Biointensive Integrated Pest

Management 14

Abstract
Biointensive IPM is defined as ‘A systems approach to pest management
based on an understanding of pest ecology. It begins with steps to accu-
rately diagnose the nature and source of pest problems, and then relies on
a range of preventive tactics and biological controls to keep pest popula-
tions within acceptable limits. Reduced-risk pesticides are used if other
tactics have not been adequately effective, as a last resort, and with care to
minimize risks’.
Biointensive IPM incorporates ecological and economic factors into
agricultural system design and decision-making and addresses public con-
cerns about environmental quality and food safety. The benefits of imple-
menting biointensive IPM can include reduced chemical input costs, reduced
on-farm and off-farm environmental impacts and more effective and sustain-
able pest management. An ecology-based IPM has the potential of decreas-
ing inputs of fuel, machinery and synthetic chemicals – all of which are
energy intensive and increasingly costly in terms of financial and environ-
mental impact. Such reductions will benefit the grower and society.
BIPM options may be considered as proactive or reactive. Cultural con-
trol practices are generally considered to be proactive strategies. Proactive
practices include crop rotation; resistant crop cultivars including trans-
genic plants, disease-free seed and plants; crop sanitation; spacing of
plants; altering planting dates; mulches; etc. The reactive options mean
that the grower responds to a situation, such as an economically damaging
population of pests, with some type of short-term suppressive action.
Reactive methods generally include inundative releases of biological con-
trol agents, mechanical and physical controls, botanical pesticides and
chemical controls.

P.P. Reddy, Recent Advances in Crop Protection, 223

DOI 10.1007/978-81-322-0723-8_14, © Springer India 2013
224 14 Biointensive Integrated Pest Management

Through ‘green revolution’ in late 1960s, India as possible and maintains the pest populations at
achieved self-sufficiency in food production, levels below those causing economic injury’.
which was hailed as a breakthrough on the farm
front by international agricultural experts. But
still, the country has not achieved self-sufficiency 14.2 Biointensive Integrated Pest
in production of horticultural crops. Most of the Management (BIPM)
growth in food production during the green revo-
lution period is attributed to the use of improved Biointensive IPM incorporates ecological and
crop varieties and higher levels of inputs of ferti- economic factors into agricultural system design
lisers and pesticides. The modern agricultural and decision-making and addresses public con-
techniques such as use of synthetic fertilisers and cerns about environmental quality and food
pesticides are continuing to destroy stable tradi- safety. The benefits of implementing biointensive
tional ecosystems, and the use of high-yielding IPM can include reduced chemical input costs,
varieties of crops has resulted in the elimination reduced on-farm and off-farm environmental
of thousands of traditional varieties with the con- impacts and more effective and sustainable pest
current loss of genetic resources. The introduc- management. An ecology-based IPM has the
tion of high-yielding varieties changed the potential of decreasing inputs of fuel, machinery
agricultural environment leading to numerous and synthetic chemicals – all of which are energy
pest problems of economic importance. In the intensive and increasingly costly in terms of
process of intensive farming, the environment financial and environmental impact. Such reduc-
has been treated in an unfriendly manner. tions will benefit the grower and society.
Prof. Swaminathan (2000) emphasised the Over-reliance on the use of synthetic pesti-
need for ‘ever green revolution’ keeping in view cides in crop protection programmes around the
the increase in population. The increase in popu- world has resulted in disturbances to the environ-
lation and diminishing per capita availability of ment, pest resurgence, pest resistance to pesti-
land demand rise in productivity per unit area. In cides and lethal and sublethal effects on non-target
India, annual crop losses due to pests, diseases organisms, including humans. These side effects
and weeds have been estimated to be about Rs. have raised public concern about the routine use
600,000 million in 2005. Increasing yields from and safety of pesticides. At the same time, popu-
existing land requires effective crop protection to lation increases are placing ever-greater demands
prevent losses before and after harvest. The chal- upon the ‘ecological services’, that is, provision
lenge before the plant protection scientist is to do of clean air, water and wildlife habitat – of a land-
this without harming the environment and scape dominated by farms. Although some pend-
resource base. ing legislation has recognised the costs to farmers
of providing these ecological services, it is clear
that farmers will be required to manage their land
14.1 Integrated Pest Management with greater attention to direct and indirect off-
(IPM) farm impacts of various farming practices on
water, soil, and wildlife resources. With this
Integrated pest management is an important prin- likely future in mind, reducing dependence on
ciple on which sustainable crop protection can be chemical pesticides in favour of ecosystem
based. IPM allows farmers to manage pests in a manipulations is a good strategy for farmers.
cost-effective, environmentally sound and socially Biointensive IPM is defined as ‘A systems
acceptable way. According to FAO, IPM is defined approach to pest management based on an under-
as ‘A pest management system that in the context standing of pest ecology. It begins with steps to
of the associated environment and the population accurately diagnose the nature and source of pest
dynamics of the pest species, utilizes all suitable problems, and then relies on a range of preven-
techniques and methods, in a compatible manner tive tactics and biological controls to keep pest
14.2 Biointensive Integrated Pest Management (BIPM) 225

populations within acceptable limits. Reduced-risk nomically sustainable crop that can be rotated
pesticides are used if other tactics have not been into the cropping system? Is it compatible?
adequately effective, as a last resort, and with Important considerations when developing a crop
care to minimize risks’ (Benbrook 1996). rotation are as follows:
The primary goal of biointensive IPM is to • How might the cropping system be altered to
provide guidelines and options for the effective make life more difficult for the pest and easier
management of pests and beneficial organisms in for its natural controls? What two (or three or
an ecological context. The flexibility and envi- several) crops can provide an economic return
ronmental compatibility of a biointensive IPM when considered together as a biological and
strategy make it useful in all types of cropping economic system that includes considerations
systems. Biointensive IPM would likely decrease of sustainable soil management?
chemical use and costs even further. • What are the impacts of this season’s cropping
practices on subsequent crops?
• What specialised equipment is necessary for
14.2.1 Components of Biointensive IPM the crops?
• What markets are available for the rotation
An important difference between conventional crops?
and biointensive IPM is that the emphasis of the Management factors should also be consid-
latter is on proactive measures to redesign the ered. For example, one crop may provide a lower
agricultural ecosystem to the disadvantage of a direct return per acre than the alternate crop, but
pest and to the advantage of its parasite and may also lower management costs for the alter-
predator complex. At the same time, biointen- nate crop, with a net increase in profit.
sive IPM shares many of the same components
as conventional IPM, including monitoring, use 14.2.1.2 Pest Identification
of economic thresholds, record keeping and A crucial step in any IPM programme is to iden-
planning. tify the pest. The effectiveness of both proactive
and reactive pest management measures depends
14.2.1.1 Planning on correct identification. Misidentification of
Good planning must precede implementation of the pest may be worse than useless; it may actu-
any IPM programme but is particularly important ally be harmful and cost time and money. Help
in a biointensive programme. Planning should be with positive identification of pests may be
done before planting because many pest strate- obtained from university personnel, private con-
gies require steps or inputs, such as beneficial sultants, the Cooperative Extension Service,
organism habitat management, that must be con- books and websites.
sidered well in advance. Attempting to jump-start After a pest is identified, appropriate and effec-
an IPM programme in the beginning or middle of tive management depends on knowing answers to
a cropping season generally does not work. a number of questions. These may include:
When planning a biointensive IPM pro- • What plants are hosts and non-hosts of this
gramme, some considerations include: pest?
• Options for design changes in the agricultural • When does the pest emerge or first appear?
system (beneficial organism habitat, crop • Where does it lay its eggs?
rotations) • For plant pathogens, where is the source(s) of
• Choice of pest-resistant cultivars inoculum?
• Technical information needs • Where, how and in what form does the pest
• Monitoring options, record keeping, equip- overwinter?
ment, etc. Monitoring (field scouting), economic injury
When making a decision about crop rotation, and action levels are used to help answer these
consider the following questions: Is there an eco- and additional questions.
226 14 Biointensive Integrated Pest Management

14.2.1.3 Monitoring 14.2.2 BIPM Options

Monitoring involves systematically checking
crop fields for pests and beneficials, at regular BIPM options may be considered as proactive or
intervals and at critical times, to gather informa- reactive.
tion about the crop, pests and natural enemies.
Sweep nets, sticky traps and pheromone traps can 14.2.2.1 Proactive Options
be used to collect insects for both identification Proactive options, such as crop rotations and cre-
and population density information. Leaf counts ation of habitat for beneficial organisms, perma-
are one method for recording plant growth stages. nently lower the carrying capacity of the farm for
Records of rainfall and temperature are some- the pest. The carrying capacity is determined by
times used to predict the likelihood of disease the factors like food, shelter, natural enemy com-
infections. plex and weather, which affect the reproduction
The more often a crop is monitored, the more and survival of a pest species. Cultural control
information the grower has about what is happen- practices are generally considered to be proactive
ing in the fields. Monitoring activity should be strategies. Proactive practices include crop rota-
balanced against its costs. Frequency may vary tion; resistant crop cultivars including transgenic
with temperature, crop, growth phase of the crop plants, disease-free seed and plants; crop sanita-
and pest populations. If a pest population is tion; spacing of plants; altering planting dates;
approaching economically damaging levels, the mulches; etc.
grower will want to monitor more frequently. The proactive strategies (cultural controls)
include:
14.2.1.4 Economic Injury and Action • Healthy, biologically active soils (increasing
Levels below-ground diversity)
The economic injury level (EIL) is the pest pop- • Habitat for beneficial organisms (increasing
ulation that inflicts crop damage greater than the above-ground diversity)
cost of control measures. Because growers will • Appropriate plant cultivars
generally want to act before a population reaches
EIL, IPM programmes use the concept of an Intercropping
economic threshold level (ETL or ET), also Intercropping is the practice of growing two or
known as an action threshold. The ETL is closely more crops in the same, alternate or paired rows
related to the EIL and is the point at which sup- in the same area. This technique is particularly
pression tactics should be applied in order to appropriate in vegetable production. The advan-
prevent pest populations from increasing to tage of intercropping is that the increased diver-
injurious levels. sity helps ‘disguise’ crops from insect pests and, if
ETLs are intimately related to the value of done well, may allow for more efficient utilisation
the crop and the part of the crop being attacked. of limited soil and water resources.
For example, a pest that attacks the fruit or veg-
etable will have a much lower ETL (i.e. the pest Strip Cropping
must be controlled at lower populations) than a Strip cropping is the practice of growing two or
pest that attacks a non-saleable part of the plant. more crops in different strips across a field wide
The exception to this rule is an insect or nema- enough for independent cultivation. It is com-
tode pest that is also a disease vector. Depending monly practised to help reduce soil erosion in
on the severity of the disease, the grower may hilly areas. Like intercropping, strip cropping
face a situation where the ETL for a particular increases the diversity of a cropping area, which
pest is zero, that is, the crop cannot tolerate the in turn may help ‘disguise’ the crops from pests.
presence of a single pest of that particular spe- Another advantage to this system is that one of
cies because the disease it transmits is so the crops may act as a reservoir and/or food
destructive. source for beneficial organisms.
14.2 Biointensive Integrated Pest Management (BIPM) 227

The options described above can be integrated plant tissues toxic to shoot and fruit borer and
with no-till cultivation schemes and all its varia- potato beetle larvae, respectively.
tions (strip till, ridge till, etc.) as well as with hedge- Whether or not this technology should be
rows and intercrops designed for beneficial adopted is the subject of much debate. Opponents
organism habitat. With all the cropping and till- are concerned that by introducing Bt genes into
age options available, it is possible, with cre- plants, selection pressure for resistance to the Bt
ative and informed management, to evolve a toxin will intensify, and a valuable biological
biologically diverse, pest-suppressive farming control tool will be lost. There are also concerns
system appropriate to the unique environment of about possible impacts of genetically modified
each farm. plant products (i.e. root exudates) on non-target
organisms as well as fears of altered genes being
Disease-Free Seed and Plants transferred to weed relatives of crop plants.
These are available from most commercial Whether there is a market for gene-altered crops
sources and are certified as such. Use of disease- is also a consideration for farmers and proces-
free seed and nursery stock is important in pre- sors. Proponents of this technology argue that use
venting the introduction of disease. of such crops decreases the need to use toxic
chemical pesticides.
Resistant Varieties Transgenic crop varieties in horticultural
These are continually being bred by researchers. crops (tomato, potato, brinjal, beans, cabbage,
Growers can also do their own plant breeding cauliflower, musk melon, banana, coffee) have
simply by collecting non-hybrid seed from been developed by cloning Bt endotoxin genes
healthy plants in the field. The plants from these which are cultivated in large areas. In 2006,
seeds will have a good chance of being better India is the fifth largest GM crop-growing
suited to the local environment and of being more country (3.8 million ha) in the world only
resistant to insects and diseases. Since natural next to the USA (54.6 million ha), Argentina
systems are dynamic rather than static, breeding (18 million ha), Brazil and Canada. Combining
for resistance must be an ongoing process, espe- a host gene for resistance with pathogen-
cially in the case of plant disease, as the patho- derived genes or with genes coding for antimi-
gens themselves continue to evolve and become crobial compounds provides for a broad and
resistant to control measures. effective resistance in many host–pathogen
Perhaps the greatest single technological combinations (Table 14.2).
achievement is the advance in breeding crops for
resistance to pests. Cultivation of resistant variet- Sanitation
ies is the cheapest and best method of controlling It involves removing and destroying the over-
pests. One of the important components of IPM wintering or breeding sites of the pest as well
is the use of resistant cultivars to key pests. Under as preventing a new pest from establishing on
All India Coordinated Research Projects of Indian the farm (e.g. not allowing off-farm soil from
Council of Agricultural Research, large number farm equipment to spread nematodes or plant
of highly/moderately resistant varieties are pathogens to your land). This strategy has been
released to the farmers (Table 14.1). particularly useful in horticultural and tree–
fruit crop situations involving twig and branch
Biotech Crops pests. If, however, sanitation involves removal
Gene transfer technology is being used by several of crop residues from the soil surface, the soil
companies to develop cultivars resistant to is left exposed to erosion by wind and water.
insects, diseases and nematodes. An example is As with so many decisions in farming, both the
the incorporation of genetic material from short- and long-term benefits of each action
Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), a naturally occurring should be considered when tradeoffs like this
bacterium, into brinjal and potatoes, to make the are involved.
228 14 Biointensive Integrated Pest Management

Table 14.1 Horticultural crop varieties resistant to pests/diseases

Crop Pest/disease Resistant varieties
Banana Radopholus similis Kadali, Pedalimoongil, Ayiramkapoovan, Peykunnan,
Kunnan, Pisang Seribu, Tongat, Vennettu Kunnan,
Anaikomban
Panama wilt (Fusarium oxysporum Robusta, Dwarf Cavendish
f. sp. cubense)
Citrus Tylenchulus semipenetrans Trifoliate orange, Swingle citrumelo
Gummosis, leaf fall, fruit rot Cleopatra mandarin, Rangpur lime, trifoliate orange
(Phytophthora spp.) rootstocks
Grapevine Root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne Black Champa, Dogridge, 1613, Salt Creek, Cardinal,
incognita Banquabad
Papaya Ring spot virus Rainbow
Passion fruit Root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne Yellow, Kaveri
incognita
Potato Late blight, Phytophthora infestans Kufri Sutlej, Kufri Badshah, Kufri Jawahar (in plains),
Kufri Jyoti, Kufri Giriraj, Kufri Kanchan, Kufri Meghad
(in hills)
Tomato Bacterial wilt, Ralstonia solanacearum Arka Abha, Arka Alok, Arka Shreshta, Arka Abhijit,
Megha, Shakthi, Sun 7610, Sun 7611
Powdery mildew (PM) Arka Ashish
Fusarium and Verticillium wilt Vaishali, Rupali, Rashmi
Leaf curl virus Avinash-2, Hisar Anmol
Root-knot nematode Hisar Lalit, Pusa Hybrid-2, Arka Vardan
Brinjal Bacterial wilt, Ralstonia solanacearum Arka Nidhi, Arka Keshav, Arka Neelkanth, Arka Anand,
Swarna Shree, Swarna Shyamali, Surya, Ujjwala
Phomopsis blight Pusa Bhairav
Little leaf Pusa Purple Long, Pusa Purple Cluster (field resistant)
Chilli TMV, CMV, leaf curl Pusa Sadabahar, Punjab Lal, Pusa Jwala
Thrips NP 46A (T)
Powdery mildew Arka Suphala (T)
Dieback and powdery mildew Musalwadi (T)
Mosaic, leaf curl Pant C-1
Leaf curl and fruit rot Jawahar 218 (T)
Viruses Arka Harita, Arka Meghana
French bean Angular leaf spot, mosaic Pant Anupama
Rust, bacterial blight Arka Anoop
Rust Arka Bold, Swarna Priya, Swarna Latha, Arka Anoop
Rust, Alternaria leaf spot Arka Bold
Pea Powdery mildew Pusa Pragati, Jawahar Matar 5, Jawahar Peas 83
PM, rust Arka Ajit, Arka Karthik, Arka Sampoorna
Fusarium wilt JP Batri Brown 3, JP Batri Brown 4
Cowpea Bacterial blight Pusa Komal
Pigeon pea Fusarium wilt Maruti
Field bean Viral diseases, jassid, aphid Pusa Sem-2, Pusa Sem-3
and pod borer
Cluster bean PM, Alternaria leaf spot Gomah Manjari
Okra YVMV Pusa Sawani, Arka Abhay, Arka Anamika, Hisar
Unnat, DVR-1, DVR-2, IIVR-10, Varsha Upkar, P-7,
Pusa A-4, Parbhani Kranti (T), Punjab Kesari, Punjab
Padmini, Sun-40, Makhmali
YVMV, fruit borer Pusa A-4
(continued)
14.2 Biointensive Integrated Pest Management (BIPM) 229

Table 14.1 (continued)

Crop Pest/disease Resistant varieties
Cucumber PM Swarna Poorna
PM, downy mildew (DM), angular leaf Poinsette
spot, anthracnose
Cabbage Black rot Pusa Mukta
Black leg Pusa Drum Head
Cauliflower Black rot Pusa Snowball K-1
Black rot and curd blight Pusa Shubhra
Curd blight Pusa Synthetic
DM Pusa Hybrid-2
Onion Purple blotch, basal rot, thrips Arka Pitamber, Arka Kirtiman, Arka Lalima
Purple blotch, Alternaria porri Arka Kalyan
Garlic Purple blotch, Stemphylium disease Agrifound White
Muskmelon PM Arka Rajhans, Pusa Madhuras (MR)
PM, DM Punjab Rasila
Fusarium wilt Pusa Madhuras, Durgapura Madhu, Arka Jeet, Punjab
Sunehari (MR), Harela
Watermelon PM, DM, anthracnose Arka Manik
Pumpkin Fruit fly Arka Suryamukhi
Ridge gourd PM, DM Swarna Uphaar
Bottle gourd Blossom end rot Arka Bahar (T)
CMV Punjab Komal
Carrot PM, root-knot nematode Arka Suraj
Amaranth White rust Arka Arunima, Arka Suguna (MR)
Palak Cercospora leaf spot Arka Anupama
China aster Root-knot nematode, M. incognita Shashank, Poornima (MR)
Tuberose Root-knot nematode, M. incognita Sringar, Suvasini (T)
Mentha Root-knot nematode, M. incognita Kukrail, Arka Neera
Black pepper Root-knot nematode, M. incognita IISR Pournami (T)
Foot rot, Phytophthora capsici IISR Shakthi
Cardamom Mosaic IISR Vijetha
Rhizome rot IISR Avinash
Ginger Root-knot nematodes IISR Mahima
Soft rot Maran
Cumin Fusarium wilt GC-4
MR Moderately resistant, T Tolerant

Spacing of Plants knowledge of the crop ecology is necessary to

It heavily influences the development of plant determine the best pest management strategies.
diseases. The distance between plants and rows, How will the crop react to increased spacing
the shape of beds and the height of plants influence between rows and between plants? Will yields
air flow across the crop, which in turn determines drop because of reduced crop density? Can this
how long the leaves remain damp from rain and be offset by reduced pest management costs or
morning dew. Generally speaking, better air flow fewer losses from disease?
will decrease the incidence of plant disease.
However, increased air flow through wider Altered Planting Dates
spacing will also allow more sunlight to the This can at times be used to avoid specific insects
ground. This is another instance in which detailed or diseases. For example, squash bug infestations
230 14 Biointensive Integrated Pest Management

Table 14.2 Development of transgenics in vegetable crops

Vegetable crop Target pathogen Transgene/s Institute
Potato Tuber moth Bt Cry 1Ab CPRI, Shimla
Potato virus Y Coat protein CPRI, Shimla
Tomato Leaf curl virus Leaf curl virus sequence IIHR, Bangalore, IAHS, Bangalore
Replicase gene IARI, New Delhi
Fungal diseases Chitinase, glucanase IIHR, Bangalore
Alfalfa glucanase IAHS, Bangalore
OXDC JNU, New Delhi
Lepidopteron pests Bt Cry 1Ab IARI, New Delhi, Proagro PG-S (India) Ltd.
Brinjal Fungal diseases Chitinase, glucanase,
thaumatin encoding genes
Lepidopteron pests Bt Cry 1Ab IARI, New Delhi, Proagro PG-S (India) Ltd.
Cabbage Lepidopteron pests Bt Cry 1Ab IARI, New Delhi, Proagro PG-S (India) Ltd.
Cry 1H/Cry 9C Proagro PG-S (India) Ltd.
Cauliflower Lepidopteron pests Bt Cry 1Ab IARI, New Delhi, Proagro PG-S (India) Ltd.
Cry 1H/Cry 9C Proagro PG-S (India) Ltd.

on cucurbits can be decreased by the delayed occurs about the time Amelanchier species are
planting strategy, that is, waiting to establish flowering (Couch 1994). Using this information,
the cucurbit crop until overwintering adult cabbage maggot management efforts could be
squash bugs have died. To assist with disease concentrated during a known time frame when
management decisions, the Cooperative Exten- the early instars (the most easily managed stage)
sion Service (CES) will often issue warnings of are active.
‘infection periods’ for certain diseases, based
upon the weather. Optimum Growing Conditions
In some cases, the CES also keeps track of Plants that grow quickly and are healthy can
‘degree days’ needed for certain important insect compete with and resist pests better than slow-
pests to develop. Insects, being cold-blooded, growing, weak plants. Too often, plants grown
will not develop below or above certain threshold outside their natural ecosystem range must rely
temperatures. Calculating accumulated degree on pesticides to overcome conditions and pests to
days, that is, the number of days above the thresh- which they are not adapted.
old development temperature for an insect pest,
makes the prediction of certain events, such as Mulches
egg hatch, possible. University of California has Living or nonliving mulches are useful for sup-
an excellent website that uses weather station pression of insect pests and some plant diseases.
data from around the state to help California Hay and straw, for example, provide habitat for
growers predict pest emergence. spiders. Research in Tennessee showed a 70%
Some growers gauge the emergence of insect reduction in damage to vegetables by insect
pests by the flowering of certain non-crop plant pests when hay or straw was used as mulch.
species native to the farm. This method uses the The difference was due to spiders, which find
‘natural degree days’ accumulated by plants. mulch more habitable than bare ground
For example, a grower might time cabbage (Reichert and Leslie 1989). Other researchers
planting for 3 weeks after the Amelanchier spe- have found that living mulches of various clo-
cies (also known as saskatoon, shadbush or ser- vers reduce insect pest damage to vegetables
vice berry) on their farm are in bloom. This will and orchard crops. Again, this reduction is due
enable the grower to avoid peak egg-laying time to natural predators and parasites that are pro-
of the cabbage maggot fly, as the egg hatch vided habitat by the clovers.
14.2 Biointensive Integrated Pest Management (BIPM) 231

Mulching helps to minimise the spread of coined to describe such efforts on farms. Habitat
soil-borne plant pathogens by preventing their enhancement for beneficial insects, for example,
transmission through soil splash. Winged aphids focuses on the establishment of flowering annual
are repelled by silver- or aluminium-coloured or perennial plants that provide pollen and nec-
mulches. Recent springtime field tests at the tar needed during certain parts of the insect life
Agricultural Research Service in Florence, South cycle. Other habitat features provided by farm-
Carolina, have indicated that red plastic mulch scaping include water, alternative prey, perching
suppresses root-knot nematode damage in toma- sites, overwintering sites and wind protection.
toes by diverting resources away from the roots Beneficial insects and other beneficial organ-
(and nematodes) and into foliage and fruit isms should be viewed as mini-livestock, with
(Adams 1997). specific habitat and food needs to be included in
farm planning.
14.2.2.2 Reactive Options The success of such efforts depends on knowl-
The reactive options mean that the grower edge of the pests and beneficial organisms within
responds to a situation, such as an economically the cropping system. Where do the pests and
damaging population of pests, with some type of beneficials overwinter? What plants are hosts and
short-term suppressive action. Reactive methods non-hosts? When this kind of knowledge informs
generally include inundative releases of biological planning, the ecological balance can be manipu-
control agents, mechanical and physical controls, lated in favour of beneficials and against the pests.
botanical pesticides and chemical controls. It should be kept in mind that ecosystem manip-
ulation is a two-edged sword. Some plant pests
Biological Controls (such as the tarnished plant bug and lygus bug) are
Biological control is the use of living organisms – attracted to the same plants that attract beneficials.
parasites, predators or pathogens – to maintain The development of beneficial habitats with a mix
pest populations below economically damaging of plants that flower throughout the year can help
levels and may be either natural or applied. A first prevent such pests from migrating en masse from
step in setting up a biointensive IPM programme farmscaped plants to crop plants.
is to assess the populations of beneficials and
their interactions within the local ecosystem. This (b) Applied Biological Control: It is also known
will help to determine the potential role of natural as augmentative biocontrol and involves supple-
enemies in the managed horticultural ecosystem. mentation of beneficial organism populations, for
It should be noted that some groups of beneficials example, through periodic releases of parasites,
(e.g. spiders, ground beetles, bats) may be absent predators or pathogens. This can be effective in
or scarce on some farms because of lack of many situations – for instance, well-timed inun-
habitat. These organisms might make significant dative releases of Trichogramma egg wasps for
contributions to pest management if provided codling moth control.
with adequate habitat. Most of the beneficial organisms used in applied
biological control today are insect parasitoids and
(a) Natural Biological Control: It results when predators. They control a wide range of pests from
naturally occurring enemies maintain pests at a caterpillars to mites. Some species of biocontrol
lower level than would occur without them and is organisms, such as Eretmocerus californicus, a
generally characteristic of biodiverse systems. parasitic wasp, are specific to one host – in this
Mammals, birds, bats, insects, fungi, bacteria and case, the sweet potato whitefly. Others, such as
viruses all have a role to play as predators, para- green lacewings, are generalists and will attack
sites and pathogens in an agricultural system. many species of aphids and whiteflies.
Creation of habitat to enhance the chances Information about rates and timing of release
for survival and reproduction of beneficial is available from suppliers of beneficial organ-
organisms is a concept included in the definition isms. It is important to remember that released
of natural biocontrol. Farmscaping is a term insects are mobile; they are likely to leave a site
232 14 Biointensive Integrated Pest Management

if the habitat is not conducive to their survival. custard apple. The encyrtid parasite, Leptomastix
Food, nectar and pollen sources can be ‘farm- dactylopii, is effective against mealy bug,
scaped’ to provide suitable habitat. Planococcus citri, on guava, citrus, pomegranate,
The quality of commercially available applied ber and custard apple. Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)
biocontrols is another important consideration. is effective against tomato fruit borer, okra fruit
For example, if the organisms are not properly borer and diamondback moth on cabbage and
labelled on the outside packaging, they may be cauliflower.
mishandled during transport, resulting in the Several methods of enrichment and conserva-
death of the organisms. A recent study by Rutgers tion of natural enemies include providing nesting
University noted that only two of six suppliers of boxes for wasps and predatory birds; retaining
beneficial nematodes sent the expected numbers pollen and nectar-bearing flowering plants like
of organisms and only one supplier out of the six Euphorbia, wild clover on bunds to provide sup-
provided information on how to assess product plementary food for natural enemies; and placing
viability. bundles of paddy straw in fields for attracting
Whilst augmentative biocontrols can be applied predatory spiders. In addition, erecting perching
with relative ease on small farms and in gardens, sites, placing water pans and retaining bushes
applying some types of biocontrols evenly over (Acalypha, Hibiscus, Crotons) help in retention
large farms has been problematic. New mecha- of predatory birds.
nised methods that may improve the economics The last decade has witnessed a tremendous
and practicality of large-scale augmentative bio- breakthrough in biological control of diseases and
control include ground application with ‘bio- nematodes like Rhizoctonia, Pythium, Fusarium,
sprayers’ and aerial delivery using small-scale Macrophomina, Ralstonia and Meloidogyne in
(radio-controlled) or conventional aircraft. banana, tomato, eggplant, pea, grapes, cucumber,
Inundative releases of beneficials into green- black pepper, cardamom, ginger and turmeric,
houses can be particularly effective. In the con- especially by using species of Trichoderma,
trolled environment of a greenhouse, pest Pochonia, Pseudomonas and Bacillus (Tables
infestations can be devastating; there are no natu- 14.3, 14.4, 14.5, 14.6, 14.7, 14.8, 14.9, 14.10,
ral controls in place to suppress pest populations 14.11, and 14.12).
once an infestation begins. For this reason, moni-
toring is very important. If an infestation occurs, Mechanical and Physical Controls
it can spread quickly if not detected early and Methods included in this category utilise some
managed. Once introduced, biological control physical component of the environment, such as
agents cannot escape from a greenhouse and are temperature, humidity or light, to the detriment
forced to concentrate predation/parasitism on the of the pest. Common examples are tillage,
pest(s) at hand. flaming, flooding, soil solarisation and plastic
An increasing number of commercially avail- mulches to kill pests.
able biocontrol products are made up of microor- Heat or steam sterilisation of soil is commonly
ganisms, including fungi, bacteria, nematodes used in greenhouse operations for control of soil-
and viruses. borne pests. Floating row covers over vegetable
Of late, biological suppression of pests has crops exclude flea beetles, cucumber beetles and
become an intensive area of research because of adults of the onion, carrot, cabbage and seed corn
environmental concerns. About 60% of the natu- root maggots (Fig. 14.1). Insect screens are used
ral control of insect pests is by the natural ene- in greenhouses to prevent aphids, thrips, mites
mies of pests such as parasitoids, predators and and other pests from entering ventilation ducts.
pathogens. The Australian ladybird beetle, Large, multi-row vacuum machines have been
Cryptolaemus montrouzieri, has been found very used for pest management in strawberries and
effective against mealy bugs infesting grapes, vegetable crops. Cold storage reduces post-har-
guava, citrus, mango, pomegranate, ber and vest disease problems on produce.
14.2 Biointensive Integrated Pest Management (BIPM) 233

Table 14.3 Biological control of fruit crop pests

Fruit crop Pest Biocontrol agent/dosage
Apple Woolly aphid, Eriosoma lanigerum Aphelinus mali – 1,000 adults or mummies/infested tree
San Jose scale, Quadraspidiotus Encarsia periniciosi – 2,000 adults/infested tree
perniciosus
Codling moth, Cydia pomonella Chilocorus infernalis – 20 adults or 50 grubs/tree,
Trichogramma embryophagum – 2,000 adults/tree,
Steinernema carpocapsae
Citrus Cottony cushion scale, Icerya purchasi Rodolia cardinalis – 10 beetles/infested plant
Mealy bug, Planococcus citri Cryptolaemus montrouzieri – 10 beetles/infested plant,
Leptomastix dactylopii 3,000 adults/ha
Red scale, Aonidiella aurantii Chilocorus nigrita – 15 adults/infested tree
Scale insect, Coccus viridis Verticillium lecanii – 16 × 104 spores/ml + 0.05% teepol
Leaf miner, Phyllocnistis citrella S. carpocapsae
Grapevine Mealy bug, Maconellicoccus hirsutus C. montrouzieri – 2,500–3,000 beetles/ha or 10 beetles/
vine
Guava Green shield scale, Chloropulvinaria psidii C. montrouzieri – 10–20 beetles/infested plant
Aphid, Aphis gossypii V. lecanii – 109 spores/ml + 0.1% teepol

Table 14.4 Biological control of fruit crop diseases

Fruit crop Disease/pathogen/s Potential biocontrol agent/s
Banana Panama wilt, Fusarium oxysporum T. viride, Aspergillus niger, Pseudomonas fluorescens,
f. sp. cubense T. viride + P. fluorescens – sucker treat
Citrus Root rot, Phytophthora spp. Trichoderma viride/T. harzianum at 100 kg/ha,
Penicillium funiculosum, Pythium nunn – soil treat
Canker, Xanthomonas campestris Aspergillus niger AN 27
pv. citri
Mulberry Leaf spot, Cercospora moricola T. viride, T. harzianum, Pseudomonas fluorescens
Cutting rot, F. solani T. virens, T. harzianum, T. pseudokoningii
Grapevine Powdery mildew, Uncinula necator Ampelomyces quisqualis – dispersal from wick cultures
at 15 cm of shoot growth and bloom
Downy mildew, Plasmopara viticola Fusarium proliferatum weekly spray starting from 15 cm
of shoot growth – 106 spores/ml
Guava Anthracnose, Pestalotia psidii, T. harzianum
Colletotrichum gloeosporioides
Wilt, Gliocladium roseum and F. solani Penicillium citrinum, Aspergillus niger AN 17,
T. harzianum
Mango Anthracnose, Colletotrichum T. harzianum, Streptosporangium pseudovulgare
gloeosporioides
Powdery mildew, Oidium mangiferae S. pseudovulgare
Bacterial canker, Xanthomonas Bacillus coagulans
campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae
Apple Scab, Venturia inaequalis Chaetomium globosum, A. pullulans, Microsphaeropsis
sp., Chaetomium globosum, Cladosporium spp.,
Trichothecium roseum – foliar spray
Collar rot, Phytophthora cactorum Enterobacter aerogenes, Bacillus subtilis, T. virens – soil
treat
White root rot, Dematophora necatrix T. viride, T. harzianum, T. virens – soil treat
(continued)
234 14 Biointensive Integrated Pest Management

Table 14.4 (continued)

Fruit crop Disease/pathogen/s Potential biocontrol agent/s
Pear Blue mould, Penicillium expansum, C. infirmo-miniatus YY6, C. laurentii RR87-108,
grey mould, Botrytis cinerea R. glutinis HRB6 – fruit spray 3 weeks or 1 day prior
to harvest – 108 cfu/ml, Pantoea agglomerans CPA-2
– post-harvest fruit dipping in 8 × 108 cfu/ml
Fire blight, Erwinia amylovora Pseudomonas fluorescens – foliar spray
Peach Brown rot, Monilia fructicola Bacillus subtilis (B-3) – post-harvest fruit line spray at
5 × 108 cfu/g, Pseudomonas syringae – post-harvest fruit
dipping in 107 cfu/ml
Twig blight, Monilia laxa Penicillium frequentans – spray shoots in early growing
season – 108–9 spores/ml
Crown gall, Agrobacterium tumefaciens Agrobacterium radiobacter K84, K1026 – root dip treat
Strawberry Grey mould, Botrytis cinerea Trichoderma products (BINAB TF and BINAB T),
Bacillus pumilus, Pseudomonas fluorescens,
Gliocladium roseum – spray flowers and fruits – white
flower bud to pink fruit – 106 spores/ml, G. roseum – bee
vectoring of flowers – 109 cfu/g of powder
Passion fruit Collar rot, Rhizoctonia solani T. harzianum, Trichoderma sp.
Amla Bark splitting, Rhizoctonia solani Aspergillus niger AN 27

Table 14.5 Biological control of vegetable crop pests

Vegetable crop Pest Biocontrol agent/dosage
Potato Cut worm, Agrotis ipsilon, A. segetum Steinernema carpocapsae, S. bicornutum,
Heterorhabditis indica
Tomato Fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera Trichogramma brasiliensis/T. chilonis/T. pretiosum
– 50,000/ha, Ha NPV – 250 LE/ha
Brinjal Fruit and shoot borer, Leucinodes S. carpocapsae, H. indica
orbonalis
Chilli Fruit borer, H. armigera Ha NPV-250 LE/ha
Beans Mite, Tetranychus spp. Phytoseiulus persimilis – 10 adults/plant or release
1–6 leaves with predatory mites
Pigeon pea Pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera Ha NPV-250 LE/ha
Cabbage Diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella S. carpocapsae, S. glaseri, S. feltiae, S. bicornutum,
H. bacteriophora
Mushroom Lycoriella auripila, L. mali, L. solani, S. feltiae
Megaselia halterata

Table 14.6 Biological control of vegetable crop diseases

Crop Disease/pathogen/s Biocontrol agent/mode of application
Potato Black scurf, Rhizoctonia solani T. harzianum, T. viride – tuber treat, Aspergillus
niger AN27, Verticillium biguttatum – soil treat,
Laetisaria arvalis – tuber treat, binucleate
Rhizoctonia
Wilt, Ralstonia solanacearum Bacillus cereus, B. subtilis
Tomato Damping off, Pythium aphanidermatum T. viride, T. harzianum, Pseudomonas aeruginosa
7NSK2
Wilt, Fusarium oxysporum T. viride, T. harzianum, Aspergillus niger, non-
f. sp. lycopersici pathogenic F. oxysporum, F. oxysporum f. sp. dianthi,
P. fluorescens strains Pf1, P. putida, Penicillium
oxalicum, Pythium oligandrum, Bacillus subtilis
strains FZB-G, Streptomyces spp. – seed treat, seed
and soil treat
(continued)
14.2 Biointensive Integrated Pest Management (BIPM) 235

Table 14.6 (continued)

Crop Disease/pathogen/s Biocontrol agent/mode of application
Brinjal Damping off, wilt, Phytophthora sp., T. viride, T. harzianum, T. koningii – seed and soil
Pythium aphanidermatum, F. solani treat
Collar rot, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum T. viride, T. virens, Bacillus subtilis – soil treat
Bell pepper Phytophthora capsici T. viride, T. harzianum – fruit treat
Damping off, Pythium aphanidermatum Streptomyces griseoviridis – seed and soil treat
French bean Dry root rot, Macrophomina phaseolina Pseudomonas cepacia UPR5C – seed treat
Wilt, Fusarium oxysporum Streptomyces spp. – seed treat
f. sp. phaseoli
Pea Root rot, Aphanomyces euteiches P. fluorescens PRA25 – seed treat, Pseudomonas
cepacia AMMD – seed treat
Damping off, Pythium ultimum Pseudomonas cepacia AMMD – seed treat, P. putida
NIR – seed treat
Wilt, F. oxysporum f. sp. udum T. viride, T. harzianum, T. koningii – seed treat,
Aspergillus niger AN27
Cluster bean Bacterial blight, Xanthomonas Aspergillus niger AN27
axonopodis pv. cyamopsidis
Cabbage Damping off, R. solani T. viride, T. harzianum, T. koningii – seed treat
Cauliflower Blight, Alternaria brassicola Streptomyces griseoviridis – seed treat
Okra Rhizoctonia solani Bradyrhizobium japonicum, Rhizobium spp. – seed
treat
Carrot Soft rot, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum Coniothyrium minitans – soil treat
Root rot, R. solani T. virens GL-21
Radish Wilt, F. oxysporum f. sp. raphani P. fluorescens strains WCS374, WCS417r – soil treat
Root rot, R. solani Laetisaria rosiepellis, Pythium acanthicum – soil
treat
Beet root Damping off, Pythium debaryanum, Penicillium spp. + P. fluorescens – seed treat,
P. ultimum Pythium oligandrum
Cucumber Wilt, Fusarium oxysporum Colletotrichum orbiculare, F. oxysporum f. sp.
f. sp. cucumerinum, R. solani niveum, Pseudomonas putida 89B-27, Serratia
marcescens, Tobacco necrosis virus
Powdery mildew Ampelomyces quisqualis – foliar spray
Cucumber mosaic virus P. fluorescens strain 89B-27
Water melon Wilt, Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. solani, T. viride, Aspergillus niger – seed and soil treat,
F. oxysporum f. sp. niveum Penicillium janczewski
Musk melon Wilt, F. oxysporum, F. solani, R. solani T. harzianum, Aspergillus niger – seed treat
Onion Soft rot, Sclerotium cepivorum Chaetomium globosum, Trichoderma sp. C62 – soil
treat

Although generally used in small or localised insects, mites, nematodes, plant diseases and
situations, some methods of mechanical/physical vertebrate and invertebrate pests. These pow-
control are finding wider acceptance because they erful chemicals are fast acting and relatively
are generally more friendly to the environment. inexpensive to purchase.
Pesticides are the option of last resort in
Chemical Controls (Reduced-Risk Pesticides) IPM programmes because of their potential
Included in this category are both synthetic pesti- negative impacts on the environment, which
cides and botanical pesticides. result from the manufacturing process as
(a) Synthetic Pesticides: They comprise a wide well as from their application on the farm.
range of man-made chemicals used to control Pesticides should be used only when other
236 14 Biointensive Integrated Pest Management

Table 14.7 Biological control of ornamental crop diseases

Crop Disease/pathogen/s Biocontrol agent/mode of application
Rose Grey mould, Botrytis cinerea T. viride, T. harzianum – cutting treat
Gladiolus Yellows and corm rot, F. oxysporum T. virens, T. harzianum – corm and soil treat
f. sp. gladioli
Chrysanthemum Wilt, Fusarium oxysporum T. harzianum – soil treat – 160 kg/ha
Rhizoctonia solani Aspergillus niger AN27
Carnation Wilt, F. oxysporum f. sp. dianthi Pseudomonas fluorescens strain WCS 417r – soil
treat, P. putida WCS 358r – root dip treat,
Alcaligenes sp., Bacillus sp., Arthrobacter sp.,
Hafnia sp., Serratia liquefaciens
Gerbera Phytophthora cryptogea Trichoderma spp. – soil treat
Narcissus Wilt, F. oxysporum f. sp. narcissi Streptomyces griseoviridis – bulb treat, Mini medusa
polyspora – bulb treat
Zinnia Rhizoctonia solani T. virens GL-21, T. virens GL-20
Marigold Pythium ultimum Glomus intraradices, G. mosseae – soil treat

Table 14.8 Biological control of medicinal and aromatic crop diseases

Medicinal/aromatic crop Disease/pathogen/s Biocontrol agent
Opium poppy Sclerotinia rot and blight, Sclerotinia T. harzianum, T. viride, T. koningii,
sclerotiorum T. virens – soil treat
Downy mildew, Peronospora Trichoderma spp. – seed treat
arborescens
Periwinkle Phytophthora parasitica Phytophthora parasitica var.
nicotianae – soil treat
Jasmine Root rot, Macrophomina phaseolina T. viride, T. harzianum – cutting treat
Chinese rose Wilt, Fusarium oxysporum Aspergillus niger – soil treat
Menthol mint Stolon decay, Sclerotinia T. harzianum, T. virens – sucker treat
sclerotiorum
Verticillium dahliae Verticillium nigrescens

Table 14.9 Biological control of tuber crop diseases

Tuber crop Disease/pathogen/s Biocontrol agent
Yam Botrytis theobromae T. viride
Cassava Phytophthora drechsleri T. viride
Elephant foot yam Sclerotium rolfsii T. harzianum, T. pseudokoningii

Table 14.10 Biological control of plantation crop pests

Plantation crop Pest Biocontrol agent/dosage
Coconut Black headed caterpillar, Opisina Goniozus nephantidis – 3,000 adults/ha
arenosella
Rhinoceros beetle, Oryctes rhinoceros Baculovirus – 10 infected beetles/tree
Areca nut Ischnaspis longirostris Chilocorus nigrita – 20–50 adults/plant
Coffee Mealy bugs, Planococcus Cryptolaemus montrouzieri – 2–10
and Pseudococcus spp. beetles/infested plant
14.2 Biointensive Integrated Pest Management (BIPM) 237

Table 14.11 Biological control of plantation crop diseases

Crop Disease/causal agent Biocontrol agents reported
Coconut Stem bleeding, Thielaviopsis paradoxa Trichoderma virens, T. harzianum
(Ceratostomella paradoxa) phosphobacteria
Basal stem rot, Ganoderma lucidum G. virens, T. harzianum
Areca nut Bud rot, Phytophthora spp. Trichoderma spp.
Fruit rot, Phytophthora arecae, Trichoderma spp., P. fluorescens
Colletotrichum capsici
Foot rot/anabe, Ganoderma lucidum T. harzianum
Tea Red root rot, Poria hypolateritia T. harzianum
Brown root, Fomes noxius G. virens, T. harzianum
Black root rot, Rosellinia arcuata G. virens, T. harzianum
Coffee Black root, Pellicularia koleroga G. virens, T. harzianum
Brown root, Fomes noxius G. virens, T. harzianum
Santhaveri wilt, F. oxysporum f. sp. coffeae G. virens, T. harzianum
Rubber Brown rot, Phellinus noxius T. viride, T. harzianum, T. hamatum
Betel vine Foot and root rot, Phytophthora parasitica T. viride, T. harzianum – soil treat
pv. piperina
Collar rot, Sclerotium rolfsii T. harzianum, T. viride, T. koningii,
T. virens – soil treat

Table 14.12 Biological control of spice crop diseases

Spice crop Disease/causal organism Effective biocontrol agents/mode of application
Black pepper Foot rot, Phytophthora capsici Trichoderma harzianum, T. virens, Glomus
fasciculatum – soil treat, Pseudomonas
fluorescens, Bacillus sp. – foliar spray
Anthracnose, Colletotrichum gloeosporioides P. fluorescens – foliar spray
Slow decline, Radopholus similis, T. harzianum, T. virens, Paecilomyces lilacinus,
Meloidogyne incognita, Phytophthora capsici Pochonia chlamydosporia – soil treat
Cardamom Damping off, Pythium vexans T. harzianum, T. viride-soil treat in solarised
nursery beds
Clump rot/rhizome rot, Pythium vexans, T. harzianum – soil treat
Rhizoctonia solani, Meloidogyne incognita
Capsule rot, Phytophthora meadii, T. harzianum, T. viride, T. virens, T. hamatum –
P. nicotianae var. nicotianae soil treat
Ginger Rhizome rot, Pythium aphanidermatum, T. harzianum, T. virens – soil solarisation + soil
P. myriotylum treat, .T viride, P. fluorescens – seed treat,
Aspergillus niger AN27 – soil treat
Yellows, Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. T. harzianum, T. virens, T. hamatum – soil
zingiberi, M. incognita solarisation + soil treat, rhizome treat
Bacterial wilt, Ralstonia solanacearum Avirulent Ralstonia solanacearum, P.
fluorescens, endophytic bacteria – soil treat
Turmeric Rhizome rot, Fusarium sp., Pythium T. harzianum, T. viride, .T virens – soil treat
graminicola, P. aphanidermatum, R. similis,
M. incognita
Fenugreek Root rot, R. solani T. viride, P. fluorescens – seed treat
Coriander Root rot/wilt, Fusarium oxysporum T. viride, T. harzianum, Streptomyces sp. –seed
f. sp. corianderii treat
Cumin Wilt, F. oxysporum f. sp. cumini Trichoderma spp., T. virens – soil treat
Vanilla Root rot, Phytophthora meadii, F. oxysporum T harzianum, P fluorescens – soil treat
f. sp. vanillae
Mustard Damping off, P. aphanidermatum T. viride, T. harzianum – seed and soil treat
238 14 Biointensive Integrated Pest Management

Fig. 14.1 Floating row covers over vegetable crops to exclude insect pests

measures, such as biological or cultural con- into environmentally benign sugars and fatty
trols, have failed to keep pest populations acids after application.
from approaching economically damaging (d) Inorganic Chemicals: Spray application of
levels. K2HPO4 or KH2PO4 at 3.5 g/l of water has
If chemical pesticides must be used, it is been reported to control powdery mildew in
to the grower’s advantage to choose the least- rose and carnation. Similarly, the above treat-
toxic pesticide that will control the pest but ment was also found effective for the man-
not harm non-target organisms such as birds, agement of powdery mildew on mango,
fish and mammals. Pesticides that are short- grapes and cucurbits.
lived or act on one or a few specific organ- (e) Botanical Pesticides: They can be as simple as
isms are in this class. Examples include pureed plant leaves, extracts of plant parts or
insecticidal soaps, horticultural oils, copper chemicals purified from plants. Pyrethrum,
compounds (e.g. Bordeaux mixture), sul- neem formulations and rotenone are examples
phur, boric acid and sugar esters. of botanicals. Some botanicals are broad-spec-
(b) Biorational Pesticides: Biorational pesticides trum pesticides. Others, like ryania, are very
are generally considered to be derived from specific. Botanicals are generally less harmful
naturally occurring compounds or are formu- in the environment than synthetic pesticides
lations of microorganisms. Biorationals have because they degrade quickly, but they can be
a narrow target range and are environmen- just as deadly to beneficials as synthetic pesti-
tally benign. Formulations of Bacillus thur- cides. However, they are less hazardous to
ingiensis, commonly known as Bt, are transport and in some cases can be formulated
perhaps the best-known biorational pesticide. on-farm. The manufacture of botanicals gener-
Other examples include silica aerogels, insect ally results in fewer toxic by-products.
growth regulators and particle film barriers. Neem products such as cake, oil, neem
(c) Sugar Esters: Sugar esters have performed as seed kernel extract (NSKE), neem seed pow-
well as or better than conventional insecti- der extract (NSPE), pulverised NSPE and
cides against mites and aphids in apple soaps are being used extensively to manage
orchards, psylla in pear orchards and horticultural crop pests (bean fly, Ophiomyia
whiteflies, thrips and mites on vegetables. phaseoli; serpentine leaf miner, Liriomyza tri-
However, sugar esters are not effective against folii, on several crops; cucurbit fruit fly,
insect eggs. Insecticidal properties of sugar Bactrocera cucurbitae; tomato fruit borer,
esters were first investigated a decade ago Helicoverpa armigera; brinjal fruit and shoot
when a scientist noticed that tobacco leaf borer, Leucinodes orbonalis; water melon and
hairs exuded sugar esters for defence against chilli thrips, Thrips spp.; chilli yellow mite,
some soft-bodied insect pests. Similar to Polyphagotarsonemus latus, and okra leaf-
insecticidal soap in their action, these chemi- hopper, Amrasca biguttula biguttula) (Krishna
cals act as contact insecticides and degrade Moorthy and Krishna Kumar 2002).
14.2 Biointensive Integrated Pest Management (BIPM) 239

Table 14.13 Insect pests on which soaps were found • Polythene banding of tree trunk in December–
effective January and application of 5% NSKE and
Crops Pest on which effective Beauveria bassiana in January
Cabbage and Diamondback moth, leaf webber, • Spraying of 0.2% sulfex for the control of
cauliflower aphids, young Spodoptera larva powdery mildew disease
Tomato Whitefly, red spider mites, fruit • Spraying of Verticillium lecanii in orchards
borer (egg-laying stage), leaf miner
for control of hoppers
Okra Leaf hopper, whitefly, aphids
Cucurbits Fruit fly, leaf miner
• Fixing methyl eugenol traps (wooden blocks
Mango Leaf hopper impregnated with methyl eugenol) to control
Ornamental crops Mites, whitefly fruit flies from April to August
• Mechanical removal of mango leaf webber
The soap sprays were highly effective on leaf- larvae and webs by leaf web-removing device
hoppers, aphids, red spider mites and white (developed by the Central Institute of Sub-
flies in many vegetables, but moderately effec- tropical Horticulture, Lucknow) from April to
tive on thrips in water melon and chillies September–October
(Table 14.13). The BIPM package was successfully validated
(f) Compost Teas: They are most commonly in 16.8 ha of mango orchards in Gulab Khera,
used for foliar disease control and applied as Habibpur, Budhadia, Pathak Ganj, Rehman Khera
foliar nutrient sprays. The idea underlying and Kanar villages in Malihabad and Kakori belt
the use of compost teas is that a solution of of mango near Lucknow on Dashehari variety
beneficial microbes and some nutrients is during 2000–2004. As a result of adoption of
created then applied to plants to increase the IPM, yield of mango increased from 6.0 to 9.0
diversity of organisms on leaf surfaces. This MT/ha as it was 3.5–7.0 MT/ha earlier in non-
diversity competes with pathogenic organ- IPM orchards. By adopting IPM, the mango
isms, making it more difficult for them to growers in that area earned a profit of Rs. 30,000/-
become established and infect the plant. to Rs. 55,000/-, whilst the farmers who did not
An important consideration when using com- adopt IPM earned a profit of Rs. 17,000/- to
post teas is that high-quality, well-aged compost 35,000/- per ha only (Table 14.14) (Amerika
be used, to avoid contamination of plant parts by Singh et al. 2004).
animal pathogens found in manures that may be a
component of the compost. There are different 14.2.3.2 Apple Pests and Diseases
techniques for creating compost tea. The com- (Himachal Pradesh)
post can be immersed in the water, or the water • Use of 5% urea at leaf-shedding stage for early
can be circulated through the compost. An effort decomposition of the infested leaves and to
should be made to maintain an aerobic environ- encourage the population of antagonists in the
ment in the compost/water mixture. plant rhizosphere
• Use of Bordeaux paint during autumn on the
naked plant stem to overcome the direct effect
14.2.3 Case Studies of UV rays on the plant skin to reduce sunburn
and canker disease complex
14.2.3.1 Mango Pests and Diseases • Overwinter spray of Bordeaux mixture as
(Uttarakhand) eradicative action to pathogens (root and col-
• Spraying of 0.3% copper oxychloride for lar rots) and total disinfection of plant surface
control of die-back, anthracnose and red rust • Use of Neemarin at pink bud stage, that is,
diseases wherever they appeared during pre-bloom stage to manage blossom thrips
September–October population
• Ploughing of orchard in November–December • Use of Bacillus thuringiensis at fruit develop-
to expose pupae of fruit flies, midges, leafhop- ment stage for the management of fruit scrap-
pers and eggs of mealy bugs to natural enemies per insect pests
240 14 Biointensive Integrated Pest Management

Table 14.14 Economics of BIPM in mango

Parameters IPM plots Non-IPM plots % Increase
Yield MT/ha 6.0–9.0 3.5–7.0 28.57–71.43
Net profit (Rs./ha) 30,000–55,000 17,000–35,000 57.14–76.47

Table 14.15 Economics of apple BIPM

Parameters IPM plots Non-IPM plots % increase
Yield (MT/ha) 4.99 4.12 21.11
Net profit (Rs/ha) 145,733 110,889 31.42
Benefit to cost ratio 4.07 3.01 35.21

Fig. 14.2 BIPM of tomato fruit borer using African marigold as a trap crop

• Use of Trichoderma viride (Bioderma) for the 14.2.3.3 Tomato Fruit Borer
control of root rot fungus Use of African marigold (Tagetes erecta) as a
During the period 2001–2004, BIPM for apple trap crop for the management of fruit borer on
crop was validated and promoted in 30 ha of tomato involves planting one row of 45-day-old
orchards in Kotkhai, Jubbal, Theneder and Rohru marigold seedlings after every 16 rows of 25-day-
villages of Himachal Pradesh. By adopting IPM old tomato seedlings and spraying of Ha NPV at
package, farmers were able to harvest 580 boxes 250 LE/ha or 4% NSKE or 4% pulverised NSPE,
(4.99 MT/ha) of apple in IPM plots as compared 28 and 45 DAP coinciding with peak flowering
to 380 boxes (4.12 MT/ha) in case of non-IPM (Srinivasan et al. 1994) (Fig. 14.2).
plots. Apple growers who adopted IPM earned a During the period 2001–2004, BIPM technol-
profit of Rs. 145,733/-, whilst the farmers who ogy in tomato was validated and promoted in
did not adopt IPM earned a profit of Rs. 110.889/-. more than 40 ha area in 42 villages covering 88
Average benefit to cost ratio of IPM to non-IPM families located 40 km from Bangalore. Similarly,
was 4.07–3.01 (Table 14.15) (Amerika Singh near Varanasi also IPM technology has been
et al. 2004). validated in eight villages in about 40 ha area
14.2 Biointensive Integrated Pest Management (BIPM) 241

Table 14.16 Economics of tomato fruit borer BIPM

Centre Yield (MT/ha) Net returns (Rs.) Benefit to cost ratio
Bangalore – IPM 74.03 249,721 4.82
Non-IPM 45.05 69,704 0.61
Varanasi – IPM 14.25 39,917 3.30
Non-IPM 13.00 38,167 2.02
Ranchi – IPM 22.29 56,705 1.87
Non-IPM 18.77 41,776 1.32

Fig. 14.3 BIPM in cabbage using Indian mustard as a trap crop

covering 100 families in tomato. Near Ranchi, leaf webber (Crocidolomia binotalis), stem borer
IPM technology has been validated and promoted (Hellula undalis), aphids (Brevicoryne brassicae,
in 20 villages with the support of 100 farming Hyadaphis erysimi) and bug (Bagrada crucifer-
families covering an area of 40 ha together. arum) (Fig. 14.3) (Srinivasan and Krishna
In IPM validation studies conducted at three Moorthy 1991).
locations (Bangalore, Varanasi and Ranchi), The IPM gave 60% more yield and 152%
IPM fields recorded higher tomato fruit yields of more returns than pure cabbage crop (Table 14.17)
74.038, 14.250 and 22.293 MT/ha as compared (Khaderkhan et al. 1998).
to 45.056, 13.000 and 18.772 MT/ha in non-IPM In another study, the benefit to cost ratio in
fields, respectively (Amerika Singh et al. 2004) IPM and non-IPM plots was 2.42 and 0.83,
(Table 14.16). respectively (Table 14.18) (Krishna Moorthy
et al. 2003).
14.2.3.4 Cabbage Pests
BIPM using Indian mustard as a trap crop involves 14.2.3.5 Okra Pests and Diseases
planting of paired rows of mustard after every 25 • Planting of yellow vein mosaic virus resis-
rows of cabbage/cauliflower and spraying of 4% tant (YVMV) hybrids, namely, Sun-40 and
NSKE at primordial formation. Two more sprays Makhmali
of 4% NSKE may be given at 10–15-day interval • Sowing of sorghum/maize as border crop
after the first spray. The IPM plots gave 152% • Installation of yellow sticky polythene traps
more returns than pure cabbage crop. IPM con- smeared with castor oil and delta traps set up
trols diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella), for whitefly and other small sucking pests
242 14 Biointensive Integrated Pest Management

Table 14.17 Economics of cabbage BIPM

Practice Yield (MT/ha) % increase Net returns (Rs.) % increase
Farmers’ practice 20 – 19,817 –
IPM practice 32 60 49,251 152

Table 14.18 Economics of cabbage BIPM

Treatment Yield (MT/ha) Net returns (Rs/ha) Benefit to cost ratio
IPM plots 55 30,085 2.42
Non-IPM plots 35 5,090 0.83
(farmers’ practice)

Table 14.19 Yield and economics of BIPM in okra

Parameter IPM Non-IPM % increase
Yield (MT/ha) 10.30 7.24 42
Net returns (Rs/ha) 64,797 34,678 86
Benefit to cost ratio 1.28 0.72 77

• Erection of bird perches at 25/ha for facilitating • Application of T. harzianum and FYM in
predation of borer larvae planting pit
• Installation of pheromone traps at 5/ha for • Field application of neem cake at 1 kg/vine
monitoring Earias vitella mixed with 50 g of T. harzianum during
• Three sprays of 5% NSKE for hopper, whitefly August (Sarma 2003)
and mites starting at 28 DAS
• Five releases of Trichogramma chilonis at 14.2.3.7 Cardamom Capsule Rot
1 lakh/ha starting from 42 DAS at weekly Management of capsule rot (Phytophthora spp.)
interval of cardamom was achieved by two applications
• Rouging out YVMV-affected plants from time of T. harzianum at 1 kg/plant (grown on decom-
to time posed coffee pulp and FYM in 1:1 ratio) during
In okra crop, BIPM technology has been vali- May and July integrated with foliar spray of
dated in about 3 ha area in Raispur village near Akomin (potassium phosphonate) (Anandraj and
Ghaziabad during 2003–2004. IPM fields gave Eapen 2003).
higher yields of 10.305 MT/ha as compared to
7.246 MT/ha in non-IPM fields (Amerika Singh 14.2.3.8 Banana Burrowing Nematode
et al. 2004) (Table 14.19). Integration of neem cake at 200 g/plant with
Glomus mosseae at 100 g/plant (containing
14.2.3.6 Black Pepper Foot Rot and 25–30 chlamydospores/g of inoculum) was
Nematode Disease Complex most effective in reducing the Radopholus simi-
Integrated management of foot rot (Phytophthora lis population both in soil and roots, whilst
capsici) and nematodes (Meloidogyne incognita karanj cake with G. mosseae gave maximum
and Radopholus similis) on black pepper was increase in fruit yield of banana. Mycorrhizal
achieved by: root colonisation and number of chlamy-
• Mixing VAM and Trichoderma harzianum in dospores of G. mosseae were maximum in
solarised nursery mixture to raise healthy and neem cake amended soil (Table 14.20) (Parvatha
robust seedlings Reddy et al. 2002).
14.2 Biointensive Integrated Pest Management (BIPM) 243

Table 14.20 Effect of Glomus mosseae and oil cakes on population of Radopholus similis and yield of banana
Population of R. similis
Treatment Dose (g)/plant Roots (10 g) Soil (250 ml) Yield (kg)/plant
G. mosseae 200 112 122 8.64
Castor cake 400 146 132 8.18
Karanj cake 400 118 128 10.34
Neem cake 400 118 112 8.91
G. mosseae + castor cake 100 + 200 90 108 12.68
G. mosseae + karanj cake 100 + 200 76 80 16.61
G. mosseae + neem cake 100 + 200 48 62 14.80
Control – 218 184 5.45
CD (P = 0.05) 11.97 8.31 0.84

Table 14.21 Effect of neem cake, Pasteuria penetrans and Paecilomyces lilacinus on root galling, nematode multipli-
cation rate and yield of tomato
Treatment
Nursery (m2) Main field (per plant) Root-knot index Yield (kg)/6 m2
Neem cake – 1 kg P. lilacinus – 0.5 g 3.4 9.168
Neem cake – 1 kg P. penetrans (28 × 104 spores) 3.2 9.312
P. lilacinus – 20 g P. penetrans (28 × 104 spores) 3.0 9.504
P. penetrans (28 × 107 spores) P. lilacinus – 0.5 g 2.9 9.624
Neem cake – 0.5 kg + P. lilacinus – 10 g P. penetrans (28 × 104 spores) 2.5 9.672
Neem cake – 0.5 kg + P. penetrans P. lilacinus – 0.5 g 2.0 9.984
(28 × 104 spores)
Neem cake – 0.5 kg + P. lilacinus – – 2.6 9.600
10 g + P. penetrans (28 × 104 spores)
Control – 4.6 8.352
CD (P = 0.05) 0.14 0.100

14.2.3.9 Tomato Root-Knot Nematode 14.2.4 Transfer of Technology

In nursery, integration of Pasteuria penetrans
(at 28 × 104 spores/m2), Paecilomyces lilacinus The constraint for wider adoption of eco-friendly
(at 10 g/m2 with 19 × 109 spores/g) and neem crop protection technologies is transfer of tech-
cake (at 0.5 kg/m2) gave maximum increase in nology. Crop protection technologies developed
plant growth and number of seedlings/bed. have not reached the small and marginal farm-
Parasitisation of M. incognita females was highest ers. Unless these technologies are assessed in
when neem cake was integrated with P. penetrans, farmer’s fields and refined to suit local condi-
whilst parasitisation of eggs was highest when tions, the fruits of research will not benefit farm-
neem cake was integrated with P. lilacinus. In field, ers. Researchers and extension personnel should
planting of tomato seedlings (raised in nursery beds work hand in hand for successful transfer of
amended with neem cake + P. penetrans) in pits crop protection technologies. Communication
incorporated with P. lilacinus (at 0.5 g/plant) gave media such as radio, TV, audio and video cas-
least root galling and nematode multiplication rate settes, agri-portals, farmer’s field schools and
and increased fruit weight and yield of tomato KVKs should be used for effective transfer of
(Table 14.21) (Parvatha Reddy et al. 1997). technologies.
244 14 Biointensive Integrated Pest Management

14.2.5 Conclusions NKK, Verghese A (eds) Advances in IPM for horti-

cultural crops. Association for Advancement of Pest
Management in Horticultural Ecosystems, Division of
Globalisation driven by WTO is opening up Entomology and Nematology, Indian Institute of
fantastic opportunities for export of agricultural Horticultural Research, Bangalore, pp 151–152
products and processed food from India. It is a Krishna Moorthy PN, Krishna Kumar NK (2002)
revolution, which is taking place, and our farmers Advances in the use of botanicals for the IPM of
major vegetable pests. In: Proceedings of the interna-
will miss this golden opportunity if they are not tional conference on vegetables, Bangalore. Dr. Prem
equipped with the right crop protection technolo- Nath Agricultural Science Foundation, Bangalore,
gies to produce agricultural products of interna- pp 262–272
tional standards without pesticide residues. The Krishna Moorthy PN, Krishna Kumar NK, Girija G,
Varalakshmi B, Prabhakar M (2003) Integrated pest
challenge before the plant protection scientists is management in cabbage cultivation. Extension
to prevent crop losses due to pests before and Bulletin No. 1, Indian Institute of Horticultural
after harvest without harming the environment. Research, Bangalore, 10 pp
There is a need to develop low input and eco- Parvatha Reddy P, Nagesh M, Devappa V (1997) Effect of
integration of Pasteuria penetrans, Paecilomyces
friendly crop protection technologies so as to be lilacinus and neem cake for the management of root-
very competitive in the international market. knot nematode infecting tomato. Pest Managmt Hortil
Padma Vibhushan awardee Prof M.S. Ecosystems 3:100–104
Swaminathan, an eminent agricultural scientist of Parvatha Reddy P, Rao MS, Nagesh M (2002) Integrated
management of burrowing nematode (Radopholus
international repute, has said that ‘The ever-green similis) using endomycorrhiza (Glomus mosseae) and
revolution will be triggered by farming systems oil cakes. In: Singh HP, Chadha KL (eds) Banana.
that can help produce more from the available AIPUB, Trichy, pp 344–348
land, water and labour resources without either Reichert SE, Leslie B (1989) Prey control by an assem-
blage of generalist predators: spiders in garden test
ecological or social harm’ (Swaminathan 2000). systems. Ecology Fall, pp 1441–1450
Let us rededicate ourselves to achieve the dream of Sarma YR (2003) Recent trends in the use of antagonistic
‘Ever-Green Revolution’ of Prof Swaminathan. organisms for the disease management in spice crops.
In: Ramanujam B, Rabindra RJ (eds) Current status of
biological control of plant diseases using antagonistic
organisms in India. Project Directorate of Biological
References Control, Bangalore, pp 49–73
Singh Amerika, Trivedi TP, Sardana HR, Sabir N, Krishna
Adams S (1997) Seein’ red: colored mulch starves nema- Moorthy PN, Pandey KK, Sengupta A, Ladu LN,
todes. Agricultural Research. October, p 18 Singh DK (2004) Integrated pest management in hor-
Anandraj M, Eapen SJ (2003) Achievements in biological ticultural crops – a wide area approach. In: Chadha
control of diseases of spice crops with antagonistic KL, Ahluwalia BS, Prasad KV, Singh SK (eds) Crop
organisms at Indian Institute of Spices Research, improvement and production technology of horticul-
Calicut. In: Ramanujam B, Rabindra RJ (eds) Current tural crops. Horticulture Society of India, New Delhi,
status of biological control of plant diseases using pp 621–636
antagonistic organisms in India. Project Directorate of Srinivasan K, Krishna Moorthy PN (1991) Indian mustard
Biological Control, Bangalore, pp 189–215 as a trap crop for management of major lepidopterous
Benbrook CM (1996) Pest management at the crossroads. pests on cabbage. Trop Pest Mang 37:26–32
Consumers Union, Yonkers, 272 pp Srinivasan K, Krishna Moorthy PN, Raviprasad TN
Couch GJ (1994) The use of growing degree days and (1994) African marigold as a trap crop for the manage-
plant phenology in scheduling pest management activ- ment of the fruit borer Helicoverpa armigera on
ities. Yankee Nursery, Quarterly Fall, pp 12–17 tomato. Int J Pest Mang 40:56–63
Khaderkhan H, Nataraju MS, Nagaraja GN (1998) Swaminathan MS (2000) For an evergreen revolution.
Economics of IPM in tomato. In: Reddy PP, Kumar The Hindu Survey of Indian Agriculture 2000:9–15