COMPARISON OF IPM PACKAGES ON FLOWER THRIPS AND POD BORERS MANAGEMENT OF MUNGBEAN WITH RECOMMENDED PRACTICE

M. A. Hossain, M. M. Rahman, M. Azam, M. Imam
{"title":"COMPARISON OF IPM PACKAGES ON FLOWER THRIPS AND POD BORERS MANAGEMENT OF MUNGBEAN WITH RECOMMENDED PRACTICE","authors":"M. A. Hossain, M. M. Rahman, M. Azam, M. Imam","doi":"10.46909/10.46909/cerce-2020-003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Effectiveness of integrated management approaches using blue sticky trap, pheromone trap, bio and synthetic insecticides were evaluated against major insects, like flower thrips and pod borers of mungbean at Regional Agricultural Research Station, Rahmatpur, Barishal and Pulses Research Centre, Ishurdi, Pabna, Bangladesh, respectively, during two consecutive years of 2018 and 2019. All of the management packages significantly reduced flower infestation, thrips population and pod borer infestation in mungbean. The highest percentage of reduction of flower infestation, thrips population and pod borer infestation was found in IPM package-3: installing blue sticky trap + two spraying of chlorfenapyr (Intrepid 10 EC) @ 1 ml/l + third spraying with (chlorantraniliprole + thiamethoxam), i.e. Virtako 40 WG) @ 0.15 g/l, followed by IPM package-1, IPM package-2 and recommended practice (spraying imidacloprid, i.e. Imitaf 20 SL @ 0.5 ml/l). The highest yield was also recorded from IPM package-3, which was statistically similar to IPM package-1, followed by IPM package-2 and recommended practice. Although the IPM package-3 provided the highest yield and return, followed by IPM package-1, but recommended practice (farmer’s practice) gave the highest benefit because of higher cost of IPM components brought down the profit margin of IPM packages. The components of IPM package-1, i.e. biopesticides, are ecologically safer than that of IPM package-3 (synthetic chemical insecticides). So, considering environment friendliness, the IPM package-1: installation of blue sticky trap and pheromone trap + two spraying of azadiractin (Biomeem plus 1EC) @ 1 ml/l + third spraying with spinosad (Success 2.5 EC) @ 1.2 ml/l would be the best package for controlling flower thrips and pod borers of mungbean with higher yield in the insects prone areas, without harming the ecosystem.","PeriodicalId":9937,"journal":{"name":"Cercetari Agronomice in Moldova","volume":"104 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cercetari Agronomice in Moldova","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46909/10.46909/cerce-2020-003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Effectiveness of integrated management approaches using blue sticky trap, pheromone trap, bio and synthetic insecticides were evaluated against major insects, like flower thrips and pod borers of mungbean at Regional Agricultural Research Station, Rahmatpur, Barishal and Pulses Research Centre, Ishurdi, Pabna, Bangladesh, respectively, during two consecutive years of 2018 and 2019. All of the management packages significantly reduced flower infestation, thrips population and pod borer infestation in mungbean. The highest percentage of reduction of flower infestation, thrips population and pod borer infestation was found in IPM package-3: installing blue sticky trap + two spraying of chlorfenapyr (Intrepid 10 EC) @ 1 ml/l + third spraying with (chlorantraniliprole + thiamethoxam), i.e. Virtako 40 WG) @ 0.15 g/l, followed by IPM package-1, IPM package-2 and recommended practice (spraying imidacloprid, i.e. Imitaf 20 SL @ 0.5 ml/l). The highest yield was also recorded from IPM package-3, which was statistically similar to IPM package-1, followed by IPM package-2 and recommended practice. Although the IPM package-3 provided the highest yield and return, followed by IPM package-1, but recommended practice (farmer’s practice) gave the highest benefit because of higher cost of IPM components brought down the profit margin of IPM packages. The components of IPM package-1, i.e. biopesticides, are ecologically safer than that of IPM package-3 (synthetic chemical insecticides). So, considering environment friendliness, the IPM package-1: installation of blue sticky trap and pheromone trap + two spraying of azadiractin (Biomeem plus 1EC) @ 1 ml/l + third spraying with spinosad (Success 2.5 EC) @ 1.2 ml/l would be the best package for controlling flower thrips and pod borers of mungbean with higher yield in the insects prone areas, without harming the ecosystem.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
绿豆花蓟马和荚果蛀虫管理的ipm包装与推荐做法的比较
在2018年和2019年连续两年,分别在孟加拉国Barishal Rahmatpur区域农业研究站和Ishurdi豆类研究中心,评估了使用蓝色粘虫陷阱、信息素陷阱、生物和合成杀虫剂的综合管理方法对花蓟马和绿豆螟虫等主要昆虫的有效性。所有的管理方案都能显著降低绿豆的花卉侵染、蓟马种群和豆荚螟的侵染。IPM包3:安装蓝色粘捕器+两次喷洒(Intrepid 10 EC) @ 1ml /l +第三次喷洒(氯虫腈+噻虫嗪),即Virtako 40 WG) @ 0.15 g/l,其次是IPM包1、IPM包2和推荐做法(喷洒吡虫啉,即Imitaf 20 SL @ 0.5 ml/l),减少花虫害、蓟马种群和荚果螟虫害的百分比最高。IPM package-3的产量也最高,与IPM package-1相似,其次是IPM package-2和推荐做法。虽然IPM包3的产量和回报最高,其次是IPM包1,但由于IPM组件成本较高,降低了IPM包的利润率,因此推荐实践(农民实践)的效益最高。IPM包1的成分,即生物农药,比IPM包3的成分(合成化学杀虫剂)在生态上更安全。因此,从环境友好的角度考虑,在不破坏生态系统的情况下,在昆虫易发区防治高产绿豆花蓟马和荚果螟虫的最佳方案为:安装蓝色粘捕器和信息素诱捕器+ 2次喷印楝素(biomem + 1EC) @ 1ml /l + 3次喷spinosad(成功2.5 EC) @ 1.2 ml/l。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF MANGO NUTRITION FOR BETTER YIELD AND QUALITY FOOD SECURITY STATUS: ITS DRIVERS AND COPING STRATEGIES AMONG VEGETABLE FARMING HOUSEHOLDS DOES CREDIT ACCESS IMPROVE ADOPTION INTENSITY OF IMPROVED MAIZE SEED VARIETIES? RICE FARMERS’ PERCEPTION AND KNOWLEDGE OF INTEGRATED RICE AND FISH FARMING IN SELECTED LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS OF KWARA STATE YOUTHS’ INVOLVEMENT IN OIL PALM (ELAEIS GUINEENSIS) FRUIT PROCESSING ACTIVITIES
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1