Bioefficacy and persistent toxicity of newer insecticide against thrips, Pseudodendrothrips mori (Niwa) and leaf webber, Diaphania pulverulentalis (Hampson) in mulberry cultivation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.5754Keywords:
bioefficacy, insecticides, mulberry, persistent toxicity, pests, PR proteinsAbstract
Two field trials were conducted in two locations to assess new insecticide molecules' efficacy against thrips and leaf webber in the mulberry ecosystem. Results indicated that fipronil 5SC @ 50 g a.i. /ha showed the highest percentage reduction in the population of thrips (87.13 and 88.41 % in the first and second trials, respectively) over untreated control. In contrast, for leaf webber, flubendiamide 39.35 SC @ 48 g a.i./ha showed the highest effectiveness with 85.56 and 89.90 per cent reduction over control in the first and second trials, respectively. Persistence was observed through laboratory bioassay. Results revealed that the order of persistent toxicity of insecticides against thrips based on persistent toxicity index was fipronil 5 SC > spinetoram 11.7 SC > thiacloprid 21.7 SC > dimethoate 30 EC. Emamectin benzoate 5SC and dimethoate 30 EC recorded the shortest persistency of 10 days after treatment against mulberry leaf Webber, while chlorantraniliprole 18.5 SC and flubendiamide 39.35 SC registered the longest persistency of 25 and 20 days, respectively at the recommended dose. Higher concentrations of pest–resistant proteins and enzymes were recorded in the insecticide-treated mulberry plants than in the untreated plants. To conclude, fipronil 5 SC and thiacloprid 21.7 SC were the most effective in checking the population of thrips. At the same time, emamectin benzoate 5SC and flubendiamide 39.35 SC were most efficient against leaf webber, besides having less persistent toxicity than other treatments. Hence, these insecticides may be recommended to manage thrips and leaf webber in the mulberry ecosystem.
Downloads
References
Vijayan K, Srivastava PP, Jayaramaraju P, Saratchandra B. Breeding for high productivity in mulberry. Czech J Genet Plant Breed. 2012;48:147-56. https://doi.org/10.17221/162/2011–CJGPB
Zannoon AHAI, Hassan EM, El–Akkad SS, Abdel–Nabi IM, Zalat SM. Biological and technological effects of mulberry varieties and nutritional additives on silkworm Bombyx mori development. Egypt J Biol. 2008;10(1):1-10
Etebari K, Bizhannia AR. Decision tools for mulberry thrips Pseudodendrothrips mori (Niwa) (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) management. Insect Sci. 2006; 11(4):243-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744–7917.2004.tb00421.x
Mahadeva A. Influence of thrips (Pseudodendrothrips mori) infestation on the biochemical constituents and photosynthetic pigments of mulberry (Morus spp.) leaves. Int J Plant Anim Environ Sci. 2011;1:57-63
Muthuswami M, Subramanian S, Krishnan R, Thangamalar A, Indumathi P. Quantitative and qualitative damage caused in mulberry varieties due to infestation of a thrips Pseudodentrothrips mori Niwa. Karnataka J Agric Sci. 2010;23(1):146-8
Bhagyamma H, Kumari K. Leaf webber, Diaphania pulverulentalis Hampson (Pyralidae: Lepidoptera): a major defoliator of mulberry (Morus alba L.). Biotica Res Today. 2022; 4(7):533-5.
Pachiappan P, Venkatesh K, Rajadurai R. Seasonal incidence of leaf webber, Diaphania pulverulentalis Hampson on mulberry. Geobios New Rep. 2018;16:73-9.
Geetha Bai R, Suresh P, Suresh K. Incidence of leaf webber, Diaphania pulverulentalis Hampson in southern India. Indian J Seric. 1997;36(1):1-3.
Rajadurai R, Pachiappan P, Venkatesh K. Studies on the life cycle and management of leaf webber, Diaphania pulverulentalis Hampson. J Entomol Res. 2002;26(2):145-50.
Ackah ZQ, Wang M, Amoako F, Kwarteng F, Shi Y, Wang L, et al. The impact of boron nutrient supply in mulberry (Morus alba) response to metabolomics, enzyme activities and physiological parameters. Molecules. 2021;24(11):9650. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules24119650
Li J, Ackah M, Amoako FK, Cui Z, Sun L, Li H, et al. Metabolomics and physio–chemical analyses of mulberry plants leaves response to manganese deficiency and toxicity reveal key metabolites and their pathways in manganese tolerance. Front Plant Sci. 2024;15:1349456.
Jaipieam T, Khaokhiew D, Khaokhiew P. Global trends in the use of organophosphorus pesticides. J Agric Sci. 2009;1(1):1-10. https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v1n1p1
Dandin SB, Jayaswal J, Giridhar K. Handbook of sericulture technologies; Central Silk Board: Bangalore; 2003.
David H, Ramamurthy VV. Efficacy and persistence of dichlorvos in controlling mulberry pests. Pest Manage Sci. 2011;67(3):285-90. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.2023
Hosamani KM, Dandin SB. Persistence of dichlorvos in mulberry ecosystems. Int J Chem Stud. 2020;8(4):171-4.
Poornima MH, Rayar SG. Management of mulberry thrips using newer insecticides and biorationals and its effect on silkworm rearing performance. J Exp Zool India. 2015; 18(1):267-70.
Latti SD, Rayar SG. Bioefficacy of newer insecticides against mulberry thrips. J Farm Sci. 2021;34(1):56-9.
Gholami Z, Sadeghi A, Sheikhi Garjan A, Nazemi Rafi J, Gholami F. Susceptibility of western flower thrips Frankliniella occidentalis (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) to some synthetic and botanical insecticides under laboratory conditions. J Crop Prot. 2015;4(5):627-32.
Sakthivel N, Balakrishna R, Qadri SMH. Comparative efficacy of water jetting and chemical measures against major sucking pests of mulberry and their safety to natural enemies. J Biopesticides. 2011;4(2):219-30. https://doi.org/10.57182/jbiopestic.4.2.219–230
Sakthivel N, Qadri SMH. Efficacy of certain insecticides and botanicals against mulberry thrips Pseudodendrothrips mori Niwa (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Indian J Entomol. 2010; 72(2):152-4.
Mishra A, Kumar J, Melo JS, Sandaka BP. Progressive development in biosensors for detection of dichlorvos pesticide: a review. J Environ Chem Eng. 2021;9(2):105067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2021.105067
CIBRC. Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee [internet]. 2021. [cited 2024 Jun 24]. Available from: https://www.cibrc.ac.in/majorusesofpesticides
Vinothkumar B. Bioefficacy, phytotoxicity, safety to natural enemies and residues of cyantraniliprole 10 OD on potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) under open field condition. Crop Prot. 2021;142:105505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2020.105505
Duncan DB. A significance test for differences between ranked treatments in an analysis of variance. Am Stat Assoc J. 1951;46(243):164-9. https://doi.org/10.2307/2281091
Abbott WS. A method of computing the effectiveness of insecticide. J Econ Entomol.1925; 18(4):265-7.
Bradford MM.A rapid and sensitive method for the quantization of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein–dye binding. Anal Biochem. 1976;72(1-2):248-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003–2697(76)90527–3
Putter J. Peroxidase. In Bergmeyer HU, editor. Methods of enzymatic analysis. Academic Press; 1974. p. 685-90.
Haplin J, Lee C. Polyphenol oxidase. In: Bergmeyer HU, editor. Methods of enzymatic analysis. Academic Press; 1987. p. 360-66.
Ramalakshmi K, Srinivasan S, Muthiah C, Regupathy A. Bio efficacy of different novel insecticides against cotton thrips, Thrips tabaci Lindeman in Bt cotton.Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2020;9(5):1234-40. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2020.905.146
Sangamithra S, Vinothkumar B, Karthik P, Manoharan T, Muthukrishnan N, Rathish SN. Evaluation of bioefficacy, phytotoxicity of fipronil 200 SC w/v against pest complex and its safety to non–target invertebrates in chilli. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2018;7(1):3354-60. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2018.701.397
Wagh SP, Kulkarni AA, Patil SR, Mote UN. Management of thrips, Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood, on rose under open–field and protected conditions. J Hortic Sci. 2016;11(1):78-83. https://jhsiihr.res.in/index.php/jhs/article/view/417
Kumar A, Singh M. Fipronil 5% SC: An effective insecticide against sucking pests of chilli (Capsicum annuum Linn). Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2016;5(7):1234-40. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2016.507148
Duraimurugan P, Lakshminarayana M. Bioefficacy of flubendiamide 39. 35% SC against chilli fruit borer, Spodoptera litura (Fb). Indian J Hill Farm. 2014;7(1):1-6
Topagi S, Patil SR. Assessment of biology and morphometric parameters of jatropha leaf webber and fruit borer, Pempelia morosalis Fab. Indian J Entomol. 2018;80(2):193-8. https://doi.org/10.5958/09748172.2018.00041.7
Rabari PH, Patel PS, Barad CS, Thakar PK. Bio–efficacy of insecticides against leaf webber/capsule borer, Antigastra catalaunalis (Duponchel) in sesame. J Exp Zool India. 2020; 27(1):1-5.
Jemimah N, Sridevi G, Anitha V, Uma Devi G, Nagesh Kumar MV. Bioefficacy of insecticides against leaf webber in cauliflower. J Res PJTSAU. 2021;19(1):1-6. https://doi.org/10..20368/19751370.2021.v19n118807
Bojan M, Kaur R, Bansal R. Sublethal effects of spinetoram and emamectin benzoate on key demographic parameters of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda. J Insect Sci. 2023; 23(4):7. https://doi.org/10.1093/jinsectscience/iead035
Gangaraju K. Persistent toxicity of insecticides against diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (L.) on cabbage. J Entomol Zool Stud. 2020;8(3):1234-9.
Adams AJ, Catchot AL, Muser FR, Gore J, Cook DC, Krishnan N. Residual and systemic efficacy of chlorantraniliprole and flubendiamide against corn earworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in soybean. J Econ Entomol. 2016;109(6):24112418. https://doi.org/10..1093/jee/tow218
Ismail A. Efficacy of emamectin benzoate against the black cutworm, Agrotis ipsilon (Hufnagel) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae): toxicity and residual activity. J Econ Entomol. 2021; 114(3):12341241. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/toab012
Hu Y, Chen J. Sublethal effects of emamectin benzoate on the population growth parameters of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E.Smith). Insects. 2023;14(4):345. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14040345
Raj K, Kumari S, Srivastava RP. Nutritional evaluation of fresh leaves of mulberry genotypes. Agric Sci Dig. 2009;29(3):198-201.
Bhat MA, Kiran A, Chanotra S, Devi S, Zehra A, Panjalia R, et al. Phytochemical investigation on assessment of leaf quality of different mulberry germplasm genotypes. Int J Plant Soil Sci. 2022;34(24):888-94. https://doi.org/10.9734/ijpss/2022/v34i242715
Mahadeva A, Nagaveni V. Alterations in the biochemical components and photosynthetic pigments of mulberry (Morus spp.) attacked by leaf–roller (Diaphania pulverulentalis) pest. Afr J Biochem Res. 2011;5(14):365-72. https://doi.org/10.5897/ajbr11.091
Satya Prasad K, Sreedhar S, Singhvi NR, Kodandaramaiah J, Sens AK. Post–thrips infestation biochemical changes in leaves of mulberry (Morus spp.). Plant Arch. 2002; 2(1):85-8.
Sengupta K, Kumar P, Baig M, Govindaiah M. Handbook on pest and disease control of mulberry and silkworm. Bangkok: UNESCAP–United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific; 1990.p. 88.
Sarkar T, Mogili T, Doss SG, Sivaprasad V. Tissue culture in mulberry (Morus spp.) intending genetic improvement, micropropagation and secondary metabolite production: A review on current status and future prospects. In: Kumar N, editor. Biotechnological approaches for medicinal and aromatic plants.Springer Nature Singapore Pvt Ltd.; 2018. p. 467-87. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0535-1_21
Lee JY, Kim GC, Hwang IG. Quantity characteristics of mulberry cultivated under greenhouse and open field conditions. Korean J Food Sci Technol. 2015;47(4):514-19. https://doi.org/10.9721/KJFST.2015.47.4.14
Shirata A,Tomiyama K, Doke N, Takahashi K. Increases in peroxidase–and polyphenol oxidase–activities and production of antifungal substances in mulberry shoots following wounding or infection by pathogenic fungi. Jpn J Phytopathol. 1978;44(2):127-36. https://doi.org/10.3186/jjphytopath.44.127
Dieng H, Satho T, Hassan AA, Aiz T, Morales RE, Hamid SA, Mike F, Aubakar S. Peroxidase activity after viral infection and whitefly infestation in juvenile and mature leaves Solanum lycopersicum. J Phytopathol. 2011;159(11?12):707-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439–0434.2011.01830.x
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Narzary Prety Rekha, S Manimegalai, B Vinothkumar, A Suganthi, P Radha, R Shanmugam, A Thangamalar, J Kousika
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright and Licence details of published articles
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Open Access Policy
Plant Science Today is an open access journal. There is no registration required to read any article. All published articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC Attribution 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
