IPM in Türkiye

Nilgün Yaşarakıncı, Ph.D.,

Agricultural High Engineer

Abstract
The IPM history is revised briefly, and IPM policies, strategies and main goals are
remarked in Turkey. IPM project handled in Turkey is metioned. The IPM implementation
projects, training activities and their programs, control strategy are mentioned. The
conclusions with the IPM achievements, problems and the suggestions for the solutions are
presented in these article.

History of IPM
History of IPM in Turkey can be extended to early 1900’s. The Biological
control was introduced as an alternative control in citrus orchards; Rodolia cardinalis
Muls. was released against Icerya purchasi Maskel in 1910, Cryptolaemus
montrouzieri Muls. (in 1965) and Leptomastix dactylopii How. (in 1969) was
realeased against Planococcus citri Risso. R. Cardinalis is settled properly and solve
the problem as long as it was conserved and the natural balance is constituted.
However, the other two could not survive in winter and need to be realesed each
spring once or twice.
Nevertheless, the research project on cotton pests which is initiated in 1970 is
considered as the beginning of IPM in Turkey. That project was followed by apple and
hazelnut researches in 1972. The results of these projects were put into practiced by
implementation projects soon after. Moreover, forecasting and warning systems, in
apple orchards and vineyard, was established against Cydia pomenella and Venturia
ineaqualis based on the results obtained from the IPM research projects. Forecasting
and warning projects against Codling moth (Cydia Pomonella L.) and Apple scab
(Venturia inaepualis (Cke) Wint., have been applied through out the country in 1981–
1988. In the following years, Forecasting and Warning projects against Grape berry
moth (Lobesia botrana Den. Et Schiff.) , Vineyard downy mildew ((Plasmopara
viticola (Berk et Curt.) Berl. Et de Toni ) were carried out as well.These projects are in
fact the first practical IPM Projects. The best examples of the coordination among the
Researchers -Extension’s - Farmers have been shown with these Forecasting and
Warning implementations. Thousand millions Turkish Liras of crop losses were
prevented and pesticide consumption and control expenditures were decreased
because of these projects. For example number of sprays against Apple scab and
Grape berry moth were decreased from 7-8 to 1-3 and from 7-8 to 1-4, respectively.
In 2007, with the assistance and support of the Researh Institutes, control
measurements have applied according to the Forecasting and Warning principles, on
11924200 apple trees which are in the scope of 147 station (115 electronic and 32
mechanic station) in 35 provinces (89 counties), and also 1301650 vine stock at the
scope of 50 station in 17 provinces (44 counties).
IPM on wheat, tobacco, vineyard, citrus, peach and cabbage were also
studied afterwards. The major pests; their biology, population dynamics, natural
enemies and control methods have been investigated. Regional IPM program has
been improved for each of them.
IPM Policies and Strategies;
 One of the cornerstones of IPM in Turkey is decisions held in a meeting
organized by Turkish Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA) on IPM in
1994. Policies and Strategies of the Plant Protection is determined as IPM and the
needs are set forth as Research, Implementaiton and Training. General Policy and
Strategies are designated as follows:
• Plant protection research projects must be considered as countrywide and
crop based IPM projects aimed to solve the plant protection problems on the
certain crop or crops group.
• It is basic to establish a National IPM Network for each IPM project.
• To carry on the IPM projects with the coordination of the Research Institutes,
Universities, Agricultural Provinces and County Directorates Farmer unions,
Cooperations and the Farmers, is essential.
• It is aimed to increase the number of the IPM projects that will be carried on
with the coordination and the collaboration of the other Research Institutes
attached to the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, General Directorate of
Agricultural Research, Universities, TÜBİTAK (Turkish Science and
Technology Research Assosiation) and the Ministry of Environment and the
International Institutes such as the World Bank , UNDP, FAO, EU, NATO, GTZ
and the other countries.
• An attempt has been started and continuing progressively as dense programs,
on the training and introduction of IPM.
• A technical guide is being prepared for each crop where IPM is being applied
and the implementations are being made according to them.
• Preparation of the new IPM projects on wheat, chickpea, lentil, citrus, peach
and vineyard in 1994 and putting them into action in 1995 were decided at the
mentioned meeting.
Thus the 16 IPM projects initiated in Türkiye in 1995 and reached to 25 in
2008. These projects have been prepared with a new understanding. On one hand,
the results of the researches, obtained up to now are being integrated and applied by
the coordination of the Research Institutes, Agricultural directorates of the provinces
and counties, farmers and farmer associations, on the other hand, the research
subjects necessary for the IPM program are being carried on as subprojects by the
Research Institutes and the results obtained are being involved in the main IPM
program. In other words the IPM program are continuously being progressed and
implemented according to the developing technology and the results obtained from
the researches. The crop which is IPM projects has been carried out and the
implementation areas, in 2006 thourought Türkiye, are given on Table 1.
Table 1. Implementation and Taraining Projects of IPM in Turkey (2006)
Crops IPM Project Start. Implementation area (da/tree)
Apple 1995 20310
Wheat 1995 9540
Protected vegetable 1995 307
Cotton 1996 3050
 Apricot 1997 1650
Olive 1996 39437
Peach 1995 8510
Vineyards 1995 1038
Citrus 1995 41225
Cherry 1996 12645
Maize 1996 3000
Pistachio 1997 1650
Hazelnut 1997 1439
Chick-pea 1995 735
Potato 1995 700
Lentil 1995 200
Pear 1999 100
Sour cherry 1999 300
Walnut 1999 250
Tomato 1999 121
Musk melon 2000 25
Eggplant 1999 5
Carrot 2000 150
Rice 2000 1000
Bean 2000 10

Türkiye Agricultural Research Project (TARP), funded by the World Bank,

FAO/UNDP has been actively started, in 1992-1999. Afterwards they have been
performed nationally. The objectives of this project is to assist the Government of
Türkiye, to establish a network of formal cooperation and collaboration between
research, training and extension entitles to develop and apply IPM to be implemented
by the farmer community in order to reduce the national dependency on agricutural
pesticides and to avoid the detrimental effects of these chemicals on the
environment, human and animal health, and on the marketability of the production.
The main goals of IPM in Türkiye are
• Increasing the plant production, maintaining good quality production without
pesticide residues,
• Conservation and supporting the Natural Enemies,
• Controlling the fields, orchards and vineyards periodically,
• Making the farmers specialists for managing the control activities in their own
fields orchards and vineyards.
Active Joint of the Farmer and the farmer Unions to IPM Programmes
The main target of IPM programmes are the growers. For this reason, it is
aimed to make the farmers, the specialists on the control measurements of their own
fields, orchards and vineyards It is basic that the governmental Institutions will only
give technical assistance and make training programs; the farmers will make their
own decisions for the suitable control measurements against the pests, diseases and
weeds in their fields; The Turkish Agricultural Chamber Union (TZOB) and the other
Farmer Unions to join actively both with their budget and man power to the IPM
programmes as the IPM projects are prepared for the farmers and must be applied
by them. Farmer Unions that are already available and the IPM subjects that can be
supported are as follows, TARİŞ (IPM Projects on cotton, vineyard and olive),
ÇUKOBİRLİK (IPM Projects on Cotton), ANTBİRLİK (IPM Projects on cotton and
citrus ), FİSKOBİRLİK (IPM Projects on hazelnut and pistachio), MARMARABİRLİK
(IPM Projects on olive), TRAKYABİRLİK (IPM Projects on sunflower). In addition to
these, establishment of new farmer unions will be encouraged by the government
and their joint to the IPM projects will be maintained
The IPM implementations
The IPM Central Commission were established to coordinate IPM programs in
Nationwide. This commission consists of 9 members, 2 from General Directorate for
Agricultural Research, 1 from the General Directorate of Preventation and Control, 2
from the Plant Protection Departments of the universities and 4 among the IPM
National Coordinators.
The Plant Protection and Agricultural Research Institutes are the regional
coordinator for each crops in their region, and the experts of the Institute trained the
technicians that carried out the project in their provinces or counties. Extension
technician carried out the IPM projects together with the growers. It is basic for the
Turkish Agricultural Chambers Union (TZOB) and the other grower unions to join
actively both with their budget and man power to the IPM programs as the IPM
projects are prepared for the farmers and must be applied by them. The technicians
visit the field/orchard and check the plants together with the growers. They determine
the problems and find out the solution together. Growers applied the preventive
measures or control methods.
IPM Projects are implemented according to the Technical Guide prepared by
the IPM specialist for each crop, at first to be used at the locations where IPM
program are being carried on and then for the countrywide use in the following years,
are being prepared and put into action.
IPM projects are handled by the researchers. The researchers are the
consultant, lecturer and the leader of the projects. The researchers and the
technicians determine the pilot area for implementation. The growers selected
according to their characteristics such as open minded, ability of leadership etc. The
technicians visit the field/orchard/greenhouse weekly interval. The technician and the
grower make an observation and decisions on growing healthy crop and control
measures. The control measures have been taken by the growers.
IPM growers due to extention of the IPM and its methods to their neighbors,
relatives and friends. After growers gained an experience in 3-5 years, the pilot area
is changed. But the growers stay in contact with the local agricultural directorate to
get the help and obtained the information and the progresses.
The strategy of Control is determined as fallows:
• Implementation of Cultivation measurements primarily to grow healthy plant.
 • The measurements for Impediment the pest infestation and colonization.
• Modification of the crop design in an area in such a way that the reduction of
pest population. The creation of adverse biotic conditions that reduce survival
of individuals or populations of the pest
• To use the forecasting and warning models for pest management.
• Mass trapping and disruption techniques is preferred primarily, if it is available,
before handling the control measures
• The conservation and augmentation of natural enemies is the basic measures
for biological control
• Biological agent introduction, if available,
Strategy in chemical control is the pesticide selection. Correct timing, correct
application of chemicals at the correct dosage is essential. The effectiviness of the
pesticide on the pest population at the crops, and also the side effects of the
pesticide are regarded.
• In chemical control. Pesticide selection is made accoording to Matthews
(1984), Adverse effect on non target organism=A=(F+NE+B)/3
• F=Fish, NE=Natural Enemies,B=Bee
• M=Adverse effect on mammals
• C=Adverse effect on environment
• Total Risk= A+M+C

Total Risk Explanation

<6 Primary pesticides for IPM
6-7 Secondary pesticides for IPM
7-10 Temporory pesticides for IPM
10-13 Not compatible with IPM

The training activities in IPM projects

The reasearchers, the project coordinators and leaders were trained first. They
prepare the IPM program, both technical guide for implementation and training
program. They trained the trainers (technicians/facilitators). The technicians train the
growers. But the researchers also included in the training activities for the growers at
the beginning of the IPM implementation.
The training programs includes the following subjects for each level.
• IPM concept, principles and benefits
• Diagnosis of pest and natural enemies
• Cultivation, Fertilization and fertigation
• Agro ecosystem analyses
 • Control measures and alternative control methods and agents
• The selection of pesticides, the side effects, correct timing and application
Technical Instructions, brochure, tablet, and The Farmer Field day are
organized for each locality, and news or information programs are prepared for TV
channels, radio and newspapers in order to create an awareness and mass training
of IPM. The hand book and the films were prepared, and Broadcast in National
Channel in the scope of the Broadcast Training of the Grower Project (YAYÇEP).
The Conclusions
The achievements and problems are determined by the researchers, technicians and
growers at the participatory approach in the meeting of IPM comission.
The Achievements are determined as follows;
• IPM programs are applied successfully in the pilot area.
• IPM awaraness is created among the growers, cooperatives, NGO.
• Written dissemination materials like handbook, brochures and technical
instructions are available for some crops.
• Sound link established between the researchers, the extention technicians,
and the growers in the pilot area.
• Growers applied chemical control deliberately and consciously in the pilot
area.
• The number of the treatment of pesticide is reduced in the pilot area.
• The number of the beneficial species and their population densities are
increased in the pilot area.
• Some growers understand the importance of the scout.
• The pesticide retailer companies try to registrate pesticide which is
environmentally friendly and compatible with IPM programmes.
• The result of researches put into practice easily as soon as having the result.
• The extension technician gains the adequate knowledge on pest
management.
• The technicians and growers are involved to the research projects actively.
• The quality of the products are increased.
• The subjects of the researches are determined on the farm.
• The pest and disease and their natural enemies are reviewed in each IPM
implemented crop.
• Forecasting methods being used in wider area by the computer based
stations.
• The pesticide are classified according to their risk.
• The growers pay attention to correct fertilization.
Problems are determined as follows;
• However IPM could not diffused sufficient enough through out the country. IPM
implementation limited with the pilot areas. Although the IPM program couldn’t
applied thoroughly some alternative methods have been used in wide area like
yellow sticky traps, forecasting and warning methods, preserving natural
enemies.
• These projects are carried out only by the effort of the cooperation studies of
desirous researchers, extension technicians and growers.
Problems: Administrative
• Inadequate dissemination to increase awareness of IPM among the growers
and consumers.
• Insufficient technicians or certificated private consultants.
• No incents for the IPM implementation, sanction for incorrect applications that
causes environmental pollution, subsidies for integrated products and
alternative control materials and additional price for integrated products.
• Unsufficient investment on the IPM.
• Unavailable to find some alternative control materials in the market.
• No regulations or standart for IPM.
• Lack of the cooperation among the govermental, private bodies and NGO for
supporting the IPM projects.
• Unavailable rapid residue analysis.
• Lack of the biological agent registration standart or regulations
Problems: Research
• Lack of the basic studies for some pests on certain crops.
• Insufficient researchers and assistants, thus lack of research or improvement
projects on the alternative control methods, Lack of the practical methods for
being applied by the growers, especially to make a decision on economic
threshold.
• Lack of the multi-discipline projects and the results.
Problems: Growers
• The growers rely on pesticide retailers on economically and obey their
advices.
• Some of the methods are complicated for the growers. Such as sampling
technique and economic threshold decision making.
• Unwilling to apply IPM and record the data.
• The level of education.
• Conservative attitude.
 • Inadequate publication:handbook, brochures, basic books for each IPM
projects.
Suggestion
• Administrators and staff of agricultural organizations, agents, private sector,
NGO and consumers should be informed about the IPM and its progress.
• Participatory approaches should be used in extension activities.
• The Studies should be initiated by the Ministry on; Labelling (Certification)
IPM products, Regulation for incentive alternative control methods, Regulation
for sanctions and incorrect applications, and environmental pollution, Some
other regulations considering the environment and human health, Efforts on
IPM by cooperatives and NGO,
• Cooperatives, NGO and Input-private bodies must made more Efforts on IPM,
• Contracted growers produce environmentally safe products,
• Insure IPM programs and policies are effectively coordinated across Turkey,
and cooperation will be facilitated with non-govermental bodies in order to
meet IPM goals,
• The IPM Program Subcommittee should study with the representatives from
related subjects such as environment, economy, marketing, cooperatives,
education and extension, national resources, trade,
• Develop methods and conduct programs to accurately measure progress
towards IPM goal and assess the impacts of IPM implementation on the public
and private sector as measured by economic, environment, public health an
social factors,
• Implement a communication and information exchange program involving
stakeholders to increase public and policy–maker understanding of the IPM
goals, progress, impacts and benefits,
• To provide the participation of the producers,
• Meet the needs of IPM implementation,
• Provide the support and resources necessary to conduct a coordinated
program of research, and development.
• The multidisciplinary group integration should be established on a certain crop
from field to fork.
Literature
Bulut, H., M. Aydemir, Ö. N. Dindar and N. Yaşarakıncı, 1997. IPM Programs of
Türkiye. IPM in the Middle East and North Africa. The Report of the Workshop
on Integrated Pest Management by The Farmers. Participatory Approaches to
IPM, 15-19 November 1997, Fayed, Ismailia, Egypt.
Ananouymous, 1995-2006. The Plant Protection Implementation Programs and
Principles, Workshop Reports between 2005-2006. T.C. Agriculture and Rural
Affairs Ministry, Protection and Control General Directorate, Plant Protection
Division.
Lenteren, J.C. Van, 1995. The seminar notes of the ‘IPM training on Protected
Cultivation’ in The Netherland. Development and Implementation of EM. The
Course Notes on integrated Pest Management in protected cultivation (MSC
course element(G 250-210) and Post Graduate Course).

The brief bibliography of Nilgün Yaşarakıncı

Agricultural Consultant and agricultural assurance expert (2006-2009
T.R. Agricultural and Rural Affairs Ministry, General Directorate of Agricultural Researches,
Plant Protection Research Institute (!980-2006)
The vegetable pest laboratory (1991-2006)
National coordinator of IPM on chick pea (2000-2006)
Regional coordinator of IPM on protected vegetable (1994-2006)
Entomolog of the Patato, Protected vegetable and chick-pea IPM
(1994-2006)
The stock pest laboratory (1986-1991)
The cereal pest laboratory (1980-1986)
Kocaeli Plant Protection and Agricultural Quarantine Province Directorate
The Extenxion Tecnhician on Fruit and Vineyard pest (1980-1981)