385

ISSN: 0974 - 0376

KEYWORDS

Proceedings of National Conference onHarmony with Nature in Context of

Bioresources and Environmental Health(HORMONY - 2015)

November 23 - 25, 2015, Aurangabad,organized by

Department of Zoology,Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University

Aurangabad (Maharashtra) 431 004in association with

National Environmentalists Association, Indiawww.neaindia.org

NSave Nature to Survive

: Special issue, Vol. VIII: 385-388: 2015

www.theecoscan.inAN INTERNATIONAL QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

Sudhir Kumar et al.,

Helicoverpa armigera

Chickpea

Insecticides

Economic

MANAGEMENT OF GRAM POD BORER (HELICOVERPA ARMIGERAHUBNER) IN CHICK PEA (CICER ARIETINUM L.)

386

SUDHIR KUMAR1*, GAJE SINGH1, SUSHIL KUMAR1 AND RAVI KUMAR2

1Department of Entomology,S. V. P. University of Agriculture and Technology, Meerut - 250 110, INDIA

2Department of Genetics and Plant breeding,S. V. P. University of Agriculture and Technology, Meerut - 250 110, INDIA

e-mail: sudhirkhanna1285@gmail.com

INTRODUCTION

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is a most important pulse crop of India. India is thelargest chickpea producer as well as consumer in the world. Its seeds are eaten asgreen vegetable, fried, roasted; as snack food and grind to obtain flour and dhal. Italso play an important role in maintaining soil fertility, particularly in dry, rainfedareas. Chickpea is a rich source of nutritional values in the diet of Indian peoplebecause of containing 21.5 per cent protein, 64.5 per cent carbohydrates and 4.5per cent fat (Ahlawat and Omprakash, 1996). Chickpea occupies 7.1 million hawith a production of 5.75 million tones, accounting for 30.9 per cent and 39.9 percent of total pulse area and production in India, respectively. In Uttar Pradesh theproductivity of chickpea is 942 kg/ha. The crop is known to suffer from a numberof insect pests among which the H. armigera is the key pest of chickpea (Manjunathet al., 1989). H. armigera appeared in large number during vegetative and podformation stages of chickpea. It is a most serious pest of important agriculturalcrops like tomato, cotton, chickpea, pigeonpea and besides cereals, oil seeds andvegetable crops etc (Jat and Ameta, 2013). A single larva can destroy several podsbefore reaching to maturity and this pest was reported to damage 5-40 per centpods of chickpea (Chauhan and Dahiya, 1994). Last few years the averageproduction of chickpea has experienced very low in our country due to attack ofH. armigera (Lal, 1996). H. armigera is a charismatic insect pest in agricultureaccounting for the consumption of over 55 per cent of total insecticides used inIndia (Puri, 1995). Lal (1996) reported that the yield losses of chickpea grain due toH. armigera were 75-90 per cent and in some places the losses were up to 100 percent. To control this insect pest, pesticides are being used in large quantities. Butthe enormous use of same groups of pesticides causes problem of pesticide residuesin foodstuff and environmental contamination. This has promoted the necessityfor seeking new, safer, biodegradable insecticides that could be feasible and effectivefor insect pest management. Similar types of work done by few researchers (Ahmedet al., 2004, Ghosh et al., 2010, Meena and Raju, 2014 and Dhaka et al., 2015)where they stated that the different group of insecticide showed the great impact onincidence of this pest with single or low dose of insecticides. Keeping in view of theseriousness of the pest and economic importance of this crop, the presentinvestigation was carried out to determine the comparative efficacy of six differentinsecticides against this pest under field condition.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An experimental field trial was conducted at Entomological Research Block ofCrop Research Centre (CRC), Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University of Agricultureand Technology, Meerut during Rabi season of 2010 -11. The experiment was laidin randomized block design (RBD), having seven treatment viz. indoxacarb 14.5SC @ 500 mL/ha, cypermethrin 25 EC @ 1000 mL/ha, lambda cyhalothrin 5 EC @500 mL/ha, thiodicarb 75 WP @ 625 gm/ha, spinosad 45 SC @ 200 mL/ha,carbosulfan 25 EC @ 1000 ml/ha and untreated (control) which were replicated

NSave Nature to Survive QUARTERLY

Field study was conducted to determine thecomparative efficacy of indoxacarb 14.5 SC,cypermethrin 25 EC, lambda cyhalothrin 5EC, thiodicarb 75 WP, spinosad 45 SC andcarbosulfan 25 EC against the pod infestationof gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera onchickpea in the experimental research area ofSardar Vallabhbhai Patel University ofAgriculture and Technology, Meerut, Indiaduring Rabi season of 2010-11. Treatmentindoxacarb 14.5 SC @ 500 ml/ha was foundmost effective with, minimum percent podinfestation at first spray 0.89 (3 DAS) and 1.91(9 DAS), and minimum per cent pod infestationat second spray 1.02 (3 DAS) and 3.65 (9DAS). The treatment protected by indoxacarb14.5 SC @ 500 ml/ha was also recorded thehighest grain yield (22.85 q/ha) with maximumincrease in yield (13.59 q/ha), maximum netreturn (Rs. 36990.00/ha) and the highest costbenefit ratio (1: 9.78). The result revealed thatindoxacarb 14.5 SC @ 500 mL/ha is a betterinsecticide for the management of H. armigerain chickpea.

ABSTRACT

*Corresponding author

387

MANAGEMENT OF GRAM POD BORER

thrice. Each plot was having 7 rows of 4 meter with 40 cm rowto row and 10 cm plant to plant spicing, respectively. Normalfertilizers doses and recommended agronomical practiceswere adopted. All these insecticides were applied usingKnapsack sprayer twice for assessing effective controlstrategies against pod borer. Two spray of insecticides, first atpod initiation stage followed by second spray at ten days offirst spray were used to protect the crop. The pod infestationof H. armigera larvae was recorded on five randomly selectedplants from five inner rows in each plot were recorded oneday before spraying and 3 and 9 days after first and secondspray and ninth day count becoming pre-treatment count forthe second spray, following the methodology of Shukla et al.(2005). The percentage of pod infestation was worked out bythe following formula

For recording grain yield, the five inner rows were harvestedand total weight of grains was recorded into q/ha along withincrease in yield. Cost benefit ratio, net return per rupeesinvested, was calculated by using the following formula

The data were statistically analyzed as suggested by Panseand Sukhatme (1985)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Effect on per cent pod infestation

The table data revealed that after three days of first spray all thetreatments were found statistically superior to the untreatedcontrol in minimizing the pod infestation (Table 1). Theminimum pod infestation of 0.89 per cent was recorded inindoxacarb 14.5 SC treated plots followed by thiodicarb 75WP and spinosad 45 SC which recorded with 1.37 and 2.05per cent pod infestation, respectively and were statistically onpar in minimizing the pod infestation with i.e. indoxacarb 14.5SC. The pod infestation per cent of 2.76, 3.93 and 5.24 wasrecorded with carbosulfan 25 EC, lambda cyhalothrin 5 ECand cypermethrin 25 EC, respectively along with 13.01 percent in untreated control. The data also revealed that afternine days of first spray. The minimum pod infestation of 1.91per cent was recorded with indoxacarb 14.5 SC treatmentswhile the maximum infestation of 17.95 per cent in untreatedcontrol. The other treatments i.e. thiodicarb 75 WP, spinosad45 SC and carbosulfan 25 EC were recorded with 2.65, 3.76and 4.03 per cent pod infestation respectively, and werestatistically on par in minimizing the pod infestation with thei.e. indoxacarb 14.5 SC. Almost same trend of pod damagewas recorded in protected treatments. The data revealed thatafter three and nine days of second spray the minimum podinfestation of 1.02 and 3.65 per cent was recorded inindoxacarb 14.5 SC treated plots while the maximum infestationof 20.48 and 23.10 per cent in untreated control, respectively.The present findings are supported by Singh et al. (2008) whoreported that indoxacarb was the most effective in the reductionof pod infestation, followed by spinosad and carbosulfan inpigeon pea. The effectiveness of indoxacarb against H.armigera was proved by Deshmukh et al. (2010) and Dhakaet al. (2010) in chickpea crop. The present findings alsosupported by Dhaka et al. (2011), Yogeeswarudu and Venkata

Pod infestation (%) =

Number of infestedpods

Total number of pods x 100

Name of treatments Dose Yield Increase in Value of Cost of Net profit Cost benefit(q/ha) yield over increase treatment (Rs/ha) ratio

control (q/ha) yield (Rs/ha) (Rs/ha)

Indoxacarb 14.5 SC 500 ml/ha 22.85 13.59 40770 3780 36990 1:9.78Cypermethrin 25 EC 1000 ml/ha 11.78 2.52 7560 1320 6240 1:4.72Lambda Cyhalothrin 5 EC 500 ml/ha 13.23 3.97 11910 1680 10230 1:6.08Thiodicarb 75 WP 625 gm/ha 19.26 10.00 30000 3155 26845 1:8.50Spinosad 45 SC 200 ml/ha 18.79 9.53 28590 3700 24890 1:6.72Carbosulfan 25 EC 1000 ml/ha 14.16 4.90 14700 1720 12980 1:7.54Control 9.26 - - - - -SE.m ± 0.43CD at 5% 1.36

Table 2: Cost: benefit ratio of different treatments

Average price of chick pea Rs 3000.00/quintal; Cost of labour @ Rs 100/labour/day; Charge of sprayer @ Rs 40/day

Treatments Dose Mean Pods infestation (%)One day before spray First spray Second spray

3 DAS 9 DAS 3 DAS 9 DAS

Indoxacarb 14.5 SC 500 ml/ha 6.00** (14.09) 0.89 (5.32) 1.91(7.79) 1.02 5.36) 3.56 (1076)Cypermethrin 25 EC 1000 ml/ha 6.25 (14.44) 5.24 (13.19) 6.01 (14.15) 5.77 (13.78) 8.03 (16.39)Lambda Cyhalothrin 5 EC 500 ml/ha 6.67 (15.03) 3.93 (11.31) 5.00 12.75) 4.89 (12.60) 6.69 (14.96)Thiodicarb 75 WP 625 gm/ha 5.86 (13.97) 1.37 (6.56) 2.65 (9.23) 1.98 (7.88) 4.00 (11.48)Spinosad 45 SC 200 ml/ha 6.01 (14.09) 2.05 (8.03) 3.76 (10.99) 3.25 (10.31) 5.05 (12.91)Carbosulfan 25 EC 1000 ml/ha 5.95 (13.94) 2.76 (9.37) 4.03 (11.40) 3.73 (10.96) 5.76 (13.74)Control 6.03 (14.17) 13.01 (21.09) 17.95 (24.97) 20.48 (26.76) 23.10 (28.69)SE.m ± 1.48 1.37 1.60 1.11CD at 5% NS 3.26 4.28 4.99 3.44

DAS = Days after spraying; ** Average of three replications

Table 1: Effect of different treatments on pod infestation

Cost of increased yield (Rs/ha)Cost of treatment (Rs/ha)Cost: benefit ratio =

388

(2014) and Dhaka et al. (2015) who also reported indoxacarbto be superior in reducing the pod infestation by H. armigeralarvae.

Effect on grain yield and their economicThe highest yield of chickpea 22.85 q /ha was recorded inindoxacarb 14.5 SC followed by thiodicarb 75 WP, spinosad45 SC, carbosulfan 25 EC and lambda cyhalothrin 5 EC of19.26, 18.79, 14.16, and 13.23 q/ha, respectively (Table 2).Our findings are in agreement of Singh and Yadav (2007),who reported that the indoxacarb gave the highest yield ofchickpea. Maximum net income Rs. 36990.00/ha and costbenefit ratio 1:9.78 was found in case of indoxacarb 14.5 SCbecause of its low cost and highest yield. It was followed bythiodicarb 75 WP with net income of 26845 Rs/ha and costbenefit ratio 1:8.50. These finding are also supported by Dodiaet al., (2009) who reported that maximum return was gainedby indoxacarb followed by spinosad. Dhaka et al. (2011) andDhaka et al. (2015) also reported the maximum return wasgained by indoxacarb followed by Carbosulfan.

REFERENCES

Ahlawat, I. P. S. and Omprakash 1996. Nutritional value of chickpeagrains. Principles of Agronomy and crops. p. 43.Ahmed, S., Zia, K. and Shah, N. R. 2004. Validation of chemicalcontrol of gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (hub.) with newinsecticides. Int. J. Agri. Biol. 6(6): 278-280.

Chauhan, R. and Dahiya, B. 1994. Response of different chickpeagenotypes to Helicoverpa armigera at Hisar. Indian J. Plant Protection.22: 170-72.

Deshmukh, S. G., Sureja, B. V., Jethva, D. M. and Chatar, V. P.2010. Field efficacy of different insecticides against Helicoverpaarmigera infesting chickpea. Legume Research. 33(4): 269-273.

Dhaka, S. S., Singh, G., Ali, N., Mittal, V. and Singh, D. V. 2011.Efficacy of novel insecticides against pod borer, Etiella zinckenella(Treitschke) in vegetable pea. Crop Res. 42(1,2 & 3): 331-335.

Dhaka, S. S., Singh, G., Ali, N., Yadav, A. and Yadav, A. 2010. Fieldevaluation of insecticides and bio-pesticides against Helicoverpaarmigera on tomato. Ann. Pl. Protec. Sci. 18(1): 13-16.

Dhaka, S. S., Singh, G., Yadav, A., Rai, M. and Kumar, A. 2015.Efficacy of novel insecticides against pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera

(i). Pheromone trap (ii). Damaged leaves (iii). Pods infestation (iv). Severe damage of pods

Figure 1: Different types of damage caused by Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner)

(Hubner) in vegetable pea. Progressive Horticulture. 47(1): 146-150.

Dodia, D. A., Prajapati, B. G. and Acharya, S. 2009. Efficacy ofinsecticides against gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera Hardwick,infesting pigeonpea. J. Food Legumes. 22(2): 144-145.

Ghosh, A., Chatterjee, M. and Roy, R. 2010. Bio-efficacy of spinosadagainst tomato fruit borer (Helicoverpa armigera Hub.) (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae) and its natural enemies. J. Horticulture and Forestry. 2(5):108-111.

Jat, S. K. and Ameta, O. P. 2013. Relative efficacy of biopesticidesand newer insecticides against Helicoverpa armigera (Hub.) in tomato.The Bioscan. 8(2): 579-582.

Lal, O. P. 1996. An outbreak of pod borer, H. armigera (Hubner) onchickpea in Eastern Uttar Pradesh, India. J. Ent. Res. 20(2): 179-81.

Manjunath, T. M., Bhatnagar, V. S., Pawar, C. S. and Sithanantham,S. 1989. Economic importance of Heliothis spp. in India and anassessment of their natural enemies and host plants. In: Proceedingsof workshop on Biological Control of Heliothis. Increasing theeffectiveness of natural enemies (Ed. King, I.G. and Jackson, R.D.), FarEastern Regional Research Office, United States, Department ofAgriculture, New Delhi. pp. 197-228.

Meena, L. K. and Raju, S. V. S. 2014. Bioefficacy of newer insecticidesagainst tomato fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) on tomato,Lycopersicon esculentum mill under field conditions. The Bioscan.9(1): 347-350.

Panse, V. G. and Sukhatne, P. V. 1985. Statistical methods foragricultural workers. ICAR, New Delhi. p. 381.

Puri, S. N. 1995. Present status of IPM in India. Proceeding of NationalSeminar on Integrated Pest Management in Agriculture, December29-30, 1995. Nagpur, Maharashtra.

Shukla, S., Kumar, A. and Awasthi, B. K. 2005. Study of bio-efficacyof botanicals against tomato crop. Vegetable Sciences. 32(2): 210-212.

Singh, S., Choudhary, D. P., Sharma, C., Mahla, R. S. and Mathur, Y.S. 2008. Efficacy of different insecticides against Helicoverpa armigeraon chickpea Cicer arietinum. Indian J. Entomolo. 70(2): 177-181.

Singh, S. S. and Yadav, S. K. 2007. Comparative efficacy of insecticides,bio-pesticides and neem formulations against Helicoverpa armigeraon chick pea. Ann. Pl. Protec. Sci. 15(2): 299-302.

Yogeeswarudu, B. and Venkata Krishna, K. 2014. Field studies onefficacy of novel insecticides against Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner)infesting on Chickpea. J. Entomology and Zoology Studies. 2(4): 286-289.

SUDHIR KUMAR et al.,