Impact of Insecticide Resistance Management Programme of Cotton on Insecticide Use in Punjab, India
Rajinder Peshin1* and A.K. Dhawan2
1Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, Chatha, Jammu, 180009, India
2Department of Entomology, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, 141004, India
*Corresponding author’s email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Keywords: Evaluation of cotton IPM, pesticide use
The Central Institute for Cotton Research (CICR), Nagpur, India, implemented an Insecticide Resistance Management (IRM)) programme in 10 cotton-growing states (including Punjab) of India (Peshin et al. 2009). The focus of an IRM programme is on rationalizing insecticide use. IRM is a component of integrated pest management (IPM) and it aims to delay/retard the development of resistance in insects and to manage their populations by using as few as possible applications of any insecticide. We analyzed the impact of IRM programme on reducing pesticide use on cotton in Punjab.
- Materials and methods
The study was conducted in three cotton-growing districts of the State of Punjab: Bathinda, Ferozepur, and Mansa. The total number of respondents selected for the study was 210 (150 IRM farmers and 60 non-IRM farmers) from 15 IRM and 6 non-IRM villages. The data were collected with the help of a questionnaire by personal interview method before and after the IRM programme in 2003 and 2005. The data were analyzed by applying a paired t-test for comparing the before/after data and two sample t-test was applied for testing the difference between the IRM and non-IRM farmers using SPSS 13 package.
- Results and conclusion/discussion
The average number of insecticide applications in the IRM villages was 13 compared to 15.4 in non-IRM villages, with a significant difference of 15.29% (t =2.38, P < 0.05, df = 113). The insecticide use (a.i) in the IRM and non-IRM villages was 5.602 and 8.032 kg /ha, respectively, a difference of 30.25%.The average number of insecticide applications against the bollworm complex was 11.15 in non-IRM villages compared to 8.50 in IRM villages (Table1). In Bt cotton the average number of insecticide applications were 4.63 in IRM villages and 4.86 in non-IRM villages, the difference was not significant. In the IRM villages, the use of insecticide mixtures was significantly less. In the IRM villages, an average of 3.1 cocktails of insecticides were applied in cotton compared to 5.1 in non-IRM village (t = 3.61, df = 109, P < 0.01). The IRM programme resulted in a reduction of average insecticide applications, when compared with non-IRM villages.
Table1: Average number of insecticide applications and pesticide use by weight (a.i)
|Non-IRM villages||IRM villages||Difference (%)|
|Average number of insecticide applications||15.43 ±6.46||13.07±6.52||-15.29*|
|Bollworm complex (Helicoverpa armigera and Earias vittella)||11.15||8.50||-23.77**|
|Insecticide use (a.i) kg/ha||8.032||5.602||-30.25**|
* p<0.05, ** p<0.01
Peshin R, Dhawan A K, Kranthi K, and Singh K 2009. Evaluation of the benefits of an insecticide resistance management programme in Punjab in India. International Journal of Pest Management, 55(3), 207–220.