| Literature DB >> 35865989 |
Anit Poudel1, Sabina Sapkota1, Nabin Pandey1, Dipesh Oli1, Rajiv Regmi1.
Abstract
Citrus decline has been the major constraint faced by citrus growers in Nepal. Survey research was conducted in Beni municipality and Malika rural municipality of Myagdi district to study the cause of citrus decline and their management practices. A total of 94 mandarin growing farmers were selected randomly and interviewed with a semi-structured questionnaire. Analytical tools like logistic regression, multiple linear regression, and t-test were used to derive the inferences needed. The study showed that 72.3% of the mandarin growing farmers had experienced citrus decline problems in their orchards. Disease and pest incidence, climatic extremities, poor fertility status of soil, low-quality planting materials, and poor orchard management were found to be positively influencing citrus decline. Insect infestation was 52 percent more likely to cause citrus decline as compared to insect non-infested conditions. The study revealed that 75.5% of the farmers use farmyard manure (FYM) of more than 30 kg per plant per year, 44.7% of the farmers use chemical fertilizers, 85.1% of the farmers irrigate their orchard, 98.94% of farmers practice weeding, 33% of the farmers practice mulching, 84% of the farmers practice pruning, 50% of the farmers use Bordeaux mixture and 61.7% of the farmers manage insects. Moreover, effective orchard management practices like manuring, irrigation, pruning, Bordeaux application, and insect management were significantly associated with a higher percentage of rejuvenation of declining orchards. The productivity of mandarin orchards, in addition, was significantly enhanced by FYM application, chemical fertilizers, irrigation, weeding, and Bordeaux application. This study elucidated that citrus decline has been the major constraint of mandarin farming, and improved management practices are pivotal for combating the citrus decline.Entities:
Keywords: Citrus decline; Management practices; Orchard; Productivity; Rejuvenation
Year: 2022 PMID: 35865989 PMCID: PMC9293654 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09906
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Figure 1Map of the study site.
Ranking of the insects that occurred in the study area.
| Insect infestation | Index | Ranking |
|---|---|---|
| Citrus leaf miner | 0.53 | VII |
| Fruit fly | 0.94 | I |
| Aphid | 0.54 | VI |
| Citrus Green bug | 0.56 | IV |
| Citrus scale | 0.36 | IX |
| Whitefly | 0.31 | X |
| Citrus butterfly | 0.36 | VIII |
| White grub | 0.55 | V |
| Stem Borer | 0.63 | II |
| Red ant | 0.59 | III |
Source: Field Survey, 2021
Ranking of the diseases occurred in the study area.
| Disease infestation | Index | Rank |
|---|---|---|
| Sooty mold | 0.70 | II |
| Foot rot | 0.364 | VIII |
| Citrus scab | 0.359 | IX |
| Citrus canker | 0.367 | VII |
| Pink Disease | 0.44 | V |
| Powdery mildew | 0.66 | III |
| Citrus gummosis | 0.39 | VI |
| Twig blight/Wither tip | 0.74 | I |
| Root rot | 0.34 | X |
| Algal spot | 0.62 | IV |
Source: Field Survey, 2021
Logistic regression analysis and marginal effect after logistic analysis of citrus decline with different factors causing citrus decline.
| Causes of citrus decline | Odds Ratio | Std. Err. | Z | p>|z| | dy/dx | p>|z| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Insect infestation | 22.99 | 26.47 | 2.72 | 0.006∗∗∗ | 0.52 | 0.045∗∗ |
| Disease incidence | 2.38 | 2.27 | 0.91 | 0.37 | 0.10 | 0.41 |
| Hailstorm damage | 1.26 | 0.77 | 0.38 | 0.71 | 0.02 | 0.70 |
| Primary Nutrient deficiency | 5.12 | 6.19 | 1.35 | 0.18 | 0.17 | 0.19 |
| Micronutrient deficiency | 2.04 | 2.14 | 0.68 | 0.50 | 0.08 | 0.53 |
| Edge planting position | 1.75 | 2.40 | 0.41 | 0.68 | 0.06 | 0.66 |
| Plantation without pit | 2.31 | 2.68 | 0.72 | 0.47 | 0.08 | 0.44 |
| Intercropping | 1.41 | 1.72 | 0.28 | 0.78 | 0.04 | 0.80 |
| Poor packaging material | 3.40 | 5.91 | 0.70 | 0.48 | 0.09 | 0.33 |
Source: Field Survey, 2021
Distribution of rejuvenated mandarin trees according to FYM application.
| Variable | FYM application (Mean | Mean difference | t-value | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Less than 30 kg/plant/year (n = 22) | More than 30 kg/plant/year (n = 46) | ||||
| Rejuvenation (%) | 23.79 ± 25.15 | 38.15 ± 28.98 | -14.36 | -1.99∗∗ | 0.02 |
Source: Field Survey, 2021
Notes: ∗∗ indicates significant at 5% level.
Distribution of rejuvenated mandarin trees according to the irrigation facility.
| Variable | Irrigation facility (Mean | Mean difference | t-value | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rainfed (n = 13) | Irrigated (n = 55) | ||||
| Rejuvenation (%) | 15.47 ± 18.99 | 37.76 ± 28.73 | -22.29 | -2.66∗∗∗ | 0.005 |
Source: Field Survey, 2021
Notes: ∗∗∗ indicates significant at 1% level.
Distribution of rejuvenated mandarin trees according to pruning practice.
| Variable | Pruning practices (Mean | Mean difference | t-value | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No (n = 14) | Yes (n = 54) | ||||
| Rejuvenation (%) | 17.32 ± 27.27 | 37.70 ± 27.42 | -20.38 | -2.48∗∗∗ | 0.0078 |
Source: Field Survey, 2021
Notes: ∗∗∗ indicates significant at 1% level.
Distribution of rejuvenated mandarin trees according to use of Bordeaux mixture.
| Variable | Use of Bordeaux mixture (Mean | Mean difference | t-value | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No (n = 42) | Yes (n = 26) | ||||
| Rejuvenation (%) | 22.64 ± 22.74 | 51.04 ± 28.27 | -28.40 | -4.56∗∗∗ | 0.000 |
Source: Field Survey, 2021
Notes: ∗∗∗ indicates significant at 1% level.
Distribution of rejuvenated mandarin trees with insect management practices.
| Variable | Insect Management (Mean | Mean difference | t-value | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No (n = 34) | Yes (n = 34) | ||||
| Rejuvenation (%) | 25.44 ± 26.46 | 41.56 ± 28.40 | -16.12 | -2.42∗∗∗ | 0.0091 |
Source: Field Survey, 2021
Notes: ∗∗∗ indicates significant at 1% level.
Linear regression analysis of productivity of mandarin orchard with different management practices.
| R-squared = 0.5014 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| lnProductivity (MT/ha) | Coef. | Std. Err. | t value | P>|t| |
| North facing | -0.05 | 0.15 | -0.31 | 0.76 |
| FYM application | 0.59 | 0.22 | 2.71∗∗∗ | 0.008 |
| Chemical fertilizers | 0.39 | 0.18 | 2.12∗∗ | 0.03 |
| Micronutrient | -0.12 | 0.17 | -0.70 | 0.48 |
| Irrigation facility | 0.57 | 0.24 | 2.44∗∗ | 0.02 |
| Weeding frequency | 0.14 | 0.06 | 2.12∗∗ | 0.04 |
| Mulching | -0.047 | 0.19 | -0.19 | 0.85 |
| Pruning | -0.01 | 0.26 | -0.04 | 0.97 |
| Intercropping | 0.21 | 0.19 | 1.12 | 0.26 |
| Bordeaux paint | -0.26 | 0.20 | -1.30 | 0.19 |
| Bordeaux mixture | 0.33 | 0.18 | 1.80∗ | 0.08 |
| Insect management | -0.16 | 0.17 | -0.93 | 0.36 |
| Disease management | -0.01 | 0.20 | -0.03 | 0.97 |
Source: Field Survey, 2021
Notes: ∗∗∗, ∗∗, ∗ indicates significant at 1%, 5% and 10% level respectively.