994, Elstrom et al. 1988, Tingey and Lamont 1988, Perfecto and Sediles 1992, Letourneau 1987, Risch 1981, Tonhasca 1994; for detailed reviews, see Cromartie 1991, Sheehan 1986, Risch et al. 1983, Russell 1989, Tonhasca and Byrne 1994, Perrin 1977).

Root (1973) offered two hypotheses to explain the reduced abundance of herbivorous insects often found in vegetationally diverse habitats. The natural enemies hypothesis attributes such reductions to greater favorability of a more diverse habitat for natural enemies, due to provisioning of nectar and alternate prey, shelter, microclimatic variation, and allelochemical attractants (Gross 1987, Price et al. 1980, Altieri et al. 1981). The resource concentration hypothesis alternatively attributes the same phenomenon to the tendency of herbivores to remain longer in habitats with concentration of their food plant, whereas more diverse habitats may disrupt herbivore colonization, movement, and reproduction (Kareiva 1985, Perrin and Phillips 1978, Feeny 1976, Andow 1990).

The relative contributions of the resource concentration and enemies hypotheses to herbivore response in polycultural agroecosystems have been frequently debated. While it is often noted that they are not mutually exclusive (e.g. Russell 1989), it has been suggested that the resource concentration hypothesis is more applicable to annual crops in polyculture, while the enemies hypothesis better explains herbivore response in perennial cropping systems (Risch et al. 1983, Baliddawa 1985). In addition, monophagous pests tend to be






12


more abundant in monocultures, while the abundance of polyphagous pests may vary, depending on the relative importance of natural enemies versus herbivore movements (Risch et al. 1983).

Beyond these broad generalizations, few studies have attempted to

define the specific mechanisms resulting in lower herbivore abundance in some polyculture systems, primarily because of the large number of factors involved in more complex agroecosystems. For example, the responses of both herbivores and natural enemies have been hypothesized to depend on their particular life history traits (e.g., generalist predators may be more effective in vegetationally diverse habitats than specialist natural enemies (Sheehan 1986)), as well as on the particular spatial and temporal arrangements of the agroecosystem (e.g., some generalist predators may respond to plant density independent of plant diversity (Letourneau 1990)). In addition, semiochemicals emitted by associated nonhost plants may influence an herbivore's attractancy to its host plant (Price 1981). Size of the field, field borders, time between plantings, susceptibility of crop varieties, ability of the pest or natural enemy to disperse and life cycle of the insects are just some examples of factors that have been hypothesized to influence the abundance of pest insects in vegetationally diverse agroecosystems (Litsinger and Moody 1976).

Therefore, the effects of vegetational diversity on insect pests remain

unclear, and the multitude of empirical studies lack an integrating organizational context, making them inadequate for addressing the ecologically-based goals of pest management. Andow (1991a) reviews the empirical and theoretical







13

approaches to comprehending the frequently cited lower herbivore densities in polyculture systems, but cites a lack of sufficient understanding required for predictions useful in pest management, especially for predicting when natural enemies are most significant in reducing herbivore densities. Moreover, most analyses of insect populations in mixed cropping systems fail to evaluate subsequent effects on crop yields (Risch 1983, Andow 1991b).

In addition, trying to understand the manipulations of the agroecosystem that would favor low equilibrium pest densities becomes more difficult in smallscale tropical agroecosystems, which tend to be more complex than their temperate counterparts, involving more diverse and intensively managed components adapted to local conditions (Francis 1985, Jodha 1980, Hildebrand 1976). Therefore, the most comprehensive approach to IPM studies involves understanding manipulations of pest habitats, and constructing models to sort out the ecological interactions that may lead to additional pest management options (Matteson et al. 1984). The construction of simulation models would allow the examination of many combinations of management strategies, which would be impractical through empirically-based experimentation alone (Stimac 1993, Foster and Ruesink 1986). In addition to predicting the conditions under which pest populations are lowest, it would also allow us to continually update our understanding of the system in the face of changes in the environment, management, and socio-economic components of the cropping system.

The complexity of agroecosystems that makes modeling desirable also makes it impractical in the short term, in part because a surprisingly small







14

amount of information on local occurrence of economically important species is available. In the Central American region, while data on local pests has been accumulated in Honduras (Andrews and Quezada 1989), Costa Rica (King and Saunders 1984) and the Caribbean basin (Schmutterer et al. 1990), virtually no comparatively detailed studies have been conducted in Guatemala. While some entomological studies have therefore been carried out in neighboring countries, there is little available evidence of the extent to which the potential colonizing pool or pest complex on any particular crop may correspond to that found in Guatemala, and specifically to the western highland area. There is a great need for characterization of arthropod communities in local agroecosystems and for future research projects, such as the establishment of economic thresholds through quantitative studies, to be organized and prioritized before more comprehensive understanding of agroecosystems can be pursued.

Therefore, the accumulation of sufficient knowledge to develop a detailed understanding of small-scale tropical agroecosystems is a long-term goal that is not suitable for resolving pressing concerns. While achieving greater ecological understanding is an important goal of IPM that should continue to be pursued through such areas as modeling of agroecosystems, there is also a more immediate need for knowledge of pests and beneficial insects in local cropping systems so that appropriate choices can be made now. Empirical studies that compare a limited number of choices, while not able to address the ecological







15

roots of pest population response, are more practical for offering guidelines to address the immediate concerns of farmers.



Maximizing Farmer Acceptance by Tailoring Cropping Systems to Maximize Farmer Benefits

Although some intercropping systems have been studied in detail to

determine the effects of increased crop diversity on pests and beneficial insects, the choice of cropping systems by small-scale farmers is usually based on factors other than pest control. Therefore, for alternative cropping systems to be adopted, they must not only be ecologically sustainable, but they must also demonstrate tangible benefits to the farm family (Edwards et al. 1993). In contrast to agricultural technologies intended for large farms, ecologically-based pest management, as a component of vegetationally diverse agroecosystems, is compatible with the culture and objectives of traditional farmers.

Some development projects have incorporated indigenous agricultural

knowledge and/or traditional food crops to increase agricultural diversity, reduce pesticide use, minimize risks and make better use of local resources. The most successful of these projects aim to help resource-poor farmers improve the overall productivity of their farms, reduce dependence on chemical inputs, and achieve food self-sufficiency (Altieri 1992). Additionally, those that are easily adapted to local conditions and production methods are most often embraced. For example, an intercropping project in El Salvador aiming to increase rural incomes and improve production of basic grains and vegetables was well






16


received, a prerequisite to being effective, because it was based on the dietary staples of the farmers and utilized the technologies to which they were accustomed (Hildebrand 1976).

Furthermore, the objective of long-term stability in yields, achieved through diversity within the agroecosystem, is more important to traditional farmers than the maximization of yields achieved through the use of external inputs (Altieri 1991b). Yield stability is an important goal of sustainable agricultural systems. In fact, the development of ecologically and socioeconomically sustainable agricultural production systems that minimize external inputs has been proposed as the most appropriate means of fulfilling the objectives of traditional farmers in the tropics (Francis et al. 1986). Such sustainable systems often include multiple cropping, which, in addition to reducing risk for the farmer, can utilize local resources efficiently, an important consideration in providing for the needs of small-scale farmers (Gliessman 1992).

The economic effects of multiple cropping systems on the farm family are a key element in determining the feasibility of particular crop combinations (Hildebrand 1976). It is important to consider not only differences in pest densities among alternative cropping systems, but also effects on yield and subsequent profit. Furthermore, different combinations of crops may yield different quantities of protein and net calories for the farm family, and the nutritional consequences of changing cropping systems should not be






17

overlooked (Dewey 1981). These economic and dietary returns can be used as indicators of benefit to the farm household.

Many traditional crops from Mesoamerica have nutritional and economic potential for small-scale multiple cropping systems (FAO 1993, Hernandez Bermejo and Le6n 1994). The challenge is to design sustainable intercropping systems utilizing crop combinations that, in addition to minimizing pest problems and subsequently reducing pesticide use, can provide perceivable benefits to the farm family by generating cash income, reducing risk, and improving dietary security.



Study Obiectives

The research project described here starts with the farmer-oriented

justification of using intercrops for their economic and nutritional productivity and seeks to confirm that for the specific alternatives tested, pests will not be increased so much as to offset the economic and social benefits derived from the system. The project was comprised of two main components. The first phase involved a survey of the agroecological conditions of farming communities in the study area and an exploration of farmer perceptions of current and alternative production systems. Objectives of the first phase were:

1.) to define the constraints within which small-scale farmers in the study

area operate;







18

2.) to learn which crops are preferred by local farmers and why they

choose to grow particular crops, including their relative nutritional,

economic and cultural values; and

3.) to identify appropriate crop combinations hypothesized to provide

greater overall benefit to the farmer than corn and beans alone, for

field experimentation during the second phase.

The second phase of the project involved field trials comparing alternative intercrops to monocultures of corn and beans, the dietary staples. It was intended to test the ability of selected alternative intercrops to provide economic and nutritional benefits to the farm household while minimizing pest problems. Specific objectives of this phase were to determine if:

1.) the densities of key pests or beneficials (including insects, diseases

and nematodes) on corn and beans change when selected secondary

crops are added to the system;

2.) pest damage or yields of corn and beans change when selected

secondary crops are added to the system;

3.) adding selected crops increases the likelihood of pest control

applications; and

4.) intercropping corn and beans with selected secondary crops can

provide greater economic, nutritional and/or energetic returns than the

respective monocultures.

Cropping systems in which additional crops are combined with corn and later beans may be able to alleviate some of the risks and social problems







19

associated with export crops, maintain cultural traditions so important to the survival of the Mayan people, and provide greater returns to the family than the traditional corn and bean cropping systems. The trend toward monoculturebased, pesticide-laden export agriculture by farmers in the Guatemalan highlands may be countered by providing indigenous populations with results of locally-derived studies documenting the effectiveness of food and market crops in polyculture. By involving analyses of specific crop combinations with respect to economic competitiveness and ecological pest control, the project may provide an example of how small-scale farmers in the western Guatemalan highlands can improve their economic and nutritional state while avoiding chemical inputs incompatible with their environmental and social interests.














CHAPTER 2
ASSESSMENT OF AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES AND FARMER PERCEPTIONS IN THE STUDY AREA


Introduction

Poorly distributed land, growing population, and a largely impoverished rural population in the western Guatemalan highlands have all contributed to agricultural systems that are pressuring the natural resource base (Colchester 1991, Southgate and Basterrechea 1992, Ruano et al. 1991). In addition, increased production of high-value horticultural crops in the highlands has led to pesticide contamination in the capital city's drinking water and unknown but potentially serious health problems for farmers untrained in the safe handling of pesticides (Southgate and Basterrechea 1992). In order to resolve the environmental and socio-economic conflicts inherent in changing cropping patterns, not only must technical alternatives be available, but they must also be evaluated within the context of the production systems of the farmers involved.

Small-scale, resource-limited farmers in tropical countries have evolved complex ecological and social systems. As a result, they usually have multiple objectives, including generation of both food and cash, avoidance of risk, and minimization of production inputs (Francis 1985). Traditional farmers efficiently allocate the production factors available to them (Schultz 1964), but the lack of availability of such factors is often overlooked. Additionally, the varied 20







21

objectives of traditional farmers often lead to maintenance of practices thought by agricultural scientists to be inefficient. For example, many Guatemalan farmers choose lower-yielding varieties of corn because their livestock prefer the leaves and husks of local varieties to higher-yielding hybrids (Altieri 1984b). Agricultural technologies that do not account for the constraints of small-scale farmers, nor recognize the heterogeneity of traditional agricultural systems, may not utilize local resources efficiently (Altieri 1984a, Fujisaka 1991) and may be rejected by the farmer.

Gladwin (1989) used a decision model to explain how traditional Malawi farmers decided whether to use organic versus chemical fertilizers, concluding that lack of capital and credit were more important constraints to the use of chemical fertilizers than indigenous beliefs about organic fertilizers. Furthermore, the farmers used a combination of fertilizers when possible, because within their knowledge system, each has its role in plant nutrition and soil maintenance. An increasing number of studies examining indigenous knowledge systems have concluded that the most appropriate agricultural technologies for traditional farmers are those that are developed within, or incorporate, indigenous knowledge systems. It is particularly important to maintain the traditional ecological knowledge that allows farmers to manage their resources in an environmentally sustainable way (den Biggelaar 1991, McCorkle 1989, Field 1991, Woodley 1991, Gliessman 1980; Gliessman et al. 1981). Agricultural development projects that try to replace traditional technologies rather than use them as a foundation for improvement are more







22

likely to fail (Goldman 1991, Groenfeldt 1991, Altieri and Anderson 1986; Altieri 1984b).

On the other hand, where technological developments have been

incorporated into traditional systems, small-scale farmers have often accepted both. For example, selection and management of traditional maize varieties in Chiapas, Mexico, has continued within the context of technological changes (Bellon 1991). Taking into account the ecological and socio-economic conditions of small-scale farmers is essential to avoiding rejection of newly generated technologies. For any planned community intervention, an understanding of the knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of the target group permits the identification of possible impediments to acceptance, and when such factors are incorporated, projects can be made more successful (see, for example, descriptions of malaria and onchocerciasis interventions in Guatemala: Richards et al. 1991, Ruebush et al. 1994a, 1994 b).

The same can apply to pest management recommendations for smallscale tropical farmers, whose traditional systems may have inherent pest management characteristics such as plant resistance or natural control by predators and parasites. The traditional systems must be conserved, while at the same time improved upon (Matteson et al. 1984). In order to do so, the pest problems of the farmers must be placed in the wider context of their entire farming system (Altieri 1984b), and the conditions and constraints under which they make decisions must be clarified.






23

A survey of the agronomic, socio-economic and cultural conditions of small-scale farmers in the western Guatemalan highlands was carried out to identify both the most appropriate cropping systems that control pests and provide for farmers' needs, and the possible constraints to the adoption of new agricultural technologies in the communities studied. The ultimate goal of the project was to evaluate possibilities of incorporating secondary crops into the traditional corn and bean cultivation systems without increasing pest problems. The survey was conducted not only to examine local production practices, but also to explore knowledge and attitudes of farmers about traditional and nontraditional cropping systems, the practice of intercropping, and pest management, particularly the role of beneficial insects in the agroecosystem. An understanding of these issues can aid in the identification of appropriate cropping systems to be tested in the field and can also provide insight into possible obstacles to farmer acceptance of alternative cropping systems.



Methods and Materials

Semi-structured, open-ended interviews, discussions with key informants, field observations, and an informant ranking exercise were conducted between May and August of 1995 in the two highland communities of San Andres Semetebaj and San Jose Chacaya, both in the department (state) of Sololi. An additional exercise on recognition of insects found in local agricultural fields was carried out in Pera Blanca, a village under the jurisdiction of the state capital of Solol, in March of 1997.







24

The majority of the survey was conducted in the municipio (township) of San Andres S6metebaj, including nine of its surrounding aldeas (villages). This community borders an export vegetable growing region in the state of Chimaltenango, and so has experienced greater influence of broccoli production, but it maintains many of the traditional production patterns as well. Its elevation (ranging from 1982 m in the town center to about 2200 m in some aldeas) and rainfall (average precipitation of 1409 mm annually) are intermediate for the region, and its social conditions are representative of those of many towns in the area (approximately 10% of rural homes have electricity and 15% have running water) (Proyecto ALA 1987). Some time was also spent in the more isolated municipio of San Jos6 Chacaya (elevation 2205 m), with the hope of observing more traditional agricultural practices in terms of cropping patterns and pest management. Ninety-four percent of the population of the state of Sololi is indigenous, and the predominant ethnic group in the communities studied is Cackiquel. Annual mean temperatures in SololI range from 15.9 to 22.6 OC (Proyecto ALA 1987). McBryde (1945) described highland soils as loamy, with more clay present than in the lowlands.



Semi-Structured Interviews and Key Informants

A total of 105 men were interviewed by walking through local fields, approaching farmers working there, and asking through a local translator (Spanish-Cackiquel) if they would participate. The translators (one for each of the two townships) were chosen for both their roles as local farmers and their







25

inside knowledge of the communities. The presence and participation of a respected member of the community was more conducive to cooperation on the part of informants.

Questions were posed to participating farmers about the crops they grow, the amount of land in each, management practices (planting and harvesting dates, spacing, irrigation, weeding, fertilizer applications, crop residue management, rotations, slope management), markets, and source of technical advice, with ensuing open-ended conversation of their general concerns and interests with respect to agriculture. Interviews also included questions about pests and diseases observed and the resulting damage to crops, particularly insect pests and their chemical and non-chemical management on each crop, as well as pest occurrences in the past.

To understand crop choice, including the inherent cultural value of certain crops, interviews included discussion of opinions about traditional and nontraditional crops, opinions and experience with intercropping, and the use of native herbs as volunteers within the cropping system. Other important decisions included what additional crops were grown in the past and reasons for changing, why certain crops are chosen, and particularly why some farmers have begun to produce export crops. Farmers varied greatly with respect to degree of confidence and willingness to discuss their concerns. As a result, interview durations ranged from 10 minutes to 2 hours, with most lasting between 20 and 30 minutes.






26

In addition, 21 women from farming households in San Andres Semetebaj were interviewed after approaching them in their homes, generally adjacent to or near agricultural fields. A local female translator was chosen for these interviews for the reasons cited above, as well as to increase trust by having a woman they knew pose the questions. Women were questioned about the crops their family grows, the use of native herbs in the family diet, and their concerns related to agriculture. Although crop management was not discussed in detail with the women, more time was generally spent during these interviews than for the interviews with men.

For the total of 136 interviews, questions about crops and their

management, opinions, experiences, and information sources were tabulated by number and percent of informants giving each response. Finally, with the assistance of the translators, several key informants were identified, who through repeated discussions provided more in-depth insights concerning the conditions and perceptions in local farming communities.



Crop Preference Ranking

To understand crop preferences in these communities, a preference ranking exercise (Weller and Romney 1988) was conducted in both communities, with a total of 50 informants (7 men and 16 women in San Andres Semetebaj and 18 men and 9 women in San Jose Chacaya). Twenty-nine crops were selected from a list of those discussed during interviews and depicted on index cards. Each informant (again with the assistance of a local translator) was






27

then asked to make three piles: highly preferred crops, least-preferred crops, and intermediate crops. For each pile, informants then placed the cards in order by preference, and the overall order was confirmed. Results were tabulated for women and men in each of the two communities, providing a list of crops ranked from most preferred to least preferred.



Recognition and Perceptions of Insects in Local Cropping Systems

Nineteen informants from the village of Peha Blanca were approached as described for the open-ended interviews. Each was asked if he/she was willing to participate in an exercise involving identifying and describing insects presented. For each pinned insect observed, informants were asked to name it and describe what it does.

The exercise was designed to explore knowledge of pest and beneficial insects present in local agroecosystems. The insects included 3 major pests, 8 minor pests and 9 beneficials, all commonly found on local crops, especially corn. If pest management were a part of the traditional knowledge base, it would be expected that informants would be able to assign the proper ecological role to particular insects, although not being able to name them specifically. Results were tabulated by mean proportion of pests and beneficials correctly identified.



Soil and Botanical Analyses

Soil in each community was collected from 4 agricultural fields

representative of the conditions and crops grown, and analyzed by a private soil






28

testing laboratory in Guatemala City (Agri-Lab) to determine texture, pH and nutrient levels. Thirteen commonly cited native herbs were collected, labeled with common names given by key informants, and identified to species by staff of the Herbarium UVAL, Institute of Research, Universidad del Valle de Guatemala.



Results and Discussion



Agronomic Conditions, Crops, Yields and Management Practices

Analyses of soil samples in both communities showed the presence of sandy loam soil, with average content of clay 15.5%, of sand 72.3% and of silt 12.3%, for the 8 samples analyzed. Average pH was 5.8, with the range between 5.2 and 6.6. The presence of sandy loam soils in all soil samples taken suggests that soils in the area are well drained and easily worked but may lose nutrients and dry out quickly. These soils may also need a significant addition of organic matter to maintain or improve the water and nutrient-holding capacity, which may explain why local growers frequently complained that soil fertility had declined since the use of chemical fertilizers became widespread. The slightly acidic pH of all of the soil samples indicates that the pH range of soils in the area is generally appropriate for most crops.

Most farm families in both communities have limited land available for

cultivation, with over two-thirds reporting less than 1 ha. and one-third reporting less than 0.5 ha. (Figure 2-1). When questioned about crops they produce, farmers described a variety of grains and vegetables, whose planting seasons







29


> 2 ha. a.) San Jose
8.7%
Chacaya (n=23)

1.5 1.99 ha. <0.5 ha.
8.7% 30.4%




1 1.49 ha.
17.4% ,





.5 0.99 ha. 34.8%


b.) San Andres Semetebaj (n=84)

> 2 ha. 9.5%
1.5 1.99 ha.
7.1% <0.5 ha.
33.3%


1 1.49 ha.
13.1%






0.5 0.99 ha.
36.9%


Figure 2-1. Land area available to farm families, by percent of farmers responding. a.) San Jose Chacay; b.) San Andres Semetebaj.






30

are depicted in a cropping calendar for the area (Figure 2-2). Corn and black beans are the principal crops, in terms of both percent of land area planted to them and percent of farmers planting them, which was nearly 90% for corn (Figure 2-3). Yields as reported by the farmers are given in Figure 2-4. These values represent approximations, since many farmers do not measure their yields.

Local farmers often complained about the difficulty in continuing to

produce corn because of the high cost of fertilizers and the low market price. Many said they have either taken some land out of corn production for other crops, or are considering doing so. Nevertheless, corn still dominates the landscape. More than half of the land cultivated by the interviewed farmers is planted to corn, most of it for home consumption (Figure 2-3). Local varieties of corn are used almost exclusively, with most farmers keeping seed from the harvest to plant the following year. These varieties are generally planted in early May and harvested in December or January. Although short-season, hybrid varieties are available, the grain produced from them does not store as well, and the tortillas produced become too hard when re-heated. In addition, local varieties are said to be resistant to drought and to an overabundance of rain. Besides the advantages for the farm family, the continued production of local varieties of corn is important for the conservation of genetic resources they contain (Brush 1986). According to the farmers interviewed, security is another major reason for growing corn, providing food in the absence of other opportunities. For example, when there is rainfall for an entire month, as






31


April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. I Jan. Feb. Mar. April
B|Rainy season
.- .sABeets Black beans (vine type) LLIl l Black beans (bush type) Brassica integrifolia

Z .......... .... Broccoli

SCabbage

Carrots Cauliflower Cilantro Corn

S- Faba beans Flowers I Onion Peas Peppers Potato

Radish Snap beans u rnmr remeen rag im Snow peas Squash
-traw% erry String beans Tomato Turnips gggFaba Wheat
Figure 2-2. Cropping calendar for small-scale farmers in Sololi
(different bars for each crop represent range of time periods planted).









89.5
90

80 18 Percent of farmers reporting production of crop

70 655 Percent of land planted to crop 70 65.5

60
50.8 51.9
50
(D 44.3 43.7

o 40
33.1
30 27.4 24.6 22.6 20.9
20 16.0 18.6
12.1 10.5 11.3 11.3 11.3 9.7 10 1Ir 8 1 9. I


Corn Black Black Broccoli Potato Faba Tomato Carrots Flowers Wheat String
beans beans beans beans
(vine (bush type) type)

Figure 2-3. Percent of interviewed farmers in two Sololi communities reporting production of local crops
(n=125), and of those reporting production, mean percent of each farmer's available land planted to each crop.











3084
80 0 >2000 kg/ha.
0 1500-1999 kg/ha. 1028 308
70 0 1000-1499 kg/ha.
M 500-999 kg/ha.
60 1 I <500 kg/ha. 1028 771 1028

S50 514
0
771 1542 DM 771
T 40

20
10



10 i

0 I I
Beans Beans Corn Broccoli Carrots Potato Faba String Tomato Onion (bush (vine (n=51) (n=10) (n=10) (n=16) bean bean (n=4) (n=4)
type) type) (n=4) (n=12)
(n=19) (n=25) Crop

Figure 2-4. Yields of principal crops reported by farmers in two Solola communities. Numbers above each crop represent median values.






34

occasionally occurs, other crops are lost and no agricultural wage work is available, but those who have planted corn still have food.

Black beans are often planted in the inter-row space, especially in San Andres Semetebaj, and in both communities a traditional variety of climbing black bean is planted with each corn plant. Four to 5 seeds of corn and 3-4 of beans are planted in each hole, usually at a 1-m distance between rows and plants, although some use spacing of 0.75 m. Planting, weeding and harvesting are performed by hand. A broad hoe and/or machete are used for weeding, which is usually completed once a month for the first 3 months. At the second weeding, some soil is built up around each growing corn plant, and at the third weeding, soil is pushed toward the base of each plant to form mounds, a process known as the "calzada," literally "putting shoes on" the corn plant.

Nearly 100% of farmers interviewed used chemical fertilizers, and over

90% used chemical pesticides on at least one of their crops. However, over half also utilized crop rotation, intercropping, organic fertilizers, incorporation of crop residues, or a combination of these (Figure 2-5). Many farmers expressed the desire to learn more about organic fertilizers such as compost and manuring, and pesticides they could make from plant extracts. Many mentioned that while they had not bothered to utilize the manure from their animals since the introduction of chemical fertilizers, they were now realizing its value and beginning to use it again. Such realizations appear to be due in part to the growing number of organizations that have become involved in promoting organic agriculture in Guatemala during the last few years, with extension work










100 98.3
91.7 90
S80

, 70 67.8 68.1 66.7 61.3
60

S 50
C
o
40

0 30 c 2 20.2 a,
2 20

10
0 KJ

Irrigation Chemical Chemical Crop rotation Intercropping Organic Incorporation fertilizers pesticides fertilizers of crop Response residues

Figure 2-5. Management practices utilized by farmers in two Sololi communities.






36

relating to natural pesticides, composting, and intercropping. During interviews, many farmers in the San Andres Semetebaj area discussed contacts with such groups, indicating an overall positive experience. Local agricultural cooperatives were also selling chicken manure for the first time in 1995.

Irrigation, while common in San Jose ChacayB through a traditional

system of canals that channel water from the local river to fields, is currently rare in San Andres Semetebaj. Only 20.2% of farmers in both communities have access to irrigation systems. However, both overhead sprinkler irrigation and hand pumps have been increasingly promoted by some organizations, with irrigation projects planned for San Andres Semetebaj. Those without access to irrigation plant according to the rainy season, which begins in May (occasionally in April) and ends in November, with heaviest rains usually occurring in September and October following several rain-free weeks in August.

Since neither of the abovementioned communities has its own market, most crops are sold in nearby markets, notably Panajachel and Sololi. Many growers in San Jose Chacay6 sell their vegetables in Guatemala City, especially potatoes, string beans (P. vulgaris) and cabbage. Broccoli in San Andres Semetebaj is sold almost exclusively through local cooperatives that contract with export companies.



Attitudes and Perceptions of Cropping Systems

To better understand locally cultivated crops and how they are valued, perception and experience with certain crops was discussed during interviews.






37

The choice of what crops to plant each year can be complex for small-scale farm families. Gladwin's (1980) analysis of this decision by highland Guatemalan farmers revealed a number of conditions that must be met at each of several stages for particular crops to be chosen, including demand, climatic and agronomic requirements, knowledge, time, and capital or credit. When asked how they decide which crops to grow, 45.9% of respondents in the present survey cited market prices. Other important considerations were family tradition and the security of corn and bean production for the family diet (Figure 2-6). In fact, risk aversion is often a factor in production decisions of small-scale farmers (Altieri and Trujillo 1987, Marten and Saltman 1986).

Farmers repeatedly emphasized during the interviews that they are

seeking income-generating crops to avoid selling the corn, which is very low in price and is needed for family consumption. They also want to avoid the use of purchased fertilizers and pesticides, which they see as very expensive and increasingly problematic. Many said that the chemical fertilizers were weakening the soil, while chemical insecticides cause health problems and do not always work well against the target pests. For those who grew different crops in the past, the question of why they changed was posed. The most frequent answer was that they had heard from others (friends, neighbors, company or extension agents) that it was profitable. When the prices of the crops they were currently growing dropped, there was greater incentive to change crops (Figure 2-7). In San Andr6s Semetebaj, many families changed










oo Percent of respondents (n=98)
0
0" 0 0 :0" 0 "1 0 Cn 0 0 C
0
(
3NProfit I markets a
0

Tradition or
o parental CO
influence
(D
o Food
o security/family diet

(D Time of year CD
L (rain, prices)
-0
C

o What neighbors E .
O grow
) ;0
C o Cooperative E .
o, o dictates

cn Time
0
g constraints/other D
o income

Usefulness in
0 rotations
"1

Personal
0 preference
a

Inputsrequired



Local climate :





9C











Percent of respondents (n=39)
0 (.1 0 M"1 0 (-1 0 (Y 0 M" 0
o -- __

E (0 Heard from OC
O0 others it was 0)
3 ,? profitable C -Nj

(D
-o
o Crop prices
dropped too
much
0
o
CD

n" Saw neighbors I
CD
planting it L
.0
C

0
o C Crop yields
~ dropped too
C W much
OCD
-,

0 Try new crops
until finding
best

0
To receive
credit for
o
CO fertilizer for
corn
0


_. Convinced by
company i
representative


0






40


part of their production from wheat to nontraditional export crops when the yields and prices of wheat dropped.

Traditional crops were associated most frequently with low market prices (38.8 % of those responding). They were also commonly seen as necessary in providing food and therefore valued in the local diet, important to the culture and tradition, and increasingly unaffordable to grow because of high input costs (Figure 2-8). Besides being essential as a dietary staple, corn is an integral part of the mythology and religion of the Mayan culture (Bukasov 1981, Johannessen 1982).

Despite the high value placed on the corn crop, many have put some of their land into cash crops, particularly vegetables. Local farmers related that export company representatives told of the high profits they would obtain by planting first brussels sprouts, then snap beans, and most commonly, broccoli. The first two were dropped from production when farmers experienced losses instead of the new house or car promised by company officials. Broccoli, however, remained popular, because some farmers have been able to make a profit, and the hoped-for good year keeps many trying to grow this crop. Thirty percent of those giving their opinion on nontraditional crops like broccoli said they can provide a profit. According to average yields and prices of both corn and broccoli reported by local farmers, the net profit is actually much higher for broccoli than for corn when the entire broccoli crop is sold, even accounting for higher input costs for broccoli. The corn crop offers almost no profit when sold,










Percent of respondents (n=80)
0 ( 0 1 0 (n 0 (1 0

S Low market a0 ; price 013

o Tradition of 3 2 parents very Co important
o -

CD Needed to S provide food

CD
Ensure their
= production first
o 0
2. Do not require
0
:3 chemical pesticides
a"
Stability (no
losses as with 9 export crops)
o

Bo Part of the m
C culture ("ours")


Cannot afford to grow them (low
price, high inputs)


Freedom from
intermediaries





ltr






42

and the relatively higher price for broccoli makes it appear promising, in spite of not being a consistently profitable crop.

When asked their opinion of production of export crops like broccoli,

although mention was often made of the sometimes higher returns cited above, many noted the higher expense of inputs, the greater problems with pests and subsequent need for more pesticide applications, and the requirements of more time, effort and knowledge than with traditional crops (Figure 2-9). The major problem with broccoli production, according to those interviewed, is the risk of rejection of the harvest if insect presence (lepidopteran larvae) exceeds the standard set by the export company. When part or an entire harvest is rejected, the farmer often incurs a debt to the company because of inputs bought earlier on credit.

Another criticism made by farmers is that the local agricultural

cooperatives through which the export companies work sometimes do not pay for the harvest until the following year, and rumors of corruption in at least 1 cooperative were prevalent. Some of the cooperatives require associates not only to grow broccoli to maintain membership (and receive credit for fertilizers for corn) but also to buy from them the complete input package, including in some cases excess amounts of pesticides, in order to guarantee purchase of the harvest. Finally, broccoli and other exotic export crops require more fungicide and insecticide applications, because of greater pest prevalence than traditional crops and higher market standards. Agricultural credit requirements tied to pesticide use are not uncommon in Central America (Thrupp 1990).










c Percent of respondents (n=89)

o
0
o3
B Can be __- (o profitable C.,
CD M
Little
knowledge/ eo
(interest
0
o Many pests,
-0
CD many chemicals II


a Require more
time, effort, L1
knowledge
0
Inputs are
expensive

3 o
a Companies
0 D
o: impose
0 restrictions

a Not profitable
every year, in i
long run
0
-9

Tried, company 0)
did not pay
a
)-" Intermediaries m o
take profits L7

.5 Chemical
pesticides harm
health




C17






44

Farmers repeatedly stated during the interviews that they do not eat herbs

from the broccoli fields because such herbs are laden with pesticides, although

they do gather native herbs from the corn field to supplement the diet (Figure 210). Selective weeding, with the maintenance of useful herbs in the

agroecosystem, has been documented for traditional farmers in southeastern

Mexico (Chac6n and Gliessman 1982). Many farm families in Sololi consume

native greens several times a week and have a variety of medicinal uses for the

herbs they collect (Table 2-1).



Table 2-1. Herbs commonly collected and utilized in the family diet by smallscale farmers in two Solola communities. Plant family Scientific name Common names
Amaranthaceae Amaranthus hibridus L. bledo, tzets, ses, huisquilete Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium sp. apazote Compositae Bidens chiapensis Brandg. shup Gallinsoga urticaefolia macar, hoja nueva (HBK) Benth
Sonchus oleraceus L. curcur, lechugilla Cruciferae Brassica sp. (campestris or napish, mostaza napa)
B. integrifolia (Willd.) Rupr. yerba blanca Nasturtium officinale R. Br. berro, guixocul Fabaceae Crotalaria longirostrata Chipilin, chop, tcap-in Hook & Arm.
Portulacaceae Calandrinia micranta Barba de San Nicolas Schlecht.
Solanaceae Solanum nigrescens Mart Macuy, hierbamora, quilete & Gal


Finally, farmers were asked about their experience with and perception of

intercropping, to evaluate possible reaction to more intensive cropping systems.

Traditional intercrops help to meet the multiple objectives of small-scale farmers









0 Percent of respondents (n=105)
3 -T ) 0) 0 C 0 (Y 0 3"' 0D 01 0 1 0 01 0 01

o Solanum nigrescens i
0

a Amaranthus o
0 hibridus

Crotalaria
0 en
o longirostrataO

Brassica
CD integrifolia N)

Brassica o>
campestris
o
Sonchus
T oleraceus

8 Coriandrum
sativum
CL
-o Nasturtium
O CD
officinale

0
6 Gallinsoga 7 3 urticafolia co

Bidens F
o chiapensis 6D

~ Physalis
pruinosa




9J7







46

(Jodha 1980), and the cultivation of many native crops within traditional systems is practiced with intercrops (Nabhan 1992). One example is the Aztec and Mayan practice of intercropping corn and amaranth (Amaranthus spp.), still found in parts of Mexico (Williams and Brenner 1995).

Intercrops observed in the field or reported by interviewed farmers are given in Table 2-2. Seventy percent of those interviewed reported utilizing at least one type of intercrop, but for 71% of those, that intercrop was corn and beans. While 38.9% of those responding admitted success with at least 1 example other than corn and beans, many were negative about the practice, citing a lack of room between rows to work with the hoe, shading of some crops by others, and that the practice in general "does not work" (Figures 2-11 and 212). The responses to questions about intercropping suggest that any recommendations involving more intensive cropping systems than are currently practiced should be accompanied by thorough extension programs to avoid conflict with local perceptions of intensive systems. In the future, extension efforts could be coordinated with the numerous local organizations promoting organic agriculture in the region (Castaieda et al. 1994), whose success in spreading awareness was apparent during the study.

In ranking crops by preference, informants chose corn as the most

preferred in both sites, followed by black beans (Table 2-3). Tomato, a crop many in San Andres Semetebaj have expressed an interest in growing, was fifth in overall preference. Husk tomato (Physalis pruinosa L.), amaranth and other herbs appeared below most of the common crops, probably because traditional






47


Table 2-2. Intercrops utilized by farmers in two Sololai communities.
Intercrops utilized by respondents Additional intercrops known by respondents
Corn + black bean (vine type) Corn + chili Corn + black bean (bush type) Carrots + faba beans Corn + black bean (vine type and bush type) Carrots + cilantro Corn + black bean + faba bean Radish + cilantro Corn + black bean + chili + faba bean Corn + black bean + avocado Corn + black bean + squash Corn + faba bean + squash Corn + tomato Corn + faba bean Corn + cilantro Corn + piloy bean Black bean + faba bean Black bean + sweet potato Black bean + tomato Black bean + flowers Faba bean + flowers Tomato + cilantro Broccoli + tomato Carrots + Brassica integrifolia Potato + Brassica integrifolia Onion + Brassica integrifolia










40 38.9

35

30
25.9
S25
-o
o20

o 15 13.0
1013.0
10 7.4 7.4 CL
5 3.7 3.7


0 Ca 0 C C "U 0 .


a)C0- C a L _CL C z o a0
Response

Figure 2-11. Responses to open-ended question of experience with intercropping beyond corn and beans, posed to farmers in two Solola communities.










-0 Percent of respondents (n=19)
o
L -n
O r Proper
-) combinations
can repel
insects CD
o Takes
o w advantage of m,. land
0 o
o o
3-0
3 (D Plants shade D each other a.
C CD
0 Plants compete o with each other
0

( No room to work
with hoe
CDr,

< Have to a) increase
spacing


cD
5' Soil not fertile M = 0 enough < cD n CD
-0c

Too much
work/time





617






50

Table 2-3. Order of preference of 29 crops presented to farmers in two SololI communities.
Rank Total San Jose San Andres Men Women Chacaya Semetebaj
(n=50) (n=27) (n=23) (n=25) (n=25)

1 Corn Corn Corn Corn Corn
2 Black beans Black beans Black beans Black beans Black beans
3 Potatoes Potatoes Tomato Potatoes Onion
4 Onion Onion Potatoes Onion Potatoes
5 Tomato Carrots Onion Green beans Tomato 6 Carrots Green beans Carrots Carrots Carrots 7 Green beans Tomato Squash Tomato Peppers 8 Squash Squash Faba beans Squash Squash
9 Faba beans Peas Green beans Peas Faba beans 10 Peas Faba beans Peppers Piloy beans Green beans 11 Piloy beans Radish Piloy beans Faba beans Peas 12 Peppers Cabbage Peas Radish Piloy beans 13 Radish Cauliflower Radish Cilantro Radish 14 Cilantro Piloy beans Cilantro Cauliflower Cauliflower 15 Cauliflower Peppers Husk tomato Cabbage Cilantro 16 Husk tomato Cilantro Flowers Husk tomato Husk tomato 17 Cabbage Husk tomato Broccoli Peppers Hierba mora 18 Broccoli Beets Hierba mora Beets Cabbage 19 Hierba mora Broccoli Wheat Broccoli Broccoli 20 Flowers Hierba mora Cauliflower Chipilin Flowers 21 Beets Chipilin Chipilin Snow peas Chipilin 22 Chipilin Hierba blanca Cabbage Flowers Beets 23 Strawberries Flowers Beets Hierba mora Amaranth 24 Amaranth Snow peas Strawberries Strawberries Wheat 25 Hierba Amaranth Amaranth Hierba blanca Strawberries
blanca
26 Snow peas Strawberries Snow peas Brussels Hierba blanca sprouts
27 Wheat Hoja de tamal Hierba Amaranth Hoja de tamal blanca
28 Hoja de Brussels Hoja de Wheat Snow peas
tamal sprouts tamal
29 Brussels Wheat Brussels Hoja de tamal Brussels
sprouts sprouts sprouts






51

crops are often shown less respect culturally (CATIE 1979, Martinez and Alfaro et al. 1994). Additionally, since they are gathered in small quantities, they are sold in small quantities in local markets and are not considered to have high market potential. However, rising imports to the United States of such crops as husk tomato and cilantro (Coriandrum sativum L.) and a growing international market for amaranth may be exploited in the future (Bock et al. 1995, Can et al. 1991-92, Maynard 1993, Schnetzler and Breene 1994). Despite the high percentage of farmers growing broccoli, it resulted in being 18th of 29 crops. Although many farmers continue to grow broccoli, the problems they have had with the export companies and the high inputs required probably cause them to perceive the crop negatively. The snow pea was close to the bottom and brussels sprouts was last. These crops were among the first in the export trend in the study area, but failed to produce expected profits.



Principal Pests, Perceptions of Changing Pest Status, and Recognition of the
Role of Beneficials

When asked about the history of agricultural pests in the area, 89.5 % of respondents stated that pest problems are greater now than in the past, with 10.5 % saying there is no difference, and none believing that pests were more of a problem in the past. Many respondents recognized that pests became problematic with the adoption of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, but as Bentley (1989b) found in Honduras, a lack of understanding of natural enemies has prompted the rise of alternative explanations. Fertilizer companies are said






52

to add insects to their products to increase dependence on chemical pesticides, and it is commonly recounted that several decades ago, planes dropped boxes of insects on the communities for the same reason (probably a reference to the sterile release screwworm eradication program active in Guatemala until recently) (Figure 2-13). Also, one person noted that nontraditional crops have more pests, and one described earlier practices involving organic matter amendments to the soil as inhibiting pest populations.

Farmer descriptions of the pests found on the major crops are

summarized in Table 2-4. The most commonly cited pests were the white grub Phyllophaga spp. ("gallina ciega") and the leaf beetles Microaltica mexicana and Diphaulaca wagneri (referred to locally as "timosus"). In addition, the term "argerfo" was used frequently to note a generalized poor growth of the plant, in some cases due to root pathogens and in others to unknown causes. Farmers' descriptions of insect pests were often extremely vague. While some farmers had learned genus and species names from export company agronomists (such as Plutella), most were only able to describe a pest as "a worm," "a bug," or "a little animal," and when questioned further were often unsure of color, time of occurrence, and distinguishing characteristics.

When farmers in the nearby community of Peria Blanca were later shown 20 specimens of insects common in agricultural crops in the area and asked to identify and describe their activities within the agroecosystem, they were able to name only a few of the insects. When describing what the insects do, they correctly identified the roles of 23.9% of them. Forty percent of the pest insects










Percent of respondents (n=31) o a0 o o o i

0C

8 W Companies add
them to fertilizer _O
3.o
(D
-*0
Problems began
CO with use of
0 chemical b
0
-fertilizers
(D

Planes dropped
boxes/bags of 9
-o insects

0
S Land got used to i
D chemicals
0

0
4 with use of
chemical Lb
pesticides


Climate (cold,fog)


Cultivation of nontraditional
S crops, which have
more pests

0 In past, used more organic
0 matter in the soil

Insects reproduce
faster in soil
heated by fertilizers









Table 2-4. Principal pests reported by interviewed farmers.
Crop Insects Disease Pathogens Vertebrates Other invertebrates
Corn Phyllophaga spp. Fusarium spp. (vascular wilt) rats
Spodoptera frugiperda Alternaria bori moles earworm birds
cutworms
stemborers wireworms
earwigs
leafminers

Black beans Microaltica mexicana Fusarium spp. (vascular wilt) moles nematodes
Diphalauca wagneri Uromyces phaseoli (bean rust) slugs
wireworms

Broccoli Plutella xylostella Botrytis sp. moles
leafminers Peronospora (downy mildew)
aphids
cutworms

Faba beans aphids

Potato Phyllophaga spp. Alternaria solani (early blight) slugs
leafminers Phythophthora infestans (late blight)
wireworms Xanthomonas sp.
aphids Fusarium spp. (vascular wilt)

Tomato wireworms Alternaria solani (early blight)
cutworms Phythophthora infestans (late blight)
aphids






55

were correctly characterized as pests, while only 5% of beneficials were distinguished as such. Forty and 48% of pest and beneficial insects, respectively, were unknown to the farmers in terms of their role (Figure 2-14). Despite the inherent pest control characteristics of many traditional cropping systems, farmers are often unaware of the existence of beneficial insects (Altieri 1990a, 1984b, Altieri and Trujillo 1987).

When asked about the relative abundance of pests in intercrops versus monocultures, 64% of respondents explained that intercrops have more pests, and 29% felt that pests would be equally abundant. Of the former group, all regarded the more intensive intercrop as more attractive to pests, since more plant material was equated with more food for insects.

Most beneficials that were recognized as non-pest species were

considered, at most, harmless (29% of total beneficials). In fact, few farmers could say that any insect is "good." The beneficial nature of some insects within agroecosystems was not within the conceptual framework of most farmers. Bentley (1989b) and Andrews et al. (1993) have described the perceptions of small-scale farmers in Honduras in much the same way, with clear gaps in knowledge of insects, particularly as related to insect reproduction and natural enemies, phenomena that are generally difficult to observe. As was true with the traditional Honduran farmers, insects for these small-scale Guatemalan farmers are primarily seen as herbivores that threaten their crops and must be destroyed before they take over. For example, farmers in Peia Blanca who have observed beneficial wasps taking nectar from crop flowers believed that the flower and






56



a.) pests
(n=11)
Correctly identifie( Did not know 40%
40%










Identified as ntified as beneficials harmless or 3% weed feeders 17o/

b.) beneficials Correctly (n=9) identified
5% Identified as
pests S 18%




Did not know
48%





Identified as harmless 29%

Figure 2-14. Mean percent of a.) pest and b.) beneficial insects identified by 19 informants according to their role in agroecosystems.






57

leaves of the plant subsequently dried out as a result. Such an attitude of all insects being the enemy has contributed to over-zealous spraying with pesticides in Central America, often without economic justification (Andrews et al. 1993).



Basis of Farmers' Agricultural Knowledqe

When questioned about their major concerns, farmers most frequently mentioned the need for profitable crops (Figure 2-15). The high cost of inputs also was cited repeatedly, and while only 2 people were most concerned about the health effects of pesticides, such effects were cited as a minor concern several more times. The third most common concern was that of pests. With respect to the type of information farmers would be most interested in receiving, the most prevalent responses dealt with natural fertilizers and pesticides. Information about new crops as profitable alternatives and more effective pest control tactics were additional important concerns (Figure 2-16).

Interviews also included discussion of sources of technical advice, which was found to be received most often from the cooperative or export company agronomists (the primary source for 40.6% of those interviewed). These agronomists are said to visit the fields of every farmer contracted to grow broccoli, to advise on which pesticides to apply. Other sources of advice and information include training from parents, self experience, friends' and neighbors' advice, and agrochemical stores (Figure 2-17). Many farmers expressed distrust in extension workers, who are often said to give poor or











0 Percent of respondents (n=56)
3 0 0 C." 0 0, 0 01 0 C C"


crops


o High cost of inputs

0o 0
"0 Pests

C.

eL No concerns
.0

o Lack of market
access for new
crops
no

Poor growth of
plants
0 0
o
D O
S Lack of technical
advice CD
0)

"o


soiHealth effects of'
CC







pesticides


o Pesticide
cn resistance


Too much [-competition K




89











20
18.1
18 16.7
16.7
16
r-. 13.9
1 14 12.5
c 12 11.1 11.1

010 g' 8.3
8
C 6 5.6 6)

4
2.8




Organic None Natural New crops More Plant Markets Organic Vegetable Less
fertilizers/ pesticides effective diseases production processing expensive
compost pest inputs control Response
Figure 2-16. Responses to open-ended question of agricultural information desired, posed to farmers in two Solola communities.










_5 Percent of respondents (n=106)
0 M 0 Ln 0 Cf 0 (7n 0 (1

o Cooperative or U r) company 0o
0 --4 agronomists
3
3 v;

0o Parents/ tradition
CD
O
o
None (own
experience) I I



c NGO talks/
courses
0 I
o"
Friends/



C
0 Agro-chemical
o stores


0)
extension agents

CD
V 0Training from
0
CD studies or
a employment
0


CD Pesticide labels






09







61

inappropriate advice. In a study in Honduras, small-scale farmers also expressed doubt about the suggestions of extensionists, although continued contact with them also resulted in lower confidence in their own traditional agricultural knowledge (Bentley 1989a).



Conclusions

The survey activities described here were designed to better understand farmer conditions, knowledge and attitudes. Increased profit, maintenance of traditions, and food security are some of the most important goals that cropping systems must satisfy to be appropriate for the farm families in the study area. Small-scale farmers in the region were found to be primarily constrained by land, capital, markets and the information base necessary to manage pests. Farmers were generally unaware of the role of natural enemies in the agroecosystem, and their incomplete knowledge of specific pest and beneficial insects highlights the lack of pest management information in their traditional agricultural knowledge base. In fact, most examples of effective traditional knowledge with respect to efficient use of natural resources in agriculture concentrate on soil and water management (Brush 1981, Mountjoy and Gliessman 1988, Wilken 1987).

Traditional agricultural knowledge must be taken into account when

designing pest management strategies for small-scale tropical farmers (Thurston 1990, Altieri 1990b, Glass and Thurston 1978). However, where little more than cursory understanding of the ecological processes involved and little recognition






62

of key organisms exist, the traditional knowledge base cannot be relied upon. In this case, where chemical control of pests is prevalent and alternative sources of knowledge are rarely existent, the best strategy is to avoid the need for pest management as much as possible by choosing crops that minimize pest problems.

One of the most noteworthy results of the survey is the continued

significance of corn and the desire to maintain certain traditional crops and practices, despite pressure to adopt high-cash crops and synthetic inputs. Corn, despite its low market price, remains a vital element in the culture, religion and diet of the Mayan groups in the region, and caring for the land and the revered corn plant is fundamental to the Mayan way of life (Rojas Lima 1988, Bukasov 1981, Johannessen 1982, Elbow 1974). Therefore, although alternative production systems are needed, corn and beans must remain the focus of any cropping systems tested, and secondary crops should be chosen for their role in minimizing pest problems, as well as the economic and nutritional benefits they provide. For an alternative cropping system to be economically, environmentally and culturally sustainable, it must be intermediate between the traditional corn and bean systems, which can no longer provide for the needs of the population, and an export vegetable monoculture, which can cause environmental and cultural damage without providing economic stability.














CHAPTER 3
INSECT PEST AND BENEFICIAL POPULATIONS, DISEASE AND DAMAGE IN CORN MONOCULTURE AND TWO ALTERNATIVE INTERCROPS




Introduction

Agricultural research aimed at modernization of farmers in developing

countries tends to overlook the ecological and socio-economic heterogeneity of traditional agricultural systems, concentrating on large-scale yield-improving technologies that are not appropriate for many small-scale farming systems (Altieri and Trujillo 1987, Francis et al. 1986). On the other hand, the design of site-specific cropping systems may contribute to the long-term success of agricultural development projects that aim to resolve the most pressing needs of small-scale farm families in the tropics. However, such systems must be designed carefully to avoid creating additional management problems. The design of more intensive cropping systems may or may not create undesirable consequences for the already difficult task of pest management faced by the small-scale farmer. Therefore, alternative cropping systems hypothesized to provide greater economic and health benefits to the farm family must be carefully scrutinized through field experiments in the immediate area for any resulting effects on pests.



63






64

The most immediate set of problems facing small-scale farmers in the western Guatemalan highlands are the need for income-generating crops, the threat to cultural traditions, and the misuse of synthetic chemical pesticides. Before cropping systems can be recommended as alternatives, these needs must be addressed. While the maintenance of corn in the cropping system is essential for the maintenance of cultural traditions, the increasing need for greater income can be met by adding cash crops to the system, as long as the yield of corn is not reduced. If this can be accomplished while at the same time reducing the pest numbers or apparent damage (or at least maintaining the same levels), the use of synthetic pesticides will not be increased. As a result, the alternative cropping system would be more appropriate to the needs of target farmers, and the likelihood of acceptance would be higher. Incorporating the needs and perceptions of the target group into research recommendations can increase the degree of acceptance of an agricultural innovation (Grieshop et al. 1988).

The choice of secondary crops incorporated into the system can have consequences for the natural control of corn insect pests, both directly as a result of ecological interactions and indirectly as a result of changes in chemical pesticide use on corn, or additional usage on secondary crops. Root (1973) developed the natural enemies hypothesis to suggest that reductions in herbivore abundance in vegetationally diverse habitats may be the consequence of greater favorability of more diverse habitats to natural enemies (alternative prey, nectar sources, microclimatic changes, etc.). The response of natural






65


enemies to habitat diversity has been studied with inconsistent results (for example, Brust et al. 1986, Coil and Bottrell 1996, Risch et al. 1982), and it is clear that the particular ecological conditions present in each case determine the response of natural enemy populations to diversity. For example, in an evaluation of traditional corn production systems in Tlaxcala, Mexico, Altieri and Trujillo (1987) concluded that fluctuations in both herbivore and predator densities depended on a number of factors, such as temporal and spatial crop arrangements, presence of non-crop vegetation in and around.the field, and type of management.

However, the negative impact that chemical insecticides can have on natural enemies has been more consistently documented in many agroecosystems, including that of corn (Brust et al. 1986, Perfecto 1990, Garcia 1991). Therefore, it makes more sense to concentrate on intercrop combinations that will not only provide more economic and nutritional benefits than corn alone but also not require pest control. Such combinations would encourage natural control and at the same time account for the constraints of small-scale farmers.

Two alternative cropping systems designed to conform to the constraints and needs of small-scale farmers in Solola, Guatemala, were examined in terms of insect pest and beneficial populations, disease and damage. The objective was to determine if the additional plants intercropped with corn would give rise to greater pest population densities, lower beneficial population densities, greater







66


disease presence, or greater damage, any of which would provoke the farmer to utilize greater amounts of synthetic pesticides.

Since economic return may outweigh potential changes in pest numbers, both a high-risk alternative, utilizing crops that have both greater economic potential and greater potential pest problems, and a low-risk alternative, including crops with lower potential pest problems and lower expected returns, were examined. The high-risk intercrop included black beans, broccoli and faba beans with the main crop corn. Faba beans are commonly grown in the area and are often grown around the house or within the cornfield. The crop has a stable local market, and its high protein and mineral content makes it nutritionally appealing (Rani and Hira 1993). However, farmers in the area related that yields have declined, and faba beans now experience greater pest attack, particularly from aphids. Broccoli is the principal export crop in the area, and while production for export markets may not be appropriate to the conditions of small-scale farmers, there is also a strong market in Guatemala City, and to some extent in Solold.

The second alternative, the low-risk intercrop, was comprised of the main corn crop with the secondary crops black beans, amaranth (Amaranthus cruentus), and cilantro. Amaranthus spp. constituted an important food staple in pre-Columbian Aztec and Mayan civilizations, and amaranth-based products are now growing in popularity worldwide, with market expansion expected in the future. Amaranth seed has a high protein content, and many species and cultivars are resistant to drought, heat and pests (National Research Council






67

1984, Weber 1980, R. Bressani, Universidad del Valle, personal communication 1995).

Furthermore, amaranth has potential for reducing pest populations when intercropped with corn in a non- or low-chemical use pest management program. Tingle et al. (1978) collected larvae of the beet armyworm (Spodoptera exigua (Hubner)), the southern armyworm (Spodoptera eridania (Cramer)) and the beet webworm (Herpetogramma bipunctalis (F.)) from A. hybridus growing within field corn in Hastings, Florida. They reared from these larvae nine native parasite species, all of which were also parasites of the serious corn pest Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (fall armyworm), but no fall armyworm larvae were found feeding on the amaranth. In field tests in Honduras, Spodoptera latifascia (Walker) showed an oviposition preference for Amaranthus sp. over sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) and various non-crop species, and equal to that of maize (Portillo et al. 1996). Therefore, amaranth may serve as a nursery crop for natural enemies of key corn pests.

Insect pests known to attack amaranth in the United States include principally the lygus bug (Lygus spp.), especially the tarnished plant bug (L. lineolaris Palisot de Beauvois), and the amaranth weevil (Conotrachelus senialus Leconte), with some reports of limited infestations by European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis), fall armyworm, cabbage looper (Trichoplusia ni (Hubner)) and corn earworm (Helicoverpa zea Boddie) (Weber 1980, Wilson and Olson 1990, Clark et al. 1995). However, information is not widely available pertaining to pests of amaranth in Guatemala.






68

Finally, although not native to the region, cilantro is a popular herb in Guatemala and Mexico, used for adding flavor to sauces, soups, vegetables, and other dishes. Its increasing popularity in the United States suggests that there is potential market growth. In addition, coriander seeds and oil extracts have been evaluated for their potential insect repellant properties (Su 1986). Several farmers in the study area reported the cilantro plant to be free of insects and occasionally plant it for its repellent effects.

The extent to which these alternative secondary crops may affect pest populations on, and damage to, the corn crop, particularly under the conditions of the study area, has not been evaluated. In fact, information on insects present in traditional Guatemalan agroecosystems is rare, with few exceptions (Painter 1955, Morales et al.1993). This study therefore compares two alternative corn intercrops to corn in monoculture, in terms of pest and beneficial populations, and describes pest presence on secondary crops to determine the likelihood that either alternative will increase the use of synthetic chemical pesticides.



Methods and Materials

Field plots were established at the Escuela de Formaci6n Agricola in

Solol, Guatemala at the start of the rainy season, 1996. The study site, on hilly land with an altitude of 2095 m, was chosen for its topographic and vegetational similarity to small farms in the area. Soils are sandy loam alfisols, with volcanic ash influence (66% sand, 22% silt, 12% clay). A pre-plant soil analysis of the







69

study fields showed soils to have a pH value of 5.6 and an organic matter content of 3.6%, and to be deficient in both nitrogen and potassium. Data from a weather station at the site revealed that total precipitation during the experiment (May to November 1996) was 1272.8 mm. Daily temperatures for this time ranged from 12.7 OC (mean minimum) to 20.6 OC (mean maximum), with the mean median temperature being 16.6 OC.



Experimental Design and Aqronomic Management of Field Plots

The three treatments consisted of the following: 1.) corn in monoculture,

2.) corn planted with black beans and later broccoli and faba beans, and 3.) corn planted with black beans and later cilantro and amaranth. Plant arrangements for the intercrop treatments are shown in Figure 3-1.

The experimental design was a randomized complete block with 6

replicates. Based on availability of open land, 3 areas within the school were utilized for the experiment, separated by 250-500 m, with 2 blocks (replicates) within each area. Plots measuring 15 X 8 m were laid out along the contour within each of the 6 blocks (one block below the other in each area) and separated by at least 7 m. Plots were terraced, as is most sloping agricultural land in the area, with 2-3 terraces per plot, constructed with hoes, and rows were planted along the contour. Plots in all 3 areas were on southeast facing slopes.

Monthly cutting with a machete minimized vegetation in areas between plots. Neither irrigation nor pesticides were applied to plots during the season.










A. o olo a loogo 0o0g a 000 olloala Og go loga o Io gololog
0 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ogogo go B o gog ago go g go o g go goo0g alogo gogogog o

ID Corn and bean o0l caBogao OIOO gg Bo googBa B ogoog aoo aooaB oaogoaeo a 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 Broccoli oalo gogoool10o0I0 ooIoaI1gogo 1go 3lo Ioo loa lo olog @ 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 Fababean 3olo0o 0o ogoggggao ogog ggoIo go g0logo go aoIogo9logo
0 0 0 000 0 0 00 0 0 0 G0 0 0 C 0 00 0 0 oloaolo gogol oloao oBolooa BoBoo Bo ogoWaagg agaogo l o glo DI l ga ga ag a a gaog aoga gagaoo gog


B 0 0 O O 0 [ o O [ [0 O [] [ QD 0 0 [ [] [ 0 O 0 0 [] ooga10o0 01 9090 0logologaggaaggaog 101010 ag3gga 10101


B. 0 o0 000C 00 a C] a 0 0 0 0 a O [ 0 n 0 [aa

...............
I Corn and bean 0000000000 [ 00 0000000000000

i.0 0 0 0 0Amaranth 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Figure 3-1 PCilantro arrangements in experimental plots of corn-based cropping systems with treatments [:1 0 013 0 0 3 00 13 0 0 O 13 [] 13 0 00 0 [] r3 3 0[]

0 0 0 0 [] 13 0 0 0 0 0 [ 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 [] [ [3 n ] 0

t 13 0 0 13 ] ] [ 0r 0 0] 0 0[3] 0 13 00 0 0 0 [] 0 [] Figure 3-1. Plant arrangements in experimental plots of corn-based cropping systems, with treatments consisting of high-risk intercrop (A), low-risk intercrop (B) and monoculture, with corn planted at equal density.

D






71

Local farmers carried out all land preparation, planting, and weeding with hoes and machetes, and agronomic practices followed those of the region. Likewise, locally grown seed was used where possible.

On May 18, local yellow corn seed was planted in all plots at a distance of

0.6 m between plants and 1 m between rows. In plots of treatments 2 and 3, black bean seeds were planted together with the corn at a planting depth of approximately 10 cm. Diammonium phosphate (DAP) (18-46-0 NPK) at 100 kg/ha was applied to approximately 8 cm-diameter holes, 16,667 per ha, made with a machete. Four corn seeds and 3 bean seeds were placed in each hole, based on local resistance to planting fewer seeds per hole as a result of losses to birds and poor germination. A local corn variety in the highlands of Chiapas, Mexico, was found to have optimum yields at 4.6 seeds per hill (Marquez-G6mez et al. 1992).

After covering the seeds with approximately 1 cm of soil, a hoe was used to create a mound behind the seeds to protect them from heavy rain. The following day, processed chicken manure (3-2-3 NPK) mixed with soil was applied in a furrow beside each mound at 841 kg/ha. At 3 weeks after planting, muriate of potash (0-0-60 NPK) and urea (46-0-0 NPK) were broadcast at 100 kg/ha in corn monoculture plots. Plots with intercrops received 150 kg/ha of each, divided in 2 applications, the first at the same time as the monoculture and the second a week later, after planting faba beans and cilantro in treatments 2 and 3 respectively. In addition, intercrops received 75 kg/ha of diammonium phosphate at planting. All plots received two more applications of urea (100 or






72

150 kg/ha for monoculture and intercrops respectively) at 9 and 13 weeks after planting, the last application coinciding with the first appearance of tasseling. Finally, soil test results showed a zinc deficiency, and so 2 applications of foliar zinc at 2 liters/ha were made to the corn and broccoli at 7 and 9 weeks after planting.

At 2 weeks after planting, corn was reseeded where poor germination,

missing seeds, or scratched up seedlings from bird damage left empty mounds. Intercrops in treatments 2 and 3 were planted after the corn had germinated. Three weeks after planting, in all treatment 2 plots, 2 dried faba bean seeds from the local market were planted in each hole (16,000/ha), which had been dug with a hoe to approximately 8 cm, and to which 75 kg/ha of diammonium phosphate had been applied. Holes were dug along the row of corn, between corn mounds, and the distance between plants was 0.6 m. Faba beans were reseeded 2 weeks later and harvested on October 16, November 9 and December 2. Black beans were harvested on September 3 and solar dried.

On May 21, broccoli seeds obtained from a local agricultural store were planted in a seedbed to which 50 g/m2 of 15-15-15 NPK fertilizer had been previously incorporated to approximately 30 cm, and 5 weeks later, seedlings were transplanted to treatment 2 plots. Broccoli seedlings were placed equidistantly between rows and between mounds of corn (Figure 3-1), at a distance of 0.6 m within the row, also with incorporation of 75 kg/ha of diammonium phosphate into the planting hole (14,000/ha). Plants that did not survive were replaced 2 weeks later. Further fertilization in treatment 2 plots is






73


described above, and broccoli was harvested on September 4, September 18 and October 16.

On June 12, locally obtained cilantro seed was planted in treatment 3 plots equidistantly between each row of corn at a spacing of 10 cm between plants, in 2 cm-diameter holes approximately 2 cm deep (100,000/ha), into which diammonium phosphate was incorporated at 75 kg/ha. Due to poor germination over all plots, cilantro was replanted 5 weeks later in two rows between every other row of corn (10 cm between plants and 20 cm between rows), with amaranth planted in 2 rows between the alternating rows of corn (15 cm between plants, 20 cm between rows, at 2 cm depth, 80,000/ha). Amaranth seed originated from the Rodale Institute (variety 84S-K277). Poor germination resulted in replanting of amaranth 3 and 6 weeks later. Cilantro was harvested on October 16 and November 25, and amaranth was harvested on December 6.

All plots were weeded with a machete and hoe at 4, 9, and 19 weeks after planting. At 6 and 9 weeks after planting, following local custom, soil was pulled up against each group of corn plants with a hoe, creating a mound that gave the plants greater support. Nevertheless, strong winds in August and height of corn plants contributed to lodging of corn in all plots. Lodged plants with no potential for ear development were removed on August 29. At the same time, some lower leaves of all corn plants were removed to prevent further lodging by relieving weight on the plants and allowing an outlet for the wind, further lessening pressure on the plants. By October, ears on lodged plants were receiving considerable damage from rodents and were sampled and removed on October






74

23 for sale as fresh ears. Remaining ears were turned down 3 weeks later to facilitate drying. This procedure ("doblado") is commonly practiced throughout Latin America by small-scale corn producers and has been documented frequently among Mayan farmers (Thurston 1992). In one study in Guatemala, 1% of grain from ears that had been bent down experienced fungal damage, compared to 14.5% from ears not bent down (Montoya et al. 1970). Finally, corn was harvested by hand on November 25 and further dried in the sun.



Insect, Disease and Damage Samples: Visual Observations

At weeks 3-5, 7-11, 13-15, and 18-19, plants were sampled nondestructively by visual observation. The sample unit was a 0.6-m length of cornrow, centered on a corn mound. Between 1 and 4 corn plants (seasonal mean of 3.47 corn plants per mound) and 1-2 bean plants were present in each sample unit. Number of units sampled per sampling date varied between 3 and 12, depending on height of corn plants and subsequent time needed for sampling. Within each plot, sample units were allocated systematically with a random start. On each sampling date, all visible parts of plants were examined, with numbers of insects and presence of disease and damage recorded.



Insect, Disease and Damage Samples: Destructive Plant Samples

At 2, 6, 12, 17, 22, 24 and 26 weeks after planting, corn plants were sampled destructively with the sampling unit and allocation described above. After cutting plants at 10 cm above the soil level and removing them from the






75


plots, all parts of each plant were thoroughly examined for insects and disease. During the last four destructive samples, damage to each corn ear was also recorded by source.



Soil Samples

A pre-plant sample was taken for soil insects, in which 9 samples were

taken per plot, allocated systematically with a random start. Blocks of soil 20 cm X 20 cm X 15 cm deep were removed with a machete, placed in plastic bags, stored at approximately 60 C and processed within 72 hours. Soil was placed in a kitchen strainer and water passed through, with the debris observed carefully for insects.

Soil samples were also taken at each destructive sample to determine significance of root-feeding insects. For each, a 20 cm X 20 cm X 15 cm deep block of soil, centered on the corn roots, was removed with a machete, placed in a plastic bag, stored at approximately 60 C and processed within 48 hours. Soil was placed in a shallow plastic pan and visually searched for insects.



Samples of Corn Ear Development and Damage

Damage to corn ears was also measured at final grain harvest. Plants from 10 sample units per plot were inspected for number of ears, length and weight of ears (with moisture readings from a Dole Model 400B grain moisture tester used to adjust weights to 15% moisture), number of kernels and number of damaged kernels by origin of damage.




Full Text

PAGE 1

PEST AND BENEFICIAL POPULATIONS AND RETURNS FROM ALTERNATIVE SMALL-SCALE CORN AND BEAN CROPPING SYSTEMS IN THE GUATEMALAN HIGHLANDS By BARBRA C. LARSON VASQUEZ A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1998

PAGE 2

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor and committee chair, Dr. Jerry L. Stimac, without whose unyielding support this project would not have been possible. The academic excellence he demonstrated and imparted was a valuable part of my learning experience at the University of Florida. I also acknowledge additional financial support from the Department of Entomology and Nematology, the Tinker Foundation (through the Center for Latin American Studies), and the Dickinson Award in Tropical Agriculture (through IFAS). The guidance and suggestions of my other committee members, Dr. Charles MacVean, Dr. Marilyn Swisher, Dr. Freddie Johnson and Dr. Carl Barfield are greatly appreciated. I especially thank Dr. C. MacVean for providing substantial assistance during the fieldwork, and Dr. Robert McSorley for advice and assistance with the nematode component. I am immensely grateful to the director and staff of the Escuela de Formacion Agricola (EFA) in Solola, for the use of field faciliites and living space and for assistance and support of the project. Much helpful advice was received at the Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, including the valuable recommendations of Dr. Robert Klein and the assistance in plant and nematode identifications by Dr. Ricardo Arjona and Dr. Marco Arevalo, respectively. Dr. Mike Wade provided advice on the fertilization plans. ii

PAGE 3

Special thanks go to Juan Gonzolo Tuy Toe and Jose Maria Ajquichich, two exceptional field workers, for their dedication to this project despite many obstacles in the field. Florencia Tocum and Toribio Cumez, in addition to translating, provided an inside view of the communities. I am grateful to the many men and women in Solola who took the time to listen and talk to me during interviews and discussions I also thank Dr. Mike Thomas and staff at the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services/Division of Plant industry for help with the use of the Florida State Collection of Arthropods, and Dr. Greg Evans, Dr. C. Porter, Dr. L. Masner, Dr. Lionel Stange, Dr. Susan Halpert and Dr. Jack Schuster for insect identifications. Also, thanks go to John Frederick and Dorota Porazinska for assistance with nematode identifications and to Dr. Heather MacAuslane for use of the leaf area meter. Finally, special thanks go to Edwin Vasquez for assistance in the field and support throughout this study. iii

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii LIST OF TABLES viii LIST OF FIGURES xiii ABSTRACT xxiv CHAPTERS 1 INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW 1 Effects of Changing Cropping Patterns on Western Guatemalan Highland Communities 1 Difficulties in Promoting Integrated Pest Management Programs Among Resource-Poor Farmers 6 Choosing Crops With Minimal Pest Problems as a Pest Management Strategy 9 Minimizing Pests in Crop Combinations 10 Maximizing Farmer Acceptance By Tailoring Cropping Systems to Maximize Farmer Benefits 15 Study Objectives 17 2 ASSESSMENT OF AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES AND FARMER PERCEPTIONS IN THE STUDY AREA 20 Introduction 20 Methods and Materials 23 Semi-Structured Interviews and Key Informants 24 Crop Preference Ranking 26 Recognition and Perception of Insects in Local Cropping Systems 27 Soil and Botanical Analyses 27 iv

PAGE 5

Page Results and Discussion 27 Agronomic Conditions, Crops, Yields and Management Practices 27 Attitudes and Perceptions of Cropping Systems 36 Principal Pests, Perceptions of Changing Pest Status and Recognition of the Role of Beneficials 51 Basis of Farmers' Agncultural Knowledge 57 Conclusions 61 3 INSECT PEST AND BENEFICIAL POPULATIONS. DISEASE AND DAMAGE IN CORN MONOCULTURE AND TWO ALTERNATIVE INTERCROPS • 63 Introduction 63 Methods and Matehals 68 Experimental Design and Agronomic Management of Field Plots 69 Insect, Disease and Damage Samples: Visual Observations 74 Insect, Disease and Damage Samples: Destructive Plant Samples 74 Soil Samples 75 Samples of Corn Ear Development and Damage 75 Samples of Community Composition 76 Statistical Analysis 77 Results and Discussion 78 Insect Pest Populations on Corn 78 Beneficial Insect Populations on Corn 87 Corn Diseases 91 Damage Estimates 95 Insects and Diseases on Secondary Crops 101 Conclusions 106 4 INSECT PEST AND BENEFICIAL POPULATIONS, DISEASE AND DAMAGE IN BEAN MONOCULTURE AND TWO ALTERNATIVE INTERCROPS 108 Introduction 108 Methods and Materials 110 Agronomic Management of Field Plots 112 V

PAGE 6

page Insect, Disease and Damage Samples: Visual Observations ... 114 Insect, Disease and Damage Samples: Destructive Plant Samples 114 Soil and Pod Samples 115 Samples of Community Composition 1 1 5 Statistical Analysis 116 Results and Discussion 117 Insect Pest Populations on Bean 117 Beneficial Insect Populations on Bean 122 Bean Diseases 123 Damage to Bean 126 Insects and Diseases on Secondary Crops 129 Conclusions 131 5 NEMATODE POPULATION DENSITIES IN ALTERNATIVE CORNAND BEAN-BASED CROPPING SYSTEMS 133 Introduction 133 Methods and Materials 137 Results and Discussion 139 Plant Parasitic Community 139 Total Nematode Community 144 Conclusions 148 6 ECONOMIC, ENERGETIC AND NUTRITIONAL RETURNS FROM ALTERNATIVE CORNAND BEAN-BASED CROPPING SYSTEMS 150 Introduction 150 Methods and Materials 1 53 Yields 153 Economic Returns 155 Energy 156 Nutrition 158 Statistical Analysis 159 Results and Discussion 159 Yields 159 Economic Return 165 Energy 172 Nutrition 180 Conclusions 186 vi

PAGE 7

page 7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 188 Relative Value of Alternative Cornand Bean-Based Cropping Systems in Minimizing Pest Problems 188 Relative Value of Alternative Cornand Bean-Based Cropping Systems in Providing Economic and Nutritional Benefits to the Farmer 191 Concluding Remarks 193 APPENDICES A DESCRIPTIONS OF SEASONAL TRENDS IN INSECT AND BENEFICIAL POPULATION DENSITIES, DISEASE AND DAMAGE ON CORN IN MONOCULTURE AND ALTERNATIVE INTERCROPS 197 B DESCRIPTIONS OF SEASONAL TRENDS IN INSECT AND BENEFICIAL POPULATION DENSITIES, DISEASE AND DAMAGE ON BEAN IN MONOCULTURE AND ALTERNATIVE INTERCROPS 226 0 DESCRIPTIONS OF SEASONAL TRENDS IN NEMATODE POPULATION DENSITIES IN CORN AND BEAN CROPPING SYSTEMS 241 REFERENCES 253 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 277 vjj

PAGE 8

LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Herbs commonly collected and utilized by small-scale farmers in two Solola communities 44 2-2 Intercrops utilized by farmers in t\MD Solola communities 47 2-3 Order of preference of 29 crops presented to farmers in two Solola communities 50 24 Principal pests reported by interviewed farmers 54 31 Insect herbivores collected in corn-based cropping systems 79 3-2 Densities (mean no. per 0.6-m row corn SEM) of insects on corn in monoculture, intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli (high-risk), and intercropped with black beans, amaranth and cilantro (low-risk), for sampling dates where significant differences were detected 83 3-3 Seasonal mean densities of key insect pests (no. per 0.6-m row corn SEM) on corn in monoculture, intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli (high-risk intercrop) and intercropped with black beans, cilantro and amaranth (low-risk intercrop), during the rainy season of 1996 84 3-4 Insect natural enemies collected in corn-based cropping systems... 88 3-5 Densities of spiders on corn in monoculture, intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli (high-risk intercrop) and intercropped with black beans, cilantro and amaranth (low-risk intercrop), at 6 weeks after planting (mean no. per 0.6-m row corn SEM) 91 viii

PAGE 9

Table page 3-6 Seasonal mean densities of key beneficials (no, per 0.6-m row corn SEM) on corn in monoculture, intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli (high-risk intercrop) and intercropped with black beans, cilantro and amaranth (low-risk intercrop), during the rainy season of 1996 92 3-7 Percentage of corn plants infested with rust when grown in monoculture, intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli (high-risk intercrop) and intercropped with black beans, cilantro and amaranth (low-risk intercrop), at 6 weeks after planting (mean SEM) 93 3-8 Seasonal mean percentage of corn plants (mean SEM) with disease and damage in monoculture, intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli (high-risk intercrop) and intercropped with black beans, cilantro and amaranth (low-risk intercrop), during the rainy season of 1 996 96 3-9 Percentage of corn plants with insect damage (mean SEM) when grown in monoculture, intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli (high-risk) and intercropped with black beans, amaranth and cilantro (low-risk) 98 3-10 Percentage of corn ears damaged by rotting when grown in monoculture, intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli (high-risk) and intercropped with black beans, amaranth and cilantro (low-risk) (mean SEM), November 13, 1996 99 3-1 1 Damage to corn ears sampled at harvest (November 26, 1996), by source of damage(mean % of ears SEM), for corn in monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli (high-risk intercrop) and corn intercropped with black beans, cilantro and amaranth (low-risk intercrop) 102 3-12 Corn ear development and damage to kernels sampled at harvest (November 26, 1996), by source of damage (mean SEM), for corn in monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli (high-risk intercrop) and corn intercropped with black beans, cilantro and amaranth (low-risk intercrop) 103 ix

PAGE 10

Table page 4-1 Insect herbivores collected in bean-based cropping systems 118 4-2 Seasonal mean densities of key insects (mean no. per 40 cm-row beans SEM) and percent of plants infested with disease on beans in monoculture, intercropped with tomato (high-risk intercrop) and intercropped with husk tomato (low-risk intercrop) 119 4-3 Densities of Liriomyza hiudobrensis mines on beans in monoculture, intercropped tomato (high-risk) and intercropped with husk tomato (low-risk), at 9 weeks after planting (mean SEM) ^ 120 4-4 Densities (mean no. per 0.4-m row bean SEM ) of flea beetles {Chaetocnema sp. adults ) on beans in monoculture, intercropped with tomato (high-risk) and intercropped with husk tomato (low-risk), at 9 and 15 weeks after planting 121 4-5 Insect natural enemies collected in bean-based cropping systems... 124 4-6 Percentage of bean plants infested with rust {Uromyces phaseoli), in monoculture, intercropped with tomato (high-risk), and intercropped with husk tomato (low-risk), at 15 weeks after planting (mean SEM) 125 4-7 Mean root width, length and weight ( SEM) of black beans in monoculture and intercropped with tomato (high-risk intercrop) and husk tomato (low-risk intercrop) during the dry season of 1997 127 4-8 Development and damage of bean in monoculture, bean intercropped with tomato, and bean intercropped with husk tomato (mean SEM) during the dry season of 1 997 1 30 5-1 Ratio of final to initial nematode population densities (P/Pf) by genus from 100 cm^ soil samples taken from monocultures (corn followed by beans) and two alternative intercrops (high-risk intercrop of corn, black bean, faba bean and broccoli followed by black bean and tomato, and low-risk intercrop of corn, black bean, cilantro and amaranth followed by black bean and husk tomato), May 1996April 1997 140 X

PAGE 11

Table page 5-2 Final densities (mean ic SE) of Tylenchorhynchus per 100 cm^ soil from bean in monoculture, high-risk intercrop (beans with tomato) and low-risk intercrop (beans with husk tomato), April 1997 143 5-3 Nematode densities (mean SE) by trophic group from 100 cm^ soil samples for sampling dates with differences among cropping system treatments, taken from monocultures (corn followed by beans) and two alternative intercrops (highrisk intercrop of corn, black bean, faba bean and broccoli followed by black bean and tomato, and low-risk intercrop of corn, black bean, cilantro and amaranth followed by black bean and husk tomato) 146 5-4 Ratio of final to initial nematode population densities (P|/Pf) by trophic group from 100 cm^ soil samples taken from monocultures (corn followed by beans) and two alternative intercrops (high-risk intercrop of corn, black bean, faba bean and broccoli followed by black bean and tomato, and low-risk intercrop of corn, black bean, cilantro and amaranth followed by black bean and husk tomato), May 1996-April 1997 147 6-1 Yields of corn and black beans in monoculture and two alternative cropping systems (high-risk intercrop = corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans with tomato; low-risk intercrop = corn with black beans, cilantro and amaranth, followed by black beans with husk tomato) 161 6-2 Labor inputs (hours per plot) for monoculture and two alternative cropping systems. May 1996 AphI 1997 (high-risk intercrop = corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans with tomato; low-risk intercrop = corn with black beans, cilantro and amaranth, followed by black beans with husk tomato) 166 6-3 Total net economic return for monoculture and two alternative cropping systems. May 1996-April 1997, calculated for actual market prices during experimental year and fluctuations of 25% (high-risk intercrop = corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans with tomato; low-risk intercrop = corn with black beans, cilantro and amaranth, followed by black beans with husk tomato) 168 xi

PAGE 12

Table page 6-4 Net economic return per day of labor for monoculture and two alternative cropping systems, May 1996 April 1997, calculated for actual market prices and fluctuations of 25% (high-risk intercrop = corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans with tomato, low-risk intercrop = corn with black beans, cilantro and amaranth, followed by black beans with husk tomato) 169 6-5 Energy budgets for corn-based croppings systems, 1 996 rainy season (high-risk intercrop = corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli; low-risk intercrop = corn with black beans, cilantro and amaranth) 173 6-6 Energy budgets for bean-based croppings systems, 1997 dry season (high-risk intercrop = black beans with tomato; low-risk intercrop = black beans with husk tomato) 174 6-7 Energy efficiency ratios (output energy/input energy) for monoculture and two alternative cropping systems. May 1996 April 1997 (highrisk intercrop = corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans with tomato; low-risk intercrop = corn with black beans, cilantro and amaranth, followed by black beans with husk tomato) 178 6-8 Number of days the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) of selected nutrients is satisfied by yields per plot of monoculture (corn followed by bean) and two alternative cropping systems (high-risk intercrop = corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans with tomato; low-risk intercrop = corn with black beans, cilantro and amaranth, followed by black beans with husk tomato) during 1996-1997 181 xii

PAGE 13

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 11 Map of Guatemala, indicating western highlands and study area 2 21 Land area available to farm families, by percent of farmers responding, a.) San Jose Chacaya; b.) San Andres Semetebaj... 29 2-2 Cropping calendar for small-scale farmers in Solola (different bars represent range of time periods planted 31 2-3 Percent of interviewed farmers in two Solola communities reporting production of local crops (n=125), and of those reporting production, mean percent of land planted to each crop 32 2-4 Yields of principal crops reported by farmers in two Solola communities 33 2-5 Management practices utilized by farmers in two Solola communities 35 2-6 Responses to open-ended question of basis of decision on what to plant, posed to farmers in two Solola communities 38 2-7 Responses to open-ended question of reasons for changing crops, posed to farmers in two Solola communities 39 2-8 Responses to open-ended question of opinion of traditional crops, posed to farmers in two Solola communities 41 2-9 Responses to open-ended question of opinion of non-traditional crops, posed to farmers in two Solola communities 42 2-10 Responses to open-ended question of wild herbs collected, posed to farmers in two Solola communities 44 2-1 1 Responses to open-ended question of collected experience with intercropping beyond corn and beans, posed to farmers in two Solola communities 48 xiii

PAGE 14

Figure Eage 2-12 Responses to open-ended question of postiive and negative aspects of intercropping, posed to farmers in two Solola communities... 49 2-13 Responses to open-ended question of reasons for changes in pest problems from past, posed to farmers in two Solola communities 53 2-14 Mean percent of a.) pest and b.) beneficial insects identified by their role in agroecosystems 56 2-15 Responses to open-ended question of principal concern in agriculture 58 2-16 Responses to open-ended question of principal concern in agriculture 59 217 Responses to open-ended question of principal source of technical advice, posed to farmers in two Solola communities 60 31 Plant arrangements in experimental plots of corn-based cropping systems, with treatments consisting of high-hsk intercrop (A), low-risk intercrop (B) and monoculture, with corn planted at equal density 70 3-2 Mean densities of Diphalauca wagneri adults from corn in monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans, amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996. Asterisks by sampling dates indicate significant treatment differences 86 3-3 Mean percentage of plants infested with rust {Puccinia sp.) on corn in monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans, amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996. Asterisk indicates date with significant treatment difference 94 3-4 Mean percentage of plants with insect damage on corn in monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans, amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996. Asterisks by sampling dates indicate significant treatment differences 97 xiv

PAGE 15

Figure page 3-5 Mean percentage of corn plants lodged In monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans, amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1 996. No significant differences were detected for any sampling date (alpha=0.05, ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls test performed on square root transformed data 1 00 3-6 Mean densities of Diphalauca wagneri on black beans intercropped with corn, faba beans and broccoli and black beans intercropped with amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996. Asterisks by sampling dates indicate significant treatment differences 105 4-1 Plant arrangements in experimental plots of bean-based cropping systems, with treatments consisting of high-risk intercrop (A) low-risk intercrop (B), and monoculture, with bean planted at equal density 111 4-2 Mean percent defoliation from Chrysomelid beetles {Cerotoma spp. and Diabrotica balteata adults) on black beans in monoculture, intercropped with tomato, and intercropped with husk tomato, duri ng the dry season of 1 997 1 28 6-1 Land productivity for corn and beans in monoculture and two alternative cropping systems. May 1996-April 1997 (high-risk intercrop = corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans with tomato; low-risk intercrop = corn with black beans, cilantro and amaranth, followed by black beans with husk tomato). No significant differences were detected for either product (Student-Newman-Keuls test, alpha=0.05) 162 6-2 Mean yields (weight and monetary value) + SE of crops in corn-based cropping systems during the rainy season of 1996 163 6-3 Mean yields (weight and monetary value) + SE of crops in bean-based cropping systems during the dry season of 1997 164 XV

PAGE 16

Figure page 6-4 Labor productivity for corn and beans in monoculture and two alternative cropping systems, May 1996-April 1997 (high-risk intercrop = corn with l^lack beans, faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans with tomato; low-risk intercrop = corn with black beans, cilantro and amaranth, followed by black beans with husk tomato). Treatment means for each product with the same letter are not significantly different (StudentNevwnan-Keuls test, alpha=0.05) 167 6-5 Capital productivity for corn and beans in monoculture and two alternative cropping systems. May 1996-April 1997 (high-risk intercrop = corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans with tomato; low-risk intercrop = corn with black beans, cilantro and amaranth, followed by black beans with husk tomato). Treatment means for each product with the same letter or no letter are not significantly different (Student-Newman-Keuls test, alpha=0.05) 171 6-6 Percent of total energy inputs derived from labor for corn and bean in monoculture and two alternative cropping systems. May 1996-April 1997 (high-risk intercrop = corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans with tomato; low-risk intercrop = corn with black beans, cilantro and amaranth, followed by black beans with husk tomato). Treatment means for each product with the same letter or no letter are not significantly different (Student-NewmanKeuls test, alpha=0.05) 176 6-7 Energy productivity for corn and beans in monoculture and tv^ alternative cropping systems, May 1996-April 1997 (high-risk intercrop = corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans with tomato; low-risk intercrop = corn with black beans, cilantro and amaranth, followed by black beans with husk tomato). No significant differences were detected for either product (Student-Newman-Keuls test, alpha=0.05) 177 A-1 Mean densities of Spodoptera frugiperda larvae from corn in monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans, amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996 197 xvi

PAGE 17

Figure page A-2 Mean densities of aphids from corn in monoculture, com intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans, amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996 198 A-3 Mean densities of leafhoppers from com in monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans, amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996 199 A-4 Mean densities of leafmines from Liriomyza commelinae, Liriomyza sp. and Agromyza sp. from corn in monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans, amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996 200 A-5 Mean densities of Helicoverpa zea larvae from corn in monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans, amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996 201 A-6 Mean densities of Collaha oleosa adults from corn in monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans, amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996 202 A-7 Mean densities of Diabrotica porracea adults from corn in monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans, amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996 203 A-8 Mean densities of Geraeus sp. adults from com in monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans, amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996 204 A-9 Mean densities of Chaetocnema sp. adults from corn in monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans, amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996 205 xvii

PAGE 18

Figure page A-1 0 Mean densities of Brachypnoea sp adults from corn in monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans, amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996 206 A-1 1 Mean densities of Phyllophaga sp. eggs and larvae from soil of corn roots in monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans, amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996 207 A-1 2 Mean densities of Diabrotica porracea larvae from soil of corn roots in monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans, amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996 208 A-1 3 Mean densities of syrphids {Baccha sp. and Toxomerus sp. ) on corn in monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans, amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996 209 A-1 4 Mean densities of Hemerobius sp. on corn in monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans, amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996 210 A-1 5 Mean densities of spiders on corn in monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans, amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996 21 1 A-1 6 Mean densities of Cycloneda sanguinea adults on corn in monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans, amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996 212 A-1 7 Mean densities of aphids mummies on corn in monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans, amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996 213 xviii

PAGE 19

Figure page A-18 Mean densities of Doru sp. on corn in monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans, amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996 214 A-1 9 Mean densities of Enoclerus salvini adults on corn in monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans, amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996 215 A-20 Mean densities of parasitoids of Spodoptera frugiperda {Campoletis sp. and Diadegma sp.) adults on corn in monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans, amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996 216 A-21 Mean percent of plants infested with Helminthosporium sp. on corn in monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans, amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996 217 A-22 Mean percent of plants infested with Phyllachora maydis Maubl. on corn in monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans, amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996 218 A-23 Mean percent of plants with damage from Spodoptera frugiperda on corn in monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans, amaranth and cilantro, during the rainy season of 1996 219 A-24 Percent of ears damaged, by source, in corn monoculture, corn Intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans, cilantro and amaranth, October 17, 1996 220 A-25 Percent of ears damaged, by source, in corn monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans, cilantro and amaranth, October 25, 1996 221 xix

PAGE 20

Figure Paae A-26 Percent of ears damaged, by source, in com monoculture, corn intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans, cilantro and amaranth, October 31, 1996 222 A-27 Percent of ears damaged, by source, in com monoculture, com intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans, cilantro and amaranth, November 13, 1996 223 A-28 Percent of ears damaged, by source, in com monoculture, com intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, and corn intercropped with black beans, cilantro and amaranth, November 26, 1 996 224 B-1 Mean densities of Liriomyza huidobrensis mines on black beans in monoculture, intercropped with tomato, and intercropped with husk tomato, during the dry season of 1997 226 B-2 Mean densities of aphids on black beans in monoculture, intercropped with tomato, and intercropped with husk tomato, during the dry season of 1997 227 B-3 Mean densities of Chaetocnema sp. adults on black beans in monoculture, intercropped with tomato, and intercropped with husk tomato, during the dry season of 1997 228 B-4 Mean densities of leafhoppers on black beans in monoculture, intercropped with tomato, and intercropped with husk tomato, during the dry season of 1997 229 B-5 Mean densities of Empoasca sp. on black beans in monoculture, intercropped with tomato, and intercropped with husk tomato, during the dry season of 1997 230 B-6 Mean densities of Bemisia tabaci adults on black beans in monoculture, intercropped with tomato, and intercropped with husk tomato, during the dry season of 1997 231 B-7 Mean densities of Urbanus proteus on black beans in monoculture, intercropped with tomato, and intercropped with husk tomato, during the dry season of 1997 232 XX

PAGE 21

Figure £§3 B-8 Mean densities of Diabrotica balteata adults on black beans in monoculture, intercropped with tomato, and intercropped with husk tomato, during the dry season of 1997 233 B-9 Mean densities of Cerotoma spp. adults on black beans in monoculture, intercropped with tomato, and intercropped with husk tomato, during the dry season of 1997 234 B-1 0 Mean densities of Phyllophaga sp. eggs and larvae on black beans in monoculture, intercropped with tomato, and intercropped with husk tomato, during the dry season of 1997 235 B-1 1 Mean densities of coccinellids {Brachycantha lepida adults) on black beans in monoculture, intercropped with tomato, and intercropped with husk tomato, during the dry season of 1997 236 B-1 2 Mean percent of black bean plants infested with bean rust {Uromyces phaseoli) when grown in monoculture, intercropped with tomato, and intercropped with husk tomato, during the dry season of 1997 237 B-1 3 Mean percent of black bean plants infested with leaf spot when grown in monoculture, intercropped with tomato, and intercropped with husk tomato, during the dry season of 1997 238 B-1 4 Mean percent of black bean plants infested with root rot {Rhizoctonia sp.) when grown in monoculture, intercropped with tomato, and intercropped with husk tomato, during the dry season of 1997 239 C-1 Densities of Helicotylenchus spp. in soil samples from monocultures (corn followed by bean) and two alternative Intercrops (high-risk intercrops of corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans and tomato; low-risk intercrop of corn with black beans, cilantro and amaranth, followed by black beans and husk tomato 241 xxi

PAGE 22

1 Figure Page C-2 Densities of Meloidogyne spp. in soil samples from monocultures (corn followed by bean) and two alternative intercrops (high-risk intercrops of corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans and tomato; low-risk intercrop of corn with black beans, cilantro and amaranth, followed by black beans and husk tomato 242 C-3 Densities of Pratylenchus spp. in soil samples from monocultures (corn followed by bean) and two alternative intercrops (high-risk intercrops of corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans and tomato; low-risk intercrop of corn with black beans, cilantro and amaranth, followed by black beans and husk tomato 243 C-4 Densities of Thchodorus spp. in soil samples from monocultures (corn followed by bean) and two alternative intercrops (high-risk intercrops of corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans and tomato; low-risk intercrop of corn with black beans, cilantro and amaranth, followed by black beans and husk tomato 244 C-5 Densities of Tylenchorhynchus spp. in soil samples from monocultures (corn followed by bean) and two alternative intercrops (high-risk intercrops of corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans and tomato; low-risk intercrop of corn with black beans, cilantro and amaranth, followed by black beans and husk tomato 245 C-6 Densities of Hemicycliophora spp. in soil samples from monocultures (corn followed by bean) and two alternative intercrops (high-risk intercrops of corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans and tomato; low-risk intercrop of corn with black beans, cilantro and amaranth, followed by black beans and husk tomato 246 C-7 Densities of plant parasitic nematodes in soil samples from monocultures (corn followed by bean) and tv^ alternative intercrops (high-risk intercrops of corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans and tomato; low-risk intercrop of corn with black beans, cilantro and amaranth, followed by black beans and husk tomato 247 xxii

PAGE 23

Figure page C-8 Densities of bactiverous nematodes in soil samples from monocultures (corn followed by bean) and two alternative intercrops (high-risk intercrops of corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans and tomato; low-risk intercrop of corn with black beans, cilantro and amaranth, followed by black beans and husk tomato 248 C-9 Densities of fungivorous nematodes in soil samples from monocultures (corn followed by bean) and two alternative Intercrops (high-risk intercrops of corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans and tomato; low-risk intercrop of corn with black beans, cilantro and amaranth, followed by black beans and husk tomato 249 C-10 Densities of omnivorous nematodes in soil samples from monocultures (corn followed by bean) and two alternative intercrops (high-risk intercrops of corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans and tomato; low-risk intercrop of corn with black beans, cilantro and amaranth, followed by black beans and husk tomato 250 C-1 1 Densities of predatory nematodes in soil samples from monocultures (corn followed by bean) and two alternative intercrops (high-risk intercrops of corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans and tomato; low-risk intercrop of corn with black beans, cilantro and amaranth, followed by black beans and husk tomato 251 C-1 2 Densities of total nematodes in soil samples from monocultures (corn followed by bean) and two alternative intercrops (high-risk intercrops of corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans and tomato; low-risk intercrop of corn with black beans, cilantro and amaranth, followed by black beans and husk tomato 252 xxiii

PAGE 24

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy PEST AND BENEFICIAL POPULATIONS AND RETURNS FROM ALTERNATIVE SMALL-SCALE CORN AND BEAN CROPPING SYSTEMS IN THE GUATEMALAN HIGHLANDS By Barbra C. Larson Vasquez December 1998 Chairman: Dr. Jerry L. Stimac Major Department: Entomology and Nematology In the western Guatemalan highlands, increased cultivation of export vegetables, especially broccoli {Brassica oleracea L.), threatens the production of the staple food crops, corn (Zea mays L.) and beans {Phaseolus vulgaris L.), jeopardizing food security. Furthermore, it creates greater obstacles to the adoption of ecological pest management strategies due to greater dependence on synthetic pesticides. Nevertheless, small-scale farmers seeking increased income are tempted to plant these crops. Cropping patterns that maintain com and beans for their dietary and cultural value and integrate cash crops may be more appropriate for fulfilling needs of local farmers while avoiding dependence on chemical inputs. This project evaluates corn and beans in monoculture and in association with secondary crops chosen for their value to the farmer, nutritional contributions, and market potential. Pest and beneficial insect population densities, nematode population densities, disease, damage, and yields were xxiv

PAGE 25

measured to determine which aopping system provides greater economic and nutritional returns without increasing key pests on the main crops. The seasonal mean density of Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) was higher in the corn monoculture than the high-risk intercrop of corn with black beans, faba beans {Vicia faba L.) and broccoli. Consequently, the seasonal mean percent of plants with insect damage was higher in the com monoculture than the interaops. No other consistent differences were detected in insect pest and beneficial populations, nematode populations, disease, damage or yield in either the corn or bean cycles. Therefore, the addition of the secondary crops tested would not increase the need for pest control in the main crops. While pest densities and damage were not high enough to warrant chemical control on corn or beans, control of pests on secondary crops in the high-risk intercrop (beans, faba beans, broccoli and tomato {Lycopersicon esculentum L.)) would be recommended. The low-risk intercrop in the bean cycle, beans with husk tomato {Physalis pruinosa), provided greater economic and nutritional returns than the monoculture, as was so for that treatment over the year, including the corn cycle. Therefore, at least one of the alternative intercrops tested provided greater returns without inaeasing the need for pest control. XXV

PAGE 26

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW Changing environmental and socio-economic conditions in Central America have applied pressures to traditional agricultural production systems. Emerging needs of small-scale farmers in the region can most appropriately be met by advancing sustainable pest management approaches that are compatible with intensive production and account for the multiple objectives and constraints of the farm families involved. The study of cropping systems in Solola, Guatemala (Figure 1-1), described here, takes one approach to such a challenge, that of analyzing alternative cropping systems for their value both in minimizing pest problems and in maximizing tangible benefits for the farm family. Effects of Chanoina Cropping Patterns on Western Guatemalan Highland Communities Historically, intensive land management operations such as terracing and raised bed vegetable production have been prevalent in the western Guatemalan highlands, particularly in the state of Solola (Wilken 1971,1987, Mathewson 1 984). In an early extensive study of the area, McBryde (1 945) found that corn (Zea mays L.), the most important food plant in the country, was considered one of the principal market crops and was traded back and forth 1

PAGE 27

2 Figure 1-1. Map of Guatemala, indicating western highlands ( CZ^) and study area (t^:;=^).

PAGE 28

bet\Aen the highlands and Pacific coastal plain, due to differing harvest periods in each area. Black beans {Phaseolus vulgaris L.) were considered second in importance, with San Andres Semetebaj having high-quality production, while the lowlands produced poorer quality beans and had numerous insect pests. Although climbing varieties of black beans were common throughout the region, bush varieties {frijol de suelo) were most common around the township of San Andres Semetebaj, as were guisquiles (vegetable pears, Sechium edule). Tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum L.) were more frequently observed in the lakeshore communities, where water could easily be drawn from the lake. Potatoes {Solanum tuberosum L.) were grown in areas above approximately 1900 m. Habas (broadbeans or faba beans, Vicia faba L.) were observed planted in the milpa (cornfield) in San Andres Semetebaj and separately at nearby Xepec. Anise {Pimpinella anisum L.) was also observed at that time, and described as a specialty crop grown almost exclusively in San Antonio Palopo and San Andres Semetebaj. Wheat {Triticum aestivum L.) dominated the landscape in much of the region, closely rivaling corn in production. McBryde (1945) also described the tabldn (raised bed) system of vegetable cultivation in Solola, from Panajachel to San Jose Chacaya. Dependent on irrigation, tabldn production included primarily old world crops, dominated by onions {Allium cepa L.) and including garlic {Allium sativum L.), cauliflower {Brassies oleracea botrytis L.), carrots {Daucus carota L.), parsley {Petroselinum crispum L), beets {Beta spp ), cabbage {Brassica oleracea capitata L.), turnips {Brassica rapa L.), radish {Raptianus sativus L.), lettuce

PAGE 29

4 {Lactuca sativa L.) and potatoes. These vegetables were an early introduction from Europe into the area, although the tabldn production system itself is thought to be pre-Columbian (McBryde 1945, Wilken 1971). Mathewson's (1984) later study detailing the tablon production system in Panajachel in the early 1980s cites the major crops as onions, garlic, strawberries {Fragaha spp.) and beans, with many plants intercropped with corn, including guisquil, manioc {Manihot spp.), sweet potatoes {Ipomoea batatas L.), chipilin {Crotelaria longirostrata Hook& Arm ), malanga {Xanthosoma spp.), and hierba buena {Mentha spp). Finally, governmental census data revealed that 66.9% of the land in vegetable production in the area in 1979 was planted in faba beans, which has traditionally been cultivated in association with other crops, particularly corn and black beans. The other major vegetables at that time were guisquil (33%), potato (15.2%), carrots (5.0%) and onion (3.4%) (Proyecto ALA 1987). Although a variety of vegetables has been cultivated in the region for years, not until recently did many small-scale growers in Solola and the surrounding region begin to adopt the production of vegetables destined for export markets. Broccoli {Brassica oleracea L. botrytris group) has been the principal export crop, but others have been promoted, including snow peas (Pisum sativum L. macrocarpon group), snap beans (P. vulgaris) and brussels sprouts {Brassica oleracea L. gemmifera group) (Morales et al. 1993). Many small-scale farmers in the western highland region have altered management strategies and crop choices, as a result of increasing population and limited land, greater need for cash income due to wider integration into the economic

PAGE 30

and political facets of the national society, and other influences of modernization. These socio-economic factors can have profound effects on traditional cropping systems (Brush 1983, Deere and Wasserstrom 1981). While increases in yields may be the primary goal for policy makers and agricultural scientists, small-scale farmers may concentrate on other objectives such as risk avoidance and food security (Caesar 1990, Clawson 1985). Furthermore, although the production of staple food crops may not always provide the full nuthtional requirements of the rural family, increases in income do not necessarily lead to improved nutrition (McCulloch and Futrell 1988, Dewey 1981 ). In the case of small-scale highland Guatemalan farmers, the improved incomes sometimes accompanying adoption of nontraditional export agriculture have not always improved the nutritional status of children, since disproportionately greater income generation has often gone toward the consumption of non-food items. Additionally, risk is very high for these export crops, and communities in which their adoption has been prevalent often experience rapid social differentiation and shifts from family to hired labor and from subsistence farmers to wage laborers (Rosset 1991 ). Furthermore, communities that lose or reduce the use of traditional crops and varieties lose valuable genetic diversity and tend to lose confidence in their own knowledge and management techniques (Thrupp 1989, Bentley 1989a). The most profound change in management, motivated in part by these cropping system changes, has been the introduction and prevalence of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Farmers adopting export crops tend to grow them in

PAGE 31

6 monoculture with greater amounts of chemical inputs, partly because of the high cosmetic standards of foreign markets. Lack of regulation and access to information about proper use of these chemicals often leads to environmental contamination and safety risks for the entire farm household {ICAITI 1977). Pesticide use in the region has grown substantially as a result of export crop production, and repeated detainment in the United States of products exceeding pesticide residue standards has resulted in large economic losses. Additional effects include high production costs for farmers, with the social consequences already mentioned, potential health problems, environmental contamination, and development of resistance in pest insects (Morales et al. 1993, Rosset 1991 ). For the individual farmer, production of broccoli and other fresh vegetables involves not only fulfilling requirements for using specified pesticides, but also a risk of crop failure or rejection by the export company. When crop loss occurs, the farmer may be left, not only with less corn, the staple crop, but with additional debts as well. Therefore, the adoption of export vegetable crops by small-scale farmers in highland communities can in some cases lead to greater economic instability, loss of integrity of the corn crop, and greater synthetic pesticide use. Difficulties in Promoting Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Programs Among Resource-Poor Farmers Pest management, as the concept of IPM was intended, involves suppressing the target population to an equilibrium level consistently below the

PAGE 32

economic threshold through a variety of tactics, particularly the encouragement of native natural enemies (Stern et al.1959, Stimac and Barfield 1979, Pimentel et al. 1989). Understanding the relationship between pest population densities, damage to crops, and yield is an important prerequisite to the concept of damage tolerance upon which pest management is based (Funderburk et al. 1993). IPM, a component of sustainable agriculture, has been increasingly emphasized in the field of community development, to achieve both long-term stability in production, and maintenance of environmental qualrty. The growing interest in agroecology-based IPM stems in part from a realization that reliance on chemical inputs is not only costly in energy and economic terms, but can lead to environmental, health and social degradation (Gliessman 1992, 1988, Altieri 1987, Edwards et al. 1993, Pimentel et al. 1989). Conway (1987, 1994) defines sustainable agriculture within the context of agroecosystem properties (productivity, stability, sustainability and equitability), involving trade-offs in terms of social value. Compatibility with traditional social patterns, conservation of natural resources, and potential for long-term improvement in food production make it an important component of small-farmer development. However, a major obstacle to the promotion of IPM within sustainable agriculture is the lack of controlled field experiments conducted locally and combining traditional knowledge and community needs with scientific knowledge of ecologically-based pest management strategies (Bunch 1982, Altieri 1987, Brookfield and Padoch 1994, Woodley 1991, Thrupp 1989).

PAGE 33

Dependence on chemical pesticides must be broken for ecologicallybased pest management strategies to be effective. One of the major problems facing small-scale agriculture in Central America is the misuse of pesticides. A lack of regulation of products and of extension information on proper use puts both the farm household and the environment at risk (ICAITI 1977, Popper 1994). Small-scale farmers have readily accepted synthetic pesticides because of the simplicity of their use and immediate effects (Barfield and Swisher 1994, Escalada and Heong 1993). However, misconceptions about the health effects of highly toxic compounds and lack of knowledge of proper usage (for example, insecticides used to combat fungal problems, and dosage based on the number of pests seen) have been documented in eastern Guatemalan communities and are not uncommon throughout the region (Popper 1994). The reliance on pesticides as a result of the promotion of nontraditional export agriculture in Central America has contributed not only to ecological problems such as contamination of soil and water, but also to a wealth of problems for the small-scale producer, including pesticide resistant populations and secondary pest outbreaks, with resulting crop losses. Small-scale farmers tend to be disproportionately affected by these and other consequences of pesticide dependence, since they tend to lack the knowledge necessary to understand the risks involved (Rosset 1991 Murray 1991). Expectations of traditional farmers regarding the value of pesticides tend to be unrealistically high, further exacerbating the problem (Thurston 1992). Additionally, the

PAGE 34

acceptance of certain damage levels inherent in IPM may not be compatible with farmers' perceptions of crop loss (Goodell 1984). Furthermore, gaps in farmer knowledge of phenomena not easily observed, such as insect life history stages, or parasites and predators, has made IPM programs slow to implement in Central America (Andrews et al. 1993; Bentley and Andrews 1 991 ; Bentley 1 989b). One of the most critical obstacles for the promotion of IPM among small-scale farmers is that of access to information. IPM is knowledge intensive, and extensive training is required, especially for small-scale tropical farmers (Odhiambo 1990, Goodell 1984). Not only is it difficult for farmers to develop a complete understanding of the concepts of IPM, but its implementation requires scientists and extension agents to have ample site-specific ecological information on pest populations (Barfield and O'Neil 1984, Poswal et al. 1993, Goodell 1984). Such information is rare for the western Guatemalan highlands. Therefore, the change to export vegetables has potentially serious consequences for the adoption of ecological pest management strategies in the area. Choosing Crops with Minimal Pest Problems as a Pest Manacement Strateav Traditional farmers have developed a variety of means of avoiding pests in their agroecosystems (Barfield and Swisher 1 994). For example, avoiding specific pests by planting at the time of year when they are not prevalent is one form of cultural pest management. The use of cultural controls such as crop rotations and intercropping has been successfully implemented in some

PAGE 35

10 situations wtiere the goal was to reduce or completely eliminate the use of chemical pesticides (Flint and Roberts 1988, Theunissen 1997). In many cases involving small-scale resource-poor farmers, the lack of skills to adequately handle chemical pesticides has led to recommendations for developing alternatives involving multiple cropping and other cultural controls (Seshu Reddy 1990, Saxena et al. 1989). Given the previously discussed negative impacts of pesticide dependence on small-scale farmers in Central America, and the difficulties in implementing ecologically-based IPM programs, the most appropriate pest management tactics for these farmers are those that avoid pests to the greatest practical extent. One way to avoid pests and simultaneously address the need for greater productivity is to design intercrops utilizing the staple food crops as the main crops and income-generating or additional food crops as the secondary crops, chosen for minimal potential pest damage. Plants native to an area may have higher resistance to insects and disease, since they have adapted to local environmental conditions (Altieri et al. 1987). Several traditional crops in Guatemala are potential candidates for inclusion in such cropping systems. Minimizing Pests in Crop Combinations In advancing beyond the simplistic reduction of pesticide use by eliminating "calendar spraying," the study of IPM is increasingly directed toward greater ecological understanding. As a component of IPM and of sustainable agriculture, cultural pest management through habitat manipulation has received

PAGE 36

. 11 heightened attention. In the past several decades, we have seen a surge of studies exploring herbivore and natural enemy responses in mixed cropping systems (see, for example, Coll and Bottrell 1994, Elstrom et al. 1988, Tingey and Lamont 1988, Perfecto and Sediles 1992, Letourneau 1987, Risch 1981, Tonhasca 1994; for detailed reviews, see Cromartie 1991, Sheehan 1986, Risch et al. 1983, Russell 1989, Tonhasca and Byrne 1994, Perrin 1977). Root (1973) offered two hypotheses to explain the reduced abundance of herbivorous insects often found in vegetationally diverse habitats. The natural enemies hypothesis attributes such reductions to greater favorabi I ity of a more diverse habitat for natural enemies, due to provisioning of nectar and alternate prey, shelter, microclimatic variation, and allelochemical attractants (Gross 1987, Price et al. 1980, Altieri et al. 1981). The resource concentration hypothesis alternatively attributes the same phenomenon to the tendency of herbivores to remain longer in habitats with concentration of their food plant, whereas more diverse habitats may disrupt herbivore colonization, movement, and reproduction (Kareiva 1985, Perrin and Phillips 1978, Feeny 1976, Andow 1990). The relative contributions of the resource concentration and enemies hypotheses to herbivore response in polycultural agroecosystems have been frequently debated. While it is often noted that they are not mutually exclusive (e.g. Russell 1989), it has been suggested that the resource concentration hypothesis is more applicable to annual crops in polyculture, while the enemies hypothesis better explains herbivore response in perennial cropping systems (Risch et al. 1983, Baliddawa 1985). In addition, monophagous pests tend to be

PAGE 37

12 more abundant in monocultures, while the abundance of polyphagous pests may vary, depending on the relative importance of natural enemies versus herbivore movements (Risch et al. 1983). Beyond these broad generalizations, few studies have attempted to define the specific mechanisms resulting in lower herbivore abundance in some polyculture systems, primarily because of the large number of factors involved in more complex agroecosystems. For example, the responses of both herbivores and natural enemies have been hypothesized to depend on their particular life history traits (e.g., generalist predators may be more effective in vegetationally diverse habitats than specialist natural enemies (Sheehan 1986)), as well as on the particular spatial and temporal arrangements of the agroecosystem (e.g., some generalist predators may respond to plant density independent of plant diversity (Letourneau 1990)). In addition, semiochemicals emitted by associated nonhost plants may influence an herbivore's attractancy to its host plant (Price 1981). Size of the field, field borders, time between plantings, susceptibility of crop varieties, ability of the pest or natural enemy to disperse and life cycle of the insects are just some examples of factors that have been hypothesized to influence the abundance of pest insects in vegetationally diverse agroecosystems (Litsinger and Moody 1976). Therefore, the effects of vegetational diversity on insect pests remain unclear, and the multitude of empirical studies lack an integrating organizational context, making them inadequate for addressing the ecologically-based goals of pest management. Andow (1991a) reviews the empirical and theoretical

PAGE 38

13 approaches to comprehending the frequently cited lower herbivore densities in polyculture systems, but cites a lack of sufficient understanding required for predictions useful in pest management, especially for predicting when natural enemies are most significant in reducing herbivore densities. Moreover, most analyses of insect populations in mixed cropping systems fail to evaluate subsequent effects on crop yields (Risch 1983, Andow 1991b). In addition, trying to understand the manipulations of the agroecosystem that would favor low equilibrium pest densities becomes more difficult in smallscale tropical agroecosystems, which tend to be more complex than their temperate counterparts, involving more diverse and intensively managed components adapted to local conditions (Francis 1985, Jodha 1980, Hildebrand 1976). Therefore, the most comprehensive approach to IPM studies involves understanding manipulations of pest habitats, and constructing models to sort out the ecological interactions that may lead to additional pest management options (Matteson et al. 1984). The construction of simulation models would allow the examination of many combinations of management strategies, which would be impractical through empirically-based experimentation alone (Stimac 1 993, Foster and Ruesink 1 986). In addition to predicting the conditions under which pest populations are lowest, it would also allow us to continually update our understanding of the system in the face of changes in the environment, management, and socio-economic components of the cropping system. The complexity of agroecosystems that makes modeling desirable also makes it impractical in the short term, in part because a surprisingly small

PAGE 39

14 amount of information on local occurrence of economically important species is available. In the Central American region, while data on local pests has been accumulated in Honduras (Andrews and Quezada 1989), Costa Rica (King and Saunders 1984) and the Caribbean basin (Schmutterer et al. 1990), virtually no comparatively detailed studies have been conducted in Guatemala. While some entomological studies have therefore been carried out in neighboring countries, there is little available evidence of the extent to which the potential colonizing pool or pest complex on any particular crop may correspond to that found in Guatemala, and specifically to the western highland area. There is a great need for characterization of arthropod communities in local agroecosystems and for future research projects, such as the establishment of economic thresholds through quantitative studies, to be organized and prioritized before more comprehensive understanding of agroecosystems can be pursued. Therefore, the accumulation of sufficient knowledge to develop a detailed understanding of small-scale tropical agroecosystems is a long-term goal that is not suitable for resolving pressing concerns. While achieving greater ecological understanding is an important goal of IPM that should continue to be pursued through such areas as modeling of agroecosystems, there is also a more immediate need for knowledge of pests and beneficial insects in local cropping systems so that appropriate choices can be made now. Empirical studies that compare a limited number of choices, while not able to address the ecological

PAGE 40

15 roots of pest population response, are more practical for offering guidelines to address the immediate concerns of farmers. Maximizing Farmer Acceptance by Tailoring Cropping Systems to Maximize Farmer Benefits Although some intercropping systems have been studied in detail to determine the effects of increased crop diversity on pests and beneficial insects, the choice of cropping systems by small-scale farmers is usually based on factors other than pest control. Therefore, for alternative cropping systems to be adopted, they must not only be ecologically sustainable, but they must also demonstrate tangible benefits to the farm family (Edwards et al. 1993). In contrast to agricultural technologies intended for large farms, ecologically-based pest management, as a component of vegetationally diverse agroecosystems, is compatible with the culture and objectives of traditional farmers. Some development projects have incorporated indigenous agricultural knowledge and/or traditional food crops to increase agricultural diversity, reduce pesticide use, minimize risks and make better use of local resources. The most successful of these projects aim to help resource-poor farmers improve the overall productivity of their farms, reduce dependence on chemical inputs, and achieve food self-sufficiency (Altieri 1992). Additionally, those that are easily adapted to local conditions and production methods are most often embraced. For example, an intercropping project in El Salvador aiming to increase rural incomes and improve production of basic grains and vegetables was well

PAGE 41

16 received, a prerequisite to being effective, because it was based on the dietary staples of the farmers and utilized the technologies to which they were accustomed (Hildebrand 1976). Furthermore, the objective of long-term stability in yields, achieved through diversity within the agroecosystem, is more important to traditional farmers than the maximization of yields achieved through the use of external inputs (Altieri 1991b). Yield stability is an important goal of sustainable agricultural systems. In fact, the development of ecologically and socioeconomically sustainable agricultural production systems that minimize external inputs has been proposed as the most appropriate means of fulfilling the objectives of traditional farmers in the tropics (Francis et al. 1986). Such sustainable systems often include multiple cropping, which, in addition to reducing risk for the farmer, can utilize local resources efficiently, an important consideration in providing for the needs of small-scale farmers (Gliessman 1992). The economic effects of multiple cropping systems on the farm family are a key element in determining the feasibility of particular crop combinations (Hildebrand 1976). It is important to consider not only differences in pest densities among alternative cropping systems, but also effects on yield and subsequent profit. Furthermore, different combinations of crops may yield different quantities of protein and net calories for the farm family, and the nutritional consequences of changing cropping systems should not be

PAGE 42

17 overlooked (Dewey 1981). These economic and dietary returns can be used as indicators of benefit to the farm household. Many traditional crops from Mesoamerica have nutritional and economic potential for small-scale multiple cropping systems (FAO 1993, Hernandez Bermejo and Leon 1994). The challenge is to design sustainable intercropping systems utilizing crop combinations that, in addition to minimizing pest problems and subsequently reducing pesticide use, can provide perceivable benefits to the farm family by generating cash income, reducing risk, and improving dietary security. Study Objectives The research project described here starts with the farmer-oriented justification of using intercrops for their economic and nutritional productivity and seeks to confirm that for the specific alternatives tested, pests will not be increased so much as to offset the economic and social benefits derived from the system. The project was comprised of two main components. The first phase involved a survey of the agroecological conditions of farming communities in the study area and an exploration of farmer perceptions of current and alternative production systems. Objectives of the first phase were: 1 .) to define the constraints within which small-scale farmers in the study area operate;

PAGE 43

18 2. ) to learn which crops are preferred by local farmers and why they choose to grow particular crops, including their relative nutritional, economic and cultural values; and 3. ) to identify appropriate crop combinations hypothesized to provide greater overall benefit to the farmer than corn and beans alone, for field experimentation during the second phase. The second phase of the project involved field trials comparing alternative intercrops to monocultures of corn and beans, the dietary staples. It was intended to test the ability of selected alternative intercrops to provide economic and nutritional benefits to the farm household while minimizing pest problems. Specific objectives of this phase vy^re to determine if: 1 ) the densities of key pests or beneficials (including insects, diseases and nematodes) on corn and beans change when selected secondary crops are added to the system; 2. ) pest damage or yields of corn and beans change when selected secondary crops are added to the system; 3. ) adding selected crops increases the likelihood of pest control applications; and 4. ) intercropping corn and beans with selected secondary crops can provide greater economic, nutritional and/or energetic returns than the respective monocultures. Cropping systems in which additional crops are combined with corn and later beans may be able to alleviate some of the risks and social problems

PAGE 44

19 associated with export crops, maintain cultural traditions so Important to the survival of the Mayan people, and provide greater returns to the family than the traditional corn and bean cropping systems. The trend toward monoculturebased, pesticide-laden export agriculture by farmers in the Guatemalan highlands may be countered by providing indigenous populations with results of locally-derived studies documenting the effectiveness of food and market crops in polyculture. By involving analyses of specific crop combinations with respect to economic competitiveness and ecological pest control, the project may provide an example of how small-scale farmers in the western Guatemalan highlands can improve their economic and nutritional state wtiile avoiding chemical inputs incompatible with their environmental and social interests.

PAGE 45

CHAPTER 2 ASSESSMENT OF AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES AND FARMER PERCEPTIONS IN THE STUDY AREA Introduction Poorly distributed land, growing population, and a largely impoverished rural population in the western Guatemalan highlands have all contributed to agricultural systems that are pressuring the natural resource base (Colchester 1991, Southgate and Basterrechea 1992, Ruano et al. 1991). In addition, increased production of high-value horticultural crops in the highlands has led to pesticide contamination in the capital city's drinking water and unknown but potentially serious health problems for farmers untrained in the safe handling of pesticides (Southgate and Basterrechea 1992). In order to resolve the environmental and socio-economic conflicts inherent in changing cropping patterns, not only must technical alternatives be available, but they must also be evaluated within the context of the production systems of the farmers involved. Small-scale, resource-limited farmers in tropical countries have evolved complex ecological and social systems. As a result, they usually have multiple objectives, including generation of both food and cash, avoidance of risk, and minimization of production inputs (Francis 1985). Traditional farmers efficiently allocate the production factors available to them (Schultz 1964), but the lack of availability of such factors is often overlooked. Additionally, the varied 20

PAGE 46

21 objectives of traditional farmers often lead to maintenance of practices thought by agricultural scientists to be inefficient. For example, many Guatemalan farmers choose lower-yielding varieties of corn because their livestock prefer the leaves and husks of local varieties to higher-yielding hybrids (Altieri 1984b). Agricultural technologies that do not account for the constraints of small-scale farmers, nor recognize the heterogeneity of traditional agricultural systems, may not utilize local resources efficiently (Altieri 1984a, Fujisaka 1991) and may be rejected by the farmer. Gladwin (1989) used a decision model to explain how traditional Malawi farmers decided whether to use organic versus chemical fertilizers, concluding that lack of capital and credit were more important constraints to the use of chemical fertilizers than indigenous beliefs about organic fertilizers. Furthermore, the farmers used a combination of fertilizers when possible, because within their knowledge system, each has its role in plant nutrition and soil maintenance. An increasing number of studies examining indigenous knowledge systems have concluded that the most appropriate agricultural technologies for traditional farmers are those that are developed within, or incorporate, indigenous knowledge systems. It is particularly important to maintain the traditional ecological knowledge that allows farmers to manage their resources in an environmentally sustainable way (den Biggelaar 1991, McCorkle 1989, Field 1991, Woodley 1991, Gliessman 1980; Gliessman et al. 1981 ). Agricultural development projects that try to replace traditional technologies rather than use them as a foundation for improvement are more

PAGE 47

likely to fail (Goldman 1991, Groenfeldt 1991, Altieri and Anderson 1986; Altieri 1984b). On the other hand, where technological developments have been incorporated into traditional systems, small-scale farmers have often accepted both. For example, selection and management of traditional maize varieties in Chiapas, Mexico, has continued within the context of technological changes (Bellon 1991). Taking into account the ecological and socio-economic conditions of small-scale farmers is essential to avoiding rejection of newly generated technologies. For any planned community intervention, an understanding of the knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of the target group permits the identification of possible impediments to acceptance, and when such factors are incorporated, projects can be made more successful (see, for example, descriptions of malaria and onchocerciasis interventions in Guatemala: Richards et al. 1991, Ruebush et al. 1994a, 1994 b). The same can apply to pest management recommendations for smallscale tropical farmers, whose traditional systems may have inherent pest management characteristics such as plant resistance or natural control by predators and parasites. The traditional systems must be conserved, while at the same time improved upon (Matteson et al. 1984). In order to do so, the pest problems of the farmers must be placed in the wider context of their entire farming system (Altieri 1984b), and the conditions and constraints under which they make decisions must be clarified.

PAGE 48

23 A survey of the agronomic, socio-economic and cultural conditions of small-scale farmers in the western Guatemalan highlands was carried out to identify both the most appropriate cropping systems that control pests and provide for farmers' needs, and the possible constraints to the adoption of new agricultural technologies in the communities studied. The ultimate goal of the project was to evaluate possibilities of incorporating secondary crops into the traditional corn and bean cultivation systems without increasing pest problems. The survey was conducted not only to examine local production practices, but also to explore knowledge and attitudes of farmers about traditional and nontraditional cropping systems, the practice of intercropping, and pest management, particularly the role of beneficial insects in the agroecosystem. An understanding of these issues can aid in the identification of appropriate cropping systems to be tested in the field and can also provide insight into possible obstacles to farmer acceptance of alternative cropping systems. Methods and Materials Semi-structured, open-ended interviews, discussions with key informants, field observations, and an informant ranking exercise were conducted between May and August of 1995 in the two highland communities of San Andres Semetebaj and San Jos6 Chacaya, both in the department (state) of Solola. An additional exercise on recognition of insects found in local agricultural fields was carried out in Pena Blanca, a village under the jurisdiction of the state capital of Solola, in March of 1997.

PAGE 49

The majority of the survey was conducted in the municipio (township) of San Andres Semetebaj, including nine of its surrounding aldeas (villages). This community borders an export vegetable growing region in the state of Chimaltenango, and so has experienced greater influence of broccoli production, but it maintains many of the traditional production patterns as well. Its elevation (ranging from 1 982 m in the town center to about 2200 m in some aldeas) and rainfall (average precipitation of 1409 mm annually) are intermediate for the region, and its social conditions are representative of those of many tov^s in the area (approximately 10% of rural homes have electhcity and 15% have running water) (Proyecto ALA 1987). Some time was also spent in the more isolated municipio of San Jose Chacaya (elevation 2205 m), with the hope of observing more traditional agricultural practices in terms of cropping patterns and pest management. Ninety-four percent of the population of the state of Solola is indigenous, and the predominant ethnic group in the communities studied is Cackiquel. Annual mean temperatures in Solola range from 15.9 to 22.6 C (Proyecto ALA 1987). McBryde (1945) deschbed highland soils as loamy, with more clay present than in the lowlands. Semi-Structured Interviews and Key Informants A total of 105 men were interviewed by walking through local fields, approaching farmers working there, and asking through a local translator (Spanish-Cackiquel) if they would participate. The translators (one for each of the two townships) were chosen for both their roles as local farmers and their

PAGE 50

25 inside knowledge of the communities. The presence and participation of a respected member of the community was more conducive to cooperation on the part of informants. Questions were posed to participating farmers about the crops they grow, the amount of land in each, management practices (planting and harvesting dates, spacing, irrigation, weeding, fertilizer applications, crop residue management, rotations, slope management), markets, and source of technical advice, with ensuing open-ended conversation of their general concerns and interests with respect to agriculture. Interviews also included questions about pests and diseases observed and the resulting damage to crops, particularly insect pests and their chemical and non-chemical management on each crop, as well as pest occurrences in the past. To understand crop choice, including the inherent cultural value of certain crops, interviews included discussion of opinions about traditional and nontraditional crops, opinions and experience with intercropping, and the use of native herbs as volunteers within the cropping system. Other important decisions included what additional crops were grown in the past and reasons for changing, why certain crops are chosen, and particularly why some farmers have begun to produce export crops. Farmers varied greatly with respect to degree of confidence and willingness to discuss their concerns. As a result, interview durations ranged from 10 minutes to 2 hours, with most lasting between 20 and 30 minutes.

PAGE 51

26 In addition, 21 women from farming households in San Andres Semetebaj were interviewed after approaching them in their homes, generally adjacent to or near agricultural fields. A local female translator was chosen for these interviews for the reasons cited above, as well as to increase trust by having a woman they knew pose the questions. Women were questioned about the crops their family grows, the use of native herbs in the family diet, and their concerns related to agriculture. Although crop management was not discussed in detail with the women, more time was generally spent during these interviews than for the interviews with men. For the total of 136 interviews, questions about crops and their management, opinions, experiences, and information sources were tabulated by number and percent of informants giving each response. Finally, with the assistance of the translators, several key informants were identified, who through repeated discussions provided more in-depth insights concerning the conditions and perceptions in local farming communities. Crop Preference Ranking To understand crop preferences in these communities, a preference ranking exercise (Weller and Romney 1988) was conducted in both communities, with a total of 50 informants (7 men and 16 women in San Andres Semetebaj and 18 men and 9 women in San Jose Chacaya). Twenty-nine crops were selected from a list of those discussed during interviews and depicted on index cards. Each informant (again with the assistance of a local translator) was

PAGE 52

27 then asked to make three piles: highly preferred crops, least-preferred crops, and intermediate crops. For each pile, informants then placed the cards in order by preference, and the overall order was confirmed. Results were tabulated for women and men in each of the two communities, providing a list of crops ranked from most preferred to least preferred. Recognition and Perceptions of Insects in Local Cropping Systems Nineteen informants from the village of Pena Blanca were approached as described for the open-ended interviews. Each was asked if he/she was willing to participate in an exercise involving identifying and describing insects presented. For each pinned insect observed, informants were asked to name it and describe what it does. The exercise was designed to explore knowledge of pest and beneficial insects present in local agroecosystems. The insects included 3 major pests, 8 minor pests and 9 beneficials, all commonly found on local crops, especially corn. If pest management were a part of the traditional knowledge base, it would be expected that informants would be able to assign the proper ecological role to particular insects, although not being able to name them specifically. Results were tabulated by mean proportion of pests and beneficials correctly identified. Soil and Botanical Analvses Soil in each community was collected from 4 agricultural fields representative of the conditions and crops grown, and analyzed by a private soil

PAGE 53

28 testing laboratory in Guatemala City (Agri-Lab) to determine texture, pH and nutrient levels. Thirteen commonly cited native herbs were collected, labeled with common names given by key informants, and identified to species by staff of the Herbarium UVAL, Institute of Research, Universidad del Valle de Guatemala. Results and Discussion Agronomic Conditions, Crops, Yields and Management Practices Analyses of soil samples in both communities showed the presence of sandy loam soil, with average content of clay 15.5%, of sand 72.3% and of silt 12.3%, for the 8 samples analyzed. Average pH was 5.8, with the range between 5.2 and 6.6. The presence of sandy loam soils in all soil samples taken suggests that soils in the area are well drained and easily worked but may lose nutrients and dry out quickly. These soils may also need a significant addition of organic matter to maintain or improve the water and nutrient-holding capacity, which may explain why local growers frequently complained that soil fertility had declined since the use of chemical fertilizers became widespread. The slightly acidic pH of all of the soil samples indicates that the pH range of soils in the area is generally appropriate for most crops. Most farm families in both communities have limited land available for cultivation, with over two-thirds reporting less than 1 ha. and one-third reporting less than 0.5 ha. (Figure 2-1 ). When questioned about crops they produce, farmers described a variety of grains and vegetables, whose planting seasons

PAGE 54

b.) San Andres Semetebaj (n=84) >2 ha. 36.9% Figure 2-1 Land area available to farm families, by percent of farmers responding, a.) San Jose Chacaya; b.) San Andres Semetebaj.

PAGE 55

30 are depicted in a cropping calendar for the area (Figure 2-2). Corn and black beans are the principal crops, in terms of both percent of land area planted to them and percent of farmers planting them, which was nearly 90% for corn (Figure 2-3). Yields as reported by the farmers are given in Figure 2-4. These values represent approximations, since many farmers do not measure their yields. Local farmers often complained about the difficulty in continuing to produce corn because of the high cost of fertilizers and the low market price. Many said they have either taken some land out of corn production for other crops, or are considering doing so. Nevertheless, corn still dominates the landscape. More than half of the land cultivated by the interviewed farmers is planted to corn, most of it for home consumption (Figure 2-3). Local varieties of corn are used almost exclusively, with most farmers keeping seed from the harvest to plant the following year. These varieties are generally planted in early May and harvested in December or January. Although short-season, hybrid varieties are available, the grain produced from them does not store as well, and the tortillas produced become too hard when re-heated. In addition, local varieties are said to be resistant to drought and to an overabundance of rain. Besides the advantages for the farm family, the continued production of local varieties of corn is important for the conservation of genetic resources they contain (Brush 1986). According to the farmers interviewed, security is another major reason for growing corn, providing food in the absence of other opportunities. For example, when there is rainfall for an entire month, as

PAGE 56

31 April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. April Rainy season Black beans (vine type) Black beans (bush type) T r string beans Tomato tetrawberry Turnips "I I Wheat Figure 2-2. Cropping calendar for small-scale farmers in Solola (different bars for each crop represent range of time periods planted).

PAGE 57

32 in cri CO Q. O b. o "S c o ts D O Q. O) C •c o Q. (D I— (A i_ 0) E CO c O u. (D Qm Q. O O o T3 0) C TO Q. TO C CD C 0) o o Q. d CM CM CO CO CO (X) CO If) CN nmni CD CD o CD csi CM HI mnnnni C3) co CO CN mill mmmmiiiiin CO CO in in CO g iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii in o o C30 o o CO o in o o CO o CM •E ^ CO n CO 03 Q. O CXJ (0 im I (0 o CD O O -*— CD E o H CD i2 s o "cD O Q. O \ m ^ 2 -c ^ O C CO 0) CD CD 3 Q. m ^ 5. UU _Q c I o O 2 ^ O CD ?3 o o o c o c _CD Q. •D O C CD Q. c iS t CD O > CL CD 2 W ^ E c CD CD 0 C
PAGE 58

33 CO o CO y///////////////////A oor o '///////. CO CN O c ^ o O ^ o ^ CD i= O CD CO n E z 0) 1^ 00 CM O o CO CD CD CD CD CD 05 2 O) Oi O O O O o CM in A -cO O o ay a> ay o o IT) o o in V CM in iiiiiiiii 3 IIIIIIIII \y////////////////A y///////////////A illllll n Q 0 in y/////////////////. IIIIIIIII o 00 o o CD o in o o CO o CM CD C ^ J3 CD ^ CD CD iiLL ia S S}U9pU0dS9J }U90J9c| CO ^ O o O O o o r: 2 1!: C Tri ^ Q II O c cx o I— O c "ST ^ ,S c CQ ^ — 3 c E E o o <5 o o CO c CO (D E CD CD XL O Q. CO Q. O t_ O "co % CO Q. CD 0 C CO CD > ^ 1 CD CM CO CD 2 Ll q. p

PAGE 59

34 occasionally occurs, other crops are lost and no agricultural wage work is available, but those who have planted corn still have food. Black beans are often planted in the inter-row space, especially in San Andres Semetebaj, and in both communities a traditional variety of climbing black bean is planted with each corn plant. Four to 5 seeds of corn and 3-4 of beans are planted in each hole, usually at a 1 -m distance between rows and plants, although some use spacing of 0.75 m. Planting, weeding and harvesting are performed by hand. A broad hoe and/or machete are used for weeding, which is usually completed once a month for the first 3 months. At the second weeding, some soil is built up around each growing corn plant, and at the third weeding, soil is pushed toward the base of each plant to form mounds, a process known as the "calzada" literally "putting shoes on" the corn plant. Nearly 100% of farmers interviewed used chemical fertilizers, and over 90% used chemical pesticides on at least one of their crops. However, over half also utilized crop rotation, intercropping, organic fertilizers, incorporation of crop residues, or a combination of these (Figure 2-5). Many farmers expressed the desire to learn more about organic fertilizers such as compost and manuring, and pesticides they could make from plant extracts. Many mentioned that while they had not bothered to utilize the manure from their animals since the introduction of chemical fertilizers, they were now realizing its value and beginning to use it again. Such realizations appear to be due in part to the growing number of organizations that have become involved in promoting organic agriculture in Guatemala during the last few years, with extension work

PAGE 60

o o o c CO o J2 c CD N O) r= "C O o 00 CD c Q. Q. O i_ O B c CO CD c g S o L_ Q. O o CD O E 0) (0 g g CO CO CD g E (D 1 Q) € .0) c g CD C3) OOOOOOOOOO oojcDr-cDio-srcocNTeojpBjd 6u!Z!i!}n siuepuodsej }U90J9d

PAGE 61

36 relating to natural pesticides, composting, and intercropping. During interviews, many farmers in the San Andres Semetebaj area discussed contacts with such groups, indicating an overall positive experience. Local agricultural cooperatives were also selling chicken manure for the first time in 1995. Irrigation, while common in San Jose Chacaya through a traditional system of canals that channel water from the local river to fields, is currently rare in San Andres Semetebaj. Only 20.2% of farmers in both communities have access to irrigation systems. However, both overhead sprinkler irrigation and hand pumps have been increasingly promoted by some organizations, with irrigation projects planned for San Andres Semetebaj. Those without access to irrigation plant according to the rainy season, which begins in May (occasionally in April) and ends in November, with heaviest rains usually occurring in September and October following several rain-free weeks in August. Since neither of the abovementioned communities has its own market, most crops are sold in nearby markets, notably Panajachel and Solola. Many growers in San Jose Chacaya sell their vegetables in Guatemala City, especially potatoes, string beans {P. vulgaris) and cabbage. Broccoli in San Andres Semetebaj is sold almost exclusively through local cooperatives that contract with export companies. Attitudes and Perceptions of Cropping Systems To better understand locally cultivated crops and how they are valued, perception and experience with certain crops was discussed during interviews.

PAGE 62

37 The choice of what crops to plant each year can be complex for small-scale farm families. Gladwin's (1980) analysis of this decision by highland Guatemalan farmers revealed a number of conditions that must be met at each of several stages for particular crops to be chosen, including demand, climatic and agronomic requirements, knowledge, time, and capital or credit. When asked how they decide which crops to grow, 45.9% of respondents in the present survey cited market prices. Other important considerations were family tradition and the security of corn and bean production for the family diet (Figure 2-6). In fact, risk aversion is often a factor in production decisions of small-scale farmers (Altieri and Trujillo 1987, Marten and Saltman 1986). Farmers repeatedly emphasized during the interviews that they are seeking income-generating crops to avoid selling the com, which is very low in price and is needed for family consumption. They also want to avoid the use of purchased fertilizers and pesticides, which they see as very expensive and increasingly problematic. Many said that the chemical fertilizers were weakening the soil, while chemical insecticides cause health problems and do not always work well against the target pests. For those who grew different crops in the past, the question of why they changed was posed. The most frequent answer was that they had heard from others (friends, neighbors, company or extension agents) that it was profitable. When the prices of the crops they were currently growing dropped, there was greater incentive to change crops (Figure 2-7). In San Andres Semetebaj, many families changed

PAGE 63

38 o O H pajmbaj sjndui I c CO 0) E |BUOSjad r7~7j SUOIIBIOJ {: :: ] ui ssauin^asn aoioou! jag^o/s)U!ej}suo3 aujii sajepip t : : J aAlJBJadOOQ (/) c o Q. (0 0) cr moj6 sjoqLjBiau iByy\/\ CM 0) CN CO ob CM o d (saoud 'u!Bj) jBaA jo aiuii }9!P AijLUBi/Ajunoas pood aouani^U! |B}uajBd JO UOIIIPBJI o uo o lO TjO LO O LO CD CO CM CM ^ (0 o Q. C J5 Q. O "(5 c o c g o 0) "O >— o CO CO CO c g to (U "a 0} o c a> c a o CO 0) CO c o Q. CO CO 0) 0) tr = c CM E 3 o .25 -CD (86=U) S}U9pU0dS9J p JU90J9c| o o CO

PAGE 64

39 CO csi aA!iB;u9sajd8J AuedLuoo Aq peouiAuoo i E .(0 UJOO jo^ J3z!i!;j3^ JOi J!P9J0 9A!909J 01 isaq SdOJO M9U Aj o 0) (0 o Q. co" Q. O c O) c o CO CO CO CN Ljonoj oo\ p9ddojp sp|9!A dOJQ 1! 6u!iuB|d sjoqLjBiau mbs Ljonuj 001 paddojp sgoud dojQ 9|qBJ!i0jd SBM SJ9MJ0 LUOJ; PJB9H O If) o lo o in o lo n CO cNj CN in 0) c 0) o 52 c to o 2 "S5 CT T3 0) T3 C (D I C o o CO 0) CO c o Q. CO hp CO c E -CD ^ o o CO (6£=U) S}U9pU0dS9J p }U90J9d

PAGE 65

40 part of their production from wheat to nontraditional export crops when the yields and prices of wheat dropped. Traditional crops were associated most frequently with low market prices (38.8 % of those responding). They were also commonly seen as necessary in providing food and therefore valued in the local diet, important to the culture and tradition, and increasingly unaffordable to grow because of high input costs (Figure 2-8). Besides being essential as a dietary staple, corn is an integral part of the mythology and religion of the Mayan culture (Bukasov 1981, Johannessen 1982). Despite the high value placed on the corn crop, many have put some of their land into cash crops, particularly vegetables. Local farmers related that export company representatives told of the high profits they would obtain by planting first brussels sprouts, then snap beans, and most commonly, broccoli. The first two were dropped from production when farmers experienced losses Instead of the new house or car promised by company officials. Broccoli, however, remained popular, because some farmers have been able to make a profit, and the hoped-for good year keeps many trying to grow this crop. Thirty percent of those giving their opinion on nontraditional crops like broccoli said they can provide a profit. According to average yields and prices of both corn and broccoli reported by local farmers, the net profit is actually much higher for broccoli than for corn when the entire broccoli crop is sold, even accounting for higher input costs for broccoli. The corn crop offers almost no profit when sold.

PAGE 66

41 OseuBipsLUJSiU! Luoj; Luopasj j (sindui qBiq 'aoud M0|) LU9L|JM0J6 01 PJOJ^B JOUUBQ (..sjnoj ajnjino (sdojo ]Jodx9 Ij^lM SB S3SS0I ou) AiHiqBJS sappiisad IBOjLuaqo ajinbaj jou oq isjy uojpnpojd jjaqi ajnsug poo| apiAOjd 0} papaaN juBpoduJ! ^laA sjuajBd io UOIJIPBJI aoud laHJBLU M0"| o in CO o CO in CM o CM in in T3
PAGE 67

42 and the relatively higher price for broccoli makes It appear promising, in spite of not being a consistently profitable crop. When asked their opinion of production of export crops like broccoli, although mention was often made of the sometimes higher returns cited above, many noted the higher expense of inputs, the greater problems with pests and subsequent need for more pesticide applications, and the requirements of more time, effort and knowledge than with traditional crops (Figure 2-9). The major problem with broccoli production, according to those interviewed, is the risk of rejection of the harvest if insect presence (lepidopteran larvae) exceeds the standard set by the export company. When part or an entire harvest is rejected, the farmer often incurs a debt to the company because of inputs bought earlier on credit. Another criticism made by farmers is that the local agricultural cooperatives through which the export companies work sometimes do not pay for the harvest until the following year, and rumors of corruption in at least 1 cooperative were prevalent. Some of the cooperatives require associates not only to grow broccoli to maintain membership (and receive credit for fertilizers for corn) but also to buy from them the complete input package, including in some cases excess amounts of pesticides, in order to guarantee purchase of the harvest. Finally, broccoli and other exotic export crops require more fungicide and insecticide applications, because of greater pest prevalence than traditional crops and higher market standards. Agricultural credit requirements tied to pesticide use are not uncommon in Central America (Thrupp 1990).

PAGE 68

43 CO in IBOlLUeLjO sejjejp3LUja}U| i E (5 o Aed lou p!p AuedLuoo 'paui unj 6uo| U! JBGA AJ9A9 0) w o Q. r O o "co c g (0 csi in 00 d CO in CO o CO in CNJ o CM in m (D CO c o Q. CO O a: SU0jP!J}S9J asodaij sajuedLuoQ aAjsuadxa aje S)ndu| a6pa|Mou>i 'po^a 'aaij} ajoLU ajjnba^ SIBOjUJaLp AUBLU s^sad Aue^ isaja^u! /a6pa|Mou>i 9|W!1 aiqeiyojd aq UBQ c o c o c o 'c Q. O c g CO 0) CT "O 03 o c ? c CO c o Q. I CM 0) O (68=u) sjuapuodsaj jo iuaojad c :d E E o o o o CO

PAGE 69

Farmers repeatedly stated during the interviews that they do not eat herbs from the broccoli fields because such herbs are laden with pesticides, although they do gather native herbs from the corn field to supplement the diet (Figure 210). Selective weeding, with the maintenance of useful herbs in the agroecosystem, has been documented for traditional farmers in southeastern Mexico (Chacon and Gliessman 1982). Many farm families in Solola consume native greens several times a week and have a variety of medicinal uses for the herbs they collect (Table 2-1 ). Table 2-1 Herbs commonly collected and utilized in the family diet by smallscale farmers in two Solola communities. Plant family Scientific name Common names Amaranthaceae Chenopodiaceae Compositae Cruciferae Fabaceae Portulacaceae Solanaceae Amaranthus hibridus L. Chenopodium sp. Bidens chiapensis Brandg. Gallinsoga urticaefolia (HBK) Benth Sonchus oleraceus L. Brassica sp. (campestris or napa) B. integrifolia (Willd.) Rupr. Nasturtium officinale R. Br. Crotalaria longirostrata Hook & Arm. Calandrinia micranta Schlecht. Solanum nigrescens Mart &Gal bledo, tzets, ses, huisquilete apazote shup macar, hoja nueva curcur, lechugilla napish, mostaza yerba blanca berro, guixocul Chipilin, chop, tcap-in Barba de San Nicolas Macuy, hierbamora, quilete Finally, farmers were asked about their experience with and perception of intercropping, to evaluate possible reaction to more intensive cropping systems. Traditional intercrops help to meet the multiple objectives of small-scale farmers

PAGE 70

00 CO oo CO oo CO esouimd sisuadeiqo suapiQ eiio^eoi^jn o o CO I c CO v_ 0) E CD OO CO oo 00 CM CM JO d CO aieuioy^o uunipnisef^ LunAi}es LunjpueuoQ CO sneoejBio § snqouos m (D sufssdujeo BDISSBJg eoissejg eiej}sojiBuoj eueiefOjQ snpuqiq snmuejBULi)/
PAGE 71

(Jodha 1980), and the cultivation of many native crops within traditional systems is practiced with intercrops (Nabhan 1992). One example is the Aztec and Mayan practice of intercropping corn and amaranth {Amaranthus spp.), still found in parts of Mexico (Williams and Brenner 1995). Intercrops observed in the field or reported by interviewed farmers are given in Table 2-2. Seventy percent of those interviewed reported utilizing at least one type of intercrop, but for 71 % of those, that intercrop was corn and beans. While 38.9% of those responding admitted success with at least 1 example other than corn and beans, many were negative about the practice, citing a lack of room between rows to work with the hoe, shading of some crops by others, and that the practice in general "does not work" (Figures 2-1 1 and 212). The responses to questions about intercropping suggest that any recommendations involving more intensive cropping systems than are currently practiced should be accompanied by thorough extension programs to avoid conflict with local perceptions of intensive systems. In the future, extension efforts could be coordinated with the numerous local organizations promoting organic agriculture in the region (Castaiieda et al. 1994), whose success in spreading awareness was apparent during the study. In ranking crops by preference, informants chose corn as the most preferred in both sites, followed by black beans (Table 2-3). Tomato, a crop many in San Andres Semetebaj have expressed an interest in growing, was fifth in overall preference. Husk tomato {Physalis pruinosa L ), amaranth and other herbs appeared below most of the common crops, probably because traditional

PAGE 72

47 Table 2-2. Intercrops utilized by farmers in two Solola communities. Intercrops utilized by respondents Additional intercrops known by respondents Corn + black bean (vine type) Corn + chili Corn + black bean (bush type) Carrots + faba beans Corn + black bean (vine type and bush type) Carrots + cilantro Corn + black bean + faba bean Radish + cilantro Corn + black bean + chili + faba bean Corn + black bean + avocado Corn + black bean + squash Corn + faba bean + squash Corn + tomato Corn + faba bean Corn + cilantro Corn + piloy bean Black bean + faba bean Black bean + sweet potato Black bean + tomato Black bean + flowers Faba bean + flowers Tomato + cilantro Broccoli + tomato Carrots + Brassica integrifolia Potato + Brassica integrifolia Onion + Brassica integrifolia

PAGE 73

48 1^ CO s}ue|d lOU 'S90BJJ91 XjLU UBO CO c (0 . (D Si O) c Q. a § jjav\ jou s9oa 00 CO ss9oons MJIM 90U0 JSB9| }B P9U1 O CO o CO lO CM o in CM T(£g=U) S}U9pU0dS9J jO JU90J9c| 8 c CL x; c g (li CT "O CO 0) (U 11 O -TO CO o C CO CO > cr: .£ ^ i U. (1) CO

PAGE 74

49 CO i2 o O 0) > CO O) O 0) 0 9LU!1/>|J0M Ljonuj 00 J. qBnous aWliBi \o\j |iOS Bupeds o\ eABH HJOM OJ LUOOJ 0(S| jagio Lioea ^im a^adujoo s^ueid jagio Moea apegs s^ueid PUB| p aSBiuBApe sa>|Bi spasu! ladaj UBO suoiiBUjqujoo jadojd CO 8 U5 CM O CM in in (6|,=u) sjuapuodsaj p juaojad C3> C Q. Q. O (D (0 tS 00 OD (D C o c CD > CO o Q. >— O c o
PAGE 75

50 Table 2-3. Order of preference of 29 crops presented to farmers in two Solola communities. Rank Total ban jose ban Anares Men Women unacaya Semetebaj \ 1 1 \J\J 1 (n-27) /r-> — 00\ (n-23) (n-25) (n-25) 1 v-fOrn oorn uorn uorn Lorn 9 Dlack beans Black beans Black beans Black beans O r UlalueS potatoes Tomato rotatoes Onion A V^l HUl 1 Union Potatoes Onion Potatoes c O 1 umaiu f "* ^\ ^^^^^ A uarrots Onion Green beans Tomato c o uar rois Green beans Carrots Carrots Carrots 7 Tomato bquash Tomato Peppers Q O OC^Uaon oquasn raoa Deans Squash bquash Q r ciL/ci Uodi lo Peas Green beans Peas Faba beans 1 VJ raoa Deans reppers Piloy beans Green beans 1 1 1 1 "iiuy ueans Kaoisn riloy Deans Faba beans Peas 19 Uabbage Peas Radish Piloy beans 13 1 \CSU 1 wl 1 Cauliflower Kadish Cilantro Radish 14 v/iioi III u r llOy D6dno L/iianiro uauiiTiower Cauliflower 1 o OdUIIIIUWc;! reppers MUSK tomato uabbage Cilantro 1fi riUor\ luniciiu L/iiantro Flowers Husk tomato Husk tomato 17 nusK tomato Broccoli Peppers Hierba mora 1 ft 1 o Droccoii beets Hierba mora Beets Cabbage 19 Hiprhp mor?? 1 ll^l L^Cl 1 1 \\J\ CI Broccoli Wheat Broccoli Broccoli 20 Flowers merDd mora uauiiTiower ^ lis ifS ill unipiiin Flowers 21 Rppt<; \j\ llfJIIIf 1 v^nipiiin bnow peas unipiiin nieroa oianca Cabbage Flowers Beets 23 Strfl\A/hprrip5 Flowers beets Hierba mora Amaranth 24 Amaranth AM 1 lOI Ol III 1 onow peas btrawDerries Strawberries Wheat 25 Hiprha 1 1 Iwl UCI Amarantn Amaranth Hierba blanca Strawberries blanca 26 Snow peas ^tra\A/hprriPQ oil OWL/d 1 ICO Ol lUW pcds Diusseis nierDa Dianca 27 sprouts Wheat Hoja de tamal Hierba Amaranth Hoja de tamal blanca 28 Hoja de Brussels Hoja de Wheat Snow peas tamal sprouts tamal 29 Brussels Wheat Brussels Hoja de tamal Brussels sprouts sprouts sprouts

PAGE 76

crops are often shown less respect culturally (CATIE 1979, Martinez and Alfaro et al. 1994). Additionally, since they are gathered in small quantities, they are sold in small quantities in local markets and are not considered to have high market potential. However, rising imports to the United States of such crops as husk tomato and cilantro {Coriandrum sativum L.) and a growing international market for amaranth may be exploited in the future (Bock et al. 1995, Can et al. 1991-92, Maynard 1993, Schnetzler and Breene 1994). Despite the high percentage of farmers growing broccoli, it resulted in being 18th of 29 crops. Although many farmers continue to grow broccoli, the problems they have had with the export companies and the high inputs required probably cause them to perceive the crop negatively. The snow pea was close to the bottom and brussels sprouts was last. These crops were among the first in the export trend in the study area, but failed to produce expected profits. Phncipal Pests, Perceptions of Changing Pest Status, and Recognition of the Role of Beneficials When asked about the history of agricultural pests in the area, 89.5 % of respondents stated that pest problems are greater now than in the past, with 10.5 % saying there is no difference, and none believing that pests were more of a problem in the past. Many respondents recognized that pests became problematic with the adoption of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, but as Bentley (1989b) found in Honduras, a lack of understanding of natural enemies has prompted the rise of alternative explanations. Fertilizer companies are said

PAGE 77

52 to add insects to their products to increase dependence on chemical pesticides, and it is commonly recounted that several decades ago, planes dropped boxes of insects on the communities for the same reason (probably a reference to the sterile release screwworm eradication program active in Guatemala until recently) (Figure 2-13). Also, one person noted that nontraditional crops have more pests, and one described earlier practices involving organic matter amendments to the soil as inhibiting pest populations. Farmer descriptions of the pests found on the major crops are summarized in Table 2-4. The most commonly cited pests were the white grub Phyllophaga spp. {"gallina ciega") and the leaf beetles Microaltica mexicana and Diphaulaca wagneri (referred to locally as "timosus"). In addition, the term "argeflo" was used frequently to note a generalized poor growth of the plant, in some cases due to root pathogens and in others to unknown causes. Farmers' descriptions of insect pests were often extremely vague. While some farmers had learned genus and species names from export company agronomists (such as Plutella), most were only able to describe a pest as "a worm," "a bug," or "a little animal," and when questioned further were often unsure of color, time of occun'ence, and distinguishing characteristics. When farmers in the nearby community of Peiia Blanca were later shown 20 specimens of insects common in agricultural crops in the area and asked to identify and describe their activities within the agroecosystem, they were able to name only a few of the insects. When describing what the insects do, they correctly identified the roles of 23.9% of them. Forty percent of the pest insects

PAGE 78

53 CM CO CM CO SJ8Z!|!)J3^ l!os u; ja\SBi aonpojddj spesuj Ijos 9L|} u| jaueui 3!ue6jo ajoLu pasn ';sed u| c m to E \ 03 T3 Q. in en (D CD c\i CM GO CM S9pp!;s9d IBOILUaLJO io asn LjjiM ueSaq saiaiqojd sjeoiiuago 01 pasn jo6 puei spasui io s6Bq/saxoq paddojp sauBid sjazjiiya^ IBOiLuago asn LjijM UBBaq stuaiqojd jazinvia^ 0} Luag} PPB SajUBdOIOQ o CO o CM O d CM o o d o to o d 0)
PAGE 79

54 CO 0) "(5 i= > O 0) CO c > CO c O) o Q. CO CO (U Q CO 0) CO 2 E 5 o V) CD > CO -Q 5 c: CD CO SO CD CO (D D O CO CO E o) 0) ^ C CO CO o E ^ CO 5 > C CD 0) O CO CD > O 0) CO CO CO CD p CO O O E CO 3 CO CD J3 CO ^ CD CD CO o o CO x: o ( Q. > CO ^ CD C CD O t CO CD c: o o c .CD Q. Q. CO c: CD CO 3 x: c^ CD ^ CO ^ CD o o CO CD ^ C Q. CD O CO -t—f o CD CO c Q. O O o lo CO c CD
PAGE 80

55 were correctly characterized as pests, while only 5% of beneficials were distinguished as such. Forty and 48% of pest and beneficial insects, respectively, were unknown to the farmers in terms of their role (Figure 2-14). Despite the inherent pest control characteristics of many traditional cropping systems, farmers are often unaware of the existence of beneficial insects (Altieri 1990a, 1984b, Altieh and Trujillo 1987). When asked about the relative abundance of pests in intercrops versus monocultures, 64% of respondents explained that intercrops have more pests, and 29% felt that pests would be equally abundant. Of the former group, all regarded the more intensive intercrop as more attractive to pests, since more plant material was equated with more food for insects. Most beneficials that were recognized as non-pest species were considered, at most, harmless (29% of total beneficials). In fact, few farmers could say that any insect is "good." The beneficial nature of some insects within agroecosy stems was not within the conceptual framework of most farmers. Bentley (1989b) and Andrews et al. (1993) have described the perceptions of small-scale farmers in Honduras in much the same way, with clear gaps in knowledge of insects, particularly as related to insect reproduction and natural enemies, phenomena that are generally difficult to observe. As was true with the traditional Honduran farmers, insects for these small-scale Guatemalan farmers are primarily seen as herbivores that threaten their crops and must be destroyed before they take over. For example, farmers in Pena Blanca who have observed beneficial wasps taking nectar from crop flowers believed that the flower and

PAGE 81

56 a.) pests (n=11) Did not know 40% Correctly identifiec 40% Identified as beneficials 3% b.) beneficials (n=9) Correctly identified 5% Did not know 48% Identified as harmless or weed feeders 17% Identified as pests 18% Identified as harmless 29% Figure 2-14. Mean percent of a.) pest and b.) beneficial insects identified by 19 informants according to their role in agroecosystems.

PAGE 82

57 leaves of the plant subsequently dried out as a result. Such an attitude of all insects being the enemy has contributed to over-zealous spraying with pesticides in Central America, often without economic justification (Andrews et al. 1993). Basis of Farmers' Agricultural Knowledge When questioned about their major concerns, farmers most frequently mentioned the need for profitable crops (Figure 2-15). The high cost of inputs also was cited repeatedly, and while only 2 people were most concerned about the health effects of pesticides, such effects were cited as a minor concern several more times. The third most common concern was that of pests. With respect to the type of information farmers would be most interested in receiving, the most prevalent responses dealt with natural fertilizers and pesticides. Information about new crops as profitable alternatives and more effective pest control tactics were additional important concerns (Figure 2-16). Interviews also included discussion of sources of technical advice, which was found to be received most often from the cooperative or export company agronomists (the primary source for 40.6% of those interviewed). These agronomists are said to visit the fields of every farmer contracted to grow broccoli, to advise on which pesticides to apply. Other sources of advice and information include training from parents, self experience, friends' and neighbors' advice, and agrochemical stores (Figure 2-17). Many farmers expressed distrust in extension workers, who are often said to give poor or

PAGE 83

58 gonuj 001 p £ >;';' 'I sspioijsad CO cn CO in (O O) X;!i!vi3j ijos jood 33IAPB IBOjUlJOSl iO >|0B-1 g c o a. M SJUBid ,2 p mvv\oj6 JOOd sdojo /M3U JO] SS303B }9)gBUJ iO )(0B-1 suuaouoo ON o o CO I c 0) E o M o a. 2 3 -*-* 3 O -c C3 C u. oT3

PAGE 84

59 00 csi (O CO 06 10 CO CD W C 3 Q> Q. I i (0 Q. C o o O 2 Q. to 0) CD (A CO c o Q. CO 0) O o 0) ^ o 2 <= Q. o u Q. 2 u
PAGE 85

60 d i 1^ IT) GO sjaqei sppi^sad }uaLuAo|duj3 JO saipnts Luoji 6u!U!BJj_ s^uaSe uoisuapo lueuiUjeAoo sajois |BO!Ujag3-oj6v c o Q. 0) d CO in CD d sjoqg6|au /spuauj sasjnoo /s>l|Bj 09N (aouauadxa UMo) auoN uoujpej; /s^uajBd sisiluouojBb Xuedujoo JO aAfiBjadooQ in o in CO o CO in o CM in in CO o T3 (D 0) O Q. 0) O > TJ CD o o CO O c c o 09 d) o O) o c 9 c
PAGE 86

61 inappropriate advice. In a study in Honduras, small-scale farmers also expressed doubt about the suggestions of extensionists, although continued contact with them also resulted in lower confidence in their own traditional agricultural knowledge (Bentley 1989a). Conclusions The survey activities described here were designed to better understand farmer conditions, knowledge and attitudes. Increased profit, maintenance of traditions, and food security are some of the most important goals that cropping systems must satisfy to be appropriate for the farm families in the study area. Small-scale farmers in the region were found to be primarily constrained by land, capital, markets and the information base necessary to manage pests. Farmers were generally unaware of the role of natural enemies in the agroecosystem, and their incomplete knowledge of specific pest and beneficial insects highlights the lack of pest management information in their traditional agricultural knowledge base. In fact, most examples of effective traditional knowledge with respect to efficient use of natural resources in agriculture concentrate on soil and water management (Brush 1981, Mountjoy and Gliessman 1988, Wilken 1987). Traditional agricultural knowledge must be taken into account when designing pest management strategies for small-scale tropical farmers (Thurston 1990, Altieri 1990b, Glass and Thurston 1978). However, where little more than cursory understanding of the ecological processes involved and little recognition

PAGE 87

62 of key organisms exist, the traditional knowledge base cannot be relied upon. In this case, where chemical control of pests is prevalent and alternative sources of knowledge are rarely existent, the best strategy is to avoid the need for pest management as much as possible by choosing crops that minimize pest problems. One of the most noteworthy results of the survey is the continued significance of corn and the desire to maintain certain traditional crops and practices, despite pressure to adopt high-cash crops and synthetic inputs. Com, despite its low market price, remains a vital element in the culture, religion and diet of the Mayan groups in the region, and caring for the land and the revered corn plant is fundamental to the Mayan way of life (Rojas Lima 1988, Bukasov 1981, Johannessen 1982, Elbow 1974). Therefore, although alternative production systems are needed, corn and beans must remain the focus of any cropping systems tested, and secondary crops should be chosen for their role in minimizing pest problems, as well as the economic and nutritional benefits they provide. For an alternative cropping system to be economically, environmentally and culturally sustainable, it must be intermediate between the traditional com and bean systems, which can no longer provide for the needs of the population, and an export vegetable monoculture, which can cause environmental and cultural damage without providing economic stability.

PAGE 88

CHAPTER 3 INSECT PEST AND BENEFICIAL POPULATIONS, DISEASE AND DAMAGE IN CORN MONOCULTURE AND TWO ALTERNATIVE INTERCROPS Introduction Agricultural research aimed at modernization of farmers in developing countries tends to overlook the ecological and socio-economic heterogeneity of traditional agricultural systems, concentrating on large-scale yield-improving technologies that are not appropriate for many small-scale farming systems (Altieri and Trujillo 1987, Francis et al. 1986). On the other hand, the design of site-specific cropping systems may contribute to the long-term success of aghcultural development projects that aim to resolve the most pressing needs of small-scale farm families in the tropics. However, such systems must be designed carefully to avoid creating additional management problems. The design of more intensive cropping systems may or may not create undesirable consequences for the already difficult task of pest management faced by the small-scale farmer. Therefore, alternative cropping systems hypothesized to provide greater economic and health benefits to the farm family must be carefully scrutinized through field experiments in the immediate area for any resulting effects on pests. 63

PAGE 89

64 The most immediate set of problems facing small-scale farmers in the western Guatemalan highlands are the need for income-generating crops, the threat to cultural traditions, and the misuse of synthetic chemical pesticides. Before cropping systems can be recommended as alternatives, these needs must be addressed. While the maintenance of corn in the cropping system is essential for the maintenance of cultural traditions, the increasing need for greater income can be met by adding cash crops to the system, as long as the yield of corn is not reduced. If this can be accomplished while at the same time reducing the pest numbers or apparent damage (or at least maintaining the same levels), the use of synthetic pesticides will not be increased. As a result, the alternative cropping system would be more appropriate to the needs of target farmers, and the likelihood of acceptance would be higher. Incorporating the needs and perceptions of the target group into research recommendations can increase the degree of acceptance of an agricultural innovation (Grieshop et al. 1988). The choice of secondary crops incorporated into the system can have consequences for the natural control of corn insect pests, both directly as a result of ecological interactions and indirectly as a result of changes in chemical pesticide use on corn, or additional usage on secondary crops. Root (1973) developed the natural enemies hypothesis to suggest that reductions in herbivore abundance in vegetationally diverse habitats may be the consequence of greater favorability of more diverse habitats to natural enemies (alternative prey, nectar sources, microclimatic changes, etc.). The response of natural

PAGE 90

65 enemies to habitat diversity has been studied with inconsistent results (for example, Brust et al. 1986, Coll and Bottrell 1996, Risch et al. 1982), and it is clear that the particular ecological conditions present in each case determine the response of natural enemy populations to diversity. For example, in an evaluation of traditional corn production systems in TIaxcala, Mexico, Altieri and Trujillo (1987) concluded that fluctuations in both herbivore and predator densities depended on a number of factors, such as temporal and spatial crop arrangements, presence of non-crop vegetation in and around-the field, and type of management. However, the negative impact that chemical insecticides can have on natural enemies has been more consistently documented in many agroecosystems, including that of corn (Brust et al. 1986, Perfecto 1990, Garcia 1991 ). Therefore, it makes more sense to concentrate on intercrop combinations that will not only provide more economic and nuthtional benefits than corn alone but also not require pest control. Such combinations would encourage natural control and at the same time account for the constraints of small-scale farmers. Two alternative cropping systems designed to conform to the constraints and needs of small-scale farmers in Solola, Guatemala, were examined in terms of insect pest and beneficial populations, disease and damage. The objective was to determine if the additional plants intercropped with corn would give rise to greater pest population densities, lower beneficial population densities, greater

PAGE 91

66 disease presence, or greater damage, any of which would provoke the farmer to utilize greater amounts of synthetic pesticides. Since economic return may outweigh potential changes in pest numbers, both a high-risk alternative, utilizing crops that have both greater economic potential and greater potential pest problems, and a low-risk alternative, including crops with lower potential pest problems and lower expected returns, were examined. The high-risk intercrop included black beans, broccoli and faba beans with the main crop corn. Faba beans are commonly grown in the area and are often grown around the house or within the cornfield. The crop has a stable local market, and its high protein and mineral content makes it nutritionally appealing (Rani and Hira 1993). However, farmers in the area related that yields have declined, and faba beans now experience greater pest attack, particularly from aphids. Broccoli is the principal export crop in the area, and while production for export markets may not be appropriate to the conditions of small-scale fanners, there is also a strong market in Guatemala City, and to some extent in Solola. The second alternative, the low-risk intercrop, was comprised of the main corn crop with the secondary crops black beans, amaranth {Amaranthus cruentus), and cilantro. Amaranthus spp. constituted an important food staple in pre-Columbian Aztec and Mayan civilizations, and amaranth-based products are now growing in popularity worldwide, with market expansion expected in the future. Amaranth seed has a high protein content, and many species and cultivars are resistant to drought, heat and pests (National Research Council

PAGE 92

67 1984, Weber 1980, R. Bressani, Universidad del Valle, personal communication 1995). Furthermore, amaranth has potential for reducing pest populations when intercropped with corn in a nonor low-chemical use pest management program. Tingle et al. (1978) collected larvae of the beet armyworm {Spodoptera exigua (Hubner)), the southern armyworm {Spodoptera eridania (Cramer)) and the beet webworm {Herpetogramma bipunctalis (F.)) from A. hybridus growing within field corn in Hastings, Florida. They reared from these larvae nine native parasite species, all of which were also parasites of the serious corn pest Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (fall armyworm), but no fall armyworm larvae were found feeding on the amaranth. In field tests in Honduras, Spodoptera latifascia (Walker) showed an oviposition preference for Amaranthus sp. over sorghum {Sorghum bicolor{L) Moench) and various non-crop species, and equal to that of maize (Portillo et al. 1996). Therefore, amaranth may serve as a nursery crop for natural enemies of key corn pests. Insect pests known to attack amaranth in the United States include principally the lygus bug {Lygus spp ), especially the tarnished plant bug (L. lineolaris Palisot de Beauvois), and the amaranth weevil {Conotrachelus senialus Leconte), with some reports of limited infestations by European corn borer {Ostrinia nubilalis), fall armyworm, cabbage looper {Trichoplusia ni (Hubner)) and corn eanMDrm {Helicoverpa zea Boddie) (Weber 1980, Wilson and Olson 1990, Clark et al. 1995). However, information is not widely available pertaining to pests of amaranth in Guatemala.

PAGE 93

68 Finally, although not native to the region, cilantro is a popular herb in Guatemala and Mexico, used for adding flavor to sauces, soups, vegetables, and other dishes. Its increasing populahty in the United States suggests that there is potential market growth. In addition, coriander seeds and oil extracts have been evaluated for their potential insect repellant properties (Su 1986). Several farmers in the study area reported the cilantro plant to be free of insects and occasionally plant it for its repellent effects. The extent to which these alternative secondary crops may affect pest populations on, and damage to, the corn crop, particularly under the conditions of the study area, has not been evaluated. In fact, information on insects present in traditional Guatemalan agroecosystems is rare, with few exceptions (Painter 1955, Morales et al.1993). This study therefore compares two alternative corn intercrops to corn in monoculture, in terms of pest and beneficial populations, and describes pest presence on secondary crops to determine the likelihood that either alternative will increase the use of synthetic chemical pesticides. Methods and Materials Field plots were established at the Escuela de Formacion Agrlcola in Solola, Guatemala at the start of the rainy season, 1996. The study site, on hilly land with an altitude of 2095 m, was chosen for its topographic and vegetational similarity to small farms in the area. Soils are sandy loam alfisols, with volcanic ash influence (66% sand, 22% silt, 12% clay). A pre-plant soil analysis of the

PAGE 94

69 study fields showed soils to have a pH value of 5.6 and an organic matter content of 3.6%, and to be deficient in both nitrogen and potassium. Data from a weather station at the site revealed that total precipitation during the experiment (May to November 1996) was 1272.8 mm. Daily temperatures for this time ranged from 12.7 C (mean minimum) to 20.6 C (mean maximum), with the mean median temperature being 16.6 C. Experimental Design and Agronomic Management of Field Plots The three treatments consisted of the following; 1 .) corn in monoculture, 2.) corn planted with black beans and later broccoli and faba beans, and 3.) corn planted with black beans and later cilantro and amaranth. Plant arrangements for the intercrop treatments are shown in Figure 3-1 The experimental design was a randomized complete block with 6 replicates. Based on availability of open land, 3 areas within the school were utilized for the experiment, separated by 250-500 m, with 2 blocks (replicates) within each area. Plots measuring 15 X 8 m were laid out along the contour within each of the 6 blocks (one block below the other in each area) and separated by at least 7 m. Plots were terraced, as is most sloping agricultural land in the area, with 2-3 terraces per plot, constructed with hoes, and rows were planted along the contour. Plots in all 3 areas were on southeast facing slopes. Monthly cutting with a machete minimized vegetation in areas between plots. Neither irrigation nor pesticides were applied to plots during the season. i

PAGE 95

70 a KM 0 ™ ai 9 ™ o 9 a 9 -> A A 0 aa 9 n 9 on 9^£ 0 9 n 9 999. @. 9 ™ 9 a 9 a 9 — -> 99 Ol 9 9 99 9 ™ 9 > 9 99 9S9S SfS 9££ > m 9£9£ 9 9 9 9 ™ 0 9 9 9-9 0 9-9 0. 9 9-9 0-9 9-9 0 0 9-9 0 9< 9 9 m 9 9^9 a 9 a 0 n 9 £9 9 oo 9 9 9 n n 9s 01 9 99 9 n (S 0 a 9 a a a 9 ™ C (D c CD O O @ c OJ 0 0 n 0 0 0 l_ ca CO LL @ iTTn m 1 1 I i i 1 i c CO 0) Q) (U ^ c eo"i5 E Q0) c So C "5 Q. Q. 03 §1 1| o CD CO ^ O Q. Q-g ll C CO Q) C X $ 0) o c ^ CO <^ h CD ^ M Uc o o

PAGE 96

71 Local farmers carried out all land preparation, planting, and weeding with hoes and machetes, and agronomic practices followed those of the region. Likewise, locally grown seed was used where possible. On May 18, local yellow corn seed was planted in all plots at a distance of 0.6 m between plants and 1 m between rows. In plots of treatments 2 and 3, black bean seeds were planted together with the corn at a planting depth of approximately 10 cm. Diammonium phosphate (DAP) (18-46-0 NPK) at 100 kg/ha was applied to approximately 8 cm-diameter holes, 16,667 per ha, made with a machete. Four corn seeds and 3 bean seeds were placed in each hole, based on local resistance to planting fewer seeds per hole as a result of losses to birds and poor germination. A local corn variety in the highlands of Chiapas, Mexico, was found to have optimum yields at 4.6 seeds per hill (Marquez-Gomez et al.1992). After covering the seeds with approximately 1 cm of soil, a hoe was used to create a mound behind the seeds to protect them from heavy rain. The following day, processed chicken manure (3-2-3 NPK) mixed with soil was applied in a furrow beside each mound at 841 kg/ha. At 3 weeks after planting, muriate of potash (0-0-60 NPK) and urea (46-0-0 NPK) were broadcast at 100 kg/ha in corn monoculture plots. Plots with intercrops received 150 kg/ha of each, divided in 2 applications, the first at the same time as the monoculture and the second a week later, after planting faba beans and cilantro in treatments 2 and 3 respectively. In addition, intercrops received 75 kg/ha of diammonium phosphate at planting. All plots received two more applications of urea (100 or

PAGE 97

72 150 kg/ha for monoculture and intercrops respectively) at 9 and 1 3 weeks after planting, the last application coinciding with the first appearance of tasseling. Finally, soil test results showed a zinc deficiency, and so 2 applications of foliar zinc at 2 liters/ha were made to the corn and broccoli at 7 and 9 weeks after planting. At 2 weeks after planting, corn was reseeded where poor germination, missing seeds, or scratched up seedlings from bird damage left empty mounds. Intercrops in treatments 2 and 3 were planted after the corn had germinated. Three weeks after planting, in all treatment 2 plots, 2 dried faba bean seeds from the local market were planted in each hole (16,000/ha), which had been dug with a hoe to approximately 8 cm, and to which 75 kg/ha of diammonium phosphate had been applied. Holes were dug along the row of corn, between corn mounds, and the distance between plants was 0.6 m. Faba beans were reseeded 2 weeks later and harvested on October 16, November 9 and December 2. Black beans were harvested on September 3 and solar dried. On May 21 broccoli seeds obtained from a local agricultural store were planted in a seedbed to which 50 g/m^ of 15-15-15 NPK fertilizer had been previously incorporated to approximately 30 cm, and 5 weeks later, seedlings were transplanted to treatment 2 plots. Broccoli seedlings were placed equidistantly between rows and between mounds of corn (Figure 3-1 ), at a distance of 0.6 m within the row, also with incorporation of 75 kg/ha of diammonium phosphate into the planting hole (14,000/ha). Plants that did not survive were replaced 2 weeks later. Further fertilization in treatment 2 plots is

PAGE 98

described above, and broccoli was harvested on September 4, September 18 and October 16. On June 12, locally obtained cilantro seed was planted in treatment 3 plots equidistantly between each row of corn at a spacing of 10 cm between plants, in 2 cm-diameter holes approximately 2 cm deep (100,000/ha), into which diammonium phosphate was incorporated at 75 kg/ha. Due to poor germination over all plots, cilantro was replanted 5 weeks later in two rows between every other row of corn (10 cm between plants and 20 cm between rows), with amaranth planted in 2 rows betv^en the alternating rows of corn (15 cm between plants, 20 cm between rows, at 2 cm depth, 80,000/ha). Amaranth seed originated from the Rodale Institute (variety 84S-K277). Poor germination resulted in replanting of amaranth 3 and 6 weeks later. Cilantro was harvested on October 16 and November 25, and amaranth was harvested on December 6. All plots were weeded with a machete and hoe at 4, 9, and 19 weeks after planting. At 6 and 9 weeks after planting, following local custom, soil was pulled up against each group of corn plants with a hoe, creating a mound that gave the plants greater support. Nevertheless, strong winds in August and height of corn plants contributed to lodging of corn in all plots. Lodged plants with no potential for ear development were removed on August 29. At the same time, some lower leaves of all com plants were removed to prevent further lodging by relieving weight on the plants and allowing an outlet for the wind, further lessening pressure on the plants. By October, ears on lodged plants were receiving considerable damage from rodents and were sampled and removed on October

PAGE 99

74 23 for sale as fresh ears. Remaining ears were turned down 3 weeks later to facilitate drying. This procedure {"doblado") is commonly practiced throughout Latin America by small-scale corn producers and has been documented frequently among Mayan farmers (Thurston 1992). In one study in Guatemala, 1 % of grain from ears that had been bent down experienced fungal damage, compared to 14.5% from ears not bent down (Montoya et al. 1970). Finally, corn was harvested by hand on November 25 and further dried in the sun. Insect. Disease and Damage Samples: Visual Observations At weeks 3-5, 7-11, 1 3-1 5, and 1 8-1 9, plants were sampled nondestructively by visual observation. The sample unit was a 0.6-m length of cornrow, centered on a corn mound. Between 1 and 4 corn plants (seasonal mean of 3.47 corn plants per mound) and 1-2 bean plants were present in each sample unit. Number of units sampled per sampling date varied between 3 and 12, depending on height of corn plants and subsequent time needed for sampling. Within each plot, sample units were allocated systematically with a random start. On each sampling date, all visible parts of plants were examined, with numbers of insects and presence of disease and damage recorded. Insect. Disease and Damage Samples: Destructive Plant Samples At 2, 6, 12, 17, 22, 24 and 26 weeks after planting, corn plants were sampled destructively with the sampling unit and allocation described above. After cutting plants at 10 cm above the soil level and removing them from the

PAGE 100

75 plots, all parts of each plant were thoroughly examined for insects and disease. During the last four destructive samples, damage to each corn ear was also recorded by source. Soil Samples A pre-plant sample was taken for soil insects, in which 9 samples were taken per plot, allocated systematically with a random start. Blocks of soil 20 cm X 20 cm X 15 cm deep were removed with a machete, placed in plastic bags, stored at approximately 6 C and processed within 72 hours. Soil was placed in a kitchen strainer and water passed through, with the debris observed carefully for insects. Soil samples were also taken at each destructive sample to determine significance of root-feeding insects. For each, a 20 cm X 20 cm X 1 5 cm deep block of soil, centered on the corn roots, was removed v^th a machete, placed in a plastic bag, stored at approximately 6 C and processed within 48 hours. Soil was placed in a shallow plastic pan and visually searched for insects. Samples of Com Ear Development and Damage Damage to corn ears was also measured at final grain harvest. Plants from 1 0 sample units per plot were inspected for number of ears, length and weight of ears (with moisture readings from a Dole Model 400B grain moisture tester used to adjust weights to 15% moisture), number of kernels and number of damaged kernels by origin of damage.

PAGE 101

76 Samples of Community Composition In addition to quantitative evaluations of population densities, insects present in each of the cropping systems were monitored throughout the experiment, both through collections made during the sampling procedures previously described and through traps set out in the plots. Pitfall traps were left in each plot 14 times throughout the expenment to ascertain the presence of ground-dwelling insects. Four 10-ounce plastic drinking cups were buried to ground level in each plot, with 1-2 centered on each terrace. Each cup was filled with 50 ml of a 50:50 solution of antifreeze and water and emptied after 72 hours. Baits for wireworms (Elateridae) were set out once, early in the season. Oatmeal and corn flake mixtures and rolled oats have been shown to be more attractive to wireworm larvae than other bait combinations (Jansson et al. 1989). A 50:50 mixture of corn seed and oatmeal (approximately 450g per bait) was therefore buried and covered with black plastic in 2 places in each plot 3 weeks after corn was planted. Insects were collected from the bait after 10 days. Sticky traps with a yellow cardboard base were set out in all plots 4 times during the first half of the experiment. Two traps per plot were left for 72 hours each time, after which insects were removed. Use of sticky traps was not continued because of difficulty in removing insects and lack of time. One nocturnal sample was made 8 weeks after planting corn, in which 4 people visually searched foliage and ground in all treatments from 20:30 to 22:30 hours,

PAGE 102

0:30 to 2:00 hours and 4:00 to 6:30 hours. Insects were collected for later identification. Finally, immature insects collected during sampling were reared both to obtain adult specimens for identification and to determine presence of parasitoids. Rearing was carried out in individual plastic containers, with host plant foliage replaced daily. Insects collected and reared were identified to genus or species utilizing the collections of the Universidad del Valle de Guatemala and the Florida State Collection of Arthropods. Samples of diseased tissues of all crops were collected during the experiment and analyzed by plant pathologists at the Universidad del Valle de Guatemala and a private phytopathology laboratory in Guatemala City (Agri-Lab). Statistical Analysis Analysis of Variance was performed on insect densities, disease and damage incidence (percent of ears or plants infested), and ear and kernel development and damage estimates, after transformation to normalize the data (counts transformed by logio (x + 1 ) and percentages transformed by square root), using the PROC GLM procedure of SAS (SAS Institute 1990). The Student-Newman-Keuls test was used to separate means when significant treatment differences were detected (a=0.05). Although transformed data were used to determine treatment differences, means reported in tables are untransformed. For insect counts and percent of plants diseased or damaged, data were analyzed by sampling date and pooled to give seasonal means.

PAGE 103

78 Results and Discussion Insect Pest Populations on Corn Herbivorous insects collected occasionally on corn and secondary crops are given in Table 3-1 Of those pests not quantified, the potentially most serious are the grain weevils Sitophilus zeamais Motsch, which was not collected in the field but in stored corn grain, and S. granarius, as well as Euxesta sp., which was found on corn ears in low density. E. stigmatis Loew (the corn-silk fly) can cause high economic losses in Florida sweet corn (Seal and Jansson 1989), and several species of Euxesta have been reported to be major pests of field corn in Guatemala (Painter 1955). Only two larvae of Diatraea sp. were encountered during the entire season, although this stem borer is a major corn pest in the region (CATIE 1990a). One of the most serious pests of corn in Central America, and perhaps the most studied, is the fall armyworm {Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith)) (Andrews 1980, 1988, Hruska and Gould 1997, Portillo et al. 1991, Cortez and Trujillo 1994). Andrews (1988) cites several examples of corn having lower damage by S. frugiperda when planted in polyculture than in monoculture. Altieri (1980) found the same results for corn-weed associations that included Amaranthus sp. Likewise, in a comparison of traditional corn production in monoculture, traditional corn intercropped with beans, and hybrid corn, Cortez and Trujillo (1994) observed lower larval populations in the polyculture. Additionally, there was a 10-fold increase in larval populations of S. frugiperda in

PAGE 104

79 Table 3-1 Insect herbivores collected in corn-based cropping systems. Order Family Sub-family, genus or species Crop Hemiptera Miridae Collaria oleosa (Distant) Corn Creontiades rubrinervis (Stal) Corn Lygus sp. Corn Lygaeidae Lygaeus belfragei Stal Corn Xyonysius sp. Corn Largidae Largus cinctus (H.-S.) Corn Alydidae Alydus sp. Amaranth Pentatomidae Paddeus irroratus {H.-S.) Com, faba bean Acrosternum sp. Corn, faba bean, amaranth Murgantia histrionica (Hahn) Broccoli, husk tomato, amaranth Homoptera Membracidae Antianthe sp. Corn Polyglypta sp. Corn Stictocephala lutea (Walker) Corn, beans Cercopidae Tomaspis sp. Corn Prosapia bicincta (Say) Corn Clastoptera obtusa (Say) Corn Clastoptera sp. 2 Corn Clastoptera sp. 3 Corn Cicadellidae Graphocephala sp. 1 Amaranth Graphocephala sp. 2 Amaranth Graphocephala sp. 3 Amaranth Draeculacephala sp. Corn Empoasca sp. Beans Osbornellus sp. Corn Scaphytopius sp. Corn Macrosteles sp. Corn Derbidae Anotia sp. Corn Aphidae Aphis craccivora Beans A. gossypii Corn, beans Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris) Beans Brevicoryne brassicae L. Broccoli Histioneura sitanae (Thomas) Macrosiphum sp. M. euphorbiae Faba bean, amaranth Metopolophium dirhodum Corn Walker Myzus persicae (Sulzer) Corn Rhopalosiphum insertum Corn (Walker) Rhopalosiphum maidis (Fitch) Corn

PAGE 105

80 Table 3-1 — Continued. uraer ramiiy oUD-Tarniiy, genus or species or op Homoptera A i ^ ^ A Mpniuae r\. Paul L. OUIil, laUa Ucdl 1 f\. ruTiaDuOiTiinaiis ^oasaKi; oorn O/^^^irto ot/A/ioA /Cok^^i/^H io\ OlIODIOn aVGnaG \raDV\C\uo) oorn 1 eiraneura niyndoooniinaiis oor n oasaKi uroiGUCon sp. Mmaranin ooieopiera ciaieriuae Kjiypnonyx sp. oorn, ucsns iNlllUUIIUac K^QIOpWfUo sp. Pnrn uoccineiiiuae tzpiiacnna mexicana ^ouennj oorn IVI6IUIUa6 Lyna eucGsa ^v^nevr./ oorn oriysuriiciiuac IVIICiQJalilLa if IGAlCariayy^i iSwi ) Ourn, ueauS, laDa Oeans UlSOnyCna Sp. 1 uorn L/loUi lyUf IG op. ^ Porn UioUiiyK^fiO op. O Mrriaranin, ueans UOiaSpiS prosifia Lerevre uorn K^riatOUpfiafia op. Pr>rn oorn LJipflaiclUi^a Wdyflt^fl oorn, tjcans, oroccuii LJiclUIULiUci UdllKJClLa Lt^U. oorn /J. niyroiiriBaia uorn oorn, uroccoii, Taua Deans MCaiynima vinaia ^raDriciusj uorn, Deans iflilUUa \raDV\C\US) oorn KjyanurODrouCa lepioa Beans L>6iOioma airOTdscisia jacoDy uorn, Deans, Droccoii L>rypiocepnaius sp. Amaranin \yl ladUi^l ICii Id d|J. 1 Porn omQranfh Lfnaetocnema sp. z Corn, faba bean oracnypno&a sp. uorn, Droccoii Mpioniuae Mpion sp. Corn, beans ^urcuMuniuae Kjeraeus sp. i oorn KjGraGUS sp. Z Porn LfOrn oiiopniius grananus (l.) uorn o. LfsalTlalo iVIOlSCn. oiorea com seeu Diptera Otitidae Euxesta sp. Corn Playstomatidae Rivellia sp. Corn Agromyzidae Liriomyza commelinae Corn Liriomyza species Corn, amaranth Agromyza sp. Corn

PAGE 106

Table 3-1 — Continued. Order Family Sub-family, genus or species Crop Lepidoptera Gelechiidae Sitrotroga cerealella (Oliver) Stored com Tortricidae Chohstoneura sp. 1 Corn Choristoneura sp. 2 Corn Pyralidae Diatraea sp. Corn Evergestis nimosalis (Guen) broccoli Hesperiidae Perichares phitotas Corn Astrapes anaphes Beans Urbanus proteus (L.) Beans Pieridae Leptophobia ahpa (Boisd.) Broccoli Arctiidae Halisidota meridionalis Faba beans Halisidota sp. Corn Melese amastris Corn Estigmene acrea (Drury) Corn, beans Noctuidae Lichneptera decora Corn Eurois sp. Faba bean Dargida procinctus Corn Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Corn Smith) Spodoptera sp. Corn Agrotis subterranea Corn (Fabricius) Helicoverpa zea (Boddie) Corn

PAGE 107

"technologically improved" com that involved a package of hybrid seed and chemical inputs. In the current study, population densities of S. frugiperda were no different in all cropping system treatments on all but one sampling date (9 weeks after planting), when the high-risk intercrop (corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli) had a higher fall armyworm density than the monoculture. However, the seasonal mean density of S. frugiperda was higher in the monoculture than in the high-nsk treatment. This was the only observed difference among treatments in seasonal mean densities of key insect pests on corn, although differences were observed for some insects on individual sampling dates (Tables 3-2 and 3-3). Overall, densities of key pests on com remained low throughout the season. There were a number of aphid species on corn throughout the experiment, the most abundant being the corn leaf aphid, Rhopalosiphum maidis (Fitch). As seen for the densities of fall armyworm, aphid populations were higher on corn in the high-risk intercrop for only one sampling date (26 weeks after planting), although there was no difference In the seasonal mean density. A higher population density on the high-risk intercrop was also seen for Brachypnoea sp. adults on one sampling date (17 weeks after planting), and again seasonal mean densities did not differ by cropping system. Differences on some sampling dates were also seen for the densities of all leafhoppers. Two dates had greater density in the monoculture and one date had greater density in the high-risk treatment, although seasonal means were not different. Density of leafmines from Liriomyza commelinae (Frost), Lihomyza

PAGE 108

83 Table 3-2. Densities (mean no. per 0.6 m-row corn SEM) of insects on com in monoculture, intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli (high-risk), and intercropped with black beans, amaranth and cilantro (low-risk), for sampling dates where significant differences were detected. Spodoptera frugiperda Week 9 Monoculture 0.00 0.00 b High-risk intercrop 0.14 0.06 a Low-risk intercrop 0.06 0.04 ab Aphids Week 26 monocuiiure 1.33 1.33 D High-risk intercrop 28.83 19.68 a Low-risk intercrop 0.28 0.28 b Leafhoppers Week o Week 17 Week 18 ^^on^Ol ilti ira n 79 a 0.21 0.13 oh 0.94 0.42 a High-risk intercrop 0.18 0.06 b 0.00 0.00 b 0.33 0.14 ab Low-risk intercrop 0.18 0.06 b 0.71 0.38 a 0.00 0.00 b LeaTmines Week 11 Monoculture 0.42 0.08 a niyn-nsK iniercrop 0.36 0.11 a 1 nw-ri^k intprprnn 0.08 0.05 u Brachypnoea sp. Week 17 Monoculture 0.00 0.00 b High-risk intercrop 0.17 0.08 a Low-risk intercrop 0.00 0.00 b Diphalauca Week 4 Weeks Week 8 wagneri Monoculture 0.03 0.02 b 0.00 0.00 b 0.00 0.00 b High-risk intercrop 0.37 0.10 a 0.18 0.06 a 0.13 0.06 a Low-risk intercrop 0.10 0.10 b 0.00 0.00 b 0.03 0.02 ab Treatment means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at a=0.05 (n=6, ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls test performed on data transformed by logio(x+1)).

PAGE 109

84 o Q. Q. O £ ^ o o c o LU (/) +1 c C CO Ql o o c o o ^ ^ c O V I E ^ § O) c o , c CD l_ 0} x: O XI s-o c CD CO CO 0) Q. CO c CD o ^ 0) -Q CO OJ -Q ^ CD 0) ^ CO 14C O CD 0) CO CO c c CD 0) E ro c o CO CD CD CO 03^ C a o i_ o 0) c CO o o CD c CD io E CD •o 0) Q. Q. O 0) = O CO ^ CO 0) Xi CD — o -Q o _CD -n ? ^ CD .5 • E — CO I ~ CD 0) CD o CD CD CD CO CN T — T— o o o CD CD CD +1 +1 +1 CD CSJ 1^ (X) NO O O d d d CD CD CD CN (D CO CO CO o o o d d d +1 +1 +i CJ> lO csi CO CO CO d d d CD CD CD ID (X) CNJ CO CD d d +1 -H CO lO CO CD in o X2 o d CD CO o d -H +1 +1 O CN d CM O CO (O o o To o o o d d d CD CO CO a CD o o o d o d +1 +1 +1 r>in CO CO o o o d d d CD CD CD o o CD o o 2 o 88 O X _J +1 +1 +1 C3^ CO in CO o o o d d D 2 p O X _j CD CD TO CD 8 CD LU O -Q -CD CO O O d CO CO CJ> TJo in CO ^ TCO o o o d d o (D L— D O O t_ — w O 3 S o g S,E ill O X _J c (D T3 CO TJ C CO < > O o CM II c in o d II c < o ^ 0)0 CD 2 E 2

PAGE 110

85 sp. and Agromyza sp. were also higher in cx)rn monoculture on one sampling date (1 1 weeks after planting), while no differences in seasonal means were detected. The usual host for L. commelinae is Commelinae spp., with reports from Tradescantia spp., both in the family Commelinaceae (Spencer 1983). The only other differences in insect pest population densities were seen for D. wagneri adults, which were consistently present in greater density on corn in the high-risk treatment (Figure 3-2), although seasonal mean densities were not different. This chrysomelid, whose density was very low ir; corn monoculture, was abundant on bean plants, its usual host, in the intercrop treatments and was therefore probably not using corn as a host. Higher densities of D. wagneri on corn in the high-risk treatment are probably the result of higher populations observed on black beans in that treatment. The population densities of other insect pests sampled on corn foliage and ears (H. zea larvae, Collaha oleosa (Distant) adults, Diabrotica porracea (Harold) adults, Geraeus sp. adults and Chaetocnema sp. adults) were not influenced by cropping system, either on individual sampling dates or over the season as a whole. The polyphagous and mobile Helicoverpa spp. have been found in some cases to be more abundant in diverse cropping systems (Fitt 1989), but no such effect was seen here. C. oleosa has been reported to be present on corn in Guatemala with no detectable damage. However, Diabrotica and related chrysomelids were considered among the major pests in com (Painter 1955), although in the current study their numbers were consistently low.

PAGE 111

86 ujooMOj-LU 9 0 Jed uauBeM eoneiBLidiQ ou ub9^

PAGE 112

87 No differences among treatments were detected for the densities of the 2 insect pests of corn found in soil samples, Phyllophaga sp. white grubs and D. porracea larvae. Phyllophaga spp. are important crop pests in Central America, especially on corn and sorghum (King 1984) and were cited as a major pest problem by farmers interviewed in the study area. More Phyllophaga spp. larvae were found in Costa Rica on ridged corn and on corn to which phosphate fertilizer had been added to an acid soil (King 1985). Although these conditions were present in the current study, populations of Phyllophaga sp. eggs and larvae in proximity to corn roots were low throughout the season. The economic threshold for white grubs on corn in Mexico has been estimated at 3 larvae/m^ (Villalobos 1992), much higher than the densities observed in this study. Tillage has been cited as a factor in reducing white grub populations on small-scale farms in the region (Carballo and Saunders 1990, Cuevas Garcia 1993, Trabanino et al. 1990), and the thorough land preparation in this study may have contributed to the low populations. Beneficial insect Populations on Corn Natural enemies occasionally collected or reared from pests on corn and secondary crops are given in Table 3-4. Carabid beetles, which can be important predators in cornfields (Best et al. 1981), were prevalent in pitfall traps of all cropping systems. Carabids present included Agonum spp., Bembidion sp. and undetermined Platynini and Harpalini.

PAGE 113

88 Table 3-4. Insect natural enemies collected in corn-based cropping systems. Order Family Sub-family, genus or species Crop Dermaptera Forficulidae Doru sp. Corn Hemiptera Enicocephalidae Systelloderus sp. Corn Phymatidae Phymata fasciata Corn (Say) Pentatomidae Perillus sp. Corn Cosmopepla decorata Amaranth (Hahn) Neuroptera Hemerobiidae Hemerobius sp. Corn, beans, faba beans Coleoptera Carabidae Harpilini undet. Pitfall trap Platynini undet. Pitfall trap Agonum sp. 1 Corn Agonum sp. 2 Com Bembidion sp. Wireworm bait Lampyridae Photinus sp. 1 Corn Photinus sp. 1 Corn Cantharidae Polemius sp. 1 Corn, faba bean Polemius sp. 2 Corn Cleridae Enoclerus salvini Corn (Garham) Isohydnocera sp. Amaranth Melyridae Collops sp. Corn oilvidae Telephanus CNC 32 Bait, corn, beans Coccinellidae >Anaf/s lecontei Casey Beans Hippodamia Corn, broccoli convergens Guerin Cycloneda sanguinea Corn, beans, faba sanguinea (L.) beans Scymnus sp. 1 Corn Scymnus sp. 2 Corn L/ipi6ra Dolichopodidae Condylostylus Corn patibulatus (Say) Syrphidae Baccha sp. Corn Toxomerus sp. 1 Corn Toxomerus sp. 2 Corn Tachinidae Peleteria sp. Corn (Spodoptera)

PAGE 114

89 Table 3-4 — Continued. Order Family Sub-family, genus or Crop species Hymenoptera Braconidae Cotesia sp. 1 Corn {Spodoptera frugiperda) Cotesia sp. 2 Corn {Heliothis zea) Aphidiidae Aphidius sp. 1 Faba beans Aphldius sp. 2 Broccoli Aphidius sp. 4 Faba beans Ichneumonidae Netelia sp. Corn Gelini undet. Corn Campoletis sp. Corn (S. frugiperda) Diadegma sp. Corn (S. frugiperda) Chiloplatys sp. Corn Mesochorus sp. Corn, bean Eulophidae Pnignalio sp. 1 Corn (leafminer) Pnignalio sp. 2 Corn (leafminer) Euplectrus sp. Corn (S. frugiperda) Pteromalidae Pteromalus sp. Corn {Sitrotrega cerealella) Tiphiidae T/p/7/a sp. 1 Corn T/p/i/a sp. 2 Corn Pompilidae Pepsis sp. Corn (spiders) Priocnessus sp. Corn (spiders) Scoliidae Campsomehs Corn quadrimaculata (Fabricius) Vespidae Epipona sp. Corn Polistes sp. Corn Polybia sp. Faba beans

PAGE 115

90 The most common beneficials found in all cropping systems were generalist predators and natural enemies of aphids and S. frugiperda. Andre\/vs (1980, 1988) cites 1 1 parasites of S. frugiperda collected in Central America (including Apanteles sp. Chelonus spp., Euplectrus sp. and Trichogramma sp.) and 63 species reported from Latin America. In the present study, in addition to ichneumonid parasitoids {Campoletis sp. and Diadegma sp.), a number of parasites and predators attacked S. frugiperda larvae, including the eulophid parasitoid Euplectrus sp., the tachinid Peleteria sp., the ean^/ic Doru sp. and the syrphids Baccha sp. and Toxomerus sp. The syrphid larvae were observed consuming early instars of S. frugiperda. Doru sp. earwigs have been reported to enter com whorls and feed on small and medium fall armyworm larvae, and Polistes sp. wasps also attack Spodoptera spp. larvae (Andrews 1980). Wasps of Polistes sp. were observed on corn only rarely. The clerid predator Enoclerus salvini (Garham) was always observed within the corn whorl, although it was not observed consuming fall armyworm larvae. Parasitism of S. frugiperda has been seen to be higher in corn-bean and corn-weed polycultures than in corn monoculture (Cortez and Trujillo 1994, Altieri 1980). Although density of S. frugiperda was greater in corn monoculture in this study, as discussed earlier, densities of fall armyworm parasitoids {Campoletis sp. and Diadegma sp.) did not differ by cropping system. Percentage parasitism was not measured here, but in Mexico and the southern United States, parasitism rates of the fall armyworm of up to 32.5% have been reported (Pair et al. 1986).

PAGE 116

91 Of the natural enemies whose densities were sampled, only spiders had a higher density in the low-risk intercrop than the other two treatments on one sampling date (Table 3-5). This was not a seasonal trend. Table 3-5. Densities of spiders on corn in monoculture, intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli (high-hsk), and intercropped with black beans, amaranth and cilantro (low-risk), at 6 weeks after planting (mean no. per 0.6 m-row corn SEM). Low-risk intercrop 0.29 0.11 a High-risk intercrop 0.06 0.04 b Monoculture 0.00 0.00 b Treatment means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at a=0,05 (n=6, ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls test performed on data transformed by logio (x+1 )). The densities of all other natural enemies (syrphids, Hemerobius sp. lacewings, the coccinellid Cycloneda sanguines (L.), aphid mummies, IDoru sp., and the clerid beetle £ salvini) did not differ by cropping system, either for individual sampling dates or over the season (Table 3-6). Therefore, densities of natural enemies were not influenced by the cropping systems tested. The alternative intercrops tested did not reduce the level of natural control of corn pests and therefore would not contribute to greater pest damage as a result, as long as natural enemies are maintained in the systems. Corn Diseases The most prevalent disease observed on corn over the sampling period was rust {Puccinia sp ). The percent of corn plants with signs of rust was greater

PAGE 117

92 o Q. Q. O E C o — o -o c c o
PAGE 118

93 on corn in monoculture during most of the season (Figure 3-3). Nevertheless, the seasonal mean percentage of infested corn plants showed no difference among treatments. On one sampling date (8 weeks after planting), the percentage of corn plants with rust was significantly lower in the high-risk treatment (corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli) than in the other 2 treatments (Table 3-7). Although close to 40% of plants were infected by the later sampling dates, rust was observed to affect no more than 1% of foliage in any sample. Table 3-7. Percentage of corn plants infested with rust when grown in monoculture, intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli (highrisk), and intercropped with black beans, amaranth and cilantro (low-risk), at 8 weeks after planting (mean SEM). Monoculture 18.42 3.45 a Low-risk intercrop 13.50 2.53 a High-risk intercrop 8.33 2.66 b Treatment means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at a=0.05 (n=6, ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls test performed on data transformed by square root). The other two leaf spots infecting corn (caused by Helminthospohum sp. and Phyllachora maydis Maubl.) were also unaffected by CTopping system treatment. H. turcicum Passerini, H. maydis (Nisikado et Myiyke) and P. maydis Maubl. are common on corn in Central America but do not affect the crop economically unless conditions are favorable for disease development and the corn is highly susceptible (CATIE 1990a). In the present study, l-lelmintliosporium sp. was present on nearly all corn plants by the end of the season, but like rust, affected less than 1 % of leaf area. Also, when the disease

PAGE 119

94 0) O o c o E o o c CD CO c CD O J3 CD CD > c c c o 2 O CD E CD 2f 0) k_ 13 i (0 13 C O CD O O c n o E c c jcg i_ o T3 O E CD CO i5 o Q. i3 n tD O) iS co' m CD O 0) 05 C CD -I CO *5> CD CO "O I § > D O '^^^ E K Q. 4^ c CO S o B c o 2 D c ft CD "D CD CO

PAGE 120

develops 6 weeks after silking there is little to no effect on yield (Shurtleff 1 980), and its incidence did not increase until late in the season. Tar spot, caused by P. maydis, occurs mostly in cool, humid areas of the tropics in conjunction with Northern corn leaf blight {H. turcicum) (Shurtleff 1980). Disease symptoms were not apparent until the final weeks of the season. Additionally, Fusahum sp. was infrequently observed causing stem rot and ear rot. Penicillium sp. ear rot was also present at low levels, as was com smut {Ustilago maydis (DC) Cda), which affected ears, foliage and tassels. Severity of all of the diseases on corn was low, and no differences among treatments in seasonal mean densities were seen for any of the diseases sampled (Table 3-8). Damage Estimates Over the season, however, insects damaged a greater percentage of corn plants when in monoculture than in either intercrop (Figure 3-4 and Tables 3-8 and 3-9). This is probably the result of the higher density of S. frugiperda larvae on corn in monoculture. Percentage of plants damaged by S. frugiperda, while not significantly different on individual sampling dates or the seasonal mean, was nevertheless higher than the other treatments and for much of the season contributed to a substantial portion of total insect damage. Densities and resulting damage from S. frugiperda were low until midseason, however. Effects of plant maturity on susceptibility of corn to armyworm attack appear to be variable. Harrison (1984) reported that corn plants (variety

PAGE 121

96 o C I in SI ^ 0 ~ CO SI o o C 01 2 Q. c CD E CD E CD O -Q o CD CD ^ CO UJ C CO CD CD o 9^ 0) :£ O) > CD > C -D OJ CD O II c e CD (D CD C o to CD O 0) O (D i CO c o CD CD CD in CD CM CN LO CD cn c3) Td CD +1 +1 +1 in CN CX) IT) C3) c o LU CO +1 c CD CD O CD -^^CO C3) 5 Ci. +1 E S :3 ^ LU CX)
PAGE 122

97

PAGE 123

98 not specified) infested early in development were less tolerant to fall armyworm attack, wfiile a locally developed variety in Nicaragua was found to be more tolerant to armyworm infestation during early growth (Hruska and Gould 1997). Economic injury levels developed for corn in Latin America have been estimated as 23-63% of plants infested over a range of potential yields in Nicaragua (Hruska and Gould 1997) and 1 1-42% over the first 6 weeks in Ecuador (Evans and Stansly 1990). Table 3-9. Percentage of corn plants with insect damage (mean SEM) when grown in monoculture, intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli (high-risk), and intercropped with black beans, amaranth and cilantro (low-risk), Weeks Week 1 1 Week 12 Monoculture 1.04 0.73 b 16.34 3.63 a 29.40 4.99 a High-risk intercrop 0.00 0.00 b 7.50 2.60 b 12.08 2.96 b Low-risk intercrop 4.51 1.97 a 2.96 1.80 b 18.93 3.50 ab Treatment means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at a=0.05 (n=6, ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls test performed on data transformed by square root). Until more information is collected for small-scale Guatemalan farmers, however, the most appropriate action threshold would be one developed at the Escuela Agn'cola Panamericana for small-scale Honduran farmers. That threshold is a 40% infestation rate based on a sample of 5 sites with 20 plants at each (Andrews 1988). In the present study, percentage of plants infested was below the Honduran threshold for all sampling dates, and therefore chemical

PAGE 124

99 control of S. frugiperda on corn would not be recommended for any of the cropping systems tested. Lodging of corn plants was high, but it is a common occurrence in the area with the strong winds that usually begin toward the end of the rainy season. However, there was no effect of cropping system on the mean percentage of corn plants lodged (Figure 3-5, Table 3-8). Other damage to corn ears resulted from attack by insects, rats, squirrels, birds, smut, and rotting due to excess moisture. Rotting was the most prevalent form of damage and the only one in which a difference was observed among treatments, at 26 weeks after planting. The high-risk treatment (corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli) had a higher percentage of ears damaged by rotting than the monoculture (Table 310). However, this was not repeated on other sampling dates. Insect damage was second to rotting in prevalence over all dates. Table 3-10. Percentage of corn ears damaged by rotting when grown in monoculture, intercropped with black beans, faba beans and broccoli (highrisk), and intercropped v^th black beans, amaranth and cilantro (low-risk), (mean SEM), November 13, 1996. High-risk intercrop 48.65 7.00 a Low-risk intercrop 36.78 7.26 ab Monoculture 23.00 5.26 b Treatment means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at a=0.05 (n=6, ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls test performed on data transformed by square root). At the time of harvest, there were no differences among cropping system treatments in percent of ears or percentage of kernels damaged by any source

PAGE 125

100 CO c o in o CD > i5 CO o I o -a CL c Q. CO P rC — Q. Q. O £ ^ 81 o £ ^ O CD o C CO CO
PAGE 126

(insects, rats, squirrels, birds, Fusarium ear rot, smut, rotting, unfilled kernels, cracked kernels and damage from all sources). Additionally, cropping system had no effect on development of grain, in terms of size and weight of ears, number of ears per plant, or number of kernels per ear (Tables 3-1 1 and 3-12). Insects and Diseases on Secondary Crops Few insect and disease problems were evident in the amaranth and cilantro planted in the low-risk intercrop. Amaranth showed a low level of defoliation from lepidopteran larvae, and the most common insects observed on seedheads were leafhoppers, principally Graphocephala spp. and Macrosteles sp. No signs or symptoms of disease were observed on this crop. Cilantro had even fewer potential pests, since no insect pests or diseases were ever observed. The only damage to cilantro was mechanical, as a result of lodged corn plants. The high-risk intercrop, however, did experience insect and disease pest problems. Root rot caused by Rhizoctonia sp. was the major factor in reducing yield in faba beans, since plants were severely attacked, turning completely black in some cases. By the time of the first harvest, 98.3% of faba bean plants were affected by Rhizoctonia rot and 35% were dead as a result. Ninety-seven percent of plants at that time showed signs of Ascochyta sp. -induced leaf spot, which did not affect the plants as severely, and 83.3% showed signs of rust. The major direct damage to the pods was due to birds, but only 9% of pods at harvest had bird damage, the effects of fallen corn being more consequential

PAGE 127

102 -H (0 X— O ^ £ •D ;C >._ S 8 o o R O i3 CD S <:^^ ^ CO m CD ^ HI >.co CD E 2 CD -H c5 Si CD ^ E CD CO in CM CO cvi +1 +1 CO CO CD od +1 in CD CO O) ^ CN CM +1 +1 +1 CNJ O CD CD CO ai T— CO c\i -H +1 +1 CO CD "O LU | W c ^ (D O i_ 03 Q. 03 +1 E C 0) CD CO O c;^ in CD CO in in CO in O X Q. o 1 o I— 03 C J*: CO o UJ CO +1 c CD 0} LU CO +1 c CD 0) LU CO +1 c CD 03 CD CO N. TCD O CD in +i +1 +1 o o CD CO Td h~ O CD TCD in CD CO +1 +1 +1 r-h~ hNoo in CM CD CM CM CM CM CD CD o +1 +1 +1 CO CD CD o CO O) CD in CO CO CM CO +1 +1 +H CD CO CD Oi 2 8§^ 2 § O X -J CO II c in o CD II CO c 0) E 2 CO CD 03 E CD D CT CO >, 0) t5 "S D 2^ $ E ^ CO CO O 03 z ^

PAGE 128

CO g) o D o ~ CO h CO CD CO CN C i_ CD E CD (D ^ > CD O C CD O CD a o i_ o c k_ o "cD i3 £ Q. > E -o CO Q. i2 & E ^ o S ^ c O rCD O (D 1 C CD C E c Q. O C CD o > O -S ^ O i_ **TO ^ (D ^ C o o csi ^ — I CO o n CD H LU CO +i c CO (D E CO c CD CD £1 o _CD I T3 CD a a o i_ o k— CD C C v_ o o o c CD Q. O o E CD -t: D E CD CD CD 0) CD c 1^ 00 CO CO -H +1 in r— 1^ O) 05 O) CD CD in CD in CD k_ 3 c o rop do o O a3 CD C isk 'k. Oi O X _l CO •a (D LU -Q +1 o c Oi (1) CD •o V) CO CD t £ ^LU ^ ^(^ ^ >, +1 one. 2 (D C o t LU >(/) ^ +\ ^ S V Oi ^ 8 v. (D Qcd' E 2 CD 0) o E LU ^ CO O CD ^ 0) E 00 in r-o Oi Osl CN CO CD CD CD +1 +1 +1 \U f\.t CD CD CD CD CN cn CD CD CD CD CD -H +1 +1 CD Gi in CN CD in CD CD T — m oo CM in CD CD +1 +1 +1 cn in CN 00 h~ CN CD cnI CD CN 00 O o CO CO CVJ CD CD CD +1 +1 +1 o cn o CD CD i2 CD E LU -o CO 1 ^ +1 O = c C CD S ^ ^ 2 ^ CD 0. CD ~ E O LU CD ,CO f +1 2 B-8-I 1— u 2 o § S E 2 :i D O O c CO ill O X _J O TD c CD CD ^ 2 E ^ <33 CD Vi CD C k. CD E 'kCD CO IJJ lZ^ JD C -n "J Oi S CD E CO -o 103 oo in cn csi CO +1 +1 +1 o CN CN CN CO in iri ai CN in CN CD cn O CD in o d CD +1 +1 -H cn cn T — CD CN CN csi in CD o C_) CJ C_J CD CD CD 4-1 4-1 -l-l O o T — o o o CD CD CD in 00 CO in in cn CO CD CD CD +1 +1 +1 00 oo cn CO o Oi CO oo q CD CO CO CD O C 3 k. o w tU CO O D -H c n CD (D O CJ) CD E CD o tn CD E LU $ -O CO CD I H^ +1 O O c 2 CD CD Q. 2 08-5 H § ^.E O X _l 00 CN in Nin 00 r00 00 -H -H -H in CN in 00 00 CM CN CD cxi in CN CN CN O O CD CD O o o •. <13 CD O i_ ^ Ho o X (D P O + CD X *- — CD o 2! C 1 2 o CD £2 O T3 CD E o CO J7 O z ^

PAGE 129

104 (14.5% of plants). The key insect on faba beans was the bean aphid, Aphis fabae Sccpoli, which at times reached very high densities on individual plants. Broccoli was damaged to some degree by foliar diseases (alternaria leaf spot, caused by Alternaria brassicae (Berk.) Sacc. and downy mildew of crucifers, caused by Peronospora parasitica Pers. Ex. Fr ). Downy mildew, while affecting more plants, produced less damage than Alternaria, which was recorded in only 8.2% of plants. The principal insect pest on broccoli was the cabbage white butterfly, Leptophobia aripa (Boisd.), the larvae of which were present on between 5.5 and 33.3% of plants during the season. This pest can be particularly damaging in small plots in Central America, and the threshold is 10% of plants with eggs or larvae (King and Saunders 1984). In both intercrops, bean plants were heavily defoliated by the chrysomelid beetle D. wagneri, which was consistently present in higher numbers in the highrisk than in the low-risk intercrop (Figure 3-6). The reason for this difference is not clear and requires further study. In addition, bean rust {Uromyces phaseoli (Pers.) Wint.) and an unidentified leaf spot contributed to highly reduced yields of bean in both treatments. A number of beneficial insects were present on secondary crops that were not present in corn monoculture (Table 3-2), particularly aphid parasitoids {Aphidius sp.). Common predators like Hemerobius sp. and C. sanguinea were collected from several secondary crops as well as corn. The intercrops have potential for providing favorable conditions for natural control where chemical pesticides are used sparingly.

PAGE 130

105 o o O oc c o an pu CO CD an c n CD t_ CO CD CD >*am c c" o o 8 (0 CO c c CD CD CD (D o O CD CD CO 1 CO CM o csj CN 00 CN OJ CM CM ._ O CM __ CD t — CD CSJ O 00 -<-, a. E I CD E CO CD = CO C CD B CO T3 < c CD cn ^ o t: (D Q. CO 0

PAGE 131

106 Conclusions Before recommending alternative cropping systems hypothesized to better satisfy the economic, nutritional and cultural needs of small-scale tropical farmers, it is essential to ensure that their utilization will not contribute to pest problems in the staple crop. Such problems could result in yield losses that would threaten the already precarious food security of the family. Additionally, they could contribute to greater usage of chemical pesticides, which small-scale farmers in Central America often lack the information and capital to use appropriately. Furthermore, the use of many of the most common synthetic insecticides in the area is not compatible with the strategy of conserving and increasing beneficial populations (Whitcomb 1994). Avoiding these scenarios requires evaluation of any changes in pest density or damage to the staple crop that may come about as a result of adding other crops to the system. In the present study, there is no evidence that the addition of the selected crops tested would lead to greater pest problems on the staple crop corn. While there were differences among treatments in certain insect pest population densities for some sampling dates, these differences were not generally consistent over the season. One exception was the fall armyworm, which had a higher seasonal mean density in the monoculture than in the high-risk treatment. Probably as a result, the percentage of plants with total insect damage was greater in the monoculture than in the other cropping systems. Since S. frugiperda is one of the most important pests of corn in Central America, there

PAGE 132

107 may be an advantage in terms of pest management to the intercropping systems tested. These alternative intercrops did not affect disease development, damage to ears, or densities of the most abundant natural enemies. Furthermore, chemical control would not be recommended for pests on corn in any of the cropping systems tested. Black bean, however, requires disease and insect control when it is a component of either alternative system. This could be avoided by replacing it with a more resistant traditional bean like piloy {Phaseolus coccineus L.) (DeBouck 1994). Although the additional crops in the low-risk intercrop would not require pest control, additional crops in the high-risk treatment did contribute to the need for pest management. Therefore, of the 2 alternatives tested, the high-risk cropping system is less appropriate for small-scale farmers, while the low-risk intercrop would be favorable in terms of pest management and would be most appropriate if it proves to have additional advantages not related to pest management. Further study of these and other combinations is required to maximize economic and nutritional benefits of the corn cropping system while minimizing the need for the farmer to make pest management decisions.

PAGE 133

CHAPTER 4 INSECT PEST AND BENEFICIAL POPULATIONS, DISEASE AND DAMAGE IN BEAN MONOCULTURE AND TWO ALTERNATIVE INTERCROPS Introduction Crops with both market and nutritional value like tomato and husk tomato can potentially contribute to the improvement of the health and economic condition of small-scale farmers in the western Guatemalan highlands. Black beans are second only to corn in terms of production and consumption by rural families in this area (Proyecto ALA 1987), and therefore black bean cropping systems incorporating one or both of these crops are seemingly advantageous. Cropping systems designed to meet such non-entomological goals of farmers as profit and nutrition may inadvertently cause greater economic or health threats if added crops amplify insect or disease pest problems to the degree that either yields of the staple food crop decline or added pest control measures become necessary. The effects of additional plants on insect pests and their natural enemies are variable and specific to each pest's ecology (Power et al. 1987, Andow 1991b). Beneficial insects, especially generalist predators and parasites, can play a significant role in the regulation of pest populations and are often inadequately assessed (Gross 1987). Therefore, before recommending crop combinations with the potential to increase economic or nutritional return for small-scale tropical farmers, it is essential to evaluate the 108

PAGE 134

109 pest and beneficial populations present in the area and determine any potential change in pest pressure on the staple crop as a result of changes in cropping patterns. Beans in Latin America are attacked by a wide range of insects that feed on seeds, foliage, plant fluids, pods and stored grain. The most serious bean pest in parts of Central America is the leafhopper Empoasca kraemeri Ross & Moore, which can cause total loss of the crop (Power et al. 1987, Schwartz et al. 1978). Other common insect pests on bean in the region include the bean-pod weevil {Apion godmani Wagner), the Mexican bean beetle {Epilachna varivestis Mulsant), whiteflies {Bemisia tabaci Gennadius) and slugs. Estimates of loss from the bean-pod weevil in southeastern Guatemala range from 9-60% (Cardona 1989). Nevertheless, little information on prevalent bean pests is available for the western highlands. Intercropping with beans is common throughout the tropics, and in Latin America beans are most frequently grown with corn. Where reported, the effects of interCTopping on bean pests and natural enemies have been variable (Latheef and Irwin 1980, Tingey and Lament 1988, Perfecto et al. 1986). Tomato and bean intercropping were observed rarely during the preliminary survey of smallscale farmers in the study area, but this intercrop combination has been promoted as part of an IPM program for Central America (Rosset et al. 1987, Power et al. 1987). On the other hand, the production of husk tomato has just recently been identified as a research target within the area of specialty crops in

PAGE 135

110 the U.S. (Can et al. 1991-92, Maynard 1993), and its use in intercropping systems has not been evaluated. Given the importance of maintaining the yield of beans as a staple crop for farm families in the study area, the experiment described here was undertaken to establish possible impacts of other crops on bean pests and subsequent damage to the plant. The principal objective was to evaluate the consequences of adding tomato or husk tomato to the bean cropping system, in terms of insect pests, disease pathogens, beneficial insects and damage to the bean plant, in addition to pest occurrence on associated crops. The information gained will be useful in evaluating the likelihood that the intercrops proposed as alternatives to bean monoculture would cause an increased need for pest management by the target farmers. Methods and Materials The study site, experimental design, and layout of field plots were described in Chapter 3. Arrangement of crops within biculture plots is indicated in Figure 4-1 Plots planted to corn monoculture (treatment 1 ) were planted to black bean monoculture for this experiment, immediately following the han/est of corn. Treatment 2 (high-risk intercrop) consisted of black bean intercropped with tomato. Local farmers, who know less about production of tomato than other crops, and cite high incidence of disease, especially during the rainy season, consider it a risky crop.

PAGE 137

112 However, many expressed an interest in growing it, and the increasing local interest in preserved tomato products (sauce and dried tomatoes) suggests that the crop has good local market potential. Finally, treatment 3 (low-risk intercrop) consisted of black bean intercropped with husk tomato, also called "tomatillo," an ancient Mesoamerican crop that is experiencing recent industhalization in Mexico. McBryde (1945) relates that the plant was said to grow well in the Solola area, and demand for this fruit was high in the region in the early 1940s. It is still widely gathered as a volunteer plant in Guatemala, where it is referred to as "miltomate". The small fruit, facilitated in transportation by the husk, is used in green sauces and is experiencing rising demand in the United States due to the grovy/ing Mexican population (Montes Hernandez and Aguirre Rivera 1994). In field trials at Bradenton, Florida, the pinworms and sweetpotato whiteflies affecting nearby tomato plants did not affect husk tomato plants (Maynard 1993). Agronomic Management of Field Plots Plots were cleared of roots and debris from the com cycle and cultivated with hoes. Locally obtained black bean seed was treated with Captan (N(trichloromethyl)thio-4-cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboximide) at 2.54 g/kg and planted on December 1 3, at a spacing of 1 m between rows and 20 cm between plants. Diamr^onium phosphate (DAP) (18-46-0 NPK) at 100 kg/ha and 2 bean seeds were added to each 10-cm diameter planting hole (50,000 per ha), dug by machete to approximately 5 cm depth. The following week, 6-week old tomato

PAGE 138

113 seedlings were transplanted to all plots of treatment 2, in rows between bean rows at a spacing of 40 cm between plants. Diammonium phosphate at 100 kg/ha was applied to approximately 15-cm diameter holes (23,333 per ha) at transplanting. Five weeks later, tomato plants were staked with 4 rows of string through each row of tomato. Two weeks after planting beans, 7-week old husk tomato seedlings were transplanted to all treatment 3 plots in the same manner as tomato plants. However, husk tomato plants did not require staking. Both tomato and husk tomato seedlings had been grown in seedbeds into which 15-15-15 NPK fertilizer had been previously incorporated throughout at 50 g/m^. Dead tomato and husk tomato seedlings were replaced 1 week after transplanting, and nongerminating bean was reseeded 4 weeks after planting. At 4 weeks after planting bean, muriate of potash (0-0-60 NPK) and urea (46-0-0 NPK) were broadcast to all plots at 100 kg/ha for monoculture (treatment 1) plots and 150 kg/ha for biculture (treatments 2 and 3) plots. At 7 weeks after planting, a second urea application of the same dosage was applied. Plots were weeded 2 times, at 7 and 10 weeks after planting, utilizing a machete and hoe. During the first weeding, soil was pulled around the base of bean plants to provide them with greater support. One of the areas (2 blocks) required a third weeding at 12 weeks after planting. All plots were watered 3 times weekly, those in one area (2 blocks) with a hose and those in the other 2 areas with the traditional method, which involved diverting water from a nearby irrigation canal to a furrow above each terrace and

PAGE 139

114 subsequently throwing water on the field with a shallow plastic dish. All plots received approximately 900 liters of water per irrigation session. As with the corn cycle, all work was performed by hand, and local management practices were followed where possible. Insect. Disease and Damage Samples: Visual Observations Beginning at 3 weeks after planting, beans were sampled weekly for insects and disease. At 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 1 3 and 1 5 weeks after planting, visual observations were made of 5 sample units/plot, measuring 40 cm X 40 cm, centered on the row of beans. Allocation was systematic with a random start. For each, all foliage was carefully examined, and the number of all insects present was recorded, as well as the number of plants with signs or symptoms of each disease. Insect and Disease Samples; Destructive Plant Samples At 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14 weeks after planting, 5 sample units per plot (40 cm X 40 cm) were again allocated systematically with a random start. Bean plants were cut off at ground level, placed into plastic bags, and stored at 4 8C, to be processed within 10 days. The number of each insect, damage, and presence of disease per plant were recorded. In addition, 5 leaves chosen systematically with a random start from each sample unit were traced, and defoliation from chrysomelids was marked. The tracings were later cut out and passed through a leaf area meter (Li-Cor Model LI-3000A Portable Area Meter),

PAGE 140

115 after which the areas marked as chrysomelid defoliation were cut out. Tracings were passed through the area meter again, and the differences between areas of whole leaves and respective defoliated leaves were used to calculate percentage defoliation. Soil and Pod Samples At the time of the destructive samples, a block of soil approximately 20 cm X 20 cm X 15 cm deep, centered on the sample unit center, was removed with a machete, placed in a plastic bag, and stored at approximately 6 C until processed within 72 hours. Length, width and weight of root system were measured, roots were examined for insects and disease, and soil was hand searched for insects in a shallow plastic pan. Additionally, a sample was taken at the time of bean harvest, consisting of 5 sample units per plot, 40 cm X 40 cm, centered on the row of bean plants and allocated systematically with a random start, as for earlier foliage samples. Number of pods per plant, number of beans per pod, insects present, and damage by type were recorded. Samples of Community Composition As in the corn experiment, presence of insects in each of the cropping systems was monitored throughout the season. In addition to collections during the destructive and visual plant samples, pitfall traps were left in the plots twice. Four 10-ounce plastic drinking cups were left at ground level in each plot (1-2

PAGE 141

116 centered on each terrace). Each was filled with 50 ml of a 50:50 solution of antifreeze and water and emptied after 72 hours. Also, immature insects collected during all sampling were reared to adults, as described for the corn experiment. Insects collected and reared were identified to genus or species utilizing the collections of the Universidad del Valle de Guatemala and the Florida State Collection of Arthropods. Samples of diseased tissues of all crops were collected during the experiment. Plant pathologists at the Universidad del Valle de Guatemala and a private phytopathology laboratory in Guatemala City (AgriLab) analyzed the samples by direct observation and cultures, and in the case of possible bean viruses, by inclusion body examination. Statistical Analysis Analysis of Variance was performed on insect densities, percentage of diseased plants, percentage defoliation, root development and pod damage measurements, after transformation to normalize the data (counts transformed by logio (x + 1 ) and percentages transformed by square root), using the PROC GLM procedure of SAS (SAS Institute 1 990). The Student-Newman-Keuls test was used to separate means when significant treatment differences were detected (a=0.05). Although treatment differences were measured using transformed data, tables reporting mean values present untransformed data. For insect counts and percent of plants infested with disease, data were analyzed by sample date and also pooled to calculate seasonal means.

PAGE 142

Results and Discussion 117 Insect Pest Populations on Bean The most abundant insect pests sampled on bean plants included the leafminer Liriomyza huidobrensis Blanchard, aphids, flea beetles {Chaetocnema sp ), leafhoppers (primarily Empoasca sp.), whiteflies {Bemisia tabaci Gennadius), the bean leafroller {Urbanus proteus (L.)), leaf beetles {Diabrotica balteata LeConte and Cerotoma spp.) and white grubs {Phyllophaga sp ). A complete list of insect pests collected on bean during the expehment is given in Table 4-1. Seasonal mean population densities of the most abundant insects encountered on bean were no different in either intercrop treatment than in the bean monoculture (Table 4-2). The leafminer L. huidobrensis was the most abundant insect sampled on bean during the season. However, densities of mines were much lower than those observed in agroecosystems in the vicinity of the experimental site, where leafminer outbreaks were becoming common as a result of overuse of synthetic pesticides, a phenomenon increasingly encountered in Central America (CATIE 1990b). Although there was no difference in seasonal mean population density, at 9 weeks after planting the leafmine density in the monoculture treatment was greater than that in either intercrop (Table 4-3).

PAGE 143

118 Table 4-1 Insect herbivores collected in bean-based cropping systems. Order Family Sub-family, genus or species Crop Hemiptera Miridae Creontiades rubrinervis (Stal) Bean Cyrtocapsus sp. Bean Coreidae Spartocera fusca (Thunberg) Tomato Lygus sp. Bean Pentatomidae Acrosternum sp. Bean Homoptera Membracidae Stictocephala lutea (Walker) Bean Tylopelta sp. Bean Cicadellidae Graphocephala sp. Bean, husk tomato Empoasca sp. Bean Gyponana sp. Bean Aleyrodidae Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) Bean Aphidae Aphis craccivora Koch Bean A. fabae Scopoli Bean A. gossypii Glover Bean Brevicoryne brassicae L. Tomato, husk tom. Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thomas) Bean, husk tomato Picturaphis sp. Bean uoieoptera Elateridae Glyphonyx sp. Bean Coccinellidae Epilachna mexicana (Guerin) 1 1 ^ 1 X ^ X Husk tomato Chrysomelidae Diphalauca wagneh Bean Diabrotica baiteata Lec. Bean, tomato Cerotoma ruficornis (Oliv.) Bean C. atrofasciata Jacoby Bean Chaetocnema sp. 1 Husk tomato Chaetocnema sp. 2 Bean otrabala sp. Husk tomato /ApiUi IIUcic Mpion sp. Bean Diptera Agromyzidae Liriomyza huidobrensis Blanchard Bean, husk tomato Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Urbanus proteus (L.) Bean Arctiidae Estigmene acrea (Drury) Bean Noctuidae Helicoverpa zea (Boddie) Tomato

PAGE 144

119 o cent pu (D CO Q. an rop o E c C CO CO 1 LU CO +1 ^ su O CD CO 0} E th toi MO V1 E •o
"co (1> CO E •o CO o CJ) o o o o d d +1 +1 CD CD CM CO O O d d rop do o i_ o k_ c •isk CO o X — 1 CD 9J 0 CJ CD O CO ^ ^ iu Q.CO o o o d 0) o o c CD CO O \^ +1 +1 CD CO CO CO CD O o O o d d +1 4-1 CO in o o o o o (D CM o ~ CD — TO CD LU CO +1 C TO CD CO 1^ CO CM CO CO CO d d d +1 +1 +1 CO d d 00 00 CO O CM rr CO in CO CD CD 1^ o o +1 +1 +1 o CM CO § 2 & C3 ^ E ^ c TO C3) CD o 03 X _J CO +

PAGE 145

120 Table 4-3. Densities (mean no. per 0.4 m-row bean SEM) of Uriomyza huidobrensis mines on beans in monoculture, intercropped with tomato (high-risk), and intercropped with husk tomato (low-risk), at 9 weeks after planting. Monoculture 9.57 1.04 a Low-risk intercrop 6.13 0.70 b High-risk intercrop 5.43 0.68 b Treatment means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at a=0.05 (n=6, ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls test performed on data transformed by logio (x+1)).). Several species of aphids were sampled on both bean plants and secondary crops. Aphids are important vectors of several bean diseases, including bean yellow mosaic and bean common mosaic (Hall 1991). Intercrops have been found to reduce the landing rate of aphids on beans, as a result of providing greater ground cover than beans in monoculture (Bottenberg and Irwin 1992a, 1992b), but aphid populations in the current study did not exhibit a response to cropping system. Flea beetles {Chaetocnema sp.) were observed on both bean and secondary crops. At 8 weeks after planting, their density on bean in the husk tomato intercrop was higher than in the 2 other treatments, and at 15 weeks after planting the same was true for the monoculture treatment. The seasonal mean densities did not differ, however (Tables 4-2 and 4-4). Leafhoppers, particularly Empoasca sp., while present at low density during this study, are a potentially serious pest of bean. E. kraemeri (Ross and Moore) is considered the most important bean pest in Latin America, capable of severely reducing yields by causing leaf curling and stunting. The related

PAGE 146

121 species E. fabae (Harris) has been described as a pest of beans in Central America (Cardona 1989). Population densities of Empoasca spp. have been reported elsewhere to be higher on bean grown in monoculture than in weedy cropping systems and those with cover crops (Schoonhoven et al. 1981; Andow 1992). Specifically, intercropping beans with tomato reduced population densities of E fabae on bean by reducing feeding time on the plant (Roltsch and Gage 1990a, 1990b). This response was not observed in the present study; however, density of Empoasca sp. was not increased by the addition of tomato or husk tomato. Table 4-4. Densities (mean no. per 0.4 m-row bean SEM) of flea beetles {Chaetocnema sp. adults) on beans in monoculture, intercropped with tomato (high-risk), and intercropped with husk tomato (low-risk), at 9 and 15 weeks after planting. 8 weeks after planting 15 weeks after planting Monoculture 0.00 0.00 b 0.10 0.06 a High-nsk intercrop 0.00 0.00 b 0.00 0.00 b Low-risk intercrop 0.13 0.06 a 0.00 0.00 b Treatment means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at a=0.05 (n=6, ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls test performed on data transformed by logio (x+1)). Whiteflies are also potentially serious pests of bean as a result of their role in virus transmission. 8. tabaci is a vector of bean golden mosaic, which is common in Central America, especially where tomatoes are grown in proximity to beans (Hall 1991 ). Population densities of B. tabaci on beans remained low throughout the study, probably because of the high altitude of the study area.

PAGE 147

122 The bean leafroller {U. proteus), is considered a minor pest of beans, requiring more than 4 fifth-instar larvae per plant to cause yield reductions (Cardona 1 989). Its density was very low throughout the experiment and was no different among treatments. The leaf beetle genera Cerotoma and Diabrotica constitute the most important chrysomelids on bean in many parts of Latin America (Cardona et al. 1982). Not only do they incur damage by defoliation and root feeding, but they are also vectors of several bean viruses, including bean curly dwarf mosaic, bean mild mosaic and bean rugose mosaic, all of which are present in Central America (Hall 1991). Defoliation damage has been determined to be more detrimental to the plant during the early growth and flowering stages, reaching 60% defoliation when 2-4 beetles were present per plant (Cardona et al. 1982). In the present expehment, population densities of these beetles remained low and were not affected by cropping system. Cerotoma and Diabrotica larvae are found in soil, and while Diabrotica balteata larvae feed primahly on roots of grasses (Krysan 1986), larvae of some species of Cerotoma develop on bean (Gonzalez et al. 1982). However, the only pest insect found in soil was Phyllophaga sp. (white grubs), occurring at the same low density for all treatments. Beneficial Insect Populations on Bean Biological control through conservation of natural enemies entails the maintenance of beneficial populations in the agroecosystem, particularly by

PAGE 148

123 adjusting pesticide applications for optimum protection of beneficials (Hoy 1988). In the small-scale cropping systems studied here, conservation of natural enemies can be a key element of pest management. Sampling in the absence of disruptive control tactics to determine beneficial insects present in the agroecosystem is instrumental in ascertaining the degree of potential natural control in each cropping system. Although several beneficial insect groups were present during the season (Table 4-5), most were not abundant enough to quantify througiiout the experiment. One exception was the coccinellid Brachiacantha lepida Mulsant, whose population density was not affected by intercropping with either tomato or husk tomato. The potential for natural control was not diminished by intercropping beans with either tomato or husk tomato, and the addition of these crops to the agroecosystem may provide additional resources to parasitoids and predators. Bean Diseases Despite the presence of several virus vectors {Empoasca sp., leafhoppers, the chrysomelid beetles D. balteata and Cerotoma spp, aphids, and the whitefly B. tabaci) on beans throughout the experiment, no virus was detected from samples of beans in any treatment. Fungal diseases were found, however, on foliage (bean rust, U. phaseoli, powdery mildew {Erysiphe polygoni DC), and an unidentified leaf spot), on pods (anthracnose, Colletotrichum lindemuthianum (Sacc. & Magn.) Briosi & Cav ), and on roots {Rhizoctonia sp ).

PAGE 149

124 Table 4-5. Insect natural enemies collected in bean-based cropping systems. Order Family Sub-family, genus or species Crop (Host) Hemiptera Neuroptera Coleoptera Nabidae Anthocoridae Hemerobiidae Coccinellidae Hymenoptera Braconidae Aphidiidae Nabis sp. Lasiochilus sp. Orius sp. Hemerobius sp. Brachiacantha lepida Mulsant Cycloneda sanguinea sanguinea (L.) Psyllobora vigintimaculata (Say) Cotesia sp. Aphidius sp. 3 Trioxys sp. Ichneumonidae Casinaria sp. Chiloplatys sp Eulophidae Diapriidae Mesochorus sp. Exetastes sp. Idiolispa sp. Eulophinae undet. sp. Trichopha sp. Bramesius sp. Platygastridae Synopeas sp. Bean, Tomato Bean Bean Bean Bean Bean, husk tomato Husk tomato Bean {Urbanus proteus) Bean Bean Husk tomato Bean Bean Cilantro Bean (spider eggs) Bean {Liriomyza huidobrensis) Bean Bean Bean

PAGE 150

125 While disease problems on beans in the area can be extreme dunng the rainy season, incidence of all disease on beans was low for most of this experiment, increasing only during the final weeks before harvest. Powdery mildew and anthracnose were observed so infrequently that their presence was not quantified. Also, there were no differences in disease incidence among cropping systems, with the exception that for the last sampling date (15 weeks after planting) a lower percentage of plants was infested with rust in the husk tomato intercrop than the other two treatments (Table 4-6). Table 4-6. Percentage of bean plants infested with rust {Uromyces phaseoli (Reben) Wint), in monoculture, intercropped with tomato (highrisk), and intercropped with husk tomato (low-risk), at 15 weeks after planting (mean SEM). Monoculture 70.68 5.90 a High-risk intercrop 68.62 6.15 a Low-risk intercrop 43.37 6.46 b Treatment means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at a=0.05 (n=6, ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls test performed on data transformed by square root). Boudreau and Mundt (1992, 1994) examined the effects of intercropping corn with beans on the development of bean rust, concluding that where the intercrop resulted in reduced severity of rust, microclimatic changes produced by the corn plant were probably responsible. Disease severity was not estimated in the present experiment but was consistently low. The husk tomato plants were larger by the end of the season than the tomato plants, and that may have

PAGE 151

126 hindered spread of the disease in the husk tomato treatments. Overall, there was virtually no influence of cropping system on disease development in bean. Damage to Bean Population densities of pest insects sampled were low during the experiment, but pest densities may be low and still inflict considerable damage, or the sampling scheme may not reflect all population densities accurately. Consequently, to confirm the effects of insect pests on the 3 cropping systems, roots, foliage and beans were all examined during the season for damage. Root development was the same for all cropping systems, with only 1 exception (root width at 4 weeks after planting was higher in the low-risk intercrop) (Table 4-7). The general similarity in root development among treatments suggests that roots were not being damaged differentially among the cropping systems. The most important defoliators on bean during the experiment were the chrysomelid beetles D. balteata, Cerotoma atrofasciata and C. ruficornis. The sampling method of direct counts for D. balteata populations may not be very effective (Chiang Lok et al. 1986), and since defoliation was observed at low beetle numbers, percent defoliation on bean plants was measured to verify the effects of these beetles. There were no differences among cropping systems on any sampling date (Figure 4-2), confirming that the intercrops did not increase the damage from this pest group on bean. Furthermore, mean percent defoliation never exceeded 7%. In a study of the effect of defoliation from

PAGE 152

127 Table 4-7. Mean root system width, length and weight ( SEM) of black beans in monoculture and intercropped with tomato (high-risk intercrop), and husk tomato (low-risk intercrop) during the dry season of 1997. Root width (cm) Root length (cm) Root weight (g) Mean SEM Mean SEM Mean SEM 4 weeks after planting Monoculture 1.64 + 0.31 b 7.69 1.06 a 0.21 0.02 a High-risk intercrop 0.93 0.23 b 6.14 0.96 a 0.18 0.02 a Low-risk intercroD 3.57 + 0.69 a 5.84 0.49 a 0.22 0.04 a 6 weeks after planting Monoculture 3.08 0.38 a 10.69 1.00 a 1.56 0.09 a High-risk intercrop 3.39 0.39 a 11.78 0.75 a 1.87 0.13 a Low-risk intercrop 3.33 0.37 a 11.64 0.76 a 1.77 0.15 a 8 weeks after planting Monoculture 4.82 0.41 a 13.47 0.96 a 1.59 0.20 a High-hsk intercrop 4.58 0.28 a 12.77 0.66 a 1.63 + 0.18 a Low-risk intercrop 5.10 0.43 a 14.08 0.75 a 1.63 0.14 a 10 weeks after planting 1 ^ Monoculture 7.36 0.59 a 16.06 0.65 a 2.66 0.38 a High-risk intercrop 7.46 + 0.57 a 15.22 0.68 a 2.19 0.22 a Low-risk intercrop 6.82 + 0.63 a 15.59 0.73 a 2.39 0.33 a 12 Weeks After Planting Monoculture 9.70 0.71 a 18.90 0.66 a 3.59 0.48 a High-risk intercrop 8.08 + 0.68 a 17.22 0.66 a 3.18 + 0.35 a Low-risk intercrop 10.09 + 0.75 a 17.68 0.78 a 3.14 0 .36 a 14 Weeks After Planting Monoculture 11.18 0.79 a 17.78 0.75 a 3.66 0,38 a High-hsk interaop 10.58 0.79 a 17.79 0.72 a 3.75 0.44 a Low-risk intercrop 10.28 0.67 a 18.62 0.79 a 3.70 0.36 a Treatment means for each measurement and date followed by the same letter are not significantly different at a=0.05 (n=6, Student-Newman-Keuls test used to separate means where differences detected).

PAGE 153

128 Z5 U o c o E c CD 0) cn E B 2 CO ^ E 5 C cu ca I c ca o CD C3) / • \ ; \ ; \ 6,< V — CO O) c c Q. k_ o) £ g CD E to to J3 o o c •o 0) o 0} o to c CD 2 O -D ^ c to CD CD O CD -SS i3 E T3 > (D O o E o CD % (D .5 D o "a CD CD o C o to 0) s i Eo CD CD CD Q. \ c -i^ O to E 3 CD 0 to if CD fi^ 1
PAGE 154

129 Mexican bean beetle, Capinera et al. (1987) determined that less than 19% foliage loss did not affect the yield of P. vulgaris. In terms of other damage, no differences were seen among treatments, either for development of pods or beans within pods, or in percentage of beans damaged by insects, disease (anthracnose) or rats (Table 4-8). Overall damage was low, with less than 2% of beans exhibiting signs of insect damage and less than 1 % of anthracnose or rat damage. Insects and Diseases on Secondary Crops Insects were not a significant source of damage on either tomato or husk tomato plants in these cropping systems. H. zea larvae were the principal cause of insect damage on tomato plants, with 2.63% of harvested fruits damaged and 0.24% with presence of larvae. Although tomato in monoculture was not included as a treatment, the tomato and bean intercrop has been shown elsewhere to significantly reduce damage of major pests on tomato, particularly Heliothis spp., Spodoptera spp. and Liriomyza sativae Blanchard, the first 2 by as much as 90% (Rosset et al. 1987). Flea beetles {Chaetocnema spp, and Strabala sp.) were the most common insects observed on husk tomato, but were also not abundant enough to inflict substantial damage. Insects collected occasionally on these crops are given in Tables 4-1 and 4-5. Damage to tomato from disease was much more consequential. Fifteen percent of tomato fruits at harvest had blemishes as a result of late blight {Phytophthora infestans (Mont.) d By), while 2.5% showed signs of early blight

PAGE 155

130 o CD E o Is o i_ S c CO (1) (1> o ^ O CD i| E |2 CO o o c (0 c ^ ^ (0 m Q. > s0} o Q ^ CO I c <3— ^ 0) (D 13 -a c (0 C o Q. 0) ^ Q. LU O CO 5 +1
PAGE 156

131 {Altemaria solani (Ell. & G. Martin) Sor.). However, the effects of these diseases on yield were more evident in the number of fruits too small for consumption (34.7%). By harvest, nearly 100% of plants were infested with early blight, late blight, or both, and the reduced yields resulting from fewer fruits and small fruit size was evident. As a result, disease control was necessary in this cropping system. Given that the prevalent control for tomato diseases in the area is chemical, the cropping system incorporating tomato into black bean cultivation (high-risk intercrop) would probably result in greater amounts of chemical pesticides being used. This would have negative consequences for the conservation of beneficial insect populations and for the health of the farm family. On the other hand, husk tomato was relatively free of disease, with only occasional plants showing symptoms of powdery mildew {Oidium sp.). The lowrisk treatment would not require insect or disease control, and from this point of view is preferable to the high-risk treatment for small-scale farmers in the area. Conclusions When designing more intensive intercropping systems for small-scale farmers, it is important to determine if crops associated for reasons other than plant protection may actually increase the need for pest management. In the current study, seasonal mean densities of insects on bean were not affected by cropping system. When sampling dates were analyzed individually, there were only 3 instances of differences in pest densities, once for mines of the leafminer

PAGE 157

132 L. huidobrensis and on 2 dates for the flea beetle Chaetocnema sp. On 2 of these 3 ocx:asions, the mean density in the bean monoculture was significantly higher than that of the intercrops, and the only occasion \Mien a pest density in one of the intercrops (beans with husk tomato) was higher was relatively early in the season. In addition, population densities of all insect pests sampled were relatively low throughout the season. Thus, densities of the most abundant pest species were not affected by the addition of these particular crops to beans. In addition to establishing that bean pest population densities were no higher in either intercrop than in the bean alone, this study has shown that beneficial populations on bean were no lower in either intercrop, bean diseases were no greater in either intercrop, and damage was no more prevalent in either intercrop. Consequently, the addition of either tomato or husk tomato to the bean cropping system would not increase the need for pest management on bean. However, the high-risk treatment of beans with tomato requires additional pest management for tomato diseases, while the low-risk treatment of bean with husk tomato does not require such management. Since neither intercrop affects pests or damage on the staple crop bean, they are both advantageous over the bean monoculture, but the additional pest management required for tomato makes that alternative less viable than the husk tomato intercrop, which had very low levels of insect and disease pests. For the group of farmers in the study area, the bean and husk tomato intercrop is preferable, when evaluated on the basis of pest management.

PAGE 158

CHAPTER 5 NEMATODE POPULATION DENSITIES IN ALTERNATIVE CORNAND BEANBASED CROPPING SYSTEMS Introduction Although the effects of nematodes on agricultural systems have been studied less frequently in tropical areas, in many cases they may be more severe in those areas due to greater population build-up as a result of higher temperatures and more intensive annual cropping cycles. Worldwide crop losses as a result of nematode damage have been estimated at around 5%, while for some small-scale farmers in tropical areas, losses may reach as high as 25-50% (Taylor and Sasser 1978). The lack of information on nematode populations in tropical regions makes nematode control particularly difficult for small-scale farmers for whom nematodes remain more obscure than other types of agricultural pests. In Central America, chemical control of nematodes is generally not economically feasible for small-scale farmers, and economic thresholds are difficult to establish (Sosa-Moss 1985, Pinochet 1987). Many traditional agricultural systems worldwide prevent nematode population build-up through the maintenance of plant genetic diversity and the selection of tolerance or resistance in host plants, which does not require farmer understanding of specific nematode populations (Page and Bridge 1993). 133

PAGE 159

134 Similarly, the continuous presence of susceptible hosts can be avoided by crop rotations, long promoted as one of the most effective nematode management tactics (Noe et al. 1991, Nusbaum and Ferris 1973) and particularly suited to the needs of low-resource farmers in the tropics (Noe 1988). The primary objective of crop rotation Is to reduce the initial nematode population density by the presence of a non-host or poor host, to such an extent that the following susceptible crop Is able to complete its development before nematode population densities build up enough to inflict significant damage. A secondary objective is to diversify the soil community, promoting natural control of nematode pest species (Trivedi and Barker 1986). While crop rotation has been shown to be a successful management strategy in certain situations for Heterodera spp., Ditylenchus spp., Belonolaimus spp. and Praylenchus spp. (Trivedi and Barker 1986), most rotation studies have focused on populations of root-knot nematodes {Meloidogyne spp ), because of their worldwide importance as agricultural pests. Rotation for the control of Meloidogyne spp. is complicated by the wide host ranges of these nematodes, and screening for susceptibility of crop cultivars must be done for various species and races, which may occur In mixed populations (Barker and Noe, 1987). Rotation crops have been tested for their effects on reducing Meloidogyne spp. numbers and Increasing yields in peanut {Arachis hypogaea L.) (RodrlguezKabana et al. 1988b, 1991a), soybean {Glycine max Merr.) (Rodriguez-Kabana et al. 1990b, 1991b; Weaver et al. 1988, Minton and Bondari 1994), tobacco

PAGE 160

135 {Nicotiana tabacum L.) (Fortnum and Currin 1993), and vegetable crops (McSorley et al. 1994b, 1994c). Furthermore, there has been increasing interest in evaluating tropical crops for their susceptibility to nematodes, to aid in the design of rotation systems (McSorley et al. 1994a; Gallaher and McSorley 1993, Hutton et al. 1983, Rodriguez-Kabana et al.1990). Although there is increasing understanding of nematode population response to sequential crop arrangements that include non-host or poor host crops, the effects of adding such crops in a spatial dimension are not as clear. As has been found for insect pests, intercropping studies have shown variable effects on nematode population densities, which is not surprising, given the range of environmental factors and interactions with other organisms responsible for changes in nematode population densities. Raymundo (1985) cites several examples of reduced damage from Meloidogyne incognita (Kofoid and White) when susceptible crops are grown in association with non-susceptible plants, including a reduction in root galls on potato from the addition of onion and corn, and the potential for intercropping with marigold {Tagetes spp.) for its possible nematicidal effects. Tomato plants also have been found to have reduced numbers of galls and lower root populations of M. incognita and Pratylenctius alleni Ferris when intercropped with castor bean {Ricinus communis L.), marigold, or chrysanthemum (Hackney and Dickerson 1975), and similar reduction in galls on tomato were reported with the legume intercrops Pueraria phaseoloides (Roxb.) Benth.and Arachis pintoi

PAGE 161

136 Krap. et Greg. nom. nud., although several other legumes tested did not influence galling on tomato (Marban-Mendoza et al. 1992). M. incognita populations have been shown to be adversely affected by an intercrop of sesame {Sesamum orientale L.) and okra {Abelmoschus esculentus L. (Moench.), with both showing higher yields than in their respective monocultures (Tanda and Atwal 1988). In a study of several spatial and temporal mixes of tropical crops in India, Sharma et al. (1996) found that responses of l-leterodera cajani Koshy, Helicotylenchus retusus, and Rotylenclius reniformis Linford Oliviera were influenced more by previous crops than by intercrops. The results also suggested that an intercrop of a pigeonpea {Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.) tolerant to H. cajani vAih the non-host sorghum {Sorghum bicolor{L.) Moench) would be most effective in increasing productivity of traditional cropping systems where H. cajani is prevalent. On the other hand, Powers et al. (1993) reported no effect on plant parasitic nematode densities of intercropping alfalfa {Medicago sativa L.) or hairy indigo {Indigofera hirsuta L.) with squash {Cucurbita pepo L.) or cucumber {Cucumis sativa L.), neither of which experienced lower nematode densities when intercropped with marigold {Tagetes patula L). Alfalfa and crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum (L.) Gaertner) in association also failed to exert an effect on Pratylenchus neglectus (Rensch) Filipjev & Schuurmans Stekhoven densities compared to their respective monocultures, when tested in an intercrop designed to improve soil fertility on rangelands (Griffin and Jensen 1997). The variable results found in these and other studies highlight the

PAGE 162

137 importance of evaluating the specific cropping system under consideration to determine possible changes in nematode population densities and subsequent consequences for crop damage. Such evaluations are particularly important when additional crops are added to the system for purposes other than pest management. Given the tendency of small-scale farmers in the tropics to adapt cropping systems based on economic value, food stability and cultural traditions (Beets 1982), rather than considerations of plant protection from pests, information pertinent to nematode management in such cropping systems is essential. In seeking more intensive cropping systems to meet small-scale farmers' changing economic and sociological conditions in the v^stern Guatemalan highlands, nematode population densities in corn and black bean monocultures were compared to those in selected intercrops of each. The principal objective was to determine if adding certain crops to corn and beans would increase the need for actively managing nematodes. Since small-scale farmers in the area were found to be limited in their pest management capabilities, any effective alternative cropping systems would have to incur equal or lower pest damage than the present cropping systems. Methods and Materials The field site, experimental design and plot layout are described in Chapter 3. Nematodes were sampled between May 1996 and April 1997, before and after both the com and bean crops. Treatments were as described earlier

PAGE 163

138 (Treatment 1 = corn monoculture followed by black bean monoculture; Treatment 2 = corn, black beans, broccoli and faba beans followed by black beans and tomatoes; Treatment 3 = corn, black beans, cilantro, and amaranth followed by black beans and husk tomato), and agronomic management of all crops is described in Chapters 3 and 4. Nematodes were sampled four times during the year, for initial population densities (Pi) after plots were prepared but before planting (10 May 1996), at mid-season of the corn (9 September 1996), after the corn was harvested and before beans were planted (6 December 1996), and for final population densities (Pf) after the bean harvest (21 April 1997). Soil samples, allocated systematically within each plot, were taken within the root zone of the corn and later the bean crops. Samples consisted of 12 cores per plot, of 2.5 cm-diameter and 15-20 cm depth, removed with a soil corer. For each plot, cores were combined and a subsample of 100 cm^ was taken for nematode extraction by a combined sieving and Baermann technique (Christie and Perry 1951). The subsample was suspended in water and passed through a coarse sieve, then placed on a 400 mesh sieve. The concentrated sample was placed on a tissue paper (Kimwipe) in a modified Baermann setup consisting of a plastic electrical gang cover with wire screening set in a plastic sandwich dish filled with water to the level of the screening. After 48 hours (at a temperature of 17-22 C), the water and nematode mixture was concentrated with a 400 mesh sieve. Nematodes were killed by heating in a 60 C waterbath for 15 minutes and preserved in 10% formalin.

PAGE 164

139 Nematodes were counted by genus and assigned to trophic groups according to Yeates et al. (1993). For the most prevalent genera and for trophic groups, initial and final population densities of the 3 treatments were compared for both the corn and bean cycles of the expenment, as were the ratios of final to initial population densities for the corn cycle, bean cycle and total for the year. Pf/Pi ratios are based on values to which 0.01 was added to avoid division by zero, because in some cases initial population densities were too low to be detected. Analysis of Variance was performed on nematode count data transformed by logio (x+1), using the PROC GLM procedure of SAS (SAS Institute 1990), and the Student-Newman-Keuls test was used to separate means when significant treatment differences were detected at a = 0.05. Although transformed counts were used to determine treatment differences, tables reporting treatment means are of untransformed data. Results and Discussion Plant Parasitic Community The principal genera of plant parasitic nematodes that were found in the cropping systems under study are shown in Table 5-1 Plant parasitic genera found occasionally include Criconemoides, Paratylenchus and Scutellonema. The genus Psilenchus, for which food habits are unclear, was also found occasionally and included with the plant parasites to which it is closely related. While the population densities of some genera of plant parasitic nematodes declined over the corn cycle in some cropping systems, population

PAGE 165

140 Table 5-1 Ratio of final to initial nematode population densities (Pf/P,) by genus from 100 cm^ soil samples taken from monocultures (corn followed by beans) and two alternative intercrops (high-risk intercrop of corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans with tomato, and low-risk intercrop of corn with black beans, cilantro and amaranth, followed by black beans with husk tomato). Corn cycle Bean cycle Total for year Mean Pf/Pj SE Mean P/Pi SE Mean P/P, SE Meloidogyne Monoculture 0.65 0.21 a 11.74 9.73 a 2.51 + 1.53 a High-risk intercrop 0.34 0.15 a 187.08 182.79 a 3.25 + 1.79 a Low-risk intercrop 0.46 + 0.36 a 6.60 3.41 a 0.94 0.39 a Monoculture 4.95 High-risk intercrop 68.47 Low-risk intercrop 1.78 Monoculture 83.87 High-risk intercrop 0.95 Low-risk intercrop 50.94 Monoculture 35.08 High-risk intercrop 1.82 Low-risk intercrop 36.11 Monoculture 0.75 High-risk intercrop 84.17 Low-risk intercrop 34.50 Helicotylenchus 1.95 a 167.65 166.67 66.51 a 4.04 1.50 0.72 a 2.89 1.07 Pratylenchus 83.43 a 67.76 66.65 0.62 a 270.57 153.21 50.01 a 138.50 70.06 Trichodorus 20.85 a 367.81 172.50 1.13 a 300.88 262.07 20,60 a 152.20 149.76 Hemicycliophora OAT a 84.25 30.78 54.31 a 67.45 49.50 33.30 a 50.67 22.51 a 6.16 + 1.88 a a 537.63 532.68 a a 2.99 0.82 a a 51.04 49.99 a a 28.71 16.97 a a 43.10 20.01 a a 335.00 166.40 a a 4.63 2.37 b a 94.11 51.91 ab a 67.42 33.43 a a 100.83 51.70 a a 50.67 22.51 a Monoculture High-risk intercrop Low-risk intercrop 1.22 0.37 a 17.00 16.80 a 0.26 0.17 a Tylenchorhynchus 54.36 49.37 b 917.50 415.14 a 953.31 446.05 a 7.44 4.50 38 68 32.69 504.47 499.31 Samples taken in May 1996 (corn P| and total Pi ), December 1996 (corn P, and bean P, ), and April 1997 (bean P, and total P, ). For all mean values, n=6. Treatment means within cropping cycle and genus followed by the same letter are not significantly different (a=0.05, ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls test performed on data transformed by logio (x+1 ) after 0.01 added to avoid division by zero).

PAGE 166

141 densities of all principal plant parasites increased during the bean cycle (Pf/Pi > 1). This contributed to an increase over the year in all but populations of Meloidogyne spp. This genus constituted 54% of the plant parasitic nematodes at the start of the experiment (P|) and only 17% at the end of the corn cycle, increasing again during the bean cycle to 29% of the total. In contrast, 23% of plant parasites were Helicotylenchus spp. at Pi, increasing to 58% after the corn cycle and decreasing to 32% by the end of bean cycle. The relative composition of the plant parasitic nematode community remained fairly constant for the remaining genera. During the corn cycle.there were no significant differences among aopping systems for either Pj or Pf of any of the principal plant parasitic genera, and soil densities of all plant parasitic nematodes remained below 25 per 100 cm^. The reproductive rate (P^Pi) also did not differ by cropping system for any of the principal genera during the corn cycle (Table 5-1 ). Among the nematode genera able to reproduce on corn, the most commonly encountered include Meloidogyne and Pratylenchus, while Thchodorus spp. are among the most potentially destructive (Shurtleff 1980). In this experiment, during the corn cycle, the population density of Meloidogyne spp. remained below damage thresholds established for several species, the lower range of which starts at 50 nematodes/100 cm^ soil (Barker et al. 1985). In fact, corn did not support reproduction of Meloidogyne spp. in any cropping system studied (P^Pi < 1 for all treatments). While in some cases densities of Meloidogyne spp. have not increased significantly on corn (Kinloch 1983, Hutton

PAGE 167

142 et al. 1983), in many instances corn has been found to be a suitable host (Galiaheret al. 1991, Sumner et al. 1985, Heffes et al. 1992). Since corn exhibits varied susceptibility to Meloidogyne spp., depending on cultivar and nematode species and race, local corn cultivars must be evaluated for susceptibility. Local corn used in the current study was a poor host, and the crops added to the system did not affect Meloidogyne spp. densities. M. arenaha and M. incognita have been observed to reproduce poorly on A. cruentus (Rodriguez-Kabana 1988a), so although germination of amaranth was low in the study, it would not be likely to increase Meloidogyne spp. populations in the cropping system treatment in which it was included, even under conditions of higher plant density. Pratylenchus spp. nematodes are also common in soils in which corn has been grown, and P. neglectus has been shown to compete with M. chitwoodi on barley {Hordeum vulgare L.) and potatoes (Umesh and Ferris 1994). In the present study, however, mean densities of Pratylenchus spp. remained below 6 nematodes/100 cm^ during the corn cycle and constituted no more than 9% of the plant parasitic nematodes extracted. Finally, populations of Trichodorus spp. can change rapidly and can be highly destructive to corn, but were not observed to rise beyond 4 nematodes/100 cm^ during the corn cycle. The other plant parasitic nematodes recovered require high population densities to exert pathogenic effects on corn (Shurtleff 1980). During the bean cycle, the only difference observed among treatments was in the final density (Pf) of Tylenchorhynchus spp., which was higher in the

PAGE 168

143 low-risk treatment (beans with husk tomato) than in the bean monoculture (Table 5-2). Subsequently, Tylenchorhynchus spp. showed a higher reproductive rate in both intercrop treatments than in the monoculture (Table 5-1). The great increase in Tylenchorhynchus spp. over the bean cycle resulted from its near absence (very low Pi) prior to this crop. During the bean cycle, most genera had high reproductive rates across treatments. Since final population densities for no genus exceeded 35 nematodes per 100 cm^ soil, low initial densities probably contributed to the high reproductive rates observed. Table 5-2. Final densities (mean no. nematodes/100 cm^ soil SEM) of Tylenchorhynchus spp. from bean in monoculture, high-risk intercrop (beans v\/ith tomato), and low-risk interaop (beans with husk tomato), AphI 1997. Low-risk intercrop 12.00 4.09 a High-risk intercrop 9.17 4.15 ab Monoculture 7.33 4.62 b Treatment means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at a=0.05 (n=6, ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls test performed on data transformed by logio (x+1 )). While Tylenchorhynchus has been found in association with the soil around bean roots, it is not considered to cause damage to the bean plant. In fact, among the nematodes at this site, Meloidogyne and Pratylenchus are the only two nematode genera with the potential to inflict substantial damage to bean. P. penetrans can reduce the growth of susceptible bean plants at a density of at least 50 nematodes/100 cm^ soil (Hall 1991). Mean soil densities of these nematodes in the cropping systems examined were never greater than 30

PAGE 169

144 per 100 cm^, despite the presence in the high-risk cropping system of tomato, generally an excellent host for Meloidogyne spp. (Jones et al. 1991). Total Nematode Community Tylenchus (root associate), Aphelenchus (fungivore) and Eucephalobus (bacterivore) were among the most common genera of non-plant parasitic nematodes encountered. Additional fungivores included Aphelenchoides and Nothotylenchus, while the bacterivores Monhystera, Plectus, and Wilsonema were seen occacionally. The omnivores Mesodorylaimus and Eudorylaimus and the predators Mononchus and Seinura constituted the rest of the nematodes in the cropping systems examined. The initial nematode community was dominated by plant parasites (mean of 45%), with 31 % fungivores and 14% bacterivores. At the end of the corn cycle, plant parasites had decreased to 35%, with fungivores constituting 36% and bacterivores 17%. After the bean cycle, bacterivores were dominant (39%), and plant parasites accounted for only 29%. Fungivores comprised 24% of total nematodes at Pf. Relative densities of omnivores and predators were 7-16% and 0.42-1.18%, respectively, during the year. The reduction in plant parasites and fungivores and increase in bacterivores over the year was consistent for ail treatments. Even with overall increases in densities of plant parasitic genera during the bean cycle, plant parasites never constituted a high proportion of the total nematode community.

PAGE 170

145 During the corn cycle, initial density of plant parasites in the low-risk treatment (corn with black beans, cilantro and amaranth) was higher than In the monoculture (Table 5-3), although by the end of that crop cycle, the mean population density of plant parasites had increased in the monoculture while decreasing in the other cropping systems (Table 5-4). Densities of fungivores and of total nematodes were initially lower in the corn monoculture, and by the end of the corn cycle, densities of bacterivores and omnivores in the monoculture were greater than in the other two treatments. No other significant differences in densities were observed for any sampling date. The reproductive rate for total nematodes was greater for the corn monoculture and high-risk intercrop (corn with black beans, broccoli and faba beans) than for the low-risk intercrop (corn with black beans, cilantro and amaranth) (Table 5-4). Although initial densities of bacterivores and omnivores in the bean monoculture were higher than in the other two treatments, there were no differences in final densities for any trophic group. Furthermore, reproductive rate was not different among treatments for any trophic group in either the bean cycle or the total year (Table 5-4). For both genus and trophic group analyses, some mean P^Pi values are much higher than the mean P,/ mean P|, due to addition of 0.01 to avoid division by zero, since several initial densities were zero. Although very low initial densities for most genera and trophic groups contributed to high P^Pi values, the greatest population increase observed was 13-fold, an increase in bacterivore density in the high-risk intercrop (beans with I

PAGE 171

146 Table 5-3. Nematode densities (mean no. per 100 cm^ soil SEM) by trophic group for sampling dates with differences among cropping system treatments, taken from monocultures (corn followed by beans) and two alternative intercrops (high-risk intercrop of corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans with tomato, and low-risk intercrop of corn with black t)eans, Plant parasites, May 1996 (Pi) Monoculture 18.67 5.91 b High-risk interaop 34.17 11.03 ab Low-risk intercrop 38.17 + 5.72 a Fungivores, May 1 996 (Pi) Monoculture 15.00 4.31 b High-risk intercrop 24.50 7.42 a Low-risk intercrop 23.83 4.03 a Total nematodes. May 1 996 (Pi) Monoculture 48.33 + 16.57 b High-risk intercrop 78.00 27.86 a Low-risk intercrop 74.50 8.90 a Bacterivores, Dec. 1996 (corn Pf, bean P|) Monoculture 21.83 4.72 a High-risk intercrop 8.92 5.25 b Low-risk intercrop 10.92 3.26 b Omnivores, Dec. 1996 (corn Pf, bean P|) Monoculture 11.08 4.85 a High-risk intercrop 5.25 2.26 b Low-risk intercrop 4.75 + 1.08 b group followed by the same letter are not significantly different (a=0,05, ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls test performed on data transformed by logio (x+1 )).

PAGE 172

147 Table 5-4. Ratio of final to Initial nematode population densities (Pf/Pi) by trophic group from 100 cm^ soil samples taken from monocultures (corn followed by beans) and two alternative intercrops (high-risk intercrop of corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli, followed by black beans with tomato, and low-risk intercrop of corn with black beans, cilantro and amaranth, followed by black beans with husk tomato). Corn cycle Bean cycle Total for year Mean Pf/P, SEM Mean Pf/Pi SEM Mean P,/P| SEM Plant Parasites Mnnnpi ilti irp IVIwI lUV^LJILUi w 1 81 + 0.99 Q Ok 386.45 382.92 O 5 26 -I1 70 CI Hinh-ri^k intprrron 0 72 0.27 Q CI 5.37 + 1.43 9 CI 3 33 + 0 61 p CI 1 nw-ri^k intprprnn 0.25 o 5.04 2.33 o d 2 41 90 p d Fungivores Monnrt jiti jrp 2 21 0.71 CI 6.63 3.89 a CI 5 64 -|2 09 p d Hinh-ri^k intprprnn 1 48 + 0.75 CI 7.15 3.44 o 4 19 -11 32 p d 1 nw-riQk intprprnn L.i^^w 1 lorx II lid K^l 0.28 a d 7.39 2.28 a a 1 49 d Bacterivores Mnnopnltijrp 220 61 216.09 a o 4.25 1.46 CI 1425 62 -j1415 08 p d Hinh-ri^k intprprnn 2 23 + 0.84 a 45.41 32.89 d Q 91 d Low-risk intercrop 2.53 + 0.84 a 12.26 4.96 a 25.53 9.06 a Omnivores Monoculture 502.04 499.79 a 2.83 1.31 a 652.62 649.68 a High-risk intercrop 84.28 + 83.35 a 10.32 + 4.64 a 804.16 799.37 a Low-risk intercrop 1.05 0.36 a 320.34 316.14 a 6.58 3.64 a Predators Monoculture 84.17 40.21 a 67.34 49.53 a 100,92 44.76 a High-risk intercrop 0.84 + 0.17 a 117.67 47.73 a 101.00 51.64 a Low-risk intercrop 117.17 + 65.58 a 83.96 83.41 a 34.66 + 20.99 a Total Nematodes Monoculture 2.67 0.92 a 3.45 1.13 a 6.74 1.90 a High-risk intercrop 1.04 0.40 a 8.96 + 3.20 a 6.05 1.58 a Low-risk intercrop 0.83 0.23 b 7.17 2.77 a 4.11 1.44 a Samples taken in May 1996 (corn Pi and total Pi ), December 1996 (corn Pf and bean Pi ), and April 1997 (bean P, and total Pf ). For all mean values, n=6. Treatment means within cropping cycle and trophic group followed by the same letter are not significantly different (a=0.05, ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls test performed on data transformed by logio (x+1 ) after 0.01 added to avoid division by zero).

PAGE 173

148 tomato) during the bean cycle. However, the reproductive rate of bacterivores was not significantly different among treatments (Table 5-4). For all treatments, bacterivores increased in density more rapidly than any other trophic group during the bean cycle. Bactivorous nematodes are important components of the soil biota, with a major role in decomposition and nutrient cycling, and as such are beneficial to crop plants present, particularly by increasing availability of nutrients (Freckman 1988). Conclusions The present study sought to determine the effect on nematode population densities of adding selected intercrops to corn and beans. The additional crops were chosen for their potential economic and nutritional value and not for their value in suppressing pest populations. Therefore, it was unknown whether their inclusion in the cropping system would result in significantly higher nematode population densities that could lead to greater damage to the principal crops under the conditions of small-scale farmers in the study area. In assessing advantages and potential for acceptance of alternative cropping systems, it is important to determine whether the addition of particular crops may necessitate greater nematode management on the part of the farmer. In the cropping systems tested, nematode densities either decreased or increased only slightly during the corn cycle, with consistent increases during the bean cycle. The decline in relative abundance of plant parasites and augmentation of bactivorous nematodes in the study plots over the year illustrate

PAGE 174

149 the favorable nature of the cropping systems tested in terms of effects on the nematode community. Densities of all plant parasitic nematode populations remained low throughout the study, indicating the lack of need for nematode management. Furthermore, neither of the alternative cropping systems tested resulted in significant increases over the monoculture in terms of population densities of nematodes considered to be economically damaging in corn or beans. The results allow us to consider such cropping systems for their non-pest management merits, without concern of contributing to the difficulty farmers may encounter in managing pests as a result of their already limited information and capital.

PAGE 175

CHAPTER 6 ECONOMIC, ENERGETIC AND NUTRITIONAL RETURNS FROM ALTERNATIVE CORNAND BEAN-BASED CROPPING SYSTEMS Introduction For alternative cropping systems to be accepted by low-resource farmers in the tropics, they must be shown not only to not contribute to increased pest problems, but also to be more productive, providing apparent advantages to the farm family. Greater productivity can be realized through efficient utilization of available inputs, particularly land, labor, capital, and energy. Limits in arable land combined with growing demand for food impel more intensive use of available land (Stout 1990). Yield advantages have often been demonstrated in intercropping systems as a result of more efficient resource use by plants with complementary resource needs, specifically light, water and nutrients (Willey 1979). In some cases, intercrops may also provide enough relief from pest pressure to subsequently affect yields. However, the resulting economic returns are of primary concern to the farm family and should be evaluated according to the aim of the intercropping system (i.e., yield stability, or maintenance of yield of main crop). For example. Brown et al. (1985) analyzed a vegetable intercropping system developed to maximize total productivity of two-vegetable combinations and found that at least one combination produced greater total yield and economic return per unit land 150

PAGE 176

151 area. They concluded that the intercrop will be particularly advantageous when the market value of one crop declines or when land Is scarce. Therefore, benefits to the farmer become apparent when alternative cropping systems are evaluated in terms of maximizing returns while minimizing the use of limited resources. Usually, analyses of agricultural systems have taken an economic approach, centering solely on the objective of profit maximization, rather than an energetic approach, which focuses on minimizing energy inputs per unit of energy output in sustainable systems (Schahczenski 1984). The shift from hunting-gathering activities to early agriculture to modern production agriculture has taken place through more intensive management of the agroecosystem, primarily through growth in human and then fossil fuel energy inputs, the latter taking the form of fertilizers, pesticides, farm machinery and irrigation (Pimentel 1 992). Energy analysis developed out of the rising energy prices of the 1 970s and the realization that the high yields of industrialized agriculture were driven by non-renewable energy inputs that are limited. The improvement of energy efficiency subsequently became a goal of sustainable agriculture research. Energy analysis has been applied to both industrialized agriculture (Franzleubbers and Francis 1995) and traditional agricultural systems (Dazhong and Pimentel 1984, Pandya and Pedhadiya 1993) to examine energetic selfsufficiency and improve efficiency of energy use. Measures of energy efficiency are often used to compare alternative production systems (for example, Berardi 1978, Gajaseni 1995, Nguyen and Haynes 1995, Sharma 1991; Sharma and

PAGE 177

152 Sharma 1993, Vredeveld et al. 1983). Furthermore, traditional agricultural systems are often found to be highly energy efficient, and evaluations of their energetics can show us ways of improving the efficient utilization of local energy resources (Schahczenski 1 984). While efficiency of land and energy use and maximization of economic returns are all important goals in the design of alternative production systems, nutritional benefits should not be overlooked, particularly for small-scale farmers who consume much of the principal crop produced. It is important to determine the nutritional yields of each cropping system, because increases in income as a result of greater agricultural commercialization do not necessarily lead to improvements in the nutritional well being of farm families. Instead, nutritional quality is often related to dietary diversity, which tends to be higher for lowresource subsistence families than for those undergoing agricultural commercialization (Smith 1986). In the present study, consideration was given to the nutritional benefits derived from the main crops, for example the importance of beans as a protein source (Sotelo et al. 1995). Potential nutritional benefits derived from the secondary crops were also given weight when developing cropping system treatments for comparison, particularly the protein and mineral content of faba beans and amaranth (Rani and Hira 1993, National Research Council 1984) and the vitamin content of tomatoes and husk tomato (Bock et al. 1995, Tapadia et al. 1995). As a result of the importance to farm families of increased production, efficiency of input use, and improvements in nutritional quality, an economic.

PAGE 178

153 energetic, and nutritional analysis of the yields in corn and bean cropping systems was carried out. This analysis aimed to determine how adding secondary crops to corn and beans would affect the economic and nutritional benefits derived from the cropping systems tested. Methods and Materials Over a period of 1 year (May 1996 April 1997), 3 alternative corn and bean cropping systems were monitored for production costs, market prices, and yields, to determine relative benefits of the 3 systems in terms of economic return, energy, and nutrition. Treatment 1 consisted of corn monoculture followed by black bean monoculture. Treatment 2 (high-risk intercrop) was comprised of corn at the same spacing as in Treatment 1 with the additional crops black beans, faba beans and broccoli added during the growing season, followed by black beans in the same spacing as Treatment 1 but intercropped with tomato. Likewise, Treatment 3 (low-risk intercrop) consisted of com at the same spacing, with black beans, cilantro and amaranth added during the season, followed by black beans intercropped with husk tomato. Agronomic management and timing of planting and harvesting of all crops, as well as experimental design and plot layout, are discussed in Chapters 3 and 4. Yields Corn was hand harvested, solar dried, and hand shelled, after which total grain weight and the average of 3 readings of moisture content (measured with a

PAGE 179

154 Dole model 400B grain moisture tester) were recorded per plot. Plot totals were adjusted for destructive samples and reported at 15% moisture equivalent. In addition to com grain, some fresh ears were harvested at the milk stage from lodged plants removed from the plots, following local practices to avoid vertebrate damage in ears of lodged plants. Number of ears and total weight of unhusked ears were recorded per plot. Additionally, 10 lodged plants per plot were sampled systematically with a random start, and ears on each were weighed after husking and assigned a local market value according to ear size and quality. To obtain the energy and nutritive values of the fresh corn ears harvested, it was necessary to subtract the weight of the cob. Therefore, a sample of ears was weighed with and without the cob, and the mean cob weight as a percentage of ear weight was applied to the dehusked ear weights to calculate the grain weight of ears removed with lodged plants. Yields for all other crops were recorded as total weight of marketable product per plot. During the bean cycle, beans were hand harvested twice, shelled, and solar dried. As with the corn, total weight and percent moisture were recorded for each plot. Tomato and husk tomato were both hand harvested periodically duhng the final month. Finally, land productivity for the principal crops in both corn and bean cropping cycles was expressed as kg product per ha of land. Land equivalent ratio (LER) is the amount of land that would be required in monocultures to achieve the same yields obtained in 1 ha of the polyculture (Willey 1979). While commonly used in intercropping studies to determine yield advantages that

PAGE 180

155 demonstrate efficiency of land use, the LER was not applied in the current study because the secondary crops were not cultivated in monoculture. Economic Returns For both corn and bean cycles, prices of all crops in the local market were noted at harvest and used in conjunction with yields to calculate gross return. In the case of broccoli and cilantro, where local market prices are based on "handfuls" of product, smaller heads and shoots, respectively, were combined to calculate total economic return per plot. For each input, cost and quantity were recorded. Inputs common to ail cropping systems and comprising materials already owned by small-scale farmers (machetes and hoes) were not included. Labor inputs were recorded as time spent on every activity needed to produce each crop. Total labor time for each plot was summed for the corn cycle, the bean cycle, and the total year. Net return per plot (total return minus production costs) was calculated without accounting for labor, because of the prevalence of family labor. Calculations of net return were made for actual market prices and for both increases and decreases in product prices of 25%, since market fluctuations are common. Net return was also divided by total labor time to give return per day of labor. Since low-resource farmers in the area utilize their own labor, this gives an indication of how much they would receive for their work. Labor productivity for the principal crops was expressed as kg product (corn or beans) per day of

PAGE 181

156 labor for each treatment, and capital productivity was calculated as kg product (corn or beans) per dollar input costs. Energy Energy budgets of the alternative cropping systems under study were constructed using published energy values for agricultural inputs and products. Quantities of each input, including seeds, fertilizers, and labor time (classified by activity), were recorded for each plot in both experiments. Energy expended in transportation to the market to sell products or buy inputs was not included, because of the widespread use of local buses and the consequent minimal fuel use per person on these short trips. Also, by-products such as corn stalks, leaves and cobs, which are utilized as animals feed, in food preparation, and as a direct energy source, respectively, were not included because of time constraints. Input quantities were multiplied by the closest energy values found in the literature for each (Lockeretz 1980, Pandya and Pedhadiya 1993, Pimentel 1980, Stout 1990). Energy expenditure values of human labor followed those of Gajaseni (1995), where separate energy values were utilized for light, intermediate, demanding, and very demanding labor activities, ranging from 50250 kcal/hour. This range encompasses the general energy values of human labor given by others (Wilken 1987, Norman 1978, Fluck 1992). Norman (1978) concluded that for subsistence agricultural systems, the energy input from labor should be estimated as the total energy content of all consumed foods, since the

PAGE 182

157 energy in metabolized foods used as work must be enough to supply energy for all the family's activities. Fluck (1992) suggested that calculating energy content of consumed foods as labor be utilized for systems lacking fossil fuel inputs, while the method of net energy analysis, estimating the portion of energy in the gross national product that is sequestered in agricultural labor, be utilized where the predominant energy source is derived from fossil fuels that ultimately support all human activities, including agricultural labor. The current study involves an intermediate situation, where a large part of the food consumed is produced by the same family and most of the activities and consumption of the community are not nearly as dependent on fossil fuel energy as in industrialized societies. Therefore, a typical basal metabolic rate (48 kcal/hour) was subtracted from values for gross energy expenditures, giving net metabolic energy, or the energy value of food consumed by labor (Gajaseni 1995, Fluck 1992). For each corn and bean cropping system, agricultural activities were categorized by level of work, and the corresponding energy values were applied. Very demanding work included land and seedbed preparation, weeding, mounding corn and applying chicken manure, while demanding work included planting, reseeding, transplanting, removing lodged corn plants, and turning down corn ears, and intermediate work included applying fertilizer and harvesting. Percentage of total energy inputs derived from labor was also calculated for each treatment. All energy values of products were obtained from the USDA Nutrient Database (USDA 1997) and multiplied by yields in weight of product per

PAGE 183

158 plot to give output energies. The 2 most commonly utilized measures of energy use in ago-ecosystems are the energy ratio (also referred to as efficiency ratio) and energy productivity. Energy ratio, defined as energy output from agricultural products divided by the energy contained in inputs (Fluck 1980), was calculated for each treatment from the above input and output totals in both the corn and bean cycles, as well as the entire year. Weights of yields from the principal crops (corn and beans) were used to calculate energy productivity, the quantity of product divided by total energy inputs, which measures the system's productivity from an energy point of view (Fluck 1 979). Nutrition Relative nutritional benefits of the cropping systems tested were evaluated by calculating nutritional yields of each treatment in both the cornbased and bean-based experiments, in terms of energy, protein, principal minerals (calcium, iron, magnesium, and phosphorus) and principal vitamins (Vitamin C, pro-Vitamin A, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, pantothenic acid. Vitamin Be, Vitamin E and folate). Weight of each product per plot was multiplied by the corresponding nutrient values per weight, taken from data on chemical composition of food products in the USDA Nutrient Database (USDA 1997). Nutrient yields of products were summed for each plot, and total yields per plot of each nutrient were then divided by the U.S. Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) for that nutrient (Wotecki and Thomas, eds. 1992). This gives the number of days the RDA of each nutrient is satisfied for one person by the yields

PAGE 184

159 obtained from each plot, an indication of nutritional completeness provided by home consumption of the products in each treatment. Statistical Analysis All evaluations of yield (weights of products, productivities, profit with and without labor, energy ratio, and days that nuthents fulfill the RDA) for the corn cycle, the bean cycle, and totals for the year (where appropriate) were subjected to an Analysis of Variance, to determine effects of aopping system (using the GLM procedure in SAS at a=0.05). The Student-Newman-Keuls test was used to separate differences in treatment means when they were detected (SAS Institute 1990). Although transformed data were used to determine treatment differences, means reported in tables are not transformed. Results and Discussion The alternative cropping systems tested in this study comprise the intercrop type in which a staple food crop is the main crop and secondary crops are added. All analyses are thus based on the objective of sustaining the yield of the main crops (corn and beans) while maximizing total return and efficiency of resource use. Yields Yields of the principal crops in both alternative intercrop treatments for both the corn and bean cycles were maintained at the level of the respective

PAGE 185

160 monocultures (Table 6-1 ). Taking into account only the principal crops, land productivity was the same. Thus, land is utilized more efficiently when the secondary crops are considered (Figure 6-1 ). In addition, yields in all treatments were considerably higher than the mean yield of corn reported for Guatemala, which is 1131 kg/ha (CATIE 1990a). In the corn cycle, the corn crop dominated production, with relatively low yields of secondary crops (Figure 6-2). Cilantro and amaranth had poor establishment, while poor seed quality of broccoli and diseases in black beans and faba beans contributed to low yields. On the other hand, the secondary crop husk tomato in the bean cycle yielded very well (Figure 6-3). Reductions in yield of tomato can be attributed primarily to disease. Where the objective of an intercrop is to have complete yield of a main crop and some yield of a secondary crop, there is a yield advantage when there is any yield of the secondary crop (Willey 1979). This is the case in the current study, and as in other intercropping systems in this category, further investigation should attempt to maximize the yields of secondary crops without reducing the yields of the main crops. In addition, future studies involving production of the secondary crops concurrently in monoculture would permit a calculation of land equivalent ratio for each cropping system, thereby quantifying the advantages of the intercrops in terms of land use efficiency.

PAGE 186

D !acl _o n >> O) O c Q. Q. o O k_ cc O O o 0) l_ jQ > D — CD c d I altern ans a marai CD CD jQ CD c nd n CD >— CD O CD (D c c C CD a> o 3 n onoc lack eans E c o 4— 1 o |S|J iSE 1997 i; lowc CD C 0) a E,< >CD ^ co E to >. CO O E o 2 ^ |l CO CO C 3 CD 0) o > JD < >, 0 ^ J3 CD 0) CO 3 CD 52 cn HI SI +1 in CM CM q d +1 +1 +1 in o CO CD CM CD CD CM CM l6 +1 +1 +1 CO CO o CO cn CN CN cxj CM CN O \^ 00 csi -)-| -1-1 CM CO CO cn CD CD CN LO hCD CM CM 00 +1 +1 +1 CO CM cn CO O CO CO 00 CD in 3 o o c o Q. O C J*: CO 't_ I C3) d. O o B c CO o

PAGE 187

162 V) O 0) O CD B Q. o o 0) c o b o Cl O o c CO CD CO O <_ (D 3 O O c o £ 2 2 o o iCi CN O o o CN o o o o o o o puei jo Gjepag jsd pnpojd 6>j ub9|/m CD

PAGE 188

163 ( BL| / $) pnpojd jo an|BA ue9|/\| ooooooooo c ooooooooo fc 0)OOh-(DlO'^COCMt-0 5 ( BLj / 6>j) pnpojd ;o iLjBjaM ub9|/m

PAGE 190

165 Economic Returns Analysis of inputs revealed that both intercropping treatments required greater amounts of labor than the respective monocultures of the main crops for both the corn and bean cycles (Table 6-2). Where labor is scarce and productivity of the main crops is the primary objective, intercropping would not utilize labor as efficiently as the monocultures (Figure 6-4). However, where family labor is available, the use of these alternatives would provide a greater opportunity to work, as long as the net return provides a wage rate acceptable to the farmer and higher than the monoculture. Many farmers in the study area accept agricultural wage labor when available and continue to produce their own crops simultaneously. That situation implies that either labor is available and paid work scarce, or that farmers value the time spent on their own crops, despite receiving lower returns on them than from paid labor. Both explanations are probably relevant to small-scale farmers in the area, given the scarcity of land and the risk involved in foregoing production of staple food crops. To evaluate the added opportunity to work in terms of overall benefits of the intercrops, the economic return and labor rate received for each cropping system were examined. For the corn cycle, there were no differences in net economic return between the monoculture and either intercrop, for both product prices at time of harvest and for price fluctuations of 25% (Table 6-3). As a result, the labor rate received by the farmer was no higher in either intercrop (Table 6-4).

PAGE 191

166 c -c 8 g o c CO a. o i_ o 03 > c I? CO c = CD 03 0) c CO CO E £ F c J5 o co" c CD 0) UJ CO +1 c o o Q. O E oi CO T• D — Q. C o o II Q. O O i_ 0) c CO o o CD ^ E S i x: ^ o CD Q. < I >> CN CD CD 2 a> co-Q E CD CO >, CO CO CO c c CD CD 0 CD o o ^ n "O TO ii o _o .o o CD 0) >£ 2 o o >^ o c CD CO +1 +1 +1 o CO o CO d lO C3Ci C3^ 00 £1 CD CD lO CO 00 CO CN CN CN +1 +1 +1 T — CD 00 ID (X> CO O CD CN cn cb -H -H -H O lO CN o CN CO od iri CO CD 3 o o c o cx o b B c CO I n o d II CD C (D I c CD O 'c O) CO 0) i_ CD CO 0)

PAGE 192

167 CO c CO 0) m m c o o CD CO Q. O o o c .52 o Q. O o 0) 3 o o c o CD 00 (9=u) joqei p Aep jed loid/jonpojd 6>i ub9|/\j E CO c Q. Q. O b > CD c E i o "S — c O O c CO o XJ t CO 0) ^ CD CD C CD 0 o o c o E CO c CD 0) a c CD C o o o D O T3 C ,_ CD CD CO *" i ^ I 2 CO-:? c o CD 0 CO i3 C ^ CD -5 CD -Q -C CD C CO E 2 o c 0 CD O CD "it I CO (D 11 o ^ c o Q. O 2 II 2 Q. 5> 2 .9 2 i_ — £^ C3^ C35 O "cD ^ E CD i CJ5 > cn ^ TCO ^ c ^ 0) (l> E CD CO O o o sz. o 0) 0^ O ^ o CO II C CD CD SZ (D Q. E TO CD (D E CD — 5 I
PAGE 193

168 C CL Q. O o > CD C i_ CD o o (0 CD 9 g '2 T3 C CD CO g s CD CO c CD o > CD CO >s CD o o D i o •o c c 2.i ^ 0) ^ o g C o E io i_ 3 o o o CO Q"J § >-ff CD c CD ^ CD CO — E^^ ^ o i y o <^ S m E 5 8£ If §8 o CD c a 1_ T— O CD 2 i2 > O c o o O (D o in CN CO CD O O D o O CD (D CD n n CD n n CO o o 00 CD in O 00 CD ^ CN o CD ^ CD CN CN CO O > O CN CO CN CD +1 +1 +1 CD CD +1 +1 CD o +1 +1 OQ in 00 oo ^CO oo o in CO CN oo CD CD iri CO CO in iri m CN CD CD CD CD X) X3 CD X3 CD O cn CO in in 00 O CO CO m O O 00 in csi d iri csi CN -H +1 -H +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 oo CO o ^. CN oo o CN cn CD CO 00 CO CD CO — ^ D CO H o o> 2 X o o Q. O o B c CD D D CO C^ O Q. O o CD CD Q. O 3 ^ ^ i I if I o o c in o CD II CO c CD I C s "c O) CO , X2 I O o O) ^ C CD a. c 2 b CO c i2 c J5 CD E CD 1 E o p E CD t CO

PAGE 194

169 CM D C O O C o E o ^ Q. o O CD E §2 i= CO £ ^ i 0) CO X) c v: CD o ro -Q o "2 0) 2 Q. J CO CD O o O ^ o O c CD E o c CD CD ^ 1(J) Q. TC >, Si CD E o c o o 0) 0) CO >H CO CD c Q. Ql O CD 0) "cD c CD k_ CD E CO C -D CD C 0 CD O CD iz J3 C CO" ^ 1 i3 _CD sz n ?l c > o E o II o Q. II 2 2 J o c c: CD QE o o CD X CD IT) CN CO 8 o T3 O CD 03 CD ID CD ID CD cx> CM CD 1^ lO oq CD CNI CM CO CD CD CD CD d d d d d +1 -H +1 +1 -H +1 +1 +1 +1 o If) IT) CO CO CN CO CD CD to CO CD lO CO c\i csi CD CD CD CD n ID CD ID ID CD CO CN Oi CM CD CO CM CD i~ CM in o CD CD d d d CD >. d d <^ +1 +1 +1 -H -H -H +1 o CD s O CO LO CM OQIO CM LO o CD CO CD LO CM 1— CO in CD lO 00 CD CD CD iD XJ CD ID ID CD C30 CD C30 CO CD CM CD CN CO T — CM CO CD ci CD o d d d d d +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 (D (J> 1^ 00 , T3 O B o C (D Q. p. O CO 3 (D I C CD 0 C 1 c E CD CD lIT CO

PAGE 195

170 However, for the bean cycle, the low-risk interaop (beans and husk tomato) provided greater economic return and a higher labor rate, calculated both at harvest time prices and with 25% fluctuations in price (Tables 6-3 and 6-4). Mean return per day of labor in this intercrop ($5.15) is greater than the typical agricultural wage for the area at that time ($3.33). Over the entire year, the return on the low-risk cropping system gave a labor rate comparable to that of the typical agricultural wage, even when considehng greater labor requirements and poor secondary yields in the cornbased intercrop. For the main crops, which are staple foods, markets are less stable than yields, and therefore it would be advantageous for the farm family to produce corn and beans rather than to buy them. At the same time, they could be receiving cash plus additional nutritional benefits from the secondary crops, particularly husk tomato (Figure 6-3). To improve overall return of the low-risk cropping system, however, yields of secondary crops in com would have to be increased. Improving the yield of cilantro is particularly promising, given this crop's relatively high return despite poor yield (Figure 6-2). When efficiency of resources is considered, production of the main crops per unit of capital inputs was the same for all treatments in the corn cycle, but in the bean cycle it was greater in the monoculture of bean than for the intercrops (Figure 6-5). Production costs were similar for the com and bean cycles, because the most costly input was fertilizer. However, the high production of corn in all treatments made differences in input costs less consequential than in the bean cycle, since production of beans in terms of weight was lower.

PAGE 196

171 (0 c CD m m c o o (Q Q. O i_ O i_ c CO O a. o o 0) c I 0 O O c o <0 -'J00 CM tisoo indu! JB||op jed p|d/ionpojd 6>j uea|/\| o J3 CO ^ CO c Q. Q. O o o > CD c CD I T3 C CO o \ 3 o o c o E CO c (U D c CD O O > o ^ CD "O ]q > > § ^ CD = TO CO := O 81 o o c T3 c CD CO c o CD E 0) CD 0) CD -O c ^ ^ O (u c JD I o D O O CD n a co' c CD 0} CO c CD CD CD II C to o CD II CD JD tj Q. CD If 15 CD 0) C O o II E o o CO I c CD > = (= O o o CD Q. CD O I CD 0) CO CD 0} I ^ CO S ^ 2 I2 cn t cn o 2 CD ^ =c E CD ^ ^ CD > > (D > > TCO CO m to CD ^ ™ 0) 0) S ^ ^ ^ z I c 0} T3 55 c a3 C CD O c CO

PAGE 197

172 For both cycles, efficiency of capital input can be improved, particularly by more efficient use of fertilizers The fertilization plan followed in the experiments ensured that there would be no nutrient deficiencies in the plants, so that lack of fertilization would not affect the results. Consequently, greater amounts of fertilizer were probably applied than necessary, which increased production costs unnecessarily. Therefore, net returns are conservative. Further studies are necessary to define optimum fertilizer use in these cropping systems with respect to optimization of economic return. In addition, as mentioned previously, yields of secondary crops can be improved to increase overall economic return of the intercrops. Energy Energy budgets for the corn and bean cycles are given in Tables 6-5 and 6-6. The largest energy input for both the corn and bean cycles is from urea. Nitrogen fertilizer is also the greatest source of energy input for U.S. corn production and is the most energy consumptive of all fertilizers (Pimentel and Burgess 1980, Lockeretz 1980). While the tomato crop is a high energy consumer in industrialized agriculture because of intense fuel and pesticide use (Fluck et al. 1992), in the current experiments, the bean and tomato treatment did not require considerably greater amounts of energy inputs. However, use of fossil fuel-based fertilizers can be reduced in all the cropping systems tested, by optimizing both quantity and placement. Further studies are needed to

PAGE 198

173 Table 6-5. Energy budgets for corn-based cropping systems, 1996 rainy season (high-risk interaop = corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli; low-risk interaop corn with black beans, cilantro and amaranth). Energy inputs and outputs (MJ/plot) Monoculture High-risk Low-risk intercrop intercrop Input Corn seed 5.624 5.624 5.624 Bean seed 2.659 2.659 Broccoli seed 0.003 Faba bean seed 0.525 Cilantro seed 0.230 Amaranth seed 0.008 Fertilizers: 15-15-15 0.773 Urea 99.096 148.699 148.699 DAP 24.280 36.501 36.501 Muriate of potash 3.310 4.976 4.976 Chicken manure 24.359 24.359 24.359 Labor 22.702 30.513 36.278 Total energy inputs 179.371 254.632 259.334 Output Corn 476.494 530.70 461.836 Beans 4.147 7.922 Broccoli 149.370 Faba beans 3.303 Cilantro 0.193 Amaranth 1.448 Total energy outputs 476.494 687.520 471.399 Energy values utilized are as follows: corn: 15.270 MJ/kg; beans: 14.270 MJ/kg; broccoli: 1.170 MJ/kg; faba beans: 14.270 MJ/kg; cilantro seed: 12.450 MJ/kg; cilantro leaves: 0,840 MJ/kg; amaranth seed: 15.650 MJ/kg; 15-15-15: 12.450 MJ/kg; urea: 27.542 MJ/kg; diammonium phosphate (DAP): 20.267 MJ/kg; muriate of potash: 2.763 MJ/kg; chicken manure: 2.471 MJ/kg; and human labor: 0.867-3.367 kcal/min (Gajaseni 1995; Lockeretz 1980; Pandya and Pedhadiya 1993; Pimentel 1980; Stout 1990).

PAGE 199

174 Table 6-6. Energy budgets for bean-based cropping systems, 1997 dry season (high-risk intercrop = black beans with tomato; low-risk intercrop = black beans with husk tomato). Energy inputs and outputs (MJ/plot) Monoculture High-risk intercrop Low-risk intercrop Input Bean seed 7.724 7.724 7.724 Tomato seed 0.004 Husk tomato seed 0.006 Fertilizers: 15-15-15 1.546 1.546 Urea 65.991 99.206 99.206 DAP 24.280 36.501 36.501 Muriate of DOtash 3.310 4.976 4.976 Captan 0.238 0.238 0.238 Labor 41.745 53.820 49.982 Total energy inputs 143.288 204.016 200.181 Output Beans 100.672 99.720 89.486 Tomato 12.186 Husk tomato 73.245 Total energy outputs 100.672 111.906 162.731 Energy values utilized are as follows: beans: 14.270 MJ/kg; tomato: 0.88 MJ/kg; husk tomato: 1.34 MJ/kg; 15-15-15: 12.450 MJ/kg; urea: 27.542 MJ/kg; diammonium phosphate (DAP): 20.267 MJ/kg; muriate of potash: 2.763 MJ/kg; Captan: 114.600 MJ/kg; and human labor: 0.867-3.367 kcal/min (Gajaseni 1995; Lockeretz 1980; Pandya and Pedhadiya 1993; Pimentel 1980; Stout 1990).

PAGE 200

175 determine to wtiat extent such reductions can be made without greatly affecting yields or economic returns. The percentage of total energy inputs derived from labor was between 1 1 and 32.5%. During the corn cycle, this percentage was greater for the intercrops than for the monoculture and greater for the low-risk than the high-risk intercrop (Figure 6-6). The increase in labor energy input from the monoculture to the high-risk intercrop and further to the low-risk intercrop was greater than the increase in energy from fertilizer use. The opposite occurred in the bean cycle, where the monoculture had the highest percent of energy inputs derived from labor and the low-risk intercrop had the lowest percent of labor energy inputs. Labor energy inputs for all treatments in the bean cycle were higher than in the corn cycle because of labor expended in irrigation during the bean cycle. In terms of energy productivity, quantity of pnncipal product (corn or beans) per energy input was the same for all treatments for both the corn and bean cycles (Figure 6-7). When energy inputs are compared to energy output in each cropping system, both the com and bean cycles again showed no difference in energy ratios among treatments (Table 6-7). Energy ratios for comparably managed subsistence corn production systems are variable, from 3.11 and 13.6 in Guatemala (Pimentel and Pimentel 1979, Leach 1976) to 128.3 in Mexico (Pimentel and Burgess 1980). It is useful to examine the efficiency of cropping systems both in terms of energy inputs from human labor and energy inputs derived from fossil fuels. Efficiency of labor energy inputs can indicate which system has higher net

PAGE 201

176 rop do o I i_ o 0) D c int 3 isk o o 1 Mon High Lowes CO as to CO o CO CN O eg in CD CD C LU O O I TS C CD O 3 c CD CD CD C CD CD CO I 0) O c ^ CO" O C CD 0) o c CD CO c CD ^ CO CD c 5 c o E CD CO 0} o o o n _CD E o •D > 0) D CO "5 Q. C > O) i c (3i "cD O 8 II Q. O i_ O 0) c o o o o Q. O CO o 0) c CO ^ o c:^ en CD O o c 0) o 0) Q. CD *O O O o o CO c CD E c 0} E CD CD O "cD E o "co CO c CD o TO a in o d II CD ^ Q. CD -•— ~ CO i2 I c CD 0} c 0) X3 CO c CD I C CD O (9=u) joqei luoj; s;ndu! ABjaue |bjo} jo o/„ uB9|/\j CD "O c CD C CO O c

PAGE 202

177 (0 c (D (D CO Q £ o o Q. O I— O i_ CO o Q. o o 0} c CO I O) 0) 0} o d CM GO o 8 o CNi o o o jndu! /^Bjeus p|/^ jed jo|d/ionpojd 6>i uea^M CD

PAGE 203

178 o i c o E o o II Q. O 2 ^ ^ II o 0) Sols CO b c ? ™ c o *p — ^ S V 2 C J2 CO 0) I05 CO 0) LU CO +1 g "cD L_ >C33 L_ 0} c CD c CD CO (D 0) o >. o c CD Q> CD 0) O c o O CO "3 cx c >, C3) C3) (D C LU cx> CJ> T— CN 00 q o o o o +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 CN CD C35 T— o CO CN T— q q (35 00 CO 0) 3 CL C >, Pin \JJ q 00 o o o o o _l_l 9 4-1 It +1 1 1 -H CD CD CN in CD CD CD cb CD 3 ^ CN csi o > S> CD c LU CO (J) G) o in csj q CN c CD CD CN CO +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 CO CN CN 00 CD T — CO in 00 cvj CN 00 CN D D O O c o Q. O o CD -*— c CO \_ 1 CI o o CO o CD D -— D O O c o o o CD CO I CD CD CO O >, o Q. O b 0) c CD O o c CO I o o o o s c CD 0 E 1^ CD ^c 5 o ^ c
PAGE 204

179 energy gained from the production of crops that can be used to perform other activities. On the other hand, inclusion of fossil fuel inputs gives an indication of which cropping system uses fossil fuel inputs more efficiently, an issue that will continue to gain in importance. For the corn cycle, energy outputs are slightly greater than total energy inputs, but are considerably higher when only labor energy inputs are considered. The energy ratios of total inputs in the bean-based cropping systems suggest energetic inefficiency (energy ratio < 1 ). Tomato and husk tomato are not energetically rich crops, and the bean harvest does not produce a large quantity of product, so output is lower than input. When efficiency of labor energy use is considered, however, energy output becomes greater than input, but there is still no difference between treatments (Table 6-7). In industrialized corn production, energy ratios are low because of high fossil fuel inputs. The ratio of corn energy output to fossil energy input has been estimated at 2.47 (Pimentel and Burgess 1980). In the present study, indirect fossil fuel inputs in the form of fertilizers contributed significantly to total energy inputs for both cornand bean-based cropping systems. As was true for economic return, the cropping systems probably have more energy input than is necessary, due to an abundance of synthetic fertilizer, causing the energy ratios to be low. Further studies of fertility management in these cropping systems are necessary to improve efficiency of fossil fuel-based energy use. Additionally, use of energy inputs from human labor can be made more efficient, particularly

PAGE 205

180 in the low-risk corn-based intercrop (corn with black beans, cilantro and amaranth). Germination problems led to labor-intensive planting of amaranth and cilantro that might have been alleviated by planting at a lower depth. Agronomic study of optimum hand planting techniques is needed to further improve energy efficiency. Nutrition When energy was evaluated in terms of total caloric yield regardless of agronomic inputs utilized, the low-risk cropping system in the bean cycle provided more energy than the other treatments (Table 6-8). In fact, for several nutritional components, either one or both of the alternative cropping systems produced significantly greater quantities than the monoculture, mostly in the bean cycle. While the only difference seen in the com cycle was for Vitamin C (corn has negligible amounts of this nutrient), 10 out of 14 nutrients were higher in the low-risk bean intercrop (beans with husk tomato) than the monoculture. Three of these were also higher in the high-risk treatment (beans with tomato) than in the monoculture. The most striking difference in nutrient yields was found for pro-Vitamin A (carotene), which although showing no difference among treatments for the corn cycle, was available in much greater quantity in both bean intercrops. The provision of pro-Vitamin A gives the intercrops an important advantage over the monoculture, because 11% of rural Guatemalan children suffer from Vitamin A deficiency (Menchu 1992). Protein and iron are other key nutrients often

PAGE 206

181 2 Q. , o >, CD £i L— T3 1 c isfie (J) 1 00 (0 tn terns ; low1996 CO CO >s o OJ ent CO Oi •ma durin c o ^ — D a. C Q. ato TJ o 0) o CO E t) CD c o (U > 03 of sel 0} X3 CO c i_ . o c o o CD CD CO XI Si CD CD CD CD CD CD CO CM CO O CD O 00 d CO CN CD +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 C3) CNI CO CD CD CD cn o CO o CD 00 a> CO ay cvj V.N CO CO UJ CO UJ CD CD CD CD CO CO CD CD CD O CO CO CO CD CN ID CO CO CD O O O CD o CD CN +1 +\ +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 -H +1 2.18 CO CN CO 3.17 ;ycle 8.67 OO CN ai 11.53 year 10.85 12.56 14.70 CD CD CD CO CO Oi CN CN O CO CO CO ai CO CN CO IT) CD CO in csi CO cn CO CD in 0) l_ D 13 O O c o o i o c CO 11 c "O CO in o CD II a CD C I C s 'c CO O c 0 l_ CO E CD CO CD Si o c 0} 'k_ D c CD [L o *CO CO CD C CD cn 3 E ? CD 5 2 I

PAGE 207

182 o >, o c o o 03 05 OJ 03 03 03 03 OJ 03 CO CO CM CM If) cn cn 1^ o CD O cn CN O CM CD in d CM d CO CM +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 4-1 4-1 4-1 4-1 CN Q cn in o ^ o CO CO CO CM O rr\ OO d CM ^CO U J csi Cn X — \^ J t — T — i3 OJ o CO O 0) O O CD o CM o o CD CM CO O o CM in CO d Osi d d CO CO d CO +1 +1 +1 +1 4-1 4-1 4-1 4-1 4-1 o o CO o o 00 ID O ._ o in in o d 00 d 0) d o >. CD O s CM in o T — 03 CO 03 in in o cn in Tc3i -sr 4-1 4-1 44 in in CD CD CM CD " O £k 0} 03 OJ OJ CD O 00 o in CD CO in CO O T — CM CO CN 4-1 4-1 44 4-1 -HI 4-1 CD CD CM CM O) in CJ) d CO CO CO in cn CM CD CO in 2^
PAGE 208

183 c £ CD > g o CD o 'c O c (0 c o (D Z c '> TO o 13 D 0) C c o o i I CD 0) CD H CD (D (D O 1^ OO CD O +1 -H +1 in WO C3^ C35 CM CD CD CXi CD O CD CD CD (D co csi +1 CN CN CO 0) O > o C CD ID LO O CD CN csi +1 +1 (j> in in CO +1 CD (D in CN CO +1 +1 in OO in TT CD CO ih in CD in CD CD CQ r> ^ CO in Tcb in 00 -H +i +1 CD CO 00 eg CD CD csi CD CO CO 0) O o S c O o c (0 III 0) o c CD 0} o CD CD CD CD in CD q in q in 00 CO 00 T — CO CN +1 +1 +) +1 +1 +1 O CO in 1 ^ CN O CM CD m Csi o CN ai CD CD CD CD q o CD T — CN hO o T — t — -CO CN -H +1 +1 -H +1 CO O CO OO CD in O CN OO CN CD ai CO )r year CD in CN CN n CD CD CD CO 1.13 1.28 7.00 Total 11.00 CD CN 00 18.79 +1 +1 +1 +1 4-1 +1 CD OO OO T— Oi CO CO CN q CD CO in CO CD w-csi n n CD CD CD CD CO CO CO CO CO CD CO CO in CD csi h~ in cxi +1 +1 -H +1 -H +1 o o CO co OO in o o o 00 00 in in in o o o o 2. r~ — CO i3 c (D T3 Z3 4-4 in o d II a "cD C I C CD O C g> CO O c CD L_
PAGE 209

184 LU c E < C E CO > I o a 0 3 C C o o i I CD CD CC (O (0 o> OO O) O 1^ lO CM CSJ +1 +1 +1 CO rv. CD (O TCO -r^ (0 m CO o If) lO CM lO CO CD +1 +1 +1 o o in CO CM CN CD oi ai CN CO CM en CO cc CO CD o S CN CO +1 +1 +1 CO TCO CD CD CM CM ^ CO CN O rfCO d CD T+1 +1 +1 CO CO r-o CD d TiD CO CO -"dCO O Csl lO 73 d CO T-^ >^ o c: +1 +1 +1 CD m o oo C\J CD d tv! CN CD CO (0 m CO 1CC CO CM CN d CM CD +1 +1 +1 TCD Nco T03 CM (Xi hCX) Nrop do rop do o k_ o o b o a> o i— _C C if c cult risk isk cult risk m o 1 O 1 Mon High LowMon( High LowiD ^ CD CO CD OD CM CO +1 +1 +1 1^ o CO 1csi r CM TxCN jQ iD CO CD ,_ CO r*. 00 CD CN C3) O ^ to iri CO £ +1 +1 +1 "CD o CO in 1ji: 1^ CO cri CM CM in CD CD CD o in cn ai +1 +1 +1 CM CO CD — 00 oo CO C35 <7) 2 & 3 ^ C o A V III in o d II a CD C (1) I T3 _> C CD O "c O) CO O c 0) I— (0 1_ 0)
PAGE 210

185 deficient in rural areas of the country, and while there were no differences among treatments in the corn cycle, the beans and husk tomato intercrop provided significantly greater amounts of iron than either the beans and tomato intercrop or beans alone. It should be noted that RDA values are based on recommendations for healthy individuals in the U.S. and are not considered appropriate guidelines for individuals with nutrient deficiencies (Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes 1997). Therefore, in the present analysis, the number of days the RDA is satisfied is not a strict measure of satisfactory dietary composition, but rather the values are meant for comparison of general nutntional benefits among alternative cropping systems. Cropping systems that provide nutritional diversity are advantageous to small-scale farmers with elements of both subsistence and commercial agriculture. The impacts of agricultural change on the nutritional status of such farming communities has been evaluated considerably. A shift to commercial production often causes a deterioration in nutritional status for the poorest families, partly as a result of reduced crop diversity. In these cases, families maintaining the greatest degree of food self-sufficiency tend to be better off from a nutritional perspective (Dewey 1981). The intercrops studied here can provide a greater degree of protection against the hazards of a shift to cash crops, and in particular the low-risk intercrop is the most advantageous in terms of nutritional yields.

PAGE 211

186 Conclusions For small-scale farm families in the process of commercialization, economic return may be the primary objective; however, their overall well-being can be jeopardized by narrowly based recommendations that ignore other goals such as dietary diversity and food security. The cornand bean-based intercrops tested were designed to meet all of these goals. To do so, an alternative cropping system must not only be capable of maintaining the level of yield of the respective corn or bean monoculture, but must also provide greater economic and nutritional return without incurring greater energy costs. For the alternative intercrops tested, the yields of the principal crops were not changed by the addition of secondary crops to corn or beans, for either the high-risk or the low-risk intercrop treatments. Furthermore, the low-risk intercrop in the bean cycle (beans with husk tomato) provided greater economic return and nutritional benefit than the bean monoculture, and these advantages persisted when that cropping system was analyzed on a per year basis (including the corn cycle). Additionally, the low-risk intercrop, with higher labor requirements, provided greater opportunity for labor productivity. In fact, for neither intercrop alternative was the net economic return per day of labor lower than in the monoculture. The advantages of the intercrop systems were not at the expense of energy costs, since the energy efficiency was the same for all treatments. There exists a need to improve economic returns and energy efficiency of the intercrops by increasing yields of secondary crops, particularly in the corn

PAGE 212

187 cycle, and optimizing the dollar return from fertilizers. Additionally, yields in the high-risk intercrop could be improved in both the corn and bean cycles by control of disease. However, given the problematic nature of chemical control and the difficulty in implementing Integrated Pest Management programs for small-scale tropical farmers, combined with a lack of exceptional potential economic returns from the crops involved, the wisdom of pursuing this line of research is questionable. The economic, energetic and nutritional analyses presented here suggest instead that improvements be made in yields and subsequent returns from the low-risk intercrop alternative. The research demonstrates that it is possible to start with the accepted production methods of the key staple food crops of a community, in this case corn and beans, and add to the system potentially beneficial crops that increase net economic return without risking food security or dietary diversity. Therefore, while further studies are needed to improve the low-risk alternative intercrop suggested here (corn intercropped with black beans, cilantro and amaranth followed by black beans intercropped with husk tomato), many other possibilities exist, and both researchers and small-scale farmers can explore their potential benefits.

PAGE 213

CHAPTER 7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Rising population and limited land available for agricultural production, coupled with the inability of the staple food crops, corn and beans, to satisfy the needs of highland Guatemalan families, has resulted in the need for more intensive production. Pressures have heightened to shift production to nontraditional export crops, which in themselves bring about ecological and economic instability for the small-scale farmer (Morales 1 993, Rosset 1 991 ). Therefore, the study presented here was designed to test the feasibility of selected intercrop systems that start with the essential food crops as the base and incorporate additional crops with potential benefits to the farm family. Relative Value of Alternative Cornand Bean-Based Cropping Systems in Minimizing Pest Problems An evaluation of insect, disease, and nematode pests, as well as damage to the main crops, revealed no evidence that the addition of the secondary crops tested would contribute to greater pest problems on either com or beans. In fact, seasonal density of the fall armyworm (S. frugiperda), a key corn pest in Central America, was higher on corn in monoculture than in the high-risk intercrop (corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli), and percentage of plants with insect damage was greater in the corn monoculture than either the high-risk intercrop or 188

PAGE 214

189 the low-risk intercrop (corn with black beans, cilantro and amaranth). In both the corn and bean cycles, the bean being tested in monoculture and intercropped with tomato (high-nsk) and husk tomato (low-risk), the intercrops tested did not increase pest problems on the staple crops and may even contribute to lower pest damage. The importance of natural pest control cannot be overemphasized for small-scale resource-poor farmers vAth limited access to information. Here, the intercrops did not reduce the population densities of beneficial insects on the main crops, making them compatible with strategies to conserve natural enemies. We cannot easily determine under what circumstances intercropping reduces pest populations and under what conditions the natural enemies hypothesis of Root (1973) is more important than the resource concentration hypothesis, because of the multitude of factors involved. Therefore, we cannot make intercropping recommendations that are relevant in all places and at ail times. However, the effects of chemical pesticides on natural enemies have been documented across cropping systems, geographic areas, and other conditions, so we can say with greater confidence that reducing pesticide sprays can increase the natural control of pests. For the most practical short-term solutions to small-scale farmers' needs, we should seek crop combinations that, in addition to providing greater economic returns and meeting other farmer objectives, do not require pesticide sprays, thereby permitting greater natural control. Of the alternatives tested, the low-risk intercrop was the most appropriate in terms of conservation of natural enemies.

PAGE 215

190 The trend toward commercialized, monocultural agriculture utilizing introduced crops displaces and ignores crop choices and management techniques that are based on natural crop protection strategies. The survey of small-scale farmers in the study area revealed their greatest constraints to be access to inputs and understanding of pest management. Although these farmers are often quick to adopt new crops, they continue to utilize traditional knowledge of agncultural methods, incorporating new crops into that domain. For example, some farmers produce newly introduced vegetables on traditionally constructed and irrigated terraces. Traditional Mayan agriculture has developed strategies to effectively manage soil, water, climate and space (Wilken 1987). In both the past and present, Mayan farmers have utilized resource management strategies involving vegetational diversity in socially and environmentally compatible ways (see, for example, Barrera et al. 1977, Vargas Rivero 1983, Brush 1981). However, the realm of traditional knowledge includes limited information on pest management, since pests have not historically been a problem. Moreover, small-scale farmers in the highlands of Guatemala have an inadequate information support system with respect to pest management. Extension services are minimal, insect identification services are non-existent in rural areas, and although an increasing number of non-governmental organizations have begun promoting organic agriculture in rural communities, much of the information farmers receive from nontraditional sources is based on recommendations for chemical pesticide applications.

PAGE 216

191 Given such strong constraints as mentioned above, instead of promoting cropping systems that to be sustainable would require teaching farmers the concepts and tactics of ecological pest management, a more practical approach would be to promote the choice of crops with appreciable economic return that have inherently limited pest problems when incorporated into the traditional agnculturai systems of the area. While teaching the complex concepts of pest management to farmers with limited access to information can be an overwhelming task (Barfield and Swisher 1994), small-scale farmers can more easily understand the merits of diversifying production to avoid risks and choosing crops not likely to be economically damaged by pests. The study described here evaluated only two alternative cropping systems, but by demonstrating that at least one intercropping system provided economic and nutritional advantages to the farmer, it opened the possibilities for farmer experimentation and refinement of a whole range of possible alternatives to find CTop combinations that provide such advantages without requiring complex pest management decisions. Developing in farmers a confidence in their own abilities to experiment to find appropnate crop choices is immensely simpler than teaching them the concepts and mechanics of pest management, and therefore is more likely to be successful. Relative Value of Alternative Cornand Bean-Based Cropping Systems in Providing Economic and Nutritional Benefits to the Farmer Com and beans are an essential component of traditional Mayan agriculture, and their production systems comprise a logical place to incorporate additional

PAGE 217

192 CTops, particularly given the religious and economic role of com in indigenous cultures of the Guatemalan highlands (Rojas Lima 1988). While the maintenance of these traditional crops provides for cultural needs in all the cropping systems tested, the intercrop alternatives were hypothesized to provide greater net economic and nutritional return than the monocultures. The high-risk interaop tested the incorporation of regional and export-market oriented crops with high potential for economic return under appropriate conditions, while the low-risk interCTop involved traditional and local-market oriented crops, which were considered to provide lower but more stable returns. Both alternatives and monocultures were tested without pest management, to examine the response of each system in the absence of the farmers' pest management options. Yields of secondary crops were low in both alternative intercrop systems involving com, but reasons for low yields differed by cropping system. Secondary crops in the high-risk interaop (corn with black beans, faba beans and broccoli) experienced severe pest damage that limited yields, while in the low-risk interaop (com with black beans, cilantro and amaranth), agronomic problems relating to germination considerably reduced plant stand. Hence, economic retums were not improved over the monoculture. However, two points are important to consider in reviewing the relative success of these intercrops. First, the yield of com, the main crop, was not reduced by the addition of secondary crops in either altemative, which means that there was still a yield advantage, as defined by Willey (1979). Any increase in yields due to improvements in agronomic practices would further inaease the yield advantage and eventually provide significantly greater economic

PAGE 218

193 return, since most of the inaease in production costs for the secondary aops was from greater labor requirements. Secondly, improving yields is more easily accomplished in the low-risk alternative by slightly modifying planting practices than it would be to increase yields in the high-risk alternative by adding hazardous pest control tactics or knowledge-intensive pest management tactics. While both intercrop alternatives have economic potential, the low-risk intercrop is more appropriate to the limitations of small-scale farmers in the area. The potential benefits of intercropping with traditional aops was more clearly seen during the bean cycle of the experiment, in which the low-risk intercrop (beans with husk tomato) provided significantly greater economic and nutritional returns than the bean monoculture. These differences were so great that the advantages persisted when the cropping systems were analyzed over the entire year, including the corn cycle. Consequently, with a limited area of land, greater economic and nutritional returns per year can be accomplished by intercropping certain secondary crops with the staple dietary crops, com and beans. Concluding Remarks From the farmers' perspective, the benefits derived from adding crops to corn and beans are not related to pests but to economic return and nutrition. By assuring that the addition of certain crops to corn and beans does not worsen pest problems, we can then concentrate on the direct benefits to the farmer. The next step involves refinements of the cropping system found to be most appropriate, the low-risk interaop, to further increase yields of secondary crops.

PAGE 219

194 particularly in corn. Farmers, as well as governmental and non-governmental organizations involved in local agricultural development, can be encouraged to continually experiment to discover other secondary crops that, when added to corn and beans, provide positive outcomes. From a societal perspective, benefits derived from such intercrops are broader in scope. Advantages of the selected cropping systems were tested in terms of economics, nutrition, energy and pest management, but there may be additional advantages not examined here. These may include agroecological benefits, such as positive effects on soil stmcture and fertility, or water management, as well as socio-economic or cultural benefits, such as long-term risk aversion, all of which may also serve the individual farmer. Additional benefits to the larger society may also be significant. For example, the conservation of plant and animal biodiversity is important for maintaining a genetically stable food base (FAO 1993, Oldfield and Alcorn 1987, Altien 1991a). Furthermore, the environmental contamination of soil and water, as well as public health concerns resulting from chemical pesticide use, could be reduced (Pimentel et al. 1 991 ). Finally, there may be an economic impact on the region if alternative production systems increase incomes of rural farmers who are potential consumers of goods and services. Different cropping systems may have differential impacts on the environmental and economic situation of both the individual farmer and the larger society. A complete analysis of the sustainability of each system would involve the complete an^ay of ecological and socio-economic components such as those

PAGE 220

195 mentioned above. However, the results of this study are sufficient to immediately recommend the promotion of the low-risk intercrop tested, particularly the combination of beans with husk tomato. More importantly, long-term development of alternative cropping systems can be improved by testing traditional crops with minimal pest problems in intercropping systems involving staple food aops. Traditional agricultural practices are better able to maintain the ecological and social integnty of the community, avoiding costly and harmful agricultural chemicals and fostering improved nutrition through yield diversity. It has therefore been proposed that agricultural development projects should attempt to increase productivity of traditional agricultural systems rather than substituting technologies inappropriate for resource-poor farmers (Altieri and Anderson 1986, Gliessman et al. 1981). The experiments involved in the study detailed here have tested crop combinations intermediary between traditional and export agricultural systems in the western Guatemalan highlands. The results of the study demonstrate the feasibility of appropriately combining crops in that region to provide for the needs of small-scale farmers to increase productivity, profits, and dietary security while maintaining traditional practices, at the same time accounting for the limitations of traditional pest management knowledge by choosing crop combinations with minimal pest problems.

PAGE 221

APPENDIX A DESCRIPTIONS OF SEASONAL TRENDS IN INSECT AND BENEFICIAL POPULATION DENSITIES, DISEASE AND DAMAGE ON CORN IN MONOCULTURE AND ALTERNATIVE INTERCROPS

PAGE 222

CD CN 0) o o c o E E o o .: O: : : e CM o CN 00 CO UJOO MOJLug 0 / aeAJBi ej9}dopods ou ub9|/\| 00 d CD d d CN d o d CD c c 00 (0 0) Q. Q. O O ^ 10) o o a>" U o c o E o o c CO c (0 I— cn E CD c CD 0) o _CD J3 O O O ^ i: XJ c o i5 b (TJ 0) 9E CD .:3 2 t o o o a c CD O O O O O c CO cn 0) ^
PAGE 223

198

PAGE 224

199 0) 3 o o c o E c o o o O broc ilantr •o o an pu to CD an C CD CD am CO CO c c CO CD CD J3 o o CD CD 1 c c o o O o CD CN CN 00 CD o CD O) c u "O ^ 2 D 0) O t— o c c o o . c Ll ns rai bea the

PAGE 225

200 o CM 8 c o E £ o O (0 c o o 03 O 1 ^ c c O o) 1 CO c CD o ^ (0 JO ^ E I o E O m I B CN cn d CD d d CD d in o d CO CM 1d d d Q. 0) I , c CD CD 5 s ^ CD O CO I8 I CD ^ C 0 o c CD C3) C •o E sz 2 I CO "O 03 £ .9 Q. £ O CD h CD id ~ CD O C r0) E O (0 O C CD 0) C 2:: CD 3 (D O o < c c CD CD E CD co" C CD CD O jD D CD Q. O O h ujoo MOJ-LU 9 0 Jad seujuj ^eei ou ub8^\| E o

PAGE 226

201 o. 2 3 O c o E i5 to c CD ._ -Q o ^ o o o CD > CO c c O m O E g 2 -Q -= ^ o a? jQ CO > CD ^ I' o E O CD I c c CD a. II (30 U CO (U iC CD CO 0) i CO d CD CD d d CO d CN d CD o c CD 03 si $ O) -D C 0) i= Q. ^ 2 d C-> £ 0) c — o E -D o c O CD 2 CD C -Q CD E 5 2 >4_ > -o
PAGE 227

202 o d CD CN CM O CN OO CD c Tj_C5 c CO Q. CO CO CO 1 o CD O ID O o o 00 o d o d o o ujoo MOJ-LU 9 0 Jsd esoe/o euei/OQ ou uBa|/\| o o c ^ d Q. CD O O O o c B CO I I o m = s O CO O CD C -Q 8 i E ^ o , c CD

PAGE 228

203 O) c c Q. CD CO o o 9. ^ Q. C Q. (D O — ^ -^^ T3 5 C C CD O o Q)" I— -— O O c CD CD E CD 0) 2 CO2 -6 ^ 3 CD — ^ -c i 5 C o

PAGE 229

204 V) an x: an m (D fab am CO (0 c c (0 (Q £ CD ._ CO -Q O o C o s 8 c E 1 E c c o o o D c O O CD o CD f • 1 CO o n CD CM CM C\J „ O CNI in CN CD o CN CD o in o d CD -B CN O O c c _CD CX k_ 0 CD CO 0 (D o ro i3 CD o o g c k_ o o 0) l_ 3 o o c o E c c o o E o 3 ro d. CO (O CD c (5 0) O) o c ro o •a c ro c ro ro E ro co" c ro CD iD o ro CO *^- to c 0) D c ro CD CD cx Q. O b c c o o o c ro o o o o CO ( < CD D ujoo Moj-Lu 9 0 Jed ds snsejas ou uBe|/\| TD c ro CO ro T-S ro o c CO o C w ro ro (D CD ^ CO

PAGE 230

205

PAGE 231

206 3 o o c o E o o CO c CD 03 X3 O TO X3 o $ 2 E 8 E c o 2 o i5 O O o CD CN CN CN CM O CM CO CD CD d CD UJOO MOJ-LU o CD O CD d CD 9 0 J9d ds esoudAQoejg ou uee^ CN CD 1 c ped duri do. o" o -* — 1 c s _CD c O c pu o CD o C CD i_ CD ocu am ion ns, E CD c be c o C o o E o CD C iD CD CL k_ iz 1 C CD

PAGE 232

207 O) c c Q. CO (D J) in o d o o o o o o >|00|q ijos Luo 9 1, X 02 X 02 / ds edeqdonAqd ou ub9|/\| O CO 5 to CO iS o -Q p ^ o -o U <]) O Q. o o CO o o (D CO i5 ^ C ._CO O O) p 0 Q.-D 2^ CO C ^ ^ s CD ca c o (0 CD 0) c CD ^ CD CO o e fig CD £ O T3 CO -So < Q. "O O C CO (D i= c CO E ^ o E O CO

PAGE 233

208 2 3 O i c o I E IE O iO CO an c CD CD CD am co" 100|q Ijos ujo 91. X 03 X 02 / 9bajb| eeoejjod eoifojqeia ou ub9i/\|

PAGE 234

209 c c CO 0) CD CO l> CO o CD O o CM O O O C30 O CD O d ujoo MOJ-LU 9 0 Jad spigdjAs ou ub9|/\| o CM o O O o o l_ 3 o o c c CD CD E CD CO c CD 0) i ^ JD £ o ^ o .-^ c > 0 -o CO §. cr 1 £ f2 8 C C CD CD ci = CO O O CD O -C O CD 15 CD o O CD CD CO ^
PAGE 235

210 9 O c o E £ o O c CD ._ o ^ o o o 11 c c O m 1 ^ 2 SI ^ o E ^6 o E O CD I o o o cn o 00 o \ • 4 / •I CD CN CM CM CM O CN 00 CD c i5 Q. ^ c CO n 2 2 B c c o o 2 3 o o c o E c _CD O a c CO x: -•-^ c CD co E CD CO c CD c i5 O XI CL JZ CO .t; CO ^ •2 ^ CD O CL ^ Q.
PAGE 236

211

PAGE 237

212 0) 3 ~5 o o c o E o O If) d an pu
PAGE 238

213 ujooMOJ-LU 9 0 Jed seiujLunuj piyde ou ue9^ > d D i: O C Q. 03 Q. — O O g ^ O is o to £ S 5 C "O o , (0 C ^5 < 0)

PAGE 239

214 3 o o c o E o 00 o o o o c tf) C (D 0 CD c ir CO o CM o o UJOO MOJ-OJ lO o CD o d 9 0 Jed ds moQ ou uee^^ -B CM o o d c CD (D iD o JD c CD cn c Q. Q. O o B c a c CD c x: o o CD t_ _2 3 o o c o E o o c o ci (/} $ o Q c CD CD E CD (O" c CD (D O _CD T3 CD Q. Q. O i_ O t_ 0) c o ~ CO CD to c CD T3 C CD
PAGE 240

215 i_ O O c o E c o o 05 o an pu CO CD an <]> C CD CD CD a am ai CO c c CD CD CD n n o o CD CD n n o c Be c o Po _CD "o ( CD CN CN CN CM £ E b o c r: 9J n l> CO 11 I? CD a c CD (D CD CO CD C 05 CD C3) CD 00 O CD O CD O in o o CO o CN O o o o o o o ujoo Moj-Lu 9 0 J9d luiAies snjdioou^ ou ueey^ o -B CN o o CD ^ (J) CD < ^ c o CO CD CD CO CD CD ^
PAGE 241

216 k— D 3 o o c o e o o an nd 0) an C (0 va k— (0 fab am to c c (0 (D (D o o CD (0 o c o o c I— o o t o O r> o 7^ 5 o I I CO CM CM CM c TO Q. CD O O s d 00 o CM O O O O O O UJOO MOJ-LU 9 0 J9d SpiOijSBJBd UBJSjdopodS UB9^ Q. tn CD CXJ o ^1 CD _. cL o < o o CO O C IS 5 "J CD 0) ^ CD CD ^ ? "J CD n Q. CD ? CO •fc: C cn ^ 2 CD ^ -Q Q. Jt: o o Q CD CO :£ CO P g b CO CD CD Q. Q. O o CD c o CO CD (D (0 >, c CD k— CD c a c ro o o c CD CD CD 0 c 1 8 C i~ CD 3 a c CD (D o o c o E .c c l_ o o O) o U. CO o CM I < CD C CD CD E CD co' c CD CD O TO (D o cn. O u 1— 0) c

PAGE 242

217

PAGE 243

218 (D 3 o o c o E o o I in CO o CO o o o broc llantr o an pu CD an C x> CD k_ 03 CD jQ CD >t— am co" (0 c c CD CD CD C C 0) CD x: CD -5 Z ^ II 2 § o E ^ o E O CD

PAGE 244

219 O (D

PAGE 245

220 CO (0 c3 rel C3) CO ds C CO c rat to bir E CO o E E E E E E o i_ o o o o o 4>*— 4— H— M— 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) O) CD O) O) O) O) CO CD CD CD 03 CD E E E E E E (0 OJ CO CO CO Q Q Q Q Q Q Dl 0 0 CO "O ^ CD CO ^ n ffl 9 CD CD E O

PAGE 246

221 CO o $ 2: O) h: CO C CO JO CO E E E E E E 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 O 0) CD > n -o o IS if £ S 1 § 0} CO O CD is c to C 0) O JO c o JO 0)" 2 ^ 8 1 ^-^ ^" 8CD Ir O) o ^ CD % 1 a c CO o -o c — CD o o o o (D Q. UO T3 CN C < 2 3 "3 O) CD peSBLuep SJB9 p }u90J9d ueai/^ CO .to

PAGE 247

222 v> "a £ c c ^ CD CD

^ th: >^ Ii_ CI) O 0) CD CD CD O) O) O) O) CT O) CD CD CD CD CD CD E E E E E E CD CD CD CD CD CD Q Q Q Q Q Q B ID 0 B b CO CO C C CD CD CD CD n J3 O O O O ^ CD O CD (D c CD £ O o o E o O O O CO O CN paSeiuep sjea p ;u30J3d uea^ CO c CD -Q cj) ^ C3) O T_CD ^ ^ CD o 2 CD O SO (D 2 P E J o -o o c ^ o O o c o E c CD CO c CD o o ^ .£ eg (D CO "O o •a CD O) CD CD E c CD D C CO b CD "D XC O CD
PAGE 248

223 to "D £ c c (D CD ^ _2 O O CD — 5 o c CD i_ CD E CD to to c „ CD CD H to t; .£ 2 E E o o O) o> CD CD E E CD CD Q Q m to -Si c D "a ^ o!= E "S to ^ to t: E E E E 2 2 2 2i >—>—•— ItCD 0} (D (D 0)0)0)0)' CD CD CD CD E E E E CD CD CD CD Q Q Q Q, [ 0 B C2 O O O O CD lO TT 00 CM o E CD (D > O z 1 T3 C (U CD ddo mar o CO ter pui c CD c O o c o TO CD O to* c CD o (D o UOLU lack c J3 o x: o _c o oT (U o Q. Q. 3 O O i_ to O u. 03 C o" (D c O) o CD o E "O CD c o CD CO L_ CD O CD O O roc c n CD o O c i_ CD CD a. to c CD (D CN X2 t < CD ki5 CD oy O) to O) Ll C TCD
PAGE 249

224 0) tn -*- rel o (D CO ds -— _c o> c CD *— 0) (U CO c CD (D XI o CD x: CD O i_ o CO >, XI d CD O) CD E CD o (0 •D 0 Q. Q. O o 0) c o o T3 c CD CD 75 CD -o CD Q. CO CN < CD C CD LL C tCD (D CD X> CM

PAGE 250

APPENDIX B DESCRIPTIONS OF SEASONAL TRENDS IN INSECT AND BENEFICIAL POPULATION DENSITIES, DISEASE AND DAMAGE ON BEAN IN MONOCULTURE AND ALTERNATIVE INTERCROPS

PAGE 252

227

PAGE 253

228

PAGE 254

229

PAGE 255

230

PAGE 256

231

PAGE 257

232

PAGE 258

233

PAGE 259

234

PAGE 260

235 >ioo|q ijos UJO 91. X 02 X 02 J9d ds eBendonAqd ou ub9|/\|

PAGE 261

236 ueaq moj-lu ^ q J9d epidei emueoeiqoejg ou ueai^

PAGE 262

237

PAGE 263

238 CD E CD CO 00 o CO CN o 3 o c E^ CD C CD $ o C (D o "o Q. (D *^ £ o o 0) CD E S O c CO sq 1-^ li c ^ CD -„ 0 P91S9;U! SlUB|d p JU90J9c| j^: Q. CD ^ O TO ^cx o c on CD E 0) o CO ^ 2 §: D o c

PAGE 264

239

PAGE 265

APPENDIX C DESCRIPTIONS OF SEASONAL TRENDS IN NEMATODE POPULATION DENSITIES IN CORN AND BEAN CROPPING SYSTEMS

PAGE 266

CO rop do o o 0) u. D c c cult risk isk o L_ l\on> ligh owo CO CM Q. < CD CD E o (D Q 05 (D E Q.
PAGE 267

242 8^ n E 8 (D Q CD cn 05 (D E (D Q. (D CO (0 Q c Q. E 03 (D Oi "O c CD o c o o CO <1> O "O = 9? o o o o o a c 3 O o c o E E o l_ u— CO 0) Q. E CD CO O CO c CD v_ CD E CO ^ C "O CD C 0) CD O -Q C i5 CD o co" c CD CD O CO c CD (D o TO CL. CI. CO di O) o CO 0) m c Q csi I O CD i_ c o Q. O J£ 2 CD O C CD ^ .1 .52 V 1^ l!OS gUJo 00 t/sepoieoiau ou ub91/m CO >m 2 E E 52 5 o ^ ^ 5 = CO ^ CD c -n C CD ^ o ro ^ J3

PAGE 268

243 B "(5 Q c E CD CO T3 CD ^ O CD "O >. o ^ = D % O O o o o o a c o o CD CO o •D C o o c o E E o CO C CD CD X) CD co' c CD n O CD E o CO D a c CD CO c CD CD XI

PAGE 269

244 U o o c o 3 = E CO 1 CO I I 0) CD Q a> c E CD CO 00 CO CM l!OS eujo 00 Usepo^BLuau ou ub9|/\|

PAGE 270

245 0) O o c o Q. O o 0) C a o o o c CO 13 I "D C CD T3 0) •o — (0 0) c ^ 03 CO Q. sz CO c c CD o o n CO CO 1 / / f," / / / / / / / / / • / / / • 1 ^ — o C35 C35 Q. < CD CJ) CD n E (D O CD Q CD CD 0) E Q. 0) CO CD C3) CD 0} CD Q o> c Q. E CD CO i3 O ^ o 21 § O C O CD L_ CD ^ CD t) O 52 O ^ c CD E ^ .CD CO Si CO o CL O cL b to O x: •P O CO C Q. Q) O 0 c 1 > S E Q 5> Id I O c CD CD E CD D C CD O c O co" c CD 0) o CD sz c o o o o 0) c CO O CD ~ E o" 2 CD ^ E 2 E "D XJ c c CD CD CO c CD CD u i5 in c CD CD O TO l!OS etuo 00 L/sapojBLuau ou ub9|/\| ^1 u. e CD CD "O "D o o o o

PAGE 271

246 0) 2 o 9 IjOS eUJO 00 USapO}BLU9U OU CD ^ i CD g> Q LL ^ D c CD CD 3 CO SI X CD CO c CD 0) J3 JO o CD

PAGE 272

247 cn Q. < CD (D E ^ i!? E c CO o o lios eaio 00 l/sapoiBLueu ou ub9|/\| c o CO Q0) o 0 <1.1 0) ^ C CO y V CO C3) 2 z CD ^ Ci. CO Q. P 1 > CO 15 S E Q S CO ^ Q 2 -D Li'C CO o o •4— o Q. O O c CO O CO ~ E o o E 2 ^ D -O c c CO CD CO CO c c CO CO 0
PAGE 273

248 (D (0 a a> c Q. E (0 CO o i _o ~ o o o o o o c 03 W c CD CD CD C CO CD E CD D C CD O 5 -r ^ o o c o E E o k_ M— CO Q. E CD m o CO CO c CD 0) o JD C o o .5= O (0 •o o CD E c CO o O > c3 CD J3 CO 0) CO c CD Q en I o 0) o o 0) c CO I !c CO Q. O b I— 03 C 0 > CD C I— "CD O c CD CO c CD 03 O c o o Q. O o 03 c CO I o 03 |!0S eUJO 00 1./S9P0}BLU9U OU UB9|/\| c CD "c CD 03 J3 CD E o D C CD CO c CD 03 O ro JQ > "O o o CD E o CO C CD CO c CD 03 O JD

PAGE 274

249 05 Q. < cn CD 0) E 8 Q CD cn E 0} Q. T — 0) Q O) c CI E cn >< 7=; O Cj
PAGE 275

250 CM i2 rop do o 0) cultun c c risk isk 1 o 1 Mon High Lowo CD Q o> c Q. E OJ CO o c o CO 0) 3 o o c o E E o >— CO O Q. E (D CO O CO o O O O I— X) D C CD CO c 03 0) ^ CD vi c CD 0) n o _CD c CD CD E CD D C CD O c _CD O co" c CD CD n o _CD 113 5 ^ c ^ o o to 0) •o o "cD E o c CO 3 o o > "c E o o to 0) to c o Q Q. o o 0) c CO I !c CO Q. o o 0) c 0) > CD c o o Q. o o c CO ^ 2 O (D ~ E o 2 Id E O m o CO o -a c c CD CD CO CO c c CD CD CD (D o o i5 i5 IIOS eUJO 00 l./S9p0iBLU9U OU UBa|/M "a c CD "c CD (D XI D I o >. x> % o p o

PAGE 276

251 l!os £[iio 00 t/sepoiBLU9u ou UBe|/\j ^ £ £

PAGE 277

252 o CO o o CO o in o o CN o in 3J Oo o o in n E o Ql c Q. E CD >, CD IIOS ZWO 00 L/SSpOlBLUeU OU UB9|/\| i o o o o ^ = ^ r: O P c CD c CD CD E CO CO "J

PAGE 278

REFERENCES Altieri, M A. 1980. Diversification of corn agroecosystems as a means of regulating fall armyworm populations. Fla. Entomol. 63(4):450-456. — 1984a. Desarrollo de estrategias para el manejo de plagas por campesinos, basandose en el conocimiento tradicional. CIRPON Revista de Investigacion 2(3-4): 151 -164. — 1984b. Pest-management technologies for peasants; a farming systems approach. Crop Prot. 3(1).87-94. — 1987. Agroecology, the scientific basis of alternative agriculture. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. — 1990a. The ecology and management of insect pests in traditional agroecosystems, pp. 131-143. In D A. Posey and W.L. Overal [eds.], Proceedings of the First International Congress of Ethnobiology, 12-22 July 1988. Vol. 1., Belem, Brazil. — 1990b. Why study traditional agriculture? pp. 551-564. In C.R. Carroll, J.H. Vandermeer and P.M. Rosset [eds.], Agroecology. McGraw-Hill New York. — 1991a. Increasing biodiversity to improve insect pest management in agroecosystems, pp. 165-182. In D.L. Hawksworth [ed.]. The Biodiversity of Microorganisms and Invertebrates: Its Role in Sustainable Agnculture. CASAFA Report Series No. 4, CAB International, London. — 1991b. Traditional farming in Latin America. The Ecologist 21(2):93-96. — 1992. Sustainable agricultural development in Latin America: exploring the possibilities. Agric. Ecosyst. and Environ. 39:1-21. Altieri, M A. and M. K. Anderson. 1986. An ecological basis for the development of alternative agricultural systems for small farmers in the Third World. Am. J. Alter. Agric. 1:30-38. Altieri, M.A., M.K. Anderson and L.C. Merrick. 1987. Peasant agnculture and the conservation of crop and wild plant resources. Conserv. Biol. 1(1):49-58. 253

PAGE 279

254 Altieri, M.A., W.J. Lewis, D.A. Nordlund, R.C. Gueldner and J.W. Todd. 1981. Chemical interactions between plants and Trichogramma wasps in Georgia soybean fields. Prot. Ecol. 3: 259-263. Altieri, M.A. and J. Trujillo. 1987, The agroecology of corn production in TIaxcala, Mexico. Hum. Ecol. 15(2); 189-220. Andow, D A. 1990. Population dynamics of an insect herbivore in simple and diverse habitats. Ecology 71 (3); 1006-1 01 7. — 1991a. Vegetational diversity and arthropod population response. Annu Rev Entomol. 36: 561-586. — 1991b. Yield loss to arthropods in vegetationally diverse agroecosystems. Environ. Entomol. 20(5): 1228-1 235. — 1992. Population density of Empoasca fabae (Homoptera: Cicadellidae) in weedy beans. J. Econ. Entomol. 85(2):379-383. Andrews, K.L. 1980. The whorlworm, Spodoptera frugiperda, in Central America and neighboring areas. Fla. Entomol. 63(4):456-467. — 1988. Latin American research on Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Fla. Entomol. 71(4):630-653. Andrev^, K.L., J. W. Bentley, R. Diaz D., E. Sanchez & F. Salinas, 1993, Changing perceptions and practices of Central American smallholders, pp. 135-146. In J. P. Srivastava and H. Alderman [eds.], Agriculture and Environmental Challenges. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Agricultural Sector Symposium. The World Bank, Washington, DC. Andrews, K.L., and J. R. Quezada. [eds.]. 1989. Manejo integrado de plagas insectiles en la agricultura: estado actual y future, Departamento de Proteccion Vegetal, Escuela Agrfcola Panamericana, El Zamorano, Honduras. Baliddawa, C.W. 1985. Plant species diversity and crop pest control, an analytical review. Insect Sci. Applic. 6(4):479-487. Barfield, C. S. and R. J O'Neil. 1984. Is an ecological understanding a prerequisite for pest management? Fla. Entomol. 67(1): 42-49. Barfield, C S and M. E. Swisher. 1994. Integrated pest management ready for export? Food Rev Int. 10(2): 215-267.

PAGE 280

255 Barker, K.R. and J. P. Noe. 1987. Establishing and using threshold population levels, pp. 75-81. In J.A. Veech and D.D. Dickson [eds.]. Vistas on Nematology, A Compendium of the Twenty-fifth Anniversary of the Society of Nematologists. Society of Nematologists, Inc., Hyattsville, Maryland. Barker, K.R., D.P. Schmitt and J.L. Imbriani. 1985. Nematode population dynamics with emphasis on determining damage potential to crops, pp. 135-148. In J N. Sasser and C.C. Carter [eds.], An Advanced Treatise on Meloidogyne, Vol. I. Biology and Control. Dept. of Plant Pathology, North Carolina State University and U.S. Agency for International Development, Raleigh, NC. Barrera, A., A. Gomez-Pompa and C. Vazquez-Yanes. 1977. El manejo de las selvas por los Mayas: sus implicaciones silvicolas y agricolas. Biotica 2(2):47-61. Beets, W. 1982. Multiple cropping and tropical farming systems. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Bellon, M.R. 1991. The ethnoecology of maize variety management: a case study from Mexico. Hum. Ecol. 19(3):389-417. Bentley, J.W. 1989a. Perdida de confianza en conocimiento como resultado de extension agrlcola entre campesinos del sector reformado en Honduras Ceiba 30(1):47-64. — 1 989b. What farmers don't know can't help them: the strengths and weaknesses of indigenous technical knowledge in Honduras Aqric Hum Values 6(3): 25-31. Bentley, J.W, and K. L. Andrews. 1991. Pests, peasants, and publications: Anthropological and entomological views of an integrated pest management program for small-scale Honduran farmers. Hum. Organ 50(2): 113-124. Berardi, G.M. 1978. Organic and conventional wheat production: examination of energy and economics. Agro-Ecosystems 4:367-371 Best, R.L., C.C. Beegle, J.C. Owens and M. Ortiz. 1981. Population density, dispersion and dispersal estimates for Scarites substhatus, Pterostichus chalcites and Harpalus pennsylvanicus (Carabidae) in an Iowa cornfield. Environ. Entomol. 10:847-856. Bock, M.A., J. Sanchez-Pilcher, L.J. McKee and M. Ortiz. 1995. Selected nutritional and quality analyses of tomatillos {Physalis ixocarpa). Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 48:127-133.

PAGE 281

256 Bottenberg, H. and M E. Irwin. 1992a. Canopy structure in soybean monocultures and soybean-sorghum mixtures: impact on aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae) landing rates. Environ. Entomol. 21(3):542-548. — 1992b. Flight and landing activity of Rhopalosiphum maidis (Homoptera: Aphididae) in bean monocultures and bean-corn mixtures. J. Entomol. Sci. 27(2): 143-1 53. Boudreau, M A. and C.C. Mundt. 1992. Mechanisms of alteration in bean rust epidemiology due to intercropping with maize. Phytopathology 82 10511060. — 1994. Mechanisms of alteration in bean rust development due to intercropping in computer-simulated epidemics. Ecol. Appl. 4(4):729-740. Bressani, R. 1994. Composition and nutritional properties of amaranth, pp. 185205. In 0. Paredes-Lopez [ed.], Amaranth, Biology, Chemistry and Technology. CRC Press, Boca Raton. Brookfield, H. and C. Padoch. 1994. Appreciating agrodiversity: A look at the dynamism of diversity of indigenous farming practices. Environment 36(5):7-11, 37-45. Brown, J.E. W E. Splittstoesser and J.M. Gerber. 1985. Production and economic returns of vegetable intercropping systems. J. Amer. Soc Hort Sci. 110(3):350-353. Brush, S B. 1981. Estrategias agricolas tradicionales en las zonas montanosas de America Latina, pp. 65-76. In A.R. Novoa and J. Posner [eds.], Agricultura de Ladera in America Tropical. Centre Agronomico Tropical de Investigacion y Ensenanza, Turrialba, Costa Rica. — 1983. Traditional agricultural strategies in the hill lands of tropical America. Culture and Agriculture 18:9-16. — 1986. Genetic diversity and conservation in traditional farming systems J Ethnobiol. 6(1): 151 -167. Brust, G.E., B K. Stinnerand D A. McCartney. 1986. Predator activity and predation in corn agroecosystems. Environ. Entomol. 15:1017-1010. Bukasov. S M. 1981. Las plantas cultivadas de Mexico, Guatemala y Colombia. Version al espariol de Jorge Leon, de la traduccion inglesa de M.H. Byleveld. Centre Agronomico Tropical de Investigacion y Ensenanza, CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica.

PAGE 282

257 Bunch, R. 1982. Two ears of corn, a guide to people-centered agricultural improvement. World Neighbors, Oklahoma City. Caesar, K. 1990. Developments in crop research for the Third World. Ambio 19(8): 353-357. Can, F., M.C. Rush, R.A. Valverde, J.L. Griffin, R.N. Story, W.A. Young, W.J. Blackman and P.W. Wilson. 1991-92. Tomatillo: a potential new vegetable crop for Louisiana. Louisiana Agriculture 35{2):21-24. Capinera, J.L, D.R. Norton, N.D. Epsky and P L. Chapman. 1987. Effects of plant density and late-season defoliation on yield of field beans. Environ Entomol. 16:274-280. Carballo, M, and J.L. Saunders. 1990. Manejo del suelo, rastrojo y plagas: interacciones y efecto sobre el maiz. Turrialba 40(2): 183-1 89. Cardona, C. 1989. Insects and other invertebrate bean pests in Latin America, pp. 505-570. In H.F. Schwartz and M. A. Pastor-Corrales [eds.]. Bean Production Problems in the Tropics. 2"^* ed. Centre Intemacional de Agriculture Tropical, Call, Colombia. Cardona, C, R. Gonzalez and A.V. Schoonhoven 1982. Evaluation of damage to common beans by larvae and adults ofDiabrotica balteata and Cerotoma facialis. J. Econ. Entomol. 75:324-327. Castaneda, 0 P de Castaneda, E. Granados and A. Hernandez. 1994. La agricultura organica in el contexto Guatemalteco. Asociacion Suiza para el Desarrollo y la Cooperacion, HELVETAS, Guatemala. CATIE. 1979. Crop Genetic Resources in Central America. Centre Agronomico Tropical de Investigacion y Ensenanza, Turrialba, Costa Rica — 1990a. Guia para el manejo integrado de plagas del cultivo de mai'z. Serie Tecnica, Informe Tecnico No. 152. Programa de Mejoramiento de Cultivos Tropicales, Centre Agronomico Tropical de Investigacion y Ensenanza, CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica. — 1990b. Gui'a para el manejo integrado de plagas del cultivo de tomate. Serie Tecnica, Informe Tecnico No. 151. Programa de Mejoramiento de Cultivos Tropicales, Centre Agronomico Tropical de Investigacion y Ensenanza, CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica.

PAGE 283

258 Chacon, J.C. and S.R. Gliessman. 1982. Use of the "non-weed" concept in traditional tropical agroecosystems of south-eastern Mexico. AgroEcosystems 8:1-11. Chiang Lok, M.L., W. Heyer, B, Cruz and R. Caballero Grande. 1986. Metodos de observacion para el estudio de la fluctuacion diaria de algunos insectos del frijol. Reporte de Investigacion del Institute de Investigaciones Fundamentales in Agricultura Tropical. Academia de Ciencias de Cuba. Christie, J R. and V.G. Perry. 1951. Removing nematodes from soil. Proc. Helminthol. Soc. Wash. 18(2): 106-1 08. Clark, K.M., W.C. Bailey and R.L. Myers. 1995. Alfalfa as a companion crop for the control of Lygus lineolaris (Hemiptera: Mindae) in amaranth. J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 68(2): 143-1 48. Clawson, D.L. 1985. Harvest security and intraspecific diversity in traditional tropical agriculture. Econ. Bot. 39(1):56-67. Colchester, M. 1991 Guatemala: The clamour for land and the fate of the forests. The Ecologist 21 (4): 177-1 85. Coll, M. and D. G. Bottrell. 1994. Effects of nonhost plants on an insect herbivore in diverse habitats. Ecology 75(3): 723-731. — 1996. Movement of an insect parasitoid in simple and diverse plant assemblages. Ecol. Entomol. 2:141-149. Conway, G.R. 1987. The properties of agroecosystems. Agric. Systems 24: 95— 1994. Sustainability in agricultural development: trade-off between productivity, stability and equitability. Journal of Farming Systems research-extension 4(2): 1-1 4. Cortez M., H. and J. Trujillo A. 1994. Incidencia del gusano cogollero y sus enemigos naturales en tres agrosistemas de maiz. Turrialba 44(1): 1-9. Cromartie, W.J. 1991. The environmental control of insects using crop diversity, pp. 183-216. In D. Pimentel [ed.], CRC Handbook of Pest Management in Agriculture, Vol. 1. 2nd ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Cuevas Garcia, J. 1993. Plagas del suelo en maiz y cacahuate de temporal en Nayarit, Mexico, pp. 1 13-127. In M.A. Moron [ed.], Diversidad y manejo de

PAGE 284

259 plagas subterraneas. Publicacion especial de la Sociedad Mexicana de Entomoiogia e Institute de Ecologia, Xalapa, Veracruz, Mexico. Dazhong, W. and D. Pimentel 1984. Energy flow through an organic agroecosystem in China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 11:145-160. DeBouck, D.G. 1994. Beans {Phaseolus spp.), pp. 47-62. In Hernandez Bermejo, J.E. and J. Leon [eds.], Neglected Crops, 1492 From a Different Perspective. FAO Plant Production and Protection Series No. 26. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Deere, CD. and R. Wasserstrom. 1981. Ingreso familiar y trabajo no agricola entre los pequefios productores de America Latina y el Caribe, pp. 151167. In A.R. Novoa and J. Posner [eds.], Agriculture de Ladera en America Tropical. Centre Agronomico Tropical de Investigacion y Ensenanza, Turrialba, Costa Rica. den Biggelaar, C. 1991. Farming systems development: synthesizing indigenous and scientific knowledge systems. Agric. Hum. Values 8(1-2):25-36. Dewey, K.G. 1981. Nutritional consequences of the transformation from subsistence to commerical agriculture in Tabasco, Mexico. Hum Ecol 9(2):151-187. Edwards, C. A., T L. Grove, R. R. Harwood & C. J. P. Colfer. 1993. The role of agroecology and integrated farming systems in agricultural sustainability Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 46: 99-121. Elbow, G. S. 1974. Environmental perception and agricultural practices in a highland Guatemalan municipio. Mimeograph, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas. Elstrom, K. M., D. A. Andow& W. W. Barclay. 1988. Flea beetle movement in a broccoli monoculture and diculture. Environ. Entomol. 17(2): 299-305. Escalada, M. M. and K. L. Heong. 1993. Communication and implementation of change in crop protection, pp. 177-183. In D. J. Chadwick and J. Marsh [eds.]. Crop protection and sustainable agriculture. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., West Sussex, England. Evans, D C. and P A. Stansly. 1990. Weekly economic injury levels for fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) infestation of corn in lowland Ecuador. J. Econ. Entomol. 83(6):2452-2454. FAO. 1993. Valor nutritive y usos en alimentacion humana de algunos cultivos autoctonos subexplotados de mesoamerica. Compilado por R. Bressani.

PAGE 285

260 Oficina Regional de la FAO para America Latina y el Caribe. Santiago, Chile. Feeny, P. 1976. Plant apparency and chemical defense. Recent Advances in Phytochemistry 10:1-40. Field, L. 1991. Tools for indigenous agricultural development in Latin America: an anthropologist's perspective. Agric. Hum. Values 8(1-2):85-92. Fitt, G.P. 1989. The ecology of Heliothis species in relation to agroecosystems. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 34:17-52. Flint, M.L. and P A. Roberts. 1988. Using crop diversity to manage pest problems: some California examples. Amer. J. Alt. Agric. 3(4): 163-1 67. Fluck, R.C. 1979. Energy productivity: a measure of energy utilization efficiency in agricultural systems. Agric. Systems 4:29-37. — 1992. Energy of human labor, pp. 31-37. In R.C. Fluck [ed.], Energy in World Agriculture, Vol. 6. Energy in Farm Production. Elsevier, New York. Fluck, R.C. and R.C. Baird. 1980. Agricultural energetics. AVI Publishing Company, Inc., Westport, CT. Fluck, R.C, CD. Baird, and B. S. Panesar. 1992. The energy required in the production of vegetables in Florida. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 105:330333. Fortnum, B.A. and R.E. Currin III. 1993. Crop rotation and nematicide effects on the frequency of Meloidogyne spp. in a mixed population. Phytopathology 83:350-355. Foster, M. A. and W. G. Ruesink. 1986. Modeling black cutworm-parasitoidweed interactions in reduced tillage corn. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 16 1328. Francis, CA. 1985. Rationality of new technology for small farmers in the tropics. Agriculture and Human Values 2(2):54-59. Francis, C.A., R.R. Harwood and J.F. Parr. 1986. The potential for regenerative agriculture in the developing world. Am. J. of Alter. Agric, 1:65-74. Franzluebbers, A.J. and CA. Francis. 1995. Energy output: input ratio of maize and sorghum management systems in eastern Nebraska. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ, 53:271-278.

PAGE 286

261 Freckman, D.W. 1988. Bacterivorous nematodes and organic-matter decomposition. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 24:195-217. Fujisaka, S. 1991 What does "build research on farmer practice" mean? Rice crop establishment (Beusani) in Eastern India as an illustration. Agric. Hum. Values 8(1-2):93-98. Funderburk, J., L. Higley and G.D. Buntin. 1993. Concepts and directions in arthropod pest management. Adv. Agron. 51:125-172. Gajaseni, J. 1995. Energy analysis of wetland rice systems in Thailand. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 52:173-178. Gallaher, R.N. and R. McSorley. 1993. Population densities of Meloidogyne incognita and other nematodes following seven cultivars of cowpea. Nematropica 23:21-26. Gallaher, R.N., R. McSorley and D.W. Dickson. 1991. Nematode densities associated with corn and sorghum cropping systems in Florida. Suppl. J. Nematol. 23(4S):668-672. Garcia, M A. 1991. Arthropods in a tropical corn field: effects of weeds and insecticides on community composition, pp. 619-634. In D.W. Price [ed.], Plant-Animal Interactions: Evolutionary Ecology in Tropical and Temperate Regions. John Wiley, New York. Gladwin, C.H. 1980. A theory of real-life choice: applications to agricultural decisions, pp. 45-85. In P. Barlett [ed.], Agricultural Decision Making: Anthropological Contributions to Rural Development. Academic Press, Inc., New York. — 1989. Indigenous knowledge systems, the cognitive revolution, and agricultural decision making. Agric. Hum. Values 6(3):32-41. Glass, E H. and H.D. Thurston. 1978. Traditional and modern crop protection in perspective. Bioscience 28(2): 109-1 14. Gliessman, S R. 1980. Aspectos ecologicos de las practicas agrfcolas tradicionales en Tabasco, Mexico: aplicaciones para la produccion. Biotica 5(3):93-101. — 1992. Agroecology in the tropics: achieving a balance between land use and preservation. Environ. Manage. 16(6): 681-689.

PAGE 287

262 Gliessman, S R., R. Garcia and M. Amador A. 1981 The ecological basis for the application of traditional agricultural technology in the management of tropical agro-ecosystems. Agro-Ecosystems 7:173-185. Goldman, A. 1991. Tradition and change in postharvest pest management in Kenya. Agric. Hum. Values 8(1-2):99-1 13. Gonzalez, R., C. Cardona and A. V. Schoonhoven. 1982. Morfologia y biologia de los crisomelidos Diabrotica balteata LeConte y Cerotoma facialis Erickson como plagas del frijol comun. Turrialba 32(3):257-264. Goodell, G. 1984. Challenges to international pest management research and extension in the Third World; do we really want IPM to work? Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am. 30(3): 18-26. Grieshop, J. I., F G. Zaion and G. Miya. 1988. Adoption and diffusion of integrated pest management innovation in agriculture. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am. 34:72-78. Griffin, G.D. and K.B. Jensen. 1997. Differential effects Pratylenchus neglectus populations on single and interplantings of alfalfa and crested wheatgrass. J. Nematol. 29(1):82-89. Groenfeldt, D. 1991. Building on tradition: indigenous irrigation knowledge and sustainable development in Asia. Agric. Hum. Values 8(1 -2): 114-120. Gross, H.R., Jr. 1987. Conservation and enhancement of entomophagous insects a perspective. J. Entomol. Sci. 22(2):97-105. Hackney, R.W. and O.J. Dickerson. 1975. Marigold, castor bean and chrysanthemum as controls of Meloidogyne incognita and Pratylenctius alleni. J. Nematol. 7(1):84-90. Hall, R. [ed.]. 1991. Compendium of bean diseases. APS Press, St. Paul, MN. Harrison, P.P. 1984. Observations on the infestation of corn by fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) with reference to plant maturity. Fla. Entomol 67(3):333-335. Heffes, T P., P.L. Coates-Beckford and H. Robotham. 1992. Effects of Meloidogyne incognita and Rotylenchus reniformis on growth and nutrient content of Vigna unguiculata and Zea mays. Nematropica 22:139-148. Hernandez Bermajo, J.E. and J. Leon [eds.]. 1994. Neglected crops, 1492 from a different perspective. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

PAGE 288

263 Hildebrand, P.E. 1976. Multiple cropping systems are dollars and "sense" agronomy, pp.347-371. In R.I. Papendick, P.A. Sanchez and G.B. Triplett [eds.], Multiple Cropping, Spec. Publ. 27. Amer. Soc. Agron., Madison, Wl. Hoy, M A. 1988. Biological control of arthropod pests: traditional and emerging technologies. Am. J. Alt. Agric. 3(2/3):63-68. Hruska, A.J. and F. Gould. 1997. Fall armyworm (Lepidoptera; Nocuidae) and Diatraea lineolata (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae): impact of larval population level and temporal occurrence on maize yield in Nicaragua. J. Econ. Entomol. 90(2):61 1-622. Hutton, D.G., P.L. Coates-Beckford, and S.A.E. Eason-Heath. 1983. Management of Meloidogyne incognita populations by crop rotation in a small-scale field trial and nematode pathogenic effects on selected cultivars. Nematropica 13:153-163. ICAITI. 1977. An environmental and economic study of the consequences of pesticide use on Central American cotton production. Institute Centroamericano de Investigacion y Tecnologia Industrial, Guatemala. Jansson, R.K., S.H. Lecrone and D R. Seal. 1989. Food baits for pre-plant sampling of wireworms (Coleoptera: Elateridae) in potato fields in southern Florida. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 102:367-370. Jodha, N. S. 1980. Intercropping in traditional farming systems. J. Develop Studies 16: 427-442. Johannessen, C.L. 1982. Domestication process of maize continues in Guatemala. Economic Botany 36(1):84-99. Jones, J.B., J. P. Jones, R.E. Stall and T.A. Zitter. 1991. Compendium of Tomato Diseases. APS Press, St. Paul, MN. Kareiva, P. 1985. Finding and losing host plants by Phyllotreta: Patch size and surrounding habitat. Ecology 66(6): 1809-1 816. King, A.B.S. 1984. Biology and identification of white grubs {Phylloptiaga) of economic importance in Central America. Trop. Pest Manage 30(1) 3650. 1985. Factors affecting infestation by larvae of Phyllophaga spp. (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) in Costa Rica. Bull. ent. Res. 75:417-427.

PAGE 289

264 King, A.B.S and J.L. Saunders. 1984. The Invertebrate Pests of Annual Food Crops in Central America. Overseas Development Administration, London. Kinloch, R.A. 1983. Influence of maize rotations on the yield of soybean grown in Meloidogyne incognita infested soil. J of Nematol. 15(3): 398-405. Krysan, J.L. 1986. Introduction: biology, distribution, and identification of pest Diabrotica, pp. 1-23. In J.L. Krysan and T.A. Miller [eds.], Methods for the Study of Pest Diabrotica. Springer-Verlag, New York. Latheef, M A. and R.D. Irwin. 1980. Effects of companionate planting on snap bean insects, Epilachna varivestia and Hellothls zea. Environ. Entomol. 9: 195-198. Leach, G. 1976. Energy and Food Production. IPC Science and Technology Press, Guildford, Surrey, UK. Letourneau, D. K. 1987. The enemies hypothesis: Tritrophic interactions and vegetational diversity in tropical agroecosystems. Ecology 68(6): 16161622. — 1990. Mechanisms of predator accumulation in a mixed crop system. Ecol. Entomol. 15:63-69. Litsinger, J.A. and K. Moody. 1976. Integrated pest management in multiple cropping sytems, pp. 293-316. In R.J. Papendick, P A. Sanchez and G.B. Triplett [eds.]. Multiple Cropping Systems, Spec. Publ. 27. Amer. Soc. Agron.. Madison, Wl. Lockeretz, W. 1980. Energy inputs for nitrogen, phosphorus and potash fertilizers, pp. 23-24. In D. Pimentel [ed.]. Handbook of Energy Utilization in Agriculture. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL. Marban-Mendoza, N., M. Bess Dicklowand B.M. Zuckerman. 1992, Control of Meloidogyne Incognita on tomato by two leguminous plants. Fundam. Appl. Nematol. 15(2):97-100. Marquez-Gomez, A., L. Garcia-Barrios, and J. Kohashi-Shibata. 1992. Numero de plantas por mata en la fenologia, crecimiento y rendimiento de Zea mays L. var. Oloton. Turrialba 42(4):443-450. Marten, G.G. and D M. Saltman. 1986. The human ecology perspective, pp. 2053. In G.G. Marten [ed.]. Traditional Agriculture in Southeast Asia: A Human Ecology Perspective. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

PAGE 290

265 Martinez Alfaro, M.A., R. Ortega Paczka, and A. Cruz Leon. 1994. Introduction of flora from the Old World and causes of crop marginalizatlon, pp. 23-33. In J.E. Hernandez Bermejo and J. Leon [eds.], Neglected Crops, 1492 from a Different Perspective. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Mathewson, K. 1984. Irrigation horticulture in highland Guatemala, thetablon system of Panajachel. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Matteson, PC, M A. Altieri and W.C. Gagne. 1984. Modification of small farmer practices for better management. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 29:383-402. Maynard, D.N. 1993. Potential for commercial production of tomatillo in Florida. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 106.223-224. McBryde, F.W. 1945. Cultural and historical geography of southwest Guatemala. Smithsonian Institution Institute of Anthropology, Publication No. 4, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. McCorkle, CM. 1989. Toward a knowledge of local knowledge and its importance for agricultural RD&E. Agric. Hum. Values 6(3):4-12. McCullough, E.R. and M. Futrell. 1988. Economic and normative restraints on subsistence farming in Honduras, pp. 183-197. /n S.V. Poats, M. Schmink and A. Spring [eds.]. Gender Issues in Farming Systems Research and Extension. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. McSorley, R., D.W. Dickson and J.A. de Brito. 1994a. Host status of selected tropical rotation crops to four populations of root-knot nematodes. Nematropica 24:45-53. McSorley, R., D.W. Dickson, J.A. de Brito, T.E. Hewlett, and J.J. Frederick. 1 994b. Effects of tropical rotation crops on Meloidogyne arenaria population densities and vegetable yields in microplots. J. Nematol. 26(2): 175-1 81. McSorley, R., D.W. Dickson, J.A. de Brito, and R.C. Hochmuth. 1994c. Tropical rotation crops influence nematode densities and vegetable yields. J. Nematol. 26(3):308-314. Menchu, M.T. 1992. Situacion alimentaria y nutricional en Centre America: conferencia internacional de nutricion. INCAP, Guatemala.

PAGE 291

266 Minton, N.A. and K. Bondah. 1994. Effects of small grain crops, aldicarb and Meloidogyne incognita resistant soybean on nematode populations and soybean production. Nematropica 24:7-15. Montes Hernandez, S. and J.R. Aguirre Rivera. 1994. Tomatillo, husk tomato {Physalis philadelphica), pp. 1 17-122. Jn J.E. Hernandez Bermajo and J. Leon [eds.]. Neglected Crops, 1492 From a Different Perspective. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Montoya, M., J.M. Schieber and E.Schieber. 1970. La practica del doblado del maiz (Zea mays L.) y su relacion con la incidencia de hongos en la mazorca. Turrialba 20:24-29. Morales, H., R. Perez and C. MacVean. 1993. Impacto de cultivos horticolas notradicionales de exportacion sobre plagas, organismos peneficos y suelo en el altiplano de Guatemala. Reporte final presentado a la Asociacion para el Avance de las Ciencias Sociales en Guatemala, AVANCSO. Institute de Investigaciones, Universidad del Valle, Guatemala. Mountjoy, D.C. and S.R. Gliessman. 1988. Traditional management of a hillside agroecosystem in TIaxcala, Mexico: an ecologically based maintenance system. Am. J. Alter. Agric. 3(1):3-10. Murray, D.L. 1991. Export agriculture, ecological disruption, and social inequity: some effects of pesticides in southern Honduras. Agric. Hum. Values 8(4): 19-29. Nabhan, G.P. 1992. Native crops of the Americas: passing novelties or lasting contributions to diversity? pp. 143-161. In N. Foster and L.S. Cordell [eds.], Chilies to Chocolate, Food the Americas Gave the World. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. National Research Council. 1984. Amaranth, modern prospects for an ancient crop. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Nguyen, M.L. and R.J. Haynes. 1995. Energy and labour efficiency for three pairs of conventional and alternative mixed cropping (pasture-arable) farms in Canterbury, New Zealand. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 52:163-172. Noe, J. P. 1988. Theory and practice of the cropping systems approach to reducing nematode problems in the tropics. J. Nematol. 20(2):204-213. Noe, J. P., J.N. Sasser and J.L. Imbriani. 1991. Maximizing the potential of cropping systems for nematode management. J. Nematol. 1991 23(3):353-361.

PAGE 292

267 Norman, M.J.T. 1978. Energy inputs and outputs of subsistence cropping systems in the tropics. Agro-Ecosystems 4:355-366. Nusbaum, C.J. and H. Ferris. 1973. The role of cropping systems in nematode population management. Ann. Rev. of Phytopathology 11:423-440. Odhiambo, T.R. 1990. Assets of an IPM specialist with particular reference to Chilo. Insect Sci. Applic. 11(4/5):571-576. Oldfield, M.L. and J.B. Alcorn. 1987. Conservation of traditional agroecosystems. Bioscience 37(3): 199-208. Page, S.L. and J. Bridge. 1993. Plant nematodes and sustainability in tropical agriculture. Expl. Agric. 29:139-154. Painter, R.H. 1955. Insects on corn and teosinte in Guatemala. J. Econ. Entomol. 48(1):36-42. Pair, S.D., J R. Raulston, A.N. Sparks and P.B. Martin. 1986. Fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) parasitoids: differential spring distribution and incidence on corn and sorghum in the southern United States and northeastern Mexico. Environ. Entomol. 15:342-348. Pandya, S.M. and M.D. Pedhadiya. 1993. Energy analysis of an Indian village semi-arid ecosystem. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 45:157-175. Perfecto, I. 1990. Indirecct and direct effects in a tropical agroecosystem: the maize-pest-ant system in Nicaragua. Ecology 71(6):2125-2134. Perfecto, I., B. Horwith, J. Vandermeer, B. Schultz, H. McGuiness and A. Dos Santos. 1986. Effects of plant diversity and density on the emigration rate of two ground beetles, Harpalus pennsylvanicus and Evarthrus sodalis (Coleoptera: Carabidae), in a system of tomatoes and beans. Environ. Entomol. 15:1028-1031. Perfecto, I. and A. Sediles, 1992. Vegetational diversity, ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and herbivorous pests in a Neotropical agroecosystem Environ. Entomol. 21(1): 61-67. Perrin, R.M. 1977. Pest management in multiple cropping systems. AgroEcosystems 3:93-118. Perrin, R.M. and M. L. Phillips. 1978. Some effects of mixed cropping on the population dynamics of insect pests. Ent. exp. Appl. 24:385-393.

PAGE 293

268 Pimentel, D. 1980. Energy inputs for the production, formulation, packaging and transport of various pesticides, pp. 45-48. In D. Pimentel [ed.], Handbook of Energy Utilization in Agriculture. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL. — 1992. Energy inputs in production agriculture, pp. 13-29. In R.C. Fluck [ed.]. Energy in World Agriculture, Vol. 6. Energy in Farm Production. Elsevier, New York. Pimentel, D. and M. Burgess, 1980. Energy inputs in corn production, p. 67. In D. Pimentel [ed.]. Handbook of Energy Utilization in Agriculture. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL. Pimentel, D., T.W. Culliney, I.W. Buttler, D.J. Reinemann and K.B. Beckman. 1989. Low-input sustainable agriculture using ecological management practices. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 27.3-24. Pimentel, D., L. McLaughlin, A. Zepp, B. Lakitan, T. Kraus, P. Kleinman, F. Vancini, W. J. Roach, E. Graap, W.S. Keeton and G. Selig. 1991. Environmental and economic effects of reducing pesticide use. Bioscience 41 (6);402-409. Pimentel, D. and M. Pimentel. 1979. Food, energy and society. Resource and Environmental Science Series, Edward Arnold, London. Pinochet, Jorge. 1 987. Management of plant parasitic nematodes in Central America: the Panama expenence, pp. 105-1 13. In J. Veech and D. Dickson [eds ], Vistas on Nematology, A Compendium of the Twenty-fifth Anniversary of the Society of Nematologists. Society of Nematologists, Inc., Hyattsville, Maryland. Popper, R. 1 994. Knowledge and beliefs regarding agricultural pesticides in rural Guatemala. AID-RENARM, Washington, DC. Portillo, H E., H.N Pitre, D.H. Meckenstock and K.L. Andrews. 1991. Langosta: a lepidopterous pest complex on sorghum and maize in Honduras Fla Entomol. 74(2):287-296. — 1996. Oviposition preference of Spodoptera latifascia (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) for sorghum, maize and non-crop vegetation Fla Ent 79(4): 552-562. Poswal, M.A.T., A D. Akpa and 0. Alabi. 1993. Cultural control of pests and diseases: prelude to integrated pest management practices for resourcepoor farmers in Nigerian agriculture. J. Sustain. Agric. 3(3/4):5-48.

PAGE 294

269 Power, A.G., P.M. Rosset, R.J. Ambrose and A.J. Hruska. 1987. Population response of bean insect herbivores to interand intraspecific plant community diversity: experiments in a tomato and bean agroecosystem in Costa Rica. Turrialba 37(3):21 9-226. Powers, L.E., R. McSorley and R.A. Dunn. 1993. Effects of mixed cropping on a soil nematode community in Honduras. J. Nematol. 25(4);666-673. Price, P.W. 1981. Semiochemicals in evolutionary time, pp. 251-279. In D A. Nordlund, R.L. Jones and W.J. Lewis [eds.], Semiochemicals, Their Role in Pest Control. John Wiley, New York. Price, P.W., C.E. Bouton, P. Gross, B.A. McPherson, Z.N. Thompson, and A.E. Weide. 1980. Interactions among three trophic levels: Influence of plants on interactions between insect herbivores and natural enemies. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 11:41-65. Proyecto ALA 88/22. 1987. Programa de desarrollo autosostenido en la cuenca del Lago de Atitlan. MINDES, Guatemala. Rani, N. and C.K. Hira. 1993. Effect of various treatments on nutritional quality of faba beans (Vicia faba). J. Food Sci. Technol. 30(6):413-416. Raymundo, S.A. 1985. Cropping systems research and root-knot nematode control, pp. 277-281. In J.N. Sasser and C.C. Carter [eds.]. An Advanced Treatise on Meloidogyne, Vol. I. Biology and Control. Dept. of Plant Pathology, North Carolina State University and U S Agency for International Development, Raleigh, NC. Richards, F., R E. Klein, C. Gonzales-Peralta, R. Zea Flores, G. Zea Flores and J. Castro Ramirez. 1991. Knowledge, attitudes and perceptions (KAP) of onchocerciasis: a survey among residents in an endemic area in Guatemala targeted for mass chemotherapy with ivermectin Soc Sci Med. 32(11): 1275-1 281. Risch, S.J. 1981. Insect herbivore abundance in tropical monoculture and polycultures: an experimental test of two hypotheses. Ecology 62 1 3251340. — 1983. Intercropping as cultural pest control: prospects and limitations. Environmental Management 7(1):9-14. Risch, S.J., D.Andowand M.A. Altieri. 1983. Agroecosystem diversity and pest control: data, tentative conclusions and new research directions Environ Entomol. 12:625-629.

PAGE 295

270 Risch, S.J., R. Wrubel and D. Andow. 1982. Foraging by a predaceous beetle, Coleomegllla maculata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), in a polyculture: effects of plant density and diversity. Environ. Entomol. 1 1 :949-950. Rodriguez-Kabana, R., P.S. King, D.G. Robertson and C.F. Weaver. 1988a. Potential of crops uncommon to Alabama for management of root-knot and soybean cyst nematodes. Ann. Appl. Nematol. 2:116-120. Rodriguez-Kabana, R., P.S. King, and C.F. Weaver. 1990a Potential of some tropical and subtropical legumes for the management of soybean {Glycine max) nematodes. Nematropica 20:17 (Abstract). Rodriguez-Kabana, R. ,D.G. Robertson, P A. Backman and H. Ivey. 1988b. Soybean-peanut rotations for the management of Meloidogyne arenaria. Annals of Applied Nematology 2:81-85. Rodriguez-Kabana, R. D.G. Robertson, C.F. Weaver and L. Wells. 1991a. Rotations of bahiagrass and castorbean with peanut for the management of Meloidogyne arenaria. Suppl. J. Nematol. 23(4S):658-661. Rodriguez-Kabana, R., D.B. Weaver, D.G. Robertson, P.S. King and E.L. Carden. 1990b. Sorghum in rotation with soybean for the management of cyst and root-knot nematodes. Nematropica 20(2):1 1 1-1 19. Rodriguez-Kabana, R., D.B. Weaver, D.G. Robertson, C.F. Weaver, and E.L. Carden. 1991b. Rotations of soybean with tropical corn and sorghum for the management of nematodes. Suppl. J. Nematol. 23(4S):662-667. Rojas Lima, F. 1988. La cultura del maiz en Guatemala. Ministeno de Cultura y Deportes, Guatemala. Roltsch, W.J. and S.H. Gage. 1990a. Influence of bean-tomato intercropping on population dynamics of the potato leafhopper (Homoptera: Cicadellidae). Environ. Entomol. 19(3): 534-543. — 1990b. Potato leafhopper (Homoptera: Cicadellidae) movement, oviposition, and feeding response patterns in relation to host and nonhost vegetation. Environ. Entomol. 19(3):524-533. Root, R. B. 1973. Organization of a plant-arthropod association in simple and diverse habitats: the fauna of collard (Brassica oleraceae). Ecol. Monoqr 43: 95-124. Rosset, P.M. 1991. Sustainability, economies of scale, and social instability: Achilles heel of non-traditional export agriculture. Agric. Hum. Values 8(4): 30-37.

PAGE 296

271 Rosset, P., I. Diaz, R. Ambrose, M. Cano, G. Varrela and A. Snook. 1987. Evaluacion y validacion del sistema de policultivo de tomate y frijol como componente de un programa de manejo integrado de plagas de tomate, en Nicaragua. Turrialba 37(1):85-92. Ruano, S., N. Thomas and R. Celis. 1991. A new approach to poverty alleviation and sustainability in agricultural systems in the dry tropics: technology validation in a multi-dimensional context, pp. 469-479. In S.A. Vosti, T. Reardon and W. von Urff [eds.]. Agricultural Sustainability, Growth, and Poverty Alleviation; Issues and Policies. German Foundation for International Development, Feldafing, Germany. Ruebush T.K. II, R. Zeissig, J. P. Koplan, R.E. Klein and H A. Godoy. 1994. Community participation in malaria surveillance and treatment III. An evaluation of modifications in the volunteer collaborator network of Guatemala. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 50(1):85-98. Russell, E.P. 1989. Enemies hypothesis: a review of the effect of vegetational diversity on predatory insects and parasitoids. Environ. Entomol. 18(4):590-599. SAS Institute. 1990. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Vol. 2. 4th ed. SAS Institute Inc Gary, NC. Saxena, K.N., A. Pala Okeyo, K.V. Seshu Reddy, E.G. Omolo and L. Ngode. 1989. Insect pest management and socio-economic circumstances of small-scale farmers for food crop production in western Kenya: a case study. Insect Sci. Applic. 10(4):443-462. Schahczenski, J.J. 1984. Energetics and traditional agricultural systems: a review. Agricultural Systems 14:31-43. Schmutterer, H., R. R. Cruz and J. Cicero. 1990. Crop pests in the Caribbean, with particular reference to the Dominican Republic. Technical Cooperation, Federal Cooperation of Germany, Eschborn. Schnetzler, K.A. and W.M. Breene. 1994. Food uses and amaranth product research: a comprehensive review, pp. 155-183. In 0. Paredes-Lopez [ed.], Amaranth, Biology, Chemistry and Technology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Schoonhoven, A.V., C. Cardona, J. Garcia and F. Garzon. 1981. Effect of weed covers on Empoasca kraemeri Ross and Moore populations and dry bean yields. Environ. Entomol. 10:901-907.

PAGE 297

272 Schultz, T.W. 1964. Transforming Traditional Agriculture. Yale University Press, New Haven. Schwartz, H.F,, G.E. Galvez E., A. van Schoonhoven, R.H. Howeler, P H. Graham and C. Flor. 1978. Field Problems of Beans in Latin America. Centre Internacional de Agricultura Tropical. Call, Colombia. Seal, D.R. and R.K. Jansson. 1989. Biology and management of corn-silk fly, Euxesta stigmatis Loew (Diptera: Otitidae), on sweet corn in southern Florida. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 102:370-373. Seshu Reddy, K.V. 1990. Cultural control of Chilo spp. in graminaceous crops. Insect Sci. Applic. 1 1(4/5):703-712. Sharma, S. 1991. Energy budget studies of some multiple cropping patterns of the Central Himalaya. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 36:199-206. Sharma, S B., T.J. Rego, M. Mohiuddin and V. Nageswara Rao. 1996. Regulation of population densities of Heterodera cajani and other plantparasitic nematodes by crop rotations on vertisols in semi-and tropical production systems in India. J. Nematol. 28(2):244-251. Sharma, S. and E. Sharma. 1993. Energy budget and efficiency of some multiple cropping systems in Sikkim Himalaya. J. Sustain. Agric. 3(3/4):85-94. Sheehan, W. 1986. Response by specialist and generalist natural enemies to agroecosystem diversification: A selective review. Environ. Entomol: 15:456-461. Shurtleff, M.C. 1980. Compendium of Corn Diseases, 2nd ed. American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, MN. Smith, M.F. 1986. The impact of changing agricultural systems on the nutritional status of farm households in developing countries. Food Nutr Bull 8(3):25-29. Sosa-Moss, C. 1985. Report on the status of Meloidogyne research in Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean countries, pp.327-346. In J.N. Sasser and C.C. Carter [eds.], An Advanced Treatise on Meloidogyne. Vol. 1 Biology and Control. Dept. of Plant Pathology, North Carolina State University and U.S. Agency for International Development, Raleigh, NC. Sotelo, A., H. Sousa and M. Sanchez. 1995. Comparative study of the chemical composition of wild and cultivated bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 47:93-100.

PAGE 298

273 Southgate, D. and M. Basterrechea. 1992. Population growth, public policy and resource degradation: the case of Guatemala. Ambio 21(7).460-464. Spencer, K.A. 1983. Leaf mining Agromyzidae (Diptera) in Costa Rica. Revista de Biologia Tropical 31(1):41-67. Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes. 1997. Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D and Fluoride. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Stimac, J. L. 1993. Crop management systems and their effects on analysis of biological control tactics and strategies for insect pest control, pp.1 1 1124. In Anais 14 Congresso Brasileiro de Entomologia. Sociedade Entomologica de Brasil. — and C. S. Barfield. 1979. Systems approach to pest management in soybeans, pp. 249-259. In F.T. Corbin [ed.], Proceedings of the World Soybean Research Conference II, Raleigh, NC. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Stern, V M., R.F. Smith, R. van den Bosch and K.S. Hagen. 1959. The integrated control concept. Hilgardia 29:81-101. Stout, B.A. 1 990. Handbook of energy for world agriculture. Elsevier Applied Science, New York. Su, H.C.F. 1986. Laboratory evalaution of the toxicity and repellancy of coriander seed to four species of stored-product insects. J. Entomol Sci 21(2):169-174. Sumner, D R., C.C. Dowler, A W. Johnson, R.B. Chalfant, N C. Glaze, S C. Phatak and J.E. Epperson. 1985. Effect of root diseases and nematodes on yields of corn in an irhgated multiple-cropping system with pest management. Plant Dis. 69:382-387. Tanda, A.S. and A.S. Atwal. 1988. Effect of sesame intercropping against the root-knot nematode {Meloidogyne incognita) in okra. Nematologica 34 484-492. Tapadia, S B., A.B. Arya and P. Rohini Devi. 1995. Vitamin C contents of processed vegetables. J. Food Sci. Technol. 32(6):513-515. Taylor, A.L. and J.N. Sasser. 1978. Biology, identification and control of rootknot nematodes {Meloidogyne spp.). International Meloidogyne Project, Dept. of Plant Pathology, North Carolina State University and United States Agency for International Development, Raleigh, NC.

PAGE 299

274 Theunissen, J. 1997. Intercropping in field vegetables as an approach to sustainable horticulture. Outlook on Agriculture 26(2):95-99. Thrupp, L.A. 1989. Legitimizing local knowledge: From displacement to empowerment for Third World people. Agric. Hum. Values 6(3): 13-24. — 1990. Inappropriate incentives for pesticide use: agricultural credit requirements in developing countries. Agric. Hum. Values 7(3-4):62-69. Thurston, H.D. 1990. Plant disease management practices of traditional farmers. Plant Dis. 74(2):96-102. — 1 992. Sustainable Practices for Plant Disease Management in Traditional Farming Systems. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Tingey, W. M. & W. J. Lament Jr. 1988. Insect abundance in field beans altered by intercropping. Bull. Ent. Res. 78: 527-535. Tingle, F.C., T.R. Ashley and E.R. Mitchell. 1978. Parasites of Spodoptera exigua, S. endania (Lep.: Noctuidae) and Herpetogramma bipunctalis (Lep.: Pyralidae) collected from Amaranthus hybhdus in field corn. Entomophaga 23(4):343-347. Tonhasca, A., Jr. 1994. Response of soybean herbivores to two agronomic practices increasing agroecosystem diversity. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 48: 57-65. Tonhasca, A., Jr and D. N Byrne 1994. The effects of crop diversification on herbivorous insects: a meta-analysis approach. Ecol. Entomol. 19 239244. Trabanino, C.R., H.N. Pitre, K.L. Andrews and D.H. Meckenstock. 1990. Soilinhabiting phytophagous arthropod pests in intercropped sorghum and maize in southern Honduras. Turrialba 40(2): 172-1 83. Trivedi, P.C. and K.R. Barker. 1986. Management of nematodes by cultural practices. Nematropica 16(2):2 13-236. Umesh, K.C. and H. Ferris. 1994. Influence of temperature and host plant on the interactions between Pratylenchus neglectus and Meloidogyne chitwoodi J. of Nematol. 26:65-71. USDA. 1997. Nutrient Database for Standard Reference. Release 11-1 ( http://www.nal.usda.Qov ).

PAGE 300

275 Vargas Rivero, C.A. 1983. El ka'anche': una practica horticola maya. Biotica 8(2): 151 -173. Villalobos, F.J. 1992. The potential of entomopathogens for the control of white grub pests of corn in Mexico, pp. 253-260. In T.A. Jackson and T.R. Glare [eds.], Use of Pathogens in Scarab Pest Management. Intercept, Ltd., Andover, Hampshire, UK. Vredeveld, G., R. Bullard, M. Sells, S. Sims and J. West. 1983. Energy comparison in three cases of pesticide versus bio-control pest management. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 9:51-56. Weaver, D.B., R. Rodriguez-Kabana, D.G. Robertson, R.L. Akridge, and E.L. Garden. 1988. Effect of crop rotation on soybean in a field infested with Meloidogyne arenaria and Heterodera glycines. Ann. Appl. Nematol. 2:106-109. Weber, L.E. [ed.]. 1980. Amaranth grain production guide. Rodale Institute Press, Kutztown, PA. Weller, S.C. and A. K. Romney. 1988. Systematic Data Collection. Qualitative Research Methods, Volume 10. Sage Publications, London. Whitcomb, W.H. 1994. Environment and habitat management to increase predator populations, pp. 149-179 In: D. Rosen, F.D. Bennett and J. L. Capinera [eds.], Pest Management in the Subtropics. Biological Control — A Florida Perspective. Intercept Ltd., Andover, UK Wilken, G.C. 1971. Food-producing systems available to the ancient Maya. American Antiquity 36(4): 432-448. — 1987. Good Farmers, Traditional Agricultural Resource Management in Mexico and Central America. University of California Press, Berkeley. Willey, R.W. 1979. Intercropping— its advantage and research needs. Part 1. Competition and yield advantages. Field Crop Abstracts 32(1): 1-10. Williams, J.T. and D. Brenner. 1995. Grain amaranth {Amaranthus spec\es), pp. 129-186. In J.T. Williams [ed.], Cereals and Pseudocereals. Chapman & Hall, New York. Wilson, R.L. and D.L. Olson. 1990. Tarnished plant bug, Lygus lineolaris {PaWsoi de Beauvois) (Hemiptera: Miridae) oviposition site preference on three growth stages of a grain amaranth, Amaranthus cruentus L. J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 63(1):88-91.

PAGE 301

276 Woodley, E. 1991. Indigenous ecological knowledge systems and development. Agric. Hum. Values 8(1 -2): 173-1 78. Wotecki, C.E. and P.R. Thomas. 1992. Eat for life, the Food and Nutrition Board's guide to reducing your risk of chronic disease. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Yeates, G.W., T. Bongers, R.G.M de Goede, D.W. Freckman and S.S. Georgieva. 1993. Feeding habits in soil nematode families and genera — an outline for soil ecologists. J. Nematol. 25(3):31 5-331.

PAGE 302

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Barbra C. Larson Vasquez was born 22 December 1964 in Madrid, Spain, and raised in Wayne, New Jersey. After attending Wayne Valley High School, she completed the B.A. degree in biology and interdisciplinary studies(Third World development) at Amherst College. After two years as a Peace Corps volunteer in Guatemala, she entered a graduate program in entomology at Rutgers University, receiving the M.S. degree in 1991 She worked in the Biology Department and the Center for Environmental Studies at the Universidad del Valle de Guatemala during 1993 before entering the entomology Ph.D. program at the University of Florida in 1994. 277

PAGE 303

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. /StimcTc, Chair >or of Entomology and Nematology I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of F^HiIbsophy. Carl S. Barfield Professor of Ento Nematology y and I certify that I have read this study arid that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presenjattbn andjs-feJj/^de£}t*ate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the dec 'reddie Aijohnj Professor of Entomology and Nematology I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. -Charles M. MacVean Research Scientist, Institute of Research Universidad del Valle de Guatemala

PAGE 304

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Ma(ilyn E. Swisher Associate Professor of Geography This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of Agriculture and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. December 1998 '"Dean, College of^^riculture Dean, Graduate School


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E5JO94YVO_A2M5NL INGEST_TIME 2015-01-14T20:10:42Z PACKAGE AA00026624_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES