Introduction

 

Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) is recognized as the fourth most economically significant food crop worldwide and is grown in nearly every country (Schreinemachers et al. 2018). This vegetable crop holds significant importance in Bangladesh, contributing to food security and providing income for smallholder farmers. This crop is grown in multiple regions, such as Rajshahi, Rangpur, Bogura and Jashore, due to the advantageous agro-climatic conditions present in the country. Data from the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) indicates that tomato production during the 2022-2023 agricultural year amounted to 4.1 million metric tons, with cultivation occurring over an area of approximately 80,000 ha (BBS 2023). Despite this achievement, the cultivation of tomatoes in Bangladesh encounters significant challenges posed by insect pests and diseases, which can result in considerable reductions in yield. Tomato plants experience infestations from various insect pests; however, the fruit borer (Helicoverpa armigera Hub.) is recognized as the most detrimental. The larvae penetrate the fruit, feeding on the internal tissue (Nasrin et al. 2021). The tomato leaf miner, Tuta absoluta (Meyrick), is one of the most destructive invasive pests of tomato crops in the world. It is one of the most significant biotic limitations on tomato production and if left unchecked, it could result in a 100% reduction in yield (Huda et al. 2020). Other insects, including whiteflies (Bemisia tabaci Gennadius), aphids (Aphis gossypii Glover) and thrips (Thrips tabaci Lindeman), cause significant harm by feeding on plants and help spread viruses such as Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl Virus (TYLCV) (Moriones and Navas-Castillo 2000; Hanssen et al. 2010; Kenyon et al. 2014; Schreinemachers et al. 2017a). Early Blight was observed in 85% of the fields and 90% of the farmers noted it as a major cause of yield loss (Nuwamanya et al. 2023). Additionally, bacterial wilt from Ralstonia solanacearum (Smith) (Mansfield et al. 2012) and late blight from Phytophthora infestans (Bary) greatly reduce tomato harvests and the quality of the tomatoes (Fry 2008; Nowicki et al. 2011). Weeds are one of the key problems in tomato production, as they compete for light, nutrients, water and space, resulting in reduced yields. Some usual broadleaf weeds like nightshade, cocklebur and pigweed host bugs, diseases and viruses (Pala and Karipsin 2021). Research indicates that agricultural producers in Bangladesh experience average yield reductions of 11 tons per ha as a result of these challenges (Depenbusch et al. 2023). To address these challenges, a significant proportion of farmers in Bangladesh rely extensively on chemical pesticides, which constitute approximately 17% of overall production expenses (Depenbusch et al. 2023). Relying too much on chemical methods has caused many problems, including the development of pesticide resistance in pest populations, environmental contamination and significant health hazards for farmers, such as pesticide poisoning (Schreinemachers et al. 2017b). Even with an understanding of these risks, numerous farmers persist in utilizing pesticides as their main method of pest management, primarily due to insufficient knowledge and limited access to alternative approaches (Schreinemachers et al. 2017a; Akter et al. 2018).

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) provides a more sustainable approach to these challenges through the promotion of a combination of biological, cultural and chemical control methods. The implementation of integrated pest management involves utilizing insect-resistant tomato varieties, engaging in crop rotation and applying biopesticides, which collectively contribute to minimizing dependence on chemical pesticides while ensuring sustained crop productivity (FAO 2021). Nonetheless, despite its advantages, the implementation of integrated pest management in Bangladesh is still minimal, attributed to insufficient training, a lack of awareness and limitations in resources (Schreinemachers et al. 2017b; Depenbusch et al. 2023). To tackle these challenges, it is crucial to comprehend farmers’ knowledge, perceptions and existing pest management practices to develop effective extension programs. In Bangladesh, precise baseline data are essential for the effective management of insect pests and diseases affecting tomato cultivation. In light of this necessity, there remains a paucity of comprehensive studies examining the perceptions and management strategies of farmers regarding these challenges. It is suggested that tomato farmers may lack the comprehensive knowledge required for the precise identification of pests and beneficial insects, as well as the implementation of effective Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies in tomato cultivation. This study aimed to investigate the level of awareness and understanding among farmers regarding pest and disease challenges, as well as the management strategies currently utilized in prominent tomato cultivation areas of Bangladesh.

Materials and Methods

 

Site selection

 

This research was carried out during the winter of 2021 and 2022 to assess farmers’ attitudes and knowledge about insect pests, diseases and weeds impacting tomato crops, as well as their management strategies throughout ten districts in Bangladesh. The chosen districts included Dinajpur (25°37'07.0"N 88°38'06.2" E), Rangpur (25°26'09.5"N 89°18'41.6" E), Rajshahi (24°27'22.2"N 88°20'24.7" E), Bogura (24°41'00.9"N 89°32'26.8" E), Dhaka (23°45'54.6"N 89°58'18.3" E), Jashore (23°15'16.4"N 89°17'46.8" E), Barishal (22°49'01.7"N 90°19'32.4" E), Cumilla (23°29'19.6"N 91°00'19.1" E), Chittagong (22°01'32.5"N 91°56'58.0" E) and Sylhet (24°48'58.6"N 91°45'22.7" E) (Fig. 1).

A multi-stage sampling method was used to guarantee a representative sample of tomato cultivators. Initially, two upazilas were randomly chosen from each district, culminating in a total of 20 upazilas for the research. A systematic random selection approach was used inside each upazila to choose farmers according to the number of tomato producers recorded in local agricultural databases.

 

Data collection

 

Data were gathered via in-person interviews using a prepared questionnaire including both open-ended and closed-ended inquiries. The questionnaire sought to evaluate farmers’ knowledge of tomato insect pests, diseases and weeds; their perceived severity and the management strategies they used. Socio-demographic data, including age, gender, educational attainment, agricultural experience and land area, were collected to assess their impact on pest control techniques.

The questionnaire used visual aids consisting of printed photos depicting prevalent tomato pests and diseases to improve comprehension. The method enabled farmers to precisely identify and prioritize pests and diseases according to the damage witnessed in their tomato crops. We questioned 400 farmers in total, with an average of 20 responses from each selected upazila. Trained enumerators assisted data collection, ensuring consistency and accuracy throughout the interviews. 

To select farmers from the twenty upazilas, we applied the following formula to calculate the total number of respondents: 

 

      n

 

Where:

- n is the sample size,

- N represents the total number of farmers in each area and

- ε denotes the margin of error (Tuan et al. 2014).

We interviewed 400 farmers, selecting 20 from each upazila to maintain a defined margin of error of 6%. The interviews were facilitated by the Sub Assistant Agriculture Officers (SAAOs) from the corresponding upazilas.

Table 1: Socio-demographic status of the tomato growing farmers from 20 surveyed upazilas of Bangladesh

 

Factor	Category	Frequency	% Total Farmers	Mean	SD
Age (years)	15-30	53	13.2	27.51	2.21
	31-45	181	45.2	38.31	4.25
	46-60	137	34.3	52.51	4.07
	> 60	29	7.3	64.41	2.76
Gender	Male	377	94.3	-	-
	Female	23	5.7	-	-
Education level	Illiterate	89	22.3	-	-
	Only Signature	104	26.0	-	-
	Class 1-5	66	16.5	-	-
	Class 6-9	63	15.7	-	-
	SSC	52	13.0	-	-
	HSC	19	4.7	-	-
	Graduate	7	1.8	-	-
Land Type	Own	269	67.3	-	-
	Lease	59	14.7	-	-
	Borga	72	18.0	-	-
Experience in agriculture including tomato farming (years)	1-5	127	31.7	4.34	0.66
	6-10	141	35.3	7.95	1.19
	11-15	63	15.7	13.52	1.29
	> 15	69	17.3	20.99	3.84

SSC = Secondary School Certificate, HSSC = Higher Secondary School Certificate

 

Fig. 1: Surveyed districts of Bangladesh for data collection during 2021–2022

 

Data analysis

 

We aggregated and input the collected data into SPSS (Version 26, IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA) for statistical evaluation. Descriptive statistics, such as frequencies, means and standard deviations, were calculated to encapsulate the data. Moreover, MS Excel and PowerPoint were used to generate graphical representations, offering clear visual summaries of the results.

 

Results

 

Socio-demographic status of tomato farmers

 

Table 1 delineates the socio-demographic characteristics of the 400 tomato producers surveyed across 20 upazilas in 10 districts of Bangladesh. The predominant age group among farmers was 31-45 years, comprising 45.2%, with a mean age of 38.31 years (SD = 4.25) (Table 1). A considerable percentage (34.3%) were aged 46-60, while just 13.2% were under 30 years of age. The predominant demographic of respondents was male, with 94.3%, while females constituted just 5.7% (Table 1). Regarding education, 26% of the farmers were only able to sign their names and 22.3% were illiterate. Advanced educational degrees were uncommon, with about 1.8% of the farmers possessing a graduate degree. A majority of farmers (67.3%) owned their property, but 18% engaged in a "Borga" system (sharecropping) and 14.7% leased their land (Table 1). The farming experience in tomato production was diverse, with the majority (35.3%) possessing 6-10 years of expertise, followed by 31.7% with 1-5 years of experience.

 

Farm size and tomato cultivation area

 

Table 2 illustrates the variability in farm sizes among the surveyed farmers. Approximately 48.5% of farmers had marginal farms, including less than 0.5 ha of land, with an average of 0.22 ha allocated to tomato growing (Table 2). A considerable proportion (31.3%) managed small farms (0.51 - 1.00 ha), dedicating an average of 0.36 ha to tomato cultivation. Medium and large farms were few, with about 17% and 3.3% of farmers, respectively, possessing over 1 ha of land. The large farmers allocated a greater area (mean 0.67 ha) to tomato growing than other groups (Table 2).

 

Tomato varieties grown in different upazilas

 

As shown in Table 3, farmers in the 20 examined upazilas grew a range of tomato varieties. Several upazilas grew the most popular cultivars, including BARI Tomato-2 (Ratan), BARI Hybrid Tomato-5 and BARI Tomato-16. Furthermore, regional adaptability and preferences were reflected in the widespread cultivation of indigenous cultivars such as Bahubali, Raja and Bipul Plus (Table 3).

Key insect pests impacting tomato production

 

A variety of insect pests, as shown in Table 4, affected the tomato crops of the farmers who responded to the survey. Nearly all respondents in all upazilas said that the fruit borer (Helicoverpa spp.) was the most common pest (Table 4). Aphids (A. gossypii Glover), whiteflies (B. tabaci Genn.) and leaf miners (T. absoluta Mey.) were among the most frequently seen pests; infestations were reported by over 95% of farmers in the areas. Although there were notable geographical differences, thrips (T. tabaci Lind.) were less common, with only 56.9% of farmers reporting their presence (Table 4). 18.6% and 14% of farmers, respectively, reported seeing certain beneficial insects, such as ladybird beetles (Coccinella spp.) and syrphid flies (Episyrphus balteatus DeGeer). Although they were far less prevalent, farmers also reported seeing parasitic wasps (Bracon hebetor Say) and minute pirate bugs (Orius spp.) (Table 4).

 

Major tomato diseases

 

Table 5 lists the major diseases that farmers in the studied upazilas reported harming their tomato harvests. Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl Virus (TYLCV) was the most common, as reported by 94.2% of farmers (Table 5). There were also many reports of fungal diseases, such as early blight (Alternaria solani Ellis and G. Martin)) and late blight (Phytophthora infestans Bary), which affected 43.2% and 47.8% of farmers’ fields, respectively (Table 5). Additionally, 30.80% of farmers said they had Fusarium wilt (Fusarium oxysporum Schlechter) and 43.40% said they had bacterial spot (Xanthomonas campestris Pammel) (Table 5). Although less common, root knot nematode disease was still substantial, as reported by 29.5% of farmers (Table 5).

Table 2: Farm size and proportion of land used for cultivating tomato by the farmers from 20 surveyed upazilas of Bangladesh

 

Farm category	Frequency	Percentage (%)	Mean Total Land (ha.)	SD	Mean Land under Tomato Cultivation (ha.)	SD
Large (> 2)	13	3.3	3.07	0.57	0.67	0.29
Medium (1.01-2.0)	68	17.0	1.59	0.27	0.61	0.17
Small (0.51-1.00)	125	31.3	0.78	0.11	0.36	0.09
Marginal (0.01-0.50)	194	48.5	0.40	0.08	0.22	0.08

SSC = Secondary School Certificate; HSC = Higher Secondary Certificate; SD = Standard Deviation

 

Table 3: Tomato varieties cultivated in 20 surveyed upazilas (sub-districts) of Bangladesh

 

Dinajpur	Rangpur	Rajshahi	Bogura	Dhaka	Jashore	Barishal	Cumilla	Chittagong	Sylhet
BARI Tomato-2 (Ratan), BARI Tomato-15, BARI Tomato-16,  Kosturi, Raja, Mintoo Super, Bipul Plus	BARI Tomato-2 (Ratan), Bahubali, BARI Tomato-9, BARI Tomato-15,  BARI Tomato-14, Bipul Plus, Mintoo Super	BARI Tomato-7, BARI Tomato-8, BARI Tomato-9 (Lalima), BARI Tomato-10, Raja, Bahubali, Roma VF, Sofol, Mintoo Super, Bipul Plus,	BARI Tomato-2 (Ratan), BARI Tomato-8, BARI Tomato-9, BARI Tomato-10, Mintoo Super	BARI Tomato-2 (Ratan), BARI Hybrid Tomato-5. BARI Hybrid Tomato-6. Bipul Plus, Roma VF	BARI Tomato-2 (Ratan), BARI Hybrid Tomato-5, BARI  BARI Tomato-14 BARI Tomato-16, BARI Tomato-18, Roma VF	Bahubali, Beauty plus, Bipul plus, BARI Tomato-2 (Ratan),  BARI Hybrid Tomato-5. BARI Tomato-16, BARI Tomato-18 Pusa Ruby, Surakkha, Roma VF	Raja, Bahubali, Shiva, BARI Tomato-14 BARI Hybrid Tomato-5. BARI Tomato-16, BARI Tomato-18	Bahubali, BARI tomato-2, BARI Tomato-3, BARI tomato-14, BARI tomato-15, Marglobe, Roma VF	Bahubali, BARI Tomato-16, BARI Tomato-18, Raja, Bipul Plus

 

Table 4: Farmers’ observations of major insect pests of tomato in the 20 surveyed upazilas (sub-districts) of Bangladesh

 

Insect Pests	Scientific Name	Family	Order	% Respondents in Different Study Areas										Mean	SD
				Dinajpur	Rangpur	Rajshahi	Bogura	Dhaka	Jashore	Barishal	Cumilla	Chittagong	Sylhet
Harmful Insects
Fruit Borer	Helicoverpa spp.	Noctuidae	Lepidoptera	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	100	98	99.80	0.63
Aphid	Aphis spp.	Aphididae	Homoptera	96	100	100	97	100	100	98	99	96	95	98.10	1.97
White fly	Bemisia tabaci	Aleyrodidae	Homoptera	98	99	100	100	98	97	99	96	95	92	97.40	2.50
Leaf miner	Tuta absoluta	Agromyzidae	Diptera	99	100	97	98	97	99	98	96	94	99	97.70	1.77
Thrips	Thrips tabaci	Thripidae	Thysanoptera	65	69	63	57	49	78	55	42	47	44	56.90	11.77
Beneficial Insects
Ladybird Beetle	Coccinella spp.	Coccinellidae	Coleoptera	25	27	12	32	14	8	16	11	23	18	18.60	7.83
Syrphid fly	Episyrphus balteatus	Syrphidae	Diptera	9	12	6	15	7	5	13	17	11	14	10.90	4.04
Minute Pirate Bugs	Orius insidiosus	Anthocoridae	Hemiptera	7	9	6	10	8	5	12	8	6	3	7.40	2.59
Parasitic Wasps	Bracon hebetor	Braconidae	Hymenoptera	12	9	8	7	6	4	7	5	7	2	6.70	2.75

 

 

Table 5: Farmers’ perceptions of the major diseases of tomato in the 20 surveyed upazilas (sub-districts) of Bangladesh

 

Disease name	Causal organism	% Respondents in Different Study Areas										Mean	SD
		Dinajpur	Rangpur	Rajshahi	Bogura	Dhaka	Jashore	Barishal	Cumilla	Chittagong	Sylhet
Viral Diseases
Tomato Mosaic	Tomato mosaic virus	48	51	52	47	42	56	51	44	38	39	46.80	5.94
Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl	Tomato yellow leaf curl virus	94	93	95	96	95	99	97	96	92	85	94.20	3.79
Fungal Diseases
Early Blight	Alternaria solani (fungus)	42	35	44	38	33	57	55	49	47	32	43.20	8.84
Late Blight	Phytophthora infestans (oomycete - fungus-like)	42	45	58	47	37	65	53	48	34	49	47.80	9.30
Fusarium Wilt	Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici	15	19	24	35	54	45	47	24	31	14	30.80	14.08
Root Knot Nematode Disease	Meloidogyne spp.	18	15	29	35	38	32	37	36	29	26	29.50	7.91
Bacterial Spot	Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria	27	36	45	48	65	49	46	45	37	36	43.40	10.28

 

Table 6: Farmers’ observations of major weeds of tomato in the 20 surveyed upazilas (sub-districts) of Bangladesh

 

Common name	Scientific Name	Family	Growth Habit	% Respondents in Different Study Areas										Mean	SD
				Dinajpur	Rangpur	Rajshahi	Bogura	Dhaka	Jashore	Barishal	Cumilla	Chittagong	Sylhet
Bermuda Grass	Cynodon dactylon	Poaceae	Perennial Grass	88	85	90	87	89	84	82	81	86	80	85.2	3.2
Knotgrass	Paspalum distichum	Poaceae	Perennial Grass	80	78	79	76	77	74	72	70	73	69	74.80	3.6
Purple Nutsedge	Cyperus rotundus	Cyperaceae	Perennial Sedge	75	73	74	70	72	71	68	66	69	64	70.2	3.3
Barnyard Grass	Echinochloa crus-galli	Poaceae	Annual Grass	68	65	66	63	64	61	59	58	60	55	61.90	3.8
Broomrapes	Orobanche spp.	Orobanchaceae	Parasitic Weed	55	52	54	50	49	48	45	43	46	41	48.30	4.4

 

Major weeds in tomato fields

 

Survey results recorded that the most problematic weed was Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon Pers.). An average of 85.2% of farmers perceived it, with Rajshahi reporting the highest incidence at 90% and Sylhet reporting the lowest at 80%. The second most frequent weed was Knotgrass (Paspalum distichum L), which was reported by 74.8% of farmers and even slightly less in the southern districts, that is, Barishal and Cumilla. The percentage of tomato fields affected by purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.) was 70.2%, more in the north, for example, Dinajpur and Rangpur. The mean incidence of Barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli L.) was 61.9%, Dinajpur being relatively higher, i.e., 68% and Sylhet the least, i.e., 55%. Broomrape was the least prevalent but still a problematic parasitic weed reported by 48.3% of average farmers, mainly in the northern districts, Dinajpur and Rajshahi (Table 6).

 

Frequently used pesticides

 

Various pesticides and fungicides were often employed by farmers, as shown in Table 7. The most often applied pesticides were neonicotinoids, such as Actara 25 WG (thiamethoxam) and Confidor 200 SL (imidacloprid). Amistar Top 325 SC (azoxystrobin + difenoconazole) and Ridomil Gold 68 WG (mancozeb + metalaxyl) were often used for fungal control (Table 6). Although several fungicides, such as Indofil M-45 (Mancozeb), were deemed unlikely to offer an acute hazard (Class U), the majority of the pesticides were classified as Class II (moderately hazardous) (Table 7).

Farmer’s perspectives on yield reduction attributable to insect pests and diseases

 

Fig. 2 depicts the perspectives of farmers from 20 upazilas about yield loss in tomatoes attributable to insect pests (2a) and diseases (2b). The majority of farmers indicated yield loss of 30-39% attributable to insect pests (38.5%) and 40-49% attributable to diseases (37.25%). A considerable number of farmers encountered productivity losses of 40-49% attributable to insect pests (22.5%), while 23.5% of farmers indicated yield losses of 30-39% owing to diseases. The percentage of farmers indicating losses over 50% was modest, at 7.5% for insect pests and 21.0% for diseases, respectively.

 

Management techniques and frequency of pesticide utilization

 

Fig. 3a indicates that a predominant 78.5% of farmers used chemical approaches for the management of insect pests and diseases. Merely 3.5% of farmers used Integrated Pest Management (IPM), whereas 18% utilized a combination of chemical and non-chemical approaches. Fig. 3b illustrates the frequency of pesticide application, where 90.70% of farmers sprayed pesticides more than four times during the growing season. A minority of the group (8.05%) used pesticides four times, whereas just 1.25% of the farmers applied pesticides three times.

 

Interval of pesticide application and pre-harvest Interval (PHI)

 

As shown in Fig. 4a, the majority of farmers (52.0%) use pesticides at least once every seven days. While 3.5% used a Table 7: List of commonly used pesticides in 20 tomato growing upazilas (sub-districts) of Bangladesh

 

Trade Name	Group Name	Common Name	Type	WHO Class
Confidor 200 SL	Neonicotinoids	Imidacloprid	Insecticide	II
Actara 25 WG	Neonicotinoids	Thiamethoxam	Insecticide	II
Admire 20 SL	Neonicotinoids	Imidacloprid	Insecticide	II
Nitro 505 EC	Organo Phosphate + Pyrethroids	Chlorpyrifos + Cypermethrin	Insecticide	II
Imitaf 20 SL	Neonicotinoids	Imidacloprid	Insecticide	II
Amistar Top 325 SC	Strobilurins + Triazole	Azoxystrobin + Difenoconazole	Fungicide	II
Virtako 40 WG	Diamides + Neonicotinoids	Chlorantraniliprole + Thiamethoxam	Insecticide	II
Ridomil Gold 68 WG	Phenylamide	Mancozeb + Metalaxyl	Fungicide	U
Antracol 70 WP	Dithiocarbamates	Propineb	Fungicide	U
Joymec 1.8 EC	Avermectins	Abamectin	Insecticide	II
Declare 2.5 EC	Pyrethroids	Deltamethrin	Insecticide	II
Shobicron 425 EC	Organo Phosphate + Pyrethroids	Profenofos Q+Cypermethrin	Insecticide	II
Goldazim 50 SC	Benzimidazole	Carbendazim	Fungicide	II
Karate 2.5 EC	Pyrethroids	Lambda-Cyhalothrin	Insecticide	II
Sumi Alpha 5 EC	Pyrethroids	Esfenvalerate	Insecticide	II
Regent 50 SC	Phenylpyrazole	Fipronil	Insecticide	II
Tilt 250 EC	Triazole	Propiconazole	Fungicide	II
Score 250 EC	Triazole	Difenoconazole	Fungicide	II
Folicur 250 EW	Triazole	Tebuconazole	Fungicide	III
Sevin 85 WP	Carbamates	Carbaryl	Insecticide	II
Success 2.5 SC	Spinosyns	Spinosad	Insecticide	U
Tracer 45 SC	Spinosyns	Spinosad	Insecticide	U
Indofil M-45 80 WP	Dithiocarbamates	Mancozeb	Fungicide	U
Dipel DF	Biological	Bacillus thuringiensis	Insecticide	U
Tafgor 40 EC	Organo Phosphates	Dimethoate	Insecticide	II
Morter 48 EC	Organo Phosphates	Chlorpyrifos	Insecticide	II

Ia = Extremely hazardous; Ib = Highly hazardous; II = Moderately hazardous; III = Slightly hazardous; U = Unlikely to present acute hazard; GHS = Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals

 

 

Fig. 2: Farmers’ perceptions of yield loss of tomato due to insect pests (a) and diseases (b) of 20 surveyed upazilas (sub-districts) of Bangladesh

 

15-day gap, 35.5% used a 3-day interval. A significant proportion of farmers (9.0%) mentioned varying intervals. Fig. 4b displays the pre-harvest interval (PHI) recorded by farmers. It is worth noting that over half of the farmers (52.75%) waited two to three days after applying pesticides before harvesting. Around 25.50% followed a PHI for four to five days, while 15.25% followed a one-day PHI. While 1.25% waited more than 7 days, only 5.25% adhered to a PHI of 6–7 days.

Training on pest management

 

Fig. 5 highlights the status of training on pest management among the farmers. A substantial majority (71%) reported having received no training on pest management, while only 29% had undergone some form of training. This suggests a need for increased training initiatives to promote better pest management practices among tomato farmers.

 

Fig. 3: (a) Management practices of insect pests and diseases by farmers; (b) Frequency of pesticide application to control insect pests and diseases of tomato in 20 surveyed upazilas (sub-districts) of Bangladesh

 

 

Fig. 4: (a) Interval of pesticide application for insect pests and disease control; (b) Pre-harvest interval (PHI) followed by farmers in 20 surveyed upazilas (sub-districts)

 

 

Fig. 5: Status of training on pest management among the tomato producing farmers of 20 surveyed upazilas (sub-districts)

 

Discussion

 

Socio-demographic status of tomato farmers

 

The socio-demographic data show that in Bangladesh, most tomato farmers are men and mostly middle-aged, which is similar to agricultural patterns in South Asia (Kabeer 2016). It is alarming that only 1.8% of farmers have a university degree. Higher education is known to improve farming productivity and encourage the adoption of new methods. Snilstveit et al. (2016) pointed out that farmers with more education tend to adopt better farming technologies. Since traditional methods are mostly used, there is an important need for specific education programs to fill the knowledge gaps and enhance farm output.

Farm size and tomato cultivation area

 

In Bangladesh, farm sizes are generally small, with the majority of the farms classified as small or marginal and the average farm size is 0.3 ha (or 0.75 acres) (Palash and Bauer 2017). Divided land makes it difficult to use technology and get cost-saving benefits (Hazell et al. 2010). When land is fragmented, it becomes hard to use machines and invest in costly farming supplies, which stops growth in making more crops (Ali et al. 2023). The World Bank (2007) found that in Bangladesh, small farmers often find it hard to get loans and farming supplies, which makes it tougher for them to grow and apply new farming methods. Ways to fix these issues could include working together on farms, getting small loans and having support from the government (Deininger and Byerlee 2011).

 

Tomato varieties grown in different upazilas

 

The utilization of both traditional and hybrid tomato varieties demonstrates a dependence on indigenous knowledge as well as contemporary agricultural methodologies. This finding aligns with the work of Pingali (2012), which emphasizes the significance of preserving varietal diversity to accommodate diverse local conditions. Improved varieties like BARI Tomato-16 and BARI Hybrid Tomato-5 are resistant to different diseases and can produce more fruit, which is important for increasing farm output, especially when pests are a problem. Local varieties demonstrate enhanced adaptability to specific micro-climates, a conclusion corroborated by Kontoleon et al. (2009), who highlight the significance of local varieties in sustaining biodiversity and resilience within agricultural systems. Policymakers and researchers must explore the development of hybrids that are tailored to specific regions, integrating local adaptability with enhanced resistance to pests and diseases.

 

Key insect pests impacting tomato production

 

The predominant pest identified in this research was the fruit borer (Helicoverpa spp.), reported by almost 100% of the questioned farmers. A recent study indicates that Helicoverpa armigera is one of the most destructive pests of tomatoes, attributed to its extensive host range and tolerance to many pesticides (Stavrakaki et al. 2024). Likewise, other pests, including aphids (Aphis spp.), whiteflies (Bemisia tabaci Genn.) and leaf miners (Liriomyza spp.), were identified by over 95% of farmers, all of which are extensively documented for their deleterious feeding behaviors and act as vectors of viral diseases, particularly in tropical and subtropical areas (Knapp et al. 2020; Abubakar et al. 2022).

Whiteflies present a significant concern due to their involvement in the transmission of Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl Virus (TYLCV), as observed in the current study. The ongoing problem with Bemisia tabaci (Genn.) as a major agricultural pest is due to its high ability to reproduce, wide variety of plants it can feed on and quick development of resistance to chemical insecticides (Horowitz and Ishaaya 2014). Thrips (Thrips tabaci Lindeman), while seen less often (56.9%), are important for spreading Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus (TSWV), which is still a big problem in places where they are found (Rotenberg et al. 2015). Only 18.6% of the surveyed farmers documented the occurrence of beneficial insects, specifically ladybird beetles (Coccinella spp.). This finding is consistent with previous studies indicating that extensive pesticide application frequently reduces the populations of natural predators, which are essential for effective integrated pest management (IPM) (Rusch et al. 2015; Pandey et al. 2022).

Major tomato diseases

 

The Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl Virus (TYLCV) represents the most prevalent disease, impacting 94.2% of agricultural fields surveyed. The virus, which is transmitted by whiteflies, represents a major threat to global tomato production. Research indicates that, if not managed effectively, it has the potential to result in complete crop loss in certain instances (Zhou 2013). The virus poses significant challenges in tropical and subtropical climates, environments that are conducive to the proliferation of whitefly populations (Barbosa et al. 2014). Fungal diseases, specifically late blight (Phytophthora infestans Bary) and early blight (Alternaria solani Ellis and Martin), were prevalent, impacting 47.8% and 43.2% of farmers’ fields, respectively. These diseases are very common in wet areas, with P. infestans (Bary) known for causing quick and severe outbreaks when the weather is right (Fry et al. 2015). Early blight, although exhibiting lower aggressiveness, remains a persistent challenge in numerous tomato cultivation regions. The management of this disease is further complicated by the pathogen's capacity to endure in both plant debris and soil (Agtmaal et al. 2017).

Fusarium wilt, caused by Fusarium oxysporum (Schlechter), has been reported to affect 30.8% of agricultural fields. This disease presents a persistent challenge due to its soil-borne characteristics and the complexities associated with the eradication of the pathogen following its establishment. Recent studies show that changing the types of crops grown and using resistant varieties are the best ways to manage this disease (Michielse and Rep 2009). The bacterial spot disease, caused by Xanthomonas campestris (Pammel), affected 43.4% of tomato fields and is especially common in warm and humid areas that help bacteria grow (Adhikari et al. 2020). Root Knot Nematode Disease, despite its lower frequency of occurrence (29.5%), constitutes a significant concern due to its detrimental effects on the plant's root system, which in turn diminishes nutrient absorption (Kamran 2010).

 

Major weeds in tomato fields

 

The most prevalent weeds found in all the locations were Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon Pers.), which was reported to be present in more than 85% of farmers' fields. This plant causes harm mainly due to underground competition, which makes up 64% of the shoot dry weight falloff seen in tomato (Morales-Payan et al. 2003). This finding is consistent with a global trend in which C. rotundus L. is considered one of the most difficult and persistent weeds to control because its underground tubers allow propagation. Rajshahi had the highest prevalence (90%), which may be due to suitable soil conditions and irrigation of this region, which favored the growth of this fungus.

Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon Pers.), a C4 grass that grows widely from both rhizomes and stolons, plus by generating seeds (Noor et al. 2023). Commonly, fields under low weed management harbored this weed at a mean frequency of 74.8%. This rhizomatous perennial still poses a significant challenge to tomato fields. Dinajpur and Rangpur, where tomatoes grow in larger proportions, have an almost marginal point higher infestation.

Among the surveyed farms, observations of barnyard grass, a very common weed in moist and irrigated fields, were present in 85.2%. A significantly higher number of weeds, at 20, 40 and 80 weeds/m², will cause, respectively, 15%, 24% and 26% reductions in yield. At 160 and 320 weeds/m², weed biomass is larger than crop biomass by 8% and 30%, hence 36% and 39% reductions in yield, respectively. While the total yield is going down, the proportion of standard-quality fruit remains constant at 82-84% (Bairambekov et al. 2016).

On the other hand, Barnyard grass notwithstanding being less dominant than the first three already mentioned, was observed to pose difficulty for 61.9% of the farmers, especially those from Dinajpur and Rajshahi. This weed prefers waterlogged soils and is associated with poor field drainage.

Broomrapes (Orobanche spp.), a parasitic weed, were reported in 48.3% of the tomato fields. The weed species have caused an economic loss of USD 1.3–2.6 billion on solanaceous vegetables (Osipitan et al. 2021). It directly influences tomato plants, attaching itself to the roots and sapping the plants of their nutrients leads to stunting and loss of yields. Though it was not quite widespread, its occurrence in tomato fields calls for concern, especially on such a high scale in Dinajpur and Rajshahi districts.

Therefore, there is a high prevalence of these weeds and they must have integrated weed management practices of mulching, crop rotation and herbicide application to help reduce their impact on tomato production. The variation in weed prevalence between locations also implies implementing region-specific weed control measures for better management.

 

Frequently used pesticides

 

Farmers often used neonicotinoids, namely imidacloprid (Confidor 200 SL) and thiamethoxam (Actara 25 WG), for the management of insect pests. Neonicotinoids are extensively used because of their systemic properties and broad-spectrum effectiveness against sap-sucking pests such as aphids and whiteflies. However, using them a lot has been connected to fewer pollinators and some pests becoming resistant to them (Bass et al. 2015; Simon-Delso et al. 2015). Recent studies suggest that we need stricter rules and better pest control methods, like biological control and integrated pest management (IPM), to reduce the harmful effects of neonicotinoids (Wood and Goulson 2017). Farmers mostly used fungicides such as Azoxystrobin + Difenoconazole (Amistar Top 325 SC) and Mancozeb + Metalaxyl (Ridomil Gold 68 WG) for fungal control. These fungicides effectively manage a diverse array of fungal infections owing to their broad-spectrum efficacy (Ons et al. 2020). Using these compounds too much can lead to fungi becoming resistant to fungicides, which has happened with diseases like Phytophthora infestans (Tiwari et al. 2021). Mancozeb, classified as Class U (unlikely to provide acute hazard), is regarded as generally safe for human health risk; nonetheless, concerns have been expressed about its environmental persistence and possible long-term impacts (Huang et al. 2021). A significant number of pesticides used by farmers in this research are classified as WHO Class II (moderately hazardous), underscoring the need for safer options and appropriate safety practices during pesticide application. Research underscores the need to educate farmers on pesticide application and promote the use of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies to diminish dependence on harmful pesticides while ensuring crop protection (Ali et al. 2020).

 

Farmers' assessment of yield reduction attributable to insect pests and diseases

 

Farmers in Bangladesh indicated substantial productivity reductions, with 30-39% attributed to insect pests (38.5% of respondents) and 40-49% attributable to diseases (37.25% of respondents). This finding corresponds with international research indicating that pests and illnesses significantly contribute to agricultural production reduction, especially in developing countries with subtropical temperatures (Oerke 2006). Significant losses (40-49%) were prevalent, with 22.5% of respondents attributing such decreases to insect pests, highlighting their pivotal impact on output reduction. Moreover, 21% of farmers reported yield losses above 50% owing to diseases, suggesting that severe diseases might inflict more catastrophic effects than insect pests (Savary et al. 2012). Studies indicate that ailments, such as bacterial wilt and fungal infections, flourish in humid tropical environments, hence intensifying these losses (Strange and Scott 2005; Bebber et al. 2014).

 

Management practices and pesticide application frequency

 

The majority of farmers (78.5%) relied on chemical pest control methods, which is consistent with findings from other developing countries where smallholder farmers have limited access to alternative pest management techniques (Popp et al. 2013). The low adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices (3.5%) reflects similar challenges reported globally, where knowledge gaps and resource limitations prevent widespread IPM implementation (Pretty and Bharucha 2015). The frequent application of pesticides, with 90.7% of farmers applying them more than four times during the growing season, mirrors trends observed in regions with high pest pressures, where farmers apply pesticides as a precautionary measure rather than based on specific pest thresholds (Parsa et al. 2014).

Interval of pesticide application and pre-harvest interval (PHI)

 

A significant proportion of farmers indicated regular pesticide usage, with 52% administering pesticides every week and 35.5% doing so every three days. These short intervals are often linked to high pest problems in tropical regions and a lack of good tools to monitor them, forcing farmers to rely on frequent chemical treatments (Williamson et al. 2008). The pre-harvest interval (PHI) plays a vital role in minimizing pesticide residues on crops. However, data indicate that 15.25% of farmers harvested just one day after pesticide application, which raises significant food safety concerns (Aktar et al. 2009). This is consistent with the observations made by Alam et al. (2015) and Khatun et al. (2023), who documented comparable pesticide residue concerns in tomatoes from Bangladesh. In areas characterized by insufficient regulatory structures, compliance with suggested public health interventions frequently remains inadequate, resulting in possible health hazards (Tripathy et al. 2022).

 

Training on pest management

 

This study reveals a significant observation regarding pest management training, indicating that 71% of farmers have not received any formal instruction in this area. Not having enough training limits the use of sustainable methods, like integrated pest management, which has been shown to reduce pesticide use and improve crop yields in many studies (Parsa et al. 2014; Khan et al. 2021). Training and extension services are recognized as crucial for the dissemination of knowledge regarding safer and more effective pest management strategies (Zhang et al. 2011). Farmers who receive this training exhibit a higher propensity to implement non-chemical practices, thereby mitigating the environmental and health hazards linked to the excessive use of pesticides (Pretty and Bharucha 2015).

 

Conclusion

 

The study's results underscore the obstacles encountered by tomato growers in Bangladesh, attributed to insect pests and diseases that result in major yield losses and a need for regular chemical pesticide treatments. The inadequate knowledge and training of farmers in pest and disease control lead to actions that threaten food safety and environmental sustainability. The limited adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and the short pre-harvest intervals highlight the critical need for educational initiatives to enhance knowledge and promote sustainable practices. Creating accessible training programs and advocating for IPM methods are crucial measures for improving tomato yield and guaranteeing safer products. By focusing on these essential areas, policymakers and agricultural stakeholders may facilitate the transition to more resilient and sustainable tomato-producing systems in Bangladesh, therefore enhancing farmers’ livelihoods and food security.

 

Acknowledgements

 

For their support in conducting this study, the authors would like to extend their appreciation to the Ministry of Science and Technology (MoST) of the Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh.

 

Author Contribution

 

MEH did the whole research, as well as data collection and analysis, during the post-graduate program under the supervision of MMR. MSH, AA, MKH and JA helped in conceptualization. MSIK was involved in the preparation of the manuscript. RA and SH helped to revise the manuscript.

 

Conflict of Interest

 

No conflict of interest exists, according to the author.

 

Data Availability

 

Data presented in this study will be available on a fair request to the corresponding author.

 

Ethics Approval

 

Not applicable to this paper.

 

References

 

Abubakar M, B Koul, K Chandrashekar, A Raut, D Yadav (2022). Whitefly (Bemisia tabaci) management (WFM) strategies for sustainable agriculture: A review. Agriculture 12:1317-1355 https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12091317

Adhikari P, TB Adhikari, FJ Louws, DR Panthee (2020). Advances and challenges in bacterial spot resistance breeding in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Intl J Mol Sci 21:1734-1347 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21051734

Agtmaal MV, A Straathof, A Termorshuizen, S Teurlincx, M Hundscheid, S Ruyters, P Busschaert, B Lievens, WD Boer (2017). Exploring the reservoir of potential fungal plant pathogens in agricultural soil. Appl Soil Ecol 121:152‒160 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.09.032

Akter M, L Fan, MM Rahman, V Geissen, CJ Ritsema (2018). Vegetable farmers’ behavior and knowledge related to pesticide use and related health problems: A case study from Bangladesh. J Clean Prod 200:122–133 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.130

Aktar W, D Sengupta, A Chowdhury (2009). Impact of pesticide use in agriculture: Their benefits and hazards. Interdiscip Toxicol 2:1‒12 https://doi.org/10.2478/v10102-009-0001-7

Alam MN, MAZ Chowdhury, MS Hossain, MM Rahman, MA Rahman, SH Gan, MI Khalil (2015). Detection of Residual Levels and Associated Health Risk of Seven Pesticides in Fresh Eggplant and Tomato Samples from Narayanganj District, Bangladesh. J Chem 2015:1–7 https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/243574

Ali MP, MMM Kabir, SS Haque, X Qin, S Nasrin, D Landis, B Holmquist, N Ahmed (2020). Farmer's behavior in pesticide use: Insights study from smallholder and intensive agricultural farms in Bangladesh. Sci Total Environ 747:141160

Ali Y, M Nasrin, M Salman, B Banu (2023). Economic consequences of land fragmentation on farm production: Empirical evidence from Bangladesh. J Innov Agric Soc Dev 2:22‒33 https://doi.org/10.57095/jiasd20232145

Bairambekov SB, GF Sokolova, ED Garyanova, NK Dubrovin, AS Sokolov (2016). Harmfulness of Weed Plants in Crops of Vegetables and Melons. Biosci Biotechnol Res Asia 13:1929‒1943

Barbosa LDF, JM Marubayashi, BRD Marchi, VA Yuki, MA Pavan, E Moriones, J Navas-Castillo, R Krause-Sakate (2014). Indigenous American species of the Bemisia tabaci complex are still widespread in the Americas. Pest Manage Sci 70:1440‒1445

Bass C, I Denholm, MS Williamson, R Nauen (2015). The global status of insect resistance to neonicotinoid insecticides. Pest Biochem Physiol 121:78‒87

BBS - Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (2023). Yearbook of Agricultural Statistics of Bangladesh; Ministry of Planning: Dhaka, Bangladesh

Bebber DP, T Holmes, SJ Gurr (2014). The global spread of crop pests and pathogens. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 23:1398‒1407 https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12214

Deininger K, D Byerlee (2011). Rising global interest in farmland: Can it yield sustainable and equitable benefits? World Bank Publications

Depenbusch L, T Sequeros, P Schreinemachers, M Sharif, K Mannamparambath, N Uddin, P Hanson (2023). Tomato pests and diseases in Bangladesh and India: farmers’ management and potential economic gains from insect-resistant varieties and integrated pest management. Intl J Pest Manage 69:1–15 https://doi.org/10.1080/09670874.2023.2252760

FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2021). Integrated Pest Management: A sustainable approach to pest management in agriculture. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/ipm

Fry W (2008). Phytophthora infestans: The plant (and R gene) destroyer. Mol Plant Pathol 9:385‒402 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1364-3703.2007.00465.x

Fry WE, PRJ Birch, HS Judelson, NJ Grünwald, G Danies, KL Everts, AJ Gevens, BK Gugino, DA Johnson, SB Johnson, MT McGrath, KL Myers, JB Ristaino, PD Roberts, G Secor, CD Smart (2015). Five reasons to consider Phytophthora infestans a reemerging pathogen. Phytopathology 105:966‒981 https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-01-15-0005-FI

Hanssen IM, M Lapidot, BPHJ Thomma (2010). Emerging viral diseases of tomato crops. Mol Plant Microb Interact 23:539–548 https://doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-23-5-0539

Hazell P, C Poulton, S Wiggins, A Dorward (2010). The future of small farms: trajectories and policy priorities. World Dev 38:1349–1361

Horowitz AR, I Ishaaya (2014). Dynamics of biotypes B and Q of the whitefly Bemisia tabaci and its impact on insecticide resistance. Pest Manage Sci 70:1568‒1572

Huang Z, P Wang, Z Pu, L Lu, G Chen, X Hu, A Fayyaz, Y Gai (2021). Effects of mancozeb on citrus rhizosphere bacterial community. Microb Pathogen 154:104845-104860

Huda MN, T Jahan, HFE Taj, KA Asiry (2020). A newly emerged pest of Tomato [Tomato Leaf Miner, Tuta absoluta Meyrick (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae)]: In Bangladesh – A review on its problems and management strategies. J Agric Ecol Res Intl 21:1‒16

Kabeer N (2016). Gender equality, economic growth and women’s agency: The “endless variety” and “monotonous similarity” of patriarchal constraints. Femin Econ 22:295‒321

Kamran M, SA Anwar, N Javed, SA Khan, GM Sahi (2010). Incidence of root-knot nematodes on tomato in Sargodha, Punjab, Pakistan. Pak J Nematol 28:253‒262

Kenyon L, W Tsai, S Shih, L Lee (2014). Emergence and diversity of begomoviruses infecting Solanaceous crops in East and Southeast Asia. Virus Res 186:104–113

Khan FZ, SA Manzoor, HT Gul, M Ali, MA Bashir, M Akmal, M Haseeb, MU Imran, M Taqi, SA Manzoor, M Lukac, SV Joseph (2021). Drivers of farmers’ intention to adopt integrated pest management: A case study of vegetable farmers in Pakistan. Ecosphere 12:1-16 https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3812

Khatun P, A Islam, S Sachi, MZ Islam, P Islam (2023). Pesticides in vegetable production in Bangladesh: A systemic review of contamination levels and associated health risks in the last decade. Toxicol Rep 11:199–211 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxrep.2023.09.003

Knapp M, E Palevsky, C Rapisarda (2020). Insect and Mite Pests. In: Integrated Pest and Disease Management in Greenhouse Crops, Plant Pathology in the 21st Century, pp:101‒146. Gullino M, R Albajes, P Nicot (Eds.). Springer Nature, Singapore

Kontoleon A, U Pascual, M Smale (2009). Agrobiodiversity conservation and economic development. Oxon, Routledge, United Kingdom

Mansfield J, S Genin, S Magori, V Citovsky, M Sriariyanum, P Ronald, M Dow, V Verdier, SV Beer, MA Machado, I Toth, G salmond, GD Foster (2012). Top 10 plant pathogenic bacteria in molecular plant pathology. Mol Plant Pathol 13:614‒629

Michielse CB, M Rep (2009). Pathogen profile update: Fusarium oxysporum. Mol Plant Pathol 10:311–324 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1364-3703.2009.00538.x

Morales-Payan JP, WM Stall, DG Shilling, R Charudattan, JA Dusky, TA Bewick (2003). Above- and belowground interference of purple and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus spp.) with tomato. Weed Sci 51:181‒185

Moriones E, J Navas-Castillo (2000). Tomato yellow leaf curl virus, an emerging virus complex causing epidemics worldwide. Virus Res 71:123‒134

Nasrin S, MA Mannan, MM Islam, AKUS Khan (2021). Evaluation of Tomato varieties against resistance to fruit Borer (Helicoverpa Armigera Hub.). SAARC J Agric 18:87–99

Noor M, JB Fan, JX Zhang, CJ Zhang, SN Sun, L Gan, XB Yan (2023). Effects of shade stress on growth and responsive mechanisms of Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon L.). J Plant Growth Regul 42:4037‒4047

Nowicki M, MR Foolad, M Nowakowska, EU Kozik (2011). Potato and tomato late blight caused by Phytophthora infestans: An overview of pathology and resistance breeding. Plant Dis 96:4–17 https://doi.org/10.1094/pdis-05-11-0458

Nuwamanya AM, S Runo, M Mwangi (2023). Farmers’ perceptions on tomato early blight, fungicide use factors and awareness of fungicide resistance: Insights from a field survey in Kenya. PLoS One 18:1-16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269035

Oerke EC (2006). Crop losses to pests. J Agric Sci 144:31‒43

Ons L, D Bylemans, K Thevissen, BPA Cammue (2020). Combining biocontrol agents with chemical fungicides for integrated plant fungal disease control. Microorganisms 8:1930-1948 https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8121930

Osipitan AO, BD Hanson, Y Goldwasser, M Fatino, MB Mesgaran (2021). The potential threat of branched broomrape for California processing tomato: A review. Calif Agric 75:64–73

Pala F, Z Karipsin (2021). potential use of some preplant herbicides for controlling broadleaf weeds before transplanting tomato seedlings. Turk J Agric Nat Sci 8:241‒249 https://doi.org/10.30910/turkjans.671301

Palash MS, S Bauer (2017). Diversification of farmland use in Bangladesh: Land allocation impacts on farm Profitability. Open Agric 2:175‒188 https://doi.org/10.1515/opag-2017-0018

Pandey S, AC Johnson, G Xie, GM Gurr (2022). Pesticide regime can negate the positive influence of native vegetation donor habitat on natural enemy abundance in adjacent crop fields. Front Ecol Evol 10:815162-815172 https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2022.815162

Parsa S, S Morse, A Bonifacio, TC Chancellor, B Condori, V Crespo-Pérez, SLA Hobbs, J kroschel, NB Malick, F Rebaudo, SG Sherwood, SJ Vanek, E Faye, MA Harrera, O Dangles (2014). Obstacles to integrated pest management adoption in developing countries. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:3889‒3894 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1312693111

Pingali PL (2012). Green revolution: Impacts, limits and the path ahead. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109:12302‒12308 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0912953109

Popp J, K Pető, J Nagy (2013). Pesticide productivity and food security. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 33:243‒255 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-012-0105-x

Pretty J, Z Pervez Bharucha (2015). Integrated pest management for sustainable intensification of agriculture in Asia and Africa. Insects 6:152‒182 https://doi.org/10.3390/insects6010152

Rotenberg D, AL Jacobson, DJ Schneweis, AE Whitfield (2015). Thrips transmission of tospoviruses. Curr Opin Virol 15:80‒89 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coviro.2015.08.003

Rusch A, K Birkhofer, R Bommarco, HG Smith, B Ekbom (2015). Predator body sizes and habitat preferences predict predation rates in an agroecosystem. Basic Appl Ecol 16:250‒259 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2015.02.003

Savary S, A Ficke, JN Aubertot, C Hollier (2012). Crop losses due to diseases and their implications for global food production losses and food security. Food Secur 4:519‒537 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-012-0200-5

Schreinemachers P, EB Simmons, MCS Wopereis (2018). Tapping the Economic and Nutritional Power of Vegetables. Glob Food Secur 16:36–45 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2017.09.005

Schreinemachers P, S Balasubramaniam, B Buntong, L Bouapao, S Gautam, R Srinivasan (2017a). Too much to handle? Pesticide dependence of smallholder vegetable farmers in Southeast Asia. Sci Total Environ 593:470‒477 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.181

Schreinemachers P, T Sequeros, PJ Lukumay (2017b). International research on vegetable improvement in East and Southern Africa: Adoption, impact and returns. Agric Econ 48:707‒717 https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12368

Simon-Delso N, V Amaral-Rogers, LP Belzunces, JM Bonmatin, M Chagnon, C Downs, L Furlan, DW Gibbons, C Giorio, V Girolami, D Goulson, DP Kreutzweiser, CH Krupke, M Liess, E Long, M McField, P Mineau, EAD Mitchell, CA Morrissey, DA Noome, L Pisa, J Settele, JD Stark, A Tapparo, HV Dyck, JV Praagh, JPV Sluijs, PR Whitehorn, M Wiemers (2015). Systemic insecticides (Neonicotinoids and Fipronil): trends, uses, mode of action and metabolites. Environ Sci Pollut 22:5‒34 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-3470-y

Snilstveit B, J Stevenson, R Menon, D Phillips, E Gallagher, M Geleen, E Jimenez (2016). The impact of education programmes on learning and school participation in low-and middle-income countries: A systematic review summary report. 3ie Systematic Review Summary 7. International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie). https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12799/4892

Stavrakaki M, A Ilias, K Simoglou, G Mironidis, C Zimmer, D Souza, E Roditakis (2024). Revision of Helicoverpa armigera insecticide resistance status in Greece. Crop Prot 175:106446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2023.106446

Strange RN, PR Scott (2005). Plant disease: a threat to global food security. Annu Rev Phytopathol 43:83‒116 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.phyto.43.113004.133839

Tiwari I, KK Shah, S Tripathi, B Modi, S Subedi, J Shrestha (2021). Late blight of potato and its management through the application of different fungicides and organic amendments: A review. Agric Nat Resour 4:301–320 https://doi.org/10.3126/janr.v4i1.33374

Tripathy V, KK Sharma, K Sharma, R Gupta, R Yadav, G Singh, A Aggarwal, S Walia (2022). Monitoring and dietary risk assessment of pesticide residues in brinjal, capsicum, tomato and cucurbits grown in Northern and Western regions of India. J Food Compos Anal 110:104543-104582 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2022.104543

Tuan TH, NHD My, NV Toan (2014). Using contingent valuation method to estimate the WTP for mangrove restoration under the context of climate change: A case study of Thi Nai lagoon, Quy Nhon city, Vietnam. Ocean Coast Manage 95:198‒212

Williamson S, A Ball, J Pretty (2008). Trends in pesticide use and drivers for safer pest management in four African countries. Crop Prot 27:1327‒1334 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2008.04.006

Wood TJ, D Goulson (2017). The environmental risks of neonicotinoid pesticides: A review of the evidence post 2013. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:17285‒17325 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9240-x

World Bank (2007). World Development Report 2008. Agriculture for Development. Washington, DC, USA. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/5990

Zhang WJ, FB Jiang, JF Ou (2011). Global pesticide consumption and pollution: With China as a focus. Proc Intl Acad Ecol Environ Sci 1:125-144

Zhou X (2013). Advances in understanding begomovirus satellites. Annu Rev Phytopathol 51:357‒381 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-phyto-082712-102234