CHAPTER 12Pest management practices of rice farmers in Sri Lanka

L. Nugaliyadde, T. Hidaka, and M.P. Dhanapala

AbstractNearly 330 rice farmers in seven administrative districts of Sri Lanka were interviewed to determine their pest management practices and knowledge of insect pests and natural enemies. Most of the farmers (95%) were unaware of the pest-resistant characteristics of commonly grown rice varieties. During the main season (October to March) of 1995-96, 79% of the farmers reported infestations of the following insect pests: leaf folder (22%), rice bug (17%), brown planthopper (16%), stem borer (14%), thrips (5%), cutworm (5%), gall midge (4%), and armyworm (4%). Most farmers (86%) applied insecticides to control these pests, 7% did nothing, and the rest used traditional methods. Farmers applied insecticides an average of 1.2 times per season, of which 83% were to control pests instead of preventing infestations. Some42% of the insecticide applications were made at the seedling stage and 40% at the vegetative stage. The most commonly used insecticides were carbofuran (10%), chlorpyrifos (7%), phenthoate (7%), and monocrotophos (5%). Most of the farmers (92%) believed that leaf-feeding insects would cause damage to rice and 61% thought that spraying should be done early to avoid severe crop losses. Although 82% of the farmers knew the natural enemies of rice pests, only 17% knew their role in the rice ecosystem.

Introduction

Rice in Sri Lanka

As the staple food in Sri Lanka, rice is the most important food crop in the country. It is also the livelihood of more than 1.8 million farm families, and more than 30% of the total labor force is directly or indirectly involved in the rice sector. From 1991 to 1995, the average annual rough rice production was about 2.24 million t. At the present consumption rate for rice (100 kg capita -1 yr -1 ), Sri Lanka would require about 3.5 million t of rice to feed its population of about 20 million in the year 2000 (DOASL 1995a). Because Sri Lanka is reaching a stage at which further expansion in rice area will not be possible, the alternative is to give more emphasis to increasing the production potential per unit area of land and finding ways to achieve this on-farm through appropriate technology (DOASL 1995b).

The main problems now facing the rice sector are low and stagnating yield (3.2 t /ha), escalating production costs ($175 /t rough rice), diminishing profitability ($12.50 month per irrigated ha), poor grain quality, and the high market price of polished rice ($0.30–0.46 /kg) (DOASL 1995a). The increasing prices of inorganic fertilizers, increasing labor costs, and the declining labor force for rice cultivation had a negative effect on the number of farmers using improved crop management practices. A need has therefore arisen to undertake detailed investigations on biological and socioeconomic constraints to rice production to sustain the gains that have been achieved and to meet the challenges of declining productivity and profitability in rice (DOASL 1995b). The government therefore developed a comprehensive plan to intensify research and development efforts to: (1) reduce the cost of production (below $100 /t of rough rice), (2) maintain the quality of the rice environment, (3) increase national yield from 3.2 to 4.5 t /ha, and (4) increase the professionalism of rice farming (DOASL 1995a).

Integrated management of rice pests

The improvement of crop protection technologies that are cheaper, more efficient, and environmentally sound is becoming urgent. But inadequate crop protection techniques, the lack of appropriate agronomic practices, insufficient extension services, and socioeconomic constraints are the main problems associated with implementing integrated pest management (IPM) techniques (DOASL 1995b). Therefore, emphasis has been given to developing rice varieties with resistance to the major pests—rice thrips, gall midge (biotype II), and brown planthopper—and studying the natural control mechanisms of these pests, analyzing farmers' pest management decision making and practices, and introducing different IPM approaches to improve farmers' practices in order to develop sustainable IPM in rice. Furthermore, the research activities of the Department of Agriculture, Sri Lanka (DOASL), focus mainly on generating research information on IPM components to help strengthen farmer training (Kudagamage and Nugaliyadde 1995, Fernando 1996).

Survey sites

Rice ecosystem

Sri Lanka has approximately 730,000 ha of land suitable for rice cultivation. Of this, 41 % is covered by the major irrigation schemes, 25% by the minor irrigation schemes, and 34% is under rainfed conditions, with a total area sown per year of around 830,000 ha because of double cropping. The average productivity under major, minor, and rainfed lands is 4.2 t /ha, 3.2 t /ha, and 2.4 t /ha, respectively. Therefore, the irrigated lands (major and minor) contribute about 75% to the total paddy production (Pathinayake et al 1991, DOASL 1995a, 1995c).

Sri Lanka’s rice lands are mostly in the inland valleys and, to a limited extent, on coastal plains, flood plains, and terraced slopes. Variable seasonal rains and a variety of soils, elevations, temperatures, and drainage patterns create complex and varying environments for rice production (Will 1989). The agroclimatic features of the country are strongly influenced by the interaction of the two monsoons—the northeast (October-March) and the southwest (May-September)—and the mountainous land mass in the south-central areas. Climatic zones are grouped on the basis of annual rainfall into dry (900–1,500 mm), intermediate (1,500–2,200 mm), and wet (>2,200 mm), and on the basis of altitude into low-country (<300 m), mid-country (300–1,000 m), and up-country (>1,000 m) (Fig. 1). A further classification of lands into 24 agroecological regions was made according to altitude, rainfall and its distribution, major soil groups, elevation, temperature, and vegetation (Panabokke and Kannangara1975).

The cultivation year is divided into two seasons—main (maha ) between October and March and minor (yala) between April and September. The seasons are very distinct in the dry zone, but become increasingly less distinct toward the intermediate and wet zones. The northeast monsoon (October to March) is stronger and produces rains throughout the island. The southwest monsoon (May to September) brings rains mostly to the wet zone, the southwestern quarter, and the central highlands. As a result, moisture is sufficient year-round in the wet zone, but dry spells are frequent in the dry and intermediate zones (Panabokke and Kannangara 1975).

Sampling sites

Seven administrative districts — Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa, Kurunegala, Matale, Kandy, Ratnapura, and Hambantota — were selected to represent different agro-ecological regions

(Fig. 1). Accessibility to the sample areas was also considered in selecting these districts. Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa, and Hambantota are mainly dry zones, whereas the others run across wet, intermediate, and dry zones. These seven districts cover about 35% of the total rice lands in the country. More than 90% of the rice lands in Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa, and Hambantota districts are under irrigated cultivation compared with those in Kurunegala (63%), Matale (75%), Kandy (63%), and Ratnapura (63%). A significant proportion of the rice lands in Kurunegala, Matale, Kandy, and Ratnapura is under rainfed cultivation (Gunatilake and Somasiri 1995).

Although pest problems pertaining to different areas are not documented systematically, Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa, Hambantota, and Ampara are endemic regions for brown planthopper. Rice gall midge infestations are usually high in the dry and intermediate zones during the main season and in the wet zone in the minor season (Kudagamage and Nugaliyadde 1995).

Method of survey

Selection of farmers

Farmers who cultivate irrigated rice in the dry and intermediate zones and favorable rainfed rice in the wet zone were selected for the survey. Two or three Agrarian Service Centers (ASC) were selected on purpose from each administrative district to represent different agroecological regions. About 25 farmers, selected at random, were interviewed from each ASC range. A total of 329 farmers from Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa, Kurunegala, Kandy, Matale, Ratnapura, and Hambantota were interviewed.

Survey instrument

The survey was designed to describe the sociodemographic profile of rice farmers in the selected districts, record the agronomic and pest management practices followed during the main season of 1995-96 (October 1995 to March 1996), and obtain detailed information about farmers’ knowledge and attitudes on insect pests and natural enemies of rice and their use of pesticides. A questionnaire already used by the IPM Network in other Asian countries was taken as the base document in preparing the survey instrument. The questionnaire was translated into the Sinhala language and adapted to reflect local situations. The adapted questionnaire was pretested with 10 farmers from Kurunegala and modifications were made accordingly.

Survey procedure

To ensure consistency in responses, the enumerators agreed to follow a uniform questioning and recording procedure. Follow-up discussions helped share experiences and make necessary adjustments to the survey procedure. The survey was done mainly during weekends and holidays in order to find as many farmers as possible. Initially, the interviewers gave farmers a brief introduction to the survey objectives and requested their cooperation for its success. Farmers were interviewed within a period of 10 weeks (February-April 1996). The survey began soon after the main season of 1995-96 and continued until the beginning of the minor season of 1996 to enable farmers to relate observations from previous seasons and activities more accurately.

Results

Socio-demographic profile of farmers

The ages of selected rice farmers ranged from <20 to >60 years, with a mean and SE of 46.2 ± 3.4. About one-fifth of the farmers were below the age of 30 years, and 4.3% were above 61 (Table 1). Some 58.5% of the farmers were owner-operators and 26.4% were tenants. Only 9.2% were lessees, 1.1% were hired laborers, and 4.5% fell into other categories. Of the 329 farmers interviewed, 38.9% had more than 20 years of experience in rice farming and 73.2% had cultivated rice for more than 10 years.

Farm sizes ranged from <0.25 ha to >1.5 ha, with a mean and SE of 0.72 ± 0.01. The highest frequency (37.2%) for farm size was for 1 .0–1.25 ha. The frequencies for other farm size categories (0.25–0.50, 0.50–0.75, 0.75–1.00 ha) were 10–16%. More farmers interviewed in Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa, and Hambantota were members of farmer organizations than those in Kandy (8%), Matale (35%), and Kurunegala (31%).

Agronomic practices

More than 98% of the rice lands are cultivated to improved varieties developed by the DOASL; about 68% of the farmers knew the names of the varieties they grew, and more than 85% of the farmers also knew the maturity period of the varieties. Some farmers identified improved varieties by their local names. Thus, the frequencies obtained for different varieties did not reflect the actual varietal distribution. The 231 farmers mentioned a total of 25 rice varieties. The five most popular varieties grown in the survey areas were Bg 450 (14%), Bg 11-11 (11%), Bg 379-2 (11%), Bg 350 (10%), and Bg 300 (6%). More farmers (56%) grew 120-day varieties than 105-day varieties and 90-day varieties (15%). Only 8% of the farmers could not give the name or even the maturity duration with certainty.

The survey revealed that 39% of the farmers obtained their seed requirement from their neighbors and 33% from their own seed stock. Others obtained their seed from private seed growers (12%) and from the DOASL (16%). In the survey areas, 86% of the crop was

broadcast. Broadcasting was more popular in Hambantota (100%), Anuradhapura (85%), and Polonnaruwa (80%) than in Matale (39%) and Ratnapura(25%).

Farmers reported grain yield from 2 to 6 t ha, with a mean and SE of 3.34 & 0.67. About 29% and 28% of the farmers obtained rice yields of 3-4 and 4–5 t /ha, respectively. One-third of the farmers obtained yields below 3 t /ha, the national average, and 12% produced more than 5 t /ha. More than 70% of the farmers in Polonnaruwa, Anuradhapura, and Hambantota obtained yields of 4–5 t /ha compared with those in Kurunegala, Ratnapura, Kandy, and Matale of 3-4 t /ha.

Rice farmers' pest management knowledge

Most farmers (95%) were unaware of the pest-resistant characteristics of rice varieties. Of the 329 farmers interviewed, 79.6% reported at least one pest infestation during the past season (October 1995-March 1996). The rest (20%) mentioned no pest damage or ignored low infestation levels. Rice leafful/der infestations were reported by 22% of the rice farmers. This was followed by rice bug (17%), brown planthopper (BPH) (16%), stem borer (14%), rats (9%), thrips (5%), cutworm (5%), armyworm (4%), and gall midge (4%). Fewer than 3% of the farmers reported rice diseases— blast, bacterial blight, and rice yellowing. About 87% of the farmers (all those who blast, bacterial blight, and rice yellowing. About 87% of the farmers (all those who direct-seeded their crop) reported weeds as their main problem during the past season.

When farmers were asked to indicate the most important pest problem, 33% mentioned leaffolder, 14% rice bug, 13% rats, 10% BPH, and 7% stem borer. The second most important pest problems mentioned were rice bug (31%), stem borer (25%), BPH (16%), rats (5%), thrips (4%), cutworm (4%), and gall midge (4%). Of the 262 farmers who reported insect pest problems, 86% have applied insecticides to control them, 7% did nothing, 3.4% used baiting, 2% used water management, and a small portion resorted to hand picking and other traditional methods, including spraying neem seed extracts.

Pesticide application pattern

The farmers who used chemical control made a total of 402 pesticide (insecticides and fungicides) applications, or an average of 1.2 applications per farmer. Of these applications, 83% were made to control pests and 15% to prevent pest infestations; the remaining 2% were made with uncertainty. Furthermore, most of the pesticide applications were made at the seedling (42%) and vegetative stages (40%). Only 18% of the applications were made at the reproductive stage of the crop. During the main crop season, farmers spent from <$10 /ha to $35 /ha for pesticides, with a mean and SE of 28.2 ± 1.3. The highest amount recorded by a farmer for insecticides was $35 /ha. About 52% of the farmers spent $25–35 /ha and about 25% between $10 and $25 /ha. The rest spent less than $10 /ha. These amounts were found to be comparable with those figures recorded for the crop year 1993-94 (DOASL 1995c).

Farmers' selection of insecticides for rice pest control

The pesticides (insecticides and fungicides) used by farmers during the main crop season fall into different groups (Table 2). Of these, endosulfan, methamidophos, monocrotophos, malathion, cyfluthurin, fungicides, and sulfur are not recommended for rice pest control (endosulfan and monocrotophos have been banned in Sri Lanka since 1995). Some products are used exclusively in public health care (cyfluthrin and malathion), but some farmers (n=12) used fungicides for insect control. More interestingly, 48% of the pesticides used were classified as unknown because the farmers were unable to remember the name of the pesticide.

The most commonly used insecticides were carbofuran (10.4%), chlorpyrifos (7.4%), phenthoate (6.9%), monocrotophos (4.7%), methamidophos (1.5%), and diazinon (3.2%). Furthermore, farmers often do not follow the recommended application rates (DOASL 1995d). During the survey, we observed that more than 75% of the farmers never followed the recommended dosage and dilution. Farmers gave many explanations for not following the recommendations indicated on the label of the pesticide container. In addition, the higher cost of pesticides and labor caused farmers to use lower dosages at the first sign of insect infestation.

Farmers’ perceptions about leaf-feeding insects

Almost all farmers mentioned the leaffolder as one of the most damaging leaf-feeding insects of rice. Farmers recognized grasshoppers, cutworms, armyworms, and caseworms as leaf-feeding insects. Farmers in Polonnaruwa were more aware of leaf-feeding insects than those in other districts and were able to identify at least three leaf-feeding insects of rice (Table 3). In all

districts, the majority of the farmers (54- 95%) believed that leaf-feeding insects would cause severe damage to rice. Close to two-thirds of the farmers (64%) across all districts believed that insecticides were needed to control leaf-feeding insects and that spraying should be done early (63%) to avoid severe crop losses.

Farmers’ knowledge of natural enemies of rice pests

About 53% of the farmers recognized the presence of a group of organisms called natural enemies in rice fields (Table 4). In Hambantota, 86% of the farmers knew about natural enemies. In contrast, farmer awareness of natural enemies was comparatively poor in Kandy

(31%), Anuradhapura (33%), Kurunegarala (48%), and Matale (50%). Almost all of the farmers who recognized the presence of natural enemies could describe their role in the rice environment. Fifty-one percent of the farmers knew that natural enemies feed on other insects such as pests. Many farmers were able to name at least three natural enemies of rice pests (mean 3.8). The most common natural enemies mentioned by farmers were spiders, dragonflies, birds, snakes, different types of beetles, and flies.

Fifty percent of the farmers were aware of the adverse effects of insecticides on natural enemies. Farmer awareness of the ill effects of insecticides was high in Hambantota (85%) and Polonnaruwa (65%). Farmers’ responses to further questions on the effect of insecticide applications on pest populations were poor. This was evident in the low proportion of farmers who answered a question on pest resurgence after insecticide application. Only 17% of the farmers agreed that killing natural enemies will increase pest infestations.

Discussion

Prior to the beginning of the FAO Intercountry Rice IPM Program in the early 1980s, insect pest control for rice was mainly based on pesticides. Emphasis was also given to developing and introducing varieties resistant to major insect pests and understanding the natural control mechanisms of the insect pest complex of rice (Wickremasinghe 1980, Fernando 1996). In addition to the extensive promotional activities of the pesticide industry, the well-established extension service network of the DOASL helped disseminate pesticide recommendations to farmers more effectively. This could be a major factor contributing to farmers’ overreliance on insecticides for rice pest control.

During the survey, some farmers were observed to consider pesticides (insecticides) as essential components of rice cultivation; farmers purchased them at the beginning of the season along with other inputs such as seed, fertilizer, etc. Farmers would go through financial hardships just to buy pesticides, which are not subsidized in Sri Lanka. Furthermore, some farmers were found to mix granular insecticides (usually one-fifth of the recommended dose) with fertilizers at the first topdressing. Therefore, to implement an ecologically based pest management program, it is essential to correct farmers’ perceptions that pesticides are important and an essential component of rice farming.

The improvements made so far on pesticide recommendations have been encouraging. The DOASL has constantly updated the recommendations. In 1971, the DOASL covered two organochlorines (DDT and BHC) and six organophosphates (diazinon, fenthion, malathion, monocrotophos, phenthoate, and trichlorfon) (DOASL 1971). This recommendation was revised in 1979 to add four carbamates (fenobucarb, carbaryl, carbofuran, and propoxur) (DOASL 1979). A 1983 revision deleted all organochlorines from the pesticide recommendation (DOASL 1983). In 1995, the recommendation was further revised to delete all WHO class Ia and class Ib products and to include safer new products (DOASL 1995d).

The IPM program in rice, launched by the DOASL in the early 1980s, first emphasized improving farmers’ pest management practices by upgrading their knowledge on pests, natural enemies, and pesticide application patterns. Economic threshold values for each pest were introduced to justify pesticide applications (Kudagamage and Nugaliyadde 1995). But the acceptability of pest management based on threshold levels has received much criticism (Matteson et al 1984).

Because IPM is recognized as a national policy in Sri Lanka, emphasis has been given to improving farmers’ pest management decision making through farmer field schools (DOASL 1995a, Fernando 1996). The results of this program seem encouraging. Farmers in areas where IPM programs have been active over the past decade seem to be well aware of IPM approaches. As indicated by van de Fliert (1987), we also observed a critical lack of farmer knowledge on recommended crop management practices. Awareness of varieties is important for planning and executing appropriate crop management practices, including fertilizer application, to realize yield potential. Furthermore, farmers should possess a sound knowledge of insect pests, including their natural control agents and influence on yield, among other aspects, to effectively make management decisions. The many knowledge gaps we observed among farmers may have prevented them from making effective management decisions.

This was evident because of the prominence farmers gave to insect pests affecting their crops. Similar to the observations of Escalada et al (1992), Heong et al (1992, 1994), and Vo Mai et al (1993), we also found that farmers seem to equate visibility of a pest with its importance. As in other Asian countries, farmers in Sri Lanka consider leaf folder and paddy bug as the most damaging pests to the rice crop. Farmers‘ perceptions of leaf folder damage and the need for immediate control have been reported to be widespread in many Asian countries (Heong et al 1994). On the other hand, the specific odor and distinct appearance in the field and illuminated places in the house make paddy bug a prominent pest for farmers. Almost all farmers believe that the paddy bug causes extensive yield losses to their crops, which stimulates them to use chemical control.

Although the survey did not study farmers’ fertilizer application patterns, we observed many variations in fertilizer use. Many farmers seem less interested in supplying the essential nutritional requirements to seedlings (to incorporate organic matter or to supply basal fertilizer), which are vital for early growth and to help withstand pest infestations. Farmers considered nutritional disorders, commonly observed in low-fertile soils, as pest problems requiring insecticide applications. Therefore, a high percentage of farmers applied pesticides at the early vegetative stage of the crop.

We also noted that farmers’ knowledge of correct pesticide use is poor, including selection of the correct pesticide, dosage, dilution, timing, and application techniques (van der Fliert 1987). This lack of knowledge on proper pesticide use could lead to environmental as well as socioeconomic problems for rice farmers. Therefore, efforts should be made to wean farmers from the misuse of pesticides. Because of the activities of the IPM program, farmer awareness of natural enemies was found to be high in Hambantota and Polonnaruwa. Efforts should therefore be made to introduce similar programs in other areas as well. Nevertheless, farmers’ inability to understand pest resurgence because of pesticides; the existence of an ecological balance among pests, natural enemies, and neutral fauna in ricefields; and the relationship between pest densities and yield should be taken into account when developing strategies to improve farmers’ pest management decisions.

References

DOASL (Department of Agriculture Sri Lanka). 1971. Chemical pest control recommendation for paddy. Peradeniya (Sri Lanka): Agriculture Extension Division, DOASL. 13 p.

DOASL (Department of Agriculture Sri Lanka). 1979. Major crop pests and their control with pesticides. Peradeniya (Sri Lanka): DOASL. 46 p.

DOASL (Department of Agriculture Sri Lanka). 1983. Major crop pests and their control with pesticides. Peradeniya (Sri Lanka): Extension and Communication Center, DOASL. 51 p.

DOASL (Department of Agriculture Sri Lanka). 1995a. Work plan for the development of the rice sector in Sri Lanka. Peradeniya (Sri Lanka): DOASL. 19 p.

DOASL (Department of Agriculture Sri Lanka). 1995b. Five year work plan for the Rice Research and Development Institute. Peradeniya (Sri Lanka): DOASL. 11 p.

DOASL (Department of Agriculture Sri Lanka). 1995c. Cost of cultivation of agricultural crops— maha 1993/94. Peradeniya (Sri Lanka): Socio-economic and Planning Center, DOASL. 55 p.

DOASL (Department of Agriculture Sri Lanka). 1995d. Major crop pests and their control with pesticides. Peradeniya (Sri Lanka): Extension and Communication Center, DOASL. (Unpublished.)

Escalada MM, Lazaro AA, Heong KL. 1992. Early spraying by rice farmers in Leyte, Philippines. International Rice Res. Newsletter 17:27-28.

Fernando MHJP. 1996. Sri Lanka National IPM Programme: a country brief. Proceedings of the programme advisory committee meeting, FAO Intercountry Programme for IPM in Asia, 6-9 Feb 1996. Hyderabad (India): FAO. 10 p.

Gunatilake GA, Somasiri S. 1995. Rice growing ecosystems. In: Amarasiri SL, Nagarajah S, Perera BMK, editors. Rice Congress 1990. Proceedings of the Rice Symposium, 3-4 Sept 1990. Kandy (Sri Lanka): DOASL. p. 39-54.

Heong KL, Escalada MM, Lazaro AA. 1992. Pest management practices of rice farmers in Leyte, Philippines. Los Baños (Philippines): International Rice Research Institute. 57 p.

Heong KL, Escalada MM, Vo Mai. 1994. An analysis of insecticide use in rice: a case study in the Philippines and Vietnam. International Journal of Pest Management 40(2):173-178.

Kudagamage C, Nugaliyadde L. 1995. Present status and future direction of insect pest management in rice. In: Amarasiri SL, Nagarajah S, Perera BMK, editors. Rice Congress1990. Proceedings of the Rice Symposium, 3-4 September 1990. Kandy (Sri Lanka): DOASL. p. 39-54.

Matteson PC, Altieri MA, Gagne WC. 1984. Modification of small farmer practices for better pest management. Annual Review of Entomology 29:383-402.

Panabokke CR, Kannangara RPK. 1975. The identification and demarcation of the agro ecological regions of Sri Lanka. Proceedings Section B. Annual Session of the Sri Lanka Association for the Advancement of Science, Colombo 31(3):49.

Pathinayake BD, Nugaliyadde L, Sandanayake CA. 1991. Direct seeding practices for rice in Sri Lanka. In: Direct seeded flooded rice in the tropics. Manila (Philippines): IRRI. p. 77- 90.

van de Fliert E. 1987. Knowledge, attitudes, practices and information source relating to pest control by rice farmers in Sri Lanka. Thesis submitted to the Agriculture University, Wageningen, Netherlands. 229 p.

Vo Mai, Thu Cuc NT, Hung NQ et al. 1993. Farmers’ perception of rice pest problems and management tactics used in Vietnam. International Rice Research Newsletter 18:31.

Wickremasinghe N. 1980. Fifteen years of progress in rice pest control. In: Rice Symposium 1980. Peradeniya (Sri Lanka): DOASL. p. 49-76.

Will H. 1989. Rice environmental classification in Sri Lanka. UNDP/FAO Rainfed Rice Research and Development Project, SRL/84/024. Central Rice Breeding Station, Batalagoda, Ibbagamuwa, Sri Lanka. 40 p.

Notes

Authors’ addresses: L. Nugaliyadde, entomologist, Rice Research and Development Institute (RRDI); T. Hidaka, Japan International Cooperation Agency IPM expert assigned to RRDI; M.P. Dhanapala, director of RRDI, Department of Agriculture, Batalagoda. Ibbagamuwa, Sri Lanka.

Acknowledgments: This study was undertaken as a collaborative research between the International Rice Research Institute and the Department of Agriculture, Sri Lanka, and we are grateful to Dr. K.L. Heong, IRRI entomologist, for the help extended. Mr. R.M. Hearth Band, economist, and Mr. M.M.P. Muthunayake, economic assistant, Rice Research and Development Institute, helped prepare the survey instrument and guided in planning and conducting the survey. Mr. Ajith Wijesinghe, Mr. Lal Gunawardene, Mr. Udaya Kumara Ekanayake, Mr. S. Shamel Weniwella, Ms. Inn Samanmale. Ms. Puspa Damayanthi Kumari. and Ms. Tharanga Hearth helped conduct the survey. Data analysis was done by Ms. Puspa Damayanthi Kumari and Mr. Jayantha Senanayake.

Citation: Nugaliyadde LT Hidaka, MP Dhanapala. 1997. Pest management practices of rice farmers in Sri Lanka. p. 171-183. In: Heong KL, Escalada MM (editors). 1997. Pest management of rice farmers in Asia. Manila, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute, 245 p.