Seminar on Management of Helicoverpa Armigera in Chickpea

1

welcowelcomeme

SPEAKER:Patil Rajesh Sitaram

M.Sc. (Agri.) studentReg. No.: 04-1318-2010

Department of Entomology,BACA, AAU, Anand – 388110

Major Guide:-Dr. H. P. Patel

Research Scientist (Ent.)Pulse Research station

AAU, Model Farm, Vadodara-390003

Co-Guide:-Dr. R. N. Pandey

Professor & Head, Department of Plant Pathology,

BACA, AAU, Anand-3881102

Introduction

Distribution

Marks of Identification

Life-cycle

Host plants

Nature of damage

Management

1. Cultural

2. Mechanical

3. Botanical

4. Microbial

5. Biological

6. Chemical

7. Integrated pest management

Conclusion

Future thrust

3

introduction

4

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum Linnaeus.) is commonly known as Bengal gram and locally as Chana and ‘Gram,’ is an important food legume crop.

It has been traditionally recognized as an indispensable constituent of Indian diet.

Area, production, and productivity of chickpea

Area Production Productivity World 10.4 m. ha 8.57 m. t 824 kg/ha

India 7.58 m. ha 6.91 m. t 780 kg/ha

Gujarat 0.2148 m. ha 0.21 m. t 979 kg/ha

Anand 0.0861 m. ha 0.2003 m. t 2327 kg/ha5

6

Among the insect pest known to attack chickpea, gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) Hardwick is the most serious pest to causing 30 to 80%

(Asthana et al. 1997)

The yield loss in chickpea due to pod borer was reported as 10 to 60 per cent in normal weather conditions

(Vaishampayan and Veda, 1980)

Taxonomical classification

Phylum: Arthropoda

Class : Insecta

Order : Lepidoptera

Family : Noctuidae

Genus : Helicoverpa

Species : armigera

7

DISTRIBUTED inDISTRIBUTED in

8

Table1: Major Heliothis spp. And their distribution

Table1: Major Heliothis spp. And their distribution

Sr. No

Heliothesis spp. Distribution

1 H . armigera (Hub.)*Tropical and sub-tropical countries

2 H. zea (Boddie) Americas 3 H. virescens (F.) Americas

4 H. puntigera (W.) Australia

5 H. peltigera (Schiff)* Europe, Africa, and Asia

6 H. assulta (Guenee)* Australia, Africa, and Asia

7 H. viriplaca (Hfn.) Southwest Asia and USSR

Reed and Pawar (1981) Reed and Pawar (1981)*Species occur in India

9

10

Eggs are 0.5 mm in diameter and take 2-5 days to hatch and change from white to brown to a black head stage before hatching.

11

Newly-hatched larvae are light in colour with tiny dark spots and dark heads.

Medium larvae develop lines and bands running the length of the body and are variable in colour. Saddle of darker pigment on the fourth segment and at the back of the head and dark-coloured legs.

Large larvae of have white hairs around the head; and have black hairs around the head.Larvae are a group of four pairs of ´legs´ in the back half of the body.

Newly-hatched larvae are light in colour with tiny dark spots and dark heads.

Medium larvae develop lines and bands running the length of the body and are variable in colour. Saddle of darker pigment on the fourth segment and at the back of the head and dark-coloured legs.

Large larvae of have white hairs around the head; and have black hairs around the head.Larvae are a group of four pairs of ´legs´ in the back half of the body.

12

Once larvae are fully grown, they crawl to the base of the plant, tunnel up to 10 cm into the soil and form a chamber in which they pupate. Pupae will normally develop to produce a moth in 10-16 days. The moth emerges, feeds, mates and is then ready to begin the cycle of egg laying and larval development. As with all insect development, the duration of pupation is determined by temperature, taking around two weeks in summer and up to six weeks in spring and autumn. However, diapausing pupae take much longer to emerge.

Once larvae are fully grown, they crawl to the base of the plant, tunnel up to 10 cm into the soil and form a chamber in which they pupate. Pupae will normally develop to produce a moth in 10-16 days. The moth emerges, feeds, mates and is then ready to begin the cycle of egg laying and larval development. As with all insect development, the duration of pupation is determined by temperature, taking around two weeks in summer and up to six weeks in spring and autumn. However, diapausing pupae take much longer to emerge.

13

It is stoutly built, large brown or yellowish brown moths.

About 20 mm long and with dark specks that make ‘V’ shaped marks on forewings and conspicuous black spot in centre.

The hind wings are light and dull coloured with black border.

14

15

16Anand, Gujarat Bhatt and Patel (2001)

http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/fieldcrops/17696.htmlhttp://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/fieldcrops/17696.html 17

Nature of Damage

18

Female lay eggs singly on tender leaves, flowers buds and immature young pods.

The larvae initially feed on foliage, pods and may be destroy the young seedling completely in heavy infestation.

Larger larvae bore into pods and consume the developing seeds inside the pod.

19

HOST PLANT

20

HOST PLANT

21

22

management

23

Definition:

The control of insects through the adoption of ordinary farm practices in an appropriate time in such way that the insect pests either eliminated or reduced in population.

Cultural control includes:- Summer ploughing Clean cultivation Sowing time Inter cropping Crop rotation

24

Table 2 : Incidence of H. armigera on chickpea sown in different sowing periods during 2008-09

Table 2 : Incidence of H. armigera on chickpea sown in different sowing periods during 2008-09

SMW- Standard Meteorological Week WAS- Week After Sowing NLP- No. of Larvae Per plant

Anand Baber (2010) 25

Sr.

No.

Sowing periods1st week of

October

3rd week of

October

1st week of

November

SMW WAS NLP SMW WAS NLP SMW WAS NLP

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101 40 1 - 42 1 - 44 1 -2 41 2 - 43 2 - 45 2 -3 42 3 - 44 3 - 46 3 -4 43 4 - 45 4 - 47 4 -5 44 5 - 46 5 0.32 48 5 0.376 45 6 0.10 47 6 0.52 49 6 0.357 46 7 0.63 48 7 0.50 50 7 0.408 47 8 0.85 49 8 0.75 51 8 0.879 48 9 0.50 50 9 0.67 52 9 0.7510 49 10 0.43 51 10 0.62 1 10 0.8011 50 11 0.63 52 11 0.75 2 11 0.6712 51 12 0.5 1 12 0.50 3 12 0.8213 52 13 0.88 2 13 0.62 4 13 0.7514 1 14 0.65 3 14 0.37 5 14 0.6215 2 15 0.50 4 15 0.25 6 15 0.32

Mean 0.57 0.54 0.61

Observed that the percent pod damage in chickpea due to H. armigera was more in closer spacing of 20 x 5 cm in comparison to wider spacing of 40 x 20 cm.

Lal et al., (1980-82)

26

Table 3. Comparative performance of effective bird perches in chickpea

ecosystem during 2006-07

Table 3. Comparative performance of effective bird perches in chickpea

ecosystem during 2006-07

100 seed weight of sunflower = 5.20 g, For 625 seeds = 32 g = 50 g/ha;100 seed weight of sunflower = 3.20 g, For 625 seeds = 20 g = 50 g/ha

Type of bird perchNumber of perches/ha

Mean larval population/

m row

Yield (q/ha)

Sorghum 50 g 2.48 6.20Sunflower 50 g 0.52 8.75T - perch 150 No. 1.95 7.38Sorghum + T-perch 50 g + 75 No. 1.62 7.52Sunflower + T-perch 50 g + 75 No. 0.60 9.16Sorghum + Sunflower 50 g+ 50 g 0.46 9.64Sorghum+Sunflower +T-Perch 50g+50g +50 No. 0.35 9.72Profenophos 50EC (3 ml/l) - 0.15 9.94UTC (No perch) - 3.26 5.12

C.D. at 5% - 0.25 105.4

S.Em. ± - 0.08 34.8

C.V. (%) - 11.33 24.60

Karnataka Gopali et al. (2009)27

Table4: Incidence of H. armigera and grain yield in different cultivars of chickpea

Table4: Incidence of H. armigera and grain yield in different cultivars of chickpea

CultivarLarval population/5 plant up to harvest

Per cent pod damage

Mean grain yield (kg/ha)

ICCV 104.22*

(17.31)23.28*(15.12)

836.77

PG 81-1-15.04

(24.90)25.83

(18.49)940.15

GG-14.64

(21.01)23.66

(15.60)863.73

JD 3154.60

(20.70)22.99

(14.75)1050.00

GG 24.34

(18.31)21.53

(12.75)1014.57

Chaffa3.85

(14.32)18.49(9.55)

772.00

*√transformed values.**Arc sin √percentage + 0.5 transformed values. Figures in parenthesis are retransformed values.

cont…

28

GNG 469 (c)4.91

(23.61)23.08

(14.86)897.42

Dahod Yellow4.14

(16.64)21.40

(12.81)1090.00

BG 3914.88

(23.31)24.84

(16.61)1053.00

Phule G55.18

(26.33)24.67

(16.92)1016.67

ICCC44.73

(21.97)23.68

(15.63)1250.00

S.Em+ 0.14 0.51 39.94C.D. at 5% 0.45 1.50 117.83C.V. % 5.46 3.82 7.06

Junagadh Bhatt and Patel (2001)29

CultivarLarval population/5 plant up to harvest

Per cent pod damage

Mean grain yield (kg/ha)

Table 5: Mean number of larvae per plant, per cent pod damage and grain yield of chickpea on different genotypes/ cultivars during rabi, 2008-09.

Table 5: Mean number of larvae per plant, per cent pod damage and grain yield of chickpea on different genotypes/ cultivars during rabi, 2008-09.

Genotypes/cultivars

Mean no. of H. armigera larvae/plant

Mean per cent damaged pods/plant

Yield(kg/ha)

GG-1 1.8** (2.8) 31.5* (27.3) 880GG-2 2.0 (3.5) 35.2 (33.2) 587Dahod yellow 1.7 (2.5) 28.5 (22.8) 1290KAK-2 2.0 (3.5) 34.0 (31.3) 657ICCV-4 1.8 (2.6) 30.2 (25.3) 930Vijay 1.3 (1.3) 21.5 (13.5) 1195HC-3 2.0 (3.6) 36.3 (35.1) 560Virat 2.0 (3.3) 33.6 (30.7) 675Vishal 1.8 (2.7) 30.8 (26.2) 915SAKI-9516 1.3 (1.2) 21.0 (12.8) 1220Avrodhi 1.4 (1.3) 22.1 (14.2) 1187BG-256 1.7 (2.5) 26.9 (20.5) 1200BG-372 1.3 (1.1) 19.7 (11.4) 1375Digvijay 1.6 (2.2) 29.6 (24.5) 980HC-1 1.3 (1.2) 20.6 (12.4) 1315S.Em.± 0.10 1.62 64.82C.D. at 5% 0.30 4.92 196.65C. V.% 8.35 8.16 9.19

Junagadh Deshmukh (2010)30

*Square root transformation. **Arcsine transformed values. Figures in parenthesis are retransformed value

Table6 :Pooled data indicating screening of different chickpea genotypes against pod borers (winter 2003 and 2004)

Table6 :Pooled data indicating screening of different chickpea genotypes against pod borers (winter 2003 and 2004)

Sr. No.

Genotypes Larval

population/plant

Pod infestation

(%)

Yield/plot (3m2) (gm)

Yield/ha (kg)

1 CM-2100/96 1.55 13.24 32.87 1222.3

2 CM-4068/97 1.81 14.41 330.0 1100.0

3 CM-3021/97 2.62 21.35 250.8 836.0

4 CM-3000/97 2.74 20.96 243.3 811.0

5 CM-3837/97 2.38 19.89 264.2 880.6

6 CM-4212/97 2.82 23.67 203.3 677.6

7 CM-1441/98 2.95 22.42 214.2 714.0

8 CM-1223/98 1.96 16.74 297.5 991.6

9 CM-1991/94 3.17 26.39 180.0 602.6

10 CM-1463/94 3.43 32.87 137.5 458.3

LSD value 0.353 1.409 17.37

Pakistan Sarwar et al. (2011)31

Sr. no Treatment No. of

larvae/mrlPercent pod

damage*

Chickpea equivalent grain yield

(kg/ha)

Rabi 2006-07

1 Chickpea sole 12.3 (3.63) 44.0 (41.5) 694.0

2 Chickpea + Mustard (6:2) 7.1 (2.87) 27.3 (31.5) 857.1

3 Chickpea + Linseed (6:2) 8.0 (2.99) 30.0 (33.2) 796.0

4 Chickpea + Barley (4:2) 10.1 (3.31) 39.3 (38.8) 719.3

5 Chickpea + Coriander (4:2) 7.6 (2.95) 33.3 (35.20 796.0

S.Em. + (0.13) (4.9) 68.9

C. D. at 5% (0.40) (1.5) 20.8

Table 7: influence of intercropping on percent parasitiz ation by Campoletis chloridae, gram pod borer damage and chickpea equivalent yield

Table 7: influence of intercropping on percent parasitiz ation by Campoletis chloridae, gram pod borer damage and chickpea equivalent yield

*fig in parentheses are arc sin transformed values, mrl- meter row length

Jammu, India Reena et. al., (2009)32

33

34

Definition: Mechanical control is one by

which the insect population is directly hit (killed) by mechanical devices and manual operation.

Mechanical control includes: Hand picking Removal and destruction of infected plant debris Light trap

Table8: Impact of mass trapping of H. armigera male moths on pod damage and grain yield

Table8: Impact of mass trapping of H. armigera male moths on pod damage and grain yield

Treatments Moth catches/traps Per cent pod

damageGrain yield

(Kg/ha)Pooled Pooled

20 traps /ha(8 traps /acre)

83328.79b

(23.19)575.00b


212019.68c

(11.34)775.00a


363817.63c

(9.17)829.17a

Control (No-traps)

---34.51a

(32.10)561.50b

S. Em.±: 0.57 20.87C.D. at 5%: 1.71 42.14

C. V. % 6.97 14.92

Anand, Gujarat Anon. (2008)

Notes: Figures inside the parentheses are retransformed values; those outside are arcsine transformed values; mans with letter(s) in common are not significant by DNMRT at 5% level of significance

35

Table9: Number of moth catch at weekly interval in the pheromone traps during january 2006 to December 2006Table9: Number of moth catch at weekly interval in the pheromone traps during january 2006 to December 2006

Study period (week)Average no. of moth catch in Weekly trapping moths/trap

Trap 1 and 2 Trap 3 and 4 Nos. Mean + S.DJan 1st 2006Jan 2nd 2006Jan 3rd 2006Jan 4th 2006

0087

0000

00004

3.5

1.88+1.88

Feb 1st 2006feb 2nd 2006feb3rd 2006feb4th 2006

4119

20

100

12

210.54.516

10.50+8.31

Mar1st 2006Mar 2nd 2006Mar 3rd 2006Mar 4th 2006

20121831

8779

149.5

12.520

14.00 + 3.42

April 1st 2006April 2nd 2006April 3rd 2006April 4th 2006

1918217

1614157

17.516187

14.62 + 4.46

May 1st 2006May 2nd 2006May 3rd 2006May 4th 2006

586

11

9657

77

5.59

7.13 + 1.24

June 1st 2006June 2nd 2006June 3rd 2006June 4th 2006

6353

4231

52.542

3.38 +1.19

July 1st 2006July 2nd 2006July 3rd 2006July 4th 2006

2231

1222

1.52

2.51.5

1.88 + 0.41

Bangaladesh Hossain et al. (2008)36

Table 10: Monitoring of H. armigera population through pheromone trapsTable 10: Monitoring of H. armigera population through pheromone trapsMonth / Year std. week pheromone trap catches

October

40 0.0041 0.0042 0.0043 0.00

November

44 0.0045 0.2846 0.5747 0.85

December

48 0.4249 0.1450 0.0052 0.0052 0.00

January

1 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.00

February

5 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.00

march

9 0.0010 0.0011 0.2112 0.48

April

13 1.8014 2.4315 2.9316 6.6417 4.11

may18 3.1819 1.1320 0.57

Jammu Reena et al. (2009) 37

BOTANICAL CONTROL

38

39

Definition:-

Botanical pesticides are include all the types of product derived from plant /tree sources are potential for the control of insect pests.

40

Found that spraying of Neem (Aza. 3%) 0.006% reduced the oviposition of H. armigera during vegetative and pod formation stage.

Visalakshami et al. (2005)

41

Table11: Effect of biorationals on mean population of larvae and percent pod damage of gram pod borer in chickpea

Treatment No

Treatment Mean

population of larvae/3 m row

Pod damage in (%)

Yield (kg/ha)

1 CBM-4% 1.8 (1.4) 7.9 (16.2) 25302 CBM-8% 1.2 (1.3) 6.9 (14.9) 25533 NLE (in CBM)-4% 1.5 (1.4) 9.7 (17.3) 23494 NSKE (in CBM)-4% 1.3 (1.3) 11.7 (19.6) 24945 G + RPE (1:1)-0.5% 1.8 (1.5) 10.5 (18.6) 25356 G + RE (1:1)- 1% 1.6 (1.4) 7.2 (15.4) 25977 BT (Halt)-0.2% 1.1 (1.2) 7.0 (15.1) 25138 Untreated 4.1 (2.1) 21.9 (28.3) 1854

SEm + (0.07) (1.10) 98LSD (p=0.05) (0.20) (3.18) 277

Tikamgarh, Madhya Pradesh Gupta (2007)

Fig. in parentheses denote transformed values √x + 0.5CBM= cow butter milk, NLE= Neem leaf extract, G= Garlic, REP = red pepper extract, Bt = Bacillus thringiensis

Table12:Bioefficay of biopesticides on the pod damage and yield of chickpea

Table12:Bioefficay of biopesticides on the pod damage and yield of chickpea

Treat

Larval population of H.armigera /plant

Pod damage (%) Yield (q/ha)

2007-08 2008-09 Mean 2007-08 2008-09 Mean2007-

082008-

09Mean

T1 NSKE0.27

(0.85)*0.47

(0.94)0.37

(0.89)10.6

(18.93)**10.9

(18.98)10.8

(18.95)15.4 16.4 15.9

T2 Neem oil

0.42(0.92)

0.65(1.03)

0.54(0.98)

11.2(19.49)

13.3(20.99)

12.3(20.24)

14.7 14.2 14.5

T3 : Bt0.37

(0.90)0.53

(0.98)0.45

(0.94)10.7

(19.0)12.1

(20.0)11.4

(19.5)15.1 13.0 14.0

T4 : Contol0.57

(0.99)1.07

(1.22)0.82

(1.11)16.8

(24.18)18.1

(24.92)17.5

(24.55)11.4 11.9 11.7

C.D. (P=0.05)

0.01 0.02 0.02 0.36 1.29 0.83 0.7 0.79 0.75

* Figures in parentheses are transformed values.** Figures in parentheses are arc sine transformed values of percentage

Jharkhand Bhuhan et al, (2011)42

Treatments

% Reduction of larval

population

Pod damage (%)

Yield (q/ha)

Vitex (20%) + Aloe (2%) 37.98 22.25bc 7.78cd

Pongamia extract (10%)+Neem seed Kernel Extract(NSKE) (10%)+ Aloe(5%)+cow urine (30%) 56.11

18.73bcd 9.42ab

Vitex leaf extract (20%)+Clerodendron extract (4%) + cow urine (17%)

46.85 20.83bcd 8.45bc

Neem oil(1%)+ Garlic extract (5%) 44.00 21.45bcd 8.06bcdNSKE (8%)+ cow urine (17%) 45.22 26.42bc 7.83cdGarlic bulb extract (10%) + cow urine (17%) 39.86 22.35bc 7.15cd

Garlic Chilli Kerosene(GCK extract) (1%)+ cow urine (17%) 44.54 20.15bcd 8.13bcd

Vitex leaf extract (10%)+Lime (2%)+cow urine (17%) 29.87 25.48ab 7.51cdTobacco leaf extract(10%)+ Lime (2%)+cow urine (17%) 40.33 21.35bcd 8.11bcdCotton seed oil (1%)+cow urine (17%) 37.99 26.82ab 7.87cdGarlic chilli aqueous extract (GCA) (2%)+GCK (0.5%) 49.93 19.06bcd 8.62bcNSKE (2.5%)+ GCK (0.5%) 44.48 21.18bcd 8.16bcdCow urine (fermented) (17%) 24.06 28.64ab 6.82deQuinalphos 25 EC(0.05%) 65.20 16.32d 10.36aUntreated control - 36.11a 5.53e

TABLE 13. Percent reduction of H. armigera population due to application of indigenous TABLE 13. Percent reduction of H. armigera population due to application of indigenous

Means followed by same letter in the column do not differ significantly by DMRT (p=0.05) DBS=Day before spray DAS= Days after spray

Dharwad , Karnataka Ladji et al, (2011) 43

44

Definition:

The utilization of pathogen or micro-organisms for the

management of pest populations.

Micro-organisms (pathogens) can be formulated for use

as a pesticide for the control of pests.

In recent years microbial control has become a

significant weapon in the pest control. It has

predominantly involved the artificial manipulation of

pathogens viz., fungi, bacteria, viruses, nematodes and

protozoans formulated as a spray or dust to suppress or

threaten outbreaks of pest.

45

Table 14. Efficacy of microbial biopesticides against Helicoverpa armigera on chickpea at Anand, Gujarat, India during 1998-2001

Table 14. Efficacy of microbial biopesticides against Helicoverpa armigera on chickpea at Anand, Gujarat, India during 1998-2001

Treatment2

Number of larvae on five plants

Yield(kg ha-1)

Increase(%) in

yield overcontrol

24 hBT3

1 dayAT4

3 daysAT

5 daysAT

7 daysAT

11 daysAT

14 daysAT

Delfin2.76 a(7.62)

2.06 b(4.24)

1.52 d(2.31)

1.39 c(193)

1.25 cd(156)

1.43 b(2.04)

1.57 b(2.47)

1513.89 b 61.48

Basina2.63 bc(6.92)

2.28 b(5.19)

2.22 b(4.93)

1.76 b(3.10)

1.54 bc(2.37)

1.58 b(2.50)

1.43 b(2.05)

1134.72 bc

21.04

HaNPV2.53 cd(6.40)

1.93 b(3.72)

1.69 cd(2.86)

1.71 bc(2.92)

1.65 b(2.72)

1.67 b(2.78)

1.56 b(2.43)

1340.28 b 42.96

EPN2.41 d(5.81)

2.02 b(4.08)

1.93 bc(3.72)

1.73 bc(2.99)

1.69 b(2.85)

1.67 b(2.79)

1.51 b(2.28)

1202.78 bc

28.30

Achook2.50 cd(6.25)

1.82 b(3.31)

1.73 cd(2.99)

1.53 bc(2.34)

1.53 bc(2.34)

1.65 b(2.72)

1.57 b(2.47)

1326.39 b 41.48

Endosulfan2.57 bcd

(6.60)1.77 b(3.13)

1.67 cd(2.78)

1.57 bc(2.47)

1.03 d(1.06)

1.29 b(1.66)

1.63 b(2.66)

1784.72 a 90.37

Control2.73 b(7.45)

2.50 a(6.25)

2.45 a(6.00)

2.17 a(4.71)

2.06 a(4.24)

2.17 a(4.71)

1.95 a(3.80)

937.50 c -

SEm 0.05 0.22 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.23 0.19 116.02 -

CV (%) 5.81 7.56 10.50 9.06 18.27 16.82 13.31 13.22 -

1. Means followed by same letters do not differ significantly at P = 0.05. Figures in parentheses are retransformed values.2. HaNPV = Helicoverpa armigera nuclear polyhedrosis virus; EPN = Entomopathogenic nematode (Steinernema sp).3. BT = Before treatment.4. AT = After treatment.

AAU, Anand Yadhav et al., (2004)46

Table15. Efficacy of Entomopathogenic fungi against H. armigera in chickpeaTable15. Efficacy of Entomopathogenic fungi against H. armigera in chickpea

Sr.No

TreatmentsInitial

population/plant

Reduction of H. armigera larvae (%)

Yield parameters

3 DAS 7 DAS 15 DASPod

damage (%)Grain yield

(q/ha)

1 B. bassiana 0.5 g/l 1.40 a 11.90 c 33.33 e 47.62 d 19.30 b 7.33 d

2 B. bassiana 1.0 g/l 1.40 a 19.05 d 42.50 d 59.22 c 17.42 cd 10.00 c

3 B. bassiana 1.5 g/l 1.33 a 26.26 b 59.92 b 62.70 bc 14.32 e 11.15 b

4 N. rileyi 0.5 g/l 1.40 a 13.89 c 30.72 e 49.68 d 18.42 bc 7.83 d

5 N. rileyi 1.0 g/l 1.30 a 23.89 b 40. 56d 59.44 c 17.24 d 10.06 bc

6 N. rileyi 1.5 g/l 1.43 a 24.72 b 52.64 c 67.36 ab 12.94 f 11.50 b

7 Monocrotophos 1 ml/l 1.40 a 61.41 a 71.04 a 68.65 a 11.48 g 13.50 a

8 Untreated check 1.50 a 2.38 d 3.67 f 3.92 e 29.32 a 3.16 e

C. V. (%) - 18.53 17.43 11.04 12.34 14.56

DAS – Days after sprayingMeans followed by the same alphabet do not differ significantly by DMRT (P=0.05)The original values were transformed to arc sine before analysis

Dharwad Karnataka Kulkarni et al. (2005)47

Table 16. Field efficacy of HaNPV isolates against H. armigera on chickpeaTable 16. Field efficacy of HaNPV isolates against H. armigera on chickpea

Treatment*Number of larvae per 10 plant

Pod damage (%)(pooled mean)**

co Reduction over untpre-treatment

control (%)pooled mean**

CBE I 9.33 5.17* 9.72 ab 980.00a

NEG 10.33 5.50*ab 9.26 a 983.67a

BAN I 9.67 6.50cd 11.11 c 886.67b

HYD 10.00 6.33 bcd 10.80 bc 871.67b

MAH I 9.67 7.11 de 12.48 d 805.00c

RHI 10.33 7.56 e 13.22 d 783.33c

RAJ 9.67 9.33 f 17.98 e 718.33d

Endosulfan 35 EC (700g/ha)

9.00 6.00 abc 10.48 bc 973.33a

Untreated contorl 10.33 13.56 g 21.37 f 693.33d

*NPV was applied @ 1.5 × 1012 POB/ha in teepol 0.1%; crude sugar @ 2.5 kg/ha was used as adjuvant**Pooled mean after six rounds of sprayIn a column means followed by similar letters are not statistically different by DMRT (P < 0.05). ANOVA statistics– number of larvae F = 46.25, df = 40, P < 0.001; pod damage F = 89.30, df = 24, P < 0.001

Coimbatore, Tamilnadu Jeyarani et al. (2010)48

Definition:-

Biological control is defined as the study and utilization of parasite, predator and pathogen for regulation of host population density.

Biological control includes:- Parasites Predators Pathogens

• Bacteria • Fungi • Viruses

50

Studied that the birds like myna, sparrow, baya, babbler, black drongo, cattle egret etc feed on H. armigera larvae and cause significant reduction in pod damage which result in tremendous increases in the yield of chickpea. Anand Parasharya, et al., (2002)

51

Table 17 : Bird predators of Helicoverpa armigera Hub. in chickpea in Panchmahal district of Gujarat.

Table 17 : Bird predators of Helicoverpa armigera Hub. in chickpea in Panchmahal district of Gujarat.

Sr. No. Species Mean No. Relative Abundance

1 Cattle Egret 3.4 9.4

2 Indian Myna 10.6 29.4

3 Bank Myna 6.2 17.2

4 House Sparrow 4.0 11.9

5 Black Drongo 7.4 20.6

6 Indian Roller 0.2 0.6

7 Rufousback Shrike 0.2 0.6

8 Grey Shrike 0.2 0.6

9 Grey Wagtail 2.6 7.2

10 Large Grey Babbler 1.2 3.3

GAU, Anand Anonymous (2002)

52

reported the feeding of larval parasitoides Campoletis chlorlidae on H. armigera in chickpea.

Uttar Pradesh Agrawal et al, (2010)

53

CHEMICAL CONTROL

Table18: Bio efficacy of different insecticides on pod damage and grain yield

Sr. No.

Treatment Dosages g a.i./ha Mean pod damageMean grain yield

(kg/ha)% increase over

control

1 Novaluron 10% EC (Rimon) 50 7.37 (15.75) 2115 19.08



4 E.B. (Proclaim)5% SG 8 8.11 (16.54) 1968 10.80

5 E.B. (Proclaim)5% SG 9 7.97 (16.40) 1979 11.43

6 E.B. (Proclaim)5% SG 11 5.13 (13.09) 2291 28.99

7 Spinosad 45% SC (Tracer) 60 6.83 (15.15) 2264 27.47

8Profenophos 50% EC (Karina)

750 7.72 (16.13) 2155 23.02

9Endosulfan 35% EC (Thiodan)

350 8.54 (17.00) 2097 18.07

10Methomyl 40% SP (Lannate)

250 8.62 (17.07) 2232 25.57

11Indoxacarb 14.5% SC (Avaunt)

72.5 7.23 (15.59) 2284 28.60

12 Control 14.68 (22.53) 1776 -

SEm ± (1.00) 153

CD at 5% (2.80) 440

C.V.% 12.3 14.3

Data in parentheses are Arcsine √P transformation values.

Junagadh Raghvani and Poshiya (2006)55

Table19: comparative efficacy of new molecules on pod damage and grain yield of chickpea

Treatment Dosage g.a.i./haPod damage

(%)Grain Yield

(kg/ha)

Emamectin benzoate (Proclaim 5 SG) 8 3.7 (11.1) 1360



Emamectin benzoate (Proclaim 5 SG) 11 - -

Novaluron (Rimon 10 EC) 50 - -

Novaluron (Rimon 10 EC) 75 2.8 (9.5) 1384

Novaluron (Rimon 10 EC) 100 2.1 (6.3) 1424

Spinosad (Tracer 45 SC) 60 1.0 (5.7) 1480

Profenofos 50 EC 750 6.0 (14.2) 1264

Endosulfan 35 EC 350 6.3 (14.5) 1260

Control

SEm + 0.63 20.4

CD at 5% 1.87 60.3

Figures in parentheses are transformed values.

Sriganganagar, Rajasthan Singh and Verma (2006)56

TreatmentsNo. of larva(e)/plot (pooled over period

and sprays)

Seed yield (kg/ha)

NICBR

Emamectin 5 WG @ 0.0025% 0.84b (0.20) 1086.87 1:2.62Thiodicarb 75 WP @ 0.075% 0.89c (0.29) 811.10 1:1.79Indoxacarb 14.5 SC @ 0.015% 0.84b (0.20) 988.87 1:2.03Spinosad 45 SC @ 0.025% 0.85b (0.22) 1011.10 1:0.48Novaluron 10 EC @ 0.01% 0.92c (0.34) 933.32 1:1.76Lufenuron 5 EC @ 0.005% 0.92c (0.34) 951.10 1:3.07Flubendiamide 480 SC @ 0.01% 0.76a (0.07) 1111.10 1:3.19Rynaxypyr 20 SC @ 0.006% 0.82ab (0.17) 1088.87 1:3.14Endosulfan 35 EC @ 0.07% 1.11d (0.73) 700.32 1:2.32Control (water spray) 1.69e (2.35) 577.77 - S. Em. ± 0.02 86.05 - C.D. at 5% 0.08 180.78 - C.V. % 10.60 11.34 -

Table 20: Effectiveness of various insecticides against Helicoverpa armigera infesting chickpea

Anand, Gujarat Baber (2011)Anand, Gujarat Baber (2011)

Figure in parentheses are retransformed values; those outside are transformed values5.0x

57

IPM I = T- shaped perches + Gronim +EndosulfanIPM II = T- shaped perches + Gronim + HaNPVIPM III = T- shaped perches + Bt.k + EndosulfanIPM IV = Modules No.1 + HaNPV + Endosulfan

RS = Fenvalerate + Endosulfan Anand Anon., (2005)

59

Table21: Effectiveness of different IPM modules based on eggs, and larval population, percent pod damage, and yield of chickpea

Table21: Effectiveness of different IPM modules based on eggs, and larval population, percent pod damage, and yield of chickpea

Treatment

No. of Eggs/plant No. of Larva/plant Percent pod damageYield

(kg/ha)Initial After spray(s)* InitialAfter

spray(s)*Green stage

Harvest stage

Module-1 (M1)1.02

(0.55)0.96

(0.45)0.99

(0.50)0.98

(0.60)13.66(6.30)

17.81(9.65)

1812

Module-2 (M2)1.03

(0.57)1.06

(0.64)1.05

(0.61)1.11

(0.74)22.52

(14.85)25.03

(18.15)1451

Module- 3 (M3)1.04

(0.58)1.00

(0.52)1.05

(0.62)1.10

(0.94)21.34

(13.50)23.46

(16.00)1532

Module- 4 (M4)1.00

(0.52)1.06

(0.66)1.03

(0.57)1.05

(0.75)16.44(8.30)

19.44(11.30)

1685

Recommended schedule (RS)

1.03(0.57)

1.02(0.58)

1.04(0.59)

1.04(0.68)

12.66(5.40)

16.53(8.35)

2065

Control1.01

(0.52)1.34

(1.32)1.02

(0.55)1.37

(0.95)27.26

(21.10)29.90

(25.00)1058

SEm + 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.92 0.76 50.00

C. D. at 5% NS 0.04 NS 0.07 2.59 2.13 139.10

C. V. % 6.9 13.0 10.37 11.80 20.59 15.14 12.70

* Pooled over five periodical observations ______ Figures in parentheses are original values, those outside are V X+0.5 transformed values

Anand , Gujarat Anon (2005)60

61

Reported that application of neem effectively reduced the oviposition of H. armigera throughout the crop period. Among various IPM components viz., neem 0.06%, HaNPV 250 L/ha, bird perches one/plot, endosulfan 0.07%; neem and HaNPV found as effective as endosulfan in the terms of reduction of larval population and pod damage. Visalakshimi et al. (2005)

62

T 1 = Trichogramma chilonisT 2 = BtT 3 = StewardT 4 = weedingT 5 = hand pickingT 6 = weeding + BtT 7 = hand picking + BtT 8 = weeding + stewardT 9 = hand picking + stewardT 10 = weeding + hand pickingT 11 = weeding + hand picking + BtT 12 = weeding + hand picking + stewardT 13 = Control

Rawalpindi, Pakistan Waqas et al., (2009)

Fig1: Larval population/plant of H. armigera in chickpea

Rawalpindi, Pakistan Waqas et al., (2009) 63

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13

Series 1

Fig2:Grain yield (gm/plot) of chickpeaFig2:Grain yield (gm/plot) of chickpea

Rawalpindi, Pakistan Waqas et al., (2009) 64

Table 22: Efficacy of different treatments against pod borerTable 22: Efficacy of different treatments against pod borer

Treatment

Avg. No. larvae/plant

Before spraying

Percentage of reduction over control

Over allmean1 DAT 3 DAT 5 DAT

NSKE (5%) 7.2 16.1(30.6) 46.0(51.0) 69.0(65.5) 43.7 (48.6)HaNPV ( 250LE/ha) 7.5 14.0(25.9) 39.4(39.1) 73.9(56.4) 42.4 (40.8)Endosulfan (0.07%) 7.4 19.1(33.2) 39.9(52.3) 69.5(67.8) 42.8 (50.4)

NSKE (2.5%) + HaNPV (250LE/ha) 6.8 24.0(28.9) 58.4(44.5) 77.7(60.1 53.3 (44.5)

NSKE (2.5%) + Endosulfan (0.035%)

7.0 26.0(23.6) 60.4(42.7) 82.9(56.1) 56.4 (41.3)

HaNPV (250LE) + Endosulfan (0.035%)

8.0 23.4(21.9) 49.2(38.8) 75.2(59.2) 49.2 (40.6)

NSKE (1.66%) + HaNPV (250LE)+ Endosulfan (0.023%)

6.9 30.0(29.3) 62.6(49.8) 85.7(61.8) 59.4 (46.8)

Control 11.5 0.0(1.2) 0.0(1.2) 0.0(1.2) 0.0 (1.2)F. test S S SSEm + 3.6 6.2 4.5C. D. at 5% 0.89 1.16 0.99

Figures in the parenthesis are the angular transformed (Arc- sine) valuesDAT- Days After treatment

Allahabad Reddy et al. (2010)65

CONCLUSION

66

Future thrustFuture thrust

67

Thank you

.

Documents

Seminar on Management of Helicoverpa Armigera in Chickpea