Crop loss in rubber due to abnormal leaf fall: an analysis on the economic feasibility of plant protection measures in India
More details
Hide details
Rubber Research Institute of India, Kottayam 686 009, Kerala, India
Journal of Plant Protection Research 2005;45(4):235–248
The paper attempts to assess the extent of crop loss in rubber plantations in India, measured in terms of loss in latex and timber output and thereby to examine the comparative economics of plant protection measures against Phytophtora spp. induced abnormal leaf fall (ALF). The specific objectives were: a) to examine the extent of loss in latex and timber output in unsprayed plots vis-a-vis sprayed plots across prominent rubber clones; b) estimate the value of loss in latex and timber output across clones between sprayed and unsprayed plots; c) examine the comparative economics of plant protection measures in terms of the incremental costs and the incremental returns from sprayed plots across clones; and d) reflect upon the policy imperatives with respect to region specific Research and Development (R&D) interventions on plant protection measures in India. The study brings out significant clonal differences in loss of latex and timber output in the absence of prophylactic spraying against ALF. The observed clonal differences with respect to feasibility of plant disease control measures indicate the need for region and clone-specific recommendations for plant protection measures in India instead of the currently followed unilateral prescription with due allowance to the costs and potential benefit accrued from the control measures. The study also highlight the need for evolving interventions and agro-management/ plant protection measures for minimising the incidence of tree casualty in rubber plantation, as it amounts to loss of potential income from latex and timber from rubber plantations in India, dominated by the smallholder sector
The authors have declared that no conflict of interests exist.
Pozhamkandath K. Viswanathan
Rubber Research Institute of India, Kottayam 686 009, Kerala, India
1. Alagh Y.K. 1988. Pesticides in Indian agriculture. Econ. Political Weekly 23 (38): 1959–1964.
2. Ashplant H.T. 1928. Bordeaux and burgandy spraying mixtures. Sci. Dept. Bull. United Planters’ Assoc. Southern India.
3. Brennan J.P., Murray G.M. 1989. Australian Wheat Diseases: assessing their economic importance. Agric. Sci., 2: 26–35.
4. Brian B., Rujehan Imang N., Achdawan S. 2004. Rattan, rubber or oil palm: cultural and fi- nancial considerations for farmers in Kalimantan. Econ. Botany 58 (Suppl.): S77-S87.
5. Carlson G.A., Main, C.E. 1976. Economics of disease management. Ann. Rev. Phytopath., 14: 381–403.
6. Chandy B., Joseph T., George K.T., Viswanathan P.K. 2004. Adoption of rubber clones/clonal seedlings in the estate sector in India: The Planter 80: 757–768.
7. Chaturvedi A.N.,Khanna L.S. 1982. Forest mensuration. IBD, Dehra Dun.: 95–129.
8. Chee K.H. 1969. Phytophthora leaf disease in Malaya. J. Rubber Res. Inst. of Malaya 21: 79–87.
9. Conway G.R. 1977. Mathematical models in applied ecology. Nature 269: 291–297.
10. Drenth A., Sendall B. 2004. Economic impact of Phytophthora diseases in Southeast Asia. p. 10–28. In “Diversity and Management of Phytophthora in South East Asia”. ACIAR Monograph No. 114.
11. Drenth A., Guest D.I. (eds.). 2004. Diversity and Management of Phytophthora in South East Asia. ACIAR Monograph No. 114, 238 pp.
12. Edathil T., Jacob C.K., Joseph A. 2000. Leaf Diseases. p. 273–296. In “Natural Rubber: Agromanagement and Crop Processing” (P.J. George, C.K. Jacob, eds.). Rubber Research Institute of India.
13. Erwin D.C., Ribeiro O.K. 1996. Phytophthora Diseases Worldwide. The APS Press, St. Paul, Minnesota, 562 pp.
14. George K.T., Joby J. 2005. Value addition or value acquisition? Travails of the Plantation Sector in the Era of Globalisation. Econ. Polit. Weekly 40: 2681–2687.
15. Gotsch N., Regev U. 1996. Fungicide use under risk in Swiss wheat production. Agric. Econ., 14: 1–9.
16. Jacob C.K., Edathil T.T., Idicula S.P, Jayarathnam K., Sethuraj M.R. 1989. Effect of abnormal leaf fall disease caused by Phytophthora spp. on the yield of rubber tree, Indian J. Natural Rubber Res., 2: 77–80.
17. James W.C. 1974. Assessment of plant diseases and losses. Ann. Rev. Phytopath., 12: 27–48.
18. James W.C., Teng P.S. 1979. The quantification of production constraints associated with plant diseases. p. 201–267. In “Applied Biology” (T.H. Coaker, ed.). Academic Press, London.
19. Jayarathnam K., Sanjeeva Rao S., Jacob C.K., Edathil T.T. 1987. Prophylactic spraying against abnormal leaf fall disease: essential or not. Rubber Board Bull., 23: 24–28.
20. Jayasinghe C.K., Jayaratne A.H.R. 1996. Phytophthora epidemics-possibility of management using resistant clone, J. Rubber Res. Inst. Sri Lanka 77: 66–67.
21. Jayasinghe C.K., Jayaratne A.H.R. 1997. Impact management strategies of Hevea diseases on the environment. Bull. Rubber Res. Inst. Sri Lanka 35: 19–21.
22. John G.K. 1998. Rubber: efficient spraying to reduce cost. The Planters’ Chronicle 93: 269–272.
23. Johnston A. 1989. Diseases and pests. p. 415–458. In “Rubber” (C.C. Webster, W.J.I. Baulkwil, eds.). Longman Sci. Techn., New York.
24. Joseph T., Chandy B., Viswanathan P.K., Lekshmi S. 1999. Commercial Yield Performance of Hevea Clones in India: A Comparative Analysis. Monogr. Rubber Res. Institute of India, 66 pp.
25. Kajornchaiyakol P. 1977. Survey of Phytophthora diseases in 1976. Thai J. Agric. Sci., 10: 427–436.
26. Kajornchaiyakol P. 1980. Diseases and pests of rubber in Thailand, 1979. Rubber J., 1: 12–29.
27. King J.E. 1977. The incidence and economic significance of diseases in cereals in England and Wales. BCPC Proc.: 677–687.
28. Lloyd J.H. 1964. The control of abnormal leaf fall disease ( Phytophthora palmivora Butler) of Hevea in Ceylon. The Rubber Res. Inst. of Ceylon, Bull. No. 57.
29. Long D.L. 1989. Estimated losses from rust in 1988. USDA-ARS Cereal Rust Lab., St. Paul, MN, 6 pp.
30. Mc Rae W. 1918. Phytophthora meadii n. sp. on Hevea brasiliensis. Mem. Dept. Agric., India Botanical Ser., 9: 219–273.
31. Murray R.K.S. 1930. Diseases of rubber in Ceylon. Monogr. Rubber Res. Scheme, Ceylon, 38 pp.
32. Nadkarni M.V. 2001. Economic potential of waste lands. In “Wastelands: a symposium on regenerating our degraded land resources”. Seminar No. 499, March 2001.
33. Newsam C.W., Brookson G., Watson A. 1960. Report on the rubber plantation industry of India. Rubber Res. Inst. Malaya, November.
34. Onstad D.W., Rabbinge R. 1985. Dynamic programming and the computation of economic injury levels for crop disease control. Agric. Systems 18: 207–226.
35. Pannel D. J. 1991. Pests and pesticides, risk and risk aversion. Agric. Economics 5: 361–383.
36. Pannell D.J., Malcolm B., Kingwell R.S. 2000. Are we risking too much: perspectives on risk in farm modelling. Agric. Economics 23: 69–78.
37. Pillai P.N.R., George M.K., Rajalakshmy V.K. 1980. Leaf and shoot disease. p. 249–278. In “Handbook of Natural Rubber Production in India” (P.N.R. Pillai, ed.). RRII, Kottayam.
38. Pillai P.N.R., Krishnankutty V., Edathil T.T. 1989. Crown budding: a method to reduce cost of production of natural rubber in India. J. Plantation Crops 16: 277–279.
39. Predo C.D. 2003. What motivates farmers? Tree growing and land use decisions in the grasslands of Claveria, Philippines. EEPSEA Report No. 2003-RR7.
40. Rae A.N. 1977. Crop Management Economics. Clowes Ltd., London: 265–368.
41. Radziah N.Z. 1985. Control of leaf diseases of Hevea , RRIM Planters Bull., 182: 3–5.
42. Ramakrishnan T.S. 1960. Experiments on the control of abnormal leaf fall on Hevea caused by Phytophthora palmivora in South India. Proc. Natural Rubber Conf. 1960, Kuala Lumpur: 454–466.
43. Ramakrishnan T.S., Radhakrishna Pillai P.N. 1961. Abnormal leaf fall disease of rubber caused by Phytophthora palmivora (Butl.). Rubber Board Bull., 5: 11–20.
44. Reichelderfer K.H., Carlson G.A., Norton C. 1984. Economic Guidelines for Crop Pest Control. FAO Plant Prod. Prot. Paper 58, Rome.
45. Reichelderfer K.H., Bottrell D.G. 1985. Evaluating the economic and sociological implications of agricultural pests and their control. Crop Protection 4: 281–297.
46. Rubber Board. 2004. Indian Rubber Statistics. Vol. 27, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Kottayam, Kerala, 71 pp.
47. Sdoodee R. 2004. Phytophthora diseases of rubber. p. 136–142. In “Diversity and Management of Phytophthora in South East Asia”. ACIAR Monograph No. 114.
48. Teng P.S. 1985. Construction of predictive models: II. Forecasting crop losses. Adv. Plant Pathol., 3: 179–206.
49. Teng P.S., Gaunt R.E. 1980. Modelling systems of disease and yield loss in cereals. Agric. Systems 6: 131–154.
50. Turner P.D., Myint U.H. 1980. Rubber diseases in Burma. FAO Plant Prot. Bull., 28: 85–91.
51. Veeraputhran S., Viswanathan P.K., Joseph T. 1998. Trends in adoption of planting materials in the rubber smallholdings sector in India. p. 324–327. In “Developments in Plantation Crops Research” (N.M. Mathew, C.K. Jacob, eds.). Allied Publishers, New Delhi.
52. Viswanathan P.K., Rajasekharan P. 2001. Decline in prices and adoption of agromanagement practices in smallholdings in India: Some observations. The Planter 77: 65–76.
53. Wastie R.L., Mainstone B.J. 1969. Economics of controlling secondary leaf fall of Hevea caused by Oidium heveae Steinm. J. Rubber Res. Inst. Malaya 21: 64–72.
54. Wastie R.L. 1975. Diseases of rubber and their control. PANS 21: 268–288.