Impact of front line demonstration on integrated management of brinjal shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee) in Nizamabad district, Telangana state

Introduction

Brinjal (Solanum melongena L.), belonging to the Solanaceae family, is a major vegetable crop cultivated extensively across India. However, its production is severely hindered by insect pests, primarily the brinjal shoot and fruit borer (BSFB), Leucinodes orbonalis Guen. (Anon., 2018). BSFB larvae bore into young shoots and fruits, leading to extensive fruit damage and yield losses ranging from 20.7% to over 85% (Satpathy et al., 2005) [8] . The crop is additionally attacked by sucking pests like aphids, leafhoppers, whiteflies, and thrips (Nayak et al., 2016) [5] . To control these pests, farmers frequently rely on intensive chemical insecticide sprays. This practice increases production costs, leads to pesticide residue accumulation, creates secondary pest outbreaks, and causes environmental pollution. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) offers an eco-friendly and economically viable alternative by combining cultural, biological, and chemical control methods (Alam et al., 2006; Patra et al., 2016) [1,6] . Front Line Demonstrations (FLDs) organized by Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVKs) serve as an effective extension tool to demonstrate IPM modules, educate growers, and bridge the gap between potential and actual farm yields. This paper assesses the impact of IPM FLDs conducted by KVK Rudrur on pest incidence, crop yield, and economic parameters in Nizamabad district.

Materials and Methods

Front Line Demonstrations (FLDs) on the IPM strategy module for brinjal shoot and fruit borer were conducted in adopted villages by Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Rudrur during Yasangi 2022-23 and 2023-24 in Nizamabad district, Telangana state.

The IPM demonstration package comprised: ▪ Need based soil drenching with COC @ 3 g/l of water in nursery against damping off. ▪ Apply 3G granules @ 10g/4 m 2 to control sucking pests in nursery. ▪ Installing yellow sticky traps @ 4/acre to control whitefly incidence. ▪ Installing pheromone traps @ 20-40/acre for monitoring and mass trapping of brinjal shoot and fruit borer moths. ▪ Clipping and destroying of damaged shoots from time to time in initial stages. ▪ Spraying of Azadirachtin of 1500 ppm @ 5 ml/l of water to kill the egg masses of borers. ▪ Spraying of need based chemicals against shoot and fruit borer: Chlorantraniliprole 18.5 SC @ 0.3 ml/l or Emamectin benzoate 5 SG @ 0.4 g/l of water can be sprayed upon crossing ETL thresholds. ▪ Spraying of need based chemicals against whitefly/aphids: Fenpropathrin 30 EC @ 0.5 ml/l of water can be sprayed upon crossing ETL thresholds.

An adjacent plot maintained under conventional farmers' practices (indiscriminate, calendar-based chemical insecticide sprays like Chlorpyrifos, Profenofos, Lambda-cyhalothrin, and Emamectin benzoate) served as the control check.

Observations on shoot damage (%), fruit damage (%), total yield (q ha -1 ), cost of cultivation (Rs. ha -1 ), gross returns (Rs. ha -1 ), net returns (Rs. ha -1 ), and benefit-cost (B:C) ratios were recorded. Extension indicators were calculated using standard formulas suggested by Samui et al. (2000) [7] . [8] and Nayak et al. (2016) [5] , who reported that bio-intensive IPM modules significantly reduce borer infestations compared to schedule-based chemical sprays.

Shoot

Impact on Yield and Extension Indicators

Year Yield (q ha -1 ) % Increase in yield Technology gap (q ha -1 )

Extension gap (q ha -1 ) Marketable fruit yield in IPM demonstration plots reached (325.00 q ha -1 ) in 2022-23 and (326.40 q ha -1 ) in 2023-24, achieving productivity enhancements of 10.17% and 9.90% over farmers' practices (295.00 q ha -1 and 297.00 q ha -1 respectively). These findings are in conformity with the works of Singh and Bisen (2020) [11] and Chaitanya et al., (2020) [3] . The pooled extension gap was (29.70 q ha -1 ), emphasizing the yield loss occurring at the field level due to non-adoption of recommended IPM interventions. The technology gap averaged 154.30 q ha -1 , reflecting local environmental constraints, soil heterogeneity, and crop management factors (Chaitanya et al., 2020) [3] . The technology index averaged 32.15%, demonstrating the field feasibility of the demonstrated technology in Nizamabad district.

Economic Analysis

The average cost of cultivation in demonstration plots was Rs. 2,09,140 ha -1 (2,09,500 ha -1 in 2022-23 and 2,08,780 ha -1 in 2023-24), which was lower than farmers' practice Rs. 2,37,010 ha -1 . This cost reduction was primarily driven by replacing frequent synthetic chemical sprays with cost-effective pheromone traps, biopesticides, and need-based sprays. These findings were in line with the research of Senthil kumar et al. (2018) [9] and Shankar et al. (2022) [10] .

Conclusion

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementThis study was financially supported by Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Nizamabad (Rudrur) and authors are grateful to PJTAU, Rajendranagar and ICAR-ATARI, Zone -X, Hyderabad and for necessary support and guidance to complete this work successfully.

References

1. Shanhua, Taiwan: AVRDC-The World Vegetable Center; 2006. p. 74.
2. Anonymous. Horticultural statistics at a glance 2018. Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Government of India; 2018.
3. Chaitanya V, Hemantha Kumar J, Madhu Shekar BR, Jagan Mohan Rao P, Sri Ranjitha P, Ravi Kumar K, et al. Impact of front line demonstrations on extent of adoption and horizontal spread of trellis method of cultivation in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum Mill.) in Khammam district of Telangana. Current Journal of Applied Science and Technology. 2020;39(39):1-8.
4. Mishra DK, Paliwal DK, Tailer RS, Deshwal AK. Impact of frontline demonstration on yield enhancement of potato. Indian Research Journal for Extension Education. 2009;9(3):26-28.
5. Nayak US, Rath LK, Baral K, Senapathy S. Field efficacy of different IPM modules against brinjal shoot and fruit borer (BSFB) and the sucking insect pests of brinjal. International Journal of Bio-resource and Stress Management. 2016;7(6):1315-1320.
6. Patra S, Thakur NSA, Firake DM. Evaluation of biopesticides and insecticides against brinjal shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee) in Meghalaya of northeastern India. International Journal of Bio-resource and Stress Management. 2016;7(5):1032-1036.
7. Samui SK, Maitra S, Roy DK, Mandal AK, Saha D. Evaluation of front line demonstration on groundnut. Journal of the Indian Society of Coastal Agricultural Research. 2000;18(2):180-183.
8. Satpathy S, Shivalingaswamy TM, Kumar A, Rai AB, Rai M. Biointensive management of eggplant shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guen.). Vegetable Science. 2005;32(1):103-104.
9. Senthil Kumar M, Deivamani M, Vijay Kumar M. Front line demonstration on integrated pest management module for shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis) in brinjal. Journal of Innovative Agriculture. 2018;5(3):1-4.
10. Shankar A, Reddy TP, Reddy MJM, Jhan A, Rajashekhar M, Rajashekhar B, et al. Impact of front line demonstration on integrated management of brinjal shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee) in Nagarkurnool District, Telangana state. International Journal of Bio-resource and Stress Management. 2022;13(3):292-298.
11. Singh NK, Bisen NK. Effect of integrated crop management practices on yield and economics of brinjal in Seoni district of Madhya Pradesh. Journal Krishi Vigyan. 2020;8(2):65-69.