Next Article in Journal
Demographic Spatialization Simulation under the Active “Organic Decentralization Population” Policy
Previous Article in Journal
Relationship between Soil Organic Carbon, Soil Nutrients, and Land Use in Linyi City (East China)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 20
10.3390/su142013591
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Farmers’ Perceptions and Knowledge of Country Bean (Lablab purpureus L.) Insect Pests, and Diseases, and Their Management Practices, in Bangladesh

by
Md Masudur Rahman
1,
Chandra Kanta Dash
1,
Md Musfikur Rahman
1,
Md Mehedi Hasan
1,
Afsana Hannan
2,
Saumik Dev
1 and
Md Fuad Mondal
1,*
1
Department of Entomology, Sylhet Agricultural University, Sylhet 3100, Bangladesh
2
Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh 2202, Bangladesh
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(20), 13591; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013591
Submission received: 28 July 2022 / Revised: 26 September 2022 / Accepted: 14 October 2022 / Published: 20 October 2022
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Country bean (Lablab purpureus L.), a popular vegetable in Bangladesh, is severely affected by insect pests and diseases. Farmers’ perceptions of insect pests, diseases, and their management are critical constraints to the establishment of an effective and sustainable pest management approach for this crop. A comprehensive survey was conducted with 300 country bean farmers from six districts of Bangladesh to assess farmers’ perceptions and knowledge of the insect pests and diseases of country bean, and their management practices. The survey results show that country bean farmers have been facing varying pest problems for more than ten years. They could identify eight pests and only one beneficial insect species in their fields, including thrips and jute weevil, as new pests. Among the pests, aphids and pod borers were common in all surveyed areas. More than 80% of farmers said their bean plants were severely affected by bean yellow mosaic virus and white mold diseases. Farmers also mentioned that insect pests and diseases together caused 30–40% yield losses of this crop. About 76% of the farmers solely depended on different chemical pesticides for the production of country bean. Growers frequently used insecticides from the organophosphorus and neonicotinoid groups, and fungicides from the triazole group, to manage pests associated with this crop. Farmers start applying pesticides from the seedling stages, at three-day intervals, maintaining only two- to four-day pre-harvest intervals (PHI). Our findings provide insight into the importance of developing sustainable pest management approaches for country bean production in Bangladesh.

1. Introduction

Country bean (Lablab purpureus L.), which belongs to the Leguminosae family and is popularly known as “Sheem”, is a common and popular vegetable in Bangladesh, grown mainly during the winter (Rabi) season, and more recently also in the summer (Kharif) [1]. Bangladesh’s overall land area under bean cultivation is 61,628 acres, with a production of 169,735 metric tons in 2019–2020 [2]. Almost every household grows country beans in their homestead [3,4,5,6]. It is cultivated all over the country; however, the major growing areas are Dhaka, Cumilla, Noakhali, Chattogram, Bogura, Pabna, Jessore, Gazipur, Habiganj, and Sylhet [7,8].
In Bangladesh, seven types of vegetables occupy 56% of the total cultivated area, and the country bean is one of the most important of these vegetables [9]. Country bean is considered a cheap and readily available source of protein, and it is in high demand. It is a nutritious vegetable and an income-generating crop, which is also grown for fodder and as a cover crop [10]. The green pod of the country bean contains approximately 5% protein, 0.1% fat, 0.75% lipids, 4.11% ash, and 10% carbohydrates. In addition, bean pods provide vitamins (vit A, vit C, riboflavin, thiamine), and different minerals, i.e., magnesium, calcium, phosphorous, potassium, iron, sulfur, and sodium [11,12]. The pharmacological studies of country bean have shown that it has antifungal, antidiabetic, anti-inflammatory, analgesic, antioxidant, cytotoxic, hypolipidemic, antimicrobial, insecticidal, hepatoprotective, antilithiatic, and antispasmodic effects [13,14]. Moreover, it is also used for iron deficiency and anemia treatment [15].
Country bean also has potential in overseas markets, with a new horizon for the export of this vegetable emerging in recent times [16]. It is one of the main exportable vegetables of Bangladesh, and the farmers have been encouraged to focus on its production [7]. A report from the state-run Export Promotion Bureau (EPB) stated that exports of vegetables such as cabbage, country bean, brinjal, cabbage and potatoes combined contributed USD 128 million in the fiscal year 2020 [17]. During the 2005–2006 fiscal year, Bangladesh earned 22 million Bangladeshi Taka (BDT) by exporting country bean to other countries [18].
Despite being an important crop, the production of country bean in Bangladesh has dramatically reduced due to insect pests and diseases [19,20]. Approximately 55 species of insect pests and mites attack country bean from the seedling stage to harvest [21]. Among the insect pests, aphids, bean bugs, green semiloopers, hooded hoppers, leaf miners, leaf weevils, pod borers, shoot borers, shoot weevils, epilachna beetles and mitesly cause significant economic damage to country bean production [22]. Microbial infection also causes damage to this crop to an extent [23]. Country bean plants are susceptible to a variety of fungal and viral diseases, which are the main reasons for the poor production of country bean in Bangladesh [24]. Viral disease can cause up to 100% yield losses of country bean [25,26]. Akhter et al. [27] reported that insects are the main vector of viral diseases in horticultural crops, including beans.
Farmers prefer chemical pesticides over other management techniques because of their effectiveness, availability, and cost-effectiveness [28,29]. The indiscriminate use of pesticides has harmful effects on the environment, and also causes significant damage to terrestrial biodiversity [30]. It also affects production efficiency by increasing production costs and reducing net returns from vegetable cultivation [31]. During the rainy season, excessive pesticides are washed away through rain water and contaminate rivers, ponds, and water reservoirs, annihilating the aquatic biodiversity [32]. Therefore, efforts are required to develop an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) technique that is eco-friendly, socially and economically viable, and compatible with diverse cropping systems. However, the lack of information regarding farmers’ knowledge, and their perception of pests and their management, is the main constraint in implementing sustainable management technology [33]. The evaluation of farmers’ basic socio-demographic status, knowledge and perceptions, and pest management practices is a prerequisite for establishing sustainable pest management technology [34].
In Bangladesh, inclusive baseline information is necessary for developing the sustainable management of country bean insect pests and diseases; however, very few comprehensive studies have been conducted to explore farmers’ perceptions of country bean insect pests and diseases, and their management practices. We hypothesized that country bean growers do not have proper knowledge for the identification of pests and beneficial arthropods, as well as the IPM of country bean. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate farmers’ perceptions and knowledge of the insect pests and diseases of country bean, and their current management practices, in major country bean-producing districts of Bangladesh.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sites Selection

We conducted a survey in 2020 to 2021 to generate baseline information on the insect pests and disease status of country bean and their current management practices in Bangladesh. We selected six of Bangladesh’s most significant country bean-producing upazilas (sub-districts) randomly from six districts to complete the survey. These were Sherpur upazila of the Bogura district, Ishwardi upazila of the Pabna district, Jashore Sadar upazila of the Jashore district, Kaliganj upazila of the Gazipur district, Nabiganj upazila of the Habiganj district, and Golapganj upazila of the Sylhet district (Figure 1).

2.2. Data Collection

We collected data through face-to-face interviews with farmers, following a pre-designed open and close-ended questionnaire. This semi-structured questionnaire was prepared for the survey to collect information on knowledge about the insect pests and diseases of country bean and their management practices. The questionnaire included socio-demographic data such as age, gender, educational level, and farm size, as well as information on country bean cultivation area, farmers’ perception of insect pests and diseases of country bean, and management actions performed to manage the insect pests and diseases. We also provided the farmers with printed laminated photographs of insect pests and diseases for clarification. The photographs were shown to the respondents to rank the insect pests and diseases according to the damage they observed in their country bean fields. To select the farmers from the six upazilas, we used the following equation to determine the total number of respondents:
n   =   N 1 + N ε 2
where
  • n is the sample size;
  • N is the total number of farmers in each area;
  • ε is the design margin of error [35].
With a designed number of errors of 6%, a total of 300 farmers, i.e., 50 farmers from each upazila, were interviewed with the assistance of the Sub Assistant Agriculture Officers (SAAOs) of the respective upazilas.

2.3. Data Analysis

All the recorded data from the questionnaire were encoded, imported to a spreadsheet, and checked for data consistency. Data were analyzed by descriptive statistics (means, standard deviation, frequencies and percentages) using SPSS (Version 26, IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA) and R (Version 4.0.3, R Core Team 2020. Vienna, Austria). R packages were used for data visualization [36].

3. Results

3.1. Socio-Demographic Status and Country Bean Cultivation Practices of the Farmers of Six Surveyed Upazilas of Bangladesh

We recorded the socio-demographic characteristics (gender, age, educational level, land type, and country bean cultivation experience) of 300 bean farmers from six upazilas to obtain information regarding their personal and professional lives. The majority of the farmers were male (87%), and 37% of the farmers were in the mid-age group of 31–45 years, followed by 34% aged 46–60 years, with a diversity of educational levels (Table 1). The study showed that nearly one-fourth (24%) of the farmers were able to sign only. The study found that graduates (6%) were also involved in country bean cultivation. The study showed that 67% of farmers had their own land for country bean cultivation, and 32.7% of farmers had 6–10 years of country bean cultivation experience, while 15.3% of farmers had more than 20 years of experience in country bean cultivation, whereas about one-fifth (20%) had 1–5 years of cultivation experience (Table 1). According to this study, approximately 51.33% of country bean farmers were marginal farmers, and they had an average of 0.15 ha of land for country bean cultivation (Table 2).
Farmers used to cultivate a wide range of country bean varieties. In Sherpur upazila of the Bogura district, farmers grew Beguni, Irri, Choita, BARI sheem 1, BARI sheem 2, BARI sheem 3, and Chinese verities. The Rupban variety was the most popular and profitable variety in Ishwardi upazila of the Pabna district and Jashore Sadar upazila of the Jashore district. On the other hand, Motor, Katimaiya, BARI sheem 6, IPSHA 1, and IPSHA 2 were the most cultivable country bean varieties in Kaliganj upazila of the Gazipur district. Katimaiya and Puti were the most cultivable variety of Nabiganj upazila of the Habiganj district. Farmers of Nabiganj upazila also preferred Aishna and Kaikka varieties. In Golapganj upazila of the Sylhet district, most farmers chose the local Goyalgadda variety because of its export quality (Table 3). Regardless of the country bean varieties, the yield varied from one upazila to another.
The results show that the average yield in the Sherpur district was 12.74 ton per ha. Among the upazilas, the highest average yield was found in Jashore Sadar upazila, at 17.96 ton per ha, and the lowest average yield was in Kaliganj upazila, at 9.13 ton per ha. The average yields of Ishwardi, Nabiganj, and Golapganj upazilas were 15.60, 12.29, and 10.50 ton per ha, respectively (Figure 2).

3.2. Farmers’ Observations of Insect Pests and Diseases of Country Bean in Six Surveyed Upazilas of Bangladesh

Bangladeshi farmers have been facing insect pest problems in country bean for several years. Among the farmers, 41% reported facing the issue for more than 10 years. One-fifth (20.3%) and nearly one-fourth (23%) of the farmers reported experiencing this problem for 5 and 3 years, respectively (Figure 3).
The survey results show that the major country bean insect pests are aphids (Aphis spp.), pod borers (Maruca spp.), green semiloopers (Plusia signata Fab.), field crickets (Brachytrypes spp.), bean bugs (Coptosoma cribratium), thrips (Magalurothrips usitatus), and jute weevils (Apion corchori) (Table 4). According to farmers, among the insect pests, aphids and pod borers were the most destructive in all upazilas. More than 90% of farmers from each upazila observed aphids and pod borers in their fields. Bean bugs were the least observed insect pest, observed only in Sherpur, Ishwardi and Jashore Sadar upazila. Very few farmers observed ladybird beetles (Coccinella spp.), green semiloopers, and field crickets in their country bean fields. Our data reveal that about 73% and 48% of the farmers of Jashore Sadar upazila noticed thrips and jute weevils, respectively, in their country bean fields for the first time (Table 4).
Bean farmers of different areas of Bangladesh observed various viral and fungal diseases on country bean as well. The viral diseases included bean common mosaic virus (BCMV) and bean yellow mosaic virus (BYMV), while fungal diseases included anthracnose (Colletotrichum lindemuthianum), rust (Uromyces fabae), white mold (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum), and cercospora leaf spot (Cercospora cruenta) (Table 5). The survey results reveal that BYMV and white mold were the most observed diseases. Rust and BCMV were the least recorded diseases. More than two-thirds of farmers (72–86%) from all upazilas observed anthracnose in their country bean fields. Additionally, more than 50% of farmers from Sherpur, Ishwardi, Jashore Sadar, and Kaliganj upazila observed cercospora leaf spot in their fields (Table 5).
Farmers from the surveyed upazilas have been facing yield losses for several years due to insect pests and diseases (Figure 4). The results show that about 31.8% of farmers faced 30–39% yield losses due to insect infestation and 23.1% said that they experienced 40–49% yield losses due to insect pests. Moreover, 13.7% said that the insects could cause more than 50% yield losses. On the other hand, 31% of the farmers stated that they faced 40–49% yield losses due to disease. Approximately 28.3% of the farmers mentioned that disease could half the total yield. A total of 18%, 12.7%, and 2.7% faced 30–39%, 10–19%, and less than 10% yield losses, respectively, due to disease (Figure 4).

3.3. Management Practices against Country Bean Insect Pests and Diseases Followed by the Farmers of Six Surveyed Upazilas of Bangladesh

The surveyed farmers used chemical and non-chemical methods for physical and mechanical control to manage insect pests and diseases of country bean (Figure 5). The results reveal that chemical methods were more popular than any other methods; 76.3% of the farmers solely depended on chemical pesticides, while 20.4% of farmers used both chemical and non-chemical methods. A negligible number of farmers (4.3%) used non-chemical methods for pest management (Figure 5). The farmers applied a wide range of insecticides and fungicides belonging to different groups (Table 6). Neonicotinoid, organophosphorus, phenyl pyrazole, and synthetic pyrethroid were popular insecticide groups for insect pest control, while dicarboximide, ethylene-bis-di-thio-carbamate, strobilurins, and triazoles were popular fungicide groups to manage diseases of country bean. Under the WHO pesticide classification, most of the pesticides belong to the moderately hazardous class (II), with no acute hazardous class (U) substances reported (Table 6). Most of the farmers from these upazilas applied pesticides more than four times in a single country bean cropping season (Table 7). Surprisingly, during the survey, some of the farmers reported that they applied pesticides about 30–40 times (data not shown in the table or graph) in a single country bean cropping season.
The results demonstrate that most of the farmers started pesticide application at the flowering stage of the country bean. Almost half of the farmers said they begin to apply pesticides at the flowering stage (Figure 6). About 40% of the farmers began pesticide application at the vegetative stage, while around 30% of the farmers started the application at the seedling stage of the country bean (Figure 6). Approximately 50% of farmers used pesticides three days apart. Nearly 40% of the farmers applied them at seven-day intervals, and 5% of farmers sprayed pesticides at intervals of fifteen days (Figure 7).
The data show that about 40% of farmers had a pre-harvest interval (PHI) of 2–3 days (Figure 8), while 15% of farmers harvested country bean the day after pesticide application, and 20% of farmers had PHIs of 4–5 days. It is a matter of concern that less than 5% of farmers maintained a PHI of more than 10 days (Figure 8). The results also reveal that the cost of pesticides (more than BDT 13,000) in Sherpur, Jashore Sadar, and Kaliganj upazilas was comparatively higher than in the other upazilas (Table 8).
Unfortunately, the survey results clearly show that the farmers lag far behind in training facilities. The training status of farmers in country bean pest management was not up to the mark (Figure 9). Only 17% of farmers had received training on country bean pest management (Figure 9). According to the survey data, they received training on country bean pest management from government organizations such as the Department of Agriculture (DAE) and the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI).

4. Discussion

The socio-demographic status of the majority of the country bean farmers was mid-aged and with a low educational background. A similar result was found in different studies; approximately 23–25% of farmers were mid-age (31–45 years) and 30–34% of farmers were illiterate, while 32–35% had completed their primary education, 21–29% had completed their secondary school education, and only 2–7% had graduated [37,38,39]. Our results also show that more than half of the surveyed farmers were marginal farmers, similar to the findings of Quddus and Kroop [39].
Generally, farmers cultivate a wide range of country bean varieties in Bangladesh. Among the local varieties, Puti, Rupban, Auto, Goalgadda, etc., were the most common in the surveyed areas. Mollah et al. [38] stated that numerous varieties of country bean, such as Puti, Suri, and Beta, are cultivated in various locations in Bangladesh. Researchers have also found physio-morphological variations among some local country bean varieties of Bangladesh [40,41,42,43].
Most of the surveyed farmers mentioned aphids and pod borers as the most destructive insect pests of country bean. Our results show that over 30 different arthropod species attack country bean, and a few cause economic damage; among them, aphids and pod borers are considered the major insect pests of country bean [19,22,44,45,46]. Nova et al. [47] found that aphids and pod borers are the major insect pests of country bean in the Jashore district of Bangladesh. Furthermore, researchers from different countries also noted aphid and pod borer infestations in country bean [40,48,49,50,51]. In our neighboring country India, the devastating nature of aphids and pod borers in country bean has also been recorded [52]. According to Laizer et al. [53], in Tanzania, the majority of common bean farmers report that the bean aphid is the most destructive insect of the common bean. Aphids can damage bean plants in two ways: direct damage and indirect damage. Direct damage occurs through sucking plant sap, and the secretion of honeydew deposited on leaves can develop into sooty mold, which restricts light interception for photosynthesis [54,55]. On the other hand, indirect damage occurs through the transmission of viruses, such as bean common mosaic virus (BCMV) and bean yellow mosaic virus (BYMV) [56]. Karim [44] also mentioned that bean aphids and pod borers are found everywhere in Bangladesh, and the infestation of these pests can cause severe economic damage. Few farmers mentioned green semiloopers, bean bugs, field crickets, thrips and jute weevils as harmful pests of country bean. Infestations of these insects have also been revealed in previous studies [19,40,44,47,57]. Only farmers from Jashore Sadar upazilla mentioned thrips and jute weevil infestation in country bean fields. During the survey, it was evident that the farmers of Jashore Sadar upazila cultivated jute after country bean according to their cropping pattern. Since no other standing crop was available in the crop field, the jute weevil might have used country bean as its alternative host. Panizzi [58] and Pasini et al. [59] reported that insects migrate in search of an alternative host to find shelter when susceptible crops are unavailable in the off-season. The pest spectrum of a crop could vary geographically and temporally, and is dependent on the climatic conditions of cropping season and the availability of host plants. Therefore, there are clear variations in insect pest complexes in different locations [60,61,62,63].
The results show that infections with bean yellow mosaic virus (BYMV) and white mold diseases in the country bean plant were severe. Hemipteran insects transmit more than 70% of all known insect-borne viruses. Among them, aphids and whiteflies are important plant viral vectors, spreading about 500 virus species [64]. The presence of aphids in all surveyed areas could explain this finding. There is a positive correlation between the abundance of bean aphids and infection with mosaic virus in lentils [65]. Uddin et al. [66] and Akhter et al. [27] also mentioned that insects are the main vector of viral diseases in horticultural crops, including beans. Insects, especially aphids, carry the virus and cause mosaic in bean [67]. In bean plants, aphids play an important role in transmitting Leaf Roll viruses [68]. In Southeast Asia, the bean yellow mosaic virus (BYMV) is one of the most devastating diseases of mung beans and black grams [69]. Nahar et al. [23] found that white mold disease infection in country bean is severe in Bogra, Sylhet, and Habiganj districts. Our findings are similar to those of Akhter [70] and Fakir [71]. Country bean growers also face infections of anthracnose, bean common mosaic virus (BCMV), rust, and cercospora leaf spot in their fields [70,71].
Farmers of the surveyed areas face significant yield losses due to insect pests and diseases. Our present results are in agreement with the findings of Islam [72], Ochilo et al. [48], and Uddin et al. [61], who found that bean farmers experience 20–45% yield losses due to insect infestation. Bean aphids can alone be responsible for 40–90% yield losses [52,73,74,75]. The diseases of country bean also reduce yield significantly [23,76]. According to Singh and Schwartz [77], diseases can cause up to100% yield losses of common bean. Bean yellow mosaic virus (BYMV) is the most destructive virus that infects beans, and the yield loss due to bean yellow mosaic virus (BYMV) could be as high as 100% [25,26,77].
Our study showed that almost all of the country bean farmers rely on chemical pesticides for insect pest and disease management. Very few farmers used physical and mechanical methods for pest management [71]. Farmers applied a wide range of insecticides and fungicides to manage the insect pests of country bean. Generally, farmers used emamectin benzoate, mancozeb (64%) + metalaxyl (8%), thiamethoxam (20%) + chlorantraniliprole (20%), cypermethrin, organophosphorus, synthetic pyrethroid, etc., to manage pests of country bean [22,47,78,79]. A similar result was found in Kenya among bean farmers who used these pesticides for pest management [80]. Around 77% of Bangladeshi farmers used pesticides at least once, 31% used them twice, and the remainder applied them three to five times throughout a single cropping season [81]. A similar trend was found in Nepal and Kenya, where more than 80% of farmers used chemical pesticides solely to control insect pests in their vegetable crops [82,83,84]. According to the researchers, vegetable farmers are very dependent on synthetic chemicals for pest control, and the frequency of pesticide application in vegetables was six times higher than in rice in Bangladesh [30,85,86,87].
Country bean farmers do not follow any judicial instructions for pesticide application. Usually, the frequency of pesticide application is more than 4 times (sometimes up to 30 times) in a single cropping season. Similar findings were reported by Nova et al. [47]. They observed that more than 50% of country bean farmers from the Jashore district apply pesticides around 40 times in a single season. Chowdhury et al. [22] also reported that country bean farmers use pesticide dosages 8–30 times the recommended dose.
The results show that the average pesticide cost ranged from BDT 11,000 to 14,000 per ha in the surveyed areas. The indiscriminate use of pesticides hase increase vegetable production costs by 30% [88]. Furthermore, the excess and inappropriate use of pesticides has harmful effects on farmers’ health, increases production costs and reduces net returns from vegetable cultivation [30,31,89,90]. According to Mitra and Yunus [90], tomato farmers spend more than BDT 8000 per cropping season on pesticides alone.
Most of the surveyed farmers started applying pesticides at the flowering stage of country bean. Khan et al. [19] and Miah et al. [78] also reported that infestation generally starts at the flowering stage. Very few farmers were cautious about the waiting period or the pre-harvest interval (PHI) of pesticide application. According to our results, most of the farmers harvest country bean 2–3 days after pesticide application, and the majority of them applied pesticides at three-day intervals. Nova et al. [47] found similar results, with the harvesting of country beans 1–2 days after pesticide application and the application of pesticides at an interval of 3–4 days. A short pre-harvest interval of pesticide application may be responsible for pesticide residues in country bean. Pesticide residues of organophosphate, organochlorine, carbamate, and synthetic pyrethroid groups have been found in country beans and other vegetables [91,92,93,94,95].

5. Conclusions

Country bean is one of the most popular vegetables for its taste and nutrition, and especially its protein content. This study highlights the status of farmers’ perceptions and knowledge of insect pests and diseases of country bean, as well as their management practices. Most farmers have been encountering pest species of country bean for a long time, along with some recently arrived insect species. According to the farmers, insect pests and diseases cause 30–40% yield loss. Although the farmers identified some pests and diseases, they did not use integrated pest management approaches. They indiscriminately used chemical pesticides without following the proper pre-harvest interval (PHI). Our results also show that only 17% of the farmers received training on country bean insect pests and disease management. The results of our study corroborate the initial hypothesis that bean growers are not acquainted with all of the harmful and beneficial arthropods in the crop field. Thus, the current survey emphasizes the need to develop integrated pest management approaches for this crop, as well as building the capacity of farmers for sustainable country bean production in Bangladesh.

Author Contributions

This work was conducted in collaboration with all authors. Authors M.F.M. developed the study idea; M.M.R. (Md Masudur Rahman), M.M.H., M.M.R. (Md Musfikur Rahman) and M.F.M. conducted the surveys. M.M.R. (Md Masudur Rahman) performed data analysis and wrote the draft of the manuscript. M.F.M., A.H., C.K.D., M.M.H., M.M.R. (Md Musfikur Rahman) and S.D. revised, improved and finalized the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Agriculture & Food Systems Institute (AFSI) of the United States of America (USA) under the project Biosafety Research in Bangladesh Grants Program (BRBGP-2020-09).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the South Asia Biosafety Program (SABP) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) for their support. We are grateful to Abdul Muqit, Department of Plant Pathology and Seed Science, Sylhet Agricultural University, Sylhet-3100, Bangladesh, for his support in obtaining pathological data.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Biswas, S.C. Summer Country Bean Raises Farm Income in Bangladesh; World Vegetable Centre, Global Technology Division: Tainan, Taiwan, 2015; pp. 3–4. [Google Scholar]
  2. BBS (Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics). Yearbook of Agricultural Statistics of Bangladesh; Ministry of Planning: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2020.
  3. Haq, N.; Saifullah, M.; Chapman, M.A. The humble Lablab bean in Bangladesh: Home garden to market. Agric. Dev. 2016, 29, 13–15. [Google Scholar]
  4. Islam, M.R.; Baten, M.A.; Hossain, S.M.A.; Afroz, S.M.; Naher, K. Changes in homestead biodiversity with modernization in the rural areas of Bangladesh. Int. J. Agric. Res. Innov. Technol. 2017, 7, 32–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Singha, S.; Uddin, M.S.; Banik, S.C.; Kasem, M.A. Homestead Agroforestry Systems Practiced at Kamalganj Upazila of Moulvibazar District in Bangladesh. Asian J. Res. Agric. For. 2018, 2, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Rashid, M.M. Shabji Biggan; Rashid Publishing House: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 1999; pp. 307–409. (In Bengali) [Google Scholar]
  7. Sharmin, S.; Mitra, S.; Rashid, M. Production, yield and area growth of major winter vegetables of Bangladesh. J. Bangladesh Agric. Univ. 2018, 16, 492–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Aditya, D.K. Vegetable Production and Development in Bangladesh Consultancy Report; AVRDC–USAID (ARP II) Project, 22 November 1992–31 May 1993; Horticulture Research Center: Gazipur, Bangladesh, 1993; pp. 3–24. [Google Scholar]
  9. PPW (Plant Protection Wing). Department of Agricultural Extension. Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh. 2016. Available online: http://dae.portal.gov.bd/site/page/4ea467f4-d8d1-4396-908e-9c3c661d0de4 (accessed on 22 July 2022).
  10. Ahmed, M.T.; Miah, M.R.U.; Amin, M.R.; Hossain, M.M. Evaluation of some plant materials against pod borer infestation in Country bean with reference to flower production. Ann. Bangladesh Agric. 2015, 18, 71–78. [Google Scholar]
  11. Magalingam, V.; Yassin, M.; Kumar, R. Genetic variability and character association in dolichos bean. SAARC J. Agric. 2013, 11, 161–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Buruchara, R.; Chirwa, R.; Sperling, L.; Mukankusi, C.; Rubyogo, J.C.; Mutonhi, R.; Abang, M.M. Development and delivery of bean varieties in Africa: The Pan-Africa Bean Research Alliance (PABRA) model. Afr. Crop Sci. J. 2011, 19, 227–245. [Google Scholar]
  13. Singh, R.; Sankar, C. Screening for anti-diabetic activity of the ethanolic extract of Dolichos lablab leaves. Medicine 2012, 1, 177–180. [Google Scholar]
  14. Momin, M.A.M.; Habib, M.R.; Hasan, M.R.; Nayeem, J.; Uddin, N.; Rana, M.S. Anti-inflammatory, antioxidant and cytotoxicity potential of methanolic extract of two Bangladeshi bean Lablab purpureus (L.) sweet white and purple. Int. J. Pharm. Sci. Res. 2012, 3, 776. [Google Scholar]
  15. Al-Snafi, A.E. The pharmacology and medical importance of Dolichos lablab (Lablab purpureus)—A review. IOSR J. Pharma. 2017, 7, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kamal, S.M.A.H.M.; Islam, M.K.; Kawchar, M.A.; Mahfuz, M.S.; Sayem, M.A. Effects of mulching on the growth and yield of french bean. Bangladesh J. Environ. Sci. 2010, 19, 63–66. [Google Scholar]
  17. EPB (Export Promotion Bureau). Available online: http://epb.gov.bd/site/view/epb_export_data/2019-2020/All (accessed on 21 July 2022).
  18. Karim, M.; Hossain, S.; Rashid, M.; Azad, M.; Jahan, M. Comparative advantage of vegetables production in Bangladesh. J. Agric. Res. 2011, 36, 89–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Khan, A.U.; Choudhury, M.A.R.; Islam, M.S.; Maleque, M.A. Abundance and fluctuation patterns of insect pests in country bean. J. Sylhet Agric. Univ. 2018, 5, 167–172. [Google Scholar]
  20. Mollah, M.M.I.; Rahman, M.M.; Khatun, S.; Mala, M. Insect pest complex of year round country bean (Lablab perpureus L.) during summer season. SCIREA J. Agric 2017, 1, 186–196. [Google Scholar]
  21. Chopkar, P.S.; Desai, V.S.; Samrit, R.M.; Uparkar, A.L.; Choudhari, R.J.; Shelke, S.B. Effect of border crops on pest population in Lablab bean (Lablab purpureus L.). J. Entomol. Zool. Stud. 2020, 8, 1407–1412. [Google Scholar]
  22. Chowdhury, M.G.F.; Rahman, M.A.; Miaruddin, M.; Khan, M.H.H.; Rahman, M.M. Assessment of pesticides and ripening chemicals used in selected vegetables at different locations of Bangladesh. Bangladesh J. Agric. Res. 2019, 44, 261–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Nahar, M.S.; Naher, N.; Alam, M.J.; Hussain, M.J.; Yasmin, L.; Mian, M.Y.; Miller, S.A.; Rosa, C. Survey, morphology and white mold disease of country bean (Lablab purpureus L.) caused by Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) de Bary in-relation to soil physicochemical properties and weather conditions in Bangladesh. Crop Prot. 2020, 135, 104825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Prova, A.; Akanda, A.M.; Islam, S.; Hossain, M.M. Characterization of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, an emerging fungal pathogen causing blight in hyacinth bean (Lablab purpureus). Plant Pathol. J. 2018, 34, 367–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Verma, P.; Gupta, U.P. Immunological detection of bean common mosaic virus in French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) leaves. Indian J. Microbiol. 2010, 50, 263–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Damayanti, T.A.; Susilo, D.; Nurlaelah, S.; Sartiami, D.; Okuno, T.; Mise, K. First report of Bean common mosaic virus in yam bean [Pachyrhizus erosus (L.) Urban] in Indonesia. J. Gen. Plant Pathol. 2008, 74, 438–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Akhter, M.S.; Akanda, A.M.; Kobayashi, K.; Jain, R.K.; Mandal, B. Plant virus diseases and their management in Bangladesh. Crop Prot. 2019, 118, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Pham, T.T.; Van Geluwe, S.; Nguyen, V.A.; Van der Bruggen, B. Management challenges for sustainable use of pesticides for tropical crops in (South-East) Asia to avoid environmental pollution. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2012, 14, 379–387. [Google Scholar]
  29. Siddique, M.A.; Azad, A.K. Prioritization of Research for Horticultural Crops; Final Report of a Study; BARC: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2010; p. 56. [Google Scholar]
  30. Muriithi, B.W.; Affognon, H.D.; Diiro, G.M.; Kingori, S.W.; Tanga, C.M.; Nderitu, P.W.; Mohamed, S.A.; Ekesi, S. Impact assessment of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategy for suppression of mango-infesting fruit flies in Kenya. Crop Prot. 2016, 81, 20–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Rahman, M.S.; Norton, G.W. Farm-level impacts of eggplant integrated pest management: A stochastic frontier production function approach. Int. J. Veg. Sci. 2019, 25, 590–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mian, M.Y.; Hossain, M.S.; Karim, A.N.M.R. Integrated Pest Management of Vegetable Crops in Bangladesh. In Integrated Pest Management of Tropical Vegetable Crops; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 235–249. [Google Scholar]
  33. Radcliffe, E.B.; Hutchison, W.D.; Cancelado, R.E. IPM: Ideals and Realities in Developing Countries. In Integrated Pest Management: Concepts, Tactics, Strategies and Case Studies; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009; pp. 458–470. [Google Scholar]
  34. Midega, C.A.; Nyang’au, I.M.; Pittchar, J.; Birkett, M.A.; Pickett, J.A.; Borges, M.; Khan, Z.R. Farmers’ perceptions of cotton pests and their management in western Kenya. Crop Prot. 2012, 42, 193–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Tuan, T.H.; My, N.H.D.; Van Toan, N. Using contingent valuation method to estimate the WTP for mangrove restoration under the context of climate change: A case study of Thi Nai lagoon, Quy Nhon city, Vietnam. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2014, 95, 198–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis 2016; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; Volume 10, pp. 973–978. [Google Scholar]
  37. Anderson, J.; Learch, C.; Gardner, S. National Survey and Segmentation of Smallholder Households in Uganda. Understanding Their Demand for Financial, Agricultural and Digital Solutions; CGAP Working Paper; CGAP: Washington, DC, USA, 2016; pp. 1–22. [Google Scholar]
  38. Sharmin, S.; Islam, M.S.; Hasan, M.K. Socioeconomic analysis of alternative farming systems in improving livelihood security of small farmers in selected areas of Bangladesh. Agriculturists 2012, 10, 51–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Quddus, A.; Kropp, J.D. Constraints to Agricultural Production and Marketing in the Lagging Regions of Bangladesh. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mollah, M.S.; Saha, S.R.; Islam, M.S. Effect of method of support on the yield performance of some advanced lines of hyacinth bean. Bangladesh J. Crop Sci. 1995, 6, 37–40. [Google Scholar]
  41. Islam, M.S.; Rahman, M.M.; Hossain, T. Physico-morphological variation in hyacinth bean [Lablab purpureus (L.) Sweet]. Bangladesh J. Agric. Res. 2010, 35, 431–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Rahman, M.; Ahmed, M.S.; Haque, K.R. Study on the morphological characters of twenty local collections of country bean. Bangladesh Hort. 1985, 13, 51–55. [Google Scholar]
  43. Islam, T.; Haque, M.M.; Rahman, M.M. Catalogue on Hyacinth Bean Germplasm; PGRC, BARI: Gazipur, Bangladesh, 2002; p. 55. [Google Scholar]
  44. Begum, R. Techniques of Growing Legume Vegetable. Intensive Vegetable Growing and Its Utilization; A Compilation of Lecture Materials of Training Course; BARI: Gazipur, Bangladesh, 1993; p. 94. [Google Scholar]
  45. Karim, M.A. Management of insect pests of vegetables. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Vegetable Crops Agribusiness, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2–4 May 1996; pp. 119–125. [Google Scholar]
  46. Haque, M.S.; Islam, M.T.; Saha, N.R.; Hannan, M.A.; Islam, M.M. Evaluation of morpho-molecular diversity and pod borer resistance in country bean. J. Bangladesh Agric. Univ. 2020, 18, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Nova, R.; Rahman, M.; Kabir, K.; Alam, M.; Hossain, M. Use pattern of insecticides in country bean (Dolichos lablab L.). Ann. Bangladesh Agric. 2012, 6, 41–56. [Google Scholar]
  48. Ochilo, W.N.; Nyamasyo, G.H. Pest status of bean stem maggot (Ophiomyia spp.) and black bean aphid (Aphis fabae) in Taita district, Kenya. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosyt. 2011, 13, 91–97. [Google Scholar]
  49. Das, R.; Thapa, U.; Debnath, S.; Lyngdoh, Y.; Mallick, D. Evaluation of French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes for seed production. J. Appl. Nat. Sci. 2014, 6, 594–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Ram, H.; Rashid, A.; Zhang, W.; Duarte, A.á.; Phattarakul, N.; Simunji, S.; Kalayci, M.; Freitas, R.; Rerkasem, B.; Bal, R. Biofortification of wheat, rice and common bean by applying foliar zinc fertilizer along with pesticides in seven countries. Plant Soil 2016, 403, 389–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ba, N.M.; Huesing, J.E.; Dabiré-Binso, C.L.; Tamò, M.; Pittendrigh, B.R.; Murdock, L.L. The legume pod borer, Maruca vitrata Fabricius (Lepidoptera: Crambidae), an important insect pest of cowpea: A review emphasizing West Africa. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 2019, 39, 93–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Thejaswi, L.; Naik, I.M.; Manjunatha, M. Studies on population dynamics of pest complex of field bean (Lablab purpureus L.) with special reference to pod borers. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci. 2007, 21, 399–402. [Google Scholar]
  53. Laizer, H.C.; Chacha, M.N.; Ndakidemi, P.A. Farmers’ knowledge, perceptions and practices in managing weeds and insect pests of common bean in Northern Tanzania. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Guerrieri, E.; Digilio, M.C. Aphid-plant interactions: A review. J. Plant Interact. 2008, 3, 223–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Yankova, V.P.; Markova, D.M.; Naydenov, M.K. Biological Activity of Native Bacterial Isolates Against Aphids in Beans and Peas Field Production. Ecol. Balk. 2021, 13, 85–92. [Google Scholar]
  56. Elsharkawy, M.M.; El-Sawy, M.M. Control of bean common mosaic virus by plant extracts in bean plants. Int. J. Pest Manag. 2015, 61, 54–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Uddin, M.S.; Rahman, M.M.; Alam, M.Z.; Awal, A.; Mazed, M.A. Insect pests of yard long bean (Vigna unguiculata subsp. sesquipedalis L.) in major growing areas of Bangladesh. Agriculturists 2013, 11, 66–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Panizzi, A. Growing problems with stink bugs (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Pentatomidae): Species invasive to the U.S. and potential neotropical invaders. Am. Entomol. 2015, 61, 223–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Pasini, M.; Lúcio, A.; Cargnelutti Filho, A.; Ribeiro, A.; Zamberlan, J.; Lopes, S. Population density of Tibraca limbativentris on flood irrigated rice and alternative host plants. Pesqui. Agropecuária Bras. 2018, 53, 265–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Pedigo, L.P. Entomology and Pest Management, 4th ed.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2002; pp. 177–179. [Google Scholar]
  61. Nitharwal, M. Population dynamics of insect pests of green gram [Vigna radiata (Linn.) Wilczek] in semi-arid region of Rajasthan. Int. J. Plant Prot. 2011, 6, 62–64. [Google Scholar]
  62. Hossain, M.A.; Prodhan, M.Z.H.; Sarker, M.A. Sowing dates: A major factor on the incidence of major insect pests and yield of mungbean. J. Agric. Rural Dev. 2009, 7, 127–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Khan, A.U.; Choudhury, M.A.R.; Dash, C.K.; Khan, U.H.S.; Ehsanullah, M. Insect Pests of Country Bean and Their Relationships with Temperature. Bangladesh J. Ecol. 2020, 2, 43–46. [Google Scholar]
  64. Fereres, A.; Raccah, B. Plant Virus Transmission by Insects; eLS John Wiley and Sons Ltd.: Chiclester, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  65. Muute, N.A.; Muli, B.; Charles, O. Evaluation of Bean Common Mosaic Disease and Associated Aphid Vector, Aphis fabae L., on Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Production in Lower Eastern Kenya. Int. J. Pathog. Res. 2021, 8, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  66. Uddin, M.; Rahman, M.; Alam, M.; Hossain, M.; Hoque, M. Effect of farmers’ practices for the management of insect pests of yard long bean (Vigna unguiculata). Bangladesh J. Agric. Res. 2014, 39, 173–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Worrall, E.A.; Wamonje, F.O.; Mukeshimana, G.; Harvey, J.J.W.; Carr, J.P.; Mitter, N. Chapter One—Bean Common Mosaic Virus and Bean Common Mosaic Necrosis Virus: Relationships, Biology, and Prospects for Control. In Advances in Virus Research; Kielian, M., Maramorosch, K., Mettenleiter, T.C., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015; Volume 93, pp. 1–46. [Google Scholar]
  68. Schwinghamer, M.W.; Nicholas, A.H.; Schilg, M.A. Three aphid vectors of faba bean (Vicia faba) viruses in northern New South Wales and occurrence of Acyrthosiphon pisum-transmitted isolates of Soybean dwarf virus. Australas. Plant Pathol. 2009, 38, 262–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Singh, D.P.; Singh, A.K.; Singh, A. Chapter 11—Pedigree Method. In Plant Breeding and Cultivar Development; Singh, D.P., Singh, A.K., Singh, A., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2021; pp. 235–253. [Google Scholar]
  70. Akhter, B. Survey of White Mold Disease of Different Crops at Pabna Region; Annual Research Report 2015–16; Bangladesh Research Institute (BARI): Gazipur, Bangladesh, 2017; p. 341. [Google Scholar]
  71. Fakir, G. List of Seed Borne Diseases of Important Crops Occurring in Bangladesh; Bangladesh Agricultural University: Mymensingh, Bangladesh, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  72. Islam, M.S. Genetic Diversity, Combining Ability and Heterosis in Hyacinth Bean (Lablab purpureas (L.) Sweet). Ph.D. Thesis, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University, Gazipur, Bangladesh, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  73. Abate, T.; van Huis, A.; Ampofo, J.K.O. Pest management strategies in traditional agriculture: An African perspective. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2000, 45, 631–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Rekha, C.; Mallapur, C.P. Studied on pests of dolichos beans in northern Karnataka. Agric. Sci. 2009, 2, 407–409. [Google Scholar]
  75. Nahashon, C.K.; Benson, M.M.; Stephen, M.M. Effects of irrigated and rain-fed conditions on infestation levels of thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) infesting Dolichos lablab (L.) in Eastern Kenya. Afr. J. Agri. Res. 2016, 11, 1656–1660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Alam, N.; Roy, A.K.; Biswas, S.K.; Gan, S.H.; Khalil, M.I. Identification of Mycoflora of Lablab Bean [Lablab purpureus (L.) Sweet] Seed Grown in Bangladesh and its Control by Hot Water Treatment. Am.-Eurasian J. Agric. Environ. Sci. 2015, 15, 1760–1766. [Google Scholar]
  77. Singh, S.P.; Schwartz, H.F. Breeding common bean for resistance to diseases: A review. Crop Sci. 2010, 50, 2199–2223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Miah, M.R.U.; Barman, N.; Alam, M.Z.; Yesmin, K.; Ahmad, M. Effectiveness of some IPM packages consisting of chemical and non chemical components for suppressing pod borer and aphid in summer country bean. J. Environ. Sci. Nat. Resour. 2017, 10, 109–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Mollah, M.M.I.; Rahman, M.M.; Alam, M.Z. Efficacy of some selected insecticides in controlling insect pests of year round country bean grown during summer seasson. Int. J. Sustain. Agric. Technol. 2011, 7, 19–24. [Google Scholar]
  80. Mutune, B.; Gachohi, J.; Kikuvi, G.; Niassy, S.; Bii, C. Knowledge and practices of pesticides use against the bean fly (Ophyiomyia phaseoli) and associated health effects among bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) smallholder farmers in Kabaru location, Nyeri County. Int. J. Health Sci. 2018, 6, 77–89. [Google Scholar]
  81. Shelton, A.; Hossain, M.; Paranjape, V.; Azad, A.; Rahman, M.; Khan, A.; Prodhan, M.; Rashid, M.; Majumder, R.; Hossain, M. Bt eggplant project in Bangladesh: History, present status, and future direction. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2018, 6, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Rijal, J.P.; Regmi, R.; Ghimire, R.; Puri, K.D.; Gyawaly, S.; Poudel, S. Farmers’ knowledge on pesticide safety and pest management practices: A case study of vegetable growers in Chitwan, Nepal. Agriculture 2018, 8, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Dinham, B. Growing vegetables in developing countries for local urban populations and export markets: Problems con-fronting small-scale producers. Pest Manag. Sci. 2003, 59, 575–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Mainali, R.P.; Thapa, R.B.; Tiwari, S.; Pokhrel, P.A.; Ansari, A.R. Knowledge and practices on eggplant fruit and shoot borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee management in Dhading and Bara districts of Nepal. Albanian J. Agric. Sci. 2010, 13, 6–13. [Google Scholar]
  85. Hossain, M.I.; Shively, G.; Mahmoud, C. Pesticide Expenditures in a Rice-Vegetable Farming System: Evidence from Low-Income Farms in Bangladesh; Virginia Tech IPM CRSP Working Paper; IPM CRSP: Blacksburg, VA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  86. Ahmed, M.; Sarder, M.; Hoque, M.; Kabir, K. A survey on the pattern of insecticidal usage for the protection of the brinjal (Solanum melongina) from the attack of insect pests in Jessore. Bangladesh J. Zool. 2005, 33, 57–63. [Google Scholar]
  87. Alam, S. Extent and Potential Use of Bio-Pesticides for Crop Protection in Bangladesh: Country Status Paper; Division of Entomology, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute: Gazipur, Bangladesh, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  88. Karim, A. IPM: Changing the Vegetable Pest Management System in Bangladesh. In Proceedings of the Phytopathology, IPCC Joint Meeting, American Phytopathological Society, Honolulu, HI, USA, 6–10 August 2011; p. S227. [Google Scholar]
  89. Rahman, M.S.; Norton, G.W.; Rashid, M.H.A. Economic impacts of integrated pest management on vegetables production in Bangladesh. Crop Prot. 2018, 113, 6–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Mitra, S.; Yunus, M. Determinants of tomato farmers efficiency in Mymensingh district of Bangladesh: Data Envelopment Analysis approach. J. Bangladesh Agric. Univ. 2018, 16, 93–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Ali, S.; Ullah, M.I.; Sajjad, A.; Shakeel, Q.; Hussain, A. Environmental and Health Effects of Pesticide Residues. In Sustainable Agriculture Reviews 48, Inamuddin; Ahamed, M.I., Lichtfouse, E., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 311–336. [Google Scholar]
  92. Islam, M.W.; Dastogeer, K.G.; Hamim, I.; Prodhan, M.D.H.; Ashrafuzzaman, M. Detection and quantification of pesticide residues in selected vegetables of Bangladesh. J. Phytopathol. Pest Manag. 2014, 1, 17–30. [Google Scholar]
  93. Hasan, R.; Prodhan, M.; Rahman, S.M.M.; Khanom, R.; Ullah, A. Determination of organophosphorus insecticide residues in country bean collected from different markets of Dhaka. J. Env. Anal. Toxicol. 2017, 7, 489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Paul, M.; Hossain, M.S.; Rahman, M.M.; Khaliq, Q.A.; Rahman, S. Chemodynamics of cypermethrin insecticide in summer country bean ecosystem in Bangladesh. Res. J. Environ. Toxicol. 2016, 10, 50. [Google Scholar]
  95. Chowdhury, M.A.Z.; Fakhruddin, A.; Islam, M.N.; Moniruzzaman, M.; Gan, S.H.; Alam, M.K. Detection of the residues of nineteen pesticides in fresh vegetable samples using gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. Food Control 2013, 34, 457–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 13591 g001 550
Figure 1. Surveyed upazilas (sub-districts) across six districts of Bangladesh during 2020–2021.
Figure 1. Surveyed upazilas (sub-districts) across six districts of Bangladesh during 2020–2021.
Sustainability 14 13591 g001
Sustainability 14 13591 g002 550
Figure 2. Average yield of country bean in the six surveyed upazilas (sub-districts) of Bangladesh.
Figure 2. Average yield of country bean in the six surveyed upazilas (sub-districts) of Bangladesh.
Sustainability 14 13591 g002
Sustainability 14 13591 g003 550
Figure 3. Farmers’ observations of insect pest problems in the six surveyed upazilas (sub-districts) viz. Sherpur of the Bogura district, Ishwardi of the Pabna district, Jashore Sadar of the Jashore district, Kaliganj of the Gazipur district, Nabiganj of the Habiganj district, and Golapganj of the Sylhet district of Bangladesh.
Figure 3. Farmers’ observations of insect pest problems in the six surveyed upazilas (sub-districts) viz. Sherpur of the Bogura district, Ishwardi of the Pabna district, Jashore Sadar of the Jashore district, Kaliganj of the Gazipur district, Nabiganj of the Habiganj district, and Golapganj of the Sylhet district of Bangladesh.
Sustainability 14 13591 g003
Sustainability 14 13591 g004 550
Figure 4. Farmers’ perceptions of yield loss of country bean due to insect pests and diseases of six surveyed upazilas (sub-districts) viz. Sherpur of the Bogura district, Ishwardi of the Pabna district, Jashore Sadar of the Jashore district, Kaliganj of the Gazipur district, Nabiganj of the Habiganj district and Golapganj of the Sylhet district of Bangladesh.
Figure 4. Farmers’ perceptions of yield loss of country bean due to insect pests and diseases of six surveyed upazilas (sub-districts) viz. Sherpur of the Bogura district, Ishwardi of the Pabna district, Jashore Sadar of the Jashore district, Kaliganj of the Gazipur district, Nabiganj of the Habiganj district and Golapganj of the Sylhet district of Bangladesh.
Sustainability 14 13591 g004
Sustainability 14 13591 g005 550
Figure 5. Management of insect pests and diseases by farmers from six surveyed upazilas (sub-districts) of Bangladesh.
Figure 5. Management of insect pests and diseases by farmers from six surveyed upazilas (sub-districts) of Bangladesh.
Sustainability 14 13591 g005
Sustainability 14 13591 g006 550
Figure 6. Stages of country bean when farmers started pesticide application in six surveyed upazilas (sub-districts) viz. Sherpur of the Bogura district, Ishwardi of the Pabna district, Jashore Sadar of the Jashore district, Kaliganj of the Gazipur district, Nabiganj of the Habiganj district and Golapganj of the Sylhet district of Bangladesh.
Figure 6. Stages of country bean when farmers started pesticide application in six surveyed upazilas (sub-districts) viz. Sherpur of the Bogura district, Ishwardi of the Pabna district, Jashore Sadar of the Jashore district, Kaliganj of the Gazipur district, Nabiganj of the Habiganj district and Golapganj of the Sylhet district of Bangladesh.
Sustainability 14 13591 g006
Sustainability 14 13591 g007 550
Figure 7. Interval of pesticide application for insect pests and disease control in six surveyed upazilas (sub-districts) viz. Sherpur of the Bogura district, Ishwardi of the Pabna district, Jashore Sadar of the Jashore district, Kaliganj of the Gazipur district, Nabiganj of the Habiganj district and Golapganj of the Sylhet district of Bangladesh.
Figure 7. Interval of pesticide application for insect pests and disease control in six surveyed upazilas (sub-districts) viz. Sherpur of the Bogura district, Ishwardi of the Pabna district, Jashore Sadar of the Jashore district, Kaliganj of the Gazipur district, Nabiganj of the Habiganj district and Golapganj of the Sylhet district of Bangladesh.
Sustainability 14 13591 g007
Sustainability 14 13591 g008 550
Figure 8. Pre-harvest interval (PHI) followed by farmers in six surveyed upazilas (sub-districts) viz. Sherpur of the Bogura district, Ishwardi of the Pabna district, Jashore Sadar of the Jashore district, Kaliganj of the Gazipur district, Nabiganj of the Habiganj district and Golapganj of the Sylhet district of Bangladesh.
Figure 8. Pre-harvest interval (PHI) followed by farmers in six surveyed upazilas (sub-districts) viz. Sherpur of the Bogura district, Ishwardi of the Pabna district, Jashore Sadar of the Jashore district, Kaliganj of the Gazipur district, Nabiganj of the Habiganj district and Golapganj of the Sylhet district of Bangladesh.
Sustainability 14 13591 g008
Sustainability 14 13591 g009 550
Figure 9. Status of training on pest management among the farmers of six surveyed upazilas (sub-districts) viz. Sherpur of the Bogura district, Ishwardi of the Pabna district, Jashore Sadar of the Jashore district, Kaliganj of the Gazipur district, Nabiganj of the Habiganj district and Golapganj of the Sylhet district of Bangladesh.
Figure 9. Status of training on pest management among the farmers of six surveyed upazilas (sub-districts) viz. Sherpur of the Bogura district, Ishwardi of the Pabna district, Jashore Sadar of the Jashore district, Kaliganj of the Gazipur district, Nabiganj of the Habiganj district and Golapganj of the Sylhet district of Bangladesh.
Sustainability 14 13591 g009
Table
Table 1. Socio-demographic status of the country bean farmers from six surveyed upazilas (sub-districts) viz. Sherpur of the Bogura district, Ishwardi of the Pabna district, Jashore Sadar of the Jashore district, Kaliganj of the Gazipur district, Nabiganj of the Habiganj district and Golapganj of the Sylhet district of Bangladesh (N = 300).
Table 1. Socio-demographic status of the country bean farmers from six surveyed upazilas (sub-districts) viz. Sherpur of the Bogura district, Ishwardi of the Pabna district, Jashore Sadar of the Jashore district, Kaliganj of the Gazipur district, Nabiganj of the Habiganj district and Golapganj of the Sylhet district of Bangladesh (N = 300).
FactorCategoryFrequency% of Total FarmersMeanSD
Age (years)15–30561825.073.80
31–451103738.604.27
46–601013453.274.16
>60331168.365.09
GenderMale26187--
Female3913--
Education levelIlliterate6020--
Only Signature7224--
Class 1–55117--
Class 6–95117--
SSC 3311--
HSC 155--
Graduate186--
Land typeOwn20067--
Lease4615--
Borga (Tenant)5418--
Household size 5.581.91
Experience in country bean cultivation (years)1–55819.33.281.44
6–109832.78.641.38
11–155217.313.831.45
16–204615.319.241.39
>204615.332.549.43
SSC = Secondary School Certificate; HSC = Higher Secondary Certificate; SD = Standard Deviation.
Table
Table 2. Farm size and proportion of land used for cultivating country bean by the farmers from six surveyed upazilas (sub-districts) viz. Sherpur of the Bogura district, Ishwardi of the Pabna district, Jashore Sadar of the Jashore district, Kaliganj of the Gazipur district, Nabiganj of the Habiganj district and Golapganj of the Sylhet district in different farm categories of Bangladesh (N = 300).
Table 2. Farm size and proportion of land used for cultivating country bean by the farmers from six surveyed upazilas (sub-districts) viz. Sherpur of the Bogura district, Ishwardi of the Pabna district, Jashore Sadar of the Jashore district, Kaliganj of the Gazipur district, Nabiganj of the Habiganj district and Golapganj of the Sylhet district in different farm categories of Bangladesh (N = 300).
Farm CategoryFrequencyPercentage (%)Mean Total Land Holdings (ha.)SDMean Land Used for Country Bean Cultivation (ha.)SD
Large (>2)124.003.080.890.581.17
Medium (1.01–2.0)4414.671.460.350.400.09
Small (0.51–1.00)9030.000.680.130.210.34
Marginal (<0.50)15451.330.290.120.150.13
SD = Standard Deviation.
Table
Table 3. Country bean varieties cultivated in six surveyed upazilas (sub-districts) of Bangladesh (N = 300).
Table 3. Country bean varieties cultivated in six surveyed upazilas (sub-districts) of Bangladesh (N = 300).
SherpurIshwardiJashore SadarKaliganjNabiganjGolapganj
BeguniChocolateRupbanMotorKatimaiyaGoalgadda
IrriHatikaniKakliKatimaiyaPutiAishna
ChoitaKakoliKatimaiyaBARI sheem 6AishnaPuti
BARI sheem1AutoRahimIPSHA 1Kaikka
BARI sheem2Kanchon IPSHA 2Goalgadda
BARI sheem3Rupban
Chinese
Table
Table 4. Farmers’ observations of major insect pests of country bean in the six surveyed upazilas (sub-districts) of Bangladesh (N = 300).
Table 4. Farmers’ observations of major insect pests of country bean in the six surveyed upazilas (sub-districts) of Bangladesh (N = 300).
Insect PestsScientific NameFamilyOrder% Respondents in Different Study Areas
SherpurIshwardiJashore SadarKaliganjNabiganjGolapganjMeanSD
Harmful Insects
AphidAphis spp.AphididaeHomoptera100100100961009899.001.67
Pod borerMaruca spp.CrambidaeLepidoptera961009092989895.673.88
Green semilooperPlusia signata Fab.PyralidaeLepidoptera3866545632-49.2013.90
Field cricketBrachytrypes spp.GryllinaeOrthoptera2834-6162622.0011.05
Bean bugCoptosoma cribratiumPlastapidaeHemiptera242---2.671.15
ThripsMagalurothrips usitatusThripidaeThysanoptera--73---73.00-
Jute weevilApion corchoriApionidaeColeoptera--48---48.00-
Beneficial Insect
Ladybird beetleCoccinella spp.CoccinellidaeColeoptera208106202214.337.09
SD = Standard Deviation.
Table
Table 5. Farmers’ perceptions of the major diseases of country bean in the six surveyed upazilas (sub-districts) of Bangladesh (N = 300).
Table 5. Farmers’ perceptions of the major diseases of country bean in the six surveyed upazilas (sub-districts) of Bangladesh (N = 300).
Disease NameCausal Organisms% Respondents in Different Study Areas
SherpurIshwardiJashore SadarKaliganjNabiganjGolapganjMeanSD
Viral Diseases
Common Mosaic Bean Common Mosaic Virus (BCMV)4850243610303315.11
Yellow Mosaic Bean Yellow Mosaic Virus (BYMV)98100961001009898.671.63
Fungal Diseases
RustUromyces fabae381222188101811.10
White moldSclerotinia sclerotiorum801009652869885.3318.05
Anthracnose.Colletotrichum lindemuthianum727456867278739.86
Cercospora leaf spotCercospora cruenta54766254382451.3318.23
SD = Standard Deviation.
Table
Table 6. List of commonly used pesticides in six country bean-growing upazilas (sub-districts) of Bangladesh (N = 300).
Table 6. List of commonly used pesticides in six country bean-growing upazilas (sub-districts) of Bangladesh (N = 300).
Upazila (s) (Sub-Districts)Group NameCommon NameTypesWHO Class (GHS)
SherpurBenzimidazoleCarbendazimFungicideU (5)
CarbamateEmamectin BenzoateInsecticideII (3)
CartapInsecticideII (4)
EthylenebisdithiocarbamatesMancozebFungicideU (5)
NeonicotinoidImidaclopridInsecticideII (4)
ThiamethoxamInsecticideII (4)
OrganophosphorousChlorpyrifosInsecticideII (3)
DimethoateInsecticideII (3)
FenitrothionInsecticideII (4)
QuinalphosInsecticideII (3)
PhenylpyrazoleFipronilInsecticideII (3)
StrobilurinsAzoxystrobinFungicideU (5)
Synthetic PyrethroidFenvalerateInsecticideII (4)
Lambda CyhalothrinInsecticideII (3)
TriazolesHexaconazoleFungicideIII (5)
PropiconazoleFungicideII (4)
TebuconazoleFungicideII (4)
IshwardiCarbamateEmamectin BenzoateInsecticideII (3)
DicarboximideIprodioneFungicideIII (5)
EthylenebisdithiocarbamatesMancozebFungicideU (5)
NeonicotinoidThiamethoxamInsecticideII (4)
OrganophosphorousChlorpyriphosInsecticideII (3)
ProfenofosInsecticideII (4)
TriazolesTebuconazoleFungicideII (4)
Jashore SadarCarbamateCarbofuranInsecticideIb (2)
Emamectin BenzoateInsecticideII (3)
EthylenebisdithiocarbamatesMancozebFungicideU (5)
NeonicotinoidThiamethoxamInsecticideII (4)
OrganophosphorousChlorpyriphosInsecticideII (3)
DimethoateInsecticideII (3)
StrobilurinsAzoxystrobinFungicideU (5)
Synthetic PyrethroidBeta Cypermethrin (2%)InsecticideII (3)
FenvalerateInsecticideII (4)
TriazolesDifenoconazole FungicideII (4)
PropiconazoleFungicideII (4)
TebuconazoleFungicideII (4)
KaliganjCarbamateCartapInsecticideII (4)
Emamectin BenzoateInsecticideII (3)
NeonicotinoidThiamethoxamInsecticideII (4)
OrganophosphorousChlorpyriphosInsecticideII (3)
Chlorpyriphos (50) + Cypermethrin (50)InsecticideII (3), II (3)
DimethoateInsecticideII (3)
Profenofos + CypermethrinInsecticideII (4), II (3)
StrobilurinsAzoxystrobinFungicideU (5)
SulphurSulphurMiticideIII (5)
Synthetic PyrethroidBuprofezinInsecticideIII (5)
CypermethrinInsecticideII (3)
Lambda CyhalothrinInsecticideII (3)
HabiganjBenzimidazoleCarbendazimFungicideU (5)
CarbamateEmamectin BenzoateInsecticideII (3)
DicarboximideIprodioneFungicideIII (5)
EthylenebisdithiocarbamatesMancozeb (64%) + Metalaxyl (8%)FungicideU (5), II (4)
NeonicotinoidImidaclopridInsecticideII (4)
OrganophosphorusDimethoateInsecticideII (3)
QuinalphosInsecticideII (3)
PhenylpyrazoleFipronilInsecticideII (3)
StrobilurinsAzoxystrobinFungicideU (5)
SulphurSulphurInsecticideIII (5)
Synthetic PyrethroidFenvalerateInsecticideII (4)
TriazolesDifenoconazoleFungicideII (4)
TebuconazoleMiticideII (4)
GolapganjCarbamateAbamectin + Emamectin benzoateInsecticideIb (2), II (3)
Emamectin BenzoateInsecticideII (3)
EthylenebisdithiocarbamatesMancozebFungicideU (5)
NeonicotinoidMancozeb + CarbendazimFungicideU (5), U (5)
OrganophosphorousDimethoateInsecticideII (3)
Profenofos + CypermethrinInsecticideII (4), II (3)
StrobilurinsAzoxystrobinFungicideU (5)
Synthetic PyrethroidCypermethrinInsecticideII (3)
Lambda CyhalothrinInsecticideII (3)
TriazolesPropiconazoleFungicideII (4)
Ia = Extremely hazardous; Ib = Highly hazardous; II = Moderately hazardous; III = Slightly hazardous; U = Unlikely to present acute hazard; GHS = Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals.
Table
Table 7. Frequency of pesticide application to control insect pests and diseases of country bean in six surveyed upazilas (sub-districts) of Bangladesh (N = 300).
Table 7. Frequency of pesticide application to control insect pests and diseases of country bean in six surveyed upazilas (sub-districts) of Bangladesh (N = 300).
Frequency of Pesticide Application% Respondents
SherpurIshwardiJashore SadarKaliganjNabiganjGolapganj
Once---4.2--
Twice------
Thrice---2.1--
Four times-8-8.3-16
>Four times1009210085.410084
Table
Table 8. Average pesticide cost in six surveyed upazilas (sub-districts) of Bangladesh (N = 300).
Table 8. Average pesticide cost in six surveyed upazilas (sub-districts) of Bangladesh (N = 300).
Upazila (s)Mean Pesticide Cost (BDT/ha)SD
Sherpur13841107.70
Ishwardi12482125.57
Jashore Sadar13602180.24
Kaliganj1313289.18
Nabiganj11249200.68
Golapganj11900151.97
SD = Standard Deviation.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rahman, M.M.; Dash, C.K.; Rahman, M.M.; Hasan, M.M.; Hannan, A.; Dev, S.; Mondal, M.F. Farmers’ Perceptions and Knowledge of Country Bean (Lablab purpureus L.) Insect Pests, and Diseases, and Their Management Practices, in Bangladesh. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13591. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013591

AMA Style

Rahman MM, Dash CK, Rahman MM, Hasan MM, Hannan A, Dev S, Mondal MF. Farmers’ Perceptions and Knowledge of Country Bean (Lablab purpureus L.) Insect Pests, and Diseases, and Their Management Practices, in Bangladesh. Sustainability. 2022; 14(20):13591. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013591

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rahman, Md Masudur, Chandra Kanta Dash, Md Musfikur Rahman, Md Mehedi Hasan, Afsana Hannan, Saumik Dev, and Md Fuad Mondal. 2022. "Farmers’ Perceptions and Knowledge of Country Bean (Lablab purpureus L.) Insect Pests, and Diseases, and Their Management Practices, in Bangladesh" Sustainability 14, no. 20: 13591. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013591

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop