screening elite genotypes and ipm of defoliators in groundnut

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Module II (Groundnut + Foxtail millet) Module III (Farmers practice) Plate.2. IPM modules take up in groundnut Module I (Groundnut + Sunflower)
sunflower and N. rileyi, foxtail millet used as intercrop and Emamectin benzoate used for spraying where as other treatments remained same as that of M-I. These two modules were compared with M-III which comprised of farmer’s practice. The results obtained are presented in tables. 4.2.1 Monitoring the activity of S. litura The daily trap catches of male adults of S. litura in pheromone traps during Kharif 2009 indicated definite pattern of occurrence during August and September (Apendix-I). In first module During the cropping season, the maximum number of moths were caught on fourth day of second week of August (451.0) and minimum number of moths were caught on fourth day of third week of August (13.0). The maximum number of adults were caught during first and second week of August. The least number of moths were caught on fifth day of first week of September (18.0) and maximum (75.0) on seventh day of second week. In September month, the maximum number of adults were caught during second week compare to other weeks. In second module During August month, the maximum number of moths were caught on fifth day of third week (159.0) and the minimum (18.0) number of moths on first day of fourth week. During September month, the highest number of moths caught on seventh day of second week (112.0) and lowest (13.0) on fourth day of first week. In second module, the highest number of moths were caught during first week of August compare to September. Between Module-I and II, the highest number of moths were caught in Module-I compare to Module –II. 4.2.2 Sucking pest population in different IPM modules of groundnut 4.2.2.1 Thrips (Scirtothrips dorsalis and Thrips palmi) Nymphs and adults were found sucking the sap from leaves, starting from 21 DAS to 63 DAS. Population of thrips ranged from 2.60 to 3.28 /top three leaves in M-I. In M-II it was ranged from 1.40 to 2.48. In case of third module the thrips population was varied from 3.16 to 3.84 (Table 6). As per Paired ‘t’ value, there was significant variation in sucking pest population in different IPM modules. Module-II was significantly superior over module-I and module-III during 21 DAS to 63 DAS. Whereas module-I was significantly superior over module-III during same period. 4.2.2.2 Leafhoppers (Empoasca kerri) Leafhoppers population found to attack the crop from 21 DAS to 63 DAS with the population of 1.44 to 2.24 / top three leaves in M-I. In M-II, the population of leafhoppers ranged from 1.24 to 2.38. In module-III (farmer’s practice) the population varied from 2.40 to 3.45/ top three leaves (Table 7). As per Paired ‘t’ value, all the three modules varied significantly from each other. Module-II was significantly superior over module-I and module-III during 21 DAS to 63 DAS. However module-I was significantly superior over module-III during 21 DAS to 63 DAS. 4.2.3 Defoliator population in different IPM modules of groundnut 4.2.3.1 Semilooper (Thysanoplusia orichalcea) This pest was observed on the crop from 37 DAS to 79 DAS. The young caterpillars scraped the chlorophyll content of the tender leaves from undersurface. Later instars caused
Page 1 and 2: SCREENING ELITE GENOTYPES AND IPM O
Page 3 and 4: CONTENTS Sl. No. Chapter Particular
Page 5 and 6: Figure No. LIST OF FIGURES Title 1.
Page 7 and 8: In some parts of the northern Karna
Page 9 and 10: mutants were systematically screene
Page 11 and 12: observed on Dwarf Mutant, the lowes
Page 13 and 14: Singh and Sachan (1991) recorded se
Page 15 and 16: Thontadarya and Nangia (1983) repor
Page 17 and 18: Monitoring with pheromone traps to
Page 19 and 20: 1. JL-24 (Susceptible check) 2. ICG
Page 21 and 22: Observations were recorded daily on
Page 23 and 24: Table 1: Performance of elite groun
Page 25 and 26: Third instar duration was significa
Page 27 and 28: Table 3: Gain in larval weight and
Page 29 and 30: Table 4: Biological parameters of S
Page 31: Table 5: In vitro biology of Spodop
Page 35 and 36: Table 7: Leaf hoppers population in
Page 37 and 38: Table 8: Thysanoplusia orichalcea p
Page 39 and 40: Table 10: Spilarctia obliqua popula
Page 41 and 42: 4.2.4.2 50 days after sowing The de
Page 43 and 44: Table 13: The management of Spodopt
Page 45 and 46: The early instar larvae scraped the
Page 47 and 48: Module I Table 16: Natural enemy po
Page 49 and 50: Table 18: Natural enemy population
Page 51 and 52: Table 19: Economics of IPM modules
Page 53 and 54: Per cent defoliation 50 45 40 35 30
Page 55 and 56: Larval period and Total development
Page 57 and 58: Larval Larval weight weight (g) (g)
Page 59 and 60: 5.2.3 Defoliator population in thre
Page 61 and 62: Pest population 1600 1400 1200 1000
Page 63 and 64: Gross returns and Net returns (Rs./
Page 65 and 66: REFERENCES Agasimani, C. A., Ravish
Page 67 and 68: Kennedy, F. J. S., Rajamanickam. K.
Page 69 and 70: Prasad, M. N. R. and Gowda, M. V. C
Page 71 and 72: Tiwari, S. N., Rathore, Y. S. and B
Page 73: SCREENING ELITE GENOTYPES AND IPM O

screening elite genotypes and ipm of defoliators in groundnut

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?