Legume Research

  • Chief EditorJ. S. Sandhu

  • Print ISSN 0250-5371

  • Online ISSN 0976-0571

  • NAAS Rating 6.80

  • SJR 0.391

  • Impact Factor 0.8 (2023)

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Research Article

Legume Research, volume 45 issue 9 (september 2022) : 1190-1193

Evaluation of Insecticides and Biopesticides against Helicoverpa armigera in Different Modules of Short Duration Pigeonpea

Amit Yadav1, Ram Keval1, Abhishek Yadav2
1Department of Entomology and Agricultural Zoology, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi-221 005, Uttar Pradesh, India.
2Department of Entomology, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University of Agriculture and Technology, Meerut-250 110, Uttar Pradesh, India.

  • Submitted02-01-2020|

  • Accepted22-01-2021|

  • First Online 02-03-2021|

  • doi 10.18805/LR-4313

Cite article:- Yadav Amit, Keval Ram, Yadav Abhishek (2022). Evaluation of Insecticides and Biopesticides against Helicoverpa armigera in Different Modules of Short Duration Pigeonpea . Legume Research. 45(9): 1190-1193. doi: 10.18805/LR-4313.

ABSTRACT

Background: Pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.] is an important legume crop from the Family Fabaceae. Pigeonpea commonly known as ‘Arhar’ or ‘Tim’ is mainly consumed in the form of split pulse as ‘dal’. Pigeonpea is cultivated as an annual or semi-perennial crop, usually in mixed cropping systems. Pigeonpea is attacked by insect-pests right from sowing to harvesting and also during the storage. Gram pod borer, H. armigera has been a major pest in most parts of the country. Therefore, keeping these views in mind, the present study was conducted.

Methods: Present investigations were carried out during Kharif season of 2013 and 2014 to evaluate some insecticides and biopesticides against Helicoverpa armigera in various modules on short duration pigeonpea.

Result: The mean larval population of H. armigera after spray was minimum in M3 (1.15 larvae plant-1) followed by M2 (1.17 larvae plant-1) and maximum in module M5 (1.61 larvae plant-1) during Khaif 2013. During Khaif 2014 mean larval population of H. armigera after spray was minimum in M2 (1.11 larvae plant-1) followed by M3 (1.12 larvae plant-1) and maximum in module M5 (1.58 larvae plant-1). Hence these modules (M2 and M3) can be adopted by the farmers for effective and economic management of H. armigera.

INTRODUCTION

Pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.] is an important legume crop from the Family Fabaceae. Pigeonpea commonly known as ‘Arhar’ or ‘Tim’ is mainly consumed in the form of split pulse as ‘dal’. In terms of global grain legume production, it is sixth after Phaseolus bean, pea, chickpea, broad bean, and lentil. Pigeonpea is cultivated as an annual or semi-perennial crop, usually in mixed cropping systems.
       
India is the world’s largest producer of pulses. In country like India where a large population is vegetarian, pulses are the cheap and best source of protein. Pulses are important constituent of the Indian diet and supply a major part of protein requirement. It is widely grown in semi-arid tropical regions of the world and cultivated in 25 countries of the world on 5.8 million ha with 4.4 million tonnes  of production,  whereas in Asia it is grown in 5.07 million ha and producing 3.07 million tonnes in 2011 (FAO, 2007). In India, pigeonpea cultivated in 4.07 million ha area with a production of 3.27 million tonnes (Anonymous, 2011). Pigeonpea is mainly grown as marginal or a component of mixed cropping system in cotton, sorghum and soybean, receiving less attention of farmers (Sharma et al., 2011). Yield of this crop has remained stagnant for the past 3 to 4 decades, largely due to damage inflicted by insect-pests (Basandrai et al., 2011). Mandal et al., (2009) observed that pigeonpea was infested with as many as 21 insect-pests and two species of mites at different stages of crop growth in an overlapping manner. Pigeonpea is attacked by insect-pests right from sowing to harvesting and also during the storage. Gram pod borer, H. armigera has been a major pest in most parts of the country. Helicoverpa causes heavy loss up to 60% with an annual loss estimated to be US $ 400 million in pigeonpea (Anonymous, 2007). Therefore, keeping these views in mind, the present study was conducted.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The field experiment was conducted at Agricultural Research Farm, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi during the Kharif seasons of 2013 and 2014. The short duration pigeonpea variety ‘UPAS - 120’ which is commonly cultivated in this area, was grown in plots of 5 rows, 4 metres following row to row and plant to plant spacing of 70 and 20 cm, respectively. The crop was grown following the normal agronomic practices in randomized block design with three replications.
 
Techniques for the experimentation
 
Installation of pheromone traps
 
One pheromone trap was installed in the first week of September in each module for monitoring the adult population of H. armigera. The pheromone septa were impregnated with 2 mg pheromone and were replaced with a new one after every 18 days. The pheromone traps were set up at the height of 0.5 m above the crop canopy for trapping the maximum number of male moths. The moths caught in these traps were removed and killed at weekly intervals.
 
Erection of bird perches
 
The bird perches were erected by the end of September in each module for the control of H. armigera larvae by the birds. The T - shaped bird perches were made with the help of bamboo stick and erected at 1.0 m above the crop canopy so that bird can easily locate and pick up the larvae from the pigeonpea plants.
 
Preparation of spray materials
 
The spray mixtures for each treatment in all the modules were prepared by mixing the required quantity of insecticides and bio-rationals as per the required dose of application.
 
Observations
 
The pre- treatment and post-treatment larval population counts were made for each module. For this purpose, larval population counts were undertaken on five randomly selected tagged plants from all the four replications in each module before and after 72 hours of spraying by visually counting the caterpillars on the individual plants (Table 1).
 

Table 1: Details of treatments in modules and their respective dates of application during Kharif 2013 and 2014.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Helicoverpa larvae plant-1
 
The data presented in Table 2 reveals that prior to insecticidal treatments, the larval population of H. armigera before first spray varied from 1.28 larvae plant-1 (M5) to 1.52 larvae plant-1 (M4) during Kharif 2013.
 

Table 2: Mean larval population of H. armigera before and after spray on short duration pigeonpea in Kharif 2013.


       
After three days of first spray, there was a sharp decline in the larval population of Helicoverpa. The lowest population (1.03 larvae plant-1) was recorded in HaNPV treated plot in M1 while the highest (1.27 larvae plant-1) in M5. This was followed by Bt treated plot in M2 (1.21 larvae plant-1) which was at par with Indoxacarb treated plot in M4 (1.20 larvae plant-1) and Ha-NPV treated plot in M3 (1.10 larvae plant-1).
       
Before second spray, the no. of larvae plant-1 varied from 1.34 (M4) to 1.46 (M5). At 3 DAT second spraying, the lowest population was recorded in Spinosad treated plot (1.17 larvae plant-1) in M2 and the highest in M5 (1.61 larvae plant-1), followed by Imidacloprid treated plot in M4 (1.27 larvae plant-1), NSKE treated plot in M1 (1.25 larvae plant-1) and Indoxacarb treated plot in M3 (1.19 larvae plant-1).
       
Before third spray, the no. of larvae plant-1 varied from 1.35 (M2) to 1.71 (M5). At 3 DAT third spraying, the lowest larval population was recorded in Indoxacarb treated plot (1.05 larvae plant-1) in M4 and the highest in M5 (1.79 larvae plant-1), followed by HaNPV treated plot in M1 (1.23 larvae plant-1), HaNPV treated plot in M3 (1.17 larvae plant-1) and Spinosad treated plot in M2 (1.13 larvae plant-1), which were at par.
       
The mean larval population of H. armigera before spray on short duration pigeonpea during Kharif 2013 varied from 1.34 larvae plant-1 in M2 to 1.54 larvae plant-1 40th to 45th  standard week in M5. This was closely followed by 1.44 larvae plant-1 in M4, 1.44 larvae plant-1 in M3 and 1.40 larvae plant-1 in M1. However, after three sprays in all the modules, it ranged from 1.15 larvae plant-1 in M3 to 1.61 larvae plant-1 in M5, followed by 1.25 larvae plant-1 in M1, 1.18 larvae plant-1 in M4 and 1.17 larvae plant-1 in M2. There was significant difference in the mean larval population during the post - treatment period at 3 DAT in M3 and M2, M2 and M4. However, M4 was at par with Ml and M2 was significantly superior over M1. In general, all the modules were significantly superior over M5.
       
A perusal of the data in the Table 3 reveal that prior to insecticidal treatments, the H. armigera larvae plant-1 varied from 1.23 (M2) to 1.45 (M5) during Kharif 2014.
 

Table 3: Mean larval population of H. armigera before and after spray on short duration pigeonpea in Kharif 2014.



After three days of first spray, there was a sharp decline in the larval population of Helicoverpa. The lowest population (0.95 larvae plant-1) was recorded in HaNPV treated plot in M1 while the highest (1.24 larvae plant-1) in M5. This was followed by Bt treated plot in M2 (1.15 larvae plant-1) which was at par with Indoxacarb treated plot in M4 (1.14 larvae plant-1) and HaNPV treated plot in M3 (1.08 larvae plant-1).
       
Before second spray, the no. of larvae plant-1 varied from 1.27 (M4) to 1.38 (M5). At 3 DAT of second spraying, the lowest population (1.10 larvae plant-1) was recorded in Spinosad treated plot in M2 and the highest (1.58 larvae plant-1) in M5. This was followed by Imidacloprid treated plot in M4 (1.22 larvae plant-1), NSKE treated plot in M1 (1.20 larvae plant-1) and Indoxacarb treated plot in M3 (1.15 larvae plant-1).
       
Before third spray, the no. of larvae plant-1 ranged from 1.30 (M1) to 1.65 (M5). At 3 DAT of third spraying, the lowest larval population (1.00 larvae plant-1) was recorded in Indoxacarb treated plot in M4 and the highest (1.73 larvae plant-1) in M5, followed by HaNPV treated plot in M1 (1.21 larvae plant-1), HaNPV treated plot in M3 (1.12 larvae plant-1) and Bt treated plot in M2 (1.17 larvae plant-1).
       
The mean larval population of H. armigera before spray on short duration pigeonpea during Kharif 2014 varied from 1.29 larvae plant-1 in M2 to 1.47 larvae plant-1 in M5. This was closely followed by 1.39 larvae plant-1 in M4, 1.37 larvae plant-1 in M3 and 1.34 larvae plant-1 in M1.
 
However, after three sprays in all the modules, it ranged from 1.11 larvae plant-1 in M2 to 1.58 larvae plant-1 in M5, followed by 1.22 larvae plant-1 in M1, 1.12 larvae plant-1 in M4 and 1.12 larvae plant-1 in M3. There was significant difference in the mean larval population during the post - treatment period at 3 DAT in M2 and M3, M3 and M4. However, M4 was at par with M1 and M3 was significantly superior over M1. In general, all the modules were significantly superior over M5.
       
These results are in agreement with the findings of Mane et al., (2013) who also evaluated the efficacy of different insecticides and reported that three days after spraying, HaNPV was equally effective with quinalphos 25 EC @ 2 ml/lit and azadiractin 1500 ppm @ 2 ml/lit in reducing the larval population of H armigera, Similarly, Narasimhamurthy and Ram Keval (2012) reported HaNPV @ 500 LE/ha as the highest reduction of larval population of H. armigera larvae. Byrappa et al., (2012) have also found sequential application of NSKE-HaNPV-Bt effective against H. armigera larvae.
       
Parmar et al., (2015) reported that Spinosad 2.5 SC (0.002%) was the most effective against gram pod borer in black gram along with Taggar and Singh (2015) also  reported that Spinosad 45% SC (73 g a.i/ha) effective against the pod borer, H. armigera in pigeonpea, followed by commercial Bt formulation (1.5 kg/ha). Kumar et al., (2012) have observed Spinosad 45 SC @ 90 g a.i./ ha as most effective treatment followed by Indoxacarb 14.5 EC @ 50 g a.i/ ha for the management of H. armigera and Choudhary et al., (2013) found that Spinosad @ 56 g.a.i/ha, was gave the second best result in controlling okra fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner).
       
In agreement with the present findings, Singh et al., (2014a) recorded that Indoxacarb 14.5 SC @ 60 g.a.i.ha-1 effective treatment for Helicoverpa management and HaNPV @ 400 LE was least effective treatment compared to other new insecticide molecules. Babariya et al., (2010) also found  Indoxacarb 0.0075% giving the highest per cent mortality of the pest as in present study and Awale et al., (2014)  reported Indoxacarb @ 21.75 g a.i./ha  as second best treatment in reducing H. armigera larval population in pigeonpea.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of above facts regarding the evaluation of IPM modules, it can be concluded that M2 and M3 contained lowest larval population. These two IPM modules consisting of two applications of biopesticides and one application of insecticide. Hence these modules can be adopted by the farmers for effective and economic management of H. armigera.

REFERENCES


  1. Anonymous. (2007). The medium term plan. ICRISAT, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India. p. 3.

  2. Anonymous. (2011). All India area, production and yield of pigeopea. Agricultural Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi.

  3. Awale, R.G., Tamboli, N.D., Patil, S.C. and Chormule, A. (2014). Field Evaluation of Newer Insecticides against Helicoverpa armigera and Maruca testualalis on pigeonpea. Trends in Biosciences. 7: 1261-1264.

  4. Babariya, P.M., Kabaria, B.B., Patel, V.N. and Joshi, M.D. (2010). Chemical control of gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera Hübner infesting pigeonpea. Legume Research. 33: 224-226.

  5. Basandrai, A.K., Basandrai, D., Duraimurugan, P. and Srinivasan, T. (2011). Breeding for biotic stresses. In: Biology and Breeding of Food Legumes, (eds). CAB International, Oxfordshire, UK. pp. 220-40.

  6. Byrappa, A.M., Kumar, N.G. and Divya, M. (2012). Impact of biopesticides application on pod borer complex in organically grown field bean ecosystem. Journal of Biopesticide. 5: 148-160.

  7. Choudhary, A.K., Raje, R.S., Datta, S., Sultana, R. and Ontagodi, T. (2013). Conventional and molecular approaches towards genetic improvement in pigeonpea for insect resistance. American Journal of Plant Sciences. 4: 372-385.

  8. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2013). FAO Statistical database. (19th July 2013, date last accessed). http://faostat.fao.org.

  9. Kumar, J., Singh, D.C. and Singh, A.P. (2012). Incidence of pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera Hub. and their management through newer insecticides in Chickpea. Trends in Biosciences. 5: 240-243.

  10. Mandal, S.K., Prabhakar, A.K. and Roy, S.P. (2009). Insect-pest complexes on a pulse crop pigeonpea, Cajanus cajan (L.) of Indo- Gangetic plain of Bhagalpur (Bihar), India. Journal of Environment Science. 3: 143-48.

  11. Mane, P.N., Rathod, P.K., Balode, K.L. and Deshmukh, S.N. (2013). Efficacy of microbials and botanicals against Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) in sunflower. Current Biotica. 7: 241-245.

  12. Narasimhamurthy, G.M. and Keval, R. (2012). Field evaluation of certain insecticides on podfly (Melanagromyza obtusa Malloch) in long duration pigeonpea. Journal of Food Legumes. 25: 250-251.

  13. Parmar, S.G., Naik, M.M., Pandya, H.V., Rathod, N.K., Patel, S.D., Dave, P.P. and Saiyad, M.M. (2015). Bio-efficacy of some insecticides against pest complex of blackgram [Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper]. International Journal of Plant Protection. 8: 162-168.

  14. Sharma, O.P., Bantewad, S.D., Patange, N.R., Bhede, B.V., Badgujar, A.G. and Bhagat, S. (2015). Implementation of integrated pest management in pigeonpea and chickpea pests in major pulse-growing areas of Maharashtra. Journal of Integrated Pest Management. 15: 12.

  15. Singh, A., Ali, S. and Gupta, P.K. (2014). Bio-efficacy of insecticides against gram Pod Borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hüb.) in Chick pea. Annals of Plant Protection Science. 22: 257-259.

  16. Taggar, G.K. and Singh, R. (2015). Efficacy of some biopesticides against pod borer in pigeonpea. Agriculture Research Journal. 52: 200-201.
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)