Integrated Pest Management of Helicoverpa armigera in Cotton Crops

This term paper examines Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices to control Helicoverpa armigera, a major pest affecting cotton production in India, particularly in the southern regions. The paper details the pest's lifecycle, taxonomic classification, and the economic damage it inflicts. It explores various control methods, including cultural, biological, and chemical approaches, and the use of Economic Threshold Levels (ETL) and Economic Injury Levels (EIL) within an IPM framework. The report also discusses previous and current pest control methods, the importance of identifying and monitoring pests, and the application of strategic IPM approaches. The research draws on interviews with farmers, as well as books and journals. The paper highlights the significance of IPM in reducing input costs, and promoting sustainable cotton farming by focusing on IPM strategies for pest management.

INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT (IPM)
By Name
Course
Instructor
Institution
Location
Date

Abstract
This practice also helps in reduction of cotton plant protection and reduces the total input
cost for farming of the cotton in India. In India currently, farming of conventional cotton has
been substituted by genetically modified cotton plants and transgenic crops of cotton. Integrated
management of Helicoverpa armigera in Indian cotton plants involves ancient mechanical
activities like literary collecting and picking of the crops affected by the pests. This management
of pests also involves sustainable techniques which are done by making plant infection-free from
the start of sowing. In this practice, there will be the identification of the plant, crop for a
potential presence of pest larvae as well as soil quality to identify the plant quality.
Currently, India is recognized globally as one of the major producers of cotton, the
farming of cotton in India is basically done in the southern part in areas like Tamil, Kerala and
Tarnataka. In these areas, the farming of cotton is highly affected by Helicoverpa armigera as
the main crop pest which highly reduces the production of the cotton in these areas. The term
paper will economically reflect the scale of the damage caused by the pest. The cost of the
method of pest control will also be analyzed in this term paper. The paper will also address the
use of Economic Threshold Level and Economic Injury Level as the Integrated Pest
Management Plan. There are also several methods or strategies which can be employed to
control the spread of Helicoverpa armigera in Cotton crop plantations in Southern parts of India.

Table of content
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................................2
Table of content..........................................................................................................................................3
Table of figures............................................................................................................................................4
List of tables................................................................................................................................................4
Background Information..............................................................................................................................5
Aim.............................................................................................................................................................5
An agricultural product, sourced from a plant or animal.............................................................................5
A geographic location..................................................................................................................................7
The suite of pests.........................................................................................................................................8
Major Cotton pests..................................................................................................................................9
Minor Cotton pests..................................................................................................................................9
American bollworm.................................................................................................................................9
Taxonomic of Helicoverpa armigera..................................................................................................9
Method......................................................................................................................................................10
Previous and current pest control methods................................................................................................10
Cultural control of American bollworm.................................................................................................12
Biological control of American bollworm.............................................................................................13
Chemical control of American bollworm..............................................................................................14
Economic threshold levels and economic injury levels with graphs..........................................................17
The Economic threshold levels.........................................................................................................17
Economic injury levels......................................................................................................................17
Missing information..................................................................................................................................22
References.................................................................................................................................................23

Table of figures
Figure 1: Showing both female and male Helicoverpa armigera.................................................................6
Figure 2: Showing the caterpillar stage of Helicoverpa armigera and how it affects the square of cotton...6
Figure 3: Showing Strategic Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Approach.............................................10
Figure 4: Showing the position of the Economic threshold ......................................................................19
Figure 5: Showing pest population density with the Economic Threshold................................................20
Figure 6: Showing the interaction of cost of pest control and value of the crop.......................................20
Figure 7: Showing the position of the Economic Injury Level and Economic Threshold Level...................21
List of tables
Table 1: Showing illustrates the information of the generations 1, 2 and 3...............................................17

Background Information
Cotton crop is a profound crop which is grown in the southern part of India, it basically
contributes to about 16% of the total Indian crop. Out of the total agricultural land used in India,
about 9% is used for cultivation of cotton. India is currently producing about 4.59million tonnes
of cotton annually. This hence makes it so significant to come up with integrated Pest
management for American bollworm in Indian cotton farms. Adult American bollworms produce
a lot of eggs that result in the development of higher pest population infesting several cotton
crops in favorable conditions. Even though all parts of the cotton crop can be affected by this
pest but the most common part being affected is the square part of the cotton and terminal buds
of the cotton seedlings. There are several approaches which have been put forward to ensure that
the growth and development of this type of pest are controlled. Some of the approaches used
include chemical control where pesticides like pyrethroids. Other control mechanisms include
cultural and biological control.
Aim
The aim of this term paper is to scrutinize the plans of integrated Pest management to control the
presence of Helicoverpa armigera in cotton plantations in India especially in the southern part of
the country. The IPM plan will basically revolve about the use of the Economic Threshold Level
and Economic Injury Level.
An agricultural product, sourced from a plant or animal
Helicoverpa armigera is a pest which always affects all the cotton species (Gossypium
spp), the source of this pest is from plants. Basically, the female Helicoverpa armigera lays
several eggs which will then be distributed over the cotton plant. In favorable situations, the

Helicoverpa armigera eggs are hatched into larvae after 3 days of laying then the whole life of
this pest is complicated after one month (Saravanan, 2016). The egg of this pest is spherical in
shape and has a dimension of 0.4 to 0.6 mm in diameter, these eggs are white in colour and with
time they turn green. It takes about 13 to 22 days for larvae to develop where they reach 40 mm
in length (Kranthi, 2012). The eggs get attached perfectly in the cotton plant where they develop
into larvae and later into a full-grown pest. The full-grown Helicoverpa armigera is illustrated in
figure 1 below;
Figure 1: Showing both female and male Helicoverpa armigera
(http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-05362015000100101 )
The caterpillar stage of this pest affects the square part of cotton, this reduces the production of
cotton as this is the part which holds the cotton. The pest on the square parts of the cotton is
illustrated in the diagrams below;

Figure 2: Showing the caterpillar stage of Helicoverpa armigera and how it affects the square of
cotton (https://www.croplifela.org/en/diseases/cotton-bollworm)
As illustrated in figure 2 and 3, the pest only affects the square of cotton but not the whole part
of the crop (Shah, 2013). Cotton crop is naturally a perennial crop but it can be grown as an
annual crop. Cotton crop is basically grown for wool known as the cotton wool, the wool is
developed in the square part of the cotton plant (Mohan, 2017).
A geographic location
Cotton is a key cash crop grown in most parts of Southern India as illustrated above, in
the southern part of India, there are vast areas set aside for the cultivation of the cotton crop. It is
estimated that there are about 9.4 million hectares in these areas where 4 million of the total land
is employed in the cultivation of cotton. In India, cotton is viewed as one of the most cash crops
which highly improves the economy of India which is used in the Textile Industry to make cloths
among other textile products. Just like in the southern Indian, the cotton crop is cultivated in

subtropical and tropical regions since this crop needs a relatively higher temperature of about
220C to 310C.
In this geographical location, cotton is grown in black soil in Malwa plateau. India
cultivates a variety of cotton over edaphic and climatic conditions from sub-montane tract in
Tinnevelly district of Tamil Nadu located in the southern part of India (Krishna, 2012).
Basically, cotton thrives best arid area where the rainfall is less than 75 cm. The soil in these
areas where the cotton is grown is a sticky black of Deccan Trap having a higher moisture
retaining capacity (Abrol, 2012). Cotton is seen as a long staple in India when fibre is 2.2 cm or
more, it is considered a medium staple when the length of tearing fibre falls between 1.7 and 2.2
cm and it is considered a short-staple variety when fibre length is below 1.7 cm (Ahuja, 2012).
In these southern areas in India, Kerala produces the least quantity of cotton while areas like
Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh produce a lot of cotton (Tabashnik, 2010). Most of
these parts of south India are below 1500 meters above the sea level which highly favors the
growth of cotton.
The suite of pests
Apart from Helicoverpa armigera which highly affects the cotton crop, this pest
specifically affects the square part of the cotton (the part which holds cotton) there are other
pests which affects the growth and production of the cotton crop (Borkhani, 2011). These pests
are classified as major and minor, major pests are those which are highly common and
predominantly affects cotton (their effect on cotton is severe) while the minor are those pests
whose impact on the cotton is not that serious and they are not common (Luttrell, 2015). Below
are some of the example of the major and the minor pests affecting the growth and production of
cotton in the southern part of India (Balakrishnan, 2010).

Major Cotton pests
Some of the known major Cotton pests include the following;
Cotton Jassid (Amrasca biguttula), American bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera), Pink bollworm
(Pectinophora gossypiella), Tobacco Caterpillar (Spodoptera litura) and whitefly (Aleyrodidae)
Minor Cotton pests
The below are the known minor cotton pests which become serious when the major cotton pests
are controlled.
Bettles (Coleoptera), Sucking bugs (Riptortus Linearis) and Mealy bugs (Pseudococcidae)
American bollworm
This term paper is focusing on the American bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera), thus we will
analyze some key information about this pest (Reddy, 2011). Some of the information will be
the life cycle, the taxonomy of the pests, morphology etc.
Taxonomic of Helicoverpa armigera
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Arthropoda
Class: Insecta
Order: Lepidoptera

Family: Noctuidae
Genus: Helicoverpa
Species: armigera
Method
The information about the America bollworm and their effects on the cotton crop in
India was obtained mostly through doing research on books and journals while few information
were obtained from the interview. The interview was conducted on Cotton farmers in the
southern part of India where Cotton is highly grown. A total of 200 farmers were interviewed on
how harmful these pests are and how the available control mechanisms are effective. The
response from these interviews was that the pests can completely destroy the crop if not
controlled. Most farmers also preferred to use chemical control due to its effectiveness and fast
result it has. Apart from the interview, the information obtained from books and journals were
equally very significant. The information was obtained from 27 books read and 23 journals read.
This research involved reading about 50 abstracts. The total number of pages read for this
research were about 10000 pages of the total books and journals.
Previous and current pest control methods
The pest control and monitoring involve chemical use to control the pests, cultural practices,
monitoring and biological agent (Trapero, 2016). This can be illustrated perfectly from the
following diagram;

Figure 3: Showing Strategic Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Approach (https://tunza.eco-
generation.org/ambassadorReportView.jsp?viewID=45474 )
The management of the pest involves some key processes like pest identification, monitoring of
pests and control of the monitored pest.
Identification of pests: Identification of the pest is done through the disease it causes to the
organism, the pest predator and environmental factors like temperature, humidity, food and pest
shelter.
Monitoring pest: The disease incidence monitoring as well as the pest population in the cotton
to determine the abundance and the damage level are very key in the process of controlling the
pest.

Some of these methods of controlling pests include the following
Cultural control of American bollworm
Trap planting and trap cropping are vastly acknowledged as the cultural control method
which has been employed to control this pest for a long period of time now (Prasad, 2016). For
cotton plantation, sorghum and maize diversionary host have a very short attractive period for
supporting the population of the crop (Masood, 2011). Some researchers have emphasized the
significance of ploughing cotton stubble to reduce the burden of the population for parathyroid
resistance of American bollworm (Mazid, 2011). There are several cultural practices which have
been used as a management strategy to lower chances of survival of American bollworm like the
application of fertilizers, spacing, deep ploughing and sowing time (Khan, 2015). Post-harvest
cultivation is also applied to help in the destruction of the pupea of the pest has received
attention in bollworm population management.
The pest pupea can also be destroyed through employing cultivation of Cotton at a depth
of 10 cm. When this pupea is destroyed it becomes difficult for them to emerge from the tunnels
and develop into a moth. Using a deep ploughing during the summer seasons aids in exposing
the bollworm pests which are pathogens and soil born (Khadi, 2011). The exposure of these
pathogens aids in their destruction thus reducing their number in the cotton plantation. Another
cultural practice which has been in practice for a long period to control the spread of bollworm in
cotton is crop rotation (Singh, 2016). Cotton is highly rotated with some crops like sorghum and
maize. The use of crop rotation as a cultural method is so significant in Indian agriculture
because it not only results in pest control but also increases the yield of crops being rotated like
cotton, sorghum and maize (Chandel, 2010). Crop extension or double cropping plays a very
significant role in ensuring that the spread of the pest is highly curtailed (Hutchison, 2015)

The use of the cultural method in pest control has some advantages like most of the
practices help in increases the yield. This type of pest control is always cheap since it only needs
modification to normal production actions (Kadam, 2015). Cultural techniques are also
dependable and always specific and they do not have any detrimental side effect which is
witnessed in the pesticides like resistance to the pesticide (Colmenárez, 2016). This method also
has some disadvantage which includes; some of these methods may be energy or labour
intensive like tillage, it may take for the widespread adoption of this method. Some cultural
techniques used may have a serious negative effect on wildlife and may also lead to soil erosion
(Midega, 2012). It is difficult for cultural control to assess its effectiveness and it usually gives a
complete economic pest control (Azfar, 2015). Lastly, cultural pest control is time-consuming,
this method takes relatively a lot of time for it to be effective (Reddy, 2014).
Biological control of American bollworm
Biological method of controlling bollworm is another control method which has been in
practice for a very long period of time. Biological control has been perfectly applied since
management and control of Helicoverpa armigera is based on eggs and larvae scouting. There
are several biological enemies which can perfectly attack Helicoverpa armigera. This thus
makes it easier to manage and control the spread of this pest. Other biological practices which
can be employed to control the spread of American bollworm are plant extracts, micro-
organisms, parasitoid and predators. Some of the common biological practices which are
employed in controlling Helicoverpa armigera includes; releasing some predators like Eulophids
which aids in suppressing the American bollworm’s larvae.
The use of fungal pathogens beauveria bassiana in a higher humid weather condition.
During the growth of cotton crop HaNPV is sprayed at 250 LE for every hectare, this is done

from the 35th day to 60th day (total of 25 days of spraying) (Sharma, 2015). Releasing pupa
parasitoids Brachymeria at a rate of XX for every hectare. Eggs of parasitoids such as
Trichogramma archaea being released at a rate of 150000 for every hectare from 45th day and this
is done at a regular interval of 10 days (Peshin, 2014). Some of the advantages of using
biological pest control are; biological control methods are cost-effective in the long run, this
method can cost relatively higher at the start but with time it is highly affordable (Shabozoi,
2011). The biological enemies released to the environment are able to sustain themselves.
The biological control is a very specific strategy, during the time of control, whichever
the introduced predator it will only control the specific organism which is Helicoverpa armigera.
Some of the disadvantages of using this control technology include; the process is very slow, this
method of pest control takes time for the biological agents to operate effectively (MacIntosh,
2010). This method of pest control can be fickle, ultimately, it is not possible to manage
whichever natural enemy you set loose in the ecosystem. Even though this method is affordable
in the long run, this method of pest control is very expensive at the initial stages of control
(Dhawan, 2013).
Chemical control of American bollworm
The use of the chemical in controlling American bollworm has not been in practice for a
longer period of time like the others like cultural and biological control methods (Ravikumar,
2010). Determining the correct pesticide and the recommended dosage is viewed as the most
essential aspect which is always employed for the conservation of susceptibility (Naranjo, 2010).
For this practice some chemicals are more recommended to be used in controlling American
bollworm due to their less side effect on the environment, such type includes the phosalone and
endosulfan (Roy, 2012). At the same time, there are some types of chemicals which are very

harmful and their application in controlling American bollworm should be discouraged, such
type of pesticide include the parathyroid (Hussain, 2011).
When these chemicals are applied it is advisable to have a suitable delivery system
through the use of better spraying methods like knapsack and compression sprayers (Hussain,
2011). The use of economic threshold level is a paramount factor which needs to be obtained for
the application of these chemicals (pesticides). From the economic threshold level sufficient
insect technology is used to suppress the population of the pest. Nuclear polyhedrosis virus for
the America bollworm can be applied at a rate of 400-600 ml per hectare (Peshin, 2013). The
dosage for other pesticide s which are employed in controlling American bollworm include;
pyraclofos which is applied at a rate of 1.51 kg for every hectare, quinalphos which is applied at
2.01 kg for every hectares and Carbaryl which is applied at 2.5 kg for every hectare (Sharma,
2011).
Some chemicals can also be employed to modify the crop to become more pest resistant,
this then results in some type of cotton-like Bt cotton (Eze, 2012). This type of cotton is a
Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) which is developed to resistant American bollworm
pest. This type of cotton itself produces a pesticide to combat bollworm (Naranjo, 2010). Strains
of Bacillius thusrignginsis bacterium produces more than 200 different types of Trangestic toxins
of which every toxin is very harmful to most of the cotton pest including the American bollworm
(Rao, 2015). There are some rules which aid in the management of the pesticide resistance. Bt
cotton gives a permanent solution for Cotton farmers who are affected by the American
bollworm. These rules help in minimizing the prevention, the one of controlling American
bollworm is treated as being a very serious one (Kumar, 2015). These rules and guideline enable
the crop and the human being who applies these chemicals to be safe and it should not jeopardize

with the crop production (Mabubu, 2016). Some of the most common rules for the application of
the pesticide to make the crop resistant to pest like American bollworm include the following:
 Reduce the use of chemical module at a given time and change chemical mode or
molecules of applications.
 Ensure that the pesticide applied is done at an adequate and appropriate rate.
 While applying these pesticide s, the health of the plant must be kept good.
 Microchilonis curvimaculatus and Tachinid contribute to control of the American
bollworm
Advantages of chemical pest control
Some of the advantages of using chemical pest control method include the following,
 This method is more effective way of controlling the American bollworm in cotton crops
than other methods like cultural methods
 It is also relatively expensive as compared to other control methods like cultural and
biological.
 The response or the use of this method is quicker as compared to another method of pest
control like biological and cultural methods.
 The use and application of this method do not need higher skill personnel.
Disadvantages of the use of chemical pest control
 Chemicals employed are non-specific therefore sometimes they may kill some beneficial
insects
 In some cases, pests may become resistant to a given type of pesticide used

 Some of these chemicals may be harmful to humans due to long term exposure. Insect
predator´s removal to the pest may lead to pest resurgence.
Integration of devised IPM methods:
Step one: Biological method
Biological method of control will involve other secondary infection and it will also aid the
Cotton crop to be healthy and grow very strong thus restrain infections. Bt cotton usage gives a
permanent solution to the control of the American bollworms. This technique of control can be
indecisive, eventually, it is not possible to control any natural enemy which is set loose in the
ecosystem. Albeit the technique is relatively cheaper in the long run but it is very expensive at
the initial stages of control.
Step two: Cultural method
Not all variety of cotton would be resistant to the American bollworm, it is only the Bt
cotton which is resistant to this pest. Cultural practices like digging deep will help in managing
the pest, another cultural practice which can be employed is rotational cropping of cotton. This
technique takes time for the results to be realized, it is not as fast as other techniques like
chemical. Cultural techniques of bollworm pest control can be used together with biological
methods for maximum pest control in the cotton plantation.
Step three: Chemical method
Pesticides are also employed in controlling of the American bollworms in Cotton crops but this
method has adverse effect on the individuals and environment where it can result to pollution. In
the control of America bollworm, the use of chemical is the last resort when cultural and

biological has failed or is taking too long than expected by the farmer. But in normal conditions
cultural and biological controls are used and they are given first priority in control.
Economic threshold levels and economic injury levels with graphs
The Economic threshold levels
The Economic threshold levels for Helicoverpa armigera is just one Helicoverpa
armigera larva for every plant (Zhang, 2011). In some cases, it is just 3 cotton crops damaged per
square kilometre obtained from about 20 randomly selected cotton plants (Rai, 2012). This hence
results in about five per cent of the damaged cotton crop (Bhede, 2015). The Economic
Threshold level and Economic Injury Level are two most significant decision-making component
for integrated pest management (Abrol, 2012). Economic Threshold Level for American
bollworm gives efficacy data to the Cotton farmers for initiating the management control
practices of Helicoverpa armigera. The management strategies for Helicoverpa armigera should
Biological
Methods
Cultural
methods
Chemical
Methods

be done with a lot of care for in choosing the suitable pesticide for which there should be
significant resistant level already declared by Cotton Plant (Lu, 2011).
Economic injury levels
Mathematically, Economic Injury Level (EIL) can be expressed as below;
EIL= C
V . I . D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Where EIL is economic Injury Level, C is the management cost for every production unit, V is
the value of the market for every production unit, I is the Injury Unit for every pest and D is the
damage for every injury unit (Pimentel, 2014). The evaluation of the EIL for the American
bollworm based on the level of infection from 2, 3,4,6,8 per every cotton organ studied in 3
generations of the pest released to the cotton crops. The following table illustrates the
information of the generations 1, 2 and 3.
Table 1: Showing illustrates the information of the generations 1, 2 and 3.
generation Treatment of larva per 100 organs
( infection level)
yield Percentage
damage
Gradient of
regression
F
1st 2 75 3.08
-43.672 3.10
3 124 5.1
4 135 6.3
6 247 10.16
8 339 13.94
2nd 2 83 3.4
3 134 5.5

-78.655 20.314 239 9.8
6 409 16.77
8 537 22
2 91 3.8
-65.621 19.61
3 121 5.02
4 199 8.25
6 358 14.85
8 462 19.17
From equation 1 above, we can assume that the management cost for every production unit is $
70000 while the value of the market for every production unit is $ 20000, Injury Unit for every
pest is 300 and damage for every injury unit is 7. Then we can use equation 1 to approximate the
value of EIL
EIL= C
V . I . D
EIL= 70000
20000 ×7 ×300.
EIL= 70000
42000000
EIL=0.0016666666
The value of EIL will be more if the control is done by the use of chemicals but very low if the
control is done by the use of cultural practices (Tabashnik, 2010). In comparison, it is illustrated
that the use of the chemical is relatively expensive as compared to the other methods of control

(Razmjou, 2014). The maximum population of pest which can be tolerable at a specific place and
time without resulting to economic crop loss is the Economic threshold and it is illustrated in the
following graph;
Figure 4: Showing the position of the Economic threshold https://courses.cit.cornell.edu/ipm444/test/NotesThreshold.htm
From figure 4 above, the line illustrating the Economic threshold indicates that the value of crop
will be more when the pest population is low. And the value of crop will reduce gradually as the
population of pest increases. In thus illustrates that when there are more pest more crops are
destroyed therefore the value of crop will automatically go down.
The pest population density below which the applying control measures cost measure which
exceeds the losses that are caused by the pest is illustrated in the graph below;

Figure 5: Showing the interaction of cost of pest control and value of the
crophttps://courses.cit.cornell.edu/ipm444/test/NotesThreshold.htm
In figure five above, there are two curves where the curve is from figure 4 above, so in this figure it is
integrated with the curve of cost of control. The cost of control will reduce as the population of pest
increases. The both graph have turning point at the economic threshold.
The population of American bollworm where the control measures need to be taken to prevent the
American bollworm population from rising to the economic Injury Level
Figure 6: Showing the position of the Economic Injury Level and Economic Threshold Level
https://courses.cit.cornell.edu/ipm444/test/NotesThreshold.htm
The population of the pest will always be higher for the economic Injury level than economic
threshold level. This is because economic threshold level is simply the density of the pest which
the pest control controlled can give an economic return. While the economic Injury Level is the
smallest number of insect which will result to yield loss and that is why for EIL the number of
pest population is higher. The time of pest control will not affect the population of the pest and
that is why both graphs remain a straight line.
Missing information
Some of the key missing information about this pest is the rate at which these pests reproduce, it
is not known how many new offspring of this organism are at a given period of time (Mao,
2011). This information is also very crucial as it helps in tackling the organism.

Conclusion
The program of integrated pest management in cotton production will vary based on the
heterogeneity in the whole part of southern part of India. This can be seen as perfect control and
management of techniques which implies to control of bollworm at very early growth of cotton
crop. The use of cultural activities like deep ploughing are some practices which can be
employed in control of the American bollworm. The paper also analyzed a permanent solution
for the control of American bollworm as Bt cotton. Bt Cotton is a genetically modified organism
which controls the pest through releasing some chemicals which highly kill these pests.
Economic Injury Level analyzed also calculated which help in knowing which control technique
will be cheaper as the cheaper control will have lower Economic Injury level. The graphs in this
paper also gave the interaction between Economic threshold level and economic injury level.
References
Abrol, D.P. and Shankar, U. eds., 2012. Integrated pest management: Principles and practice.
CABI.
Abrol, D.P. and Shankar, U., 2012. History, overview and principles of ecologically based pest
management. Integrated Pest Management: Principles and Practice, pp.1-26.
Ahuja, D.B. and Bamawale, O.M., 2012. Development of farmer-led integrated management of
major pests of cauliflower cultivated in rainy season in India. Journal of Agricultural Science,
4(2), p.79.

Azfar, S., and Basit, A., 2015. Pest detection and control techniques using wireless sensor
network: A review. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies, 3(2), pp.92-99.
Balakrishnan, N. and Mahadevan, N.R., 2010. Influence of intercrops/trap crops on the
preference of major pests of cotton in different IPM modules under rainfed condition. Journal of
Biopesticides, 3(Special Issue), p.373.
Bhede, B.V. and Khullar, M., 2015. Impact of areawide integrated pest management strategies
on pests of pigeonpea and yield in Marathwada region of Maharashtra, India. Legume Research:
An International Journal, 38(1).
Borkhani, F.R. and Pouratashi, M., 2011. Application of integrated pest management (IPM)
practices by paddy farmers in Sari county of Mazandaran province, Iran. African Journal of
Agricultural Research, 6(21), pp.4884-4892.
Chandel, R.S. and Lakra, B.S., 2010. Integrated management of whitefly, Bemisia tabaci
(Gennadius) and potato apical leaf curl virus in India. Potato research, 53(2), pp.129-139.
Colmenárez, Y. and Vásquez, C., 2016. Biological control agents of cotton pests in Barbados.
Entomotropica, 31, pp.146-154.
Dhawan, A.K. and Arora, R., 2013. Integrated pest management. Scientific Publishers.
Eze, S.C. and Echezona, B.C., 2012. Agricultural pest control programmes, food security and
safety. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development, 12(5), pp.6582-6592.
Hussain, M. and Saboor, A., 2011. The adoption of integrated pest management (IPM)
technologies by cotton growers in the Punjab. Soil & Environment, 30(1).
Hussain, M., Zia, S. and Saboor, A., 2011. The adoption of integrated pest management (IPM)
technologies by cotton growers in the Punjab. Soil & Environment, 30(1).

Hutchison, W.D. and Bravo, A., 2015. Insect resistance management and integrated pest
management for Bt crops: prospects for an area-wide view. Bt resistance: characterization and
strategies for GM crops producing Bacillus thuringiensis toxins, pp.186-201.
Kadam, M. and Kumari, A., 2015. Implementation of Integrated Pest Management in Pigeonpea
and Chickpea Pests in Major Pulse-Growing Areas of Maharashtra. Journal of Integrated Pest
Management, 6(1).
Khadi, B.M. and Dean, P.G.S., 2011. Present Status of Bt Cotton in India. In 5th Meeting of the
Asian Cotton Research and.
Khan, M. and Damalas, C.A., 2015. Factors preventing the adoption of alternatives to chemical
pest control among Pakistani cotton farmers. International journal of pest management, 61(1),
pp.9-16.
Kranthi, K.R., 2012. Bt cotton-questions and answers. Indian Society for Cotton Improvement
(ISCI), Mumbai.
Krishna, V.V. and Qaim, M., 2012. Bt cotton and sustainability of pesticide reductions in India.
Agricultural Systems, 107, pp.47-55.
Kumar, S. and Kumari, R., 2015. Occurrence of molecularly diverse Bt Cry toxin-resistant
mutations in insect pests of Bt+ corn and cotton crops and remedial approaches. Indian Academy
of Sciences.
Lu, B. and McCorkell, B., 2011. Preferences of field bollworm larvae for cotton plant structures:
impact of Bt and history of survival on Bt crops. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata,
140(1), pp.17-27.
Luttrell, R.G. and Brewer, M.J., 2015. Cotton insect pest management. Cotton,
(agronmonogr57), pp.509-546.

Mabubu, J.I. and Hua, H., 2016. Advances of transgenic Bt-crops in insect pest management: an
overview. J Entomol Zool Stud, 4(3), pp.48-52.
MacIntosh, S.C., 2010. Managing the risk of insect resistance to transgenic insect control traits:
practical approaches in local environments. Pest Management Science: formerly Pesticide
Science, 66(1), pp.100-106.
Mao, Y.B. and Chen, X.Y., 2011. Cotton plants expressing CYP6AE14 double-stranded RNA
show enhanced resistance to bollworms. Transgenic research, 20(3), pp.665-673.
Masood, A. and Talpur, M.A., 2011. Field performance of Trichogramma chilonis against cotton
bollworms infestation in different cotton varieties as a sustainable IPM approach. Pakistan
Journal of Agriculture Agricultural Engineering and Veterinary Sciences, 27(2), pp.176-184.
Mazid, S. and Rajkhowa, R.C., 2011. A review on the use of biopesticides in insect pest
management. Int J Sci Adv Technol, 1(7), pp.169-178.
Midega, C.A. and Khan, Z.R., 2012. Farmers' perceptions of cotton pests and their management
in western Kenya. Crop Protection, 42, pp.193-201.
Mohan, K.S., 2017. An area-wide approach to pink bollworm management on Bt cotton in
India–a dire necessity with community participation. Curr. Sci, 112(10), pp.2016-2020.
Naranjo, S.E. and Ellsworth, P.C., 2010. Fourteen years of Bt cotton advances IPM in Arizona.
Southwestern Entomologist, 35(3), pp.437-444.
Naranjo, S.E., 2010. Impacts of Bt transgenic cotton on integrated pest management. Journal of
agricultural and food chemistry, 59(11), pp.5842-5851.
Peshin, R., and Kranthi, K.R. 2014. Pesticide use and experiences with integrated pest
management programs and Bt cotton in India. In Integrated Pest Management (pp. 269-306).
Springer, Dordrecht.

Peshin, R., 2013. Farmers’ adoptability of integrated pest management of cotton revealed by a
new methodology. Agronomy for sustainable development, 33(3), pp.563-572.
Pimentel, D. and Peshin, R. eds., 2014. Integrated pest management: pesticide problems (Vol.
3). Springer Science & Business Media.
Prasad, B.R. and Malathi, S., 2016. Evaluation of integrated pest management in Bollgard
cotton. International Journal of Plant, Animal and Environmental Sciences, 6(1), pp.133-138.
Rai, M. and Ingle, A., 2012. Role of nanotechnology in agriculture with special reference to
management of insect pests. Applied microbiology and biotechnology, 94(2), pp.287-293.
Rao, G.R. and Wani, S.P., 2015. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) for reducing pesticide
residues in crops and natural resources. In New horizons in insect science: Towards sustainable
pest management (pp. 397-412). Springer, New Delhi.
Ravikumar, J. and Jayaraj, S., 2010. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) module for Tukra mealy
bug, Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green) and leaf webber, Diaphania pulverulentalis (Hamp.) in
mulberry. Journal of Biopesticides, 3(1), p.354.
Razmjou, J. and Hemati, S.A., 2014. Comparative performance of the cotton bollworm,
Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner)(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on various host plants. Journal of Pest
Science, 87(1), pp.29-37.
Reddy, K.G. and Reddy, M.C.S., 2011. Adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Chilli
(Capsicum annuum L.): A Case Study from Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. Journal of
Horticultural Sciences, 6(2), pp.159-162.
Reddy, P.P., 2014. Biointensive integrated pest management in horticultural ecosystems.
Scientific Publishers.
Roy, S. and Gurusubramanian, G., 2012. Chemical-based integrated approaches for the
management of tea red spider mite, Oligonychus coffeae Nietner (Acari: Tetranychidae) in tea

plantations of sub-Himalayan North Bengal, India. International journal of acarology, 38(1),
pp.74-78.
Saravanan, S., 2016. Bt Cotton in India, Pesticide Use and Environmental Impact in India.
International Journal of Research, 2(7), pp.829-832.
Shabozoi, N.U.K., and Awan, M.S., 2011. Economic appraisal of pest management options in
Okra. Pakistan Journal of Zoology, 43(5).
Shah, M.A. and Mal, B., 2013. Biology of Pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella)
Lepidoptera: Galechiidae on different temperatures under controlled conditions. Sindh
University Research Journal-SURJ (Science Series), 45(2).
Sharma, O.P., 2011. Management of pigeonpea pod borers with special reference to pod fly
(Melanagromyza obtusa). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 81(6), p.539.
Sharma, R., Peshin, R., Shankar, L., 2015. Impact evaluation indicators of an Integrated Pest
Management program in vegetable crops in the subtropical region of Jammu and Kashmir, India.
Crop Protection, 67, pp.191-199.
Singh, N. and Gupta, N., 2016. ICT based decision support systems for Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) in India: A review. Agricultural Reviews, 37(4).
Tabashnik, B.E. and Carrière, Y., 2010. Field-evolved resistance to Bt cotton: bollworm in the
US and pink bollworm in India. Southwestern Entomologist, 35(3), pp.417-424.
Tabashnik, B.E. and Carrière, Y., 2010. Field-evolved resistance to Bt cotton: bollworm in the
US and pink bollworm in India. Southwestern Entomologist, 35(3), pp.417-424.
Trapero, C. and Wilson, L.J., 2016. Enhancing integrated pest management in GM cotton
systems using host plant resistance. Frontiers in plant science, 7, p.500.
Zhang, H. and Wu, Y., 2011. Early warning of cotton bollworm resistance associated with intensive
planting of Bt cotton in China. PLoS one, 6(8), p.e22874.