In the past one and half decades, the periodical unabated explosions of aphids, whiteflies, bollworms, pod borers, defoliators, coccids, cutworms, plant hoppers etc., as direct crop damagers and disease transmitters in different regions of the country have made agriculture less remunerative and highly risk prone. The ability of some of these pests to develop resistance curbs the effectiveness of many commercial chemicals. Resistance has accelerated in many insect species and it was reported that more than 500 insect and mite species are immune to one or more insecticides at present. Similarly about 150 plant pathogens such as fungus and bacteria are now shielded against fungicides. Some of the weedicides also found effective earlier failed to control weeds now-a-days. Experts assessment reveal that around 22 per cent of yield losses in major crops like Rice, Cotton, Groundnut, Sugarcane, Sorghum, Tomato, Chillies, Mango, Grapes, etc., can be attributed to insect pests. Hence, there is need to reduce if not eliminate these losses by protecting the crops from different pests through appropriate techniques. At present day the role of crop protection in agriculture is of great importance and a challenging process than before, as the so called resistant species should be brought under check.
A 'PEST' is an organism that causes damage resulting in economic
loss to a plant or animal. It can also be said that pest is a living
organism that thrives at the expense of other living organism. Insects, other
invertebrates like nematodes, mites, snails and slugs, etc., and vertebrates
like rats, birds, jackals, etc., that cause damage to crops, stored products
and animals can all be classified as pests. Disease producing pathogens of plants and weeds are also
referred to as crop pests.
It is a well known fact that insects being widely distributed
became more problematic in tropical climate. Of 1.5 million species of
insects so far described few are so conspicuous in their presence due to
their ability to develop rapidly and becoming serious by attacking food
crops directly and indirectly. · In developing country like ours insects
are dominating over other pests by acquiring characters like resistance to
toxic chemicals, and resurgence, particularly in intensive crop management
regions of the country. The losses caused by insect pests like Spodoptera,
Heliothis, Whitefly and Aphids are so enormous that these made the farmer to
disturb the present ecosystems with continuous use of excessive
IPM is a decision support system for the selection and use of pest control tactics, singly or harmoniously coordinated into a management strategy, based on cost/benefit analyses that takes into account the interests of and impacts on the producers, society and the environment. Therefore, IPM is a multitactical maneuver as it often intertwines different tactics in a compatible manner to limit pest population upto desired level and it is also multifaceted as it concerns economy, ecology and safety to environment. This is expected that this system of pest population management will be sustained one.
Proper taxonomic identification of pest provides knowledge on the biological
attributes of pest worked out by the entomologists - life history patterns,
seasonal history, population development patterns, habits and behavior and
off-crop seasonal activities.
Identification of pest nature of the insect in the production system determines the selection of strategy and tactic integration in the population management programme.
Insects that subsist on crop plants may be numerous but only one or a few are considered major. The one among these that dominates the crop environment is considered the 'key pest' which is targeted for management. Of the two sub-categories of key pests, in the 'perennial pests' the general equilibrium position of population (GEP) remain close to economic injury level (EIL) and frequently cross the EIL causing economic damage most of the years. In case of 'severe pests' the population remains above GEP and thus is the cause for constant concern to the agriculturists. But fortunately such pests are very few.
The other category, 'Occasional pest' is also a major pest and is very common in crop environment. It has a GEP much below the EIL but the highest fluctuations occasionally and sporadically exceeds this level. Taxonomic identity becomes essential not only for properly understanding the life strategies of the pest to integrate control tactics if required but more importantly to know the country of its origin for importation and release of natural enemies for biological suppression of pest population which may be used as a component in IPM.
A field crop is monitored to determine a pests economic status or to determine whether a natural enemy is at a level capable of suppressing a pest's population density. So identification of pests and beneficial insects is of prime importance before any control operation is executed.
Monitoring tools like pheromone, light and sticky traps can be advantageously used. Field scouting adopting fixed plot survey or roving survey should be taken from time to time to monitor the crop in determining whether the pest population attained EILs.
When to use Crop Protection Chemicals ?
Information on economic injury level (EIL) is the tool for making the decision. EIL is that level of injury necessary to justify management action against the pest.
EIL = Control cost / (Commodity value x Yield loss per pest)
EIL changes with time and space. With time and even with locality or region the cost factors often change and yield loss per pest is influenced by crop variety, crop stage infested, weather and natural enemy factors. The EIL is the basis for deciding management of pests. But if one waits for pest population to reach EIL to make decision it may cause unnecessary yield or quality losses. It would, therefore, be prudent to take action while the pest population tends to reach EIL, i.e., when it remains well below EIL.
This may appear paradoxical with the aim of pest suppression. But economic injury level will prove whether there is necessity of suppressing the population or not. This strategy therefore, depends on the results of surveillance data. A sub economic or a potential pest usually does not require a population suppression measure except in extraordinary situation i.e. when conditions do not favour realization of causing economic damage by such a pest.
Adoption of this strategy is a common strategy directed to depress population of occasional pests. Suppression of pest population may be achieved through different tactics. Methods like biological control by releasing natural enemies or modification of crop environment use of host plant (crop) resistance factors and even insect growth regulators are factors introduced in crop environment, that create hazard to insect pest life and therefore, these are considered prophylactic or preventive measures. Use of pesticides as is commonly adopted for dampening population in situations of abnormal fluctuation is a mortality factor and is purely therapeutic or curative. The other methods like use of mating disruptant chemicals and sterile male release are directed to reduce reproductive rate usually not adopted for this group of pest.
This strategy does not deal directly with insect pest by inducing mortality or disrupting normal life process. It envisages reaction of such condition in crop or crop environment that those resident pests are not capable of causing economic losses. This is entirely prophylactic approach and eco-friendly. 'Resistant and tolerance factors' in a crop species is exploited through selection or directed research to locate resistant factor in crop plant and breeding to obtain desired objective. In this even pest population at general EIL will not cause crop loss. Crop tolerance to pest infestation can also be achieved by changing crop vigour and physiology so that crop itself can face the challenge of pest. This may be brought about by appropriate application of fertilizers. Manipulation of 'cultural practices' may bring about other changes in crop environment. Here use of neem cake as supplement of organic manure may take care of soil-inhabiting pests, crop density may be changed to bring about unfavourable situation (as skip-row planting of rice for brown plant hopper of rice), advancing time of sowing to bring about asynchrony between vulnerable crop stage and pest infestation (as for mustard aphid) to avoid loss, use of short duration or early maturing variety of crop (as for pod fly of pigeon pea) also to avoid severe crop loss etc. These strategies selectively are applicable to reduce crop susceptibility to pest of 'key' or 'perennial and severe' category and also applicable for not encouraging 'occasional' or sub-economic pests (as the changes in crop production technology and abuse of chemical insecticides led to so far known insect residing in rice-ecosystem to enigmatic pest status).
combines objectives of all the above three strategies and thus is a
multitactical strategy to achieve pest population suppression to desired level,
i.e., below EIL. This strategy is the most desirable, commonly followed
and produced greater degree of constancy in pest control. A single tactic may
fail to produce desired results but in multitactical approach if one tactic
fails the others will help to take care of the pest.
Source: Pawar, 2003
|Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)||33||41||71||135||132|
|Neem based insecticides||186||354||411||739||551|
Source: Pawar, 2003/NCIPM
|1||2,4- Dichlorophenoxy Acetic Acid|
|8||Alphanaphthyl Acetic Acid|
|13||Azadirachtin (Neem Products)|
|14||Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.)|
|32||Chlormequat Chloride (CCC)|
|54||Dichloro Diphenyl Trichloroethane (DDT)|
|55||Dichloropropene and Dichloropropanes mixture (DD Mixture)|
|73||Ethylene Dibromide (EDB)|
|74||Ehthylene Dibromide and Carbon Tetrachloride mixture (EDCT Mixture 3:1)|
|89||Foxetyl - Al|
|108||Maleic Hydrazide (MH)|
|115||Methoxy Ethyl Mercury Chloride (MEMC)|
|117||Methyl Chlorophenoxy Acetic Acid (MCPA)|
|157||Streptomycin + Tetracycline|
|171||Trichloro Acetic Acid (TCA)|
Source:DPPQ & S, Faridabad/NCIPM
|S. No.||Name of the Biopesticide|
|1.||Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis|
|2.||Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki|
|3.||Bacillus thuringiensis var. galleriae|
|9.||NPV of Helicoverpa armigera|
|10.||NPV of Spodoptera litura|
|11.||Neem based pesticides|
|S. No.||Pesticides||Crop||Disease/Pest/Weed||Dose/ha. (a.i.)||Remarks|
|1.||Carbendazim 12% + Mancozeb 63% WP||Groundnut Paddy||Leaf Spot & Rust Blast||500 gm/500 ltr. (Fml) 750 gm/750 ltr.(Fml)||Regd. recently|
|1.||Fipronil 5% SC||Rice||Stemborer BPH GLH Leaf folder Gall midge Whorl maggat WBPH||50 ? 75 gm - do - - do - - do - - do - - do - - do -||New formulation|
|Cabbage||DBM||40 ? 50 gm||Use extended|
|Chilly||Thrips Aphids Fruit borer||- do - - do - - do -|
|2.||Lambdacyhalothrin 2.5 EC||Cotton||Bollworm Jassid Thrips||15 ? 25 gm - do - - do -||New formulation|
|3.||Bromadialone 0.005 RB 0.25 CB 0.005 RB cake||Poultry Farm||Indian house rat House mouse Large bandicata||0.005%||Use extended|
|4.||Triazophos 40 EC||Soybean||Stem borer, Girdle beetle, Leaf minor||250 gm||Use extended|
|5.||Lindane 20 EC||Building Woods||Termite Termite||50 gm/M 50 gm/M||- do -|
|6.||Deltamethrin 2.8 EC||Brinjal||Shoot & Fruit borer||10 ? 12.5 gm||Use extended|
|7.||Methomyl 40 SP||Cotton||Bollworm (Heliothis)||300 ? 500||New formulation|
|Pigeonpea||Pod borers (H. armigera) (E. atomosa) (M. obtusa)||- do -|
|Tomato||Heliothis armigera||- do -|
|8.||Flufenoxuron 10 DC||Rose||Red Spider mite||50 gm||New formulation|
|9.||Lambdacyhalothrin 5 EC||Chillies||Thrips Mite Pod borer (Spodoptera)||15 gms||Use extended|
|Pigeonpea||Pod borers Pod fly||20 ? 25 gm|
|10.||Chlorpyriphos 50 EC||Building||Termite||0.5% conc.||New formulation|
|11.||Deltamethrin 25 Tab||Cotton||Boll worm||12.5% gm.||New formulation|
|12.||Acetamiprid 20 SP||Cotton||Aphids Jassids Whitefly||10 gm 10 gm 20 gm||Recently registered|
|1.||Chlorimuron ethyl 25% WP||Soybean Rice||Phyllanthus niruri Amaranthus viridis Portulaca oleracea Cyperus rotundus Trianthema manogyn Cynotis auxiliaris Echinochloa crusgalli Eclipta alba Echinochloa colonum||6.0 g||Registered recently|
|2.||Metsulfuron methyl 20% WP||Wheat Rice||Chenopodium album Melilotus indica Vicia sativa Lathyrus aphaca Anagallis arvensis Circium arense Ludwigia spp. Commelina bengalensis Caesulia axillaris Eclipta alba Fimbristylis spp.||4.0 g||Registered recently|
|3.||Oxadiargyl 80% WP||Rice||Echinochloa colonum E. crusgalli Cyperus iria Fimbristylis spp.||100 g||Registered recently|
|4.||Glufosinate ammonium 13.5 SL||Tea||Imperata cylindrica Panicum repens Borerraria hispida Digitaria sanguinalis Ageratum conyzoides Elusine indica Paspalum conjgatum||375 ? 500 g||- do -|
|5.||Oxadiargyl 6 EC||Transplanted Rice||Echinochloa colonum E. crusagalli Cyperus iria Fimbristylis spp.||100 gm|
|6.||Imazethapyr 100% SL||Soybean ] Groundnut]||Cyperus diflormis Echinochloa colonum E. crusgalli Euphorbia hirta Croton Sperrsifaorus Digera arvensis Commelina bengalensis Trianthema portulacastrum||100 gm 100 ? 150 gm||- do -|
|7.||Paclobutrazol 23 SC||Mango||For better fruit set to avoid mango malformation||3.75 g ? 10 g||- do -|
|8.||Metsulfuron Methyl 10 % + Chlorimuron Ethyl 10% WP||Rice||Cyperus iria c. difformis Fimbrystylis sp. Echinochloa crusgalli E. Colonum Ludwigia parviflora Panicum repens Marselia quadrifoliata Eclipta alba||4.0 gm||- do -|
|S. No.||Name of the Pesticide|
|3.||Benzene Hexachloride (BHC)|
|5.||Captafol 80% Powder* Use banned w.e.f. 17.7.2003|
|7.||Chlorobenzilate Use banned w.e.f. 17.7.2003|
|10.||Dieldrine Use banned w.e.f. 17.7.2003|
|12.||Ethylene Dibromide Use banned w.e.f. 17.7.2003|
|13.||Ethyl Mercury Chloride|
|16.||Maleic Hydrazide Use banned w.e.f. 17.7.2003|
|18.||Mehtomyl 12:5% L|
|19.||Mehtomyl 24% L|
|20.||Nicotine Sulphate *|
|22.||Paraquate Dimethyl Sulphate|
|23.||Pentachloro nitrobenzene (PCNB)|
|25.||Phenyl Mercury Acelate (PMA)*|
|26.||Phosphamidon 85% SL|
|27.||Sodium Methane Arsonate (MSMA)|
|30.||Trichloro acetic acid (TCA) Use banned w.e.f. 17.7.2003|
|S. No.||Name of the Pesticide|
|6.||Methoxy Ethyl Merciru Chloride|
<td style="border-style: none solid solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext; border-width: medium 0.5pt 0.5pt; color: windowtext; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; font-family: Arial; text-align: left; vertical-align: bottom; white-space: nowrap; padding-left: 1px; padding-right: 1px;
IPM Package of Practices
view to provide technical knowledge to the
extension functionaries and farmers in
the States, Directorate of P.P.Q&S. has developed 77 IPM package of practices for different
crops with the latest research inputs from State Agricultural Universities (SAUs) and Indian
Council of Agricultural research (ICAR) .