נגישות
menu      
Advanced Search
Syntax
Search...
Volcani treasures
About
Terms of use
Manage
Community:
אסיף מאגר המחקר החקלאי
Powered by ClearMash Solutions Ltd -
Insect management with physical methods in pre- and post-harvest situations
Year:
2008
Authors :
Weintraub, Phyllis
;
.
Volume :
Co-Authors:
Vincent, C., Horticultural Research and Development Centre, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, QC, Canada
Weintraub, P.G., Agricultural Research Organization, Gilat Research Center, Israel, D. N. Negev, Israel
Hallman, G.J., United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Subtropical Agricultural Research Center, Weslaco, TX, United States
Fleurat-Lessard, F., INRA, Laboratory for Post-Harvest Biology and Technology, Villenave-d'Ornon, France
Facilitators :
From page:
309
To page:
323
(
Total pages:
15
)
Abstract:
In theory, IPM programs should be an optimal blend of science (knowledge) and technologies – used concomitantly or sequentially – to manage pests below an economic injury level. There are five main approaches available to achieve that goal: chemical control (synthetic and naturally derived), biological control (predators, parasitoids and pathogens), cultural control (including cover crops and genetically resistant plants), physical control and human factors (legal restrictions on commodities, quarantines, etc.) (Vincent et al., 2003). In practice, few technologies are blended into most pest management programs. For both pre- and post-harvest pest control, the primary approach worldwide is chemical/fumigation (Fields & White, 2002). Like any technology, chemical control has its merits and limits; the development of resistance to pesticides by some arthropod populations, environmental contamination and tightening of regulations in registration and restrictions of use are among factors that limit the use of chemical control measures. However, human factors are playing an effective role in movement towards truly integrated control programs. For example, there have been new regulations enacted in North America (US Food and Drug Administration, 2004) and the European Economic Community (European Union, 2002) for hygienic food quality and safety (Table 24.1). According to these new legislative measures, every food or feed product destined for trade must be free of arthropod pests. This requirement is the standard for food sanitary quality and hygiene of general application in international exchanges as established by the World Trade Organization (WTO). Physical control methods have been used for millennia. © Cambridge University Press 2009 and 2010.
Note:
Related Files :
Show More
Related Content
More details
DOI :
10.1017/CBO9780511626463.025
Article number:
Affiliations:
Database:
Scopus
Publication Type:
Book chapter
;
.
Language:
English
Editors' remarks:
ID:
21686
Last updated date:
02/03/2022 17:27
Creation date:
16/04/2018 23:46
Scientific Publication
Insect management with physical methods in pre- and post-harvest situations
Vincent, C., Horticultural Research and Development Centre, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, QC, Canada
Weintraub, P.G., Agricultural Research Organization, Gilat Research Center, Israel, D. N. Negev, Israel
Hallman, G.J., United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Subtropical Agricultural Research Center, Weslaco, TX, United States
Fleurat-Lessard, F., INRA, Laboratory for Post-Harvest Biology and Technology, Villenave-d'Ornon, France
Insect management with physical methods in pre- and post-harvest situations
In theory, IPM programs should be an optimal blend of science (knowledge) and technologies – used concomitantly or sequentially – to manage pests below an economic injury level. There are five main approaches available to achieve that goal: chemical control (synthetic and naturally derived), biological control (predators, parasitoids and pathogens), cultural control (including cover crops and genetically resistant plants), physical control and human factors (legal restrictions on commodities, quarantines, etc.) (Vincent et al., 2003). In practice, few technologies are blended into most pest management programs. For both pre- and post-harvest pest control, the primary approach worldwide is chemical/fumigation (Fields & White, 2002). Like any technology, chemical control has its merits and limits; the development of resistance to pesticides by some arthropod populations, environmental contamination and tightening of regulations in registration and restrictions of use are among factors that limit the use of chemical control measures. However, human factors are playing an effective role in movement towards truly integrated control programs. For example, there have been new regulations enacted in North America (US Food and Drug Administration, 2004) and the European Economic Community (European Union, 2002) for hygienic food quality and safety (Table 24.1). According to these new legislative measures, every food or feed product destined for trade must be free of arthropod pests. This requirement is the standard for food sanitary quality and hygiene of general application in international exchanges as established by the World Trade Organization (WTO). Physical control methods have been used for millennia. © Cambridge University Press 2009 and 2010.
Scientific Publication
You may also be interested in