1

CURRENT PEST AND DISEASE MANAGEMENT IN ANDHRA PRADESH Dr.J.L.Harry Jeyaprakash

1. Introduction: Based on the agreement made by BIRDS with Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations(UN) for implementing a project titled “Reversing Environmental Degradation and Rural Poverty through adoption to Climate change in Drought Stricken Areas in South India”: BIRDS has engaged a consultancy in Integrated Pests management (Con-IPM) with Dr.J.L.Harry Jeyaprakash,Chennai, Tamilnadu.The draft technical report on the “Current Pest and Disease management in Andhra Pradesh” is submitted based on the TOR. It was mentioned that the working condition to prepare the document is by Deskwork which involves lot of online reference of papers, articles for IPM.In order to do the same, Consultant has approached Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad.Since, permission was not given to the consultant by the University Librarian, consultant has approached TNAU, Coimbatore for collection of literature on IPM AndraPradesh. Methodology: I was permitted by the, Librarian TNAU, Coimbatore to use the web-site www.cera.jccc.in where in Indian journals with reference to Andhra Pradesh were searched and details of abstract were gathered and different topics on IPM for different crops were prepared. The details were consolidated as per the TOR requirement. Moreover, some field visits for collecting on the spot information about IPM on different crops grown at Madanapalli of Chittor district of AndhraPradesh.In addition, scientists from Agricultural Research Station at Kadri, Anathapur District, were contacted and gathered details about Groundnut IPM and related activities. Farmers growing Tomato at Madanapalli village were interviewed for information on IPM, practices, Pesticide residue awareness and marketing strategies of vegetables. Preparation of report: While preparing the report, care was taken not to omit the works carried out by Scientists during 1926 and 1939 regarding the status of the crop pests and its life cycle. With reference to the Pesticide residue and awareness about Pesticides, Sprayers and other equipments, the Survey already made in Chitoor district was taken as the model for the topics concerned for the present condition. Tour Performed: In order to assess the actual situation of Integrated Pest Management in Andhra Pradesh, the consultant has visited Madanapalli Village and farmers cultivating vegetables especially Tomato. The cultivation details and insect and diseases control methods adopted by farmers were enquired and recorded.A representative pesticide dealer was also interviewed and got information about the demand for pesticides and pesticide residue in vegetable crops. The details of marketing of crops were also collected from officials and farmers. The Agricultural Research Station at Kadri of Ananthpur district was also visited by the consultant. The details of IPM in Groundnut and other details of Plant protection measures taken by Farmers were also collected from the Scientists of the ARS.

2

The details are now submitted in different topics as below:

S. No. Particulars Page No.

TOR: Deliverable Item: I

1. Introduction 1-3

2 Rainfall and Seasonal Condition in Andhra Pradesh 4-18

3.1 Summary : Integrated Pest Management- Rice 18 –25

3.2 Integrated Pest Management – Rice 25-45

3.3 References - Integrated Pest Management – Rice 46-49

4.1 Summary Integrated Pest Management –Groundnut 50-54

4.2. Integrated Pest Management –Groundnut 55-77

4.3 References - Integrated Pest Management- Groundnut 77-82

5.1 Summary Integrated Pest Management – Cotton 82-85

5.2. Integrated Pest Management – Cotton 86-103

5.3 References - Integrated Pest Management-Cotton 103 -106

6.1 Summary Pigeon pea IPM 106-108

6.2. Integrated Pest Management – Pigeonpea 108-126

6.3 References - Integrated Pest Management- Pigeonpea 126-129

7.1 Summary - Integrated Pest Management- Chickpea 129-131

7.2. Integrated Pest Management – Chickpea 131-141

7.3 References - Integrated Pest Management-Chickpea 141-144

8.1 Summary Integrated Pest Management- Maize 144-146

8.2. Integrated Pest Management - Maize 147-152

8.3 References - Integrated Pest Management-Maize 152-153

9.1 Summary- Integrated Pest Management- Chilli 153-156

3

9.2 Integrated Pest Management- Chilli 156-170

9.3 References: Integrated Pest Management- Chilli 170-174

10.1 Summary- Integrated Pest Management- Tomato 174-179

10.2 Integrated Pest Management- Tomato 179- 191

10.3 References- Integrated Pest Management- Tomato 191-193

11.1 Summary-Integrated Pest Management- Brinjal 193-195

11.2 Integrated Pest Management- Brinjal 196-208

11.3 References- Integrated Pest Management- Brinjal 209-212

12.1 Summary-Integrated Pest Management-Sweet Orange 212-214

12.2 Integrated Pest Management-Sweet Orange 214-232

12.3 References - Integrated Pest Management-Sweet Orange 232-237

13 Development of format to collect data on current Pest and Diseamanagement practices. (TOR: Deliverable. Item: II)

237-241

14.1 Safe use, Pesticides, in Andrapradesh -(TOR-Deliverables – Item: III,V and VI :Assessment of Pesticides, Assessment of equipments (Sprayers, Power sprayers etc, Present practices of farmers handling pesticides,)

241-265

14.2 Pesticides Usage – Survey –By Sahanivasa NGO 266-271

15.1 Assessment of IPM practices (cultural, physical, chemical abiological :( TOR-Deliverable,Item:IV)

272-282

15.2 Adoption to Climate changes in Agriculture and Mitigation Initiative: (TOR: Deliverables:VIII.)

282-300

15.3 Recommend plant protection adaptation options to climate changvariability (TOR: Deliverables: VIII.)

300-314

16. SP-IPM Strategies: (System wide Program-IPM) 314-315

17. Non Pesticidal Management (NPM) in Andhrapradesh 315-322

4

2. Rainfall and Seasonal Condition in Andhra Pradesh Location: The state of Andhra Pradesh is situated on the globe in the tropical region between 12014' and 19054' North latitudes and 76046' and 84050' East longitudes. It is bounded on the North by Maharashtra, on the North-East by Orissa and Madhya Pradesh, on the East by Bay of Bengal, on the South by Tamilnadu and on the West by Karnataka States. The state has a long coastal line extending over 960 km from Ichapuram sands in Srikakulam district to Pulicat lake in Nellore district.Andhra Pradesh is the 5th largest state in the Indian Union both in terms of geographical area and population comprising of 23 districts 1,105 revenue mandals, 29,994 villages spreading over 2,76,814 sq.km. RAINFALL AND SEASONAL CONDITIONS The seasonal conditions during the year 2009-10 on the whole were Normal. During the South -West monsoon period, the State received deficient rainfall of 27 percent against normal. However, in North-East season Rainfall was deficient by 17 percent. Deficit rainfall was witnessed during the South-West and North-East period. As such, 19 percent deficit rainfall was received in the year when compared to the normal. During the year 2009-10 an average rainfall of 760 mm was recorded as against the normal of 940 mm. Agro-Climatic Zones: The cropped area in Andhra Pradesh is divided into seven zones based on the Agri-climatic conditions. The classification mainly concentrates on the range of rainfall received, type and topography of thesoils. The districts covered by the different zones and their Agri-climatic characteristics are given below:

Agri-Climatic Zones: The cropped area in Andhra Pradesh is divided into seven zones based on the Agri-climatic conditions. The classification mainly concentrates on the range of rainfall received, type and topography of the soils. The districts covered by the different zones and their Agri-climatic characteristics are given below:

• Krishna and Godavari Basin

• North Coastal Zone

• North Telangana Zone

• Southern Telangana Zone

• Southern zone

• High Altitude & Tribal Areas

• Scarce rainfall zone

5

SEASON-WISE RAINFALL IN ANDHRA PRADESH--(in mm) Sl.No.

Season

Normal

2009-10

% dev.over Normal

Status

1

South West Monsoon (June to September)

624 454 --27 Deficient

2

North-East Monsoon (October to December)

224 185 --17 Normal

3

Winter Period (January to February)

14 15 7 Normal

4

Hot Weather period (March to May)

78 106 37 Excess

5

Grand Total 940 760 --19 Normal

Cropping Intensity Cropping intensity is one of the indices for assessing the efficiency of agriculture sectors. The cropping intensity is the ratio of gross area sown to Net area sown. It was 1.26 in 2009-2010 and 1.27 in 2008-2009. The cropping intensity is highest in Nizamabad Dist (1.63) and it was followed by EastGodavari (1.57), WestGodavari (1.56), Krishna (1.56) and Karimnagar (1.43). (Area in Lakh ha)

S.No

Crops

Total area under irrigated crop

Percentage of Area to the Total Area Irrigated

Percentage of Area to the Total Area under Crop

Averae Preceeding 5 Years

2009-10

2008-09

Averae Preceeding5 Years

2009-10

2008-09

Averae Preceeding 5 Years

2009-10

2008-09

1 Rice

37.44 33.54 42.59 62.20 58.20 63.00 96.40 97.50 96.90

2

Chillies

1.60 1.68 1.69 2.70 2.90 2.50 76.20 81.20 83.30

3

Groundnut 2.79 3.17 2.94 4.60 5.50 4.40 16.20 24.40 16.70

4

Cotton 2.20 2.39 2.55 3.70 4.20 3.80 19.20 16.30 18.20

5

Maize 3.04 3.46 4.21 5.10 6.00 6.30 40.20 44.20 49.40

6

Redgram 0.02 0.12 0.01 N 0.1 N 0.40 2.60 0.20

7

Bengalgram 0.07 0.06 0.13 0.01 0.01 0.02 1.40 0.90 2.10

6

AREA, PRODUCTIVITY AND PRODUCTION Rice: Rice is the principal crop extensively cultivated in all the districts of the State both in Kharif and Rabi seasons. It accounted for 27.4 percent of the total cropped area, 69.5 percent of the total Food-grains production during 2009-2010. The area under Rice during 2009-2010 was 34.41 lakh hectares as against 43.87 lakh hectares in 2008-2009, recording a decrease by 21.6 percent. The area under Rice was decreased due to unfavorable seasonal conditions during the south-west monsoon period. Krishna district is at the top with the area of 3.37 lakh hectares, followed by West Godavari(3.29 lakh hectares) ,East Godavari (3.07 lakh hectares), Guntur (3.03akh hectares), Nalgonda (2.73 lakhhectares)and SPS Nellore(2.67 lakh hectares) in 2009-2010.6.1.2 The production of Rice during 2009-2010 was estimated at 108.38 lakh tonnes as against 142.41 lakh tonnes in 2008-2009, recording a decrease by 23.9 percent. The Productivity of Rice is 3150 Kgs/hect in 2009-2010 as against 3246 Kgs/ hect. in 2008-2009. Groundnut Groundnut is one of the important Oilseed crops mostly cultivated under rainfed conditions and is cultivated in almost all districts. The area under Oilseeds during 2009-2010 was 22.23 lakh hectares which constituted 17.7 percent of the total cropped area in the State. Out of which, Groundnut alone accounted for 58.52 percent of the total area under Oilseeds. The area is recorded in Ananthapur, Kurnool, Chittoor, and Kadapa, districts and Ananthapur district accounted for 49.3 percent of the total area of the state under Groundnut crop in the State during 2009-2010. The area sown under Groundnut was 13.01 lakh hectares during in 2008-2009 as against 17.66 lakh hectares in 2008-2009 and showing decrease of 26.3 percent. In terms of production, during the year 2009-2010 Groundnut recorded at 10.07 lakh tonnes which is 41.6 percent of the total Oil Seeds production in the state. The production of Groundnut during 2009-2010 was 10.07 lakh tones as against 9.73 lakh tonnes in 2008-2009 and showing an increase of 3.5 percent due to increase in an average yield per hectare during 2009-2010. The yield rate of Groundnut was increased to 774 Kgs/hect. In 2009-2010 as against 551 Kgs/hect. in 2008-2009 recording an increase of 40.5 percent. The area, productivity and production of Groundnut from 2005-2006 to 2009-2010 are presented in table-6.19. Cotton Cotton is an important Fibre crop grown in Kharif season in the state, mainly as un-irrigated crop.Andhra Pradesh is one of the first three states along with Gujarat, Maharastra in India in respect of area and production of cotton. During Kharif season, the crop is mainly raised as a rain-fed crop in the traditional areas of Adilabad, Karimnagar, Warangal, Guntur Nalgonda and Khammam districts and in few other pockets of Mahabubnagar, Medak, Krishna, Kurnool, Prakasam, Rangareddy and Nizamabad. Area under Cotton during the year 2009-2010 was 14.68 lakh hectares which is accounted for 11.7 percent of gross cropped area in the state. Adilabad, Karimnagar, Warangal, Guntur, Nalgonda and Khammam districts together accounted for 74.0 percent total area under the crop in the State during

7

2009-2010. The area under crop was 14.68 lakh hect during 2009-2010 as against 13.99 lakh hect. in 2008-2009,recording an increase by 4.9 percent.The production of Cotton in the State was 32.32 lakh bales of 170 Kgs in 2009-2010 (lint) as compared to 35.69 lakh bales in 2008-2009 recording a decrease of 9.4 percent and due to increase in area during 2009-2010. Maize Maize crop is mostly grown in Telangana region. This crop accounted for 6.2 percent of the total cropped area in the State during 2009-2010. The Maize is largely grown in the districts of Mahabubnagar, Medak, Karimnagar, Nizamabad, Guntur, and Warangal districts and these districts together accounted for 70.9 percent of the total area under the crop in the State and Mahabubnagar district is accounted for above 16.6 percent of total area under this crop. The area under Maize was 7.83 lakh hectares during 2009-2010 as against 8.52 lakh hectares in 2008-9009, which shows a decrease 8.1 percent. The production of Maize was estimated at 27.61 lakh tonnes during 2009-2010 as against 41.52 lakh tonnes in 2008-2009, showing a decrease by 33.5 percent due to decrease in the area and average yield per hectare during 2009-2010. The average yield rate of Maize was 3528Kgs/hect. in 2009-2010 as against 4874 Kgs/hect. in 2008-2009, showing a decrease of 27.6 percent. The area, productivity and production of Maize from 2005-2006 to 2009-2010 are given in the table 6.5. Redgram-Pigeonpea: Redgram is sown predominantly under rain-fed conditions in Kharif season. The crop is sown in the months of June to August in the State. This crop is largely grown in Mahabubnagar, Prakasam, Adilabad Nalgonda, Ananthapur, Ranga Reddy, Kurnool, Guntur and Medak districts which accounted for 78.0 percent of the total area under this crop in the State during 2009-2010. Mahabubnagar district alone shared 19.9 percent of total area under this crop. The area under Redgram during 2009-2010 was 4.63 lakh hectares as against 4.43 lakh hectares in 2008-2009 and showing an increase of 4.5 percent. The production of Redgram during 2009-2010 was 2.03 lakh tonnes as against 2.02 lakh tonnes in 2008-2009, showing an increase of 0.5 percent slightly due to increase in area during 2009-2010 The yield rate of Redgram was 438 kgs per hectare in 2009-2010 as against 455 kgs per hectare in 2008-2009, showing a decrease of 3.7 percent. The area, productivity and production of Redgram from 2005-2006 to 2009- 2010 are given in the table 6.8. Bengalgram: Chickpea: Bengalgram is mostly grown in Rabi season. The crop is sown in the month of October and November to a limited extent in the month of December also. The crop is grown externally under rain-fed conditions .The Crop is sown in Kurnool, Prakasam, Anantapur, Kadapa, and Medak districts which accounted for 70.5 percent of the total area under the crop in the state during 2009-2010 and Kurnool district alone shares 37.0 percent of the total area under this crop. The area under Bengalgram during 2009-2010 is at 6.47 lakh hectares as against 6.07 lakh hectares in 2008-2009, recording an increase of 6.6 percent. The production of Bengalgram has decreased by 8.47 lakh tonnes in 2009-2010 as against 8.57 lakh tonnes in 2008-2009, showing a decrease of 1.2percent.

8

The average yield rate of Bengalgram was recorded at 1309 Kgs per hectares. in 2009-2010 as against 1413 Kgs per hectares in 2008-2009. The area, productivity and production of Bengalgram in the state from 2005-2006 to 2009- 2010 are shown in the table-6.9. Chilli: Chilli is one of the important crop in condiments and Spices group. Andhra Pradesh State stands first in the country in terms of area and production of Chillies crop during 2009-2010 . The crop is grown both under irrigated and unirrigated conditions in both kharif and rabi seasons. The area under chillies during the year 2009-2010 was 2.07 lakh hectares and occupied 2.0 percent in gross cropped area. The crop is extensively grown in Guntur, Khammam Warangal, Prakasam, and Kurnool, districts. These districts together accounted 74.3 percent of the total area under the crop in the state and Guntur district alone accounts for 32.4 percent of total area under the crop. The area sown under chillies was 2.07 lakh hectares during 2009-2010 as against 2.03 lakh hectares in 2008-2009 and showing an increase of 2.0 percent.The production of chillies was 8.31 lakh tonnes in2009-2010 as against 7.73 lakh tonnes in 2008-2009, registering an increase of 7.5 percent, due to increase in the area and average yield per hectare during 2009-2010. The average productivity of Chillies has registered as 4023 kgs per hectares. in 2009-2010 from 3803 kgs/hect. in 2008-2009. Polambadi Programme; Crop yields are not increasing as expected even though the cost of cultivation increased many folds due to indiscriminate use of inputs resulting in poor quality of produce leading to poor returns. With this back ground, it is programmed to take up training to the farmers in their fields on FFS model (Polambadi). Concept: Empowering the farmers to take economical decisions by adopting practices of Integrated Crop Management (ICM) with the principles of Grow a healthy crop, Conserve natural enemies, Conduct regular field observations and make the Farmers to become ICM experts. Mandate: It is programmed to organize one Polambadi by ADA (R) in each division, one by MAO and one by each AEO in the mandal. The Polambadi programme is being done from seed to seed. Polambadi is conducted in paddy, maize, pulses, oil seeds, cotton & coarse cereals. Size of the Polambadi - 10 ha, No. of Farmers–30. Orientation training was organized before commencement of the season to the departmental staff at state as well as at district level. Season long training Programme on Cotton is organized in Warangal. Extension Reforms (ATMA): Government of India has introduced the “Support to State Extension Programmes for Extension Reforms’’ (ATMA) Scheme in all the development districts covering all states and Union territories of India from 1st June 2005 in a phased manner. The entire state of Andhra Pradesh except Hyderabad Urban district is covered under ATMA with 90:10 central and state shares. Objectives of the Programme:

1. To develop an efficient, effective, demand driven, research integrated and financially Sustainable public extension system

9

2. To revitalize the Agricultural technology Generation Assessment refinement and Dissemination Systems

3. Reforming Public Sector Extension. Promoting private sector to effectively complement, supplement and wherever possible to substitute public extension.

4. Mainstreaming Gender Concerns inExtension. 5. Capacity Building/ Skill up-gradation of farmers and extension functionaries. 6. Increase the Quality and Type of Technologies being disseminated by the Extension System. 7. Strengthen Research-Extension-Farmer (R-E-F) Linkages

WEATHER BASED AGRO-ADVISORIES-Plant Protection: ACHARYA N. G. RANGA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY-Agromet-Cell, Agricultural Research Institute, Rajendranagar, Hyd-30.WEATHER BASED AGRO ADVISORIES FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRAPRADESH FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 02.11.2011 (Till Wednesday morning)-Bulletin No. XVIII/82/2011 Dt: 28.10.2011 North east monsoon has set in over the state on 24 October. Under its influence moderate to heavy rains occurred over Rayalaseema and Coastal Andhra Pradesh and light rains occurred over Telangana region. The maximum temperature ranged between 30-350C and minimum temperature ranged between 19-240C. As per the forecast received from Meteorological Centre, Hyderabad, light to moderate rains may occur over Coastal AndhraPradesh and Rayalaseema while isolated rains may occur over Telangana during coming five days. The maximum and minimum temperatures are likely to range between 31-340C and 21- 250C, respectively. Model: Rice • Prevailing weather conditions are congenial for the incidence of brown plant hopper(BPH). Manage the pest by adopting the following measures. _ Drain out the water from the field _ Spray Ethofenprox @ 1.5 ml or Acephate @ 1.5 g or Buprofezin @ 1.6 ml per litre of water twice at 7-10 days interval _ Direct the spray towards the base of the crop • Incidence of Neck blast/ false smut/ grain discolouration is also noticed in rice. To manage, Trifloxysterobin + Tebuconezole @ 0.6 g – 1.0 g or Kresoxy methyl @ 1.0 ml need to be sprayed for 2 times at 7-10 days interval during 25-50% flowering stage in the event of cloudy weather coupled with drizzle which favours the above diseases. • Incidence of panicle mite is noticed in late planted rice. Control it by spraying Dicofol @ 5 ml per litre of water. • Rodents damage is noticed. To control, − Fumigate with Aluminium phosphide tablets @ 1.2 g per burrow, or use burrow Fumigator. − Poison bait with Bromadiolone @ 10 to 15 g per burrow by mixing 96 parts of broken rice: 2 parts oil: 2 parts Bromadiolone in live burrows and in the field. − Use rat traps. Note: The rodent management has to be taken up on community basis for effectivecontrol.

10

Cotton • Prevailing weather conditions are congenial for the incidence of aphids, jassids, whitefly,mealy bugs, thrips, stem necrosis and foliar diseases (leaves and bolls). To control, Aphids

• Spray Monocrotophos @ 1.6 ml or Methyl-O-Demeton @ 2 ml or Acetamaprid @ 0.2g or Acephate @ 1.5 g per litre of water.

Jassids • Spray Dimethoate @ 2 ml or Imidacloprid @ 0.25 ml per litre of water.

Whitefly • Spray Triazophos @ 1 ml per litre of water.Mealy bug-− Collect and destroy the affected leaves-

− Keep the fields free from weeds. − Spray Profenophos @ 3 ml per litre of water.-Thrips and Stem necrosis — Collect and destroy infested plants — Remove parthenium and later to control the vector thrips, spray Fipronil @ 2ml perlitre of water. Foliar diseases (leaves and bolls) — Control them by spraying Mancozeb @ 2.5 g or Copper-Oxy-Chloride @ 3 g orCarbendazim + Mancozeb @ 2.5 g per litre of water at an interval of 7 days, 2-3 timesdepending up on the intensity of the diseases. Redgram • Incidence of leaf webber is noticed. To control, − Collect and destroy the webbings made by the larvae − Spray Monocrotophos @1.6 ml or Chlorpyriphos @ 2.5 ml per litre of water. Vegetables and Fruits • Incidence of aphids, blister beetles and maruca is noticed in beans. To control, Aphids — Spray Dimethoate or Methyl-O-Demeton or Fipronil @ 2 ml per litre of water. Blister beetles — Spray Carbaryl @ 3 g per litre of water. Maruca — Spray Profenophos @ 2 ml per litre of water. • Raise nurseries of rabi vegetable crops duly treating the seed with Imidacloprid @ 5 gfollowed by Thiram @ 3 g followed by Trichoderma viride @ 4 g per kg of seed. • Incidence of sucking pests in vegetables is noticed. To control, spray Fipronil or Dimethoate @ 2 ml per litre of water. • Incidence of thrips and die-back is noticed in chillies. To control, Thrips— Spray Acephate @ 1.5 g or Fipronil @ 2 ml per litre of water. Die-back— Spray Captan + Hexaconazole @ 2.5 g or Mancozeb @ 2.5 g per litre of watertwice at 7-10 days interval. • Incidence of early blight is noticed in tomato. To control, spray Captan or Mancozeb @ 3 g per litre of water 3-4 times at 15 days interval.

11

Cattle and buffaloes • Prevailing weather conditions are congenial for the occurrence of − Hemorrhagic Septicemia, Black Quarter, Foot and mouth disease in cattle, − ET and sheep pox in sheep To prevent the diseases, vaccinate the animals • To prevent blue tongue disease in sheep, farmers are advised to keep the sheep in sheds during night time (Principal Scientist (Agromet.) A special operational agro meteorological tool “DINASARI ATAVARANAMVYA VASAYAM”(DAILY WEATHER- AGRICULTURE) and Murthy’sComparison Concept. During each seminar the farmers were shown/given the daily weather data for the last 30 days. These data were collected from the daily newspapers available in the villages where the seminar was being organized, after pasting the same in front of them a day before the event. After showing this huge and valuable information on weather that is available in their own village, the farmers responded with unparalleled enthusiasm to do the same on their own, for their own farm as community benefit. Some farmers agreed to copy/write the weather information available daily on Television and Radio and transmit/exchange the same with other farmers. This operational agrometeorological tool “DVV (Dinasari Vatavaranam- Vyasayam)” involves no money because the newspapers are bought by villagers/farmers for learning and enlightening themselves on several issues. Also, in India and Andhra Pradesh, newspapers are very inexpensive and Television and Radio are available in all villages. Based on the trends observed (analysis of weather data), management options and guidance were made available to the farmers within the hand outs, as also the “Vyasaya Panchangams (Agricultural Diary)“ distributed during these seminars. Murthy’s “Comparison Concept” takes into account the weather/climate forecast, issued in real-time basis, and uses derived parameters as the basis for warning. These real time forecasts and derived parameters are compared with the scenarios of past seasons or years and a suitable set of common similarities on levels of pests and disease incidence and crop performance are arrived. This information helps to produce future scenarios of occurrence of pests and diseases, crop yield etc., in addition to determining the levels of incidence of pests and diseases and projected crop yield in the ongoing season. This concept can be used wherever appropriate and for developing thumb rules/dynamic simulation models/empirical models. This concept was explained in brief in local language to all the farmers. Seminars were organized during 2007-08 in Mahbubnagar District (in Chandur Village and Yemmangandla Villages) Kurnool District(Loddipally,Vuyyalawada villages), Ananthapur District( Siddaramapuram,Krishnamreddipally villages) West Godavari District( Dendulur, Gopannapalem villages and Ranga Reddy District( Kandukur village). Conclusion Farmers unequivocally requested for the continuous organization of these seminars. They wanted the agrometeorological tool “Dinasari Vaatavaranam –Vyavasayam” to be made into an agrometeorological service. They are also eagerly awaiting the software on the ‘Comparison Concept”. Under these

12

circumstances, the WMO is obediently requested for liberal financial assistance and support for continuation of this project. (Dr. Radhakrishna Murthy Vasiraju,2008- Report on the project entitled “WMO-ANGRAU-DST sponsored Roving Seminars on Weather, Climate and Farmers”) National Centre for Integrated Pest Management Established in 1988, the National Centre for Integrated Pest Management (NCIPM) has encompassed IPM on all major pest categories of main crops of the country, both at research and farm levels. The Centre has been working as an interface between the crop based research institutes, State Agricultural Universities and the extension agencies of the State Agricultural Departments and farmers, with mandate of developing and promoting IPM, developing information base through electronic networking, establishing linkages and collaborative programmes and extending technical consultancies. Over a period of two decades within a fast changing environment, the Centre could steer the emphasis of approach to IPM from a single pest management to holistic crop health management, in general and more importantly from a risk management to adaptive strategies of pest management, in particular.IPM in rice, cotton, pulses, sugarcane, oilseeds and vegetables have been successfully fine tuned with the changing pest problems and technological improvements of pest management and validated successfully across the predominant crop and hot spot locations of the nation. PESTICIDES The pesticide consumption has been declining gradually by motivating the farmers during Polambadi programmes to follow Integrated Pest Management practices (IPM). IPM emphasizes need based use of pesticides, bio-pesticides and bio-agents along with cultural and mechanical practices for pest control. The cultivation of Bt. Cotton varieties also resulted in the reduction of pesticide usage in cotton crop and thus the pesticide consumption decreased substantially. during the year 2010-11, the pesticide consumption in the state in kharif season is 581 MTs of active ingredient against the estimated demand of 600 MTs of active ingredient. Pesticide consumption over the years is shown in Table below: Utilization of Pesticides ( in MTs) Year

Pesticide Consumption(Active Ingredients

2001-02 3850 2002-03 3401 2003-04 2333 2004-05 2781 2005-06 1918 2006-07 1394 2007-08 1541 2008-09 1381 2009-10 1015 2010-11)Upto September) 561 (Source:Agrl., Department-Socio-Economic Survey-Andhrapradesh Government)

13

REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP ON AGRICULTURE RESEARCH AND EDUCATION FOR THE ELEVENTH FIVE YEAR PLAN-(2007-2012)- GOVERNMENT OF INDIA-PLANNING COMMISSION Plant Protection

9. The overall concepts of crop health management have to be imbibed in order to focus on cost-effective crop production. This should have high priority for the XIth Plan period.

10. The evolution of national data base on pesticide residue status in commodities is another prime area of focus for the next five year plan period.

11. There is a need for interdisciplinary research in plant protection to elucidate basic issues of herbivory as well as to develop suitable mitigations.

12. Introduction of plant health management as a thematic emphasis on integrated pest management (IPM) in educational programmes of the country through broad-basing agricultural education; contextual fortification of extra-mural research; introduction for social needs to form para-agric team to practice plant health management similar to para-medical teams in human health care.

13. One of the major weaknesses in viral disease management is the poor understanding of vector relationships and their biology. Although there have been good strides in the case of aphids, plant hoppers and whitefly in crops such as potato, cotton or rice, many potential vectors such as thrips, bugs and mites are not studied for their exact role and biological association in viral transmission. Strong network programme on this is essential to make viral disease management in Indian crop health scenario through vector control.

Climate Change

21. Development of appropriate methodologies employing GIS and remote sensing for detail soil resource maping and land use planning at watershed level. The exercise is desired for taking up priority treatment of 20 m/ha of degraded lands envisaged by the Planning Commission, Government of India. Developing blue prints for increasing crop production in low producing districts of the country having sufficient potential of irrigation water but low fertilizer use, employing remote sensing and GIS tools is required.

22. Timely and dependable advice on weather conditions will be very helpful to farm families to plan their sowing and other operations. Therefore, upgradation of weather based forewarning mechanism and provision of value added agromet advisory services are needed.

23. Impact of climate change on agriculture through experimental and modeling studies, assessment and maping of geographical shifts on crop and horticultural regions and other vegetation due to climate change, need to be studied. A planned research programme needs to be undertaken to enhance understanding of N-cycle at eco-regional level due to climate change.

14

24. Maping of disaster prone areas, pest and disease hotspots using GIS and remote sensing technologies need to be taken up. There is an urgent need to establish a wide interlinked network of automatic weather stations with real time data dissemination across the country particularly in the eco-regions important for food security.

Rainfed Agriculture

25. A major programme for rainfed/limited irrigation suited crop variety development is the need of the hour to provide new technologies to nearly 55% of cropped area. In the rainfed crop production system, the most crippling factor in achieving the required crop growth rate. There is a need to get to the root of the problem of yield limiting factors. These need to be identified crop, location wise and addressed genetically for physiological enhancement of the crop so that the stress related loss in production and quality are minimized. An integrated approach to use limited irrigation under rainfed situation is the better option than unpredictability associated with rainfed cropping alone.

26. Dryland horticulture, medicinal, aromatic and seed spices, fuel, oil and wood yielding tress and bushes have immense potential to augment the income of farmers in rainfed areas. Thus, concerted research efforts are required to improve the productivity of these crops both as sole crops and in different intercropping systems. Research strategies for areas receiving less than 500 mm rainfall should be primarily livestock based, 500-700 mm crop-livestock based, while areas between 700-1100, crop-horticulture-livestock-poultry based and those with > 1100 mm should have enterprises based on multiple use of water (water for inland fisheries, aquatic plants and irrigation of arable crops/horticulture).

27. Intensify the use of molecular biology tools by introducing biotic and abiotic stress tolerance and infusing organoleptic characters in rainfed crops. Indigenous plant types that inherently possess genes responsible for higher nutritive value (more protein, micronutrients etc) need to be identified and used for enriching nutrients in rainfed crops.

Horticultural Crops: STATUS OF NHM ACTIVITIES: Focus Districts: 1. Guntur 2. Prakasam 3. Kadapa 4. Ananthapur 5. Kurnool,6. Mahabubnagar 7. Ranga Reddy 8. Nizambad 9. Khammam 10. Nalgonda, 11. Nellore 12. Chittoor 13. Medak 14. Adilabad 15. Karimnagar, 16. Warangal.17. Srikakulam 18. West Godavari 19. ITDA Rampachodavaram and 20 ITDA Paderu. Focus Crops: 1. Mango 2. Sweet Orange 3. Sapota 4. Pomegranate, 5. Banana 6. Papaya and 7. Cashew 8. Flowers and 9. Spices

15

SWEET ORANGE: At CRS, Tirupati, 90 accessions Sweet orange-34, Acid lime-26, mandarins-6, Rangpur lime-6,Jambheri-10, Pummelo-3, Miscellaneous-05) were collected from Florida, Texas states of .S.A. Japan and different parts of India are planted to evaluate for tolerance to biotic and abiotic stresses, pests and disease resistance, superior yield and fruit quality parameters over the existing cultivars. Out of them Rangpur lime strain Texas, Citrus hystrix and Australian sour orange were identified as resistant to diseases. Australian sour orange was identified as high juice yielder (65-70%). Among the nine clones of 17 year old sweet orange, the highest yield was recorded in Sathgudi (CIP) clone (1261 fruits weighing 170.25 kgs per plant) followed by Ananthapur selection (1005 fruits weighing 147.80 kgs per plant) and Ankalamma gudur with 815 fruits weighing 108.8 kgs per plant. Brix acid ratio is also more in Sathgudi (CIP+ (11.37). At CRS, Tirupati, in sweet orange Arboscular mycorrhiza of 0.5 kg/Plant, 0.1 kg/plant of phosphate solubulising bacteria, 0.1 kg of Azospirillum and 0.1 kg of T.harzianum with 75% RDFproduced highest yields (595, 108.80 kgs of fruits) per plant per year.In sweet orange fertigation trial, stem girth (46.15 cm) and canopy volume (33.56 cu.m.) weremore in recommended dose of Nitrogen through drip and Potassium applied through soil. Theyield both in number and weight (410 fruits weighing 77.49 kgs) per plant was found higher in recommended dose of Nitrogen and 75% K applied through drip irrigation system than other methods. At HRS, Mallepally application of 100 kg farm yard manure + 1 kg urea followed by light irrigation 15 days after stress induced stress and recorded maximum fruit number of 526.33 in Sweet orange. Spraying of thiourea @ 0.5 % induced stress and recorded maximum number of fruits (248) per tree, in Sweet orange for crop regulation. In Sweet orange, maximum plant height (236.66 cm) and stem girth (7.26 cm) and spread in East – West (277.33 cm) and North-South (260.33 cm) was recorded in the plants applied with 900-210-320 gm / tree N:P:K as inorganic form. Sweet orange accessions RGPL Brazil and RGPL Texas are tolerant to dry root rot and can be profitable used as rootstocks. Pest Management: Sweet Orange At CRS, Tirupati, triazophos 0.05% followed by profenophos 0.1% are found significantly superior over control in reducing rust mite damage. Among the natural products neem oil 1% followed by NSKE 5% was found effective. Imidacloprid 200 SL (0.005%) was found effective upto 14 days after spray followed by Thiodicarb 0.75% and Thiamethoxam 0.05% in reducing the leaf miner incidence. Among the plant products NSKE 5% was found effective in controlling citrus leaf miner. Propargite 57 EC (0.057%) was found significantly superior over control upto 7 days after treatment followed by Triazophos 40 EC (0.06%) and Ethion 0 EC (0.05%). Among the natural products, Neem oil 5% was effective in reducing the mite incidence on both fruits and leaves in citrus. BRINJAL At VRS, Rajendranagar, the seed of ‘Improved Bhagyamati’ with green calyx which was found superior to Bhagyamati with respect to morphological and yield characters has been multiplied and ready for minikit testing.

16

Pest Management in BRINJAL: At VRS, Rajendranagar, application of FYM 10 t/ha and neem cake 500 kg/ha proved to be the best in reducing the population of sucking pests as well as the borer incidence and recorded higher yields (39.62 t/ha) compared to the recommended dose of NPK in inorganic form (24.59 t /ha)and control (21.87 t /ha).Application of Spinosad 45 SC @0.5 ml/lt proved to be the best and recorded lowest fruit damage of 13.62% followed by Emamectin benzoate with 17.23% damage. Pest Management in TOMATO: At VRS, Rajendranagar, in Tomato indeterminate AVT-II, hybrid ARTH-128 recorded highest yield (333.2 q/ha) and maximum fruit weight (97.7 gm) followed by 08/Toinhyb-1 (301.3 q/ha, 79.1gm respectively).In Tomato Determinate AVT-II, maximum yield was recorded by entry DVRT-2 (369.8 q/ha) &maximum fruit weight (108.3), while more number of fruits per plant was recorded by VR-35 (27.0).In Tomato AVT-II, entry NDT-9 check recorded higher yield (338.4g/k) higher fruit weight (108.7 gm) & maximum fruit drameter (6.1 cm) followed by VTG-106 (292.7 q/ha). Disease management: Tomato: At VRS, Rajendranagar, all the entries exhibited leafcurl virus disease incidence of above 5.0per cent. Among the entries tested two entries i.e. 09/TOLCVRES – 3 and 09/TOLCVRES – 14exhibited lowest incidence of 5.7 and 4.4 per cent respectively. Maximum incidence was recorded in the entry 09/TOLCVRES – 11 (20.0 %). The resistant check H –24 recorded 12.4 per cent incidence and the susceptible check Punjab chuhara exhibited 45.0 per cent incidence.The entry 09/TOLCVRES – 2 recorded maximum yield of 322.22 q/ha followed by 09/TOLCVRES – 13 (278.7 q/ha). The susceptible check Punjab Chuhara recorded 90.7 q/ha yield.The blight disease in tomato incidence ranged from 15.3 to 22.7 and there was no significant difference among most of the treatments. However, in control plot, the disease incidence was 26.7PDI.TOSPO virus disease incidence in tomato ranged from 6.0 to 7.6. In control plot, the disease incidence was 11.3. At HRS, Lam, in tomato 15-19% of peanut bud necrosis virus, 10-17% of tomato leaf curl virus, 4 -10% of early blight were recorded. In bhendi 4-15% of yellow vein mosaic virus was recorded. In brinjal bacterial fruit rot (<5), little leaf (6-7%), bacterial wilt(4-5%), brinjal mosaic virus (6-10%) were recorded. In ridge gourd, ridgegourd mosaic virus (20-25%) was recorded. In watermelon bud necrosis (3-20% ) was recorded. Chili: At HRS, Lam, one hundred and seventy germplasm lines i.e., lines collected over the years and 50 new germplasm lines collected from NBPGR were evaluated. The selections were made among the 170 lines; the selected plants were selfed and multiplied.

17

APHU Annual Report 2009-10 At HRS, Lam, effect of seed coatings on germinability, vigour, field emergence and storability of chilli seed revealed that under ambient conditions the seed can be stored viable for 12months without any seed treatment. However, when treated with polymer and polymer with different plant protection chemicals the seed was viable under field conditions. The treatment when seed treated with polymer alone was viable and recorded germination of >60% up to 6months of storage. Effect of different concentrations of polymer coating on seed quality in vegetable crops with chemicals as one factor and storage period (Initial, 6 Months and 12 months ) as second factor revealed that when the seed was treated with polymer at different concentrations, the seed looses its viability after three months of storage. Untreated seed was found to be superior over all other treatments. Chillies G1, G2, G3, G4 (Bhagyalakshmi),G5 (Andhra Jyothi), CA–960 (Sindhur), LCA-200(Kiran),LCA-1068 (Aparna). LCA–235 (Bhaskar), LCA- 206 (Prakash), LCA-305 (Lam 305) LCA-334 (Lam 334) Pest Management in Chili: At VRS, Rajendranagar, Neem oil 1%, Pongamia oil 1%, Jatropa oil 0.1%, Castor oil 1% were found to be ineffective in reducing thrips population. While chemicals like Spinosad and Acephate proved to be effective (1.33 & 3.67 thrips per plant) At HRS, Lam, Fipronil@2ml was highly effective against Blossom midge. Chlorfenpyr @2ml, Diafenthiuron@1.5g and mamectin Benzoate@0.4g also effective in blossom midge control. Spinosad@ 0.25 ml, Difenthurion @ 1.5gm, Chlorfenpyr @ 2 ml and Fypronyl @ 2 ml/l found significantly effective against chilli thrips. Fenpyroximate@ 1ml , Abamictin@0.25 and Propergite@2ml were found to be effective against mite. Spinosad@0.25 Chlorfenpyr@2 ml, Ememectin benzoate0.4g, Lufenuron@l ml. were found to be effective in controlling the pod borers. Integrated Pest Management: The following methods of pest management resulted high cost benefit ratio (l: 2.21) than Non-IPM methods (1.1.31

a) Cultural methods

Deep ploughing of the field in summer, application of FYM and balanced use of chemical fertilizers, growing of Castor and marigold in chilli field as trap crops against Spodoptera and Helicoverpa pod borers. Two to three rows of Sorghum/maize as border crop around chilli field as barrier crop to limit immigration of insect pests and to encourage build up of beneficial insects like predators and parasites to take care of the key pests that occur on chilli crop.

b) Mechanical methods Erecting bird perches @ 10/ac to promote predation of pod borers. Hand picking and destruction of egg masses, larval colonies and caterpillars from trap crops and main crop to reduce the pest load

c) Bio-control methods Spraying of neem (Azadiractin/NSKE) as deterrent and antifeedent preferably mixed with insecticide is beneficial.

d) Monitoring of pests Monitoring of pod borer build up in chilli field by establishing phermone traps @ 4/ac.

18

e) Chemical methods

Seed dressing before sowing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 8 g/kg of seed using gum as adhesive prevents early season sucking pests viz., thrips and aphids for about 40 days.Fipronil 0.3% granules at 80 g/40 sq.m or carbofuran 3 % G @ 130 g/40 sq.m may be applied to the nursery at the time of sowing. Soil application of 0.3% fipronil G @ 20 kg/ha or carbofuron 3% G @ 33 kg/ha twice at 15 and 45 days after planting ensuring sufficient moisture in the soil. Need based selective use of insecticides. Use of IGRs like Novaluron/ Diflubenzuron.

3.1. Summary: Integrated Pest Management in Rice

Andhra Pradesh is the fifth largest state in India accounting for 9 and 8 per cent of the country’s area and population, respectively. The state has agriculturally prosperous area in the coastal districts (9 districts), an economically and socially backward area in Telangana (10 districts), a drought prone area in Rayalaseema (4 districts) and a fairly extended tribal belt, along the Northern and North-Eastern regions. Andhra Pradesh has three major river basins (Krishna, Godavari and Pennar) and five other smaller ones drains in to the Bay of Bengal. The state has 972 km long coastal line, generally even, along its eastern border, abutting the Bay of Bengal. Rice is the Principal food crop cultivated throughout the state providing food for its growing population, fodder to the cattle and employment to the rural masses. Any decline in its hectarage and production will have a perceivable impact on the state’s economy and food security. In A.P rice is mostly cultivated under irrigated eco-system under canals (52%), tube wells (19.31) tanks (16.2%), other wells (8.8%) and other sources (3.7%). Rice and cultural heritage in the State: Rice has a great cultural heritage. Many preparations viz., payasam, paravannam, ondrallu, arshalu, laddulu etc., are prepared and offered to the God at the time of worshipping. Rice is one among Navadhanyalu at the time of construction of houses (Bhoomipooja) and navagraha pooja.Rice is used as THALAMBRALU and AKSHANTHALU while mixing in turmeric powder and also used as VADIBIYYAM.Rice flakes (palalu) are used at the time of taking the deadbody to graveyard. Basumathi rice is a geographical indicator. Crucial factor in yield gap, is the extent of irrigated rice area in Andhra Pradesh. Although rice is said to be irrigated to an extent of 95% of the area planted in the state, 50% is under tanks, wells and tube wells which in turn depend on the rainfall and good monsoon. How dependable is this source is known to every one. Thus, only 50% of the rice area gets assured irrigation water through canals under major projects. A third and major factor which is pulling down the rice yields in the state is damage due to frequent cyclones and floods which are common at the time of harvest. Biotic and abiotic stresses are the other factors greatly influencing the yield gaps apart from others.

19

Pest and Diseases Scenario in Andhra Pradesh:

Insect Pest

Major Pest Intensity Yellow stem Borer- Scirpophaga incertulas Severe Leaf folder- Cnaphalocrosis medinalis Moderate - Severe Brown Planthopper-Nilaparvatha lugens Severe White backed Planthopper- Sogetella furcifera Light - Moderate Green leafhopper – Nephotetix virescens Moderate - Severe Gall midge – Oreseola oryzae Severe Minor Pests Rice hispa - Dicladispa armigera Low - Moderate Gundhi bug – Leptocorisa acuta Moderate - severe Caseworm-Nymphula depunctalis Low - Moderate Whorl maggot- Hydrella phillippina Low - Moderate Diseases Ecology

Intensity

Blast – Pyricularia oryzae Rainfed uplands, Irrigated and favorable Lowlands

Severe - Moderate

Brownspot- Helminthosporium oryzae

Rainfed uplands ,irrigated and favorable lowlands

Severe - light

Sheath blight – Rhizoctinia solani Irrigated favorable lowlands ,uplands

Moderate - Severe

Sheath rot- Sarcoladium oryzae Irrigated and favorable lowlands Moderate False smut- Ustilaginoidea virens Irrigated , favorable lowlands Light - Moderate Bacterial Blight – Xanthomonas compestris

Irrigated, and favourable and unfavourable lowlands and uplands

Severe -Moderate

Rice tungro virus- Irrigated and favorable lowlands Moderate - Severe Source: Mathur et al.,1999 Insect Pests associated with rice crop of different stages of development: in AndhraPradesh:

Nursery

Tillering

Pnicle emergence

Grain Maturity

Rice Gallmidge,Orseolla oryzae

Gallmidge,Orseolla oryzae,Yellow Stemborer,Scirpophaga incertulus

Yellow Stemborer,Scirpophaga incertulus,leaffolder,Cnaphalocrosis medinalis,

Gunni bug,Leptocorisa acuta

Cutworm, Spodoptera mauritia,

Thirps,Baliothrips biformis,Grasshoppers,H.banian

BrownPlantHopper(BPH), Nilaparvat lugens,

Yellow Stemborer,Scirpophaga, BrownPlantHopper(BPH

20

Nilaparvat lugens, WBPH, S.furcifera

Thrips, Baliothrips biformis

Rice hispa,Dicladispa armigera

Whitebacked Plant hopper(WBPH) Sagatella furicifera

Climbing cutworm,Mythimna separata

Grasshopper, Heiroglyphus banian

Horned caterpillar,Melanitis ledaismene,Whorl maggot,Hydrella sesaki, Root weevil, Enchinocnemus oryzae

Panicle mite, Steneotarsonemums spinki Leafmite, Oligonychus oryzae

Key Pests Identified in Andhrapradesh:

Region:

A.Coastal areas ; 1.South- a.Brownplanthopper,N.lugens b. Whitebacked planthopper, S.furcifera 2. North-:a.Gallmidge, O.oryzae B. Telegana : 1.South -a.Yellow Stemborer, S.incertula . 2. North – a. Gallmidge, O.oryzae. C. Royalaseema : 1. Yellow Stemborer – S.incertula, 2. BPH, N.lugens 3. Leaf folder, C.medinalis . 4. Gundhi bug, L.acuta ( K.Manjula, 2009-Integrated Insect Pest management in Major crops in Andhrapradesh in Advances in Palnt Protection Sciences,Edited by D.Prasad and Amerika Singh,2009) Yield Loss: The different losses caused by pests of rice.Apart from stem borers and hoppers, little consistent data exist on average losses from other insect pests. Rice bugs ( Leptocorisa spp.) were reported to have caused a 10% loss in some 3 million ha in India in 1952.The larvae of gall midge Pachydiplosis oryzae ) that occurred at outbreak level: some years have caused 12-35% losses in India (1934) and 50-100% in Vietnam (1922), and severe losses in Sri Lanka (1951) and Burma (1934). Rice hispa Dicladispa armigera has been reported to cause losses of 10-65% in Bangladesh; about l0,000 ha in Bihar, India, commonly suffer up to 50% loss. Of the remaining rice pests, leaffolders are reported to cause field losses of as much as 50%, and armyworms are reported to have devastated about 10,000 ha of rice in Malaysia in 1967. In terms of grain loss over ecosystems, 1% gall midge induced silver shoot damage is 147 kg/ha, in irrigated ecosystem, 1% gall nudge induced silver shoot damage resulted in 3.3% or 141 kg/ha yield loss while, in rainfed lowlands, 1% gall midge induced silver shoot damage caused 5% or 240 kg/ha yield loss.

21

Components of IPM in Rice:

1. .Pest surveillance, 2. Pest Management.

During 2010-11, under the NISPM project two new centres have been included for conducting specific experiments. The first centre, Weather Mining Centre at CRIDA (Hyderabad) has been entrusted with the work of correlating weather data with pest data to draw weather pest maps and to developing forewarning system. The second centre, Dr. PDKV, Akola was given the responsibility for conducting demonstration trial on the management of leaf reddening. Data of green leaf hopper for two species, namely, Nephotettix nigropictus (Nn) and Nephotettix virescens (Nv) have been used. First peak was observed for both the species during 38th to 41st standard meteorological week, the second peak was observed during 45th std. week and the third peak was observed during 52nd to 2nd std. week (i. e. from last week of December to 2nd week of January of the succeeding year) for all study years. Overall, around six overlapping generations of green leaf hopper appeared from March to November and were found most active during tillering to panicle initiation stages of the crop. Light trap and Weather data: The light trap data and weather data collected from Andhrapradesh Rice Research Institute (APRRI), Maruteru from 1993-2002 were analyzed. Results revealed that among the weather parameters, rainfall of preceding month has shown significant positive influence on BPH light trap population viz., rainfall of August vs BPH of September, rainfall of September vs BPH of October, rainfall of October vs BPH of November Maximum temperature of June had significant negative correlation with BPH of August and Maximum temperature of May had significant positive correlation with BPH of September. Morning relative humidity (RH I) of June had significant negative correlation with BPH of October and November. The linear and non linear regression equations were fitted for predicting the populations of BPH using significant weather data of preceding months. Multiple resistant varieties to rice pests ( Insect pests and diseases) Variety

State in which released

Resistant against

Suraksha

Andrapradesh GM,BPH,WBPH,Bl

Vikramarya

Andrapradesh GM, GLH, RTD

(Source: Reports of Directorate of Rice Research, Hyderabad

Cultural Methods of Control:

Rice varieties can provide an inherent resistance to insect-pests. Another way of reducing the pesticides is through cultural practices such as crop rotation, cultivar mixtures, planting time,flooding,stubbles burning, fallow , inter cropping, terracing and plant spacing used on the basis of host pest interaction

22

knowledge, can help in pest management through pest avoidance or minimizing the pest build up. Some of the common cultural practices like early and synchronous planting for managing the stem borer, gall midge, BPH, WBPH, and GLH.Judicious use of fertilizer, field sanitation, removal of stubbles and water management also helps in pest management. However, over dose or excess application of nitrogenous fertilizers favours the build up of many pests like BPH,GM,LF and stem borer. Chemical Control:

• Thiocyclam hydrogen oxalate (PII 032SP), a new insecticide of neristoxin group) at higher dosages of 400 and 500 g a.i./ha provided an effective control of stemborers.

• Application of buprofezin @ 825 ml/ha, endosulfan @ 2000 ml/ha, chlorpyriphos @ 3750 ml/ha and profenofos @ 1500ml/ha resulted in good reduction of brown planthopper populatin.

• Cartap hydrochloride@ 1000 g a.i./ha was found to be the most significantly effective treatment in reducing the leaf damage by Rice Blue Beetle, Leptispa pygmaea-

Insect Pest incidence in SRI method of rice cultivation:

• The different insect pests were observed starting from one month after planting namely, whorl maggot( Hydrela phillippina ,rice hispa (Dicladispa armigera),Yellow stem borer( Scirpophaga incertulus, leaf folder( Cnaphalocrocis medinalis), GLH( Nephotetix spp) and leaf mite( Oligonychus oryzae).

• Stem borer incidence was found to be more in SRI than the conventional method Pheromones identified in important crops: Rice S.No Name of the Pests Crop Pheromone

1 Scirpophaga incertulus Rice Hexadecanal,(Z)-9- Hexadecanal,

(Z)-11-Hexadecanal,(Z)-11-Hexadecanal-1-ol, (Z)-9-Octadecenal

2 Cnaphalocrosis medinalis --do-- Hexadecyl acetate,(Z)-11-Hexadecenyl acetate, Octadececyl acetate,(Z)-13-Octadecenyl acetate

3 Marasmia patnallis --do-- (Z)-13-Octadecenyl acetate, ,(Z)-11-Hexadecenyl acetate,

4 Chilo suppressalis --do-- Hexadecanal, (Z)-9- Hexadecanal, (Z)-11-Hexadecanal, ,(Z)-11-Hexadecanal-1-ol, Octodecan-1-ol,(Z)-13-Octoecenal

(After Cork and Hall, 1998) Weed Management: Among the herbicidal treatments maximum density ofEchinochloa colona as well as other weed species recorded with anilofos 300 g/ha Gr without emulsifier (T4). Anilofos 600 g/ha Gr with emulsifier (T3), significantly reduced density of Echinochloa colona and other weeds, resulted maximum crop growth, yield attributing characters and grain (5761 kg/ha) and it was closely followed by anilofos 450 g/ha Gr

23

with emulsifier (T2) and anilofos 600 g/ha without emulsifier (T6). These herbicides had stunted growth and discoloration of rice plant and necrotic spot on the leaf 11 DAT, but within a week crop recovered these phytotoxic effects Rodent Control: The effectiveness of trap barrier system (TBS) was assessed for managing pre-harvest damage by Bandicota bengalensis to rice crop. A total of 147 B. bengalensis rats were trapped into the trap barrier system in three years of study period. Costs and returns from paddy cultivation using IPM and non-IPM technologies under experimental conditions - (Rs/ha) Particulars

IPM Non-IPM

Operational Costs: Seeds 650( 4.20) 725 ( 4.38) Farm Yard Manure 3525 (22.78) 2120 (12.80) Fertilizers 1020 (6.59) 1736 (10.49) Plant Protection Chemicals ? Agents 600 (3.87) 1460 (8.82) Irrigation Copst 500 (3.23) 500 (3.02) Labour Cost 4530 (29.28) 5645 (34.09) Interest on working capital @12.5% annui 282 (1.82) 317 (1.92) Total 11107 (71.79) 12504 (75.52) Fixed Costs Rental value of owned land 4365 (28.21) 4053.60 (24.48) Total Costs 15472 (100) 16557 (100) Returns Gross returns 26187 24322 Net returns 10716 7764 (Note: Figures within parentheses indicate percent to total.) Returns from paddy cultivation with IPM and non-IPM technologies under farmers’ conditions Particulars

Non-IPM IPM

Productivity (q/ha) 53.91 51.03 Gross Income (Rs//ha) 25431 23672 Net Income(Rs./ha) 8375 7580

24

Non-Pesticide Management (NPM): NPM is a systems approach that combines a wide array of crop production and protection technologies with a careful monitoring of pests and conservation of natural enemies in the eco-system. The NPM is basically a bottom up approach emphasizing empowerment of farmers. It is a decision making support system which is economically viable, environmentally sustainable and socially acceptable. The Centre for World Solidarity in association with 12 NGOs has demonstrated the economic feasibility and sustainability of this approach in 810 ha area in Andhra Pradesh. The crops covered were pigeon pea and groundnut. Rice Diseases and their management:

S.No

Treatment Name of the disease/organisms

Biological agents

1 Seed tretment Seedborne pathogens,and sheath blight

Trichoderma viride and Bacillus substilis

2 Soil treatment Sheath blight Trichoderma viride,T.harzianum, T.virens and Aspergillus terreus

3 Foliar application Sheath blight Aspergillus terreus,T.koniingii,T.harzianum,T.viride

4 Riceblast (Pyricularia oryzae)

Pseudomonas fluorescence 7-14 and P.putidaV14i caused an induced systemic resistance (ISR)in rice cultivar

5 Sheath blight(Sh.B)(Rhizoctonia solani)

Bacillus spp, Serrata marcescens

6 Seedling dip,foliar spraying

(Pyricularia oryzae, Helminthosporium oryzae, and R.solani

Pseudomonas fluorescence strains P1

7 Sheath rot Sarocladium oryzae Bacillus substilis, Pseudomonas fluorescence and T.viride

8 Rice Tungro Virus RTV A.flavus, Bacillus substilis, 9 BPH

Nilaparvata lugens Metarhizium anisopliae

(Ashraf Ali Khan and D.Prasad, 2008-Rice diseases and their management through Biocontrol agents,-Chapter-14,Insect Pest and Diseases Management (Edited by D.Prasad,Daya Publishing,2008)

25

The IPM practice developed for this ecosystem is given below: Table S.No Name

Organisms Control measures

1 Nematode

Root knot Use of neem cake· Soil incorporation of Carbofuran @ 1.0 kg a.i./ha at the time of sowing- Combination of seed treatment, seedling root dip, and soil application of the bacterium rhizobacterium, Pseudomonas fluorescens) was the most effective treatment and gave similar control as carbofuran 3G.

2 Insects Termies Seed dressing with chlorpyriphos @ 0.75 kg a.i./100 kg seed

3 Weeds

Echinocloa, Sanguinalis & Cyperus etc.

-Practice of summer season Digitaria, ploughing and line sowing -Apply moderate levels of N40 kg/ ha, avoid basal apply on N -apply N after weeding in two splits · Use finger weeder, and wheel hoes, etc. · Spray pre-emergence herbicide butachlor @1.5-2.0 kg a.i./ha, and one hand-weeding at 40 DAS · Anilfos as post emergence is also effective

4 Disease Brown spot Apply potash @ 20 kg/ha, spray Dithane-M 45 @ 2 mL/litre 5

Leaf and Panicle blast

Prophylactic treatment with Bavistin @ 2 g/kg of seed or if it is above ETL, spray Bavistin 2 g/litre or Hinosan 1.5 mL/litre

6

Sheath rot Beam 75 @ 0.6 g/litre Spray sheathmar/Validamycin @ 2mL/litre for sheath rot control

7 Insect

Gundhi bug Apply Chlorpyriphos/Follidol or Malathion dust @ 25 kg/ha

8 Storage Pests

Rats, Grain moth Rice weevil

Zinc phosphide 1% (WW) as bait Treat jute bags with Malathion 50 EC @ 5 ml in 20 litres of water abd also spray the storage godown with Malathion or Fenthion or Dimethiote

3.2. Integrated Pest Management- Rice:

Andhra Pradesh is the fifth largest state in India accounting for 9 and 8 per cent of the country’s area and population, respectively. The state has agriculturally prosperous area in the coastal districts (9 districts), an economically and socially backward area in Telangana (10 districts), a drought prone area in Rayalaseema (4 districts) and a fairly extended tribal belt, along the Northern and North-Eastern regions. Andhra Pradesh has three major river basins (Krishna, Godavari and Pennar) and five other smaller ones drains in to the Bay of Bengal. The state has 972 km long coastal line, generally even, along its eastern border, abutting the Bay of Bengal. Rice is the Principal food crop cultivated throughout the state providing food for its growingpopulation, fodder to the cattle and employment to the rural masses. Any decline in its hectarage and production will have a perceivable impact on the state’s

26

economy and food security. In A.P rice is mostly cultivated under irrigated eco-system under canals (52%), tube wells (19.31) tanks (16.2%), other wells (8.8%) and other sources (3.7%). Zonal information a. Climate By virtue of its location and climate, Andhra Pradesh represents a transition from tropical to sub tropical zone of the country. The climate is predominantly semi arid to arid, except for the oastal region on the east coast which has humid to sub humid climate. Hot weather (summer) prevails from March to May, South West monsoon June to September, North east mansoon-October to December and winter December to February. Temperature ranges from 8oC to 46oC. b. Soil type/Nutrient management Andhra Pradesh is endowed with a wide variety of soils, ranging from less fertile coastal sands to highly fertile and productive deltaic alluvia (enti soils/verti sols) of the Godavari, Krishna and Pennar rivers and the red (alfisol) and black (verti sols) soils, developed from different parent materials. The six major soil groups present in the state are red soils (Alfi sols 65%), black soils (verti sols 25%), alluvial soils (Entisols and verti sols 5%) Coastal sands (Enti sols 3%), laterite and lataitic soils (Oxisols) and problem soils (Alfi sols &Incepti sols 1%) including saline, saline alkali and non saline-alkali soils. Rainfall and its distribution pattern Rainfall of Andhra Pradesh is influenced by both South West and North-East mansoons. The average rainfall of the state is 925 mm, varying from about 520 mm in Anantapur district to 1160 mm in Vizianagaram and East Godavari districts. In some years, Srikakulam, Vizianagaram, East Godavari, Adilabad and Khammam districts have recorded 1400 to 1500 mm rainfall.The distribution of annual rainfall in the state as a whole is about 69% during South West monsoon, 22% during North-East mansoon and 9% during winter and hot weather months. d. Agro climatic zones Andhra Pradesh state has been divided into 9 Agro-climatic zones based on the amount and distribution of rainfall pattern. 1. North Coastal Zone: Consists of most parts of Srikakulam, Vizianagaram, Visakhapatnam districts with regional Agricultural Research Station (RARS), Anakapalli as regional centre. This zone receives 1000-1100mm rainfall and possesses 12.6% of rice area.. 2. Godavari Zone: Comprising East and West Godavari districts with regional Agricultural Research Station (RARS), Maruteru as regional centre. Annual rainfall varies from 800-1100 mm and has 46.5%of rice area of the state.. 3. Krishna Zone: Consists of Krishna, Guntur, Parts of Prakasham, Krammam and Nalgonda with Regional Agricultural Research Station, (RARS), Lam as regional centre. Important soil groups are deltaic Alluvium, red soils with clay base, black cotton soils, red loamy coastal sands and saline soils. 4. Northern Telangana Zone: Comprising Adilabad, Nizamabad and Karimnagar with Regional Agricultural Research Station, (RARS), Jagtial as regional centre. Rain fall varies from 900-1150 mm and rice occupies 16% of rice area of the state.

27

5. Central Telangana Zone: Consisting of Warangal, Medak and Khammam with Regional Agricultural Research Station (RARS), Warangal as regional centre. 6. Southern Telangana Zone: Comprising the districts of Hyderabad Rangareddy, Mahboobnagar, Nalgonda with Regional Agricultural Research Station, (RARS) at Palem as regional centre. This zonereceives 700-900 mm rain fall and has 9.3% of rice area of the state 7. Southern Zone: Includes the districts of Nellore, Chittoor Cadapah with Regional Agricultural Research (RARS), at Tirupathi as regional centre. Annual rainfall varies from 700-1000 mm and has about 12.6% of rice area of the state. 8. Scarce rainfall zone: Consisting of the districts of Kurnool, Anantapur, Prakasham parts of Cudapah and Mahboobnagar with Regional Agricultural Research Station (RARS) at Nandyal as Regional Centre. This zone has 3.8% of rice area. The average annual rainfall ranges from 500-700mm. 9. High Altitude and Tribal area zone: Covering areas lying along the Srikakulam, Vizianagaram, Visakhapatnam, East Godavari and Khammam district with Regional Agricultural Research Station, Chintapalli as Regional centre. This zone receives high rainfall of over 1400 mm. e) Rice and cultural heritage in the State: Rice has a great cultural heritage. Many preparations viz., payasam, paravannam, ondrallu, arshalu, laddulu etc., are prepared and offered to the God at the time of worshipping. Rice is one among Navadhanyalu at the time of construction of houses (Bhoomipooja) and navagraha pooja.Rice is used as THALAMBRALU and AKSHANTHALU while mixing in turmeric powder and also used as VADIBIYYAM.Rice flakes (palalu) are used at the time of taking the deadbody to graveyard. Basumathi rice is a geographical indicator . IV. Rice production Scenario ■Area: Area under rice mostly depends on the monsoon pattern and availability of water in reservoirs. Area under rice was high during 2008-09 (43.87 l.ha) and lowest is in 2002-03 (28.22 l.ha) There is no scope for increasing area under rice and rice area is replaced by some profitable dry crops due to in sufficient water. Rice is grown in 28% of gross cropped area and 50% of area under food crops round the year in all the districts. Though there is a rise and fall of area and production of rice based on water availability, but there is a constant increase in productivity. In the context of food security such decline in area and production is not good to meet the future rice requirement. In the coastal districts the area under rice is declining because of aquaculture activities. ■Production: Rice production depends up on the seasonal conditions prevailing during that particular year. So far highest production was realized (140.10 l.t) during 2008-09 and lowest (73.29 l.t) during2002-03. In the basal production, contribution of superfine varieties is 62% followed by 25% of fine varieties and the rest from common varieties. It is expected that about 20 lakh tones of fine rice would be exported from the state. More rice is produced in East Godavari (17.01 l.t), West Godavari (16.71 l.t), Krishna (11.42 l.t), Karimnagar (10.87 l.t), Guntur (10.27 l.t) and lowest in Ranga Reddy (1.04). ■ Productivity, Ecosystem wise : In A.P rice productivity is 3333 kg/ha compared to 2001 kg/ha (India) and 4112 kg/ha (world). Rice productivity is highest in Nellore district (4473kg/ha) followed by East Godavari (4028 kg/ha), West Godavari (3928 kg/ha) and lowest in Vishakhapatnam (2075 kg/ha). The crop is grown in three ecosystems viz., irrigated ecosystem (50.6%), rainfed low land (43.8%) and rainfed uplands (5.6%) . In A.P realized yields are above state average in 9 districts i.e., Nellore (4473kg/ha), East

28

Godavari (4028 kg/ha), West Godavari (3928 kg/ha), Prakasham (3779 kg/ha), Nizamabad (3629 kg/ha), Nalgonda (3555 kg/ha), Adilabad (3878 kg/ha), Guntur (3468 kg/ha), Khammam (3376 kg/ha) and in 13 districts yields are less than the state average and lowest in Vishakhapatnam district (2075 kg/ha). ■ Yield gap and its reasons: Most of the varieties already released and recommended are capable of yielding 4.0 to 5.0 t/ha of rice under field conditions against the average yield of 3.43 t/ha being achieved by the state. Thus, there still exists an yield gap of 0.5 to 1.5 t/ha even with the available varieties and technologies. To achieve the yield potential already created, farmers have to necessarily adopt recommended package in totality. Farmers are adopting the improved variety and a part of the package not giving adequate attention to the remaining component particularly the correction of soil problems, nutritional disorders and water management to some extent. Over 5000 litres of water is required to produce 1 kilogram of rice. Most if it is used for soil preparation and weed suppression. To make rice farming more profitable, water use efficiency has to be improved a lot in addition to other factors. Though the yields are increasing over the years to varying degree they are not proportionate to the increase in production cost. The factor productivity which is on decline should improve. Therefore, the research and extension efforts will have to focus on the efficient use of inputs, reduction in the costs of production, minimizing input losses and maximize output through scientific crop production and protection technologies like Maintance of optimum population, water, soil test based integrated nutrient management, integrated pest management, in addition to sustainable soil management, harvest and post harvest management. Another crucial factor in this regard is the extent of irrigated rice area in Andhra Pradesh. Although rice is said to be irrigated to an extent of 95% of the area planted in the state, 50% is under tanks, wells and tube wells which in turn depend on the rainfall and good monsoon. How dependable is this source is known to every one. Thus, only 50% of the rice area gets assured irrigation water through canals under major projects. A third and major factor which is pulling down the rice yields in the state is damage due to frequent cyclones and floods which are common at the time of harvest. Biotic and abiotic stresses are the other factors greatly influencing the yield gaps apart from others. ■Region wise/District wise rice Ecosystems

• Telangana region: Irrigated ecosystemRainfed low land eco system • Coastal Andhra Pradesh: Irrigated eco system Submergence conditions Rainfed lowland eco

system • Rayala Seema :Irrigated ecosystem (Dr. C. Cheralu-Principal Scientist (Rice Breeding),Regional Agricultural Research Station,ANGR Agricultural University,Warangal 506 007, AP, India-in Status Paper on Rice in Andhra Pradesh)

Growing Season of Rice in AndhraPradesh: State

Autumn Winter Summer

Sowing Harvesting Sowing Harvesting Sowing Harvesting

AndhraPradesh

Mar-April

July-August

May- June

Nov-Dec

Dec- Jan

April-May

29

Cropping Pattern:

Rice-Groundnut

This cropping pattern is being followed by the farmers of Andhra Pradesh. After harvesting of rice crop, groundnut is grown in summer.

High Productivity Group : 14 districts each of Andhra Pradesh,

Medium Productivity Group : 5 districts each of Andhra Pradesh,

Medium-Low Productivity Group : 2 districts each of Andhra Pradesh,

Low Productivity Group: 1 district each of Andhra Pradesh,( Rice in India : A Status Paper- Directorate of Rice Development, Patna-2002)

PROBLEMS/CONSTRAINTS IN RICE PRODUCTION :

• Often rice crop suffers with soil moisture stress due to erratic and inadequate rainfall. In upland soils rain water flows down quickly and farmers are not able to conserve the soil moisture. There is also no facility for life saving irrigation particularly in upland and drought prone rainfed lowland areas.

• Heavy infestation of weeds and insects/pests such as blast and brown spot and poor attention for their timely control (upland and rainfed lowland).

ONE OF THE STRATEGIES TO STEP-UP RICE PRODUCTIVITY:

• Promoting the Integrated Pest Management Approach for effective control of pests and diseases by emphasizing the need based application of pesticides.

Major varieties in different rice ecologies of India States Rice area Upland Rice varieties (lakh ha) rainfed lowland Deep-water: State

Rice area Rice (lakh ha)

Upland Rice Varieties Rainfed low land

Deep water

Andhra Pradesh 39 Aditya, Tulsi

Swarna, Sambha Vijetha Mahsuri

Badava, Mahsuri,

A holistic IPM package for upland rice should focus on weed control through cost effective methods. Proper weed control effectively reduces the incidence of insects and diseases also, as the weeds act as alternate hosts for many pests. Such an IPM strategy should have a necessary understanding of the interrelationships among the nematodes, weeds, diseases, and insects control practices (Rajamani et al., 2001).

30

The IPM practice developed for this ecosystem is given below: Table S.No Name

Control measures

1 Nematode

Root knot Use of neem cake· Soil incorporation of Carbofuran @ 1.0 kg a.i./ha at the time of sowing

2 Insects Termies Seed dressing with chlorpyriphos @ 0.75 kg a.i./100 kg seed 3 Weeds

Echinocloa, Sanguinalis & Cyperus etc.

-Practice of summer season Digitaria, ploughing and line sowing -Apply moderate levels of N40 kg/ ha, avoid basal apply on N -apply N after weeding in two splits · Use finger weeder, and wheel hoes, etc. · Spray pre-emergence herbicide butachlor @1.5-2.0 kg a.i./ha, and one hand-weeding at 40 DAS · Anilfos as post emergence is also effective

4 Disease Brown spot Apply potash @ 20 kg/ha, spray Dithane-M 45 @ 2 mL/litre 5

Leaf and Panicle blast

Prophylactic treatment with Bavistin @ 2 g/kg of seed or if it is above ETL, spray Bavistin 2 g/litre or Hinosan 1.5 mL/litre

6

Sheath rot Beam 75 @ 0.6 g/litre Spray sheathmar/Validamycin @ 2mL/litre for sheath rot control

7 Insect

Gundhi bug Apply Chlorpyriphos/Follidol or Malathion dust @ 25 kg/ha

8 Storage Pests Rats, Grain moth Rice weevil

Zinc phosphide 1% (WW) as bait Treat jute bags with Malathion 50 EC @ 5 ml in 20 litres of water abd also spray the storage godown with Malathion or Fenthion or Dimethiote

Pest and Diseases Scenario in Andhra Pradesh:

Insect Pest

Major Pest Intensity Yellow stem Borer- Scirpophaga incertulas SevereLeaf folder- Cnaphalocrosis medinalis Moderate - Severe Brown Planthopper-Nilaparvatha lugens Severe White backed Planthopper- Sogetella furcifera Light - Moderate Green leafhopper – Nephotetix virescens Moderate - Severe Gall midge – Oreseola oryzae Severe Minor Pests Rice hispa - Dicladispa armigera Low - ModerateGundhi bug – Leptocorisa acuta Moderate - severe Caseworm-Nymphula depunctalis Low - Moderate Whorl maggot- Hydrella phillippina Low - Moderate

31

Diseases Ecology

Intensity

Blast – Pyricularia oryzae Rainfed uplands, Irrigated and favorable Lowlands

Severe - Moderate

Brownspot- Helminthosporium oryzae

Rainfed uplands ,irrigated and favorable lowlands

Severe - light

Sheath blight – Rhizoctinia solani Irrigated favorable lowlands ,uplands Moderate - Severe Sheath rot- Sarcoladium oryzae Irrigated and favorable lowlands Moderate False smut- Ustilaginoidea virens Irrigated , favorable lowlands Light - Moderate Bacterial Blight – Xanthomonas compestris

Irrigated, and favourable and unfavourable lowlands and uplands

Severe -Moderate

Rice tungro virus- Irrigated and favorable lowlands Moderate – Severe Source: Mathur et al.,1999

Insect Pests associated with rice crop of different stages of development: AndhraPradesh :

Nursery

Tillering

Pnicle emergence

Grain Maturity

Rice Gallmidge,Orseolla oryzae

Gallmidge,Orseolla oryzae,Yellow Stemborer,Scirpophaga incertulus

Yellow Stemborer,Scirpophaga incertulus,leaffolder,Cnaphalocrosis medinalis,

Gunni bug,Leptocorisa acuta

Cutworm, Spodoptera mauritia,

Thirps,Baliothrips biformis,Grasshoppers,H.banian

BrownPlantHopper(BPH), Nilaparvat lugens,

Yellow Stemborer,Scirpophaga, BrownPlantHopper(BPHNilaparvat lugens, WBPH, S.furcifera

Thrips, Baliothrips biformis

Rice hispa,Dicladispa armigera

Whitebacked Plant hopper(WBPH) Sagatella furicifera

Climbing cutworm,Mythimna separata

Grasshopper, Heiroglyphus banian

Horned caterpillar,Melanitis ledaismene,Whorl maggot,Hydrella sesaki, Root weevil, Enchinocnemus oryzae

Panicle mite, Steneotarsonemums spinki Leafmite, Oligonychus oryzae

32

Key Pests Identified in AndhraPradesh:

Region:

A.Coastal areas 1.South- a.Brownplanthopper,N.lugens b. Whitebacked planthopper,S.furcifera 2. North-:a.Gallmidge,O.oryzae B. Telegana : 1.South -a.Yellow Stemborer,S.incertula . 2. North – a. Gallmidge, O.oryzae. C. Royalaseema : 1. Yellow Stemborer – S.incertula, 2. BPH,N.lugens 3. Leaf folder, C.medinalis . 4. Gundhi bug, L.acuta ( K.Manjula, 2009-Integrated Insect Pest management in Major crops in Andhrapradesh in Advances in Plant Protection Sciences, Edited by D.Prasad and Amerika Singh,2009) Losses due to Pests:

Basic crop loss terminology ( Zadoks 1985.in Crop loss assessment:a historical perspective and rationale-J. C. Zadoks0 Yield a crop's measurable economic production.

Injury any visible and measurable symptom caused by a harmful Damage The damage function translates injury into damage.any reduction in

quantity and/or quality of yield. Loss The loss function translates damage into loss. the reduction in

financial return per unit area due to harmful agents. (Zadoks .J.C.1985) Types of losses caused by harmful agents Major Loss

Direct /Indirect Loss

Category of Losses Description of loss

Potential Loss 1.Yield 2.Quality 3.Cost of control 4.Extra cost of harvesting 5.Extra cost of grading Primary Loss 6. Cost of replanting Direct Loss 7.Loss of income by less profitable

replacement of crop Secondary Loss 1..Contamination of sowing and

planting materials Actual Loss 1.Farm 2.Soil Borne Diseases 2.rural community 3.Weakening by pre mature

defoliation of trees

33

3.Exporters 4.cost of control 4.Trade Indirect Loss a.Whole sale dealers

b.Retail dealers

5.Conumers 6.Government 7.Environment ((Zadoks and Schein 1979). Yield Losses by Other insects: Few current estimates of actual field losses caused by pests in farmers' fields have been derived from direct field surveys. The generalized figures for crop losses in rice most often quoted are from Cramer (1967). His analysis showed losses of the following magnitude:

• Losses due to all insects = 34.4% • Losses due to all diseases = 9.9% • Losses due to all weeds = 10.8% • Potential production harvested = 44.9% • Total potential production lost before harvest = 55.1% On average, more was lost to pests than was harvested.(Cramer,1967)

Teng et al.,(1990) has detailed the different losses caused by pests of rice.Apart from stem borers and hoppers, little consistent data exist on average losses from other insect pests. Rice bugs (Leptocorisa spp.) were reported to have caused a 10% loss in some 3 million ha in India in 1952 (Pruthi 1953). According to Reddy (1967), larvae of gall midge Pachydiplosis oryzae) that occurred at outbreak level: some years have caused 12-35% losses in India (1934) and 50-100% in Vietnam (1922), and severe losses in Sri Lanka (1951) and Burma (1934). Rice hispa Dicladispa armigera has been reported to cause losses of 10-65% in Bangladesh; about l0,000 ha in Bihar, India, commonly suffer up to 50% loss (Barr et al 1975). Of the remaining rice pests, leaffolders are reported to cause field losses of as much as 50%, and armyworms are reported to have devastated about 10,000 ha of rice in Malaysia in 1967. On an average yield losses due to insects, rodents and nematodes is estimated to be around 20%.It has been reported that losses were in the range of 5 to 10 % due to rice blast.( Padmanabhan,1965)and about 80% due to brown spot during great Bengal famine(Padmanabhan,1973.)All India Coordinated Rice Improvement (AICRP) revealed that the avoidable losses in rice have been estimated to varyfrom 21 to 51 percent (Pathak and Dhaliwal, 1981) Savary et al., 1997,reported of the yield losses in rice caused by various agencies like insect pests, diseases, and weeds. Nearly 0.46 tonnes /ha is contributed by stemborer alone. Puri(2000) reported that brown plant hopper , gall midge, and yellow stem borer were the key pests in rice causing 10 – 70 %, 15-60% and 25-30% loss, respectively. Atwal and Dhaliwal, (2002) reported on an average loss of 100 – 500 kg of paddy per ha in AndhraPradesh due to Yellow stem borer (.Grag.D.K.2004.)

34

Gallmidge:

From 813 experimental units from 26 years data, our yield loss projections for damage due to 1% gall midge induced silver shoot damage is 3.5% loss. In terms of grain loss over ecosystems, 1% gall midge induced silver shoot damage is 147 kg/ha, in irrigated ecosystem, 1% gall nudge induced silver shoot damage resulted in 3.3% or 141 kg/ha yield loss while, in rainfed lowlands, 1% gall midge induced silver shoot damage caused 5% or 240 kg/ha yield loss. In view of the enormous yield losses caused by an occasional and severe epidemic outbreak, diversification of genes of resistance to Orseolia oryzae in breeding program is suggested in addition to intensifying research on the use of parasites to control this pest.( Muralidharan K, Pasalu,2006)

Components of IPM in Rice:

3. .Pest surveillance, 4. Pest Management.

Pest Surveillance:

Pest surveillance is one of the most important and integral parts of the IPM technology in rice. Mathur et al., (1999) reported that depending on the pre-monsoon rainfall in March-May, the activities of the rice gall midge in any year can be predicted.

Seasonal condition and rice pests:

Similarly, forecast of cutworm incidence in rice is possible from the study of occurance and pattern of flooding and its subsequent recession. Rainfall in Aug- Nov and rainy days in Oct – Nov are negatively correlated with the occurrence of YSB population. The pest monitoring using pheromone traps are also gaining popularity , especially for YSB and leaf folders(Krishnaiah,1995)Apart from weather parameter light trap and field data aid in detecting the occurrence and subsequent prevalence of stem borer, leaf folder, gall midge, and leaf and plant hoppers.

During 2010-11, under the NISPM project two new centers have been included for conducting specific experiments. The first centre, Weather Mining Centre at CRIDA (Hyderabad) has been entrusted with the work of correlating weather data with pest data to draw weather pest maps and to developing forewarning system. The second centre, Dr. PDKV, Akola was given the responsibility for conducting demonstration trial on the management of leaf reddening. Data of green leaf hopper for two species, namely, Nephotettix nigropictus (Nn) and Nephotettix virescens (Nv) have been used. First peak was observed for both the species during 38th to 41st standard meteorological week, the second peak was observed during 45th std. week and the third peak was observed during 52nd to 2nd std. week (i. e. from last week of December to 2nd week of January of the succeeding year) for all study years. Overall, around six overlapping generations of green leaf hopper appeared from March to November and were found most active during tillering to panicle initiation stages of the crop. The correlation studies between light trap net sweep collection with weather

35

parameters on population build-up showed that lower minimum temperature, low rainfall and abundant sunshine had major impact on population build up of green leaf hopper for both the species.(Sabale et al.,2010) Nephotettix virescens Distant and Sogatella furcifea (Hor v) commonly known as Green leaf hopper ( GLH) and White backed plant hopper (WBPH) respectively. These are the serious pests of kharif paddy all over the world causing extensive losses. The population dynamics of Green leaf hopper and white backed plant hopper for ten consecutive years (1994 to 2004) except for 1997 were correlated with the weather parameters like maximum and minimum temperature, rainfall, relative humidity and bright sunshine hours. The results revealed that the bright sunshine hour s had a positive significant correlation ( r =0.166) with the population dynamics of GLH. The correlation between WBPH peak population and br ight sunshine hour s also showed positive significant correlation ( r =0.269) , while maximum temper atur e, minimum temperature, rainfall and relative humidity showed non- significant effect on population build up of both GLH and WBPH. Greenleaf hopper attained peak population during 43rd standard.(Shamim et al.,2009) Light trap and Weather data: The light trap data and weather data collected from Andhrapradesh Rice Research Institute (APRRI), Maruteru from 1993-2002 were analyzed. Results revealed that among the weather parameters, rainfall of preceding month has shown significant positive influence on BPH light trap population viz., rainfall of August vs BPH of September, rainfall of September vs BPH of October, rainfall of October vs BPH of November Maximum temperature of June had significant negative correlation with BPH of August and Maximum temperature of May had significant positive correlation with BPH of September. Morning relative humidity (RH I) of June had significant negative correlation with BPH of October and November. The linear and non linear regression equations were fitted for predicting the populations of BPH using significant weather data of preceding months. Results of the regression equation revealed that, percent accuracy in prediction of population was less when linear regression was fitted (55-70%), and accuracy increased to 60-75 per cent when non-linear regressions were fitted. Since first peak of BPH in kharif is noticed during September, attempt was made to forecast BPH light trap population (1993-2006) of September. Cumulative August rainfall was identified as the most significant factor responsible for increase in BPH population during September. Using cumulative August rainfall, BPH population in September as a whole, September 3rd and 4th weeks were predicted with an accuracy of 80, 83 and 67 per cent, respectively.(Varma et al.,2008)

Host Plant Resistance (HPR).

HPR is a vital component of IPM in rice. Resistance varieties being eco-friendly and with no additional cost burden on production input are usually compatible with other IPM components. No of varies resistant cultivars for one or more peats( Multiple resistance) with acceptable traits suitable to various agro climatic conditions are available:

36

Some multiple resistant varieties to rice pests (Insect pests and diseases)

Variety

State in which released

Resistant against

Suraksha

Andrapradesh GM,BPH,WBPH,Bl

Vikramarya

Andrapradesh GM, GLH, RTD

(Source: Reports of Directorate of Rice Research, Hyderabad

Cultural Methods of Control:

Rice varieties can provide an inherent resistance to insect-pests. Another way of reducing the pesticides is through cultural practices such as crop rotation, cultivar mixtures, planting time,flooding,stubbles burning, fallow , inter cropping, terracing and plant spacing used on the basis of host pest interaction knowledge, can help in pest management through pest avoidance or minimizing the pest build up. Some of the common cultural practices like early and synchronous planting for managing the stem borer, gall midge, BPH, WBPH, and GLH.Judicious use of fertilizer, field sanitation, removal of stubbles and water management also helps in pest management. However, over dose or excess application of nitrogenous fertilizers favours the build up of many pests like BPH,GM,LF and stem borer (Mathur et al., 1999)

Chemical Control:

Stem borers and Leaf folders:

Thiocyclam hydrogen oxalate (PII 032SP), a new insecticide of neurotoxin group) at higher dosages of 400 and 500 g a.i./ha provided an effective control of stem borers statistically at par with the check insecticides (dead hearts ranging from 0.87–1.26% and white-ears from 1.24–1.85%) but, significantly better than its lower dose i.e. 300g a.i./ha and the untreated control (1.68–3.97% dead hearts and 2.21–5.19% white-ears). Per cent damaged leaves (1.382.30%) in all the treatments were on par with each other but significantly lower than the control (10.47%). Paddy yield in treated plots ranged from 45.31–47.60 q/ha which was significantly higher than the control (40.93 q/ha).(.Mahal et al.,2010) Plant hoppers: Virk and P S Sarao (2010), reported that application of buprofezin @ 825 ml/ha, endosulfan @ 2000 ml/ha, chlorpyriphos @ 3750 ml/ha and profenofos @ 1500ml/ha resulted in good reduction of brown planthopper populatin. Krishnaiah et al., (2004) reported that thimethoxam and imidacloprid @ 10-50 ppm caused cent per cent mortality of brown plant hopper within 24 hours under laboratory conditions The effect of buprofezin 25 SC at different concentrations against planthoppers (Brown planthopper and white backed planthopper) and their mirid predator, Cyrtorhinus lividipennis Reuter The results clearly indicated that buprofezin 25 SC @ 1 ml/l recorded the lowest plant hopper population at 10 days after spray. ( Mahabaleshwar et al.,2009)

37

Rice Blue Beetle, Leptispa pygmaea-

The incidence of blue beetle damage was higher in Rabi ranging from 7.7 to 27.5 per cent than in Kharif season (12.5 to 16.8 per cent). Highest damage was observed at 20 days after transplanting in the main field. Cartap hydrochloride@ 1000 g a.i./ha was found to be the most significantly effective treatment in reducing the leaf damage by L pygmaea. It was significantly superior to control by bringing about 51.4 and 40.9 per cent reduction of leaf damage over control during 2004 and 2005, respectively at 20 days after transplanting, against L.pygmaea.(Karthikeyan K and Jacob Sosamma,2008)

IPM Strategy: Chemical control of Stem borers:

Insect Pest incidence in SRI method of rice cultivation: Padmavathi et al., (2006) reported that different insect pests were observed starting from one month after planting namely, whorl maggot( Hydrela phillippina ,rice hispa (Dicladispa armigera),Yellow stem borer( Scirpophaga incertulus, leaf folder( Cnaphalocrocis medinalis), GLH( Nephotetix spp) and leaf mite( Oligonychus oryzae).

Stem borer incidence was found to be more in SRI than the conventional method( Padmavathi et al.,2011).Some of the SRI practices like wider spacing, weed free condition and absence of stagnant water make the micro-environment of this method of rice cultivation non conducive for some of the major pests of rice like BPH,Gallmidge.

Weed Control::

Bio-efficacy of anilofos formulations on weed dynamics in transplanted rice (Oryza sativa L.) was studied during rainy season of 2006–07 at Varanasi. Application of anilofos 600 g/ha 30 Gr with emulsifier (T3) was most effective in minimizing the density of Echinochloa colona and total weed density as compared to other herbicidal treatments at all the stages of observation and it were at par to anilofos 450 g/ha with emulsifier (T2). Among the herbicidal treatments maximum density ofEchinochloa colona as well as other weed species recorded with anilofos 300 g/ha Gr without emulsifier (T4). Anilofos 600 g/ha Gr with emulsifier (T3), significantly reduced density of Echinochloa colona and other weeds, resulted maximum crop growth, yield attributing characters and grain (5761 kg/ha) and it was closely followed by anilofos 450 g/ha Gr with emulsifier (T2) and anilofos 600 g/ha without emulsifier (T6). These herbicides had stunted growth and discoloration of rice plant and necrotic spot on the leaf 11 DAT, but within a week crop recovered these phytotoxic effects.(Babu Subhaash et al.,2010) Rodent Control:

The effectiveness of trap barrier system (TBS) was assessed for managing pre-harvest damage by Bandicota bengalensis to rice crop. A total of 147 B. bengalensis rats were trapped into the trap barrier

Dhawan et al.,(2010) reported that the thiocyclam hydrogen oxalate (PII 032SP), a new insecticide of neurotoxin group .Thiocyclam hydrogen oxalate at higher dosages of 400 and 500 g a.i./ha provided an effective control of stemborers statistically at par with the check insecticides (dead hearts ranging from 0.87–1.26% and white-ears from 1.24–1.85%) but, significantly better than its lower dose i.e. 300g a.i./ha.

38

system in three years of study period. Early planted trap crop lured more rats and 87% of the catches recorded during vegetative growth phase of the lure crop. The paddy yields were 84, 227 and 295 kg/ha more in the plots surrounding to the TBS over the control plots, with cost benefit ratios of 1:1.2, 1:3.2 and 1:4.1 in 2007, 2008 and 2009 kharif seasons, respectively. The plots located in a radius of 50 m around the TBS recorded relatively less number of rat live burrows with low tiller damage. The trap crop used in the TBS did not result in economic crop losses from rice insect pests. (Rao N et al., 2010)

Economics of Integrated Pest Management in Major Crops of Andhra Pradesh: Choudhary,(2010) reported the economics of IPM in rice and analysed the efficacies of IPM with Non-IPM. He also listed the components of IPM as detailed below: Components of IPM Rice:

• Growing of pest-resistant paddy varieties and use of disease-free seeds • Application of FYM • Nursery protection with carbofuran granules only in the endemic areas of gallmidge and stem

borer • Transplanting at appropriate stage after removal of 2-4 terminal parts of seedlings to reduce

the chances of carrying and migration of pests like stem borer and leaf folders • Use of rope running and other mechanical practices to expose case worm and leaf folder larvae • Application of nitrogen with potash- and neem-coated materials • Application of recommended insecticides • Harvesting of crop to the ground level to reduce the chances of yellow stem borer and

gall midge buildup, and Control of rodents. Costs and returns from paddy cultivation using IPM and non-IPM technologies under experimental conditions - (Rs/ha) Particulars

IPM Non-IPM

Operational Costs: Seeds 650( 4.20) 725 ( 4.38) Farm Yard Manure 3525 (22.78) 2120 (12.80) Fertilizers 1020 (6.59) 1736 (10.49) Plant Protection Chemicals ? Agents 600 (3.87) 1460 (8.82) Irrigation Copst 500 (3.23) 500 (3.02) Labour Cost 4530 (29.28) 5645 (34.09) Interest on working capital @12.5% annui 282 (1.82) 317 (1.92) Total 11107 (71.79) 12504 (75.52) Fixed Costs Rental value of owned land 4365 (28.21) 4053.60 (24.48) Total Costs 15472 (100) 16557 (100) Returns Gross returns 26187 24322 Net returns 10716 7764 Note: Figures within parentheses indicate percent to total.

39

It was found that the cost of cultivation was higher in non-IPM fields as compared to IPM fields; it being Rs 15471/ha in IPM and Rs 16557/ ha in non-IPM fields. The operational cost including material and labour was Rs 11107/ha in IPM and Rs 12503/ha in non-IPM fields. The higher operational cost in non-IPM fields was mainly due to more expenditure on plant protection chemicals and fertilizers. The gross returns as well as net returns were higher from IPM farms. Returns from paddy cultivation with IPM and non-IPM technologies under farmers’ conditions Particulars

Non-IPM IPM

Productivity (q/ha) 53.91 51.03 Gross Income (Rs//ha) 25431 23672 Net Income(Rs./ha) 8375 7580 Choudhary,(2010) reported that the data from farmers’ fields showed a total cost of paddy cultivation as Rs 17056/ha with IPM and Rs 17282/ha without IPM technology. The cost of labour was slightly more in IPM than in non-IPM fields. It was due to cultural and mechanical measures adopted in IPM fields. The manure was given high importance in IPM; its cost being Rs 1100/ha in IPM, compared to Rs 729/ha in non-IPM fields. Manuring included vermi-culture in some cases, while green manuring was practiced in some other cases. Fertilizer cost was more in non-IPM (Rs 2039/ha) than in IPM (Rs 1528). Similarly, the cost of plant protection chemicals was higher (Rs 1829/ha) in non-IPM, compared to (Rs 1461/ha) in IPM fields. Use of resistant varieties, seed treatment, timely and judicious application of pesticides together with other recommended practices brought down the cost of plant protection in IPM.Both gross returns and net returns were more in IPM than in non-IPM fields. The results from both the research farms and farmer’s fields indicated economic profitability of IPM technology in paddy cultivation. Pheromone: A Modern weapon in insect pest management: According to the effects they produce, pheromones are classified in to two groups; primary effect pheromones, and releaser effect pheromones. The primary effect pheromones operate through gustatory (taste) sensilla and trigger a chain of physiological changes in the body. The release effect pheromones operate through olfactory (smell) sensilla, and regulate the behavior of the insect pests. The pheromones represent a diverse assemblage of compounds. Though most commonly released by the females. Over 150 species of insect are known in which the female produce sex pheromones and 50 in which the males do so. Pheromones identified in important crops: Rice (Cork and Hall, 1998)

S.No Name of the Pests Crop Pheromone

1 Scirpophaga incertulus

Rice Hexadecanal,(Z)-9- Hexadecanal, (Z)-11-Hexadecanal,(Z)-11-Hexadecanal-1-ol, (Z)-9-Octadecenal

2 Cnaphalocrosis medinalis

--do-- Hexadecyl acetate,(Z)-11-Hexadecenyl acetate, Octadececyl acetate,(Z)-13-Octadecenyl acetate

40

3 Marasmia patnallis --do-- (Z)-13-Octadecenyl acetate, ,(Z)-11-Hexadecenyl acetate, 4 Chilo suppressalis --do-- Hexadecanal, (Z)-9- Hexadecanal,

(Z)-11-Hexadecanal, ,(Z)-11-Hexadecanal-1-ol, Octodecan-1-ol,(Z)-13-Octoecenal

The economic threshold level of stem borer can be determined in terms of % occurrence of dead hearts and white ears or pheromone trap catches of moth to decide the timing of insecticide application. Pheromone trap catches was used to forewarn regarding their outbreaks on which a linear regression equation was developed for predicting insect infestation in advance. Based on three years data, the catching of moth in trap was commenced as early as 32 standard week (2nd week of August) with its peak during 37 standard week while incidence of dead heart started at 34 standard week (4th week of August) and reached the peak at 38 standard week. (3rd week of September). Accumulated growing degree days (AGDD) and accumulated helio thermal unit (AHTU) were ranged from 921.9–1203.1 oC &1659.1–1967.8 oC and 5044.7–6539.9 & 8080.4–9180.8, respectively during initiation and peak period of moth catching. Damage by the was severe at a range of 1203.1–1967.8 oC AGDD and 6539.9–9180.8 AHTU.(Mandal, et al.,2011). Non-Pesticide Management (NPM): NPM is a systems approach that combines a wide array of crop production and protection technologies with a careful monitoring of pests and conservation of natural enemies in the eco-system. The NPM is basically a bottom up approach emphasizing empowerment of farmers. It is a decision making support system which is economically viable, environmentally sustainable and socially acceptable. The Centre for World Solidarity in association with 12 NGOs has demonstrated the economic feasibility and sustainability of this approach in 810 ha area in Andhra Pradesh. The crops covered were pigeon pea and groundnut. The NPM incorporates the use of a combination of two or more of the following practices: deep summer ploughing, tolerant varieties, random planting, intercropping, trap cropping, neem seed kernel extract (NSKE) (5%), neem oil (3%), tobacco decoction,chilli garlic extract, cattle dung and urine, pheromone traps @ 5/ha, release of Trichogramma, light traps, bird perches @ 25/ha, yellow sticky plates @5/ha, white sticky plates @ 5/ha, yellow rice to attract birds, use of Nuclear Polyhedrosis Virus (NPV) 500 LE/ha (in case of pigeonpea), poison baits,and shaking of the plant. Constraints in Adoption of IPM

• By offering seeds, fertilizers and pesticides on credit to the farmers,pesticide dealers pose a threat to IPM

• Pesticides companies use mass media like television and newspapers for poularizing their products through attractive advertisements

• Farmers are addicted to subsidy and they always look for some financial support for adopting NPM methods

• Bio-pesticides, biocontrol agents and other IPM components are not readily available • There is no government machinery to monitor the quality of biopesticides;consequently, the

desired results are not observed in many cases

41

• Large farmers discourage small farmers in adopting IPM methods by emphasizing more on their risky and unstable nature

• Scientific community is constrained in recommending use of IPM technology because farmers may ask for compensation in case of failures.

Recommendations for effective IPM:

• Intensive research is needed to standardize the IPM packages for different crops • Demonstration of socio-economic benefits of IPM on a large scale for its horizontal spread • Bio-pesticides, biocontrol agents, etc. should be made available to farmers in adequate

quantities • Incentives may be provided to the farmers for adopting IPM

Farmers’ Perceptions, Knowledge and Practices Related to Rice IPM – A Case Study: The West Godavari district of Andhra Pradesh state in India is considered as a part of the ‘rice bowl of India’. The rice-based cropping system is highly intensive, and a majority of the farmers harvest two crops of rice a year. More than 90 percent of the area is irrigated through canals. The average yield of rice is more than 5 t/ha. Farmers of this region practice intensive agriculture, using high-yielding rice varieties, adoption of improved agronomic practices like fertilizer application, water management, pest management, etc.,(Gururaj Katti et al,2004). The farmers choose such pest management options that appear to meet their objectives. The choice of technology is also influenced by their beliefs and attitudes towards the technology. Therefore, an understanding of the factors that affect their perceptions, knowledge and practices is critical in designing the effective management strategies (Sivakumar et al.,1997). High users strongly felt that more sprays were needed to increase the yield, and pesticide mixtures were more effective. The low user-group also felt that more sprays were needed to increase the yield; however, they did not believe strongly that pesticide mixtures were effective. Both the groups did not feel that using high concentration of pesticides was more effective. The low-user group felt that calendar spraying was not essential, while higher user-group showed its willingness towards calendar application of pesticides. Both the groups strongly felt that beneficial insects could limit pest population, applying more pesticides could be detrimental to human health and indiscriminate use of pesticides was harmful to non-target organisms. Both the groups also agreed that the information provided by the government/ extension agencies was a good guideline for the farmers to decide when to apply pesticide. Scores on attitude towards cultural management practices and rice yield revealed that both the groups felt that high nitrogen-use and ‘high cropping intensity led to more pests, and planting modern varieties would reduce pest Problems. Rajagopalan (1983) also reported that the plant protection measures used by farmers were generally based on their anxiety to save the crop. Farmers rated sheath blight as their number one enemy; however, insect pests seemed to be their primary concern, as illustrated by the higher number of insecticide applications given in a season. The

42

strong influence of the neighbors (other farmers) on farmers’ decisions seemed to suggest that pesticides application is a social norm. But, the stronger influence of plant protection technicians revealed the possibility of building a new belief and value system among the farmers by imparting information, knowledge and skill through suitable and regular training as well as awareness

Promotion of IPM: Efforts and Experiences of Private Sector- Contribution of Pesticide Industry to IPM Pesticide industry has played an important role, directly or indirectly, in the evolution of IPM from the beginning (i.e. from the 1950s) when reports on pests developing resistance to pesticides and pesticide residues in food and feed, etc. had started appearing. The industry offered new chemicals to tackle pest resistance and also worked for addressing the problems of safety to non-targeted organisms and the

Recent improvements from research brought considerable change in the cropping systems and allowed farmers to grow several crops throughout the year, which were very seasonal in the past. This also brought significant shift in the insect population dynamics and change in the status of several insect pests.

Recent interactions with the farming communities revealed that 93% of the farmers in India had adopted chemical control, 51% farmers get their plant protection advice from dealers, while 22% from extension officials and majority of the farmers (73%) initiate the plant protection based on the first appearance of the pest, irrespective of their population, crop stage, and their damage relationships. The cost of plant protection on various crops ranged from 7 to 40% of the total crop production cost. Though integrated pest management (IPM) has been advocated for the past two decades, only 3.2% of the farmers adopted IPM practices in various crops.

IPM research in the past decade brought out changes in the farmers’ attitude in pest management, which resulted 20-100% reduction in pesticide use in different crops. The recent farmer participatory approach working in a consortium mode proved very effective in the exchange of technology.

Though the results are encouraging, there is a need to further strengthen the IPM adoption in Indian agriculture through increased investments in both basic as well as applied research in plant protection to overcome the prevailing three evil “Rs” (Resistance, Resurgence, and Residues). To be more effective, readdressing the policies for encouraging eco-friendly options and strengthening extension, involving farmers should be considered as high priority.(Rao et al.,2010).

43

environment. The industry has contributed much to the development of IPM through their technological innovations and by offering services to extension workers and farmer. Pesticide industry individually and through their associations offers plant protection services to its customers. In India, three such associations – the Indian Crop Protection Association (ICPA), Pesticide Association of India (PAl), Pesticide Manufacturers and Formulators Association of India (PAFAI) – are in operation. With the greater national and international thrusts and stringent policies, almost all have embraced working with IPM. For instance, the strategic objectives of ICPA are: -Safe and judicious use of pesticides · Incorporation of integrated pest management (IPM) · Environmental protection · Safeguarding of intellectual property rights (IPRs) · Evolving common code of conduct for members · Communications with stakeholders in plant protection Licensing only qualified people for distributorship and dealership At many forums and meetings, scientists and extension workers have often voiced concerns about irresponsible attitude and behavior of some of the pesticide distributors and dealers in guiding the farmers but hardly anything has been done so far in this regard. Minimum qualifications of a degree in agriculture or diploma in plant protection should be fixed for a person seeking issuance and renewal of license for the sale of pesticides and other agri inputs. With the requisite qualifications, distributors and dealers are likely to have a better understanding of the subject and strong moral and ethical obligations to help and serve the farmers properly. This is very important for the success and spread of IPM and ICM technologies.( Pawar and Indulkar,2010) Rice Diseases and their management: Based on the studies, the results are tabulated as detailed below:

S.No

Treatment Name of the disease/organisms

Biological agents

1 Seed treatment Seed borne pathogens, and sheath blight

Trichoderma viride and Bacillus substilis

2 Soil treatment Sheath blight Trichoderma viride,T.harzianum, T.virens and Aspergillus terreus

3 Foliar application

Sheath blight Aspergillus terreus,T.koniingii,T.harzianum,T .viride

4 Rice blast (Pyricularia oryzae) Pseudomonas fluorescence 7-14 and P.putidaV14i caused an induced systemic resistance (ISR)in rice cultivar

5 Sheath blight(Sh.B)(Rhizoctonia solani)

Bacillus spp, Serrata marcescens

6 Seedling dip, foliar spraying

(Pyricularia oryzae, Helminthosporium oryzae, and R.solani

Pseudomonas fluorescence strains P1

7 Sheath rot Sarocladium oryzae Bacillus substilis, Pseudomonas fluorescence and

44

T.viride 8 Rice Tungro

Virus RTV A.flavus, Bacillus substilis,

9 BPH

Nilaparvata lugens Metarhizium anisopliae

(Ashraf Ali Khan and D.Prasad, 2008)Rice diseases and their management through Biocontrol agents,-Chapter-14, Insect Pest and Diseases Management (Edited by D.Prasad, Daya Publishing,2008) The potentiality of bio-agents vizT.richoderma, T.harzianum (Delhi), T. hazianum (Kanpur), T. viride (Delhi), T. viride (Kanpur). G. virens (K), T. hamatium (K) was tried against Drechslera oryzae and it has inhibited the growth of Drechslera oryzae. Maximum reduction (98.8%) was recorded in T. harzianum (Delhi) isolate followed by T. harzianum (Kanpur) (94.6%). Seed treatment: Treatment of rice seeds with spore suspension of T. harzianum (Delhi) proved significantly superior in enhancing the maximum shoot length and root length at 30 days of seedlings. The foliar sprays with crude extract of bio-agents were competence enough to reduce the number of lesion from 13.49 to 3.15. Disease severity was varied significantly from 14.1– 58.1% in different treatments.(Pandey et al.,2011) Rice Sheath blight: Rhizoctonia solaniKuhn

All the test fungicides, botanicals/plant leaf extracts and bioagents showed fungistatic action and significantly inhibited mycelial growth of the test pathogen over untreated control.

Among the fungicides Saaf (carbendazim 12% + mancozeb 63%) was the most effective fungicide which registered cent per cent inhibition even at 10 ppm followed by carbendazim (98.9%), Vitavax (98.2%), propiconazole (74.8%) and hexaconazole (72.9%).

Among botanicals drek extract was most effective inhibiting 46.5% per cent of the mycelial growth of R. solani followed by bhang (29.7%), onion (25.4%), tulsi (23.9%), bael (20.6%), paanch phooli (17.9%), curry leaves (14.1%), congress grass (13.4%) and eucalyptus (10.4%) and among bioagents isolates of T. viride were more effective than isolates of T. harzianum and P. fluorescens. (Dutta Upma and, Kalha C.S.2011)

The, Studies on the efficacy of tebuconazole in controlling the sheath blight pathogen, Rhizoctonia solaniKuhn were carried out both under laboratory and at field levels. The fungicides viz., tricyclazole + propiconazole (Filia) and validamycin (Sheathmar) were equally effective with 97.8% and 95.4% growth inhibition of the test pathogen. Mancozeb (Indofil M-45) was also effective in reducing the mycelial growth of R. solani. Tebuconazole when applied at 1500 ppm was highly effective in the field in reducing the disease in rice and is on par with the standard fungicides viz., propiconazole and hexaconazole. The yield levels in tebuconazole (@1500 ppm) treated plots (3288 kg ha−1) were superior and were statistically at par with hexaconazole and propiconazole treatments.( Raju et al.,(2008).

45

Pure cultures of bacterial antagonist, Pseudomonas fluorescens were isolated from different locations in Kuttanad for screening against rice sheath blight disease. Three effective strains, viz., PF43, PF46 and PF47 were tested individually and also in combination against sheath blight under field conditions. Combined application of PF43, PF46 and PF47 was found to be effective for sheath blight disease management during rabi 2009–10, kharif 2010 and rabi 2010–11(Surendran et al., 2011)

Brown spot of rice:

Trifloxystrobin + tebuconazole @ 0.04% was found to be the most effective fungicide against these diseases, where the lowest mean disease severity was 5.2% for sheath blight, 5.1% for brown spot and 4.4% for glume discoloration as compared to 45.5%, 46.5% and 13.6% in untreated inoculated check plots of respective diseases. Next best fungicide observed was tebuconazole (Folicur 25 EC) @ 0.1%, effective against sheath blight (7.5%), brown spot (7.3%) and glume discoloration (4.2%.).(Hunjan et al., 2011)

Botanicals:

Rice blast:

The blast disease can be controlled by prophylactic seed treatment with bavistin. If it is above economic threshold level (ETL), spray application of bavistin or hinosan or beam 75 is recommended. Use of ecofriendly botanicals like aqueous extract of bael leaves (Aegle marmelas) and Tulsi leaves (Ocimum sanctum) has been found effective to control blast. Interactive effects of seed treatment and chlorpyrifos and bavistin(or other chemicals) are not yet known and need detailed study. Nematode Control: Management of Hirschmanniella gracilis. : (Plant growth promoting rhizobacterium, Pseudomonas fluorescens)

Combination of seed treatment, seedling root dip, and soil application of the bacterium was the most effective treatment and gave similar control as carbofuran 3G. There was significant increase in phenol, peroxidase and chitinase accumulation in plants treated with P. fluorescens. The bacterium also increased the plant growth parameters and grain yield. The highest grain yield resulted from the seed + seedling dipping + soil application and seed + seedling dip treatments. (Sreenivasan et al, .2011)

In root knot nematode infested areas, seed treatment with chlorpyrifos is effective. Similarly, growing pulses like blackgram (urdbean), greengram (mungbean), pigeonpea or sesamum in rotation reduces infestation of nematodes. Use of neem cake and carbofuran also reduces nematode populations. These practices may be adopted based upon the site-specific needs, historical background and cost effectiveness. While developing holistic package, research should identify common practices with multiple benefits.

46

3.3. Reference –Rice IPM:

Ashraf Ali Khan and D.Prasad, 2008-Rice diseases and their management through Biocontrol agents,-Chapter-14, Insect Pest and Diseases Management (Edited by D.Prasad, Daya Publishing,2008 Atwal.A.S. and G.S.Dhaliwal.2002.Agricultural pests of South Asia and their management .Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi.pp:498. Babu Subbaash, Yadav Gulab Singh, Verma, S.K.R.P.Sharma Rajivir,2010-Influence of Anifos formulations on Echinochloa colona in transplanted Rice (Oryza sativa)-Pesticide Research Journal-Vol22(1)-pp 10-13 Barr B A, Koehler C S, Smith R F (1975) Crop losses - rice: field losses to insects, diseases, weeds, and other pests. UC/AID Pest Management and Related Environmental Protection Project. 64 p. Chakraborty Kaushik,2011- Extent of suppression of yellow stem borer,Scirpophaga incertulas, Walker population by insecticides in field of scented local Paddy- Annals of Plant Protection Sciences0=Year : 2011, Volume : 19, Issue : 1First page : ( 63) Last page : ( 66) Cheralu.C-Principal Scientist (Rice Breeding),Regional Agricultural Research Station,ANGR Agricultural University,Warangal 506 007, AP, India-in Status Paper on Rice in Andhra Pradesh) Choudhary.K.R.2010 - Economics of Integrated Pest Management in Major Crops of Andhra Pradesh- Centre for Action Research and Development, 106, ARC, idyanagar,Hyderabad 500 044-in Annual report 2010-IPM-India Cork.A, and D.R.Hall (1998).Application of pheromones for crop pests management in the Indian subcontinent, J.Asia-Pacific Entomol.,1(1):35 – 49 Cramer H H (1967) Plant protection and world crop production. Pflanzenschutz Nachr. Bayer 20:1-524. Dhawan A K, Mahal M S, Suri K S, Sarao P S, Virk J S, Singh Ravinder, Kaur Ramandeep- 2010,Efficacy of Thiocyclam Hydrogen Oxalate as Foliar Sprays against Stem borers and Leaf folder in Rice- Indian Journal of Plant Protection Year : 2010, Volume : 38, Issue : 2First page : ( 166) Last page : ( 169) Dutta Upma,and Kalha C.S.2011- In vitro evaluation of fungicides, botanicals and bioagents against Rhizoctonia solani causing sheath blight of rice and their integration for effective management of the disease under field conditions- Plant Disease Research Year : 2011, Volume : 26, Issue : 1First page : ( 14) Last page : ( 19) Grag D.K., 2004- in IPM in Rice Ecosystem Advances in Plant Protection Sciences.

Gururaj Katti1, I.C. Pasalu1, P.R.M. Rao, N.R.G. Varma1 and K. Krishnaiah1)-2004-Farmers’ Perceptions, Knowledge and Practices Related to Rice IPM – A Case Study-NCIPM-Annual report 2010-IPM-India.

Hunjan M.S., Lore J.S., Pannu P.P.S.Thind T.S.,2011,- Performance of some new fungicides against sheath blight and brown spot of rice- Plant Disease Research Year : 2011, Volume : 26, Issue : 1First page : ( 61) Last page : ( 67) )

47

Karthikeyan K and Jacob Sosamma, 2008-Granular Insecticides Against the Incidence of Rice Blue Beetle, Leptispa pygmaea- Indian Journal of Plant ProtectionYear: 2008, Volume : 36, Issue : 1First page : ( 85) Last page : ( 88)

Krishnaiah N V, Rama Prasad A S, Lingaiah T, Lakshminarayanamma V, Raju G and Srinivas S 2004.Comparative toxicity of neonecotinoid and phenyl pyrazole insecticides against rice hoppers. Indian Journal of Plant Protection 32: 24-30)

Kumar Amit, Lal M.N., Prasad C.S.2011- Effect of treatments on yield and economics of Paddy cultivation against yellow stem borer,Scirpophaga incertulas (Walker)- Annals of Plant Protection Sciences-Year : 2011, Volume : 19, Issue : 1First page : ( 37) Last page : ( 40)

Lakshmi V Jhansi Krishnaiah N V, Katti G, Pasalu I C, Bhanu K Vasantha--Development of Insecticide Resistance in Rice Brown Planthopper and Whitebacked Planthopper in Godavari Delta of Andhra Pradesh- Indian Journal of Plant Protection-Year : 2010, Volume : 38, Issue : 1First page : ( 35) Last page : ( 40) )-1Directorate of Rice Research, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad - 500030, Andhra Pradesh, India.2Andhra Pradesh Rice Research Institute, Acharya N G Ranga Agriculrtural University, Maruteru - 534 122, Andhra Pradesh- Mahabaleshwar, Hedge and Jayprakash nidagundi-2009-Effect of newer chemicals on planthoppers and their mirid predator in rice-(Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 22(3-Spl. Issue ) : (511-513) 2009 Mahal.A.K. M S, Suri K S, Sarao P.S,Virk J , Singh Ravinder, Kaur Ramandeep, Efficacy of Thiocyclam Hydrogen Oxalate as Foliar Sprays against Stem borers and Leaf folder in Rice- Indian Journal of Plant ProtectionYear : 2010, Volume : 38, Issue : 2First page : ( 166) Last page : ( 169) Mandal P., Roy K, Saha G.2011, Weather based prediction model of Scirpophaga incertulas (Walk.)- Annals of Plant Protection Sciences,Year : 2011, Volume : 19, Issue : 1First page : ( 20) Last page : ( 24) Manjula.K. Integrated Insect Pest management in Major crops in Andhrapradesh in Advances in Palnt Protection Sciences, Edited by D.Prasad and Amerika Singh,2009) Mathur, K.C.Reddy, P.R.Rajamani, S. and Moorthy, B.T.S.1999,.Integrated Pest management in rice to improve productivity and sustainability.Oryza 36(3):195-207 Muralidharan K, Pasalu I C,-2006, Crop Losses in Rice Ecosystems Due to Gall Midge (Orseolia oryzae Wood-Mason) Damage:-Indian Journal of Plant ProtectionYear: Volume: 33, Issue: 1First page : ( 11) Last page : ( 16) Padmanabhan, S.Y.1965.Estimating losses from rice blast in India.In: The Rice blast disease .Proc.Symp. held at the international Rice Research Institute in July, 1963.The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Maryland,USA,pp:203-221 Padmanabhan, S.Y.1973, Great Bengal famine.Ann.Rev.Phytopathology.11:11-25. Padmavathi, .R.Mahendrakumar, L.V.Subba rao, K.Sureka, M.Srinivas-Influence of SRI method of rice cultivation on insect pest incidence and arthropod-Rice Knowledge Portal-Indian Rice Research

48

repository -20011) Ch.Padmavathi, R.Mahendrakumar and I.C.Pasalu-2005, National symbposium, 2006, Hyderabad) Pandey S.B., Biswas S.K., Rajik Mohd., Kamalwanshi R.S,2011, Evaluation on potentiality of bio-agents againstDrechslera oryzae causing brown leaf spot of Paddy- Annals of Plant Protection Sciences-Year : 2011, Volume : 19, Issue : 1-First page : ( 118) Last page : ( 121) Pathak, M.D. and G.S.Dhaliwal, 1981, Trends and strategies for the rice insect problems in tropical Asia.IRRI Research paper series no: 64, International Rice research Unstitute, Los Banos, Phillipines. Pawer .C.S and A.S.Indulkar, Promotion of IPM: Efforts and Experiences of Private Sector- Pmthi H S (1953) an epidemic of rice bug in India. FA0 Plant Prot. Bull. 1:87-88 Puri, S.N.2000.India (1).pp.88-96: in: Farmer –led Integrated Pest Management in India and the Pacific Asian Productivity Organisations.Tokyo. Rachappa, V.Lingappa, S.Patil, R.K and Mahabaleshwar Hegde(2004): Utilization of Metarhizium anisopliae for the management of brown plant hopperin paddy.Paper presented at the international symbosium on Rice: From Green revolution to Gene revolution-Vol.2.-organised by ICAR in association with Directorate of Rice research Rajendranagar,Hyderabad,AP-p.441 – 442) Rajagopalan, V. 1983. Deceleration rates of agricultural growth in Tamil Nadu: Trends and explanatory factors. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 38(4): 568-584.) Rajamani, S., B.T.S. Moorthy, G.N. Mishra and M. Variar. 2001. IPM strategy for rainfed upland rice (abst.). In: Proceedings of the national symposium on IPM Strategies in Rice Production System. 15-17March. Central Rice Research Institute, Cuttack.)

Raju S.Krishnam, Kumar K,VijayKrishna, Raju M.Ramabhadra,(2008)-Efficacy of Tebuconazole Against Rhizocfonia solani, Causal Agent of Rice Sheath Blight- Indian Journal of Plant Protection Year : 2008, Volume : 36, Issue : 1First page : (98) Last page : ( 101) )

Rao G.V. Ranga, Rao V Rameswar,2010,Status of IPM in Indian Agriculture: A Need for Better Adoption -Indian Journal of Plant Protection-Year : 2010, Volume : 38, Issue : 2First page : ( 115) Last page : ( 121) International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru-502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India.

Rao N and Srinivasa, Kishore M Nanda-2010,Evaluation of Trap Barrier System for the Management of Lesser Bandicoot Rat, Bandicota bengalensis in Irrigated Rice- Indian Journal of Plant Protection,Year : 2010, Volume : 38, Issue: 2First page : ( 193) Last page : ( 196) )

Reddy D B (1967) The rice gall midge Pachydiplosis oryzae (Wood-Mason). Pages 457-491 in The major insect pests of the rice plant. Proceedings of a symposium at the International Rice Research Institute, September, 1964. The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Maryland. Savary,S.,R.K.Shrivastava,H.MSingh and F.A.Elazegui,1997.A characterization of rice pesta and quantifications of yiel losses in the rice wheat systems of India.Crop Prot,16: 387- 398.

49

Sabale.J.P,ChandanaDas and R.P.Samui,(2010)-Agricultural Meteorology Division India Meteorological Department, Pune-411 005 (M. S.), India- Influence of weather factors on light trap catches of green leaf hopper at Pattambi, Kerala- Journal of Agrometeorology 12 (1): 108-110 (June 2010.). Shamim.M.A.MShekh,V.J.Patel,J.F.Dodia,D.M.Korat, and A.M.Mehta-2009- Effect of weather parameters on population dynamics of green leaf hopper and white backed plant hopper in paddy grown in middle Gujarat region- Journal of Agrometeorology 11 (2): 172-174 (Dec. 2009))

Seenivasan N., Murugan V. Thirumal,2011,Optimization of delivery methods for Pseudomonas fluorescens in management of Rice root nematode,Hirschmanniella gracilis- Annals of Plant Protection Sciences Year : 2011, Volume : 19, Issue : 1First page : ( 188) Last page : ( 192)

Sivakumar, S.D., S.R. Subramanian, S. Suresh and M. Gopalan. 1997. Pest management practices of rice farmers in Tamil Nadu, India. In: Pest management of rice farmers in Asia (Eds. K. L. Heong and M.M. Escalada). International Rice Research Institute, Manila, Philippines.

Surendran M., Kannan G.S., Nayar Kamala3, Leenakumary S.,2011-Consortium of Fluorescent Pseudomonads for the Management of Rice Sheath Blight Disease- Journal of Biological Control Year : 2011, Volume : 25, Issue : 2 First page : ( 156) Last page : ( 159))

Teng,P.S. C.Q.Torres, F. L. Nuque, and S. B. Calvero-1990 -in Crop Loss Assessment in rice - papers given at the International Workshop on Crop Loss Assessment to Improve Pest Management in Riceand Rice-based Cropping Systems in South and Southeast Asia 11-17 October 1987) Varma, N.R.G.K.Vasantha Bhanu, and D.RajiReddy, 2008, Forecasting population of brown plant hopper, Nilaparvata lugens (Stal.)- Journal of Agrometeorology (Special issue - Part I): 197 - 200 (2008)- Virk, J.S.and P.S.Sarao,(2010), Bioefficacy of Insecticides Against Brown Planthopper,Nilaparvata lugens in Rice- Indian Journal of Plant Protection Vol. 38. No. 1, 2010 (101-103) Zadoks J C, and Schein RD (1979) Epidemiology and plant disease management. Oxford University-Press, New York. 427 p)

Zadoks J C (1985) on the conceptual basis of crop loss assessment: the thresh

50

4.1. Summary- Integrated Pest Management –Groundnut

AndraPradesh endowed with diversified agro-ecosystem, produce many cereals, pulses, oilseeds, fibre, vegetables and fruit crops. However, 60-65 % area of the 11 millions hectares of cultivable land is occupied with crops like Rice, groundnut Cotton, Pigeon pea, Chickpea, chilli, and vegetables like Tomato and brinjal. Groundnut is one of the important Oilseed crops mostly cultivated under rainfed conditions and is cultivated in almost all districts. The area under Oilseeds during 2009-2010 was 22.23 lakh hectares which constituted 17.7 percent of the total cropped area in the State. Out of which, Groundnut alone accounted for 58.52 percent of the total area under Oilseeds. The area is recorded in Ananthapur, Kurnool, Chittoor, and Kadapa, Districts and Ananthapur district accounted for 49.3 percent of the total area of the state under Groundnut crop in the State during 2009-2010.

Monitoring Insect Pests The insect pest population can be monitored following either direct or indirect techniques. The technique selected mostly depends on the type of insect being studied and its behavior. In case of direct sampling, insect pests are monitored by counting insects through direct observation. This can be either absolute or relative estimates. Insect Sampling method S.No Name of the pests Insect sampling methods 1 Whiteflies, midges, adult foliage beetles Sweep net, direct observation and counting

2 Lepidopteran adults -Spodoptera,Helicoverpa,

Aproaerema etc.,) Light trap (night flying insects); pheromone trap; sweep net

3 Lepidopteran larvae Direct observation and counting, beating/ shaking with ground cloth

4 Ground beetles (adult and larvae) Pitfall trap soil sample 5 Thrips Direct observation and counting 6 Leaf miner larvae Direct observation and counting 7 Aphids Colored sticky trap; direct counting of colonies. 8 Leaf hoppers Colored sticky trap; sweep net 9 Beneficial insects Sweep net, pitfall traps, insect rearing, de-vac

Agromet–cell, Agricultural Research Institute, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad. The data were pooled and analyzed statistically with weather parameters using correlation and regression techniques. Correlation studies showed significant positive relationship of thrips damage with morning and evening relative humidity.

51

■ Spodoptera litura damage was positively influenced by evaporation and age of the crop.

■Thrips damage showed significant positive relationship with morning (0.34) and evening (0.37) relative humidity whereas maximum (-0.60) and minimum (-0.50) temperatures (mean -0.62) and evaporation (-0.47) were negatively associated with thrips damage.

■Validation of groundnut leaf miner (GLM) prediction model: Based on many years data on pest incidence and weather parameters, the following regression model was developed for prediction of leaf miner in groundnut = 0.47 + 0.004 X1+ 0.12 X2 – 0.019 X3 – 0.26X4 R2 = 0.91Where Y = Predicted GLM damage, X1 = Minimum Temperature, X2 = RH1, X3 = RH2,X4 = Sunshine hours; ■Climate change scenarios in Anantapur-AP The climate scenario for Anantapur district as projected by National Communication (NATCOM, 2009) under A1b scenario suggests that compared to base line (1961-1990), the rainfall is going to decrease by about 14.4 per cent by 2021-2050 period and by 8.7 per cent during 2071-2098 period. ■ The mean maximum temperature during the southwest monsoon season is likely to increase by 2.3°C during 2021-2050 period and by 4.8°C during 2071-2098 period. ■ The mean minimum temperature during the southwest monsoon season is likely to increase by 2.2°C during 2021-2050 and by 4.2°C during 2071-2098 period. ■ Highest productivity (1328 kg/ha) was recorded in 1996 and lowest yield (67 kg/ha) was recorded in 2006. Quantum and distribution of rainfall determines the productivity of groundnut to a large extent. ■The Decision Support System (DSS) developed for late leaf spot of groundnut can be used as a stand alone forewarning system for different groundnut growing regions of India. Evaluation of limited research in plant protection and weather has shown positive or negative impacts or no impact. ■ Agromet–cell, Agricultural Research Institute, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad. Correlation studies showed significant positive relationship of thrips damage with morning and evening relative humidity, while Spodoptera litura damage was positively influenced by evaporation and age of the crop. Leaf spot and rust incidence was mainly influenced by maximum temperature, evaporation and age of the crop.

■ The greatest yield loss caused by insect pests at any crop stage was 31.4% in 1988 and 23% in 1989. Damage occurring during the bloom and vegetative stages resulted in maximum yield loss. Thus, crop protection measures at the vegetative and bloom stages are most effective in minimizing the yield loss due to insect pests in groundnut.

■The data and prediction equation showed that, in 1990, the attainable yield was 6.66 g/plot and the yield declined by 6.08 g/plot for every 1% increase in disease severity. Similar results were recorded for the other 2 seasons. The results provide evidence for an empirical linear relationship between leaf spot severity and yield loss.

52

■Major Pests of Groundnut: S.No Location Name of the Pests

I Foliar insects and Mites: Foliage feeding

Leafminer, Aproaerema modicella(Deventer)-

1 Redhairy caterpillarAmsacta albistriga Wlk,and A.moorei Bult. 2 Bihar hairy caterpillar, Spilosoma oblique Wlk,( 3 tobacco caterpillar,Spodptera litura,(F); 4 gram pod borer,Heliothis armigeraHb II Sucking Pests Aphids-Aphis craccivora Koch, Leafhoppers,Balclutha hotensis Lindb,and Empoasca kerriPruthi; Two spotted white spider Mite;

Tetranychus hypogea, Two spotted red spider mite;Tetranychus cinnabarinusIII Subterranean

pests Holotrichia consanguinea Blanch,

Odontotermes obesus(Rambur) O.brunneus (Hagen) Trinervitermes biformis(Wasmann) Microtermessp

IV Rodents Mus booduga,Rattus meltoda and Talera indica V Birds Crows;Corvus splendens; Blck ibis Psaubis papillasa ■Integrated Pest management of Pests-Management Options:

Host Plant Resistance:

A Groundnut line ICGV 50 was found to be highly resistance to leafminer and tobacco caterpillar.Two cultivars, ICGV 86031 and ICGV 86699 developed at ICRISAT were found to be highly resistant to leaf miner ■Cultural methods: Considering the yield as well as the low level of resistance to leafminer , August Ist or 2nd week appeared to be the best sowing time for higher yield in TMV 7Groundnut either as pure crop with 30 × 10 cm or 20 × 10 cm spacing alone with straw as mulch gave maximum control of leafminer as well as increased level parasitation. ■Biological control methods (For some important Pests:

• Leafminer (Aproaerema modicella) is the key pest of groundnut in Andhrapradesh.In AP, larval parasitism around Hyderabad, reaches up to 90% (Murthy 1989).Goniozus sp was most

53

abundant in post –rainy season(Dec to April) whereas Stenomesius japonicas (Ashmead) and Apanteles sp were abundant in the rainy season.The percxentage of parasitism was greatest in Sep to Nov and Jan to March around Tirupati.AP.

• Intercropping of Groundnut with Cowpea( Vigna unguiculataL.Walp) or blackgram (V.mungo) at a ratio of 3:1 gave significantly lower incidence of this pest,

• It is a serious pest in Andrapradesh.Over 40 species of hymenopterous parasitoids attack A.modicella eggs, larvae and pupae on groundnut.In AndraPradesh, larval parasitism around hyderabad reaches about 90%.Goniozus sp. Was most abundant in the post rainy season(Dec-April) whereas, Stenomesius japonicas(Ashmead) and Apanteles sp. were abundant in the rainy season.The percentage of parasitism was greatest in September – November and January –March around Triathi,AP.

White Grubs, Holotrichia consanguinea

• The grubs are picked up by crows Carvus splendens Vieillot.Myna,Acridotheres tristis(Linneaus), • The cross ploughings in the presence of birds may reduce 70% of the grubs present in the field. • Bacillus basiana (Balsamo) Vuillemin has also been found to be pathogenic to the

grubs.B.brongniartii is effective against the root grub H.serrata when applied @ 1011 spores /ton of soil along with 50 g of HCH 50% wp/m2.

Hairy Caterpillars, Amsacta albistriga (Walker), A.moorei (Butler)

• Growing intercrops such as cowpea,Sesamum,greengram, castor and redgram on the incidence of red headed hairy caterpillar, Amsacta albistriga Walker on groundnut during kharif,

• A.albistriga, was found to be infected with nuclear polyhedrosis (AaNPV) at a oncentration of 108 POBs per ml provided 86.4 % mortality

• A bio-intensive integrated Pest management action plan for Amsacta spp. which includes deep summer ploughing to expose the pupae to predators and sunlight and collection and destruction of pupae; setting up of bonfires at community level between 7 and 11 pm for killing of emerging adult; collection and destruction of the eggs which are usually deposited on the under surface of the leaves in masses; inundative release of T.chilonis or T.brasiliensis immediately after adult emergence @ 50000 adults per hectare per release, repeat the release one week after first release in case adult emergence; foliar sprays of AaNPV 4.3 × 10 10 POBsper mlon early stage larvae or bacillus thuringiensis var kurstaki at 2g / lit;spray 4 % neem kenel suspension or malathion against mature larvae and avoid spraying with chlorpyriphos, dichlorovos, endosulfan, ethion,fenitrothion, phosolone and quinalphos as these insecticides are very toxic to adult parasitoids.

• The soil born pathogenic fungus, Sclerotium rolfsii to find out the inhibition of mycelial growth of the fungus. Inhibition of mycelial growth was maximum in Neem leaf extract and T. harzianum followed by cloves of garlic, cone of turmeric and B. subtilis. The results suggest that a combination of neem leaf extract and T. harzianum could be further exploited to develop an effective, and ecofriendly management package for this devastating pathogen

• The egg parasitoid Telenomus manolus Nixon parasitized up to 94% eggs of A, albistriga. • tachinid parasitoids, Palexorista solensisi(Wlk)A.albistriga was found to be infected with NPV

(AaNPV) at a concentration of 108 POBs per mlprovided 86 % mortality.

54

Tobacco caterpillar, Spodoptera litura(Fabricius)

• The natural enemies frequently recorded were Chelonus formosanusSonan,C.carbonator,Marshal,C.heliopae,GuptaCotesia rufricus,(Haliday),Ichneumon sp.,Peribaea orbata(Weidemann).Exorista xanthaspis (Weidemann),Rhynocoris fuscipus(Fabricius)Apanteles sp.,and SlNPV @ 250 -500 larval equivalents in the evening hours has proved quite effective.

Gram Pod Borer, Heliothis armigera,(Hubner):

• It is a polyphagous pest. It is a serious pest in groundnut in coastal AndhraPradesh.Inundative release of Trichogramma chilonis @ 2, 00,000 /week was effective for the suppression of this pest only for first four weeks of march.But,in April measures including sprays of HaNPV have to be adopted and Bracon gelechiae and Campoletis chloridae,Uchida, and migratory bird, rosy pastor, Sturnus roseus(Linnaeus) were common in the released field and controlled the pest.

• Application of imidacloprid @ 26.7 g a.i ha−1 at 25 and 40 days after sowing was found to be significantly effective in reducing Thrips, Scirtothrips dorsalis and Leafhoppers, Empoasca Kerri in Groundnut.

Diseases:

• There have been continuous efforts in evolving suitable fungicidal schedules for the control of groundnut diseases. Recently, a combination of minimal use of fungicides with moderate levels of HPR in the management of foliar diseases has been found economical and acceptable by the small and marginal farmers

• For an effective management of foliar diseases, weather-based disease forecasting systems have been developed and their use at field scale is under evaluation. Leaf-spots and rust are controlled by spraying carbendazim (Bavistin) @ 0.05 percent plus Mancozeb (Dithane M-45) @ 0.2 percent at intervals of 2 to 3 weeks, 2 or 3 times, starting from 4-5 weeks after planting. In the all India trials, this combination controlled both diseases effectively and gave the highest yields

• Two sprayings of Triadimefon (Bayleton) @ 100 g acre-1 as 200 L spray solution to control rust. Recently, in the farmers’ participatory evaluation of a combination of moderate levels of HPR with judicious use of fungicides,

• ) effectively controlled LLS and rust in groundnut cultivars ICGV 89109 and ICGV 91114 with one spray of chlorothalonil @ 2 g L-1 water and 800 L solution ha-1. The incidence of collar-rot can be minimized by treating the seeds with Thiram 75 WP @ 3.5 g kg-1 kernel. In places where Thiram is not available, Carbendazim/ Mancozeb/Captafol @ 2.0-2.5 g kg-1 kernel may be used.

• Good control of pre-emergence rot caused by M. phaseolina has been achieved by seed dressing with Captafol,Brassicol 75 percent WP (0.5%) can also be applied @ 1 litre metre-2 or in the form of soil dust 25 kg ha-1 in two split applications, 12.5 kg ha-1 before sowing and the other 12.5 kg ha-1 15 days later.

55

4.2. Integrated Pest Management in Groundnut

AndraPradesh endowed with diversified agro-ecosystem, produce many cereals, pulses, oilseeds, fibre, vegetables and fruit crops. However, 60-65 % area of the 11 millions hectares of cultivable land is occupied with crops like Rice, groundnut Cotton, Pigeonpea, Chickpea, chilli, and vegetables like Tomato and brinjal. Groundnut is one of the important Oilseed crops mostly cultivated under rainfed conditions and is cultivated in almost all districts. The area under Oilseeds during 2009-2010 was 22.23 lakh hectares which constituted 17.7 percent of the total cropped area in the State. Out of which, Groundnut alone accounted for 58.52 percent of the total area under Oilseeds. The area is recorded in Ananthapur, Kurnool, Chittoor, and Kadapa, Districts and Ananthapur district accounted for 49.3 percent of the total area of the state under Groundnut crop in the State during 2009-2010. The area sown under Groundnut was 13.01 lakh hectares during in 2009-2010 as against 17.66 lakh hectares in2008-2009 and showing decrease of 26.3 percent. Groundnut is an important crop of India being grown to the extent of 9 million hectares. AndraPradesh is grown in two millions hectares of land in Anantapur,Chittoor, Warangal, Khammam,Cuddappah,Guntur,Nalgonda, Karimnagar,Vishagapattinam,Vizianagaram, Srikakulam and Mehaboobnagar districts. Area and Production of Groundnut during 2009-10)

S.No Year

Area in Lakh Ha Productivity in Kg / ha Production in Lakh Tonnes

Kharrif Rabi Total Kharrif Rabi Total Kharrif Rabi Total

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Average Average of preceding 5 years

14.65 2.57 17.22 660 1816 835 9.96 4.69 14.65

1 2005-06 16.15 2.61 18.76 565 1739 728 9.12 4.54 13.66 2 2006-07 11.07 2.27 13.34 301 1801 557 3.33 4.10 7.43 3 2007-08 15.00 2.95 17.95 1357 1919 1449 20.36 5.68 26.044 2008-09 15.00 2.66 17.66 300 1964 551 4.49 5.24 9.73 5 2009-10 10.11 2.90 13.01 385 2126 774 3.90 6.17 10.07

(Source:SEASON AND CROP REPORT ANDHRA PRADESH 2009-2010 DIRECTORATE OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH-HYDERABAD – 500 004)

56

CROP YEAR AREA (lakh ha.) YIELD ( kg/ha.) PRODUCTION (lakh

M.T)

KHARIF RABI TOTAL KHARIF RABIAnnual

avg. KHARIF RABI TOTAL

GROUNDNUT

1999-2000

15.21 2.74 17.95 448 1488 607 6.81 4.08 10.89

2000-2001

16.01 2.73 18.74 1061 1636 1145 16.97 4.46 21.43

2001-2002

14.39 2.52 16.91 568 1714 739 8.18 4.32 12.50

2002-2003

12.71 1.99 14.70 427 1399 559 5.42 2.78 8.20

2003-2004

12.58 2.35 14.93 482 1614 660 6.07 3.79 9.86

2004-2005

16.05 2.36 18.41 778 1657 891 12.48 3.91 16.39

2005-2006

16.15 2.61 18.76 565 1739 728 9.12 4.54 13.66

2006-2007

11.07 2.27 13.34 301 1801 557 3.33 4.10 7.43

2007-2008

15.00 2.95 17.95 1357 1919 1449 20.36 5.68 26.04

2008-2009

14.99 2.64 17.63 300 1921 543 4.50 5.07 9.57

2009-10 10.11

2.90

13.01

385

2126

774 3.90 6.17

10.07

Normal 14.65 2.57 17.22 660 1807 834 9.96 4.66 14.6

The cyclic fluctuations of its productivity levels has been ranging from 551 to 1449 kg /ha(2005-06 to 2009-10).The situations has become worse during these periods due to uneven distribution of precipitation as well as sudden flare up of insect pests and microbial diseases become common feature.

57

The insect pests that commonly infest groundnut crop in the State are given below:

S.No

Early growth Stage Pod development stage Maturity Stage

1 Root Grub(White grub:Lachnosterna( Holotrichia) cansaguinea)

RHC- (Amsacta albistriga) S.litura

2 False wire worms(Gonacephalum elongatum) Leaf miner (Aproaerema modicella)

Pod sucking bug(Elasmolomus (Aphanus) sordidus F.)

3 Red hairy caterpillar(RHC) Amsacta albistriga)

Gram Pod Borer (Helicoverpa armigera) Tobacco cutworm-(Spodoptera litura)

Stem Borer (Sphenoptera perotetti G.)

4 Thrips( Scirtothrips dosalis,Frankliniella schltzii,Caliothrips indicus and thrips palmi)

Earwig(Anisolabis (Eubirellia) statii)

5 Jassids.(Empoasca kern) Mites(Tetranychus spp) Termites (Odontotermes sppMicrotermes spp)

6 Aphids(Aphis craccivora) Ash weevil( Myllocerus spp)

7 Minor storage pests: Rust flour beetle(Tribolium

castaneum) 8 Merchant grain beetle: (

oryzaephilus Mercator) 9 Khapra beetle(Trogoderma

granarium) 10 Rice moth (Corcyra

cephalonica) 11 Indian meal moth(Plodia

interpunctella) 12 Tropical ware house moth(

Ephestia cautella) Integrated Pest Management Options for Better Crop Production. Monitoring Insect Pests The insect pest population can be monitored following either direct or indirect techniques. The technique selected mostly depends on the type of insect being studied and its behavior. In case of direct sampling, insect pests are monitored by counting insects through direct observation. This can be either absolute or relative estimates.

58

A selection of sampling techniques suitable for various types of pest is shown below: Insect Sampling method S.No Name of the pests Insect sampling methods 1 Whiteflies, midges, adult foliage beetles Sweep net, direct observation and counting

2 Lepidopteran adults -Spodoptera,Helicoverpa,

Aproaerema etc.,) Light trap (night flying insects); pheromone trap; sweep net

3 Lepidopteran larvae Direct observation and counting, beating/ shaking with ground cloth

4 Ground beetles (adult and larvae) Pitfall trap soil sample5 Thrips Direct observation and counting 6 Leaf miner larvae Direct observation and counting 7 Aphids Colored sticky trap; direct counting of colonies. 8 Leaf hoppers Colored sticky trap; sweep net 9 Beneficial insects Sweep net, pitfall traps, insect rearing, de-vac

(GV Ranga Rao, et al., 2006) Government Schemes: Campaign on Control of Red Hairy Caterpillar:

The campaign on control of Red Hairy Caterpillar was proposed for implementation in 5 pest endemic districts (Anantapur, Kadapa, Kurnool and Chittoor where RHC is an endemic pest on Groundnut and in Mahabubnagar district (where RHC is endemic pest on Castor crop) Wide publicity on preventive and control measures of RHC will be given through organization of meetings and display of posters in all important public places and distribution of pamphlets. ■Surveillance and monitoring of disease and pests :( State Govt., scheme) The detection of pests and diseases for their management at threshold level is of paramount importance for reducing crop losses. Surveillance and monitoring are the most important aspects in pest management. Pest scouting should be done at weekly intervals on a random sample of 20 plants per acre in the early stage of the crop. The weekly surveillance and monitoring report on the situation of insect pests and diseases will help the district level extension workers in taking proper decision on crop protection schedules and remedial measures. Subsidy is available per scout Rs 500/-per month for 5 months only during the cotton crop season. An amount of Rs. 1.00 lakh/district is allocated to East Godavari, Krishna, Guntur, Prakasam, Kurnool, Nalgonda, Warangal, Khammam, Karimnagar and Adilabad districts for surveillance and monitoring of diseases and pests. ■Weather Based Pest and Disease Forewarning Models in Groundnut: Weather based pest and disease forewarning models have been developed to certain extent (Singh et al., 1990, Jayanthi et al., 1993 and Prasad et al., 2008) Field experiments were conducted to study the influence of weather parameters on the incidence of pests and diseases in groundnut for 3 years i.e.

59

2004-‘05, 2006-‘07 and 2008-‘09 during Rabi season at Agromet–cell,Agricultural Research Institute, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad. The data were pooled and analyzed statistically with weather parameters using correlation and regression techniques. Correlation studies showed significant positive relationship of thrips damage with morning and evening relative humidity. Changing Pest and Diseases scenario: In 1997, rise in night temperatures in winter by 4-5OC lead to severe outbreak of Helicoverpa When there was increase rainfall the incidence of the Helicoverpa, Red hairy caterpillar; Spodoptera; Leaf spot diseases were on the increase state. Sucking pests Mites, leafminer incidence were on the increase when there was increase in temperature.(Raji Reddy,2009) ■ Spodoptera litura damage was positively influenced by evaporation and age of the crop. Leaf spot and rust incidence were mainly influenced by maximum temperature, evaporation and age of the crop. The regression equations were developed for groundnut pests and diseases using linear and non-linear models. The coefficient of determination (R2) was improved by 6 to 20% when non-linear regression equations were fitted. ■Thrips damage showed significant positive relationship with morning (0.34) and evening (0.37) relative humidity whereas maximum (-0.60) and minimum (-0.50) temperatures (mean -0.62) and evaporation (-0.47) were negatively associated with thrips damage. Jayanthi et al., (1993) observed that population of C. indicus had a positive correlation with morning relative humidity and a negative correlation with evening relative humidity. Among the regression models used for forecasting the pest and disease incidence, non linear regression models found to predict the pest and disease incidence more accurately than the linear models and hence these models can be utilized in agro advisories after validating with individual season data. Caliothrips indicus Bagnall commonly known as sesbania thrips is one of the serious pests of groundnut in Saurashtra region causing extensive losses. Using regression equation the predicted values of occurrence of thrips were calculated from 1999 to 2002. There was minimum deviation between the actual and predicted values of thrips population during certain months, indicating the feasibility of predicting the population occurrence using the prevailing weather factors. .(Nandagopal,2008) ■Weather factor and Pest and Disease situation in Anantapur: To study the effect of rainfall and dry spells on ground yield, three varieties of groundnut,viz., Vemana, K-6 and K-1271 were subjected to two moisture regimes, viz., rainfed and irrigated that were grown under three micro-environments by sowing them on three dates,viz., 9, 24 July and 8 Aug 2009. All the varieties under early, normal and late sown conditions experienced dry spells of 44, 39 and 55 days, respectively during pod development stage resulting in yield reduction of 47-55 percent in Vemana, 26-67 percent in K-6 and 43-61 percent in K-1271 over the yields of these varieties grown under irrigated conditions. Though total rainfall and rainy days from emergence to pod development were less in early sown conditions compared to normal or delayed sowing conditions, crop under early sowing achieved higher yield and yield attributes. Lesser percentage of yield reduction in all three varieties in the early sown

60

conditions was due to higher rainfall, rainy days and no dry spell during pegging and pod initiation stages. Yield and yield attributes in normal sowing was lowest and percentage reduction in yield was highest due to lowest rainfall and rainy days experienced during pegging and initiation stages and dry spell of 5 days duration in pod initiation stage. Shelling (%) and test weight were observed to be related with rainfall and rainy days during pod initiation to pod development stage, as late sown crop with highest rainfall during these stages (204.8 mm) recorded highest shelling and test weight followed by early and normal sowings with rainfall of 198.4 and 1.67.6 mm, respectively.(Weather and Pests-Annual Report-2009-Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture Santoshnagar, Hyderabad – 500 059, Andhra Pradesh-All India Coordinated Research Project on Agro meteorology- Weather Effects on Pests and Diseases--pp: 198 to 206) ■Validation of groundnut leaf miner (GLM) prediction model: Based on many years data on pest incidence and weather parameters, the following regression model was developed for prediction of leaf miner in groundnut = 0.47 + 0.004 X1+ 0.12 X2 – 0.019 X3 – 0.26X4 R2 = 0.91Where Y = Predicted GLM damage, X1 = Minimum Temperature, X2 = RH1, X3 = RH2,X4 = Sunshine hours; Application of the weather data of current year (2009) in the above model, GLM percent was predicted and compared with actual GLM percent for validating the model. Comparison of actual and predicted GLM showed that except in case of 25th June and 8thAug sown crop, it has under-predicted the intensity of leaf miner, the model needs further modification before its use in agro-advisories. ■Climate change scenarios in Anantapur-AP The climate scenario for Anantapur district as projected by National Communication (NATCOM, 2009) under A1b scenario suggests that compared to base line (1961-1990), the rainfall is going to decrease by about 14.4 per cent by 2021-2050 periods and by 8.7 per cent during 2071-2098 period. The south-west monsoonal rainfall (June- September) is projected to decrease by 17 per cent by 2021-2050 and by 29.4 per cent during the 2071-2098 periods. The severity of drought during July and September months of 2021-2050 period may be of concern as 20 per cent and 30.8 per cent decline, respectively, are projected. The scenario during 2071-2098 for the month of July is further worse with a projection of 39.6 per cent decline from the base period 1961-1990. The deficit is projected to be continued in the month of September with 31 per cent decrease during 2021-2050 that was projected to improve marginally to a decline of 18.6 per cent by 2071- 2098 period. The December to March rainfall showed significant increased trend in both the scenarios. Though small in amounts, the rainfall projections during December-March period may help during the critical periods of rabi crops leading to enhanced yields. A change in the cropping pattern is in offing.(NATCOM,2009) ■Maximum temperature The mean annual maximum temperature during the period 2021- 2050 is projected to increase by 2.8°C and further to 4.7°C by 2071- 2098.The mean maximum temperature during the southwest monsoon season is likely to increase by 2.3°C during 2021-2050 period and by 4.8°C during 2071-2098 period. The rabi (post monsoon) season mean maximum temperature is projected to increase by 3.9°C during 2021-2050 and which may further rise by 5.2°C during 2071-2098 period. The summer months of April and

61

May are likely to experience a 2.8°C rise in mean maximum temperature during 2021-2050 and the temperature is likely to rise by 4.8°C by 2071-2098 periods. ■Minimum temperature The mean annual minimum temperatures are likely to rise by 2.9°C during the 2021-2050 period and by 5.2°C during 2071-2098 (Fig.2.4). The mean minimum temperature during the southwest monsoon season is likely to increase by 2.2°C during 2021-2050 and by 4.2°C during 2071-2098. The rabi (post monsoon) season mean minimum temperature is projected to increase by 3.4°C during 2021-2050 andwhich may further rise by 5.9°C during 2071-2098 period. The summer months of April and May are likely to experience a 2.9°C rise in mean minimum temperature during 2021-2050 and the temperature is likely to rise by 5.3°C by 2071-2098. Groundnut is the principal Kharif crop of the Anantapur district cultivated over an area of about 8 lakh ha. The area under this crop increased from 2.5 lakh ha in 1970’s to 8 lakh ha by 2000. The average productivity is 730 kg/ha and large year to year fluctuations are noticed in the productivity. Highest productivity (1328 kg/ha) was recorded in 1996 and lowest yield (67 kg/ha) was recorded in 2006. Quantum and distribution of rainfall determines the productivity of groundnut to a large extent. Piara Singh et al., (1994) opined that rainfall is a major factor causing spatial and temporal variations in groundnut yields. Temperature is another dominant factor controlling the rate at which groundnut develops (Cox, 1979). In terms of plant growth and development, the diurnal temperature cycle is more important than either the regular seasonal cycle or the random effects of weather in the SAT (Monteith, 1977). To understand the climate change effects on groundnut, the response of the crop need to be assessed in terms of temperature increase and rainfall variability Monteith (1981) calculated in an earlier study the contribution that different weather factors have on yields of winter and spring sown crops of eastern England. He concluded that the two largest climatic causes of variation in yield were temperature and rainfall and their independent effects were three to four times larger than caused by variation in how much light was incident on crops. About 12 per cent yield variation in winter cereals on heavy soils was calculated to stem from variation in temperature, radiation and rainfall. This rose to 17 per cent of the yield variation on lighter soils. Decision Support System (DSS): In India, forewarning systems have been developed in crops like groundnut, cotton, rice and others. The Decision Support System(DSS) developed for late leaf spot of groundnut can be used as a stand alone forewarning system for different groundnut growing regions of India. Evaluation of limited research in plant protection and weather has shown positive or negative impacts or no impact. Hence, more critical data base on biotic stresses and their relation to abiotic factors is required for developing and fine tuning of pest prediction systems. In this paper, the development of weather-based forewarning systems for groundnut pest populations and identifying the critical gaps in our knowledge for their effective management is highlighted. (Ranga Rao et al.2006.)

62

Field experiments were conducted to study the influence of weather parameters on the incidence of pests and diseases in groundnut for 3 years i.e. 2004-05, 06-07 and 08-09 during rabi season at Agromet–cell, Agricultural Research Institute, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad. Correlation studies showed significant positive relationship of thrips damage with morning and evening relative humidity, while Spodoptera litura damage was positively influenced by evaporation and age of the crop. Leaf spot and rust incidence was mainly influenced by maximum temperature, evaporation and age of the crop. The regression equations were developed for groundnut pest and diseases using linear and non-linear models. The coefficient of determination (R2) was improved by 6 to 20% when non-linear regression equations were fitted. These models after validation will be utilized in issuing of agro advisories in the state. Rainfall is the most significant climatic factor affecting crop production in the SAT because most crops are rainfed. However, the relationship between groundnut yield and seasonal rainfall is often poor (Popov, 1984). A comparison of groundnut yields at Bambey, Sengal for 32 years showed fourfold changes at a seasonal rainfall of 800 mm.( Popov, 1984.) ■Yield Loss: Pande and Narayana Rao (2000) have observed up to 30 percent reductions in plant stand due to collar-rot and estimated 20 percent pod yield reduction in the farmers’ fields in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. pod deterioration caused by the soilborne pathogenic fungi has been reported to be potentially serious in several farmers’ fields in Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. A series of six experiments was conducted to study the relationships between production situation, injuries, and damage in the groundnut-rust-late leaf spot pathosystem. The production situation, represented by attainable yields, was varied by replicating the experiments over seasons and incorporating several input factors at different levels. Injuries, represented by log-transformed areas under disease progress curves, were manipulated by means of inoculations and fungicide applications. (Vijayalakshmi et al., 2009) The resulting database was used to develop damage functions, represented by yield and relative damage response surfaces, using multiple regression analysis. The corresponding equations indicate significant interactions between attainable yield and injuries on actual yield and relative damage. Further analysis indicates that injury-damage relations differ in rust and late leaf spot: whereas damage due to late leaf spot was mainly related to reduction of green leaf area and defoliation, damage due to rust was attributable to different mechanisms in addition to reduction of green leaf area. The negative interaction between the injurious effects of the two pathogens was ascribed to this difference.( Savary and J.C.Zadoks 1999)

Field experiments were conducted during the 1988 and 1989 rainy seasons to assess yield loss at different growth stages in groundnut (peanut) due to insect pests. The crop was infested by thrips at the vegetative stage; by thrips, jassids and Spilosoma obliqua Walker at flowering; by thrips, S. obliqua and Spodoptera litura Fabricius at pegging, and by S. litura and S. obliqua at both podding and pod maturity. The greatest yield loss caused by insect pests at any crop stage was 31.4% in 1988 and 23% in 1989. Damage occurring during the bloom and vegetative stages resulted in maximum yield loss. Thus, crop

63

protection measures at the vegetative and bloom stages are most effective in minimizing the yield loss due to insect pests in groundnut.(Singh, and Sachan,1992) There was a significant negative relationship between initial populations of M. arenaria and peanut yields; a linear model estimates a 10% yield loss with initial populations of 44–83 At least 10% of the survey samples were estimated to have root-knot nematode populations exceeding that necessary for a 10% yield loss. Other parasitic genera found in the survey were Pratylenchus (15.7% of the samples) and Belonolaimus (0.8% of the samples). While pod symptoms of Pratylenchusdamage were observed, reliable yield loss estimates can not be made with existing data.(Wheeler and Starr, 1987) Diseases and Yield Loss: The relationship between disease severity caused by Phaeoisariopsis personata [Mycosphaerella berkeleyi] and Cercospora arachidicola [Mycosphaerella arachidis] and yield losses was determined using mathematical models over 3 seasons. Tridemorph was used to control M. berkeleyi and carbendazim to control M. arachidis. Correlations between yield loss and infection/disease severity were calculated using linear regression analysis and models were developed. Disease severity and pod yield showed a high negative correlation. The data and prediction equation showed that, in 1990, the attainable yield was 6.66 g/plot and the yield declined by 6.08 g/plot for every 1% increase in disease severity. Similar results were recorded for the other 2 seasons. The results provide evidence for an empirical linear relationship between leaf spot severity and yield loss.( Das and Roy,1995) ■Losses due to major insect pests and diseases in ICRISAT mandate crops: Crop Constraint Yield Loss

Rs in crores Potential Yield Gain Rs.in Crores

Crop Improvement

Management Control IPM

Groundnut White grub 48.150 22.050 19.350 Late leaf Spot(LLS) 263.335 135.000 0 114.750 Rust 219.150 0 0 12.150 Early leaf Spot 146.700 36.900 0 63.000 Leaf miner 73.800 36.900 29.700 0 Aflotoxins/Termite 166.980 27.900 90.900 0 Spodoptera 43.650 0 14.400 0 Rossette/Clump

Virus 88.650 64.350 0 0

Bud necrosis 40.050 20.250 0 0 Total Biotic 1090.465 321.300 157.050 209.250 (H.C.Sharma, 2006)

64

■Major Pests of Groundnut: S.No Location Name of the Pests

I Foliar insects and Mites:Foliage feeding

Leafminer, Aproaerema modicella(Deventer)-

1 redhairy caterpillarAmsacta albistriga Wlk,and A.moorei Bult. 2 Bihar hairy caterpillar, Spilosoma oblique Wlk,( 3 tobacco caterpillar,Spodptera litura,(F); 4 gram pod borer,Heliothis armigeraHb II Sucking Pests Aphids-Aphis craccivora Koch, Leafhoppers,Balclutha hotensis Lindb,and Empoasca kerriPruthi; Two spotted white spider Mite;

Tetranychus hypogea, Two spotted red spider mite;Tetranychus cinnabarinus III Subterranean

pests Holotrichia consanguinea Blanch,

Odontotermes obesus(Rambur),O.brunneus (Hagen)Trinervitermes biformis(Wasmann),Microtermessp

IV Rodents Mus booduga,Rattus meltoda and Talera indica V Birds Crows;Corvus splendens; Blck ibis Psaubis papillasa ■Integrated Pest management of Pests-Management Options: ■Host Plant Resistance :( HPR) HPR research may focus on a few key insect pests and diseases of our mandate crops in the following areas: • Identification of stable sources, understanding components and inheritance of resistance • Utilization of wild relatives as gene sources to increase the levels and diversify the bases of resistance • Exploitation of novel genes and molecular marker approaches for pest resistance • Development of varieties with improved yields and better resistance to the target pests. HPR is a highly effective management option, but cultivated germplasm has only low to moderate resistance levels to some key pests and diseases. Increased resistance levels are required to minimize pest losses. Further, some sources of resistance have poor agronomic characteristics. Development of cultivars with enhanced resistance will strengthen the control of pod borers in legumes, stem borers in cereals, and aflatoxins in groundnut. Application of biotechnological tools shows promise in alleviating some of these constraints. Genetic engineering of plants makes it feasible to transfer genes from totally unrelated organisms, breaking species barriers not possible by conventional genetic enhancement. Integration of genetic transformation technology with conventional plant breeding would be most rewarding. At ICRISAT,

65

efficient transformation and regeneration of transgenic plants of groundnut, pigeon pea, chickpea and sorghum has been accomplished. The next phase of research on transgenic will involve the integration of transgenic into IPM strategies. The status of development of genetically modified plants in different crops against key target pests at ICRISAT .A Groundnut line ICGV 50 was found to be highly resistance to leaf miner and tobacco caterpillar. Two cultivars, ICGV 86031 and ICGV 86699 developed at ICRISAT were found to be highly resistant to leaf miner.( Nandagopal and Ghewande,2008) . ■Cultural methods: Considering the yield as well as the low level of resistance to leaf miner , August Ist or 2nd week appeared to be the best sowing time for higher yield in TMV 7Groundnut either as pure crop with 30 × 10 cm or 20 × 10 cm spacing alone with straw as mulch gave maximum control of leaf miner as well as increased level parasitation.(Logeswaran and Mohanasundaram,1985) Nandagopal,(1992) reported the low incidence of leaf miner when Bajra was intercropped with Groundnut and 74% reduction of egg laying by the leaf miner on the foliage treated with 10% concentration of bajra leaf water extract. ■Biological control methods (For some important Pests) It would be worthwhile exploring the possibilities in managing the diseases using biological control agents. Several bacterial and mycoparasites like Verticillium lacani, Penicilliura islandicum, Eudarluca caricis, Acremonium persicium, Darluca filum, Tuberculina costaricana, Hansfordia pulvinata and Euphysothrips minozzii on uredia of groundnut rust (P. arachidis) pathogen have been reported (Siddaramaiah et al., 1981; Shokes and Taber, 1983). Natural plant products and biopesticides offer a potentially viable alternative to synthetic insecticides since they are relatively safe to natural enemies,non‑target organisms, and human health. Environment friendly products such as Spinosads and Avermectins produced by actinomycetes,Nuclear Polyhedrosis virus (NPV) and Bt toxins are now being widely tested. 1. Leaf miner –Aproaerema modicella (Deventer)-Lepidoptera, Gelechiidae: Leafminer is the key pest of groundnut in Andhrapradesh.In AP, larval parasitism around Hyderabad, reaches up to 90% (Murthy 1989).Goniozus sp was most abundant in post –rainy season(Dec to April) whereas Stenomesius japonicas (Ashmead) and Apanteles sp were abundant in the rainy season.The percxentage of parasitism was greatest in Sep to Nov and Jan to March around Tirupati.AP.(Srinivasan and Rao,1987). Recent findings indicate that in addition to S.japonicus and Goniozus spp, Sympiesis dolichogaster (Ashmead) was the most abundant parasitoid. Viral and fungal pathogens killed up to 30 % of the larvae of A.modicella (Shanower et al 1992) Population of Coccinella septempunctata, Linnaeus. Showed peak activity during August and the population of leafminer, Jassids and thrips remained low during this period.(Upadhyay and Vyas,1987)

66

Intercropping of Groundnut with Cowpea(Vigna unguiculataL.Walp) or black gram (V.mungo) at a ratio of 3:1 gave significantly lower incidence of this pest(Logeswaran and Mohanasundaram,1985))Intercropping with Pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum) significantly reduced pest incidence and increased cocinella sp and C.sexmaculata were dominant predators and chelonus sp dominant parasitoids. (Kennedy et al., 1990) It is a serious pest in AndraPradesh.Over 40 species of hymenopterous parasitoids attack A.modicella eggs, larvae and pupae on groundnut. In AndraPradesh, larval parasitism around Hyderabad reaches about 90% (Murthy,1989).Goniozus sp. Was most abundant in the post rainy season(Dec-April) whereas, Stenomesius japonicas(Ashmead) and Apanteles sp. were abundant in the rainy season.The percentage of parasitism was greatest in September – November and January –March around Triathi,AP.(Srivasan Rao,1987) The average parasitism of a decade was 34 and 40 percent in rainy and post-rainy seasons, respectively..The larvae of carabid predator, Chlaenius sp were found inside mines of A.modicella during rainy season at Patancheru.Ap in groundnut.(Shanower and RangaRao,1990). Application of granular insecticides (Isofenphos 5G at 4 kg ai /ha, carbosulfan 10G at 4kg/ha and phorate 10G at 4 kg ai /ha during Khariff on rainfed groundnut had no harmful effect on the natural enemies of A.modicella. (Rajagopal and Gowda, 1992) 2. White Grubs, Holotrichia consanguinea (Blanchard), H.serrata (Fabricus). : It is commonly found in the heavier soil of south zone.Amoung the predators of beetles, birds-Black drango,Dicrurus adsimilis(Bechstein.) Blue jay Coracias bengalensis(Linnaeus) and Barn Owl Tyto alba(Scopoli),House sparrow,Passer domesticus(Linneaus) , common quail Coturnix coturnix (Linneaus), and insectivorous bat Scotophilus sp., may feed on the pest.The grubs are picked up by crows Carvus splendens Vieillot.Myna,Acridotheres tristis(Linneaus).The cross ploughings in the presence of birds may reduce 70% of the grubs present in the field.( Yadav,1991)Bacillus basiana(Balsamo) Vuillemin has also been found to be pathogenic to the grubs.B.brongniartii is effective against the root grub H.serrata when applied @ 1011 spores /ton of soil along with 50 g of HCH 50% wp/m2.(Jayaramaiah(1981). 3.Hairy Caterpillars,Amsacta albistriga(Walker), A.moorei( Butler) Red hairy caterpillar, Amsacta albistriga (Walker).A.moorei (Butler), Spilosoma obiqua Walker)(Arctiidae: Lepidoptera): Distribution: The epidemics of this pest occurred during 1977 in Srikakulam,Visakapattinam,Cuddappah,Kurnool,Ananthapur,and Chitoor districts.( Siva Rao et al.,(1977).Other host recorded were Finger millets,Cowpea,casor,Sorghum,cotton.Several other weeds such as Commelina bengalensis,Rhynchosia minimum, and Portulaca sp.,(Nagarajan and Ramachandran,1958).

67

■Cultural methods: Two field experiments were conducted to study the impact of growing intercrops such as cowpea, Sesamum, greengram, castor and redgram on the incidence of red headed hairy caterpillar, Amsacta albistriga Walker on groundnut during kharif, 2002 and 2003. In the early stage of the crop (up to 3 weeks after sowing), all the intercrops except redgram supported higher pest population compared to that on groundnut. In the later stage of the crop (35 days after sowing), castor and redgram recorded higher larval population but were statistically on par with sesamum and cowpea. Intercropped groundnut recorded significantly lower population of the pest compared to groundnut grown as sole crop. More than 80 per cent of the pest population was observed on the intercrops in the early stage of the groundnut crop (7 days after sowing).(Ganiger,et al,2009) ■Biological control Methods: A.albistriga, was found to be infected with nuclear polyhedrosis (AaNPV) at a oncentration of 108 POBs per ml provided 86.4 % mortality (Jayaraj et al., 1976) The gregarious and migrating behavior of the larvae also influenced the spread of the virus disease. (Jayqraj et al., 1989).AaNPV could be produced by collecting large number of moths on light traps, obtaining eggsin the laboratory, infesting larvae with AaNPV, harvesting and storing it for the next season. A bio-intensive integrated Pest management action plan for Amsacta spp. was suggested by Singh and Bakthavatsalam (1994) which includes deep summer ploughing to expose the pupae to predators and sunlight and collection and destruction of pupae; setting up of bonfires at community level between 7 and 11 pm for killing of emerging adult; collection and destruction of the eggs which are usually deposited on the under surface of the leaves in masses; inundative release of T.chilonis or T.brasiliensis immediately after adult emergence @ 50000 adults per hectare per release, repeat the release one week after first release in case adult emergence; foliar sprays of AaNPV 4.3 × 10 10 POBsper mlon early stage larvae or bacillus thuringiensis var kurstaki at 2g / lit; spray 4 % neem kenel suspension or malathion against mature larvae and avoid spraying with chlorpyriphos, dichlorovos, endosulfan, ethion,fenitrothion, phosolone and quinalphos as these insecticides are very toxic to adult parasitoids.

Efficacy of three medicinal plant extracts (neem leaf, cloves of garlic and cone of turmeric) and two bioagents viz., Trichoderma harzianum and Bacillus subtilis) were tested against the soil born pathogenic fungus, Sclerotium rolfsii to find out the inhibition of mycelial growth of the fungus. Inhibition of mycelial growth was maximum in Neem leaf extract and T. harzianum followed by cloves of garlic, cone of turmeric and B. subtilis. The results suggest that a combination of neem leaf extract and T. harzianum could be further exploited to develop an effective, and ecofriendly management package for this devastating pathogen.(Gour et al,2010) ■Use of Botanical and Herbals:

Efficacy of three medicinal plant extracts (neem leaf, cloves of garlic and cone of turmeric) and two bioagents viz., Trichoderma harzianum and Bacillus subtilis) were tested against the soil born pathogenic fungus, Sclerotium rolfsii to find out the inhibition of mycelial growth of the fungus. Inhibition of mycelial growth was maximum in Neem leaf extract and T. harzianum followed by cloves of garlic, cone of turmeric and B. subtilis. The results suggest that a combination of neem leaf extract and T. harzianum

68

could be further exploited to develop an effective, and ecofriendly management package for this devastating pathogen.(Johnson and Subramanyam-2010) It is a serious pest in Southern state especially in AP and Tamilnadu.A.moorei is serious pest in North states. The egg parasitoid Telenomus manolus Nixon parasitized up to 94% eggs of A,albistriga(Sundaramoorthy et al., 1976)Gunathilagaraj and Sundarababu, (1987) suggested that tachinid parasitoids, Palexorista solensisi(Wlk)A.albistriga was found to be infected with NPV (AaNPV) at a concentration of 108 POBs per mlprovided 86 % mortality.(Jayaraj et al., 1976) A bio-intensive integrated pest management action (BIIPM) plan for this pest was suggested by Singh and Bakthavatsalam(1994) which includes deep ploughing to expose pupae to predators and sunlight and collection and destruction of pupae; setting up of bonefires at community level between 7 and 11pm for killing emerging adults; destruction of eggs in the leaves;inundative release of Trichogramma chilonis or T.brassiensis immediately after the emergence of adults @ 50000 aduts per release and repeat in after one week. 4. Tobacco caterpillar, Spodoptera litura (Fabricius) It is a serious pest of tobacco but it has shifted to Groundnut particularly in AP.Over 30 species of parasitoids,31 predators including 9 species of birds and 15 entomopathogens have been recorded(Singh and Jalali,1997).The natural enemies frequently recorded were Chelonus formosanusSonan,C.carbonator,Marshal,C.heliopae,GuptaCotesia rufricus,(Haliday),Ichneumon sp.,Peribaea orbata(Weidemann).Exorista xanthaspis (Weidemann),Rhynocoris fuscipus(Fabricius)Apanteles sp.,and SlNPV @ 250 -500 larval equivalents in the evening hours has proved quite effective. 5. Gram Pod Borer, Heliothis armigera,(Hubner): It is a polyphagous pest. It is a serious pest in groundnut in coastal AndhraPradesh.Inundative release of Trichogramma chilonis @ 2,00,000 /week was effective for the suppression of this pest only for first four weeks of march.But,in April measures including sprays of HaNPV have to be adopted.(Anon,1993)Bracon gelechiae and Campoletis chloridae,Uchida, and migratory bird, rosy pastor, Sturnus roseus(Linnaeus) were common in the released field and controlled the pest.(Anon,1988) 6. White Grubs in Groundnut: Based on the field observations and the farmers’ experience,it was concluded that adults emerge soon after the summer rains (April–May) from their pupation sites White grubs cause severe plant mortality in groundnut crop sown in October than in the crop sown in M ay. Several dryland crops such as sugarcane, cassava and maize are also infested by white grubs. soil application of carbofuran (furadan) granules 3 G at 1 kg ai ha-1 controls the pest.However, the farmers are not clear about the efficient management of this pest. (C.V.Renga rao et al., 2006) . ■Future Needs for successful IPM:

• Exploratory surveys should be intensified to identify new natural enemies, • New biotics agents may be imported or introduced to combat accidently introduce pesta like

Serpentene leaf miner,

69

• Inoculative /inundative release application methods of natural enemies have to be standardized for different pests.

• Mass multiplication techniques have to be evolved for predators,parasitoids, and entomopathogens,

• Use of pheromones /kairomones to time the release and increasing the efficiency of natural enemies has to be standardartised

• Private, Public Partnership(PPP) must be encouraged to undertake I the production of Parasitoids, Predators, Entomopathogens etc.,in large scale with an affordable price for the farmer’s favour as it is being done for the Vegetables, Agricultural by-products, Agro-Processing etc.,

S.No

Name of the Pests

Name of the natural enemies Author reference

1 Aphids- Menochilus sexmaculatusFab., Coccinella repanda Thumberg.var transversalisFab.,C.maculata, C.septempunnctata:Brumus suturalis Fab.,Syrphids, Ischiodon scutellans Fab., I. javan , Bugs:Anthocoris sp and green lacewings: Chrysoperla cornea

Upadhyay and Vyas,1987

2 Leafhoppers E.kerri ,B.hortensis,

Predatory fly-Crassopalpus sp(Diptera) Reported feeding 27 leafhoppers in 10 hr when field conditionwas stimulated

Nandagopal,1988

3 Thrips Carayonocris indicus feeding on F.schltzei. Spiders predating on C.indicus

Nandagopal,1992

4 Leafminer Goniozus sp and Stenomesus japonicus Shanower et al, 1992

In AP, RHC is a serious pest.Telenomus manolus, Nixon, on egg of A.albistriga, Trichogramma brasiliensis (Ashmead) and Apanteles oblique on egg of A.moorei were effective egg parasitoids. Biotechnological approaches for pest management

• Marker-assisted selection • Mapping resistance to rust and early and late leaf spots in groundnut

Supply of bio-agents / bio-pesticide: Bio-agents and botanical pesticides are gaining importance in plant protection in view of IPM concept. Hence, 50% subsidy limited to Rs. 900/- per ha will be provided for supply of bio-agents such as Trichogramma, Chrysoperla, Trichoderma, NPV, Bt. Solution and botanical insecticides such neem oil, neem derivatives, sesamum oil etc.

70

■Chemical control There have been continuous efforts in evolving suitable fungicidal schedules for the control of groundnut diseases. Recently, a combination of minimal use of fungicides with moderate levels of HPR in the management of foliar diseases has been found economical and acceptable by the small and marginal farmers (Pande et al., 2000,b). Further, for an effective management of foliar diseases, weather-based disease forecasting systems have been developed and their use at field scale is under evaluation. Leaf-spots and rust are controlled by spraying carbendazim (Bavistin) @ 0.05 percent plus Mancozeb (Dithane M-45) @ 0.2 percent at intervals of 2 to 3 weeks, 2 or 3 times, starting from 4-5 weeks after planting. In the all India trials, this combination controlled both diseases effectively and gave the highest yields (Reddy, 1982). Application of Tridemorph (Calixin) as spray @ 0.07 percent gave complete control of rust (Ghuge et al., 1980). Natarajan et al. (1983) have recommended two sprayings of Triadimefon (Bayleton) @ 100 g acre-1 as 200 L spray solution to control rust. Recently, in the farmers’ participatory evaluation of a combination of moderate levels of HPR with judicious use of fungicides, Pande et al. (2000a) effectively controlled LLS and rust in groundnut cultivars ICGV 89109 and ICGV 91114 with one spray of chlorothalonil @ 2 g L-1 water and 800 L solution ha-1. The incidence of collar-rot can be minimized by treating the seeds with Thiram 75 WP @ 3.5 g kg-1 kernel. In places where Thiram is not available, Carbendazim/ Mancozeb/Captafol @ 2.0-2.5 g kg-1 kernel may be used (Singh and Ghewande, 1980). Good control of pre-emergence rot caused by M. phaseolina has been achieved by seed dressing with Captafol (Shanmugham and Govindaswamy, 1973). Brassicol 75 percent WP (0.5%) can also be applied @ 1 litre metre-2 or in the form of soil dust 25 kg ha-1 in two split applications, 12.5 kg ha-1 before sowing and the other 12.5 kg ha-1 15 days later (Shanmugham and Govindaswamy,1973). A mixture of fungicides, viz. terrachlor + terrazole @ kg ha-1 + 40 kg ha-1 at pegging was found effective in controlling stem-rot disease (Chohan, 1978). Soil drenching with carboxin has been reported to be effective against S. rolfsii (Amma and Shanmugham, 1974). Although several chemicals have been found effective in controlling stem-rot, these are not practicable at smallholder level.

A study indicated that application of imidacloprid @ 26.7 g a.i ha−1 at 25 and 40 days after sowing was found to be significantly effective in reducing Thrips, Scirtothrips dorsalis and Leafhoppers,Empoasca kerri in Groundnut. Imidacloprid was found significantly superior among various neonicotinoid compounds due to its quick action and persistence until 8 days after application. Maximum reduction of (80%) population in thrips at one day after application and 90% at 8days after application was noticed which was significantly superior over the other neonicotinoid compounds.( Yasa Venkanna Rao et al.,2010) Control of yellow mould and management of aflatoxin contamination in groundnut can be achieved by preventing the A. flavus group from entering groundnut tissues by either destroying or diverting the contaminated seeds and adopting improved crop husbandry (Mehan et al., 1991).

71

■Diseases of Groundnut: Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L) is the most important oilseed crop in India. It occupies 35 percent of the total area under oilseeds and contributes more than 40 percent to total oilseeds output (Prasad, 1994). Groundnut crop is prone to attack by many diseases and to a much larger extent than many other crops. More than 100 pathogens, including viruses, have been reported to affect groundnut but only a few are economically important in India such as leaf-spots [(‘Tikka’), early leaf-spot (Cercospora arachidicola), late leaf-spot (Puccina personate = C. personatum)], rust (P. arachidis)], and aflatoxin contamination (Aspergillus flavus and A. parasiticus). The other diseases such as collar rot (A. niger), stem-rot(S. rolfsii), root-rot (M. phaseolina = R. bataticola), bud necrosis (tomato spotted wilt virus), clump and peanut (groundnut) mottle disease are localized. Some of the diseases, which were of minor importance in the past, have become major today. Rust and bud necrosis which were not known two decades ago, have turned out to be of economic significance now. Recently, a new disease named as peanut stem necrosis disease [PSND], caused by tobacco streak virus (TSV), has become a potential threat to groundnut production in southern India. Madden (1987) defined integrated pest management (IPM) as “a holistic, multidisciplinary management system that integrates control methods on the basis of ecological and economic principles for pests that co-exist in an agro-ecosystem”. This notion certainly encompasses disease management within the groundnut production systems in India. Two major treatises on the diseases of groundnut and their management (Middleton et al., 1994 and Pande et al., 1996) provide an excellent background to the nature of the diseases, the pathogens that cause them, and an insight into the ongoing problems. Early leaf-spots (ELS) and late leaf-spot (LLS) are mainly prevalent during the kharif than the rabi season or in summer in almost all groundnut growing areas in the country and become endemic frequently. The LLS is usually more severe than ELS, but, recently severe outbreaks of ELS have been observed in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu (Pande and Narayana Rao, 2000). Late leaf spot (LLS) caused by Phaeoisariopsis personata (Berk. & Curt.) v. Arx is a disease of major economic interest of groundnut in the semi-arid tropics (SAT) of Asia. In both crop seasons, LLS severity in B. circulans GRS 243 and S. marcescens GPS 5 treatments was not significantly (P = 0.05) different from control. Chitin-supplemented application of these two isolates resulted in improved control of LLS. The effect of chitin supplemented application of B. circulans GRS 243 and S. marcescens GPS 5 on the severity of LLS was not different from chlorothalonil until 85 DAS. In these two treatments the severity of LLS at 95 DAS was 4.7 and 4.3, compared to 9.0 in the control and 3.0 in the 42chlorothalonil treatment..Chitin-supplemented application of B. circulans GRS 243 and S. marcescens GPS 5 resulted in an increase of 62 and 75% in pod yield compared to 102% increase in chlorothalonil treatment. (Suresh Pande, 2005) Collar-rot (A. niger) is prevalent in almost all groundnut growing areas of the country. It is a serious disease in the sandy loam and medium black soils of Punjab, Andhra Pradesh; Tamil Nadu.Stem-rot caused by S. rolfsii is sporadic in most of the groundnut growing areas of the country and is assuming importance in Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka (Pande and Narayana Rao, 2000.)- Similarly, root-rot (M. phaseolina) which was sporadic all over the country in light soils, is particularly serious in Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh,( Pande and Narayana Rao, 2000a.). -

72

Yellow mold and the related aflatoxin contamination of groundnut seed occur throughout the world; however, they are more severe in subtropical and tropical regions. It has been reported from all the groundnut producing regions. Aflatoxins produced by the fungi A. flavus and A. parasiticus are the most potent of known carcinogens (Mehan et al., 1991). Bud necrosis (tomato spotted wilt virus) of groundnut is wide-spread with a broad host range. It is a serious disease in Andhra Pradesh (Pande and Narayana Rao, 2000) Clump disease (virus), first reported from the former Madras State by Sundara Raman (1926) was later observed during 1977 in crops grown in the sandy soils of Punjab and Gujarat and was also reported from Uttar Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh. The occurrence of peanut (groundnut) mottle disease (virus) was first reported in Andhra Pradesh by Reddy et al. (1978)During the 2000 kharif season, an outbreak of a new disease identified as “peanut stem necrosis disease” (PSND) resembling bud necrosis and caused by an isolate of tobacco streak virus (TSV), was recorded from Andhra Pradesh (Reddy, D.V.R.,(personal communication). ■Integrated Management of Diseases: ■Host resistance Host-plant resistance to foliar diseases is not available in the high-yielding groundnut varieties. A large collection of the world germplasm has been screened against leaf-spots and rust under laboratory and field conditions at ICRISAT, and the lines showing resistance have been identified (Mehan et al. 1996, Subrahmanyam et al., 1980)

• High levels of resistance to insect pests and pathogens have been identified in the wild relatives of groundnut,

• Sources of resistance to groundnut foliar diseases are widely available and several resistant varieties have been released for cultivation

• Integrated management of groundnut foliar diseases – combining HPR in high-yielding varieties (both short- and medium-duration) and economical use of fungicides (based on critical growth stage of the host and weather conditions) – has been validated with over 800 farmers in the states of Andhra Pradesh.

■Development of genetically modified plants for resistance to insect pests and diseases Genetic engineering of plants makes it feasible to transfer genes from totally unrelated organisms, breaking species barriers not possible by conventional genetic enhancement. Integration of genetic transformation technology with conventional plant breeding would be most rewarding. At ICRISAT, efficient transformation and regeneration of transgenic plants of groundnut, pigeonpea, chickpea and sorghum has been accomplished.

73

■Development of genetically modified crops at ICRISAT for resistance to insect pests and diseases Crop Constraint Genes Status Groundnut I PCV virus Coat protein / Replicase T4-T7 events field tested in 2002, 03, 04 and 05; 5/50 events selected so far GRAV virus Coat protein 61 T3 events ready for testing in Africa PBNV virus N-gene 24/48 T2 events being evaluated in greenhouse and contained field tests (2005) TSV virus Coat protein 12 T1 events available Aflatoxins Rice chitinase 3/30 T4 events under greenhouse testing ■On-farm validation of Integrated Disease Management One hundred and sixty farmers from the state of Andhra Pradesh participated in raising these on-farm trials using normal agronomic practices. Two earlymaturing genotypes, ICGV 89014 and ICGV 91114, and a local cultivar were evaluated in these trials. Fungicide, Kavach, was sprayed once at 60 DAS. Foliar diseases were scored as in earlier experiments. Three randomly sampled plots (2 × 2 m) were harvested. Haulm and pod yields were calculated for one hectare after drying. The rate of progress of severity of foliar diseases was significantly slower and less up to 85 days in ICGV 89104 and ICGV 91114 than in local cultivar with single spray, given at 60 DAS. The response to minimal fungicide application, and thereby substantial reduction in epidemic growth of foliar diseases as exhibited by HPR in these genotypes resulted in an increase in haulm yield by 87 percent and pod yield by 140 percent. Net profit of Rs 15,400 from these genotypes and Rs 3500 from local cultivar were obtained. Thus, a four-fold increase in net income in on- farm IDM trials was achieved at several locations. ■Development and validation of location specific Integrated Pest Management technology (Annual Report -2010-11-National centre for Integrated Pest Management – New Delhi) Validation of IPM technology in groundnut was taken up for the second consecutive year during 2010- 11 at Hanumangarh, Udaipur districts in Rajasthan and Kadiri in AndraPradesh through Farmer’s Field Schools (FFS’s) and Farmer Field Day, display of Visual- Aids and publicity through print & electronic media and by visiting regularly the adopted villages. Report of the various trials is presented centre wise below ■Centre: Kadiri-AP Fifteen farmers families were selected to implement the programme covering 6 ha area at Gangasanipalli, Veeraiah pallipeta and Yetigadda thanda villages in Kadiri mandal (A.P) . Soon after the rains, groundnut seeds were treated first with imidacloprid @ 2ml/kg and later with Dithane M-45 @ 3 g/kg seed and kept overnight. The treated seeds were sown by majority of farmers during 2nd and 3rd week of June and a few remaining farmers had sown during 2 nd and 3 rd week of July in the field with 11: 1 ratio i.e., 11 rows groundnut and 1 row red gram as inter crop. Sorghum was sown as border crop (4 rows) and cowpea was sown as trap crop with sufficient moisture in the field. Twenty-five days after sowing, pheromone traps @ 5 / ha, and bird perches @ 10/ha were installed in the IPM field. In FP, farmer grows only local recommended varieties TMV 2 and JL 24 (Table 7).

74

■Pest Incidence ■Diseases The incidence of dry root rot in IPM plots ranged from 1.5 to 5.0 % where as in farmers’ practice fields the incidence varied from 3.0 to 11.0 %. With respect to stem rot, the incidence in IPM fields ranged from 1.5 to 4.0% where as in farmers’ practice it varied from 4.2 to 11.0 %. The PSND incidence in IPM fields varied from 0.5 to 4.0 % whereas in farmers’ practice it varied from 4.0 to 13.0 %. The late leaf spot was recorded at 90 days after sowing, its incidence varied from 22.5 to 44.0 scale in IPM fields, whereas in farmers’ practice the incidence varied from 71.0 to 90.0 scale ■Insect Pests Data on other insect pests are presented in Table 8. Thrips incidence ranged from 13.2-22.8% at 30 DAS and 22.6 -40.5% at 60 DAS and mean was 25.28 % in IPM as compared to 29.4 – 58.3% at 30 DAS, 48.0- 76.5% at 60 DAS and mean of 57.59% in FP . Leaf miner damage ranged from 4.7-12.1% with a mean of 9.99% in IPM and 9.5-43.4% with a mean of 20.54 % in FP. Defoliators incidence range were observed from 4.6-12.1% (mean 7.97%) in IPM as compared to 11.4- 25.3% (mean 18.42%) in FP. IPM Consultant had the opportunities of visiting Agricultural Research Station (ARS) at Kadri, Anathapur District on 23-11-2011.I had a detailed discussion on the research activities and over IPM,groundnut.It was informed that the var.,Kadri-6 a popular variety amoung farmers.K-9 is the multiple resistant variety under drought condition. Border crop with Jowar 4:8 rows was able to minimize the thrips migration. Viral diseases prevented.Trichoderma application @ 2kg in 100kg for one acre before sowing, and seed treatment imidacloprid @ 2ml per kg of seeds+ mancizeb 3 gmor Tebuconazole 2% DS gives protection for 20 DAS. Gypsum application @ 30 days after sowing and usage of sprinkler against sucking pests ■Main components of IPM and FP during Kharif 2010: IPM Module S.No Components

1 Seed treatment with Imidacloprid @ 2 ml/kg + Dithane

M-45 @ 3 g/kg seed. 2 Soil application of FYM (100 kg) augmented

With Trichoderma viride @ 2 Kg/ha 3 Pheromone traps @5/ha for S. litura 4 Border crop with sorghum/Pearl millet5 Trap crop with Cowpea/Castor. 6 Inter crop with Red gram 11:1 ratio. 7 Need based pesticide application (NSKE 5% or Neem

oil 5%). 8 LLS control at 70 DAS. 9 Variety: K-6 10 Farmers’ Practices (FP)

Farmers use mancozeb and monocrotophos if subsidy is provided by the government, otherwise the crop remains unprotected.

75

■IPM Module-Diseases: Module

Disease Insects

% Collar rot

Dry root rot

Stem rot

PSND Late Leaf Spot

Thrips Leaf miner

Defoliator Damage

IPM 0.51 2.82 2.63 2.18 35.53 25.28 9.99 7.97 FP 3.43 7.01 6.67 7.50 79.22 57.59 20.54 18.42 Five pheromone traps /ha were installed for monitoring the male moth catches of S.litura in IPM plots to time the application of insecticide for protecting the crop from its damage. The maximum moth catch was observed in 40thstandard week (1-7Oct.) and minimum moth catches were noticed from 24thstandard week (25thJune – 1stJuly) to 30thstandard week (23-29th) and after 45thstandard week (5-11Nov.). Based on moth catches in pheromone traps (Fig. 1), spraying of Neem oil at 45 days after sowing and quinalphos @2.0 ml/1 spray, 70 days after sowing in IPM fields protected the crop from insect pests and recorded less incidence of leaf miner as well as defoliators damage than farmers’ practice fields.

■Economics of IPM:

Variables

IPM FP

Groundnut Mean Yield ( Q// ha 7.83 6.40 Total cost (all inputs( Rs 16008 14354 �otal return Rs. 29669 12518 Net return Rs 13661 9419 Benefit Cost ratio 1.85 1.71 * Cost of Groundnut - Rs. 3500/q, * Cost of Red gram -Rs. 4000/q (Yields red grams in IPM 64.7/q & in FP 31.7/q ■Weed Management:

Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) is an important oil seed crop of Andhra Pradesh, which has low productivity and high cost of production.Area, production and productivity of groundnut duringrabi in India were 6.41 Mha, 9.18 MT, and 1432 kgha-1 during 2008, In AndraPradesh, the area, production, and productivity of groundnut were 2.64Mh a , 5 . 0 7 MT a n d 1 9 2 1 k g h a 1 r e s p e c t i v e l y(Department of Agriculture, AP, 2008-2009). Weed infestation is considered as one of the major factorsin Rabi groundnut production.

Weed interference resulted in yield losses ranging between 74 and 92percent (Agostinho et al., 2006). Critical period ofcrop weed competition for groundnut crop wasr e p o r t e d t o b e u p t o 4 5 D A S a n d w e e d f r e eenvironment during this period registered higher podyield (Rao, 2000). Usually, in groundnut, weeds arecontrolled by physical methods and these cannot beused at all times and all

76

stages of crop growth.Further; the labour availability for weeding is scarceand expensive. Use of pre and post emergenceherbicides is the best alternative for weed control atcritical periods. Combination of physical and chemicalmethods by use of post emergence herbicides like Imazethapyr or Quizalofop-p-ethyl (Bhatt et al., 2008)were suggested for controlling weeds effectively atlater stages of crop growth and maintenance of weedfree environment at critical stage of crop growth(Sailaja et al., 2002).

Therefore field experiment was initiated to find out an effective and economical integrated weed management practice in rabigroundnut.Field experiment was conducted at College Farm, Rajendranagar of Acharya N.G Ranga Agricultural University. Due to application of pre-emergence herbicide which might have reduced the broad leaved weeds and certain grasses at early stage of cropgrowth (20 DAS). At 40 DAS, effective control ofgrasses, sedges and broad leaved weeds was noticedwith hand weeding, intercultural perations and postemergence application of herbicides. Imazethapyracts by inhibiting the enzyme activity and causes the disruption of protein synthesis and othersubsequent bio-chemical reactions, which in turninhibits the plant growth. (Srinivasa Rao et. al.2008)

Groundnut crop is highly susceptible to weed infestation because of its slow growth in the initial stages upto 40 days, short plant height and under ground pod bearing habit. Groundnu weeds comprise diverse plant species from grasses to broad-leaf weeds and sedges, and cause substantial yield losses (15–75%) which are more in rainfed Spanish bunch type than in irrigated Virginia type groundnut. Besides this, weeds are preferred host of several insect-pests, and the vectors of many important organisms causing diseases in groundnut. Weeds also affect groundnut through the production of harmful allelochemicals. Thus, weed control is the foremost critical production factor in groundnut cultivation and in this review; various physical, chemical, mechanical and cultural methods that curtail the growth and spread of weeds have been discussed. Herbicides were found to be selective in controlling many weeds in monocropping as well as in cropping systems. Herbicides, though, selective, efficient and cost effective weed control measure in controlling weeds in groundnut, the maximum benefit can be achieved by combining herbicides with manual, cultural and mechanical weed control methods. These methods of weed control also vary with the groundnut growing situation and the cropping systems. In this review, an effort was made to compile the information on feasible weed management practices for groundnut in India and the future strategies to very simple, cheap, effective, and environmentally safe integrated approaches.( Meena et al., 2011).

Weed minimizing the crop-weed competition particularly at early stage of groundnut usually encounters with diverse weed flora, the yield could improved upon by about 20–30%. Reduction of pod yield owing to competition with weed depends on the duration of the crop weed competition in general and the stages of crop growth in particular. The yield losses are more pronounced in rain fed crop. When the groundnut fields are kept weed free for a period of at least first 6 weeks there is no significant reduction in pod yield. On the other hand, when groundnut competes with weeds at 4 8 weeks the reduction in pod yield is substantial. Effectiveness of weed control is largely dependent on the weed species prevalent, its life cycle and method of propagation. Since mechanical/cultural method alone does not ensure weed free condition, the use of herbicides in combination with cultural methods should be adopted. In areas where agricultural labourer is scarce and costly, herbicides may be used as pre and post emergence application to control weeds. Several studies have shown that the productivity of groundnut is reduced considerably when weed competition occurs during the early stage of the crop. Several workers have reported different critical periods ranging from 30 to 60 DAS revealed that critical period of weed competition was between 2 to 8 weeks after sowing. In general, weed competition in

77

groundnut is more severe for the first 6 weeks from sowing. Several methods have been employed to check the growth of weeds and to improve the crop stand and productivity. From the traditional method of hand weeding and hoeing, modernized methods of weed management is the need of the day through the introduction of herbicides to meet labor shortage to effect early weed control and reduce the cost of weeding. However, no single method has been found to be quite effective in reducing the weed intensity and hence an integrated approach is essential. The integrated method of weed control is found to be more suitable for the management of a broad spectrum of weeds.(Annadurai et al.,2010)

4.3. References: Integrated Pest Management in Groundnut:

Amma and Shanmugham,(1974),Studies on the root rot of groundnut (Ed.,P.S.Reddy),pp.393-452.Annadurai K., Puppala Naveen, Angadi Sangu, Chinnusamy C.-AgriculturalEngineering college and Research Institute, Kumulur, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Tamil Nadu, Kumulur - 621 712, India. Integrated Weed Management in Groundnut Based Intercropping System - A Review-Agricultural Reviews-Year: 2010, Volume: 31, Issue: 1-First page: (11) Lastpage (20 Ammual Report-2010-11, National centre for Integrated Pest Management – New Delhi)- Development and validation of location specific Integrated Pest Management technology Anonymous.(1988). Annual report International Crop Research Institute for Semi Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru,, Andrapradesh,India. Anonymous, 2010. ICAR Network project on impact, adaptation and vulnerability of Indian agriculture to climate change. Annual report2009-2010, p284. Bapuji Rao,B,,B.V. Ramana Rao A.V.M. Subba Rao, N. Manikandan S.B.S.Narasimha Rao, V.U.M. Rao, B. Venkateswarlu-Research Bulletin(1)-2011,Assessment of the impact of increasing temperature and rainfall variability on crop productivity in dry lands -An illustrative approach)- All India Coordinated Research Project on AgrometeorologyCentral Research Institute for Dry land Agriculture Saidabad, Hyderabad – 500 059, A.P., India Cox. F.R. 1979. Effect of temperature treatment on peanut vegetative and fruit growth. Peanut Sci., 6:14-17. Das, S.and Roy, T.K.1995- Assessment of losses in groundnut due to early and late leaf spots. International Arachis Newsletter 15:34-36. Ganiger,P.C.,V.T. Sannaveerappanavar, V.C.Reddy,2009- Impact of growing intercrops on the incidence of red headed hairy caterpillar, Amsacta albistriga (Walker) on groundnut- Karnataka Journal of AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, Vol 22, No 3 (2009) 527Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 22(3-Spl.Issue) : (527-528 ) 2009

Ghuge et al., 1980). Gour H N, Sharma Pankaj*, Kaushal R-2010, Efficacy of Phytoextracts and Bioagents Against Root Rot of Groundnut Induced by Sclerotium rolfsii- Indian Journal of Plant Protection-Year : 2010, Volume : 38, Issue : 1-First page : ( 73) Last page : ( 75) )

78

Ghewande, M.P., A.K. Shukla, R.N. Pande and D.P. Mishra. 1983. Losses in groundnut yields due to leaf-spots and rust at different intensity levels.Indian Journal of Mycology and Plant Pathology 13(l): 125-127. Gunathilagaraj, K. and Sundarababu, P.C.(1987).Amsacta albistriga Wlk., on groundnut nd other crops.FAO Plant prot.Bull.35(2),63-64.

Gour H N, Sharma Pankaj, Kaushal R-2010, Efficacy of Phytoextracts and Bioagents Against Root Rot of Groundnut Induced by Sclerotium rolfsii- Indian Journal of Plant Protection-Year : 2010, Volume : 38, Issue : 1-First page : ( 73) Last page : ( 75) )Use of Botanical and Herbals: Jayanthi M, Singh K M and Singh R N 1993. Populations build up of insect pests on MH4 variety of groundnut influenced by abiotic factors. Indian Journal of Entomology 55 : 109-123. Jayaraj,S.Sundaramurthy,V.T.and Mahadevan,N.R.,1976,.laboratory studies on the Nuclear Polyhedra virus of red hairy caterpillar of Groundnut Amsacta albistriga (Walker).Symposium on Plant protection Research and development .part B-Herbicides,Pesicide degradation and Microbiology , and Integarted Pest control.Madras 63:567 -569. Jayaramaiah, M, 1981, Studies on the Entomogenous fungus Beauveria brongniartii Sacc.Petch in relation to white grubs, Holotrichia serrata Fab. And silkworm Bombyx mori.L and possibilities of its use in the management of the whitegrubs.PhD, thesis (Unpublished) University of Agricultural scienes, Bangalore.

Johnson M, Subramanyam K,Agricultural Research Station, Anantapur - 515001, Andhra Pradesh, India, E mail:.-Horticultural Research Station, Anantapur - 515001, Andhra Pradesh, India.- Evaluation of Different Fungicides Against Seed and Soil Borne Diseases of Groundnut- Indian Journal of Plant Protection-Year : 2010, Volume : 38, Issue : 1-First page : ( 80) Last page : ( 83) Kennedy,F.J.S.,Rajamanickam,K and Raveendran,T.S.1990,,Effect f intercropping on insect pests of groundnut and their natural enemies.Journal of Biological Control,4(1),63-64. Logeswaran,G. and Mohanasundaram,M.(1985).Effect of intercropping ,spacing and mulching in the control of groundnut leafminer: Aproaerema modicella Deventer,Gelechidae,) Lepidoptera. Madras Agricultural Journal, 72,695- 700. Madden, L.V. 1987. Pests as parts of the ecosystem in pesticides: Minimizing the risks, Chapter 7, In: ACC Symposium Series 336, (Eds. N. Nancy, Ragsdale and R.J. Kuhr). American Chemical Society, USA. Mehan, V.K., D. McDonald, L.J. Haravu and S. Jayanthi. 1991. The Groundnut aflatoxin problem: Review and literature database. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru, A.P. 502324, India, 387 pp. Mehan, V.K., P.M. Reddy, P. Subrahmanyam, D. McDonald and A.K. Singh. 1991. Identification of new sources of resistance to rust and late leafspot in peanut. International Journal of Pest Management 42: 267-271.

79

Meena,R.S. H. N., Singh A. L., Surya Jaya N., Misra J. B.-2011,Weed management in groundnut (Arachis Hypogaea L.) In India - A Review-Jat 71) Directorate of Groundnut Research, P.B. 05, Ivnagar Road, Junagadh-362 001, India-AgriculturalReviews-Year : 2011, Volume : 32, Issue : 3-First page : ( 155) Last page : ( 1) Monteith, J.L. 1977. Climate. Pages 1 -25 (In) Ecophysiology of tropical crops.Alvim, P. de T. and Kozlowski, T.T. (Eds), Academic press, New York, USA. Monteith, J.L. 1981. Presidential address to the Royal Meteorological Society. Q. J. Royal Meteorol. Soc. 107:749-774.) Murthy, S.N.(1989). Biological suppression of pulse and Oilseeds pests,pp84-106,Proceedings of the seminar-cum-Seventh Workshop on Biological control of crop pesta and weeds.AICRP on BCCP & W, Biological Control centre(ICAR-NCIPM),Bangalore,Tech.Doc.No:26.pp191. Nagarajan, K.R, and Ramachandran, N.1958,, Some adaptation in the habitats of red hairy caterpillars,Amsacta albistrigaM,Madras Agricultural Journal.46(12):417-419. Nandagopal, 1992,, First record of insect pests and predators of thrips and jassids in groundnut. International Arachis news letter.11:26. Nandagopal, 2008, Ecology of Groundnut pests,in Groundnut Entomology,edited by V.Nandagopal and K.Gunathilagaraj,Satish serial Publishing House,Azadpur,New Delhi. NATCOM, 2009-.India’s National Communication to UNFCCC. Data Extraction tool for Regional Climate Scenario (PRECIS) for India. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. NANDAGOPAL,V. T.V.PRASAD, M.V.GEDIA and A.D.MAKWANA,2008, Influence of weather parameters on the population dynamics of sesbania thrips (Caliothrips indicus Bagnall) in groundnut in Saurashtra region- Journal of Agro meteorology 10(2) : 175- 177 (Dec. 2008) Nandagopal, V, and M.P.Ghewande,2008 in Groundnut Entomology 2008; Editors V.Nandagopal and K.Gunathilagraj) Pande, S., J. Narayana Rao, D. McDonald, M.M. Anders and L.M. Reddy.1993. Diseases of groundnut in groundnut/pigeonpea intercroppingsystem. International Arachis Newsletter 13: 13-15. Pande, S. and J. Narayana Rao. 2000. A.Changing scenario of groundnut diseases in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu states of India.International Arachis Newsletter 20: 42-44. Pande,S. J. Narayana Rao and M.I. Ahmed-2000,b. Proceedings 11-Integrated Pest Management in Indian Agriculture- Integrated Management of Groundnut Diseases in India-2004) Pande, S., C.D. Mayee and D. McDonald. 1996. Integrated management of groundnut diseases, pp 285-304 In: Plant protection and environment (eds. D.V.R. Reddy, H.C. Sharma, T.B. Gaur and B.J. Diwakar). Plant Protection Association of India, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad 500030, Andhra Pradesh, India.

80

Piara Singh, Boote, K.J., A. Yogeswara rao, M.R. Iruthayaraj, A.M. Shekh,S.S. Hundal, R.S. Narang and Phool Singh. 1994. Evaluation of the groundnut model PNUTGRO for crop response to water availability, sowing dates, and seasons. Field Crops Res., 39: 147-162.) Popov, G. F. 1984.Crop monitoring and forecasting. Pages 307-316 (In) Agrometeorology of sorghum and millet in the semi-arid tropics. Proc.Intl. Symp., 15-20 November 1982; ICRISAT, Patancheru, India. Prasad, M.V.R. 1994. Oilseeds: Growth should accelerate. Section 3, pp.49-52 In: The Hindu Survey of Indian Agriculture (Ed. N. Ravi). National Press, Kasturi Buildings, Madras, Tamil Nadu, India.-Middleton, K.J., S. Pande, S.B. Sharma and D.H. Smith. 1994. Diseases. pp 336-394 In: The groundnut crop: A scientific basis for improvement (ed. J. Smart). Chapman & Hall Ltd. Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers, London, UK. Prasad T V, Nanda Gopal V and Gedia N V 2008. Seasanal abundance of Sesbania thrips, Caliothrips indicus Bagnall in groundnut. Journal of Agrometeorology (Special issue –Part 1) : 211-214 Rajagopal, D and Gowda, V.(1992).Efficacy of granular insecticides in the management of groundnut leaf miner Aproaerema modicella(Deventer)-Lepidoptera,Gelechiidae:Tropical Pest management 38 1),82-84. Raji.D, Reddy, 2009, Agricultural Research Institute, ANGR Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad,presentation during 2009) Ranga Rao,G.V. S Desai, OP Rupela, K Krishnappa and Suha-2006- International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)-Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India) Ranga Reddy.G.V.,S.Dsai,Y.V.R.Reddy,V.Rameshwar Rao and V.S.R.Dasi -2008-International Crops Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru 502 324, AP., India. Central Research Institute for Dry land Agriculture (CRIDA), AP, India, Journal of Agrometeorology (Special issue - Part 2): 502-507 (2008)) Reddy, D.V.R., N. Iizuka, A.M. Ghanekar, A.K. Murthy, C.W. Kuhn, R.W.Gibbons and J.S. Chohan. 1978. The occurrence of peanut mottle virus in India. Plant Disease Reporter 62: 978-982. Savary and J.C. Zadoks 1999,- - Analysis of crop loss in the multiple pathosystem groundnut-rust-late leaf spot. I. Six experiments-Crop Protection-Volume 11, Issue 2, April 1992, Pages 99-109) Season and Crop Report AndhraPradesh,2009-10,Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Government Of AndhraPradesh,Hyderabad,500004. Sharma, H.C.-2006- Integrated Pest Management Research at ICRISAT, Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India: Present status and future priorities) Siddaramaiah, A.L., S.A. Desai and R. Jayaramaiah. 1981. Occurrence and severity of mycoparasite on tikka leaf-spots of groundnut. Current Research 10: 14-15. Siva Rao,D.V,Swamy,M.T.,and Raju,A.P.1977,,Out break of Amsacta albistriga,Walker. On Groundnut in Andrapradesh.Entomologists’Newsletter, 5:47.

81

Shokes, F.M. and R.A. Taber.1983. Occurrence of a hyperparasite of Cercosporidium personatum on peanut in Florida. Phytopathology 73: 505. Shanower.T.G. and RangaRaoG.V.(1990),Chlaenius sp.,(Col;Carabidae):a new predator of groundnut leafminer,larvae.International Arachis News lette.,8,19-20. Shanower.T.G. Gutierrez, A.P and Ranga rao, G.V.1992, Larval parasitoids and pathogens of Groundnut leaf miner: Aproaerema modicella DeventerLepidoptera, Gelechidae, in IndiaEntomophaga.37 (3):419-427. Shanmugham, N. and Govindaswamy, G.V.1973,Control of Macrophomina root rot of groundnut.Madras Agric.J.60,500-503. Singh T V K, Singh K M and Singh R N 1990. Groundnut pest complex: IV.Regression studies to determine the associationship between Jassids and thrips and weather parameters. Indian Journal of Entomology 52 : 693-701.) Singh, K N and Sachan, G C.1992, Assessment of yield loss due to insect pests at different growth stages of groundnut in Pantnagar, Uttar Pradesh, India. Crop Protection, 11 (5). pp. 414-418) Singh,S.P.and Bakthavatsalam,N,1994,ManagementofAmsactasp Lepidoptera,arctiidae),: Present status ,Project Directorate of Biological Control ,Bangalore,India,Technical document,(42).,19-21. Suresh Pande, 2005-Biocontrol of groundnut diseases- Biocontrol Research at ICRISAT: Present Status and Future Priorities- Proceedings of the In-house Group Discussion: 5th- Biocontrol Research at ICRISAT: Present Status and Future Priorities, April 2005 Srinivasan, S.and Rao, D.V.S.(,1987) New report of parasites of groundnut leaf webber Aproaerema modicella DeventerLepidoptera, Gelechidae)Entomon:12(2):11 -12. Srinivasa Rao,S.,M.Madhavi and C.Raghava Reddy,2008,Integrated approach for Weed Control in rabi Groundnut,(Arachis Hypogeae L) Departmant of Agronomy, College of Agriculture,Acharya N G Ranga Agricultural University,Rajendranagar – 500030 Subrahmanyam, P., V.K. Mehan, D. J. Neville and D. McDonald. 1980. Research on fungal diseases of groundnut at ICRISAT. Proceedingsof International Workshop on Groundnut, 13-18 October, 1980.Patancheru, A.P., India. Pp.193-198. Sundaramoorthy.V.T. Jayaraj,S. and Swamiappan,M(1976) Telenomus manolus Nixon, apotential egg parasitoid of groundnut red hairy caterpillar Amsacta albistriga Walker.Current Science.45:21 et al., 1976) Sundara Raman. 1926. A clump disease of groundnuts. Madras Agricultural Department Yearbook, 1976: 13-14. Upadhyay.V.R.and Vyas,H.N.,1987,.Integrated pest control of major pests of groundnut in Gujarat in relation to pest population levels and coccinellids predatory population.national symposium on

82

Integrated Pest Control –Progress and Perceptives(Oct 15 -17,1987,(Absracts).Assosiation of Advancement of entomology.Trivandrum,Kerala,India,pp.6 VijayalakshmiK.,D. Raji Reddy2N.R.G. Varma3 and G. Pranuthi4-2009- Agromet Cell, ARI, ANGRAU, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-500030, AP.- WEATHER BASED PEST AND DISEASE FOREWARNING MODELS IN GROUNDNUT IN THE CONTEXT OF CLIMATE CHANGE- ISPRS Archives XXXVIII-8/W3 Workshop Proceedings: Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture Vijaya Lakshmi.K,, D Raji Reddy, and N R G Varm-2010)- Indian Journal of Plant Protection Vol. 38. No. 1, 2010 (28-30) Wheeler.T.A, and J.L.Starr-1987-Incidence and Economic Importance of Plant-Parasitic Nematodes on Peanut in Texas- Peanut Science: July 1987, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 94-96. Weather and Pests-Annual Report-2009-Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture Santoshnagar, Hyderabad – 500 059, Andhra Pradesh-All India Coordinated Research Project on Agrometeorology- Weather Effects on Pests and Diseases--pp: 198 to 206)

Yasa Venkanna, Rao G V Ranga, Reddy K Dharma Prakasam,2010,Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Jammikunta, Karimnagar-505 122, Andhra Pradesh, India. $International Crops Research Institute for Semi Arid Tropics, Patancheru-502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India.#Department of Entomology, College of Agriculture, ANGRAU, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-500 030, AndhraPradesh,- Bioefficacy of Neonicotinoid Insecticides against Thrips, Scirtothrips dorsalis and Leafhoppers,Empoasca kerri in Groundnut- Indian Journal of Plant ProtectionYear : 2010, Volume : 38, Issue : 2First page : ( 134) Last page : ( 138)

5.1. Summary Report: Integrated Pest Management (IPM) of Cotton

In India, the state of Andhra Pradesh ranks third in production and fifth in productivity of cotton. Southern zone comprising of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu is a zone for growing hirsutum-arboreum -herbaceum- barbadense and hybrid cottons. Soils of this zone are both black and red and poor in fertility. Cotton cultivation is done both under irrigated and rainfed conditions. This zone has the productivity of around 440 kg lint per hectare. Cotton is grown in south as sole crop or in intercropping system with onion, chilli, cowpea, maize etc. Cotton-rice rotation is also followed in this area. Andhra Pradesh is one of the first three states along with Gujarat, Maharastra in India in respect of area and production of cotton. During Kharif season, the crop is mainly raised as a rain-fed crop in the traditional areas of Adilabad, Karimnagar, Warangal, Guntur Nalgonda and Khammam districts and in few other pockets of Mahabubnagar, Medak, Krishna, Kurnool, Prakasam, Rangareddy and Nizamabad. Outbreaks of whiteflies in Andhra Pradesh, parts of Karnataka, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu during 1984 and 1985 and in North zone during 1995 became apparent. Severe pyrethroid resistance in H.armigera was first recorded in Andhra Pradesh in 1987. Out breaks of H.armigera occurred at Punjab, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh. The pest problem though cannot be eliminated altogether, it can be minimized through application of appropriate pest management strategy, be it chemical pest control, biological control or integrated pest management (IPM).

83

The plant protection response of farmers in the Guntur district of AndhraPradesh has been examined with particular reference to the adoption of Bt cotton varieties and IPM components. The adoption of IPM practices, however, has led to reduced use of insecticides and increased profitability. The saving on plant protection chemicals has more than compensated the cost of adopting IPM components. Consequently, the net returns have been found increased considerably from cotton cultivation.

Seasonal Occurrence of Major Insect Pests of Cotton-SouthZone

Name of the Pests Season-Month Jassids Nov.-Jan.

Aphids Nov.-Jan.

Thrips Aug-Sep, June – Aug, & Dec-Jan

whiteflies Nov-jan

Spotted & Spiny Bollworms Nov-Dec

American Bollworm Dec-April

Pink bollworm Aug-Sep

Pheromones trap – Monitoring:- Use pheromone traps for monitoring of American bollworm, spotted bollworms, pink bollworm and Spodoptera. Install pheromone traps at a distance of 50 m @ five traps per ha. For each insect pest. Use specific lures for each insect pest species and change it after every 15 – 20 days. Trapped moths should be removed daily. ETL for pink bollworm is 8 months per days per trap consecutively for 3 days. ETL for American bollworm is 4 – 5 moths per day per trap. ETLs for major pests are as under:- Insect pest ETL: S.No Insect Pests ETL 1 American & Spotted bollworm 5 % damaged fruiting bodies or 1 larva per plant or

total 3 damaged square / plant taken from 20 plants

2 Pink bollworm . 8 moths / trap per day for 3 consecutive days or 10 % infested flowers or bolls with live larvae.

3 Spodoptera 1 egg mass or skeletinized leaf / 10 plant. 4 Jassids * 2 jassids or nymphs per leaf or appearance of

second grade jassid injury. (yellowing in the marginsof the leaves )

5 Whitefly * 5 – 10 nymphs or adults per leaf before 9 AM. 6 Aphids 10 % affected plants counted randomly. 7 Thrips * 5 – 10 thrips / leaf 8 Nematode 1 -2 larvae per gm of soil * 3 leaves (top, middle, bottom) per plants from 10 plants

84

Climate Change and pests of Cotton:

Temperatures <12°C and >35°C were detrimental to the survival and development of the larvae of Helicoverpa armigera of the ichneumonid parasitoid, Campoletis chlorideae. C..Chlorideae. Post-embryonic development period of C. chlorideae was significantly and negatively associated with increase in temperature. The parasitoid required more numbers of degree days to complete development at lower temperatures, and took about 2.5-fold more time to complete development at 18°C than at 27°C.

.Chemical Control & Insecticides resistance:

• Under field conditions, combination treatments containing Novaluron + insecticide, registered superior performance in containing the bollworm damage and gave high seed cotton yield over the corresponding individual treatments.

• Spinosad (Spinosyn A 50% minimum and Spinosyn D 50% maximum) @ 100, 75 and 50 g.a.i., resulted in lowest incidence of bollworms in fruiting bodies,

• Status of insecticide resistance in Kurnool (AndhraPradesh) population of tobacco caterpillar, Spodoptera litura (Fab.) was estimated to choose right insecticide for management, to monitor and develop insecticide resistance management strategies.

• A comparison of LC90 values with recommended concentrations of test insecticides also revealed that aphid population of Guntur district developed resistance to all the test insecticides,viz., monocrotophos, acephate, dimethoate, phosphamidon and triazophos.

Management of Cotton Mealy Bug: Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley.

Mealy bug, Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley is a serious pest of cotton limiting the production and quality of fibre and lint. It is a polyphagous pest and multiply on different hosts like field crops, horticultural, fruit, vegetable and ornamental plants. Effective control of the pest can be achieved through an integrated pest management approach. Field sanitation, uprooting of infested plants, dusting of methyl parathion 2 per cent or spraying of profenophos 50 EC or chlorpyriphos 25 EC or quinalphos 25 EC help to reduce the pest population. Aenasius bambawalei Hayat, Anagyrus kamali Mani, Cryptolaemus montrouzieri (Mulsant), Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens), Verticillium lecanii (Zimmermann) and Beauveria bassiana (Vuillemin) are the effective biological control agents in managing the infestation of the pest.

Biological Control:

a) Parasites: In India, Aenasius bambawalei Hayat, Anagyrus kamali Mani, Leptomastyx dactylopi Howard and Promuscidea unfasciaticentris Giraitlt are important parasites of the mealy bug. Predators: Brumus suturalisFabricus, Chelomenes sexmaculatus Fabricus, Cryptolaemus montrouzieri (Muslant) and Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) are most common predators

b) Among the natural enemies used against mealy bugs (Pseudococcidae), parasitoids have been the most successful agents, especially those of the family Encyrtidae. Anagyrus kamali is suitable for release in the Caribbean. A. bambawalei was found to be most effective parasite with maximum of 42.20 per cent parasitism.

85

c) Verticillium lecanii (Zimmermann), Metarrhizium anisoplae Metschnikow and Beauveria bassiana (Vuillemin) are most effective fungal pathogens of the pest.

d) The V. lecanii at 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 g/lit of water was effective for the control of mealy bugs. e) Metarrhizium anisoplae is able to infect the adult mealy bugs within 2 days and show 90%

mortality. f) Trichoderma viride-1 and local isolate of T. harzianum (TG-1) proved most effective inhibited

76.53 and 72.78 per cent growth of Rhizoctonia bataticola respectively. g) About 20% reduction of leafhopper population over control was observed with green-chilli garlic

extract and neem oil. Per cent reduction in leafhopper population was less with bio-control agents viz., V. lecanii @ 2500 g / ha (11.0), M.anisopliae@ 2500 g / ha (12.3), B. bassiana @ 2500 g / ha @ 2500 g / ha (14.9). Other organic compounds like Panchagavya @ 5%, cow dung-urine extract @ 10% were ineffective in managing the leafhopper population on cotton.

Bio-Intensive Model:

Release of Trichogramma chilonis @ 1,50,000 six times starting after six weeks of germination at weekly intervals supplemented with two to three releases Bracon brevicornis @ 15000 starting after second release of T.chilonis against spotted bollworm, continuing weekly releases of T.chilonis against pink bollworm, and release of T.chilonis Bio C1 or C3 @ 1,50,000 six to eight times after 60 days of germination or after visual observation of infestation supplemented with HaNPV spray@ 250 larval equivalents (LE) (one LE=@ 2X 109 polyhedral inclusion bodies) four to five times during the crop season are recommended in bio-intensive IPM modules

Resistant / Tolerant Varieties of Cotton: South Zone:

MCU– 5VT, Supriya, Abhadita, LK–861(Andhra Pradesh)

Cultural practices

• Acid de-linted seed provides a good insurance against seed-borne diseases. Any practice, which delays or extends fruiting, is likely to invite greater attack by insects and diseases.

• High plant population, excessive nitrogen rates, • late planting, and excessive irrigation and moisture can extend the fruiting period, apart from

influencing pest populations directly, hence they need to be avoided. • The attack of grey mildew at the time of harvesting need not be prevented. Early harvest with

no ratooning and stalk destruction restricts food availability to key pests, and thereby helps in keeping the pest population below threshold level.

86

5.2. Integrated Pest Management for Cotton: India is one of the leading producers of cotton in the world. However, its average productivity is far less in India than other leading producers in the world. In India, the state of Andhra Pradesh ranks third in production and fifth in productivity of cotton. Considering it to be a commercial crop with high potential profits, many farmers in different regions has switched over to its cultivation (Rama Rao,2000). However, the cotton cultivation is subject to high production and price risks, originating from weather vagaries, incidence of pests and diseases and high price fluctuations. Southern zone comprising of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu is a zone for growing hirsutum-arboreum -herbaceum- barbadense and hybrid cottons. Soils of this zone are both black and red and poor in fertility. Cotton cultivation is done both under irrigated and rainfed conditions. This zone has the productivity of around 440 kg lint per hectare. The area is well known for growing long and extra long staple barbadense cottons and hence may be encouraged for growing export oriented cotton. Pest and disease problems are more. Due to type of climate available, cotton can be grown through out the year. Cotton is grown in south as sole crop or in intercropping system with onion, chilli, cowpea, maize etc. Cotton-rice rotation is also followed in this area. Cotton cultivation in Andhra Pradesh:

Cotton is an important Fibre crop grown in Kharif season in the state, mainly as un-irrigated rop.Andhra Pradesh is one of the first three states along with Gujarat, Maharastra in India in respect of area and production of cotton. During Kharif season, the crop is mainly raised as a rain-fed crop in the traditional areas of Adilabad, Karimnagar, Warangal, Guntur Nalgonda and Khammam districts and in few other pockets of Mahabubnagar, Medak, Krishna, Kurnool, Prakasam, Rangareddy and Nizamabad. Area under Cotton during the year 2009-2010 was 14.68 lakh hectares which is accounted for 11.7 percent of gross cropped area in the state. Adilabad, Karimnagar, Warangal, Guntur, Nalgonda and Khammam districts together accounted for 74.0 percent total area under the crop in the State during 2009-2010. The area under crop was 14.68 lakh hectare during 2009-2010 as against 13.99 lakh hectare. in 2008-2009, recording an increase by 4.9 percent. 6.23.2 The production of Cotton in the State was 32.32 lakh bales of 170 Kgs in 2009-2010 (lint) as compared to 35.69 lakh bales in 2008-2009 recording a decrease of 9.4 percent and due to increase in area during 2009-2010.

Profitability of Cotton on a Pest Management Continuum in Guntur District of Andhra Pradesh- The plant protection response of farmers in the Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh has been examined with particular reference to the adoption of Bt cotton varieties and IPM components. The farmers have been found to follow a wide range of practices to manage the insect pests in cotton. The use of chemical insecticides has accounted for, about 37 per cent of the total variable costs. No significant reduction in plant protection expenditure has been recorded on adoption of Bt varieties without IPM practices. The adoption of IPM practices, however, has led to reduced use of insecticides and increased profitability. The saving on plant protection chemicals has more than compensated the cost of adopting IPM components. Consequently, the net returns have been found increased considerably from cotton cultivation.( Rama Rao et al.,2007.) The pest problem though cannot be eliminated altogether, it can be minimized through application of appropriate pest management strategy, be it chemical pest control, biological control or integrated pest management (IPM). The chemical-based pest management, however, has been losing its efficiency

87

mainly due to rising problem of insecticide resistance. The bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera, has developed manifold resistance to most of the insecticides intended to control it. In view of this, an IPM package comprised of cultural practices, resistant varieties, insect scouting, beneficial insects and the selective use of insecticides was developed and tested under field conditions. The effectiveness of IPM gets maximized when all growers use them on a community basis over area-wide. The goal of IPM does not aim for reduction of the insect population to zero but merely to a level below the economic damage.(Sharma et al.,2004).

Outbreaks of whiteflies in Andhra Pradesh, parts of Karnataka, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu during 1984 and 1985 and in North zone during 1995 became apparent. Severe pyrethroid resistance in H.armigera was first recorded in Andhra Pradesh in 1987. Out breaks of H.armigera occurred at Punjab, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh. Resurgence of jassids due to excessive and indiscriminate use of quinolphos and chlorpyriphos for management of H.armigera was noticed. The pink bollworm, a native pest of cotton causes tremendous loss in spite of its rich native natural enemy component recorded, as the latter got lost with the chemical use. With the associated problems of insecticide use compounding, IPM approach was also gaining momentum in India in eighties, tuning research and developmental activities to adopt a more rational approach to pest control. (Vennila et al., 2009) MAJOR PESTS- A. Pests of National Significance

Insect Pest

1 American bollworm – (Helicoverpa armigera ) 2 Whitefly (Bemisia tabaci ) – Vector for CLCuV 3 Jassid (Amrasca bigutella bigutella ) 4 Tobacco caterpillar ( Spodoptera litura ) 5 Spotted bollworm ( Earias vittella ) 6 Thrips (Thrips tabaci) 7 Pink bollworm ( Pectinophora gossypiella ) Diseases 1 Cotton Leaf Curl Virus (CLCuV) 2 Blackarm / Angular leaf spot ( Xanthomonas campertris p.v. malvacearum ) 3 Fusarium wilt ( Fusarium oxysporum f.sp vasinfectum ) 4 Root rot ( Rhizoctonia spp ) Weeds Monocots 1 Burmuda grass (Cynodon dactylon ) 2 Barnyard grass (Echinochloa spp ) 3 Cowfoot grass (Dactylocterium aegytipum ) 4 Signal grass (Brachiaria spp ) 5 Torpedo grass (Panicum spp ) 6 Purple nut sedge (Cyprus rotundus )

88

Dicots 7 Coclebur (Xanthium strumarium ) 8. Wild jute (Corchorus spp ) 9 Cox comb (Celosia argentea ) 10 Carpet weed (Trianthema spp. ) 11 Purselane (Portulaca oleracea ) 12 Netamundia (Tridax procumbens ) 13 Field bind weed (Convolvulus arvensis ) 14 Velvet leaf (Abutilon sp.) 15 Sida (Sida sp.) 16 Spurge (Euphorbia spp.) PESTS MONITORING: Agro Eco system Analysis (AESA) AESA is an approach, which can be gainfully employed by extension functionaries and farmers to analyze field situations with regard to pests, defenders, soil conditions, plant health,the influence of climatic factors and their interrelationship for growing healthy crop. Such a critical analysis of the field situations will help in taking appropriate decision on management practices. The basic components of AESA are:- 1. Plant health at different stages. 2. Built – in – compensation abilities of the plants. 3. Pest and defender population dynamics. 4. Soil conditions. 5. Climatic factors. Survey / Field Scouting The objective of surveys through roving surveys is to monitor the initial development of pests and diseases in endemic areas. Therefore, in the beginning of crop season survey routes based upon the endemic areas are required to be identified to undertake roving surveys. Based upon the results of the roving surveys, the State extension functionaries have to concentrate for greater effort at Block and village levels as well as through farmers to initiate field scouting. Therefore, for field scouting farmers should be mobilized to observe the pest and disease occurrence at the intervals as stipulated hereunder. The plant protection measures are required to be taken only when pests and disease cross ETL as per result of field scouting. Roving survey:- Undertake roving survey at every 10 km distance initially at weekly intervals and thereafter at 10 days intervals (depending upon pest population). Record incidence of bollworms on all host crops of the locality. Observe at each spot diagonally criss cross 20 plants/acre at random. Record the population potential of different biocontrol fauna. Record the major disease and their intensity.

89

Field scouting:- Field scouting for pests and biocontrol fauna by extension agencies and farmers once in 3 – 5 days should be undertaken to workout ETL. For sucking pests, population should be counted on three leaves (top & middle portion) per plant. For whitefly, third and seventh leaves from the top of the plant should be observed for nymphs and adults. For bollworm eggs terminal leaves should be observed. Observe larvae on fruiting bodies and leaves per plant. For percent bollworm incidence count total and affected fruiting bodies on the plant and also in the shed material and work out the percent infestation. The State Departments of Agriculture should make all possible efforts by using different media, mode and publicity to inform the farmers for field scouting in the specific crop areas having indication of pest or disease build up. Pest Monitoring through Pheromones / Yellow Pan / Sticky Traps etc. Certain pests require positioning of various kinds of traps like pheromones, yellow pan, sticky traps to monitor the initial pest build up. Therefore, the State Department of Agriculture is to initiate action for positioning of different kinds of traps based upon the results of roving surveys at the strategic location at village level. While the concept needs to be popularized amongst farming community, the State Department of Agriculture is to take greater initiatives for pest monitoring through specific pheromone trapping methods as per following details. Pheromones trap – Monitoring:- Use pheromone traps for monitoring of American bollworm, spotted bollworms, pink bollworm and Spodoptera. Install pheromone traps at a distance of 50 m @ five traps per ha. for each insect pest. Use specific lures for each insect pest species and change it after every 15 – 20 days. Trapped moths should be removed daily. ETL for pink bollworm is 8 months per days per trap consecutively for 3 days. ETL for American bollworm is 4 – 5 moths per day per trap. Yellow pan / sticky traps:- Set up yellow pan / sticky traps for monitoring whitefly @ 25 yellow pans / sticky traps per ha. Locally available empty yellow palmoline tins coated with grease / vasline / castor oil on outer surface may also be used. Economic Threshold Levels (ETLs) The advantages of an economic threshold system for the cotton jassid, Amrasca biguttula (Shir) and the spotted bollworm, Earias vittella (F.) on cotton were evaluated. Two years’ results revealed that under recommended and currently followed practice (schedule spray system), six to eight insecticidal sprays were required to control the cotton jassid and the spotted bollworm, while following an economic threshold system, only one or two insecticidal sprays were required to keep their populations within tolerable limits. The amounts of insecticide and their application costs in the schedule spray system were much higher than in the economic threshold system, but the yield variations of seed cotton between these treatments were statistically insignificant. The benefit: cost ratios were much higher in the economic threshold system than the schedule spray system for both years.( Ibrahim.M,and Karim,1991)

90

Based upon the result of survey / field scouting etc., the extension functionaries are to determine the ETLs for different pests to advice farmers to initiate pest management practices accordingly. ETLs for major pests are as under:- Insect pest ETL S.No Insect Pests ETL 1 American & Spotted bollworm 5 % damaged fruiting bodies or 1 larva per plant or

total 3 damaged square / plant taken from 20 plants

2 Pink bollworm . 8 moths / trap per day for 3 consecutive days or 10 % infested flowers or bolls with live larvae.

3 Spodoptera 1 egg mass or skeletinized leaf / 10 plant. 4 Jassids * 2 jassids or nymphs per leaf or appearance of

second grade jassid injury. (yellowing in the marginsof the leaves )

5 Whitefly * 5 – 10 nymphs or adults per leaf before 9 AM. 6 Aphids 10 % affected plants counted randomly. 7 Thrips * 5 – 10 thrips / leaf 8 Nematode 1 -2 larvae per gm of soil * 3 leaves (top, middle, bottom) per plants from 10 plants Seasonal Incidence of Pests of Cotton: Studies on seasonal occurrence of pink bollworm by pheromone monitoring revealed that the catches of male moths of pink bollworm on cotton started from the months of September with a peak level of pest activity in the 2nd fortnight of December and again in lastweek of January to first fortnight of February. Studies on biology and bionomics under laboratory conditions revealed that eggs were laid mostly in small groups which were creamy white in colour initially and turned to pink colour before hatching. The egg period varied from 4-6 days with an average of 5.2days. The neonate larva was semi-translucent, light yellowish with distinctly dark brown head and thoracic shield. The larvae completed development in 5 stagesof growth (instars) and herned to pink colour in third instar.l. (Sandhya Rani, 2008.)

Field trial was conducted to determine the effect of ecological factors on the incidence and development of leafhopper, Amrasca devastans at five different dates of sowing on three varieties of cotton. The pest population was started from third week of February on third weeks old crop and acquired its peak in second week of March on six weeks old crop. Maximum pest population (9.30/3 leaves) was build up at temperature ranged from 210 to 310 C, relative humidity ranges from 82 and 55%, zero rainfall, wind velocity 4.5 km/hr, total sunshine hours (9.00 hrs/week), evaporation (56.10 mm) and dewfall (1.491 mm). The highest incidence of leafhopper population was recorded in cv. MCU 7 followed by SPCH 22 and SVPR 3. Leafhopper population was build up showed a significant and positive correlation with morning and evening relative humidity and rainfall whereas, it was significant and negative association with minimum temperature, wind velocity and dewfall. The determination of effects of different weather factors on population of leafhoppers in cotton was essential for effective pest management.(Selvaraj et al.,2011)

91

Seasonal Occurrence of Major Insect Pests of Cotton-South Zone

Name of the Pests

Season-Month

Jassids Nov.-Jan.

Aphids Nov.-Jan.

Thrips Aug-SepJune – Aug, & Dec-Jan

whiteflies Nov-jan

Spotted & Spiny Bollworms Nov-Dec

American Bollworm Dec-April

Pink bollworm Aug-Sep

Climate Change and pests of Cotton:

Climate change is likely to affect the insect host and the activity and abundance of biological control agents. Therefore, the present studies were conducted to understand the influence of temperature and source of insect host, Helicoverpa armigera on survival and development of the ichneumonid parasitoid, Campoletis chlorideae. Temperatures <12°C and >35°C were detrimental to the survival and development of the larvae of C. chlorideae. Post-embryonic development period of C. chlorideae was significantly and negatively associated with increase in temperature. The parasitoid required more numbers of degree days to complete development at lower temperatures, and took about 2.5-fold more time to complete development at 18°C than at 27°C. The parasitoid development was prolonged by six days under ambient conditions (average 23°C; range 12 to 25°C) than at a constant temperature of 27°C, indicating that fluctuations in temperature have a significant influence on parasitoid development. The males and females were heavier when reared at 18 and 27°C than when reared under ambient conditions. Percentage parasitization and adult emergence were influenced by host insect food, and parasitoid strain × temperature. The results indicated that changes in temperature as a result of climate change would have considerable influence on survival and development of C. chlorideae. This information would be useful for understanding the influence of climate change on the activity and abundance of natural enemies, which in turn would have great bearing on insect-pest population dynamics, insect damage and crop production.( Dhillon and Sharma,2008)

92

Chemical Control:

Novaluron, potentiated all the insecticides tested in combination both by dermal and oral administrations against the 3rd instar larvae of Helicoverpa armigera in laboratory studies and the highest potentiation was observed in novaluron + indoxacarb mixture with co-toxicity factors of 65.8 and 70.0 under dermal and oral toxicity studies, respectively. Under field conditions, combination treatments containing Novaluron + insecticide, registered superior performance in containing the bollworm damage and gave high seed cotton yield over the corresponding individual treatments. (Rao et al., 2008)

Efficacy of spinosad 45 SC (spinosyn A 50% minimum and spinosyn D 50% maximum), a new formulation was evaluated against cotton bollworm complex along with commercial spinosad (Tracer 45 SC), indoxacarb, chlorypyriphos, cypermethrin, imidacloprid and dimethoate during Kharif 2006. Spinosad (Spinosyn A 50% minimum and Spinosyn D 50% maximum) @ 100, 75 and 50 g.a.i., resulted in lowest incidence of bollworms in fruiting bodies and was significantly superior to indoxacarb, chlorpyriphos, tracer and cypermethrin. The lowest per cent infestation in shed material, bolls at harvest, locules at harvest due to bollworms were observed in new formulations of spinosad 45% SC 100 g.a.i./ha and its lower doses. The significant and lowest bad kapas was recorded in spinosad 45% SC 100 g.a.i./ha followed by its lower doses. It was observed that spinosad (Tracer) 25 g a.i./ha, Spinosad 50 g a.i./ha, dimethoate 200 g a.i./ha and spinosad @ 75 g a.i./ha were found to be more suitable to conserve natural enemies. The maximum seed cotton yield was (964.4 kg/ha) recorded in spinosad 45% SC 100 g.a.i./ha. Thus, spinosad 45% SC (Spinosad A 50% minimum and spinosad D 50% maximum) @ 100 g a.i./ha proved effective for the management of bollworm(Yadav, et al., 2008)

Among insecticides tested Spark (deltamethrin+ triazophos) was the best followed by triazophos,deltamethrin, thiodicarb and lamda cyhalothrin, while chlorpyriphos ,neem formulation ,novaluron an demamectin benzoate were found ineffective recordinghigh green boll locule damage and larval incidence in addition to open boll and open locule damage at harvest.The highest seed cotton yield was obtained in Spark (deltamethrin+triazophos) followed by triazophos,transgenic Bt cotton, deltamethrin, lamda-cyahlothrin and thiodicarb and the lowest yields were recorded inemamectin benzoate and novaluron which were on par with the control.(Sandhya Rani,2008,)-

Two field experiments were carried out to evaluate the efficacy of emamectin benzoate 5 SG, a new formulation against cotton bollworm complex compared to commercial Proclaim® (emamectin benzoate 5 SG), spinosad 45 SC and endosulfan 35 EC, during first season at Vellan Koil in winter season (Cv. MCU 5) and second season at Erangkattur in summer season (Cv. Surabhi). Emamectin benzoate 5 SG at 11 and 15 g a.i. ha−1 was highly effective in reducing the boll and locule damage when compared to other standard check, spinosad 45 SC @ 75 g a.i. ha1 and endosulfan 35 EC @ 350 g a.i. ha−1. The lowest per cent boll and locule damage was recorded with the foliar application of emamectin benzoate 5 SG at 11 g a.i. ha−1 on par with 15 g a.i. ha−1 which also increased the yield of cotton. (Govindan et al., 2010.)

Mealy bug: Mealy bug, Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley is a serious pest of cotton limiting the production and quality of fibre and lint. It is a polyphagous pest and multiply on different hosts like field crops, horticultural, fruit, vegetable and ornamental plants. They suck a large amount of sap from leaves and stems

93

depriving plants of essential nutrients showing the symptoms like retarded growth, late opening of bolls and total drying of the plant. The yield losses due to the pest are estimated upto 50 per cent. Mealy bugs are cottony in appearance, small, oval, soft-bodied sucking insects covered with white mealy wax, which makes them difficult to eradicate. An individual mealy bug survived for 25-38 days. Effective control of the pest can be achieved through an integrated pest management approach. Field sanitation, uprooting of infested plants, dusting of methyl parathion 2 per cent or spraying of profenophos 50 EC or chlorpyriphos 25 EC or quinalphos 25 EC help to reduce the pest population. Aenasius bambawalei Hayat, Anagyrus kamali Mani, Cryptolaemus montrouzieri (Mulsant), Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens), Verticillium lecanii (Zimmermann) and Beauveria bassiana (Vuillemin) are the effective biological control agents in managing the infestation of the pest.(Joshi, et al.,2010) Chemical control: Kamariya (2009) revealed that methyl parathion 0.05 per cent was found the most effective and economic insecticide for the control of mealy bug, P. solenopsis on cotton with 87 to 99 per cent mortality followed by profenophos 0.1 per cent and dimethoate 0.03 per cent. In laboratory, the highest toxicity with longer persistency was found in methyl parathion 0.05 per cent followed by profenophos 0.1 per cent, chlorpyriphos 0.05 per cent, quinalphos 0.05 per cent and Malathion 0.1 per cent. Singh and Dhawan.(2009) revealed that profenophos 50 EC, acephate 75 SP, thiodicarb 75 WP, chlorpyriphos 20 EC, quinalphos 25 EC and carbaryl 50 WP @ 500 ml, 800 g, 250 g, 2000 ml, 800 ml and 1000 g per acre were significantly effective against the pest. Insecticide Resistance Management (IRM) of Helicoverpa For the last few years, incidences of insecticide resistance in Helicoverpa have been reported on important crops like cotton and pigeon pea in some parts of the country. Extension functionaries should get in touch with the experts of respective State Agricultural Universities for mapping such areas. Wherever the scientific input is available about occurrence of insecticide resistance in Helicoverpa the areas should be very clearly demarcated. During the course of surveys and also in advising farmers about Helicoverpa management strategies, utmost care need to be taken “NOT TO ADVOCATE” the pesticide for which resistance has been reported in specific areas. Most of the cases of such resistance have been recorded from Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Haryana and Punjab against synthetic pyrethroids, especially Cypermethrin.

Status of insecticide resistance in Kurnool (Andhra Pradesh) population of tobacco caterpillar,Spodoptera litura (Fab.) was estimated to choose right insecticide for management, to monitor and develop insecticide resistance management strategies. The LC50 (μg per larva) values of lufenuron, emamectin benzoate, novaluron, indoxacarb, profenophos, endosulfan, chlorpyriphos, deltamethrin, quinalphos, spinosad, cypermethrin, dichlorvos, acephate and fenvalrate were 0.0068, 0.0069, 0.030, 0.21, 0.213, 0.645, 0.93, 0.95, 1.02, 1.14, 3.31, 5.1 2, 5.3 and 5.49. LC90 (μg per larva) values were also worked out. Taking LC50 value of cypermethrin as standard, relative toxicity of other chemicals was worked out. This kind of study would serve as ready-reckoner for the selection of insecticides for the management of field strains and also helpful in development of resistant management strategies for this polyphagous insect pest. (Prasada Rao, 2008)

The study on insecticide resistance in cotton aphid, Aphis gossypii during Kharif, 2005 to five commonly used insecticides in cotton ecosystem, viz., monocrotophos, acephate, dimethoate, phosphamidon and

94

triazophos revealed a shift in the level of susceptibility to these insecticides. The LC50 and LC90 values were increased 121.50, 20.00, 9.61, 7.96, 2.38 and 7.68, 3.84, 1.66, 0.60, 0.46 folds to the respective insecticides. A comparison of LC90 values with recommended concentrations of test insecticides also revealed that aphid population of Guntur district developed resistance to all the test insecticides.( Kumar et al.,2008.)

Data on pest-resistance to each insecticide (cypermethrin, endosulfan, quinalphos, methomyl and spinosad) using discriminatory doses were recorded for cotton-chickpea growing season during 2005–06 and 2006–07. Resistance frequencies were higher for cypermethrin (0.1 ug) throughout the study period. The resistance against cypermethrin was minimum in fourth week of January (72.2 per cent) and highest during October first week and August third week (92.2 per cent). Endosulfan resistance in Helicoverpa was low to moderate and was found maximum in the last week of September (47.8 per cent), and minimum (7.8 per cent) in the first week of October. Resistance to methomyl (0.1 ug/ul) & quinalphos (0.75ug/ul) was low to moderate. The pooled mean resistance to methomyl was minimum in fourth week of August (7.8 per cent) and maximum in third week of October (55.6 per cent).

However, the mean resistance to quinalphos ranged from 10.0 to 55.6 per cent. Resistance to cypermethrin (0.1ug/ul), was moderate to high, while in quinalphos, methomyl and endosulfan it was low to moderate. Resistance to spinosad (1.0 ug/ul) was low (1.1 to 20 per cent) throughout the study period of 2005–06 and 2006–07 respectively. (Bajya et al., 2010,)

Biological Control Biological control is considered the most effective long-term solution because the bio-agents are self perpetuating and continue to attack the mealy bug. a) Parasites: In India, Aenasius bambawalei Hayat, Anagyrus kamali Mani, Leptomastyx dactylopi Howard and Promuscidea unfasciaticentris Giraitlt are important parasites of the mealy bug. Predators: Brumus suturalisFabricus, Chelomenes sexmaculatus Fabricus, Cryptolaemus montrouzieri (Muslant) and Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) are most common predators (Tanwar et al., 2007, Radadia et al., 2008 and Saroja et al., 2009). Moore (1988) revealed that among the natural enemies used against mealy bugs (Pseudococcidae), parasitoids have been the most successful agents, especially those of the family Encyrtidae. He suggested that A. kamali is suitable for release in the Caribbean. A. bambawalei was found to be most effective parasite with maximum of 42.20 per cent parasitism (Anonymous, 2009, b). Moore (1988) stated that despite the frequent use of predators, only the coccinellid, C. montrouzieri can be considered successful. Sattar et al. (2007) found that the C. carnea mostly preferred the first instar nymphs of the mealy bug and consumed upto 1604 mealy bugs per day. Pathogens: Verticillium lecanii (Zimmermann),Metarrhizium anisoplae Metschnikow and Beauveria bassiana (Vuillemin) are most effective fungal pathogens of the pest (Tanwar et al., 2007 and Radadia et al., 2008).Kulkarni and Mote (2003) reported that the V. lecanii at 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 g/lit of water was effective for the control of mealy bugs. According to Ujjan and Saleem (2007), M. anisopliae is able to infect the adult mealy bugs within 2 days and show 90% mortality. M. anisopliae strain Ma 1912 reduced the egg hatching up to 60%. M. anisoplae @ 2000 ml/ ha was found very effective to control the pest at Rahuri (Maharashtra) (Anonymous, 2008, a).

95

Host Plant Resistances: (HPR)

Resistance to insects in cotton is relative. Thus differences in cotton cultivars can be utilized to the growers’ advantage. The most valuable contribution of host plant resistance is avoidance or escape from damaging levels of pests by early maturing and rapid fruiting cultivars. Hairy cultivars (e.g., PKV 081, NHH 44, PKV Hy2 etc.) are successfully used to resist jassids. Glabrous plant types offer resistance to aphids, whiteflies and Helicoverpa; fregobract to Helicoverpa and pink bollworm. The intra hirsutum hybrid AHH 468 and hirsutum varieties G. cot 12, G.cot 10, Khandwa 2, DHY 286, B 1007 (tolerant to jassids); Kanchana, Supriya, LK861 (tolerant to white fly); Abhadhita (tolerant to bollworms) have reduced loss in yield due to insect pests through mechanisms of host plant resistance.(Vennila, et al,2009) Field studies were carried out to investigate the reaction of fifty six cotton genotypes against leafhopper, Amrasca devastans Dist. The results indicated that CCHO5–2, RAH 100, J.TAPLI (G. arborium) and VIKRAM were found resistant due to the presence of morpho- physical characters like hair density and length of hair on midrib and lamina, and recorded lowest injury index value (1.00) with least damage to leaves.( Neelima .S. et al.,2010)

RESISTANT / TOLERANT VARIETIES OF COTTON:

South Zone MCU– 5VT, Supriya, Abhadita, LK–861

Pest / Disease – Wise Jassids Bikaneri Nerma, ABH – 466, H – 777, G.cot – 12, G-cot 10, RS – 875, RST – 9, F – 5 – 5, Fateh, RS 2063 White fly Supriya, Kanchana, LK – 861, RS – 875, Rs – 2013 Nematode Bikaneri Nerma, Khandwa 2 Verticillium wilt MCU – 5T, Surabhi Fusarium wilt DB – 3 – 12, Ak – 145, Sanjay, Digvijaya, G.cot – 11, G.cot 13 , LD – 327, PA – 32 Bollworms LH –900, F – 414, Abadita, RS – 2013 Root rot LH–900 Leaf curl virus All desi cottons, RS – 875, RS 810, RS 2013 LHH – 144, LRA – 5166, LRK – 516, Gk - 515

Field studies were carried out to investigate the reaction of fifty six cotton genotypes against leafhopper, Amrasca devastans Dist. The results indicated that CCHO5–2, RAH 100, J.TAPLI (G. arborium) and VIKRAM were found resistant due to the presence of morpho- physical characters like hair density and length of hair on midrib and lamina, and recorded lowest injury index value (1.00) with least damage to leaves.

On-farm evaluation of a protocol of protecting crops from Helicoverpa.armigera. The protocol of crop protection was same as evaluated at ICRISAT, Patancheru for five years and described above. Adarsha watershed in the village Kothapally, Andhra Pradesh, India was chosen for the farmer participatory exercise. In the early meetings with the farmers, it was apparent that farmers would like to evaluate the protocol on cotton. Scientists of the Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University (ANGRAU), Hyderabad, India were also our partners in this evaluation. Each farmer agreed to take up the experiment on about 4000 m2 land divided into two parts. One part used chemical pesticides, called as Farmers’ Practice (FP)

96

and the other used the low-cost materials such as herbal extracts and microorganisms, prepared and provided by us (we called it Biopesticides -- BIO). The strategy of application of biopesticide was based on ‘prophylactic-use’. Seventeen farmers opted to take-up the experiment. On mean basis BIO plots yielded 30% more cotton than the FP plots (1.87 t ha-1) that received chemical pesticides. The yield differences between the two treatments were at 5% probability level (LSD=0.238). Eleven of the 17 farmers harvested more cotton in the BIO plots than that in the FP plots. In addition, all the participating farmers saved at least Rs. 4800/- (1US$ = Rs. 45, approximate) ha-1 in the BIO plots, even if we charged cost of the materials (Rs. 2500/- ha-1), because, on an average, farmers spent Rs. 14250/- ha-1 (range Rs. 8500 to Rs. 19850 ha-1) on the FP plots. Encouraged by the success in the Adarsha Watershed of village Kothapally in managing Helicoverpa, on cotton in the year 2003/04, it was decided to evaluate the protocol of crop protection in village Chasvad, Valia Taluk, Bharuach District in Gujarat, India. The protocol was same as used at ICRISAT, Patancheru and in Kothapally and involved entomopathogenic microorganisms (developed at ICRISAT Patancheru), wash of neem compost and Gliricidia compost (prepared using a biological extraction method) and other two items based on traditional knowledge of farmers along with a trap crop and low-N application (important components of integrated pest management - IPM). Ten farmers participated and evaluated the protocol on a 0.4 ha area divided into two parts. One part had chemical pesticides called Farmers’ Practice (FP) and the other had the low-cost materials, prepared and provided by us (called IPM). The strategy of application of biopesticides was based on ‘prophylactic use’. On mean basis, IPM plots yielded 7% more cotton than the FP plots (1.43 t ha-1) that received chemical pesticides. Eight of the 10 farmers harvested more cotton in the IPM plots than that in the FP plots. In addition, all the participating farmers saved at least Rs. 2168 /- (1US$ = approximately Rupees 45/-) ha-1 in the IPM plots, even if we charged cost of the materials (Rs. 2500/- ha-1), because on an average, farmers spent Rs. 7511/- ha-1 (range Rs. 4668 to Rs. 11930 ha-1) on the FP plots.(Rupela et al.,2005).

Biological Control:

Field trial was conducted to evaluate the bio-efficacy of Pochonia (Verticillium) lecanii (9 x 109 cfu / g) @ 2500 g / ha, Metarhizium anisopliae (9 x 109 cfu / g) @ 2500 g/ha, Beauveria bassiana (9 x 109 cfu / g) @ 2500 g / ha, Panchagavya @ 5%, cowdung – urine extract @ 10%, green chilli-garlic extract @ 10%, neem oil @ 5% and fipronil 5% SC @ 50 g a.i./ha(c) against, Amrasca devastans

Among different treatments fipronil 5% SC @ 50g a.i. / ha was effective in bringing down the population of leafhoppers up to 72.3% over control at 14 days after spraying. About 20% reduction of leafhopper population over control was observed with green-chilli garlic extract and neem oil. Per cent reduction in leafhopper population was less with bio-control agents viz., V. lecanii @ 2500 g / ha (11.0), M.anisopliae@ 2500 g / ha (12.3), B. bassiana @ 2500 g / ha @ 2500 g / ha (14.9). Other organic compounds like Panchagavya @ 5%, cow dung-urine extract @ 10% were ineffective in managing the leafhopper population on cotton.( Neelima S., et al.,2011)

Systematic studies were conducted (2006 to 2009) to search for potential biocontrol agent against dry root rot pathogen (Rhizoctonia bataticola) of cotton and consequently compatibility of potential bioagents with fungicides. Among nine local and exotic bioagent isolates evaluated against R. bataticolaunder dual culture technique, Coimbatore isolate of Trichoderma viride-1 and local isolate of T. harzianum (TG-1) proved most effective inhibited 76.53 and 72.78 per cent growth of R. bataticola respectively. These two bioagents also proved their superiority over rest of the bioagents in controlling root rot disease in pots under cage house conditions. Minimum at par root rot incidence of 35.78 and 38.98 per cent was recorded in pots where seeds and soil was treated with T. viride-1 and T.

97

harzianum(TG-1) respectively. These bioagents exhibited 56.28 and 52.53 per cent disease reduction over untreated control. Metalaxyl, fosetyl-Al, mancozeb, cymoxanil 8% + Mancozeb 64% mixture and copper oxychloride fungicides were found compatible with bioagent T. harzianum (TG-1) and tolerance limits (ED50) of these fungicides were >1000 μg/ml. Metalaxyl proved their compatibility with another potential bioagent T. viride-1 also where even >1000 μg/ml concentration was under safe tolerance limit (ED50). Copper oxychloride, mancozeb, fosetyl-Al and cymoxanil 8% + mancozeb 64% mixture fungicides showed moderate to good compatibility with T. viride1 by exhibiting tolerance limits (ED50) of 848, 710, 578 and 448 μg/ml.respectively.(Gaur and Sharma,2010.)

Heterorhabditis indica was more virulent against pupae of Spodoptera litura, with its lower LC50s (78.3, 83.2, 113.1 and 91.6 IJs/pupa) compared to Steinernema carpocapsae (99.7, 103.7, 130.8 and 103.0 IJs/pupa) after 96 h of post-infection. The LT50s of H. indica were also lower (85.3–43.7, 86.2–45.7, 139.2–61.7 and 107.4–50.2 h) compared to those of S. carpocapsae (102.9–48.4, 108.6–53.6, 144.9–68.0 and 125.2–51.5 h) in sand, red and black soils at 10% moisture and in black soil at 15% moisture, respectively. The per cent reduction in adult emergence from the infected pupae increased with increase in dosage of S. carpocapsae (44.8–93.0, 32.2–92.8, 14.1–78.3 and 28.590.0) and H. indica (51.9–96.7, 39.3–92.6, 28.5–89.6 and 35.5–92.6 h) in sand, red and black soils at 10% moisture and in black soil at 15% moisture, respectively, but without any significant difference between the EPNs.( Raveendranath et al.,2007).

Utilization of mass produced bioagents in a large way are viewed to supplement IPM focused to reduce over-dependence on insecticides and their consequent ill effects. Release of Trichogramma chilonis @ 1,50,000 six times starting after six weeks of germination at weekly intervals supplemented with two to three releases Bracon brevicornis @ 15000 starting after second release of T.chilonis against spotted bollworm, continuing weekly releases of T.chilonis against pink bollworm, and release of T.chilonis Bio C1 or C3 @ 1,50,000 six to eight times after 60 days of germination or after visual observation of infestation supplemented with HaNPV spray@ 250 larval equivalents (LE) (one LE=@ 2X 109 polyhedral inclusion bodies) four to five times during the crop season are recommended in bio-intensive IPM modules.(Vennila, et al,2009)

Diseases of Cotton:

Tobacco streak virus (TSV)

Since the first outbreak of Tobacco streak virus (TSV), genus Ilarvirus as sunflower necrosis disease (SND) on sunflower and peanut stem necrosis disease (PSND) on groundnut in late 1990s, the virus has been a subject of much research in India. This review considers main features of TSV in India. The virus epidemics are very damaging to several crops in South India. Natural occurrence of TSV was recorded on bottle gourd, chilli, crossandra, cotton, cowpea, cucumber, gherkin, ixora, marigold, mungbean; Niger, okra, pumpkin, safflower, sesame, soybean, sunn hemp, urdbean, and several weed species. Coat protein gene sequence of TSV isolates from various locations and hosts are 97–100% identical. The virus is transmitted through pollen assisted by thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Epidemiological studies indicate TSV as a monocyclic disease in annual crops and asymptomatic weeds such as parthenium serve as TSV inoculum source. Attempts on identification and deployment of host resistance met with limited success. Phytosanitation and cultural methods of control were effective in reducing virus incidence but not popularly adopted by farmers. Major efforts are on-going to develop transgenic varieties using TSV

98

coat protein gene. Additional research is required to determine the extent of TSV spread to other crops and its economic importance, understand disease epidemiology and development of host resistance for effective virus control, success of which will bring benefits to millions of farmers in India.( Kumar et al.,2008)

Rainfed Cotton: Insect Pests:

Aphids (Aphis gossypii Glover) : Aphids are usually found on the stems, terminals and underside of the leaves, resulting in upward curling and twisting of leaves. The pest is active during June-October. Aphids live in colonies and reproduce partheno-genitically. Thus, the pest has 12-14 generations a year. Both adults and nymphs suck sap from the tender leaves, twigs and buds, and weaken the plants. Each aphid makes several punctures and excretes honeydew, which encourages development of sooty mold on the twigs and leaves, and this makes plants look blackish. Honeydew attracts ants and sooty mold, aiding to the development of pathogenic bacteria. Management through Chemical control: Systemic insecticides (Imadacloprid @ 7g/kg or carbosulfan @ 4g/kg of seeds ) applied as seed dresser or at planting time helps in controlling aphids early in the season. Application of other chemicals such as spray of ‘Aphidin’ also reduces its incidence.

Jassids: Amrasca bigutulla bigutulla Ishida) Amrasca devastans

The pest attacks crop during the first 50 days after sowing and is severe in early winter. Adults are about 3 mm long and greenish yellow during summer and have reddish tinge during winter.Field trial was conducted to determine the effect of ecological factors on the incidence and development of leafhopper, Amrasca devastans at five different dates of sowing on three varieties of cotton. The pest population was started from third week of February on third weeks old crop and acquired its peak in second week of March on six weeks old crop. Maximum pest population (9.30/3 leaves) was build up at temperature ranged from 210 to 310 C, relative humidity ranges from 82 and 55%, zero rainfall, wind velocity 4.5 km/hr, total sunshine hours (9.00 hrs/week), evaporation (56.10 mm) and dewfall (1.491 mm). The highest incidence of leafhopper population was recorded in cv. MCU 7 followed by SPCH 22 and SVPR 3. Leafhopper population was build up showed a significant and positive correlation with morning and evening relative humidity and rainfall whereas, it was significant and negative association with minimum temperature, wind velocity and dewfall. The determination of effects of different weather factors on population of leafhoppers in cotton was essential for effective pest management. (Selvaraj et al., 2011.) Thrips (Thrips tabaci Lind.) : Thrips feed on the young leaves and the buds and stunt the crop growth. A common sign of a heavy thrips infestation is the distorted leaves that have turned brownish around the edges and cup upward. The pest is active during May- September. The nymphs and adults suck sap from the lower surface of the leaves lacerating the leaf tissues. Upper side of the older leaves turns brown and the lower side becomes

99

Silvery white. Leaves become curled, wrinkled and finally get dried. Control of thrips generally results in early crop maturity. Whiteflies (Bemisia tabaci Genn.) : Whiteflies damage cotton by sucking sap from the plants and by secreting honeydew on which sooty mold grows and stains the lint. Heavy feeding reduces plant vigour, causes premature defoliation and reduces yield. The pest occurs throughout the year. Nymphs and adults are sluggish creatures, clustered together on the undersurface of the leaves. All whitefly stages are found on the undersurface of the cotton leaves. The nymphs and adults feed on the cell sap, reduce the vitality of the plant interfering with normal photosynthesis due to the excretion of honeydew and formation of sooty mold all over the surface of the leaf and lint of the opened bolls, resulting in process of blackening. Chlorotic spots develop on leaves and in severe cases, the veins become translucent. Sooty mold contaminates the lint. The insect helps in transmitting leaf curl virus (CLCV). Bollworms: Cotton bollworm and tobacco budworm are devastating pests of cotton. Widespread problem of insecticide resistance, especially against pyrethroids, has occurred in all the cotton growing areas in the recent past. Using alternative insecticides is thus necessary to control high levels of bollworm infestation. During periods of moth activity, field monitoring twice a week is necessary. In the previously untreated fields, apply a recommended larvicide when infestation is low. Spotted bollworm (Earias insulana Boisd. and or Earias vitella) : E.vitella is abundant in high rainfall areas and E. insulana in scanty rainfall areas. The pest attacks the crop from 35 to 110 days of the age. Moths lay eggs on flower buds, branches and twigs, pupation takes place inside flimsy cocoon in fallen buds, plant debris or soil. The development is completed in 17-29 days in summer and is greatly prolonged in winter (42-84 days). Caterpillars cause damage by boring into the growing shoots, buds, flowers and bolls. The attacked shoots wither, droop and ultimately die, and flowers and buds drop off. Infested bolls do not shed, open prematurely and the quality of the lint is spoiled. Pupation takes place in the bolls, impairing the development of bolls. Pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella Saunders) : Pink bollworm is one of the most destructive pests of cotton. The pest is active during July- November. Adults are dark moths with blackish spots on forewings. The caterpillars are creamy yellow when young and turn pink when grown. Eggs are laid on the underside of tender parts of the plant (shoots, flower buds, leaves and green bolls). The egg, larval and pupal periods last for 4- 15, 8-42, 8-12 days, espectively. The life-cycle is completed in 3-6 weeks.The damage is caused by by feeding on the flower buds, panicles and bolls.The holes of entry close down by excreta of larvae feeding inside the seed kernels. They cut window holes in the two adjoining seeds thereby forming “double seeds” and finally damage them. The attacked buds and immature bolls drop off. Lint is destroyed; ginning percentage and oil content are impaired. The pest hibernates in “double seeds” and can be located in the cavities (hibernacula), impairing the development of the bolls.

100

American bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera Hubner): The pest is polyphaghous, most severe in attack, and is active from July to October, and February to April. The adult moth is stout, yellowish brown with a dark speck and area on the forewings, which have grayish wavy lines and a black kidney shaped mark, whereas the hind wings are whitish with blackish patch along the outer margin. The larva is about 35 mm long, greenish brown with dark grey yellow stripes along the sides of the body. Eggs are deposited on tender parts of plant. The larvae feed on the leaves initially and then bore into the square/bolls and seeds with its head thrust into the boll, leaving the rest of the body outside. A single larva can damage 30-40 bolls. The entry holes are large and circular at the base of the boll. Semi-looper (Anomis flava Fabricius.) : Loopers are small, greenish looping worms with small white stripes down their backs. These worms feed on leaves, causing a ragged appearance. Loopers that occur in late season in high numbers are most likely the soybean looper species. This species is very difficult to control with currently registered insecticides. Begin controls when worms are small and the top bolls expected for harvest are not mature. Late-season loopers are sporadic in their occurrence but may completely defoliate cotton the community when they occur. It is a sporadic pest and sometimes causes serious damage to the crop. The adult is reddish brown with forewings traversed by two dark zigzag bands, while the hind wings are pale brown. The larva of semilooper is 25-30 mm long, pale yellowish green with five white lines longitudinally on the dorsal surface and six pairs of black and yellow spots on the back. Eggs are laid singly on the upper surface of the leaf. Pupation takes place in plant debris or in the soil. The life-cycle is completed within 28-42 days. The young larvae congregate in groups and move actively, feed on the leaf lamina by making small punctures. The grown up larvae feed voraciously, leaving only the midrib and veins. They feed by chewing the leaves from margin towards the leaf veins. The caterpillars feed on tender shoots, buds and bolls.

Diseases of Cotton in rainfed area:

Bacterial blight (Xanthomonas axonopodis p.v. malvacearum (Smith) Dye): Cotton plant is affected by the bacterial blight at all stages of the crop development, starting from seedling stage. The pathogen is seed-borne and the disease is transmitted from the cotyledons to leaves, followed by the main stem and bolls. Symptoms, at each stage are of different descriptive nature, based on plant organ or the growth stage affected viz. seedling blight, angular leaf spot, vein blight, and blackarm and boll lesions. Foliar symptoms are known as angular leaf spot (ALS). Initially, the spots are water-soaked and more obvious on the dorsal surface of the leaf. Another common leaf symptom occurs when lesions extend along the sides of the main veins. This may be seen together with or in the absence of ALS and is referred to as ‘vein blight’. In susceptible cultivars, infection spreads from the leaf lamina down the petiole to the stem. The resulting sooty black lesions give rise to the term ‘black-arm‘by which the disease is commonly called. The lesion may completely girdle the stem, causing it to break in high windy conditions or under the weight of developing bolls. In India, where the crop is grown under irrigation, losses of 5-20% are often experienced.

101

Grey mildew (Ramularia areola Atk) : The disease appears first on the lower canopy of older leaves when the plant attains maturity, usually after the first boll-set. It appears in the form of irregular angular, pale translucent spots with a definite or irregular margin formed by the veins of leaves. The dorsal surface of the leaves shows profuse sporulation (giving the lesions a white mildew-like appearance), causing light green to yellow green coloration on the ventral (upper) leaf surface which in due course becomes necrotic and dark brown in colour. At this stage, they can be easily mistaken from the angular leaf spot phase of bacterial blight. The severely affected leaves often defoliate and result in premature boll opening with immature lint. Components of IPM Cultural practices Some cultural practices have a significant effect on crop management, and hence they need to be recommended after considering their overall effect on the crop yield.

• Acid de-linted seed provides a good insurance against seed-borne diseases. Any practice, which delays or extends fruiting, is likely to invite greater attack by insects and diseases.

• High plant population, excessive nitrogen rates, • late planting, and excessive irrigation and moisture can extend the fruiting period, apart from

influencing pest populations directly, hence they need to be avoided. • The attack of grey mildew at the time of harvesting need not be prevented. Early harvest with

no ratooning and stalk destruction restricts food availability to key pests, and thereby helps in keeping the pest population below threshold level.

Biological Control: Predators and parasitoids Parasites and predators are the first line of defence against sucking pests,bollworms, and tobacco budworms.

• Predators such as coccinellids, spiders,pirate bugs, larvae of green lacewings, and • parasitic wasps (Bracon spp. and Encarsia spp. are important regulators, particularly in early

and mid season. Some insecticides are more toxic to parasites and predators; consequently, they should be used to kill the target insects only when necessary and at minimum doses

• Helicoverpa was the key pest and Trichogramma chilonis was released @ 1.5 lakh/ha to control this. Crop cafeteria concept needs to be encouraged to augment population of beneficial insects. rowing of tobacco, marigold, sorghum, maize and cowpea in cotton fields is helpful.

• Growing of maize interlaced with cowpea on the borders has proved highly effective in managing the population of sucking pests. Likewise, growing of Setaria as 10th row attracts predatory birds for devouring bollworm larvae.

102

Selective and judicious use of insecticides Selection of insecticides should be based on several factors. Effectiveness of the pesticide should not be the only consideration in pest management. Insects’ development of resistance affects the beneficial insects and nontarget organisms, human safety hazards. The economic considerations are also important and need equal attention. Insecticides should be applied only after the pest reaches economic threshold level, and is beyond control. This can be determined by scouting at least twice a week, and by fixing pheromone traps at random places in the fields to obtain population densities of both destructive and beneficial insects. Need-based use of pesticides to control cotton insects would not only reduce insecticide use, but also prevent development of pesticide resistance. It would bring down the application costs and lower the total amount of unnecessary insecticides in the environment. Pest Monitoring: Proper timing and coverage are also extremely important. Field scouting coupled with moth catch information (received from pheromone traps) enables timely application of pesticides. Ensure proper coverage using ground equipment by applying 500 to 600 litres of water per ha. Spray nozzles need to be kept clean for proper functioning. Adjust spray booms to keep nozzles form dragging through the foliage to cover lower surface, which harbors the future generations of majority of the pests. IPM needs to be promoted area-wise. This needs wide publicity and extension efforts. Capacity building of the farmers is important. Effective training and through Farm Field School (FFS) need to be implemented properly and systematically.IPM technology should concentrate on pest instead of individual crop. Networking is essential from village to SAUs. Forecasting of pest / disease outbreak should be strengthened. The findings indicate a variation in the technical and economic performance of biological control and IPM across regions/locations. This is perhaps due to the differences in agroclimatic conditions of the selected locations that exert considerable influence on pest populations. Crop variety too is an important factor in pest management, as varieties vary in their yield potential and resistance to pests. The yield saving potential of biological and IPM is better than that of the chemical control in Gujarat and Tamil Nadu. Application of these technologies has also resulted in higher net economic benefits particularly in Gujarat. On the other hand, in Punjab the chemical control has resulted in better protection as well as economics. The profitability of different methods is influenced by the inputs used. For instance, integration of C. carnea into biological control and IPM though provides effective protection against insect pests, the benefits are not utilizable due to higher cost of application. This implies the need for standardization of application.( Pratap S. Birthal,2004)- Bt Cotton- IPM: Evaluation of the impact of Bt cotton on farmers in Andhra Pradesh, India. A farm survey analysis was conducted in Warangal District in the 2002/03, 2003/04 and 2004/05 seasons. Findings show that Bollgard Cotton failed for small farmers in terms of yields. Pesticide use by both Bt and non-Bt farmers was untraceable. Therefore, Bt adoption did not reduce pesticide use. The three-year average shows that non-Bt farmers earned 60% more than Bt farmers, which led to violent street protests. Bt cotton did not reduce the cost of cultivation. Many farmers in rain-fed areas spent more cultivating Bt hybrids than non-Bt hybrids. Researchers felt that a special kind of root rot was developing. In addition to cotton

103

bollworm, five types of sucking pests also affect cotton as well as other diseases, which require fungicidal sprays. Bt farmers spent more than non-Bt farmers on damage control of pests and diseases other than bollworm.

Mirid Bug in Bt Cotton:

Among the different insecticides and bio-pesticides evaluated against the mirid bug in Bt cotton under field conditions, acephate 75WP @ 1.0 g/l was found to be the most effective chemical. The next best treatments included profenophos 50EC @ 2.0 ml/l, indoxacarb 14.5SC @ 0.5 ml/l, buprofezin 25SC @ 0.5 ml/l and fipronil 5SC @ 1.0 ml/l. Whereas, the biopesticides viz., Metarhizium anisopliae @ 1.0 g/l,Pochonia (Verticillium) lecanii @ 1.0 g/l and nimbecidine @ 3.0 ml/l were less effective in suppressing the mirid population. The highest seed cotton yield was obtained in acephate treated plots (12.11q/ha) followed by profenophos (14.17q/ha), indoxacarb (12.88q/ha) and buprofezin (12.49q/ha). However, the highest IBC ratio of 19.80:1.00 was recorded in acephate followed by M. anisopliae (16.95:1.00) and P. lecanii (15.33:1.00).(Sugandi Rohini and Mallapar,2011)

5.3. References-Cotton-IPM Anoymous (2008, a). Annual Report (2007-08), All India Coordinated Cotton Improvement Project, ICAR. Anoymous (2008, b). Annual Research Report (2007-08), Central Cotton Research Institute, Multan, Pakistan, cited from ICAC Recorder, June 2008, 15 pp. Anonymous (2009, b). Survey of insect pests in major crops of North Suarashtra Agro climatic Zone. Annual Research Report (2008-09) of Agricultural Entomology, MDFRS, JAU, Targhadia, pp 7. Ibrahim Ali,M.and M. A. Karim-1991- Rational insecticide use for the control of the cotton jassid, Amrasca biguttula (Shir) (Cicadelidae, Homoptera) and the spotted bollworm, Earias vittella(F.) (Noctuidae, Lepidoptera) on cotton in Bangladesh.- Tropical Pest ManagementVolume 37, Issue 1, 1991) Bajya D R,, Monga D, Tyagi M.P,2010,Seasonal Monitoring of Insecticide Resistance inHelicoverpa armigera on Cotton and Chickpea, Indian Journal of Plant Protection Year : 2010, Volume : 38, Issue : 1First page : ( 41) Last page : ( 46), .*Part of PhD thesis submitted to Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut by the first author.Received: 16 December, 2009; Accepted: 13 May, 2010.

Dhillon M K, Sharma H C,2008,- Influence of Temperature and Helicoverpa armigera Food on Survival and Development of the Parasitoid, Campoletis chlorideae- Indian Journal of Plant Protection,Year : 2008, Volume : 36, Issue : 2,First page : ( 240) Last page : ( 244) )

Gaur R B,and Sharma R N,2010, Biocontrol of Root Rot in Cotton and Compatibility of Potential Bioagents with Fungicides,- Indian Journal of Plant Protection Year : 2010, Volume : 38, Issue : 2 First page : ( 176) Last page : ( 182)

Govindan K,Gunasekaran K, Kuttalam S, Aiswariya K K,2010, Bioefficacy of New Formulation of mamectin Benzoate 5 SG against Bollworm Complex in Cotton- Indian Journal of Plant Protection, Year : 2010, Volume : 38, Issue : 2,First page : ( 159) Last page : ( 165) .)

104

Joshi, M.D, P.G.Butani, V.N.Patel1 and P.Jeyakumar, 2010, Mealy Bud, Phenacoccus solenopsis, TINSLEY – A Review, Agric. Rev., 31 (2) : 113 - 119, 2010.

Kamariya, N. M..2009. Biology and control of mealy bug, Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley infesting cotton. M. Sc.thesis submitted to Junagadh Agricultural University, Junagadh. Kulkarni, J. R. and Mote, U. N. (2003). Efficacy of Verticillium lecanii against mealybug on pomegranate. Journal of Applied Zoological Reasearch, 14(1): 59-60.

Kumar P S S, Madhumathi T, Rao V Ramasubba, Rao V Srinivasa,2008,Insecticide Resistance in Cotton Aphid, Aphis gossypii- Indian Journal of Plant Protection,Year : 2008, Volume : 36, Issue : 2,First page : ( 224) Last page : ( 227)

Kumar P Lava,, Prasada Rao R D V J, Reddy A S, Madhavi K,2008- Emergence and Spread of Tobacco streak virus Menace in India and Control Strategies- ndian Journal of Plant Protection,Year : 2008, Volume : 36, Issue : 1,First page : ( 1) Last page : ( 8) Moore, D. (1988). Agents used for biological control of mealybugs (Pseudococcidae). Biocontrol News and Information,9(4): 209-225. Nagrare,V.S. Sandhya Kranthi, Rishi Kumar,B. Dhara Jothi, M. Amutha, A. J. Deshmukh, K. D. Bisane and K. R. Kranthi, 2011, Compendium of Cotton Mealybugs, Central Institute for Cotton Research P. B. No 2, Shankar Nagar P. O., Nagpur – 440010

Neelima S, Rao G M V Prasada,Grace A D G, Chalam M S V,2010, Reaction of Cotton Genotypes to Leafhopper,Amrasca devastans- Indian Journal of Plant Protection-Year : 2010, Volume : 38, Issue : 2-First page : ( 147) Last page : ( 151)

Neelima S., Rao G M V Prasada, Chalam M S V, Grace A.D.G,2011,.- Bio-efficacy of ecofriendly products against cotton leafhopper, Amrasca devastans (Dist.)- Annals of Plant Protection Sciences,Year 2011,Volume,19,Issue:1,15-19)- *Part of M.Sc (Ag) thesis submitted by first author to Acharya. N.G.R.A.U., Hyderabad) Pratap S. Birthal,2004, Economic Evaluation of Pest Management Technologies in Cotton in 11 Proceedings of the Integrated Pest Management in Indian Agriculture,Edited by Pratap S. Birthal and O. P. Sharma National Centre for Integrated Pest Management ,New Delhi)

Prasada Rao G M V,2008- Status of Insecticide Resistance in Kurnool Population of Spodoptera litura, Indian Journal of Plant Protection,Year : 2008, Volume : 36, Issue : 2,First page : ( 173) Last page : ( 175). Radadia, G. G., Pandya, H. V., Patel, M. B. and Purohit, M.S.2008,“Kapasana Mealy bugs (Chikto) ni Sankalit Niyantran Vyavastha”, an information bulletin published in Gujarati by Main Cotton research Station, NavsariAgricultural University, Presented on 7th August, 2008 at Navsari. Rama Rao, C.A 2000. Growth and Efficiency in Crop Production in AndhraPradesh. Ph.D. Thesis, Acharya NG Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad.

105

Rama Rao, C.A, M..Srinivasa Rao, P.Naraiah, B.Malath and Y.V.R.Reddy-2007, Agricultural Economics Research Review, Vol.20 July-December 2007 pp 273-282)

Rao N Srinivasa, Rao P Arjuna, 2008, Joint Toxicity of Insect Growth Regulator, Novaluron with Certain Insecticides Against Cotton BollwormHelicoverpa armigera, Indian Journal of Plant Protection Year : 2008, Volume : 36, Issue : 1 First page : ( 80) Last page : ( 84)

Raveendranath S, Krishnayya P V, Rao P Arjuna, Murthy K V M Krishna,, Hussaini S S,2007- Bioefficacy of Entomopathogenic Nematodes, Steinernema carpocapsae and Heterorhabditis indica Against Pupae of Spodoptera litura- Indian Journal of Plant Protection,Year : 2008, Volume : 36, Issue : 2,First page : ( 288) Last page : ( 291 ) Rupela, O.P.GV Ranga Rao and SJ Rahmanin 2005, Biopesticides in Control of Helicoverpa armigera –Biocontrol Research at ICRISAT: Present Status and Future Priorities Proceedings of the In-house Group Discussion: 5th April 2005 Sandhya Rani.B, 2008,- Seasonal incidence and management of pink bollworm Pectionophora gossyiella (Saunders) on cotton-Student,M.Sc(Ag)-thesis-Department of Entomology. ANGRU-Hyderabad Saroja, D. G. M., Prasad, Y. G. and Dixit, S. (2009). Incidence of mealy bug, Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley and its parasitoids on cotton. Symposium Abstracts. Proceedings of the National Symposium on IPM Strategies to Combat Emerging Pests in the Current Scenario of Climate Change held at CAU, Pasighet (Arunachal Pradesh) on January 28-30, 2009, 42 pp.

Selvaraj S., Adiroubane D., Ramesh V.2011,-Population dynamics of leafhopper, Amrasca devastans Distant in Cotton and its relationship with weather parameters- Annals of Plant Protection Sciences,Year : 2011, Volume : 19, Issue : 1,First page : ( 47) Last page : ( 50 Sharma.O.P,.O.M.Bambawale1,R.C.Lavekar and A.Dhandapani,-2004,Integrated Pest Mnagement in Rainfed Cotton- in the 11 proceedings of Integrated pest management in Indian Agriculture-Edited by Pratap S. Birthal and O. P. Sharma-2004) Singh, R. and Dhawan, K.2009.Evaluation of different insecticides against Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley on transgenic cotton. J. Insect Sci., 22(1): 95-97. Sugandi Rohini, Mallapur C.P,2011-Management of mirid bug, Creontiades biseratense(Distant) in Bt cotton- Annals of Plant Protection Sciences,Year : 2011, Volume : 19, Issue : 1First page : ( 1) Last page : ( 5) ) Tanwar, R. K., Jeykumar, P. and Monga, D. (2007). Mealy bugs and Their Management, NCIPM Technical Bulletin 19,16 pp. Ujjan, A. A. and Saleem, Shahzad. (2007). Pathogenicity of Metarhizium anisopliae var. acridum strains on pink hibiscus mealy bug (Maconellicoccus hirsutus) affecting cotton crop. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 39(3): 967-973. Vennilla, S.P.Ramasundaram, SheoRaj, and M.S.Kairon, 2009,Cotton IPM and its current status-Central Institute of Cotton Research,Nagpur-Technical Bulletin-8.

106

Yadav G A, Bhosle B B, Bhede B V, Bhute N K, Chavan S J, Pawar A V, Patait D D,2008,- Bioefficacy of New Formulation of Spinosad 45 SC Against Bollworm Complex in Cotton- Indian Journal of Plant Protection,Year : 2008, Volume : 36, Issue : 1,First page : ( 75) Last page : ( 79)

6. 1, Summary: Integrated Pests management in Pigeon pea.

Pigeonpea is also an important pulse crop of Andhra Pradesh grown in almost all districts of the State. Under various collaborative programs with ANGRAU and the Department of Agriculture, three ICRISAT varieties (Asha, Laxmi, Maruti) are being cultivated in over 1, 50,000 ha in 12 districts.

Pigeon Pea and Groundnut farmers especially in AP, have reduced insecticide use in pilot areas by up to 100% on some fields by using the IPM technology.( Andhra Pradesh and ICRISAT Making a difference in the Semi-Arid Tropics of Andhra Pradesh ) The fluctuations in productivity levels of pigeonpea arise from two main reasons. First, it is grown as a kharif rainfed crop and being a long duration crop is subject to the vagaries of the monsoon. Second, it attracts a large number of pests, the gram pod borer being the major crop pest. NCIPM is having Partnership with KVK, Reddipalli, and Anantapur. It has been proposed by NCIPM to organize 1000 ha each for two years under capacity building and farmers’empowerment Andrapradesh at KVK, Reddipalli, Anatapur.Proposed area (ha) of coverage under IPM demonstration in different districts Pigeonpea (2010 to 2011). Insect Pests of Pigeonpea: The incidence of insect pests like leaf hopper, Empoasca kerri, aphid, Aphis craccivora, thrips, Megalurothrips usitatus and leaf folder, Grapholita critica were observed during vegetative stage of the crop. During flowering and pod formation stage, insects like blister beetle, Mylabris pustulata and lepidopteran pod borers viz., Helicoverpa armigera, Exelastis atomosa, Maruca vitrata, pod fly Melanagromyza obtusa, were noticed in Pigeonpea based cropping systems. The data on pod damage was collected initially from 100 pods sampled randomly from each system. The sampled pods were categorized primarily into healthy and damaged pods. The damaged pods were further grouped into four categories viz., pods damaged by H. armigera, E. atomosa, M. vitrata and M.obtusa based on characteristic nature of the feeding hole. Cultural control: Some evidence that intercrop ping pigeonpea wi th short-season legumes such as soybean or mung bean reduces the influence of H. Armigera on pigeon pea. Similarly, intercropping linseed or coriander with chickpea may provide nectar sources for adult parasitoids improving natural control. Inter Cropping: The reduction of H. armigera infestation due to sorghum as intercrop is evident. Overlapping of pod formation and flowering of pigeonpea with ear-head formation of sorghum might have reduced the feeding damage to main crop pigeonpea by the pest. the short and medium duration pigeonpea

107

cultivars have significant role in cultural and agronomic manipulation to minimize insect damage was also noted. The intercrops pigeon pea + rice, pigeonpea + sorghum and two sprays of NSKE 5% were found most effective combination for the management of pod, grain and grain weight loss. Pigeonpea–herbivore–natural enemy interactions: Trichomes play an important role in the ovipositional behavior and host selection process of H. armigera.They have been identified as an important resistance factor in wild relatives of pigeonpea, as they prevent small H. armigera larvae from reaching the pod surface. But on pigeonpea reproductive structures, the long trichomes and sticky trichome exudates inhibit the movement of Trichogramma spp. . . .Egg parasitism levels therefore vary widely on different plant structures. Surface chemicals from pods of pigeonpea and wild Cajanus species also affect the behavior of H. armigera larvae and T. chilonis. Pseudomonas fluorescensstrains which effectively inhibited mycelial growth of Fusarium udum,the pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) pathogen, were isolated from the rhizoplane of different crops. Various powder formulations of two efficient. Fluorescensstrains were developed. All freshly prepared powder formulations were effective in controlling the disease, but their efficacies varied depending upon the length of storage.Talc formulations were effective even after 6 months of storage, while peat formulations were effective up to 60 days of storage. The shelf life of vermiculite, lignite, and kaolinite formulations was short. Unformulated bacterial suspensions could not be stored even for 10 days, at which time their efficacy was completely lost. Predator and Intercropping: Several major taxa of predators including chrysopids, coccinellids, anthocorids, and spiders are more common on sorghum than on pigeonpea in sorghum-pigeonpea intercrops.Orius tantillus (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) attacks eggs and first instars of H. armigera more effectively on sorghum than on pigeonpeaA predatory ant, Paratrechina longicornis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), removes more than 50% of H. armigera eggs from leaves but less than 17% of eggs from buds and pods. Chemical Control:

• Farmers in southern India normally apply pesticides 3–6 times per season. emamectin benzoate was very effective against spotted pod borer, Maruca vitrata.(Geyer).

• Heliothis armigera collected in October 1987 from Juzzuru in the coastal cotton growing district of Krishna in Andhra Pradesh (Eastern India) were highly resistant to cypermethrin and fenvalerate and moderately resistant to endosulfan. H. armigera has developed high levels of resistance to organophosphates and synthetic pyrethroids.

Need for IPM: About 90,000 metric tons of technical grade pesticides are currently produced and more than 67 per cent is used in agriculture sector alone In this direction there is a need to minimize the chemical inputs and save environmental damage, thus integrated pest management (IPM) approach has been globally accepted for achieving sustainability in agriculture.

108

To avoid this “pesticide treadmill,” pigeonpea farmers need effective alternative pest management practices. A strategy for the medium term should concentrate on developing improved cultivars that combine high yield and disease and insect-resistance into backgrounds with consumer-preferred agronomic characters. A longer-term solution to insect pest problems in pigeonpea must focus on ways to enhance natural control processes, either by the introduction of exotic natural enemy species or by enhancing the effectiveness of endemic species.

6.2. Integrated Pest Management in Pigeonpea:

In India, redgram is one of the most widely cultivated pulse crops. It was grown over an area of 3.58 million hectares with a production of 2.74 million tonnes in 2005-2006. Maharashtra is the largest producer of redgram accounting for nearly 28.83 per cent of the total production followed by Karnataka (16.06 per cent), Uttar Pradesh (13.87 per cent), Andhra Pradesh (10.95 per cent), Gujarat (10.22 per cent) and Madhya Pradesh (8.76 per cent). These six major states together contribute about 89 per cent of the total production and about 88 per cent of the total area in the country in 2005-2006. The redgram grower’s livelihood in the different agro climatic regions of the country greatly depends on the production of this crop. Pigeonpea is also an important pulse crop of Andhra Pradesh grown in almost all districts of the State. Under various collaborative programs with ANGRAU and the Department of Agriculture, three ICRISAT varieties (Asha, Laxmi, Maruti) are being cultivated in over 1, 50,000 ha in 12 districts. These varieties are highly resistant to wilt and sterility mosaic diseases resulting to significant reduction in yield losses. Pigeon Pea and Groundnut farmers especially in AP, have reduced insecticide use in pilot areas by up to 100% on some fields by using the IPM technology.( Andhra Pradesh and ICRISAT Making a difference in the Semi-Arid Tropics of Andhra Pradesh ) Pigeonpea Production: Pigeonpea is an important pulse crop grown under rainfed conditions in India. It is often grown as an intercrop with cereals like maize, sorghum and other commercial crops such as castor and groundnut. It is also grown as a sole crop. The area under pigeonpea increased from about 2.37 m ha during 1950-54 to 3.58 m ha during 2000-03. The production increased from 1.77 m t to 2.22 m t during this period. The scenario with respect to productivity is not encouraging. The productivity, which was about 750 kg/ ha during the 1950s came down to about 622 kg/ha during 2000-03. The fluctuations in productivity levels of pigeonpea arise from two main reasons. First, it is grown as a kharif rainfed crop and being a long duration crop is subject to the vagaries of the monsoon. Second, it attracts a large number of pests, the gram pod borer being the major crop pest. In certain pockets, wilt also reduces the productivity. The crop is seldom grown under irrigated conditions as can be seen from the fact that only five percent of the crop was irrigated during 2000-03. Program of NCIPM,New Delhi: NCIPM is having Partnership with KVK, Reddipalli, Anantapur. It has been proposed by NCIPM to organize 1000 ha each for two years under capacity building and farmers’empowerment Andrapradesh

109

at KVK, Reddipalli, Anatapur.Proposed area (ha) of coverage under IPM demonstration in different districts Pigeonpea (2010 to 2011) Approaches in Capacity building • FFS will help farmers to work in field and identify problems and get their solutions. • SMS and Extension workers Pulse will get an opportunity to update themselves and work with enternational scientists at ICRISAT to update their knowledge to manage problems of their areas. • State level extension workers and farmers will be provided with refresher training courses. Group of educated youths from villages will be trained as pest scouts, who can be later on enrolled by pesticide industries. Details of the Co-operators – Andrapradesh- Dr Laxmi Reddy, I/C Station KVK, Reddipalli, Anantapur – 515701[Acharya NG Ranga Agricultural University (APAU), Hyderabad] Pigeonpea is cultivated as an annual or semi-perennial crop, usually in mixed cropping systems. Traditional cultivars/landraces are medium-to-long–duration and are harvested 6–12 months after sowing. Pigeonpea is well suited to intercropping, as it is slow growing and does not compete with shorter-season crops.More recently short- and extra-short–duration genotypes have been developed that mature in as few as 90 days. Insect Pests of Pigeonpea: The incidence of insect pests like leaf hopper, Empoasca Kerri, aphid, Aphis craccivora, thrips, Megalurothrips usitatus and leaf folder, Grapholita critica were observed during vegetative stage of the crop. During flowering and pod formation stage, insects like blister beetle, Mylabris pustulata and lepidopteran pod borers viz., Helicoverpa armigera, Exelastis atomosa, Maruca vitrata, pod fly Melanagromyza obtusa, were noticed in Pigeonpea based cropping systems. The data on pod damage was collected initially from 100 pods sampled randomly from each system. The sampled pods were categorized primarily into healthy and damaged pods. The damaged pods were further grouped into four categories viz., pods damaged by H. armigera, E. atomosa, M. vitrata and M.obtusa based on characteristic nature of the feeding hole. Leafhopper: Empoasca Kerri, Castor and sorghum as intercrops reduced the leafhopper infestation than the sole crop. Interaction effect between cultivars of pigeonpea and intercrops was significant. SD pigeonpea + sorghum, SD pigeonpea+ castor, LD pigeonpea+ castor and MD pigeonpea+ sorghum had low leafhopper population. Lepidopteran pod borers: Maruca vitrata, Among the three intercrops tested, pigeonpea intercropped with castor and with sorghum experienced low infestation of M. vitrata.

110

Helicoverpa armigera, The density of H. armigera population differed significantly across intercropping systems. The incidence of insect pests significantly varied by the duration of cultivar of pigeonpea and intercrops. Lower incidence was observed with short and medium duration pigeonpea with sorghum and castor as intercrops. Considering lower of incidence of M. vitrata and relatively less flower shedding during dry spells, the medium duration cultivar was chosen for further evaluation on farmers' fields. Flower- and Pod-Feeding Lepidoptera Nearly In India, H. armigera has been recorded on at least 181 plant species from 45 families 30 species of Lepidoptera in six families feed on the reproductive structures of pigeonpea. Most of these occur at low densities and are only occasional pests or are of local importance. Therefore, this section focuses on the two most important species, Helicoverpa armigera (Noctuidae) and Maruca vitrata(Dtestulalis) (Pyralidae). Helicoverpa armigera (Noctuidae) In pigeonpea, eggs are laid on flower buds and young pods, while inchickpea, the eggs are usually deposited on foliage (Rangarao and Shanower, 1999).The key pest status of H. armigera is due to the larval preference for feeding on plant parts rich in nitrogen such as reproductive structures and growing tips . These structures are also the most suitable for larval development. H. armigera larval and pupal weights were highest, larval development period shortest and adult longevity greatest when larvae were reared on flowers or pods as compared with leaves of several short-duration pigeonpea genotypes. moths prefer to oviposit on plants in the reproductive growth stage and are attracted to flowering crops, perhaps by the nectar, which is a carbohydrate source for adults . On pigeonpea, more than 80% of eggs are laid on calyxes and pods. Three factors contribute to this ovipositional preference: Reproductive structures are the preferred larval feeding site, long trichomes and sticky trichome exudates provide a secure substrate for the eggs, and the calyxes and pods seem to provide an “enemy-free space” for eggs and larvae. Maruca vitrata (Dtestulalis) (Pyralidae).: M. vitrata is a serious pest of pigeonpea in India, The biology and life cycle of M. vitrata appear to be similar on the two host plants. Regardless of the host plant, eggs are primarily laid on buds and flowers. Fecundity of more than 400 eggs per female has been reported from laboratory studies. Eggs are usually laid in groups of 4–6,though up to 16 eggs have been found in some groups. Larvae feed from inside a webbed mass of leaves, flowers, and pods. This concealed feeding complicates control as pesticides and natural enemies have difficulty penetrating the shelter to reach the larvae. Pigeonpea genotypes with determinate growth habit, where pods are bunched together at the top of the plant, are more prone to damage than genotypes with indeterminate growth habit, in which the pods are arranged along the fruiting branches. Pod-Sucking Hemiptera Field studies carried out during 2003–04 and 2004–05 in pigeon pea showed that pod borer complex had a definite successional trend with Lampides boeticus appearing first in the early flowering stage followed by Cydia ptychora, Exelastis atomosa, and Melanagromyza obtusa which continued till crop

111

maturity. Thus, the crop remained vulnerable to pod borer complex from second week of January to third week of February and the populations fluctuated from 35.5% to 45.5% in the 1st year and 37.0% to 42.3% in the 2nd year. L. boeticus dominated throughout and a majority of the pod borers showed negative correlation with temperature, relative humidity, rainfall and wind speed except in few cases; however, a positive correlation was observed with all the pod borers and sunshine hours.(Subharani and, Singh ,2009) A large number of Hemiptera, mainly in the families Alydidae, Coreidae, and Pentatomidae, feed on pigeonpea and are commonly referred to as pod-sucking bugs.Relatively few are serious pests; the most important are the coreids Anoplecnemis, Clavigralla (Acanthomia), and Riptortus. Research has focused on three Clavigralla species; Clavigralla tomentosicollis is widespread. While Clavigralla scutellaris is found from Kenya through Yemen, Oman, Pakistan, and India. The third species, Clavigralla gibbosa, is restricted to India and Sri Lanka.Three additional species, Clavigralla shadabi in western and central Africa, Clavigralla elongata in southern and eastern Africa, and Clavigralla horrida in Zimbabwe and South Africa, are also associated with pigeonpea, Clavigralla spp. Within a region, particularly C. shadabi, C. elongata and C. horrida in Africa and C. gibbosa and C. scutellaris in India, are similar in appearance and habit and are often confused in the field and in the literature. For example, nearly all of the literature on Clavigralla spp. in India refers only to C. gibbosa, although C. scutellaris co-occurs on pigeonpea. Only recently have C. gibbosa and C. scutellaris been differentiated in the field in India. Combined losses due to C. gibbosa and C. scutellaris in India vary among regions and occasionally exceed 50%. Large egg clusters are more frequently attacked, probably because they are more easily located. Most of the egg parasitoids reared from Clavigralla spp. is polyphagous. Seed-Feeding Diptera and Hymenoptera Two Diptera and one Hymenoptera feed on developing seeds within the pigeonpea pod. The most important is Melanagromyza obtusa (Diptera: Agromyzidae), the pigeonpea pod fly, which appears to be restricted to Asia. Its biology, ecology, and management have been extensively studied.A second agromyzid species, Melanagromyza chalcosoma, is a pest of pigeonpea in eastern and southern Africa.. Though less well studied, it seems to occupy a similar ecological niche.Both species feed only on pigeonpea and closelyrelated species within the subtribe Cajaninae. Melanagromyza obtusa (Diptera: Agromyzidae): M. obtusa females produce up to 80 eggs and lay them individually into developing pigeonpea pods. The population dynamics of M. obtusa are governed by its narrow host range and feeding niche. In India, pigeonpea pods are available in the field from approximately October to April, and infestations increase rapidly over a relatively short period. Fewer eggs are laid in December and January when temperatures are low, and populations increase as temperatures rise. Long-duration pigeonpea crops mature in March or April and can be heavily damaged M. obtusa may survive the offseason on alternate hosts such as Rhyncosia minima, which have been found tobe infested with eggs, larvae, and/or pupae between April and November. Parasitic Hymenoptera that attack the larval stage are the only natural enemies reported for M. obtusa. Shanower et al 1999) listed more than 14 species, though research has focused on the two most important taxa: Euderus spp. (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) and Ormyrus spp. (Hymenoptera: Ormyridae). Euderus spp. are solitary or facultatively gregarious ectoparasitoids and are found in India.,Sri Lanka, and the Philippines (JA Litsinger, personal communication in 101). Parasitism rates of more than 25% have

112

been reported for this group Ormyrus orientalis and Ormyrus fredricki are solitary endoparasitoids that parasitize up to 13% of hosts in India Parasitism levels of up to 30% have been reported for O. orientalis in Sri Lanka Tanaostigmodes cajaninae (Hymenoptera: Tanaostigmatidae) The larvae of Tanaostigmodes cajaninae (Hymenoptera: Tanaostigmatidae) also feed on developing pigeonpea seeds. In addition to pigeonpea, T. cajaninae has been reported feeding on 13 noncrop legumes. Female wasps lay individual eggs on the surface of flowers or young pods. Low infestation levels (<2.4% pods) have historically been reported in farmers’ fields in southern India, but higher infestation levels, up to 58% of pods, were found on research stations, especially in pesticide-treated plots (42). Lateef et al (42) suggest that the more frequent use of pesticides on research stations results in higher T. cajaninae populations and damage owing to the destruction of its natural enemies. More recently, higher levels of pod infestation (5–11%) in farmers’ fields in southern India have been observed (TG Shanower, CS Pawar & VR Bhagwat, unpublished data). The higher damage levels parallel the increasing use of pesticides by farmers (see below), lending support to the earlier hypothesis (42) that T. cajaninae is a secondary pest. Cultural control The second major component of an IPM program is cultural control. Farming systems can be manipulated in a variety of ways. These options include early or delayed sowing, selection of the intercrops, altering plant density or arrangement, and sowing genetic mixtures to reduce the impact or severity of insect pests. These maneuvers are location-specific and must be designed to suit local practices and customs. Chickpea is usually grown as a monoculture but it may be intercropped with safflower, linseed, or coriander. In contrast, pigeonpea is often intercropped with cereals, legumes, or fiber crops. Altering its sowing time, or the arrangement and plant density by the careful selection of companion crops may reduce the impact of H.armigera or in crease the effectiveness of its natural enemies .There is some evidence that intercrop ping pigeonpea wi th short-season legumes such as soybean or mung bean reduces the influence of H. armigera on pigeonpea. Similarly, intercropping linseed or coriander with chickpea may provide nectar sources for adult parasitoids improving natural control of H. armigera in chickpea. In heavy infestation, manually shaking pigeonpea plants to dislodge larvae is often resorted to, in India. Inter cropping and Pod borer: The reduction of H. armigera infestation due to sorghum as intercrop can be attributed to two factors. The simultaneous flowering of pigeonpea and sorghum might have caused distribution of H. armigera population on main crop pigeonpea and intercrop, leading to less incidence of the pest on main crop. The time of incidence and attack to the crop species by the pest clearly coincided with the reproductive and maturation stages of the pigeonpea and the intercrop. Overlapping of pod formation and flowering of pigeonpea with ear-head formation of sorghum might have reduced the feeding damage to main crop pigeonpea by the pest. These findings agree with those of Amoako Atta et al. (1983) and Duffield and Reddy (1997). That the short and medium duration pigeonpea cultivars have significant role in cultural and agronomic manipulation to minimize insect damage was also noted by Shanower et al., (1999). The intercropping had significant difference in reduction of pod damage, grain damage (in number & by weight basis) as compare to pigeon pea monocrop. The two sprays of biopesticides were found most

113

effective in reducing crop losses incurred by pod bug. The intercrops pigeon pea + rice, pigeonpea + sorghum and two sprays of NSKE 5% were found most effective combination for the management of pod, grain and grain weight loss by Clavigralla. Gibbosa. The plots devoid of biopesticidal treatment had 15.8 to 16.8%, 6.3 to 7.3% and 3.4 to 4.8% pod damage, grain damage and grain weight loss, respectively.( Singh Ram S.,Nath Paras-2011) Crop-crop diversity and natural enemy population: The occurrence of the common predators of insect pests of pigeonpea was monitored at regular intervals in different cropping systems. Among various species of coccinellid predators, viz., Menochilus sexamaculatus (F), Brumoides suturalis (F). Illois indica Timberlake, Coccinella transversalis (L) and Coccinella septempunctata (L), M. sexamaculatus was found most ominant accounting for more than 80% of the total coccinellid population (Plate 5). The other natural enemies like Cotesia sp. cocoons, Chrysoperla sp. eggs, Orius sp. bugs and Trichogramma adults were also recorded. The coccinellids were considered as a group and their presence was recorded in all the cropping systems. The coccinellid population varied significantly across cropping systems throughout the crop growth period. The activity of coccinellids was recorded within a month after sowing and continued till the harvest of the pigeonpea crop. The peak activity of coccinellids occurred prior to flowering stage of pigeonpea. The higher population of coccinellids coincided with the peak activity of E. kerri, H. armigera and other pests. Pigeonpea with soybean and maize recorded lower population of coccinellids than sole pigeonpea.

Coccinellids spiders To sum up, the population of natural enemies is higher in the intercropping systems compared to the monocultures. In a diverse crop situation, the natural enemies are more likely to find their prey (pests on the intercrops) and multiply sooner and thus have a higher possibility to reduce the insect pests of the main crop. Effect of intercropping on microclimate: The three-microclimate variables viz., canopy temperature (Tc), canopy - air temperature differential (CATD) and relative humidity in crop canopy (CRH) of the crop were altered due to presence of intercrop. In majority of observations, Tc was higher in pigeonpea with intercrops than in sole crop of pigeonpea. Castor and greengram as intercrops resulted in higher Tc of 35.90 C and 36.30 C and were at par at 12 WAS. Sorghum as intercrop increased the Tc to 32.50 C compared to 30.50 C in sole pigeonpea (30.50 C) High CRH values was recorded in pigeonpea with sorghum and castor as intercrops. The sole pigeonpea and pigeonpea intercropped with greengram had relatively low values. If the differences in all the three microclimate variables are seen together, high RH leads to the development of latent heat on crop canopy which increases canopy temperature than air temperature leading to low values of CATD in majority of observations made. The relationship pattern between microclimate and insect pests is less studied compared to plant pathogens (Trenbath, 1993). The higher relative humidity under tall canopy

114

together with shading is likely to favour the activity of insects in intercrops also (Srinivasa Rao et al,2004, and Gethi and Khaemba,1991) Pigeonpea–herbivore–natural enemy interactions: The most detailed knowledge of pigeonpea–herbivore–natural enemy interactions is for H. armigera and its Trichogramma (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae) egg parasitoids. Plant volatiles, trichomes, trichome exudates, and surface chemicals affect the behavior of both H. armigera and Trichogramma spp. In the laboratory, volatiles from pigeonpea leave attract H. armigera and stimulate oviposition. (Rembold and Tober,1985).Olfactometer studies with Trichogrammachilonis have shown that females are repelled by volatiles from pigeonpea plants in the reproductive growth stage and by pods alone (Romeis et al.,,2008).Because the parasitoids show no response to plants in the vegetative stage, different volatiles appear to influence the behavior of H. armigera and T. chilonis. The infochemicals that repel T. chilonis are unknown but do not derive from Type. A trichome exudates; washed pods and pods of C. scarabaeoides that generally lack this trichome type also repel the parasitoids. Another parasitoid, Eucelatoria bryani (Diptera: Tachinidae), which attacks Helicoverpa/Heliothis larvae, is attracted by volatiles from pigeonpea leaves, buds, flowers, and hexane extracts of flowers. However, the relative importance of pigeonpea volatiles during host selection and oviposition behavior by H. armigera or the host location process of its parasitoids in the field is not known. More than 80% of H. armigera eggs on pigeonpea are found on calyxes and pods.Differences in the length and distribution of trichome types among different pigeonpea plant structures may contribute to this ovipositional preference. Trichomes play an important role in the ovipositional behavior and host selection process of H. armigera. In addition, they have been identified as an important resistance factor in wild relatives of pigeonpea, as they prevent small H. armigera larvae from reaching the pod surface.But on pigeonpea reproductive structures, the long trichomes and sticky trichome exudates inhibit the movement of Trichogramma spp. . . .Egg parasitism levels therefore vary widely on different plant structures. Romeis et al(1998) found 41% of eggs on leaves were parasitized, while fewer than 4% of eggs on pods and calyxes were attacked. The oviposition behavior of Callosobruchus chinensis (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) is also affected by trichomes. In no-choice experiments, C. chinensis laid more eggs on pigeonpea pods with trichomes removed or on pods with low trichome density than on pods with a high density of trichomes (88). High trichome density also prevented small bruchid larvae from reaching the pod surface. There is no information on the effects of pigeonpea trichomes on other important pests. However, trichome density and orientation are important resistance factors against M. vitrata and Clavigralla spp. on cowpea.Surface chemicals from pods of pigeonpea and wild Cajanus species also affect the behavior of H. armigera larvae and T. chilonis. A filter paper feeding test showed that an acetone extract from the surface of pigeonpea pods contains H. armigera feeding stimulants (84). The same response to surface extracts was detected in C. platycarpus pods, but not in extracts from pods of C. scarabaeoides that lack Type A trichomes. These results suggest that the feeding stimulants are contained in the trichome exudate. Apolar chemicals on the plant surface also stimulate oviposition behavior of H. armigera (12) M.obtusa may also respond to pigeonpea surface chemicals because significantly more eggs were found in water-washed pods than in unwashed pods of the same cultivar (95). In a filter paper bioassay, T.

115

chilonis was deterred by pod surface extracts from pigeonpea, C. scarabaeoides, and C. platycarpus. The compounds responsible for these effects are therefore not present in the Type A trichome exudates. Inter cropping and Predators: Generalist predators may also be deterred from searching on pigeonpea. Several major taxa of predators including chrysopids, coccinellids, anthocorids, and spiders are more common on sorghum than on pigeonpea in sorghum-pigeonpea intercrops.Orius tantillus (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) attacks eggs and first instars of H. armigera more effectively on sorghum than on pigeonpeaA predatory ant, Paratrechina longicornis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), removes more than 50% of H. armigera eggs from leaves but less than 17% of eggs from buds and pods . The long trichomes and sticky exudates on pigeonpea reproductive structures interfere with movement and searching ability. Thus it appears that the pigeonpea plant growth stage and plant structures most preferred by H. armigera for oviposition and larval feeding are the most unsuitable for Trichogramma egg parasitoids and other natural enemies..(Duffield and Reddy 1997.) IPM Module and Cost and Returns Structure of IPM and non-IPM farmers (Rs/hectare) Sl.No. Particulars IPM farmers Non-IPM farmers I Costs Cost ‘A’ 14671.03 12373.09 Cost ‘B’ 20606.55 17493.67 Cost ‘C’ 21635.62 18936.67 Cost ‘D’ 22205.41 19328.71 II Returns Gross returns 34758.42 26586.70 Net returns 12553.01 7257.99 III Additional cost over non-IPM 2876.70 - IV Additional returns over non-IPM 8171.72 - V Net additional benefits from IPM 5295.02 - VI B:C Ratio 1.57 1.38

116

Chemical Control: The primary focus of pigeonpea pest management has been on H. armigera and M. obtusa, with emphasis on chemical control and host plant resistance (68). A major change in farmers’ pest management practices has been the widescale adoption of synthetic pesticides as the primary method of pest control in some areas (Shanower and Varaprasad,1997). In India, calendar sprays are recommended and followed, with the first application at 50% flowering and second and third applications at 15-day intervals Farmers in southern India now apply pesticides 3–6 times per season.This change has occurred over a period of about 10 years, and there are indications that pigeonpea farmers in Africa may followa similar trend In Asia, H. armigera has developed high levels of resistance to organophosphates and synthetic pyrethroids. This has resulted in control failures and a lack of confidence in insecticides. (Reynolds and Armes, 1994). The order of toxicity of newer insecticidesat LC50 level was emamectin benzoate > methomyl >indoxacarb > spinosad > thiodicarb and at LC90 levelit was emamectin benxoate > spinosad > methomyl>indoxacarb > thiodicarb.( Manjunath Chouraddi,2008)( “Studies on relative toxicity of certain insecticides to spotted pod borer,Maruca vitrata.(Geyer),(pyralidae: Lepidotera): (Manjunath Chouraddi,2008). The difficulty in managing insecticide-resistant populations of H. armigera has given impetus to the development and use of alternative insecticides such as plant-derived products [e.g. neem (Azadiracta indica)] and insect pathogens, particularly the Helicoverpa nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV). These products are generally considered to be safer for humans and the environment and have less negative impact on beneficial organisms than conventional insecticides. Neem products have traditionally been used to protect stored grain in India. Commercially formulated neem products are available in many countries, although results on pigeonpea have been inconsistent Heliothis armigera collected in October 1987 from Juzzuru in the coastal cotton growing district of Krishna in Andhra Pradesh (Eastern India) were highly resistant to cypermethrin and fenvalerate and moderately resistant to endosulfan. Prior to this, in 1986, H. armigera in the Hyderabad area were resistant to DDT but not to pyrethroids or endosulfan. By late 1987 these latter populations were highly resistant to pyrethroids and mildly resistant to endosulfan. Concurrently, the resistance to DDT increased. It is suggested that resistant moths from the east coast migrated downwind in a northwesterly direction with the prevailing winds which occur at that time of year. The level of pyrethroid resistance in H. armigera infesting pigeon-pea and chick-pea fields around Hyderabad increased steadily up to March 1988. These results are discussed with special reference to the resistance mechanisms likely to be involved.( McCaffery et al.,1989)

Bio-control of Pigeonpea Pests: The use of NPV to control H. armigera has received much attention, particularly in India, though reliable control on pigeonpea has not been obtained. Both neem and NPV products suffer from poor and highly variable quality and a more limited distribution network than conventional insecticides. These problems must be overcome before these products can be considered effective and practical alternative control methods.

117

Pseudomonas fluorescensstrains which effectively inhibited mycelial growth of Fusarium udum,the pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) pathogen, were isolated from the rhizoplane of different crops. Various powder formulations of two efficientP. Fluorescensstrains were developed. All freshly prepared powder formulations were effective in controlling the disease, but their efficacies varied depending upon the length of storage. Talc formulations were effective even after 6 months of storage, while peat formulations were effective up to 60 days of storage. The shelf life of vermiculite, lignite, and kaolinite formulations was short. Unformulated bacterial suspensions could not be stored even for 10 days, at which time their efficacy was completely lost. The bacterial strains survived in pigeonpea rhizosphere throughout the crop-growth period. The talc-based powder formulations effectively controlled pigeonpea wilt and increased yield in two field trials. Development of powder formulations ofP. Fluorescenswill aid large-scale application of biological control in farmers' fields.(Vidyasagaran et al.,2002) The possibility of farmers or farmer cooperatives producing and using plant-derived or insect pathogen products on a local scale has attracted the attention and resources of a number of nongovernmental organizations. The development of insect-resistant and/or -tolerant pigeonpea cultivars has been a high priority in both national and international research programs for many years. Two problems have hindered progress: highly variable pest populations (within and across seasons) and the high degree of out-crossing in pigeonpea. The first problemwas addressed by developing an open-field screening methodology to compare the performance of genotypes at different locations and across years. . The key to this system is that material is evaluated in groups with similar flowering and maturity times, and any entry more susceptible than standard checks is rejected. Over a period of several years, only lines showing consistently superior performance relative to the checks are advanced.. Isolating material and vigilantly removing off-types minimizes the effect of out-crossing. Limitations of land, labor, and financial resources make this approach difficult for many national programs to follow rigorously. Traditional pigeonpea landraces are medium-to-long–duration and may have been selected to avoid peak pest attack.

• Delaying planting to avoid high pest populations has been an effective strategy in research station trials but has not been widely adopted. (Yadava et al,1983,1988)

• Selecting companion crops or cultivars has also been investigated as a means of minimizing pest damage (Lateef and Reed, 1990).

• The widespread practice of intercropping the longer-duration pigeonpea genotypes with one or more companion crops may have evolved through farmers’ desire to reduce the risks of insect or other losses. But the companion crop(s) is usually harvested before pigeonpea flowers when medium- and long-duration pigeonpea cultivars are used.

Thus, when pigeonpea is most attractive to the key pests, it is functionally a monocrop, and there is seldom any reduction in pest damage relative to sole-cropped pigeonpea. . Recently developed shorter-duration pigeonea genotypes, which mature in less than 4 months, may offer new opportunities for cultural or agronomic manipulations to minimize insect damage Another possibility for improving natural control would be to investigate the potential for exchanging natural enemies. For example, H. armigera eggs are attacked by Telenomus spp. in Africa and Australia, while only a single unconfirmed record of this genus in India is available (Romeis and,

118

Shanower,1996).Species of Clavigralla and Melanagromyza are other promising targets either for classical biological control or for trying new associations of natural enemies from closely related species. Need for an IPM for Pigeonpea: The critical input is viz., fertilizer, if applied in excess, makes the plants to become succulent and thus, attracts more of pests. To minimize the pest attack, farmers resort to usage of synthetic chemical pesticides and their indiscriminate use is creating many problems like pest resurgence, resistance of pest species, destruction of natural enemies, more so beneficial insects. About 70 per cent, of pesticides are being used in developing countries and remaining 30 per cent in developed countries. More than 1000 agro-chemicals are being manufactured and used for agriculture as well as for public health purposes. About 90 per cent of this quantity is comprised of insecticides and herbicides with nearly equal share each. Fungicides represent about 10 per cent of the total. Use of pesticides in India is increasing at the rate of two to five per cent per annum and is about three per cent of total pesticides used in the world. About 90,000 metric tons of technical grade pesticides are currently produced and more than 67 per cent is used in agriculture sector alone In this direction there is a need to minimize the chemical inputs and save environmental damage, thus integrated pest management (IPM) approach has been globally accepted for achieving sustainability in agriculture. Future Needs: Insect pests are a major constraint to pigeonpea production, yet there has beenrelatively little research investment, particularly outside of India, into the biology, ecology, and management of pigeonpea pests and their natural enemies. Research has concentrated almost exclusively on H. armigera and M. obtusa, with little attention given to other pests. Knowledge of the impact, dynamics, and ecology of the pests and their natural enemies is essential before effective control strategies can be developed. These studies must focus on the cropping system, as pigeonpea is frequently one component of a complex farming system. Other tropical legumes are particularly important because they share a number of pests and natural enemies with pigeonpea. Pigeonpea farmers in some parts of India and Africa have rapidly adopted the use of pesticides as the primary means of pest management. Past experience in developing countries has shown that pesticide use is often inappropriate and unsafe and that farmers frequently fall into a cycle of increasing the amounts and/or frequency of pesticide applications. To avoid this “pesticide treadmill,” pigeonpea farmers need effective alternative pest management practices. There is no shortcut or magic bullet to reduce losses due to insect pests immediately. Progress will be incremental, and in the short term, the greatest impact may come from improving insecticide application. This would involve enhancing the skills needed to scout fields and properly mix and apply insecticides and providing unbiased information on the relative risks and benefits of different insecticides. A strategy for the medium term should concentrate on developing improved cultivars that combine high yield and disease and insect-resistance into backgrounds with consumer-preferred agronomic characters. The identification of specific resistance mechanisms, such as increasing the density of nonglandular trichomes on pods, would be a good start. A longer-term solution to insect pest problems in pigeonpea must focus on ways to enhance natural control processes, either by the introduction of

119

exotic natural enemy species or by enhancing the effectiveness of endemic species.( Shanower and Romeis,1999). Diseases of Pigeonpea crop: Diseases. There are several disease-causing organisms, including nematodes, fungi, bacteria, and viruses that infect and kill insects. Diseases that afflict insect pests are beneficial, and considerable research has been conducted on some of these. Nematodes are a very large group of organisms that attack a wide variety of plants and animals. Some attack insects but there is very little information on nematodes that plague pigeonpea and chickpea pests. Helicoverpa armigera larvae are sometimes infected with nematodes, especially in the rainy season. These nematodes, Ovomermis albicans grow to a length of 10 cm or more. As they grow, they coil up inside H. armigera larvae, killing them before they can pupate by consuming and disrupting their internal organs. Diseases that Kill the Plant; Diseases of Pigeonpea crop: Management of Alternaria blight: Alternaria tenuissima Chemical control of this blight in order to minimize the loss by sparaying fungicides Indofill(Dithane M-45, was observed to be the most effective in controlling the disease followed by Difolatan and Chlothanlonail.The yield of the crop was also more than the other treatments.(Alka kushwaha et al.,2010) Collar Rot: Sclerotium rolfsii Saccardo Economic importance. A minor disease that can cause severe losses when undecomposed organic matter is left on the surface of seed beds. Pigeon pea following cereal crops such as sorghum is likely to be infected if stubbles have not be encle a red from the field. Epid emiology. Temperatures of about 3 0 °C and soil moisture at sowing predispose seedlings to infection. In India the disease is more of a problem in early - sown ( June) than in later - sown crops. Phytophthora Blight -Phytophthora drechsleri Tucker f. s p. cajani Fusarium Wilt - Fusarium udum Butler Dry Root Rot Macrophomina Stem Canker, Rhizoctonia bataticola (Taub.) Butler,Macrophomina phaseolina (Tassi) Goidanich Phoma Stem Canker: Phoma Cajani (Rangel) Khune & Kapoor Anthracnose: Colletotrichum cajani Rangel, Colletotrichum graminicola (Ces.) Wilson Bacterial Leaf Spot and Stem Canker :Xanthomonas campestris p v. cajani Powdery Mildew: Oidiopsis taurica (Lev.) Salmon ,(Teleomorph: Leveillula taurica [Lev.] Amaud)

120

Cercospora Leaf Spot : Cercospora cajani Hennings ( m o st p r e v a l e n t) ,Cercospora indica Singh ,Cercospora instabilis Rangel ,Cercospora thirumalacharii Sharma & Mishra Alternaria Blight : AIternaria sp ,Alternaria tenuissima (Kunze ex Persoon) ,Wiltshire Alternaria alternata (Fries) Keissler Phyllosticta Leaf Spot : Phyllosticta cajani Sydow Rust: Uredo cajani Sydow Botrtis Gray Mold :Botrytis Cinerea Persoon ex Fries Halo Blight: Pseudomonas syringae p v. phaseolicola ( Burkholder ) Young, Dye & Wilkie (syn P. phaseolicola) Sterility Mosaic: Etiology. Unknown -Vector. Eriophyid mite Aceria cajani Channabasavanna Yellow Mosaic: Mung bean yellow mosaic virus ,Vector. White fly Bemisia tabaci Gennadius Viruses: Of viruses that attack pests, the Nuclear Polyhedrosis virus (NPV) that infects H. armigera (HNPV) is widespread, having been reported in Africa, Asia, and Australia. Ailing larvae become sluggish, feed less, and eventually die. The infected larvae are often found hanging head-down from twigs.The cadavers are full of brown liquid containing virus particles. If these dead larvae are crushed, mixed with water, and then applied to the crop, the disease could be converted to an epidemic. Larvae that feed on foliage or pods contaminated with the virus fall prey to the disease. Small, infected larvae may be killed before doing any significant damage to the crop.Larvae infected later (>3rd instar) may take a week or more to diecontinuing to feed on the crop meanwhile, and causing substantial damage. Hence application of HNPV at egg eclosion will rein in H. armigera levels, minimizing damage. A point of caution is that the virus is inactivated by sunlight, making it essential that virus sprays be preserved with stabilizers and ultra-violet protectors to maintain their persistence Transgenic pigeonpea

In an effort to minimize the Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) damage, transgenic pigeonpea plants withBacillus thuringiensis (cry1Ab) and soybean trypsin inhibitor (SBTI) genes have been developed recently. An experiment was conducted to understand the influence of prolonged exposure of H. armigera larvae to transgenic pigeonpea plants. There were no significant toxic effects of transgenic pigeonpea plants on growth and development of H. armigera, although the larvae fed on transgenic plants showed prolongation of larval period, formation of larval-pupal intermediates and malformed adults. The results indicated adaptation of H. armigera larvae to the transgenic plants, particularly under low levels of toxin expression. (Gopalswamy et al, 2008)

IPM program The following IPM strategy has been developed for arthropod pests on chickpea and pigeonpea crops in Asia. This strategy combines a number of individual tactics into a generalized management program. The

121

focus is on managing Helicoverpa armigera, a key pest. Though focused on the pod borer, the program is flexible enough to accommodate location-specific practices such as planting times, row widths, and intercrop components. The strategy incorporates the experiences of many plant protection workers and farmers. We believe that by following these procedures chickpea and pigeonpea farmers can successfully overcome the major insect pests in their crops and produce high and stable yields. Suggested IPM components • Seed treatment with fungicide before sowing • The use of tolerant/resistant varieties for wilt disease in endemic areas • Following optimum spacing based on the duration and growth habit of the variety • The installation of H. armigera pheromone traps at the time of sowing for intensive monitoring and tuning of control strategies • The application of correct fertilizer dosages at appropriate stages of crop growth • Intensive weed management in the early stage of the crop • Increased monitoring for pod borers at flower initiation stage • Fixing of bird perches after crop establishment • Application of 5% neem kernel extract at flower initiation • Application of HNPV @ 500 LE per ha for pigeonpea and 250 LE per ha for chickpea at peak oviposition phase and repetition of the same after 15-20 days in case of fresh oviposition • Manual shaking of pigeonpea plants to dislodge larvae, and the handpicking and destruction of larvae in chickpea, in “outbreak” situations • Cautious application of appropriate chemical pesticides, if the controls recommended above do not contain pest population below levels of economic damage Crop diversity and Pigeonpea IPM: Crop production in rainfed regions is by nature dependent on monsoon behaviour and is therefore highly risky. Rainfed regions are also highly heterogeneous in terms of land terrain, soil productivity, climate and socio-economic conditions. All these factors come in the way of realizing the potential productivity of the crops. Another important factor that affects crop production is the incidence of pests and diseases. When combined with the meager capacity of the farmers to take up the necessary plant protection measures, the incidence of pests and diseases can lead to significant loss of productivity and income to the farmers. Crop diversity is a situation wherein different crops are grown simultaneously in the same piece of land. Crop-crop, crop-border and crop-weed diversities are different forms of crop diversity (Baliddawa, 1985). Intercropping and mixed cropping systems are more popular forms of crop-crop diversity practiced in rainfed agriculture. These systems provide opportunities to create situations that are less pest-prone compared to the single crop situations or the monocultures. Low External Input IPM modules: (LEIIPM) Three systems namely pigeonpea + sorghum, pigeonpea + groundnut and pigeonpea + blackgram were found to perform better in terms of lower pest incidence, better LER and higher gross margin. On these three systems three IPM modules as defined in section 2.3 were superimposed. All these modules consisted of only farm generated inputs. The findings from a two factor RBD analysis showed that the three modules and the three intercrops differed significantly in terms of incidence of pests, pod damage,

122

yield and gross margin. The incidence of H. armigera varied across different treatments having different combinations of intercrops and IPM modules. The incidence in terms of both CPU and mean population per plant varied significantly across the treatments. The effect of both the factors was found significant. The incidence of H armigera was particularly low in pigeonpea when intercropped with sorghum (13.53 CPU and 1.69 arvae/plant) and when protected with IPM module III (12.74 CPU and 1.59 larvae/plant). The interaction effect was also found significant. Similar results were obtained in case of other insect pests also. These differences in pest infestation were also reflected in the grain yield and damage. The IPM module (consisting of sequential application of botanical extracts, oils, erection of bird perches and mechanical collection of larvae) on pigeonpea + sorghum was found to suffer from least pest incidence, attract more natural enemies, give higher yields and returns, followed by the pigeonpea + groundnut system. These two systems can thus serve as a cultural component or platform on which the low external input or bio-intensive modules of crop protection can be adopted. Economic analysis also showed these intercropping systems to be more profitable than sole pigeonpea.It can be concluded that medium duration pigeonpea intercropped with sorghum, greengram or groundnut is better protected from adverse climate as well as pest attacks, resulting in higher yields and economic returns. The adoption of Low External Input Integrated Pest Management module (LEIIPM) consisting of sequential application of neem seed kernel extract 5%,neem oil 5%, extract of V. negundo 1/10 w/w, pongamia oil 5%, erection of bird perches and mechanical collection of larvae was found effective in managing/controlling the pests.Choice of medium duration pigeonpea and intercropping with sorghum, greengram orgroundnut may be integrated into the effective LEIIPM module as a component.

Geno types for Insect pest resisitance:

Because of increasing difficulties in controlling the damage by the pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera in pigeonpea with synthetic insecticides, it is important to identify genotypes with resistance to this pest for use in integrated pest management. Therefore, we evaluated a set of 12 diverse genotypes for resistance to H. armigera for two years over four plantings under natural infestation. There were significant differences among the genotypes in numbers of eggs and larvae, percentage pod damage, visual damage rating, and grain yield. The genotypes ICPL 187-1, ICP 7203-1, ICPL 98008, T 21, ICP 7035, and ICPL 332 exhibited moderate levels of resistance to H. armigera across planting dates, although there were a few exceptions. ICPL 187-1, ICP 7203-1, ICPL 84060, ICPL 87119, and ICPL 332 also showed better grain yield potential than the susceptible checks, ICPL 87 and ICPL 87091. All the genotypes were stable in their reaction to pod borer damage based on visual damage rating (except ICPL 87119 and ICPL 84060), but unstable for percent pod damage. Grain yield of most of the genotypes under H. armigera infestation was also unstable, except that of ICPL 87119, ICP 7035, and ICPL 332. Principal component analysis placed the test genotypes into different groups, and there is a possibility of increasing the levels and diversifying the basis of resistance to pod borer, H. armigera.(Kumari D Anitha et al.,2010).

Adoption and Impact of Integrated Pest Management in Pigeonpea((Rama Rao, C.A. , Srinivas Rao, M., Srinivas, K. and Ramakrishna, Y.S., 2007.). Spedding (1988) defined IPM system as a group of interacting components operating together for a common purpose – to keep the pest populations below the economic threshold levels. These components include cultural, mechanical, physical, biological and lastly chemical measures. The IPM

123

basically involves application/use of a variety of means that aim to manage pest populations below the economic threshold level (Smith and Reynolds, 1972; FAO, 1971). The input requirements, managerial skills and information needs of IPM therefore vary from those of chemical pest control and hence need to be examined more closely. The need for IPM is even more in rainfed agriculture characterized by poor biophysical and socioeconomic environment (Kanwar, 1999). Study area and background In order to identify the villages for data collection in view of the project objectives, timeseries data on area, production and productivity of the three crops in the target districts were collected. It was observed that variability in production of groundnut in Anantapur district did not show any significant trend. In case of cotton in Guntur district, production was observed to increase at an annual rate of 14 per cent. The area, production and productivity of pigeonpea in Rangareddy district were observed to increase at 3.24, 11.07 and 7.57 per cent, respectively during 1990-2000. The cultivation of pigeonpea was observed to be more prominent in the westernparts of Rangareddy district where more than 20 per cent of cropped area was sown to pigeonpea In a majority of mandals, the crop occupied less than 10 per cent of the cropped area. In case of pigeonpea in Rangareddy district, its share in the total cropped area peaked to 16 per cent in 1998 and then declined Farm level Impact of IPM The impact of adoption of IPM technologies is examined by following a ‘with and without’approach where in the mean values of the key parameters such as the use of plant protection chemicals, cost of cultivation, yield, net returns, of the ‘IPM’ farmers were compared with those of the non-IPM farmers. The differences were tested for their statistical significance applying t-test for continuous variables (inputs use, yield etc.) and �2 test for categorical variables (number of sick events). Results of the survey in Pigeonpea: ■ The different components of IPM recommended for pigeonpea and the frequency of adoption of each practice was depicted in fig 14. It can be observed that ploughing during summer before sowing the crop is the most adopted component of IPM adopted by the farmers. A majority of IPM farmers (about 90%) also rotate crops such as sorghum, maize, pearl millet with pigeonpea in order to break the pest build up. Spraying of Neem Seed Kernel Extract (NSKE) and neem oil was found to be adopted by as many as 75 per cent of the sample farmers. ■ Adoption of biological means of pest management such as NPV and Bacillus thuringiensis is not as popular because of the constraints in availability. In order for these components of IPM to be effective, time and method of application (e.g. NPV is to be applied during the cooler hours of the day and with adjuvants to reduce photo degradation and enhance efficacy) are very critical (Ravindra and Jayaraj, 1988). Since many farmers are not aware of these finer aspects of use of bio-rationals, they often do not obtain the potential benefits. Factors influencing adoption ■ The IPM farmers were relatively younger, had more years of schooling, had more family labour availability in terms of adults per house hold and were members in some social organizations such as

124

farmers’ clubs, user groups, self help groups etc. The IPM farmers also could identify a more number of pests and natural enemies than the non- IPM farmers. However, the IPM farmers have sown about 83 per cent of land to pigeonpea compared to 87 per cent in case of non-IPM farmers. The average farm size of IPM farmerswas about 10.9 ac compared to 9.1 ac in case of non-IPM farmers. ■ The maximum likelihood estimates of the logistic regression model obtained with SPSS 12.0 are presented in table 10. The table gives the estimated regression coefficients along with the significance levels, the odds ratio and the model fit statistics in the form of Negelkerke R2, log likelihood and the percent correct classification. The model estimated was found to be a significantly good fit as can be seen from all the three criteria mentioned. The Negelkerke R2 was about 0.46 and the log likelihood (-2 log LL) of 115.31 was significant at one per cent. The model predicted about 75 per cent of the cases correctly as either adopters or non adopters. Further, the model predicted 72 per cent of adopters and per cent of non-adopters correctly. ■ An examination of the logistic regression coefficients indicates that age of the farmer, schooling, participation in social groups and ability to recognize the pest and natural enemy species influenced the adoption decision significantly. As can be seen from the table, each year of schooling increased the odds of adoption of IPM by 37 percent. Similarly, as the age of the farmer increased by one year, the odds would decrease by two per cent. Thus, younger and educated farmers are more likely to adopt IPM technologies. This inference is not surprising because the younger farmers are more ambitious and more receptive to the newer technologies and the education will place them in a better position to obtain the ■ Relevant information and the necessary inputs. The participation in social groups alsoinfluenced the adoption decision significantly. A farmer who is a member in some social group is 3.77 times more likely than a farmer who is not a member. The participation of a farmer in social groups enhances his or her social capital in terms of access to information and resources. Further, various development programmes are also emphasizing the technology transfer through self-help groups, user groups etc. to quicken and broad base the uptake of the technologies. Thus, the highly positive and significant influence of the social capital as represented by participation in social organizations is tenable. The IPM technologies require more labour compared to the dependence on chemical insecticides alone. Thus the bigger farms and larger acreage under pigeonpea are less likely to attract IPM, which is reflected in the negative coefficients of the farm size and the area under pigeonpea. The positive coefficient for labour endowment as measured by the number of adults per household though not significant only reinforces this observation. It may be of relevance to note that farmers with larger farms and more area under the crop concerned are more likely to adopt chemical plant protection measures as observed in case of castor (Rama Rao et al., 1997). ■ Further, access to irrigation is highly correlated to the access and use of other purchased inputs such as fertilizers, which may influence IPM adoption positively. The relatively more assured returns from irrigated crops may also attract more managerial attention of the farmers as a result of which rainfed crops like pigeonpea might ‘suffer’ in which case the access to irrigation discourages IPM adoption. The observed non-significant coefficient indicates that the variable acted both ways. Thus, the variables associated with the human and social capital (age, education, pest recognizing ability and participation in social organizations) and the relative resource endowments (farm size and human labour availability) influenced the IPM adoption decision significantly. It is acknowledged that the IPM components are more knowledge-intensive (CGIAR, 2000) and more labour using. Thus, any effort to transfer IPM technologies should address the communication aspects – giving the right information at right time and in a right way.

125

Discontinuance of IPM in pigeonpea ■ One of the important reasons for farmers adopting IPM is the failure or ineffectiveness of chemical insecticides as an effective means of pest management. However, the insecticides manufacturers are trying hard to develop and make available more effective insecticides. The IPM also does not exclude chemicals insecticides altogether. While doing the field work in the villages, it was observed that some of the IPM adopters discontinued IPM following their use of more effective insecticides such as spinosad, indoxocarb, thiodicarb, which are recently being made available to the farmers through market. These are selective against the pod borers and are found to be highly effective and have the potential to obviate the need for any other pest management effort. In order to test the hypothesis that use of such highly effective insecticides would lead to discontinuation of IPM via strong economic Incentives For example, it was observed that one spray of spinosad is equivalent to 3-4 sprays of conventional chemicals such as endosulfan and adoption of IPM needsmore labour and continual attention towards the crop).The data collected was subjected to the Kaplan-Meiersurvival analysis in order to examine whether the IPM practices survived for shorter time with farmers using the above insecticides. The results showed that out of 50 sample farmers, 22 had used the newchemicals. Eighteen farmers 82 %) in the former group (discontinued IPM compared to six (21%) in the latter group Further 79% of the farmers who have not used the new chemicals are still continuing IPM compared to 18 % in the users of new chemicals. It was also observed that the farmers who used these chemicals adopted IPM for an average 3 years compared to 5 years incase of farmers who never used them. The log rank value was found to be 14.88, which was significant at less than one per cent. Thus, use of more effective chemical insecticides was found to lead to discontinuation of IPM by the farmers. It is also observed that the application of these chemicals is so effective that no larvae of pod borer Helicoverpa armigera) are available subsequently and thus affecting the on-farm preparation of NPV solution, which is an important component of IPM. While farmers have a strong economic rationale in doing so, it is important for researchers to examine the possible consequences of such chemicals and educate the farmers on the same. Continued use of these chemicals and discontinuation of IPM practices may result in a changing pest scenario which requires altogether a different strategy requiring a lot of resources to develop and get adopted by the farming community. Strategies for Effective Pest Management: To make IPM work, the constraints need to be addressed properly and the gaps in knowledge need to be bridged through R&D. Following strategies could help improve adoption of IPM: · Training of the farmers and extension personnel in IPM methodology · Aggressive demonstration campaigns by R&D institutions in collaboration with state functionaries and non-governmental organizations(NGOs) · Improved availability of critical inputs biopesticides, bioagents and resistant varieties · Development of monitoring tools and forewarning systems · Advocate use of safer pesticides and appropriate application methods · Research on multiple disease and pest resistant varieties, and · Holistic integration of all information’s to develop bio-intensive and costeffective practices.Pratap S.Birthal et al,2004)

126

The findings of this study bring out the following policy implications: (RamaRao et al.,2007)

1. The information being passed on to the farmers need to be more complete in terms of details of what, when, how much and how to follow certain IPM practices. The changingpest-dynamics and relative occurrence of different pests need to be better understood.

2. Since human capital and social capital related variables were found to be positively associated with IPM adoption, it is important that farmers are given necessary

3. information and skills. The effectiveness and coverage of Farmers’ Field Schools need to be strengthened further. Farmers growing a crop in contiguous area can be dealt with as a single group for enhancing IPM adoption.

4. The conviction of farmers regarding effectiveness of IPM is to be enhanced by appropriate demonstrations and continuous interactions with the farmers.

5. The agencies working on IPM promotion need to work with the community closely and for long enough (at least three years) so that farmers will get enough hand-holding.

6. The extension agencies should also have a strong backward-linkage with researchers working on the pest management of the crops concerned.

7. Appropriate institutional arrangements have to be made to make available the biological inputs to the farmers without compromising on the quality of these inputs.

8. Farmers should be made aware about the expanding market for residue-free agriculturalproduce and efforts are to be made to connect farmers to such markets so that they get some price premium for ‘clean’ produce.

9. Possibilities to include the dealers of agricultural inputs to promote IPM have to be explored

6. 3. Reference: Pigeon pea-IPM

Alka Kushwaha, Srivastava,Richa Nigam, and Naina Srivatsava.,-Management of alternaria blight of Pigeonpea crop through chemicals-International J.Plant Protection,2010-Vol(3): (2)pp:313 to 315. Amoako -Atta B, Omolo E O and Kidega E K 1983 Influence of maize, cowpea and sorghum intercropping systems on stem pod borer infestations. Insect Science and its Application 4 : 47 -57. Baliddawa C W 1985 Plant species diversity and crop pest control -an analytical Review.Insect Science and its Application 6 : 479 -487 Chanderkant Patel, 2008, Thesis submitted to the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science (Agriculture) InAGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS,2008. Duffield S J and Reddy Y V R 1997 Distribution and increment and movement of predators of Helicoverpa armigera in intercropped sorghum and short duration pigeonpea. Crop Research 14:315- 335. FAO 1971. Integrated Pest Control. FAO of the United Nations, Rome, 27pp Gethi M and Kha, lemba BM 1991, Damage by pod sucking bugs on cowpea when intercropped with maize. Tropical Pest Management 37:236-239.

127

Gopalaswamy S V S, Sharma H C, Subbaratnam G V,, Sharma K K,2008- Interaction of Helicoverpa armigera with Putative Transgenic Plants of Pigeonpea- Indian Journal of Plant Protection Year : 2008, Volume : 36, Issue : 2,First page : ( 183) Last page : ( 185)

Kanwar, J.S. 1999. Need for a future outlook and mandate for dryland agriculture in India. In: Fifty Years of Dryland Agricultural Research in India. Ed by H.P. Singh, Y.S.Ramakrishna, K.L. Sharma and B. Venkateswarlu, Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture in India, Hyderabad, 11-19.

Kumari D.Anitha, Reddy D Jagdishwar, Sharma H C – 2010-Stability of Resistance to Pod Borer, Helicoverpa armigera in Pigeonpea-dian Journal of Plant Protection-Year : 2010, Volume : 38, Issue : 1-First page : ( 6) Last page : ( 12) ) Lateef SS, Reed W, LaSalle J. 1985. Tanaostigmodes cajaninae LaSalle sp. n. (Hymenoptera: Tanaostigmatidae), a potential pest of pigeonpea in India. Bull. Entomol. Res. 75:305–13. Lateef SS,and Reed W. 1990. Insect pests of pigeonpea. In Insect Pests of Tropical Food Legumes, ed. SR Singh, pp. 193–242. Chichester, UK: Wiley. 451 pp. Lal SS, Yadava CP, Dias CAR. 1981. Major pest problems of pigeonpea in Uttar Pradesh, India. Int. Pigeonpea Newsl. 1:30–31 Manjunath TM, Bhatnagar VS, Pawar CS, Sithanantham S. 1989. Economic importance of Heliothis spp. in India and an assessment of their natural enemies and host plants. Proc. Workshop Biol. Control of Heliothis: Increasing the Effectiveness of Natural Enemies, ed. EG King, RD Jackson, pp. 197–228. New Delhi: Far East.Reg. Res. Off., US Dep. Agric. 550 pp. Manjunath Chouraddi, 2008, Studies on relative toxicity of certain insecticides to spotted pod borer, Maruca vitrata (Geyer) (pyralidae: Lepidotera)”Student: Manjunath Chouraddi Major Advisor: Dr. (Mrs.) T. Madhumathi-Dept of Entomoogy,

McCaffery, A.R., A.B.S.King, A.J.Walker, H. El-Nayir-1989-Resistance to synthetic pyrethroids in the bollworm, Heliothis armigerafrom Andhra Pradesh, India-Pesticide Science-Volume 27, Issue 1, pages 65–76, 1989)

Pratap S. Birthal and O. P. Sharma,2004, Proceedings 11,Integrated Pest Management in Indian Agriculture, National centre for Agricultural Economicsand Policy Research(NCAP) New Delhi,India and National Centre for Integrated Pest Management(NCIPM) New Delhi, India. Rangarao G V and Shanower T G 1999 Identification and management of pigeonpea and chickpea insect pests in Asia. Information Bulletin No.57:48-49. Rama Rao, C.A. , Srinivas Rao, M., Srinivas, K. and Ramakrishna, Y.S., 2007.Adoption and Impact of Integrated Pest Management in Cotton, Groundnut and Pigeonpea,Research Bulletin/AgEcon/2/2007. Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture (ICAR), Hyderabad. 32 p. Reynolds D,and Armes NJ. 1994. When insecticides fail: the case of the cotton bollworm in India. InWorld Agriculture 1994, ed. A Cartwright, pp. 39–42. London: Sterling. 144 pp.

128

Romeis J, Romeis O, Shanower TG. 1995. Paratrechina longicornis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), a predator of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) eggs.J. Biol. Contr. 9:56–58 Romeis J, Shanower TG. 1996. Arthropod natural enemies of Helicoverpa armigera (H¨ubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in India. Biocontrol Sci. Tech. 6:481–508 Romeis J, Shanower TG, Zebitz CPW.1998. Physical and chemical plant characters inhibiting the searching behavior of Trichogramma chilonis. Entomol. Exp.Appl. 87:275–84 Romeis J, Shanower TG, Zebitz CPW. 1998. Trichogramma egg parasitism of Helicoverpa armigera on pigeonpea andsorghum in southern India. Entomol. Exp.Appl. Submitted Saxena KB, Lateef SS, Fonseka HHD, Ariyaratne HP, Dharamsena CMD. 1996. Maruca testulalis damage in determinate and indeterminate lines of pigeonpea in Sri Lanka. Int. Chickpea Pigeonpea Newsl. 3:91–99 Shanower TG,and Varaprasad KS. 1997. PigeonpeaPest and Disease Management in South India: A Survey of District-Level Agricultural Officers. Integr. Syst. Proj. Rep. Ser. 8. Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India: Int. Crops Res. Inst. Semi-AridTrop. 19 pp Shanower TG, Lal SS, Bhagwat VR. 1998. Biology and management of Melanagromyza obtusa (Malloch) (Diptera: Agromyzidae). Crop Prot. 17:249–63 Shanower.T.G. and J. Romeis, 1999, Insect Pest Management of Pigeonpea-Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1999. 44:77–96) Shanower T G , Romeis J and Minja E M 1999 Insect pests of pigeonpea and their management. Annual Review of Entomology 44: 77 - 96. Sheldrake AR, Narayanan A, Venkataratnam N. 1979. The effects of early flower removal on the seed yield of pigeonpea (Cajanus Cajan). Ann. Appl. Biol. 91:383–90

Singh Ram and S., Nath Paras, 2011, Effect of bio-rational approaches on Pigeonpea and grain damage by pod bug Clavigralla gibbosa Sinola,) –Annals of Plant Protection Services-2011, Vol (19)(1),pp 75-79 Singh Ram S., Nath Paras-2011,- Effect of biorational approaches on Pigeon pea pod and grain damage by pod bug (Clavigralla gibbosaSpinola)- Annals of Plant Protection Sciences-Year : 2011, Volume : 19, Issue : 1-First page : ( 75) Last page : ( 79) Smith, R.F. and Reynolds, H.T. 1972. Effects of manipulation of cotton agro-ecosystems on insect pest populations. In The Careless Technology. Ed by M.T. Farwar and J.P.Milton. Natural History Press, New York. 373-406. Spedding, C.R.W. 1988. An Introduction to Agricultural Systems 2nd Ed, Elsevier Applied Science, London.

129

Srinivasa Rao, M., Dharma Reddy, K., Srivastava, N.N., Singh, T.V.K., Subba Reddy, G.and Ramakrishna, Y.S., 2004, Effect of change in microclimate on insect pests and their predators in pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan :L.). Indian Journal of Agricultural,Sciences. 74 (7): 399-402. Subharani S.and, Singh T.K.,2009 , Population dynamics of pod borer complex in pigeonpea in relation to abiotic factors- Indian Journal of Entomology Year : 2009, Volume : 71, Issue : 3First page : ( 215) Last page : ( 218) Trenbath B R 1993 Intercropping for the management of pests and diseases. Field Crops Research 34: 381 – 405 Vidhyasekaran, P, K.Sethuraman,K. Rajappan,K.Vasumathi,-2002,-PowderFormulations of Pseudomonas fluorescensto Control Pigeonpea Wilt-BiologicalControl-Volume 8, Issue 3, March 1997, Pages 166-171) Yadava CP, Lal SS, Dias CAR, Nigam R. 1983. Host evasion: a prospective approach for suppressing Heliothis damage. Int. Pigeonpea Newsl. 2:62–64 113. Yadava CP, Lal SS, Sachan JN. 1988. Assessment of incidence and crop loss due to pod-borers of pigeonpea (Cajanus Cajan) of different maturity groups. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 58:216–18

7. 1.Summary – Integrated Pest management in Chickpea: (Cicer arietinum Lin.)

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum Lin.) is an important food legume crop in the production system of Semi-Arid Tropics. World production of pulses is estimated as 58 million tonnes (1989-91 average). Chickpea ranks second among the pulses, India is the world's leading producer of chickpea with 68 per cent of the total production, followed by Turkey (I I%) and Pakistan (8%). In India, it is cultivated in an area of 7.3 million hectares which is about 64.6% of world chickpea cultivation area with 5.5 million tonnes production and 753 kg ha.' productivity (FAO, 1998).( Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) 1998 Quarterly Bulletin of Statistics 11 54.) The area under Bengalgram during 2009-2010 is at 6.47 lakh hectares as against 6.07 lakh hectares in 2008-2009, recording an increase of 6.6 percent. 6.9.2 The production of Bengalgram has decreased by 8.47 lakh tonnes in 2009-2010 as against 8.57 lakh tonnes in 2008-2009, showing a decrease of 1.2 cent. The average yield rate of Bengalgram was recorded at 1309 Kgs per hectares. in 2009-2010 as against 1413 Kgs per hectares in 2008-2009. The area, productivity and production of Bengalgram in the state from 2005-2006 to 2009-2010 are shown Weather

Population dynamics and weather effects of Heliocoverpa were studied. It was observedthat first appearance of eggs of Helicoverpa armigera in chickpea was noticed during 49th SMWand it remained active upto 9th SMW and attained three conspicuous peaks in 1st, 3rd and 7th SMW (1.3, 1.4 and 3.2 eggs/metre).

130

A unit increase in maximum temperature increases the population by 1.2 numbers and one percent increase in afternoon RH decreases the population by 1.4 numbers. It can be concluded from the study that higher maximum temperature and low relative humidity may cause higher incidence of pod borer population in chickpea. Crop Improvement: NBeG 1 (1561 kg/ha) recorded significant superior yield and 100 seed weight (29.5 g) than the best check JG-11 (1306 kg/ha). NBeG 28 (1439 kg/ha) and NBeG 13 (1410 kg/ha) recorded significant superior yield than Annigeri with bigger seed size, which is significantly superior to JG-11 (24.3 g) at Nandyal.

Management of Heliothis armogera:

Botanical control methods NSKE at 5 per cent was effective after the chemical pesticides. NSKE can be used in place of the highly toxic synthetic insecticides because of its safety to beneficial insects and its lower cost. Spraying of neem kernel extract of per cent gave 40 per cent reduction in infestation and was comparable to endosulfan at 0.07 per cent on chickpea. There were no significant differences in the seed yields. azadirachtin as the least effective insecticide. Azadirachtin (Nimbicidine 0.03 per cent) did not show any yield increase by reducing the pod damage caused by H.armigera when compared to either HNPV or chemical insecticides in chickpea. Biological control methods: Application of 250 larval equivalents hectare HNPV on Clcer arietinum against H. armigera and concluded that two applications of 450 larval equivalents hectare" at 10 days interval were most effective in reducing damage and resulted in the highest yield. HNPV with endosulfan against pod borer on chickpea and found that 2 sprays of NPV at 500 larval equivalents hectare-' were as effective as 2 sprays of 0.05% endosulfan in reducing infestation by H armigera. Mechanical control methods: Role of Bird perches: the cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis) and river tern (Sterna uuranria) were feeding on H.armigera on bengal gram (Cicer urierinum) in the third week of January. Due to the presence of the birds, the population of Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) was reduced from 5-10 larvae per plant in mid January to a negligible number ( 4 per plant) by the end of the month. common myna Acridorheres rristis and concluded that myna preyed upon larvae of H, urmigera effectively. Cultural Methods and Indigenous methods of Control: Intercropping chickpea with wheat or linseed found to be effective in the management of H armigera. The indigenous materials pongamia leaf extract + NSKE +aloe extract + cow urine combination recorded higher larval reduction ( 55.71 to 56.11% against chickpea pod borer (Heliothis armigera Hubner).

131

Chemical control methods:

• Endosulfan at 0.07 per cent applied twice was the most effective treatment which gave the highest seed yield of 1.078 tonnes hectare.

• The resistance against cypermethrin was minimum in fourth week of January (72.2 per cent) and highest during October first week and August third week (92.2 per cent). Endosulfan resistance in Helicoverpa was low to moderate and was found maximum in the last week of September (47.8 per cent), and minimum (7.8 per cent) in the first week of October. Resistance to methomyl (0.1 ug/ul) & quinalphos (0.75ug/ul) was low to moderate.

IPM recommendations:

• light and pheromone traps to monitor and to destroy the male moth of the pest population • Intercropping chickpea with wheat or linseed found to be effective in the management of H

armigera.in chickpea. • The indigenous materials pongamia leaf extract + NSKE +aloe extract + cow urine combination

recorded higher larval reduction (55.71 to 56.11% against chickpea pod borer (Heliothis armigera Hubner).

• Role of Bird perches: the cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis) and river tern (Sterna uuranria), common myna Acridorheres rristis are effective against Heliothis armigera.

• the use of natural enemies including Campolelis chlorideae Uchida, nuclear polyhedrosis virus and insecticides for the effective management of chickpea pod borer, H.armigera

• Application of 250 larval equivalents hectare HNPV on Clcer arietinum against H. armigera and concluded that two applications of 450 larval equivalents hectare" at 10 days interval were most effective in reducing damage and resulted in the highest yield.

• HNPV with endosulfan against pod borer on chickpea and found that 2 sprays of NPV at 500 larval equivalents hectare-' were as effective as 2 sprays of 0.05% endosulfan in reducing infestation by H armigera.

• NSKE at 5 per cent was effective after the chemical pesticides. NSKE can be used in place of the highly toxic synthetic insecticides because of its safety to beneficial insects and its lower cost.

• Better résistance variety suitable for different regions maybe recommended.

7. 2.Integrated Pest Management in Chickpea:

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum Lin.) is an important food legume crop in the production system of Semi-Arid Tropics. World production of pulses is estimated as 58 million tonnes (1989-91 average). Chickpea ranks second among the pulses, India is the world's leading producer of chickpea with 68 per cent of the total production, followed by Turkey (I I%) and Pakistan (8%). In India, it is cultivated in an area of 7.3 million hectares which is about 64.6% of world chickpea cultivation area with 5.5 million tonnes production and 753 kg ha.' productivity (FAO, 1998).( Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) 1998 Quarterly Bulletin of Statistics 11 54.) Chickpea is a very important component of cropping systems of the dry, rainfed areas, because it canfix 80 to 120 kg Nitrogen hectare" through symbiotic nitrogen fixation (Papastylanou, 1987).

132

(Papastylanou I 1987 Effect of preceding legume on cereal grain and nitrogen yield.Journal of Agricultural Science 108:623-626.) Per capita availability of pulses in India has declined from 24g day" to 16g day"which is about 1.2 per cent per year, since 1970. This is almost exclusively because o chickpea, which registered a steep 32% decline in per capita availability due to lower productivity mainly because of the pest problems (Kelley and Parthasarathy Rao, 1996). Chickpea production in Andhra Pradesh:

Bengal gram or chickpea is mostly grown in Rabi season. The crop is sown in the month of October and November to a limited extent in the month of December also. The crop is grown externally under rain-fed conditions .The Crop is sown in Kurnool, Prakasam, Anantapur, Kadapa, and Medak districts which accounted for 70.5 percent of the total area under the crop in the state during 2009-2010 and Kurnool district alone shares 37.0 percent of the total area under this crop.

The area under Bengal gram during 2009-2010 is at 6.47 lakh hectares as against 6.07 lakh hectares in 2008-2009, recording an increase of 6.6 percent. 6.9.2 The production of Bengal gram has decreased by 8.47 lakh tonnes in 2009-2010 as against 8.57 lakh tonnes in 2008-2009, showing a decrease of 1.2 cent. The average yield rate of Bengal gram was recorded at 1309 Kgs per hectares. in 2009-2010 as against 1413 Kgs per hectares in 2008-2009. The area, productivity and production of Bengal gram in the state from 2005-2006 to 2009-2010 are shown Changing Lives with Improved Chickpea One of the biggest success stories for chickpea is the revolution in chickpea production in Andhra Pradesh. There has been a 9.3-fold increase in production (from95,000 to 884,000 t) during the past 10 years (1999/00 to2008/09) because of 4-fold increase in area (163,000 to628,000 ha) and 2.5-fold increase in yield levels (583 to1407 kg ha-1). About 80% of the chickpea area in Andhra Pradesh is cultivated with improved varieties (eg, JG 11, JAKI 9218, ICCC 37, KAK 2 and Vihar) developed through partnership of ICRISAT and Indian NARS. The desi chickpea variety JG 11 is presently the most popular variety in Andhra Pradesh grown in about 70% of the chickpea area.

Pest-affected Bengal gram crop examined (Hindu-Special Correspondent-Nov 21, 2010)

KURNOOL: Collector Ramsankar Naik, accompanied by a panel of agriculture scientists, on Saturday examined the pest-affected Bengal gram crop in Aluru and Halaharvi mandals of Kurnool district.The district emerged has the place with the highest area under Bengal gram cultivation in the country with over 2.5 lakh hectares. Most of the farmers have abandoned cultivation of traditional crops like jowar, sunflower, safflower and coriander and shifted to Bengal gram. The crop has been affected by severe leaf blight in the district this year which is likely to hit the yield. The lower portion of the planted has been degenerated with leaf spots and burning.

The scientists noted that acute damp conditions due to excess rain, cultivation of Bengal gram for several years without any rotation and large areas under the crop in the district without any gap, had led to the outbreak of the disease.

133

As short-term solution, the scientists suggested spraying of hexaconazole (contaf) or Bavistin to control the disease. As long-term measures, farmers were advised to shift to castor which would give steady yields with less pest problem. Also, the farmers who were particular about Bengal gram cultivation were asked to follow rotation system by cultivating other crops in between to break the pest cycle. Collector asked farmers to take up chemical spraying as immediate measure and promised to write to the government about the crop loss after proper assessment on the quantum of damage.

Weather and Pests: Faizabad To study the effect of weather on pod borer population intensity in chickpea, appearance of pod borer was monitored at weekly interval during the entire growing period of the crop. Larval population per square meter showed highly significant positive relationship with maximum temperature and negative relationship with afternoon relative humidity.A unit increase in maximum temperature increases the population by 1.2 numbers and one percent increase in afternoon RH decreases the population by 1.4 numbers. It can be concluded from the study that higher maximum temperature and low relative humidity may cause higher incidence of pod borer population in chickpea. Jabalpur Population dynamics and weather effects of Heliocoverpa were studied. It was observedthat first appearance of eggs of Helicoverpa armigera in chickpea was noticed during 49th SMW and it remained active upto 9th SMW and attained three conspicuous peaks in 1st, 3rd and 7th SMW (1.3, 1.4 and 3.2 eggs/metre). Regression of H. armigera egg numbers with weather parameters brought out highly significant inverse curvilinear relationship between helicoverpa egg numbers and sunshine hours. Egg numbers will be minimum around 6 to 7 hours of sunshine and sunshine hours beyond 7 hours cause steep increase in egg numbers of H. armigera in chickpea. It was observed from the study that low morning relative humidity and higher sunshine hours cause flare up of H. armigera egg population in chickpea crop.(Annual Report,2009) Crop Improvement: Crop Improvement In AVT-1 (Desi) except NBeG 55 all the entries recorded significantly superior yield than the check JG-11 (994 kg/ha). In AVT-1 Kabuli, only two entries NBeG 119 (1173 kg/ha) andNBeG 72 (1137 kg/ha) were found to be on par with the check Vihar (1128 kg/ha) but significantly superior to KAK-2 (766 kg/ha) at Nandyal. In MLT among the entries tested, NBeG 1 (1561 kg/ha) recorded significant superior yield and 100 seed weight (29.5 g) than the best check JG-11 (1306 kg/ha). NBeG 28 (1439 kg/ha) and NBeG 13 (1410 kg/ha) recorded significant superior yield than Annigeri with bigger seed size, which is significantly superior to JG-11 (24.3 g) at Nandyal.

Crop Production

In oil seed-chickpea cropping system, application of FYM 5 t/ha to kharif and rabi crops and 60 + 20 kg P2O5+S/ha to chickpea gave higher chickpea grain yield (1974 kg/ha) at Lam. In the trial on influence of seed rates on chickpea varieties Annegeri and JG-11 produced comparable number of pods/plant (47.3 and 39.0 respectively) with higher seed yields (1927 and 1831 respectively) compared to KAK-2 (1044

134

kg/ ha). Annegiri and JG-11 produced comparable yields at different seed rates ranging from 25 to45 kg/acre at Nandyal. Compatibility study of Insecticide (Thiodicarb) with fungicides was conducted invitro by poisoned food technique at Lam.Mancozeb, copperOxychloride,Dinocap,Tridemorph were compatible with Thiodicarb (insecticide).( Bengalgram-Annual Report 2008-09-ANGRAU –Research)

Important Pests of Chickpea: Gram pod borer Helicoverpa armigeru Mubner, Gram pod borer Helicoverpa armigeru Mubner, is a prolific and widespread pest,which feeds on at least 180 plant species spread across 47 botanical families (Pawar et al.,1986). Though pod borer larvae feed on both leaves and pods, yield losses are mainly due to pod damage. The biological characteristics which contribute directly to the pest status of Helicoverpa are high degree of polyphagy, high mobility, facultative diapause, highfecundity and multi-generation (Fitt, 1989). This IPM approach will ultimately reduce the negative influence of insecticides on the natural enemies that are present in the suitable ecological niche and will save the ecosystem and the environment from toxicological hazards. Management strategies of Helicoverpa armigera Hubncr:- Botanical control methods Efficacy of Neem products against Helicoverpn armrigera: Sinha and Mehrota (1988) reported that neem oil did not have a significant effect. even though it gave a higher yield of chickpea seed than an untreated control. On the basis of grain yield, the neem leaf extract at 5 per cent was found to be effective on chickpea and on the basis of profitability NSKE at 5 per cent was effective after the chemical pesticides. NSKE can be used in place of the highly toxic synthetic insecticides because of its safety to beneficial insects and its lower cost (Thakur et al, 1988). Sehgal and Ujagir (1990) concluded that NSKE at 5 per cent was less effective on H.armigera on chickpea, but still significantly better than the control. According to Datkhile et a1 (1992) neem seed extract at 5 per cent was least effective on gram pod borer when compared to synthetic yrethroids. Grain yield of chickpea was increased following treatment with neem seed kernel suspension (Butani and Mittal, 1993). Sachan and Lal, 1993) suggested that NSKE and neem leaf extract were more effective for controlling H.armigera on chickpea. Spraying of neem kernel extract of per cent gave 40 per cent reduction in infestation and was comparable to endosulfan at 0.07 per cent on chickpea. There were no significant differences in the seed yields in plots treated with neem emulsion (0.125 per cent) and neem kernel extract (5 per cent) (Sinha, 1993). Khan (1996) studied the use of newer insecticides for the control of pod borer on chickpea and reported that neem seed extract 5.0 per cent yielded equally as that of chemical insecticides and better than untreated control. Ravi and Verma (1997) conducted a study on persistence and dissipation of insecticides against .H.armigera on chickpea and concluded that azadirachtin as the least effective insecticide. According to Ujagir,et al.,(1997) azadirachtin (Nimbicidine 0.03 per cent) did not show any yield increase by reducing the pod damage caused by H.armigera when compared to either HNPV or chemical insecticides in chickpea.

135

Biological control methods: Efficacy of Helicoverpa Nuclear PolyhedrosisVirus (HNPV) against H.armigera: Dhamdhere and Khaire (1986) evaluated different doses of HNPV on Clcer arietinum against H. armigera and concluded that two applications of 450 larval equivalents hectare" at 10 days interval were most effective in reducing damage and resulted in the highest yield. According to Jayaraj el al (1987) application of 250 larval equivalents hectare" reduced the H. armigera larval population significantly and stated that control of H, armigera with nuclear polyhedrosis virus was more effective on chickpea. Pawar,et al.,b,(1987) compared the bioefficacy of HNPV with endosulfan against pod borer on chickpea and found that 2 sprays of NPV at 500 larval equivalents hectare-' were as effective as 2 sprays of 0.05% endosulfan in reducing infestation by H armigera (Hubner) larvae and pod damage and in increasing seed yield. Bilapate el a1 (1988) observed 1.98 per cent to 24.52 per cent larval mortality of H armigera due to HNPV on chickpea. The lowest pod damage and highest yields were obtained with the highest concentration of 500 LE ha" of nuclear polyhedrosis virus against H, armigeru on chickpea (Pawar et a/, 1990). Misra et a1 (1991) studied the use of NPV in management of the insect pest, H. armigera in gram and reported that NPV application of 250 LE ha"considerably reduced pod damage and larval populations of H.armigera. Rabindra, et al.,(1992) reported that the mortality of larvae of H armigera caused by nuclear polyhedrosis virus was significantly higher on H.armigera susceptible varieties of chickpeas than on resistant accessions. The larval mortality rate was positively correlated with leaf consumption. According to Abhisek Shukla and Goydani (1996) NPV applications produced a significantly higher seed yield compared to untreated control plots. Sharma er al (1997) assessed different bio-pesticides for the management of .H.armigera (NPV) in chickpea and concluded that nuclear polyhedrosis virus gave the best control of the pest. Application of HNPV resulted in increased grain yields in chickpea (Ujagir et al, 1997). Mechanical control methods: Role of Bird perches in the management of gram pod borer: Ohode,et al (1998) observed the avian predation of gram pod borer Heiicoverpa armigera (Hubner) in Orissa and reported that the cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis) and river tern (Sterna uuranria) were feeding on H.armigera on bengal gram (Cicer urierinum) in the third week of January. Due to the presence of the birds, the population of Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) was reduced from 5-10 larvae per plant in mid January to a negligible number ( 4 per plant) by the end of the month. Patel (1988) organized studies on predation of H, armigera and Spodoptera litura by insectivorous birds with special emphasis on mynas Acridorheres rrislis (L). Joginder Singh et a1 (1990) while explaining the ecology of H arntigcra mentioned the importance of house sparrows and myna as natural enemies in Ludhiana. Besides parasites several birds are often observed in groundnut fields of which egrets, drongos and mynas are important predators that feed on Helicoverpa and Spodoptera. Studies also revealed that cattle egret (Babulcus ibis) was found to be insectivorous consuming individuals of seven orders of insects. These birds were found to exert appreciable control, to the extent of 73 per cent of H. armigera resulting in an increased yield of 218 gram per meter square as against 120 gram per meter square on the area where no birds were allowed to prey. The birds were observed to reduce Helicoverpa population to the tune of 33% on wheat when allowed to prey during bullock ploughing for 3 consecutive days. Similarly in Kota, Rajasthan the House sparrows reduced the Helicoverpa population by 20 to 40 per cent (lCAR, 1992).

136

Wightman et al (1993) reported that predation by cattle egret might be increased by giving the birds easy access to the larvae by sowing on ridges or by optimizing row separation in a flat sowing. Gunathilagaraj,(1996) worked on the management of H.armigera in chickpea with common myna Acridorheres rristis and concluded that myna preyed upon larvae of H, urmigera effectively. Bhagwat (1997) provided bird perches to encourage predatory birds and stated that birds only visited plots that were not sprayed with chemical or botanical insecticides and their activity was intense in plots sprayed with NPV, where the birds were found feeding on the dead virus-infected larvae. Parasharya (1995) noted that in chickpea Campolefis chlorideae parasitizes small larvae whereas birds prefer large and medium size larvae and birds have been demonstrated to assist in the spread of insect pathogens by eating infected insects. The birds indiscriminately feed on healthy as well as NPV infected Helicoverpa larvae and excrete viable particles of NPV. Cultural Methods of Control: Thakur,(1990),revealed that intercropping chickpea with wheat or linseed found to be effective in the management of H armigera. Among various treatments, nuclear polyhedrosis viruses plus two sprays of endosulfan (0.035 per cent) at first and third week of the chickpea crop recorded less pod damage and gave maximum yield. Improved agronomic package, seed treatment with lhiram plus Bavistin, hand weeding 25 days after sowing and spraying lhiodan (endosulfan) against H. armigera on chickpea increased yields by 16-81 per cent and significantly increased net returns(Yadav, 1996).According to Bhagwat (1997), an integrated pest management strategy using a botanical insecticide, a host specific virus to protect chickpea from pod borer showed the efficacy of this approach over local practices of farmers in on-farm situation.as 1:2.44 in non-IPM one.- Indigenous materials : Malapur and Ladaji, (2010), indicated that the indigenous materials pongamia leaf extract + NSKE +aloe extract + cow urine combination recorded higher larval reduction (55.71 to 56.11% against chickpea pod borer (Heliothis armigera Hubner) Chemical control methods: Vyas and Lakhchaura (1996) stated that endosulfan at 0.07 per cent applied twice was the most effective treatment which gave the highest seed yield of 1.078 tonnes hectare". Ujagir el a1 (1997) evaluated some insecticides against H.armigera on chickpea and reported that endosulfan resulted in increased grain yields when compared to nimbicidine and dipel. All other treatments were observed to be on par with control. Endosulfan had profound effect on aerial natural enemy fauna to a tune of 45 per cent over control foliowed by neem (14.90). All other treatments were observed to be on par with control. The results on parasitisation of H, armigera larvae by Campoleris chlorideue revealed that there was no significant difference among the treatments. So all the treatments are adjudged as safe to Campoleris chlorideae. The egg parasitisation was observed to be nil. The results on the pathogenicity by NPV on H. armigera showed that maximum percentage infection was observed in NPV sprayed treatment followed by in IPM since it received NPV as second spray. All other treatments were found to be on par with control (25.00 to 29.00 per cent).

137

Insecticides resistance in Chickpea: Data on pest-resistance to each insecticide (cypermethrin, endosulfan, quinalphos, methomyl and spinosad) using discriminatory doses were recorded for cotton-chickpea growing season during 2005–06 and 2006–07. Resistance frequencies were higher for cypermethrin (0.1 ug) throughout the study period. The resistance against cypermethrin was minimum in fourth week of January (72.2 per cent) and highest during October first week and August third week (92.2 per cent). Endosulfan resistance in Helicoverpa was low to moderate and was found maximum in the last week of September (47.8 per cent), and minimum (7.8 per cent) in the first week of October. Resistance to methomyl (0.1 ug/ul) & quinalphos (0.75ug/ul) was low to moderate. The pooled mean resistance to methomyl was minimum in fourth week of August (7.8 per cent) and maximum in third week of October (55.6 per cent). However, the mean resistance to quinalphos ranged from 10.0 to 55.6 per cent. Resistance to cypermethrin (0.1ug/ul), was moderate to high, while in quinalphos, methomyl and endosulfan it was low to moderate. Resistance to spinosad (1.0 ug/ul) was low (1.1 to 20 per cent) throughout the study period of 2005–06 and 2006–07 respectively.( Bajya D R, et al. 2010 ) Integrated Pest Management strategies against Helicoverpa armigera: Ahmed,e a1,(1990) reviewed some recent approaches to manage of Helicoverpu armigera (Hubner) on chickpea which covered population studies through pheromone traps, insecticide use, use of bacteria, viruses and parasitoids, cultural practices and host plant resistance and breeding.Lal (1990) has indicated some strategies for the management of H. armigera in chickpea which recommends the use of insecticides, neem seed kernel extract, pheromone traps, growing early maturing cultivan, advancing the sowing date to avoid the pest, opting for resistant varieties, use of parasitoids like Campoletis chlorideae Uchida, and pathogen like nuclear polyhedrosis virus. Mahajan et a1 (1990) recommended light and pheromone traps for monitoring the population of H, armigera. Mahajan,etal,(1990) recommended the use of natural enemies including Campolelis chlorideae Uchida, nuclear polyhedrosis virus and insecticides for the effective management of chickpea pod borer, H, armigera and light and pheromone traps to monitor the pest population and also stated that use of resistant varieties, inter cropping system and sowing dates are not much effective in the management of this pest. The lowest pod damage and highest yield were obtained in plots treated with the highest concentration of virus in combination with one spray of endosulfan (Pawar et al, 1990). According to Sachan (1990) some of the pest control measures include, the use of synthetic pheromone traps and light traps, parasitoids like Campolelis chlorideae Uchida, predators like Della species and nuclear polyhedrosis virus, breeding for host plant resistance, advancing the sowing date or using early maturing cultivars, mixed or intercropping with cereals or other legumes, use of phosphotic fertilizers and application of insecticides. Thakur (1990) revealed that intercropping chickpea with wheat or linseed found to be effective in the management of H armigera. Among various treatments, nuclear polyhedrosis viruses plus two sprays of endosulfan (0.035 per cent) at first and third week of the chickpea crop recorded less pod damage and gave maximum yield. Use of parasitoids, Campolefis chlorideae Uchida and nuclear polyhedrosis viruses, opting for early maturing cultivars, advancing the sowing dates and mixed cropping were recommended in controlling H armigera (Hubner) in chickpea (Yadava,1990). According to Jayaraj (1992) the use of nuclear polyhedrosis virus in combination with jaggery, teepol etc., is found to be promising against H.armigera in chickpea and extensive use of sex pheromone and light traps for monitoring as well as control of H.ormigera were also recommended. Also stated that

138

application of neem seed kernel extract 5 per cent and inundative release of parasites is effective for the management of this pest. Sarode el a1 (1995) concluded that application of the NPV at 500 LE per hectare plus the neem extract at 6 per cent gave the maximum reduction in larval numbers (79.8 and 65.2 per cent at 7 and 14 days after spraying respectively). Sarode and Samaik (1996) reported that the HNPV and the botanical product, neem seed kernel extract were found effective and the addition of half doses of insecticides in these material improve their efficacy to combat the gram pod borer H. arnligera. Improved agronomic package, seed treatment with lhiram plus Bavistin, hand weeding 25 days after sowing and sprayinglhiodan (endosulfan) against H. armigera on chickpea increased yields by 16-81 per cent and significantly increased net returns(Yadav, 1996). According to Bhagwat,(1997), an integrated pest management strategy using a botanical insecticide, a host specific virus to protect chickpea from pod borer showed the efficacy of this approach over local practices of farmers in on-farm situation. Sanap and Pawar (1998) evaluated integrated pest management, treatment comprising endosulfan 0.07 per cent, neem seed kernel extract 5 per cent and nuclear polyhedrosis virus at the rate of 250 larval equivalents per hectare and revealed that 3 spray applications starting from the initiation of flowering and subsequent 2 sprays at fortnightly intervals with first two sprays either with n~lclearp olyhedrosis virus at the rateof 250 larval equivalent per hectare or neem seed kernel extract followed by a third spray with endosulfan 0.07% were most effective in controlling H. armigera and resulted in a, 26.94 and 27.29 per cent increase in yield respectively. Integrated Pest management in Chickpea-ICRISAT, Hyderabad: A field experiment was conducted during post rainy season 1998-99 at International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh to assess the relative efficacy of a botanical pesticide neem (AZA) 0.006 per cent, a bio-control agent HNPV @ 250 LElha, erecting bird perches, a chemical insecticide endosulfan 0.07 per cent and the combinations of above said four treatments (IPM) against gram pod borer Helicoverpa ormigera Hubner on chickpea. In addition, the following other aspects were also studied:- i) Evaluating the treatmental effects on the soil inhabiting natural enemies using pitfall trap. ii) Evaluating the treatmental effects on the aerial natural enemies using DeVac trap. iii) Evaluating the treatmental effects on the efficacy of Campoletis chlorideoe.iv) Monitoring of Helicoverpa adults using pheromone traps in the field. v) Studying the seasonal incidence of gram pod borer H. armigera. In the present studies all the treatments were found to be significantly superior to control in reducing the oviposition of H armigera. The maximum reduction in egg laying was observed with neem followed by IPM (37.00 and 36.79 per cent reduction over control respectively). IPM was adjudged as the best effective treatment in managing the small, medium and large sized larval population, followed by endosulfan. HNPV spray stood next in the order of efficacy. Because of its antifeedant nature neem was also observed to be effective. The least per cent pod damage was obtained with IPM (9.37), followed by endosulfan 0.07 per cent (10.21), neem 0.006 per cent (10,98) and HNPV (1 1.55). Bird perches recorded the maximum per cent pod damage (13.45) as against 18.76 in control. The maximum yield of 11.67 q ha" was obtained with IPM, followed by endosulfan (10.48 q ha*'), HNPV (9.63 q ha.') and neem 0.006 per cent (9.61 q ha"). The plot with bird perches received 8.58 q ha" as against 7.41 q ha" in the control plots. The yield and pod damage were observed to be significantly negatively correlated (I- -0.9228").

139

Among all the treatments, erecting bird perches was found to be inferior; still it contributed effectively in managing the larval population. The same trend was observed in managing the total larval population with 36.60 per cent reduction in larval population over control in IPM plots, followed by endosulfan (33.20), HNPV (29.10), neem (25.40) and erecting bird perches (22.50).Endosulfan reduced the soil inhabiting natural enemies population up to 39.95 per cent over control, followed by neem (8.19). In terms of cost benefit ratio IPM was found to be the best treatment which recorded the highest cost benefit ratio of 1:6:3, followed by endosulfan (1:6.1), neem (1:5.5) and HNPV spray (l:4.8). The investigations on the seasonal incidence of H armigera on chickpea revealed that maximum number of eggs were laid in the last week of December i.e., at 50 DAS. The larval population attained three peaks at 29,57 and 85 days of crop age, even though maximum population was observed at 57 DAS (during first standard week),which coincided with pod formation stage. The pheromone trap catches revealed that the maximum moth catches were observed between 65 and 85 DAS i.e., third fourth and fifth standard weeks. Nematode Management in Chickpea: The first step is to emphasize the importance of nematodes as a constraint to chickpea and pigeo n pea production. For example, based on surveys and crop loss , estimation trials , it is evident that Heterodera cajani Rotylenchulus reniformis, and Meloidogyne spp are important nematode pests of pigeon pea in India, while Meloidogyne spp and Pratylenchus spp are important on chickpea. Generally, population densities of greater than one nematode cm- 3 soil at the time of sowing are harmful for plant biomass and seed yield; susceptible varieties may suffer heavy damage when they are grown in soil infested with greater than three nematodes cm- 3 soil. These nematodes suppress the formation of Rhizobium nodules and enhance the severity of fusarium w ilt of chickpea and pigeonpea. In some wilt - resistant chickpea and pigeonpea genotypes, resistance mechanisms do not operate effectively in the presence o f nematodes. As evide nt from various publications , it seems logical to conclude that , at least in India , the first step has nearly been completed.( S B Sharma1,1997) Botrytis gray mold (BGM) of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.): Botrytis gray mol d (BGM) of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is important in Bangladesh, Nepal, and in the submontane regions of Bihar and Uttar Prades h in India. Recently, BGM was also observed in Myanmar . The disease becomes serious following frequent winter rains that cause excessive vegetative growth and high humidity, which favor its spread and severity. Fortunately, these conditions do not occur every year. Integrated Disease Management of Botrytis Gray Mold (Botrytis cinerea Pers. ex Fr.) of Chickpea: Botrytis gray mol d (BGM) of chickpea, caused by Botrytis cinerea Pers. ex Fr., destroys chickpea crops in Bangladesh, north eastern India, and Nepal. The disease has been observed in Myanmar and Pakistan. The spread and severity of BGM is facilitated by high relative humidity in the crop canopy. Thus, in environments favorable to the disease, tall, erect genotypes of chickpea have less disease incidence than bushy and spreading genotypes. This finding led to the consideration that integration of various methods of disease control may be a better approach to managing BGM.

140

The tall erect genotype has less disease in sprayed and nonsprayed plots. In bot h the genotypes, wider row spacing reduced the disease severity. In H 208, one spray of Ronilan® reduced disease intensity significantly, as reflected in the yield. In ICCL 87322 and H 208, a wider row spacing, along with one fungicidal spray, significantly increased yield. However,under nonsprayed conditions, ICCL 87322, the tall, erect genotype, yielded twice as much as H 208 A prel iminary investigation indicated that two sprays of biocontrol agent (T. viride) can effectively reduce BGM disease in the field. Effect of Sowing Time: The effect of sowing t ime on the incidence of BGM was studied dur ing 1993/94. An early-sown crop (10 October) showed the maximum disease incidence, whereas a late-sown crop (20 November ) had low disease incidence. The BGM attack was significantly less severe on chickpea crop sown between 30 Oct and 20 Nov 1993. Effect of Sowing and Seed Rate The crop sown on 25 Nov 1994 showed significantly less disease incidence than the crop sown on 25 Oct. A considerable reduction in disease incidence wa s also recorded on the crop sown on 10 Nov 1994. A lower seed rate of 30 and 40 kg h a 1 also helped reduce BGM. No significant differences were observed between the two test varieties. The interact ion between sowing t ime and cultivar, and between seed rate and cultivar was significant, whereas the effect of interact ion of sowing time, seed rate, and variety was not significant. Effect of Plant Population Disease incidence was significantly less in wide row spacings of 45 and 60 cm, compared wi t h close row spacings of 15 and 30 cm. The wide row spacing of 60 cm showed the least disease incidence. A plant spacing of 15 cm significantly reduced BGM incidence, compared wi t h a closer plant spacing of 5 cm Screening of Germ plasm and Breeding Lines for Resistance to BGM During 1992-95, 2550 chickpea lines were screened in a growth chamber. Five chickpea lines, PGL 700, GL 90159, GL 91040, KPG 70, and BG 439 were found resistant. Thirteen lines were found to be resistant - to-moderately resistant. It is necessary to confirm the resistance of these lines in multi locational testing. Seed Treatment Seed treatment with Bavistin® + Thiram® (1:1), Indofil M-45®, Thiabendazole®,Ronilan®, Rovral®, or Bavistin® at the rate of 3 g kg-1 seed controls the seedborne infection of B. cinerea. Foliar Spray Application of Indofil M-45®, Thiabendazole®, Bayton®, Bayleton®, and Thiram®during crop growth controls foliar infection in February-March.. (Gurdip et al., 1997) (Gurdip S i n g h , Bal j inder Kumar , and Y R Sharma11997, Gurdip Singh, Baljinder Kumar, and Sharma, Y.R. 1997. Botrytis gray mold of chickpea in Punjab, India. Pages13-14 in Recent advances in research on botrytis gray mold of chickpea: summary proceedings of the Third Working Group Meeting to Discuss Collaborative Research on Botrytis Gray Mold of Chickpea, 15-17 Apr 1996, Pantnagar,Uttar

141

Pradesh, India (Haware, M.P, Lenne, J.M., and Gowda, C.L.L., eds.). Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics

7.3. Reference-Chickpea IPM

Abhisek Shukla and Goydani B M 1996 Evaluation of nuclear polyhedrosis virus for the control of Helicoverpa ormigera (Hubner) on chickpea under the agroecosystem of Satpura plateau region of Madhya Pradesh. Advances in plant sciences 9:143-146 Ahmed K, Lal S S, Morris H, Khalique F and Malik B A 1990 Insect Pest problems and recent approaches to solving them on chickpea in South Asia. Chickpea in the nineties: Proceedings of the second International workshop on chickpea improvement, ICRISAT, Patancheru, India, 4-8 December, 1989. pp.165-168. Annual Report-2009-Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture,Santoshnagar, Hyderabad – 500 059, Andhra Pradesh-All India Coordinated Research Project on Agrometeorology- Weather Effects on Pests and Diseases--pp:198 to 206) Bhagwat, V.R, 1997, ICRISAT's ecofriendly gift to check chickpea pod borer, SAT news 20:6-8. Bajya D R, Monga D, Tyagi M P,2010-.Seasonal Monitoring of Insecticide Resistance in Helicoverpa armigera on Cotton and Chickpea- Indian Journal of Plant Protection Year : 2010, Volume : 38, Issue : 1First page : ( 41) Last page : ( 46) . ) Bengalgram-Annual Report 2008-09-ANGRAU –Research,Hyderabad.

Bilapate G G, Mokat R B, Lovekar R C and Bagade D N 1988 Population ecology of Heliothis armigera (Hubner) and its parasites on pulses. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural Universities 13:299-302. Butani P G and Mittal V P 1993 Comparative efficacy of botanical insecticide (neem seed kemal suspension) and other insecticides against gram pod borer (Heliorhls armigera Hubner). Botanical pesticides in Integrated Pest Management, ISTS, Rajahmundry, India. pp.276-281. Dhamdhere S G and Khaire V M 1986 Field evaluation of different doses of nuclear polyhedrosis virus of Heliothis armigera (Hubner). Current Research Reporter 2:221-226. Datkhile R V, Pawar S A, Mote U N and Khaire V M 1992 Bioefficacy of different insecticides against gram pod borer Heliothis araigera Hubner on chickpea Cicer arietinum L. Bioecology and control of insect pests: Proceedings of the National Symposium on Growth, Development and control technology of Insect pests,Uttar Pradesh Zoological Society, Muzaffarnagar, India, pp.156-160. Fitt, G P 1989 The ecology of Helicoverpa spp. In relation to agroecosystems. Annual Review of Entomology 34:17-52. Gunathilagaraj K 1996 Management of Helicoverpa armigera in chickpea with Acridotheres nislis. Madras Agricultural Journal 8:72-73.

142

ICAR 1992 Research highlights of AICRP on agricultural ornithology (Ed. A K Raheja) pp.16. Jayaraj S, Rabindra R J and Santhararn G 1987 Control of Heliothis armigera (Hubner) on chickpea and lablab bean by nuclear polyhedrosis virus. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 57:738-741. Jayaraj S 1992 Pest Management in pulses on overview. Proceedings of the National Symposium on New Frontiers in Pulses Research and Development, Directorate of Pulses Research, Kanpur, India, 10-12November, 1989. Pp.154-165. Joginder Singh, Sandhu S S and Singla M L 1990 Ecology of Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) on chickpea in Punjab. Journal of Insect Science 3:47-52. Khan M 1 1996 Use of newer insecticides for the control of pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera Hubner on chickpea. Strategies for increasing pulses production in Maharashtra, Mumbai, India, pp.39.40. Kelley T G and Parthasarathy Rao, 1996 Current status of chickpea in WANA and South Asia. Analysis of trends in production, consumption and trade. Adaptation of chickpea in the West Asia and North Africa Region. ICRISAT, Patancheru, India.pp.239-254) Lal S S 1990 Present status of Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) on pulses and future strategies for its management in Uttar Pradesh. First National workshop on Heliothis management: current status and future strategies. Directorate of PulsesResearch, Kanpur, India, 30-31 August, 1990. pp.34-41. Mahajan S V, Sable K R and Thorat R N 1990 Present status of Helicoverpa on pulses and strategies for its management in Maharashtra. First National workshop on Heliothis Management: current status snd future strategies. Directorate of Pulses Research, Kanpur, India, 30-31 August, 1990. pp.71-77. Mallapur, C.P. and R.N.Ladaji,2010,-Management of chickpea pod borer Heliothis armigera (Hubner) using indigenous materials.-Research papr – International journal of Plant protection-2010Vol(3)No:2: 194 -196) Misra M P, Pawar A D and Ram N 1991 Use of NPV in management of the insect pest, Heliorhis armigera (Hubner) in gram. Journal of the Andaman Science Association 7:75-78. Papastylanou I 1987 Effect of preceding legume on cereal grain and nitrogen yield. Journal of Agricultural Science 108:623-626. Parasharya B M, 1995 Role of beneficial birds in agricultural ecosystem. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 92:ll-15. Pawar C S, Bhatnagar V S and Jadhav D R 1986 Host plants and natural enemies of Helicoverpa species in India: a compendium ICRISAT Progress Report l3.pp107. Pawar V M, Chundunvar R D, Kadam B S, Thombre U T, Dhawandkar S D and Seeras N R 1990 Field efficacy of nuclear polyhedrosis virus agianst Heliothis (Lepidoptera: Nocmidae) on gram (Cicer arietinum) in Maharashtra. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 60: 287-289.

143

Prasada Rao G M V, N Hariprasada Raoand T Yellamanda Reddy, 2008, ‘Baselinedata for insecticide resistance monitoringin beet armyworm, Spodoptera exiguaHubner on chickpea’, Pesticide ResearchJournal, 20(2): 201.203.

Rabindra R J, Sathiah N and Jayaraj S 1992 Efficacy of nuclear polyhedrosis virus against Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) on Helicoverpa resistant and susceptible varieties of chickpea. Crop Protection 11:320-322. Rama Rao C V, 2008, ‘Effectiveness ofindigenous plant powders against pulsebeet le Cal losobruchus chhinensis instored chickpea’, The Andhra AgriculturalJournal, 55(3): 410-412.

Ravi G and Verma S 1997 Persistence and dissipation of insecticides against Heliolhis armigera on chickpea. Indian Journal of Entomology 59:62-68. Ravindra Kumari K, C V Rama Rao, PArjuna Rao and V Srinivasa Rao, 2008, a,A study on the biology of Callosobruchuschinensis (L.) infesting stored chickpea(Cicer arietinum L.)’, Andhra Agril. Journal,55(2): 259-260

Ravindra Kumari K, C V Rama Rao, PArjuna Rao and V Srinivasa Rao, 2008,b,‘Effectiveness of Indigenous Plant against Pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis(L.) in stored chickpea’, Andhra Agril.Journal, 55(3): 411-412

Sachan J N 1990 Present status of Helicoverpa on pulses and strategies for its management. First National workshop on Heliothis management: Current status .rl future strategies. Directorate of Pulses Research, Kanpur, India, 30-31August, 1990. Pp.8-33. Sachan, J.N, and Lal,S.S.1993 Role of botanical insecticides in Helicoverpa armigera management in pulses. Botanical pesticides in Integrated Pest Management, ISTS, Rajahmundry, India, pp.261-269. Sanap M M and Pawar V M 1998 Integrated management of Helicoverpa armigera on gram (Cicer arietinum). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 68:162-164. Sarode S V, Deotale R 0 and Patil P P 1995 Performance of Helicoverpa nuclear polyhedrosis virus (HNPV) combined with neem seed kernel extract (NSKE) against the pod borer on chickpea. International Chickpea and Pigeonpea Newsletter 2:35-37 Sehgal V K and Ujagir R 1990 Effect of synthetic pyrethroids, neem extracts and other insecticides for the control of pod damage by Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) on chickpea and pod damage and yield relationship at Pantnagar in Nonhern India.Crop Protection 9:29-32. Sinha S N and Mehrotra K N 1988 Diflubenzuron and neem (Azadirochta indica) oil in control of Heliarhis ormigera infesting chickpea (Cicer arierinum). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences S8:238-239. Sinha S N 1993 Control of Helicoverpa armigera Hubner infesting chickpea: Field efficacy of neem products and insects growth regulators, Indian Journal of Plant protection 21:80-84. Sharma,S.B,1997 - Developing Nematode-resistant Cultivars of Pigeon pea and Chickpea- Pages 25-27 in Diagnosis of key nematode pests of chickpea and pigeonpea and their management: proceedings of a

144

Regional Training Course, 25-30 N o v 19%, ICRISAT, Patancheru, India (Sharma, S.B., ed.). Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. 25) Thakur R C 1990 Present status of Helicoverpa on pulses and strategies for its management in Madhya Pradesh. First National Workshop on Heliorhis Management: Current status and future strategies, Directorate of Pulses Research, Kanpur, India, 30-31 August, 1990. pp.91-99. Trivedi TP, Ojha KN, Sabir Naved, Singh Jitendra, Sardana HR Chaudhary HR-2010 Validation and Promotion of Farmer-Participatory IPM Technology in Chickpea - A Case Study-Pesticide Research Journal-Year : 2010, Volume : 22, Issue : 1-First page : ( 68) Last page : ( 72) Ujagir R, Chaubey A K, Sehgall V K, Saini G C and Singh J P 1997 Evaluation of some insecticides against Helicoverpa armigera on chickpea at Badaun, Uttar Pradesh, India. International Chickpea and Pigeonpea Newsletter 4:22-24. Vyas H G and Lakhchaura B D 1996 Effects of nuclear polyhedrosis virus of Helicoverpa armigera on pod damage and yield of chickpea at Pantnagar. Jounalof Maharashtra Agricultural Universities 21:302-303. Wightman J A, Anders M M, Rao V R and Reddy M 1993 Cattle egrets may be important predators of Helicoverpa armigera on chickpea. International chickpea newsletter 29: 19. Yadav, D.N, 1990 Scope of Biological control of Helicoverpa armigera in cotton and pulses. Success and Failure. First National workshop on Heliothis management: Current status and future strategies. Directorate of Pulses Research, Kanpur, India, 30-3 1 August, 1990. Pp.259-270. Yadav C R, 1996 improved package of practices of chickpea production in Ncpal. International Chickpea and Pigeonpea Newsletter 3:7-8.

8.1. Summary - Integrated Pest Management in Maize

Maize Stemborer: Chilo partellus (Swinhoe):

• Maize field with single release of Trichogromma chilonis @ 100,000/ha on 12-day-old crop (14.3%) followed by 15-dayold crop (15.3%) and incidence in these two was significantly lower and proved effective in reducing the incidence of maize stem borer and subsequently increased the maize yield. However, the pest incidence in all biocontrol treatments was higher than the maize plot treated with deltamethrin 2.8 EC @ 200 ml ha−1 (10.5%). The yield obtained from maize plot with single release of T. chilonis @ 100,000/ha on 12-day-old and 15-day-old crops (25.9 and 25.4 q ha−1, respectively) was significantly higher.

• Among bio-pesticides, bio-agent and neem based insecticides neemarin @ 3.0 lit/ha performed best with infestation of 17.1% (20 DAS) and 18.9% (40 DAS), leaf injury rating 3.1 (20 DAS) and 3.3 (40 DAS), number of dead hearts 5.1 (20 DAS) and 5.9 (40 DAS) and 16.9% of dead hearts (40 DAS). This treatment gave grain yield (30.32 q/ha), net returns (Rs.7935.00/ha) and cost benefit ratio (6.1).

• Imidacloprid (17.8% SL @ 150 ml/ha) was found best among all the treatments with minimum infestation of 15.3% (20 DAS) and 16.5% (40 DAS), minimum leaf injury rating 2.1 (20 DAS) and

145

2.4 (40 DAS), minimum number of dead hearts 2.0 (20 DAS) and 2.6 (40 DAS) and minimum 7.4% of dead hearts (40 DAS). This treatment was also found best among all the treatments with maximum grain yield (36.29 q/ha), maximum net returns (Rs. 11185.00/ha) and highest cost benefit ratio (9.9).

Shoot fly (Atherigona naqvii).

• Seed treatment with chlorpyriphos or imidacloprid and foliar application of endosulfan proved to be effective along with recommended granular application of carbofuran and phorate in controlling shoot fly (Atherigona naqvii ). Plant height and grain yield/plant were significantly reduced (48.5 and 61.2%, respectively) in shoot fly infested plants.

• Cornfields planted with a Bt hybrid expressing the lepidopteranactive protein Cry1Ab for European corn borer may attain sufficient suppression of stalk borers that no further management is necessary. However, implementing items two and four (below) will further minimize stalk borer problems in a field. If planting a block refuge with a Bt corn hybrid, do not plant it adjacent to grassy field borders as this increases the risk of crop injury from stalk borers.

An Integrated Pest Management Approach: • For fields not planted to a lepidopteran-active Bt (Cry1Ab) corn hybrid and with historical

problems only in the border rows: a. Kill stalk borer eggs in terraces, ditches, and waterways by burning the grass during the early spring before it emerges from winter dormancy, b. Or spray egg-laying sites with an insecticide at 570–750 FDD,41.2°F base (300–400 CDD, 5.1°C base), c. Or scout the first two corn rows for migrating larvae and leaf injury between 1,400–1,700 FDD (760–930 CDD). Use the economic injury level (EIL) table to determine if an insecticide application is justified based on larval counts in the young corn.

• For fields not planted to a lepidopteran-active Bt (Cry1Ab) corn hybrid and with historical problems across the entire field:

a. Spray an insecticide timed to coincide with egg hatch, b. Or tank mix an insecticide with the application of a fast-acting, burndown herbicide, c. Or apply the insecticide 7–10 days after application of a slow acting herbicide.

• Eliminate grass problems in the field before adult egg laying begins in August. This will help to reduce stalk borer problems for the next year.( Marlin E. Rice1 and Paula Davis, 2010,)

Diseases:

Turcicum Leaf Blight Caused by Exserohilum turcicum in Maize:

• Maximum apparent infection rate (r) during pre-taselling to taselling growth stage for all the sowing dates. The maximum (28.3–30.0oC) and minimum (12.5–17.2oC) temperature and relative humidity (84.9 - 78.5 and 62.4–49.3%, respectively), mean rainfall (2.2–9.2 mm) and the

146

total number of rainy days (0–2) were significantly but negatively correlated with the disease index.

• The effective fungicide and potential biocontrol agent found effective in in vitro were tested along with mono potassium phosphate, potassium silicate against the turcicum leaf blight of maize under field conditions during Rabi 2009–2010. Among all the combinations, the mancozeb (0.25%) + T. viride (0.4%) + mono potassium phosphate (1%) + potassium silicate (1%) were found effective in reducing turcicum leaf blight.

Integrated management of banded leaf and sheath blight disease of maize:

• Bio-assay of fungicides against Rhizoctonia solani showed that carbendazim inhibited 93.8 per cent growth even at the concentration of 5 ppm. Under field conditions, carbendazim (0.2%) proved most effective as seed treatment showing 68.00 per cent reduction in disease over control and as a foliar spray (0.1%) it resulted least disease severity (25.78%) and highest grain yield (31.50 q/ha). Seed treatment as well as soil application of Trichoderma harzianum resulted in highest reduction in disease severity. T. harzianum alone as well as in combination with carbendazim when used as foliar spray showed best result

Helminthosporium maydis:

• Among the extracts tested, garlic clove extract was highly effective in inhibiting the growth of Helminthosporium maydis as it produced 66.5, 73.8 and 83.9% growth inhibition at 2, 5 and 10% concentrations, respectively. Neem leaf and tulsi leaf extracts were found effective as growth inhibitions were between 37 to 65 and 39 to 48%. Bael leaf extract was not at all inhibitory even at 10% concentration. Similarly, onion bulb and mentha leaf extracts were also not very promising as they produced only 38.6 and 25.4% inhibition, respectively at 10% concentration. The disease was adequately managed by spraying of garlic and neem extract @ 5% in fields.

Pests of Stored Product of Maize:

• Adults of Sitophilus oryzae and Rhyzopertha dominica and adults and eggs of Corcyra cephalonica were exposed to essential oils of geranium, lemongrass and peppermint in the fumigation chamber. At 48 hrs exposure, complete mortality of adults of S. oryzae was recorded at 100 and 150 μl/250 ml of peppermint oil. Whereas, in case of R. dominica, 100% mortality was observed in all the doses (50, 100, 150 & 200 μl/250 ml). C. cephalonica was not sensitive to peppermint at 5 μl/250 ml.In the case of eggs (0–24 hrs old) of C. cephalonica, after 48 hrs of exposure, complete inhibition in hatching was recorded in all the doses of peppermint (25, 50, 100 & 150 μl), 50, 100 & 150 μl of lemongrass and 150 μl of geranium

147

8.2. Integrated Pest Management in Maize

Maize is mainly grown in Karimnagar, Warangal, Medak, Nizamabad, Adilabad and Randgareddy

districts of Andhra Pradesh. This area forms the maize belt of this state. About 2.5 lakh hectares of

maize is grown under rainfed situation in kharif season while around 0.6 lakh hectare is grown during

Rabi under irrigated conditions. There is an immense scope for growing maize as an irrigated crop under

Srirampadasagar and Nagarjunasagar projects and also in the non-traditional areas of the remaining

districts of Andhra Pradesh.

Maize crop is mostly grown in Telangana region. This crop accounted for 6.2 percent of the total

cropped area in the State during 2009-2010. The Maize is largely grown in the districts of

Mahabubnagar, Medak, Karimnagar, Nizamabad, Guntur, and Warangal districts and these districts

together accounted for 70.9 percent of the total area under the crop in the State and Mahabubnagar

district is accounted for above 16.6 percent of total area under this crop. The area under Maize was 7.83

lakh hectares during 2009-2010 as against 8.52 lakh hectares in 2008-9009, which shows a decrease 8.1

percent.The production of Maize was estimated at 27.61 lakh tonnes during 2009-2010 as against 41.52

lakh tonnes in 2008-2009, showing a decrease by 33.5 percent due to decrease in the area and average

yield per hectare during 2009-2010. The average yield rate of Maize was 3528Kgs/hect. in 2009-2010 as

against 4874 Kgs/hect. in 2008-2009, showing a decrease of 27.6 percent.

CROP YEAR AREA (lakh ha.) YIELD ( kg/ha.) PRODUCTION (lakh M.T)

KHARIF RABI TOTAL KHARIF RABIAnnual avg.

KHARIF RABI TOTAL

MAIZE

1999-2000

3.60 0.92 4.52 3030 4149 3258 10.91 3.81 14.72

2000-2001

4.31 0.97 5.28 2572 4876 2996 11.07 4.74 15.81

2001-2002

3.38 0.90 4.28 2921 5187 3401 9.86 4.71 14.57

2002-2003

4.14 1.12 5.26 2205 5123 2827 9.12 5.74 14.86

2003-2004

5.58 1.63 7.21 2996 4946 3437 16.72 8.05 24.77

2004-2005

5.05 1.52 6.57 2451 5446 3142 12.39 8.25 20.64

2005-2006

5.93 1.65 7.58 3538 5998 4073 20.98 9.89 30.87

2006-2007

5.35 1.90 7.25 2398 6189 3391 12.85 11.77 24.62

148

2007-2008

5.19 2.67 7.86 4581 6590 5263 23.77 17.58 41.35

2008-2009

4.98 3.58 8.56 3148 7409 4930 15.68 26.52 42.20

Normal 5.30 2.26 7.56 3223 6326 4160 17.13 14.80 31.94 (Source: Season and crop repot, AP, 2010-11)

1. Maize Stem borer: Chilo partellus (Swinhoe):

Biocontrol:

Kumar Vijay and Kanta Uma, (2011) reported that the mean total incidence of maize stem borer was minimum in maize plot with single release ofT. chilonis @ 100,000/ha on 12-day-old crop (14.3%) followed by 15-dayold crop (15.3%) and incidence in these two was significantly lower as compared to untreated check (33.0%) and proved effective in reducing the incidence of maize stem borer and subsequently increased the maize yield. However, the pest incidence in all biocontrol treatments was higher than the maize plot treated with deltamethrin 2.8 EC @ 200 ml ha−1 (10.5%). The yield obtained from maize plot with single release of T. chilonis @ 100,000/ha on 12-day-old and 15-day-old crops (25.9 and 25.4 q ha−1, respectively) was significantly higher than all other treatments except maize plot treated with deltamethrin 2.8 EC @ 200 ml ha−1 (26.2 q ha-1). The parasitism rate of C. partellus eggs on maize plants was significantly higher in releases ofT. chilonis @ 100,000 ha−1 on 12- and 15-day-old crop (44.8 and 43.1%, respectively) as compared to untreated check (4.4%) and plots treated with deltamethrin 2.8 EC @ 200 ml ha−1 (1.0%).

Among the bio-agents, Trichoderma viride (DOR) was effective in the inhibition of mycelial growth (71.5%) followed b yTrichoderma viride (ANGRAU) which inhibited 64.9% of mycelial growth. The effective fungicide and potential biocontrol agent found effective in in vitro were tested along with mono potassium phosphate, potassium silicate against the turcicum leaf blight of maize under field conditions during Rabi 2009–2010. Among all the combinations, the mancozeb (0.25%) + T. viride (0.4%) + mono potassium phosphate (1%) + potassium silicate (1%) were found effective in reducing turcicum leaf blight.

Among bio-pesticides, bio-agent and neem based insecticides neemarin @ 3.0 lit/ha performed best with infestation of 17.1% (20 DAS) and 18.9% (40 DAS), leaf injury rating 3.1 (20 DAS) and 3.3 (40 DAS), number of dead hearts 5.1 (20 DAS) and 5.9 (40 DAS) and 16.9% of dead hearts (40 DAS). This treatment gave grain yield (30.32 q/ha), net returns (Rs.7935.00/ha) and cost benefit ratio (6.1).

However, imidacloprid (17.8% SL @ 150 ml/ha) was found best among all the treatments with minimum infestation of 15.3% (20 DAS) and 16.5% (40 DAS), minimum leaf injury rating 2.1 (20 DAS) and 2.4 (40 DAS), minimum number of dead hearts 2.0 (20 DAS) and 2.6 (40 DAS) and minimum 7.4% of dead hearts (40 DAS). This treatment was also found best among all the treatments with maximum grain yield (36.29 q/ha), maximum net returns (Rs. 11185.00/ha) and highest cost benefit ratio (9.9).(Pal Ravindra et al.,2009)

149

Shoot Fly, Atherigona naqvii on Spring Sown Maize:

Seed treatment with chlorpyriphos or imidacloprid and foliar application of endosulfan proved to be effective along with recommended granular application of carbofuran and phorate in controlling shoot fly. Plant height and grain yield/plant were significantly reduced (48.5 and 61.2%, respectively) in shoot fly infested plants.( Hari N S,and Jindal Jawala,2008)

The stalk borer, Papaipema nebris (Guene´e) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae):

Management Options in Corn Cultural Management: Planting Date. Plants that are attacked at earlier developmental stages tend to produce fewer and smaller ears than do plants attacked at later developmental stages Early planted fields may escape some stalk borer damage, but this varies from year to year, depending on when the eggs begin to hatch. Fields that are planted late and have grass terraces or grass waterways and yearly grass problems within the field are at highest risk for stalk borer damage. Biological and Environment Influences Lasack et al. (1987) examined potential biological and environmental influences on stalk borer populations. They found that heavy rainfall during the egg-hatching period significantly reduced neonate stalk borer populations, but as the small larvae tunneled into grass stems, their survival increased as they were well protected from both adverse climatic conditions and predators. Later, when 4th through 6th-stage larvae migrated in search of larger-diameter hosts, predators such as ants, ground beetles, and spiders were significant mortality factors. Parasitoids accounted for _5% of stalk borer mortality. All of these factors contribute to larval mortality, but they cannot be relied upon to prevent yield losses. Resistance for Pests of Maize: Sitophilus oryzae

Thirty maize germplasms were evaluated against Sitophilus oryzae in unrenowned medium condition with three pairs of inoculation density. Per cent weight loss and waste powder produced was also recorded. The minimum adult population of S. oryzae was recorded in Priya sweet corn (1.6) and maximum adult population was recorded in DMRF-36 (49.0) 95 days of inoculation. There was also positive correlation between population and % weight loss and powder produced.( Kumar Dushyant, et al.,2009.)

An Integrated Pest Management Approach: There is no single solution to effectively managing stalk borers in corn. An IPM approach should use comprehensive pest technology that combines means to reduce the status of pests to tolerable levels while maintaining a quality environment (Pedigo and Rice 2008). The best approach would be to integrate strategies that fit individual field situations and that consider risk of corn yield loss versus cost of control while reducing negative environmental impact. The following are possible options for fields with a confirmed history of stalk borer problems:

1. Cornfields planted with a Bt hybrid expressing the lepidopteranactive protein Cry1Ab for European corn borer may attain sufficient suppression of stalk borers that no further management is necessary. However, implementing items two and four (below) will further

150

minimize stalk borer problems in a field. If planting a block refuge with a Bt corn hybrid, do not plant it adjacent to grassy field borders as this increases the risk of crop injury from stalk borers.

2. 2. For fields not planted to a lepidopteran-active Bt (Cry1Ab) corn hybrid and with historical problems only in the border rows: a. Kill stalk borer eggs in terraces, ditches, and waterways by burning the grass during the early spring before it emerges from winter dormancy, b. Or spray egg-laying sites with an insecticide at 570–750 FDD,41.2°F base (300–400 CDD, 5.1°C base), c. Or scout the first two corn rows for migrating larvae and leaf injury between 1,400–1,700 FDD (760–930 CDD). Use the economic injury level (EIL) table to determine if an insecticide application is justified based on larval counts in the young corn.

3. For fields not planted to a lepidopteran-active Bt (Cry1Ab) corn hybrid and with historical problems across the entire field: a. Spray an insecticide timed to coincide with egg hatch, b. Or tank mix an insecticide with the application of a fast-acting,burndown herbicide, c. Or apply the insecticide 7–10 days after application of a slow acting herbicide. 4. Eliminate grass problems in the field before adult egg laying begins in August. This will help to reduce stalk borer problems for the next year.( Marlin E. Rice1 and Paula Davis,2010,)

Management of Turcicum Leaf Blight Caused by Exserohilum turcicum in Maize:Chemical control: In Andhra Pradesh, India. Maize (Zea mays L.) is an important cereal and fodder crop and occupies third place after rice and wheat in India. Among the foliar diseases affecting maize, turcicum leaf blight caused by Exserohilum turcicum (Pass.) Leonard and Suggs. is one of the important foliar diseases causing severe reduction in grain and fodder yield ranging between 16 98% .The grain and fodder yield of the maize are influenced by the net leaf area. Turcicum leaf blight incidence significantly reduces the net green leaf area by necrotizing the infected tissues of hybrid DHM 111. The photosynthetic rate is also influenced by transpiration rate, stomatal conductance and CO2 exchange. The results revealed that the infected leaves showed a progressive reduction in CO2 fixation as the severity of leaf blight increased. The rate of photosynthesis was reduced by 79.9% when the severity was 75%. A similar pattern was observed with transpiration rate, stomatal conductance, which exhibited a reduction of about 47.4% and 65.8% respectively, at maximum severity of 75% infected leaf. However, the change in leaf temperature was not-significant. There was gradual reduction in transpiration rate, stomatal conductance and photosynthetic rate with the increase in the infection of leaf. But, significant reduction was found only in stomatal conductance and photosynthetic rate. Leaf temperature and internal CO2 concentration increased progressively with the increasing leaf infection (healthy to 75 % infected leaf). This suggests that declined photosynthesis rate associated with TLB may cause increase in internal CO2 which in turn causes a closure of stomata and thus decrease in transpiration rate. According to Hooker (1974) a leaf blight rating having 50 % or less leaf area infected 4 weeks after silking is satisfactory to prevent economic loss from this disease.(Kumar etal.,2010b.)

Eight fungicides and three bio agents were evaluated in vitro against Exserohilum turcicum causing leaf blight of maize. Mancozeb @ 0.12 and 0.25% followed by carbendazim (12%) + mancozeb (63%) @ 0.05 and 0.1 completely inhibited the mycelial growth (100%). Among the bio-agents, Trichoderma viride (DOR) was effective in the inhibition of mycelial growth (71.5%) followed by Trichoderma viride

151

(ANGRAU) which inhibited 64.9% of mycelial growth. The effective fungicide and potential biocontrol agent found effective in in vitro were tested along with mono potassium phosphate, potassium silicate aagainst the turcicum leaf blight of maize under field conditions during Rabi 2009–2010. Among all the combinations, the mancozeb (0.25%) + T. viride (0.4%) + mono potassium phosphate (1%) + potassium silicate (1%) were found effective in reducing turcicum leaf blight.(Kumar, et al.,2010)

Intercropping:

The basic concept of intercropping is that two or more crop species intercropped can exploit the environment better than each of the component species grown separately. Intercropping of French bean in maize did not affect the yield of maize significantly compared to sole maize. While French bean yield was reduced significantly in intercropping. French bean had greater radiation use efficiency in intercropping than in sole cropping. Here intercropping increased production per unit area per unit time without affecting the production of main crop to a greater extent. All the maize/legume intercroppings were having significantly higher LER (1.31 to 1.81), maize equivalent yield (67 to 140q/ha), net return (Rs10, 000 to 17,000/ha) and B:C ratio than thesole maize.(Ganajaxi et al.,2010)

Influence of Sowing Dates and Weather Factors onTurcicum Leaf Blight:

The effect of five sowing dates (May 6, 13, 20, 29 and June 3, 2004) and weather factors on development of Turcicum leaf blight and grain yield in maize cv. ‘C8’, studied during Kharif, 2004, indicated maximum apparent infection rate (r) during pre-taselling to taselling growth stage for all the sowing dates. The maximum (28.3–30.0oC) and minimum (12.5–17.2oC) temperature and relative humidity (84.9 - 78.5 and 62.4–49.3%, respectively), mean rainfall (2.2–9.2 mm) and the total number of rainy days (0–2) were significantly but negatively correlated with the disease index. Highest grain yield (56.0 q ha−1) and minimum AUDPC value (1990.1) were obtained in earliest sown crop (6th May). With the delay in the sowing date, an increase in AUDPC value with simultaneous decrease in grain yield was recorded such that maximum AUDPC value (2545.7) and minimum grain yield (34.3 q ha−1) were obtained in the late sown (3rdJune) crop.(Sagar Vinyl et al.,2008)

Integrated management of banded leaf and sheath blight disease of maize:

Bio-assay of fungicides against Rhizoctonia solani showed that carbendazim inhibited 93.8 per cent growth even at the concentration of 5 ppm. Under field conditions, carbendazim (0.2%) proved most effective as seed treatment showing 68.00 per cent reduction in disease over control and as a foliar spray (0.1%) it resulted least disease severity (25.78%) and highest grain yield (31.50 q/ha). Seed treatment as well as soil application of Trichoderma harzianum resulted in highest reduction in disease severity. T. harzianum alone as well as in combination with carbendazim when used as foliar spray showed best result.(Akhtar Jameel et al,2010.)

Effect of Botanicals:

Among the extracts tested, garlic clove extract was highly effective in inhibiting the growth of Helminthosporium maydis as it produced 66.5, 73.8 and 83.9% growth inhibition at 2, 5 and 10% concentrations, respectively. Neem leaf and tulsi leaf extracts were found effective as growth inhibitions were between 37 to 65 and 39 to 48%. Bael leaf extract was not at all inhibitory even at 10% concentration. Similarly, onion bulb and mentha leaf extracts were also not very promising as they

152

produced only 38.6 and 25.4% inhibition, respectively at 10% concentration. The disease was adequately managed by spraying of garlic and neem extract @ 5% in fields.(Kumar et al.,2009)

Pests of Stored Product of Maize:

Adults of Sitophilus oryzae and Rhyzopertha dominica and adults and eggs of Corcyra cephalonica were exposed to essential oils of geranium, lemongrass and peppermint in the fumigation chamber. At 48 hrs exposure, complete mortality of adults of S. oryzae was recorded at 100 and 150 μl/250 ml of peppermint oil. Whereas, in case of R. dominica, 100% mortality was observed in all the doses (50, 100, 150 & 200 μl/250 ml). C. cephalonica was not sensitive to peppermint at 5 μl/250 ml.In the case of eggs (0–24 hrs old) of C. cephalonica, after 48 hrs of exposure, complete inhibition in hatching was recorded in all the doses of peppermint (25, 50, 100 & 150 μl), 50, 100 & 150 μl of lemongrass and 150 μl of geranium.(Michaelraj et al.,2008,)

8. 3.References: Maize-IPM:

Akhtar Jameel, Kumar Vinay, Tiu Kumud Rani, Lal Hem Chandra,2010, Integrated management of banded leaf and sheath blight disease of maize, Plant Disease Research Year : 2010, Volume : 25, Issue : 1First page : ( 35) Last page : ( 38) .

Ganajaxi, Halikatti S.I., Hiremath S.M., Chittapur B.M.,2010,- -Intercropping of Maize and French Bean- A Review- Agricultural Reviews-Year : 2010, Volume : 31, Issue : 4-First page : ( 286) Last page : ( 291)

Hari N S,and Jindal Jawala,2008,Chemical Control and Damage Potential of Shoot Fly, Atherigona naqvii on Spring Sown Maize, Indian Journal of Plant Protection Year : 2008, Volume : 36, Issue : 2 First page : ( 263) Last page : ( 265) .

Kumar Vijay,and Kanta Uma,2011, Effectiveness of Trichogramma chilonis Ishii in the suppression of Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) in summer maize- Journal of Biological Control Year : 2011, Volume : 25, Issue : 2First page : ( 92) Last page : ( 97)

Kumar M Praveen, Reddy P Narayan, Reddy R Ranga, Sankar A,2010, Management of Turcicum Leaf Blight Caused by Exserohilum turcicum in Maize- Indian Journal of Plant Protection-Year : 2010, Volume : 38, Issue : 1-First page : ( 63) Last page : ( 66) KumarM.Praveen, P Narayan Reddy, A Siva Sankar and R Ranga Reddy,2010,b. turcicum leaf blight on photosynthesis in maize. Indian Phytopathology 54 : 251-252.

Kumar M Praveen, Reddy P Narayan, Reddy R Ranga, Sankar A Siva,2010, Management of Turcicum Leaf Blight Caused by Exserohilum turcicum in Maize- Indian Journal of Plant Protection Year : 2010, Volume : 38, Issue : 1 First page : ( 63) Last page : ( 66)

Kumar Dushyant, Sharma R.K., Rajvanshi S.K., Sharma K.,2009, Evaluation of Maize Germplasms for Resistance against Sitophius oryzae (Linn.)- Annals of Plant Protection Sciences,Year : 2009, Volume : 17, Issue : 1,First page : ( 75) Last page : ( 77).

153

Kumar Sanjeev, Rani Archana, Jha M.M.,2009, Evaluation of Plant Extracts for Management of Maydis Leaf Blight of Maize- Annals of Plant Protection Sciences,Year : 2009, Volume : 17, Issue : 1,First page : ( 130) Last page : ( 132)

Lasack, P. M., W. C. Bailey, and L. P. Pedigo. 1987. Assessment of stalk borer (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) population dynamics by using logistic development curves and partial life tables. Environ. Entomol. 16: 296–303. Marlin E. Rice1 and Paula Davis, 2010, Stalk Borer (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Ecology and Integrated Pest Management in Corn, J. Integ. Pest Mngmt. 1(1): 2010; DOI: 10.1603/IPM10006

Michaelraj S., Sharma Kirti, Sharma R.K.,2008, Fumigant Toxicity of Essential Oils against Key Pests of Stored Maize, Annals of Plant Protection Sciences,Year : 2008, Volume : 16, Issue : First page : ( 356) Last page : ( 359)

Pal Ravindra, Singh Gaje, Prasad C.S., Ali Nawab, Kumar Arvind, Dhaka S.S.,2009,- Field Evaluation of Bio-agents against Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) in Maize- Annals of Plant Protection SciencesYear : 2009, Volume : 17, Issue : 2-First page : ( 325) Last page : ( 327)

Sagar Vinay, Ahmad Riyaz, Khan Nisar Ahmad, Ahmad Mushtaq,2008, Influence of Sowing Dates and Weather Factors onTurcicum Leaf Blight and Grain Yield in Maize- Indian Journal of Plant Protection Year : 2008, Volume : 36, Issue : 1 First page : ( 54) Last page : ( 58)

Season and crop repot, AndhraPradesh,, 2010-11.

9.1. Summary report: Integrated Pest management in Chilli-(Capsicum annum L.)

Among chilli producing states in the country, Andhra Pradesh contributes 49 per cent Chillies is one of the important crop in condiments and Spices group. Andhra Pradesh State stands first in the country in terms of area and production of Chillies crop during 2009-2010.

An Integrated Pest Management (IPM) project was implemented in Guntur district during the cropping season 2006-07 in six villages of Guntur district. Survey was conducted in six project villages and all the 150 participating chilli farmers in Crop Life India (CLI) sponsored IPM project were taken as sample for the study. The highlights of the survey are given below:

• Mite is the important pests expressing 56%,Sposoptera litura a fruit borer expressed 83.33%,and dieback disease expressed 56%

• More than two thirds of the respondents adopted all the components of IPM with exception of bio agents where in the adoption is only 46 per cent.

• With regard to diseases, 56 per cent felt dieback as the major problem while the rest felt leaf spot was the major disease.

• In case of border crops, trap crop was observed.

154

• All the respondents are following 10-15 days pre-harvest interval of pesticide application as a measure for quality product and better price.

• The problems of post harvest pest and diseases was not observed in case of properly dried condition.

Seasonal Incidence of Pests:

• In Andhra Pradesh, the Scirtothrips dorsalis incidence was serious on chilli during October, February – March.

• The leaf curl index due to thrips was highest during December, January and February months in Byadagi kaddi. In Guntur variety the leaf curl index was maximum during December to January months.

• The activity of anthocorid O. maxidentex (Predator) was noticed throughout the year. • High temperature and rainfall caused dramatic decline in population during the month of May –

June and November – December. An average temperature of 25.8 to 26.9oC and 60 to 70 per cent relative humidity were congenial for multiplication of thrips, S. dorsalis.

• The activity of Polyphagotarsonemus latusthroughout the year on chilli crop. Two peaks in the population density of the mite were observed, the major peak during April and the second peak in the month of November. During July – August.

Yield Loss: The Yield loss in chilli crop due to thrips was recorded in between 25 to 75%. Yield reduction due to Heliothis armigera individual larva was 2.5 q/ha. Economic injury level: The economic injury level due to S. dorsalis clearly indicated that one thrips per two leaves was found to cause economic loss under irrigated chilli ecosystem and 1.02 mites (P.latus ) per leaf was sufficient to cause economic loss under irrigated chilli ecosystem on Byadagi variety. Chemical Control:

• A schedule of Nimbecidine-Nimbecidine-Spinosad-Garlic Chilli Kerosine Extract-Spinosad treatment was effective against H. armigera by recording least larval infestation and fruit damage.

• Proton @ 1.50 ml/l recorded significantly lower Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) larval population and recorded higher net profit of Rs. 36,962/ha and B:C ratio of 3.32.

• A new molecule, flubendiamide 20 WG against chilli fruit borers, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) and Spodoptera litura (Fb.) and recorded highest yield of 7.48 q/ha with lowest fruit damage of 3.45 per cent.

• Iinsecticides belong to neonicotinoid group viz., Imidacloprid 17.8 SL and Clothianidin50 WDG are effective in the management of chilli thrips.

• fipronil 80 WDG was found effective in reducing Frankinella occidentalis F. and Thrips tabaci F. under green house cultivation and its mode of action (GABA inhibitor) and being a new molecule, which can be a good substitute to organophosphates.

155

• The sucking pests viz., S.dorsalis P. latus and M. persicae, were effectively controlled in eco-friendly pest management module comprising application of Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (Pseudomonas fluorescens Migula), Plant Growth Regulator, Naphthalene Acetic Acid (NAA) and neem oil.

• Highest mean reduction of fruit borer population was recorded in novaluron (95.75%) treated plots.

• The chemical interventions made on the crop for control of insect pests, exerted detrimental effects on the predator population.

• A ready mixture of indoxacarb 14.5 + acetamiprid 7.7 SC (RIL-042 222 SC)were effective against sucking pests and fruit borer on chilli.

Botanicals / Natural/ Organic;

• Thrips population was significantly lowest in Stanza @ 2.00 ml/l (1.36/leaf) which was on par with its lower dosage i.e. Stanza @ 1.50 ml/l (1.59/leaf), a new herbal pesticide, obtained from Universal Crop Science Ltd, Mumbai.

• Crop amended at planting with neem cake (1000 kg/ha) and vermicompost (2500 kg/ha)along with Sunnhemp green manuring at higher dosage (1000 kg/ha), were effective in keeping the sucking pests of chilli thrips (Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood) and mite (Polyphagotarsonemus latus Banks)., density in check.

• soft soap: 1 & 4 containing Castor oil-based soft soaps with potassium hydroxide and naturally available materials such as botanicals and preservatives were most effective under screen house conditions by reducing the mite numbers up to 69.3 per cent when compared to that on control.

Chilli Diseases:

• Trichoderma harzianum and Pseudomonas fluorescesn were found most effective in inhibiting the pathogen of Fruit Rot of Chilli ,Colletotrichum capsici,

• The neem based plant product, Biotas completely inhibited the growth and sporulation of C. capsici. Among the plant extracts, datura leaf, onion and garlic bulb extracts completely inhibited the growth and sporulation of C. capsici.

• Seed treatment with pure culture of P. fluorescens and pure culture of T. viride recorded higher yield fruit characters such as fruit length and fruit weight However none was better than fungicide carbendazim at 2g kg−1 seeds.

Nematode Control:

• Individual as well as combined application of Pasteuria penetrans and carbofuran was observed to cause significant reduction in gall numbers as well as Meloidogyne nematode population. Maximum dose combination of P. penetrans and carbofuran reduced gall numbers and nematode population by 77.6 and 89.2%, respectively over nematode check.

156

Recommendations: IPM Schedule:

1. Soil solarization in the month of mid April to May,

2. Seed sowing in second fortnight of July with treatment of carbendazim @0.25%, nylon net covering of nursery beds,

3. One spray of streptocycline @150 mg litre−1 on seedlings, root dipping in imidacloprid @0.3 ml L−l for 45 minutes, apical cutting along with little healthy portion of dieback infected twigs,

4. Three sprays of abamectine @0.08 ml l−l at 20, 40 and 60 days after transplanting (DAT), one spray of copper oxychloride @0.3 g l−1, initial rouging of virus infected plant, initial two pickings of green fruits to minimize subsequent infection of anthracnose and sort out the anthracnose infected fruits after harvest during drying. The present IPM module is more cost effective and resulted in economic yield with less environmental pollution while providing very effective to manage damping-off, bacterial leaf spot, leafcurl complex, anthracnose, mites, thrips and whitefly.

Biointensive module recommended: a) Application of FYM @ 25 t/ha. b) Application of vermicompost 2.5 t/ha. at the time of sowing. c) Application of neem cake 2.5 q/ha - After 10 days of sowing. d) Application of recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) (by adjusting the nutrient availability in vermicompost and neem cake) e) NSKE 5% foliar spray based on leaf curl index (LCI) /economic threshold level (ETL) of thrips. f) Commercial neem based insecticides (neemark, neemgold, nimbecidine, etc.) spraybased on leaf curl index (LCI)/ economic threshold level (ETL) for thrips management. g) Spraying of milbemectin 1.9 EC @ 15 g a.i/ha for mites management. h) Spraying of Garlic - Chilli - Kerosene extract (GCK) @ 5% for thrips and fruit borer Management. i) Spraying of 100 LE HaNPV or SlNPV @ 1.0 ml/l or spinosad 45 SC @ 45 g a.i/ha - Based on larval population of fruit borer. j) Growing one row of marigold as a trap crop and two rows of maize as a border / barrier crop. II. Adaptable IPM Module: a) Application of FYM @ 25 t/ha. b) Application of neem cake @ 2.5 q/ha - after 10 days of sowing. c) Application of RDF (by adjusting nutrient availability of neem cake). d) Seed treatment with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 10 g/kg seed for sucking pests. e) Trap crop; one row of marigold and two rows of maize as a border crop. f) Spraying of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 20 g a.i/ha or acetamiprid 20 SP @ 20 g a.i/ha or fipronil 5 SC @ 30 g a.i/ha or oxydemeton methyl 25 EC @ 225 g a.i/ha for thrips management. g) Spraying of fenazaquin 10 EC @ 200 g a.i/ha or milbemectin 1.9 EC @ 15 g a.i/ha or dicofol 18.5 EC @ 2.5 ml/lit or wettable sulphur @ 1500 g a.i/ha for management of mites. h) Spraying of fenpropathrin 30 EC @ 30 g a.i/ha or diafenthurion 50 WP @ 20 g a.i/ha when both thrips and mites are noticed simultaneously at mild level. i) Spraying of 100 LE HaNPV or SlNPV or spinosad 45 SC @ 45 g a.i/ha for management of fruit borer.

157

9. 2. Integrated Pest management in Chilli-(Capsicum annum L.)

Chilli (Capsicum annuum L.) commonly known as red pepper is an important and indispensable condiment as well as vegetable grown in many parts of the world. It is a native of tropical America and West Indies and believed to have been introduced to India by the Portuguese in the 17th century (Sreeramulu, 1976) India is the world’s largest producer of chillies and the crop is grown all over the country. In India, chilli was grown on an area of 8.82 lakh ha and annual production of 11.0lakh tonnes and with an average productivity of 1200 kg/ha (Anon., 2002). Among chilli producing states in the country, Andhra Pradesh contributes 49 per cent Chillies is one of the important crop in condiments and Spices group. Andhra Pradesh State stands first in the country in terms of area and production of Chillies crop during 2009-2010. The crop is grown both under irrigated and unirrigated conditions in both kharif and rabi seasons. The area under chillies during the year 2009-2010 was 2.07 lakh hectares and occupied 2.0 percent in gross cropped area. The crop is extensively grown in Guntur, Khammam,Warangal, Prakasam, and Kurnool, districts. These districts together accounted 74.3 percent of the total area under the crop in the state and Guntur district alone accounts for 32.4 percent of total area under the crop. The area sown under chillies was 2.07 lakh hectares during 2009-2010 as against 2.03 lakh hectares in 2008-2009 and showing an increase of 2.0 percent. 6.16.2 The production of chillies was 8.31 lakh tonnes in 2009-2010 as against 7.73 lakh tonnes in 2008-2009, registering an increase of 7.5 percent, due to increase in the area and average yield per hectare during 2009-2010. 6.16.3.The average productivity of Chillies has registered as 4023 kgs per hectares. in 2009-2010 from 3803 kgs/hect. in 2008-2009. The survey conducted by Asian Vegetable Research and Development Committee in Asia indicated that the insect pests of chilli, aphids (Myzus persicae Sulzer, Aphis gossypii Glover), thrips (Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood) and mites (Polyphagotarsonemus latus Banks) are the major limiting factors in chilli production. In India, the leaf curl malady caused by mite and thrips has been referred by different names in different states as ‘murda, matalgariroga or chandiroga” in Karnataka. In Telangana,“mudatta orkorivi” while in Deccan parts of India, it has been referred as “murda, goja, macoda and mirya” and “kokadva” in Gujarat. Karuppuchamy and Mohanasundram (1987),surveyed for identifying the alternate hosts of the mite and found that cowpea (Vigna sinensis L.), green gram (Phaseolus aureus L.), horse gram (Macrotyloma uniflorum L.), marigold (Tagetus erecta L.) and cotton (Gossypium spp.) as alternate hosts of mites during off-season. An Integrated Pest Management (IPM) project was implemented in Guntur district during the cropping season 2006-07 in six villages of Guntur district. Survey was conducted in six project villages and all the 150 participating chilli farmers in Crop Life India (CLI) sponsored IPM project were taken as sample for the study. In case of sucking pests, 56 per cent expressed mite as the important, in fruit bores, great majority (83.33%) expressed Spodoptera litura and in diseases, 56 per cent opined dieback as the major problem. s, scouting techniques and mechanical control measures, more than 80 per cent adoption More than two thirds of the respondents adopted all the components of IPM with exception of bio

158

agents where in the adoption is only 46 per cent. With regard to diseases, 56 per cent felt dieback as the major problem while the rest felt leaf spot was the major disease. In case of border crops, trap crop was observed. All the respondents are following 10-15 days pre-harvest interval of pesticide application as a measure for quality product and better price. The problems of post harvest pest and diseases was not observed in case of properly dried condition.( Gurava Reddy,et al.,2011) Seasonal incidence of Polyphagotarsonemus latus and Scirtothrips dorsalis: Peak activity of S. dorsalis: In Andhra Pradesh, the S. dorsalis incidence was serious on chilli during October, February – March in Bihar, August to November in Delhi, Mysore and Madhya Pradesh and throughout the year in Tamil Nadu and Maharahstra. Varadharajan and Veeravel (1995) noticed the activity of S. dorsalis throughout the year. The incidence of S. dorsalis as indicated by yellow sticky trap catches during 1994 was minimum (9.40/ trap) during the last week of July and maximum (55.25/trap) during the firstweek of September. The leaf curl index due to thrips was highest during December, January and February months in Byadagi kaddi in both the study periods. This may be due to the peak activity of thrips during this period. Similarly, in Guntur variety the leaf curl index was maximum during December to January months in both the years. The present findings are in line with Tatagar,(2002) who observed 0.20 to 3.20 LCI/ plant during December and January months. The activity of anthocorid O. maxidentex was noticed throughout the year. The predator population closely followed its prey density with a gap of about a fortnight. The correlation studies indicated positive and significant correlation with predator and prey. However, the abundance of the host population plays a vital role in determining the population of predator, since the population variation in S. dorsalis is mainly affected by climatic conditions. The findings are in accordance with the observations made by Suresh Kumar and Ananthakrishnan, (1984). who opined that the variation in environmental factors appeared to have considerable effect on the population fluctuation of thrips and in turn had a remarkable impact on the O. maxidentex density. Similarly, Borah,(1987) reported that the activity of O. maxidentex occurred throughout the year and had positive significant direct relationship with thrips population. Effect of weather parameters on S. dorsalis: Velayudhan et al. (1985) reported that temperature and rainfall had a significant impact not only in numerical strength of thrips but also on their reproductive ability and soil pupation. High temperature and rainfall caused dramatic decline in population during the month of May – June and November – December. An average temperature of 25.8 to 26.9oC and 60 to 70 per cent relative humidity were congenial for multiplication of thrips. The correlation co-efficient between thrips population and maximum temperature was statistically significant and the regression equation fitted with maximum temperature showed that with a increase of one unit of maximum temperature would result in an increase of 3.77 thrips per leaf (Varadharajan and Veeravel, 1995).

159

Peak activity of Polyphagotarsonemus latus: Borah (1987) noticed the activity of P. latus throughout the year on chilli crop. Two peaks in the population density of the mite were observed, the major peak during April and the second peak in the month of November. During July – August, the mite population was negligible. Ahmed and Rao (1999), observed that the incidence of chilli mite, P. latus starts from the last week of October or first week of November but remains low throughout November followed by progressive increase in population during December and January. Incidence of leaf curl mite, P. latus (Banks) on sesame was influenced by abiotic factors, correlation between relative humidity both morning and evening was positive and significant. Maximum temperature showed a negative significant correlation with mite population. However, correlation between minimum temperature and rainfall was negative and non significant (Ahuja, 2000). Seasonal fluctuations of P latus The mite population first appeared during first week of August on Byadagi kaddi variety while on Guntur variety during third week of August. Like thrips, the mite population was also less on Guntur variety compared to Byadagi kaddi. The variation in appearance of mite population may be due to change in chemical constituents of both the varieties as Guntur variety had higher phenolic content when compared to Byadagi kaddi as reported by Varadharajan and Veeravel (1996). Effect of weather parameters on P. latus: Correlation between P. latus population with relative humidity of both morning and evening was positive and significant. Maximum temperature showed a negative and significant correlation with the mite population. However, correlation between minimum temperature and rainfall and the number of mites was negative and non significant (Ahuja, 2000). Srinivasulu et al. (2002), reported that maximum and minimum temperature had significantly negative correlation with mite population. Similarly, total rainfall also had significantly negative correlation with mite population where as relative humidity was found to be positive and had significant correlation with mite population. correlation studies for P. latus on Guntur G-4 variety revealed that during 2004-05 and 2005-06 highly significant negative correlation between minimum temperature, total rainfall, number of rainy days and evening relative humidity. Maximum temperature showed negative non-significant correlation during 2004-05, while during 2005-06 it was negative and significant. Seasonal incidence of chilli mites On chilli, the mite P. latus occurred throughout the period of plant growth during summer. Peak mite population of 6.34 per leaf (3.67 eggs & 2.67 active stages) was noticed on 17th standard week (April 23-29), then declined sharply due to rain (19.2 mm) and attained second peak in short period i. e. on 20th standard week (May 14-20). The activity of predatory mite (Amblyseius sp.) noticed from 17th standard week (0.33/leaf) to 28th standard week (0.4/leaf) with only one peak (1.27/leaf) in 21st standard week (May 21-27). The correlation studies presented in table 3 indicates that, predators (0.663) established highly significant positive correlation with P. latus. Significant negative correlation with morning and evening relative humidity was also apparent. Rainfall (-0.405) was highly detrimental and showed highly

160

significant negative correlation with mite population. Even the age of crop exhibited significant negative association. All these factors governed the yellow mite population to the tune of 56 per cent (R2=0.562). Since the observation on mite population was taken in farmer's field during different seasons, the fluctuation may be due to the changes in abiotic and biotic factors, availability of hosts and alternate hosts in and around experimental plot.(Roopa et al., 2009).

The studies on incidence and bioefficacy of certain chemical pesticides against mites, Polyphagotarsonemus latus (Banks) in chilli were conducted at the farm of Vegetable Research Station, Marathwada Agricultural University, Parbhani during Kharif 2002–03. The incidence of mites was highest during 40th meteorological week when the prevailing maximum-minimum temperatures, morning-evening relative humidities, rainfall and bright sunshine hours were 35.80C, 18.00C, 76%, 34%, 0.00 mm and 11 h, respectively. The mite population exhibited significant negative correlation with rainfall and positive correlation with bright sunshine hours. The regression equations worked out indicated that the population decreased by 0.055 and increased by 0.368 per unit increase of rainfall and bright sunshine hours, respectively.( Bhede ,et al.,2009)

Crop loss estimation due to S. dorsalis: Ayyar et al. (1935) observed 25–50 per cent loss in yield due to thrips on Guntur variety. Krishnakumar (1995) recorded a qualitative yield loss to the tune of 90 per cent in capsicum while; it was 11–32 per cent quantitative loss in chilli. Patel and Gupta (1996) reported that the losses caused by chilli thrips, S. dorsalis Hood ranged from 60.5 to 74.3 per cent in the yield of green chillies. Crop loss estimation due to P. latus: Rao et al. (1983) reported that the annual loss caused by mite was estimated to be about Rs. 60.69 lakh on chilli alone in Andhra Pradesh. The per cent loss due to P. latus varied from 23–87 per cent, throughout the Karnataka state (Reddy and Puttaswamy, 1983). Releasing different population levels of mite on chilli plants, after six weeks of transplanting for the loss caused by P. latus revealed the following. The P. latus population @25, 50 and 100 mites per plant caused significant reduction in yield compared to uninfested plants (Sudharma and Nair, 1999). Crop lossess due to Heliothis armigera:

Shivaramu, and Kulkarni, (2008), reorted that Chilli yield loss assessment due to the fruit borer Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) on plants in green house and field conditions. Under green house condition in potted plants, the observed percentage fruit damage was zero, 13.46, 21.30, 31.18, 40.00, 46.65 and 49.30 with 0, 1, 2,3,4,5 and 6 larvae per plant respectively. Yield reduction due to individual larva was 2.5 q/ha. Further, it was evident that 2,3,4,5 and 6 larvae resulted in yield reductions of 4.26, 6.23, 7.77, 9.07 and 9.99 q/ha. In field experiment, it was revealed that the fruit damages were zero, 11.68,18.84,25.00,31.25,40.27 and 50.00 at 0,1,2,3,4,5 and 6 larval load per plant respectively. The yield reduction for 1,2,3,4,5 & 6 larvae per plant was zero, 2.49,3.61,4.72,6.94, 8.05 and 11.11 q/ha respectively.

161

Management of Chilli Fruit Borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner):

Yield Loss:

Chilli yield loss assessment due to the fruit borer Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) on plants in green house and field conditions. Under green house condition in potted plants, the observed percentage fruit damage was zero, 13.46, 21.30, 31.18, 40.00, 46.65 and 49.30 with 0, 1, 2,3,4,5 and 6 larvae per plant respectively.

Yield reduction due to individual larva was 2.5 q/ha. Further, it was evident that 2,3,4,5 and 6 larvae resulted in yield reductions of 4.26, 6.23, 7.77, 9.07 and 9.99 q/ha. In field experiment, it was revealed that the fruit damages were zero, 11.68,18.84,25.00,31.25,40.27 and 50.00 at 0,1,2,3,4,5 and 6 larval load per plant respectively. The yield reduction for 1,2,3,4,5 & 6 larvae per plant was zero, 2.49,3.61,4.72,6.94, 8.05 and 11.11 q/ha respectively.Based on regression equation, for every increase in larval number per plant the increase in damage to fruits was 7.87%, while yield decreased by 171 q/ha. The regression equation based on the cost of plant protection measures against the pest and market price of the produce projected that the economic threshold of H. armigera in chilli was 1.46 larvae/plant.( Shivaramu K. and Kulkarni K.A.-(2008)

Gundannavar and Giraddi,,(2007), reported that Experiment was carried out to evaluate efficacy of different biorational approaches against chilli fruit borer Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner). Among different schedules, the Nimbecidine-Nimbecidine-Spinosad-Garlic Chilli Kerosine Extract-Spinosad treatment was effective against H. armigera by recording least larval infestation and fruit damage. With respect to dry chilli yield, RPP recorded highest yield (4.44 q/ha) with maximum net return (Rs. 13767/-). While, biorational schedule involving Nimbecidine-Nimbecidine-Emamectin benzoate-Neem oil-Emamectin benzoate was the next better intervention with higher net return (Rs. 12127/-). Venkateshhalu et al., 2009, reported that An experiment was laid out during kharif 2006-07 and 2007-08 to test the bio-efficacy of a new herbal pesticide, proton obtained from Universal Crop Science Ltd, Mumbai. Proton @ 1.50 ml/l recorded significantly lower Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) larval population during 2006 and 2007 (0.77 and 0.62 larva/plant, respectively) which was on par with proton @ 2.0 ml/l and standard check spinosad 45 SC @ 0.12 ml/l. Similarly, Proton @ 2.00 ml/l recorded significantly lowest fruit damage (6.80%) which was at par with Proton @ 1.50 ml/l (7.22%) during 2006. Proton @ 1.50 ml/l recorded higher green chilli yield (34.38 and 31.68 q/ha during 2006 and 2007, respectively) which was on par with Proton @ 2.00 ml/ and standard check spinosad 45 SC @ 0.12 ml/l (34.92 and 30.28 q/ha during 2006 and 2007, respectively). Proton @ 1.50 ml/l recorded higher net profit of Rs. 36,962/ha and B:C ratio of 3.32, which is next best to spinosad 45 SC @ 0.12 ml/l but superior to nimbecidine 1500 ppm @ 3 ml/l. Tatagar, et al., (2009), reported that Field experiments were conducted at the Horticultural Research Station, Devihosur, Haveri, during 2007-08 and 2008-09 to test the bioefficacy of a new molecule, flubendiamide 20 WG against chilli fruit borers, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) and Spodoptera litura (Fb.). The results indicated that among various dosages flubendiamide 20 WG @ 60 g a.i. /ha recorded highest yield of 7.48 q/ha with lowest fruit damage of 3.45 per cent followed by flubendiamide 20 WG @ 40 g a.i./ ha (6.72 q/ha), emamectin benzoate 5 SG @ 11 g a.i./ha (7.22 q/ha) and spinosad 45 SC @

162

75 g a.i./ha (7.32q/ha). However, standard check carbaryl 50 WP @ 1000 g a.i./ha (6.46 q/ha) was least effective in reducing the incidence of fruit borers. Economic injury level due to S. dorsalis The economic injury level due to S. dorsalis clearly indicated that one thrips per two leaves was found to cause economic loss under irrigated chilli ecosystem on Byadagi variety. The previous findings on economic injury level due to S. dorsalis on chilli are lacking and could not be compared. However, Krishna Kumar (1995) reported that on sweet pepper, thrips caused a qualitative loss of 82 per cent and about 35 per cent quantitative loss in chilli pepper. Economic injury level due to P. latus It was indicated that 1.02 mites per leaf was sufficient to cause economic loss under irrigated chilli ecosystem on Byadagi variety. The present findings are in conformity with Borah (1987) who opined that 1.07 mites/ cm2 leaf area is economic injury level at dry land situation. Similarly, Ukey et al. (1999) worked out the economic threshold level for chilli mites and found that one mite per leaf was considered as an economic threshold level (ETL). Chemical control: Efficacy of new molecules against S. dorsalis: Imidacloprid 17.8 SL and Clothianidin were effective in the management of chilli thrips. These two chemicals recorded least incidence of thrips after each spray. The trend was similar in both years and in pooled analysis also. In general, imidacloprid reduced thrips incidence to the extent of 84 per cent and clothianidin to the extent of 81 per cent. However, the recommended hemicals like monocrotophos and dimethoate recorded only 58 and 53 per cent reduction over control. Thus ineffectivity of these chemicals may be due to the continuous usage. The economic analysis of usage of chemicals is required for advising the farmers. In the present study economics analysis, revealed that imidacloprid and clothianidin were found effective for the management of thrips. Imidacloprid 17.8 SL and clothianidin 50 WDG recorded additional net return of Rs. 18,929 ha-1 and Rs. 16,889 ha-1respectively compared to untreated control. Jarnade and Dethe,(1994) reported that seed dressing of chilli seeds with 15 g imidacloprid 70 WS per kg seeds followed by root dip of seedlings with 0.03 per cent imidacloprid gave excellent control of sucking pests and also resulted into high yield (63.47 q/ha) green chillies as against (37.42 q/ha) in untreated control. The increased efficacy of imidacloprid and clothianidin may be due to the fact that these insecticides belong to neonicotinoid group and new to the chilli ecosystem, which are very effective in reducing the sucking pest complex. Elgaard (1999) noticed that fipronil 80 WDG was found effective in reducing Frankinella occidentalis F. and Thrips tabaci F. under green house cultivation. The effectiveness of fipronil may be due to its mode of action (GABA inhibitor) and being a new molecule, which can be a good substitute to organophosphates. Jain and Ameta (2006) reported that imidacloprid @ 200 ml/ha considered to be most effective against thrips with a total reduction of 82.9 to 83.72 per cent. However, two sprays of imidacloprid followed by one spray of Beta cyfluthrin proved to be most effective for the

163

management of sucking pests and fruit borers with highest marketable yield of green chilli,(Burleigh et al.(1998).

The treatment with application of phosphamidon 40% + imidacloprid 2% SP @ 700 g/ha was most effective for minimizing mite (Polyphagotarsonemus latus (Banks) in chilli) population. It was followed by phosphamidon 40% + imidacloprid 2% SP @ 600 g/ha, 500 g/ha and imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 112 ml/ha. The yield of green chilli was highest in the treatment phosphamidon 40% + imidacloprid 2% SP @ 700 g/ha.(. Bhede, et al., 2009)

Efficacy of new molecules against P. latus: Tatagar (2000) found that vertimec 1.9 EC was significantly superior over dicofol and ethion which recorded maximum dry chilli yield and safe to natural enemies population. The superiority of next best chemical fenazaquin 10 EC during the present study is in conformity with Ahmed et al. (2000b) who reported that fenazaquin 10 EC @ 200 g.a.i/ha was found to be effective in reducing mite population with better green chilli fruit yield. Srinivasalu et al . (2002) who reported that milbemectin 1.9 EC was the most effective pesticide against P. latus with maximum green chilli yield and showed good selectivity to the predators. Bio-Efficacy of Insect Growth Regulator:

Field experiments were conducted during 2005–06 and 2006–07 to test the bioefficacy of lufenuron 5 EC along with other insecticides against thrips, Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood and pod borer, Spodoptera filum Fab. on chillies. Fipronil 5 SC 50 gail ha was the most effective insecticide for thrips followed by lufenuron 5 EC @ 30 g ai/ha and 25 g ai/ha. Lufenuron 5 EC @ 25 g ai/ha, 30 g ai/ha and thiodicarb 75 SP @ 750 g ai/ha were effective in reducing the pod damage by effectively suppressing the population of S. litura on chillies. Lufenuron 5 EC @ 25 g ai/ha and 30 g ai/ha resulted in higher yields by effectively checking the damage due to thrips and pod borer. Chillies, insect growth regulator, lufe'nuron, Scirtothrips dorsalis Spodoptera fitura.( Ahmed Khalid and Prasad,2009)

Biocontrol and Plant regulator against the pests of Chilli:

Efficacy of eco-friendly pest management module comprising application of Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (Pseudomonas fluorescens Migula), Plant Growth Regulator, Naphthalene Acetic Acid (NAA) and neem oil in comparison with farmer's conventional practices of applying chemical pesticides and untreated check. The results revealed that the sucking pests viz., S.dorsalis P. latus and M. persicae, were effectively controlled in eco-friendly plot which was on par with farmer,s plot of applying chemical pesticides. While the untreated check recorded highest population of sucking pests compared to eco-friendly and farmer's practice. Pseudomonas spp are known to induce several defense genes in the colonized plant that encode chitinase, gluconase and induce accumulation of phenolics, cellose, lignin.Acylsugars from type IV glandular trichomes act by reducing feeding of the aphids, M. persicae and silver leaf whitefly, B. argentifolii

The elevated quantum of total phenolics, especially retin and chlorogenic acid inhibited growth and development of B. tabaci (Mohan and Nachiappan, 1988). Singh et al. (1998) reported that the application of PGR in rapeseed resulted in increased biomass production and accumulation of phenols and tannins in the plant tissue and decreased the incidence of aphid, Lipaphis erysimi (Kalt.). The similar

164

results were obtained in mustard also with reduced infestation of aphid, L. erysimi in PGR treatment.( Sujay et al.,2009) Organic amendments against Predators of the pests of chilli:

Field experiments were conducted during kharif 2005 and 2006, at the main Agricultural Research Station, UAS, Dharwad, Karnataka, S. India to assess the effect of organic amendments viz., vermicompost, neem cake and vermiwash on the activity of predator fauna of chilli insect pests.Menochilus sexmaculatus (F.) and Chrysoperla cornea (Stephens) were the predators observed on the crop. The organics, (vermicompost, neem cake and vermiwash) used in the study did not affect the predators, and was comparable to the predator density seen in untreated control. While, chemical interventions made on the crop for control of insect pests, exerted detrimental effects on the predator population. The present studies indicate that organics, now extensively used in organic farming, do not have any adverse effects on the activity of beneficials found in the crop ecosystem.(Giraddi,2007.)

Ghosh et al.(2008) reported that The efficacy of six new insecticides viz., emamectin benzoate, indoxacarb, methoxyfenozide, novaluron, lufenuron and fipronil against chilli fruit borer (Spodoptera litura Fabr.) was evaluated during rabi, 2006–07. In the field experiment, highest mean reduction of fruit borer population was recorded in novaluron (95.75%) treated plots, followed by fipronil (91.95%), indoxacarb (90.35%), lufenuron (89.75%), emamectin benzoate (87.5%) and methoxyfenozide (86.4%). Relative toxicity of these six insecticides against the third instar larvae of S. litura was evaluated under laboratory conditions. The order of relative toxicity after 24 hours of exposure was emamectin benzoate (144.929) > indoxacarb (93.933) > fipronil (5.410) > novaluron (1.488) > lufenuron (1.037) > methoxyfenozide (1.000). With the increase of exposure time upto 48 hours, all the chemicals showed steady decrease in LC50 values. Effect of Botanicals combined with organic farming in chilli: Effect of new herbal pesticide: Efficacy of a new herbal pesticide, Stanza obtained from Universal Crop Science Ltd, Mumbai was evaluated during kharif 2006-07 and 2007-08. Thrips population was significantly lowest in Stanza @ 2.00 ml/l (1.36/leaf) which was on par with its lower dosage i.e. Stanza @ 1.50 ml/l (1.59/leaf) and standard check, fipronil 5 SC @ 1.00 ml/l (1.64/leaf). Similarly, Stanza @ 2.0 ml/l recorded lowest mite population of 3.70/leaf which was on par with Stanza @ 1.50 ml/l (3.70/leaf). Highest green chilli yield of 32.64 q/ha was registered in Stanza @ 2.0 ml/l, but which was on par with its lower dosage of 1.50 ml/l (31.29 q/ha). The net returns of Rs. 35,058 and Rs. 34, 352 was obtained when the chilli was sprayed with Stanza @ 2.00 ml/ l and 1.50 ml/l, respectively. Thus, the Stanza @ 1.50 ml/l was quite effective against thrips and mites and registered higher yields and net profits.(Venkateshalu et al.,2009)

Giraddi and Verghese,( 2007), indicated that crop amended at planting with neem cake (1000 kg/ha) and vermicompost (2500 kg/ha) were effective in keeping the sucking pests of chilli thrips (Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood) and mite (Polyphagotarsonemus latus Banks)., density in check, being comparable to recommended insecticides (dimethoate 30 EC and dicofol 18.5 EC two sprays each). Sunnhemp green manuring at higher dosage (1000 kg/ha) was next in the order of effectiveness. These organics at lower dosages were found inferior to chemical check. Similar trend of efficacy of organics was seen in managing leaf curl manifestations too. Significantly highest red chilli yield was registered in the crop receiving neem cake at 1000 kg/ha (5.68 q/ha), being comparable to recommended insecticides (6.14

165

q/ha). This was followed by vermicompost at 2500 kg/ha (4.94 q/ha). Untreated crop yielded significantly lowest at 2.20 q/ha red chillies. The research highlights the utility of organics in managing sucking pests of byadagi chilli, that has potential export value.

Giraddi (2007), reported that Field experiments were conducted during kharif 2005 and 2006, at the main Agricultural Research Station, UAS, Dharwad, Karnataka, S. India to assess the effect of organic amendments viz., vermicompost, neem cake and vermiwash on the activity of predator fauna of chilli insect pests. Menochilus sexmaculatus (F.) and Chrysoperla cornea (Stephens) were the predators observed on the crop. The organics, (vermicompost, neem cake and vermiwash) used in the study did not affect the predators, and was comparable to the predator density seen in untreated control. While, chemical interventions made on the crop for control of insect pests, exerted detrimental effects on the predator population. The present studies indicate that organics, now extensively used in organic farming, do not have any adverse effects on the activity of beneficial insect found in the crop ecosystem.

Management of the sucking and fruit borer pests of chilli:

Field experiments were conducted at the College of Agriculture, Dhule during the kharif 2005 and rabi 2005-06 to test the bio-efficacy of a ready mixture of indoxacarb 14.5 + acetamiprid 7.7 SC (RIL-042 222 SC) against sucking pests and fruit borer on chilli. The treatments RIL-042 222 SC @ 500 ml/ha and RIL-042 222 SC @ 400 ml/ha were significantly superior in reducing the incidence of sucking pests and fruit damage by Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) in both the seasons followed by acetamiprid 20 SP @ 200 g/ha. The treatment RIL-042 @ 500 ml/ha also registered highest green chilli fruit yield (49.6 and 49.53 q/ha, respectively) during both the seasons. (Dharne and Kabre, 2009) Ahmed Khalid and Prasad.(2009) reported that in the Field experiments conducted during 2005–06 and 2006–07 to test the bioefficacy of lufenuron 5 EC along with other insecticides against thrips, Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood and pod borer, Spodoptera filumFab. on chillies. Fipronil 5 SC 50 gail ha was the most effective insecticide for thrips followed by lufenuron 5 EC @ 30 g ai/ha and 25 g ai/ha. Lufenuron 5 EC @ 25 g ai/ha, 30 g ai/ha and thiodicarb 75 SP @ 750 g ai/ha were effective in reducing the pod damage by effectively suppressing the population of S. litura on chillies. Lufenuron 5 EC @ 25 g ai/ha and 30 g ai/ha resulted in higher yields by effectively checking the damage due to thrips and pod borer.

Gundannavar K.P and, Giraddi R.S.(2007) reported that among different schedules, the Nimbecidine-Nimbecidine-Spinosad-Garlic Chilli Kerosine Extract-Spinosad treatment was effective against H. armigera by recording least larval infestation and fruit damage. With respect to dry chilli yield, RPP recorded highest yield (4.44 q/ha) with maximum net return (Rs. 13767/-). While, biorational schedule involving Nimbecidine-Nimbecidine-Emamectin benzoate-Neem oil-Emamectin benzoate was the next better intervention with higher net return (Rs. 12127/-)

Nandihalli,(2009),reported that The experiment on the efficacy of newer insecticide molecules against chilli thrips and fruit borer was conducted at the Main Agricultural Research Station, Dharwad during 2005 and 2006. Among different newer molecules, indoxacarb 14.5 SC @ 500 ml/ha, acetamiprid 20 SP @ 200 g/ha and combination product of indoxacarb 14.5 SC + acetamiprid 7.7% SC @ 500 ml/l were on par with each other in reducing thrips population in all three sprays during both the years. The newer molecules did not influence the natural enemy coccinellid. The combination product indoxacarb 14.5 SC + acetamiprid 7.7% SC @ 500 ml/l, indoxacarb 14.5 @ 500 ml/ha, acetamiprid 20 SP @ 200 g/ha and

166

Koranda 505 EC @ 1250 ml/ha recorded less fruit borers damage with higher green fruit yield which were on par with each other

Effect of soft soaps against pests of chilli:

David et al.,2009, reported that Castor oil-based soft soaps with potassium hydroxide and naturally available materials such as botanicals and preservatives that varied from soap to soap have been developed recently by the Department of Plant Protection, Agricultural College and Research Institute, Killikulam. They were evaluated against Polyphagotarsonemus latus (Banks) on chilli under both screenhouse (during 2007-2008) and field conditions (during 2008-2009). They were applied at 2.0 per cent dosage at regular intervals and P. latus incidence and damage were assessed. The results indicated that soft soap: 1 & 4 were most effective under screenhouse conditions by reducing the mite numbers up to 69.3 per cent when compared to that on control plants as against 92.8 per cent by avermectin. Under field conditions soft soap: 1 and 3 were significantly more effective than other soaps. The typical mite injured plants were nil in soft soap: 1, 2 and 5 treated plots as in avermectin plots.

Diseases of chilli: Fruit Rot of Chilli: Colletotrichum capsici

Antagonistic effect of different isolates of Pseudomonas fluorescens and Trichoderma isolates was tested by dual culture test against Colletotrichum capsici. Among them, Trichoderma harzianum isolate 3 and P. fluorescens isolate 5 were found most effective in inhibiting the pathogen under in vitro conditions. Similarly, five neem based plant products viz., Neemgold, Achook, Biotas, Tricure, and Neemazal were tested to see their performance in inhibiting the radial growth and sporulation of C. capsici in vitro by poisoned food technique. The neem based plant product, Biotas completely inhibited the growth and sporulation of C. capsici. Among the plant extracts, datura leaf, onion and garlic bulb extracts completely inhibited the growth and sporulation of C. capsici. (Khilare et al., 2010)

Among 65 plant extracts (10%) tested for their efficacy against the mycelium growth, spore germination of Colletotrichum capsici causing fruit rot of chilli in vitro. Rhizome extract of Acorus calamus reduced mycelial growth by 82.7% as compared to mancozeb (100%) followed by Aegle marmelos (78.9%),Allium sativum (74.7%), Abrus precatorius (67.7%), Ocimum sanctum (61.7%), Prosopis juliflora(59.8%), Coleus aromaticus (48.7%) and Cymbopogan martini (48.3%). In greenhouse condition the plant extracts sprayed with twice in susceptible plants raised in pot culture. The A. calamus (10%) and A. marmelos (10%) recorded the maximum disease reduction (58.3% and 54.5%) compatible withPseudomonas fluorescens and Bacillus subtilis. However, in susceptible plants treated with biological inducer like P. fluorescens (0.2%) + A. precatorius (10%) + TNAU Neem oil (3%) spray have minimum disease incidence (9.6%) on par with individual application of mancozeb (0.2%) (8.1%) and P.

Continuous use of benomyl, carbendazim and thiram has led to development of resistance to these fungicides in Colletotrichum capsici. In the present study, among 25 isolates of pathogen, 52% population was highly resistant to benomyl (MIC 170.8 1172.0μg/ml), carbendazim (MIC 3460.8 to 23620.4μg/ml) and thiram (MIC 568.0 to 4017.0μg/ml). Therewas also development of cross resistance amongst the three fungicides.Thirteen isolates, Cc-4, Cc-6, Cc-7, Cc-8, Cc-11, Cc-12, Cc-13, Cc-15, Cc-18, Cc-19, Cc-22, Cc-24 and Cc-25 were found to be cross resistant, while Cc-7 and Cc-8 showed high resistance to all three fungicides

167

fluorescens (0.2%) (9.1%), followed by A. calamus 10% (12.3%) and A. precatorius 10% (13.3%) and highest yield in the crop season indicating its stable yield performance.( Paramasivan and Kalaimani ,2008)

Tiwari et al.(2008) reported the antagonistic effect of different isolates of Pseudomonas fluorescens and Trichoderma isolates was tested by dual culture test against Colletotrichum capsici. Among them, Trichoderma harzianum isolate 3 and P. fluorescens isolate 5 were found most effective in inhibiting the pathogen under in vitro conditions. Similarly, five neem based plant products viz., Neemgold, Achook, Biotas, Tricure, and Neemazal were tested to see their performance in inhibiting the radial growth and sporulation of C. capsici in vitro by poisoned food technique. The neem based plant product, Biotas completely inhibited the growth and sporulation of C. capsici. Among the plant extracts, datura leaf, onion and garlic bulb extracts completely inhibited the growth and sporulation of C. capsici.

Rani.s, et al.(2008) found that theSpecies of Trichoderma varied in their antagonistic potential against Colletotrichum capsici in vitro. Pure cultures of Pseudomonas fluorescens and Trichoderma viride at the rate of 1’ 108 cfu g−1 and their talc based formulations 28’ 107 cfu g−1 and 19’ 107 cfu g−1) at the rate of 5 g kg−1 and 10 g kg−1 of seed were used for seed treatment.

The treated seeds were evaluated for per cent reduction of C. capsiciseed germination, vigour index. It was found that the maximum control of the disease was obtained by seed treatment with pure culture of P. fluorescens + T. viride followed by seed treatment with pure culture of P. fluorescens and T. harzianum. Seed treatment with pure culture of P. fluorescens and pure culture of T. viride recorded higher yield fruit characters such as fruit length and fruit weight However none was better than fungicide carbendazim at 2g kg−1 seeds.

The percentage of disease index (PDI) in untreated plots at 45,60 and 75 DAT were 15.17, 20.24 and 24.19 percent, while on the same dates of transplanting in Carma treated plots, PDI was 3.70, 4.44 and 4.93 respectively. In second year trial (kharif 2004), the results were almost similar to previous year. However, it was observed that at 75 DAT there was no significant difference in PDI among Carma, Quintal, Dithane M-45 and Bavistin treated plots. Under laboratory conditions it was found that, Carma was also found much effective than other fungicides and there was no significant difference among Carma, Quintal, Dithane M-45 and Bavistin at 1000 ppm concentration.( Singh Ranbir,and Chowdhury,2008)

Nematode Control in Chilli:

Kaul and Chaudhary,(2010) reported the Biocidal efficacy of Pasteuria penetrans either alone or in combination with carbofuran on the growth of chilli and multiplication of Meloidogyne was studied. Three doses of P. penetrans i.e. 50,100 and 200g infested soil/kg soil with 16 spores/larva as initial inoculum load and two doses of carbofuran, i.e. 1 and 2 kg, a.i./ha against M.incognita were evaluated.

Individual application of P. penetrans or carbofuran was observed to suppress the adverse effect of the nematode on plant growth to varying extents. Combining them further suppressed the adverse effect of nematode and caused drastic improvement in fresh and dry weights of shoot and root over nematode check. Maximum increase in the fresh weight (86.06 and 69.2%) and dry weight (189.7 and 71.2%) of root and shoot was recorded in treatment having combined application of highest doses of P. penetrans and carbofuran. Individual as well as combined application of P. penetrans and carbofuran was observed

168

to cause significant reduction in gall numbers as well as nematode population. Maximum dose combination of P. penetrans and carbofuran reduced gall numbers and nematode population by 77.6 and 89.2%, respectively over nematode check.

Anthracnose of Chilli: Colletotrichum capsici.

The research work was carried out in Arunachal Pradesh, the largest state in northeastern India. The plant parts showing symptoms either die back, anthracnose or fruit rots depending on expression were collected during crop seasons through surveys conducted from year 2002 to 2006 and evaluated for the variability. In total, 12 isolates were evaluated for their variability on morphology and pathogenicity. The Koch postulates were proved for the pathogenicity of the test isolates. Mainly Colletotrichum capsici was found to be associated in causing anthracnose. In addition C. dematium, C. gloeosporioides, C. graminicola and C. atramentarium have also been isolated in few cases. The diseased samples were used for isolation of pure culture of the fungus on Czapeck's Dox agar. The colony characters, morphology and margin architecture were recorded. Shape of conidia and morphology of isolates were also observed. The germination of conidia and formation of appresoria were also observed. The colonies were circular, smooth, white having thick texture. The colour of the colony varies from gray, greenish to white. The growth rate of colony varies from media to media depending on the composition. The size of the conidia range between 25-26 x 3.2-3.72um and the variation is not significant among isolates. The conidia were formed at the tip of conidiophore, which is unbranched. The conidium is hyaline, single celled and fusoid. Conidiophore is unbranched and aseptate. (Selvakumar, 2007)

Tobacco streak virus (TSV) : Since the first outbreak of Tobacco streak virus (TSV), genus Ilarvirus as sunflower necrosis disease (SND) on sunflower and peanut stem necrosis disease (PSND) on groundnut in late 1990s, the virus has been a subject of much research in India. This review considers main features of TSV in India. The virus epidemics are very damaging to several crops in South India. Natural occurrence of TSV was recorded on bottle gourd, chilli, Crossandra, cotton, cowpea, cucumber, gherkin, ixora, marigold, mungbean, niger, okra, pumpkin, safflower, sesame, soybean, sunn hemp, urdbean, and several weed species. Coat protein gene sequence of TSV isolates from various locations and hosts are 97–100% identical. The virus is transmitted through pollen assisted by thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Epidemiological studies indicate TSV as a monocyclic disease in annual crops and asymptomatic weeds such as parthenium serve as TSV inoculum source. Attempts on identification and deployment of host resistance met with limited success. Phytosanitation and cultural methods of control were effective in reducing virus incidence but not popularly adopted by farmers. Major efforts are on-going to develop transgenic varieties using TSV coat protein gene. Additional research is required to determine the extent of TSV spread to other crops and its economic importance, understand disease epidemiology and development of host resistance for effective virus control, success of which will bring benefits to millions of farmers in India.( Kumar P Lava,et al.,2008) Development of IPM modules against chilli pests: GuravaReddy et al.,(2011),reported that An Integrated Pest Management (IPM) project was implemented in Guntur district during the cropping season 2006-07 in six villages of Guntur district.

169

Survey was conducted in six project villages and all the 150 participating chilli farmers in Crop Life India (CLI) sponsored IPM project were taken as sample for the study. In case of sucking pests, 56 per cent expressed mites as the important, in fruit bores, great majority (83.33%) expressed Spodoptera litura and in diseases, 56 per cent opined dieback as the major problem. More than two thirds of the respondents adopted all the components of IPM with exception of bio agents where in the adoption is only 46 per cent. With regard to diseases, 56 per cent felt dieback as the major problem while the rest felt leaf spot was the major disease. In case of border crops, trap crops, scouting techniques and mechanical control measures, more than 80 per cent adoption was observed. All the respondents are following 10-15 days pre-harvest interval of pesticide application as a measure for quality product and better price. The problems of post harvest pest and diseases was not observed in case of properly dried condition.

IPM Package for chilli: The four year (2000–01 to 2003–04) experimentation in different chilli pest management strategies resulted in development of integrated pest management (IPM) package and practices. The recommendation of IPM module is:

1. Soil solarization in the month of mid April to May,

2. Seed sowing in second fortnight of July with treatment of carbendazim @0.25%, nylon net covering of nursery beds,

3. One spray of streptocycline @150 mg litre−1 on seedlings, root dipping in imidacloprid @0.3 ml L−l for 45 minutes, apical cutting along with little healthy portion of dieback infected twigs,

4. Three sprays of abamectine @0.08 ml l−l at 20, 40 and 60 days after transplanting (DAT), one spray of copper oxychloride @0.3 g l−1, initial rouging of virus infected plant, initial two pickings of green fruits to minimize subsequent infection of anthracnose and sort out the anthracnose infected fruits after harvest during drying. The present IPM module is more cost effective and resulted in economic yield with less environmental pollution while providing very effective to manage damping-off, bacterial leaf spot, leafcurl complex, anthracnose, mites, thrips and whitefly. However, the 10–15% deviation from the present IPM module may be required due to unpredictable sudden outbreak of wilt, white rot and soft rot diseases in pepper. (Pandey K K and Satpathy S, 2009,)

III: Farmers’ Practices: Biointensive module recommended: a) Application of FYM @ 25 t/ha. b) Application of vermicompost 2.5 t/ha. at the time of sowing. c) Application of neem cake 2.5 q/ha - After 10 days of sowing. d) Application of recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) (by adjusting the nutrient availability in vermicompost and neem cake)*

170

e) NSKE 5% foliar spray based on leaf curl index (LCI) /economic threshold level (ETL) of thrips. f) Commercial neem based insecticides (neemark, neemgold, nimbecidine, etc.) spraybased on leaf curl index (LCI)/ economic threshold level (ETL) for thrips management. g) Spraying of milbemectin 1.9 EC @ 15 g a.i/ha for mites management. h) Spraying of Garlic - Chilli - Kerosene extract (GCK) @ 5% for thrips and fruit borer Management. i) Spraying of 100 LE HaNPV or SlNPV @ 1.0 ml/l or spinosad 45 SC @ 45 g a.i/ha - based on larval population of fruit borer. j) Growing one row of marigold as a trap crop and two rows of maize as a border / barrier crop. II. Adaptable IPM Module: a) Application of FYM @ 25 t/ha. b) Application of neem cake @ 2.5 q/ha - after 10 days of sowing. c) Application of RDF (by adjusting nutrient availability of neem cake). d) Seed treatment with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 10 g/kg seed for sucking pests. e) Trap crop; one row of marigold and two rows of maize as a border crop. f) Spraying of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 20 g a.i/ha or acetamiprid 20 SP @ 20 g a.i/ha or fipronil 5 SC @ 30 g a.i/ha or oxydemeton methyl 25 EC @ 225 g a.i/ha for thrips management. g) Spraying of fenazaquin 10 EC @ 200 g a.i/ha or milbemectin 1.9 EC @ 15 g a.i/ha or dicofol 18.5 EC @ 2.5 ml/lit or wettable sulphur @ 1500 g a.i/ha for management of mites. h) Spraying of fenpropathrin 30 EC @ 30 g a.i/ha or diafenthurion 50 WP @ 20 g a.i/ha when both thrips and mites are noticed simultaneously at mild level. i) Spraying of 100 LE HaNPV or SlNPV or spinosad 45 SC @ 45 g a.i/ha for management of fruit borer. a) Application of FYM @ 25 t/ha. b) For early sucking pests, spraying monocrotophos 36 SL @ 225 g a.i/ha or dimethoate 30 EC @ 325 g a.i/ha or oxydemeton methyl 25 EC @ 225 g a.i/ha. c) For both thrips and mites: spray chlorpyriphos 20 EC @ 200 g a.i/ha or acephate 75 SP @ 750 g a.i/ha. d) For mite management, spraying of propargite 50 EC @ 500 g a.i/ha OR ethion 50 EC @ 500 g a.i/ha or dicofol 18.5 EC @ 232 g a.i/ha OR wettable sulphur 80 WP @ 1500 g a.i/ha.

9. 3. References: Chillies-IPM:

Ahmed, G.M.K. and Rao, N.H.P., 1999, Influence of abiotic factors on population dynamics of yellow mite, Polyphagotarsonemus latus (Banks) on chilli. Pestology, 23(3):5-9. Ahmed.G.M. K., RAO, P.P.C. and RAO, N.H.P., 2000b, Evaluation of new insecticides against yellow mite, Polyphagotarsonemus latus (Banks) on chillies. Pestology, 24(1):54-57.

Ahmed Khalid and Prasad N.V.V.S.-2009, Bio-Efficacy of Insect Growth Regulator, Lufenuron Sec Against Thrips, Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood and Pod Borer, Spodoptera Litura Fab. On Chillies- Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystems-Year : 2009, Volume : 15, Issue : 2First page : ( 126) Last page : ( 130))

171

Ahuja,A,D.B.,2000, Influence of abiotic factors on the population of mite,Polyphagotarsonemus latus (Banks) infesting sesame (Sesamum indicum L) in the arid region of Rajastan (India). Journal of Entomological Research, 24(1):87-89. Anonymous,, 2002, Krishi Pete, Karnataka State Agricultural Marketing Committee, Hubli,p. 47. Arunkumar HosamaniI,2007, Management of Chilli Murda Complex in irrigated Ecosystem-PhD Thesus submitted –Agricultural Entomology- Department of Agricultural Entomology,College of Agriculture, Dhaward University ,Karnatakka. Ayyar.T.V.R.,Subbaya,M..S.andD.Krishnamoorthu.P.S,1935, The leaf curl disease of chillies due to thrips. Madras Agriculture Journal, 23: 408-411. Bhede B V, Bhosle B B, More D G,2009- Influence of Meteorological Factors over the Incidence of chilli Mite, Polyphagotarsonemus latus and its Chemical Control Strategies- Indian Journal of Plant Protection Year : 2008, Volume : 36, Issue : 2 First page : ( 200) Last page : ( 203) Burleigh,J.R.,Vignaana Kushingham,V. Lalith,W.R.B and Onapinuwala.S.,1998, Pattern of pesticide use and pesticide efficacy among chilli growers in Dry Zone of north-eastern Sri Lanka (System B): Perception V/s. reality. Agriculture Ecosystem and Environment, 701: 49-60. Borah,D.C.,1987, Bioecology of Polyphagotarsonemus latus (Banks) (Acari:Tarsonemidae) and Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood (Thysanoptera: Thripidae)infesting chilli and their natural enemies. Ph.D. Thesis, University of AgriculturalSciences, Dharwad, 165-202. David,P.M.M.,K.RAajkumar,K.Elanchezhyan,T.A.Razak,K.S.J.Nelson,P.Nainar and R.K. Murali Baskaran,2009, Effect of soft soaps on broad mite, Polyphagotarsonemus latus (Banks) on chilli- Effect of soft soaps on broad mite, Polyphagotarsonemus latus (Banks) on chilli) Dharne,P.K., and G.B. Kabre,2009,Bio efficacy of ready mixture of indoxacarb 14.5 + acetamiprid 7.7 SC (RIL-042 222 SC) against sucking pests and fruit borer on chilli- Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 22(3-Spl.Issue) : (585-587) 2009) Elgaard,C.P.,1999, Regent R 80 WDG (Fipronil) a new insecticide from Rhone-Poulenc Agro. In: 16th Danish plant protection conference. Crop Protection in organic farming, Pests and diseases, Tjele, Denmark; Danmarks Jordburgs Forrsknings DJF Rapport, Markburg, No. 10: 249-254.

Ghosh Amalendu, Samanta A., Chatterjee M.L.2008, Evaluation of some new insect growth regulators and insecticides against chilli fruit borer (Spodoptera litura Fab.)- Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystems-Year : 2008, Volume : 14, Issue : 2First page : ( 122) Last page : ( 127)

Giraddi R.S.2007, Effect of organic amendments on the activity of Menochilus sexmaculatus (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) and Chrysoperla carnea Stephens (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) in chilli, (Capsicum annuum L.)- Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystems-Year : 2007, Volume : 13, Issue : 2First page : ( 38) Last page : ( 43)

172

Giraddi R. S.and Verghese T. S.2007, . Effect of different levels of neem cake, vermicompost and green manure on sucking pests of chilli- Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystems-Year : 2007, Volume : 13, Issue : 2First page : ( 108) Last page : ( 114))

Gundannavar K.P.and, Giraddi R.S.(2007)- Management of Chilli Fruit Borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner)- Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystems Year : 2007, Volume : 13, Issue : 1First page : ( 51) Last page : ( 62) )

Gurava Reddy1, A Subbarami Reddy2 J.Satish babu3 and M Chandra SekharaReddy,2011, Adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in ChilliI(Capsicum annum,L.):A Case Dtudy in Guntur District of AndhraPradesh- International Journal of applied biology and pharmaceutical technology Volume: 2: Issue-2: April-June -2011. Jarnade,N.T.and ethe, M.D., 1994, Imidacloprid for effective control of sucking pest of chilli. Pestology, 18: 15-17. Karuppuchamy P.and Mohanasundaram.M.,1987, Bio-ecology and control of chilli murani mite, Polyphagotarsonemus latus (Banks). Indian Journal of PlantProtection, 15 (1): 1-4.

Kaul R.K.and Chaudhary K.K.(2010)- Biocidal efficacy of Pasteuria penetrans alone and in combination with carbofuran against Meloidogyne incognita in chilli- Plant Disease Research Year : 2010, Volume : 25, Issue : 1First page : ( 51) Last page : ( 54).

Khilare V C Kale S R, Chavan S S,2010- Development of Benzimidazole and Dithiocarbamate Resistance in Colletotrichum capsici Causing Fruit Rot of Chilli- Indian Journal of Plant Protection,Year : 2010, Volume : 38, Issue : 1,First page : ( 87) Last page : ( 91) Krishnakumar,1995, Yield loss in chilli and sweet pepper due to Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystem,1(2): 61-69.

Kumar P,Lava,PrasadaRao, RD.V.J. Reddy A.S.Madhavi K Jyothirmai, Anitha K, Waliyar F,2008, Emergence and Spread of Tobacco streak virus Menace in India and Control Strategies- Indian Journal of Plant Protection Year : 2008, Volume : 36, Issue : 1First page : ( 1) Last page : ( 8).

Nandihalli-B.S.,2009,-Bioefficacy of newer insecticide molecules against chilli thrips and fruit borers- Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 22(3-Spl. Issue) : (591-593) 2009)

Pandey K.K. and Satpathy S,2009- Development of Integrated Pest Management in Chilli Against Major Diseases and Insect Pests- Indian Journal of Plant Protection Year : 2009, Volume : 37, Issue : 1and2 First page : ( 104) Last page : ( 110) )

Paramasivan M, Kalaimani T,2008, Management of Chilli Fruit Rot Caused byColletotrichum capsici- Year : 2008, Volume : 36, Issue : 1First page : ( 102) Last page : ( 107) .

Rani S.,Usha, Kumar R.Udhaya, Pratheema K.,2008-Effectofbioagents against Colletotrichum capsici on seed quality of chilli- Plant Disease Research Year : 2008, Volume : 23, Issue : 1First page : ( 16) Last page : ( 19)

173

Rao, B.H.C, Subbarathnam.G.V.andMurthy, K.S.R.1983, Crop losses due toinsect pests. Special issue. Indian Journal of Entomology, 1: 2-5 Reddy, D.N.R.and Puttaswamy, S, 1983, Pests infesting chilli (Capsicum annuum L.) in the transplanted crop. Mysore Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 17: 246-251. Roopa, S.Patil and B.S.Nandihalli,2009- Seasonal incidence of mite pests on brinjal and chilli-Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 22(3-Spl. Issue ) : (729-731) 2009) Sujay, N.Dhandapani, V.Pushpa and R. S...iraddi- Evaluation of eco-friendly approaches for the management of sucking pests in chilli- Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 22(3-Spl.Issue) : (720-721) 2009) Shivaramu,K and Kukarni, K.A., 2001, Integrated management of chilli fruit borer Helicoverpa armigera Hub. Proceedings of II National Symposium on Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Horticulture Crops: New Molecules, Biopesticides and Environment, Bangalore, 17-19th October, pp.59-60.

Selvakumar.R.,2007, Variability among Colletotrichum capsici Causing Chili Anthracnose in North Eastern India, First International Symposium on Chili Anthracnose at Hoam Faculty House, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.

Shivaramu K and , Kulkarni K.A. 2008, Crop loss assessment due to Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) in chilli- Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystems-Year : 2008, Volume : 14, Issue : 1First page : ( 59) Last page : ( 66) Singh, U.C, Singh, R.and Nagaiah, K.N.1998, Reaction ofsome promising chilli cultivars against major insect pests and leaf curl disease. Indian Journal of Entomology, 60(2): 181-18

Singh Ranbir,and Chowdhury A.K.,2008- Evaluation of different fungicides to control Alternaria leaf spot of chilli (Alternaria solani Ell. Mart.) Under in vitro and in vivo conditions- Plant Disease Research Year : 2008, Volume : 23, Issue : 1First page : ( 49) Last page : ( 51)

Sreeramula, C, 1976. Improved variation of chillies. Arecanut and Spices Bulletin. 7: 65-68. Srinivasalu,P, Naidu,P.G.and Rao,N.V., 2002, Biology and bionomics of chilli mite.Journal of Applied Zoological Research, 13(1): 19-21. Sudharma, K.and Nair, M.1999, Assessment of loss caused by Polyphagotarsonemus latus Banks on chilli. Entomology, 24(1): 97-99. Sureshkumar, N, and Ananthakrishnan,T.N.,1984, Predator thrips interaction with reference to Qrius maxidentex Ghauri and Carayanocoris indicus Muraleedharan,(Anthocoridae: Heteroptera) Proceedings of Indian National Science Academy.Part B, 50: 139-145. Tatagar, M.H. 2002, Research Highlights of Entomological Experiments carried out at Agricultural Research station, (chilli), Devihosur, Haveri, University ofAgricultural Sciences. Dharwad.

174

Tatagar,M.H.H.D.Mohankuar,M.Shivaprasad and R.K.Mesta,-2009,Bio-efficacy of flubendiamide 20 WG against chilli fruit borers, Helicoverpa armigera (Hub.) and Spodoptera litura (Fb.)- Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 22(3-Spl. Issue) : (579-581 ) 2009.

Tiwari P K, Kasyap Anil, Awadhiya G K, Thrimurty V S,2008,- Efficacy of Bioagents, Neem Based Plant Products and Plant Extracts Against Colletotrichum capsici- Indian Journal of Plant Protection Year : 2008, Volume : 36, Issue : 1First page : ( 97) Last page : ( 97)

Ukey,S.P. Naitum,N.R,and Patel, M.J.1999, Determination of economic threshold level of mites on chilli crop. Journal of Soils and Crops, 9(2): 268-270. Varadharajan,S.and Veeravel,R,1995, Population dynamics of chilli thrips,Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood in Annamalainagar. Indian Journal of Ecology, 22(1): 27-30. Varadharajan.S and Veeravel, R.1996, Evaluation of chilli accessions resistant to thrips, Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Pest Management and Economic Zoology, 4(1-2): 85-90. Velayuthan, R.Gopianathan, K and Bakthavatsalam,M.,1985, Pollination potential population dynamics and disposal of thrips species (Thysanoptera : Insecta) infesting flowers of Dolichos lab lab (Fab). Pro. Indian National Science Academy 51: 574-580. Venkateshalu,A.G,Srinivas,Sushila,Nadagouda and L.Hanumantharaya-2009-Bio-efficacy of plant product, Stanza against chilli thrips, Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood and chilli mite,Polyphagotarsonemus latus (Banks)- Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 22(3-Spl. Issue ) : (559-560) 2009)

10.1. Summary – Integrated Pest Management in Tomato: Lycopersicum esculantem

State wise scene Area, Production and Productivity of Tomato in India (NABARD)

STATE/UTs Area (000’ ha)

Production (000’t) Productivity (t/ha)

ANDHRA PRADESH 76.50 1453.50 19.00

Andhra Pradesh Rangareddy, Mehabubnagar, Prakasam, Vishakapattanam, Chittor

175

Seed treatment: Chemical seed treatment An example is TMV: virus can be present both on and in the seedcoat. Chemicals only sterilize the surface of the seed and do not reach infections inside the seed. Hot water treatment may sometimes be more effective to control pathogens inside seed. Chemical fungicides for seed protection are relatively inexpensive and cause little environmental damage since they are used in small amounts. Seed can be protected from some soil-borne fungi and from cutworms by a coating of a botanical extract such as crushed garlic. Garlic is well known for its strong odor which has a repellent effect on insects, or birds, and it can prevent diseases. The garlic is thoroughly crushed to obtain juice and pulp. Seed is mixed with this extract. The seed can be immediately sown after this treatment, or left to dry. Seed can also be protected with a coating of biological agents. These are usually antagonistic fungi or bacteria that work against soil-borne pathogens. Examples are the antagonist fungus Trichoderma sp. and the bacterium Bacillus subtilis, which is sometimes mixed with a chemical fungicide for commercial seed treatment. Preventing soil-borne diseases: some techniques. Preventing soil-borne diseases is not a single action, there are several factors involved. Some of the main activities include: 1. Crop rotation 2. Use of clean seed 3. Use of disease-free planting material. 4. Sanitation practices such as: · removing left-overs from previous crop, · removing weeds, · cleaning field tools. 5. Increasing soil organic matter content (increasing organic matter of soil can increase microbial Activity, which can lower population densities of soil-borne pathogens 6. Proper water management: mainly providing drainage to keep soil around roots from becoming waterlogged 7. Application of antagonistic fungi such as Trichoderma sp. into the soil. Role Compost and Diseases: An active population of micro-organisms in the soil or compost out competes pathogens and will often prevent disease. This type of suppression is effective on those pathogens that have small propagule (e.g. spores) size. Small spores do not contain many nutrients so for germination they need an external energy (carbon) source. Examples of this mechanism are suppression of damping-off and root rot diseases caused by Pythium species and Phytophthora species.

176

Management of tomato fruit borer. Management of tomato fruit borer. NPV with chick pea flour 1% + Jaggery 0.5% significantly reduced the larval population of Helicoverpa (93.1%), lowest fruit damage (6.9%) and higher yield (112.02 q/ha) was obtained over the control. In the treatment of NPV mixed with sandovit 0.2%, the population reduction (63.8%), lowest fruit damage (12.6%) and maximum fruit yield (118.21 q/ha) was obtained. Endosulfan 35 EC@0.07 was most effective for the reduction of population (79.6%), minimum fruit damage (12.4%) and maximum fruit yield (176.4 q/ha) followed by haNPV@250 LE+0.035% endosulfan 35 EC. Intercropping and barrier crops When the intercrop is taller than the tomato plants they can form a .barrier. thus reducing spread of insect pests and diseases. Certain intercropped plants excrete chemicals or odors which repel insect pests of other plants. Examples are onion and garlic. The strong smell repels some insects, and they fly away and will not attack other plants growing between the onion or garlic plants. Intercropped tomatoes with onion or garlic reduced levels of whiteflies and aphids on tomatoes. Effects of intercropping on tomato insect pests.

• The incidence of pests and diseases was low in tomato intercropped with maize • Intercropping tomato with beans largely reduced the damage of tomatoes by fruitworm

(Heliothis armigera), armyworm (Spodoptera sp.) and leafminer (Liriomyza sativae). • Intercropping tomato with sorghum controlled whiteflies and had the best yields and effectson

predators. Tomatoes grown with cucumber or Capsicum delayed the build-up of whitefly transmitted leaf curl virus (TYLCV). Effects of intercropping on tomato Diseases:

• Late blight incidence in intercropped plots was lower than in control plot (although also because of sanitation practices).

• Soybean and sesame are compatible for intercropping with tomatoes at 60cm between row spacing.

• Tall plants such as sorghum and sunflower have a suppressive effect on tomato growth and productivity when intercropped, presumably because of shading.

• Sanitation alone had a negative effect on tomato growth and production. • Row spacing between intercrops is crucial to minimize side effects such as shading and

Competition for nutrients Trap crops and Pests & Diseases: Planting crops such as pearl millet, sunflower, sesame and sorghum, have been observed to reduce the incidence of leaf-curl disease in tomato. The trap crop is sown around the main tomato field about 2 months before transplanting tomato seedlings. Other studies claim that cucumber, intercropped with tomato; attract most whiteflies thus resulting in less leaf-curl disease. Use of mustard and marigold as trap crops in cabbage and tomato are the two important classical IPM technologies available to farmers.

177

Mustard as trap crop and neem seed kernel extract (NSKE) for cabbage and cauliflower. Use of tall African marigold as trap crop for the management of tomato fruit borer, H. armigera, was demonstrated in 1992. Pest Monitoring: Use of traps Pheromones are chemicals produced by insects that cause strong behavioral reactions in the same species at very small amounts. They are usually produced by females to attract males of the same species for mating. Such chemical is called .sex pheromone.. The males will fly to the pheromone trap and are trapped on the sticky plate. Pheromones have been developed for several vegetable pests including armyworms (Spodoptera sp.). Pheromones are mainly used for detecting and monitoring pests, to a lesser extent for control of pest populations. One of the reasons is the high cost of pheromones. Pitfall traps: are plastic or glass jars, half-filled with water and a detergent like soap, buried into the soil up to the rim of the jar. These traps are good for catching ground-dwelling insects like ground beetles. Purpose of these traps is purely for monitoring as many ground beetles are active during the night and you may miss them when monitoring the field during the day. Pitfall traps may also be used without water and detergent, to catch living insects for insect zoos. Light traps: Light traps are usually made of a light (can be electronic, on a battery or on oil-products) switched on during the night, and either a sticky plate or a jar filled with water or other liquids. Insects (mainly night-active moths) are attracted to the light, and are caught on the sticky plate or fall into the water and die. Various types of traps are used, and they normally serve only as supplementary measures Use of Botanicals; Neem, derived from the neem tree (Azadiracta indica) of arid tropical regions, contains many active compounds that act as feeding deterrents and as growth regulators. The main active ingredient is azadiractin, which is said to be effective on 200 types of insects, mites and nematodes. These include caterpillars, thrips and whiteflies. It has low toxicity to mammals. Both seeds and leaves are used to extract the oil or juices. A neem solution looses its effectiveness when exposed to direct sunlight and is effective for only eight hours after preparation. It is most effective under humid conditions or when the plants and insects are damp. High concentrations can cause burning of plant leaves! Also, natural enemies can be affected by neem application NSKE sprays are recommended on a variety of crops such as cabbage, cauliflower, tomato and cucurbits against all pests, on tomato and cucurbitsagainst serpentine leaf miner, and on beans against stem fly, Ophiomyia phaseoli. The use of neem seed cakes is well known for controlling nematodes.

178

Use of soaps Sprays of neem and pongamia soaps were found to be highly effective in controlling insecticide resistant DBM in cabbageThe studies conducted at IIHR have shown that soaps were also effective in reducing Helicoverpa armigera in tomato.(Krishnamoorthy et al.,2004). Use of biopesticides Biopesticides, biological pesticides, biocontrol agents, or microbials, are pesticides that contain a living organism or virus as .active ingredient.. Examples are preparations of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) and nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV). Biopesticides are described in chapter 6 on natural enemies of tomato insect pests and in chapter 7 (section 7.10) on antagonists. Another classification of pesticides is .biorationals.. These are pesticides that include biopesticides, but also chemical pesticides often with naturally occurring biochemicals, such as pheromones and growth regulators. Sprays of NPV: The spray of Ha NPV at 250 larval equivalents/ha, has been found to be effective in controlling fruit borer. Studies at IIHR have indicated that 3-4 applications at weekly intervals, the first spray coinciding with flowering, reduced pest incidence to minimum (> 5%). Release of Trichogramma: Inundative releases of the egg parasitoid, Trichogramma brasilensis @ 2,40,000/ha are also ecommended for the control of fruit borer. Six releases at weekly intervals @ 40,000/ha with the first release coinciding with 50% flowering in tomato is recommended. This IPM along with nuclear polyhedrons virus (NPV) sprays on tomato was demonstrated. NPV with chick pea flour 1% + Jaggery 0.5% significantly reduced the larval population of Helicoverpa (93.1%), lowest fruit damage (6.9%) and higher yield (112.02 q/ha) was obtained over the control. In the treatment of NPV mixed with sandovit 0.2%, the population reduction (63.8%), lowest fruit damage (12.6%) and maximum fruit yield (118.21 q/ha) was obtained. Endosulfan 35 EC@0.07 was most effective for the reduction of population (79.6%),

Nematode Control in Tomato: Biocontrol potentiality of selected fluorescent pseudomonads against pathogenic nematode of tomato.Based on in vitro performance of the fluorescent pseudomonad isolates, eight effective antagonistic isolates including one reference strain (P.fluorescens (NCIM 2099) were screened under pot culture for their biocontrol potential against phytopathogenic nematode,Meloidogyne incognita with tomato as test plant IPM for Tomato: In addition to the fruit borer, an introduced insect pest serpentine leaf miner (SLM), Liriomyza trifolii, is also another important pest of tomato. Hence, the following IPM is suggested for tomato crop: · Apply neem cake or /pongamia cake @ 250 kg/ha while planting to reduce the leaf miner and fruit borer egg laying and spotted wilt disease.

179

• Plant 45-day old marigold seedlings and 25-day old tomato seedlings simultaneously in a pattern of one row of marigold for every 16 rows of tomato (optional for tomato fruit borer management)

• Spray NSKE (4%) or neem seed powder (7%) at 15 and 25 DAP (forserpentine leaf miner control, if required)

• Repeat neem cake application at flowering to reduce incidence of fruit borer incidence • Spray NPV 250 LE four times in the evening at intervals of 4-7 days for a pure tomato crop. If

marigold is grown as a trap crop, spray it only twice at 28 and 35 DAP. Economics of IPM in tomato (Rs/ha)

• Technique No. of cost of Yield Gross Cost of Net B:C sprays spraying (kg) return cultivation return ratio • Non-IPM farms 17 11362 49400 91375 44016 47359 1.08 • IPM farms 8 6628 62280 99450 39282 60168 1.53

(Source: Khaderkhan et al. 1998)

10.2. Integrated Pest Management in Tomato

State wise scene Area, Production and Productivity of Tomato in India (NABARD)

STATE/UTs Area (000’ ha)

Production (000’t) Productivity (t/ha)

ANDHRA PRADESH 76.50 1453.50 19.00

At VRS, Rajendranagar, in Tomato indeterminate AVT-II, hybrid ARTH-128 recorded highest yield (333.2 q/ha) and maximum fruit weight (97.7 gm) followed by 08/Toinhyb-1 (301.3 q/ha, 79.1gm respectively).

n Tomato Determinate AVT-II, maximum yield was recorded by entry DVRT-2 (369.8 q/ha) & maximum fruit weight (108.3), while more number of fruits per plant was recorded by VR-35 (27.0). In Tomato AVT-II, entry NDT-9 check recorded higher yield (338.4g/k) higher fruit weight (108.7 gm) & maximum fruit diameter (6.1 cm) followed by VTG-106 (292.7 q/ha)

Tomato growth stages Tomato completes a life cycle, from seed to seed, in one season. Tomatoes are usually grown for a few months, although they can be cropped for 24 months or longer when growing conditions (water, fertilization, etc.) are optimal and plants are not exhausted by diseases or insect pests.

180

General growth stages for tomato are:

• Seed. • Seedling stage: usually the period from emerging seed to transplanting to the main field. • Vegetative stage: from transplanting until first flower buds develop. • Flowering stage: plant with flower buds and open flowers. • Fruiting stage: plant with small to full-sized fruits. • Harvesting stage: period when plant yields mature fruits.

These growth stages are overlapping in time

Harvesting Stage fruiting stage 55+DAT

flowering stage 45+DAT seedling stage Vegetative Stage- 25 -40DAT

▼0-45 DAS ▼0-25 DAT DAS = Days after sowing DAT = Days after transplanting

Susceptibility of growth stages to Tomato pests: Whether various pest and disease species that attack tomato will cause economic loss partly depends on the growth stage of the plant. Injury to the older leaves at a late stage in crop development for example, will not influence the final yield. Tomato plants can compensate for a lot of injury by producing more leaves, new shoots or bigger size fruits. When plants compensate for crop injury without yield or quality loss, there is no need to implement control practices such as applying a pesticide. This would only be a waste of money and time. Some pests are present throughout the season and can affect tomato at any growth stage. They will only affect the quality or yield at susceptible growth stages. Damage will also depend on the tomato variety grown, and other elements of the ecosystem like natural enemies, weather conditions, fertilizer, water availability and so on. There may be considerable differences in each region! Always look at all elements of the agro-ecosystem when making crop management decisions! Pests and diseases adversely affect crop productivity and the stability of production in the tropics. In India, the annual losses amount to Rs. 45,000 crore. Recently, annual crop loss due to Old World bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera in India has been estimated at around Rs. 2,000 crore despite the use of insecticides worth Rs. 500 crore in 1998. With the new liberal trade policies several exotic insect pests have entered the country viz., subabul psyllid, Heteropsylla cubana on subabul, Leucaena leucocephala (1988); leaf miner, Liriomyza trifolii complex on several plants (1990); coffee berry borer, Hypothenemus hampei on coffee (1991); spiralling whitefly, Aleurodicus dispersus on several plants (1993); coconut eriophyid mite, Aceria guerreronis on coconut (1998) and whitefly, Bemisia argentifolii (1999) on tomato and other hosts.( S.P.Singh,2004),

Andhra Pradesh Rangareddy, Mehabubnagar, Prakasam, Vishakapattanam, Chittor

181

Project Directorate of Biological Control (Bangalore) and its centres in different regions Southern region Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University (ANGRAU), Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh) Central Tobacco Research Institute (CTRI), Rajahmundry (Andhra Pradesh) Susceptibility of growth stages to tomato pests Growth srage Pests & Diseases

seedling vegetative flowering fruiting harvesting

Damping-off (Pythium sp.) Tomato fruitworm(Heliothis armigera)

Whiteflies (Bemisia sp.) Cutworm (Agrotis sp.) Armyworm (Spodoptera sp.) Leafminer (Liriomyza sp.) Root rot/Fruit rot (Phytophthora sp.)

Rootknot nematode (Meloidogyne sp.)

Early Blight (Alternaria solani)

Late blight (Phytophthora infestans)

Mosaic virus (TMV

Leaf curl virus (TYLCV)

Bacterial wilt (Ralstonia solanacearum)

Verticillium and Fusarium wilt

Sclerotinia stem rot (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum)

Southern stem rot (Sclerotium rolfsii)

Blossom-end rot

Pest Occurance to lesser extent

Main pest occurrence

182

Seed treatment:

Chemical seed treatment Many seed companies use chemical treatments, such as sodium hypochlorite or sodium phosphate, to sterilize the surface of the seed. Next to this, seed can be coated with a fungicide. This fungicide can sometimes be seen on the seed as a colored coating. The fungicide used will be listed on the seed package. The fungicide can kill spores of diseases that are present on the seed and during germination it gives some protection of emerging roots to soil-borne diseases. Chemical fungicides for seed protection are relatively inexpensive and cause little environmental damage since they are used in small amounts. However, they are effective only for a short time (at most one month) and they do not spread through the soil with the root system. Use protective gloves when planting coated seed ! Unfortunately, chemical seed sterilization cannot guarantee that the seed are completely disease free. This is because some pathogens are present inside the seed. An example is TMV: virus can be present both on and in the seedcoat. Chemicals only sterilize the surface of the seed and do not reach infections inside the seed. Hot water treatment may sometimes be more effective to control pathogens inside seed. Botanical seed treatment Seed can be protected from some soil-borne fungi and from cutworms by a coating of a botanical extract such as crushed garlic. Garlic is well known for its strong odor which has a repellent effect on insects, or birds, and it can prevent diseases. The garlic is thoroughly crushed to obtain juice and pulp. Seed is mixed with this extract. The seed can be immediately sown after this treatment, or left to dry. No .scientific. data are available to compare this method with other seed treatments but it is a common practice in some areas in Bangladesh (pers. comm. Prof. Ahmad, Plant Pathologist University of Mymensingh, Bangladesh,1998). Biological seed treatment Seed can also be protected with a coating of biological agents. These are usually antagonistic fungi or bacteria that work against soil-borne pathogens. Examples are the antagonist fungus Trichoderma sp. and the bacterium Bacillus subtilis, which is sometimes mixed with a chemical fungicide for commercial seed treatment.(.The Biopesticide Manual. (BCPC, U.K., Copping (editor), 1998) The good thing about using biocontrol agents as seed treatment is that they also provide protection of the roots that emerge from the germinating seed. This is because the antagonists grow and multiply in the area around the seedling roots. This way they suppress fungi that cause damping-off and root disease. Biological seed protection agents are not yet widely available but research results are promising. One current problem is that biological agents applied to seed will not remain active during storage of seed (Harman et al, 1998). A field trial was conducted at three farmer's fields to study the role of bio-agents in management of tomato fruit borer. NPV with chick pea flour 1% + Jaggery 0.5% significantly reduced the larval population of Helicoverpa (93.1%), lowest fruit damage (6.9%) and higher yield (112.02 q/ha) was obtained over the control. In the treatment of NPV mixed with sandovit 0.2%, the population reduction

183

(63.8%), lowest fruit damage (12.6%) and maximum fruit yield (118.21 q/ha) was obtained. Endosulfan 35 EC@0.07 was most effective for the reduction of population (79.6%), minimum fruit damage (12.4%) and maximum fruit yield (176.4 q/ha) followed by haNPV@250 LE+0.035% endosulfan 35 EC.(Ali Shamshad et al.,2011)

Soil infection Next to the beneficial decomposers or neutral organisms in the soil, soil may also contain organisms that are harmful to the crop. These may include insects and pathogens like fungi, bacteria and nematodes. Soil-borne pathogens can enter a field in numerous ways. They may be attached to pieces of soil on the roots of seedlings, to soil particles on field tools, or with bits of soil on your slippers or shoes! They may also spread with the ground water. Preventing soil-borne diseases: some techniques. Preventing soil-borne diseases is not a single action, there are several factors involved. Some of the main activities include: 1. Crop rotation 2. Use of clean seed 3. Use of disease-free planting material. 4. Sanitation practices such as: · removing left-overs from previous crop, · removing weeds, · cleaning field tools. 5. Increasing soil organic matter content (increasing organic matter of soil can increase microbial activity, which can lower population densities of soil-borne pathogens 6. Proper water management: mainly providing drainage to keep soil around roots from becoming waterlogged 7. Application of antagonistic fungi such as Trichoderma sp. into the soil. Role of organic matter and micro-organisms In general, organic matter additions to a soil will increase its ability to hold nutrients in an available state. Organic matter additions will also increase soil biological activity which will affect the availability of nutrients in the soil. Soil which has received organic matter has increased microbial populations and more varied fungal species than soils receiving chemical fertilizer applications. The long-term objective of organic matter addition is to build up soil humus. Humus is the more or less stable fraction of the soil organic matter remaining after decomposition of plant and animal residues. Disease control with compost An additional benefit of using compost is that it can reduce disease problems for plants. This is being studied for several years now because it offers an opportunity to further reduce fungicide use. Pathologists describe two different types of disease suppression in compost and soil.

184

General suppression is due to many different micro-organisms in the compost that either compete with pathogens for nutrients and/or produce certain substances (called antibiotics) that reduce pathogen survival and growth. Thus an active population of micro-organisms in the soil or compost out competes pathogens and will often prevent disease. This type of suppression is effective on those pathogens that have small propagule (e.g. spores) size. Small spores do not contain many nutrients so for germination they need an external energy (carbon) source. Examples of this mechanism are suppression of damping-off and root rot diseases caused by Pythium species and Phytophthora species. Planting time and pest occurrence The type and number of pest and diseases can vary in different times during the year. During the dry season for example, late blight will usually be less severe. Knowing when a pest or disease is most severe can offer an opportunity to plant the crop during the time that pests and disease are not present in large numbers or just before that time. That gives the plant the opportunity to be well established in the field before an attack by an insect or a disease occurs. Planting time can be a tool to break the continuity of insect breeding by creating periods without food plants for pests. Intercropping and barrier crops Intercropping is the simultaneous cultivation of two or more crops in one field. It can also be called mixed cropping or polyculture. When plants of different families are planted together it is more difficult for insect pests and diseases to spread from one plant to the next. Insects have more difficulty in finding host plants when they are camouflaged between other plants. Fungus spores may land on non-host plants where they are lost. Natural enemies of insect pests get a chance to hide in the other crop. When the intercrop is taller than the tomato plants they can form a .barrier. thus reducing spread of insect pests and diseases. Certain intercropped plants excrete chemicals or odors which repel insect pests of other plants. Examples are onion and garlic. The strong smell repels some insects, and they fly away and will not attack other plants growing between the onion or garlic plants. Intercropped tomatoes with onion or garlic reduced levels of whiteflies and aphids on tomatoes (Tumwine, 1999) Effects of intercropping on tomato insect pests. Some references:

• The incidence of pests and diseases was low in tomato intercropped with maize • Intercropping tomato with beans largely reduced the damage of tomatoes by fruitworm

(Heliothis armigera), armyworm (Spodoptera sp.) and leafminer (Liriomyza sativae). • Intercropping tomato with sorghum controlled whiteflies and had the best yields and effectson

predators. • Tomatoes grown with cucumber or Capsicum delayed the build-up of whitefly transmitted leaf

curl virus (TYLCV) (Tumwine,1999). Effects of intercropping on tomato late blight disease: Experiments were conducted in Uganda to identify crops which could be grown with tomato and which reduced late blight disease (Phytophthora infestans). Tall and short crops were intercropped with tomato and sanitation (removal of infected leaves, shoots and flowers) was practiced. Some conclusions from these studies were:

185

• Late blight incidence in intercropped plots was lower than in control plot (although also because of sanitation practices).

• Soybean and sesame are compatible for intercropping with tomatoes at 60cm between row spacing.

• Tall plants such as sorghum and sunflower have a suppressive effect on tomato growth and productivity when intercropped, presumably because of shading.

• Sanitation alone had a negative effect on tomato growth and production. • Row spacing between intercrops is crucial to minimize side effects such as shading and

Competition for nutrients.(Tumwine, 1999) Trap crops A trap crop is a crop other than tomato that attracts insect pests so that these pests will not harm the tomato plants. Usually, trap crops are also members of the solanaceous family because they have to attract the same insects that will attack tomato. Some people find this is a disadvantage of planting trap crops because pests are attracted to the field...! In India for example, planting crops such as pearl millet, sunflower, sesame and sorghum, have been observed to reduce the incidence of leaf-curl disease in tomato. The trap crop is sown around the main tomato field about 2 months before transplanting tomato seedlings. Other studies claim that cucumber, intercropped with tomato, attract most whiteflies thus resulting in less leaf-curl disease (Salih, 1983). Use of mustard and marigold as trap crops in cabbage and tomato are the two important classical IPM technologies available to farmers. Mustard as trap crop and neem seed kernel extract (NSKE) for cabbage and cauliflower Marigold as trap crop for management of tomato fruit borer Use of tall African marigold as trap crop for the management of tomato fruit borer, H. armigera, was demonstrated in 1992 (Srinivasan et al., 1994). Under this package, 45-day old marigold is planted for every 16 rows of tomato to synchronize flowering in both the crops. Most of the eggs of borer are laid in marigold flowers or flower buds, and only negligible eggs are laid in tomato. Whatsoever little incidence of the insect is controlled by spraying of endosulfan at 28 and 35 days after planting (DAP).(Krishnamorthy et al,2004) Crop rotation Crop rotation is necessary to: 1. Avoid build up of large populations of certain pest insects and pathogens. Some of the more common serious pests and diseases which live in the soil attack a range of plants within the same botanical family - but no others. If the sorts of plants they attack are continually grown in the soil, the pest and diseases can build up to serious populations. Once a soil-borne disease has entered a field it is very difficult to get rid off. If there is a break of several seasons or even several years in which other crops (of a different crop family) are grown, their numbers will diminish and they will eventually disappear. This is the main reason for rotating crops. 2. Avoid nutrient deficiency and degradation of soil fertility. Another reason for crop rotation is that it reduces fertility degradation and nutrient deficiency. When the same crop is planted in the same field

186

every season, there will be a continuous consumption of the same nutrients from the soil. Adding chemical fertilizers will supply only part of the nutrients that are consumed, mostly N, P and K. Adding chemical fertilizers containing the deficient nutrients will not solve the problem. It is necessary to introduce crop rotation and supply organic matter to the soil. Rotating with green manure crop and adding legumes (supplying nitrogen) to the rotation schedule is therefore recommended. Rotation is most effective against diseases that attack only one crop. However, controlling the many diseases that infect several crops in the same plant family requires rotation to an entirely different family. Unfortunately some pathogens, such as those causing wilts and root rots, attack many families and rotation is unlikely to reduce disease Disease Can stay alive in soil without solanaceous plant: Early blight (Alternaria solani) = at least 1 year TMV (mosaic virus) = 2 years Sclerotinia stem rot (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum) = 7 years Fusarium & Verticillium wilt = several years (almost .indefinitely. Pest Monitoring: Use of traps There are several types of traps to catch insects. Most traps will catch adult insects. These traps are often used for monitoring the populations rather than actual control. However, since some traps catch large quantities of insects they are often considered as control measures in addition to monitoring. If traps are used in isolation, information from them can be misleading. A low number catch will not indicate the timing of a pest attack, let alone its severity. Similarly, the number of insects caught in one crop cannot be used to predict the number that will occur in other crops, not even when the crop are in adjacent fields. The most common types of traps used in the field are shortly described below. Pheromone traps: These are traps that contain a sticky plate and a small tube with a chemical solution called a pheromone. Pheromones are chemicals produced by insects that cause strong behavioral reactions in the same species at very small amounts. They are usually produced by females to attract males of the same species for mating. Such chemical is called .sex pheromone.. The males will fly to the pheromone trap and are trapped on the sticky plate. Pheromones have been developed for several vegetable pests including armyworms (Spodoptera sp.). Pheromones are mainly used for detecting and monitoring pests, to a lesser extent for control of pest populations. One of the reasons is the high cost of pheromones. Pitfall traps: are plastic or glass jars, half-filled with water and a detergent like soap, buried into the soil up to the rim of the jar. These traps are good for catching ground-dwelling insects like ground beetles. Purpose of these traps is purely for monitoring as many ground beetles are active during the night and you may miss them when monitoring the field during the day. Pitfall traps may also be used without water and detergent, to catch living insects for insect zoos.

187

However, good climbers will escape. Yellow sticky traps: these are yellow colored plates, covered with glue or grease. They can also be made from empty yellow engine oil jars and many lubricants are suitable as grease. The yellow color attracts some insect species like moths, aphids, flea beetles and whitefly. The trap is especially suitable to monitor the adult population density. To a lesser degree, it can be used as a control measure, to catch adult pest insects. However, not only pest insects are attracted to the yellow sticky traps but also numbers of beneficial natural enemies. Thus, care should be taken when considering using sticky traps and it would be advisable to place just one as a trial and monitor in detail which insects are caught. If large numbers of natural enemies stick to the glue it might be better to remove the traps. Light traps: Light traps are usually made of a light (can be electronic, on a battery or on oil-products) switched on during the night, and either a sticky plate or a jar filled with water or other liquids. Insects (mainly night-active moths) are attracted to the light, and are caught on the sticky plate or fall into the water and die. Various types of traps are used, and they normally serve only as supplementary measures. Use of botanical pesticides Some plants have components in the plant sap that are toxic to insects. When extracted from plants, these chemicals are called botanicals. Generally botanicals degrade more rapidly than most conventional pesticides, and they are therefore considered relatively environmentally safe and less likely to kill beneficial insects than insecticides with longer residual activity. Because they generally degrade within a few days, and sometimes within a few hours, botanicals must be applied more often. More frequent application, plus higher costs of production usually makes botanicals more expensive to use than synthetic insecticides. When they can be produced locally they may be cheaper to use than synthetic insecticides. Toxicity to other organisms is variable, although as a group, they tend to be less toxic to mammals (with the exception of nicotine) than non-botanicals. Using botanicals is a normal practice under many traditional agricultural systems. A well-known and widely used botanical is neem, which can control some insects in vegetables. Neem, derived from the neem tree (Azadiracta indica) of arid tropical regions, contains many active compounds that act as feeding deterrents and as growth regulators. The main active ingredient is azadiractin, which is said to be effective on 200 types of insects, mites and nematodes. These include caterpillars, thrips and whiteflies. It has low toxicity to mammals. Both seeds and leaves are used to extract the oil or juices. A neem solution looses its effectiveness when exposed to direct sunlight and is effective for only eight hours after preparation. It is most effective under humid conditions or when the plants and insects are damp. High concentrations can cause burning of plant leaves! Also, natural enemies can be affected by neem applications (Loke et al, 1992). Use of botanicals: Use of neem seed kernel extract sprays: NSKE sprays are recommended on a variety of crops such as cabbage, cauliflower, tomato and cucurbits against all pests, on tomato and cucurbits against serpentine leaf miner, and on beans against stem fly, Ophiomyia phaseoli. The use of neem seed cakes is well known for controlling nematodes. These also reduce soil-borne insects like termites, grubs, etc. The use of cakes for the management of many insect pests of brinjal, okra, cucurbits, etc. was demonstrated recently at IIHR, Bangalore. The mode of action

188

of cakes seems to be ‘repellency’ through the volatiles present in the cakes. The effect was also found to be reduced with rise in temperature and high wind velocity during summer and pre-monsoon months.( (Srinivasan and Moorthy, 1993).( 11 proceeding NCIPM-2004) Nicotine, derived from tobacco, is extremely toxic and fast acting on most animals, including livestock such as cows and chicken. It can kill people. The nicotine of half a cigarette is enough to kill a full-grown man! In parts of West Africa, the tobacco plant is intercropped with maize because it is said to lower numbers of borer insects on the maize. Nicotine kills insects by contact, and if inhaled or eaten. The most common use is to control soft-bodied insects such as aphids, mites and caterpillars. An additional danger of using tobacco leaf extract is that this extract may contain a virus disease called Tobacco Mosaic Virus, or TMV. This virus disease affects a wide range of plants, mainly solanaceous crops. When spraying tobacco extract, chances are that you actually apply TMV! Rotenone is extracted from the roots of bean legumes, especially Derris sp. Rotenone is a contact and stomach poison. It is also toxic to fish, pigs and honey bees! It irritates the human skin and may cause numb feelings in mouth and throat if inhaled. Derris roots must be stored in cool, dry and dark places otherwise the rotenone breaks down. Rotenone has very low persistence so once a spray is prepared it must be used at once. Pyrethrum is a daisy-like chrysanthemum. In the tropics, pyrethrum is grown in mountain areas because it needs cool temperatures to develop its flowers. Pyrethrins are insecticidal chemicals extracted from the dried pyrethrum flower. Pyrethrins are nerve poisons that cause immediate paralysis to most insects. Low doses do not kill but have a .knock down effect. Stronger doses kill. Human allergic reactions are common. It can cause rash and breathing the dust can cause headaches and sickness. Both highly alkaline and highly acid conditions speed up degradation so pyrethrins should not be mixed with lime or soap solutions. Liquid formulations are stable in storage but powders may lose up to 20 percent of their effectiveness in one year. Pyrethrins break down very quickly in sunlight so they should be stored in darkness. Marigold is often grown in gardens for its attractive flowers. They are cultivated commercially for use as cut flowers. In addition, marigold can have a repellant effect on insects and nematodes. In Kenya for example, dried marigold when incorporated into the nursery soil was found an effective treatment in terms of overall seedling health. Other experiments showed that fresh marigold tea repels Diamondback moth larvae in cabbage, but for a few hours only (Loevinsohn et al, 1998). Use of soaps Sprays of neem and pongamia soaps were found to be highly effective in controlling insecticide resistant DBM in cabbageThe studies conducted at IIHR have shown that soaps were also effective in reducing Helicoverpa armigera in tomato.(Krishnamoorthy et al.,2004). Use of biopesticides Biopesticides, biological pesticides, biocontrol agents, or microbials, are pesticides that contain a living organism or virus as .active ingredient.. Examples are preparations of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) and nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV). Biopesticides are described in chapter 6 on natural enemies of tomato insect pests and in chapter 7 (section 7.10) on antagonists. Another classification of pesticides is .biorationals.. These are pesticides that include biopesticides, but also chemical pesticides often with naturally occurring biochemicals, such as pheromones and growth regulators

189

Sprays of NPV: The sprays of Ha NPV at 250 larval equivalents/ha, have been found to be effective in controlling fruit borer. Studies at IIHR have indicated that 3-4 applications at weekly intervals, the first spray coinciding with flowering, reduced pest incidence to minimum (> 5%). (Moorthy et al. 1992 and Mohan et al., 1996). The presence of H. armigera eggs was monitored by pheromone traps on the young leaves on the top of the plant. Release of Trichogramma: Inundative releases of the egg parasitoid, Trichogramma brasilensis @ 2,40,000/ha are also ecommended for the control of fruit borer. Six releases at weekly intervals @ 40,000/ha with the first release coinciding with 50% flowering in tomato is recommended. This IPM along with nuclear polyhedrons virus (NPV) sprays on tomato was demonstrated. However, the release of parasitoid alone is not very effective.(Moorthy et al., 1992). The main limitation, however, was its availability and the quality of NPV supplied by the private companies. Biocontrol potentiality of selected fluorescent pseudomonads against bacterial wilt of tomato Based on the in vitro performance, seven effective antagonistic fluorescent pseudomonads isolates were screened under pot culture for their biocontrol potential against R. solanacearum causing bacterial wilt in tomato. The disease control by the inoculated fluorescent pseudomonads varied from 50 % to 91.66% Isolate 433 (1) showed maximum disease control (91.66%) followed by the isolates 173 (3) and 427, both of which controlled the disease by 83.33%. The reference strain recorded disease control to the extant of 75.0 %.( Shivakumar,.2007) Use of chemical pesticides If all other integrated pest management tactics are unable to keep an insect pest population low, then use of an insecticide to control the pest and prevent economic loss may be justified. They can be relatively cheap, widely available, and are easy to apply, fast-acting, and in most instances can be relied on to control the pest(s). Because insecticides can be formulated as liquids, powders, aerosols, dusts, granules, baits, and slow-release forms, they are very versatile. Major Tomato Insect Pests Tomato fruit worm - Heliothis armigera: Also called Helicoverpa armigera. English names: corn earworm, cotton bollworm or American bollworm. The tomato fruitworm has a very broad host plant range including many vegetables, cotton, maize, tobacco, sorghum and a variety of ornamental plants. This pest insect has become highly resistant to chemical pesticides and is therefore causing great damage to cotton, legumes and vegetables. Plant damage and plant compensation Leaves are damaged by feeding larvae and flower-trusses can be cut off. The most serious damage of the tomato fruit worm is that caused by penetration of the fruits by caterpillars. This may destroy many fruits. Damage to fruit usually appears as deep, watery cavities, contaminated with feces. When fruits are attacked at a very young stage, they usually drop. Older fruits may remain on the plant but in many cases, they develop a soft-rot as a secondary infection. Losses resulting from attacks of the tomato fruit worm can amount to 90% of the fruits.

190

Natural enemies Ha NPV Heliothis armigera NPV, or Ha NPV, a virus specific to Heliothis armigera, has been reported successful in control of Heliothis. It is mass produced in several countries, e.g. India, Philippines (though not yet commercially available) and Indonesia. Biological Control Research Centers (part of National Institute of Plant Protection) in Indonesia have developed a method for production and application of NPV by farmers. In Philippines, participants of Farmers. Field Schools learn how to use and produce their own NPVs. Due to problems with mass-rearing the host insects, and now imports the NPV for Spodoptera exigua and Heliothis armigera from USA (FAO Dalat report, 1998). See section 6.3.3 on NPV, for production and quality matters. The role of bio-agents in management of tomato fruit borer was studied. NPV with chick pea flour 1% + Jaggery 0.5% significantly reduced the larval population of Helicoverpa (93.1%), lowest fruit damage (6.9%) and higher yield (112.02 q/ha) was obtained over the control. In the treatment of NPV mixed with sandovit 0.2%, the population reduction (63.8%), lowest fruit damage (12.6%) and maximum fruit yield (118.21 q/ha) was obtained. Endosulfan 35 EC@0.07 was most effective for the reduction of population (79.6%), minimum fruit damage (12.4%) and maximum fruit yield (176.4 q/ha) followed by haNPV@250 LE+0.035% endosulfan 35 EC.(Ali Shamshad et al.,2011) Other pathogens Next to NPV, the tomato fruit worm can also be attacked by other pathogens such as fungi. This may be important in periods of high humidity Parasitoids The egg-parasitoid Trichogramma sp parasitizes tomato fruitworm (and several other insects). When field releases are properly timed Trichogramma can greatly reduce Heliothis. Regular field monitoring is therefore essential for the success of Trichogramma. In field trials in the Philippines, several species of Trichogramma were evaluated for fruit and shoot borer of eggplant. T. chilonis gave the highest parasitism. T. chilonis is mass-produced in the Philippines by both government and private sector to control many lepidopterous pests, especially borers such as corn borer, tomato fruitworm, cacao pod borer, sugar cane borer and rice stem borers. Trichogramma pupae, are glued to cards (.Trichocards.) and clipped to plant parts at several locations in the field (FAO . Dalat report (V. Justo), 1998). Predators Predators are probably the most important natural enemies of Heliothis, feeding on the eggs and young larvae. Common predators include the bug Orius sp., the coccinellid beetle Coleomegilla sp., the lacewing Chrysopa sp., and several species of syrphid fly larvae. Chaetocnema sp., a predatory pentatomid bug, was mass-produced in the Philippines under laboratory conditions for use in the control of several lepidopterous pest species, including tomato fruitworm. However, production of this predator has stopped due to administrative problems (FAO - Dalat report, (V.Justo), 1998).

191

Nematode Control in Tomato: Biocontrol potentiality of selected fluorescent pseudomonads against pathogenic nematode of tomato Based on in vitro performance of the fluorescent pseudomonad isolates, eight effective antagonistic isolates including one reference strain (P.fluorescens (NCIM 2099) were screened under pot culture for their biocontrol potential against phytopathogenic nematode,Meloidogyne incognita with tomato as test plants (Shivakunar,2007). IPM for Tomato: In addition to the fruit borer, an introduced insect pest serpentine leaf miner (SLM), Liriomyza trifolii, is also another important pest of tomato. Hence, the following IPM is suggested for tomato crop: · Apply neem cake or /pongamia cake @ 250 kg/ha while planting to reduce the leaf miner and fruit borer egg laying and spotted wilt disease.

• Plant 45-day old marigold seedlings and 25-day old tomato seedlings simultaneously in a pattern of one row of marigold for every 16 rows of tomato (optional for tomato fruit borer management)

• Spray NSKE (4%) or neem seed powder (7%) at 15 and 25 DAP (forserpentine leaf miner control, if required)

• Repeat neem cake application at flowering to reduce incidence of fruit borer incidence • Spray NPV 250 LE four times in the evening at intervals of 4-7 days for a pure tomato crop. If

marigold is grown as a trap crop, spray it only twice at 28 and 35 DAP. Economics of IPM in tomato ( Rs/ha)

• Technique No. of cost of Yield Gross Cost of Net B:C Sprays spraying (kg) return cultivation return ratio • Non-IPM farms 17 11362 49400 91375 44016 47359 1.08 • IPM farms 8 6628 62280 99450 39282 60168 1.53

(Source: Khaderkhan et al. 1998)

10.3. References-Tomato IPM

Ali Shamshad, Kumar Rakesh, Kumar Satendra-2011-Efficacyofbio-pesticides against Helicoverpa armigera, Hübner in Tomato-Annals of Plant Protection SciencesYear : 2011, Volume : 19, Issue : 1,First page : ( 29) Last page : ( 32) ).

Anita B., Rajendran G. Samiyappan R2006, Defence mechanism in tomato treated with Pseudomollas fluorescens Migula against Meloidogyne incognita (Kofoid and White) Chitwood- Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystems-Year: 2006, Volume: 12, Issue: 1 First page : ( 63) Last page : ( 66). The Biopesticide Manual. (BCPC, U.K., Copping (editor), 1998)

192

Harman, G.E.; Kubicek,C.P.(editors), 1998.Trichoderma and Gliocladium,Vol,1 and 2. Taylor &Francis ltd. FAO Dalat report, 1998.See section 6.3.3 on NPV, for production and quality matters FAO . Dalat report (V. Justo), 1998. Kaur Harpreet, Kaur Harjinder, Rishi Praveen, Therapeutic and preventive nematicidal activity of aqueous neem leaf extract on Meloidogyne incognitaand growth of tomato- Annals of Plant Protection Sciences,Year : 2011, Volume : 19, Issue : 1,First page : ( 178) Last page : ( 182) Khaderkhan, H., M.S. Nataraju and G.N. Nagaraja. 1998. Economics of IPM in tomato. In: Proceedings of first National Symposium in Pest Loevinsohn, M.Meijerink, G.1.Salasya, B. 2, 1998. Integrated Pest Management in Smallholder Farming Systems in Kenya. Evaluation of a pilot project. 1International Service for National Agricultural Research. 2Kenyan Agricultural Research Institute. Loke, W.H.; Heng, C.K.; Basirun, N.; Mardi, A.R. (1992). Non-target effects of neem (Azadirachta indica)on Apanteles plutellae, cabbage, sawi and padi. Proc. of the 3rd Int. Conference on Plant Protectionin the tropics (edited by Ooi, P.A.C. et al) No.2, 108-110.

Management in Horticultural Crops, pp: 151-152.

Moorthy, P.N. Krishna and N.K. Krishna Kumar.2000.Efficacy of neem seed kernel powder extracts on cabbage pests. Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystems 6: 27-31. Moorthy, P.N. Krishna, K. Srinivasan, K.S. Mohan, M. Mani and C.Gopalakrishnan. 1992. Integrated management of Heliothis armigera in tomato. Paper presented at the Golden Jubilee Symposium on Horticulture Research: Changing Scenario, held at Bangalore, May 24-28, 1993 Abst. 258. Mohan, K.S., R. Asokan and C. Gopalakrishnan.1996. Isolation and filed application of a nuclear polyhedrosis virus for the control of fruit borer: Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) on tomato. Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystems 2: 1-8. Krishna Moorthy,P.N.and N.K. Krishna Kumar-Integrated Pest Management in Vegetable Crops in 11 Proceedings of IPM in Indian Agriculture, Edited by Pratap S Birthal O. P. Sharma,2004)

Mohan, K.S., R. Asokan and C. Gopalakrishnan. 1996. Isolation and filed application of a nuclear polyhedrosis virus for the control of fruit borer: Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) on tomato. Pest Management inHorticultural Ecosystems 2: 1-8. Shivakumar.B.2007,Biocontrol potential and plant growth promotional activity of Flurescent Pseudomonads of western Ghats –M.Sc(Ag) thesis-Department of Agricultural Microbiology , College of Agriculture,Dharwad, University of Agricultural Sciences,Dharwad..

193

Sharma Sweety, Mathur Kusum,2008,Trichoderma harzianumAgainst Pythium Damping-off of Tomato, Indian Journal of Plant Protection Year : 2008, Volume : 36, Issue : 1First page : ( 89) Last page : ( 93)

SinghS.P.2004),SOME SUCCESS STORIES IN CLASSICAL BIOLOGICAL CONTROL IN INDIA,in Some success stories of classical Biological control of crop pests in India-2004. Srinivasan, K. and P.N. Krishna Moorthy.1993. Evaluation of neem products and other standard chemicals for the management of major pest complex on cabbage: Comparison between standard spray regime and IPM involving mustard as a trap crop. In: Neem and Environment Vol. 1 (eds. R.P. Singh, M.S. Chari, A.K. Raheja and W. Kraus). New Delhi: Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Tumwine, J.1999.Towards the development of integrated cultural control of tomato late blight (Phytophthora infestans) in Uganda. PhD thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University, the Netherlands. 152 pp

11.1. Summary: Integrated Pest management in Brinjal:

The major brinjal producing states are West Bengal, Orissa, Bihar, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh. Brinjal is attacked by a number of insect pests and nematodes during various stages of crop growth inmost of the tropical countries including India. The extent of losses caused by these pests depends on season, variety, soil and other factors

Major Pests of Brinjal:

1. Brinjal Fruit and shoot borer (EFSB)

2. Brinjal fruit borer:Heliothis armigera 3. Brinjal Stemborer :Euzophera perticella 4. Hadda beetle; Epilachnavigintiopunctata 5. Aphids: Lipophis erysimi 6. Jassids: Amrasca bigutella 7. Whiteflies:Bemisia tabaci 8. Nematode:

Cultural Control:

Cultural control methods involve the manipulation of crop environment as well as management, whereas mechanical control involves the use of mechanical forces or manual operations to interfere with the insect feeding, shelter and reproduction. For instance, sanitation of the field before, during and after the cropping, removal of the alternate food sources for the pests and mechanical barriers are some of the cultural and mechanical control measures to manage EFSB in the field. Solanum nigrum, S. indicum, S. torvum, S. myriacanthum, tomato and potato were recorded as alternative host plants of EFSB

194

Sometimes, farmers may grow their eggplant seedlings in the vicinity of dry eggplant stubble heaps, which may likely to get infested by those moths emerging from the stubble heaps. However, this needs to be investigated in detail. In general, it would be ideal to grow the seedlings away from the dry eggplant stubble heaps, or under nettunnels if it is grown in the vicinity of dry eggplant stubble heaps.

Intercropping system based module I) was found to be the best in managing major pests of brinjal. An IPM based module consisting of brinjal (PKM 1) + cluster bean (4:1) is best suited inter cropping system.

Biological Control: Natural enemies of EFSB: Natural Enemies

Family and Order Country recorded References

Predators: Campyloneura s Miridae, Heteroptera India Tewari and Moorthy, 1984;

Tripathi and Singh, 1991 Cheilomenes sexmaculata,

Coccinellidae, Coleopter India Kadam et al., 2006

Coccinella septempunctata,

Coccinellidae, Coleopter India

Brumoides suturalis Coccinellidae, Coleopter India Parasitoids Pseudoperichaeta sp Tachinidae, Diptera India Patel et al., 1971 Phanerotoma sp Braconidae,

Hymenoptera India and SriLanka Patel et al., 1971; Tewari and

Moorthy,1984; Tripathi and Singh, 1991; Sandanayake and Edirisinghe, 1992

Itamoplex sp Ichneumonidae, Hymenoptera

India

Verma and Lal, 1985

Eriborus argenteopilosus

Ichneumonidae, Hymenoptera

India Tewari and Sardana, 1987

Diadegma apostata Ichneumonidae, Hymenoptera

India Krishnamoorthy and Mani, 1998

Fungus (Bipolaris tetramera)

India Tripathi and Singh, 1991

Baculovirus India Tewari and Singh, 1987 Nuclear polyhedrosisvirus

India Tripathi and Singh, 1991

(Srinivasan,2008)

195

The integrated pest management (IPM) strategy for the control of eggplant fruit and shoot borer (EFSB) consists of:

1. Resistant cultivars, sex pheromone, cultural, mechanical and biological control methods. Eggplant accessions EG058, BL009, ISD006 and a commercial hybrid, Turbo possess appreciable levels of resistance to EFSB.

2. Use of EFSB sex pheromone traps based on (E)-11-hexadecenyl acetate and (E)-11-hexadecen-1-ol to continuously trap the adult males significantly reduced the pest damage on eggplant in South Asia.

3. In addition, prompt destruction of pest damaged eggplant shoots and fruits at regular intervals, and

4. Withholding of pesticide use to allow proliferation of local natural enemies especially the parasitoid, Trathala flavo-orbitalis reduced the EFSB population.

5. The IPM strategy was implemented in farmers’ fields via pilot project demonstrations in selected areas of Bangladesh and India and its use was promoted in both countries. The profit margins and production area significantly increased whereas pesticide use and labor requirement decreased for those farmers who adopted this IPM technology.

6. Nematode Biocontrol method involves population dynamics of Pseudomonas fluorescens and Trichoderma harzianum and the substrate comprising of vermicompost recorded highest population of P. fluorescens after 15, 30 and 45 days of storage. The highest reduction of Meloidogyne incognita and R. solanacearum population in soil was observed in combine application of T. harziunum and P. fluorescence when applied against the complex.

7. Use of Bt Brinjal; Bt brinjal hybrids containing cry1Ac gene express Bt protein in all parts of the plant (i.e. constitutive expression) throughout its life cycle. To get activated and exhibit insecticidal property, Bt protein must be ingested by FSB. When FSB larvae feed on Bt brinjal plants, they ingest Bt protein along with plant tissue. In the insect gut, it is solubilized and activated by gut proteases generating a toxic fragment. Co2-Bt, MDU1-Bt, PLR1-Bt, and KKM1-Bt developed by TNAU, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, and Malapur Local, Manjari Gotha, Kudachi Local, Udupi Gulla, 112-GO and Rabakavi,Local developed by UAS, Dharwad, Karnataka.are the varieties expressing cry1Ac (event EE-1) .

8. Use of chemicals like Cypermethrin 25 EC(0.05%)Neem Seed Kernel Extract (NSKE 4%) on the attraction of brinjal shoot and fruit borer (BSFB), Leucinode orbonalis,and rynaxypyr 20% SC @ 40 and 50g a.i./ha gave 95–97% reduction in the shoot damage and 87–90% reduction in-fruit damage.But, Initial residues of abamectin on brinjal from the two treatments were 0.202 and 0.815 mg/kg, respectively. The residues persisted for 3 days from both the treatments and reached below the quantifiable limit of 0.01 mg/kg on the 5th day. Residues of abamectin on brinjal dissipated with the half-life of less than 1 day and the pre-harvest interval (PHI) or the time taken for the residues on brinjal to reach the permissible level of 0.02 mg/kg was 3 days.

196

11.2. Integrated Pest Management in Brinjal – Solanum melongena.

Brinjal IPM:

The major brinjal producing states are West Bengal, Orissa, Bihar, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh. Brinjal is attacked by a number of insect pests and nematodes during various stages of crop growth inmost of the tropical countries including India. The extent of losses caused by these pests depends on season, variety, soil and other factors (Dhamdhare et al., 1995; Roy and Pande, 1995).

Brinjal Fruit and shoot borer (EFSB):

Fruit and shoot borer (Leucinodes orbonalis) is the most destructive pest of brinjal. It is widely distributed in the Indian sub-continent and also in Thailand, Laos, South Africa, Congo and Malaysia. It also damages potato and other solanaceous crops. This pest is active through out the year at places having moderate climate but it is adversely affected by severe cold (To improve this paragraph). The damage by this insect starts soon after transplanting of the seedlings and continues till harvest of fruits. Eggs are laid singly on ventral surface of leaves, shoots, and flower-buds and occasionally on fruits. In young plants, appearance of wilted drooping shoots is the typical symptom of damage by this pest; these affected shoots ultimately wither and die away.

Brinjal fruit borer: Heliothis armigera The pest is polyphagous in nature. The full grown larvae are greenish with dark broken grey lines along the side of body. They measure about 35-45 mm long. The moth is large and brown with V-shaped speck and dull black border on the hind wings. The larvae are feed first on leaves and fruiting bodies and later on, they bore into the fruits, completely eating away the internal contents. Brinjal Stemborer: Euzophera perticella Full grown caterpillars are creamy white with a few bristly hairs and measure about 20-22 mm in length. The moth is small having pale straw yellow fore wings and whitish hind wings. The moth measure about 32 mm across the spread wings. The caterpillar causes the damage and feed exclusively in the main stem. It enters the main stem and make tunnel which results either in stunting of growth or withering of plants. Its infestation is seen usually in the later stage of crop. Hadda beetle; Epilachnavigintiopunctata The grubs are almost 6 mm long, yellowish in colour and have six rows of long branched spines. Beetles are 8-9 mm in length and 5.5 mm in width. Beetles are deep red and usually have 7-14 black spots on each elytra whose tip is somewhat pointed. The damage is caused by the beetles as well as by the grubs by feeding on the upper surface of leaves. The leaves are eaten between the veins, sometimes being completely stripped to mid-rib. The leaves present a lace like appearance; turn brown, dry up and fall off. Thus, the plant is completely skeletonzed.

197

Sucking Pests: Aphids: Lipophis erysimi The nymphs and adults are louse like and pale greenish in colour. This pest is very active from December to March when various cruciferous and vegetable crops are available in the fields. The damage is caused by nymphs and adults by sucking cell sap from leaves, stems, inflorescence or the developing plants. They are seen feeding in large numbers, often covering the entire surface. Owing to feeding on cell sap, the vitality of plants is greatly reduced. The leaves acquire a curly appearance. Jassids: Amrasca bigutella The nymphs and adults are very agile and more briskly forward the side ways. Adults are about 3 mm long and greenish yellow during summer, acquiring a reddish tinge in the winter. Nymphs and adults remain in large numbers and suck the sap from the undersurface of the leaves. While feeding, they inject the toxin saliva into the plant tissues. The leaves shows symptoms of hopper burn such as yellowing upward curling, bronzing and even drying of leaves. The crop becomes stunted and often in highly susceptible varieties it cause complete mortality of the plants. Whiteflies: Bemisia tabaci Winged nymphs are 1.0-1.5 mm long and their yellowish bodies are slightly dusted with a white waxy power. They have two pairs of pure white wings and have prominent long hind wings. The nymph on emergence, look elliptical and soon fix their mouthparts in the plant tissues. They feed on cell sap causing damage in two ways: (a) the vitality of plant is lowered through the loss of cell sap, and (b) normal photosynthesis is interfered with due to the growth of a sooty mould on the honey dew excreted by the insect. From a distance the attacked crop gives a sickly, black appearance. Nematode: These are the most common plant parasitic nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.i.e., incognita, javanica) in India and infestation of these nematodes is common in brinjal. The root knot nematode damage is more harmful to seedling than to older plants. These nematodes infest the roots and cause root galls. The affected plant becomes stunted and the leaves show chlorotic symptoms. Infestation of these nematodes greatly hampers the yield of the crop. Biological Control: Natural enemies of EFSB: Natural Enemies

Family and Order Country recorded References

Predators: Campyloneura s Miridae, Heteroptera India Tewari and Moorthy, 1984;

Tripathi and Singh, 1991 Cheilomenes sexmaculata,

Coccinellidae, Coleopter India Kadam et al., 2006

Coccinella Coccinellidae, Coleopter India

198

septempunctata, Brumoides suturalis Coccinellidae, Coleopter India Parasitoids Pseudoperichaeta sp Tachinidae, Diptera India Patel et al., 1971 Phanerotoma sp Braconidae,

Hymenoptera India and SriLanka Patel et al., 1971; Tewari and

Moorthy,1984; Tripathi and Singh, 1991; Sandanayake and Edirisinghe, 1992

Itamoplex sp Ichneumonidae, Hymenoptera

India

Verma and Lal, 1985

Eriborus argenteopilosus

Ichneumonidae, Hymenoptera

India Tewari and Sardana, 1987

Diadegma apostata Ichneumonidae, Hymenoptera

India Krishnamoorthy and Mani, 1998

Fungus (Bipolaris tetramera)

India Tripathi and Singh, 1991

Baculovirus

India Tewari and Singh, 1987

Nuclear polyhedrosisvirus

India Tripathi and Singh, 1991

(Srinivasan, 2008) Although several natural enemies (predators, parasitoids and entomopathogens) have been recorded against EFSB in South and Southeast Asia (Table 1, modified from Waterhouse, 1998), their role in keeping the EFSB population at levels below causing economic damage is not significant (Srivastava and Butani,1998). However, Trathala flavoorbitalis seems to be a potential candidate in biological control of EFSB among all these natural enemies, because of its presence in several countries inthe region as well as its higher rate of parasitism in field conditions. But, it is not a specific parasitoid of EFSBit was introduced in the Fiji Islands from Hawaii for the control of rice leaf-folder, Marasmia exigua in 1928 (Islam and Cohen, 2007). Although T. flavoorbitalis has been recorded on EFSB in several countries, its potential role in EFSB management has not been studied in detail. Hence, AVRDC has started exploring the local natural enemies including T. flavoorbitalis that have the potential to control EFSB in the region. T. flavoorbitalis was the only active parasitoid against EFSB in Sri Lanka, Gujarat (India) and Bangladesh, with maximum parasitism of 61.7%. In addition to T. flavoorbitalis, Goryphus nursei (Ichneumonidae: Hymenoptera) was recorded in Uttar Pradesh. This was an active parasitoid during winter season, with maximum parasitism of 7%. Similarly, few specimens of Pristomerus testaceus, Elasmus corbetti and Euagathis sp. have been recorded from EFSB in Thailand, although T. flavoorbitalis remained predominant species. The level of parasitism by T. flavoorbitalis has significantly increased after withholding the pesticide use (Alam et al.,

199

2003). Hence, T. flavoorbitalis would be an ideal bio-control candidate in EFSB IPM program in the region. Jadon Kuldeep and Tiwari ,(2009),,reported that Assay on population dynamics of Pseudomonas fluorescens and Trichoderma harzianum from two different substrates viz, vermicompost and wheat bran after different days of storage revealed that both the substrates, the population density of P. fluorescens significantly increased up to 45 days of storage. The substrate comprising of vermicompost recorded highest population of P. fluorescens after 15, 30 and 45 days of storage. The highest reduction of Meloidogyne incognita and R. solanacearum population in soil was observed in combine application of T. harziunum and P. fluorescence when applied against the complex. P. fluorescens was proved to be more promising followed by T. harzianum in suppressing the population of R. solanacearum. Trichoderma viride was found most effective in inhibiting both mycelial growth (81.2%) and sclerotia production of Sclerotium rolfsii. Among the medicinal plants leaf extracts Acorus calamus showed the best inhibitory effect (25 mm & 2 sclerotia). Under mist chamber condition, the soil and seedling dip treatments with T. viride and summer ploughing found most effective to reduce the % disease incidence of collar of brinjal. (Jadon Kuldeep and S., Tiwari,2011) One preliminary and two large scale field experiments were conducted to study the effect of Cypermethrin 25EC (0.05%) and Neem Seed Kernel Extract (NSKE 4%) on the attraction of brinjal shoot and fruit borer (BSFB), Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. to synthetic sex pheromone. Results indicated reduced catches in cypermethrin sprayed plots (0.04 ± 0.11 and 0.06 ± 0.05 males/trap/night in I and II large scale experiments, respectively). Significantly more male BSFB moths were trapped in control [0.20 ± 0.31 (I large scale trial) and 0.16 ± 0.09 males/trap/night (II large scale trial)] and NSKE [0.10 ± 0.16 (I large scale trial) and 0.14 ± 0.11 males/trap/night (II large scale trial)] treated plots. Per cent borer incidence in NSKE and cypermethrin treated plots were on par.( Kumar et al.,2006) Host Plant Resistance: (HPR) In repeated tests at AVRDC in Taiwan, a landrace of eggplant, code numbered EG058, was consistently rated as moderately resistant to EFSB damage both in shoots and fruits (AVRDC, 2000). Based on its consistently lower EFSB damage in all AVRDC trials, EG058 was used at AVRDC in a breeding program to develop EFSB-resistant eggplant. The breeding progeny has been screened for EFSB resistance both at AVRDC in Taiwan and at GAU in India. Cultural and Mechanical Control Cultural control methods involve the manipulation of crop environment as well as management, whereas mechanical control involves the use of mechanical forces or manual operations to interfere with the insect feeding, shelter and reproduction. For instance, sanitation of the field before, during and after the cropping, removal of the alternate food sources for the pests and mechanical barriers are some of the cultural and mechanical control measures to manage EFSB in the field. Solanum nigrum, S. indicum, S. torvum, S. myriacanthum, tomato and potato were recorded as alternative host plants of EFSB (Reddy and Kumar, 2004). Immediately after transplanting, a 2-m-high nylon net (mesh size 16) barrier was erected around two plots located either diagonally in the quadrangular arrangement or in alternate plots in the rectangular arrangement. At the top of the barrier, 40 cm of netting was stretched and bent outward and downward

200

at an angle of 80 to 85o (Figure3). This was done to restrict the movement of EFSB adults on the net crawling over the barrier and to provide shelter for predators such as mantids and spiders that could kill the EFSB adults. The bottom 15-cm of nylon net was buried in soil. The remaining two plots were maintained without barrier. need for a community approach that encourages all farmers in a community to undertake stringent sanitation measures during the entire season.If some farmers do not follow this practice, insects initially will attack their crop and EFSB adults from their fields will fly to neighboring fields and cause damage. Old crop debris should be disposed of promptly to reduce carryover of EFSB after the last harvest.

Aluminum/plastic poles----- -----Nylon net ◄-------------20m-----------►

Figure . Design of barrier net erected around eggplant plot

Intercropping in brinjal:

An IPM based module consisting of brinjal (PKM 1) + cluster bean (4:1) + six releases of Trichogramma chilonis @ 2.5 cc/acre on 15, 22, 29, 36 43 and 50 days after transplanting (DAT) + two releases of Chrysoperla eggs @ (20,000 eggs/acre) on 60 and 70 DAT + yellow sticky trap @ 25/acre + Lencinodes orbonalis pheromone trap @ 5 /acre (Intercropping system based module I) was found to be the best in managing major pests of brinjal. (Elanchezhyan et al., 2008)

Although it may be a rare occurrence, and it is not clear about the size of EFSB population that would develop and migrate from these plants, the new plantings or seedling nurseries can be kept free of or away from these Solanum species and fields. However, EFSB moths that emerge from the pupae in soil or migrate from neighboring eggplant crops are important sources of infestation. In addition to these known sources of infestation, dry eggplant stalks from previous crop that have been stored by the farmers as fuel for cooking serve as another important source of EFSB infestation (Alam et al., 2003). Sometimes, farmers may grow their eggplant seedlings in the vicinity of dry eggplant stubble heaps, which may likely to get infested by those moths emerging from the stubble heaps. However, this needs to be investigated in detail. In general, it would be ideal to grow the seedlings away from the dry eggplant stubble heaps, or under nettunnels if it is grown in the vicinity of dry eggplant stubble heaps. Removal and prompt destruction of the EFSB infested shoots and fruits at regular intervals have been suggested as an effective strategy to manage the EFSB on eggplant in South and Southeast Asia (Rahman et al., 2002) Satpathy et al., 2005). This pruning is especially important in early stages of the crop growth, and this should be continued until the final harvest. This will be more effective when it is being

201

followed by the whole community in a particular region than an individual grower. In addition, this pruning will not adversely affect the plant growth as well as yield (Talekar, 2002 ;) As the EFSB adults are relatively small moths and weak fliers, it was hypothesized that the inter-field movement could effectively be restricted by erecting suitable barriers. This hypothesis was tested by erecting 2 m high nylon net barrier around the eggplant soon after transplanting in Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka and Thailand. The use of barriers combined with prompt destruction of the EFSB infested shoots significantly reduced the damage to shoots than by using either the barrier or the sanitation alone (Alam et al., 2003). However, the damage to fruits was not so significant, although the reduction in damage over untreated control was about 33%. Protective cultivation such as net-house or poly-house production systems are emerging in states like Punjab in India. Kaur et al. (2004) found that sanitation and neem spraying recorded 50% lower fruit damage in net-house cultivation than the damage under open field conditions in Punjab. Hence field sanitation and mechanical barriers could significantly reduce the EFSB damage and could be an effective component in EFSB IPM. However, economic feasibility of adopting net-barriers or net-houses should be considered while promoting this technology among resource-poor eggplant growers. Chemical Control: Study was conducted on the orbonalis Guen. to synthetic sex pheromone. It was indicated reduced catches in cypermethrin effect of Cypermethrin 25EC (0.05%) and Neem Seed Kernel Extract (NSKE 4%) on the attraction of brinjal shoot and fruit borer (BSFB), Leucinodes sprayed plots (0.04 ± 0.11 and 0.06 ± 0.05 males/trap/night in I and II large scale experiments, respectively). Significantly more male BSFB moths were trapped in control [0.20 ± 0.31 (I large scale trial) and 0.16 ± 0.09 males/trap/night (II large scale trial)] and NSKE [0.10 ± 0.16 (I large scale trial) and 0.14 ± 0.11 males/trap/night (II large scale trial)] treated plots. Per cent borer incidence in NSKE and cypermethrin treated plots were on par.(Kumar et al.,2006) Misra.H.P,2008, reported that rynaxypyr 20% SC @ 40 and 50g a.i./ha gave 95–97% reduction in the shoot damage and 87–90% reduction in-fruit damage on number basis and 88–90% on weight basis at ten days after fourth spray, compared to untreated control. Both the new compounds were safe to natural enemies at 0, 3, 7 and 10 days after spraying. The healthy fruit yield recorded was significantly highest in plots treated with rynaxypyr 20%SC @ 40 and 50g a.i./ha during both the seasons of field testing Pesticide residue:

Pesticide residue: Spray application of abamectin (CHA 2062) was given twice to brinjal crop at 15 days interval at the recommended dose and double the recommended dose of 14.4 and 28.8 g a.i./ha during December, 2007-March, 2008 to study its residue persistence. Initial residues of abamectin on brinjal from the two treatments were 0.202 and 0.815 mg/kg, respectively. The residues persisted for 3 days from both the treatments and reached below the quantifiable limit of 0.01 mg/kg on the 5th day. Residues of abamectin on brinjal dissipated with the half-life of less than 1 day and the pre-harvest interval (PHI) or the time taken for the residues on brinjal to reach the permissible level of 0.02 mg/kg was 3 days. Field soil analyzed 10 days after the last treatment was free from abamectin residues.(Mohapatra Soudamini,et al.,2010).

202

Health hazards associated with pesticide use Very few farmers used protective clothing or other safety measures during pesticide application; 74% did not observe any safety measures. Only 6% covered their faces with cloth during application to minimize breathing of the chemicals. Only 11% covered their bodies, 5% covered their heads, and only 3% used gloves or socks to cover their hands and legs. No farmer used protective eyewear during pesticide application. Almost all farmers experienced sickness related to pesticide application, e.g. physical weakness or eye infection or dizziness, but only 3% were hospitalized due to complications related to pesticide use. Farmers. Awareness on pesticide use issues Seventy-four percent of farmers believed that pesticide applications are harmful to farm laborers and 71% felt that pesticide applications are injurious to the health of the people in general. Approximately 72% of farmers expressed the view that pesticides pollute water and 43% believed that pesticides pollute the air. Only 21% of farmers viewed that pesticides pollute eggplant crops and 11% believed that pesticides cause harm to natural enemies of EFSB. Most farmers believed that pesticide applications do more damage to the environment compared to other farming practices.(Alam et al.,2003) Pheromone Traps: Although it attracted male moths in the laboratory, its performance under field conditions was inferior to live virgin female moths (Gunawardena, 1992; Gunawardena et al., 1989). However, E11-16:Ac when used alone or in combination with E11-16:OH attracted significantly high numbers of male moths in India and Bangladesh, although E11-16:OH alone showed no attraction at any concentration (AVRDC, 1996; Srinivasan and Babu, 2000). Cork et al. (2001) at the Natural Resources Institute (NRI), UK also identified the presence of E11-16:Ac as a major component and E11-16:OH as a minor component in the pheromone gland extracts of EFSB from India and Taiwan. They also found that E11-16:Ac and E11-16:OH (100:1) attracted significantly more numbers of male moths than E11-16:Ac alone in India. Hence, the EFSB sex pheromone was included as a potential component in the EFSB IPM program that was implemented by AVRDC in South Asia. Delta traps and funnel traps could be used for the EFSB sex pheromone lures in field conditions. However, the trap design that would attract more numbers of insects will vary from one location to the other. Hence, it had to be confirmed in repeated field experiments. For instance, in the AVRDC-led EFSB IPM program in South Asia, delta traps consistently caught more EFSB male moths than funnel traps in Gujarat, whereas funnel traps performed better than delta and water-trough traps in Uttar Pradesh Pheromone traps for monitoring and control: The brinjal shoot and fruit borer Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) is a cornman, widespread and most destructive pest of brinjal crop all over India and other South Asian countries. Pheromone based mass trapping is an important component of integrated pest management programme for tackling this insidious pest. Studies under farmers' field conditions revealed that Leucinlure™, produced using indigenously synthesized pheromone concentrates, trapped significantly more number of adults when used with PCI's portable water traps (87.83 adults/trap over 10 weeks), as compared to funnel (21.00) and delta (15.17) traps. Multi-location trials carried out under farmers' field conditions in 5 brinjal fields each at Bangalore, Belgaum and Kolar in Karnataka and Jogipet in Andhra

203

Pradesh (total 20 trials) during July 2004 to March 2006 validated the efficacy of Leucinlure™ in mass trapping L. orbonalis adults, in combination with portable water traps. The mean adult catches per trap for 10 weeks, which ranged between 45.69 at Jogipet to 180.23 in Kolar, with 80.00 and 153.33 in Belgaum and Bangalore, was not found to vary significantly between the 4 locations, as confirmed by DMRT analysis. Leucinlure™ was found capable of attracting L. orbonalis adults for about 9 weeks under farmers' field conditions. The half life of the lure was found to be 19 days, during release rate studies under laboratory conditions, with 11% of the initially loaded pheromone remaining in the dispenser after 63 days. ( Bhanu et al.,2007,)

Pheromone Trap from used bottle Male moths catches in the trap

(Alam et al., 2003).

Nematode Control in Brinjal crop; Barua, L.;2009 reported that Assay on population dynamics of Pseudomonas fluorescens and Trichoderma harzianum from two different substrates viz, vermicompost and wheat bran after different days of storage revealed that both the substrates, the population density of P. fluorescens significantly increased up to 45 days of storage. The substrate comprising of vermicompost recorded highest population of P. fluorescens after 15, 30 and 45 days of storage. The highest reduction of Meloidogyne incognita and R. solanacearum population in soil was observed in combine application of T. harziunum and P. fluorescence when applied against the complex. P. fluorescens was proved to be more promising followed by T. harzianum in suppressing the population of R. solanacearum.

Socioeconomic Impact and Future of the EFSB IPM Technology The economic surplus model revealed an internal rate of return of 38% and a benefit cost ratio of 2.78 (Baral et al., 2006). It has clearly been proven that this IPM technology has positive impacts on the lives of eggplant growers in the region. Hence, AVRDC – The World Vegetable Center is currently exploring grants to expand the EFSB IPM program to other regions of South and Southeast Asia, especially

204

Bangladesh, India (AndhraPradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal), Nepal and the Philippines. In addition to the upscaling of the IPM technology, partnerships will be strengthened with the existing national IPM programs in the region to enhance the capacity building. The integrated pest management (IPM) strategy for the control of eggplant fruit and shoot borer (EFSB) consists of:

1. Resistant cultivars, sex pheromone, cultural, mechanical and biological control methods. Eggplant accessions EG058, BL009, ISD006 and a commercial hybrid, Turbo possess appreciable levels of resistance to EFSB.

2. Use of EFSB sex pheromone traps based on (E)-11-hexadecenyl acetate and (E)-11-hexadecen-1-ol to continuously trap the adult males significantly reduced the pest damage on eggplant in South Asia.

3. In addition, prompt destruction of pest damaged eggplant shoots and fruits at regular intervals, and

4. Withholding of pesticide use to allow proliferation of local natural enemies especially the parasitoid, Trathala flavo-orbitalis reduced the EFSB population.

5. The IPM strategy was implemented in farmers’ fields via pilot project demonstrations in selected areas of Bangladesh and India and its use was promoted in both countries. The profit margins and production area significantly increased whereas pesticide use and labor requirement decreased for those farmers who adopted this IPM technology. ((R. Srinivasan,2008)

6. Mass trapping of Leucinodes orbonalis moths with the help of plastic funnel traps @ 1 per 100 sq.m. baited with leucilure sex pheromone, clipping of infested shoots at weekly interval starting at 20 days after transplanting (DAT), spraying with NSKE 4% four limes at an interval of 15 days starting at flowering and destruction of infested fruits after harvest had reduced the shoot infestation to the extent of 80.44% over untreated and 61.64% over without mass trapping. The increase in yield was 44.75% over untreated and 11.76% over without mass trapping.,

7. An IPM based module consisting of brinjal (PKM 1) + cluster bean (4:1) + six releases of Trichogramma chilonis @ 2.5 cc/acre on 15,22,29, 36 43 and 50 days after transplanting (DAT) + two releases ofChrysoperla eggs @ (20,000 eggs/acre) on 60 and 70 DAT + yellow sticky trap @ 25/acre + Lencinodes orbonalis pheromone trap @ 5/acre (Intercropping system based module I) was found to be the best in managing major pests of brinjal.(Elanchezhyan,et al.,2008).

Bt.Brinjal: Significance of brinjal in India and other countries Brinjal or baingan, known as eggplant or aubergine in North America and Europe respectively, is a very important common man’s vegetable in India. Brinjal features in the dishes of virtually every household in India, irrespective of food preferences, income levels or social status. As a part of the most basic or sophisticated Indian meal, brinjal is used in the preparation of a number of sumptuous dishes. Cooked and served in a variety of ways, this poor man’s vegetable is a perfect complement for “hot” Indian dishes such as curries. The most prevalent brinjal dishes are Baingan ka bhartha in North India and

205

Sambar in South India. Due to its versatility in use in Indian food, brinjal is often described as the ‘King of vegetables’. Thus, a large proportion of the population of rural and urban India prepares brinjal in different recipes for local dishes. Some of the most well-known brinjal dishes in India include Begun bhaja in Eastern India, Andhra Pradesh relishes Gutti vankaya kura, Katharikai kozhambu is popular in Tamil Nadu, Upperi in Kerala, Vangi bath in Karnataka, Wangyacha bharit in Maharashtra, Sambharelu shak in Gujarat while Bihar serves the popular Baingan jhonga. There are some folk songs in local languages centered around brinjal in different states of India such as Bihu folk songs in Asom, Konkani songs in Maharashtra, Jaina in Karnataka and Guthi vankya kooroyi baava in Andhra Pradesh. Furthermore, the potential benefits for farmers’ health resulting from reduced insecticide applications are examined, using an econometric model and a cost-of-illness approach. More research is needed for comprehensive impact analysis.(Vijay Krishna and Matin Quaim,2008) The All India Coordinated Project on Vegetable Crops (AICPVC) promotes R&D and breeding of improved varieties of vegetable crops including brinjal. Vegetable growing states in India are classified into eight different zones, mainly on the basis of agro-climatic conditions and these are listed below: Zone-V: Chhattisgarh, Orissa and Andhra Pradesh Brinjal is prone to attack by many insect-pests, and fungal, bacterial and viral diseases.The prevalence of insect-pests and diseases depends on many factors. Some of them that cause major damage and losses cannot be adequately controlled by pesticides or other means. The fruit and shoot borer (FSB) is the most limiting constraint to increased productivity of brinjal. There are several sources of FSB infestation. Although, it is a specific pest of brinjal, the infestation of a newly planted crop comes through the following routes: 1) Adults migrating from the neighboring brinjal fields, which are the most important sources of infestation. 2) Adults emerging from pupae in the soil where brinjal was grown earlier lay eggs. 3) Brinjal seedlings used for transplanting may carry eggs or tiny larvae. 4) If old uprooted brinjal plants or their stalks are stored nearby, the pupae from underneath such debris can develop into adults and become a source of infestation (Talekar, 2002) Farmers resort to frequent insecticide sprays and biological control measures to combat the menace of FSB. The larvae need to be killed with available plant protection tools before they enter shoots or fruits. Once inside shoots or fruits, FSB becomes a hidden enemy that destroys both fruits and shoots and escapes insecticide sprays. The integrated pest management (IPM) strategies, which allow for minimal use of insecticides are exploited but not to a great extent. Traditionally, farmers use labor-intensive practices to control FSB including manual removal of wilted shoots and damaged fruits. Sex pheromone traps are also used to mass-trap male moths to reduce mating. However, these approaches and use of chemicals have not been able to provide satisfactory control of FSB. As a result, the farmers continue to undergo heavy losses and are frustrated. This is where Bt brinjal, with an in-built FSB protection system, in conjunction with good farming practices can help the farmers to protect the crop and get good yields (ABSP II; Handbook of Horticulture, 2007; NCIPM, 2006; Talekar, 2002; Talekar et al., 2003 .

206

Biotech Crops: A Paradigm Shift in Crop Development Among biotech crops, Bt crops such as Bt cotton and Bt corn are already prevalent in many countries. Bt crops are incorporated with one or more modified Bt genes sourced originally from naturally occurring soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt is its popular abbreviation). These crops have been developed worldwide to provide alternative methods to control specific insect-pests in agriculture. Rapid adoption of Bt crops in past twelve years, both in developed and developing countries, is a testimony that this technology works effectively to control target insect-pests in a broad array of agricultural mega-environments. Biotech crops benefit both the farmers and consumers. Farmers gain higher crop yields with less insecticides and consumers have access to crops grown with fewer insecticides, low pesticide residues and with healthier nutritional characteristics. Bt Brinjal - Development of the First Biotech Vegetable Crop in India: Biotech crops are also known as genetically modified (GM) or genetically engineered (GE) crops. Phenotypically they look just like their traditional counterparts. Among biotech crops, Bt crops such as Bt cotton and Bt corn are already prevalent in many countries. Bt crops are incorporated with one or more modified Bt genes sourced originally from naturally occurring soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt is its popular abbreviation). These crops have been developed worldwide to provide alternative methods to control specific insect-pests in agriculture. Rapid adoption of Bt crops in past twelve years, both in developed and developing countries, is a testimony that this technology works effectively to control target insect-pests in a broad array of agricultural mega-environments. Biotech crops benefit both the farmers and consumers. Farmers gain higher crop yields with less insecticides and consumers have access to crops grown with fewer insecticides, low pesticide residues and with healthier nutritional characteristics. Bt brinjal: How does it control FSB? Bt brinjal hybrids containing cry1Ac gene express Bt protein in all parts of the plant (i.e. constitutive expression) throughout its life cycle. To get activated and exhibit insecticidal property, Bt protein must be ingested by FSB. When FSB larvae feed on Bt brinjal plants, they ingest Bt protein along with plant tissue. In the insect gut, it is solubilized and activated by gut proteases generating a toxic fragment. The activated insecticidal protein then binds to two different receptors in a sequential manner. The first contact of the insecticidal protein is with the cadherin receptor, triggering the formation of oligomer structure. The oligomer then has increased affinity to a second receptor, amino-peptidaese-N (APN). The APN facilitates insertion of the oligomer into membrane causing ion pores. These events disrupt digestive processes such as loss of transmembrane potential, cell lysis, leakage of the mid-gut contents and paralysis that in turn cause the death of fruit and shoot borer (American Academy of Microbiology, 2002; Manjunath, 2007; Soberon and Bravo, 2008). This exemplifies how Bt technology can work as a safe and viable strategy for insect-pest management in brinjal and other potential vegetable crops like cauliflower, cabbage, okra and chilli. These varieties expressing cry1Ac (event EE-1) are: Co2-Bt, MDU1-Bt, PLR1-Bt, and KKM1-Bt developed by TNAU, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, and Malapur Local, Manjari Gotha, Kudachi Local, Udupi Gulla, 112-GO and Rabakavi Local developed by UAS, Dharwad, Karnataka.

207

Natural enemies of EFSB in South and Southeast Asia- Natural enemy species Family and

Order

Country Where recorded

Reference

Predators Chrysopa kulingensis Chrysopidae,

Neuroptera China Yang, 1982

Campyloneura sp Miridae, Heteroptera

Tirupathi,India Tewari and Moorthy, 1984; and Singh, 1991

Cheilomenes sexmaculata, Coccinella septempunctata, Brumoides suturalis

Coccinellidae, Coleoptera

India Kadam et al., 2006

Parasitoids Pseudoperichaeta sp Tachinidae,

Diptera India Patel et al., 1971

Phanerotoma sp

Braconidae, Hymenoptera I

India, Sri Lanka

Pateletal.,1971;TewariandMoorthy,1984;TripathiandSingh, 1991;Sandanayake and Edirisinghe, 1992

Apanteles sp Braconidae, Hymenoptera

Philippines Navasero, 1983

Chelonus sp Braconidae, Hymenoptera

Philippines, Sri Lanka

Navasero, 1983; Sandanayake and Edirisinghe, 1992

Brachymeria lasus Chalcididae, Hymenoptera

Philippines Navasero, 1983

Dermatopelte sp Eulophidae, Hymenoptera

China Yang, 1982

Trathala flavoorbitalis Ichneumonidae, Hymenoptera

Bangaladesh,Undia,Malaysia,Phillipines

Alam and Sana, 1954,Patel et al,1967,Yunus and Ho,1980,Natarajan,2006

Cremastus hapaliae Ichneumonidae, Hymenoptera

Malysia Yunus and Ho,1980

Xanthopimpla punctata Ichneumonidae, Hymenoptera

Phillipines Navasero, 1983

Itamoplex sp Ichneumonidae, Hymenoptera

India Verma and Lal, 1985

Eriborus argenteopilosus Ichneumonidae, Hymenoptera

India Tewari and Sardana, 1987

Diadegma apostate Ichneumonidae, Hymenoptera

India Krishnamoorthy and Mani, 1998

Entomopathogens Bacterium China Yang,1982 Fungus (Bipolaris tetramera) India Tirupathi and Singh,1991 Baculovirus India Tewari and Singh, 1987 Nuclear polyhedrosis virus India Tripathi and Singh, 1991

208

IPM: The integrated pest management (IPM) strategy for the control of eggplant fruit and shoot borer (EFSB) consists of resistant cultivars, sex pheromone, cultural, mechanical and biological control methods. Eggplant accessions EG058, BL009, ISD006 and a commercial hybrid, Turbo possess appreciable levels of resistance to EFSB. Use of EFSB sex pheromone traps based on (E)-11-hexadecenyl acetate and (E)-11-hexadecen-1-ol to continuously trap the adult males significantly reduced the pest damage on eggplant in South Asia. In addition, prompt destruction of pest damaged eggplant shoots and fruits at regular intervals, and withholding of pesticide use to allow proliferation of local natural enemies especially the parasitoid, Trathala flavo-orbitalis reduced the EFSB population. The IPM strategy was implemented in farmers’ fields via pilot project demonstrations in selected areas of Bangladesh and India and its use was promoted in both countries. The profit margins and production area significantly increased whereas pesticide use and labor requirement decreased for those farmers who adopted this IPM technology. The efforts to expand the EFSB IPM technology to other regions of South and Southeast Asia are underway.(Srinivasan,2008,) Cultural and Mechanical Control Cultural control methods involve the manipulation of crop environment as well as management, whereas mechanical control involves the use of mechanical forces or manual operations to interfere with the insect feeding, shelter and reproduction. For instance, sanitation of the field before, during and after the cropping, removal of the alternate food sources for the pests and mechanical barriers are some of the cultural and mechanical control measures to manage EFSB in the field. Wider area validation and economic analysis of adoptable IPM technology in egg plant, in a farmer’s participatory approach and carried out in a adopted village,of UP during 2003-04 -2004 – 06 involving 30 farm families.The IPM technology for brinjal comprising of : Raising healthy nursery using soil solarization and mixing of Trichoderma along with FYM: application of neemcake @250 kg/ ha at 30 DAT, erection of bird perches @ 10 Nos., per ha, installation of delta traps @ 5 /hafive releases of egg parasite Trichogramma brasiilensis, and 1-2 sprays of chemical pesticides was very effective in reducing the incidence of pests and minimizing the yield losses.( Sardana et al,2008)

209

11.3. References-brinjal IPM

Alam, S. N., Rashid, M. A., Rouf, F. M. A., Jhala, R. C.,Patel, J. R., Satpathy, S., Shivalingaswamy, T. M., Rai,S., Wahundeniya, I., Cork, A., Ammaranan, C., and Talekar, N. S. 2003. Development of an integrated pest management strategy for eggplant fruit and shoot borer in South Asia, Technical Bulletin TB28, AVRDC – The World Vegetable Center, Shanhua, Taiwan, 66 PP . American Academy of Microbiology, 100 years of Bacillus thuringiensis: A Critical Scientific Assessment, USA, 2002. AVRDC. 1996. AVRDC .1995. Report. AVRDC Publication No. 96-449. Asian Vegetable Research and DevelopmentCenter, Shanhua, Taiwan. 187 PP . AVRDC. 2000. AVRDC Report 1999. AVRDC Publication No. 00-503. Shanhua, Taiwan: Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center. 152 pp. Barua, 2009,- Compatibility of Trichoderma and Ralstonia solanacearum complex on brinjal. Indian Journal of Nematology (India). (Jun 2009) v. 39(1) p. 29-34

Bhanu.K.R.M.,Prabhakara,M.S.Jayanth,K.P.-2007,-Field evaluation of indigenously developed sex pheromone lures for mass trapping brinjal shoot and fruit borer Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)-Pest management in Horticultural systems,2007,Vol-13(2)-115 -120.

Cork, A., Alam, S. N., Das, A., Das, C. S., Ghosh, G. C.,Farman, D. I., Hall, D. R., Maslen, N. R., Vedham, K.,Phythiam, S. J., Rouf, F. M. A. and Srinivasan, K. 2001.Female sex pheromone of brinjal fruit and shoot borer,Leucinodes orbonalis blend optimization. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 27(9): 1867–1877. Dhamdhere, S., Dhamdhere, S.V. and Matur, R., 1995. Occurrence and succession of pests of brinjal, Solanum melongena L. at Gwalior (M.P.), Indian J Ent. Res., 19: 71-77.

Elanchezhyan.E.and R.K Murali Baskaran, 2008, Evaluation of inter cropping system based modules for the Management of maor insect pests of Brinjal.- Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystems,Vol. 14, No. 1 pp 67-73 (2008) Gunawardena, N. E., Attygalle, A. B. and Herath, H. M. W.K. B. 1989. The sex pheromone of the brinjal pest, Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee (Lepidoptera): problems and perspectives. Journal of the National Science Council of Sri Lanka, 17(2): 161-171. Gunawardena, N. E. 1992. Convenient synthesis of (E)- 11-hexadecenyl acetate, the female sex pheromone of the brinjal moth Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee. Journalof the National Science Council of Sri Lanka, 20(1):71-80. Islam, Z. and Cohen, M. 2007 Biological control of rice insect pests. International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Philippines. 33 PP. http://www. Knowledge bank.irri.org/ipm/biocontrol/print.doc (accessed on 19 September 2007)

210

Jadon Kuldeep S., Tiwari P.K, 2009- Compatibility of Trichoderma and Ralstonia solanacearum complex on brinjal. Indian Journal of Nematology (India). (Jun 2009) v. 39(1) p. 29-34)

Jadon Kuldeep S., Tiwari,2011, Pathogen physiology and management of Brinjal collar rot caused by Sclerotium rolfsii- Annals of Plant Protection Sciences-Year : 2011, Volume : 19, Issue : 1-First page : ( 113) Last page : ( 117). Kadam, J. R., Bhosale, U. D. and Chavan, A. P. 2006. Influence of insecticidal treatment sequences on population of Leucinodes orbonalis Gn and its predators. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural Universities, 31(3): 379-382

Krishnamoorthy, A. and Mani, M. 1998. New record of parasitoid Diadegma apostata (G.) on brinjal shoot and fruit borer. Insect Environment 4(3): 87. Manjunath, T.M. 2007. Q & A on Bt Cotton in India, All India Crop Biotechnology Association (AICBA), New Delhi. Misra.H.P,2008-New promising insecticides for the management of brinjal shoot and fruit

borer, Leucinodes orbonalisGuenee-Pest

Management in Horticultural Ecosystems-Vol(14-2)pp-140-147.

Mohapatra Soudamini*, Ahuja A.K., Deepa M., Jagdish G.K., Rashmi N., Sharma Debi-. Persistence of Abamectin Residues in/on Brinjal (Solanum melongena)- Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystems-Year : 2010, Volume : 16, Issue : 1First page : ( 29) Last page : ( 30)

Patel, R. C., Patel, J. C. and Patel, J. K. 1971. New records of parasites of Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. From Gujarat. Indian Journal of Entomology, 33: 358.

Pawar D.B., Bhalekar M.N., Chandele A.G, Ilhe B.M., Shinde H.,2009,Pest Management in Horticultural EcosystemsYear : 2009, Volume : 15, Issue : 2First page : ( 114) Last page : ( 120) Sex Pheromone Based IPM Technology for Brinjal Shoot and Fruit Borer Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee(Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)- Pawar D.B., Bhalekar M.N., Chandele A.G, Ilhe B.M., Shinde H.N.2010,Sex Pheromone study on Brinjal Shoot and Fruit Borer Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee(Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)- N. Pest management in Horticulture Ecosystem-2009, Volune15(2),pp114-120.

Roy, D.C.and PandeY.D., 1995. Damage to brinjal by Lep. Pyraustidae and economics of its insecticidalcontrol. Indian J. Agric. Res., 28: 110-120. Reddy, N. A. and Kumar, C. T. A. 2004. Insect pests of tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. in eastern dry zone of Karnataka. Insect Environment, 10: 40-42.

Kumar N. K. Krishna, Kalleshwaraswamy C. M.1, Kumari B. K. Krishna2, Ranganath H R.,2006,- Effect of cypermethrin on the orientation of brinjal shoot and fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. males to synthetic sex pheromone-Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystems,Year : 2006, Volume : 12, Issue :1First page : ( 23) Last page : ( 27) )

211

Rahman, M. S., Alam, M. Z., Haq, M., Sultana, N. and Islam, K. S. .2002. Effect of some integrated pest management (IPM) packages against brinjal shoot and fruit borer and its consequence on yield. Online Journal of Biological Sciences, 2(7): 489-491. Sandanayake, W. R. M. and Edirisinghe, J. P. 1992. Trathala flavoorbitalis: parasitization and development in relation to host-stage attacked. Insect Sciences and its Applications, 13(3): 287–292. Sardana,H.R,O.M.Bombawale,and Poonam Patra,2008,Wider area validation and economic analysis of adoptable IPM technology in eggplant Solanum melongina,L. in a farmer’s participatory approach,Pesticide research jounal,Vol. 20(2),pp.204-208. Satpathy, S., Shivalingaswamy, T. M., Akhilesh Kumar, Rai, A. B. and Mathura Rai. 2005. Biointensive management of eggplant shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guen.). Vegetable Science,32(1): 103-104. Soberon M. and Bravo A. 2008. Avoiding Insect Resistance to Cry Toxins from Bacillus thuringiensis,ISB News Report, May 2008, Virginia Tech, USA. Vijesh V. Krishnaaand, Matin Qaimb, 2008, Potential impacts of Bt eggplant on economic surplus and farmers’health in India, Agricultural Economics 38 (2008) 167–180. Srinivasan, R.2008, Integrated Pest Management for eggplant fruit and shoot borer (Leucinodes orbonalis) in south and Southeast Asia: Past, Present and Future, Journal of Biopesticides, 1(2):105 - 112 (2008) Srinivasan, G. and Babu, P. C. S. 2000. Sex pheromone for brinjal shoot and fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis. Indian Journal of Entomology, 62: 94–95. Srivastava, K. P. and Butani, D. K. 1998. Pest management in vegetables, Part 1. Houston, USA: Research Periodical and Book Publishing House. 294 PP. Talekar, N.S. 2002. Controlling Eggplant Fruit and Shoot Borer-A Simple, Safe and EconomicalApproach, AVRDC Publication Nos. 02-534, AVRDC, Taiwan. Tewari, G. C. and Moorthy, P. N. K. 1984. New records of two parasites of brinjal shoot and fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. Entomon., 9: 63-64. Tewari, G. C. and Sardana, H. R. 1987. Eriborus argenteopilosus (Cameron) - a new parasite of Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. Entomon. 12: 227-228 Tripathi, S. R. and Singh, A. K. 1991. Some observations on population dynamics of brinjal borer, Leucinodes orbonalis (Guen.) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Annals of Entomology, 9(1): 15-24 Talekar, N.S. et al. 2003. Development of an Integrated Pest Management Strategy for Eggplant Fruit and Shoot borer in South Asia., AVRDC- The World Vegetable Centre. Technical Bulletin No.28. AVRDC Publication No. 03-548.

212

Verma, T. S. and Lal, O. P. 1985. A new record of Itamoplex sp. (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) parasitizing eggplant shoot and fruit borer in Kulu valley, Himachal Pradesh. Bulletin of Entomology, 26: 219-222.

12.1. Summary – Integrated Pest management in Sweet Orange - Citrus sinensis

Adoptable IPM Strategies:

1. For the effective management of citrus leaf miner,(Phyllocnistis citrella) clipping of infested leaves and their pruning is advised. Only major flushes should be retained. Intermittent growth should be removed/destroyed. Besides this, with the commencement of new flush, spray neem seed extract (2%) or fenvalerate (0.05%), alternatively, at 10-12 days interval..Release of parasitoids C. quadristriatus and T. phyllocnistoides is also recommended.

2. Three larval parasitoids, viz., Amatellon sp., Tetrastichus sp. and Elasmus sp. Ageniaspis sp. Bracon sp., Tetrastichus phyllocnistoides and Citrospilus quadristratus reported to sporadically parasitise 80% of the larvae against leafminer.

3. At the initiation of new flush, spray monocrotophos (0.025%) or dimethoate (0.03%) or quinalphos (0.025%) and Systemic insecticides like imidacloprid. If required, repeat the spray at 10-12 days interval, once or twice against D.citri and dimethoate against A. cistellata which were reported effective. Bioagents of D.citri are Mallada boninensis, Cheilomenes sexmaculata and eulophid parasitoid, Tamarixia radiata while Curinus coerulus is an efficient predator of H.cubana against Psallid pests.

4. For an effective management of whiteflies/blackflies (Aleurodicus disperse), . Close planting, dense canopy structure and water stress should be avoided. In case of localized infestation, affected shoots should be clipped off and destroyed. Excessive irrigation and application of nitrogenous fertilizers shall be avoided to reduce off season flushes. Indigenous natural enemies can be conserved and augmented by avoiding excessive pesticide application.Dimethoate (0.03%) or phosphamidon (0.03%) or acephate (0.05%) or neem seed extract (4%) can be sprayed. Spraying should be initiated with the emergence of new flush and repeated at 10 days interval once or twice.

5. Scales can be managed with effectively, orchard sanitation is a must. Prune the infested shoots and destroy during winter. Open the tree canopy from centre for better light penetration and effective spraying. Spray 1% pongamia oil or 4% neem seed extracts at 21 and 7 days interval, respectively.

6. Mealy bugs like Planococcus citri, Planococcus pacificus and Icerya purchasii can be managed by Pesticides which give temporary control of mealybugs. In fact, pesticides aggrevate the problem by eliminating natural enemies. Most effective control could be achieved by releasing predatory beetle, Cryptolaemus montrouzieri and parasitoid, Leptomastix dactylopii.

213

7. Aphis gossypii, Toxoptera aurantii, T. citricidus and Myzus persicae. aphids do not cause serious direct damage but act as vector of tristeza virus. Although insecticidal sprays of monocrotophos, oxydemeton methyl, phosalone and dimethoate (all 0.025-0.05%) are effective against aphids on citrus, their application adversely affect the parasitoids and predators.Single spray of mahua oil or neem oil (1%) for effective control of T. citricidus on acid lime. The residual aphid population is managed by the predators.

8. Citrus Die-back or decline can be managed by the use of nursery stock grown under Phytophthora free conditions and prevention of water standing in contact to the susceptible portions of the bark above the bud union by way of good drainage. The disease can further be prevented to some extent by dusting of walls and bottom of planting pits with zinc-copper lime in ratio of 5:1:4

9. Complete control of spraying trees infected with P. citrophthora with aureofungin 3 g/30 ml of liquid soap/30 gallons of water applied 2-3 times and got good control of gummosis incited by P. nicotianae var. nicotianae by aureofungin as soil drench and spraying of foliage twice at an interval of one month.

10. Leaf fall and fruit rot could be controlled by spraying bordeaux mixture (1%) or bordeaux mixture plus tin sulphate or difolatan (0.3%)

11. Anthracnose disease can be minimised through proper management of orchards by proper irrigation, manuring, cultural practices and plant protection measures. Dead twigs should be pruned and destroyed, cut ends should be protected by bordeaux paste. Such trees should be sprayed with bavistin (0.1%) or captafol (0.2%) 3 times after pruning.

12. Spraying of copper oxychloride fungicides (0.3%) or Dithane Z-78 or chlorothalonil (0.2%) give a very effective control. Infected fruits may be collected and destroyed.There are other diseases, namely, wilt (Fusarium spp.), dry root rot (Macrophomina phaseolina), Diplodia gummosis (Diplodia netalensis), pink disease (Botryobasidium salmonicolor), malanose (Phomopsis citri) and other root rots due to Ganoderma lucidium and Armillariella mellea which frequently occur in the fields and need attention.

13. Citrus canker control is mainly attained through: (1) quarantine, (2) eradication and destruction of infected trees, (3) spraying of neem cake at the rate of 7 kg per acre have been reported to be highly effective in checking citrus canker as well as leaf minor, (4) spraying of streptomycin sulphate (0.05%) at 75 days interval. Phytomycine (0.02%) has also been reported to be effective in checking the disease, and (5) spraying with copper oxychloride or bordeaux mixture (1%) along with pruning of infected plant parts were found effective.

14. The nematodes of Citrus sinensis can be managed by Attempts are being made to eradicate R. similis from infested groves on Lakeland fine sand in Florida by the "pull and treat" method; The cleaned soil is treated with 60 gallons of DD per acre (650 litres per ha), and the area is then kept free of all vegetation for two years; Treating trees in place with non-phytotoxic rates of nemagon to kill T. semipenetrans has been effective to reduce, but not eradicate, the population

214

from infested citrus groves; Natural obstacles such as rivers, oceans and deserts are effective barriers preventing the migration of nematodes from one citrus area to another. Barriers on a smaller scale are being used to confine R. similis within limited areas of infestation. These man-made barriers surrounding an infested area consist of a strip of land 3 to 8 m wide, free of citrus trees, and treated with a nematicide at 6 months intervals to keep the soil in the barrier zone free of roots as well as burrowing nematodes. The surface of the soil is also treated with herbicides to keep the barrier free of all plant growth.

12.2. Integrated Pest management in Sweet Orange –Citrus cinensis

215

Citrus ranks the third place among the fruits grown in India and thus assumes considerable importance. It grows much better in tropical and subtropical conditions and there is an increase in area under citrus cultivation from 90.7 thousand hectares in 1961 to 279.4 thousand hectares in 1988. However, it is very sensitive to climatic changes and the varieties under cultivation vary from region to region. Sweet oranges and mandarins constitute the bulk of area under citrus fruits. Out of these two, mandarins occupy the most prominent place. Due to their large scale cultivation, several serious problems have also cropped up. Among them the disease problems caused by many fungal, bacterial, viral, viroids and mycoplasma like organisms are important as they cause a huge economic losses and decline of the trees. Some of the fungal diseases like foot rot, root rot, gummosis, leaf fall and fruit rot, twig blight, powdery mildew and scab, etc., are the alarming diseases of citrus.

Sweet Orange crop in Andhrapradesh:

Sweet Orange and Acid Lime are the predominant citrus species grown in A.P. Area under Sweet Orange is more in arid scarce rainfall areas compared to Acid Lime grown in humid tracts. Ananthapur district with least rainfall in southern part of India grows 21000 ha of Citrus crops, predominantly Sweet Orange. Kadapa district was famous for Cheeni Orange (Sweet Orange) during the first half of 20th century. The district now has only about 3500 ha of Sweet Orange and about 500 ha of Acid Lime. Kurnool district has the least area of about 1900 ha under Sweet Orange and about 100 ha under Acid Lime. For the Groundnut district – Ananthapur, Sweet Orange provides the financial support. In A.P., Ananthapur is the second largest Citrus growing district after Nalgonda,another drought hit district in Telangana with fluoride contaminated ground water. Prakasam another partially drought prone district with the problem of fluoride in ground water is also emerging as animportant Citrus belt with 19000 ha under Sweet Orange. Dry climate with low rainfall and deep under ground water favour this crop in these districts. Incidentally Sweet Orange is coming up well in the fluoride ridden districts.

In Nalgonda District Sweet Orange is the main crop under cultivation occupying an area of 81583 Ha. Nalgonda is predominantly having Red (44%) and Chalka Soils (47%) with calcium traces, most of the gardens in pre-bearing and bearing condition exhibit multimicronutrient deficiencies like Zinc, Iron, Manganese. With this micro-nutrient deficiency the plants become pale yellow and unable to synthesis the food and become weak which result in creating favourable situation for attack of various pest and diseases like dry root rot, gummosis, canker, mangu-mite attack etc. Dry root and mangu-mite are very serious and predominant in Nalgonda District Surveillance for Pests and Diseases of Sweet Orange:

Acid lime is one of the commercial horticultural crops grown widely in the South coastal region of Andhra Pradesh. Roving and fixed plot surveys were carried out during 2006–07 to assess the major insect pests and their natural enemies occurring on acid lime, Citrus aurantifolia Swingle in Nellore district of this region. The results revealed that twelve species of insects and mites and six species of natural enemies occurred in acid lime ecosystem. The citrus leaf miner, Phyllocnistis citrella Stainton and rust mite, Phyllocoptruta oleivora Ashmead were in severe form whereas citrus butterfly, Papilio demoleus Linn. and leaf roller, Psorosticha zizyphi Stainton showed moderate infestation. Rest all were at low levels and their infestations varied among different areas of Nellore district.(K.Sreedevi,2010)

216

Management of Pests of Sweet Orange:

Psyllids ;( Diaphorina citri, Apsylla cistellata and Heteropsylla cubana)

Psyllids are economically important as pests of several horticultural crops and also as biocontrol agents of weeds. Diaphorina citri, Apsylla cistellata and Heteropsylla cubana are the predominant psyllid pests in India. Asian citrus psylla, D. citri is one of the major threats to citrus cultivation not only as a pest but also as a vector of citrus greening, while A. cistellata is a gall inducer affecting panicle emergence in mango. Heteropsylla cubana infests Leucana leucocephala, an important fodder and agroforestry crop. Systemic insecticides like imidacloprid against D.citri and dimethoate against A. cistellata were reported effective. Bioagents of D.citri are Mallada boninensis, Cheilomenes sexmaculata and eulophid parasitoid, Tamarixia radiata while Curinus coerulus is an efficient predator of H.cubana. A brief account on these pests and management strategies are presented.( Shivankar and Rao ,2010)

Citrus leaf miner, Phyllocnistis citrella Stainton

Efficacy of neem seed kernel extract individually and in combination with synthetic pyrethroid, cypermethrin in different ratios (half the recommended dose and standard full dose) were evaluated experimentally on citrus leaf miner, Phyllocnistis citrella Stainton on acid lime (Citrus aurantifolia (Christon) Swing) during 2002–2003 at Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Bangalore, India. Observations were made on the number of live mines, dead mines, adult emergence and leaf damage. The results clearly showed that the combination treatment viz., neem seed kernel extract 4%+ cypermethrin 0.5 ml/l (full dose) was found to be the best combination to manage P citrella infestation with minimum leaf damage. Further, this treatment also recorded minimal fresh infestation, high larval mortality and low adult emergence. The present work shows the strong synergistic effect of the neem seed kernel extract with cypermethrin to minimize the leaf miner damage.(Jayanthi et al.,2007)

It has been observed in Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. The adult is a tiny silvery white moth with black eyes and narrow fringed white hind wings. Eggs are minute, rounded and yellowish green. The caterpillars are legless and pale yellow in colour with brownish head. The larvae feed on the epidermis of tender leaves making serpentine mines of silvery colour. Severely infested leaves become distorted and crumpled and finally fall off. Attack of leafminer encourages the incidence of canker during rainy season. Huang and Li (1989) reported that < 20% of the leaves are damaged and have no influence on growth and yield, and the economic threshold was estimated as 0.74 larva/leaf. The extent of damage depends upon the new vegetative growth and number of flushes in a year.

Huang and Li (1989) reported that < 20% of the leaves are damaged and have no influence on growth and yield, and the economic threshold was estimated as 0.74 larva/leaf. The extent of damage depends upon the new vegetative growth and number of flushes in year.Three larval parasitoids, viz., Amatellon sp., Tetrastichus sp. and Elasmus sp. were observed parasitising up to 30 per cent (Narayanan et al. 1957). Another parasitoid Ageniaspis sp. was reported to sporadically parasitise 80% of the larvae. From South India, Bracon sp., Tetrastichus phyllocnistoides and Citrospilus quadristratus have been reported.(Tandon,1991)

217

IPM strategy

For the effective management of citrus leafminer, clipping of infested leaves and their pruning is advised. Only major flushes should be retained. Intermittent growth should be removed/destroyed. Besides this, with the commencement of new flush, spray neem seed extract (2%) or fenvalerate (0.05%), alternatively, at 10-12 days interval (Jyothi et al. 1990a,b). Release of parasitoids C. quadristriatus and T. phyllocnistoides is also recommended.(Tandon,1991b.)

Psylla (Diaphorina citri Kuwayama)

The citrus psyllid is widely distributed in Asia. Besides India, it has been reported from Bhutan, Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Myanmar, Malaysia, the Philippines, Pakistan and Taiwan. Adults are grey coloured actively flying insects and measure 3-4 mm in length. While at rest, they raise their body upward. The nymphs are orange yellow in colour, flattened and circular in shape. The eggs are anchored by means of short stalk embedded in the plant tissues. The damage is caused by the nymphs and adults which suck sap from buds and leaves. The affected leaves get curled and shoots become dry. The psyllid also acts as a vector of greening disease. Besides, Citrus spp., it attacks Murraya exotica and M. koenigii. There are no systematic data available on extent of damage; however, citrus psylla has been reported causing loss to mandarin to the tune of Rs. 40 million (about US $ 1.04 million) alone in Vidharva region of Maharashtra in India. Several species of predators and syrphids have been reported feeding on eggs and nymphs of citrus psylla. Besides these, four species of parasitoids have been reported from India. Tandon (1991a) stressed on conservation and augmentation of these natural enemies for regulating psyllid population in citrus.

IPM strategy

At the initiation of new flush, spray monocrotophos (0.025%) or dimethoate (0.03%) or quinalphos (0.025%). If required, repeat the spray at 10-12 days interval, once or twice (Tandon 1991b).

Whiteflies/Blackflies

(Aleurocanthuswoglumi Ashby, Aleurocanthusspiniferus QuaintanceDialeurodiscitri Ashmead and Aleurodicus dispersus Russell)

These species of blackflies/whiteflies are widely distributed in Asia on Citrus spp. However, the spiralling whitefly Aleurodicus dispersus has been introduced recently. In case of blackflies, the nymphs are black in colour. Freshly emerged adults are reddish and within 24 hours, the body gets covered with a heavy puberulence giving them slaty bluish look. The citrus blackfly, A. woglumi, lays eggs in spiral rings on the lower side of tender leaves. The citrus whitefly, D. citri, is a small pale yellow insect with red eyes. Both nymphs and adults suck sap from tender leaves and reduce the plant vigour. Affected trees become deficient in chlorophyll, nitrogen and crude protein, produce a few flowers and insipid fruits. Reasons for the flare up of blackfly in India are recurrent drought conditions, dense planting in heavy soils and indiscriminate use of broad spectrum pesticides. Five species of parasitoids have been reported effectively parasitizing whiteflies. Besides these, six species of predators have been recorded on eggs

218

and nymphs. An entomopathogenic fungus, Cladosporium sp., also destroys large proportion of its population.

IPM strategy

For the effective management of whiteflies/blackflies following recommendations have been made (Tandon 1995).

i. Close planting, dense canopy structure and water stress should be avoided.

ii. In case of localized infestation, affected shoots should be clipped off and destroyed.

iii. Excessive irrigation and application of nitrogenous fertilizers shall be avoided to reduce off season flushes.

iv. Indigenous natural enemies can be conserved and augmented by avoiding excessive pesticide application.

v. Dimethoate (0.03%) or phosphamidon (0.03%) or acephate (0.05%) or neem seed extract (4%) can be sprayed. Spraying should be initiated with the emergence of new flush and repeated at 10 days interval once or twice.

Scales

More than 50 species of scales have been recorded on Citrus spp. from Asia. However, the three major pests are Aonidiella aurantii, Chrysomphalus aonidum and Coccus viridis. All the three species have been reported from the Asian region, however, A. aurantii is the most widely distributed scale on citrus. The red scale, A. aurantii, usually attacks leaves and tender shoots, but in case of severe infestation, even the fruits are not spared. The affected shoots and branches get dried and fruits drop. Feeding results in development of yellow marks on the leaves and fruits. The branches turn scurfy grey. Similar symptoms are produced by C. aonidum. The green scales infest the ventral side of leaves along the midrib. Infested plants infected by the sooty mould and ants are associated with this. Severely infested trees lose vigour and become unproductive.

Several species of parasitoids and predators regulate the scale population. Similarly, Coccus viridis population is being regulated by several parasitoids and predators (Tandon 1995). However, excessive application of insecticides has affected their effectiveness.

IPM strategy

For effective management, orchard sanitation is a must. Prune the infested shoots and destroy during winter. Open the tree canopy from centre for better light penetration and effective spraying. Spray 1% pongamia oil or 4% neem seed extracts at 21 and 7 days interval, respectively.

219

Mealybugs

Several species of mealybugs have been recorded infesting citrus in Asia. However, a few are serious, namely, Planococcus citri, Planococcus pacificus and Icerya purchasii. All these three species are widely distributed in Asia. Mealybugs have segmented and flattened bodies covered with a white mealy wax. Mealybugs infest leaves, tender shoots and fruits. Due to severe attack, growth of plant is arrested and fruits drop is induced. Sooty mould develops on the infested trees. In an acid lime orchard near Bangalore, as high as 65% of the fruits were infested by P. citri.

IPM strategy

Pesticides give temporary control of mealybugs. In fact, pesticides aggrevate the problem by eliminating natural enemies. Most effective control could be achieved by releasing predatory beetle, Cryptolaemus montrouzieri and parasitoid, Leptomastix dactylopii.

Aphids

The aphids do not cause serious direct damage but act as vector of tristeza virus. These species of aphids widely distributed in Asia on Citrus and several other host plants are Aphis gossypii, Toxoptera aurantii, T. citricidus and Myzus persicae. The damage symptoms caused by aphids are exhibited by curling of young leaves and premature fruit fall. Normally, aphids attack during flowering but occasionally severe outbreaks occur when rainy season is followed by dry weather. There are several natural enemies which keep" aphids populations under check (Tandon 1991b).

IPM strategy

Although insecticidal sprays of monocrotophos, oxydemeton methyl, phosalone and dimethoate (all 0.025-0.05%) are effective against aphids on citrus, their application adversely affect the parasitoids and predators. Jothi et al. (1990) recommended single spray of mahua oil or neem oil (1%) for effective control of T. citricidus on acid lime. The residual aphid population is managed by the predators.

Fruit borers

Four species of fruit borers, viz., Cryptophleba illepida, Rapala varuna, Deudorix isocrates andD. epijarbas have been reported damaging the fruits. C. illepida causes extensive damage ranging from 40-60%. The caterpillars bore into the developing fruits and feed on seeds. The bore hole gets filled with the excreta of the caterpillar and infested fruits start rotting. To manage this pest, collect all fallen infested fruits and destroy them. Further, at early stage of fruiting which coincides with egg laying, spray fenthion (0.05%) or monocrotophos (0.04%) or phosalone (0.05%). Repeat twice at 10-12 days interval.

Citrus Die-back or decline :

Die-back or decline is the most important problem at present being faced by the country (Aiyappa and Srivastava 1967). Decline is a symptom and not a disease. Earliest symptoms are dulling of the foliage, wilting of the leaves or delayed flushing of the tree. These symptoms are usually followed by chlorosis of leaves resembling zinc deficiency, but with a difference of showing speckling with green dots of the size of pinheads to nailheads. Trees with pinhead speckles decline faster than the trees without them. Successive flushes produced on affected branches are erect, leathery, strap-shaped and chlorotic. Small

220

percentages of mature fruits are reduced to the size of golf balls and contain columellas and aborted seeds.

As defoliation progresses twigs begin to die-back. Trees do not die completely but sooner or later are removed because they become unproductive. Many factors, such as fungi, viruses, bacteria, nematodes, insect pests, cultural malpractices, unsuitable soil pH and high water table, etc., are responsible singly or in combination for the decline of citrus in India. Among the various agencies that cause decline (Chadha et al. 1970), the diseases caused by fungi, viruses and bacteria are more predominant. Though the malady is in existence since 18th century, it has assumed serious proportions in the last few decades. Among all the Citrus species, varieties in commercial cultivation are the most susceptible. In Florida (U.S.A.), the disease is preceded by wilt and is caused by Fusarium oxysporum Schlecht. (Timmer et al. 1979). Apart from this, the following fungal diseases are important in different parts of the country.(Rawal,and Saxena,1997)

Gummosis, Leaf fall, Root rot, Foot rot or Fruit rot (Phytophthora spp.)

This occurs in all the citrus growing areas especially in the high rainfall areas. Even then no comprehensive survey of the disease has been made so far. There are some reports on the prevalence of this disease, viz., in South India by Rajan and Aiyappa (1944), Ramakrishnan (1954) in Maharashtra, Gujarat; and Mysore by Cheema and Bhat (1928), Frazer and Singh (1966), Kapoor and Bakshi (1967).

It is caused by more than one species of Phytophthora, i.e., P. nicotianae var. parasitica (Dastur) Comb, is widespread in Assam and is often associated with Fusarium lateritium Nees (Chowdhuri 1951). P. nicotianae var. parasitica is also predominant in Karnataka, whereas P. palmivora (Butl) is prevalent throughout. Phytophthora produces symptoms of decline through: (1) a rotting of the rootlets, (2) a girdling of the trunk and a dropping of blighted leaves. The plants usually blossom heavily and die before fruits mature. The fruits lying on the ground are liable to invasions by the pathogens and develop brown rot. P. citrophthora has also been reported to cause the foot and root rot.

Epidemiology

Leaves and fruits may also be attacked by Phytophthora nicotianae var. parasitica during prolonged periods of rainy weather and high humidity. The attack is more serious on mandarin. Oat meal-agar with yeast or beef extract gave maximum vegetative growth, whereas for sporangial production rain water was the best (Rao 1984). Collar rot becomes more severe in black soil than in light soils (Rao 1954). P. palmivora thrives best at 25-28°C. A soil pH of 5.4-7.5 favours the disease (Aiyappa and Srivastava 1967). Mosambi and Pummelo are more susceptible than mandarin. Lime and Jambheri are resistant. According to Raychaudhuri and Lele (1970), Troyer Citrange and trifoliate oranges seem to offer protection against brown rot and gummosis incited by Phytophthora species. Invasion of host tissue is by motile, free swimming spores called zoospores. Water (not just humidity) is required for sporangial formation, dispersal of zoospores as well as for spore germination (Whiteside 1973). Brown rot was greatly influenced by the rainfall and not by spacing (Timmer and Fucik 1975).

Control measures:

Adoption of tolerant rootstocks like sour orange, Cleopatra mandarin, trifoliate orange, Rangpur lime, etc., had been advocated by Chadha et al. (1970). A variety resistant in one region may be susceptible in other. The use of nursery stock grown under Phytophthora free conditions and prevention of water standing in contact to the susceptible portions of the bark above the bud union by way of good drainage. The disease can further be prevented to some extent by dusting of walls and bottom of

221

planting pits with zinc-copper lime in ratio of 5:1:4 (Ramakrishnan 1954). The exposed wood can also be covered with zinc copper lime (3:1:3.5) wash or Bordeaux paste which should be followed by application of white lead or any wound dressing agents (Ramakrishnan 1954).

Desai et al (1966) achieved complete control of spraying Khagzi lime trees infected with P. citrophthora with aureofungin 3 g/30 ml of liquid soap/30 gallons of water applied 2-3 times. Somani and Patel (1970) got good control of gummosis incited by P. nicotianae var. nicotianae by aureofungin as soil drench and spraying of foliage twice at an interval of one month. Drenching of Ridomil MZ (0.2%) has also been found effective against gummosis. Captafol (3 g/l), copper ammonium carbonate and cupric hydroxide are effective for foot rot (Timmer 1977). Dipping of seedlings in captan solution before planting is recommended in U.S.A. (Grimm and Whidden 1966).

Fumigation of nursery bed with methyl bromide has proved most effective to avoid nursery infection (Grimm and Alexander 1971). Leaf fall and fruit rot could be controlled by spraying bordeaux mixture (1%) or bordeaux mixture plus tin sulphate or difolatan (0.3%) In addition, spraying of Ridomil MZ and Aliette (0.2%) have also been reported effective (Rawal 1990). Diseased leaves and fruits may be collected and burnt or burried deeply.

Anthracnose

The disease is a serious problem and a limiting factor in U.S.A. and Carribean countries. In India, the disease has been reported from Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Assam, Rajasthan and South India. The disease is also known as withertip which in recent years is responsible for decline in production of lime in North India, particularly in Kanpur area. Withertip, leaf-spot and fruit rot, all are caused by Colletotrichum gloeosporioides Penz. (Pathak 1980).

Control measures

The disease can be minimised through proper management of orchards by proper irrigation, manuring, cultural practices and plant protection measures. Dead twigs should be pruned and destroyed, cut ends should be protected by bordeaux paste. Such trees should be sprayed with bavistin (0.1%) or captafol (0.2%) 3 times after pruning (AICFIP 1987). Chowdhuri (1936) advocated the pruning of diseased twigs in winter followed by spraying with bordeaux mixture in February and March, and September. Singh and Sinha (1954) reported that spraying the fruits with careful deposition of spray at the stem-end, using 4:4:50 bordeaux mixture, in 3:5 lime-sulphur, 0.1% copper sulphate solution and 2 per cent formalin, considerably reduced fruit drop in preliminary trials. Satisfactory control of anthracnose of lime has been obtained through spray of trees by bordeaux mixture (5:5:50) or 0.33 per cent perenox. Spraying of bavistin (0.1%) or Topsin-M (0.1%) at fortnightly intervals is also effective during fruiting period.

Powdery Mildew (Acrosporium tingitanium Carter Subr.)

The disease is common in India and is serious on mandarin and sweet oranges in the sub-mountain tracts of Coorg, Nilgiris, Pulney, Wynad and Shevaroy hills in South India and in parts of West Bengal, Assam and Sikkim in the north-eastern India. The disease has been reported from Bangalore on lemons in addition to above group (Rawal and Ullasa 1988)

Epidemiology

The disease is influenced by high humidity and defused light. The host parts which are devoid of surface free water get infected soon. Hence, cloudy and cool nights are most congenial for the disease to develop fast. The water shoots coming out under the tree canopy are the first to get infected.

222

Control measures

The disease is easily controlled by dusting the foliage with finely powdered sulphur (Devarajan 1943; Ramakrishan 1954), and spraying of cosan, thiovit and calixin (Ram et al. 1978; Ram and Naidu 1978). Prophylactic spray should be at a proper time to achieve effective control.

Scab (Elsinoe faweetti Bitancourt)

It is a common disease of sour orange, Rough lemon and Tangelo, and has been reported from West Bengal, Assam, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka and is mostly prevalent in the nursery. It is also recorded on sweet oranges in Karnataka (Rawal and Ullasa 1988). About 25-55 per cent of the fruits are completely spoiled in Assam (Chowdhuri 1955) by scab.

Epidemiology

The fungus produces mostly the conidial stage (Sphaceloma fawcetti var. scabiosa Jenkins) on the host. The pathogen perpetuates and survives in off season as ascospores. Conidia are formed from 7-30°C with 66-100 per cent humidity. The fungus can infect tissue only when the surface is wet, but prefers 16-23°C temperature (Pathak 1980). Its spread is through rains. In India, the disease is a problem in areas with low temperature and high humidity. The water is the most important factors influencing severity of the disease (Yamada 1961) and can infect fruits in summer as well as in spring.

Host Resistance

The varieties/lines reported to be resistant against this disease are Sohymndong, Milan, Khatta Jamir, Brazillian Rough Lemon and Chase Rough Lemon (Rawal 1990).

Control Measures

Spraying of bordeaux mixture has been reported by Kar and Saha (1943), and Chowdhuri (1953). Spraying with difolatan (0.2%) also gives effective control (Rawal 1990). Ferbam 7.5 lb 75 WP or fixed copper have been recommended elsewhere. However, Ferbam has been found to be superior over copper spray (Knorr 1973).

Twig Blight (Colletotrichum gloeosporioides Penz.)

It is also characterized as die-back of twigs in large numbers preceding by the shedding of leaves and is present wherever citrus is grown. This disease is also caused by the association ofFusarium spp. and Diplodia natalensis Pole.

Epidemiology

The disease has been found to be predisposed by the attack of powdery mildew and other leaf spot and rot causing agents. Adverse soil pH and deficiency of zinc, manganese and boron have also been suggested by Childs (1953). However, the C. gloeosporioides has also been seen to cause the vascular obstruction. Many times the insect infestation also led to the fungal infection. Though the disease appears in both spring and rainy season, it is more prevalant in the rainy season (Sohi and Kapoor 1990).

The soil pulverization and adequate fertilization and maintenance of adequate soil moisture is very important. Spraying of proper insecticide is also recommended to control the insect attack. Pruning of the diseased twigs followed by the spraying of bavistin (0.1%) or captafol (0.2%) 3 times at monthly intervals have been found to be the most effective (Rawal 1990).

223

Alternaria Leaf Spot Fruit Rot (Alternaria citri Ellis & Pierce)

An important foliage disease in the nursery, particularly on Rough lemon and Rangpur lime

Control measures

Spraying of copper oxychloride fungicides (0.3%) or Dithane Z-78 or chlorothalonil (0.2%) give a very effective control. Infected fruits may be collected and destroyed.There are other diseases, namely, wilt (Fusarium spp.), dry root rot (Macrophomina phaseolina), Diplodia gummosis (Diplodia netalensis), pink disease (Botryobasidium salmonicolor), malanose (Phomopsis citri) and other root rots due to Ganoderma lucidium and Armillariella mellea which frequently occur in the fields and need attention.

Citrus Canker

The disease was first recorded in Japan. Now it is known to occur in every citrus growing area of the world.

It may effect any part of the tree above the ground. The leaves, twigs, young branches and fruits are the most susceptible. It first appears as small watery, transluscent spots, usually dark green in colour than the surrounding tissue and with a raised convex surface. As disease advances, the surface of the spots becomes white or greyish and finally ruptures, exposing a light brown, spongy, central mass developed in crator like formation. The spots usually surrounded by a halo. On young twigs, lesions are similar to those on leaves and fruits but on older twigs they are irregular in shape. Fruit lesions are not surrounded by yellowish halo and the crater like appearance is more pronounced. In severe cases, fruits may crack and drop. Grape fruits, sweet oranges lime and lemon are very much susceptible to canker. Casual organism is Xanthomonas campestris pv vitri (Hasse) Dye.

Disease cycle

The pathogen survives on diseased twigs and leaves. It enters the host through various types of wounds, natural openings, etc. On penetration in the host, it multiplies in the intercellular spaces, dissolves the middle lamella and establishes itself in the cortex. The disease is chiefly disseminated by wind, rain and insects. Citrus leaf miners are very important in the dissemination of this disease. However, man seems to be the chief agent of dissemination.

Control

It is mainly attained through: (1) quarantine, (2) eradication and destruction of infected trees, (3) spraying of neem cake at the rate of 7 kg per acre have been reported to be highly effective in checking citrus canker as well as leaf minor, (4) spraying of streptomycin sulphate (0.05%) at 75 days interval. Phytomycine (0.02%) has also been reported to be effective in checking the disease, and (5) spraying with copper oxychloride or bordeaux mixture (1%) along with pruning of infected plant parts were found effective.

Cirus Nematodes

Surveys of the occurrence of nematodes attacking citrus show that they are present in all citrus growing countries of the world. The first report of an association between a nematode and citrus appears to be that of Neal (1989), who found Heterodera radicicola (= Meloidogyne sp.) parasitising citrus roots in Florida. It was not until the discovery in 1912 of Tylenchulus semipenetrans on the roots of citrus trees in California (Thomas 1913) that a nematode was found to cause a diseased condition of citrus, later called

224

slow decline. In 1953, Radopholus similis was found to be the causal agent of a disease called spreading decline, which can severely damage citrus tree roots and thus reduce production in Florida (Suit and DuCharme 1953).

Some of the complicating factors of citrus agriculture in relation to the associated nematode fauna are: (a) citrus is perennial evergreen tree crop, (b) complexity of the citrus genus, and resulting stock-scion combinations, (c) diversity of soil types where citrus is grown, and (d) range of ecological conditions and the variability of the horticultural practices.

There are several periods of major rootlet growth during the year so that there is virtually constant supply of new feeder roots available for pasturing by nematodes. In the presence of this more and less continuous supply of new feeder root nematodes associated with citrus, with the exception of root-knot nematodes, do not seem to form cyst or have a comparable resting state.(P.Parvatha,1997)-Nematodes and their Control in Tropical Fruit Crops )

Of the more than 60 genera of plant parasitic nematodes reported in association with citrus roots from all citrus growing areas of the world, proof of pathogenicity is available for only 14 species:Tylenchulus semipenetrans (Cobb 1914); Radopholus similis (Suit and DuCharme 1953);Belonolaimus longicaudatus and Trichodorus christiei (Standifer and Perry 1960); M. indica(Whitehead 1968); M. javanica (Mani 1986); Hopolaimus indicus (Gupta and Atwal 1972);Pratylenchus brachyurus (Brooks and Perry 1967); P. coffeae (Siddiqui 1964); Trichodorus porosus (Bains et al. 1959); Xipinema brevicolle and X. index (Cobb and Orion 1970). Other nematodes are not known to be pathogens of citrus and their true relationship with citrus still remains to be established.

Some of the complicating factors of citrus agriculture in relation to the associated nematode fauna are: (a) citrus is perennial evergreen tree crop, (b) complexity of the citrus genus, and resulting stock-scion combinations, (c) diversity of soil types where citrus is grown, and (d) range of ecological conditions and the variability of the horticultural practices.

There are several periods of major rootlet growth during the year so that there is virtually constant supply of new feeder roots available for pasturing by nematodes. In the presence of this more and less continuous supply of new feeder root nematodes associated with citrus, with the exception of root-knot nematodes, do not seem to form cyst or have a comparable resting state.

Disease recognition and crop loss

The nature of the root damage has been studied and described for T. semipenetrans (Schneideret al. 1964); R. similis (DuCharme 1959) and H. arenaria similis has been calculated at 40 to 60% for sweet oranges and 60-80% for grape fruits (Suit and Ducharme 1953). Losses incurred from damage caused by T. semipenetrans are just as real and continuous as those caused byR. similis but not great on the individual tree. T. semipenetrans, because of world wide distribution, is the most important nematode pathogen of citrus and is the cause of virtually immeasurable loses.

225

Nematode host relationship

The groups represented are:

a) Ectoparasitic nematodes: Of the nematodes associated with citrus that belongs to this group, B. longicaudatus is only one for which there is evidence of pathogenicity (Standifer and Perry 1960).

b) Endoparasitic nematodes: Radopholus similis and Pratylenchus brachyurus are proven pathogens of citrus typical of this group.

c) Semi penetrating sedentary nematodes: T. semipenetrans is typical of this group.

In relation to citrus agriculture, the endoparasitic and fixed semi-embedded nematodes are the ones that are most likely to be carried long distance to new locations in or on nursery trees. The nematodes in these two categories are able to survive periods of stress and escape the hazards of transportation. Sheltered by the most interior of the roots, they are always in physical contact with a food supply, and their eggs are deposited either inside or on the surface of the roots in contact with food supply. Since these nematodes are either completely sheltered or partially shielded by citrus roots, they are more difficult to contact and destroy than the free living nematodes exposed in the soil.

Spread and distribution

T. semipenetrans, R. similis and other nematodes have been carefully, perhaps even tenderly, transported and distributed throughout most tropical countries where citrus is cultivated. The spread of these nematodes to new locations have been accomplished by transporting parasitized plants with adhering moist soil. Machinery and tools for working citrus grove soil also may be the means for carrying nematodes to new locations within the same grove or to near by citrus plantings. Irrigation water, especially when applied in furrow irrigation, is likewise a means of dispersing T. semipenetrans.

Nematode parasites on their own power can and do migrate through the soil, gradually expanding an area of infestation. The rate of spread ranges from a few centimetres per year for T. semipenetrans to approximately 15-17 metres per year for R. similis (Suit and Ducharme 1953).

Longevity and survival

Radopholus similis is able to survive up to 6 months in soil free of citrus and host roots (Tarjan 1960). Tylenchulus semipenetrans has been known to have survived for atleast 10 years in soils free of citrus but not other plants (Baines et al. 1959).

The life span of individual nematodes feeding on citrus roots is governed not by the longevity of the tree but by the life of the feeder roots which are relatively short Lived. Even though new rootlets are rapidly regenerated following drought, attack by insects, nematodes, fungi and bacteria, the premature death and putrefactive rot of parasitized rootlets are factors that abbreviate the life span and productivity of female nematodes. Longevity and survival of nematodes in absence of citrus roots is a factor that should be considered in any efforts made to reduce their numbers or eradicate them from citrus grove soils.

226

Host range

In relation to citrus, 1275 kinds were tested in a survey for hosts of the race of R. similis that causes spreading decline of citrus in Florida; all were found susceptible (Ford et al. 1960). More than 200 kinds of non-citrus plants, cultivated and wild, are also hosts of R. similis. Once a grove becomes infested with any of these parasites, it is likely that these nematodes could not only survive indefinitely in that soil but also could migrate into adjacent areas and become established on native vegetation in undeveloped areas.

Much data are needed regarding host range of parasitic nematodes on species of citrus and genera of plants related to citrus including varieties and hybrids, especially those used for rootstocks. Such knowledge is fundamental to determining control procedures based on use of resistant varieties where chemical methods may be neither possible nor practical.

Physiological race

Only R. similis (DuCharme and Birchfield 1956) and T. semipenetrans (Baines et al. 1967) have been found to include races that can be separated by the kinds of hosts parasitized. In R. similis,one race has been identified that attacks citrus and banana, and another race that is pathogenic to banana, but not to citrus (Ducharme and Birchfield 1956). At present, the race of R. similispathogenic to citrus occurs only in Florida.

There are at least four biotypes of the citrus nematode based on the host range that, in addition to citrus, includes the agricultural crops like persimmon, olive and grape. The citrus biotype is the most common and readily attacks citrus, olive, grape and persimmon but not Poncirus trifoliata.The "Poncirus" biotype attacks all of these hosts except olive. The "Mediterranean" biotype is similar to the "Citrus" biotype except that it does not parasitize olive. The "Grass" biotype does not attack citrus. The existence of physiological races should be considered when selecting citrus clones for resistance to nematodes.

Control

One of the most effective means of controlling nematode parasites of citrus is to prevent the spread of these pests to new areas. This is being done in the U.S.A. by maintaining citrus nurseries free of both T. semipenetrans and R. similis (Poucher et al. 1967), and more recentlyHemicycliophora arenaria (McElory and Van Guindy 1967) and by imposing effective quarantine restrictions and inspection to prevent the transportation of infected nursery trees and soil from one place to another. Machinery and tools to work the soil in infested citrus are also means by which nematodes are transported and, therefore, equipment should be cleaned carefully before moving from infested areas (Tarjan 1957).

Natural obstacles such as rivers, oceans and deserts are effective barriers preventing the migration of nematodes from one citrus area to another. Barriers on a smaller scale are being used to confine R. similis within limited areas of infestation (Poucher et al. 1967). These man-made barriers surrounding an infested area consist of a strip of land 3 to 8 m wide, free of citrus trees, and treated with a nematicide at 6 months intervals to keep the soil in the barrier zone free of roots as well as burrowing nematodes. The surface of the soil is also treated with herbicides to keep the barrier free of all plant growth. A

227

biological barrier composed of a band of resistant citrus trees or a non-host of R. similis has been suggested to block the migration of R. similisfrom infested areas (DuCharme and Suit 1956; Ford 1967).

Attempts are being made to eradicate R. similis from infested groves on Lakeland fine sand in Florida by the "pull and treat" method (Poucher et al. 1967). This procedure involves destruction of all trees in an area overlapping the infested site by at least 16 m in all directions and removal of as many roots as possible from the soil.

The cleaned soil is treated with 60 gallons of DD per acre (650 litres per ha), and the area is then kept free of all vegetation for two years. After the period of fallow, the site is replanted preferably with trees grafted on a tolerant rootstock.

Treating trees in place with non-phytotoxic rates of nemagon to kill T. semipenetrans has been effective to reduce, but not eradicate, the population from infested citrus groves (O' Bannon and Reynold 1967).

Resistant varieties

Virtually no immunity to T. semipenetrans and R. similis has been found within the genus Citrus.There is resistance to T. semipenetrans by some clones and some hybrids of Poncirus trifoliata.Tolerance to R. similis has been found in several individual trees and these have been propagated and released (Ford and Feder 1964). The situation with reference to H. arenaria is not so dismal. C. aurantium, C. sinensis and P. trifoliata are resistant. Finding a species of Citrusor an individual citrus tree resistant to one species of nematode parasite is no assurance that the citrus clone will be resistant to other nematode species.

Viral Diseases of Citrus:

Viral and related pathogens occurring on the tropical fruit crops

Sl. No.

Fruit crop

Type of pathogen Morphology of the

pathogen

Vector Name of the disease

1 Citrus Bacteria Spirillium Leaf hopper

Stubborn

2 Citrus Phytoplasma Pleomorphic - Blastomania

3 Citrus Phytoplasma Pleomorphic - Rubbery wood

4 Citrus Virus Filamentous Aphids Tristeza

5 Citrus Virus Filamentous Aphids Psorosis (blind pocket, concave gum)

6 Citrus Virus Spherical ? Infectious variegation

7 Citrus Virus Filamentous? ? Crinkly leaf

8 Citrus Virus ? ? Leaf curl

9 Citrus Virus Spherical? Aphids Mosaic

10 Citrus Virus Bacilliform ? Mosaic

228

11 Citrus Virus - Aphids Vein enation, woody gall

12 Citrus Virus - Aphids Leathery leaf

13 Citrus Virus - ? Yellow corky vein

14 Citrus Virus - ? Bud union crease

15 Citrus Viroid Nucleic Acid ? Exocortis

16 Citrus Virus Filamentous ? Ring spot

17 Citrus Virus Spherical Aphids Satsuma dwarf

18 Citrus Virus - ? Impietratura

(Jagadish Chandra.K and S.J. Singh (1997)

Citrus

Several viral, viroid and phytoplasma diseases have been recorded in citrus, however, only the important ones are described below.

Citrus Tristeza Virus (CTV)

The name tristeza was coined by Moreira in 1942 in Brazil. It is a Portugese word meaning " Sad Disease". In fact, CTV was prevalent from antiquity on the citrus plants cultivated in China and Japan. As CTV is not transmitted by seed, the early establishments of this crop, which were grown from the seeds, were relatively less infected. From the records, it appears that the spread of CTV in most citrus growing areas was a man- made problem caused by the introduction of infected bud wood from the Far East which, of course, is the natural home of most of the cultivated species of Citrus (Wallace et al. 1956).

The first descriptions of the symptoms of CTV have been recorded on sweet orange scions grafted on to sour orange rootstocks in the form of sudden wilting and drying of all leaves. In grown up orchards, the symptoms vary from orchard to orchard and appear to be influenced by the scion variety and the rootstock used. Decline of the tree is associated with tristeza. The chief symptoms on the susceptible rootstock-scion combination are the partial or complete suppression of new flushes of growth and appearance of various types of leaf discoloration. The leaves become chlorotic turning to various shades of yellow. The leaves curl lengthwise and upwards. The affected trees exhibit severe root injury.

All isolates of CTV do not exhibit symptoms of visible decline. In fact, many mandarin and sweet orange trees raised from seedlings have remained infected but symptom free. CTV exists in nature in the form of many strains and causes a variety of symptoms like mild or severe, seedling yellows, corky vein, etc. Most strains also cause stem pitting and root pitting on the susceptible plants. Reduced fruit size and tree decline are the symptoms of CTV of which stem pitting and root pitting are the most important symptoms.

CTV is transmitted by several species of aphids. Among them, Toxoptera citricida is the most efficient vector. The virus is also readily transmitted by grafting and budding. A few species of dodder can also transmit CTV. Mexican lime is the best indicator plant for CTV, as on this plant the virus induces chlorotic flecks on the leaves and many strains of CTV also cause stem and root pitting.

The virus has been purified and monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies are commercially available. Serological indexing of CTV has become a dependable tool for many research, extension and laboratory

229

purposes. CTV particles are long flexous rods measuring 11 × 2000 mm and they belong to the Closterovirus group (Kitajima 1965).

Psorosis

Psorosis is one of the oldest known citrus virus diseases. Several virus diseases like psorosis - A, concave gum, blind pocket, crinkly leaf, infectious variegation, Satsuma dwarf and mottle have been put under this group. (Chenulu and Ahlawat 1993).

Psorosis-A

This disease shows both bark and leaf symptoms. Leaf symptoms are generally expressed most vividly in sweet oranges and mandarins, but even in these cultivars they may be erratic. Symptoms are induced in young leaves by all psorosis causing pathogens. These range from chlorotic flecks, vein banding, general mottling, distinct chlorotic patterns or oak leaf patterns.

Classical Psorosis A

It produces scaling and flecking of the bark on the trunks and limbs of the sweet oranges and grape fruit, and occassionally on the mandarin trees. Bark scaling does not occur on most other cultivars. This disease is transmitted only by grafting. The etiological agent of this disease is not known, but a Capillo virus has been isolated from field infected sweet oranges and Kinnow mandarin trees showing ring spot symptoms (Chenulu and Ahlawat 1993).

Blind Pocket

Blind pocket is known to occur in California, Brazil, Chile and in the Mediterranean regions. The affected limbs and the trunks of the trees exhibit blind pocket concavities.

Concave Gum

Concavities of various sizes are formed on the trunk and larger limbs of sweet oange and mandarins usually show severe gum symptoms with grey exudation on the cracked barks.

Crinkly Leaf

This disease is found on lemon trees in India (Ahalawat and Sardar 1976) and also in Australia. Affected trees show an upright restricted type of growth.

Infectious Variegation

This virus induces various degrees of mosaic like leaf variegation, crinkling, distortion and shoe string effect on the leaves of sour orange and lemon. The virus is mechanically transmissible from citrus to citrus and non-citrus hosts.

Satsuma Dwarf (Leathery Leaf)

This disease is of economic importance in citrus trees grown in Japan. The affected trees are stunted in growth and develop multiple stems with short internodes resulting in a bushy appearance. In India, a similar disease which causes leathery leaves occurs in mandarins which is transmissible both by grafting and by sap inoculation to Petunia and white sesamum. It is also transmitted by Aphis gossypii.

Vein Enation and Woody Gall Tumour

Galls are formed on Rangpur lime and in the Kagzi limes. This disease is transmitted from Kagzi lime to Kagzi lime by grafting (Mali et al. 1976a,b; Manjunath 1987).

230

Crinkly Leaf

This disease was observed as early as 1936. Fawcett and Bitancourt (1943) have described the symptoms. The disease causes vein flecking of young leaves and warped or blistered effects on older leaves. Sweet oranges when, inoculated from crinkly leaf infected lemon trees, develop psorosis veinal flecking of the young leaves. The disease is readily transmitted by grafting as well as by sap inoculation. It is also transmissible to Vigna sinensis and Crotalaria spectabilis. This disease was found in nature on Lisbon lemon, Nepali Round (C. limon), Washington Navel (C. sinensis), Rangpur Lime and Kagzi lime (C. aurantifolia), and mandarin (C. reticulata). This disease is caused by a strain of psorosis group.

Leaf Curl

Leaf curl has been reported from India and Brazil (Mali et al. 1976 b). It was found to be naturally occurring on various species and cultivars of citrus. The symptoms are curling and distortion of leaves resembling those caused by heavy aphid infestation and abundant production of weak sprouts with gum in their wood vessels over their union with branch. The affected trees flower profusely but produce only a few small fruits. The disease is transmitted by budding and grafting. Only lemon, sweet orange, mandarin and some limes are found to be susceptible.

Yellow Corky Vein

Yellow corky vein was observed on some sweet orange trees in India, resembling citrus yellow vein reported from USA (Reddy et al. 1974). Initial symptoms are yellowing of the midrib and the lateral veins. Leaves of graft inoculated sweet orange and Kagzi lime seedlings exhibit conspicuous corking of the midrib on the underside of the affected leaves resulting in the curling of the leaves. The disease is transmitted by grafting and also by sap inoculation.

Bud Union Crease

Bud union crease is wide spread in India, particularly on sweet oranges budded on rough lemon or Jatti Khatti rootstocks. The important symptoms include a depressed groove around the wood cylinder at the bud union. Later on, the ring shows up as an extremly corky tissue outgrowing girdle at the bud union. Only thin phloem layers function and prevent a complete collapse. Swelling at the bud union becomes prominent in advanced cases.

Impietratura

This disease is believed to be caused by a graft-transmissible virus. It is reported as a serious disorder of Citrus in the Mediterranean region (Ruggieri 1965). This disease occurs in India (Ahlawat et al. 1984) on C. decumana. The fruits of the affected trees are small, pear-shaped and hard, and when such fruits are cut, brown gummy deposits can be seen in the fruit albedo. Gum deposits were also found in the affected branches.

Citrus Mosaic

Citrus mosaic occurs in several parts of India. The disease is characterized by irregular green patches alternating with normal green areas. Fruits show depressed yellow patches and elevated green areas. The incidence of mosaic disease ranges from 10-70 % in affected areas. Several orchards with trees 4 to 14 years old declined and were found abandoned as they had become uneconomical. Presence of the disease in the nurseries is an indication that this disease is being spread through contaminated bud wood.

231

The disease is serious on sweet orange and pummello. The pathogen is transmitted by bud grafting and also by mechanical inoculation from citrus to citrus. Bacilliform virus measuring 130 × 30 mm have been observed under electron microscope (Murthy and Reddy 1975; Ahlawat et al. 1985, 1995). The mode of transmission needs further studies.

Citrus Ringspot

This is a new disease in India on Kinnow mandarin. It was probably introduced from California. It is found on sweet orange also. Citrus ring spot virus has been characterized to belong to Capillovirus group (Byadagi and Ahlawat 1995). The trees exhibit ringspot symptoms especially in sweet orange cultivars like Malta, Mosambi, Chini, Kinnow mandarin and Kagzi Kalan. The symptoms are found on the mature leaves and the rings may be one or more in each leaf with green colour in the centre. Affected fruits may also show such rings.

Citrus Blastomania

It was first noticed on Rangpur lime (C. limonia). The disease causes extensive sprouting of buds and multiple shoot development on the affected branch. The disease was observed in Kagzi lime also. The foliage will be reduced in size, chlorotic and premature shedding will leave the plant naked with bare branches or with reduced foliage. Multiple sprouts appear on the twigs which further develop into weak shoots and exhibit witches broom symptoms (Mali et al. 1975).

The disease is transmitted by budding and the vector is unknown. Pleomorphic organisms resembling phytoplasma were observed in the phloem seive tubes of the midrib of the infected plants (Sharma and Singh 1988).

Rubbery Wood

The disease is characterized by an unusual flexibility of the branches which droop down to the ground. This is due to the reduced lignification of the xylem vessels. The leaves exhibit veinal and inter-veinal chlorosis and show downward curling. Numerous shoots appear at right angles to the main stem and show die-back symptoms. The trees become unproductive and die within a few years (Ahlawat and Chenulu 1985). The disease is transmitted by grafting, no vector is known. In some parts of India, the disease incidence was found to be as high as 50%. The disease is transmissible by grafting to sweet orange, rough lemon and from lemon to lemon and from lime to mandarin. Ahlawat (1987) reported the association of phytoplasma with rubbery wood.

Citrus Greening

The disease is wide spread in India and in the countries of South-East Asia. In India, it may be considered as the most serious disease of Citrus and it is a major cause of die-back. The disease is called as blotchy mottle or greening in South Africa, yellow shoot in China, likubin in Taiwan, leaf mottling or leaf mottle yellows in the Phillipines, vein phloem degeneration in Indonesia, and greening in India, Pakistan and Thailand. No evidence of greening has been found in South America, North America, Mediterranean area of Europe, North Africa or the Middle East.

The symptoms expressed in sweet orange (indicator plant) consist of conspicuous yellowing of the leaf tissues adjacent to the leaf mid vein. This yellowing often spreads out along the main lateral veins and, in extreme cases, the interveinal areas also become yellow. Most of the leaves fall with the onset of summer and die-back of twigs will commence. Extensive blossoming is often associated. Field identification of greening is difficult as the symptoms may be confused with that of mineral deficiency. Fruits from affected trees are small, lopsided, rough skinned with aborted seeds. Acidity increases while

232

TSS is reduced. Analysis of symptomatic leaves show a higher content of potassium and a decrease in the content of calcium, magnesium and zinc. Infected trees show heavy leaf fall followed by out-of-season flushing and blossoming with die-back occurring in severe cases. Transmission of the greening agent by doddar to periwinkle is a useful technique for determination of the greening disease.

Among the commercial cultivars, sweet oranges and mandarins are more sensitive to greening than the groups of lemon and lime. Till date, no sources of resistance have been found. Greening is readily transmitted by grafting and by its psyllid vector Diaphorina citri. The latent period of the pathogen in the vector is about 8-12 days. The disease is also transmitted by doddar (Cuscuta reflexa).

It was demonstrated that a fastidious phloem restricted bacterium like organism (BLO) of the gram negative type is associated with the greening disease in India (Villechanoux et al. 1990). The BLO is a filamentous bacterium 1- 4 mm × 0.15 - 0.3 mm. Recently, it has been classified as Liberobacter asiaticum (XIII Conference of IOCV).

Biological methods

By inoculating the virus on a susceptible indicator plant the presence of the virus can be detected. On the indicator plant, the virus will produce symptoms like mosaic mottling, ringspots (necrotic/chlorotic), enations, distortions puckering and malformations.

Chemical methods

By utilizing stains like Azure A, Giemsa, Brilliant Green, the various inclusion bodies present in the tissue sections can be differentially stained and this helps to identify the virus. The advantage is that even a light microscope will be sufficient for this test.

Serological methods

By utilizing the antibodies produced in animals, a variety of detection tests can be made available like ELISA, DIBA, western blotting, etc. which will help to detect the virus unambigously.

Molecular methods

These by far provide the most precise method of detection. A wide variety of detection methods like PCR, in situ PCR, probe hybridization and southern blotting are available.

Electron microscopy methods

This method provides the most reliable method for studying the morphology and structure of the viruses causing the disease. In combination with serological methods, immuno electron microcscopy provides a unique method to detect the viruses.

12.3. References: Sweet Orange-IPM

Ahlawat, Y.S.1987. Association of mycoplasma like bodies with Citrus Rubberywood Disease. Abstract presented in the 3rd Regional Workshop on Mycoplasma. 12 p.

Ahlawat, Y.S and V.V Chenulu. 1985. Rubberywood-an hitherto unrecorded disease of Citrus. Curr.Sci. 54:580-582.

Ahlawat, Y.S., V.V. Chenulu, N.K. Chakraborthy and S.M. Vishwanath. 1984. Occurrence of Impeiteratura disease of Citrus in India. Curr. Sci. 53:384-385.

233

Ahlawat, Y.S., V.V. Chenulu, S.M. Vishwanath and K.K. Pandey. 1985. Studies on a mosaic disease of Citrus in India. Curr. Sci. 54:873-874.

Ahlawat, Y.S., P.P. Pant, B.E.L. Lockert, M. Srivastava, N.K. Chakraborthy and A. Varma. 1995. Association of a badha virus with Citrus Mosaic disease in India. Plant Disease. 80:590-592.

Ahlawat, Y.S. and K.K. Sardar. 1976. A note on the lemon crinkling leaf virus in India. Indian J. Hort. 33:168-169.

AICFIP report,1982

AICFIP report,1987.

Aiyappa, K.M. and K.C. Srivastava. 1967. Citrus die-back in India. ICAR Tech. Bull. (Agric.) 14:72 p.

Byadgi, A.S. and Y.S. Ahlawat. 1995. A new virus ringspot disease of citrus in India. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 65:763 -771.

Chenulu, V.V. and Y.S. Ahlawat. 1993. Virus and Mycoplasmal Diseases of Fruit Crops in India. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi, India.

Childs, J.F.L (eds.), 1968. Proceedings of the 4th Conference of International Organization of Citrus Virologists. University of Florida Press, Florida, USA.

Chadha,K.L. M.S. Randhawa, J.S. Chauhan and L.C. Knorr, eds.1970, Rootstocks and Citrus Decline in India.

Cheema, G.S. and S.S. Bhat. 1928. Diseases of citrus trees and its relation to the soils of western India. Bull No. 115, Deptt. of Agriculture, Bombay.

Chowdhuri, H. 1936. Diseases of Citrus in Punjab. Indian J. Agric. Res. 6:72-109.

Chowdhuri, S. 1951. Gummosis of Citrus in Assam. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 16:570-571.

Devarajan, M.R. 1943. Powdery mildew in orange in Coorg. Indian Farming 4:303-304.

Desai, M.V., M.K. Patel and M.J. Thirumalachar. 1966. Control of Citrus gummosis disease by aureofungin. Hindustan Antibiotic Bull. 9:97-98.

Grimm, G.R. and R. Whidden. 1966. Preventing infection from the foot rot fungus. Proc. Florida State Hort. Soc. 79:73-75.

Grimm, G.R. and A.F. Alexander. 1971. A comparison of three methods of applying methyl bromide for Phytophthora control in small plots. Proc. Florida State Hort. Soc. 84:52-55.

Fawcett, H.S. and A. Bitancourt, 1943. Comparative symptomatology of Psorosis viruses on Citrus in California. Phytopath. 33:837-864.

Frazer, L.R. and D. Singh. 1966. Root rot of citrus in India. Indian Hort. Oct.-Dec., 3. Frison, E.A. and C.A.J. Putter (eds.), 1989. FAO/IBPGR Technical Guidelines for the Safe Movement of Musa germplasm FAO /IBPGR, Rome. 23 p.

IBPGR. 1992. Annual Report 1991 IBPGR, Rome. 50 p.

INIBAP. 1994. Banana, plantains and INIBAP. International Network for the Improvement of Banana and Plantain. Annual Report. 1993.

234

Huang, M.D. and S.X. Li. 1989. The damage and economic threshold of citrus leaf miner, Phyllocnistis citrella Stainton to citrus. In Studies on the IPM of Citrus Insect Pests. Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. Academic Book and Periodical Press.

Jothi D.B., P.L. Tandon and A. Verghese. 1994. Hot water immersion as a quarantine treatment for Indian mangoes infested with the oriental fruitfly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (Diptera: Tephritidae) FAO Plant Protection Bulletin 42(3): 158-159.

Jothi Dhara, B., P.L.-Tandon and A. Verghese. 1990a. Evaluation of different plant oils and extracts against citrus leafminer, Phyllocrustis citrella Stainton. In Proceedings of National Symposium on Problems and Prospects of Botanical Pesticides in IPM, Rajamundry (A.P.), India, 21-22 January 1990.

Jothi Dhara, B., P.L. Tandon and A. Verghese. 1990b. Evaluation of different plant oils and extracts against citrus aphid, Toxoptera citricidus (Kirk.). Indian J. Plant Protection 18:251-254

Jagadish Chandra,K and S.J. Singh,1997-Management of Viral and related Diseases in Tropical Fruits

Jayanthi P.D. Kamala, Verghese Abraham,2007, Synergistic effect of insecticide-botanical mixtures on citrus leaf miner, Phyllocnistis citrella stainton, Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystems,Year : 2007, Volume : 13, Issue : 2,First page : ( 128) Last page : ( 133)

Kapoor, S.P. and J.C. Bakshi. 1967. Foot rot - A serious disease in Citrus orchards. Punjab Hort. J. 7:85-89.

Kitajima, E.W. 1965. Electron Microscopical Investigations on Tristeza. In Proceedings of the 3rd Conference of International Organization of Citrus Virologists. University of Florida Press

Lockart, B.E.L. and L.J.C. Autrey. 1988. Occurrence in Sugarcane of Bacilliform virus related serologically to Banana Streak Virus. Plant Disease 72:230-233

Magnoaye, L.V. and R.R.L. Espine. 1990. Note: Banana bract Mosaic, A new disease of banana. I. Symptomatology. Phillipine Agriculturist 73:55-59

Mali, V.R., K.G. Choudhury and S.D. Rane. 1975. Blastomania - a new bud transmissible disease of Citrus. Curr. Sci. 44:627-628.

Mali V.R., K.G. Chaudhury and S.D. Rane. 1976a. Vein enation virus disease in India. Indian Phytopath. 29:43-45.

Mali V.R., K.G. Chaudhury and S.D. Rane. 1976b. Leaf curl virus disease of Citrus in India. Sci. and Cult. 42:525-527.

Manjunath, K.L. 1987. Studies on Vein enation virus disease of Citrus in South India. Indian J. Plant Path. 5:121-125.

Mathews, R.E.F. (ed.). 1993. Diagnosis of Plant Virus Diseases. CRC Press, Boca Raton.

Moreira, S. 1942. Observacoes sobre a "tristez dos citrus on Podrido das radicolalas O. Biol. 8:269-272.

Murthi, V.D. and G.S. Reddy. 1975. Mosaic a transmissible disorder of sweet oranges. Indian Phytopath. 28:398-399.

Narayanan, E.S., B.R. Subba Rao and R.B. Kaur. 1957. Notes on the biology of the parasites of the leafminer of citrus plants. In Proceedings 44th Indian Science Congress, III:396-397.

235

Pandey, P.K., A.B. Singh, M.R. Nimbalkar and T.S. Marathe. 1976. A witches broom disease of Jujube from India. Plant Dis. Reptr. 60:301-303.

Pathak, V.N. 1980. Diseases of Fruit Crops. Oxford & IBM Publishing Co., New Delhi, 309 p.

Rajan, M.R.D. and K.M. Aiyappa. 1944. Leaf fall and fruit rot disease of orange. Indian Farming, 5:512-513.

Ram, B., R. Naidu, N.N.R. Rao, B.A. Ullasa, H.S. Sohi and D.G. Rao. 1977. Fungal diseases of mandarin in Malnad region of Karnataka and their control. Pp. 401-406 in Proc. Intern. Symp. on Citrus held at U.A.S., Hebbal, Dec. 1977.

Ram, B. and R. Naidu. 1978. Evaluation of some fungicides for the control of powdery mildew of citrus. Pesticides 12(7):28-30.

Ramakrishnan, T.S. 1954. Common Diseases of Citrus in Madras State. Publication of the Govt. of Madras, Madras.

Rao, P.G. 1954. Citrus diseases and their control in Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Agric. J. 1:187-192.

Rao, N.N.R. 1984. Growth and sporangial production in Phytophthora nicotianae var. parasitica. Indian Phytopath. 37(4):633-636.

Rawal, R.D. 1990. Fungal and bacterial diseases of fruit crops. A decade of research on diseases of horticultural crops under AICRIP (1980-1989). Presented at a group discussion of plant pathologists working in coordinated projects of horticulture, held at IIHR during June 14-15, 1990.

Rawal, R.D. and B.A. Ullasa. 1988. Occurrence of fungal diseases of Citrus in Bangalore. Paper presented in 7th National Citrus Seminar held at Beej Bhawan, New Delhi, during Nov 28-29.

Rawal, R.D. and A.K. Saxana. 1997. Diseases of dryland horticulture and their management. Silver Jubilee National Symposium Arid Horticulture, HSH/CCS HAU, Hisar. 5-7 December 1997.

Raychaudhuri, S.P., B. Ganguli and A.N. Basu. 1965. Further studies on the mosaic disease of mulberry. Plant Dis. Reporter 49:981.

Raychaudhuri, S.P., B. Ganguli and A.N. Basu. 1966. Virus diseases of mulberry in India. In Proceedings of 1st Symposium on Plant Pathology, Indian Pathological Society, IARI, New Delhi, India.

Raychoudhuri, S.P. and V.C. Lele. 1970. Producing disease free planting materials of fruits. Indian Farming 20:11-14.

Reddy, G.S., V.D. Murti and V.R.K. Reddy. 1974. Yellow corky vein: First report of a new graft transmissible disorder of Satgudi oranges in Andhra Pradesh. Indian Phytopath. 27:82-84.

Ruggieri, G. 1965. On the Impietratratura of Grape fruit. In Proceedings of 2nd Conference of International Organization of Citrus Virologists. University of Florida Press.

Samson, J.A. 1980. Tropical Fruits. Longman, London and New York.

Semancik, J.S. 1976. Citrus Exocortis disease, 1965-1975. In Proceedings of 2nd Conference of International Organization of Citrus Virologists. University of Florida Press.

Sharma, S.R. and S.J. Singh. 1988. Association of mycoplasma-like organisms with Citrus blastomania disease. Indian J. Pl. Pathol. 6:86-92.

236

Singh, S.J. (eds.). 1996. Pp. 47-92, 275-296. In Advannces in Diseases on Fruit Crops in India. Kalyani Publishers, Ludhiana.

Singh, S.J., R. Selvarajan and H.P. Singh. 1996. Identification and detection of banana streak virus by serology and electron microscopy (abstr.). International Conference on Challenges for Banana Production and Utilization. NRC Banana, Tiruchi, 25-26 September 1996.

Shivankar V. J., Rao C. N.Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystems,Year : 2010, Volume : 16, Issue : 1First page : ( 1) Last page : ( 4) Psyllids and Their Management- National Research Centre for Citrus, P.O. Box 464, Shankarnagar P.O, Nagpur -440 010, India.

Singh, R.S. and R.P. Sinha. 1954. The fruit drop in grape fruit (Citrus paradisi) due to Colletotrichum gloeosporioides. Sci. and Cult. 20:41-43.

Sokhi, S., S.S. Chahal and P.P. Singh. 1992. (eds.). Progress of Plant Pathological Research. Indian Society of Plant Pathologists, India, pp. 241-265.

Somani, R.B. and A.S. Patel. 1970. Note on the gummosis of lime (Citrus aurantifolia (Christm.) Swing) and its control. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 40:533-534.

Spiegel, S., E.A. Frison and R.H. Converse. 1993. Recent Developments in therapy and virus detection procedures for international movement of clonal plant germplasm. Plant Dis. 77:1176-1180.

Sreedevi K.2010,Survey and Surveillance of insect pests and their natural enemies in acid lime ecosystems of south coastal Andhra Pradesh, Pest Management In Horticultural Ecosystems,Year : 2010, Volume : 16, Issue : 2,First page : ( 131) Last page : ( 135)

Tandon, P.L. 1991a. Major achievements in Pest Management in tropical fruit crops, deficiencies in the present programme and new thrust for future. Pp. 36-37 in A Decades of Research on Pests of Horticultural Crops (1980-90). Group Discussion of Entomologists Working in the Coordinated Projects of Horticultural Crops, 28-29 January, 1991. Lucknow.

Tandon, P.L. 1991b. Problems and prospects of insect pest management in fruit trees. In Trends in Agricultural Pest management (G.S. Dhaliwal and R. Arora, eds.). Commonwealth publishers, New Delhi.

Tandon, P.L. 1995. Integrated insect pest management in mango. In Proceedings National Symposium on Integrated Pest Management and Environment organised by Plant Protection Association of India and FAO at Madras 2-4 February, 1995.

Timmer, L.W. and J.E. Fucik. 1975. The effect of rainfall, drainage, tree spacing and fungicide application on the incidence of citrus brown rot. Phytopath. 65(3):241-42.

Timmer, L.W: 1977. Preventive and curative trunk tratments for control of Phytophthora foot rot of citrus. Phytopath. 67(9):1149-1154.

Timmer, L.W., S.M. Garnsey, G.R. Grimm, N.E. El-Gholl and C.L. Schoulties. 1979. Wilt and die-back of Mexican lime caused by Fusarium oxysporum. Phytopath. 69:730-734.

Wallace, J.M. (ed.). 1959. "Citrus Virus Diseases" Proceedings of 1st Conference of International Organization of Citrus Virologists. University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences, Berkely, USA.

Wallace, J.M., P.C.J. Oerholzer and J.D.J. Hofmeyer. 1956. Distribution of viruses of Tristeza and other diseases of Citrus propagative material. Plant Dis. Reptr. 40:3-10.

237

Whiteside, J.O. 1973. Phytophthora studies on citrus rootstocks. Proc. 1st Int. Citrus Short Course, Sept. 24-29, held at Florida, Gainsville.

Villechanoux, S., M. Garnier and J.M. Bove. 1990. Purification of the bacterium associated with greening disease of citrus by immunoaffinity and monoclonal antibodies. Current Microbiology 21:175-180.

14. Development of format to collect data on current Pest and Disease management practices. (TOR: Deliverable.Item: II) Field diagnosis

Diagnostic surveys aim to gather and analyse information on crop production, plant protection, market practices, status, problems and opportunities. The surveys help agricultural extension workers to specify farmers’ needs, identify key problems needing attention, and advise on the kinds of support required to address the problems encountered. Generally, diagnostic surveys cover extensive areas, diverse vegetable agroecosystems, and a large number and wide range of farmers. This allows researchers and extension workers to discover and describe problems and opportunities faced by farmers in different localities. Results of field diagnosis help to promote informed decision-making in the development and use of pest management options.

Survey tasks and skills

Community consultation: Participatory diagnostic surveys involve talking with and listening to farmers and other stakeholder groups, and discussing and analyzing emerging issues with them. At most crop production sites, there are usually a number of farmers, each cultivating more than one crop on small plots. The farmers often share similar crop production problems and lack appropriate pest management information. Where the farmers work in organized groups, extension workers and representatives of these groups can work with researchers to jointly conduct diagnostic surveys. The participatory approach enables extension workers and researchers to focus their attention on farmers’ felt needs In participatory diagnostic surveys, survey teams should ideally be split into two sub-teams. One sub-team conducts community consultation with farmers’ groups, while the other sub-team with a farmer representative inspects crop field to specify field problems and opportunities faced by farmers at the locality. It is advisable to inspect fields at same sites once in the dry season and once in the rainy season. Dry season conditions, coupled with poor irrigation of crop field can promote a rapid increase in the abundance of certain pests, and thereby aggravate the damage caused by these pests. Wet season conditions, on the other hand, may result in expression of damage symptoms caused by certain plant pathogens.

Focus group interviews

Focus group interviews provide a forum to discuss and agree on various issues, such as crop production practices, pest problems, plant protection practices, marketing, and other socioeconomic issues at the

238

localities visited. The survey team uses a questionnaire which would have been pre-tested in the field prior to its use, to guide the discussions.

The questionnaire should be of reasonable length so as to retain the interest of respondents, who will certainly have other things to do on the day of the interview. The questionnaire needs to be in a format that allows for quick and easy data entry and analyses.

Model Questionnaire for Adoption of IPM:

A..Details of the respondents (Farmers)/ Details of Questionnaire (Minimum 100 farmers to be interviwed per crop cultivated)

Farmer’s Name/S/o,D/o/H/o/W/o:……………………………… Village/Block/Mandal/………………………………………District……………………………..

Land owned Area: Total Area (ha)………., Dry land……….,Wet Land……..,garden land…..

S.No

Details Season Extent (ha)

Nos.,/

Yes/No Name of Fertilizer/Pesticides/Biofertilizers/Biocontrol agents/Biopesticides

Quantity in Gms / Kgs

1 Name of the Crops raised (Seasonwise)-Extent cultivated cropwise

2 Variety used-Purchased froma.Govt., Depot, b.Privatec, C.Own

3 Irrigation: a.Well b.Canal C.Tank,

4 a.Nursery raised for the crop-Area raised(Cents), if any b.Seed sown date & Quantity) c.Seed treatment d.Seedling treatment

5 Age of the seedlings Planted

6 Main Field: a.FYM applied b.Fertilisers

239

c.Micronutrients d.Bio-Fertlisers, e.Pesticides Biopesticides (Seed/Seedling Treatmet

7 Details of purchase of fertilizers, PP Chemicals,Bio-Pesticides,Biocontrol agents( Govt., or Private),Private

8 Name of the Pests/ Disease Noticed Pests: Nursery a. b. c. MainField a. b. c. Diseases: Nursery a. b. c . MainField a. b. c.

9 Pests and Diseases identified a.by Farmers itself, b.by technical officers c.Others

10 ETL of the Pests/Diseases a.Pests b.Diseases

11. Pesticides / Fungicides/

240

Biopesticides/ Biocontrol agents (Quantity used

12 When applied a.Pesticides b.Fungicides c.Biopesticides d.Biocontrol agenys

13 No of times used a.Pesticides b.Fungicides c.Biopesticides d.Biocontrol agenys

14 Purchsed from a.Govt., b.Private agencies

15 Types of Sprayers used a.Knapsack b.Power sprayers

16. Traps used a.Pheromone traps b.Light traps c.Pit fall traps d.Bonefire.

15 Physical methods used to kill Pests/Diseases

16 Cultural methods used a.Intercropping b.Use of resisitant Varities c.Trap crops d.Spacing

15 Biocontrol agents used a.Parasites b.Predators c,Bio-Pesticides

16 Chemical methods a.Pesticides b.Fungicides c.Pyrethroids

241

d.Nematicides

17 Natural/Plant extracts/Botanicals a.neem products b.Any plant extracts,name the Plant

Signed by Farmers interviewed: Farmer’s groups member: Interviwer:

14.1. Safe use, Pesticides,in Andrapradesh -(TOR-Deliverables – Item: Iii,V and VI :Assessment of Pesticides, Assessment of equipments (Sprayers, Power sprayers etc, Present practices of farmers handling pesticides,)

Pesticides and Pesticide analysis in AndhraPradesh:

Specific Issues related to each State:

Andhra Pradesh:– The State was advised to utilize the balance amount of Rs.40.00 lakh released as grants-in-aid for SPTLs. It was reported that that there are 83 manufacturing units in the State and all manufacturing units are inspected twice in a year. SPTLs have been increased from 5 to 7 and capacity also increased from 7,000 to 7,500. The State was advised to consider the record of samples drawn during last 6 years and make data base and draw the samples on the basis of categorization of manufacturing units as has been done in Rajasthan. The State would file application for NABL accreditation by November 2010. Of 19 biocontrol laboratories, 14 are working satisfactorily. Out of Rs. 50 lakh released by DAC for SBCL, Rs.47.5 lakh had been utilized and utilization certificate furnished. Progress on biocontrol activities and seed treatment campaign may be reported as per format specified. PROJECTED DEMAND OF PESTICIDES FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 AS FURNISHED BY STATES/UTs(ChemicalPesticides)

S.No

State & Zone

Projected Demand for 2010 – 11 ( MT Technical Grade) Khariff Rabi Total

1 AndhraPradesh 700 600 1300 South one ( Source – States/UTs ( Zonal conference on inputs Rabi, 2010)

242

Consumption of Pesticides during 2009-10 S.No

State & Zone

Consumption ( MT Technical Grade) Khariff Rabi Total

1 AndhraPradesh 346 669 1015 South one

NUMBER OF SALE POINTS FOR DISTRIBUTION OF PESTICIDES IN VARIOUS STATES/UTs AS ON 01.08.2010

S.No

State & Zone

DISTRIBUTION POINTS

State Department of Agriculture

CooperativeAgros/ Other Institutes

Private Trade

Total

1 AndhraPradesh & South one

Nil 522 Nil 12103 - Dealers 975- Distributor

13600

ANALYSIS OF PESTICIDE SAMPLES IN STATE PESTICIDES TESTING LABORATORIES

(2006-07 to 2010-11)- A. Samples analysed, M- Misbranded Samples

State

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Samples A M A M A M A M A M

Andhrapradesh 6,304

92 6685 55 6669 54 6735 81 75 6

ANALYSIS OF PESTICIDE SAMPLES IN Central PESTICIDES TESTING LABORATORIES (2006-07 to 2010-11)-A.Samples analysed, M- Misbranded Samples

Andhrapradesh 93

41

45 34 40 22 58 31 47 15

Endosulfan*:- Endosulfan has been banned by the supreme Court of india w.e.f. 13-05-2011 for production, use & sale all over India till further orders vide ad-Interim order in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 213 of 2011.

243

Utilization of Pesticides ( in MTs) Year Pesticide Consumption(Active Ingredient) 2001-02 3850 2002-03 3401 2003-04 2333 2004-05 2781 2005-06 1918 2006-07 1394 2007-08 1541 2008-09 1381 2009-10 1015 2010-11)Upto September) 561 (Source:Agrl., Department-Socio-Economic Survey-Andhrapradesh Government) Pest Surveillance and Advisory System:

DAC has constituted National Pest Surveillance and Advisory Unit (NPSAU) at National level and suggested State Governments to set up State Pest Surveillance and Advisory Unit (SPSAU) and District Pest Surveillance and Advisory Unit (DPSAU) at state and district levels respectively. So far AP, Gujarat, Haryana, Maharashtra, UP, Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Mizoram, West Bengal and Karnataka have constituted SPSAU/ DPSAU.

AGRICULTURE: a) COTTON - MINI MISSION –II (MM-II) OF TECHNOLOGY MISSION ON COTTON (TMC) (2008-09)

Area of operation :In Andhra Pradesh the scheme is under implementation in 18 districts viz. Vizainagaram East Godavari, West Godavari, Krishna, Guntur, Prakasam, Anantapur, Kurnool, Kadapa, Ranga Reddy, Nizamabad, Medak, Mahabubnagar, Nalgonda, Warangal, Khammam, Karimnagar and Adilabad.

Surveillance and Monitoring of disease and pests:

The detection of pests and diseases for their management at threshold level is of paramount importance for reducing crop losses. Surveillance and monitoring are the most important aspects in pest management. Pest scouting should be done at weekly intervals on a random sample of 20 plants per acre in the early stage of the crop. The weekly surveillance and monitoring report on the situation of insect pests and diseases will help the district level extension workers in taking proper decision on crop protection schedules and remedial measures. Subsidy is available per scout Rs 500/-per month for 5 months only during the cotton crop season. An amount of Rs. 1.00 lakh/district is allocated to East Godavari, Krishna, Guntur, Prakasam, Kurnool, Nalgonda, Warangal, Khammam, Karimnagar and Adilabad districts for surveillance and monitoring of diseases and pests.

244

Supply of bio-agents / bio-pesticide:

Bio-agents and botanical pesticides are gaining importance in plant protection in view of IPM concept. Hence, 50% subsidy limited to Rs. 900/- per ha will be provided for supply of bio-agents such as Trichogramma, Chrysoperla, Trichoderma, NPV, Bt. solution and botanical insecticides such neem oil, neem derivatives, sesamum oil etc.,

Supply of Sprayers:

Sprayers play vital role in effective spraying of p.p. chemicals in plant protection,Hence, subsidy will be provided for distribution various types of sprayers. Hand operated sprayers: 50% subsidy limited to Rs. 800/- per unit. Power operated sprayer: 50% subsidy limited to Rs. 2000/- per unit. Taiwan sprayers : 50% subsidy limited to Rs. 7000/- per unit.

Survey Details of the Pesticides consumption and Pesticides Purchase and Equipments:

Since, as a IPM consultant, any detailed survey could not be taken on this subject, the results obtained from a survey could be taken as the condition and assessment of Pesticides in AndhraPradesh.The details were prepared based on the survey conducted in six villages in three mandals viz., Tadikonda, Medikonduru and Pedanandipadu in Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh. Why Guntur district? Andhra Pradesh consumes about 22.5 per cent of the total pesticides produced and marketed inIndia. Guntur district tops in the state with consumption of pesticides worth Rs 450 and 500 crores, during cropping seasons 2001-02 and 2002-03 respectively. Of this, major consumption is in two major commercial crops i.e., cotton and chillies (Crop Life India, 2005). The pesticideConsumption is going down in cotton with the introduction of Bt cotton but not in case of chilli.Many a times, the dry chilli exports from Guntur market were rejected because of pesticide residue problem. Hence, the need for such a project in Guntur district was felt.The safe use of pesticides project was implemented in Guntur district during the cropping season 2006-07 in six villages of Guntur district viz., Mandapadu, Visadala, Bandarupalli, GG Palem, Ravipadu, Gogulamudi. The project was supported by Crop Life Asia. The project was implemented with specific objective of Educating chilli farmers of selected villages on safe and judicious use of chemical pesticides by bringing awareness on use of safety gadgets while handling and spraying pesticides The study was conducted to know the extent of adoption of safe measures in use of pesticides following the above project. All the 150 chilli farmers participating in Crop Life India (CLI) sponsored safe use of pesticides and Integrated Pest Management project were taken as sample for the study. Status of purchase and store of pesticides It was expressed all the respondent farmers purchasing pesticides from authorised dealers. A good sign was observed that all the respondent farmers are purchasing pesticides from authorised dealer only (Table 1). Another interesting development was 92.67 per cent of the respondents reading the packing slip attached on the pesticide bottle and about 89 per cent of them keeping the pesticide in store room and others also storing in the living room. But during discussions it was expressed that who are storing

245

in the living room also keeping the bottles on sunside (near to roof) which beyond the reach of children and pet animals Status of purchase and store of pesticides: (Table 1) S.No Utem Activity Response in Percentage1 Purchase Pesticides Authorised Dealer 100.00 2 Store Pesticide in Living House 12.00

Store Room 88.67 3 Pesticide_Packing Reading 92.67 It was observed from the responses that all the respondents used face/nose mask and about 80 per cent used head dress. No one used hand gloves and shoes. It is interesting to note that no one used recommended personal protection equipment. Recommended Personal Protection Equipments (PPEs) were not used by the farmers but expressed strong desire to use them if available at affordable cost and fit to local environment. Status of recommended Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) uses: It was observed from the responses that all the respondents were using face/nose mask and about 80 per cent are using head dress (Table 2). No one used hand gloves and shoes. It is interesting to note that no one used recommended personal protection equipment. The turban/towels were used as face/nose mask and head dress. But everybody expressed desire to use the recommended PPE but the availability was a big problem even on payment of cost and the PPEs’ made available to few farmers by pesticide firms were said to be not fit to this climate as results in heavy sweating. Hence, earlier attempts to adopt the protective dresses were failed. If the pesticide industry provides suitable PPEs at affordable price farmers expressed their desire to use them Table 2: Status of recommended personal protection equipment (PPE) use: (Table 2). S.No Item

% of respondents used

1 Face Nose mask 100 2 Head dress 83.33 3 Hand gloves 0 4 Shoes 0 Status of safe handling of pesticides All the respondents were mixing the chemicals using stirrer that is nothing but a stick of locally available and rinsing the empty containers and 96 per cent of them used the measuring cylinder for making an accurate dosage of spray fluid (Table 3). About 10 per cent of the respondents still resort to drink water/eat/smoke during spraying in spite of repeated advices.

246

Table 3: Status of safe handling of pesticides: (Table 3). S.No

Item % of respondents used

1 Measuring Cylinder 95.00 2 Mixing with timer 100.00 3 Drink/Eat/smoke 10.67 4 Rinse empty container 100.00 Status disposal of empty pesticide containers Regarding the disposal empty pesticide containers 50 per cent of them bury these in the field and rest are either buried or crushed and thrown in the field. Re-use of empty pesticide bottles was not in practice. About 80 per cent of the respondents used Taiwan sprayers. About 82 per cent of the respondents took bath and 74 per cent changed clothes after spraying pesticide and 82.67 per cent were aware of the colour triangle indication on the pesticide bottles. About 53.33 per cent expressed that they have knowledge on upkeep of the sprayers.Regarding the disposal empty pesticide containers 50 per cent of them were burying in the field it self and rest either bury or crush and throw in the field (Table 4). No one is reused the empty containers. The reasons expressed during discussions were quiet interesting to note that presentday chemicals are available in small bottles in highly concentrated forms (50ml, 100ml etc), hence they are of no use in daily routines and other factor was the repeated advice from the CLIstaff and other extension functionaries. Status disposal of empty pesticide containers: (Table 4). S,No Item

% of respondents used

1 Re use 02 Field 16 3 Burn 50 4 Bury 34 Type of Sprayers used by the respondents S.No

Item % of the respondents used

1 Taiwan sparayers 78.67 2 Akela sprayers 18.67 3 Power Sprayers 1.33

247

Knowledge on safe use of pesticides S.No Item

% of the respondents used

1 Upkeep of sprayers 53.33 2 Removal of obstacles from sprayer nozzles 100.00 3 Wash hands after spraying 100.00 4 Take bath after spraying 82.00 5 Change clothes after spraying 74.00 6 Health problems 16.00 7 First aid knowledge 36.33 8 Colour traiangle Knowledge 83.67 ( Gurava Reddy,K. J.Satish babu2 and M Chandra Sekhara Reddy3-2011,,1Scientist (Extension), Scientist (Plant Pathology) and Scientist Economics),Regional Agricultural Research Station, Lam, Guntur, ANGRAU, Hyderabad, A.P=AWARENESS OF CHILLI (CAPSICUM ANNUAM L.) FARMERS ON SAFE USE OF PESTICIDES: A CASE OF CROP LIFE INDIA (CLI) PROJECT FARMERS FROM GUNTUR DISTRICT OF ANDHRA PRADESH- International journal of Applied Biology and Pharmaceutical Technology-Volume: 2: Issue-2: April-June -2011)

Andhra Pradesh farmers indict pesticides and intensive farming:

Andhra Pradesh and the Prajateerpu

Andhra Pradesh (AP) is India’s fifth largest state, with about 70 per cent of the population engaged in agriculture (some 10 million households). Over 80 per cent of those are small and marginal farmers and landless labourers who own a mere 35% (3.5 million hectares) of the total 10 million hectares of ultivated land. These farmers also own around 70% of the 20 million cattle in the area. In all agricultural settings across AP, women play a greater role than men in agricultural work and food preparation, looking after almost 80% of the day-to-day livestock management.

The Prajateerpu – a citizens’ jury workshop held in Andhra Pradesh (AP) – severely criticized the new policy for agriculture and rural futures developed as part of the government of AP’s Vision 2020. Farmers were extremely critical of the promotion of pesticides and agro-chemicals, and their consequences, and also rejected GM technology.

The citizens’ jury

The central component of this exercise in democracy through deliberation was a citizens’ jury made up of representatives of small and marginal farmers from AP, small traders and food processors and consumers. To reflect the reality of rural Andhra Pradesh, most of the jury members were small and marginal farmers and included indigenous (known in India as ‘adivasi’) people. Over two thirds of the jury members were women.

248

Pesticides/ Chemicals

In verdicts expressed at the end of the citizen’s jury, farmers desired an agriculture ‘that does not need toxic chemical pesticides’(2), that is diverse rather than based on monocultures. Jury members expressed concerns about agrochemicals in farming, several mentioning mild to severe forms of pesticide poisoning experienced on a daily basis, or describing the inferior food quality of crops grown with high chemical fertiliser inputs. All referred to the debts of farmers on the pesticides treadmill, and the many farmer suicides in AP. The farmers concluded that the AP government policies were socially and ecologically irresponsible. But pesticides are part and parcel of the process of modernisation spelt out in Vision 2020, according to Professor MV Rao: The questionnaire should be of reasonable length so as to retain the interest of respondents, who will certainly have other things to do on the day of the interview.

The questionnaire needs to be in a format that allows for quick and easy data entry and analyses.Earlier one of you was talking about the ill effects of pesticides and chemical fertilisers, and getting into debt. But you cannot stop using them completely. The crops need some protection… This is the first time in the state that a document like Vision 2020 has been presented… The loans from the World Bank would be used to modernize agriculture.’

Pesticide Residue survey for vegetable crops in and around Hyderabad,Andhrapradesh: The largest vegetable-cultivating districts in the state are Kurnool, East Godavari, Rangareddy, Chittoor, Guntur, Mahbubnagar and Medak in that order. Cuddapah and Prakasam districts show relatively higher production even with lesser extents under vegetable cultivation as per the department’s data. The area of vegetable cultivation hovered around 2.2 lakhs to 2.5 lakh hectares during the past several years, while the production ranged from 27 lakh metric tonnes to 38 lakh metric tonnes. A compilation of data for some major vegetables [sourced from the Horticulture departments Information], from the main districts surrounding Hyderabad [Rangareddy, Medak, Nalgonda and Mahboobnagar], gives the following picture. The trends from previous years, the largest-cultivated vegetables around Hyderabad are Chillis, Tomato, Onion, Bhindi (Okra) and Brinjal in that order.Peri-urban vegetable cultivation is an important agricultural activity for many small and marginal farmers around Hyderabad. Such vegetable cultivation takes place in villages of neighboring districts like Rangareddy, Mahbubnagar, Medak and Nalgonda. Vegetables produced around the city are brought to some major markets on a daily basis from the villages. These include markets like Bowenpalli market, Gaddiannaram market, udimalkapur market, Mozamjahi market, Rythu Bazaars etc., which are under the control of the Agriculture Market Committee of Mozamjahi market. The rythu bazaars are supposed to provide space for farmers to market their produce directly to consumers without having to go through middlemen, through transportation arrangements made directly from the villages to the markets. In addition, vegetables like potatoes come from slightly distant production locations including from other states. Consumption data was obtained from one large market to understand the picture of vegetablewise consumption. The following is the information obtained from the Agricultural Market Committee [AMC] at Mozamjahi market in 2004-05 and the last column gives a picture of the average monthly consumption of vegetables from this market in kilogram

249

The average monthly consumption of vegetables from this market ranges from around 1250 Tonnes to 1600. In addition, the following data (2005-06) shows that potatoes, tomatoes, green chillis, carrot and cabbage are some of the most consumed vegetables in the city in that order. Pesticide Use in Vegetable Cultivation around Hyderabad Data on pesticide use in vegetable cultivation was obtained by visiting villages and holding group discussion with vegetable growers in villages Aziznagar, Pedda Mangalaram. The following was the information obtained with regard to the pesticide use at the farm level for some select crops. Many of these pesticides are not recommended and registered with CIB for use against the particular pest in that crop. Some examples are given in the following tables (names in red font are brand names). Pesticide usage in Tomato: (Pesticides, Residues & Regulation in India) Village

Pest

Pesticide

Dosage [ml/l]

Frequency of application

CIB & RC Status

Peddamangalar am, Moinabad

Fruit borer Endosulfan 30-40 ml per tank 3 times NR

Chloropyripho 30-40 ml per tank 3 times NR Monocrotopho 20-30 ml per tank

along with other pesticide

NR & banned

Fungal diseases

Dithane M4 10g per tank. 10 tanks per acre

2 times

NR

Sriramnagar, Moinabad

Fruit borer Endosulfa 15ml NR

Nuvacran 25-30ml 4 times NR Mono+endosul

fan 20+15-20

Deltamethrin +triazophos + Endosulfan

5g + 15 to 20 ml /tank

NR

Aziz nagar, Moinabad Mandal

Fruit borer Deltamethrin+triaz ophos

50 ml/l 5 times NR

Allawada, Shabad

Fruit borer Thimmet 1 kg/bag of DAP NR

Endosulfan 30ml 7-8 sprays [rainy season] and 2-3 sprays [Summer

NR

Monocrotophos

25ml NR & Banned

Cypermethrin 30/40/50 ml NR Nagireddyguda, Moinabad

Fruit & Shoot bore

Rocket 40ml 10-15 spray NR

Deltamethrin 50ml NR

250

+triazophos Endosulfan 40ml The food safety assessment of pesticides is de-linked from its registration process – registration happens without ADIs or MRLs being first fixed and without MRL-fixation flowing out of chronic toxicity data. Even in cases where MRLs are fixed, they may not be fixed for all the commodities for which registration has been allowed. The safety assessment from a long term perspective related to health impacts – whether it is related to potential endocrine disruption or teratogenecity or immune system disruption or reproductive health damage and so on. Registration happens based on the developers’ data and not independent data generated. At another level, there is an institutional conflict of interest with the Ministry of Agriculture, with a mandate of increasing agricultural production through the use of any technology, expected to regulate pesticides from an environmental and health point of view. The ones who register pesticides have hardly monitored pesticide residues nor is there a system of periodic, automatic review of registered pesticides. It is not clear whether the AICRP on pesticide residues feeds into decision-making related to registration and licensing of pesticides. Further, the system of registering pesticides without MRLs being fixed continues. The current research effort iscovered that pesticide residue data is not pro-actively shared with the public nor does it inform regulation related to registration and use. Most surveillance related to pesticide contamination is not shared with the public. In fact, data is presented mostly in forms that make pesticide residues look safe. Official pesticide residue surveillance system’s findings do not match with independent studies in the country. There seems to be under-reporting of the level of contamination of Indian products and this is reflected by frequent reports of Indian agricultural export consignments being rejected in other countries due to high levels of residues detected in such consignments. The greater question of whether MRLs fixed are safe or not, from the point of chronic toxicity remains. As CSE’s work on MRLs, TMDIs and ADIs has shown, the MRL-fixation itself is questionable in the country in addition to the fact that MRLs are yet to be fixed for many pesticides! Even if MRLs are fixed for all crops for all commodities they are used on and even if such MRLs are followed, there is no guarantee that the cumulative intake of such pesticide residues will be within the Acceptable Daily Intake levels! Further, there is an additional complication allowed through law, in the form of Provisional Registration. Section 9 (3) (b) of the Insecticides Act allows provisional registration of some pesticides without sufficient data generated for assessing safety or efficacy. Pretty often, there are many violations witnessed in the use of such a provisional registration. A popular pesticide like Avaunt (brand name of Indoxacarb) was introduced through such a provisional registration and witnessed aggressive marketing even during that stage. There is also the issue of too many chemicals – that too broad spectrum - being allowed for use for pest control of a specific pest on a specific crop. As CSE has pointed out in its materials, too many chemicals registered means increased costs of regulation and surveillance too. Such costs have to be met out of the tax-payers’ money of course. It is not clear how “restricted use” is actually regulated on the ground, after designated a pesticide for ‘restricted use’. Though there are some regulations that the state government brings in for enforcement using its own authority of regulating marketing [like the Andhra Pradesh state government prohibiting marketing of synthetic pyrethroids for use on cotton crop before September each year], enforcement on the ground is weak of such measures too.

251

RECOMMENDATIONS As the above discussion shows, there are serious shortcomings in the regulatory regime governing pesticide registration and enforcement of such regulation. It becomes increasingly clear that the best regulation to assess and reduce the impact of pesticides has to come at the time of registration itself. Registration processes have to become transparent, broad based and open to public and scientific scrutiny. Such registration has to incorporate safer alternatives into its impact assessment processes. Further, registration should have an in-built mechanism of periodic reviews and should include comparative risk assessment methodologies before introduction of new pesticides. The systems of surveillance related to pesticide residues, resistance buildup in insects etc., have to organically feed into registration decisions. This is the system followed in several countries including some developing countries. Accountability mechanisms on the pesticide industry and the regulators have to be stringent in case of environmental health harms. Standard setting for ADIs and MRLs has to be cmprehensive. Better and adequate extension support to farmers is essential for the enforcement of standards. Serious curbing of the aggressive marketing that the pesticides industry engages in, in the pursuit of markets, is a pre-requisite for ensuring safe food for all Indians. There are more pesticides on the market than are needed for the same pest/crop in many cases, often confusing the farmers at the time of purchase. Irrational decisions are actually encouraged through such an environment. It is also clear that the agriculture research establishment is flouting various registration clauses in its violations, almost in competition with the pesticide industry itself. Liability for violations should apply to agriculture universities and other public sector institutions too. Finally, it is also clear that when data is generated for a pesticide, it is generated either for its efficacy or its economics or its safety. Such assessment is not done against established ecological alternatives that farmers are practicing to support the best alternative for farmers in terms of safety, affordability, sustainability and efficacy. Each individual chemical is assessed independently rather than being assessed for its very need to be registered as a pest management option vis-à-vis some ecological alternatives that are available with farmers. The Pesticides, Residues & Regulation in India Non Pesticidal Management [NPM] experience in Andhra Pradesh and its success is enhancing Farming livelihoods is appended. This experience on a large scale (of more than two lakh acres of farming being done by women farmers without the use of chemical pesticides) has more than adequately proven that pesticides are not inevitable in our farming. Any fundamental change related to pests, pesticides, pesticide residues and their regulation has to therefore begin by recasting the very pest management paradigm adopted and promoted in this country.

252

Frequently asked Questions and Answers for Pesticides and its residues: In order to provide knowledge about the pesticides and its use to protect the environment, the ollowing anticipated questions and appropriate answers are given below: Why should I always read the pesticide label?

Labels are printed sheets of information that are fixed to the container of pesticides. You should read the label so that you are aware of everything you must do to use the product safely so that you do not put yourself, consumers of your produce and the environment at risk.

All advice on the label has been thoroughly tested and has been reviewed and approved by independent regulatory bodies. It is important to read the label each time you buy the product as there may have been changes to either the advice notes or the conditions of use. Some conditions of use may be required by the law of your country or – if you export your produce - by the international markets.

What sort of information is put on a pesticide label?

The label states the pesticide’s ‘field of use’ that is – the pests [weeds, insects or diseases] against which it can be used and the crops in which it can be used. You should only use the pesticide to control the pests listed on its label and only use it on/in the crops listed on its label otherwise you may cause harm to the consumers of your food, your crop or the environment.

The label also states

• the maximum pesticide rate;

• the number of treatments that can be applied to any one crop;

• the harvest interval if relevant; and

• the personal protective equipment that the pesticide user must wear to protect him/herself when preparing and applying the spray solution.

Increasingly, advice is being given on labels on how to:

• prepare the spray solution; how best to

• apply the spray; how to

• wash the sprayer after use;

• discard waste solutions;

• manage spills; and

• control other potential hazards which may cause harm such as spray drift and point source pollution.

These labels are the most important source of information to you and are a vital link between you and the pesticide manufacturer. Specimen labels can be viewed here; http://www.cdms.net/LabelsMsds/LMDefault.aspx?ms=1,2,3,4

253

Why must pesticides only be used on the weeds, insects or diseases that are stated on the label?

Because these are the pests which the pesticide was designed to control and these are the only uses approved by regulators. A pesticide is only proven to be effective and safe when used for

• the control of pests named on the label; is

• applied at the correct rate; and

• in the way described on the label.

If you use a pesticide against the wrong [non approved] pests in the wrong crops in the wrong way, you are likely to cause damage to your crops and you may cause damage to your soil and the environment, to the consumers of your food, yourself and you may also increase the pest’s resistance to chemical control. For these reasons it is likely to be against the law of your country to use the pesticide against pests and in crops which are not listed on the label.

Why can pesticides only be used on the crops that are stated on the label?

For the same reasons that you should only use the pesticide on the pests that are stated on the label i.e. because these crops will be the only ones in which the pesticide is proven to be able to be used safely.

Damage to the crop can be caused by spraying a pesticide which was not designed for use on that crop or by getting too much pesticide on that crop - from over-spraying. Where this happens, the crop may absorb the chemical and be unable to process it. This can damage the structure of the plant, its vigour and yields. Most importantly, if the crop is to be used as food/fodder (as opposed to fuel/clothing), the pesticide, which has not been broken down to inactive chemical components(its residues) can still cause harm to the humans or animals that eat it or are in contact with it.

Pesticides are rigorously tested to assess the risk their use poses to human health, animal health and the environment. These tests include finding out the maximum level of pesticide residue which may be permitted to remain in a crop. Thus the chemical is tested with each crop separately. If a crop is not listed on the pesticide’s label it means that regulators have not assessed the potential harm that may result from the use of the pesticide on that crop, and more importantly that maximum residue levels (MRLs) may not have been set for that crop and so any detectable residues would be illegal.

Non-approved use of a pesticide on a crop may not only cause harm but could lead to, to the penalty of serious legal charges. Unapproved use thus threatens not just that user’s trade but that of the country from which it has originated. Importing countries – and now many wholesalers and retailers conduct their own residue surveillance schemes to stop such practices.

Crops that are sprayed with pesticides must be sprayed in such a way that does not damage the crop nor harm consumers of the crop, (the operator or bystanders or the environment).

Why do I have to use the pesticide's prescribed rate? Does it matter if I put a bit more in? The stated rates on the label are the only ones for which the products’ use has been tested and approved. Increasing that rate is not likely to neither increase the effectiveness of that product nor

254

control other non listed pests. It will, however, increase the risk of harm and may lead to prosecutions if, for example, the operator is put at risk and/or if unacceptable residue levels were determined. What are pesticide residues?

The word residue has two meanings.

1. Residue’ refers to the active ingredient of the pesticide and its constituent parts that can be detected in a crop that has been sprayed. Residue levels are normally reduced over time as the plant grows and processes the chemical. The chemical may be broken down into further substrates – i.e. the breakdown products or chemical building blocks of these chemicals.

The maximum level of pesticide and/or its breakdown products which may remain in the harvested crop is known as the ‘Maximum Residue Level’ (MRL). The MRL is set by independent bodies and increasingly these are being agreed internationally.

When setting the MRL for a pesticide, regulators consider how the crop is going to be used post harvest. Thus permitted residue levels may vary between crops depending on whether the crop is consumed or processed/cooked and consumed or not. For example, lettuce, carrots, and many fruits that are likely to be eaten without cooking may have lower MRLs then those for cereal grains.

A period of time is set between the last application of the pesticide and harvesting, during which time the residue levels can be expected to have reduced to the MRL. This period of time is known as the harvest interval/post spraying interval (PHI).

2. ‘Residues’ may also refer to the spray liquid or pesticide that is retained after a sprayer or a pesticide container has been cleaned, or to detections of the pesticide in the environmental, eg soil residues, water residues.

What is spray drift? Why does it matter?

Spray drift is the movement of small airborne drops containing pesticide that are blown by wind from the area you are treating [the treatment zone/area] to another area usually downwind.

Spray drift is to be avoided because although the actual volumes of spray drift may be low, their presence or activity on sensitive plant/animal species, may cause harm. In addition:

• drift deposits may build up in one area to form a higher concentration of pesticide;

• drifting drops that land on non-sprayed vegetation may pollute and damage that vegetation. There are many reports of adjacent crops being damaged by drifting herbicide sprays and in some cases crops are reported as being contaminated or ‘tainted’ by pesticides and rendered unusable for food.

• Drifting drops may also pollute water in rivers and wells or deposit upon bystanders and buildings.

All pesticide users must take full care to avoid drift when spraying. If wind speeds are too high then operators must accept that they will either not have to spray at all or delay the application until weather conditions are better or it is safe to spray.

255

Many government led initiatives now evaluate and rank drift reducing nozzles and sprayers. The most effective of these may be used to spray closer to environmentally sensitive zones than could otherwise be done with conventional nozzles/sprayers. The section on nozzle selection and their optimised use may be useful. How is spray drift reduced? Operators using field crop sprayers with traditional nozzle designs reduce spray drift by using the larger size nozzles, lowering the spray pressure, spraying at slower speeds and making sure the boom is at the minimum height advised. The operator may also decide to delay or not to spray the last three swaths of a field since most spray drift losses result from the last three sprayed swaths

Operators using field crop sprayers can reduce drift more effectively with newer alternative nozzle designs such as those that induce air and produce coarser sprays which are less likely to drift. Some sprayers use air assistance whilst others have shrouds that cover the entire boom. Use of additives to reduce spray drift has also been popular; in general, these products increase the liquid viscosity to coarsen the drop sizes produced.

Air blast [mist blowers] sprayers reduce drift by adjusting air volumes and speeds to ensure crop canopy penetration yet without blowing the spray through the trees, The spray drop laden air is directed only where needed, by using sensor devices that detect where trees are missing.

Some [tunnel] sprayers are enclosed and thus retain the spray within. These can be used to treat smaller trees and bushes.

Knapsack sprayer users can use drift reducing nozzles shields and ensure the correct nozzle height.

What is water volume rate?

The water volume rate is the amount of spray solution [the pesticide and water mix] that is sprayed over a known area.

In most conventional uses, the amount or volume of water making up the solution is much greater than the amount or volume of pesticide. Thus the amount of water and the amount of spray solution are often regarded as the same when it comes to calculating the water volume rate or the spray solution rate.

Labels usually refer to water volume rates rather than spray solution rates and may state water volume rates such as 100 to 300 litres/hectare. This means that the pesticide must be diluted in and dispersed in water such that when the nozzles are correctly used - the water volume rate that you have chosen and have calibrated for – will, when sprayed from the nozzles uniformly over the treatment area, apply that known rate and therefore the treatment intended.

256

Why does run-off matter?

Run-off occurs when too much spray solution is applied and the spray deposit on the target (e.g. the leaf) is more than that surface can retain [hold back]. Theexcess pesticide runs off, is wasted and may contaminate your soil or pollute nearby waterways.

Normally, run-off increases when water volume rates applied are too high for the particular combination of crop and pesticide formulation. Thus several different water volume rates may be quoted on the label depending on the characteristics of the crop and/or the particular pesticide formulation being used. For instance lower water volume rates may be needed where the crop leaves are waxy and sloping downwards.

What is point source pollution? Why does it matter?

Pesticides are known to have polluted surface water (creeks, rivers, ponds) at a level that puts aquatic organisms at risk. Similarly, pesticides in ground water may threaten drinking water quality.

Pesticides can pollute water in many ways but research shows that one important route is that from point sources rather than by diffuse losses. For example, point source losses are for example, those that arise from pesticide spills onto concrete yards. Yard drainage then directs that spill into open or closed channels that may feed directly into a stream or permeate the soil. Every care must be taken to avoid such pollution routes.

Research indicates that point source pollution is an operator related problem whilst that diffuse losses are largely weather based. Diffuse losses of pesticide happen for example, when pesticide applications are made when soil and/or weather conditions are [or become], too wet to retain the pesticide. The pesticide may enter field drains that take excess water to streams and rivers.

Why should I spray pesticides better?

Poor spraying will waste money by wasting pesticide, operator time and machinery wear and tear. Poor spraying may damage the crop and risk consumer safety as well as threatening the environment and operator and bystander safety. For example:

1. Using excessive rates may damage crops and may cause unacceptably high residue levels.

2. Poor spraying may increase drift risks when small drops are blown in the wind onto other crops, buildings, bystanders and/or water.

3. Using water volume rates that are too low, will increase the pesticide rate which is a risk to operators and others if sprayers leak and/or pipes burst.

Our growing knowledge is helping us to develop better pesticides, and develop better application technology (sprayers and nozzles). Together this means we canuse new spraying techniques and employ better spraying practices and thuslower pesticide rates lessen operator exposure, lower residues and have healthier, greater yielding crops and protect the wider environment.

257

How do I spray pesticides better?

As an operator your main aim is to get the spray onto the surface to be treated, such as a leaf, stem or fruit, at the correct rate and cover (distribution pattern); to be safely deposited and thus stay on the surface to be treated, and not to roll down or bounce off the surface. This is achieved by using

• the right pesticide;

• in the right crop;

• at the right rate [i.e. the prescribed rate as shown on the label];

• properly mixed using the water volume rate advised;

• using the right nozzle (for the pest, pesticide, crop characteristics, growth stage and weather conditions);

• to produce the required drop size (spray quality); and by using

• properly calibrated, well maintained (not leaky) equipment; and using

• best spraying practices.

Pesticides should be sprayed in a manner that ensures only the surfaces that are to be treated are sprayed (e.g. the leaves of the crop) and not the operator, bystanders, nearby crops, hedges fields or streams etc.

What is spray quality?

Spray Quality refers to the optimal drop size of a pesticide when sprayed. Defined under a scheme introduced by the British Crop Protection Councilto simplify and broaden the appeal of important application guidance, there are six sizes:

• Very Fine - as in protected crop/greenhouse use;

• Fine - for grass weed herbicides;

• Medium - for systemic products and other herbicides;

• Coarse - for soil applications; plus the more recently introduced

• Very Coarse; and

• Extra Coarse - for very low drift risk spraying.

A nozzle forms a thin sheet of spray liquid at its orifice which breaks down into drops. Drops produced by this 'sheet break up' method are not uniformly sized and are formed in a range of sizes. The average size of the drop will depend upon the size of the nozzle’s orifice, its design and spraying pressure .

Different pesticides are now known to be more effective when applied in one size range or another so there is a need to communicate with operators which range is most appropriate for their spraying task. At first, nozzle sizes and designs were used for guidance and then an attempt was made to communicate mean drop sizes too, using numerical values.

258

What is a spray pattern? What is a good distribution pattern?

The spray pattern is the distribution of spray, the pattern or ‘footprint’ formed by the accumulation of spray droplets when they impact over the target surface.

Spray projected by a nozzle forms a swath of spray that is designed to impact on a target surface at a distance typically of about 50 cms. Conventional individual nozzles on knapsack sprayers are designed to apply swaths of 1 metre wide at a height of 50 cm.

For field crop sprayers, nozzles at 50 cm spacings across a boom produce individual triangule shaped patterns that overlap with each other to form a uniform swath. Overlapping patterns help to minimise the effects of boom height changes to the spraying pattern.

You can check your spray pattern visually by spraying water over a flat dry surface such as a concrete yard or a road. When the volume of sprayed water is uniform across the swath then the spray pattern is good and every target surface treated will be exposed to the same application of pesticide.

How do I make sure I only use the pesticide's prescribed rate?

The label will tell you the maximum rate you are allowed to use. Do note that this rate may vary with your intended use. For example, if you spray weeds that are sensitive to the herbicide you are going to use - then you may be advised to use the lower rate of a range of rates offered and vice versa. Or a weed, insect or plant disease may be more susceptible to the product you are using depending on for example a plant’s growth stage.

Note carefully these conditions and choose the most appropriate rate for the pest under those conditions. Do also remember that pests and weeds may not uniformly infest or threaten your crop. Before spraying, do examine the area and establish if it all needs spraying or if the area to be treated is localized or in patches.

Calibrate your sprayer carefully and ask for further support and training if you are unsure. Read and understand the label’s advice. If this is not clear then do seek training on how to read pesticide product labels from pesticide manufacturers or local agriculture departments or get further help from your product supplier or local extension officer.

Why does it matter which nozzle I use when spraying pesticides?

A nozzle controls both the speed of the flow of spray liquid (flow rate) and the range of spray drop sizes that are emitted and directed at the surface to be treated (target surface). Using the drop size advised is important as it also reduces the risk of spray drift and operator exposure. To spray in the best way, you need to use:

• the right nozzle to produce the right/required drop size; so that

• you achieve the right spray quality; and

• distribution pattern; in order to

259

• maximize the capacity of the pesticide to achieve its desired effect (its efficacy) and control the pest.

Different nozzles do different things and which nozzle is the right nozzle depends upon many factors such as

• how the pesticide ‘works’,

• the characteristics of the pest to be controlled as well as

• the nature of the target and

• the location of the pest on target surfaces.

Maximising the pesticide’s capacity to be as effective as possible, may not only require preferred drop sizes but also drop numbers. Some pesticides will move easily within a plant, for example, and hence it is not so critical to have good droplet coverage, whilst other pesticides will not move so easily and better coverage is necessary.

Flat Fan nozzles are often used on booms in linear arrays; they are recommended for overall, uniform swath spraying such as on field crop sprayers or minibooms on knapsack sprayers.

Hollow cone nozzles may be advised for insecticide and/or fungicide spraying as they produce smaller drop sizes.

Reflex nozzles can produce a wide swath from a single nozzle, can be used at low heights over the target surface and do not block easily; features that make them popular on knapsack sprayers.

Why does it matter what the weather is when I spray pesticide?

Weather conditions before, during or after spraying may greatly influence safety and efficacy of the pesticide application. Labels will therefore state those weather conditions that are appropriate before, during and after spraying and which may vary with the pesticide used, the pest, crop and other factors.

The weather conditions that may compromise the safe and effective use of the pesticide. include:

1. Rain

• that has wetted the plant surfaces to be sprayed since wet surfaces do not readily retain sprayed drops and so may cause run off. And

• rainfall falling on dry leaves following the application of a pesticide could remove the spray deposit and waste the pesticide applied.

In both cases this also risks contaminating the soil and polluting waterways.

2. Temperature

260

• The chemical properties of some pesticides may require the temperature at the time of spraying be within a range in order to work properly

• Some pests may be affected by the temperature and thus minimum temperatures are needed to ensure adequate pest activity.

3. Wind speed

Inappropriate wind speeds may also be stated. If the wind is too fast, the quality of spray distribution over targeted surfaces may be impaired whilst, if too low, the threat of, for example, vapor drift, may be increased. Most commonly, upper wind speeds limited are stated to avoid spray drift.

Why are large drops of pesticide more likely to roll away?

For a pesticide to be effective the drops must be retained on the leaf surface. So if drops are too large then their momentum on impact is so great that the drop hits the surface, spreads out but then recoils and may form a drop again; a very rapid process that can not be seen with the unaided eye. These recoiling drops may

• bounce off the target and be lost,

• shatter into smaller drops or

• recoil again and stay.

Waxy and more inclined surfaces, may worsen this effect. Pesticides are formulated to lower this risk of drop bounce especially when being used on the more ‘difficult’ plant surfaces. Application advice, however, may mention the need to add further surfactants, for example, when using higher water volume rates in order to maintain a critical concentration in the spray solution for drop retention and hence efficacy of the pesticide.

Why does it matter if I get pesticide on my skin?

Splashes of some pesticides on the skin can cause direct problems such as irritation, swelling and dermatitis. Pesticides can also be absorbed through the skin into your body and may cause other health concerns. The label will advise you of these risks and how to avoid such exposure. The article on 'Hazard, risk and human health' explains this is more detail.

Typically, the label will state which protective clothing to wear. What you must wear will depend on the product and what you are doing. Thus, when loading a sprayer with an undiluted toxic pesticide, personal protective equipment (PPE) requirements will be much more demanding then if spraying a low hazard and diluted spray solution. Skin risks and skin uptake from pesticide use is typically worse from the undiluted product – especially when oil based solvents are used. Formulations other than liquids such as Water Dispersible Granules [WDG] are inherently safer to use because – unlike liquid formulations – these dry products are easily reflected off the skin.

261

Labels may also refer to ‘Engineering controls’ which is equipment that may be used to lessen any operator exposure hazard. Preference is always given to those control systems that contain any potent

Why should I wear protective clothing when spraying pesticides?

All chemicals are potentially harmful to your health. The more you are exposed to the chemical, i.e. the greater the quantity and the longer the time, so the risk of harm is likely to increase.

It is a condition of a pesticide’s use that the advised personal protective equipment (PPE) must be worn. Read the label carefully for what you may need to wear will vary between pesticides and what you are doing with it. Do remember that the label requirements are for the minimum demands. Even if no protective clothing is advised then do follow good hygiene rules and wear plastic boots, trousers, long sleeved shirt and hat….and wash yourself and these clothes thoroughly after use. Clothes used for spraying must be washed separately to the household washing.

Why does it matter if you apply too much pesticide spray onto a crop?

Too much spray is likely to mean that much of the spray runs off the target surface and thus the pest you are spraying for may not be controlled.

Too much spray may also cause damage to the crop and retard the crop’s growth, especially if the pesticide used is a selective herbicide. Competition [that is the fight for light, water and nutrients] between the crop plants and the weeds is often essential for successful weed control. Usually weeds are only retarded and/or killed when treated with the appropriate rate and in the presence of a vigorously growing healthy crop. Excessive spraying can therefore mean that the weeds you intended to control could flourish without the competition of the now stressed crops.

Common causes of spraying too much are

• spraying with a speed that is slower than the speed at which you calibrated;

• using a nozzle that has worn a bigger hole since the last calibration;

• spraying the same area more than once

In these cases you are likely to apply too much spray to the crop. You will apply a higher rate than intended and it could exceed the maximum rate permitted.

How do I get the pesticide to reach the leaves that are difficult to get to?

Leaves that may need to be treated can be concealed. For example, weeds within a vigorous crop canopy or the inner leaves of a dense cropping canopy, may not be reached directly with spray.

Penetration of these canopies to ensure some spray reaches these concealed surfaces, may require higher water volumes and/or smaller drops. Sometimes, the use of a specific nozzle type such as a Hollow Cone may be advised as these nozzles produce clouds of fine sprays with some [induced] turbulent air. Induced air [air sucked into the spray cloud as it is formed at the nozzle] may not be

262

enough and – with some horticultural crop sprayers – a fan is used to help force the spray into the inner reaches of the crop canopy.

How do I get the pesticide to get under the leaf?

Some insects feed on the under surfaces of leaves. If applying a contact insecticide (ie, one that remains where it falls once sprayed) then it will be necessary to get more deposit onto the under surfaces of the leaf. Similarly, some fungicides may be more effective when applied to diseased sites on these lower surfaces. To help reach these sites, some sprayers have vertical ‘drop legs’ [short rods] that pass within a crop such as vegetables or young cotton plants with nozzles adjusted to spray upwards. Bigger sprayers often use air assistance to force the spray into the crops canopy with sufficient power to twist the leaves and stems to an exposed position. Electrostatically charged sprays are also used but their commercial uptake is limited.

Tell me about the relationship between the pesticide spray, the application equipment, the surface I'm spraying and techniques of spraying pesticides

Many pesticides can be applied to gain effective control of the intended pest with a wide range of application methods. But there are other things to consider beyond just controlling the pests including:

• residue levels,

• operator and bystander safety,

• protecting the soil and nearby waterways

• protecting wild life and habitats.

Thus many pesticides have tight limits on how they should be applied to ensure both the products efficacy and its safe use. These limits constrain where the pesticide is to be targeted:

A soil applied pesticide may be applied in large drops and low water volumes for these drops are safely retained by that target surface and – after impact – may have an area of contact that is sufficient enough to overcome an inherently poor distribution pattern. The pesticide itself may move for limited distances after soil contact and/or some products may be moved and redistributed by soil cultivations such as by incorporation. In addition, the developing roots, for example, of a target weed may grow to contact treated soil over a larger area. These pesticide types are insensitive to how they are applied and - providing the rate is not changed - whether low or high volumes are used or large or small drops, their effectiveness is likely to remain unchanged. Labels may then advise the use of larger drops as they are safer [less drift/ less operator inhalation] than smaller drops. In addition, they may also permit the use of lower water volumes as these are less time and energy demanding to apply and ease the need for better field timing.

Foliar applied pesticides need be applied in a more defined manner. Spray drops may have to be numerous enough to ensure each individual exposed target site is contacted and the distribution pattern over that surface is adequate. Plant surfaces may be concealed under - or within - other leaf canopies to hinder spray drop numbers making contact too. Sometimes, small [fine] sprays are needed whilst, with other pesticides may require larger drops.

263

The size of drop needed is greatly influenced by the products ‘mode of action’. Some pesticides are systemic i.e the pesticide moves within the plant, whilst others are contact pesticides, where there is limited movement of the pesticide within the plant or on the plant’s surface. Systemic pesticides may still be effective when applied as larger, fewer drops [medium sizes]. In contrast, contact acting pesticides may require smaller more numerous drops to ensure all target surfaces are treated.

Factors beyond the needs for the pesticide to be effective are also important and may limit/modify how we spray safely. These decisions may often have been made for us and are included in the label recommendations. Thus:

• Labels may advise the use of low drift risk sprays by indicating the use of the larger drop sizes and higher water volumes within the range stated.

• Finer sprays may need to be avoided in order to limit operator inhalation.

• Low water volumes may not be permitted, not because they are biologically ineffective, but because the increased spray solution concentration is an operator exposure risk.

Label advice must be followed for it may have to compromise application requirements to ensure both the pesticides efficacy and any safety related needs.

What is ultra low volume spraying?

Ultra low volume spraying is a method of spraying using very low volume rates [small total quantities] of spray solution that are often applied without any mixing or preparation before use.

Some spraying systems use spinning discs, spinning cages or even very small nozzle sizes and apply volume rates so low that the pesticide may not be diluted at all and, if diluted, may have to use oil based formulations. This spraying method is often called Ultra Low Volume (ULV).

Equipment used for ULV spraying may contrast to that of normal spraying, drop sizes may be smaller such that the operator allows the controlled but drifting spray cloud to treat downwind rows.

Benefits of ULV include the

• minimal use of water to dilute the spray; water that may not be available and may be difficult or impossible to transport and

• high work rates.

Cotton spraying for pest control over large areas in, for example,the arid sub Saharam countries may be greatly reliant on this practice.

Safety considerations: Operators need to recognise that

• concentrated spray liquids, especially in oil based formulations, and

• the use of drift prone spray to apply swaths may increase human and environmental exposure levels are potential risks.

264

'Volume rate' refers to the total amount of spray liquid you apply when spraying and is usually defined as a rate in litres/hectare. Normally, these rates are in excess of 100 l/ha and can be as high as hundreds of litres to the hectare for field crop use and even more in fruit spraying. If the volume rate is lower than 100 l/ha it is sometime called low water volume rates.

What are the different types of pesticide sprayers that are available?

Pesticide sprayers range from those that are portable i.e. are carried and worked by human energy - to those that use engines to transport and power the machine.

Portable sprayers include those working:

• by simple air compression;

• with diaphragm and piston pumps; or those that

• the operator carries having a small motor that may pump the spray liquid and/or produce an air jet that propels the sprayer into the target area.

Larger sprayers may be pulled by tractors, mounted on the tractor hitches or be a dedicated spraying unit.

Specialised sprayers may be adapted for horticultural crops with modified booms such as those that use air assistance. Whilst many orchard sprayers , have a central fan [blower] that is surrounded with nozzles to produce a cloud of directed spray-drop-laden air.

Aircraft and boats have also been adapted for spraying too.

Why are pesticide labels so hard to understand?

Labels are written by the pesticide manufacturer but must be approved by independent regulators before use. Information must be complete and inform the user – in a recognized style – of everything he/she must know for that product to be used safely. Labels are the most important communication route between the manufacturer and the end user and ensure that the necessary information reaches those who will use the pesticide.

Some pesticide manufacturers provide Technical Notes that summarise key Mandatory Conditions of Use and may also offer Advisory Notes on how to best spray the product. This further information may be in an easier to understand format and supports labels advice but must not be used as a substitute for any recommendations or other Conditions of Use stated on the label. Users who are unclear as to the meaning of labels are advised to seek training on how to read pesticide product labels from pesticide manufacturers or local agriculture departments or to get help from your product supplier or your local extension officer.

(“ These questions and Answers can be typed in Local language and may be distributed to farmers in AP.”)

265

Pesticides and Climate Change:

The use (and abuse) of pesticides has increased to combat insect-pests and diseases. However, the major causes concern of are the undesirable side effects of these chemicals on biodiversity,environment, food quality and human health .Climate change will have important implications for insect conservation and pest status. Climate and weather can substantially influence the development and distribution of insects. Most of the warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to man-made activities. Anthropogenically induced climatic change arising from increasing levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases would, therefore, be likely to have a significant effect on agricultural insect pests. Current best estimates of changes in climate indicate an increase in global mean annual temperatures of 1[o] C by 2025 and 3[o]C by the end of the next century. Such increases in temperature have a number of implications for temperature-dependent insect pests. The Assessment investigates the relationship between pesticide use and climate for crops that require relatively large amounts of pesticide. This paper describes such input-driven agriculture, the problem of pests and diseases and the unsustainable agricultural practices that it leads to, and the socio-economic and health externalities resulting in farmer's distress in pesticide hot spots. To protect ourselves, our economy, and our land from the adverse effects of climate change, we must ultimately dramatically reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The causes of anthropogenic climate change are broad and often difficult to address. There is no single solution to this complex problem, but numerous opportunities exist for reducing problems of climate change. The issue of climate change is one of the most profound challenges of our time, and we believe it is a challenge that can be met. Impact of Agriculture Today Changes in the incidence and severity of agricultural pests, diseases, soil erosion, troposphere ozone levels, as well as changes in extreme events such as drought, floods, are largely unmeasured or uncertain and have not been incorporated in estimates of impacts. These omitted effects could results the true impacts of climate change on agriculture. It seems obvious that any significant change in climate on a global scale should impact local agriculture, and therefore affect the world's food supply. Agriculture of any kind is strongly influenced by the availability of water. Climate change will modify rainfall, evaporation, runoff, and soil moisture storage. Changes in total seasonal precipitation or in its pattern of variability are both important. (Bhakta R. Palikhe, MSc. Ento.- 12 Registrar of Pesticides, Pesticide Registration and Management Office, Plant Protection Directorate of Department of Agriculture, Harihar Bhawan. )

266

14. 2.Pesticides Usage – Survey –By Sahanivasa NGO

India: WHO (2009) estimates that 600,000 cases and 60,000 deaths occur in India annually, with the most vulnerable groups consisting of children, women, workers in the informal sector, and poor farmers. Andhra Pradesh, a state in Southern India, has one of the highest records, with over 1,000 pesticide poisoning cases each year and hundreds of deaths; the pesticides monocrotophos and endosulfan accounting for the majority of deaths with known pesticides in 2002 (Rao et al., 2005). Organochlorine and organophosphate pesticides are widely used in India (Abhilash & Singh, 2007). More recently, WHO (2009) estimated that the “toll of annual deaths from pesticide poisoning may exceed 5,000 and deaths from monocrotophos poisoning may be close to 2,000, or 40% of the total deaths” in Andhra Pradesh alone Sahanivasa is a social action group primarily promoting and strengthening the rights of Dalits, Adivasis (indigenous people), rural workers and the marginal farmers in Andhra Pradesh. Sahanivasa has collaborated with an agricultural workers union in Chittoor district to survey agricultural workers involved in pesticide application. 150 people were selected for the survey. The participants were selected at random, based on convenience of access to the Union. Participants were informed of the objectives of the study and it was initiated only after their acceptance. The respondents work in fruit gardens, paddy, sugar cane and vegetable cultivation. Chittoor District is a dry area where crops are dependent on seasonal rains or tube-wells. Pesticide users interviewed were mainly involved in cash-crops owned by medium or large-scale farmers. Results For: Chittoor district, Andhra Pradesh, India

Study Objectives: Objective One: Highlight the impact of highly hazardous pesticides on the health of Communities (with a focus on conditions of use in the field) Detailed objectives - pesticide use and effects: 1. Describe the demographic profile of the study participants in terms of: gender, sector, occupation, age, and education. 2. Describe what highly hazardous pesticides are in use, and identify any banned or restricted pesticides. 3. Describe the conditions of use of pesticides in terms of: Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) (wearing, availability, reasons for not wearing), activities that could lead to exposure, spillages, and wind direction. 4. Describe practices with pesticides in terms of disposal, storage, cleaning of equipment and containers. 5. Describe the level of awareness of pesticide hazards and alternatives in terms of training. 6. Describe the health impacts of pesticides: a. What signs and symptoms are reported while using pesticides or being exposed to them b. Summarise incidents in terms of pesticide used, date/place, how it happened (e.g. mixing, spraying, spillage), effects and treatment. 7. Characterize the health status of study participants in terms of the following factors:

267

c. Medical history d. Social history e. Environmental history f. Nutritional history g. Signs and Symptoms (detailed). 2. objectives and methods10Detailed objectives - incident reportsThe study aimed to get “a clear description of Study site And methodology

Results: Pesticide use and effects: Demographic profile of study participants-Gender of respondents A total of 150 people were interviewed, comprising 77 women (51%) and 73 (49%) men. 3 of the women interviewed indicated they were breastfeeding at the time of the interview. Employment Respondents indicated their sector of employment as farm (71%), orchard (37%), and/ or other (54%) including ‘agricultural fields’ and ‘agricultural lands’. Similarly, the most common occupation described was agricultural work or labour including spraying. The monitoring team described the respondents’ place of employment as being in fruit, paddy, sugar and vegetable fields, with the majority being landless labourers working for others, who do spraying tasks amongst other agricultural labour. With married couples, both husband and wife participate in pesticide spraying. As well as carrying out agricultural labour including spraying, women also attend domestic activities such as cooking and caring for children. Pesticide use 95% indicated that they are a pesticide applicator, and of these, the majority (109 respondents) are worker applicators. The remainder were not applicators (2%) or did not respond (3%).The respondents were asked to comment on their pesticide-related activities, and other exposure factors. The most common activities indicated were re-entry to treated fields (91%), washing equipment (83%), washing clothes (74%), working in the fields (69%) and application in the fields (50%). When asked how they are exposed to pesticides, the most common route indicated was neighbour’s spraying (81%), followed by applied by ground-based methods (77%). Some also indicated they are eating food that has been sprayed with pesticides (63%) or exposed through water contamination (45%). While some respondents indicated that they were exposed through application by air and spraying for public health purposes, these practices are not known by the monitoring team to take place in the area. Respondents were asked to identify pesticides they use or are exposed to through these activities. Of 176 pesticides reported to be used, the active ingredient was identified for 114. The methods for determining the active ingredient are explained in Section 3. These are identified in Figure 7.1. For 62 reports, the active ingredient could not be established. The most common active ingredients identified were endosulfan (48 reports), quinalphos(22) and lambda-cyhalothrin (15).The organophosphate group of pesticides comprised a total of 33 reports (monocrotophos, dichlorvos, quinalphos, chlorfenvinphos, triazophos). Small numbers of other pesticides were found including sulfur (9), endrin (3), pyrazosulfuron (2), tricyclazole (2) and imidacloprid (1). Conditions of use

268

Personal protective equipment (PPE): Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh: only 1% of applicators indicated they wore protective clothing, and no special protectors were being worn, although most wore longsleevedshirts (71%). Some explained to the monitoring team that they wore thesame clothing for 2-3 days. The main reasons indicated why they did not wearPPE was that it was, expensive (42%), not available (31%) or uncomfortable (3%).Many respondents working as daily waged-workers had “no capacity to purchase [protective clothing] even though some of them are aware of the problems” (Sahanivasa). Only 1% of applicators indicated that they wear protective clothing when applying pesticides. 99% did not indicate the use of protective clothing. However, some items of clothing were indicated to be worn while spraying such as long-sleeved shirts (71%), pants (7%), which may not have been thought to be protective clothing. Very small numbers, less than 3%, indicated the use of gloves, overalls, eyeglasses, respirator, mask or boots. Of those that that did not use protective clothing, reasons were given such as expensive (42%), not available (31%) or uncomfortable (3%), with some not stating the reason. These findings were confirmed by the monitoring team’s observations that ‘no special protectors were being used’, noting that either the land owner or the person involved in the activity is not taking any care or Spraying pesticides without PPE Precaution, and people working as daily workers have “no capacity to purchase [protective equipment] even though some of them are aware of the problems.” Some respondents also described using the same clothes for two or three days in a row. Washing facilities 45% of applicators indicated that they did have access to washing facilities for hands and body where they apply the pesticides. 27% did not. Woman sprays pesticide into mango tree, without PPE64 Spillages A number of respondents reported having experienced spillages either while spraying (57%), while mixing (31%), and/or while loading (12%). When asked on what body part the spillage occurred, common responses were ‘hand’ (45%) followed by ‘face’ (15%), ‘leg’ (11%) or ‘eyes’ (7.%). When asked what they did in response, 55% indicated that they ‘washed’ or ‘cleaned’; 16% ‘visited the doctor’ or ‘hospital’, although some ‘did nothing’ (8%), and the remainder did not respond.When asked if they use the containers for other purposes afterwards, 54% responded that they did not. 44% responded that they did, and when asked to describe the purpose, 9% of respondents gave answers including for ‘storing kerosene’ (7%), for lamps (<1%), or to keep domestic things (<1%), or ‘don’t know’ (<1%). The remaining 2% respondents did not respond to this question. In describing their disposal methods in an earlier question, 1 respondent indicated they used it to ‘keep chili powder’.When asked how they dispose of leftover pesticide, 78% indicated that they disposed of it ‘[on] the land’. Some indicated they disposed of it in the ‘canal’ or ‘waterbody’ (2%), or brought it back home (1%). The remainder (19%) did not respond. For washing of equipment, 54% indicated that they washed the equipment in a canal or water-body, 30% in the field, garden or open space, and 3% did not wash. The remainder did not respond

269

Spraying pesticide against the wind direction Wind direction 48% of applicators indicated that they spray against the wind direction. 31% reported spraying along the wind direction, while 16% indicated the wind direction while spraying was unknown. Some respondents did not answer this question. Spraying against the wind direction was confirmed by the monitoring team through discussions.Pesticides storage, disposal and cleaning practicesDisposal of containers, cleaning and rinsing of equipment The most common method of disposal of pesticide containers indicated was thrown in open field (79%), while some bury, burn or put in the trash and/or use other methods.Other methods, described by 10% include re-use e.g. to store kerosene (see also reuse of containers below). Some respondents used more than one disposal method. Pesticides storage, disposal and cleaning practices Disposal of containers, cleaning and rinsing of equipment The most common method of disposal of pesticide containers indicated was thrown in open field (79%), while some bury, burn or put in the trash and/or use other methods. Other methods, described by 10% include re-use e.g. to store kerosene (see also reuse of containers below). Some respondents used more than one disposal method. Table 7.2. Container disposal method S.No

Container disposal method Percentage (%)

1 Returned to company 1 2 Thrown in open field 79 3 Bury 17 4 Burnt 19 5 Put nto trash 17 6 Others 10 When asked if they use the containers for other purposes afterwards, 54% responded that they did not. 44% responded that they did, and when asked to describe the purpose, 9% of respondents gave answers including for ‘storing kerosene’ (7%), for lamps (<1%), or to keep domestic things (<1%), or ‘don’t know’ (<1%). The remaining 2% respondents did not respond to this question. In describing their disposal methods in an earlier question, 1 respondent indicated they used it to ‘keep chili powder’. When asked how they dispose of leftover pesticide, 78% indicated that they disposed of it ‘[on] the land’. Some indicated they disposed of it in the ‘canal’ or ‘waterbody’ (2%), or brought it back home (1%). The remainder (19%) did not respond. For washing of equipment, 54% indicated that they washed the equipment in a canal or water-body, 30% in the field, garden or open space, and 3% did not wash. The remainder did not respond.

270

Storage When asked where they store the pesticides, respondents most frequently indicated home (71%), followed by field (23%), garden (11%) and/or shed (9%), or other (1%). 69% reported storing pesticides locked up and away from children, although 30% did not (1% did not respond). 63% separated pesticides from other items, although 35% did not (2% did not respond). Training, access to information, and awareness of hazards Training When asked whether they had received any training for the pesticides they use, 90% of applicators responded that they had not. 10% did not respond. Zero respondents indicated that they had received any training on pesticides. Choosing pesticides When asked about ways that they choose pesticides, common ways were via salespersons’ suggestion (75%); also some chose based on a recommendation (39%), own experience (34%) and/or via labels (12%). Of those that chose based on a recommendation, the pesticides were recommended by relatives (11%), agricultural department staff (6%), co-farmers or friends (5%), shop dealers (5%), landowners (1%) or others Access to information When asked about their access to written information on pesticides, 47% indicated they had access to a label, and 11% access to Safety Data Sheets. The remainder did not have access or did respond to this question. Access to Label/SDS Access to % positive response

Label 47 Safety data 11

Awareness of hazards When asked if they knew the hazards of the pesticides they use, only 20% said they did. These 20% were able to mention symptoms like ‘headache’, ‘vomiting’, ‘eye burning’, or hazards like its ‘not consumable’, ‘dangerous’ or ‘poisonous’. Knowledge of alternatives Pests reported were not described in depth. Few farmers (7.3%) knew other ways to control pests without pesticides. They mentioned some techniques such as cow urine and neem leaf/oil.

271

Symptoms When asked if they had ever experienced symptoms when using pesticides or being exposed to them, the most common responses were dizziness (73% reported this) headache (67%), excessive salivation (59%), and nausea (57%). The full list of symptoms reported is displayed in Figure 7.2. Other symptoms (9%) reported included ‘body pain’, ‘cough’, ‘itching’, ‘eye problems’, ‘stomach pain’ and ‘weakness’. Reporting issues - Community interviews Reporting issues section Section

Issues

Re-entry period Low response rate Education Low response rate

Washing facilities 27% did not respond to this question.

Reasons for spill

Not enough qualitative reports to determine the reasons.

15. Assessment of IPM practices (cultural, physica 16.

272

15.1. Assessment of IPM practices (cultural, physical, chemical and biological :( TOR-Deliverable, Item: IV) IPM- India

. Accomplishments of IPM in India (During 1994-95 to 2001-02)

Major States and All India

Pest Monitoring

(Million Rupees)

Biocontrol IPM Training & Demonstration

Release (Million Rupees)

Area Coverage (Lakh ha)

Number of FFSs

AEOs Traine

d

Farmers

TrainedStates Punjab 3.00 596.40 3.03 382 2 140 12 970

Madhya Pradesh 3.62 1033.25 2.81 439 1 945 13 611Karnataka 2.69 1471.15 3.00 428 2 037 14 210Andhra Pradesh 5.40 1461.85 3.84 704 2 334 21 104Uttar Pradesh 7.49 1494.43 4.38 852 2 886 22 305Maharashtra 2.62 938.80 2.80 792 3 912 24 960

All India - Achievement 58.89 14925.70 42.63 7 257 30 381 219 141

All India - Targets 54.00 14000.00 38.50 7 620 37 560 224 960

Abbr: FFSs: Farmer's Field Schools. AEOs: Agriculture Extension Officers. Source: National Conference of Agriculture for Rabi Campaign 2002-03, Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India.

Bio Pesticide Consumption in India [MT(Tech. Grade)]

Bio pesticide 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01

Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) 33 41 71 135 132 Neem based insecticides 186 354 411 739 551 Total 219 395 482 874 683

A study of the costs and returns of IPM and non-IPM farms in rice cultivation in the Thanjavur Delta of Tamil Nadu by Tamizheniyan during 2001 showed that IPM farms were resource efficient and more productive and profitable than non-IPM farms.

273

Costs and Returns of IPM and Non-IPM farms in rice cultivation – Thanjavur Delta, Tamil Nadu State (Rs./Acre) Particulars IPM (Rs.) Non-IPM (Rs.) Pooled (Rs.)

Seed 407.25

(4.06)

434.70

(4.16)

420.98

(4.11)

Organic Manure 999.50

(9.96)

791.94

(7.58)

895.72

(8.75)

Chemical Fertilizer 1230.33

(12.26)

1791.03

(17.14)

1510.68

(14.75)

Plant Protection Chemicals 230.75

(2.30)

727.38

(6.96)

479.07

(4.68)

Human Labour 5633.17

(56.15)

5386.73

(51.53)

5509.94

(53.79)Animal / Tractor Charge

1266.87

(12.63)

1114.38

(10.66)

1190.63

(11.62)

Other Costs 264.37

(2.64)

205.60

(1.97)

234.98

(2.29)

Total Cost 10032.24

(100.00)

10451.76

(100.00)

10242.00

(100.00)Gross Return 16,213.17 14,900.93 15,557.05Net Return 6180.93 4449.17 5315.05BC ratio 1.62 1.43 1.53

(Note: Figures in parentheses show percentages to total cost.Source: Tamizheniyan, 2001.)

The total cost per acre on IPM farms was Rs. 10,452 compared to Rs. 10,032 on non IPM farms. The gross return was Rs. 16,213 compared to Rs. 14,900. The Benefit Cost Ratio was 1.62 for IPM, compared to 1.43 for Non-IPM farms.

Similar results were obtained in another study conducted on the economics of the IPM approach in Basmati rice (Garg 1999). The main aim of that study was to develop an IPM system in Basmati rice that would make farmers aware of the ill effects of indiscriminate use of pesticides and the benefits of IPM. Yield data showed that all IPM farmers secured higher rice yields than those using conventional hemical control tactics. It was also evident that farmer’s practice of not applying pesticide or very little pesticide was better than the indiscriminate use of pesticide which might have suppressed the natural enemy population.

274

Farmers’ perception about hazardous effects of Pesticides

Although IPM has been accepted in principle as the most attractive option for protection of agricultural crops from the ravages of insect and non-insect pests, implementation at farm level in India had been rather limited (Puri 1998). Production uncertainty is commonly believed to be an impediment to adoption of less pesticide-intensive methods in agriculture such as IPM (To understand the Indian farmer’s perception about hazardous effects of pesticides, a survey was conducted among rice farmers following IPM and non-IPM practices in the Thanjavur delta, a major rice production belt of peninsular India (Tamizheniyan, 2001).

Farmers’ perception about hazardous effects of pesticides Categories Farmers’ Perception IPM farmers Non IPM farmers

Pesticides are not highly hazardous to human health

No effect 1 3 Very little effect 5 10 Little effect 5 15

Pesticides are hazardous to human health

Much effect 13 6 Very much effect 11 4 High effect 5 2

Total 40 40

Source: Tamizheniyan 2001.

The increasing cost of plant protection and accelerating pest incidents make agriculture a risky and less profitable enterprise. At the same time the toxic materials generated from chemical farming pollute the environment and harm consumers’ and farmers’ health. A more environmentally friendly and economical alternative for India would be adoption of Integrated Pest Management. Additionally, from the viewpoint of sustainability, attaining growth while maintaining the natural capital intact, IPM is superior compared to conventional farming It should, therefore be appreciated and encouraged to a greater extent both by governments and NGOs'.(VijeshV.Krishna, N.G. Byju , S. Tamizheniyan,2001, Integrated Pest Management In Indian Agriculture: A Developing Economy Perspective.)

IPM- Adoption-Problem and Constraint:

Cotton in Guntur District-AP: The different components of IPM recommended for cotton and the frequency of adoption of each practice was depicted in Fig 8. It can be observed that erecting pheromone traps in the crop was adopted by all the IPM farmers. Topping was adopted by 93 per cent and spraying of Neem Seed Kernel Extract (NSKE) and neem oil by as many as 87 per cent. Adoption of biological means of pest management such as NPV and Bacillus thuringiensis is not as popular with only 24 per cent adopting because of the constraints in availability. In order for these components of IPM to be effective, time and method of application (e.g. NPV is to be applied during the cooler hours of the day and with adjuvants to reduce photodegradation and enhance efficacy) are very critical. Since many farmers are not aware of these finer aspects of use of biorationals, they often do not obtain the potential benefits. Only 30 per cent of adopters collected the larvaemechanically as it is a labour-intensive practice.

275

Factors influencing adoption The characteristics of IPM farmers and non-IPM farmers are presented in table 3. It is seen from the table that the IPM farmers were relatively younger, had more years of schooling, had more family labour availability in terms of adults per house hold and were members in some social organizations such as farmers’ clubs, user groups, self help groups etc. The IPM farmers also could identify a more number of pests and natural enemies than the non- IPM farmers. However, the IPM farmers have sown about 49 per cent of land to cotton compared to 75 per cent in case of non-IPM farmers. The average farm size of IPM farmers was about 5.1 ac compared to 6.6 ac in case of non-IPM farmers. Further, as many as 59 percent of IPM adopters also grew chillies, another important commercial crops requiring investments in plant protection, compared to 39 per cent in case of non-adopters. The maximum likelihood estimates of the logistic regression model obtained with SPSS 12.0 are presented in table 4. The table gives the estimated regression coefficients along with the significance levels, the odds ratio and the model fit statistics in the form of Negelkerke R2, log likelihood and the percent correct classification. The model estimated was found to be a significantly good fit as can be seen from all the three criteria mentioned.The Negelkerke R2 was about 0.66 and the log likelihood (-2 log LL) of 124.71 was significant at one per cent. The model predicted about 83.7 per cent of the cases correctly as either adopters or non adopters. Further, the model predicted 83.1 per cent of adopters and 84.3 per cent of non-adopters correctly. The results from logistic regression analysis showed that all the variables except irrigated area included in the model significantly influenced the decision to adopt IPM technologies. The farm size, proportion of area under cotton and age of the farmer influenced the adoption decision negatively whereas the other variables influenced positively. AS can be seen from the table, as the farmers’ age increases by one year, chances of adoption will decrease by about 4 per cent the odds ratio being 0.94. Similarly, an illiterate farmer has only 44 per cent chances of adoption of a literate farmer. Participation in community based organizations such farmers’ clubs also enhanced the probability of adoption of IPM. The IPM technologies require more labour compared to the dependence on chemical insecticides alone. Thus the bigger farms and larger acreage under cotton are less likely to attract IPM, which is reflected in the negative coefficients of the farm size and the area under cotton. The significantly positive coefficient for labour endowment as measured by the number of adults per household only reinforces this observation. Further, chillies are an important commercial crop grown in the area and require considerable efforts in plant protection against pests and diseases. Farmers are being supported with knowledge on ways of plant protection (including IPM) and the necessary inputs such as pheromone traps. There is a possibility of chillie growers also apply the knowledge and use of IPM to cotton as well. The significantly positive coefficient for the variable ‘chillies’ confirms such a hypothesis. Extent of adoption In the above analysis a farmer was considered to be an IPM adopter if he or she adopts at least four different components of IPM. However, there can be variations in the extent of adoption of different components of IPM. In order to measure the extent of adoption, scores were computed for all the IPM farmers. The findings are presented in table 6. Twenty four different components of IPM were observed to be followed by the IPM farmers. As many as fourteen were cultural practices, five were chemical, three biological and two mechanical. A farmer adopting all these twenty four practices in his effort to manage pests below the economic threshold levels, he or would get a score of 6.4. The scores of the

276

farmers were found vary between 2.8 and 3..8 with an average score of 3.3. About 37 per cent of farmers scored below 2.8 (35.5 percentile) and were classified as low adopters. Only 28 percent of farmers were found to achieve high adoption scores (>3.85, the 70 percentile). The remaining 35 per cent of farmers were classified as medium adopters with scores between 2.8 and 3.85. Thus there was observed variation in adoption within the adopters. As mentioned earlier, the farm-level impact of the IPM in cotton was observed by comparing the key variables of IPM farmers with those of non-IPM farmers (Table 5). As a result of adoption IPM components, there was observed a steep decline in the use of chemical insecticides from about 18 l ha-1 in case of non IPM farmers to about 6.5 l ha-1 in case of IPM farmers. This also resulted in the saving on expenditure on plant protection chemicals. It is interesting to note that IPM farmers also applied more organic manures compared to the non-IPM farmers. The IPM adopters also harvested more kapas (23 q/ha) compared to 19 q/ha by non-adopters. The cost savings together with the increased yields resulted in obtaining significantly higher net returns (by 370%) from IPM farms compared to non-IPM farms. The cost of production also fell byabout 42 per cent in IPM farms compared to non-IPM farms. Pigeonpea: The different components of IPM recommended for pigeonpea and the frequency of adoption of each practice was depicted in fig 14. It can be observed that ploughing during summer before sowing the crop is the most adopted component of IPM adopted by the farmers. A majority of IPM farmers (about 90%) also rotate crops such as sorghum, maize, pearl millet with pigeonpea in order to break the pest build up. Spraying of Neem Seed Kernel Extract (NSKE) and neem oil was found to be adopted by as many as 75 per cent of the samplefarmers. Adoption of biological means of pest management such as NPV and Bacillusthuringiensis is not as popular because of the constraints in availability. In order for these components of IPM to be effective, time and method of application (e.g. NPV is to be applied during the cooler hours of the day and with adjuvants to reduce photodegradation and enhance efficacy) are very critical (Ravindra and Jayaraj, 1988). Since many farmers are not aware of these finer aspects of use of bio-rationals, they often do not obtain the potential benefits. Factors influencing adoption The characteristics of IPM farmers and non-IPM farmers are presented. It is seen from the table that the IPM farmers were relatively younger, had more years of schooling, had more family labour availability in terms of adults per house hold and were members in some social organizations such as farmers’ clubs, user groups, self help groups etc. The IPM farmers also could identify a more number of pests and natural enemies than the non- IPM farmers. However, the IPM farmers have sown about 83 per cent of land to pigeonpea compared to 87 per cent in case of non-IPM farmers. The average farm size of IPM farmers was about 10.9 ac compared to 9.1 ac in case of non-IPM farmers. The maximum likelihood estimates of the logistic regression model obtained with SPSS 12.0 are presented in table 10. The table gives the estimated regression coefficients along with the significance levels, the odds ratio and the model fit statistics in the form of Negelkerke R2, log likelihood and the percent correct classification. The model estimated was found to be a significantly good fit as can be seen from all the three criteria mentioned. The Negelkerke R2 was about 0.46 and the log likelihood (-2 log LL) of 115.31 wassignificant at one per cent. The model predicted about 75 per cent of the cases correctly as either adopters or non adopters. Further, the model predicted 72 per cent of adopters and 78 per cent of non-adopters correctly.An examination of the logistic regression coefficients indicates that age of the farmer, schooling, participation in social groups and ability to recognize the pest and natural enemy species influenced the

277

adoption decision significantly. As can be seen from the table, each year of schooling increased the odds of adoption of IPM by 37 percent. Similarly, as the age of the farmer increased by one year, the odds would decrease by two per cent. Thus, younger and educated farmers are more likely to adopt IPM technologies. This inference is not surprising because the younger farmers are more ambitious and more receptive to the newer technologies and the education will place them in a better position to obtain the relevant information and the necessary inputs. The participation in social groups alsoinfluenced the adoption decision significantly. A farmer who is a member in some social group is 3.77 times more likely than a farmer who is not a member. The participation of a farmer in social groups enhances his or her social capital in terms of access to information and resources. Further, various development programmes are also emphasizing the technology transfer through self-help groups, user groups etc. to quicken and broad base the uptake of the technologies. Thus, the highly positive and significant influence of the social capital as represented by participation in social organizations is tenable. The IPM technologies require more labour compared to the dependence on chemical insecticides alone. Thus the bigger farms and larger acreage under pigeonpea are less likely to attract IPM, which is reflected in the negative coefficients of the farm size and the area under pigeonpea. The positive coefficient for labour endowment as measured by the number of adults per household though not significant only reinforces this observation. It may be of relevance to note that farmers with larger farms and more area under the crop concerned are more likely to adopt chemical plant protection measures as observed in case of castor(Rama Rao et al., 1997). Further, access to irrigation is highly correlated to the access and use of other purchased inputs such as fertilizers, which may influence IPM adoption positively. The relatively more assured returns from irrigated crops may also attract more managerial attention of the farmers as a result of which rainfed crops like pigeonpea might ‘suffer’ in which case the access to irrigation discourages IPM adoption. The observed non-significant coefficient indicates that the variable acted both ways.Thus, the variables associated with the human and social capital (age, education, pest recognizing ability and participation in social organizations) and the relative resource endowments (farm size and human labour availability) influenced the IPM adoption decision significantly. It is acknowledged that the IPM components are more knowledge-intensive (CGIAR, 2000) and more labour using. Thus, any effort to transfer IPM technologies should address the communication aspects – giving the right information at right time and in aright way. Extent of adoption In the above analysis a farmer was considered to be an IPM adopter if he or she adopts at least four different components of IPM. However, there can be variations in the extent of adoption of different components of IPM. In order to measure the extent of adoption, scores were computed for all the IPM farmers. The findings are presented in Thirteen different components of IPM were observed to be followed by the IPM farmers. As many as seven of these thirteen were cultural practices, three were chemical, two biological and one mechanical. A farmer adopting all these thirteen practices in his effort to manage pests below the economic threshold levels, he or would get a score of 3.6. The scores of the farmers were found vary between 1.5 and 3.3 with an average score of 1.98. About forty five percent of farmers scored below 1.85 (35 percentile) and were classified as low adopters. Only 20 percent of farmers were found to achieve high adoption scores (>2.15, the 70 percentile). The remaining 35 per cent of farmers were classified as medium adopters with scores between 1.85 and 2.15. Thus there was observed variation in adoption within the adopters.

278

Farm level impact of IPM As mentioned earlier, the farm-level impact of the IPM was observed by comparing the use of chemical insecticides and yields of IPM farmers with those of non-IPM farmers. As a result of adoption IPM components, there was observed a steep decline in the use of chemical insecticides from about 9 l ha-1 in case of non IPM farmers to about 5 l ha-1 in case of IPM farmers. Discontinuance of IPM in pigeonpea One of the important reasons for farmers adopting IPM is the failure or ineffectiveness of chemical insecticides as an effective means of pest management. However, the insecticides manufacturers are trying hard to develop and make available more effective insecticides. The IPM also does not exclude chemicals insecticides altogether. While doing the field work in the villages, it was observed that some of the IPM adopters discontinued IPM following their use of more effective insecticides such as spinosad, indoxocarb, thiodicarb, which are recently being made available to the farmers through market. These are selective against the pod borers and are found to be highly effective and have the potential to obviate the need for any other pest management effort. In order to test the hypothesis that use of such highly effective insecticides would lead to discontinuation of IPM via strong economic incentives (For example, it was observed that one spray of spinosad is equivalent to 3-4sprays of conventional chemicals such as endosulfan and adoption of IPM needs more labour and continual attention towards the crop). The data collected was subjected to the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis in order to examine whether the IPM practices survived for shorter time with farmers using the above insecticides. The results showed that out of 50 sample farmers, 22 had used the new chemicals. Eighteen farmers (82 %) in the former group discontinued IPM compared to six (21%) in the latter group Further 79% of the farmers who have not used the new chemicals are still continuing IPM compared to 18 % in the users of new chemicals. It was also observed that the farmers who used these chemicals adopted IPM for an average 3 years compared to 5 years in case of farmers who never used them. The log rank value was found to be 14.88, which was significant at less than one per cent. Thus, use of more effective chemical insecticides was found to lead to discontinuation of IPM by the farmers. It is also observed that the application of these chemicals is so effective that no larvae of pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera) are available ubsequently and thus affecting the on-farm preparation of NPV solution, which is an important component of IPM. While farmers have a strong economic rationale in doing so, it is important for researchers to examine the possible consequences of such chemicals and educate the farmers on the same. Continued use of these chemicals and discontinuation of IPM practices may result in a changing pest scenario which requires altogether a different strategy requiring a lot of resources to develop and get adopted by the farming community. Relationship between IPM adoption and plant protection expenditure across three Crops As mentioned earlier, IPM is a continuum and the expenditure on plant protection responds to the adoption of IPM. The response depends on the efficacy of IPM which results in saving on plant protection chemicals and on the labour requirements associated with adoption of IPM. Therefore, it was examined how different levels of IPM adoption, measures as described in the previous section, affect plant rotection expenditure by regression the plant protection expenditure on the IPM adoption scoreAs is evident from the table, adoption of IPM led to a conspicuous reduction in expenditure on chemical insecticides. For example, for every unit increase in the IPM adoption score, the expenditure

279

on insecticided decreased by about Rs. 1504/-/ha in cotton. Similar reductions were observed in other two crops as well. However, adoption of IPM also involved expenditure on human labour and other materials (NSKE etc) which was reflected in the positive coefficient for the non-chemical components of IPM. Considering both the chemical and non-chemical components of IPM, the net effect of IPM on total plant protection expenditure was negative indicating the cost-saving effect of adoption of IPM. As expected, the effect was more in case of cotton which suffers from heavy pest infestation and where the level of adoption of IPM was also relatively higher. Constraints to adoption of IPM Identification of important constraints to wider scale adoption of IPM is the final objective of the study. Since farmers, researchers and extension agents are the three important stakeholders in promoting IPM adoption, the view points of these groups are very important to identification of constraints so that the necessary policy and other measures can be designed to ameliorate the constraints. Constraints – Farmers’ perspective In order to identify the constraints as seen by the farmers, all the farmers were asked to rank different constraints (some are included in the interview schedule and some are added by the farmers). Thus, for each crop twelve different constraints were listed and each farmer gave a rank to these constraints. Thus, for each crop a 180 X 12 matrix was developed. Then the percent of farmers giving a particular rank was computed. Then, it was established that the rankings were not given randomly and farmers agreed with one another by and large with respect to the ranking order for the constraints by applying Kendall’s concordance test. Then, Garrett’s scores were computed for all the constraints based on which the constraints were ranked. The constraint with the highest Garrett score is considered as the most important constraint. The results of are presented in table 14 for the three crops. As observed from the table 15, all the dealers advise the farmers in pest management when ever the farmers approach them for buying the insecticides and often farmers follow their advice what chemical to spray. It was observed that the input dealers seldom recommend IPM and their ‘recommendations’ are often driven by profit margins and the promotional efforts of the manufacturers. The dealers depend either on their own experience or the information brochures made available by the insecticide manufacturers for getting the information. In such cases it is very likely that they promote those insecticides whose sales will fetch more margins to them. The number of dealers getting any training from anyagency or even from the department of agriculture is least. Various important components of IPM and the number of dealers aware about and selling the same. Pheromone traps, Bt formulations, NPV formulations and neem formulations find place in IPM modules of many different crops. However, not all the dealers were aware and sell these inputs. Only 78 per cent of dealers in Guntur district were aware of pheromone traps and only 10 per cent actually sell them The figures are much smaller in other two districts. Similar is the case with all other inputs. In this context, there is a need to make available these inputs at the local level. There are however certain constraints like the quality of these inputs and commercial viability of local preparation units. Even the experience of NGO championing the cause of IPM suggest that the arrangements to make available NPV, NSKE etc at local level are not viable without support from outside agencies. Even farmers were skeptical about the quality of locally prepared inputs. Another important issue here is that if the poor quality of inputs is

280

the reason for the ineffectiveness of IPM, them dependence on such arrangements in fact may turn out to be impediment as it is difficult to get farmers’ faith in IPM once they lose it because of poor quality. Further research in making the inputs available is therefore the need of the hour.Use of chitin inhibitors, mating disruptors and chrysoperlla eggs are sometimes used in pest. Management of crops such as cotton and chillies. However, very few dealers are aware about them let alone sell them. Awareness and sale of IPM inputs by dealers (%) IPM Inputs Guntur Ananthapur

Rangareddy

Aware Sell Aware Sell Aware Sell Pheromone traps

78 10 50 3 42 8

Bt formulation 40 12 33 17 25 0 NPV formulations

40 2 20 3 75 5

Neem formulations

78 20 96 93 91 58

Trichogramma eggs

7 57 3 3 8 0

Chitin inhibitors

24

14 0 0 0 0

Mating disruptors

7 0 0 0 0 0

Chrysoperla eggs

0 0 0 0 0 0

Constraints- Researchers’ and Extension agents’ perspective As mentioned earlier, constraints to adoption of IPM as seen by the researchers and extension agents were examined. Feedback and responses were obtained from researchers and extension agents working on IPM and ranked S.No Constraints Rank 1 Farmers’ mindset (habituation, quick knock-down effects 1 2 Changing pest dynamics, more knowledge and expertise

required 2

3 Not fully convinced about effectiveness 3 4 Labour-intensive and knowledge intensive 4 5 Adopt if suffered pest shocks in the recent past 5 6

Not readily available, to be prepared well before actual time of application

6

7

Newer insecticides 7

281

This observation support the earlier finding that many farmers were unsure of the effect of IPM. Next important constraint, which has the implications to the way extension agents work, is the need to adapt to the changing pest dynamics and lack of expertise. It was expressed that the nature of pest attack vary across locations, seasons and the experts need to work in a given area for a minimum period of 3-5 years if farmers were to pick up necessary skills and expertise, and more importantly develop a conviction towards IPM. The next two constraints flow from these phenomena only. Another important observation was that farmers adopted IPM more readily when they had suffered pest outbreaks in the recent past. Higher adoption of IPM was reported in pigeonpea in the late nineties after the outbreak of pod borers and following the whitefly epidemic in cotton. Similarly, farmers religiously put ‘bonfires’ to control red hairy caterpillar in groundnut a few years ago. In response to changing pest dynamics, different manufactures were trying to making available insecticides with more effectiveness and shorter residual effects which were found to have an impact on IPM adoption. Case studies of successful IPM campaigns taken up by some NGOs, KVKs in Anantapur and Guntur reflected how those agencies took care to ease some of these constraints. In most of these programmes, efforts were made to make available the key IPM inputs (neem preparations, NPV formulations, pheromone traps, etc) available to the farmers. In that process different institutional arrangements with varying degrees of people’s participation were attempted. The agencies tried to work with the communities closely and advise them properly. Some agencies moved further and tried to promote non-pesticidal management (NPM) also. The efficacy of some of the methods often included in NPM needs to be scientifically tested. Inadequacy of the scientific expertise is one of the constraints faced by the agencies involved in transfer of IPM technologies and therefore a stronger interaction with the research organizations is very critical as the IPM is knowledge-intensive. Considering the farmers’ mindset in favour of use of insecticides and the difficulties in making available IPM inputs readily to the farmers, some of these agencies even admitted that the IPM adoption would fall down once they (the external agency) left the community. There are some genuine constraints in terms of economic viability, technical expertise with the community, maintaining quality and shelf life, in making these biological inputs readily available to the farmers when needed. In the absence of that farmers are having to prepare them well in advance. Moreover, the preparation of these inputs is sometimes not a very pleasant task and cumbersome too and as a result only those farmers with abundant family labour and have high conviction levels are resorting to these practices. It is however to be mentioned that the cultural components of IPM (inter-cropping, trap crops etc) are widely accepted by farmers. Finally it can be concluded that the difficulties in terms of expertise inadequacy, institutional bottlenecks, limited availability of inputs and farmers’ mindset, the successful campaigns remained ‘islands of salvation’ without getting converted into a larger scale adoption that was often expected from such programmes. The findings of this study bring out the following policy implications.

• The information being passed on to the farmers need to be more complete in terms of details of what, when, how much and how to follow certain IPM practices. The changing pest-dynamics and relative occurrence of different pests need to be better understood.

• Since human capital and social capital related variables were found to be positively associated with IPM adoption, it is important that farmers are given necessary information and skills. The effectiveness and coverage of Farmers’ Field Schools need to be strengthened further. Farmers

282

growing a crop in contiguous area can be dealt with as a single group for enhancing IPM adoption.

• The conviction of farmers regarding effectiveness of IPM is to be enhanced by appropriate demonstrations and continuous interactions with the farmers.

• The agencies working on IPM promotion need to work with the community closely and for long enough (at least three years) so that farmers will get enough hand-holding.

• The extension agencies should also have a strong backward-linkage with researchers working on the pest management of the crops concerned. Appropriate institutional arrangements have to be made to make available the biologicalinputs to the farmers without compromising on the quality of these inputs.

• Farmers should be made aware about the expanding market for residue-free agricultural produce and efforts are to be made to connect farmers to such markets so that they get some price premium for ‘clean’ produce.

• Possibilities to include the dealers of agricultural inputs to promote IPM have to be explored. (C.A. Rama Rao, M. Srinivas Rao, K. Srinivas and Y.S. Ramakrishna-2007- Adoption and Impact of Integrated Pest Management in Cotton, and Pigeonpea -Research Bulletin /AgEcon/2/2007-Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture Saidabad P.O., Santoshnagar, Hyderabad – 500 059)

15.2. Adoption to Climate changes in Agriculture and and Mitigation Initiative: (TOR:Deliverables:VIII.)

How does climate change influence agriculture?

Agriculture is extremely vulnerable to climate change. Higher temperatures eventually reduce yields of desirable crops while encouraging weed and pest proliferation. Changes in precipitation patterns increase the likelihood of short-run crop failures and long-run production declines. Although there will be gains in some crops in some regions of the world, the overall impacts of climate change on agriculture are expected to be negative, threatening global food security.

Climate change may have beneficial as well as detrimental consequences for agriculture. Some research indicates that warmer temperatures lengthen growing seasons and increased carbon dioxide in the air results in higher yields from some crops. A warming climate and decreasing soil moisture can also result in production patterns shifting northward and an increasing need for irrigation. Changes, however, will likely vary significantly by region. Geography will play a large role in how agriculture might benefit from climate change. While projections look favorable for some areas, the potential of increased climate variability and extremes are not necessarily considered. Benefits to agriculture might be offset by an increased likelihood of heat waves, drought, severe thunderstorms and tornadoes. An increase in climate variability makes adaptation difficult for farmers.

283

Agriculture and human well-being will be negatively affected by climate change:

• In developing countries, climate change will cause yield declines for the most important crops. South Asia will be particularly hard hit.

• Climate change will have varying effects on irrigated yields across regions, but irrigated yields for all crops in South Asia will experience large declines.

• Climate change will result in additional price increases for the most important agricultural crops– rice, wheat, maize, and soybeans. Higher feed prices will result in higher meat prices. As a result, climate change will reduce the growth in meat consumption slightly and cause a more substantial fall in cereals consumption.lorie availability in 2050 will not only be lower than in the no–climate-change scenario—it will actually decline relative to 2000 levels throughout the developing world.

• By 2050, the decline in calorie availability will increase child malnutrition by 20 percent relative to a world with no climate change. Climate change will eliminate much of the improvement in child malnourishment levels that would occur with no climate change.

• Thus, aggressive agricultural productivity investments of US$7.1–7.3 billion are needed to aise calorie consumption enough to offset the negative impacts of climate change on the health and well-being of children.

The effects of climate on agriculture:

Specifically on cropping systems, pasture and grazing lands and animal management The following findings are excerpted from the report: With increased carbon dioxide and higher temperatures, the life cycle of grain and oilseed crops will likely progress more rapidly. The marketable yield of many horticultural crops, such as tomatoes, onions and fruits, is very likely to be more sensitive to climate change than grain and oilseed crops. Climate change is likely to lead to a northern migration of weeds. Many weeds respond more positively to increasing carbon dioxide than most cash crops. Disease pressure on crops and domestic animals will likely increase with earlier springs and warmer winters. Projected increases in temperature and a lengthening of the growing season on the effects of climate on agriculture, specifically on cropping systems, pasture and grazing lands and animal management).

The following findings are excerpted from the report

• With increased carbon dioxide and higher temperatures, the life cycle of grain and oilseed crops will likely progress more rapidly.

• The marketable yield of many horticultural crops, such as tomatoes, onions and fruits, is very likely to be more sensitive to climate change than grain and oilseed crops.

• Climate change is likely to lead to a northern migration of weeds. Many weeds respond more positively to increasing carbon dioxide than most cash crops.

• Disease pressure on crops and domestic animals will likely increase with earlier springs and warmer winters.

• Projected increases in temperature and a lengthening of the growing season will likely extend forage production into late fall and early spring.

284

• Climate change-induced shifts in plant species are already under way in rangelands. The establishment of perennial herbaceous species is reducing soil water availability early in the growing season.

• Higher temperatures will very likely reduce livestock production during the summer season, but these losses will be partially offset by warmer temperatures during the winter season (Backlund et al., 2008)

Agriculture influence climate change

Agriculture’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions

Agriculture activities serve as both sources and sinks for greenhouse gases. Agriculture sinks of greenhouse gases are reservoirs of carbon that have been removed from the atmosphere through the process of biological carbon sequestration. The primary sources of greenhouse gases in agriculture are the production of nitrogen based fertilizers; the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, gasoline, diesel fuel and natural gas; and waste management. Livestock enteric fermentation, or the fermentation that takes place in the digestive systems of ruminant animals, results in methane emissions. Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere and converted to organic carbon through the process of photosynthesis. As organic carbon decomposes, it is converted back to carbon dioxide through the process of respiration.

Increased intensity and frequency of storms, drought and flooding, altered hydrological cycles and precipitation variance have implications for future food availability. The potential impacts on rainfed agriculture vis-à-vis irrigated systems are still not well understood.

Organic production, cover cropping and crop rotations can drastically increase the amount of carbon stored in soils. In 2005, agriculture accounted for from 10 to 12 percent of total global human caused emissions of greenhouse gases, according the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007b). Greenhouse gases have varying global warming potentials; therefore climate scientists use carbon dioxide equivalents to calculate a universal measurement of greenhouse gas emissions.

Carbon sequestration

Carbon sequestration in the agriculture sector refers to the capacity of agriculture lands and forests to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is absorbed by trees, plants and crops through photosynthesis and stored as carbon in biomass in tree trunks, branches, foliage and roots and soils Forests and stable grasslands are referred to as carbon sinks because they can store large amounts of carbon in their vegetation and root systems for long periods of time. Soils are the largest terrestrial sink for carbon on the planet. The ability of agriculture lands to store or sequester carbon depends on several factors, including climate, soil type, type of crop or vegetation cover and management practices.

The amount of carbon stored in soil organic matter is influenced by the addition of carbon from dead plant material and carbon losses from respiration, the decomposition process and both natural and human disturbance of the soil. By employing farming practices that involve minimal disturbance of the

285

soil and encourage carbon sequestration, farmers may be able to slow or even reverse the loss of carbon from their fields.

Genetic engineering, agriculture, biomass production and climate change:

Biotechnology and agrochemical companies promote similar messages: population is predicted to rise by 50% to some 9 billion by 2050, so we must increase food production by 50-100% in order to meet new aspirations for meat consumption. In addition, we face climate change and peak oil so we need to produce an increasing proportion of energy and fuels, including first and second generation agro fuels, from biomass. However, there are insufficient natural resources including land and water for this expansion, so we must produce more from each hectare. For this we need crops with increased yields. At the same time, we must also respond to climate change so we need plants that can flourish in conditions of greater extremes of weather, heat, flood and drought. Because much land is saline, due to irrigation and flooding, we also need salt tolerant crops. Since synthetic nitrogen fertilizer in particular is energy intensive to produce and since not all of it is taken up by the crop plants resulting in N2O greenhouse gas emissions and nitrate leaching, biotech research also needs to develop crop plantscapable of fixing their own nitrogen. Finally, a considerable amount of energy is required to break down biomass from trees and other plants into the sugars required for agrofuels and other industrial products. So biotechnology proponents promise GM plants that will break down more easily, and enzymes and microorganisms that will reduce the need for energy, and therefore emissions, in industrial processes. In sum, the biotech companies promise to feed the expanding human population, to replace fossil fuels and to tackle climate change through genetic 96 Declaration: ‘Biochar’, a new big threat to people, land, and ecosystems. Synthetic biology to custom-build microorganisms.

Increased yield:

The biotech industry regularly claims that the currently available genetically modified (GM) crops already show increased yield, even though their GM traits are herbicide tolerance and insecticide (Bt) production in soya, maize (corn)and cotton. However, careful examination shows that this is not the case. For some GM crops, such as herbicide tolerant soya,98 even lower yields compared to conventional varieties could be observed.99 It is also important to distinguish between actual (intrinsic) yield increase that is caused by the growth performance of the plant and operational yield increase, caused by a reduction of losses from pests and diseases or improved farming practices. The Union of Concerned Scientists notes in its recent report Failure to Yield100 that “no currently available transgenic varieties enhance the intrinsic yield of any crops” and attributes rises in intrinsic yield to conventional breeding. The claim that herbicide tolerant GM crops in non-till agriculture are already a method to fight climate change.

286

Claims for future biotech crops and trees

New crops for yield increase:

Over the last 10 to 15 years, many attempts and trials have been undertaken to develop GM crops for higher intrinsic yield. No such crop has so far been proposed for commercial use, and little scientific information is available on how such yield increases could be achieve

Abiotic stress tolerance:

For many years the biotech industry has promised salt, heat, flood and drought tolerant crops to deal with soil and water degradation due to land-use change, overexploitation and industrial monocultures. Climate change has intensified the need for abiotic stress tolerance in crops, but this does not mean we must develop stress tolerant GM crops. Abiotic stress tolerance can also be developed through conventional breeding or by using already adapted crop varieties. The currently grown first generations of herbicide tolerant and insecticide expressing (Bt) crops are simply modified to produce an additional protein, and even that cannot be done precisely, producing unexpected effects. Projected new GM traits like stress tolerance involves complex interactions among many genes and molecular signal pathways. Indeed,the simple equivalence between a gene and a trait is the exception rather than the rule, and the interactions between (groups of) genes, proteins and chemical compounds involved in conferring abiotic stress tolerance are neither fully understood nor predictable. Even when single genes are identified that are correlated with stress tolerances, this is still a long way from actually being able to develop and test a GM plant. According to Osama El-Tayeb, Professor Emeritus of Industrial Biotechnology at Cairo University: transgenicity for drought tolerance and other environmental stresses (or, for that matter, biological nitrogen fixation) are too complex to be attainable in the foreseeable future, taking into consideration our extremely limited knowledge of biological systems and how genetic/metabolic functions operate.”

Other promised GM solutions include:

• Nitrogen-fixing for non-leguminous plants to reduce dependence on chemical nitrogen fertilizers. As El-Tayeb pointed out above, this trait too depends on complex interaction of several genes, and any attempts have failed so far.

• Enhanced uptake and utilization of nitrogen to enable plants to make full use of all the nitrogen present in the soil, no matter whether these are nutrient poor or strongly,fertilized soils. Attempts to genetically modify rice and other crops for high nutrient use are still in early stages, as currently there is poor understanding of how the genes involved are regulated.

• Altered temperature/geographic range to enable plants to grow outside their usual climatic conditions and regions; for example cold-tolerant eucalyptus trees.103 The dangers of such an approach have not been assessed yet, but since eucalyptus is an invasive species, the risk exist that it becomes even more invasive and disrupts ecosystems by displacing native species. GM trees and other plants growing in a new environment will also start interacting unpredictably with other organisms, including pests.

• converting C3 plants in into C4 plants: Summarized very briefly, C4 plants such as maize, sugarcane and millet are considered to photosynthesise, tolerate heat and use water more efficiently than C3 plants (e.g. potato, rice, wheat and barley), and therefore might be adapted

287

better to climate change conditions. Yet conversion from C3 to C4 would involve modifying the complex photosynthetic system of the plant.

• resistance to emerging pests and diseases: Current GM crops have led to the emergence of herbicide tolerant weeds, new pest and disease patterns. In response, the biotech industry is developing crops stacked with different patented genes for herbicide tolerance and insect resistance. With SmartStax™, a GM maize with as much as eight GM traits is under development.104 Also promised is a cotton that tolerates two herbicides, dicamba and glufosinate. However,

• It is likely that even stacked crops will generate pest resistance, thus continuing the race between technology developers and pests that is familiar from the green revolution and earlier generations of genetically engineered crops.105 And even in stacked GM crops, insecticide production never works against all pests, but leaves the plant just as vulnerable to other (secondary) pests. Climate change will bring to bear its own unpredictable shifts, complexities and pressures.

Approaches to Climate change Adoption:

Managed carefully, climate adaptation strategies could have environmental benefits for some countries In Agricultural sector, it has been identified different adaptation measures, including: change in topography of land , use of artificial systems to improve water use/availability and protect against soil erosion change farming systems, change timing of farm operations, use of different crop varieties, Governmental and Institutional policies and programmes and research into new technologies. Many of these involve improved resource management – an option with benefits that extend beyond adaptation. These “additional” benefits should not be underestimated. Climate change and variability are among the most important challenges facing in the villages because of their strong economic reliance on natural resources and rain-fed agriculture. People living in marginal areas such as dry lands face additional challenges with limited management options to reduce impacts. Climate adaptation strategies should reflect such circumstances in terms of the speed of the response and the choice of options. In view of the above, a framework for climate change adaptation needs to be directed simultaneously along several interrelated lines:

Two main types of adaptation are autonomous and planned adaptation. Autonomous adaptation is the reaction of, for example, a farmer to changing precipitation patterns, in that she/he changes crops or uses different harvest and planting/sowing dates. Planned adaptation measures are conscious policy options or response strategies, often multicultural in nature, aimed at altering the adaptive capacity of the agricultural system or facilitating specific adaptations. For example, deliberate crops selection and distribution strategies across different agriclimatic zones, substitution of new crops for old ones and resource substitution induced by scarcity Large reductions in adverse impacts from climate change are possible when adaptation is fully implemented Short-term adjustments are seen as autonomous in the sense that no other sectors (e.g. policy, research etc.) are needed in their development and implementation. Long-term adaptations are major structural changes to overcome adversity such as changes in land-use to maximize yield under new conditions; application of new technologies; new land

288

management techniques; and water-use efficiency related techniques and the following “major classes of adaptation”:

• seasonal changes and sowing dates; • Different variety or species; • water supply and irrigation system; • other inputs (fertilizer, tillage methods, grain drying, other field operations);new crop

varieties;Forest management, promotion of agroforestry, adaptive management with suitable species and silvicultural practices

• Land reclamation and making the degraded land in to Cultivable land

Agriculture’s role in mitigating climate change:

Several farming practices and technologies can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prevent climate change by enhancing carbon storage in soils; preserving existing soil carbon; and reducing carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide emissions.

Improved cropping and organic systems

Recent reports have investigated the potential of organic agriculture to reduce greenhouse gas emissions Organic systems of production increase soil organic matter levels through the use of composted animal manures and cover crops. Organic cropping systems also eliminate the emissions from the production and transportation of synthetic fertilizers. Components of organic agriculture could be implemented with other sustainable farming systems, such as conservation tillage, to further increase climate change mitigation potential.

Generally, conservation farming practices that conserve moisture improve yield potential and reduce erosion and fuel costs also increase soil carbon. Examples of practices that reduce carbon dioxide emissions and increase soil carbon include direct seeding, field windbreaks, rotational grazing, perennial forage crops, reduced summer fallow and proper straw management. Using higher-yielding crops or varieties and maximizing yield potential can also increase soil carbon.

Land restoration and land use changes

Soil and land management

Climate change adaptation for agricultural cropping systems requires a higher resilience against both excess of water (due to high intensity rainfall) and lack of water (due to extended drought periods). A key element to respond to both problems is soil organic matter, which improves and stabilizes the soil structure so that the soils can absorb higher amounts of water without causing surface run off, which could result in soil erosion and, further downstream, in flooding. Soil organic matter also improves the water absorption capacity of the soil for during extended drought.

Land restoration and land use changes that encourage the conservation and improvement of soil, water and air quality typically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Modifications to grazing practices, such as

289

implementing sustainable stocking rates, rotational grazing and seasonal use of rangeland, can lead to greenhouse gas reductions. Converting marginal cropland to trees or grass maximizes carbon storage on land that is less suitable for crops.

Salinity

According to UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) it is predicted that by 2010, 80% of the world’s population will live within 100 kilometers of the sea. Those living in the cities face water shortage in terms of household usage while those living in the rural areas face water shortage in terms of drinking water as wells as agricultural reasons. This problem gets further compounded when an area suffers from the problem of Salinity Ingress. This problem is characterized by mixing of the sweet rainfed groundwater and the vertical saline water aquifers. This occurs due to over withdrawal of groundwater ingress into the substrata. The salinity prevention department of the government first addressed this problem. This problem has been a major hazard for Human and Animal Health, Agriculture, and other allied livelihood activities.

The reasons for Salinity Ingress came out from the PRA (Participatory Rural Appraisal exercises) conducted in some of the salinity affected villages of Peranampet block of Vellore district. According to the villagers the problem of salinity ingress was first noticed in the late seventies. The major reasons for the salinity problem are as follows:

1. Heavy withdrawal of the ground water to meet the increasing needs of the growing population. This has resulted from a tremendous increase in number of wells, diesel and electrical pumps etc.

2. Cultivation of water intensive agriculture crops like Sugarcane, Wheat, Coconut, Banana, summer groundnut leading to artificial shortage of groundwater.

3. Over-Irrigation and mismanagement of ground water. Also it has been noticed there is a high water run-off towards the sea due to inadequate water harvesting.

Pest and disease Conditions are more favorable for the proliferation of insect pests in warmer climates. Longer growing seasons will enable insects such as grasshoppers to complete a greater number of reproductive cycles during the spring, summer, and autumn. Warmer winter temperatures may also allow larvae to winter-over in areas where they are now limited by cold, thus causing greater infestation during the following crop season. Altered wind patterns may change the spread of both wind-borne pests and of the bacteria and fungi that are the agents of crop disease. Crop-pest interactions may shift as the timing of development stages in both hosts and pests is altered. Livestock diseases may be similarly affected. The possible increases in pest infestations may bring about greater use of chemical pesticides to control them, a situation that will require the further development and application of integrated pest management techniques.

290

Rural livelihoods

The risks and vulnerabilities of the poor who live in insecure places and need to build their resilience to cope with climatic fluctuations are among the more important challenges in adapting to increasing climate variability and climate change. A livelihood-based approach to promote climate change adaptation processes at grass root level building on the assumption that most rural communities in the block. The basic processes associated with the approach to working with farmers, livestock keepers at local level, therefore involve: assessing and understanding current livelihood systems, indigenous knowledge, adaptive capacities and vulnerabilities; starting work on the issues that matter today and, based on that, identifying and promoting options to adapt to climate variability, jointly with local agricultural producers and research institutes and extension; enhancing local adaptive capacities by linking multiple stakeholders.

Capacity building of rural institutions

The strengthening the capacity of rural institutions to use appropriate tools and strategies such as:

■ Participatory identification of current vulnerabilities and risk reduction measures, and implementation of prioritized community-based disaster risk reduction activities (e.g. national and sub-national early warning systems);■ Strengthening capacity of communities to manage their resources (e.g. savings, credit schemes, agricultural inputs, agricultural production, land use, etc.);■ Enhancing the use of technological options to manage climate variability associated risks (e.g. disaster information management system);■ Raising awareness of farmers and building capacities of local institutions in Support of national disaster management policy;■ Advocacy by policy makers on natural disaster risk management and climate change; ■ Introducing the additional layer of accountability provided by the rightsbased approach, and ■ Partnerships between regional and national research institutions, extension systems and farmers/fishermen.

Impacts of Climate Change on Agriculture

291

• Although increase in carbon dioxide is likely to be beneficial to several crops, associated increase in temperatures, and increased variability of rainfall would considerably impact food production. Recent IPCC report and a few other global studies indicate a probability of 10 – 40% loss in crop production in India with increases in temperature by 2080 – 2100.

• There are a few Indian studies on this theme and they generally confirm similar trend of agricultural decline with climate change. Recent studies done at the Indian Agricultural Research Institute indicate the possibility of loss of 4–5 million tons in wheat production in future with every rise of 1oC temperature throughout the growing period (but no adaptation benefits). It also assumes that irrigation would remain available in future at today’s levels. Losses for other crops are still uncertain but they are expected to be relatively smaller, especially for kharif crops.

• It is, however, possible for farmers and other stakeholders to adapt to a limited extent and reduce the losses (possible adaptation options are described later in this document). Simple adaptations such as change in planting dates and crop varieties could help in reducing impacts of climate change to some extent. For example, the Indian Agricultural Research Institute study quoted above indicates that losses in wheat production in future can be reduced from 4 – 5 million tons to 1 – 2 million tons if a large percentage of farmers could change to timely planting and changed to better adapted varieties. This change of planting would, however, need to be examined from a cropping systems perspective.

• Increasing climatic variability associated with global warming will, nevertheless, result in considerable seasonal/annual fluctuations in food production. All agricultural commodities even today are sensitive to such variability. Droughts, floods, tropical cyclones, heavy precipitation events, hot extremes, and heat waves are known to negatively impact agricultural production, and farmers’ livelihood. The projected increase in these events will result in greater instability in food production and threaten livelihood security of farmers.

• Increasing glacier melt in Himalayas will affect availability of irrigation especially in the Indo-Gangetic plains, which, in turn, has large consequences on our food production.

• Global warming in short-term is likely to favour agricultural production in temperate regions (largely northern Europe, North America) and negatively impact tropical crop production (South Asia, Africa). This is likely to have consequences on international food prices and trade and hence our food security.

• Small changes in temperature and rainfall could have significant effect on quality of cereals, fruits, aromatic, and medicinal plants with resultant implications on their prices and trade.

• Pathogens and insect populations are strongly dependent upon temperature and humidity. Increases in these parameters will change their population dynamics resulting in yield loss.

• Global warming could increase water, shelter, and energy requirement of livestock for meeting projected milk demands. Climate change is likely to aggravate the heat stress in dairy animals, adversely affecting their productive and reproductive performance. A preliminary estimate indicates that global warming is likely to lead to a loss of 1.6 million tones in milk production in India by 2020.

• Increasing sea and river water temperature is likely to affect fish breeding, migration, and harvests. A rise in temperature as small as 1°C could have important and rapid effects on the mortality of fish and their geographical distributions. Oil sardine fishery did not exist before 1976 in the northern latitudes and along the east coast as the resource was not available/and sea surface temperature (SST) were not congenial. With warming of sea surface, the oil sardine is able to find temperature to its preference especially in the northern latitudes and eastern longitudes, thereby extending the distributional boundaries and establishing fisheries in larger coastal areas.

292

• Corals in Indian Ocean will be soon exposed to summer temperatures that will exceed the thermal thresholds observed over the last 20 years. Annual bleaching of corals will become almost a certainty from 2050.

(Helena Paul, Stella Semino, Antje Lorch, Bente Hessellund Andersen, Susanne Gura & Almuth Ernsting,2009, Agriculture and climate change:Real problems, false solutions, Agriculture & Climate Change, This is a preliminary version of a new report on Agriculture and Climate Change.prepared for the Bonn Climate Change Talks, June 2009)

How rising temperatures will affect pathogens and disease

Temperature has potential impacts on plant disease through both the host crop plant and the pathogen. Research has shown that host plants such as wheat and oats become more susceptible to rust diseases with increased temperature; but some forage species become more resistant to fungi with increased temperature (Coakley et al 1999). Many mathematical models that have been useful for forecasting plant disease epidemics are based on increases in pathogen growth and infection within specified temperature ranges. Generally, fungi that cause plant disease Climate Change and Agriculture: Promoting Practical and Profitable Responses grow best in moderate temperature ranges. Temperate climate zones that include seasons with cold average temperatures are likely to experience longer periods of temperatures suitable for pathogen growth and reproduction if climates warm. For example, predictive models for potato and tomato late blight (caused by Phytophthora infestans) show that the fungus infects and reproduces most successfully during periods of high moisture that occur when temperatures are between 45o F (7.2 o C) and 80 o F (26.8 o C) (Wallin et al 1950). Earlier onset of warm temperatures could result in an earlier threat from late blight with the potential for more severe epidemics and increases in the number of fungicide applications needed for control.

How changes in moisture will affect pathogens and disease

Moisture can impact both host plants and pathogen organisms in various ways. Some pathogens such as apple scab, late blight, and several vegetable root pathogens are more likely to infect plants with increased moisture – forecast models for these diseases are based on leaf wetness, relative humidity and precipitation measurements. Other pathogens like the powdery mildew species tend to thrive in conditions with lower (but not low) moisture. More frequent and extreme precipitation events that are predicted by some climate change models could result in more and longer periods with favorable pathogen environments. Host crops with canopy size limited by lack of moisture might no longer be so limited and may produce canopies that hold moisture in the form of leaf wetness or high canopy relative humidity for longer periods, thus increasing the risk from pathogen infection (Coakley et al 1999). Some climate change models predict higher atmospheric water vapor concentrations with increased temperature – this also would favor pathogen and disease development.How rising CO2 levels will affect pathogens and diseaseIncreased CO2 levels can impact both the host and the pathogen in multiple ways. Some of the observed CO2 effects on disease may counteract others. Researchers have shown that higher growth rates of leaves and stems observed for plants grown under high CO2 oncentrations may result in denser canopies with higher humidity that favor pathogens. Lower plant decomposition

293

rates observed in high CO2 situations could increase the crop residue on which disease organisms can overwinter, resulting in higher inoculum levels at the beginning of the growing season, and earlier and faster disease epidemics. Pathogen growth can be affected by higher CO2 concentrations resulting in greater fungal spore production. However, increased CO2 can result in physiological changes to the host plant that can increase host resistance to pathogens (Coakley et al 1999).

How climate change could impact plant disease management practices

While physiological changes in host plants may result in higher disease resistance under climate change scenarios, host resistance to disease may be overcome more quickly by more rapid disease cycles, resulting in a greater chance of pathogens evolving to overcome host plant resistance. Fungicide and bactericide efficacy may change with increased CO2, moisture, and temperature. The more frequent rainfall events predicted by climate change models could result in farmers finding it difficult to keep residues of contact fungicides on plants, triggering more frequent applications. Systemic fungicides could be affected negatively by physiological changes that slow uptake rates, such as smaller stomatal opening or thicker epicuticular waxes in crop plants grown under higher temperatures. These same fungicides could be affected positively by increased plant metabolic rates that could increase fungicide uptake. It is not well

Climate Change and Agriculture: Promoting Practical and Profitable Responses understood how naturally-occurring biological control of pathogens by other microbial organisms could change as populations of microorganisms shift under changed temperature and moisture regimes – in some cases antagonistic organisms may out-compete pathogens while in others pathogens may be favored. Exclusion of pathogens and quarantines through regulatory means may become more difficult for authorities as unexpected pathogens might appear more frequently on imported crops.

Late blight (Phytopthora infestans) infects both potatoes and tomatoes in the northeastern US. It can be a devastating disease for both crops and farmers, with complete crop loss a possibility if control measures are not employed. Infection is triggered by high moisture conditions within a fairly specific temperature range. Annually, 5-20 fungicide applications from as early as June through August are used in the northeastern US (Stivers 1999b, Hoffman 1999. Baniecki and Dabaam 2000b). This represents a significant expense to farmers and a significant environmental risk. Work in Finland, which is considered to be in a similar late blight risk zone to the northeastern US (Hijmans 2000), has predicted that for each 1 C warming late blight would occur 4 to 7 days earlier, and the susceptibility period extended by 10 to 20 days (Kaukoranta 1996). This would likely translate into an additional 1 to 4 additional fungicide applications for northeastern US potato farmers – increasing both farmer costs and environmental risk.

How rising temperatures affect insects

Climate change resulting in increased temperature could impact crop pest insect populations in Several complex ways. Although some climate change temperature effects might tend to depress insect populations, most researchers seem to agree that warmer temperatures in temperate climates will result in more types and higher populations of insects. Increased temperature could increase pest insect populations Researchers have shown that increased temperatures can potentially affect insect survival,

294

development, geographic range, and population size. Temperature can impact insect physiology and development directly or indirectly through the physiology or existence of hosts. Depending on the development “strategy” of an insect species, temperature can exert different effects (Bale et al 2002). Some insects take several years to complete one life cycle – these insects (cicadas, arctic moths) will tend to moderate temperature variability over the course of their life history. Some crop pests are “stop and go” developers in relation to temperature – they develop more rapidly during periods of time with suitable temperatures. We often use degree-day or phenology based models to predict the emergence of these insects and their potential to damage crops (cabbage maggot, onion maggot, European corn borer, Colorado potato beetle). Increased temperatures will accelerate the development of these types of insects – possibly resulting in more generations (and crop damage) per year. “Migratory” insects (corn earworm in northern parts of the northeast) may arrive in the Northeast earlier, or the area in which they are able to overwinter may be expanded. Natural enemy and host insect populations may respond differently to changes in temperature. Parasitism could be reduced if host populations emerge and pass through vulnerable life stages before parasitoids emerge. Hosts may pass though vulnerable life stages more quickly at higher temperatures, reducing the window of opportunity for parasitism. Temperature may change gender ratios of some pest species such as thrips (Lewis 1997) potentially affecting reproduction rates. Insects that spend important parts of their life histories in the soil may be more gradually affected by temperature changes than those that are above ground simply because soil provides an insulating medium that will tend to buffer temperature changes more than the air (Bale et al 2002).

Increased temperature could decrease pest insect populations

Some insects are closely tied to a specific set of host crops. Temperature increases that cause farmers not to grow the host crop any longer would decrease the populations of insect pests specific to those crops. The same environmental factors that impact pest insects can impact Climate Change and Agriculture: Promoting Practical and Profitable Responses their insect predators and parasites as well as the disease organisms that infect the pests, resulting in increased attack on insect populations. At higher temperatures, aphids have been shown to be less responsive to the aphid alarm pheromone they release when under attack by insect predators and parasitoids – resulting in the potential for greater predation. (Awmack et al 1997).

How changes in precipitation will affect insects

There are fewer scientific studies on the effect of precipitation on insects than temperature. Some insects are sensitive to precipitation and are killed or removed from crops by heavy rains - in some northeastern US states, this consideration is important when choosing management options for onion thrips (Reiners and Petzoldt 2005). For some insects that overwinter in soil, such as the cranberry fruitworm and other cranberry insect pests, flooding the soil has been used as a control measure (Vincent et al 2003). One would expect the predicted more frequent and intense precipitation events forecasted with climate change to negatively impact these insects. Other insects such as pea aphids are not tolerant of drought (Macvean and Dixon 2001). As with temperature, precipitation changes can impact insect pest predators, parasites, and diseases resulting in a complex dynamic. Fungal pathogens

295

of insects are favored by high humidity and their incidence would be increased by climate changes that lengthen periods of high humidity and reduced by those that result in drier conditions. How rising CO2 levels affect insects Generally CO2 impacts on insects are thought to be indirect - impact on insect damage results from changes in the host crop. Some researchers have found that rising CO2 can potentially have important effects on insect pest problems. Recently, free air gas concentration enrichment (FACE) technology was used to create an atmosphere with CO2 and O2 concentrations similar to what climate change models predict for the middle of the 21st century. FACE allows for field testing of crop situations with fewer limitations than those conducted in enclosed spaces. During the early season, soybeans grown in elevated CO2 atmosphere had 57% more damage from insects (primarily Japanese beetle, potato leafhopper, western corn rootworm and Mexican bean beetle) than those grown in today’s atmosphere, and required an insecticide treatment in order to continue the experiment. It is thought that measured increases in the levels of simple sugars in the soybean leaves may have stimulated the additional insect feeding (Hamilton et al. 2005).

How this will affect farmers

It is likely that farmers will experience extensive impacts on insect management strategies with Changes in climate. Entomologists expect that insects will expand their geographic ranges, and Increase reproduction rates and overwintering success. This means that it is likely that farmers in the northeastern US will have more types and higher numbers of insects to manage. Based Climate Change and Agriculture: Promoting Practical and Profitable Responses on current comparisons of insecticide usage between more southern states and more northern states, this is likely to mean more insecticide use and expense for northeastern farmers. New York conditions currently require 0-5 insecticide applications against lepidopteran insect pests to produce marketable sweet corn (Stivers 1999a); Maryland and Delaware conditions require 4-8 insecticide applications (Fournier 1999, Whitney et al. 2000); Florida conditions require 15-32 applications (Aerts et al, 1999). It is apparent that for sweet corn pests, warmer temperatures translate to increased insecticide applications to produce a marketable crop. Insecticides and their applications have significant economic costs for growers and environmental costs for society. Additionally, some classes of pesticides (pyrethroids and spinosad) have been shown to be less effective in controlling insects at higher temperatures (Musser & Shelton 2005). Entomologists predict additional generations of important pest insects in temperate climates as a result of increased temperatures, probably necessitating more insecticide applications to maintain populations below economic damage thresholds. A basic rule of thumb for avoiding the development of insecticide resistance is to apply insecticides with a particular mode of action less frequently (Shelton et al 2001, Georghiou and Taylor 1986). With more insecticide applications required, the probability of applying a given mode of action insecticide more times in a season will increase, thus increasing the probability of insects developing resistance to insecticides.

In New York a network of pheromone traps in sweet corn fields has been used to monitor corn earworm (Helicoverpa zea) throughout the central and western part of the state for over 10 years (Seaman personal communication). Corn earworm is thought not to overwinter in upstate New York and is generally considered to be a late season, migratory pest of sweet corn, so trapping was initiated in mid-July. The graphs in Figure 1 compare the trap catches in 1995 with those in 2003 in Eden Valley, NY.

296

What farmers can do to adapt

Farmers should keep in mind that climate change is likely to be a gradual process that will give them some opportunity to adapt. Although changes in our northeastern US climate are almost certainly happening, it is not precisely understood how these changes will affect crops, insects, diseases, and the relationships among them. If climate is warmer will increases in yield offset losses to pests, or will losses to pests outweigh yield advantages from warmer temperatures? It is likely that new pests will become established in more northerly areas and be able attack plants in new regions. It is likely that plants in some regions will be attacked more frequently by certain pests. A few pests may be less likely to attack crops as change occurs. It is likely that we will not know the actual impacts of climate change on pests until they occur. Clearly, it will be important for farmers to be aware of crop pest trends in their region and flexible in choosing both their management methods and in the crops they grow. Farmers who closely monitor the occurrence of pests in their fields and keep records of the severity, frequency, and cost of managing pests over time will be in a better position to make decisions about whether it remains economical to continue to grow a particular crop or use a certain pest management technique. If more fungicide or insecticide applications are required in order to successful grows a particular crop, farmers will need to carefully evaluate whether growing that crop remains economical. Those farmers who make the best use of the basics of integrated pest management (IPM) such as field monitoring, pest forecasting, recordkeeping, and choosing economically and environmentally sound control measures will be most likely to be successful in dealing with the effects of climate change.

Summary

• The precise impacts of climate change on insects and pathogens is somewhat uncertain because some climate changes may favor pathogens and insects while others may inhibit a few insects and pathogens.

The preponderance of evidence indicates that there will be an overall increase in the number of outbreaks of a wider variety of insects and pathogens.

• The possible increased use of fungicides and insecticides resulting from an increase in pest outbreaks will likely have negative environmental and economic impacts for agriculture in the northeastern US.

• The best economic strategy for farmers to follow is to use integrated pest management practices to closely monitor insect and disease occurrence. Keeping pest and crop management records over time will allow farmers to evaluate the economics and environmental impact of pest control and determine the feasibility of using certain pest management strategies or growing particular crops.

References

Insect references:

Andrew, N.R. and L. Hughes. 2005. Diversity and assemblage structure of phytophagous Hemiptera along a latitudinal gradient: predicting the potential impacts of climate change. Global Ecol Biogeogr. 14:249-262.

297

Awmack, C.S., C.M. Woodcock and R. Harrington. 1997. Climate change may increase Vulnerability of aphids to natural enemies. Ecological Entomology. 22:366-368.

Bale, J.S. G.J. Masters, I.D. Hodkinson, C. Awmack, T.M. Bezemer, V.K. Brown, J. Butterfield, A. Buse, J.C. Coulson, J. Farrar, J.E.G. Good, R. Harrington, S. Hartley, T.H. Jones. R.L. Lindroth, M.C. Press, I. Symrnioudis, A.D. Watt, and J.B. Whittaker. 2002. Herbivory in global climate change research: direct effects of rising temperatures on insect herbivores. Global Change Biology 8:1-16.

Cannon, R.J. 1998. The implications of predicted climate change for insect pests in the UK, with emphasis on non-indigenous species. 4:785-796.

Coviella, C. and J. Trumble. 1999. Effects of elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide on insectplant interactions. Conserv. Biol. 13:700-712.

Gaston, K.J. and P.H. Williams. 1996. Spatial patterns in taxonomic diversity. In: Biodiversity 202-229. Blackwell Science, Oxford.

Georghiou, G.P. and Taylor, C.E. 1986. Factors influencing the evolution of resistance. In: Pesticide Resistance: Strategies and tactics for management. National Research Council, National Academy Press. Pages 143-157.

Hamilton, J.G., O. Dermody, M. Aldea, A.R. Zangerl, A. Rogers, M.R. Berenbaum, and E. Delucia. 2005. Anthropogenic Changes in Tropospheric Composition Increase Susceptibility of Soybean to Insect Herbivory. Envirn. Entomol. 34:2 479-485.

Harrington, R., R, Fleming, I. P. Woiwood. 2001. Climate change impacts on insect management and conservation in temperate regions: can they be predicted? Agricultural and Forest Entomology 3:233-240.

Hunter, M.D. 2001. Effects of elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide on insect-plant interactions. Ag. Forest. Entomol. 3:153-159.

Lewis, T. 1997. Thrips as crop pests. CAB International, Cambridge: University Press. 740 pp.

Mcvean, R. and A. F. G. Dixon. 2001. The effect of plant drought-stress on populations of the pea aphid Acyrthosiphon pisum. Ecol. Entomol. 26: 440-443. Climate Change and Agriculture: Promoting Practical and Profitable Responses III - 16

Musser, F. P and A. M. Shelton. 2005. The influence of post-exposure temperature on the toxicity of insecticides to Ostrinia nubilalis (Lepidoptera:Crambidae). Pest Manag Sci. 61:508-510.

Reiners, S and C. Petzoldt (eds). 2005. Integrated Crop and Pest Management Guidelines for Commercial Vegetable Production. Cornell Cooperative Extension publication #124VG http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/recommends/

298

Shelton, A.M., W.R. Wilsey, and D.M. Soderlund. 2001. Classification of insecticides and acaricides for resistance management. Dept. of Entomology, NYSAES, Geneva, NY 14456. 315-787-2352. http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/faculty/shelton/pdf/res_mgmt.pdf

Vincent, C., G. Hallman, B. Panneton, and F. Fleurat-Lessardú. 2003. Management of agricultural insects with physical control methods. Ann Rev Entomol 48: 261-281.

Yamamura, K. and K. Kiritani. 1998. A simple method to estimate the potential increase in the number of generations under global warming in temperate zones. Appl. Ent. and Zool. 33:289-298.

(Curtis Petzoldt, and Abby Seaman, Climate Change Effects on Insects and Pathogens, Climate Change and Agriculture: Promoting Practical and Profitable Responses)

Disease references:

Castor, L.L., J.E. Ayers, A.A. McNabb, R.A. Krause. 1975. Computerized forecast system for Stewart’s bacterial disease on corn. Plant Dis. Rep. 59:533-536.

Chakraborty, S., A.V. Tiedemann, P.S. Teng. 2000. Climate Change: Potential impact on plant diseases. Environ. Poll. 108:317-326

Coakley, S.M., H. Scherm, S. Chakraborty. 1999. Climate Change and Disease Management. Ann. Rev. Phyto. 37:399-426.

Harvell, C.D., C.E. Mitchell, J. Ward, S. Altizer, A.P. Dobson, R.S. Ostfeld, M.D. Samuel. 2002. Climate Warming and Disease Risks for Terrestrial and Marine Biota. Science 296:2158-2162.

Hijmans, R.J., G.A. Forbes, and T.S. Walker. 2000. Estimating the global severity of potato late blight with GIS-linked disease forecast models. Plant Path. 49:697-705.

Kaukoranta, T. 1996. Impact of global warming on potato late blight: risk, yield loss, and control. Agric. Food Sci. Finl. 5:311-327.

Wallin,J.R. and P.E. Waggoner. 1950. The influence of climate on the development and spread of Phytophthora infestans in artificially inoculated potato plots. Plant Dis. Reptr. Suppl. 190. pp 19-33.

Adoptation and Mitigation in climate change and Pest and diseases:

Local Adaptation, Autonomous and Assisted Migration

Under climate change tree species will either migrate to track ecological niches spatially; adapt to new conditions in their current location, or become extinct [5]. The extent to which populations will adapt will depend on phenotypic variation, strength of selection, fecundity, interspecific competition, and biotic interactions [5]. For example, species that are restricted to a narrow range of landscape conditions (i.e. “specialists”) may fare less well than “generalists” that occupy a wider variety of locations. Migratory success of species will depend on both climatic and non-climatic factors. Non-

299

climatic factors affecting migration include: available seed sources, seed dispersal requirements and opportunities, soil conditions, biotic interactions, age to sexual maturity, fecundity and degree of range fragmentation

Species Range Shifts

Climate determines forest types at the global scale and controls species distribution within a region [8]. Under climate change the geographic ranges of many species are moving toward the poles or to higher altitudes in response to shifts in the habitats to which these species have adapted [9]. Some species will be unable to keep up with the movement of their ideal climatic envelope and will face the risk of extinction. However, our ability to predict the response of individual species and ecosystems to climate change is limited. There is no general theory that describes climate-driven responses among disparate tree species due in part to the diversity of ecological niches and growth strategies found among co-occurring species

Changes in climate may result in pathogen expansions and declines in the host habitat range, or the host may be released from disease control by changes in environmental conditions Indirect factors related to climate change can also enhance the resilience of forest ecosystems. Resistance to disease may take the form of increased thickness of the surface wax layer on leaves resulting in increase resistance to fungi that penetrate the tree or plants leaves.

Adaptation

• Reduce vulnerability to climate change • Layers of resilience

a. Community and farm level management b. Technology and acceptable to farmer’s capacity c. markets and institutions d. Govt., policy

Integrated strategy to adaptation

• Farm level adaptation: eg. changes in inputs, timings, tillage, irrigation practices, crop rotation, crop choice, crop diversification, crop harvesting and processing;

• Social adaptation: eg. Social networks, information dissemination, group action, SHGs, community projects, coping strategies, local water management techniques, in-house conflict resolution mechanisms, traditional water conservation measures;

• Technological adaptation: eg. micro-irrigation technologies, water harvesting, flood mitigation, land drainage

• Institutional and policy adaptation: eg. Responses to policies and institutions dealing with water allocation, planning and management, regulations on electricity usage, regulations of local institutions.

• Super early (ICC 96029, DM 75-80 days), extra- early(ICCV 2, DM 85-90 days) and early (KAK 2, DM 90-95days) varieties of chickpeaICC 96029 ICCV 2 KAK 2

• Get ahead of climate change - Ready adapted products: Development of early, extra-early and super-early chickpea cultivars at ICRISAT,ICRISAT is ahead of the game with its breeding program – need to develop core modeling capacity to ensure this is maintained in all aspects of our work

300

(Naveen P Singh, Mainstreaming Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation into Development strategies of Indian Agriculture, International Crops Research Institute in Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT),Hyderabad, India.)

15.3. Recommend plant protection adaptation options to climate change/ variability (ToR: VIII) Crops, weeds, pests and diseases in a changing world:

The agro-ecosystem must be understood as a multitrophic system with human interference. For the farmer, the crop is the centre of this ecosystem, and for ecologists the plant is the food basis or primary producer for an entire food web (Price 2002). Crop plants live in a very complex ecosystem. They live in competition with neighboring plants including weeds. Both are supported and/or attacked by viruses, bacteria, fungi, insects, mites, spiders, amphibia, birds, mammals etc. All of these species interact with each other. Pimentel (2009) estimates that globally 70,000 pest species, including 9,000 insect and mites, 50,000 plant pathogens and 8,000 species of weed exist. About 10% of these 70,000 are considered major pests

Each insect pest usually has numerous natural enemies (CPC 2007), which also have enemies again (Hunter 2009). A plant affected by an insect might produce volatiles which attracts natural enemies of this particular insect (Khan et al. 2008, Schnee et al. 2006, Degenhardt 2009), but the same chemicals may also attract more pests. In addition, each ecosystem also depends on its non-living (abiotic) environment like soil, water, climate, and micro-climate. Small changes might have large impacts for the individual plant/animal, which are not seen or understood by us. Why, for example, is one plant infested by aphids, but not the neighboring plant?

Climate change will have an impact on our ecosystems, which we will never fully comprehend. Pimm (2009) says: ‘There is likely no hope of ever predicting the detailed consequences of climate disruption to a particular species any more than we can predict the outcome of tossed dice.’ Furthermore, viruses, micro-organisms, plants and animals undergo evolution, and are sometimes able to adapt to new situations very quickly (Harmon et al. 2009).

Most ecological research on climate change and herbivorous species has focused on elevated CO2 and its impacts on insect species. Other groups of animals have largely been neglected (Bezemer & Knight 2001) and much less research has been done on increased temperature combined with elevated CO2

Insects herbivores:

Damage by insects’ pests is usually caused by chewing on plant tissues or sucking the plant sap (e.g. aphids). In many cases insect pests also transmit viruses, which then affect the plant. Price (2002) estimated that globally there are 360,000 insects’ species, which mainly live from plant material. Climate change is associated with warming, elevated CO2 and regionally changed precipitation.Currano et al. (2008) investigated fossil leaves from a historic time period with abrupt warming and increasing CO2 levels, similar to what climate change might cause in the future. The authors conclude that global

301

warming will in the long term increase insect herbivory. In contrast, Fajer (1989) argues that an enriched CO2 atmosphere alone, leading to low plant quality, will reduce herbivore densities and increase the probability of extinction.

Deutsch et al. (2008) suggest that many insect species may become extinct, because tropical insects are already living at environmental temperatures close to their optimum and any increase will have adverse affects - and it is very likely (> 90% chance) that, be the end of the century, a large proportion of tropical and subtropical Asia and Africa will experience unprecedented seasonal average temperatures.

Insects are ectothermic, they are very sensitive to temperature, and they cannot sustain living below and above certain thresholds. Each insect species and even each population might have a different optimum temperature for surviving and reproduction. In colder regions (higher latitudes) with distinctive seasons insects have broader thermal tolerance and are living in climates that are currently cooler than their optima (Deutsch et al. 2008).

Insects and the environment

Insects are cold-blooded organisms - the temperature of their bodies is approximately the same as that of the environment. Therefore, temperature is probably the single most important environmental factor influencing insect behavior, distribution, development, survival, and reproduction. Insect life stage predictions are most often calculated using accumulated degree days from a base temperature and biofix point. Some researchers believe that the effect of temperature on insects largely overwhelms the effects of other environmental factors (Bale et al 2002). It has been estimated that with a 2o C temperature increase insects might experience one to five additional life cycles per season (Yamamura & Kiritani 1998). Other researchers have found that moisture and CO2 effects on insects can be potentially important considerations in a global climate change setting (Hamilton 2005, Coviella and Trumble 1999, Hunter 2001). How rising temperatures affect insects Climate change resulting in increased temperature could impact crop pest insect populations in several complex ways. Although some climate change temperature effects might tend to depress insect populations, most researchers seem to agree that warmer temperatures in temperate climates will result in more types and higher populations of insects. Increased temperature could increase pest insect populations Researchers have shown that increased temperatures can potentially affect insect survival, development, geographic range, and population size. Temperature can impact insect physiology and development directly or indirectly through the physiology or existence of hosts. Depending on the development “strategy” of an insect species, temperature can exert different effects (Bale et al 2002). Some insects take several years to complete one life cycle – these insects (cicadas, arctic moths) will tend to moderate temperature variability over the course of their life history. Some crop pests are “stop and go” developers in relation to temperature – they develop more rapidly during periods of time with suitable temperatures. We often use degree-day or phenology based models to predict the emergence of these insects and their potential to damage crops (cabbage maggot, onion maggot, European corn borer, Colorado potato beetle). Increased temperatures will accelerate the development of these types of insects – possibly resulting in more generations (and crop damage) per year.

302

Increased temperature could decrease pest insect populations Some insects are closely tied to a specific set of host crops. Temperature increases that cause farmers not to grow the host crop any longer would decrease the populations of insect pests specific to those crops. The same environmental factors that impact pest insects can impact Climate Change and Agriculture: Promoting Practical and Profitable Responses their insect predators and parasites as well as the disease organisms that infect the pests, resulting in increased attack on insect populations. At higher temperatures, aphids have been shown to be less responsive to the aphid alarm pheromone they release when under attack by insect predators and parasitoids – resulting in the potential for greater predation. (Awmack et al 1997). How changes in precipitation will affect insects There are fewer scientific studies on the effect of precipitation on insects than temperature. Some insects are sensitive to precipitation and are killed or removed from crops by heavy rains - in some northeastern US states, this consideration is important when choosing management options for onion thrips (Reiners and Petzoldt 2005). For some insects that overwinter in soil, such as the cranberry fruitworm and other cranberry insect pests, flooding the soil has been used as a control measure (Vincent et al 2003). One would expect the predicted more frequent and intense precipitation events forecasted with climate change to negatively impact these insects. Other insects such as pea aphids are not tolerant of drought (Macvean and Dixon 2001). As with temperature, precipitation changes can impact insect pest predators, parasites, and diseases resulting in a complex dynamic. Fungal pathogens of insects are favored by high humidity and their incidence would be increased by climate changes that lengthen periods of high humidity and reduced by those that result in drier conditions. How rising CO2 levels affect insects Generally CO2 impacts on insects are thought to be indirect - impact on insect damage results from changes in the host crop. Some researchers have found that rising CO2 can potentially have important effects on insect pest problems. Recently, free air gas concentration enrichment (FACE) technology was used to create an atmosphere with CO2 and O2 concentrations similar to what climate change models predict for the middle of the 21st century. FACE allows for field testing of crop situations with fewer limitations than those conducted in enclosed spaces. During the early season, soybeans grown in elevated CO2 atmosphere had 57% more damage from insects (primarily Japanese beetle, potato leafhopper, western corn rootworm and Mexican bean beetle) than those grown in today’s atmosphere, and required an insecticide treatment in order to continue the experiment. It is thought that measured increases in the levels of simple sugars in the soybean leaves may have stimulated the additional insect feeding (Hamilton et al. 2005). Global warming might therefore benefit many insect species in the temperate regions. A warmer climate in these regions may result in changes in geographical distribution, increased overwintering (i.e. more insects survive the winter), changes in population growth rates, increases in the number of generations, extension of the development season, changes in crop-pest synchrony, changes in interspecific interactions and increased risk of invasion by migrant pests ( Bale et al. 2002). Musolin (2007), for example, observed that in Japan, warmer climate led to the northward migration of the green stinkbug (Nezara viridula) a major agricultural pest damaging soybean, rice, cotton and many

303

other crops. From his literature review of true bugs (Heteroptera) he concludes in line with Porter et al. (1991) that warming in temperate regions may have manifold effects on bugs.It shows the responses on bugs (Heteroptera) to slight and substantial temperature increases compiled by Musolin (2007).

Direct effects of higher CO2 concentrations on insects are basically not investigated. It seems that insects can detect CO2 sources such as plants and elevated levels might affect the insect’s CO2 sensing system (Guerenstein & Hildebrand 2008). However, there is a general agreement between scientists that the reduced nutrient quality of plants might lead to a compensation by increased feeding of many, but not all, herbivorous species (DeLucia 2008). Whittaker (1999) concluded from its review of studies on insects and elevated CO2 that so far, population densities of chewing insects are unaffected or decrease, but do not increase while sap sucker (phloem feeder) population densities might increase.

A meta-analysis of studies on elevated temperature and elevated CO2 suggests that insect herbivore performance is adversely affected by elevated CO2, favoured by elevated temperature, and not modified when both parameters (temperature and CO2 combined) were elevated (Zvevera & Kozlov 2006)

A few pest species/groups have been investigated more thoroughly and the cotton bollworn/pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera) a widely occurring lepidopteran pest, might give some idea what impact climate change might have on this species. Larvae of Helicoverpa armigera feed on many vegetables, cotton and cereals (CPC 2007). The adult moth lays eggs on the plant and after the eggs are hatched, the caterpillars feed. The duration of larval development depends on the temperature (to a maximum of 35°C in South- and Southeast Asia) and on the quality of the host food. On completion of growth the fully fed larva enters the soil to pupate. The pupal diapause is induced by short day lengths (11-14 hours/day) and low temperatures (15-23°C) experienced as a larva (ibid.). After a number of days, depending on the environmental conditions, the butterfly will emerge from the pupae and the cycle begins again. A Chinese research team has conducted several studies on Helicoverpa armigera and CO2. Chen et al. (2005) reared larvae of Helicoverpa armigera on milky grains of spring wheat grown in ambient CO2 concentrations, at 550 ppm and at 750 ppm. The results show that the larvae developed quite similarly under all CO2 concentrations, even though the larvae under elevated CO2 consumed much more than those under ambient CO2.Quite interesting is the fact that the adult moth raised under elevated CO2 lived longer, but laid significantly less eggs.

A multiple generation experiment compared consumption, growth and performance of Helicoverpa armigera feeding on transgenic BtCotton versus conventional cotton grown under elevated CO2 (750ppm) versus ambient CO2 (375 ppm). The results suggest that on the one hand damage caused by the cotton bollworm might be higher under elevated CO2 conditions, regardless of the cotton variety. On the other hand population abundance might be lower under elevated CO2compared to that under ambient CO2 (Chen et al. 2007). The researcher explain both observation with nutritional changes under elevated CO2 (e.g. compensatory feeding), but did not determine the nutrient content of the different experimental cotton groups.

304

Spider Mites

Spider mites are not insects. They belong to the class of Arachnida, and some of them are among the most important plant pests worldwide. They feed on leaves of over 150 plant species including field crops, vegetables, and fruits. A common member of the group is Tetranychus urticae (the glasshouse red spider mite, or two-spotted spider mite), which is common in tropical and warm temperate zones, and in glasshouses in temperate zones.

The results showed a quite opposite effect: under elevated CO2 spider mite reproduction increased significantly compared to lower CO2 (Heagle et al. 2002). They noted that slight temperature differences could cause significantly different reproduction rates

How this will affect farmers It is likely that farmers will experience extensive impacts on insect management strategies with changes in climate. Entomologists expect that insects will expand their geographic ranges, and increase reproduction rates and overwintering success Entomologists predict additional generations of important pest insects in temperate climates as a result of increased temperatures, probably necessitating more insecticide applications to maintain populations below economic damage thresholds. A basic rule of thumb for avoiding the development of insecticide resistance is to apply insecticides with a particular mode of action less frequently (Shelton et al 2001, Georghiou and Taylor 1986). With more insecticide applications required, the probability of applying a given mode of action insecticide more times in a season will increase, thus increasing the probability of insects developing resistance to insecticides. What farmers can do to adapt Farmers should keep in mind that climate change is likely to be a gradual process that will give them some opportunity to adapt. .

• If climate is warmer will increases in yield offset losses to pests, or will losses to pests outweigh yield advantages from warmer temperatures? It is likely that new pests will become established in more northerly areas and be able attack plants in new regions. It is likely that plants in some regions will be attacked more frequently by certain pests. A few pests may be less likely to attack crops as change occurs. It is likely that we will not know the actual impacts of climate change on pests until they occur.

• Clearly, it will be important for farmers to be aware of crop pest trends in their region and flexible in choosing both their management methods and in the crops they grow.

• Farmers who closely monitor the occurrence of pests in their fields and keep records of the severity, frequency, and cost of managing pests over time will be in a better position to make decisions about whether it remains economical to continue to grow a particular crop or use a certain pest management technique. If more fungicide or insecticide applications are required in order to successfully Climate Change and Agriculture:

• Promoting Practical and Profitable Responses grow a particular crop, farmers will need to carefully evaluate whether growing that crop remains economical. Those farmers who make the best use of the basics of integrated pest management (IPM) such as field monitoring, pest

305

forecasting, recordkeeping, and choosing economically and environmentally sound control measures will be most likely to be successful in dealing with the effects of climate change.

Plant Diseases:

Crops can be damaged by diseases caused by fungi (rust, blight, mildew, rot), bacteria/phytoplasma (wilt) and viruses. The occurrence of plant fungal and bacterial pests depends on climate and weather, but is also strongly influenced by agricultural practices. Viruses and phytoplasma are often transferred via vectors, often insects (Weintraub & Beanland 2006). Temperature, rainfall, humidity, radiation or dew can affect the growth and spread of fungi and bacteria (Patterson et al. 1999). Other important factors influencing plant diseases are air pollution, particularly ozone and UV-B radiation (Manning & von Tiedemann 1995) as well as nutrient (especially nitrogen) availability (Thompson et al. 1993).

How rising temperatures will affect pathogens and disease Temperature has potential impacts on plant disease through both the host crop plant and the pathogen. Research has shown that host plants such as wheat and oats become more susceptible to rust diseases with increased temperature; but some forage species become more resistant to fungi with increased temperature (Coakley et al 1999). Many mathematical models that have been useful for forecasting plant disease epidemics are based on increases in pathogen growth and infection within specified temperature ranges. Generally, fungi that cause plant disease Climate Change and Agriculture: Promoting Practical and Profitable Responses grow best in moderate temperature ranges. Temperate climate zones that include seasons with cold average temperatures are likely to experience longer periods of temperatures suitable for pathogen growth and reproduction if climates warm. For example, predictive models for potato and tomato late blight (caused by Phytophthora infestans) show that the fungus infects and reproduces most successfully during periods of high moisture that occur when temperatures are between 45o F (7.2 o C) and 80 o F (26.8 o C) (Wallin et al 1950). Earlier onset of warm temperatures could result in an earlier threat from late blight with the potential for more severe epidemics and increases in the number of fungicide applications needed for control. How changes in moisture will affect pathogens and disease Moisture can impact both host plants and pathogen organisms in various ways. Some pathogens such as apple scab, late blight, and several vegetable root pathogens are more likely to infect plants with increased moisture – forecast models for these diseases are based on leaf wetness, relative humidity and precipitation measurements. Other pathogens like the powdery mildew species tend to thrive in conditions with lower (but not low) moisture. More frequent and extreme precipitation events that are predicted by some climate change models could result in more and longer periods with favorable pathogen environments. Host crops with canopy size limited by lack of moisture might no longer be so limited and may produce canopies that hold moisture in the form of leaf wetness or high canopy relative humidity for longer periods, thus increasing the risk from pathogen infection (Coakley et al 1999). Some climate change models predict higher atmospheric water vapor concentrations with increased temperature – this also would favor pathogen and disease development How rising CO2 levels will affect pathogens and disease Increased CO2 levels can impact both the host and the pathogen in multiple ways. Some of the observed CO2 effects on disease may counteract others. Researchers have shown that higher growth rates of leaves and stems observed for plants grown under high CO2 concentrations may result in denser

306

canopies with higher humidity that favor pathogens. Lower plant decomposition rates observed in high CO2 situations could increase the crop residue on which disease organisms can overwinter, resulting in higher inoculum levels at the beginning of the growing season, and earlier and faster disease epidemics. Pathogen growth can be affected by higher CO2 concentrations resulting in greater fungal spore production. However, increased CO2 can result in physiological changes to the host plant that can increase host resistance to pathogens (Coakley et al 1999). How climate change could impact plant disease management practices While physiological changes in host plants may result in higher disease resistance under climate change scenarios, host resistance to disease may be overcome more quickly by more rapid disease cycles, resulting in a greater chance of pathogens evolving to overcome host plant resistance. Fungicide and bactericide efficacy may change with increased CO2, moisture, and temperature. The more frequent rainfall events predicted by climate change models could result in farmers finding it difficult to keep residues of contact fungicides on plants, triggering more frequent applications. Systemic fungicides could be affected negatively by physiological changes that slow uptake rates, such as smaller stomatal opening or thicker epicuticular waxes in crop plants grown under higher temperatures. These same fungicides could be affected positively by increased plant metabolic rates that could increase fungicide uptake. It is not well Climate Change and Agriculture: Promoting Practical and Profitable Responses understood how naturally-occurring biological control of pathogens by other microbial organisms could change as populations of microorganisms shift under changed temperature and moisture regimes – in some cases antagonistic organisms may out-compete pathogens while in others pathogens may be favored. Exclusion of pathogens and quarantines through regulatory means may become more difficult for authorities as unexpected pathogens might appear more frequently on imported crops. Agronomic practices (tillage system, crop rotation), fungicide use, but also herbicide use strongly influences disease pressure. Fernandez et al. 2009 showed for example, that in Canadian cereal cultures, previous use of glyphosate, the most extensively used herbicide globally, was consistently associated with higher Fusarium Head Blight pressure. Since plant diseases depend on host plants, impacts of climate change will influence diseases. Direct effects have also been observed. Manning and von Tiedemann (1995) for example, compiled results of studies where the bacteria and fungi cultures were directly exposed to increased CO2. They showed that direct exposure of high CO2concentrations often inhibits bacteria and fungi growth. it is likely that climate change will have positive, negative or neutral impacts on specific host–pathogen systems (Coakley et al. 1999,)

In general, climate change has the potential to modify host physiology and resistance, and to alter stages and rates of development of the pathogen (Coakley et al. 1999). Elevated CO2 may increase C3 plant canopy size and density, resulting in a greater biomass with a much higher microclimate relative humidity. This is likely to promote plant diseases such as rusts, powdery mildews, leaf spots and blights

However, Kobayashi et al. (2006) conclude from literature reviews that it is not clear whether the disease severity is enhanced or diminished by a higher CO2 level. Research on rice leaf blast and rice sheath blight in the temperate climes of Japan showed that elevated CO2 increased the potential risks for infection from leaf blast and epidemics of sheath blight (ibid.).

307

A simulation modeled rice leaf blast epidemics in Japan, China, Thailand South Korea and the Philippines under increasing temperature and ultraviolet B (UV-B) radiation. Elevated CO2 was not considered. The simulation showed that in the cooler regions of Japan and northern China a temperature increase might lead to more severe blast epidemics, while in humid tropics and warm humid tropics this risk might decrease. The authors concluded that in these regions blast development is inhibited by high temperatures. UV-B radiation will enhance the severity of blast, but more in cooler, than in warmer regions (Luo et al. 1995).

Pathogens

Fungi, bacteria, microsporidia and viruses can successfully affect rodents, insect pest, mites and plant pathogens. They are widely used in biological control (for an overview see Roy et al. 2009), with the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis and the fungi Beauveria bassiana being prominent examples. Effects of climate change on the efficiency of pathogens depend on the environment they live in. In general fungi and bacteria benefit from warm and moist environments, therefore mild and wetter winters as predicted in temperate zones will benefit them, especially those living in the soil (e.g. Beauveria bassiana). Since many larvae or pupae of pests also overwinter (pass through or wait out the winter season) in soils, fungi and bacteria might affect them more strongly.

Most entomopathogenic fungi have optimal growth temperatures between 25 and 35°C. Beauveria bassiana grows at a wide temperature range (from 8 to 35°C) with a maximum thermal threshold for growth at 37°C (Fernandes et al. 2008). Higher temperatures, low humidity as well as direct exposure to UV radiation reduces efficiency of pathogens. Some pathogens, which always live in the host body might not be affected directly by climatic changes, they basically follow the development of their hosts. The author’s own research on effects of higher temperature on the impact of the microsporidia Nosema lymantriae on the gipsy moth (Lymatria dispar) clearly showed a much higher and earlier mortality of gipsy moth larvae at higher temperatures. Research with a very similar experimental design by Pollan (2009) achieved similar result.

Pathogens, especially viruses, become more deadly if the vector/host is weakened, therefore environmental stress such as high or low temperature might lead to higher mortality. Considering that herbivorous pests are potentially weakened by the lower nutritional quality of (C3) plants grown under elevated CO2 (see previous chapter) it could be assumed that mortality of pests feeding on C3 crops increases when infected with pathogens (with potentially serious consequences also for some natural ecosystems). However, it seems that no one has investigated this kind of interactions so far.

How this will affect farmers Although the specific impacts of climate change on plant disease are difficult to predict given our current knowledge, it seems possible to make several generalizations for farmers in the northeastern US: a) increased winter temperatures will likely mean higher populations of pathogens survive to initially infect plants; b) increased temperatures will likely result in northward expansion of the range of some diseases because of earlier appearance and more generations of pathogens per season; c) more frequent and more intense rainfall events will tend to favor some types of pathogens over others

308

(Coakley et al 1999). Two pathogens important in the northeastern US, Stewart’s wilt and late blight, illustrate some of these effects. Stewart’s wilt, a bacterial (Erwinia stewartii) disease of generally sporadic importance in sweet corn in the northeast, is vectored by the corn flea beetle (Chaetocnema pulicaria). Survival of the vector through winter is considered key to the severity of Stewart’s wilt infections the following year. Currently, a forecast model based on winter temperatures is used to predict severity for Stewart’s wilt. The model assumes the survival of the corn flea beetle is higher in warmer winters than colder winters (Castor et al 1975). Climate change resulting in more winters that allow larger populations of flea beetles to survive would be expected to increase the frequency of growing seasons with severe Stewart’s wilt. Late blight (Phytopthora infestans) infects both potatoes and tomatoes in the northeastern US. It can be a devastating disease for both crops and farmers, with complete crop loss a possibility if control measures are not employed. Infection is triggered by high moisture conditions within a fairly specific temperature range. Annually, 5-20 fungicide applications from as early as June through August are used in the northeastern US. This represents a significant expense to farmers and a significant environmental risk. Natural Enemies:

Parasitoids

Parasitoids are organisms which need to live parts of their life in or on another organism (the host). Some parasitoids paralyze or kill their host quickly, while others need to develop with their host. It was suggested that among all natural enemies parasitoids have the strongest impacts on herbivore species (Hawkins et al. 1997). In biological pest control parasitoids, especially wasps of the genus Trichogramma are widely used, and some estimates suggest that 10% to 20% of all insects may be parasitoid wasps (Pennacchio & Strand 2006).

Parasitoids which live on crop pests belong to the third trophic level. Thus they are indirectly or directly affected by any changes of the first (plant) and second level (herbivore). It is not at all clear what happens to herbivores under climate change, therefore conclusions for parasitoids are speculative. However, there are some ecological ‘laws’ which imply certain scenarios. If a herbivore reproduces less, because of low nutritional value, less potential hosts are available for the parasitoid. If the host changes it seasonal appearance or behavior due to climatic changes the parasitoid might not be able to locate the host. Finally parasitoids might be adversely affected, if the host dies too early due to additional environmental stress. However, in temperate zones milder winters might enhance survival of parasitoids. Legrand et al. (2004) have shown that parasitoids of cereal aphids are active in winter and this winter activity can considerably reduce spring aphid populations.

In one experiment with cotton bollworm larvae reared on milky wheat grain under 750 ppm CO2, researchers included a parasitoid wasp (Microplitis mediator) widely used as bio-control agent of the cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera). The researchers found no significant changes in wheat consumption by H. armigera population under elevated CO2 or in the parasitic rate of M. mediator. The researchers concluded that the population relationship between H. armigeraand M. mediator is unlikely to vary due to future elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations (Yin et al. 2009).

309

Predators

Predators are basically all organisms which prey on/hunt pest organisms. The range stretches from predatory nematodes, to spiders, to eagles. Predators not only reduce pest population by feeding on them, their simple presence causes pests to cease feeding, to forage at less favorable sites, and to drop off host plants altogether in an escape response. The resulting effect is usually a slowing of prey population growth, which delays the outbreak phase. However, dropping from a plant or field crop floor may result in mortality as well due to desiccation and predation by generalist predators (Riechert 1999, Preisser et al. 2005 even suggest that intimidation by predators has a stronger impact on prey than consumption.Like parasitoids, predators which prey on crop pests belong to the third trophic level1. Thus they are indirectly or directly affected by any changes of the first (plant) and second level (herbivore). Like parasitoids, predators which prey on crop pests belong to the third trophic level1

Thus they are indirectly or directly affected by any changes of the first (plant) and second level (herbivore).Atmospheric CO2 levels may affect the performance of natural enemies and/or susceptibility of prey via a variety of indirect effects.

Some of these impacts, which potentially make prey more susceptible to their enemies, include:

• herbivores that feed on poor host plants under elevated CO2 conditions often spend more time in the more vulnerable, early stages of development, and thus may suffer greater mortality from natural enemies;

• herbivores may be physically weakened while feeding on poor hosts under elevated CO2 conditions, and are thus less able to defend themselves against predators and parasitoids; and enriched CO2 may alter enemy-avoidance behavior; some aphids, for example, show reduced responses to alarm pheromones under elevated CO2, potentially making them more susceptible to enemy attack (Awmack et al. 1997).Such effects would increase the susceptibility of herbivores to natural enemies, reducing herbivore population size under elevated CO2 conditions (Coll & Hughes 2008).

• Elevated temperature basically favors adult hunting insects and spiders, and it seems that the lethal temperature of many spiders is much above the temperature expected by climate change (Hanna & Cobb 2007). Skirvin et al. (1997) modeled the interaction of ladybird (Coccinella septempunctata) with aphid populations (Sitobion avenae) and predict that in hot summers coccinellids reduce aphids more strongly than in moderate summers

Regarding crop protection there are certain measures which can be applied regardless of what kind of changes will come in.(Zehnder et al. 2007)

Measures:1;

Observe your fields and orchards. Not every insect is your enemy. Learn about the old pests/diseases and new. Keep yourself informed. Visit and or initiate a farmer field school (FFS), where you can learn more about pests and their enemies and their management. Thorough knowledge of the pest life cycle,

310

the ecological and behavioral interactions with the environment and natural controlling factors are the basic foundation for successful management strategies

Measure 2:

Tolerate and increase biodiversity. Natural pest control by the enemies of your enemies comes for free! A diverse fauna of enemy species can successfully suppress pests (Cardinale et al. 2003). Intercropping can attract natural enemies (pull) and repel pests (push) partial weediness (as long as weeds are not host to pathogens or problematic pests), mulching and reduced tillage for example increases spider abundance If you spray pesticides to control weeds and pests, you usually kill your ‘friends’ and/or you destroy their homes. As a consequence an increase in the pest population may occur (resurgence) and you need to spray more frequently, and resistant pests might emerge

Measure 3:

Do not depend on one ‘high input variety’, or one breed of crop variety. Mix and change your breeds. A broad genetic variability serves as a foundation for robust crops. In addition, it seems more recent traditional breeding has not selected for CO2 responsiveness, which simply means newer breeds do not benefit from elevated CO2 as much as older breeds.

Measure 4:

Do crop rotation, it increases biodiversity. Noxious pests, and weeds establish slower (e.g. grassy weeds in cereals), because specific relationships between pests and host plants are interrupted. Furthermore, crop residues are often host of pathogens and alternating crops will prevent the infection from the residues to the host crop.

Measure 5:

Take care of your soil and spare mineral fertilizers. Ecologically based pest management (EBPM) considers belowground and aboveground habitat management equally important. A ‘healthy’ soil, with optimal physical, chemical, biological properties increases plant resistance to insect and diseases. Excess of nitrogen can increase the severity of certain diseases (Sharma & Bambawale 2009) and make a crop more susceptible to pests.

References:

Awmack CS, Woodcock CM & Harrington R (1997): Climate change may increase vulnerability of aphids to natural enemies. Ecological Entomology 22:366–368. Bale JS, Masters GJ, Hodkinson ID, Awmack C, Bezemer TM, Brown VK, Butterfield J, Alan Buse A, John C. Coulson JC, John Farrar J, John E. G. Good JEG, Harrington R, Hartley H, Jones TH, Lindroth RL, Press MC, Symrnioudis I, Watt AD, Whittaker JB (2002): Herbivory in global climate change research: direct effects of rising temperature on insect herbivores. Global Change Biology 8:1-16. Bezemer TM & Knight KJ (2001): Unpredictable responses of garden snail (Helix aspersa) populations to climate change. Acta Oecologica, 22( 4): 201-208.

311

Castor, L.L., J.E. Ayers, A.A. McNabb, R.A. Krause. 1975. Computerized forecast system for Stewart’s bacterial disease on corn. Plant Dis. Rep. 59:533-536.

Cardinale BJ, Harvey CT, Gross K & Ives AR (2003): Biodiversity and biocontrol: emergent impacts of a multi-enemy assemblage on pest suppression and crop yield in an agroecosystem. Ecology Letters 6: 857–865. Chen F-J, Wu G, Lü J & Ge F (2005): Effects of elevated CO2 on the foraging behavior of cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera. Insect Science 12:359-365. Chen F, Wu G, Parajulee MN & Ge F (2007): Long-term impacts of elevated carbon dioxide and transgenic Bt cotton on performance and feeding of three generations of cotton bollworm. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 124: 27–35. Coll M & Hughes L (2008): Effects of elevated CO2 on an insect omnivore: A test for nutritional effects mediated by host plants and prey. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 123:271–279. Coakley,S.M., H. Scherm, S. Chakraborty. 1999. Climate Change and Disease Management. Ann. Rev. Phyto. 37:399-426. CPC (2007): Crop Protection Compendium. CAB International. http://www.cabi.org/compendia/cpc/ accessed via German national licence http://www.nationallizenzen.de Coulson JC, John Farrar J, John E. G. Good JEG, Harrington R, Hartley H, Jones TH, Lindroth RL, Press MC, Symrnioudis I, Watt AD, Whittaker JB (2002): Herbivory in global climate change research: direct effects of rising temperature on insect herbivores. Global Change Biology 8:1-16. Coviella, C.andJ.Trumble. 1999. Effects of elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide on insectplant interactions. Conserv. Biol. 13:700-712. Currano D, Wilf P, Wing SL, Labandeira CC, Lovelock AK & Royer DL (2008): Sharply increased insect herbivory during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. PNAS 1056:1960–1964. Curtis Petzoldt and Abby Seaman,2010, Climate Change Effects on Insects and Pathogens, New York State IPM Program, 630 W. North St.,New York State Agricultural Extension Station,Geneva, NY 14456 Degenhardt J (2009): Indirect Defense Responses to Herbivory in Grasses. Plant Physiology 149:96-102. DeLucia EH, Casteel CL, Nabity PD & O’Neill BF (2008): Insects take a bigger bite out of plants in a warmer, higher carbon dioxide world. PNAS 105 (6):1781–1782. Deutsch CA, Tewksbury JJ, Huey RB, Sheldon KS, Ghalambor CK, Haak DC & Martin PR (2008): Impacts of climate warming on terrestrial ectotherms across latitude. PNAS 105 (18):6668–6672. Fajer ED (1989): How Enriched Carbon Dioxide Environments May Alter Biotic Systems Even in the Absence of Climatic Changes. Conservation Biology 3 (3):318-320. Fernandes EKK, Rangel DEN, Moraes AML, Bittencourt VREP & Roberts DW (2008): Cold activity of Beauveria and Metarhizium, and thermotolerance of Beauveria. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 98:69–7. Fernandez MR, Zentner RP, Basnyat P, Gehl D, Selles F & Huber D (2009): Glyphosate associations with cereal diseases caused by Fusarium spp. in the Canadian Prairies. European Journal of Agronomy 31:133–143. Guerenstein PG and Hildebrand JG (2008): Roles and Effects of Environmental Carbon Dioxide in Insect Life. Annual Review of. Entomology 53:161–78.

312

Georghiou, G.P. and Taylor, C.E. 1986. Factors influencing the evolution of resistance. In: Pesticide Resistance: Strategies and tactics for management. National Research Council, National Academy Press. Pages 143-157. Hamilton, J.G., O. Dermody, M. Aldea, A.R. Zangerl, A. Rogers, M.R. Berenbaum, and E. Delucia. 2005. Anthropogenic Changes in Tropospheric Composition Increase Susceptibility of Soybean to Insect Herbivory. Envirn. Entomol. 34:2 479-485. Harmon JP, Moran NA, Ives RA (2009): Species Response to Environmental Change: Impacts of Food Web Interactions and Evolution. Science 323:1347

Hawkins BA, Cornell, HV & Hochberg ME (1997): Predators, Parasitoids, and Pathogens as Mortality Agents in Phytophagous Insect Populations. Ecology 78 (7): 2145–2152 Heagle AS, Burns JC, Fisher DS & Miller JE (2002): Effects of carbon dioxide enrichment on leaf chemistry and reproduction by two-spotted spider mites (Acari: Tetrachynidae) on white clover. Environmental Entomology 31: 594–601. Hunter, M.D. 2001. Effects of elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide on insect-plant interactions. Ag. Forest. Entomol. 3:153-159. Khan ZR, James DG, Midega CAO, Pickett JA (2008): Chemical ecology and conservation biological control. Biological Control 45:210–224. Harmon JP, Moran NA, Ives RA (2009): Species Response to Environmental Change: Impacts of Food Web Interactions and Evolution. Science 323:1347. Hunter MD (2009): Trophic promiscuity, intraguild predation and the problem of omnivores. Agricultural and Forest Entomology. 11:125–131. Kobayashi T, Ishiguro K, Nakajima T, Kim HY, Okada M &Kobayashi K (2006): Effects of Elevated Atmospheric CO2 Concentration on the Infection of Rice Blast and Sheath Blight. Phytopathology 96:425-431

Legrand MA, Colinet H, Vernon P & Hance T (2004): Autumn, winter and spring dynamics of aphid Sitobion avenae and parasitoid Aphidius rhopalosiphi interactions. Annals of Applied Biology 145:139–44.

Luo Y, TeBeest DO, Teng PS, Fabellar NG, (1995): Simulation studies on risk analysis of rice blast epidemics associated with global climate in several Asian countries. Journal of Biogeography 22:673–678. Manning WJ & von Tiedemann A (1995): Climate Change: Potential effects of increased atmospheric atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) & Ozone and ultraviolet-B (UV-B). Environmental Pollution 88:219-245. Musolin D (2007): Insects in a warmer world: ecological, physiological and life-history responses of true bugs (Heteroptera) to climate change. Global Change Biology 13:1565–1585. Neumunster (2010) Climate Change and Crop Protection -Anything can happen, Published by PAN Asia and the Pacific November 2010. Published by PAN Asia and the Pacific November 2010.pp.41 Patterson DT, Westbrook JK, Joyce RJV & Rogasik J (1999): Weeds, Insects, and Diseases. Climatic Change 43: 711-727.

313

Pennacchio F & Strand MR (2006): Evolution of Developmental Strategies in Parasitic Hymenoptera. Annual Review of Entomology 51:233–58. Pimm SL (2009): Climate Disruption and Biodiversity. Current Biology 19:R595–R601 Pimentel (2009): Pesticides and Pest Control. In: Integrated Pest Management: Innovation - Development Process, Vol. 1 (eds: R. Peshin and A.K. Dhawan), 83-89. Springer, Netherlands

Pollan S (2009): Effect of temperature on development of the microsporidium Nosema lymantriae and disease progress in the host Lymantria dispar. Master thesis. Institute of Forest Entomology, Forest Pathology and Forest Protection, Department of Forest- and Soil Sciences, BOKU University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna. Porter JH, Parry ML & Carter TR (1991): The potential effects of climatic change on agricultural insect pests. Agriculture & Forestry Meteorology 57, 221–240.

Price PW (2002): Resource-driven terrestrial interaction webs. Ecological Research 17:241–247.

Preisser EL, Bolnick DI & Benard ME (2005): Scared to Death? The Effects of Intimidation and Consumption in Predator-Prey Interactions. Ecology 86 (2): 501-509.

Riechert SE (1999): The Hows and Whys of Successful Pest Suppression by Spiders: Insights from Case Studies. Journal of Arachnology 27 (1) Proceedings of the XIV International Congress of Arachnology and a Symposium on Spiders in Agroecosystems pp. 387-396. Reiners, S and C. Petzoldt (eds). 2005. Integrated Crop and Pest Management Guidelines for Commercial Vegetable Production. Cornell Cooperative Extension publication #124VG http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/recommends/

Roy H, Hails RS, Hesketh H, Roy DB & Pell JK (2009): Beyond biological control: non-pest insects and their pathogens in a changing world. Insect Conservation and Diversity 2:65–72. Schnee C, Köllner TG, Held M, Turlings TCJ, Gershenzon J & Degenhardt J (2006): The products of a single maize sesquiterpene synthase form a volatile defense signal that attracts natural enemies of maize herbivores. PNAS 103 (4):1129-1134.

Sharma OP & Bambawiale OM (2009): Integrated Management of Key Diseases of Cotton and Rice. In: Integrated Management of Diseases Caused by Fungi, Phytoplasma and Bacteria. (eds. Cianco A & Mukerji). Springer, Netherlands. Shelton, A.M., W.R. Wilsey, and D.M. Soderlund. 2001. Classification of insecticides and acaricides for resistance management. Dept. of Entomology, NYSAES, Geneva, NY 14456. 315-787-2352. http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/faculty/shelton/pdf/res_mgmt pdf Skirvin DJ, Perry JN & Harrington R (1997): The effect of climate change on an aphid–coccinellid interaction. Global Change Biology (3) 1–11. Thompson GB, Brown JKM & Woodward FI (1993): The effects of host carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water supply on the infection of wheat by powdery mildew and aphids. Plant, Cell and Environment 16:687–694. Vincent, C., G. Hallman, B. Panneton, and F. Fleurat-Lessardú. 2003. Management of agricultural insects with physical control methods. Ann Rev Entomol 48: 261-281. Wallin,J.R. and P.E. Waggoner. 1950. The influence of climate on the development and spread of Phytophthora infestans in artificially inoculated potato plots. Plant Dis. Reptr. Suppl. 190.

314

pp 19-33. Weintraub PG & Beanland L (2006): Insect Vectors of Phytoplasmas. Annual Review of Entomology 51:91–111 Whittaker JB (1999): Impacts and responses at population level of herbivorous insects to elevated CO2. European Journal of Entomology 96: 149–156.

Yin J, Sun Y, Wu G, Parajulee MN & Ge F (2009): No effects of elevated CO2 on the population relationship between cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera Hübner (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), and its parasitoid, Microplitis mediator Haliday (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 132: 267–275. Yamamura, K. and K. Kiritani. 1998. A simple method to estimate the potential increase in the number of generations under global warming in temperate zones. Appl. Ent. and Zool. 33:289-298. Zvereva EL & Kozlov MV (2006): Consequences of simultaneous elevation of carbon dioxide and temperature for plant–herbivore interactions: a meta-analysis. Global Change Biology 12:27–41

16. SP-IPM Strategies: (Systemwide Program-IPM)

Climate change impact on IPM strategies Within the framework of agroecosystem redesign to help to halt and reverse the effects of climate variability and change there will be a need to analyze and advise on actual and potential impacts of cumulative abiotic stress on trophic relationships and the disruption of niches of ecosystem service providers (natural enemies, pollinators, decomposers, etc.).Research will involve the assessment of boundaries of species’ distribution, the vulnerability of landscapes, plant, human, and livestock health, alien invasive species, the evolution of new strains/biotypes, etc. To prepare communities to act on the impact of climate change in the future it is necessary to assess the bioclimatic potential of pest/pathogen systems and develop simulation models/mapping tools for pest and natural enemy forecasting, their distribution and adaptation. Ongoing CGIAR work on models/mapping tools to forecast pests and natural enemies, as well as distribution and adaptation studies, especially for drought problems in crops, provide a solid foundation to build upon. A potential link is the evolving Climate Change Challenge Program. In agroecosystems, the role of many species for the maintenance of natural “life support” systems or in causing production losses is mostly underestimated and less understood. Depending on the species, soil biota (especially arthropods, plant parasitic nematodes, and microbes/pathogens), for example, can be pests or beneficial (e.g. selected soil microorganisms) in nitrogen fixation, nutrient recycling, and the biological control of diseases and arthropod pests. A better understanding of the role of biodiversity in sustainable agriculture, and how to measure and manage the principles and processes involved is needed to develop sound IPM approaches that mitigate pest damage. In this regard, “functional agrobiodiversity” is rooted in the conventional intuition that the sustainability of production systems depends on retaining some level of biological diversity. Incautious intensification of agriculture which threatens the natural life support systems will disrupt sustainable crop production. There is a need, therefore, to specify challenges, assess trophic relationships, and exploit renewable resource opportunities in agroecosystems to manage soil biota and above-ground pests/diseases to conserve delicate ecological balances that underpin agriculture and protect human and agroecosystem health. Research in this area will help to address community needs for information and application tools on

315

ecosystem services (biocontrol, pollination, soil matter decomposition). Prior CGIAR investments in this area include the development of world-class biodiversity resources centers (reference collections), biodiversity mapping and landscape projects, the development of indicators of soil agroecosystem health, and conservation research (involving GIS tools). The challenge is todevelop strategies to manage healthy agroecosystems and minimize the adverse effect of pest species. Recommendations

• Concerted efforts by national programs will be required to fully embrace the pilot site approach for technology testing and dissemination, and by the SP-IPM partners to invest in the pilot site approach as part of the implementation strategy. The BIA tools and results database will serve as a working document to develop historical profiles of key variables affecting Striga IPM and help research managers and development agenciesto prioritize areas needing further attention. The BIA tools need to be integrated into IPM implementation projects, especially to benefit those who take over primary responsibilityfor increasing pilot site impact and to help in justifying current and future projects.

• By providing additional income from the same plot of land, the nitrogen fixing leguminous trap crops in the rotation and the double cropping patterns were key economic attractants for the communities. It is expected that, over time, these practices

• Farmers’ associations provide excellent opportunities for peer interactions, experiential learning, and sustainable access to technical support groups. This would lead to increased community awareness, the appreciation of extension messages, and a trustworthy information exchange in the communities. These elements of pilot sites should be strengthened to take full advantage of their inherent value in a sustainable exit strategy.

• IPM research should embrace basic research on the environmental fate of pesticides under local use conditions and human exposure to the compounds in the tropics.

• Pesticide residue levels in vegetable products should be monitored to quantify the exposure of consumers to pesticides.

• Soil and groundwater should be monitored in areas of high vulnerability and pesticide use to help quantify ambient pesticide concentrations and assess related risks for local consumers and the environment.

(The CGIAR Systemwide Program on Integrated Pest Management 2007 and 2008,”Towards a revitalized SP-IPM.)

17. Non Pesticidal Management (NPM) in Andhrapradesh:

A new paradigm is called for For more than two decades, government strategy on pest control has talked of minimising pesticides. Its centrepiece is integrated pest management (IPM). Andhra Pradesh’s agriculture university swears by IPM. There is no doubt that IPM is a sensible approach that combines a range of pest control options. But its applicability to Indian farming conditions is now doubted. Even in the 1990s, it was obvious that IPM had failed to deliver (see ‘Abetment to suicide’, Down To Earth, February 28, 1998). Why? Depends on whom you ask. “That IPM hasn’t caught on is an extension failure,” says Raghava Reddy, director of research at the state agriculture university. G V Subbaratnam, professor and head of entomology at the

316

university, says IPM depends on farmers’ knowledge, and that’s where the job of extension staff becomes critical. There is another view: that IPM regime is devised in experimental farms, far away from ground realities. And that extension staff can’t implement it because they look down upon farmers, rather than understanding their needs. IPM includes pesticide use as a last resort. Most Indian farmers are not well versed with the ever-changing dictionary of ‘scientific’pest protection. So even IPM practitioners end up using more pesticides than they need to.“Scientists promote pesticides because it is an easy option. They don’t have to do anything except recommend dosages,” says a government scientist, requesting anonymity. “When group action is required, government efforts don’t seem to work too well. Technologies that require group action don’t get pushed,” says N K Sanghi, former zonal coordinator of the Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture. And then, it is said, IPM has failed to bring down the cost of plant protection (see interview: “IPM doesn’t bring down costs”). Andhra Pradesh has been reeling under high costs of cultivation, with deeply indebted farmers (see ‘Inevitable tragedy’, Down To Earth, July 15, 2004). Faced with this situation, a group of agriculture scientists in the public sector decided to make an intervention through a voluntary organisation, beginning in the late 1980s.

The Problem

Cotton was introduced to Khamman District, Andhra Pradesh, about 20 years ago. The farmers were already growing crops such as millet, sorghum, groundnuts, red gram (pigeon pea), green gram (mung bean), chili, and rice for home consumption and selling the surplus for cash income. Cotton was a particularly attractive new crop because it could earn much more than their other crops. However, cotton production required chemical inputs with which the great majority of these poor small-scale farmers had no previous experience. Most of them had never used chemical fertilizers or pesticides.

Middlemen (known locally as "traders") served as technical advisors for cotton production. They provided seeds, chemical fertilizers, and insecticides on credit while guaranteeing purchase of the crop. The traders provided essential services, but they had a vested interest in selling their products. Their knowledge for giving technical advice was often limited to information provided by pesticide companies and other suppliers of their products. The farmers were dependent on traders for advice, credit, and marketing because no alternatives were available.

Yields and incomes from cotton were high during the early years of cotton production. Expenses for insecticides were relatively low because cotton pests were not yet established in the area. Many farmers were so impressed with the insecticides that they started using them on their other crops as well. Unfortunately, cotton pests such as cotton bollworms, pink bollworms, army worms, red hairy caterpillars, leafhoppers, and aphids became more and more of a problem as the years passed. These pests not only increased in abundance, they also developed resistance to insecticides, making it necessary to apply a greater variety of insecticides and in increasingly larger quantities. Larger fertilizer applications also became necessary as soil fertility declined with cotton cultivation. As fertilizer and insecticide applications increased, the cost of cotton production also increased and was eventually so great that cash inputs often exceeded the value of the crop. As a consequence, farmers fell further and further into debt to the traders.

All family members, including children, participated in spraying insecticides on the fields. The fact that they often did not know how to do it properly not only limited the effectiveness for reducing crop damage but also exposed the families to toxic effects. Insecticide poisoning was common. People had

317

health problems such as headaches, nausea, skin rashes, fatigue, disruption of vision, and sometimes acute poisoning that required hospitalization or caused permanent psychological damage. Humans were not the only ones to suffer from insecticide poisoning. Cows and goats sometimes died when they grazed near cotton fields sprayed with insecticide.

Farmers wanted to get away from insecticides, but insecticides had drastically reduced the populations of insectivorous birds, wasps, beetles, and other predatory insects that provided natural control of pest insects. Without natural control, damage to the cotton crop was severe if farmers reduced their insecticide use.

This was the "pesticide trap.” The trap was not only ecological but also social because farmers were tied to traders by debt (with interest rates of 3%-5% per month) and dependent on traders for technical advice. Some farmers resorted to illegal activities such as teak smuggling to cope with their debts. Suicide became increasingly common due to insecticide-induced depression and despair over debts, the favored method of suicide being ingestion of insecticide.

Thus began NPM In 1986, the Centre for World Solidarity (CWS), an NGO in Hyderabad, ran a programme on rural livelihoods. It realized that the red hairy caterpillar was ruining the redgram crop in several districts of the Telangana region. It formed a scientific advisory committee of 15 members, headed by M S Chari, director of the Central Tobacco Research Institute in Rajahmundry. M A Qayum, former joint director of the state agriculture department, took over as director of CWS’s agriculture programme. The red hairy caterpillar menace was controlled between 1988 and 1991 without the use of any pesticides, Has Integrated pest management (IPM) delivered results? No. A 1995 paper showed IPM covered only 2 per cent of India’s cropped area. There is no group action for IPM, and it is fully loaded with pesticide recommendations. The cost of cultivation with IPM is very high as compared to non-pesticidal management (NPM). In the 10 years of IPM implementation in Andhra Pradesh, more than 3,000 indebted farmers killed themselves due to high cost of cultivation. NPM is labour-intensive. Is that a deterrent? It is job-oriented. We encourage women’s groups to open NPM shops, create rural employment. We want the prime minister’s Bharat Nirman scheme to be used for this. Young farmers, who know about WTO and pesticide residues, are dead keen on NPM. What is the way forward for CSA? The next step should be towards social aspects of soil and water management. The role of the local government in sustainable agriculture is critical, and needs attention. What is your best NPM experience? When we started NPM work with farmers, men would sit in the front row and women would sit behind. Now, the women take the front row. They are NPM’s torchbearers, the new village leadership.Nothing gives more satisfaction.

318

This is NPM And how it compares with IPM and organic farming Environmental pollution is not the only problem with pesticides. Pests develop resistance to synthetic pesticides, making it necessary to constantly develop newer and more powerful (hence more costly) pesticides. What’s a worse, pesticide are more damaging to friendly insects and natural predators of pests; pesticide use strengthens pests. This vicious cycle is called the pesticide treadmill. Integrated pest management (IPM) combines several approaches including pesticides. It strives to prevent or delay resistance. Non-pesticidal management (NPM) uses techniques developed and proven under IPM, but completely does away with synthetic pesticides. So, how does it protect crops? In two ways: by promot ing the sharing of know-how on crops and pests; and by utilizing locally available, low-cost inputs.Insects have a four-stage life cycle, and they damage crops only in the larval stage in most cases. Effective control is that which prevents the insect reaching the larval stage. There is a range of options to do this, depending on insect behavior and crop ecology: ● Deep ploughing in summer exposes pupa of insects

● Promoting natural predators and friendly insects

● Light traps or bonfires attract and kill adult insects

● Trap crops (like marigold or castor in cotton) attract bollworms to lay eggs on them instead of the

main crop

● Pheromone traps attract male insects

● Simple shaking of plants like pigeonpea helps shed bollworms

● Spraying the extract of neem seed kernel (or chilli-garlic paste)helps control insects at larval stage

● spraying the extract of cow dung and urine repels insects as well as retards their growth

All these methods have been validated and accepted by the scientific community under IPM. Indian agriculture scientists commonly believe that farmers cannot understand these ‘alternative’ methods. NPM developers claim farmers can understand these approaches —and improvise them according to local needs. But only if the communication strategy used is not ‘product-centric’ (revolving around marketable commodities) but ‘knowledge-centric’. So, replacing synthetic pesticides with biopesticides doesn’t solve the problem; it has to be a paradigm shift. NPM developers say alternatives work only when pesticides are eschewed completely. NPM differs slightly from organic farming, which requires that farmers do away with all chemical inputs. NPM doesn’t require farmers to give up chemical fertilisers, though it does tell them that their use makes crops more susceptible to pests. NPM is driven by economics and farmer self-reliance. In fact, it is a good entry-level exercise for organic farmers.

319

Pesticide Consumption in Andhra Pradesh Year

Consumption in Mt

1998-1999 4741 1999-2000 4054 2000 -2001 4000 2001-2002 3850 2002-2003 3750 ACTION AGAINST THE RED HAIRY CATERPILLAR (19881994): DISSENT AS CREATIVE PRACTICE This historical journey starts in the late 1980s, in the Warangal district of the semi arid area of Telangana, which was long considered to be economically backward and upset with violent peasant resistance in the past (Vakulabharanam, 2005). In Warangal, different farming conditions prevail. While the district’s northern mandals to a large extent dispose of black, fertile soils and relatively well-irrigated areas, the southern regions have rather light, red soils. 15 Here, much of the agricultural practice depends on non-irrigated conditions, and often it is particularly the marginal farmers that labor under rainfed conditions.. In the late 1980s, the Red Hairy Caterpillar pest infested the region’s castor oil seed plants. In consequence, many farmers had to re-sow their crops and suffered high losses in yields (interview Sastri 2008 a). The repetitive use of chemical pesticides did not help to encounter the massive infestation, and some entomologists even assumed that the RHC infestation accumulated because excessive pesticide spraying had caused biotic disturbance and killed most of the caterpillars’ predators (Rajan, 1994). The RHC put farmers into an economically vulnerable condition, where the repetitive spraying of chemical pesticides together with the massive pest infestation generated crop loss, increased the overall cost of cultivation and drove many farmers into debt (Gupta 1991; Mishra 2009). The RHC infestation occurred after a series of regional developments changed the agrarian production system in Telangana region (Vakulabharanam 2004). Warangal’s farmers began to cultivate high-yielding varieties (HYVs) since the late 1970s and both large landholders and marginal dryland farmers, who earlier focused on the cultivation of food grains, millets and oilseeds for personal consumption, now switched to the cultivation of high-yielding cash crops like cotton and paddy (Vakulabharanam, 2005). Together with the HYVs the application of chemical fertilizers and pesticides gained importance, while traditional organic practices, like farmyard manure application or composting, increasingly disappeared from the agenda of agricultural practices in the region (Venkateshwarlu, 2004). Research indicates that the chemical input overuse triggered resistance development amongst insect pests across India (Shetty,2004b). Also in Warangal the repetitive use of pesticide and fertilizer led to pest resistance development, which induced economic loss (Reddy, 2006). In such distress situations farmers were often unable to repay agricultural credit (interview Ramanjaneyulu 2007, Natesh 2008). Particular small and marginal farmers had little financial resource to cope with the economic risks of cotton cultivation (ibid.). The RHC project developed in this context, where agricultural distress manifested itself in high input costs, risky returns, and indebtedness

320

NPM, to a large extent, builds on the vast experiences of IPM. Also, the project adapted existing IPM strategies and generated new practices, as I will show below. Yet, one crucial difference is that non-pesticidal management prohibits the use of chemical pesticides in any stage of crop cultivation. A project scientists: “What is essentially needed is to restore the pesticide free environment from the beginning itself to bread down the resistance of the endemic insect pests and encourage the multiplication of natural parasites and predators.” (Qayum & Rao, 1998) NPM is thus more radical than conventional IPM strategies, as it assumes that nature “can restore itself if it is not meddled with too much.” (Ramanjaneyulu 2007: 11) NPM proposes that pests and crops can establish a balanced co-existence, where nonchemical inputs repel and divert pests from crucial cash- and edible crops. Pest behavior differs from crop to crop, and so do non-chemical strategies. Ideally, NPM then differs from village to village, depending on the problem at hand and the availability of natural resources. NPM, in its ideal type, is multiple and containing both standardized products and adaptive processes. My case study will demonstrate this in greater detail. Let us therefore start our journey through the history of the NPM project. I divide my account into three phases: establishment, demarcation and institutionalization. N. K. Sanghi was trained as agricultural scientist and previously served as zonal coordinator of the Technology Transfer Unit at the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR) in Hyderabad. Actors in the civilian social realm knew him because of his belief in participatory methods for agricultural knowledge production (interview Sastri 2008 a). Sanghi “was seeing that indigenous knowledge is extinct primarily because we ourselves had lost value for suchthings.” (interview Sanghi 2008) Sanghi felt that traditional knowledge should be re-evaluated. Further inspired by the urgent need to find a solution against the Red Hairy Caterpillar infestation, he planned to use the Red Hairy Caterpillar pest to demonstrate the relevance of traditional knowledge. He wanted to demonstrate the value and relevance of farmers’ knowledge or of ‘farmer’s science’ as he put it. In conversations with old farmers in the Telangana region he discovered that indigenous knowledge was there about the caterpillar at moth stage, that they were attracted to light. There were some hearsays and bonfires were traditionally used to attract moths. (Interview Sanghi 2008) Sanghi found that farmers traditionally ignited bonfires at the onset of the monsoon rains. After conversations with an experienced volunteer from Maharashtra, a retired Additional Director of Agriculture, and the consultation with an entomologist working in another district in Andhra Pradesh (Rajan, 1994) he realized that in order to create impact with the help of bonfires collective and time-specific group action would be needed across large areas of Telangana’s Warangal region.Around that time Vittal Rajan, a political economist who is running the Hyderabadbased NGO Think Soft, had an interest in engaging civil society more into agricultural practice.18 He recalled: It was strange that NGOs and civil society were not involved in agriculture, even though it is so central to livelihoods. (…) They didn’t want to do anything with agricultural technology. That was considered as something belonging to the government. (…) A bulk of our rural population is poor. So, if you want to do something, you have to work on agriculture. Agriculture is central to our country (interview Rajan 2008). (QUARTZ, CREATİVE DİSSENT- Creative Dissent with Technoscience in India:The Case of Non-Pesticidal Management (NPM) in Andra Pradesh-International Journal of Technology and Development tudies,2010 Volume 1 Issue 1, pp. 55-92)

321

Role of partnerships in pest management in Andra Pradesh Partnerships between actors with complementary strengths in agriculture have come to play an important role in designing pest control strategies in AP since the 1980s. The trigger for engaging in partnerships was an outbreak of Red Hairy Caterpillar (RHC) in castor beans – a crop grown in the rain fed areas. This resulted in extensive crop damage.. Working in a partnership of organizations with diverse strengths – research organizations, NGO’s, farmers groups -- allowed the RHC outbreak to be successfully controlled. This lead to the realization that no one organization can single handedly solve complex problems of farmers. Building on the experience of RHC control, a series of different partnerships have emerged in AP around the development and use of alternative pest management approaches. This paper presents the case of one of these more recent partnership based initiatives -- an NGO led Non Pesticide Management (NPM) initiative and a poverty alleviation programme, Velugu and its efforts to upscale the NPM initiative NPM The NPM initiative is led by the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA), an NGO based in Hyderabad which emphasizes the value of farmers’ knowledge and use of local resources for pest control – an innovation in itself in terms of using existing resources for newer purposes/uses. CSA justifies the need for NPM approaches by critiquing the Green Revolution (GR) paradigm and asking the question: ‘why do we need to use chemical pesticides now when they have not been used fifty years ago?’ CSA’s NPM initiative starts from understanding life cycle of pest in question and its behavior under different climatic conditions. For promoting NPM, CSA works in partnership with several field based NGOs and farmers in different districts of the state. Having understood the life cycle and behavior of crop pest, CSA then builds capacities of the farmers. It does this through training programs both to the NGO staff and also village volunteers who interact with farmers. Through training programs and interaction with farmers, CSA attempts to integrate scientific knowledge and local knowledge available with farmers thereby building collective capacities to devise pest management solutions. Farmers have had their technical knowledge upgraded in this process. At the same time CSA also learns from experiences of farmers by incorporating practices that the farmers have found useful (in other words innovated) into their NPM module. A notable feature of CSA’s on work on NPM was to declare Punukula (a tribal village in Andhra Pradesh) a pesticide free. A number of the local partner NGO’s implementing NPM also began to have success with the approach. Subsequently, some of these NGO persuaded Veleugu, the state sponsored poverty elimination progamme, to upscale NPM in 10 target districts – an area of about 0.2 million hectares. However, whereas the the CSA approach to NMP had concenrtrated on builing partnerships and facilitating local experiemenattion and learning, the scaling up of NPM by Velugu focused almost exclusively on transferring a packagae of technical options. Much less importantance was given to the partnership and process related elements of the NPM which lead to theemergence of locally suit pest management approach in Punukula. This is not to say that Velugu does not partner with organizations – it works closely with the already existing network of women’s self help groups. However it partners with organisations so that it can transfer the NPM technological options, rather than partnering with organisations for joint leraning and capacity development activities which were actually at the heart of the CSA approach in Punukla.

322

One of the crucial policy implications of this is that while attempting to scale up ‘successful’ initiatives, agencies (be it government departments or any other actors) involved in the process need to recognize importance of building and strengthening partnerships and draw from each others’ knowledge base. To make the same point differently cases such as the NPM approach mark a distinct break from the past where by technologies were developed (usually by researchers, but also by farmers) and then transferred to farmers. This case illustrates that creating farm level innovation is as much to do with creating the capacity to innovate as it is to do with invention and technology transfer. Furthermore this case illustrates that this capacity to innovate is as much about the linkages and relationships between farmers and other sources of knowledge as it is about specific skills and information held by competent, but isolated actors. If policy wants to mobilize knowledge for poverty reduction in rural areas it needs to give much more attention to learning lessons on how to development these capacities and try and wean its self off its current fixation with transferring technical fixes to unsuspecting poor farmers.(T Laxmi,- Senior Researcher,Centre for Research on Innovation and Science Policy (CRISP),Hyderabad,Emails: laxmi.thummuru@gmail.com- NPM as a means of enhancing Rural Innovation Capacity)

323

List of Acronyms

AaNPV)- Amsacta.albistriga Nuclear Polyhedrosis Virus

AESA -Agro Eco system Analysis APRRI - Andhra Pradesh Rice Research Institute

ATMA Agricultural Technology Management Agency

BPH-Brown Plant Hopper

CGIAR –Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

CLCV - transmitting leaf curl virus CLI -Crop Life India

CRISP -Centre for Research on Innovation and Science Policy CTV -Citrus Tristeza Virus CWS -Centre for World Solidarity DAS –Days After Sowing

DSS -Decision Support System

ETL: Economic Threshold Level

FAO - Food and Agricultural Organization

FFS Farmers Field School

GM- Gall Midge

HaNPV-Heliothis armigera Nuclear Polyhedrosis Virus

HPR-Host Plant Resistance

HRS- Horticultural Research Station

ICAR Indian Council of Agricultural Research

ICPA- Indian Crop Protection Association

ICRISAT-, International Crops Research Institute in Semi-Arid Tropics

324

IPM- Integrated Pest Management

MANAGE National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management

LE -larval equivalents

LEIIPM -Low External Input IPM modules: LF- Leaf Folder

LLS-Late leaf spot

NCIPM- National Centre for Integrated Pest Management

NISPM- National Information System for Pest Management

NSKE -Neem Seed Kernel Extract

PAFAI- Pesticide Manufacturers and Formulators Association of India

Pal – Pesticide Association of India

PDI – Percentage of Diseases Index

PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal

PSND -peanut stem necrosis disease

PPP -Public-Private-Partnership

RARS -Regional Agricultural Research Station,

SlNPV-Spodoptera litura Nuclear Polyhedrosis Virus

SHG Self Help Group

SND - Sunflower Necrosis Disease

SREP Strategic Research & Extension Plan

TSV -Tobacco streak virus WBPH0White Backed Plant Hopper