Efficacy of Botanical Pesticides Against Shoot and Fruit Borer, Leucinodes Orbonalis in Brinjal

Abstract

The experiment was conducted in randomized block design with 7 treatments and 4 replications, to evaluate the performance of some botanical products against the pest complex of brinjal.The treatments included Triazophos 40E.C. 0.04%,Neem oil 1 %,Achook 5 %,NSKE 5%, Karanj oil 1%,Eucalyptus oil 1% and an untreated control. Four spraying of each treatment were conducted starting 30 days after transplanting, at an interval of 15 days. Observation on shoot and fruit damage by Leucinodes orbonalis were recorded. The results revealed that Triazophos 40E.C. 0.04%,was significantely superior over all the botanical treatments shoot damage in different treatments & ranged between 3.9 to 10.1%.Highest healthy fruits yield (24.76q/ha) was recorded in the treatment of Triazophos 40E.C. 0.04% followed by the treatment of neem oil 1% (20.54 q/ha healthy fruits), and both the treatments were statistically at par Yields in remaining treatments were at par and ranged between 19.57 and 15.23 q/ha. Lowest yield (10.50 q/ha in healthy fruits) was registered in untreated control.Highest cost benefit ratio of 1:6. 31 was treatment of Triazophos 40 EC 0.04%. Application of neem oil 1% registered the cost benefit ratio of 1:1.79 and was found most economical.

Introduction

Brinjal (Solanum melongena Linn.) is an important vegetable crop, in almost all parts of our country. The crop is generally sown twice or thrice in a year, depending upon the irrigation facilities. Many insect pests damage and affect the yield of brinjal crop to a great extent. Singh et al., (1984) have listed about 25 insect pests of brinjal, of which some major insect pests are brinjal shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Gu.), Epilachna beetle (Epilachna vigintioctopunctata F.), aphids (Aphis gossypi Glower), stem borer (Euzophera perticella Rag.) and jassid (Amrasca biguttula).

Shoot and fruit borer is the most serious pest of brinjal. Gangwan and Sachan (1981) reported 26.3 to 22.5 per cent fruit damage due to this pest, which may go as high as 20 to 92 per cent in Kharif season (Singh, 1983). The losses caused by various pests were estimated to be ranging from 28-85% (Ahmed, 1974).

Suitable insecticides used for the control of brinjal pests includes parathion. (Krishnaswami, 1954 and Lai, 1973). However these cause the problem of resistance and resurgence of pests (Mehrotra, 1990). These toxic insecticides pollute environment and also adversely affect the natural enemies of pests.

Several non-chemical means of pest management have been proposed for brinjal and other crops, like the manipulation of cultural practices, nutrient management, use of biological agents, etc.

To reduce pesticide hazards, one of the resorts is the application of insecticides of plant origin which are cheaper, easily available and safer to mankind. Neem plant has proved itself as a wonderful insecticide of plant origin, which is harmless to higher animals including man (Walunj et al., 1996). Plant products like Eucalyptus, Calotropis, Pongamia, Annona and Neem have been found effective in controlling brinjal pests in green house.Hence in present experiment the botanical products were tested.

Materials and Methods

The experiment was conducted to evaluate efficacy of botanical products against the major insect pest complex of brinjal at Vegetable Research Farm of College of Agriculture, JNKVV Jabalpur. The brinjal crop (Variety Pusa Purple Round) was raised by transplanting 26 days old seedlings in 4 x 4 meter plots with plant to plant and row to row distances of 45 x 60 cm. The crop was transplanted in the third week of April. Normal horticultural practices were followed to raise the crop. Experiment was planned with seven treatments and four replications following Randomized Block Design (RBD). Spacing of rows and plants distance was kept 60 x 45 cm. Four sprayings were done starting from 30 days after transplanting, at an interval of 15 days. The sprayings solution was taken @ of 500 liters water/ha and spranges using hand compression sprayer. Due care was exercised to eliminate the drift of spray material from one plot to another by using a canvas curtain between the plots. Observations on shoot damage caused by Leucinodes orbonalis was recorded before treatment and 7 days after every spray. Number of damaged shoots among the total plants from each plot were recorded throughout the crop season and the damage was expressed in terms of percent shoot damage. Fruit damage by L. orbonalis was recorded in each picking and finally workout fruit damage percentage and healthy fruit yield. Data of shoot damage and fruit damage was analysed using statistical analysis of variance at 5 % level of significance. Suitable transformations were adopted before analysis of variance. Cost of application of various treatments used in the experiment, were calculated in considering the cost of product and labour charges for four sprays. Value of increased production over control was calculated taking the existing market price (Rs. 700/q) of brinjal during the period of picking (Rs. 700/q) and cost benefit ratios were worked out.

Results and Discussion

Percent Shoot Damage by L. Orbonalis

Performance of different treatments against shoot damage by shoot and fruit borer in brinjal crop is presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Evaluation of different insecticides against shoot damage by L.orbonalis in brinjal crop

S. No.	Treatments	Dose	Pre-treatment shoot damage (%)		Shoot damage (%) 7daysafter
				Ist spray	IInd spray	IIIrd spray	IVth spray
1.	Triazophos 40 EC 0.04%	1 ml/lit.	4.16	4.16	4.76	5.95	7.14
2.	Neem oil 1%	10ml/lit.	3.57	4.165	5.35	7.14	8.33
3.	Achook 0.5%	5 ml/lit.	4.76	3.35	5.95	7.14	8.92
4.	N.S.K.E. 3%	50gm/lit	4.16	4.76		7.73	8.33
5.	Karanj oil 1%	10ml/lit.	3.57	4.16	5.35	8.92	9.52
6.	Eucalyptus oil1%	10ml/lit.	3.35	3.95	6.54	8.33	9.52
7.	Untreated control		4.76	6.54	7.73	9.52	10.11
	SEm±		1.635	1.433	0.793	1.447	1.632
	CD 5%		3.436	3.011	1.666	3.042	3.428

Cumulative percent shoot damage

Table 2: Per cent fruit damage in brinjal crop under different treatment

S.No.	Treatments	Dose	Fruit damage (%) 10 days after
			IInd spray	IIIrd spray	IVth spray
1.	Triazophos 40 EC 0.04%	1 ml/lit.	12.45	11.39	9.25
2.	Neem oil 1%	10ml/lit.	15.42	13.46	10.40
3.	Achook 0.5%	5 ml/lit.	13.40	14.35	12.40
4.	N.S.K.E. 3%	50gm/lit	20.34	18.49	17.58
5.	Karanj oil 1%	10ml/lit.	18.48	16.43	12.94
6.	Eucalyptus oil1%	10ml/lit.	21.33	15 3	11.25
7.	Untreated control		32.18	35.25	39.84
	SEm±		3.2775	2.7020	2.0476
	CD 5%		1.2169	0.8270	.4750

*Four replication mean per cent damage

Table 3: Economics of control operations by various botanical products

S.No.	Treatments	Yields of healthy fruits (q/ha)	Increased yield over untreated control	Value of increased yield (%)	Cost of treatment/ha (Rs.) (labour + material cost for 4 sprays) (%)	C:B ratio
1. 1	Triazophos 40 EC 0.04%	24.76	14.26	9982	1580	1:6.31
2.	Neem oil 1%	20.54	10.04	7028	5960	1:1.79
3.	Achook 0.5%	15.23	4.73	3311	4700	1:0.70
4.	N.S.K.E. 3%	17.28	6.78	4746	12560	1:0.37
5.	Karanj oil 1%	17.81	7.31	5117	5360	1:0.95
6.	Eucalyptus oil1%	19.57	9.07	6349	22160	1:0.28
7.	Untreated control	10.50	-	1050	7350

Pre-treatment Shoot damage among different plots ranged between 3.57 and 4.76 per cent. The differences in shoot damage among different plots were non- significant.seven days after first, second, third and fourth spray the shoot damages among different treatments, including untreated control were between, 3.35 and 6.54 per cent and all were at par. Whereas, 7 days after second spray all the treatments, except Eucalyptus oil 1%, recorded significantly lower shoot damage (3.95 to 5.95%) as compared to untreated control (7.73% shoot damage) and were at par while,7 days after third spray Triazophos 40 EC 0.04% had the lowest shoot damage (5.95%) among all the treatments. Shoot damage in remaining treatments ranged between 7.14 and 8.92 per cent which were at par to that of untreated control (9.52%). 7 days after fourth spray shoot damage ranged between 7.14 and 9.52 per cent among different treatments, while in control it was 10.11 per cent and all were at par. The above findings are more or less similar to the Gangwan and Sachan (1981), Singh et al. (2003) and Jat and Pareek (2003).

Percent Fruit Damage by L. Orbonalis

In first picking all the treatments registered significantly lower fruit damage as compared to untreated control (32.18%) (Table 2) Triazophos 0.04%, Achook 0.05% and Neem oil 1% treatments recorded lowest incidence (12.45, 13.40, and 15.42 percent fruit damage respectively) and were found at par. In second picking all the treatments had expressed significantly lower fruit damage as compared to untreated control (35.25 percent). Lowest incidence of fruit borer was observed in the treatments of Triazophos 0.04% and Neem oil 1% treatments which were at par (11.39 and 13.46%). Whereas, efficacy of Achook 0.5% and Eucalyptus oil 1 % were registered 14.35 and 15. 30% fruit damage, respectively. Third picking was conducted 10 days after fourth spray All the treatments recorded significantly lower damage by fruit borer as compared to untreated control (39.84%). Triazophos 0.04%, Neem oil 1% and Eucalyptus oil 1% registered 9.25, 10.40 and 11.25% fruit damage, respectively and were at par.The highest healthy fruits (24.76 q/ha) were recorded in the treatment of Triazophos 40 EC (0.04%) followed by the treatment of Neem oil 1% (20.54 q/ha healthy fruits), and both the treatments were statistically at par (table 3). Yields in remaining treatments were at par and ranged between 19.57 and 15.23 q/ha. Lowest yield (10.50 q/ha healthy fruits) was registered in untreated control. The Highest cost benefit ratio of 1:6. 31 was in treatment of Triazophos 40 EC 0.04% (table 3). Application of Neem oil 1% registered the cost benefit ratio of 1:1.79. The cost benefit ratio in remaining treatments was below one i.e. the cost of treatment was higher than the benefit and hence those treatments proved uneconomical. The above findings are similar to that of Ahmed 1974, Gangwan and Sachan (1981), Shrinivasan et al. (1999), Kumar et al. (2003), and Raja et al. (2003)

Acknowledgement and Conflict of Interest

I am deeply indebted to my respectable guide and chairman of my advisory committee Dr. A.Shukla, Professor, Department of Entomology, JNKVV Jabalpur for his noble ispiration , keen interest, judicious guidance, healthy criticism and suggetions. I acknowledge immence dept to my colleages S.K. Barde and others for their whole hearted cooperation, constant encoragememt and affection to being the study in shape.

I want to publish this study for helping to the future researchs in related fields

References

Ahmad, R. (1974). Studies on the pests of brinjal and their control with special reference to fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guen (Pyralidae : Lepidoptera). Entomologist’s News Letter. 1(4) : 2-3

K.C., S.J. Rao. P.K. Rao and K Nagaiah (1999). Field evaluation of certain plant products in the control of brinjal pest complex. Indian-Journal-of-Entomology. 55(3) : 237-240.

S V and S Bhonsle (1990 Foliage feeding insects of brinjal and their control. Rural India. 55(4) ; 92-95.

Gangwan, S K and J N Sachin (1981) Seasonal incidence and control of insect pests of brinjal with special reference to shoot and fruit borer Leucinodes orbonalis in Meghalaya. J. Res. Assam agric. Univ. 2(2) : 187-192.

Haque, M.A.. Parvin and K.S Ahmed (1999) Effect of neem oil on the food consumption and survival of Epilachna dodecastigma (Wied). Bangladesh-Journal-of-Entomology. 6(1-2) : 1-5.

Jat, K.L. and B.L Pareek (2003). Field evaluation of ecofriendly insecticides against brinjal shoot and fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guen Indian-Journal-of-Plant-Protection. 29(1-2) : 53-56.

Jeyarajan, S. and PCS. Babu (1999). Efficacy of certain azadirachtin rich neem seed fractions on brinjal epilachna beetle Henosepilachna vigintioctopunctata (Coleoptera – Coccinellidae) South-lndian-Horticulture. 38(1) : 46-48.

Kishore Ram. S.B.S. Parihar and R Kishore (2003). Aphids species infesting tomato and brinjal crops. Insect-Environment. 8(1) : 8-9.

Krishnaswamy, S. (1954). Studies on the insecticides and average effects of DDT and BHC on Indian J. Ent. 16(3) : 271-281.

Kumar, Ashok, Shukla Abhishek. A. Kumar and A. Shukla (2003) Varietal preference of fruit and shoot borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guen on brinjal Insect-Environment. 8 (1) : 44

Kumar, S.P. and Babu (1999). Ovipositional deterrent and ovicidal effects of Neem Azal against brinjal shoot and fruit borer and leaf beetle Shashpa 5(2) : 193-196

O.P. (1973). Brinjal shoot and fruit borer. Indian Hort, 18(1) : 21.

S.K., B. Kumar and D. Prasad (2003). Efficacy of some foliar insecticides against Spilosoma obliqua Walker on brinjal. Journal-of-Applied-Biology 10(2) : 189-190

Markandeya, V.. V. Vasu, P.S. Chandurkar. T. Rengarajan and B.J. Divakar (2003) Dissipation and recovery of azadirachtin from treated brinjal foliage. Indian-Journal-of-Plant-Protection. 29(1-2) : 39-42.

K.N. (1990). Pyrethroids resistance in pest management. Indian Experience Pestic. Res. J. 2(1) : 44-52.

Mehta, P.K., D.N. Vaidya and N.P. Kashyap (2003). Bioefficacy of some insecticides against brinjal fruit and shoot borer. Leucinodes orbonalis (Guen.). Journal-of-lnsect-Science. 11(1) : 80-81.

Patel, 2.P. and Patel (2003) Resurgence of jassid. Amrasca biguttula biguttula in brinjal and bhindi and development of strategy to overcome the resurgence in brinjal. Indian-Journal-of-Entomology. 60(2) : 152-164.

Raja, J., B. Rajendran and CM. Pappiah (2003). Management of brinjal shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Guen). Vegetable-Science. 26(2) : 167-169

Sasikala, K., P.A. Rao and P.V. Krishnayya (2003). Comparative efficacy of eco-friendly methods involving egg parasitoid.Trichogramma japonicum, mechanical control and safe chemicals against Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee infesting brinjal. Journal-of-Entomological-Research. 23(4) : 369-372.

Singh, D. (1983). Control of brinjal fruit borer Leucinodes orbonalis Guen with synthetic pyrethroids. 15(9) : 14-15.

Singh, (1984) Household and kitchen garden pests, principles and practices, Kalyani Publications, Daryaganj, New Delhi, pp 168-169.

Singh, S.V., K.S. Singh and Y.P. Malik (2003). Seasonal abundance and economic losses of shoot and fruit borer. Leucinodes orbonalis on Indian-Journal-of-Entomology. 62(3) : 247-252.

Srinivasan, G., P.C.S. Babu, P.P. Reddy(ed.); N.K.K. Kumar(ed) and A. Verghese (1999). Management of brinjal shoot and fruit borer Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) using neem products and insecticides. Advances in IPM for horticultural crops. Proceedings of the First National Symposium on Pest Management in Horticultural Crops: environmental implications and thrusts. Bangalore, India, 15-17 October 1997. 1998, 87-93.

Sudhakar, K., K.C. Punnaiah andV. Krishnayya (2003). Influence of different fertilizers and selected insecticides on the incidence of sucking pests of brinjal. Indian-Journal-of-Entomology. 60(3) : 245-249.

Temurde, A.M., S.D. Deshmukh, B. Nemade and S.D. Khiratkar (1999). Efficacy of neemark and its combinations with other groups of insecticides against the shoot and fruit borer of brinjal. Journal-of-Soils-and-Crops 2(1) : 29-31.

Venkataramireddy, P., K.C Chitra and P.K. Rao (1999). Efficacy of the plant extracts in the control of brinjal spotted leaf beetle. Henosepilachna vigintioctopunctata National symposium on Botanical pesticides in integrated pest management held on 21-22 January 1990 in Rajamundary. 225-227.

Walunj, A.R., U.N. Mote, AC. Desai and K.M. Parikh (1996). Efficacy of 29-199, a Neem based insecticide against brinjal shoot and fruit Pestology. 20(1): 7-9.