Advertisement

AMBIO

, Volume 39, Issue 4, pp 325–335 | Cite as

Community-Based Participatory Research Helps Farmers and Scientists to Manage Invasive Pests in the Ecuadorian Andes

  • O. Dangles
  • F. C. Carpio
  • M. Villares
  • F. Yumisaca
  • B. Liger
  • F. Rebaudo
  • J. F. Silvain
Report

Abstract

Participatory research has not been a conspicuous methodology in developing nations for studying invasive pests, an increasing threat to the sustainable development in the tropics. Our study presents a community-based monitoring system that focuses on three invasive potato tuber moth species (PTM). The monitoring was developed and implemented by young farmers in a remote mountainous area of Ecuador. Local participants collected data from the PTM invasion front, which revealed clear connection between the abundance of one of the species (Tecia solanivora) and the remoteness to the main market place. This suggests that mechanisms structuring invasive populations at the invasion front are different from those occurring in areas invaded for longer period. Participatory monitoring with local people may serve as a cost-effective early warning system to detect and control incipient invasive pest species in countries where the daily management of biological resources is largely in the hands of poor rural people.

Keywords

Insect pest Developing countries Participative monitoring Farmer communities Education Andes 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was part of the research conducted within the projects “Biopesticide development and diffusion for the control of potato moths (C14-026)” and “Innovative Approaches to Manage Insect Pest Risks in Changing Andes (09-022)” both funded by the McKnight Foundation. We thank Lenin Lara, to have facilitated the monitoring with the College of Simiatug. The authors are also grateful to Cesar Aime, Manuel Azogues, Angel Azogues, Delia Chamaguano, Wilmer Chimborazo, Angel Cocha, Hernán Ichiquinga, Esteban Poaquiza, Mariano Poaquiza, Nicolas Sigcha, Carlos Tixilema, Hernán Yanchalaquin, and Norma Yanchalaquin for participating in the potato tuber moth monitoring in Simiatug. We thank Rebecca Nelson, Claire Nicklin, and Steven Vanek from the Cornell University and McKnight Foundation, the editor and two anonymous reviewers, for their helpful comments on a previous version of the manuscript.

References

  1. Abay, F., A. Waters-Bayer, and A. Bjørnstad. 2008. Farmers’ seed management and innovation in varietal selection: Implications for barley breeding in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Ambio 37: 312–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Afrol News. 2003. Community-based research nets results in Benin. http://www.afrol.com/articles/10547.
  3. Agrawal, A., and C.C. Gibson. 1999. Enchantment and disenchantment: The role of community in natural resource conservation. World Development 27: 629–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ambrose-Oji, B., A. Lawrence, J. Wong, R. Lysinge, P. Fraser, J. Hall, H. O’Connor, and J. Healey. 2002. Obtaining local values for biodiversity: Protocols used by the ERP Mount Cameroon Project. Summarised case study. In Internet Conference on Participatory Assessment, Monitoring and Evaluation of Biodiversity (PAMEB), ed. ETFRN, 7–25 January 2002. Oxford: ETFRN, Environmental Change Institute DFID and Tropenbos International.Google Scholar
  5. Borgerhoff Mulder, M., and P. Coppolillo. 2005. Conservation: Linking ecology, economics, and culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Breen, S.L., S.P. Ellingsen, M. Johnston-Hollitt, S. Wotherspoon, I. Bains, M.G. Burton, M. Cunningham, N. Lo, C.E. Senkbeil, and T. Wong. 2007. A search for 22-GHz water masers within the giant molecular cloud associated with RCW 106. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 377: 491–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brush, S.B. 2004. Farmer’s bounty. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Calheiros, D.F., A.F. Seidl, and C.J.A. Ferreira. 2000. Participatory research methods in environmental science: Local and scientific knowledge of a limnological phenomenon in the Pantanal wetland of Brazil. Journal of Applied Ecology 37: 684–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Culqui, F. 2005. Estudio de línea base en producción, tecnología y comercialización, en el cultivo de papa (Solanum tuberosum L.), en cuatro zonas paperas de la provincia Bolívar. Dissertation, Technical University of Bolívar, Bolívar, Ecuador.Google Scholar
  10. Curtin, C.G. 2002. Integration of science and community-based conservation in the Mexico/US Bordelands. Conservation Biology 16: 880–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dangles, O., C. Carpio, A.R. Barragan, J.-L. Zeddam, and J.F. Silvain. 2008. Thermal niche partitioning of potato moths successively introduced in the tropical Andes. Ecological Applications 18: 1795–1809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dangles, O., V. Mesías, V. Crespo-Perez, and J.F. Silvain. 2009. Crop damage increases with pest species diversity: Evidence from potato tuber moths in the tropical Andes. Journal of Applied Ecology 46: 1115–1121.Google Scholar
  13. Danielsen, F., A.E. Jensen, P.D.S. Balete, M. Mendoza, A.C. Custodio, and M. Enghoff. 2005. Does monitoring matter? A quantitative assessment management decisions from locally-based of protected areas. Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 2633–2652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eisenberg, J.N.S., W. Cevalos, K. Ponce, K. Levy, S.J. Bates, J.C. Scout, A. Hubbard, N. Vieira, P. Endara, M. Espinel, G. Trueba, L.W. Riley, and J. Trostle. 2006. Environmental change and infectious disease: How new roads affect the transmission of diarrheal pathogens in rural Ecuador. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences United States of America 103: 19460–19465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fortmann, L. 2008. Participatory research in conservation and rural livelihoods, 284 pp. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  16. Galindo-Leal, C. 2001. Design and analysis of conservation projects in Latin America: An integrative approach to training. Conservation Ecology 5: 16. http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art16/.
  17. Gilbert, E., J.A. Powell, J.A. Logan, and B.J. Bentz. 2004. Comparison of three models predicting developmental milestones given environmental and individual variation. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 66: 1821–1850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gondard, P., and H. Mazurek. 2001. 30 años de reforma agraria y colonización en el Ecuador (1964-1994): dinámicas espaciales. In Dinámicas territoriales: Ecuador, Bolivia, Perú, Venezuela, Estudio de Geografía 10, ed. P. Gondard and J.B. León, 15–40.Google Scholar
  19. Herrera, F. 1998. La Polilla Guatemalteca de la Papa: Biología, comportamiento y prácticas de manejo integrado. Colombia: CORPOICA.Google Scholar
  20. Hill, J. 2004. Implementing reef check as a long-term monitoring program on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. In 2nd international tropical marine ecosystem management symposium. Quezon City, Philippines: Department of Environment and Natural Resources.Google Scholar
  21. Hockley, N.J., J.P.G. Jones, F.B. Andrianajaina, A. Manica, E.H. Ranabitsoa, and J.A. Randriamboahary. 2005. When should communities and conservationists monitor exploited resources? Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 2795–2806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jacobson, S.K., M. McDuff, and M.C. Monroe. 2006. Conservation education and outreach techniques. Techniques in ecology and conservation series. UK: OUP.Google Scholar
  23. Keasar, T., A. Kalish, O. Becher, and S. Steinberg. 2005. Spatial and temporal dynamics of potato tuberworm (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) infestation in field stored potatoes. Journal of Economic Entomology 98: 222–228.Google Scholar
  24. Lawrence, A. 2002. Participatory assessment, monitoring and evaluation of biodiversity: Summary of the ETFRN internet discussion 7–25 January 2002. http://www.etfrn.org/etfrn/workshop/biodiversity/index.html.
  25. Lockwood, J.L., M.F. Hoopes, and M.P. Marchetti. 2007. Invasion ecology. London, UK: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  26. Lovett, G.M., D.A. Burns, C.T. Driscoll, J.C. Jenkins, M.J. Mitchell, L. Rustad, J.B. Shanley, G.E. Likens, and R. Haeuber. 2007. Who needs environmental monitoring? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5: 253–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mehrhoff, L.J., J.A. Silander Jr., S.A. Leicht, E.S. Mosher, N.M. Tabak. 2003. IPANE: Invasive plant atlas of New England. Storrs, CT: Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut. http://www.ipane.org.
  28. Ojasti, J. 2001. Estudio sobre el estado actual de las especies exóticas. Quito, Ecuador: Biblioteca Digital Andina.Google Scholar
  29. Olsson, P., and C. Folke. 2001. Local ecological knowledge and institutional dynamics for ecosystem management: A study of Lake Racken watershed, Sweden. Ecosystems 4: 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Palacios, M., A. Lagnaoui, and O. Ortiz. 2002. En la necesidad de un proyecto regional andino para el control y la prevención de la polilla guatemalteca de la papa Tecia solanivora (Povolny) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). In Taller de la polilla de la papa, ed. A. Pollet, G. Onore, F. Chamorro, and A.R. Barragán, 207–213. Quito: PUCE.Google Scholar
  31. Pollet, A., A.R. Barragan, J.L. Zeddam, and X. Lery. 2003. Tecia solanivora, a serious biological invasion of potato cultures in South America. International Pest Control 45: 139–144.Google Scholar
  32. Pollet, A., A.R. Barragan, and P. Iturralde. 2004. Conozca y maneje la polilla de la papa. Seria de divulgacion. Ecuador: Centro de Biodiversidad y ambiente, Escuela de Biologia, PUCE.Google Scholar
  33. Povolny, D. 1973. Scrobipalpopsis solanivora sp. n.—A new pest of potato (Solanum tuberosum) from Central America. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae, Facultas Agronomica 21: 143–146.Google Scholar
  34. Puillandre, N., S. Dupas, O. Dangles, J.L. Zeddam, C. Capdevielle-Dulac, K. Barbin, M. Torres-Leguizamon, and J.F. Silvain. 2008. Genetic bottleneck in invasive species: the potato tuber moth adds to the list. Biological Invasions 10: 319–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pumisacho, M., and S. Sherwood. 2002. El cultivo de la papa en Ecuador. Quito, Ecuador: INIAP and CIP.Google Scholar
  36. Pumisacho, M., and S. Sherwood. 2005. Escuelas de Campo de Agricultores en América Latina. Republic of Ecuador: INNIAP-Fortipapa.Google Scholar
  37. R Development Core Team. 2006. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  38. Scheffer, M., F. Westley, W.A. Brock, and M. Holmgren. 2002. Dynamic interaction of societies and ecosystems-Linking theories from ecology, economy and sociology. In Panarchy, ed. L.H. Gunderson and C.S. Holling, 195–239. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  39. Stoecker, R. 2001. Community-based research: The next new thing. A report to the Corella and Bertram F. Bonner Foundation and Campus Compact. http://comm-org.wisc.edu/drafts/cbrreportb.htm.
  40. Stoecker, R. 2002. Practices and challenges of community-based research. Journal of Public Affairs 6: 219–239.Google Scholar
  41. Stuart-Hill, G., R. Diggle, B. Munali, J. Tagg, and D. Ward. 2005. The event book system: A community-based natural resource monitoring system from Namibia. Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 2611–2631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2003. Catalysing community participation: Water quality monitoring program in the Philippines. http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/mgroups/success/1998/phil_pro.htm.
  43. Venables, W.N., and B.D. Ripley. 2002. Modern applied statistics with S-PLUS, 4th edn. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  44. Villares, M. 2008. Implementación de un sistema de capacitación de agricultor en manejo integrado del complejo de polillas (Phthorimaea operculella, Tecia solanivora y Symmetrischema tangolias) de la papa (Solanum tuberosum) en la provincia de Bolívar. Dissertation, Technical University of Bolívar, Bolívar, Ecuador.Google Scholar
  45. Wallerstein, N., and B. Duran. 2003. The conceptual, historical and practical roots of community based participatory research and related participatory traditions. In Community based participatory research for health, ed. M. Minkler and N. Wallerstein, 27–52. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  46. Williams, J. 2007. Linking science and practice: The pros and cons of the participatory research model. Ecology, Management and Restoration 8: 158–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. With, K.A. 2002. The landscape ecology of invasive spread. Conservation Biology 16: 1192–1203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • O. Dangles
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • F. C. Carpio
    • 3
  • M. Villares
    • 4
  • F. Yumisaca
    • 4
  • B. Liger
    • 3
  • F. Rebaudo
    • 1
    • 2
  • J. F. Silvain
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.IRD, UR 072, Biodiversité, Ecologie et Evolution des Insectes Tropicaux, Laboratoire EvolutionGénomes et Spéciation, UPR 9034, CNRSGif-sur Yvette CedexFrance
  2. 2.Université Paris-Sud 11Orsay CedexFrance
  3. 3.Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y BiológicasPontificia Universidad Católica del EcuadorQuitoEcuador
  4. 4.Instituto Nacional Autónomo de Investigaciones Agropecuarias, Programa de PapaQuitoEcuador

Personalised recommendations