Comparative assessment of drone and knapsack sprayers for pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera) management in chickpea (Cicer arietinum)

D N  KAMBREKAR; C P  MALLAPUR; P U  KRISHNARAJ; KARTIK  NIDAGUNDI; NAVEEN  V; ARUNA  J; SURESH R  JAMBAGI

doi:10.56093/ijas.v96i8.168231

Authors

D N KAMBREKAR University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, Karnataka 580 005, India
C P MALLAPUR University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, Karnataka 580 005, India
P U KRISHNARAJ University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, Karnataka 580 005, India
KARTIK NIDAGUNDI University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, Karnataka 580 005, India
NAVEEN V University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, Karnataka 580 005, India
ARUNA J University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, Karnataka 580 005, India
SURESH R JAMBAGI ICAR-National Bureau of Agricultural Insect Resources, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v96i8.168231

Keywords:

Drone, Natural enemies, Phytotoxicity, Precision agriculture

Abstract

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is an important pulse crop and its productivity is severely constrained by the gram pod borer [Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner)], one of the most destructive insect pests causing substantial yield losses. A field experiment was conducted during winter (rabi) season of 2022–23 at Main Agricultural Research Station, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, Karnataka using chlorantraniliprole 9.3% + lambda-cyhalothrin 4.6% zc (200 mL/ha) and emamectin benzoate 5% + lufenuron 40% wg (60 g/ha) applied through a drone (20 L/ha spray volume) and a knapsack sprayer (500 L/ha). The study evaluated the bioefficacy of drone-based ultra-low-volume (ULV) insecticide application in comparison with conventional knapsack spraying for the management of H. armigera and its effects on pod damage, grain yield, phytotoxicity and the larval parasitoid Campoletis chlorideae. Drone application significantly reduced larval populations throughout the observation period, resulting in lower pod damage (1.50–2.56%) and higher grain yield (14.20–16.10 q/ha) than conventional knapsack application (11.48–11.67% pod damage and 9.74–10.88 q/ha yield). No visible phytotoxic symptoms were observed, even at twice the recommended dose, while populations of C. chlorideae were only moderately affected following insecticide application. The superior performance of drone application was attributed to improved spray coverage and canopy penetration under ULV spraying. As this investigation was conducted during a single season at one location, further multi-location and multi-season validation is required before recommending large-scale adoption of UAV-based insecticide application in chickpea.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Badariprasad P R, Goudar S B, Narappa G and Pradeep B. 2020. Management of chickpea podborer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) with a novel new insecticide, broflanilide 30% SC (BAS 450 01 I 300 SC). Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies 8(2): 1806–10.

Chen Q, Zhang J, Zhang C, Zhou H, Jiang X, Yang F and Wang Y. 2024. CFD analysis and RBFNN-based optimisation of spraying system for a six-rotor unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) sprayer. Crop Protection 174: 106433. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2023.106433

DA&FW. 2022a. Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Use of Drone Application with Pesticides for Crop Protection and for Spraying Soil and Crop Nutrients in Agricultural, Forestry and Non-cropped Areas etc., pp. 1–36.

Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi.

DA&FW. 2022b. Office Memorandum on Interim Approval of Pesticide Formulations through Drone dtd 18-4-2022, pp. 1–18.

Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi, Government of India.

Dengeru Y, Ramasamy K, Allimuthu S, Balakrishnan S, Kumar A P M, Kannan B and Karuppasami K M. 2022. Study on spray deposition and drift characteristics of UAV agricultural sprayer for application of insecticide in redgram crop (Cajanus cajan L. Millsp.). Agronomy 12(12): 3196. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12123196

Gil J, Nadal S, Luna D, Moreno M T and De Haro A. 1996. Variability of some physicochemical characters in desi- and Kabuli chickpea types. Journal of Science, Food and Agriculture 71: 179–84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0010(199606)71:2<179::AID-JSFA566>3.3.CO;2-Z

Hafeez A, Husain M A, Singh S P, Chauhan A, Khan M T, Kumar N, Chauhan A and Soni S K. 2023. Implementation of drone technology for farm monitoring and pesticide spraying: A review. Information Processing in Agriculture 10(1): 192–203. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inpa.2022.02.002

Ibrikci H, Knewtson S and Grusa M. 2003. Chickpea leaves as a vegetable green for humans–evaluation of mineral composition.

Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 83: 945–50. DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.1427 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.1427

Kambrekar D N, Kulkarni K A, Giraddi R S, Kulkarni J H and Fakruddin B. 2009. Management of chickpea pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) through nuclear polyhedral virus isolates. Precision Agriculture 10: 450–7. DOI: 10.1007/ s11119-009-9115-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-009-9115-3

Kambrekar D N, Somanagouda G, Basavarajapp M P and Halagalimath S B. 2012. Effect of different dosages of emamectin benzoate 5 SG and indoxacarb 14.5 SC on pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera infesting chickpea. Legume Research 35(1): 13–7.

Krishna Japur R, Naveena and Hosamani A C. 2016. Bio-efficacy of emamectin benzoate 5 WG against pigeon pea pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hub.) under field condition in steppe climate of HK region. Journal of Environment and Bioscience 30(1): 165–7.

Lal S S. 1992. Scope and limitation of integrated pest management in chickpea. (In) Proceedings of National Symposium on New Frontiers in Pulses Research and Development, Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur, 10–12 November 1989, pp. 139–53.

Mallet J. 1989. The evolution of insecticide resistance: Have the insects won? Tree 4: 336–40. DOI: 10.1016/0169- 5347(89)90088-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(89)90088-8

MoCA. 2022. Gazette Notification of Drone Rules-2021, pp. 24–43. Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India.

Parmar R P, Singh S K and Singh M. 2021. Bio-efficacy of unmanned aerial vehicle-based spraying to manage pests. The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 91(9): 1373–77. https:// doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v91i9.116092 DOI: https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v91i9.116092

Prakash H T, Jagginavar S B and Mallappa B. 2021. Field evaluation of new molecule emamectin benzoate 5% + lufenuron 40% WG (Proclaim fit®) against pod borer Helicoverpa armigera and Marcua vitrata in pigeonpea. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies 9(1): 251–55.

Rao V S. 1986. Principles of Weed Science. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co., New Delhi.

Sachan J N and Katti G. 1994. Integrated pest management. (In) Proceedings of International Symposium on Pulses Research, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, 2–6 April 1994, pp. 23–30.

Sharma H C. 2005. Helicoverpa management. (In) Heliothis Management Emerging Trends and Strategies for Future Research, pp. 469. Sharma H C (Ed). Oxford and IBH Publishing, New Delhi.

Rani D S, Kumar S P, Venkatesh M N, Sri C H N S and Kumar K A. 2018. Bio-efficacy of insecticides against gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera in redgram. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies 6(2): 3173–76.

Wang S, Nuyttens D, Lu D, Van Beek J and Li X. 2023. Airflow characteristics of a spray UAV and its effect on spray droplet transportation. Engenharia Agrícola 43(6): e2023041. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4430-eng.agric.v43n6e20230041/2023

Wongsuk S, Qi P, Wang C, Zeng A, Sun F, Yu F, Zhao X and Xiongkui H. 2024. Spray performance and control efficacy against pests in paddy rice by UAV-based pesticide application: Effects of atomisation, UAV configuration and flight velocity. Pest Management Science 80: 2072–84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.7942