Refine your search
Co-Authors
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z All
Krishnamoorthy, S. V.
- Toxicity of Insecticides to the Coccinellid Predators, Cryptolaemus montrouzieri Mulsant and Scymnus coccivora Ayyar of Papaya Mealybug, Paracoccus marginatus Williams and Granara De Willink
Abstract Views :324 |
PDF Views:138
Authors
Affiliations
1 National Research Centre for Citrus, Amravati Road, Nagpur 440 010, Maharashtra, IN
1 National Research Centre for Citrus, Amravati Road, Nagpur 440 010, Maharashtra, IN
Source
Journal of Biological Control, Vol 27, No 1 (2013), Pagination: 18–23Abstract
Studies were carried out under laboratory conditions to assess the relative toxicity of insecticides viz., chlorpyriphos, dimethoate, profenophos, carbofuran, buprofezin, imidacloprid, thiamethoxam and spirotetramat against the non-target beneficials of papaya mealybug, Paracoccus marginatus (Williams and Granara de Willink) viz., Cryptolaemus montrouzieri Mulsant and Scymnus coccivora Ayyar. Among the test chemicals, thiamethoxam registered highest toxicity for C. montrouzieri grubs (LC50 156.65 ppm) and S. coccivora adults (LC50–27.4968 ppm) while imidacloprid (LC50–156.07 ppm) to Cryptolaemus adults. All the test insecticides viz., chlorpyriphos, dimethoate, profenophos, carbofuran, buprofezin, imidacloprid, thiamethoxam and spirotetramat were found safe to C. montrouzieri and S. coccivora based on selective toxicity ratio and sequential testing scheme. By probit substitution method, only chlorpyriphos and buprofezin were found safe to C. montrouzieri, while the rest of the insecticides were highly toxic to nontarget insects.Keywords
Selective Toxicity, Cryptolaemus montrouzieri, Scymnus coccivora, Insecticides.Full Text
References
- Abbott WS. 1925. A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. J Econ Ent. 18: 265–267.
- Finney DJ. 1971. Probit analysis. 3rd Edn., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 333 p.
- IOBC (International Organization for Biological and Integrated Control of Noxious Animals and Plants). 2008. IOB (Global Newsletter).http://www.unipa.it/ IOBC/view.php status.
- Johansen CA, Mayer DF. 1990. Pollinator protection. A Bee and pesticide handbook. Wiewas, Cheshire, CT.
- Johnson MW, Tabashnik BE. 1999. Enhanced biological control through pesticide selectivity. In: T.S. Bellows and T.W. Fisher, (Eds). Handbook of Biological Control; Principles and Applications of Biological Control. New York, USA: Academic Press.
- Mani M, Krishnamoorthy A. 2001. Suppression of Maconellicoccus hirsutus on guava. Insect Envi. 6: 152.
- McComie LD, Gosine S, Siew P. 1997. The effect of Cryptolaemus montrouzieri (Mulsant) on the hibiscus mealybug, Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green), on hibiscus plants in Trinidad. Trop Fruits Newsl. 23: 7–10.
- Meyerdirk DE, Kauffman WC. 2001. Status on the development of a biological control program for Paracoccus marginatus Williams, papaya mealybug, in the Caribbean. Paper presented at IV International Scientific Seminar of Plant Health.Veradero, Cuba. June 10–15, 2001 (abstract).
- Miller DR, William DJ, Hamon AB. 1999. Notes on a new mealybug (Hemiptera: Coccoidea: Pseudo coccidae) pest in Florida and the Caribbean: The papaya mealybug, Paracoccus marginatus Williams and Granara de Willink. Insecta Mundi 13: 179-81.
- Mullin CA, Saunders MC, Leslie TW, Biddinger DJ, Fleischer SJ. 2005. Toxic and behavioral effects of seed treatments used on Cry3Bb1 – and Cry1Ab/cprotected corn to carabidae. Env Ent. 34: 1626–1636.
- Papachristos DP, Milonas PG. 2008. Adverse effects of soil applied insecticides on the predatory coccinellid Hippodamia undecimnotata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Biol Control 47: 77–81.
- Ramesh Babu T, Azam KM. 1987. Biology of Cryptolaemus montrouzieri Mulsant (Coccinellidae: Coleoptera) in relation with temperature. Biol Control 32(4): 381–386.
- Tanaka K, Endo S, Kanzano H. 2000. Toxicity of insecticides to predators of rice planthoppers: spiders, the mirid bug and the dryinid wasp. Appl Ent. Zool. 35 (1): 177–187.
- Walker A, Hoy M, Meyerdirk D. 2003. Papaya mealybug. Univ. Florida Featured creatures., http://creatures.ifas. ufl.edu/fruit/mealybugs/papaya_mealybug.htm.
- Research Article Risk Assessment of Trichogramma chilonis (Fab.) to New Molecules Evaluated against Spotted Bollworm, Earias vittella Ishii in Cotton
Abstract Views :244 |
PDF Views:129
Authors
Affiliations
1 Department of Sericulture, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore 641 003, Tamil Nadu, IN
2 Directorate of Rice Research, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad 500 030, Andhra Pradesh, IN
1 Department of Sericulture, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore 641 003, Tamil Nadu, IN
2 Directorate of Rice Research, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad 500 030, Andhra Pradesh, IN
Source
Journal of Biological Control, Vol 27, No 4 (2013), Pagination: 272–277Abstract
Studies were carried out in the laboratory to assess the acute toxicity of new molecules viz., abamectin, emamectin benzoate, indoxacarb and spinosad to target pest, Earias vittella (Fab.) and selective toxicity to non-target insect, Trichogramma chilonis (Ishii) in terms of LD50/LC50 and LD95/LC95 and assessing risk hazards associated with the use of new molecules for integration in IPM. Acute toxicity of the four test molecules was found to be 0.00264, 0.00266, 0.09270 and 0.00188 μg larva-1 and were less toxic to T. chilonis than the target pest when analyzed through various risk assessment methods and can be recommended for IPM. Among the four methods evaluated, hazard ratio is the best as it accounted for the field dose as criteria for determining the toxicity of the insecticides tested.Keywords
Abamectin, Emamectin Benzoate, Indoxacarb, Spinosad, Trichogramma chilonis, Earias Vittella.Full Text
References
- Amechi CC, David LC, Susan JP, Lesline AM, Lori DP, Dennis MD, Peter GW. 1997. Toxicity of emamectin benzoate foliar dislodgeable residues to two beneficial insects. J Agric Food Chem. 45: 3689–3693.
- Aston S, Streit L, McKee K, Clarke C. 2001. Field selectivity makes emamectin suitable for IPM. In: Proc. 10th Australian Agronomy Conference. Hobert. http:/ www.regional.org.all/qu/asa/2001/Pl/12/aston.
- Dybas RA, Hilton NJ, Babu JR, Preiser FA, Doke GJ. 1989. Novel second-generation avermectin insecticides and miticides for crop protection, pp. 203–212. In: Demain AL, Somkuti GA, Hunter Cevera JC. and Rossmoore HW. (Eds.). Novel Microbial Product for Medicine and Agriculture. Elsevier, New York.
- Felton JC, Oomen PA, Stevenson JH. 1986. Toxicity and hazard of pesticides to honeybees: Harmonization of test methods. Bee World 67: 114–124.
- Finney DJ. 1971. Probit analysis. 3rd Edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. 333p.
- Gupta GP, Birah A, Rani S. 2005. Comparative toxicity of novel molecules and conventional insecticides againstspotted bollworm, Earias vittella (Fabricius). Pesti Res J. 17: 36–38.
- Johansen CA, Mayer DF. 1990. Pollinator protection. A Bee and pesticide handbook. Wiewas, Cheshire, CT.Lasota JA, Dybas RA. 1991. Avermectins a novel class of compounds: Implications for the use in arthropod pest control. Ann Rev Ent. 36: 91–117.
- Lingren, Ridgeway. 1967. Toxicity of five insecticides to several insect predators. J Econ Ent. 60: 1639–1641.
- McCann SF, Annis GD, Piotrowski R, Lahan DW, Long JK, Lee KC, Hughes MM, Mayers BJ, Griswold SM. 2001. The discovery of indoxacarb: Oxadiazines as a new class of pyrazoline type insecticides. Pest Mgmt Sci. 57: 153–164.
- Nian CQ, Wen ZQ, Shi LH, Zhen SX, Sang CM, Cai QN, Zhang QI, Li HS, Sun XZ, Cheo MS. 1997. The influence of avermectin to natural enemies in cotton fields. Chinese J Biol Control 13: 86–89.
- Ruberson RJ. 2003. Influence of insecticides on natural enemies of cotton pests. Biocontrol Sci Tech. 13: 459 –475.
- Salgado VL. 1997. The mode of action of spinosad and other insect control products. Down to Earth 52: 35p.
- Shobanadevi R. 2003. Bioefficacy and selective toxicity of emamectin 5 SG (Proclaim) against Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) on bhendi and chillies. M.Sc. Thesis, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, India. 89p.
- Stanley J, Chandrasekaran S, Regupathy A, Sheeba Jasmine R. 2006. Studies on baseline toxicity of emamectin and spinosad to Spodoptera litura (Fab.). Ann Pl Prot Sci. 14: 346–349.
- Suh CP, Orr, CDB, Van Duyn JW. 2000. Effect of insecticides on Trichogramma exiguum: Preimaginal development and adult survival. J Econ Ent. 93: 577–583.
- Tillman PG, Mulrooney JE. 2000. Effect of selected insecticides on the natural enemies Coleomegilla maculata and Hippodamia convergens, Geocoris punctipes, and Bracon mellitor, Cardiochiles nigriceps, and Cotesia marginventris in cotton. J Econ Ent. 93: 1638–1643.
- Toshio S, Scott JG. 2003. Spinosad resistance in the housefly, Musca domestica is due to a recessive factor on autosome 1. Pestic Biochem Physiol. 75: 1–7.
- Udikeri SS, Patil SB, Rachappa V, Khadi BM. 2004. Emamectin benzoate 5 SG: A safe and promising bio rationale against cotton bollworms. Pestology 28: 78-81.
- Watson GB. 2001. Actions of insecticidal spinosyns on ϒ – amino butyric acid response from small diameter cockroach neurons. Pestic Biochem Physiol. 71: 20.
- Beauveria bassiana as an effective IPM component against cotton stem weevil Pempherulus affinis Faust
Abstract Views :300 |
PDF Views:108
Authors
Affiliations
1 Department of Agricultural Entomology, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore – 641 003, Tamil Nadu, IN
1 Department of Agricultural Entomology, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore – 641 003, Tamil Nadu, IN
Source
Journal of Biological Control, Vol 35, No 3 (2021), Pagination: 205-208Abstract
The Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in reduction of cotton stem weevil in ecofriendly manner is attaining importance in recent days. In present study, three treatments including IPM module 1, IPM module 2 and farmers’ practice were imposed against cotton stem weevil in a field trial. Among the three treatments, IPM module 2 which included basal application of FYM 25 t/ha and 250 kg/ha of neem cake, seed treatment with Beauveria bassania @10g/kg of seed, border crop with Hibiscus cannabinus, soil drenching with Imidacloprid 17.80 SL @ 25 g a.i./ha (125 ml/ha) at 15 DAS and placement of cotton stem bits (25 kg/500box/ha) + Hibiscus cannabinus stem bits (25 kg/500box/ha) + Chlorpyriphos dust 1.5 DP (2.5 kg/500box/ha) @ 30 DAS followed by earthing up @ 30 DAS recorded least stem weevil infestation of 13.21% with a yield of 1642.75 kg/ha. It was followed by IPM module 1 (21.78%) and farmers’ practice (33.56%) with yield of 1456.25 kg/ha and 1588.25 kg/ha, respectively. The mean survival of plants was also higher in IPM module 2 (94.28%) followed by farmers’ practice (88.57%) and IPM module 1 (80.00%).
Keywords
Cotton stem weevil, farmers’ practice, IPM module, per cent damage, plant survivalFull Text
- Wild Solanum species exhibit feeding antixenosis against ash weevil, Myllocerus subfasciatus Guerin-Meneville (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)
Abstract Views :123 |
Authors
B. R. Jayanthi Mala
1,
S. V. Krishnamoorthy
2,
P. Saravan Kumar
3,
T. H. Singh
4,
K. S. Shivashanakara
5,
P. D. Kamala Jayanthi
6
Affiliations
1 Division of Crop Protection, ICAR-Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Hesaraghatta Lake Post, Bengaluru 560 089, India; Department of Agricultural Entomology, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore 641 003, India, IN
2 Department of Agricultural Entomology, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore 641 003, India, IN
3 Division of Crop Protection, ICAR-Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Hesaraghatta Lake Post, Bengaluru 560 089, India, IN
4 Division of Vegetable Crops, ICAR-Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Hesaraghatta Lake Post, Bengaluru 560 089, India, IN
5 Division of Basic Sciences, ICAR-Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Hesaraghatta Lake Post, Bengaluru 560 089, India, IN
6 Division of Crop Protection, ICAR-Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Hesaraghatta Lake Post, Bengaluru 560 089, India, IN
1 Division of Crop Protection, ICAR-Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Hesaraghatta Lake Post, Bengaluru 560 089, India; Department of Agricultural Entomology, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore 641 003, India, IN
2 Department of Agricultural Entomology, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore 641 003, India, IN
3 Division of Crop Protection, ICAR-Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Hesaraghatta Lake Post, Bengaluru 560 089, India, IN
4 Division of Vegetable Crops, ICAR-Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Hesaraghatta Lake Post, Bengaluru 560 089, India, IN
5 Division of Basic Sciences, ICAR-Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Hesaraghatta Lake Post, Bengaluru 560 089, India, IN
6 Division of Crop Protection, ICAR-Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Hesaraghatta Lake Post, Bengaluru 560 089, India, IN
Source
Current Science, Vol 124, No 1 (2023), Pagination: 63-72Abstract
This study was aimed at identifying host plant resistance sources of Solanum species against the dreaded brinjal pest, ash weevil. Myllocerus subfasciatus Guerin-Meneville. A total of 84 brinjal genotypes (both cultivated and wild) were screened for feeding preference/non-preference against the ash weevil under field as well as in vitro conditions. All the cultivated and five wild genotypes (bitter brinjal, Solanum gilo Raddi; black nightshade, Solanum indicum L.; African eggplant, Solanum macrocarpon L.; Ethiopian eggplant, Solanum aethiopicum L. and Dutch eggplant, Solanum acculeatissimum Jacq.) were found highly susceptible to the ash weevil. The other wild species, namely tropical soda apple, Solanum viarum Dunal; nipple fruit (= cow’s udder) Solanum mammosum L.; European nightshade, Solanum nigrum L.; cockroach berry, Solanum capsicoides Allioni; Brazilian nightshade, Solanum seaforthianum Andrews; Turkey berry, Solanum torvum Sw. and sticky nightshade, Solanum sisymbriifolium Lam exhibited complete resistance to the ash weevil with leaf feeding damage ranging from zero to <1.00 (when scored on 0.00–10.00 scale). This study helped identify feeding antixenosis (feeding non-preference) as the major component of resistance in these wild genotypes against M. subfasciatus. Response of the ash weevil to these wild/cultivated genotypes and their volatiles has also been discussed in detailFull Text