DEPARTRIEN?' OF EN'I'ORIOLOGY OF - COnnecting REpositories · by H ~rr~~trgero on p~gco ......
89
CORI1'AHI'TIVE EFFICACY OF \'ARlOllS CORlI'ONIN'I'S Oi: Ii'R1 \\'IT11 SPECIAL' HEFEllENCE 1'0 Ilclico~~er/ra urrttijicm (Ilub~~c~~) IN PIGEONPEA G. ARAVIND REDDl' B Sc (AY ) TflESIS SUBhll7TEI) TO 1'tIrI ACIIARYA N G RANGA AGRICULTURAL IJNIVItI<SI 1'Y IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF TIIE REQUIREMEN'I'S FOR T1IE AWARD OF TIIE DEGREE 01: ICIAS'TER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICU1,'I'IJRIS DEPARTRIEN?' OF EN'I'ORIOLOGY COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE ACHARYA N G RANGA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY RAJENDRANAGhR, IIYDERABAD - 500 030
Transcript of DEPARTRIEN?' OF EN'I'ORIOLOGY OF - COnnecting REpositories · by H ~rr~~trgero on p~gco ......
CORI1'AHI'TIVE EFFICACY OF \'ARlOllS CORlI'ONIN'I'S Oi: Ii'R1 \\'IT11 SPECIAL' HEFEllENCE 1'0 I lc l ico~~er/ra urrttijicm ( I l u b ~ ~ c ~ ~ )
IN PIGEONPEA
G . ARAVIND REDDl' B Sc (AY )
TflESIS SUBhll7TEI) TO 1'tIrI ACIIARYA N G RANGA AGRICULTURAL IJNIVItI<SI 1'Y
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF TIIE REQUIREMEN'I'S FOR T1IE AWARD OF TIIE DEGREE 01:
ICIAS'TER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICU1,'I'IJRIS
DEPARTRIEN?' OF EN'I'ORIOLOGY COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
ACHARYA N G RANGA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY RAJENDRANAGhR, IIYDERABAD - 500 030
CERTIFlCATE
Mr. G . AKAVMD REDDY, has satisfactorily prosecuted the course
of research and that the thesis entitled "COMPARITIVE EFFICACY OF
VARIOUS COMPONENTS OF IPM WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO
Helicoverpa armitern (Hubner) IN PIGEONPEA" submitted is the result of
original research work and is of sufficiently high standard to warrant ~ t s presentation
to the examinat~on 1 also certify that the thesis or part thereof has not been
previously submitted by him for a degree of any university
Date rh L t . *
Place Rajendranagar
- -4;" 4~ k, -1
(Dr. G.V. KANGA RAO) Major adv~sor
CERTIFICATE
This IS to certifi that [he thesis entltled "COMPARITIVE EFFICACY OF VARIOUS COMPONEKTS OF LPM WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO Helicoverpo armigero (Hubner) IN PIGEONPEA" is submitted In partial fulfilment of the requlremenrs for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE of the Acharya N G Ranga Agricultural Un~verslty, Hvderabad is a record of the bonafide research work carried out by Mr. C. ARAVIND REDDY under our guldance and supervis~on The subject of the thesls has been approved by the student's adusory committee
No part of the thesls has been submitted for any other degree or diploma The published pan has been fully acknowledged All the assistance and help received during the course of ~nvestigation have been duly acknowledged by the author of the thes~s
(Dr. G.V. RANGA RAO) Chalrman of the adv~sory committee
Thesls approved by the student advisorv committee
Cha~rman (Dr. G.Y. R4NGA RAO) Speclal Project Sc~entlst - L ,-,. i NRMP, F A D Project lnternat~onal Crops Research lnst~tute for the S e m ~ Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Patancheru. A P
Member (Dr. S.A. AZIZ) Assoc~ate Professor Depanment of Entomology College of Agriculture, ANGRAU Rajendranagar, Hyderabad - 30
Member (Dr. I'.RB. SARMA) Associate Professor Depanment of Stat~stics and
i Mathematics College of .4griculture, ANGRAU Rajendranagar. Hyderabad - 30
C O N T E N T S
CHAPTER TITLE PAGE N U h l B E R N U h l B E K
I INTRODUCTION I -
I I ILEVIEW O F LITERATURE . - I4
I l l RIATERLALS A N D I\IETIIODS 1 ; - ? ;
IV DISCUSSION 5.; 51
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE TITLE PAGE NUMBER N U M B E R
I Efficacy of d~ffercnt trwtlrlcrlts on tlle O\I~OSI~IOII (~rcfcrcncc of gram pod borer Hel~coverpo ornrrgero - ICRISAT center. Patancheru, mlny scason 1999-2000
2 Eficacy of d~ffcrent trwtmcnts against the grnnl pod bo~cr ( H onnlgera) larvae - ICRlSAT center, Patancllem, rain)
scason I 9b9-2000
3 Effect o f dtFFcrcnt trcatmellts on natural cnc~ i~~cs I l v~ng III plgconpca crop carlop!.
4 ElYcct o f varlous lPhl c o n ~ l ) o ~ ~ c ~ ~ l s on lllc pod dnllingc cmrscd b! H nrm~gerci on plgconpw - ICRISAI' cclltcr. f'aL?~~cl~crn. ram) scason 1999-2000
5 Effcct o f d~fferent plant protcctlon stralcglcs on gra111 !~cld of plgconpca - ICRISAT center, Patat~chcm, ram) season 1999- 2000
Mon~tor~ng of H ormfgero adults. eggs and larvae at d~fkrcnt stages of plgeonpca crop - ICRlSAT ccllter, Pata~icllem, r a w scason 1999-2000
Cost bcnefit ratlo of d~fferent trwtrncnls ngalnst I~elrcoverpo armlgero In plgeonpca - ICRISAT center, Patanchcm, nlny scnson 1999-2000
O \ ~ p o s ~ t ~ o ~ i of H orr?~~gero In IPhl 2nd IIOII lPhl fartncrs ficldr at Gulladurth~ \~llngc. Kunlool d~str~ct
L a d populat~on o f H nrnflgero In IPhl and IIOII IPhl fanllcrs fields at Gulladurtll~ \~llagc. Kunlool d~slr~ct
Y~c ld arid pod danlagc In lPhl and II~II II'M ficldr a( Gulladunh~ v~llage, Kurnool d~strlct
ECOIIOIIIICS I c . cost bcncfit ratlo
Larval populat~on 111 d~fferent treatments In fam~ers fields at Gulladurth~ village, Kurnool d~stnct
Yleld and pod damage of sllak~ng. NPV and endosulfa~l treatments In farniers fields at Gulladurtl~~ vlllagc, Kun~ool d~str~ct
Econo~l~~cs I e . cost benefit ratlo
. - - -
FIGUKE T I T L E I'AGI1: NUh lBER -. N U M B l l K
I Efficacy o f d~ffercnt treatrnenls on tllc o ~ ~ p o s ~ t ~ o n prefcrctlcc o f gram pod borer Helrcover[~n ortnrRmi - ICRISAT Center. P a t a n c l ~ c ~ , n l n y season 1999-2000
2 Efficacy o f d~fferent trutnients agalrist tlic grani pod borer Hcl~covcr lx i ornugrro Lanac, ICRISAT center, Pata~~cl~cru, ram) scasoll 1999-2000
3 Occrall cffcct o f d~f fcrcnt trcatnicnts on n a t ~ ~ r a l cr ic~ i l~os I ~ t ~ n g rn plgcanpea crop cruiopy - ICRISKT cclltcr, Patanclicm, ra.111) season 1999-2000
4 Effcct o f \arlous lPh l conlpone~its 011 t l ~ c pod daniagu c a ~ ~ s c d by H ~ r r ~ ~ t r g e r o on p~gco~ipea - I C R l S A r ccntcr, Pali l~lcl~cru, ram!. seasou 1999-2000
5 Effcct o f d~f fcrcnt plant protectloll stratcglcs on gram v ~ c l d o f p ~ g e o t ~ l ~ c a - ICRISAT centcr, Patatlclicru, raliiy seasoll 1999- 2000
6 M o r i ~ t o r ~ n g o f N o r n r ~ g e r o adults, eggs 311d Ianae at L11ffcrc11t stagcs o f p ~ g c o ~ ~ p c a crop - lCR lSAT center. Patancl~cn~, m ~ n ) scasori 1999-2000
73 O r ~ p o s ~ t ~ o ~ i o f li t l r ~ r ~ ~ , g e r ~ 111 IPh l and no11 IPhj fartncrs ficldr at Gulladurth~ \. ~l lagc, Kurnool d ~ s t r ~ c t
7b L a n a l populat~on o f H ornrrgero 111 IPh l and non i P M fanners fields at Gulladurth~ \ ~l lagc, Kurnool d ~ s t r ~ c t
7c Y ~ c l d and pod damage In IPhl and IIOII I P M liclds at Gu l l adu r t l~~ v~llagc, Kurnool d ~ s t r ~ c t
7d Larval populatton III d~f fcrcnt trmbiicnts III farnlcrs ficlds at Gulladurt l l~ v~llage. Kurnool d ~ s t r ~ c t
7c Y ~ e l d and pod damage o f shakrng NPV and e~ldosulfnn treatments rn farmers ficlds at Gulladurth~ t~ l l agc , Kuniool d~s tnc t ,
8 Weatller data for the \car 1999 - ICRISA T cclrter. Patarlcl~cru. A P
-- - -
['LATE TITLE lJA(il: NUhlBER NUh1DCI<
I Larval, pupal and adult stages of I fc~ i t cor~r l~n onrllgero <
2 Eggs on the floner's of p~geonpca plant 6
3 Hulrcr~ver/>a ornrlgerli iarvac fccdlng 011 tllc pod of plgco~~pca 1 1
4 HNPV affected lanae of Hclrcovcrl>i~ c7rn11gero 1 '-I
S Blrds fccd~ng on Hcl~cover/)o orml,qcm lnrvac '1
h Bug fccd~ng on Hei~cuvcr l )~ ornlrgrro lanac 4 1
7 Sllaklng tcclln~que adopted In plgcolipca crop 55
1 eottrt.rlly rur ete /Ire LORI) ALAfI(,IITY for 111s hotrtr~llcrr
hlevrrrrgc ~tlrr~lr ir~~otrrparr~erltrre r r r oll errric8ir! nrrr
DILI IOI I 17 11o1 errorrglr 1 0 erl)rc\\ 119 clc>e/) \or\e o fgr~rrr~u~le or111 I
rt I 511 lo / J / L I L ~ urr record no /recrt rjell regirrdr 1 0 111) e\/cc.nred ~/rorrrfrcrrr ~f iod frroty
cot~rnrrllee Ur G V Rnngn Rnu. .\l,cctol I't~yecl Sc~errlrcl NI(MI1 11 A/) I ' ro/e~/
It~/ert~oI~~rtrol t top^ I<e~~~~rrc/r 11rrlt/11/e f i~r /Irc, k~trtr Attd 1101)rc I (I( /!/$A I)
I'cr~c~rrc/rcrr~ A/' fur Irrs rrr.r~~rrrrrg L I I I ~ crffi~frorrcr~e grrd[rrr~e ~ot1~r1r111
efrcorrtirgc~rrrcrfl crtfi/ c o t f ~ l t ~ t ~ l l r e cttl~c~rtrr 111 ~ ) / ~ r t t t 1 1 1 1 1 : c f f r c / / I ~ ~ \ L I I I ~ I I I ~ I I o/ IIrc
I esecrrclr rtrork
I om pr(,/orttrdly rlrdehled lo 1)r S A Azrl A\ \o~rlr/e I'rrfit rot
llc~/~.l,crt tmetr~ of Lrr~ottrolog~, College ~f A,LTILII/IIII L' I(c~~e~rdt(rr~.l,crgcrt (1% rrrertrhet of
I I I ) c1111 I \ I I I ) corrurtrllcefrrr lrtv tr~rurrfictetrl r# qrtrr\ci t r c r inrd rrr[,lr~ulorr\ t c r r \ r ~ r t r t r ~ ~ \
lo tt?jitte /Ire c/r\ret~~r~rot~ trrosl ~ X I ~ I I L I I I ) I I I reckorr 11 1111 \el ~ / ~ r t t d ~ ~ ~ i / \ Irt~/fii1/11e I \
ttry p(i/t/rrde otrd rftr~ere Ihotrk~ lo htmfi)r 111s ~rirrr\~ordctr~ ct~gge\/ro~~r ro ettrh~Ilr\Ir
/Ire sl~idy
1 1fler ttry /~r($~\e ~/r~rrrkv 111 1)r I'R 11 ,SIrnrrrrrr A \ \~JLICI I~ I'rofi \\or
I~c/nzrimetrl o j Alcr/t \Ires atrd M~r~ltetrrrr/rcs C ollege of Agrtcul/trr c I(lr/~,rrdt c r t r c r ~ i r r .
in ttretrrher of ttry odr,rsory cortrttrr/tee for htr good corttrtel nrrd help ~httrt11: trry
turrrse ofrrn~er~rgcr~~orr otrdpreporo~rotr ofllrerrr
h[s 111crtrkv ute ilrrc 10 /Ire l'rofi\\~rt itttcl l/rrrret\rIy l / ~ c t ~ / 1)r ( 8 V
Srihhnrarrrnrtr, Ur S Lokn Rerlrly, I)r h L)ltnrnrn Rcd(ly, I)r P .Ilfi'nr~rn ,Tree, I)r
1) Jrrgn~lrs~uor Rerlrfy, Dr A Sree Rnnrrrlri, Dr T Rorrrerlr Ilnhri, Dr P Ilor~rrrrt
(;orid, Ur h' Vynj n Lnksh~rri, fonrrcr lrcn[l I)r D 1) R Rcrlrly otrd I)r .S 7ej
fitntnr, L)eportnretrt o jL~r /unro lo~ , College ( fAgr rcrrl/rrt e 'tojetrilr nrtog(rr fir llretr
Irel[~ mrd cooperalrurr drrrttrg //re corrrse uf rlr~dy
I cltrr ~l~nrrkfrrl lo h fr V Rnrrrerlrr~nrn Rno ,\cretr~r/ic O//i~er
/('/USA T f'nrottclrer rr for hts \ olrtrrhle grtdrrtrce etr~orrrogetrtett~ turd IrcIp drrt ttrg //re
crtr~r, \e qf /Ire errcl~~~r~ o h I er/$o ttr\Ir 111e11rk hfr. ~ \ I o i ~ t t ~ r l ~ l ~ ~ r , ~ir~rri1111, .lrri\~t~rrI (r11c1
utlrer rtcff rrre~rrhers oj1'1rl.se trrtorrrolo,g~jor thrrr IICZI/I I ~ I tlorrrg thr field I IO I k I
IC orrld Irke lo tlrorrk IC'I2ISA I. I'cricurcl~er 11 /or pr ol,rc/~rrg Itrhvt crlory crtn/ f ick l
/ l l ~ / / l / l ~ \ ~ ~ / l ~ / C ~ f J / t ~ l ~ l ~ l f l l l ~ I I I I I I ~ / / l l ! C ~ t l l ~ \C fdll l) / ~ l l ~ l ~ \ f l ~ ~ l f l f ~ l l
I.ronr /Ire core ofrtr>l irecn11 exj~re\\ IIIJ, grtr~rtrr~k trrrcl rpecrctl lcgclrd~
ro nr}, helo\'edporerrt.i Sri Srittitws Rerltb crrrd Srrtf. ,krntnthi, trcter ,Strtf. Prnrrrtlri,
hrorlrer-111-lmr, Sri Rnrrresk, brotlrer Sri Pnt'orrfir therr er r~orot rg~~rr rc~~, et,erltr\r~rrx
/rtt,c, errre/ t~crlr~e~hle I I I ~ I ~ I / \rr/lpf~rt l/111t11g/rf1111 ~ I I ) , L ~ I / I I L ~ I / I O I ~ ~ I / ce111,c2r
I /eel c r r t rmrrrerr.re plecr.sr~re orrd jrty r r r u ~ / v e \ \ r r ~ g rrry ~~rof i t r i t id
c./rq~refte orrd ~rrtrrrrrrc crfjettrorr ro nty ~olleergr~e\, Il l~ntrtr, Tlrirtrpcrrhi, KolJrrrr,
Slrnkfi, Snckirr, Rnrrterh, La~ r r t i ntttl fricrrtls ,Shnslti, Slrnrnrlt, Rnglrrr, hlerrtlrr,
Hnrtitrri, Roller 1Inb11, Clrifti G1pn1, .Sri l fn r i , 14111Iln Rcrlrb (AIIA,SF lJrc\ i r Ic~~i),
Srirtrt (l/hl), Hori Kishntt, RCR (Scctrtn Sirrtharrt), tiirnrr Rnr~tnkrrrrrk, R[I~II(IIII,
Rn~~ittrlcr (L%icltn), Synrrt, 1111, Pnrhi, Roo ,Sntrh, .Yritlltrrr, I'icttr, h(n~iktth1rtrrr1,
tirrki, Ilrrrrrlrr torel Leric Srrtllttrknr .\c8rrror.c ta~cljrrrrror r
((;, ARA VIR.1) Rfi1)I) I3
I , C. ARAVIND KEDL)Y, hereby declare that tllc tllesis entitled
"CORII'AI1I'I'IVE EFFICACY O F \'AItIOIJS C:ORII'ONEN'I'S 01: Il'hl
\YITH SPECIAL REFERENCE T O I l e l i c o ~ ~ c r l r n arrrtigcrcr ( I l ~ ~ l ) ~ l c r ) IN
PIGEONPEA" submitted l o Acllarya N.G. Ra~lga Agricultural University for the
degree o f MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICUL'fURE is a result o f or ig i l~al
research work done by me 1 also declare that the thesis or part t l~e rco f has not bee11
~,ublisl icd c;irlicr clsewl~crc ill ally lllallllcr
Date
Place Rajendranagar
(G. ARAVIND ItEUDl')
Year o l s ~ ~ b n i ~ s s ~ o ~ l 2001
A licld c x p c r ~ ~ l ~ e ~ i t ellt~tled "C'or~lp;lrlt~ve cllicnc! 0 1 \.IIIO~I\
colllporlcnts o f Il'h4 \v1(11 specl'll referellcc to l l c l i c ~ ~ ~ e r l ~ t ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 r ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 ( I l u l ) ~ ~ ~ r ) 111
p~gcolllica" was conductetl dur l l~g klrtorf se;15o11 1090, ~t III~C~I~,I~IIIII~I~ ( roll\ I<e\earch 111st1tute lor l l ~ e Seni l -Ar~d I r o p l ~ ? . I 'atd~~~l leru. A ~ ~ d l l r ' ~ I'r,~tle\ll. 111d1.1 DIIIIII~ tl11s study the effect o fvar~ous I I JM components sucl~ ,IS II)CLII~IIIIC~II 511~1k11lg o l ~ ~ g ~ o n p c a p l n i t s . neem 0 006%. I INI'V lii, 500 1.1.111~1, and c n d o ~ l l l l ~ ~ n 0 07'50. ~~i t lepcudrnt ly arid 111 d~fferellt c o ~ n b ~ ~ l a t ~ o ~ l s ~ I I Ii ~ r r r r l ~ g r ~ l r ac \!ell CIS n,ltur.~l enel l~~es 011 pigeonpea was studled
I he lllvcstlgatlollc 011 reasollal 'III~III~I~IILC 01 11 (11 r~rrpcr II 1111
~ ~ g e o ~ i p c . ~ dtlrlllg 41-42 staridard ucek \\llell 111e clop \bas ;II Ilor+cr 1111t1~111011 I)II~\c ( I37 to 144 UAS) revealed peak adult actlvrty lollo\ved by IIIRYIIIILIIII I~VI~O\III(III 111
tile scco~id lo r ( l~~ght o f Oclober I'cnk o\ 1licr?111o11 III the \ccolltl Iortl l~gllt o l (Jitolicr t r ~ ~ i r l ~ l t e d 111to larval peak aroul~d 144 d,~ys afier so\r111g
Nee111 sprajs ~ ~ ~ d u c c d a 111a~111111111 01 5 8 per cent r c t h ~ c t ~ o ~ i 111
o\ lposl t~on by Ilelrcove~po fbllowed h) II'M treated plot5 ( 5 5 " / 0 ) I IIC LOIII~III~~IICII~
o f eridosulfan arid nlanunl s l ~ak~ng \\a? found to he l l ~ e best \\1t11 62 Ipcr cctlt reductloll III larval popu la t~o l~ follo\red by SJIRIII I I~ i1101le (60%), I INI'V (51 1) 11'41 (51 5). Ilceni (48 4) and el~dosulfan (46 6%)
I lidosullali lins adicrsc ellccr 011 ~iatural c11crulcs ~)~~~I I I~ I~ IOI I r c \ u l ~ ~ l i g 111 36 per celit retlucllon o\er colilrol I I io l~gl i ~ i c c ~ i i \+,I\ Itru~l(l u l c r IIic1~1 e ~ ~ d o ~ u l l a ~ i i t nlbo had dclctcr~ous crlkcl 011 ~)rcil,~tor! IIISCL~ l c ~ t ~ ~ i c ~ 111'11 11ll1~1b1t plgeonpea canopy
Il'hl reg~~tcrc t l Ilic IL"~F~ I)C~LCI I I~ I~C 110d dC~~i i .~ f ic ( I 5 ) . l o I I o \ \ ~ t I 11)
e ~ i d o s ~ ~ l l ~ i ~ i (IS), c ~ ~ d o s ~ ~ l l a ~ i + sliaL11ig (19) as ngnllist I i ~ g l i c ~ t pcid d,i~i~dgc 111 LOII~IOI (28) ' l l ie maulmum y~e ld was obtained \\111i II'h1 (632 kgilia) ac ag,lllisr conlrol (410 bgllia) Sliak~ng \pas adjudged as tlie best trcatrliclit 111 rc i~i ic 01 'IJ~CIV lo ~i'ilural elielliies w ~ t h Iiighest cost benefit ratio ( 1 7) follo\\cd h) e ~ i d o ~ u l l , ~ ~ i + sliak~tig ( I 6 4)
Mau~n lu~ l l per cent redr~cl~ori 111 l a r ~ a l p ~ p u l , i t ~ o ~ i I O L I I ~ ~ 111
s l~aL~ng ro [lie tune o f 72 lo 82 per cent at Gulladurtl i~ w ~ l l i a l i igli LO\^ b~11el11 r'111o (1 104)
'Tllc cultural prnctlce o f rn,l~lunl ~ l i n k ~ l l g ~ndutcd 72 - X ? licr LLII~
ILIIULIIOII 111 l~ir\,cil ~OI)IIIOIIOII ~ ~ i \ t ~ ~ ~ i t ~ i ~ i c o ~ ~ ' ; I ! III l.11111er~ I I c I ~ ~ 0 1 (IIIII~I~IIII~III v ~ l l ~ ~ g c ol A I' I l i ls operdl~oli resulted 111 l i~g l~es t cost hc~lcl i t ratlo o l ,111out I 10 111
[lie above clldeni~c areas
1'1ge<111pea (LI~IIIIIC LIIJIIII ( L ) ~ I I I I s ~ ~ I ~ I I I ~ I I ~ IS OIIC 111 IIIC IIIU~~
IIII~OI~CIII~ ~IZIIII IC~IIIIIC ~ r o p s III IropILs ;IIICI S I I ~ IIO~ILS 11115 L I O ~ I S , I~I, I~~,I~Iv 111 .I IIIIIII~CI 01 LIO~I~IIII~ S>S~CIIIS a11d IS g ro \ \ I l 1111 I~I~II~III,I~ to ~ILII I,III~\ I'I~CIIII~C~I 15
cul~l\ , l lsd 111 a1111ost 4 n l l l l lon hectares \\or l t l \ t ~ d e III 1nd1.1, It ~i ~I<I\\II o \ i r ? 0
IIII~~IOII IICCI~IICF 101 IIIC grdlll. Ieed l ~ ~ ~ c l lucl (NCIIC c ~ ~ ~ d ~IILII'I. 1O1)0) III\LCI IIL\I\
drc In tile iore fro111 o f \.,lrlous plgeolll)c,l ~ p i o d u ~ l l n l ~ collslralnrs I~ILIC , I I~ Inore
111,111 200 s l~cucs o f Illseclz L l lo \ \n l o I n e ,111d lecd UII 1111s LIUI~ O l IIIL\L IIIL pod
IXMLI / I ~ l i r i i ~ e r / ! ~ r ~ r ~ n ~ r j i e ~ ( r ( I l u h ~ l c r j ~ s l l ~ c 1110\1 11111~111011\ ( 1 , I~LLI , I I I ~ l ( 1 ~ 0 1002)
1'1geoilpea crop losses due 10 / l ( 2 / ! ~ i ! i ~ r / ! i ~ l ~ l ~ ~ ~ e arc t \ l1111,1l~d 1i1 lli
11101~' t l ln l~ 0 5 $310 IIIIIIIOII ~II~IU:I~~! \ \o r Id n l de T<CCCIII LIOII \ I I I \L\\ III~~IL~IIL III~II
he fo i i 1975 UIII) 20 per cent o f the plgcotlpca f n r l ~ l r r s ncrc IISIII~ I I~ILCIILI~L\ I1111
h! 1993, IOU per cerll used c l ~ e ~ l ~ ~ c , ~ l ro1111ul III 111tl1o (SII~IIO\IL~ CI (11. 100.1)
Co~~lununus uqe o l c l ~ c r ~ ~ ~ c a l s 11~1s led l o the d e \ c l o l i n ~ c ~ ~ t o l IIISCLIILILI~II IL$I$I~IIILL III
1111s spccles \VIIILII resi~lted 111 se\eral crop LII~II I~S (I\IIIICC II t i / 1002) I ~ I L
CL~I~UIIIIL IIIICSIIOI~~ I1,1ve 1101 bee11 \\el l 11cfi11id ,111d III~SI OI~LII C.IILI~LI,II l ~ ~ d
slila!s <Ire fol lo\\cd \\IIII the oliset o f I l o \ \ c ~ ~ l ~ g 111115 IIILIL I S .I plli 111 IIIL
~ l i l d e r s l ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ g of the pesl deni l l ) alld da111,lgc (11 \ l c l d lo r? r e l , l l ~ i ~ ~ ~ \ I ~ ~ l l ' . !\IIILII I\
\ e l \ 1nlporl,lllt I n de\e lop~ng all\ pcst Illnnagelllcl1l \ l ~ d ( ~ g \
A large i~u lnbcr o f paraslles n ~ l d [lrcd,hors I ld\e ~ L L I I r ~ l x111 id 10
less ~l;ltural ctlclny attack 011 I'igeot~pca ~II;III 011 o t l~er c t o ~ i s 11ke ~orgl11t111
(Ul~;~Inagar ct ~ r l . , 1983). 111 vie\\' o f l l lc ~IICIC:ISIII~ IIIISIISC O~'CIICIIIIC:II I I ISCCIICI~CS
and tlicir cl'l'ects on not1 targets and environnict~t the present rcscarcl~ is c o ~ ~ c c ~ ~ l r ; l t c d
011 IIIL\X~IIIUIII i ! ~ i I ~za t i on of natural resources by itiregrntiiig ~ a r i o u r tiuii-clictnic;il
pcsr 111311ilgel1lel1l strategies.
I n order to susl;lin product iv~t ) nf pigcot~pe;~ b n ~ c d \!WIII \\IIII
l ~ ~ i ~ ~ i l l l i l l adverse afiects o n the envlroltllietlr tilere is :III Itrgcilt ticcd to dc \c iop arid
c\'iiluarc vilriuus II 'hl strategies l lct icc tlic p l c s o ~ l s l~ ld lcs arc i ~ ~ ~ d c ~ t , t h c ~ i 1~1111 tlic
Ib l ln \+ ing objecti+cs
I . ' l o study tile inlpacl o f various cotllponetlls o f Il'hl on I l ~ ~ i r c r ~ l ~ c ~ r l ~ ~ r u r r r r i ~ e r ~ ~
1nali;lgetlicnl '
2 . '10 evalilnte the ccotlo~nics o f various Il'h.1 c i i ~ i l l i u ~ ~ c ~ ~ t . ; ~III / i ( , I i [ r~ i i , r /x i
~na t rageu~e~ l t i n pigeonpea
CtIAPTEI1 II
REVIEW OF LITERATLIIIE
h e literature concerning the prcsellt ~ t u d y is categoriscd and
presented under different headings as follo\\s.
2.1 CON'TI<OL RIEASUI<ES OF Ilelicorcrpn nrririjiero
2.1.1 Intcgrntcd I'cst h.lnnsgcn~rtil (ll'hl ):~g:~in.it 11. cir t i i i~er~i
Pate1 (1988) organized studies on predators of Ilur.nti,yerir and .Y
II/II~(I by insectivorous birds tvitli special enipliasis oli nilnas /Icri(l~/licr.e~ /r.iJc/r; I.
Jogindcr Singh cr ill. (1990) wl~ile explaining llic ecology of11 i~rnrigcro r ~ ~ c ~ i l ~ o n c d
the inlportance of liouse sparrows and niyna as natural enenlies ill Ludl~iar~a
Uadaya ef (11. (1990) observvd n 11igh licld and cost hcl~clit ra t~o in
tlie plots receivi~ig cultural and plmit protect~o~i nieasurcs, follo\\ed h) ~ I ~ ( I s c
receiving plant protection nleasurcs only.
hlahajnn el (11 (1990) recnliinicndcd tlic use of ri:~tl~r;il ct~criiics
including Coni~~uicfis cl~lorickue (Ucl~ids). IINI'V and il~sccticidcs fur tlie cSl'cctiic
management of cliickpea pod borer, H ar.tilrger.a ;~nd l~glit and plicroriiol~c lraps to
nioliitor tlic pcst population aiid also stated t11;lt tllc use of rc$istant v;~rictics,
intercropping systeni and so\\ ing dates are eKectivc in tiianagcmcnt of tliis pcst.
According to Sachan (1990), soinc of the pest control nieasurcs
include [lie use of s)ntl~ctic plicromonc traps illid liglit traps. NI'V, brccdilig for IIrht
Plant Resistance advancing the so\\irig date or u s ~ ~ i g early maturing cultiiars. use of 3
parasitoids like C <r~i~/>uler;s c h l o r i ~ i ~ o c Uclilda. lriixcd or intercropping \bit11 cereals
or other legumes, use o f Phosphorous fertilizers and application o f insccticidcs.
Ballal el 01. (1992) studied Ilie cn'cct o f pestlcidc applications hascd
on pheronlone trap calclres and distribution pattern o f I f or~uiperu ill pigeonpca arid
found that it caused change in dislribution pattcrli. pcrfu~li ia~lcc and dc\cl[~pnictlt ol'
IPM.
Besldes parasites, several hirds arc often ohscrted in grou~idliin fields
o f which egrets, drongos and mynas are ilnporlant tliat feed on I ~ ~ ~ l r c o v o ~ l > i r and
Spo(lr
and revealed that &rcrllus r k ~ r r ~ r ~ ~ ~ u r r s t s sp. Kurstaki w ~ d its combination w ~ t h
HNPV and predator Cilryroperlo currleo was effective as cl~dosulfan in reducing the
H arnrlgeru populations.
Sarode er a/. (1995) concluded that applicat~on of the N P V at 5 0 0 LE
per ha plus neem extract at 6 per cent gave the nlaximum reduction in larval
numbers. Sarode and Samaik (1996) reported that the NPV and botanical product
(NSKE) were found effective and the addition of half doses of insecticides in these
materiai improved their eflicacy to combat the gram pod borer /L arntlgera.
Bhaguat (1997) stated that birds only visited plots that were not
sprayed with c h c t l ~ ~ c a i or b o t m ~ ~ c a l insect~cides and tlleir activity was Intense 111
plots sprayed wlth NPV, where the birds were found feeding o n the dead virus
infected larvae.
2.1.2 Efficacy of Ilelicoverpa nuclear polyhcdrosis v i rus (IINI'V)
against II . armigera
Natarajan er ill. (1991) lbund the t\\o treatlncnls wtth erldosuliarl
alone recorded liighest jiclds ( Z j Y . 6 L g h a ) folloncd h! \1ru7 and endocutfan (21 5 6
kgha). Least pod damage ( 5 . 6 per cent) \ \as recorded in treatment with virus
fullo\red by etldosulfan with an interval of one ~ e v k in pigeonpea.
Muthai'ah and Rabindra (1991) concluded Illat there was no
significant difference between ULV and uettable formulat~ons of NI'V and
endosulfan for the control of / I rrrnr~yera in pigeonpea.
Santliaraii er (11. (1994) obscr\cd tliat virus at 250 Ll'.ilia +
B. rhrrring~etuis (Dellin) at 2.5KgIlia gale better co~itrol o f 11 o r ~ ~ ~ i g e r o da~nage to
flo\\ers and pods ilinn 1)ellin alone on pigeonpc;~
Ciiraddi er 01. (1994) repurled tliat Io\\cst pod dan~oge and higliest
seed yield were obtained in treatnients rece~ving 3 rounds o f sequential sprays of
NPV. Pyretliroids - NI'V r\llile NI'V ur insecticide ;~lonc failed to gibe apprcciablc
control o f I/ ornlrgeru in pigeonpea. I l i e cost benulit ratios it1 ilie $pray sequence
trcnltlicnts invol \ i t~y NI'V a ~ ~ d pyrcthroids \\crc t~~odcr i~ tc .
Sliartiia er 01. (1997) evaluated NI'V. I' cI~rlurrr.c, ~iionucrotophus and
endosulfan against H crrntrgera in chick pea and co~icluded tliat NI'V gn\e tlic bust
cor~lrul ufpest.
Neliarkar el rri. (199'1) reported tl1;11 in t l ~ e cnntrol o f I le11r.o~~wp~r
among 9 insecticidal treatments on pigeonpea cv. BUN-2, IINI'V treatlllcnt
recorded lowest pod damage (26.51%) and lligliest yield (18.24 qlli;~)
2.1.3 Efficacy o f n e e n ~ products against If. arttrigem
Kao and Rao (1993) obser\ed that 3 applicatio~ir o f 1 5 per cent
Keplin at 10 days interval at nosier i ~ ~ i t i a t ~ o n . 50 per cent flo\ccrit~g and pod
niaturity on pigeonpea against 11 [rrn~rycr.cr nas lbul~d clkctivc III reducing
oviposition. larval nuniber a i d pod damage as conipared to untreated plots.
Sadauarte e/ ul. (1997) reported tliat in the experiment \villi necm
seed extract, cow dung. cow urine and cotnh~nntionc \\it11 and without insccticidcs
were tested for control o f Helico~crpir on pigeo~ipea. Combinations o f neem seed
extract, dung and urine \\ere moderately efl'ccti\e \\lien compared to NSKE \rith
insecticide which was more efl'ective.
Jagl;iri L.1 01. (1997) conducted tcsl 01 ~ i ~ e l l ~ , l ~ i o l . c l i l o r ~ i l ~ i r t ~ ~ :
mctlianol (9:l). extracts o f neem seeds and green Icavcs against I1 ~~rntrpo.lr in
pigeonpea and chickpea and concluded that neem sced and leaf extracts sho\ved
promising results in causing ~norpllogcnic effects on lar\;~c
Uas (1998) reportcd that 4 i~isccticidcs arid NSKl i z~l~ i l lc or 111
combination in half doses were tested against / I crrrrrrprrn and h t c l ~ r r r ~ r p r o ~ r r ) ~ ~ ~
obrlrsa Malloch on pigconpea. Lo\rest pod damage and highest yield were obtained
by using ditiietlioate al0.15 per cellt + NSKE ;II 5 per ccnt.
Aklio\vri er (11. (1999) evalu;~ted some pllyto extracts and endosullan
0.07 per cent against H urnlr,ye,sr in prgeuripea and concluded that llolie ( i f the pli1111
extracts (NSKC 5 per cent. green cartar(ph1to extract) IO per ccnt) \vcrc curi~parahle
\\it11 cndost~lli~ri. but tlicy \\crc s ign~l ic ;~~i t l ) bcticr tllan untrc;itcd conirol III
decreasing pest daniage and increasing seed ) icld
2.1.4 Effect o f endosulfan against 11. ornrigcra
Kahiiria el ul. (1988) reported 111;lt tllc rilcatl damagc caused by I /
rrr111ijierlr and I\/ ohrlrs[r ill I I different districts ~C(ju~j;tr;tt ratigcd i'ro111 3.6 - 0.1 and
from 2.6 - I I per cent, respectively.
'lllakur el a/ . (1989) reported that 21.6 per cent o f the pods or
pigeonpea and 12 1 pcr cent o f grains werc darilaged by I / , ur~trigerrr in treated fields
as compared \\ith 43.7 per cent and 37.2 pcr cent. respecli\ely In untreated fields.
Sinlw el ol. (1989) reported t11at by us~ng t\\u sprays o f e~idosul lh~l
0.07 per cent at niaximuni flo\rering and 50 per cent podding ga\e cl'fccti\c control
and formed an approprlatc spray scl~edule for pigconpca.
Patil uf a/. (1990) reported that endosullhn 2 per cctlt dust ioJ 25 kgilld
proved most eil'ecti\c against the 3 pests v i ~ . . l i (I).IIIIRL'I(I, I\! ohf~i.\(r : i~ ld E.I~/IIS~IS
oruinoso(aalsingham).
Kaju e l 01. (1991) sliowcd that in contrul o f I 1 lirrrii,qerli i t 1
pigeonpea, application o l endosulfan 0.07 per cent at 5(l per ccnt f lo \ \cr~ng stage
gave good protcctio~i with nlinimal yield losses.
Gos:~lgnd c l 01. (1992) dctcrtiiiticd the niost crttical gr (~\ r t i i period o f
pigeonpea crop \\as hct\\cct~ 90 and 134 days and ;ippltcatti~n o f ~t~sccticidcs during
this period rcsultcd in greatest y~clds.
Saclian e l 01. (1993) reporte(l that : ~ t i i ~ t i g \ilriou'; h ~ l t a t ~ ~ c a l
i~isccticides and sy~~t l ie t ic insecticides tested agairist Ii nriJlrjierrr in pigcor~pca
endosulran \\as found to be nlost cfTecti\e i n coritrolling tlic pest.
Yadav er 01. (1993) repurted that llie 2 spr;t)s o f e~ldosulfan 0.07 per
cent, one at 50 days aner first spraying resulted i n the lcast damage to pods (6.8%)
and seeds (5.4%) and greatest grain yield 22 35 qllla.
I'atil and Dethe (1993) assessed llie crficacy o f single and duublc
sprays o f endusulfari 0.07 per cent, fenvalerate 0.015 per cent and cypermethrin
0.015 per cent and round less pod d;~tliagc in 1rc:ttcd p1;ints. Double spray ;I[ 15 per
cent flowering and I5 days later was more effcct~ve tllan single spray svith mean
yields higher in double (26.24% q h a ) than single (19.36 ql'ha).
Makar er '11. (1994) found that the nlosl effective schedule of
application for conlrol of H armigera in pigeonpea was 0.07 per cent endosulfan at
50 per cent flowering, maximum flowering and maximum pod maturity.
Mishra er ul. (1995) reported that 3 spra)s * ~ t h endosulran @ 5 kg
a.i./ha at early vegetative stage, at 50 per cent Ilo\\ering and 15 days after 50 per
cent flowering reduced infestation by H armigeru to a rninimun level of 18.7 per
cent compared to 38 7 per cent in untreated conlrol. T l i~s schedule produced highest
seed yield of 8.9 q h a compared to 4.1 qllia in uritrcated control on hill arhar
(L '~UI I I IS nl /u~r) .
Chaudhary er (11. (1995) reported that cndosulfan spray appl~cd at tile
reproductive stage of the crop effectively reduced pod damage. g~vlng a s~gnificanr
increase in seed y~eld and maximum econoniic return compared \\it11 untreated
control agalnst If iir~nigera in pigeonpea.
Borkar ei ul. (1996) found that endosulfan 0.07 per cent was the most
effective insecticide in minimising the infestallon of 11 ornligera on plgconpea.
Similarly parathion methyl with NSKE at 5 pcr cent resultcd in t l ~ ~ n i n ~ u m pod
damage by IW obrusa.
Singh et 01. (1997) reported on the e c o n ~ ~ i ~ i c s of use of insect~cides
agarnst pod borer complex and pod fly in plgeonpca that 2 sprays of endosulfan
resulted in greater cost benefit ratio (4:15.6) as compared to 3 sprays ofquinalphos.
Patel el 01. (1997) evaluated elficacy of synthet~c and botanical
~nsecticides for the control of H urmigeru in piyconpca and concluded that
endosulfan 0.035 per cent gave highest cost.benefit ratlo 1.14.1 and NSKE 3 pcr
cent gave a cost:benefit ratio of 1 :I 1.7 which was less effective in controlling insect
pests and less economical.
Gouse Mohammed et dl . (1999) evaluated 13 lnsect~cides against
Fielicorerpo on pigeonpea between 1990-97 and found that the pod damage at
maturity d~flered significantly between treaunents. Least pod damage was recorded
in teflubenzwon (4.4%) and carbosulfan (6.1%). The bield also differed
significantly being h~gtiest in sulrophos (620 kgiha) and pyracloros (610 kg~lia).
Patel er 01. (1999) conducted labotatory studies on the cilicncy of 4
pesticides against eggs and larvae of /I urmtgeru. Results showed that mixture of
deltarnethrin 0.8 per cent + endosulfan 0 03 per cent pave 97-100 per cerlt nioriality
of larvae after 4 days and 90-93 per cent mortalilq oieggs.
ACTIVITY O F DIFFEREN I' NA'I'UI<AL ':NEMIES O N G I U M
POD BORER AND TREAThlENl'AL EFFECTS ON
PREDATORS AND P A W S I T E S
Bilapate (1989) from the life tables studlcs of H, urntlgero reported
that the key monality factors on pigeonpea ncre the paras~to~ds C chiorrdue and
Goniophrhalmus hull; blesnil in lama1 and pupal stages, respectively.
Sanap et a1 (1990) reponed that natural enemy populauon was safe
when strip application of Endosulfan was done on plgeun pea to control / I urnrrl(cru.
Mahajan er 01. (1990) recommended the use of natural enemies
~ncluding Cun~poierls c)rlorrdeue Uchida. NPV and insecticides lor the el'fective
management of chickpea pod borer. I/ orniigcrrr and light and pl~eromone traps to
monitor the pest population and also stated thc use of resistant varieties,
lntercropping system and sowing dates as effective In management of this pest.
Specles of parasitoids present and the extent of parasitlwt~on on / I
arnligera were studied in pigeonpea fields by Ilayakar el a/ . (1997) and found that
cygs a11d carly stage It~rvac Hcre parasili~ed by I~yr~~cnuptcrans and latcr instars wcrc
attacked by dipterans and pathogens.
Dayakar er a1 (1999) observed that the egg a i d larva o f / / ortnrgeru
were paras~tized by tlymenopterans, later instars by dipterans and patliogcns.
Bactenal and viral dlseases were observed on lnatured lonsae.
Sisgsgaard er a/. (1999) noted tl~at ~ntersu\v~ng of cowpea with
pigeonpea increased the natural control of li ornrleero in plgconpea. lnsccucidal
application on pigeonpea had no signilicant clfcct o n tlic numhcr of I/ rrrnlr,yeru
larvae but had a strong adverse effect on natural enelli~es generalist predators llke
anthisids and L'l~r~soperia rnornorrm~.
Shanower et a1 (1999) summarlsed the b~ology and ecology of three
most important groups of pests of pigeonpea in the semi-arid and subtroplcs, flower
and pod feeding Lepidoptera (H urnlrgerlr and dlrrrircu virroro (;e)er), pud sucking
Hemiptera. and seed feed~ng Diptera and Il)menoptera (mainly .\~elorrugron~yia
obrusa). The recent research Investigating the colnplcx interactiun~ arnong
pigeonpea 11s key pests and their natural enemlcs \\as also reviewed. I'igeonpea
pest management research has focussed until reuer~tly on the identilicat~on and
development of res~stant cultivars and on cl~emical control.
Minja er 01. (1999) reported the natural enemies belonging to
Coleoptera, Hymenoptera, Diptera and Hemiplera on three pest groups. pod borers
(Helicor,erpa arn~rgeru. ,ltar~rcu rilrafa and Erreilu irrlcketlellu Trcilsehke pud
sucking bugs (Cia~igral la ron~e~rrosrcoliis) and pod fly ( I \ l ~ ~ i ~ r r ~ ~ g r o r l ~ i u
rhalcosonra), These natural enemies \rere fol~nd more frcqocnlly In Kenya.
Population of Campolelis clrlorideac has nlaxlmum in plants treated
with aldrin and paras~tism was 37.0 to 42 7 per cent loilouing treatment u ~ t h
monocrotophos and Karanj uil (Prasad er 111. IYR7)
Accordrng to ellapate el ul. (1988). parasil~sm of I " lo 3'%11star
Ilelicor~erpa lanae by lchneumon~d C'un~polrirs ciilorideue 011 C'nyrr~rrr\ cqjo~t was
1.28 and tachnid C[rrceiiu species causud 1.95. 1 OR and ? 80 per ccnl pams~ticm uf
4" to 6" instar larvae in I", 2" and 3" generations respcct~vcly.
Srinlvas (1989) evaluated the extent of parasitism of gram pod borer
H a rn~ ige r t~ by ichneumonid larval poras~to~ds C'i~t?rpoleli.~ ci~lorideue and Grhorrrs
species and reported that both arc actlve from October on\rnrds, lllc max~rnum
parasrtiwtion 01' 11 trrnlrgerrr lanae (43 Yo'a) \!a? recorded lor ('onrpoierrs
citlorrdeae dunng I " two weeks of Decernher c o ~ l ~ p a r e d with 18 per cent Ihr
Erthor~rs spcctes at the sanle t ~ n l e .
SEASONAL INCIDENCE OF II. arntigera IN PIGEONPEA.
Khatre e l a/. (1989) found that the seasonal incidence of noctuid
It. urmigera o n pigeonpea (var ICPL-87) in Mdlarastra Has at 3 I d week of October
in khurfcrop and during August on ratoon crop.
Mahajan e l 01. (1990) recommended light and pheromone traps for
~llonttoring die population or11 urnligrru in Utlnr I'radcsl~.
Verma and Sankhyan (1993) stated that adult activity started during
10' to I llh standard week in the mid hills of llinlachal Pradesh.
Clhabra and Kooner (1993) rcponed that the pest Ii ornttgera
attained peaks twice in a year i.e.. March to Aprtl and October in Punjab.
Subbarayudu and Singh (1997) concluded that there is a s~gniftcant
positive relattonship between insect catches and duration of sunshine in Atldhra
I'radesh.
iM;4 TERIALS AND METHODS
I hc ruseilrcll \\as co~~ t luc tcd n l I ~ ~ t c r n a ~ ~ o ~ l n l (:rc~l)s I<C~C;IICII III~III~IIC
lor tlic S c m ~ i \ r ld I ropics (ICI<ISA I ). I',I~;I~L~ICIII. Indl ,~ r1u1111g tllc k11ri1 I/ \C;I \~I I
1000-?000. ' I hc 1n:ilerinls uscri and ~~~c r l l odo lug ! In C~I I (~ I IC I~ I I~ IIICSC C~CIIIIICIII\
arc elucidated III t l l ~ s chapler.
A t ICll ISA'l ' I';I~III ll\V-7 \\IIICII i~ ;I l~ l ;~cL soil ill 111c 1\;11cr$11ccI ;IIC;I
\\as chosell for tile experilnellt. l ' l~e soil is cla!ey \ \ i t / ] llloru \\alcr I l ~ l d i l i g cill)i~cit!
;IIICI 111c \\;~tcrhlicd scr\,cs 111c p11111c1se for IIIOI~IIIIC. ,I IOI~II ;Ircil o r 1512 111' n ~ 1 5
d i ~ i d c d into 21 plots. each plot ~ ~ ~ e n s u ~ i ~ ~ g 72 111' ( 8 s 0 111) lur s c v c ~ ~ trc,llitlcllt, and
I I~rce rcpl icatiol~s. 'I he experi l l lel~l \\as cunduclcd In ;I r ;~~ l t l o l~~ isc t l h l r ic l Jc\ig11
A 11igI1 y i c l d i ~ ~ g piger111pc;i \:II~~I! l('l'l,-H7l 10 (AYII~O \\:I\ t~scd Ibr
[his trial. . f l ~e secd was so\v11 III tllc eilrly k11rrr.1/ sc:lsol~ (111 21 -6. IOOi). I11c sp;~citlg
;~dooled \\as 150 c ln betaeel1 llle r0ti.s and 30 CIIIS \\IIIIIII IIIC rmv.
pud borer
This treatment received n e e n ~ Aza as the first spray at 113 days atier
sowlng (DAS). The second and third sprays \\ere lieiicuvrr./~u Nuclear Poly
lledrosis Virus HNI'V and endosulfan at 132 and 152 DAS respcct~re ly . T h e last
one was shaking which was supposed to be dune. but due to the decline in the l a n a l
population this practice was not done. T-Shapped bird perches(2 n ~ t s in height) were
installed @ I perchiplot o n 120 DAS and remained in the plot till the I~arvest..
b) Helicoverpa Nuclear polyhedrosis v i rus (HNPV)
Ilelicoverpa nuclear polyhedrosis virus produced at ICI<ISA'l'-
FMPV laboratory was used for these studies The IINI'V stock solution ivaq
prepared in such a way that I rill of IINPV equals to one lama1 equivalent. l l ~ e
spray was carried out in the evenings so as to prolcct thc \irivns froni the harmful
ultrav~olet rays. In order to protect from UV rays rob111 blue \\as used as a adjuvant
i n the spray solutlon 13, l .O mulitre of spray Iluid. IINI'V iras used 'i~j 500 L E h a .
The spraying \+as done by the p o u e r sprayer carel'ull~ \\hen llicre ass no w ~ r l d thus
avoiding the driti into adjacent plots. A pol)tlie~ie bag \\as lheld between the plots
\vllile spraying as UI extra care to o v o ~ d spr;i> d r ~ l t to ot l~cr lilols. I Ilc spraying was
done at 113, 132 and 152 days after so\rlng.
Neeni 1500 ppm t ins used I n tlie c \ l i c r i ~ i i c~ i t . I lie dos;igc t c q i ~ i ~ c d
\\;IS 500 tiil1;ic. ' l l ie slock solution req i~ i l cd Ihr tlic slx,~) \\;is 0 1111 l111 ;III IIIC;I 01'72
111' plal. 111s spray I lu id rcqured k ~ r the plot \\as 5 lilies r,T \ \ ,ncr niid \pi.i!cd
l i y tile power sprayer at 113. 132 and 152 days nfrcr sowing
'I his is an indigetious Icc l i~ io logy 111 tlic ~ i i a~ iage t i i e t i ~ I I ~ il ic pod h r~ rc r
larvae wl i ic l i was pracllcetl in the oldeti dn js '1 l i is 1s 11ic t~ iec l ln~ i ica l disru~h;~tlcc h!
gc t~ [ l c sl i ; tki~ig ol ' t l ic pl;ttits, 11ic l;~rv;ie fo t~ t i t l I ~ c I I I I ~ ~ o11 tllc l l ~ \ \ c ~ s , I~IILI\ <Ihoppcd
o i l ;I ~ x ~ l ) t l i e l i c slice[ spread o \ c r tlie groulid I l ~ c I;lt\;ic cr~l lcctei l In l l ic ~ )~~ l ! t I i c i i c
SIICCL \\UI.C ki l led 1)) crusllitlg i l l id d ~ o l ) l ) i ~ i g tllc ilc1i11'; l i l t IIOII~ IIIC l ic l t l . SII~IAIII~
\vasdolic ot I l l . 130, I 41 and 152 DIIS i n I c ;111d 211 130. l J l ill id I 52 I ) i \S 111 1 I
Contl.ul
1'7 is COII~TOI plot \\ h i c l ~ \\;IS l c l i ~III~>I:I! cd
Crop : Pigeotlpcn V n ~ i c l ) l('I1l. 871 10 Gross nrea : 1512 n12 Ilepliczitions : 3 1'101 size . 8 u 9 n~ ' l ' r c ;~ l t~ l c~~ t r 7 I I r : 72 111' I)CSI~II 1<111) Nut plot alcn : 36 m 2
'I' - N e c n ~ spraying - l 500 pptli
I ' - Lkdosu l fa~~ 0.07% +shaking
l i - k l cc l i a~~ ica l sliakilig orplal l ts
16 - L~idosulfhn 0.07%
'17 . Control
il ) Insect pest population
The predominant pest \\as Helicovcrptr ~r~~i i rgercr . .I lhu acll\ii!. or
tills pest startcd IIUIII the early l lo\\cri l lg st;~yc I - t \ c ~)l; l t~ls ncrc rz~~ldolnl) fclcclcd
lio111 each plot a ~ i d li1111ibcr of I l ~ ~ l i c r ~ i ~ e ~ l ~ ~ r eggs n ~ l d la~\; ic \rule cut l~ i ic< l l lie
population o f ,hiirr.~rco a i d blister beetles \\ere ;~lso recorde<l.
I IIC obkerv;~tiolis were ti1Lc11 ;I[ 0 ~I:I! 111tc1v:iIs ~~ : I I~ I I I~ I.IOI~I I I 3 I),Is
l lpto crop l l inlur i ly.
' l l i c populatiun coul i l o f gc l ic~a l p~edalurs l ike splders elid
ct~ccincl l ids \\:IS t:ihc~i 011 5 r a ~ i d u ~ i l l y sclcclcd pl:~rns IIOIII C ~ I C ~ I 111111 I IIC 111itli1l
liartllal e ~ ~ e i i i ) population \\as take11 at 121 IIAS and 111~. otlicr I\\O ~ i b \ c r \ o !~ons
\ \ c ~ c ~ , l h c ~ i :I[ 131) :111(1 I 45 UAS
IJutl clamage \ \as calcul;itcd h! r c l c c ~ ~ i i g 20 p1:111t\ fro111 IIIC IICI ~ I O I
and l l ic pods \\ere collected ill a cover and labelled
' l o avoid llle effects of' dr i f t l roi i i tllc ~ lc ig l ibour i~ lg t rc ;~ t~ i ic~ i ts border
rows \yere left one on either side alid a onc tiit d~at;l~icc 1111 eltiler sidc ol ' t l lc ro\v \\,IS
l c l i i l l id the r e ~ l ~ a i ~ l i ~ i g part was co~isidcred as ;I net 1pl~11 I 11c ale;l \\'a\ 3(1 111' ( 0 \ h
111).
In the laborator). Ihe t lu~nbcr o f pods da~llilged by 1)0d Oorcr. p11d I ly
i l l id bugs \yere counted and the percentage pod d;tlliage \\as \ \olhed tlut I i ~ r ;ill
Seed da111oge \\as e s l i ~ ~ ~ n t r d by poo1111g t l ~ c pods n ~ i d sclcclit1g 100
pods and counting the,tolaI locules and daolagcd loculcs b\ borer, pot1 11) o l d bug.
'['lie plnllts ill tlne lner plot \\ere llo~nested sclinlahel! a l~r l hl~resl~etl
'I 11c IIIIC~IIC~I g t ~ l i t ~ s were c l c i ~ ~ ~ c d , \ \ e ~ g l ~ c ~ l : I I I~ IIIC IICI 11101 b i c l d ~ \ \ c ~ c (II~I;IIIIC~
I ' l ~ c potis collected fro111 5 plnllts Sor lhc tl;1111;1gc ;I\~~{\III~III \ \ C I C .II\II r l ~ ~ c i l ~ c ~ l .
clealled and \ \ c i g l ~ r d and tllcse \\e~gl l ls n c l e etlded l o rlie ncl ploh !~e l i l .
\\'r;~tllcr data
T i i t \beallner pararilelets viz . ~ l l i ~ x i l l ~ ~ l ~ l l , I~I~II~III~~III ICIIII~CI;I~NIC\ ("C).
tolnl ~ a i l ~ l i ~ l l (111111) a~nd rc la l i \e Ih t l~ i~ id l ty (%) \\CIU ~ ~ c o r d c t l d :~ i ly ill IIICISIIIIII~I~IC~II
observatory at ICRISA'S, which \\ere obtained li-ulll ngruclin~atolugicnl Llivisic!ll o l
ICI1ISA'l'. 'l'llc Incan tveall~cr dola Illat prc\ai lcd ill evcly slal~dartl \veck d u l i l ~ g
croppi l lg seasoti (kl1ari/1999 June-Decclnber) \\ere calcu1;ltcd.
' l l ic sek plieroll~otir 01' H cr~~i~t ,qo. l i ~p~cp;lletl at Netul;~l I l c \ i i l ~ r c e
I l i s t~ l~ l tc . C'll;ltIia~l~. O K \\as obtai~lcd tlirougli IC'I l lSAI and \\;IS r l \ c~ l III tile
eulxr i l~lel i t . I lhc ltlrcs \\.ere i l ~~p reg t~med 111 pol! t l ic l~c \ 1.11 5cl11.1 1,1tIt 0 7 3 I h l c ~ ~ ~ l 0 1
( L ) I I -iie\;~decelial atid 2-9-l1exadccc1i;1l
' I l ic bials coi~lai i i t l ig plicrotiiutic \%ctc hcpl 111 d ly lu1111cl I K I ~ ,IIK~
\ i c ~ c cl l : l~~gcd oticc 111 30 days. 'I he trap \vas scl i ~ p 1111 I tr,tl~lli;l ;I[ t n l r ~ncttcc hc~gl i t
and ~ i ia in ta i~ led tlirougli out llie ctoppilig seasoti 'I lie iiuiithcr o f ~ i io le 11io1I1s ci l l~gl i t
\\:IS cou~itcd and rc t i~o\ed dally. 'I'olal n l ~ n ~ b c r o f iliotlls ca11gl11 lpcr \t;11ic1:11d neck
\\as \vurked out lo lniot~itor the peak nlotli etiiergrncc pcriilcl
S'I'A'I IS'I'IC,\L ANALYSIS
I h e observattons o f the labor;nor! d:lr;l :itid l ic ld 1ic\1 I~OI~~II;IIIOI~;
dma I c.. egg and Iar\ae \\ere atialysed b!. ust~ig tlie s~;~~tdn ld a ~ ~ ; l l y \ ~ < 01 \;111;11icc
procedures. l l i e dala ot i percenlage \\ere tratisfortlicd tttto arcslli \alucs ;I I I~ IIic
p o l i ~ ~ l n t ~ o ~ i s into squarc root values bcrore n~ial!sis lilt t c s ~ o f s ~ g t ~ ~ l i ~ : ~ ~ i c c \\;I$
assessed using tile critical dtflerence at 5% level ((iotiicr a i d C;o~lic/. I ' ) i l )) I or
tlic INUIX>\C 0 1 ' coi tcl ;nlo~~ ;~nd tcg~csslutl \ludic\. \111cc II~III~~OII~I~I~I~III 51~15 11111
~ c q ~ ~ i ~ c ~ l , tlic i~ i i ' i l )s~s \\ere carried ~ I I i15 S~ILII \ \ ~ t l i ;ILI~I;II [I;I~,I.
Cust brnefit rat io
To ktlo\\ tile economics o f d~ l lc rcnt tleatl~ienls. llie q ~ ~ i l ~ i l t i ! IIII~ en51
o f i~~scct ic idc lol all llic tliree sprays \\as cnl~l l lotcd i111d lllc cost lltculred OII l i l l )o~~r
charges for spraytng and for sliakitig \\ere taken it110 conside~;i~ioti. T l ~ e ~ticotiic \\;IS
c.ilcul.itcd b> considerrlip tlic pre \n i l t t~g n1;irkct ~ > l ~ c c o r tlic 1110ducc ol i t :~~~rccl 111
d ~ f i r e t i l trcattlicnts, l l ~ e cosls and hc~ic l i ts \ \ c ~ u t.~bul;ited ntid liei it I ~ I I ~ ~ \\;IF
cnlculntcd i ~ t l d cotiipnred
1 ) Vil l :~gc: (;ull:~durtlti; K u r ~ t u u l distr ict.
'I lhc egg cotitit ntid (lie lor\.nl p ~ ~ l ~ t r l i i t ~ ~ ~ t ~ or1 i~hottt 5 I>/,IIII\ i t 1 c i t ~ l i
la t t i i c~s ficlcl \ \ c ~ c t;tkcti
111 tliis village sorile Ihrlliers grc\\ Iilgc<rtlpca du~ r t i g tlic t~rhl \u;!n,ti
LC., October su\\iiig. A l l llie farmers use ICI 'L 85063 (I.i~utiii) \;itici! 111 l l i c c
l iel i ls 5 l ields each \rill1 I I 'M practices and nun I l 'h l 111;icttcv \ \c tc sc lc~tc( l 111 c . t~ l i
field ohservntioths nc re recurded 011 I l ~ ~ l i r . o ~ c r ~ / ~ ~ ~ c p f s i l l id I ; t~ \ i l c oti 5 ~ ~ i r r d ~ ~ t i i f !
scicctcd platits Obst.r\attons \\ere take11 at 15 d,i)a ~ t i t c t \ a l
l l l c treatrlictlts rccetvcd b! I I 'hI I ;~ t t , ic~s tticlitilc<l ~ icc l i i .
Nl'\'.ctidosullh~i, bird perclies ctc and !lot] l i 'h l I ; i ~ ~ ~ i c t s ~l iclu?lc ci idi~\t t I I ,~t i irtid
otlier s!ntlietic pirel l i roids l ike C)per~t le l l l r t t~ 111 i r c l d~~~o t i , t)I>sct\ ;II~I)I~\ nett ,rI\t)
! taken o n Ibrmcrs lields \\liere slinkttig is n c o ~ i i t ~ i ~ ~ r i pr;tcIIcc itlld ~o1111)11reil \111I1
ul l ler trealtne~ils.
I l i c per cent pod damage by Ilriiioi.olxr itlid grirlri ! I c I ~ \tiis
recorded and tabulated
I llc cost h c ~ ~ c f i t ratio \\;IS c,rlc~rlotcil t.1k111g t r i t , ~ C ~ I I \ I ~ C I ~ I ~ I O I I Ilic
costs ofcl icr l l icals ntid iticome horn llle produce
r;jg sa%?
With a view to cornpare various c o ~ i ~ p o t ~ c i ~ t s o f i i i tcgrit t~d I ~ P ~ I
t ~~a~ iape rne~ i t strategies against I i r l i c o r ~ e ~ ~ r t trrrrlrjiern (Iluhticr) oti ~ i g c o ~ ~ p ~ : i .
illvesliga!ions wcrc carried out i n l iuld during rainy scasi~~i (k i i l i r in of l')'lO-2(iO0 ;!I
Intcrnntio~~ol Crops llcsearcll I ~~s t i t u t c for tllc SPIIII A r ~ d 'Iroliic';. I ' i ~ t i ~ t t c I ~ ~ r ~ i .
A l i d l i ~ i ~ I'radcsli arid tlic results have beell preseritctl III tliis clinlirer
E F F I C A C Y OF L)IFFEI1ENl' TI1EA1'RIENI'S O N 'l'llli O\ ' I I 'OSI ' I ' ION
I ' I IEFEIII<NCE O F 11, n n t ~ i ~ r m
I'lie p~'rlottllnrice o f various Irc;ttriictrl.\ on 111c ovtl?i isit~i i i~:~l I ic l t i~ t~ i rur
ol' i l ~ r i .~ t r i j i r r r i , is ptcsctitcd 111 table l and l ig. I
'I'he pre treatment count takcn or 112 I).!\S rc\c;ilcd t111tIiir111
o\iposiriotial bchaviour o f I { atntrgertr ~notl is tliruugliout rile cxpc r r t~~c~ i l~ t l ;IIP;I \rttIi
:I 111cci11 r~utitbcr o l 2.45 eggslplnnl.
First sprny
Olic Aty allcr first sl)ray, t lcctl~ iltld II'hI ]plot\ rccordcd linvc\t egg
population (1.33lplant a ~ i d 1.26lplanl respeclivel!.) a s II'XI plot also rccctvctl lieell1
as first spray. Endosulfati treated plots stood nu\( in ordrr 01' eflic:~cy ( I JOipla~n)
Ibl lo\\ed by the plots sprayed \\ i t t i NI'V ( I 53lpln11l) IIIC 111ar1:t:tI sli;~Lit~g 11:td
tilinimulll ef[cct 01% t l ~ e oviposition bellaviuur. So Iiiorc ( I 801plont) egg p o p t ~ l c ~ l ~ ~ i ~ i
24
2 5 \\as ~cctriilcd. I l le Ii~glicst lluriihcr 01' eggs \\;I\ Io~111tl 111 CIIIII~O~ ~ 1 1 1 1 ( 2 71/j11;111tj
\\liere there \\iis no disturbance.
L \ c l i at 9 da)s alter trenllnclit (I)/\ 1) r iuc~ii \\.IS lii~111d 10 llu SIIIICIIO~
:IS a11 L I \ I ~ ~ ~ S I I ~ ~ I I I ~1utc11e11t recording tile ICI\\~SI 11~1111llc1 0 1 egg5 ( 1 20~11Ii11it~. l lJh l
and NPV plots were on par recording tiearl) equal ptlpulatio~~ (1 6611~1,111t) 1 lie egg
populatiorl ill endosul1'arl treated plots iricrcnscd sliglirl), folluwrd h ) ' i l l i~kr~lg 0 1
plants (1.66lpla1it) iind colitrol \\.it11 ~~ l :~x i i i i un i ri111111>cr o f c g ~ s (2.93)
On 18 DAT, T1 (clieni + s l ia l i~ ip) plot \\;is sigt i~l ica~it ly e f i c t i \ e
\kith reduced oviposit~ot~al prel'erellce (1.531pli~nt) \ \ l l icl i \\.:is o11 pilr \ r ~ t h 11ccl11
trealed plot ( I 53) l l 'hl plots mid clidosullh~l lreatcd plots \kclo 011 pal ( I .06/[~1:111t)
111 cot i t~u l plots cgg 1;i)illg \ \ A S sig1111ic:11itIy lr~glicr (2,73/11Ii111tJ
A t l irsl atid nilltll day allcr sccolid spray also 1icc111 illid I l 'h l ituud
lirst ill reducing tlic oviposition by registering tllc ~ ~ i i l i i r i ~ ~ ~ ~ i l IIII~II~C~ or eggs. ( 0 06
illid O.80 PCI p l i i l~ t ) for lleeril arid fur Illhl( 0.66 nrid O X O ) \ r l ~ ~ c l i \\;I.; c l i ~ \ c i j
follo\\ed hy e~ldusulf~in (0.56 and 1.13). 'llie cgg ~~ul,ulat~oli rc l~ i : i i ! i r~ l rcl;!l~\cl)
I~ ig l ic r 1.06 a11t1 1 53 at 9 DA'S and 1.0 and 1.60 at 18 l)A 1 111 '1 1 :III~ 1 Co111101
~.cc~il .~lc<l tl lc I l i g l~c~ t liillliber o ( . c g g ~ \\it11 2.73 i111d ? 4 ill 1'' irlld 1iir1t11 I ) / \ I . hl I X
UA.I tlle egg population i n 11'hI plot \\as lourid to bc least (0.9311~1:1111) 111 ill1 [lie
remaining treatments the nuriiber o f eggs sllo\\ed s l tg l l~ increase \\hereas ill
endosulfan treated plot tliere was a sl igl~t dccrcosc in [lie ekg i lu~iibcr ( I ;ll)lc I.
I:ig. I ).
Table I Efficacy of different treatments on the oviposlt~on preference of gram pod borer Hel~uor.rrpo armtgeru - lCRlSAT center, Patanchew, rainy season 1999 - 2000
over control
TI IPM 2 13 1 26 1 66 1 66 0 66 0 80 0 93 0 40 0 20 0 95 54 98 (1 62) (1 32) (1 47) (1 47) (1 07) (1 13) (1 19) (094) (0 83)
T2 NPV 2 2 6 IS3 1 6 6 1 8 6 0 8 6 1 0 6 120 0 5 3 0 1 3 110 4787 (I 66) (1 42) (1 46) (1 53) (1 16) (1 25) (1 30) (1 01) (079)
T, Neem 2 33 133 1 26 1 6 0 0 66 0 86 106 0 33 0 00 0 89 57 82 (1 67) (1 35) (I 32) (I 44) (1 07) (1 16) (1 25) (091) (070)
T, Endosulfan + 2 46 1 40 1 53 1 53 1 06 1 00 l I3 0 86 0 46 1 I ? 4692 shah~ng (I 71) (1 37) (1 42) (I 42) (1 24) (1 22) (1 27) (1 16) (098)
TI S h a h ~ n ~ 2 73 1 80 1 66 1 73 1 53 1 60 l 33 0 86 0 33 1 33 3696 (1 79) (I 50) (I 47) (I 49) (I 42) (I 44) (I 35) (I 16) (090)
T,. Endosulfan 2 60 1 40 1 60 1 66 0 66 l I3 1 06 0 46 0 26 I 03 51 13 (1 76) (1 37) (1 44) (I 47) (1 07) (1 27) (1 Zq) (097) (0 87)
T7 Control 2 6 6 273 7 9 3 273 2 7 5 2 4 1 8 0 0 8 6 0 7 3 Z l l (I 77) (1 79) (I 85) (1 79) ( 1 79) (1 69) (1 51) (1 16) (1 10)
SEd 007-1 0094 0047 0051 0060 0061 0043 0081 0063
C D a t j O . 0 149 0 189 009, 0 104 0 121 0 114 OOS6 0 163 0 127
F1yure5 In parenthes~s are aquars root transtormed D AS Dais alter sowng * mc.in Pretreatment value5 not ~ncluded Sprava \\ere glven at 113. 132 and 152 D4S
Treatment No of e s s plant-' * ,Mean %
DAS / 112 114 123 I31 I33 142 151 153 162 decrease
A t t irsl da! aner Ihe third spray 11cc111 \\;is foulld to lie l ~ i gh l )
cfl'ective b y record i l~g the lo\\esl ~ lu i l iber o f eggs (0.33) \ \ l i i c l ~ \\.;is OII 1x11 \ \n l i I I 'hI
(0.40) \ \ . l i~cl i recei ied e ~ ~ d o s u l l h ~ ~ as ;I crcallllclit a1 1111s \t.lgc 1'101 t ~ c ~ ~ t c t l \ \ l t I i
endosillfan (0.46) ranked n e x ~ . S l iak i~ ip plots reg~stered O 8.5 egg? [per pl:i11t \\I11cIi
\ \as 011 par ici t l i comrul (0.86).
N ine ilays i ~ l l c r l l i t rd sl>r;ty ~ l i c egg ~I~I~~~I~;I I IOII 111 ;all IIIC IIC.IIIIICIII\
declined drastically.
I n general, t luougl ioul the cropp i~ ig pcriod i l c c~ i i arid I l 'h l \ \ c ~ c I b i ~ n d
to be el'l'eclive treatments 111 suppressing tlie o \ i l ) o s ~ ~ l ~ ~ n . I t ~ l l o \ r cd Ii! C I ~ ~ I I \ ~ I ~ ~ , I I I
\ \ l ierei l l ils e f kc t IS seen only uplo Y 1)A'l'. ' I l i c l i luls \ \ l i e ~ c \1i:iL111g \\.I\ (IOIIC
recorded niore 111111iber o f eggs, :I \\as 11111 ~11110 tlic Ic \e I (11 CIIIIIII~~. I / : c
o i ~ p o s i ~ ~ o n a l prclcreiice ill din'erenl trcatliicllts \\;IS ;IS Io l lo \ \s
E F F E C P O F D I F F E I t E N T 1 ' I tEA'~h lEN' I 'S ,t(;Alh'S'I' 'I Ill( I.AI(\ 'AI.
SIil<llcs co~lduc lcd l o assess l l ic cllic;lc) ol' d ~ l l c l c l i l IIC;IIIIICIII\
against the lar\al popula~ ion o f grain pod borer I 1 (1111iiyeio re\c;llcd tlic Io l lo \ \ lng
results w l ~ i c l i are eluc~daled i n table 2 and fig 2 I.ar\;il popul,1l1011 \\;I\ un i l o r l l ~
~ l i r o u g l ~ o ~ i ~ the exper i l~ le~ l ta l area before i ~~ ipos l r i g tllc Ircattllclitc ( I ahlc 2. I ~g 2)
011e da) after tile lirst spra) tlie sl1.1L11ig \\'IS Io i t~ id 10 he \II/lLltor h\
re~ord i l ig 0 4 Ia r \ae~p l~n t as agdtlist 2 4 I ~ ~ r \ ~ ~ c l p l , ~ ~ ~ t 111 ~ o l i ~ r ~ 1 1 (,I\ \II,ILIII~ $\,I\ .I
meclian~cal method o f control l~ng larvae u l ~ e r e ~ l i c ) \\ere d~slodgcd TIOIII pl.lnls ,111d
destroyed), follo\ved by' endosulfan In 11 and I \ \ ~ t h 1 00 mid 1 33 I,II\ dplntit
ICS~WLII \C~) NI'V atiil NCCIII \\ere a1 p ~ i r ( I 261~~1,11i11, IOIIO\\L~I I>! ll 'hl ( I .101
\\IIILI~ IILCIIL~ IICCIII .I\ I~C.IIIIICIII 111 0 I)A 1 1 1 1 ~ 1<1\11\1 1>o1)111,1Ito11 \\, I \ I L L O I C ~ L ~ III
etldusullnn, NIJ\' 'lnd tieen) ( I 53ipla1it) fullo\\ctl h\ I l 'hl ( I h!pli1111) AI 11111tl1 d,~!
.iilcr trenlliient the lartal populat~ol~ ~ricreasetl In s l i a l ~ ~ i g plot l o 2 26 Icir\,~cIl i l ,~~it
l io\\c\cr control recorded tilaxlnlurn number o f lo^\ 're ( 2 6)
A t 18 11A1 sl iahl~ig \\as dolie III I lc~ntl lclns I, ,111d I ( \ \ I~LILI I~ ~ l ic !
\\ere tesicd for ~ i ~ e c l i a t ~ ~ c n l co~itrol nleasure 1 l ~ e s ~ Ircdttiiclits r r ~ n l d c d t l i ~ I[rnc\t
~n~l l l lbcr o f eggs 0 33 and 0 40 In I, and I I respcclt\cl) lul lo\\cd 11) NI'V ( I X O )
ct~dusull ; i~i on par \ v ~ t l ~ 11'M (1 86) and aon neelli (1 93) control \\it11 111gll~r
populauon o l 2 86 lar\;lipln~lt
The il;~! afler scco~id spra\ c~idosull , t~l \\a5 found to lhc IitgI11)
CIICLII\C 111 c o ~ ~ t r o l l t ~ ~ g llie lar ia t (0 73 I ~ r \ , l i p l ~ n t ) lollo\rcd by ll'h1 ,llid NI'V
(0 80) and then nee111 (0 93) The sliak~ng plots -14 atid I 5 \\here no ?pra)lllg \\as
.~ppl~ed larvd populdtlun Increased to I 40 and 1 53 rcspe~ttvely l l i e I d r \ ~ c 111
control plot reniall~cd the htgliest \ \ t th 2 60 per plant NIIK days altcr ~cco l i d spr.1).
I I I I I I I I i d 1 l l i e Iar\al populat~on \\as ~uu t id to be leas1 111 slidkt~ig
plots \\1t11 0 33 l ~ ~ r \ , ~ c l p l a t ~ t III 14 atld 15 plot\ l ~ ~ l l o \ \ e ~ l 11) NI 'V I I 3 I , I I \ , I L~~~~~ I I I ~
11'M 1 20 larv'lc~plnnt and nee111 ( I 26) Coll t lol plots 11.1d 2 -10 I,II\.I~'~I~,III~
L ~ g l ~ t e e n da)s alter sccond sl11n\ tllclc \\,lr a sliyllt Illclc,l\e 111 1 1 1 ~
pop i t la t~un 111 ailnust ,111 l l le trca1111e11tc 111 t11e SII~ILIII~ plors ( 2 0) ~IILIC \\.IF ,I
sudden rlse 111 the pop i t la r lo~~ but In cotllrol ( 2 06) III~IC \\,I\ ,I ellgI1t IILLIC,I\C 111 t l ~ c
l"'llltl.lrl01l ( l ; l b I ~ 2 . I tp 2)
011c d ~ y aner t l ~ e appllcatlon o l ' \n r~ouc IIC,IIIII~II~~ ,11111 \II,ILIII~ III 1 , and Ic the leas1 i ;~r \a l population \\,IS foilrld 111 1, alld 1 ((1 20 nlld 0 !(I
~ e ~ ~ x ~ t ~ \ e I ! ) l o l l o \ \ c d b) 1l'h.l NI'V. IICCIII (0 5 3 ) ~ n d l r c ~ ~ l i ~ l n 10 7 3 ) ,111~1 LOIIIIIII
(2 06) w111ch lhas recurdlrig nla\ l i l luni lar\al populntlon
Ntt le days alter jrd spray tile crop \\as close l o 1llalurtl\ ,111d rllu l,l1\,11
PUIILI~,I~I~III d e ~ l l n e d i t t l t f ~ r t ~ ~ l ) across the t r e a t l ~ ~ e ~ l i ~
I n general, llle ~ l i ~ r ~ a l p o p ~ l l a t ~ o l ~ \\as u l ~ ~ l o r l l ~ 111r11\1g11(111t ~IIL.
euperln~ental area Afier lllductng vartous lrealtllenls the larval I I < I~~ I~ I I I ~ I I Ihad
Iluctu,~tcd du r l t ~g d~Tfere l~ t da)s o f crop g t o \ \ l l ~ 111t11~111) 911dL11ig t t ~~ t l 111~111 n d \
loul ld to he t l l r ~noe t eltectt \e lo r earl! Illstar Iar\ae and at the p c A I ~ ~ I \ \ L I I I I ~ \ t d g ~ .
\ \1t11 80 per cellt Iartal feductloti bur 1111s 1s e l l e c l ~ \ e ~ l p t o 7 da js
1:1ldosulla11 \\as ef lecrl \c on e.lrl\ 111\hIr l ' ~ r \ ' ~e u f l l t ~ l ~ ~ u ~ L I / ) ( I 11pl0 0
I )A I L \ c l l t l l uug l~ NI'V and IICCIII \\ere loul ld l o he ~ c d ~ t c ~ t ~ g tllc ld1\.11 ~III~LI~.I~IOII
lI'h.1 \ ids LUIILIUIIC~ as the best e l lec t l \e tredltllctlt lo l lu \ \ed b! s11~lk111g 411d
Table 2 Efficacy of d~fferent treatments agalnst the gram pod borer (H urnrrgeru) larvae - ICRlSAT center, Patanchem, ralny season 1999 - 2000
over control
Trratn~rnt
TI IPM 2133 130 1 6 0 186 0 8 0 1 2 0 1 4 0 0 3 3 0 1 3 1 1 5 1 6 (1 622) (1 37) (1 44) (1 53) (I 13) (1 30) (1 37) (091) (0 79)
T: NPV 2066 1 2 6 153 1 8 0 0 8 0 113 140 0 3 3 0 1 3 1 1 5 3 3 (1600) (132) (142) (151) (114) (127) (137) (091) (079)
TI Neem 1 866 1 26 I 53 193 0 93 1 26 1 66 0 5; 0 20 1 2 48 4 (I 53) (I 32) (1 42) (I 55) (I 19) (I 32) (1 47) (1 01) (0 83)
T, Endosulfan + 1 866 1 00 I 53 0 33 I 40 0 33 2 00 0 20 0 06 0 9 62 2 shahlng (153) (122) (142) (091) (137) (091) (158) (083) (075)
T% Sl~aL~ng 2 066 0 4 226 0 4 0 15; 03; 2 0 0 0 2 6 0 0 6 0 9 6 0 0 (I 60) (0 94) (I 65) (0 94) ( I 4?) (091) (I 64) (0 S6) (0 75)
T, Endosultan 1 0 0 l 33 l 53 I S6 0 73 1 2 6 I 8 0 73 0 3; I ? -16 7 ( I 5s) (1 27) ( I 42) (I 53) ( I 10) ( I 3 1 (I 51) (I lo) (091)
T- Control 7 6 6 2 1 2 6 2 5 6 1-60 2 4 6 2 0 6 I 8 1 2 2 3 (I 77) (1 71 (1 76) (1 83) (1 75) (1 72) (1 60) (1 51) (1 30)
SEd 0 060 0 0'0 0 074 0 052 0 055 0 070 0 042 0 067 0 056
C Dat 5'0 0121 0101 0150 0106 0 1 1 1 0111 0086 0 l j 6 0113
Flgures In parenthrs~s are square root tianstormed DAS Da\s after sov.in! S p r n s r ~ e r e g ~ r e n at 113 132 and I ? D.\S
No of larvae plant ' Overall % DAS / 112 114 123 131 133 142 151 153 162 effect decrease
endosulfan whlch nlatntatned 11s supremacy tn suppressing the populauon ol I!
orrnlgera unhl crop harvest The efficacy o f tarlous treatments was as lollows
EFFICACY OF DIFFERENT TREATMENTS ON NA'TUKAL ENEMIES IN
PICEONPEA
'To assess the treatmental effects on natural eneniles that live In
ptgeonpea canopy the populatlon of sptders, cocc~neiltds, chrysoplds. tchneumon~ds.
reduvlld bugs, mud wasps were taken Into conslderatlon and the results are
presented In 1 able 3 and Ftg 3
At 130 DAS I e , elght DAT alter first spray endosulfan recorded the
lowest natural encmy (NE) populatlon ( I 6lplant) lhe IPM components ltke NI'V
and neem aere found to be least harmful to N L \rtth II'M (26lpld110. NI'V
(2 8lplant). tieurn ( 2 2lpla11t) Ilo!\e\er the I' .ihalltlg and cotltn~l I~dd the hlghccl
NE populatlon
At 145 DAS In all the Ireatmenls there \\as a general dccltntng trend
In NE populat~on Lndosulfan and neem (0 8) ha\lng least NL, folloued by NPV
(1 0) and IPM (1 2) The shaking plots recorded I O a ld 2 2 NL In Id dnd I r
respecuvely wtth control on the top of the chari (2 6)
The o~eral l effect shoned that treatments lelt unspra)ed I c , f r , '1.7
and IPM leaded tts supremacy In malntalntng the natural encmy population
Table 3 Effect o fd~ f f e rdn t treatnlenls on natural eneniles I ~ \ t n y ~n plyeonpea crop canopy
.. .- Treatn~enr N o o f natural er ie~ i i~es ( N E ) l p l a i _ Overall % dccrense
DAS 121 130 145 effect over
- - - - - -- - - c ~ l l l r o l
Figures In parenthes~s are square root trallsforr~led NE = Splders, cocclnell~ds, lace wings D A S = Days aRer sowing
Fig 3 Effect of d~fferent treatments on natural enemles l ~ v ~ n g In plgeonpea crob canopy- ICRISAT centre Patancheru, ralny season 1999-2000
3
-; 2 5 m - s 2 2 2 1 5 a 2 1 UJ
0 5
o F - ~ - - - 7 - -
T I T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
Treatments
T i = IPM T5 = Stiaklng T2 = HNPV T6 = Endosulfan T3 = Neem T7 = Control T4 = Endosullan + Shaklng
EFFECT OF VARIOUS PLANT PROTECTION SlIWTEGIES ON POD
DAMAGE BY H. armtgera ON PIGEONPEA
1 he ellect of d~fferent treatments o n the pod drunage b! I! rrrrrtrKeru
In plgeonpea was assessed and the results are gl\en In table 4 and fig 4 I he results
revealed that the rn&xlmum pod damage \\as obser\'ed In cuntrol (28 0%) Among
var~ous treatments. IPM was found to be the best treatment by recordlng the lowest
pod datnage (15 1%) w h ~ c h was about 46 I 6 per ccnt lets than that In cuntrol
Endosulfan stood neyt In order of efficacy 1 ~ 1 t h 17 5 per cent pod d a n a g e \ \ h ~ c h
was 3 2 43 per cent less than the control NPV and e~idosullsti + ~ h a k ~ n g were found
to be on par by recordlng 18 7 per cent and 18 5 pur cent pod damage rcspuctlvcly
w h ~ c h was 3 3 1 and 34 I per cent reduction over col~trol Neem (20 1%) w ~ t h 28 2
per cent reduct~on over control was on par w ~ t h sliaklng (19 6%) w ~ t h 30 0 per cent
reduct~on over control Eventhough the shaktng d ~ d not recelve m y spray I (
recorded stgn~ficantly less pod damage c ompared to co~itrol (Table 4. I ~g 4)
B e s ~ d e s pod damage by l i r i r ~ o ~ ~ r p o observdtluns on pod Ily
lnc~dence at harvest tqd~cated 5 6 per cent pud damage In contrul 'Though the
t n c t d e n ~ e ol pod 11! \\as less tlie Iruatrnent \ \ ~ t l i c n d u s u l l n rcwltcd 1x1 Io\ccr
damage wtth 2 I per cent follo\\ed by Il'bl ( 2 8%). Endosulfan + ~ h a k l n g (3 0%).
HNPV (3 7%), Neern ( 3 8%) and shaktng alone (4 9%)
EFFECT OF DIFFERENT PLANT PROTECTION STRATEGIES ON TIIE
GRAIN YIELD OF PIGEONPEA
l l ~ r ellicacy of dtllerent treatments on graln )lcld ol plgeonpea
s t u d ~ e s are e luc~dated In table 5 and fig 5 The results re\ealed that 1l'h.I \ \as lound
Table 4 Effect o f various IPhl coniponelits on tlie pod dariiage caused by / I ~ r r . t ~ ~ i g r ~ ( r on pigeonpea - ICRISAT center, Palanclleru, ralny seasori 1999 - 2000
. . . - -- - - .
Treatrilelit 3b pod dalllage YO decrease ole1 co~itrcli
TI IPM 15 1 46 2 (22 85)
'1.2 NI'V I H X .I 1 1 (25 65)
TI Neem 20 1 28 3 ( 2 6 64)
T4 Endosulfall + sliaking 18 5 34 1 (25 47)
T! Shaking 19 6 30 0 (26 20)
'I'b Endosullhll 17 6 17 4 (24 76)
T7 Co~itrol 28 1 (3 1 08)
SEd 0 358 CDat50io 0781
Figures ill pnre~itllcs~s are arcsilt ~ransfort~icd
Table 5 Effect o f d~fferent plant protectloll strateplci o11 gralli v ~ c l d ofplgcol l l~en - ICRISAT center. Palallcheru, ra111y season I90'1- 2000
. - - - - - -. - -
I'reat111e11t Y ~ e l d (kgllla) % lnLteacc over ~ i i l ~ t l o l
TI Endosulfan + sllaking 574 40 00
SEd
C D at 5%
Fig 4 Effect of varlous IPM components on the pod damage caused by H arlnlgera on plgeonpea. ICRISAT centre Patancheru ralny season 1099-2000
Treatments
Fig 5 Effect of different plant protect~on strategies on gram y~eld of plgeonpea - ICRISAT center Patancheru, ralny season 1999-2000
TI 72 T3 1 4 T5 T6 77
Treatments
10 he tlic heat c l lcc t l \c t ~c ; l t ~ i l c~ i t \\111cIi ~ c c o l ~ l c t l (132 Ig11i.1 \rhlcl l ~ c \ i ~ l t e t l III $.I 1.1
per cent increase o\er control. fol lo\\cd by cndosolr:u~ spray 607 i g i i l ; ~ \ \hich
recotdud 48.04 per cerit increase over corltrol. l indo 4 sllahilig trc:ltlllcnt ga\c 574
I g l l i a \vliicli was over 40 per cent increase o\er colltrol 'I he sl iai ing trcntliicllt (532
kgilla) \rhlcl l s i ~o i \ cd 29.07 per cent increase over c o l i t r ~ ~ l colnes nc\t hcst :iltcr I , NI'V (477 ky!lia) and ~ i c e m (162 kgilia) \\ere OII par illid k l ~ l l i d to he s i p r~~ l i c i l ~ i t l )
eI'li.ctl\e (4lOLg;lia)oier colltrol
I t \\as found that tllrre \\as s~g l l i l i cn~ l t ~ieg;l t i \c cor rc l ; i t~o~i (I - -
0.8421) bct\\.ecll ) icld and pod damage but11 at I pcr cell1 nlid 5 per ccllt Ic\cls. So
\bllen pod dalliage decreases, yield t r i l l increase. I'od da11l:ige col i l r~butcd 111 65 1
per cclit lonards ield (I<' = 0 65IO2SX).
S t l l ~ l r c 011 scnso11:ll illcidcllcc 01'11 ~III I I I ,~~~<I \ \clc c: l l l~ci l 11111 \\IIII :I
\ I C ~ to I i r ~ l o11t {leak 11criod o l ' ac t i r ~ t ) duri l lg Lliarir SLVISOII :III(I a l s~ i 111c I~I~~I<I~:IIIIIII
fluctuallolis 111 relation to crop pi ie~iolugy.
;I) Rlun i l o r i ~~ l : o f !I. n r t~ l i g r r f l adults using re\ p1lc1.11111one 1r:lp
l o llioliltur peak elilergcllce ol' li orl,lrKc,,-rr moth ~OI)~ I~~I I IOI I I IVII~
~ > l l e ~ o l l l o l ~ e trilps. daily observatiolls \\ere tahcrl and tuinl rllil l l l>cr 01 11ic1t11\ C~ILI~III
pcr stalidnrd neck \\ere calculated and prese~ited ill I ;~ l~ le 6 and l i ~ h A perusal 01
tlic data ill vable 6 i l l id l i g 6 llldlcnted tlint I ~ ~ : I Y ~ I ~ ~ L I ~ I I 1110t11 \\;IS obscr\cd ~ I I I I I I ~ 4 1''
and 4?'Id staridard necks o f 1999 \rill1 20 arid 26 adults per trap.
Table 6 h l o ~ i ~ r o r ~ ~ i y ol'H ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ r g t r r r adults, eggs a ~ l d liirvne at d ~ l f e ~ c ~ i l sl;~ycs or pigeonpea crop - ICRISAT center, Palaticheru, rainy season 199'1 - 2000
- DAS Eggs 1 plant Larva 1 plant ~ d u l t s ? r r a ~ l w e e k
I 1 , 1 1 1 :\ s ~ d d i l , ~ I IIICICII\C 111 IJI\;II I~~I~~II,IIIOII \\,I\ ~ ~ \ c I \ c I I IIICIC,IIICI i ~ ~ ~ i l
<III,IIII~~ IIIC l)c,~j. ~1 I 4 4 I)..\$ ( 3 ~I,II\OC, 111 1 I IIC I,II\,IC \I,IIICLI ~ I L L I ~ , I \ I I I K ,I! I > I
1 ) \ \ 4 ~~l~, l l l l I l l < )1C<lL , 1 ~ 1 1 \ 1 1 > < > I pc\1 \ \ . I \ < \ ! ~ \ L I \ L , ~ Ill I I I I ] > \ \ \ \ l l ~ l , C l < l \ l i , . . , ~
<II IIC~IL 11<1\\c111!g 10 c,111> lp1cId1112 S I ~ I ~ C
Table 7 Cost benefit ratlo of different trealnientr agaltirt l i r l ~ c 1~ir111lr r r i ~ r r r g c ~ ~ r 111 I'lgeol~pea - ICRISAT center, Pataliche~u, ralliy season 1900 -- 2000
~ r o s s ' ~ y y n ~ ! i c ~ c t ~ c ~ d . i l linl II~C~IIIL rnilo leld o\cr rrLalinLni Inconic control Rrilio Kcilia Rrilin
. -. -- -. - . -. .
T I IPM 632 222 1700 1180 0480 I 1 57
TI NPV 477 fi7 2100 1005 7151 1 1 4 0
y ie ld \\as tior rile Iilgliest (532 kgllla) In 1111s IIC;IIIIICIII ~IIC ('.I) r;tt~o IF l ~ l p l i
( I :7.l)bec;luse oSver) lo\v iltputs on platit proteclloli
I) Vi l l :~gc (;ul l ;~durt l~i, K u r ~ l u u l distr ict
F i \ e l j r l l ie rs lields i n each U S [lie 11'bI :III~ 11~11 II'k1 ~ l r a c ~ l c i ~ ~ g
localions \\ere take11 and 5 plalits i n each I;I~III~IS lic ld n e l c sc lcc~cd 1111 t l ~ c cgp
coullt i l l id res~11ls nc re t;~bulatcd i r i t;ihlc Xn. lif.7;1 III l l ' h l ~II I~E t l ~ c III;I\II~IIIII~
coltnl \\;IS L I ~ S C I \ L ' ~ (13.6) iil 0 3 UI\S i l l id lillcr 11 \t , t~tcd ~ICC~IIIIIIQ 10 X ? ill l(17 I),\S
and .3 2 ;it 121 Di \S S~t l i i la r ly III ltoli Il 'hl jiloli: ~ t t~ l t i l l l ! it !\ili: lo \ \ ( 2 2 ) ;il 70 I){\S
recorded a l l lasl l i i i l r l l o f (7.4) at 93 UAS and stilrted dcc111111ig ~IIIIS ;it 107 i t l ~ d 121
I)i\S \\it11 4.2 ;ilid 2 . 2 rcspcctivel)
' l l te average o f larval popula l io~ l reprcscntud 111 t;~lrlc XI', l i g 711
s l i o \ \ c~ l 111.11. i n I l 'hl pluls ~IIC po{? i~ I ;~ l ic~ l i !\;I\ 11111i;tll) Io\v ;I( 70 l )AS
(2,6lar\dplant). The rnaxlltiu!li population \\.as ubscr\ed at 0.1 I)/ZS ( 7 4
lar\ac/plau[) al'tcr that tliere \\as a sudden declilie 111 pol)itlatiult 11) ( I Zlarvacipl;~~~!)
;it 107 I),\S 311d i t l i~ r thcrdec l i l ied l o (0.5 Ia r \ ;~c Ip l :~ t~ t ) ;I[ 121 ] )AS
Flg 7a Ov~pos~t~on df H armrgera In IPM & non IPM farmers f~elds at 4 8
Gulladurthl vlllage Kurnool dlsl
0 I 76 93 107 121
DAS
Fig 7b Larval population of H armigera In IPM and non IPM farmers flelds at Gulladurth~ vlllage Kurnool d~st
Fig 7c Yleld 8 pod damage In IPM & non IPM f~elds at Gulladurth~ vlllage Kurnool dlst
9 8
$ 7 E 6 E4 Y~eld (Qlha)
2 5 61 % pod damage 8 4 : 3 ; 2
1 n
IPM Non IPM
Fig 7d Larval populat~on ~n different lrealrnents ~n farmers flelds al Gulladurth~ v~llager, Kurnool d ~ s l
5 ,- -2 - Endosulfan 1 B 6
P 2 0 I -
95 96 105 106
DAS
Flg 7e Yield &pod damage of shaklng NPV & endosulfan treatments ~n farmers f~elds at Gulladurth~ vlllage. Kurnool dlst
/ ~ ~ l e i d (Qlha)
~ 6 1 % pod damage
Shaking NPV Endosulfan - -
I lie s1111ilar !lend \\;IS o h \ c ~ v c d 111 ~ m n I l 'h l ~IIOI\ ;II\CI \ \1111 III.I\IIIIIIIII
populat ion ill 93 UAS (8.2)and dec l~ l ied to O 7 lar!;ic'pl;lli~ h! 107 I),\S
c ) G r a i n !.icld 11nd pod d;rtllagc by pu l l borer ill c l i l l c r c ~ ~ t III:IIII O I O ~ C ~ ~ ~ O I I
~wac l ices:
I)ntii on pod dalilagc al id g la i l i ) ~ c l d n c r e presented 111 1.1hlc XC.
l i g 7c I t was clcilr lio111 the data that I l 'h l plots ~cco tdcd 571ic1ccnt Iccs jicr~l d;1111:1gc
tli:in the 11oti-~pln plots. I l i l s liiis rcsultcd ill ul1ti111i111g i ~ l ~ r c i ~ s c d y lc ld (X3Ohgilii1)111
i p m plots cori~pnrcd to ~ i o ~ i - ~ p l i i plots(70ULg:lin).
l l l e pod damage \\as in tllc I l i \crsc p ~ o l i o r t i l ~ l i \\IIII In.ixlmllln
I ~ : I I I ~ : I ~~ i l l !lo11 l l 'h l (7.7?$) ;III~ 111111111111111 diilli itgc 111 I I 'M ( 3 04;,)
I lie econouiics \ \as loukcd i l l lo by co lcu la t i~ ig tlic c t ~ s l I i c~ i e l i t r:ltllr
I lie results w r r c reliresented i l l table Xd. I l i c ~ i l a \ i l l i l l ~ i l C 1) r i l t i i ~ is ~ lh t i~ l l lec l lor
11'hI (1 7.1) ~ l i \ r > l \ i l i g lo \ rer i ~ i \ e s t ~ i i e n l o l i c l~c l i l i co ls i111d Iu\r C I3 t i l 1 1 ~ 1 III c i15~. ( 1 1
l ion I I 'M (1 .4 5) i n ro l r i l l g more cxpc l ld~ lure OII c l i c l ~ ~ i c ~ ~ l s
l l i e obserratiorls \\ere ~ n a d c ill tllrcc lilrlllcrs licl~l.; \~IIII rrcrc
95 ;rli(l i05 I I A S 111 c:lcIi trc;ittllctit I Iic o\cl;lgc \ ; I ~ ( IC \ c r l rc\tllta ~ c ~ c ~ c l l ~ c \ c n t c i l
111 tilhle 8c. f ig . 7d
Table 8a Ov~pos~tlon o f H ottrlrgercl In IPhl Rr nor1 IPhl farrliers fields at Gulladurtll~ vlllage, Kurllool Dlst
- - - - - DAS 76 93 107 121
Non IPM 2 2 7 4 4 4 2 2
Table 8b Larval poliulnt~on o f H t r~~t r tge t~ i 111 lPhl and 11o11 II'M Ihrli ier~ l i ~ l d s at
Gulladurtht vlllage. Kurnool dlst
DAS 70 93 107 121
'fable 8c Y~eld Rr pod daniage 111 IPM Rr rlon IPhl fields at Gulladurth~ v~llaye, Kurnool D~st
l'reatl~ient Y~eld (kd l~a) % pod daniage
No11 IPM 700 7 7
-- --
Table 8d Ecollonllcs I e cost benefit ratlo --- -. . -
Treatliletlt Gram y~eld Total cost or latal Illcome C B ratlo (bgllla) treatnient (Rs) -_ -(l<_sl- _ -- -~
IPM 830 1750 12450 1 7 1
Table 8e Larval populat~on III different treatments 111 I'arlliers fields at Gulladurtll~ v~llaye, Kurnool Dlst
- - DAS 95 96 I05 lo(.
-
Sliaking 13 8 2 4 7 4 2 0
NPV 10 6 4 8 16 2 1 2
Table 8 f Y~eld Rr pod dalnage of sliak~~ig, NP\' Rr elidosulfal~ treatllienl$ III farrile~r fields at Gulladurtll~ village, Kurnool dist
-- --A
Trentiilellt Yleltl (kglha) % pod da~iiage - - . . -- -
Table 8g Econor~~~cs I e cost o f benefit ratlo
-- -. - - - lreatmenl Grail1 yield 1 otal cost o f Total inconle C I3 lallo
(kdlla) treatn~ent (RsL - -
NPV 820 2100 12300 1 5 8
'I'llc III;IY~II~I~I~~ pcrcctltttgc ~C~UCIII I I I 111 li lrvill IIOII~I~;IIIIIII \\illi
observed in shaking 82.6 per cent a1 95 DAS and 72.97 per ccllt at 105 !)AS
cotl ipa~ed to NI'V and c t~dosu l f a~~ .
NI'V recorded 54.71 per cent and 48.38 per cent reductioll ill larval
~l i l l l iber at 95 and 105 DAS respeclively. Endosulfnl~ 0.07 p t r cell1 rccor[lcd 55.73
per cent and 56.25 reducrlon ill larval number at 95 illid 105 UAS respccll\c.l!
d) Yie ld arid pod dnnlage o f sl lakir~g, I INI 'V and cr~dosulfan in h r l l l c r r
l ields o f (;ul lndurlhi village, Kurnool dislr icl :
1~ro111 tlle lileali values o f tllc resulls rcpresc~~ted ill lablc 81; l i g 7c
NI'V rccolt l rd lligllcst ) ield (820 kdhn ) I'olloucd 1)) c ~ ~ [ l o u l l ; ~ ~ l ( X O O hgi l l ;~) i111iI
tllell by sllaking (780 kd l la ) .
'I lle pod darnage recorded was I~lghesr III s l lak~ l lg (10.6'i.o) l i ~ l l onc i l
by NI'V (7.6%) and rllc11 eridosulfali (6.4%).
'l'lle cost benelit ratios were calculated and represellted ill table 8g
Shaking \\as foulld to be the best will^ highest C:L1 ratio 1:10.4, lo l loncd by
elldosulfan 1:6 and then by NPV 1:5.8.
DISCUSSION
CIIAI'TEI1 V
DISCUSSION
Ilelicoeerpir urntigeru (Ilubncr) is a rnajor pest on pigconpea. I h ~ s is
because of its higher fecundity, multiple generations, polyphag) and migratory
behaviour. With a view to compare the eflicacy of various components of Il'hl
against I' urrnigrro in pigeonpea, studies were carried out during kharif season
1999-2000 at ICRISAT, Patanchem, A.P. The results of the experiments arc
discussed in this chapter.
Ellicacy of llifferent treatments on the ovipositional prcfercnce of 1l.arr11igcra
The overall emect of all the sprays and shakings ('l'able I and Vig. I)
revealed that neem was effective in reducing the ovipositional preference of Ii
arrttigero by recording 57.8 per cent reduction ovcr control followed by II'M in
order of eflicacy with 54 per cent reduction over control, since it received ncem as
first spray. Next comes endosulfan in the order with 51 per cent reduction over I
control, here tllu cffcct is upto 5 da)s aflcr trcatlllclit.
Rao and Rao (1993) reported that application of 1.5 per ccnt Replin
ISOOppni on piycoapen against If. urnrigrru was found to be cl'l'cctivc in rcducing
the oviposition.
Rosaiah (1992) stated that Keplin showed n~aximum ovipositional
repelleilcy of H irrrfligeru on cotton. A n w r PI ul. (1993) observed 50 per ccnt
reduction in oviposition by H urnrigera treated a i th neem oil co~nparcd 111 untrcatcd
5 4
crop. The present studies also showed the ovipositional deterrance o f Neem aga~nst
Harmigera with 58 percent reduction i n oviposit~on against control plots.
Efficacy o f various treatments on the larval population of H. ormigero
Amongst \he Lreatments T4 (Endosulfan + shaking) was the superior
treatment which recorded 62.2 per cent reduction i n the larval population over
control. In 1'. the lirst tnterception was with endosulhn as it was effective mostly
on small sized larvae then the mechanical shaking \\herein the larvae were collected
and destroyed.
Effcct o ld i r fcrcnt trrntnlents on natural cncn~ics
The natural enemy population in all treatments declined with the age
o f crop. The overall effect showed that (Table 3 and F1g.3) among the treatments
endosulfa ('1'6) and Endosulrm + Shaking (1'4) shoucd the ]nost suppressing elfcct
on natural enemies with 35.6 - 40 per cent reduct~on over control. 'The percentage
reduction o f natural enemy populat~on over control was the least in shaking
treatment (4.6 per cent) as it rece~ved no chem~cals. However Sanap el uI(1990)
reported that natural enemy population was not affected by endosulran sprayed
against H u r m i ~ e r u on pigeonpea in india.
Effect ofvarious treatments on the pod damage caused by I f . ormigero
The overall effect showed that (Table 4 and Fig.4) among the
treatments IPM \vas round to be best with lowest pod damage (15.1%) which was
about 46.2 per cent less over control folloued by endosulfan w ~ t h 17.6 per cent pod
damage which WM 37.4 per cent less o\er control. kiNPV spray and endosulfan +
shaking registered 33.1 per cent and 34.1 per ccnt reduction over con~rol and were
on par. The pod dnlilage \$as more in llceni and sllaking treatnlents \\it11 28.3 per
cent and 30 per cent reduction over control.
Tlie percentage pod danlage was observed to be low in Il 'hl wllicll
was concluded as the superior strategy in nianaging the griuli pod borer, I! rlrnrigel~
in pigeonpea. Giraddi er (I/. (1994) reported lllat lowest pod damage was obtained in
treatments recciting tlircc rounds of spray of NI'V atid pyrelliroids wl~i lc NI'V or
insecticide alone lhiled lo give appreciable coritrol.
Neharkar er 01. (1999) reported tliat in control o f I!~,/tco~~erl)u on
pigeonpea cv. DDN-2 IINI'V treatment recorded loicest pod damage (26.5 I%).
Cliaudhary er (11. (1995) reported that cndosulfa~~ spray applied at t l~c
reproductive stage of the pigeonpea crop eKectively reduced the pod daniage by I 1
ormrgera (18.5%).
'I hakaur er ol. (1989) reported tliat 21.6 per cent o f pods and 12.1 per
cent of grains of pigeonpeas were damaged by Ii ar~r~ij iera in treated ficlds as
compared with 43.7 and 37.2 per cent in pods and grains respectively in untreated
fields (12.3%).
Kao and Kao (1993) reported tliat application of I k p l ~ n 1 5 per cent
thrice reduced tlie pod damage by H arn~igera In pigeonpea.
Effect of different pest management stralcglcs on g ram jleld uf p~gec~npea
The results (Table 5 and F I ~ 5) slio\red that lPhl u a s adjlldgcd as the
superlor strategy among all treatments by recording the h~ghcst ylcld of 632 k g i h ~
which was 54 I per cent ~ncrease over control rollo\red by e n d u ~ u l l ~ ~ ~ \r~tli 60 7
k g h a whlch \\as 48 0 per cent Increase o\cr control, follo\\ed by e~ldosulla~i +
sliak~ng w ~ t h about 40 per cent Increase over colitrol Shak~ng slio\r,ed 20 5 per ccnt
~ncrcase over control NPV and neeni with I6 34 ,lnd I2 68 per L C I I ~ I I I C ~ C ~ I C o\er
control
Das (1998) reported that 4 ~ n s c c t ~ c ~ d e s and NSKl alu~ic or 111
comb~nat~ons \\ere tested agalnst ti ornlrye~o and I\{ U ~ I I I U I 011 p~gco~ipc~ i Il~glictt I
y~elds were obtd~ncd us~ng dlmcthoate O 15 pur ccnt + NSKL at 5 pcr cc~ i l
Nehrdrker el ul (1999) reported that In control ol I l e l~~ovcrpa or1
pigeonpea cv BDN-2 IINPV treatnient recorded h~ghcst 11cld 18 2 qill.1 5,111op and
Pawar (1998) rebealed that IPM treatment cornprltllig endosullan O 07 per cent.
NSKE 5 per cent and NI'V @ 250 L.liha gake 27 per c c ~ ~ t 111glicr yield
Ihe yield obtdlned shoued ncgdnbe rcldt~onsli~p a ~ t h pod ddmdge
(r = -0 8421) by 11 ormrgcru OII p~georipea Rosalal~ (1097) also reportcd \11111l,lr
rclal~ontllip In cotton
Seasonal inc~dence
Monitoring of If, arrttigera using pheromone traps
rile maxlmum moth catches \\as obscned at 144 UA5 ( Idblc 6 and
Fig 6)
A sound knowledge OII the scaso~tol acti\ily of pod borcr I 1 ur!irryrariJ
and weather factors conducive for the build up of pest helps to evolve suitable pest
nlwagelncnt strntegic~ against the pest. Maxilllunt ov~position was obser\cd at 123
D A S which coincided with manimuni flo\wring and pod ilt~tiation stngc of crop
The larvae attained its peak from 123 to 133 [)AS with mnriniu~n at
131 D A S which is supported from the results of Khaire el u1.(1993) trllo round the
seasonal abundance of H arr~~igerrr on pigconpca ICI'L-87 ill Mal~arastra during
third week of October. According to Chabra and Kooner (1993) the peak of Ii
ur~~r igwo rras obscrxed during October in I'unjab.
SUMMARY
CHAPI'EK \'I
SUAIRIARY
A field experlnient !\.as cotiducled d u r ~ ~ i g rainy seasoti 1900 at
lnternatlonal Crops Researcli I~ is t l tu te for tlie S~III I-Ar~d Trop~cs. Patar~cllenl.
Andl ira Pradesli l o assess the comparatlvc efiicacy o f varlnus c ~ i ~ i ~ p o n e n t s o f I l 'hl
l tke neetii, I INPL', s l iak~ny and endosulfa~i ~ n d ~ w d u a l l y and 111 ~ l ~ l l ' c r c ~ i t
c u ~ i ~ t ~ i l ~ i i t ~ u ~ ~ s i igi i~l ist ~ I ~ I I I pod Liorcr I /~~/ Ic~JI~~~I /J~I ,IIIIII~,~~I I IIII~IICI o t ~ ~ I I ~ C O I I ~ ~ C : I
I n a d d ~ t ~ o r i to on statton trial at ICRISAT, tlie emeect of I l 'h l and tion I l 'h l Ilractlccs
against I< or1n18rm i n pigeonpea 111 far~i iers fields o f v~ l lages Gottlpadu 111 G ~ ~ l t t l l r
d ~ s l t ~ c t d u r ~ ~ i g rainy scason 1999 and 111 Gu l l i ~~ l r l r r l ~ l . K i t r no~ i l c l~< l t ic l dltrltig ~ O J I
season 1999-2000 \rere also studled
The other aspects studled were
I) [Jvnluat~rig the t rea l t i ie~~la l en'ecls 011 natulal c t i c~ i i ~es t l t i~ t IILC 111 111gc[111lica
canopy
11) h l o l ~ i t o r ~ l i g o f H u / ~ c u ~ ~ c ~ . / x ~ adults uslrig p l ~ e t ~ i ~ i i o ~ i e traps 111 l l le l ield
~ i i ) Studylng !lie seasonal ir ic~dence o f H. < o . ~ ~ r ~ ~ e r r r
It1 !lie present studies all the treatliielits were fuutld s~y l i ~ l i can t l y
supellor to cu1111o1 III l e d u c ~ l ~ g o v ~ p u s ~ t ~ u t i u l ' I I IIIIIII~~L,I~I I Ilc III~IXI~I~UIII I ~ ~ L I L ~ I ( I I I
111 ov ipost t~ot i ivas obsewed tn rieern ( 5 7 8%) follo\ved b y I I 'M (540°%) obcr
co~ i t r o l The treat~ilent w ~ t h the cornbinat~on o f endosulfan + shaklng \+as adjudged
as the best trealtiient ~n nianagitig tlte larval pol)ulalton, f i i l lowed by sliaklrrg alone
HNPV stood next in tlie order o f efficacy then IPh l (51 5 ) Neetii and e~ idosu l fa~ i
reduced tlie larral popula t~on t o the tune o f 4 8 per cent and 46 per cent r e i )~ec t~ve l y
6 0
$1 El~dusulfan \\as found e f e c t i ~ l g [lie [natural elieliiy faulia tliat II\C 111
pigeonpea canopy Shaking was fotllid to be safe tti li;~tilral ~II~I I I ICS as llicre 1\85 mi
i t l vu lve~l le l~ t o t ' t o ~ i c cl ie~i i icals
'l'llc least pod dan~age was ohta~lietl \\1111 II'ht (15 1%). ftillnr\ed b y
elidosulfan ( I 7 5?'0), el~dosulSa~~ + shaking ( I 8 5%) as ayallist l l~gl lest ~ i n d dalnagc in
co l i t ~o l (283;)
~I~IXIIII~II~~ yicld o f 6.12 k d l ~ a \\;I$ trlila~llctl III I l 'hl , Solloivctl 11).
elidosulfan (602 kdha) as agalnst 410 k d l i a i n control Tlie cost benefit ratlo o f
1 7 1 for the shaking treatment \$as found to be best follo\\.ed by the c o ~ n b ~ n a t ~ o l i oS
e~ldosulfan .I s l lak i~ lg 1 6 4
'l'lle studles on seasorial i ~ l c i de~ i ce o f 11. ~ I I I I I IR~ I~ revcaletl tllat llie
peak 1110th catcli at 137 to 144 DAS i e , at 41 and 42 standard \seeks o f 1400.
I'ullo\\ed by orlposlt lon ~n secolld fortlllgllt of Oclolicr l.;~ri;tl ~ i ~ l i ~ ~ l i ~ t ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ I I I I C ~
peak at I 4 4 DAS
In Gulladunhi village liigher yield was obtalned in Il'hl trcatnicllt
cornpared to non IPh l plots in rohr pigeorlpea
The observations on co~nparison o f sliaklng w11l1 NI'V and
e~~dosul lar l revealed the lllaxlrliullt per cent reductloll in larval populat~ol l III sl lak~ng
plots \r i th lligller yields and high C B ratlo ( I 10 9) in Ciulladurtl~i v~ l lage
LITERA TURE CITED
LITERATURE CITED
Akliaur~ R K and Yadav R P 1999 Evaluat~on of some pl~ytoextraccs agalnsc pod borer complex on pre-mhr season plgeonpea In North B~har Pestlclde Research Journal 1 l(1) 26-3 1
Armes N J. Jadliav D R, Bond G S and Klng A B S 1992 lnsectlc~de reylctatice 111
H e l r ~ r ~ ~ e r p r rrrrn~geru In Soutll Itidla I'e~tlclde Scte~ice 34 355-364
Badaya A K, Das S B, Thakur N S. Shaw S S and Blialla P L 1990 1 flect of ~nterculture operations, fertll~zer appl~cat~on and plant protection meacures on the lnc~dence of borer con~plex on plgconpea Intllan Jou~nal ol I'lalit Protect1011 18(1) 27-30
Ballal C R. S~tigli S P, Reddy P P 1997-98 1 flect of pestlclde applttatlr~tls on Pheronione trap catches and d~str~but~on pattern of N m.rrtr~e~a In plgeotipea ecosystem Advances In IPM for l~on~cultural crops Proceedltigs of I" Nat~onal Sy~npos~uln on Pest tviatiagetnent 111 Hort~cultutal C'rolis Env~ronmental lmpllcat~ons and threats. Bangalore l ~ i d ~ a 15-17 October 124-128
Bl~agwat V R 1997 ICRISAT's ecofr~endly glR to check pod borer SAT News 20 6-8
Bl~atnagar U S Pawar C S, Jadhav D R, Rao V K and Reed W 1993 C o~iservat~on and augmentation of natural enemles w~ th reference to lPhl III ch~ckpea and plgeonpca 111 Proceedings of the Internatlnnal wt~rkqhop 011 lritegrated I'est Control In Gram legumes (ed by Matterson P C) pp 157-180
Bljjur S. Kulkarlt~ K A and Llrlgappa S 1994 Ullllzatlon o f NI'V ln It 111~111~e~~r management In sunflower and plgeonpea ecosystem Indian Jour~~al of Entomology 56(3) 241-245
B~lapate G G 1989 lnvest~gat~ons on Helro111tt onrrtgero (Hubner) In Maratliwada XXlV Key mortal~ty factors on cotlori and plgeonpea Journal of Maliarasl~tra Agricultural Un~vers~l~es 14(3) 258-262
Bilapate G G. Mokat R B. Lovekar R C ar~d Bagade D N 1988 I'opulat~on ecology o f Hrlrof111.i orntrgern (Hubner) 11s parasites on pulses Journal of Mallarashtra Agr~cultural Un~vers~ t~es
Borkar S L. Pat11 P P and lngle S N 1996 Infestation o f pod borers 111 plgeonpea (('ill~~ttrrs ncliol L ) as influenced by cl~fferent pest~c~des and s1)raying schedules Jourrlal o f Solls and Crops 6(2) 146-1 50
Chaudary R R I' and Sactian R B 1995 Occurretice o f ~nsect pests and loss caused by t l len~ in 'UPAS 120' plyeonpea 111 western pla~ns zone o f U I' l ~ l d ~ a r l Jour~ial o f Agricultural Scie~ices 65(1) 78-81
'Chhabra K S and Kooner B S 1993 Assessnlent o f /~C/ICOI~EI~U LI~IIII~CI~I
(Hubner) population through plieromone trap at Ludhiana, lnd~a Zeitsclir~l\ fur Argwandte Zoologie 29 309-3 17
Das S B 1998 Synergistic action o f neeni seed kernel extract and insect~c~des against pests o f p~geonpea Illsect Etivironrl~ent 4(3) 83-84
'Davakar S and Rav S N 1999 Natural paraslllzatlon o f I i e l~co i~op i r rn~rrrgrrir In pigeonpea ecosystems at Pantnagar ll~sect Environ~nent 4(4) 136
C~raddi R S . Pa~lchxbllavi K S and Kr~shna N a ~ k I I004 I~ i~cgr;~tet l I ' e~ l nlanage~~ietit o f Pod borer, I / o,nr~ger.rr on pipeonpea Karnataka Jour~lal ol' Agricultural Sciences 7(4). 423-426
Goniez K A arld Coniez A A 1976 Statistical procedure for agricultural research A Wdey Interscience Publications pp 297-308
Gosalwad S S, Surywanshi D S and Zanwar P R 1992 Crop losses and optlniulii spray sclredule for control o f pod borers In plyeonpea Journal o f Maharashtra Agricultural Universlt~es 17( 1) 82-84
Gouse Mollanimed. Rao A S, hloharnmed G 1999 Evaluat~on o f same new insecticides on H ornltgrrrr on pigeonpea lnternat~onal Cli~ckpea and P~geonpea Newsletter 6(3) 46-47
ICAK 1992 Research l ~ ~ g l l l ~ g l l l s o f AICKI' on Agtt~ultural Orn~tllolugy ( t d A I< Raheja) pp 16
'JagIan M S, Khokhar K S. h fa l~k M S. Rani S ~ n g l ~ H and Singli K 1997 Evaluation o f neem extracts against A~i ier~can hol lworn~ ( H i r r f ~ r f ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ) Jourrlal o f Agr~cullural Rr Food C h e ~ i i ~ s ~ r y 45(R) 3262-3268
Jogi~ider Singl~. Sa~idliu S S arid Singla h l L IWO L:colopy ol' I~~~~ILIII~~~~III ilrffrrgerlr (Hubner) on cli~ckpea in I'ulijab Journal o f lnsccl Sc~cnce 3 47- 52
Kabar~a B. Goyal S N and Shall A H 1988 Surveillance o f Insect pests damage to pigeoopea at podding stage in Bharucli distr~ct, Gujarat, India l n t e r ~ ~ a t ~ u ~ ~ a l Pigeoripea Newsletter 8. 15-16
Khaire V M, Unlap K I3 and Mote U N 1989 Co~iiparative ~ ~ i c ~ d e ~ i c e and c l ~ e ~ i i ~ c a l control o f pod borer complex in pigeonpea Plant Protection Bulletin Faridabad 4 [ ( I -2) 3 1-36
Klian 11 K and Gowtla K N 1994 A survey on crcili protecllon p rac l~ce~ o f rcdgram farniers o f Basavana Palya village in hlagatl~ 7hluk, Karriataka I'lant Protect~un Bulletin, Faridabad 46(1) 16-18
Lateef S S and Reed W 1992 Insect pests o f p~georipea In l~isect pests o f trop~cal food legu~i~es (ed by Sing11 S R) John Wiley and Sons. New York 11p 103- 242
hlallajali S V. Sable K R and Turliat R N 1990 I'resent stalus 111' I l ~ ~ / ! c o ~ ' ~ ~ f l ~ ~ r lrrnrrgc,r(r on pulses and strategies fur ~ i ia~iage~ne~ir in Mallarastra I:II~I Nat~onal Worksliop on ttrliorhr.\ nianagelnent Current status and Futt~re strategies Directorate o f Pulses Research, Kanpur, l ~ i d ~ a 3 0 - 3 1 August 1990, pp 71-77
Makar P V and Sanap h l M 1994 Optimu~ii spray scliedule for p~geo~ipea pod borers llld1i111 Juurnal o f Pulses Rcsearcl~ 7(2) 144-147
Manjunatl~ T hl, Bliatnagar V S. Pawar C S and Sitlianantham S 1989 Eco~ioni~c imponance of, Hel~orlffs spp in lnd~a and an assessment o f the~r natural enemies and host plants In Proceedings o f the workshop on b~olog~cal control o f Hel~orhfs Increasing the eITectibeness o f natural eriemles (ed by King EG and Jackson R D) pp 197-228 Far East Rcg~onal Ollice. t)lCK. USDA. C'l~;~~i;~hyapur~. New Dell l~, l t ~ d ~ a
h l l n j a E hl. Sl~anoiver T G and Ong aro J hl 1999 Natural enelilles associated \\1tI1 Art l l ropod pests o f plgeonpea tn Eastern Afr lca I r~ t c r l ~a t~ona l Cl~lchpea arid P~geonpca Newsletter 6 47-50
Mlsl lra N C 1995 hlanagen~ent o f pod borer Hc l t co i c rp~ r ~ r r n r t ~ n [ l on 11111 arl~ar ('[IJOIJII\ L(IJLIII Envlronnlent and Ecology 1 l ( 1 ) 18-2 1
Muth lah C and Rablndra R J 1991 Control o f grarli pod borer ( I / e l r~~ f l r r \ ~orrrfg[,rrr) o n plyeonpea (( 'c~plrrrf~ c~ r /< r~ r ) w l t l ~ co~i t ro l lcd droplet ap l~ l~ca t l on o f l i u ~ l c a r polyl~edrosls virus and effect o f oral feeding of virus on mulberry sllkv,orn~ (Ho~ t t h j r trforf) I nd~an Journal o f Agrlcul lural Sclcnces 61(6) 449-452
Natarajan N and Rao P V S 1991 hlanageniel~t o f the gram pod borer. I l r l to r l r r \ o / r n ~ y ~ . / o w ~ t h polyhedrosts vrrus and ~r~rectrcldes ~n prgeorlpea Madras Agricultural Journal 78(1-4) 122- 124
Nellarkar P S. Parange N R. Rendre M S and h lu t i ~ l c A I I099 ( ' [ > l i ~ p a r ~ t ~ v c enicacy o f lt~sectlcldes agatnst pod borer ~ o l ~ i p l e x lourl i i l l o l 5011s tilld Crops 9(2) 178- 18 1
'Nene Y L and Sl~e l la V K 1990 Plgeonpea geograpliy ant1 rlllpoltallce 111 I l ~ e Plgeotipea (ed b y Nerle Y L, l l a l l t I U and Sl le~ la V K) C A B I t l tc r~~auonal We l l ~ng fo rd U K pp 1-14
Patel I 1 P. Patel A R. Patel G P and Patel J R 1999 O v ~ c ~ d a l and l a r v l ~ l d a l c f l e ~ t u f ready IIIIY f(1111lulat1011 o f I I I C ~ C ~ I L I ~ C ~ i l g . i ~~ i \ t IC.~II~CI~I~C.I.III { i ~ j d I > o ~ e r \ I J ~
plgeonpea (Cnjarfrrr ~a jcnr ) Indlan Journal of Agrlcul lural Sc len~es 6 ' l ( i ) 39 1-393
Patel 1 J and Patel N C 1997 B~oef f icacy of' synthetic and botanical ~ n ~ c t t l c l d e s for cont ro l l~ng pod borer and pod f ly ~ n f e s t ~ n g ~egetab le purpose plgeonpca Indlan Jourrlal o f Agr~cu l tura l Sc~ences 67(3) 1 17-1 19
Patel M H 1988 Studies on predation o f H ~ . l ~ c o i r r p ~ ~ onrrf,qerrr t luhner and .\IKHI~I)I~'Io l frunr Fab by ~nsec l~voro i rs blrdr i v ~ t l i FI~CLI~II r e re re r~~e to Aor[ lo//rcres rrrsrls (L ) hl Sc ( A g ) l l ~ e s ~ s subltllned to Gujarat Agrrcultural Unlverslty. Anand, Gujarat
Patll C S. Jadhav R G. Khalre V h l and h io te U N 1990 Control o f plyeonpea pod borer complex w ~ t h lnsecttc~dal dust forn~ula t~ons Journal o f Maliarashtra Agr~cu l tura l Unlversllles 15(2) 258-259
Pat11 S K and Detlie bf D 1993 EfIicacv o f fenvalerate, cyper~i iet l i r l l i and endosulfan agalnst plgeonpea pod borers Plant Protect1011 Bul le t~ l i FarIdabad 45(1) 35-36
Prasad D, Chand I' and Hoque M F 1987 Parac~tlsat~on of / I (rtttrtyrJtrr ( l lubl icr) III cl i~ckpea field? as affected by pestrcidal reed treatliient Reqearch and Developnielit Reporter 4 236-238
I lalu A K and Ki l~i ' ika Raju A 1991 Es t l n i a t~o~ i of ~ r r i l i loss 111 plgeonlicd duc to grani caterpillar current research U~ilverslry o f Agr~cultural Sc le l i~cs Bangalore 20(12) 260-262
Rao K T and Rao N V 1993 Repelm, a plant orlgln rn?ectlclde for controlling pod borer l ~ e l t ~ o i e r / ~ o ort~tryertr o f plgeonpea (('irprt~rrs cu/(rtr) Llofatilcal Pestrc~des i n Integrated Pest Management 232-235
Rosa~ah B 1997 Bloecology and management o f I l c l ~ ~ o i e r p r r (ttrrrtycr(r ( I lubncr) on cotton Ph D Thes~s subm~tted to Acliarya N G Raliga A g r ~ ~ u I t u ~ a I U ~ ~ l v e r s ~ t y . flyderabad
Sachan J N 1990 Present status o f I lc l t~oic,rp[r i rr t tr~xcrir on pulses and strategies l i i r management In Maharastra r us t Nattorial Worksliop on / l c l t o~h r \ nianageriient Current status and future rtralegtcr D~ rec to ra~e [ i f I 'ul~es Kesear~l i . Ka~ipur , l r i d~a 30-3 1 August 1990 pp 8-33
Sacliali J N and I.al S S 1991 Role o f I i i i ta l i t~a l IIIWLIILI~CS III /I(,/ILIIIL,~/JII ~~t r t r tget i r riianagement I n pulses Bota111ca1 pest~cldes 111 Integrated IJes( hlanagenient 261-267
Sadawarte A K and Sarode S V 1997 Efficacy o f rieelii seed extract, cow dung atid cow urine alone and comb~nat~ons agalnst pod borer co~nplex of pigeonpea lriterliattorlal Chlckpea and I'lgeonpea Ncwrlcl tcr 4 36-37
Sanap M M and Pawar V hl 1998 lntegrated hlanage~nelit o f 1~ r . l t co i e t~~ r r atttrry'trt on graril ( ( ' ~ c r (vtelrtttrnt) lndlan Journal o f Agr~cultural Sclences 68 162- 164
S a ~ l t l i a r , ~ ~ ~ ~ ti V ~ ~ t o t l a O K, Ral r l~~dra I< J a ~ l d J.ly.!r.lj \ I005 Studrcr l i r l IIIOIO~IL~I control o f plgeonpea pod borers tn lndla Anzelger fur Schadl~nyskunde. Pflanzenschutz Umweltschutz 67(5) 103- 106
Sarode S V, Deotale R 0 and Pat11 P P 1995 Perforniance o f H e l r ~ o ~ t ' r p ~ l nuclear polyhedrosls v ~ m s (HNPV) comblned w ~ t l i ncelii seed kernel extract (NSKF) agalnst the pod borer on clilckpea l~ l ter~ ia t lona l clilckpea and plgcolipca News letter 2 35-37
Sllnrlower T G. Kel lv ,T G and Co~vg l l l S 1: 1994 I)evelop~llent o f e f fcc l~ve a ~ i d environmentally sound strategies l o control H e l r a ~ ~ e ~ p ( r (r~rrrrgcrrr 111 plgeonpea and ch~ckpea product~on %yqtems Presented at tlie T l i ~ r d l l i te r r~at~o~ia l Conference on r rop~cal L ~ i ~ u ~ i i o l u g y 10Ih O~tc l i i c r to 4Ih Novenlber 1994, Nalrobl. Kenya
b l~ , i ~ i vwc l I (I ~(IIII~LIC J wid hf l l i ja I hf IiI'1O In\ccl I1e\l* (11 I ~ ~ ~ U I I ~ I C C I (IIIII IIICII mariagen~elit Annual Revlew o l t n t o~ i i u l uyy 44 77-90
*Sliantaram G V ~ c t o r ~ a D R aiid Rablndra R 1 1995 Stud~es on blologlcal ci,lltroloi plgeonpea pod borers l n l nd~a Anze~ger-jur-scliad~~lgs Kunde, I'flanze~is Scllur~tz Un~\\cttschutz 67(5) 103-106
Sharnia bl L, Rat 11 S and Ve rn~a hl L 1997 Ll lopecl lc~de~ for 111anagelnenl o f 11 orrrlrgcr~r 111 cI11ckpea ltiternallonal L l i~ckpea atid I'~geonpca Newsletter 4 26-27
S ~ n y h N N 10'17 1 c~i11o1111c~ o l use crf I I I F C L ~ I ~ I ( ~ C % np,i111i1 110d I ly dl10 1100 IIIIILI colnplcx 011 p~geotipca l r l d ~ a ~ i Juurn,tl o f l ~ i t o ~ ~ i o l o g y 50(2) 229-23 1
S~t l l ia M h l a l ~ d Sr~vaslava S N 1989 Spray sclicdulc for pc~d borers of lllgculllred ((~~JUIIII\ U~JUII) Leyunie Researcli 12(2) 101 -102
S~ssgaard L and Ersboll A K 1999 Effects o f cowpea llitersowlng and l n ~ c c t ~ ~ l d e appl lcat~on on He l r co~e r j r~ i onrrrgcro l lubner (Lep~doptera Noctu~dae) and 11s natural enemles In plgeonpea lntercropped r*llli sorgl iu~n I~ i tc rna~~or ia l Jourtial of I'e%l hlanagen~ent 45(1) 61-67
Srtnlvas P R 1989 Extent o f parasltlsm o f gram pod burer (11 i ~ r~n rg r r ( r ) by ~chneunior i~d larval parasttes l r id~an Journal o f Agr~cul lural Sc~ences SO 377-378
Subbaray~~du U and S~ng l i t i N 1997 Effect of ablut~c factors oti tlie plieromune trap catches o f H ~ ~ / r c o l e l p i on r l l ge~u (Hubner) moths Jourlial o f Research A N G K A U 25 46-67
Thakur R C , Nema K K and Slngh 0 P 1989 Losses caused by pod Ily (Melarra~ontyzo ohtrrsa Mall ) and pod borer (Helrorlrrr arrrrrfc3r~l (Hub ) to ptgeonpea In Madhya Pradesh Bliart~ya Kr ls l i~ Anusandharia Patr~ka 4(2)) 107-1 11
Ver~iia A K and Satikltyan S 1993 Pheroltiolle riionllorltig o f H arnrrgrrcr (llubricr) and relationsh~p o f moth actlvlty W I I ~ larval lnfestat~on on lrnporlatll cacli crops In m~d-h~ l l s o f H~machal Pradesli Pest hlanagement and Ecotioni~c Zoology 1 4 3 - 4 9
Yadav L S and Cliaudliary J P 1993 Evaluat~oli of ~ ~ i s e c l ~ c ~ d a l spray ~cliedule Tor tlie conl~ol of I lelroflr~\ ~rrrrr~gerlr Ilublier oti plgctltipea I~~I<I I I Jo t~ r t i~~ l of Lntoniology 55(4) 380-384
* Or~gtnal not seen
Tlie pattern o f Ltterature c~ted' presented above IF 111 accordance w10i llic Gu~dellties' for thes~s presentallon for Acharya N 6 Rariya Agr~cultural
Unlverslty, Hyderabad
\\'eather data for the vear I9'aQ - 2000 - ICRIS.4T center. Pn~ancheru. ran\ . season Week Ram E\aporat~on Temperature Relative h u n l ~ d ~ t v \ \ '~nd Solar Sunsh~ne
M a x h l ~ n 7 00 hrs 14 00 hrs veloc~ty r ad~a t~un
Fig 8 Whether data for Ihe year 1999 - ICRISAT centre
1 27 28 19 YI 31 11 I3 Y U H 37 Id 13 40 (I 41 43 41 4 1 16 0 18 4" D
Slandard weeks
ax Temp -+ Mln Temp 1
21 27 28 29 M II I 2 U 34 15 P I 7 P 19 40 4 1 42 4 1 88 45 46 4 7 48 49 54
Slandard weeks
