Impact of bio-intensive integrated pest management practices on insect pests and grain yield in basmati rice

Abstract

Bio-intensive pest management practices were compared with farmer's practices and untreated control in basmati rice at village Sahauli (Punjab). BIPM practices involved green manuring; seed treatment; alternate wetting and drying of the field; installation of pheromone traps and bird perches; augmentative releases of Trichogramma spp.; spray of Neem oil 1%. The farmer's practices comprised the applications of chemical insecticides. The mean leaffolder damage was 3.12, 1.90 and 5.41 per cent in BIPM, farmer's practice and untreated control, respectively. The dead heart incidence was 2.49 per cent in BIPM, 1.16 per cent in farmer's practice and 4.30 per cent in untreated control. Similarly, the mean incidence of white earheads was 3.31, 1.78 and 5.06 per cent in BIPM, farmer's practice and untreated control, respectively. Highest grain yield was recorded in farmer's practice fields (30.63 q/ha) followed by yield in BIPM fields (28.07 q/ha). These yields were significantly better than untreated control (25.18 q/ha).The population of natural enemies was higher in BIPM fields as compared to farmer's practiced fields.

Evaluation of Bio-Intensive Pest Management (BIPM) module in rice var. Swarna at Raipur, Chhattisgarh

“…were observed in BIPM (0.60) and (0.57) minimum (0.26) and (0.26) in farmers practice in the year 2018 and 2019 respectively, while the pooled mean where significantly higher population of (0.31%) spiders/hill in BIPM was recorded as compared to (0.06%) in non-BIPM. Similarly, Sharma, et al (2018) also reported that the mean population of spiders (4.25/plot) was significantly higher in BIPM practiced plots whereas, in farmer's practice plot it was (3.63/plot) which is in line with the present finding. This indicates that BIPM practices were safer for spiders as compared to farmer's practice (Table 9).…”

Comparing various bio-intensive pest management modules in rice

“…Xanthopimpla sp. (Ichneumonidae) was found to cause significantly higher parasitism in organic (1.93%) than in conventional fields (0.60%) on leaf folder pupae (Sharma et al, 2018). Anitha and Paimala, 2014, observed similar results, that BIPM practices elevated the incidence of natural enemies like Ophionea indica (Carabidae).…”

“…The treatments BIPM 2, FP 1, FP 2 and UC had a BCR of 1.54, 1.55, 1.54, and 1.44 respectively (Figure 1). Sharma et al, (2018), also reported that BIPM modules had an increased yield of about 11.48% over the untreated control. The net returns were also highest in BIPM plots (Rs.…”

“…The treatments did not differ significantly for damage caused by yellow stem borer (% white years) and per cent dead hearts were recorded across the treatments below ETLs (Table 2). Sharma et al, (2018) observed that the mean leaf folder damage was 3.12, 1.90 and 5.41 per cent in BIPM, farmer's practice and untreated control, respectively. Saravanakumar et al (2008) reported that the percentage of leaf folder damage in the Pseudomonas treated plot (4.71% at…”