Contents - Faperta

14 Biotechnological Approaches for Pest Management and Ecological Sustainability
management practices, including the synthetic insecticides (Sharma, 1993; Panda and
Khush, 1995; Sharma et al., 2003). Host-plant resistance can be used as: (1) a principal component
of pest control, (2) an adjunct to cultural, biological, and chemical control, and (3) a
check against the release of susceptible cultivars.
HPR as a method of insect control in the context of IPM has a greater potential than
any other method of pest suppression. In general, the use of pest-resistant varieties is not
subjected to the vagaries of nature, unlike chemical and biological control methods. Use of
insect-resistant varieties has contributed immensely to sustainable crop production worldwide
(Smith, 1989; Panda and Khush, 1995). Plant resistance as a method of pest control
offers many advantages, and in some cases, it is the only practical and effective method of
pest management. However, there may be problems if we rely exclusively on plant resistance
for insect control, for example, high levels of resistance may be associated with low
yield potential or undesirable quality traits, and resistance may not be expressed in every
environment wherever a variety is grown. Therefore, insect-resistant varieties need to be
carefully fi tted into the pest management programs in different agro-ecosystems. Insectresistant
varieties have been deployed for the control of a number of insect pests worldwide
(Painter, 1951; Maxwell and Jennings, 1980; Smith, 1989; Sharma and Ortiz, 2002).
Several insect pests have been kept under check through the use of insect resistant cultivars,
for example, grapevine phylloxera, Phylloxera vitifoliae (Fitch.) (resistant rootstocks from the
United States); cotton jassid, A. biguttula biguttula (Krishna, Mahalaxmi, Khandwa 2, and
MCU 5); wooly apple aphid, Eriosoma lanigerum (Hausmann) (Northern Spy rootstocks);
Hessian fl y, Mayetiola destructor (Say) (Pawnee, Poso 42, and Benhur); rice gall midge,
Orseola oryzae Wood-Mason (IR 36, Kakatiya, Surekha, and Rajendradhan); spotted alfalfa
aphid, Therioaphis maculata (Buckton) (Lahontan, Sonora, and Sirsa); sorghum shoot fl y,
A. soccata (Maldandi, Swati, and Phule Yashoda); sorghum midge, S. sorghicola (ICSV 745,
ICSV 88032, and ICSV 804); and sorghum head bug, Eurystylus oldi Poppius (guineense
sorghums in West Africa) (Painter, 1951; Adkisson and Dyck, 1980; Maxwell and Jennings,
1980; Smith, 1989; Sharma, 1993; Sharma and Ortiz, 2002).
Integrated Pest Management
Mating Disruption and Mass Trapping
Mating disruption has been tried for controlling several insect pests, such as pink bollworm,
Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders), gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar L., codling moth,
Cydia pomonella (L.), and the Guatemalan potato moth, Tecia solanivora Povolny (Carde and
Minks, 1995). To develop an effective mating disruption program, a number of conditions
need to be fulfi lled. The target insect should be relatively immobile so that the females that
have mated outside the treated area do not enter and lay eggs in the treated fi elds. Insects
such as cotton bollworm, H. armigera, which is a highly mobile pest, are very diffi cult to
control with mating disruption unless thousands of hectares are treated simultaneously.
The pest should ideally be restricted to a single crop, otherwise all the target crops within
an area need to be treated. The pheromone should be synthesized at an economically
acceptable cost, for example, the spotted bollworm, Earias vittella (Fab.), can be readily controlled
with mating disruption, but the method is not economically viable due to the high
cost of the pheromone. The pheromone must be stable and formulated such that it releases
the pheromone in a controlled manner in the crop habitat.