Download pdf - TMB-Organic control.pdf

7/27/2019 TMB-Organic control.pdf

1/6

p ~ b i(g ? c , '1 Hof/4 /' A ! e v J J"JN~ .p . A If tJ.Year; aO /O


2/6

44

Evaluation of Organic Pest Managernent Techniques

Against Tea Mosquito Bug in Cashew

D. SUlJdarrl.r~tl, P. Shivarama Bhat and T.N. Ravipras;lJ

INTRODUCTION

Mirid bugs belonging to genus He/opeltis calied ka mosquito bugs (TMB) are the

most s-:rious foliage and fruit pests of cashew in India. Under west coast condition, three

spl:cies o r He/ope/lis (H. antonii Sign. H. theivora Watl:rh and H. bradyi Waterh.) infestcashew, whcrc:lS in other regions, only one species (H. antonii) exists on cashew. However,

in all regions, Il. anlonii is the dominant species causing severe damage. Its feeding injury

leads to necrosis which is attributed as one of the causes of infection and manifestation of

blossom blight and Jieback diseases due to various funga! pathogens resulting in maximum

yield loss. On cashew. its build up commences during October-November synchronising

with the emergencl' of new flushes, after cessation of the monsoon. The population reaches

a peak during.J anuary, when the trees are in full bloom. The pest prevails predominantly in

the plantation till May and subsequently exists in negligible number during monsoon period

(June-September) especially in older plantations (Sundararaju' and Sundararbabu, 1999a).

Under severe out-break situation, only insecticidal application rescues the cashew crop

from ravage ofTMB. As the major cashew importing countries (USA and EU) have alreadyimposeJ restrictions on cashew kernels having pesticidal residues, research on non-chemical

pesticides techniques viz., host plant resistance. botanical pesticides and biological control

were done at National Research Centre for Cashew (NRCC) since 1987. The information

available at NRCC on above a~pects was compiled and presented in this paper.

Host Plant Resistance

A total of 76 cashew accessions consisting of released varieties, promising accessions


3/6

Evaluation of Organic Pest Management Techniques Against Tea Mosquito Bug in Cashew 349

and tolerant accessions located in TMB hot spot area (endemic area), germplasm and progeny

evaluation trial were screened during 1988-92 under laboratory through cage screening

technique in order to confIrm genetic basis of resistance. The results revealed that all

accessions were susceptible (Sundararaju and John, 1993 andSundararaju, 1999).

Subsequently, 392 cashew accessions available in the National Cashew Field Gene Bank

(NCFGB) were also screened for resistance to TMB and no resistance could be detected.

Bhaskara variety, a promising selection was collected from severe TMB infested hot

spot area of Goa state as a tolerant type to TMB. In order to confIrm its tolerance to TMB

under field condition, thirty cashew grafts were planted in a plot with a spacing of 6 x 6mduring 1989 and the whole plot was maintained without any insecticidal application. In

each year, the overall TMB damage of each tree was also assessed qualitatively as; very

low (50%). Tree-wise-yield data

was collected from J 992-93-200 1-02 cropping season (Le., from 2nd to 11th harvest). The

damage ofTMB was in the range of very low to severe in the initial years (upto six years of

age) and subsequently fluctuated between very low to moderate and moderate to severe).

The varied level of TMB damage during different years was mainly due to clumpingl

patchy distrihution of TMB. Since, Bhaskara variety has the mid-season flowering habit,

clear cut delay of one to two months in buildup of population was seen over early flowering

varieties especially in older plantations and thus, it has got potential to escape from TMB

attack as a phenomenon of pseudo resistance when compared to early varieties(Sundararaju, 2005).

Tab le 44 .1 . Yie ld and TMB ( tea mosqu ito damage) in va r ious ages 01Bhaskara cashew var ie ty under unpro tected cond it ion

Year (P lan ted du r ing 1989) Ra n g e o f T M B d a m a g e Yie ld in kg

Per tree Per ha "

Mean ' Range

2'


4/6

350 Organic Horticulture - Principles, Practices and Technologies

From the yield data of sixth to eleventh harvest, it was found that whenever the TMB

damage was low to moderate, the yield level was not affected drastically when compared

to damage level of moderate to severe. Further, this variety has also yielded more than

1 tlha from fourth harvest onwards and the highest yield of 2.975 tlha (l0.7 kg/tree) was

obtain~d during 11th harvest (Table 44.1) (Sundararaju et al., 2006).

Evaluatio of Plant Products (botanicals)

A number of plant products viz., Nee,n oil, Cotton seed oil, Butea jmndosa L. leaf .

extract (LE), Adathoda vasic L., LE, Pongo'nia llil suspension (OS), POllgamia OS i" lime

solution, Pongamia solvent extr:.tct (inn- hL'xanc), Calophyllum oil, Vitex IICgIllU.'f)L.. LE,

Thc\Qria 11 'riljo/ia Juss. LE, SlIychllou;, l1'U. \' JlniCQ L., LE and fruit extract, to!'acco

decoction, Annona seed extract (commercial formulation from Mis Godrej Ltd.), PaIn rosa

oil (RAZE""), Neem Commercial formulations ( 'imbicidine, RD-9 Repllin, Godn.:jAcliook,

Limanool,). Dillapiole extract, Garlic extract (CB+) and Phalada III C lexlracts of Seeds

of Saphora japonica Qnd Annona relieulata L. + leaf extracts ofAdatllOda I'Osica, Sap' 'ldus

trifoli(lllls L. and Pongamia pinnata (L.)) were e\aluated at different concentrations ranging

from 0.1 to 1).0% (Table 44.2) against TMB during 1992 -2006 and nonc were found to be

effective (NRCC, 2002; Raviprasad et al., 2002; Sundararaju, 2004a; Bhat and RaviprJsad,

2007). Even' smoking of the canopy in the carly morning with dried leavc:-;of cashew or

V.negundo neither caused any mortality ofTMB nor reduced its damage on cashew (NRCC,

2(00). Though neem contains repellent and insecticidal properties due to secondarymetabolites (Iimonoids/tetratriterpenoids). T B causes severe damage on neem and

overcomes those phytochemicals through its salivary mechanism. It is possible as it-; salivary

gbnds secrete various detoxifying salivary enzymes (catechol oxidase. peroxidase and

catalase) and free amino acids (Sundararaju and Sundarababu, 1996 and 1999b). Because

of this phennmenon. all the plant products tc~ted :.tgainstTMB were found to be ineffective.

Table 44.2. L is o f p lant produc ts (botan ica ls) eva luated agains t tea m osquito bug at Nationa l Research Cent re for Cashew,

Pul tur.

5 1 . N o . N a m e o f p la n t p r od u c ts e v a l u a te d

1 . N eem o il

2 . C olto n s ee d o il

3 . B u te a f ro n d os a L. leaf extract

4 . A d at ho d a v as ic a Nees. leaf extract

5. P o n g a m i a oi l suspension

Pongam la oi l suspension in lime solut ion

Pongam ia oi l suspension in l ime solu1ion

Pongam ia solvent extract (in n hexane)

6 . C a lo p hy ll um oi l

Concent rat ion tes ted (% )/ dosai! ! :

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0 & 6.0

2.0

4.0

5.0

5.0

(Gontd.)


5/6

Evaluation of Organic Pest Management Techniques Against Tea Mosquito Bug in Cashew 351

5 1 . N o . N a m e o f p la n t p ro d u c ts e v a lu a t e d Concent rat ion tes ted (% )/ dos age

7 . V ite x n e gu n do L.leaf extract 5.0

8 . T h e v a ti a n e r ii fo l ia Juss. leaf extract 5.0

9 . S tr yc h no u s n u x v om i ca L.leaf extract 5.0

S. nux v om ica Fruit extract 5.0

H J . Tobacco decoction 100g/31itre water

1 1. A nn on a seed extract (commercial formulatio:l from M!s Godrej Ltd.) 5.0

12. Palmrosa oil (RAZEe) 0.5

1'3 . I\'eem Commercial formulations

t ,imbicidine 1.0

RD9 Repllin 1.0

Godrej Achook 1.0

Llmanool 1.0

1j. Dillapiole extract 1.0

15. Garlic extract (GB+) 0.4

16. Phalada III C [extracts of Seeds ofSa ph ora ja po nica a nd An no na re ticu la ta 0.1

L+ leaf extracts ofAdathod a vas ica, Sapindus t r if o l ia tus L. and Pongam ia p inna t a (L.)] .

17. Fumigation ofV. negundo / ca sh ew leaves un de r ca she w ca no py 3 0 m in utes twice ! we ek

Biological Control

This pest was found to be regulated under natural condition mainly through its egg

p~lrasitojds (Telenomus sp., VJens sp. and Chaetostricl1a sp.). Among them Telenomus sp.and '['(ens sp. are dorrunant in west coast of India and coastal Tamil Nadu with highest

n~ltura] parasitism upto 70.8 and 47.4'tc, re:;pectively. These parasitoids are specialist type

and not amenable for mass multiplication under conventional laboratory rearing methods

(Sund;lraraju and Sundarababu, 1999.1and 1999c). Therefore, they could not be exploited

under inundative release methods. However, their activities are naturally enhanced under

favourable weather condition (increased minimum temperature and relative humidity) during

vulnerable period (November-February) (Sundararaju, 2003). During the outbreak ofTMB,

among the cashew trees which had nests and intensive activities of Oecophylla smaragdinG

Fabr., the infestation ofTMB was in the range of low to moderate; whereas remaint~g trees

had severe TMB infestation. But under natural condition, O. smaragdinG did not establish

on majority of cashew trees in spite of cashew plantation heing never sprayed with

insecticides or in cashew plantation having prolonged withdrawal of insecticide application."':hen the impact of various arthropod predators on incidence of TMB was studied under

unsprayed situations, the results indicated that among total arthropod predatory population,

spiders accounted maximum upto two third of total population and appeared to be the

domin:mt predators in cashew ecosystem. Therefore. their role in reducing the TMB dan1agc

was critically analysed. Actually. the mean spider population varied from 22-3 I spiders pe:r

10J (ashew panicles and in spite of this, out break of TMB had occurred. No significant

Tclationship between TMB damage and spiders was observed (Sundararaju, 2004b).


6/6

352 Organic Horticuiture - Principles, Practices and Techn%gies

CONCLUSION

Even though re"earch on organic pest management techniques (non-chemical pesticidestechniques) viz., hdst plant resistance, botanical pesticides and biological control were

done at Nat ion~dRcsear'-.:hCentre for Cashew. Puttur, KlJrnat:,ka for the management of tea

mosquito bug on ca~he\" since 1987, under host plant re~istance only, some lead could be

obtained. 'Bhaskar.!' ca 'hcw variety appeared to be a pmmising escape (pseudo resistant)

variety and high vicldin-!. and it can be popularised in fmme organic farming propositions.

Sex Pheromone Behaviour

The informatiOI1col leeted in cashew plantation clearly indicated that the male population

ofTMB can be detected within 15 minutes and highest population of 18 males 'were collected

on single bait cage containing virgin females. In the entire trapping period of 90 minutes

132 males were collected (Sundararaju and Sund:trababu, 1999d). Thus it provide~

substantial scope in future for exploiting this sex pheromone behaviour for mass trapping

in the plantations of organic cashew.

_________________ References

B h a t, P . S . a n d R a v ip r a sa d . T .N 2 0 0 7 . M a n a g e m e nl t o f t ea m o s q u it o b u g o n c a s '1 e w Helopel t is an toni iSign. with newer

insec tic ides /produc t . Ex te Jded Abst ract . pp .80-81. N a t io n a l S e m i na r o n R e s e a rc h , D e v e lo p m e n t a n d M a r k e ti n g o f

Cashew. ICAR Research Complex , Goa, Ind ia .

NRCC (Nat ional Research Cent ;~ for Cashew. ) , 2000. Annual repor t for 1999-2000, Put tur, Karnataka, 70p.

NRCC (Nat ional Research Cent re for Cashew. ) , 2002. Annual repor t for 2001-Q2, P u t tu r , K a m a ta k a , p p . 4 0 -4 2 .. - .

Raviprasad, TN, Sundarara ju . O. and Bhat . P .S . 2002. Ef f icacy of botan ica ls agains t He/ope lt is an ton ii Sign., (M ir idae: .

Hemiptera) in fes t ing casheJ . In : P lan ta t i on Crops Researcr and Deve lopmen~ in the New M i ll enn ium (Eds. Rethinam, '

P . , Khan, H .H , Reddy, V .M, Mandai , P .K. and Suresh, K. ) pp.485-488. Coconut Development Board, Kochi, lnd ia .

Sundarara ju , D . 1999. Screening of cashew access ions to tea mosqui to bug Helopel t is antoni i Sign. (Heteroptera: M i r idae) .

The Cashew, 13(4):20 '26. . '

Sundarara ju , D . 2003. Behav iour o f egg paras ito ids o f Helopel t is anto/ ; i iS ign. (Heteroptera: M i r idae) in rela tion to weather

parameters. Journa l o f Pe, ,1 Management i n Hor t icu l tu ra l Ecosystem 9:113-116.

Sundarara ju , D . 200~a. E valua lj~ 'n o f cer tain insec tic ides agains t tea mosqui to bug 011 cashew. The Cashew 18(2) :22-26 .

Sundarara ju , D . 2004b. In : :uenct ; o f sp iders and insec t predators on inc idence 0 : t ed mosqui to bug in cashew. Th e C a sh e w . .18 (1):9-13. . '.

S u n d a ra r a ju , D . 2 0 0 5. S e a s on , ,1 a b u n da n c e o f te a m o s q :. Ji to b u g a n d e x :e n t o f d a m a ge o n c a s h e w . J. Plantn Crops

33:53-58. . 'da )Sundarara ju , D . and John. N .J . 1993. Suscept ib il i ty o f cashew access ions to He/opel t is antoni i S i gn . ( H e te r o pt e ra : M i n e

in the pre- flower ing phase. J . P lan tn Crops, 21 :5053. .

Sundarara ju , D . and Sundara Babu, P .C . 1996. Neem pes t not a mys tery . Nature, 381:108. . . ta tio~Sundarara ju , D . and Sundara Babu. P .C . 1999a. Helopel t is spp. (Heteroptera : M i r idae) and the i r management In p lan

and hor t icu ltural c rops of Ind ia . J . P /antn . Crops. 27:155-174. . -S i n .. '.S u n d a ra r a ju , D . a n d S u n d a ra B a b u , P . C . 1 9 9 9 b . M o r p ho l og y a n d c o n te n ts o f sa l iv a ry g l an d s o f He/opel t ls antont l 9 hi '.

(Heteroptera : M i r idae) . J . En/ . Res . 23:41-46. . ' a n / O M ' . . ,Sundarara ju , D . and Sundara Babu, P .C . 1999c . Survey and t r it rophic in terac tions between hos t p lants , H e/o pe ltiS '.

Sign. (Heteroptera: M indae) and i ts egg paras i to ids . J . B io I. Cont rol , 13:1923. .... v irg inS u n d a ra r a ju , D . an d S u n d a ra B a b u , P . C . 1 9 9 9d . T r a p pi n g m a l e t e a m o s q u it o b u g Helope lt is an ton ll Sign. uS ing. '.

females. Pes t Management i n Hor t icu l tu ra l Ecosystem. 5:102106. . . e rform anCe:Sundarara ju , D Yadukumar . N . , 8hat . P .S . , Rav iprasad. T .N . , Venkatakumar, R . and Sreenath D ixi t. 2006. Y ie ldp .

o f 'B l laskara ' cashew var ie ty in coas ta l Karnataka. J . P lan tn Crops, 34:216-219. ;~ ~