Comparison of the Number of Population and Attacks Intensity of the Pod Borer (Etiella zinckenella) on Some Varieties of Soybean Crown with Two Cultivation Techniques in Dry Land



Abstract Views
104

Downloads
128

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Sep 14, 2021
Published Oct 17, 2021
10.24018/ejfood.2021.3.5.377

Abstract viewed = 104 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Dry land is land that is never flooded or inundated most of the time of the year. Soybeans tend to be planted after the rice harvest in the dry season (MK-I). Soybean planting can be done with two cultivation technologies. The need for soybeans continues to increase along with the increase in population. Efforts to increase soybean productivity have obstacles, one of which is pest attack. One of the most common pests that attack soybeans is the pod borer (Etiella zinckenella I); This research was conducted in Stanggor Village, West Praya District, Central Lombok Regency, from September to December 2020. The experiment used a split plot design with two factors and three replications. The research material was the seeds of five soybean varieties, namely Detap-1, Dega-1, Anjasmoro, Biosoy, and Dena-1 which were planted in 2 different lands, the first land was planted using recommended techniques, and the second was planted using traditional techniques; From these statements, it is known that the use of varieties has no effect on the population of pod borer larvae. The intensity of the pod borer attack is influenced by the environment related to the use of cultivation technology on the life of the pod borer pest, and the pod characteristics of each different soybean variety cause different attack preferences on plants. The population of pod borer larvae has a strong relationship with the intensity of the attack, this is presumably because the higher the pest population, the higher the need for food.

Keywords: Etiella zinckenella, Soybean, Cultivation Techniques, Dryland, Population

References

  1. A. Abdurachman, A. Dariah, A. Mulyani, “Strategi Dan Teknologi Pengelolaan Lahan Kering Mendukung Pengadaan Pangan Nasional,” Jurnal Litbang Pertanian, Vol. 2., No. 27, pp. 43-49, 2008.
     Google Scholar
  2. Sudaryono, “Inovasi Rekayasa Teknologi Pengelolaan Tanaman Terpadu Kedelai,” Buletin Palawija, Vol. 1., No. 13, pp. 16-28, 2007.
     Google Scholar
  3. M. Kinasih, R. Wirosodarmo, B. R. Widiatmono, “Analisis Ketersediaan Air terhadap Potensi Budidaya Kedelai (Glycine max (L) Merril) di Daerah Irigasi Siman,” Jurnal Sumberdaya Alam dan Lingkungan, Vol. 1., No. 1, pp. 57-62, 2015.
     Google Scholar
  4. A. K. Zakaria, “Dampak Penerapan Teknologi Usahatani Kedelai Di Agrosistem Lahan Kering Terhadap Pendapatan Petani,” Agrika, Vol. 4. No. 2, pp. 67-78, 2010.
     Google Scholar
  5. Ministry of Agriculture. 2019. Food Security Statistics 2018.
     Google Scholar
  6. Marwoto, S. Hardaningsih, A. Taufiq, “Hama, Penyakit, Dan Masalah Hara Pada Tanaman Kedelai: Identifikasi Dan Pengendaliannya,” IAARD Press. Jakarta, 2013.
     Google Scholar
  7. M. S. Bayu, Tantawizal, Y. Prayogo, “Tingkat Serangan Penggerek Polong Pada Genotipe Kedelai Toleran Ulat Grayak. Di dalam: Prosiding Seminar Hasil Penelitian Tanaman Aneka Kacang dan Umbi,” Malang, 2013. pp. 310-315.
     Google Scholar
  8. West Nusa Tenggara Agricultural Crop Protection Center. 2019. Extensive Cumulative Data Adds Major OPT Attacks of Soybeans for the Last 5 Years West Nusa Tenggara.
     Google Scholar
  9. W. A. S. Gatut, M. A. Muchlish, “Penciri Ketahanan Morfologi Genotipe Kedelai terhadap Hama Penggerek Polong,” Jurnal Penelitian Pertanian Tanaman Pangan, Vol. 27., No. 2, pp. 95-100, 2008.
     Google Scholar
  10. Tantawizal, Christanti, W. Tengkano, “Spesies, Perbandingan Kelamin, Dan Ciri Morfologi Penggerek Polong Kedelai Etiella Sp., Di Kebun Percobaan Ngale,” Di dalam: Prosiding Seminar Hasil Penelitian Tanaman Aneka Kacang dan Umbi, 2011, pp. 302-309.
     Google Scholar
  11. F. Pasaribu, S. Dan Desita, “Seleksi Genotipe Kedelai (Glycine max L. Merril) untuk Ketahanan terhadap Penggerek Polong Kedelai, Etiella zinckenella Treitschke (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae),” J. Agrotek. Trop, Vol. 6., No. 2, pp. 76-82, 2017.
     Google Scholar
  12. B. P. Arlyna, W. B. Sri, B. B. Utomo, A. Arif, S. Eko, “Populasi Dan Intensitas Serangan Hama Pada Beberapa Varietas Kedelai Di Lahan Kering Gunung Kidul,” Di dalam: Prosiding Seminar Hasil Penelitian Tanaman Aneka Kacang dan Umbi, 2012, pp. 265-271.
     Google Scholar
  13. N. P. M. Rusyana, I. G. N. Bagus, A. A. A. S. Sunarni, “Populasi dan Serangan Hama Polong Kedelai Etiella zinckenella (Treitschke) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) yang Diperlakukan dengan Insektisida Berbahan Aktif Klorpirifos 500 g/l dan Sipermetrin 50 g/l,” E-Jurnal Agroekoteknologi Tropika, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 192-199, 2018.
     Google Scholar
  14. Yasin, Muhammad. Kemampuan Akses Makan Serangga Hama Kumbang Bubuk Dan Faktor Fisikokimia Yang Mempengaruhinya. Di dalam: Prosiding Seminar Nasional Serealia, 2009. pp. 400-409.
     Google Scholar
  15. J. S. Sartono, Siswadi, I. Elly, F. Lulus, W. A. Arif, “Kajian Macam Jarak Tanam Pada Tiga Varietas Kedelai Terhadap Itensitas Serangan Hama dan Patogen,” Research Fair Unisri, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 95-106, 2019.
     Google Scholar
  16. A. Rahman, A. dan Fattah, “Ketahanan Beberapa Varietas Unggul Kedelai Terhadap Ulat Grayak Dan Penggerek Polong. Di dalam: Prosiding Seminar Hasil Penelitian Tanaman Aneka Kacang dan Umbi,” 2015, pp. 110-116.
     Google Scholar
  17. Suharsono, “Antixenosis Morfologis Salah Satu Faktor Ketahanan Kedelai Terhadap Hama Pemakan Polong,” Buletin Palawija, Vol. 1, No. 11, pp. 29-34, 2006.
     Google Scholar