384 B. V. Bhede et al.
Keywords
Area-wide · IPM pigeonpea · ParasitisationIntroduction
Pigeonpea, Cajanus cajan (L.) is one of the most
important pulse crops in India. Insect pests feed-
ing on flowers and pods are the most important
biotic constraints affecting pigeonpea yield. In
India, pigeonpea is attacked by nearly 250 spe-
cies of insect pests (Sachan et al. 1994 ). The
pod borers are the key impediments for the low
productivity. In Maharashtra, pod borer Helicov-
erpa armigera (Hubner), plume moth Exelastis
atomosa (Walsingham), pod fly Melanagromyza
obstusa (Malloch), spotted pod borer Maruca
vitrata Geyer are considered significant in incur-
ring economic losses. These pod borers’ damage
amounts to 57 % pods and 35 % seeds with final
yield loss up to 28 % (Saho 2002 ). The farmers
use only synthetic insecticides for pest manage-
ment. Increasing insecticide resistance has lead
to a greater risk of control failure (Armes et
al. 1992 ).
Material and Methods
The large-scale integrated pest management
(IPM) programme was demonstrated and evalu-
ated on 1000 ha of farmers’ field in Parbhani dis-
trict (Maharashtra) during 2010–2011. This pro-
gramme was implemented in Chinchtakali, Mar-
dasgaon and Gopa villages. The farmers were
provided with IPM components including chem-
ical insecticides. All agronomic practices were
followed as per the recommendation of MKV,
Parbhani. The IPM module included the follow-
ing practices. Deep ploughing in summer; use of
high-yielding and disease-resistant varieties, viz.
BSMR 736, BSMR 853, BDN 708; installation
of pheromone traps, at the rate of 5/ha, to moni-
tor pod borer H. armigera; installation of bird
perches, at the rate of 50/ha; intercropping with
greengram, blackgram, mung, udid, soybean and
sorghum; in case of sole crops, mixing of 1 %
sorghum or pearl millet seeds with pigeonpea
seeds; hand collection of big H. armigera larvae;
spraying 5 % NSKE or Azadirachtin 3000 ppm at
bud initiation stage; spraying HaNPV at the rate
of 450 LE/ha (2 × 109 POB/ml) for early instar
H. armigera larvae; spraying of emamectin
benzoate 5SC at the rate of 200 g/ha and mono-
crotophos 36 SL at the rate of 1000 ml/ha.
In non-IPM fields, only the recommended
agronomic practices were followed and no IPM
inputs were used. These select farmers were
mostly dependent on chemical insecticides. Two
fields of IPM and non-IPM were selected from
each village for periodical observations. Obser-
vations on incidence of pests and their natural
enemies were made by following the standard
procedures. The observations on larva of pod
borer H. armigera and plume moth E. atomosa,
immature stages of pod fly M. obtusa, number of
webbings by spotted pod borer M. vitrata, pod
damage, number of coccinellids, chrysopids,
spiders and pod borer larval parasitisation were
recorded at weekly intervals. Yield was recorded
for both IPM and non-IPM fields, and economics
worked out.Results and Discussion
Pest Status
Population of Pod Borer
The results of IPM demonstration showed that
population of pod borer larvae was less in IPM
fields than non-IPM fields throughout the sea-
son. The average larval population of H. armi-
gera was 0.39/plant in IPM, whereas 0.64/plant
in non-IPM fields (Table 1 ). The incidence of
pod borer larvae was noticed during 44th MW
(25–31 October 10). The peak population was
recorded in 48th MW (22–28 November 10)
in IPM (0.76 larvae/plant) and non-IPM (0.88
larvae/plant).Population of Plume Moth
The incidence of plume moth was initiated in
45th MW (1–7 November 10) in both IPM and
non-IPM fields. The population ranged from 0.08