J. Biol. Control, 23(3): 221–228, 2009 Impact of integrated pest management modules on the activity of natural enemies in castor ecosystem H. BASAPPA Directorate of Oilseeds Research, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad 500030, Andhra Pradesh, India. E–mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT: Investigations were carried out during 2001–2004 to study the impact of biointensive integrated pest management (BIPM), chemical pesticide intensive integrated pest management (CIPM) modules and non–integrated pest management (non–IPM) modules (farmers’ practice) on the natural enemies of insect pests of castor in Andhra Pradesh. BIPM module proved to be relatively safer to natural enemies with 16.13 and 66.10 % average field parasitization of Achaea janata (L.) eggs and larvae by Trichogramma chilonis Ishii and Microplitis maculipennis Szepligeti, compared to 6.92 and 21.2, 8.80 and 24.00, 8.92 and 22.35 % in CIPM module and non–IPM modules 1 and 2, respectively. M. maculipennis cocoon number per plant increased with increase in duration after treatment in the BIPM module whereas it decreased in CIPM and non–IPM modules. Similarly, average parasitisation by Charops obtusus Morley (3.54%), Rhogas spp. (4.60%), Apanteles hyposidrae Wilkinson (13.85%), Euplectrus maternus Bhatnagar (7.92%) on A. janata larvae and Cotesia flavipes Cameron (8.96%) on Spodoptera litura (F.) was higher in the BIPM module compared to CIPM module (1.65, 1.59, 3.50, 2.37 and 2.49%) and non–IPM modules 1(1.16, 0.80, 2.70, 1.20 and 2.68%) and 2 (1.50, 1.19, 2.80, 3.82 and 1.99%), respectively. BIPM module had higher population of predators like Chrysoperla sp., Cheilomenes sexmaculata (Fabricius), Cantheconidea furcellata (Wolff), Rhynocoris kumarii Ambrose and Livingstone and spiders per 10 plants (8.45, 3.41, 3.27 and 7.10) than CIPM module (1.75, 2.90, 1.38, 1.45 and 1.40) and non–IPM modules 1(1.20, 1.82, 1.00, 1.00 and 1.80) and 2 (1.97, 2.41, 1.32, 1.22 and 2.90), respectively. Black drongo (Dicrurus adsimilis Blyth) and Indian myna (Acridotheres tristis (L.)) were the predominant predatory birds which used bird perches frequently while predating on A. janata, S. litura and Conogethes punctiferalis (Guenee) larvae in BIPM and CIPM modules compared to non–IPM modules. KEY WORDS: Castor, insect pests, natural enemies, impact, biointensive integrated pest management (BIPM), chemical pesticide intensive integrated pest management (CIPM) INTRODUCTION Biointensive integrated pest management (BIPM) and chemical pesticide intensive integrated pest management Andhra Pradesh in the southern part and Gujarat and Rajasthan in the western part are the major castor producing (CIPM) modules were developed and validated by states in India. In the traditional castor growing areas of comparing with non–integrated pest management Andhra Pradesh, the crop is grown under rainfed conditions (non–IPM) module1 (farmers’ practice with wilt resistant where there are several production constraints, especially castor variety Jyoti) and 2 (farmers’ practice without variety biotic constraints and hence productivity is very low (387 Jyoti) in a farmers’ participatory approach in Andhra kg ha-1) compared to western part (1864 kg ha-1). Pradesh in the southern part of India during 2001–2004. During validation of BIPM, CIPM and non–IPM modules, A wide array of biocontrol agents has been documented on major insect pests of castor. In castor ecosystem, the simultaneous investigations were also carried out to egg parasitoid, Trichogramma chilonis Ishii, the larval study their impact on the activity of natural enemies parasitoid, Microplitis maculipennis Szepligeti, insect of major insect pests in castor ecosystem. Conservation of predators, spiders, insectivorous birds and some of the these natural enemies in the castor ecosystem is essential microbial agents exert greater biological resistance on the for effective, eco–friendly and sustainable pest succession of the pest complex of castor. management. BASAPPA MATERIALS AND METHODS Benchmark survey and training of farmers in IPM Field School Under National Agricultural Technology Project (NATP) on “Development of IPM Modules for Oilseeds A benchmark survey was conducted among the farmers and nutritious Cereals based Production system (ROPS– growing castor crop in different villages to know their level 8)” a farmers’ participatory integrated pest management of knowledge on natural enemies of various insect pests of (IPM) programme was validated in the traditional castor castor. Two group leaders of farmers (IPM coordinators) areas of Maheswaram watershed in four villages (Kandkur, from each village who were involved in IPM programme Mohammad Nagar, Nednoor and Debbadguda) in Kandkur were trained in the IPM Field School on identification of mandal and one village (Tummalur) in Maheswaram mandal different stages of natural enemies of major insect pests of in Ranga Reddy district of Andhra Pradesh during 2001–02, castor and other IPM components. IPM coordinators from 2002–03 and 2003–04. each village in turn trained the remaining castor farmers Table 1. Pest management interventions in biointensive, chemical pesticide-intensive and non–IPM modules in castor ecosystem IPM Modules Pest management interventions BIPM Regular crop rotation of castor with sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) Summer ploughing Seed treatment with carbendazim @ 2g kg-1 seed Use of wilt resistant castor variety Jyoti (DCS–9) Hand picking and destruction of egg masses and early stage larvae of tobacco caterpillar and hairy caterpillars as well as capsules affected by capsule borer and Botrytis Use of neem seed kernel extract (NSKE 5%) against defoliators Fix dried tree branches as bird perches (15 ha-1) to attract predatory birds Vegetative trapping with Jatropha curcas L. twigs and manual killing of red hairy caterpillar Spray carbendazim @1gl-l against Botrytis and application of 10 kg nitrogen ha-1 after cyclonic rains to get additional spikes. CIPM Regular crop rotation of castor with sorghum Summer ploughing Seed treatment with carbendazim @ 2g kg-1 seed Use of wilt resistant castor variety Jyoti (DCS–9) Fix dried tree branches as bird perches(15 ha-1) to attract predatory birds Spray endosulfan (0.07%) against castor semilooper, chlorpyriphos (0.05%) against tobacco caterpillar and monocrotophos (0.05%) against capsule borer Opening furrow around the fields and apply quinalphos dust (1.5%) against red hairy caterpillar Spray carbendazim @1gl-1 against Botrytis and application of 10 kg nitrogen ha-1 to get additional spikes Non–IPM Quinalphos and monocrotophos spray against castor semilooper and carbendazim against Botrytis. Quinalphos + monocrotophos + cypermethrin against castor semilooper Cypermethrin + carbendazim against castor semilooper and Botrytis. Dimethoate + carbendazim against castor semilooper and Botrytis. Metasystax + monocrotophos against castor semilooper Recording observations on natural enemies on IPM components, especially natural enemies of insect Development and validation of IPM modules pests of castor. IPM farmers were trained on utilization of All the castor IPM farmers from the five villages various IPM components under BIPM and CIPM modules were involved in developing and imposing the BIPM and at different phenological stages of the crop based on the CIPM modules. Different pest management interventions severity of different insect pests and diseases. followed under each module are given in Table 1. BIPM 222 Impact of IPM modules on natural enemies in castor ecosystem and CIPM modules were compared with farmers’ practice 2001–02 and 14.00 % during 2002–03 and 2003–04), 6.92 (non–IPM module) by regularly recording crop protection (8.65% during 2001–02 and 5.20 % during 2002–03 and practices followed by farmers from seedling stage till 2003–04), 8.80 (2002–03 and 2003–04) and 8.92 (7.05% harvest. An experiment was laid out in 16 ha area using during 2001–02 and 10.80 % during 2002–03 and 2003–04) minimum 0.40ha castor field per module with buffer castor in CIPM, non–IPM module 1 and 2, respectively (Table 2). crop between modules in castor fields of ten farmers from In BIPM module, other egg parasitoids like T. achaeae, the five villages (locations). Each farmer was treated as a replication. Castor crop was raised following recommended Telenomus sp. and Trissolcus sp. were also recorded from agronomic practices except plant protection. Under each A. janata eggs but none of them were recorded in CIPM IPM module, different components were imposed at module, non–IPM module 1 and 2. The egg parasitoid, different phenological stages of the crop based on economic Trichogramma evanescens Westwood, was recorded from threshold level (ETL) for castor semilooper (4–5 larvae S. litura eggs in BIPM module. plant-1), tobacco caterpillar (10–15% defoliation), capsule borer (10% capsule damage), wilt (15–20%) and Botrytis Larval parasitoids (10%) (Basappa, 2007). Among larval parasitoids, M. maculipennis on A. janata Pre– and post–treatment (1, 3 and 7 days after was found to be highly potential with field parasitization treatment) counts of number of M. maculipennis cocoons of 66.10, 21.2, 24.00 and 22.35% in BIPM, CIPM, and per plant were recorded. Effect of BIPM, CIPM and non– non–IPM module 1 and 2, respectively. Another larval IPM modules on potential egg and larval parasitoids was parasitoid, Euplectrus maternus Bhatnagar on A. janata studied by recording the per cent parasitization of 100 eggs parasitized 7.92, 2.40, 1.20 and 3.82% of A. janata larvae in and early instar larvae of A. janata and S. litura collected BIPM, CIPM, and non–IPM module 1 and 2, respectively. from the fields and reared in the laboratory at 27 + 1°C Similarly, average parasitization of larval parasitoids like and 65 + 5% relative humidity. Populations of important Charops obtusus Morley (on S. obliqua and A. janata), predators were recorded on 10 plants in 5 quadrats of 25 sq. m. in 0.4 ha area under each module.