Agricultural Science Digest

  • Chief EditorArvind kumar

  • Print ISSN 0253-150X

  • Online ISSN 0976-0547

  • NAAS Rating 5.52

  • SJR 0.156

Frequency :
Bi-monthly (February, April, June, August, October and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Agricultural Science Digest, volume 44 issue 2 (april 2024) : 351-354

Validation of Integrated Pest Management Modules against Piercing and Sucking Insect Pest of Rice

I. Yimjenjang Longkumer1,2,*, Md. Abbas Ahmad2, Sandeep Choudhary1, M.A. Laichattiwar3, R. Bajia4
1Department of Entomology, School of Agriculture, Lovely Professional University, Phagwara-144 411, Punjab, India.
2Department of Entomology, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa-848 125, Bihar, India.
3Department of Entomology, College of Agriculture, Parul University, Vadodara-391 760, Gujarat, India.
4Department of Agriculture, Jagannath University, Jaipur-302 022, Rajasthan, India.
Cite article:- Longkumer Yimjenjang I., Ahmad Abbas Md., Choudhary Sandeep, Laichattiwar M.A., Bajia R. (2024). Validation of Integrated Pest Management Modules against Piercing and Sucking Insect Pest of Rice . Agricultural Science Digest. 44(2): 351-354. doi: 10.18805/ag.D-5823.

Background: Rice is one of the most common cereal crops in India, which has been found attacked by several insect pests including hoppers, stem borer, leaf folder, gall midge and ear head bugs. Farmers typically employ insecticides as preventative and curative management which causes needless issues. Although integrated pest management (IPM) has been recommended to nullify the ill effects of chemicals pesticides, farmers are hesitant to employ the IPM’s components and mostly rely on pesticides. IPM integrates knowledge-based techniques of biological, cultural, physical, host plant resistance and chemical control strategies in order to limit pest populations considered economically acceptable. Present investigation was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of IPM strategy improving upon the crop productivity.

Methods: An Integrated Pest Management (IPM) module comprising of spacing, introduction of natural enemies, application of botanicals, entomopathogenic fungi, installation of yellow sticky traps and chemical pesticide (Thiamethoxam) was assessed in comparison with Farmers Practice (FP) (usual routine followed by the farmer during the cropping season) in the farmer’s fields.

Result: The pooled mean data of per cent leaf incidence by Nephotettix virescens ranged between 4.59-6.25% during the two years research in IPM module, while in farmers practices mean leaf damage varied between 8.09-8.61%. Similarly, the leaf damage caused by Nilaparvata lugens ranged between 4.88-7.61% as compared to 8.64-10% in the farmers practices. The BC ration was recorded to be 1: 7.6 and 1:6.85 during 2018 and 2019, respectively. 

Rice (Oryza sativa L., Family: Poaceae) is the most significant grain and staple crop in the world including Asia. According to FAO (2018), rice is the third most produced agricultural crop in the world, after sugarcane and maize. Rice is a good source of protein, fats, crude fibre and carbohydrates along with vitamins and salts including riboflavin, niacin, tocopherol, calcium and other salts (Verma, 2011) The United Nations declared 2004 as the “Worldwide Year of Rice” to recognize significance of rice that have an impact on millions of people’s economy, nutrition and cultural practices. In India, rice is grown across an area of 47 million hectares, producing 134 million tonnes (Anonymous, 2023). Rice is grown in Bihar throughout both the Kharif and Rabi seasons under various natural and climatic circumstances, covering an area of 2.914 million hectares and yielding 6.8 million tonnes (Anonymous, 2018). Around 52% of the world’s rice output get loss due to damage caused by biotic factors, of which 21- 25% is due to damage from pest fauna (Yarasi et al., 2008; Dhaliwal et al., 2015). Rice gall midge (Orseolia oryzae Wood Mason), rice leaf folder (Cnaphalocrocis medinalis Guenee), brown planthoppers (Nilaparvata lugens Stal), yellow stemborer (Scirpophaga incertulas Walker), Green leafhopper (Nephotettix virescens Distant) and white-backed planthopper (Sogatella furcifera Horvath) are the most serious rice pests causing significant reduction in yield. (Anonymous, 1996; Singh and Kumari, 2020). Farmers use broad-spectrum pesticides indiscriminately to manage these pests, which leads to a number of risks including insecticide resistance, secondary pest outbreaks, phytotoxicity, toxicity to beneficial organisms and environmental pollution like groundwater contamination (Halder et al., 2014) in addition to with the pesticide residue. Integrated pest management (IPM), is a combination of cultural, physical, mechanical, botanical, chemical (when required) and other management methods which plays a significant role in countering the population of pest in a sound manner. Many researchers had already proven the usefulness of IPM integrating of each and all available components in managing the pest population of rice  below those causing economic injury (Alam et al., 2016; Tanwar et al., 2016; Anurag et al, 2020; Jahnavi et al., 2022). Therefore, the present study was designed to assess the effectiveness of a knowledge based IPM module in insect pest management of rice as well as its economics, which is crucial from the perspective of the farmer.
The research trial was conducted during Kharif season of 2018 and 2019 at Pusa Rice Research Farm, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Bihar. The field was first leveled properly to have uniform geology and two blocks of 440 m2 was prepared. Each block was sub-divided into five equal parts, which was taken as replication. The packages followed are given in (Table 1).

Table 1: Packages and practice of IPM module and farmers practices.

Observations recorded
Observation on pest incidence was initiated from 15 DAT by randomly selecting 5 hills in each replication at fortnightly interval. Total 25 hills in IPM block and 25 hills in Farmers practice block at each observation no. of nymphs, adults and leaf damages were recorded. The data so obtained was analysed with ANOVA using SPSS software.
Nilaparvata lugens
The pooled incidence of Nilaparvata lugens (Table 2) recorded at 15 DAT upto 113 DAT varied widely ranging from 4.88 to 7.61 per cent incidence in IPM module whereas in farmer’s practices the incidence varied from 8.64 to 10. The peak incidence in farmer’s practices 9.65, 10 and 9.60% leaf damage was recorded at 43 DAT, 57 DAT and 57 DAT. As the crop reaches its maturity the incidence gradually declined from 6.06 per cent to 4.88 per cent incidence in IPM modules which was recorded from the period at 85 DAT to 113 DAT which was contradictory incase of farmer’s practices whereby Nilaparvata lugens incidence remained consistently higher during this period with a per cent incidence of 8.74 to 8.91 recorded at 85 DAT to 113 DAT.

Table 2: Impact of IPM modules on incidence (%) of Nilaparvata lugens (Kharif, pooled data of 2018 and 2019).

Nephotettix virescens
The pooled data data on effect of IPM technologies as against farmers practices depicted in Table 3 shows that mean incidence of leaf damage from 15 DAT to 113 DAT ranged from 4.59 to 6.25 per cent incidence of leaf damage as compared to 8.09 to 8.61% leaf damage in farmers practices. The mean incidence of leaf damage was also significantly higher during the period from 57 DAT to 113 DAT in farmers plot whereas the mean leaf damage of 4.59% to 5.70% was recorded in the IPM plot during the period. Similar, finding was also recorded by (Gautam et al., 2017) where the impact of IPM practices had a significant effect on technology efficiency level. Higher technology efficiency is due to the improvement in extension services, such as training and demonstrations; as these factors are necessary and had a significant impact on adoption (Rahman and Norton, 2019). Developing of the IPM modules and its adoption by the farmers can only ensures the successful management of insect-pests. In a study carried out by Bagenia and Meena, (2017) revealed that majority of farmers incorporated the cultural practices such as summer deep ploughing, sanitation of fields, manual weeding, inter cropping and inter row earthing up and practices neem based botanicals which resulted in low incidence of the pest (Bagenia and Meena, 2017). Divya and Mariappan (2020) revealed that IPM practices was effective in reducing the population of insect pest with minimal effect on natural enemies viz., spiders 10.95/ 10 hill and coccinellid 9.95/ 10 hill and significantly superior over farmers practice. The present finding is in conformity with the result of (Shanmugam et al., 2022) and (Swathi et al., 2018) who reported the component of chemicals with less residues and minimum negative effect of beneficial insects such as thiamethoxam to be effective in lowering the pest population. Gautam et al., (2013) also observed the efficacy of botanicals as IPM component when Neem 5% was found effective in managing the incidence of pest and were found  relatively  safe against predators and parasitoids such as Chrysoperla carnea and Trichogramma chilonis compared with pesticides. Similar findings are also in agreement with the present result where incorporation of Entomopathogens and insecticides from animal origin contributed significant result in reducing the pest population (Laichattiwar and Meena, 2014; Dhaker et al., 2017; Javed et al., (2019).

Table 3: Impact of IPM modules on incidence (%) of Nephotettix virescens (Kharif, pooled data of 2018 and 2019).

Economics and yield (2018 and 2019)
Harvested yield data presented in Table 4 indicates that the validated modules gave 4.22 t/ha during 2018 with an increase of 3.05 t/ha over farmer’s practices. The results showed IPM module not only increases the grain yield but also gave high net return of Rs. 49905 with 1:7.64 cost: benefit ratio. Similarly, during the second trial, the validated modules gave 4.34 t/ha with an increase of 2.77 t/ha over farmer’s practices. The results showed IPM module not only increased grain yield but also provided high net return of 44725 with 1: 6.85 cost: benefit ratio. Earlier, Singh et al., 2018 and Surendra et al., (2016) studied the effect of IPM modules against rice pest and compared with farmer practice and reported increased in grain yield in IPM Modules respectively over farmers practices. It was shown that high benefit cost ratio of tested Module 1 and Module 2 over farmer’s practice was obtained. Borkakati and Saika (2020) observed maximum yield and cost: benefit ratio (1: 8.46) in the IPM plot and the proposed IPM module was found superior with highest yield and cost-benefit ratio. Mohankumar et al., (2016) and Singh et al., (2017) also observed that IPM approach was effective against piercing sucking insect pests giving maximum cost: benefit ratio.

Table 4: Cost-benefit ratio of the IPM Modules and Farmers practices against major insect pest of rice during Kharif, 2018 and 2019.

The present study’s findings lead to the conclusion that the IPM module is more effective than other practices in managing the sucking pest in rice. IPM refers to the logical blending of several techniques, particularly the blending of chemical pesticides with other ecologically friendly components to control the pest below ETL. It can be concluded that the IPM module is a comprehensive strategy for sustainability in crop protection that focuses on managing the pest and has been enshrined as the best module that is both economically viable and environmentally feasible.
The authors are grateful to Dr. R. C. Srivastava, Honorable Vice Chancellor for providing all the necessary resources for the smooth conduct of the field experiment.
All authors declared that there is no conflict of interest.

  1. Alam, M.Z., Haque, M.M., Islam, M.S., Hossain, E., Hasan, S.B., Hasa, S.B. and Hossain, M.S. (2016). Comparative study of integrated pest management and farmers practices on sustainable environment in the rice ecosystem. International  Journal of Zoology. 8: 1-12.

  2. Anonymous. (1996). Standard Evaluation System, IRRI, Philippines, pp. 20.

  3. Anonymous. (2018). Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers welfare, Government of India.

  4. Anonymous. (2023). Foreign agricultural service. US department of agriculture 

  5. Anurag, S., Rajeev, R., Renu, K. and Singh, T.K. (2020). Eco-friendly management of tobacco caterpillar with pheromone traps and Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki in Chamba district of Himachal Pradesh, India. Journal of Entomological Research. 44: 523-528.

  6. Bagenia, P.S. and Meena, K.A. (2017). A study on adoption of integrated pest management practices for red hairy caterpillar, Amsacta moorei Butler in groundnut in Rajasthan. Agriculture Update. 12: 714-719.

  7. Borkakati, R.N. and Saikia, D.K. (2020). Evaluation of IPM for the management of insect pests of Okra. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies. 8: 2197-2200.

  8. Dhaker, R., Rana, B.S., Pinjara, I.M., Purushan, G.S. and Nagar R. (2017).  Bio-efficacy of synthetic insecticide and bio- pesticide for the management of shoot borer and fruit borers of  okra. Journal of Entomology and Zoological Studies. 5: 169-172.

  9. Dhaliwal, G.S., Jindal, V. and Mohindru, B. (2015). Crop losses due to insect pests: Global and Indian scenario. Indian Journal of Entomology. 77: 165-168.

  10. Divya, S. and Mariappan, V.E. (2020). Comparing the efficiency of different pest management modules in rice ecosystem. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies. 8: 121-124.

  11. FAO, (2018). Crops/Regions/World list/Production Quantity, Rice (paddy), 2016. UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Corporate Statistical Database (FAOSTAT). 2017. Retrieved  November 9, 2018.

  12. Gautam, H.K., Singh, N.N., Rai, A.B. (2013). Eco-friendly approaches for the management of shoot and fruit borer (Earias vittella fab.) in okra. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 47: 529-534. 

  13. Gautam, S., Schreinemachers, P., Uddin, M.N. and Srinivasan, R. (2017). Impact of training vegetable farmers in Bangladesh in integrated pest management (IPM). Crop Protection. 102: 161-169. 022. 

  14. Halder, J., Rai,  A.B. and Kodandaram,  M.H.  (2014).  Parasitization preference of Diaeretiella  rapae  (McIntosh)  (Hymenoptera:Braconidae)  among different aphids in vegetable ecosystem. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 84: 1431-1433.

  15. Jahnavi, M., Prasad, N.V.V.S.D., Ramesh, G., Rajesh, C.L. and Swarupa, R.M.S. (2022). Assessment of IPM module on brown planthopper incidence in rice crop. Journal of Entomological Research. 46: 704-709.

  16. Javed, M., Majeed, M.Z., Luqman, M. and Afzal, M. (2019). Development and field evaluation of a biorational IPM module against okra shoot and fruit borers, Earias vittella and Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Pakistan Journal of  Agricultural Research. 32: 170-176.

  17. Laichattiwar, M.A. and Meena R.S. (2014). Efficacy of various insecticides against okra shoot and fruit borer, Earias vitella (Fab.). Journal of Entomological Research. 38: 121-124.

  18. Mohankumar, S., Karthikeyan, G., Durairaj, C., Ramakrishnan, S., Preetha, B. and Sambathkumar, S. (2016). Integrated Pest Management of Okra in India. [Muniappan, R., Heinrichs, E. (eds)] Integrated Pest Management Tropical Vegetable Crops. Springer Nature, Berlin, Germany. 304 pp. 

  19. Rahman, M.S. and Norton, G.W. (2019). Adoption and impacts of integrated pest management in Bangladesh: Evidence from Smallholder Bitter Gourd Growers. Horticulture. 5: 32.

  20. Shanmugam, P.S., Sangeetha, M., Ayyadurai, P. and Prasad, Y.G. (2022). Demonstration of Ecological Engineering based Pest Management in Rice Oryza sativa L. through Farmers Participatory Approach. Agricultural Science Digest. 42: 290-295.

  21. Singh, A.K., Singh, S.P. and Rajpoot, S.K.S. (2018). Evaluation of IPM module against major insect pest of rice in St. Kabir Nagar District of Uttar Pradesh. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 7: 4400-4404.

  22. Singh, K.I., Singh, L.N., Athokpam, H.S. and Athokpam, S. (2017). Effect of certain IPM modules on the incidence of yellow stem borer, gall midge and leaf folder on rice under Imphal agro-ecological situations. Journal of Applied Zoological Research. 28: 179-182.

  23. Singh, S. and Kumari, B. (2020). Roving survey of major insect pests of rice crop (Oryza sativa L.) in different blocks of Patna district of Bihar state, India. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies. 8: 1115-1120.

  24. Surendra, P., Archana, K. and Jha, R.K. (2016). Assessment of pheromone based IPM module against yellow stem borer, Scirpophaga incertulas Walker in paddy crop. International Journal of Agricultural Research. 8: 2369-2371.

  25. Swathi, K., Seetharamu, P., Dhurua, S. and Suresh, M. (2018). Efficacy of newer insecticides against sucking pests of rice fallow blackgram (Vigna mungo L.). Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 52: 700-703.

  26. Tanwar, R.K., Singh, S.P., Sharma, O.P., Kanwar, V., Mukherjee, I. and Chattopadhyay, C. (2016). Large-scale IPM validation in Basmati rice (Oryza sativa) in Western Uttar Pradesh, India. International Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 86: 1063-1072. DOI: 10.56093/ijas.v86i8.60539.

  27. Verma, D.K. (2011). Nutritional value of rice and their importance. Indian Farmers Digest. 44: 21-22.

  28. Yarasi, B., Sadumpati, V., Immanni, C.P., Reddy, V. and Venkateswara, R.K. (2008). Transgenic rice O. sativa expressing Allium sativum leaf agglutinin (ASAL) exhibits high-level resistance against major sap-sucking pests. BMC Plant Biology. 8: 102.

Editorial Board

View all (0)