Integrated pest management under Indian conditions
BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY
INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT
UNDER INDIAN CONDITION
SUBMITTED TO-: SUBMITTED BY-:
Dr. SHREERAM SINGH NEHA ANAND
B.Sc.(Ag.) 4th year
INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT
“It is ecosystem based strategy that focuses on long term prevention of
pests or their damage through a combination of techniques such as
biological control,habitat manipulation,modification of cultural
practices, and use of resistant varieties”.
•In 1967 the term IPM was introduced by R.F. Smith and R. van den
•The term IPM was formalized by the US National Academy of Sciences
•IPM was adopted as policy by various world governments during the
70's and 80's, including the USA (1972)
•1970’s-1980’s IPM adapted for managing pests of landscape trees and
shrubs in Urban Areas.
•In 1985 India declared IPM as official Ministerial Policy.
AIM of Selected IPM strategies
• Promote natural controls.
• Protect human health.
• Minimize negative impacts to non-target organism.
• Enhance the general environment.
• Be most likely to produce long-term, beneficial results.
• Be cost-effective in the short and long-term
• Be easily and efficiently implemented.
Tools of Pest Management
1. Cultural methods or agronomic practices
2. Mechanical methods
3. Physical methods
4. Biological control
5. Regulatory methods
6. Chemical methods
• Research has generated new technologies using naturally occurring
enemies of insect pests (parasitoids, predators and pathogens) for
use in IPM. Some important commercially available products include
Trichogramma, Bracons, Bacillus thuringiensis, Nuclear polyhedrosis
viruses (NPV) and Trichoderma.
In addition, a number of plant products such as azadirachtin (neem),
pyrethrum, nicotine, etc. are also valuable as biopesticides.
The Directorate of Plant Protection and Quarantine, Ministry of
Agriculture, Government of India, has evolved location-specific IPM
packages for both the Kharif and Rabi crops.
For IPM to be a success, it must be sound on technical and economic
parameters. Technical feasibility of IPM is judged on two criteria:
change in the pesticide use, and yield change over the conventional
Technical feasibility is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for
commercialization and adoption of a technology. The necessary
condition is the net benefits it entails to the producers over the
conventional technology. Net benefits can be measured in terms of
the difference in per hectare net revenue due to application of new
technology and/or changes in unit cost of production.
4)Socio-economic and Policy Issues
• Adoption of IPM remains restricted to hardly 2 percent of the area
treated with plant protection inputs. This estimate is based on the
informed opinions of the researchers, extension personnel and policy
• The structure of agrochemical market also suggests a similar level of
adoption; biopesticides share only 2 percent of the agrochemical
market in India (Saxena, 2001). There could be a number of
technological, social, economic, institutional and policy factors
restricting large scale adoption of IPM.
5)Technology characteristics are important
determinants of adoption
• The characteristics of technology have an important role in farmers’
adoption decisions (Adesina and Zinnah, 1993; Lapar and Pandey,
1999). IPM a complex technology. Generally, the farmers adopt those
components that show immediate effect, and are easily available.
Biopesticides comprise a major component of IPM. Most of the
biopesticidesare host-specific, slow in action and have short shelf-life.
• The major issues that the researchers would be confronting in the
decades to come include basic research for development of broad-
spectrum biological pesticides and improvements in their efficacy and
6)Role of extension system goes beyond technology
• IPM is akin to a new technology and knowledge intensive. Its
effective implementation requires extension workers to have a sound
understanding of the characteristics of the technology, its target host
and relationship with natural enemies, and its method of application
before the technology is delivered to the farmers. During 1995 and
2000, on an average an extension worker has been trained thrice in
IPM methodologies. To transfer the skills to the farmers, more than
6200 farmers’ field schools were established. These efforts however
have not trickled down much, as only 0.2 percent of the farmers were
trained during this period.
7)Community participation is key to success of IPM
• Successful pest control demands collective efforts. There are a
number of management practices such as observance of
synchronicity in sowing dates, use of resistant varieties, crop
rotations, etc. that require close cooperation among farmers to
achieve maximum pest control efficiency.
• Local bodies, such as Panchayats, Non-Governmental
Organisations, Self Help Groups, etc. should be encouraged to
shoulder this responsibility. Incentives and awards should be
given to those farmers/groups who are following IPM approach.
IPM AT GLANCE
• Keeping in view ill effects of chemical pesticides govt. of India, Deptt.
Of Agriculture & Cooperation has adopted Integrated Pest
Management(IPM) as cardinal principle and main plank of plant
protection technology in the country since 1985.
• Scheme- Strengthening of Modernisation of pest management
approach in India
• Sub-Scheme/Component- Promotion of IPM
• Commencement- In 1992, when Central Integrated Pest Management
Centres (CIPMCs) were established by merging all Central Plant
Protection Stations (CPPS), Central Surveillance Stations (CSS) and
Central Biological Control Stations (CBCS).
• Mandate- Promotion of IPM in Plant Protection under the overall
crop production programme.
Major Activities •Monitoring of pests and diseases for
•Conservation of natural enemies in farmer’s
•Production and field releases of biocontrol
•Promotion of ecofriendly IPM inputs like
biopesticides/neem based pesticides.
•Human Resource Development by imparting IPM
training to extension officers and farmers
through FFSs/SLTPs/Short during IPM
•Popularise IPM technology among farming
Present Status of Central IPM
31 CIPMCs in 28 States and 1 UT
IPM Package & Practices:
These have been developed for the following 77 crops which
includes Rice, Wheat, Maize, Sorghum, Pearl Millet, Pigeon
pea, Black gram/Green gram, Gram, Rajmah, Pea, Groundnut,
Soybean, Rapeseed/Mustard, Sesame, Safflower, Castor,
Sunflower, Potato, Onion, Tomato, Cruciferous Vegetables,
Leguminous Vegetables, Cucurbitaceious vegetables, Brinjal,
Okra, Chillies, Cotton, Sugarcane, Tobacco, Citrus, Pineapple,
Sapota, Pomegranate, Grapes, Apple, Mango, Guava, Banana,
Litchi, Papaya, Apricot, Peach, Pear, Cherry, Walnut, Ber, Amla,
Small Cardamom, Large Cardamom, Black Pepper, Coriander,
Cumin, Fennel (Saunf), Ginger, Coconut, Cashew, Arecanut, Oil
Palm, Tea, Jack fruit, Spinach, Broccoli, Loquat, Strawberry,
Olive, Watermelon, Lablab bean , Garlic, Betelvine. Fig, Phalsa,
Saffron, Custard apple, Persimmon, Kiwi, Passion fruit and
LIST OF REGISTERED BIOPESTICIDES
1) Bacillus thuringiensis var.israelensis
2) Bacillus thuringiensis var.kurstaki
3) Bacillus thuringiensis var. galleriae
4) Bacillus sphaericus
5) Beauveria bassiana
6) Trichoderma viride
7) Verticillum lecanii
8) NPV of Helicoverpa armigera
9) NPV of Spodoptera litura
Impact of IPM
•Crop yield increased from 6.72 to 40.14% in rice and 22.7 to
26.63% in cotton in IPM fields compared to non-IPM fields
•Chemical pesticide sprays were reduced to the extent of 50-100%
in rice and 29.96 to 50.5% in cotton.
• Use of biopesticides/neem based pesticides increased from 123
MT during 1994-95 to 1262 MT during2009-10.
•Over all consumption of chemical pesticide in the country
reduced from 75033 MT (Tech. grade) during 1990-91 to 41822
MT (T.G.) during 2009-10.
SUCCESSFUL BIOCONTROL PROGRAMMES
• There was a severe outbreak of sugarcane pyrilla during 1972-73 in
the states of Punjab, Hyrana, U.P. and Bihar which was successfully
controlled by utilization of potential biocontrol agents like egg
parasitoid Tetrastichus pyrillae and nymphal predator Epipyrops
melanoleuca on the advise of Cental Govt. team headed by Dr. S.N.
Banergee then PPA to the Govt. of India. This saved the
Government Exchequer to the tune of Rs.11.00 crores.
• Similarly during 1987, there was again outbreak of this pest in
some sugarcane growing states of the country, when again
utilization of its potential bioagents saved Govt. exchequer to the
tune of Rs.16.00 crores. In 1994, severe incidence of this pest in
Karnataka was successfully controlled by its potential biocontrol
• This weed is fully under control in Southern states of India through
its two exotic phytophagous weevils i.e. Neochetina eichhorniae
and N. Bruchi.
Apple woolly aphid and Sanjase scale:
• Dreaded pests of apple plants are under check by their bioagents
like Aphelinus mali, Syrphus confrater etc. in case of apple woolly
aphid and Encarsia perniciosi, Aphytis spp.etc. in case of sanjose
scale in apple growing states of the country.
• Use of Nuclear Polyhedrosis virus (NPV) has given considerable
success in control of this dreaded pest of cotton, pulses,
vegetables, oilseeds etc.
N. bruchi. Syrphus confrater
Encarsia perniciosi Aphytis spp. Nuclear Polyhedrosis virus