Crop Protection 29 (2010) 267276

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Crop Protection
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cropro

Simulation of rice planthopper damage for developing pest management decision support tools
D.S. Yadav, Subhash Chander*
Division of Entomology, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110012, India

a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history: Received 19 May 2009 Received in revised form 30 September 2009 Accepted 7 October 2009 Keywords: Economic injury level Iso-loss curve Planthoppers Rice Simulation model

a b s t r a c t
Rice planthoppers damage on Pusa Basmati 1 cultivar was simulated with InfoCrop, a generic crop growth simulation model. The model was calibrated and validated with two experimental data sets on planthopper population and rice yield that were generated through differential insecticide application during the rainy season 2006 and 2007. Simulated yield and total dry matter (TDM) in various treatments over the two experiments were found to be proximal to the observed yields (R2 0.972, RMSE 4.61%) and TDM (R2 0.949, RMSE 3.25%), respectively. Likewise, the simulated yield and TDM losses were also respectively close to observed yield losses (R2 0.938, RMSE 13.53%) and TDM losses (R2 0.835, RMSE 19.12%), suggesting appropriate validation of planthopper damage mechanism on Pusa Basmati 1 rice. Economic injury levels (EILs) of planthoppers were simulated with two control expenditures involving two applications with each of monocrotophos and imidacloprid, and three market prices of Pusa Basamti 1 rice. The EIL exhibited a negative relationship with market value of produce but a positive one with expenditure on control measures. Simulated EILs were comparable to earlier established empirical EILs, indicating utility of simulation models for developing location specic EILs that may help in doing away with the use of blanket EILs. Iso-loss curves, devised through validated model, depicted combinations of crop age and planthopper population that resulted in similar yield losses. Both the EILs and iso-loss curves can be useful in monitoring planthopper populations and promoting judicious pesticide applications that would avoid unwarranted control expenditure and environmental contamination. The simulation models being based on detailed crop ecological and physiological processes and pest damage mechanism can thus aid in development of location-specic decision support tools and ensure precision in pest management decisions. 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is the principal staple food crop of humid and sub-humid Asia. In India, rice was grown on an area of 44.3 million hectares in different agro-climatic regions with a production of 94.1 million tonnes during 200708 (Anonymous, 2008). However, rice productivity of 3.01 t/ha in India is inferior to 6.26 t/ ha in China and 3.51 t/ha in Sri Lanka (Krishnaiah et al., 2008). Intensication of agriculture and monoculture of rice have increased the problems in rice cultivation including incidence of insect pests, diseases and weeds. The insect pest complex of the rice crop has undergone a drastic change during the last three decades following the green revolution (Chander et al., 2003; Mishra and Jena, 2007).

* Corresponding author. Tel./fax: 91 11 25842482. E-mail address: schander@iari.res.in (S. Chander). 0261-2194/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2009.10.005

Yield loss due to insect pests in rice in India has been estimated at 21 to 51% (Pasalu et al., 2004; Prakash et al., 2007). Among planthopper species found in India, the brown planthopper (BPH), Nilaparvata lugens (Stal) and the white-backed planthopper (WBPH), Sogatella furcifera (Horvath) are the most important ones infesting rice (Krishnaiah et al., 2008). The BPH emerged as a major pest of rice in India only after 1971 with initiation of cultivation of short-statured, high-yielding and nitrogen-responsive varieties in the deltas of South India. On the other hand, the WBPH became prominent during the 1990s with large scale adoption of resistant cultivars against the BPH, which provided a partially-free ecological niche to the WBPH. At high population densities of these pests, hopper burn is observed, which may cause up to 60% yield loss (Panda and Khush, 1995). The BPH also acts as a vector of Rice Grassy Stunt Virus (David, 2005). Proper management of rice planthoppers is essential for ensuring good rice harvests. The use of economic thresholds of insect pests can facilitate judicious application of insecticides and reduce both environmental pollution and the likelihood of

268

D.S. Yadav, S. Chander / Crop Protection 29 (2010) 267276

developing resistant pests (Archer and Bynum, 1992). Empirically based economic thresholds have been developed for rice planthoppers (Sujeetha et al., 2007; Krishnaiah et al., 2008). These empirical yield-infestation relationships are location specic and need to be established for each location (Pinnschmidt et al., 1995; Teng et al., 1998). A better approach is to use crop growth simulation models based on detailed crop physiological and ecological processes coupled with pest damage mechanisms to account for weather, soil, crop management and pests encountered at different locations (Teng et al., 1987; Chander et al., 2007). Crop models are holistic, knowledge-based tools that are generic in nature and can be used for local and global applications. Simulation model in agriculture facilitate quantitative understanding of the effects of dynamic climatic and edaphic factors, and agronomic management factors on crop growth and productivity. Together with other tools of systems approaches such as expert systems, databases, geographical information system (GIS) and remote sensing, these constitute a valuable tool of information technology that can facilitate integration of knowledge and its utilization by variety of stakeholders (Aggarwal et al., 2004). Several crop growth simulation models including CERES-Rice (Ritchie et al., 1986); MACROS, a generic crop growth model (Penning de Vries et al., 1989); ORYZA for rice (Kropff et al., 1994); WTGROS for wheat (Aggarwal et al., 1994); InfoCrop, a generic crop growth model parameterized for rice, wheat and other crops (Aggarwal et al., 2004) have been developed with a purpose of looking in to opportunities of improving crop production. The adoption of simulation modeling in pest management commenced in the late 1960s. Before this, most of the work in this area was done with empirical models. Great deal of work on modeling of crop-pest interactions was accomplished by coupling pest damage mechanisms to crop simulation models at physiological processes level (Pinnschmidt et al., 1995; Sperow and Lybecker, 1998; Teng et al., 1998). Damage mechanisms may be dened as plant physiological processes affected by the pest injury (Rabbinge and Rijsdijk, 1981; Boote et al., 1983; Aggarwal et al., 2004). Major types of pest damage mechanisms are classied as germination reduction, stand reduction, light stealing, assimilation rate reduction, assimilate sapping, tissue consumption and turgor reduction. The simulation models thus take in to consideration the physiological basis of pest damage that empirical models do not, making them useful in establishing location and weather-specic economic thresholds and increasing the efciency of eld experiments substantially (Nordh et al., 1988; Teng and Savary, 1992; Chander et al., 2007). Crop-pest models can also be used to generate iso-loss curves for pest monitoring and rationalizing pesticide use (Daryaei et al., 2003; Reji et al., 2008). Pest management research is required to derive practical tools for developing tactics and strategies for pest management, and simulation models help to derive such tools and decision models. In fact development, testing and evaluation of a simulation model are synonymous with application of systems approach in pest management (Teng and Savary, 1992). With this background, the present study was undertaken to simulate decision support tools viz., economic injury levels (EILs) and iso-loss curves for management of rice planthoppers. Simulated EILs were also compared with previously established empirical ones so as to assess utility of InfoCrop in devising location specic EILs. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Simulation of planthopper damage 2.1.1. Model description InfoCrop-rice model (Aggarwal et al., 2004, 2006) was used for simulating the effect of mixed populations of two planthopper

species viz., brown planthopper, Nilaparvata lugens (Stal) and white-backed planthopper, Sogatella furcifera (Horvath), on rice yield and biomass. It is a generic crop growth model that can simulate the effects of weather, soil, agronomic management, nitrogen, water and major pests on crop growth and yield. The model can be used for assessment of crop losses as it has been coupled with various pest damage mechanisms. Planthoppers were classied as assimilate sappers because they suck sap from stems and leaf sheaths. The damage mechanism of rice planthoppers was coupled to appropriate plant processes namely growth rate of leaves and stem reserves. The extent of yield loss due to planthoppers depended upon their numbers and crop growth stage. The effect of planthoppers on crop growth and yield was simulated by reducing weights of green leaves (RWLVG) and stem reserves (RWIR) based on their sucking rate from leaf sheaths (SUCKLV) and stems (SUCKST).

RWLVG GCROP FSH FLV SUCKLV

(1)

The GCROP, FSH and FLV correspond to net assimilates available for plant growth (kg/ha/day), fraction of GCROP allocated to shoot and fraction of FSH allocated to leaves. The model generated the value of GCROP from the values of radiation use efciency (RUE), intercepted photosynthetically active radiation (PARINT), leaf extinction coefcient (KDFMAX) and leaf area index (LAI) of the crop. The PARINT was taken from the weather le that contained daily data on minimum temperature, maximum temperature, irradiance, vapour pressure, wind speed and precipitation while the values of the RUE and the KDFMAX were used as 2.2 kg/MJ/day and 0.59, respectively (Aggarwal et al., 2004). Model derived the LAI from initial value of LAI, and leaf area growth rate (GLAI) that depended upon crop development stage and thermal time. The initial LAI was determined based on initial leaf weight (WLVI) and specic leaf area of the variety (SLAVAR). The WLVI in turn, was derived from seed rate that was used as 30 kg/ha and fraction of seed weight allocated to leaves at germination, being 50% in case of rice (Aggarwal et al., 2004). The value of SLAVAR was used as 0.0022 m2/kg. The allocation of assimilates increased the leaf weight while leaf death due to senescence and planthopper sucking reduced it.

RWIR GCROP FSH FST FSTRT SUCKST

(2)

The FST refers to fraction of FSH allocated to stems while FSTRT represents mobilisable fraction of stem weight. Assimilates sucked by planthoppers were deducted from weight of stem reserves and not from stem weight because a part of these reserves are often available for current growth in rice. The model generated the values of FSH, FST and FSTRT from development stage related partitioning coefcients for the rice crop provided in it (Aggarwal et al., 2004).

SUCKLV SUCKRT PPOSK SKINWT FRPOLV SUCKST SUCKRT PPOSK SKINWT FRPOST

(3) (4)

The daily rate of assimilate sucking from different plant parts (SUCKLV, SUCKST) depended upon sucking rate per unit insect weight per day (SUCKRT), weight of one insect (SKINWT), planthopper population per hectare (PPOSK) and fraction of pest population on plant stems (FRPOST) and leaf sheaths (FRPOLV). The SKINWT was used as 1.5 mg, which was derived as an average value based on weights of 3rd5th instar nymphs and adults of both the BPH and the WBPH. This value was similar to that reported by Sigsgaard (2007). Since planthopper population in the experiments comprised of nymphs and adults of both the BPH and the WBPH, the value of SUCKRT was derived as an average value

D.S. Yadav, S. Chander / Crop Protection 29 (2010) 267276

269

(0.9295E6 kg/mg insect weight/day) based on Sogawa (1994) data on the sucking rates of the BPH nymph (6.8E7 kg/mg insect weight/day), BPH adult (1.99E6 kg/mg insect weight/day), WBPH nymph (3.7E7 kg/mg insect weight/day) and WBPH adult (7.8E7 kg/mg insect weight/day). The FRPOST and the FRPOLV were used as parameters with their respective values being 0.3 and 0.7 because planthoppers fed on basal portion of rice plant with their 70% population being on plant stems and 30% on leaf bases. The planthoppers along with carbohydrates also drain the plants of their nitrogen (amino acid). Their effect on crop nitrogen was modelled by reducing the rate of available nitrogen in leaves (NLV) and stems (NST) depending upon nitrogen sucking rate (SUKNLV and SUKNST) of planthoppers on respective plant parts. The NLV depends upon initial nitrogen content of leaves (NLVI), rate of nitrogen availability to leaves (NALV) and SUKNLV. Similarly, NST depends on rate of nitrogen availability to stems (NAST) and SUKNST.

and coefcients that have been derived through experiments or taken from literature. In case, a user does not have specic value of a parameter, the model can still function with its generic value. Further, the model is comprised of interlinked programme statements of various crop physiological and ecological processes. It generates values of various variables based on either user supplied or generic values of crop coefcients and parameters, and user supplied weather, crop phenology, crop management and pest data. Nitrogen sucking rate per unit insect weight per day (SUKNRT) was required as an input in the model. As Rossing et al. (1989) found the amount of nitrogen sapped by pests to be 2% of the carbohydrate amount removed from plants; the SUKNRT was used as a parameter with its value being 2% of the SUCKRT. 2.1.2. Model calibration and validation Two eld experiments (referred to as experiment 1 and experiment 2 henceforth) were conducted to quantify plant hopper damage mechanism on a susceptible variety, Pusa Basmati 1 during the rainy season of 2006 and 2007 at the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi (28.66 N, 77.15 E). A nursery was sown on 20 and 22 June during the two years, respectively. Transplanting was done with 32-day-old seedlings each year with 3 seedlings/hill in 4 2.5 m plots at 20 15 cm row to row and plant to plant spacing, respectively. Fertilizers, N, P2O5 and K2O were applied at the recommended dose of 120:60:40 kg/ha in the form of urea, single super phosphate and muriate of potash, respectively. The experiments comprised of seven insecticide treatments along with an untreated control (Tables 1 and 2), which were replicated three times in a randomized block design. Monocrotophos 36 SL @ 500 g a.i./ha (Anonymous, 2002) was applied at different frequency and intervals to create differential planthopper population levels in the treatments. Rice leaf folder, Cnaphalocrosis medinalis (Guenee) also appeared in the crop and its incidence was checked mechanically in the experimental plots regularly. The mixed counts of the planthoppers were recorded on randomly selected ve hills in each plot at weekly intervals from 50 days after transplanting (DAT) until crop maturity. The insect counts were subjected to square root transformation before statistical analysis. The LAI measurements in the eld were done at 30, 50 and 70 DAT with a canopy analyzer during evening hours to avoid direct sunlight. For calibrating the canopy analyzer, leaf area of a 1 1 m plot was recorded with the canopy analyzer and subsequently leaf area of its one-tenth representative sample was measured through leaf area meter in the laboratory so as to estimate leaf area of the entire plot. The ratio of leaf area meter value and canopy analyzer

NLV NLVI NALV SUKNLV SUKNLV SUKNRT PPOSK SKINWT FRPOLV NST NAST SUKNST SUKNST SUKNRT PPOSK SKINWT FRPOST

(5) (6) (7) (8)

The model generated the NLVI from values of the WLVI and potential nitrogen concentration of leaves (NMAXL); the NMAXL having been provided in the model as a function of crop development stage ranging from 6% at germination to 1.5% towards crop maturity. Likewise, the model derived the NALV based on nitrogen demand of leaves (NDEMLV) and actual nitrogen uptake by crop (NUPTKT) compared to its nitrogen demand (NDEMCP). Similarly, the value of the NAST was determined based on nitrogen demand of stems (NDEMST) and NUPTKT compared to NDEMCP. The model derived the NDEMCP based on potential nitrogen concentration of different plant parts while the NDEMLV or NDEMST was calculated as the difference of potential nitrogen concentration in plant parts and actual nitrogen content present in them. The NUPTKT depended upon NDEMCP, phenological stage, soil nitrogen availability, transpiration, rooting depth and soil water status. Amount of nitrogen and irrigation water applied at different crop stages was provided as inputs in the model. Regarding derivation of various inputs, it can be stated that InfoCrop contains generic values of various crop growth parameters

Table 1 Planthoppers population in different treatments of the eld experiment 1 conducted with Pusa Basmati 1 rice during rainy season 2006 for quantication of planthopper damage. Treatment/Insecticide application at Meane planthopper counts/hill at crop ages (DAT) 58 T1-60 DATf T2-70 DAT T3-80 DAT T4-90 DAT T5-60 & 80 DAT T6-70 & 90 DAT T7-60, 70, 80 & 90 DAT (Insect-free crop) T8-Untreated control S.E.m C.D.g (P< 0.05)
f g h i e

Yield (kg/ha) 85 25.1h (5.1) 27.4h (5.3) 0.4g (1.2) 57.3i(7.6) 0.1f (1.0) 15.7g(4.1) 0.2fg (1.1) 53.7i(7.4) (0.19) (0.40) 92 8.9g (3.1) 17.6h (4.3) 0.1f (1.0) 0.1f (1.1) 0f (1.0) 0f (1.0) 0f (1.0) 19.2h (4.5) (0.22) (0.47) 99 4.5g (2.3) 10.1h (3.3) 1.2f (1.4) 2.0f (1.7) 1.5f (1.5) 0.5f (1.2) 0.5f (1.2) 6.9gh (2.8) (0.26) (0.57) 106 1.8 1.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.9 0.1 3.7 NS (1.6) (1.5) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2) (1.4) (1.1) (2.1) 2308.0fg 2398.0fg 2864.7gh 2614.3fgh 3278.7hi 3189.3hi 3567.2i 2057.3f 290.8 623.8

66 (4.5)i (4.0) (4.2) (3.9) (3.9) (4.4) (4.2) (4.3) 3.3f (2.1) 21.2g (4.7) 23.3g (4.9) 18.1g (4.3) 3.9f (2.2) 25.3g (5.1) 3.5f (2.1) 24.0g (5.0) (0.42) (0.90)

74 18.7h (4.4) 4.7g (2.4) 29.0i (5.5) 27.1i (5.3) 18.0h (4.3) 4.9g (2.4) 1.5f (1.5) 31.1i (5.6) (0.37) (0.79)

79 20.8g(4.7) 19.3g (4.5) 41.0i (6.5) 42.5i(6.6) 32.0h (5.7) 8.6f (3.1) 5.7f (2.6) 40.1i (6.4) (0.27) (0.57)

19.2 15.1 16.7 14.1 14.5 18.3 16.9 18.0 NSh

DAT Days after transplanting. C.D. critical difference. NS Non signicant. () Data in parentheses are square root transformed values. Planthopper counts with same superscript do not differ signicantly.

270

D.S. Yadav, S. Chander / Crop Protection 29 (2010) 267276

Table 2 Planthoppers population in different treatments of the eld experiment 2 conducted with Pusa Basmati 1 rice during rainy season 2007 for quantication of planthopper damage. Treatment/Insecticide application at Meane planthopper counts/hill at crop ages (DAT) 57 T1-60 DATf T2-70 DAT T3-80 DAT T4-90 DAT T5-60 & 80 DAT T6-70 & 90 DAT T7-60, 70, 80 & 90 DAT (Insect-free crop) T8-Untreated control S.E.m C.D.g (P < 0.05)
f g h i e

Yield (kg/ha) 85 12.1g (3.6) 12.5g (3.6) 0.1f (1.0) 16.5gh (4.2) 0.1f (1.0) 0.4f (1.2) 0.1f (1.1) 17.4h (4.3) (0.29) (0.63) 96 8.2g (3.0) 7.2g (2.8) 0f (1.0) 0.1f (1.1) 0f (1.0) 0.1f (1.1) 0f (1.0) 8.7g (3.1) (0.22) (0.48) 101 2.4g (1.8) 4.9h (2.4) 0f (1.0) 0f (1.0) 0f (1.0) 0f (1.0) 0f (1.0) 2.1g (1.8) (0.09) (0.20) 108 0.4 (1.2) 0.9 (1.4) 0 (1.0) 0 (1.0) 0.1 (1.1) 0 (1.0) 0 (1.0) 0 (1.6) NS 4053.3f 3989.3f 4629.3gh 4128.0fg 4842.7h 4981.3h 5045.3h 3760.0f 267.9 574.7

64 0f (1.0) 7.1g (2.8) 5.1g (2.4) 5.8g (2.6) 0f (1.0) 5.9g (2.6) 0f (1.0) 6.7g (2.7) (0.29) (0.62)

71 3.1g (2.0) 0f (1.0) 9.5h (3.2) 10.1h (3.3) 0.2f (1.1) 0f (1.0) 0f (1.0) 9.1h (3.1) (0.25) (0.54)

78 8.6h (3.1) 2.4g (1.8) 10.8h (3.4) 11.9h (3.6) 0.5f (1.2) 0.1f (1.1) 0.4fg (1.2) 11.2h (3.4) (0.31) (0.67)

2.0 (1.7)i 2.2 (1.8) 1.9 (1.7) 1.5 (1.6) 2.3 (1.8) 2.4 (1.8) 1.8 (1.7) 2.1 (1.8) NSh

DAT Days after transplanting. C.D. critical difference. NS Non signicant. () Data in parentheses are square root transformed values. Planthopper counts with same superscript do not differ signicantly.

value was used as a correction factor for the canopy analyzer measurements. At harvest, total fresh biomass of each plot excluding roots was weighed and a 500 g sample was oven dried at 70  C for 72 h to determine the dry weight of biomass.

TDM kg Weight of oven dried sample g=500g Fresh biomass weight kg

Discrepancies in simulated biomass during middle growth stages were accounted for by calibrating the InfoCrop for the LAI of the insect-free crop. Total biomass was not estimated during growing season as it required destructive sampling from experimental treatments and also because extrapolation of biomass of a few hills to hectare basis leads to overestimation. However, biomass in different plots (4 2.5 m) at harvest was extrapolated to hectare basis as the model simulated biomass on hectare basis. Similarly, a 100 g grain sample from each plot was oven dried and the yield on a dry basis was obtained.

Yield kg Weight of oven dried sample g=100 g Fresh grain weight kg

The yield (dry weight basis) and the TDM/plot were converted to yield and TDM on hectare basis. Loss in yield and TDM loss was also calculated for different treatments.

InfoCrop was calibrated for crop phenology, total dry matter (TDM), yield and planthopper damage mechanism. Crop phenology was calibrated by matching the simulated time of owering and physiological maturity with their corresponding observed values in the experiment 1 by adjusting the required thermal time for owering (TTVG) and physiological maturity (TTGF). InfoCrop was calibrated for rice growth and yield with TDM and yield data, respectively, from the insect-free crop (T7). The crop in this treatment was kept free of planthoppers by regular pesticide application at 10-day interval. Various model parameters and coefcients were calibrated during calibration process (Table 3). The model was also calibrated for rice planthopper damage mechanism with the crop yield and planthopper population of the untreated control (T8). The sap sucking rate (SUCKRT) of planthoppers, nitrogen sucking rate (SUKNRT) and weight of an insect (SKINWT) were calibrated to be 0.9295E6 kg/mg insect weight/day, 1.8590E8 kg/mg insect weight/day and 1.5 mg, respectively. The yield, TDM and planthopper population data of the rest of the treatments (T1 T6) in the experiment 1 and that of all the treatments in the experiment 2 were used for the validation of the rice planthopper damage mechanism. 2.2. Simulation of economic injury levels The validated InfoCrop model was run from no infestation to pest incidence up to 26 hoppers/hill at one insect interval with New Delhi weather of 2007 at each of 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 and 80 DAT. The economic injury level was calculated by comparing monetary value of yield loss due to planthopper injury with control expenditure. The EILs were determined with three market prices of Pusa Basmati 1, Indian Rs.15, 20 and 25/kg, and two control expenditures

Yield or TDM loss % A B=A 100

A refers to yield/TDM of insect-free crop and B to yield/TDM of infested crop.

Table 3 Values of different parameters and coefcients obtained for Pusa Basmati 1 rice during calibration of InfoCrop model. Parameter/coefcient TTGERM TTGF TTVG RGRPOT SLAVAR RUEMAX KDFMAX GNOCF GFRVAR POTGWT SKINWT SUCKRT SUKNRT Description Degree days for germination Degree days for grain lling Degree days for vegetative growth Potential leaf growth rate Specic leaf area Maximum radiation use efciency Leaf extinction coefcient Grain number per kg dry matter Grain lling rate Potential grain weight Weight of one planthopper Sap sucking rate Nitrogen sucking rate Value 50 degree days (DD) 550 DD 1950 DD 0.0091/day 0.0022 m2/kg 2.2 kg/MJ/day 0.59 45000 grains/kg 2 mg/day 22 mg 1.5 mg 0.9295E6 kg/mg insect weight/day 1.8590E8 kg/mg insect weight/day

D.S. Yadav, S. Chander / Crop Protection 29 (2010) 267276

271

involving Rs. 1400 for two sprays of monocrotophos 36 SL @500 g a.i./ha that were found be optimum against the planthoppers in the present study and Rs. 1064 for two application of imidacloprid 17.8 SL (Anonymous, 2002; Atwal and Dhaliwal, 2002). 2.3. Formulation of iso-loss curves The validated model was run from no infestation to planthopper incidence up to 60 hoppers/hill at one insect interval at each of 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 and 80 DAT with New Delhi weather of 2007. Iso-loss curves were then formulated by plotting combinations of the pest incidence and crop age that caused same yield loss. 3. Results and discussion 3.1. Model calibration and validation The brown planthopper (BPH), Nilaparvata lugens (Stal) and the white backed planthopper (WBPH), Sogatella furcifera (Horvath), appeared as mixed population on the crop from 40106 and 51108 days after transplanting (DAT) in the experiment 1 and the experiment 2, respectively. The WBPH dominated the hopper population until 90 DAT but the BPH was the dominant species thereafter. The peak planthopper incidence was observed at 85 DAT in both the experiments. In North India where New Delhi is situated, the WBPH has been observed to be active from May in the paddy nursery but its population became high in August-September while the BPH attained high population in September-October (Pathak and Khan, 1994; Atwal and Dhaliwal, 2002). Different treatments, consisting of insecticidal application (monocrotophos 36 WSC) at different frequency and intervals, created differential planthopper population levels (Tables 1 and 2). In both the experiments, the highest planthopper population was observed in untreated control (T8), which had the lowest grain yield of 2057 and 3760 kg/ha during 2006 and 2007, respectively. On the contrary, the lowest population observed in the insect-free crop (T7) with four sprays of monocrotophos at regular intervals, resulted in the highest yield of 3567 kg/ha during 2006 and 5045 kg/ha during 2007. Variable planthopper population levels in different treatments thus led to variability in the crop yield. The pest population levels were lower in the experiment 2 compared to the experiment 1 perhaps due to differences in the intensity of mortality factors during the two years. Higher pest population coupled with longer duration of pest activity in the experiment 1 was responsible for lower crop yield compared to the experiment 2. Crop yield with single insecticidal application did not differ signicantly from that in the untreated control in the experiment 1 as well as in the experiment 2. On the other hand, the yield with two insecticidal applications did not vary signicantly from that with four insecticidal applications (Tables 1 and 2). Two sprays with monocrotophos 36 SL @ 500 g a.i./ha at 60 and 80 DAT were thus found to be optimum for protecting the crop against the planthoppers under New Delhi conditions. The model was calibrated for crop phenology, leaf area, yield and dry matter, and pest damage mechanism. Simulated and observed days to 50% owering were very close, respectively being 73 vs. 74 in the experiment 1, and 72 vs. 68 in the experiment 2. Likewise, simulated and observed days to physiological crop maturity were also reasonably close, their corresponding values being 107 and 110 in the experiment 1 and 115 and 118 the experiment 2. The model was thus deemed to be appropriately calibrated for crop phenology. The values of different parameters obtained during the calibration of InfoCrop model are presented in Table 3. In the insect-free crop (T7) in experiment 1, used for calibration of LAI, crop yield and biomass, the simulated yield showed only 2.5% variation over the

observed yield while simulated TDM differed only by 1.1% from the observed one. Likewise, simulated and observed LAI values were found to be very close; these respectively being 3.03 and 2.89 m2/m2 at 30 DAT, 4.47 and 4.62 at 50 DAT, and 2.0 and 2.15 at 70 DAT. The model was therefore determined to be calibrated satisfactorily for crop growth, yield and dry matter of Pusa Basmati 1. In the untreated control (T8), used for calibration of planthopper damage mechanism, the simulated yield varied by 3.5% over its observed counterpart while the simulated TDM showed only 1.6% variation over the observed TDM, which indicated appropriate calibration of the planthopper damage mechanism also on rice variety, Pusa Basmati 1. In the treatments, T1T6 of experiment 1, used for validation of hopper damage mechanism, the simulated and the observed yields in respective treatments were close to each other varying only by 3.5 to 11.7 % (Fig. 1A) while simulated and observed TDM in respective treatments varied only by 1.4 to 9.9 % (Fig. 1B), suggesting proper validation of planthopper damage mechanism. Likewise, the simulated and the observed yields in respective treatments in experiment 2 were in proximity differing only by 2.3 to 8.0 % (Fig. 1C) whereas simulated and observed TDM deviated only by 0.3 to 8.6 % (Fig. 1D), thus endorsing validation of planthopper damage mechanisms on Pusa Basmati 1. Overall, the simulated and the observed yields (Fig. 1E, R2 0.972, RMSE 4.61%) as well as the simulated and the observed TDM (Fig. 1F, R2 0.949, RMSE 3.25%) over the two experiments were very close. Likewise, the simulated and the observed yield losses (Fig. 2 A and C; Fig. 3 A, C and E, R2 0.938, RMSE 13.53%), and the simulated and the observed TDM losses (Fig. 2B and D; Fig. 3B, D and F, R2 0.835, RMSE 19.12%) over the two experiments were also acceptably close. The validation of the InfoCrop supports the hypothesis that rice planthoppers act only as assimilate sappers and not also as light stealers and as a result of their feeding fewer carbohydrates remain available for plant growth (Rubia and de Vries, 1990; Sogawa, 1994). Other sucking pests like aphids act both as assimilate sappers as well as light stealers due to development of sooty mould on their honey dew that interferes with plant photosynthesis. However, rice planthoppers excreted honey dew on plant stems and leaf sheaths that did not interfere with plant photosynthetic activity and therefore, they acted only as assimilate sappers. The model overestimated the yield and the TDM in some treatments while it was underestimated in others. Some difference in simulated and observed values is generally found because model simulates a system in a simplied manner and it might not account for all the interactions among system variables. In view of the complexity of crop growth processes, variations up to around 15% in simulated results are deemed to be acceptable from a practical view point and the variation of InfoCrop was found to be well within this range. InfoCrop has been used for simulating damage effects of rice leaf folder, Cnaphalocrosis medinalis Guenee (Satish et al., 2007), rice yellow stem borer, Scirpophaga incertulas (Reji et al., 2008) and Russian wheat aphid, Diuraphis noxia (Mordvilko) in winter wheat (Chander et al., 2006). Pinnschmidt et al. (1995) developed CERES-rice and used it for simulating damage due to multiple pest species in rice. Willocquet (1999) found a simulation model to be suitable for simulating yield losses due to rice pests under contrasting production systems of South Asia and South East Asia. Simulation of the effect of pest infestations on different crop cultivars grown in different soil types and sites with different management practices requires the use of physiological crop growth simulation models (Teng et al., 1987). 3.2. Simulation of economic injury levels The EIL changed with the crop age, market prices of the crop produce and control expenditure (Fig. 4A, B, C). It was found to have

272

D.S. Yadav, S. Chander / Crop Protection 29 (2010) 267276

4500 4000 Simulated yield (kg/ha) 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 1000 1:1 line

Experiment 1 Simulated TDM (kg/ha)

10500

B
10000 9500 9000 8500 8000 7500

Experiment 1 y = 0.893x + 944.62 R2 = 0.884 RMSE=2.38%

y = 0.947x + 142.42 R2 = 0.91 RMSE=5.39%

1:1 line 2000 3000 4000 5000 7000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000

Observed yield (kg/ha) 6000 14000

Observed TDM (kg/ha)

C
Simulated yield (kg/ha)
5500 5000 4500 4000 1:1 line 3500 3000

Experiment 2 Simulated TDM (kg/ha) y = 1.082x - 448.61 R2 = 0.915 RMSE=4.09% 13000 12000 11000 10000

Experiment 2 1:1line

y = 0.881x + 1119.7 R2 = 0.833 RMSE=3.66%

3000

4000

5000

6000

9000 9000

10000

11000

12000

13000

14000

Observed yield (kg/ha)

6000 5500 14000

Observed TDM (kg/ha)

Experiment 1 & 2 Simulated TDM (kg/ha) 1:1 line y = 0.967x + 73.857 R2 = 0.972 RMSE=4.61% 13000 12000 11000 10000 9000 8000

Experiment 1 & 2 1:1 line y = 0.904x + 863.52 R2 = 0.949 RMSE=3.25%

simulated yield (kg/ha)

5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1500

2500

3500

4500

5500

6500

7000 7000

9000

11000

13000

15000

Observed yield (kg/ha)

Observed TDM (kg/ha)

Fig. 1. Relation between observed and simulated yield and total dry matter of Pusa Basmati 1 rice in the eld experiments.

a negative relationship with market price of the basmati paddy because at higher market value of produce even low planthopper populations would cause an economic loss. On the contrary, the EIL exhibited positive relationship with control expenditure because with increasing expenditure, more damage is required to justify the application of management measures. The EILs were found to be the lowest at 30 and 80 DAT, which depicted higher susceptibility of the crop to the planthoppers at these stages where fewer insects could inict economic damage. At 30 DAT, the crop was still in an

initial growth stage and thus more vulnerable to the pest damage while at 80 DAT being in an advanced development stage had no scope for damage compensation. In the present study, with two control expenditures and three market prices of the produce, the simulated EILs ranged from 3 to18 planthoppers/hill while these have been found to vary from 5 to 20 insects at various crop growth stages across India (Singh and Dhaliwal, 1994; Dhaliwal and Arora, 2006; Krishnaiah et al., 2008). The simulated EILs were thus observed to be more or less comparable to the EILs established

D.S. Yadav, S. Chander / Crop Protection 29 (2010) 267276

273

45 40 35 Yield loss (%) TDM loss (%) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T8 Treatments 35 observed simulated

25

Experiment 1 20

Experiment 1

15

10

Observed Simulated T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T8

0 Treatments 25

C
30 25 Yield loss (%)

Experiment 2 20

Experiment 2

TDM loss (%)

20 15 10 5 0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T8 Treatments Observed Simulated

15

10

Observed Simulated

0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T8 Treatments

Fig. 2. Observed and simulated loss in yield and total dry matter of Pusa Basamti 1 rice due to planthopper incidence in different experimental treatments.

earlier. The EIL is a highly dynamic entity that may differ among geographic locations, plant growth stages, control expenditures and market prices (Girma et al., 1993; Archer, 1994). Models have been used for simulating EILs of D. noxia in winter wheat (Chander et al., 2006), C. medinalis (Satish et al., 2007) and S. incertulas (Reji et al., 2008) in rice, and bean leaf beetle in soybean (Nordh et al., 1988). Simulation models have also been used to design strategies for insecticide use (Heong and Limcangco, 1990). In the absence of location-specic empirical EILs, blanket thresholds are generally practiced, which are not technically sound (Pinnschmidt et al., 1995). However, the simulation models based on crop physiological and ecological processes can account for changes in weather, soil, crop management practices and pest situations at different locations (Teng et al., 1987). These models can facilitate development of location specic EILs (Teng and Savary, 1992; Nordh et al., 1988) to ensure an optimal control of pests, prevent producers unnecessary expenditure and conserve the environment (Archer and Bynum, 1992). 3.3. Formulation of iso-loss curves Iso-loss curves depicted various combinations of pest population and crop age that resulted in the same yield loss (Fig. 4D).

These curves represented 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6% yield loss, which was inicted by different planthopper population levels at various crop stages, e.g. uppermost curve showed that 6% yield loss occurred with 55 planthoppers at 30 DAT and only with 25 planthoppers at 80 DAT. These crop loss data were generated by simulating the effect of a range of planthopper population on crop yield at each of the 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 and 80 DAT. Like EILs, the iso-loss curves also reected higher crop susceptibility to planthoppers at 30 and 80 DAT than other crop ages. These curves can be used for pest monitoring and based on whether yield loss inicted by pest population at a crop stage is economic, can be used for deciding need for management intervention (Teng and Savary, 1992; Daryaei et al., 2003; Reji et al., 2008). InfoCrop facilitated assessment of the effect of a wide range of planthopper population levels on rice growth and yield and yield loss data generated, could be used to compute dynamic EILs of planthoppers. It could have not been so easy to manipulate planthopper population in eld experiments due to limitation of number of treatments and other resource constraints. Therefore, a validated InfoCrop proved to be a valuable tool in exploring the effect of a large number of pest scenarios on crop growth and yield, and it helped in enhancing efciency of eld research.

274

D.S. Yadav, S. Chander / Crop Protection 29 (2010) 267276

50 45 Simulated yield loss (%) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 5 15 25 35 45 55 1:1 line

30

Experiment 1

B
Simulated TDM loss (%)
25

Experiment 1 y = 0.804x + 3.339 R2 = 0.853 RMSE = 18.29%

y = 0.909 + 3.099 R2 = 0.955 RMSE=10.78%

20

15

10 1:1 line 5 5 10 15 20 25 30

Observed yield loss (%) 40 35 Simulated yield loss (%) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 10 20 30 40 Observed yield loss (%) 30 30

Observed TDM loss (%)

Experiment 2

D
Simulated TDM loss (%)
25 20 15 10 5 0 0

Experiment 2 1:1 line y = 0.893x + 1.076 R2 = 0.847 RMSE=19.84%

y = 1.056 + 0.096 R2 = 0.937 RMSE=18.45% 1:1 line

10

20

30

Observed TDM loss (%)

50 45 Simulated yield loss (%) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 10 20 30 40 Observed yield loss (%) 50 1:1 line

Experiment 1 & 2 y = 0.966x + 1.724 R2 = 0.938 RMSE=13.53% Simulated TDM loss (%) 25 20 15 10 5

Experiment 1 & 2 y = 0.853x + 2.166 R2 = 0.835 RMSE=19.12%

1:1 line 0 0 10 20 30 Observed TDM loss (%)

Fig. 3. Relation between observed and simulated loss in yield and total dry matter of Pusa Basmati 1 rice due to planthopper incidence in the eld experiments.

D.S. Yadav, S. Chander / Crop Protection 29 (2010) 267276

275

16

20

A
14 No. of planthoppers/hill 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 30

Market price of produce & EIL 18 Control expenditure Rs. 1064 16

Market price of produce & EIL Control expenditure Rs. 1400

No. of Planthoppers/hill

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Rs.15/kg Rs.20/kg Rs.25/kg

Rs.15/kg Rs.20/kg Rs.25/kg 40 50 60 70 80

30

40

50

60

70

80

Crop age (Days after transplanting) 16 70

Crop age (Days after Transplanting)

C
14 No. of planthoppers/hill 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 30

Control expenditure & EIL No. of planthoppers/hill

60 50 40 30 20 10

Iso-loss curves

Market price of produce Rs. 20/kg

Imidacloprid (Rs. 1064) Monocrotophos (Rs. 1400)

0 30 40 50 60 70 80

Crop age (Days after transplanting) 40 50 60 70 80 Crop age (days after transplanting) 1% 4% 2% 5% 3% 6%

Fig. 4. Simulated economic injury levels and iso-loss curves for rice planthopper damage on Pusa Basmati 1 rice.

In view of the application of crop growth simulation models in pest management, there is a need to promote their use for devising location-specic decision support tools. Acknowledgement Authors are thankful to the Head, Division of Entomology and the Dean, Post Graduate School, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India for providing necessary facilities to undertake this work. References
Aggarwal, P.K., Kalra, N., Chander, S., Pathak, H., 2004. InfoCrop: A Generic Simulation Model for Annual Crops in Tropical Environments. Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, India, 132 pp. Aggarwal, P.K., Kalra, N., Chander, S., Pathak, H., 2006. InfoCrop: a dynamic simulation model for the assessment of crop yields, losses due to pests, and environmental impact of agro-ecosystems in tropical environments. 1. Model description. Agric. Syst. 89 (1), 125.

Aggarwal, P.K., Kalra, N., Singh, A.K., Sinha, S.K., 1994. Analyzing the limitation set by climatic factors, genotype, water and nitrogen availability on productivity of wheat 1. The model documentation, parameterization and validation. Field Crops Res. 38, 7391. Anonymous, 2002. Integrated Pest Management in Rice. Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage. Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India, Faridabad, 99 pp. Anonymous, 2008. Economic Survey 200708. Economic Division, Ministry of Finance. Govt. of India, New Delhi. Archer, T.L., 1994. Economic injury levels and chemical control of the Russian wheat aphid. In: Archer, T.L., Kroening, M.K., Simmons, C.L. (Eds.), Proc. Sixth Russian Wheat Aphid Workshop. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA, pp. 97106. Archer, T.L., Bynum Jr., E.D., 1992. Economic injury level for the Russian wheat aphid on dryland winter wheat. J. Econ. Entomol. 85, 987992. Atwal, A.S., Dhaliwal, G.S., 2002. Agricultural Pests of South Asia and their Management. Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi, India, 529 pp. Boote, K.J., Jones, J.W., Mishoe, J.W., Berger, R.D., 1983. Coupling pests to crop growth simulators to predict yield reductions. Phytopathol 73, 15811587. Chander, S., Aggarwal, P.K., Kalra, N., Swaruparani, D.N., 2003. Changes in pest proles in rice-wheat cropping system in Indo-gangetic plains. Annals Plant Prot. Sci. 11 (2), 258263. Chander, S., Ahuja, L.R., Peairs, F.B., Aggarwal, P.K., Kalra, N., 2006. Modeling the effect of Russian wheat aphid, Diuraphis noxia (Mordvilko) and weeds in winter wheat as guide to management. Agric. Syst. 88 (23), 494513.

276

D.S. Yadav, S. Chander / Crop Protection 29 (2010) 267276 Reji, G., Chander, S., Aggarwal, P.K., 2008. Simulating rice stem borer, Scirpophaga incertulas Wlk., damage for developing decision support tools. Crop Prot. 27 (8), 11941199. Ritchie, J.T., Alocijia, E.C., Uehara, G., 1986. IBSNAT/CERES rice model. Agrotechnol. Transfer 3, 15. Rossing, W.A.H., Groot, J.J.R., van Roermund, H.J.W., 1989. Simulation of aphid damage in winter wheat: a case study. In: Rabbinge, R., Ward, S.A., van Laar, H.H. (Eds.), Simulation and Systems Management in Crop Protection. Pudoc, Wageningen, pp. 240261. Rubia, E.G., de Vries, F.W.T.P., 1990. Simulation of rice yield reduction caused by stem borer. Int. Rice Res. Newslett. 11 (1), 34. Satish, D., Chander, S., Reji, G., 2007. Simulation of economic injury levels for leaf folder (Cnaphalocrocis medinalis Guenee) on rice (Oryza sativa L.). J. Scientif. Indust. Res. 66, 905911. Sigsgaard, L., 2007. Early season natural control of the brown planthopper, Nilaparvata lugens: the contribution and interaction of two spider species and a predatory bug. Bull. Entomol. Res. 97, 533544. Singh, J., Dhaliwal, G.S., 1994. Insect pest management in rice: A perspective. In: Dhaliwal, G.S., Arora, R. (Eds.), Trends in Agricultural Insect Pest Management. Commonwealth Publishers, New Delhi, India. Sogawa, K., 1994. Damage mechanisms of brown planthopper infestation: modelling approaches under a paradigm shift in pest management. In: Elings, A., Rubia, E.G. (Eds.), SARP Research Proc. Analysis of Damage Mechanisms by Pests and Diseases and their Effects on Rice Yield. DLO-Research Institute for Agrobiology and Soil Fertility. Wageningen and IRRI, Los Banos, Philippines, pp. 135154. Sperow, M., Lybecker, D.W., 1998. Modeling the alfalfa stem nematode in irrigated alfalfa. Agric. Syst. 58, 555570. Sujeetha, J., Venugopal, M.S., Muthukrishnan, N., 2007. Calculation of the economic threshold level and economic injury level for the application of botanicals against rice plant hopper, Nilaparvata lugens. Res. Crops 8 (1), 229231. Teng, P.S., Batchelor, W.D., Pinnschmidt, H.O., Wilkerson, G.G., 1998. Simulation of pest effects on crops using coupled pest-crop models: the potential for decision support. In: Tsuji, Y.G. (Ed.), Understanding Options for Agricultural Production. Kluwer Academic Press, Great Britain, pp. 221226. Teng, P.S., Blackie, M.J., Close, R.C., 1987. A simulation analysis of crop yield loss due to rust disease. Agric. Syst. 2, 189198. Teng, P.S., Savary, S., 1992. Implementing the systems approach in pest management. In: Teng, P.S., de Vries, F.W.T.P. (Eds.), System Approaches for Agricultural Development. Elsevier Applied Sci., New York, pp. 309330. Willocquet, L., 1999. Further testing of a yield loss simulation model for rice in different production situation. Int. Rice Res. Newslett. 28 (4), 67.

Chander, S., Kalra, N., Aggarwal, P.K., 2007. Development and application of crop growth simulation modelling in pest management. Outlook Agric. 36 (1), 6370. Daryaei, M.G., Aggarwal, P.K., Chander, S., Singh, V.S., 2003. Use of simulation model to formulate iso-loss curves for stem borer and bacterial leaf blight incidence in rice. Indian J. Entomol. 65 (4), 532543. David, B.V., 2005. Elements of Economic Entomology. Popular Book Depot, Chennai, India, 590 pp. Dhaliwal, G.S., Arora, R., 2006. Insect Pest Management, Consects and Approachs. Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi, India, 427 pp. Girma, M., Wilde, G.E., Harvey, T.L., 1993. Russian wheat aphid affects yield and quality of wheat. J. Econ. Entomol. 86, 594601. Heong, K.L., Limcangco, R.J.T., 1990. Computer simulation in the analysis of pest management strategies. In: Proc. Annual Convention of the Pest Control Council of the Philippines, Bacolod City, Philippines. Krishnaiah, N.V., Lakshmi, V.J., Pasalu, I.C., Katti, G.R., Padmavathi, C., 2008. Insecticides in Rice- IPM, Past, Present and Future. Directorate of Rice Research, ICAR, Hyderabad, India, 148 pp. Kropff, M.J., van Laar, H.H., Matthews, R.B., 1994. ORYZA1, an ecophysiological model for irrigated rice production. In: SARP Research Proc., Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen, Netherlands and IRRI, Manila, the Philippines, 110 pp. Mishra, H.P., Jena, B.C., 2007. Integrated pest management in rice. In: Jain, P.C., Bhargava, M.C. (Eds.), Entomology: Novel Approaches. New India Publishing Agency, New Delhi, India, 268 pp. Nordh, M.B., Zavaleta, L.R., Ruesink, W.G., 1988. Estimating multidimensional economic injury levels with simulation models. Agric. Syst. 26, 1933. Panda, N., Khush, G.S., 1995. Host Plant Resistance to Insects. CAB International, Wallingford, England. Pasalu, I.C., Verma, N.R.G., Krishnaia, K., Katti, G., 2004. Pheromones: Their scope in IPM in rice. In: Proc. National Seminar on Trends in Pheromone Research and Technology. National Research Centre on Groundnut, Junagadh, Gujarat, India, pp. 5671. Pathak, M.D., Khan, Z.R., 1994. Insect Pests of Rice. IRRI, Philippines, 120 pp. Penning de Vries, F.W.T., Jansen, D.M., ten Berge, H.F.M., Bakema, A. 1989. Simulation of ecophysiological processes of growth in several annual crops. Pudoc, Wageningen, Netherlands, 271 pp. Pinnschmidt, H.O., Batchelor, W.D., Teng, P.S., 1995. Simulation of multiple species pest damage on rice. Agric. Syst. 48, 193222. Prakash, A., Rao, S., Singh, O.N., Tyagi, J.P., Singh, S., Rath, P.C., 2007. Rice: The Queen of Cereals. AZRA Publication, CRRI, Cuttack, Orissa, India, 215 pp. Rabbinge, R., Rijsdijk, F.H., 1981. Disease and crop physiology: a modelers point of view. In: Ayres, P.G. (Ed.), Effects of Disease on the Physiology of the Growing Plants. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 201220.