| Literature DB >> 35260662 |
Rakesh Kumar1, Jaipal Singh Choudhary2, Janki Sharan Mishra3, Surajit Mondal4, Shishpal Poonia5, Mohammad Monobrullah4, Hansraj Hans4, Mausam Verma4, Ujjwal Kumar4, Bhagwati Prasad Bhatt6, Ram Kanwar Malik5, Virender Kumar7, Andrew McDonald8.
Abstract
Conservation agriculture (CA), which encompasses minimum soil disturbance, residue retention either through crop residue, or cover crops and crop diversification-based crop management practices can modify the status of pest dynamics and activities under the changing climatic scenarios. CA has been advocated extensively to optimize the use of available resources, maintain the environmental quality, enhance crop productivity, and reduce the climate change impacts. Information related to the impacts of long-term CA-production systems under rice-based cropping systems on pest status is lacking, particularly in middle Indo-Gangetic Plains (MIGP). Under CA, puddling is completely avoided, and rice is directly sown or transplanted to maintain better soil health. Different sets of experimentations including farmers practice, partial CA and full CA (CA) as treatments in rice-based cropping systems, were established from 2009, 2015 and 2016 to understand the long-term impacts of CA on pest dynamics. In this study, direct and indirect effects of tillage (zero, reduced and conventional tillage), residue retention and cropping sequences on abundance and damage by pests were investigated. After 4-5 years of experimentation, populations of oriental armyworm [Mythinma (Leucania) (Pseudaletia) separata (Wlk.)] in wheat, mealybug [Brevennia rehi (Lindinger)] and bandicoot rat [Bandicota bengalensis (Gray)] in rice were found to increase abnormally in CA-based production systems. Conventionally tilled plots had a significant negative effect while residue load in zero-tilled plots had a significant positive effect on larval population build-up of M. separata. Zero tillage had a higher infestation of mealybug (52-91% infested hills) that used grassy weeds (Echinochloa colona, Echinochloa crusgalli, Cynodon dactylon, Leptochloa chinensis and Panicum repense) as alternate hosts. Cropping sequences and no disturbance of soil and grassy weeds had higher live burrow counts (4.2 and 13.7 burrows as compared to 1.47 and 7.53 burrows per 62.5 m2 during 2019-2020 and 2020-2021, respectively) and damaged tillers (3.4%) in CA-based practices. Based on the present study, pest management strategies in CA need to be revisited with respect to tillage, residue retention on soil surface, grassy weeds in field and cropping sequences to deliver the full benefits of CA in MIGP to achieve the sustainable development goals under the climate change scenarios.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35260662 PMCID: PMC8904590 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-07760-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Monthly total rainfall and mean monthly maximum and minimum temperatures prevailed during the experimental period (January 2015 to July 2021).
Figure 2Schematic diagram of conservation agriculture (CA) production system with positivity and emerging issues in rice-based cropping systems of the middle Indo-Gangetic Plain.
Figure 3Mean infestation of Mythimna separata larvae on wheat in different tillage-cum crop establishment and residue management practices at 65 DAS during recent different years. Bars with different letters indicate significant differences among agricultural production systems (LSD; P < 0.05).
Figure 4Mean number of pupae of Mythimna separata in the fields with different tillage-cum-crop establishment and residue management production systems after harvesting wheat in recent years. Bars with different letters indicate significant differences among production systems (LSD; P < 0.05).
Infestation of Mythimna separata (mean numbers of larvae & pupae) on wheat crop and their correlations with incorporated/retained residue in different tillage-cum-crop establishment and residues management practices of Indo-Gangetic Plains at 65 days after sowing (larvae) and after harvesting of crop (pupae) during recent different years.
| Scenarios* | Number of larvae (m−2) | Number of pupae (m−2) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018–2019 | 2019–2020 | 2020–2021 | 2018–2019 | 2019–2020 | 2020–2021 | |
| Sc1 (FP) | 0.20 ± 0.02a | 0.80 ± 0.58a | 1.60 ± 0.81a | 0.00 ± 0.00a | 0.20 ± 0.20a | 0.40 ± 0.24a |
| Sc2 (FP) | 0.60 ± 0.40a | 0.60 ± 0.60a | 2.00 ± 0.95a | 0.20 ± 0.20a | 0.40 ± 0.24a | 0.60 ± 0.24a |
| Sc3 (pCA) | 1.40 ± 0.51ab | 4.20 ± 1.24ab | 7.60 ± 1.43b | 0.40 ± 0.24a | 1.00 ± 0.32ab | 1.60 ± 0.40ab |
| Sc4 (pCA) | 3.20 ± 1.16b | 6.60 ± 1.50b | 9.60 ± 1.88b | 1.00 ± 0.45a | 1.60 ± 0.24b | 2.00 ± 0.45b |
| Sc5 (pCA) | 1.60 ± 0.81ab | 5.00 ± 1.38b | 6.80 ± 1.88b | 0.40 ± 0.24a | 1.00 ± 0.32ab | 1.40 ± 0.51ab |
| Sc6 (CA) | 2.20 ± 0.66ab | 4.00 ± 1.30ab | 7.40 ± 1.08b | 0.40 ± 0.24a | 0.80 ± 0.37ab | 1.60 ± 0.24ab |
| Sc7 (CA) | 3.40 ± 0.93b | 8.00 ± 1.48b | 10.40 ± 1.53b | 1.20 ± 0.49a | 1.80 ± 0.37b | 2.40 ± 0.24b |
| Number of larvae/pupae (m2) regressed on residue incorporated/retained (r) | ||||||
| Larvae (m2) | Pupae (m2) | |||||
| Y = 0.23x + 2.66 (R2 = 0.82*) | Y = 0.06X + 0.59 (R2 = 0.89**) | |||||
Mean values followed by standard error and different superscript small letters within a column are significantly different; * and ** indicate significant at P<0.05 and <0.001, respectively.
Contrast analysis between years, crop establishment-cum-residue management and insect pest infestation.
| Scenarios | Rice mealybug, | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Larva | Pupa | ||||||||
| 2018–2019 | 2019–2020 | 2020–2021 | 2018–2019 | 2019–2020 | 2020–2021 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | |
| Till versus No-till | − | − 0.08 | − | − 0.17 | − 0.07 | − 0.19 | − 0.17 | − | − 0.07 |
| Residue versus nonresidue | 0.08 | 0.42 | 0.06 | 0.11 | |||||
Values below 0.05 are significant and indicated in bold.
Figure 5Effect of different tillage cum crop establishment and residue management production systems on rice mealybug, Brevennia rehi infestation on paddy tillers from 2015 to 2017. Bars with different letters indicate significant differences among production systems (LSD; P < 0.05). * CA-based production system with ZTDSR-Mustard (ZT)-spring maize (ZT) sequences.
Figure 6Grassy weed population in fields of different agricultural production systems. Bars with different letters indicate significant differences among production systems (LSD; P < 0.05). * CA-based production system with ZTDSR-mustard (ZT)-spring maize (ZT) sequences.
Burrows of bandicoot rats, B. bengalensis as influenced by different crop establishment-cum-residue management (CERM) and winter crops in rice-fallow system of eastern India (after 4th years of experimentation: 2019–2020).
| CERM | Rodent burrow (no./62.5 m2) | Mean | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R–C | R–L | R–SF | R–Li | R–M | ||
| Conservation agriculture (CA) | ||||||
| R− | 2.00 ± 0.58 | 1.33 ± 0.33 | 0.33 ± 0.00 | 1.67 ± 0.33 | 2 ± 0 | 1.47C |
| R+ | 5.33 ± 0.33 | 8.00 ± 0.58 | 2.33 ± 0.33 | 1.67 ± 0.33 | 3.67 ± 0.33 | 4.20A |
| Partial conservation agriculture | ||||||
| R− | 2.67 ± 0.33 | 0.67 ± 0.19 | 0.67 ± 0.19 | 1.00 ± 0.00 | 2.00 ± 0.58 | 1.40C |
| R+ | 4.00 ± 0.58 | 2.67 ± 0.33 | 1.67 ± 0.67 | 1.67 ± 0.33 | 3.00 ± 0.58 | 2.60B |
| Farmer practices (FP) | ||||||
| R | 2.00 ± 0.58 | 2.33 ± 0.33 | 1.33 ± 0.33 | 2.33 ± 0.33 | 0.33 ± 0.00 | 1.67C |
| R+ | 2.00 ± 0.00 | 3.00 ± 0.58 | 2.00 ± 0.58 | 3.67 ± 0.33 | 2.00 ± 0.58 | 2.53B |
| Mean | 3.00A | 3.00A | 1.39C | 2.00B | 2.17B | |
| LSD ( | CERM | WC | CERM*WC | |||
| 0.51 | 0.47 | 1.15 | ||||
R+: residue retention (30% RT), R−: control; R–C: Rice–Chickpea; R–L: Rice–Lentil; R–SF: Rice–Safflower; R–Li: Rice–Linseed; R–M: Rice–Mustard; Different capital letters (vertical) represent significant variations in CERM; Different (horizontal) capital letters indicate significant variations in different cropping sequences; Values with ± represent standard error of mean.
Burrows of bandicoot rats, B. bengalensis as influenced by different crop establishment-cum-residue management (CERM) and winter crops in rice-fallow system of eastern India (after 5th years of experimentation: 2020–2021).
| CERM | Rodent burrow (no./62.5 m2) | Mean | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R–C | R–L | R–SF | R–Li | R–M | ||
| Conservation agriculture (CA) | ||||||
| R− | 3.67 ± 0.33 | 6.00 ± 0.58 | 0.33 ± 0.00 | 5.00 ± 0.58 | 22.67 ± 0.67 | 7.53C |
| R+ | 12.67 ± 0.33 | 11.33 ± 0.33 | 5.00 ± 0.58 | 6.67 ± 0.33 | 32.67 ± 0.67 | 13.67A |
| Partial conservation agriculture | ||||||
| R− | 4.67 ± 0.33 | 4.67 ± 0.33 | 2.67 ± 0.33 | 4.00 ± 0.58 | 7.67 ± 0.33 | 4.73D |
| R+ | 6.00 ± 0.58 | 8.67 ± 0.33 | 5.33 ± 0.33 | 14.67 ± 0.33 | 10.00 ± 0.58 | 8.93B |
| Farmer practices (FP) | ||||||
| R− | 2.00 ± 0.00 | 0.67 ± 0.00 | 1.00 ± 0.00 | 7.33 ± 0.67 | 7.00 ± 0.58 | 3.60E |
| R+ | 3.33 ± 0.33 | 4 ± 0.58 | 2.33 ± 0.33 | 14.33 ± 0.88 | 10.67 ± 0.33 | 6.93C |
| Mean | 5.39C | 5.89C | 2.78D | 8.67B | 15.11A | |
| LSD ( | CERM | WC | CERM*WC | |||
| 0.62 | 0.54 | 1.33 | ||||
R+: residue retention (30% RT), R−: control; R–C: Rice–Chickpea; R–L: Rice–Lentil; R–SF: Rice–Safflower; R–Li: Rice–Linseed; R–M: Rice–Mustard; Different capital letters (vertical) represent significant variations in CERM; Different (horizontal) capital letters indicate significant variations in different cropping sequences; Values with ± represent standard error of mean.
Figure 7Percent tiller damage caused by Bandicoot rats, Bandicota bengalensis under diverse tillage and production system. Arrow distance indicates significant differences among production systems (LSD; P < 0.05).