No file available
To read the file of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Non-Pesticidal Management of Pests: Status, Issues and Prospects - A Review, RULNR Working Paper No.22, CESS Working Paper No.130
... The contributions of manuring, crop rotation, intercropping, mulching with crop residues and fallowing to maintaining soil fertility, water retention, arrest of soil erosion, and controlling weeds, pests and diseases is well documented [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]; likewise, the significance of traditional agroforestry in supplying socioeconomic benefits, controlling soil erosion and adapting to climate change [18][19][20][21][22]. And, yet, indigenous technologies are in decline -whether as a consequence of their ineffectiveness, neglect by policy makers and researchers [3,6,23], or the short-term benefits of recently introduced technologies [24]. Assefa and Hans-Rudolf [1] also reported land scarcity, labour shortages and crop pattern changes as the factors in the loss of indigenous land management technologies. ...
Smallholder farmers in Ethiopia have long been using various indigenous land management practices. It appears from a survey of households , focus group discussions and key informant interviews in Farta Woreda, Northwestern Ethiopia, however that only a few indigenous techniques are widely practised. The use of some technologies has rapidly declined, whereas some others have totally disappeared. Reasons given include small land holdings, shortage of stock feed, prevalence of field-crop pests, late onset and early cessation of rainfall, too few oxen and other livestock, and engagement in non-farm livelihood options. Moreover, indigenous practices are neglected by agricultural extension that promotes introduced alternatives, sometimes coercively. Efforts should be made by research and extension programmes to preserve and use indigenous technologies.
... A positive correlation was determined by Hiremath et al. (1990) between disease severity and relative humidity. In this study a negative correlation of early blight with temperature was revealed which agree with the study conducted by Reddy (2013) who noticed positive correlation between disease incidence and high relative humidity and negative correlation with maximum temperature. It was described that the mean minimum temperature had no influence on the development of disease. ...
... Rice is the second highest pesticide-consuming crop (in terms of total quantity) in India (Kodandaram et al. 2013). The farmers apply pesticides indiscriminately to reduce crop losses, the main issue in agricultural development (Reddy 2013). The intensive use of chemical pesticides poses a great environmental threat to flora, fauna, human life, bird species (BirdLife 2008), and ground water globally. ...
Sitapur district in the Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) state of northern India has been observed to consume large amounts of WHO classified “extremely” and “highly hazardous” pesticides, in rice crop, posing significant health and environmental threats. Keeping in view this problem, integrated pest management (IPM) modules were synthesized for rice crop and then compared with non-IPM/farmer’s practice (NIPM). This study assisted in identifying pesticides with reduced risk to the environment. To measure and compare risks, environmental impact quotient (EIQ) has been used as a pesticide risk indicator model, between IPM and NIPM programs. Using this model, the field EIQ values (EIQ field use rating or EIQ-FUR), for 32 commonly used pesticides in the region, were evaluated based on dosage, frequency, and percent active ingredients present in the pesticide formulations. The results conclude that copper oxychloride (CuOCl2) (50 WP at 1.25 kg/ha) and mancozeb (75 WP at 1.25 kg/ha) were the most detrimental to arthropod parasitoids and were the highest contributors to environmental risk (13–16%), in rice crop. This is based on the comparison of total dosage and active ingredients of pesticides applied under IPM and NIPM, with the total field EIQ values. The IPM modules were observed to have least impact on natural enemies with 30–40% increase in population, while keeping the weed population below 10%. NIPM, on the other hand, had resulted in 20% reduction in crop yields, 50% reduction in biodiversity, and about 150% increase in weed population, relative to the control (untreated) rice fields. Moreover, NIPM practices had been observed to pose 56% greater risk as per the total field EIQ values (62 for IPM and 141 for NIPM). The observations concluded that the EIQ model is a useful tool and can be easily used by the pesticide managers for assessing the risk against NIPM.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.