2. entomology - icar-iirr.org progress report 2012.pdf · 2.3 chemical control studies: two...

2. ENTOMOLOGY

CONTENTSTRIALS

Kharif 2012PAGE

SUMMARY i-vINTRODUCTION 2.1

2.1 HOST PLANT RESISTANCE STUDIESPlanthopper Screening Trial (PHS) 2.4Gall midge Screening Trial (GMS) 2.5Gall midge Special Screening Trial (GMSS) 2.8Leaf folder Screening Trial (LFST) 2.9Germplasm Evaluation against Major Pests (GEMP) 2.9Multiple Resistance Screening Trial (MRST) 2.11National Screening Nurseries (NSN) 2.14International Brown Planthopper Nursery (IRBPHN) 2.17

2.2 INSECT BIOTYPE STUDIESGall midge Biotype Trial (GMBT) 2.18Gall midge Population Monitoring (GMPM) 2.20Planthopper Special Screening Trial (PHSS) 2.21

2.3 CHEMICAL CONTROL STUDIESInsecticide Evaluation Trial (IET) 2.23Pesticide Compatibility Trial (PCT) 2.45

2.4 ECOLOGICAL STUDIESInfluence of Rice Cultivation Methods on Insect Pest Incidence(IRCP) 2.61

Effect of Planting Date on Pest Incidence (EPDP) 2.67

2.5 BIOCONTROL AND BIODIVERSITY STUDIESMonitoring of Pest Species and their Natural Enemies (MPNE) 2.74Ecological Engineering for Planthopper Management (EEPM) 2.78

2.6 INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENTYield Loss Estimation Trial (YLET) 2.81Integrated Pest Management Special (IPMs) 2.84

2.7 POPULATION DYNAMICS OF INSECT PESTS ASSESSEDTHROUGH LIGHT TRAP COLLECTIONS 2.98

TRIALSRABI 2012

SUMMARY 2.110

2.1 CHEMICAL CONTROL STUDIESInsecticide Evaluation Trial (IET)

Pesticide Compatibility Trial (PCT)2.1122.118

2.2 ECOLOGICAL STUDIESInfluence of Rice Cultivation Systems on Insect Pest Incidence(IRCP)Trap crop for stem borer management (TCSB)

2.1252.129

2.3 BIOCONTROL AND BIODIVERSITY STUDIESMonitoring of Pest Species and their Natural Enemies (MPNE) 2.132

2.4 INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENTYield Loss Estimation Trial (YLET)Integrated Pest Management Special (IPMS)

2.1332.133

DRR Annual Progress Report 2012, Vol. 2 – Entomology

i

2. Entomology Kharif 2012SUMMARY

All India Coordinated Entomology Program was organized and conductedduring kharif 2012 with seven major trials encompassing various aspects ofrice Entomology involving 480 experiments (79.2%) that were conducted at 42locations (33 funded + 9 voluntary) in 22 states and one union territory. Detailsof scientists involved in the program at headquarters, cooperating centres andthe performance of centres is provided in Appendices I and II. Pest incidenceduring the kharif season was monitored throughout the country by theCoordinating centres. No major outbreak of pest was reported. Damage due toBPH, stem borers, leaf folder, swarming caterpillar and gall midge was seen insome pockets.

2.1 Host plant resistance studies comprised of nine screening experimentsinvolving 2124 entries which included 900 pre-breeding lines, 126 hybrids and1078 germplasm accessions and 125 check varieties. These entries wereevaluated against 10 insect pests in 171 valid tests (46 greenhouse reactions+125 field reactions). The results of these reactions identified 94 entries (4.6%of the tested) as promising against various insect pests. Of these promisingmaterials, 8 entries (8.5%) were under retesting.

Planthopper screening trial (PHS) Evaluation of 55 entries against the twoplanthoppers and greenleafhopper in 10 greenhouse and 6 field tests indicatedsix entries as promising in 6 - 9 tests. Two breeding lines from MoncompuKAUM 166-2 and KAUM 168-1 recorded consistent resistance during second year of testing.

Gall midge screening trial (GMS) Evaluation of 55 entries in 7 valid tests (onegreenhouse and 6 field tests) against gall midge revealed that 3 entries - JGL18044, JGL 18080 (under retesting) and JGL 19618 were promising in 3 tests.

Gall midge special screening trial (GMSS) The results of screening 65germplasm accessions in 7 valid tests identified 4 new accessions viz., IC Nos363753, 462336, 463240, 353834 as promising in 2-3 tests.

Leaf folder screening trial (LFST) had 20 entries evaluated in 7 valid fieldtests confirmed promising performance of W1263(CBT) and PTB12 inreplicated evaluation.

Germplasm evaluation against major insect pests (GEMP) trial evaluated915 germplasm accessions in 6 field tests against 8 pests identified tenaccessions viz., IC# 346207, 545441, 459646, 17065, 86004, 145397,449784, 450029, 449994 and 413645 as promising in 2 to 3 of the 10 validtests.


ii

Multiple resistance screening trial (MRST) was constituted with 25 entriesand check varieties and evaluated at 26 locations in 8 greenhouse and 42 fieldtests against 9 pests. Six entries viz., CR 2711-76, W 1263 (DRR), W 1263(IRRI ACC11057), HR-DRR-02, RP 4918-212(S), RP 4918-228(S) werepromising in 10 - 15 tests against 4-6 insect pests.

National Screening Nurseries (NSN) included four nurseries viz., NSN1 with154 AVT cultures, NSN2 with 599 IVT cultures, NSNH with 64 hill cultures andNHSN with 100 experimental hybrids. Based on overall reaction, 5 NSN1cultures (IET Nos. 22489, 22096, 22155, 22439, 22486), 4 NSN2 cultures(IET Nos. 23000, 23148, 23033, 23040), one NSNH culture (IET 22950) andone NHSN hybrid (IET 22941) were found promising.

The 30th International Brown Planthopper Nursery (IRBPHN) comprising of50 entries was evaluated under greenhouse conditions against brownplanthopper at DRR and only Rathu Heenathi (damage score 4.6) and theresistant check PTB 33 (2.1) were promising.

2.2 Insect biotype studies included three trials 1. Gall midge biotype trial(GMBT) 2. Gall midge population monitoring trial (GMPM) and 3. PlanthopperSpecial Screening Trial (PHSS).

Under Gall midge biotype trial (GMBT) reaction of 20 differentials infive different groups against different biotypes and populations of gall midgewas noted at 8 locations. The study revealed that among all the differentialstested, Aganni (with Gm8) was most promising in 5 locations followed by Kavyaand W1263 (Gm1), RP 2068-18-3-5 (gm3) and INRC 3021 (Gm8) at 4 locationseach. GM population at Brahmavar needs further study to characterize thebiotype there.

Virulence composition of gall midge populations was monitored in Gallmidge population monitoring trial (GMPM) at Jagdaplur, Warangal andPattambi through single female progeny tests. High level of virulence againstGm1, Gm4 and Gm8 conferred resistance in Pattambi gall midge populationcontinues to be a cause of concern. However, Gm8 provided good level ofresistance against GM populations at Jagdalpur and Warangal.

Greenhouse screening at 6 locations and field screening at DRR of 16gene differentials in Planthopper Special Screening Trial (PHSS) identifiedPtb33 (with bph2+Bph3+other factors), RP2068-18-3-5 (unknown gene) to bepromising in 6 and 5 of the 7 tests, respectively. Breeding lines with Bph18 (IR65482-7-216-1-2-B) or with Bph20+Bph21 (IR 710333-121-15 ) were effectiveonly in 2 of the tests. Thus variations in virulence pattern was evident amongthe BPH populations in India.


iii

2.3 Chemical Control studies: Two insecticide trials viz., i) Insecticideevaluation trial (IET) and ii) Pesticide compatibility trial (PCT) were continuedwith inclusion of newer formulations, during kharif 2012.

Insecticide evaluation trial (IET) was carried out at 35 locations to evaluatethe efficacy of newer insecticide formulations against major insect pests of riceand consequent impact on grain yield during kharif 2012. Based on theperformance of the insecticide treatments for their efficacy in reducing pestinfestation and their impact on grain yield across locations, it was evident thatthe standard check treatment of rynaxypyr followed by sutathion formulationof triazophos at higher dose performed well against stem borer, while againstgall midge sutathion and monocrotophos fared better than other treatments.Against leaf folder, rynaxypyr was the best treatment, whereas buprofezin waseffective against GLH. Sulfoxaflor treatments along with buprofezin weresignificantly superior in their efficacy against BPH. Rynaxypyr treatmentyielded the highest followed by acephate and monocrotophos. The newerinsecticide formulations did not have any adverse impact on spider populationsin the field but mirid bug populations were relatively lower in the sulfoxaflortreated plots compared to other treatments including control.

Pesticide compatibility trial (PCT) was carried out with the objective ofevaluating the compatibility of newer insecticide and fungicide formulations astank mix against major insect pests and diseases of rice and consequentimpact on grain yield, at 17 centres during kharif 2012. Based on theperformance of the treatments when applied alone vis a vis their respectivecombinations in reducing pest infestation, it was evident that there were nosignificant differences in the performance of the two newer insecticideformulations in their efficacy when applied alone or in combination withfungicides. The insecticide fungicide combination treatments yielded betterthan insecticide applied alone. Hence, the results revealed that there was noadverse impact on the efficacy of either buprofezin plus acephate or sulfoxaflordue to their combination with either hexaconazole or tricyclazole or vice versaconfirming the compatibility of the chemicals when used as tank mix in thefield.

2.4 Ecological studies consisted of two trials: i. Influence of rice cultivationmethods on insect pest incidence (IRCP) and ii. Effect of Planting Date on PestIncidence (EPDP).

Influence of rice cultivation systems on insect pest incidence (IRCP) wasstudied at 6 locations. Damage by stem borer, hispa, whorl maggot andpopulations of BPH, WBPH, GLH were low in direct seeded rice as compared tonormal transplanted method. However, dead heart damage at Pusa and leaffolder damage at Ranchi was high in direct seeded rice as compared to normalmethod. Among the cultivars, dead hearts were significantly high in hybridKRH2. Leaf folder damage and GLH population was significantly high in


iv

Sahbhagi Dhan variety as against hybrid PHB 71. Grain yield was foundsignificantly superior in direct seeded rice over normal method at three of thesix locations. Hybrids yielded higher than the varieties in all the locationsexcept at Pusa. Thus, there was no consistent trend in pest damage across thelocations that could be attributed to direct seeding practice of cropestablishment.

A new trial on Effect of Planting Date on Pest incidence (EPDP) was initiatedthis kharif season. The trial was conducted at 15 locations. Mean pestincidence in different dates of planting indicated that pest damage (% DH, %WE, % LFDL, % WMDL, % SS, % CWDL & GB/ hill) was relatively high in lateplanting as compared to early and normal plantings whereas the number ofBPH/ WBPH per hill were high in early planting as compared to late planting

2.5 Biocontrol and Biodiversity studies covered i) Monitoring of pest speciesand their natural enemies (MPNE) and ii) Ecological engineering planthoppersmanagement (EEPM).

Monitoring of pest species and their natural enemies (MPNE) was carriedout at 22 locations in kharif 2012. Four species of stem borer were reportedbut yellow stem borer dominated at most of the locations. Six centresreaffirmed Cnaphalocrocis medinalis as the predominant leaffolder species. Amixed population of both hoppers was reported from all 9 locations though oneof the species dominated at certain stages of the crop. The extent of infestationand parasitisation of gall midge was reported low at 6 locations.

Ecological engineering for planthopper management (EEPM) was conductedat five locations with the objective of managing hoppers through increasednatural enemy fitness. This was done through spacing management, increasingfloral diversity, alleyways, effective water management and release of miridbugs. It resulted in reduction in BPH population in varying degrees at somelocations and an overall increase in predators such as mirid bugs, spiders andcoccinellids as compared to farmers practice plots at the test locations.

2.6 Integrated Pest Management Studies involved two trials, i) Yield LossEstimation Trial and ii) Integrated Pest Management Special (IPMs) trial.

Yield loss estimation trial (YLET) was carried out at seven locations for twopests viz., stem borer and leaf folder. Stem borer population was augmentedby pinning egg masses at booting stage and leaf folder population wasaugmented by releasing larvae at panicle initiation stage, in varying numbersto create different damage levels. Regression analysis revealed a significantimpact of pest damage on grain yield at three locations viz., Ludhiana,Puducherry and Pattambi. A significant negative relation between grain yieldand white ears was observed at Ludhiana (r2 = 0.8638). At Puducherry, numberof leaf folder larvae per hill had a significant negative impact on grain yield (r2 =


v

0.6093). Similarly at Pattambi, leaf folder damaged leaves at 50 DAT hadsignificant impact on grain yield (r2 =0.3316).

Integrated pest management special (IPMs) trial initiated last year tomanage pests (insects, diseases & weeds) in a holistic manner in rice crop wasconducted in farmer’s field’s at12 locations. In general, insect pest incidencewas high in FP than in IPM plots. Similarly, weed population, weed dry weightand weed control rating score was high in FP as compared to IPM plotsindicating efficient weed management practices. Grain yield was significantlyhigh in IPM plots resulting in high BC ratio. There is a need to give moreemphasis for operationalisation of IPM in rice with good support from otherstakeholders

2.7 Population dynamics of major insect pests of rice along with thecorresponding meteorological factors were reported from 28 centers during theyear 2012. Yellow stem borer was reported from 26 centers with the highestpeak catch (10250 females + 9134 males) occurring during 1st week atAduthurai. This pest maintained its status as number one pest of rice in India.Brown planthoppers were reported from 20 centers, with maximum peakpopulation (21107 insects/week) occurring during 46th week at Gangavathi.WBPH was present at 18 centers with the highest population of 19100insects/week occurring during 43rd week at Gangavathi. Thus planthopperscontinue to be second major pests with WBPH spreading to new areas andbecoming important along with BPH. Gall midge was reported from 14 centers,with the highest peak catch of 1745 insects per week during 45th week atWarangal centre. Thus gall midge continued to damage the crop at low levels inlocalized pockets. Although occurrence of Leaf folder was reported from 26centers, populations were very low in many centers. The highest population of1677 per week recorded during 43rd week at Gangavathi followed by 1430insects/week during 40th week at Ludhiana centre. Thus, leaf folder ismaintaining its presence in all most all the regions of the country. Greenleafhoppers were reported from 22 centers with the highest population of75828 insects/week during 36th week at Jagdalpur. Thus, this pest ismaintaining its abundance, both in area and magnitude. Among other insectpests, case worm, gundhi bug, white leaf hopper, white stem borer, pink stemborer, zigzag leaf hopper, blue beetle, grass hopper, black bug were observed inlesser numbers. Among the natural enemies, mirid bugs were reported fromsome of the centers.


2.1

2. ENTOMOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

This year the rice production during kharif is estimated around 90.7million tonnes which is a slight dip by 2.3 % as compared with the last year’srecord kharif production (92.8 mt). This is despite monsoon being delayed and8% deficit over long term average and the Nilam cyclone at the end of theseason.

Real Time Pest Survey Reports were continued to be generated atfortnightly interval from AICRIP Centres, during kharif 2012. During June,severe outbreak of rice swarming caterpillar, Spodoptera mauritia were reportedfrom Goa and extensive thrips damage at Moncompu. During July, moderateincidence of leaf mite and leaffolder at Nellore, slight hispa damage from Ragolu& Maruteru and stem borer and leaf folder damage in nursery at Chinsurahwere reported. During August, moderate incidence of leaffolder from IARI inNew Delhi, moderate infestation of army worm & white tip nematode atNawagam was noted. During September, incidence of planthoppers (BPH &WBPH) in Nalgonda and Srikakulam districts of AP, severe damage byleaffolder in Ludhiana district of Punjab, moderate damage in Warangal,Nawagam, Ranchi, Rewa, Jagdalpur, Pattambi and Pantnagar were reported.During October, hopperburn in small patches were reported from Nalgonda,while high levels of planthoppers were also seen in Maruteru, Srikakulam andRajendranagar. Intensity of damage by leaf folder continued to remain high inLudhiana, whereas stem borer damage of moderate level were seen across allthe centers. During November, high levels of infestation and damage byplanthoppers continued to be reported from different parts of AP and Gujarat.During December, outbreaks of army worms and hopper burns byplanthoppers were reported from Moncompu in Kerala and severe damage byleaffolder in Nellore area of Andhra Pradesh. Neveretheless, severe pestdamage was limited to pockets and no widespread pest outbreaks werereported during main kharif season of the crop this year.

Coordinated Entomology programme continued its focus on the host plantresistance, with monitoring of virulence and characterization of both BPH andgall midge populations. Multilocation evaluation for multiple pest injuries wascarried out for all the entries in National Screening Nurseries and germplasmaccessions. Identification of new and safe molecules and their compatibilitywith fungicides were focus of chemical control trials. Ecological studiescovered the influence of rice cultivation practices and also evaluation of theeffect of planting date on pest incidence. Trials on Monitoring of speciescomposition for major pests and natural enemies, Ecological engineering forplanthopper management and yield loss estimation for stem borer and leaffolder are being continued. A new trial on ‘Effect of planting dates on pestincidence’ was initiated this year. The Integrated pest management trial (s)


2.2

which involved the integration of efforts from the disciplines of Entomology,Pathology and Agronomy for the holistic on farm biotic stress management wascontinued. The long term pest surveillance through light trap catches todiscern short term fluctuations and long term trends in pest incidence wascontinued. This report summarizes the significant findings from themultilocation testing under each of the trials.


2.3

Table 2.1 Pest Survey Reports from AICRIP centres, kharif 2012_______________________________________________________________________________________

June 2012

Severe outbreak of rice swarmingcaterpillar, Spodoptera mauritia from Goa

Severe thrips damage at Moncompu

July 2012

Moderate incidence of leaf mite andleaffolder at Nellore

Slight hispa damage reported from Ragolu& Maruteru

Slight stem borer and leaf folder damage innursery at Chinsurah

August 2012

Moderate incidence of leaffolder fromIARI, New Delhi

Slight to moderate infestation of armyworm & white tip nematode at Nawagam,Gujarat

September 2012

Severe to Moderate incidence of planthoppers (BPH & WBPH) from Miryalgudamandal of Nalgonda district, AP

Moderate incidence of BPH at Ragolu, AP Moderate incidence of leaffolder at

Ludhiana, Punjab Slight infestation of stem borer &

leaffolder from Warangal, Nawagam,Ranchi, Rewa and IARI

WBPH population build up is alarming atMiryalguda mandal of Nalgonda district inAP

Severe infestation of leaffolder atLudhiana

Moderate incidence of stem borer andleaffolder from Jagdalpur, Kerala andPantnagar

October 2012

Plant hoppers population build up isalarming at Miryalguda mandal of Nalgondadistrict in AP

Moderate incidence of planthopper atMaruteru and Ragolu

Severe incidence of stemborer from Nelloreand Chinsurah

Severe infestation of leaffolder at Ludhiana Very severe incidence of BPH at

Miryalguda mandal of Nalgonda district inAP

Severe infestation of stem borer and BPHreported from Rajendranagar

November 2012

Very severe incidence of BPH atMiryalguda mandal of Nalgonda district inAP

Severe infestation of leaffolder reportedfrom Nellore

Moderate infestation of leaffolder andWBPH at Nawagam

Moderate incidence of stem borer at Ranchi

December 2012

Severe infestation of leaffolder reportedfrom Nellore

Moderate to severe incidence of thrips atMoncompu

Very severe infestation of rice swarmingcaterpillar at Moncompu

BPH buildup and damage seen aroundMoncompu

______________________________________________________________________________


2.4

2.1 HOST PLANT RESISTANCE STUDIES

Host plant resistance trials are conducted with the main objective of identifyingnew sources of resistance to major insect pests along with the evaluation ofperformance of breeding lines and also characterize insect pest populationsfrom various hot spots. To achieve these objectives, eight trials viz., i)Planthopper screening trial (PHS), ii) Gall midge screening trial (GMS), iii) Gallmidge special screening trial (GMSS), iv) Leaf folder screening trial (LFST), v)Germplasm evaluation against major insect pests (GEMP), vi) Multipleresistance screening trial (MRST), vii) National screening nurseries (NSN) andviii) International Brown planthopper Nursery (IRBPHN) were constituted andconducted. The results are summarized and discussed trial wise. In all 2124entries were evaluated at 44 locations against 10 pests and 94 (4.4%) entrieswere identified as promising. The detailed pest reaction of all the entries ineach trial is tabulated in a separate volume “Screening Nurseries: – Pests &Diseases”.

i) Planthopper screening trial (PHS)

The trial was constituted with 55 entries comprising of 4 breeding linesdeveloped at KAU, Moncompu, 3 breeding lines developed at CRRI, Cuttack, 8breeding lines developed at DRR, Hyderabad, 32 germplasm accessions fromDRR, two lines with Bph18 and Bph20 + Bph21 genes along with threeresistant checks PTB 33 and RP 2068-18-3-5 (BPH) and MO1 (WBPH) and onesusceptible check TN1. Of these, four entries were under retesting. The entrieswere evaluated at 17 locations across the country against brown planthopper(BPH), whitebacked planthopper (WBPH) and mixed populations ofplanthoppers under both field and greenhouse conditions. At Coimbatore,entries were also screened against green leafhopper (GLH) in the greenhouse.Data from Aduthurai, Gangavathi, Iroisemba, Malan, Navsari and Wangbalwere not considered for analysis due to low pest pressure.

Evaluation of entries in 7 greenhouse and one field tests againstbrown planthopper, 2 greenhouse and 2 field tests against WBPH, 1greenhouse test against GLH and 3 field tests against mixed populations ofplanthoppers revealed that six breeding lines viz., KAUM 166-2, KAUM 168-1,CR 3005-77-2, CR 3006-8-2, CR 3005-230-5, IR 65482-7-216-1-2-B aspromising in 6-9 tests (Table 2.2 ). The susceptible check TN1 recorded damagescore in range of 7.7 to 9.0 in these valid tests. Of these, first two fromMoncompu were under retesting and hence the resistance was confirmedduring second year of the testing. RP 2068-18-3-5, a breeding line carrying gallmidge resistant gene gm3 identified last year as a new donor check line for BPHperformed well in 9 tests this year. It performed better than PTB 33 atCoimbatore, Madurai, Cuttack and Ludhiana. The universal check PTB33 alsoperformed well in 9 tests. The introgression line IR 65482-7-216-1-2-B fromO.australiensis carrying Bph18 gene performed well in 3 tests (at Coimbatore,


2.5

Raipur and Cuttack) but not in other 4 tests (at DRR, Mandya, Madurai andLudhiana).

Data on BPH and WBPH populations during the field evaluation atMaruteru revealed predominance of WBPH over BPH (90 WBPH :10 BPH) at 60days after transplanting whereas BPH was predominant throughout the cropseason at Pantnagar.

Evaluation of the entries against the two planthoppers and greenleafhopper in 10 greenhouse and 6 field tests indicated six entries as promisingin 6 - 9 tests. Two breeding lines from Moncompu KAUM 166-2 and KAUM 168-1recorded consistent resistance during second year of testing.

ii) Gall midge screening trial (GMS)

The trial was constituted with 31 cultures derived from 21 crosses bredat 3 centres and carried out in field at 15 locations. Data from Raipur, Ragolu,Nellore, Iroisemba, Coimbatore, Jagdalpur and Moncompu were not consideredfor analysis due to low pest pressure.No data was reported from Madurai.Entries were screened in greenhouse at DRR against gall midge biotype1. Validdata from 7 locations were analysed and presented in Table 2.3. None of theentries were promising at Brahmavar. Aganni, JGL 19618, CN1448-5-2-5-5-MLD6 and R1566-2577-2-1530-1 had nil damage at Warangal. Eight entriesviz., JGL 18044, JGL 18080, SKL 32-70-15-10* JGL 19621, JGL 20171,Aganni, RP 2068-18-3-5 had nil damage at Pattambi. Based on overallperformance, 3 cultures from Jagtial displayed nil damage in 3 tests acrosslocations. The lines derived from the cross MTU1010/JGL13595 werepromising consecutively for third year. Both JGL 18044 and JGL 18080 wereunder retesting.

Evaluation of entries in 7 valid tests (one greenhouse and 6 field tests) againstgall midge revealed that 3 entries were promising in 3 tests.


2.6

Table 2.2 : Performance of most promising entries against plant- and leafhoppers, PHS, kharif 2012

GR- greenhouse reaction; FR- Field reaction; NPT – Number of promising tests, see Appendix for other abbreviations* Entry under retesting

EntryNo

Designation Cross combination BPH WBPH GLH PH Overall

NPT(16)

GRNPT(7)

FRNPT(1)

GRNPT(2)

FRNPT(2)

GRNPT(1)

FRNPT(3)

1 KAUM 166-2* Makom/PTB 9 5 0 2 0 0 2 96 CR 3005-77-2 Samba Mahsuri / Salkathi 5 1 1 1 0 1 92 KAUM 168-1* Pavizham/Arikkilari 6 0 1 0 0 1 85 CR 3005-230-5 Samba Mahsuri/ Salkathi 4 0 1 2 0 1 87 CR 3006-8-2 Pusa 44/Salkathi 6 0 0 0 0 1 753 IR 65482-7-216-1-2-B IR 31917-45-3-2-2*3/

O.australiensis (Bph18)3 0 1 0 1 1 6

40 RP 2068-18-3-5 R. check 6 1 0 2 0 0 920 PTB 33 R .check 4 1 1 2 0 1 9


2.7

Table 2.3 Promising entries against gall midge in GMS, kharif 2012

EntryNo. Designation Cross

Per cent plant damage Overall

NPTDRR SBP RNC$ SKL WGL PTB BMRGR FR FR FR FR FR FR 7

1 JGL 18044* MTU1010/JGL13595

0 10 0 5 20 0 603

2 JGL 18080* MTU 1010/JGL 13595 0 10 40 0 50 0 60 3

17 JGL 19618 JGL 11609/Abhaya 0 5 65 0 0 5.3 90 3

Checks20 Kavya - 0 20 0 5 50 0 60 335 Aganni - 0 5 0 0 0 0 70 534 RP 2068-18-3-5 0 20 0 0 20 0 100 4

Entries tested 35 35 35 35 35 35 35Av. damage in TN1 95.5 55 60 62.5 60 43.0 85Promising level 0 0 0 0 0 0 0No. of entries promising 17 8 8 9 4 8 0

$ -% silver shoots


2.8

iii) Gall midge special screening trial (GMSS)

The trial was constituted with 68 germplasm accessions and 7 checksand evaluated at 11 locations against 5 biotypes and a population fromBrahmavar. Pest pressure at Iroisemba, Raipur , Ragolu, Moncompu andWangbal was very low. Entries were screened in greenhouse at DRR againstgall midge biotype 1.

Based on overall performance (Table 2.4) seven accessions wereidentified with promising reaction in 2-3 of the 6 valid tests. Of the promisingentries CAUR-1, Madhuri 9, RCM-10 nominated from Iroisemba were underretesting, while IC Nos 363753, 462336,463240, 353834 are the 4 newaccessions identified as promising.

The results identified 4 new accessions viz., IC Nos 363753, 462336,463240,353834 as promising in 2-3 tests apart from the donors, W1263, RP 2068-18-3-5and Suraksha against gall midge in 6 valid tests.

Table 2.4 Promising germplasm accessions against gall midge in GMSS, kharif 2012

Entry

No. Designation Name

Per cent plant damage atOverall

DRR$ SBP RNC SKL WGL BMR NPTGMB1 GMB1 GMB3 GMB 4 GMB4M GMB? (6)

71 IC 363753 12.5 15 55 0 0 0 31 CAUR-1* Tampaphou 50 45 0 70 0 60 221 Madhuri 9* Donor 12.5 5 0 0 50 100 222 RCM-10* Lunglilaphou 0 45 0 80 40 100 235 IC 462336 60 15 55 20 0 0 2

36 IC 463240 83.3 30 0 40 0 70 269 IC 353834 20 20 30 0 0 40 2

Checks20 W1263 0 0 0 5 0 100 460 RP 2068-18-3-5 0 30 0 50 0 40 340 Suraksha 100 25 0 70 40 0 2

No.of entries tested 72 75 75 75 74 75Av. damage in TN1 93 95 62 73 57 100Promising level 0 0 0 0 0 0No. promising 5 12 13 6 26 3

$ - greenhouse reaction; *- entry under testing


2.9

iv) Leaf folder screening trial (LFST)

This year LFST trial was constituted with entries which recorded low leaffolder damage across locations in the last five years of testing. This field trial ina Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with 20 entries in threereplications was conducted at 24 locations across the country. Data fromChinsurah, Faizabad, Karjat, Khudwani, Navsari and Karaikal were notconsidered for analysis due to low pest pressure while data from 9 locationsviz., Ghaghraghat, Jagdalpur, Puducherry, Pantnagar, Titabar, Ludhiana,Maruteru, Nawagam and Ranchi were found non-significant. Data from the rest7 valid tests revealed that 6 entries were promising (Table 2.5). However, therewas no consistency in the reaction of entries against leaf folder acrosslocations. The average leaf damage in the trial ranged from 8.58 to 46.37%.W1263 (CBT) was found promising in 4 of the 7 valid tests while PTB 12 waspromising in 3 of the 7 tests. Gorsa, LF 293, TKM 6 and W1263 (DRR) werefound promising in 2 of the 7 valid tests. Analysis of the replicated data alsorevealed that the leaf damage in W 1263 (CBT) was significantly different fromthat of the susceptible check i.e., TN1 at 5 locations whereas damage in PTB 12was significantly different from the susceptible check at 4 locations.

Field evaluation of 20 entries in an RCB design with three replications at24 locations revealed that W 1263 (CBT) was promising in 4 of the 7 valid testswhile PTB 12 was promising in 3 of the 7 valid tests.

v) Germplasm Evaluation Against Major Insect Pests (GEMP)

The trial was constituted with 915 accessions from NBPGR along with 2check varieties, Suraksha and TN1 which were evaluated at 6 locations. Datafrom Ludhiana, Karjat, DRR and Ragolu for SBDH; DRR, Karjat and Chinsurahfor SBWE; Chinsurah for leaffolder were not considered for analysis due to lowpest incidence. The reaction of accessions from the valid data is discussed pestwise.

Brown planthopper: IC Nos 449784 and 450029 were promising in 2 testsunder greenhouse conditions.White-backed planthopper: IC. Nos 450058,544895, 450584 were promisingat DRR in one greenhouse test.

Field reaction to mixed population of planthoppers: IC Nos 459639,459646, 544856, 145450, 449858, 449901 recorded a damage score of 3.0against field population in Maruteru at 55 DAT. The population in the fieldwas predominantly WBPH at the time of observation (1BPH:9WBPH).


2.10

Table 2.5 Promising entries identified against leaf folder in LFST, kharif 2012

Figures in parentheses are transformed values

Planthoppers : Evaluation against planthoppers in 3 greenhouse and one fieldtest identified IC 459646, 17065, 86004, 449784 and 450029 as promising in2 of the 4 tests.

Stem borer: IC NOs 450128,450122,450120,450135, 461155, 459621,545441,17090,17092,17098,450388,450566,450598,449551,459351,459352,449654,449656, 449781, 449823, 450497, 449822, 544953, 450027,449994, 450015, 353862,413638, 334058, 337626,342620, 346207, 114180,320875, 320872, 145370, 450538 had <10% dead hearts in either of the twolocations tested. IC Nos 450121, 450130, 450105, 450372, 450456 had nowhite ear damage at Ragolu.

Leaf folder: IC 449877 had the least (5.7%) damage by leaf folder at Ludhiana.

Per cent damaged leaves atCHT GGV KUL NLR PTB RNR DRR NPT

Designation60

DAT80

DAT72

DAT60

DAT 60 DAT75

DAT80

DAT (7)GORSA 28.83

(5.37)7.49

(2.74)47.42

(43.50)21.16

(27.37)8.17

(16.54)9.26

(3.02)6.96

(2.56) 2PTB 12 27.31

(5.22)5.70

(2.38)41.64

(40.08)16.55

(23.99)7.58

(15.88)14.74(3.82)

4.88(2.18) 3

TKM 6 28.94(5.38)

11.34(3.32)

38.14(37.85)

15.51(23.18)

10.99(19.35)

6.78(2.52)

7.72(2.77) 2

W 1263 (DRR) 27.99(5.29)

5.66(2.37)

40.33(39.26)

17.52(24.73)

17.39(24.26)

6.46(2.40)

7.34(2.71) 2

LF 293 26.70(5.17)

11.37(3.37)

35.35(36.41)

16.65(24.07)

13.62(20.99)

9.95(3.13)

5.99(2.45) 2

W 1263 (CBT) 27.82(5.27)

8.74(2.93)

34.15(35.71)

15.57(23.23)

7.76(15.87)

5.50(2.28)

5.94(2.43) 4

TN 1 (S.check) 29.57(5.43)

10.97(3.31)

62.03(52.03)

23.65(29.08)

45.87(42.90)

13.83(3.59)

11.45(3.38)

LSD 0.33 0.69 11.94 0.94 11.46 0.90 0.69CV(%) 3.68 14.38 16.88 9.91 28.18 15.52 14.47Total entriestested 20 20 20 20 20 20 20Av in trial 28.95 8.60 46.37 19.71 18.43 13.08 8.58Min 26.43 5.66 30.93 15.51 7.58 5.50 4.88Max 32.78 11.63 62.98 28.41 45.87 22.43 18.01Promisinglevel 27 6 35 16 10 10 5No. Promising 3 2 2 3 3 5 1


2.11

Case worm: IC 450150 recorded the least damage of 4.0 % DL at 40 DAT atRagolu.

Whorl maggot: At Chinsurah, 40 accessions had nil damage by whorl maggot.

Overall reaction: Evaluation of germplasm accessions in 3 greenhouse and 7field tests against 8 pests identified 10 accessions as promising in 2 -3 tests ofthe 10 tests (Table 2.6).

Table 2.6 Performance of the most promising germplasm accessions againstinsect pest complex in GEMP, kharif 2012

EntryNo: IC No. BPH WBP

HB+WBPH

SBDH

SBWE LF CW WM OverallNPT

(2) (1) (1) (2) (1) (1) (1) (1) (10)855 346207 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 386 545441 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2

105 459646 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2180 17065 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2382 86004 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2413 145397 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2559 449784 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2750 450029 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2779 449994 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2825 413645 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2

vi ) Multiple resistance screening trial (MRST)

Multiple resistance screening trial was constituted with 25 breeding lines (9lines from CRRI, 8 lines from TNAU, 8 pyramided lines bred at DRR forblast through MAS along with their two recurrent parents, Swarna andBPT 5204 ) along with one resistant and one susceptible check. The datafrom entries screened against 9 pests at 26 locations in 50 tests (8greenhouse and 42 field tests) were considered to be valid. Data from 44tests related to various pest damage were not considered for analysis due tolow / nil pest incidence. The details of reaction of all the tests are given in aseparate volume of the report – “Screening Nurseries” – insect pests anddiseases. Performance of the entries is discussed pest wise:

Planthoppers: Evaluation of the cultures across locations in 13 tests (8greenhouse and 5 field tests) identified 5 cultures viz., CR 2711-76*, RP4918-228(S), CR 3005-230-5*, CR 3005-77-2*, CR 3006-8-2* as promising


2.12

in 5-7 tests. RP 4918-228(S) from DRR was an introgressed line fromO.nivara. The other four lines from Cuttack were under retesting and werederived from the resistant donors Salkathi or Dhobanumberi.

Gall midge: W 1263 (DRR), W 1263 (ACC11057) IRRI, RP Patho-01, CB 07-540 were the four entries identified as promising in 3-5 tests.

Stem borer: JGL 17974, B 95-1, CB 06-124, CB 07-540, CB 09-125, TNRH222, TNRH 258 were the 7 cultures identified as promising in 3 of the 8tests against stem borer damage at vegetative phase whereas CR 2711-76,RP 4918-212(S), RP 4918-221(S), RP 4918-228(S), CB 05-031, CB 09-125were the six cultures identified as promising in 3 of the 7 valid tests againststem borer white ear damage.

Leaf folder: CR 2711-76, W 1263 (DRR), W 1263 (ACC11057) IRRI, RPPatho-04 and TNRH 206 were promising in 2-3 tests of the 9 valid fieldtests against leaf folder.

Whorl maggot: C 101LAC and HR-DRR-05 were promising in 2 of the 3tests against whorl maggot.

Case worm: IRGA 318-11-6-9-2B, HR-DRR-04, RP 4680-1-2-23, TNRH 206,TNRH 258 recorded <6% DL by case worm at Ragolu.

Gundhi bug: CR 2711-76 is the only entry which had 10 % DG by gundhibug at Rewa.

Evaluation of 25 entries in 8 greenhouse and 42 field tests against 9 pestsidentified six entries viz., CR 2711-76, W 1263 (DRR), W 1263 (ACC11057)IRRI, HR-DRR-02, RP 4918-212(S), RP 4918-228(S) as promising in 10-15tests against 4-6 pests. The PPR ranged from 11.1-16.7 (Table 2.7). CR 2711-76 is in the second year of testing. This year, a new donor W 1263(ACC11057), a hybrid and two introgressed lines were identified with multiplepest resistance as promising. Two breeding lines RP4918-212 & RP4918-228 are derivatives of Swarna/O. nivara cross.


2.13

Table 2.7 Performance of most promising cultures against insect pests, MRST, kharif 2012XX

No. of Promising test againstPromisingagainst/in MRI

PH GM SBDH SBWE LF WM CW GB GHpests

(a)Tests

(b)(a xb) PPR

Sl.No Designation Cross (13) (7) (8) (7) (9) (3) (1) (1) (1) 9 50 450 100

1 CR 2711-76* Tapaswini/Dhobanumberi 7 0 2 3 2 0 0 1 0 5 15 75 16.7

8 W 1263 (DRR) Donor 1 4 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 5 10 50 11.19 W 1263

(ACC11057)IRRI

Donor

2 5 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 5 11 55 12.224 HR-DRR-02 APMS 6A/GQ

70 3 2 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 6 10 60 13.332 RP 4918-212(S) Swarna/O.

nivara 4 1 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 5 11 55 12.235 RP 4918-228(S) Swarna/O.

nivara 7 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 4 13 52 11.6MRI- Multiple Resistance Index ; PPR – Percent Promising Reaction; * entry under retesting


2.14

vii) National Screening Nurseries

This year National Screening Nurseries included NSN1 (comprising of154 AVT cultures + 42 checks, evaluated at 25 locations; NSN2 comprising of599 IVT cultures + 25 checks from plant breeding and 3 from entomology,evaluated at 10 locations; NSN-H-hills comprising of 64 entries with (21)checks, evaluated at 4 locations and NHSN consisting of 100 experimentalhybrid (IHRT) entries and 12 checks evaluated at 21 locations. NSN1 data ongall midge incidence from Ranchi; leaffolder incidence from Ranchi, Titabar,Karjat, Faizabad, Gangavathi, Navsari, Karaikal, and Moncompu; whorl maggotdamage from Aduthurai and Pattambi; case worm from Pattambi; dead heartdamage by stem borer from Ranchi, Karjat,Faizabad, Gangavathi, Gaghraghat,Puducherry, Navsari, Karaikal, Ludhiana, Moncompu, Sambalpur, Pattambi,Rajendranagar, Mandya and Pattambi; and white ear damage by stem borerfrom Ranchi, Titabar, Karjat and Karaikal; NSN 2 data on BPH fromJagdalpur, gall midge from Jagdalpur, Ragolu and Warangal,; dead heartdamage by stem borer from Karjat, and Pusa; white ear damage by stem borerfrom Ghaghraghat; Leaffolder damage from Pusa and Jagdalpur; NHSN dataon dead heart damage by stem borer from Pattambi, Karjat, Rajendranagar,Chinsurah, Jagdalpur, Ludhiana, Mandya and Moncompu ; gundhi bug datafrom Navsari and Rewa; white ear damage from Karjat,Gaghraghat, Navsari,Ludhiana and Nawagam; leaf folder damage data from Chinsurah, Navsari,Malan, Patambi, Moncompu, Ludhiana, Mandya and Jagdalpur; whorl maggotdamage data from Chinsurah and Rajendranagar; blue beetle and case wormdamage from Pattambi; NSN hills data for PSBDH from Almora, leaffolderdamage from Khudwani, and Almora were not considered for analysis for wantof sufficient pest pressure. The reaction of the cultures from the valid data ineach of these trials is discussed pest wise.

Since the data generated against breeding lines in these trials form thebasis for claiming resistance in variety release proposal, a word of caution isneeded. The data are classified under i) controlled evaluation ii) natural hot-spot evaluation and iii) low pest pressure. Performance of an entry is judgedbased on promising level determined for each test based on maximum,minimum and average damage among the test entries recorded only under thefirst two groups. An entry may not be termed resistant/promising in relationto any of the checks if both the values are higher than the promising level.Likewise, a test entry needs to perform well at least in two year of testingagainst the same pest, preferably at the same location. To assist breeders inevaluation of their nominated lines a separate booklet on “National ScreeningNurseries” is made available.


2.15

Brown planthopperNSN1: IET 22489 was promising in 2-4 tests under greenhouse conditions.NSN2: IET Nos 22989, 21709, and RP2068-18-3-5 had DS <3.0 in greenhousetest at DRR.NSNH: None of the entries were promising against BPH.NHSN: IHRT-M-03, IHRT-ME-26 and IHRT-MS-11 were promising only atCoimbatore.

White-backed planthopperNSN1: IET Nos 22218, 21423, 22345 were promising at Coimbatore only of the3 tests.NSN2:IET Nos. 23000 and 23396 were promising at DRR in greenhouse test.NSNH: IET Nos 22984, 22951 and 21765 were promising in greenhousereaction at DRR.NHSN: 18 cultures had a DS of 3.0 at Coimbatore.

Green leafhopperNSN1: IET Nos 22490, 22836 and 22752 had a DS of 1.0 at CBT.

Field reaction of culturesNSN1: IET 22712 had a DS of 5.0 under field conditions at both Maruteru andPantnagar.NSN2:

PlanthoppersIET Nos. 21423, 22712, 22490, 22489, RP 2068-18-3-5 were promising in 2-3tests of the 10 tests against leaf and planthoppers.

Gall midgeNSN1: IET Nos 22096, 21842, 21841, 22100, 22144, 22698, 22155, 22835and 22763 recorded nil damage against populations in 2-3 tests of the 6 tests.NSN2: Nil damage was recorded in NSN2 cultures against Warangal populationin IET Nos 23375 and 23169 and at Sakoli in IET 23074,23121,23194,23234,23247, 23262 and Varalu.NHSN: IHRT-M-17 and RP Bio 226 had nil damage against biotype 5 atPattambi. IHRT-M-24 and IHRT-MS-11 had nil damage at Brahmavar.

Stem borerNSN1: IET 22504 was promising in 2 of the 5 tests for dead heart damage.IET Nos 22439 and 22489 had nil damage at white ear stage in 2 of the 7 tests.However the reaction needs to be confirmed under greenhouse conditions.NSN2: IET No 23252 had nil damage at Raipur for dead heart damage. IET23040 had nil damage at Raipur and Ragolu for white ear damage.NHSN: Though the cultures were evaluated in 4 valid tests for stem borerdamage none of them were promising.


2.16

LeaffolderNSN1: IET Nos 22548, 21850, 22568, 22552, 21858, 22222, 22552, 22155,22199, 22223, 22439, 22449, 22486, 22489 and Rasi were promising in one ofthe 6 valid tests.NSNH: At Malan, 12 entries had ≤10% damaged leaves though none of themwere promising at Chatha at the same level of infestation.NHSN: No cultures were promising

Whorl maggotNSN2: At Jagdalpur, 5 entries had nil damage viz., IET22766,21974,23311,23198 and Jaya.NHSN: None of the entries were promising.

Other pestsNSN1: IET 22520, RP2068-18-3-5 and Suraksha had ≤ 7% damaged grains bygundhi bug at Rewa.NSN2: IET Nos 23015, 23021, 23024, 23026, 23030, 23031, 23033, 23044,Savitri, CSR – 23 had ≤ 4% damaged leaves by case worm at Ragolu.NSN H : IET 22950 was the only entry which had ≤10% damaged leaves bygrasshopper.

Table 2.8 Performance of most promising cultures against insect pests in NSN1,kharif 2012XX

S. No. IET No. Designation Cross

No. of promising tests against

PH GM SBDH SBWE LF GBOverall

NPT(10) (6) (5) (7) (6) (1) (35)

120 22489 RGL 7004 Lalat /CR 308-408 2 0 0 2 1 0 5

43 22096 UPR 3425-11-1-1

Mahamaya/Gayabyeo 0 3 1 0 0 0 4

108 22155 OR 2336-1 OR 1335-7/Jagabandhu 0 2 0 1 1 0 4

113 22439 MTU 1150 IR 64/MTU 1001 0 0 1 2 1 0 4

119 22486 OR 2325-12 OR 1206-26-2/IR 42221 1 1 0 1 1 0 4

194 - RP 2068-18-3-5 Check 3 0 0 0 0 1 4


2.17

Table 2. 9 Performance of most promising cultures against insect pests in NSN2,kharif 2012

Overall reaction

NSN1: Evaluation of NSN1 cultures in 7 greenhouse and 28 field tests in 35valid tests against 8 pests revealed that only 5 cultures and one check varietywere promising in 4-5 tests (Table 2.8).

NSN 2: Evaluation of NSN2 entries in 2 greenhouse and 8 field tests helped inidentification of 4 entries viz., IET Nos 23000, 23148, 23033, 23040, aspromising in 2 of the 10 tests against 1-2 pests (Table 2.9).

NSN H: Evaluation of 85 cultures in 2 greenhouse and 3field tests identified oneculture IET 22950 as promising in 2 of the 5 tests conducted at 4 locations .

NHSN: Evaluation of 112 entries at 21 locations in 7 greeenhouse and 15 fieldtests helped in identification of only one hybrid, IET 22941 (IHRTMS11) aspromising in 3 tests of the 22 tests against 9 pests .

viii) International Brown Planthopper Nursery (IRBPHN)

The 30th International Brown Planthopper Nursery (IRBPHN) comprisingof 50 entries was evaluated under greenhouse conditions against brownplanthopper at DRR. Rathu Heenathi (Acc No 11730) recorded a damage scoreof 4.6 and the resistant check PTB 33 recorded a damage score of 2.1. All theother entries recorded a damage score of >5.

S.No.

IETNo. Designation Cross

No. of promising tests against

PHGM

SBDH

SBWE CW WM Overall

(3) (2) (1) (2) (1) (1) (10)17 23000 CR 2274-2-

3-3-1Jalprava/Mahsuri

2 0 0 0 0 0 2

72 23148 CR 1898-32-69-CN 12-2

Selection 1 0 0 1 0 0 2

191 23033 CR 2543-83 WITA 12/Swarna

0 0 0 1 1 0 2

198 23040 OR 2394-3 OR 1206-2/IR 68078-08

0 0 0 2 0 0 2


2.18

2.2 INSECT BIOTYPE STUDIES

Biotype variations in the gall midge populations in endemic areas werecontinued to be monitored through two trials i) Gall midge biotype trial (GMBT)ii) Gall midge population monitoring trial (GMPM). This year a new study iii)planthopper special screening trial (PHSS) was initiated to study BPHpopulations in terms of virulence against a set of gene differentials.

i) Gall midge biotype trial (GMBT)

This year, the trial was constituted with 13 gene differentials whosegenetics is well known and 2 promising donors of gall midge resistance and twocheck varieties, TN1 and B95-1. The trial was conducted across 17 locationsunder field conditions and in greenhouse at DRR. The entries were evaluatedagainst 7 different biotypes which have been already characterized (GMB 1,2,3, 4, 4M, 5, and 6) and five unidentified populations of gall midge. Data fromRaipur, Moncompu, Nellore, Ragolu, Coimbatore, Jagdalpur, Wangbal, Mandyaand Iroisemba could not be considered since pest pressure was very low. Thevalid data from 8 locations are summarized in Table 2.10 and discussed basedon the performance/reaction of gene differentials against various gall midgepopulations.

At Sambalpur, Group I differentials displayed nil damage which wassimilar to the earlier reports. At Cuttack, Group I differentials exhibitedsusceptible reaction and Group IV differentials displayed resistance except forINRC 3021. Among the Group II differentials only Dukong 1 and ARC 5984 hadnil damage. At Ranchi, the differentials in the five groups exhibited R-S-R-R-Spattern of biotype 3 except for Dukong 1 in Group II which had nil damage.Aganni and INRC 15888 from group IV were promising at Brahmavar. W1263and ARC6605 from Group I had nil damage at Pattambi. At Warangal none ofthe differentials were promising but at Sakoli group I differentials and RP2068-18-3-5, Aganni and INRC 3021 from group IV had nil damage. GMpopulation at Brahmavar needs further study to charactrise biotype there.

The study revealed that among all the differentials tested, Aganni (withGm8) was most promising in 5 locations followed by Kavya and W1263 (Gm1),RP 2068-18-3-5 (gm3) and INRC 3021 (Gm8) at 4 locations each.


2.19

Table 2.10 Reaction of differentials against gall midge populations at different locations, GMBT, kharif 2012G

roup

Ent

ryN

o. Differential DRR SBP CTC RNC SKL WGL PTB BMR Promisingagainstno . of

populations

Gene GMB1 GMB1 GMB2 GMB3 GMB4 GMB4M GMB5 GMB?

%DP %DP %SS %DP %DP %DP %DP %DP

I 1 KAVYA Gm 1 0.0 0.0 64 0 0.0 50 28.6 20.0 42 W 1263 Gm 1 0.0 0.0 12 20 0.0 60 0.0 20.0 43 ARC 6605 (?) 25.0 0.0 56 0 5.0 80 0.0 40.0 3

II 4 PHALGUNA Gm 2 88.9 70.0 80 25 40.0 80 71.4 100.0 05 ARC 5984 Gm 5 37.5 20.0 0 55 20.0 70 38.1 50.0 16 DUKONG 1 Gm 6 44.4 5.0 84 0 20.0 70 20.0 70.0 17 RP 2333-156-8 Gm 7 14.8 0.0 0 50 35.0 80 52.4 70.0 28 MADHURI L 9 Gm 9 47.4 45.0 56 20 40.0 90 42.9 100.0 09 BG 380-2 Gm 10 35.3 10.0 28 25 5.0 100 20.0 40.0 0

III 10 MR 1523 Gm 11 10.5 45.0 36 0 30.0 60 61.9 60.0 1

IV

V

11 RP 2068-18-3-5 gm 3 0.0 25.0 0 0 0.0 60 60.0 50.0 412 ABHAYA Gm 4 0.0 40.0 0 0 40.0 60 71.4 80.0 313 INRC 3021 Gm8 52.9 0.0 0 0 0.0 50 52.4 90.0 414 AGANNI Gm8 55.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 40 45.0 0.0 515 INRC 15888 (?) 27.3 5.0 24 15 15.0 90 14.3 0.0 1

16 B 95-1 none 78.9 40.0 72 60 70.0 90 28.6 80.0 017 TN1 none 100.0 60.0 80 70 80.0 100 66.7 80.0 0


2.20

ii) Gall midge population monitoring (GMPM)

This study has been designed to complement the information generatedin the earlier trial on gall midge biotypes. Single female test involved in thistrial will provide more accurate information on the virulence composition of thepest population at a given location. The host plant differentials for testing werechosen based on the reaction pattern of the differentials in the earlier years.Hence they differed with location. This year the trial was conducted atJagdalpur, Pattambi and Warangal as per the guidelines, and summaryfindings were reported. The virulence pattern of the population in response totest plants is summarized in table 2.11 and discussed below.

At Jagdalpur, test entries were Purple check, Kavya, Abhaya, Surakshaand ARC15831. Of the 87 insects tested, 71 produced galls, 56% of the insectswere virulent on purple check with no gall midge resistance gene and 81.6% onSuraksha with Gm11 gene and 2.3% on ARC 15831 with Gm8 gene.

At Pattambi, of the 143 insects tested, 127 (88%) produced galls. Thedifferentials tested were Kavya, Abhaya and ARC15831. Of these, 51.4% werefound virulent on purple check and 69.2% produced galls in Kavya. Theseresults are consistent with the observations in GMBT wherein Kavya carryingGm1 gene recorded 28.6 percent galls. On the other hand 88.8% of the insectswere virulent on Abhaya with Gm4 gene. The other differential tested here wasARC15831 carrying Gm8 gene. Significantly, 82.5% of the insects were virulenton this differential. Also, 44.1% of the population was virulent on Gm1, Gm4and Gm8 and 67.1 % was virulent on Gm1 and Gm8. This high level ofvirulence against Gm1, Gm4 and Gm8 conferred resistance in this population isa cause of concern.

At Warangal, three of the differentials, Kavya, Suraksha and ARC15831were tested and 40 insect produced galls. The population was virulent onSuraksha (90.9%) and only 13.6 % on ARC15831. Of the population tested11.4% was virulent on Gm11+Gm8.

Studies on GMPM indicated that Gm8 gene conferred resistance against GMpopulations both at Jagdalpur and Warangal.


2.21

Table 2.11 Virulence composition of gall midge populations at Jagdalpur,Pattambi, and Warangal in GMPM, kharif 2012

iii) Planhopper special screening trial (PHSS)

A set of 16 primary sources of BPH resistance with some sources having knownresistance gene(s) was evaluated at six locations in greenhouse in standardseedbox screening test (SSST) with three replications. This set was alsoscreened in the field at DRR adopting insecticide induced resurgencetechnique. At Coimbatore the differentials were also screened in greenhouseagainst WBPH and GLH. At Raipur, honey dew area excreted by the BPH adultswas quantified through area discolured on the bromocresol green papers andthe number of probes were recorded while insects were feeding on thesedifferentials.

Results presented in Table 2.12 showed that only Ptb33 withbph2+Bph3+unknown factors was promising with ≤ 5 damage score in 6 of the7 tests. At New Delhi, it scored slightly higher damage score of 5.1. RP2068-18-3-5 with unidentified gene(s) and IR64 with Bph1+QTLs recorded promisingreactions in 5 or 4 tests, respectively. Next most promising entries were RathuHeenati with Bph3+Bph17 genes and OM4498 with unknown gene(s). Three ofthe differentials registered promising reactions only at two locations viz. T12with bph7 gene (at Ludhiana and Raipur), IR 65482-7-216-1-2-B with Bph18gene (at Ludhiana and Coimbatore) and IR 710333-121-15 with Bph20+Bph21genes (at Ludhiana and Raipur). Three other gene differentials carrying bph4(Babawee -ACC 8978), Bph6 (Swarnalatha - ACC 33964) and bph9 (Pokkali)showed low damage at only one location. Other test entries, including thosecarrying Bph1, bph2 and bph8 were not effective at any of the locations. Ptb33recorded low damage against WBPH and GLH in tests at Coimbatore andregistered no honey dew spots in Raipur studies.

Virulence(%) of gall midge population

Location

No. offemalestested Purple Suraksha Kavya Abhaya

ARC15831

Gm1+Gm4+Gm8 Gm1+Gm8

No gene Gm11 Gm1 Gm4 Gm8

Jagdalpur 87 56 81.6 NT NT 2.3 - -

Pattambi 143 51.7 NT 69.2 88.8 82.5 44.1 67.1

Warangal 44 65.9 90.9 NT NT 13.6 - 11.4


2.22

Table 2.12 Reaction of most promising gene differentials against BPH ingreenhouse test, PHSS, kharif 2012

PHSSNo. Designation R gene

Greenhouse reaction at (Mean DS)

DRR NDL RPR CBT MND LDN CTC $ DRR*NPT(7)

18 Ptb33 bph2+Bph3+QTL

3.1 5.1 0.00 3 1 1.7 0 1 6

17 RP 2068-18-3-5

? 3.4 5.2 0.00 3 9 1.1 16 1 5

11 IR 64 Bph1+QTL 7.5 8.0 1.28 4 9 4.9 72 5 4

2 RathuHeenati(ACC 11730)

Bph3+Bph17

7.2 6.8 2.59 9 9 3.9 76 1 3

16 OM 4498 ? 6.8 6.0 1.46 4 9 6.3 36 5 3$ % plant damage; * field reaction


2.23

2.3 CHEMICAL CONTROL STUDIES

Use of insecticides remains the principal strategy for managing insectpests by rice farmers. Within the framework of integrated pest managementnewer molecules of insecticides continue to find a place because of theirspecificity and effectiveness at lower doses contributing to their eco-friendlyvalue in addition to much needed curative action in times of impendingoutbreaks. Hence, every year, efforts are made under the All India CoordinatedRice Improvement Project to thoroughly screen and evaluate newly developedformulations for their effectiveness against insect pests and safety to naturalenemies. Similarly, compatibility studies are also carried out with promisingnewer insecticides and fungicides to generate crucial information on the impacton their efficacy after tank mixing of these chemicals resorted to by the farmersfor the economy of labour and time. In view of these, two insecticide trials viz.,i) Insecticide evaluation trial (IET) and ii) Pesticide compatibility trial (PCT)were continued with inclusion of newer formulations, during kharif 2012.

i) Insecticide evaluation trial (IET)Field trials are carried out to screen newer insecticide formulations at

specified dosages for their efficacy against insect pests at different locations toascertain the reliability of their performance in space and time. During Kharif2012, the trial was carried out at following 35 locations.

Location Date ofsowing

Date ofplanting

Date ofharvesting

No ofapplications

Time ofapplication(DAT)

Brahmavar 07-07-12 01-08-12 26-11-12 2 20 and 42Chinsurah 28-06-12 27-07-12 30-11-12 2 20 and 68Coimbatore 30-07-12 28-08-12 26-12-12 2 24 and 42Cuttack 16-06-12 18-07-12 20-11-12 2 15 and 75Faizabad 27-06-12 30-07-12 02-11-12 2 68 and 75

Gangavathi 08-07-12 15-08-12 07-01-13 2 64 and 87Ghaghraghat 15-06-12 16-07-12 18-11-12 2 10 and 74Iroisemba 26-06-12 28-07-12 04-12-12 1 25Jagdalpur 30-06-12 01-08-12 12-12-12 2 24 and 59Karjat 20-06-12 19-07-12 19-11-12 1 50

Kaul - 16-07-12 04-11-12 3 17, 58 and 71Khudwani 01-06-12 01-07-12 15-10-12 1 47Ludhiana 22-05-12 23-06-12 14-10-12 2 17 and 62Malan 09-06-12 06-07-12 18-10-12 2 15 and 55Mandya 06-08-12 04-09-12 17-12-12 2 10 and 60

Maruteru 11-07-12 09-08-12 01-12-12 3 12, 45 and 82Moncompu 31-05-12 15-06-12 28-09-12 2 31 and 54Navsari 22-06-12 25-07-12 05-11-12 3 19, 37 and 54Nawagam 04-07-12 17-08-12 - 2 54 and 67New Delhi 18-06-12 21-07-12 19-11-12 2 18 and 74

Pantnagar 05-06-12 06-07-12 21-10-12 4 15, 57, 68 and 78Patna - 13-07-12 - 1 15


2.24

Pattambi 07-07-12 01-08-12 30-10-12 3 8, 37 and 58Puducherry 27-06-12 26-07-12 26-10-12 2 29 and 49Pusa 06-06-12 14-07-12 21-10-12 2 25 and 46

Ragolu 23-07-12 17-08-12 11-12-12 2 19 and 71Raipur 09-07-12 30-08-12 - 2 26 and 48Rajendranagar 05-06-12 07-08-12 30-11-12 2 15 and 70Ranchi 03-07-12 26-07-12 24-11-12 4 15, 35, 55 and 90Rewa 14-07-12 08-08-12 19-11-12 1 80

Sakoli 04-07-12 04-08-12 21-11-12 1 17Sambalpur 02-07-12 01-08-12 17-11-12 3 15, 45 and 65Titabar 29-06-12 28-07-12 10-11-12 3 10, 35 and 45Wangbal 19-07-12 13-08-12 27-11-12 2 15 and 35Warangal 26-07-12 24-08-12 20-11-12 2 36 and 52

Treatments

Two newer insecticide formulations viz., Sutathion 40% EC (Triazophos)supplied by Sudarshan Chemical Industries Ltd. at two doses, 300 and 500 ga.i./ha and sulfoxaflor 24% SC w/v (21.8% w/w) supplied by DowAgroSciences India Pvt. Ltd., at two doses, 75 and 90 g a.i./ha, were evaluated.

Sutathion 40% EC formulation is a newer version of the organo-phosphate compound Triazophos with an improved purity profile andrefinement in adjuvants to enhance the stability and bio-efficacy of the originalcompound. This formulation was repeated for testing in second year forconfirmation in view of its inconsistent performance during the last year. Itsefficacy against stem borer and leaf folder was compared with that of recentlyrecommended insecticide, rynaxypyr (Coragen 20% SC). Sulfoxaflor being amember of new insecticidal group of sulfoximines is claimed to have a novelchemistry of action effective against sap feeders that are resistant to otherinsecticides including neonicotenoids. This compound was also evaluated inthe second year because it is a new chemical awaiting release in the marketand its high effectiveness mainly against leaf and planthoppers was comparedwith the existing recommended insecticides such as buprofezin(Applaud 25EC), acephate (Starthene 75 SP) as well as the conventional monocrotophos(Sufos 36 WSC) with broad spectrum action as standard check insecticidesUntreated control treatment without any insecticide application, was alsoincluded for comparison.

There were nine treatments including untreated control replicated thriceeach and laid out in Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD). Initially, allthe insecticide treatments were applied as blanket application at 15 DAT toassess the efficacy of the treatments around 25 to 30 DAT. Furtherapplications were need based and differed in number across locations. Theinsecticides were applied as high volume sprays @ 500 litres of spray fluid/ha.

Insect pest incidence was recorded at regular intervals through standardobservation procedures throughout the crop growth period. Observations were


2.25

recorded on total tillers (TT), dead hearts (DH) and silver shoots (SS) at 30 and50 DAT, to assess stem borer and gall midge damage. Stem borer damage atheading stage was worked out based on counts of panicle bearing tillers (PBT)and white ear heads (WE) and the damages were expressed as percentages. Incase of brown planthopper (BPH), whitebacked planthopper (WBPH), greenleafhopper (GLH) and natural enemies, number of insects /10 randomlyselected hills were counted. The damage assessment of foliage feeders such asleaf folder, whorl maggot, hispa, etc., was done based on counts of damagedleaves / 10 hills. At the time of harvest, the grain yield from net plot leaving 2border rows on all sides was collected and expressed as kg/ha.

ANOVA test for Random Complete Block Design (RCBD) was applied toanalyse data collected for each date of application at each location as well asfor yield at harvest to assess the performance of the different treatments. Thecomparative efficacy of the treatments was worked out based on efficacy ateach DAT as well as their performance against pooled means of pest damage,across observations and over locations. Yield obtained in each treatment wasalso pooled across the locations and included for assessment.

Results

Pest Infestation (Table 2.13)Stem borer infestation during vegetative stage was recorded upto a

maximum of 24.7% DH in the insecticide treatments across 13 locationswherein the minimum damage exceeding 5% DH in untreated control, during30 to 80 DAT. At 7 locations, there were significant differences among thetreatments. The mean infestation data over these locations revealed that stemborer infestation varied between 6.4 and 8.8% DH in insecticide treatmentscompared to 11.3% DH in control. All the insecticide treatments weresignificantly superior to the control. At heading stage, more than 5% white ears(WE) were recorded at 16 centres and differences were significant at 13locations. At Rajendranagar and Raipur, higher incidence was recorded upto47.3%, while the incidence was moderate at Sambalpur (up to 29.4% WE). Themean infestation ranged from 9.3 to 13.7% WE in insecticide treatmentssignificantly superior to 17.0% in untreated control.

Overall, the performance of rynaxypyr followed by monocrotophos,sutathion at higher dose and acephate was at par and superior to that of othertreatments in reducing stem borer incidence at both vegetative andreproductive phases.

Gall midge infestation was high at Sakoli, ranging from 15.0 to 51.1% SSacross treatments including control, at 30 DAT. At Pattambi, Jagdalpur andBrahmavar, incidence was moderate varying between 10.4 and 34.4% SS. Atall locations, there were significant differences among the treatments. Mean


2.26

infestation over 8 locations was at par in the insecticide treatments (10.6 to15.8) and lesser than control (21.3% SS).

Overall, sutathion at higher dose and the standard check monocrotophostreatments were at par and showed superior performance over othertreatments including untreated control.

Leaf folder damage was very high at Brahmavar ranging from 84.3 to96.5% DL at 20 DAT which declined up to 18.1% DL at 50 DAT and all thetreatments were at par. There was high incidence also at Malan (upto 50.1%DL at 86 DAT), Maruteru (up to 47.0% DL) and Kaul (up to 43.6% DL during68 to 92 DAT). Rynaxypyr treatment was the best treatment across locationsshowing the least damage of 12.4% DL and was significantly superior toremaining insecticide treatments (17.5 to 23.0% DL) as well as control(24.5%DL).

Brown planthopper incidence was very severe at Maruteru (maximum upto 1398 hoppers/ 10 hills), high at Kaul (upto 267.7 hoppers/ 10 hills) andmoderate at Sakoli (up to 153 hoppers/10 hills) and Gangavathi (up to 128hoppers/10 hills). Across the locations, sulfoxaflor (rynaxypyr) treatment athigher dose (107.8 hoppers/10 hills) followed by buprofezin (124.2 hoppers/10hills) and sulfoxaflor at lower dose (156.1 hoppers/10 hills) were significantlysuperior to the next best treatments of acephate (202.6 hoppers/10 hills) andmonocrotophos (281.9 hoppers/10 hills). The sutathion treatments failed tocontrol the planthopper population recording 549.6 and 556.0 hoppers/10hills significantly higher than even untreated control (382.4 hoppers/10 hills).Overall, the performance of sulfoxaflor treatments and buprofezin wassignificantly superior to other treatments under conditions of higher BPHincidence.

Whitebacked planthopper infestation was observed at 4 locations rangingfrom 4.0 to 130.0 hoppers/10 hills and there were no discernible trends inperformance among the insecticide treatments. The mean infestation acrosslocations also ranged narrowly from 40.4 to 46.9 hoppers/10 hills and all thetreatments were at par.

Green leafhopper populations were high at Ranchi and incidence rangedfrom 68.7 to 74.3 hoppers/10 hills at 35 DAT, however there was drasticdecline in their numbers following insecticide application (14.7 to 42.7hoppers/10 hills) compared to untreated control (78.3 hoppers/10 hills), at 54DAT. Buprofezin was the best treatment showing the least population of 16.8hoppers/10 hills across five locations. All the insecticide treatments weresignificantly superior to control (29.3 hoppers/10 hills).

In case of other foliage feeders, hispa damage was recorded upto 50.3%DL at 54 DAT at Ranchi. After the application of insecticide treatments,


2.27

sutathion at higher dose (16.7% DL), monocrotophos (18.0% DL) and acephate(20.7% DL) treatments showed significantly less damage compared to otherinsecticide treatments. However, all the insecticide treatments weresignificantly superior to control (54.0% DL). Low to moderate incidence of whorlmaggot damage was recorded at Pattambi and Jagdalpur.

Data on populations of natural enemies viz., mirid bugs and spidersrecorded at Gangavathi and Kaul showed that the sulfoxaflor treatmentsshowed significantly less population (16.3 and 18.2 bugs/10 hills) while thesutathion formulations of triazophos showed significantly higher populations ofmirid bugs (23.9 and 31.3 bugs/10 hills) (Table 2.14). Rynaxypyr treatmentalso showed mirid population (25.0 bugs/10 hills) on par with that ofuntreated control (33.9 bugs/10 hills). The spider numbers remained within anarrow range of 8.1 to 12.2/10 hills across treatments at par with untreatedcontrol indicating that the insecticide treatments did not have adverse impacton spider population.

Grain Yield

There were significant differences in grain yield among the treatments at22 locations (Table 2.15). Based on mean yield of these locations, rynaxypyrtreatment yielded the highest of 4606 kg/ha with an increase of 17.8% overcontrol (3788 kg/ha). The monocrotophos and acephate treatments were thenext best (4506 and 4423 kg/ha) with 15.9 and 14.4% IOC followed bysulfoxaflor treatment at higher dose (4411 kg/ha) with 14.1% IOC. Theremaining treatments yielded 4309 to 4366 kg/ha and showed 12.1 to 13.3%IOC.

Insecticide evaluation trial was carried out at 35 locations to evaluate theefficacy of newer insecticide formulations against major insect pests of rice andconsequent impact on grain yield during kharif 2012. Based on the performanceof the insecticide treatments for their efficacy in reducing pest infestation andtheir impact on grain yield across locations, it was evident that the standardcheck treatment of rynaxypyr followed by sutathion formulation of triazophos athigher dose performed well against stem borer, while against gall midgesutathion and monocrotophos fared better than other treatments. Against leaffolder, rynaxypyr was the best treatment, whereas buprofezin was effectiveagainst GLH. Sulfoxaflor treatments along with buprofezin were significantlysuperior in their efficacy against BPH. Rynaxypyr treatment yielded the highestfollowed by acephate and monocrotophos. The newer insecticide formulations didnot have any adverse impact on spider populations in the field but mirid bugpopulations were relatively lower in the sulfoxaflor treated plots compared toother treatments including control.


2.28

Table 2.13 Insect pest incidence in different treatments, IET, kharif 2012.

CommonName

TradeName

% a.i.formula

tion

ga.i./ha

g or ml offormulati

on/ha

Stem borer (% DH)CHN JDP KJT MND PNR PUS RGL RNC60

DAT50

DAT50

DAT30

DAT30

DAT45

DAT60

DAT30

DAT50

DAT50

DAT50

DAT

Triazophos Sutathion 40 300 750 5.2a 4.4a 7.3a 7.7a 3.1ab 4.1a 13.0a 8.2a 9.4ab 5.1a 10.0b

Triazophos Sutathion 40 500 1250 11.3a 5.8a 7.0a 8.0a 7.6bc 6.6a 17.5a 9.1a 10.2ab 5.3a 6.5a

Sulfoxaflor - 24 75 313 8.6a 3.4a 7.3a 6.0a 11.5bc 5.7a 18.2a 9.8a 10.8ab 6.7a 13.4c

Sulfoxaflor - 24 90 375 8.7a 5.4a 7.1a 5.4a 11.4bc 7.9a 16.9a 10.9a 12.5b 5.0a 9.3a

Buprofezin Applaud 25 200 800 12.9a 2.9a 7.3a 6.2a 14.5c 6.3a 18.5a 8.4a 9.4a 6.8a 9.5ab

Rynaxypyr Coragen 20 30 150 3.5a 4.0a 7.2a 3.2a 2.1a 5.6a 11.8a 10.0a 10.5ab 5.3a 9.1a

Acephate Starthene 75 500 667 8.6a 5.6a 7.0a 6.2a 13.5bc 6.4a 12.1a 9.3a 11.5ab 6.1a 9.2a

Monocrotophos Sufos 36 500 1390 10.6a 8.1a 7.1a 6.2a 8.4b 9.7a 15.3a 10.0a 11.4ab 5.9a 6.8a

- Untreatedcontrol - - Water spray 8.0a 8.7a 7.4a 10.2a 10.6bc 7.8a 15.5a 14.5b 17.0c 7.2a 15.8c

Means in a column followed by different letters are significantly different at P=0.05


2.29

Table 2.13 (Contd…) Insect pest incidence in different treatments, IET, kharif 2012.

Common Name Trade Name % a.i.formulation

g a.i./ha g or ml offormulation/ha

Stem borer (% DH)RNR RPR SBP SKL WGL

Mean65DAT

80DAT

35DAT

55DAT

56DAT

76DAT

30DAT

50DAT

Triazophos Sutathion 40 300 750 5.2ab 8.6ab 11.1ab 8.2ab 6.3ab 1.7a 10.4a 9.0b 7.3a

Triazophos Sutathion 40 500 1250 4.5ab 3.1a 12.1b 5.7ab 6.0ab 1.4a 15.2a 4.4a 7.7a

Sulfoxaflor - 24 75 313 7.7ab 8.9ab 11.6b 6.4ab 6.9b 1.7a 15.3a 7.1ab 8.6b

Sulfoxaflor - 24 90 375 8.9b 8.3ab 13.9b 7.4ab 8.2b 1.7a 12.1a 6.3a 8.2b

Buprofezin Applaud 25 200 800 6.4ab 5.4a 14.6b 8.1b 7.6b 3.8b 15.6a 8.5b 8.8b

Rynaxypyr Coragen 20 30 150 2.9a 2.5a 6.1a 5.3a 4.2a 0.6a 13.4a 10.1b 6.4a

Acephate Starthene 75 500 667 5.7ab 5.9ab 14.5b 5.8ab 7.5a 1.4a 13.7a 9.3b 8.2b

Monocrotophos Sufos 36 500 1390 6.5ab 5.0ab 9.3a 6.6ab 6.5a 1.1a 14.3a 8.3b 8.2b

- Untreatedcontrol

- - Water spray 6.6ab 7.1b 10.3a 11.6c 9.6b 12.4c 24.7b 8.9b 11.3c



2.30


Common Name TradeName

% a.i.formulation

ga.i./ha

g or ml offormulation/ha

Stem borer (% WE)

FZB GGT KJT MND MTU NWG PNR PUS PTB

Triazophos Sutathion 40 300 750 10.9c 2.1ab 3.0c 7.2b 11.6b 4.9ab 11.5ab 9.1a 9.9bc

Triazophos Sutathion 40 500 1250 9.5bc 1.8a 1.8a 5.5ab 8.7b 3.3ab 5.6a 10.0a 5.7ab

Sulfoxaflor - 24 75 313 4.5a 2.3ab 1.8a 6.1ab 5.2ab 4.0ab 4.8a 12.7a 18.2c

Sulfoxaflor - 24 90 375 4.4a 1.9a 1.5a 4.5a 2.7a 4.1ab 9.0ab 12.4a 11.3bc

Buprofezin Applaud 25 200 800 5.8ab 2.7ab 2.9bc 8.0bc 4.1a 2.9a 7.3ab 9.6a 19.4c

Rynaxypyr Coragen 20 30 150 7.4b 2.6ab 1.5a 4.1a 3.1a 4.6ab 16.7b 11.1a 1.5a

Acephate Starthene 75 500 667 10.2c 2.3ab 2.3b 6.0ab 3.6a 4.2ab 8.0ab 12.0a 8.0b

Monocrotophos Sufos 36 500 1390 8.6c 3.0b 2.7bc 5.0a 4.8ab 5.3b 11.3ab 11.3a 12.8b

- Untreatedcontrol

- - Water spray 14.8d 8.5c 12.5d 10.7c 6.5ab 5.9b 8.6ab 20.4b 12.1b



2.31



% a.i.formulation

ga.i./ha


Stem borer (% WE)

RGL RNC RNR RPR SBP SKL WGL Mean

Triazophos Sutathion 40 300 750 4.9b 5.6b 39.3 34.6a 13.3b 14.2a 3.3a 12.4b

Triazophos Sutathion 40 500 1250 3.9ab 1.5a 31.4 32.3a 12.4b 16.2a 7.3a 10.6a

Sulfoxaflor - 24 75 313 4.3ab 8.0bc 31.3 35.7ab 21.7c 18.8a 5.5a 12.3b

Sulfoxaflor - 24 90 375 2.1a 5.9b 44.5 35.9ab 20.3c 19.6a 7.4a 12.5b

Buprofezin Applaud 25 200 800 5.5b 6.8b 40.6 38.1a 23.0c 21.8a 5.2a 13.7bc

Rynaxypyr Coragen 20 30 150 3.5ab 6.6b 0.0 52.5b 0.7a 14.8a 4.7a 9.3a

Acephate Starthene 75 500 667 4.8ab 6.1b 13.4 37.7ab 15.2b 19.3a 6.7a 10.7a

Monocrotophos Sufos 36 500 1390 4.2ab 2.0a 12.7 34.1a 14.6b 17.7a 6.1a 10.4a

- Untreatedcontrol

- - Water spray 5.2b 10.6c 30.6 47.3b 29.4c 37.3b 7.2a 17.0c



2.32



CommonName

TradeName

% a.i.formulati

on

ga.i./ha

g or mlof

formulation/ha

Gall midge(% SS)BMR CBT JDP PTB RNC SBP SKL WGL

Mean50DAT

22DAT

29DAT

35DAT

50DAT

30DAT

50DAT

56DAT

76DAT

30DAT

30DAT

50DAT

Triazophos Sutathion 40 300 750 11.0a 8.9b 7.3a 2.5ab 12.7ab 29.4bc 9.9b 11.7b 7.7bc 15.0a 5.0a 11.4a 12.8ab

Triazophos Sutathion 40 500 1250 10.4a 6.5ab 5.3a 2.6ab 13.6ab 15.9b 5.9a 8.4a 6.8ab 21.2ab 6.0ab 4.9a 10.6a

Sulfoxaflor - 24 75 313 12.8a 7.1ab 3.2a 3.0ab 18.9ab 29.8bc 8.4b 10.0a 7.0ab 25.1b 8.5ab 9.7a 14.6ab

Sulfoxaflor - 24 90 375 13.9a 8.2ab 7.4a 2.5ab 16.8ab 26.5bc 6.7a 11.2a 6.0a 23.0b 5.5ab 10.5a 13.7ab

Buprofezin Applaud 25 200 800 12.5a 6.7ab 3.7a 2.5ab 11.2a 24.8bc 8.8b 12.3b 10.7c 27.2b 10.6b 5.8a 13.5ab

Rynaxypyr Coragen 20 30 150 19.5a 5.1ab 11.2a 5.9ab 11.0ab 34.4c 6.7a 10.2a 8.7bc 25.3b 6.7ab 11.1a 15.3ab

Acephate Starthene 75 500 667 15.7a 2.8a 9.3a 0.8a 20.1ab 33.3c 4.6a 9.9a 10.8c 28.9b 10.3b 8.3a 15.8ab

Monocrotophos Sufos 36 500 1390 14.9a 2.4a 5.6a 3.0ab 17.5ab 2.6a 8.3b 10.8a 8.9b 27.4b 6.5ab 7.1a 11.4a

- Untreatedcontrol

- - Waterspray

24.3b 5.3ab 9.7a 5.0b 25.4b 31.9c 9.3b 15.0b 17.2d 51.1c 5.6ab 6.5a 21.3b


2.33

Table 2.13 (Contd…) Insect pest incidence in different treatments, IET, kharif 2012.Common

NameTradeName

% a.i.formulation

ga.i./ha


Green leafhopper (No. Per 10 hills)GGV JDP NVS RNC RPR Mean

GLH1 GLH2 40DAT 70DAT 80DAT BS 3DAS 35DAT 54DAT 35 DAT 55DAT

Triazophos Sutathion 40 300 750 17.0a 9.0a 13.7b 9.0b 28.3b 11.0b 4.0b 71.0a 30.3b 21.0b 12.3a 21.0b

Triazophos Sutathion 40 500 1250 17.3a 7.7a 10.0ab 9.7b 29.3b 12.0b 4.0b 68.7a 16.3ab 16.3ab 13.0b 18.8ab

Sulfoxaflor - 24 75 313 18.3a 6.0a 5.3a 5.3a 22.7ab 11.7b 3.3b 74.3a 19.7ab 15.3ab 7.0a 17.8ab

Sulfoxaflor - 24 90 375 18.3a 3.7a 10.7ab 8.3b 29.0b 13.3b 4.7b 71.0a 14.7a 11.0a 12.7ab 18.1ab

Buprofezin Applaud 25 200 800 15.7a 2.7a 6.0a 4.0a 18.7a 7.3a 1.3a 74.0a 22.0b 12.3a 13.3b 16.8a

Rynaxypyr Coragen 20 30 150 17.0a 13.0b 8.3a 4.3a 25.3b 9.7a 2.7b 71.3a 42.7c 15.0ab 12.3ab 20.9b

Acephate Starthene 75 500 667 17.3a 4.0a 9.0a 5.3a 22.0ab 10.0a 2.7b 70.0a 17.0ab 16.0ab 9.7ab 17.1ab

Monocrotophos Sufos 36 500 1390 16.0a 6.0a 5.7a 9.3b 27.3b 11.0b 3.3b 69.7a 21.7b 17.0ab 9.0ab 18.2ab

- Untreatedcontrol

- - Water spray 16.7a 13.7b 16.0b 16.7c 34.3b 17.0c 16.0c 73.7a 78.3d 19.3ab 13.3b 29.3c



2.34


CommonName

TradeName

% a.i.formulatio

n

ga.i./h

a

g or mlof

formulation/ha

White backed planthopper-WBPH (No. Per 10 hills)GGV NDL RPR SKL

Mean40 DAT 60 DAT 90 DAT 70DAT 80DAT 55 DAT 1DBT 3DAT

Triazophos Sutathion 40 300 750 36.3a 57.0a 29.7b 29.7ab 21.3ab 7.0a 125.7b 86.7ab 44.9a

Triazophos Sutathion 40 500 1250 34.0a 54.3a 24.7b 37.3b 21.3ab 7.0a 130.0b 97.0ab 46.9a

Sulfoxaflor - 24 75 313 30.0a 59.7a 15.7ab 44.3b 30.0b 6.7a 115.7ab 84.3a 44.7a

Sulfoxaflor - 24 90 375 33.7a 58.3a 13.0ab 32.0ab 23.0ab 4.0a 111.7ab 91.0ab 42.0a

Buprofezin Applaud 25 200 800 35.0a 57.3a 9.0a 32.7ab 13.0a 4.7a 113.3ab 87.0ab 40.4a

Rynaxypyr Coragen 20 30 150 33.3a 55.3a 35.7c 35.7b 29.3b 5.0a 112.3ab 92.7ab 45.4a

Acephate Starthene 75 500 667 37.0a 55.7a 17.3a 30.0ab 20.3ab 5.7a 112.3ab 79.0a 40.8a

Monocrotophos Sufos 36 500 1390 32.3a 61.3a 22.3b 29.3ab 24.7ab 7.3a 111.7ab 97.7a 44.4a

- Untreatedcontrol

- - Water spray 33.3a 56.3a 49.3c 10.7a 12.0a 9.0a 108.7a 110.0b 44.0a



2.35



CommonName

TradeName

% a.i.formulation

ga.i./ha

g orml of

formulation/

ha

Brown planthopper-BPH (No. Per 10 hills)GGV MND NDL PNR

40DAT

60DAT

80DAT

100DAT

70DAT

80DAT

70DAT

80DAT

90DAT

30DAT

45DAT

60DAT

75DAT

85DAT

Triazophos Sutathion 40 300 750 68.3a 100.3a 74.3ab 47.7c 44.3c 42.0d 30.7ab 20.3ab 13.7a 15.3b 17.3a 23.0a 11.3ab 11.7b

Triazophos Sutathion 40 500 1250 67.0a 106.3a 68.7ab 39.0c 46.5c 42.0d 38.3b 19.3ab 12.7a 17.0b 17.0a 23.0a 17.3ab 9.7ab

Sulfoxaflor - 24 75 313 67.7a 103.3a 57.3ab 31.7b 25.5b 15.0b 45.3b 17.3ab 13.3a 12.0ab 14.0a 22.0a 12.7ab 8.3ab

Sulfoxaflor - 24 90 375 66.7a 101.7a 51.0a 22.0a 18.3a 5.3a 23.7ab 23.3b 15.3a 12.7ab 17.0a 25.3a 18.3b 8.7ab

Buprofezin Applaud 25 200 800 69.7a 98.0a 45.7a 16.0a 29.0b 6.0a 34.3ab 18.0ab 11.7a 12.3ab 19.7a 28.0a 11.7ab 7.0a

Rynaxypyr Coragen 20 30 150 68.0a 99.7a 86.3b 56.7c 41.5c 31.8c 25.0ab 24.3ab 12.7a 9.3a 13.7a 28.3a 10.3a 7.7ab

Acephate Starthene 75 500 667 66.3a 102.0a 59.3ab 27.3a 45.5c 15.8b 26.3ab 15.0ab 11.0a 20.7bc 14.7a 32.3a 14.7b 12.3b

Monocrotophos Sufos 36 500 1390 67.0a 97.7a 60.7ab 32.0b 40.8c 36.5c 20.7ab 12.3a 9.7a 25.0c 20.3a 29.3a 20.7b 9.7ab

- Untreatedcontrol

- - Waterspray

68.3a 102.3a 128.0c 95.0d 60.5d 54.8e 12.7a 12.0a 17.0a 24.3c 22.0a 28.0a 19.3b 8.7ab


2.36


CommonName

TradeName

% a.i.formula

tion

ga.i./ha

g orml offormulation/ha

Brown planthopper-BPH (No. Per 10 hills)RPR SKL WGL KUL

55DAT

1DBT

3DAT

100DAT

75DAT

90DAT

57DAT_BT

61DAT_AT

65DAT_AT

68DAT_AT

80DAT_BT

84DAT_AT

88DAT_AT

91DAT_AT

Triazophos Sutathion 40 300 750 7.3ab 153.7b 26.3b 46.3a 36.0b 49.0a 223.3a 267.7e 156.0c 90.7c 83.7b 100.0b 75.3a 134.0c

Triazophos Sutathion 40 500 1250 8.0ab 108.0a 21.3ab 45.3a 32.3ab 45.0a 231.0a 240.0e 149.3c 82.7c 76.7b 105.3b 107.3a 124.7c

Sulfoxaflor - 24 75 313 8.0ab 107.7a 23.0ab 49.7a 19.3a 46.0a 215.3a 43.7a 20.3a 26.0a 61.7a 62.7a 70.3a 88.3b

Sulfoxaflor - 24 90 375 5.3a 107.7a 16.7a 48.7a 27.0ab 49.0a 222.3a 35.0a 16.0a 27.0a 56.3a 58.7a 75.0a 85.3b

Buprofezin Applaud 25 200 800 6.7ab 106.0a 14.7a 40.3a 19.7ab 46.7a 222.3a 67.0b 18.0a 23.7a 48.0a 51.0a 70.7a 65.0a

Rynaxypyr Coragen 20 30 150 8.3b 103.0a 23.3a 39.0a 28.7ab 46.7a 234.0a 196.0d 139.0c 78.3c 57.7a 97.0b 81.3a 106.7bc

Acephate Starthene 75 500 667 5.3a 115.7ab 24.7b 41.7a 23.7ab 47.0a 225.7a 136.3c 63.3b 45.7b 60.7a 82.7b 73.0a 108.0bc

Monocrotophos Sufos 36 500 1390 8.0ab 114.7ab 19.0ab 39.3a 30.3ab 50.0a 230.7a 73.3b 51.7b 47.7b 59.7a 59.0a 70.7a

91.3b

Untreatedcontrol

Waterspray

10.3b 131.3ab 134.3c 42.7a 29.7ab 44.7a 227.3a 248.3e 136.0c 106.7c 96.0b 108.7b 100.7a 126.7c



2.37


CommonName

TradeName

% a.i.formulation

ga.i./ha


Brown planthopper-BPH (No. Per 10 hills)MTU Mean

50 DAT 60 DAT 70 DATTriazophos Sutathion 40 300 750 1398.3b 255.8b 500.7b 549.6d

Triazophos Sutathion 40 500 1250 970.0b 382.3b 830.5b 556.0d

Sulfoxaflor - 24 75 313 511.0a 37.5a 45.0a 156.1a

Sulfoxaflor - 24 90 375 311.0a 40.8a 50.3a 107.8a

Buprofezin Applaud 25 200 800 324.7a 52.2a 91.5a 124.2a

Rynaxypyr Coragen 20 30 150 698.3ab 190.0b 595.5b 380.5c

Acephate Starthene 75 500 667 671.7ab 42.3a 62.0a 202.6b

Monocrotophos Sufos 36 500 1390 899.2ab 96.0a 98.0a 281.9b

Untreatedcontrol

Water spray 972.5b 153.0b 351.0b 382.4c



2.38


CommonName

TradeName

% a.i.formulation

ga.i./h

a

g or ml offormulati

on/ha

Leaf folder damage (% LFDL)LDN BMR JDP KUL MLN

40DAT

70DAT

20DAT

30DAT

50DAT

80DAT

57DAT

68DAT

80DAT

92DAT

56DAT

86DAT

Triazophos Sutathion 40 300 750 7.6ab 5.0b 95.7a 24.8a 23.2a 4.7ab 8.1a 34.9d 34.4c 29.7b 2.6a 40.6b

Triazophos Sutathion 40 500 1250 7.5a 4.4ab 92.3a 21.0a 25.1a 5.2ab 9.1a 36.6d 35.2c 31.4b 2.8a 39.6ab

Sulfoxaflor - 24 75 313 9.3b 8.0c 89.3a 25.0a 23.1a 5.4ab 8.5a 34.4d 42.7c 30.3b 3.9ab 40.3b

Sulfoxaflor - 24 90 375 8.8b 7.7c 90.3a 23.9a 19.4a 5.3ab 9.4a 41.7d 40.8c 28.8b 3.7a 41.4b

Buprofezin Applaud 25 200 800 12.4c 12.1d 91.3a 27.8a 18.1a 5.3ab 9.4a 37.6d 39.3c 28.4b 3.4a 45.9b

Rynaxypyr Coragen 20 30 150 6.9a 3.6a 87.8a 19.6a 23.8a 3.7a 8.0a 5.3a 5.8a 11.7a 3.4a 29.2a

Acephate Starthene 75 500 667 7.2a 4.6ab 96.0a 20.8a 24.0a 4.5ab 8.9a 9.9b 10.9b 12.7a 3.8a 40.9b

Monocrotophos

Sufos 36 500 1390 7.3a 4.4ab 96.5a 23.0a 20.1a 5.1ab 9.3a 15.7c 14.0b 14.3a 3.7ab 38.6ab

Untreatedcontrol

Water spray 14.9d 16.1e 84.3a 24.0a 24.5a 6.2b 9.4a 43.6d 41.7c 35.2b 5.6b 50.1b



2.39


CommonName

TradeName

% a.i.formulation

ga.i./ha


Leaf folder damage (% LFDL)MTU NWG PTB JDP MTU Mean

50DAT

DAT 45DAT

60DAT

60DAT

50DAT

60DAT

80DAT

1DAT

10DAT

Triazophos Sutathion 40 300 750 4.1b 41.7bc 5.0b 6.6b 16.0b 9.2a 11.9a 6.1ab 16.0b 8.2a 19.9b

Triazophos Sutathion 40 500 1250 3.6b 38.0bc 5.3c 7.1b 17.3b 9.6ab 12.0a 6.9ab 12.0ab 7.7a 19.4b

Sulfoxaflor - 24 75 313 3.8b 37.8bc 5.0bc 7.5b 45.4c 10.5ab 14.2ab 9.1b 11.8ab 6.8a 23.0b

Sulfoxaflor - 24 90 375 3.8b 34.5bc 5.5c 6.8b 48.0c 8.5a 10.5a 5.9a 12.6ab 6.8a 22.9b

Buprofezin Applaud 25 200 800 3.9b 26.1bc 2.8a 4.1a 40.2c 13.6b 16.5b 8.2a 10.6a 6.3a 22.0b

Rynaxypyr Coragen 20 30 150 0.9a 0.8a 4.0b 7.5b 5.2a 8.1a 11.5a 7.0ab 13.4ab 5.8a 12.4a

Acephate Starthene 75 500 667 2.7ab 20.4b 5.1c 7.4b 24.5b 8.5a 11.9a 7.6ab 13.3ab 7.2a 17.5ab

Monocrotophos Sufos 36 500 1390 3.8b 36.7bc 5.5c 7.3b 43.0c 9.5a 13.2ab 8.0ab 13.9b 7.8a 21.1b

Untreatedcontrol

Water spray 5.0b 47.0c 7.2d 10.6c 41.6c 8.9a 12.5ab 10.8b 11.9ab 14.1b 24.5b



2.40

Table 2.13 (contd.) Insect pest incidence in different treatments , IET, kharif 2012.

CommonName

TradeName

% a.i.formulation

ga.i./ha


Hispa damage(HDL/10 hills) Whorl maggot damage(WMDL/10 hills)

RNC JDP PTBBT 54DAT

65DAT

30DAT

60DAT

25DAT

Triazophos Sutathion 40 300 750 46.3a 27.7bc 7.6a 3.8ab 15.4a

Triazophos Sutathion 40 500 1250 46.7a 16.7a 7.3a 3.8ab 13.6a

Sulfoxaflor - 24 75 313 48.0a 35.7c 6.3a 3.4a 16.6a

Sulfoxaflor - 24 90 375 48.7a 25.7b 6.9a 3.2a 18.7a

Buprofezin Applaud 25 200 800 49.3a 37.3c 6.8a 3.8ab 16.0a

Rynaxypyr Coragen 20 30 150 49.7a 37.3c 6.2a 3.3a 13.2a

Acephate Starthene 75 500 667 47.7a 20.0ab 5.9a 4.0ab 12.7a

Monocrotophos Sufos 36 500 1390 50.3a 18.0a 5.3a 3.6a 10.9a

Untreatedcontrol

Water spray 50.0a 54.0d 9.0a 5.8b 15.5a



2.41

Table 2.14 Natural enemies population in different treatments, IET, Kharif 2012.

CommonName

Trade Name % a.i.formulation


Mirid bugs (Number/10 hills)GGV KUL Mean

40DAT 60DAT 80DAT 80 DAT 84 DAT 88 DATTriazophos Sutathion 40 300 750 22.3a 30.3a 17.7b 12.7a 28.0a 32.7a 23.9ab

Triazophos Sutathion 40 500 1250 20.3a 32.3a 11.7c 41.7a 39.3a 42.3a 31.3a

Sulfoxaflor - 24 75 313 23.3a 29.7a 20.7b 7.3b 17.3b 11.0b 18.2b

Sulfoxaflor - 24 90 375 21.7a 31.0a 13.3c 9.7b 10.7b 11.7b 16.3b

Buprofezin Applaud 25 200 800 21.0a 30.3a 11.0c 5.7b 9.7b 14.0b 15.3b

Rynaxypyr Coragen 20 30 150 24.3a 29.0a 16.3b 18.7a 35.7a 26.0a 25.0a

Acephate Starthene 75 500 667 21.3a 31.0a 6.3d 12.0a 37.3a 31.7a 23.3ab

Monocrotophos Sufos 36 500 1390 24.0a 29.3a 5.3d 12.7a 27.3a 27.7a 21.1ab

Untreatedcontrol

Water spray 23.7a 31.0a 38.3a 28.3a 43.3a 38.7a 33.9a



2.42

Table 2.14 (contd…) Natural enemies population in different treatments, IET, Kharif 2012.

Common Name Trade Name % a.i.formulation


Spiders (Number/10 hills)GGV KUL Mean

60DAT 80DAT 80 DAT 84 DAT 88 DATTriazophos Sutathion 40 300 750 11.3a 5.7bc 8.7ab 10.0a 11.7a 9.5a

Triazophos Sutathion 40 500 1250 11.0a 3.0c 7.0b 9.0a 11.3a 8.3a

Sulfoxaflor - 24 75 313 11.7a 7.7b 11.7a 10.7a 11.0a 10.5a

Sulfoxaflor - 24 90 375 11.7a 6.3bc 10.7ab 11.0a 13.3a 10.6a

Buprofezin Applaud 25 200 800 12.3a 4.7bc 12.0a 11.3a 12.3a 10.5a

Rynaxypyr Coragen 20 30 150 12.0a 8.0b 9.0ab 9.3a 13.3a 10.3a

Acephate Starthene 75 500 667 12.7a 1.7c 7.3ab 8.7a 10.7a 8.2a

Monocrotophos Sufos 36 500 1390 11.3a 1.3c 7.7ab 9.7a 10.3a 8.1a

Untreatedcontrol

Water spray 12.3a 14.0c 11.0ab 12.0a 11.7a 12.2a



2.43

Table 2.15 Grain yield in different treatments , IET, Kharif 2012.


% a.i.formulation

ga.i./ha


CBT CHN CTC FZB GGT GGV JDP KUL LDN MLN MNC MND MTU

Triazophos Sutathion 40 300 750 6007a 6018a 4981a 2830a 2939a 5680ab 3367b 3250b 6611ab 8083a 6633a 3299d 2737c

Triazophos Sutathion 40 500 1250 6927a 6074a 4300ab 2925a 3221a 5933ab 3783ab 3350ab 6690ab 7733bc 6367a 3500d 1755c

Sulfoxaflor - 24 75 313 7101a 6222a 4690ab 3072a 2679b 6240ab 3567 ab 3433a 6481b 7667bc 6217a 3807c 4767ab

Sulfoxaflor - 24 90 375 6615a 6370a 4417ab 3146a 3142a 6413ab 3783 ab 3417a 6574ab 7517bc 6033a 4216ab 4698ab

Buprofezin Applaud 25 200 800 6684a 5796a 4433ab 3062a 2750bc 6560ab 3500 ab 3383a 6356b 8017ab 6367a 4064bc 4261ab

Rynaxypyr Coragen 20 30 150 7187a 5981a 4398ab 3030a 2666bc 5173b 3500 ab 3350ab 6812a 8683a 6383a 4464a 3966b

Acephate Starthene 75 500 667 6979a 6018a 4000b 2788a 2827b 6720a 3558 ab 3450a 6606ab 7983ab 6033a 4054bc 4844a

Monocrotophos Sufos 36 500 1390 6562a 6018a 4587ab 2988a 2403c 6600ab 3867a 3533a 6697ab 8650a 7117a 3961c 4354ab

Untreatedcontrol

Water spray 6267a 6370a 3991b 2630a 2100d 3467c 2900c 3167b 5648c 7150c 6100a 2955e 1985c



2.44

Table 2.15 (Contd…) Grain yield in different treatments , IET, Kharif 2012.

CommonName

TradeName

%a.i.

formulation

ga.i./ha

g orml offormulation/h

a

NVS NDL NWG PDC PNR PUS PTB RGL RNC RNR RPR REW SBP SKL WGB WGL Mean

%IOC

Triazophos Sutathion 40 300 750 5127bc 4217ab 2682b 5400a 7262b 5500a 1796a 5183a 3183b 1385c 3361b 2583 a 3329c 2630a 5433b 4737a 4353 13.0

Triazophos Sutathion 40 500 1250 5037c 4183ab 2982b 5783a 7572a 5333ab 1847a 4722a 3633a 1705c 3313b 2233b 3525b 2427a 5267bc 4500a 4366 13.3

Sulfoxaflor - 24 75 313 5061c 3683b 2756b 5817a 7009b 5000ab 1827a 5278a 3008b 1332c 2194c 2217b 2546e 2192b 5883a 4573a 4356 13.0

Sulfoxaflor - 24 90 375 5029c 4467a 3024b 5383a 7018b 5167ab 1755a 5135a 3283b 1442c 2222c 2167b 2859d 2445a 5517b 4672a 4411 14.1

Buprofezin Applaud 25 200 800 5384a 3933ab 3088b 5617a 7006b 5583a 1653ab 4722a 2705c 1242c 2465c 1983c 2536e 2437a 5250b 4124a 4309 12.1

Rynaxypyr Coragen 20 30 150 5249b 4150ab 3618a 5500a 7851a 5333ab 1867a 5159a 3168b 3290a 4299a 1667d 4465a 2450a 5383b 4523a 4606 17.8

Acephate Starthene 75 500 667 5212b 4067ab 2678b 5542a 7416a 5250ab 1551b 5079a 3567a 2000b 2722bc 2350ab 2859d 2013b 5700ab 4406a 4423 14.4

Monocrotophos

Sufos 36 500 1390 5176b 3767ab 2441c 5817a 7075b 5417a 1510b 5119a 3725a 2286b 2813bc 2567a 3231c 2225b 5517b 4665a 4506 15.9

Untreatedcontrol

Waterspray

4285d 3700ab 2083c 5800a 6930b 4833b 1378b 4849a 2408c 1613c 2090c 1417d 2086f 1898b 5050c 4696a 3788



2.45

ii) Pesticide compatibility trial (PCT)

During kharif 2012, compatibility of two new and different groups ofinsecticides and fungicides was evaluated based on their efficacy when appliedas tank-mix in the field. The insecticides included a new combination productformulation of buprofezin 20% + acephate 50% WP, a broad spectrum actioncompound supplied by Rallis India Limited and sulfoxaflor 24% SC from DowAgrosciences Pvt. Ltd. recommended for effectiveness against plant andleafhoppers. The fungicides consisted of hexaconazole (Contaf plus 5 SC)supplied by Rallies India Ltd., effective against sheath blight and tricyclazole(Baan 75 SP), a product of Indofil chemicals Ltd. recommended for blast. Thetrial was carried out at 17 locations viz., Coimbatore, Brahmavar, Chinsurah,Faizabad, Gangavathi, Iroisemba, Ghaghraghat, Jagdalpur, Khudwani, Malan,Nawagam, Puducherry, Rewa, Pattambi, Ranchi, Sakoli and Sambalpur.

Treatments

The trial included nine treatments consisting of the combination productof buprofezin+acephate @ 2.0 g/litre, sulfoxaflor @ 0.6 g/litre, hexaconazole @2.0 ml/litre and tricyclazole @ 0.6 ml/litre applied alone as individualtreatments and also in four possible combination treatments. Untreatedcontrol without any insecticide or fungicide application was also included forcomparison. The treatments were replicated thrice and laid out in RandomizedComplete Bock Design (RCBD).

Observations were recorded on stem borer damage at vegetative andheading stages on ten randomly selected hills and expressed as per cent deadhearts or white ears. Similarly, counts of leaf folder damaged leaves were takenon 10 randomly selected hills per plot and the percentage damaged leaves werecalculated. Planthopper populations were recorded on ten randomly selectedhills per plot before and after application of treatments. For assessing theseverity of blast, sheath blight, brown spot and bacterial leaf blight diseases,percentage disease severity was assessed as the proportion of the leaf areadamaged by the disease in relation to the total leaf area of all the plants in aplot before and after application. Towards maturity, the crop was harvestedand grain yield / net plot leaving two border rows on all sides was recordedand expressed as kg/ha.

Results

Insect pest Infestation (Table 2.16)

The stem borer infestation at vegetative stage across 7 locations wasmaximum of 24.7% DH and mean infestation ranged from 4.4 to 16.1% DHacross treatments including control. There were significant differences amongthe pesticide treatments at all locations. The infestation in insecticides aloneand combination treatments (4.4 to 8.7% DH) was lower than that in fungicidealone treatments (11.9 and 12.2% DH) and control (16.1% DH). There were nodiscernible differences in efficacy between the two insecticides and theircombinations with fungicides. At heading stage also, there were significant


2.46

differences among the treatments at 6 locations. However, across locationsthere were no discernible differences in mean white ear incidence among thepesticide treatments and their combinations (9.2 to 14.3% WE), though allwere superior to control (20.0% WE). Overall, against stem borer, theperformance of both the insecticides when applied alone or in combinationwith fungicides was discernible at vegetative stage and the combinationproduct performed better than sulfoxaflor.

The gall midge incidence was recorded up to 28.1% SS across 5locations. The incidence in insecticide treatments and their combinations waslower (8.9 to 13.9% SS) while the fungicide treatments (17.1 and 14.3% SS)were on par with control (14.6% SS).

Leaf folder infestation was observed at 5 locations and recorded up to23.2% DL. The mean infestation ranged between 9.8 and 10.6% DL incombination product treatments significantly lower compared to sulfoxaflor(12.0 to 12.4% DL), fungicide treatments (12.0 and 13.7% DL) and control(13.4% DL).

Brown planthopper populations were recorded upto 157.3 hoppers/hillat Gangavathi and up to 115.0 hoppers/10 hills at Sakoli. There wassignificant decline in BPH population due to application of treatments at bothlocations. The mean hopper population in individual insecticide and theircombination treatments ranged narrowly between 59.7 and 71.0 hoppers/10hills significantly lower than fungicides alone treatments (112.0 and 118.9hoppers/10 hills) and untreated control(124.6 hoppers/10 hills). Bothinsecticides were at par in their efficacy individually as well as in combinationwith fungicides. The performance trends were similar against white backedplanthopper population which was recorded upto 80.7 hoppers/10 hills atGangavathi 193.0 hoppers/10 hills at Rewa and 145.7 hoppers/10 hills atSakoli. As observed in the case of BPH, both insecticides individually as wellas in combination with fungicides showed a similar and significantly lowerrange of WBPH population (50.4 to 57.3 hoppers/10 hills) compared tofungicides applied alone(93.2 and 95.4 hoppers/10 hills) and untreatedcontrol(114.2 hoppers/10 hills).

Green leafhopper populations were also significantly lower in insecticidetreatments and their combinations (15.3 to 18.3 hoppers/10 hills) comparedto 26.1 and 27.8 hoppers/10 hills in fungicide treatments and 28.6hoppers/10 hills recorded in untreated control. At Jagdalpur and Ranchi,there were significant differences among the treatments before and afterapplication.

At Gangavathi, the impact of the insecticide treatments and theircombinations on mirid bugs and spiders was evident by the significantreduction in their population following the application of treatments. Thenatural enemy population was unaffected in the fungicide applied plots as wellas control (Table 2.17).


2.47

Disease incidence

Blast disease was recorded at Ghaghraghat, Gangavathi, Ranchi andSambalpur. There were no significant differences among treatments includingcontrol (20.0 to 22.7%) before treatment at Ghagraghat, but after thetreatment, the fungicide applications applied alone as well as in combinationwith insecticides resulted in significantly less disease severity (6.0 to 7.0%)compared to insecticide treatments and control (20.7 to 22.3%). Similarly atRanchi, the pre and post treatment differences were significant among theindividual as well as combination treatments of fungicides. There wassignificant reduction in blast incidence in these treatments after treatment (6.2to 12.2%) compared to pre treatment range of 16.3 to 20.2%. At Sambalpuralso, disease incidence was significantly less in fungicide treatments and theircombinations (0.9 to 1.5%) than insecticide treatments and control (3.5 to5.8%). However, at Gangavathi, there were no discernible differences in theefficacy of fungicide treatments alone as well as in combination against thedisease (Table 2.18).

Sheath blight incidence was recorded at 3 locations and varied from 24.1 to75.0% in pesticide treatments and 30.4 to 75.0% in control. At all thelocations, there was reduction in disease incidence in fungicide treatmentsand their combinations but the impact was not significant (Table 2.18).

Brown spot disease was recorded at Ranchi and incidence ranged from 10.9 to12.5% before treatment with no significant differences across treatmentsincluding untreated control, at 89 DAT. However, after application, there wassignificant reduction in disease incidence in the fungicide alone (4.0%) andtheir insecticide combination treatments (2.7 to 4.8%) compared to remainingtreatments including control (12.6 to 13.6%), at 95 DAT. There were nosignificant differences in the performance of fungicides when applied alone orin combination with insecticides. At Rewa, the efficacy of fungicides was notevident after first as well as second applications (Table 2.18).

Grain yield

There were significant differences in grain yield among differenttreatments at 13 locations (Table 2.19). The mean grain yield data across thelocations revealed that the combination product of buprofezin + acephate incombination with hexaconazole was the best treatment showing the highestyield of 4140 kg/ha with an increase of 28.2% over control (IOC) followed byits combination with tricyclazole with the next highest yield of 4034 kg/ha and26.3% IOC. The combination treatment of sulfoxaflor and tricyclazole alsoyielded high (3975 kg/ha with 25.2% IOC) on par with combination productapplied alone (3965 kg/ha with 25.0% IOC) and sulfoxaflor + hexaconazole(3959 kg/ha with 24.9% IOC). Sulfoxaflor applied alone (3837 kg/ha) resultedin yield increase of 22.5% over control, while the two fungicide treatmentsyielded 3522 and 3531 kg/ha with IOC of 15.6 and 15.8%, respectively.


2.48

Pesticide compatibility trial was carried out with the objective ofevaluating the compatibility of newer insecticide and fungicide formulations astank mix against major insect pests and diseases of rice and consequent impacton grain yield, at 17 centres during kharif 2012. Based on the performance ofthe treatments when applied alone vis a vis their respective combinations inreducing pest infestation, it was evident that there were no significantdifferences in the performance of the two newer insecticide formulations in theirefficacy when applied alone or in combination with fungicides. The insecticidefungicide combination treatments yielded better than insecticides applied alone.Hence, the results revealed that there was no adverse impact on the efficacy ofeither the combination product of buprofezin plus acephate or sulfoxaflor due totheir combination with either hexaconazole or tricyclazole or vice versaconfirming the compatibility of the chemicals when used as tank mix in the field.


2.49

Table 2.16 Pest incidence under different treatments of combinations of insecticide and fungicide, PCT, kharif 2012

Insecticide/Fungicide g or ml per litre ofspray fluid

Stem borer(% DH)

CHN JDP PTB RNC SBP SKL Mean50DAT 30DAT 30DAT 50DAT 30DAT 56DAT 76DAT 30DAT

Buprofezin 20% + Acephate 50%WP

2.0 3.8a 1.0a 4.1a 0.3a 5.4b 7.4a 1.5ab 4.1a 4.4a

Sulfoxaflor 0.6 6.2ab 1.3a 0.8a 1.0a 13.2c 10.3b 2.7b 5.7a 7.9b

Hexaconazole (Contaf Plus 5 SC) 2.0 15.0b 4.2ab 2.9a 4.6b 12.7c 9.7b 8.0d 11.3b 11.9c

Tricyclazole (Baan 75 WP ) 0.6 11.3b 3.2ab 4.1a 7.2b 13.3c 11.0b 9.6d 13.9b 12.2c

(Buprofezin 20% + Acephate 50%WP) +hexaconazole

2.0+2.0 12.6b 2.8ab 2.1a 0.0a 2.7a 8.0a 4.0b 7.3a 7.2b

(Buprofezin 20% + Acephate 50%WP) + tricyclazole

2.0+0.6 10.0b 0.7a 1.1a 0.0a 2.9a 6.5a 1.3a 5.6a 5.6a

Sulfoxaflor + hexaconazole 0.6+2.0 14.4b 4.1b 2.8a 0.0a 9.5c 6.5a 3.4b 5.7a 8.6b

Sulfoxaflor + tricyclazole 0.6+0.6 9.1b 0.9a 3.0a 0.0a 10.7c 10.3b 6.5c 6.7a 8.7b

Untreated control Water spray 10.4b 5.5 5.4a 8.1b 15.8d 13.3b 14.0e 24.7c 16.1d



2.50

Table 2.16 (contd…) Pest incidence under different treatments of combinations of insecticide and fungicide,PCT, kharif 2012

Insecticide/Fungicideg or ml per

litre ofspray fluid

Stem borer(% WE)

CHN FZB GGT NWG RNC SBP SKL Mean

Buprofezin 20% + Acephate50% WP

2.0 1.9a 7.8bc 2.0a 3.1a 2.7a 14.5a 17.7b 10.7a

Sulfoxaflor 0.6 2.2a 7.1bc 2.0a 5.1a 9.0b 18.0b 19.2b 13.3a

Hexaconazole (Contaf Plus 5SC)

2.0 9.9b 8.1bc 9.4b 4.3a 9.7b 15.9a 18.1b 12.9a

Tricyclazole (Baan 75 WP ) 0.6 6.2b 8.4c 9.8b 5.2a 9.8b 14.5a 16.3ab 12.2a

(Buprofezin 20% + Acephate50% WP) +hexaconazole

2.0+2.0 8.2b 4.2a 2.4a 5.8a 2.6a 20.7bc 17.3ab 11.2a

(Buprofezin 20% + Acephate50% WP) + tricyclazole

2.0+0.6 4.4a 6.2b 2.2a 3.0a 3.2a 11.0a 16.3ab 9.2a

Sulfoxaflor + hexaconazole 0.6+2.0 9.6a 5.4a 2.3a 4.5a 8.7b 17.7b 14.7a 11.6a

Sulfoxaflor + tricyclazole 0.6+0.6 4.6a 5.5a 2.3a 4.3a 9.3b 22.8c 19.7b 14.3a

Untreated control Water spray 10.3b 12.5d 10.7b 5.2a 10.0b 24.6c 32.9c 20.0b



2.51



Gall midge (% SS)

JDP PTB RNC SBP SKL Mean30DAT 30DAT 30DAT 56DAT 76DAT 30DAT


2.0 7.6a 12.0a 2.6a 12.5a 12.3b 11.2a 8.9a

Sulfoxaflor 0.6 4.5a 20.2a 7.7b 17.1ab 11.7ab 11.2a 12.2a


2.0 6.4a 22.5a 8.0b 19.1b 13.0b 28.1c 17.1b

Tricyclazole (Baan 75 WP ) 0.6 8.6a 15.8a 8.8b 13.3a 13.3b 22.5bc 14.3b


2.0+2.0 5.7a 12.6a 2.3a 18.8b 11.1ab 11.8a 9.6a


2.0+0.6 7.6a 15.0a 3.3a 13.8a 7.7a 9.3a 9.0a

Sulfoxaflor + hexaconazole 0.6+2.0 7.9a 10.8a 8.3b 16.2ab 11.5ab 12.0a 11.0a

Sulfoxaflor + tricyclazole 0.6+0.6 4.1a 19.9a 10.1b 15.9ab 13.4b 18.0b 13.9b

Untreated control Water spray 9.4a 11.7a 10.2b 18.6b 12.3b 25.3c 14.6b



2.52


Insecticide/Fungicideg or mlper litreof spray

fluid

Leaf folder(% LFDL)MLN NWG PTB RNC SKL Mean

42DAT 75DAT 45DAT 60DAT 75DAT 45DAT 54DAT 65DAT_AT 1DBTBuprofezin 20% +Acephate 50% WP 2.0 11.3a 16.9ab 4.9b 5.2b 8.7a 13.7a 8.7a 2.1a 7.3a 9.8a

Sulfoxaflor 0.6 10.5a 15.2a 5.4b 4.9ab 10.4a 18.5ab 9.5a 9.4b 8.7a 12.0b

Hexaconazole (Contaf Plus5 SC) 2.0 12.0a 17.2ab 4.1ab 4.5a 14.1a 19.4ab 10.0a 9.5b 10.6ab 13.7b

Tricyclazole (Baan 75 WP ) 0.6 12.6a 16.8ab 5.0b 5.1b 12.4a 17.0ab 10.5a 9.6b 6.4a 12.1b

(Buprofezin 20% +Acephate 50% WP)+hexaconazole

2.0+2.0 11.6a 16.4a 3.7a 4.6ab 9.5a 17.4ab 9.6a 2.0a 6.2a 10.6a

(Buprofezin 20% +Acephate 50% WP) +tricyclazole

2.0+0.6 11.4a 15.0a 4.0ab 4.6ab 7.8a 16.9ab 10.0a 2.0a 6.7a 10.1a

Sulfoxaflor +hexaconazole 0.6+2.0 12.4a 17.2ab 5.3b 5.4b 9.6a 20.0ab 9.4a 8.9b 7.2a 12.1b

Sulfoxaflor + tricyclazole 0.6+0.6 10.2a 16.2a 4.1ab 4.5a 8.4a 23.2b 7.4a 9.3b 8.8a 12.4b

Untreated control Water spray 17.1a 19.5b 7.2c 7.4c 9.0a 15.6ab 9.7a 11.5b 13.5b 13.4b



2.53



Brown planthopper (Number/10 hills)GGV SKL

BT AT BT1 AT1 BT AT MeanBuprofezin 20% + Acephate50% WP

2.0 107.0a 17.0a 79.0a 7.7a 109.0a 24.3a 59.7a

Sulfoxaflor 0.6 113.0a 29.0a 82.0a 13.0a 105.7a 25.0a 62.3a


2.0 114.3a 121.3b 134.0b 139.3b 110.0a 83.7c 112.0b

Tricyclazole (Baan 75 WP ) 0.6 113.7a 124.0b 140.7b 148.0b 111.0a 101.3d 118.9b


2.0+2.0 109.3a 14.7a 84.0a 5.7a 115.0a 43.7d 66.4a


2.0+0.6 117.7a 14.0a 90.7a 4.3a 107.7a 45.3b 66.6a

Sulfoxaflor + hexaconazole 0.6+2.0 118.7a 25.7a 93.3a 9.7a 101.7a 56.3b 70.4a

Sulfoxaflor + tricyclazole 0.6+0.6 119.0a 21.3a 104.7b 7.7a 107.0a 50.7b 71.0a

Untreated control Water spray 112.0a 127.0b 143.7b 157.3b 106.7a 121.7d 124.6b



2.54


Insecticide/Fungicideg or ml per

litre of sprayfluid

White backed planthopper (Number/10 hills)GGV REW SKL Mean

BT AT BT1 AT1 1BT 5AT BT5AT

1 BT ATBuprofezin 20% + Acephate50% WP

2.0 60.0a 8.7a 24.3a 3.7a 39.7b 28.7ab 77.0a 17.0a 114.0a 61.3a 53.1a

Sulfoxaflor 0.6 65.0a 12.3a 27.7a 5.3a 30.3ab 31.0b 85.3a 12.7a 129.0a 65.0a 57.3a


2.0 58.3a 66.7b 78.7b 53.0b 92.7b 84.0c 81.3a 97.0b 122.3a 136.7b 95.4b

Tricyclazole (Baan 75 WP ) 0.6 60.7a 68.0b 74.7b 59.3b 95.7b 88.0c 73.3a 96.3b 118.7a 128.3b 93.2b


2.0+2.0 63.7a 6.3a 25.3a 2.7a 29.7a 27.0ab 66.0a 13.3a 107.0a 64.0a 50.4a


2.0+0.6 58.7a 7.7a 31.7a 2.3a 35.7a 32.0b 73.3a 14.7a 109.7a 70.7a 53.9a

Sulfoxaflor + hexaconazole 0.6+2.0 61.0a 10.0a 34.3a 4.3a 24.0a 33.7b 87.0a 14.7a 104.7a 60.0a 52.4a

Sulfoxaflor + tricyclazole 0.6+0.6 64.7a 8.3a 47.0a 4.7a 22.3a 18.7a 71.0a 9.7a 114.3a 67.3a 53.8a

Untreated control Water spray 60.7a 70.0b 80.7b 69.7b 161.0c 125.3d 74.0a 193.0c 122.0a 145.7b 114.2c



2.55


Insecticide/Fungicide g or ml per litre of sprayfluid

Green leafhopper(Number/10 hills)JDP RNC Mean65DAT 75DAT 54DAT 60DAT

BT AT BT ATBuprofezin 20% + Acephate 50%WP 2.0 6.0a 5.3a 14.7a 7.7a 71.7a 10.3a 17.0a

Sulfoxaflor 0.6 10.3b 6.7a 15.7a 7.3a 73.0a 11.3a 18.3a

Hexaconazole (Contaf Plus 5 SC) 2.0 12.7b 14.7b 12.3a 16.0b 71.3a 65.7b 27.8b

Tricyclazole (Baan 75 WP ) 0.6 6.7a 11.3b 13.7a 13.7b 73.0a 63.7b 26.1b

(Buprofezin 20% + Acephate 50%WP) +hexaconazole 2.0+2.0 9.0a 5.0a 17.0a 5.3a 72.0a 8.3a 16.9a

(Buprofezin 20% + Acephate 50%WP) + tricyclazole 2.0+0.6 5.0a 4.7a 15.7a 5.7a 71.0a 8.7a 15.9a

Sulfoxaflor + hexaconazole 0.6+2.0 4.7a 3.0a 15.3a 5.0a 64.7a 12.0a 15.3a

Sulfoxaflor + tricyclazole 0.6+0.6 8.7a 3.3a 12.0a 4.0a 74.0a 12.7a 16.4a

Untreated control Water spray 6.3a 11.7b 15.3a 17.7b 69.0a 73.7b 28.6b



2.56

Table 2.17 Incidence of natural enemies under different treatments of combinations of insecticide andfungicide, PCT, kharif 2012


Natural Enemies incidenceGGV

Mirid bugs(Number/10 hills) Spiders(Number/10 hills)BT AT BT AT BT AT

Buprofezin 20% + Acephate50% WP 2.0 35.3a 7.7c 18.0c 2.3c 12.0a 1.0c

Sulfoxaflor 0.6 35.0a 19.0b 32.7b 4.3c 12.3a 2.3c

Hexaconazole (Contaf Plus 5SC) 2.0 34.3a 36.0a 47.7a 38.7b 11.7a 14.7b

Tricyclazole (Baan 75 WP ) 0.6 37.0a 34.0a 51.7a 40.0b 13.0a 15.7b

(Buprofezin 20% + Acephate50% WP) +hexaconazole 2.0+2.0 33.7a 3.0d 17.3c 1.7c 13.0a 0.7c

(Buprofezin 20% + Acephate50% WP) + tricyclazole 2.0+0.6 35.0a 3.3d 15.0c 1.3c 12.0a 0.7c

Sulfoxaflor + hexaconazole 0.6+2.0 34.3a 11.7b 29.7b 2.7c 12.3a 1.3c

Sulfoxaflor + tricyclazole 0.6+0.6 33.7a 9.7c 31.3b 3.0c 12.3a 1.0c

Untreated control Water spray 35.3a 47.3a 59.0a 71.7a 11.0a 26.7a



2.57

Table 2.18 Disease incidence under different treatments of combinations of insecticide and fungicide, PCT,kharif 2012


Blast severity (%)GGT GGV RNC SBP

64DAT 54DAT

60DAT

76DATBT AT BT AT BT AT


2.0 20.0a 21.0b 26.7b 29.6d 31.1a 30.0c 20.2a 20.2c 3.5b

Sulfoxaflor 0.6 21.0a 20.7b 25.2b 28.4d 33.3ab 35.2d 18.6a 18.4c 3.7b


2.0 20.7a 6.0a 26.3bc 23.3c 38.9c 29.6c 20.0a 9.8b 1.4a

Tricyclazole (Baan 75 WP ) 0.6 22.3a 7.0a 24.4b 14.4a 35.6b 21.1a 16.3a 6.2a 0.9a


2.0+2.0 21.0a 6.3a 27.0c 24.4c 41.1c 32.2c 19.0a 10.0b 1.1a


2.0+0.6 21.3a 6.7a 30.0c 23.3c 34.4b 25.6b 18.1a 6.7a 1.2a

Sulfoxaflor + hexaconazole 0.6+2.0 21.0a 6.3a 21.5a 20.4b 30.7a 28.9c 20.0a 12.2b 1.0a

Sulfoxaflor + tricyclazole 0.6+0.6 21.0a 7.0a 24.4b 20.4b 40.4c 30.0c 18.7a 7.4a 1.5a

Untreated control Water spray 22.7a 22.3b 25.6b 32.2e 35.6b 41.5e 19.5a 21.4c 5.8b



2.58



Sheath blight severity (%)FZB GGV PTB

BT AT BT ATBuprofezin 20% + Acephate 50% WP 2.0 50.7c 33.3ab 35.6e 15.0a 75.0a

Sulfoxaflor 0.6 48.9c 35.6b 33.3d 42.5b 75.0a

Hexaconazole (Contaf Plus 5 SC) 2.0 28.6a 35.6b 24.4a 38.8b 30.0b

Tricyclazole (Baan 75 WP ) 0.6 38.8ab 37.8b 26.7b 38.8b 36.3c

(Buprofezin 20% + Acephate 50% WP)+hexaconazole 2.0+2.0 24.1a 30.7a 28.9c 46.3c 43.8d

(Buprofezin 20% + Acephate 50% WP)+ tricyclazole 2.0+0.6 39.3b 33.3ab 25.5ab 45.0c 30.0b

Sulfoxaflor + hexaconazole 0.6+2.0 24.1a 30.7a 26.7b 28.8b 26.3a

Sulfoxaflor + tricyclazole 0.6+0.6 37.5b 31.5a 25.6ab 45.0c 27.5a

Untreated control Water spray 66.7d 30.4a 39.6f 52.5d 75.0e



2.59



Brown spot severity (%)RNC REW

89DAT(BT)

95 DAT(AT)

FirstApplication

(BT)

FirstApplication

(5 AT)Second

application(BT)Second

application(5 AT)

Buprofezin 20% + Acephate50% WP 2.0 11.5a 13.6b 18.3d 26.3d 11.0d 16.3d

Sulfoxaflor 0.6 12.5a 12.6b 15.0c 20.0c 8.3c 10.7c

Hexaconazole (Contaf Plus 5SC) 2.0 11.7a 4.0a 13.0c 17.7c 7.7c 9.3bc

Tricyclazole (Baan 75 WP ) 0.6 11.5a 4.0a 8.0a 13.7b 5.0ab 7.0ab

(Buprofezin 20% + Acephate50% WP) +hexaconazole 2.0+2.0 11.8a 3.9a 10.0b 13.3ab 6.0b 8.0b

(Buprofezin 20% + Acephate50% WP) + tricyclazole 2.0+0.6 11.9a 3.3a 10.7b 16.0c 6.0b 9.0b

Sulfoxaflor + hexaconazole 0.6+2.0 12.5a 4.8a 6.7a 10.7a 3.7a 5.7a

Sulfoxaflor + tricyclazole 0.6+0.6 11.6a 2.7a 8.7a 13.0ab 5.0ab 7.0ab

Untreated control Water spray 10.9a 12.6b 22.3e 36.3e 11.7d 15.3d



2.60

Table 2.19 Grain yield in different treatments, PCT, Kharif 2012

Insecticide/Fungicide

g or mlper litre of

sprayfluid

Yield (Kg/ha) %IOC

CHN FZB GGT GGV IRS JDP MLN NWG PDC PTB RNC REW SBP SKL Mean

Buprofezin 20% +Acephate 50% WP

2.0 5222a 3030ab 2975a 6633a 2171ab 3500b 6432a 3877b 6350a 1673a 4233b 4356a 3212c 1847b 3965a 25.0

Sulfoxaflor 0.6 3444b 3136a 3018a 6400a 2671a 3583a 6811a 3568c 6000a 1755a 3833c 4853a 2761d 1887b 3837ab 22.5

Hexaconazole(Contaf Plus 5 SC)

2.0 4756ab 2988a 2457b 5700a 2154ab 3367bc 5802b 3828b 5317b 1714a 3717c 2971c 2722d 1815b 3522b 15.6

Tricyclazole (Baan75 WP )

0.6 4556a 2862b 2403b 5533a 1931ab 3450b 6072a 3818b 6083a 1633a 3833c 2995c 2605de 1663c 3531b 15.8

(Buprofezin 20% +Acephate 50%WP)+hexaconazole

2.0+2.0 4933a 3409a 3353a 6800a 2606a 3383bc 6054a 4358a 6117a 1990a 5450a 4214b 3447b 1848b 4140a 28.2

(Buprofezin 20% +Acephate 50%WP) + tricyclazole

2.0+0.6 4800a 3178a 3337a 6667a 2349ab 3883a 5532b 3942b 5667a 1735a 5483a 4143b 3917a 1840b 4034a 26.3

Sulfoxaflor +hexaconazole

0.6+2.0 4756ab 3314a 3158a 6533a 2129ab 3550b 5838b 3816b 5750a 1745a 4750b 4640a 3231b 2222a 3959a 24.9

Sulfoxaflor +tricyclazole

0.6+0.6 5400a 3262a 3172a 6600a 2309ab 3850a 5658b 3673b 5567a 1908a 4950a 4948a 2487e 1872b 3975a 25.2

Untreated control Waterspray

4156ab 2567b 2236b 3500b 1558b 3083c 5333b 2238d 5650a 1643a 3558c 2604c 1978f 1513c 2973c



2.61

2.4 ECOLOGICAL STUDIES

The ecological studies on insect pests covered i) Influence of ricecultivation methods on insect pest incidence (IRCP) and ii) Effect of PlantingDate on Pest Incidence (EPDP). The results of these trials are presented below:

i. Influence of Rice Cultivation Methods on Insect Pest Incidence (IRCP)

Limitation of water resources and labour shortage are encouragingfarmers to search for alternative methods of rice cultivation. Among these,direct seeded rice is becoming popular due to labour saving and less waterrequirement. The cultivation practices followed in direct seeded rice are quitedifferent from normal transplanted rice that might have an influence on insectpest incidence. Hence, the present trial was formulated to assess the insectpest incidence in direct seeded rice vs normal transplanted rice.

The field trial was conducted in split-plot design with cultivationmethods as main plot treatments i.e., S1) Normal transplanted system and S2)Direct seeded rice and cultivars as sub-plots i.e., V1) Hybrid and V2) Highyielding variety. The experimental area was divided into seven equal blockseach representing a replication. Each block had two main treatments with twosub-treatments. Thus, each block consisted of four plots. The experimentalarea at each location had 28 plots and no control measures were applied in anyof these plots. Observations on insect pest incidence were recorded on tenrandomly selected hills at ten day interval in each plot. At pre-harvest stage,per cent white ears were recorded. Grain yields were recorded from each plot.Grain number and grain weight from ten hills was also obtained.

In kharif 2012, the trial was conducted at 6 locations viz., Pantnagar,Pusa, Ragolu, Raipur, Rajendranagar and Ranchi. Location wise results arediscussed here:

At Pantnagar, Stem borer, leaf folder, brown planthopper, white backedplanthopper and gundhi bug incidence was recorded. Among the cultivationmethods, dead hearts, BPH, WBPH numbers and gundhi bug damage wassignificantly low in direct seeded rice (4.72% DH, 31.50 BPH, 0.07 WBPH &33.50 GB damaged grains) as compared to normal transplanted rice (Table2.20). Leaf folder damage was very low (<5%) to draw valid conclusions.However, there was no significant difference among the white ears recorded inboth the methods of rice cultivation. Among the cultivars, dead heart damage(10.96%) and BPH population at 80 DAT (58.14) was significantly high in KRH2hybrid as against HKR 47, a high yielding variety. White ears, WBPH andGundhi bug incidence was not significantly different among the cultivars. Theyield recorded was not significantly different among the cultivation methodsand cultivars. Interaction effects revealed a significant relationship with respectto dead heart damage, BPH, WBPH and gundhi bug damage whereas it wasnon-significant in case of white ears and yield.


2.62

Table 2.20 Influence of rice cultivation methods and cultivars on insect pestincidence and grain yield at Pantnagar, IRCP kharif 2012

Figures in parentheses are square root transformed values

At Pusa, stem borer and leaf folder incidence was observed at 30, 50 and 90DAT (Table 2.21). Among the cultivation methods, direct seeded rice recordedsignificantly higher dead hearts and damaged leaves at 90 DAT (24.70% DH &5.09% DL) as compared to normal transplanted method (18.27% DH & 4.11%DL). The dead heart damage at 30 & 50 DAT was not significantly differentamong the cultivation methods. Among the cultivars, dead hearts and damagedleaves were significantly higher in KRH2 hybrid (22.63% DH & 4.63% DL) ascompared to Rajendra Bhagwati variety (20.34% DH & 5.47% DL). Interactioneffects were also found significant with respect to pest damage. Grain yield wassignificantly superior in normal method (2939 kg/ ha) as against direct seededrice (2362 kg/ ha) while Rajendra bhagwati, a HYV (2755 kg/ ha) out yieldedKRH2 hybrid (2546 kg/ ha).

Main plotsSub-plots

% DH % WE BPH BPH WBPH GBYield(kg/ha)90 DAT

Preharvest

80DAT

100DAT

80DAT

Damagedgrains

Normal

Hybrid(KRH2)

17.21(4.16)

18.97(4.13)

83.14(8.80)

0.00(0.71)

26.71(5.08)

41.29(6.41) 2769

Variety(HKR 47)

10.62(3.26)

14.11(3.68)

53.71(7.17)

0.00(0.71)

15.14(3.85)

35.86(5.99) 2759

Directseeded

Hybrid(KRH2)

4.72(2.20)

12.86(3.52)

33.14(5.62)

71.57(8.45)

0.14(0.78)

32.86(5.72) 2573

Variety(HKR 47)

4.72(2.20)

12.86(3.52)

29.86(5.40)

73.43(8.56)

0.00(0.71)

31.14(5.57) 2562

LSD(P= 0.05) M in S 0.58 NS 2.04 0.77 0.99 0.48 NSS in M 0.96 NS 1.89 0.75 1.02 0.51 NS

Cultivation systemsNormal 13.92

(3.71)16.54(3.91)

68.43(7.98)

72.50(8.51)

20.93(4.47)

37.07(6.07) 2666

Directseeded

4.72(2.19)

12.86(3.52)

31.50(5.51)

0.00(0.71)

0.07(0.75)

33.50(5.78) 2666

LSD(P= 0.05) Main 0.87 NS 1.22 0.52 0.75 NS NSCV (%) 31.88 41.36 19.57 12.22 30.95 6.76 9.81Cultivars

Hybrid(KRH2)

10.96(3.18)

15.91(3.83)

58.14(7.21)

35.79(4.58)

13.36(2.90)

36.21(5.99) 2671

Variety(HKR 47)

7.67(2.73)

13.49(3.60)

41.79(6.29)

36.72(4.64)

7.64(2.32)

34.36(5.85) 2661

LSD(P= 0.05) Sub 0.41 NS 1.44 0.54 NS NS NSCV (%) 16.95 17.16 25.99 14.27 32.76 7.07 10.15


2.63

Table 2.21 Influence of rice cultivation methods and cultivars on insect pestincidence and grain yield at Pusa, IRCP kharif 2012


At Raipur, stem borer, leaf folder, caseworm and hispa incidence at 40, 50, 60and 70 DAT was observed. Among the cultivation methods, direct seeded ricerecorded significantly higher dead heart damage at 50 DAT (8.54% DH) ascompared to normal method (6.83% DH) whereas dead hearts at 40,60 and 70DAT, leaf folder, caseworm, hispa and white ear damages were not significantlydifferent among the methods (Table 2.22). Among the cultivars, dead hearts at70 DAT were significantly high in Indira Sona hybrid (8.02% DH) while whiteears were significantly high in Chandrahasini variety (33.13% WE). Grain yield,in general was low but significantly superior in direct seeded rice (1932 kg/ha)as against normal method (1578 kg/ha). Among the cultivars, highest grainyield was obtained from Indira sona hybrid (2340 kg/ha) as compared tochadrahasini variety (1170 kg/ha). Among the interactions, hybrid Indira Sonaunder direct seeded method yielded highest (2639 kg/ha) followed by the samehybrid under normal method (2041 kg/ ha).

Main plots Sub- plots % DH % DL Yield(kg/ha)90 DAT 90 DAT

NormalHybrid(KRH2) 18.61 (4.29) 4.17 (2.03) 2888Variety(Rajendra Bhagwati) 17.93 (4.23) 4.05 (2.01) 2990

Direct seeded Hybrid (KRH2) 26.65 (5.14) 5.09 (2.26) 2204Variety(Rajendra Bhagwati) 22.75 (4.76) 5.08 (2.25) 2520

LSD (P= 0.05) M in S 0.41 0.20 112S in M 0.40 0.19 151

Cultivation systemsNormal 18.27 (4.26) 4.11 (2.02) 2939Direct seeded 24.70 (4.95) 5.09 (2.25) 2362

LSD (P= 0.05) Main 0.29 0.13 128CV (%) 6.72 6.42 5.24

CultivarsHybrid(KRH2) 22.63 (4.71) 4.63 (2.14) 2546Variety(Rajendra Bhagwati) 20.34 (4.50) 4.57 (2.13) 2755

LSD (P= 0.05) Sub 0.29 0.14 79CV (%) 7.61 7.97 3.62


2.64

Table 2.22 Influence of rice cultivation methods and cultivars on insect pestincidence and grain yield at Raipur, IRCP kharif 2012


At Rajendranagar, stem borer, leaf folder, whorl maggot and hispa incidencewas observed at this location (Table 2.23). There were no significant differencesamong the cultivation methods and cultivars with respect to dead hearts andleaf folder damage. However, white ears, whorl maggot and hispa damage werefound significantly higher in normal method (53.55% WE, 4.44% WMDL &6.31% HDL)) as compared to direct seeded rice (31.38% WE, 0.56% WMDL &3.60 HDL). Among the cultivars, KRH2 hybrid recorded significantly higherwhite ears (52.21%) and whorl maggot damage (2.77%) as against SugandhaSamba variety (32.73% WE & 2.23% WMDL).

Main plots Sub- plots % DH % DH % WE Yield(kg/ha)50 DAT 70 DAT Pre harvest

NormalHybrid(Indira Sona)

6.34(2.52)

7.47(2.72)

26.05(5.07) 2041

Variety(Chandrahasini)

7.33(2.67)

7.60(2.75)

33.66(5.80) 1115

Directseeded

Hybrid(Indira Sona)

9.54(3.08)

8.56(2.92)

27.88(5.27) 2639


7.54(2.73)

5.74(2.75)

32.59(5.70) 1224

LSD (P= 0.05) M in S 0.36 0.27 0.48 146S in M 0.37 0.33 0.49 277

Cultivation systems

Normal6.83(2.59)

7.54(2.73)

29.86(5.43) 1578

Direct seeded8.54(2.90)

7.15(2.65)

30.24(5.49) 1932

LSD (P= 0.05) Main 0.26 NS NS 258CV (%) 10.40 11.09 7.27 15.88

CultivarsHybrid(Indira Sona)

7.94(2.80)

8.02(2.82)

26.96(5.17) 2340


7.43(2.70)

6.67(2.57)

33.13(5.75) 1170

LSD (P= 0.05) Sub NS 0.19 0.34 103CV (%) 11.27 8.46 7.48 7.13


2.65

Table 2.23 Influence of rice cultivation methods and cultivars on insect pestincidence and grain yield at Rajendranagar, IRCP kharif 2012

On the contrary, hispa damage was found significantly high in Sugandha Sambavariety (5.11%) as compared to KRH2 hybrid (4.80%). Grain yield was low in allthe treatments which could be due to high incidence of white ears. Grain yield wasfound significantly superior in direct seeded rice (1764 kg/ ha) as against normalmethod (1409 kg/ ha). Among the cultivars, KRH2 recorded significantly higheryield (16.7 kg/ ha) as compared to Sugandha Samba variety (1565 kg/ ha). Amongthe interactions, KRH2 hybrid and variety yielded highest under direct seeded riceas compared to both under normal method.

At Ranchi, stem borer, gall midge, leaf folder, hispa and GLH incidence wasobserved (Table 2.24). Though the incidence of dead heart, gall midge and hispa

Main plots Sub- plots % HDL % WMDL % WE Yield(kg/ha)30 DAT 30 DAT Pre harvest

NormalHybrid(KRH 2)

6.15(2.44)

4.94(2.19)

70.16(57.24) 1312

Variety(Sugandhasamba)

6.47(2.51)

3.95(1.98)

36.95(37.25) 1506

Directseeded

Hybrid(KRH 2)

3.44(1.80)

0.60(0.69)

34.26(35.58) 1902


3.75(1.87)

0.51(0.69)

28.49(31.89) 1625

LSD (P= 0.05) M in S 0.60 0.35 9.14 563S in M 0.59 0.34 8.03 508

Cultivation systems

Normal6.31(2.47)

4.44(2.08)

53.55(47.25) 1409

Direct seeded3.60(1.84)

0.56(0.69)

31.38(33.74) 1764

LSD(P= 0.05) Main 0.42 0.24 4.79 317CV (%) 21.12 18.43 12.79 21.64

CultivarsHybrid(KRH 2)

4.80(2.12)

2.77(1.44)

52.21(46.41) 1607


5.11(2.19)

2.23(1.34)

32.73(34.57) 1565

LSD (P= 0.05) Sub 0.43 0.25 6.46 398CV (%) 23.99 21.55 19.38 30.47


2.66

was low in both the cultivation methods but was significantly high in normalmethod (6.0% DH, 4.22% SS & 7.64%HDL) as compared to direct seeded rice(2.62% DH, 0.89% SS & 2.63% HDL). Leaf folder damage was significantly high indirect seeded rice (35.57% LFDL) while GLH population was significantly high innormal method (44.57).

Table 2.24. Influence of rice cultivation methods and cultivars on insect pestincidence and grain yield at Ranchi, IRCP kharif 2012


Among the cultivars, hybrid PHB 71 recorded significantly high deadheart damage (6.14% DH) and gall midge damage (3.21% SS) while SahbhagiDhan variety recorded significantly high hispa damage (4.93% HDL), GLH(43.43) and leaf folder damage (32.25% LFDL). All the interactions were foundsignificantly different from each other with respect to pest damage. Among thecultivation methods, direct seeded rice recorded superior yield (5668 kg/ ha) ascompared to normal method (4912 kg/ ha). Among the cultivars, PHB 71

Main plots Sub- plots % DH % SS % HDL GLH % LFDL Yield(kg/ha)30 DAT 30 DAT 45 DAT 70 DAT 80 DAT

NormalHybrid(PHB 71)

8.74(2.94)

2.59(1.57)

6.14(2.47)

34.14(35.73)

17.02(24.31) 5726

Variety(Sahbhagi)

3.27(1.79)

5.85(2.39)

9.14(3.02)

55.00(47.86)

24.65(29.73) 4099

Directseeded

Hybrid(PHB 71)

3.54(1.84)

1.21(1.09)

3.72(1.89)

24.00(29.23)

31.28(33.94) 6409

Variety(Sahbhagi)

1.71(1.28)

0.56(0.71)

1.54(1.22)

31.86(34.33)

39.86(39.11) 4928

LSD (P= 0.05) M in S 0.42 0.35 0.36 3.04 2.43 813S in M 0.34 0.36 0.38 3.36 3.22 716

Cultivation systems

Normal6.00(2.37)

4.22(1.98)

7.64(2.74)

44.57(41.79)

20.84(27.02) 4912

Directseeded

2.62(1.56)

0.89(0.90)

2.63(1.55)

27.93(31.77)

35.57(36.52) 5668

LSD (P= 0.05) Main 0.16 0.26 0.29 2.59 2.73 428CV (%) 9.06 19.55 14.42 7.63 9.28 8.76

CultivarsHybrid(PHB 71)

6.14(2.39)

3.21(1.55)

4.93(2.18)

29.07(32.48)

24.15(29.13) 6067

Variety(Sahbhagi)

2.49(1.53)

1.90(1.33)

5.34(2.12)

43.43(41.09)

32.25(24.42) 4513

LSD (P= 0.05) Sub 0.29 0.25 0.25 2.15 1.72 575CV (%) 18.21 21.01 14.35 7.10 6.57 13.19


2.67

hybrid (6067 kg/ ha) out yielded the Sahbhagi variety (4513 kg/ ha).Interaction effects revealed that the hybrid in both the methods recordedsignificantly superior yield over variety.

Of the 6 locations in which IRCP was conducted,damage by stem borer,hispa, whorl maggot and populations of BPH, WBPH, GLH were low in directseeded rice as compared to normal transplanted method. However, dead heartdamage at Pusa and leaf folder damage at Ranchi was high in direct seeded riceas compared to normal method. Among the cultivars, dead hearts weresignificantly high in hybrid KRH2. Leaf folder damage and GLH population wassignificantly high in Sahbhagi Dhan variety as against hybrid PHB 71. Grainyield was found significantly superior in direct seeded rice over normal methodat three of the six locations. Hybrids yielded higher than the varieties in all thelocations except at Pusa. Thus, there was no consistent trend in pest damageacross the locations that could be attributed to direct seeding practice of cropestablishment.

ii. Effect of planting dates on pest incidence (EPDP)

Changing pattern of monsoon and subsequent release of water inirrigation canals is compelling farmers to schedule planting of rice as per thesituation. Knowledge of insect pest incidence and population dynamics of pestsin relation to crop phenology and calendar is very important to devise efficientlocation specific pest management strategies. Keeping this in view, a new trialwas initiated this year to know the effect of date of planting on insect pestincidence.

During kharif 2012, the trial was conducted at 15 locations. At eachlocation, a popular variety was planted at three dates viz., normal planting asper the recommended package of practices of that region, 15 days earlier tonormal planting - designated as “early planting”, 15 days later than the normalplanting - designated as “late planting”. Each time nursery was sownseparately and plantings were done separately in 500 sq.m area. Observationson pest incidence were recorded at 10 day interval starting from the firstappearance of the pest. Location wise pest incidence at different dates ofplanting is discussed here.

Chinsurah- The most popular variety Swarna (MTU 7029) was grown in thistrial. Incidence of yellow stem borer, leaf folder, whorl maggot and green leafhopper was observed in all the three plantings Hispa damage was observedonly in early planting (<1% HDL), whereas whorl maggot damage was high inlate planting (24.75% WMDL) (Fig. 2.1).


2.68

Fig. 2.1 Pest incidence at Chinsurah in relation to planting date

Faizabad- Improved Pusa basmati was grown at this location. Only stem borerand leaf folder incidence was observed in all the three plantings. Though thedamage was <10%, late planting has relatively higher incidence as compared toearly and normal plantings (Fig. 2.2).

Fig. 2.2 Pest incidence at Faizabad in relation to planting date

Gangavathi- BPT 5204 was variety. Incidence of stem borer, leaf folder, BPH,WBPH and GLH was observed in all the three plantings. Dead heart damagewas relatively high in late planting; BPH incidence was high in normal and late


2.69

plantings; WBPH population was high in normal planting; GLH populationwas more or less same in all the plantings (Fig. 2.3). With increase in crop agein all the plantings, there was increase in the population of BPH & WBPH up to90 DAT after which there was a decline.

Fig. 2.3 Pest incidence at Gangavathi in relation to planting date

Khudwani- Leaf folder and grasshopper incidence was observed in all the threeplantings. However leaf folder damage was very low in all the plantings whilegrasshopper incidence was low to moderate with higher damage in normal andlate plantings (Fig. 2.4).

Fig. 2.4 Pest incidence at Khudwani in relation to planting date

Ludhiana- At this location, Punjab Mehak 1 was grown in this trial. Fourplantings were taken with ten day interval. Incidence of stem borer, leaf folderand planthoppers was observed in all the plantings. Though the incidence ofdead hearts and plant hoppers was low, it increased with delay in plantingwhile leaf folder damage was same in all the plantings (Fig. 2.5).


2.70

Fig. 2.5 Pest incidence at Ludhiana in relation to planting date

Nawagam- At this location, GR 11 variety was grown. Only stem borer and leaffolder incidence was observed. Damage by both the pests increased with delayin planting with maximum white ear damage (13.18%) and leaf folder damage(18.84) in late planting (Fig. 2.6).

Fig. 2.6 Pest incidence at Nawagam in relation to planting date

Pantnagar- HKR 47 variety was grown in this trial. Incidence of stem borer,leaf folder, BPH and WBPH was observed in all the plantings. BPH and WBPHpopulations increased from 70 DAT up to 110 DAT in early planting while in


2.71

normal and late plantings these increased from 30 DAT onwards. White eardamage was high in late planting (14.17%, Fig. 2.7).

Fig. 2.7 Pest incidence at Pantnagar in relation to planting date

Pusa- Rajendra Mahsuri variety was grown. Incidence of stem borer and leaffolder was only observed in different dates of planting. Dead heart damage washigh (18.33%) in normal planting as compared to early and late plantings. Leaffolder damage was very low (<2%) in all the plantings (Fig. 2.8)

Fig. 2.8 Pest incidence at Pusa in relation to planting date


2.72

Ragolu- Swarna variety was grown in this location. Incidence of stem borer,leaf folder and gall midge was observed in all the plantings. Damage by allthese pests increased with delay in planting. However the damage was foundlow with <5% dead hearts and silver shoots and <7% leaf folder damaged leavesand white ears (Fig. 2.9)

Fig. 2.9 Pest incidence at Ragolu in relation to planting date

Raipur- At this location, Swarna was grown. Both dead hearts and white earswere found high in normal planting (10.90% DH & 16.94% WE) as compared toearly and late plantings. Very low incidence of leaf folder, case worm, hispaand gall midge (<2%) was observed in all the dates of planting (Fig. 2.10).

Fig. 2.10 Pest incidence at Raipur in relation to planting date


2.73

Rewa- PS III variety was grown in this location. Gundhi bug incidence wasrelatively high (7/hill) in late planting (Fig. 2.11).

Fig. 2.11 Pest incidence at Rewa in relation to planting date

Patna- Very low incidence (<1%) of stem borer, grasshopper, gundhi bug, BPHand GLH was observed in all the plantings. Leaf folder incidence was foundincreasing with increase in crop age at different plantings with < 10% damage.

New Delhi- Pusa 1401 was grown at this location. Incidence of stem borer, leaffolder, whorl maggot, BPH and WBPH was observed in addition to predatorslike spiders, rove beetles and coccinellids. The damage by various pests wasvery low to draw any conclusions.

Ghaghraghat- NDGR 201variety was grown in this trial. Incidence of stemborer, leaf folder and whorl maggot was observed in different plantings. Thefirst appearance of whorl maggot incidence was observed on 9th August 2012,only in early and normal dates of planting at a very low intensity. Both stemborer and leaf folder damage reduced with increase in the date of planting withmaximum white ear in early planting (21.04%).

Across locations, mean pest incidence in different dates of planting indicated thatdamage (% DH, % WE, % LFDL, % WMDL, % SS, % CWDL & GB/ hill) wasrelatively high in late planting as compared to early and normal plantingswhereas the number of BPH/ WBPH per hill were high in early planting ascompared to late planting.


2.74

2.5 BIOCONTROL AND BIODIVERSITY STUDIES

These studies covered i) Monitoring of pest species and their natural enemies(MPNE) and ii) Ecological Engineering for Planthopper Management (EEPM)

i) Monitoring of pest species and their natural enemies (MPNE)

This trial, initiated in 2008 combining the objectives of monitoring ofspecies composition of rice pests along with their natural enemies wasconducted at 22 centers viz., Gangavathi, Maruteru, Moncompu, Nellore,Ragolu, Rajendranagar and Warangal, (Southern India) Kaul, Ludhiana,Pantnagar, Gagharaghat and New Delhi (Northern India), Pusa, Chinsurah,Sambalpur (Eastern India), Karjat, Navasari and Nawagam (Western India),Sakoli, Raipur (Central India) and Chatha, Khudwani (Hills). The studyinvolved observations to be recorded at regular intervals, from an area of 1000m2 unsprayed plot, on the endemic pest species and their natural enemypopulations.

Results1. Stem borer:Species composition: Observations on stem borers were received from 12centres. At Ludhiana three species of stem borer viz., YSB, WSB and PSB wereobserved at maximum tillering and flowering and dough stages of crop growth(Fig. 2.12.). The YSB was dominant during the vegetative phase accounting for48.3 % of the population, but declined over the crop growth stages composingof only 7.1% at the dough stage. WSB accounted for 21-22 per cent up toflowering and declined later to a mere 4% of the population, while PSBincreased from 30 to 81 per cent as the crop matured. At Gagharaghat andPantnagar, two species were reported. At Gagharaghat, the mean population ofYSB throughout the crop growth period was 90% and PSB (10%) while atPantnagar PSB accounted for 6.1-11.7% of stem borers observed. In thesouthern region YSB accounted for 96-100 per cent of population atRajendranagar and Nellore. At Moncompu four species of stem borer wereobserved with WSB being as dominant as YSB in the earlier phase of cropgrowth, accounting for 41.98-62.3%. The mean species composition of stemborers was YSB (44.33%), WSB (35.09%), PSB (3.10%) and SSB (17.48%). Inthe central region too, YSB dominated with Karjat reporting only YSB and inNavasari, YSB accounting for 96.4% the remaining being WSB based on larvalcolour. At Raipur YSB was the dominant species accounting for 83.3- 92% ofthe population while PSB accounted for the rest. The YSB was the mostdominant species in other centres like Nellore, Chiplima, Sambalpur where itaccounted for 99- 100% of the population.


2.75

Fig. 2.12 Stem borer species composition at Ludhiana, MPNE, kharif 2012

Natural enemies: Egg parasitoids- The egg mass parasitisation ranged from 38-100% while the egg parasitisation varied from 3 -90% at various locations. AtRajendranagar the egg mass parasitisation ranged from 34.4-86.5% while eggparasitisation was 27.7-90.7%. Three parasitoids were observed viz.,Tetrastichus (14.6%), Telenomus (38%) and Trichogramma (47.7%). At Nellore35 % egg mass parsitisation was observed. The mean egg parasitzation atKarjat was 50% with two species accounting for the parasitisation –Trichogramma sp (30.54%) and Telenomus (69.46%). At Pantnagar the egg massparasitisation ranged from 84-96% over four dates of observation while eggparasitisation by Telenomus sp. ranged from 27.3 to 47%. At Ludhiana sweepnet samples were taken to assess natural enemy population. The parasitoidsrecorded were Xanthopimpla and other ichneumonids, Charops and otherbraconids. The predators recorded were Brumus sp. and other coccinellids,damselflies, dragonflies, staphylinids and spiders belonging to the families -Araenidae, Tetragnathidae, Salticidae, Oxyopidae and Lycosidae. In Sambalpur(Chiplima) the egg mass parasitisation was 40-70% while mean eggparasitisation by Trichogramma sp. was 63.4%. The parasitisation of eggmasses at Chinsurah was 20-70% while egg parasitisation ranged from 3.3 to48.25%. At Raipur the egg mass parsitisation was very low in early cropgrowth (10%) increasing to 90 per cent at the later stages. But the mean eggmass parasitisation was only 16.15% and did not exceed 42% at any time. Thesingle parasitoid was Telenomus sp.


2.76

Leaf folder

Species composition: Observations on leaf folder were recorded at six centresviz., Aduthurai, Chatha, Nawagam, Ludhiana, Raipur and Sambalpur. AtAduthurai, two leaf folder species were reported based on larval characteristics,Cnaphalocrocis medinalis accounted for 80% and Marasmia sp. 20%. InChatha, Nawagam and Ludhiana C. medinalis accounted for 100% of theleaffolder population. At Raipur C. medinalis dominated (98.41%) whileMarasmia sp. accounted for the rest.

Natural enemies: Four parasitoids were recorded in all. At Chatha, threeleaffolder parasitoids were observed, Trichogramma chilonis, Apanteles sp. andCharops sp. 15- 20 % larval parasitisation by Apanteles sp. was observed. InNawagam, the pupal parasitism was 17.83% by Xanthopimpla sp. and larvalparasitism was 52.5% by the non gregarious Apanteles sp. At Raipur, totallarval parasitism of 12% was observed by non gregarious (8%) and gregarious(4%) Apanteles sp. Pupal parasitism of 8% by Xanthopimpla sp. was alsoobserved. At Sambalpur mean larval parasitism of 10.07% was recorded overfour dates of observation.

Planthoppers

Species composition: Nine centres viz., Kaul, Gangavathi, Ludhiana, Maruteru,New Delhi Pusa, Raipur, Sambalpur and Warangal reported on the status ofhoppers and their natural enemies. WBPH occurred in early part of cropgrowth at Kaul and was followed by a mixed population of WBPH and BPH witha mean ratio of 5.13:1. Similarly at Gangavathi a mixed population of BPH(68.72/hill) and WBPH (41.03/hill) occurred. But in Maruteru BPH populationwas observed initially (8.64/hills) while WBPH population became higher by theend of September (59.12/hill) when BPH was seen at 29.7/hill. Subsequentlyboth hoppers declined. A mixed population of BPH and WBPH were observed atLudhiana throughout the crop growth. The WBPH population was higher in theearly stages while after August the BPH population increased. The mean ratioof BPH to WBPH population was nearly equal (1.1:1). At New Delhi, lowincidence of BPH (1.87/hill) and WBPH (0.53/hill) were observed. The overallBPH - WBPH ratio was 4:1. Three hoppers BPH (7.08), WBPH (4.75) and GLH(13.25) per 10 hills were observed at Raipur. The mean BPH to WBPH ratio over6 observations was 1.5:1. At Warangal only the Brown plant hopper (3.74-5.16/hill was observed). A mixed population of BPH and WBPH was alsoobserved at Sambalpur in the ratio of 3.2:1.

Natural enemies: In general observations on hopper predators were reportedfrom all nine locations. The predators recorded at Kaul were spiders (13.35/10hills) and mirids (6.6/10 hills). Mirids (7.93/hill) and spiders (3.8/10 hills)were the hopper predators observed at Maruteru. The mean population of


2.77

predators observed at Gangavathi was green mirids (5.17), brown mirids (2.43),spiders (0.88) and coccellinids (0.14) per hill. At New Delhi, green mirids (3.9),spiders (4.01), coccinellids (0.32), dryinids (0.25), staphylinid beetles (1.8) perten hills were the natural enemies observed. Spiders, staphylinid beetles,mirids and coccinellids were equally abundant (2.08-3.83/10 hills). Greenmirids, spiders and coccinellids were observed in low numbers at Warangalwhile coccinellids and spiders were observed at Pusa.

Gall midge

Data on gall midge were received from 6 locations viz., Moncompu,Ragolu, Raipur, Sakoli, Sambalpur, and Warangal. The mean galls per hillranged from 0.17 to 1.08 across locations. The highest was at Moncompu(1.08/hill) with 18.8% parasitized galls. At Ragolu the mean galls observedwas 0.17 with a parasitisation rate of 10.52%. At Raipur the per centparasitized gall was low (5%) for an infestation of 0.95 galls/hill. At Sakoli peakinfestation was observed in November with 34.4% silver shoots. The range ofparasitisation was 29.52-86.29% (Fig 2.13). The per cent parasitised gallsobserved at Sambalpur was 38.69 %. At Warangal, the mean galls observedfrom 100 hills were 0.79/hill and 22.5% were parasitized galls. The speciesobserved at all centres was Platygaster oryzae.

Fig 2.13 Infestation and parasitisation of gall midge at Sakoli, MPNE, Kharif 2012

Observations on species composition of stem borer revealed four species, whileegg mass parasitisation ranged from 38-100% and the egg parasitisation variedfrom 3 -90% at various locations. Observations on leaf folder species reaffirmeddominance of Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (80%) over Marasmia sp. (20%).Trichogramma chilonis as egg parasitoid, Apanteles sp. as larval andXanthopimpla sp. as pupal parasitoid were abundant. A mixed population ofBPH and WBPH was observed at all the locations. Mirids, spiders, staphylinidbeetles and coccinellids were abundant natural enemies of hoppers. Platygasteroryzae was the only parasitoid recorded on gall midge.


2.78

ii) Ecological Engineering for Planthopper Management (EEPM)

This new trial was proposed with the objective to use non-pesticidalmethods to manage planthopper pests by enhancing natural enemy fitnessthrough floral diversity and thereby increase natural biological control and toaugment egg predators of hoppers. Data was recorded on hoppers and theirnatural enemies and analyses using the independent t test.

At Gangavathi the trial was conducted for the first time. In the ecologicalengineering (EE) plots the interventions were alleyways and border crop ofcowpea. Eight observations on hoppers and their natural enemies were takenfrom 40DAT at 10 day intervals. When the overall data was analysed, it wasfound that the hopper numbers though higher in EE plots (81.97) were notstatistically different from those noted in the plots with farmers practices- FP(54.25, Table 2.25). But the green mirids, spiders and coccinellids weresignificantly higher in EE plots indicating a positive trend for these practices.

Table 2.25 Effect of ecological engineering on populations of hoppers and theirnatural enemies at Gangavathi, EEPM, kharif 2012

At Kaul, the hoppers and their natural enemies were sampled in plots ofTaraori basmati, that followed farmers’ practice and plots with wider spacing(20*20). The population of hoppers was lower in farmers practice plots(95.85/10 hills) but there was no significant difference between the hopper,mirids or spider populations in the two treatments. Since, other than widerspacing, no interventions to ecologically engineer the habitat, these resultshave limited significance in the context of this trial.

The EE interventions followed at Ludhiana where the trial was taken upfor the first time were: alleyways, water management, bund flora of floweringplants like balsam, sesame, marigold, cockscomb etc. The t test showed asignificant difference in numbers of hoppers and its natural enemies recordedin EE and FP plots (Table 2.26). The hopper numbers were lower in EE plots(9.44/10hills) while mirids were significantly higher (10.16/10 hills). Thespider and coccinellid population was also higher in the EE plots. Egg baitingfor parsitisation revealed 28.4 % parasitisation of BPH eggs in the EE plots ofwhich 34.6% was by Anagrus 3.7% by Oligosita and 61.7% by Gonatocerus.

Parameters BPH WBPH Green mirids Spiders Coccinellids

No./10 HillsEE FP EE FP EE FP EE FP EE FP

Mean 81.97 54.25 37.52 13.65 48.24 4.47 14.6 4.47 5.36 0.291t value 1.67 NS 2.29 NS 4.50** 3.41** 4.52**df 14 14 14 14 14P - value 0.12 0.19 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01


2.79

Table 2.26 Effect of ecological engineering on hoppers and their naturalenemies at Ludhiana, EEPM, kharif 2012

At Mandya, floral diversity was increased in EE plots by growing cowpea on thebunds. Data on population of hoppers and spiders/10hills and other naturalenemies was recorded. The mean population of BPH/10 hills in EE plots wassignificantly lower (121.40) from that in FP plots (180.20) (Table 2.27). Whilegreen mirid population did not differ significantly in the two plots, the spiderand coccinellid populations in the EE plots were significantly higher thanthose in FP plots.

Table 2.27 Effect of ecological engineering on hoppers and their naturalenemies at Mandya, EEPM, kharif 2012

The EE interventions tested at Maruteru were alleyways, organic manuringand bund flora. The observations on hoppers and their natural enemies weretaken five times from 2DAT every 10 days. The overall analysis of pooled datashows a significantly lower population of BPH in plots with farmers practices(30.28/10 hills) while WBPH population did not differ significantly between EEand FP plots (Table 2.28). Similarly difference in green mirid population wasalso not statistically significant while spiders and dryinid parasitoids weresignificantly higher in the EE plots.

Parameters Hoppers Greenmirids

Spiders Coccinellids

No./10 hillsEE FP EE FP EE FP EE FP

Mean 9.44 11.96 10.16 8.16 9.96 7.12 2.00 1.04t value 2.25* 4.56** 5.67** 3.01**df 14 14 498 498P - value 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 0.01

Parameters Hoppers Greenmirids

Spiders Coccinellids

No./10 HillsEE FP EE FP EE FP EE FP

Mean 121.40 180.20 4.60 4.00 9.60 5.00 1.80 0.40t value 6.18** 0.51NS 3.67** 2.27*df 98 98 98 98P - value <0.01 0.6 <0.01 0.02


2.80

Table 2.28 Effect of ecological engineering on hoppers and their naturalenemies at Maruteru, EEPM, kharif 2012

Parameters BPH WBPH Greenmirids

Spiders Drynids

No./10 HillsEE FP EE FP EE FP EE FP EE FP

Mean 209.72 30.28 57.56 52.00 5.16 4.36 8.44 3.52 8.44 3.52t value 7.75** 0.901 NS 1.52 NS 4.91 ** 4.96**df 498 498 14 498 498P - value <0.01 0.37 0.12 <0.01 <0.01

Non-pesticidal methods to manage planthopper pests by enhancing naturalenemy fitness through floral diversity and thereby increase natural biologicalcontrol and to augment egg predators of hoppers was the objective of Ecologicalengineering for pest management trial. Such interventions reduced planthopperpopulations and increased their natural enemy populations across the locations.


2.81

2.6 INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT

This section includes two trials viz., i) Yield loss estimation trial (YLET)initiated last year and ii) a new trial on Integrated pest management special(IPMs) trial. The details of these two trials are discussed below.

i. Yield Loss Estimation Trial (YLET)

Rice crop is damaged by different insect pests throughout the cropgrowth period. Information on actual yield losses caused by these insect pestsin the field is limited and vague. Hence, the present trial was formulated withthe main objective of generating data on the losses caused by specific insectpests at different stages of the crop growth. Target pests included stem borerand leaf folder. Varying levels of specific pest damage was created byaugmenting through the release of egg masses or larvae at different cropgrowth stages to know the impact on grain yield.

Experimental area was divided into two equal sized plots. In one plot,natural pest incidence was recorded. In another plot, the target pest wasaugmented by releasing egg masses or larvae at five marked areas covering fourhills in each range. Thus the augmented plot had three ranges and five markedareas in each range. Data were recorded on pest damage just before releaseand prior to harvest. No insecticide was applied in any of these plots.

During Kharif 2012, the trial was conducted at seven locations viz.,Aduthurai, Chinsurah, Jagdalpur, Ludhiana, Pantnagar, Pattambi andPuducherry. Location wise results are presented below:

At Aduthurai, ADT 43 variety was grown. Leaf folder was augmented byreleasing 10 larvae/plant at 25 DAT and panicle initiation stage. Observationson damage were taken at 65 DAT and at booting stage. Finally grain yield wasrecorded from each hill and expressed as g/m2. Leaf folder damage varied from21 to 64 DL/ m2 at 65 DAT and 16 to 65 DL/ m2 at booting stage. Gall midgedamage was also observed which ranged between 0 to 9 galls / m2 at 65 DAT.Grain yield varied from 300 to 700 g/ m2. Regression analysis revealed a non-significant r2 =0.1876) but negative relation between leaf folder damagedleaves at 65 DAT and booting stage and galls at 65 DAT (Table 2.29).

At Chinsurah, IET 7029 variety was used in this experiment. Stem borerwas augmented twice by pinning egg masses in each marked area. Dead heartdamage ranged between 3.67 to 34.33/m2 at 50 DAT and white ears variedfrom 2.00 to 28.33/m2. Grain yield ranged between 217 to 600 g/m2.Regression analysis revealed a non- significant (r2 = 0.1403) negative relationbetween grain yield and dead hearts at 50 DAT but was non- significant andpositive between grain yield and white ears (Table 2.29).


2.82

Table 2.29 Relationship between grain yield and damage levels at differentcrop growth stages, at various locations in YLET during Kharif, 2012

* significant at p=0.05; ** significant at p=0.01; NS= Not significant

Location Regression Equation Multiple R r2

Ludhiana Y = 8.15 - 0.08 X1NS - 0.13 X2* - 0.06 X3NS

Wherein, X1 = % DH at 65 DATX2 = % WEX3 = % LFDL at 65 DAT

0.9294** 0.8638

Puducherry Y = 297.34 + 0.69 X1NS - 2.79 X2** - 1.68 X3 NS

Wherein, X1 = damaged flag leaves/ hillX2 = No. of larvae/ hillX3 = % LFDL

0.7806* 0.6093

Pattambi Y = 193.14 - 1.12 X1 ** - 0.46 X2NS + 0.30 X3 NS

Wherein, X1 = % LFDL at 50 DATX2 = % LFDL at 75 DATX3 = % WE

0.5759** 0.3316

Chinsurah Y = 442.53 – 6.72 X1 NS + 2.01 X2NS

Wherein, X1 = DH/ m2 at 50 DATX2 = WE / m2

0.3745 NS 0.1403

Pantnagar Y = 21.36 + 0.01 X1 NS - 0.10 X2 NS

Wherein, X1 = % DHX2 = % WE

0.1555 NS 0.0242

Y = 97.95 + 1.11 X1 NS - 2.06 X2 NS

Wherein, X1 = LFDL/hillX2 = damaged flag leaves/ hill

0.1967 NS 0.0387

Jagdalpur Y = 8.34 + 1.50 X1 NS - 5.34 X2 NS + 1.00 X3 NS

Wherein, X1 = LFDL / hillX2 = damaged flag leaves/ hillX3 = No. of larvae/ hill

0.5540 NS 0.3069

Aduthurai Y = 647.50 - 4.07 X1 NS - 1.37 X2 NS - 0.60 X3 NS

Wherein, X1 = LFDL/ m2 at 65 DATX2 = Galls / m2 at 65 DATX3 = LFDL/ m2 at booting

0.4331 NS 0.1876


2.83

At Jagdalpur, Swarna variety was grown. Leaf folder population wasaugmented by releasing early instar larvae at 60 DAT. Leaf folder damageranged from 3.5 to 5 DL /hill. The average number of flag leaves damaged in ahill varied between 1 and 1.75. Average number of live larvae/hill variedbetween 0.25 and 1. Grain yield ranged from 4.05 to 11.8 g/ hill. Multipleregression analysis revealed a non-significant (r2 = 0.3069) positive relationbetween grain yield and number of damaged leaves, number of larvae per hillwhereas the relation was non-significant and negative between grain yield anddamaged flag leaves per hill (Table 2.29).

At Ludhiana, Punjab Basmati 2 was grown. Only the natural pestincidence was recorded; efforts were not made for augmenting the damagelevels. Dead heart damage at 65 DAT varied from 1.35 to 10.46% and whiteears from 1.37 to 15.20%. Leaf folder damaged leaves ranged between 12.65and 20.92% at 65 DAT. Grain yield varied from 4.42 to 7.09 kg/m2. Multipleregression analysis revealed a significant (r2 = 0.8638) negative relationbetween grain yield and white ears while it was positive between grain yieldand dead hearts and leaf folder damaged leaves at 65 DAT (Table 2.29).

At Pantnagar, HKR 47 was grown in this trial. Both, stem borer and leaffolder populations were augmented by releasing egg masses or larvae,respectively, in each marked area. Dead hearts ranged from 0 to 50 % andwhite ears varied between 0 to 41.67 %. Grain yield varied from 7.46 to 41.13g/plant. Leaf folder damaged leaves ranged between 1.25 to 4.25 DL/ hill anddamaged flag leaves varied from 0.25 to 3.00 /hill. Grain yield varied from18.20 to 33.22 g/ hill. Multiple regression analysis revealed a non- significantrelation between grain yield and % dead hearts and % white ears ( r2 = 0.0242).Table 2.29 presents the data on the relation between grain yield and leaf folderdamaged leaves and damaged flag leaves which was also found to be non-significant (r2 = 0.0387).

At Pattambi, Jyothi variety was grown. Stem borer was augmented byreleasing egg masses and leaf folder by releasing larvae in each markedquadrate. Leaf folder damaged leaves ranged from 0.07 to 18.92 per quadrateat 65 DAT while it was 0 to 13.54 DL per quadrate at 75 DAT. White earsvaried between 0 and 61.1 per quadrate and grain yield ranged from 40 to 250g per quadrate. Regression analysis revealed a significant (r2 =0.3316) negativerelation between grain yield and leaf folder damaged leaves while it was positivebetween grain yield and white ears (Table 2.29).

At Puducherry, ADT 45 was grown for this trial. Both, stem borer and leaffolder populations were augmented. Leaf folder damaged leaves ranged from1.72 to 3.48 per hill whereas damaged flag leaves varied between 3 and 7 perhill. Number of larvae ranged between 8 and 32 per hill and grain yield of 198to 300 g was recorded from each hill. Regression analysis (Table 2.29) revealed


2.84

a significant relation between grain yield and LFDL, damaged flag leaves andlarvae per hill (r2 = 0.6093).

Yield loss estimation trial (YLET) was conducted at seven locations for twopests viz., stem borer and leaf folder. Stem borer population was augmented bypinning egg masses at booting stage and leaf folder population was augmentedby releasing larvae at panicle initiation stage, in varying numbers to createdifferent damage levels. Regression analysis revealed a significant impact ofpest damage on grain yield at three locations viz., Ludhiana, Puducherry andPattambi. A significant negative relation between grain yield and white ears wasobserved at Ludhiana (r2 = 0.8638). At Puducherry, number of leaf folder larvaeper hill had a significant negative impact on grain yield (r2 = 0.6093). Similarly atPattambi, leaf folder damaged leaves at 50 DAT had significant impact on grainyield (r2 =0.3316).

ii) Integrated Pest Management Special (IPMs) Trial

Intensive cultivation of rice has resulted in the frequent outbreaks ofpests and diseases, of late. Though the concept of IPM is old and is accepted byall the stakeholders, implementation at farmers’ level is tragically limited. IPMimplementation involves series of decision processes based on knowledge andexecution of these decisions need skills. As IPM involves a number ofcomponents, farmers must have capability of taking decisions and selectingIPM options accordingly for economical and long term management. Most ofthese options also need to be refined at individual farm level keeping in viewthe availability and feasibility of farmers. Keeping this in view, a new trial onIPM was initiated two years back with an objective to validate IPM practicesfrom a basket of options available and demonstrate to farmers the managementof pests in a holistic way (including insects, diseases and weeds).

During kharif 2012, the trial was conducted at 13 locations viz.,Chinsurah, Coimbatore, Gangavathi, Jagdalpur, Karjat, Kaul, Ludhiana,Maruteru, Navasari, Nellore, Ranchi, Raipur and Sakoli. The pest managementpractices followed in IPM and farmers practice at these locations are given inTable 2.30.


2.85

Table. 2.30 Location wise pest management practices followed in IPM andFarmers practice, Kharif 2012

LOCATION : CHINSURAHPractices adopted IPM Farmers practice

Area 0.5 acre 0.5 acreVariety Swarna sub 1 Swarna sub 1Date of sowing 12.7.12 12.7.12Date of planting 22.8.12 22.8.12

NurseryDuring seed bed preparation,applied 1.5 kg mustard cake

During seed bedpreparation, applied 1.5kg mustard cake

Main field Transplanted seedlings at aspacing of 20 x 15 cm.

Transplanted seedlings atrandomly

Applied 31 kg 10-26-26 and 28 kgUrea

Applied 30 kg SSP, 22.5kg MOP and 7 kg Urea

Applied Butachlor @ 3 kg and onehand weeding was done

Two hand weedings weredone

Installed 3 pheromone traps forstem borer and changed lures 5times during the crop growthperiod.Applied Ferterra 0.4 GR @ 4 kg/acre and sprayed Coragen 18.5%SC @ 60 ml/ acre

Applied Phorate 10 G @4.5 kg/ acre and sprayedtwice, Tarzan 40% EC @750 ml/ acre.

LOCATION : LUDHIANAPractices adopted IPM Farmers practice

Area 0.5 acre 0.5 acreVariety PR 111 PR 111Nursery i) Seed treatment Emisan-6,

Streptocyclineii) Urea= 1.040 kg/ for 1 acre

nurseryiii) Zinc Sulphate= 1.0 kg/ for 1

acre nursery

i) Urea= 1.040 kg/ for 1acre nursery

ii) Zinc Sulphate= 1.0kg/ for 1 acre nursery

Main field i) Applied Butachlor @ 1.2 l/acre

ii) Applied Chlorpyriphos @ 1.0l/ acre

iii) Applied Tilt @ 200 ml/ acreiv) Recommended dose of Urea -

110 kg/ acrev) Applied Zinc Sulphate= 25 kg/

acrevi) Added Baby corn left over mix

in the fieldvii) Adopted proper plant

Applied Butachlor @ 1.2l/ acreSprayed Acephate @ 500g / acreSprayed Actara @ 75ml/acreTilt @ 200 ml/ acreUrea 130 kg/ acreZinc Sulphate= 25 kg/acre


2.86

spacingviii) Alley ways of 30 cm after

every 2 mix) Installed Pheromone traps 8

traps/ hax) Water management for

planthoppers

LOCATION : SAKOLIPractices adopted IPM Farmers practice

Area 0.4 acre 0.4 acreVariety PKV HMT PKV HMTDate of sowing 6.7.12 6.7.12Date of planting 26.7.12 26.7.12Nursery i) Seed treatment done with

Carbandezim @ 10 g for 10 kgseedsii) Applied Carbofuran @ 1.1kg a.i./ ha, 5 days before pullingseedlings from nursery fortransplantation

Seed treatment done with3% salt solution andthirum @ 30 g / 10 kgseed

Main field i) Seedlings transplanted at aspacing of 20 x 15 cm

ii) Left alley ways of 30 cm forevery 10 rows.

iii)Applied Butachlor 1.5 kg ai/ haat 3rd day aftertransplantation.

iv) At 15 DAT, installed pheromonetraps with 5 mg lure(Scirpoload) @ 8 traps/ ha formonitorinbg stem borer.

v) Manual weeding at 35 DATvi) N was top dressed at 45DAT

vii) Sprayed Cartaphydrochloride 50 WP @ 600 g/ha at 60 DAT

viii) Blanket application ofPropiconazole 0.1%

ix) Mid season drainagefollowed

i) Seedlings transplantedat a spacing of 20 x 15cm

ii) Sprayed Chlorpyriphos@ 20 ml / 10 literwater

iii)Sprayed the crop withcopper oxy chloride @25 g per 10 litre ofwater andStreptocycline @ 0.5 g/10 l of water at 25 DAT

x) Manual weeding doneat 35 DAT

iv) Sprayed the crop withcopper oxy chloride @25 g per 10 litre ofwater andStreptocycline @ 0.5 g/10 l of water at 40 DAT

xi)N was top dressed at45 DAT

LOCATION: KAULPractices adopted IPM Farmers practice

Area 2000 sq.m 2000 sq.m


2.87

Variety CSR 30 CSR 30Date of sowing 22.6.12 22.6.12Date of planting 22.7.12 22.7.12

NurserySeed treatmentUrea 100 kg, DAP 50 kg

Seed treatmentUrea 100 kg, DAP 50 kg

Main field i) Seedlings transplanted at aspacing of 20 x 15 cm

ii) Applied 187.5 kg SSP, 125 kgUrea, 25 kg Zinc sulphate

iii) Applied Butachlor 3.0 litres/haiv) Sprayed Monocrotophos1.25

l/hav) Sprayed Monochrotophos1.25

l/havi) Sprayed Tricyclazole 300 g/ha

i) Seedlings transplantedat random

ii) Applied 250 kg SSP,250 kg Urea, 25 kgZinc sulphate & 125 kgMOP

iii)Applied Butachlor 2.5litres/ha

iv) SprayedCartaphydrochloride18.75 kg/ha,Imidacloprid 250ml/ha, Lambdacyhalothrin 625 ml/ha

v) Sprayed Propiconazole625 ml/ha

LOCATION: GANGAVATHIPractices adopted IPM Farmers practice

Area 4000 sq.m 4000 sq.mVariety BPT 5204 BPT 5204

Main field Fertilizers applied – 60:30:30Fertilizers applied –120:60:60

LOCATION: COIMBATOREArea 1 acre 1 acreVariety CORH4 CORH4Main field i) Applied neem cake

ii) Applied Butachloriii) Hand weeding done onceiv) Sprayed Rogor oncev) Sprayed Profenophos once

i) Applied neem cakeii) Applied Butachloriii) Hand weeding done

twiceiv) Sprayed Rogor

oncev) Sprayed

Profenophos twiceLOCATION: MARUTERUPractices adopted IPM Farmers practice

Area 3000 sq.m 3000 sq.mVariety MTU 1064 MTU 1064Nursery Applied carbofuran

4 kg urea/ 5 cents, 7 kg SSP & 1.5kg MOP

Applied Monocrotophos @1.6 ml/l5 kg urea


2.88

Main field i) Applied 150 kg SSP, 26 kgMOP, 75 kg Urea/ acre

ii) Weedicide appliediii)One hand weeding doneiv) Propiconazole and

hexaconazole sprayedagainst sheath blight

v) Sprayed cartap hydrochloride

i) Applied 50 kg 20-20,100 kg SSP, 20 kgMOP/ acre

ii) Weedicide appliediii)One hand weeding

doneiv) Propiconazole and

hexaconazolesprayed againstsheath blight

v) Applied Phoratevi) Sprayed buprofezin,

cartap, coragen,acephate

LOCATION: NAVSARIPractices adopted IPM Farmers practice

Area 1000 sq.m 1000 sq.mVariety GR 11 GR 11Date of sowing 22.6.12 22.6.12Date of planting 26.7.12 26.7.12

Nursery

i) Seed treatment done withcarbandazim @ 2 g/kg of seed(Wet seed treatment).Treatedseed soaked overnight and keptfor germination in gunny bag.ii) Applied Butachlor @25ml/250 m2 nursery areaiii) Carbofuran was broadcasted @ 1.0 a.i /ha 7 daysbefore transplanting

Main field i)Alleyways(30cm) providedBroadcasting of Carbofuran @1.0 kg a.i/ha within week afterTP

ii) Pheromone traps wereinstalled @ 8/ha 20 DAT

iii) Release of Trichogrammajaponicum at 30 and 45 DAT @1, 60,000 eggs/ha.

iv) Bi-spyribac sodium @250ml/ha at 2-3 leaf stage ofweeds- as spot application

v) Foliar spray of carbandazim@ 0.5g /lit of water at 45 & 65DAT

i)2 to 3 Hand weeding asper need

ii) Foliar spray ofchlorpyriphos 20 EC @2 ml/lit of water at 65and 90 DA

LOCATION: KARJATPractices adopted IPM Farmers practice

Area 1 acre 1 acre


2.89

Variety Karjat 7 RatnaLOCATION: RANCHIArea 3500 sq.m 1750 sq.mVariety Naveen IR 64Date of sowing 6.7.12 6.7.12Date of planting 31.7.12 31.7.12Nursery i) Seed treatment with

carbendazim (Bavistin) @ 10g/10 kg of paddy seeds

ii) Applicatiion of carbofuran 3G@ 1.10 kg a.i./ha I seed bedat 5 days before transplating

Main field i) Planting at a spacing of 20 x15 cm

ii) Provision of alley ways afterevery 2m

iii)Application of butachlore @1.5 kg a.i. /ha at 4 DAT(days after transplanting)

iv) Manual weeding at 35 DATv) Foliar spray with

cartaphydro chloride 50 SP @600 g/ha at 30, 65 & 75DAT along with follar sprayof propiconazole (0.10%)

vi) Release of Trichogrammajaponicum @ 1.5 lakheggs/ha thrice at weeklyintervals, starting at 40 DAT(i.e. at 40, 46 & 55 DAT's)

vii) Spraing with Mancozeb-M45 @ 2 kg/ha at panicleinitiation stage againstbrown spot & blast disease(applied twice at weeklyinterval)

viii) Foliar spray with trizophos40 EC @ 1.0 Lit/ha atmilking stage against ear bugas preventive measures.

i) Random plantingii) Manual weeding at

35 DAT, 60 DATiii)Foliar spraying with

quinalphos @ 1.0lit/ha at 40 DAT, 60DAT & 90 DAT.Foliar spraying withquinalphos @ 1.0lit/ha at 40 DAT, 60DAT & 90 DAT.

iv) spraying withcarbendazim(Bavistin) @0.5kg/ha at 50 & 70DAT.

v) Foliar dusting withFenval dust @20kg/ha agaisntgundhi bug atmilking stage of thecrop. Foliar dustingwith Fenval dust@20 kg/ha agaisntgundhi bug atmilking stage of thecrop.

LOCATION: RAIPURPractices adopted IPM Farmers practice

Area 1 acre 1 acreVariety Swarna SwarnaNursery & main field Seed treatment done with Bavistin

Carbofuran applied 5 days prior totransplantation Ferterra granules applied


2.90

At Jagdalpur, Swarna was grown in this trial. Stem borer, leaf folder,whorl maggot, BPH, WBPH, GLH, leaf blast incidence was observed (Table2.31). Leaf folder damage was double in FP (18.38%) as compared to IPM(9.91%) and GLH numbers were high in FP (23.47) as compared to IPM (16.05).The weed control rating score in IPM plot was 2.20 and in FP, it was 4.63showing the intensity of weed problem androle of IPM practices in reducing weed population. Grain yield was significantlyhigh in IPM, though the BC ratio was not quite different in both the practices.

At Chinsurah, Stem borer, leaf folder, whorl maggot and hispa damagewas observed in both IPM and farmers practice plots. Swarna sub 1 variety wasgrown in both the plots at farmers’ field. In general the pest incidence was verylow (Table 2.32). Though the damage was less than ETL, insecticides wereapplied as a prophylactic measure. BC ratio was almost same in IPM (2.57) andFarmers practice (2.31).

At Ludhiana, the trial was taken up at Tugal village in Ludhiana districtwith PR 11 variety. Stem borer, leaf folder, BPH, WBPH, false smut, sheathblight and BLB incidence was observed (Table 2.33). Though the pest incidencewas relatively high in farmers practice as compared to IPM plots, but it is belowETL. Plant hopper management practices like provision of alley ways, watermanagement and spacing were adopted in IPM field. The weed control ratingscore recorded in IPM plot was 0.6 and 1.00 in FP indicating the effectivenessof IPM practices in weed management. Grain yield obtained was high in IPM(8187 kg/ ha) resulting in BC ratio of 5.75.

At Sakoli, PKV HMT was grown. Stem borer, gall midge, leaf folder, BPH,WBPH, leaf blast and BLB was recorded (Table 2.34). Gall midge damage washigh in FP (11.32%SS) as compared to IPM (8.11% SS). BPH & WBPH numberswere also significantly high in farmer’s practices as compared to IPM, whichcould be mainly due to wider spacing, provision of alley ways and mid seasondrainage. These practices were not followed in FP plot. The weed populationwas significantly low in IPM plot with nearly three times less population than inFP. The weed dry weight also indicated similar trend.Grain yield wassignificantly high in IPM (2800 kg/ ha) as compared to FP (1760 kg/ ha).Similarly BC ratio was high in IPM (1.72) than FP (1.32).

At Kaul, CSR 30 was grown. Stem borer, leaf folder and WBPH incidencewas recorded (Table 2.35). There was very high incidence of leaf folder aroundKaul during this kharif season. Farmers of Kaithal and karnal districtsreported that this is mainly due to the change in the climate. There was no raininitially and crop growth was low. So many farmers applied urea for boostingthe growth and soon after a month there was heavy and continuous rainfallbecause of which farmers could not take up any insecticidal sprays. Theseconditions favoured the development of leaf folder resulting in heavy damage(40 to 85%). Leaf folder damage was significantly high in IPM (24.16%) as


2.91

compared to FP (21.51%). WBPH population was also high in FP (136) than IPM(113). Highest grain yield was recorded in IPM plot (4290 kg/ ha) resulting inhigh BC ratio (1.74).

At Gangavathi, BPT 5204 was grown. Stem borer, leaf folder, BPH,WBPH, GLH incidence was observed (Table 2.36). Stem borer and leaf folderdamage was low (<5%) to draw valid conclusions. BPH and WBPH numberswere high in IPM plot (31.30 - 37.30) as compared to FP plot (28.40 -33.70).Grain yield was significantly high in IPM (7240 kg/ ha) as compared to FP(7000 kg/ ha).

At Coimbatore, this trial was conducted at Pattiyar kovil pathi village bySri Raja Mani farmer with CORH 4. Stem borer, gall midge and leaf folderincidence was observed (Table 2.37). In general, the pest incidence was veryhigh in FP plots as compared to IPM plots. Dead heart damage wassignificantly high in FP plot (23.18% DH) as compared to IPM (6.62%DH).Similarly gall midge incidence was very high in FP (19.83% SS) as against IPM(1.43% SS). Grain yield was high in IPM (7973 kg/ ha) with BC ratio of 3.42.

At Navsari, GR 11 was grown. Stem borer, leaf folder, GLH, BLB, sheathblight, sheath rot, grain discolouration, false smut and weeds were recorded(Table 2.37). Leaf folder incidence was very low (<5%) to draw validconclusions. Dead heart damage was significantly high in FP (13.57%DH) ascompared to IPM (7.16%DH). GLH population was also very high in FP (62.26)as compared to IPM (27.44). The weed population was low in IPM plot (1.00) ascompared to FP Plot (3.67) indicating efficient weed management practices.Highest grain yield was recorded from IPM plot (6280 kg/ ha) as compared toFP (5195 kg/ ha). However BC ratio was high in FP (2.83) than IPM (2.77)which is mainly due to low cost of cultivation.

At Maruteru, MTU 1064 was grown. Trial was conducted at Kotalaparruvillage in West Godavari district. Leaf folder, whorl maggot, hispa, BPH andWBPH incidence was observed (Table 2.39). BPH and WBPH populations weresignificantly high in IPM (33.01 – 37.50) as compared to FP plot (17.60 –22.10). Grain yield was low in both IPM (2368 kg/ ha) and FP (2338 kg/ ha)due to severe damage by rodents after mid tillering stage.

At Karjat, Karjat 7 was grown in IPM plot and Ratna in FP plot. Onlystem borer incidence was observed (Table 2.40). Dead heart damage wassignificantly high in FP (5.99%) as compared to IPM (3.20%). Grain yield wassignificantly high in IPM (5089 kg/ ha) than in FP plot (4511 kg/ ha) but theBC ratio was almost same (2.02 – 2.05) in both the plots due to high cost ofcultivation in IPM plot.


2.92

At Ranchi, the trial was taken in Maradih village, Kudu block, Lohardagadistrict. Naveen variety was grown in IPM block and IR 64 in FP block. Stemborer, gall midge, leaf folder, GLH, leaf blast and brown spot incidence wasobserved (Table 2.41). Stem borer (7.27% DH), gall midge (4.04% SS), leaffolder (23.13%) damage and GLH (28.29) numbers was significantly low in IPMplot as compared to IPM plot. Grain yield was significantly high in IPM (5290kg/ ha) resulting in high BC ratio (3.33).

At Raipur, the trial was taken in Dharampura village, Dharsewa block inRaipur district. Swarna was grown in this trial. Stem borer and leaf folderincidence was observed (Table 2.42). Dead heart damage was foundsignificantly high in IPM plot (10.64%) as compared to FP (7.30%). However leaffolder damage was very low to draw valid conclusions. However, Ferterragranules were applied in both the plots. Grain yield was significantly high inIPM (7880 kg/ ha) as compared to FP (7228 kg/ ha).

Integrated pest management special (IPMs) trial initiated last year to managepests (insects, diseases & weeds) in a holistic manner in rice crop was conductedin farmer’s field’s at12 locations. In general, insect pest incidence was high in FPthan in IPM plots. Similarly, weed population, weed dry weight and weed controlrating score was high in FP as compared to IPM plots indicating efficient weedmanagement practices. Grain yield was significantly high in IPM plots resultingin high BC ratio. There is a need to give more emphasis for operationalisation ofIPM in rice with good support from other stakeholders.


2.93

Table 2.30 Pest incidence, grain yield and benefit cost ratio in IPMs trial atJagdalpur, kharif 2012

*= Number per 10 hills ; Figures in parenthesis are square root transformed values ;Price of Paddy = Rs. 1080 / q

Table 2.31 Pest incidence, grain yield and benefit cost ratio in IPMs trial atChinsurah, kharif 2012

Price of Paddy = Rs. 1033 / q

TreatYieldKg/ ha

Grossreturns(Rs.)

Cost ofcultivation

Net returns BC ratio

IPM 5020 54216 15500 38716 3.50FP 4008 43286 12800 30486 3.38LSD(p=0.05) 456CV(%) 5.75

Treat % LFDL % WMDL BPH* WBPH* GLH*

Weedcontrolrating score

IPM 9.91(3.01)

6.14(2.44)

2.05(1.48)

1.62(1.17)

16.05(3.77)

2.20

FP 18.38(4.08)

8.74(2.87)

5.82(2.29)

2.36(1.43)

23.47(4.57)

4.63

LSD(p=0.05) 0.36 0.56 0.56 0.34 0.40CV(%) 10.58 31.08 31.08 27.83 10.02

Treatments

%DH

%LFDL

%WMDL

%HDL

Yieldkg/ha

Grossreturns

Costofculti-vation

Netreturns

BCratio

IPM 0.72(0.81)

0.38(0.58)

1.68(1.22)

0.22(0.84)

5376 55534 21643 33892 2.57

FP 2.36(1.45)

0.51(0.67)

2.49(1.47)

0.24(0.85)

4296 44378 19178 25200 2.31

LSD(P =0.05) 0.51 0.14 0.42 0.24 443CV(%) 37.93 17.58 21.21 19.33 5.21


2.94

Table 2.32 Insect Pest incidence and grain yield in IPMs trial at Ludhiana,kharif 2012


Table 2.33 Pest incidence and grain yield in IPMs trial at Sakoli, kharif 2012


Treat

% DH % LFDL BPH* WBPH* Sheathblightscore

Weedcontrolratingscore

IPM 1.23(1.07)

4.27 (1.76) 4.84 (2.06) 4.37(2.04)

0.37 0.6

FP 2.09(1.43)

9.59 (2.89) 5.09 (2.12) 8.31(2.64)

0.66 1.00

LSD(p=0.05) 0.33 0.54 0.42 1.12CV(%) 20.03 17.73 15.25 36.54Treat Yield

Kg/ haGrossreturns

Cost ofcultivation

Netreturns

BCratio

IPM 8187 104794 18218 86576 5.75

FP 7820 100096 18050 82046 5.55

LSD(p=0.05) 524CV(%) 3.73

Treat% DH % SS

% LFDL BPH WBPHLeafblast

BLB Weedcount

Weeddry wt

IPM 2.84(1.68)

8.11(2.81)

1.67(1.25)

11.83(3.30)

15.31(3.79)

1.0 4.6 117 16.40

FP 6.62(2.57)

11.32(3.32)

5.03(2.22)

20.70(4.95)

28.66(4.95)

1.0 4.6 300 42.40

LSD(p=0.05) 0.36 0.20 0.49 0.87 1.32 28 4.73CV(%) 16.79 6.09 19.10 15.41 23.06 7.68 9.16

Treat

Yieldkg/ ha

Grossreturns

Cost ofcultivation

Netreturns

BCratio

IPM 2800 39200 22820 16380 1.72

FP 1760 24640 18638 6003 1.32

LSD(p=0.05) 683CV(%) 17.07


2.95

Table 2.34 Pest incidence and grain yield in IPMs trial at Kaul, kharif 2012


Table 2.35 Pest incidence and grain yield in IPMs trial at Gangavathi, kharif 2012


Table 2.36 Pest incidence and grain yield in IPMs trial at Coimbatore, kharif 2012

Treat WBPH % DH%LFDL

YieldKg/ ha

Grossreturns

Costofcultivation

Netreturns

BCratio

IPM 113(9.87)

1.03(0.58)

21.51(4.26)

4290 51480 29519 21961 1.74

FP 136(11.06)

1.21(0.63)

24.16(4.50)

3410 40920 29005 11915 1.41

LSD(p=0.05) 1.68 0.08 0.24 524CV(%) 12.34 9.32 3.68 7.75

Treat % DH%LFDL BPH

WBPH YieldKg/ha

Grossreturns

Costofcultivation

Netreturns

BCratio

IPM 2.33(1.18)

0.38(0.57)

37.30(5.83)

31.30(5.29)

7240 122080 45458 76623 2.69

FP 0.21(0.31)

0.27(0.47)

33.70(5.56)

28.40(5.08)

7000 126266 58450 67816 2.16

LSD(p=0.05) 0.56 NS NS NS NSCV(%) 26.93 23.96 11.23 14.70 8.32

Treat % DH % SS%LFDL

YieldKg/ ha

Grossreturns

Costofcultivation

Netreturns

BC ratio

IPM 6.62(2.48)

1.43(1.12)

5.90(2.38)

7973 68376 19980 48396 3.42

FP 23.18(4.71)

19.83(4.47)

12.01(3.42)

5773 48737 21330 27407 2.28

LSD(p=0.05) 1.51 1.58 0.32 NSCV(%) 41.55 32.14 14.78 13.67


2.96

Table 2.37 Pest incidence and grain yield in IPMs trial at Navasari, kharif 2012


Table 2.38 Pest incidence and grain yield in IPMs trial at Maruteru, kharif 2012


Table 2.39 Pest incidence and grain yield in IPMs trial at Karjat kharif 2012


Treat % DH GLH%LFDL

Weedcontrolratingscore

YieldKg/ha

Grossreturns

Costofcultivation

Netreturns

BCratio

IPM 7.16(2.63)

27.44(5.05)

1.57(1.24)

1.00 6280 75360 27235 48125 2.77

FP 13.57(3.62)

62.26(7.89)

3.71(1.91)

3.67 5195 62340 22000 40340 2.83

LSD(p=0.05) 0.43 20.52 1.27CV(%) 10.51 24.95 6.35

Treat BPH WBPH

YieldKg/ha

Grossreturns

Cost ofcultivation

Netreturns

BCratio

IPM 33.01(5.14)

37.50(4.61)

2368 29600 17800 11800 1.66

FP 22.10(4.37)

17.6093.34)

2338 29225 13900 15325 2.10

LSD(p=0.05) 1.66 3.53CV(%) 23.43 39.54

Treat % DHYieldKg/ ha

Grossreturns

Cost ofcultivation

Netreturns

BCratio

IPM 3.20(1.74)

5089 63613 31430 32183 2.02

FP 5.99(2.37)

4511 56388 27524 28864 2.05

LSD(p=0.05) 0.67 304CV(%) 24.83 3.61


2.97

Table 2.40 Pest incidence and grain yield in IPMs trial at Ranchi, kharif 2012


Table 2.41 Pest incidence and grain yield in IPMs trial at Raipur, kharif 2012

Price of paddy = Rs. 1250/ q

Treat % DH % SS LFDL GLH Yieldkg/ha

Grossreturns

Costof

cultivation

Netretur

ns

BCratio

IPM 7.27(2.61)

4.04(1.95)

23.13(4.79)

28.29(5.05)

5290 66125 19875 46250 3.33

FP 19.85(4.44)

24.78(4.94)

76.03(8.72)

38.11(6.13)

3058 38225 14325 23900 2.67

LSD(p=0.05) 0.95 1.26 7.94 3.41 634CV(%) 18.24 20.88 9.26 17.34 8.65

Treat

% DH % LFDL YieldKg/ha

IPM 10.64(3.08)

1.04(1.18)

7880

FP 7.30(2.64)

1.05(1.18)

7228

LSD(p=0.05)

0.57 0.35 378

CV(%) 30.32 29.68 2.85


2.98

2.7 POPULATION DYNAMICS OF INSECT PESTS ASSESSEDTHROUGH LIGHT TRAP COLLECTIONS

Monitoring population dynamics of insect pests in relation to changes inweather parameters, crop phenology, growing season and cropping systems isvital for designing ecologically sound and economical pest managementstrategies. Further, knowledge on population dynamics of insect pests at agiven location is also essential for implementing location specific IPM strategiesand precision agriculture technologies. In India rice is grown in differentagroclimatic zones under diverse cropping systems. The population dynamicsof major as well as minor insect pests vary under such diverse croppingsystems and geographical locations. Abiotic factors like temperature,humidity, sunshine hours, rainfall etc., and biotic factors like natural enemiessuch as parasites and predators significantly influence the populationdynamics of insect pests. Concerted efforts are being made to monitor thepopulation dynamics of insect pests at different locations across the countryevery year to understand the short and long term changes in the pest scenario.The assessments of insect populations are being made using light traps.

The light trap catches of various insect pests at different centers arecollected every day along with the corresponding data on macro weatherparameters. The weekly cumulative abundance of different insect pests, weeklyaverages of rainfall, maximum temperature (max. temp.), minimumtemperature (min. temp.), morning relative humidity (RH mor), evening (RH eve)and sun shine hours (SSH) are computed from the daily data and arepresented with reference to the standard weeks.

The observations on light trap collections of insect pests, their naturalenemies and weather parameters recorded during the year (Jan-Dec, 2012)have been received from 28 locations. Only the summary tables and trends arepresented here. Detailed data are available in the softcopy format and may berequested from DRR.

ANDHRA PRADESH

1. Rajendranagar (January to December 2012)

The major insect pests recorded in light traps catches at Rajendranagarcenter were yellow stem borer (YSB), green leafhopper (GLH), brown plantopper(BPH). Other pests like green stink bug (GB), leaf folder (LF) and gall midge(GM) were also observed in low numbers. Among natural enemies, mirid bugsand coccinellids were recorded. The peak population of YSB (117 females + 19males) occurred during 41st week. Leaf folder occurred in low numbers with apeak (82) during 20th week. Peak population (291) of green leafhopper (N.virescens) occurred during 47th week. BPH populations were recorded onlyduring kharif season with the peak population (167)) occurring during 45th


2.99

week. Mirid bug populations were also prevalent in kharif with the highestpopulation (99) during 43rd week. High population of mirid bugs in light trapcatches coincided to some extent with high populations of BPH and GLH,suggesting a relationship between the predator and prey. Overall, the pestpopulations recorded during this year were considerably low compared to thoseobserved in previous year for all the pests recorded at this centre.

2. Maruteru (June to December 2012)

Important pests recorded in light trap collections at this center includedYSB, GM, LF, GLH, BPH and WBPH. These pests occurred in high numbersbetween 39th and 49th week during Kharif season. The peak population of YSB(245 females + 63 males) prevailed during 49th week. Gall midge populationwas highest (45) during 42nd week. Moderate to high population of leaf folderwas observed throughout the year with a peak (865) occurring during 43rd

week. High populations of BPH (10980) and GLH (7230) occurred during 45th

week. WBPH population was at its peak (5880) during 40th week. Theoccurrence of peak population of mirid bug coincided with peak populations ofplant- and leafhoppers, suggesting a density dependent relationship betweenthe predator and prey. When compared with previous year, the peak populationof YSB was low while that of WBPH was high.

3. Warangal (January to December 2012)

At this centre, YSB, GM, GLH, BPH, WBPH and LF were recorded in lighttrap catches. High populations of pest insects were observed in catches inbetween 41st to 48th week. Peak population of YSB (809 females + 90 males)was recorded during 12th week. GM population was at its peak (1675) during45th week. Peak population of GLH (9714) was recorded during 44th week. Peakpopulations of BPH (2133), WBPH (2241), LF (80) were recorded during 45th

week. During this period mild weather conditions (max temp. 27.4, min temp.18.6 o C, RH morn. 86.6%, and 8.4 SSH were prevailing. Leaf folder occurred invery low numbers at this centre.

4. Ragolu (January to December 2012)

YSB, BPH, WBPH and GLH were the important pests occurred at thiscentre. YSB and GM occurred during both kharif and rabi seasons but at lowpopulation levels. Peak populations of gall midge (75) and YSB (81 females +16 males) occurred during 38th and 48th week respectively. Peak population ofleaf folder (34) was noticed during 47th week. Green leafhopper, mainly N.virescens was prevalent in kharif and the peak population (411) recordedduring 44th week. BPH and WBPH populations were highest (1210 & 2310respectively) during 42nd week. Peak populations of most of the pests at thiscentre occurred between 42nd and 48th weeks. Weather during this period was


2.100

mild with a max. temp. (29-31 oC), min. temp., (21-26 oC), high RH (84-86%)and moderate to good sunshine (4-9 SSH). Among natural enemies, MB werenoticed only during kharif season. High population of MB in light trap catchescoincided with high populations of plant- and leafhoppers, suggesting arelationship between the predator and prey. The peak population of WBPHobserved in the current year was considerably high compared to that noticed inthe last year while the reverse was true for the GLH.

5. Nellore (January to December 2012)

YSB, GM and LF were the pests recorded in light trap catches at this centreduring both kharif and rabi seasons. Peak population of YSB (710 females+55males) was noticed during 40th week and LF population was at its peak (340)during the 44th week. GM population was highest during 11th week. Ingeneral, gall midge catches were high during rabi compared to the kahrifseason at this centre.

TAMIL NADU

6. Aduthurai (January to December 2012)

Moderate to high populations of YSB were prevalent throughout the yearwith peak population (10250 females + 9134 males) occurring during 1st week.Peak population of BPH (400) and GM (260) were recorded during 45th week.Maximum population of other stem borers (63) recorded during 10th week whilethe peak populations of LF (67) and GLH (320) were recorded during 46th week.Besides these pests, high population of other unidentified insects also observedthroughout the year.

7. Coimbatore (January to December 2012)

Pest populations were in general low in light trap catches observed at thiscenter. The total rainfall received during current year (374 mm) wassignificantly low compared that recorded during last year (994 mm) at thiscentre. This could be one of the reasons for low pest incidence this year. YSBwas prevalent in very low numbers throughout the year with its peak (12)occurring during 3rd week. Leaf folder was prevalent in low numbers with itspeak (29) occurring during 28th week. The peak population of GLH (40), WBPH(35) and BPH (36) occurred during 28th week. Ear head bug registered its peak(16) during 30th week. Peak population of MB (71) coincided with occurrence ofpeak populations of plant and leafhoppers observed during 28th week at thiscentre.


2.101

PUDUCHERRY

8. Puducherry (January to December 2012)

Moderate to low numbers of YSB, LF, GB, GLH, BPH and WBPH wereobserved in light trap catches at this centre. The peak populations of YSB (159females + 36 males) and GLH (N. v. 101) were recorded during 9th week. Peakpopulations of LF (52), BPH (40) and GB (63) were recorded during 52nd, 47th

and 40th week, respectively.

KERALA

9. Pattambi (January to December 2012)

YSB was recorded with the highest catch (413) during 4th week while whitestem borer (WSB) was at its peak (40) during 41st week. Low populations ofGM and LF recorded throughout the year. Peak populations of GLH, N.virescens (3006), N. nigropictus (1864) were recorded during 1st week. Peakpopulations of GM (222), white leafhopper (449) and rice bug (Pygomenida sp)(613) were observed during 43rd, 42nd, and 41st week respectively. BPHpopulation was at its peak (477) during 52nd week. Among the other pestsregistered in low numbers at this centre were, case worm and gundhi bug.Among the predators MB registered its activity both during kharif and rabiseasons with the highest catch (3643) during 2nd week.

10.Moncompu (January-December 2012)

Low numbers of YSB, WSB, GM and LF were observed in rabi season atthis centre. Peak population of YSB (65 females) was recorded during 40th

week. Peak populations of WSB (44), LF (65) and GM (18) were recorded duringthe 6th, 1st, and 35th week, respectively. High population of GLH occurredduring rabi season with peak population (N.v 11282 + N.n 21641) during 2nd

week. Other insects recorded at this centre include rice bugs (Pygomenida sp),blue beetles and water bugs.

KARNATAKA

11. Mandya (January to Nov 2012)

Very low numbers of YSBr were recorded occasionally during rabi season inlight trap catches at this centre. However, no extremes in weather parametersthat could account for such low population levels during this period wereobserved.


2.102

12.Gangavathi (January to Dec 2012)

YSB, Lf, GLH, BPH and WBPH were the important pests observedthroughout the year in light trap catches at this centre. Peak population of YSB(286 females+246 males) was recorded during 14th week. High populations ofplant- and leafhoppers were observed both during kharif and rabi seasons. BPHpopulation was at its peak (21107) during 48th week while that of WBPH(19100) was observed during 43rd week. Peak population of LF (1677) and GLH(Nv 571+ Nn 517) were observed during 43rd and 41st week, respectively.

MAHARASHTRA

13. Karjat (January to December 2012)

YSB, LF, GLH, BPH, WBPH, case worm, army worm and GB were observedin low numbers at this centre. But no extremes in weather parameters thatcould account for such low pest population levels were observed. Peakpopulations of YSB (76 females + 76 males) and gundhi bug (100) wereobserved during 39th week. Peak populations of GLH (Nv. 144) and WBPH (98)were recorded during 38th week. Insect catches were relatively more duringkharif than in rabi season.

14. Sakoli (January to December 2012)

GM was predominant between 37th and 39th week with peak population(1745) occurring during 39th week. GM numbers were low in rabi seasoncatches. Peak catches of YSB (164 females+ 13 males) and leaf folder (42) wererecorded during 28th and 27th weeks respectively. Populations of BPH (486),WBPH (416) were highest during 21st week. GLH occurred mostly during Kharifseason with peak population (589) during 40th week. The peak populations ofYSB, BPH, WBPH, LF and GLH recorded during this year were considerablyless compared to those observed during previous year at this centre. But nodrastic changes in weather parameters were observed.

ODISHA

15. Sambalpur (January to May 2012)

Very low populations of pests like YSB, WBPH, BPH and CW were recordedat this centre. Peak populations of YSB (69 females + 22 males) occurredduring 15th week. Peak populations of BPH (643) and WBPH (567) were notedduring 16th week. Weather during this week was characterized by Max temp.(39.1 oC), min temp. (21.1 oC) and RH (85.3%) and no rainfall.


2.103

CHHATTISGARH

16. Raipur (January to December 2012)

The populations of BPH (4534) and WBPH (9537) were seen during the48th week at this center. This period was characterized by optimum max. temp.(30.1 oC), low min. temp (14.3oC), high RH (88.6 %), good sunshine (8.4 SSH)with no rainfall. Maximum population of YSB (102 females+ 205males) wasrecorded during 40th week. Populations of case worm, Spodoptera, gundhi bugand leaf folder recorded at this center were relatively very low. GLH populationwas at its peak (1474) during 41st week. Other insects observed in low numbersin light trap catches include staphylenid beetles, rove beetles and other stemborers.

17. Jagdalpur (July- December, 2012)

High GM populations were recorded between 40 and 43rd week with peakpopulation (294) recorded during 42nd week. Very high population of GLH wasobserved with peak population (75828) during 36th week. Peak population ofGLH recorded during this year is almost double that of the previous year. Otherpests observed in low numbers at this centre include YSB, LF, CW, zigzagleafhopper (ZLH) and GB. Among natural enemies, ladybird beetles, Paederussp. and damsel flies were recorded.

GUJARAT

18. Nawagam (June to Nov 2012)

Peak populations of YSB (117), LF (113) occurred at this centre with peakactivity during 42nd and 41st weeks, respectively. This period was characterizedby moderate maximum temperature (33.2oC), low min. temp (16.2 oC) andbright sunshine (7.5 SSH) and 59.7mm rainfall. Peak population of GLH (117)and WBPH (243) occurred during 44th week. Other insects observed in lownumbers include grasshoppers, dragon flies and spiders.

19. Navasari (June to October 2012)

Occurrence of only YSB in very low numbers was reported from thiscentre.

UTTAR PRADESH

20. Faizabad (July to November 2012)

At this centre, low populations of YSB, LF, GM and GB were occurredbetween 28th and 48th week. About 163 mm rainfall was recorded during the


2.104

31st week. Peak populations of GLH (703) and LF (505) were recorded duringthe 35th and 43rd week, respectively.

UTTARANCHAL

21. Pantnagar (June to October 2012)

Maximum population of YSB (940 females+56 males) occurred during 33rd

week. BPH with low numbers registered peak activity (1229) during 38th weekwhile the peak activity of WBPH (315) recorded during 39th week. Peak catchesof LF (457) occurred during 47th week. Very low Population of GB was recordedat this centre. WBPH population observed during the current year isconsiderably low compared to that noted in previous year.

WEST BENGAL

22. Chinsurah (January - December 2012)

YSB was caught in the trap throughout the year with peak catches during19th week (728 females + 1024 males). BPH (395) and GLH (N. vi. 710 + N.ni909) registered peak populations during the 43rd week. The max. temp., min.temp, RH and SSH during the week were 30.5 oC, 18.3 oC, 98.3%, 9.1,respectively. WBPH (308), leaf folder (44), gundhi bug (44) and WLH (254)registered their peak activity during the 46th week. Peak population of ZLH (89)was observed during 45th week. In addition, low numbers of GM, other stemborers and GB were also reported at this centre.

JAMMU AND KASHMIR

23. Khudwani (May to October 2012)

At this centre, very low population of GLH,LF, rice skipper and scarabidbeetles were observed in light trap catches.

PUNJAB

24. Ludhiana (January to December, 2012)

The peak populations of YSB (12), PSB (107), WSB (43) and GLH (33)observed in light trap catches at this centre were very low. BPH and WBPHactivity was high between 38th and 45th week with peak populations of 935 and535, respectively, recorded during 40th and 38th week. Natural enemies likecoccinellids and spiders were also recorded in very low numbers. Peakpopulation of LF (1430) was recorded during 40th week. LF catches during thisyear were very high compared to the last year.


2.105

HARYANA

25. Kaul (January to November 2012)

Very low numbers of YSB, PSB, LF, GLH, BPH, WBPH and WLH wereobserved in light trap catches at this center.

HIMACHAL PRADESH

26. Malan (June to October, 2012)

Low numbers of WSB, case worm, whorl maggot, GLH, BPH and WBPHwere observed during 23rd and 37th week at this centre. Peak population (672)of LF was recorded during 36th week. GLH (112) and BPH (160) populationswere at peak during 27th week. Other insects observed at this centre includePaederus and flew beetles.

MANIPUR

27. Wangbal (January to April 2012)Very low numbers of YSB, GM, LF, GLH, thrips, BPH and WBPH were recordedin light trap catches during the period of observation at this centre.

ASSAM

28. Titabar (January to December 2012)

YSB, WSB, GM, LF, GLH, BPH and CW reported in low to moderatenumbers at this centre. Peak populations of YSB (58 males + 47 females), BPH(45) and LF (53) were recorded during 36th week. WSB population was at itspeak (86) during 37th week while peak catches of GLH (967) were recordedduring 39th week.

CONCLUSIONS

Population dynamics of major insect pests of rice along with thecorresponding meteorological factors were reported from 28 centers during theyear 2012. Yellow stem borer was reported from 26 centers with the highestpeak catch (10250 females + 9134 males) occurring during 1st week atAduthurai. This pest maintained its status as number one pest of rice in India.(Fig 2. 14)

Brown planthoppers were reported from 20 centers, with maximum peakpopulation (21107 insects/week) occurring during 46th week at Gangavathi.WBPH was present at 18 centers with the highest population of 19100insects/week occurring during 43rd week at Gangavathi. Thus planthoppers


2.106

continue to be second major pests with WBPH spreading to new areas andbecoming important along with BPH. (Fig. 2.15 and 2.16)

Gall midge was reported from 14 centers, with the highest peak catch of1745 insects per week during 45th week at Warangal centre. Thus gall midgecontinued to damage the crop at low levels in localized pockets. (Fig 2.18)

Although occurrence of Leaf folder was reported from 26 centers,populations were very low in many centers. The highest population of 1677 perweek recorded during 43rd week at Gangavathi followed by 1430 insects/weekduring 40th week at Ludhiana centre. Thus, leaf folder is maintaining itspresence in all most all the regions of the country (2.17). Green leafhopperswere reported from 22 centers with the highest population of 75828insects/week during 36th week at Jagdalpur. Thus, this pest is maintaining itsabundance, both in area and magnitude. Among other insect pests, caseworm, gundhi bug, white leaf hopper, white stem borer, pink stem borer, zigzagleaf hopper, blue beetle, grass hopper, black bug were observed in lessernumbers. Among the natural enemies, mirid bugs were reported from somecenters.

Some of the salient observations made during this year are: (i) the pestpopulations recorded at Rajendranagar centre during this year wereconsiderably low compared to those observed in previous years for all the pestsrecorded (ii) At Maruteru, the peak population of YSB decreased considerablywhile that of WBPH increased during this year (iii) The peak population ofWBPH observed in the current year was considerably high compared to thatnoticed in the last year while the reverse was true for the GLH at Ragolu, (iv) AtSakoli, the peak populations of YSB, BPH, WBPH, LF and GLH recorded duringthis year were considerably less compared to those observed during previousyear, (v) Peak population of GLH recorded during this year was almost doubleto that of the previous year at Jagdalpur, (vi) At Pantnagar, WBPH populationobserved during the current year was considerably low compared to that notedlast year, (vii) Leaf folder catches during this year were distinctly highcompared to that of last year at Ludhiana, and (viii) Occurrence in highnumbers of mirid bugs coincided with occurrence of higher populations ofplant- and leafhoppers at many centres.


2.107

Fig. 2.14 Weekly light trap catches of yellow stem borer (on log scale) reportedfrom different locations (see Appendix I for location details)

Fig. 2.15 Weekly light trap catches of BPH (on log scale) recorded at differentlocations (see Appendix I for location details)


2.108

Fig. 2.16 Weekly light trap catches of WBPH (on log scale) reported fromdifferent locations (see Appendix I for location details)

Fig. 2.17 Weekly light trap catches of Leaf folder (on log scale) reported fromdifferent locations (see Appendix I for location details


2.109

Fig. 2.18 Weekly light trap catches of gall midge reported from differentlocations (see Appendix I for location details)


2.110

Entomology Rabi 2012SUMMARY

Insecticide evaluation trial (IET) was carried out at 9 locations duringrabi 2012. Based on the performance of the insecticide treatments fortheir efficacy in reducing pest infestation it was evident that theperformance of sutathion (newer formulation of triazophos) at the higherdose of 500 g a.i. g/ha was relatively better than the remainingtreatments against stem borer. Sulfoxaflor treatments were superior toother treatments, in reducing BPH population. Yield point of view alsosulfoxaflor treatments yielded higher but statistically at par with thesutathion and hostathion (triazophos) treatments.

Pesticide compatibility trial (PCT) was carried out to evaluatecompatibility of acephate or dinotefuran with either hexaconazole ortricyclazole as tank mix against major insect pests and diseases of riceand consequent impact on grain yield, at 5 centres during rabi 2012.Based on the performance of the treatments when applied alone vis a vistheir respective combinations in reducing pest infestation and grainyield, it was evident that efficacy of either acephate or dinotefuran due totheir combination with either hexaconazole or tricyclazole was notadversely affected when used as tank mix in the field.

Influence of rice cultivation methods on insect pest incidence(IRCP) trial was conducted at two locations, viz., Rajendranagar andRagolu during rabi 2012 under unprotected condition. Stem borer, leaffolder, gall midge, whorl maggot, hispa and thrips damage was low indirect seeded rice as compared to normal transplanted method. Howevergundhi bug damage was high in direct seeded rice (17.21) as againstnormal method (8.14). Pest damage was not significantly different amongthe cultivars except in case of leaf folder wherein KRH2 hybrid recordedhigher damage (4.78 %) as compared to MTU 1010 variety (1.93%). Inboth the locations, grain yield was at par with each other among thecultivation methods and KRH2 hybrid (4224 – 5996 kg/ ha) out yieldedSugandha samba at Rajendranagar (3267 kg/ ha) and MTU 1010 varietyat Ragolu (3735 kg/ ha).

Trap crop for stem borer management (TCSB) trial was conducted forthe sixth season at Aduthurai and Pattambi. Main crop varieties testedwere ADT46 (Aduthurai) and Uma (Pattambi). Growing of PB1 as trapcrop had significantly reduced dead heart damage at 50 DAT and whiteear damage by stem borer in ADT46.

Monitoring of pest species and their natural enemies (MPNE) trialwas carried out at 3 locations. The stem borer species observed were


2.111

YSB, PSB, WSB and SSB. The dominant egg parasitoid of stem borer wasTelenomus sp. and that of gall midge was Platygaster oryzae.

Yield loss estimation trial (YLET) was conducted only at Pattambiduring rabi 2012. Multiple regression analysis revealed a non-significantpositive relationship between grain yield and dead hearts & leaf folderdamaged leaves while it was non- significant negative relationshipbetween grain yield and white ears (r2 = 0.2332).

Integrated Pest Management special (IPMs) trial was conducted at twolocations viz., Chinsurah and Pattambi during rabi 2012. In general thepest incidence was low at these two locations. Only dead heart damagewas significantly high in farmers’ practices as compared to IPM whereasother pests like whorl maggot, leaf folder and caseworm damage was lowto draw valid conclusions. Grain yield was significantly high in IPM plotsresulting in high BC ratio at both the locations. For the implementationof IPM at farmer level, there is a need to update the knowledge and skillsof farmers and help them in decision making at the right time in a rightway.


2.112

2.1 CHEMICAL CONTROL STUDIES

Screening of newer insecticide molecules through i) insecticide evaluationtrial (IET) for their bioefficacy and insecticide compatibility withfungicides through ii) pesticide compatibility trial (PCT) are beingcontinued under AICRIP, during rabi season also. Since, the pestpopulation build up is intensive due to relatively more favourable factorsin this season; insecticide use is also more widespread for themanagement of key pests such as stem borer and planthoppers,particularly brown planthopper (BPH).

i) Insecticide evaluation trial (IET)

During rabi 2011-12, this trial was carried out at 9 locations and thelocation-wise time and frequency of insecticide application, and dates ofsowing, planting and harvest were as follows:

Location Date ofsowing

Date ofplanting

Date ofharvesting

No ofapplications

Times ofapplication (DAT)

Chinsurah 26/12/11 06/02/12 05/05/12 2 20 and 50Gangavathi 22/12/11 25/01/12 27/04/12 2 59&74Karjat 21/12/11 10/02/12 30/05/12 1 18Pattambi 26/10/ 11 17/12/11 15/03/12 3 10, 45 & 60Puducherry 04/02/12 07/03/12 11-06-12 2 20 and 44Ragolu 24/12/11 30/01/12 - 1 14Rajendranagar 26/11/11 07/01/12 08/05/12 2 14 and 79Sambalpur 31/12/11 02/02/12 29/05/12 3 15,46 and 66Cuttack 12/12/11 12/01/11 04/05/12 3 15, 50 & PI stage

Treatments:Two insecticide formulations viz., Sutathion 40% EC (Triazophos)

supplied by Sudarshan Chemical Industries Ltd. at two doses, 300 and500 g a.i./ha and sulfoxaflor 24% SC w/v (21.8% w/w) supplied by DowAgroSciences India Pvt. Ltd., at two doses, 75 and 90 g a.i./ha, wereevaluated. The earlier formulation of Triazophos – Hostathion (40% EC)at similar testing doses of 300 and 500 g a.i./ha was included forcomparison. Sulfoxaflor was evaluated for its efficacy, mainly againstleaf and planthoppers as well as gundhi bug. Monocrotophos (Sufos 36WSC) possessing broad spectrum action as standard check insecticide @500 g a.i./ha. and an untreated control treatment without anyinsecticide application, were included for comparison. The eighttreatments including untreated control were replicated thrice each andlaid out in Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD). Initially, all theinsecticide treatments were applied as blanket application during 10-15DAT to assess the efficacy of the treatments around 25 to 30 DAT.Further applications were need based and differed in number across


2.113

locations. The insecticides were applied as high volume sprays @ 500litres of spray fluid/ha.

Observations on insect pests were recorded as per standardprocedures at regular intervals. At the time of harvest, the grain yieldfrom net plot leaving 2 border rows on all sides was collected andexpressed as kg/ha. The data were analysed statistically using ANOVAtest for Random Complete Block Design for each date of application ateach location as well as for yield at harvest. The performance of thedifferent treatments was assessed based on their comparative efficacy ateach DAT as well as their performance against pooled means of each pestdamage, across observations and over locations. Yield in each treatmentpooled across the locations was also included for assessing theeffectiveness of each treatment.

Results

Pest Infestation (Table 2.43)

Stem borer infestation exceeded 5% DH during vegetative stage at 5locations but it was high (>10%) only at Cuttack (17.3 to 45.3% DH) at50 DAT. There were significant differences among the treatments at allthe locations. Mean infestation ranged from 4.9 to 6.4% DH in insecticidetreatments compared to 11.2% DH in untreated control. Sutathion athigher dose showed the least damage (4.9% DH) followed by the samechemical at lower dose (5.1% DH). All the treatments were superior tocontrol.

At heading stage, stem borer infestation was very high atChinsurah (57.7 to 72.6% WE), however all the treatments includinguntreated control were at par. In the remaining 6 locations the damagedid not exceed 14.0% WE across the treatments. The mean infestationranged narrowly between 13.5 and 18.0% WE and least damage of 13.5and 13.7% DH was observed in higher dose treatments of hostathion andSutathion, respectively. However, there were no discernible differencesamong the treatments including control.

Brown planthopper incidence was moderate at Gangavathi andpopulation ranged from 30.0 to 37.7 hoppers/10 hills at 60 DAT. Therewere no significant differences among the treatments including control.However, at 80 DAT, there was significant reduction of the hopperpopulation in sulfoxaflor treatments (11.3 and 12.7 hoppers/10 hills,respectively) followed by monocrotophos (13.3 hoppers/10 hills) andhigher doses of hostathion (13.7 hoppers/10 hills) as well as sutathion(14.3 hoppers/10 hills).


2.114

White backed planthopper population was at par in sulfoxaflor (16.7 to20.7 hoppers/10 hills), hostathion (16.0 to 23.0 hoppers/10 hills),sutathion (15.3 to 22.7 hoppers/10 hills) and monocrotophos (17.3 and20.0 hoppers/10 hills) but significantly lower than control (29.0 and 31.7hoppers/10 hills) during 40 to 60 DAT. At Sambalpur also, theinsecticide treatments showed significantly lower range of planthopperpopulations (40.0 to 69.3 hoppers/10 hills) compared to control (79.0and 97.0 hoppers/10 hills) at 66 and 76 DAT.

Data on natural enemies (Table 2.44) was recorded at Gangavathi andRagolu. The mirid bug populations were significantly higher intreatments of sulfoxaflor lower dose treatment (17.9 bugs/10 hills)followed by lower dose treatments of sutathion and hostathion (15.3bugs/10 hills), among the insecticide treatments, at Gangavathi.However, the control plot showed significantly higher population of 30.1bugs per 10 hills. At Ragolu, there were no discernible differences in thepopulations of coccinellids and spiders among the treatments includingcontrol at 30 and 50 DAT.

Grain Yield (Table 2.45)

The differences in grain yield among treatments were significant at7 locations. Based on the mean yield of these locations, sulfoxaflortreatment at lower dose recorded the highest yield (4941 kg/ha) with17.0 % increase over control (IOC) followed at par by the same chemicalat higher dose (4926 kg/ha and 16.7% IOC), sutathion at lower dose(4916 kg/ha with 16.5% IOC), and higher doses of both hostathion andsutathion (4893 and 4883 kg/ha with % IOC of 16.1 and 16.0,respectively. The standard check monocrotophos treatment yielded 4782kg/ha with an IOC of 14.2%.

Insecticide evaluation trial was carried out at 9 locations during rabi2012. Based on the performance of the insecticide treatments for theirefficacy in reducing pest infestation it was evident that the performance ofsutathion at the higher dose of 500 g a.i. g/ha was relatively better thanthe remaining treatments against stem borer. Sulfoxaflor treatments weresuperior to other treatments, in reducing BPH population. Yield point ofview also sulfoxaflor treatments yielded higher but statistically at par withthe sutathion and hostathion treatments.


2.115

Table. 2.43 Insect pest incidence in different treatments, IET, rabi, 2011-12

CommonName Trade Name

% a.i.formulation

ga.i./ha

g or mlof

formulation/

ha

Stem borer (% DH)CHN CTC KJT PTB SBP

30DAT

45DAT

60DAT

50DAT

30DAT

50DAT

30DAT

56DAT

76DAT Mean

Triazophos Sutathion 40 300 750 0.7a 3.1ab 0.3 17.3a 5.5b 4.7b 6.9a 3.7a 3.4a 5.1Triazophos Sutathion 40 500 1250 5.3a 1.8a 2.7 18.2a 2.5a 2.3a 5.2a 2.9a 3.1a 4.9Triazophos Hostathion 40 300 750 0.0a 4.2ab 1.5 35.1b 4.3a 2.5a 6.2a 2.9a 3.2a 6.7Triazophos Hostathion 40 500 1250 1.8a 3.5ab 3.9 28.0a 3.4a 2.4a 5.3a 2.7a 2.9a 6.0Sulfoxaflor - 24 75 800 1.8a 5.4ab 4.0 20.8a 4.4a 3.3ab 7.0a 3.2a 3.0a 5.9Sulfoxaflor - 24 90 150 4.2a 9.8b 6.6 24.1a 2.5a 2.2a 4.7a 2.4a 2.0a 6.5Monocrotophos Sufos 36 500 1390 2.0a 6.3b 8.2 23.4a 4.3a 2.4a 3.5a 4.2a 3.3a 6.4

Untreatedcontrol - - - Water

spray6.3a 6.2ab 5.4 45.3b 6.0b 6.3b 7.6a 9.1b 8.1b 11.2

Table 2.43 (contd) . Insect pest incidence in different treatments, IET, rabi, 2011-12


% a.i.formula

tion

ga.i./ha

g or mlof

formulation/ha

Stem borer (% WE)

CHN CTC GGV KJT PTB RGL SBP Mean

Triazophos Sutathion 40 300 750 69.8a 0.8a 4.8b 8.5ab 6.2ab 8.0ab 5.9a 14.8Triazophos Sutathion 40 500 1250 68.1a 1.2a 4.8b 4.4a 8.1ab 4.9ab 4.4a 13.7Triazophos Hostathion 40 300 750 70.6a 1.2a 4.3b 6.9ab 6.9ab 4.1a 4.9a 14.1Triazophos Hostathion 40 500 1250 66.4a 1.5aa 4.9b 4.8a 4.9a 7.8a 3.9a 13.5Sulfoxaflor - 24 75 800 69.7a 1.2a 4.4b 7.0ab 16.2b 9.6b 5.1a 16.1Sulfoxaflor - 24 90 150 66.2a 0.9a 4.5b 4.2a 8.9ab 11.7b 3.8a 14.3Monocrotophos Sufos 36 500 1390 72.6a 0.9a 1.4a 6.1ab 9.4ab 9.1b 5.8a 15.0

Untreated control - - - Waterspray 57.7a 5.9b 14.0c 10.0b 13.2ab 11.6b 13.7b 18.0


2.116

Table 2.43 (contd) . Insect pest incidence in different treatments, IET, rabi, 2011-12

CommonName Trade Name

% a.i.formulation g a.i./ha


GGV SBP

Brown Planthopper (No./per 10 hills) WBPH (No. Per 10 hills) Planthopper (No. Per 10 hills)

60DAT 80DAT 40DAT 60DAT 66 DAT 76 DAT

Triazophos Sutathion 40 300 750 34.0a 19.0a 19.0ab 21.7a 56.3a 47.0aTriazophos Sutathion 40 500 1250 31.0a 14.3a 15.3a 22.7ab 52.7a 40.7aTriazophos Hostathion 40 300 750 32.3a 18.0a 17.7a 23.0ab 69.3b 51.3aTriazophos Hostathion 40 500 1250 31.3a 13.7a 16.0a 22.3ab 58.3ab 44.0aSulfoxaflor - 24 75 800 31.0a 12.7a 18.0a 22.3ab 61.7ab 50.7aSulfoxaflor - 24 90 150 30.0a 11.3a 16.7a 20.7a 54.7a 40.3aMonocrotophos Sufos 36 500 1390 30.7a 13.3a 17.3a 20.0a 68.0a 52.0aUntreatedcontrol - - - Water spray 37.7a 41.0b 29.0b 31.7b 79.0b 97.0b

Table 2.44 Natural Enemy incidence in different treatments, IET, rabi, 2011-12

Common Name Trade Name % a.i.formulation g a.i./ha g or ml of

formulation/ha

Natural enemy incidenceGGV RGL

Mirid bugs (No. Per 10 hills) Coccinellids (No. Per 10 hills) Spiders (No. Per 10 hills)40DAT 60DAT 80DAT Mean 30DAT 50DAT 30DAT 50DAT

Triazophos Sutathion 40 300 750 12.0b 19.7a 14.3ab 15.3 22.0ab 9.3a 8.7a 4.7aTriazophos Sutathion 40 500 1250 9.7ab 17.7a 10.7a 12.7 24.0ab 13.3a 9.0a 7.7aTriazophos Hostathion 40 300 750 13.0b 19.7a 13.3ab 15.3 23.7ab 9.0a 9.7a 6.0aTriazophos Hostathion 40 500 1250 10.0ab 17.3a 10.3a 12.6 27.0b 13.7a 10.3a 6.7aSulfoxaflor - 24 75 800 14.7b 22.7a 16.3b 17.9 25.7b 12.7a 8.3a 6.7aSulfoxaflor - 24 90 150 10.7ab 20.7a 11.0ab 14.1 18.7a 12.3a 8.7a 6.3aMonocrotophos Sufos 36 500 1390 6.3a 15.7a 9.7a 10.6 21.7ab 12.0a 9.7a 6.3aUntreatedcontrol - - - Water spray 21.3c 31.7b 37.3c 30.1 27.3b 14.3a 9.3a 5.3a


2.117

Table 2.45 Grain Yield in different treatments, IET, rabi, 2011-12

Common Name Trade Name% a.i.

formulation g a.i./hag or ml of

formulation/ha

Yield (Kg/ha) %IOC

CHN CTC GGV KJT PDC PTB RGL RNR SBP Mean

Triazophos Sutathion 40 300 750 1759a 6720a 6330a 5000a 4725a 4542ab 4844a 6526a 3799b 4916 16.5Triazophos Sutathion 40 500 1250 2037a 5583b 6417a 5617a 5017a 4875a 4731b 5716a 3956b 4883 16.0Triazophos Hostathion 40 300 750 1620a 5350c 6343a 5247a 4317a 4139ab 4700b 6424a 3878b 4669 12.1Triazophos Hostathion 40 500 1250 1944a 5544bc 6492a 5370a 4167a 4806a 5744a 5448b 4524a 4893 16.1Sulfoxaflor - 24 75 800 1852a 6120ab 6575aa 5139a 5150a 3639b 5429ab 6671a 3897b 4941 17.0Sulfoxaflor - 24 90 150 1944a 5411bc 6823a 5787a 5142a 3819b 5587a 5729a 4093b 4926 16.7Monocrotophos Sufos 36 500 1390 1759a 5626b 7592a 5293a 4500a 4014ab 5020ab 5295b 3937b 4782 14.2Untreatedcontrol - - - Water spray 1991a 4842c 4020b 4799b 4533a 3750b 4556b 5420b 3016c 4103


2.118

ii) Pesticide compatibility trial (PCT)

During rabi 2012, field trials were carried out to study thecompatibility of new formulation of Acephate, a broad spectrum actionorgano phosphate compound (Acephate 95 SG) supplied by Rallis IndiaLimited and dinotefuran (Token 20 SG) from Indofil Chemicals Ltd.recommended for effectiveness against plant and leafhoppers. Thefungicides consisted of hexaconazole (Contaf 5 SC) supplied by RalliesIndia Ltd., effective against sheath blight and tricyclazole (Baan 75 SP), aproduct of Indofil chemicals Ltd. recommended for blast. The trial wascarried out at 5 locations viz., Chinsurah, Gangavathi, Puducherry,Pattambi, and Sambalpur.

Treatments

The trial included nine treatments consisting of acephate @ 1.2g/litre, dinotefuran @ 0.4 g/litre, hexaconazole @ 2.0 ml/litre andtricyclazole @ 0.6 ml/litre applied alone as individual treatments andalso in four possible combination treatments. Untreated control withoutany insecticide or fungicide application was also included forcomparison. The treatments were replicated thrice and laid out inRandomized Complete Bock Design (RCBD).

Observations were recorded on stem borer damage at vegetativeand heading stages on ten randomly selected hills and expressed as percent dead hearts or white ears. Similarly, counts of leaf folder damagedleaves were taken on 10 randomly selected hills per plot and thepercentage damaged leaves were calculated. Planthopper populationswere recorded on ten randomly selected hills per plot before and afterapplication of treatments. For assessing the severity of blast and sheathblight diseases, percentage disease severity was assessed as theproportion of the leaf area damaged by the disease in relation to the totalleaf area of all the plants in a plot before and after application. Towardsmaturity, the crop was harvested and grain yield / net plot leaving twoborder rows on all sides was recorded and expressed as kg/ha.

Results

Insect pest Infestation (Table 2.46)

The stem borer infestation at vegetative stage across locations wasrecorded up to a maximum of 19.6% DH and mean infestation rangedfrom 4.8 to 8.4% DH in pesticide treatments and 10.8% DH in control.There were significant differences among the pesticide treatments at alllocations. The infestation in insecticides alone and combinationtreatments (4.8 to 6.2% DH) was lower than that in fungicide alone


2.119

treatments (7.6 and 8.4% DH) and control (10.8% DH). There were nodiscernible differences in efficacy between the two insecticides and theircombinations with fungicides. At heading stage also, though there weresignificant differences among the treatments at 3 locations, there were nodiscernible differences in mean white year infestation. The white earincidence was lower in the insecticide treatments and their combinations(14.8 to 21.5% WE) at par with control (21.5% WE) and lower thanfungicides alone (22.7 and 24.0% WE), which was. As observed invegetative stage, both insecticides performed at par individually as wellas in combinations.

Brown planthopper populations were recorded upto 41.0hoppers/hill at Gangavathi. There was significant decline in BPHpopulation in insecticide treatments and their combinations, after bothapplications. The BPH population was at par in all the treatments beforefirst application (18.0 to 24.0 hoppers) but post treatment populationwas significantly lower in insecticide treatments and their combinations(2.7 to 8.0 hoppers/10 hills) compared to fungicides alone (15.3 and 16.0hoppers/10 hills) and control (17.3 hoppers/10 hills). Similar trend wasobserved during the second application. The pretreatment ranged at paramong the treatments (37.7 to 41.3 hoppers/10 hills) but afterapplication there was significant decline in BPH population in theinsecticide and their combination treatments ( 6.3 to 17.3 hoppers/10hills) than in fungicides alone(29.3 and 30.3 hoppers/10 hills) andcontrol (32.7 hoppers/10 hills). The efficacy of dinotefuran was superiorto that of acephate both individually as well as in combination withfungicides. The white backed planthopper population was recorded upto26.3 hoppers/10 hills at Gangavathi. As observed in the case of BPH, thepost treatment WBPH population was significantly lower in bothinsecticides individually as well as in combination with fungicides (1.7 to10.0 hoppers/10 hills) compared to fungicides applied alone (8.3 to 17.3hoppers/10 hills) and untreated control(10.7 and 19.0 hoppers/10 hills).At Sambalpur, the trends in mixed population of both planthoppers wereindistinct across the treatments though insecticide treatments showedrelatively lower population ranges (29.3 to 56.0 hoppers/10 hills)compared to fungicides alone (54.0 to 63.3 hoppers/10 hills) and control(69.0 and 78.7 hoppers/10 hills) during 50-70 DAT.

Disease incidence (Table 2.46)

Blast disease was recorded at Gangavathi and Sambalpur. There were nosignificant differences among treatments including control (30.7 to 39.6%) before treatment at Gangavathi, but after the treatment tricyclazoleapplied alone showed significant superiority (18.9%) over remainingtreatments and control (23.3 to 41.1%). At Sambalpur, disease incidenceafter treatment was significantly less in fungicide treatments and their


2.120

combinations (3.7 to 6.9%) than insecticide treatments (11.2 and 12.9%)and control (13.1%).

Sheath blight incidence was recorded up to an extent of 38.5% atGangavathi. The post treatment incidence was less in fungicidetreatments (20.0 to 31.5%) compared to insecticide treatments (32.6 and38.1%) and control (37.4%).

Grain yield (Table 2.47)

There were significant differences in grain yield among differenttreatments at 4 locations. The mean grain yield data across the locationsrevealed that dinotefuran in combination with hexaconazole was the besttreatment showing the highest yield of 4258 kg/ha and 25.5% increaseover control (IOC) on par with its combination with tricyclazole (4206kg/ha with an IOC of 24.6%) and the acephate + tricyclazole combination(4200 kg/ha and 24.5% IOC). Dinotefuran applied alone (4170 kg/hawith 23.9% IOC) was the next best treatment followed by acephate alone(3998 kg/ha and 20.7% IOC) on par with combination treatment ofacephate and hexaconazole (3975 kg/ha with 20.2% IOC).

Pesticide compatibility trial was carried out to evaluatingcompatibility of acephate or dinotefuran with either hexaconazole ortricyclazole as tank mix against major insect pests and diseases of riceand consequent impact on grain yield, at 5 centres. Based on theperformance of the treatments when applied alone vis a vis their respectivecombinations in reducing pest infestation and grain yield , it was evidentthat efficacy of either acephate or dinotefuran due to their combinationwith either hexaconazole or tricyclazole was not adversely affected whenused as tank mix in the field.


2.121

Table. 2.46 Incidence of insect pests in different treatments in Pesticide Compatibility trial (PCT), rabi 2012

Insecticide/FungicideDose g/ml perlitre of spray

fuid

Stem borerDead hearts (% DH) White ears(% WE)

CHN PTB SBP Mean CHN PDC PTB SBP Mea

n30DAT

50DAT

30DAT

50DAT

56DAT

76DAT

Acephate(Acephate 95SG) 1.2 g/litre 4.5a 9.3a 0.9a 5.0a 4.4a 4.7a 4.8 45.9a 0.9a 15.0a 5.2b 16.8Dinotefuran(Token 20SG) 0.4 g/litre 7.0ab 5.8a 0.6a 7.2a 3.5a 3.8a 4.6 45.4a 4.3b 13.5a 3.6a 16.7Hexaconazole ( Contaf 5SC) 2.0 ml/litre 10.2ab 13.8b 3.3a 5.4a 6.5b 6.5c 7.6 61.4b 10.8c 14.3a 9.5d 24.0

Tricyclazole (Baan 75 SP) 0.6 ml/litre 11.5b 16.3b 5.1b 4.7a 7.1b 5.9b 8.4 52.7a 10.1c 18.0a 9.8d 22.7Acephate +hexaconazole 1.2 g + 2.0 ml /litre 6.9ab 9.2a 4.1a 5.0a 6.9b 5.2b 6.2 42.5a 0.9a 13.1a 7.4c 16.0

Acephate + tricyclazole 1.2 g + 0.6 ml /litre 8.8ab 5.2a 6.0b 5.8a 5.1a 4.9a 6.0 36.8a 0.8a 13.9a 7.6c 14.8Dinotefuran +hexaconazole 0.4 g + 2.0 ml /litre 6.6ab 7.8a 2.9a 3.9a 4.9a 4.7a 5.1 46.3a 4.1b 20.3a 7.7cd 19.6

Dinotefuran+ tricyclazole 0.4 g + 0.6 ml /litre 8.8ab 7.1a 4.1a 5.8a 5.1a 4.6a 5.9 59.7b 4.0b 14.6a 7.8cd 21.5Untreated control - 12.9b 19.6b 8.0b 5.6a 10.2c 8.8d 10.8 46.8a 12.9c 14.1a 12.1d 21.5

Means in the same column followed by different letter are significantly different at p=0.05


2.122

Table. 2.46 (contd…) Incidence of insect pests in different treatments in Pesticide Compatibility trial (PCT), rabi 2012

Insecticide/Fungicide Dose g/ml per litre of spray fuid

Brown planthopper (BPH)

Number /10 hills

GGVFirst application Second application

BT AT BT AT

Acephate(Acephate 95 SG) 1.2 g/litre 20.7a 8.0b 37.7a 17.3bDinotefuran(Token 20 SG) 0.4 g/litre 18.7a 4.7a 38.3a 11.7aHexaconazole ( Contaf 5 SC) 2.0 ml/litre 21.3a 16.0c 40.0a 29.3cTricyclazole (Baan 75 SP) 0.6 ml/litre 23.0a 15.3c 38.7a 30.3cAcephate + hexaconazole 1.2 g + 2.0 ml /litre 19.0a 6.7b 41.3a 10.3aAcephate + tricyclazole 1.2 g + 0.6 ml /litre 22.3a 5.7a 39.3a 9.0aDinotefuran + hexaconazole 0.4 g + 2.0 ml /litre 18.0a 3.3a 40.3a 6.3aDinotefuran+ tricyclazole 0.4 g + 0.6 ml /litre 20.0a 2.7a 37.7a 7.0aUntreated control - 24.0a 17.3c 41.0a 32.7c



2.123

Table. 2.46 (contd…) Incidence of insect pests in different treatments in Pesticide Compatibility trial (PCT), rabi 2012

Insecticide/Fungicide Dose g/ml per litre ofspray fuid

White backed planthopper (WBPH) Planthopper(PH)

Number /10 hills Number /10 hills

GGV SBPFirst application Second application 50 DAT 70 DAT

BT AT BT AT

Acephate(Acephate 95 SG) 1.2 g/litre 24.0a 10.0a 12.3a 4.7a 36.7a 38.7a

Dinotefuran(Token 20 SG) 0.4 g/litre 26.3a 7.3a 11.3a 2.7a 29.3a 30.3a

Hexaconazole ( Contaf 5 SC) 2.0 ml/litre 25.3a 17.0b 17.3a 8.7b 60.7bc 54.0bc

Tricyclazole (Baan 75 SP) 0.6 ml/litre 24.3a 17.3b 17.0a 8.3b 63.3c 58.7bc

Acephate + hexaconazole 1.2 g + 2.0 ml /litre 22. 7a 9.0a 13.0a 3.3a 53.3bc 45.0b

Acephate + tricyclazole 1.2 g + 0.6 ml /litre 23. 7a 8.7a 14.0a 3.0a 56.0bc 48.0b

Dinotefuran + hexaconazole 0.4 g + 2.0 ml /litre 22.0a 6.3a 11.7a 2.3a 47.3b 47.0b

Dinotefuran+ tricyclazole 0.4 g + 0.6 ml /litre 24.3a 6.0a 11.7a 1.7a 39.3a 40.7a

Untreated control - 22.3a 19.0b 17.3a 10.7b 78.7c 69.0c



2.124

Table. 2.46 (contd…) Incidence of diseases in different treatments in PesticideCompatibility trial (PCT), rabi 2012

Insecticide/Fungicide Dose g/ml per litre ofspray fuid

Blast severity (%) Sheath blightseverity (%)

GGV SBP GGV

BT AT BT1 AT1 66DAT

76DAT BT AT

Acephate(Acephate 95 SG) 1.2 g/litre 33.3a 30.4d 31.5a 32.2de 11.2a 12.9 37.0bc 38.1d

Dinotefuran(Token 20 SG) 0.4 g/litre 34.4a 31.8d 31.5a 32.2de 10.7a 11.2 31.1a 32.6c

Hexaconazole ( Contaf 5 SC) 2.0 ml/litre 33.3a 25.6c 34.8b 25.6c 11.6a 5.2 32.2ab 21.5a

Tricyclazole (Baan 75 SP) 0.6 ml/litre 36.7a 18.9a 35.5b 12.6a 11.7a 3.7 34.1b 20.0a

Acephate + hexaconazole 1.2 g + 2.0 ml /litre 39.6a 31.1d 37.0c 30.4d 11.2a 6.9 33.7b 31.5c

Acephate + tricyclazole 1.2 g + 0.6 ml /litre 37.8a 24.4bc 35.3b 20.7b 10.3a 4.7 38.5c 23.7a

Dinotefuran + hexaconazole 0.4 g + 2.0 ml /litre 30.7a 23.3b 32.9ab 27.0c 12.1a 6.4 34.1b 26.3b

Dinotefuran+ tricyclazole 0.4 g + 0.6 ml /litre 37.8a 25.6c 33.3ab 22.2b 10.5a 5.3 34.4b 24.1b

Untreated control - 36.7a 41.11e 34.4b 34.4e 11.2a 13.1 29.6a 37.4d


Table. 2.47 Grain yields in different treatments in Pesticide Compatibility trial(PCT), rabi 2012

Insecticide/FungicideDose g/ml perlitre of spray

fuid

Yield(Kg/ha)% IOC

CHN GGV PDC PTB SBP MeanAcephate(Acephate 95SG)

1.2 g/litre 2222a 6227a 4550ab 2524b 4465a 3998 20.7

Dinotefuran(Token 20SG)

0.4 g/litre 2622a 6053a 5033ab 2929b 4211ab 4170 23.9

Hexaconazole ( Contaf 5SC)

2.0 ml/litre 2067a 5413a 4967ab 2750b 3682c 3776 16.0

Tricyclazole (Baan 75 SP) 0.6 ml/litre 2133a 5493a 4900ab 3417a 3388d 3866 18.0Acephate +hexaconazole

1.2 g + 2.0 ml/litre

2111a 6333a 4350ab 3083ab 3995b 3975 20.2

Acephate + tricyclazole 1.2 g + 0.6 ml/litre

2262a 6400a 5025ab 3417a 3897bc 4200 24.5

Dinotefuran +hexaconazole

0.4 g + 2.0 ml/litre

2489a 6587a 5125a 3036b 4054b 4258 25.5

Dinotefuran+ tricyclazole 0.4 g + 0.6 ml/litre

2244a 6693a 4808ab 3250a 4034b 4206 24.6

Untreated control - 1689a 3467b 4250b 2810b 3643c 3172



2.125

2.2 ECOLOGICAL STUDIES

The ecological studies on insect pests covered i) Influence of ricecultivation systems on insect pest incidence (IRCP) and ii) Trap Crop forStem borer Management (TCSB). The results of these trials are presentedbelow:

i. Influence of Rice Cultivation Methods on Insect Pest Incidence (IRCP):

The main objective of this trial was to assess the insect pestincidence under two cultivation methods viz., direct seeded versustransplanted methods and their impact on yield. In rabi 2012, the trialwas conducted at two locations viz., Rajendranagar and Ragolu.

The field trial was laid out in split-plot design with cultivationmethods as main treatments i.e., S1) Conventional or Normaltransplanting method and S2) Direct seeded rice and cultivars as twosub-plots i.e., V1) Hybrid and V2) High yielding variety. The experimentalarea was divided into seven equal blocks each representing a replication.Each block had two main treatments with two sub treatments. Thus,each block consisted of four plots. The experimental area at each locationhad 28 plots and no control measures were applied in any of these plots.Observations on insect pest incidence were recorded on ten randomlyselected hills at ten day interval in each plot. At pre-harvest stage, percent white ears were recorded. Grain yields were recorded from each plot.

At Rajendranagar, KRH2 and Sugandha samba were grown in bothmethods. Stem borer, leaf folder, whorl maggot, hispa and thripsincidence was observed in both the methods (Table 2.48). Among thecultivation methods, damage by stem borer, leaf folder, whorl maggotwas low (<6%), though significantly different among the methods. But,thrips damage was significantly high in normal method (23.75%ThDL) ascompared to direct seeded rice (9.15%ThDL). Among the cultivars, therewas no significant difference in pest incidence except in case of leaf folderwherein KRH2 hybrid (4.78%LFDL) recorded significantly high damage ascompared to sugandha samba cultivar (1.93% LFDL). However,interaction effects were significant. Grain yield was not significantlydifferent among the cultivation methods while among the cultivars KRH2hybrid (5966 kg/ha) out yielded sugandha samba cultivar (3267 kg/ ha).

At Ragolu, KRH2 and MTU 1010 were grown in both the methods. Stemborer, gall midge and gundhi bug incidence was recorded in both themethods (Table 2.49). Among the cultivation methods, dead heartdamage, though low was significantly high in normal method (3.92 –5.78%) as compared to direct seeded rice (1.41 – 1.54%). Similarly gallmidge damage was significantly high in normal method (4.37%SS) thanin direct seeded method (1.33%SS). However, gundhi bug damage was


2.126

significantly high in direct seeded rice (17.21) as compared to normalmethod (8.14). Insect pest incidence was not significantly differentamong the cultivars. Grain yield was not significant among thecultivation methods while KRH2 hybrid recorded higher grain yield (4224kg/ ha) as against MTU 1010 variety (3735kg/ha).

Influence of rice cultivation methods on insect pest incidence (IRCP) trialwas conducted at two locations, viz., Rajendranagar and Ragolu duringrabi 2012 under unprotected condition. Stem borer, leaf folder, gall midge,whorl maggot, hispa and thrips damage was low in direct seeded rice ascompared to normal transplanted method. However gundhi bug damagewas high in direct seeded rice (17.21) as against normal method (8.14).Pest damage was not significantly different among the cultivars except incase of leaf folder wherein KRH2 hybrid recorded higher damage (4.78 %)as compared to MTU 1010 variety (1.93%). In both the locations, grainyield was at par with each other among the cultivation methods and KRH2hybrid (4224 – 5996 kg/ ha) out yielded Sugandha samba atRajendranagar (3267 kg/ ha) and MTU 1010 variety at Ragolu (3735 kg/ha).


2.127

Table 2.48 Influence of rice cultivation methods and cultivars on insectpest incidence and grain yield at Rajendranagar, IRCP, rabi 2012

Mainplots Sub- plots

% DH % LFDL%WMDL % HDL

%ThDL

Yield(kg/ha)75 DAT 75 DAT

30DAT 30 DAT 30 DAT

NormalHybrid(KRH2)

1.57(1.42)

8.18(2.84)

4.17(2.11)

9.07(3.03)

9.87(3.07)

5581


1.59(1.43)

3.74(1.92)

3.26(1.90)

9.29(3.11)

8.42(2.84)

3027

Directseeded

Hybrid(KRH2)

0.76(1.07)

1.38(1.34)

0.43(0.91

3.57(1.96)

22.59(4.58)

6351


0.26(0.85)

0.11(0.77)

0.73(1.03)

2.50(1.65)

24.91(4.96)

3507

LSD 0.05 M in S 0.32 0.82 0.41 0.62 1.14 663S in M 0.41 0.74 0.55 0.77 1.05 837

Cultivation systems

Normal1.58(1.42)

5.96(2.38)

3.72(2.00)

9.1893.06)

23.75(4.77)

4304

Directseeded

0.51(0.95)

0.75(1.06)

0.58(0.97)

3.04(1.81)

9.15(2.96)

4929

LSD 0.05 Main 0.34 0.46 0.47 0.63 0.66 NSCV (%) 30.73 29.20 34.22 28.09 18.61 16.28

CultivarsHybrid(KRH2)

1.17(1.24)

4.78(2.09)

2.30(1.51)

6.32(2.49)

16.67(3.90)

5966


0.93(1.14)

1.93(1.35)

1.99(1.46)

5.89(2.38)

16.23(3.82)

3267

LSD 0.05 Sub NS 0.58 NS NS NS 469CV (%) 23.11 40.98 23.90 21.89 25.45 12.34


2.128

Table 2.49 Influence of rice cultivation methods and cultivars on insect pestincidence and grain yield at Ragolu IRCP, rabi 2012

Main plotsSub-plots

% DH % DH % WE % SS GBYield(kg/ha)80 DAT 90 DAT 30 DAT

Damagedgrains

NormalHybrid(KRH2)

3.73(2.01)

7.17(2.74)

2.62(1.51)

6.01(2.42)

8.71(2.71)

4489

Variety(MTU1010)

4.11(1.84)

4.40(2.15)

1.79(1.31)

2.73(1.58)

7.57(2.77)

3545

Directseeded

Hybrid(KRH2)

1.46(1.28)

0.68(1.05)

1.35(1.26)

1.41(1.32)

15.57(3.80)

3960

Variety(MTU1010)

1.36(1.28)

2.40(1.41)

1.16(0.68)

1.25(1.20)

18.86(4.05)

3924

LSD 0.05 M in S NS 0.72 NS 0.87 1.77 675S in M NS 0.67 NS 0.81 1.57 978

Cultivation systems

Normal3.92(1.93)

5.78(2.44)

2.21(1.32)

4.37(2.00)

8.14(2.74)

4017

Directseeded

1.41(1.28)

1.54(1.27)

1.25(1.01)

1.33(1.26)

17.21(3.94)

3942

LSD 0.05 Main 0.58 0.44 NS 0.53 0.95 NSCV (%) 39.37 25.52 30.40 34.89 30.63 23.24

CultivarsHybrid(KRH2)

2.74(1.64)

3.93(1.89)

1.98(1.38)

3.71(1.87)

12.14(3.27)

4224

Variety(MTU1010)

2.60(1.56)

3.40(1.82)

1.47(1.28)

1.99(1.39)

13.21(3.41)

3735

LSD 0.05 Sub NS NS NS NS NS 478CV (%) 43.11 33.39 35.36 45.89 45.72 14.57


2.129

ii) Trap Crop for Stem borer Management (TCSB)

This is the sixth season of the trial under coordinated programme.The trial was conducted at 2 centres viz., Aduthurai and Pattambi withthe objective to test the efficacy of planting a susceptible aromatic varietyas a trap (inter) crop in 1: 9 ratio so as to minimize the damage byyellow stem borer (YSB) in the main crop. The results of this trial arediscussed location wise:

Aduthurai: Main crop variety was ADT46. Stem borer incidence was verylow at vegetative phase (2.84– 3.53 % DH at 30 DAT and 2.03-2.85%DHat 50 DAT). White ear damage was 3.79% in treatment with trap cropwhich was significantly lower than the treatment where main crop wasgrown alone (6.71%) (Table 2.50). Insecticide application also hadreduced the white ear damage significantly.The data shows that thewhite ear damage in the main crop was at par either by planting of trapcrop and an insecticidal spary . The benefit cost ratio was 1.74 in thetreatment with trap crop as compared to 1.68 in the main crop alone.Destructive sampling of the tillers in the trap crop at harvest revealedthat 30-40 % of the tiller sampled had larvae in them at harvest.

Pattambi: The main crop variety grown was Uma. Dead heart (%)damage at 30 DAT (5.97-7.48%) and 50 DAT (2.7-6.3%) was very low inthe trial and statistically non significant. But no. of white ears/9 m2 wassignificantly low in the main crop where trap crop was grown ascompared to the sole crop (Fig 2.19). The crop was sprayed twice, once attillering and other at booting with monocrotophos, but still there was nosignificant impact on the yield though no. of white ears were significantlylower in the treated plots.

During the sixth season of the trial conducted at Aduthurai and Pattambi,main crop varieties tested were ADT46 (Aduthurai) and Uma (Pattambi).Growing of PB1 as trap crop had significantly reduced dead heart damageat 50 DAT and white ear damage by stem borer in ADT46.


2.130

Table 2.50 Effect of trap crop on stem borer damage and grain yield inTCSB trial at Aduthurai , rabi 2012

Treatments Sub-treatmentsStem borer damage Yield

Kg/ha B:CDH (%) WE(%)

30 DAT50DAT PH

Main

Main cropalone

No insecticideapplication

3.53(2.00)

2.85(1.83)

9.35(3.13)

5700 1.68

Need basedinsecticdeapplication

2.84(1.83)

2.55(1.74)

4.07(2.13)

5800 1.64

Main crop withtrap crop

No insecticideapplication

3.63(2.02)

2.03(1.58)

4.40(2.21)

5900 1.74

Need basedinsecticdeapplication

3.02(1.86)

2.40(1.70)

3.18(1.92)

6230 1.76

CD_MinS NS NS NSCD_SinM NS NS NSPlanting typeMain cropalone

3.18(1.91)

2.70(1.79)

6.71(2.63)

Main crop withtrap crop

3.33(1.94)

2.21(1.64)

3.79(2.06)

LSD in main ns ns 0.28CV_Main 8.3 7.86 7.51Insecticide application

No insecticides3.58(2.01)

2.44(1.71)

6.88(2.67)

Need basedInsecticideapplication

2.93(1.84)

2.47(1.72)

3.62(2.02)

LSD in sub NS NS 0.24CV_Sub 10.71 4.58 8.4


2.131

Fig 2.19. Effect of trap crop on white ear damage by stem borer atPattambi, rabi 2012.

MC- main crop var- Uma; TC – Trap crop

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

MC MC +TC MC+ Insecticide MC +TC+insecticides

No.

of w

hite

ear

s / 9

sq.

m

Treatments


2.132

2.3 BIOCONTROL AND BIODIVERSITY STUDIES

These studies covered i) Monitoring of pest species and their naturalenemies (MPNE)

i. Monitoring of pests and their natural enemies (MPNE)

The trial was allotted to 4 centres and data were received from threecentres viz., Moncompu, Aduthurai and Rajendranagar.

Stem borer

Species composition: At Rajendranagar the yellow stem borer was theonly species observed, while at Moncompu four species of stem borerwere observed – YSB, WSB, PSB and SSB. The white stem borerdominated in early phase ranging from 46.23-56.08% followed by YSB(30 -38%) and SSB (8-27%).

Natural enemies: The mean egg mass parasitisation at Rajendranagarwas very low ranging from 9-28% and egg parasitisation was 8.64 to54.23%. Three species of parasitoids were reported from Rajendranagar.The parasitoids observed were Trichogramma (37.5%), Telenomus(59.38%) and Tetrastichus (3.13%).

Leaf folder

At Adhuthurai 80 % Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (80%) and Marasmia sp.(20%) were reported. The mean larval/pupal parasitism over threeobservations was 45.33 per cent.

Gallmidge

At Moncompu Platygaster oryzae causing up to 58.94% parasitisation ofgalls.

Monitoring of pest species and their natural enemies (MPNE) trial carriedout at 3 locations. The stem borer species observed were YSB, PSB, WSBand SSB. The dominant egg parasitoid of stem borer was Telenomus sp.and that of gall midge was Platygaster oryzae.


2.133

2.4 INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT

This section includes two trials viz., i) Yield loss estimation trial(YLET) initiated last year and ii) a new trial on Integrated pestmanagement special (IPMs) trial. The details of these two trials arediscussed below.

i) Yield Loss Estimation Trial (YLET)

The main objective of this trial was to assess the impact of differentinsect pests at varying damage levels during different crop growth stageson grain yield. During rabi 2012, this trial was conducted only at onelocation i.e., at Pattambi. At this location, Jyothi variety was grown. Leaffolder was augmented by releasing larvae and stem borer by releasingegg mass in each marked area. Observations were taken at 40, 65 and80 DAT. Finally grain yield was recorded from each marked one squaremeter area. Dead heart damage ranged from 0 to 21.4 per square meter.Leaf folder damage varied between 2.5 and 26.23 DL/ m2 while whiteears ranged from 0 to 55.6/ m2. Multiple regression analysis revealed anon- significant relationship between pest damage and grain yield(Multiple R = 0.4829; R2 = 0.2332) with the following equation:

Y = 138.87 + 0.45X1 + 0.89X2 – 0.72X3Where in, X1 = DH/ m2 at 40 DAT

X2 = LFDL/ m2 at 65 DATX3 = WE/ m2 at 80 DAT

Yield loss estimation trial was conducted only at Pattambi duringRabi 2012. Multiple regression analysis revealed a non-significant positiverelationship between grain yield and dead hearts & leaf folder damagedleaves while it was non- significant negative relationship between grainyield and white ears (r2 = 0.2332).

ii) Integrated Pest Management Special (IPMs) Trial

IPM is a dynamic process that involves constant decision makingby farmers selecting from basket of options available for the managementof the pest keeping in view the availability, feasibility and long termviability. IPM is a continuous refining process of various componentsthat needs to be validated at individual farm level. Keeping this in view, atrial on IPM was initiated two years back with an aim of managing thepests including insects, diseases & weeds in a holistic way.

During rabi 2012, the trial was conducted at two locations viz.,Chinsurah and Pattambi. Pest management practices followed in IPMand farmers practice are given in Table 2.51. Location wise results arediscussed here.


2.134

Table 2.51 Location wise pest management practices followed in IPMs trial

Chinsurah: IET 4094 was grown in this trial. Stem borer and whorlmaggot incidence was observed (Table 2.52). Dead heart damage wassignificantly high in FP (12.73%) as compared to IPM (3.11%). Whorlmaggot damage was very low (<2%) to draw valid conclusions. Highestgrain yield was obtained from IPM plot (7518 kg/ha) followed by FP (5058kg/ ha).BC ratio was high in IPM (3.73) due to high returns.

LOCATION : CHINSURAHPractices adopted IPM Farmers practice

Area 0.5 acre 0.5 acreVariety IET 4094 IET 4094Date of sowing 29.12.11 29.12.11Date of planting 9.2.12 9.2.12Nursery Seed treatment with Carbandezim @ 10

g/10 kg seeds (wet seed treatment).Soaked these treated seed overnight in10 liter water and kept in gunny bag forgermination.

Seeds werebroadcasted

Main field Transplanted seedlings at a spacing of20 x 15 cm.Left alleyways of 30 cm after every 2 m/10 rowsApplied Butachlor 1.5 kg a.i. / hawithin one week after transplantation.Sprayed Cartap Hydrochloride 50%SPtwice, at 30 DAT and 60 DATAt 15 DAT, pheromone traps wereinstalled with 5 mg lure @ 8 traps/ hafor stem borer monitoring.

Transplantedseedlings atrandomly

LOCATION: PATTAMBIPractices adopted IPM Farmers practiceArea 2000 sq.m 2000 sq.mVariety Uma UmaNursery i)Seed treatment with Pseudomonas @

10g /kg of seedii) Cartaphydrochloride @ 1000 g

a.i./haiii) Seedling dip with Pseudomonas

@ 15 g / litre of waterMain field i) Application of Cartap @ 5 kg /ac

at 75 DATii) Application of Butachlor @ 1

litre/acreiii) Two Sprays with Eco-neem 1 %

at 25, 45 and 60 DAT,iv) Sprayed Flubendiamide at 75

DAT andv) Sprayed propiconazole at 65

DAT & Streeptocycline

Spray withLambdacyhalothrinat 25,45 and60DAT,Quinalphosat 75DAT, Dithane M 45at 70 DAT andmethylparathion at85 DAT


2.135

Pattambi: Uma variety was grown in this trial. Stem borer, leaf folder,whorl maggot, case worm and blue beetle incidence was observed in bothIPM and FP (Table 2.53). Dead hearts were significantly high in FP(5.26%) as compared to IPM plot (1.53%). The damage by other pests waslow (<5%) to draw valid conclusions. Grain yield was significantly high inIPM (6408 kg/ ha) as compared to FP (4268 kg/ha) and hence BC ratiowas also high in IPM (2.23).

Integrated Pest Management special (IPMs) trial was conducted at twolocations viz., Chinsurah and Pattambi during rabi 2012. In general thepest incidence was low at these two locations. Only dead heart damagewas significantly high in farmers’ practices as compared to IPM whereasother pests like whorl maggot, leaf folder and caseworm damage was lowto draw valid conclusions. Grain yield was significantly high in IPM plotsresulting in high BC ratio at both the locations. For the implementation ofIPM at farmer level, there is a need to update the knowledge and skills offarmers and help them in decision making at the right time in a right way.

Table 2.52 Pest incidence, grain yield and benefit-cost ratio in IPMs trialat Chinsurah, rabi 2012

Price of paddy = Rs. 1000/q

Yield Gross Cost of Net

Treatments%DH

%WMDL (kg/ ha) returns

cultivation returns

BCratio

IPM3.11(1.67)

0.45(0.96) 7518 75180 20150 55030 3.73

FP12.73(3.33)

0.60(1.01) 5058 50580 16000 34580 3.16

LSD at p =0.05 1.14 NS 1812CV (%) 34.83 13.18 16.41


2.136

Table 2.53 Pest incidence, grain yield and benefit cost ratio in IPMs trialat Pattambi, rabi 2012

Yield Gross Cost of Net BC

Treatments%DH

%LFDL

%WMDL

%CWDL

(kg/ha) returns cultivation returns ratio

IPM1.53

(1.24)2.29

(1.32)3.27

(1.74)0.25

(0.86)6408 83304 37415 8474 2.23

FP5.26

(2.05)3.51

(1.84)2.64

(1.57)1.07

(1.14)4268 55484 46777 8707 1.19

LSD at p =0.05

NS NS NS NS 594

CV (%) 30.59 23.09 14.33 31.06 6.34Price of paddy = Rs. 1300/ q


APPENDIX IScientists involved in coordinated programme

DRR headquarters, Hyderabad: Drs. J. S. Bentur, G . Katti, V. Jhansi Lakshmi,N. Somasekhar, A. P. Padmakumari, Chitra Shanker & Ch.PadmavathiCooperating centres:S. No. State Location Code Name of the cooperator, Designation

1.

AndhraPradesh

Rajendranagar RNR Dr N. R. G. Varma, Scientist (Entomology)2. Maruteru MTU Dr K.Vasanta Bhanu, Scientist (Entomology)3. Nellore* NLR Dr P. Raja Sekhar, Principal Scientist (Entomology)4. Ragolu* RGL Dr Vishalakshmi, Principal Scientist & Head5. Warangal WGL Dr Sanyasi Dhurua and Dr R. Sunitha Devi ,

Entomologists6. Assam Titabar TTB Dr B. C Dutta, Principal Scientist7.

BiharPatna (BAU) PTN1 Position Vacant

8. Patna (ICAR)* PTN2 Dr Md. Idris. Principal Scientist, Entomology9. Pusa PUS Dr A. K. Misra, Chief Scientist (Entomology)10. New Delhi New Delhi* NDL Dr Subhash Chander, Principal Scientist (Ento.), IARI11. Jarkhand Ranchi RNC Dr Rabindra Prasad, Head, Dept. of Ent.12.

GujaratNawagam NWG Dr V. J. Patel, Assoc. Res. Scientist (Ent.)

13. Navsari NVS Dr S.N.Gajjar, Assoc. Prof. (Entomology)14. Haryana Kaul KUL Dr. Lakhi Ram, Entomologist15. H.P Malan MLN Dr. A. Srivastava, Sr. Entomologist16.

J & KChatha CHT Dr Hafeez Ahmed, Asst. Prof.(Ento.)

17. Khudwani KDW Dr Ayoub Mantoo, Sr Scientist18.

KarnatakaMandya MND Dr D. K. Sidde Gowda, Entomologist (Rice)

19. Gangavathi GGV Dr G.S.Guru Prasad, Asst. Professor (Ent.)20. Brahmavar BMR Dr S. U. Patil, Assoc. Professor21. Kerala Moncompu MNC Dr Shanas Sudheer, Asst. Prof. (Ent.)22. Pattambi PTB Dr. K. Karthikeyan, Assoc. Prof. of Ent.23.

ChattisgarhJagdalpur JDP Dr. A. K.Gupta, Scientist, Entomology

24. Raipur RPR Dr Sanjay Sharma, Sr. Scientist (Entomology)25. M. P Rewa* REW Dr. M. R. Dhingra, Sr. Entomologist26.

MaharashtraKarjat KJT Dr A.S.Patil, Entomologist (Rice)

27. Sakoli SKL Dr. B. N.Chaudhari, Jr. Entomologist28.

ManipurIroisemba* IRS Dr K.I.Singh, Professor (Ent.)

29. Wangbal WGB Dr. L. Irabot Singh, Jr. Entomologist30. Meghalaya Upper Shillong USG Mr. W. Marbaniang, Asst. Entomologist31. Odisha Cuttack* CTC Dr Mayabini Jena, Principal Scientist (Entomology)32. Sambalpur SBP Dr Atanu Seni, Jr Entomologist33. Punjab Ludhiana LDN Dr P. S. Sarao, Sr. Entomologist34.

Tamil NaduAduthurai ADT Dr GV Ramasubramanian, Entomologist (AICRIP).

35. Coimbatore CBT Dr S. Suresh, Prof. of Entomology36. Madurai* MDR Dr R Nalini, Assoc. Prof.of Entomology-37. U. Territory Karaikal* KKL Dr V Ramesh, Professor & Head i/c (Ag. Entomology)38. Puducherry PDC Dr J Krishna Kumar, Jr. Entomologist39. Uttaranchal Almora* ALM Johnson Stanley, Scientist ( Agril.Entomology)40. Pantnagar PNR Dr S. N. Tiwari, Prof. of Entomology41. Uttar

PradeshFaizabad FZB Dr R. B Singh, Entomologist

42. Ghaghraghat GGT Dr S. S. Prasad, Assoc. Prof. (Ento.)43. West Bengal Chinsurah CHN Dr S.K.Roy, Entomologist

* - Voluntary Centre.


APPENDIX II

PERFORMANCE OF ENTOMOLOGY CENTRES DURING 2012.

State LocationNo. of Trials

Rabi 2012 Kharif 2012Sent Recd. Sent Recd.

Funded co-operating centersAndhra Pradesh Maruteru 3 0 12 12

Rajendranagar 3 3 13 11Ragolu 2 2 13 11Warangal 2 2 11 9

Assam Titabar 2 0 7 4Bihar Patna 0 0

Pusa 11 9Gujarat Nawagam 11 11

Navsari 12 10Haryana Kaul 10 7Himachal Pradesh Malan 11 7Jammu & Kashmir Chatha (R.S.Pura) 7 5

Khudwani 10 10Jharkhand Ranchi 11 10Karnataka Mandya 12 9

Gangavathi 2 2 12 12Brahmavar 11 8

Kerala Moncompu 4 3 11 8Pattambi 5 5 11 11

Chattisgarh Jagdalpur 12 11Raipur 15 15

Maharashtra Karjat 3 2 12 11Sakoli 12 12

Manipur Wangbal 11 7Meghalaya Upper Shillong 7 0Orissa Sambalpur 2 2 12 11Puducherry Puducherry 2 2 9 7Punjab Ludhiana 15 15Tamil Nadu Aduthurai 4 4 12 7

Coimbatore 2 2 12 9Uttar Pradesh Faizabad 9 8

Ghaghraghat 10 9Uttaranchal Pantnagar 11 10West Bengal Chinsurah 4 4 12 11

Total 40 33 373 307


Voluntary centresAndhra Pradesh Nellore 3 0 8 6Bihar Patna (ICAR) 4 4Delhi New Delhi 5 4Madhya Pradesh Rewa 11 8Manipur Iroisemba 8 7Odisha Cuttack 1 1 7 5

Puducherry Karaikal 2 0 6 2Tamil Nadu Madurai 2 0 7 1Uttaranchal Almora 3 2

Total 8 1 59 39Total trials in funded coop. &voluntary centres

48 34 432 346

% Receipt of data 70.83 80.09

Grand totals for kharif & rabi 480 380

% Receipt of data (overall) 79.17


APPENDIX-IIIList of abbreviations

a.i. : Active ingredientADL : Average damaged leavesAT After treatmentAv.No./AN : Average numberAW : Army wormB+WBPH : Mixed populations of BPH and WBPHBB : Blue beetleBCR : Benefit cost ratioBPH : Brown planthopperBT Before treatmentCocc. : CoccinellidsCPP : Cost of plant protectionCW : Case wormDAT/DT : Days after transplantingDG : Damaged grainDH : Dead heartsDHB : Dark Headed borerDL : Damaged leavesDP : Damaged plantsDS : Damage scoreFR : Field reactionGB : Gundhi bugGH : Greenhouse reactionGHC : Green horned caterpillarGLH : Green leafhopperGMB : Gall midge biotypeGRH : Grass hopperHB : Hopper burnHBP : Hopper burned plantsIOC : Increase over controlLF : Leaf folderMB : Mirid bugMLB : Mealy bugN.n : Nephotettix nigropictusN.v : Nephotettix virescensN.ve : Nezara viridulaNo./10h : Number per 10 hillsNP : Net profitNPT : Number of promising testsNT : Not testedPH : PlanthoppersPLD : Promising level of damagePSB : Pink stem borerR.d : Recilia dorsalisRF : RainfallRH : Rice hispaRH : Relative humidityRT : Rice thripsSBDH : Stem borer dead heartSBWE : Stem borer white earSDW Standard weekSS : Silver shootsSSB : Striped Stem borerSSH : Sunshine hoursWB : Water bugWBPH : Whitebacked planthopperWE : White earsWLH : White leafhopperWM : Whorl maggotWSB : White Stem borerYSB : Yellow stem borer


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSOur thanks are due to the scientists located at different centres for

the conduct of trials as a part of the Coordinated Entomology Program.Sincere thanks are also due to Dr. J. S. Prasad, Principal Scientist(Nematology) & Head, Crop Protection, Dr. M. Sampath Kumar, Scientistfor their help in preparation of the report. Thanks are also due to Dr.B. Sailaja, Scientist(SS) for helping in the statistical analysis of data.Thanks are due to technical staff of Entomology Section, Sri. S.Amudhan, Sri. P. M. Chirutkar, Sri. P. Sankaranarayana, Sri. T.Venkaiah, Sri. K. Shravan Kumar and Sri S.Vijay Kumar for their effortsin conduct of the trials and / or preparation of the report at DRR.Special thanks are due to Sri. Ashfaq Ali, Stenographer for his help infinal page setting and printing of the report.

2. entomology - icar-iirr.org progress report 2012.pdf · 2.3 chemical control studies: two...

Documents