Use of spurious pesticides on cotton crop rampant

In Pakistan the pesticide business has an annual turnover of round Rs 12 billions to Rs 14 billions and all the insecticides are being imported since the nation has but to growth on this necessary field. Out of the total import, about 80 consistent with cent of insecticides are used on cotton which is Pakistan’s most dear cash crop and also the main foreign currency echange earner for the rustic.

Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance

In 1971, an ordinance called Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance was promulgated by the government to control the import, manufacture, formulation, sale, distribution and use of insecticides in agriculture. The Rules thereunder were framed and notified in 1973. The main goals of the Ordinance and Rules are:

  • Control the import, manufacture, formula, sale and distribution of pesticides.
  • Verify good packing and correct labelling of packing containers;
  • Verify safe dealing with and garage and
  • Verify high quality keep watch over of pesticides.

Agricultural Pesticides Technical Advisory Committee (APTAC)

Under the ordinance the government has constituted an Agricultural Pesticides Technical Advisory Committee (APTAC) composed of 18 participants. The committee is answerable for advising the federal government on legal, administrative and technical implications of Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance / Rules, registration of pesticides and drawing up of specification of pesticides.

Packing and Lable requirements

So far packing and lable requirements are concerned the lable signifies identify of the product, active ingredient, identify and cope with of registrant, web content material, retail worth, registration bumber, date of check, batch number, date of expiry anti dote, warning and so on. So far because the enforcement of the mentioned ordinance is anxious, at the federal degree the dept of plant coverage, and at the provincial levels departments of agriculture extension in every provinces is responsible.

In the province of Sindh the enforcement of the said ordinance within the field is performed solely by way of the inspectors designate who are district officers, agriculture, Deputy District deputy district officer agriculture and agriculture officials at Taluka degree. No doubt, these district officers are under the executive district officials (EDO), agriculture however having no power of an inspector the EDO looks useless in respect of enforcement of the Pesticide Ordinance 1971.

Substandard Insecticides Samples

In the higher Sindh area to stay checks on the sale of spurious or substandard insecticides samples of insecticides are accrued by means of the pesticide inspector designate and despatched to Sukkur the place an authorised officer despatched it onward to A pesticide laboratory at Rohri after vital coding, which is meant to be secret. Testing results of each and every pesticide is then sent to the chief chemist at Hyderabad where the result’s compiled and sent either to The involved DDO’s or the dealers directly (as informed) from the DG workplace. Apparently the device look excellent and transparent however in actual sense it is not so.

Lab Assessments Of Pesticide Samples

Allegations abound that pesticide samples taken for lab assessments are replaced or desired result of tests are at various levels – involved in consideration. During the present cotton season I had an opprotynity to seek advice from cotton fields in Kingri taluka in Khairpur district where haris confirmed me empty bottles of pesticides they had used i Used To Be surprised to look that all of the insecticides have been faux.They have been: Danital 10 EC, Permasact 25EC. Mecon Top 20 EC, and Pepto Kill 10 EC.

Danital 30 EC

Here it could be correct to say that Danital sold out there beneath this logo name is “Danital 30 EC” of which importer is M/s Arrysta Agro Pakistan (Private) Ltd. Its litre pack MRP: Price is Rs 930.00 and in keeping with acre dose for noticed bollworm is 250 ml. On the opposite fake logo of Danital is of 10 EC and MRP Rs 1200.00 and recommended dose is only 300-350 ml in keeping with acre. Here it will be relevant to say that with 10 EC active ingredient exact dose will have to were 750 ml per acre and MRP Rs 400 in keeping with litre.

Mecontop and Hepto

The irony is that because of corruption, which is rampant , within the enforcement of Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance now not only the poor innocent growers is struggling but the very agriculture sector of Sindh province is the sufferer. So some distance different fake logo of pesticides viz: Permasact (which precise used to be Permasect of R B Awari Pesticide company), Mecontop and Hepto Kill are concerned its laboratory, as imprinted on the lable, are M/s Pak China Chemicals Lahore and Distributor M/s Rehbar Agro Chemicals (No address) as might be noticed in the photograph. Besides labels on those merchandise shows many errors, such as no registration number, improper active ingredient, mistakes of spelling of many words, and so on.

Growers Of Sindh towards pesticide purchase and application strategy

However, when the very landlord of Pirjogoth used to be apprised of the entire pretend insecticides provided by means of his relied on local pesticide broker it was once discovered difficult to just accept via him. However, once I asked him in nationwide passion to lend a hand me in apprehending the very unscrupulous pesticide dealer he declined pronouncing that the very pesticide broker use to provide him complete inputs for his land. What a pityAction in opposition to the dealer approach discontinuation of future assist (credit score on top interest) which is vital for the survival for majority of the growers of Sindh regardless of small or large.

Out of curiosity to grasp whether or not samples of those pretend manufacturers of pesticides had been drawn via the insecticides inspector of the agriculture extension when I visited the place of work of the agriculture, Khairpur, it was once observed that majority of the samples drawn all over the month of July, August and September 2004 cotton season were of firm or reputed corporations or vendors which used to be reflective of the information got from the pesticide dealers and my very own observations.

Suggestions:

  1. Since the present system of enforcement of the pesticide ordinance is corruption ridden a revolutionary alternate through native our bodies gadget is unavoidable.
  2. Powers of Executive District Officer Agriculture will have to be enhanced in order that unbridal pesticide inspectors could be brought under the regulate of the district management (District Nazim).
  3. Among the regulatory tasks since enforcement of Agricultural Pesticide Ordinance 1971 could also be the duty of Federal Plant Protection Department, in stead of acting as a silent spectator, the DPP also will have to come forward in the field the usage of services of its Regional Entomologists based totally at Khairpur in Sindh, Multan and Lahore in Punjab, Quetta in Balochistan and Peshawar in NWFP, solely for strict watch on labels requirements.
  4. Pesticide containers must contain importers guarantee against the pesticides bought in the market via dealers.

Crop-damaging armyworms raise alarm in Asia: FAO

Crop-damaging insects these days sweeping throughout Asia are alarming smallholder farmers as the threaten their livelihoods, the UN food company reported.
At the similar time, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) stated the wear and tear can also be restricted.

Fall Armyworms” (FAW) are native to the America but they have been moving eastwards since 2016, sweeping throughout Africa, the place they led to US$1 billion to US$3 billion in damage, earlier than arriving in Asia.

We need to work together because this is a pest that has no respect for international boundaries, threatens our food security, our economies, domestic and international trade

Kundhavi Kadiresan

The flying bugs arrived in India in July and have since spread to Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Thailand and China’s Yunnan province, FAO stated.

They feed mostly on maize, for which China is the arena’s second-largest producer, and will feed on several species of vegetation, including rice and sugar cane – two of Thailand’s main commodities.
a 3-day FAO assembly is being held in Bangkok, with officers from affected nations and mavens discussing ways to limit Fall Armyworm infestations amid a “growing sense of alarm”.

“We need to work together because this is a pest that has no respect for international boundaries, threatens our food security, our economies, domestic and international trade,” Kundhavi Kadiresan, the FAO’s assistant director-general and regional consultant for Asia and the Pacific, mentioned in a observation.

“When fall armyworm made landfall in India, its arrival did not come as a complete surprise, we were not caught unaware. And that’s a good start – indeed it was a good head start,” Kadiresan said.

The Plant Protection Commission for Asia and the Pacific started raising consciousness concerning the risk early final yr, sharing key knowledge on the pest, its unfold against Asia, and the best way to manage it sustainably in case of infestation.
Once an infestation is confirmed, governments are beginning efforts to proceed to boost consciousness and monitor the presence and unfold of FAW on maize and different vegetation.

    FAO has been working with the related authorities to initiate awareness programmes that inform and train farmers on built-in pest management techniques. These include identifying herbal enemies of the Fall Armyworm, bettering herbal biological controls and mechanical controls, such as crushing egg lots and employing using biopesticides.

    The use of chemical insecticides needs to be very moderately thought to be, given that FAW larvae disguise largely within the ring of leaves (whorl), and that chemical pesticides may have unwanted effects on the setting and public well being, FAO stated.

    This is taken into consideration at the coverage and box degree. With these measures put in position, the uncomfortable side effects of infestations may also be sustainably controlled and can assist to care for populations low sufficient to limit economic and livelihood harm.

    Use of Mineral for Pest Management in Organic Gardening

    Mineral

    Insecticides developed from elemental (mineral) sources mined from the  earth are classified as natural products and often cost  less than other processed or harvested insecticides. The toxicity of mineral-based insecticides depends on  the  chemical properties of the  mined ele- ments. Some  mineral insecticides such as sulfur are regis- tered for organic use and have relatively low toxic effects on  people and nontarget organisms. In contrast, lead arsenate is a natural mineral product that was cancelled as a pesticide in 1988  due  to its toxicity and persistence in the  environment.

    Diatomaceous Earth

    Diatomaceous earth is a fine particle  dust comprised of fossilized diatoms that is effective against slugs and soil-dwelling insects. Diatoms are small, usually single-celled phytoplankton commonly found in aquatic or moist environments. Diatoms are encased in- side a cell wall made of silica,  the  same  compound used  to make glass. Diatomaceous earth works  as a fine abrasive that disrupts the  exoskeleton cuticle of a slug or insect and causes  it to desiccate (dry out).

    Insecticides developed from elemental (mineral) sources mined from the  earth are classified as natural products and often cost  less than other processed or harvested insecticides.

    Use diatomaceous earth only in landscape areas  that do not contain edible plants (e.g., ornamental gardens) ;To create an effective barrier for slugs,  apply diatomaceous earth in a 3-inch wide,1-inch thick band around the  habitats that slugs use. Repeat applications after  periods of rain. Note, however, that diatomaceous earth can  also be toxic to beneficial insects such as predatory ground beetles and is highly toxic to bees if applied to blooms.

    Elemental Sulfur

    Elemental sulfur is a finely ground powder that can  be applied either as a dust or a spray. This mineral is one  of the  oldest pesticides known, and reported pest  resistance is rare.  Sulfur  acts as a metabolic disruptor (interferes with a chemical reaction, digestion, or the  transport of substances into or between cells) to in- sects such as aphids, thrips, and spider mites. Most  sulfur formulations have low toxicity to people but  can  be an eye and skin  irritant. Sulfur  is highly toxic to fish, so it is important to keep  it away  from water (ExToxNet n.d.).

    Do not use sulfur on  a crop  just  before harvest if you plan to preserve it; sulfur can  produce off-flavors in canned products, and sulfur dioxide can  form, which may  cause  containers to explode. In addition, sulfur is phytotoxic to most crops if applied two  weeks  before or after  the  application of a horticultural oil.

    Iron Phosphate

    Iron phosphate is very effective at managing slugs and snails when combined with bait. Baited  iron phosphate usually comes in pellet form. Scatter the  product around the  crop  in need of protection and areas  where slugs seek refuge, such as garden bed  borders and rocks.  Liquid formulations are also available. Follow  label  suggestions for subsequent applications.

    Insecticidal soaps  are very effec- tive  for managing soft-bodied insects like aphids, scales, whitefly, mealybugs, thrips, and spider mites.

    Slugs that feed on  iron phosphate will stop  eating, usu- ally seek a hiding place, and then die of starvation. Iron phosphate is considered relatively nontoxic and does not affect  insects, birds, or mammals when applied in the recommended amount. Avoid  over-application, as there is some evidence that iron phosphate baits  can negatively affect  earthworms (Edwards et al. 2009). Because  iron phosphate is nontoxic only in the  labeled ap- plication amounts, be sure  to store  it in a safe place  away from pets  and children. Most  brands of iron phosphate are approved for organic production by the  National Organic Program.

    Kaolin

    Kaolin is a fine  clay that is sprayed on  plant foliage or fruit  to deter feeding and egg laying of insect pests  such as apple maggot, codling moth, and leafhop- pers.  It can  also have some repellant properties that cause  irritation to insects upon contact (Stanley 1998).

    The effectiveness only lasts as long as the  clay film cov- ers the  fruit  or foliage to mask  its chemical, visual, and tactile cues.  Reapplication is necessary if rain  washes the  product off. Kaolin’s  toxicity to pests  is additionally dependent on  the  insect being on  the  fruit  or foliage during the  entire time of pest  susceptibility. You will need to monitor insect activity to be sure  that plants are protected during the  required times. Kaolin is an  organi- cally-approved material.

    Soap

    Natural soaps  are derived from plants (coconut, olive, palm, cotton) or animal fat (whale oil, fish oil, or lard) and have been used  since  the  1700s to control certain soft-bodied insects such as aphids (Olkowski et al. 1993). Soaps  are fatty acids  that can  degrade or dissolve the protective layers  of the  insect cuticle, causing the  insect to desiccate. Insecticidal soaps  are considered nontoxic to humans and many beneficial insects, but  selectively kill certain pest  insects. Some  soaps  are approved for use in organic agriculture.

    Insecticidal Soaps

    Insecticidal soaps  are very effec- tive  for managing soft-bodied insects like aphids, scales, whitefly, mealybugs, thrips, and spider mites. The soap must contact the  insect’s outer skeleton to be effective. Leaf-feeding insects are often found on  the  undersides of leaves, so be sure  to fully  cover  plant foliage. Results from the  application of soap  are usually seen  in 1–3 days. Multiple applications are often needed to be effective. Insecticidal soaps  are usually diluted with water before applying.

      Do not use household soaps  as insecticides. Household soaps  vary  tremendously in composition, purity, and effectiveness, and thus have the  potential to harm crops.

      For example, household soaps  can  be phytotoxic to some plants, resulting in leaf burn. Only use soaps  that are specifically registered and sold  for use as insecticides. Be sure  to read  the product label  for known phytotoxic effects  and always test  the  product on  a small portion of the  plant to see if leaf burn occurs. Leaf burn symptoms usually develop within two  days.

      EU Just Banned this Popular Fungicide Over Safety Concerns

      The EU has banned the United Kingdom’s most-used fungicide after mavens had been not able to rule out the likelihood that it would harm animal lifestyles.The fungicide, known as chlorothalonil, prevents mildew and mold on crops comparable to wheat, barley, tomatoes and potatoes. Like many other pesticides, reassuring safety checks at small scale have wrongly been assumed to hold true at better scale.

      [woo_product_slider id=”64262″]

      The EU is now combing through the information on insecticides to see what affects, if any, they find when farms use insecticides at the massive scale we see as of late in factory farming.

      In one such fresh evaluation, mavens on the European Food Safety Authority (Efsa) dug into the research surrounding what results chlorothalonil has on animal existence. It discovered that for higher mammals the risk was low, however for small mammals (like mice) who would possibly feed on tomatoes the chance was upper—regardless that nonetheless underneath the so-called “trigger” for additional motion. The document identified a data gap in this, then again, that it says needs to be stuffed.

      More regarding used to be the information on chlorothalonil’s results on aquatic life. The review found that “a high risk to aquatic organisms (with the exception of aquatic plants for all uses) was concluded for all the representative uses and for most of the FOCUS scenarios at Step 3 level” for use of chlorothalonil and the chemicals it breaks down into.

      Further refinements of the data concluded that the chance to fish was if truth be told low. However, amphibians have been discovered to be much more delicate to exposure than fish, and the acute possibility remained high. The file identifies a data hole here, as smartly. They aren’t sure exactly how prime the danger is to amphibians, best that further research research have not ruled it out in some instances, as an example where the fungicide is used on cereal and tomato crops.

      The record further found that chance tests for the have an effect on on bees—a particular species of outrage on account of bee declines related partly to our use of neonicotinoids—confirmed broadly that there was low possibility but that there were gaps in the knowledge, reminiscent of honey bee exposure through ground water.

      Perhaps more regarding, the file found that there was once no data for the cumulative risk—multi-generation publicity over years—to wild bees. Scientists prior to now connected chlorothalonil exposure to bumble bee declines, so this knowledge gap within the protection profile of chlorothalonil is still a purple flag.

      The Efsa concluded that it was once not able to rule out that the breakdown of this fungicide in our surroundings will not purpose harm to the DNA of small animals, in particular amphibians and some insects. That doesn’t mean that the Efsa has discovered an instantaneous link between things like, declining bee numbers and this fungicide. Rather, it’s announcing that it may well’t rule out the chance that this fungicide is harmful when used on the scale we now see in places like the United Kingdom, Europe and america.

      As a outcome, Europe’s member states overwhelmingly voted not to continue approval for the fungicide’s use until the knowledge gaps have been stuffed.

      “The [chlorothalonil ban] is based on Efsa’s scientific assessment which concluded that the approval criteria do not seem to be satisfied for a wide range of reasons,” a European commission spokeswoman told the Guardian. “Great concerns are raised in relation to contamination of groundwater by metabolites of the substance.”

      Farming groups have reacted negatively to the inside track, saying that this will affect yields, specifically of wheat.

      “We feel the Commission has been overly precautionary in making this decision and has failed to consider the particular importance of this active in the control of critical fungal diseases and in managing disease resistance.” Dr Chris Hartfield, NFU senior regulatory affairs adviser, told Farmers Guardian. “As a result, we believe sectors of UK agricultural and horticultural production will be put at significant risk.”

      Defra has not mentioned whether it’s going to believe reinstating the fungicide’s use after Brexit. However, as the use of fungicides may just impact business with the EU it’s unclear whether the United Kingdom would need to flout this rule although technically can.

      In protection of the farming sector, environmental campaigners indicate that if the EU had carried out its safety pointers uniformly to start with, chlorothalonil may not have grow to be as ubiquitous in fashionable farming as it is today and swathes of vegetation would now not hinge on its use.

      As it stands, there are some bright spots. farmers may just potentially find plants that are already immune to the fungal diseases for which chlorothalonil presented protection. That isn’t a whole remedy, even though, as resistance does no longer equal eradication of the danger. Farming groups are now likely to look to other pesticides to assist bridge the gap in coverage—one thing which carries its own drawbacks.

      While nearly all of insecticides within the EU are most likely safe, we are actually having to comb again via previous information to look at the potential impact of insecticides that are meant to were correctly examined at large scale to begin with. It is not just procedurally sound to halt using chlorothalonil until we now have the ones assurances. It is the most ethical thing to do.

      Major pests of Cotton

      Major pests of Cotton
       
      1.Fruit borer:  Helicoverpa armigera

      Symptoms of damage

      • Bolls showing regular, circular bore holes
      • Larvae seen feeding on the boll by thrusting their heads alone inside and leaving the rest of the body outside
      • Presence of granular faecal pellets outside the bore hole. 
      • A single larva can damage 30-40 bolls. 
      Cotton bollworm
      Feeding injury

      Identification of the pest

      • Eggs – Spherical in shape and creamy white in colour, present singly
      • Larva – Shows colour variation from greenish to brown.
      • It has dark brown grey lines on the body with lateral white lines and also has dark and pale bands.
      • Pupa – Brown in colour, occurs in soil, leaf, pod and crop debris
      • Adult
      • Light pale brownish yellow stout moth.
      • Forewings are olive green to pale brown in colour with a dark brown circular spot in the centre.  
      • Hind wings are pale smoky white with a broad blackish outer margin.
      Circular bore hole
        Eggs   
       Larva
      Pupa
        Adult

      Management

      ETL: One egg or one larva /plant

      • Monitoring :
        Pest monitoring through light traps, pheromone traps and in situ assessments by roving and fixed plot surveys has to be intensified at farm, village, block, regional and State levels. For management, an action threshold of one egg per plant or 1 larva/ plant may be adopted.

      Cultural practices :

      • Synchronised sowing of cotton preferably with short duration varieties in each cotton ecosystem.
      • Avoid continuous cropping of cotton both during winter and summer seasons in the same area as well as ratooning.
      • Avoid monocropping. Growing of less preferred crops like greengram, blackgram, soyabean, castor, sorghum etc., along with the cotton as intercrop or border crop or alternate crop to reduce the pest infestation.
      • Removal and destruction of crop residues to avoid carry over of the pest to the next season,  and avoiding extended period of crop growth by continuous irrigation.
      • Optimising the use of nitrogenous fertilizers which will not favour mthe multiplication of the pest.
      •  Judicious water management for the crop to prevent excessive vegetative growth and larval harbourage.

      Biological control :

      • Application of Nuclear Polyhedrosis Virus (NPV) at 3 x 10 12 POB /ha in evening hours at 7th and
        12th week after sowing.
      •  Conservation and augmentation of natural predators and parasitoids for effective control of the pest.
      • Inundative release of egg parasitoid, Trichogramma spp., at 6.25 cc/ha at 15 days interval 3 times from 45 DAS
      • Egg-larval parasitoid, Chelonus blackburnii and Predator Chrysoperla carnea at 1,00,000/ha at 6th, 13th and 14th week after sowing.
      • ULV spray of NPV at 3 x 10 12 POB /ha with 10% cotton seed kernel extract, 10% crude sugar, 0.1% each of Tinopal and Teepol for effective control of Helicoverpa.
      • Note: Dicofol, methyl demeton, monocrotophos and phosalone are comparatively safer to Chrysoperla larva
        recording low egg mortality.

      Chemical control :

      • Discourage the indiscriminate use of insecticides, particularly synthetic pyrethroids.
      • Use of proper insecticides which are comparatively safer to natural enemies such as endosulfan, phosalone, etc., at the correct dosage and alternating different groups of insecticides for each round of spray.
      • Avoid combination of insecticides as tank mix.
      • Adopt proper delivery system using spraying equipments like hand compression sprayer, knapsack sprayer and mist blower to ensure proper coverage with required quantity of spray fluid and avoid ULV applications or Akela spray applications.
      • Proper mixing and preparation of spray fluid for each filling of spray fluid tank.

      At early stages of square formation apply one of the following insecticides

      • Acephate 75%SP 780 g/ha
      • Azadirachtin 0.03% EC 500 ml/ha Carbaryl
        10%DP 25 kg/ha Chlorantraniliprole 18.5%
        SC 150 ml/ha Chlorpyriphos 20% EC 1250
        ml/ha Diflubenzuron 25%WP 300 g/ha
      • Emamectin benzoate 5% SG 190-220 g/ha
      • Fipronil 5%SC 2000 ml/ha
      • Flubendiamide 20%WG 250 g/ha
      • Flubendiamide 39.35%SC 100-125 ml/ha
      • Indoxacarb 14.5%SC 500 ml/ha
      • Lufenuron 5.4%EC 600 ml/ha
      • Novaluron 10%EC 1000 ml/ha
      • NPV of H. armigera 0.43% AS 400-600 ml/ha
      • Profenofos 50% EC 1750-2500 ml/ha
      • Pyridalyl10%EC 1500-2000 ml/ha
      • Spinosad 45.0%SC 165-220 ml/ha
      • Thiodicarb 75%WP 1000 g/ha

      During bolling and maturation stage, apply any one of the following insecticides (1000 l of spray fluid/ha):

      • Quinalphos 25 EC 2.0 l/ha
      • Carbaryl 50 WP 2.5 kg/ha
      • Pyraclofos 50 EC 1.5 l/ha

      Biological control:

      • Bacillus thuringiensis-k 750-1000 g/ha
      • Bacillus thuringiensis serovar kurstaki (3a,3b,3c) 5%WP 500-1000 g/ha
      • Beauveria bassiana 1.15% WP 400 g/ha
       
      2. Pink bollworm: Pectinophora gossypiella
      Symptoms of damage

      • Rosetted flowers
      • The holes of entry plugged by excreta of larvae which are feeding inside the seed kernels.
      • They cut window holes (interlocular burrowing) in the two adjoining seeds thereby forming “double seeds
      • The attacked buds and immature bolls drop off.
      • Discolored lint and burrowed seeds.

       

      Identification of the pest
      Larva

      • Shows colour variation young larva white and late instar almost black, brown or green to pale or pink
      • several dark and light alternating bands running the entire length

      Adult

      • Small moth.
      • Forewingarebrown or dull yellow olive grey with dark spots on the forewing.
      • Hind wings margins are deeply fringed.    

       

      Management
      ETL: 10% infested fruiting parts

      • Use pheromone trap to monitor the adult moth activity
      • Three weekly releases of egg parasitoid Trichogrammatoidea bactrae @ 1,00,000/ha per release
        coinciding the incidence of the pest.Dust carbaryl 5%D 20 kg/ha

      Spraying any one of the following insecticides:

      • Phosalone 35%EC 2000 ml/ha
      • Triazophos 40EC 2.5l/ha
       
      3. Spotted bollworms: Earias vittella, Spiny bollworm: Earias insulana 

      Symptom of damage

      • Drying and drooping of terminal shoots during pre –flowering stage
      • Shedding of squares and young bolls
      • Flaring up of bracts during square and young boll formation stage
      • Holes on bolls and rotting of bolls.
      Larva attacking boll
      Drying – terminal shoots
      Bore holes and rotting
      Flared square
      Identification of the pest: E. vitella

      • Larva – Brownish with white streaks dorsally and pale yellow ventrally, Without finger shaped processes

      Adult

      • Small buff coloured. 0
      • Forewings are pea green with a wedge shaped white band running from base to out margin

      Identification of the pest: E. insulana

      Larva – Brown with dorsum showing a white median longitudinal streak.
      The last two thoracic segments and all the abdominal segments have two pairs of fleshy tubercles (finger shaped processes) one dorsal and the other lateral
      Pupa – Brown and boat shaped
      Adult – Small buff coloured.  Forewingsare uniformly silvery green

       

      E. vitella – Larva
      E. vitella – Adult
      E. insulana – Larva
      E. insulana – Adult
      Management
      ETL: 10% infested shoots / squares / bolls

      • Spraying any one of the following insecticides
      • Carbaryl 5%DP 20 kg/ha
      • Chlorantraniliprole 18.5% SC 150 ml/ha
      • Flubendiamide 39.35%SC 100-125 ml/ha
      • Indoxacarb 14.5%SC 500 ml/ha
      • Phosalone 35%EC 1714ml/ha
      • Profenofos 50% EC 1500-2000 ml/ha
      • Triazophos 40%EC 1500-2000 ml/ha

      Biological control:

      • Bacillus thuringiensis serovar kurstaki (3a,3b,3c) 5%WP 750- 1000 g/ha
       
      4. Cotton Stem Weevil:  Pempheres (Pempherulus) affinis
      Symptoms of damage

      • Swellings on the stem just above the ground level.
      • Young plants are invariably killed
      • Older plants that survive, lack vigor and strength, and when strong winds blow, these plants sometimes break at the nodes.
      Stem gall
      Stem galls
      Grub
      Identification of the pest

      • Larva – Grub, white in colour without leg (apodous)
      • Adult – Very small weevil, dark in colour with two small white patches on the elytra
      Management

      • Basal application of FYM 25 t/ha and 250 kg/ha of neem cake.
      • Seed treatment with chlorpyriphos 20 EC @ 10ml/kg of seed+ Drenching collar region with chlorpyriphos 20 EC @ 2.5ml/ l on 15 and 30 DAS+ Earthing up.

      Spray any one of the following insecticides

      • Carbaryl 10%DP 25 kg/ha
      • Carbofuran 3%CG 33.3 kg/ha
       
      5. Shoot weevil: Alcidodes affaber
      Symptoms of damage

      • Terminal shoots with galls
      • Bore hole surrounded by raised margins
      Identification of the pest

      • Adult – Weevil dark greyish brown with pale cross bands on the elytra
      Management

      • Soil application of Carbofuran 3 G @ 30 kg may be done on 20 days after sowing and earthed up.
      • Basal application of FYM 25 t/ha or 250 kg/ha of neem cake.
       
      6. Stem borer: Sphennoptera gossypii
      Symptoms of damage

      • Plants with drooping leaves,
      • Wilting in patches

      Identification of the pest

      • Adult – Dark brown jewel beetle

      Management

      • Soil application of Carbofuran 3 G @ 30 kg may be done on 20 days after sowing and earthed up.
      • Basal application of FYM 25 t/ha or 250 kg/ha of neem cake.
      Affected stem
      Infested plants
       
       
       7. Leaf roller: Sylepta derogata
       Symptom of damage

      • Leaves rolled in the form of trumpets fastened by silken threads
      • Marginal portion of leaves eaten away
      • Plants defoliated in severe attack
      Rolled leaves
      Larva
      Adult
      Identification of the pest

      • Larva – Bright green (glistening) with dark head and prothoracic shield.
      • Adult – Moth with yellow wings having brown wavy markings

      Managment

      • Collection and destruction of sheded plant parts.
      • Hand picking and destruction of grown up caterpillars.
      • Spray any one of the following insecticides
        • chlorpyriphos 20 EC 2.0 l/ha
        • dichlorvos 76 WSC 1 lit/ha
        • fenitrothion 50 EC @ 625 ml.
       
      8. Tobacco Cutworm: Spodoptera litura
      Symptoms of damage

      • Scrapping the epidermal layer, leaving the skeleton of veins of leaf
      • During severe attack, only the stem and side shoots will be standing in the field without any leaf or bolls
      • Larvae feed  the leaves by making small holes.
      Identification of the pest

      • Egg – Laid in masses which appear golden brown
      • Larva – Pale greenish with dark markings.
      • Gregarious in the early stages

      Adult

      • Forewings – brown colour with wavy white marking
      • Hindwings– white colour with a brown patch along the margin
      Management
      ETL: 8 egg masses/100 m row

      • Use of light trap to monitor and kill the attracted adult moths.
      • Set up the sex pheromone trap at 12/ha to monitor the activity of the pest and to synchronise the pesticide
        application, if need be, at the maximum activity stage.
      • Growing castor along border and irrigation bunds.
      • Removal and destruction of egg masses in castor and cotton crops.
      • Removal and destruction of early stage larvae found in clusters which can be located easily even from a distance.
      • Collection and destruction of shed materials.
      • Hand picking and destruction of grown up caterpillars.
      • Spray any one of the following insecticides per ha using, a high volume sprayer covering the foliage and soil surface :
      • Chlorpyriphos 20 EC 2.0 l
      • Chlorpyriphos 20 EC 1.25 l
      • Chlorantraniliprole 18.5% SC 150 ml
      • Diflubenzuron 25%WP 300-350 g
      •  Spraying of insecticides should be done either in the early morning or in the evening and virus in the evening.
      • Use of poison bait pellets prepared with rice bran 12.5 kg, jaggery 1.25 kg, carbaryl 50% WP 1.25 kg and water 7.5 litres. This bait can be spread in the fields in the evening hours so that the caterpillars coming out of the soil, feed and get killed.
      • Spraying nuclear polyhedrosis virus at 1.5 x 1012 POB per ha.
       
      9. Ash weevils: Mylloecerus undecimpustulatus maculosus 
                            M. subfasciatus
                            M. viridanus
                            M. discolor
      Symptom of damage

      • Leaf margins notched
      • Wilting of plants in patches
      • Plants come easily when pulled
      • Roots eaten away by grubs.

      Identification of the pest

      • Grub – Small, white apodous grubAdult
      • Mylloecerus undecimpustulatus  – Greenish elytra having   dark lines
      • M. subfasciatus – Brownish weevil
      • M. viridanus –small light green weevil
      • M. discolor– brown weevil

      Management

      • Remove the affected branches / plants and destroy.
      • Spraying of quinalphos 0.05% or chlorpyriphes 0.05%.
       
      10. Leafhopper:  Amrasca (Biguttula biguttula) devastans
                      

      Symptoms of damage

      • Tender leaves become yellow.
      • The margin of the leaves start curling downwards and reddening sets in.
      • In the case of severe infestation, leaves get a bronze or brick red colour which is typical “hopper burn” symptom.
      • The margin of the leaves get broken and crumble into pieces when crushed.
      • The leaves dried up and are shed and the growth of the crop is retarded.

      Identification of the pest

      • Nymph – Light green, translucent, wingless found between the veins of leaves on the under surface
      • Adult – Green, wedge shaped leafhopper.
      Management
      ETL: 50 nymphs or adults/50 leaves

      • Apply carbofuran 3%CG 25 kg/ha

      Spray any one of the following insecticides

      • Imidacloprid 200 SL at 100 ml/ha
      • Phosphamidon 40 SL 600 ml/ha
      • Acetamiprid 20%SP 50 g/ha
      • Azadirachtin 0.03%WSP 500-1000 g/ha
      • Buprofezin 25% SC 1000 ml/ha
      • Clothianidin 50%WDG 30-40 kg/ha
      • Diafenthiuron 50%WP 600 g/ha
      • Dimethoate 30%EC 660 ml/ha
      • Fipronil 5%SC 1500-2000 ml/ha
      • Methyl demeton 25% EC 1200 ml/ha
      • Phosalone 35%EC 857 ml/ha
      • Profenofos 50% EC 1000 ml/ha
      • Thiacloprid 21.7% SC 100-125 ml/ha
      • Thiamethoxam 30% FS 10 kg/ha
      • Thiamethoxam 25%WG 100 g/ha
      • NSKE 5% 25 kg/ha
      • Where the leafhopper is a big menace apply Neem oil formulation 0.5 % or neem oil 3% thrice at fortnightly
        intervals.
       
      11. Cotton aphid: Aphis gossypii
       Symptom of damage

      • Infesting tender shoots and under surface of the leaves.
      • Curling and crinkling of leaves
      • Stunted growth
      • Blighted appearance when infestation  is severe
      • Development of black sooty mould due to the excretion of honey dew giving the plant a dark appearance
      Cotton aphid Identification of the pest

      • Nymphs – Yellowish or greenish brown found on the undersurface of leaves.
      • Adults – Greenish brown, soft bodied and small insects.
      • Winged forms may be seen under crowded conditions.
      Management
      ETL: 15% of infested plant
      Spray any one of the following insecticides (500 l spray fluid/ha)

      • Methyl demeton 25 EC 500ml/ha
      • Dimethoate 30 EC 500ml/ha
      • Acetamiprid 20%SP 50 g/ha
      • Azadirachtin 0.03% EC 500 ml/ha
      • Buprofezin 25% SC1000 ml/ha
      • Carbosulfan 25%DS 60g/kg seed
      • Chlorpyrifos 20% EC 1250 ml/ha
      • Diafenthiuron 50%WP 600 ml/ha
      • Dimethoate 30%EC 660 ml/ha
      • Fipronil 5%SC 1500-2000 ml/ha
      • Imidacloprid 70% WG 30-35 kg/ha
      • Imidacloprid 17.8% SL 100 -125 ml/ha
      • Malathion 50% EC 1000 ml/ha
      • Methyl demeton 25% EC 1200 ml/ha
      • Profenofos 50% EC 1000 ml/ha
      • Thiacloprid 21.7% SC 100-125 ml/ha
      • Thiamethoxam 25%WG 100 g/ha
       
      12. Thrips: Thrips tabaci
      Symptom of damage

      • Shriveling of leaves due to scrapping of epidermis and desapping
      • Attacked   terminal buds – have ragged edges
      • Silvery shine on the undersurface of leaves

      Identification of the pest

      • Nymphs – Very minute, slender, yellowish and microscopic.
      • Adult – Small, slender, yellowish to brown with fringed wings
      Management
      ETL: 50 nymphs or adults/50 leaves

      • Seed treatment with imidacloprid 70 WS at 7 g/kg protect the crop from aphids, leafhoppers and thrips upto 8 weeks.

      Spray any one of the following insecticides (500 l spray fluid/ha)

      • Methyl demeton 25 EC 500ml/ha
      • Dimethoate 30 EC 500ml/ha
      • Buprofezin 25% SC 1000 ml/ha
      • Diafenthiuron 50%WP 600 g/ha
      • Dimethoate 30%EC 660 ml/ha
      • Fipronil 5%SC 1500-2000 ml/ha
      • Imidacloprid 70% WG 30-35 g/ha
      • Imidacloprid 48% FS/100kg seed 500-900 g/ha
      • Imidacloprid 17.8% SL 100 -125 ml/ha
      • Profenofos 50% EC 1000 ml/ha
      • Thiacloprid 21.7% SC 100-125 ml/ha
      • Thiamethoxam 70% FS 430 g/ha
      • Thiamethoxam 25%WG 100g/ha
       
      13. Whitefly: Bemisia tabaci
      Whitefllies damage to leaf  Symptom of damage

      • Chlorotic spots on the leaves which latter coalesce forming irregular yellowing of leaf tissue which extends from veins to the outer edges of the leaves
      • Severe infestation results in premature defoliation
      • Development of sooty mould
      • Shedding of buds and bolls and poor boll opening
      • It also transmits the leaf curl virus diseases of cotton.

      Identification of the pest

      • Nymph – Greenish yellow, oval in outline,
      • Pupa – Puparia oval in shape, present on the under surface of the leaves.
      • Adult – Minute insects with yellow body covered with a white waxy bloom.
      White fly adult
      Nymphs
      Pupae
      Adult
      Management
      ETL: 5 – 10 /leaf

      • Avoid the alternate, cultivated host crops of the white fly in the vicinity of cotton crop.
      • Growing cotton only once a year either in winter or summer season in any cotton tract.
      • Adopting crop rotation with non-preferred hosts such as sorghum, ragi, maize etc., for the white fly to check the build up of the pest.
      • Removal and destruction of alternate weed hosts like Abutilon indicumChrozophore rottlariSolanum nigrum
        and Hibiscus ficulensus from the fields and neighbouring areas and maintaining field sanitation.
      • Timely sowing with recommended spacing, preferably wider spacing and judicious application of recommended dose of fertilizers, particularly nitrogenous and irrigation management is essential to arrest the excessive
        vegetative growth and pest build up. Late sowing may be avoided and the crop growth should not be extended
        beyond its normal duration.
      • Field sanitation may be given proper attention.
        Cultivation of most preferred alternate host crops like brinjal, bhendi, tomato, tobacco and sunflower may be
        avoided. In case their cultivation is unavoidable, plant  protection measures should be extended to these crops
        also.
      • Monitoring the activities of the adult white flies by setting up yellow pan traps and sticky traps at 1 foot height above the plant canopy and also in situ counts.
      • Collection and removal of whitefly infested leaves from the plants and those which were shed due to the attack of the pest and destroying them.
      • Chemical control : Acetamiprid
        20%SP 100 g/ha Azadirachtin 0.15%
        500-1000 ml/ha Buprofezin 25% SC
        1000 ml/ha Chlorpyriphos 20% EC
        1250 ml/ha Clothianidin 50%WDG 40-
        50 g/ha Diafenthiuron 50%WP 600
        g/ha Fipronil 5%SC 250-340 ml/ha
      • Imidacloprid 17.8% SL100 -125 ml/ha
      • Profenofos 50% EC 1000 ml/ha
      • Thiacloprid 21.7% SC 500-600 ml/ha
      • Thiamethoxam 25%WG 100 g/ha
      • Triazophos 40%EC 1500-2000 ml/ha

      Spray any one of the following plant products alone or in combination with the recommended dose of insecticide (at 2 ml/l of water)

      • Neem seed kernel extract 5% (50 kg) and neem oil at 5 ml/l of water
      • Fish oil rosin soap 25 kg at 1 kg in 40 lit of water
      • Notchi leaves 5% extract Catharanthus rosea extract 5%

      Spray any one of the following in early stage (500 l of spray fluid/ha)

      • Phosphamidon 40 SL 600 ml/ha

      Spray any one of the following in mid and late stages (1000 l spray liquid/ha) Triazophos 40 EC 2.0 l/ha

      • In the early stages with high volume sprayer, use a goose neck nozzle to cover the under surface of the foliage to get good control of the pest. If high volume sprayers are not available, 375 litres of spray fluid may be used per hectare for application in the low volume motorised knapsack mist blower.
      • The use of synthetic pyrethroids should be discouraged in cotton to avoid the problem of whitefly.
      • Cypermethrin, fenvalerte and deltamethrin cause resurgence of whiteflies.
      • So avoid repeated spraying of pyrethroids.
      • The plant protection measures should be adopted on a community basis in a specified cotton areas.
      • Biological control: Verticillium lecanii 1.15% WP 2500 g/ha
       
      14. Red cotton bug: Dysdercus cingulatusi
      Symptom of damage

      • Red stained lint and rotting bolls.
      • Inner boll wall with warty growth or water soaked spots
      • Young bolls abort  and turn dark brown
      • The bacterium Nematospora gossypii enters the site of injury and stains the fibre.

      Identification of the pest

      • Nymphs and Adults – Reddish bugs with white bands on the abdomen and black markings on the wings.
      Management

      • Plough the field to expose the eggs.
      • Spray phosphamidon 100 EC@250 ml/ha
       
      15. Dusky cotton bug: Oxycarenus hyalinipennis
      Symptom of damage

      • Sucks the sap from developing seeds in open bolls and stains the lint black.
      • Seeds discolored and shrunken.
      Identification of the pest

      • Eggs – Cigar shaped, white eggs in clusters of 2-10 within the half opened bolls, on the bolls, flower or buds
      • Nymphs and adults – Dusky, greyish brown bug, with pointed head and hyaline wings

      Management

      • Spray phosphamidon 100 EC@250 ml/ha
       
      16. Mealy bugs: Phenacoccus sp, Ferrisa sp and  Maconellicoccus sp 
      Symptom of damage

      • Heavy clustering of mealy bugs usually seen under surface of leaves as a thick mat with waxy secretion.
      • Excrete copious amount of honey dew on which the fungus sooty mould grow.
      • Affected plants appear sick and black, resulting reduced fruiting capacity.
      • Management
        Remove the alternate weeds hosts
      • Monitor the incidence regularly and look for crawler emergence
      • Take up the management at intial stage to get maximum control
      • Wherever necessary use botanical insecticides like neemnderivatives such as neem oil 2% NSKE 5% and Fish oil rosin soap 25g/litre of water.(Consult the specialists for effective chemicals for individual species)
      • Use of Encyrtid parasitoids, Acerophagus papayae @ 100 per village against Paracoccus marginatus and Aenasius bambawaeli against Phenococcus solenopsis are recommended.
      • Use of dimethoate or profenophos @ 2ml / lit. may be adopted as an alternative
      Infested plants
      Mealy bugs on stem
       

      10 Homemade Organic Pesticides

      10 Homemade Organic Pesticides

      Ever wonder what farmers did hundreds of years ago to fight off crop pests? Long before the invention of harmful chemical pesticides (yes, the kind that is linked to cancerous cellular activity), farmers and householders came up with multiple remedies for removing insect infestations from their garden plants.

      The following list will offer some of our favorite, all-natural, inexpensive, organic methods for making bug-busting pesticides for your home garden.

      [woo_product_slider id=”64262″]

      1.     Neem

      Ancient Indians extremely respected neem oil as a formidable, all-natural plant for keeping off pests. Neem juice is even one probably the most powerful pure insecticides in the world, preserving over 50 pure insecticides. You can use this extremely sour tree leaf to make a natural pesticidal spray.

      To make neem oil spray, upload part an ounce of fine quality organic neem oil and part a teaspoon of a light natural liquid soap (i Take Advantage Of Dr. Bronners Peppermint) to two quarts of warm water. Stir slowly. Add to a twig bottle and use straight away.

      2.     Salt Spray

      For treating crops infested with spider mites, combine two tablespoons of Himalayan Crystal Salt into one gallon of heat water and spray on inflamed spaces.

      3.     Mineral Oil

      Mix 10-30 ml of high-grade oil with one liter of water. Stir and upload to spray bottle. This organic pesticide works neatly for dehydrating insects and their eggs.

      4.     Citrus Oil & Cayenne Pepper

      This organic pesticide works well on ants. Mix ten drops of citrus crucial oil with one teaspoon cayenne pepper and 1 cup of warm water. Shake neatly and spray on the affected spaces.

      5.     Soap, Orange Citrus Oil, & Water

      To make this natural pesticide, merely mix 3 tablespoons of liquid Organic Castile soap with 1 ounce of Orange oil to one gallon of water. Shake neatly. This is a particularly effective treatment in opposition to slugs and can also be sprayed at once on ants and roaches.

      6.     Eucalyptus Oil

      A Really Perfect natural pesticide for flies, bees, and wasps. Simply sprinkle a few drops of eucalyptus oil the place the bugs are discovered. They will all be long past prior to you know it.

      7.     Onion & Garlic Spray

      Mince one organic clove of garlic and one medium-sized natural onion. Add to a quart of water. Wait one hour and then add one teaspoon of cayenne pepper and one tablespoon of liquid cleaning soap to the mix. This organic spray will cling its efficiency for one week if stored in the refrigerator.

      8.     Chrysanthemum Flower Tea

      These plants hang a powerful plant chemical element referred to as pyrethrum. This substance invades the worried system of bugs, rendering them motionless. You could make your own spray by boiling 100 grams of dried plant life into 1 liter of water. Boil dried flowers in water for twenty minutes. Strain, cool, and pour into a spray bottle. Can be saved for up to two months. You can also add some organic neem oil to give a boost to the effectiveness.

      9.     Tobacco Spray

      Just as tobacco is hazardous to humans, tobacco spray was once a often used pesticide for killing pests, caterpillars, and aphids. Mix one cup of natural tobacco (preferably a logo this is natural and all-natural) into one gallon of water. Allow the mix to set in a single day. After 24-hours, the mix will have to have a light brown color. If it is rather darkish, add more water. This mix can be utilized on most plants, excluding those in the solanaceous circle of relatives (tomatoes, peppers, eggplants, and so forth.)

      10.                       Chile Pepper & Diatomaceous Earth

      Grind two handfuls of dry chiles right into a wonderful powder and blend with one cup of diatomaceous earth. Add to two liters of water and let sit overnight. Shake neatly earlier than applying.

      If you realize some simple recipes for making your personal organic insecticides, we would really like to listen to them.

      Results might range. Information and statements made are for education functions and are not meant to switch the recommendation of your physician. Global Healing Center does no longer dispense medical advice, prescribe, or diagnose illness. The perspectives and dietary recommendation expressed by way of Global Healing Center don’t seem to be intended to be an alternative choice to typical scientific provider. If you have a serious clinical condition or well being worry, see your physician.

      Organic management of pest insects in stored wheat

      FOOD safety has always been the most strategic purpose of the countries, worldwide. Food security is a complementary module due to losses persevered by a number of biotic and abiotic components throughout production, handling and garage. The extent of such losses relies on post-harvest management machine and pest regulate measures.

      [woo_product_slider id=”64262″]

      Among destructive brokers, pest insects play a significant role in post-harvest system of perishable and semi-perishable agricultural products. Wheat is a staple meals of the folks and meals security-cum-safety plans include its manufacturing and coverage.

      Wheat manufacturing fluctuates round 20 million tons which is enough to accomplish our meals, feed, and seed requirements for few years. By 2010, our wheat requirement will be about 25.five million tons. Presently, any deficit in home production is compensated with imports.

      According to scientists, post-harvest wheat losses range from 2.5 to 15.three according to cent depending upon the dealing with and storage prerequisites as those are top in non-public sector because of the unawareness about pest control protocols and uncertain garage and advertising gadget.

      Presently, food grains are secure from pest insects by the usage of artificial insecticides and fumigants. In early 90’s, the Punjab Food Department controlled insect pests of stored-wheat with one pill of Aluminum Phosphide consistent with cubic meter volume which now is being carried out with three drugs for controlling the resistant lines of insects.

      a Large Amount Of foreign currency is spent on the import of insecticides which can be have shyed away from via utilising our domestic herbal resources. Moreover, Codex Alimentarius Commission of the WTO beneficial natural regulate of insect pests to make food merchandise consistent with the International Standards Organization. Keeping in view the demands, it was decided to orientate the analysis towards natural control of pest insects in saved wheat and decided on native botanicals.

      In the new previous, insecticidal properties including toxicity, feeding-repellence, floor protection and oviposition deterrence had been confirmed by means of other researchers in opposition to the insect pests of stored grains in laboratory studies. Accordingly, oils of those botanicals had been used in the natural control of pest-insects with the mixing of asepsis, disinfestations, and other packing fabrics below herbal prerequisites within the warehouses. This used to be achieved to increase an IPM protocol for protected storage system at farm level by means of replacing the artificial pesticides.

      Insect-free jute and cotton luggage made from the material of various densities (mesh sizes) had been sprayed-over with 4 other concentrations from each of the botanical oils and combinations in 3 sets for three garage classes (30, 60 and 90 days) every, with 3 replications.

      Infestation unfastened wheat of recent crop was packed in the luggage, handled with other concentrations of take a look at materials to evaluate their antixenosis and antibiosis. The experimental units were placed in ventilated warehouses of flourmills beneath beneficial conditions for the multiplication of stored product bugs.

      The concentrations appearing considerable efficacy have been attempted as mixtures to note their effects. Absolute knowledge, regarding mortality, penetration into the treated bags and insect inhabitants construct had been gathered at specified intervals. After finishing touch of the experiment, rheological exams were applied to the flour constructed from the treated and untreated wheat to note adjustments in dough-development and sensory analysis of chapatti.

      On the research of knowledge, other concentrations, storage periods and packing fabrics showed an important effect upon penetration of insects into the baggage and mortality of insects because of their frame touch with botanical oils. The stage of antixenosis and antibiosis confirmed a favorable correlation with the focus of the botanicals however adverse with the garage periods.

      Penetration into bags was once inversely proportional and bug mortality directly proportional to the density of packing fabrics. Mixture of 3 botanical oils with 10 in step with cent concentration of each and every gave effective regulate of the objective bugs for 2 months with a superb cotton material packing which diminished gradually in the 3rd month.

      Farinographic studies confirmed no important changes in dough development houses of the flour made out of the wheat saved in bags handled with the botanicals. Moreover, sensory evaluation proved that there used to be no distinguishable style or taint present in chapatti made out of the flour of the wheat packed in the handled luggage.

      Recommendations: Farmers can save grain, environment and capital through the usage of the oil of castor seeds, neem seeds and rhizomes of candy flag plant to control insect pests. Oils will have to be jumbled together equivalent percentage and sprayed over jute/cotton luggage for use for packing of wiped clean/insect free wheat.

      The mixture could also be sprayed with the help of a fine sprayer. New crop wheat will have to be unfold on steel sheets or cemented flooring in the sun as much as the temperatures at 55ºC for approximately 4 hours.

      These sun-heated wheat grains having moisture contents not more than 8 in line with cent may be packed in treated baggage to get a protected garage for 2 to 3 months best. If wheat is to be stored for more than 3 months then repeat the botanical software after each two months. Insect loose new crop wheat with new handled baggage and proper sealing may give better effects.

      Moreover, appropriate restore, cleansing and treatment of godowns/packing containers are also a supplement for the good fortune of the steered insect pests control measure.

      Wheat | Diseases and Pests, Description, Uses, Propagation

      Wheat, is the name given to several plants in the genus Triticum including Triticum aestivumTriticum compactumTriticum spelta and Triticum durum, which are annual or biennial grasses grown primarily for their grain. Wheat species possess an erect smooth stem with linear leaves that grow in two rows on either side of the stem with larger ‘flag’ leaves at the top of the stem. The stem terminates in a spike that is made up on individual spikelets, each possessing 3–9 florets. The wheat fruit develops within the spikelets, maturing to a seed (kernel). Wheat can reach 1.2 m (4 ft) in height and like other cereals, has been developed into different varieties that are adapted to planting at different times of the year. Spring wheat is planted for a late summer harvest, whereas Winter wheat is planted for harvesting in early to mid summer. Overwintering varieties are more commonly grown in regions with mild winters. Wheat may be referred to by variety and these include durum or macaroni wheat (Triticum durum), club wheat (Triticum compactum), spelt wheat (Triticum spelta) and bread wheat (Triticum aestivum). Wheat originated in the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East. 


       

      Uses

      Wheat is one of the most important food plants in the world. It is used primarily to produce flour for bread. It is used widely in the production of many other baked goods. Wheat grain is also used in the manufacture of alcoholic beverages and alcohol. Wheat straw is used as an animal feed and in the manufacture of carpets, baskets, packing, bedding, and paper. 


       

      Propagation


      Wheat varieties 
      One of the first things to consider before planting is which type of wheat you want to grow. There are several different varieties to choose from depending on the time of year and how you want to utilize your harvest. Wheat is broadly categorized into Winter wheat and Spring wheat. Winter wheat is high yielding and is planted in the Fall and harvested in the Spring or Summer of the following year (depending on location). Spring wheat is not as high yielding but tolerated drier conditions. It is planted in the Spring and harvested in the Fall. Both Spring and Winter wheat is then further categorized as soft wheat, hard wheat, spelt or durum.

      General requirements
      Wheat can be grown in a wide variety of climates but grows best in cool regions where the temperature is between 10 and 24°C (50–75°F). Wheat will not grow at temperatures above 35°C (95°F). Wheat will grow optimally in a deep, fertile, well draining and well aerated soil at a pH between 5.5 and 7.5.

      Planting
      Winter wheat varieties should be planted in the Fall approximately 6 to 8 weeks before the first frost date. Spring wheat varieties should be planted as soon as the soil can be worked in the Spring. Commercially grown wheat is usually mechanically drilled using a machine that creates a furrow and drops the seed in before covering it back up. Wheat seeds can be sown by hand broadcasting in smaller areas, or using a hand-cranked seeder. Seeds are usually sown to at depths ranging from 2 to 12 cm (0.8–4.7 in) depending on soil conditions (seed must be sown deeper in drier soil). Once the seeds have been scattered, the soil should be raked lightly to set the seeds at the desired depth.

      Harvesting
      Wheat is ready to harvest when the stalks and heads have turned from green to yellow and the seed heads are drooping towards the ground. Check the seeds for ripeness before harvest. The should be firm and crunchy and not doughy in texture. Commercially produced wheat is usually harvested using a combine. Smaller plots can be harvested by hand using a scythe or sickle. Small plots can be harvested by snipping off the heads with a pair of scissors. 


       

      References

      Bockus, W., W., Bowden, R. L., Hunger, R. M., Morrill, W. L., Murray, T. D. & Smiley, R. W. (eds.) (2010). Compendium of wheat diseases. American Phytopathological Society Press. Available at: http://www.apsnet.org/apsstore/shopap…Available for purchase from APS Press.

      CABI Crop Protection Compendium. (2008). Triticum aestivum (wheat) datasheet. Available at: http://www.cabi.org/cpc/datasheet/55204. [Accessed 21 April 15]. Paid subscription required.

      Duke, J. A. (1983). Triticum aestivum L.. Handbook of Energy crops, unpublished. Available at: http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/du…. [Accessed 21 April 15]. Free to access.


       
       

      Common Pests and Diseases

      Diseases

      Category : Bacterial

      Bacterial leaf streak and black chaff Xanthomonas campestris

      Symptoms
      Sudden appearance of water-soaked, light brown, elongated lesions on upper leaves; lesions quickly dry out and turn into necrotic streaks on the leaves; black stripes occur on glumes and purple black lesions appear on rachis and peduncle if infection is in the head
      Cause
      Bacterium
      Comments
      Disease spread through infected seed and splashing water
      Management

      Avoid planting seed from infected fields; avoid overhead irrigation; plant less susceptible cultivars

      Basal glume rot Pseudomonas syringae

      Symptoms
      Dull brown to black discoloration of glumes which is more pronounced on the inner side; seeds may be shriveled; if infection is severe, entire glume may be discolored; small water-soaked lesions may form on leaves
      Cause
      Bacterium
      Comments
      Disease spreads primarily through infected seed
      Management

      Avoid planting seed from plants grown in fields where the disease is known to be present

      Category : Viral

      Barley yellow dwarf Barley yellow dwarf virus (BYDV)

      Symptoms
      Yellowing leaves, particularly the flag leaves; stunted plants due to shortened internodes; leaves may be red, purpple, orange, green or brown; leaves may be distorted
      Cause
      Virus
      Comments
      Transmitted by a few species of aphid; spread of disease is completely dependent on the movement of aphid vectors
      Management

      Control of aphid population can provide some control of disease but is dependent on knowing which aphids are active in the field; planting to avoid periods of peak aphid activity can provide a measure of control

      Category : Fungal

      Common bunt (Stinking smut) Tilletia tritici

      Symptoms
      Slender heads which take longer to turn color than healthy heads; glumes spread apart to reveal spori or “bunt balls” (balls containing fungal spores) which are a similar size to normal kernel but are gray-brown in color; bunt balls break open on harvest and give off a fishy odor
      Cause
      Fungus
      Comments
      Disease is most commonly introduced through infected seed although spores are spread by wind
      Management

      Disease can be controlled by planting resistant wheat varieties, planting disease-free seed and using a seed treatment prior to planting; disease may also be avoided by planting wheat early in the Fall and by shallow seeding

      Ergot disease Claviceps purpurea

      Symptoms
      Main symptoms of ergot is the grains in the head are replaced by dark purple to black sclerotia. This ergot bodies were made up of vegetative strands of fungus. The sclerotic interior is white or tennis white in color. The size of grain kernel and ergot are similar in size. The initial symptom before sclerotia bodies is honey dew symptom occur during flowering stage. The fungus produce yellowish, sugary excretions and can see as droplets on flower parts.
      Cause
      Fungal
      Comments
      Ergot is toxic to animals including birds.
      Management

      Follow crop rotation with non host crops for one year. Deep summer ploughing kills sclerotia bodies present in soil. Keep the field free from grasses and other weeds. Use disease free seeds.

      Eyespot Oculimacula spp.

      Symptoms
      Elliptical lesions that first appear on leaf sheath and gradually spread to stem; lesions are yellow-brown to tan in color and occur length-ways down the stem; lesions can occur individually or groups of lesions can coalesce to form large areas of discoloration; lesions may eventually girdle the stem; a gray, thread-like fungal growth may occur on the stem beneath the lesion; mature stems may have a charred appearance; infected tillers mature early and develop white heads and poorly filled seed; tillers may fall if stems are severely infected
      Cause
      Fungus
      Comments
      Primary route of infection is by splashing water; emergence of disease favored by high soil moisture content and a dense crop canopy
      Management

      Rotation of crop away from cereals for a period of 2-3 years will reduce levels of inoculum in the field; fungicides are commonly applied close to stem elongation to control the disease; plant resistant wheat varieties if available in your area

      Fusarium head blight (Scab) Fusarium spp.

      Symptoms
      One or more spikelets on newly emerged head bleached; pink or orange fungal masses may be visible at the base of infected spikelet; infected spikelets do not produce seed or produce shriveled and/or discolored seed; severe infections can cause the kernels to have a chalky appearance and are frequently lost during harvest
      Cause
      Fungus
      Comments
      Fungus survives between seasons on host plant debris – other host include corn and barley; fungus can survive on host debris for several years; warm, moist conditions promote the spread of the disease when present
      Management

      Control of the disease can be difficult; durum wheat appears to be more susceptible to the disease than common wheat; crop rotation to a non-host is recommended for at least one year; applications of appropriate fungicides if available can help to control the disease in conjunction with the other measures detailed here

      Phythium root rot Phythium sp.

      Symptoms
      The infected plants become chlorotic and/ stunted. Often the symptom is confused with nitrogen deficiency. And the plants may produce shriveled grain. Even a mild infection reduce tillers, plant population and maturity. Since symptom appear through out the field make if difficult to diagnose the disease.
      Cause
      Fungal
      Comments
      Fungus live for years in soil and on old root debris.
      Management

      Use good quality seeds. Provide supplemental phosphorous. Sowing when soil temperature is about 50 F increase germination and establishment. Seed treatment with suitable fungicides.

      Powdery mildew Erysiphe graminis

      Symptoms
      Patches of cottony, white-gray growth on upper surface of leaves which turn gray-brown; chlorotic patches develop on leaves opposite fungal growth; fungal fruiting bodies usually become visible as black dots on the mildew
      Cause
      Fungus
      Comments
      Disease emergence favors heavy nitrogen fertilization; high humidity and cool temperatures
      Management

      Planting resistant wheat varieties is one of the best ways to protect plants from powdery mildew; other control strategies include: application of appropriate foliar fungicides, if available; removal of crop debris from field after harvest to reduce the level of overwintering fungus; removal of volunteer wheat plants which can act as a reservoir for the disease

      Rusts Stem rust (Puccinia graminis)
      Leaf rust (P. triticina)
      Stripe rust (P. striiformis)

      Symptoms
      Chlorotic flecks or brown necrotic spots on leaves or stems; yellow streaks or patches on foliage; brown necrotic streaks on foliage; raised orange pustules may be present on lesions
      Cause
      Fungus
      Comments
      Disease emergence favors cool, wet conditions
      Management

      The most effective method of controlling rusts is to plant resistant varieties of wheat; other methods of control include: destroying alternate hosts; applications of appropriate protective fungicides; growing wheat varieties that mature early

      Tan spot Pyrenophora tritici-repentis

      Symptoms
      Oval or diamond shaped necrotic lesions with brown centers and yellow halos on leaves
      Cause
      Fungus
      Comments
      Disease infection requires a wet period of between 6 and 48 days
      Management

      Disease can be significantly reduced by rotating crops with non-hosts and tilling crop debris into soil after harvest

      Pests

      Category : Insects

      Aphids (Bird cherry-oat aphid, Russian wheat aphid, Corn leaf aphid, etc.) Rhopalosuphum padi
      Diuraphis noxia
      Sitobion avenae

      Symptoms
      Yellow or white streaked leaves; flag leaves may be curled up; plants may be stunted and tillers may lie parallel to the ground; plants may turn a purple color in cold weather; insects are small and soft-bodied and may be yellow, green, black or pink in color depending on species; insects secrete a sugary substance called “honeydew” which promotes the growth of sooty mold on the plants
      Cause
      Insect
      Comments
      Fields should be checked for aphid populations periodically after emergence
      Management

      Sturdy plants can be sprayed with a strong jet of water to knock aphids from leaves; insecticides are generally only required to treat aphids if the infestation is very high – plants generally tolerate low and medium level infestation; insecticidal soaps or oils such as neem or canola oil are usually the best method of control; always check the labels of the products for specific usage guidelines prior to use; in commercial plantations aphid numbers are usually kept in check by predators and natural enemies; beneficial insect populations should be assessed before chemical control is considered; if no beneficial insect populations are present and aphids are damaging then apply appropriate insecticides

      Armyworms (Armyworm, Western striped armyworm) Mythimna unipunctata
      Spodoptera praefica

      Symptoms
      Entire leaves consumed; notches eaten in leaves; egg clusters of 50-150 eggs may be present on the leaves; egg clusters are covered in a whitish scale which gives the cluster a cottony or fuzzy appearance; young larvae are pale green to yellow in color while older larvae are generally darker green with a dark and light line running along the side of their body and a pink or yellow underside
      Cause
      Insect
      Comments
      Insect can go through 3–5 generations a year
      Management

      Organic methods of controlling armyworms include biological control by natural enemies which parasitize the larvae and the application of Bacillus thuringiensis; there are chemicals available for commercial control but many that are available for the home garden do not provide adequate control of the larvae

      Stinkbugs Euschistus spp.

      Symptoms
      Damage to head during milk or soft dough stage; stink bugs often carry pathogens in their mouthparts which can cause secondary infections; adult insect is shield-shaped and brown or green in color; may have pink, red or yellow markings; eggs are drum shaped and laid in clusters on the leaves; larvae resemble the adults but are smaller
      Cause
      Insect
      Comments
      Adult insects overwinter under leaves, on legumes, blackberries or on certain weeds such as mustard or Russian thistle
      Management

      Remove weeds around crop which may act as overwintering sites for stink bugs and practice good weed management throughout the year; organically accepted control methods include the use of insecticidal soaps, kaolin clay and preservation of natural enemies

      Wireworms Aeolus spp.
      Anchastus spp.
      Melanotus spp.
      Limonius spp

      Symptoms
      Death of seedlings; reduced stand; girdled stems and white heads; wireworm larvae can be found in soil when dug round the stem; larvae are yellow-brown, thin worms with shiny skin
      Cause
      Insect
      Comments
      Larval stage can last between 1 and 5 years depending on species
      Management

      Chemical control impossible in a standing crop, must be applied at preplanting or as a seed treatment; if wireworms are known to be present in soil fallow field during summer and till frequently to reduce numbers; rotate to non-host crop where possible; avoid planting susceptible crops after a wireworm infestation on cereals without either fallowing of applying appropriate pesticide

      Ecofriendly management of thrips in capsicum under protected condition

      Abstract
      Over 35 species of insects and mites are reported as pests of capsicum among which thrips is the major pest infesting both under protected and open field conditions. The warm, humid conditions and abundant food under protected conditions provide an excellent, stable environment for pest development. Escalated public concern over extensive pesticide use and high pesticide residue levels in vegetables demanded the use of integrated pest management approaches in high pest attractive vegetable crops. In the backdrop of severity of thrips in capsicum in the recent past under protected conditions, studies were carried out during 2016 and 2017 on the management of capsicum thrips with promising insecticide molecules and solar light trap. The treatments with Solar light traps + insecticide molecules (Spinosad 45SC @ 0.1ml/l and Emamectin Benzoate 5%SG@0.25g/l) were found significantly superior over the treatments with insecticides alone. The combination of solar light traps and insecticides also resulted in significantly highest yield of capsicum, highest net returns and C:B ratio.
      Keywords: Capsicum, Thrips, Ecofriendly pest management, Solar light traps
      Authors: SunithaND andNarasamma
      Introduction
      Capsicum (Capsicum annuu L: family-Solanaceae), which is also known as sweet pepper, bell
      pepper or green pepper is one of the most popular and highly remunerative vegetable crops grown throughout the world. China, Spain, Mexico, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, USA, India, Europe and Central and South America are the major countries of capsicum production. (Roopa 2013) [1].
      In  India,  it  is  intensively cultivated  in  Karnataka,  Maharashtra,  Tamil  Nadu,  Himachal Pradesh and hilly areas of Uttar Pradesh. The fruits of capsicum have a variety of names depending on place and type. Common names include chilli pepper, capsicum, red and green pepper, or sweet pepper in Britain, and typically just capsicum in Australia. The colour of the bell peppers can be green, red, yellow, orange, and more rarely white, purple, blue, brown and black, depending on time of harvest and the type of cultivar. It is broadly classified into sweet and hot pepper based on the level of pungency. It is a cool season tropical crop and lacks adaptability to varied environmental conditions. It is produced in India for consumption as vegetable and also for export. It differs from hot chilli in size, fruitshape, capsicin content and usage. Nutritionally, it is rich in vitamins particularly, vitamins A and C. Hundred gram of edible portion of capsicum provides 24 k cal of energy, 1.3 g of protein, 4.3 g of carbohydrate and 0.3 g of fat (Kaur and Singh 2013) [2].
      Capsicum cultivation under  protected condition is  gaining popularity especially coloured hybrids in peri-urban production system because of easy access to urban markets. The warm, humid conditions and abundant food under protected conditions provide an excellent, stable environment for pest development. Often, the natural enemies that keep pests under control outside are not present under protected environment. For these reasons, pest situations often develop in the indoor environment more rapidly and with greater severity than outdoors.
      Over 35 species of insect and mite pests are reported as pests of pepper (Sorensen, 2005) [3], According to the reports by Ananthakrishnan (1971) [4], Krishna Kumar (1995) [5], Krishna Kumar et al. (1996) [6], Vasicek et al. (2001) [7], and Eswara Reddy and Krishna Kumar (2006) [8], the thrips Scirtothrips dorsalis is a serious pest of chilli and sweet pepperin India. Similarly
      Eswara Reddy (2005) [9], reported that thrips, S. dorsalis is the major pest infesting sweet
      pepper both under protected and open field conditions. Sunitha (2007) [10], has also revealed the occurrence of aphids, thrips and mites as major pests in capsicum.
      According  to  Sanap  and  Nawale  (1987)  [11],  adults  and nymphs of S. dorsalis suck the cell sap of leaves, causing rolling of the leaf upward and leaf size reduction. Thrips feed on new leaves and developing flowers, causing misshapen, twisted and cupped pepper leaves feeding by larvae causes scarring and discoloration in developing fruit. (http://www.seminis-us.com/resources/disease-guides/pepper- eggplant/thrips-2/)[12]
      Over   use   of   synthetic   organic   insecticides   results   in destruction of natural enemies, pest resurgence and failure of control strategies and simultaneous development of resistance against insecticides. Escalated public concern over extensive pesticide use and high pesticide residue levels in vegetables demanded the use of integrated pest management approaches in high pest attractive vegetable crops. In the backdrop of severity of thrips in capsicum in the recent past under protected conditions studies were carried out during 2016 and 2017 on the management of capsicum thrips with eco friendly pest management strategies
      Materials and methods
      The studies on the management of thrips in capsicum were
      conducted during 2016 and 2017 in Vijayapura district under protected conditions (shade net)(Fig 1).  The variety under study  was  Indra.The  experiment  was  conducted  in randomized block design with an area of 0.25acre/treatment. First spray of insecticides was given at 45 days after transplanting  when  the  thrips  population  was  sufficient enough to impose the treatments. Second spray was given at
      15 days interval after the first spray. Solar light traps were installed at the centre of the experimental area on the day of application of insecticides.(Fig 2) Observations on the number of thrips on two leaves each selected from top, middle and bottom  portions  of  a  plant  was  counted  separately.  The average population per six leaves was calculated and recorded one day prior to the implementation of treatments and at 3, 7 and 10 days after treatment. Percent reduction in the thrips population was calculated using formula by Henderson and Tilton (1955)[13]
      agrinfobank.com.pk
      Where,
      Ta= Number of insect after treatment in treated plot Tb= Number of insect before treatment in treated plot Ca= Number of insect in untreated check after treatment
      Cb= Number of insect in untreated check before treatment
      The analysis of variance was computed after subjecting the data in to angular transformation. Yield of capsicum fruits was recorded at each picking and finally yield/acre was worked out. C:B ratio was worked out by considering annual management expenditures incurred  in  management of  one acre area of capsicum field under protected condition other than insecticides, cost of insecticides, cost of solar light trap and market selling price of capsicum fruits.
      Results and Discussion
      Effect of various treatments on thrips in capsicum under net house is presented in table (1). Data represents pooled values of first and second spray given during each trial.
      Trial 1(2016)
      Significant  difference  was  not  found  between  the  various treatments at 1 day before treatment. At 2 days after treatment the treatments consisting of Solar light trap + Spinosad 45 SC @ 0.1 ml / lit and Solar light trap + Emamectin Benzoate 5% SG @0.25gm/ lit were found significantly superior and on par by recording 80.18 and 80.75% reduction in thrips respectively. The treatment Spinosad 45 SC 0.1 ml/lit and Emamectin Benzoate 5% SG @ 0.25gm/lit were found next best treatments and on par by recording 72.30 and 71.00% reduction in thrips population respectively. Solar light trap alone   was   found   significantly  superior  over   UTC   and recorded 62.5% reduction in thrips population. Same trend was observed at 5  days after treatment and 10 days after treatment
      Trial 2(2017)
      At 1 day before treatment no significant difference was found among various treatments in thrips population. At 2 days after treatment thrips population recorded showed significant difference between the  various treatments. Solar light trap combined with Spinosad 45 SC @ 0.1 ml/lit and Emamectin Benzoate 5% SG @ 0.25gm/lit were found significantly superior over other treatments and recorded 77.15 and 76.00 percent reduction in thrips population respectively. Spinosad @ 0.1ml/lit alone recorded 64.45% reduction and was found on par with Emamectin Benzoate 5% SG @ 0.25 gm/lit which recorded 67.15% reduction in thrips population.The trend was similar at 5 days after treatment also.The treatment in which Solar light trap were combined with insecticides were found significantly superior over Solar trap alone and insecticides without solar trap. At 10 days after treatment the treatment with solar trap + Spinosad 45 SC @ 0.1ml/ lit and Solar trap + Emamectin Benzoate 5% SG @ 0.25gm /lit recorded 98.10 and  96.85% reduction in  pest  population respectively and were   at   par   and   significantly   superior   over   all   other treatments. Spinosad 45 SC @ 0.1ml/lit and Emamectin Benzoate 5% SG @ 0.25gm /lit recorded 82.55 and 79.35 % reduction in thrips population respectively and were found at par with solar trap alone. (72.25%). Untreated check recorded 0.95% reduction in thrips population.
      Yield of Capsicum
      The pooled data of 2 years trial on yield of grapes as affected
      by various treatments is presented in table 2.Significant difference was recorded between all the treatments. Significantly highest yield of 29011.25 kg /acre was recorded in treatment solar trap+ Spinosad 45 SC @ 0.1ml /lit Solar light trap + Emamectin Benzoate 5%SG @ 0.25 gm/lit recorded 28358.75kg/acre. The next best treatment only Emamectin Benzoate 5%SG @ 0.25 gm/lit (24525.13kg/ha) which was found significantly superior to Spinosad 45 SC @ 0.1ml /l(22911.68kg/ha).Solar light trap was found significantly      superior      over      UTC      and      recorded 18689.25kg/acre. UTC recorded significantly lowest yield of 10685.25kg/ha.
      Cost benefit ratio
      The  data  on  C:B  ratio  obtained  in  the  present  study  is presented in Table3. Cost effectiveness of each treatment was analyzed based on net returns. Among the different treatments Solar light trap+ Spinosad 45SC@ 0.1ml/lit  registered the maximum net return (Rs 670681.25). This was followed by Solar light  trap+ Emamectin Benzoate 45%SG@0.25gm/lit(Rs  654158.75),  Emamectin  Benzoate. 5%SG                @0.25gm/lit(562318.25), Spinosad 5SC@0.1ml/lit(522202.00).Solar light trap alone registered net returns of Rs 413231.25 which is twice as that of UTC(Rs 217131.25).  C:B  ratio  was  highest  in  Solar  light  trap+Spinosad 45SC@ 0.1ml/lit(12.28).This was followed by Solar  light    trap+    Emamectin    Benzoate    @0.25gm/lit(11.93), EmamectinBenzoate5%SG @ 0.25gm/lit(11.06),Spinosad 45SC@ 0.1ml(10.32). Solar light trap alone registered C:B ratio of Rs 7.65 which is followed by UTC(4.34).

       

      Table1:Efficacyofvarious treatments onthrips in Capsicumunder nethouse

       

       

       

      Trial1

      Trial2

       

       

      Treatments

      No ofthrips

      /6leaves

      Percentreduction inthrips population(I andIISpraypooled)

      No ofthrips

      /6leaves

      Percentreductioninthrips population(I andII Spraypooled)

       

       

      1DBT

      2DAT

      5DAT

      10DAT

      1DBT

      2DAT

      5DAT

      10DAT

      1

      Solar lighttrap

      46.00

      62.5

      (52.24)

      65.38

      (53.91)

      66.50

      (54.63)

      36.00

      61.00

      (51.35)

      66.50

      (54.63)

      72.25

      (58.18)

       

      2

      Solar lighttrap+

      Spinosad

      45SC(0.1ml/lit)

       

      46.00

      80.18 (63.51)

      83.13 (65.73)

      93.50 (75.23)

       

      39.00

      77.15 (61.41)

      87.60 (69.38)

      98.10 (82.08)

       

       

      3

      Solar light

      trap+Emamectin

      Benzoate

      5%SG(0.25gm/lit

       

       

      44.00

       

      80.75 (63.94)

       

      81.25 (64.30)

       

      93.43 (75.11)

       

       

      34.00

       

      76.00 (60.67)

       

      88.75 (70.45)

       

      96.85 (79.86)

       

      4

      Spinosad

      45SC(0.1ml/lit)

      45.00

      72.30

      (58.24)

      73.50

      (59.02)

      78.70

      (62.50)

       

      36.00

      64.45

      (53.43)

      77.75

      (61.82)

      82.55

      (65.27)

      5

      EmamectinBenzoate

      5%SG(0.25gm/lit

      45.00

      71.00

      (57.42)

      71.38

      (57.00)

      79.85

      (63.29)

      38.00

      67.15

      (55.06)

      77.53

      (61.68)

      79.35

      (62.94)

      6

      UTC

      42.00

      0.10

      (1.81)

      0.10

      (1.81)

      1.05

      (5.74)

      39.00

      0.10

      (1.81)

      0.95

      (5.44)

      0.95

      (5.44)

       

      CD (0.05%)

      NS

      6.49

      6.86

      10.38

      NS

      5.09

      8.93

      10.02

       

      Sem±

       

      2.16

      2.28

      3.46

       

      1.69

      2.97

      3.34

      Figuresintheparenthesesarearc sinetransformedvalues

       

      Table 2:YieldofCapsicumundervarious treatments undernethouse

       

      Sl.No.

      Treatments

      Yield(kg/Acre)Trial1

      Yield(kg/Acre)Trial2

      Yield(kg/Acre)Pooled

      1

      Solar lighttrap

      18839.00e

      18539.50e

      18689.25

      2

      Solar lighttrap+Spinosad45SC(0.1ml/lit)

      29100.00a

      28922.50a

      29011.25

       

      3

      Solar lighttrap+EmamectinBenzoate

      45%SG(0.25gm/lit

       

      26781.25b

       

      27936.25

       

      28358.75

      4

      Spinosad45SC(0.1ml/lit)

      22974.18d

      22849.18d

      22911.68

      5

      EmamectinBenzoate 5%SG(0.25gm/lit)

      24587.63c

      24462.63c

      24525.13

      6

      UTC

      10760.25f

      10610.25f

      10685.25

       

      CD (0.05%)

      890.39

      987.79

      991.30

       

      Sem±

      296.99

      329.48

      334.70

       

      Table 3:Returns andC:Bratio undervarioustreatments ofcapsicumthrips management.

       

      Sl.No.

      Treatments

      Gross returns(Rs/acre)

      Netreturns(Rs/acre)

      C:Bratio

      1

      Solar lighttrap

      467231.25

      413231.25

      7.65

      2

      Solar lighttrap+Spinosad45SC(0.1ml/lit)

      725281.25

      670681.25

      12.28

      3

      Solar lighttrap+EmamectinBenzoate 45%SG(0.25gm/lit)

      708968.75

      654158.75

      11.93

      4

      Spinosad45SC(0.1ml/lit)

      572792.00

      522202.00

      10.32

      5

      EmamectinBenzoate 5%SG(0.25gm/lit)

      613128.25

      562318.25

      11.06

      6

      UTC

      267131.25

      217131.25

      4.34

      The efficacy of insecticides studied in the present experiment is reported by many authors in green chilli and capsicum and the present results are in agreement with the reports by Roopa (2013) [1]  who reported that lowest populations, highest per cent reduction of S. dorsalis was recorded with the treatment Spinosad 45 SC @ 0.01% in capsicum and it also resulted in maximum fruit yield (30,050 kg/ha) followed by Fipronil (27750 kg/ha), Imidacloprid (27150 kg/ha) and Emamectin benzoate (27000 kg/ha). Similarly Vanisree et al. (2017) [14] reported that Spinosad 0.015% was found most effective in reducing the population of S.dorsalis as well as in increasing yields in chilli and it attains highest cost benefit ratio.
      The reports on use of solar light traps under protected conditions are scanty and discussion is made in comparison with available reports on solar light traps.
      The results of present study on the use of solar light traps are in agreement with reports of Reddy et al. (2015) [15]  who reported   that   the   pest   control   with   LED   lights   could effectively reduce the dosage of pesticides as well as their pollution on the agricultural products, soil and water. The solar LED light is easy to use and can be applied to various crops. During the day, energy from the solar panels will be stored in the storage batteries at night, the electrical energy from the battery could drive circuit of LED light to control pests. Similarly Sunitha and Rajasekhar (2015) [16] studied the effect of solar light trap in capsicum under net condition and reported that on an average number of insects trapped ranged between 600-700 /night which included whiteflies, thrips, hoppers, termites, cutworms and fruit borers and number of insecticides   are   reduced   from   3   to   1/week   and   by
      70.00%.Along with reduction in number of sprays, it also resulted in the conservation of many natural enemies. Prabhu (2016)  [17]  reported that solar  powered insect trap  captures many sucking pests thereby reducing the dependence on biopesticdes usage to the tune of 50%. It is perhaps the most environment friendly practice as the source of light for trapping insects is sun and device operates automatically turning on the light during dusk (6.00-7.00pm) and turns it off after five hours using a micro controller chip.
      Though insecticides are found be the most promising tools of insect pest management, there is a need to integrate other safe methods of pest management to overcome the ill effects of insecticides. Insect light traps are the most widely used visual traps for the agricultural insect pests, and have been particularly important in surveillance and monitoring of the seasonal appearance of many species. Reducing and controlling the pest population using light traps is an age old practice in crop sector. Solar light traps can be used alone or integrated with other tools of IPM especially under protected conditions. The  result  of  present experiments conclusively revealed that Solar light trap+ Spinosad 45SC@ 0.1ml/lit and Solar  light  trap+  Emamectin  Benzoate@0.25gm/lit can  be effectively used  in  the  management of thrips in  capsicum under protected conditions.
      Conclusion
      The adoption of IPM is practically low because the method is tedious, time consuming, requires new skills. The failure and complexities  of  practical  IPM  systems,  particularly monitoring and determination of crop loss and economic thresholds by  small  and  marginal  farmers  discourages the adoption of the IPM approach and again encourage over reliance on the use of pesticides. In this regard solar traps can be a boon for farming community. Solar trap catches all types of insects like flying adults and  young ones belonging to various taxa of insects which cause various types of damages to crop plants. This trap is solar chargeable, with automatic timer device turn on by sunset and turn off after few hours continuous  operation.  It   is   portable  across  the   various cropping areas including shade houses and other protected cultivation areas without any changes with no major mounting or installation efforts required and easy to operate. Also no electricity and manpower required to operate once installed in the field. Though initial investment appear to be heavy for some models, in long run it is economical, helps to reduce the number of pesticide sprays and thereby cost of production. Above all it is ecofriendly. Hence they can be incorporated in IPM practices.
      Acknowledgement
      The author is thankful to Deputy Director of Agriculture 1,
      State Department of Agriculture, Vijayapura-586101, Karnataka for extending the help during the study period.
      References
      1.    Roopa   M.   Pest   complex,   screening   of   cultivars andevaluation of new insecticide molecules against major insect pests of capsicum sp. M. Sc. (Agri) Thesis. University of Agricultural Sciences, Bengaluru (India),
      2013.
      2.Sandeep   Kaur,   Subash   Singh,   Efficacy   of   some insecticides and botanicals against sucking pests on capsicum under net house. Agriculture for Sustainable Development, 2013; 1:39-44.
      3.Sorensen   KA.   Vegetable   insect   pest   management. www.ces.ncsu.edu/deptes./ent/notes/vegetables/veg37.ht m1-11k, 2005.
      4.Ananthakrishnan     TN.     Thrips     (Thysanoptera)     in agriculture, horticulture, forestry -Diagnosis, bionomics and control. Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research. 1971; 30:113-146.
      5.Krishna Kumar NK. Yield loss in chilli and sweet pepper due to Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Pest Management in Horticulture Ecosystem. 1995; 1:61-69.
      6.Krishna Kumar NK, AradhyaM, Deshpande AA, Anand N,  Ramachandar  PR.  Screening  of  chilli  and  sweet pepper germplasm for resistance to chilli thrips, Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood. Euphytica. 1996; 89:319-324.
      7.Vasicek A, Rossa, F-De-La, Paglioni A. Biological and populational aspects of Aulacorthum solani (Kalt), Myzus persicae (Sulz) and Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thomas) (Homoptera: Aphidoidea) on pepper under laboratory conditions.  Boletin  de  Sanidal  Vegetal  Plagas,  2001; 27:439-446.
      8.Eswara  Reddy SG,  Krishna  Kumar.  A  comparison of management  of  thrips  Scirtothrips  dorsalis  Hood  on sweet pepper grown under protected and open field cultivation. Pest Management in Horticulture Ecosystem. 2006; 12:45-54.
      9.Eswara Reddy SG. Comparison of pest incidence and management strategy on capsicum and tomato grown under protected and open field cultivation. Ph D Thesis University of Agricultural Sciences. Bangalore (India), 2005.
      10. Sunitha TR. Insect pests of Capsicum annum var. frutescence (L.) and their management. M. Sc(Agri) Thesis. University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad (India), 2005.
      11.  Sanap  MM,  Nawale  RN.  Chemical  control  of  chilli thrips,  Scirtothrips  dorsalis.  Vegetable  Science.  1987; 14:195-99.
      12.  Quickresolvingtablets. http://www.seminis-us.com/resour ces/disease-guides/pepper-eggplant/thrips-2
      13.  Henderson CF, Tilton EW. Tests with acaricides against brown  wheat  mite.  Journal  of  Economic Entomology. 1955; 48(2):157-161.
      14.  Vanisree  K,  Upendhar  S,  Rajasekhar P,  Ramachandra Rao G. Effect of newer insecticides against chilli thrips, Scirtothrips dorsalis (Hood). Journal of Entomology and Zoology studies. 2017; 5(2):277-284
      15.  Harsha  Vardhan  Reddy  L,  Ashok  Kumar  Reddy  V. Hemanth  S,  Durga  Prasad  PJ.  Modelling  and Optimization of Solar Light Trap for Reducing and Controlling the Pest Population. International Journal of Engineering Technology, Management and Applied Sciences. 2015; 3(4):224-234
      16.  Sunitha  ND,   Rajasekhar  DW.   Solar   light   traps   in capsicum reduce the pesticide sprays. Book of Abstracts. 2nd International conference on environment and ecology. Bharathiyar  Univeristy,  Coimbatore.  TN.  India,  2016; 230.
      17.  Prabhu MJ. Easy to carry effective solar powered insect trapper. The Hindu, 2016.

       

      Impact of botanical pesticides against sucking insect pests and their insect predators in brinjal crop

      Abstract
      Sucking pests of brinjal cause significant losses to its yield. Considering the negative impacts of synthetic
      pesticides, field studies were conducted to evaluate the impact of neem Azadirachta indica, tobacco Nicotina tabbacium, trooh Citrullus collocynthus, Movanto (Spirotetramat) against sucking insect pests of brinjal and their predators during 2016-2017. Two sprays were done during the study. Observations were taken for population reduction of insect pests due to the application of pesticides using Abbot’s formula. All the botanical pesticides especially neem showed potential to cause population reduction of aphids, whitefly, jassid and thrips. Trooh also showed significant mortality of aphid and thrips, whereas tobacco caused more mortality of whitefly and jassid. Comparatively neem showed less persistency in comparison to trooh and tobacco as mostly pest populations started rebuilding after 72 hours of its application. In comparison to Movanto, botanical pesticides particularly trooh were less toxic against the coccinellid predators i.e., C. septempunctata, B. suturalis and M. sexmaculatus recorded in the study.
      Keywords: sucking pests, predators, brinjal, botanical pesticides
      Authors: SaifullahKunbhar,LubnaBashirRajput,ArfanAhmedGilal,Ghulam Akber Channa and Jam GhulamMustafa Sahito
      Introduction
      Brinjal  (Solanum  melongena  L.)  is  one  of  the  commonly  consumed  vegetable  in  many countries of the world, especially in Asia [1]. It belongs to Solanaceae family and is the native of India and Pakistan [2]. It is grown on a fairly-wide scale in China, Japan India and Pakistan during all seasons [3]. The brinjal fruit is a rich source of iron, phosphorous, calcium and vitamins like A, B and C. Normally, its fruit is consumed as vegetable, however, it is also used in the manufacturing of pickles and other by products [4]. Brinjal is cultivated round the year due to the availability of water, therefore, it is very susceptible to be damaged by many pests including insects throughout its growth period [5]. Among the major insect pests infesting brinjal are shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis), whitefly (Bemesia tabaci), leafhopper (Amrasca biguttula biguttula), aphid (Aphis gossypii), thrips (Thrips tabaci) and non-insect pest i.e., red spider mite, (Tetranychus macfurlanei) [6]. Sucking pests of brinjal cause significant losses to crop directly by sucking the cell sap using their piercing and sucking mouth parts and indirectly by transmitting viral diseases or developing sooty mould on their honey dews [7]. Some sucking pests are cosmopolitan, polyphagous and widely distributed in tropical, subtropical and temperate regions and are also serving as vectors for a number of viral diseases in diversified plant species [8]. As a result of pest attack, considerable damage has been recorded to the yield and quality of the brinjal crop on regular basis [9, 10].
      Among predators observed on sucking pests of brinjal, the lady bird beetles hold the key importance. The adults and larvae of ladybird beetles attack aphids, whiteflies, psyllids, scales and many other soft bodied insects and found to be effective predators in brinjal fields. The green lacewings and hemipteran bugs also perform significant contribution in lowering the sucking pest population by predating various life stages of these pests [11].
      Mostly, insect pests are controlled by synthetic insecticides for their quick knock down effect [12].  However,  careless  and  indiscriminate  use  of  these  chemicals  leads  to  a  number  of problems like contamination of food, soil, ground water, lakes, rivers, oceans, and air with toxic residues which carry side effects on non-target insects and other organisms. Moreover, injudicious use of pesticides may also develop resistance among pests against these pesticides and thus, pest resurgence occurs frequently in recent years [13]. In addition, many non-lethal and lethal accidents occur among human beings due to mishandling of highly toxic synthetic products. Because of these hazards of the pesticides, there is a growing awareness among the people, not only in developed but in developing countries for the safe use of synthetic pesticides [14]. Biopesticides or biological pesticides based on plants or pathogenic microorganisms  and specific to the target pest, offer an ecologically sound and effective solution to pest problems [15]. Moreover, use of these pesticides is safe to the humans and their environment [16]. Accordingly, the use of bio and botanical pesticides offer potential benefits to agriculture and public health programmes are considerable [17]. Therefore, in recent years, focused has been shifted towards the use of potential  botanical  plants  to  manage  the  pest  populations below the threshold levels. Neem, tobacco, eucalyptus, castor, hing and dhatura are some of the widely tested plant materials against insect pests [18]. However, evaluation of botanical pesticides on the population and effectiveness of insect predators has yet not been exhaustively studied, especially in Sindh province. Moreover, the utilization of natural enemies effectively as the basis of an IPM program, it is crucial to put in place strategies and techniques that can establish and concentrate the predators in crop system followed by integration of natural enemies with other control tools that are least disruptive to the natural enemy activity [19]. Therefore, the  research  was  conducted  to  evaluate  the  impact  of botanical pesticides against insect pests of and their associated predators in brinjal crop under field conditions with the following objectives.
      Materials and Methods
      Study location
      The study was conducted at the Experimental Field, Entomology    Section,     Agriculture    Research     Institute,
      Tandojam, Sindh during the cropping season of 2016-2017.
      Cultivation of Brinjal
      The brinjal variety (Janak) was obtained from Horticulture
      Institute, Agriculture Research Institute, Mirpur Khas and transplantation   in   the   field   was   carried   out   @   the recommended rate (120 grams / acre). All the agronomic practices were done as recommended.
      Treatments
      Following treatments were used in the experiment at their prescribed recommended rate as given against each pesticide:
      T1 = Neem (Azadirachta indica A.Juss.) @ 4 kg/acre
      T2 = Tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L) @ 3 kg/acre T3 = Trooh (Citrullus colocynthus L) @ 4 kg/acre T4 = Movento 240 SP (Spirotetramat 240 g/L)
      T5 = Control
      Preparation of Botanical Extracts
      One kg seeds of Neem, 500 kg leaves of tobacco and 1kg fruit
      of trooh were collected and processed to get plant extracts. Each plant material was kept in water i.e., the neem seeds in 2 liters of water, tobacco leaves in 4 liter of water and trooh in 2 liter of water and were left for an overnight. On the next day, the prepared stock solutions were filtered through the muslin cloth  to get  the  desired  plant  extracts. The  different plant extracts thus, obtained were stored in glass bottles till their application  in the field. The different plant extracts and a pesticide  were  applied  using  a  hand  operated  knapsack sprayer at the following rates:
      Neem @ 4 kg / acre (88 ml/plot)
      Tobacco @ 3kg / acre (196 ml/plot) Trooh @ 4 kg/acre (222 ml/plot) Movento 240% SC @ 0.5 ml/plot
      During the study, two sprays were carried out keeping in view the threshold levels of various sucking pests in brinjal.
      Experimental Design
      The experiment was conducted in a Randomized Complete
      Block Design (RCBD). Each treatment used in the study was replicated five times. Size of each replicated unit was 402 sq.
      ft., resulting in the total experimental area size of 10,057sq/ft.
      Data collection and analysis
      Five plants were randomly selected from each replication for
      the observations. The data for insect pests of brinjal was collected by direct observation from five leaves of each selected plant (two leaves from top and middle, whereas one leaf from bottom of plant). The entire plant was looked into to observe the population of insect predators of insect pests. Pre- observation was taken just before the application of individual treatments. The subsequent observations were recorded after
      24, 48, 72 and 96 hour and finally at the end of one week after pesticide   application.   Data   for   second   spray   was   also collected as mentioned above. The collected data was checked for normality and was square root transformed to normalize the data before statistical analysis, where necessary. Analysis of Variance using SAS 9.4 computer software was used to analyze the data whereas means with significant difference was separated using Least Square Difference (LSD) at 0.5 probability level. Moreover, percentage reduction in pest population after the application of individual pesticide was collected by using Abbots (1925) formula as given below:

      Where Pt = Corrected population, Po = Observed population, Pc = Control population.
      Results & Discussion
      During   the   study,   among   sucking   pests,   population   of whitefly, jassids and aphids were recorded during the both
      spray schedules, whereas, thrips population was only recorded during  the  time  of  1st   application  of  botanical  pesticides.
      Among predators, during pre-observations, population of coccinellid   (0.04±0.04   predators   /   plant)   and   spiders
      (0.08±0.04 spiders / plant) were recorded. However, during
      the 2nd spray, population of various coccinellid were recorded and  affected  due  to  the  application  of  various  botanical
      pesticides.
      The results regarding the percent reduction of whiteflies due to the application of botanical pesticides indicated at 24 and
      48 hours intervals, no significant reduction was recorded due to the application of botanicals. However, afterwards significant  reduction  was  recorded  in  whitefly  population
      especially due to the application of Neem (59.05%) at 72
      hours after application that reached to 62.42% at 96 hours. After Neem, Movanto application cause the population reduction percentage of 26.14% at 72 hours of application, but the population started rebuilding afterwards in the treatment. After 72 hours, percentage population reduction in Tobacco and Trooh treatments were 22.79% and 15.44%, respectively that increased in tobacco to 35.90% at 96 hours intervals, whereas, showed a declining trend in trooh (Fig. 1). The percentage population reduction of whiteflies due to the
      application of various pesticides indicated that up to 24 hours, no significant reduction in population was recorded in any of the treatment. However, at 48 hours of application, the highest reduction percentage in population of whiteflies was recorded with  the  application  of  Movanto  240  SC  (69.86%)  that reached upto 80.62% at 96 hours of application. The highest reduction   percentage   in   Neem   (61.90%)   and   Tobacco (68.25%) was recorded at 72 hours after their application, whereas,   Trooh   treatment   showed   66.21%   population reduction of whiteflies after 96 hours of application (Fig. 2).
      Fig 1: Corrected percentage reduction in population of B. tabaci after 1st spray of botanical pesticides at various intervals under field conditions
      Fig 1: Corrected percentage reduction in population of B. tabaci after 1st spray of botanical pesticides at various intervals under field conditions
      Fig 2: Corrected percentage reduction in population of B. tabaci after 2nd spray of botanical pesticides at various intervals under field condition
      Fig 2: Corrected percentage reduction in population of B. tabaci after 2nd spray of botanical pesticides at various intervals under field condition
      Fig. 3 gives the percentage population reduction of jassids after 1st  spray. The results indicated that the application of Neem showed the highest population reduction percentage (77.62%) after 48 hours of application but the same declined afterwards and reached to 66.80% after seven days of the application. Application of Movanto exhibited 58.50% population reduction after 48 hours that reached to 59.06% at
      72   hours   of   application   but   showed   declining   trend afterwards.  Among  the  botanicals,  Tobacco  showed  the lowest population reduction percentage 59.43% after 72 hours
      of application that further reduced to 43.66% after 7 days. The corrected  percentage  population  reduction  results  after  2nd
      spray indicated that all the applied chemicals started reducing the population after 24 of exposure. The highest reduction percentage after 48 hours was observed in Movanto treatment (54.69%) that peaked (61.85%) at 72 hours of exposure. Among the botanical pesticides used, application of neem reduced up to 56.09% of jassids population after seven days, Tobacco (54.94%) after 72 hours and trooh (54.00%) after seven days of application (Fig. 4).
      Fig 3: Corrected percentage reduction in population of A. biguttula biguttula after 1st spray of botanical pesticides at various intervals under field conditions
      Fig 3: Corrected percentage reduction in population of A. biguttula biguttula after 1st spray of botanical pesticides at various intervals under field conditions
      Fig 4: Corrected percentage reduction in population of A. biguttula biguttula after 2nd spray of botanical pesticides at various intervals under field conditions
      Fig 4: Corrected percentage reduction in population of A. biguttula biguttula after 2nd spray of botanical pesticides at various intervals under field conditions
      The percentage population reduction results indicate that in comparison to movanto, various botanical pesticides showed greater efficiency against the aphids as the highest reduction percentage   of   aphids   was   recorded   in   neem   treatment (60.84%) after 48 hours of application followed by tobacco (54.56%) and trooh (51.82%) after 72 hours after application. Movanto reduced the population upto 48.42% after 72 hours of application. However, efficacy of various pesticides started reducing after 72 hours of application against aphids (Fig. 5). Fig. 6 shows the percentage population reduction of aphids after second spray. The results indicated that the highest reduction percentage of aphid population was recorded with the application of movanto (75.29% after 96 hours) followed by neem (71.56% after 48 hours), trooh (65.87% after 96 hours) and tobacco (61.81% after 96 hours), respectively.
      Fig 5: Corrected percentage reduction in population of A. gossypii after 1st spray application of botanical pesticides at various intervals under field conditions
      Fig 5: Corrected percentage reduction in population of A. gossypii after 1st spray application of botanical pesticides at various intervals under field conditions
       Fig 6: Corrected percentage reduction in population of A. gossypii after 2nd spray of botanical pesticides at various intervals under field conditions
      Fig 6: Corrected percentage reduction in population of A. gossypii after 2nd spray of botanical pesticides at various intervals under field conditions
      Efficiency of various botanical pesticides in the percentage population reduction of thrips at various intervals is given in Fig. 7. The results indicated that maximum population reduction of thrips (88.46%) was recorded in Movanto and tobacco treatments after seven days, followed by trooh (84.62% after seven days) and neem (80.00% after 48 hours).
      Fig 7: Corrected percentage reduction in population of T. tabaci after 1st spray of botanical pesticides at various intervals under field conditions
      Fig 7: Corrected percentage reduction in population of T. tabaci after 1st spray of botanical pesticides at various intervals under field conditions
      Populations of whiteflies, jassids and aphids were observed throughout the study period, whereas thrip population was recorded only at the time of first spray. Although a minimal population of coccinellid predators was recorded during the
      1st  spray; however, a significant population was recorded at the time of second spray, especially in the botanical pesticide treatments. Finding of the study indicated that among all the
      pests observed, Neem extracts showed significant reduction in
      the population of various pests observed and was either higher or in accordance with the synthetic pesticides used i.e., Movanto. Other botanicals, especially trooh also showed a considerable impact against the population of sucking pests especially thrips and aphids. Many previous studies confirmed the significant role of botanical pesticides in the population reduction of sucking insect pests of various crops. Among the botanicals  used  against  the  sucking  insect  pests,  neem, tobacco, garlic, trooh and others were found to be effective but, less persistence than the synthetic pesticides used [20, 21, 22,
      23, 24, 25]. It was also observed in the study that application of botanicals especially trooh were less determinant against the natural   enemies   i.e.,   coccinellid   predators.   Moreover,
      although the application of Movanto significantly reduced the
      population of sucking pests but it was also more dangerous and reduced the population of coccinellid predators. Experiments has showed that synthetic pesticides insecticides have  showed  comparatively  higher  toxicity  against  insect
      sucking pests of cotton and brinjal, however, botanical pesticides   were   not   found   less   hazardous   against   the predators, but also enhanced their population in some incidences [6, 26].
      Conclusions
      All the botanical pesticides showed potential in the management of sucking insect pests of brinjal. Neem showed
      comparatively more effectiveness against the sucking pests
      followed by Tobacco and Trooh. Trooh showed more effectiveness in population reduction of aphids and thrips than whiteflies and jassids. All the botanicals were found less persistant especially Neem, followed by Tobacco and Trooh. Although, a minimum population of coccinellid was recorded at the time of first spray, their population showed a rising trend during second spray. All the botanicals showed less toxicity against the predators observed, with the highest population of predators recorded in Trooh treatment, followed by Neem and Tobacco. Movanto showed the highest toxicity against the predators.
      References
      1.    Harish  DK,  Agasimani  AK,  Imamsaheb  SJ,  Patil  S.
      Growth and yield parameters in brinjal as influenced by organic nutrient management and plant protection conditions.  Research  Journal  of  Agricultural  Sciences.
      2011; 2(2):221-225.
      2.    Lohar  MK.  Applied  Entomology,  2nd   Edition.  Kashif
      Publications Hyderabad Sindh. 2001, 31-34.
      3.Hanson PM, Yang RY, Tsou SCS, Ledesma D, Engle L, Lee TC. Diversity in eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) for superoxide scavenging activity, total phenolics and ascorbic acid. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis.
      2006; 19:594-600.
      4.Singh S, Krishnakumar S, Katyal SL. Fruit culture in India. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi. 1963, 412.
      5.Regupathy    A,    Palanisamy    S,    Chandramohan    N, Gunathilagaraj K. A guide on crop pests. Sooriya Desk Top Publishers, Coimbatore. 1997, 264.
      6.Dutta  NK,  Alam  SN,  Mahmudunnabi  M,  Amin  MR, Kwon YJ. Effect of insecticides on population reduction of  sucking  insects  and  lady  bird  beetle  in  eggplant field. Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Research. 2017;
      42(1):35-42.
      7.Srinivasan R. Insect and mite pests on eggplant: a field guide for identification and management. AVRDC-The
      World Vegetable Center, Shanhua, Taiwan. 2009, 10-13.
      8.    Satar  S,  Kersting  U,  Uygun,  N.  Development  and
      fecundity of Aphis gossypii Glover (Homoptera: Aphididae) on three Malvaceae hosts. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry. 1999; 23(6):637-644.
      9.Karim  KNS,  Das  BC,  Khalequzzaman  M.  Population dynamics of Aphis gossypii Glover (Homoptera: Aphididae) at Rajshahi, Bangladesh Journal of Biological Sciences. 2001; 1:492-495.
      10.  Yarahmadi F, Rajabpur A, Shabazi A. Investigations on toxic effects of some insecticides on population of Aphis gossypii    Glover    and    its    parasitoids    Hibiscusrosa
      chinensis in Ahwaz’s groon landscape. Proceedings of
      the 1st   Congress of  Modern Agricultural Sciences  and
      Technology, Zanjan, Iran, 2011.
      11.  Ali A, Rizvi PQ, Pathak M. Reproductive performance of Coccinella transversalis Fabricius (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae)       on       different       aphid       species.
      Biosystematica. 2009; 3:37-41.
      12. Naranjo SE. Conservation and evaluation of natural enemies in IPM systems for Bemisia tabaci. Crop Protection. 2001; 20:835-852.
      13.  Miller GT. Sustaining the Earth, 6th  edition. Thompson
      Learning, Inc. Pacific Grove, California, 2004.
      14.  Uversky  VN,  Li  J,  Bower  K,  Fink  AL.  Synergestic effects of pesticides and metals on the fibrillation of α- synuclein: implications for Parkinson’s disease. Neurotoxicology. 2002; 23:527-536.
      15. Gupta S, Dikshit AK. Biopesticides: an ecofriendly approach for pest control. Journal of Biopesticides. 2010;
      3(1):186-188.
      16. Kalra A, Khanuja SPS. Research and Development priorities for biopesticide and biofertilizer products for sustainable  agriculture  in  India.  Business  Potential  for
      Agricultural   Biotechnology.   Teng   PS   (Ed.),   Asian
      Productivity Organisation, 2007, 96-102.
      17. Thakore  Y.  The  biopesticide  market  for  global agriculturaluse.  Industrial  Biotechnoogy.  2006;  2:194-
      208.
      18.  Iqbal MF, Maqbool U, Perveez I, Farooq M, Asi MR.
      Monitoring  of  insecticide  residues  in  brinjal  collected from market of Noshera Virkan, Pakistan. The Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences. 2009; 19(2):90-93.
      19.  Mensah   RK.   Development   of   an   integrated   pest
      management programme for cotton. Part 2: Integration of a  lucerne/cotton  interplant  system,  food   supplement sprays with biological and synthetic insecticides. International    Journal    of    Pest    Management. 2002;
      48(2):95-105.
      20.  Ali SS, Ahmed S, Ahmed SS, Rizwana H. Siddiqui S, Ali S, Rattar IA, Shah MA. Effect of biopesticide against sucking insect pest of brinjal crop under field condition. Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences. 2006; 12:4-49.
      21.  Ursani TJ, Malik S, Chandio JI, Palh ZA, Soomro NM, Lashari  KH  et  al.  Screening  of  biopesticides  against insect pests of brinjal. International Journal of Emerging Trends in Science and Technology. 2014; 1(6):918-931.
      22. Solangi BK, Sultana R, Suthar V, Wagan M. Field evaluation of bio-Pesticides against Jassid, Amrasca biguttula  biguttula  (ishida)  in  okra.  Sindh  University
      Research Journal (Science Series). 2013; 45(2):311-316
      23.  Jarwar AR, Abro GH, Khuhro RD, Dhiloo KH, Malik MS.  Efficacy  of  neem  oil  and  neem  kernal  powder against major sucking pests on brinjal under field conditions.    European    Academic    Research.    2014;
      2(6):7641-7658.
      24.  Khuhro RD, Rajput IA, Ahmad F, Lakho MH, Khuhro
      SN, Dhiloo KH. Efficacy of different IPM techniques for suppression of sucking pests of okra. European Academic Research. 2014; 2(8):10738-10752.
      25. Iqbal J, Ali H, Hassan MW, Jamil M. Evaluation of indigenous plant extracts against sucking insect pests of okra crop. Pakistan Entomologist. 2015; 37(1):39-44.
      26.  Baker MA, Makhdum AH, Nasir M, Imran A, Ahmad A, Tufail F. Comparative efficacy of synthetic and botanical insecticides against sucking insect pest and their natural enemies   on   cotton   crop. Journal   of   Mountain   Area Research. 2016; 1:1-4.