LEARNING FROM FARMERS: INVASIVE SPECIES IN
THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS OF SANTA CRUZ
Heinke Jäger[1], Claudio Crespo[1], Francisco Abad[2], Alizon
Llerena[2] and Paulina Couenberg[2]
[1]Charles Darwin Research Station, Charles Darwin
Foundation, [2]Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, Galapagos
District Directorate
SHARE THIS ARTICLE
Figure 1. View of the agricultural zone on Santa Cruz Island. Photo: Heinke Jäger
There are now 1,476 non-native species established in the
Galapagos Islands, over 90% of which are plants and insects
(Toral-Granda et al. 2017). Invasive insects alone cause
damages of at least US$70 billion per year to the global
economy (Bradshaw et al. 2016), while the economic costs of
invasive plants are currently unknown.
In Galapagos, the impact of invasive species on farmers has
received far less attention than the risk that invasives pose to
the protected ecosystems in the Galapagos National Park
(Causton & Sevilla 2008). Yet farmers are key allies in
conservation. They keep the ground covered with beneficial
plants to displace the invasive ones, and they invest in
agrochemicals that ultimately protect both agricultural crops
and parts of the native flora.
In 2016, the staff of the Charles Darwin Foundation and the
Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAG, for its initials in
Spanish) came together to learn from farmers on Santa Cruz
Island. We sought to find out more about which invasive species
pose the biggest challenges on agricultural lands, which
herbicides and insecticides farmers use, and how they apply
them.
We interviewed farmers in the Santa Rosa, Salasaca, El
Occidente, Los Guayabillos, Bellavista, El Camote and Cascajo
districts (Figure 2), which together cover 9,592 hectares, or
about 100 square kilometers. Farmland in these districts is
divided into 357 so-called Agricultural Production Units (APU;
CGREG 2014), which are either individual farms or land from
different farms combined. We conducted interviews with
farmers living in 73 of these APU, which collectively comprised
29% of all agricultural land in Santa Cruz.
Figure 2. Location of the agricultural zone on Santa Cruz Island and of Santa Cruz
Island within the Galapagos Archipelago. The 73 interview locations are indicated by
black diamonds. Map: Carolina Carrión and Claudio Crespo. Click to enlarge.
Over the course of about 45 minutes, we asked each farmer a
set of standard questions about invasive plants, ants, and their
use of herbicides and insecticides. Many interviewees had a
long history in Galapagos: about 25% had been living in the
Islands for more than 45 years, and nearly 20% were in their
70s and older.
INVASIVE PLANTS
Farmers identified blackberry (Rubus niveus) as the most
problematic species on their farms, followed by guava (Psidium
guajava), sauco (Cestrum auriculatum) and escoba (Sida
rhombifolia) (Table 1; Figure 3). These species provided farmers
little or no economic benefit, and 81% of the farmers we
interviewed used herbicides to control them. In contrast,
farmers usually do not control other common invasive plants
that they harvest, such as Cuban cedar (Cedrela odorata) and
avocado (Persea americana).
Table 1. Percent of APU where invasive plants were found. APU = agricultural
production unit. Click to enlarge.
The most popular herbicides were Anikil and Combo. Some
farmers mixed these two together, likely applying a
concentration higher than recommended. We were surprised by
the frequent use of Anikil, since this herbicide is not very
effective for woody species like blackberry; it is instead best
suited for broad-leafed herbs and grasses (Nufarm 2012).
We learned that farmers may be inadvertently creating
resistance in invasive plants through repeated applications of
the same herbicide at concentrations below those
recommended by the manufacturer. For example, of the 28
farmers who controlled blackberry chemically, only five used the
recommended concentration for Anikil. Most instead used
concentrations that were too low to kill the blackberry plants.
They therefore ended up applying the herbicide several times,
increasing the total amount used, with plants ultimately building
resistance due to repeated exposure.
Herbicides are also mixed with water prior to application, and
the pH of the water is key: each herbicide has a different pH
optimum, outside of which it is less potent and less likely to kill
the plant. However, only 15% of the farmers we interviewed
measured the water’s pH before mixing it with the herbicide.
Thus sub-optimal pH values could also be necessitating
repeated herbicide applications, again building up plants’
resistance.
Figure 3. The four most problematic invasive plants in the agriculture zone of Santa
Cruz (clockwise): blackberry, guava, sauco, and escoba. Photos: Heinke Jäger, Conley
McMullen, Charles Darwin Foundation archives
INVASIVE ANTS
The highly invasive tropical fire ant (Solenopsis geminata) was
the most abundant and problematic insect pest for Santa Cruz
farmers (Figure 4). We encountered it in all but one of the 73
Agricultural Production Units (APU) that we sampled. Tropical
fire ants commonly caused severe stings to farm workers,
especially while they were sowing or harvesting crops (70% of
APU) or when ants entered farmers’ homes (71% of APU).
Poultry farms reported the most severe impacts. Here, fire ants
frequently killed chicks while they were hatching and attacked
hatched chicks and adults.
Figure 4. Tropical fire ants swarm a peanut butter stick. Photo: Wilson Cabrera.
To control this pest, most farmers used the insecticides
Cyperpac (44% of APU), SiegePro (26%), or Bala 55 (14%).
When exposed to the liquid Cyperpac, ants die on the spot, and
thus farmers see an immediate result, which may explain their
preference for this insecticide. SiegePro, on the other hand, is a
granulate that ants pick up and transport to the nest, where it
subsequently kills the entire colony. While this process takes
longer and is not as visible, SiegePro is actually much more
effective than Cyperpac in reducing ant population numbers
(Sergio Sanchez, pers. comm.).
Of the farms where the tropical fire ant is currently found, 94%
previously hosted the invasive little fire ant (Wasmannia
auropunctata). We suspect that the tropical fire ant has
replaced the little fire ant over the last 10 years, possibly by
outcompeting it.
SAFETY
Many of the farmers we interviewed did not use proper safety
procedures during herbicide and insecticide application.
Although 85% of interviewees used some kind of protection,
this was generally limited to wearing a surgical mask and
clothing such as overalls, which are not sufficient. Only 36% of
farmers wore gloves when applying agrochemicals.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Fifty-three percent of our interviewees asked the agrochemical
distributors for advice about the herbicides and insecticides
most suitable for controlling invasive species and how to use
them. An additional 37% sought guidance from public
institutions in Galapagos, primarily the Ministry of Agriculture
and Livestock (MAG), and about 20% had also received training
or technical assistance on how to use agrochemicals, again
mainly from MAG.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
IMPROVING AGROCHEMICAL
CONTROL
Our work suggests that farmers need better training about
control of invasive species in the agricultural zone. This is
consistent with the results of a previous study by O’Connor and
d’Ozouville (2015), yet little action has been taken since their
findings were published.
We recommend evening courses to ensure that training reaches
the majority of farmers, along with creation of educational
videos for those who are unable to attend. Videos should
engage local farmers as the main actors and be distributed as a
phone App or a DVD.
Agrochemical distributors should also participate in training
courses, since more than half of the farmers interviewed sought
their advice on recommended herbicide and insecticide
application, yet they often ended up using the wrong products.
Based on this study, the Charles Darwin Foundation and MAG
have developed a laminated table for farmers that lists the
recommended herbicides for controlling the four most
problematic plant species (blackberry, guava, sauco, escoba),
including recommended herbicide concentrations and
application modes. This table will be distributed during
meetings of the local farmers’ associations and at the local fruit
and vegetable market. We are still developing
recommendations for the tropical fire ant, due to the
unavailability of SiegePro in Ecuador at the moment.
We suggest development of additional informational materials
that explain the risk of creating resistance in invasive plants
through repeated applications of the same herbicide at
concentrations below those recommended, or by applying
herbicides at the wrong pH. These materials should be
accompanied by practical supplies, such as pH indicator strips
and an easy-to-use cup for measuring the exact amount of
agrochemical needed. Indicator strips should come with a list of
pH optimums for the mostly commonly used herbicides and
insecticides and a description of how to measure pH.
We advocate training courses for MAG staff as well, to advance
their knowledge about the use of agrochemicals for the control
of invasive species and to ensure provision of consistent advice
to farmers.
At the moment, agrochemicals are the only way to effectively
control invasive species at large scales in Galapagos. MAG is
currently working on the implementation of a bio-agricultural
plan that promotes the use of alternatives to pesticides
(Guzmán & Poma 2015), and scientists are searching for more
environmentally friendly control methods, such as biological
controls for blackberry and the tropical fire ant. But until these
are developed and fully tested, it is essential that we work
together to promote the safest and most effective use of
agrochemicals.
*The Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, MAG, was known as
the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Aquaculture and
Fisheries, or MAGAP, at the time this study was carried out.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by The Leona M. and
Harry B Helmsley Charitable Trust and
Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust and
Galapagos Conservancy. We would like to
thank the farmers of Santa Cruz for their
participation in the interviews. These
interviews could not have been conducted
without the help of the technical staff of MAG
(formerly MAGAP). We also would like to thank
Marcelo Loyola, Carolina Carrión, Charlotte
Causton and Denisse Barrera from the Charles
Darwin Foundation. We are grateful to Jon
Witman and Cheryl Hojnowski for revisions of
the manuscript. This publication is
contribution number 2260 of the Charles
Darwin Foundation for the Galapagos Islands.
REFERENCES
Bradshaw CJA, B Leroy, C Bellard, D Roiz, C
Albert, A Fournier, M Barbet-Massin, J-M
Salles, F Simard & F Courchamp. 2016.
Massive yet grossly underestimated global
costs of invasive insects. Nature
Communications 7, 12986 doi:
10.1038/ncomms12986
Causton CE & C Sevilla. 2008. Latest records
of introduced invertebrates in Galapagos and
measures to control them. Pp. 142–145. In:
CDF, GNP & INGALA, Galapagos Report 2006–
2007. Charles Darwin Foundation, Puerto
Ayora.
CGREG 2014. Consejo de Gobierno del
Régimen Especial de Galápagos. Censo de
Unidades de Producción Agropecuaria de
Galápagos 2014.
Guzmán JC & JE Poma. 2015. Bioagriculture:
An opportunity for island good living. Pp. 25-
29. In: Galapagos Report 2013-2014. GNPD,
GCREG, CDF and GC. Puerto Ayora, Galapagos,
Ecuador.
Nufarm 2012. Anikil 4 EC, Ficha Técnica
Comercial. Nufarm Colombia S.A.
O’Connor M & N d’Ozouville. 2015. Uso de
pesticidas en la agricultura en Santa Cruz. Pp.
30-34. In: Informe Galápagos 2013-2014.
DPNG, CGREG, FCD y GC. Puerto Ayora,
Galápagos, Ecuador.
Toral-Granda, M.V., CE Causton, H Jäger, M
Trueman, JC Izurieta, E Araujo, M Cruz, KK
Zander, A Izurieta & ST Garnett. 2017. Alien
species pathways to the Galapagos Islands,
Ecuador. PLoS ONE 12(9): e0184379.
SHARE THIS ARTICLE
Women inspiring change: Leadership for a plastic-free culture in San Cristóbal
A holistic, community-based approach to improving the Galapagos tuna fishery
