Dynamism of IPM under changing climate and Changing cropping systems Cropping systems and IPM. Agro-ecosystems are in a dynamic state. Many insects, diseases and weeds, generally defined as crop pests are an integral component of agro-ecosystems. In naturally established agricultural systems, pest species are in a shifting balance with other species (including those of their own natural enemies ~ parasites and predators) and crops, as components of local food webs. Their presence in any specific field varies in time, population level and relationship with other species as does their role (as pests or defenders). Such variations may depend on crop phenology, environmental conditions and agricultural management practices in the specific field. Under certain circumstances, populations of such species may reach a level resulting in significant damage to crops, and thus become pests. This change of status is often related to local management practices, including cropping pattems, host genotypes, and use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides that may have adverse effects if improperly used. Cropping systems have been central to managing some crop pests for centuries. An early cropping system that evolved specifically to avoid the low yields associated with the potato cyst nematodes (Globodera rostochiensis) in Peru included rotation and fallow (Bridge, 1996) Pathogens are sensitive to temperature changes and atmospheric gas composition, as these changes affect host plant growth and canopy shape/density and cause a change in microcli- matic conditions in favour of disease spread and virulence. Cropping components include: rotation, fallow, cover crops, manipulating pest refugia, tillage, row width, type of cultivation, soil amendments, and field size and borders, These and other practic such as pesticide usage, plant populations, sanitation, and resistant varieties are discussed as follows. Rotation/Cultural Practices, and Habitat Management ‘The growing interest in IPM and sustainable cropping systems has generated renewed emphasis on cultural methods of pest management. Many cultural practices have proven to be effective for managing a wide range of pests. Key facets of cultural pest control include polyculture, crop diversification, destruction of residual roots of certain crops with a perennialgrowth habit, minimal tillage, and biological/environmental manipulation that lead to biological diversity (Altieri, 1994). Polyculture may include the use of “refugia” to maintain and enhance populations of natural enemies of some arthropod pests (Altieri, 1994; Landis, Wratten, and Gurr, 2000). Crop rotation provides for diversity in time and space and often is the preferred means of management for soilbome pests such as plant-parasitic nematodes. The benefits of rotation are derived from the destruction of given crop pathogens and often other pests by natural enemies or “sanitizing organisms” while other unrelated crops are grown (Cook and Veseth, 1991), Rotation, however, may be of limited value for pests that have a wide host range or are highly mobile. Furthermore, the need to rotate crops varies with given pest populations and location. Com (Zea mays L.) can be grown continuously in some locations, whereas soilbome pests such as nematodes can cause serious yield losses to this crop in some regions (Barker and Koenning, 1998), In contrast, soybean (Glycine max L.), a crop highly susceptible to nematodes and other soilborne pathogens, is routinely rotated with com and other crops to prevent related yield losses and to prolong the durability of resistant cultivars. Many intensively managed crops that are susceptible to numerous pathogens and nematodes often encounter severe disease and other pest problems under monoculture. Rotating crops such as tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.) with fescue (Festuca arundinacea L.) limits pest activity. The use of cover crops or green manure crops between primary crops offers many benefits. Benefits of using these legumes encompass enhanced soil nitrogen (N), promotion of soil populations of plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria, and direct or indirect negative effects on a spectrum of plant pests (Magdoff and Van Es, 2000). Both cyst and root-knot nematode populations are suppressed when soybean followed any of these cover crops (Kloepper et al., 1992). Certain rhizobacteria may induce systemic acquired resistance to foliage pathogens such as Pseudomonas syringae py. lacrymans and Colletotrichum orbiculare on cucumber as well as provide some nematode control. Other soilbome bacteria designated as “deleterious thizobacteria,” including certain strains of Pseudomonas flourescens, have potential as biological controls of weeds (Liebman, Mohler, and Staver, 2001). Certain cover crops such as buckwheat (Fagopyrun esculentum Moench) and hairy vetch (Vicia villosa Roth) are very effective in attracting beneficial insects.Various tillage and cropping options may differentially affect soil organism and crop pests, IFS that included altered soil tillage, a clover cover crop, organic manure, and reduced pesticide usage, resulted in highly suppressed populations of two nematode species (Heterodera ayenae and Ditylenchus dipsaci) On cereals versus those in conventional cropping (El Titi and Ipach, 1989). For health management of crops such as wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), a key goal is to limit tillage as much as possible (Cook and Veseth, 1991), Host-Plant Resistance/Tolerance Crop resistance, carried in the seed or propagation materials, is an ideal tactic in IPM. The heritable trait that limits the normal host-pest interaction restricts associated damage and yield loss, compared to. susceptible varieties. Since crop resistance involves little or minimal input costs, it is an ideal tactic for managing a wide range of pests, including bacteria, fungi, viruses, insects, mites, nematodes, mammalian herbivores, and other plants. Biological Control Biological control products are also being used in IPM. It is the use of natural or ‘modified organisms, genes, or gene products, to reduce the effects of undesirable organisms and to favor desirable organisms such as crops, trees, animals and other beneficial insects and microorganisms, Pesticides Pesticides have traditionally been an important component of cropping systems. Beologically-based IPM is the most promising option for reducing the negative effects of pesticides on our environment while. IPM programs have helped stabilize pesticide usage since the mid-1980s. The niche for pesticides in crop production differs greatly with the cropping system, associated pests per region or site, weather and economics Case Studi Wheat Cook and Veseth (1991) provide a comprehensive approach to wheat health management or IPM. They document the benefits of crop rotation and maintaining soil structure. A combination of increased organic matter and reduced tillage can suppress pathogens such as thecereal cyst nematode (Heterodera avenae) while enhancing populations of beneficial organisms. With the foliage pathogens, however, host resistance continues to be invaluable in wheat. In the U,S.A., wheat cropping systems included rotations in about 83 to 90% of the area. To minimize the development of resistance, pesticides were altemated in about 30 to 38% of area under wheat. Soybean Significant cultural development over the last 15-20 years has been the shift towards narrow row spacings, narrower rows close the plant canopy quicker and give the crop a competitive advantage over weeds (Howe and Oliver, 1987). Cultural strategies for managing the most significant soybean pests have been developed. The importance of the com earworm dropped dramatically with’ the adoption of narrow row spacing and the increase in double- cropping, Narrow rows close the crop’s canopy much earlier making soybean less attractive to ovipositing female earworm moths; double-cropping results in asynchrony between ovipositing moths and the most attractive phenological stage of the soybean plant (Bradley and Van Duyn, 1979), ‘Among the pathogens, the soybean cyst nematode (Heterodera glycines) causes the greatest yield losses which amount to billions of dollars annually. In recent years, disease and nematode management in soybeans have been pursued largely through the development of resistant cultivars and the identification of appropriate cultural tactics (Alston et al., 1991). Key cropping systems for IPM in soybean in the U.S. include rotation (89%), no-tillage (33%), mechanical cultivation for weeds (29%), and alternating pesticides (28%). An average of 1.23 kg/ ha of pesticides was used in U.S. soybean in 1998. Of this, 99% was herbicide (USDA/NASS, 1999) Maize The com rootworm complex has, until recently, been managed through a combination of cultural and chemical tactics. It is susceptible to management through rotation to a non-host crop. Within the last decade, however, populations of westem com rootworm have been identified which remain in diapause for two years (Krysan, Jackson, and Lew, 1984), and populations of north com rootworms have been found which oviposit in soybean fields, the most frequent rotational crop (O’-Neal, Gray, and Smyth, 1999). Com cropping IPM systems in the U.S.included rotation (82%), mechanical cultivation (51%), and no-tillage (19%). An average of 3.16 kyhha of pesticides was used in U.S. com in 1998. OF this, about 93% was herbicide (USDAINASS, 1999), Cotton ‘The factors including the advent of plant growth regulators and short-season varieties, have contributed to the decline of Foliar applications of insecticide from about 12 per season to about 4 per season for controlling different Bollworms in cotton (Bacheler, 1991). Cotton seed is treated with a fungicide prior to planting for control of seedling diseases. ‘The Columbia Lance nematode (Hoplolaimus columbus), occurs only in the southeastern U.S. are managed through a combination of cultural strategies, host plant resistance, and soil-applied chemicals, Potato Rotations with a non host crop or fumigation, Sanitation and certification of disease- resistant planting stock are important components of potato disease management, as is vector management (Rowe, 1993). However, fungicides are the key disease management tools in this crop. Rigorous disease/insect scouting is interfaced with highly developed IPM Programs (CAST, 2003), ‘The green peach aphid is an important vector of viral diseases of potato, particularly potato leafroll virus (PLRV), the causative agent of necrosis in potato tubers. Green peach aphid management is based on the use of systemic insecticides at planting and early season foliar insecticides to limit the incidence of this disease. Field sanitation and the use of virus-free tubers are also important components of the management of PLRV (CAST, 2003). The Colorado potato beetle is most sign ant in areas where two generations develop per year. While crop rotation, and tillage can reduce Colorad potato beetle populations. Rotation is followed in about 98% of potato hectarage. Rotation ‘crops’ include Sudan grass hybrids (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) which give good control of M, chitwoodi on potato, but are not effective for lesion nematodes (MacGuidwin and Layne, 1995). Hybrids of sorghum- Sudan grass also control Meloidogyne chitwoodi. A federal quarantine has been very effective in limiting the spread of the highly damaging golden nematode (Globodera rostochiensis) in theUSS. (Marks and Brodie, 1998). In addition to using a carefully developed rotation system and certified, high quality tubers of resistant cultivars, fields heavily infested with soilbome pathogens should be avoided (Rowe, 1993). Challenges and opportunities in IPM under cropping systems ‘The recent advances in the development of IPM tools through biotechnology and other technologies pose new opportunities as well as weighty questions for IPM and cropping systems in agro ecosystems. For long-term stability of these new tools, biointensive IPM-copping systems approaches will be essential. This includes industry support, monitoring of pest communities, rotation systems, judicious pesticide applications where needed, and a truly integrated crop production-IPM system (Kennedy and Sutton, 2000), In addition to integrated systems and transgenic organisms, precision farming tools offer an option for site-specific IPM (CAST, 2003). While precision farming provides tools for application of the appropriate amounts of inputs at the ideal time and areas in given fields, the required information and equipment are not readily available for most pests/crops and production regions. As more biotechnology and information-intensive products and related information are used, crop-oriented industries likely will have a greater impact in the development of cropping, ‘and IPM systems. Invasive pests clearly are bringing new challenges to IPM and cropping as well as animal systems. For example, widespread development of aggressive invasive pests, especially weeds, often greatly suppresses the activity of the normal fauna/flora, including microbes, and thereby reduces the biodiversity so important in ecology-based IPM (Altieri, 1994). The ongoing development of pesticide resistance in numerous types of pests constitutes another huge barrier in IPM. With more than 700 pests already having acquired resistance to pesticides (CAST, 2003), cropping systems should include resistance-management plans. ‘New solutions for pest control through “ecologically- based pest management,” there is a need for increased emphasis on the ecological facets of IPM and crop-production systems. While “Ecologically Based Pest Management” should not replace the well-established concepts of IPM, the critical needs for greater focus on ecological and other environmental factors cannot be ignored. As a recent GAO (2001) report and other assessments (CAST 2003) indicate, manyEffects of Cover crops on insects, pathogens and weeds TABLE 3. Effects of selected grass and legume cover crops on soil and associ- ated pests/beneficials (adapted from Bowman, Shirley, and Cramer, 1998). Loosen See es PS Beneficial Cover erop soll Allelopathic[ weeds pathogens Nematodes insects | insects Annwalryograss He® tet th E + 1 Symbols for benoit: ‘Symbols for increased pest risks (0 = rarely becomes a problem cxcasionaly a problem ‘can bea minor problem ‘can be a moderate problem ‘can be a majr increased pest risksother needs must be accommodated to facilitate further development and use of IPM. One of the {greatest challenges for IPM is the development of truly integrated IPM-crop-production systems. Effect of different cropping systems used in IPM against Pest groups TABLE 1. Cropping systems and other strategies and tactics used in IPM. Management practice" Options ‘Uimty per pest grou? Tnsecis Weeds __Pathogone Nematodes Crop Rotations ‘Continous a as o- on year ae = ” a = Byear ae * ow ae Cover crepe: ae +0 vo 0 Rote = ve Nao on NA Thiago Nori = _ o- = ricot or o u Moldboord ” ” tw 2 Prenting Date aly o u “ ” tae o ” o . Plant Poputetion Low on - ” Na High on : ™ NA curttation Cay ° - ° * Late ° * ° 0 ‘Sead > 07 0 0 Sol sn or NA, ae Srutatons = +0 +0 0) +0 Resistant varios = SNA srinne rs _ Broroytea! conte Nn sma smn +n Soil amencments 2 pee wor oO 0 Large wio borers oe NA on Na Tp ba adepied rom Cavigeit ot ak 000) © Sytcia tedes as tes 07 No oil ogc om post ake Tinie pa ee Groat tts peat risks Stgheneronse post risks Seong hcvoase post aks a = Nor applicable 2. = Data mtormation lacking © Hodis tolorant crop clbvare can grey Smit wood risksClimate change and Pathogens! Disease The three legs of the triangle — host, pathogen, and environment ~ must be present and interact appropriately for plant disease to result. If any of the 3 factors is altered, changes in the progression of a disease epidemic can occur. The major predicted results of climate change ~ inereases in temperature, moisture and CO> — can impact all three legs of the plant disease triangle in various ways. Precisely predicting the impact of climate change on plant disease is tricky business. ‘Temperature has potential impacts on plant disease through both the host crop plant and the pathogen. Research has shown that host plants such as wheat and oats become more susceptible to rust diseases with increased temperature; but some forage species become more resistant to fungi with increased temperature (Coakley et al 1999). Generally, fungi that cause plant disease grow best in moderate temperature ranges. Predictive models for potato and tomato late blight (caused by Phytophthora infestans) show that the fungus infects and reproduces most successfully during periods of high moisture that occur when temperatures are between 7.2°C and 26.8” C) (Wallin et al 1950). Earlier onset of warm temperatures could result in an earlier threat from late blight with the potential for more severe epidemics and increases in the number of fungicide applications needed for control. Moisture can impact both host plants and pathogen organisms in various ways. Some pathogens such as apple scab, late blight, and several vegetable root pathogens are more likely to infect plants with increased moisture ~ forecast models for these diseases are based on leaf wetness, relative humidity and precipitation measurements. Other pathogens like the powdery mildew species tend to thrive in conditions with lower moisture, Increased CO2 levels can impact both the host and the pathogen in multiple ways. Pathogen growth can be affected by higher CO concentrations resulting in greater fungal spore production. However, increased CO, can result in physiological changes to the host plant that ‘can increase host resistance to pathogens (Coakley et al 1999), Climate change and disease management ‘While physiological changes in host plants may result in higher disease resistance under climate change scenarios, host resistance to disease may be overcome more quickly by more rapid disease cycles, resulting in a greater chance of pathogens evolving to overcome host plantresistance, Fungicide and bactericide efficacy may change with increased CO, moisture, and temperature. The more frequent rainfall events predicted by climate change models could result in farmers finding it difficult to keep residues of contact fungicides on plants, triggering more frequent applications. Systemic fungicides could be affected negatively by physiological changes that slow uptake rates, such as smaller stomatal opening or thicker epicuticular waxes in crop plants grown under higher temperatures. These same fungicides could be affected positively by increased plant metabolic rates that could increase fungicide uptake. It is not well understood how naturally occurring biological control of pathogens by other microbial organisms could change as populations of microorganisms shift under changed temperature and moisture regimes in some cases antagonistic organisms may out-compete pathogens while in others pathogens may be favored. Exclusion of pathogens and quarantines through regulatory means may become more difficult for authorities as unexpected pathogens might appear more frequently on imported crops. Case Study Stewart’s wilt, a bacterial (Erwinia stewartit) disease of generally sporadic importance in sweet com, is vectored by the com flea beetle (Chaetocnema pulicaria). Survival of the vector ‘through winter is considered key to the severity of Stewart's wilt infections the following year. Currently, a forecast model based on winter temperatures is used to predict severity for Stewart's wilt. The model assumes the survival of the com flea beetle is higher in warmer winters than colder winters (Castor et al 1975). Climate change resulting in more winters that allow larger populations of flea beetles to survive would be expected to increase the frequency of growing seasons with severe Stewart's wilt. Climate Change and Insects Insects are cold-blooded organisms, the temperature of their bodies is approximately the ‘same as that of the environment. Therefore, temperature is probably the single most important environmental factor influencing insect behavior, distribution, development, survival, and reproduction. Insect life stage predictions are most often calculated using accumulated degree days from a base temperature and biofix point. It has been estimated that with a 2° C temperature increase insects might experience one to five additional life cycles per season (Yamamura & Kiritani 1998), Other researchers have found that moisture and CO, effects on insects can bepotentially important considerations in a global climate change setting (Hamilton 2005, Coviella and Trumble 1999, Hunter 2001), Increased temperature could increase pest insect populations Researchers have shown that increased temperatures can potentially affect insect survival, development, geographic range, and population size. Temperature can impact insect physiology and development directly or indirectly through the physiology or existence of hosts. Depending on the development strategy of an insect species, temperature can exert different effects. Increased temperature could decrease pest insect populations Some insects are closely tied to a specific set of host crops. Temperature increases that cause farmers not to grow the host crop any longer would decrease the populations of insect pests specific to those crops. The same environmental factors that impact pest insects can impact their insect predators and parasites as well as the disease organisms that infect the pests, resulting in increased attack on insect populations. At higher temperatures, aphids have been shown to be less responsive to the aphid alarm pheromone they release when under attack by insect predators and parasitoids ~ resulting in the potential for greater predation. (Awmack et al 1997). Climate Change and Management It is predicted that additional generation of important pest insects in temperate climates as a result of increased temperatures, probably necessitating more insecticide applications to maintain populations below economic damage thresholds. A basic rule of thumb for avoiding the development of insecticide resistance is to apply insecticides with a particular mode of action less frequently (Shelton et al 2001, Georghiou and Taylor 1986). With more insecticide applications required, the probability of applying a given mode of action insecticide more times in a season will increase, thus increasing the probability of insects developing resistance to insecticides. Climate Change and IPM ‘A number of cultural practices that can be used by farmers could be affected by changes in climate — although it is not clear whether these practices would be helped, hindered, or not affected by the anticipated changes. Using crop rotation as an insect management strategy could be less effective with earlier insect arrival or increased overwintering of insects. However, this could be balanced by changes in the earliness of crop planting times, development, and harvest.Row covers used for insect exclusion might have to be removed earlier to prevent crop damage by excessive temperatures under the covers. Natural enemy and host insect populations may respond differently to changes in temperature. Parasitism could be reduced if host populations emerge and pass through vulnerable life stages before parasitoids emerge. Hosts may pass though vulnerable life stages more quickly at higher temperatures, reducing the window of opportunity for parasitism. Temperature may change gender ratios of some pest species such as thrips (Lewis 1997) potentially affecting reproduction rates. Insects that spend important parts of their life histories in the soil may be more gradually affected by temperature changes than those that are above ground. ‘As with temperature, precipitation changes can impact insect pest predators, parasites, and diseases resulting in a complex dynamic. Fungal pathogens of insects are favored by high humidity and their incidence would be increased by climate changes that lengthen periods of high humidity and reduced by those that result in drier conditions.11/14/2013 Me. VIDYASHREE A.C (fate so» eany 20 con alton tree of ee soy & eat pce pecs oem PM eye > eeceiaeieciay Jeary 1940; Aven ef aire synete node ant certo turd tng cranes se 40 8 060: Oak ape tpt ci Late 188: Conn ose may fom taal ees ot clings weep ant Case histories of national and international b sadiabiert eee ae ome) programmes of IPM, their implementation, adoption and criticism 4 Resistance 1 Resurgence of primary pests + Upsurges of secondary posts + Envionmertalconemnaton ete A Det emer (Origin of PM tert A 1 pest management systom thet, in the context of sesocisted environment and the population dynamics of the pest species ues ‘al suitable techniques. and methods In as compote manner as possible and malntaing the est population at level below thove causing sconomic injury. (7x0, 70) Concept of IPM essence in terms of \aThe appropriate selection of pest contol methods "aE conomic benef to growers and te society ‘Benefits to environment "Decision rues that guide the control action election ofthe ‘seed to consider impacts of multiple pests‘Velde 1PM tocholopes caton Re ues (Pigeon pea, Chick pes) seeds Mustard, Grunt f Vegetables (Cauliflower, Cabbage, Capsicum, ‘Ota and Bia) twmuropmein) ——— 11/14/2013 the Fecal PATH 1. Te eograpical ange of the pik botlerm panded fo Arizona snd Southor Caloris auseathe nab of sryewedn cao, many DOT 2. Vanezuan equine encephalomyelis rai 908d tion teeta cost Mla no Tras 4 Caneatoton heangs for DOT generate censerable ble ate The elec sour om et igh 1870 erased ‘he genet uray of mos os 1 islet pss ane 5: Ouea ofe gee math (yma ep, Dovaas [Asignfcant outcome for IPM was known initaly 28 the USIBP (international Biological Program) and later e= the “Hutfakor Project” Ty i cope ce ctr, pe, poet fata onan {lon aren atone ft ean a 0 par ant eaten hte ata te re eraannanaly Pare Ins wi a you pri para y 7080 mre 10 yr imation ruchenet ct train spel reid the porate te rapanlo in got PM econ =a The second lagescale IPM project inthe United Stale, be koown by the aconym CIPM, the consort or tegrated Pest Management Mor scomplinments fr al four crope—alfas, ‘pple eoton, nd soybean11/14/2013 he average adoption of IPI for the our eopsA46% over romain ndieators of adoption Ue of sce peccietepaton of er dosages of bond spreromnseciodes {agnor achievement of the program was the genuine star to Integrate weed selene and pant ‘vology andthe emphasis on economic assesment fF adoption. USDA Regional IPM Program 18 The fst Nafona IPM SynposumWokshep was range in 1989, 1 Tw folowing national symposia, in 1984 and 1996- lesrumental in gromoting 8 national agends for ee ‘implementing IPM protoes on TS por cant of rp aes byte year 2000, ‘tA tna process of assessment of nests end ‘onsaints for IPM adopton, which euminates ‘wth 22 National PM Frum niga, June 17— J 15.1062 4 i) f SJ Ince ty Knpting and Rehwer a) conducts on rg geogopi eae |e) Comrnates by rgnzatens rater an by int Fone on reting 14 mining tay pt poptons accent sentter (rue a mando comport Wo hs tlparsoaon te program” Extension IPM Program Large-scale demonsttions of benef derived fom field scouting asthe basis for decions on petcido ‘applications usng ealabie economic thresholds The lack of Interaction, inadequate educational programmes, and lck of market Incentives-ap stopten oft pay Mol curel or ogre programs Pencils of samping ‘Computer pegramning {+ Sinulation tecniques11/14/2013 TPM Research and Implementation ‘leas of pestessiant cop outvars and rata enemas of rtvoped pests ‘Suategy in IPM ie the optimized mut-component hesiieas ‘Advances in semiochemieal entation, ‘ee stcton and use of contol methods {fomulaton and pracicalapplcaions ' Samping oc monerng procedures ‘eAsvonces In tap cropping and inhabit ‘Economic ny levels ae te tacts comporans Imsraperant eennence nual enemies. oft IPM seotoay ‘9TH Cooperative Global Program: rntae for creelcenng systems, afolton of (PM stapes Imolranaton, reach fang anc azar ‘ Emphtis on hostlant resistance (HPR) in mest. rep protection popes ‘Solo Facty Cooling, consi, vig, ard promang entiy forthe advancanent of ME Bilge corto and cut methods Tnstitutos working on IPM in the world $0 Fontes horetrd Opener C161 (Commarea Aes atty arta rand $1086 eeratins! anton of Bos! Co SR aan Vega Reco and gman coe) Tatas “IC onaton corte tet Poy so Nae aya 4 a (psaen nage Wate Gee “SCRCTPH Ceol sere Cert Fe Tope Pest mre as11/14/2013 ‘Strategies for IPM Implementation “Consvaints in PM implementation ‘9 Farmers partption ‘eGovernment suport Ce nproved instsona inate ‘einproves awareness (0) Siow rate of scopon (t) Pearly on te applications of pestis 1 Bloat riensiv Pat 1 colgialy Based Pm () Foam cn pee iin caapon (wtropods ‘ be : Susan Aare ‘pathogens, erweedy plans) wit ite conieraton ofmtle pet inracons1/13/2014 Pesticide Resistance: ‘ey spatotoeae a pei toe nad Reasons for Pesticide Failures om ‘estes ara ipo mpi) of ee Test gousione sxc ply ath peti res eee a ade + Amino ang of pte wa ed SASSI apd nb epee + secon: erin pes th sual om aati ee an reach anager ast appeaon tase ee eae a nina he see rmacepi tac peie + mse sist me “aier repeated applications, pests become resistant to one ot + Rane hewn te Baty Poets Pesticide resistance Hwosr, ery son he effestveness of yt pestis bepan to (sine + Homan gin i rts a 0 Increased ue ofthese pesticides ested ia an even more rid ‘elie in effectiveness + Ray ec i atte ps (soba ona a Pests had hecome resistant to syne pasteides3/13/2014 + Resstnceor Maquite t DDT and aber inctcer + Restanceot Corn earworm ome ssi aes “Magnitude of Pesticide Resitance + er 0 pei inact * Over ape of wend * Over 80 plant pathogens actors Contributing to Pest Resistance + rstpopuiton i eposedto pate + Prepsitonts be rca pestle + Survhing member otha pest poplin fnssong the geet tr ‘ting + Rel epoutin ate a pte veo + Repeated aplatin of he se or pti + User troadapestram” pss (Shan i oe + Pete wed atthe sole means fps Multiple Pesticide Resistance + Map psi essing Cress) theese of ‘esto oreo perder pees nme tn ne hemi Gas (eg, DST tac mete)1/13/2014 History of Pesticide Resistance Resistance Categories Resistance to individual pesticides Delsyed enrance of toxicant Treen deactivation dered station Decree sera Beta evidence estan to mute pends 2 Mtiperesians 3 Mulpcet resistance Factor inencing the development of ebance cmt i mn in ‘uy cape ipa ioand tures ss, ‘maiece nace once ena sien arama Pesticide resistance management satan pt edt cree eats mnie ema ihe he eer ua aad eaeaanetarraanaie? Combating Pesticide Resistance + Vacancy approach opt scr aiterng made oF ‘on apne hep Resistance Management + strategy saturation Moderation Mtn stack Tactics = Prevention1/13/2014 eoojed in concen wth Ppa, sa ang reve eee sping oy sone pet “gees ot eee ‘he ate of er pal ate 0 cate rote Ins, he es arcs rate managment spon, bough ase ado meagan fo ‘mangos Specific Tactics + Prevention Use pesiedes onsets Crmeearaetapseston psi = Comaine home & on chmea ono + Revers! “esseweof peti aug resus, robin ~ usetmergee = Gtnatalymanpltethe pes ppuliton Gane Dig) + Allmanagement tactics are susceptible to resistance + Resistance best managed pueventatvely + Pest management needs to pay more attention to resistance management + Resistance management wil become a greater par of pest management over te coming years Insecticide Reslatance Management (RM) Ietimporant for gromes grea constants sandother pet manager open tay eet of Insc etn by developing an inset retance ‘management (IRM) program. ef ‘Asuccesstaln program inca "meen ent ppis na 9, sh) 1 so eo tre rece net 2) hou npn we rae ee Tig mon pean eh pt any mat am ‘Seeatconem pennies me cing ene tg ay ning “pr lib wrens ‘See hee an ems ibd1/13/2014 Nig de ‘Cae aes or sce Resitance Menaonent Stags 1) Teed Apple Bed Noh ‘Theta sped me depen Hone. Spt, Aen Daa ae eflcve ‘rats ong ot tla gtr ee ‘rte rome teas oh ‘penne acon | Themconmanded stey Da nett samen for Ire wo coca gration: Ran Apt content nance ae sn Natural Pest Control + cuturalcontot + Control by natural enemies + Genetic contol + Natura chemical control Genetic Control = ryan + Inc fee nt ps am er pec range ‘to3/13/2014 ‘Natural Chemical Control etm ramones fednropt ce References + Arnie Pests Corre Gide Pte md Commer ‘per Unt Pacsafe Coal1/13/2014 TPM in Protected cultivation Manu TG TPAD Dept. of Plant Pathology Introduction + Protected cultivation i economically important for both Domestic cultivation and for export purposes. + Control of pest and disease is very important, + Usually itis controled through the use of| chemicals * So the exporting products are rejected ‘+ Hence we have to practice IPM for pest and disease management IPMisa "A sustainable approach to manage pests by combining biological, cultural, physical and ical tools in a way that minimizes health and environmental risks" Use IPM to avoid ‘Economie and energy costs “Resistance to pesticides ‘Disruption of natural contol ‘Target pest resurgence *Secondary pest outbreaks "Human health hazards "Environmental pollution and effects on wildlife ‘Key Components of IPM in Protected conditions + Pest Identification rid Understanding of pest and crop dynamies + Monitoring for inseot or disease occurrence + Decision making + Selection of Optimal Pest Control Tactics + Implementation + Evaluation Pest Identification and Understand and crop dynamics What pests and stages are casing the damage ‘Shou ve enough information abot te Biology ofthe pest encountered to assess he prea ik that the pest poses and deerme the best posse rmatogement stat. of pest When does the pes inflict feng inary? “How mich injury is tolerable? ‘What are he expect lees f the pst cots ae otc "What is the mos unease for management?1/13/2014 Monitoring for insect or disease occurrence + Preset naming of poten ot pobies + He timely apticanon of en base ope + Pres imme eck abut eer pest eo imoiver + Pea seamen te, + Gropetancerises, Scouting + Crop scouting i sn important corner stone for success PM + Early detecon and weament of pests ier in igh value Greenhouse vegetable and Ormameatal ops + With regular scouting insets diseases nd ultra robles detected ery before they besome major roblens. Sconting pattern + There sie ates pe natin nad sapling sel beeen scot, tera + Peseta uy pene te elt When Seeger. + Trestle shes cen ont be vey trod ne he ell exci bias cing toe ich eel ‘sos + Inns fed hse mean one samples ch core nde ne center + Pes igo oer tte a wee ptt ete Ere ae come api tar + Peseta be oneal in acu sea ofl + peer ete ioe stad nt in oer + Supls eden ft eno dei te ‘xen nd severy he poem more ssa + Example May anlar woes ty eon Instn of Mencan bean bes Hack avo Pherae rte her ot tees nay tit Inhigh rl stra he fe. + Pees appt sf. + Sanger ese pss by wai ls bres cr ary. + Banplesare spider its, commons bre amy, ess, a wb Scouting Done by Sek Traps Placement: Atleast card pe 1.00059 + Check and replace woes afer a vetmet +12 nes above plant canopy, nea favored hosts + Reduce number if easing winged beef insects + Elimite ble aps sing bumble bess or palistion ‘Trap Cropsitadleator planes: + Stscepible varieties provide an carly detection syste + Indeator plant for thes: “Carpet Blae Petunia Scouting method + Walk a section of greenhouse once per week + Scout leat-infested fist, heavily infested areas last + Flag pest hotspots for extra treatment (biocontrol release, pest + Keep records of results1/13/2014 ‘Number of treatments given in conventional and scouted green houses Decision + Involves an evaluation ofthe monitoring information to assess the relevant economic benefits versus the sks of pest management actions We should decide + Is thee enough natural contol agents presen to reduce the pes population Below econamic levels? + Isthe damage potential ofthe pest more costly shan the control? ‘aeon of Optinal Pat Conta Tac has eon a ‘archer eppamunnest ep nonce ees? ‘How wel wl he contol ep fio he al mangement ‘How mel wl he ee eal eps? Wha ect wl hi fetta mv other soe 8 whale de ‘cement “i son inp tnt oe, Bec Foc chemical cons, Wee dee 1 Wim the est tee he re ps? + Wats th opti ae? + tig 1 Whaat sae eguenens? Implementation + Once the management options are selected, they shouldbe deployed on a timely manne wih precision and completenes. Improve effectiveness ofthe management tastes by suitable methods Concept to remember for chemical contra: + Proper timing and placement i fen more important than the rae. * Appropriate chemical and ate forthe target pest * Pesticide should be applied in a manner tha will ‘be least disruptive on natural enemies Evaluation Wath ein nl actin prope + a th magnet itn ingle i ad settee tremens + Wauchange othe manana cts cn be mado improve con ithe se es pole cus te ae? + Whines cans inh podcion stemcan be mao sche more perma uppresin fh pes ten? Can pe GHEE Te Ge HORSE cars ~ bygone + tre Api Wei, he, Le ml re, Mie1/13/2014 ‘We have to manage these pests by integration of ferent conzol methods like + Exclusion + Physical methods + Cultural methods + Biological methods + Chemical methods Exclusion + Inseot screens can exclude aphids, white flies and thrips from entering through doors and ventilating systems, + Cover all sil floors with Black plastic or weed barrier + Inspect incoming plants immediately to ‘prevent unvanted pest entry. + Keep doors closed + Keep people and pet plants out of erp areas Physical Control Measures * Corp fr pst montane "iow ety —= + eens gt —— ete eating fo wits a * Dany Get apy mn ase stats + np contig te Soi bane fg acti Cultural Methods + Leet ain mera 1 Doseplmin be Tene Ge pt i mei ert rn Fitted bv gare iran hb iets Chemical control + Chemicals should be wed only in ase that the Adsense wasnt conrled by other method + Chemicals shouldbe wed base on seventy of the ess. + Use sletve pesticides of short esidal effet + Hsbould be used at a minima evel + Usually Chemicals wil be recommended fr Ait ome diseases like Powdery mikew and Downy sildew.1/13/2014 Biological control 1 bless Pomerat ta te cone ae + These were net efi on br pans. + ec of ean dependon sets ois + Appian a Thame aaa ccabe pas ‘tol at patos thc so Fao Soop 38% a, 2008), + Nesidconsteay, ncoormaa ain we ie + sph ccemant pit hie imitations of biological control 1 Nong psc 10 pent fli lp or ‘anh ol ond my ge ne a don 3 Beg oe got tie me lo potest tapas yg ae wo sony pe pet option Thee arnt ex te mar ‘ete ppp reach ai ‘Fly tm baal a iota Mer ne (Gmtton propecia pte crs) pa melas mye acei Biopesticides + Botanicals + Horticultural 0 + Horticultural soaps + Insect growth regulators + Brie forming agents Major pests and diseases in Protected cultivation “Aphids ptt Damace Suku plo bes ines a ts + Cues, proce sick ened promt gow of "et soy moles pat go Wek dais + melo phi vse Apion + Bidopal Comal: hens cen pri asp yh es + Speyer Horta Amini, * Chem nici, Pros Soft Seales, + Soft seals fod in phloem, + produce sticky honeydew + Muliple years of scale feeding case deback Soft Scale Management + Prune avay infested plan parts + Use sys when cals are ative + Insect growth regulator (Distance, East, ‘tatrciinacepae )3/13/2014 Whiteflies + sent aoe sym sum pins + ee eon. on a ‘Wty Steagement Bidopel noet Patio vase Baca foment + Prior Depa ade, coving Whey ect » Sees eal irons Hora miner i + IGhinet gow repo Kiopee Foca + Neocon Iii, Asean + Pret Bf, Catia Thrips + Fanless 150-900 no eves bus Pent mie cares + Nes of maori: Too pte + Tres 520 per pn cyst Tie gee itensl relay ais heoniee rear Mine pit be: Ori nines Chem Sid, eal (GR) “Green house diseases Root rots sr ies yn ipa TNS basco (lack oo ro) + rap los an be high and dif to contra Controls + Biocon: Troha rie + Samition + Optimal watering + Minimize sees + Proper dapnosis before implementing fingicide sontots ‘Aplin of fret wens unde TPM and Noo TPM models hesin Sneha Sena Effet of Biotic stress on cucumber in TPM and (Cost of ealtivation and yi in IPM and Non IPM pos in "No IPM plots (Benbouse cxcumber [Cour eA_[ Newt = os inet a ia ost [SSreterte- uae emmys mm mee Uae be pa og awe. oe pete $0 hee mses fan Tis 055 ora nah = = nest ad ie) 730) | [eae Sao See 936 [Sen eaeee Se =a ae. |tssomenyon” — Saewy rains sue Sama Row kot nents saion i) | 38 od = oe [otal afte plan (5) Wai femenwe ae as