See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/225452659

Local agro-ecological knowledge and its relationship to farmers’ pest

management decision making in rural Honduras

Article in Agriculture and Human Values · July 2007

DOI: 10.1007/s10460-007-9068-y

CITATIONS READS

86 507

2 authors, including:

Kris Wyckhuys
The University of Queensland
227 PUBLICATIONS 9,488 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kris Wyckhuys on 03 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Agriculture and Human Values (2007) 24:307–321 Ó Springer 2007
DOI 10.1007/s10460-007-9068-y

Local agro-ecological knowledge and its relationship to farmersÕ pest

management decision making in rural Honduras

Kris A.G. Wyckhuys1,2 and Robert J. OÕNeil1

1
Department of Entomology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA; 2University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Accepted in revised form May 10, 2006

Abstract. Integrated pest management (IPM) has been widely promoted in the developing world, but in many regions
its adoption rates have been variable. Experience has shown that to ensure IPM adoption, the complexities of local
agro-production systems and context-specific folk knowledge need to be appreciated. Our research explored the
linkages between farmer knowledge, pest management decision making, and ecological attributes of subsistence maize
agriculture. We report a case study from four rural communities in the highlands of southeast Honduras. Communities
were typified by their agro-environments, IPM training history, and levels of infestation by a key maize pest, the fall
armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda Smith). Although variable, infestation levels generally did not justify pest
management intervention. Consequently, crop losses from this pest were considered of low importance and
most farmers proceeded in a rational fashion by refraining from action in their fields. Farmers attributed the
low degree of pest infestation predominantly to abiotic causal factors (rainfall, temperature). The role of
natural enemies in controlling this pest (i.e., biological control) was deemed of low importance by farmers;
nevertheless, a broad array of such organisms was mentioned by farmers as operating in their maize crop.
FarmersÕ knowledge of natural enemies only partially matched scientific knowledge and was associated with
the ecological features of their respective field settings. Local knowledge about natural enemies was mainly
restricted to abundant and easily observable predatory species. Farmers who were knowledgeable about
biological control were also familiar with a larger variety of pest management alternatives than uninformed
farmers. Management options covered a wide range of curative techniques, including conservation biological
control. Farmers who relied on insecticides to manage pest outbreaks knew less about biological control and
pesticide alternatives. In contrast, farmers who received IPM training mentioned more types of natural ene-
mies and were familiar with a broader range of alternative pest management tactics. Our research suggests that
IPM training modifies local knowledge to better fit its environmental context. This paper provides insights in
the environmental context of local agro-ecological knowledge and its linkage with pest management decision
making. It also constitutes a basis for modifying IPM extension programs to deliver locality-specific tech-
nologies while strengthening the local knowledge base.

Key words: Conservation biological control, Ethno-entomology, Fall armyworm, Farmer knowledge, Honduras,
IPM training Spodoptera frugiperda, Subsistence maize production

Abbreviations: CIAL – Comité de Investigación Agrı́cola Local (Local Agricultural Research Committee); FAW –
fall armyworm; IPM – integrated pest management

Kris A. G. Wyckhuys is a Belgian bio-science engineer and entomologist currently employed as postdoctoral
researcher at the University of Minnesota. For his PhD research at Purdue University he quantified social and
ecological contributions to farmersÕ adoption of insect pest management technologies in Honduran subsistence maize.
He has a keen interest in the ecological facets of IPM and biological control, as well as in technological innovation in
smallholder production systems, ethno-entomology and traditional pest management.

Robert J. OÕNeil is a Professor of Entomology specializing in biological control, predator–prey dynamics, and
implementing biological control in IPM systems. His current work focuses on the ecology and management of the
soybean aphid, Aphis glycines Matsumura, an invasive pest of soybeans in North America.
308 Kris A. G. Wyckhuys and Robert J. OÕNeil
Introduction
In Central America, the agricultural sector has a dual
character consisting of large-scale latifundio agriculture
and peasantry which is devoted to subsistence production
(Hilje et al., 2003; Nicholls and Altieri, 1997). Small-
scale agriculture is typical for hillside environments and
is characterized by the cultivation of two key staple
crops, maize and beans (Bunch, 2002; Jansen, 1997). In
Honduras, the mountainous countryside is inhabited by
some of the regionÕs poorest farmers (Falck, 2003;
Leonard, 1987). The role of maize in providing food and
cash income is a key aspect of their daily livelihoods
(Johnson, 1997; Lind and Barham, 2004).
Despite being rooted in tradition, small-scale maize
farming has become subject to pervasive technical
change in the past decades. In addition to modern crop
varieties and chemical fertilizers, Honduran smallholders
have eagerly adopted pesticides (Bentley and Andrews,
1996). Increased farmer dependence on agro-chemicals is
a trend throughout Central America (Conroy et al., 1996;
Hruska and Corriols, 2002; Morales and Perfecto, 2000;
Nicholls and Altieri, 1997), although data from Honduras
suggest slightly decreasing levels of pesticide use during
the 1990s (Wesseling, 2001).
Recognizing the detrimental effects of irrational pes-
ticide use, numerous efforts have been made to present
sustainable and environmentally sound alternatives to
farmers. In Central America, a variety of national and
international institutions have worked during the past
decades to promote integrated pest management (IPM)
(Bentley and Andrews, 1996; Hilje et al., 2003; Holl
et al., 1991). Generally, IPM can be described as a pest
management approach that uses a variety of biological,
cultural, genetic, and chemical techniques to maintain
pest populations below an economically damaging level
(GTZ, 1994). IPM technologies, in principle, could ad-
dress many of the problems smallholders face and would
appear tailor-made to the nature of small-scale agricul-
ture. IPM practices based on ecological principles, such
as conservation biological control, have been considered
‘‘ideal’’ solutions for peasant agriculture (Altieri, 2002).
Conservation biological control is a practice that intends
to conserve or enhance the effectiveness of natural ene-
mies, which are natural control agents of noxious
organisms such as agricultural pests (Barbosa, 1998).
However, the degree of IPM adoption, including use of
conservation biological control, has remained limited in
many production systems (Bentley and Andrews, 1996;
Kogan, 1998; Matteson, 1992; Morales and Perfecto,
2000; Morse and Buhler, 1997). Frequently identified
barriers to IPM adoption are the degree of farmer
involvement (Leeuwis and Van den Ban, 2004; Van de
Fliert and Braun, 2002) and the appreciation of local
knowledge and farming context (Sumberg et al., 2003).
In Honduras, participatory IPM training packages
were developed for hillside maize agriculture and largely
focused on conservation biological control (Bentley,
2000; Bentley and Andrews, 1991). Training modules
were designed to reinforce or alter existing folk knowl-
edge and, more specifically, to increase local appreciation
of agro-ecological phenomena that underpinned those
technologies (Bentley, 1991). Local knowledge, how-
ever, is locality-specific and dependant on ecological
variability and circumstances (Bellon, 1995; Jansen,
1998; Mahiri, 1998). Farmers could therefore differ in
their IPM technology adoption depending on the agro-
ecological conditions under which they operate. An
assessment of knowledge and pest management decision
making of both trained and untrained farmers within their
agro-ecological contexts could shed light on the eco-
logical drivers behind farmer knowledge, practices, and
IPM technology adoption in general (Vanek, 1989). The
exploration of linkages between farmer knowledge and
subsequent behavior could also prove valuable for design
of future IPM extension programs. The work described in
this paper is part of a larger study that described the
natural enemy community in Honduran subsistence
maize fields located within the countryÕs hillsides envi-
ronment (Wyckhuys, 2005). That research showed vari-
ability in natural enemy abundance and diversity among
fields in different agro-environments. Infestation levels
of the insect pest, the fall armyworm (FAW) Spodoptera
frugiperda Smith, were related to the abundance of
several generalist predators and the altitude of individual
fields. Key predators (characterized as common predators
for which significant associations were found between
their abundance in maize fields and FAW infestation)
were earwigs, ground beetles and spiders. Additionally,
associations were found between FAW population
dynamics and the abundance of social wasps and ants
[specifically the fire ant, Solenopsis geminata (F.)]. In
local agro-environments, FAW parasitoids and entomo-
pathogens (i.e., diseases of insects) were at levels too low
to measure their effects.
In this paper, we describe a farmer survey that was
conducted in four communities located in distinct agro-
ecological zones and populated by farmers with different
IPM training histories. The study determined farmersÕ
knowledge of major pests and associated natural enemies
in maize production systems. Agro-ecological knowledge
of both trained and untrained farmers was documented
and then related to their understanding and adoption of
IPM, including conservation biological control.
Study sites and methods
Four hillside communities in the upper Choluteca
watershed, southeast Honduras, were included in the
 Local agro-ecological knowledge
study: El Retiro (Morocelı́), Lavanderos (Güinope), El
Llano (Morocelı́), and Chaguite Oriente (Yuscarán), with
the name outside (inside) of the parentheses indicating
the local community (township). The former two com-
munities were located at an altitudinal range of 969 to
1746 m, while El Llano and Chaguite Oriente were
positioned between 830 and 887 m. Rainfall seasonality
and altitudinal range characterize the local ecosystem as
that of a subtropical dry to moist forest. Higher regions of
Lavanderos are positioned within the subtropical wet
forest life zone (Holdridge, 1987).
Communities were small, representative of rural
Honduran villages. Total number of inhabitants per
community was 415 for El Retiro, 567 for Lavanderos,
118 for El Llano, and 345 for Chaguite Oriente (UNIR,
1999). Local maize-producing households were com-
posed of petty commodity producers or poor peasant,
semi-proletarian farmers (Johnson, 1997). Agriculture in
all communities consisted of subsistence farming,
including the cultivation of maize, with some coffee or
vegetable production.
Communities had received different levels of IPM
training, and so farmers who were interviewed varied
considerably in their exposure to IPM. During the past
20 years, eleven national and international institutions
presented training programs on IPM in the study area
(Wyckhuys, 2005). El Retiro and Lavanderos received
intensive IPM training delivered by a diversity of insti-
tutions, while the other two communities had less train-
ing in IPM. For all communities, a total of 25 farmers
attended at least one IPM training session during the past
20 years. The mean number (±SD) of sessions IPM-
trained farmers attended was: 1.4 ± 0.7 (El Retiro),
1.4 ± 0.5 (Lavanderos), 1.2 ± 0.5 (El Llano), and 1.0 ± 0.0
(Chaguite Oriente). Nine farmers had attended partici-
patory IPM workshops delivered either by World
Neighbors or Zamorano. IPM training in El Llano and El
Retiro was comparatively recent, while training in
Chaguite Oriente and Lavanderos was concentrated
during the late 1980s and early 1990s. World Neighbors
is an international development organization that works
with rural communities in many parts of Asia, Africa and
Latin America. Zamorano is a private international
university based in Honduras.
Field survey of pests and natural enemies
Field research was conducted during the May–October
maize growing season in 2002 and 2003. Within the
communities of El Retiro and Lavanderos, we randomly
selected a total of 30 maize fields for study. In El Llano
and Chaguite Oriente, six and five fields were visited,
respectively, in 2003. Fields were managed exclusively
by their owners using production techniques common to
small landholders in the region (Jansen, 1997). The
309
owner of each visited field was invited to participate in
future farmer surveys.
The maize whorl stage is a phenological interval
critical for management of the FAW (Burkhardt, 1952;
Castro et al., 1988; Marenco et al., 1992; Van Huis,
1981). Fields in Lavanderos and El Retiro were visited
up to three times during this stage, while others were
visited only once. For each field visit, numbers of pests
and natural enemies were recorded along for five ran-
domly selected transects of 25 plants. FAW infestation
levels were estimated as the number of plants per transect
occupied by at least one living larva. FAW infestation is
represented as percentage of maize plants infested, while
natural enemy abundance is indicated as the number of
individuals per 125 plants. Natural enemies encountered
in the field were identified to the order (e.g., spiders,
Araneae), family (e.g., social wasps, Vespidae) or species
[e.g., the earwig, Doru taeniatum (Dohrn)] level. Natural
enemies that could not be identified in the field were
collected for later identification. In the case of multiple
visits, pest and natural enemy abundance data were
averaged over the whorl stage.
Farmer survey instruments and procedures
Surveys were conducted from October through Novem-
ber in Lavanderos and El Retiro (2002) and in El Llano
and Chaguite Oriente (2003). In each community, 30
farmers were randomly selected. A semi-structured
questionnaire was employed, with open-ended questions
to better elicit farmer knowledge. The questionnaire was
pre-tested in a nearby village and revised prior to use in
the study area. All surveys were conducted by the senior
author in a person-to-person interview format and took
30–60 min per interviewee. For some sessions, the
interviewer was accompanied by village officials, but
their participation in the interview process was discour-
aged. All answers by farmers were regarded as correct
and efforts were made to prevent farmers from perceiving
the survey as an ‘‘examination.’’
The survey instrument was designed for multiple
purposes and consisted of several sections (Table 1). One
section gathered data that enabled researchers to develop
a demographic and socio-economic profile of farmers in
each community. A second section assessed farmersÕ
perceptions of FAW pest severity and related manage-
ment decision making. Because informantsÕ knowledge is
best captured by free-listing (Brewer, 1995), we
employed this technique to measure farmer knowledge
of maize pests. Free-listing is a semi-structured data-
collection technique in which respondents are encour-
aged to list their knowledge about a certain topic. We
assigned a value to FAW severity as perceived by farmers
using a five-point rating scale (1 equaled ‘‘no FAW’’
infestation problems and 5 equaled ‘‘extremely high
310 Kris A. G. Wyckhuys and Robert J. OÕNeil

Table 1. Structure of questionnaire used to screen farmersÕ agro-ecological knowledge and pest management behavior in four
Honduran hillside communities.
Survey section Section components

Demographics and socio-economics
Pest severity assessment and pest
management decision making
Agro-ecological knowledge and
appreciation of biological control
IPM training attendance and
use of taught technologies
Age, sex, marital status, education, place of birth
Household size, on- and off-farm employment
Knowledge of maize herbivores, severity ranking of maize pests, FAW pest
assessment
Local beliefs on causal factors behind FAW outbreaks, identification of
recurrent trends in FAW infestation
Actual FAW pest management, knowledge of pest management options
Pest management decision making (field scouting, threshold levels, preventive
measures), farmersÕ rationale behind opting for certain practices
Priority-setting pest management vs. other crop management duties
Knowledge of FAW biology and ecology
Appreciation of the ecological function of common arthropods in maize fields
Knowledge and appreciation of natural enemies
Knowledge, understanding, and adoption of conservation biological control
FarmersÕ attendance of IPM training sessions
Initial adoption of taught technologies
Local technology invention or modification triggered by IPM training

FAW’’ pest severity). Farmers were asked to describe
FAW infestation levels and their perceptions of factors
that were associated with pest severity. Pest management
practices and knowledge of alternative management
tactics were also documented. Information was also
gathered on crop and pest management priorities
including weed and pest control and fertilizer application
for both bean and maize crops. Farmers were also
encouraged to describe criteria used to decide when and
how to manage FAW. The interviewer ensured that
farmers touched upon field scouting methods, including
frequency; threshold levels, and preventive measures.
Special attention was paid to farmersÕ knowledge and
adoption of conservation biological control.
A third section of the survey focused on farmersÕ agro-
ecological understanding and their knowledge of bio-
logical control. Free listing was used to determine
informantsÕ knowledge of the FAW life cycle and natural
enemies that operated within their maize fields. Also,
farmers were asked to describe the ecological role of
certain insects in their fields (e.g., as pest or as natural
enemy). The last section of the survey covered farmersÕ
attendance at IPM training sessions and how training
affected knowledge and pest management technology
adoption. Specifically, questions focused on farmersÕ use
of IPM practices, local experimentation, and modifica-
tion of promoted technologies.
Group discussion sessions were organized to deter-
mine consensus among farmers on key issues regarding
FAW and maize production. Farmers from El Retiro and
Lavanderos were invited to attend a community work-
shop in which open discussion was encouraged. Sessions
were initiated and led by the senior author. Two people
carried out participant observations during the course of
each the session. Topics around which discussion was
built were: (a) What are the principal factors affecting
maize yield? and (b) Which factors determine FAW
infestation in maize fields? Notes of both observers were
compared. Factors mentioned by farmers were listed
according to importance.
Analyses and results
Survey data were encoded and statistical analyses were
executed using SPSS statistical software (Landau and
Everitt, 2004). FarmersÕ pest severity rankings were
related to actual FAW infestation in their respective
maize fields and farmersÕ agro-ecological knowledge was
compared to in-field abundance of natural enemies.
Technical and non-technical knowledge of IPM training
recipients and non-trained farmers was compared. In our
analyses, we used both parametric and non-parametric
tests, all of which are described in the text and tables.
Parametric statistics allowed us to determine patterns for
normally distributed data, while non-parametric analyses
were conducted on data sets that did not comply with
assumptions of normality.
Agro-ecological profile of farming communities
In 2002, average whorl-stage FAW infestation percent-
ages (±SD) were 6.3 ± 5.1% (El Retiro) and 6.4 ± 5.0%
(Lavanderos), with respective maxima of 28.8%
and 31.2%. In 2003, average whorl-stage FAW infesta-
tion levels were 4.7 ± 3.2% (El Retiro), 3.1 ± 2.9%
(Lavanderos), 12.5 ± 3.1% (El Llano), and 14.9 ± 4.6%
(Chaguite Oriente). Infestation levels in the latter two
 Local agro-ecological knowledge 311

Table 2. Density (mean per 125 plants ± SD) of predators likely to affect fall armyworm infestation in maize fields located in four
Honduran hillside communities during 2002 and 2003.
2002 2003

El Retiro Lavanderos El Retiro Lavanderos El Llano Chaguite Oriente

(N = 15) (N = 15) (N = 15) (N = 15) (N = 6) (N = 5)

Ants 16.9 ± 14.6ac* 11.6 ± 32.7b 9.2 ± 9.6ab 8.9 ± 13.2 b 68.8 ± 113.8abc 58.0 ± 61.3c
Earwigs 46.0 ± 44.0a 90.8 ± 35.2b 33.5 ± 23.6a 77.9 ± 30.9b 26.7 ± 18.8a 14.8 ± 4.7a
Spiders 8.1 ± 0.9a 4.6 ± 1.9b 6.8 ± 2.2a 4.6 ± 2.5b 2.7 ± 1.6bc 2.8 ± 1.6bc
Ground beetles 2.8 ± 2.8ad 1.8 ± 1.3ad 1.4 ± 1.5ac 2.4 ± 1.8d 0.3 ± 0.5bc 0.2 ± 0.4bd
Social wasps 0.6 ± 0.9ab 0.9 ± 0.8a 0.2 ± 0.2b 0.5 ± 0.6a 0.5 ± 0.8ab 0.0 ± 0.0b
*Values in the same row followed by a different letter are significantly different (p < 0.05; Mann–Whitney U).
communities were significantly higher than in others employment, mostly in the agricultural sector. The
(p < 0.05, Mann–Whitney U). Abundance levels of key majority of farmers had received formal education to at
natural enemies in each of the four communities are least the elementary school level. Among the survey
provided in Table 2. Diversity and abundance of natural participants, the number of IPM training recipients was
enemies differed significantly between communities. eight in El Retiro and Lavanderos, four in El Llano, and
High abundance of spiders was observed in El Retiro, five in Chaguite Oriente. Crop management practices for
while Lavanderos fields were typified by high earwig maize showed differences among communities in num-
abundance. Of all natural enemies, only ants were found ber of seeds planted per hill and prevalence of herbicide
at higher levels in El Llano and Chaguite Oriente than in use (Table 3). Maize fields in El Retiro were in produc-
the other communities. tion for 1–8 years while in Lavanderos for 3–35 years.

Farmer profile FarmersÕ pest severity assessment and management

priority setting
The socioeconomic profile of surveyed farmers from the
four study sites is summarized in Table 3. All 120 Farmers from the four villages reported several types of
farmers interviewed were male. Only 19% of the farmers insects attacking their maize crop (Table 4). Individual
were younger than 30 years, and all had households farmers mentioned 1.5 ± 1.1 (mean ± SD) different insect
ranging from 0 to 16 children. All farmers surveyed herbivores in El Retiro, 2.3 ± 1.4 in Lavanderos,
cultivated maize as the primary staple crop, with beans 2.6 ± 1.0, and 1.9 ± 1.1 types in El Llano and Chaguite
and sorghum also grown by some. Up to 61.7% of Oriente, respectively. The mean number of maize
the farmers in the study were engaged in off-farm herbivores described in El Llano and Lavanderos was
Table 3. Profile of farmers and subsistence maize production in four different hillside communities in the Yegüare River Valley,
Honduras. Data were obtained during 2002 and 2003 by surveying 30 farmers per community.
El Retiro Lavanderos El Llano Chaguite Oriente

Age of farmer (years) 40.8 ± 12.4a* 45.0 ± 12.2a 43.8 ± 12.8a 43.7 ± 14.8a
Education (% school attendance) 93% 87% 93% 87%
Family size (# children) 3.9 ± 2.7a 5.0 ± 3.7a 3.9 ± 3.4a 4.6 ± 4.1a
Family members employed on farm (#) 0.8 ± 1.1a 1.1 ± 1.1a 1.2 ± 1.3a 0.9 ± 1.6a
Hiring of labor (%) 50% 60% 63% 67%
Cultivated area (Mz)a 3.7 ± 2.8a 2.7 ± 1.6ab 3.6 ± 3.0ab 2.3 ± 1.7b
Number of perennial crops 2.4 ± 1.6a 1.7 ± 1.3ac 1.2 ± 1.7b 1.4 ± 1.6bc
Number of annual crops 2.2 ± 1.0a 2.9 ± 1.7b 2.5 ± 1.1ab 2.7 ± 0.8b

Maize cultivation
Time to reach maize field (min.) 36.1 ± 31.2a 25.9 ± 29.0b 17.8 ± 17.2b 16.2 ± 18.7b
Number of maize seeds per ‘‘hill’’ 2.7 ± 0.4a 2.3 ± 0.5b 2.6 ± 0.4a 3.0 ± 0.6c
Fertilizer use (%) 77% 100% 97% 90%
Number of weeding events 1.9 ± 0.3a 1.8 ± 0.6a 1.6 ± 0.6b 2.0 ± 0.6a
Herbicide use (%) 53% 60% 77% 87%
*Mean ± standard deviation; values within the same row followed by identical letters are not significantly different (p > 0.05, Mann–
Whitney U or One-way ANOVA).
a
Mz (manzana): unit of area equal to 0.697 ha.
312 Kris A. G. Wyckhuys and Robert J. OÕNeil

Table 4. Percentage of farmers indicating herbivory by various arthropods in maize in four Honduran hillside communities. Note
that farmers reported the fire ant, Solenopsis geminata, a key fall armyworm predator, as herbivore in maize fields.
Scientific name Local name % of Farmers

R L LL CO

Lepidoptera
Noctuidae: Spodoptera frugiperda Smith Gusano cogollero 96.7 69.3 100 100
Noctuidae: Mocis latipes (Guenée) Gusano medidor 13.2 9.9 75.9 13.2
Pyrallidae: Diatraea lineolata (Walker) Gusano barrenador 9.9 19.8 9.9 16.5
–a Gusano negro 0.0 3.3 6.6 0.0
– Gusano chancho 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.6
Noctuidae: Trichoplusia spp., Pseudoplusia spp. Gusano verde 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0
– Gusano nochero 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0
Coleoptera
Scarabeidae: Phyllophaga spp. Larvae Gallina ciega 29.7 29.7 13.2 0.0
Scarabeidae: Phyllophaga spp. Adults Ronron 0.0 13.2 6.6 0.0
Elateridae: Aeolus spp., Conoderus spp. Gusano alambre 0.0 3.3 0.0 26.4
Curculionidae Picudo, ronron 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0
Chrysomelidae: Diabrotica spp., Epilachna varivestis Mulsant Tortuguilla, pulgón 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.0
Hymenoptera
Formicidae: Atta, Acromyrmex spp. Zompopo 13.2 0.0 9.9 6.6
Formicidae: Solenopsis geminata (Fabricius) Hormiga brava 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.0
Diptera
Otitidae: Euxesta major (Wulp) – 0.0 13.2 3.3 6.6
Orthoptera
Acrididae, Gryllidae Grillo 0.0 3.3 6.6 0.0
Hemiptera
Heteroptera Chinche 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0
Aleyrodidae Mosca blanca 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0
Aphididae Pulgón 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0
Isoptera
Termitidae Comejen 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3
R = El Retiro, L = Lavanderos, LL = El Llano, CO = Chaguite Oriente.
a
Unspecified by farmers but identified by authors or cited by farmers but unknown by authors.

significantly higher than in other communities (p < 0.05,
Mann–Whitney U). The four most important herbivorous
insects reported by farmers have been described as pests
of basic grains in the region (Andrews, 1989). Over all
villages, 91.7% of the farmers surveyed mentioned FAW
(S. frugiperda) as an herbivore present in their maize
fields. When asked about the role of FAW in maize,
farmers generally described the insect as a pest (plaga)
regardless of its infestation level. However, when
assessing farmersÕ perceptions of FAW pest severity,
significant differences were found between communities
(Table 5). FAW was considered to be of low importance
in villages at high altitudes (i.e., Lavanderos and El
Retiro), while at lower altitudes reports of FAW out-
breaks were more frequent. Within a given community
however, farmersÕ assessment of FAW severity was
generally not in accordance with infestation levels
recorded in their respective maize fields (Figure 1).
Various causal factors were enumerated by farmers
for the levels of FAW infestation they had reported
from their fields1. Individual surveys showed that
46.7% of the respondents ascribed low FAW infestation
to abundant rainfall or weather anomalies. No differ-
ences were noted between communities in the number
of farmers that stated that these abiotic factors were
important in influencing levels of FAW infestation
(p < 0.05, chi-square). Many farmers also mentioned
that dry years were characterized by more FAW prob-
lems than years in which rainfall abounded. Only two
(of 120) farmers mentioned elevation (i.e., altitude) as
an abiotic factor influencing FAW infestation. About
2.5% of the farmers attributed low FAW infestation to
the action of natural enemies. A total of 27.5% of
farmers did not mention any causal factors for FAW
infestation, while 7.5% stated infestations as a normal
annual occurrence.
 Local agro-ecological knowledge 313

Table 5. Percentage of farmers estimating severity of the fall armyworm as maize pest in four Honduran hillside communities.
Spodoptera frugiperda pest severity ranking % of Farmers CramerÕs V a

El Retiro Lavanderos El Llano Chaguite Oriente

No infestation 3.3 29.7 0.0 0.0 0.388*

Low 75.9 49.5 46.2 29.7
Moderate 6.6 19.8 19.8 13.2
High 6.6 0.0 16.5 36.3
Extremely high 6.6 0.0 16.5 19.8
A total of 30 farmers were surveyed per community. Chi-square analysis was used to test for association between rows and columns
in tabular data.
a
CramerÕs V is a chi-square based measure of the strength of association between two variables as a percentage of their maximum
possible variation.
*Significant at p < 0.001.

In group sessions, the role of weather was widely
discussed. Farmers from El Retiro and Lavanderos
agreed that both temperature and rainfall determined
FAW infestation in their communities. Farmers did not
reach consensus on the role of natural enemies or the
influence of field age on FAW infestation. In El Retiro,
one farmer mentioned the pest-suppressive effect of
maize–bean intercropping, but his experience was not
5 Year: 2002
Farm ers' pest severi ty ranki ng
confirmed by others. When identifying factors affecting
maize yield, farmers in El Retiro ranked yield loss due to
FAW fifth, while in Lavanderos, this pestÕs impact was
ranked lower at eighth place. Factors of higher impor-
tance were frequency of field cultivation, soil fertility and
fertilizer use, maize variety, continuity in rainfall and
extreme weather events, and fungal diseases (for exam-
ple, Fusarium spp. and Diplodia spp.).
Farmers were allowed to rank six crop management
F= 1.838, df= 29
options according to their importance. Management

p= 0.165 options included weed and pest control, and fertilizer

4
application, in both bean and maize crops. The mean
positions (±SD) of maize pest management were
3
5.4 ± 1.2 (N = 12; Lavanderos), 5.5 ± 1.1 (N = 15;
2
El Retiro), 3.1 ± 1.0 (N = 30; El Llano), and 2.7 ± 1.0
(N = 29; Chaguite Oriente). Note that significantly
1 higher importance was attributed to maize pest manage-
ment in the two latter communities (p < 0.05, Mann–
0 Whitney U). Many farmers, however, considered weed
0 5 10 15 20
management and fertilization in maize and bean to be
Average fall armyworm infestation percentage
more crucial.
5 Year: 2003
FarmersÕ pest management toolbox and decision making
Farm ers' pest severi ty ranki ng

4 F= 1.067, df= 29
p= 0.380
Most farmers (66.7%) did not actively manage FAW in
3 their fields (Table 6). Of the farmers that decided to adopt
pest management practices, 55% relied on chemical
2
insecticides. Although the majority of farmers (95.8%)
1
were aware of health hazards associated with insecticide
use, pesticide application was popular in certain com-
0 munities such as El Llano, where 14 of 30 farmers used
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 insecticides. However, in Chaguite Oriente, where FAW
Average fall armyworm infestation percentage infestations similar to El Llano were experienced, farm-
ers infrequently reverted to agro-chemicals for pest
Figure 1. Relationship between farmersÕ ranking of fall
armyworm (FAW) pest severity and average whorl-stage FAW
management. In the high-training and low-FAW infesta-
infestation as recorded in their respective fields (N = 30). FAW tion communities of El Retiro and Lavanderos, insecti-
pest severity is ranked by farmers from 1 (No FAW) to 5 (Very cide use was very low. Among farmers who did not adopt
high). The significance of the association between in-field FAW pest management strategies, 75% felt no true need for
infestation and farmersÕ severity ranking is indicated by a intervention because of low pest pressure. Ten percent of
recorded F value. the farmers voiced their inability to afford pesticides,
314 Kris A. G. Wyckhuys and Robert J. OÕNeil

Table 6. FarmersÕ pest management behaviors during 2002 or 2003 and their knowledge of pest management options and
conservation biological control.
R L LL CO

Actual pest management

No action taken 17 24 16 23
Insecticide use 2 2 14 4
Manual control 5 3 0 3
Apply soil/sand in infested whorls 2 0 0 0
Apply foliar fertilizer to wash FAW off maize plants 1 0 0 0
Use of mixture of botanical insecticides and foliar fertilizer 1 0 0 0
Use of sugar-water 1 0 0 0
Use of botanical insecticides 1 0 0 0
Apply salt in infested whorls 0 1 0 0
Pest management technologies
Insecticide use 24 24 30 29
Manual control 5 8 3 13
Use of sugar-water 10 6 2 7
Apply soil/sand/ashes in infested whorls 16 3 2 0
Use of botanical insecticides 7 3 3 3
Apply granulated fertilizer in infested whorls 0 6 0 0
Apply lime in infested whorls 0 1 3 1
Apply salt in infested whorls 0 3 1 1
Apply foliar fertilizer to wash FAW off maize plants 2 0 0 0
Use of mixture of botanical insecticide and foliar fertilizer 1 0 0 0
Fill infested whorls with water 0 1 0 0
Technologies reported to conserve natural enemies
No use of pesticides when natural enemies present 6 8 4 1
Use of sugar-water 6 5 3 7
No killing of natural enemies 3 6 4 6
Let chickens in field when maize is young 0 1 0 2
Planting of flowers around field 1 1 0 1
Use of botanical insecticides 1 1 0 1
Leave grains for birds 1 1 0 0
No burning of field (surroundings) 1 1 0 0
Plant weed strips (live barriers) in field 1 1 0 0
No disturbing of birds that forage in the field 0 1 0 0
Introduce wasp nests 0 1 0 0
Introduce ant nests 0 0 1 0
Leave grains (tortillas) for ants 0 0 1 0
Table entries represent the number of farmers per community (N = 30) that mentioned specific practices.
R = El Retiro, L = Lavanderos, LL = El Llano, CO = Chaguite Oriente.

particularly during crucial stages of the maize growing
cycle.
Farmers did not compare actual infestation levels to a
specific threshold per se, but seemed to rely on personal
experience when making management decisions. Ques-
tions about critical infestation levels at which they would
use pest management strategies were consistently an-
swered with ‘‘Es facil, señor: Cuando hay mucho.’’
(Trans: ItÕs easy: When there are a lot.). Field scouting
frequency also reflected farmersÕ decision making and
region-specific pest pressure. In Chaguite Oriente,
farmers were concerned about FAW outbreaks and visited
maize fields more frequently than in other communities
(p < 0.05, Mann–Whitney U). Scouting frequency in
Chaguite Oriente was once every 1.9 ± 1.6 days, while in
Lavanderos farmers scouted their fields 6.7 ± 8.9 days. In
general, scouting involved a quick ‘‘eyeballing’’ of the
field, with a few plants examined, typically at the edge of
fields; no farmers discussed the use of a rigorous sam-
pling protocol. Farmers in El Llano tended to abandon
field scouting over the course of years and reverted to
pesticides as an intervention strategy.
Farmers were familiar with many pesticide alterna-
tives, with 15% of them using non-chemical pest man-
agement practices during 2002 or 2003 (Table 6). The
mean number (±SD) of pesticide alternatives reported per
farmer was 1.3 ± 1.2 (El Retiro), 1.1 ± 1.2 (Lavanderos),
0.5 ± 0.9 (El Llano), and 0.9 ± 1.0 (Chaguite Oriente).
 Local agro-ecological knowledge 315

Most cited practices were curative (e.g., manual control,
use of botanical insecticides or repellents) rather than
preventative (e.g., alteration of planting date, soil man-
agement and fertilization, inter-cropping) in nature. A
popular curative management technique was the appli-
cation of inert materials (e.g., soil, lime, wood ash) to
infested maize whorls, confirming findings by Meir
(2000). Also, various farmers exerted controlled pests
manually by squeezing the infested whorls they
encountered while performing other crop management
duties. Planned management strategies, such as sugar-
water sprays (see Cañas and OÕNeil, 1998) and botanical
insecticides were broadly discussed but seldom used.
Several methods were described by farmers to augment
or conserve natural enemies. Practices that avoided kill-
ing or disturbing natural enemies were mentioned,
among them the deliberate avoidance of pesticide use.
FarmersÕ appreciation of FAW biology
‘‘El cogollero, bueno, ese animal viene del suelo. Entra
en la planta por debajo y se come todo el cogollo.’’
(Trans: The fall armyworm, well, this insect comes from
the soil. It enters maize plants from below and eats the
plantsÕ whorl.) This quotation is reflective of farmersÕ
common misconceptions about the FAW life cycle;
38.3% of the respondents were unable to provide
information on S. frugiperda biology, while 16.7%
wrongly described the FAW life cycle. The remaining
farmers either partly understood its life cycle or related
FAW larvae to adult butterflies observed in field plots
during the day (note: FAW moths are nocturnal). Farmers
in Lavanderos and El Retiro commonly linked the
appearance of butterfly aggregations in their fields to
FAW pest outbreaks.
‘‘Hay dos tipos de cogollero, el cogollero de agua - el
sol le mata - y el cogollero de verano – si llueve, se
muere.’’ (Trans: There are 2 types of FAW: the water
type, which is killed by the sun, and the dry-season type,
which dies when it rains.) Some farmers reported the
existence of two FAW types in maize whorls, and asso-
ciated each with specific weather conditions. Increased
susceptibility to dislocation or mortality by rainfall could
apply to either young FAW instars (i.e., small, early-stage
larvae) or other Lepidoptera species. Diatraea spp. were
possibly considered by farmers to be a separate FAW
type; as this species is known to inhabit maize whorls
and is frequently protected from rainfall through its habit
of boring into maize stems.
FarmersÕ appreciation of natural enemies
Farmers were aware of several natural enemies operating
in their maize fields (Table 7). When questioned about

Table 7. Natural enemies enumerated by farmers in four Honduran hillside communities.

Scientific name Local name % of Farmers

R L LL CO

Invertebrates
Dermaptera: Forficulidae Tijerilla, tijereta 43.3 43.3 0.0 6.7
Hymenoptera: Formicidae
Solenopsis geminata Hormiga brava 33.3 23.3 20.0 20.0
Ectatomma ruidum Galga 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0
Hymenoptera: Vespidae Avispa, turma, carnicero, tierra muerta, 30.0 20.0 13.3 0.0
catala
Arachnida: Araneae Araña 13.3 10.0 6.7 0.0
Hemiptera: Heteroptera Chinche 3.3 9.9 0.0 0.0
Mantodea: Mantidae Madre de culebra 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Diptera Mosca 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0
Coleoptera: Coccinellidae Tortuguilla 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0
Odonata Caballito 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3
Arachnida: Scorpiones Alacrán 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3
Vertebrates
Birds Corre-caminos, paloma, zanate, turdo, tijuil 26.7 30.0 50.0 90.0
Toads Sapo 0.0 16.7 3.3 3.3
Lizards Pichete 0.0 9.9 0.0 6.6
Chickens 0.0 6.6 0.0 16.7
R = El Retiro, L = Lavanderos, LL = El Llano, CO = Chaguite Oriente.
All species were described by farmers to occur in their maize fields and attack fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda.
316 Kris A. G. Wyckhuys and Robert J. OÕNeil

biological control, farmers commonly referred to various
species of birds as FAW predators. Arthropod natural
enemies that were frequently mentioned included ear-
wigs, ants, and social wasps. Up to 23.3% of the farmers
mentioned earwigs as important biological control
agents, while only 7.5% brought up spiders. Ground
beetles, key predators of FAW in the region (Wyckhuys
and OÕNeil, 2006), remained absent in farmersÕ descrip-
tions of biological control. Parasitoids and entomopath-
ogens (i.e., diseases of insects) were not mentioned by
farmers. Even though local knowledge of natural ene-
mies was partly congruent with scientific studies, dif-
ferences were noted between communities.
On a community level, farmersÕ appreciation of natural
enemies appeared associated with their in-field abun-
dance (Figure 2a, b). In communities where certain
arthropod natural enemies were more common (e.g., ants,
earwigs), they were ascribed greater degrees of impor-
tance in FAW control. For example, earwigs were very
abundant in Lavanderos maize fields and were frequently
reported by local farmers as FAW predators. Ants (e.g.,
Solenopsis geminata (Fabricius), Ectatomma ruidum
Roger) were commonly observed on maize plants in El
Llano and Chaguite Oriente and reached high propor-
tions within the local knowledge context. Despite their
low abundance, farmers also described social wasps
(Vespidae) in great detail and regularly reported on their
role as FAW predators (see also Bentley, 1991).
Overall, conspicuous natural enemies were more
readily appreciated by farmers for their role in FAW
predation than species that were less noticeable. Large
species such as social wasps and earwigs, which could be
easily observed on maize plants, ranked high in farmersÕ
perceptions of FAW predators. Species that were less
conspicuous (e.g., parasitoids) were ranked as less
important. When comparing farmer knowledge of
arthropod predators to field counts, some differences
were noticeable. Some arthropods (e.g., Scorpiones,
Odonata) were described by farmers as FAW predators,
although there are no scientific reports of their role as
such. Solenopsis geminata, a key FAW predator abun-
dant in maize fields, was also reported as a nuisance
(11.7% farmers) and as a pest during early stages of
maize growth (12.5%). Some farmers in Lavanderos
even took curative or preventative measures against them
on their crop.

Figure 2. (a) Relationship between in-field abundance of natural enemies and their proportion within the local knowledge context
for El Retiro and Lavanderos. ‘‘FarmersÕ perception’’ indicates an organismÕs proportion within the assemblage of natural enemies
enumerated by farmers (N = 30), and ‘‘relative abundance’’ reflects an organismÕs proportion within the natural enemy complex
observed during field visits in both communities (N = 15). The line drawn in both graphs indicates a 1:1 correspondence. (b)
Relationship between in-field abundance of natural enemies and their proportion within the local knowledge context for El Llano
and Chaguite Oriente. ‘‘FarmersÕ perception’’ (N = 30) and ‘‘relative abundance’’ (N = 6, 5 in each community, respectively) as
defined in (a).
 Local agro-ecological knowledge 317

Linking agro-ecological knowledge with pest (a) 4

management behavior All farmers b

# pesticide al ternati ves known

3.5
Untrained farmers b
3
The number of arthropod natural enemies known by
2.5 b b
farmers was correlated with the number of recognized
2
pesticide alternatives (r = 0.396, p < 0.01, PearsonÕs a ab
1.5 a a
Correlation) and natural enemy conservation methods
(r = 0.529, p < 0.01). FarmersÕ appreciation of specific 1

IPM technologies was also related to their understanding 0.5

of the ecological components on which successful 0

implementation depended (i.e., key natural enemies) 0 1 2 3

(Bentley, 1989). For example, farmers that knew about Natural enemy appreciation
(b)
sugar-water sprays to attract ants and social wasps gave b

# technologies reported to conserve

2.5
significantly more correct answers on the ecological role All farmers

of these two predators (p < 0.01, Mann–Whitney U). 2

Untrained farmers b ab

Correct answers (out of 2) for these predators were

natural enem ies

b
1.48 ± 0.69 for farmers that reported sugar-water sprays 1.5

as a pest management option and 0.57 ± 0.75 for others. a a a a

These patterns were consistent among farmers who did
not receive any IPM training. Untrained farmers that
understood the role of some predators (such as ants,
earwigs, and social wasps) knew more pesticide alter-
natives and natural enemy conservation techniques than
those with lower scores (Figure 3a, b). Knowledge of
pest management practices was associated with farmersÕ
appreciation of natural enemies, regardless of their
understanding of FAW biology. For untrained farmers
who were knowledgeable about FAW biology (N = 37),
the number of natural enemies known was correlated
with the number of mentions of pesticide alterna-
tives (r = 0.441, p = 0.006, PearsonÕs Correlation) and
conservation methods (r = 0.470, p = 0.003). For
untrained farmers uninformed regarding the FAW life
cycle (N = 58), similar patterns were observed, illus-
trated by their respective statistics (r = 0.263, p = 0.046)
and (r = 0.400, p = 0.002).
Farmers that used insecticides in either year had poor
knowledge of natural enemies (Figure 4). These farmers
also knew significantly fewer pesticide alternatives
or methods to conserve natural enemies (p < 0.01,
Mann–Whitney U). Among farmers that did not apply
insecticides, 37% knew about social wasps, 35% about
earwigs and 46% about ants; of those that used insecti-
cides, 23%, 36% and 41% knew about the respective
natural enemies. Among farmers that did not apply
insecticides, 67.3% still stated this as their preferred pest
management option; while 17.3%, 16.3% and 16.3%
were familiar with natural enemy conservation practices
such as the application of sugar-(water), the deliberate
avoidance of pesticide use or the refraining from killing
natural enemies, respectively. Among farmers that
applied insecticides, 86.4% stated this as their preferred
pest management practice, while 9.1%, 9.1% and 4.5%
were familiar with natural enemy conservation practices
such as the application of sugar-(water), the deliberate
1
0.5
0
0 1 2 3
Natural enemy appreciation
Figure 3. (a) Knowledge of alternative pest management
technologies. (b) Knowledge of methods to conserve natural
enemies. Comparison of technical knowledge (±SD) among
farmers with different understanding of the natural enemies
present in their fields. ‘‘Natural enemy appreciation’’ reflects
farmersÕ scores (out of 3) when quizzed on the role of ants,
social wasps, and earwigs. A score of zero meant that a farmer
did not know about any of these natural enemies while ‘‘3’’
meant that all were correctly identified. Results are provided for
all farmers (N = 120) and for those that did not receive IPM
training (N = 95). For each group, classes were compared, with
different letters indicating significantly different values (Mann–
Whitney U, p < 0.05).
avoidance of pesticide use, and the provision of grains
(tortillas) for ants, respectively.
IPM training impact on farmer knowledge and behavior
In general, farmers trained in IPM knew more arthropod
natural enemies (ANOVA; F1,119 = 15.548, p < 0.01) and
mentioned significantly more pesticide alternatives
(F1,119 = 17.606, p < 0.01) and natural enemy conserva-
tion methods (F1,119 = 24.694, p < 0.01). Trained farmers
were also more likely to have a more complete knowl-
edge of FAW biology (p = 0.072 < 0.10, df = 25,
chi-square). However, pesticide use among trained
farmers (four out of 25 farmers or 20%) was not lower
than among non-trained farmers (18 out of 95 or 18%).
Among trained farmers, there was only one report
of technology invention, while 11 of the non-trained
318 Kris A. G. Wyckhuys and Robert J. OÕNeil
# methods to Pesticide use
conserve natural **
No use of pesticides
enemies
# pesticide **
alternatives
# arthropod
§ farmers identified many of the key herbivores of maize,
natural enemies
# natural enemies * Birds especially occupied a fair share of farmersÕ
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Figure 4. Differences in knowledge of natural enemies,
pesticide alternatives and natural enemy conservation practices
for farmers who adopted insecticide use during 2002 and 2003
and those who did not. Represented are the total numbers of
natural enemies or practices known for both categories of
farmers. Data are provided for N = 120 farmers. Significant
differences between both classes were indicated: <0.10 (§),
<0.05 (*) and <0.01 (**) (ANOVA).
farmers reportedly had invented novel pest management
practices. Farmer inventions included the application of
salt or granulated fertilizer in maize whorls to kill FAW
larvae and the use of foliar sprays to wash FAW off maize
plants or to drown them. The effectiveness of these pest
management practices had not been studied at the time of
our research.
Discussion
Throughout the region, FAW was considered an impor-
tant herbivore in maize fields both by scientists
(Andrews, 1989) and subsistence farmers. FAW infesta-
tion levels were variable and village-specific, but
generally remained below the economic threshold of
30–40% (Andrews and Rueda, 1986). FarmersÕ percep-
tion of FAW severity correlated with local levels of FAW
infestation and provided the basis for their pest
management behavior. In accordance with IPM princi-
ples, the majority (59%) of farmers ranked FAW as a pest
of marginal importance and (66.7%) did not adopt any
pest management practices. Farmers who did not take
action to cure local FAW problems or who tried to pre-
vent it with pesticide sprays therefore acted in a rational
manner. At least some of the farmers who took curative
pest management action might have been overusing
pesticides compared to IPM recommendations. When
making pest management decisions, farmers did not
employ an economic threshold as defined by scientists.
Instead, they seemed to utilize their own thresholds,
which were not easily codified (Stonehouse, 1995).
FarmersÕ understanding of key agro-ecological processes,
such as arthropod predation and knowledge of pesticide
alternatives, also determined pest management behavior.
A small percentage of farmers had detailed knowledge
of the FAW life cycle. Local knowledge of pests and
natural enemies was extensive but was only partially in
accordance with scientific knowledge. Even though
their knowledge of natural enemies was mainly restricted
to a set of relatively large and abundant FAW predators.
accounts of natural enemies, similar to findings by
3 3.5 Morales (2002) in Mexico. Birds are known as FAW
predators (Luginbill, 1928), and their predation
on Lepidoptera could attain high levels in some agro-
ecosystems (Hooks et al., 2003). Their pest control
potential notwithstanding, birds – being highly conspic-
uous organisms – could easily be linked with certain
beliefs including predation on FAW in maize (Bentley,
1991; Grossman, 2003).
In a similar fashion, farmersÕ appreciation of arthropod
natural enemies was limited to conspicuous predatory
species, a trend also observed in other cropping systems
(Mangan and Mangan, 1998; Van Mele et al., 2001).
Frequently reported arthropod natural enemies were
earwigs, ants, and social wasps. Some farmers had strong
beliefs about the predatory potential of certain species,
for example, ‘‘La tijerilla protege al maı́z.’’ (Trans:
Earwigs protect maize plants.). Others were less con-
vinced, for example, ‘‘La tijerilla no molesta la planta,
puede ser que es buena.’’ (Trans: Earwigs donÕt harm
maize plants, they could be beneficial.). Certain physical
traits possessed by predators such as earwigs
(i.e., obvious cerci or forceps-like paired appendages)
could have aided in molding local beliefs. In-field
abundance and cultural importance (Bentley, 1991) of
natural enemies also influenced farmersÕ perception of
their role as FAW predators. However, some of the key
predators (e.g., ground beetles, spiders) identified by
Wyckhuys and OÕNeil (2006) remained un- or under-
represented in local knowledge. Despite their conspicu-
ousness, FAW predation by such species is not easily
recorded, as many spiders and ground beetles forage at
night. In conclusion, folk knowledge of biological con-
trol was consistent with scientific knowledge, although
restricted to abundant, conspicuous predators for which
FAW attack was highly noticeable or for species had
somehow attained cultural importance. Limited local
knowledge of certain key predators could hamper stand-
alone conservation biological control efforts targeting
those species. Because farmers did not describe natural
enemies occurring outside of maize fields, promoting
extra-field habitat manipulation as an IPM practice could
also prove challenging.
Despite farmersÕ accounts of various natural enemies,
biological control was regarded as being of marginal
 Local agro-ecological knowledge
importance because farmers ascribed low FAW infesta-
tion levels primarily to a set of abiotic causal factors
(temperature, rainfall, weather anomalies). In Honduran
agricultural knowledge, association of agronomic phe-
nomena with climatological conditions appears to be
ubiquitous (Bentley, 1989). Aside from farmersÕ accounts
of their importance, climatological factors such as low
temperature and copious rainfall are confirmed to nega-
tively affect FAW establishment and population growth
(Pair and Westbrook, 1995; Van Huis, 1981).
Our research implies that farmers responded in an
adaptive manner to a pests exhibiting variable or low-
level attack (Orr et al., 2001). Farmers with positive
attitudes towards natural enemies explored more
environmentally sound FAW management options, such
as manual control, which Bentley (1989) had previously
observed. Our work confirmed findings by Price (2001)
that farmers with better appreciation of the role of natural
enemies were less likely to spray pesticides.
IPM training strengthened farmersÕ appreciation of
natural enemies and provided testable pest management
techniques as well as natural enemy conservation meth-
ods, but did not seem to spur technology invention. In line
with Mangan and Mangan (1998), IPM training could
have modified local knowledge to some extent to better
reflect the environmental context of subsistence produc-
tion systems. Absence of knowledge of insect parasitism
and disease could be related to farmersÕ limited opportu-
nities to observe such, as well as their low incidence in the
study area. Additionally, poor understanding of the role of
some key predators (e.g., spiders, ground beetles) sig-
naled the need to focus on these in future IPM extension
efforts. To successfully raise farmersÕ awareness of agro-
ecological concepts, such as biological control, that
underpin IPM practices, observation-based IPM exten-
sion could be the preferred option (Matteson et al., 1994;
Röling and Van de Fliert, 1998). The Natural Pest Control
course organized in Honduras during the early- and mid-
1990s – which only a few of the surveyed farmers
attended – was an effort to provide such (Bentley, 2000).
Results from our research could directly feed into ongo-
ing Farmer Field Schools (FFS) extension efforts to
promote IPM in the region (Alfredo Rueda2, personal
communication). It is commonly thought that the diver-
sity of indigenous communities with distinct pest man-
agement knowledge in the region could pose a challenge
to large-scale IPM extension efforts. However, a solid
appreciation of the culturally and locality-specific facets
of pest management, combined with an understanding of
key ecological features of the agro-environment, could
create opportunities for scaling up local FFS successes
and expanding the set of promoted IPM technologies, by
incorporating folk practices.
Lastly, because all of our surveyed farmers were male,
it would be interesting to compare agro-ecological
319
understanding and knowledge of pest management of
men vs. that of women. Although women were rarely
seen working in maize fields, their role in the diffusion
process of agricultural innovations cannot be neglected
(Van Mele et al., 2005). In conclusion, our work vali-
dated connections between farmersÕ pest management
decision making, the environment in which they oper-
ated, and their understanding of its ecological features.
FarmersÕ appreciation of the ecological processes that
underpin biological control and their knowledge of
pesticide alternatives were greatly affected by IPM
training. Our study showed that farmersÕ understanding
of biological control only partially reflected those
processes that occurred in their field settings. Knowl-
edge of natural enemies was restricted to abundant,
conspicuous or culturally important predatory species.
The environment in which farmers operated affected
their knowledge and use of pest management practices,
limiting the need for curative pest management and
providing support for use of ecological tools to
respond to pest outbreaks. Our work therefore pro-
vided a basis for identifying such locality-specific
knowledge gaps, which in turn may be used to fine-
tune IPM extension to fit existing local needs and
opportunities.
Acknowledgments
C. S. Sadof, J. S. Yaninek, R. E. Foster, C. Krupke, W.
Hoover and three anonymous reviewers provided helpful
comments that improved the quality of the manuscript. P.
Doyle assisted in defining this project and provided
guidance and support throughout our research. J. W.
Bentley provided invaluable help with the design of
survey instruments while C. Zurita, N. Gamero and G.
Aguirre facilitated the initial stages of farmer surveys in
each community. This study was supported by a Purdue
Research Foundation Fellowship grant (PRF-grant
6903757), a Global Initiative travel grant; a Ross
Fellowship; and the Department of Entomology; Purdue
University. We would also like to thank the Socio-Eco-
nomics and Environment Department (DSEA) and the
Plant Protection Department (DPV) at the Panamerican
College of Agriculture El Zamorano (Tegucigalpa,
Honduras). This is Purdue Agricultural Research Pro-
gram manuscript number 2006-17867.
Notes
1. For example, ‘‘Aquı́ no hay problemas con el cogollero,
señor. El cogollero es una plaga de lo caliente, y en nuestra
comunidad hace tan frı́o y llueve tanto que se va.’’ (Trans:
Here, there are no problems with FAW. FAW is a problem of
320 Kris A. G. Wyckhuys and Robert J. OÕNeil
hot regions, and in our village, it rains so much and itÕs so
cold, it leaves.).
2. Dr. Alfredo Rueda is an entomologist employed at the
Panamerican College of Agriculture (El Zamorano, Hon-
duras) and is leading efforts to promote IPM Farmer Field
Schools throughout Central America. The IPM Project for
Central America (PROMIPAC) is funded by the Swiss
Agency of Development and Cooperation (COSUDE) and
currently covers Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua.
References
Altieri, M. A. (2002). ‘‘Agro-ecology: the science of natural
resource management for poor farmers in marginal envi-
ronments.’’ Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 93:
1–24.
Andrews, K. L. (1989). ‘‘Maı́z y sorgo.’’ In K. L. Andrews and
J. R. Quezada (eds.), Manejo Integrado de Plagas Insectiles
en la Agricultura, (pp. 547–566). Tegucigalpa, Honduras:
Zamorano Academic Press.
Andrews, K. L. and A. Rueda (1986). El cogollero. Boletı́n
popular. Tegucigalpa, Honduras: Escuela Agricola Panamer-
icana, Zamorano, Publicación MIPH-EAP-91.
Barbosa, P. (1998). Conservation Biological Control. San
Diego, California: Academic Press.
Bellon, M. R. (1995). ‘‘FarmersÕ knowledge and sustainable
agroecosystem management: an operational definition and
an example from Chiapas, Mexico.’’ Human Organization
54: 263–272.
Bentley, J. W. (1989). ‘‘What farmers donÕt know canÕt
help them: the strengths and weaknesses of indigenous
technical knowledge in Honduras.’’ Agriculture and Human
Values 6: 25–31.
Bentley, J. W. (1991). ‘‘The epistemology of plant protection:
Honduran campesino knowledge of pests and natural
enemies.’’ In R. W. Gibson and A. Sweetmore (eds.),
Proceedings of the Seminar on Crop Protection for Resource-
Poor Farmers, (pp. 107–118). Chatham, UK: Natural
Resources Institute.
Bentley, J. W. (2000). ‘‘The mothers, fathers and midwives
of invention: ZamoranoÕs natural pest control course.’’ In
G. Stoll (ed.), Natural Crop Protection in the Tropics,
(pp. 281–289). Weikersheim, Germany: Margraf Verlag.
Bentley, J. W., and K. L. Andrews (1991). ‘‘Pests, peasants and
publications: anthropological and entomological views of an
integrated pest management program for small-scale Hon-
duran farmers.’’ Human Organization 50: 113–124.
Bentley, J. W. and K. Andrews (1996). Through the Road-
blocks: IPM and Central American Smallholders. Interna-
tional Institute for Environment and Development,
Sustainable Agriculture program, Gatekeeper Series No. 56.
Brewer, D. (1995). ‘‘Cognitive indicators of knowledge in
semantic domains.’’ Journal of Quantitative Anthropology 5:
107–128.
Bunch, R. (2002). ‘‘Increasing productivity through agroeco-
logical approaches in Central America: experiences from
hillside agriculture.’’ In N. Uphoff (ed.), Agro-Ecological
Innovations: Increasing Food Production with Participatory
Development, (pp. 162–172). Sterling, Virginia: Earthscan
Publications.
Burkhardt, C. C. (1952). ‘‘Feeding and pupation habits of the
fall armyworm in corn.’’ Journal of Economic Entomology
45: 1035–1037.
Cañas, L. A. and R. J. OÕNeil (1998). ‘‘Applications of sugar
solutions to maize, and the impact of natural enemies on fall
armyworm.’’ International Journal of Pest Management 44:
59–64.
Castro, M. D., H. N. Pitre, and D. H. Meckenstock (1988).
‘‘Populations of fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E.
Smith), larvae and associated natural enemies in sorghum and
maize cropping systems in southern Honduras.’’ Tropical
Agriculture (Trinidad) 66: 259–264.
Conroy, M. E., L. D. Murray, and P. M. Rosset (1996). A
Cautionary Tale: Failed U.S. Development Policy in Central
America. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Falck, M. (2003). Realidad y Perspectiva del Sector Rural de
Honduras. Tegucigalpa, Honduras: United Nations Devel-
opment Programme (UNDP), Colección Cuadernos de
Desarrollo Human Sostenible.
Grossman, J. M. (2003). ‘‘Exploring farmer knowledge of soil
processes in organic coffee systems of Chiapas, Mexico.’’
Geoderma 111: 267–287.
GTZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit)
(1994). Integrated Pest Management: Guidelines. Rossdorf,
Germany: TZ Verlags-gesellschaft.
Hilje, L., C. M. Araya, and B. E. Valverde (2003). ‘‘Pest man-
agement in Mesoamerican agro-ecosystems.’’ In J. Vandermeer
(ed.), Tropical Agro-ecosystems, (pp. 59–93). Boca Raton,
Florida: CRC Press.
Holdridge, L. R. (1987). Ecologı́a Basada en Zonas de Vida.
San José, Costa Rica: Instituto Interamericano de Coopera-
ción para la Agricultura.
Holl, K. H., G. C. Daily, and P. R. Ehrlich (1991). ‘‘Integrated
pest management in Latin America.’’ Environmental
Conservation 17: 341–350.
Hooks, C. R. R., R. R. Pardey, and M. W. Johnson (2003).
‘‘Impact of avian and arthropod predation on lepidopteran
caterpillar densities and plant productivity in an ephemeral
agroecosystem.’’ Ecological Entomology 28: 522–532.
Hruska, A. J. and M. Corriols (2002). ‘‘The impact of training
in integrated pest management among Nicaraguan maize
farmers.’’ International Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Health 8: 191–200.
Jansen, K. (1997). ‘‘Diversity and the nature of technological
change in hillside farming in Honduras.’’ In J. De Groot and
R. Ruerd (eds.), Sustainable Agriculture in Central America,
(pp. 108–126). New York: St. MartinÕs Press.
Jansen, K. (1998). ‘‘Knowledge: locality, context, and content.’’
In K. Jansen (ed.), Political Ecology, Mountain Agriculture
and Knowledge in Honduras, (pp. 162–193). Amsterdam:
Thela Publishers.
Johnson, H. (1997). ‘‘Food insecurity as a sustainability issue:
lessons from Honduran maize farming.’’ In J. P. De Groot
and R. Ruerd (eds.), Sustainable Agriculture in Central
America, (pp. 89–107). New York: St. MartinÕs Press.
Kogan, M. (1998). ‘‘Integrated pest management: historical
perspectives and contemporary developments.’’ Annual
Review of Entomology 43: 243–270.
 Local agro-ecological knowledge
Landau, S. and B. S. Everitt (2004). A Handbook of Statistical
Analyses using SPSS. Boca Raton, Florida: Chapman and
Hall/CRC.
Leeuwis, C. and A. W. Van Den Ban (2004). Communication
for Rural Innovation: Rethinking Agricultural Extension.
Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Leonard, H. J. (1987). Natural Resources and Economic
Development in Central America: A Regional Environmental
Profile. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Books.
Lind, D. and E. Barham (2004). ‘‘The social life of the tortilla:
food, cultural politics, and contested modification.’’ Agri-
culture and Human Values 21: 47–60.
Luginbill, P. (1928). The Fall Armyworm. Washington, DC:
United States Department of Agriculture, Technical Bulletin
34 .
Mahiri, I. O. (1998). ‘‘The environmental knowledge frontier:
transects with experts and villages.’’ Journal of International
Development 10: 527–537.
Mangan, J. and M. S. Mangan (1998). ‘‘A comparison of two
IPM training strategies in China: the importance of concepts
of the rice ecosystem for sustainable insect pest manage-
ment.’’ Agriculture and Human Values 15: 209–221.
Marenco, R. J., R. E. Foster, and C. A. Sanches (1992). ‘‘Sweet
corn response to fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)
damage during vegetative growth.’’ Journal of Economic
Entomology 85: 1285–1292.
Matteson, P. C. (1992). ‘‘Farmer First for establishing IPM.’’
Bulletin of Entomological Research 82: 293–296.
Matteson, P. C., K. D. Gallagher, and P. E. Kenmore (1994).
‘‘Extension of integrated pest management for planthoppers
in Asian irrigated rice: empowering the user.’’ In R. F.
Denno and T. J. Perfect (eds.), Planthoppers: Their Ecol-
ogy and Management, (pp. 656–685). New York: Chapman
and Hall.
Meir, C. J. (2000). ‘‘Learning and changing: helping farmers
move to natural pest control.’’ In G. Stoll (ed.), Natural Crop
Protection in the Tropics, (pp. 265–279). Weikersheim,
Germany: Margraf Verlag.
Morales, H. (2002). ‘‘Pest management in traditional tropical
agroecosystems: lessons for pest prevention research and
extension.’’ Integrated Pest Management Reviews 7: 145–
163.
Morales, H. and I. Perfecto (2000). ‘‘Traditional knowledge and
pest management in the Guatemalan highlands.’’ Agriculture
and Human Values 17: 49–63.
Morse, S. and W. Buhler (1997). Integrated Pest Management:
Ideals and Realities in Developing Countries. London: Lynne
Rienner Publishers.
Nicholls, C. I. and M. A. Altieri (1997). ‘‘Conventional
agricultural development models and the persistence
of the pesticide treadmill in Latin America.’’ Interna-
tional Journal of Sustainable Development and World
Ecology 4: 93–111.
Orr, A., B. Mwale, and D. Saiti (2001). ‘‘What is integrated pest
management ,strategyÕ? Explorations in Southern Malawi.’’
Experimental Agriculture 37: 473–494.
Pair, S. D. and J. K. Westbrook (1995). ‘‘Agro-ecological and
climatological factors potentially influencing armyworm
populations and their movement in the Southeastern US.’’
Southwestern Entomologist 18: 101–118.
View publication stats
321
Price, L. M. L. (2001). ‘‘Demystifying farmersÕ entomological
and pest management knowledge: A methodology for
assessing the impacts on knowledge from IPM-FFS and NES
interventions.’’ Agriculture and Human Values 18: 153–176.
Röling, N. G. and E. Van de Fliert (1998). ‘‘Introducing inte-
grated pest management in rice in Indonesia: a pioneering
attempt to facilitate large-scale change.’’ In N. G. Röling and
M. A. E. Wagemakers (eds.), Facilitating Sustainable
Agriculture: Participatory Learning and Adaptive Manage-
ment in Times of Environmental Uncertainty, (pp. 153–171).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Stonehouse, J. M (1995). ‘‘Pesticides, thresholds and the
small-scale tropical farmer.’’ Insect Science and its Applica-
tions 16: 2262–2590.
Sumberg, J., C. Okali, and D. Reece (2003). ‘‘Agricultural
research in the face of diversity, local knowledge and the
participation imperative: theoretical considerations.’’ Agri-
cultural Systems 76: 739–753.
UNIR. (1999). Una Nueva Iniciativa Rural (A new initiative in
rural development): village profiles of communities covered by
the project. UNIR-Zamorano and W. K. Kellogg Foundation.
Van de Fliert, E. and A. R. Braun (2002). ‘‘Conceptualizing
integrative, farmer participatory research in for sustainable
agriculture: from opportunities to impact.’’ Agriculture and
Human Values 19: 25–38.
Vanek, E. (1989). ‘‘Enhancing resource management in
developing nations through improved attitudes towards
indigenous knowledge systems: the case of the World
Bank.’’ In D. Warren, L. Slikkerveer, and S. Titilola (eds.),
Indigenous Knowledge Systems for Agriculture and Inter-
national Development, Ames, Iowa: Iowa State Univer-
sityStudies in Technology and Social Change, Number 11.
Van Huis, A. (1981). ‘‘Integrated pest management in the small
farmerÕs maize crop in Nicaragua.’’ PhD dissertation,
Department of Entomology, Wageningen University, The
Netherlands.
Van Mele, P., N. T. T. Cuc, and A. Van Huis (2001). ‘‘FarmersÕ
knowledge, perceptions and practices in mango pest man-
agement in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam.’’ International
Journal of Pest Management 47: 7–16.
Van Mele, P., A. Salahuddin, and N. P. Magor (2005). Inno-
vations in Rural Extension: Case Studies from Bangladesh.
Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.
Wesseling, C. (2001). ‘‘Dangerous pesticide use in Central
America – wanted: a new approach.’’ Pesticide News 54: 12–14.
Wyckhuys, K. A. G. (2005). ‘‘Evaluating the relative contri-
bution of training and ecological factors on the adoption of
insect pest management technologies in Honduran small-
holder communities.’’ PhD dissertation, Department of
Entomology Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Wyckhuys, K. A. G. and R. J. OÕNeil (2006). ‘‘Population
dynamics of Spodoptera frugiperda Smith (Lepidoptera: Noc-
tuidae) and associated arthropod natural enemies in Honduran
subsistence maize.’’ Crop Protection 25(11): 1180–1190.
Address for correspondence: Kris A.G. Wyckhuys, 219 Hodson
Hall, 1980 Folwell Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
Phone: +1-612-6243715; Fax: +1-612-6255299
E-mail: wyckh001@umn.edu