defoliator insect pests of soybean and their management

Slide 1: 

SEMINAR ON DEFOLIATOR INSECT PESTS OF SOYBEAN AND THEIR MANAGEMENT Presented By: Mr. Arun D. Ugale M. Sc. (Agri.) Genetics And Plant Breeding

Slide 2: 

INTRODUCTION DEFOLIATOR INSECT PESTS MANAGEMENT CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION CHEMICAL CONTROL BIOLOGICAL CONTROL MACHANICAL CONTROL CULTURAL CONTROL 3 CONTENT

Slide 3: 

INTRODUCTION 4

Slide 4: 

Soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merrill.] is leguminous crop cultivating in different agro climatic regions of India. Soybean is a miracle crop having rich source of protein (40-50%) and oil (20-25%) and the maximum lysine content (6.45%). It also contains good amount of minerals, salts, Vitamins like thiamine and riboflavin. Soybean is also use in preparation of Soya milk for poor people, production of antibiotics, cattle and poultry feed and improving soil fertility. But the production and yield of soybean are always not obtaining up to the expected level. One of the major constraints in the production of soybean is the pest complex associated with this crop. Even though pest attack is from sowing to harvest and even in storage, among this defoliators are important. These are attracted to lush green foliage causing damage up to 70%. Hence, it is important to know about these insect pests and their management strategies 5

Defoliator insect pests of soybean in India: 

Defoliator insect pests of soybean in India Common name Scientific name Family Order Status Tobacco leaf eating caterpillar Spodoptera litura Fb. Noctuidae Lepidoptera Moderate Green semilooper Gray senilooper Crysodeixis acuta (Walk) Amyno octo Noctuidae Lepidoptera Moderately high Gram caterpillar Helicoverpa armigera Hb. Noctuidae Lepidoptera Moderately high leaf miner Aproaerema modicella (Deventer) Gelechiidae Lepidopera Major Bean leaf folder Lamprosema indicata Fb. Pyralidae Lepidoptera Major pest Castor semilooper Achoea janata Fb. Noctuidae Lepidoptera Moderate Bihar hairy caterpillar Spilosoma obliqua w alker. Arctidae Lepidoptera Major Linseed caterpillar Laphygma exigua Hb. Noctuidae Lepidoptera Minor 6

Slide 6: 

Common name Scientific name Family Order Status Blue beetle Cneorane sp. Chrysomelidae Coleoptera Major pest Surface grasshopper Chrotogonus sp Attractomorpha sp. Acrididae Orthoptera Minor Ash weevil Myllocerus sp. Curculionidae Coleoptera Minor 7

Slide 7: 

Tobacco Leaf Eating Caterpllar Spodoptera litura 8

Spodoptera litura Fab.: 

Spodoptera litura Fab. B) Egg C) Early instar larva D) Pupa A) Adults 9

Slide 9: 

The larvae attack the crop normally in the month of August and September. The larvae feed on the chlorophyll of the leaves. The eaten leaves give the appearance of whitish yellow web. The soft pods are chewed by the larvae and the thick pods are bored and then the grain is eaten up. Damage Damage symptom 10

Slide 10: 

Gram pod borer Helicoverpa armigera 11

Slide 11: 

C) larva D) Pupa A) Adult B) Eggs H. armigera Hardwick . 12

Slide 12: 

The attack of this insect normally occurs in the month of August. The young larvae feeds on the chlorophyll of young leaves and skeletonize it. They feed voraciously on the foliage in early stage, may defoliate the plant and later they feed on flowers and pods. Damage Damage symptom 13

Slide 13: 

Green semiloopar Crysodeixis acuta 14

Slide 14: 

A) Adult B) larva C) Pupa 15 Crysodeixis acuta

Slide 15: 

B) Damaged plot A) Damage symptom 16 Damage: The caterpillars feed voraciously on leaves starting from the edges inwards and leaving behind only midribs and stalks. Damage is maximum in August- September and with excessive loss of foliage. Although the semilooper is feeds on a variety of plants.

Slide 16: 

Aproaerema modicella Leaf miner 17

Slide 17: 

Larvae, Pupa & Adult 18

Slide 18: 

A) Damage symptom of leaf miner Newly emerged larvae are gregarious and feed on leaf epidermis, skeletonizing foliage. Third instar larvae migrate to adjacent plants, consume large amount of foliage. Damage 19

Slide 19: 

Cultural Control 20

Slide 20: 

Deep summer ploughing. Avoid pre monsoon sowing. Intercrop soybean either with (early maturing) Pigeon pea variety or maize or sorghum in the sequence of 4:2 should be practiced. Proper crop rotation with dissimilar crops should be followed. Sowing of tolerant varieties like MAUS 47 and JS 80 21. Destroy crop residues Optimum seed rate(70-100 kg/ha) should be used. Adequate planting spacing should be provided 21

Slide 21: 

Table-1: Soybean can have effective intercropping with a number of crops in different states/zones : Crops (for intercropping with soybean) States Corn, Pigeonpea Himachal Pradesh, Uttaranchal Corn, Pigeonpea, Sorghum Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, Northeast Plains of UP, Western Bihar Sorghum, Pigeonpea, Cotton, Pearlmillet MP, Bundelkhand Region of UP, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Western parts of Maharashtra Cotton, Corn, Sugarcane, Fingermillet, Pigeonpea Karnataka, TN, AP, Kerala, Southern parts of Maharashtra (Southern Zone) Fingermillet, Paddy, Pigeonpea Assam, W. Bengal, Meghalaya, Eastern Bihar, Orissa, Chhatisgarh (North Eastern and Eastern Zone) 22

Slide 22: 

Table-2: Some early maturing varieties (85-95 days) suitable for different states . Variety Duration (days) State's) MAUS 47 85-95 Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh (Bundelkhand Region), Rajasthan, Gujarat , Maharashtra (Western parts) JS 93-05 85-95 Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh (Bundelkhand Region), Rajasthan, Gujarat , Maharashtra (Western parts) MAUS 1 85-95 Maharashtra Co Soya 2 85-95 Tamil Nadu JS 71-05 85-95 Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh (Bundelkhand Region), Rajasthan, Gujarat , Maharashtra (Western parts) LSb1 85-95 Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Maharashtra (Southern parts) MACS 450 85-95 Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Maharashtra (Southern parts) Sneh (KB 79) 85-95 Karnataka PS 1029 85-95 Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh (North East Plains), Bihar (Western parts) 23

Slide 23: 

Treatment S. litura larvae/row meter 30 DAS 60DAS 1997 1998 Pooled 1997 1998 Pooled Date of sowing (D) D 1 2 nd week of June 2.52c 2.54c 2.53c 2.77b 2.80b 2.78b D 2 4 th week of June 3.11b 3.28b 3.20b 3.57a 3.64a 3.60a D 3 2 nd week of July 3.53ab 3.52ab 3.53a 3.73a 3.76a 3.75a D 4 4 th week of July 3.61a 3.60a 3.61a 2.90b 2.89b 2.89b Plant population (P) P 1 0.25 million pl./ha 2.89b 3.03b 2.96b 3.05b 3.06b 3.06b P 2 0.35 million pl./ha 3.27a 3.24ab 3.25a 3.26ab 3.30ab 3.28a P 3 0.45 million pl./ha 3.43a 3.45a 3.44a 3.43a 3.44a 3.43a Table-3: Influence of date of sowing and plant density on the incidence of S. litura in soybean DAS= Days after sowing Means followed by same alphabet in column do not differ significantly by DMRT Patil (2002) Dharwad 24

Slide 24: 

Table-4: Mean population of S. litura and H. armigera on different genotypes/varieties of soybean: * Square root transformed value . Figures in the parentheses are retransformed values. Genotype/Variety Mean no. of tobacco leaf eating caterpillar larvae/plant Mean no. of gram pod borer larvae/plant AMS-25 11.25* (3.81) 9.96 (2.99) AMS-31 10.92 (3.59) 10.72 (3.46) AMS-32 8.12 (1.99) 9.84 (2.92) AMS-48 9.64 (2.80) 9.92 (2.97) AMS-53 9.64 (2.80) 7.63 (1.76) AMS-58 9.65 (2.81) 9.79 (2.89) Gujarat Soybean-1 6.84 (1.42) 7.56(1.73) Gujarat Soybean-2 9.87 (2.94) 10.87 (3.56) JS-79-277 6.96 (1.47) 6.40 (1.24) JS-84-1 6.35 (1.22) 7.92 (1.90) S. Em. ± C. D. at 5% C. V. % 0.53 1.56 10.22 0.52 1.56 10.03 JAU, Junagadh Joshi (2007) 25

Slide 25: 

Treatment Larvae/m. row 30 DAS 60DAS 1997 1998 Pooled 1997 1998 Pooled Sole Soybean 3.28a 3.11a 3.19ab 3.43a 3.33a 3.38a Soybean:Pigeonpea 3.39a 2.61ab 3.00b 3.15b 3.16a 3.16a Soybean: Cowpea 3.10a 2.97ab 3.04ab 2.65b 2.39b 2.52b Soybean: Coriander 3.49a 2.47b 2.98b 2.74b 2.44b 2.59b Soybean: Sorghum 3.33a 3.16a 3.75a 3.19a 3.29a 3.24a Soybean: Maize 3.27a 3.14a 3.20ab 3.39a 3.33a 3.36a Soybean: Chilli 3.18a 3.03a 3.10ab 3.16b 3.28a 3.22a Soybean: Cotton 3.32a 3.15a 3.24ab 2..85b 3.32a 3.08a Dharwad DAS= Days after sowing Means followed by same alphabet in column do not differ significantly by DMRT Patil (2002) Table-5: Influence of intercrop on the incidence of S. litura in soybean 26

Slide 26: 

Genotype/Variety Mean no. of leaf miner/plant AMS-25 11.42* (3.92) AMS-31 10.93 (3.59) AMS-32 8.25 (2.06) AMS-48 9.44 (2.69) AMS-53 9.46 (2.70) AMS-58 9.48 (2.72) Gujarat Soybean-1 7.13 (1.54) Gujarat Soybean-2 9.47 (2.71) JS-79-277 6.00 (1.09) JS-84-1 7.68 (1.79) S. Em. ± C. D. at 5% C. V. % 0.52 1.54 10.05 Table-6: Mean population of A. modicella on different genotypes /varieties of soybean: * Square root transformed value . Figures in the parentheses are retransformed values. Joshi (2007) JAU, Junagadh 27

Slide 27: 

Mechanical Control 28

Slide 28: 

Collect & destroy infested plant parts, egg masses and young larvae. Field Sanitation: Remove the infested plant parts at least once in 10 days and bury them in compost pit to monitor and reduce the populations of caterpillar. Traps are used for monitoring the pest situation. Light Trap: Install one light trap (200W mercury vapour lamp) per hectare to catch the adults of some caterpillar (positively phototropic). Erection of bird perches @ 10-12/ha. Install pheromone traps at a distance of 50 m @ 5 traps/ha for each insect pest. Clip terminal shoots on 100 days of crop growth. 29

Slide 29: 

Standard weeks 1988 1989 Moths caught per trap Egg masses per 30 m2 Moths caught per trap Egg masses per 30 m2 34 59 0 52 0 35 66 0 100 2 36 501 5 548 4 37 881 6 467 2 38 314 2 98 1 39 271 2 242 0 40 376 0 377 0 Mean 352.6 2.1 269.1 1.3 SD 282.3 2.5 197.6 1.5 r 0.87** 0.56 Table-7: Weekly pheromone trap catches of S. litura and eggs mass count two successive years, 1988 and 1989 r corrélation coefficient ** signifiant at P = 0.05, and P = 0.01, respectively. Pantnagar Singh and Sachan(1988) 30

Slide 30: 

Biological Control 31

Slide 31: 

Introduce bio agent, B. bassiana , fungus for the larvae of the pest. Spray bio agents like B. thuringiensis and B. bassiana @ 1kg or 1 lit/ha at 35-40 and 50-55 days after sowing respectively. Conserve biological control such as spiders, lizards, praying mantids, coccinellid beetles, tachinid fly, dragon fly, Chrysoperla and meadow grass hoppers About 20 species of potential predators and parasites of soybean pests have been found effective for biological control. Normally, these biotic agents of ecosystem keep the pests in natural control, maintaining the balance of nature. These eco-friendly natural enemies are conserved and augmented by mass rearing and release in the infested fields in adequate number for permanent biotic control of tile pests (pest and parasite ratio 2:1). 32

Slide 32: 

Conserve the insectivorous frog and birds such as king crow, myna, blue jay, etc. Prepare 4 to 5 perchers or shelter sites for birds per hectare. Green lacewing ( C. carnea ) has been found as the most effective predator of eggs and young larvae of Lepidoptera, at the dose of about ten thousand/ha , twice at fortnightly interval. T. chilonis (different strains) is an important egg-parasite of lepidopterous defoliators, at the dose of about 50 thousand/ha, six times at weekly interval. BIOCONTROL AGENTS 33

Slide 33: 

Entomogenous bacteria, B. thuringiensis , controls the tobacco caterpillar and other caterpillars @ 1.5 to 2.0 I/ha. B. bassiana (fungus) checks some caterpillars @ 10 kg dust/ha. Nuclear polyhedral virus (NPV) controls tobacco caterpillar and gram caterpillar (separate strain for each) @ 250 LE(ml)/ha (in 100-400 l water). The infected/diseased caterpillars may be ground, mixed with water, strained and sprayed in the field along with the pathogens. BIOPESTlCIDES (MICROBIAL CONTROL) 34

Slide 34: 

Insecticides of plant origin are extracts of nccm, tobacco (decoction), karanj, pyrethrum, garlic, chillies, etc. They are effective antifeedants and safe to predators/parasites (ecofriendly). Neem-based pesticides, such as Azadirachtin 0.03% EC (Neembecidine) @ 3 ml/l L water, Azadirachtin 0.15 % EC (Neem Gold) @ 5ml/1 L water, Azadirachtin 0.03% EC (Godrej Achook) @ 5 ml/1 L water, or Neem seed water extract 5%, spray checks the leaf feeding caterpillars of soybean. BOTANICAL PESTICIDES 35

Table-8: Efficacy of SNPV in the management of S. litura in Soybean: 

Table-8: Efficacy of SNPV in the management of S. litura in Soybean Treatments NO.of Spodoptera litura larvae/m row Seed yield (kg/ha) Addl., yield (kg/ha) Addl. Returns (Rs/ha) B:C ratio 1 DBS 3 DAS 7 DAS 14 DAS SNPV 250 LE/ha 3.41a 2.66b 2.28b 2.32b 1865 307.50 3383 2.77 SNPV 250 LE/ha + monocrotophos 0.025% 3.45a 2.22c 1.60cd 1.70c 2005 447.83 4926 2.90 SNPV 250 LE/ha + NSKE 5% 3.47a 2.37bc 1.65c 1.75c 2020 462.50 5088 2.92 SNPV + Triazophos 0.020% 3.42a 2.27bc 1.53de 1.77cd 2013 455.16 5007 2.80 Monocrotophos 0.05% 3.41a 1.63d 1.41e 1.44d 2168 608.33 6688 3.50 Triazophos 0.04% 3.38a 1.54d 1.45e 1.46d 2195 637.50 7013 3.26 NSKE 5% 3.43a 2.56bc 2.28b 2.41b 1865 307.50 3383 3.11 Untreated control 3.44 3.52 3.70 3.59 1558 - - - Patil (2002) Dharwad Means followed by same alphabet in columns do not differ significantly DMRT. 36

Slide 36: 

Table-9: Efficacy of botanicals in the management of S. litura in Soybean Treatments No. of Spodoptera litura larvae / m row Pod damage (%) Seed yield (kg/ha) Addl. Yield (kg/ha) Addl. Returns (Rs/ha) B:C ratio 1 DBS 3 DAS 7 DAS 14 DAS NSKE 5% 3.47a 2.91b 2.19c 2.47cd 28.72 1980 467.50 5148 3.25 C.inerme leaf extract 5% 3.47a 3.17b 2.92b 2.96b 35.13 1779 267.50 2948 2.97 Vitex negundo leaf extract 5% 3.47a 2.98b 2.42c 2.60c 29.69 1940 427.50 4708 3.23 P.pinnata leaf extract 5% 3.41a 3.04b 2.99b 2.96b 35.15 1768 255.00 2805 2.95 Achook 1% 3.52a 2.87b 2.21c 2.31d 29.33 2052 539.83 5940 3.39 Monocrotophos 0.05% 3.41a 1.57c 1.44d 1.50e 16.20 2215 702.50 7733 3.06 Untreated control 3.51a 3.59a 3.80a 3.80a 41.22 1513 - - - Patil (2002) Dharwad Means followed by same alphabet in columns do not differ significantly DMRT. 37

Slide 37: 

Treatment Before 1 day After 1 st day After 3 rd day After 7 th day B. bassiana 8.00 (2.82) 2.33 (1.52) 0.67 (0.67) 0.00 (0.00) NSKE4% 5.00 (2.16) 4.67 (2.14) 0.00 (0.00) 7.33 (2.69) NSKE6% 5.33 (2.24) 1.00 (1.00) 0.67 (0.67) 4.67 (2.10) Cow urine 20% 7.67 (2.76) 5.00 (2.16) 1.00 (1.00) 5.00 (2.23) Cow urine 10% 5.0 (2.16) 3.00 (1.73) 0.67 (0.67) 4.67 (2.14) Cow dung ash 8.00 (2.82) 1.00 (1.00) 0.00 (0.00) 6.00 (2.39) Control 13..33 (3.64) 7.67 (2.76) 3.67 (1.88) 6.00 (2.44) S.Em ± 1.68 (0.30) 1.10 (0.33) 0.34 (0.28) 1.21 (0.35) C. D.at 5% NS 3.31 (1.00) 1.03 (0.82) 3.64 (1.04) Table-10: Effect of different treatments on S. litura population on PK - 416 cultivar of soybean crop during Kharif 2000 NS.= Non significant Data in parenthesis are square root transformed values Pantnagar Purwar and Yadav (2003) 38

Slide 38: 

Treatment 1 DBS* I spray II spray 3 DAS** 7 DAS 14 DAS 3 DAS 7 DAS 14 DAS T1- N.rileyi @ 1.2x10 8 conidia / 12.04 a 14.30 a 16.60 b 21.52 b 25.4d d 31.1 b 37.74 d T2 - N.rileyi @ 1.2x10 10 conidia /l 12.41 a 14.73 a 15.65 c 19.91 c 23.09 c 25.19 c 34.44 c T3- N.riley i @1.2x10 12 conidia /l 12.07 a 14.30 a 15.83 bc 19.58 cd 22.35 cd 24.49 cd 32.50 d T4 – SNPV @ 250 LE/ha 12.15 a 14.44 a 15.76 c 19.35 cd 21.64 d 23.01 e 32.07 d T5 – B.thuringiensis @ 2 ml/l. 12.44 a 14.63 a 15.41 c 18.86 d 20.77 e 24.02 de 31.70 d T7 - Control 12.37 a 14.26 a 18.20 d 23.71 a 26.53 a 33.52 a 40.44 a Table-11: Per cent leaf let damage by S. litura on soybean due to N. rileyi *DBS Day before spray **DAS Day after spray In vertical columns means followed by the same alphabet do not differ significantly (p=0.05) Kulkarni and Lingappa (2000) Dharwad 39

Slide 39: 

Treatment Dose/ha C.. acuta 2003 2004 Mean Chlorpyriphos 20 EC 1.5 lit. 0.56 0.44 0.55 Triazophos 40EC 0.8 lit. 0.44 0.55 0.52 Quinalphos 25 EC 1.5 lit. 0.67 0.55 0.67 Methomy 40 sp 1.0 lit. 0.56 0.55 0.59 Ethion 50 EC 1.5 lit. 0.67 0.55 0.63 Ethofenprox 10 EC 1.0 lit. 0.67 0.67 0.67 Thiomethoxam 25 WG 100 gm 0.56 0.67 0.67 Endosulfan 35 EC 1.0 lit. 0.67 0.44 0.63 Monocrotophos 36 SL 0.8 lit. 0.55 0.55 0.63 Bt. 8L 1.0 lit. 0.55 0.33 0.48 untreated control ---- 3.56 2.89 3.41 CD(p=0.05) -- 0.59 0.27 Table-12: Evaluation of synthetic insecticides and bio pesticides for the control of insect pests of soybean Kota (Rajasthan) Chaudhary and Patidar (2007) 40

Slide 40: 

Treatment Before 1 day spray (30 DAS) After 1 day spray (36 DAS ) After 3 day spray (36 DAS) After 7 day spray (36 DAS) B. bassiana 5.00 (2.16) 2.00 (1.41) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) NSKE4% 8.00 (2.82) 2.00 (1.41) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) NSKE6% 5.00 (2.23) 1.00 (1.00) 2.00 (1.41) 0.33 (0.33) Cow urine 20% 2.67 (1.55) 6.67 (2.75) 0.00 (0.00) 2.00 (1.41) Cow urine 10% 8.00 (2.82) 7.67 (2.67) 0.33 (0.33) 2.00 (1.41) Cow dung ash 4.67 (2.08) 5.33 (2.31) 0.00 (0.00) 5.33 (2.31) Control 8.00 (2.82) 13.67 (3.68) 0.00 (0.00) 8.00 (2.82) S.Em ± 0.81 (0.18) 2.64 (0.62) 0.28 (0.22) 1.01 (0.39) C.D.at 5% 2.44 (0.55) 7.91 (1.86) 0.84 (0.65) 3.05 (1.18) Table-13: Effect of different treatments on S. litura population on PK -1029 cultivar of soybean crop during Kharif 2000 Purwar and Yadav (2003) NS.= Non significant Data in parenthesis are square root transformed values Pantnagar 41

Slide 41: 

Chemical Control 42

Slide 42: 

Treatment Per cent mortality of S. litura after days First spray Second spray 3 DAS 7 DAS 3 DAS 7 DAS Triazophos 0.06% 75.16* (93.44) 71.14 (89.56) 73.75 (92.17) 66.93 (84.64) Quinolphos 0.05% 69.21 (87.41) 66.22 (83.74) 67.40 (85.23) 63.95 (80.71) Endosulfan 0.07% 68.98 (87.13) 65.84 (83.25) 67.22 (85.01) 63.67 (80.33) Emamectin Benzoate @ 5gm/10 litre 58.08 (72.04) 55.86 (68.51) 56.58 (69.67) 53.44 (64.52) Spinosad 0.01% 73.21 (91.65) 69.85 (88.13) 72.07 (90.52) 65.94 (83.38) NSKE 5% 63.11 (79.55) 58.35 (72.47) 61.19 (76.78) 57.24 (70.72) Neemazol @2ml/litrwe 62.10 (78.11) 56.88 (70.14) 60.05 (75.08) 56.11 (68.90) Cartap Hydrochloride 0.05% 50.85 (60.14) 48.11 (55.42) 49.30 (57.47) 45.01 (50.02) Beauveria bassiana @ 5gm/litre 62.77 (79.06) 57.59 (71.28) 60.88 (76.31) 56.92 (70.21) S. Em. ± C. D. at 5% C. V. % 3.52 10.45 10.44 3.39 10.07 10.67 3.40 10.11 10.36 3.21 9.55 10.52 * Arc sine transformed value . Figures in the parentheses are retransformed values. JAU, Junagadh Joshi (2007) Table-14: Efficacy of different insecticides against S. litura infesting soybean. 43

Slide 43: 

Table-15: Efficacy of insecticides in the management of S. litura in Soybean Treatments NO.of Spodoptera litura larvae/m row Pod damage (%) Seed yield (kg/ha) Addl. yield (kg/ha) Addl. Returns (Rs/ha) B:C ratio 1 DBS 3 DAS 7 DAS 14 DAS Monocrotophos 36SL 0.05% 3.39a 1.49b 1.48b 1.52b 13.87 1853 475.00 5225 2.99 Profenophos 50EC 0.025% 3.43a 1.24b 1.26c 1.25c 13.67 1904 526.50 5792 3.15 Methomyl 12.5L 0.03% 3.48a 1.28b 1.25c 1.27c 13.70 1933 540.17 5942 2.80 Deltamethrin 2.5EC 0.002% 3.28a 1.45b 1.34c 1.33c 16.47 1822 445.00 4895 3.02 Alphamethrin 10EC 0.002% 3.44a 1.38b 1.35c 1.37c 15.32 1915 539.17 5931 3.01 Chlorpyriphos 20EC 0.04% 3.45a 1.07c 1.05d 1.07d 11.28 2170 792.00 8712 3.51 Lambda cyhalothrin 5EC 0.0025% 3.45a 1.08c 1.05d 1.05d 10.64 2176 781.50 8597 3.60 Thiodicarb 75WP 0.075% 3.44a 1.44b 1.41b 1.42b 16.84 1823 445.33 4898 2.54 Untreated control 3.41a 3.46a 3.59a 3.46a 38.85 1378 - - - Patil (2002) Dharwad Means followed by same alphabet in columns do not differ significantly DMRT. 44

Slide 44: 

Treatment Percent mortality of pod borer after days First spray Second spray 3 DAS 7 DAS 3 DAS 7 DAS Triazophos 0.06% 66.61* (84.24) 64.84 (81.92) 67.36 (85.19) 65.35 (82.60) Quinolphos 0.05% 75.77 (93.95) 74.09 (92.49) 77.49 (95.30) 73.08 (91.53) Endosulfan 0.07% 67.22 (85.01) 65.35 (82.60) 69.32 (87.52) 66.89 (84.60) Emamectin Benzoate @5gm/10liter 73.49 (91.92) 71.09 (89.50) 74.01 (92.41) 72.48 (90.93) Spinosad 0.01% 69.61 (87.86) 67.87 (85.81) 71.5 (90.03) 70.24 (88.57) NSKE 5% 62.27 (78.35) 60.19 (75.29) 63.90 (80.64) 62.41 (78.55) Neemazol @ 2 ml/liter 59.51 (74.26) 58.68 (72.97) 61.46 (77.17) 59.65 (74.47) Cartap Hydrochloride 0.05% 57.11 (70.51) 55.68 (68.21) 57.50 (71.14) 55.09 (67.25) Beauveria bassiana @ 5gm/ liter 67.29 (85.10) 65.75 (83.13) 69.91 (88.20) 69.21 (87.40) S. Em. ± C. D. at 5% C. V. % 3.48 9.34 10.07 3.38 10.04 10.03 3.60 10.69 10.18 3.48 10.34 10.14 * Arc sine transformed value . Figures in the parentheses are retransformed values. JAU, Junagadh Joshi (2007) Table-16:Efficacy of different insecticides against H. armigera infesting soybean: 45

Slide 45: 

Treatment Mean per cent mortality First application Second application 2 nd day 4 th day 6 th day 8 th day 2 nd day 4 th day 6 th day 8 th day Acephate 0.1% 54.00 (65.45)* 57.93 (71.01) 63.31 (79.83) 64.53 (81.51) 56.15 (68.97) 58.35 (72.47) 65.65 (83.00) 67.25 (85.05) Carbaryl 0.2 % 66.93 (84.65) 70.71 (89.06) 72.69 (91.09) 75.75 (92.94) 68.35 (86.39) 69.75 (8802) 73.31 (91.75) 76.75 (94.75) Chlorpyriphos 0.05% 71.62 (90.05) 71.85 (90.29) 75.67 (93.87) 77.95 (95.64) 72.10 (90.55) 72.65 (91.11) 76.85 (94.82) 78.68 (96.15) Cypermethrin 0.01 71.99 (90.44) 72.35 (90.91) 76.05 (94.19) 78.26 (95.86) 72.83 (91.29) 74.53 (92.88) 77.85 (95.57) 79.58 (96.73) Endosulfan 0.05% 64.83 (81.91) 67.88 (85.82) 68.83 (87.88) 71.99 (90.44) 65.38 (82.64) 68.17 (86.17) 69.63 (87.89) 70.20 (88.52) Fenvalerate 0.015% 74.16 (92.53) 72.85 (94.02) 77.43 (95.26) 80.21 (97.21) 75.06 (93.34) 75.98 (94.13) 80.33 (97.33) 80.51 (97.28) Table-17: Efficacy of different insecticidal treatments against A. octo on soybean. Continue…… 46

Slide 46: 

Malathion 0.05% 53.93 (65.33) 54.41 (66.41) 55.24 (67.49) 64.53 (81.51) 54.38 (66.08) 56.14 (68.96) 58.42 (72.57) 66.67 (64.31) Monocrotophos 0.04% 66.79 (84.47) 69.86 (88.15) 71.81 (90.26) 73.95 (92.56) 67.53 (85.39) 68.78 (86.90) 72.25 (90.31) 74.15 (92.54) Phosalone 0.05% 65.74 (83.11) 68.78 (84.49) 71.13 (89.54) 72.51 (90.970 66.47 (84.06) 68.18 (86018) 69.83 (88.11) 71.14 (89.55) Quinalphos 0.03% 69.83 (87.88) 70.77 (89.15) 72.62 (90.53) 77.57 (95.37) 70.51 (88.87) 71.10 (89.10) 73.75 (92.17) 78.48 (96.010 Triazophos 0.05% 58.78 (73.13) 62.49 (78.66) 65.89 (83.31) 70.24 (88.57) 60.35 (75.520 64.29 (81.18) 67.98 (85.94) 69.48 (87.71) S.Em.± 2.8 3.05 4.072 3.19 3.27 2.93 4.29 3.62 C.V.% 8.06 8.78 11.72 9.18 9.41 8.44 13.50 10.42 C.D. at 5% 8.15 9.02 11.58 8.66 9.87 8.57 13.02 9.65 GAU, Junagadh Sojitra (1990) Figures in the parentheses indicate the retransformed values. 47

Table-18: Bioefficacy of Triazophos against C. acuta in soybean during kharif, 2005: 

Table-18: Bioefficacy of Triazophos against C. acuta in soybean during kharif, 2005 Treatments Dose g a.i./ ha Percent reduction I spray II spray III spray Yield q/ha 3 DAS** 7 DAS 3 DAS 7 DAS 3 DAS 7 DAS Triazophos 20 EC 250 64.91* 66.19 66.92 68.84 60.87 64.12 23.84 Triazophos 20 EC 300 68.87 72.26 71.56 74.10 66.19 68.69 26.17 Triazophos 40EC 250 73.69 75.67 78.22 79.66 69.46 70.99 27.43 Triazophos 40 EC 300 76.52 78.49 80.30 81.56 71.59 74.48 28.42 Endosulfan 35 EC 437.5 63.51 65.28 67.93 64.44 63.09 65.30 22.69 Monocrotophos 36 SL 500 59.89 61.38 57.43 59.47 57.71 59.18 21.29 Untreated control - - - - - - - 15.60 SEm _+ - 1.85 1.71 1.71 2.35 1.35 1.57 1.09 CD at 5% - 5.69 5.21 5.25 7.21 4.14 4.81 3.36 **DAS – Days After Spraying Ashok et al. (2006) Udaipur (Rajasthan) *Figure is parentheses are angular transformed values of percentage. 48

Slide 48: 

Treatment Mean per cent larval mortality 1 st spray 2 nd spray 24 hours 48 hours 72 hours 7days 24 hours 48 hours 72 hours 7days Monocrotophos 0.04% 61.74* (77.58) 64.97 (82.10) 64.91 (82.02) 65.31 (82.55) 59.31 (73.95) 63.97 (80.74) 64.64 (81.66) 65.64 (82.99) Endosulfan 0.07% 53.98 (65.42) 60.31 (75.47) 60.73 (76.10) 64.31 (81.21) 50.65 (59.80) 60.31 (75.47) 60.64 (75.96) 64.64 (81.66) Quinolphos 0.05% 69.97 (88.27) 70.31 (88.65) 70.64 (89.01) 71.30 (89.72) 67.64 (85.53) 68.64 (86.73) 69.64 (87.90) 70.97 (89.37) Chloropyriphos 0.05% 62.64 (78.88) 63.08 (79.50) 63.64 (80.29) 63.98 (80.76) 59.98 (74.97) 60.97 (76.45) 62.97 (79.35) 63.98 (80.76) Demeton-o- Methyl 0.025% 42.26 (45.23) 43.08 (46.66) 43.98 (48.22) 46.32 (52.30) 37.32 (36.76) 39.32 (40.15) 41.65 (44.17) 43.65 (47.64). Dimethoate 0.03% 39.99 (41.30) 40.98 (43.01) 45.42 (50.73) 46.75 (53.05) 35.99 (34.53) 38.32 (38.45) 45.32 (50.56) 46.65 (52.88) Continue…. Table-19: Efficacy of different insecticides against C. acuta on soybean during kharif 1995. 49

Slide 49: 

Trizophos 0.06% 47.98 (55.19) 48.98 (56.92) 49.98 (58.65) 52.91 (63.63) 47.98 (55.19) 48.31 (55.76) 50.31 (59.22) 54.31 (65.97) Methomyl 0.05% 63.31 (79.83) 53.98 (65.42) 53.31 (64.30) 47.98 (55.19) 60.74 (76.11) 53.64 (64.85) 53.31 (64.30) 48.08 (55.37) Cypermethrin 0.009% 63.68 (80.34) 63.78 (80.48) 64.31 (81.21) 64.64 (81.66) 61.65 (77.45) 61.98 (77.93) 63.31 (79.83) 64.97 (82.10) Alphamethrin 0.005% 61.31 (76.95) 57.65 (71.37) 57.31 (70.83) 57.98 (71.89) 55.31 (67.61) 55.65 (68.16) 56.11 (68.91) 56.98 (70.31) Fenvelerate 0.015 % 70.71 (89.09) 72.23 (90.69) 72.63 (91.09) 74.97 (93.28) 70.63 (89.00) 71.97 (90.42) 73.30 (91.74) 73.88 (92.38) S.Em.± 5.48 5.41 4.68 5.67 5.61 5.69 5.62 5.62 C.D. at 5% 16.16 15.97 13.80 16.73 16.55 16.80 16.58 16.58 C.V.% 16.37 16.13 13.78 16.46 17.61 17.41 16.70 16.38 *Arcsine V percenteg transform value Figure in parenthesis are retransformed values Vyas (1995) GAU, Junagadh 50

Slide 50: 

Treatment Percent mortality of A. modicella after days First spray Second spray 3 DAS 7 DAS 3 DAS 7 DAS Triazophos 0.06% 71.70* (90.14) 75.10 (93.39) 73.36 (91.80) 74.76 (93.09) Quinolphos 0.05% 74.94 (93.25) 77.56 (95.36) 76.85 (94.82) 77.32 (95.18) Endosulfan 0.07% 74.59 (92.94) 76.76 (94.76) 74.37 (92.74) 76.39 (94.47) Emamectin Benzoate @5 gm/10 litre 55.29 (67.58) 56.64 (69.76) 52.87 (63.56) 53.36 (64.39) Spinosad 0.01% 52.78 (63.42) 53.36 (64.38) 51.15 (60.65) 51.53 (61.30) NSKE 5% 65.01 (82.15) 66.64 (84.28) 69.50 (87.74) 71.05 (89.46) Neemazol @ 2 ml/litre 61.92 (77.85) 64.35 (81.26) 62.78 (79.07) 64.75 (81.80) Cartap Hydrochloride 0.05% 48.28 (55.71) 46.92 (53.35) 46.73 (53.02) 45.20 (50.34) Beauveria bassiana @ 5gm/litre 57.94 (71.82) 58.79 (73.14) 55.85 (68.49) 57.29 (70.79) S. Em. ± C. D. at 5% C. V. % 3.31 9.84 10.20 3.47 10.31 10.43 3.28 9.57 10.08 3.38 10.04 10.23 * Arc sine transformed value . Figures in the parentheses are retransformed values. Joshi (2007) JAU, Junagadh Table-20: Efficacy of different insecticides against A. modicella infesting soybean 51

Slide 51: 

Treatment Mean per cent larval mortality 1 st spray 2 nd spray 24 hours 48 hours 72 hours 7 days 24 hours 48 hours 72 hours 7 days Monocrotophos 0.04% 79.97* (96.97) 81.47 (97.80) 82.78 (98.42) 88.88 (99.96) 78.64 (96.12) 80.30 (97.16) 82.56 (98.32) 88.92 (99.96) Endosulfan 0.07% 70.73 (89.11) 72.53 (90.99) 73.97 (92.37) 82.37 (98.24) 71.64 (90.08) 72.31 (90.77) 73.30 (91.74) 82.13 (98.13) Quinalphos 0.05% 74.69 (93.03) 76.63 (94.65) 78.64 (96.12) 85.71 (99.44) 73.3. (91.75) 76.30 (94.39) 79.13 (96.44) 86.14 (99.55) Chloropyriphos 0.05% 63.47 (80.05) 65.97 (83.42) 66.97 (84.70) 73.30 (91.74) 63.31 (79.83) 64.64 (81.66) 65.98 (83.43) 72.64 (91.10) Demeton-o- Methyl 0.025% 46.48 (53.10) 50.98 (60.36) 54.31 (65.96) 63.31 (79.83) 46.11 (51.94) 50.58 (59.68) 53.65 (64.87) 62.91 (79.26) Dimethoate 0.03% 48.31 (55.76) 51.31 (60.92) 56.65 (67.78) 66.31 (83.86) 46.98 (53.45) 50.15 (58.94) 56.58 (69.66) 66.07 (83.55) Table-21: Efficacy of different insecticide against A. modicella on soybean during kharif 1995 Continue…. 52

Slide 52: 

Trizophos 0.06% 54.98 (67.07) 59.98 (74.97) 62.14 (78.16) 66.47 (84.06) 56.31 (69.23) 59.31 (73.95) 61.74 (77.58) 67.97 (85.93) Methomyl 0.05% 64.64 (81.66) 63.81 (80.52) 61.31 (76.95) 54.98 (67.07) 63.64 (80.29) 63.41 (79.97) 60.64 (75.96) 55.64 (68.15) Cypermethrin 0.009% 68.30 (86.33) 68.64 (86.73) 69.31 (87.52) 74.64 (92.98) 67.64 (85.53) 67.97 (85.93) 68.45 (86.45) 74.40 (92.77) Alphamethrin 0.005% 58.64 (72.92) 59.98 (75.97) 61.98 (77.93) 69.97 (88.27) 58.34 (72.45) 59.98 (74.97) 61.44 (77.14) 69.74 (88.01) Fenvelerate 0.015 % 70.97 (89.37) 72.64 (91.10) 73.67 (92.09) 79.00 (96.36 68.97 (87.12) 72.93 (91.38) 73.57 (92.00) 78.91 (96.30) S.Em.± 6.38 5.65 5.63 6.13 6.57 5.84 5.78 6.18 C.D. at 5% 18.82 16.66 16.73 18.09 19.37 17.22 17.05 18.22 C.V.% 17.33 14.86 14.57 14.49 18.00 15.50 14.94 14.61 GAU, Junagadh *Arcsine V percenteg transform value Figure in parenthesis are retransformed values Vyas (1995) 53

Slide 53: 

Treatment Average no. of larvae/10 plant Yield in q/ha Cost Benefit ratio 1984 1985 Mean 1984 1985 Mean Carbaryl+ molasses 0.05% 19.0 (4.03) 9.3 (3.1) 141 10.2 7.8 9.0 1:0.28 phosphamidon0.03% 17.0 (.4.1) 9.0 (3.1) 18.4 11.9 9.6 10.8 1:5.54 Endosulfan 0.05% 13.7 (3.6) 6.5 (2.5) 10.1 13.0 9.9 11.5 1:5.02 Quinalphos 0.04% 14.2 (3.8) 6.8 (2.7) 10.5 14.4 10.5 12.5 1:6.28 Dimethote 0.03% 12.8 (3.5) 6.5 (2.6) 9.7 14.8 11.4 13.1 1:10.22 Methyl demeton 0.03% 11.5 (3.3) 5.5 (2.5) 8.5 15.5 11.6 13.5 1:9.82 monocrotophos 0.04% 10.5 (3.1) 3.5 (1.8) 7.0 18.7 14.6 16.6 1:13.68 control 29.2 (5.4) 26.5 (5.2) 27.9 9.9 7.2 8.6 - S. Em.± 0.183 (0.368) - (0.487) (0.485) - - C D at 5 % 0.614 (1.2321) - (1.43) (1.38) - - Figures in parentheses are transformed V x + 0.5 Values Sagar (MP) Shrivastava et al. (1988) Table-22:Effect of various chemicals against A. modicella infesting soybean 54

Slide 54: 

Table -23: Bioefficacy of Triazophos against A. modicella in soybean during kharif , 2005. Treatments Dose g a.i./ha Percent reduction I spray II spray III spray Yield q/ha 3 DAS** 7 DAS 3 DAS 7 DAS 3 DAS 7 DAS Triazophos 20EC 250 60.70* 62.56 60.77 61.32 59.17 61.52 23.84 Triazophos 20EC 300 64.38 70.04 67.05 71.56 68.69 70.41 26.17 Triazophos 40EC 250 67.91 72.58 72.94 73.34 70.67 71.86 27.43 Triazophos 40EC 300 71.48 75.88 74.85 77.56 75.70 77.37 28.42 Endosulfan 35EC 437.5 63.18 65.24 59.32 61.19 58.62 60.87 22.69 Monocrotophos 36 SL 500 53.92 54.98 54.07 57.84 52.08 54.62 21.29 Untreated control - - - - - - - 15.60 SEm _+ - 1.32 1.64 1.08 1.73 1.94 1.63 1.09 CD at 5% - 4.05 5.03 3.31 5.31 5.96 5.02 3.36 **DAS – Days After Spraying Ashok et al. (2006) Udaipur (Rajasthan) *Figure is parentheses are angular transformed values of percentage. 55

Slide 55: 

Treatment Corrected mortality percentage of leafminer recorded after dayes of spraying First Third Seventh Overall average Endosulfan 0.07 % 68.68 (86.76) 71.43 (89.92) 80.69 (97.38) 72.86 (91.32) Chlorpyriphos 0.04 % 60.80 (76.20) 65.80 (83.20) 77.77 (95.58) 67.53 (85.39) Curacron 0.04 % 64.84 (81.92) 70.43 (88.76) 78.58 (96.08) 69.71 (87.98) Fenitrothion 0.04 % 72.68 (91.14) 76.75 (94.50) 90.00 (100.00) 77.49 (95.31) Monocrotophos 0.04 % 69.92 (88.21) 81.70 (97.93) 90.00 (100.00) 79.71 (96.81) Fluvalinate 0.0075 % 71.60 (90.04) 73.37 (91.81) 78.68 (96.15) 74.62 (92.97) Carbaryl 0.20 % 67.02 (84.76) 70.16 (88.46) 78.59 (96.09) 71.29 (89.71) Carbosulfan0.05 % 64.10 (80.92) 70.50 (88.85) 73.58 (91.04) 69.46 (87.69) Table-24: Mean percentage mortality of soybean A. modicella in various insecticidal treatments Continue…. 56

Slide 56: 

BMPC 0.15 % 67.01 (84.75) 70.15 (88.45) 75.32 (93.57) 70.57 (88.93) Cypermethrin 0.01 % 66.24 (83.76) 63.66 (87.92) 73.46 (91.90) 70.00 (88.30) Decamethrin 0.00125 % 66.02 (82.12) 67.34 (85.16) 70.86 (89.25) 67.65 (85.53) Quinalphos 0.04 % 71.46 (89.89) 74.61 (92.96) 80.98 (97.55) 74.75 (93.09) Fenavalerate 0.01 % 65.97 (83.41) 69.99 (88.19) 77.99 (95.66) 71.79 (90.23) Control 34.42 (31.93) 42.22 (45.21) 66.54 (84.15) 46.18 (55.53) S.Em.± 2.21 1.84 1.37 3.26 C.D. at 5% 6.41 5.35 3.97 9.47 C.V.% 5.88 4.58 3.03 4.45 Figures in the parentheses are retransformed values. GAU, Junagadh Lathiya (1985) 57

Slide 57: 

Case studies 58

Slide 58: 

Soybean varieties Ahilya 2 and Ahilya 3 are high yielding (3.0-3.5 tonnes/ha), and tolerant to defoliating insects. L 129, NRC 123, NRC 7, NRC 12, E 264, B 460 and JS 7105 showed tolerance to major insects. Germplasm line TGX 885-53d possesses “antixenosis” type of resistance against Tobacco caterpillar. B. thuringiensis , neem based formulations and insecticides Phosphamidon, Phosolane, Chlorpyriphos and Triazophos can be included in formulating an IPM schedule Anonymous (1997) 59 ICAR New Delhi

Slide 59: 

Bio pesticides B.bassiana @ 1 litre/ha before or after Triazophos spray (0.05%) was found effective in controlling major insect pests. Lambda cyhalothrin and combination insectides Chlorpyriphos + Cypermethrin and Profenophos + Cypermethrin were found effective against larvae of green semiloopers. Commercial products, Biolep and Biobit from B. thuringiensis ( Bt ), were found effective in controlling lepidopterous defoliators and in reducing yield loss. More than 1,100 front line demonstrations were organized at farmers field to show improved production technologies.There was an increase in yield up to 46.01% (from 1.4 to 1.9 tonnes/ha), with an average additional returns of Rs 3,887/ha. Benefit cost ratio was 3.54 Anonymous (2000) 60 ICAR New Delhi

Slide 60: 

Entomopathogenic fungus B. bassiana caused 30 – 40% mortality of C. acuta on Soybean. Chitin inhibitors Diflubenzuron and Lufenuron effectively controlled all major lepidopteran defoliating larvae, with mortality ranging from 40 to 97.5% in laboratory conditions. B. thuringiensis based microbial insecticide (Dipel @ 1 lit/ha) alone or in tank mix combination with monocrotophos 36SL @ 0.8 l/ha gave significant control on defoliators, with yield advantage of about 30% over control. Anonymous (2003) 61 ICAR New Delhi

Slide 61: 

CONCLUSION IPM IS THE RIGHT TRACK TO MANAGE THE DEFOLIATORS 62

Slide 62: 

Management is a need of present time, specially for defoliator insect pests in soybean for sustainable production. Various components viz ., cultural practices, use of effective bio-agents/bio-pesticides, resistant varieties, need based use of effective economical pesticides and plant products etc. have been found very effective in management approach for soybean insect pests and their use need to be encouraged in order to reduce down the reliance on chemical pesticides for sustainable agriculture as well as increasing the quality and productivity. 63

Slide 63: 

Thank