Incidence, Distribution and Characteristics of Major Tomato Leaf ...
Incidence, Distribution and Characteristics of Major Tomato Leaf ... Incidence, Distribution and Characteristics of Major Tomato Leaf ...
Incidence, distribution and characteristics of major tomato leaf curl and mosaic virus diseases 184 Table A.3.2: Crops associated with tomato fields in Iganga (IG) Kasese (KA), Mbale (MB), Mpigi (MP), Mbarara (MR), Mukono (MU), and Rakai (RA) districts as either intercrops or rotation crops. Crops observed in the district were recorded as (+), and those not observed as (-) Crops IG KA MB MP MR MU RA Maize + + + + + + + Beans + + + + + + + Cassava + + + + + + + Sesame - - - + - - - Sugarcane - - - + - - - Onions - + - - - + - Curcubits - + - - - - - Passionfruits - + - - - - - Banana + + + - + - + Sweet potato + - - - - - + Coffee + - - - - - - Cabbage - - - - + + - Solanum potato - - + - - - - Cotton - - - + - + - Sweet pepper - - + - - + -
Incidence, distribution and characteristics of major tomato leaf curl and mosaic virus diseases 185 Table A.3.3: Percentage presence of insect pests in tomato fields visited per district, in Uganda Districts Observed percentage number of fields with various insect pests per district (%) Whiteflies Aphids Thrips Leafhoppers Iganga 40 20 80 0 Kasese 80 80 100 60 Mbale 100 60 100 0 Mpigi 100 0 100 0 Mbarara 20 0 100 0 Mukono 100 25 100 25 Rakai 80 20 80 0 Mean 74 29 94 12 Table A.3.4: Percentage use of particular pesticides on tomato fields per district Pesticide Iganga Kasese Mbale Mpigi Mbarara Mukono Rakai Mean Ambush 0 0 100 80 0 25 20 32 Dimecron 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 3 Rogor 80 0 0 0 40 0 0 17 Dursban 0 0 6 0 0 50 0 8 FenomP 0 80 0 0 0 50 0 19 Sumithion 80 0 0 0 20 0 0 14 Others 0 20 0 20 0 25 40 15 Mean 23 14 15 17 9 21 9 Most farmers sprayed with Ambush, which was followed by Fenom P. Dimecron was the least used insecticide. On average 15% of the farmers applied non-chemical pest management options, such as chili, ash and various botanical concoctions.
- Page 158 and 159: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 160 and 161: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 162 and 163: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 164 and 165: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 166 and 167: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 168 and 169: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 170 and 171: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 172 and 173: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 174 and 175: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 176 and 177: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 178 and 179: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 180 and 181: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 182 and 183: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 184 and 185: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 186 and 187: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 188 and 189: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 190 and 191: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 192 and 193: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 194 and 195: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 196 and 197: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 198 and 199: 8 ANNEXES Incidence, distribution a
- Page 200 and 201: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 202 and 203: Table A.1.1 continued Incidence, di
- Page 204 and 205: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 206 and 207: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 210 and 211: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 212 and 213: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 214 and 215: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 216 and 217: Annex 5: Incidence, distribution an
- Page 218 and 219: Annex 6: Incidence, distribution an
- Page 220 and 221: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 222 and 223: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 224 and 225: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 226 and 227: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 228 and 229: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 230 and 231: Incidence, distribution and charact
- Page 232: Books Incidence, distribution and c
<strong>Incidence</strong>, distribution <strong>and</strong> characteristics <strong>of</strong> major tomato leaf curl <strong>and</strong> mosaic virus diseases 185<br />
Table A.3.3: Percentage presence <strong>of</strong> insect pests in tomato fields visited per district, in<br />
Ug<strong>and</strong>a<br />
Districts Observed percentage number <strong>of</strong> fields with various insect pests<br />
per district (%)<br />
Whiteflies Aphids Thrips <strong>Leaf</strong>hoppers<br />
Iganga 40 20 80 0<br />
Kasese 80 80 100 60<br />
Mbale 100 60 100 0<br />
Mpigi 100 0 100 0<br />
Mbarara 20 0 100 0<br />
Mukono 100 25 100 25<br />
Rakai 80 20 80 0<br />
Mean 74 29 94 12<br />
Table A.3.4: Percentage use <strong>of</strong> particular pesticides on tomato fields per district<br />
Pesticide Iganga Kasese Mbale Mpigi Mbarara Mukono Rakai Mean<br />
Ambush 0 0 100 80 0 25 20 32<br />
Dimecron 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 3<br />
Rogor 80 0 0 0 40 0 0 17<br />
Dursban 0 0 6 0 0 50 0 8<br />
FenomP 0 80 0 0 0 50 0 19<br />
Sumithion 80 0 0 0 20 0 0 14<br />
Others 0 20 0 20 0 25 40 15<br />
Mean 23 14 15 17 9 21 9<br />
Most farmers sprayed with Ambush, which was followed by Fenom P. Dimecron was the<br />
least used insecticide. On average 15% <strong>of</strong> the farmers applied non-chemical pest<br />
management options, such as chili, ash <strong>and</strong> various botanical concoctions.
Change language