Insight on Fruit Fly IPM Technology Uptake and Barriers to Scaling in Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tephritid fruit flies are considered one of the world’s most notorious pests of horticultural crops, causing extensive direct and indirect damage. Over the past two decades, a comprehensive, integrated pest management (IPM) package for the management of a plethora of fruit fly pests, including Bactrocera dorsalis, B. latifrons, B. zonata, Ceratitis cosyra, C. rosa, C. fasciventris, C. quilici, C. capitata, Dacus spp. and Zeugodacus cucurbitae, has been developed, disseminated and promoted among horticultural growers in Africa. To estimate the numbers of beneficiaries reached by the fruit fly IPM technology and the barriers to technology uptake, we interviewed 290 experts in 30 African countries covering five regions of the continent, and the responses collected were represented as follows: Southern Africa (39.1%), Eastern Africa (31.6%), Western Africa (18.0%), Central Africa (9.0%) and Northern Africa (2.0%). Our results revealed that the use of fruit fly IPM technologies varied across the regions, with Eastern Africa and Western Africa the leading regions, with the highest IPM technology penetration. Field sanitation remains the most common practice for managing fruit flies, followed by protein bait spray, use of biopesticides, male annihilation technique and parasitoid releases. According to the survey, over 101 million people have benefited from the fruit fly IPM interventions in the countries surveyed representing only 19.1% of the estimated beneficiaries. The region that benefitted the most was Eastern Africa (50.2 million), followed by Central and Western Africa (11.7 to 17.7 million), and Southern and Northern Africa had the fewest beneficiaries (10.4 to 11.0 million). The limitations to the IPM technologies uptake varied among the regions, but the common ones include a lack of awareness of the IPM technologies, a lack of access to the IPM products, insufficient training, a low involvement of private sectors and a lack of policies for the regulation of IPM technologies. Although significant strides have been made in promoting the fruit fly IPM technologies over the past two decades, our study reveals that the demand surpasses the current supply. Our study recommends a comprehensive strategy for the dissemination and promotion of the technologies through a multi-institutional alliance that enhances public and private partnerships, digital platforms and youth engagement to consolidate previous gains at the regional and continental levels.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".