screening elite genotypes and ipm of defoliators in groundnut

More documents

Recommendations

Info

According to Battu (1977), recorded the occurrence of Campoletis. sp on S. litura in groundnut crop. Kulkarni (1989) reporded natural enemies of S. litura. The insect predator like Menochilus sexmaculatus and Coccinella septempunctata and ichneumonid parasitoid, Campoletis chlorideae and N. rileyi on S. litura in groundnut crop (Kulkarni and Lingappa, 2002). 5.2.7 Yield and cost economics Among the different IPM modules, the highest yield was obtained in module-II, which resulted maximum net returns (Rs.89,850/ ha) and C: B ratio (1:5.1) followed by M-I where in net returns (Rs.70,190/ ha) and C: B ratio was (1:4.3) (Fig. 6). Net returns (Rs. 33,490/ ha) and C: B ratio (1:2.0) were low in module-III (farmer’s practice) compared to M-II and M-I due to low yield (Table 19).These results are in conformity with Singh et al. (2005a) who reported that IPM modules gave higher profit in comparison to farmer’s practices of pest control in groundnut. M-II was an effective IPM module and best for everywhere, it comprising of foxtail millet as intercrop and insecticide Emamectin benzoate. M-I was totally bio-intensive module and it was suitable for northern transitional belt. Future line of work The promising resistant genotypes viz., Mutant-III and ICGV-86699 Tan need to be evaluated for their yield potential, if they are more potential than existing verities they can be directly recommended. These elite genotypes can be utilized in the further resistance breeding programme. Module-II (groundnut + foxtail millet) should be evaluated on large scale in farmers field for management of S. litura.
Gross returns and Net returns (Rs./ha) 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 Gross returns (Rs./ha) Net profit (Rs./ha) B:C ratio Module-I Moduel-II Module-III Treatment Fig. 6 : Economics of IPM modules during kharif, 2009 6 5 4 B:C ratio 3 2 1 0
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 and 32: Table 5: In vitro biology of Spodop
Page 33 and 34: sunflower and N. rileyi, foxtail mi
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: Pest population 1600 1400 1200 1000
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
show all

screening elite genotypes and ipm of defoliators in groundnut

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?