Evaluation of Integrated Pest Management Module against Pests of Ground Nut and Productivity, Profitability Analysis under Open Field Conditions

Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.), a nutrient-rich oilseed legume, is the sixth most important contributor to edible oil and the third most important source of vegetable protein in the world (Lenka et al., 2023). India stands first in Groundnut area (54.20 lakh ha.) and the second biggest producer in the world with 101 lakh tones of production and 1863 kg ha-1 productivity in 2021-22 (Yadav et al., 2023). Andhra Pradesh cultivates groundnut on an area of 8.23 lakh hectares and producing 5.19 lakh tons that contributing 6.20% to India’s groundnut production for the year 2021-22 (des.ap.gov.in). But a large gap between the potential and actual yield was observed in groundnut production system due to major constraints viz. lower yield, destructive pest and diseases, rainfall and moisture, labour intensive, more variations in market price. Due to a lack of awareness about the most recent enriched technologies among groundnut farmers, the competency gap is a key factor in enhancing production and sustainability. Hence there is an immediate need to replace traditional cultivation practices with smart cultivation practices through Frontline Demonstrations (FLDs). FLDs are a novel strategy with the goal of performing demonstrations in wider areas on farmers’ fields and raising farmer knowledge about the sustainable crop production technology with a low cost (Amuthaselvi et al., 2023). To the best of our knowledge, no studies have been documented in Andhra Pradesh, specifically within the Scarce Rainfall Zone (SRZ), that focus on groundnut frontline demonstrations (FLDs) in incorporating the modern production technologies. Therefore, the current study was carried out to design and execute a planned of advanced technologies through FLDs at various locations of the Ananthapuramu district in order to deliver the farmers with healthy net returns.

Three field experiments were conducted in the farmer fields of Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Reddipalle during the year 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 against insect pests of groundnut with Integrated Pest Management (IPM) modules, toxicity to natural enemies and phytotoxic effect. The series of IPM practices (Table 1) were practiced in the selected farmer plots (10) for three consecutive years. Aphid populations were counted on the top 2 cm shoot length of 5 randomly selected plants in each plot and thrips were counted on the top three bud leaves of 5 randomly selected plants in each plot before the second application of insecticide at 3, 5 and 10 days after treatments. Five randomly chosen plants from each treatment were examined for the total number of spodoptera larvae on their top, middle and bottom leaves one day prior to treatment and three, seven and fourteen days following the first and second applications of insecticides. Likewise, natural enemies such as Cotesia plutellae Kurdjumov, Chrysoperla carnea Steinmann occurring in the field were counted one day before treatments and on the 15th day after each spray. The per cent control of leaf hoppers, thrips, aphids and Spodoptera litura over untreated control was calculated as suggested by Rajashekhar et al., (2022).



Before analysis, the population number were transformed into square root values. The results of field experiments were analyzed using a randomized block design (RBD) (Gomez and Gomez, 1984). Duncan’s multiple range test (DMRT) was used to separate the mean values (Duncan, 1951). Assessment of phytotoxic effect of selected insecticides was evaluated by conducting field experiment in RBD with five replications and the plot size of 50 m². According to the Central Insecticide Board Registration Committee (CIBRC) protocol, symptoms of phytotoxicity, such as leaf damage, wilting, vein clearing, necrosis, yellowing, stunting, epinasty and hyponasty, were noted at 5, 10, 15, 20 and 30 days after treatments. A visual rating system of 0-10 was used to assess the symptoms of phytotoxicity: 0- No phytotoxicity; 1-10%; 2-11-20%; 3-21-30%; 4-31-40%; 5-41-50%; 6-51-60%; 7-61-70%; 8-71-80%; 9-81-90% and 10-91-100%. Per cent of leaf damage was calculated by using the following formula.

The gaps were categorized into three groups and given scores like full adoption (No Gap)-1, partial adoption (partial gap) -2 and no adoption (Full gap)-3 scores, respectively. Using a random crop cutting technique, the yield data were gathered from the farmers’ practice and the demonstration and basic statistical tools were used for analysis. Adoption gap index was computed utilizing the Rajasekhar et al., (2022) formula.

The yield parameters from the farmer practices check and the demonstrations were noted. Technology index, yield gap, technology gap and extension gap were computed as a procedure using the yield parameters suggested by Rajashekhar et al., (2022) and Samui et al., (2000).

Imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.3 mL L^-1 performed well in controlling leaf hoppers (mean population of all day’s observation- 0.80, 1.07, 0.93/plant) with reduction over control were 82.60, 73.33 and 77.77% over three years (2020-2022), respectively (Table 2). Similarly, imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.3 mL L^-1 performed well in controlling aphids (7.83, 7.87 and 8.07/plant) with reduction over control of 75.52, 75.56  and 77.21% over three years of 2020, 2021 and 2022, respectively (Table 3) followed by chlorpyriphos 50 EC (11.40, 11.87, 10.87/plant) with reduction over control of 67.24, 64.04 and 66.06%. Similarly, imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.3 mL L^-1 was effective in controlling groundnut aphid, with reductions over control of 72.13, 76.02 and 83.59% over three years (2020-2022), as shown in Table 4. Chlorpyriphos 50 EC, which had reductions over control of 70.17%, 67.21% and 58.19% over three years (2020-2022), was the next best option. Both imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.3 mL L^-1 and chlorpyriphos 50 EC @ 2 mL L^-1 were found significantly more or less on par each other in controlling aphids based on percent reduction over control. Results revealed that S. litura treated with flubendiamide 39.35 SC (Table 5) was highly effective against leaf eating caterpillar (1.53, 1.33, 1.50/plant) with reduction over control of 83.33, 85.50 and 82.55% followed by chlorpyriphos 50 EC (7.40, 7.27, 7.53/plant) with reduction over control of 22.91, 22.69 and 21.53% on three consecutive years (2020-2022), respectively. The safety of insecticides to natural enemies C. plutella and C. carnea were found safe and number was increased after spraying (Table 6). The phytotoxic symptoms were not noticed after post spraying of tested insecticides under this study (Table 7).

​

​

​

​

​

​

Table 4-6 depicted the economic analysis of IPM strategies in groundnut sucking pests in the years of 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23. The cost incurred on insecticides usage was an essential factor in cost of cultivation. The total cost of IPM based groundnut production was Rs. 77573, Rs. 85068 and Rs. 90021.3 for the years 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23, respectively (Table 8-10) which was than normal farmer practice (Rs. 86085, Rs. 90740 and Rs. 93053). The yield recorded in demo practice was higher (33.18, 30.77, 31.43 q ha^-1) with an increased yield of 19.46, 11.36, 12.72% than farmer practice (27.79, 27.64, 28.01 q ha^-1) for the years 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23, respectively. The net returns was recorded as Rs. 97441, Rs. 85694 and Rs. 93856 higher in demo than farmer practice (Rs. 60491, Rs. 62673, Rs. 70817) consecutively for the three years. The benefit-cost ratio was calculated and proved that IPM practice in groundnut provided more profit (1.26, 1.01, 1.04) than farmer practice (0.71, 0.69, 0.76) for the three years, respectively. The technology gap in the demonstration was in the range of 0.62-5.44 q/ha over potential yields (Fig 1). Technology gap minimum during the year 2020-21 since more rainfall was received which is responsible for higher yields during 2020 kharif season (Supplementary material) and it was correlated with additional net returns achieved during 2020 where 36950.00 rupees was recorded as additional benefit than 2021 (Rs. 23021.00) and 2022 (Rs. 23039.00). Comparably, over the course of the three years, the extension gap ranged from 1.34 to 7.09 and the yield gap from 4.53 to 34.72.

​

​

​



Application of systemic insecticides such as imidacloprid to control sucking pests before 30 and 45 DAS can contribute to yield improvement as crops escape damage caused by pests during the flowering and blooming stages at 65 DAS without flower drop (personal observation). Due to its knock-down effect and long-term toxicity against sucking pests and its translocation both upward and downwards, imidacloprid was shown to be very effective in reducing groundnut sucking pest populations below the economic injury level (EIL). Neonicotinoids have also been shown to increase crop yield by inducing plant defense mechanisms, which in turn stimulates crop growth under stress (Kumar et al., 2023). Similar results were reported by Kandakoor (2012); Roshan et al., (2016) and Seetharamu et al., (2020) who disclosed that imidacloprid 17.8 SL was effective in reducing of thrips, aphids and leaf hoppers. Imidacloprid is a chloronicotinyl insecticide used to control many sucking insects and acts upon the nicotinic receptors, kills insects by either eliciting a neural toxin response with classic toxicity symptoms (uncoordinated movement and tremoring) or by causing a reversible starvation response (shortened feeding duration, increased test probing and avoidance). Flubendiamide 39.39 SC @ 0.4 mL^-1 resulted in controlling groundnut Spodoptera litura population in all three seasons consecutively and these results are in accordance with results reported by Thakur and Srivastava (2023); Muralikrishna et al., (2021); Ahmad et al., (2023) and Godoy et al., (2023) against leaf eating caterpillar, Spodoptera litura. Flubendiamide is having unique mode of action causes multiple disruptions in the target insect’s muscle function, resulting in symptoms of poisoning such as rapid feeding cessation, contractile paralysis and regurgitation that ultimately kills the insect. The unique mode of action with greater toxicity for flubendiamide was contributed by its phthaloyl moiety and aliphatic amide moiety along with higher liphophilic nature contributed by aromatic amide moiety (Shah et al., 2023).

The current economics of groundnut was similar studies reported by Undhad et al., (2019); Marlabeedu et al., (2022); Madhusekhar et al., (2022) and Sowmya et al., (2022). The technology gap (average of all demonstrations for three years 1.82 to 4.23) indicates cooperation of farmers in implementation of critical interventions of IPM at a suitable time may have greater impact on productivity of groundnut. Extension gap ranged from (5.39 to 3.1 q ha^-1) proved that efforts of scientists in educating the farmers towards inculcating the knowledge on IPM critical interventions during crop growth period. The lower technological index (5.21 to 10.19%) indicates feasibility of our technology in correlation to net returns and yield of individual farmers.

It can be concluded considering into benefit-cost ratios that use of appropriate scientific methods of cultivation especially critical stage application of insecticides before pest status reaching ETL under front line demonstration programme reduced the technological gap to a considerable extent thus leading to increased productivity.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that they have seen and agree with the contents of the manuscript and there is no financial interest to report. We certify that the submission is original work and is not under review at any other publication.