Biointensive Integrated Pest Management

  • P. Parvatha Reddy


Biointensive IPM is defined as ‘A systems approach to pest management based on an understanding of pest ecology. It begins with steps to accurately diagnose the nature and source of pest problems, and then relies on a range of preventive tactics and biological controls to keep pest populations within acceptable limits. Reduced-risk pesticides are used if other tactics have not been adequately effective, as a last resort, and with care to minimize risks’.

Biointensive IPM incorporates ecological and economic factors into agricultural system design and decision-making and addresses public concerns about environmental quality and food safety. The benefits of implementing biointensive IPM can include reduced chemical input costs, reduced on-farm and off-farm environmental impacts and more effective and sustainable pest management. An ecology-based IPM has the potential of decreasing inputs of fuel, machinery and synthetic chemicals – all of which are energy intensive and increasingly costly in terms of financial and environmental impact. Such reductions will benefit the grower and society.

BIPM options may be considered as proactive or reactive. Cultural control practices are generally considered to be proactive strategies. Proactive practices include crop rotation; resistant crop cultivars including transgenic plants, disease-free seed and plants; crop sanitation; spacing of plants; altering planting dates; mulches; etc. The reactive options mean that the grower responds to a situation, such as an economically damaging population of pests, with some type of short-term suppressive action. Reactive methods generally include inundative releases of biological control agents, mechanical and physical controls, botanical pesticides and chemical controls.


Integrate Pest Management Pest Population Methyl Eugenol Integrate Pest Management Programme Sugar Ester 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Adams S (1997) Seein’ red: colored mulch starves nematodes. Agricultural Research. October, p 18Google Scholar
  2. Anandraj M, Eapen SJ (2003) Achievements in biological control of diseases of spice crops with antagonistic organisms at Indian Institute of Spices Research, Calicut. In: Ramanujam B, Rabindra RJ (eds) Current status of biological control of plant diseases using antagonistic organisms in India. Project Directorate of Biological Control, Bangalore, pp 189–215Google Scholar
  3. Benbrook CM (1996) Pest management at the crossroads. Consumers Union, Yonkers, 272 ppGoogle Scholar
  4. Couch GJ (1994) The use of growing degree days and plant phenology in scheduling pest management activities. Yankee Nursery, Quarterly Fall, pp 12–17Google Scholar
  5. Khaderkhan H, Nataraju MS, Nagaraja GN (1998) Economics of IPM in tomato. In: Reddy PP, Kumar NKK, Verghese A (eds) Advances in IPM for horticultural crops. Association for Advancement of Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystems, Division of Entomology and Nematology, Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Bangalore, pp 151–152Google Scholar
  6. Krishna Moorthy PN, Krishna Kumar NK (2002) Advances in the use of botanicals for the IPM of major vegetable pests. In: Proceedings of the international conference on vegetables, Bangalore. Dr. Prem Nath Agricultural Science Foundation, Bangalore, pp 262–272Google Scholar
  7. Krishna Moorthy PN, Krishna Kumar NK, Girija G, Varalakshmi B, Prabhakar M (2003) Integrated pest management in cabbage cultivation. Extension Bulletin No. 1, Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Bangalore, 10 ppGoogle Scholar
  8. Parvatha Reddy P, Nagesh M, Devappa V (1997) Effect of integration of Pasteuria penetrans, Paecilomyces lilacinus and neem cake for the management of root-knot nematode infecting tomato. Pest Managmt Hortil Ecosystems 3:100–104Google Scholar
  9. Parvatha Reddy P, Rao MS, Nagesh M (2002) Integrated management of burrowing nematode (Radopholus similis) using endomycorrhiza (Glomus mosseae) and oil cakes. In: Singh HP, Chadha KL (eds) Banana. AIPUB, Trichy, pp 344–348Google Scholar
  10. Reichert SE, Leslie B (1989) Prey control by an assemblage of generalist predators: spiders in garden test systems. Ecology Fall, pp 1441–1450Google Scholar
  11. Sarma YR (2003) Recent trends in the use of antagonistic organisms for the disease management in spice crops. In: Ramanujam B, Rabindra RJ (eds) Current status of biological control of plant diseases using antagonistic organisms in India. Project Directorate of Biological Control, Bangalore, pp 49–73Google Scholar
  12. Singh Amerika, Trivedi TP, Sardana HR, Sabir N, Krishna Moorthy PN, Pandey KK, Sengupta A, Ladu LN, Singh DK (2004) Integrated pest management in horticultural crops – a wide area approach. In: Chadha KL, Ahluwalia BS, Prasad KV, Singh SK (eds) Crop improvement and production technology of horticultural crops. Horticulture Society of India, New Delhi, pp 621–636Google Scholar
  13. Srinivasan K, Krishna Moorthy PN (1991) Indian mustard as a trap crop for management of major lepidopterous pests on cabbage. Trop Pest Mang 37:26–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Srinivasan K, Krishna Moorthy PN, Raviprasad TN (1994) African marigold as a trap crop for the management of the fruit borer Helicoverpa armigera on tomato. Int J Pest Mang 40:56–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Swaminathan MS (2000) For an evergreen revolution. The Hindu Survey of Indian Agriculture 2000:9–15Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Parvatha Reddy
    • 1
  1. 1.Indian Institute of Horticultural ResearchBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations