welcome

SPEAKER: Patil Rajesh Sitaram

M.Sc. (Agri.) student Reg. No.: 04-1318-2010 Department of Entomology, BACA, AAU, Anand 388110

Major Guide:Dr. H. P. Patel Research Scientist (Ent.) Pulse Research station AAU, Model Farm, Vadodara-390003

Co-Guide:Dr. R. N. Pandey Professor & Head, Department of Plant Pathology, BACA, AAU, Anand-388110
2

Content
Introduction Distribution Marks of Identification Life-cycle Host plants Nature of damage Management 1. Cultural 2. Mechanical 3. Botanical 4. Microbial 5. Biological 6. Chemical 7. Integrated pest management Conclusion Future thrust
3

introduction

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum Linnaeus.) is commonly known as Bengal gram and locally as Chana and Gram, is an important food legume crop. It has been traditionally recognized as an indispensable constituent of Indian diet.

Area, production, and productivity of chickpea Area

World India Gujarat Anand 10.4 m. ha 7.58 m. ha 0.2148 m. ha 0.0861 m. ha

Production
8.57 m. t 6.91 m. t 0.21 m. t 0.2003 m. t

Productivity
824 kg/ha 780 kg/ha 979 kg/ha 2327 kg/ha
5

Among the insect pest known to attack chickpea, gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) Hardwick is the most serious pest to causing 30 to 80% (Asthana et al. 1997) The yield loss in chickpea due to pod borer was reported as 10 to 60 per cent in normal weather conditions (Vaishampayan and Veda, 1980)

Taxonomical classification
Phylum:
Class :

Arthropoda
Insecta

Order :
Family :

Lepidoptera
Noctuidae

Genus :
Species :

Helicoverpa
armigera

DISTRIBUTED in
Asia

Africa

Australia

Mediterranea n Europe

Tropics and Subtropics

8

Table1: Major Heliothis spp. And their distribution

Sr. No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Heliothesis spp. H . armigera (Hub.)* H. zea (Boddie) H. virescens (F.) H. puntigera (W.) H. peltigera (Schiff)* H. viriplaca (Hfn.) Distribution Tropical and sub-tropical countries Americas Americas Australia Europe, Africa, and Asia Southwest Asia and USSR

H. assulta (Guenee)* Australia, Africa, and Asia

*Species occur in India

Reed and Pawar (1981)

10

Eggs are 0.5 mm in diameter and take 2-5 days to hatch and change from white to brown to a black head stage before hatching.

11

 Newly-hatched larvae are light in colour with tiny dark spots and dark heads. Medium larvae develop lines and bands running the length of the body and are variable in colour. Saddle of darker pigment on the fourth segment and at the back of the head and darkcoloured legs. Large larvae of have white hairs around the head; and have black hairs around the head. Larvae are a group of four pairs of legs in the back half of the body.

12

Once larvae are fully grown, they crawl to the base of the plant, tunnel up to 10 cm into the soil and form a chamber in which they pupate. Pupae will normally develop to produce a moth in 10-16 days. The moth emerges, feeds, mates and is then ready to begin the cycle of egg laying and larval development. As with all insect development, the duration of pupation is determined by temperature, taking around two weeks in summer and up to six weeks in spring and autumn. However, diapausing pupae take much longer to emerge.

13

It is stoutly built, large brown or yellowish brown moths.

About 20 mm long and with dark specks that make V shaped marks on forewings and conspicuous black spot in centre.
The hind wings are light and dull coloured with black border.
14

15

Larval periods 18-25 days

Eggs periods 4-6 days

Total Life cycle 44-60 and 46-62 days

Pupal period 14- 20 days

Adult periods 811 days and 10- 13 days

Anand, Gujarat

Bhatt and Patel (2001)

16

http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/fieldcrops/17696.html

17

Nature of Damage
18

Female lay eggs singly on tender leaves, flowers buds and immature young pods. The larvae initially feed on foliage, pods and may be destroy the young seedling completely in heavy infestation. Larger larvae bore into pods and consume the developing seeds inside the pod.
19

HOST PLANT
20

Gram Other crops

Pigeon pea

Maize

Cotton

Castor

Groundnut

Tomato

Cowpea

Okra

21

22

23

 Definition: The control of insects through the adoption of ordinary farm practices in an appropriate time in such way that the insect pests either eliminated or reduced in population. Cultural control includes: Summer ploughing Clean cultivation Sowing time Inter cropping Crop rotation
24

Table 2 : Incidence of H. armigera on chickpea sown in different sowing periods during 2008-09
Sowing periods Sr. No. SMW 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Mean 2 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 1 2 1st week of October WAS 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NLP 4 0.10 0.63 0.85 0.50 0.43 0.63 0.5 0.88 0.65 0.50 0.57 SMW 5 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 1 2 3 4
WAS- Week After Sowing

3rd week of October WAS 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NLP 7 0.32 0.52 0.50 0.75 0.67 0.62 0.75 0.50 0.62 0.37 0.25 0.54 SMW 8 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 1 2 3 4 5 6

1st week of November WAS 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NLP 10 0.37 0.35 0.40 0.87 0.75 0.80 0.67 0.82 0.75 0.62 0.32 0.61

SMW- Standard Meteorological Week

NLP- No. of Larvae Per plant

Anand

Baber (2010)

25

Observed that the percent pod damage in chickpea due to H. armigera was more in closer spacing of 20 x 5 cm in comparison to wider spacing of 40 x 20 cm.
Lal et al., (1980-82)

26

Table 3. Comparative performance of effective bird perches in chickpea ecosystem during 2006-07
Type of bird perch Sorghum Sunflower T - perch Sorghum + T-perch Sunflower + T-perch Sorghum + Sunflower Sorghum+Sunflower +T-Perch Profenophos 50EC (3 ml/l) UTC (No perch) C.D. at 5% S.Em. C.V. (%) Number of perches/ha 50 g 50 g 150 No. 50 g + 75 No. 50 g + 75 No. 50 g+ 50 g 50g+50g +50 No. Mean larval population/ m row 2.48 0.52 1.95 1.62 0.60 0.46 0.35 0.15 3.26 0.25 0.08 11.33 Yield (q/ha) 6.20 8.75 7.38 7.52 9.16 9.64 9.72 9.94 5.12 105.4 34.8 24.60

100 seed weight of sunflower = 5.20 g, For 625 seeds = 32 g = 50 g/ha; 100 seed weight of sunflower = 3.20 g, For 625 seeds = 20 g = 50 g/ha

Karnataka

27

Gopali et al. (2009)

Table4: Incidence of H. armigera and grain yield in different cultivars of chickpea Cultivar ICCV 10 PG 81-1-1 GG-1 JD 315 GG 2 Chaffa Larval population/5 plant up to harvest 4.22* (17.31) 5.04 (24.90) 4.64 (21.01) 4.60 (20.70) 4.34 (18.31) 3.85 (14.32) Per cent pod damage 23.28* (15.12) 25.83 (18.49) 23.66 (15.60) 22.99 (14.75) 21.53 (12.75) 18.49 (9.55) Mean grain yield (kg/ha) 836.77 940.15 863.73 1050.00 1014.57 772.00
cont
28

*transformed values. **Arc sin percentage + 0.5 transformed values. Figures in parenthesis are retransformed values.

Cultivar

Larval population/5 plant up to harvest 4.91 (23.61) 4.14 (16.64) 4.88 (23.31) 5.18 (26.33) 4.73 (21.97) 0.14 0.45 5.46

Per cent pod damage 23.08 (14.86) 21.40 (12.81) 24.84 (16.61) 24.67 (16.92) 23.68 (15.63) 0.51 1.50 3.82

Mean grain yield (kg/ha) 897.42

GNG 469 (c)

Dahod Yellow
BG 391 Phule G5 ICCC4 S.Em+ C.D. at 5% C.V. %

1090.00
1053.00 1016.67 1250.00 39.94 117.83 7.06

Junagadh

29

Bhatt and Patel (2001)

Table 5: Mean number of larvae per plant, per cent pod damage and grain yield of chickpea on different genotypes/ cultivars during rabi, 2008-09.
Genotypes/ cultivars GG-1 GG-2 Dahod yellow KAK-2 ICCV-4 Vijay HC-3 Virat Vishal SAKI-9516 Avrodhi BG-256 BG-372 Digvijay HC-1 S.Em. C.D. at 5% C. V.% Mean no. of H. armigera larvae/plant 1.8** (2.8) 2.0 (3.5) 1.7 (2.5) 2.0 (3.5) 1.8 (2.6) 1.3 (1.3) 2.0 (3.6) 2.0 (3.3) 1.8 (2.7) 1.3 (1.2) 1.4 (1.3) 1.7 (2.5) 1.3 (1.1) 1.6 (2.2) 1.3 (1.2) 0.10 0.30 8.35 Mean per cent damaged pods/plant 31.5* (27.3) 35.2 (33.2) 28.5 (22.8) 34.0 (31.3) 30.2 (25.3) 21.5 (13.5) 36.3 (35.1) 33.6 (30.7) 30.8 (26.2) 21.0 (12.8) 22.1 (14.2) 26.9 (20.5) 19.7 (11.4) 29.6 (24.5) 20.6 (12.4) 1.62 4.92 8.16 Yield(kg/ha)

880 587 1290 657 930 1195 560 675 915 1220 1187 1200 1375 980 1315 64.82 196.65 9.19

*Square root transformation. **Arcsine transformed values. Figures in parenthesis are retransformed value

Junagadh

30

Deshmukh (2010)

Table6 :Pooled data indicating screening of different chickpea genotypes against pod borers (winter 2003 and 2004) Sr. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Larval population/plant 1.55 1.81 2.62 2.74 2.38 Pod infestation (%) 13.24 14.41 21.35 20.96 19.89 Yield/plot (3m2) (gm) 32.87 330.0 250.8 243.3 264.2 203.3 214.2 297.5 180.0 137.5 17.37 Sarwar et al. (2011)

Genotypes CM-2100/96 CM-4068/97 CM-3021/97 CM-3000/97 CM-3837/97

Yield/ha (kg) 1222.3 1100.0 836.0 811.0 880.6 677.6 714.0 991.6 602.6 458.3

CM-4212/97
CM-1441/98 CM-1223/98 CM-1991/94

2.82
2.95 1.96 3.17

23.67
22.42 16.74 26.39

CM-1463/94
LSD value

3.43
0.353

32.87
1.409

Pakistan

31

Table 7: influence of intercropping on percent parasitiz ation by Campoletis chloridae, gram pod borer damage and chickpea equivalent yield
No. of larvae/mrl Rabi 2006-07 1 2 3 4 5 Chickpea sole Chickpea + Mustard (6:2) Chickpea + Linseed (6:2) Chickpea + Barley (4:2) Chickpea + Coriander (4:2) S.Em. + C. D. at 5% 12.3 (3.63) 7.1 (2.87) 8.0 (2.99) 10.1 (3.31) 7.6 (2.95) (0.13) (0.40) 44.0 (41.5) 27.3 (31.5) 30.0 (33.2) 39.3 (38.8) 33.3 (35.20 (4.9) (1.5) 694.0 857.1 796.0 719.3 796.0 68.9 20.8 Percent pod damage*

Sr. no

Treatment

Chickpea equivalent grain yield (kg/ha)

*fig in parentheses are arc sin transformed values, mrl- meter row length

Jammu, India

32

Reena et. al., (2009)

33

 Definition:
Mechanical control is one by which the insect population is directly hit (killed) by mechanical devices and manual operation.

Mechanical control includes:

Hand picking Removal and debris Light trap destruction of infected plant

34

Table8: Impact of mass trapping of H. armigera male moths on pod damage and grain yield
Treatments 20 traps /ha (8 traps /acre) 40 traps /ha (8 traps /acre) 60 traps /ha (8 traps /acre) Control (No-traps) S. Em.: C.D. at 5%: C. V. % Moth catches/traps 833 2120 3638 --Per cent pod damage Pooled 28.79b (23.19) 19.68c (11.34) 17.63c (9.17) 34.51a (32.10) 0.57 1.71 6.97 Grain yield (Kg/ha) Pooled 575.00b 775.00a 829.17a 561.50b 20.87 42.14 14.92

Notes: Figures inside the parentheses are retransformed values; those outside are arcsine transformed values; mans with letter(s) in common are not significant by DNMRT at 5% level of significance

Anand, Gujarat

35

Anon. (2008)

Table9: Number of moth catch at weekly interval in the pheromone traps during january 2006 to December 2006
Study period (week)
Jan 1st 2006 Jan 2nd 2006 Jan 3rd 2006 Jan 4th 2006 Feb 1st 2006 feb 2nd 2006 feb3rd 2006 feb4th 2006 Mar1st 2006 Mar 2nd 2006 Mar 3rd 2006 Mar 4th 2006 April 1st 2006 April 2nd 2006 April 3rd 2006 April 4th 2006 May 1st 2006 May 2nd 2006 May 3rd 2006 May 4th 2006 June 1st 2006 June 2nd 2006 June 3rd 2006 June 4th 2006 July 1st 2006 July 2nd 2006 July 3rd 2006 July 4th 2006

Average no. of moth catch in Trap 1 and 2 Trap 3 and 4

0 0 8 7 41 1 9 20 20 12 18 31 19 18 21 7 5 8 6 11 6 3 5 3 2 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 12 8 7 7 9 16 14 15 7 9 6 5 7 4 2 3 1 1 2 2 2

Weekly trapping moths/trap Nos. Mean + S.D

00 00 4 3.5 21 0.5 4.5 16 14 9.5 12.5 20 17.5 16 18 7 7 7 5.5 9 5 2.5 4 2 1.5 2 2.5 1.5 1.88+1.88

10.50+8.31

14.00 + 3.42

14.62 + 4.46

7.13 + 1.24

3.38 +1.19

1.88 + 0.41

Bangaladesh

36

Hossain et al. (2008)

Table 10: Monitoring of H. armigera population through pheromone traps

Month / Year std. week 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 52 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 pheromone trap catches 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.57 0.85 0.42 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.48 1.80 2.43 2.93 6.64 4.11 3.18 1.13 0.57

October

November

December

January

February

march

April

may

Jammu

Reena et al. (2009)

37

38

 Definition:Botanical pesticides are include all the types of product derived from plant /tree sources are potential for the control of insect pests.

39

Found that spraying of Neem (Aza. 3%) 0.006% reduced the oviposition of H. armigera during vegetative and pod formation stage. Visalakshami et al. (2005)

40

Table11: Effect of biorationals on mean population of larvae and percent pod damage of gram pod borer in chickpea
Treatment No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mean population of larvae/3 m row 1.8 (1.4) 1.2 (1.3) 1.5 (1.4) 1.3 (1.3) 1.8 (1.5) 1.6 (1.4) 1.1 (1.2) 4.1 (2.1) (0.07) (0.20) Pod damage in (%) 7.9 (16.2) 6.9 (14.9) 9.7 (17.3) 11.7 (19.6) 10.5 (18.6) 7.2 (15.4) 7.0 (15.1) 21.9 (28.3) (1.10) (3.18)

Treatment CBM-4% CBM-8% NLE (in CBM)-4% NSKE (in CBM)-4% G + RPE (1:1)-0.5% G + RE (1:1)- 1% BT (Halt)-0.2% Untreated SEm + LSD (p=0.05)

Yield (kg/ha) 2530 2553 2349 2494 2535 2597 2513 1854 98 277

Fig. in parentheses denote transformed values x + 0.5 CBM= cow butter milk, NLE= Neem leaf extract, G= Garlic, REP = red pepper extract, Bt = Bacillus thringiensis

Tikamgarh, Madhya Pradesh

Gupta (2007)

41

Table12:Bioefficay of biopesticides on the pod damage and yield of chickpea

Larval population of H.armigera /plant Treat 2007-08 0.27 (0.85)* 0.42 (0.92) 0.37 (0.90) 0.57 (0.99) 0.01 2008-09 0.47 (0.94) 0.65 (1.03) 0.53 (0.98) 1.07 (1.22) 0.02 Mean 0.37 (0.89) 0.54 (0.98) 0.45 (0.94) 0.82 (1.11) 0.02 2007-08 10.6 (18.93)** 11.2 (19.49) 10.7 (19.0) 16.8 (24.18) 0.36 2008-09 10.9 (18.98) 13.3 (20.99) 12.1 (20.0) 18.1 (24.92) 1.29 Mean 10.8 (18.95) 12.3 (20.24) 11.4 (19.5) 17.5 (24.55) 0.83 Pod damage (%) 200708 15.4 Yield (q/ha) 200809 16.4

Mean

T1 NSKE T2 Neem oil

15.9

14.7

14.2

14.5

T3 : Bt

15.1

13.0

14.0

T4 : Contol C.D. (P=0.05)

11.4

11.9

11.7

0.7

0.79

0.75

* Figures in parentheses are transformed values. ** Figures in parentheses are arc sine transformed values of percentage

Jharkhand

42

Bhuhan et al, (2011)

TABLE 13. Percent reduction of H. armigera population due to application of indigenous

% Reduction of larval population 37.98 56.11 46.85 44.00 45.22 39.86 44.54 29.87 40.33 37.99 49.93 44.48 24.06 65.20 Pod Yield (q/ha) damage (%) 22.25bc 18.73bcd 20.83bcd 21.45bcd 26.42bc 22.35bc 20.15bcd 25.48ab 21.35bcd 26.82ab 19.06bcd 21.18bcd 28.64ab 16.32d 36.11a 7.78cd 9.42ab 8.45bc 8.06bcd 7.83cd 7.15cd 8.13bcd 7.51cd 8.11bcd 7.87cd 8.62bc 8.16bcd 6.82de 10.36a 5.53e

Treatments Vitex (20%) + Aloe (2%) Pongamia extract (10%)+Neem seed Kernel Extract(NSKE) (10%)+ Aloe(5%)+cow urine (30%) Vitex leaf extract (20%)+Clerodendron extract (4%) + cow urine (17%) Neem oil(1%)+ Garlic extract (5%) NSKE (8%)+ cow urine (17%) Garlic bulb extract (10%) + cow urine (17%) Garlic Chilli Kerosene(GCK extract) (1%)+ cow urine (17%) Vitex leaf extract (10%)+Lime (2%)+cow urine (17%) Tobacco leaf extract(10%)+ Lime (2%)+cow urine (17%) Cotton seed oil (1%)+cow urine (17%) Garlic chilli aqueous extract (GCA) (2%)+GCK (0.5%) NSKE (2.5%)+ GCK (0.5%) Cow urine (fermented) (17%) Quinalphos 25 EC(0.05%) Untreated control

Means followed by same letter in the column do not differ significantly by DMRT (p=0.05) DBS=Day before spray DAS= Days after spray

Dharwad , Karnataka

Ladji et al, (2011)

43

44

Definition: The utilization of pathogen or micro-organisms for the management of pest populations. Micro-organisms (pathogens) can be formulated for use

as a pesticide for the control of pests.

In

recent

years
weapon

microbial
in the the

control
pest artificial

has
control.

become
It

a
has of

significant predominantly

involved

manipulation

pathogens
protozoans

viz.,

fungi,
as

bacteria,
a spray

viruses,
or dust

nematodes
to suppress

and
or

formulated

threaten outbreaks of pest.

45

Table 14. Efficacy of microbial biopesticides against Helicoverpa armigera on chickpea at Anand, Gujarat, India during 1998-2001
Number of larvae on five plants Treatment2 24 h BT3 2.76 a (7.62) 2.63 bc (6.92) 2.53 cd (6.40) 2.41 d (5.81) 2.50 cd (6.25) 2.57 bcd (6.60) 1 day AT4 2.06 b (4.24) 2.28 b (5.19) 1.93 b (3.72) 2.02 b (4.08) 1.82 b (3.31) 1.77 b (3.13) 3 days AT 1.52 d (2.31) 2.22 b (4.93) 1.69 cd (2.86) 1.93 bc (3.72) 1.73 cd (2.99) 1.67 cd (2.78) 5 days AT 1.39 c (193) 1.76 b (3.10) 1.71 bc (2.92) 1.73 bc (2.99) 1.53 bc (2.34) 1.57 bc (2.47) 7 days AT 1.25 cd (156) 1.54 bc (2.37) 1.65 b (2.72) 1.69 b (2.85) 1.53 bc (2.34) 1.03 d (1.06) 11 days AT 1.43 b (2.04) 1.58 b (2.50) 1.67 b (2.78) 1.67 b (2.79) 1.65 b (2.72) 1.29 b (1.66) 14 days AT 1.57 b (2.47) 1.43 b (2.05) 1.56 b (2.43) 1.51 b (2.28) 1.57 b (2.47) 1.63 b (2.66) Yield (kg ha-1) Increase (%) in yield over control 61.48 21.04 42.96 28.30 41.48 90.37 -

Delfin Basina HaNPV EPN Achook Endosulfan Control SEm CV (%)

1513.89 b 1134.72 bc 1340.28 b 1202.78 bc 1326.39 b 1784.72 a 937.50 c 116.02 13.22

2.73 b (7.45)
0.05 5.81

2.50 a (6.25)
0.22 7.56

2.45 a (6.00)
0.12 10.50

2.17 a (4.71)
0.11 9.06

2.06 a (4.24)
0.10 18.27

2.17 a (4.71)
0.23 16.82

1.95 a (3.80)
0.19 13.31

1. Means followed by same letters do not differ significantly at P = 0.05. Figures in parentheses are retransformed values. 2. HaNPV = Helicoverpa armigera nuclear polyhedrosis virus; EPN = Entomopathogenic nematode (Steinernema sp). 3. BT = Before treatment. 4. AT = After treatment.

AAU, Anand

46

Yadhav et al., (2004)

Table15. Efficacy of Entomopathogenic fungi against H. armigera in chickpea

Reduction of H. armigera larvae (%) 3 DAS 11.90 c 19.05 d 26.26 b 13.89 c 23.89 b 24.72 b 61.41 a 2.38 d 18.53 7 DAS 33.33 e 42.50 d 59.92 b 30.72 e 40. 56d 52.64 c 71.04 a 3.67 f 17.43 15 DAS 47.62 d 59.22 c 62.70 bc 49.68 d 59.44 c 67.36 ab 68.65 a 3.92 e 11.04

Sr. No

Treatments

Initial population/ plant 1.40 a 1.40 a 1.33 a 1.40 a 1.30 a 1.43 a 1.40 a 1.50 a -

Yield parameters
Pod damage Grain yield (%) (q/ha) 19.30 b 17.42 cd 14.32 e 18.42 bc 17.24 d 12.94 f 11.48 g 29.32 a 12.34 7.33 d 10.00 c 11.15 b 7.83 d 10.06 bc 11.50 b 13.50 a 3.16 e 14.56

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

B. bassiana 0.5 g/l B. bassiana 1.0 g/l B. bassiana 1.5 g/l N. rileyi 0.5 g/l N. rileyi 1.0 g/l N. rileyi 1.5 g/l Monocrotophos 1 ml/l Untreated check C. V. (%)

DAS Days after spraying Means followed by the same alphabet do not differ significantly by DMRT (P=0.05) The original values were transformed to arc sine before analysis

Dharwad Karnataka

47

Kulkarni et al. (2005)

Table 16. Field efficacy of HaNPV isolates against H. armigera on chickpea

Number of larvae per 10 plant Treatment* pre-treatment control (%) pooled mean**

Pod damage (%) (pooled mean)** 9.72 ab

9.26 a 11.11 c

co Reduction over unt 980.00a

983.67a 886.67b

CBE I
NEG BAN I

9.33
10.33 9.67

5.17*
5.50*ab 6.50cd

HYD
MAH I RHI RAJ Endosulfan 35 EC (700g/ha) Untreated contorl

10.00
9.67 10.33 9.67 9.00 10.33

6.33 bcd
7.11 de 7.56 e 9.33 f 6.00 abc 13.56 g

10.80 bc
12.48 d 13.22 d 17.98 e 10.48 bc 21.37 f

871.67b
805.00c 783.33c 718.33d 973.33a 693.33d

*NPV was applied @ 1.5 1012 POB/ha in teepol 0.1%; crude sugar @ 2.5 kg/ha was used as adjuvant **Pooled mean after six rounds of spray In a column means followed by similar letters are not statistically different by DMRT (P < 0.05). ANOVA statistics number of larvae F = 46.25, df = 40, P < 0.001; pod damage F = 89.30, df = 24, P < 0.001

Coimbatore, Tamilnadu

48

Jeyarani et al. (2010)

 Definition:Biological control is defined as the study and utilization of parasite, predator and pathogen for regulation of host population density. Biological control includes: Parasites Predators Pathogens Bacteria Fungi Viruses
50

Studied that the birds like myna, sparrow, baya, babbler, black drongo, cattle egret etc feed on H. armigera larvae and cause significant reduction in pod damage which result in tremendous increases in the yield of chickpea.

51

Table 17 : Bird predators of Helicoverpa armigera Hub. in chickpea in Panchmahal district of Gujarat.
Sr. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Species Cattle Egret Indian Myna Bank Myna House Sparrow Black Drongo Indian Roller Rufousback Shrike Grey Shrike Grey Wagtail Large Grey Babbler Mean No. 3.4 10.6 6.2 4.0 7.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.6 1.2 Relative Abundance 9.4 29.4 17.2 11.9 20.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 7.2 3.3

GAU, Anand 52

Anonymous (2002)

reported the feeding of larval parasitoides Campoletis chlorlidae on H. armigera in chickpea. Uttar Pradesh Agrawal et al, (2010)

53

CHEMICAL CONTROL

Table18: Bio efficacy of different insecticides on pod damage and grain yield
Sr. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Treatment Novaluron 10% EC (Rimon) Novaluron 10% EC (Rimon) Novaluron 10% EC (Rimon) E.B. (Proclaim)5% SG E.B. (Proclaim)5% SG E.B. (Proclaim)5% SG Spinosad 45% SC (Tracer) Profenophos 50% EC (Karina) Endosulfan 35% EC (Thiodan) Methomyl 40% SP (Lannate) Indoxacarb 14.5% SC (Avaunt) Control SEm CD at 5% C.V.%
Data in parentheses are Arcsine P transformation values.

Dosages g a.i./ha 50 75 100 8 9 11 60 750 350 250 72.5

Mean pod damage 7.37 (15.75) 7.16 (15.52) 4.83 (12.69) 8.11 (16.54) 7.97 (16.40) 5.13 (13.09) 6.83 (15.15) 7.72 (16.13) 8.54 (17.00) 8.62 (17.07) 7.23 (15.59) 14.68 (22.53) (1.00) (2.80) 12.3

Mean grain yield (kg/ha) 2115 2158 2322 1968 1979 2291 2264 2155 2097 2232 2284 1776 153 440 14.3

% increase over control 19.08 21.50 30.00 10.80 11.43 28.99 27.47 23.02 18.07 25.57 28.60 -

Junagadh

55

Raghvani and Poshiya (2006)

Table19: comparative efficacy of new molecules on pod damage and grain yield of chickpea
Treatment Emamectin benzoate (Proclaim 5 SG) Emamectin benzoate (Proclaim 5 SG) Emamectin benzoate (Proclaim 5 SG) Emamectin benzoate (Proclaim 5 SG) Novaluron (Rimon 10 EC) Novaluron (Rimon 10 EC) Novaluron (Rimon 10 EC) Spinosad (Tracer 45 SC) Profenofos 50 EC Endosulfan 35 EC Control SEm + CD at 5% Figures in parentheses are transformed values. 0.63 1.87 20.4 60.3 Dosage g.a.i./ha 8 9 10 11 50 75 100 60 750 350 Pod damage (%) 3.7 (11.1) 3.0 (10.1) 2.2 (8.5) 2.8 (9.5) 2.1 (6.3) 1.0 (5.7) 6.0 (14.2) 6.3 (14.5) Grain Yield (kg/ha) 1360 1372 1401 1384 1424 1480 1264 1260

Sriganganagar, Rajasthan

56

Singh and Verma (2006)

Treatments Emamectin 5 WG @ 0.0025% Thiodicarb 75 WP @ 0.075% Indoxacarb 14.5 SC @ 0.015% Spinosad 45 SC @ 0.025% Novaluron 10 EC @ 0.01% Lufenuron 5 EC @ 0.005% Flubendiamide 480 SC @ 0.01% Rynaxypyr 20 SC @ 0.006% Endosulfan 35 EC @ 0.07% Control (water spray) S. Em. C.D. at 5% C.V. %

No. of larva(e)/plot (pooled over period and sprays) 0.84b (0.20) 0.89c (0.29) 0.84b (0.20) 0.85b (0.22) 0.92c (0.34) 0.92c (0.34) 0.76a (0.07) 0.82ab (0.17) 1.11d (0.73) 1.69e (2.35) 0.02 0.08 10.60
57

Seed yield (kg/ha) 1086.87 811.10 988.87 1011.10 933.32 951.10 1111.10 1088.87 700.32 577.77 86.05 180.78 11.34

NICBR 1:2.62 1:1.79 1:2.03 1:0.48 1:1.76 1:3.07 1:3.19 1:3.14 1:2.32 -

Figure in parentheses are retransformed values; those outside are x 0.5 transformed values

Anand, Gujarat

Baber (2011)

IPM I = T- shaped perches + Gronim +Endosulfan IPM II = T- shaped perches + Gronim + HaNPV IPM III = T- shaped perches + Bt.k + Endosulfan IPM IV = Modules No.1 + HaNPV + Endosulfan RS = Fenvalerate + Endosulfan

Anand

Anon., (2005)

59

Table21: Effectiveness of different IPM modules based on eggs, and larval population, percent pod damage, and yield of chickpea
No. of Eggs/plant Treatment Initial 1.02 (0.55) 1.03 (0.57) After spray(s)* 0.96 (0.45) 1.06 (0.64) No. of Larva/plant Initial 0.99 (0.50) 1.05 (0.61) After spray(s)* 0.98 (0.60) 1.11 (0.74) Percent pod damage Green stage 13.66 (6.30) 22.52 (14.85) Harvest stage 17.81 (9.65) 25.03 (18.15) Yield (kg/ha)

Module-1 (M1) Module-2 (M2)

1812 1451

Module- 3 (M3)

1.04 (0.58)
1.00 (0.52) 1.03 (0.57) 1.01 (0.52) 0.02 NS 6.9

1.00 (0.52)
1.06 (0.66) 1.02 (0.58) 1.34 (1.32) 0.02 0.04 13.0

1.05 (0.62)
1.03 (0.57) 1.04 (0.59) 1.02 (0.55) 0.02 NS 10.37

1.10 (0.94)
1.05 (0.75) 1.04 (0.68) 1.37 (0.95) 0.02 0.07 11.80

21.34 (13.50)
16.44 (8.30) 12.66 (5.40) 27.26 (21.10) 0.92 2.59 20.59

23.46 (16.00)
19.44 (11.30) 16.53 (8.35) 29.90 (25.00) 0.76 2.13 15.14

1532

Module- 4 (M4) Recommended schedule (RS) Control SEm + C. D. at 5% C. V. %

1685

2065

1058 50.00 139.10 12.70

* Pooled over five periodical observations ______ Figures in parentheses are original values, those outside are V X+0.5 transformed values

Anand , Gujarat

60

Anon (2005)

Reported that application of neem effectively reduced the oviposition of H. armigera throughout the crop period. Among various IPM components viz., neem 0.06%, HaNPV 250 L/ha, bird perches one/plot, endosulfan 0.07%; neem and HaNPV found as effective as endosulfan in the terms of reduction of larval population and pod damage. Visalakshimi et al. (2005)

61

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T 10 T 11

= = = = = = = = = = =

Trichogramma chilonis Bt Steward weeding hand picking weeding + Bt hand picking + Bt weeding + steward hand picking + steward weeding + hand picking weeding + hand picking + Bt
weeding + hand picking + steward Control
62

T 12 = T 13 =
Rawalpindi, Pakistan

Waqas et al., (2009)

Fig1: Larval population/plant of H. armigera in chickpea

larval
3.5

2.5

2 larval 1.5

0.5

0 t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6 t7 t8 t9 t10 t11 t12 t13

Rawalpindi, Pakistan

Waqas et al., (2009)

63

Fig2:Grain yield (gm/plot) of chickpea

3000 2500

2000

1500 Series 1 1000

500

0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13

Rawalpindi, Pakistan 64

Waqas et al., (2009)

Table 22: Efficacy of different treatments against pod borer

Treatment Avg. No. larvae/plant Before spraying 7.2 7.5 7.4 Percentage of reduction over control 1 DAT 16.1(30.6) 14.0(25.9) 19.1(33.2) 3 DAT 46.0(51.0) 39.4(39.1) 39.9(52.3) 5 DAT 69.0(65.5) 73.9(56.4) 69.5(67.8) Over allmean 43.7 (48.6) 42.4 (40.8) 42.8 (50.4)

NSKE (5%) HaNPV ( 250LE/ha) Endosulfan (0.07%)

NSKE (2.5%) + HaNPV (250LE/ha)

NSKE (2.5%) + Endosulfan (0.035%) HaNPV (250LE) + Endosulfan (0.035%) NSKE (1.66%) + HaNPV (250LE)+ Endosulfan (0.023%) Control F. test SEm + C. D. at 5%

6.8
7.0 8.0 6.9 11.5

24.0(28.9)
26.0(23.6) 23.4(21.9) 30.0(29.3) 0.0(1.2) S 3.6 0.89

58.4(44.5)
60.4(42.7) 49.2(38.8) 62.6(49.8) 0.0(1.2) S 6.2 1.16

77.7(60.1
82.9(56.1) 75.2(59.2) 85.7(61.8) 0.0(1.2) S 4.5 0.99

53.3 (44.5)
56.4 (41.3) 49.2 (40.6) 59.4 (46.8) 0.0 (1.2)

Figures in the parenthesis are the angular transformed (Arc- sine) values DAT- Days After treatment

Allahabad

65

Reddy et al. (2010)

The Gram pod borer (H. armigera (Hubner) Hardwick) is a polyphagous species with a wide range of host plants. Effective control is not possible without the knowledge of this pests biology, Life cycle and preference to food. Integrated pest control measures including cultural practices (Date of sowing, intercropping), use of resistant varieties (chaffa, BG372, CM-2100/96), Mechanical control (use of pheromone trap), Botanical control (Neem, Indigenous plant products), Microbial control (Bt., HaNPV), Biological control (Birds, C. chloride) and valid use of chemical insecticides (Navaluron, Spinosad, flubendiamide, Emamectin benzoate) are effective in increasing the production of Gram and reducing the pest infestation.

66

Future thrust
New biotechnology tools are providing new levels of protection against certain pests and diseases. Such biotechnology is offering unique opportunities to produce plants with desired resistance traits, which had been difficult to achieve using conventional techniques.

Screening of germplasm collection and their wild relatives to identify lines with stable and diverse mechanisms of resistance.

An understanding of the mechanisms that determine H. armigera movement/adaptation to different crop hosts and genotypes, and an understanding of the mechanisms and inheritance of resistance.

Gene pyramiding to increase the levels and diversify the bases of resistance to Helicoverpa in different crops.

Identification of molecular markers and quantitative trait loci (QTL) in different crops, to gain an understanding of the number of genes and nature of gene action for resistance to Helicoverpa.

67

Thank you