|
 |
|
Habitat Diversity and Predatory Insects
in
Cotton IPM: Case Study of Maharasthra
Cotton Eco-System
O.P. Sharma, R.C. Lavekar*, K.S. Murthy
and S.N. Puri**
National Centre for Integrated Pest Managment
IARI Campus, Pusa Complex
New Delhi, India
Apunte aquí para versión en Español [X]
|
|
Sustainable agriculture has developed over centuries of trials and
errors and stood rest of time (Altieri, 1991). They have "man-made ecological
sustainability" (Zadoks, 1993) but in most cases, the economic sustainability is
required to keep pace with rising population and food supply. Cotton (Gossypium spp.)
crop in major cultivated areas is subjected to infestation by a wide range of pests
(diseases and insects). Among insects the major ones being Helicoverpa spp. and
bollworm complex apart from the boll rots leading to low quality lint production (Fitt,
1989). Management of these pests heavily depends exclusively on insecticides which in due
course of time has graduated from organochlorine to synthetic insecticides. Due to
significant assured success based on chemicals, research on natural enemies of pests and
its field application received a back seat. Quest to harvest more and large scale farm
mechanization led to adoption of modern farming system which undoubtedly heavily rely on,
monocultures, zero tillage and on chemical pesticides has added up new pest probems. India
being diverse both type of cultivation viz., monoculture as well as strip cropping is in
practice respectively at northern India (Rajasthan, Punjab & Haryana) and central
India predominantly in Maharasthra. Bollworm complex out break is more in monocropping
than mixed cropping and has led to indiscriminate application of chemical pesticides which
has been over simplified by tractor mounted spray equipments. Apart from causing temporary
reduction in yield losses it has created socio-economic problems. Although pesticides will
continue to be a component of pest management, following major obstacles deter their
frequent use. Resistance to pesticides
Pesticide-induced pest problems
Lack of effective pesticides
Fewer new pesticides, and
Human and environmental health concerns The development of a strategy that may conserve and maximize
the abundance as well as effectiveness of natural enemies will be crucial in
the management of insect pests. There are many classical examples which have
shown that increased habitat diversity in crops can increase population
densities of locally available predators to enhance biological control of
pests. Predatory beetles (Campoletis sonorensis) have been reported
to respond to volatile chemicals emanating from specific plant tissues and
few (Macrocenrus grandii) are attracted to volatile chemicals
from undermanaged plants (Nishide, 1956, Vinson, 1975, Elzen et al. 1983,
1984, Whitman & Eller, 1990, Udayagiri and Jones 1992). The search for the
"right" habitat is imperative because like all living organisms, insect
parasitoids and predators have requirements for resources, other than hosts.
However, these other sources may or may not be found in the same habitat in
which hosts are found. Optimal microclimatic conditions for a given
parasitoid, nectar sources, or pillar may exist in some host habitats (crop
systems) but not others. One assumes that the habitats in which parasitoids
find hosts also provide other needed requisites at optimum levels. There is
little empirical or experimental data, to support this to be true, even for
unmanaged eco-systems. The objective of consumed biological control is to
ensure that the occurrence of as many essential parasitoid resources and
hosts coincide in time and space.
The conservation of natural enemies by the direct enhancement of vegetation diversity has
been a subject of intense study for many years (Root, 1973 and Andow, 1991). Earlier it
was hypothesized that lower levels of herbivores in diverse agroecosystems were a result
of higher levels of natural enemies "enemies hypothesis" (Root, 1973). Much
needed attention was given on the nature of the relationship between pest, crop and
non-crop plants, and their physical environment. As a result habitat manipulation seeks to
manage these relationship to enhance the impact of natural enemies on pest population.
Indeed this approach is one of the key elements in the use of indigenous natural enemies
in IPM. Conservation which involves protection and maintenance of natural enemy population
has proved crucial for maintaining local / native natural enemies in ecosystems. Review
revealed that conservation involved modifying pesticide application practices so that they
occur only when the pest population exceeds specified levels, however Hull and Beers,
(1985) advocated that conservation of natural enemies can also be achieved by changing the
active ingredient, rates, formulations, timing, and location of pesticide applications or
by maintaining refuges. According to Tauber et al (I985), "it is probable that the
most dramatic increase in the utilization of biological control in agricultural IPM
systems could come through the judicious use of selective pesticides in conjunction with
effective natural enemies in location specific cropping systems.
While knowledge of pesticide selectivity is available it is inadequate to generally allow
such precise usage. As long as key pests cannot be controlled biologically, culturally, or
through host plant resistance, agricultural chemicals will be essentially needed.
The aim of this study was to quantify the impact of habitat diversity on abundance of
predators and egg parasitoids in cotton fields as a step towards the conservation and
establishment of these natural enemies before the pest built-up and their migration to
adjoining crops. Present investigations have been made in order to evaluate the utility of
locally grown alternative crops (refuge crop for strip-cropping) as refuge for increasing
activity of predatory and parasitoid insects. Materials and Methods Field studies were conducted to determine whether the maize interlaced with cowpea grown
on border serve as a cover crop serving as a source of predatory and parasitoid of cotton
ecosystem. Field trials was conducted for two years in succession (1996-97& 97-98) at
Cotton Research Station, Nanded (MS) apart from testing it on large scale in farmers field
(Barad) as well as at village level (Ashta) during 1997-98 (5 acres) and 1998-99 (450
acres) respectively. Initially during 1996-97 maize crop mixed with cowpea were planted as
10 or 11th row, but as adjustment and feed back from farmers the same was shifted as
border rows in subsequent years. Predatory insects were sampled weekly by taking visual
counts at random on all the rows. The number of eggs, grubs and adults of Chrysoperla
spp , Coccinella spp, spiders and other natural enemies were recorded . Results and Discussion Population dynamics of predators of Helicoverpa spp and other bollworms assessed
from the study plots during different years are given in Table 1. Population of predatory
beetles (Coccinella transversalis (Fab.); Adalia bipunctata (Linn.), lace
wings (Chrysopa spp), reduviid & pirate bugs Coranus triabeatus
(Hozwath) and spiders (Lycosa spp., Aranews spp.) recorded on the
maize/cowpea were significantly higher than on the adjacent cotton. Studies on dispersal
and occurrence frequency revealed that the population of these predators and parasitoids
seemed to decline with increasing distance from border row of cover crop. In general, the
predator numbers recorded on cotton at different distances away from cover crop (maize
& cowpea) were lower.
The results indicated that the interplant maize and cowpea has acted as a source of the
predators to cotton crop. Among the reported factors that contribute to higher level of
natural enemies in diversified agroecosystem were availability of diverse microhabitats,
greater availability of food sources (such as prey, nectar and pollen), alternative hosts
and shelter all of which encourage colonization and population buildup of natural enemies.
The refuge or source function of the border maize and cowpea may be attributed to the
abundance of floral nectar and alternate prey (aphids) shelter, mating and oviposition
sites harbored in the border crop compared with monoculture cotton having lesser
bio-diversity. Volatiles emanating from plant tissues had been reported (Elzen et.al,
1984., Udayagiri and Zones, 1992 ) influence the harbourage which may have also played
vital role. With depletion of food resources, shelter, mating, oviposition sites etc.,
higher numbers of the predators have inclined to move from the border to forage the aphids
or whitefly affecting the adjacent cotton crop. Further their movement is increased due to
abundantly available food attractants which has also been demonstrated by other
researchers (Mensah & Harris, 1994, 1995; Mensah, 1997) and or absence of feeding
deterrents. However, various explanations have been given for the decrease in insect
populations under intercropping conditions (Altieri et al. 1978, Matteson, 1982 and Ezueh
and Taylor, 1983). The magnitude of these effects depend on whether the border crop is well established and
colonized by predatory and parasitoid insects long before the cotton crop attains
flowering stage. According to Carbett and Plant (1993), an inter planted vegetation may
act as a source of natural enemies, when natural enemies colonize strip vegetation before
crop germination, but may act as a sink when crop and interplanted vegetation germinate at
the same time. In this study, maize, cowpea being fast growing crop could establish
slightly before the cotton. Unless and until natural enemies are present and are well
established in sufficient numbers before the initial pest arrival they cannot respond fast
enough to manage the pest before crossing the ETL. The presence of maize, cowpea crop
within the cotton system has significantly enabled establishment of high population of
beneficial insects in the cotton field on time, prior to the arrival of sucking pests
(Aphids & whitefly) and Helicoverpa spp. This has also enhanced the efficacy of
the beneficial insects and enables their use as basic component in a IPM system. Lower
insect attack is reported to be one of the many factors that maximize productivity in
intercropping as has also been demonstrated by Amoako-Atter et al. 1983. The present study
also indicated higher lint yields due to intercropping (331kg/ha), in the dry land
conditions. |
|
Table. 1. Status of beneficial insects in IPM and non-IPM trial
Year of
study and location |
Area
under
Validation
(ha) |
Predator population / 25 plants
Chrysoperla sp. Coccinellid sp. |
1996-97
CRS, Nanded |
1 |
9.25 |
6.75 |
1997-98
Barad, Nanded |
5 |
1.5 |
17.5 |
1998-99
Ashta, Nanded |
125 |
2.7 |
0.7 |
Conclusions |
Habitat or environmental manipulation has proved another form of
conservation and augmentation of natural enemies. Cropping system has been
successfully altered to augment and enhance the effectiveness of a natural
enemy. It has been observed that adult parasitoids and predators have been
significantly benefited from source of nectar and the protection provided by
refuge (hedgerows, cover crops and weedy borders). Observation also suggests
that mixed planting and the provision of flowering borders can increase the
diversity of habitats and provide more effective shelter and alternative
food source to predators and parasites. Intercropping or mixed cropping
which involved simultaneous growing of two or more crops on the same piece
of land, is one of the oldest and most common cultural practices in most
tropical developing countries (Karel and Nudnguru, 1980), which needs to
promoted based on scientific utilities.
|
Use of maize and cowpea on border in cotton to enhance the population of
beneficial insect (coccinellids and chrysopa) in the cotton system,
especially in the crop season as indicated in present study, is very
important to the management of key biotic factors such as Helicoverpa
spp. This is because the pest has been observed to rapidly infest cotton
crop through migration from other sources available in the vicinity
(sunflower, tomato & pigeonpea). The conservation of natural enemies is
probably the most important and effective which is also readily available
biological components available with all the farmers. Natural enemies, which
occur in all production system, from kitchen, garden to commercial fields.
They are adapted to the local environment and to the target pest, and their
conservation is usually simple and very much cost effective. With very
little effort their activities can be enhanced and demonstrated through
extension workers. Lacewing (Chrysoperla ), ladybird beetles (coccinellids),
hoverfly larvae, and parasitized aphid mummies can be easily observed in
aphid infested colonies. These natural controls are important and need to be
conserved and considered while making pest management related decisions.
Implementation of IPM or ecological based pest management relies on the
knowledge that, stability in biological systems relies on feedback between
organisms. For example, as the number of one organism increases, the number
of predators, parasites and pathogens that attack that the organism also
proportionally increase and provides density dependant relationship. In the
most stable system, the amplitude of these oscillations is minimal. This
means that potentially damaging species usually are never abundant enough to
become actual pests.
|
Based on issues of heavy dependence on chemical pesticides and its
repercussion, it is essential to plan future to be less reliant on
broad-spectrum pesticides. By conserving the eco-system the fundamental
goals of IPM (safety to humans and environment, assurance of profitability
for the farmers, and long term durability) can be achieved which will
undoubtedly become a base for sustaintainable agriculture. Learning how to
conserve natural enemies in the agroecosystem will be an effective way to
increase the use of biological control in agriculture.
References
Altieri, M.A. 1991. Increasing biodiversity to improve
insect pest management in agro-ecosystem. In "Biodiversity of
Microorganisms and Invertebrates: its role in sustainable agriculture" (D.L.
Hawksworth, Ed. ) pp. 165-182. CAB International Wallingford, U.K.
Altieri, M.A., C.A. Francis, A. Van Schoohoven and J.D.
Doll. 1978. A review of insect prevalance in Maize (Zea mays L.)
and bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) polyculture systems. Field crops
Rs. 1:33-49.
Amoako Atta, B., B. Omolo and E.K. Kidega, 1983.
Influence of maize, cowpea and sorghum intercropping on stem pod borer
infestations. Insect Sci. Appl. 4:47-57.
Andow, W. 1991. Vegetational diversity and arthropod
population response. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 36, 561-586.
Corbett, A. and Plant, R.E. 1993. Role of movement in
the response of natural enemies to agroecosystem diversification: a
theoretical evaluation: Environ. Entomol. 22, 519-531.
Elzen, G.W., Williams, H.J., and Vinson, S.B. (1983).
Response by the parasitoid Compoletis sonorensis (Hymenoptera:
Ichneumonidae) to synomones in plants: implications for host habitat
location. Environ. Entomol. 12, 1873-1877.
Elzen, G.W., Williams, H.J., and Vinson, S.B. (1984).
Isolation and identification of cotton synomones mediating searching
behavior by parasitoid Campoletis sonorensis. J. Chem. Ecol. 10,
1251-1264.
Ezueh, M.I. and T.A. Taylor. 1983. Effect of the
intecropping with maize on cowpea susceptibility to three major pests.
Trop. Agric. 61:86.
Hulls, L.A. and Beers, E. H. 1985. Ecological
selectivity: modifying chemical control practices to preserve natural
enemies. In M.A. Hoy and D.C. Herzog (eds.). Biological Control in
Agricultural IPS Systems. Academic Press, Orlando Florida. Pp. 103-122.
Karel, A. K. and, B.J. Ndunguru. 1980. Review of
appropriate agriculture production practices for small farmers in
Tanzania. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO),
Rome.
Matteson, P.C. 1982. The effect of intercropping with
cereals and minimal permethrin applications in insect pests of cowpea
and their natural enemies in Nigeria. Trop. Pest. Manage. 28:372-380.
Nishida, T. (1956). An experimental study of the
ovipositional behavior of Opius fletcheri Silverstre (Hymenoptera:
Braconidae) a parasite of the melon fly. Proc. Hawaiian Entomol. Soc.
16, 126-134.
Root, R.B. 1973. Organisation of plant arthropod
association in simple and diverse habitats; the fauna of Collards (Brassica
oleracea). Ecol. Manogr. 43, 95-124.
Tauber, M.J., M.A. hoy and D.C. Herzog. 1985. Biological
control in agricultural IPM systems: a brief overview of the current
statue and future prospects. In M.A. Hoy and D.C. Heroz (eds.).
Biological Control in Agricultural IPM Systems. Academic Press, Orlando,
Florida. Pp. 3-9.
Udayagiri, S., and Jones, R.L. (1992). Flight behavior
of Macrocentrus grandii Goidanich (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), a
specialist parasitoid of European corn borer (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae):
factors influencing response to corn valatiles. Environ. Entomol. 21,
1448-1456.
Vinson, S.B. (1975). Biochemical coevolution between
parasitoids and their hosts. In "Evolutionary Strategies of Parasitic
Insects and Mites." (P.W. Price, ed.,), pp14-48. Plenum press. New York,
NY.
Whitman, D.W., and Eller, F.J. (1990). Parasitic wasps
orient to green leaf volatiles. Chemoeco. 1, 69-76.
Zadoks, J.C. 1993. Crop Protection: Why and How. In
"Crop Protection and Sustainable Agriculture" (D.J. Chadwick, and J.
March, eds.). pp. 48-55. John Wiley and Sons, New York, N.Y.
Return to Radcliffe's IPM World
Textbook Home Page.
The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator
and employer.
Last modified: Thursday, 22 June, 2000
© Regents of the University of Minnesota, 2000
Comments/Questions
|
|