IPM in Groundnut: Current Scenario and

Abstract

Integrated pest management (IPM) has evolved and reinvented itself over the years. New tools have been added after thorough research, which are tailor-made for specific agro-climatic regions, seasons of crop cultivation, stages of crop, economics, and feasibility in adaptation of tools and for either individual or multiple pests. The IPM for groundnut is dynamic, as the crop is grown in several states experiencing vagaries of edapho-climatic factors. The overdependence on synthetic pesticides in pest control has resulted in resistance development in major pests, minor pests becoming major, and increased cost of crop protection. Subsistence farming of groundnut in resource poor soils has made IPM even more important for Indian agrarian community. IPM begins even before planting of crop and wherein selection of crop varieties and removal of crop residues/voluntary plants and preparation of land, addition of soil amendments/bioagents/pesticides, planting time, space, etc., are crucial. This effectively reduces the primary inoculums of pathogens, insect-pests, and nematodes. Emphasis should be given for monitoring of pest activity during the crop growth period. Trap crops and border rows, pheromones/sticky traps, light traps, etc., comes in handy to gauge the levels of infestation and time the application of bio-control agents. In-situ conservation of natural enemies of pests is both economical and 306ecologically safe. Host-plant resistance is exploited for managing several pests of groundnut; however, availability of quality seeds is a concern. Chemical pesticides should always be the last resort whenever pest populations cross economic threshold levels (ETLs). Choice of pesticides solely rests upon the users and, in this case, the growers; but, educating them about pesticide label claims is necessary. Some pests, like white grubs in Saurashtra region of Gujarat and Fusarium leaf blight/wilt in Rajasthan, are gaining importance in recent years, necessitating development of IPM tools. Post-harvest concerns due to bruchids and aflatoxin contamination remain unaltered; the gap between lab and land (including storage) should be bridged. In the future prospects of IPM section, several research thrust areas have been brought forward, such as quick, correct detection methods for pests, especially plant viruses; development of nano-formulations of pesticides and pheromones; novel biotechnological applications for imparting biotic stress resistance; and development of good agricultural practices for groundnut.