Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is considered one of the most important crops in the world, and the sugarcane borer, Diatraea saccharalis Fabricius (Lepidoptera: Crambidae), is among the key pests damaging ...the crop in the Americas. The objective of this work was to identify rice genotypes as a source of resistance to D. saccharalis. Rice plants were infested in the greenhouse and subsequently evaluated for damage, larval weight and survival, and stem size. The cultivars ‘Bonança', ‘Caripuna', ‘IR 42', ‘Canela de Ferro', ‘SWA Norte', ‘BR IRGA 409', ‘Pepita', ‘Serra Dourada', ‘Araguaia', ‘Xingú', ‘Tangará’, and ‘Soberana’ showed antibiosis antixenosis, or both to D. saccharalis.These cultivars may be used as donor sources in the breeding program and used directly by Brazilian farmers as a component of rice-integrated pest management.
An inventory of parasitoids and parasites of fall armyworm (FAW), Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith), was conducted using references describing parasitized FAW eggs, larvae, pupae and adults ...collected from different crops or habitats throughout the Americas and the Caribbean Basin. The crops and countries where these parasites were reported occurring in the Americas is also inventoried. Maize was the crop where the FAW was more frequently collected followed by rice. Overall, Chelonus insularis (Cresson) had the broadest natural distribution in the Americas. For the North American region C. insulares, Chelonus sp., and Euplectrus platyhypenae (Howard) were the most relevant parasitoids. In Central America, C. insularis was the most prevalent parasitoid, and in the South American region the most prevalent parasites were Archytas incertus (Macq.), A. marmoratus (Tns.), C. insularis, and Meteorus laphygmae (Viereck). Diapetimorpha introita (Cresson) is the most important pupal parasitoid of FAW occurring mainly in North America. An acugutturid, Noctuidonema guyanense (Remillet & Silvain), is the most important ectoparasitic nematode attacking adults of FAW and other noctuid moths in South and Southeastern US, and Mexico in North America, Caribbean Basin, Central America, and Northern South America.
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a key component in the development of sustainable agro ecosystems. The Integrated Pest Management Collaborative Research Support Program (IPM CRSP) is a USAID ...funded project that is a consortium of U.S. universities working with host country national programs and other stakeholders to promote IPM globally. The IPM CRSP model is based on a Participatory Integrated Pest Management (PIPM) process that has as its goals to help reduce: agricultural losses due to pests, damage to natural eco-systems including loss of biodiversity, and pollution and contamination of food and water supplies. The IPM CRSP participatory model is based on networking, institution building, private sector interaction, research-technology development and technology transfer. The new IPM CRSP beginning in 2005 will build on the experience of the previous IPM CRSP (1992-2004). The technical approach of the New IPM CRSP is to implement an ecologically-based, participatory IPM (EP-IPM) program with a carefully-conceived strategy for local, national, regional, and global diffusion of IPM capacity and knowledge. Broad participation and communication are critical components of the strategy, along with a competitive process and a management plan designed to ensure high quality research and accountability. The approach is based on a competitive process open to U.S. universities who are expected to partner with host country national programs and other stakeholders in the development of Regional IPM Centers and on five Global IPM Themes including invasive species, insect transmitted viruses, regional diagnostic laboratories, information technologies and databases, and impact assessment.
O Manejo Integrado de Pragas (MIP) é um componente essencial no desenvolvimento de agroecossistemas sustentáveis. O Programa Colaborativo de Suporte a Pesquisa em Manejo Integrado de Pragas (IPM CRSP) é financiado pela USAID, que constitui um consórcio de universidades americanas colaborando com programas nacionais de países parceiros e seus apoiadores para promover o MIP globalmente. É baseado no Manejo Integrado de Pragas Participativo (PIPM), processo que visa minimizar: perdas agrícolas devido a pragas, danos a ecossistemas naturais incluindo perda da biodiversidade, poluição e contaminação dos alimentos e água. O modelo participativo IPM CRSP é baseado em trabalho em rede, criando interações entre instituições e o setor privado, desenvolvendo e transferindo pesquisa e tecnologia. O IPM CRSP que se inicia em 2005 será baseado na experiência do IPM CRSP anterior (1992-2004). Seu objetivo é implementar um manejo integrado de pragas participativo com bases ecológicas (EP-IPM) com a estratégia concebida para difundir a capacitação e conhecimento em MIP. Participação ampla e comunicação são componentes críticos da estratégia, juntamente com um processo competitivo e um plano de gerenciamento concebido para garantir pesquisa de alta qualidade e que se justifique. O programa é aberto para as universidades americanas, as quais devem procurar parceiros nos países envolvidos através dos programas nacionais e apoiadores locais no desenvolvimento de Centros Regionais em MIP envolvidos em cinco temas globais, incluindo: espécies invasoras, viroses transmitidas por insetos, laboratórios regionais de diagnósticos, tecnologia de informação e banco de dados, e avaliação de impactos.
The number of kidney allografts procured from deceased donors has been fairly constant in the past few years, while organs from living donors steadily increase. In our program, existing protocols ...refused some kidneys which were subsequently accepted and transplanted at other hospitals. Thus, a review of our criteria to accept kidneys became necessary.
We studied the outcome of all kidneys refused by us but transplanted in other programs between 2002 and 2004. The data analyzed included ID no. donor, transplant center, procurement date, donor age, ischemic times, recipient alive or dead, creatinine level (when it was offered), initial function, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, biopsy, reason why the kidney was not accepted in our program, kidney functioning or lost, and cause of graft failure. The chi-square, Fisher, and
t tests were used to analyze our data;
P values of <.05 were regarded as significant.
Originally 137, we excluded kidneys exported due to mandatory sharing (26 of 137 = 18.97%) and multiorgan placement (10 of 137 = 7.3%). Thus, 101 kidneys were not accepted by us because they did not meet the existing criteria of our program, but were accepted elsewhere. Reasons for nonacceptance were divided into donor quality, donor social history, donor age, donor size/weight, positive serological test, as well as organ preservation time, organ anatomical damage, elevated creatinine, abnormal urinalysis, abnormal biopsy, and decreased urine output. Donor issues were 66 of 101 (65.3%) with a graft loss of 13.6%, and organ issues were 35 of 101 (34.7%) with a graft loss of 66.6%. Donor quality totaled 24 of 66 (36.4%) and donor social history totaled 20 of 66 (30.3%); these were the most common causes for kidney nonacceptance related to donor issues. Reasons related to organ quality included elevated creatinine (15 of 35 = 42.9%; graft loss, 46.6%), and abnormal biopsy (9 of 35 = 25.7%; graft loss, 11.1%) and organ anatomical damage (4 of 35 = 11.4%; graft loss, 75%) (
P = .42). Graft loss was more frequent with creatinine levels above 2.4 mg/dL (
P < .001, RR gf = 1.5). Long-term fate of these 101 kidneys transplanted elsewhere: 82 (81.2%) were still working while 19 (18.8%) were lost. The causes of graft loss were renal artery thrombosis (42.1%), renal venous thrombosis (26.3%), death for other reasons (15.8%), graft never worked (10.5%), and ESRD (5.7%). The results suggest that the criteria for refusal related to donor issues, including hypertension, diabetes mellitus, donor age and donor size, should be revised owing to the low percentage of graft loss. Other donor issues such as positive serological test and donor social history (drug use, alcoholism) represent a serious potential risk for the health of recipients; for this reason, considering these persons as possible donors is very difficult irrespective of the graft outcome. Kidney refusals related to organ issues (especially elevated creatinine and anatomical damage) due to the very high percentage of graft loss should be considered high risk and probably be excluded. The increase in the demand of kidneys to be transplanted is a very important reason for a continuous and systematic review of donor exclusion criteria in every transplant program. The results presented here have helped us to improve both our outcomes and utilizations based on scientific evidence.
PDF
