Chemical strategy to combat insect's pest of melon (Cucumis melo L.) in greenhouses
Chemical strategy to combat insect’s pest of melon (Cucumis melo L.) in greenhouses
Julio Gabriel Ortega1
Jonathan Parrales Baque2
Jessica Morán Morán3
Máximo Vera Tumbaco4
Washington Narvaez Campana5
Gema Burgos López6
Heidi Flores Ramírez7
Published Edwards Deming Higher
Technological Institute. Quito - Ecuador Periodicity January - March Vol. 1, Num. 24, 2025 pp. 1-16 http://centrosuragraria.com/index.php/revista Dates of receipt Received: July 12, 2024 Approved: November 30, 2024 Correspondence author Creative Commons License Creative Commons License,
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
4.0 International.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.es
[1] PhD. Universidad Estatal del Sur de Manabí,
Faculty of Natural Sciences and Agriculture, Los Ángeles km 1.5 via Noboa,
Jipijapa, Ecuador. julio.gabriel@unesum.edu.ec , http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9776-9235 2 Agronomist Eng. Universidad Estatal del Sur de Manabí,
Jipijapa, Ecuador. jonathan-6660@hotmail.com
https://orcid.org/0009-0004-4834-9516 3 Mg. Universidad Estatal del Sur de
Manabí, Facultad de Ciencias naturales y de la Agricultura, Los Ángeles km
1.5 via Noboa, Jipijapa, Ecuador.
jessica.moran@unesum.edu.ec ,
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6487-1038 4 Mg. Universidad Estatal del Sur de
Manabí, Facultad de Ciencias naturales y de la Agricultura, Los Ángeles km
1.5 via Noboa, Jipijapa, Ecuador. maximo.vera@unesum.edu.ec https://orcid.org/
0000-0003-2320-712X, 5 Mg. Universidad Estatal del Sur de
Manabí, Facultad de Ciencias naturales y de la Agricultura, Los Ángeles km
1.5 via Noboa, Jipijapa, Ecuador. washington. narvaez@unesum.edu.ec,
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6674-2088 6 Mg. Independent consultant, Portoviejo, Ecuador.
burgos-gema4099@unesum.edu.ec ,
https://orcid.org/0002-0025-3679 7 Agronomist Eng. Professional graduate, Universidad
Estatal del Sur de Manabí, Portoviejo, Ecuador. flores-heidi5476@unesum.edu.ec, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9969-8864
Keywords: transplanting, flowering, fruiting, stages,
physiology.
Resumen: Los insectos plaga en melón son complejos de
controlar y se usa irracionalmente los plaguicidas. El objetivo fue Desarrollar
una estrategia química para el control de los insectos plaga en el melón
(Cucumis melo L.) bajo invernadero. Se implementó una parcela experimental en
un invernadero en la comunidad de Puerto La Boca, Ecuador, en el periodo
agrícola 2019, donde se evaluaron cuatro tratamientos: (1) Insecticida
sistémico (Thiamethoxan+lamda cihalotrina) 0,25 mL/L + Insecticida de contacto
(Avemectina) 2,25 mL/L (aplicación alternada), (2) Insecticida sistémico
[(Thiamethoxan+lamda cihalotrina) 0,25 mL/L + Insecticida de contacto
(Confidor) 0,60 g/L (aplicación alternada), (3) Insecticida sistémico
(Thiamethoxan+lamda cihalotrina) 0,25 mL/L + Neen (orgánico) 4 mL/L (aplicación
alternada) y (4) Testigo (agua). Estos tratamientos fueron distribuidos en un
diseño experimental de bloques completamente al azar con cuatro repeticiones.
Cada unidad experimental estuvo constituida por tres hileras con 123 plantas.
Las variables de respuestas fueron altura de planta, diámetro de tallo, número
de nudos, número de flores totales, número de flores fecundadas, número de
frutos, volumen del fruto, peso del fruto. Asimismo, se evaluó el número de
insectos en las trampas antes y después del tratamiento y se hizo un análisis
de costos de cada tratamiento. Los resultados mostraron que el mejor control
fue con tratamiento T2 [Insecticida sistémico (Thiamethoxan+lamda cihalotrina)
0,25 mL/L + Insecticida de contacto imidacloprid 0,60 g/L (aplicación
alternada)], obteniéndose un peso promedio de fruto de 0,97 kg, respecto del
testigo que fue de 0,58 kg. Con este tratamiento se obtuvo una rentabilidad de
$2,10 para supermercado y 46 centavos de dólar para mercado de abasto local.
Palabras clave: Transplante, floración, fructificación,
estadios, fisiología.
Introduction
World
melon production reached approximately 29 626.34 million kg, covering an area
of 1.19 million hectares. China, with a 49.8% share, leads world production
with 14 752.9 million kg, followed by Turkey with 1 707.3 million (5.76%) and
Iran with 1 476.8 million kg (4.98%) (Naranjo, 2018). In the Americas, the main
melon producers and exporters are located in Brazil, Mexico, Costa Rica,
Honduras, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Venezuela, Guatemala; France, Romania
and Italy in Europe (Chavez, 2018).
In Ecuador, melon is one of the main
horticultural species grown in the agricultural soils of the province of
Manabí, where it is planted in the dry and rainy seasons. The cultivated area
in this province covers 663 hectares, generating an annual production of 7421
tons (Chávez, 2018). However, it is estimated an
approximately 88% of fruit losses due to the effect of pest and disease
attacks, which cause deformations, spots, cracks and small size
(Espinoza-Arellano et al., 2023). According to Martínez (2020), the most
important insect pests in the melon crop are the silverleaf whitefly (Bemisia argentifolii), the melon aphid (Aphis gossypii), the leaf miner (Liriomyza sativae and Liriomyza trifolii) and the melon borer (Diaphania hyalinata).
It is known that the coastal region
of Puerto Cayo, in the community of Puerto La Boca, canton Jipijapa
in Ecuador, is an intensive horticultural area, where melon, watermelon,
tomato, bell pepper, cucumber, achocha, and some
species of fruit trees, such as mangos, citrus, papaya, among others, are
grown. In the area, melon is one of the crops with great economic importance,
which is mainly destined for differentiated markets (supermarkets) and local
consumption (Gabriel, 2021). Melon cultivation in this area is carried out
under greenhouse and field conditions, which requires the necessary labor for
cultural and post-harvest work.
The melon crop has been commercially
exploited in the last decade, a period in which technologies were innovated,
which contributed to being at the forefront of farming systems in the area
(Gabriel et al., 2020 a, b). Traditional insect-pest management was based on
the use of chemical pesticides, mainly from the organochlorine,
organophosphate, carbamate, pyrethroid, neonicotinoid and other groups (Gabriel
et al., 2023), for the control
of adult and nymph stages of sucking insects such as whiteflies, aphids, bold
and thrips; as well as larval stages of leafminers
and lepidopterans, which have the greatest economic importance in the melon
crop in this agricultural region (Gabriel et al., 2023). However, the applications made for the control of
insect pests are not planned and do not follow a strategy.
The indiscriminate use of pesticides
caused an imbalance in the balance between pest-insect populations and
populations of beneficial organisms. As a result, pests increased to
unimaginable levels and resistant insect populations were selected, causing greater
dependence on chemical pesticides at increasingly higher doses. In addition,
production costs increase, crop productivity is reduced, profitability for the
producer is reduced, and environmental contamination and risk to human health
increase (Gabriel et al.,
2023).
It is worth mentioning that in the
early days of melon farming in Puerto La Boca, the main pests were
coccinellids, aphids and fruit-boring worms (Gabriel, 2021). The indiscriminate
use of agrochemicals caused coccinellids (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) and aphids
(Aphis gossipii and Myzus
persicae) decreased in abundance in the crop and
fruit boring larvae species (Diaphania spp), became more economically important and caused an
inordinate increase in the populations of boll weevil (Prodiplosis
logifilia) ) (Institute for Technological
Innovation in Agriculture [INTAGRI], 2020; Gabriel et al., 2023), and
whitefly (Bemisia sp.) (Valarezo et al.,
2008), which after being insects without economic importance, emerged as very
important pests, not only for tomato, but also for melon and all vegetables
grown in the region (Gabriel, 2021). The whitefly, in addition to sucking plant
sap, is an efficient vector of viruses, causing important losses by reducing
yields and fruit quality (Valarezo et al., 2008).
In Puerto La Boca, there is
potential for the use of biological agents for the control of the main pests of
economic importance, which can consist of the use of predators, parasitoids and
entomopathogens (Gabriel et al. 2023). There is a natural beneficial fauna that
can be efficiently exploited, which can be reinforced with the introduction and
release of other beneficial insect species, which can be integrated into pest
management. In addition, the action of entomopathogenic microorganisms can be
involved, which can regulate the populations of pest insects causing diseases
in individuals, and can induce the formation of epizootics in the region (Okrikata et al., 2022).
The preceding
paragraphs show the importance of insect pests in the production of vegetables
in general and melon in particular, so the objective of this research was to
develop a chemical strategy for the control of insect pests in melon
(Cucumis melo L.) cultivation under greenhouse conditions.
Methodology
The research was developed in the
period 2019 in a greenhouse of the Asociación Agroartesanal
Puerto La boca del Recinto Puerto la Boca belonging
to the parish Puerto Cayo of the canton Jipijapa,
located at a latitude of 1°18'20''S and longitude: 80°45'42" W, at an
altitude of approximately 53 msnm, an annual
temperature of 24.8 °C and an annual precipitation of 298 mm (Gabriel et al.,
(2020 a).
Experiment management
The preparation of the soil inside
the greenhouse was done manually, first, the removal and weeding of the soil
was carried out. Organic matter (biocompost) was
applied to provide adequate soil for the plants at the time of transplanting.
The biocompost was applied at a rate of 75 kg per 33
m row. Then, the land was measured with a tape measure and wooden stakes at , for the formation of the 0.50 m wide by 33 m long
strips.
The substrate was prepared with biocompost, guava leaf and local soil in a 2:1:1 ratio. Ten
kilograms of humus and a bag (10 g) of mycorrhiza were added to avoid the
attack of pathogens that cause damping
off. Once the substrate was prepared, the holes were filled with it, taking
care to moisten it. Then the seeds of the parent plants were sown in these
trays. The trays were irrigated twice a day to maintain humidity. To prevent
disease attack, a broad-spectrum fungicide was applied.
The transplanting was done in rows,
for which holes were dug with a depth of 0.15 m at a distance of 0.30 m between
plants within the row and a distance of 1.50 m between rows, then proceeded to
the transplanting of one plant per hole having 10 plants per factor and 110
plants per row. The chemical insecticides were applied to the plants with
different treatments for each repetition, which consisted of six weeks
intercalating them for the prevention of pests.
Pruning
was performed on a single main branch and eliminating the remaining branches.
Old leaves and shoots were removed to avoid the formation of other secondary
branches. Trellising was performed after pruning, and a contact fungicide was
applied after each pruning to avoid diseases from the wounds caused by this
work. The plants were irrigated inside the greenhouse using a drip irrigation
system and the frequency of use was three times per week. Harvesting
was carried out 120 days after planting the melon crop.
Experimental design
Table 1. Chemical treatments used for the control of insect
pests in the agricultural period 2019, Puerto la Boca
|
Code |
Treatment |
|
T1: |
Systemic insecticide (Thiamethoxan+cyhalothrin flame) 0.25 mL/L + Contact
insecticide (Avemectin) 2.25 mL/L (alternate
application) |
|
T2: |
Systemic insecticide (Thiamethoxan+cyhalothrin flame) 0.25 mL/L + Contact
insecticide (Confidor) 0.60 g/L (alternate
application) |
|
T3: |
Systemic insecticide (Thiamethoxan+cyhalothrin flame) 0.25 mL/L + Neen
(organic) 4 mL/L (alternate application) |
|
T4: |
Witness (water) |
Source: Parrales and Gabriel (2022)
The
treatments detailed in Table 1 were applied alternately every seven days,
starting with the systemic insecticide, and seven days later the contact
insecticide was applied. This procedure was followed for six consecutive weeks,
avoiding the use of the systemic insecticide on more than three occasions, to
prevent the selection of resistant populations of pest insects. It should be
mentioned that neen (natural insecticide) was used as
a possible ecological alternative to replace the contact insecticide.
Plant
height (cm), stem diameter (mm), number of nodes, number of fruits, fruit
volume (cm3), fruit weight (kg), pest insect identification and
number were evaluated
in the experiment. For the capture and
identification of pest insects, yellow traps (trays) were placed with water and
detergent, which were evaluated before and after the application of each
treatment. The insects were identified using a magnifying glass and compared with
reference keys (Rodríguez Rodríguez & Téllez
Navarro, 2016; Castro, 2022 ).
For the
data collection of the response variables, the central row was considered in
order to avoid the edge effect; ten plants were randomly selected in these
rows.
To determine the benefit/cost of the treatments,
varying costs were considered, in order to perform a partial budget analysis
with these data. This benefit/cost analysis allowed to determine the
profitability or not of the treatments (Boardman et al., 2018).
In the agronomic evaluations, once
the data satisfied the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance,
they were analyzed under the additive linear model of a completely randomized
block experimental design suggested by Gabriel et al. (2021). Based on the
defined model, analyses of variance were performed to test hypotheses about
fixed effects, as well as comparisons of treatment means using the Tukey test
at P<0.05 probability. The analysis of variance was also used to estimate
the variance components for random effects. The indicated analyses were
performed using Proc GLM from SAS University (Cod, 2018), which is open access.
Results
The analysis of normality and
homogeneity of variances showed that the means were homogeneous, where the
Chi-square test was not significant (P<0.01), which confirmed the
continuation of the analysis of variance. The
coefficient of variation (CV) of the variables evaluated were between 13% and
26% (Table 2), indicating that they were within the ranges allowed for this
type of research.
Table 2. Analysis of variance for the number of pest insects determined in the
period 2019, Puerto La Boca.
|
FV |
Gl |
Mean
squares |
|||||
|
|
|
NE |
MMIN |
PUL |
POL |
TRIPS |
MBL |
|
repetitions |
3 |
18,39 |
11,08 |
1,28 |
45,73 |
28,17 |
75,06 |
|
Treatments |
3 |
86,06* |
52,91** |
3,45** |
54,73** |
730,17** |
21,28ns |
|
error
|
9 |
21,84 |
7,53 |
0,28 |
5,39 |
32,77 |
42,89 |
|
total
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CV
(%) |
13,52 |
21,31 |
26,18 |
20,09 |
21,60 |
24,78 |
|
NE: blackfly (Prodiplosis longifilia),
MMIN: leafminer (Liriomyza sp.), PUL:
aphid (Myzus persicae),
POL: moth (Diaphania sp.), TRIPS: thrips ( Frankliniella sp.), MBL: whitefly (Bemisia sp.).
The analysis of variance for pest insects (Table 2), determined that in
the number of pest insects present there were highly significant differences.
This would indicate that at least one of the treatments was different for the
blackfly - Prodiplosis longifilia
(NE), leafminer - Liriomyza sp.) (MMIN), aphid -
Myzus persicae (PUL),
moth - Diaphania sp. (POL) and thrips - Frankliniella sp. (TRIPS), except for the whitefly - Bemisia sp. (MBL) which did not show significance.
The analysis of the means of the
number of insects determined for the variables NE, MMIN, PUL, POL and TRIPS
with 32, 10, 0, 9 and 16 insect-pests captured respectively, were significant
in reference to the control T4, which showed 42, 18, 8, 8, 17 and 46 insects
captured respectively (Table 3). With respect to MBL, there were no significant
differences between treatments.
Table 3. Comparison of means of the number of pest insects determined in the
period 2019, Puerto La Boca.
|
Treatment |
NE |
MMIN |
PUL |
POL |
TRIPS |
MBL |
|
T4 |
42 b |
18
b |
8
b |
17
b |
46
b |
876
a |
|
T1 |
33 a |
12 ab |
6 b |
11 a |
25 a |
842 a |
|
T3 |
32 a |
12 a |
4 ab |
10 a |
19 a |
697 a |
|
T2 |
32 a |
10 a |
0 a |
9 a |
16 a |
545 a |
|
DSH |
10,32 |
6,05 |
4,74 |
5,13 |
12,64 |
697,57 |
Equal letters show
no significant difference at P<0.05 probability, 1: Systemic insecticide (Thiamethoxan+cyhalothrin
flame) 0.25 mL/L + Contact insecticide (Avemectin)
2.25 mL/L (alternate application), 2: Systemic
insecticide (Thiamethoxan+lamda cyhalothrin) 0.25
mL/L + Contact insecticide (Confidor) 0.60 g/L
(alternate application), 3: Systemic
insecticide (Thiamethoxan+lamda cyhalothrin) 0.25
mL/L + Neen (organic) 4 mL/L (alternate application), 4: Control (water). NE: Neen (Prodiplosis
longifilia), MMIN: leafminer
(Liriomyza sp.), PUL:
aphid (Myzus persicae),
POL: moth (Diaphania sp.), TRIPS: thrips ( Frankliniella sp.), MBL: whitefly (Bemisia sp.).
In this
research it was found that T2 in which an alternate application is made between
a systemic insecticide (Thiamethoxan+lamda cyhalothrin) and a contact
insecticide (Confidor or Avemectin)
and/or neen instead of the contact insecticide, is a
good practice and allowed the control of up to 40% of pest insects such as NE,
MMIN, PUL, POL, TRIPs and MBL (Table 1). These insect pests were mentioned by
Chirinos et al. (2020) as the
most important for vegetable crops in Ecuador. With this strategic proposal, in
addition, the number of applications was lowered to a maximum of six times
during the entire crop cycle, from the 20 or more applications made in the area
(Vargas et al. 2016; Chirinos et al.,
2020). In addition, it was determined that the application of T2 treatment
improved product yield, achieving better benefits for producers, contributing
to their health and the environment (INTAGRI,
2020).
Agronomic and yield characteristics
The kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality and
the chi-square test for homogeneity of variances showed no significant
differences, indicating that the data had normal distribution and homogeneity
of variances.
The analysis of variance for
agronomic yield traits (Table 4), were highly significant (P<0.01
probability). This would indicate that, AP, DT, NN, NFT, NFF, NFR, VF and PF at
least one of the treatments was different. It was determined that the CV of the
evaluated variables are between 0.72 and 13.07 %, indicating that they are
within the ranges allowed for this type of research.
Table 4. Analysis of variance for agronomic and yield traits in
2019, Puerto La Boca.
|
FV |
gl |
Mean squares |
||||||||
|
AP |
DT |
NN |
NFT |
NFF |
NFR |
VF |
PF |
|||
|
repetitions |
3 |
7,57 |
0,0001 |
1,03 |
1,79 |
0,052 |
0,01 |
231438,19 |
0,004 |
|
|
Treatments |
3 |
60,69** |
1,27** |
4,94* |
25,98** |
1,60** |
0,35** |
11878815,58** |
0,140** |
|
|
error |
9 |
2,09 |
0,01 |
0,74 |
1,64 |
0,04 |
0,02 |
93640,91 |
0,010 |
|
|
total |
15 |
|||||||||
|
C.V. (%) |
0,72 |
2,63 |
3,98 |
6,42 |
6,77 |
10,90 |
6,20 |
13,107 |
||
AP:
plant height, DT: stem diameter, NNodes: number of
nodes, NFflower: number of flowers, NFF: number of
fertilized flowers, NFfruit: number of fruits, VF:
fruit volume, Weight: fruit weight, *Significant at P<0.05 probability, **:
Highly significant at P<0.01 probability.
For stem diameter (SD), it was observed that treatment 2 was highly
significant (Table 2), obtaining a mean diameter of 4.92 mm compared to the
control (T4), which obtained a mean of 3.64 mm. In the variable of number of
nodes (NNodes) significant differences were observed
(P<0.05 probability), T2 obtained a mean of 23 nodes per plant with respect
to T4 which had 20 nodes per plant.
For the total flower number variable, significant differences were observed (P<0.05 probability) (Table 5).
Treatments T3 and T2 obtained an average of 22 flowers per plant with respect
to treatment T4, which had 18 flowers/plant. For the total number of fertilized flowers (NFF), it was observed that
treatment T3 was highly significant (Table 5), obtaining a mean of 4 fertilized flowers per plant with respect to the
control T4 (2 fertilized flowers/plant). Significant differences
(P<0.05 probability) were observed in the fruit number variable (Table 5),
the T2 treatment had an average of 2 fruits/plant with respect to the control
(T4), which had 1 fruit/plant.
Table 5. Mean comparison
analysis for agronomic and yield traits in 2019, Puerto La Boca.
|
Treatment |
AP |
DT |
NKnots |
NFlor |
NFF |
NFruto |
VF |
Weight |
|
T2 |
205,85 a |
4,92 a |
22,97 a |
22,00 a |
3,05 b |
1,67 a |
6616,74 a |
0,97 a |
|
T3 |
200,05 b |
4,37 b |
21.72 ab |
22,30 a |
3,62 a |
1,52 a |
6181,95 a |
0,89 a |
|
T1 |
199.05 bc |
3,89 c |
21.17 ab |
17,95 b |
2,40 c |
1,12 b |
4747,65 b |
0,65 b |
|
T4 |
196,68 c |
3,64 d |
20,32 b |
17,55 b |
2,25 c |
1,07 b |
3169,09 b |
0,58 b |
|
DSH |
0,05 |
0,24 |
1,89 |
2,82 |
0,42 |
0,32 |
675,00 |
0,22 |
T1: Systemic insecticide (Thiamethoxan+cyhalothrin
flame) 0.25 mL/L + Contact insecticide (Avemectin)
2.25 mL/L (alternate application), T2: Systemic insecticide (Thiamethoxan+cyhalothrin flame) 0.25 mL/L + Contact
insecticide (Confidor) 0.60 g/L (alternate
application), T3: Systemic insecticide (Thiamethoxan+lamda
cyhalothrin) 0.25 mL/L + Neen (organic) 4 mL/L (alternate application), T4:
Control (water), AP: Plant height, DT: Stem diameter, NNodes:
Number of nodes, NFflower: Number of flowers, NFF:
number of fertilized flowers, NFruit: number of
fruits, VF: fruit volume, Weight: fruit weight. *Significant at P<0.05
probability, **: Highly significant at P<0.01 probability.
For fruit volume (FV), significant differences were observed, the T2
treatment stood out with a mean of 6616.74 cm3 in relation to the
control (T4) which obtained a mean of 3169.68 cm3. In fruit weight
(FP), significant differences were observed (P<0.05 of probability), the
superior treatment was for the T2 treatment with a mean of 0.96 kg of weight
per fruit, in relation to T4 which reached a mean of 0.57 kg of weight per
fruit.
From these results, it was determined that the chemical strategy T2 was
the best to combat insect pests of melon (Cucumis melo L.) in greenhouses. This would contribute to reduce
the indiscriminate use of pesticides to combat insect pests in Puerto La Boca
Chirinos, 2020). The misuse of pesticides may be due to several factors, one of
the main ones being that most farmers were not trained in the use and
management of good pesticide management practices and do not have appropriate
insect pest control strategies (Gabriel et al., 2023). It was evidenced in
previous works (Gabriel et al., 2023), that in the Puerto la Boca area, farmers
use twenty-four active ingredients of insecticides in powder and liquid form,
which are under-dosed or over-dosed, which plays an important role in the
acquisition of genetic resistance of pest insects to the insecticides used,
generating increasingly resistant populations of the pest, which demands
stronger and more toxic active ingredients (Chirinos et al., 2020; National Institute of Agricultural Technology
[INTA], 2019). They also cause substantial losses in yields and product quality
(Lindao et
al., 2017).
The application of treatments T2, T3
and T4 identified the best chemical strategy with notable effects on agronomic
traits such as plant height, stem diameter, number of nodes, number of flowers,
number of fertilized flowers, and yield traits such as number of fruits, fruit
volume and fruit weight (Table 5). It was also found that the strategies
applied achieved better profitability of the fruit when sold in supermarkets
and in supply markets (Table 6).
Benefit/cost (B/C) analysis of treatments
All treatments showed a B/C>1, when the product was
marketed in the supermarket at $0.50/kg fruit (Table 6). However, treatments T2
and T3 were the most profitable, with a B/C ratio of $3.10 and $2.76,
respectively. This indicates that in the case of treatment T2, for each dollar
invested, $2.10 would be earned. With treatment T3, for each dollar invested,
$1.76 would be earned.
Table 6. B/C analysis of the treatments marketed in
supermarkets in 2019, Puerto La Boca.
|
Trat |
NP |
P/C |
PT/C |
Pr/kg |
Benefit |
Cost |
Net benefit |
B/C |
Profitability |
|
T1 |
3135 |
0,65 |
2037,75 |
0,5 |
1018,88 |
371,15 |
647,73 |
1,75 |
Profitable |
|
T2 |
3135 |
0,97 |
3040,95 |
0,5 |
1520,48 |
371,15 |
1149,33 |
3,10 |
Profitable |
|
T3 |
3135 |
0,89 |
2790,15 |
0,5 |
1395,08 |
371,15 |
1023,93 |
2,76 |
Profitable |
|
T4 |
3135 |
0,58 |
1818,30 |
0,5 |
909,15 |
371,15 |
538,00 |
1,45 |
Profitable |
B/C
> 1.0 = Profitable, T1: Systemic insecticide (Thiamethoxan+cyhalothrin
flame) 0.25 mL/L + Contact insecticide (Avemectin)
2.25 mL/L (alternate application), T2: Systemic insecticide (Thiamethoxan+lamda cyhalothrin) 0.25 mL/L + Contact
insecticide (Confidor) 0.60 g/L (alternate
application), T3: Systemic insecticide (Thiamethoxan+lamda
cyhalothrin) 0.25 mL/L + Neen (organic) 4 mL/L (alternate application), T4:
Control (water). NP: number of plants in 1000 m2, P/C: weight per
harvest in kg, PT/C: total weight per harvest in kg, Pr/kg:
price per kg in US$ / B/C: benefit-cost ratio in US$.
When the product was marketed in the local supply market only treatments
T2 and T3 were profitable with a B/C ratio of $1.46 and $1.26, respectively
(Table 7).
Table 7. B/C analysis of the treatments marketed in the local
supply market in the period 2019, Puerto La Boca.
|
Trat |
NP |
P/C |
PT/C |
Pr/Kg |
Benefit |
Cost |
Net benefit |
B/C |
Profitability |
|
T1 |
3135 |
0,65 |
2037,75 |
0,3 |
611,33 |
371,15 |
240,18 |
0,65 |
Not profitable |
|
T2 |
3135 |
0,97 |
3040,95 |
0,3 |
912,29 |
371,15 |
541,14 |
1,46 |
Profitable |
|
T3 |
3135 |
0,89 |
2790,15 |
0,3 |
837,05 |
371,15 |
465,90 |
1,26 |
Profitable |
|
T4 |
3135 |
0,58 |
1818,30 |
0,3 |
545,49 |
371,15 |
174,34 |
0,47 |
Not profitable |
B/C > 1.0 = Profitable, T1:
Systemic insecticide (Thiamethoxan+cyhalothrin
flame) 0.25 mL/L + Contact insecticide (Avemectin)
2.25 mL/L (alternate application), T2: Systemic insecticide (Thiamethoxan+cyhalothrin flame) 0.25 mL/L + Contact
insecticide (Confidor) 0.60 g/L (alternate
application), T3: Systemic insecticide (Thiamethoxan+cyhalothrin
flame) 0.25 mL/L + Neen (organic) 4 mL/L (alternate application), T4:
Control (water). NP: number of plants in 1000 m2, P/C: weight per
harvest in kg, PT/C: total weight per harvest in kg, Pr/kg:
price per kg in US$. B/C: Benefit-cost ratio in dollars.
Conclusions
Of the
three insect pest control strategies evaluated in the melon crop, the one that
showed the best results was the T2 treatment, achieving a control of insect
pests of up to 40%.
Treatment
T2 allowed a higher profitability in the sale of melon fruit in supermarkets,
achieving a profit/cost of $2.10 for each dollar invested. On the other hand, at the local wholesale
market level, the same T2 treatment obtained a profit/cost of $1.46 for each
dollar invested.
References
Boardman, N. E., Greenberg, D. H.,
Vining, A. R. & Weimer, D. L. (2018). Cost-benefit
Analysis: Concepts and Practice (5a ed.). Cambridge, United
Kingdom; New York Press.
http://students.aiu.edu/submissions/profiles/resources/onlineBook/E5V5H3_Cost-benefit%20analysis%20_%202018.pdf.
Castro, J. C. (2022). Main insect pests in the melon crop (Cucumis melo L.) [Examen complexivo, Universidad Técnica de Babahoyo]. Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Babahoyo. http://dspace.utb.edu.ec/bitstream/handle/49000/11323/E-UTB-FACIAG-ING%20AGRON-000367.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Chávez, J. (2018). Melon (Cucumis melo) production with
different levels of organic fertilizer in Quinindé
canton. [Engineering undergraduate thesis, University of Quevedo, Ecuador.
UTEQ]. Institutional
Repository of the University of Quevedo.
Chirinos, D.,
Castro, R., Cun, J. Castro, J., Peñarrieta, S., Solis, L. & Geraud-Pouey,
F. (2020). Insecticides
and agricultural pest control: the magnitude of their use on
crops in some provinces of Ecuador. Ciencia Tecnología Agropecuaria, 21(1): e1276.
http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/ccta/v21n1/0122-8706-ccta-21-01-00084.pdf.
http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/ccta/v21n1/0122-8706-ccta-21-01-00084.pdf
Cod, R.
(2018). An introduction to SAS
university edition. North Carolina: SAS Institute. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/an-introduction-to/9781629600079/.
Espinoza-Arellano, J. de J., Fabela-Hernández, A. M.,
Gaytán-Mascorro, A., Reyes-González, A. & Sánchez-Toledano, B. I. (2023). Quantification and use of food losses: case of cantaloupe melon in a
north-central region of Mexico. Revista mexicana de ciencias
agrícolas, 14(2), 159-170. https://doi.org/10.29312/remexca.v14i2.2962.
Gabriel, J. (Ed.) (2021). Green book: Agro-UNESUM
Informa. Production of quality
vegetables under greenhouse conditions. Editorial
Grupo Compas, Universidad Estatal del Sur de Manabí, Guayaquil, Ecuador. http://142.93.18.15:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/638
Gabriel,
J., Avila, J., Ayon, F.,
Moran, J., Alvarez, A. & Flores, H. (2023). Pesticide
use by farmers in Puerto La Boca, Manabí. A reflection on its possible
consequences. Journal of the Selva Andina Biosphere, 11(1),
47-65.
https://doi.org/10.36610/j.jsab.2023.110100044.
Gabriel, J.,
Banchón, J., Ayón, F., Vera, M. & Narváez, W. (2020b). New cultivars of melon (Cucumis melo L.) for greenhouse in Puerto la Boca, Mmanabí: New cultivars of melon (Cucumis melo L.) . UNESUM -
Sciences. Revista Científica Multidisciplinaria, 4(4), 259-271.
https://doi.org/10.47230/unesum-ciencias.v4.n4.2020.352
Gabriel, J., Valverde, A., Indacochea,
B., Castro, C., Vera, M., Alcívar, J. & Vera, R. (2021). Experimental
designs: Theory and practice for agricultural experiments (2a Ed.).
Editorial Grupo Compás. Universidad
Estatal del Sur de Manabí. Guayaquil, Ecuador. http://142.93.18.15:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/625
Gabriel. J., Pereira. E., Ayón. F., Castro.
C., Delvalle-García. I. & Castillo J. A. (2020a). Development
of an ecological strategy for the control of downy mildew (Pseudoperonospora
cubensis) in cucumber cultivation (Cucumis
sativus L.). Revista Bionatura, 5(2):
1-15.
http://dx.doi.org/10.21931/RB/2020.05.02.3.
National Institute of Agricultural
Technology (2019). Chemical pesticides,
composition and formulations, labeling, toxicological classification, residues
and application methods in Ministerio de Agricultura Ganadería
y Pesca, editors. Aplicación Eficiente de
Fitosanitarios. Buenos Aires: Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria.
p. 1-14.
https://www.manualfitosanitario.com/InfoNews/INTA%20Aplicacion%20eficiente%20de%20fitosanitarios%20Cap%202.%20%20Formulaciones.pdf
Lindao, V. A., Jave J. L., Retuerto, M. G.,
Erazo, N. S. & Echeverría, M. M. (2017).
Impact on cholinesterase levels in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) farmers in the locality of San Luis,
Chimborazo due to the effect of the use of organophosphate and carbamate
insecticides. Revista Instituto Investigaciones
FIGMMG-UNMSM, 20(40), 114-119.
https://revistasinvestigacion.
unmsm.edu.pe/index.php/iigeo/article/view/14400.
Martinez, L. (2020). Efficacy of the use of botanical
insecticide with altamisa slurry for control of (Bemisia tabaci) in melon crop.
[Thesis in Agricultural Engineering, Guayaquil, Ecuador]. Institutional
Repository of the University of Guayaquil.
Okrikata, E.,
Ogunwolu, E. O., Otabor, J. I. & Ogunmola, A. O. (2022). Interactive Effects of Major Insect Pest of
Watermelon on its Yield in Wukari, Nigeria. Baghdad Science Journal,19(2):0276.
https://bsj.uobaghdad.edu.iq/index.php/BSJ/article/view/4248.
Parrales, J. and Gabriel, J. (2022). Development of a strategy to combat insect-pests in melon (Cucumis melo L.), in Puerto La Boca - Jipijapa. [Agricultural Thesis, Universidad Estatal del Sur de Manabí, Jipijapa, Ecuador]. Institutional Repository of the Universidad Estatal del Sur de Manabí. http://repositorio.unesum.edu.ec/bitstream/53000/4170/1/Parrales%20Baque%20Jonathan%20Jes%C3%BAs.pdf
Rodríguez Rodríguez, M., &
Téllez Navarro, M. del mar (2016). Recommended
measures for pest control in melon cultivation under plastic.
https://www.bibliotecahorticultura.com/publicaciones/tecnicas-de-cultivo/sanidad-vegetal/plagas-del-melon/
Vargas,
G., Álvarez, V., Guijón, C., Cano, P., Jiménez, F., Vásquez, J. & García,
M. (2016). Pattern of
high-risk pesticide use in the melon (Cucumis
melo L.) crop in the Comarca Lagunera. Ecosystems and Natural Resources, 3(9):
1-12.
http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2007-90282016000300367&lng=es.