NON INSECTICIDAL APPROACHES IN VEGETABLE PEST
0 likes160 views
This document discusses non-insecticidal approaches for vegetable pest management. It begins by explaining that non-insecticidal management uses pest control techniques that do not rely on insecticides, instead using biological and cultural methods. Some key non-insecticidal approaches discussed include cultural practices like crop rotation, planting resistant varieties, and trap cropping. Mechanical methods like collection/destruction, trellising and protected cultivation are also summarized. The use of biological controls like predators, parasitoids, pathogens and entomopathogenic fungi, bacteria, viruses and nematodes are explained. Finally, the document presents three case studies evaluating the effectiveness of different non-insecticidal approaches for managing pests in vegetables.
NON INSECTICIDAL APPROACHES IN VEGETABLE PEST
- 1. 1
- 3. Vegetables provide nutritional security in addition to food security. Supply carbohydrates, proteins, vitamins and minerals. Constitute the major part of the diet. Vegetables grown in 93.9 million hectares with a production of 162.8 million tons. (NHB, 2013) 3 INTRODUCTION:-
- 6. Non-insecticidal Management describes various pest- control techniques which do not rely on insecticides. It is used in organic production, as well as in other situations in which the introduction of toxins is undesirable. (or) Instead of the use of synthetic toxins, pest control is achieved by biological means. 6 What is non-insecticidal management?
- 7. Why pest problems are more in vegetables? Monoculture Dense cropping Availability of preferred host(s) Excessive use of fertilizers Indiscriminate use of pesticides 7
- 8. Why non-insecticidal methods are needed? Pesticide residue Pest resistance Resurgence 8
- 17. 17 Non - insecticidal practices MECHANICA L HOST PLANT RESISTANCE BIOLOGICA L BOTANICAL GENETICALL Y MODIFIED CROPS SEMIO - CHEMICALS CULTURAL
- 18. The manipulation of cultural practices at an appropriate time for reducing or avoiding pest damage to crops is known as cultural control. Field and plant sanitation – regular removal of weeds, grasses and infested plant parts. Eg : Paddy gall fly Orseolia oryzae breeds on grasses such as Panicum sp., Cynodon dactyoln etc. Tillage operations- Deep summer ploughing, hoeing etc. Eg : Raking up and hoeing of the soil around gourds, mango and other fruit trees serves to destroy pupae of fruit flies. Crop rotation. Eg : Groundnut with non leguminous crops is recommended for minimizing the leaf miner incidence Planting of resistant varieties. Eg: GEB-24 and MTU–5249 resistance to paddy BPH, Surekha variety to gall midge, TKM -6 and Ratna for stem borer. 18 Cultural control:-
- 19. Planting time- manipulation of planting time helps to minimize population. Eg: Early planting of paddy in kharif and late planting in rabi minimize the infestation of rice stem borer. High seed rate . Eg : Adoptation of high seed rate in sorghum and later removal and destruction of shoot fly (Atherigona soccata) affected ones. Trap cropping – Planting a preferred host plant of an insect pest near the primary crop that is to be protected. Cabbage with mustard
- 20. Mechanical control Collection and destruction Trellis system Traps Pest exclusion Protected cultivation Lure and kill
- 21. Trellis system More light penetration Pest monitoring becomes too easy Less pest and disease problem Comparatively less health hazards
- 22. Protected cultivation technology Insect- pests cause direct and indirect damage Polyhouse and nethouse act as physical barrier Incidence of insect- pest less in protected cultivation Superior quality of produce
- 23. Trapping Monitoring: Insect trap catches indicate adult pest activity Economic thresholds are based on trap catch numbers Ex: Light trap (adult moths, beetles) Pheromone traps (sex pheromones are used to attract the opposite sex)
- 24. Sticky traps: Two types 1. Blue sticky trap- catches thrips 2. Yellow sticky trap- catches whiteflies, leaf miner. • yellow traps, trapped higher number of adult leaf miner (1879.1) and whiteflies (544.5). •Black color trap, trapped lesser number of adult leaf miner (14.0) and whiteflies (2.6). • One trap per 20m2 for mass trapping of whitefly. Durairaj et ai.,2007
- 25. Sapkota et al., (2010) Damage assessment and management of cucurbit fruit flies in spring-summer squash J. Entomology and Nematology Vol. 2:7-12 25 CASE STUDY: 1
- 26. Cucurbit fruit fly- Bactrocera cucurbitae Damage losses up to 20-39% (Kodandaram, 2014) 26 Different stages of squash fruit damaged by cucurbit fruit fly. A. Pre-set damage, B. Post-set damage, C. Harvested damage. Adult female of cucurbit fruit fly
- 27. Location : Institute of Agriculture and Animal Science Chitwan, Nepal. Design : Randomized block design Treatments : 6 Replications : 4 Variety : Bulam House (F1) Sapkota et al., (2010) 27
- 28. Sl. No Treatments Cucurbit fruit fly damage Ovary (No.) Post-set (%) Harvested (%) 1 Cue-lure 0.70b 25.2abc 12.38bc 2 Rice food bait 1.02b 26.1abc 11.72bc 3 Chemical treatment 1.35ab 29.5ab 17.65ab 4 Banana pulp bait 1.22b 24.1bc 10.06c 5 Leaf extract 'Jholmal' 0.65b 18.6c 10.59bc 6 Control 2.27a 32.5a 21.82a Grand mean 1.20 26.0 14.04 Table 1: Fruit fly damage in unopened flowers (ovary), and post set and harvested fruits of squash under farmers’ field conditions during spring-summer. v Sapkota et al., (2010) 28 v v ‘Jholmal’- Cow urine +fresh cow dung+ leaves of Neem+ Tulsi+ Tomato+ Marigold+ Chrysanthemum+ Garlic + Chilli and Ginger
- 29. Table 2: Total fruits set, marketable fruits and fruits damaged due to fruit fly in squash under farmers’ field condition during spring – summer. Sl. No. Treatments Fruit damage by fruit fly (%) Marketable fruits (%) Total fruit set/plant (No.) 1 Cue-lure 37.6bc 35.6b 12.38a 2 Rice food bait 37.8bc 38.7b 12.50a 3 Chemical treatment 47.2ab 29.8b 8.94b 4 Banana pulp bait 34.1c 36.7b 11.50a 5 Leaf extract 'Jholmal' 29.2c 59.7c 11.81a 6 Control 54.3a 31.9b 11.81a Grand mean 40 38.8 11.49 Sapkota et al., (2010) 29
- 30. Sl. No. Treatments Harvested fruits (%) Unmarketable by fruit fly damage Marketable Number Number 1 Cue-lure 21.8b 62.2b 2 Rice food bait 20.3b 67.6b 3 Chemical treatment 36.8a 63.2b 4 Banana pulp bait 19.2b 69.7b 5 Leaf extract 'Jholmal' 15.1b 84.11a 6 Control 38.9a 55.9b Grand mean 25.4 67.1 Table 3: Numbers of harvested fruits of squash under different treatment conditions in the farmer’s fields during spring- summer. Sapkota et al., (2010)30
- 31. 31 Conclusion Application of locally made botanical pesticide ‘Jholmal’ was found superior in terms of fruit size (895 g), quality and yield (62.8 t/ha), and reduced fruit fly infestation in squash as compared to other treatments. Sapkota et al., (2010)
- 32. Biological control • The term biological control was first used by Smith (1919). • It is the control of pest by employing predators, parasitoids and micro organisms. Predators • The insect which will eat insect pest. • They have long life cycle so required more than one prey. Parasitoids • It is an organism which lives and feeds either internally or externally on other organism. 32
- 33. Types of biological control There are three basic types of biological pest control strategies: 1.Importation (classical biological control) involves the introduction of a pest's natural enemies to a new locate where they do not occur naturally. Rodalia cardinalis- cottony cushion scale 2. Augmentation- involves the supplemental release of natural enemies, boosting the naturally occurring population. 33
- 34. Inoculative release: Relatively few natural enemies may be released at a critical time of the season. Ex- Periodic releases of the parasitoid, Encarsia formosa is used to control greenhouse whitefly. Inundative release: Millions may be released Ex- Trichogramma 3. Conservation: The conservation of existing natural enemies in an environment. Lae wing bugs, ladybird beetles. 34
- 35. 35 MICRO- ORGANISMS BACTERIA Ex: Bt FUNGI Ex: white and green muscardin fungi VIRUS Ex: NPV NEMATODES Ex. Steinernema and Heterorhabditis spp.
- 36. Bacillus thurengensis Bt is a motile, spore forming bacterium, in addition to endospores produces a proteinaceous parasporal crystal in the sporangium at the time of sporulation.(Endo toxins) 36 Entomopathogenic Bacteria Target pests Dosage Bacillus thurengensis Helicoverpa armigera 2-2.5 g/l Plutella xylostella Spodoptera litura Leucinodes orbonalis Gautam, 2008
- 37. Nuclear Polyhedrosis Virus (NPV) It has many lepidopteran hosts. Ex: Ha NPV - it is highly effective on Helicoverpa armigera, pest of tomato, chilli, cabbage, spice, medicinal and flower crops. Sl NPV - for Spodoptera litura Symptoms Diseased larvae less active, flaccid, fragile and rupture of integument Dead larva found hanging by prolegs from top (Suicide- Hanging) 37
- 38. 38
- 39. Kumari and Singh (2009) Spodoptera litura nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV-S) as a component in Integrated Pest Management (IPM) of Spodoptera litura on cabbage Journal of Biopesticides, 2: 84-86 39 CASE STUDY: 2
- 40. Location : Agricultural Research Station, Durgapura, Jaipur Design : Randomized block design Treatments : 9 Replications : 3 Variety : Golden acre Kumari and Singh (2009) 40
- 41. Sl. No. Treatments Per cent reduction in larval population after 1st spray 2nd spray 7DAS 14DAS 7DAS 14DAS T1 NPV-S (250 LE/ha) 25.61 40.39 60.06 72.28 T2 NPV-S (500 LE/ha) 42.80 61.98 78.26 87.24 T3 Endosulfan (1250 ml/ha) 53.57 68.13 85.78 93.65 T4 Neemarin (700 ml/ha) 23.14 37.65 60.78 69.13 T5 NPV-S (250 LE/ha) + Endosulfan (625 ml/ha) 27.03 43.80 88.14 95.35 T6 NPV-S (500 LE/ha) + Endosulfan (625 ml/ha) 45.56 59.63 93.85 98.25 T7 NPVS (250 LE/ha) + Neemarin (700 ml/ha) 30.19 45.00 66.34 79.34 T8 NPV-S (500 LE/ ha) + Neemarin ( 700 ml/ha) 43.12 60.03 81.71 90.53 T9 Untreated control 3.14 8.39 11.67 13.45 DAS = Days after spray Table 4: Field efficacy of NPV-S alone and in combination with insecticides on the infestation of Spodoptera litura on cabbage crop. Kumari and Singh (2009)41
- 42. Treaments Yield (kg/ha) Per cent increase in yield over control CBR T1 13610 44.32 1 : 3.1 T2 13876 47.14 1 : 5.5 T3 14190 50.47 1 : 22.45 T4 12391 31.39 1 : 11.4 T5 14422 52.93 1 : 15.1 T6 15372 62.93 1 : 16.4 T7 13711 45.39 1 : 6.7 T8 13970 48.13 1 : 8.5 T9 9431 - - C.D P≤0.05 314.7 CBR = Cost benefit ratio Table 5: Influence of application of NPV-S alone and in combination with insecticides on yield and Cost benefit ratio. Kumari and Singh (2009) 42
- 43. 43 Conclusion Treatment with NPV-S (500 LE/ha) + Endosulfan (625 ml/ha) was better in reducing the larval population and increasing yield than other treatments. Kumari and Singh (2009)
- 44. Entomopathogenic fungi White Muscardine Fungus - Beauveria bassiana This fungus is effective in controlling both bollworms and caterpillars as well as sucking pests. Ex: Botanigard, Mycotrol, Naturalis Green muscardine fungus-Metarrhizium Ex. multiplex anisopliae Attacking several pests like borers, loopers, semiloopers, some sucking pests. 44
- 45. Entomopathogenic Nematodes (EPNs) These are the novel tool for management of insects, phyto- nematodes and disease of agricultural crops. Nematode enter host through natural opening. It reduces the fitness, delays development and also causes sterility. Kill insects in 1-4 days. Common species commercially available are Steinernema carpocapsae , S. feltiae and Heterorhabditis bacteriophora They are also found safe to non-target organisms and compatible with pesticides. 45
- 46. Botanical control Plant products Target pests Neem A variety of sucking and chewing insects Pyrethrum (Chrysantheum cinerarifolium) Sucking pests and flies Rotenone (Derris elliptica) Leaf- feeding insects Ryanodine (Ryania speciosa) Caterpillars and thrips Sabadilla (Schoenocaulon afficinale) Leaf hoppers, thrips, bugs and caterpillars Nicotine (Nicotiana tobaccum) Caterpillars Limonene and linalool (citrus peel extracts) Aphids and mites 46
- 47. Naik et al., (2012) Performance of botanical and fungal formulation for pest management in organic okra production system J.Biopest, 5:12-16 47 CASE STUDY: 3
- 48. Location : Organic Farming Research Centre, Navile, Shivamogga Design : Randomized block design Treatments : 10 Replications : 4 Variety : Arka Anamika 48 Naik et al., (2012)
- 49. Treatments No. of leafhoppers/3 leaves 1st spray 2nd spray DBS 3 DAS 7 DAS 10 DAS DBS 3 DAS 7DAS 10DAS T1 – Neemazal (3.5%) 9.30 2.27 2.00 2.43 13.00 2.83 3.47 2.60 T2 – Neem oil (2%) 8.67 2.60 2.17 2.63 11.67 3.53 3.17 3.50 T3 –NSKE (5%) 9.77 3.50 3.53 4.50 12.67 4.00 3.67 4.00 T4 -Vitex negundo leaf extract (5%) 9.53 6.50 6.00 7.20 13.50 8.67 7.83 7.83 T5 -Chilly, Garlic extracts (5%) 8.67 4.67 3.90 4.80 10.00 6.50 5.60 6.17 T6 -Neemazal+ Chilly Garlic extracts (5%) 9.70 2.87 2.37 3.53 14.00 4.83 4.00 4.67 T7 - Beauveria bassiana (2.5g/l) 8.43 3.80 3.43 4.67 12.00 4.50 4.20 4.87 T8 - Verticillium lecani (2.5g/l) 9.67 2.67 2.20 2.77 14.67 3.67 3.33 3.83 T9 -Metarhizium anisopliae (2.5g/1) 7.47 4.97 4.37 5.27 12.67 6.70 6.10 6.93 T10 -Water spray 8.50 10.00 9.50 11.17 13.17 13.33 13.0 14.33 CD at 0.05 0.48 0.51 0.64 0.75 0.74 0.66 0.79 0.53 Table 6: Efficacy of botanicals and mycopathogenic formulation against leafhoppers on okra Naik et al., (2012)49
- 50. Treatments No. of aphids/3 leaves 1st spray 2nd spray DBS 3 DAS 7 DAS 10 DAS DBS 3 DAS 7DAS 10DA S T1 – Neemazal (3.5%) 8.67 1.93 1.50 1.67 18.67 4.50 3.33 3.17 T2 – Neem oil (2%) 7.83 2.17 1.83 1.93 19.50 6.67 5.00 4.33 T3 –NSKE (5%) 9.17 2.50 2.00 2.00 17.00 9.33 5.67 6.00 T4 -Vitex negundo leaf extract (5%) 8.67 4.83 3.67 4.67 18.00 11.67 9.00 9.67 T5 -Chilly, Garlic extracts (5%) 9.50 3.67 2.67 3.67 18.00 9.20 6.33 6.87 T6 -Neemazal+ Chilly Garlic extracts (5%) 8.93 3.33 2.33 3.33 17.33 10.67 7.33 8.53 T7 - Beauveria bassiana (2.5g/l) 8.33 3.87 3.33 3.50 16.33 12.20 7.33 7.67 T8 - Verticillium lecani (2.5g/l) 9.50 2.50 2.33 2.53 19.80 10.67 6.00 7.00 T9 -Metarhizium anisopliae (2.5g/1) 9.83 5.67 5.67 6.67 17.00 12.33 8.67 9.00 T10 -Water spray 8.83 8.00 8.33 8.67 19.33 19.00 20.00 21.00 CD at 0.05 0.66 0.63 0.66 0.78 0.30 0.56 0.58 0.38 Table 7: Efficacy of botanicals and mycopathogenic formulations against aphids on okra 50
- 51. Treatments No. of whiteflies/3 leaves 1st spray 2nd spray DBS 3 DAS 7 DAS 10 DAS DBS 3 DAS 7DAS 10DA S T1 – Neemazal (3.5%) 5.83 2.17 1.60 2.00 7.23 2.83 2.33 2.63 T2 – Neem oil (2%) 6.00 2.5 2.00 2.17 9.00 3.17 2.90 3.40 T3 –NSKE (5%) 5.67 3.00 3.17 3.00 8.33 3.77 3.87 4.00 T4 -Vitex negundo leaf extract (5%) 5.00 4.77 3.17 3.73 8.00 6.33 6.00 6.93 T5 -Chilly, Garlic extracts (5%) 6.00 4.00 3.53 2.67 8.33 4.00 4.00 4.50 T6 -Neemazal+ Chilly Garlic extracts (5%) 5.67 3.33 3.00 3.27 9.00 3.77 4.00 4.33 T7 - Beauveria bassiana (2.5g/l 5.70 3.67 3,40 3.67 8.00 5.70 5.90 6.67 T8 - Verticillium lecani (2.5g/l) 6.33 3.00 2.53 2.87 8.50 4.63 3.10 3.53 T9 -Metarhizium anisopliae (2.5g/1) 5.67 4.83 4.57 5.17 8.67 7.67 6.50 6.47 T10 -Water spray 6.50 5.50 5.67 5.93 8.00 7.50 8.00 8.50 CD at 0.05 0.48 0.60 0.44 0.40 0.24 0.1099 0.3513 0.5394 Table 8: Efficacy of botanicals and mycopathogenic formulation against whiteflies on okra Naik et al., (2012)51
- 52. 52 Conclusion Among botanicals Neemazol recorded 2.43 leafhoppers/3 leaves and for aphids and whiteflies recorded as 1.67 aphids/3 leaves and 2.00 whiteflies/3 leaves. Verticillium lecani @ 2.5 g/l showed 2.53 and 6.67 aphids/3 leaves and 2.80 and 3.53 whitefly/3 leaves at 10 DAS on the first and the second spray respectively and was on par with other mycopathogens. Naik et al., (2012)
- 53. Effect of organic amendments, botanicals and biopesticides against tomato fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera ( Hub.) and its parasitoid, Trichogramma chilonis Ishii Sathish and Raguraman (2007) Madras Agric. J., 94: 232-241 53 CASE STUDY: 4
- 54. Tomato fruit borer (Helicoverpa armigera) • Damaging stage: larva/caterpillar It causes about 18-55% crop losses. (Tiwari and Krishanamurthy, 1984). Symptoms caterpillars bore into the fruits and the bored holes are plugged with excreta. 54
- 55. Location : Department of Agricultural Entomology, TNAU, Coimbatore Design : Randomized block design Treatments : 12 Replications : 3 Variety : PKM 1 55 Sathish and Raguraman (2007)
- 56. Treatments Concentration Per cent damage 30 DAT 45 DAT Compost+ SSB+ Azospirillum+ Phosphobacteria+ Neem cake 12.5 t/ha + 2kg/ha + 2kg/ha + 2kg/ha + 300 kg/ha 3.51 3.00 Compost+ SSB+ Azospirillum+ Phosphobacteria+ Mahua cake 12.5 t/ha + 2kg/ha + 2kg/ha + 2kg/ha + 400 kg/ha 2.04 2.46 FYM+ SSB+ Azospirillum+ Phosphobacteria+ Mahua cake 12.5 t/ha + 2kg/ha + 2kg/ha + 2kg/ha + 400 kg/ha 1.80 1.26 FYM+ SSB+ Azospirillum+ Phosphobacteria+ Castor cake 12.5 t/ha + 2kg/ha + 2kg/ha + 2kg/ha + 400 kg/ha 2.55 2.07 FYM+ SSB+ Azospirillum+ Phosphobacteria+ Neem cake 12.5 t/ha + 2kg/ha + 2kg/ha + 2kg/ha + 300 kg/ha 1.08 1.05 FYM+ SSB+ Azospirillum+ Phosphobacteria+ Pungam cake 12.5 t/ha + 2kg/ha + 2kg/ha + 2kg/ha + 400 kg/ha 1.35 1.77 Compost + NPK 12.5 t/ha + 150:100:50 kg/ha 5.80 5.26 FYM + NPK 12.5 t/ha + 150:100:50 kg/ha 4.86 4.20 Compost 12.5 t/ha 5.10 4.66 FYM 12.5 t/ha 4.26 3.54 NPK 150:100:50 kg/ha 7.53 8.43 Untreated check - 7.62 8.16 Table 9: Effect of organic amendments on H. armigera infestation in pot cultured tomato DAT- Days after transplanting SSB – Silicate solubilizing bacteria Sathish and Raguraman (2007)56
- 57. Treatment concentration Average no. of eggs laid in 24h/9 females No. of parasitized eggs Percent parasitism NSP 0.12% 21.6 19.0 90.2 NSP 0.18% 20.0 16.3 82.35 NS 0.12% 26.0 24.0 90.0 Neem oil 3% 15.0 11.0 77.32 NSKE+Bt 5%+15000 IU/ mg (2 lit/ha) 40.0 35.0 87.4 (69.21) NSKE+HaNPV 5%+1.5×1012 POBs/ha 32.0 29.0 90.7 NSKE+Spinosad 5%+75g a.i /ha 17.0 15.0 86.2 Endosulfan 0.07% 32.0 28.0 88.9 Untreated check - 44.0 44.0 90.1 Table 10: Influence of botanicals and biopesticides on parasitization by Trichogramma on H. armigera eggs Sathish and Raguraman (2007)57 NSP – Neem + sweet flag + pongam
- 58. Conclusion The feeding and infestation of the larvae of H. armigera were significantly low in FYM + Azospirillum + SSB + Phosphobacteria + Neem cake applied plants. Trichogramma parasitization on H. armigera eggs was adversely affected by Neem oil 3% on treated plants. Sathish and Raguraman (2007) 58
- 59. 59 Evaluation of Botanical Mixtures for Insect Pests Management on Cowpea Plants Oparaeke et al., (2005) Journal of Biopesticides 2: 37-43 CASE STUDY: 5
- 60. 60 Location : Teaching and Research Farm of the Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University, Nigeria Design : Randomized block design Treatments : 6 Replications : 3
- 61. 61 Treatment Mean number of insects Thrips / flower Maruca spp./ flower and /or pod Clavigralla spp./plant CNC + XLP 1.83 0.92 2.42 CNC + BLP 2.25 0.68 1.50 CNC + GLB 0.83 0.50 0.92 CPP + GLB 0.84 1.92 1.16 XLP + BTL 2.0 1.25 2.17 Untreated control 3.83 3.83 4.59 CNC- Cashew nutshell, XLP- African pepper, BLP-west African black pepper, CPP- Chilli pepper, GLB- Garlic bulb, BTL- Bitter leaf (vernonia sp.) Table 11: Effects of botanical mixtures on pest’s infestation on cowpea.
- 62. 62 Treatment Pod density per plant Pods infested per plant (%) Grain yield (kg/ha) CNC + XLP 32.94 20.78 640.26 CNC + BLP 30.94 15.07 723.33 CNC + GLB 41.33 18.62 690.66 CPP + GLB 42.28 22.69 587.98 XLP + BTL 32.89 25.71 480.67 Untreated control 8.62 89.29 193.78 CNC- Cashew nutshell, XLP- African pepper, BLP-west African black pepper, CPP- Chilli pepper, GLB- Garlic bulb, BTL- Bitter leaf (vernonia sp.) Table 12: Effects of botanical mixtures on mean pod density, pod damage (%) and grain yield of cowpea.
- 63. 63 Results of the experiments showed that all the plant extract treatments were significantly better than control treatments. But among plant extracts CNC + GLB (Cashew nutshell +) was found best in controlling thrips, pod borer and flower bug but the grain yield was best in CNC + BLP (Cashew nutshell +west African black pepper) with 723.33 kg/ha. Conclusion
- 64. Crop/pest Scientific name Pheromone lure Tomato fruit borer Helicoverpa armigera Helilure Tobacco caterpillar Spodoptera litura Spodolure Brinjal S & F borer Leucinodes arbonalis Leucilure Bhendi S & F borer Earias vitella, E. insulina Erilure, Vitlure Semiochemicals The chemicals involved in communication. Sex pheromone: A substance generally produced by the female to attract the male. 64
- 65. Pheromones for the management of brinjal fruit and shoot borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Chatterjee et al., (2009) Karnataka J. Agri. Sci. 22 : 594-596 65 CASE STUDY: 6
- 66. Brinjal shoot and fruit borer- Leucinodes orbonalis Destructive stage: larvae Damage losses: 11-93%. (Kodandaram, 2014) Symptoms Bored holes on fruits. Wilting and drying of shoots. 66
- 67. Location : Department of Plant Protection, West Bengal. Design : Randomized block design Treatments : 7 Replications : 6 Chatterjee et al., (2009) 67
- 68. Module Shoot damage Fruit damage Fruit yield % shoot damage % protectio n over control % fruit damage % protectio n over control Yield (t/ha) % gain over control M1- Mechanical removal of shoots & fruits 7.26 58.35 26.82 33.73 14.66 10.31 M2- Only installation of trap 9.34 46.41 29.98 25.92 17.00 28.67 M3- Trap + mechanical removal of S & F 5.64 67.64 20.94 48.26 17.08 28.52 M4- Trap + botanicals 4.93 71.72 24.66 39.06 20.36 53.19 M5- Trap + mechanical removal + botanicals 4.08 76.59 21.89 45.91 20.24 52.29 M6- farmer’s practice (pesticide spray) 4.12 76.36 24.24 40.10 18.46 38.90 M7- without any protection 17.43 - 40.47 - 13.29 - Table 13: Performance of different modules in the management of brinjal shoot and fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis and their effect on fruit yield Chatterjee et al., (2009)68
- 69. Lure companies 1st week 2nd week 3rd week 4th week 5th week 6th week Total catch/trap Agriland 8.63 6.33 5.00 6.00 4.67 4.33 35.0 Ganesh 9.33 7.00 5.33 5.67 4.33 5.00 36.7 PCI 8.00 4.67 4.33 5.33 4.67 3.33 30.3 NRI 15.67 10.33 9.00 7.67 7.00 6.33 56.0 C.D. (0.05) 0.69 0.78 0.55 0.61 0.64 0.72 - Table 14: Relative efficacy of different commercial sex pheromones with respect to number of moths caught per trap per week Chatterjee et al., (2009) 69
- 70. 70 Conclusion The module with three components i.e. pheromone trap, timely mechanical control and application of azadex (neem based insecticides) was found most effective in reduction of shoot damage (76.59%) and T3 was best to fruit damage reduction (48.26). Chatterjee et al., (2009)
- 71. Host plant resistance The relative amount of heritable qualities possessed by a plant, which influences the ultimate degree of damage done by the insect (Painter, 1951). 3 types 1. Non preference (Antixenosis): The non-preference of insect either for feeding, oviposition or shelter. 2. Antibiosis: The plant has certain biochemical compounds, which have adverse effects on insect growth and survival. 3. Tolerance: It is the ability to withstand heavy insect infestation. 71
- 72. Crop Pest Resistant varieties Nature of resistant Reference Cucurbits Fruit fly Bottlegourd: NB 29 High relative humidity Nath (1966) Brinjal Shoot & Fruit borer Coimbatore, H 128 Toughness of skin and pulp of the fruit Srinivasan (1961) Okra Jassids Early long green, IC-75 High hair density on veins and lamina and more errect hairs Daloya (1981) Onion Thrips Bombay white High amount of glycine, histidine and cystine Sexena (1970) 72
- 73. Genetically modified crops Modification in living organism for specific purpose Current scenario reflects that GM crops can be most effective when they are used as part of IPM strategies. On the same lines the prospects of India’s first GM vegetable, Bt brinjal is still under consideration for commercial use. Therefore, resistance management is a primary challenge in the current direction of biotechnology in pest management. Ex: Bt brinjal and cabbage 73
- 74. More precise research should focus on plant incorporated protectant foods. Evaluation of local natural resources for pest management. Conservation and augmentation of natural enemies. Need more scientific research work to exploit the biorational insecticides/ bio-intensive pest management. Innovations in farmers participation and training to utilize the developed techniques. 74
- 75. Non- insecticidal practices are basic but eco-friendly ways to minimize the insect-pest population. Traps can be used for monitoring and suppression of pest population. Use the biological control agents with the emergence of pest. Insect resistant varieties should be used along with refuge crop. Various biopesticides which selective and eco-friendly are available to control pests. IPM is the best technique for management of insect-pests. 75
- 76. 76