Cassava is a major staple, bio-energy and industrial crop in many parts of the developing world. In Southeast Asia, cassava is grown on >4 million ha by nearly 8 million (small-scale) farming households, under (climatic, biophysical) conditions that often prove unsuitable for many other crops. While SE Asian cassava has been virtually free of phytosanitary constraints for most of its history, a complex of invasive arthropod pests and plant diseases has recently come to affect local crops. We describe results from a region-wide monitoring effort in the 2014 dry season, covering 429 fields across five countries. We present geographic distribution and field-level incidence of the most prominent pest and disease invaders, introduce readily-available management options and research needs. Monitoring work reveals that several exotic mealybug and (red) mite species have effectively colonised SE Asia's main cassava-growing areas, occurring in respectively 70% and 54% of fields, at average field-level incidence of 27 ± 2% and 16 ± 2%. Cassava witches broom (CWB), a systemic phytoplasma disease, was reported from 64% of plots, at incidence levels of 32 ± 2%. Although all main pests and diseases are non-natives, we hypothesise that accelerating intensification of cropping systems, increased climate change and variability, and deficient crop husbandry are aggravating both organism activity and crop susceptibility. Future efforts need to consolidate local capacity to tackle current (and future) pest invaders, boost detection capacity, devise locally-appropriate integrated pest management (IPM) tactics, and transfer key concepts and technologies to SE Asia's cassava growers. Urgent action is needed to mobilise regional as well as international scientific support, to effectively tackle this phytosanitary emergency and thus safeguard the sustainability and profitability of one of Asia's key agricultural commodities. © 2016 Society of Chemical Industry.
Several molecular marker systems have been developed for assessing genetic diversity in crop germplasm collections. A trade-off often exists between the number of loci that can feasibly be sampled by a marker system and the amount of information provided by each locus. We compared the usefulness of two marker systems for revealing genetic diversity and population structure in cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz): simple sequence repeats (SSRs) and diversity array technology (DArT) markers. DArTs survey many more loci per reaction than do SSRs; however, as bi-allelic, dominant markers, DArTs provide less polymorphism information per locus. Genetic differentiation was assessed in a randomly selected set of 436 cassava accessions, consisting of 155 African and 281 Latin American accessions. A genome-wide set of 36 SSR markers and a DArT array of approximately 1000 polymorphic clones were used to assess genetic diversity and differentiation. Cluster analyses were performed using principal coordinate analysis (PCoA). Results were compared with a priori expectations of genetic differentiation based on previous genetic analyses. Analyses of the two datasets generated broadly similar clustering patterns. However, SSRs revealed greater differentiation than DArTs, and more effectively recovered patterns of genetic differentiation observed in previous analyses (differentiation between Latin American and African accessions, and some geographical differentiation within each of these groups). These results suggest that SSR markers, while low throughput in comparison with DArTs, are relatively better at detecting genetic differentiation in cassava germplasm collections. Nonetheless, DArTs will likely prove useful in ‘orphan crop’ species, where alternative molecular markers have not been developed.
Biological control, a globally-important ecosystem service, can provide long-term and broad-scale suppression of invasive pests, weeds and pathogens in natural, urban and agricultural environments. Following (few) historic cases that led to sizeable environmental up-sets, the discipline of arthropod biological control has—over the past decades—evolved and matured. Now, by deliberately taking into account the ecological risks associated with the planned introduction of insect natural enemies, immense environmental and societal benefits can be gained. In this study, we document and analyze a successful case of biological control against the cassava mealybug, Phenacoccus manihoti (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) which invaded Southeast Asia in 2008, where it caused substantial crop losses and triggered two- to three-fold surges in agricultural commodity prices. In 2009, the host-specific parasitoid Anagyrus lopezi (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) was released in Thailand and subsequently introduced into neighboring Asian countries. Drawing upon continental-scale insect surveys, multi-year population studies and (field-level) experimental assays, we show how A. lopezi attained intermediate to high parasitism rates across diverse agro-ecological contexts. Driving mealybug populations below non-damaging levels over a broad geographical area, A. lopezi allowed yield recoveries up to 10.0 t/ha and provided biological control services worth several hundred dollars per ha (at local farm-gate prices) in Asia’s four-million ha cassava crop. Our work provides lessons to invasion science and crop protection worldwide. Furthermore, it accentuates the importance of scientifically-guided biological control for insect pest management, and highlights its potentially large socio-economic benefits to agricultural sustainability in the face of a debilitating invasive pest. In times of unrelenting insect invasions, surging pesticide use and accelerating biodiversity loss across the globe, this study demonstrates how biological control—as a pure public good endeavor—constitutes a powerful, cost-effective and environmentally-responsible solution for invasive species mitigation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.