Agricultural Research Management Information System

Home
Research Summary
Search
About Us
- ARMIS
- Brochure
Contact Us
Report
User Request
Data Input
Help
- Operation Manual
  - PDF
  - Video
- Program Area & Commodity
We have reached 37600 number of research entries at this moment.

- Logout

Research Detail

Home
Research
Detail

Evaluation of Different Management Packages Against Flower Thrips and Pod Borers of Mungbean (vigna Radiata L.) (2015--2016)

MD. ALTAF HOSSAIN
Pulses Research Centre, RARS, BARI, Ishurdi, Pabna

Abstract/ Executive Summary:

Efficacy and profitability of different management packages comprising white sticky trap, bio-pesticide and synthetic insecticides were evaluated against flower thrips and pod borers of mungbean at Pulses Research Center, Ishurdi, Pabna, Bangladesh during Kharif-1 2016. All the treatments reduced flower infestation by thrips and pod borer infestation significantly. The highest percentage of flower infestation and thrips population reduction was observed by installing white sticky trap + spraying of chlorfenapyr (Intrepid 10 SC) + spraying with emamectin benzoate (Proclaim 5 SG) followed by farmers practice (spraying imidacloprid). Again, the highest pod borer infestation reduction was found by installing white sticky trap + spraying azadirachtin (Bio-neem plus 1EC) + spraying with spinosad (Success 2.5 SC) treated plots followed by installing white sticky trap + spraying chlorfenapyr (Intrepid 10 SC) + spraying with emamectin benzoate (Proclaim 5 SG). The highest grain yield was obtained from installing white sticky trap + spraying chlorfenapyr (Intrepid 10 SC) + spraying with emamectin benzoate (Proclaim 5 SG) but the highest return come from farmers practice (spraying imidacloprid). This might be due to the higher cost of Intrepid 10 SC and Proclaim 5 SG reduced the return and benefit. Therefore, considering the efficacy and benefit, it is seen that the evaluated IPM package could not be profitable against low-level infestation of flower thrips and pod borer infestation. It could be profitable that areas where a serious outbreak of flower thrips and pod borer occurs.

Keywords: White sticky trap, IPM, Thrips, Pod borers, Mungbean.

Location:

Start Date: 00-00-2015

End Date: 00-00-2016

Program Area: Pest Management

Commodity: Insects, Mungbean

Objectives:

To evaluate the efficacy of some IPM packages and their economics to manage flower thrips and pod borers in Mungbean.

Methodology:

The experiment was conducted at Pulses Research Center, Ishurdi, Pabna, Bangladesh during Kharif-I 2016. The treatments were: T₁ = IPM Package 1: Planting site sanitation + installing white sticky trap + two sprays of azadirachtin (Bio-neem plus 1EC) @ 1ml/l water first at 100% flowering stage and second at after 7 days (100% podding stage) + third spraying with spinosad (Success 2.5 SC) @ 1.25 ml/l of water at seed developing stage (7 days after the second spray), T₂ = IPM Package 2: Planting site sanitation + installing white sticky trap + two sprays of chlorfenapyr (Intrepid 10 SC) @ 1ml/l water first at 100% flowering stage and second at after 7 days (100% podding stage) + third spraying with emamectin benzoate (Proclaim 5 SG) @ 1g/l of water at seed developing stage (7 days after the second spray), T₃= Farmers’ practice: Three sprayings of imidacloprid (Imitaf 20 SL) @ 0.5ml/l of water at 7 days interval starting from 100% flowering stage, T₄ = Untreated control (Water spray only). The experiment was laid out in randomized complete block design (RCBD) with four replications. The treatments were randomly allotted in each block. The unit plot size was 4.5m x 4m with a distance of 1.5m between the plots and 1.5m between the replications. The seeds of BARI Mung-6 were sown on March 30 in rows with the spacing of 30 cm. The unit plot contains 15 rows x 4m. The plant populations were maintained constant by keeping plant to plant distance 7 cm. Urea, triple superphosphate, muriate of potash and boron fertilizers were applied @ 40-90-40-7.5 kg/ha during final land. The white sticky trap was installed (one trap/plot) at the flower bud initiation stage and kept in the field up to harvest. Three sprays were done, first at 100% flowering stage (35 DAS), second at 100% podding (42 DAS) and third at seed developing stage (49 DAS). The population data for thrips in flowers were collected before spraying and one day after spraying. Thrips population was assessed from 20 opened flowers which were randomly collected from two rows of each side of the plot avoiding border and central four rows. The collected flowers were immediately opened on the white paper board and counted the adult and immature thrips present in the flowers. Central nine rows were kept undisturbed for recording yield data. At maturity, all pods were collected from 10 randomly selected plants from the central four rows of each plot and examined. The infested (bored) and total numbers of pods were counted and the percent pod infestation was calculated. The pods of the central ten rows of each plot comprising 10.8 m²(4m x 2.7m) area were harvested. The pods were then threshed; grains were cleaned and sun-dried. The grains obtained from each plot were converted into kg/ha.

The experimental data were analyzed by MSTAT-C software. The percent infestation data were transformed by square root for statistical analysis. Mean comparisons for treatment parameters were compared using Duncan’s Multiple Range Test at a 5% level of significance. The marginal benefit-cost ratio (MBCR) was calculated on the basis of prevailing market prices of mungbean, cost of white sticky trap, and cost of insecticidal spraying. The marginal benefit-cost ratio was calculated

Source of Information: Annual Research Report 2015-2016, Pulses Research Centre, RARS, BARI, Ishurdi, Pabna

Article Link (Online Journal):

Funding Source:

Budget:

Total Budget (Tk.) :

Achievement/Findings:

Effect of IPM package on flower infestation and thrips population: All IPM packages reduced flower infestation and thrips population. After one day of spray application, the lowest number of thrips-infested flowers (3.38/20 open flowers) was observed in installing white sticky trap (WST) + chlorfenapyr sprayed plots which were statistically identical to farmers practiced plot (spraying imidacloprid). About 70% flower infestation reduction was observed in WST + chlorfenapyr sprayed plots. Accordingly, the lowest number of thrips (3.88/20 flowers) was observed in WST + chlorfenapyr sprayed plots which were also statistically at par with farmers' practice. More than 73% thrips population was reduced by installing WST + spraying chlorfenapyr. Installation of WST + spraying azadiractin also showed a significant effect on the reduction of flower infestation and thrips population.

Effects of IPM packages on the incidence of pod borer and grain yield of mungbean: Pod borer infestation varied significantly depending on the efficacy of the IPM packages. Pod infestation varied from 2.13 – 6.75%. The lowest pod borer infestation (2.13%) was observed in WST + azadiractin + spinosad treated plots followed by WST + chlorfenapyr + emamectin benzoate and farmers practice. Untreated control plots received the highest (6.75%) pod infestation by pod borer. Reduction of pod borer infestation by IPM treatments ranged from 24.00 – 68.44%. The highest pod infestation reduction (68.44%) was found in WST + azadiractin + spinosad treated plots followed by WST + chlorfenapyr + emamectin benzoate and farmers practice. Grain yield of mungbean varied significantly with the level of flower thrips and pod borer infestation depending on the efficacy of the IPM packages (Table 5). The highest grain yield (1536 kg/ha) was obtained from WST + chlorfenapyr + emamectin benzoate sprayed plots which were at par with WST + azadiractin + spinosad treated plots and farmers practice. The lowest yield was recorded from untreated control plots. Due to very low-level infestation of thrips and pod borer, yield increase over untreated plots ranged from 6.38- 10.03% which was very less.

Return and marginal benefit-cost ratio (MBCR): Return and marginal benefit-cost ratio are presented in Table 6. The net return and marginal benefit-cost ratio were varied depending on the cost of insecticidal application. The highest net return (Tk. 1075/ha) and benefit (MBCR 0.32) was recorded from farmers' practiced plots (Imitaf 20 SL sprayed) although the highest grain yield was obtained from the installation of WST + Intrepid 10 SC + Proclaim 5 SG sprayed plots. Due to the higher cost of Intrepid 10 SC and Proclaim 5 SG profit margin of this package goes down and showed very little MBCR. Again due to fewer efficacies of Bio-neem plus 1EC against flower thrips and also higher cost of both bio-neem plus 1 EC and success 2.5 SC, this package incurred the loss.

From this study, it is seen that spraying of chlorfenapyr (Intrepid 10 SC) @ 1 ml/l and imidacloprid (Imitaf 20 SL) @ 0.5 ml/l showed equally the best efficacy in reducing flower infestation and thrips population. Spraying of azadirachtin (Bio-neem plus 1EC) showed less efficacy in reducing flower infestation and thrips population compared to chlorfenapyr and imidachloprid. Spraying of spinosad (Success 2.5 SC) @ 1.25 ml/l showed the best efficacy in reducing pod borer infestation followed by emamectin benzoate (Proclaim 5 SG).

Therefore, considering the overall efficacy and benefit of the evaluated IPM package it could be concluded that farmer’s practice i.e., spraying of imidacloprid (Imitaf 20 SL @ 0.5 ml/l) found profitable in low-level infestation of flower thrips and pod borer. Evaluated other IPM packages might be profitable in that situation where a severe infestation of flower thrips and pod borer occurs.

Knowledge Management: Report/Proceedings