Home > Past Issue

Volume: 3, Issue: 3, May-June, 2015
DOI: 10.7324/JABB.2015.3302

Research Article

Efficacy and economics of certain new generation novel insecticides against legume pod borer, Maruca vitrata (Geyer) on pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L.)

M Sreekanth, M S M Lakshmi, Y Koteswara Rao

Abstract

Two field experiments were conducted during Kharif, 2010 and 2011 to find out economical control measures against legume pod borer, Maruca vitrata (Geyer) on pigeonpea. Experimental results showed that the per cent inflorescence damage due to Maruca was lowest in chlorantraniliprole 18.5 SC (2.08%) and flubendiamide 39.35 SC (3.64%), followed by spinosad 45 SC (6.21%) as against control (31.18%) with 93.3, 88.3 and 80.1 per cent reduction over control respectively. Similarly, pod damage due to legume pod borer was lowest in chlorantraniliprole (4.30%), flubendiamide (6.03%) and spinosad (8.80%) as against control (47.28%) with 90.9, 87.3 and 81.4 per cent reduction over control respectively. Highest grain yield was recorded in chlorantraniliprole treated plots (686.1 kg/ha) with 127.5 per cent increase over control, followed by flubendiamide (595.8 kg/ha) and spinosad (589.0 kg/ha) with 97.6 and 95.3 per cent increase over control (301.6 kg/ha) respectively. The cost effectiveness of chlorantraniliprole and flubendiamide was also high and very favorable with incremental cost-benefit ratios of 1: 4.64 and 1: 4.50 respectively, followed by indoxacarb (1: 3.67), emamectin benzoate (1: 3.13) and spinosad (1: 2.97).

Keywords: Insecticides, Maruca vitrata, Pigeonpea and Legume pod borer.

References

1. All India Co-ordinated Research Project on Pigeonpea. Project Coordinator's Report. 2012; 9 -10.

2. Sharma H C and Pampapathy G. Effect of natural plant products, Brassinolide and host plant resistance in combination with insecticides on Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) damages in pigeonpea. Indian Journal of Plant Protection. 2004; 32 (2): 40-44

3. Lal, S.S. and Singh, N.B. In Proceedings of National Symposium on Management of Biotic and Abiotic Stresses in Pulse Crops. Indian Institute for Pulse Research, Kanpur, India. 1998; 65-80

4. Shanower T G, Romeis J and Minja E M. Insect pests of pigeonpea and their management. Annual Review of Entomology. 1999;44:77-96

5. Vishakantaiah M and Jagadeesh Babu C S. Bionomics of the tur webworm, Maruca testulalis (Lepidoptera : Pyralidae). Mysore Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 1980; 14: 529-532.

6. Darmasena S M D, Subasinghe S M C, Lateef S S, Menike S, Saxena K B and Ariyaratne H P. In: Pigeonpea \— Varietal Adaptation and production studies in Sri Lank, Report of Work. Department of Agriculture, Sri Lanka, ICRISAT, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India. Entomology Research. 1992; 104-108.

7. Saxena K B, Chandrasena G D S N, Hettiarachchi K, Iqbal Y B, Fonseka H H D and Jayasekara S J B A. Evaluation of pigeon pea accessions and selected lines for reaction to Maruca. Crop Science. 2002; 42: 615-618.

8. Sharma H C. Bionomics, host plant resistance and management of legume pod borer, Maruca vitrata \— a review. Crop Protection. 1998; 17: 373-386.

9. Saxena K B, Hettiarachchi K, Chandrasena G D S N, Iqbal Y B, Bhagwat V R, Fonseka H M D, Joseph K D S M and Lal S S. Breeding pigeonpeas for resistance to Maruca vitrata. Paper presented at Symposium on biotic and abiotic stresses in pulses 26-28 June 1998, Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur.1998.

10. Sahoo B K and Senapathi B. Comparative efficacy of synthetic insecticides and plant products against the incidence of pigeonpea pod borers. Indian Journal of Plant Protection. 2000; 28: 29-34.

11. Gomez K A and Gomez A A. Statistical procedures for agricultural research. Joh Wiley and sons, New York, 1984; 207-215

12. Haritha B. Biology and management of Maruca vitrata (Geyer) in pigeonpea. M.Sc(Ag) Thesis. Acharya N G Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad, India. 2008.

13. Shivaraju C, Ashok kumar C T, Sudhirkumar S and Thippaiah M. Efficacy of indigenous materials and new insecticide molecules against Maruca testulalis (Hubner) on blackgram. International Journal of Plant Protection. 2011; 4(1): 214-216.

14. Rao G V R, Kumari P R A, Rao V R and Reddy Y V R. Evaluation of spinosad and indoxacarb for the management of legume pod borer, Maruca vitrata (Geyer) in Pigeonpea. Journal of food legumes. 2007; 20(1): 126-127.

15. Mittal V and Ujagir R.. Evaluation of naturalyte spinosad against pod borer complex in early pigeonpea. Indian Journal of Plant Protection. 2005; 33 (2): 211-215.

16. Chandrayudu E, Srinivasan S and Venugopal Rao N. Evaluation of certain new insecticides against spotted pod borer, Maruca vitrata in cowpea. Indian Journal of Plant Protection. 2006; 34 (1): 118-119.

17. All India Coordinated Research Project on Pulses. RARS report for 2002-03, Lam farm, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India. 2003.

18. Chandrakar H K and Shrivastava S K.. Evaluation of some combinations of match (Lufenuron) against pod damaging pests in pigeonpea. Journal of Applied Zoological Researches. 2002; 13 (2/3): 206-207.

19. Sharma OP, Bhosle BB, Kamble KR, Bhede BV and Seeras NR. Management of pigeonpea pod borers with special reference to pod fly (Melanagromyza obtusa). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2011; 81(6): 539-543

How to cite this article:
Sreekanth M, Lakshmi M S M and Koteswara Rao Y. Efficacy and economics of certain new generation novel insecticides against legume pod borer, Maruca vitrata (Geyer) on pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L.). J App Biol Biotech. 2015; 3 (03): 007-010.

ARTICLE TOOLS

ARTICLE STATISTICS

  • Viewed: 312
  • Downloaded: 140