STUDIES ON DEFOLIATORS AND STEMFLY PESTS OF SOYBEAN … · Pradesh, Karnataka and Gujarat. In Karnataka soybean occupies an area of 0.22 million ha with production of 0.23 million

STUDIES ON DEFOLIATORS AND STEMFLY PESTS OF SOYBEAN AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

Thesis submitted to the

University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

in

Agricultural Entomology

By

PRABHU NAYAKA

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ENTOMOLOGY COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, DHARWAD

UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES DHARWAD – 580 005

JULY, 2013

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

DHARWAD JULY, 2013 (R. H. PATIL) CHAIRMAN Approved by : Chairman :

Members : 1. 2. 3.

(R. V. KOTI)

(C. P. MALLAPUR)

(R. A. BALIKAI)

(R. H. PATIL)

(S. A. JAHAGIRDAR) 4.

CONTENTS

Sl. No.

Chapter Particulars

CERTIFICATE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF PLATES

LIST OF APPENDICES

1. INTRODUCTION

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Survey and surveillance of insect pests of soybean and their natural enemies

2.2 Crop loss estimation due to the seedling borer and leaf eating caterpillars in soybean

2.3 Management of seedling borers and leaf eating caterpillars in soybean

3. MATERIAL AND METHODS


3.2 Estimation of crop losses due to the stem fly and leaf eating caterpillars in soybean


3.4 Evaluation of newer insecticide molecules and poison baits against leaf eating caterpillars

4. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

4.1 Survey and surveillance of stem fly and leaf eating caterpillars

4.2 Assessments of crop loss due to stem fly

4.3 Assessment of crop loss due to leaf eating caterpillar

4.4 Management of stemfly and leaf eating cater pillers in soybean

4.5 Efficacy of newer insecticide molecules and poison baits in the management of leaf eating caterpillars in soybean ecosystem

5. DISCUSSION

5.1 Roving survey



5.4 Assessment of crop loss due to leaf eating caterpillars

5.5 Screening of soybean genotypes against stem fly and leaf eating caterpillar

5.6 Efficacy of insecticides/bio- rationales in the management of stem fly in soybean


6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

LIST OF TABLES

Sl. No.

Title

1 Location selected for survey of insect pests of soybean in northern Karnataka during 2010-12

2 Treatment details for loss estimation studies due to stem fly

3 Treatment details for the evaluation of newer insecticide molecules and poison baits against leaf eating caterpillar pests of soybean

4 Seasonal incidences of stem fly (M. sojae) in Dharwad districts of Northern Karnataka during 2010-12

5 Seasonal incidences of stem fly (M. sojae) in Belgaum districts of Northern Karnataka during 2010-12

6 Seasonal incidences of stem fly (M. sojae) in Bagalkot districts of Northern Karnataka during 2010-12

7 Seasonal incidences of stem fly (M. sojae) in Haveri districts of Northern Karnataka during 2010-12

8 Survey and surveillance of leaf eating caterpillars and their natural enemies in northern Karnataka during kharif 2011-12

9 Survey and surveillance of leaf eating caterpillar and their natural enemies in northern Karnataka during Kharif 2010-11

10 Survey and surveillance of s leaf eating caterpillars in northern Karnataka during 2010-11 and 2011-12 (Pooled)

11 Monitoring of insect pest severity at Dharwad during 2010-11 and 2011-12 (Pooled)

12 Correlation of weather parameters with soybean insect pests during kharif 2010-11 and 2011-2012 at MARS Dharwad

13 Influence of new molecules of insecticides against stem fly at 15 and 21 days after sowing


15 Influence of new molecules of insecticides on stem fly incidence during kharif 2010 and 2011


17 Influence of new molecules of insecticides against stem fly at 60 and harvest

18 Influence of new molecules of insecticides against stem fly during Kharif 2010 and 2011


20 Influence of new molecules of insecticides against stem fly at 60 and harvest

21 Influence of new molecules of insecticides against stem fly during kharif 2010 and 2012

22 Effect of new molecules of insecticides on 1000 seed weight and yield

23 Effect of new molecules of insecticides on number of pods and plant height

24 Economics of crop loss estimation studies during 2010-11 kharif


26 Correlation between yield components and stem fly infestation during 2010-11 and 2011-12

27 Yield response of soybean as influenced by differential levels of artificial defoliation

28 Incidence stem fly on different soybean genotypes

29 Varietal reactions against different defoliators in soybean

30 Identification of sources of resistance genotype against stem fly as per max- mini method during kharif 2010

31 Identification of sources of resistances genotype against stem fly as per max- mini method during kharif 2011

32 Total phenol content and trichome density on different soybean genotypes

33 Efficacy of insecticides/bio- rationales in the management of M. sojae during 2010 and 2011

34 Efficacy of insecticides/bio- rationales in the management of M. sojae during 2010 and 2011

35 Efficacy of insecticides/bio- rationales in the management of major pests of soybean during 2010 and 2011

36 Efficacy of insecticides in the management of Spilarctia obliqua during Kharif 2010 and 2011 after I Spray (Pooled)

37 Efficacy of insecticides in the management of Spilarctia obliqua during Kharif 2010 and 2011 after II Spray (Pooled)

38 Efficacy of insecticides in the management of Thysanoplusia orichalcea during Kharif 2010 and 2011 after I Spray (Pooled)

39 Efficacy of insecticides in the management of Thysanoplusia orichalcea during Kharif 2010 and 2011 after II Spray (Pooled)

40 Efficacy of insecticides in the management of Spodoptera litura during Kharif 2010 and 2011 after I Spray (Pooled)

41 Efficacy of insecticides in the management of Spodoptera litura during Kharif2010 and 2011 after II Spray (Pooled)

42 Influence of insecticides on yield

43 Cost economics as influenced by different treatments

LIST OF FIGURES

Figures No.

Title

1 Maxmin-Minmax plot for classification of varieties based on yield potential and loss during 2010

2 Locations selected for roving survey

3 Incidence of stem fly in different districts of Northern Karnataka

4 Incidence of stemfly in northern Karnataka

5 Influence of new molecules of insecticides on stem fly incidence kharif 2010-11 and 2011-12

6 Management of stem fly through new molecules of insecticides

7 Management of stem fly through new molecules of insecticides

8 Dynamic behavioral investigations of stem fly infesting in the management of stem fly through insecticides during kharif, 2010-2011 and 2011-12



11 Correlation coefficient of soybean genotypes and total phenol

12 Influence of insecticides over yield

LIST OF PLATES

Plate No. Title

1 Experimental view at 45 days after sowing

2 Differential levels of artificial defoliation

3 Tobacco caterpillar, Spodoptera litura infestation on soybean

4 Semilooper, Thysanoplusia orichacea infestation on soybean

5 Bihar hairy caterpillar, Spilarctia obliqua infestation on soybean

6 Defoliators infected with Nomurea riley cadavers

7 Soybean stem tunneling

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix No. Title

I Weekly average values of the weather parameters during the crop growing season (2010-11)

II Weekly average values of the weather parameters during the crop growing season (2011-12)

INTRODUCTION

Soybean Glycine max (L.) Merrill has been cultivated since 2500 BC in China; however it acquired global importance only in the later part of the 18

th century. Soybean which is believed to be

originated in Manchuria, a south east Asian country has been reported to be extensively cultivated in China from pre-historic times. Earlier in India, soybean was cultivated mainly in small pockets in the hills of Assam, West Bengal, Manipur and Nagaland and also in hilly areas of Uttar Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh. But now, cultivation of soybean is no more confined to these hilly areas, it has spread to all states of India. Looking to protein deficiency, shortage of edible oil, large scale demand for soybean from the antibiotic industry and the food manufacturer concerted efforts were made to develop high yielding varieties suitable for different agro climatic regions of the country as a result area under soybean cultivation has increased tremendously.

Soybean is a major oil seed crop of world grown in an area of 103.29 million hectares with production of 251.47 million tonnes and productivity of 2430 kg/ha (Anon., 2012). In the world it is cultivated mainly in USA, China, Brazil, Argentina and India. At present USA is the world’s largest producer of soybean followed by Brazil and Argentina in second and third position, respectively. India is the fifth largest producer of soybean next to China. In India it is grown over an area of 10.27 million hectares with production of 11.00 million tonnes and productivity of 1070 kg/ha (Anon., 2012). Predominant soybean growing states in India are Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Gujarat. In Karnataka soybean occupies an area of 0.22 million ha with production of 0.23 million tonnes and productivity of 1070 kg/ha (Anon., 2012). Belgaum, Dharwad, Bidar, Bagalkot and Haveri are the major soybean growing districts of Karnataka.

During the introduction of soybean in India in the early seventies, only about a dozen minor insect pests were recorded, while in 1997, this number has swelled to an alarming figure of 270, besides 1 mite, 2 millipedes, 10 vertebrate and 1 snail pest (Singh, 1999). About 65 insect pest species have been reported to attack soybean from cotyledons to harvesting stage from Karnataka (Rai et al., 1973; Adimani, 1976; Thippaiah, 1997). Among these, stem fly, Melanagromyza sojae (Zehntner) and leaf miner, Aproaerema modicella (Deventer) are known to cause 100 per cent infestation and reduction of yield by 20 to 30 per cent (Singh and Singh, 1990).

In tropical and sub tropical Asia and Pacific, M. sojae is a serious pest of soybean. The adult lays eggs on the foliage; the larva after mining in the leaves bores into the stem and tunnels in the pith where most of its feeding and pupation takes place (Vander Goot, 1930). There are no external symptoms of the pest attack in infested plants and damage can be seen only after dissecting the stem as result of M. sojae infestation, which can results in up to 100 per cent of the plants being damaged with reduction in seed yield (Talekar and Chen, 1983).

The defoliators, Spodoptera litura (Fab.), Thyasanoplusia orichalcea (Fab), Spilarctia obliqua (Walk.) and Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) feed on foliage, flower and pods causing significant yield loss (Singh and Singh, 1990). In case of heavy attack, the caterpillars are also found to feed on flowers and pod. Defoliation often reaches population levels that significantly reduce the yield in soybean. T. orichalcea infestation can result into 30 per cent underdeveloped pods and about 50 per cent yield loss. The bihar hairy caterpillar, S. obliqua is a voracious feeder which feeds gregariously on soybean leaves. In case of severe infestation, the entire crop is damaged badly thus causing 40 per cent defoliation of leaf area. The tobacco caterpillar, S. litura is a serious pest and its incidence is being observed in all the soybean growing areas of northern Karnataka during Kharif season. After feeding the leaves, it also feed on tender pods, consequently damaging 30 to 50 per cent of pods (Anon., 2007)

To overcome these losses caused by insect pests various control measures have been recommended, of which chemical control measures are reported to be more effective. The investigations on synthetic organic insecticides developed during 20

th century initially provided

spectacular results in suppressing the insect pests which led to abandonment of traditional pest control practices (Dhaliwal and Arora, 1998). However, indiscriminate use of insecticides has led to problems like insecticide resistance, pest resurgence and environmental pollution besides upsetting the natural ecosystem (Lakshmi Singh and Sanjeev Kumar, 1998).

Though seasonal abundance studies on seedling borers and defoliators have been carried out extensively, practical application of these findings on the field incidence and quantitative estimation of loss on the basis of concrete field experiments is lacking. The unilateral approach of managing the crop pests by synthetic insecticides has dictated the necessity for developing need

based, cost effective, eco-friendly and safe management strategies. At the same time basic information on the seasonal incidence of leaf eating caterpillars on soybean is considered most essential to manage the pest.

Insect defoliation of soybean is one of the best studied examples of plant response to insect injury. Generally, soybean is regarded as a defoliation tolerant crop, because delayed senescence occurs in injured plants (Ostile, 1984 and Higley, 1992).

Detailed evaluation of cultivars for their response to defoliation is essential for several reasons. If cultivar differences exist, it may be possible to select cultivars tolerant to insect defoliation and to identify traits important for tolerance. Improved understandings of yield loss mechanisms from insect injury are essential for building a more comprehensive understanding of insect plant stress relationship consequently to address these needs; this investigation was aimed at determining the responses of different degree of defoliation of soybean cultivars.

So far only chemical control measures are in vogue to manage the stem borers. In order to find out the alternate control measures for stem borers in the northern Karnataka region of Dharwad, bio-rational insecticides were evaluated in the present investigation. The researchers later recognized the harmful effects of pesticides and tried to bring eco-friendly approaches to reduce pesticide load in environment by using bio-rationales, pest resistant varieties and scheduled pesticide application.

In India, the soybean is grown by the marginal farmers who cannot afford cost to mitigate these biotic stresses. To grow resistant varieties is the better option which can help to minimize the cost. Present investigation was aimed at screening some of the promising soybean cultivar lines for their resistance against stem fly (M. sojae) and leaf eating caterpillars. Therefore, keeping these points in view, a detailed study was taken up under field conditions at the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad and Agriculture Research Station, Bailahongal with the following objectives.

1) Survey and surveillance of insect pests of soybean and their natural enemies. 2) Estimation of crop losses due to the seedling borer and leaf eating caterpillars in soybean.

a) To assess the crop loss in soybean due to stem fly. b) To assess the crop loss in soybean due to leaf eating caterpillars.

3) Management of seedling borers and leaf eating caterpillars in soybean. a) Screening of soybean genotypes against stem fly and leaf eating caterpillars. b) Evaluation of bio-rationales and insecticide molecules against stem fly c) Evaluation of newer insecticide molecules and poison baits against leaf eating

caterpillars.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Literature pertaining to survey, crop loss estimation, varietal screening and management of seedling borers and defoliators in soybean has been collected and presented here under.


2.1.1 Survey and surveillance of Melanagromyza sojae

Suenaga (1953) investigated the seasonal variations of Melanagromyza sojae (Zehntner) in Kyusu island where it is widely distributed and attacks several legumes. The insect was prevalent from May to October, soybean plant dissections during this period indicated that the larvae first started appearing and that their population was low in June. No damage was observed on soybean sown early in summer. The soybean crop sown after June started showing signs of damage by M. sojae and the crop sown in July and later had 100 per cent damaged stems. During this period, the population of second and third generation was very high. In west and south east part of Kyusu island 100 per cent plants showed damage even earlier than the July sown crop. M. sojae had four generations during May to October.

Survey carried out at Pantanagar revealed that stem fly damage was more severe during the rainy season than in the summer season. Crop suffered from severe damage at the seedling stage and caused plant mortality. However, during later stage the plant can with stand the damage (Singh and Beri, 1973).

Adimani (1976) reported stem fly incidence on soybean which commenced from third week after sowing and continued up to tenth week. Singh (1982) observed a greater infestation of stem fly in blackgram between June to September, than the other months of the year. Its infestation at legumes in sunny experimental plants averaged 14.8 per cent plants infested over the three years as against 44.9 per cent in shady plants during the same period.

Talekar and Chen (1983) studied the M. sojae infestation on soybean and mungbean throughout the year in Taiwan, but the infestation was more severe during relatively dry period after the rainy season that lasted from May to September. Between October to December, almost 100 per cent soybean and 60-70 per cent mungbean were damaged by these flies.

Singh and Singh (1990a) studied the seasonal incidence of M. sojae on soybean. The plant infestation increased abruptly in the third week of August and infestation increased from 72 to 98.90 per cent in the first week of September. The fly infested almost every plant (99.9 to 100) in the first week of October. Immediately after monsoon break, the crop was attacked by agromyzid than in case of delayed sowing (Kundu and Srivastava, 1991).

The most harmful pests of pigeonpea in north Vietnam were Melanagromyza spp. and the pod borer, Maruca testulalis (Geyer), Helicoverpa. armigera and Etiella zinckenella (Treitschae) were also observed in all the fields surveyed. Nezara viridula (L.) was also an important pest (Hong et al., 1992).

M. sojae generally infest soybean throughout the season, infestation was initially low, and reached its peak in the 5

th to 8

th weeks after planting and declined towards the end of the season

(Berg et al., 1995).

Patil (2002) reported that stem fly incidence was high in Jamkhandi (14.80%) and Mudhol (14.45%) taluks of Bagalkot district, Gokak (16.20%), Raibag (16.30%) and Athani (14.45%) of Belgaum district.

Survey conducted during 2003-04 revealed the infestation of stemfly upto 20 per cent at Dharwad and 65 per cent at Athani and Chikkodi taluks of Belgaum districts (Anon., 2004).

2.1.2 Seasonal incidence of defoliator pests of soybean

Fletcher (1922) was the earliest worker to report the incidence of nine species of insects occurring on soybean from India.

About 85 species of insects belonging to six different orders and a mite on soybean were reported from Madhya Pradesh by Gangrade (1962).

Ramakrishna Ayyar (1963) reported two insects of soybean crop from south India. Rawat et al. (1969) recorded over two dozen different species of arthropod pests of soybean from Madhya Pradesh, India.

Approximately 380 species of insects have been collected from soybean crop from many parts of the world (Luckmann, 1971). Saxena (1972) from Madhya Pradesh recorded 32 insect pests and two non-insect pests of soybean. A total of 267 insect species were reported from soybean fields in Arkansas (Tugwell et al., 1973). Singh (1973) registered 56 insect pests and a mite on soybean crop from Pantnagar, Uttar Pradesh.

Rai et al. (1973) recorded 24 insect species feeding on soybean in Karnataka, among them maximum damage was inflicted by the larvae of Lamprosoma indicata F, Stomopteryx subsecivella Zeller, Diacrisia obliqua Walker and the gelechid shoot borer. Adimani (1976) recorded 59 insect species belonging to six orders occurring around Dharwad on soybean in Karnataka. According to Mundhe (1980) the semilooper, T. orichalcea was a pest mainly during kharif although it was observed in stray instances during summer also.

Singh et al. (1988) reported a higher larval population of the noctuid, Rivula sp. on DS 76-1-29 and PK 472 (18.4-19.8 larvae/10 plants) than on MACS 75 and JS 76-259 (4.8-5.0 larvae/10 plants). PK 472 and Bragg sown on 25

th June, however, gave maximum grain yield as compared to

remaining cultivars and dates of sowing. Cultivars sown on 25th June recorded higher larval

populations of Rivula sp. (20.5 larvae/10 plants).

Sontakke and Patro (1991) reported the incidence of about 20 insect pests on soybean in Western Orissa.

Field studies were carried out during 1988-89 in Chiplima, Orissa, India indicated that, kharif crop of soybean suffered greater damage by insect pests than the rabi crop. Lowest pest incidence and higher yields were recorded with early sowings (20

th June and 5

th July; 1

st and 15

th November) in

both the seasons. Three need-based applications of monocrotophos in kharif and two in rabi gave satisfactory control of all the insect pests, resulting in increased grain yield of 11.2 and 3.1 q/ha, respectively as compared to control as reported by Sontakke and Mishra (1994). Field studies conducted in Himachal Pradesh, India, during 1993 showed that delaying the sowing date of soybean resulted in the decrease of yields. The maximum yield (3.69 q/ha) was obtained by sowing on 28

th

May and the lowest yield (1.45 t/ha) was obtained by sowing on June 25th (Chandel and Gupta, 1995).

The studies on date of sowing carried out at Dharwad also revealed the higher incidence of S. litura with late sown groundnut crop (Patil, 1995).

Occurrence of 34 species of insects was observed during kharif and summer in Bangalore. Among them, A. modicella (Deventer), Liriomyza trifolii (Burgess), M. sojae T. orichalcea, Monolepta sp. and H. armigera were considered as major insect pests on the crop (Venkataravanappa, 1996). Thippaiah (1997) noticed 34 species of insects on soybean during kharif season and 25 species during summer season, in Bangalore, Karnataka. Among these, lepidopteran defoliators, T. orichalcea, S. litura, Achaea janata (Linn.) and Achaea lactina (L.) appeared only during kharif season where as S. obliqua was noticed during both summer and kharif seasons. Chaturvedi et al. (1998) reported that during kharif of 1995, 17 insect and one mite species were recorded infesting soybean variety JS 72-44 (Gaurav) sown on 15

th July 1995 in Sehore, Madhya Pradesh, India. Of these, two

damaged the stems, 10 defoliated the plants, five sucked the cell sap and one damaged the roots at different growth stages of the crop, starting from immediately after the emergence of the cotyledons.

The population density of some insects associated with soybeans was estimated in a field experiment in India during kharif 1985 by following simple random sampling and two-stage sampling techniques at three stages of plant growth, 60-64, 86-89 and 98-99 days after sowing, using the ground cloth sampling method. Population densities of S. obliqua and S. litura during the crop growth period were maximum around the second half of October. However, density of T. orichalcea was higher during the later part of September or early October. Significant correlations were observed between population densities of some insect species as reported by Vinod Kumar et al. (1998).

Populations of Biloba subsecivella (Zuller), Chrysodeixis acuta (Walker), S. litura and S. obliqua were low in early-sown (22

nd June and 2

nd July) soybean. Incidence of these pests was high in

crops sown between 12th July and 1

st August (Mandal et al., 1998).

Jayappa (2000) reported 40 and 21 species of insects attacking soybean during kharif and summer seasons, respectively in Bangalore, Karnataka. 300 species of insect pests were infesting soybean, of which blue beetle, grey semilooper, green semilooper and stem fly were major insect

pests in Madhya Pradesh (Singh et al., 2000). The lepidopteran defoliators like S. litura, T. orichalcea and S. obliqua were observed on the crop from 28 days after sowing and caused severe defoliation in Bangalore as reported by Kamala (2000). Ngoyen Phi-Dieu Huyen (2001) reported that lepidopteran defoliators like S. litura, T. orichalcea and L. indicata were observed from 21 days after germinations (DAG), of which H. armigera was a major pest. Spodoptera litura was seen from 21 to 49 DAG with less incidence (0.12 to 0.5 / plant). Thysanoplusia orichalcea was observed from 21 to 77 DAG and population was more at 42 and 49 DAG. Patil (2002) opined that soybean was attacked by 48 phytophagous insect species, among these the seedling borers, M. sojae, Obereopsis brevis Swed, leaf eating caterpillar S. litura and pod borer, Cydia ptychora Meyrick were key pests during kharif. Whereas, leaf miner, A. modicella, white fly, Bemisia tabaci (Genn.) and leaf hopper, Amrasca biguttula biguttula (Ishida) were major pests during summer.

An experiment was carried out at the experimental station of the University of Tocantins in Gurupi, Brazil to determine the population fluctuation of soybean pests. Among defoliating caterpillars, Anticarsia gemmatalis (Hub.) and Cydia includes (Fab.) were the most abundant. Among the defoliating beetle complexes, Cerotoma arcuata (Oliv.) was the most abundant, with population peaks near the reproductive stage as registered by Didonet et al. (2003).

Sastawa et al. (2004) reported that the number of insect defoliators and pod sucking bugs were significantly higher in soybean sown on 31

st July in 2001 and on 28

th August in 2002. Grain

yields were higher in early sown soybean in 2001 as compared to late sown crop in 2002.

Meena and Sharma (2006) reported the minimal larval population of 1.42 larvae per meter row length in early sown crop (25

th June), followed by mid sown crop and late sown crop which

recorded 1.67 and 1.87 larvae per mrl, respectively at Udaipur, Rajasthan.

Madrap et al. (2007) recorded the seasonal incidence of insect pests of soybean during Kharif season at Parbhani. The studies revealed that the infestation of leaf miner and semilooper were less during the Kharif season. However, infestation of S. litura and girdle beetle was more up to 6.8 and 5.6 per cent, respectively.

Maximum larval population of S. litura and T. orichalcea (7.80, 12.00, 12.80 and 6.50, 6.20 and 8.60 larvae/mrl, respectively) were noticed on the crop sown on 08-06-06, 27-06-06 and 08-07-06 dates, respectively. Early sown crop recorded lower incidence of S.litura, T. orichalcea and S. obliqua defoliators as compared to that of late sown crop as reported by Harish (2008).

Basic information on the seasonal incidence of leaf eating caterpillars on soybean is considered most essential to manage the pest.

2.1.3 Seasonal incidence of pod borers

Taylor (1964) observed four to five generations of the pod borer C. ptychora on two crops of cowpea that were grown in succession each year in Nigeria. Kumar (1978) studied the seasonal fluctuation in the population of pod borers by sowing crop during different months. Highest per cent pod damage was recorded in the crop sown during the months of July and August. However, the crop sown during the months of November, December, January, February, March and April remained free from infestation.

Olaifa and Akingbohungbe (1982) studied that the seasonal population fluctuation of cowpea moth, C. ptychora in black gram increased from May to September and declined during rest of the months of the year. Similarly, Katti (1984) documented the incidence of pod borer, C. ptychora on green gram from the month of May and the crop sown after October was free from incidence of pod borer. The highest incidence (70.80%) was noticed in the crop sown during the month of July which gradually declined in the crop sown during subsequent months. However, the crop sown during rest of the year was free from incidence. Jagginavar et al. (1990) estimated the seasonal abundance of pod borer complex on cowpea at Dharwad and concluded that the crop sown during the month of July recorded the highest incidence of C. ptychora where crops sown during subsequent months recorded reduction in the incidence.

Amarnath (2000) from Dharwad revealed that the population of C. ptychora on soybean was at its peak on the crop sown during the first fortnight of July, which recorded highest pod damage (79.22%). However, decline in the pest population was observed on subsequent sowings. Patil (2002) recorded maximum pod borer incidence in July sown crop. Further, the per cent incidence of stem fly was low (17.66%) on soybean during second week of June whereas it was high (21.70%) with girdle beetle. The pod borer damage was low (21.43%) on early sown crop during June.

Sharanabasappa and Goud (2003) studied the incidence of C. ptychora on green gram involving four different sowing dates at an interval of 15 days, i.e., in the second fortnight of June, first fortnight of July, second fortnight of July and first fortnight of August in Belgaum and Dharwad districts. The crop sown during the first fortnight of July recorded the maximum of 57.29 and 35.74 per cent pod seed damage, respectively which was significantly higher than the other dates of sowing. The pod and seed damage in case of crop sown during the second fortnight of June, second fortnight of July and first fortnight of August were 23.37 and 13.43, 44.00 and 22.73, and 31.00 and 17.65 per cent, respectively, which differed significantly from each other.

2.1.4 Seasonal incidence of natural enemies

Sprenkel et al. (1975) conducted field tests continuously for three years to know the effects of planting date (early and late), row width (61, 91 and 122 cm) and seeding rate (2, 6 and 12 seeds/0.3 m

2) on the incidence of different pests and their natural enemies in soybean ecosystem. Planting

soybean early (before June 5th) in narrow rows at a high seeding rate had higher percentage of

mortality of the total larval population due to Nomuraea rileyi (Farlow).

Insect mycopathogen, N. rileyi was active throughout the season in soybean plots at Jabotical, Brazil during November, 1982 to May 1983 (Leite and Lara, 1985). The incidence and damage caused by the noctuid, Chrysodexis acuta (Walker) to soybean pods and flowers decreased by infection with N. rileyi from July to September, 1984 in Madhya Pradesh, India (Singh and Singh, 1987). Mortality of A. gemmatalis due to parasitoids and pathogens collectively was 56 per cent, of this 29 per cent was due to N. rileyi in Brazil (Silva and Silva, 1993).

Seventy two species of spiders were trapped in four rubbish-tip habitats in Germany (Northwest of Leipzig). The spider communities were mosaic-like and composed of ecological groups with seasonal variations as reported by Martin (1992). Seasonal incidence of green lacewing, Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) was similar in Georgia and Kansas, with the late season peak occurring 2 to 3 weeks later in Georgia than in Kansas.

Green lacewing, C. carnea seasonal incidence was similar in Georgia and Kansas, with the late season peak occurring 2 to 3 weeks later in Georgia than in Kansas. Seasonal incidence of brown lacewing varied considerably between regions and years (Jacob et al., 1994).

The population dynamics of soybean pests and their natural enemies in three medium cycle cultivars was investigated at weekly intervals from July to October 1995 in Tocantins State, Brazil using the plant-shaking method. Among the natural enemies collected, Cicloneda sanguinea (L.), Geocoris sp. and Lebia sp. were the most abundant, as reported by Didonet et al. (1998).

Highest incidence of N. rileyi (52.5%) on S. litura in groundnut was observed by Kulkarni (1999) during 34

th standard week (August 20-26) during 1998. Lingappa et al. (2000) reported mean

incidence of 23.25 per cent by N. rileyi over ten years on S. litura in groundnut ecosystem at Dharwad, Karnataka.

The evidence of N. rileyi associated with S. litura in groundnut was obtained on the 30th

standard week during 1996 and week later during 1997. The peak N. rileyi infection in S. litura reached during 36

th standard week during 1996 and 1997 (Patil, 2000).

Patil et al. (2000) reported the natural incidence of the entomopathogen, N. rileyi on S. litura in groundnut ecosystem from the first week of July until the end of October in Karnataka. The first appearance of N. rileyi was recorded in the 30

th standard week, which continued up to the 39

th

standard week and peaked between the 33rd

and 37th standard weeks.

Pests and natural enemies were surveyed in fields of 11 soybean cultivars, planted in strips of 40 x 8 m (320 m

2) area, in Brazil. The main predators were Callida [Calleida] sp. and Tropiconabis

[Nabis] sp. as reported by Thomazini (2001).

Studies conducted during 1996-98 at Dharwad, Karnataka, revealed that the incidence of N. rileyi on S. litura in soybean from 32

nd to 38

th standard week and peak was during the 35

th, 34

th and

33rd

standard weeks during 1996, 1997 and 1998, respectively with incidence up to 22.12 per cent in soybean. The most favourable period of the season for the fungus was from the 32

nd to 40

th week

namely, first week of August to first week of October (Kulkarni and Lingappa, 2002).

Experiment was carried out at the experimental station of the University of Tocantins in Gurupi, Brazil to determine the population fluctuation of soybean pests and their natural enemies.

Among the natural enemies, the spiders, Geocoris sp., Lebia sp. (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and Callidae sp. were the most abundant as reported by Didonet et al. (2003).

Ingle et al. (2004) surveyed for natural epizootic of N. rileyi on lepidopterous pests of soybean and green gram in various villages of Akola and Washim districts of Maharashtra. Severe infection of T. orichalcea on soybean and H. armigera and S. litura on green gram by N. rileyi was observed. Approximately 22.2 T. orichalcea and 8.4 S. litura dead larvae per meter row were infected by N. rileyi.

The natural enemies recorded on pigeonpea were the parasitoids, Campoletis chlorideae (Vehinda), Cotesia flavipes (Oshima), Carcelia illota (Curran) and the predatory spiders Oxyopes ratnae (Tikader), Neoscona sp. and Plexippus paykulli (Audouni). The peak activities of the natural enemies were mostly during November-January as reported by Borah and Dutta (2004).

Harish (2008) studied the seasonal incidence of natural enemies in soybean ecosystem during Kharif season 2006 at Dharwad and observed that natural enemies (coccinellids, chrysopids and N. rileyi) were found on the crop sown at all the dates of sowing and higher incidence was noticed in the late sown crop.

Santhosh (2008) found that incidence of natural enemies was fluctuating among the different dates of sowing with higher incidence of coccinellids (3.02 beetles/mrl) in late sown crop. Whereas higher incidence of chrysopids (1.21/mrl) and spiders (1.36 /mrl) was noticed in the crop sown on 03-07-2007. However, incidence of entamopathogen N. rileyi was high (3.27 cadavars/mrl) on S. litura and T. orichalcea in the late sown crop.

Though seasonal abundance studies on seedling borers and defoliators have been carried out extensively, practical application of these findings on the field incidence and quantitative estimation of loss on the basis of concrete field experiments is lacking.

2.2 Crop loss estimation due to the seedling borer and leaf eating caterpillars in soybean

2.2.1 Crop loss estimation due to seedling borers

Bhattacharjee (1980) reported a highly significant and negative correlation between stem length injuries and yield and stem length injury plant height. There was also a highly significant positive correlation between plant height and yield. According to Talekar (1980) the stem fly infestation significantly reduced plant height, number of branches per plant, number of trifoliate leaves, leaf area per plant and dry matter accumulation. Yield loss varied according to location. In Taiwan, the loss among 163 soybean accessions was 31 per cent (Anon., 1981)

Studies on seasonal fluctuation of larval and pupal populations of M. sojae on several soybean cultivars planted on three different dates at 25 days apart indicated that infestation rates ranged from 85 to 100 per cent on different planting dates, being higher on later sown crops. The larvae were found in soybean samples from 20

th June onwards and further larval peaks occurred on

10th July, 10

th August and 30

th August (Kwon et al., 1981).

Due and Hong (1982) recorded 20 to 30 per cent yield loss caused by the pest. According to Kundu and Mehra (1989) the significant yield reduction in terms of pod number and weight, seed number and weight and plant height was noticed when stem tunneling was 25 per cent. Talekar and Chen (1983) studied the M. sojae infestation in Taiwan on soybean and mungbean throughout the year. The infestation was severe during relatively dry period after the rainy season that lasted from May to September. Between October to December, almost 100 per cent soybean and 60-70 per cent mungbean were damaged by these flies.

Stem fly, M. sojae was known to cause up to 100 per cent infestation at different stages of the crop (Singh and Singh, 1990b). The yield losses were 17.57 per cent of pods per plant, 28.7 per cent pod weight per plant, 30.37 per cent of seed yield per ha. Stem tunnel length of 5.7, 25.5, 45.8, 66.7 and 86.1 per cent reduced the grain yield by 16.4, 19.4, 24.6, 28.1 and 64.9 per cent, respectively (Singh and Singh, 1992).

Debjani et al. (2008) reported that efficacy of thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 1.5 g/ kg seed, thiamethoxam 500 FS @ 1.5 g/ kg seed and imidacloprid 70 WS @ 10 g/ kg seed were the most effective in controlling M. sojae.

Controlled release (CR) formulations of imidacloprid were evaluated against major pests of soybean, namely stem fly, M. sojae and white fly, B. tabaci along with a commercial formulation. Most of the CR formulations of imidacloprid gave significantly better control of the pests as compared to its commercial formulations Totanadak et al. (2012).

2.2.2 Crop loss estimation due to leaf eating caterpillars (Simulation technique)

Artificial defoliation done by hand was first performed at R2 (i.e., the reproductive stage when all plants have at least one flower in two uppermost nodes). This stage when soybean becomes sensitive to defoliation (Fehr et al., 1977)

Many defoliation studies utilized single-day defoliation techniques to simulate insect injury (Hammond 1989; Talekar and Lee 1988; Weber and Caldwell 1966; Weber 1955). Fewer studies examined defoliation that occurred over several crop growth stages (e.g., from VE to V4 stage) (Fehr et al., 1977).

Insect defoliation of soybean is one of the best studied examples of plant response to insect injury. Generally, soybean has been regarded as a defoliation tolerant crop, because delayed leaf senescence occurs in injured plants (Ostile, 1984; Higley, 1992). Delayed leaf senescence is possible because plants often experience improved light, water, and nutrient status after defoliation as compared to un defoliated plants (Higley, 1992; Peterson et al., 1992; Peterson and Higley, 1996).

In some situations, physical leaf area is adequate and even more than required, but the functional efficiency is far lower due to utilizing resources as a respiratory burden of excessive leaves (Venkateswarlu and Visperas, 1987; Mondal, 2007). Defoliation up to certain limit may, therefore, be useful to overcome the problems with excessive vegetative growth. Greater light penetration in the canopy through defoliation have reduced the abortion of flowers and immature pods and increased seed yield in cowpea (Biswas et al., 2005; Hossain et al., 2006) and in mungbean (Mondal, 2007).

The effect of manipulation of source (leaf) size in legumes have been studied and reported both advantageous and disadvantageous in many crops (Board and Harville, 1998; Bhatt and Rao, 2003; Hossain et al., 2006; Abdi et al., 2007; Barimavandi et al., 2010). One -third leaf removal from basal portion of the canopy in cowpea increased grain yield over control and severe defoliation decreased seed yield (Hossain et al., 2006; Gustafson et al., 2006). Likewise, mild defoliations (16.6-20%) during reproductive phase did not adversely affect seed yield in mungbean (Pandey and Singh, 1984; Begum et al., 1997) and soybean (Board and Harville, 1998).

Gregorutti et al. (2012) observed, the simulate effects of time and levels of defoliation on soybean seed yield and evaluated a combination of defoliation levels (0, 33, 66 and 100%) and two times of defoliation during soybean development (pod initiation and beginning of seed filling, i.e. R3 and R5, respectively. The results obtained that the total defoliation performed at R3 significantly reduced the seed yield as compared to defoliation at R5 (P<0.0001) (90 and 21% yield reduction, respectively, as compared to controls).


2.3.1 Screening of soybean genotypes against seedling borers and leaf eating caterpillars

2.3.1.1 Screening of soybean genotypes against seedling borers

Tsan et al (1967) screened 435 soybean accessions for resistance to agromyzids, mainly M. sojae in Taiwan. Four accessions viz., PI 566618, PI 88310, PI 227212 and 192748 showed relatively higher level of resistance. Hsu et al. (1968) screened 137 soybean cultivars for resistance to M. sojae and concluded that there was no difference in insect damage among the cultivars (all were susceptible)

Cheng (1974) screened 96 soybean accessions for resistance to M. sojae. Sixteen of the entries had less than 20 per cent and seven had less 70 per cent damage. In the remaining accessions more than 90 per cent plants were damaged by M. sojae.

Srivastava et al. (1974) screened eight cultivars of soybean for resistance to M. sojae and two other pests. Out of 400 plants of each cultivars examined for M. sojae damage, hardy 13.25 per cent plants were damaged. This damage was the lowest among the cultivars tested and improved pelican suffered the highest damage of 51.25 per cent. In another attempt, Cheng (1975) screened 973

soybean accessions and reported that most of the accessions up to100 per cent plants were damaged. Some accessions such as P1 154818, P1 1200448, 95960-ped-4-1, p1 68439, p1 70478, P1 89065-2, P181037, P1165673, P1 171430, P1 200524, P1222549 and P1 85089 showed less damage than others.

Chiang and Talekar (1980) screened 6775 soybean accessions and found four wild soybean accessions to be highly resistant to M. sojae.

The observation of Chiang and Norris (1983) indicated that the stem fly infestation was affected by trichome density, smaller leaf area moisture and a narrower compact stem during early growth stages.

Phenols, tannins and lignins were involved in the resistance of the differentiated soybean stem to the fly larvae, production of secondary xylem which specifically reduced the diameter of the pith cavity and the differentiation and development of lignified xylem fibres were responsible for resistance to M. sojae which feeds exclusively in the pith (Chiang and Norris, 1983).

The cultivars MACS-94, MACS-176, MACS-127 and S-83-P were free from stemfly infestation. Further, Himso-1509 and Himso-352 sustained 0.33 larvae per meter row at Sehore, Madhya Pradesh (Anon., 1985a). PK-628 was found to be resistant to stemfly, nematode and yellow mosaic virus, among 190 soybean germplasm evaluated by Kundu and Mehra (1985). They also recorded 19 germplasm with 20 per cent stem tunneling. The screening trials conducted at Pantnagar, Parbhani, Sehore and Ranchi revealed that lines viz., MACS-94, MACS-176, MACS-127 and S-83-P were free from the infestation of bihar hairy caterpillar and six lines viz., Himso-558A, Himso-1059, MACS-94, MACS-176, JS-79-295 and PK-327 showed resistance against stemfly (Anon., 1986).

MACS-125 and MACS-32 varieties of soybean with less than 20 per cent stem tunneling by stemfly were reported to be least susceptible to stemfly from Sehore, India. At Delhi, MACS-125 with 13.17 per cent stem tunneling was recorded to be resistant and KB-34 with 43.80 per cent stem tunneling was reported to be susceptible to stemfly (Anon., 1987). According to Srivastava and Srivastava (1987a) none of the varieties among 40 soybean varieties were completely resistant to agromyzid, M. phaseoli but, plant damage was lower in JS-73-32. The maximum plant damage was recorded in JS-78-78 and JS-78-67. Least stem tunneling was recorded in JS-72-185 and maximum in Ankur variety. Singh et al. (1988) opined that cultivars DS-76-129, PK-472, MACS-75 and JS-76-259 did not differ significantly with regard to infestation by M. sojae.

Genotypes, Bragg (73.36%) and NRC-3 (33.20%) were reported to be low and moderately resistant to stemfly at Delhi and Sehore, respectively. Studies conducted at Bangalore revealed that out of 17 cultivars, MACS-329, JS-SH-1310, DS-68-75, MACS-346 and KHSB-2 were moderately resistant to stemfly (Anon., 1991) DS-22 and MACS-212 were relatively resistant to agromyzid fly among the tested 40 varieties and germplasm of soybean (Kundu and Srivastava, 1991).

MACS-346, JS-SH-1310 and DS-86-75 were found to be highly resistant to stemfly at Delhi. Whereas at Bangalore KB-79 was resistant to stemfly (Anon., 1992a). It was reported from Indore that, JS (SH)-78-41, JS-89-43, MACS-366 and KB-111 varieties and NRC-3 were moderately resistant to stem fly (Anon., 1992b).

Fourteen soybean varieties of medium maturing group were screened against M. sojae. None of the varieties were found free from pest attack. However, JS-87-36 was found to be less susceptible and gave maximum grain yield followed by JS-87-39, JS-87-27 and JS- 87-1 (Sharma et al., 1994).

Screening of 16 soybean genotypes, against Oberiopsis brevis (Slwed) and M. sojae revealed that the cultivars JS-335, NRC-2, Punjabi-1 and genotypes DS-396, L-129 and Savana were found to be tolerant to the O. brevis and M. sojae. Besides genotypes, TGX-342 – 5630 and TGX-814-54D were less damaged by girdle beetle and stem fly (Sharma, 1995).

Venkataravanappa (1996) screened 21 soybean varieties against M. sojae, among these, few varieties viz., MACS-366, MACS-124, JS-89-43, MACS-375, KB-111, JS-SH,-41, JS-SH, 1310, MACS-329 and JS-87-59 (normal duration) and JS-87-50 and JS-87-59 (early duration) were moderately resistant.

Jayappa (2000) noticed that the variety SL-427 was resistant to stem fly. Sharma et al. (1994) reported that 13 mutant progenies of soybean Cv. PK-472 and seven of Cv. Bragg were selected and raised in the field during the rainy season. The progeny line derived from PK-427 showed lowest level

of stem tunneling (22.08% stem tunneling and 3152 kg/ha yield) followed by the mutant line 31 of PK-472 with (25.76% stem tunneling and 2849 kg/ha yield) and both these mutants were rated as resistant.

Kundu and Srivastava (1991) reported that, DS-22 and MACS-212 were relatively resistant to agromyzid fly among tested 40 varieties and germplasm of soybean.

MACS-57 was found promising against stemfly attack where as DS-1016 was consistently found to be promising source of resistance to whitefly attack and Sridhar et al. (2003), Gupta et al. (2004) reported MACS-13, JS-84-200, JS-86-24, JS-81-1610 and JS-78- 41 were resistant to stem fly, M. sojae.

Salunke et al. (2002) reported that lowest stem tunnel length was observed in NRC- 57 followed by RSC-1 and JS -335 cultivars. MAUS- 49-2 and NRC -73 were less preferred by insect but were also high yielders.

Tavare et al. (2005) reported that per cent stem tunneling by stem fly ranged from 4.98 per cent (MACS -124) to 24.91 per cent (PK 1029). The varieties viz., MACS -124 MACS -716 were categorized as highly resistant where as MACS -617 was categorized as resistant.

Kavita (2006) screened 27 genotypes against stem fly based on the per cent stem tunneling and standard value the entries were classified as resistant, moderately resistant, moderatively susceptible, susceptible and highly susceptible. Among the genotypes NRC-55 was categorized into resistant, moderatively resistant genotypes includes NRC-51 and DSb (PR) 101 and rest of the genotypes were moderately susceptible and susceptible. Susceptible genotypes include MAS-2000-1 and MRSB-342.

2.3.1.2 Screening of soybean genotypes against leaf eating caterpillars

Ramani (1979) used the percentage of leaflets damaged as yard stick in evaluating soybean varieties and concluded that soya-1 as resistant variety to A. modicella. Eighteen soybean varieties tested by Shetgar and Thombre (1984) were equally preferred by A. modicella at 30 and 75 days after sowing. However, the pest incidence was lower on varieties MACS-36 and AMSS-25 than on control variety (Bragg) at 60 days after sowing.

Hag et al. (1984) noticed good tolerance capacities at both flowering and pod stages in Caribe VCF-1 (BP-2) and F-76-8827 soybean cultivars against S. litura.

Soybean cultivars viz., PL-209837 and FC 3152 were reported to possess non preference and antibiosis characters of host plant resistance against S. litura (Gary et al., 1985).

Shrivastava et al. (1988) reported that out of 40 cultivars screened for resistance, JS-73-32, JS-78-41, JS-71-5, JS-74-46 and JS-52 were relatively less susceptible to A. modicella than other cultivars. Singh et al. (1989) observed fewer larvae of Rivula sp on JS-80-21 than other varieties tested.

Behera et al. (1990) rated JS-72-44, MACS-125 and MACS-56 varieties as the least susceptible to soybean leaf miner A. modicella. At Bangalore, India, MACS-329, JS-SH-1310, DS-68-75, MACS-346, KHSB-2, JS-87- 28, NRC-3 and other 10 cultivars were reported to be susceptible to leaf miner A. modicella (Anon., 1991). The observations of Ganapathy et al. (1991) indicated that JS-2, Monetta and MACS-13 were found to be the most resistant lines to A. modicella. JS-2 consistently recorded less leaf miner damage, larval population and higher grain yield.

Research on soybean varieties resistant to insect pests in Indonesia is described. Some breeding lines and varieties have been found to be relatively resistant to S. litura and Riptortus linearis (Fab.). The varieties Manalagi, Kerinci, Tidar and Gallunggung showed potential for use in breeding programmes as reported by Suharsono (1992)

Kalyanasundaram and Sundarababu (1993) screened 150 accessions for resistance to A. modicella. Among these, 25 accessions showed 10 per cent of leaf damage as compared to 50.8 per cent in the control. PL227687, Nimsoy, PL507, JS-75-1 and EC 18678 accessions recorded less number of eggs laid on them, high larval mortality, prolonged larval and pupal periods and production of more males and low leaf damage.

The screening trials conducted at Pantnagar, Parbhani, Sehore and Ranchi revealed that four lines viz., MACS-94, MACS-176, MACS-127 and S-83-P were free from the infestation of Bihar hairy caterpillar and six lines viz., Himso-558A, Himso-1509, MACS-94, MACS-176, JS-79-295 and PK-327

showed resistance against stem fly (Anon., 1986). PUSA-40, NRC-10, NRC-11, JS-SH-78-41 and Bragg varieties had less pod damage as compared to other varieties and the pod damage varied from 0.31 to 1.29 per cent (Anon., 1992).

Wang et al. (1992) reported that the logarithm of the number of agromyzid maggots was positively related to the diameter ratio of the pith to the stem and negatively to the ratio of xylem width of stem diameter.

Odulaja and Nokoe (1993) reported that a maximin-minimax approach considered percentage yield loss and actual yield potential of the varieties. The method seeks to minimize percentage yield loss while maximizing yield potential.

Screening of 16 soybean genotypes was carried out on the basis of number of plants/plant parts cut down by larvae of O. brevis, leaf area damaged by defoliators, stem tunneling by larvae of M. sojae and grain yield. Accordingly, cultivars JS 335, NRC 2, Punjab 1 and genotypes DS 396, L 129 and Soja Savana were found to be tolerant to overall insect damage. Genotype TGX 855-53D was less damaged by defoliators and TGX 342-536D and TGX 814-54D were less damaged by M. sojae and O. brevis as reported by Sharma (1995).

Bhattacharya and Ram (1995) studied inheritance and the biochemical basis of resistance to S. obliqua in four interspecific crosses between 4 susceptible cultivars of G. max and resistant G. soja. Data from F1, F2 and F3 generations indicated that resistance was controlled by one incompletely dominant gene. Chemical analysis for phenolic acids (benzoic acid, coumaric acid, tannic acid, 3, 4 dicaffeoylquinic acids, caffeic acid, p-chloromercurobenzoic acid and chlorogen acid) did not show any clear cut relationship between resistance to S. obliqua and these phenolics.

Sharma (1996) studied two procedures for grouping genotypes: the All-India Coordinated Research Project on Soybean (AICRPS) method and a novel 'maximin-minimax' approach were compared for their effectiveness. Sixteen soybean genotypes were grouped into different categories of insect resistance using data from field experiments conducted in India during the rainy seasons of 1993 and 1994. According to the AICRPS method, which takes into account only the extent of injury or insect population (not the yield), Punjab-1 and TGx814-54D were rated as resistant to M. sojae. This method places marginally less resistant genotypes into other categories, even if they are not significantly different from the resistant ones. However, this procedure helps in the identification of source resistant to particular insect species. On the other hand, the 'maximin-minimax' approach involves a vital yield component and the entire insect-pest complex, to classify the genotypes into resistant groups. It is possible to identify genotypes with resistance/tolerance to a location-specific pest complex and good yield potential. Using this approach, cultivars JS 335 and NRC-2 and a germplasm line L-129 were identified as tolerant to insect damage.

During 1983, 1989-90 and 1992-94, 20 soybean genotypes were selected out of 6724 germplasm accessions screened for high resistance to leaf-feeding insects. Eight genotypes were resistant to bean pyralids [Omiodes indicate (Fab.)], 6 genotypes were resistant to mugwort looper [Ascotis selenaria (Wlk.)] and cotton worm [S. litura], and six genotypes were resistant to all three pests as reported by Cui et al. (1997)

Lourencao et al. (1997) studied the performance of soybean cultivars and lines belonging to two maturity groups (110-125 and 140-160 days of cycle) in two experiments under field conditions in Sao Paulo, Brazil, in relation defoliators (predominantly Anticarsia gemmatalis (Hubner). The criterion used to estimate the defoliation was the PAFC (percentage of eaten leaf area). Among genotypes of the early maturity group (IAC 100, IAC 17, IAC Holambra Stuart-2, IAS 5 and IAC 83-311) no difference in resistance to the defoliators was observed. The genotypes showing longer cycles (145-160 days) comprised eleven lines of the soybean breeding program and three cultivars (IAC 14, IAC 8 and IAC PL-1). In this group significant differences among the treatments in relation to defoliators were observed: line IAC 78-2318, with multiple insect resistances, confirmed this characteristic while cultivar IAC PL-1 was the most defoliated, showing high susceptibility. When yield was considered, most of the breeding lines showed good performance, giving higher yields than the three cultivars.

Field studies conducted in Ohio and Illinois for insect resistance using the Mexican bean beetle (Epilachna varivestis (Mulsant) and the potato leafhopper (Empoasca fabae (Harris) (in Illinois alone). Although a few lines (PI 567.751C, PI 567.765D, PI 567.770C, PI 567.452, and PI 567.685) had potentially useable levels of resistance, none had resistance levels similar to the earlier described lines PI 171.451, PI 229.358, and PI 227.687 as reported by Hammond et al. (1998).

The relative susceptibility of the promising soybean cultivars, NRC-12, JS 71-05, PK- 564, NRC-7, JS-335, PUSA-16 and NRC-8 was studied in a field experiment during the kharif season of 1996-97 in Madhya Pradesh, India. NRC-12 was tolerant to the infestation of blue beetle (Cneorane sp.), gram caterpillar (H. armigera), leaf miner (Bilobata subsecivella (Zellar), whitefly (Bemisia tabaci (Genn.) and jassid (Amrasca sp.). NRC-7 recorded tolerance against grey weevil (Myllocerus maculosus (Desb) [Myllocerus undecimpustulatus](Undatus), green semilooper (Plusia orichalcea (Fab.)[Thysanoplusia orichalcea]), girdle beetle, jassid, leaf miner and whitefly. JS 71-05 was tolerant to green semilooper, girdle beetle, jassid and stemfly. PUSA- 16 was tolerant to jassid as reported by Gaur and Deshpande (1998).

Originating as F7-derived selections from the cross Hobbit 87 x HC83-123-9, these soybean germplasm lines (PI604463 and PI604464, respectively) were released jointly in 1998 because of their high levels of resistance to Mexican bean beetle (Epilachna varivestis (Mulsant) as reported by Cooper and Hammond (1999).

Kenty et al. (2001) reported that soybean germplasm line DMK93-9048, an F3-derived line from the cross D86-3429 x Braxton, was developed jointly by the USDA-ARS and the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, Stoneville, Mississippi, USA, and released in April 1999 for its high resistance to foliar damage by the soybean looper (Pseudoplusia includes (Walker) Chrysodeixis includes (Walker). Spilarctia obliqua a polyphagous insect that often causes serious economic damage to soybean.

One wild accession of G. soja was found to be resistant to S.obliqua. An attempt was made to determine the relationship of the pubescence, tip sharpness, length and density with resistance to S. obliqua with the help of 'Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and common compound microscope in the interspecific crosses between G. max (cultivars Bragg, Ankur and PK 472) and G. soja (Bhattacharya and Ram, 2001)

Field evaluation of 14 soybean cultivars for their major insect pests was carried out in kharif 1998-99 at Parbhani. All the cultivars varied in leaf damage from 29.0 to 52.0 per cent and number of leaf miner (A. modicella) from 3.18 to 5.13 larvae/plant. The highest incidence of leaf miner was recorded in MAUS-20 (5.13 larvae/ plant) and the lowest leaf damage in NRC-37 (3.18 larvae/plant). Stem length tunneled due to stem fly (M. sojae) varied from 5.87 to 14.07 per cent. The highest stem length tunneling was recorded in JS (SH)-9246 (14.07%) and the lowest in NRC-37 (5.86%). Girdle beetle (O. brevis) infestation varied from 9.62 to 18.75 per cent. Infestation was maximum in RSC- 3 (18.79%) and minimum in NRC-37 (9.62%) as reported by Salunke et al (2002).

Garewal et al. (2003) evaluated 10 genotypes of soybeans (early maturing, NRC-18, NRC-25, NRC-33, JS 71-05 and NRC-7; medium maturing JS-335, L-129 and MACS-450; and late maturing Bragg and JS 80-21) in kharif 2000 in Madhya Pradesh, India for resistance to green semi-loopers (Chrysodeixis acuta Walker and Diachrysia orichalcea [T. orichalcea]), blue beetle (Cneoranespp.), Stem fly (M. sojae), jassids and caterpillar (S. litura). JS 71-05 was highly resistant and NRC-25 was resistant to green semiloopers. JS 71-05 and NRC-33 were highly resistant and NRC-18 and NRC-7 were resistant to tobacco caterpillar. JS 335 and JS 80-21 and line 129 were highly resistant to stem fly. None of the genotypes were resistant to girdle beetle. NRC-18, JS 335, JS 71-05 and JS 80-21 were highly resistant to jassids.

DT98-2448 (PI 614894), a soybean germplasm selected from the F5 plants of the cross D88-5684 x DP 3589, was released in July 2000 in the USA to provide resistance to defoliating insects and improve the agronomic performance of soybeans in southeastern USA as reported by Abel and Tyler (2003)

Miranda et al. (2003) reported that the breeding line IAC 93-345(IAC-23) was selected from the cross BR-6 XIAC 83-23 through single seed descent method (SSD) to increase insect resistance. IAC-23 productivity, large stability and resistance levels to leaf and pod feeders insects is similar to that observed for IAC-17 and superior to that of IAS-5. The cultivar IAC-23 is then recommended for cultivation in the state of Sao Paulo and in similar environmental conditions.

The breeding line IAC 93-3335 (IAC-24) was selected from the cross IAC 80-1177 x IAC 83-288 through single seed descent method (SSD) by the IAC breeding programme to increase insect resistance. This cultivar has in its background two important genotypes: PI 22935 and PI 227687 (USDA germplasm), as sources of resistance to insect. The Dunnet test indicated that the difference was significant when compared with IAC-15. Among the lines, IAC-24 showed the lowest defoliation by caterpillars and presented low pod damage similar to IAC-100 soybean cultivar. So, the new

cultivar is resistant to insect damage, has good yield and should be recommended for cultivation in State of Sao Paulo and similar environments as reported by Miranda et al. (2003)

Komatsu et al. (2004) reported that the common cutworm (S. litura) is a menace to soybean production in southwestern Japan. Soybean germplasms was evaluated for resistance to common cutworm to develop resistant cultivars and have found a cultivar named 'Himeshirazu', which is distinguished by its high level of resistance.

Wu-YeChun et al. (2004) carried out field experiments in 2000 and 2001, 51 soybean entries were evaluated for their resistance to the natural populations of leaf-feeding insects (LFIs) by visually estimating per cent defoliation. Five genotypes were identified as LFI-resistant, Wujiang Qingdou 3, PI227687, Mianyang Baimaodou, Tongshan Bopi Huangdoujia and Gantai-2-2, and another 5 as LFI-susceptible, Shandong Dadou, Daqingrang Heidou, Aiganhuang, Shangqiu 7602 and Wan82-178.

The resistance of 46 soybean genotypes against major insect pests, i.e. stem fly (M. sojae), girdle beetle (O. brevis), pod borer (C. ptychora) and white fly (B. tabaci), and non filling of pods was evaluated in Tikamgarh, Madhya Pradesh, India, during the kharif seasons of 1995-99. Based on mean pest incidence, MACS-13, JS-84-200, JS-86-24, JS-81-1610 and JS-78-41 (14.3-15.7% damaged stem length) were resistant to stem fly. Resistance to girdle beetle was observed in JS-86-22, JS-81-1564, JS-81-303, JS-81-1504, JS-81-1619, JS-86-23, JS-84-1, JS-81-1608, JS-77-81, JS-72-44, JS-81-1625, JS-80-21 and JS-84-200 (1-5.7% stem tunneling). JS-77- 81, PK-472, JS-86-24, JS-81-335, JS-87-59, JS-76-205, JS-86-26 and JS-86-23 (3.5-4.9% pod damage) were resistant to pod borer. The genotypes which exhibited multiple resistance included JS-84-200 (against stem fly, girdle beetle and non-filling of pods), JS-86-23 (against girdle beetle, pod borer and non-filling of pods), JS-86-24 (against stem fly and pod borer), JS-86-22 (against girdle beetle and non filling of pods), JS-81-1504 (against girdle beetle and white fly), JS-81-335 (against pod borer and non-filling of pods) and JS-77-81 (against girdle beetle and pod borer) as recorded by Gupta et al. (2004).

To grow resistant varieties is the better option which can help to minimize the cost, hence screening some of the promising soybean cultivar lines.

2.3.2 Evaluation of bio-rationales and insecticide molecules against stem fly

Sayed (1983) observed the effect of various concentrations of ground seeds of neem on egg and larvae of S. litura in the laboratory. A study carried out using leaf extracts of V. negundo resulted in 100 per cent mortality of third instar larvae of S. litura at 500 ppm concentration (Bai and Kandaswamy, 1985). The extracts of Ipomea carna and V. negundo were most effective particularly at higher concentrations after 48 h of treatment (More et al., 1989).

According to Joshi et al., (1984) neem seed kernel suspension of 0.5, 0.75 and 1.0 per cent protected tobacco plants from S. litura for seven days. The ethanol extracts of Tribulus terrestis and methanol extracts of neem seed kernel resulted in morphological deformities (Gujar and Mehotra, 1983, Gunashekaran and Chellaiah, 1985). The repellency of neem seed kernel suspension (Joshi and Sitaramaih, 1979) and neem oil to S. litura has been proved.

Laboratory and field experiments have shown that neem based insecticides, azadirachtin (Koul, 1985, Rao and Subramanian, 1987) and Margocide Ck (Anon., 1990) reduced S. litura growth and its damage on foliage of groundnut resulting in higher pod yields. Plant extracts from V. negundo and Stachytarpheta uticifolia (Salish) Sims were also found to cause mortality of the third instar larvae of S. litura in castor (Bai and Kandaswamy, 1985).

Feeding of 1 and 5 mg azadirachtin to S. litura had no effect on moulting. At higher doses (10.25 to 50 mg), a large number of insects showed juvenilizing effect manifested in the formation of larval and pupal intermediaries. Studies on the effect of azadirachtin rich fraction on S. litura revealed that Ne-pet-et possesses strong antifeedant action of S. litura. Due to exposure of interracial content through opening formed in the abdominal region and larval pupil intermediaries were observed in vemdin, Nem-75, Nemedin treatments. Adult malformation was observed in Ne-pet-et and nemedin (Jayarajan et al., 1990).

The results indicated that leaf and seed extracts of neem and the seed extract of Karanja at 15 per cent concentration were highly detrimental and offered 78.55, 88.96 and 66.41 per cent protection respectively. Protection provided by extracts of A. squamosa, Adathoda vasica Ness, Datura suavealens were 26.51, 6.98 and 16.35 per cent, respectively (Koshiya and Ghelani, 1990).

Extracts of V. negundo, A. mexicana, Adathoda vasica Ness possessed considerable antifeedant property at higher concentrations (Patil, 2000). High per cent antifeedant property of cow urine against S. litura was observed at 10 per cent concentration (More et al., 1989; Mathew, 1997).

Six per cent crude extract of Calotropis gigantia Ait, Azadirachta indica A. juss and Pongemia pinnata L caused 75,72 and 63 per cent mortality of A. modicella, respectively, after exposure for 96 h (Sahayaraj and Pautraj, 1998).

Aqueous extracts of botanicals like NSKE, Vitex negundo L, Argemone mexicana L, and Annona squamosa L, were evaluated in field against S. litura in groundnut ecosystem at Dharwad, Karnataka. NSKE and Allium sativum L, have shown good ovicidal property compared to others. Adverse effect on the hatchability of eggs of S. litura may due to the presence of leucodin and anonine alkaloids in A. squamosa (Patil, 2000).

Aqueous extracts of different plant species were tried on first instar larvae of S. litura. It was found that most of the extracts exhibited varying degree of toxicity to first instar larvae, whereas, they were least toxic to third instar larvae. NSKE, V. negundo and A. squamosa extracts caused mortality of 87.20, 55.2 and 52.10 per cent respectively 72 h after treatment (Patil, 2000).

Mixture of extracts from pongamia (10%), aloe (5%), NSKE (10%) and cow urine (30%) recorded highest antifeedant activity with 75.57 and 68.63 per cent reduction in larval weight of S. litura and H. armigera respectively, over control (Barapatre, 2001).

Among the various indigenous tools evaluated, the maximum larval mortality of S. litura (91.66%) was caused by vitex (5%) + aloe (5%) followed by Pongamia (10%) + aloe (5%) + NSKE (10%) + cow urine (30%) (88.33%), both being statistically on par with each other, but significantly superior to all other treatments. NSKE inflicted the highest larval mortality of H. armigera (89.92%) and was as effective as a combined treatment of Pongamia (10%), aloe (5%), NSKE (10%) with cow urine (30%) (78.88%), whereas, cow urine and cow dung were ineffective as they were unable to inflict any mortality even after lapse of maximum post application period of 96 hr (Barapatre and Lingappa, 2003).

So far only chemical control measures are in vogue to manage the stem borers. In order to find out the alternate control measures for stem borers in the northern Karnataka region of Dharwad. The researchers recognized the harmful effects of pesticides and tried to bring eco-friendly approaches to reduce pesticide load in environment by using bio-rationales, pest resistant varieties and scheduled pesticide application.

2.3.3 Evaluation of newer insecticide molecules and poison baits against leaf eating caterpillars

Sullivan et al. (1999) found that new insecticides viz., pirate (Pyrolle), Tracer (Spinosyn), proclaim (Avermectin) and Steward (Oxadiazine) provided adequate control of beet army worm S. exigua, fall army worm Spodoptera furgiperda (Smith) and soybean looper, Pseudoplusia includens (Walker) in cotton.

Pan- DengMing et al. (2000) observed that the optimal application rate of spinosad on H. armigera was 30.24 – 40.32 g/ha. Spinosad was particularly effective against older larvae. Mascarenhas and Boethel (2000) found out that the diagnostic concentration (concentration that kill 90-95% of susceptible individuals) of emamectin benzoate was 5 ppm and spinosad was 60 ppm against soybean looper, P. includens.

Hall et al. (2000) observed that thiodicarb at 0.125, 0.25, 0.375 and 0.5 lb ai/acre and spinosad at 0.0012 and 0.025 lb ai/acre caused highest mortality of soybean looper (P. includens) larvae when fed with treated foliage of cotton.

Knight et al. (2000) reported that indoxacarb, methoxy fenozide and spinosad were having greater potential to control T. orichalcea in soybean. Spinosad was safe to beneficial species also.

Singh and Chhibber (1969) reported that dusting of 5 per cent trichlorofal or 2 per cent parathion @ 25 kg/ha was effective in controlling early instars of S. obliqua followed by spraying of 1.25 litres of endosulfan 35 EC in 500 to 900 litre of water/ha. Application of phorate 10 G @ 10 to 15 kg/ha was effective in the furrow before sowing in managing pea stem borer (M. phaseoli). According to Srivastava and Singh (1974), diazinon (0.02% or 0.03%) kept the soybean free from the girdle beetle and stemfly upto 10 days.

According to Due and Hong (1982) carbofuran 3 G reduced infestation of M. sojae during the whole growth period of the crop. The monocrotophos and dimethoate @ 0.5 kg a.i./ha were effective against stemfly than synthetic pyrethroids (Anon., 1985a). In an insecticidal trial monocrotophos (0.05%), endosulfan (0.07%) an quinalphos (0.05%) were effective in controlling leaf miner, green semilooper and stemfly, respectively. Monocrotophos (0.04%) was more effective than methyl oxydemeton (0.05%) and dimethoate (0.03%) against soybean stemfly (Srivastava and Srivastava, 1987b).

According to Wang (1987) the stem fly M. sojae could be effectively controlled by using of dimethoate 0.001 per cent and by removal of stems and leaves from the fields after harvest.

Gain and Kundu (1988) reported that phorate 10G, monocrotophos and quinalphos were effective against soybean stemfly and the highest yield of 19.09 q/ha was obtained by applying phorate @ 2.0 kg a.i/ha at sowing supplemented with two sprays of monocrotophos (0.05%) at 15 and 31 days after sowing. Two sprays of quinalphos (0.05%) at 15 and 31 days after sowing was economical on the basis of cost benefit ratio.

Quinalphos (0.05%) and monocrotophos (0.05%) were found to be highly effective in checking the plant infestation (36.66 and 46.66) and stem tunneling (20.69 and 27.36%) caused by the maggots of stemfly as against 100 and 50.28 per cent plant infestation and stem tunneling, respectively in the control (Singh and Singh, 1990a).

Application of phorate 10 G and carbofuran 3 G at 1.5 kg a.i./ha each have been found effective against the girdle beetle (O. brevis) and stemflies (O. phaseoli and M. sojae). The leaf feeding insect could be effectively controlled by spraying of quinalphos 20 EC (0.03 to 0.05%) or monocrotophos 36 SL (0.04 to 0.05%) or endosulfan 35 EC (0.07 to 0.1%) or methyl parathion 50 EC (0.05 to 0.07%) (Singh and Singh, 1990b).

Application of chlorpyriphos (0.05%) 10 days after germination recorded significantly least stem tunneling in soybean compared to neemark and neem oil (3%). Further, it was reported that significantly least soybean pod damage was observed in chlorpyriphos but moncorotophos, neemark and neem oil were on par with each other. On the other hand, comparatively higher grain yield was recorded in neemark (11.6q/ha) treated plot compared to chlorpyriphos (8.2 q/ha) and monocrotophos (8.8 q/ha) treated plot (Anon., 1990b).

Monocrotophos (0.005%) was effective against stemfly compared to synthetic pyrethrioids (Anon., 1985).

Monocrotophos (0.04%) was more effective than methyl oxydemeton (0.05 %) and dimethoate (0.03%) against soybean stemfly (Srivastava and Srivastava, 1987b). Chlorpyriphos (0.05%) recorded significantly least stem tunneling in soybean compared to neemark and neemoil. Further, it was reported that significantly least soybean pod damage was observed in chlorpyriphos but monocrotophos, neemarks and neem oil were on par with each other (Anon., 1990a).

The least stem tunneling was observed in plots treated with endosulfan (0.07%) on 10, 20 and 30 DAG followed by quinalphos (0.05%), fenpropathrin (0.018%), fenvalerate (0.03%), phosalone (0.03%) and carbosulfan (0.017%). Yield was greater in plots treated with endosulfan followed by carbosulfan and fenpropathrin (Venkateshan and Kundu, 1994).

Bagle and Verma (1990) reported that three applications of monocrotophos at 0.5 kg a.i./ha commencing 15 days after sowing or a single application of granular phorate at 1.5 kg a.i./ha were effective against the M. sojae.

Dharmasena and Fernando (1991) observed a significantly less bean fly damage upto three weeks after emergence of cowpea seedlings, in plots treated with carbosulfan 25 ST and thiodicarb 75 WP (seed treatment @ 1 g/100 g of seeds). They also reported that seed treatment did not affect the germination and was safer to natural enemies.

Mote and Shah (1993) reported that the soil application of carbofuran 3 G @ 1 kg a.i./ha and carbosulfan 25 ST seed treatment at 5, 6 and 7 per cent were highly effective in reducing the number of mines per plant, percentage of plants damaged and per cent stem tunneling due to stem fly in french bean crop.

Minimum stemfly incidence, higher grain yield and maximum cost benefit ratio was obtained in an IPM method compared to seed pelleting with dimethoate @ 5 ml/kg seed and endosulfan 500

ml/ha spray either on 10th and 20th DAS or on 20th day alone against stemfly in blackgram (Muthukrishnan et al., 1995).

Jansson et al. (1996) observed that dry powder blend formulations of emamectin benzoate were very effective in controlling Helothis zea (Boddie), Keiferia lycopersicella (Walsingham) and Spodoptera exigua (Hubner) in tomato.Sullivan et al. (1999) found that new insecticides viz., Pirate

(Pyrolle), Tracer (Spinosyn), Proclaim (Avermectin) and Steward (Oxadiazine) provided adequate control of beet army worm S. exigua fall army worm Spodoptera furgiperda (Smith) and soybean looper Pseudoplusia includes Walker in cotton.

Hall et al. (2000) observed that thiodicarb at 0.125, 0.25, 0.375 and 0.5 lb a.i./acre and spinosad at 0.0012 and 0.025 lb a.i./acre caused highest mortality of soybean looper larvae when fed with treated foliage of cotton.Kamala (2000) reported IPM module seed treatment + monocrotophos (on 23DAG) chloropyriphos (on 35 DAG) + NSE (on 27DAG) was more economically beneficial with the cost benefit ratio of 1:4.22 and 1:3.80 at recommended spacing and altered spacing respectively.

Purwar and Yadav (2003) observed that triazophos was most effective against S. litura in soybean followed by dimilin (Diflubeuzuron).Tohnishi et al. (2005) flubendiamide 480 SC was having extremely strong insecticidal activity against lepidopteran insect pests and also very safe to non target organisms.

Lakshminarayana and Rajashri (2006) reported that flubendiamide 20 WG was highly effective against, H. armigera on cotton.Ameta and Bunker (2007) reported that flubendiamide 480 SC @ 50 ml/ha caused significantly higher reduction in diamond back moth.

Harish (2008) reported that Emamectin benzoate was found effective in controlling S. litura, with least per cent defoliation (26.00%). Emamectin benzoate and spinosad also recorded least per cent pod damage of 11.23% with higher yields 2276.67 kg/ha.

Mallikarjunappa et al. (2008) reported that flubendiamide 20 WG @ 35 g a.i./ha was most effective in reducing the incidence of rice stem borer, Scirphophaga incertulas (Walker) and leaf folder Cnaphalocrosis medinalis (Guen.) and recorded higher yield.

Abdul Latif et al. (2009) reported that flubendiamide application showed better performance in reducing 80.63 per cent fruit infestation by Leucinodes orbonalis Guen and produced the higher fruit yield in brinjal. Hole et al. (2009) evaluated the bioefficacy of cypermethrin 25 EC @ 0.005%, endosulfan @ 0.05%, profenophos @ 0.1% and quinalphos @ 0.05% against S. litura reported that among different insecticidal treatment tested profenophos @ 0.1% proved significantly superior over others.

Tatagar et al. (2009) reported that newer molecule flubendiamide 20 WG @ 50 g a.i./ha was superior in reducing the incidence of chilli fruit borers with highest yield. Highest B:C ratio was recorded in flubendiamide 20 WG @ 50 g a.i./ha (1:5.12).

2.3.4 Evaluation of poison baits against leaf eating caterpillars

Yokoi et al. (1975) reported the behavioural differences among larvae of noctuids, Agrotis ipsilon (Hufnagel), S. litura and Momestra brassicae (L.) the commercial Japanese bait, Nekiriton was used. When the granular bait containing one per cent trichlorfon was placed on the soil surface, it was most effective against A. ipsilon and least effective against M. brassicae. Whereas, when applied to leaves of Chinese cabbage, it was less effective against S. litura.

Sechriest and Sherrod (1977) evaluated six insecticides in pelleted bait formulations in the field for control of larvae of A. ipsilon, attacking seedling corn. Biothion at 0.34 kg a.i./ha, fonofos at 1.12 kg a.i./ha, methomyl at 0.17 kg a.i./ha, chlorpyriphos at 0.34 kg a.i./ha trichlorfon at 1.12 kg a.i./ha and carbaryl at 0.84 kg a.i./ha controlled the black cutworm larvae when applied soon after seedling emergence.

Third to fifth instar larvae of S. litura was effectively controlled by spreading out the bait based on lindane (1 kg of a 25% dust), wheat bran (100 kg) and water (50 liters), before dusk at the rate of 70-80 kg/ha (Gharib, 1979).

Abdulkareem and Viswanathan (1980) recommended poison baiting for the control of S. litura. The contents were rice bran (5 kg), jaggery or molasses (0.5 kg), carbaryl 50 WP (0.5 kg) and water (3 litres).

Jayaraj (1983) stated that under field conditions, the full grown larvae of S. litura hiding inside the soil crevices during day time were found to be attracted to wheat flour bait or rice bran bait with 20 per cent molasses.

Parasuraman et al. (1985) conducted studies to test the effectiveness of different baits to attract larvae of S. litura in cotton ecosystem. They found that a maximum of 34.9 larvae were attracted to wheat flour with 20 per cent molasses 16 hours after the bait was placed. They suggested that insecticides and nuclear polyhedrosis virus in bait preparation containing wheat flour with 20 per cent molasses might prove useful in controlling S. litura.

Ramana et al. (1988) reported 0.01 per cent chlorpyriphos + 1.0 per cent chlorpyriphos bait (rice bran and jaggery at 4:1), 0.05 per cent chlorpyriphos + 0.05 per cent chlorpyriphos bait and 0.05 per cent monocrotophos + 0.05 per cent monocrotophos bait to be effective in descending order against S. litura in groundnut. However, fenvalerate was the most economical chemical which resulted in the highest net profit.

Ramaprasad et al. (1989) assessed five insecticide bait formulations against S. litura in tobacco nurseries and found that the later instars can be effectively and economically controlled by the application of endosulfan or monocrotophos or chlorpyriphos or fenvalerate or quinalphos at 1/3

rd of their recommended dose by mixing with rice bran and jaggery at the ratio of 4:1

and with the application rate of 31.25 kg/ha.

Kulkarni (1989) carried out an experiment on different insecticidal sprays and bait formulations in kharif and summer seasons against S. litura in groundnut crop. In kharif season, NPV was found highly effective in reducing the larval populations followed by monocrotophos spray and monocrotophos bait. During summer the mortality of the pest was highest in spray followed by methamidophos spray, chlorpyriphos bait and decamethrin bait.

Hiremath et al. (1990) taking advantage of an army worm outbreak at Dharwad, carried out poison bait experiments. Application of poison bait containing monocrotophos was found superior (98% larval mortality within 24 hours) compared to sprays with 0.05 per cent monocrotophos (97.83%), endosulfan (73.6%), chlorpyriphos (75.43%), decamethrin (73.2%) or application of BHC dust (64.33%) and carbofuran 3G (86.53%) in suppressing Mythimna separata (Walker) population. Further, based on economics and safety measures, it was recommended that the poison bait @ 25.0, 37.5, 50.0, 75.0, 100.0 and 125.0 kg/ha has to be used when the population is 0-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, 21-25 and 25-30 larvae/plant respectively. In another study, Hiremath et al. (1993) found out the mass trapping technique for the armyworm moths by using fermented bait of monocrotphos (stored for 48 hours). The application of such bait resulted in 98 per cent kill of larvae and 70 per cent of moths.

Chandrasekhar (1992) evaluated the efficacy of seven insecticides against S. litura infesting potato crop. Among the insecticides tried, monocrotophos poison bait, chlorpyriphos and quinalphos treatment registered with lesser tuber loss on weight basis. On number basis also, monocrotophos poison bait gave maximum control.

Hiremath (1993) found that poison bait consisting of 250 ml monocrotophos, four kg jaggery, 50 kg rice bran and six to eight litres of water, was significantly superior to endosulfan spray in suppressing the larval population of M. separata on sorghum and maize, S. litura on groundnut and sunflower and H. armigera on bengalgram and cotton. The bait was effective in killing the adults of these pests. Also, increasing of jaggery content by two times (8 kg) was found superior. Among the carriers evaluated, the rice bran was found to be most effective.

Renju (2007) reported that chlorpyriphos 20 EC bait proved to be superior in bringing about mortality of larvae and adult of target insect S. litura, M. separata and H. armigera which was comparable to monocrotophos.

The unilateral approach of managing the crop pests by synthetic insecticides has dictated the necessity for developing need based, cost effective, eco-friendly and safe management strategies

MATERIAL AND METHODS Investigations were carried out on the survey, crop loss estimation, varietal screening and

management of stem fly and defoliators in soybean at the Main Agricultural Research Station, Dharwad and Agricultural Research Station, Bailhongal, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, Karnataka. The experimental location MARS, Dhrawad lies in transitional belt at 15

o 17’ North latitude

and 70o 05’ East longitude and at an altitude of 678 m above the mean sea level (MSL). The mean

yearly rainfall of the location averages about 800 mm. The Agricultural Research Station, Bailhongal lies in transitional belt 16

o North latitude, 75.5

o East longitude and at an altitude 680 m above MSL.

The mean annual rainfall of the location averages about 780 mm.


A roving survey was undertaken to know the status of insect pests of soybean in soybean ecosystem of Dharwad, Belgaum, Bagalkot and Haveri districts of Northern Karnataka as detailed in Table 1.

3.1.1 Stem fly and girdle beetle

To study the incidence of pests of soybean, roving survey was carried out in different taluks of each district. In each taluka five fields/villages were surveyed. Survey was undertaken at flowering and harvesting stage observations were made on 10 randomly selected plants from each field during flowering and harvesting. The plants were dissected to observe the stem fly infestation, stem tunnelling and extent of tunnelling, later they were converted to percentage by the following formula.

No. of plants affected

Per cent stem fly infestation = ---------------------------------------- x 100 Total number of observed plants

Length of tunnel Per cent stem tunnelling = ------------------------ x 100

Height of plant For recording the damage of the girdle beetle damage following formula was used

Number of plants with girdle beetle damage Girdle beetle infestation = ------------------------------------------------------- x 100 Total number of plants observed

3.1.2 Leaf eating caterpillars

Observations on larval population of leaf eating caterpillar, S. litura and semiloopers were made at three randomly selected spots of one meter row in each treatment leaving border rows. Larval counts were made by shaking the plants gently over a white cloth placed between the rows. Average number of caterpillars found per meter row length (mrl) was worked out.

3.1.3 Pod borers

Observations on pod borer, C. ptychora incidence was recorded by uprooting 10 randomly selected plants in each spot leaving border rows before harvesting. Number of pods per plant and number of pods damaged by the pod borer were recorded. The data was expressed as per cent pod damage.

3.1.4 Natural enemies

Observations on the incidence of predators (coccinellids, spiders and chrysopids) were recorded at three randomly selected spots of one meter row in each treatment leaving border rows and for incidence of entomopathogenic fungus, Nomuraea rileyi the number of cadavars/mrl was taken.

Table 1: Location selected for survey of insect pests of soybean in northern Karnataka during 2010-12

Sl. No. Districts Taluks Villages

1 Dharwad Dharwad Garag, Tadakod, Narendra, Kotabagi,Yadawad.

Hubli Tirumalkoppa, Palikoppa, Agadi, Mavinkoppa, Bommasandra

Kalghatagi Dummawada, Kalaghatagi, Misrikoti, Gudihal,T Honnihalli

Kundagol Kundagol,Betadur, Gudageri, Gudenkatti,Shirur

2 Belgaum Bailhongal Bailhongal, Anigol, Belwadi, Hosur, Devalapur

Chikkodi Examba, Kanagala, Bhoj, Chikodi, Nipani

Hukkeri Hukkeri, Siragaon, Hosur, Gotur, Kurali

Athani Athani, Ugarkhurd, Maheshwadi, Ainapur, Kagawada

Raibag Raibag, Harugeri, Chinchali, Ankanwadi, Savasuddi

Belgaum Yamakanmaradi, Bailhongal, Anegol, Amatoor, Belwadi

3 Bagalkot Jamakhandi Sirguppi, Hebbal, Madarkhandi, Teradal, Jaknur

Mudhol Malali, Shirol, Nagaral, Mughalkod, Siddapur

4 Haveri Haveri Haveri, Devihosur, Karjagi, Motebennur, Savanur

Shiggaon Shiggaon, Timmapur, Kurabagond, Dasoor, Bannur

3.1.5 Fixed plot survey

Fixed plot survey was conducted at Dharwad in an area of 10X10 m, where no plant protection measures were taken. Observations were recorded at weekly intervals for computing the obtained results same methodology was used as mentioned above.

3.2 Estimation of crop losses due to the stem fly and leaf eating caterpillars in soybean

Field experiment was conducted to estimate the crop loss due to stem fly under two different dates of sowing, i.e., first week of June and July 15

th during Kharif season of 2010-11 and 2011-12 at

the Agricultural Research Station, Bailhongal, using the soybean cultivar JS -335 in factorial RBD with three replications and 16 treatments including untreated check (UTC) (Table 2). The crop was sown with a spacing of 30 cm between rows and 10 cm between plants in a plot size of 5 X 3.6 m (Plate 1)

The seeds of treatment one to four were treated with thiamethoxam or imidacloprid @ 3 g/kg seeds, respectively in a plastic bowl uniformally and shade dried. The treatment 15 viz., phorate 10 G was applied to soil at the time of sowing. The foliar applications were taken up with thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l or imidacloprid 17.8 SL @0.25 ml/l as treatments in treatments T1 to T14. A blanket spray of Lamda cyhalothrin @ 0.5 ml/l was taken to manage other pests of soybean, at 30 DAS in all the treatments.

Observations on the seedling mortality were recorded at 15, 21, 30 and 35 DAS and per cent mortality was worked out. Ten plants in each treatment were selected randomly for observations on per cent stem fly incidence and per cent stem tunnelling at 30, 45, 60 DAS and at harvesting period, number of pods per 10 plants at harvest, plant height at maturity stage (50 DAS). At harvest the pods from the plants were harvested from individual plots were recorded and the yield was recorded for the plot area of 18 m

2 and yield data was computed to quintals per hectare (q/ha) and B:C ratio was

worked out. The 1000 seed weight was also recorded.

3.2.1 Statistical analysis

The stem tunneling was transformed to arcsine values for reliable analysis and the yield data were analyzed using ANOVA technique and subjected to DMRT (Duncan’s Multiple Range Test).

3.2.2 Estimation of loss in grain yield

The per cent loss in terms of grain yield at different dates of sowing was calculated by using the modified Abbott’s formula (Tejkumar, 1979) given below

Yield in treatment- yield in control

Per cent Avoidable loss (%) = -------------------------------------------- x 100

Yield in treatment

3.2.3 Economics

Based on the prevailing market prices of the produce, cost of insecticides, cost of labour and cost of other in- puts, the net- profit was worked was worked out

3.2.4 Crop loss estimation due to leaf eating caterpillars (Simulation technique)

Field experiment was conducted to estimate the crop loss due to leaf eating caterpillars under two different dates of sowing viz., first week of June and July 15

th during Kharif seasons of 2010

and 2011 at the Main Agricultural Research Station, Dharwad using the soybean cultivar, JS-335 in factorial RBD with three replications and fifteen treatments. The crop was sown with a spacing of 30 cm between rows and 10 cm between plants in a plot size of 3 X 0.9 m (Plate 2).

Plate 1 : Experimental view at 45 days after sowing

Table 2: Treatment details for loss estimation studies due to stem fly

Treatments Dosage

T1- Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS 3.0 g/kg

T2 -Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS 0.5g/l

T3 -Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS+ foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG at 20 DAS

3.0 g/kg+ 0.5g/l

T4 -Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS + foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL at 20 DAS

3.0 g/kg+ 0.25 ml/l

T5 -Spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG at 10 DAS 0.5 g/l





T10 -Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL at 10 DAS 0.25 ml/l

T11 -Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SLl at 20 DAS 0.25 ml/l




T15 -Phorate 10G soil application at sowing (RPP) 1.5 kg ai/ha

T16 -Unprotected -

The treatments details are as follows

Factor (1): Growth stages (3)

1) 20 Days After Germination (DAG)

2) 40 DAG

3) 60 DAG

Factor (2): Degrees of defoliation (5) (Plate 2)

1) 0 per cent (Protected check)

2) 25 per cent

3) 50 per cent

4) 75 per cent

5) 100 per cent

All the pests were managed as per the recommended package of practices of UAS, Dharwad.

Observation on seed yield, 1000 seed weight and number of pods per plant were recorded at harvest.

3.2.5 Yield and quality parameters

At harvest the pods from ten plants were harvested from individual plots recorded and the yield was recorded for the plot area further yield data was computed to quintals per hectare.


3.3.1 Screening of soybean genotypes against seedling borers.

Fifty soybean genotypes obtained from All India Coordinated Research Project on Soybean, Indore and Breeder, AICRP on Soybean, Dharwad Centre were evaluated in the field to find out the genotypes resistant to the stem fly, M. sojae.

The field experiment was carried out at Agriculture Research Station, Bailhongal in Randomized Block Design with two replications. Each of the soybean genotypes were sown in two rows of 3 m length with a spacing of 30 × 10 cm. All the recommended packages of practices were followed in establishing the plants except plant protection measures. Observations on seedling mortality at 7, 15, 21, 30 and 35 DAS and stem tunnelling at flowering and at harvesting were recorded and per cent tunnelling by the stem fly was worked out on randomly selected five plants in each genotype. Total length of the main stem was measured and it was split open to measure the length of the tunnel bored by the stem fly. From this data, percentage of stem tunnelling was computed.

The genotypes were categorized into different group’s viz., resistant (R), moderately resistant (MR), moderately susceptible (MS), susceptible(S) and highly susceptible (HS) by considering the deviation from the means (X). A preliminary classification of the germplasm lines done considering each of the above parameters as follows.

3.3.2 Grouping of varieties

AICRP method was used in classifying the varieties

1. Highly resistant (HR) - value between 0 and X -CD at 0.01%

2. Resistant (R) – value between HR and X-CD at 0.05%

3. Moderately resistant (MR) – value between R and X

4. Moderately susceptible (MS) – value between X and X+CD at 0.05%

5. Susceptible (S) – value between MR and X+CD at 0.01%

6. Highly susceptible (HS) – value more than value at S

Plate 2 : Differential levels of artificial defoliation

3.3.3 Screening of soybean genotypes against leaf eating caterpillars

Fifty soybean genotypes obtained from All India Coordinated Research Project on Soybean, Indore and Breeder, AICRP on Soybean, Dharwad Centre were evaluated in the field to find out the genotypes resistant to the leaf eating caterpillars.

The field experiment was carried out at Agriculture Research Station, Bailhongal in RBD with two replications. Each of the soybean genotypes were sown in two rows of 3 m length with a spacing of 30 × 10 cm. Normal sowing was performed during first week of June and 15

th July during

Kharif seasons of 2010 and 2011. All the recommended package of practices were followed in establishing the plants except the insect pests control measures. Incidence of defoliator pests were recorded only from unprotected set of entries, at flowering stage. Grain yield (kg/plot) was recorded in each genotype from both protected and unprotected plots and analyzed the data by maximin- minimax method. (Odulaja and Nokoe, 1993).

3.3.4 Maximin-Minimax method

The main purpose of selection for resistance is to maximize yield while minimising yield loss. Hence, the problem can be conceptualized as maximization of minimum expected yield (maximin) and minimization of maximum expected percentage yield loss (minimax). Since a variety is, in most cases, judged resistant relative to the resistant check, and susceptible relative to the susceptible check, the maximin approach is to obtain the yield potential of each variety relative to the resistant check, while the minimax approach is to obtain percentage yield loss relative to the susceptible check.

Given V varieties to be tested together with one each of resistant and susceptible check, let YR and ZR be the yields of the resistant check when unprotected and protected from the pest or disease attack respectively, YS and ZS the corresponding yields of the susceptible check, while the corresponding values for variety i, i=1,…..., V, are Yi and Zi. Furthermore, let PR, PS and Pi be the percentage yield loss due to the pest or disease attack respectively for the resistant, susceptibl and i

th

variety, obtained as given below (Walker, 1983).

PR = 100 (ZR - YR) / ZR

PS = 100 (ZS - YS) / ZS

Pi = 100 (Zi - Yi) / Zi

The relative yield of each variety i may be obtained as

RYi = 100 Yi/YR

with the relative percentage yield loss given as

RPi = 100 Pi/Ps

When checks are not included in the experiment, the highest yielding variety under exposure to the pest or disease in question may be used as the resistant check while the variety with the highest percentage yield loss may be used as the susceptible check. The higher the value of RY and the lower RP for any variety, the more acceptable the variety for selection. Setting a priority an acceptable lower limit, L, for RY and upper limit, U, for RP, a scatter plot of RY against RP, maximin-minimax plot can be divided into quadrants. Varieties in the first and third quadrants can be classified resistant but high and low yielding respectively, while those in the second and fourth quadrants are susceptible but high and low yielding respectively (Odulaja and Nokoe, 1993).

3.3.5 Estimation of biochemical parameters of soybean genotypes

Quantification of total phenols was done following the protocols of Folin-Ciocalteau Reagent (Sadasivan and Manickam, 2008). Leaves of soybean genotypes were used for the estimation of biochemical parameters. Catechol, glucose and Bovine serum albumin was used as the standard for total phenols and expressed as mg/g.

3.3.6 Evaluation of bio-rationales and insecticide molecules against seedling borers

3.3.6.1 Preparation of 5 per cent Neem Seed Kernel Extract (NSKE)

Fifty gram of smashed seeds of neem were soaked overnight in one litre of water, squeezed through muslin cloth and the extract collected was used for spraying.

3.3.6.2 Preparation of 5 per cent leaf extract of Pongamia pinnata L.

Fresh leaves were brought to laboratory, washed thoroughly 3-4 times with tap water. After that, they were chopped into small pieces with knife. 50g of the chopped leaves were soaked overnight in enough water, squeezed through muslin cloth and residue was smashed in mortar and pestle, again extracted and filtered through muslin cloth and volume was made up to one litre and used for spraying.

3.3.6.3 Preparation of 10 per cent cow urine

Fresh cow urine was collected from MARS, dairy unit at early in the morning on the day of spraying and 100ml of cow urine was taken and volume was made to one litre by adding water and used for spraying.

3.3.6.4 Preparation of Garlic - Chilli Kerosene Extract (GCKE)

Fifty grams each of dried garlic and green chilli were crushed using mortar and pestle separately and soaked in 25 ml of kerosene and kept overnight. Next day contents were mixed and the contents were squeezed through muslin cloth and the extract was collected, volume was made up to 100 ml to get 50 per cent GCKE, later required concentration was obtained by diluting with water.

The experiment was laid out in a RCBD with three replications with a plot size of 5 x 3.6 m leaving gang way of one meter around the plots. The soybean variety, JS- 335 was sown at a spacing of 30 x 10cm. Normal sowing was also performed during first week of June and July 15

th during Kharif

seasons of 2010 and 2011 at MARS, Dharwad by following recommended package of practices except for insect control. The treatments, were applied with knapsack sprayer (hydraulic sprayer) using a spray fluid of 500 litres/ha. The first spray was given at 20 (DAS) when the crop had adequate population of insects and the second spray was given at 35 DAS. To compare the efficacy of treatments, both standard checks as well as untreated check were maintained.

Treatment details

Treatment details Dosages Dosage/ha

(500 L water/ha)

T1: Emamectin benzoate 5SG 0.2g/l 100 g/ha

T2:Indoxacarb 14.5 SC 0.5ml/l 250 ml/ha

T3: Spinosad 45 SC 0.2 ml/l 100 ml/ha

T4: Nimbecidine 3ml/l 1500 ml/ha

T5: Neem 1500 ppm 0.3% 1500 ml/ha

T6: Pongamia leaf Extract 5ml/l 2500 ml/ha

T7:Garlic chilli kerosene extract 5% 2500 ml/ha

T8: NSKE 5% 2500 ml/ha

T9: Cow urine 10% 5000 ml/ha

T10: Butter milk 5% 2500 ml/ha

T11: Virosan 2% 1000 ml/ha

T12: Untreated check - -

Stem fly infestation, stem tunnelling and griddle beetle infection were recorded by using following formula.

No. of plants affected Per cent stem fly infestation = ------------------------------- x 100

Total number of plants

Length of tunnel Per cent stem tunnelling = ----------------------- x 100

Height of plant

Number of plants with girdle beetle damage

Girdle beetle infestation = ------------------------------------------------------- x 100 Total number of plants observed

3.3.6.5 Pod borers

Observations on incidence of pod borer, C. ptychora were recorded by uprooting 10 randomly selected plants in each treatment leaving border rows before harvesting. Number of pods per plant and number of pods damaged by the pod borer were recorded. The data was expressed as per cent pod damage.

3.3.6.6 Yield and quality parameters

At harvest the pods from individual plots were taken separately and the yield was recorded for the plot area of 18 m

2 and yield data was computed to q/ ha.

3.4 Evaluation of newer insecticide molecules and poison baits against leaf eating caterpillars

3.4.1 Preparation of poison baits

For the bait preparation, the procedure adopted by Hiremath et al. (1990) was used but with alterations in terms of the toxicant chemical.

3.4.2 Preparation of Monocrotophos poison bait

Rice bran 50 kg + jaggery 4 kg + monocrotophos 36 EC 250 ml + 8 litres of water was mixed thoroughly and kept it in gunny bags, dried under shade condition for 48 hrs and spread during evening hours to attract caterpillars. Same procedure was followed to prepare methomyl and chlorpyriphos poison baits with respect to the dosages. The quantity is sufficient for using one hectare area.

Experiment was laid out in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications and the treatment details are given in Table 3.

JS-335 variety of soybean was used for sowing and all the recommended package of practices were followed to raise the crop. The first spray was given at 20 DAS when the crop had adequate population of insects and the second spray was given at 35 DAS. To compare the efficacy of treatments, both standard checks as well as untreated check were maintained. Observations on larval population of leaf eating caterpillars were made at three randomly selected spots of one meter row length in each treatment leaving border rows. Larval count was made by shaking the plant gently over a white cloth placed between rows. Number of dead larvae/adult at 24, 48, 72 hrs and seven days after application was taken and one blanket spray was given to manage the pod borer.

3.4.3 Yield and quality parameters

At harvest the pods from ten plants were harvested from individual plots and the yield was recorded for the plot area and yield data was computed to quintals per hectare. Estimation of loss in grain yield was calculated.

Table 3: Treatment details for the evaluation of newer insecticide molecules and poison baits against leaf eating caterpillar pests of soybean

Treatment Formulation Dosages

T1Thiamethoxam 25 WG 0.5g/l

T2 Imidacloprid 17.8 SL 0.25 ml/l

T3 Emamectin benzoate 5 SG 0.2g/l

T4 Indoxacarb 14.5 SC 0.5 ml/l

T5 Spinosad 45 SC 0.2ml/l

T6 Chlorpyriphos 20 EC 2ml/l

T7 Acetamiprid 20 SL 0.25g/l

T8 Fipronil 5 SL 1ml/l

T9 Cartap hydrochloride 50 SP 2 g/l

T10 Rynaxypyr 20 SC 0.2 ml/l

T11 Thiodicarb 75 WP 0.75 g/l

T12 Flubendiamide 480 SC 0.2 ml/l

T13 Methomyl (poison bait) 40 SP Rice bran 50 kg + jaggery 4 kg + methomyl 40 SP 250 g + 8 litres of water

T14 Chlorpyriphos (poison bait) 20 EC Rice bran 50 kg + jaggery 4 kg + chlorpyriphos 20 EC 250 ml + 8 litres of

water

T15 Monocrotophos (poison bait)

36 SL Rice bran 50 kg + jaggery 4 kg + monocrotophos 36 SL 250 ml + 8 litres of

water

T16 Untreated check - -

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Results of the present investigation on the survey and surveillance of stem fly

Melanagromyza sojae (Zehntner) and leaf eating caterpillars, crop loss estimation and management of stem fly and leaf eating caterpillars in soybean ecosystem are elucidated here under


The roving survey was conducted in different taluks of Dharwad, Belgaum, Bagalkot and Haveri districts of Northern Karnataka during kharif 2010 and 2011 to assess the incidence and severity of stem fly and leaf eating caterpillars in soybean during vegetative and grand growth periods of the crop. The data pertaining to survey was presented here under.

4.1.1 Roving survey of soybean stem fly, Melanagromyza sojae

The detailed survey results of soybean stem fly of each district are presented in following paragraphs.

4.1.1.1 Dharwad district

Survey results on the stem fly infestation during 2010, indicated that stem fly incidence was observed in all taluks of Dharwad district (Table 4). Infestation of stem fly during flowering stage ranged from 10.00 per cent (Shirur, Kundagol taluk) to 13.75 per cent (Kalghatagi, Kalghatagi taluk). Among the taluks, highest mean infestation (12.53%) was recorded in Dharwad and Kalghatagi taluks, followed by Kundagol (11.29%) and Hubli taluk (11.15%). At harvesting stage stem fly incidence ranged from 11.90 per cent (Palikoppa, Hubli taluk) to 14.65 per cent (Tadakoda, Dharwad taluk). Among the taluks, highest mean infestation of 15.10 per cent was recorded in Dharwad taluk, followed by Kalghatagi taluk (13.63%), Kundagol (13.38%) and Hubli taluk (12.80%).

During 2011 results indicated that infestation of stem fly during flowering stage ranged from 8.55 per cent (Shirur, Kundagol taluk) to 14.66 per cent (Yadawada, Dharwad taluk). Among the taluks, highest mean infestation (12.22%) was recorded in Dharwad taluk, followed by Kalghatagi (11.95%) Kundagol (10.84%) and Hubli taluk (10.62%) respectively. At harvesting stage stem fly incidence ranged from 12.00 per cent (T honnihalli, Kalghatagi taluk) to 18.33 per cent (Yadawada, Dharwad taluk). Among the taluks, highest mean infestation (15.09%) was recorded in Dharwad taluk, followed by Kundagol (14.13%), Kalghatagi taluk (13.58%), and Hubli taluk (13.30%).

The mean (2010 & 2011) per cent infestation of stem fly ranged between 9.27 (Shirur, Kundagol taluk) to 13.88 (Yadawada, Dharwad taluk) per cent during flowering stage, while at harvesting stage it was ranged between 12.22 (Palikoppa, Hubli taluk) to 17.49 (Yadawada, Dharwad taluk) per cent. Among the taluks, mean infestation during flowering stage was 12.34 per cent in Dharwad taluk followed by Kalghatagi taluk (12.24%), Kundagol (11.07%), and Hubli taluk (10.89%) and at harvesting stage highest infestation was recorded in Dharwad taluk (15.09%), followed by Kundagol (13.75%), Kalghatagi taluk (13.60%) and Hubli taluk (13.05%) (Table 4).

Survey results on the stem fly tunneling during 2010, indicated that stem tunneling was observed in all taluks of Dharwad district. Stem tunneling during flowering stage ranged from 5.80 (T honnihalli, Kalghatagi taluk) to 8.10 per cent (Bommasandra, Hubli taluk).Among the taluks, highest mean tunneling (7.44%) was recorded in Hubli taluk, followed by Dharwad (7.25%), Kundagol (7.04%) and Kalghatigi taluk (6.41%). At harvesting stage stem tunneling ranged from 6.80 (Kalghatagi, Kalghatagi taluk) to 8.00 per cent (Gudageri, Kundagol taluk). Among the taluks, highest mean stem tunneling (7.76%) was recorded in Dharwad taluk, followed by Hubli taluk (7.64%), Kundagol (7.48%) and Kalghatigi taluk (7.28%) respectively.

Survey results on the stem tunneling during kharif 2011, indicated that stem tunneling during flowering stage ranged from 5.10 (Bommasandra, Hubli taluk) to 8.70 per cent (Yadawada, Dharwad taluk). Among the taluks, highest mean per cent tunneling (7.60%) was recorded in Hubli taluk, followed by Dharwad, Kundagol (7.46%) and Kalaghatagi (6.66%) respectively. At harvesting stage stem tunneling ranged from 7.30 (Narendra, Dharwad taluk) to 8.30 per cent (Shirur, Kalaghatagi taluk). Among the taluks, highest mean stem tunneling (7.92%) was recorded in Kundagol taluk, followed by Dharwad taluk (7.66%), Hubli taluk (7.64%) and Kalghatagi taluk (7.60%) respectively (Table 4).

The mean (2010 &2011) stem tunneling by stem fly ranged between 6.27 (Dummawada, Kalghatagi taluk) to 8.10 (Yadawada, Dharwad taluk) per cent during flowering stage, while at

Table 4: Seasonal incidences of stem fly (M. sojae) in Dharwad district of Northern Karnataka during 2010 and 2011

Location Infestation (%) Stem tunnelling (%)

Dharwad district Flowering stage Harvesting stage Flowering stage Harvesting stage

2010 2011 Mean 2010 2011 Mean 2010 2011 Mean 2010 2011 Mean

Dharwad taluk

1) Garag 11.90 12.51 12.05 13.20 13.55 13.37 7.00 7.35 7.17 7.82 7.69 7.75

2) Tadakoda 12.20 9.72 10.96 14.65 15.66 15.15 7.36 7.58 7.47 7.94 8.20 8.07

3) Narendra 12.55 12.85 12.70 14.60 15.29 14.94 7.31 6.70 7.00 7.85 7.30 7.57

4) Kotabagi 12.90 11.38 12.14 16.41 12.65 14.53 7.10 7.01 7.05 7.56 7.65 7.60

5) Yadawada 13.10 14.66 13.88 16.65 18.33 17.49 7.50 8.70 8.10 7.66 7.50 7.58 Mean 12.53 12.22 12.34 15.10 15.09 15.09 7.25 7.46 7.36 7.76 7.66 7.71

Hubli taluk

1) Tirumalkoppa 12.40 12.42 12.41 13.00 13.22 13.11 7.50 7.90 7.70 7.90 7.90 7.90

2) Palikoppa 10.50 10.49 10.49 11.90 12.55 12.22 7.30 8.70 8.00 7.70 7.70 7.70

3) Agadi 11.15 10.75 10.95 12.65 13.25 12.95 7.50 7.70 7.60 7.70 7.70 7.70

4) Mavinkoppa 11.37 8.93 10.15 13.23 14.25 13.74 6.80 8.60 7.70 7.00 7.00 7.00

5) Bommasandra 10.35 10.55 10.45 13.25 13.25 13.25 8.10 5.10 6.60 7.90 7.90 7.90 Mean 11.15 10.62 10.89 12.80 13.30 13.05 7.44 7.60 7.52 7.64 7.64 7.64

Kalghatagi taluk

1) Dummawada 12.40 10.95 11.67 13.10 14.25 13.67 5.90 6.65 6.27 7.90 7.35 7.62

2) Kalghatagi 13.75 13.64 13.69 13.40 12.98 13.19 6.56 6.40 6.48 6.80 7.40 7.10

3) Misrikoti 12.60 13.11 12.85 14.25 15.65 14.95 6.80 6.90 6.85 7.20 7.50 7.35

4) Gudihal 12.99 9.89 11.44 13.50 13.02 13.26 7.00 5.70 6.35 7.20 8.10 7.65

5) T Honnihalli 10.95 12.17 11.56 13.90 12.00 12.95 5.80 7.65 6.72 7.30 7.65 7.47 Mean 12.53 11.95 12.24 13.63 13.58 13.60 6.41 6.66 6.53 7.28 7.60 7.44

Kundagol taluk

1) Kundagol 11.65 11.45 11.55 12.95 13.65 13.30 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.60 7.80 7.70

2) Betadur 12.35 12.15 12.25 13.25 14.25 13.75 7.30 6.70 7.00 7.70 7.50 7.60

3) Gudageri, 11.04 10.24 10.64 12.56 13.66 13.11 8.20 7.20 7.70 8.00 8.10 8.05

4) Gudenkatti 11.45 11.84 11.64 13.95 14.56 14.25 6.40 8.50 7.45 7.20 7.90 7.55

5) Shirur 10.00 8.55 9.27 14.20 14.55 14.37 6.30 7.90 7.10 6.90 8.30 7.60 Mean 11.29 10.84 11.07 13.38 14.13 13.75 7.04 7.46 7.25 7.48 7.92 7.70

Grand mean 11.88 11.41 11.63 13.73 14.03 13.93 7.04 7.30 7.16 7.54 7.71 7.62

harvesting stage it ranged between 7.10 (Kalghatagi, Kalghatagi taluk) to 8.07 (Tadakoda, Dharwad taluk) per cent. Among the taluks, highest stem tunneling during flowering stage was recorded in Hubli taluk (7.52%) followed by Dharwad (7.36%), Kundagol and (7.25%) Kalghatagi taluks (6.53%), and at harvesting stage highest stem tunneling was recorded in Dharwad (7.71%), followed by Kundagol (7.70%), Hubli (7.64%) and Kalghatagi taluk (7.44%) respectively (Table 4).

4.1.1.2. Belgaum district

Survey results on the stem fly infestation during 2010, indicated that stem fly incidence was observed in all taluks of Belgaum district. Infestation of stem fly during flowering stage ranged from 19.30 (Ainapur, Athani taluk) to 52.20 (Examba, Chikkodi taluk) respectively. Among the taluks, highest mean infestation (42.80%) was recorded in Chikkodi taluk followed by Raibag (42.80%), Belgaum taluk (33.50%), Bailahongal taluk (32.52%), Athani taluk (32.12%) and Hukkeri taluk (29.52%) respectively. At harvesting stage stem fly incidence ranged from 23.60 per cent (Siragaon, Hukkeri taluk) to 53.00 per cent (Examba, Chikkodi taluk). Among the taluks, highest mean stem fly infestation (47.20%) was recorded in Chikkodi taluk, followed by Raibag taluk (45.47%), Bailahongal taluk (43.08%), Belgaum taluk (40.58%), Athani taluk (35.29%) and Hukkeri taluk (35.28%) respectively (Table 5).

During kharif 2011, results indicated that stem fly incidence was observed in all taluks of Belgaum district. Infestation of stem fly during flowering stage ranged from 23.32 per cent (Siragaon, Hukkeri taluk) to 52.77 per cent (Examba, Chikkodi taluk). Among the taluks, highest mean infestation (44.36%) was recorded in Chikkodi taluk followed by Raibag (43.80%), Belgaum taluk (36.44%), Bailahongal taluk (33.78%), Athani taluk (33.34%) and Hukkeri taluk (31.87%) respectively. At harvesting stage stem fly incidence ranged from 29.66 per cent (Athani, Athani taluk) to 54.55 per cent (Examba, Chikkodi taluk). Among the taluks, highest mean stem fly infestation (47.85%) was recorded in Raibag taluk followed by Chikkodi taluk (45.79%), Bailahongal taluk (43.36%), Belgaum taluk (38.17%), Athani taluk (36.62%) and Hukkeri taluk (36.24%) respectively (Table 5).

The mean infestation of stem fly ranged between 23.45 (Belwadi, Bailahongal taluk) to 52.48 (Examba, Chikkodi taluk) per cent during flowering stage, while in harvesting stage it ranged between 26.06 (Siragaon, Hukkeri taluk) to 53.77 (Examba, Chikkodi taluk) per cent. Among the taluks, highest mean infestation during flowering stage was recorded in Chikkodi taluk (43.58%), followed by Raibag taluk (42.90%), Bailahongal (33.15%), and Athani taluk (32.73%) and at harvesting stage highest infestation was recorded in Raibag taluk (46.66%), followed by Chikkodi (46.49%), Bailahongal taluk (43.22%), Belgaum taluk (39.38%), Athani taluk (35.98%) and Hukkeri taluk (35.76%) respectively (Table 5).

Survey results on the stem fly tunneling during kharif 2010, indicated that stem tunneling was observed in all taluks of Belgaum district. Tunneling of stem fly during flowering stage ranged from 11.36 per cent (Hukkeri, Hukkeri taluk) to 31.53 per cent (Examba, Chikkodi taluk). Among the taluks, highest mean stem tunnneling (25.70%) was recorded in Chikkodi taluk followed by Athani taluk (22.12%), Belgaum taluk (17.47%), Raibag and Bailahongal taluk (16.68%) and Hukkeri taluk (16.52%) respectively. At harvesting stage stem tunneling ranged from 16.61 per cent (Devalapur, Bailahongal taluk) to 36.75 per cent (Examba, Chikkodi taluk). Among the taluks, highest mean stem tunneling (32.78%) was recorded in Athani taluk followed by Chikkodi taluk (31.54%), Bailahongal taluk (30.67%), Raibag taluk (30.38%), Belgaum taluk (25.61%) and Hukkeri taluk (24.07%) respectively (Table 5).

Survey results on the stem fly tunneling during kharif 2011, indicated that stem tunneling was observed in all taluks of Belgaum district. Stem tunneling by stem fly during flowering stage ranged from 10.45 per cent (Harogeri, Raibag taluk) to 51.27 per cent (Maheshwadi, Athani taluk). Among the taluks, highest mean tunneling (30.27%) was recorded in Chikkodi taluk followed by Athani taluk (25.97%), Bailahongal taluk (22.74%), Raibag taluk (19.22%) and Belgaum taluk (18.83%) and Hukkeri taluk (19.02%) respectivley. At harvesting stage stem fly tunneling ranged from 19.35 per cent (Anigol, Belgaum taluk) to 37.09 per cent (Ainapur, Athani taluk). Among the taluks, highest mean per cent tunneling (32.78%) was recorded in Athani taluk followed by Chikkodi taluk (32.48%), Raibag taluk (31.23%), Bailahongal taluk (25.83%) Hukkeri taluk (25.26%) and Belgaum taluk (24.69%) (Table 5).

The mean (2010 &2011) stem tunneling by stem fly ranged from 11.65 per cent (Harogeri, Raibag taluk) to 34.33 per cent (Maheshwadi, Athani taluk). Among the taluks, highest stem tunneling (27.98%) was recorded in Chikkodi taluk followed by Athani taluk (24.04%), Bailahongal taluk (19.71%), Belgaum taluk (18.15%) and Raibag taluk (17.95%), and Hukkeri taluk (17.77%). At

Table 5: Seasonal incidences of stem fly (M. sojae) in Belgaum district of Northern Karnataka during 2010 and 2011


Belgaum district At flowering At harvesting At flowering At harvesting


Bailhongal taluk

1) Bailhongal 34.20 37.35 35.78 50.46 49.95 50.21 13.65 21.45 17.55 29.65 23.85 26.75

2) Anigol 38.60 34.65 36.63 43.86 44.65 44.26 12.84 23.05 17.95 34.46 26.65 30.56

3) Belwadi 22.05 24.85 23.45 36.65 37.65 37.15 13.95 23.43 18.69 35.35 27.85 31.60

4) Hosur 35.00 37.55 36.28 38.78 39.75 39.27 14.28 22.65 18.47 37.32 26.35 31.84

5) Devalapur 32.75 34.50 33.63 45.65 44.8 45.23 28.69 23.15 25.92 16.61 24.45 20.53

Mean 32.52 33.78 33.15 43.08 43.36 43.22 16.68 22.74 19.71 30.67 25.83 28.25

Chikkodi taluk

1) Examba 52.20 52.77 52.48 53.00 54.55 53.77 31.53 34.68 33.10 36.75 36.22 36.48

2) Kanagala 51.15 49.23 50.19 53.25 53.23 53.24 29.80 30.01 29.90 34.80 36.65 35.72

3) Bhoj 39.80 42.25 41.02 45.20 46.25 45.72 26.92 26.59 26.75 32.44 33.65 33.04

4) Chokkodi 29.90 30.52 30.21 35.90 32.00 33.95 19.39 28.19 23.79 25.31 28.51 26.91

5)Nippani 40.95 47.05 44.00 48.65 42.95 45.80 20.89 31.89 26.39 28.41 27.41 27.91

Mean 42.80 44.36 43.58 47.20 45.79 46.49 25.70 30.27 27.98 31.54 32.48 32.01

Hukkeri taluk

1) Hukkeri 32.20 33.99 33.09 34.20 36.45 35.32 11.36 13.38 12.37 23.12 24.12 23.62

2)Siragaon 22.20 23.32 22.76 23.60 28.52 26.06 15.30 13.61 14.45 21.32 23.65 22.48

3) Hosur 31.75 33.20 32.47 38.25 39.20 38.72 13.14 16.07 14.60 25.32 26.65 25.98

4) Gootor 30.40 31.66 31.03 35.00 35.78 35.39 22.29 23.25 22.77 26.35 29.45 27.90

5)Kurali 31.05 37.19 34.12 45.35 41.25 43.30 20.55 28.83 24.69 24.25 22.45 23.35

Mean 29.52 31.87 30.69 35.28 36.24 35.76 16.52 19.02 17.77 24.07 25.26 24.66

Contd…


Belgaum district At flowering At harvesting At flowering At harvesting


Athani taluk

1) Athani 31.68 23.66 27.67 33.52 29.66 31.59 23.29 25.29 24.29 29.65 29.65 29.65

2) UgarKhurd 31.04 37.78 34.41 34.56 32.66 33.61 20.80 21.08 20.94 32.00 32.00 32.00

3) Maheshwadi 43.98 41.53 42.75 46.52 47.59 47.05 17.39 51.27 34.33 33.35 33.35 33.35

4) Ainapur 19.30 25.86 22.58 25.30 31.20 28.25 19.67 12.61 16.14 31.81 31.81 31.81

5) Kagawada 34.64 37.90 36.27 36.56 42.30 39.43 29.47 19.61 24.54 37.09 37.09 37.09

Mean 32.12 33.34 32.73 35.29 36.62 35.98 22.12 25.97 24.04 32.78 32.78 32.78

Raibag taluk

1) Raibag 44.45 47.97 46.21 52.75 51.23 51.99 13.65 11.45 12.55 31.21 35.85 33.53

2) Harogeri 41.17 41.95 41.56 51.23 48.65 49.94 12.84 10.45 11.65 31.06 34.85 32.96

3) Chinchali 50.15 47.10 48.63 40.25 50.20 45.23 13.95 23.36 18.66 31.35 25.64 28.50

4) Ankanwadi 31.45 37.04 34.25 36.35 42.56 39.46 14.28 24.18 19.23 33.08 28.72 30.90

5) Savasuddi 42.80 44.95 43.88 46.80 46.65 46.73 28.69 26.68 27.69 25.21 31.12 28.17

Mean 42.00 43.80 42.90 45.47 47.85 46.66 16.68 19.22 17.95 30.38 31.23 30.81

Belgaum Taluk

1) Yamakanmaradi 42.51 46.62 44.56 44.15 44.68 44.41 21.70 19.05 20.37 25.60 26.65 26.12

2) Bailhongal 27.08 35.65 31.36 40.12 35.65 37.88 17.30 19.50 18.00 25.30 25.80 25.55

3) Anegol 29.15 31.00 30.07 30.85 33.00 31.92 15.00 23.05 19.02 22.50 19.35 20.92

4) Amatoor 42.45 36.95 39.70 43.95 45.55 44.75 14.37 14.86 14.61 29.65 25.34 27.49

5) Belwadi 26.35 32.00 29.17 43.85 32.00 37.92 19.00 17.69 18.34 25.00 26.31 25.65

Mean 33.50 36.44 34.97 40.58 38.17 39.38 17.47 18.83 18.15 25.61 24.69 25.15

Grand mean 35.41 37.27 36.33 41.15 40.17 41.24 19.20 22.68 20.93 29.81 28.71 28.94

harvesting stage stem fly tunneling ranged from 23.35 per cent (Kurali, Hukkeri taluk) to 36.48 per cent (Examba, Chikkodi taluk). Among the taluks, highest stem tunneling (32.78%) was recorded in Athani taluk followed by Chikkodi taluk (32.01%), Raibag taluk (30.81%), Bailahongal taluk (28.25%), Belgaum taluk (25.15%) and Hukkeri taluk (24.66%) (Table 5).

4.1.1.3. Bagalkot district

Survey results on the stem fly infestation during 2010, indicated that stem fly incidence was recorded in taluks of Bagalkot district. Infestation of stem fly during flowering stage ranged from 12.10 per cent (Siddapur, Mudhol taluk) to 33.50 per cent (Jaknur, Jamkhandi taluk). Among the two taluks surveyed, highest mean infestation (21.62%) was recorded in Jamkhandi taluk, whereas in Mudhol taluk recorded 16.43 per cent infestation. At harvesting stage stem fly incidence ranged from 23.80 per cent (Hebbal, Jamkhandi taluk) to 31.50 per cent (Jaknur, Jamkhandi taluk). Among the two taluks, highest mean infestation (27.98%) was recorded in Jamkhandi taluk, while Mudhol taluk recorded 27.15 per cent infestation (Table 6).

Survey results on the stem fly infestation during kharif 2011, indicated that stem fly incidence was recorded in two taluks of Bagalkot district. Infestation of stem fly during flowering stage ranged from 18.00 per cent (Mughalkod, Mudhol taluk) to 31.65 per cent (Jaknur, Jamkhandi taluk). Among the two taluks, highest mean infestation (25.00%) was recorded in Jamkhandi taluk, whereas Mudhol taluk recorded 21.18 per cent infestation. At harvesting stage stem fly incidence ranged from 22.00 per cent (Mughalkod, Mudhol taluk) to 35.65 per cent (Jaknur, Jamkhandi taluk). Among the two taluks, highest mean infestation (29.26%) was recorded in Jamkhandi taluk, while Mudhol taluk recorded 25.06 per cent infestation (Table 6).

The mean infestation of stem fly ranged between 16.10 (Mughalkod, Mudhol taluk) to 32.57 per cent (Jaknur, Jamkhandi taluk) during flowering stage, while in harvesting stage it ranged between 23.22 per cent (Hebbal, Jamkhandi taluk) to 33.57 (Jaknur, Jamkhandi taluk). Among two taluks mean highest infestation was observed in Jamkhandi taluk (23.31 and 28.62 per cent) during flowering and harvesting stages respectively (Table 6).

Survey results on the stem fly tunneling during kharif 2010, indicated that stem tunneling was observed in all taluks of Bagalkot district. Stem tunneling by stem fly during flowering stage ranged from 7.67 per cent (Sirguppi, Jamkhandi taluk) to 25.21 per cent (Siddapur, Mudhol taluk). Among the two taluks, highest mean per cent infestation (14.38%) was recorded in Mudhol taluk, whereas Jamkhandi taluk recorded 9.00 per cent tunneling. At harvesting stage stem tunneling ranged from 4.10 per cent (Hebbal, Jamkhandi taluk) to 22.95 per cent (Mughalkod, Mudhol taluk). Among the two taluks, highest mean tunneling (13.58%) was recorded in Jamkhandi taluk, while Mudhol taluk recorded 11.13 per cent tunneling (Table 6).

Survey results on the stem fly tunneling during kharif 2011, indicated that stem tunneling was observed in two taluks of Bagalkot district. Stem tunneling during flowering stage ranged from 13.65 per cent (Malali, Mudhol taluk) to 28.65 stem (Teradal, Jamkhandi taluk). Among the two taluks, highest mean per cent tunneling (23.36%) was recorded in Jamkhandi taluk, whereas in Mudhol taluk it was 16.68 per cent. At harvesting stage stem fly tunneling ranged from 12.45 per cent (Mughalkod, Mudhol taluk) to 28.54 per cent (Hebbal, Jamkhandi taluk). Among the two taluks, highest mean stem tunneling (18.36%) was recorded in Jamkhandi taluk, whereas in Mudhol taluk it was 16.33 per cent tunneling (Table 6).

The mean (2010 &2011) tunneling of stem fly ranged between 11.66 (Siraguppi, Jamkhandi taluk) to 26.95 per cent (Siddapur, Mudhol taluk) during flowering stage, while in harvesting stage it ranged between 11.95 per cent (Shirol, Jamkhandi taluk) to 21.30 per cent (Mughalkod, Mudhol taluk). Among two taluks highest mean tunneling (16.18 and 18.36 per cent) was observed in Jamkhandi taluk during flowering and harvesting stages respectively (Table 6).

4.1.1.4. Haveri district

Survey results on the stem fly infestation during 2010 indicated that stem fly incidence was observed in Haveri district. Infestation of stem fly during flowering stage ranged from 10.10 per cent (Motebennur, Haveri taluk) to 13.30 per cent (Shiggaon, Shiggaon taluk). Among the two taluks, highest mean infestation (12.45%) was recorded in Shiggaon taluk, whereas Haveri taluk recorded 11.33 per cent infestation. At harvesting stage stem fly incidence ranged from 11.55 per cent (Dasoor, Shiggaon taluk) to 14.10 per cent (Shiggaon, Shiggaon taluk). Among the two taluks, highest mean infestation (12.83%) was recorded in Shiggaon taluk, while Haveri taluk recorded 12.75 per cent infestation (Table 7).

Table 6: Seasonal incidences of stem fly (M. sojae) in Bagalkot district of Northern Karnataka during 2010 and 2011


Bagalkot district At flowering At harvesting At flowering At harvesting


Jamkhandi taluk

1) Sirguppi 20.40 23.62 22.01 25.40 25.68 25.54 7.67 15.65 11.66 9.99 15.33 12.66

2) Hebbal 20.80 20.05 20.42 23.80 22.65 23.22 9.13 25.35 17.24 4.10 28.54 16.32

3) Madarkhandi 17.00 24.52 20.76 29.20 32.2 30.70 5.59 26.65 16.12 11.65 13.65 12.65

4) Teradal 16.40 25.18 20.79 30.00 30.12 30.06 9.50 28.96 19.23 16.41 18.65 17.53

5) Jaknur 33.50 31.65 32.57 31.50 35.65 33.57 13.12 20.20 16.66 13.53 15.65 14.59

Mean 21.62 25.00 23.31 27.98 29.26 28.62 9.00 23.36 16.18 11.13 18.36 14.75

Mudhol taluk

1) Malali 19.09 21.95 20.52 25.65 29.35 27.50 11.21 13.65 12.43 11.56 13.52 12.54

2) Shirol 20.52 25.00 22.76 30.20 27.00 28.60 11.06 12.84 11.95 11.37 12.53 11.95

3) Nagaral 16.27 19.33 17.80 25.65 23.33 24.49 11.35 13.95 12.65 11.76 13.32 12.54

4) Mughalkod 14.21 18.00 16.10 25.65 22.00 23.82 13.08 14.28 13.68 10.27 12.45 11.36

5) Siddapur 12.10 21.65 16.87 28.60 23.65 26.12 25.21 28.69 26.95 22.95 19.65 21.30

Mean 16.43 21.18 18.81 27.15 25.06 26.10 14.38 16.68 15.53 13.58 14.29 13.93

Grand mean 19.03 23.09 21.06 27.57 27.34 27.36 11.69 22.02 15.85 12.36 16.33 14.34

Survey results on the stem fly infestation during 2011 indicated that stem fly incidence was observed in two taluks of Haveri district. Infestation of stem fly during flowering stage ranged from 9.46 per cent (Devihosur, Haveri taluk) to 12.75 per cent (Shiggaon, Shiggaon taluk). Among the two taluks, highest mean infestation (10.99%) was recorded in Haveri taluk, whereas Shiggaon taluk recorded 10.91 per cent infestation. At harvesting stage stem fly incidence ranged from 13.66 per cent (Savanoor, Haveri taluk) to 16.55 per cent (Timmapur, Shiggaon taluk). Among the two taluks, highest mean infestation (15.16%) was recorded in Shiggaon taluk, while Haveri taluk recorded 14.23 per cent infestation (Table 7).

The mean infestation of stem fly ranged between 10.15 (Bannur, Shiggaon taluk) to 12.82 per cent (Shiggaon, Shiggaon taluk) during flowering stage, while in harvesting stage it ranged between 12.62 per cent (Karjagi, Haveri taluk) to 14.92 per cent (Shiggaon, Shiggaon taluk). Among two taluks highest infestation was observed in Shiggaon taluk (11.68 and 13.99 per cent) during flowering and harvesting stages respectively (Table 7).

Survey results on the stem fly tunneling during 2010-11, indicated that stem tunneling was observed in Haveri district. Infestation of stem fly tunneling during flowering stage ranged from 5.00 per cent (Shiggaon, Shiggaon taluk) to 13.66 per cent (Savanurn, Shiggaon taluk). Among the two taluks, highest mean infestation (13.99%) was recorded in Shiggaon taluk, whereas Haveri taluk recorded 13.49 per cent infestation. At harvesting stage stem fly incidence ranged from 6.90 per cent (Bannur, Shiggaon taluk) and (Savanur, Shiggaon taluk) to 7.60 per cent (Devihosur, Haveri taluk). Among taluks, Shiggaon and Haveri recorded 7.26 per cent infestation (Table 7).

Survey results on the stem fly tunneling during 2011 indicated that stem tunneling was observed in two taluks surveyed of Haveri district. Stem fly tunneling during flowering stage ranged from 5.90 per cent (Bannur, Shiggaon taluk) to 7.70 per cent (Savanur, Shiggaon taluk). Among the two taluks surveyed, highest mean infestation (6.92%) was recorded in Haveri taluk, whereas in Shiggaon taluk recorded 6.42 per cent infestation. At harvesting stage stem fly incidence ranged from 6.80 per cent (Dasoor, Shiggaon taluk) and (Motebennur, Haveri taluk) to 7.50 per cent (Devihosur, Haveri taluk) and (Timmapur, Shiggaon taluk). Among taluks, Shiggaon and Haveri recorded 7.06 per cent infestation (Table 7).

The mean tunneling of stem fly ranged between 4.95 (Dasoor, Shiggaon taluk) to 7.75 per cent (Timmapur, Shiggaon taluk taluk) during flowering stage, while in harvesting stage it ranged between 6.90 (Bannur, Shiggaon taluk) and (Savanur, Haveri taluk) to 7.50 per cent (Devihosur, Haveri taluk). Among two taluks highest per cent mean tunneling was observed in Haveri taluk (6.86 per cent) during flowering stage, while in harvesting stage both Haveri and Shiggaon taluks recorded 7.06 per cent tunneling (Table 7).

4.1.2 Roving survey of leaf eating caterpillars and their natural enemies

The larvae of S. litura were noticed on the crop at early vegetative stage. Newly hatched caterpillars had characteristic gregarious feeding behaviour; they fed on chlorophyll content of the leaves from under surface and skeletonised the leaf, while the grownup larvae fed on the leaves eating away the entire portion.

The semilooper, T. orichalcea early instar larvae fed on leaves by scratching the green matter, grownup larvae consumed entire leaves leaving behind only the midrib and vein. This pest was noticed in vegetative stage of the crop.

The early instar larvae of S. obliqua fed gregariously on the under surface of the leaves and at later stages defoliated the crop.

4.1.2.1 Roving survey of leaf eating caterpillars and their natural enemies during 2010

4.1.2.1.1 Dharwad district

Survey results obtained during 2010 indicated that, the mean population of S. litura ranged from 3.05 to 3.90 larvae/mrl. The maximum incidence of S. litura was registered in Dharwad taluk (3.90 l/mrl) followed by Hubli taluk (3.70 l/mrl). The lowest incidence of 3.05 l/mrl was observed in Kundagol taluk followed by Kalaghatagi taluk (3.30 l/mrl) of Dharwad district (Table 8).

Mean number of semilooper, T. orichalcea ranged from 1.60 to 2.45 l/mrl.The maximum incidence of 2.45 l/mrl was observed in Dharwad and Hubli taluk followed by Kalaghatagi taluk (1.80 l/mrl).The lowest incidence of 1.60 l/mrl was observed in Kundagol taluk of Dharwad district.

Table 7: Seasonal incidences of stem fly (M. sojae) in Haveri district of Northern Karnataka during 2010 and 2011


Haveri district At flowering At harvesting At flowering At harvesting


Haveri taluk

1) Haveri 10.70 10.05 10.37 12.30 15.25 13.77 6.60 6.90 6.75 7.30 7.20 7.25

2) Devihosur 12.00 9.46 10.73 12.60 15.66 14.13 6.30 5.90 6.10 7.60 7.50 7.55

3) Karjagi 11.70 12.65 12.17 12.90 12.35 12.62 6.80 7.30 7.05 7.40 6.90 7.15

4) Motebennur 10.10 12.45 11.27 12.70 14.25 13.47 7.20 6.80 7.00 7.10 6.80 6.95

5) Savanur 12.15 10.34 11.24 13.25 13.66 13.45 7.10 7.70 7.40 6.90 6.90 6.90

Mean 11.33 10.99 11.16 12.75 14.23 13.49 6.80 6.92 6.86 7.26 7.06 7.16

Shiggaon taluk

1) Shiggaon 13.30 12.75 12.82 14.10 15.75 14.92 5.00 6.00 6.55 7.30 7.20 7.25

2) Timmapur 12.50 10.05 11.27 12.50 16.55 14.52 6.00 9.50 7.75 7.60 7.50 7.55

3) Kurabagonda 12.90 11.74 12.52 13.70 14.26 13.98 5.10 6.00 5.45 7.40 6.90 7.15

4) DASoor 13.25 10.05 11.65 11.55 15.25 13.40 5.10 4.80 4.95 7.10 6.80 6.95

5) Bannur 10.30 10.00 10.15 12.30 14.00 13.15 5.70 5.90 5.80 6.90 6.90 6.90

Mean 12.45 10.91 11.68 12.83 15.16 13.99 5.78 6.42 6.10 7.26 7.06 7.16

Grand mean 11.89 10.95 11.42 12.79 14.70 13.74 6.29 6.67 6.48 7.21 7.21 7.16

The mean number of leaf eating caterpillar, S. obliqua per mrl ranged from 2.40 to 2.80 l/mrl, maximum incidence of caterpillar 2.80 l/mrl was observed in Hubli taluka, followed by Dharwad taluk (2.45 l/mrl) and Kundagol (2.45 l/mrl). The lowest incidence of 2.40 l/mrl was observed in Kalaghatagi taluk of Dharwad district.

The mean number of natural enemies’ viz., coccinellids (1.61 adults/mrl) and chrysophids (1.06 adults/mrl) were recorded from all taluks of Dharwad district. The highest incidence of N. rileyi was recorded in Dharwad taluk (2.04 cadavars/mrl).

4.1.2.1.2 Belgaum District

The mean number of tobacco caterpillar per meter row ranged from 3.55 to 4.10 larvae/mrl. The maximum incidence of S. litura was observed in Belgaum taluk (4.10 larvae/mrl) followed by Bailhongal taluk (4.00 larvae/mrl), Athani (3.85 larvae/mrl), Chikkodi (3.75 larvae/mrl) and Raibag (3.60 larvae/mrl).The lowest incidence of 3.55 larvae/mrl was recorded in Hukkeri takuk of Belgaum district (Plate 3).

The mean number of semilooper per mrl ranged from 2.05 to 2.35 larvae/mrl. The maximum incidence of 2.35 larvae/mrl was observed in Athani taluk.Other taluks viz., Bailahongal, Chikkodi and Hukkeri registered 2.20 larvae/mrl, followed by Belgaum taluk (2.10 larvae/mrl). The lowest incidence (2.05 larvae/mrl) was observed in Raibag taluk of Belgaum district (Plate 4).

The survey indicated that the mean number of S. obliqua per mrl ranged from 2.35 to 2.95 larvae/mrl. Highest number of leaf eating caterpillars was observed in Bailahongal (2.95 larvae/mrl) followed by Hukkeri (2.60 larvae/mrl), Belgaum (2.85 larvae/mrl), Raibag (2.50 larvae/mrl) and Chikkodi (2.45 larvae/mrl).The lowest incidence of 2.35 larvae/mrl was recorded in Athani taluk of Belgaum district (Plate 5).

The mean number of coccinellids and chrysopids observed ranged from1.60 to 1.19 adults/mrl (Plate 6). The highest incidence N. rileyi was recorded in Bailahongal taluk (2.13 cadavars/mrl) (Table 8).

4.1.2.1.3 Bagalkot District

Bagalkot district, registerd S. litura population of 3.65 to 4.05 larvae/mrl from Mudhol and Jamakhandi taluk respectively. The semilooper, T. orichalcea registered average population of 1.60 to 1.75 larvae/mrl from Jamakhandi and Mudhol taluk of Bagalkot district respectively. Another leaf eating caterpillar, S. obliqua population of 2.25 to 2.55 larvae/mrl was recorded from Mudhol and Jamakhandi taluk of Bagalkot district respectively.

The mean number of coccinellids and chrysopids 1.47 and 1.07 adults/ and the highest incidence of N. rileyi was recorded in Mudhol taluk (1.14 cadavers/mrl) (Table 8)

4.1.2.1.4 Haveri District

Haveri district registered an average population of S. litura 3.10 larvae/mrl from Haveri and Shiggaon taluk respectively. The semilooper, T. orichalcea observed average population ranged from 1.50 to 1.65 larvae/mrl from Shiggaon and Haveri taluks respectively. Haveri district registered average S.obliqua population of 1.85 to 2.15 larvae/mrl from Shiggaon and Haveri taluks of Haveri district respectively.

The mean number of coccinellids and chrysopids recorded 1.76 and 1.09 adults/mrl in Shiggoan taluk. The incidence of N.releyi was recorded highest in Haveri taluk (1.12cadavers/mrl) (Table 8).

4.1.2.2 Roving survey of leaf eating caterpillars and their natural enemies during 2011

4.1.2.2.1 Dharwad district

Survey results revealed that the incidence of three major leaf eating caterpillar’s was less during 2011 as compared to 2010. Dharwad district registered the mean population of S. litura ranged from 1.94 to 3.08 larvae/mrl. The maximum incidence of tobacco leaf eating caterpillar was noticed in Dharwad taluk (3.08 larvae/mrl) followed by Kalaghatagi (2.18 larvae/mrl) and Kundagol taluk (1.94 larvae/mrl). The lowest incidence of 1.78 larvae/mrl was observed in Hubli taluk of Dharwad district.

The mean number of semilooper, T.orichalcea per mrl ranged from 0.78 to 1.28 larvae/mrl, the highest incidence of 1.28 larvae/mrl was observed in Kalaghatagi followed by Dharwad taluk (1.22

Plate 3 : Tobacco caterpillar, Spodoptera litura infestation on soybean

Plate 4 : Semilooper, Thysanoplusia orichacea infestation on soybean

Plate 5 : Bihar hairy caterpillar, Spilarctia obliqua infestation on soybean

Table 8: Incidence of leaf eating caterpillar and their natural enemies in northern Karnataka during Kharif 2010

Location

Spodoptera litura (Fab)/mrl

Thysanoplusia orichalcea Fab/mrl

Spilarctia obliqua (W.)/mrl

Total

Natural enemies/mrl

Natural enemy mean

N. rileyi Cadavars

/mrl Early Veg.

Phase

Grand growth phase

Mean Early Veg.

Phase

Grand growth phase

Mean Early Veg.

Phase

Grand growth phase

Mean Cocc. Chy.

Dharwad dist

1) Dharwad 3.6 4.2 3.90 1.9 3.0 2.45 2.2 3.3 2.75 9.10 1.72 1.02 1.37 2.04

2) Hubli 3.5 3.9 3.70 2.1 2.8 2.45 2.5 3.1 2.80 8.95 1.68 1.12 1.40 2.00

3) Kalghatagi 3.2 3.4 3.30 1.2 2.4 1.80 2.0 2.8 2.40 7.45 1.55 1.10 1.32 1.54

4) Kundagol 2.9 3.2 3.05 1.0 2.2 1.60 1.9 3.0 2.45 7.10 1.52 1.02 1.27 1.64 Mean 3.30 3.62 3.49 1.55 2.60 2.08 2.15 3.05 2.60 8.15 1.61 1.06 1.34 1.80

Belgaum dist

1) Bailhongal 3.5 4.5 4.00 2.1 2.3 2.20 2.8 3.1 2.95 9.15 1.80 1.22 1.51 2.13

2) Chikkodi 3.2 4.3 3.75 1.9 2.5 2.20 2.0 2.9 2.45 8.40 1.41 1.13 1.27 2.04

3) Hukkeri 2.9 4.2 3.55 2.0 2.4 2.20 2.2 3.0 2.60 8.35 1.52 1.12 1.32 2.05

4) Athani 3.1 4.6 3.85 1.9 2.8 2.35 1.9 2.8 2.35 8.55 1.60 1.32 1.46 2.00

5) Raibag 3.0 4.2 3.60 1.7 2.4 2.05 2.1 2.9 2.50 8.15 1.65 1.25 1.45 1.65

6) Belgaum 3.4 4.8 4.10 1.3 2.9 2.10 1.9 3.2 2.55 8.75 1.52 1.12 1.32 1.22 Mean 3.18 4..43 2.53 1.82 2.55 2.18 2.15 2.98 2.57 8.55 1.60 1.19 1.22 1.84

Bagalokot dist 1) Jamkhandi 3.8 4.3 4.05 1.1 2.1 1.60 1.9 3.2 2.55 8.02 1.35 1.12 1.23 1.02

2) Mudhol 3.1 4.2 3.65 1.0 2.5 1.75 1.6 2.9 2.25 7.65 1.60 1.02 1.31 1.14 Mean 3.45 4.25 3.85 1.05 2.30 1.68 1.75 3.05 2.40 7.83 1.47 1.07 1.27 1.01

Haveri dist

1) Haveri 2.4 3.8 3.10 2.0 2.1 1.65 1.5 2.8 2.15 6.90 1.80 1.16 1.48 1.12

2) Shiggaon 2.6 3.6 3.10 1.0 1.2 1.50 1.1 2.6 1.85 6.45 1.72 1.02 1.37 1.05 Mean 2.50 3.70 3.10 1.50 1.65 1.58 1.30 2.70 2.00 6.67 1.76 1.09 1.42 1.08

Cocc. – Coccinellds Chy. – Chrysopids 1) Leaf eating caterpillars/mrl 2) Each value is an average of 25 observations (5 each from 5 locations in each taluk)

Plate 6 : Defoliators infected with Nomurea riley cadavers

larvae/mrl) and Kundagol taluk (0.92 larvae/mrl).The lowest incidence of 0.78 larvae/mrl was observed in Hubli taluk of Dharwad district respectively.

Another important leaf eating caterpillar, S. obliqua ranged from 1.78 to 3.72 larvae/mrl. The maximum incidence of 3.72 larvae/mrl was noticed in Dharwad followed by Hubli 2.18 larvae/mrl and the lower incidence of 1.78 larvae/mrl was registered in both Kalaghatagi and Kundagol taluk of Dharwad district.

The mean natural enemies viz., coccinellids and chrysophids were recorded of 1.69 and 1.10 adults/mrl from all the taluks of Dharwad district, respectively. The highest incidence of N. rileyi was recorded in Hubli taluk (2.08 cadavars/mrl) (Table 9)

4.1.2.2.2 Belgaum district

Belgaum district registerd the incidence of S. litura. The mean number of tobacco caterpillar ranged from 2.32 to 3.24 larvae/mrl. Among the six taluks surveyed. Belgaum taluk registered maximum incidence (3.24 larvae/mrl) followed by Hukkeri taluk (2.92 larvae/mrl),Bailahongal (2.80 larvae/mrl),Raibag taluk (2.45 larvae/mrl) and Chikkodi taluk (2.40 larvae/mrl). The lowest incidence of 2.32 larvae/mrl was observed in Athani taluk of Belgaum district (Table 9).

The mean number of semilooper, T.orichalcea population ranged from 1.14 to 1.87 larvae/mrl maximum incidence was noticed in Raibag taluk (1.87 larvae/mrl) followed by Hukkeri taluk (1.56 larvae/mrl), Chikkodi (1.50 larvae/mrl), Bailahongl taluk (1.49 larvae/mrl) and Athani recorded (1.36 larvae/mrl).The lower incidence (1.14 l/mrl) was noticed in Belgaum taluk of Belagaum district (Table 9)

Another major leaf eating caterpillar, S. obliqua incidence ranged from 2.00 to 3.74 larvae/mrl higher incidence of S. obliqua (3.74 larvae/mrl) was registered in Belgaum taluk followed by Hukkeri taluk (2.72 larvae/mrl), Bailahongal taluk (2.37 larvae/mrl), Chikkodi taluk (2.30 larvae/mrl) and Raibag taluk (2.01 larvae/mrl).The lower incidence of S. obliqua (2.00 larvae/mrl) was observed in Athani taluk of Belagaun district.

The mean number of natural enemies observed in 0.99 and 1.01 adults/mrl Belgaum district. The highest incidence N. rileyi was recorded in Bailahongal taluk (1. 38 cadavars/mrl) (Table 9).

4.1.2.2.3 Bagalkot District

The survey at Bagalkot district indicated that the mean number of tobacco caterpillar ranged from 2.04 to 2.80 larvae/mrl from Mudhol and Jamakhandi taluk respectively.The semilooper, T.orichalcea incidence ranged from 1.12 to 1.90 larvae/mrl from Mudhol and Jamkhandi taluk respectively. S. obliqua incidence ranged from 2.02 to 2.30 larvae/mrl from Mudhol and Jamakhandi respectively.

The mean number of natural enemies recorded 1.03 and 1.35 adult/mrl in Bagalkot district and the higher incidence of N. rileyi was recorded in Mudhol taluk (1.96 cadavars/mrl) (Table 9).

4.1.2.2.4 Haveri district

Average incidence of leaf eating caterpillars was noticed in Haveri District. Haveri district revealed the mean population of S. litura ranged from 1.90 to 2.10 larvae/mrl from Shiggaon and Haveri taluks respectively.T.orichalcea recorded 1.12 larvae/mrl in Shiggaon taluk. The S. obliqua incidence was 2.20 larvae in Shiggaon taluk and 2.60 larvae/mrl in Haveri taluk of Haveri district.

The survey on natural enemies revealed that, the population was 1.26 to 1.48 adult/mrl Haveri district.The higher incidence N. rileyi was recorded in Haveri taluk (1.94 cadavars/mrl) (Table 9).

4.1.2.3 Comaparative incidence of Soybean leaf eating caterpillars during kharif 2010 and 2011

Among the four districts surveyed the leaf eating caterpillars incidence was prevalent in all the four districts, both at vegetative and grand growth stage of the crop. In general leaf eating caterpillar’s incidence was more in grand growth stage of the crop.

The mean population of leaf eating caterpillars in Belgaum district was highest and population of S. litura, T. orichalcea and S. obliqua was 3.22, 1.83 and 2.55 larvae/mrl respectively (Table 10).

Table 9: Incidence of leaf eating caterpillars and their natural enemies in northern Karnataka during kharif 2011

Location

Spodoptera litura (Fab)/mrl

Thysanoplusia orichalcea Fab/mrl

Spilarctia obliqua (W.)/mrl

Total

Natural enemies/mrl

Natural enemy mean

N. rileyi (cadavers

mrl) Early Veg.

Phase

Grand growth phase

Mean Early Veg.

Phase

Grand growth phase

Mean Early Veg.

Phase

Grand growth phase

Mean Cocc. Chy.

Dharwad dist

1) Dharwad 2.59 3.57 3.08 1.01 1.43 1.22 4.00 3.44 3.72 8.02 1.76 0.98 1.37 2.06

2) Hubli 1.19 2.37 1.78 0.64 0.92 0.78 2.43 1.93 2.18 4.74 1.54 1.12 1.33 2.08

3) Kalghatagi 2.28 2.08 2.18 1.05 1.51 1.28 2.11 1.45 1.78 5.24 1.76 1.06 1.41 1.92

4) Kundagol 1.71 2.17 1.94 0.65 1.19 0.92 1.95 1.61 1.78 4.64 1.72 1.24 1.48 1.60 Mean 1.94 2.55 2.24 0.84 1.26 1.05 2.62 2.11 2.36 5.66 1.69 1.10 1.39 1.91

Belgaum dist

1) Bailhongal 2.20 2.80 2.50 1.35 1.59 1.49 2.25 2.50 2.37 6.36 1.02 1.36 1.19 1.38

2) Chikkodi 1.85 2.95 2.40 1.32 1.68 1.50 2.58 2.02 2.30 6.20 0.96 1.36 1.16 1.30

3) Hukkeri 2.09 3.75 2.92 1.41 1.71 1.56 3.33 2.11 2.72 7.20 0.92 1.27 1.09 1.27

4) Athani 1.73 2.91 2.32 1.06 1.66 1.36 2.23 1.77 2.00 5.68 1.02 1.32 1.17 1.32

5) Raibag 2.30 2.60 2.45 1.85 1.90 1.87 2.0 2.02 2.01 6.33 0.98 1.12 1.03 1.24

6) Belgaum 2.47 4.01 3.24 0.91 1.37 1.14 4.26 3.22 3.74 8.12 1.05 1.02 1.05 1.36 Mean 2.11 3.17 2.63 1.32 1.65 1.48 2.78 2.27 2.52 6.64 0.99 1.01 1.11 1.31

Bagalokot dist 1) Jamkhandi 2.96 2.64 2.80 1.70 2.10 1.90 2.60 2.00 2.30 7.00 1.06 1.42 1.24 1.88

2) Mudhol 2.59 1.49 2.04 0.91 1.33 1.12 2.25 1.79 2.02 5.18 1.00 1.28 1.14 1.96 Mean 2.78 2.07 2.42 1.31 1.72 1.51 2.43 1.90 2.16 6.09 1.03 1.35 1.19 1.92

Haveri dist

1) Haveri 1.76 2.44 2.10 0.66 1.14 0.90 3.01 2.19 2.60 5.60 1.40 1.61 1.50 1.94

2) Shiggaon 1.05 2.75 1.90 0.86 1.38 1.12 2.43 1.97 2.20 5.22 1.12 1.36 1.24 1.84 Mean 1.41 2.60 2.00 0.76 1.26 1.01 2.72 2.08 2.40 5.41 1.26 1.48 1.37 1.89

Cocc. – Coccinellds Chy. – Chrysopids 1) Leaf eating caterpillars/mrl 2) Each value is an average of 25 observations (5 each from 5 locations in each taluk)

4.1.3.1 Fixed plot Survey

The fixed plot survey was taken up to monitor the incidence of pest during the meteorological standard weeks and also pest situation during the cropping season. The results are presented in Table 11.

During 2010, fixed plot survey was carried out from 26th to 38

th meteorological standard

weeks, with regular weekly intervals. All the major pests of soybean were observed during the crop growth period. At 29

th meteorological standard week the defoliators S. litura, T.orichelcea were

observed along with stem fly M. sojae. The incidence of tobacco caterpillar, semilooper and stemfly were observed up to 37

th meteorological standard week. The leaf eating caterpillar viz., S. litura

population ranged from 0.80 to 1.30 larvae/mrl, T.orichalcea incidence ranged from 0.50 to 0.70 larvae/mrl and S. obliqua was 0.80 to 3.0 larvae/mrl. Stem fly incidence ranged from 5.0 to 15.0 per cent during the crop growth period. Per cent pod damage was ranged from 30.10 to 40.10 from 35

th to

38th standard meteorological week. While the girdle beetle infestation was observed from 4.10 to 5.40

per cent from 32nd

to 38th standard meteorological week, other pests were also recorded and

registered.

During 2011, fixed plot survey was carried out from 26th to 38

th meteorological standard week,

with regular weekly intervals. All the major pests of soybean were observed during the crop growth period. At 27

th meteorological standard week the defoliator S. litura and at 28

th T. orichelcea and M.

sojae were observed. The leaf eating caterpillars viz., S. litura incidence ranged from 0.70 to 3.70 larvae/mrl. T.orichalcea incidence ranged from (0.40 to 0.75 larvae/mrl) and S. obliqua (0.80 to 4.40 larvae/mrl) was observed. Stem fly incidence ranged from 4.80 to 11.20 per cent during the crop growth period. Per cent pod damage was ranged from 32.00 to 46.00 from 35

th to 38

th standard

meteorological week.While the girdle beetle infestation was observed from 4.20 to 5.70 per cent from 32

nd to 38

th meteorological standard week, other pests were documented and registered in Table 11.

4.1.4 Correlation coefficents and stem tunneling infestation 2010 and 2011

Correlation coefficient between soybean insect pests recorded during kharif 2010 on different dates and agro meteorological parameters accumulated on those dates was calculated and shown in Table 12, which revealed that, rain fall has negative correlation with all the soybean pests viz., S. litura, T. orichalcea, S. obliqua, M. sojae, N. virudula, Myllocerus spp, O. brevis and C. ptychora. Temperature (maximum) has significant positive correlation with T. orichalcea population (r=0.71) and highly significantly negative correlation with C. ptychora population (r=-0.82), while temperature (minimum) has significant positive correlation with the population of S. litura (r=0.66). Morning relative humidity had no correlation with the pest population, however evening relative humidity has significantly negative correlation with T. orichalcea (r=-0.65), Myllocerus spp. (r=-0.68), M. sojae (r=-0.70) and O. brevis (r=-0.68).

During 2011, similar kind of effect was observed and results revealed that temperature (min) has significantly negative correlation with population of N. virudula (r=-0.63), Myllocerus spp (r=-0.55) and C. ptychora (r=-0.56). Remaining all the agro meteorological parameters had shown no significant relation with soybean pest population (Table 12).

Pooled data over two years revealed that rain fall has significant negative correlation with C. ptychora. Temperature (maximum) has significant positive correlation with M. sojae (r=0.71), S. litura (r=0.96) C. ptychora (r=0.77) and T. orichalcea population (r=0.82) and highly significantly negative correlation with C. ptychora population (r=-0.82), while temperature (minimum) has significant positive correlation with the population of S. litura (r=0.99), T. orichalcea (r=0.88) and M. sojae (r=0.72) and highly significantly negative correlation with C. ptychora population (r=-0.75),Morning relative humidity had significant positive correlation with the pest S. litura (r=0.99), T. orichalcea (r=0.89) remaining pests have shown no correlation.However, evening relative humidity has significantly negative correlation with C. ptychora population (r=-0.86).


The experiment was conducted under two different dates of sowing during kharif 2010 and 2011 to estimate the loss due to stem fly infestation by adopting different plant protection schedules viz., seed dressing, soil application of granular insecticides and foliar spray on soybean are presented here under.

Table 10: Incidence of leaf eating caterpillars in northern Karnataka during 2010 and 2011 (Pooled)

Location Spodoptera litura (Fab)/mrl Thysanoplusia orichalcea Fab/mrl Spilarctia obliqua (W.)/mrl

2010 2011 Mean 2010 2011 Mean 2010 2011 Mean

Dharwad dist

1) Dharwad 3.90 3.08 3.49 2.45 1.22 1.83 2.75 3.72 3.24

2) Hubli 3.70 1.78 2.74 2.45 0.78 1.61 2.80 2.18 2.49

3) Kalghatagi 3.30 2.18 2.74 1.80 1.28 1.54 2.40 1.78 2.09

4) Kundagol 3.05 1.94 2.49 1.60 0.92 1.26 2.45 1.78 2.12

Dist. Mean 3.49 2.24 2.86 2.08 1.05 1.56 2.60 2.36 2.48

Belgaum dist

1) Bailhongal 4.00 2.50 3.25 2.20 1.49 1.84 2.95 2.37 2.66

2) Chikkodi 3.75 2.40 3.07 2.20 1.50 1.85 2.45 2.30 2.38

3) Hukkeri 3.55 2.92 3.23 2.20 1.56 1.85 2.60 2.72 2.66

4) Athani 3.85 2.32 3.08 2.35 1.36 1.86 2.35 2.00 2.18

5) Raibag 3.60 2.45 3.02 2.05 1.87 1.96 2.50 2.01 2.26

6) Belgaum 4.10 3.24 3.67 2.10 1.14 1.62 2.55 3.74 3.15

Dist Mean 2.53 2.63 3.22 2.18 1.48 1.83 2.57 2.52 2.55

Bagalokot dist

1) Jamkhandi 4.05 2.80 3.42 1.60 1.90 1.75 2.55 2.30 2.43

2) Mudhol 3.65 2.04 2.84 1.75 1.12 1.44 2.25 2.02 2.14

Dist mean 3.85 2.42 3.13 1.68 1.51 1.60 2.40 2.16 2.28

Haveri dist

1) Haveri 3.10 2.10 2.60 1.65 0.90 1.28 2.15 2.60 2.38

2) Shiggaon 3.10 1.90 2.50 1.50 1.12 1.31 1.85 2.20 2.03

Dist Mean 3.10 2.00 2.55 1.58 1.01 1.30 2.00 2.40 2.20

Note: 1) mrl – Meter row length 2) Each value is an average of 25 observations (5 each from 5 locations in each taluk)

Table 11: Monitoring of insect pest severity at Dharwad during 2010 and 2011

MSW S. litura l/mrl

T. orichalcea l/mrl

S. oblique l/mrl

N. virudula No./plant

Myllocerus. spp. No./plant

M. sojae (%infestation)

O. brevis (%infestation)

C. ptychora (%Pod damage)

2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011

26 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

27 - 0.70 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

28 - 0.90 - 0.60 - - - - - - - 4.80 - - - -

29 0.80 0.80 0.50 0.70 - 0.90 - - - - 5.00 6.80 - - - -

30 0.70 1.00 0.60 0.60 0.90 0.80 - - - - 7.00 8.50 - - - -

31 1.00 1.80 0.50 0.75 0.80 1.50 - - 0.60 - 8.90 9.30 - - - -

32 1.20 2.50 0.70 0.50 1.30 2.00 - - 0.80 0.50 12.10 9.80 4.10 4.20 - -

33 1.50 2.80 0.50 0.40 1.80 2.30 0.60 - 1.00 0.70 13.10 10.10 5.00 4.50 - -

34 1.80 3.20 - - 2.10 3.80 0.70 0.60 1.20 1.00 12.00 11.00 4.80 4.90 - -

35 1.10 3.70 - - 2.50 4.10 1.00 0.60 1.40 1.00 13.00 11.20 5.20 5.00 30.10 32.00

36 1.30 3.60 - - 3.00 4.40 1.30 1.00 1.50 1.30 15.00 11.00 5.30 5.10 37.80 38.00

37 0.90 3.10 - - 1.80 3.90 1.50 1.20 1.60 1.50 15.00 11.20 5.40 5.40 38.10 38.50

38 - - - - - - - 1.40 - 1.70 - - - 5.70 40.10 46.00

Total 10.30 24.10 2.80 3.55 14.20 23.70 5.10 4.80 8.10 7.70 101.10 82.70 29.8 34.80 146.10 154.50

Mean 1.14 2.19 0.56 0.59 1.77 2.63 1.02 0.96 1.15 1.10 11.23 8.27 4.96 4.97 36.52 38.62

Note: Variety: JS-335 MSW – Meteorological standard weeks mrl – Meter row length Date of sowing: 22-06- 2010 23-06-2011

Table 12: Correlation of weather parameters with soybean insect pests during kharif 2010-11 and 2011-2012 at MARS Dharwad

S. litura T. orichalcea S. oblique N. virudula

2010 2011 Pooled 2010 2011 Pooled 2010 2011 Pooled 2010 2011 Pooled

Rain fall -0.345 0.162 0.45 -0.269 -0.03 -0.59 -0.313 0.176 -0.032 -0.313 -0.216 -0.33

T Max 0.55 -1.247 0.96** 0.711* -0.386 0.82** -0.084 -0.152 -0.305 -0.084 0.390 -0.57

T Min 0.665* 0.147 0.99** 0.663* 0.283 0.88** 0.278 0.120 0.622 0.278 -0.635* 0.00

RHm 0.527 0.331 0.99** -0.166 0.316 0.87** 0.554 0.233 0.274 0.554 -0.491 -0.04

RH e -0.601 -.277 -0.99** 0.019 -0.022 0.89** -.522 -0.133 -0.525 -0.522 0.127 -0.17

Myllocerus sp. M. sojae O. brevis C. ptychora

2010 2011 Pooled 2010 2011 Pooled 2010 2011 Pooled 2010 2011 Pooled

Rain fall -0.471 -0.297 -0.066* -0.625* 0.096 0.05 -0.247 -0.285 -0.28 -0..83 -.046 -0.29

T Max -0.126 0.327 -0.423 0.139 -0.319 0.71* 0.031 0.189 0.14 -.829** 0.133 0.77

T Min 0.185 -0.559 -0.134 0.552 0.269 0.72* 0.232 -0.379 0.63 -0.659* -0.566 -0.75

RHm 0.424 -0.462 0.134 0.508 0.368 0.74* 0.324 -0.307 0.77* -0.368 -0.346 0-.97**

RH e -0.687* 0.017 -0.126 -.709* -0.182 0.55 -.684* -0.109 -0.49 0.024 0.186 0.86

*. Correlation is significant at 0.05. T Max. – Temperature maximum T Min. – Température minimum **. Correlation is significant at 0.01. RHm – Morning relative humidity RHe – Evening relative humidity

4.2.1 Seedling mortality (%)

4.2.1.1 15 DAS

The experimental results conducted during kharif 2010 revealed that the seedling mortality ranged from 2.67 to 6.44 per cent (Table 13). The lower seedling mortality (2.67%) was recorded in T1 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg) which is on par with T2 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg) (3.11%),T3 ( Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) (2.89%), T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) (3.33%) and T5 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 10 DAS) (2.89%) and were significantly superior over T15 (Phorate 10G @ 1.5 kg ai/ha soil application at sowing (RPP) and T16 (un treated check) which recorded 4.89 and 6.44 per cent seedling mortality respectively

The results of the kharif 2011 revealed that the seedling mortality ranged from 2.67 to 7.33 per cent (Table 13). The lower seedling mortality was recorded in T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) (2.67%) and is on par with T1 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg) (2.89%),T2 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg) (3.33%), T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) (3.11%) and T5 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 10 DAS) (3.11%) and were significantly superior over T15 (Phorate 10G @ 1.5 kg ai/ha soil application at sowing (RPP) and T16 (Un treated check) recorded 5.33 and 7.33 per cent seedling mortality respectively.

The pooled results of the experiment during 2010 and 2011 revealed that, the seedling mortality ranged from 2.87 to 7.00 per cent during (Table 13).The trends of different treatments were same during both the seasons.The pooled data revealed that, the lower seedling mortality was recorded in the treatments,T1 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg) (2.78%),T2

(Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg) (3.22%), T3 ( seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) (2.78%), T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0g/kg+ foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) (3.22%),T5 (thiamethoxam spray 25 WG @ 0.5g/l at 10 DAS) (3.00%) and T10 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 10 DAS) (3.44%), and significantly superior over T15 (Phorate 10G @ 1.5 kg ai/ha soil application at sowing, (RPP) and T16 (un treated check) recorded 5.11 and 7.00 per cent seedling mortality respectively.

4.2.1.2 21 DAS

During kharif 2010, the seedling mortality as similar to 15 DAS, the treatments T1 (Seed dressinkg with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg) (2.44%),T2 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg) (2.89%),T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0g/kg+ foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) (2.67%),T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) (2.89%) and T5 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5g/l at 10 DAS) (2.67%) recorded lower seedling mortality and were on par with each other and significantly superior over T16 (untreated check) (7.33%) (Table 13)

During 2011, the treatments T1 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0g/kg) and T3

(Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) recorded least (2.22%) seedling mortality, followed by T2 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg) (2.89%), T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg+ foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) (2.67%) and T5 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5 g/l at 10 DAS) (2.89%) were on par with each other and significantly superior over T16 (untreated check) (7.55%) (Table 13)

The pooled data over two years revealed that, lower seedling mortality (2.33%) was recorded in T1 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg) and was significantly superior over T15 (phorate 10G @ 1.5 kg ai/ha soil application at sowing (RPP) and T16 (untreated check) (Table 13).Treatment T1 was at par with T2 to T4 and T10 treatments. The higher seedling mortality was recorded in T16 (untreated check) (7.00%).

4.2.1.3 30 DAS

During kharif 2010, seedling mortality at 30 DAS, was significantly lower (1.33%) in T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) compared to rest of the treatments, followed by T1 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70

Table 13: Influence of new molecules of insecticides against stem fly at 15 and 21 days after sowing

Treatments Dosage

Seedling mortality (%)

15 DAS 21 DAS 2010 2011 Pooled 2010 2011 Pooled

T1- Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS 3.0 g/kg 2.67

(9.31)c 2.89

(9.73)c 2.78

(9.53)c 2.44

(8.89)e 2.22

(8.53)e 2.33

(8.72)d

T2 -Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS 0.5g/l 3.11

(10.06)c 3.33

(10.43)c 3.22

(10.25)c 2.89

(9.73)e 2.89

(9.73)de 2.89

(9.73)d


3.0 g/kg+ 0.5g/l 2.89

(9.73)c 2.67

(9.37)c 2.78

(9.55)c 2.67

(9.31)e 2.22

(8.53)e 2.45

8.93)d


3.0 g/kg+ 0.25 ml/l

3.33 (10.43)c

3.11 (10.10)c

3.22 (10.27)c

2.89 (9.73)e

2.67 (9.31)de

2.78 9.55)d

T5 -Spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG at 10 DAS 0.5 g/l 2.89

(9.73)c 3.11

(10.10)c 3.00

(9.93)c 2.67

(9.31)e 2.89

(9.73)de 2.78

9.53)d


(13.77)ab 6.89

(15.04)a 6.33

(14.42)a 5.11

(12.94)bc 5.33

(13.77)a-c 5.44

13.37)bc


(14.03)ab 6.45

(14.55)a 6.22

(14.29)a 6.89

(14.99)ab 6.67

(14.79)a-c 6.78

(14.90)ab


(13.72)ab 7.11

(15.27)a 6.45

(14.55)a 6.44

(14.5)a-c 6.22

(14.28)a-c 6.33

(14.40)a-c


(14.07)ab 6.89

(15.04)a 6.56

(14.62)a 6.89

(14.94)ab 6.89

(15.03)ab 6.89

(14.99)ab

T10 -Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL at 10 DAS 0.25 ml/l 3.55

(10.80)c 3.33

(10.46)c 3.44

(10.63)c 3.33

(10.37)de 3.55

(10.8)d 3.44

(10.60)d

T11 -Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SLl at 20 DAS 0.25 ml/l 6.22

(14.27)a 7.33

(15.49)a 6.78

(14.91)a 5.56

(13.51)a-c 5.34

(13.19)c 5.45

(13.36)bc


(14.52)a 7.11

(15.28)a 6.78

(14.91)a 7.11

(15.28)ab 7.33

(15.51)ab 7.00

(15.16)ab


(14.03)ab 6.89

(15.04)a 6.45

(14.55)a 6.89

(14.99)ab 6.66

(14.76)a-c 6.78

(14.88)ab


(14.00)ab 6.67

(14.79)a 6.33

(14.40)a 7.33

(15.45)ab 7.11

(15.24)ab 7.22

(15.35)a

T15 -Phorate 10G soil application at sowing (RPP) 1.5 kg ai/ha 4.89

(12.43)ab 5.33

(13.22)b 5.11

(12.93)b 5.78

(12.36)cd 6.45

(14.53)b 5.11c

(12.94)c

T16 –Unprotected - 6.44

(14.53)a 7.33

(15.51)a 7.00

(15.16)a 6.67

(14.79)a 7.55

(15.75)a 7.00

(15.16)ab

S. Em. ± 0.83 0.38 0.44 0.75 0.53 0.59

C. D. at 5% 2.40 1.09 1.27 2.16 1.52 1.71

Figures in the parentheses are arc sin transformed values Means followed by same letters in the column are not statistically different by DMRT (P=0.05)

WS @ 3.0 g/kg) (1.78%),T2 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg) (2.22%),T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) (2.00%) and T5 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5g/l at 10 DAS) (1.78%) and were on par with each other. The treatment, T6 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) (2.67%) stands as next best treatment, and significantly superior over T16 (untreated check) (8.44%) (Table 14).

Significantly lower seedling mortality during kharif 2011, was recorded in T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg+ foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) (1.11%), followed by T1 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg) (1.55%), T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of imidacloprid17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) (1.78%), T5 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5g/l at10 DAS) (2.00%) and T2 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0g/kg) (2.22%) and were on par with each other. The treatments T6 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5g/l at 20 DAS) (2.89%) stands as next best treatment and was on par with T15 (Phorate 10G @ 1.5 kg ai/ha soil application at sowing, RPP) (7.34%) and are significantly superior over T16 (untreated check) (8.45%) (Table 14)

The pooled data over two years revealed that, significantly lower seedling mortality (1.56%) was recorded in T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS),T2 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg) (1.78%) compared to rest of the treatments, followed by T1 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg) (1.89%), T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) (1.78%) and were on par with each other, and are significantly superior over T16 (untreated check) (43.67%) (Table 14).

4.2.1.4 35DAS

During 2010, at 35 DAS, T1 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg) and T3 (seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg+ foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) and foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5 g/lat 10 DAS (T5) recorded significantly least seedling mortality 0.89, 0.89 and 1.11 per cent respectively, as compared to other treatments (Table 14). The next best treatments were T2 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg) and T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg+ foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) recorded 1.33 per cent mortality. While, the T15 (Phorate 10G @ 1.5 kg ai/ha soil application at sowing, RPP) recorded (6.67%).The highest seedling mortality were documented with treatments T8 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5 g/l at 40 DAS) (8.44%),T9 (spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5g/l at 50 DAS) (8.89%),T13 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 40 DAS) (8.67%),T14 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 50 DAS) (9.33%) and T16 (untreated check) (9.78%).(Table 14)

During 2011, treatments T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) recorded least seedling mortality (0.67%), followed by T1 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg) (1.11%) and were at par with each other.T2 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg),T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg+ foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) and T5

(Foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/lat 10 DAS) recorded 1.33 per cent seedling mortality. While, T15 (Phorate 10G @ 1.5 kg ai/ha soil application at sowing, RPP) recorded (8.44%). The highest seedling mortality were documented with T8 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 40 DAS) (9.56%), T9 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5g/l at 50 DAS) (9.56%), T13 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 40 DAS) (9.11%) and T16 (untreated check) (9.78%) (Table 14).

The pooled seedling mortality results during 2010 and 2011 kharif seasons revealed that, the seedling mortality ranged from 0.78 to 9.78 (Table 14).The trends of different treatments at both seasons were same. The pooled data revealed that, the lower seedling mortality was recorded in the treatments, T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg+ foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) (0.78%) followed by T1 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg) (1.00%) and were at par with each other. The highest seedling mortality were documented with T8 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5g/l at 40 DAS) (9.00%), T9 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 50 DAS) (9.00%), T13 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 40 DAS) (9.11%) and T16 (untreated check) (9.78%).


Reatments Dosage

Seedling mortality (%)

30 DAS 35 DAS

2010 2011 Pooled 2010 2011 Pooled


(7.61)de 1.55

(7.11)fg 1.89

(7.87)gh 0.89

(5.33)g 1.11

(5.97)ef 1.00

(5.68)fg


(8.53)de 2.22

(8.53)d-f 1.78

(7.61)gh 1.33

(6.47)f-g 1.33

(6.47)e 1.33

(6.47)f


3.0 g/kg+ 0.5g/l 1.33 e\ (6.47)e

1.11 (5.97)g

1.56 (7.14)h

0.89 (5.33)g

0.67 (4.68)f

0.78 (5.03)g


3.0 g/kg+ 0.25 ml/l

2.00 (8.03)de

1.78 (7.61)ef

1.78 (7.61)gh

1.33 (6.62)e-g

1.33 (6.62)e

1.33 (6.62)f


(7.61)de 2.00

(8.11)ef 2.33

(8.74)g 1.11

(5.97)fg 1.33

(6.62)e 1.22

(6.32)f


(9.31)cd 2.89

(9.73)cd 5.22

(13.09)e 1.78

(7.61)d-f 2.00

(8.03)d 1.89

(7.87)e


(15.73)a 7.33

(15.51)a 7.44

(15.64)bc 4.00

(11.44)c 3.78

(11.13)c 3.89

(11.29)d


(15.73)a 6.89

(15.04)a 7.33

(15.52)bc 8.44

(16.64)a 9.56

(17.70)a 9.00

(17.20)a


(15.93)a 7.56

(15.71)a 5.00

(12.80)e 8.89

(17.05)a 9.11

(17.30)a 9.00

(17.19)e


(8.94)d 2.45

(8.95)de 3.11

(10.10)f 2.00

(8.03)de 2.22

(8.53)d 2.11

(8.29)e


(11.13)c 3.78

(11.13)bc 5.89

(13.91)de 2.22

(8.53)d 2.44

(8.94)d 2.33

(8.74)e

T12 -Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL at 30 DAS 0.25 ml/l 8.00 a

(16.21)a 7.78

(15.97)a 7.67

(15.87)bc 5.11

(12.92)c 4.89

(12.67)b 5.00

(12.80)c


(15.74)a 7.56

(15.74)a 8.00

(16.18)b 8.67

(16.87)a 9.56

(17.70)a 9.11

(17.30)a


(16.59)a 7.56

(15.73)a 6.56

(14.61)cd 9.33 a (17.46)

9.11 (17.30)a

9.22 (17.39)a


(13.36)b 7.34

(15.5)b 6.56

(14.68)cd 6.67

(14.79)b 8.44

(16.65)b 7.56

(15.75)b


(16.66)a 8.45

(16.66)a 43.67

(37.87)a 9.78

(17.92)a 9.78

(17.92)a 9.78

(17.92)a

S. Em. ± 0.71 0.49 0.45 0.58 0.46 0.40

C. D. at 5% 2.05 1.43 1.29 1.67 1.32 1.15


4.2.1.5 Mean seedling mortality

The results on the influence of insecticide molecules on mean seedling mortality during 2010 revealed that the treatments T1 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg), T2 (seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg), T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS), T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg+ foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS), and T5 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5g/l at 10 DAS) recorded least mortality of 1.94, 2.39,1.94,2.39 and 2.11 per cent respectively and were significantly superior over T16 (untreated check) (7.83%) (Table 15).

The results on the influence of insecticide molecules on mean seedling mortality during 2011 revealed that the treatments T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS), T1 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg), T2 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg), T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS), and T5 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 10 DAS) recorded least mortality of 1.67,1.94,2.22 and 2.33 per cent respectively and were significantly superior over T16 (untreated check) (8.28%) (Table 15).

4.2.2 Stem fly infestation (%)

4.2.2.1 30 DAS

The stem fly infestation on various treatments ranged from 11.11 to 33.33 per cent during 2010 (Table 16).The results on the influence of insecticides on the stem fly infestation revealed that, significantly lower infestation (11.11%) was recorded in T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) compared to all other treatments. The next best treatments were T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg+ foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS), T1 (seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg), T2 (seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg, T10 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 10 DAS) and T15 (Phorate 10G @ 1.5 kg ai/ha at soil application at sowing (RPP) recorded 14.44%, 16.67, 16.67, 17.78 and 15.56 per cent stem fly infestation respectively. T6

(thiamethoxam 25WG spray @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) (23.33%) and T11 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) (23.33%) were on par with each other. Highest stem fly infestation was noticed in T7 (spray of thiamethoxam 25WG @ 0.5 g/l at 30 DAS) ( 30.00%), T8 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 40 DAS) (30.00%),T9(Spray of thiamethoxam25WG @ 0.5 g/lat 50 DAS) (31.11%),T12 (Spray of imidacloprid17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 30 DAS) (28.89%), T13 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 40 DAS) (31.11%) and T14 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 50 DAS) (31.11%) were on par with T16 (untreated check) (33.33%).

The stem fly infestation on various treatments ranged from 12.22 to 32.22 per cent during 2011 kharif season (Table 16). The results on the influence of insecticides on the stem fly infestation revealed that, significantly lower infestation (12.22%) was recorded in T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) compared to all other treatments. The next best treatments were T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) (15.56%), followed by T1 (seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg, T2 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg, T5 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 10 DAS) and T15 (Phorate 10G @ 1.5 kg ai/ha soil application at sowing (RPP) recorded 17.78, 18.89, 20.00 and 20.00 per cent stem fly infestation respectively and were on par with each other. Among the treatments highest stem fly infestation was noticed in T7 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 30 DAS) ( 26.67%), T8 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 40 DAS) (31.11%),T9 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 50 DAS) (28.89%),T12 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 30 DAS) (26.67%), T13 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 40 DAS) (30.00%) and T14 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 50 DAS) (27.78%) were on par with T16 (untreated check) (32.22%).

The pooled results of stem fly infestation revealed that, the stem fly infestation ranged from 11.11 to 33.33 and 12.22 to 32.22 per cent during 2010 and 2011 kharif seasons respectively (Table 16).The trends of different treatments during both seasons were same. The pooled data of the influence of insecticides on the stem fly infestation revealed that, significantly lower infestation (11.67%) was recorded in T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25% WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) compared to all other treatments. The next best treatment was T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg+ foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) (15.00%).The untreated check sustained 32.52 per cent stem fly

Table 15: Influence of new molecules of insecticides on stem fly incidence during kharif 2010 and 2011

Treatments Dosage

Seedling mortality (Mean)*

2010 2011


(7.96)g

1.94

(7.99)gh


(8.84)g

2.45

(8.94)f


3.0 g/kg+ 0.5g/l

1.94

(7.97)g

1.67

(7.40)h


3.0 g/kg+ 0.25 ml/l

2.39

(8.85)g

2.22 (8.54)fg


(8.30)g

2.33

(8.76)f


(11.22)ef

4.39

(12.01)d


(14.15)bc

6.06

(14.10)c


(15.19)ab 7.45

(15.64)b


(15.55)ab 7.61

(15.81)ab

T10 -Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL at 10 DAS 0. 25 ml /l 2.83

(9.65)fg

2.89

(9.74)e


(12.08)de

4.72 (12.45)d


(14.8)a-c 6.67

(14.80)c


(15.45)ab

7.67

(15.87)ab


(15.93)ab 7.61

(15.80)ab


(13.32)cd 6.00

(14.04)c


(16.04)a 8.28

(16.49)a

S. Em. ± 0.57 0.25

C. D. at 5% 1.64 0.73

Figures in the parentheses are Arc sin transformed values DAS = Days after spray Means followed by same letters in the column are not statistically different by DMRT (P=0.05)

Note: * means of 15,21,30 and 35 DAS


Treatments Dosage

Stem fly infestation (%)

30 DAS 45 DAS

2010 2011 Pooled 2010 2011 Pooled


(23.32)cd 17.78

(24.15)cd 17.22

(23.75)cd 12.22

(20.00)g 13.33

(20.93)ef 12.78

(20.48)ef


(23.32)cd 18.89

(24.75)cd 17.78

(24.05)cd 13.33

(20.82)fg 15.56 (22.5)f

14.44 (21.69)ef


3.0 g/kg+ 0.5g/l 11.11

(19.06)e 12.22

(20.00)e 11.67

(19.55)e 11.11

(19.06)g 10.00

(18.13)g 12.22

(20.03)ef


3.0 g/kg+ 0.25 ml/l

14.44 (21.75)d

15.56 (22.58)de

15.00 (22.18)d

14.44 (21.76)e-g

13.33 (20.93)ef

12.78 (20.48)ef


(24.89)c 20.00

(25.64)cd 19.45

(25.27)bc 14.44

(21.76)e-g 16.67

(23.4)de 15.56

(22.60)de


(27.64)b 22.22

(26.96)bc 22.78

(27.31)b 12.22

(20.00)g 10.00

(17.95)g 11.11

(19.02)f


(31.73)a 26.67

(29.60)ab 28.33

(30.50)a 17.78

(24.15)de 18.89

(24.89)cd 18.33

(24.53)de


(31.40)a 31.11

(31.96)a 31.11

(31.97)a 26.67

(29.56)ab 24.44

(28.33)b 25.56

(28.96)b


(31.96)a 28.89

(30.77)a 30.00

(31.39)a 32.22

(32.53)a 33.33

(33.07)a 33.33

(33.09)a

T10 -Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL at 10 DAS 0.25 ml/l 17.78c

(24.15)cd 16.67

(23.4)d 17.22

(23.78)cd 12.22

(20.00)g 11.11

(19.06)fg 11.11

(19.06)f


(27.69)b 22.22

(26.90)bc 22.78

(27.33)b 16.67

(23.4)d-f 13.33

(20.93)ef 15.00

(22.20)de


(30.80)a 26.67

(29.56)ab 27.78

(30.20)a 23.33

(27.54)bc 21.11

(26.26)e 22.22

(26.91)bc


(31.96)a 30.00a

(31.37)a 30.56

(31.68)a 20.00

(25.58)cd 22.22

(27.01)bc 21.11

(26.31)c


(31.93)a 27.78

(30.2)a 29.44

(31.10)a 31.11

(31.96)a 33.33

(33.07)a 32.78

(32.81)a


(22.58)cd 20.00

(25.64)cd 17.78

(24.16)cd 18.89

(24.83)c-e 23.33

(27.69)b 21.11

(26.32)c


(33.09)a 32.22

(32.53)a 32.22

(32.54)a 30.00

(31.37)a 34.44

(33.63)a 31.67

(32.23)a

S. Em. ± 0.88 1.01 0.76 1.03 0.82 0.84

C. D. at 5% 2.55 2.93 2.20 2.98 2.36 2.44


infestation followed by T15 (Phorate 10G @ 1.5 kg ai/ha soil application at sowing (RPP) which registered 17.78 per cent infestation.

4.2.2.2 45 DAS

During kharif 2010, T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) recorded significantly least infestation (11.11%) and was on par with T1 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0g/kg),T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS), T6 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) and T10 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 10 DAS) which is recorded 12.22, 14.44, 12.22 and 12.22 per cent stem fly infestation respectively (Table 16). Whereas, the highest per cent stem fly infestation were recorded in T16 (untreated check) (30.00%), T8 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25WG @ 0.5 g/l at 40 DAS) (26.67%), T9 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5g/l at 50 DAS) (32.22%) and T14 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 50 DAS) (31.11%) and were on par with each other

During 2011, T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg+ foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) recorded significantly least infestation (10.00%) which was on par with T6 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5g/l at 20 DAS) and T10 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 10 DAS) recorded 10.00 and 11.11 per cent stem fly infestation respectively (Table 16).T1 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg), T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg+ foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) and T11

(Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) recorded 13.33 per cent stem fly infestation. Whereas the highest stem fly infestation were recorded in T16 (untreated check) (34.44%) followed by T9 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25WG @ 0.5 g/l at 50 DAS) (33.33%) and T14 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 50 DAS) (33.33%) and were on par with each other

The stem fly infestation on various treatments ranged from 11.11 to 30.00 and 10.33 to 34.44 per cent during 2010 and 2011 kharif seasons, respectively. The pooled data over the years revealed that, significantly lower stem fly infestation (11.11%) was recorded in T3 and T6 treatment (Table 16). The highest stem fly infestation (31.67%) was recorded in untreated check, which was significantly inferior over rest of the treatments. The treatment T1 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg) recorded 12.78 per cent stem fly infestation and which was at par with T2,T3 and T4 treatments and were superior over T15 and T16.

4.2.2.3 60 DAS

During 2010, significantly least stem fly infestation was noticed in T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg+ foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) (5.56%) and T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) (6.67%) followed by T1 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg) (7.78%), which was on par with T10 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 10 DAS) (7.78%). All other treatments except T9 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 50 DAS) .T14

(Spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 50 DAS) both treatments recorded 22.22 per cent infestation and untreated check showed no statistical difference with each other in recording the stem fly infestation (36.67%) at 60 DAS (Table 17).

During 2011, significantly least stem fly infestation was noticed in T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) (5.56 %) (Table 17) followed by T6 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) (6.67%), T10 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 10 DAS) (6.67%), T9 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 50 DAS) (15.56%) and were on par with each other. The next best treatments were T1 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg) (8.89 %), T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) (7.78%), T7 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25WG @ 0.5 g/l at 30 DAS) (8.89%) and T12 (spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 30 DAS) recorded (12.22%). While the, remaining treatments T2 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg), T5 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5 g/l at 10 DAS), T8 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5g/l at 40 DAS), T12 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 30 DAS) recorded 11.11, 11.11, 13.33 and 12.22 per cent infestation respectively. Highest stem fly infestation among the treatments was observed in T9 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5 g/l at 50 DAS) (15.56%), T14 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 50 DAS) (24.44%), T15 (Phorate 10G @ 1.5 kg ai/ha soil application at sowing, RPP) (30.00%), were significantly superior over untreated check (38.89%).

Table 17: Influence of new molecules of insecticides against stem fly at 60 and harvest

Treatments Dosage

Stem fly infestation (%)

60 DAS Harvest

2010 2011 Pooled 2010 2011 Pooled


(15.91)ef 8.89

(17.02)d-f 8.33

(16.49)e-g 4.44de

(11.91)de 5.56

(13.36)d-f 5.00

(12.69)e-g

T2 -Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS 0.5 g/l 11.11

(19.06)c-e 1.11

(19.06)c-e 11.11

(19.06)def 6.67cd

(14.46)cd 7.78

(15.91)c-e 7.22

(15.39)c-e


3.0 g/kg+ 0.5g/l 6.67

(14.46)f 5.56

(13.36)f 6.11

(14.06)g 2.22f

(6.97)f 3.33

(10.47)f 2.78

(9.44)g


3.0 g/kg+ 0.25 ml/l 6.67

(14.46)f 7.78

(15.91)d-f 8.33

(16.49)e-g 7.78cd

(15.91)cd 6.67

(14.8)c-e 3.89

(11.25)fg


(20.82)cd 1.11

(18.89)c-e 12.22

(19.89)de 10.00c

(18.13)c 7.78

(15.91)c-e 8.89

(17.07)cd


(17.02)cd 6.67

(14.46)ef 6.67

(14.46)g 3.33ef

(8.42)ef 4.44

(11.91)ef 7.22

(15.38)c-e


(17.95)c-f 8.89

(16.84)d-f 9.44

(17.43)d-g 4.44de

(11.91)de 5.56

(13.36)de 5.00

(12.69)e-g


(20.00)c-e 13.33

(20.82)cd 12.78

(20.42)de 5.56cd

(13.36)cd 5.56

(13.36)d-f 5.56

(13.36)d-f


(27.00)a 15.56

(22.58)c 18.89

(24.91)c 8.89c

(17.02)c 10.00c

(18.13)c 9.45

(17.60)c


(15.91)ef 6.67

(14.8)ef 7.22

(15.38)fg 6.67

(14.46)cd 6.67

(14.46)c-f 6.67

(14.46)c-f


(17.02)d-f 7.78d

(15.91)d-f 8.33

(16.49)e-g 4.44

(11.91)de 4.44

(11.91)ef 4.44

(11.91)e-g


(21.76)c 12.22

(19.89)cd 13.33

(20.85)d 7.78

(15.91)cd 8.89

(17.02)cd 8.33

(16.49)cd


(17.95)c-f 8.89

(16.51)d-f 9.44 d

(17.29)d-g 5.56

(13.36)cd 4.44

(11.91)ef 5.00

(12.70)e-g


(27.01)b 24.44

(28.28)b 23.33

(27.65)bc 8.89

(17.02)c 10.00

(17.95)c 9.45

(17.50)c


(28.97)b 30.00

(31.37)b 27.78

(30.19)b 30.00

(31.37)b 34.44

(33.61)b 32.22

(32.51)b


(34.69)a 38.89

(35.74)a 37.78

(35.23)a 43.33

(37.72)a 46.67

(39.14)a 45.00

(38.44)a

S. Em. ± 1.29 1.48 1.25 1.45 1.29 1.14

C. D. at 5% 3.74 4.28 3.62 4.17 3.73 3.30


The pooled data over two years revealed that, the significantly lower stem fly infestation was recorded in the treatments T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) (6.11%) (Table 17) and T6 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25% WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) (6.67%) were on par with each other. T1 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg), T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) and T11 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) recorded 8.33 per cent stem fly infestation, all these treatments were superior over T15 and T16 treatments.

4.2.2.4 At harvest

The results of the stem fly infestation during kharif 2010, revealed that T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) (2.22%) recorded significantly least infestation as compared to all other treatments (Table 17). The next best treatment was T6 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) (3.33%) followed by T1 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg), T7 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25WG @ 0.5 g/l at 30 DAS) and T11 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25 ml/l at 20 DAS) treatments which recorded 4.44 per cent stem fly infestation and were on par with each other. Whereas, the highest stem fly infestation among the treatments was recorded in T9 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25WG @ 0.5 g/l at 50 DAS) and T14 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25 ml/l at 50 DAS) both recorded 8.89 per cent infestation and were significantly superior over untreated check (43.33%).

At harvest the results of the stem fly infestation during kharif 2011, revealed that T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) (3.33%) has recorded significantly least stem fly infestation as compared to all other treatments. (Table 17), followed by T6 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS), T11 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS), T13 (spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 40 DAS) each recorded 4.44 per cent infestation. The next best treatments were T1 (seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg) (5.56%), T8 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 40 DAS) (5.56%) and T10 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 10 DAS (6.67%), followed by T2 (seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0g/kg, T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) T5 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25WG @ 0.5g/l at 10 DAS, T7 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25WG @ 0.5 g/l at 30 DAS), T8 (spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 40 DAS) and T12 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 30 DAS), 7.78, 6.67, 7.78, 5.56, 5.56 and 8.89 per cent infestation respectively. Whereas, the highest stem fly infestation was in T15 (phorate 10G @ 1.5 kg ai/ha soil application at sowing, RPP) recorded 34.44 per cent infestation and was significantly superior over untreated check recorded maximum 46.67 per cent infestation.

The stem fly infestation on various treatments ranged from 2.22 to 43.33 and 3.33 to 46.67 per cent during 2010 and 2011 kharif seasons, respectively (Table 17). The pooled data over two years revealed that, the significantly lower stem fly infestation (2.78%) was recorded in treatment, T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg+ foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) as compared to all other treatments. followed by T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg+ foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) (3.89%). Highest stem fly infestation was observed in T15 (Phorate 10G @ 1.5 kg ai/ha soil application at sowing, RPP) recorded (32.22%), significantly superior over untreated check recorded maximum infestation of 45.00.

4.2.2.5 Mean stem fly infestation

The mean observation on the stem fly infestation during kharif 2010, revealed that T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0g/kg + foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) (8.61%) recorded significantly least infestation as compared to other treatments (Table 18).The next best treatments were T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg+ foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) (10.83%) and T10 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 10 DAS) (10.83%) were on par with the treatment T1 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg) (10.28%) followed by T6 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5g/l at 20 DAS), T2 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg), T11 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) and T5 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25WG @ 0.5 g/l at 10 DAS) recorded 11.39, 11.95, 13.33 and 14.17 per cent stem fly infestation respectively, while the highest per cent stem fly infestation among the treatment was recorded in T8 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25WG @ 0.5 g/l at 40 DAS), T12

(Spray of imidacloprid17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 30 DAS), T13 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at

40 DAS), T14 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 50 DAS) and T15 (Phorate 10G @ 1.5 kg ai/ha soil application at sowing, RPP) recorded 18.61, 18.61,16.67, 23.33 and 22.50 per cent infestation respectively, were significantly superior over untreated check (35.83%).

The mean observation on the stem fly infestation during kharif 2011, revealed that T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0g/kg + foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25WG @ 0.5g/l at 20 DAS) (7.78%) recorded significantly least infestation as compared to other treatments. (Table 18).The next best treatments were T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) (10.83%),T6 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) (10.83%), and T10 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 10 DAS) (10.28%) which were on par with the treatment T1 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg) (11.39%) and T11 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) (11.94%), followed by T2 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg), T5 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25WG @ 0.5 g/l at 10 DAS) and T7 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5g/l at 30 DAS) recorded 13.33,13.89 and 15.00 per cent infestation respectively. The highest stem fly infestation among the treatments were recorded in T8

(Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 40 DAS) T9 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5g/l at 50 DAS), T14 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 50 DAS) and T15 (Phorate 10G @ 1.5 kg ai/ha soil application at sowing, RPP) recorded 18.89, 22.22, 24.17 and 26.94 per cent stem fly infestation respectively and were significantly superior over untreated check (37.50%).

4.2.3 Stem tunneling (%)

4.2.3.1 30 DAS

The observation on stem tunneling during 2010, revealed that, T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) (12.29%) recorded significantly least stem tunneling followed by T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS)and T6 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) 14.73 and 15.21 per cent stem tunneling respectively, and were on par with each other (Table 19). Highest stem tunneling was noticed in T8 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5 g/l at 40 DAS), T9 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5 g/l at 50 DAS), T13 (spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 40 DAS) and T14 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 50 DAS) recorded 19.13, 19.24, 19.24 and 19.19 per cent tunneling respectively and were on par with untreated check (19.40%).

The observation on stem tunneling during kharif 2011, revealed that, T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25WG @ 0.5g/l at 20 DAS) (11.70%) recorded significantly least stem tunneling followed by T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) and T6 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) 15.18 and 15.62 per cent stem tunneling respectively and were on par with each other. (Table 19).The next best treatments were T1 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg) and T10 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 10 DAS) recorded 16.27 and 16.93 per cent tunneling respectively. Highest stem tunneling was noticed in T8 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25WG @ 0.5 g/l at 40 DAS), T9 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5 g/l at 50 DAS), T13 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 40 DAS) and T14 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 50 DAS) recorded 19.02, 19.96, 20.18 and 19.09 per cent tunneling respectively and were on par with untreated check (22.35%).

The stem tunneling of different treatments ranged from 12.29 to19.40 and 11.70 to 22.35 during 2010 and 2011 kharif seasons, respectively (Table 19). The pooled data over the years revealed that, the higher tunneling (21.90%) was observed in untreated check and was significantly inferior over rest of the treatments. The lower stem tunneling (11.99%) was recorded in T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS). followed by T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) (14.96%).

4.2.3.2 45 DAS

During 2010, least stem tunneling was observed in T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) (9.85%) followed by T6

(Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) (10.74%) were on par with each other (Table 19). The next best treatments were T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS), T7 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25WG @ 0.5 g/l at 30 DAS), and T8 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 40 DAS) recorded 11.79, 11.86 and

Table 18: Influence of new molecules of insecticides against stem fly during Kharif 2010 and 2011

Treatments Dosage

Per cent infestation (Mean)*

2010 2011


(18.35)hi 11.39

(19.34)hi


(19.81)f-g 13.33

(20.91)gh


3.0 g/kg+ 0.5g/l

8.61

(16.79)i

7.78

(15.98)j


3.0 g/kg+ 0.25 ml/l

10.83 (18.86)h

10.83 (18.87)i


(21.57)d-f 13.89

(21.35)f-g


(19.29)gh 10.83

(18.78)i


(22.58)de 15.00

(22.20)e-g


(24.72)c 18.89

(24.89)d


(27.85)b 22.22

(27.02)c


(18.86)h 10.28

(18.36)i


(20.93)e-g 11.94

(19.79)hi


(24.70)c 17.22

(23.73)de


(23.38)cd 16.39

(23.2)d-f


(27.67)b

24.17 (28.17)bc


22.50 (27.19)b

26.94 (29.75)b

T16 –Unprotected - 35.83a

(34.30)a 37.50a

(35.10)a

S. Em. ± 0.60 0.65

C. D. at 5% 1.74 1.87

Figures in the parentheses are arc sin transformed values DAS = Days after spray Means followed by same letters in the column are not statistically different by DMRT (P=0.05)

Note: * means of 30, 45, 60 DAS and at harvest


Treatments Dosage

Stem tunneling (%)

30 DAS 45 DAS 2010 2011 Pooled 2010 2011 Pooled


(23.02)d-f 16.27

(23.12)f-h 16.20

(23.07)de 11.61

(19.53)d-f 12.18

(20.01)ef 11.89

(19.77)cd


(24.12)b 17.38

(23.90)c-f 17.54

(24.01)c 14.67

(21.95)c 12.85

(20.54)def 13.76

(21.26)b


3.0 g/kg+ 0.5g/l 12.29

(20.08)h 11.70

(19.57)i 11.99

(19.83)g 9.85

(17.98)f 9.67

(17.83)g 9.76

(17.90)e


3.0 g/kg+ 0.25 ml/l 14.73

(21.99)g 15.18

(22.33)h 14.96

(22.16)f 11.79

(19.65)d-f 11.67

(19.54)fg 11.73

(19.60)cd


(22.59)e-g 18.15

(24.42)c-e 16.85

(23.53)cd 13.54

(21.08)cd 15.01

(22.21)cd 14.28

(21.66)b


(22.35)fg 15.62

(22.65) 15.41

(22.51)ef 10.74

(18.78)ef 10.96

(18.97)fg 10.85

(18.88)de


(23.27)b-f 18.12

(24.39)c-e 17.30

(23.84)cd 11.86

(19.73)d-f 15.60

(22.64)c 13.73

(21.24)bc


(25.07)a 19.02

(25.00)b-d 19.08

(25.04)b 11.59

(19.47)d-f 16.24

(22.96)c 13.91

(21.30)bc


(25.14)a 19.96

(25.61)b 19.60

(25.38)b 23.09

(27.55)a 22.89

(27.42)b 22.99

(27.49)a


(23.60)b-d 16.93

(23.59)e-g 16.94

(23.59)cd 12.91

(20.56)c-e 12.36

(20.15)d-f 12.64

(20.37)b-d


(23.12)b-f 17.25

(23.81)d-g 16.75

(23.46)cd 13.23

(20.82)cd 13.49

(21.02)c-f 13.36

(20.92)bc


(24.08)bc 17.42

(23.93)c-f 17.54

(24.00)c 14.27

(21.65)c 15.00

(22.19)cd 14.64

(21.92)b


(25.14)a 20.18

(25.75)b 19.71

(25.45)b 12.75

(20.45)c-e 14.62

(21.90)c-e 13.68

(21.20)bc


(25.11)a 19.09

(25.05)bc 19.14

(25.08)b 22.91

(27.44)a 22.80

(27.37)b 22.85

(27.40)a


(23.53)b-e 22.08

(26.93)b 18.69

(24.78)b 20.15

(25.73)b 25.91

(29.18)ab 23.03

(27.51)a


(25.25)a 22.35

(27.09)a 21.90

(26.82)a 23.14

(27.58)a 26.86

(29.71)a 25.00

(28.66)a

S. Em. ± 0.31 0.38 0.27 0.55 0.64 0.55

C. D. at 5% 0.89 1.09 0.77 1.58 1.85 1.58


11.59 per cent stem tunneling respectively, and were significantly superior over untreated check. The following treatments T10 (spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 10 DAS) and T13 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 40 DAS) observed better results by recording 12.91 and 12.75 per cent stem tunneling respectively, and were significantly superior over T15 (Phorate 10G @ 1.5 kg ai/ha soil application at sowing, (RPP) (20.15%) and untreated check (23.14%)

During 2011, least stem tunneling was observed in T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) (9.67%) followed by T4

(Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) (11.67%) and T6 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5g/l at 20 DAS) (10.96%) were on par with each other (Table 19). The next best treatments were T1 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg), T2 (seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg T10 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 10 DAS) and T11 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) recorded 12.18, 12.85, 12.36 and13.49 per cent stem tunneling respectively and were on par with each other. Highest stem tunneling was observed in the T9 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25WG @ 0.5 g/l at 50 DAS) (22.89%), T15 (phorate 10G @ 1.5 kg ai/ha soil application before sowing, (RPP) (25.91%) and untreated check recorded maximum of 26.86 per cent.

The stem tunneling of different treatments ranged from 9.85 to 23.14 and 9.67 to 26.86 per cent during 2010 and 2011 kharif seasons, respectively. The pooled data on stem tunneling at 45 DAS resulted. Significantly lower (9.76%) stem tunneling was recorded in T3 treatment, which was at par with T6. The next best treatments were T1 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg) and T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) recorded 11.89 and 11.73 per cent tunneling respectively and were on par with each other (Table 19). Highest tunneling was observed in the T9 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5 g/l at 50 DAS) (22.99%), T15 (Phorate 10G @ 1.5 kg ai/ha soil application at sowing, (RPP) (23.03%) and untreated check (25.00%).

4.2.3.3 60 DAS

During 2010, stem tunneling results revealed that, T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) and T6 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) treatments recorded 6.27 and 6.68 least per cent stem tunneling respectively (Table 20). Next best treatments were T1 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg)and T8 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25WG @ 0.5 g/l at 40 DAS) were on par with each other and recorded 8.15 and 8.34 per cent stem tunneling, respectively followed by T2 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg), (9.83%) T5 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 10 DAS) (10.13%), T11 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) (9.63%), T12 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 30DAS) (9.72%) and T13 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 40 DAS) (9.95%) were on par with each other and significantly superior over untreated check (28.06).

Significantly the least stem tunneling were noticed during kharif 2011, in T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) (6.11%) and T6 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) (6.50%) followed by T7 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 30 DAS) (7.71%) (Table 20).The next best treatments were T1

(Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg) (8.27%), T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) (8.78%), T8 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25WG @ 0.5 g/l at 40 DAS) (8.02%) and T11 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) (9.45%) were on par with each other. The other treatments, T2 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg, T5 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25WG @ 0.5 g/l at 10 DAS), T10 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 10 DAS), T12 (spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 30 DAS) (%) and T13 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 40 DAS) recorded 9.95, 10.21, 9.99, 10.27 and 10.04 per cent stem tunneling respectively, and were on par with each other and were significantly superior over untreated check (31.19%).

The stem tunneling of different treatments ranged from 6.27 to 28.06 and 6.11 to 31.19 per cent during 2010 and 2011, kharif seasons, respectively (Table 20). The pooled data over two year revealed that, the significantly lower stem tunneling (6.19%) was recorded in treatment T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) and T6 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) (6.59%) were on par with each other, followed by T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg+ foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) T7 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5g/l at 30 DAS) and T8 (Spray

Table 20: Influence of new molecules of insecticides against stem fly at 60 and harvest

Treatments Dosage

Stem tunneling (%)

60 DAS Harvest

2010 2011 Pooled 2010 2011 Pooled


(16.37)g 8.27

(16.48)gh 8.21 e (16.42)

6.70 (14.83)fg

6.78 (14.92)fg

6.74 fgh (14.88)


(17.97)ef 9.95

(18.07)e 9.89 de (18.02)

8.09 (16.28)e

8.22 (16.42)e

8.16 e (16.35)


3.0 g/kg+ 0.5g/l

6.27 (14.35)h

6.11 (14.17)i

6.19 g (14.26)

5.36 (13.27)h

5.19 (13.06)h

5.28 i (13.16)


3.0 g/kg+ 0.25 ml/l

9.22 (17.41)fg

8.78 (16.98)fg

9.00 ef (17.20)

6.95 (15.11)e-

g

5.85 (13.85)gh

6.40 gh (14.50)


(18.24)ef 10.21

(18.31)e 10.17 d (18.28)

7.63 (15.83)ef

7.25 (15.43)ef

7.44 efg (15.64)


(14.79)h 6.50

(14.61)i 6.59 g (14.70)

6.01 (14.05)gh

5.87 (13.88)gh

5.94 hi (13.96)


(17.06)fg 7.71

(15.9)h 8.30 f

(16.50) 7.46

(15.63)ef 7.09

(15.25)ef 7.28 efg (15.44)


(16.55)g 8.02

(16.23)gh 8.18 f

(16.39) 7.18

(15.35)ef 6.85

(15.00)fg 7.02 efg (15.17)


(23.33)c 16.37

(23.19)c 16.47 b (23.26)

13.98 (21.42)c

13.84 (21.32)c

13.91 c (21.37)


(18.91)e 9.99

(18.10)e 10.45 d (18.51)

11.41 (19.34)d

10.85 (18.87)d

11.13 d (19.10)


(17.79)ef 9.45

(17.62)ef 9.54 de (17.70)

7.92 (16.14)e

7.61 (15.81)ef

7.77 ef (15.98)


(17.86)ef 10.27

(18.37)e 10.00 de (18.12)

7.27 (15.45)ef

7.09 (15.26)eg

7.18 efg (15.36)


(18.09)ef 10.04

(18.17)e 10.00 de (18.13)

7.56 (15.76)ef

7.56 (15.76)eg

7.56 ef (15.76)


(21.48)d 14.18

(21.58)d 14.11 c (21.53)

11.56 (19.47)d

11.37 (19.32)d

11.46 d (19.40)


(27.8)b 27.24

(29.91)b 25.38 b (28.88)

26.94 (29.75)b

29.67 (31.22)b

28.30 b (30.50)


(30.37)a 31.19

(32.01)a 29.63 a (31.20)

31.41 (32.13)a

33.43a (33.14)a

32.42 a (32.64)

S. Em. ± 0.36 0.30 0.30 0.39 0.37 0.37

C. D. at 5% 1.05 0.86 0.87 1.13 1.07 1.06


of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 40 DAS) recorded 9.00, 8.30 and 8.18 per cent stem tunneling respectively.

4.2.3.4 At harvest

At harvest during 2010, T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) (5.36%) recorded significantly least stem tunneling as compared to all other treatments. The next best treatment wasT6 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) (6.01%) followed by T1 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg) (6.70%) and T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) (6.95%) were on par with each other, the following treatments T5

(Spray of thiamethoxam 25WG @ 0.5 g/l at 10 DAS), T7 (spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5 g/l at 30 DAS), T8 (Spray of thiamethoxam WG @ 0.5 g/l at 40 DAS),T12 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 30 DAS) and T13 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 40 DAS) recorded 7.63, 7.46,7.18, 7.27 and 7.56 per cent stem tunneling respectively and were on par with each other, and significantly superior over untreated check (31.41%) (Table 20).

During kharif 2011, T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) (5.19%) recorded significantly least stem tunneling as compared to all other treatments (Table 20).The next best treatment was T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) 5.85 per cent followed by T6 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) (5.87%), were on par with each other. Whereas, the highest stem tunneling was recorded in plots T9 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 50 DAS) and T15 (Phorate 10G @ 1.5 kg ai/ha soil application at sowing, (RPP) recorded 13.84 and 29.67 per cent stem tunneling respectively and were significantly superior over untreated check (33.43%).

The pooled analysis over two years revealed that, the significantly lower stem tunneling was recorded in the treatments T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0g/kg + foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) (5.28%) was on par with T6 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) (5.94%) (Table 20). The next best treatments T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) and T1

(Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg) recorded 6.40 and 6.74 per cent stem tunneling respectively and were at par with each other and significantly superior over untreated check (32.42%)

4.2.3.5 Mean stem tunneling

The mean observation on the stem tunneling during 2010, results revealed that T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg+ foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) (8.44%) recorded significantly least stem tunneling as compared to other treatments. (Table 21) The next best treatments were T6 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) (9.66%) followed by T1 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg) and T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg+ foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) recorded 10.65 and 10.67 per cent stem tunneling respectively while the treatment T7 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5 g/l at 30 DAS) recorded 11.17 per cent stem tunneling. The other treatments T5 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5 g/l at 10 DAS), T8 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5 g/l at 40 DAS), T11 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS), T2 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg), T12 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 30 DAS) and T13

(Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 40 DAS) recorded 11.71, 11.56, 11.76, 12.58, 12.33 and 12.38 per cent stem tunneling respectively.T15 (Phorate 10G @ 1.5 kg ai/ha soil application at sowing, RPP) recorded 21.87 per cent stem tunneling and was significantly superior over untreated check (25.50%) (Plate 7).

The mean observation on the stem tunneling during kharif 2011, revealed that T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg+ foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) (8.17%) recorded significantly least stem tunneling as compared to other treatments (Table 21). The next best treatments were T6 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) (9.74%) and T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg+ foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) (10.37%) were on par with each other and was followed by T1 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg) (10.88%). The other treatments T5 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5 g/l at 10 DAS), T8 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5g/l at 40 DAS), T12 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 30 DAS) and T13 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 40 DAS) recorded 12.65, 12.53, 12.45 and 13.10 per cent stem tunneling respectively.T15 (Phorate 10G

Table 21: Influence of new molecules of insecticides against stem fly during kharif 2010 and 2011

Treatments Dosage

Per cent tunnelling (Mean)*

2010 2011


(18.7)h

10.88

(18.9)g


(20.32)ef

12.10

(19.94)f


3.0 g/kg+ 0.5g/l

8.44

(16.65)j

8.17 (16.38)i


3.0 g/kg+ 0.25 ml/l

10.67 (18.72)h

10.37 (18.45)gh


(19.61)fg 12.65

(20.39)ef


(17.81)i

9.74 (17.89)h


(19.15)f-h 12.13

(19.96)f


(19.49)f-h

12.53 (20.28)ef


(24.47)c

18.27 (24.5)c


(20.69)e 12.53

(20.29)ef


(19.66)fg 11.95

(19.81)f


(20.04)ef 12.45

(20.22)ef


(20.17)ef 13.10

(20.75)e


(23.58)d 16.86

(23.54)d


21.87 (26.80)b

26.23 (29.36)b


(28.95)a 28.46

(30.58)a

S. Em. ± 0.26 0.23

C. D. at 5% 0.75 0.66

Figures in the parentheses are arc sin transformed values DAS = Days after spray Means followed by same letters in the column are not statistically different by DMRT (P=0.05)

Note: * means of 30,45,60 DAS and at harvest

@ 1.5 kg ai/ha soil application at sowing, RPP) recorded 26.23 per cent stem tunneling, and was significantly superior over untreated check (28.46%).

4.2.4 Influence of different treatments on seed yield

4.2.4.1 Yield (kg/ha)

During 2010 Significantly the highest seed yield of 2564 kg/ha obtained in T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg+ foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5g/l at 20 DAS) treated plots compared to all other treatments (Table 22), this was followed by T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0g/kg+ foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25 ml/l at 20 DAS) (2458 kg/ha), T1 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg) (2348 kg/ha), T5 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5g/l at 10 DAS) (2292 kg/ha), T2 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0g/kg) (2282 kg/ha) T10 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 10 DAS) (2190 kg/ha), T6 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5g/l at 20 DAS) (2188 kg/ha) where as the lowest seed yield recorded in T14 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 50 DAS) (1898 kg/ha) and untreated check (1432 kg/ha).

During 2011 significantly the highest seed yield of 2442 kg/ha was obtained in T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) treated plot as compared to all other treatments (Table 22) this was followed by T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg+ foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) (2312 kg /ha), T1 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg) (2257 kg/ha), T2 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg) (2171 kg/ha) and T5 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5 g/l at 10 DAS) 2136 kg/ha. The next best treatments include T6 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) (2017 kg/ha) and T10 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25 ml/l at 10 DAS) (2006 kg/ha). The lower seed yield was recorded in T9 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 50 DAS) (1798 kg/ha), T14 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25 ml/l at 50 DAS) (1738 kg/ha) and untreated check recorded least seed yield of 1398 kg/ha.

4.2.4.2 1000 seed weight

1000 seed weight of soybean differed significantly due to application of insecticides during kharif 2010 (Table 22). T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0g/kg+ foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) recorded significantly bolder seed (130.46 g) as compare to T15 (Phorate 10G @ 1.5 kg ai/ha soil application before sowing, RPP) (126.20 g) and untreated check (124.21 g) Similar trend was noticed during 2011.

4.2.5 Influence of insecticides on growth and yield attributes of soybean

4.2.5.1 No.of pods/plant

The spraying of insecticides influenced the pod bearing in soybean plant during kharif 2010 (Table 23). Among the insecticides treatments T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) recorded significantly higher number of pods/plant (62.60) followed by T1 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg) (55.07). While the lowest number of pods/plant (23.43) were recorded in untreated check. During 2011-12 same trend was noticed

4.2.5.2 Plant height at maturity (cms)

The plant height of soybean differed significantly with application of insecticides during kharif 2010 (Table 23). The significantly highest plant height (57.43 cms) was recorded in T10 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 10 DAS) followed by T1 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0g/kg) (50.00cms).whereas the lowest plant height was recorded in unprotected treatment (32.87 cms). Similar trend was noticed during 2011.

4.2.6 Economics in the management of stem fly

The economic feasibility of various treatments during 2010, revealed that the higher incremental returns of Rs 27168 was achieved in T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg+ foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS), whereas the lowest incremental returns Rs 11184 in T14 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 50 DAS). The other treatments T1, T2, T4 and T5 fetched higher net returns compared to the recommended package of practice (Table 24). The cost benefit ratio is concern, the treatment T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg+ foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) recorded highest B: C (3.23)

Plate 7 : Soybean stem tunneling

Table 22: Effect of new molecules of insecticides on 1000 seed weight and yield

Treatments Dosage

Yield parameters Avoidable loss (%) 1000 seed weight (g) Seed yield (kg/ha)

2010 2011 Pooled 2010 2011 Pooled

T1- Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS 3.0g/kg 130.07 130.40 130.24 2348 2257 2302 38.53

T2 -Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS 0.5g/l 129.40 130.01 129.71 2282 2171 2226 36.43

T3 -Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS+ Foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG at 20 DAS

3.0g/kg+0.5g/l 130.13 129.75 129.94 2564 2442 2503 43.46

T4 -Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS + Foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL at 20 DAS

3.0g/kg+0.5g/l 130.46 130.40 130.43 2458 2313 2385 40.67

T5 -Spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG at 10 DAS 0.5g/l 129.48 129.97 129.73 2292 2136 2214 36.08





T10 -Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL at 10 DAS 0.25ml/l 129.06 130.07 129.57 2190 2006 2098 32.55

T11 -Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SLl at 20 DAS 0.25ml/l 129.29 130.09 129.69 2102 1900 2001 29.28




T15 -Phorate 10G soil application before sowing (RPP) 1.5 kg ai/ha 126.20 129.98 126.59 1910 1892 1901 25.56

T16 -Unprotected - 124.21 124.31 124.62 1432 1398 1415 -

S. Em. ± 1.07 1.14 0.04 39.28 35.21 32.29 -

C. D. at 5% 3.10 3.30 0.13 113.24 101.68 91.65 -

DAS – Days after sowing

Table 23: Effect of new molecules of insecticides on number of pods and plant height

Treatments Dosage

Yield parameters

No. of pods/10 plants Plant height at maturity (cm)

2010 2011 Pooled 2010 2011 Pooled

T1- Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS 3.0g/kg 55.07 45.23 50.15 50.00 50.30 50.15

T2 -Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS 0.5g/l 47.50 43.43 45.47 39.70 40.73 40.22


3.0g/kg+0.5g/l 62.60 54.00 58.30 39.93 40.87 40.40


3.0g/kg+0.5g/l 54.20 48.90 51.55 40.83 42.70 41.77

T5 -Spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG at 10 DAS 0.5g/l 46.33 43.50 44.92 38.33 39.70 39.02





T10 -Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL at 10 DAS 0.25ml/l 41.67 40.37 41.02 57.43 55.10 56.27

T11 -Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SLl at 20 DAS 0.25ml/l 44.50 42.53 43.52 80.50 41.73 61.12




T15 -Phorate 10G soil application before sowing (RPP) 1.5 kg ai/ha 31.10 28.67 29.88 48.30 48.80 48.55

T16 –Unprotected - 23.43 22.73 23.08 32.87 48.03 40.45

S. Em. ± 0.08 0.18 0.10 0.19 0.24 0.17

C. D. at 5% 0.24 0.53 0.29 0.55 0.69 0.50

*Average of 10 plants

Table 24: Economics of crop loss estimation studies during 2010 kharif

Treatments Dosage Yield

(q/ha)

Incremental yield

(q/ha)

Total cost of

cultivation

(Rs/ha)

Incrementl returns (Rs/ha)

Net returns (Rs/ha)

B:C ratio

T1- Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS 3.0 g/kg 23.48 9.16 7730 21984 14254 1:2.84

T2 -Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS 0.5 g/l 22.82 8.50 7280 20400 13120 1:2.80


3.0 g/kg+ 0.5g/l

25.64 11.32 10930 27168 16238 1:2.40


3.0 g/kg+ 0.25 ml/l

24.58 10.26 7630 24624 16994 1:3.23

T5 -Spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG at 10 DAS 0.5 g/l 22.92 8.60 8330 20640 12310 1:2.48





T10 -Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL at 10 DAS 0.25 ml/l 21.90 7.58 7180 18192 11012 1:2.53

T11 -Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SLl at 20 DAS 0.25 ml/l 21.02 6.70 7180 16080 8900 1:2.24




T15 -Phorate 10G soil application at sowing (RPP) 1.5 kg ai/ha 19.45 5.13 7980 12312 3982 1:1.48

T16 –Unprotected - 14.32 - 6730 - - -

Market price of Soybean seed Rs: 2400/q

Table 25: Economics of crop loss estimation studies during 2011 kharif

Treatments Dosage Yield

(q/ha)

Incremental yield

(q/ha)

Total cost of

cultivation

(Rs/ha)

Incrementl returns (Rs/ha)

Net returns (RS/ha)

B:C ratio

T1- Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS 3.0g/kg 22.57 8.59 7730 20616 12886 1:2.67

T2 -Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS 0.5g/l 21.71 7.19 7280 17256 9976 1:2.37


3.0g/kg+0.5g/l 24.42 10.44 10930 25056 14126 1:2.21


3.0g/kg+0.5g/l 23.13 9.15 7630 21960 14330 1:2.88

T5 -Spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG at 10 DAS 0.5g/l 21.36 7.38 8330 17712 9382 1:2.13





T10 -Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL at 10 DAS 0.25ml/l 20.06 6.08 7180 14592 7412 1:2.03

T11 -Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SLl at 20 DAS 0.25ml/l 19.00 5.02 7180 12048 4868 1:1.68




T15 -Phorate 10G soil application before sowing (RPP) 1.5 kg ai/ha 18.92 4.94 7980 11856 3876 1:1.58

T16 –Unprotected - 13.98 - 6730 - - -

Market price of Soybean seed Rs. 2400/q

compared to the rest of the treatments, where as the lowest B:C was recorded in T9 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5 g/l at 50 DAS) (1.44).

The economic analysis on the feasibility during 2011, revealed that the higher incremental returns of 25056 was observed in T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg+ foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS).whereas the other treatments T1 to T5 (Table 25) recorded higher net returns compared to recommended package 3876 Rs/ha. The highest B: C ratio 2.88 was observed in T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg+ foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) treatment, whereas the lowest cost benefit ratio was recorded in T9 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5 g/l at 50 DAS) (1.15) and T14 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 50 DAS) (1.23).

4.2.6.1 Per cent Avoidable loss

The treatment T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25%WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) recorded highest per cent avoidable loss (43.46%) followed by T4 (Seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg+ foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS) (40.67 %) Table 22.

4.2.7 Correlation among yield components and stem tunneling per cent (kharif 2010 and 2011)

During 2010 and 2011, the data of the tunneling percentage and stem fly infestation were correlated with yield components. Among the yield components pod no/plant, 1000 seed weight and yield were significantly negatively correlation with absolute tunnel length with ‘r’ value -0.89,-0.91and -0.79 respectively. (Table 26) Similar with the per cent stem fly infestation. Correlation grain yield (r=-0.89), pod no/plant (r=-0.90) and 1000 seed weight (r=-0.85). However plant height was not influenced by per cent stem fly incidence and absolute tunnel length.

4.3 Assessment of crop loss due to leaf eating caterpillar

Yield response of soybean to partial and total artificial defoliation, simulated insect damage at three different growth stages of crop with five levels of artificial defoliation during 2010 and 2011, results are presented here under.

Number of pods/plant, seed weight and yield were significantly affected by defoliation timing, defoliation level, and the defoliation timing X defoliation level treatment combinations were averaged acrossed the years (Table 27).

4.3.1 Number of pods/ plant

The number of pods/plants in soybean differed significantly due to per cent defoliation done at different dates of germination during 2010 and 2011 are presented in Table 27. Among the days of defoliation during 2010, done at 20 days after germination recorded significantly higher pods/plant (66.80) as compared to other days, while the maximum reduction in pods/plant was observed in defoliation done at 60 DAG (52.60) followed by 40 DAG (57.80). Among the per cent defoliation treatment, maximum reduction in the soybean pods/plants was recorded in 100 per cent defoliation (37.67) followed by 75 per cent defoliation (45.00) as compared to other treatments, while the highest number of pods/plant was observed in 0 per cent defoliation (93.33).

Among the interaction effect significantly lowest number of pods /plant were recorded in 100 per cent defoliation followed by 60 DAG (33.30), while significantly higher number of pods/plant were recorded in 0 per cent defoliation (95.00).

During 2011, defoliation done at 20 DAG recorded significantly higher pods/plant (63.60) as compared to other days, while the maximum reduction in pods/plant was observed in defoliation done at 60 DAG (50.40) followed by 40 DAG (56.47). Among the per cent defoliation treatment, maximum reduction in the soybean pods/plants was recorded in 100 per cent defoliation (34.33) followed by 75 per cent defoliation (43.67) as compared to other treatments, while the highest number of pods/plant was observed in 0 per cent defoliation (91.67).

Among the interaction effect significantly lowest number of pods /plant were recorded in 100 per cent defoliation followed by 60 DAG (29.00), while significantly higher number of pods/plant were recorded in 0 per cent defoliation (93.00).

Table 26: Mean correlation between yield components and stem fly infestation

(2010-11 and 2011-12)

Sl. No.

Character pair Correlation

coefficient “r”

1 Stem tunneling (%) and No. of pod / plant -0.89 *

2 Stem tunneling (%) and plant height 0.05

3 Stem tunneling (%) and 1000 seed weight -0.91 **

4 Stem tunneling (%) and yield -0.79*

5 Stemfly infestation (%) and No. of pod/ plant -0.90**

6 Stemfly infestation (%) and plant height -0.07

7 Stemfly infestation (%) and 1000 seed weight -0.85*

8 Stemfly infestation (%) and yield -0.89*

* Significant at 0.05 ** Significant at 0.01

Table 27: Yield response of soybean as influenced by differential levels of artificial defoliation

Tre

atm

en

t co

mb

inati

on

No

. o

f p

od

s/p

lan

t (2

010

)

% r

ed

ucti

on

in

p

od

n

um

ber

No

. o

f p

od

s/p

lan

t (2

011

)

% r

ed

uce

d

po

d n

um

ber

Po

ole

d

% r

ed

ucti

on

p

od

nu

mb

er

100

0 S

eed

w

eig

ht

(gm

s)

(20

10

)

% r

ed

uce

d

see

d w

eig

ht

100

0 S

eed

w

eig

ht

(gm

s)

(20

11

)

% r

ed

ucti

on

see

d w

eig

ht

Po

ole

d

% r

ed

ucti

on

see

d w

eig

ht

Seed

yie

ld

(20

10

)

% y

ield

lo

ss

Seed

yie

ld

(20

11

)

% Y

ield

lo

ss

Seed

yie

ld

po

ole

d

D1 66.80 - 63.60 - 65.20 - 115.40 - 112.87 - 114.14 - 1187.33 - 1158.40 - 1172.90

D2 57.80 13.47 56.47 11.21 57.14 12.36 103.60 10.22 99.47 11.87 101.54 11.03 907.07 23.60 889.00 23.25 898.04

D3 52.60 21.25 50.40 20.75 51.50 21.01 67.40 41.59 65.00 42.41 66.20 42.00 627.47 47.15 567.40 51.00 597.44 S.Em± 0.52 - 0.52 - 0.55 - 0.52 - 0.61 - 0.55 - 11.34 - 20.09 - 14.72

CD 1.51 - 1.50 - 1.55 - 1.50 - 1.78 - 1.54 - 32.86 - 58.20 - 43.53

C1 93.33 - 91.67 - 92.50 - 131.67 - 129.00 - 130.34 - 2308.33 - 2283.33 - 2295.83

C2 67.00 28.21 64.44 29.70 65.72 28.95 106.67 19.00 103.67 19.63 105.17 19.31 1361.67 41.01 1247.00 45.39 1304.34

C3 52.33 43.93 50.00 45.45 51.17 44.68 91.33 30.63 87.89 31.86 89.61 31.24 471.44 79.58 453.67 80.13 462.56

C4 45.00 51.78 43.67 52.36 44.34 52.06 79.33 39.75 76.56 40.65 77.95 40.19 273.33 88.16 266.00 88.35 269.67 C5 37.67 59.63 34.33 62.55 36.00 61.08 68.33 48.10 65.11 49.52 66.72 48.81 121.67 94.73 108.00 95.27 114.84

S.Em± 0.58 - 0.58 - 0.68 - 0.58 - 0.69 - 0.64 - 12.68 - 22.46 - 16.57

CD 1.68 - 1.68 - 1.88 - 1.68 - 1.99 - 1.85 - 36.74 - 65.07 - 48.91

D1C1 95.0 - 93.00 - 94.00 - 130.00 - 129.30 - 129.65 - 2311.70 - 2347.00 - 2329.35

D1C2 81.0 14.73 77.00 17.20 79.00 15.95 124.00 4.61 121.30 6.18 122.65 5.39 1965.30 14.98 1855.00 20.96 1910.15 D1C3 64.0 32.63 61.00 34.40 62.50 33.51 120.00 7.69 115.70 10.51 117.85 9.10 800.70 65.36 775.00 66.97 787.85

D1C4 52.0 45.26 49.00 47.31 50.50 46.27 108.00 16.92 106.00 18.02 107.00 17.47 635.00 72.53 624.00 73.41 629.50

D1C5 42.0 55.78 38.00 59.13 40.00 57.44 95.00 26.92 92.00 28.84 93.50 27.88 224.00 90.31 191.00 91.90 207.50

D2C1 93.0 - 91.00 - 92.00 - 133.00 - 129.00 - 131.00 - 2343.30 - 2306.00 - 2324.65

D2C2 61.0 34.40 59.30 34.83 60.15 34.61 121.00 9.02 118.70 7.98 119.85 8.57 1512.00 35.48 1480.00 35.81 1496.00

D2C3 53.0 43.00 50.00 45.05 51.50 44.02 103.00 22.55 97.30 24.57 100.15 23.73 492.00 79.00 479.00 79.23 485.50 D2C4 44.0 52.68 46.00 49.45 45.00 51.08 88.00 33.83 83.70 35.11 85.85 34.46 103.00 95.60 99.00 95.70 101.00

D2C5 38.0 59.13 36.00 60.43 37.00 59.78 73.00 45.11 68.70 46.74 70.85 4.62 85.00 96.37 81.00 96.48 83.00

D3C1 92.0 - 91.00 - 91.50 - 132.00 - 128.70 - 130.35 - 2270.0 - 2197.00 - 2233.50

D3C2 59.0 35.86 57.00 37.36 58.00 36.61 75.00 42.22 71.00 44.83 73.00 43.99 607.70 73.22 406.00 81.52 506.85

D3C3 40.0 56.52 39.00 57.14 39.50 56.83 51.00 60.90 50.70 60.60 50.85 60.98 121.70 94.64 107.00 95.13 114.35

D3C4 39.0 57.60 36.00 60.43 37.50 55.38 42.00 68.18 40.00 68.91 41.00 68.54 82.00 96.39 75.00 96.60 78.50 D3C5 33.0 64.13 29.00 68.13 31.00 66.12 37.00 71.96 34.70 73.03 35.85 72.49 56.00 97.53 52.00 97.63 54.00 S.Em± 1.16 - 1.16 - 1.17 - 1.16 - 1.37 - 1.28 - 25.37 - 44.93 - 34.12

CD 3.37 - 3.36 - 3.39 - 3.36 - 3.98 - 3.79 - 73.49 - 130.15 - 101.84

D 1: 20 Days after germination (DAG), D 2: 40 DAG, D 3: 60 DAG C1: 0 % defoliation, C2: 25 % defoliation, C3: 50 % defoliation, C4: 75 % defoliation, C5: 100% defoliation

4.3.1.1 Per cent reduction in number of pods/ plant

During 2010, among the stages of leaf defoliation in soybean, defoliation done at 60 DAG recorded 21.25 per cent reduction in pod number pod number as compared to defoliation done at 20 DAG followed by 40 DAG (13.47%). As compared to zero per cent defoliation, 100 per cent defoliation on soybean recorded reduced number of pods to the extent of 59.63 per cent followed by 75 per cent defoliation (51.78%), 50 per cent defoliation (43.93%) and 25% defoliation (28.21%) (Table 27).

The combined effect of stages of defoliation and per cent defoliation also caused significant reduction in pod number. Among the interactions, 100 per cent defoliation during 60 DAG recorded reduced number of pods to the extent of 64.93 per cent followed by 75 per cent defoliation at 60 DAG (57.60%) as compared to other treatment combinations. While the higher number of pods were observed in 25 per cent defoliation at 20 DAG (14.73%) followed by 25 per cent defoliation at 40DAG (34.40%).

During 2011, among the stages of leaf defoliation in soybean, defoliation done at 60 DAG recorded reduced pod number (20.75%) as compared to defoliation done at 20 DAG followed by 40 DAG (11.21%). As compared to zero per cent defoliation, 100 per cent defoliation on soybean recorded reduced number of pods to 62.55 per cent followed by 75 per cent defoliation (52.36%), 50 per cent defoliation (45.45%) and 25% defoliation (29.70%) respectively.

The combined effect of stages of defoliation and per cent defoliation also caused significant reduction in pod number. Among the interactions, 100 per cent defoliation during 60 DAG recorded reduced number of pods to the extent of 68.13 per cent followed by 75 per cent defoliation at 60 DAG (60.43%) as compared to other treatment combinations. While the higher number of pods were observed in 25 per cent defoliation at 20 DAG (17.20%) followed by 25 per cent defoliation at 40DAG (34.83%).

The pooled data pertaining to reduced number of pods over two year revealed that, defoliation done at 60 DAG recorded reduced number of pods (21.01%) as compared to defoliation done at 20 DAG followed by 40 DAG (12.36%). As compared to zero per cent defoliation, 100 per cent defoliation on soybean recorded reduced number of pods to 61.08 per cent followed by 75 per cent defoliation (52.06%), 50 per cent defoliation (44.68%) and 25% defoliation (28.95%).

The combined effect of stages of defoliation and per cent defoliation also caused significant reduction in pod number. Among the interactions, 100 per cent defoliation during 60 DAG recorded reduced number of pods to the extent of 66.12 per cent followed by 75 per cent defoliation at 60 DAG (55.38%) as compared to other treatment combinations. While the higher number of pods was observed in 25 per cent defoliation at 20 DAG (15.95%) followed by 25 per cent defoliation at 40DAG (34.61%).

4.3.2 1000 seed weight

Defoliation of soybean leaves at different day’s intervals recorded in significant reduction in 1000 seed weight during both the years of experiment results are presented in (Table 27).

During 2010, significantly smaller seeds, less seed weight were recorded in defoliation induced at 60 DAG (67.40 g) followed by 40 DAG (103.60 g). While the bolder grains, higher seed weight were recorded in induction of defoliation at 20 DAG (115.40 g). Among the different defoliation treatments, 100 per cent defoliation resulted in significantly smaller grains (68.33 g) followed by 75 per cent defoliation (79.33 g) as compared to other treatments, while the highest seed weight was recorded in 0 per cent defoliation (131.67 g).

Among the interactions, significantly lower seed weight was recorded in 100 per cent defoliation induced during 60 DAG (37.00 g), followed by 75 per cent defoliation induced during 60 DAG (42.00 g), while the significant higher seed weight was recorded in 0 per cent defoliation.

During 2011, significantly less seed weight were in defoliation induced during 60 DAG (65.00 g) followed by 40 DAG (99.47 g), while the higher seed weight were recorded in induction of defoliation at 20 DAG (112.87 g). Among the defoliation treatments, 100 per cent defoliation resulted in significantly less seed weight (65.11 g) followed by 75 per cent defoliation (76.56 g) as compared to other treatments, while the highest seed weight was recorded in 0 per cent defoliation.

Among the interactions, significantly lower seed weight was recorded in 100 per cent defoliation induced during 60 DAG (34.70 g), followed by 75 per cent defoliation induced during 60 DAG (42.00 g), while the significant higher seed weight was recorded in 0 per cent defoliation.

4.3.2.1 Per cent reduced seed weight

During 2010, among the stages of leaf defoliation in soybean, defoliation done at 60 DAG recorded reduced seed weight (41.59%) as compared to defoliation done at 20 DAG followed by 40 DAG (10.22%). As compared to zero defoliation, 100 per cent defoliation on soybean recorded reduced seed weight of 48.10 per cent followed by 75 per cent defoliation (39.75%), 50 per cent defoliation (30.63%) and 25% defoliation (19.00%) (Table 27)

The combined effect of stages of defoliation and per cent defoliation also caused significant reduction in seed weight. Among the interactions, 100 per cent defoliation during 60 DAG recorded seed weight loss to the extent of 71.96 per cent followed by 75 per cent defoliation at 60 DAG (68.18%) as compared to other treatment combinations. While the lower seed weight was observed in 25 per cent defoliation at 20 DAG (4.61%) followed by 25 per cent defoliation at 40DAG (9.02%).

During 2011, among the stages of leaf defoliation in soybean, defoliation done at 60 DAG recorded reduced seed weight (42.41%) as compared to defoliation done at 20 DAG followed by 40 DAG (11.87%). As compared to zero defoliation, 100 per cent defoliation on soybean recorded reduced seed weight of 49.52 per cent followed by 75 per cent defoliation (40.65%), 50 per cent defoliation (31.86%) and 25% defoliation (19.63%).


The pooled data pertaining to reduced seed weight over two year revealed that, defoliation done at 60 DAG recorded reduced seed weight (42.00%) as compared to defoliation done at 20 DAG followed by 40 DAG (11.03%). As compared to zero per cent defoliation, 100 per cent defoliation on soybean recorded reduced seed weight of 48.81 per cent followed by 75 per cent defoliation (40.19%), 50 per cent defoliation (31.24%) and 25% defoliation (19.31%).


4.3.3 Seed yield

Seed yield differed significantly due to induction of defoliation at different dates after germination during 2010 and 2011 results are presented in Table 27.

The soybean seed yield during 2010 was significantly lower in the treatment which leaf defoliation 60 DAG (627.47 kg/ha) as compared to other days of defoliation, while the highest seed yield was obtained in the defoliation treatment received at 20 DAG (1187.33 kg/ha). Among the defoliation treatments, 100 per cent defoliation recorded significantly lower seed yield (121.67 kg/ha) followed by 75 per cent defoliation (273.33 kg/ha) and 50 per cent defoliation (471.44 kg/ha), while the highest yield was obtained under 0 per cent defoliation (2308.33 kg/ha). Interaction effect of per cent defoliation at differed crop stages also had significantly effect on soybean seed yield.

Among the interaction effect significantly lower seed yield was obtained with 100 per cent defoliation caused at 60 DAG (56.00 kg/ha) followed by 75 per cent defoliation at 60 DAG (82.00 kg/ha) as compared to other treatments, where as the highest yield was recorded in 0 per cent defoliation treatments.

The soybean seed yield during 2011-12 was significantly lower in the treatment which leaf defoliation 60 DAG (567.40 kg/ha) as compared to other days of defoliation, while the highest seed yield was obtained in the defoliation treatment received at 20 DAG (1158.40 kg/ha). Among the defoliation treatments, 100 per cent defoliation recorded significantly lower seed yield (108.00 kg/ha) followed by 75 per cent defoliation (266.00 kg/ha) and 50 per cent defoliation (453.67 kg/ha), while the highest yield was obtained under 0 per cent defoliation (2283.33 kg/ha). Interaction effect of per cent defoliation at differed crop stages also had significantly effect on soybean seed yield.

Among the interaction effect significantly lower seed yield was obtained with 100 per cent defoliation caused at 60 DAG (52.00 kg/ha) followed by 75 per cent defoliation at 60 DAG (75.00

kg/ha) as compared to other treatments, where as the highest yield was recorded in 0 per cent defoliation treatments.

4.3.3 Per cent yield loss

During 2010, among the stages of leaf defoliation in soybean, defoliation done during 60 DAG recorded higher per cent loss of yield (47.15%) as compared to defoliation done during 20 DAG followed by 40 DAG (23.60%). As compared to zero per cent defoliation, 100 per cent defoliation on soybean recorded higher loss of seed yield to the extent of 94.73 per cent followed by 75 per cent defoliation (88.16%), 50 per cent defoliation (79.58%) and 25% defoliation (41.01%).

The combined effect of stages of defoliation and per cent defoliation also caused maximum loss in the soybean yield. Among the interactions 100 per cent defoliation during 60 DAG recorded yield loss to the extent of 97.53 per cent followed by 75 per cent defoliation at 60 DAG (96.39%) as compared to other treatment combinations. While the lower seed yield loss was observed in 25 per cent defoliation at 20 DAG (14.98%) followed by 25 per cent defoliation at 40DAG (35.48%).

During 2011, among the stages of leaf defoliation in soybean, defoliation done during 60 DAG recorded higher per cent loss of yield (51.00%) as compared to defoliation done during 20 DAG followed by 40 DAG (23.25%). As compared to zero per cent defoliation, 100 per cent defoliation on soybean recorded higher loss of seed yield to the extent of 95.27 per cent followed by 75 per cent defoliation (88.35%), 50 per cent defoliation (80.13%) and 25% defoliation (45.39%).


The pooled data pertaining to per cent yield loss over two year revealed that, defoliation done during 60 DAG recorded higher per cent loss of yield (33.28%) as compared to defoliation done during 20 DAG followed by 40 DAG (23.43%). As compared to zero per cent defoliation, 100 per cent defoliation on soybean recorded higher loss of seed yield to the extent of 95.00 per cent followed by 75 per cent defoliation (88.25%), 50 per cent defoliation (79.85%) and 25 per cent defoliation (43.20%).


4.4 Management of stemfly and leaf eating cater pillers in soybean

4.4.1 Screening of soybean genotypes against stem fly and leaf eating caterpillar

Data on stem fly incidence was recorded on ten randomly selected genotypes per replication by measuring the length of stem tunneled by stem fly larvae at physiological maturity stage during 2010 and 2011 are presented in Table 28.

4.4.1.1 Response of soybean genotypes against stem fly

During 2010, stem tunneling ranged from 10.61 (MACS 1140) to 27.52 (DS 12-13) per cent. Results revealed that realeased variety PK 1042 was resistant, JS-335 and MAUS 61 were moderately resistant, MACS 450 was moderately susceptible and Bragg highly susceptible to stem fly.

Out of fifty, three genotypes Dsb 11, PS 1466 and MACS 1140 showed highly resistance, two genotypes DSb14 and PK 1042 found resistant, eighteen genotypes MAUS 61, DSb 01, JS 335, DS 26-14, AMS 4-63, DSb 1466, SL 744, SL 752, SL 794,DSb 12,AMS 9933,MACS 1039,RKS 39, PKC 45, JS 12-50, PK 1429, Hardee and MACS 9933 found moderately resistant, twenty three genotypes RKS 54, JS 20-06, JS 93-05, NRC 77, RAUS 05, SL 525, MACS 1188, MACS 124, Punjab 1, MACS 450, JS 72-280, JS 97-52, AMS 1, JS 71-05, MAUS 61, MAUS 158, MACS 57, JS 72 44, MACS 47, PK 416, MACS 32, PK 472 and Himso 1563 were found moderately susceptible, one genotypes SL-751was susceptible and three genotypes DS 12-13, NRC 1 and Bragg were highly susceptible to stem fly.

Table 28: Incidence stem fly on different soybean genotypes

Sl. No. Genotypes Stem tunneling (%)

2010 2011 Pooled

1. DS-12-13 27.52 (30.07) HS 27.52 (30.07) HS 27.52 (30.07) HS

2. PS-1466 12.22 (20.02) HR 14.79 (22.02) R 13.50 (21.04) HR

3. DSb-11 14.22 (21.61) HR 16.95 (23.54) MR 15.58 (22.61) HR

4. MACS-1140 10.61 (18.66) HR 14.96 (22.00) R 12.78 (20.42) HR

5. RKS-54 19.38 (25.23) MS 18.90 (24.91) MS 19.14 (25.08) MS

6. MAUS-61 18.34 (24.55) MR 18.63 (24.74) MR 18.49 (24.65) MR

7. DSb-01 19.07 (25.03) MR 18.71 (24.79) MR 18.89 (24.91) MR

8. JS-335 17.48 (23.97) MR 17.35 (23.88) MR 17.42 (23.92) MR

9. JS-20-06 18.96 (24.96 )MS 18.53 (24.67) MR 18.74 (24.82) MS

10. JS-93-05 19.42 (25.26) MS 21.23 (26.38) MS 20.32 (25.84) MS

11. Bragg 23.13 (27.57) HS 21.24 (26.39) MS 22.19 (26.99) HS

12. DS-26-14 16.25 (23.10) MR 18.16 (24.42) MR 17.21 (23.77) MR

13. NRC-77 21.49 (26.56) MS 20.18 (25.68) MS 20.84 (26.16) MS

14. SL-751 21.54 (26.59) S 21.08 (26.29) MS 21.31 (26.46) S

15. AMS-4-63 18.23 (24.48) MR 18.15 (24.42) MR 18.19 (24.45) MR

16. DSb-14 15.12 (22.28) R 17.64 (24.04) MR 16.38 (23.18) R

17. RAUS-05 19.52 (25.33) MS 18.82 (24.86) MR 19.17 (25.10) MS

18. HIMSO-1563 19.49 (25.31) MS 18.76 (24.82) MR 19.12 (25.07) MS

19. DSb-1466 16.30 (23.12) MR 18.96 (24.95) MS 17.63 (24.05) MR

20. SL-744 18.39 (24.58) MR 17.91 (24.26) MR 18.15 (24.42) MR

21. NRC-1 23.13 (27.57) HS 21.11 (26.31) MS 22.12 (26.95) HS

22. SL-794 18.04 (24.35) MR 18.56 (24.69) MR 18.30 (24.52) MR

23. SL-525 18.65 (24.74) MS 18.01 (24.32) MR 18.33 (24.54) MR

24. MACS-1188 20.71 (26.08) MS 18.04 (24.31) MR 19.37 (25.21) MS

25. SL-752 16.75 (23.40) MR 17.68 (24.08) MR 17.21 (23.78) MS

26. DSb-12 18.25 (24.48) MR 18.33 (24.54) MR 18.29 (24.52) MR

27. AMS-9933 18.09 (24.37) MR 18.48 (24.62) MR 18.28 (24.51) MR

28. MACS-1039 17.79 (24.16) MR 19.85 (25.46) MS 18.82 (24.86) MS

29. RKS-39 16.05 (22.96) MR 17.68 (24.08) MR 16.86 (23.53) MR

30. MACS-124 18.73 (24.80) MS 19.05 (25.01) MS 18.89 (24.91) MS

31. MACS-450 20.16 (25.67) MS 18.10 (24.38) MR 19.13 (25.06) MS

32. PKC-45 17.61 (24.04) MR 17.17 (23.74) MR 17.39 (23.90) MR

33. JS-72-280 18.83 (24.87) MS 18.79 (24.85) MR 18.81 (24.86) MS

34. JS-97-52 18.80 (24.85) MS 19.25 (25.14) MS 19.02 (25.00) MS

35. AMS-1 18.71 (24.79) MS 18.28 (24.51) MR 18.49 (24.65) MR

36. JS-71-05 20.99 (26.22) MS 23.25 (27.64) S 22.12 (26.95) HS

37. MAUS-61 19.71 (25.45) MS 18.72 (24.80) MR 19.21 (25.12) MS

38. MACS-158 18.82 (24.87) MS 18.77 (24.83) MR 18.79 (24.85) MS

39. MACS-57 18.89 (24.91) MS 19.63 (25.40) MS 19.26 (25.16) MS

40. PK-1042 15.52 (22.49) R 18.39 (24.58) MR 16.95 (23.58) MR

41. JS-72-44 18.95 (24.95) MS 20.79 (26.10) MS 19.87 (25.54) MS

42. MACS-47 19.01 (24.98) MS 19.09 (25.04) MS 19.05 (25.02) MS

43. PK-416 19.53 (25.33) MS 19.36 (25.22) MS 19.45 (25.28) MS

44. MACS-32 18.55 (24.67) MS 18.84 (24.87) MR 18.69 (24.78) MS

45 JS-12-250 17.88 (24.23) MR 18.64 (24.75) MR 18.26 (24.49) MS

46 PUNJAB-1 18.43 (24.61) MS 18.74 (24.81) MR 18.59 (24.71) MR

47 PK-1429 17.94 (24.28) MR 18.72 (24.80) MR 18.33 (24.54) MR

48 HARDEE 18.28 (24.51) MR 18.43 (24.61) MR 18.35 (24.56) MR

49 PK-472 18.43 (24.61) MS 18.91 (24.92) MS 18.67 (24.77) MS

50 MACS-9933 18.25 (24.48) MR 18.81 (24.85) MR 18.53 (24.67) MR

S.Em± 0.69 0.88 0.50

CD at 0.05 1.97 2.51 1.43 at 0.01 2.62 3.35 1.91

Note: Stem fly tunneling observation on 10 plants HR: Highly resistant, R: Resistant, MR: Moderately resistant, MS: moderately susceptible, S: Susceptible, HS: Highly susceptible

Figures in the paranthesis are arc sin transformed values

During 2011, stem tunneling was ranged from 14.79 (PS 1466) to 27.52 (DS 12-13) per cent. Results obtained that realeased varieties MAUS 61, JS 335, MACS 450 and PK 1042 showed moderately resistantce, whereas Bragg was found moderately susceptible to stem fly damage.

Out of fifty, two genotypes, PS 1466 and MACS 1140 were found resistant, thirty one genotypes DSb 11,MAUS 61,DSb 01, JS 335, JS 20-06, DS 2613,AMS 4-63, DSb 14, RAUS 05, Himso1563, SL 744, SL 794,SL 752, DSb 12, AMS 9933, RKS 59, MACS 450, PKC 45, JS72-280,AMS 1,MAUS-61,MACS 158,PK 1042,MACS 52,JS 12-250, Punjab 1,PK 1429, Hardee and MACS 9933 showed moderately resistant fifteen genotypes, RKS 54, JS 93-05, NRC 77, Bragg, SL 751, DSb 1466, NRC 1, MACS 1039, MACS 124,JS 97 52, MACS 57, JS 72-44, MACS 47, PK 416 and PK 472 were moderately susceptible, whereas JS 71-05 found susceptible and DS12-13 observed highly susceptible. No genotypes was found highly resistant to stem fly.

Pooled data of two years revealed that out of five realeased varieties, three MAUS61, JS-335 and PK-1042 were found moderately resistant to stem fly infestation, whereas MACS450 found moderately susceptible and Bragg registered highly susceptible to stem fly infestation. Among the fifty genotypes DS12-13 was found highly susceptible, while PS1466, DSb11 and MACS1140 were highly resistant genotypes against stem fly infestation.

4.4.1.2 Relative susceptibility of soybean genotypes against S. obliqua and S. litura in soybean

During 2010, Bihar hairy caterpillar S. obliqua incidence was observed in all the genotypes, the incidence of S. obliqua varied from 0.35 to 0.75 larvae/plant (Table 29). The genotypes DSb-11 (0.40 larvae/plant), JS-20-06 (0.45 larvae/plant), JS-93-05 (0.40 larvae/plant), Himso-1563 (0.40 larvae/plant),MACS-57 (0.40 larvae/plant), MACS-47 (0.35 larvae/plant), Punjab-1 (0.45 larvae/plant) and MACS 9933 (0.45 larvae/plant) have recorded significantly less incidence compared to realeased varieties MAUS-61 (0.60 larvae/plant), JS -335 (0.50 larvae/plant), Bragg (0.70 larvae/plant), MACS-450 (0.65 larvae/plant) and PK-1042 (0.60 larvae/plant) and were moderately susceptible to defoliator.The genotypes PS-1466 (0.60 larvae/plant), MACS 1140 (0.60 larvae/plant), MAUS 61 (0.60 larvae/plant) and AMS -9933 (0.60 larvae/plant) were at par with each other and also at par with the check PK1042 (0.60 larvae/plant) were showed moderately susceptible. None of the genotypes found resistant and highly resistant to S. obliqua.

During 2011, pest population was observed in all the genotypes, the incidence of S. obliqua varied from 0.80 to 1.15 larvae/plant. The genotypes SL- 751 (0.65 larvae/plant), DSb-01 (0.55 larvae/ plant), AMS-4-63 (0.55 larvae/plant) and MACS-57 (0.50 larvae/plant) recorded significantly less incidence than checks Bragg (1.10 larvae/plant), MACS-450 (0.85 larvae/plant) and (MAUS-61 (0.80 larvae/plant) and were moderately resistant to defoliator, S. obliqua.

The genotypes JS-71-05 (1.15 larvae/plant), SL- 744 (1.10 larvae/plant), MACS-32 (1.10 larvae/plant), JS- 27-280 (1.05 larvae/plant), DS-26-14 (1.05 larvae/plant), DSb- 1466 (1.05 larvae/plant) and MACS-1140 (1.00 larvae/plant) recorded significantly higher incidence and were at par with each other the check Bragg (1.10 larvae/plant).

Over two years pooled data revealed that, out of five realeased varieties, three MAUS 61, Bragg and MACS-450 showed moderately susceptible, whereas JS-335 and PK 1042 showed moderately resistant reaction to incidence of S. obliqua. Among the fifty genotypes consistently DSb1, Himso1563, SL 751, RAUS 05, NRC 1, MACS 1039, MACS 124, MACS 57, PK 472, Punjab 1, PK 1429, PK472 and MACS 9933 were moderately resistant to defoliator, S. obliqua.

During 2010, tobacco caterpillar incidence was observed in all the genotypes,the incidence of S. litura varied from 0.55to1.25 larvae/plant.The genotypes Himso-1563 (0.65 larvae/plant),DSb-1466 (0.70larvae/plant),SL-797 (0.85larvae/plant), AMS-9963 (0.70larvae/plant), MACS-1039 (0.70 larvae/plant),RKS-39 (0.75larvae/plant), MACS-124 (0.85 larvae/plant) and JS-72-280 (0.90 larvae/plant), JS- 97-52 (0.85 larvae/plant), MAUS-61 (0.60 larvae/plant),SL-72-44 (0.75larvae/plant), MACS-47 (0.85 larvae/ plant), PK-416 (0.75 larvae/ plant), MACS32 (0.55l arvae/plant), Punjab-1 (0.60l arvae/plant), PK-1429 (0.60l arvae/plant), Hardee (0.75 larvae/plant), PK-472 (0.80 larvae/plant) and MACS-9933 (0.80 larvae/plant) recorded significantly less incidence than checks PK1042 (1.25 larvae/plant), JS -335 (1.15 larvae/plant) and MAUS 61 (1.15 larvae/plant) were at par with each other and were moderately resistant to defoliator, S. litura. None of the genotypes showed resistant and highly resistant to S. litura

Table 29: Varietal reactions against different defoliators in soybean

Sl. No. Genotypes S. obliqua, larvae/plant S. litura, larvae/plant

2010 2011 Pooled 2010 2011 Pooled

1. DS-12-13 0.50 (0.99) MR 0.85 (1.15) MS 0.68 (1.08) MR 1.05 (1.24) MS 2.09 (1.58) MS 1.57 (1.42) MS

2. PS-1466 0.60 (1.04) MS 0.85 (1.16) MS 0.73 (1.10) MS 1.00 (1.21) MS 2.00 (1.53) MR 1.50 (1.38) MR

3. DSb-11 0.40 (0.95) MR 0.85 (1.16) MS 0.63 (1.06) MR 1.00 (1.21) MS 2.17 (1.59) MS 1.58 (1.42) MS

4. MACS-1140 0.60 (1.05) MS 1.00 (1.21) MS 0.80 (1.13) MS 1.00 (1.20) MS 2.09 (1.54) MR 1.54 (1.38) MR

5. RKS-54 0.55 (1.02 )MR 0.85 (1.15) MS 0.70 (1.09) MS 1.00 (1.22) MS 2.25 (1.63) MS 1.63 (1.44) MS

6. MAUS-61 0.60 (1.05) MS 0.80 (1.14) MR 0.70 (1.09) MS 1.15 (1.27) MS 1.92 (1.52) MR 1.53 (1.40) MS

7. DSb-01 0.55 (1.01) MR 0.55 (1.01) MR 0.55 (1.01) MR 1.10 (1.23) MS 1.84 (1.48) MR 1.47 (1.36) MR

8. JS-335 0.50 (0.99) MR 0.60 (1.04) MR 0.55 (1.02) MR 1.15 (1.27) MS 2.17 (1.60) MS 1.66 (1.45) MS

9. JS-20-06 0.45 (0.97) MR 0.80 (1.14) MR 0.63 (1.06) MR 1.10 (1.26) MS 2.50 (1.70) MS 1.80 (1.50) MS

10. JS-93-05 0.40 (0.94) MR 0.70 (1.07) MR 0.55 (1.01) MR 1.05 (1.23) MS 2.25 (1.61) MS 1.65 (1.44) MS

11. Bragg 0.70 (1.09) MS 1.10 (1.26) MS 0.90 (1.18) MS 1.15 (1.26) MS 2.00 (1.53) MR 1.58 (1.40) MS

12. DS-26-14 0.55 (1.02) MR 1.05 (1.23) MS 0.80 (1.13) MS 1.20 (1.27) MS 2.00 (1.53) MR 1.60 (1.41) MS

13. NRC-77 0.65 (1.07) MS 0.70 (1.09) MR 0.68 (1.08) MR 1.25 (1.31) MS 2.08 (1.59) MS 1.67 (1.46) MS

14. SL-751 0.55 (1.02) MR 0.65 (1.07) MR 0.60 (1.04) MR 1.25 (1.31) MS 2.09 (1.58) MS 1.67 (1.45) MS

15. AMS-4-63 0.60 (1.04) MR 0.55 (1.01) MR 0.58 (1.03) MR 1.00 (1.20) MS 1.59 (1.41) MR 1.29 (1.31) MR

16. DSb-14 0.60 (1.04) MR 0.80 (1.14) MR 0.70 (1.09) MS 0.95 (1.19) MS 2.00 (1.53) MR 1.48 (1.37) MR

17. RAUS-05 0.50 (0.99) MR 0.80 (1.13) MR 0.65 (1.06) MR 1.05 (1.23) MS 1.84 (1.50) MR 1.44 (1.37) MR

18. HIMSO-1563 0.40 (0.94) MS 0.95 (1.18) MR 0.68 (1.07) MR 0.65 (1.05) MR 1.83 (1.43) MR 1.24 (1.26) MR

19. DSb-1466 0.50 (0.97) MR 1.05 (1.24) MS 0.78 (1.11) MS 0.70 (1.09) MR 2.17 (1.56) MR 1.44 (1.35) MR

20. SL-744 0.75 (1.11) MS 1.10 (1.25) MS 0.93 (1.18) MS 0.95 (1.20) MS 1.84 (1.51) MR 1.39 (1.37) MR

21. NRC-1 0.50 (0.99) MR 0.75 (1.09) MR 0.63 (1.04) MR 1.10 (1.26) MS 2.25 (1.63) MS 1.68 (1.46) MS

22. SL-794 0.60 (1.04) MS 0.95 (1.18) MS 0.78 (1.11) MS 0.85 (1.13) MR 1.83 (1.43) MR 1.34 (1.29) MR

23. SL-525 0.70 (1.09) MS 0.90 (1.18) MS 0.80 (1.13) MS 1.00 (1.20) MS 2.25 (1.58) MS 1.63 (1.41) MS

24. MACS-1188 0.55 (1.02) MR 0.95 (1.20) MS 0.75 (1.12) MS 1.00 (1.21) MS 2.42 (1.64) MS 1.71 (1.44) MS

25. SL-752 0.55 (1.02) MR 0.60 (1.03) MR 0.58 (1.02) MR 1.00 (1.21) MS 2.67 (1.71) MS 1.83 (1.49) MS

26. DSb-12 0.75 (1.12) MS 0.80 (1.13) MR 0.78 (1.12) MS 1.00 (1.19) MS 2.00 (1.50) MR 1.50 (1.35) MR

27. AMS-9933 0.60 (1.05) MS 0.90 (1.18) MS 0.75 (1.12) MS 0.70 (1.07) MR 2.17 (1.52) MR 1.43 (1.32) MR

28. MACS-1039 0.30 (0.89) MR 0.75 (1.12) MR 0.53 (1.01) MR 0.70 (1.06) MR 2.00 (1.45) MR 1.35 (1.27) MR

29. RKS-39 0.70 (1.09) MS 0.80 (1.14) MR 0.75 (1.11) MS 0.75 (1.11) MR 2.42 (1.62) MS 1.59 (1.39) MR

30. MACS-124 0.15 (0.81) MR 0.60 (1.03) MR 0.38 (0.93) MR 0.85 (1.16) MR 2.50(1.69) MS 1.68 (1.45) MS

Contd…

Sl. No. Genotypes S. obliqua, larvae/plant S. litura, larvae/plant

2010 2011 Pooled 2010 2011 Pooled

31. MACS-450 0.65 (1.05) MS 0.85 (1.16) MR 0.75 (1.11) MS 0.70 (1.09) MR 2.17 (1.58) MS 1.43 (1.36) MR

32. PKC-45 0.55 (1.02) MR 0.95 (1.18) MS 0.75 (1.10) MS 1.15 (1.27) MS 2.17 (1.59) MS 1.66 (1.44) MS

33. JS-72-280 0.70 (1.09) MS 1.05 (1.24) MS 0.88 (1.17) MS 0.90 (1.18) MR 2.25 (1.63) MS 1.58 (1.43) MS

34. JS-97-52 0.65 (1.07) MS 0.85 (1.14) MR 0.75 (1.11) MS 0.85 (1.16) MR 2.17 (1.59) MS 1.51 (1.39) MR

35. AMS-1 0.65 (1.07) MS 0.80 (1.14) MR 0.73 (1.10) MS 0.85 (1.15) MS 2.00(1.53) MR 1.43 (1.36) MR

36. JS-71-05 0.55 (1.02) MR 1.15 (1.28) MR 0.85 (1.16) MS 1.10 (1.26) MS 2.17 (1.61) MS 1.63 (1.45) MS

37. MAUS-61 0.45 (0.97) MR 1.00 (1.22) MS 0.73 (1.10) MS 0.90 (1.17) MR 1.83 (1.49) MR 1.37 (1.34) MR

38. MACS-158 0.65 (1.07) MS 0.80 (1.14) MR 0.73 (1.11) MS 1.20 (1.29) MS 2.42 (1.68) MS 1.81 (1.50) MS

39. MACS-57 0.40 (0.95) MR 0.50 (0.99) MR 0.45 (0.97) MR 1.15 (1.28) MS 2.42 (1.69) MS 1.78 (1.50) MS

40. PK-1042 0.60 (1.05) MS 0.65 (1.07) MR 0.63 (1.06) MR 1.25 (1.31) MS 2.50 (1.69) MS 1.88 (1.51) MS

41. JS-72-44 0.65 (1.07) MS 0.75 (1.11) MR 0.70 (1.09) MS 0.75 (1.11) MR 2.42 (1.64) MS 1.58 (1.41) MS

42. MACS-47 0.35 (0.92) MR 0.95 (1.18) MS 0.65 (1.06) MR 0.85 (1.16) MR 2.25 (1.61) MS 1.55 (1.41) MS

43. PK-416 0.50 (0.99) MR 0.80 (1.11) MR 0.65 (1.06) MR 0.75 (1.12) MR 2.17 (1.59) MS 1.46 (1.38) MR

44. MACS-32 0.50 (0.99) MR 1.10 (1.25) MS 0.80 (1.13) MS 0.55 (1.02) MR 2.59 (1.66) MS 1.57 (1.39) MR

45 JS-12-250 0.70 (1.09) MS 0.80 (1.13) MR 0.75 (1.11) MS 1.05 (1.19) MS 1.83 (1.43) MR 1.44 (1.32) MR

46 PUNJAB-1 0.45 (0.97) MR 0.80 (1.11) MR 0.63 (1.05) MR 0.60 (1.03) MR 1.75 (1.41) MR 1.18 (1.24) MR

47 PK-1429 0.55 (1.02) MR 0.80 (1.13) MR 0.68 (1.07) MR 0.60 (1.01) MR 1.50 (1.29) MR 1.05 (1.16) MR

48 HARDEE 0.55 (1.01) MR 0.95 (1.20) MS 0.75 (1.11) MS 0.75 (1.11) MR 1.75 (1.45) MR 1.25 (1.29) MR

49 PK-472 0.50 (0.99) MR 0.80 (1.14) MR 0.65 (1.07) MR 0.80 (1.14) MR 2.17 (1.59) MS 1.48 (1.39) MR

50 MACS-9933 0.45 (0.97) MR 0.75 (1.12) MR 0.60 (1.05) MR 0.85 (1.16) MR 2.42 (1.68) MS 1.63 (1.45) MS

S.Em± 0.09 0.12 0.10 0.15 0.30 0.23

CD 0.26 0.34 0.28 0.41 0.86 0.65

Note: defoliator population on 10 plants, MR: Moderately resistant, MS: moderately susceptible

During 2011, pest population was observed in all the genotypes. The incidence of S. litura varied from1.50 to2.67 larvae/plant. The genotypes Dsb-01 (1.84 larvae/ plant),RAUS-05 (1.84 larvae/ plant),MAUS-61 (1.83 larvae/ plant),Himso-1563 (1.83 larvae/ plant),SL-794 (1.83 larvae/ plant) and JS-12-250 (1.83 larvae/ plant) recorded significantly less incidence than checks PK-1042 (2.50 larvae/ plant), JS-335 (2.17 larvae/ plant) and MACS-450 (2.17 larvae/ plant) and were moderately resistant to defoliator, S. litura.

The genotypes Dsb-11 (2.17 larvae/plant), RKS-54 (2.25 larvae/plant), JS-20-06 (2.50 larvae/plant),JS-93-05 (2.25larvae/plant),NRC-1 (2.25larvae/plant),MACS-1188 (2.42 larvae/plant), JS-72-44 (2.42 larvae/plant), MACS-57 (2.42 larvae/plant), MACS-32 (2.59 larvae/plant) and SL-752 (2.67 larvae/plant) recorded significantly higher incidence were at par with each other and also at par with the check BRAGG (1.10 larvae/plant) showed moderately susceptible to defoliator, S. litura.

Over two years pooled data revealed that, out of five check varieties, MAUS-61, Bragg, PK-1042 showed moderately susceptible, whereas MACS-450 showed moderately resistant to incidence of S. litura. Among the fifty genotypes Himso 1563, Dsb-1466, SL-794, RAUS-05, AMS-9933, MACS 1039, MAUS 61, MACS 57, Punjab 1, PK 1429 and Hardee were moderately resistant to defoliator, S. litura.

4.4.2 Maximin-Minimax method

During 2010, the grain yield in protected and unprotected plots was recorded from fifty different genotypes for yield loss assessment. In protected plot Dsb-11 and unprotected plots MACS-1140 recorded highest yield of 2241 and 1848 kg/ha respectively. The per cent relative yield recorded maximum in the variety MACS-1140 and per cent relative yield loss recorded maximum in the variety JS-72-44. By putting an acceptable lower limit, L = 75% for Relative yield and upper limit U = 25% for Relative per cent yield loss, a scattered plot was drawn against RY and RP. As per the maximin-minimax method genotypes viz., MACS-1140, JS-335, AMS-4-63, RAUS-5 and AMS-1 fell under second quadrant and rated as susceptible high yielding i.e. tolerant to insect pest complex (Table 30 Fig. 1).

During 2011 the grain yield in protected and unprotected plots was recorded from fifty different genotypes for yield loss assessment. In protected plot Dsb-11 and unprotected plots MACS-1140 recorded highest yield of 2312 and 1876 kg/ha respectively. The per cent relative yield recorded maximum in the variety MACS-1140 and per cent relative yield loss recorded maximum in the variety JS-72-44. By putting an acceptable lower limit, L = 75% for Relative yield and upper limit U = 25% for Relative per cent yield loss, a scattered plot was drawn against RY and RP. As per the maximin-minimax method all genotypes viz., MACS-1140, JS-335, JS-20-06,JS-93-05, RAUS-5 and DSb-17 fell under second quadrant and rated as susceptible high yielding i.e. tolerant to insect pest complex (Table 31 and Fig. 1)

4.4.3 Total phenol and trichome density on different soybean genotypes

4.4.3.1 Total phenol

The total phenol content among genotypes varied from 5 to 16 mg/g/leaf .The highest total phenol content was found in MACS-1140 (16 mg/g. leaf) followed by PS-1466 (15 mg/g. leaf), MACS-158 (15 mg/g. leaf) and JS-12-250 (15 mg/g. leaf). The genotypes DSb-01, DSb-11, NRC-77, AMS-4-63, PKC-45, JS-72-44, JS-97-52 and PK-416 recorded 13 mg/g. leaf. Low content of total phenol 6 mg/g. leaf was observed in JS-335, JS-93-05, BRAGG, DSb-1466, MACS-1039, JS-72-280, MACS-47 and the minimum content was in PK-472 (5 mg/g. leaf) Table 32 and Plate 8.

4.4.3.2 Trichome density

The majority of genotypes including NRC’s and DSb genotypes recorded sparse trichome density (Table 32) while JS-335 was glabrous and PS-1466, MACS-1140, SL-525 and MACS-1039 recorded dense trichomes.

4.4.4 Efficacy of insecticides/bio- rationales in the management of stem fly

The experiment was conducted during kharif 2010 and 2011 seasons to assess the efficacy of some insecticides/ bio-rationales against stem fly and results presented here under.

Fig 1 : Maxmin-Minmax plot for classification of varieties based on yield

potential and loss during 2010

Table 30: Identification of sources of resistance genotype against stem fly as per max- mini method during kharif 2010

Sl. No.

Genotypes Yield under Unprotected

plot (kg/ha) (Y)

Yield under protected plot

(kg/ha) (Z

Per cent yield loss

(P) RY RP Category

1. DS-12-13 1265 1706 25.85 68.45 53.57 S-LY

2. PS-1466 1542 1635 5.69 83.44 11.79 R-HY

3. DSb-11 1645 2241 26.60 89.02 55.11 S-HY

4. MACS-1140 1848 1989 7.09 100.00 14.69 R-HY

5. RKS-54 1143 1453 21.34 61.85 44.21 S-LY

6. MAUS-61 1210 1706 29.07 65.48 60.25 S-LY

7. DSb-01 1257 1937 35.11 68.02 72.75 S-LY

8. JS-335 1456 1878 22.47 78.79 46.57 S-HY

9. JS-20-06 1304 1684 22.57 70.56 46.76 S-LY

10. JS-93-05 1208 1644 26.52 65.37 54.96 S-LY

11. Bragg 989 1413 30.01 53.52 62.18 S-LY

12. DS-26-14 804 911 11.75 43.51 24.34 R-LY

13. NRC-77 1145 1432 20.04 61.96 41.53 S-LY

14. SL-751 1324 2010 34.13 71.65 70.73 S-LY

15. AMS-4-63 1674 1988 15.79 90.58 32.73 S-HY

16. DSb-14 1772 2052 13.65 95.89 28.28 R-HY

17. RAUS-05 1522 2143 28.98 82.36 60.05 S-HY

18. HIMSO-1563 1002 1702 41.13 54.22 85.23 S-LY

19. DSb-1466 865 1007 14.10 46.81 29.22 R-LY

20. SL-744 748 1101 32.06 40.48 66.44 S-LY

21. NRC-1 857 1041 17.68 46.37 36.63 S-LY

22. SL-794 1187 1394 14.85 64.23 30.77 S-LY

23. SL-525 885 1704 48.06 47.89 99.60 S-LY

24. MACS-1188 805 1495 46.15 43.56 95.65 S-LY

25. SL-752 1425 1654 13.85 77.11 28.69 R-HY

26. DSb-12 989 1345 26.47 53.52 54.85 S-LY

27. AMS-9933 1203 2026 40.62 65.10 84.18 S-LY

28. MACS-1039 987 1324 25.45 53.41 52.75 S-LY

29. RKS-39 1102 1431 22.99 59.63 47.64 S-LY

30. MACS-124 1007 1040 3.17 54.49 6.58 R-LY

31. MACS-450 1005 1845 45.53 54.38 94.35 S-LY

32. PKC-45 1135 1425 20.35 61.42 42.17 S-LY

33. JS-72-280 1135 1485 23.57 61.42 48.84 S-LY

34. JS-97-52 1023 1431 28.51 55.36 59.09 S-LY

35. AMS-1 1398 2235 37.45 75.65 77.61 S-HY

36. JS-71-05 973 1784 45.46 52.65 94.21 S-LY

37. MAUS-61 968 1274 24.02 52.38 49.78 S-LY

38. MACS-158 845 1412 40.16 45.73 83.22 S-LY

39. MACS-57 789 1325 40.45 42.69 83.83 S-LY

40. PK-1042 1489 1573 5.34 80.57 11.07 R-HY

41. JS-72-44 845 1633 48.25 45.73 100.00 S-LY

42. MACS-47 1010 1785 43.42 54.65 89.98 S-LY

43. PK-416 988 1275 22.51 53.46 46.65 S-LY

44. MACS-32 845 1032 18.12 45.73 37.55 S-LY

45 JS-12-250 987 1347 26.73 53.41 55.39 S-LY

46 PUNJAB-1 950 1324 28.25 51.41 58.54 S-LY

47 PK-1429 1104 1435 23.07 59.74 47.80 S-LY

48 HARDEE 1008 1631 38.20 54.55 79.16 S-LY

49 PK-472 894 1274 29.83 48.38 61.81 S-LY

50 MACS-9933 981 1764 44.39 53.08 91.99 S-LY

RP: Relative Per cent Yield Loss RY: Relative Yield

Table 31: Identification of sources of resistances genotype against stem fly as per max- mini method during kharif 2011

Sl. No.

Genotypes Yield under un protected plot

(kg/ha) (Y)

Yield under protected plot

(kg/ha) (Z)

Per cent yield loss

(P) RY RP Category

1. DS-12-13 1372 1806 24.03 73.13 49.19 S-LY

2. PS-1466 1617 1750 7.60 86.19 15.56 R-HY

3. DSb-11 1742 2312 24.65 92.86 50.47 S-HY

4. MACS-1140 1876 2078 9.72 100.00 19.90 R-HY

5. RKS-54 1354 1632 17.03 72.17 34.87 S-LY

6. MAUS-61 1302 1867 30.26 69.40 61.95 S-LY

7. DSb-01 1347 2018 33.25 71.80 68.07 S-LY

8. JS-335 1623 1856 12.55 86.51 25.70 S-HY

9. JS-20-06 1412 1705 17.18 75.27 35.18 S-HY

10. JS-93-05 1410 1802 21.75 75.16 44.53 S-HY

11. Bragg 1008 1510 33.25 53.73 68.05 S-LY

12. DS-26-14 746 937 20.38 39.77 41.73 S-LY

13. NRC-77 1231 1552 20.68 65.62 42.34 S-LY

14. SL-751 1412 2171 34.96 75.27 71.57 S-LY

15. AMS-4-63 1754 2015 12.95 93.50 26.52 R-HY

16. DSb-14 1867 2170 13.96 99.52 28.58 R-HY

17. RAUS-05 1604 2207 27.32 85.50 55.93 S-HY

18. HIMSO-1563 975 1692 42.38 51.97 86.75 S-LY

19. DSb-1466 938 1004 6.57 50.00 13.46 R-LY

20. SL-744 832 1117 25.51 44.35 52.23 S-LY

21. NRC-1 945 1108 14.71 50.37 30.11 S-LY

22. SL-794 1215 1400 13.21 64.77 27.05 R-LY

23. SL-525 871 1690 48.46 46.43 99.20 S-LY

24. MACS-1188 797 1453 45.15 42.48 92.42 S-LY

25. SL-752 1534 1744 12.04 81.77 24.65 R-HY

26. DSb-12 1005 1435 29.97 53.57 61.34 S-LY

27. AMS-9933 1203 2026 40.62 64.13 83.16 S-LY

28. MACS-1039 1027 1378 25.47 54.74 52.14 S-LY

29. RKS-39 835 1125 25.78 44.51 52.77 S-LY

30. MACS-124 1007 1040 3.17 53.68 6.50 R-LY

31. MACS-450 893 1742 48.74 47.60 99.77 S-LY

32. PKC-45 760 1240 38.71 40.51 79.24 S-LY

33. JS-72-280 902 1300 30.62 48.08 62.67 S-LY

34. JS-97-52 988 1398 29.33 52.67 60.04 S-LY

35. AMS-1 1604 2123 24.45 85.50 50.04 S-HY

36. JS-71-05 1141 1942 41.25 60.82 84.43 S-LY

37. MAUS-61 1069 1331 19.68 56.98 40.30 S-LY

38. MACS-158 754 1378 45.28 40.19 92.70 S-LY

39. MACS-57 836 1464 42.90 44.56 87.81 S-LY

40. PK-1042 1617 1750 7.60 86.19 15.56 R-HY

41. JS-72-44 912 1783 48.85 48.61 100.00 S-LY

42. MACS-47 904 1608 43.78 48.19 89.62 S-LY

43. PK-416 1007 1379 26.98 53.68 55.22 S-LY

44. MACS-32 760 980 22.45 40.51 45.95 S-LY

45 JS-12-250 948 1265 25.06 50.53 51.30 S-LY

46 PUNJAB-1 959 1318 27.24 51.12 55.76 S-LY

47 PK-1429 1027 1379 25.53 54.74 52.25 S-LY

48 HARDEE 904 1540 41.30 48.19 84.54 S-LY

49 PK-472 865 1150 24.78 46.11 50.73 S-LY

50 MACS-9933 903 1498 39.72 48.13 81.31 S-LY

RP: Relative Per cent Yield Loss RY: Relative Yield

Table 32: Total phenol content and trichome density on different soybean genotypes

Sl. No. Genotypes Phenol

(mg/g/leaf)

Trichome density on

Pods Leaves

1 DS-12-13 10 S S

2 PS-1466 15 D D

3 DSb-11 13 S S

4 MACS-1140 16 D D

5 RKS-54 12 S S

6 MAUS-61 11 S S

7 DSb-01 13 S S

8 JS-335 6 A A

9 JS-20-06 9 S S

10 JS-93-05 6 S S

11 Bragg 6 S S

12 DS-26-14 11 S S

13 NRC-77 13 S S

14 SL-751 11 S S

15 AMS-4-63 13 S S

16 DSb-14 10 S S

17 RAUS-05 9 S S

18 HIMSO-1563 11 S S

19 DSb-1466 6 S S

20 SL-744 9 S S

21 NRC-1 13 S S

22 SL-794 9 S S

23 SL-525 10 D D

24 MACS-1188 9 S S

25 SL-752 9 A A

26 DSb-12 9 S S

27 AMS-9933 11 S S

28 MACS-1039 6 D D

29 RKS-39 11 S S

30 MACS-124 11 S S

31 MACS-450 10 S S

32 PKC-45 13 S S

33 JS-72-280 6 S S

34 JS-97-52 13 S S

35 AMS-1 9 S S

36 JS-71-05 11 S S

37 MAUS-61 9 S S

38 MACS-158 15 S S

39 MACS-57 10 S S

40 PK-1042 16 S S

41 JS-72-44 13 S S

42 MACS-47 6 S S

43 PK-416 13 S S

44 MACS-32 9 S S

45 JS-12-250 15 S S

46 PUNJAB-1 11 S S

47 PK-1429 11 S S

48 HARDEE 9 S S

49 PK-472 5 S S

50 MACS-9933 10 S S

A-Absent, S-Sparse, D-Dense

4.4.4.1 Stem fly infestation (%)

4.4.4.1.1 30 DAS

The data pertaining to stem fly infestation are presented in Table 33. The per cent stem fly infestation on various treatments ranged from 17.78 to 31.11 per cent during 2010. The results on the influence of insecticides/ bio rationales on the stem fly infestation revealed that, significantly lower infestation (17.78%) was recorded in T2 (indoxacarb 14.5SC) which was on par with T1 (emamectin benzoate 5SG), followed by T3 (spinosad 45 SC) recorded 18.89 and 20.00 per cent stem fly infestation respectively. The next best treatments were T4 (nimbecidine) (22.22%). T5 (neem 1500 ppm) (23.33%) and T6 (pongamia leaf extract) (23.33%) were on par with each other. Highest stem fly infestation was noticed in T12 (untreated check) (31.11%).

The per cent stem fly infestation on various treatments ranged from 20.00 to 30.00 per cent during 2011 (Table 33). The results on the influence of insecticides/ bio rationales on the stem fly infestation revealed that, significantly lower infestation (20.00%) was recorded in T2 (indoxacarb 14.5SC). The next best treatments were T1 (emamectin benzoate 5SG) (21.11%) followed by T3

(spinosad 45 SC) recorded 22.22 per cent stem fly infestation were on par with each other. T4

(nimbecidine) and T6 (pongamia leaf extract) recorded 24.44 per cent stem fly infestation were on par with each other. The other treatments T5 (neem 1500 ppm) and T8 (NSKE) recorded 25.56 per cent stem fly infestation. Highest stem fly infestation was noticed in T12 (untreated check) (30.00%).

The trends of different treatments during both seasons were same. The pooled data of two years revealed that, significantly lower infestation (18.89%) was recorded inT2 (indoxacarb 14.5SC) and was on par with T1 (emamectin benzoate 5SG) (20.00%). The next best treatment was T3

(spinosad 45 SC) (21.11%). The untreated check sustained 30.56 per cent stem fly infestation. (Table 33)

4.4.4.1.2 45 DAS

During 2010, 45 DAS T2 (indoxacarb 14.5SC) recorded significantly least per cent stem fly infestation (13.33%) and was on par with T3 (spinosad 45 SC), T1 (emamectin benzoate 5SG) recorded 14.44 and 15.56 per cent stem fly infestation respectively (Table 33). T4 (nimbecidine) and T8 (NSKE) both treatments recorded 17.78 per cent stem fly infestation. The next best treatment was T5 (neem 1500 ppm) (18.89 %). Whereas the highest per cent stem fly infestation was noticed in T12

(untreated check) (34.44%).

The per cent stem fly infestation on various treatments ranged from 14.44 to33.33 per cent during kharif 2011 (Table 33). T2 (indoxacarb 14.5SC) recorded significantly least per cent infestation (14.44 %) which was on par with T1 (emamectin benzoate 5SG) and T3 (spinosad 45 SC recorded 16.67 and 17.78 per cent stem fly infestation respectively. T4 (nimbecidine), T5 (neem 1500 ppm) and T11 (viroson) recorded 20.00, 21.11 and 20.00 per cent stem fly infestatation respectively. Whereas the highest per cent stem fly infestation was recorded in T12 (untreated check) (33.33%).

The trends of different treatments during both seasons were same. The pooled data over the years revealed that, significantly lower stem fly infestation (13.89 %) was recorded in T2 (indoxacarb 14.5SC). T1 (emamectin benzoate 5SG) and T3 (spinosad 45 SC) recorded 16.11 per cent stem fly infestation. The next best treatments were T4 (nimbecidine) and T8 (NSKE) which were recorded 18.89 per cent infestation. The higher stem fly infestation (33.89 %) was recorded in T12 (untreated check) (Table 33).

4.4.4.1.3 60 DAS

During 2010, significantly least per cent stem fly infestation was noticed in T2 (indoxacarb 14.5SC) (10.00 %) and T3 (spinosad 45 SC) (11.11) followed by T1 (emamectin benzoate 5SG) (12.22%) were on par with each other. The next best treatments were T4 (nimbecidine) (13.33%) and T5 (neem 1500 ppm) 14.44 per cent stem fly infestation and untreated check recorded highest per cent stem fly infestation(36.67%) (Table 33).

The per cent stem fly infestation on various treatments ranged from 8.89 to 37.78 per cent during kharif 2011 (Table 33). The results on the influence of insecticides/ bio rationales on the stem fly infestation revealed that, significantly lower infestation (8.89%) was recorded in T2 (indoxacarb 14.5SC). The next best treatments were T1 (emamectin benzoate 5SG) (11.11%) followed by T3

(spinosad 45 SC) recorded 12.22 per cent stem fly infestation were on par with each other. T4

(nimbecidine) recorded 13.33 per cent infestation. The other treatments T5 (neem 1500 ppm) and T6

Table 33: Efficacy of insecticides/bio- rationales in the management of M. sojae during 2010 and 2011

Treatments Dosage

% infestation

30 DAS 45 DAS 60DAS Harvest

2010 2011 POOLED 2010 2011 POOLED 2010 2011 POOLED 2010 2011 POOLED

T1 -Emamectin benzoate 5SG 0.2g/l 18.89 fg

(24.89)

21.11 de

(26.32)

20.00 f

(25.64)

15.56 e-g

(22.50)

16.67 ef

(23.41) 16.11ef (22.98)

12.22 g-i

(20.00)

11.11 fg

(19.06) 11.67 h (19.58)

10.00 f

(18.13)

7.78 f

(15.91) 8.89g

(17.08)

T2 -Indoxacarb 14.5SC 0.5ml/l 17.78 g

(24.15)

20.00 e

(25.64)

18.89 f

(24.91)

13.33 g

(20.93)

14.44 f

(21.75) 13.89 f (21.35)

10.00 i

(18.13)

8.89 g

(17.02)

9.45 i

(17.60)

5.56 g

(13.36)

4.44 g

(11.91) 5.00h

(12.69)

T3 -Spinosad 45 SC 0.2ml/l 20.00 e-g

(25.64)

22.22 c-e

(27.00)

21.11 ef

(26.33)

14.44 fg

(21.76)

17.78 d-f

(24.15)

16.11 ef

(23.00)

11.11 hi

(19.06)

12.22 fg

(20.00)

11.67 h

(19.58)

9.67 fg

(16.31)

10.00 f

(17.95)

9.84 fg

(17.93)

T4 -Nimbecidine 3ml/l 22.22 d-f

(27.01)

24.44b-d

(28.33)

23.33 de

(27.68)

17.78 d-f

(24.15)

20.00 c-e

(25.58)

18.89 de

(24.88)

13.33 f-h

(20.93)

13.33 f

(20.82)

13.33 gh

(20.90)

11.11 ef

(19.06)

11.11 ef

(18.89)

11.11 efg

(19.02)

T5 -Neem 1500 ppm 0.3% 23.33c-e

(27.69)

25.56 bc

(28.97)

24.45 cd

(28.34)

18.89c-f

(24.83)

21.11b-e

(26.22)

20.00 d

(25.54)

14.44 fg

(21.76)

17.78 de

(24.15)

16.11 ef

(23.00)

12.22 ef

(20.00)

14.44 de

(21.75)

13.33 e

(20.90)

T6 -Pongamia leaf extract 5ml/l 23.33c-e

(27.64)

24.44b-d

(28.33)

23.89 de

(27.99)

20.00b-e

(25.58)

21.1 b-d

(26.32)

20.56 cd

(25.96)

17.78 de

(24.15)

18.89 de

(24.89)

18.33 de

(24.53)

20.00 d

(25.64)

16.67 d

(23.32) 18.33 d (24.53)

T7 -GCKE 5% 27.78 ab

(30.20)

26.67 ab

(29.56)

27.22 bc

(29.9)

24.44 b

(28.28)

23.33 bc

(27.64)

23.89 bc

(27.97)

22.22 bc

(27.01)

22.22 cd

(27.00)

22.22 c

(27.02)

23.33 bc

(27.69)

23.33 c

(27.69)

23.33 c

(27.69)

T8 -NSKE 5% 23.33c-e

(27.69)

25.56 bc

(28.97)

24.45 cd

(28.34)

17.78 b

(24.15)

20.00 bc

(25.58)

18.89 de

(24.91)

15.56 ef

(22.58)

14.44 ef

(21.75)

15.00 fg

(22.2)

13.33 e

(20.93)

10.00 f

(18.13)

11.67 ef

(19.58)

T9 -Cow urine 10% 26.67 bc

(29.56)

27.78 ab

(30.20)

27.22 bc

(29.89)

22.22 d-f

(26.96)

25.56 b

(28.97)

23.89 bc

(28.01)

23.33 bc

(27.64)

24.45 bc

(28.28)

23.89 bc

(27.97)

25.56 b

(28.97)

25.56 bc

(28.97)

25.56 bc

(28.97)

T10 -Butter milk 5% 27.78 ab

(30.20)

27.78 ab

(30.20)

27.78 ab

(30.2)

23.33 bc

(27.64)

25.56 b

(28.97) 24.45 b (28.32)

24.44 b

(28.33)

28.89 b

(30.80) 26.67b (29.59)

26.67 b

(29.60)

30.00 b

(31.40)

28.33 b

(30.51)

T11 -Viroson 2% 25.56bcd

(28.97)

24.44b-d

(28.33)

25.00 b-d

(28.65)

21.11b-d

(26.32)

20.00 c-e

(25.64)

20.56 cd

(25.99)

20.00 cd

(25.64)

18.89 de

(24.83)

19.45 d

(25.26)

21.11 cd

(26.32)

16.60 d

(23.32)

18.89 d

(24.88)

T12 -Untreated check - 31.11 a

(31.96)

30.00 a

(31.40)

30.56 a

(31.68)

34.44 a

(33.63)

33.33 a

(33.09)

33.89 a

(33.37)

36.67 a

(34.71)

37.78 a

(35.23)

37.22 a

(34.97)

43.33 a

(37.74)

46.60 a

(39.16)

44.97 a

(38.44)

SEm± 0.70 0.66 0.55 0.97 0.86 0.70 0.73 1.02 0.58 0.63 1.12 0.72

CD at 5% 2.06 1.94 1.60 2.83 2.52 2.06 2.13 3.00 1.71 1.83 3.29 2.12

Figures in the parentheses are arc sin transformed values. DAS = Days after sowimg Means followed by same letters in the column are not statistically different by DMRT (P=0.05)

(pongamia leaf extract) were on par with each other recorded 17.78 and 18.89 per cent stem fly infestation respectively. Highest stem fly infestation was noticed in T12 (untreated check) (37.78%).

The pooled data of two years revealed that, significantly lower infestation (9.45%) was recorded in T2 (indoxacarb 14.5SC). The next best treatment was T3 (spinosad 45 SC) and was on par with T1 (emamectin benzoate 5SG) recorded 11.67 per cent stem fly infestation. The untreated check sustained 37.22 per cent stem fly infestation (Table 33).

4.4.4.1.4 At harvest

The results of the stem fly infestation during 2010 revealed that T2 (indoxacarb 14.5SC) (5.56%) recorded significantly least per cent stem fly infestation as compared to all other treatments(Table 33). The next best treatment was T3 (spinosad 45 SC) (9.67%) and was on par with each other. T1 (emamectin benzoate 5SG) recorded 10.00 per cent stem fly infestation, while T4

(nimbecidine) and T5 (neem 1500 ppm) recorded 11.11 and 12.22 per cent infestation respectively, while T8 (NSKE) noticed (13.33%). Highest stem fly infestation was noticed in T12 (untreated check) (43.33%).

The per cent stem fly infestation on various treatments ranged from 4.44 to 46.60 per cent during kharif 2011 (Table 33). T2 (indoxacarb 14.5SC) recorded significantly least per cent infestation (4.44 %) compared to all other treatments. T1 (emamectin benzoate 5SG) and T3 (spinosad 45 SC) recorded 7.78 and 10.00 per cent stem fly infestation respectively and were on par with each other. The next best treatments were T4 (nimbecidine) (11.11%) and T8 (NSKE) noticed (10.00%). The untreated check recorded highest per cent stem fly infestation (46.60%).

The pooled data over two years revealed that, the significantly lower stem fly infestation (5.00%) was recorded in treatment T2 (indoxacarb 14.5SC, followed by T1 (emamectin benzoate 5SG) (8.89%) and T3 (spinosad 45 SC) (9.84%). The next best treatments were T4 (nimbecidine) (11.11%) and T8 (NSKE) noticed (11.67%). The untreated check recorded highest per cent stem fly infestation (44.97%).

4.4.4.2 Stem tunneling

4.4.4.2.1 30 DAS

The observation on stem tunneling during 2010 revealed that, T3 (spinosad 45 SC) (15.74 %) recorded significantly least per cent stem tunneling followed by T1 (emamectin benzoate 5SG) (18.04%) and T2 (indoxacarb 14.5SC) (17.91%). Highest tunneling was observed in untreated check (19.78%) (Table 34).

The observation on stem tunneling during 2011 revealed that, T1 (emamectin benzoate 5SG), T2 (indoxacarb 14.5SC) and T3 (spinosad 45 SC) recorded significantly least per cent stem tunneling 17.43, 17.49 and 17.58 respectively. The next best treatments were T4 (nimbecidine), T7 (GCKE) and T8 (NSKE) noticed 18.22, 18.25 and 18.23 per cent tunneling respectively. While other treatments recorded higher per cent tunneling but statistically superior over untreated check (23.74%) (Table 34).

The pooled data over the years revealed that, the higher tunneling (21.76%) was observed in untreated check and was significantly more than rest of the treatments. The lower stem tunneling (16.66%) was recorded in T3 (spinosad 45 SC).followed by T1 (emamectin benzoate 5SG) (17.73%) T2

(indoxacarb 14.5SC) (17.70%) which are on par with each other.

4.4.4.2.2 45 DAS

During 2010, least per cent stem tunneling was observed in T3 (spinosad 45 SC) (12.03%) (Table 34) was significantly less then in other treatments followed by T2 (indoxacarb 14.5SC) and T1 (emamectin benzoate 5SG) recorded least per cent stem tunneling 14.54 and 15.23 respectively. The next best treatments were T5 (neem 1500 ppm), T6 (pongamia leaf extract) and T8

(NSKE) were on par with each other recorded 16.91, 16.93 and 16.70 per cent stem tunneling respectively. Untreated check recorded highest per cent stem fly infestation (23.15%).

During 2011, least per cent stem tunneling was observed in T2 (indoxacarb 14.5SC) (13.25%) (Table 34). The next best treatments were T1 (emamectin benzoate 5SG) and T3 (spinosad 45 SC) recorded 13.98 and 14.28 per cent tunneling respectively. Highest per cent tunneling was observed in the untreated check (28.68%).

The pooled data revealed that, significantly lower infestation (13.15%) was recorded in T3

(spinosad 45 SC). The next best treatment was T2 (indoxacarb 14.5SC) and T1 (emamectin benzoate

Table 34: Efficacy of insecticides/bio- rationales in the management of M. sojae during 2010 and 2011

Treatments Dosage

% Tunneling

30 DAS 45DAS 60DAS harvest

2010 2011 POOLED 2010 2011 POOLED 2010 2011 POOLED 2010 2011 POOLED

T1 -Emamectin benzoate 5SG 0.2g/l 18.04

(24.33)ab

17.43 d

(23.93)

17.73 (24.13)bc

15.23

(22.36)de

13.98

(21.42)de

14.60 (21.9)cd

8.96

(17.16)e

8.11

(16.32)e

8.53

(16.74)g

6.61

(14.74)f

5.98

(14.01)h

6.29

(14.38)f

T2 -Indoxacarb 14.5SC 0.5ml/l 17.91

(24.26)ab

17.49 d

(23.97)

17.70 (24.11)bc

14.54

(21.85)e

13.25

(20.86)e

13.89

(21.37)d

7.13

(15.30)f

6.96

(15.12)f

7.04

(15.21)h

5.78

(13.78)f

5.29

(13.18)g

5.54

(13.49)g

T3 -Spinosad 45 SC 0.2ml/l 15.74

(22.71)b

17.58 d

(24.03)

16.66

(23.4)c

12.03

(19.88)f

14.28

(21.66)c-e

13.15

(20.79)d

7.68

(15.88)f

8.71

(16.92)e

8.20 (16.41)g

6.05

(14.09)f

6.23

(14.31)h

6.14

(14.2)f

T4 -Nimbecidine 3ml/l 19.52

(25.25)a

18.22bcd

(24.47)

18.87

(24.88)b

17.06

(23.67)cd

16.32

(23.15)c-d

16.69

(23.41)bc

11.07

(19.08)d

11.10

(19.09)d

11.08

(19.08)e

9.07

(17.26)e

8.08

(16.29)f

8.58

(16.78)e

T5 -Neem 1500 ppm 0.3% 18.45

(24.61)ab

18.15 cd

(24.42)

18.30 (24.52)bc

16.91

(23.55)c-e

16.31

(23.15)b-d

16.61

(23.36)bc

10.04

(18.16)de

11.31

(19.27)d

10.67

(18.73)ef

8.03

(16.25)e

8.17

(16.36)f

8.10

(16.31)e

T6 -Pongamia leaf extract 5ml/l 18.12

(24.40)ab

19.76 b

(25.48)

18.94

(24.95)b

16.93

(23.57)c-e

17.29

(23.84)b

17.11

(23.71)b

13.80

(21.29)c

15.70

(22.70)bc

14.75

(22.01)d

12.56

(20.31)d

12.09

(19.93)d

12.33

(20.12)d

T7 -GCKE 5% 18.70

(24.77)ab

18.25bcd

(24.48)

18.47

(24.63)b

17.11

(23.67)cd

17.09

(23.69)b

17.10 (23.69)b

16.82

(23.49)b

15.01

(22.21)c

15.91 (22.86)bc

14.52

(21.82)c

13.05

(20.70)c

13.78

(21.28)c

T8 -NSKE 5% 18.41

(24.60)ab

18.23bcd

(24.47)

18.32 (24.54)b

16.70

(23.39)de

16.15

(22.89)b-d

16.42

(23.16)bc

9.31

(17.47)e

10.97

(18.98)d

10.14

(18.25)f

8.84

(17.02)e

7.07

(15.24)g

7.95

(16.16)e

T9 -Cow urine 10% 18.94

(24.94)a

19.34 bc

(25.20)

19.14

(25.08)b

18.78

(24.82)bc

18.39

(24.58)b

18.59

(24.71)b

17.03

(23.66)b

16.41

(23.22)b

16.72

(23.44)b

16.97

(23.61)b

15.35

(22.45)b

16.16

(23.04)b

T10 -Butter milk 5% 19.04

(25.01)a

19.43 bc

(25.27)

19.23

(25.14)b

19.76.

(25.48)b

17.03

(23.65)bc

18.40 b (24.58)

18.39

(24.57)b

14.97

(22.15)c

16.68

(23.41)b

18.20

(24.45)b

12.33

(20.13)cd

15.27

(22.39)b

T11 -Viroson 2% 18.38

(24.57)ab

18.17 cd

(24.41)

18.27

(24.5)bc

17.84

(24.21)bc

16.18

(23.06)b-d

17.01

(23.64)b

16.96

(23.60)b

14.63

(21.92)c

15.79

(22.78)c

15.17

(22.31)g

10.96

(18.98)e

13.06

(20.72)cd

T12 -Untreated check - 19.78

(25.49)a

23.74 a

(27.93)

21.76

(26.74)a

23.15

(27.58)a

28.68

(30.70)a

25.92

(29.18)a

27.83

(30.24)a

32.40

(32.63)a

30.12

(31.46)a

34.53

(33.68)a

36.79 a

(34.77)

35.66 a

(34.23)

SEm± 0.64 0.32 0.34 0.54 0.61 0.49 0.35 0.29 0.19 0.39 0.24 0.26

CD at 5% 1.88 0.93 1.01 1.57 1.78 1.42 1.04 0.84 0.55 1.14 0.69 0.76

Figures in the parentheses are arc sin transformed values. DAS = Days after sowing Means followed by same letters in the column are not statistically different by DMRT (P=0.05)

5SG) recorded 13.89 and 14.60 per cent stem fly infestation respectively and was on par with other. The untreated check sustained 25.92 per cent stem fly infestation.

4.4.4.2.3 60 DAS

During 2010, stem tunneling results revealed that, T2 (indoxacarb 14.5SC) (7.13%) and T3

(spinosad 45 SC) (7.68%) recorded least per cent stem tunneling and were on par with each other (Table 39). Next best treatments were T1 (emamectin benzoate 5SG), T8 (NSKE) and T5 (neem 1500 ppm) recorded 8.96, 9.31 and 10.04 per cent stem tunneling respectively. Followed by T4

(nimbecidine) (11.07%). Highest per cent tunneling was observed in the untreated check (27.83%).

Significantly the least per cent stem tunneling were noticed during 2011 stem tunneling results revealed that, T2 (indoxacarb 14.5SC)(6.96%), T1 (emamectin benzoate 5SG) (8.11%) and T3

(spinosad 45 SC) (8.71%) recorded least per cent stem tunneling and were on par with each other (Table 34). The next best treatments were T4 (nimbecidine), T5 (neem 1500 ppm) and T8 (NSKE) recorded 11.10,11.31 and 10.97 per cent tunneling respectively,T6 (pongamia leaf extract) and T11(viroson) were on par with each other recorded 15.70 and 14.63 per cent stem fly infestation respectively. Highest stem fly infestation was noticed in T12 (untreated check) (32.40%).

The per cent stem tunneling of different treatments ranged from 7.13 to 27.83 and 6.96 to 32.40 during 2010 and 2011 seasons, respectively (Table 34). The trends of different treatments during both seasons were same. The pooled data revealed that, significantly lower infestation (7.04%) was recorded in T2 (indoxacarb 14.5SC). The next best treatments was T8 (NSKE) (10.14%), followed by T1 (emamectin benzoate 5SG) (8.53%) and T3 (spinosad 45 SC) (8.20%) were on par with each other.Untreated check recorded highest per cent stem fly infestation (30.12 %).

4.4.4.2.4 At harvest

At harvest during 2010, T2 (indoxacarb 14.5SC) (5.78%) and was on par with T1 (emamectin benzoate 5SG) (6.61%) and T3 (spinosad 45 SC) recorded 6.05 per cent stem tunneling. The next best treatments were T4 (nimbecidine), T5 (neem 1500 ppm) and T8 (NSKE) recorded 9.07, 8.03 and 8.84 per cent tunneling respectively (Table 34). Highest stem fly infestation was noticed in T12

(untreated check) (34.53%).

During 2011-12 stem tunneling results revealed that, significantly the least per cent stem fly infestation were noticed T2 (indoxacarb 14.5SC) (5.29%) (Table 39) compared to all other treatments. While T1 (emamectin benzoate 5SG) (5.98%) T3 (spinosad 45 SC) (6.23%) and T8 (NSKE) (7.07%) recorded and were on par with each other. Highest stem fly infestation was noticed in T12 (untreated check) (36.79%).

The pooled data revealed that, significantly lower infestation (5.54%) was recorded in T2

(indoxacarb 14.5SC). The next best treatments T1 (emamectin benzoate 5SG) (6.29%) and T3

(spinosad 45 SC) (6.14%) were on par with each other. The untreated check recorded highest per cent stem fly infestation (35.66 %).

4.4.4.2.5 Girdle beetle infestation (%)

The severe girdle beetle infestation appeared during early stage of the crop and pest population reduced drastically after 30 days after sowing. Hence, the results pertaining to efficacy of insecticides /bio rationales on girdle beetle infestation during 2011 and 2011 was recorded only at 30 days after sowing and the results are presented in Table 35.

During 2010, lowest per cent girdle beetle infestation was recorded in the treatment T2

(indoxacarb 14.5SC) (2.30 %) followed by T1 (emamectin benzoate 5SG) (2.76%) and were on par with each other. The next best treatments were T2 (indoxacarb 14.5SC) (2.30%) and T4 (nimbecidine) (3.74%) and the treatment T8 (NSKE) recorded 5.19 per cent infestation. Maximum girdle beetle infestation of 11.82 per cent was recorded in untreated check.

During 2011, the girdle beetle infestation significantly varied among the treatments. Highest infestation was recorded in untreated check where as T2 (indoxacarb 14.5SC) (2.59 %) recorded the lowest girdle beetle infestation. The trend during this year was similar as that of earlier where T2

(indoxacarb 14.5SC) was significantly superior over other treatments followed by T1 (emamectin benzoate 5SG) (3.03%) and T3 (spinosad 45 SC) (3.20%).

The trends of different treatments during both seasons were same. The pooled data revealed that, significantly lower infestation (2.45%) was recorded in T2 (indoxacarb 14.5SC), T1 (emamectin

benzoate 5SG) (2.90%) and T3 (spinosad 45 SC) (2.97%) were on par with each other. Untreated check recorded highest per cent stem fly infestation (11.34 %).

4.4.4.2.6 Pod borer damage (%)

The pod borer infestation appeared during pod filling stage. Hence, the results pertaining to efficacy of insecticides /bio rationales on pod borer infestation during 2011 and 2011 was recorded only at harvest and the results are presented in Table 35.

During 2010, the per cent pod borer damage ranged from 9.67 to 37.14. lowest per cent pod borer damage was recorded in treatment T2 (indoxacarb 14.5SC) (9.67%) was significantly lowest compared to all other treatments. The next best treatments were T1 (emamectin benzoate 5SG) (11.85%) and T3 (spinosad 45 SC) (12.93%) were on par with each other. followed by T4

(nimbecidine),T5 (neem 1500 ppm) and the treatment T8 (NSKE) with 15.34, 17.03 and 18.41 per cent pod borer damage respectively and were on par with each other but significantly superior over untreated check (37.14%).

During 2011, significantly lowest per cent pod borer damage was recorded in T2 (indoxacarb 14.5SC) (8.35%) and was on par with T3 (spinosad 45 SC) (9.91%) and T1 (emamectin benzoate 5SG) (10.63%). The next best treatments were T4 (nimbecidine) and T5 (neem 1500 ppm) recorded 14.65 and 16.49 per cent pod borer damage respectively. Highest per cent pod borer damage was noticed in T12 (untreated check) (39.44%).

The trends of different treatments during both seasons were same. The pooled data revealed that, significantly lower infestation was recorded in T2 (indoxacarb 14.5SC) (9.01%) was significantly lowest compared to all other treatments. The next best treatments were T1 (emamectin benzoate 5SG) (11.24%) and T3 (spinosad 45 SC) (11.42%) were on par with each other. followed by T4

(nimbecidine),T5 (neem 1500 ppm) and the treatment T8 (NSKE) 15.00, 16.76 and 18.16 per cent pod borer damage respectively recorded were on par with each other, significantly superior over untreated check (38.29 %).

4.4.4.2.7 Yield (kg/ha)

During kharif 2010, application of insecticides/bio rationales significantly influenced seed yield of soybean (Table 35). Among the treatments T2 (indoxacarb 14.5SC) recorded significantly higher yield of 2707 kg/ha as compared to other treatments but was on par with T1 (emamectin benzoate 5SG) (2643 kg/ha), while the lowest seed yield was recorded in untreated check (1540 kg/ha).

During kharif 2011, insecticides/bio rationales significantly influenced seed yield of soybean (Table 35). Among the treatments T2 (indoxacarb 14.5SC) recorded significantly higher yield of 2435 kg/ha as compared to other treatments but was on par with T1 (emamectin benzoate 5SG) (2397 kg/ha), while the lowest seed yield was recorded in untreated check (1232 kg/ha).

On the basis of pooled data of two years, it was observed that maximum seed yield was observed in treatments T2 (indoxacarb 14.5SC) (2571 kg/ha) as compared to other treatments but was on par with T1 (emamectin benzoate 5SG) (2520 kg/ha), while the lowest seed yield was recorded in untreated check (1386 kg/ha).


The experiment was conducted during 2010 and 2011 seasons to assess the loss occurred due to major leaf eating caterpillars in soybean by using novel insecticides molecules, and poison baits of different chemicals are presented here under.

The results recorded on the efficacy of novel insecticides against major leaf eating caterpillar pests of soybean are presented below. The experiment was carried out by using novel insecticides with Chlorpyriphos 20 EC as a standard check, thiodicarb 75 WP, indoxacarb 14.5 SC, rynaxypyr 20 SC, spinosad 45 SC, emamectin benzoate 5 SG, flubendiamide 480 SC, fipronil 5% SL, imidacloprid 17.8 SL, cartap hydrochloride 50 SP, thiamethoxam 25% WG, acetamaprid 20% SL, and poison baits of methomyl, chlorpyriphos, and monocrotophos .

4.5.1 Efficacy of insecticides in the management of S. obliqua during 2010 and 2011

The results pertaining to the efficacy of novel insecticides on S. obliqua larval population on a day before and at1, 2, 3 and 7 days after spraying (DAS) are given in Table 36.

Table 35: Efficacy of insecticides/bio- rationales in the management of major pests of soybean during 2010 and 2011

Treatments Dosage Girdle beetle infestation (%) Pod borer damage (%) Yield (kg/ha)

2010 2011 pooled 2010 2011 pooled 2010 2011 pooled

T1 -Emamectin benzoate 5SG 0.2g/l 2.76

(9.60)g 3.03

(10.00)fg 2.90

(9.80)g 11.85

(19.73)g 10.63

(18.66)g 11.24

(19.21)g 2643 2397 2520

T2 -Indoxacarb 14.5SC 0.5ml/l 2.30

(10.90)f 2.59

(9.10)g 2.45

(10.00)g 9.67

(17.81)h 8.35

(16.55)h 9.01

(17.19)h 2707 2435 2571

T3 -Spinosad 45 SC 0.2ml/l 2.73

(9.50)g 3.20

(10.30)fg 2.97

(9.90)fg 12.93

(20.59)g 9.91

(18.01)gh 11.42

(19.37)g 2612 2391 2501

T4 -Nimbecidine 3ml/l 3.74

(11.16)f 3.93

(11.40)d-f 3.83

(11.28)ef 15.34

(22.45)f 14.65

(21.94)f 15.00

(22.20)f 2322 2259 2290

T5 -Neem 1500 ppm 0.3% 3.66

(11.00)f 4.20

(11.80)de 3.93

(11.40)d 17.03

(23.60)ef 16.49

(23.28)ef 16.76

(23.46)ef 2085 2205 2195

T6 -Pongamia leaf extract 5ml/l 4.64

(12.40)e 5.78

(13.80)bc 5.21

(13.10)cd 21.11

(26.34)cd 21.62

(26.64)d 21.37

(26.49)cd 1743 1468 1605

T7 -GCKE 5% 8.93

(17.40)b 7.17

(15.50)b 8.05

(16.45)b 23.48

(27.75)c 22.94

(27.45)cd 23.21

(27.62)c 1857 1612 1734

T8 -NSKE 5% 5.19

(13.10)de 5.19

(13.10)cd 5.19

(13.10)d 18.41

(24.51)de 17.92

(24.21)e 18.16

(24.36)e 2282 2187 2234

T9 -Cow urine 10% 7.17

(15.50)c 6.00

(15.20)b 6.59

(15.35)c 27.48

(30.03)b 24.84

(28.57)bc 26.16

(29.32)b 1602 1392 1497

T10 -Butter milk 5% 10.16

(18.50)b 10.00

(18.40)a 10.08

(18.45)a 28.04

(30.35)b 26.34

(29.41)b 27.19

(29.89)b 1595 1285 1440

T11 -Viroson 2% 5.78

(13.80)d 5.00

(12.80)cd 5.39

(13.3)c 24.14

(28.17)c 17.24

(23.80)ef 20.69

(26.08)d 1937 1750. 1843

T12 -Untreated check - 11.82

(20.10)a 10.85

(19.20)a 11.34

(19.65)a 37.14

(34.94)a 39.44

(35.98)a 38.29

(35.47)a 1540 1232 1386

SEm± 0.45 0.55 0.39 0.63 0.61 0.46 40.18 33.93 25.76

CD at 5% 1.33 1.68 2.71 1.84 1.79 1.34 117.85 97.92 75.56

Figures in the parentheses are Arc sin transformed values.

4.5.1.1 At first spray

During 2010, the initial larval population of S. obliqua on one day before imposing the treatment ranged from 2.22 to 2.67 larvae per mrl and there was no significant difference exists among the treatments (Table 36). At one day after spray T6 (flubendiamide 480 SC) recorded the least larval population (1.05 larvae per mrl), T2 (indoxacarb 14.5 SC) and T4 (spinosad 45 SC) found to be the next best treatments which recorded 1.23 and 1.22 larvae per mrl respectively and were on par with each other. However, all the insecticide treatments were significantly superior over untreated check, whereas methomyl posion bait recorded highest larval population of 2.33. At two, three days after spraying similar trend was noticed. At seven days after spraying T6 (flubendiamide 480 SC), T2 (indoxacarb 14.5 SC) and T4 (spinosad 45 SC) recorded significantly least larval population 0.26, 0.40 and 0.40 larvae per mrl respectively, and were on par with each other. Untreated check recorded significantly higher population of S. obliqua (2.55 larvae per mrl).

During 2011, the initial larval population of S. obliqua on one day before imposing the treatment ranged from 2.11 to 2.44 larvae per mrl there was no significant difference exists among the treatments. At one days after spray T6 (flubendiamide 480 SC) recorded the least larval population (0.44 larvae per mrl) was significantly superior over other treatments, T2 (indoxacarb 14.5 SC) and T4

(spinosad 45 SC) found to be the next best treatments which recorded 0.70 and 0.78 larvae per mrl respectively and were on par with each other, followed by T3 (rynaxypyr 20 SC), T5 (emamectin benzoate 5 SG) recorded 1.04 and 1.00 larvae per mrl respectively. However, all the insecticide treatments were significantly superior over untreated check, whereas methomyl posion bait recorded highest larval population of 1.75. At two, three days after spraying similar trend was noticed. At seven days after spraying T6 (flubendiamide 480 SC) (0.14 larvae per mrl) found to be superior over other treatments.T2 (indoxacarb 14.5 SC) and T4 (spinosad 45 SC) recorded significantly lowest larval population 0.31 larvae per mrl were on par with each other. Untreated check recorded significantly higher population of S. obliqua (2.37 larvae per mrl).

The pooled results of first spray revealed that of larval population of S. obliqua on one day before imposing the treatment ranged from 2.11 to 2.50 larvae per mrl which were on par with each other. At one day after spray T6 (flubendiamide 480 SC) recorded the least larval population (0.75 larvae per mrl) and was significantly superior over other treatments, T2 (indoxacarb 14.5 SC) and T4

(spinosad 45 SC) found to be the next best treatments which recorded 0.97 and 1.00 larvae per mrl respectively and were on par with each other, followed by T3 (rynaxypyr 20 SC), T5 (emamectin benzoate 5 SG) recorded 1.24 and 1.25 larvae per mrl respectively. However, all the insecticide treatments were significantly superior over untreated check, whereas methomyl posion bait recorded highest larval population of 2.04. At two, three days after spraying similar trend was noticed. At seven days after spraying T6 (flubendiamide 480 SC) (0.20 larvae per mrl) found to be superior over other treatments.T2 (indoxacarb 14.5 SC) and T4 (spinosad 45 SC) recorded significantly lowest larval population 0.35 larvae per mrl were on par with each other. Untreated check recorded significantly higher population of S. obliqua (2.46 larvae per mrl).

4.5.1.2 At second spray

The results pertaining to the efficacy of novel insecticides on S. obliqua larval population on a day before and at 1, 2, 3 and 7 days after spraying (DAS) are given in Table 37.

During 2010, the initial larval population of S. obliqua on one day before imposing the treatment ranged from 0.64 to 2.70 larvae per mrl there was no significant difference exists among the treatments. At one days after spray T6 (flubendiamide 480 SC) (0.22 larvae per mrl), T2 (indoxacarb 14.5 SC) and T4 (spinosad 45 SC) recorded the least larval population 0.40 larvae per mrl and were on par with each other. However, all the insecticide treatments were significantly superior over untreated check, whereas methomyl posion bait recorded highest larval population of 1.29. At two and three days after spraying similar trend was noticed. At seven days after spraying T6 (flubendiamide 480 SC) recorded significantly low larval population of 0.04 larvae per mrl, T2 (indoxacarb 14.5 SC) and T4 (spinosad 45 SC) recorded larval population of 0.20 larvae per mrl, and were on par with each other. Untreated check recorded significantly higher population of S. obliqua (2.81 larvae per mrl).

During 2011, the initial larval population of S. obliqua on one day before imposing the treatment ranged from 0.52 to 2.70 larvae per mrl there was no significant difference exists among the treatments. At one day after spray T6 (flubendiamide 480 SC) recorded the least larval population (0.18 larvae per mrl) was significantly superior over other treatments, T2 (indoxacarb 14.5 SC) and T4

(spinosad 45 SC) found to be the next best treatments which recorded 0.35 and 0.34 larvae per mrl respectively and were on par with each other, followed by T3 (rynaxypyr 20 SC), T5 (emamectin

Table 36: Efficacy of insecticides in the management of Spilarctia obliqua during Kharif 2010 and 2011 after I Spray

Treatments Dosage Larvae/mrl

1DBS 1 DAS 2 DAS 3 DAS 7 DAS

2010 2011 Pooled 2010 2011 Pooled 2010 2011 Pooled 2010 2011 Pooled 2010 2011 Pooled

T-1Thiodicarb 75 WP 0.75 g/l 2.33

(1.68) 2.11

(1.62) 2.22

(1.65) 1.44

(1.39)fg 0.96

(1.21)e-g 1.20 (1.3)

1.11 (1.27)d-

f

0.80 (1.14)cd

0.96 (1.21)

0.85 (1.16)cd

0.58 (1.04)e

0.72 (1.10)

0.67 (1.08)d-f

0.53 (1.01)g

0.60 (1.05)

T-2Indoxacarb 14.5 SC 0.5 ml/l 2.56

(1.74) 2.22

(1.65) 2.39

(1.70) 1.23

(1.32)gh 0.70

(1.10)g 0.97

(1.21) 0.81

(1.15)fg 0.55

(1.02)de 0.68

(1.09) 0.59

(1.04)de 0.34

(0.92)f 0.47

(0.98) 0.40

(0.95)fg 0.31

(0.90)h 0.35

(0.92)

T-3Rynaxypyre 20 SC 0.2 ml/l 2.22

(1.64) 2.11

(1.60) 2.17

(1.63) 1.44

(1.39)fg 1.04

(1.24)c-f 1.24

(1.32) 1.07def (1.25)

0.86 (1.16)cd

0.97 (1.21)

0.89 (1.17)cd

0.64 e (1.07)

0.77 (1.12)

0.70 (1.08)c-e

0.60 (1.05)e-f

0.65 (1.07)

T-4Spinosad 45 SC 0.2 ml/l 2.22

(1.64) 2.00

(1.58) 2.11

(1.61) 1.22

(1.31)gh 0.78

(1.13)fg 1.00

(1.23)

0.89 (1.18)e-

g

0.55 (1.02)de

0.72 (1.1)

0.59 (1.04)de

0.35 (0.92)f

0.47 (0.99)

0.40 (0.95)e-f

0.31 (0.90)h

0.35 (0.92)

T-5Emamectin benzoate 5 SG

0.2 g/l 2.67

(1.78) 2.44

(1.71) 2.56

(1.75) 1.49

(1.40)e-g 1.00

(1.22)d-f 1.25

(1.32)

1.15 (1.28)d-

f

0.83 (1.15)cd

0.99 (1.22)

0.89 (1.18)cd

0.60 (1.05)e

0.74 (1.11)

0.67 (1.08)d-f

0.57 (1.04)fg

0.62 (1.06)

T-6Flubendiamide 480 SC 0.2 g/l 2.44

(1.71) 2.22

(1.65) 2.33

(1.68) 1.05

(1.25)h 0.44

(0.97)h 0.75

(1.12) 0.63

(1.06)g 0.30

(0.89)e 0.46

(0.98) 0.33

(0.91)e 0.21

(0.84)g 0.27

(0.88) 0.26

(0.86)g 0.14

(0.80)i 0.20

(0.83)

T-7Chlorpyriphos 20 EC 2 ml/l 2.56

(1.75) 2.11

(1.61) 2.33

(1.68) 1.64

(1.46)d-f 1.15

(1.28)c-e 1.40

(1.38) 1.29

(1.34)d 1.00

(1.22)c 1.14

(1.28) 1.04

(1.24)c 0.75

(1.12)de 0.89

(1.18) 0.81

(1.13)cd 0.77

(1.13)de 0.79

(1.14)

T-8Fipronil 5% SL 1 ml/l 2.44

(1.72) 2.44

(1.71) 2.44

(1.71) 1.74

(1.50)c-f 1.29

(1.34)cd 1.52

(1.42) 1.37

(1.37)cd 1.06

(1.25)c 1.22

(1.31) 1.11

(1.27)c 0.93

(1.20)cd 1.02

(1.23) 1.00

(1.22)b-d 0.89

(1.18)cd 0.95

(1.20)

T-9Imidacloprid 17.8 SL 0.25 ml/l 2.33

(1.68) 2.44

(1.71) 2.39

(1.70) 1.77

(1.51)c-e 1.29

(1.34)cd 1.53

(1.42) 1.42

(1.38)cd 1.14

(1.28)c 1.28

(1.33) 1.18

(1.30)c 1.01

(1.23)c 1.10

(1.26) 1.07

(1.24)bc 0.94

(1.20)cd 1.00

(1.23)

T-10Cartap hydrochloride 50 SP

2 g/l 2.33

(1.67) 2.33

(1.68) 2.33

(1.68) 1.63

(1.46)d-f 1.11

(1.27)c-e 1.37

(1.37) 1.26

(1.33)de 0.91

(1.19)c 1.08

(1.26) 0.96

(1.20)c 0.68

(1.09)e 0.82

(1.15) 0.74

(1.09)cd 0.61

(1.05)e-g 0.67

(1.08)

T-11Thiamethoxam 25% WG

0.5 g/l 2.56

(1.74) 2.11

(1.62) 2.33

(1.68) 1.83

(1.52)c-e 1.29

(1.34)cd 1.56

(1.44) 1.40

(1.38)cd 1.06

(1.25)c 1.23

(1.31) 1.11

(1.27)c 0.84

(1.16)cd 0.98

(1.21) 0.92

(1.18)b-d 0.82

(1.15)cd 0.87

(1.17)

T-12Acetamaprid 20% SL 0.25 g/l 2.44

(1.70) 2.33

(1.68) 2.39

(1.70) 1.85

(1.53)cd 1.34

(1.35)c 1.59

(1.45) 1.45

(1.40)cd 1.15

(1.28)c 1.3

(1.34) 1.22

(1.31)c 0.93

(1.20)cd 1.08

(1.26) 1.00

(1.22)b-d 0.76

(1.12)d-f 0.88

(1.17)

T-13Methomyl (PB) -* 2.56

(1.73) 2.44

(1.72) 2.50

(1.73) 2.33

(1.68)ab 1.75

(1.50)b 2.04

(1.59) 1.93

(1.56)b 1.58

(1.44)c 1.76 (1.5)

1.59 (1.45)b

1.01 (1.23)c

1.30 (1.34)

1.29 (1.34)b

1.17 (1.29)b

1.23 (1.31)

T-14Chlorpyriphos (PB) -* 2.67

(1.77) 2.33

(1.68) 2.50

(1.73) 2.11

(1.61)bc 1.71

(1.49)b 1.91

(1.55) 1.78 bc (1.51)

1.50 (1.41)b

1.64 (1.46)

1.56 (1.44)b

1.25 (1.32)b

1.40 (1.38)

1.07 (1.24)bc

0.98 (1.22)bc

1.03 (1.23)

T-15Monocrotophos (PB) -* 2.33

(1.68) 2.11

(1.62) 2.22

(1.65) 1.78

(1.51)c-e 1.29

(1.34)cd 1.54

(1.42) 1.41 cd (1.38)

1.14 (1.28)c

1.28 (1.33)

1.18 (1.29)c

0.87 (1.16)cd

1.03 (1.23)

0.92 (1.18)b-d

0.81 (1.13)de

0.87 (1.16)

T-16Untreated check - 2.44

(1.70) 2.22

(1.65) 2.33

(1.68) 2.48

(1.72)a 2.26

(1.66)a 2.37

(1.69) 2.55 a (1.73)

2.37 (1.69)a

2.46 (1.72)

2.59 (1.76)a

2.48 (1.73)a

2.54 (1.74)

2.55 (1.74)a

2.37 (1.69)a

2.46 (1.72)

S. Em. ± 0.09 0.06 0.18 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.05 0.40 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.03

C. D. at 5% NS NS NS 0.10 0.11 0.03 0.14 0.13 0.10 0.13 0.09 0.10 0.15 0.09 0.02

Figures in the parentheses are √ x+0.5 transformed values. DBS = Days before spray. DAS=Days after spray. mrl = metre row length Means followed by same letters in the column are not statistically different by DMRT (P=0.05), NS= Non significant, PB :Poison bait

* - Rice bran 50 kg + jaggery 4 kg + chemical + 8 litres of water

benzoate 5 SG) recorded 0.64 and 0.61 larvae per mrl respectively. However, all the insecticide treatments were significantly superior over untreated check, whereas methomyl posion bait recorded highest larval population of 1.38. At two and three days after spraying similar trend was noticed. At seven days after spraying T6 (flubendiamide 480 SC) (0.02 larvae per mrl) was found to be superior over other treatments.T2 (indoxacarb 14.5 SC) and T4 (spinosad 45 SC) recorded significantly low larval population of 0.14 larvae per mrl were on par with each other. Untreated check recorded significantly higher population of S. obliqua (2.89 larvae per mrl).

The pooled results of first spray revealed that of larval population of S. obliqua on one day before imposing the treatment ranged from 0.58 to 2.70 larvae per mrl (Table 37) which were on par with each other. At one day after spray T6 (flubendiamide 480 SC) recorded the least larval population (0.20 larvae per mrl) which was significantly superior over other treatments. T2 (indoxacarb 14.5 SC) and T4 (spinosad 45 SC) were found to be the next best treatments which recorded 0.38 and 0.37 larvae per mrl respectively and were on par with each other, followed by T3 (rynaxypyr 20 SC), T5

(emamectin benzoate 5 SG) recorded 0.67 and 0.64 larvae per mrl respectively. However, all the insecticide treatments were significantly superior over untreated check, whereas methomyl and chlorpyriphos posion baits recorded highest larval population of 1.26. At two and three days after spraying similar trend was noticed. At seven days after spraying T6 (flubendiamide 480 SC) (0.03 larvae per mrl) found to be superior over other treatments.T2 (indoxacarb 14.5 SC) and T4 (spinosad 45 SC) recorded significantly low larval population of 0.17 larvae per mrl were on par with each other. Untreated check recorded significantly higher population of S. obliqua (2.85 larvae per mrl).

4.5.2 Efficacy of insecticides in the management of T. orichalcea during 2010 and 2011

The results pertaining to the efficacy of novel insecticides on T. orichalcea larval population on a day before and at1, 2, 3 and 7 days after spraying (DAS) are given in Table 38.


During 2010, the initial larval population of T. orichalcea on one day before imposing the treatment ranged from 2.56 to 3.00 larvae per mrl there was no significant difference exists among the treatments. At one day after spray T6 (flubendiamide 480 SC) recorded the least larval population (0.79 larvae per mrl),T2 (indoxacarb 14.5 SC) and T4 (spinosad 45 SC) found to be the next best treatments which recorded 0.96 and 1.00 larvae per mrl respectively and were on par with each other. However, all the insecticide treatments were significantly superior over untreated check, whereas methomyl posion bait recorded highest larval population of 2.12. At two, three days after spraying similar trend was noticed. At seven days after spraying T6 (flubendiamide 480 SC), T2 (indoxacarb 14.5 SC) and T4 (spinosad 45 SC) recorded significantly lowest larval population 0.22, 0.37 and 0.37 larvae per mrl respectively, and were on par with each other.Untreated check recorded significantly higher population of T. orichalcea (2.67 larvae per mrl).

During 2011, the initial larval population of T. orichalcea on one day before imposing the treatment ranged from 2.22 to 2.67 larvae per mrl there was no significant difference exists among the treatments. At one day after spray T6 (flubendiamide 480 SC) recorded the least larval population (0.59 larvae per mrl) was significantly superior over other treatments, T2 (indoxacarb 14.5 SC) T1 (thiodicarb 75 WP) and T4 (spinosad 45 SC) found to be the next best treatments which recorded 0.78, 0.81 and 0.85 larvae per mrl respectively and were on par with each other, followed by T3 ( rynaxypyr 20 SC), T5 (emamectin benzoate 5 SG) recorded 1.04 and 1.11 larvae per mrl respectively. However, all the insecticide treatments were significantly superior over untreated check, whereas methomyl posion bait recorded highest larval population of 1.89. At two, three days after spraying similar trend was noticed. At seven days after spraying T6 (flubendiamide 480 SC) (0.07 larvae per mrl) found to be superior over other treatments.T2 (indoxacarb 14.5 SC) and T4 (spinosad 45 SC) recorded significantly lowest larval population 0.26 larvae per mrl were on par with each other. Untreated check recorded significantly higher population T. orichalcea (2.67 larvae per mrl).

The pooled results of first spray revealed that of larval population of T. orichalcea on one day before imposing the treatment ranged from 2.44 to 2.83 larvae per mrl which were on par with each other. At one day after spray T6 (flubendiamide 480 SC) recorded the least larval population (0.69 larvae per mrl) was significantly superior over other treatments, T2 (indoxacarb 14.5 SC) and T4

(spinosad 45 SC) found to be the next best treatments which recorded 0.87 and 0.93 larvae per mrl respectively and were on par with each other, followed by T3 (rynaxypyr 20 SC), T5 (emamectin benzoate 5 SG) recorded 1.13 and 1.19 larvae per mrl respectively. However, all the insecticide

Table 37: Efficacy of insecticides in the management of Spilarctia obliqua during Kharif 2010 and 2011 after II Spray

Treatments Dosage




(1.27) 1.00

(1.22) 1.06

(1.25) 0.67

(1.08)f 0.55

(1.03)fg 0.61

(1.05) 0.52

(1.01)f 0.50

(1.00)hi 0.51

(1.00) 0.43 f (0.97)

0.45 (0.98)e-g

0.44 (0.97)

0.40 (0.95)f

0.37 (0.93)f

0.39 (0.94)


(1.16) 0.78

(1.12) 0.82

(1.14) 0.40

(0.95)g 0.35

(0.92)gh 0.38

(0.94) 0.33

(0.91)g 0.32

(0.91)i 0.33

(0.91) 0.24 g (0.86)

0.25 (0.87)f-h

0.25 (0.86)

0.2 0 (0.84)g

0.14 (0.80)g

0.17 (0.82)


(1.25) 0.96

(1.21) 1.02

(1.23) 0.70

(1.10)ef 0.64

(1.07)ef 0.67

(1.08) 0.60

(1.05)ef 0.59

(1.04)gh 0.59

(1.05) 0.53 ef (1.01)

0.54 (1.02)d-f

0.54 (1.02)

0.52 (1.01)ef

0.43 (0.96)ef

0.47 (0.99)


(1.16) 0.78

(1.12) 0.82

(1.14) 0.40

(0.95)g 0.34

(0.92)gh 0.37

(0.93) 0.33

(0.91)g 0.32

(0.91)i 0.33

(0.91) 0.24 g (0.86)

0.25 (0.83)gh

0.24 (0.86)

0.20 (0.84)g

0.14 (0.80)g

0.17 (0.82)


0.2 g/l 1.15

(1.28) 1.07

(1.25) 1.11

(1.27) 0.67

(1.08)f 0.61

(1.05)ef 0.64

(1.07) 0.56

(1.03)f 0.55

(1.02)gh 0.55

(1.03) 0.46 f (0.97)

0.47 (0.98)e-g

0.46 (0.98)

0.40 (0.95)f

0.36 (0.91)f

0.38 (0.93)


(1.06) 0.52

(1.01) 0.58

(1.04) 0.22

(0.85)g 0.18

(0.83)h 0.20

(0.84) 0.15

(0.81)h 0.14

(0.80)j 0.15 (0.8)

0.07 h (0.75)

0.10 (0.77)h

0.08 (0.76)

0.04 (0.73)h

0.02 (0.72)g

0.03 (0.73)


(1.34) 1.18

(1.29) 1.24

(1.32) 0.81

(1.14)d-f 0.74

(1.11)d-f 0.77

(1.13) 0.70

(1.10)d-f 0.67

(1.08)e-h 0.69

(1.09) 0.63def (1.06)

0.63 (1.06)c-e

0.63 (1.06)

0.59 (1.04)de

0.53 (0.99)d-f

0.56 (1.03)


(1.36) 1.26

(1.32) 1.31

(1.34) 0.97

(1.21)c-e 0.93

(1.20)c-e 0.95 (1.2)

0.90 (1.18)cd

0.87 (1.17)de

0.89 (1.18)

0.80 cd (1.14)

0.82 (1.15)b-d

0.81 (1.14)

0.82 (1.15)c

0.71 (1.10)cd

0.76 (1.12)


(1.38) 1.33

(1.35) 1.37

(1.36) 1.12

(1.27)bc 1.01

(1.23)cd 1.07

(1.25) 1.00

(1.22)bc 0.98

(1.22)cd 0.99

(1.22) 0.90 c (1.18)

0.92 (1.19)bc

0.91 (1.19)

0.90 (1.18)c

0.80 (1.14)bc

0.85 (1.16)


2 g/l 1.26

(1.32) 1.15

(1.28) 1.20

(1.30) 0.75

(1.12)d-f 0.68

(1.09)ef 0.72 (1.1)

0.67 (1.08)d-f

0.63 (1.06)f-h

0.65 (1.07)

0.60def (1.05)

0.61 (1.05)c-e

0.60 (1.05)

0.56 (1.03)de

0.49 (0.99)d-f

0.53 (1.01)

T-11Thiamethoxam 25% WG 0.5 g/l 1.40

(1.38) 1.33

(1.35) 1.37

(1.37) 0.93

(1.20)c-e 0.84

(1.16)d-f 0.88

(1.18) 0.85

(1.16)cd 0.82

(1.15)d-f 0.83

(1.15) 0.76 cd (1.12)

0.79 (1.13)c-e

0.77 (1.13)

0.74 (1.11)cd

0.64 (1.06)c-

e

0.69 (1.09)


(1.39) 1.37

(1.36) 1.41

(1.38) 1.01

(1.23)b-d 0.94

(1.20)c-e 0.98

(1.21) 0.89

(1.18)cd 0.85

(1.16)d-f 0.87

(1.17) 0.80 cd (1.14)

0.83 (1.15)b-d

0.81 (1.15)

0.82 (1.15)c

0.75 (1.11)bc

0.78 (1.13)


(1.57) 1.89

(1.55) 1.93

(1.56) 1.11

(1.28)bc 1.38

(1.37)b 1.26

(1.33) 1.22 b (1.31)

1.18 (1.29)bc

1.20 (1.30)

0.83 cd (1.15)

1.17 (1.29)b

1.16 (1.28)

1.12 (1.27)b

0.89 (1.17)bc

1.00 (1.23)


(1.51) 1.67

(1.47) 1.72

(1.49) 1.29

(1.34)b 1.23

(1.31)bc 1.26

(1.33) 0.97 c (1.21)

1.26 (1.33)b

1.12 (1.27)

1.14 b (1.28)

0.85 (1.15)b-d

0.84 (1.15)

0.82 (1.15)c

1.00 (1.22)b

0.91 (1.19)


(1.38) 1.43

(1.38) 1.43

(1.38) 0.92

(1.18)c-f 0.87

(1.16)d-f 0.89

(1.18) 0.81cde (1.14)

0.78 (1.12)a

0.80 (1.13)

0.73cde (1.10)

0.76 (1.12)c-e

0.75 (1.11)

0.74 (1.11)cd

0.75 (1.11)bc

0.75 (1.11)


(1.78) 2.70

(1.78) 2.70

(1.78) 2.70

(1.78)a 2.81

(1.82)a 2.76 (1.8)

2.74 a (1.80)

2.81 (1.82)

2.78 (1.81)

2.92 a (1.85)

2.92 (1.85)a

2.92 (1.85)

2.81 (1.82)a

2.89 (1.84)a

2.85 (1.83)

S. Em. ± 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.03 0.04 0.02

C. D. at 5% NS NS NS 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.14 0.03 0.10 0.11 0.07



treatments were significantly superior over untreated check, whereas methomyl posion bait recorded highest larval population of 2.00. At two and three days after spraying similar trend was noticed. At seven days after spraying T6 (flubendiamide 480 SC) (0.14 larvae per mrl) found to be superior over other treatments.T2 (indoxacarb 14.5 SC) and T4 (spinosad 45 SC) recorded significantly lowest larval population 0.32 larvae per mrl were on par with each other. Untreated check recorded significantly higher population T. orichalcea (2.67 larvae per mrl).


The results pertaining to the efficacy of novel insecticides on T. orichalcea larval population on aday before and at1, 2, 3 and 7 days after spraying (DAS) are given in Table 39.

During 2010, the initial larval population of T. orichalcea on one day before imposing the treatment ranged from 1.15 to 2.89 larvae per mrl there was no significant difference exists among the treatments. At one day after spray T6 (flubendiamide 480 SC) recorded the least larval population (0.26 larvae per mrl), T2 (indoxacarb 14.5 SC) and T4 (spinosad 45 SC) found to be the next best treatments which recorded 0.55 larvae per mrl and were on par with each other. However, all the insecticide treatments were significantly superior over untreated check, whereas methomyl posion bait recorded highest larval population of 1.56. At two, three days after spraying similar trend was noticed. At seven days after spraying T6 (flubendiamide 480 SC), T2 (indoxacarb 14.5 SC) and T4 (spinosad 45 SC) recorded significantly lowest larval population 0.11, 0.26 and 0.26 larvae per mrl respectively, and were on par with each other. Untreated check recorded significantly higher population of T. orichalcea (3.07 larvae per mrl).

During 2011, the initial larval population of T. orichalcea on one day before imposing the treatment ranged from 0.67 to 2.89 larvae per mrl there was no significant difference exists among the treatments. At one days after spray T6 (flubendiamide 480 SC) recorded the least larval population (0.26 larvae per mrl) was significantly superior over other treatments, T2 (indoxacarb 14.5 SC) and T4

(spinosad 45 SC) found to be the next best treatments which recorded 0.41 and 0.39 larvae per mrl respectively and were on par with each other, followed by T3 (rynaxypyr 20 SC), T5 (emamectin benzoate 5 SG) recorded 0.69 and 0.65 larvae per mrl respectively. However, all the insecticide treatments were significantly superior over untreated check, whereas methomyl posion bait recorded highest larval population of 1.29. At two, three days after spraying similar trend was noticed. At seven days after spraying T6 (flubendiamide 480 SC) (0.10 larvae per mrl) found to be superior over other treatments.T2 (indoxacarb 14.5 SC) and T4 (spinosad 45 SC) recorded significantly lowest larval population 0.25 larvae per mrl were on par with each other. Untreated check recorded significantly higher population T. orichalcea (3.18 larvae per mrl).

The pooled results of first spray revealed that of larval population of T. orichalcea on one day before imposing the treatment ranged from 0.91 to 2.89 larvae per mrl which were on par with each other. At one day after spray T6 (flubendiamide 480 SC) recorded the least larval population (0.26 larvae per mrl) was significantly superior over other treatments, T2 (indoxacarb 14.5 SC) and T4

(spinosad 45 SC) found to be the next best treatments which recorded 0.48 and 0.47 larvae per mrl respectively and were on par with each other, followed by T3 (rynaxypyr 20 SC), T5 (emamectin benzoate 5 SG) recorded 0.77 and 0.72 larvae per mrl respectively. However, all the insecticide treatments were significantly superior over untreated check, whereas methomyl posion bait recorded highest larval population of 1.39. At two, three days after spraying similar trend was noticed. At seven days after spraying T6 (flubendiamide 480 SC) (0.11 larvae per mrl) found to be superior over other treatments.T2 (indoxacarb 14.5 SC) and T4 (spinosad 45 SC) recorded significantly lowest larval population 0.26 larvae per mrl were on par with each other.Untreated check recorded significantly higher population T. orichalcea (3.13 larvae per mrl).

4.6.3 Efficacy of insecticides in the management of S. litura during 2010 and 2011

The results pertaining to the efficacy of novel insecticides on S. litura larval population on a day before and at 1, 2, 3 and 7 days after spraying (DAS) are given in Table 40.


During 2010, the initial larval population of S. litura on one day before imposing the treatment ranged from 3.22 to 3.89 larvae per mrl there was no significant difference exists among the treatments. At one day after spray T6 (flubendiamide 480 SC) recorded the least larval population (0.97 larvae per mrl),T2 (indoxacarb 14.5 SC) and T4 (spinosad 45 SC) found to be the next best treatments which recorded 1.12 and 1.11 larvae per mrl respectively and were on par with each other.

Table 38: Efficacy of insecticides in the management of Thysanoplusia orichalcea during Kharif 2010 and 2011 after I Spray

Treatments Dosage




(1.77) 2.33

(1.68) 2.50

(1.73) 1.26

(1.32)d-g 0.81

(1.14)fg 1.03

(1.24) 0.85

(1.16)d-f 0.62 def (1.06)

0.74 (1.11)

0.61 f (1.05)

0.57 (1.04)fg

0.59 (1.04)

0.59 (1.04)f

0.45 g (0.97)

0.52 (1.01)


(1.81) 2.33

(1.67) 2.56

(1.74) 0.96

(1.21)fg 0.78

(1.13)fg 0.87

(1.17) 0.59

(1.04)fg 0.41efg (0.95)

0.5 (1.00)

0.39 g (0.94)

0.37 (0.93)gh

0.38 (0.94)

0.37 (0.93)g

0.26 h (0.87)

0.32 (0.90)


(1.77) 2.56

(1.74) 2.61

(1.76) 1.22

(1.31)d-g 1.04

(1.24)d-f 1.13

(1.28) 0.92

(1.18)d-f 0.69cdef

(1.09) 0.81

(1.14) 0.69 ef (1.09)

0.67 (1.08)ef

0.68 (1.09)

0.66 (1.08)ef

0.55 fg (1.03)

0.61 (1.05)


(1.74) 2.44

(1.70) 2.50

(1.72) 1.00

(1.22)e-g 0.85

(1.16)ef 0.93

(1.19) 0.63

(1.06)e-g 0.39 fg (0.94)

0.51 (1)

0.39 g (0.94)

0.37 (0.93)gh

0.38 (0.94)

0.37 (0.93)g

0.26 h (0.87)

0.32 (0.9)


0.2 g/l 3.00

(1.87) 2.56

(1.73) 2.78 (1.8)

1.28 (1.33)d-f

1.11 (1.27)c-e

1.19 (1.30)

0.89 (1.18)d-f

0.65 de (1.07)

0.77 (1.13)

0.66 ef (1.08)

0.63 (1.06)f

0.65 (1.07)

0.63 (1.06)f

0.43 g (0.97)

0.53 (1.01)


(1.81) 2.67

(1.77) 2.72

(1.79) 0.79

(1.13)g 0.59

(1.04)g 0.69

(1.09) 0.33

(0.91)g 0.24 g (0.86)

0.29 (0.89)

0.24 h (0.86)

0.22 (0.85)h

0.23 (0.86)

0.22 (0.85)g

0.07 i (0.75)

0.14 (0.80)


(1.76) 2.33

(1.68) 2.50

(1.73) 1.39

(1.37)c-f 1.26

(1.33)cd 1.32

(1.35) 1.04

(1.24)c-e 0.80 cd (1.14)

0.92 (1.19)

0.80de (1.14)

0.77 (1.13)d-f

0.78 (1.13)

0.78 (1.13)d-f

0.60defg (1.05)

0.69 (1.09)


(1.86) 2.44

(1.70) 2.72

(1.79) 1.52

(1.42)c-e 1.29

(1.34)cd 1.41

(1.38) 1.11

(1.27)b-d 0.99

(1.22)b-d 1.05

(1.24) 0.99

(1.22)cd 0.96

(1.21)c-e 0.97

(1.21) 0.96

(1.21)cd 0.77

(1.13)cd 0.86

(1.17)


(1.87) 2.33

(1.68) 2.67

(1.78) 1.56

(1.43)b-d 1.35

(1.36)c 1.45

(1.40) 1.18

(1.29)b-d 1.06

(1.25)bc 1.12

(1.27) 1.06

(1.25)c 1.03

(1.24)cd 1.05

(1.24) 1.03

(1.24)bc 0.87 c (1.17)c

0.95 (1.20)


2 g/l 2.89

(1.84) 2.56

(1.74) 2.72

(1.79) 1.38

(1.36)c-f 1.22

(1.31)cd 1.30

(1.34) 0.99

(1.22)d-f 0.72

(1.10)c-e 0.85

(1.16) 0.72

(1.10)ef 0.70

(1.09)ef 0.71 (1.1)

0.70 (1.09)ef

0.57 (1.04)e-g

0.64 (1.07)


0.5 g/l 2.67

(1.78) 2.22

(1.64) 2.44

(1.72) 1.59

(1.44)b-d 1.37

(1.37)c 1.48

(1.41) 1.11

(1.27)b-d 0.91

(1.19)b-d 1.01

(1.23) 0.91

(1.19)cd 0.87

(1.17)d-f 0.89

(1.18)

0.89 (1.18)c-

e

0.73 (1.11)c-f

0.81 (1.14)


(1.84) 2.22

(1.64) 2.56

(1.74) 1.63

(1.46)b-d 1.41

(1.38)c 1.52

(1.42) 1.22

(1.31)b-d 0.99

(1.21)b-d 1.1

(1.26) 1.00

(1.22)cd 0.97

(1.20)de 0.98

(1.22) 0.96

(1.21)cd 0.76

(1.12)c-e 0.86

(1.17)


(1.87) 2.67

(1.78) 2.83

(1.83) 2.12

(1.62)ab 1.89

(1.55)b 2.00

(1.58) 1.56

(1.43)bc 1.28

(1.33)b 1.42

(1.38) 1.41

(1.38)b 1.40

(1.38)b 1.41

(1.38) 1.26

(1.18)b 1.13

(1.27)b 1.20

(1.30)


(1.84) 2.44

(1.71) 2.67

(1.78) 1.90

0(1.55)bc 1.74

(1.50)b 1.82

(1.52) 1.63

(1.46)b 1.05

(1.24)bc 1.34

(1.36) 1.28

(1.33)b 1.27

(1.33)bc 1.27

(1.33) 1.03

(1.24)bc 0.80

(1.14)c 0.92

(1.19)


(1.78) 2.56

(1.75) 2.61

(1.76) 1.56

(1.42)c-e 1.40

(1.38)c 1.48

(1.40) 1.18

(1.29)b-d 0.91

(1.18)b-d 1.05

(1.24) 0.91

(1.19)cd 0.90

(1.17)d-f 0.9

(1.18)

0.89 (1.17)c-

e

0.70 (1.09)c-f

0.80 (1.14)


(1.73) 2.44

(1.72) 2.46

(1.72) 2.52 a (1.74)

2.52 (1.74)a

2.52 (1.74)

2.59 (1.76)a

2.59 (1.76)a

2.59 (1.76)

2.74 (1.79)a

2.74 (1.80)a

2.74 (1.8)

2.67 (1.77)a

2.67 (1.78)a

2.67 (1.78)

S. Em. ± 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.03

C. D. at 5% NS NS NS 0.18 0.11 0.14 0.18 0.14 0.12 0.09 0.12 0.08 0.11 0.08 0.08



Table 39: Efficacy of insecticides in the management of Thysanoplusia orichalcea during Kharif 2010 and 2011 after II Spray

Treatments Dosage Larvae/mrl




(1.42) 1.15

(1.28) 1.33

(1.35) 0.82

(1.15)de 0.61

(1.05)h 0.72 (1.1)

0.59 (1.04)fg

0.52 (1.01)ef

0.56 (1.03)

0.52 (1.01)g

0.49 (0.99)fg

0.56 (1.03)

0.48 (0.99)f

0.46 (0.98)g

0.47 (0.98)


(1.38) 0.93

(1.19) 1.17

(1.29) 0.55

(1.02)f 0.41

(0.95)i 0.48

(0.99) 0.37

(0.93)gh 0.33

(0.91)fg 0.35

(0.92) 0.33

(0.91)h 0.31

(0.90)ef 0.35

(0.92) 0.26

(0.87)g 0.25

(0.87)h 0.26

(0.87)


(1.42) 1.10

(1.26) 1.31

(1.34) 0.85

(1.16)de 0.69

(1.09)f-h 0.77

(1.13) 0.66

(1.08)d-f 0.55

(1.02)d-f 0.6

(1.05) 0.60

(1.05)fg 0.58

(1.04)ef 0.6

(1.05) 0.55

(1.03)f 0.54

(1.02)fg 0.55

(1.02)


(1.34) 0.89

(1.18) 1.09

(1.26) 0.55

(1.02)f 0.39

(0.94)i 0.47

(0.98) 0.37

(0.93 )gh 0.33

(0.91)fg 0.35

(0.92) 0.33

(0.91)h 0.31

(0.90)gh 0.35

(0.92) 0.26

(0.87)g 0.25

(0.87)h 0.26

(0.87)


0.2 g/l 1.57

(1.43) 1.18

(1.29) 1.37

(1.37) 0.78

(1.13)e 0.65

(1.07)gh 0.72 (1.1)

0.63 (1.06)ef

0.56 (1.03)d-f

0.6 (1.05)

0.56 (1.03)fg

0.33 (0.91)gh

0.6 (1.05)

0.48 (0.99)f

0.47 (0.99)fg

0.48 (0.99)


(1.28) 0.67

(1.08) 0.91

(1.18) 0.26

(0.87)g 0.26

(0.87)i 0.26

(0.87) 0.22

(0.85)h 0.15

(0.81)g 0.19

(0.83) 0.15

(0.80)i 0.24

(0.86)h 0.19

(0.83) 0.11

(0.78)g 0.10

(0.77)i 0.11

(0.78)


(1.48) 1.33

(1.35) 1.52

(1.42) 0.97

(1.21)c-e 0.77

(1.13)d-h 0.87

(1.17) 0.75

(1.12)c-f 0.70

(1.09)c-e 0.72

(1.11) 0.70

(1.10)d-f 0.69

(1.09)c-f 0.72

(1.11) 0.67

(1.08)d-f 0.64

(1.07)d-f 0.66

(1.07)


(1.53) 1.40

(1.38) 1.63

(1.46) 1.07

(1.25)c-e 0.99

(1.22)cd 1.03

(1.24) 0.96

(1.21)b-d 0.85

(1.16)b-d 0.91

(1.19) 0.90

(1.18)cd 0.87

(1.17)cd 0.91

(1.19) 0.85

(1.16)c-e 0.82

(1.15)cd 0.83

(1.15)


(1.53) 1.45

(1.39) 1.65

(1.46) 1.12

(1.27)cd 1.07

(1.25)bc 1.10

(1.26) 1.04

(1.24)bc 0.93

(1.19)bc 0.98

(1.22) 0.98

(1.21)c 0.95

(1.20)bc 0.98

(1.22) 0.93

(1.20)c 0.91

(1.19)c 0.92

(1.19)


2 g/l 1.74

(1.50) 1.29

(1.34) 1.52

(1.42) 0.89

(1.18)c-e 0.73

(1.11)e-h 0.81

(1.15) 0.71

(1.10)d-f 0.67

(1.08)c-e 0.69

(1.09) 0.67

(1.07)e-g 0.63

(1.06)d-f 0.69

(1.09) 0.63

(1.06)ef 0.60

(1.05)e-g 0.61

(1.06)

T-11Thiamethoxam 25% WG 0.5 g/l 1.89

(1.54) 1.44

(1.39) 1.67

(1.47) 1.07

(1.25)c-e 0.92

(1.19)c-f 1.00

(1.22) 0.90

(1.18)c-e 0.85

(1.16)b-d 0.88

(1.17) 0.85

(1.16)c-e 0.83

(1.15)c-e 0.88

(1.17) 0.82

(1.15)c-e 0.79

(1.13)cd 0.81

(1.14)


(1.57) 1.48

(1.40) 1.72

(1.49) 1.18

(1.30)c 0.96

(1.21)c-e 1.07

(1.25) 0.93

(1.20)b-d 0.89

(1.18)bc 0.91

(1.19) 0.89

(1.18)cd 0.87

(1.17)cd 0.91

(1.19) 0.85

(1.16)c-e 0.82

(1.15)cd 0.84

(1.16)


(1.69) 2.00

(1.58) 2.18

(1.64) 1.56

(1.42)b 1.29

(1.34)b 1.39

(1.37) 1.26

(1.33)b 1.15

(1.28)b 0.98

(1.21) 1.22

(1.31)b 1.19

(1.30)b 1.20

(1.31) 1.18

(1.30)b 1.15

(1.28)b 1.17

(1.29)


(1.66) 1.82

(1.52) 2.04

(1.59) 1.48

(1.41)b 1.05

(1.24)c 1.30

(1.34) 1.03

(1.24)bc 0.92

(1.18)bc 1.2

(1.31) 0.97

(1.21)c 0.92

(1.19)bc 0.98

(1.21) 0.86

(1.17)cd 0.83

(1.15)cd 0.85

(1.16)


(1.59) 1.43

(1.38) 1.73

(1.49) 1.12

(1.27)cd 0.88

(1.17)c-f 1.00

(1.22) 0.86

(1.17)c-f 0.81

(1.14)c-e 0.84

(1.15) 0.82

(1.14)c-e 0.79

(1.13)c-e 0.84

(1.15) 0.78

(1.13)c-e 0.75

(1.11)c-e 0.77

(1.12)


(1.84) 2.89

(1.84) 2.89

(1.84) 2.89

(1.84)a 3.02

(1.88)a 2.96

(1.86) 2.96

(1.85)a 3.07

(1.89)a 3.02

(1.87) 3.22

(1.93)a 3.26

(1.94)a 3.02

(1.87) 3.07

(1.88)a 3.18

(1.92)a 3.13 (1.9)

S. Em. ± 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02

C. D. at 5% NS NS NS 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.12 0.13 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.07



However, all the insecticide treatments were significantly superior over untreated check, whereas methomyl posion bait recorded highest larval population of 2.26. At two and three days after spraying similar trend was noticed.At seven days after spraying T6 (flubendiamide 480 SC), T2 (indoxacarb 14.5 SC) and T4 (spinosad 45 SC) recorded significantly lowest larval population 0.37, 0.63 and 0.67 larvae per mrl respectively, and were on par with each other. Untreated check recorded significantly higher population of S. litura (3.63 larvae per mrl).

During 2011, the initial larval population of S. litura on one day before imposing the treatment ranged from 2.67 to 3.00 larvae per mrl there was no significant difference exists among the treatments. At one day after spray T6 (flubendiamide 480 SC) recorded the least larval population (0.79 larvae per mrl) was significantly superior over other treatments, T2 (indoxacarb 14.5 SC) and T4

(spinosad 45 SC) found to be the next best treatments which recorded 0.96 larvae per mrl respectively and were on par with each other, followed by T1 (thiodicarb 75WP), T3 (rynaxypyr 20 SC) and T5 (emamectin benzoate 5 SG) recorded 1.25, 1.22 and 1.26 larvae per mrl respectively. However, all the insecticide treatments were significantly superior over untreated check, whereas methomyl posion bait recorded highest larval population of 2.07. At two, three days after spraying similar trend was noticed. At seven days after spraying T6 (flubendiamide 480 SC) (0.26 larvae per mrl) found to be superior over other treatments.T2 (indoxacarb 14.5 SC) and T4 (spinosad 45 SC) recorded significantly lowest larval population 0.44 larvae per mrl were on par with each other.Untreated check recorded significantly higher population S. litura (2.70 larvae per mrl).

The pooled results of first spray revealed that of larval population of S. litura on one day before imposing the treatment ranged from 2.85 to 3.28 larvae per mrl (Table 48) which were on par with each other. At one day after spray T6 (flubendiamide 480 SC) recorded the least larval population (0.88 larvae per mrl) was significantly superior over other treatments, T2 (indoxacarb 14.5 SC) and T4

(spinosad 45 SC) found to be the next best treatments which recorded 1.04 larvae per mrl respectively and were on par with each other, followed by T3 (rynaxypyr 20 SC), T5 (emamectin benzoate 5 SG) recorded 1.30 and 1.34 larvae per mrl respectively. However, all the insecticide treatments were significantly superior over untreated check, whereas methomyl posion bait recorded highest larval population of 2.16. At two and three days after spraying similar trend was noticed. At seven days after spraying T6 (flubendiamide 480 SC) (0.32 larvae per mrl) found to be superior over other treatments.T2 (indoxacarb 14.5 SC) and T4 (spinosad 45 SC) recorded significantly lowest larval population 0.54 and 0.56 larvae per mrl respectively and were on par with each other. Untreated check recorded significantly higher population S. litura (3.17 larvae per mrl).


During 2010, the initial larval population of S. litura on one day before imposing the treatment ranged from 1.11 to 3.78 larvae per mrl (Table 41). There was no significant difference exists among the treatments. At one days after spray T6 (flubendiamide 480 SC) recorded the least larval population (0.52 larvae per mrl), T2 (indoxacarb 14.5 SC) and T4 (spinosad 45 SC) found to be the next best treatments which recorded 0.70 and 0.74 larvae per mrl respectively and were on par with each other. However, all the insecticide treatments were significantly superior over untreated check, whereas methomyl posion bait recorded highest larval population of 1.78. At two and three days after spraying similar trend was noticed.At seven days after spraying T6 (flubendiamide 480 SC), T2 (indoxacarb 14.5 SC) and T4 (spinosad 45 SC) recorded significantly lowest larval population 0.22, 0.40 and 0.40 larvae per mrl respectively, and were on par with each other. Untreated check recorded significantly higher population of S. litura (3.96 larvae per mrl).

During 2011, the initial larval population of S. litura on one day before imposing the treatment ranged from 0.79 to 2.96 larvae per mrl (Table 41).There was no significant difference exists among the treatments. At one day after spray T6 (flubendiamide 480 SC) recorded the least larval population (0.32 larvae per mrl) was significantly superior over other treatments, T2 (indoxacarb 14.5 SC) and T4

(spinosad 45 SC) found to be the next best treatments which recorded 0.58 and 0.61 larvae per mrl respectively and were on par with each other, followed by T1 (thiodicarb 75WP), T3 (rynaxypyr 20 SC) and T5 (emamectin benzoate 5 SG) recorded 0.82, 0.91 and 0.86 larvae per mrl respectively. However, all the insecticide treatments were significantly superior over untreated check, whereas methomyl posion bait recorded highest larval population of 1.60. At two and three days after spraying similar trend was noticed. At seven days after spraying T6 (flubendiamide 480 SC) (0.07 larvae per mrl) found to be superior over other treatments.T2 (indoxacarb 14.5 SC) and T4 (spinosad 45 SC) recorded significantly lowest larval population 0.22 larvae per mrl were on par with each other. Untreated check recorded significantly higher population S. litura (3.26 larvae per mrl)

Table 40: Efficacy of insecticides in the management of Spodoptera litura during Kharif 2010 and 2011 after I Spray

Treatments Dosage

Larvae/mrl




(2.09) 2.67

(1.77) 3.28

(1.94) 1.39

(1.37)ef 1.25

(1.32)ef 1.32

(1.35) 1.28

(1.33)e-g 0.93

(1.20)e 1.11

(1.27) 1.07

(1.25)d-f 0.83

(1.15)de 0.95 (1.2)

0.89 (1.18)e

0.70 (1.09)g

0.79 (1.14)


(2.03) 2.78

(1.81) 3.22

(1.92) 1.12

(1.27)fg 0.96

(1.21)gh 1.04

(1.24) 1.00

(1.22)gh 0.66

(1.08)f 0.83

(1.15) 0.78

(1.13)fg 0.58

(1.03)ef 0.68

(1.08) 0.63

(1.05)f 0.44

(0.97)h 0.54

(1.02)


(2.01) 2.67

(1.77) 3.11 (1.9)

1.37 (1.37)ef

1.22 (1.31)ef

1.3 (1.34)

1.26 (1.33)e-g

1.00 (1.22)de

1.13 (1.28)

1.04 (1.24)d-f

0.89 (1.18)de

0.97 (1.21)

0.96 (1.20)de

0.74 (1.11)fg

0.85 (1.16)


(2.03) 2.56

(1.74) 3.11

(1.89) 1.11

(1.27)fg 0.96

(1.21)gh 1.04

(1.24) 1.03

(1.25)f-h 0.70

(1.09)f 0.89

(1.18)

0.82 (1.15)e-

g

0.58 (1.03)ef

0.7 (1.09)

0.67 (1.08)f

0.44 (0.97)h

0.56 (1.03)


0.2 g/l 3.89

(2.09) 3.00

(1.87) 3.44

(1.98) 1.42

(1.39)d-f 1.26

(1.33)ef 1.34

(1.36) 1.31

(1.35)d-g 0.96

(1.21)e 1.14

(1.28) 1.11

(1.27)d-f 0.86

(1.17)de 0.99

(1.22) 0.93

(1.19)e 0.70

(1.09)g 0.81

(1.15)

T-6Flubendiamide 480 SC

0.2 g/l 3.56

(2.01) 2.78

(1.81) 3.17

(1.91) 0.97

(1.21)g 0.79

(1.13)h 0.88

(1.17) 0.83

(1.15)h 0.40

(0.95)g 0.61

(1.05) 0.59

(1.04)g 0.32

(0.91)f 0.45

(0.98) 0.37

(0.93)g 0.26

(0.87)h 0.32 (0.9)


(1.95) 2.67

(1.76) 3.00

(1.86) 1.57

(1.44)de 1.39

(1.38)d-f 1.48

(1.41) 1.42

(1.39)de 1.11

(1.27)c-e 1.27

(1.33) 1.26

(1.33)cd 1.03

(1.23)d 1.15

(1.28) 1.07

(1.25)c-e 0.85

(1.16)d-g 0.96

(1.21)


(2.06) 3.00

(1.86) 3.39

(1.97) 1.67

(1.47)c-e 1.17

(1.29)fg 1.42

(1.38) 1.56

(1.43)c-e 1.26

(1.33)cd 1.41

(1.38) 1.33

(1.35)cd 1.10

(1.26)d 1.21

(1.31) 1.15

(1.28)cd 1.04

(1.24)c-e 1.10

(1.26)

T-9Imidacloprid 17.8 SL 0.25 ml/l

3.56 (2.01)

3.00 (1.87)

3.28 (1.94)

1.70 (1.48)c-e

1.22 (1.31)

1.46 (1.4)

1.59 (1.48)cd

1.26 (1.33)cd

1.47 (1.4)

1.36 (1.36)cd

1.17 (1.29)cd

1.27 (1.33)

1.22 (1.31)c

1.15 (1.29)bc

1.19 (1.3)


2 g/l 3.44

(1.98) 2.89

(1.84) 3.17

(1.91) 1.52

(1.42)de 1.38

(1.37) 1.45 (1.4)

1.41 (1.38)c-e

1.07 (1.25)c-e

1.24 (1.32)

1.22 (1.31)de

0.94 (1.20)cd

1.08 (1.26)

1.04 (1.24)c-e

0.81 (1.14)e-g

0.93 (1.19)


0.5 g/l 3.33

(1.94) 2.67

(1.78) 3.00

(1.87) 1.76

(1.50)c-e 1.59

(1.45)cd 1.68

(1.47) 1.63

(1.46)c-e 1.26

(1.32)cd 1.44

(1.39) 1.37

(1.37)cd 1.10

(1.26)d 1.23

(1.32) 1.15

(1.28)cd 1.04

(1.24)c-e 1.09

(1.26)


(1.91) 2.89

(1.84) 3.06

(1.88) 1.78

(1.51)cd 1.60

(1.45)cd 1.69

(1.48) 1.66

(1.47)cd 1.29

(1.34)c 1.47 (1.4)

1.41 (1.38)cd

1.19 (1.30)cd

1.30 (1.34)

1.26 (1.32)c

1.04 (1.24)c-e

1.15 (1.28)


(1.95) 3.00

(1.87) 3.17

(1.91) 2.26

(1.66)b 2.07

(1.60)b 2.16

(1.63) 2.15

(1.63)b 1.70

(1.48)b 1.93

(1.56) 1.89

(1.55)b 1.61

(1.45)b 1.75 (1.5)

1.59 (1.45)b

1.35 (1.36)b

1.47 (1.40)


(2.04) 2.89

(1.84) 3.28

(1.94) 2.07

(1.60)bc 1.87

(1.54)bc 1.97

(1.57) 1.94

(1.56)bc 1.67

(1.47)b 1.81

(1.52) 1.74

(1.50)bc 1.53

(1.43)bc 1.64

(1.46) 1.67

(1.47)b 1.11

(1.27)b-d 1.39

(1.38)


(1.98) 2.67

(1.78) 3.06

(1.88) 1.74

(1.50)c-e 1.53

(1.41)de 1.63

(1.46) 1.59

(1.44)c-e 1.26

(1.32)cd 1.43

(1.38) 1.37

(1.36)cd 1.17

(1.29)cd 1.27

(1.33) 1.22

(1.31)c 0.98

(1.21)c-f 1.10

(1.26)


(1.93) 2.48

(1.73) 2.85

(1.83) 3.26

(1.93)a 2.59 a (1.75)a

2.93 (1.85)

3.37 (1.97)a

2.59 (1.75)a

2.98 (1.86)

3.59 (2.02)a

2.85 (1.83)a

3.22 (1.93)

3.63 (2.03)a

2.70 (1.79)a

3.17 (1.91)

S. Em. ± 0.12 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.3 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.3 0.03 0.02

C. D. at 5% NS NS NS 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.14 0.09 0.12 0.11 0.07

Figures in the parentheses are √ x+0.5 transformed values. DBS = Days before spray. DAS=Days after spray. mrl = metre row length

Means followed by same letters in the column are not statistically different by DMRT (P=0.05), NS= Non significant, PB: Poison bait


Table 41: Efficacy of insecticides in the management of Spodoptera litura during Kharif2010 and 2011 after II Spray

Treatments Dosage

Larvae/mrl




(1.41) 1.26

(1.32) 1.37

(1.37) 0.96

(1.21)de 0.82

(1.15)d-f 0.89

(1.18) 0.85

(1.16)e 0.57

(1.04)fg 0.71 (1.1)

0.70 (1.09)g

0.39 (0.94)cd

0.56 (1.03)

0.67 (1.08)g

0.43 (0.96)e

0.53 (1.02)

T-2Indoxacarb 14.5 SC

0.5 ml/l 1.29

(1.34) 1.00

(1.22) 1.15

(1.28) 0.70

(1.10)ef 0.58

(1.04)f 0.64

(1.07) 0.59

(1.05)f 0.34

(0.92)gh 0.47

(0.98) 0.44

(0.97)h 0.19

(0.83)de 0.33

(0.91) 0.40 h (0.95)

0.22 (0.85)f

0.29 (0.89)

T-3Rynaxypyr 20 SC 0.2 ml/l 1.44

(1.39) 1.22

(1.31) 1.33

(1.35) 0.96

(1.21)de 0.91

(1.19)cd 0.94 (1.2)

0.89 (1.18)de

0.64 (1.07)d-f

0.76 (1.12)

0.74 (1.10)fg

0.51 (1.01)bc

0.65 (1.07)

0.70 (1.10)fg

0.55 (1.02)de

0.61 (1.05)


(1.32) 1.00

(1.22) 1.13

(1.28) 0.74

(1.11)ef 0.61

(1.05)ef 0.68

(1.09) 0.59

(1.05)f 0.34

(0.92)gh 0.47

(0.98) 0.44

(0.97)h 0.19

(0.83)de 0.33

(0.91) 0.40

(0.95)h 0.22

(0.85)f 0.30

(0.89)


0.2 g/l 1.53

(1.42) 1.28

(1.33) 1.4

(1.37) 1.00

(1.22)de 0.86

(1.17)c-e 0.93 (1.2)

0.89 (1.18)de

0.61 (1.06)ef

0.75 (1.12)

0.70 (1.10)g

0.39 (0.94)cd

0.56 (1.03)

0.67 (1.08)g

0.42 (0.96)e

0.53 (1.01)

T-6Flubendiamide 480 SC

0.2 g/l 1.11

(1.27) 0.79

(1.13) 0.95 (1.2)

0.52 (1.01)f

0.32 (0.90)g

0.42 (0.96)

0.33 (0.91)g

0.21 (0.84)h

0.27 (0.88)

0.26 (0.87)i

0.04 (0.73)e

0.17 (0.82)

0.22 (0.85)i

0.07 (0.75)g

0.13 (0.79)

T-7Chlorpyriphos 20 EC

2 ml/l 1.67

(1.47) 1.39

(1.37) 1.53

(1.42) 1.15

(1.28)d 1.01

(1.23)cd 1.08

(1.26) 1.04

(1.24)c-e 0.77

(1.13)c-f 0.91

(1.19) 0.85

(1.16)ef 0.55

(1.02)bc 0.73

(1.11) 0.81

(1.15)d-g 0.61

(1.05)de 0.68

(1.09)

T-8Fipronil 5 SL 1 ml/l 1.82

(1.52) 1.52

(1.42) 1.67

(1.47) 1.22

(1.31)d 1.08

(1.26)cd 1.15

(1.29) 1.11

(1.27)c-e 0.93

(1.19)b-e 1.02

(1.23) 1.01

(1.23)d 0.79

(1.13)b 0.93 (1.2)

1.00 (1.23)c-e

0.85 (1.16)c

0.90 (1.18)

T-9Imidacloprid 17.8 SL

0.25 ml/l 1.78

(1.51) 1.56

(1.43) 1.67

(1.47) 1.29

(1.34)cd 1.15

(1.29)c 1.22

(1.31) 1.18

(1.29)cd 1.01

(1.23)bc 1.10

(1.26) 1.18

(1.29)c 0.85

(1.16)b 1.05

(1.25) 1.11

(1.27)bc 0.93

(1.19)bc 0.98

(1.22) T-10Cartap hydrochloride 50 SP

2 g/l 1.71

(1.48) 1.41

(1.38) 1.56

(1.43) 1.11

(1.27)d 0.96

(1.21)cd 1.04

(1.24) 0.96

(1.21)c-e 0.67

(1.08)d-f 0.82

(1.15) 0.81

(1.14)fg 0.53

(1.01)bc 0.69

(1.09) 0.78

(1.13)e-g 0.58

(1.04)de 0.66

(1.07) T-11Thiamethoxam 25% WG

0.5 g/l 1.87

(1.53) 1.59

(1.44) 1.73

(1.49) 1.26

(1.33)cd 1.08

(1.25)cd 1.17

(1.29) 1.11

(1.27)c-e 0.86

(1.17)b-f 0.99

(1.22) 1.00

(1.22)d 0.72

(1.10)bc 0.88

(1.17) 0.96

(1.20)c-f 0.75

(1.12)cd 0.84

(1.16) T-12Acetamaprid 20% SL

0.25 g/l 1.93

(1.56) 1.63

(1.46) 1.78

(1.51) 1.33

(1.35)cd 1.20

(1.30)c 1.27

(1.33) 1.22

(1.31)c 0.83

(1.15)c-f 1.03

(1.24) 1.07

(1.25)cd 0.79

(1.13)b 0.96

(1.21) 1.00

(1.23)c-e 0.84

(1.16)c 0.90

(1.18)


(1.68) 2.12

(1.62) 2.22

(1.65) 1.78

(1.51)b 1.60

(1.45)b 1.69

(1.48) 1.52

(1.42)b 1.23

(1.31)b 1.38

(1.37) 1.37

(1.37)b 0.76

(1.10)b 1.25

(1.32) 1.29

(1.34)b 1.14

(1.28)c 1.03

(1.23)

T-14Chlorpyriphos (PB)

-* 2.22

(1.65) 1.90

(1.55) 2.06 (1.6)

1.63 (1.46)bc

1.53 (1.43)b

1.58 (1.44)

1.63 (1.45)b

1.01 (1.21)b-d

1.32 (1.35)

1.15 (1.29)c

0.79 (1.13)b

1.00 (1.22)

1.07 (1.25)b-d

0.84 (1.15)c

0.93 (1.19)

T-15Monocrotophos (PB)

-* 1.96

(1.57) 1.56

(1.42) 1.76 (1.5)

1.29 (1.34)cd

1.15 (1.28)cd

1.22 (1.31)

1.18 (1.29)cd

0.86 (1.16)c-f

1.02 (1.23)

0.96 (1.21)de

0.70 (1.09)bc

0.86 (1.16)

0.92 (1.18)c-g

0.76 (1.12)cd

0.81 (1.14)


(2.07) 2.96

(1.86) 3.37

(1.97) 3.89

(2.08)a 3.00

(1.87)a 3.45

(1.98) 3.89

(2.08)a 3.11

(1.90)a 3.50

(2.00) 3.96

(2.11)a 3.11

(1.90)a 3.61

(2.03) 3.92

(2.10)a 3.26

(1.94)a 3.52

(2.00)

S. Em. ± 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 C. D. at 5% NS NS NS 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.08 0.06 0.16 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.10

Figures in the parentheses are √ x+0.5 transformed values. DBS = Days before spray. DAS=Days after spray. mrl = metre row length

Means followed by same letters in the column are not statistically different by DMRT (P=0.05) , NS= Non significant, PB :Poison bait


The pooled results of first spray revealed that of larval population of S. litura on one day before imposing the treatment ranged from 0.95 to 3.37 larvae per mrl (Table 49) which were on par with each other. At one days after spray T6 (flubendiamide 480 SC) recorded the least larval population (0.42 larvae per mrl) was significantly superior over other treatments, T2 (indoxacarb 14.5 SC) and T4 (spinosad 45 SC) found to be the next best treatments which recorded 0.64 and 0.68 larvae per mrl respectively and were on par with each other, followed by T3 (rynaxypyr 20 SC), T5

(emamectin benzoate 5 SG) recorded 0.94 and 0.93 larvae per mrl respectively. However, all the insecticide treatments were significantly superior over untreated check, whereas methomyl posion bait recorded highest larval population of 1.69. At two, three days after spraying similar trend was noticed. At seven days after spraying T6 (flubendiamide 480 SC) (0.13 larvae per mrl) found to be superior over other treatments.T2 (indoxacarb 14.5 SC) and T4 (spinosad 45 SC) recorded significantly lowest larval population 0.29 and 0.30 larvae per mrl respectively and were on par with each other. Untreated check recorded significantly higher population S. litura (3.52 larvae per mrl).

4.6.4 Yield (kg/ha)

The highest yield was obtained during 2010, from flubendiamide 480 SC (23.95 q/ha) (Table 42) and was significantly superior over indoxacarb 14.5 SC (22.99 q/ha), Spinosad 45 SC and emamectin benzoate 5 SG were recording the yield of 22.19 and 22.03 q per ha respectively.

During 2011 the highest yield was obtained from flubendiamide 480 SC (24.65 q/ha) and indoxacarb 14.5 SC (23.37 q/ha) were significantly superior over Spinosad 45 SC and emamectin benzoate 5 SG were next best in recording the yield of 22.42 and 22.41 q per ha respectively.

Over the two years maximum seed yield was recorded in treatments flubendiamide 480 SC (24.30 q/ha) as compared to other treatments, followed by indoxacarb 14.5 SC (23.18 q/ha). Spinosad 45 SC and emamectin benzoate 5 SG were next best in recording the higher yield of 22.30 and 22.22 q per ha respectively.

The economic analysis on the feasibility during 2010 and 2011, revealed that the higher analysis on the incremental returns of 40152 was observed in indoxacarb 14.5 SC The highest B: C ratio 3.59 was observed in flubendiamide 480 SC and indoxacarb 14.5 SC (Table 43).

Table 42: Influence of insecticides on yield

Treatments Dosage Yield (q/ha) Avoidable

loss (%) 2010 2011 Pooled

T1 - Thiodicarb 75 WP 0.75ml/l 21.25 20.01 20.63 25.93

T2 - Indoxacarb 14.5 SC 0.5 ml/l 22.99 23.37 23.18 34.08

T3 - Rynaxypyr 20 SC 0.2 ml/l 22.87 21.97 22.42 31.84

T4 - Spinosad 45 SC 0.2 ml/l 22.19 22.42 22.30 31.48

T5 - Emamectin benzoate 5 SG 0.2 g/l 22.03 22.41 22.22 31.23

T6 - Flubendiamide 480 SC 0.2 ml/l 23.95 24.65 24.30 37.11

T7 - Chlorpyriphos 20 EC 2ml/l 21.87 19.97 20.92 26.96

T8 - Fipronil 5 SL 1ml/l 18.07 17.60 17.83 14.30

T9 - Imidacloprid 17.8 SL 0.25 ml/l 18.46 17.52 17.99 15.06

T10 - Cartap hydrochloride 50 SP 2g/l 19.08 18.26 18.67 18.15

T11 - Thiamethoxam 25 WG 0.5 g/l 19.20 17.48 18.34 16.68

T12 - Acetamiprid 20 SL 0.25g/l 19.32 17.37 18.34 16.68

T13 - Methomyl (PB) * 18.22 16.75 17.48 12.58

T14 - Chlorpyriphos (PB) * 18.17 17.22 17.69 13.62

T15 - Monocrotophos (PB) * 17.82 16.18 17.00 10.11

T16 - Untreated check - 15.16 15.41 15.28 -

SEm+ 2.96 2.75 2.88 -

CD at 5% 8.59 7.93 8.31 -


Table 43: Cost economics as influenced by different treatments

Treatments Cost of production

(Rs./ha) Insecticide cost

(Rs./ha)

Total cost of cultivation

(Rs./ha)

Gross return (Rs./ha)

Net return (Rs./ha)

B:C ratio

Thiodicarb 75 SP 14000 1890.00 15890.00 49512.00 33622.00 3.12

Indoxacarb 14.5 SC 14000 1480.00 15480.00 55632.00 40152.00 3.59

Rynaxypyr 20 SC 14000 1800.00 15800.00 53808.00 38008.00 3.41

Spinosad 45 SC 14000 3096.00 17096.00 53520.00 36424.00 3.13

Emamectin benzoate 5 SG 14000 1800.00 15800.00 53328.00 37528.00 3.38

Flubendiamide 480 SC 14000 23000.00 37000.00 58320.00 21320.00 1.58

Chlorpyriphos 20 EC 14000 1000.00 15000.00 50208.00 35208.00 3.35

Fipronil 5% SL 14000 1360.00 15360.00 42792.00 27432.00 2.79

Imidacloprid 17.8 SL 14000 880.00 14880.00 43176.00 28296.00 2.90

Cartap hydrochloride 50 SP 14000 624.00 14624.00 44808.00 30184.00 3.06

Thiamethoxam 25% WG 14000 1640.00 15640.00 44016.00 28376.00 2.81

Acetamiprid 20% SL 14000 840.00 14840.00 44016.00 29176.00 2.97

Methomyl (PB) 14000 950.00 14950.00 41952.00 27002.00 2.81

Chlorpyriphos (PB) 14000 726.00 14726.00 42456.00 27730.00 2.88

Monocrotophos (PB) 14000 800.00 14800.00 40800.00 26000.00 2.76

Untreated check 14000 0.00 14000.00 36672.00 22672.00 2.62

Note: Unit cost of insecticides used are given in appendices

DISCUSSION After introduction of the soybean crop to India during 1970s, there were no major pests

infesting this crop and was harvested with minimum use of chemical insecticides. During the last two decades the crop has been suffering from many pests. Among the insect pests, leaf eating caterpillars play a key role in reducing yield. Suppression of soybean pest by regular means of using pesticides has led to many health and environmental hazards and further use resulted into insecticide resistance problem which deteriorated the situation leading to outbreak of pests. Alternate crop protection methods are gaining interest in order to have a sustainable IPM package against many insect pests in field crops and horticultural crops.

The soybean pests viz., Melanagromyza sojae, Spodoptera litura, Thysanoplusia orichalcea and Spilarctia obliqua are major constraints for soybean production. Present study was carried out with the objectives of survey of incidence, assessment of crop loss due to stem fly and leaf eating caterpillar and management strategies for leaf eating caterpillar. The inferences drawn based on the data generated in the present study are discussed here under with the help of published literature.

5.1 Roving survey

Surveys measuring both the distribution and abundance of a pest can be used to assess the relative level of pest infestation, pest migration and pest outbreaks. A survey can identify areas of relatively high infestation and may point out seasonal patterns of occurrence in different locations. Such seasonal patterns may be related to differences in environmental conditions and may provide some understanding of factors influencing pest population dynamics, levels of infestation and or environmental factors in particular regions may show indicative of impending pest out breaks.

Field based monitoring is mainly carried out to follow the progress of population development of a predefined number of insects or action threshold. This may be any number of insects from one area and may indicate the necessity of insecticide application.

The roving survey was conducted in different taluks of Dharwad, Belgaum, Bagalkot and Haveri districts of northern Karnataka during kharif seasons of 2010 and 2011. The major pests noticed were stem fly and soybean leaf eating caterpillars with severity at vegetative and grand growth periods of the crop. The district and talukas surveyed are shown in Fig. 2.


Stem fly incidence was prevalent in all the areas surveyed at flowering and harvesting stage irrespective of the variety, soil type and cultivation practices. Among the districts the highest mean (36.33 %) infestation and stem tunneling (20.94 %) were recorded in Belgaum district during flowering stage and 41.24 per cent stem fly infestation and 28.94 per cent tunneling was recorded at harvesting stage followed by Bagalkot district, which registered stem fly infestation of 21.06 and 15.85 per cent tunneling during flowering and at harvesting stage respectively. These districts were identified as ‘hot spots’ of the stem fly. The moderate stem fly incidence of 13.74 per cent at harvesting stage was noticed in Haveri district and least or negligible stem fly incidence was observed (7.16 %) in Dharwad district (Fig. 3).

The present investigations are in agreement with several workers viz., Patil (2002), Anon. (2004) and Kavita (2006). Patil (2002) reported the stem fly incidence in Jamakhandi (14.80 %) and Mudhol (14.45 %) taluks of Bagalkot district, Gokak (16.20%), Raibag (16.30 %) and Athani taluks (14.45 %) of Belgaum district. Similarly survey conducted during 2003-04 revealed the infestation of stem fly upto 20 per cent at Dharwad and 65 per cent at Athani and Chikkodi taluks in Belgaum district (Anon., 2004a).

The variation in pest incidence over years in the present investigation might be due to variation in rainfall pattern temperature and relative humidity that have direct influence on the incidence of the stem fly.

In roving survey, the cut opened stems showed feeding tunnels with larvae or pupae inside. In older plants, two or three separate tunnels were often present. The one in the lower half was older and developed dark brown colour which is in confirmation with the description given by Talekar (1990).

The leaf eating caterpillars incidence was prevalent in all the areas surveyed at vegetative and grand growth period irrespective of the variety, soil type and cultivation practices Maximum leaf

.

Fig 2 L Locations selected for roving survey

Fig 3 : Incidence of stem fly in different districts of Northern Karnataka

eating caterpillars population of 3.45 larva per meter row length was recorded in Bagalkot district during vegetative phase and in grand growth phase Bagalkot district recorded maximum population of leaf eating caterpillars (4.43 l/mrl).

Among the districts the highest mean of leaf eating caterpillars (3.22 l/mrl) was recorded in Belgaum district followed by Bagalkot district (3.13 l/mrl) and these were considered as the ‘hot spots’ for the leaf eating caterpillars. The lowest incidence of 2.86 l/mrl was recorded in Dharwad district followed by Haveri (2.55 l/mrl). The maximum (2.79 a/mrl) and minimum number (1.00 a/mrl) of natural enemies observed in Dharwad and Belgaum district, respectively. The incidence of N. rileyi was recorded highest in Bagalkot district (1.92 cadavars/mrl) (Fig. 4).

These findings are in line with Patil (2002) who reported the higher population of S. litura in Dharwad taluk (12.60 l/mrl) of Dharwad district, followed by Bailhongal (10.20 l/mrl), Gokak (10.70 l/mrl) and Nipani (10.90 l/mrl) taluks of Belgaum district. The pest was active in grand growth stage of the crop in all taluks. Rai et al. (1973), Adimani (1976), Venkataravanappa (1996) and Thippaiah (1997) also reported its incidence on soybean in Karnataka. Similar reports were made by Gangrade (1962) from Madhya Pradesh.

The incidence of S. litura ranged from 2.50 to 3.45 (l/mrl) and mean number of S. litura was 3.85 l/mrl. The present observations on the incidence of S. litura are in line with the findings of Rai et al. (1973), Gangrade (1962), Adimani (1976), Venkataravanappa (1996), Thippaiah (1997), Harish (2008) and Santhosh (2008). Similarly, Patil (2000) reported S. litura a major defoliator on soybean and severe during kharif season with maximum larval population of 9.10 and 12.0 l/mrl during 1997 and 1998 respectively.

The green semilooper, T. orichalcea incidence was observed on soybean crop at peak foliage stages in both seasons. The population varied from 1.05 to 1.82 l/mrl. Present findings are in agreement with that of Harish (2008) who reported the incidence of T. orichalcea on crop sown during first week of June (3.27 l/mrl) and late sown crop during first week of July (4.80 l/mrl).

Spilarctia obliqua larvae were gregarious like S. litura in early instar and defoliated extensively during peak foliage stage of the crop. The population varied from 1.30 to 2.15 l/mrl. Similar observations on the incidence and damage were made by Singh and Chhibber (1969), Saxena (1972), Adimani (1976) and Tippaiah (1997).

5.2.1 Natural enemies

The natural enemies viz., coccinellids, chrysopids and an entomopathogen N. rileyi were observed during the course of study in soybean ecosystem. The incidence of all these natural enemies started from 15 DAS

Coccinellids population reached its peak at 45 DAS (1.76 adults/mrl) and mean number recorded was 1.69 adults/mrl. Similarly, Harish (2008) reported the incidence of coccinellids in different dates of sowing, with higher incidence in late sown crop.

Green lace wing (C. carnea) population reached its peak at 45 DAS (1.19 adults/mrl) with mean number of chrysopids (1.48 grubs and adults/mrl). Harish (2008) also reported the incidence of C. carnea in three different dates of sowing during kharif 2006. Santhosh (2008) noticed C. carnea in all the sowing dates from 30 DAS, with highest incidence in early sown crop (1.21 chrysopids/mrl). The results of the present investigation corroborate with the above workers.

In soybean the natural epizootic of N. rileyi was noticed from 30 DAS. The peak incidence was noticed on 75 DAS (1.84 %) with a mean incidence of 1.92 per cent. The environmental conditions were favourable for epizootic and thick canopy cover of soybean which is ideal niche for pathogen to cause epizootic. These results are in line with Lingappa et al. (2000) and Kulkarni (1999) who reported that August and September months are ideal for N. rileyi to cause epizootics under Dharwad conditions in soybean ecosystem.

Harish (2008) reported that seasonal incidence of N. rileyi was found on the crop sown at three different dates during Kharif 2006. Higher incidence of fungus was noticed in late sown crop. This may be due to favourable climatic conditions for the epizootics. Patil (2002) also reported the higher incidence of N. rileyi during 34 and 35

th MSW during 1997 and 1998, respectively.

Fig 4 : Incidence of stemfly in northern Karnataka

5.2.2 Fixed plot survey

Fixed plot survey was conducted to record the pest incidence in Main Agricultural Research Station, UAS, Dharwad. The observation on incidence of stem fly and leaf eating caterpillars was recorded at weekly interval.

Fixed plot survey was taken up to monitor first appearance of pest during the season and also to monitor pest severity during cropping season.

The first appearance of M. sojae started at 29th

and 28th Meteorological Standard Week

(MSW) during 2010 and 2011 respectively and continued up to 37th MSW. The severity of the M.

sojae was highest at 36th and 37

th MSW. Present investigation on the incidence of M. sojae are in line

with the findings of Berg et al, (1995) who reported that generally M. sojae infested soybean throughout the season, infestation was initially low and reached its peak in the 5 – 8

th weeks after

planting and declined towards the end of the season.

Correlation coefficients worked out between soybean insect pests recorded over two years and weather parameters prevailed on those dates. The results revealed that, rain fall exihibited negative correlation with all the soybean pests viz., S.litura, T. orichalcea, S. obliqua, M. sojae, N. virudula, Myllocerus spp, O. brevis and C. ptychora. Maximum temperature showed significant positive correlation with M. sojae (r=0.71), S. litura (r=0.96) C. ptychora (r=0.77), and T. orichalcea population (r=0.82) and highly significantly negative correlation with C. ptychora population (-r=0.82), while minimum temperature showed significant and positive correlation with the population of S.litura (r=0.99), T. orichalcea (r=0.88) and M. sojae (r=0.72) and highly significantly negative correlation with C. ptychora population (r=-0.75), Morning relative humidity exerted significant and positive correlation with the pest S.litura (r=0.99), T. orichalcea (r=0.89). However, evening relative humidity showed significant and negative correlation with C. ptychora population (r=-0.86). Evening relative humidity and rain fall showed negative effect on stem fly incidence. These findings are in conformity with Gain and Kundu (1988) who observed that high temperature (39.4-42

.c), low relative humidity and low rain

fall adversely affected the stem fly while low temperature (24.5-25.c) high relative humidity and high

rain fall favoured the activity of the fly.


Assessment of crop losses due to insect pests is a prerequisite for any planned programme of crop protection for getting economically higher returns.

5.2.1 Seedling mortality (%)

The seedling mortality was recorded at 7, 15, 21, 30 and 35 DAS. There was no incidence of stem fly at 7 DAS. The present findings are in accordance with Kundu and Srivastava (1991) who reported that the stem fly incidence started from 3

rd to 10

th week after sowing. The significantly lower

seedling mortality was recorded in T3 -seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg+ foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS, T1 -seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 [email protected] g/kg and T5- spray of thiamethoxam 25 [email protected] g/l at 10 DAS. The treatments T2 -seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg and T4-seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg+ Foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS were on par with each other. These treatments were superior over recommended package of practice (Fig. 5 and 6).


The severity of stem fly infestation was noticed from flowering stage to harvesting period. Among the treatments, the significantly lower stem fly infestation was observed in T3 - seed dressing thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg seed+ Foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5g/l at 20 DAS followed by T1 -seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg seed and T4-seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg + foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25 ml/l at 20 DAS and T6 -spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS treatments were on par with each other. These treatments were superior over recommended package of practice Fig 7 & 8

5.3.3 Stem fly tunneling (%)

The significantly lower stem tunneling was recorded in treatment T3 - seed dressing thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg seed+ foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25 [email protected] g/l at 20 DAS followed by T4-seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 [email protected] g/kg seed + foliar spray of imidacloprid

Fig 5 : Influence of new molecules of insecticides on stem fly incidence kharif 2010-11 and 2011-12

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 T16

Seed

lin

g m

ort

ali

ty (

%)

Treatments

Kharif 2010 Kharif 2011

Fig. 5: Influence of new molecules of insecticides on stem fly incidence kharif 2010 and 2011

Fig 6 : Management of stem fly through new molecules of insecticides

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8


Seed

lin

g m

ort

ali

ty (

%)

Treatments

15 DAS 21 DAS

Fig. 6: Management of stem fly through new molecules of insecticides

Fig 7 : Management of stem fly through new molecules of insecticides

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10


Ste

m fly

in

festa

tio

n (

%)

Treatments

30 DAS 35 DAS

Fig. 7: Management of stem fly through new molecules of insecticides

Fig 8 : Dynamic behavioral investigations of stem fly infesting in the management of stem fly through insecticides during

kharif, 2010-2011 and 2011-12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


Ste

m fly

in

festa

tio

n (

%)

Treatments

2010 2011

Fig. 8: Dynamic behavioral investigations of stem fly infesting in the management of stem fly through insecticides during kharif, 2010-and 2011

17.8 SL @ 0.25ml/l at 20 DAS and T6 -spray of thiamethoxam 25 [email protected] g/l at 20 DAS treatments were on par with each other. These treatments were superior over recommended package of practice.

The present findings are in conformity with several workers such as Kwon et al. (1981), Kundu and Srivastava (1991) and Meena and Sharma (2005), where in they studied the incidence of stem fly under different dates of sowing. The present findings on superiority of treatment with thiamethoxam against stem fly is supported by reports of several workers such as Latha et al. (1993), Singh et al. (2000), Siddiqui and Trimohan et al. (2000), Kavitha (2006), Gopali et al.(2007) and Kumar et al. (2009). The present study identified T3 - seed dressing thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg seed+ foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS as the best treatment. Thiamethoxam is a new nitromethylene derived compound with contact, stomach and systemic activity and acts on the nervous system of the insect. The compound mimics acetylcholine and binds to the acetylcholine receptors site, which damages the target insects nervous system causing death. This will serve as recommendation for managing stem fly in soybean which takes care of the problem of pesticide resistance and managing the pest in a holistic approach

5.3.4 Yield

In the present investigation all the treatments were found significantly superior to untreated check in recording the grain yield per ha. The treatment T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg seed+ foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25% WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) (25.64 q/ha) has recorded significantly highest seed yield which was on par with T4 (seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 [email protected]/kg seed+ foliar spray of imidacloprid [email protected]/l at 20 DAS) (24.58 q/ha).

The efficacy of chemicals on seed yield over two dates of sowings revealed that the seed treatment and combination treatments (T1 to T5) recorded higher seed yield over untreated check. This may be due to effective management of stem fly and reduced stem tunneling with seed treatment using thiamethoxam and imidacloprid. The present findings are in conformity with authors such as Kwon et al. (1981), Kundu and Srivastava (1991) and Meena and Sharma (2005).

5.3.5 Economics

During 2010 the economic feasibility of various treatments over two year revealed that the higher analysis on the incremental returns of Rs 27168 was realised from T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @3.0 g/kg seed + foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @0.5 g/l at 20 DAS) whereas the lowest incremental returns of Rs 9240 in T14 (Spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25ml/l at 50 DAS). The other treatments T1, T2, T4 and T5 fetched higher net returns compared to the recommended package of practice. The maximum cost benefit ratio was obtained from the treatment T4 (seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 [email protected] g/kg seed + foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL@ 0.25 ml/l at 20 DAS) recorded highest B : C (3.23) compared to the rest of the treatments, where as the lowest B:C ratio was recorded in T9 (Spray of thiamethoxam 25%[email protected]/l at 50 DAS) (1.15). Fig. 9.

During 2011, the economic analysis on the feasibility of the various treatments revealed that the net realization from the plots (T3) treated seed treatment with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg seed + foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS recorded higher net returns as compared to recommended package (Fig. 10). With respect to benefit cost ratio the treatment T4

recorded highest (3.23 and 2.88) BC ratio compared to rest of the treatments. Whereas the lowest BC ratio (1.48 and 1.58) was recorded in recommended package of practice during 2010 and 2011 respectively.

5.3.5 Correlation coefficients of stem fly infestation and yield parameters

Among the yield components, number of pods per plant, 1000 seed weight and yield were significant and negatively correlated with absolute tunnel length with ‘r’ value of -0.89,-0.91and -0.79, respectively. Similarly the per cent stem fly infestation showed negative association with grain yield (r=-0.89), pod number/plant (r=-0.90) and 1000 seed weight (r=-0.85). However, plant height was not influenced by per cent stem fly incidence and absolute tunnel length. The results of the study revealed a negative correlation with various yield parameters such as number of pods/plant, 1000 seed weight and seed yield against stem fly infestation in soybean. These results can not be compared with earlier reports due to paucity of literature.

Fig 9 : Economics of crop loss estimation studies during 2010-11 kharif

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


B:C

rati

on

Yie

ld (q

/ha)

Treatments

Yield (q/ha) B:C ratio

Fig. 9: Economics of crop loss estimation studies during 2010 kharif

Fig 10 : Economics of crop loss estimation studies during 2011-12 kharif

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


B:C

rati

on

Yie

ld (q

/ha)

Treatments

Yield (q/ha) B:C ratio

Fig. 10: Economics of crop loss estimation studies during 2011 kharif

5.4 Assessment of crop loss due to leaf eating caterpillars

5.4.1 Simulation technique

Plant tolerance to pest injury is an ideal component of integrated pest management programs, because it places no selection pressure on pest populations, but tolerance is less understood and its use in pest management has limited. All insect pest populations were monitored and controlled in order to eliminate confounding effects from natural communities of insects. Understanding how defoliation affect soybean yield during the different growth periods will aid in making recommendations for the management of stresses that reduce yield through defoliation.

Insect damage simulation has been a popular technique used to establish crop damage, yield relationships independent of economic pest populations. Simulated insect injury treatments were imposed by removing leaf tissue on each leaflet with scissors.

Ostile (1984) and Higley (1992) opined that insect defoliation of soybean is one of the best studied examples of plant response to insect injury. Generally, soybean is regarded as a defoliation tolerant crop, because of delayed leaf senescence occurring in injured plants.

5.4.2 Yield responses to defoliation

Yield responses to total defoliation studies over two years revealed maximum yield losses (97.63%) in 100 per cent defoliation at 60 DAG. Lower yield loss of 20.96 per cent at which 25 per cent defoliation at 20 DAG was recorded. This results are supported to by previous defoliation studies conducted at specific stages by Board et al.(1994), Fehr et al. (1981), Goli and Weaver (1986). The current results confirmed these values and provided additional information that characterizes defoliation responses at different stages of crop growth. In addition, the current study provides data from partial defoliations in conjunction with total defoliations to get more comprehensive picture of yield responses to defoliation.

The present investigations revealed a steady linear decline in yield loss as stage of the crop adavances. These results provide general guidelines for management of defoliating pests at different stages of crop growth.

Partial defoliations (25, 50 and 75% defoliation treatment) affected yield differently than 100 per cent defoliation. Yield losses were more in later stage of the crop i.e., 60 DAG with increased degrees of per cent defoliation when compared to defoliation done at early stages (20 DAG and 40 DAG). The 100 per cent defoliation during 60 DAG recorded yield loss to the extent of 97.58 per cent followed by 75 per cent defoliation at 60 DAG (96.48 %) when compared to other treatment combinations. While the lower seed yield loss was observed in 25 per cent defoliation at 20 DAG (18.00 %) followed by 25 per cent defoliation at 40 DAG (35.64 %). Such variation is mainly due to the earlier the defoliation during grain filling period, the greater the impact on the canopy and light interception in the crop, leading to reduced capacity for photosynthesis.

These results are in conformity with Carpenter and Board (1997) reported that soybean yield loss due to partial and total defoliation stress diminishes as the stress is imposed later in the seed filling period largely due to the factor. Soybean LAI reaches its peak around R5 stage and then declines. Giaquinta et al. (1985) and Westgate et al. (1989) opined that defoliation can quickly exhaust assimilate stores remobilized during times of stress. Stored carbohydrate in the vegetative tissue of soybean can be remobilized to the seed during seed filling.

Although actual defoliation produced truer damage than simulated damage, it is possible to obtain an accurate defoliation of the level of true injury imposed because leaf tissue consumed by insect cannot be readily estimated (Baldwin, 1990).

5.4.3 Yield components, pod number and seed weight

The loss pattern discussed above for defoliation effects during different growth stages could be partly explained by the observations of yield component responses. Reductions in number of pods were greatest for 100 per cent defoliation, defoliation done at 60 DAG recorded reduced number of pods (21.01 %) when compared to defoliation done at 20 DAG followed by 40 DAG (12.36 %). The 100 per cent defoliation in soybean recorded reduced number of pods to 61.08 per cent followed by 75 per cent defoliation (52.06 %), 50 per cent defoliation (44.68 %) and 25 per cent defoliation (28.95%). The 100 per cent defoliation at 60 DAG recorded seed weight loss to the extent of 72.49 per cent followed by 75 per cent defoliation at 60 DAG (68.54 %) when compared to other treatment

combinations. While the lower seed weight was observed in 25 per cent defoliation at 20 DAG (5.39 %) followed by 25 per cent defoliation at 40DAG (8.57 %). This may be due to seed growth affected by declining assimilated availability towards the end of the linear growth phase. These findings are in line with the Board and Tan (1995) and Board et al. (1994).

Defoliation by the insect causes reduction of the photosynthetic leaf area resulting in reduction in the yield. Reduction in yields of soybean due to defoliation was reported by various workers. They opined that soybean can with stand up to 33-53 per cent defoliation before flowering with little yield loss as reported by Kalton et al. 1949. Camery and Webber (1953), Todd and Morgan (1972) reported that during pod formation stage defoliation have pronounced effect.

Pedigo et al. (1986) observed that delayed leaf senescence provided soybean plants an opportunity to recover from tissue loss associated with defoliation, and this ultimately reflected in yield recovery. The ability of soybean to avoid substantial yield reduction following defoliation depends on intensity of defoliation, soybean phenology at the time when most defoliation occurs, ability of a cultivar to tolerate or compensate for defoliation and environmental factors, precipitation and soil fertility.

5.5 Screening of soybean genotypes against stem fly and leaf eating caterpillar

In India, the soybean crop is grown by the marginal farmers who cannot afford cost to mitigate the biotic stresses. To grow resistant varieties is a better option which can help to minimize the input costs as well as reduces environment hazards due to indiscriminate use of pesticides. Present experiment aimed at screening some promising lines for resistance against stem fly and defoliators.

Fifty genotypes were evaluated for relative field resistance to stem fly along with five standard checks on the basis of stem tunneling symptoms.

5.5.1 Per cent stem tunneling

Stem tunneling (%) recorded in different genotypes ranged from 12.72 per cent in MACS 1140 to 27.52 per cent in DS-12-13. On the basis of pooled mean incidence, mean per cent damaged stem length was significantly minimum in three genotypes, PS 1466 (13.50 %), DSb 11 (15.58 %) and MACS 1140 (12.78 %) and reacted as highly resistant. DSb 14 registered as resistant, recording 16.38 per cent stem tunneling. Nineteen genotypes reacted as moderately resistant, twenty two as moderately susceptible, and the genotypes DS 12-13, Bragg, NRC 1, JS 71-05 and SL 751 were categorized as highly susceptible and susceptible recorded 27.52, 22.19, 22.12, 22.12 and 21.31 per cent tunneling, respectively. Present findings on stem tunneling are supported by Jayappa (2000) who reported stem tunneling of 13.1-31.90 per cent. Anon (1985) reported that MACS series recorded lowest stem tunneling. Venkataravanappa (1996) screened 21 soybean varieties against M. sojae, among them, few varieties viz., MACS 366, MACS 124, JS 89-43, MACS 375, KB 111, JS SH,-41, JS SH, 1310, MACS 329 and JS 87-59 (normal duration) and JS 87-50 and JS 87-59 (early duration) were moderately resistant. Present findings are more or less in line with the earlier workers. Gupta et al, (2004) reported that JS 71-05 sustained 22.80 per cent tunneling. Likewise Dubey et al, (1998) screened 44 genotypes and found three genotypes resistant to stem fly. Sridhar et al (2003) have screened 70 soybean lines and have reported 70 soybean lines and have reported MACS 57 to be the most resistant variety to stem fly. Singh et al, (1988) reported that DS 76-129, PK 472, MACS 75 and JS 76-259 cultivars did not differ significantly with regard to infestation by M. sojae.

5.5.2 Defoliator, S. obliqua

Mean number of larvae per ten plants recorded in different genotypes ranged from 0.38 larvae/ plant in MACS 124 to 0.93 larvae/plant in SL 744.

On the basis of pooled mean number of larvae out of five released variety, three MAUS 61, Bragg and MACS 450 showed moderately susceptible reaction, whereas JS-335 and PK 1042 showed moderately resistant to incidence of S. obliqua. Among the fifty genotypes, Dsb 1, Himso 1563, SL 751, RAUS 05, NRC 1, MACS 1039, MACS 124, MACS 57, PK 472, Punjab 1, PK 1429, PK 472 and MACS 9933 were moderately resistant to defoliator, S. obliqua. Harish (2008) reported that among the varieties viz., DSb 1, Bragg, JS 9305 and JS 335 there was no significant difference with respect to larval population throughout the cropping season and the level of infestation was on par in all the varieties.

5.5.3 Defoliator, S. litura

Mean number of larvae per ten plants recorded in different genotypes ranged from 1.05 larvae/ plant PK 1429 to 1.88 larvae/plant in PK-1042. Out of five released varieties, four varieties viz., MAUS 61, Bragg, PK 1042 showed moderately susceptible, whereas MACS 450 showed moderately resistant to incidence of S. litura. Among the fifty genotypes Himso 1563, DSb 1466, SL 794, RAUS 05, AMS 9933, MACS 1039, MAUS 61, MACS 57, Punjab 1, PK 1429 and Hardee were moderately resistant to defoliator, S. litura. Similar observations were made by Garewal et al. (2003) who reported that JS 71-05 was highly resistant and NRC 25 was resistant to green semiloopers. JS 71-05 and NRC 33 were highly resistant, and NRC 18 and NRC 7 were resistant to tobacco caterpillar. Hag et al. (1984) who noticed good tolerance capacities at both flowering and pod stages in Caribe VCF-1 (BP-2) and F-76-8827 soybean cultivars against S. litura. The resistance offered by several genotypes might be due to non preference and antibiosis characters of host plant resistance against S. litura. Gary et al, (1985) in Soybean cultivars viz., PL 209837 and FC 3152.

Out of fifty genotypes, seven genotypes namely Dsb 11, JS 335, SL 751, RAUS 5, AMS 1, JS 20-06 and JS 93-05 were rated as susceptible and high yielding i.e. tolerant to insect pest complex. Similar method was followed by Sharma (1996) who reported that 'maximin-minimax' approach involves a vital yield component and the entire insect-pest complex, to classify the genotypes into resistant groups. It is possible to identify genotypes with resistance/tolerance to a location-specific pest complex and good yield potential. Using this approach, cultivars JS 335 and NRC 2 and a germplasm line L 129 were found to be tolerant to insect damage. Similar reports were also made by Salunke et al. (2002). Similarly, Harish (2008) reported six genotypes namely JS 335, DSb-1, PK 1029, JS (SH) 93-05, Monetta and Bragg as susceptible and high yielding i.e. tolerant to insect pest complex. These results help the breeders while selecting the breeding material against stem fly resistance, further this will also help in time and stage of management practices against stem fly in soybean.

5.5.4 Total phenol

The total phenol content in leaves among genotypes varied from 5 mg/g (PK 472) to 16 mg/g/leaf (MACS 1140).The highest total phenol content was found in MACS 1140 (16 mg/g. leaf) followed by PS 1466 (15 mg/g. leaf),MACS 158 (15 mg/g. leaf) and JS 12-250 (15 mg/g. leaf).The genotypes Dsb 01, Dsb 11, NRC 77, AMS 4-63, PKC 45, JS 72-44, JS 97-52 and PK 416 observed 13 mg/g. leaf. While minimum content of total phenol 6 mg/g. leaf was observed in JS 335, JS 93-05, Bragg, Dsb 1466, MACS1039, JS72-280, MACS 47 and the minimum content was in PK 472 (5 mg/g. leaf). There is no definite correlation between total phenol content and incidence of pests (Fig. 11).

Similar observations were made by Bhattacharya and Ram (1995) studied inheritance and the biochemical basis of resistance to S. obliqua in four interspecific crosses between four susceptible cultivars of Glycine max and resistant G. soja. The data from the F1, F2 and F3 generations indicated that resistance was controlled by one incompletely dominant gene. Chemical analysis for phenolic acids such as (benzoic acid, coumaric acid, tannic acid, 3, 4 dicaffeoylquinic acids, caffeic acid, p-chloromercurobenzoic acid and chlorogen acid) did not show any clear cut relationship between resistance to S. obliqua.

5.6 Efficacy of insecticides/bio- rationales in the management of stem fly in soybean


On the basis of pooled mean stem fly infestation over two years it ranged from 11.67 to 36.95 per cent infestation. The level of stem fly infestation was existed up to harvesting stage. Among the treatments, the significantly lower stem fly infestation was observed in indoxacarb followed by emamectin bezoate and spinosad were on par with each other. These treatments were superior over the indigenous technical knowledge treatments and untreated check. Significantly higher stem fly infestation was recorded in untreated check over two years of experiments.

5.6.2 Stem Tunneling (%)

The significantly lower stem tunneling was recorded in treatment the significantly lower stem fly infestation was observed in indoxacarb followed by emamectin bezoate and spinosad were on par

Fig 11 : Correlation coefficient of soybean genotypes and total phenol

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49

Ge

no

typ

es

Per cent tunneling

Phenol Tunneling

Fig. 11: Correlation coefficient of soybean genotypes and total phenol

with each other. These treatments were superior over the indigenous technical knowledge treatments and untreated check. Significantly higher stem fly infestation was recorded in untreated check over two years of experiments.

5.6.3 Girdle beetle infestation (%)

The per cent girdle beetle infestation of different treatments in the experimental period ranged from 2.30 to 10.85 per cent. The trends of different treatments during both seasons were same. The pooled data revealed that, significantly lower infestation (2.45%) was recorded in T2 (indoxacarb 14.5SC), T1 (emamectin benzoate 5SG) (2.90%) and T3 (spinosad 45 SC) (2.97%) were on par with each other. Untreated check recorded highest per cent stem fly infestation (11.34 %). The indoxacarb, emamectin benzoate and spinosad treatment girdle beetle damage was relatively low and was found effective. According to Srivastava and Singh (1974), diazinon (0.02% or 0.03%) kept the soybean free from the girdle beetle and stemfly upto 10 days. Singh and Singh (1990b) reported that Application of phorate 10 G and carbofuran 3 G at 1.5 kg a.i./ha each have been found effective against the girdle beetle.

5.6.4 Pod borer (%)

The per cent pod borer infestation of different treatments ranged from 9.67 to 39.44. Over two seasons, respectively. The effect of new generation chemicals and eco-friendly components on the per cent pod damage of soybean

The trends of different treatments during both seasons were same. Significantly lower infestation was recorded in T2 (indoxacarb 14.5SC) (9.01%) was significantly lowest compared to all other treatments. The next best treatments were T1 (emamectin benzoate 5SG) (11.24%) and T3

(spinosad 45 SC) (11.42%) were on par with each other. followed by T4 (nimbecidine),T5 (neem 1500 ppm) and the treatment T8 (NSKE) 15.00, 16.76 and 18.16 per cent pod borer damage respectively recorded were on par with each other, significantly superior over untreated check (38.29 %).

5.6.5 Yield

As the insecticides mitigate the pest population it influenced the seed yield. Over the two years maximum seed yield was recorded in treatments T2 (indoxacarb 14.5SC) (25.71 q/ha) as compared to other treatments but was on par with T1 (emamectin benzoate 5SG) (25.20 q/ha), while the lowest seed yield was recorded in untreated check (13.86 q/ha).

This findings are in line with Abhilash and patil (2006) reported, lowest pod damage was shown by lamdacyhalothrin 0.3 per liter per ha (13.22%), which was on par with spinosad 0.1 liter per ha (13.58 %) and indoxacarb 0.25 liter per ha (14.47%).


5.7.1 Leaf eating caterpillar

S. litura, T. orichalcea and S. obliqua are the key pests, which affect productivity of soybean to a great extent. Several workers tried different insecticides and other management methods against insect pests of soybean to achieve effective management and obtain better yields.

Among among the insecticidal treatments flubendiamide 480 SC 0.2 ml/l was found to be most effective in managing leaf eating caterpillars viz., S. litura, T. orichalcea, and S. obliqua. Flubendiamide 480 SC 0.2 ml/l treated plots recorded least larval population during 1, 2, 3 and 7 days after spraying and similar trend was noticed during second spray. This proved the superiority of flubendiamide 480 SC 0.2 ml/l over other insecticides. Indoxacarb 14.5 SC 0.5 ml/l and spinosad 45 SC 0.2 ml/l were found to be the next best treatments. All the poison baits were found inferior to foliar sprays in managing the leaf eating caterpillars. The result identified effectiveness of flubendiamide 480 SC @ 0.2ml/l with two sprays against leaf eating caterpillar. This could be recommended for the management of this pest in soybean. The reviews pertaining to efficacy of flubendiamide 480 SC 0.2 ml/l in soybean are lacking as it is new molecule. However, its superiority in managing the pests in various other crops has been well documented. The newer molecule flubendiamide 20 WG @ 50 g a.i./ha was found superior in reducing the incidence of fruit borers in chilli with highest yield (Tatagar et al., 2009). Flubendiamide 20 WG @ 35 g a.i./ha was the most effective in reducing the incidence of rice stem borer, Scirphophaga incertulas (Walker) and leaf folder Cnaphalocrosis medinalis (Guen.)

and recorded the higher yield (Mallikarjunappa et al., 2008). Flubendiamide 20 WG was found highly effective against, H. armigera on cotton (Lakshminarayana et al., 2006)

Flubendiamide application showed better performance in reducing 80.63 per cent fruit infestation by Leucinodes orbonalis and produced the higher fruit yield in brinjal (Abdul Latif et al., 2009). Flubendiamide 480 SC @ 50 ml /ha caused significantly higher reduction of diamond back moth damage in cabbage (Ameta and Bunker, 2007). Tohnishi et al. 2005 reported the strong activity of flubendiamide480 SC against lepidopteran insect pests and its severity towards non target organisms.

5.7.2 Yield

During 2010 all the treatments were found significantly superior to untreated check in recording the grain yield per ha. The highest yield was obtained from flubendiamide 480 SC 0.2 ml/l (23.95 q/ha) and indoxacarb 14.5 SC 0.5 ml/l (22.99 q/ha). Spinosad 45 SC 0.2 ml/l and emamectin benzoate 5 SG 0.2 g/l were next best in recording the higher yield of 22.19 and 22.03 q per ha respectively Fig 12.

During 2011 all the treatments were found significantly superior to untreated check in recording the grain yield per ha. The highest yield was obtained from flubendiamide 480 SC 0.2 ml/l (24.65 q/ha) and indoxacarb 14.5 SC 0.5 ml/l (23.37 q/ha). Spinosad 45 SC 0.2 ml/l and emamectin benzoate 5 SG 0.2 g/l were next best in recording the higher yield of 22.42 and 22.41 q per ha respectively. The present finding were in line with Harish (2008) who reported highest grain yield was recorded with emamectin benzoate (22.76 q/ha) and spinosad (22.74 q/ha) (Fig. 12).

Future line of work

1. To identify multiple insect pest (MIP) resistance of soybean. There is a need to study the host plant resistance for multiple insect pest resistance

2. Large scale evaluation of pest management components and development of sustainable IPM package against M. sojae

3. Characterization of stem fly populations for elevated application of insecticides

4. Role of increased co2 and temperature levels on population dynamics of stem fly and defoliators

5. Marker assisted breeding programme for developing stem fly and defoliatior resistance genotype

6. Identifying links between the extent of damage by stemfly and defoliation at different crop stages

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


Yie

ld (

q/h

a)

po

ole

d

Yie

ld (

q/h

a)

201

0-1

1 a

nd

20

11-1

2

Treatments

2010 2011 Pooled

Fig. 12: Influence of insecticides over yield

Fig 12 : Influence of insecticides over yield

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Investigations were carried out on various aspects of stem fly Melanagromyza sojae (Zehntner) as well as leaf eating caterpillars. Survey and surveillance, genotype screening, crop loss estimation and management strategies at the Agricutural Research Station, Bailahongal and the Main Agricultural Research Station (MARS) University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, Karnataka during kharif seasons 2010 and 2011. The results of the investigations are summarized here under.

Survey was under taken in four districts of northern Karnataka viz., Dharwad, Belgaum, Haveri and Bagalkot districts during kharif 2010 and 2011. Among various districts surveyed the highest mean infestation and tunneling (20.94 to 41.24 %) due to stem fly, were recorded in Belgaum district followed by Bagalkot which registered 21.06 and 15.85 per cent stem fly infestation and tunneling during flowering at harvesting stage respectively. The moderate stem fly incidence (13.74 %) infestation at harvesting stage was noticed in Haveri district and the least or negligible stem fly incidence was observed (7.16 %) in Dharwad district. The incidence of another economically important pests of soybean i.e., leaf eating caterpillar was recorded highest in Belgaum followed by Bagalkot district (3.13 l/mrl) and the lowest incidence (2.86 larvae/mrl) was recorded in Dharwad district followed by Haveri (2.55 l/mrl). The maximum (2.79 a/mrl) and minimum (1.00 a/mrl) number of natural enemies were observed in Dharwad and Belgaum district, respectively. The highest incidence of N. rileyi was recorded in Bagalkot district (1.92 cadavars/mrl).

The results of the fixed plot survey made at Main Agricultural Research Station, Dharwad indicated severity of the Melanagromyza sojae was highest at 36

th and 37

th meteorological standard

week (10.10 and 15.00 % respectively). The mean number of Spodoptera litura, Thysanoplusia orichalcea, and Spilosoma obliqua ranged from 2.50 to 3.45, 1.05 to 1.82 and 1.30 to 2.15 larvae/mrl, respectively. The activity of natural enemies viz., coccinellids, chrysopids and Nomuraea rileyi started on 15 days old crop.

Correlation coefficient studies between soybean insect pests and agro meteorological parameters revealed that, rain fall has negative correlation with all the soybean pests. Maximum temperarure has positive correlation with S. litura, T. orichalcea and M. sojae. Minimum temperature has positive correlation with S. litura and T. orichalcea. Morning relative humidity had positive correlation with S. litura, T. orichalcea and O. brevis, while evening relative humidity had positive correlation with. S. litura and T. orichalcea.

The loss estimation studies and relative efficacy of plant protection schedule against stem fly, was carried out during 2010 and 2011 seasons. The level of stem fly incidence was higher up to flowering stage; later up to harvesting stage not much variation was observed. Among the treatments, seed treatment with thiamethoxam and combination of foliar sprays i.e (T1 to T5) treatments recorded significantly lower seedling mortality, stem fly incidence and stem tunneling percentage compared to recommended package and untreated check. The treatment T3 (Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS@ 3.0 g/kg seed + foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25%[email protected]/l at 20 DAS) recorded average higher seed yield 25.64 and 24.42 q/ha was recorded in the first and second years of sowing respectively. Whereas, the lower seed yield (14.32 and 13.98 q/ha) was recorded in untreated check.

The economic analysis on the feasibility of various treatments revealed that the net realization from the plots treated with seed treatment of thiamethoxam 3.0 g/kg seed and combination of foliar treatments along with the treatments (T1 to T5) recorded higher net returns compared to recommended package.The cost benefit ratio is concern, the treatment T4(seed dressing with imidacloprid 70 [email protected] g/kg seed + foliar spray of imidacloprid 17.8SL @ 0.25 ml/l at 20 DAS) was recorded highest (3.23 and 2.88) BC ratio compared to rest of the treatments, in the first and second date of sowing respectively. Whereas the lowest BC ratio (1.48 and 1.58) was recorded in recommended package of practices in the first and second date of sowing respectively.

Yield components were significantly negatively correlated with absolute tunnel length and per cent stem fly infestation. However plant height was not influenced by per cent stem fly incidence and absolute tunnel length.

Loss of leaves through insect attack reduces assimilatory surface. Such leaf loss at 20 DAG stage up to 25% may not significantly affect seed yield in soybean was established in the current experiment. Therefore, it may not advisable to spray pesticide for controlling pests in soybean at one-fourth loss of leaf surface to make cost effective and to save environment from pollution.

Out of fifty genotypes, seven genotypes namely Dsb-11, JS 335, SL-751, RAUS-5, AMS-1, JS-20-06 and JS-93-05 were rated as susceptible high yielding i.e. tolerant to insect pest complex.

Among the insecticidal treatments indoxacarb found to be most effective in managing Stem fly M.sojae and girdle beetle and pod borer C.ptychora. indoxacarb treated plots recorded least pest population during 3, 7 and 15 days after spraying.This proved the superiority of indoxacarb over other insecticides. Emamectin benzoate and spinosad were found to be the next best treatments. The highest yield was obtained from treatments T2 (indoxacarb 14.5SC) (25.71 q/ha) as compared to other treatments but was on par with T1 (emamectin benzoate 5SG) (25.20 q/ha), while the lowest seed yield was recorded in untreated check (13.86 q/ha).

Twelve insecticides and three poison baits were evaluated against leaf eating caterpillars. Flubendiamide 480SC 0.2 ml/l found to be most effective in managing leaf eating caterpillars by recording least larval population at 1, 2, 3 and 7 days after spraying and same trend was noticed during second spray also. Flubendiamide 480 SC 0.2 ml/l significantly excelled over all the treatments. Indoxacarb 14.5 SC 0.5 ml/l and spinosad 45 SC 0.2 ml/l were found to be the next best treatments.

The highest yield was obtained from flubendiamide 480 SC (23.95 q/ha) and indoxacarb 14.5 SC (22.99 q/ha). Spinosad 45 SC and emamectin benzoate 5 SG were next best in recording the higher yield of 22.19 and 22.03 q/ ha respectively.

Conclusions

• Belgaum and Bagalkot districts were identified as hot spots of the stem fly incidence. Whereas, Dharwad and Belgaum districts were identified as hot spots of the defoliators incidence

• The identified hot spots will same as best location for screening the soybean genotypes/germplasm both by breeders and entomologists. It will caution the farmers to go for the pest management in these areas.

• Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg seed + foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 DAS excelled over other treatments.

• Loss of leaves through insect attack reduces assimilatory surface. Such leaf loss by defoliators at 20 DAG stage upto 25% will not significantly affect seed yield in soybean. This will serve as ETL for the farmers to take up the pest management measures.

• Out of fifty genotypes, screened seven genotypes namely DSb-11, JS 335, SL-751, RAUS-5, AMS-1, JS-20-06 and JS-93-05 were rated as susceptible and high yielding.

• S. litura, T. orichalcea and S. obliqua are the defoliators, which affect productivity of soybean to a great extent. The results identified flubendiamide @ 0.2 ml/l as the most effective molecule for the management of leaf eating caterpillar.

REFERENCES

Abdi, S., Fayaz, M.A. and Chadimzade, M., 2007, Effect of different levels of defoliation at reproductive stage on grain yield and oil percent of two hybrid sunflower. Agri Nat Res Sci Tech., 11: 245-255.

Abdul Latif, M., Mahbubar Rahman, M., Zinnatul Alam, M. and Muffazal Hussain, M., 2009, Evaluation of Flubendiamide as an IPM component for the management of brinjal shoot and fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee. Munis Ent. Zool., 4: 257-267.

Abdulkareem, A. and Vishwanathan, T., 1980, A general account of the integrated approach for the control of bollworms on cotton. Andhra Agric. J., 27: 123-124.

Abel, C.A. and Tyler, J.M., 2003, Registration of DT98-2448 soybean germplasm resistant to defoliating insect damage. Crop Sci., 43(3): 1136- 1137

Abhilash, C. and Patil, R. H., 2008, Determination of economic injury level for the soybean pod borer, Cydia ptychora (Meyrick). Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 21 (3) : 446-447.

Adimani, B.D., 1976, Studies on the insect pests of soybean (Glycine max (L) Merill) with special reference to the bionomics and control of the pod borer, Cydia ptychora Myr (Totricidae: Lepedoptera) M. Sc (Agri.) Thesis. Univ. Agril. Sci., Bangalore (India), p. 149.

Amaranth, K., 2000, Management of soybean pod borer, Cydia ptychora (Meyrick), (Totricidae: Lepedoptera).M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Uni. Agri. Sci; Dharwad (India), p. 61.

Ameta, O. P. and Bunker G. K., 2007, Efficacy of NNI0001 (Flubendiamide) 480SC against diamond back moth, Plutella xylostella L. in cabbage and its effects on natural enemies under field condition. Pestol., 31(6): 21-24.

Anonymous, 1981, Progress Report for 1980, Asian Vegetable Research and Development Centre. Shanhua, Taiwan. 1-110.

Anonymous, 1985, Ann. Rep. of Asian Vegetable Research and Development Centre. Shanhua, Taiwan. pp. 211-212.

Anonymous, 1985a, Ann. Rep. of Asian Vegetable Research and Development, Centre. Taiwan, pp. 211-212.

Anonymous, 1986, Progress Report Asian vegetable research and development Centre, pp. 129-131.

Anonymous, 1987, Ann. Rep. All India Coordinated Research Project on Soybean, Bangalore Centre, pp. 353-363.

Anonymous, 1990, Ann. Rep. All India Coordinated Research Project on Soybean, Bangalore Centre. pp. 109-114.

Anonymous, 1990a, All India Coordinated Research Project on Soybean, Bangalore Centre, pp. 106-114.

Anonymous, 1990b, Ann. Rep. All India Coordinated Research Project on Soybean, Bangalore Centre, pp. 109-114.

Anonymous, 1991, Ann. Rep. All India Coordinated Research Project on Soybean, Bangalore Centre, pp. 106-121

Anonymous, 1992, Ann. Rep. All India Coordinated Research Project on Soybean. Indore Centre, pp. 198-206.

Anonymous, 1992a, Ann. Rep. All India Coordinated Research Project on Soybean, Indore Centre, pp. 191-202.

Anonymous, 1992b, Ann. Rep. All India Coordinated Research Project on Soybean. Indore Centre, pp. 191-202.

Anonymous, 2004, Ann. Rep. All India coordinated Research Project on Soybean, Indore Centre, pp. 2-5

Anonymous, 2004a, Ann. Rep. All India coordinated Research Project on Soybean, Indore Centre, pp. 275-278 .

Anonymous, 2007, Soybean, www.ikisan.com;pp:1-7

Anonymous, 2012, Director’s report and summary tables of experiments of AICRP on Soybean, NRCS, Indore.

Bagle, B. G. and Verma, S., 1990, Bioefficacy and persistence of phorate and monocrotophos on soybean. Indian J. Plant Prot. 18(2) : 177-185.

Bai, S.K. and Kandaswamy, C., 1985, Laboratory induced mortality of Spodoptera litura (Fab.) fed on the leaf discs of castor, treated with extracts of Vitex negundo Linn and Stachytarpheta urticifiolia (Salsib) Sims. Indian J. of Agric Sci., 55: 760-761.

Baldwin, I. T., 1990, Herbivory simulation in ecological research. Trends Ecol. Evol., 5:91-93

Barapatre, A. B., 2001, Evaluation of indigenous technology for management of Helicoverpa armigera (Hub.) and Spodoptera litura (Hub). M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Uni. Agric. Sci., Dharwad (India).

Barapatre, A. B. and Lingappa, S., 2003, Larvicidal and antifeedant activity of indigenous plant protection practices for Helicoverpa armigera (Hub.). Proc. Nation. Symp. Fronterier Areas of Ent. Res., pp.335-336.

Barimavandi, A. R, Sedaghathoor, S. and Ansari, R., 2010, Effect of different defoliation treatments on yield and yield components in maize cultivation of SC704. Australian. J. Crop. Sci., 4 (1): 9-15

Begum, M., Hamid, A., Sultana, W. and Khan, M. R., 1997, Effect of defoliation on yield and yield contributing characters of mungbean in relation to nodal position and position of seeds in pod. Bangladesh. J. Agric. Res., 22: 43-50

Behera, P.K., Patnaiak, H.P and Senapati, B., 1990, Leaf miner, Bilobata (Stomopteryx) subsecivella Zeller (Gelechiidae: Lepidoptera) incidence in soybean cultivars in northern Orissa. Orissa J. Agric. Res., 2(3-4): 227-229.

Berg, H., Ankashah, D., Hassan, K, Muhammad, A., Widayanto, H. B. and Wirasto, H. B., 1995, Soybean stem fly, M. sojae on Sumatra : Seasonal incidence and the role of parasitism. International J. Pest Manag., 41 (3) : 127-133.

Bhatt, R.M. and Rao, N.K.S., 2003, Influence of leaf excision on photosynthesis, seed setting and yield in okra. Indian. J. Plant. Physiol., 8:345-348

Bhattacharjee, N. S., 1980, Insecticdes of the stem fly Ophiomiya phaseoli (Tryon) on soybean. Indian J. Entomol., 42:280-282

Bhattacharya, P. K. and Ram, H. H., 1995, Inheritance and biochemical basis of resistance to Spilosoma obliqua Walker in interspecific crosses of soybean. Plant Breed., 114(4): 366-368

Bhattacharya, P. K. and Ram, H. H., 2001, Pubescence as a plant resistance character against Spilosoma obliqua Walker in the interspecific crosses of soybean. Tropical Agric Res Ext., 4(1): 20-23

Biswas, M. I., Hossain, M. A. and Fakir, M. S. A., 2005, Effect of defoliation at vegetative stage on dry mass production and yield in cowpea. J. Bangladesh Agric. Univ., 3:13-20.

Board, J. E. and Harville, B. G., 1998, Late planted soybean yield response to reproductive source-sink stress. Crop Sci., 38:763-771

Board, J. E. and Tan, Q., 1995, Assimilatary capacity effects on soybean yield components and pod number. Crop. Sci., 35: 846-851.

Borad, J.E., Weir, A.T. and Boethel, D.J., 1994, Soybean yield reductions caused by defoliation during mid to late seed filling. Agron. J., 86:1074-1079.

*Borah, S. R. and Dutta, S. K., 2004, Seasonal incidence of Helicoverpa armigera Hubner larvae on pigeon pea. Bioved, 5(1/2): 127-130.

Camery, M. P. and Weber, C. R., 1953, Effect of certain components of simulated hail injury on soybeans and corn, Iowa, Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Bull., 400.

Carpenter, A. C. and Board, J. E., 1997, Growth dynamic factors controlling soybean yield stability across plant populations. Crop Sci., 37:1520-1526.

Chiang, H. S. and Norris, D.M., 1983, Phenolic and tannin contents as related to anatomical parameters of soybean resistance to agromyzid bean flies. Entomologia Experimentalis Applicata, 33 (2):202-212.

Chandel, Y. S. and Gupta, R. K., 1995, Effect of sowing date on incidence of insect pests of soybean (Glycine max). Indian J. Agric. Sci. 65 (8): 624-625.

Chandrasekhar, 1992, Studies on soil borne pests of potato in Karnataka with reference to biology and management of Spodoptera litura Fabricius (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agri. Sci., Bangalore, Karnataka (India).

Chaturvedi, S., Singh, K. J., Singh, O. P. and Dubey, M. P., 1998, Seasonal incidence and damage of major insect pests of soybean in Madhya Pradesh. Crop Res., Hissar, 15 (2/3): 260-264.

Cheng, C. H., 1974, Screening test for varietal resistance to soybean miners in Annual report 1974 p-136. Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute Taiwan.

Cheng, C. H., 1975, Screening test for varietal resistance to beanfly and pod borer in soybean . Ann. Rep. 1975. Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute Taiwan.

Chiang, H. S. and Talekar, N. S., 1980, Identification of sources of resistance to the bean fly and two other agromyzid flies in soybean and mungbean. J. Econo. Entomol., 73 : 197-199.

Cooper, R.L. and Hammond, R.B., 1999, Registration of insect-resistant soybean germplasm lines HC95-24MB and HC95-15MB. Crop Sci., 39(2): 599

Cui-ZhangLin., Gai-JunYi., Ji-DongFeng and Ren-ZhenJing, 1997, Evaluation of soyabean germplasm for resistance to leaf-feeding insects. Soybean Sci., 16(2): 93- 102

Debjani Dey, Irani Mukherji and Trimohan 2008, Evaluation of some insecticides against Melanagromyza sojae Zehnt. and Bemisia tabaci Genn. on Soybeen. Pesticide Res. J., 20(1):72-74

Dhaliwal, G. S. and Arora, R., 1998, Principles of Insect Pest Management. Kalyani Pub. New Delhi, India.

Dharmasena, C. M. D. and Fernando, M. H. J. P., 1991, Effect of insecticidal treatment on beanfly, O. phaseoli (Tryon) in cowpea. Pestol., 15 (12) : 5-11.

*Didonet, J., Fragoso, D. de. B., Peluzio, J. M and Santos, G. R. dos, 1998, Population dynamics of soybean pests and their natural enemies in Rio Formoso Project - Formoso do Araguaia - TO, Brazil. Acta Amazonica. 28 (1): 67-74.

*Didonet, J., Sarmento, R. de. A., Aguiar, R. W. de. S., Santos, G. R. dos and Erasmo, E. A. L., 2003, Abundance of soybean pests and their natural enemies in Gurupi, Brazil. Manejo Integrado de lagasy Agroecologia, 69: 50-57.

Dubey, M. P., Singh, K. J. and Singh, O. P, 1998, Screening of some genotypes of soybean (Glycine max) against green semilooper, Chrysodexis acuta and stem fly Melangromyza sojae, Crop. Sci., 15:119-122

Due, J. R. and Hong, L. M., 1982, An initial report of an experimental on controlling the agromyzid fly (Melanagromyza sojae) of soybean with carbofuran and the loss of yield caused by the pest. J. Nanjing Agric. College, 3: 56-61.

Fehr, W. R., Caviness and Vorst, J. J., 1977, Response of indeterminate and determinate soybean cultivars to defloliation and half-plant cut-off. Crop Sci., 17:913-917

Fehr, W. R., Lawerence, B. K. and Thompson, T. A., 1981, Critical stage of development for soybean defoliation. Crop. Sci., 21:259-262.

Fletcher, 1922, Report of the imperial entomologist, Sci. Rep. Agric. Res. Inst., PUSA, New Delhi. pp. 41-59.

Gain, D. and Kundu, G. G., 1988, Insecticidal control of soybean stem miner, M. sojae. Entomol. Res., 13 (1) : 99-102.

Ganapathy, N., Gopal, S. and Padmanabhan, M. D., 1991, Reaction of soybean cultivars to leaf miner, Aproaerema modicella Deventer. Madras Agric. J., 78(1-4): 114-115.

Gangrade, G. A., 1962, Assessment of damage to tur (Cajanus cajan) in Madhya Pradesh by the tur pod fly, Malanagromyza obtusa Malloch. Indian J. Agric. Sci., 33: 17-20.

Garewal, A., Sharma, A. N., Kapoor, K. N. and Singh, R. N., 2003, Evaluation of soybean genotypes for resistance against major insect-pests. Res. Crops., 4(2): 268-272.

Gary, D.J., Lambert, L and Oyzts, J. D., 1985, Evaluation of soybean plant introductions for resistance to foliar feeding insects. J. Mississippi. Acad. Sci., 30: 67-82.

Gaur, S. K and Deshpande, R. R., 1998, Relative susceptibility of soybean Glycine max (E) varieties to insect pests complex. Indian J. Pl. Prot.; 26(2): 186-187

Gharib, A., 1979, Spodoptera littoralis in Iran. Entomolo et Phytopathol. Appl., 47: 161-176.

Giaquinta, R. T., Quebecdeaux, B., Sadler, N. L. and Franceschi, V. R, 1985, Assimilate partitioning in soybean leaves during seed filling. In Shibles (ed) World soybean Res. Conf. pp. 729-738.

Goli, A. and Weaver, D. B., 1986, Defoliation responses of determinate and indeterminate late-planted soybean. Crop. Sci, 26:156-159.

Gopali, J. B., Suhas Yellshetty, Raju Teggihalli and Jadhav, S. N, 2007, Bio- ecology and management of stem fly M.sojae in black gram. Paper presented in National Legume Symposium, IIPR, Kanpur, India, November, 3-5, 2007.

Gregorutti, V. C., Caviglia O. P. and Saluso, A. 2012, Defoliation affects soybean yield depending on time and level of light interception reduction. Aus. J., Crop Sci., 6(7):1166-1171

Gujar, G. T. and Mehrotra, K. N., 1983, Inhibition of growth and development of the tobacco caterpillar, Spodoptera litura Fab. due to azadirichtin and other neem products. Indian J. Entomol., 45: 431-435.

Gunasekharan, K. and Chellaiah, S., 1985, Juvenile harmone activity of Tribulus terrestiris L. on Spodoptera litura and Heliothis armigera Hub. In: Behavioural and Physiological Approaches in pest management, Eds. Reghupathy and Jayaraj, S., TNAU, Coimbatore.

Gupta, M. P., Chourasia, S. K. and Rai, H. S., 2004, Field resistance of soybean genotypes against incidence of major insect pests. Ann. Plant Protect. Sci, 12 (1) : 63-66.

Gustafson, T. C., Knezevic, S. Z., Hunt, T. E. and Lindquist, J. L., 2006 Stimulated insect defoliation and duration of weed interference affected soybean growth. Weed. Sci., 54: 735- 742

Hag, M., Karim, A.N.M.R. and Alam, S., 1984, Preliminary study of varietal reaction of soybean cultivars to leaf defoliators. Trop. Grain Legume Bull., 29: 35-37.

Hall, T. S., Leonard, B. R., Boethel, D. J., Gore, J., Dugger, P. and Richter, D., 2000, Toxicity of indoxacarb, thiodicarb and spinosad to the soybean looper (Lepidoptera : Noctuidae ) on Bt cotton (cv. Nucton 33B) and conventional cotton (cv. PP 5415). Procee. of Beltwide Cotton Conferences, San Antonio, USA, 2: 956-958.

Hammond, R. B., 1989, Effects of leaf removal at growth V1 on yield and other growth parameters. J. Kansas Entomol. Soc., 62:96–102.

Hammond, R. B., Helm, C. G. and Nelson, R., 1998, Introduced soybean lines from China: screening for insect resistance. J. Econ. Ent., 91(2): 546-551

Harish, G., 2008, Studies on incidence and management of defoliator pests of soybean. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Uni. Agric. Sci., Dharwad.(India).

Higley, L.G., 1992, New understanding of soybean defoliators and their implication for pest management. Pest management in soybean. L.G. Cropping et al. (ed) Elsevier Application science publication., London, P.56-65,

Hiremath, I. G., Bhuti, S. G., Kachapur, M. D., Viraktamath, S. and Lingappa, S., 1990, Mass killing of moths - A new approach in the management of armyworm, Mythimna separata (Walker). Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 3: 128-130.

Hiremath, K. G., 1993, Evaluation of poison baits against lepidopterous pests of economic importance in Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka (India), p. 85.

Hole, U. B., Jadhav, S. R. and Teli, V. S., 2009, Bio-efficacy of insecticides against Spodoptera litura (Fab) infesting soybean. Ann. Pl. Protec. Sci., 17(2): 322-324.

Hong, N. X., Nam, N. H., Yen, N. T. and Tuong, L. K., 1992, International Pigeonpea Newsletter, 15 : 30-31.

Hossain, M. A., Haque, M. A., Chowdhury, S. and Fakir, M. S. A., 2006 Effect of defoliation on morphological characters, dry mass production and seed yield in cowpea. J. Bangladesh. Soc. Agric. Sci. Technol., 3:197-200

Hsu, S. J., Shiau, L. M. and Un, W. H., 1968, Resistance of soybean varieties to soybean stem borer (Melanagromyza sojae). Plant Protection Bulletin (Taiwan), 10: 37-46.

Ingle, Y. V., Aherkar, S. K., Lande, G. K., Burgoni, E. B. and Autkar, S. S., 2004, Natural epizootic of Nomuraea rileyi on lepidopterous pests of soybean and green gram in Akola, Maharashtra, India. J. App. Zool. Res., 15(2): 160-162.

Jacob, S., Nelson, S. J. and Loganathan, J., 1994, Safety of insecticides to the green lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens). J. Ent. Sci., 29: 165-175.

Jagginavar, S. B., Kulkarni, K. A. and Lingappa, S., 1990, A note on seasonal abundance of cowpea pod borer complex. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 4: 56-58.

Jansson, R. K., Peterson, R. F., Halliday, W. R., Mookerjee, P. K. and Dybas, R. A., 1996, Efficacy of solid formulations of Emamectin benzoate controlling lepidopterous pests. Fl. Entomol., 79(3): 434-449.

Jayaraj, S., 1983, Ecology based integrated control of Spodoptera litura on cotton. Paper Presented. In: ICAR Summer Institute on Microbial Control of Insects and Pest Management, Tamil Nadu Agril. Univ., Coimbatore, June, 1-25.

Jayarajan, S.P., Sundarababu, P.C., Srimnnarayana, G. and Geethanjali, Y., 1990, Antifeedant and morphogenic effects of Azadirachtin rich fractions of Spodoptera litura Fab. paper presented In: Nat. symp. on problems and prospects of botanical pesticides in integrated pest management, CTRI, Rajahmundry, p. 23.

Joshi, B.G. and Sitaramaih, S., 1979, Neem kernel as an ovipositional repellent for Spodoptera litura F. moths. Phytoparasitica, 7: 199-202.

Joshi, B.G., Ramaprasad, G. and Rao, S.N., 1984, Neem seed kernel suspension as an antifeedant for Spodoptera litura in a planted flue cured virgina tobacco crop. Phytoparasitica, 12: 3-12.

Kalton, R. R., Webber, C. R. and Eldredge, J. C., 1949, The effect of injury simulating hail damage to soybeans. Iowa, Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Bull., 359.

Kalyanasundaram, M. and Sundarababu, P. C., 1993, Screening for host plant resistance to soybean leaf miner, Aproarema modicella. Indian. J. Pl. Prot., 21(2): 163-165.

Kamala, N. V., 2000, Development of IPM modules for soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill). M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Uni. Agric. Sci., Bangalore, India.

Katti, M. A., 1984, Studies on the insects of green gram (Vigna radiate (L) Roxb) with special reference to the bionomics and control of pod borer, Cydia ptychora Meyrick (Lepidoptera : Tortricidae). M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Uni. Agric. Sci. Bangalore (India).

Kavita, S., 2006, Bioecology and management of soyabean stem fly, Melanagromyza sojae (Zehntner) (Diptera: Agromyzidae). M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka (India).

Kenty, M. M., Young, L. D. and Kilen, T. C., 2001, Registration of DMK93-9048 soybean germplasm with resistance to foliar feeding insects and stem canker and possessing high protein. Crop Sci., 41(2): 603

Knight, K., Brier, H. and Desborough, P., 2000, The efficacy of new insecticides and dipel for soybean looper control in soybean and effects on beneficial insects and arthropods. Proc. of 11th Australian soybean conference, Ballina, Australia, pp. 62-71.

Komatsu, K., Okuda, S., Takahashi, M. and Matsunaga, R., 2004, Antibiotic effect of insect resistant soybean on common cutworm (Spodoptera litura) and its inheritance. Breed. Sci., 54 (1): 27-32

Koshiya, D.T. and Ghelani, A.B., 1990, Antifeedant activity of different plant derivatives against Spodoptera litura (Fab.) on groundnut. Botanical pesticides in integrated pest management. Rajahmundry, India: 270-275.

Koul, D., 1985, Azadirachtin interaction with development of Spodoptera litura Fab. Indian J. Expt. Biol., 23: 160-163.

Kulkarni, K. A., 1989, Bioecology and management of Spodoptera litura (Fabricius) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on groundnut. Ph. D. Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka (India), p. 294.

Kulkarni, N. S. and Lingappa, S., 2002, Seasonal incidence of entomopathogenic fungus, Nomuraea rileyi (Farlow) Samson on Spodoptera litura in Groundnut, Soybean and Potato- A comparative study. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci. 15 (1): 63-70.

Kulkarni, N. S., 1999, Utilization of fungal pathogen Nomurea rileyi (Farlow) Samson on the management of lepidopterous pest. Ph. D. Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka (India).

Kumar, N. G., 1978, Studies on the potentiality of pod borer, Cydia ptychora Meyrick (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) as a pest of pulses, its bionomics and control by insecticides. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Uni. Agric. Sci; Bangalore (India).

Kumar, N. G., Nguyen Phidieu Huyen, Nirmala, P. and Umadevi, S. Hiremath, 2009, Effect of insecticides of different origin on the incidence of stem fly and pod borer in soybean crop. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci, 22: 640-642

Kundu, G. G. and Mehra, R. B., 1989, Determination of economic injury level of stem fly, Melanagromyza sojae (Zehnt) on soybean. Indian J. Ent., 51: 434-439.

Kundu, G. G. and Mehra, S. D., 1985, Field evaluation of some soybean germplasms for resistance to stem fly, root knot nematode, M. incognita and yellow mosaic virus. Indian J. of Ent., 47 (2) : 230-232.

Kundu, G. G. and Srivastava, K. P., 1991, Management of soybean stem fly, Melanagromyza sojae (Zehnt) in plants of North India. J. Insect Sci., 4(1): 50-53.

Kwon, S. H., Chung, K. H., Lee, Y. I. and Ryu, J., 1981. Studies on the ecological characters of bean fly, Melanagromyza sojae in soybean. Korean J. Plant Protect., 20 (20 :98-102.

Lakshmi Singh and Sanjeev Kumar, Verma, 1998, Traditional pest management practices followed by the farmers of poon-valley. Paper presented In: Int. Conf. Pest Pestic. Mange. Sust. Agric. Kanpur,India. December11-13.

Lakshminarayana, S. and Rajashri, M., 2006, Flubendiamide 20% WG a new molecule for the management of American bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera on cotton. Pestol., 30: 16-18.

Latha, C. R. P., Sriramulu, M. and Babu, T. R., 1993, Evaluation of insecticides against insect pest complex of soybean (Glycine max (L). Merill. Pesticide Res. J., 5 (2): 212-214.

Leite, L. G. and Lara, F. M., 1985, Population fluctuation of insect and natural enemies encountered with soybean crops in Taboticable. Saopaulo Anais Sa Sociedade Entomologica do. Brazil, 14: 45-57.

Lingappa, S., Patil, R. K. and Hegde, R., 2000, Seasonal occurrence of Nomuraea rileyi (Farlow) Samson in crop ecosystem in the transitional tract of Karnataka. Proc. Sem. Oilseeds

and Oil Res. Dev. Needs in the Millennium, Directorate of Research, Hyderabad, pp. 264-265.

Lourencao, A.L., Miranda, M.A.C., Pereira, J.C.V.N.A. and Ambrosano, G.M.B., 1997, Resistance of soybean to insects: X. Performance of cultivars and lines in relation to stink bugs and defoliators. Anais da Sociedade Entomologica do Brasil, 26(3): 543-550.

Luckmann, W. H., 1971, The insect pests of soybean. World Farm, 13 (5): 18-19 & 22.

Madrap, I. A., Pole, S. P. and Patange, N. R., 2007, Development of pest tolerant soybean genotypes.Proc. ISOR National Seminar, pp.165-167.

Mallikarjunappa, S., Kendappa, G. N. and Ganesh Bhat, U., 2008, Flubendiamide 20% WG-A novel insecticide for the control of rice stemborer, Scirphophaga incertulas and leaf folder Cnaphalocrosis medinalis, In: Coleman memorial National Symp. on Plant Protec., 4-6, December, Univ. Agric. Sci., GKVK, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.

Mandal, S. M. A., Mishra, B. K.and Mohanty, A. K., 1998, Effect of sowing dates on the incidence of insect pests and yield of soybean. Environ. Ecol., 16 (4): 970-971.

Martin, D., 1992, Fa univstic ecological studies in neuer Mullberg Leipzig-Mockern (6th contribution:

Arachnida-Araneae). Entomologische-Nachrichten-und-Berichte, 36(2): 87-96.

Mascarenhas, R. N. and Boethel, D. J., 2000, Development of diagnostic concentrations for insecticide resistance monitoring in soybean looper (Lepidoptera : Noctuidae) larvae using an artificial diet overlay bioassay. J. Econ Entomol., 93(3): 897-904.

Mathew, M. M., 1997, Evaluation of indigenous products against insect pests of groundnut. M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, PDKV, Akola(India).

Meena, N. L. and Sharma, U. S., 2005, Effect of sowing date and row spacing on incidence of major insect pests of soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merrill. Soybean Res., 4: 73-76.

Miranda, M.A.C. de., Braga, N.R., Lourencao, A.L., Miranda, F.T. S.de., Uneda, S.H and Ito, M.F., 2003, Description, yield and stability of early soybean insect resistant cultivar IAC-23. Bragantia, 62(1): 19-27

Mondal, M.M.A., 2007, A study of source-sink relationship in mungbean. Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. Crop Bot., Bangladesh Agric. Univ., Mymensingh, Bangladesh.

More, G.D. Kadu, N.R. and Sakhare, S.D., 1989, Evaluation of insectidal properties of indigenous plant products. Magazine, college of Agric., Nagpur, pp. 56-59.

More, G.D. Kadu, N.R. and Sakhare, S.D., 1989, Evaluation of insectidal properties of indigenous plant products. Magazine, college of Agric., Nagpur, pp. 56-59.

Mote, V. N. and Shah, J. M., 1993, Efficacy of carbosulfan, a new seed dresser on the incidence of stem fly, Ophiomyia phasoeli (Tryon) of French bean. Pestol., 17(8) : 24-28.

Mundhe, D. R., 1980, Insect pest complex on soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill) in Marathwada region. J. Maharashtra Agric. Uni. 5: 259-260.

Muthukrishnan, N., Ramamoorthy, R. and Rajamannar, A., 1995, Integrated pest management evaluation against stem fly in blackgram in dry vertisol. Pestol., 19 (6) : 27-32.

Ngoyen Phi-Dieu Huyen, 2001, Studies on the effect of selected insecticides on the abundance and diversity of insect pests of soybean. M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Uni. Agric. Sci., Bangalore, (India).

Odulaja, A. and Nokoe, S., 1993, A maximin-minimax approach for classifying crop varieties into resistance groups based on yield potential and loss. Int. J. Pest Mgt., 39(1) : 64-66.

Olaifa, J. I. and Akingbohungbe, A. E., 1982, Seasonal population fluctuation in the blackgram and cowpea with Cycia ptychora. Insect Sci. Appl., 3: 73-77.

Ostile, K. R., 1984, Soybean transpiration, vegetable morphology and yield components following simulated and actual insect defoliation. Ph.D. Thesis Diss. Iowa State Univ., Ames.

Pan-Dengming, M. A. Y. and Jia, H. Q., 2000, An experimentation on the application of 48 per cent spinosad solution for the control of bollworm. China Cottons, 28(1): 15-16.

Pandey, R. K. and Singh, V. B., 1984 Influence of source and sink size on growth and seed yield of mungbean [Vigna radiata]. Legume Res., 7:27-36

Parasuraman, S., Jayaraj, S., Gopalan, M. and Kumaraswamy, T., 1985, Attraction of Spodoptera litura Fab. larvae to baits. Indian J. Agric. Sci., 55: 773-774.

Patil, R. H., 2002, Evaluation of insect pest management components in soybean ecosystem. Ph. D. Thesis, Univ of Agric. Sci. Dharwad (India), p. 63.

Patil, R. K., 1995, Control of Spodoptera litura (F.) in groundnut with newer insecticides. Pestol., 19: 14-16.

Patil, R. S., 2000, Utilization of plant products in the management of diamond back moth, Plutella xylostella on cabbage. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Uni. Agric. Sci., Dharwad (India).

Pedigo, L. P., Hutchins, S. H. and Higley, L.G., 1986, Economic injury levels in theory and practice. Annu. Rev. Entomol., 31:341-368.

Peterson, R. K. D. and Higley, L. G., 1996, Temporal changes in soybean gas exchange following simulated insect defoliation. Agron. J., 88:550-554.

Peterson, R. K. D., Danielson, S. D. and Higley, L. G., 1992, Photosynthetic responses of alfalfa to actual and simulated alfalfa weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) injury. Env. Entomol, 21:501-507.

Purwar, J. P. and Yadav, S., 2003, Effect of bio-rational and chemical insecticides on stem borers and yield of soybean. Soybean Res., 2 : 54-60.

Rai, P. S., Sheshareddy, K. V. and Govindan, R., 1973, A list of insect pests of soybean in Karnataka state. Curr. Res., 2:97-98.

Ramakrishna Ayyar, T. V., 1963, Hand book of economic entomology for South India, Government Press, Madras, p. 516.

Ramana, V. V., Reddy, G. P. V. and Krishna Murthy, M. M., 1988, Synthetic pyrethroids and other bait formulations in the control of Spodoptera litura Fab. attacking rabi groundnut. Pesticides, 22: 13-16.

Ramani, S., 1979, Reaction of soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merill] germplasm to the leaf miner Biloba subsecivella (Zeller). M. Sc. Thesis Univ. Agric. Sci., Banglore (India).

Ramaprasad, G., Joshi, B. G., Sitaramaiah, S. and Chari, M. S., 1989, Efficacy of insecticides in bait formulations for control of fourth instar larvae of Spodoptera litura Fab. in tobacco nurseries. Indian J. Pl. Protec., 17: 53-57.

Rao, D.J. and Subramanian, B., 1987, Effect of azadirachtin on Achaea janata L. and Spodoptera litura (Noctuidae : Lepidoptera). J. of Entomol Res., 11: 166-169.

Rawat, R. R., Zille singh and Kapoor, K. N., 1969, Arthropod pests of soybean in Madhya Pradesh. J. Agric. Agro Ind., 2: 11-13.

Renju T., 2007, Evaluation of newer insecticidal poison baits against lepidopterous crop pests. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka (India), p. 64.

Sadasivam, S. and Manickam, A., 2008, Bio chemical methods, New Age International (P) Limited Publishers, New delhi, pp 270.

Sahayaraj, K. and Pautraj, M.G., 1998, Relative toxicity of some plant products to groundnut leaf miner, Aproaerema modicella Dev. Int. Arachis Newsletter, 18: 27- 28.

Salunke, S. G., Bidgire, U. S., More U. G. and Kestibhat, S. S., 2002, Field evaluation of soybean cultivars for their major pests. J. Soils and Crops, 12 (1): 49-55.

Santhosh, M. N., 2008, Evaluation of ITK components against major insect pests of soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill). M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka (India), p. 97.

Sastawa, B. M., Lawan, M and Maina, Y. T., 2004, Management of insect pests of soybean: effects of sowing date and intercropping on damage and grain yield in the Nigerian Sudan savanna. Crop Prot., 23 (2): 155-161.

Saxena, D. K., 1972, Arthropod pests of soybean in Madhya Pradesh and their control. Pesticides, 6 (4): 17-19.

Sayed, E.L., 1983, Evaluation of the insecticidal properties of the common Indian Neem Azadirachta indica A. Juss seeds against the Egyptian cotton leaf worm, Spodoptera littoralis (Boisd). Bull.of entomological Society, Egyptian Economic series, 13:39-47.

Sechriest, R. E. and Sherrod, D. W., 1977, Pelletted bait for control of the black cutworm in corn. J. Econ. Ent., 70: 699-700.

Sharanabasappa and Goud, K. B., 2003, Incidence of Cydia ptychora (Meyrick) on green gram. Insect Environ, 9 (1): 48.

Sharma, A. N., 1995, Determining appropriate screening parameters for evaluating soybean genotypes for tolerance to major insect pests. J. Insect Sci., 8 (2): 167-170.

Sharma, A. N., 1996, Comparison of two screening procedures and classification of soybean genotypes into insect-resistant groups. International J. Pest Mngt., 42(4): 307-310

Sharma, M. L., Sharma, R. K., Ghode, B. D. and Namdeo, K. N., 1994, Field screening of medium maturing group of soybean varieties for their resistance to stem fly, M. sojae (Zehnt). Crop Res., 8 (2) : 363-365.

Shetgar, S. S. and Thombre, U. T., 1984, Occurrence of natural enemies on soybean leaf miner and relative susceptibility of some soybean varieties to its attack. J. Maharastra Agric. Univ., 2: 218-219.

Siddiqui, K. H. and Trimohan, 2002, Evaluation of some insecticide formulations against major insect pests of soybean . Shashpa, 7: 167-170.

Silva, M. T. B. and Silva, M. T. B., 1993, Control of the soybean caterpillar, Anticarsia gemmatalis (Lepidoptera : Nocituidae). Ciencial Rural, 23: 127-132.

Singh, J. P. and Chhibber, 1969, Insect enemies of soybean and their control. Indian Farmer’s Digest, 11 (18):13-16.

Singh, J. P., 1973, Pests of soybean. Pesticide., 7 (9): 24-27.

Singh, K. J. and Singh O. P., 1992, Influence of stem tunnelling by the maggots of Melanagromyza sojae (Zehntner) on yield of soybean. Insect Sci., 5 (2): 198-200.

Singh, O. P. and Singh, K. J., 1990, Insect pests of soybean and their management. Indian Farming, 39 (100): 9-14

Singh, O. P. and Singh, K. J., 1990a, Efficacy and economics of some emulsifiable concentrate insecticides against Melanagromyza sojae (Zehntner) and Chrysedexis acuta (Walk) on soybean. J. Insect. Sci., 3(1): 77-82.

Singh, O. P. and Singh, K. J., 1990b, Insect pests of soybean and their management. Indian Farming, 39 (100) : 9-14.

Singh, O. P. and Singh, K. T., 1987, Green semilooper Chrysodeixis acuta as a pest of flower and pods and its effect on the grain yield of soybean in Madhya Pradesh. Indian J. Agric. Sci., 57: 861-863.

Singh, O. P., 1999, Perspective and prospects of insect pests control in India with references to sustainable environment in India. Proc. of world soybean conference – VI Chicago, Illionois U.S.A. pp. 638-640.

Singh, O. P., Singh, K. J and Singh, P. P., 1988, Effect of dates of sowing and varieties on the of major insect pests of soybean in Madhya pradesh. Bharatiya Krishi Anusandhana Patrika, 3(1): 47-57.

Singh, O. P., Singh, K. J. and Nema, K. K., 2000, Efficacy of some seed dressing and granule insecticides against major insect pests of soybean. Pestol., 24 (1): 8- 11.

Singh, O. P., Singh, K. J. and Singh, P .P., 1989, Effect of different varieties of soybean and their plant population on the incidence of grey semilooper Rivula sp in Madhya pradesh. Bharatiya Krishi Anusandhana Patrika, 4(3): 149-153.

Singh, S. and Beri, S. K., 1973, Studies on the immature stages of Agromyzidae from India : Notes on the biology and description of immature stages of Melanagromyza. J. Natural History, 5: 241-250.

Singh, S., 1982, Ecology of Agromyzidae (Diptera) associated with leguminous crops in India Memories of the school of entomology, No.8 St. John college, Agra, India, P.126

Sontakke, B. K. and Mishra, P. R., 1994, Impact of different sowing dates/seasons on the incidence of insect pests and yield losses in soybean. J. Insect Sci., 7 (1): 84-87.

Sontakke, B. K. and Patro, B., 1991, Occurrence of insect pests of Soybean in Western Orissa. Environ Entomol., 9 (1):173-175.

Sprenkel, R. K., Brooks, W. M. and Ditwez, L. L., 1975, Artificial dissemination and epizootic initiation of Nomuraea rileyi, an entomopathogenic fungus of lepidopterous pest of soybean. J. Econ. Ent., 68: 847-851.

Sridhar, Siddiqui, K. H. and Trimohan, 2003, Field evaluation of soybean germ plasm for identifying resistance to stem fly, Melangromyza sojae and white fly Bemisia tabaci. Indian J. Entomol., 65:222-227.

Sridhar, Y., Siddiqui, K. H. and Trimohan, 2003, Field evaluation of soybean germplasm for identifying resistance to stem fly, M. sojae and whitefly, B. tabaci. Indian J. Entomol., 65 (2) : 222-227.

Srivastava, K. K. and Srivastava, B. K., 1987a, Evaluation of soybean varieties against stem fly, M. phaseoli (Tryon) attack. Indian J. Pl. Prot., 15 (2) : 168-169.

Srivastava, K. K. and Srivasatava, B. K., 1987b, Efficacy of some insecticides on foliar sprays against soybean stem fly, M. phaseoli (Tryon.). Indian J. Pl. Prot. 15 (1) : 11-13.

Srivastava, K.K., Srivastava, B. K. and Deole, J. Y., 1988, Studies on chemical control and varietal resistance of soybean against leaf miner, Stomopteryx subsecivella Zeller. Indian. J. Pl. Prot., 16(2): 147-151.

Srivastava, O. S. and Singh, M. P., 1974, Chemical control of girdle beetle and stem fly pests of soybean. Indian J. Entomol., 36 : 171-172.

Suenaga, H., 1953, On the soybean stem miner (Melanagromyza sojae) Shokubutsu Boeki, 7: 264-266 (In Japanese).

Suharsono, 1992, Towards the development of resistant varieties of soybean to insect pests in Indonesia. Proc. 3rd int. conference on pl. prot. in the tropics, Genting Highlands, Malaysia, 61-63.

Sullivan, M. J., Turnipseed, S. G., Robinson, D., Dugger, P. and Richter, D., 1999, Insecticidal efficacy against a complex of fall and beet army worms and soybean looper in South California. Proc. of Beltwide Cotton Conferences Orlando, Florida, USA, 2: 1034-1036.

Talekar, N. S. and Chen, B. S, 1983, Seasonality of insect pests of soybean and Mung bean. J. Econ. Entomol., 76:34-37.

Talekar, N. S. and Lee, H. R., 1988. Response of soybean to foliage loss in Taiwan. J. Econ. Entomol., 81:1363–1368.

Talekar, N. S., 1980, Search for bean fly resistance in soybean, mungbean and snapbean. Proc. legumes in the tropics. Faculty of Agriculture, University pertanian Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia, pp. 293-295.

Talekar, N. S., 1990, Agromyzid flies of food legume in the tropics, Wiley Eastern, New Delhi

Tatagar, M. H., Mohankumar, H. D., Shivaprasad, M. and Mesta, R. K., 2009, Bio-efficacy of flubendiamide 20 WG against chilli fruit borers, Helicoverpa armigera (Hub.) and Spodoptera litura (Fb.). Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 22 (3-Spl. Issue): 579-581.

Tavare, S. P., Raut, V, Malvankar, G. B. and Philips Varghese, P., 2005, Resistance to soybean genotypes against leaf miner and stem fly. J. of Maharastra Agric. Univ., 30 : 125-126.

Taylor, T. A., 1964, Observation on the biodynamics of Laspcyresia ptychora, Myrick (Lepidoptera : Ecvosperidae) infesting cowpea in Nigeria. Bull. Entomol. Res., 55: 761-773

Tejkumar, S., 1979, Studies on crop loss in ground nut ( Arachis hypogea lin.) due to leaf miner, Stomopteryx subsecivella Zeller (Lepidoptera : Gelechidae) and determination of economic injury levels, Ph.D. Thesis University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, P. 172.

Thippaiah, M., 1997, Bio-ecology of semilooper, Trichoplusia orichalcea (Fab.) (Noctuidae : Lepidoptera) with observation on other pest complex of soybean and their management. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ of Agric Sci, Bangalore (India).

Thomazini, M. J., 2001, Insects associated with soybean in the State of Acre, Brazil. Acta Amazonica, 31 (4): 673-681.

Todd, J. W. and Morgan, L. W., 1972, Effect of hand defoliation on yield and seed weight of soybeans. Ibid., p:567-570.

Tohnishi, M. H., Nakao, T., Furuya, A., Seo, H., Kodama, K., Tsubata, S., Fujioka, H., Kodama, T., Hirooka. and Nishimatsu, T., 2005, Flubendiamide a novel insecticide highly active against lepidopterous insect pests. J. Pestic. Sci., 30: 354-360.

Totanadak, Jitendrakumar, Debjanidey, N. A. Shakil and S.Walia, 2012, Residue and Bio-efficacy Evaluation of Controlled Release Formulations of Imidacloprid against Pests in Soybean (Glycine max), J. of Environ. Sci. and Health., 47 (3): 226-231

Trimohan, Sekhar, J. C., Rane, V. K. S. and Siddiqui, K. H., 2000, Comparative susceptibility of soybean germ plasm to stem fly Melangromyza sojae (Zeht). Indian. J. Entomol., 62:316-317.

Tsan, K.L., H.B.Cheng and H.H. Chen, 1967, Screening of soybean varieties for reisitance to root and stem miners. Ann. Rep. Dry land food crops improvement 1968, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Taiwan, 9: 176-178.

Tugwell, P., Rouse, E. P. and Thompson, R. C., 1973, Insects in soybeans and a weed host (Desmodium sp) Ask. Agric. Expet. Stn., Report Service, 214: 3-18.

Vander Goot, P., 1930, Agromyzid flies of some native legume crops in java. Original in Dutch, translation (1984) published by Tropical Vegetable information services, Asian Vegetable Research and Development Centre, Shanhua, Taiwan, Republic of china.

Venkataravanappa, B., 1996, Development of integrated pest management strategies for pest complex on soybean. M. Sc. (Agri). Thesis, Uni. Agric. Sci., Bangalore (India).

Venkatesan, T. and Kundu, G. G., 1994, Bioefficacy of insecticides for the control of stem fly and white fly infesting the soybean crop. J. Entomol. Res., 18 (3) : 265-270.

Venkateswarlu, B. and Visperas, R. M., 1987, Source-sink relationships in crop plants. IRRI Res. Paper Series, 125:1-19

Vinod Kumar, Manglik, V. P. and Bhattacharya, A. K., 1998, Estimation of population density of some insect pests of soybean. J. Insect Sci., 11 (1) : 14-18.

Walker, P.T., 1983. The assessment of crop losses in cereals. Insect science and its application, 4,97-104.

Wang, H. L., 1987, A preliminary study on the damage of M. sojae (Zehnt) to soybean. Insect Knowled., 24 (1) : 217-223.

Wang, J. L. Wang, X. Y. and Zhang, Y. T. 1992, Study on the resistance to soybean varieties and lines to soybean stem borer. Acta Phytophylacia Sinica, 19 (2): 153-157.

Weber, C. R. and Caldwell, B. E., 1966, Effects of defoliation and stem bruising on soybeans. Crop Sci., 6:25–27.

Weber, C. R., 1955, Effects of defoliation and topping simulating hail injury to soybeans. Agron. J., 47:262–266.

Westgate, M. E., Schussler, J. R., Reicosky, D. C. and Brenner, M. L., 1989, Effect of water deficits on seed development in soybean, conservation of seed growth rate. Plant. Physiol., 91: 980-985

Wu-YeChun., Wang-Hui., Wu-QiaoJuan., Gai-JunYi and Yu-DeYue., 2004, Relative stability of resistance in soybean to leaf-feeding insects in the field. Chinese J. Oil Crop Sci, 26(4): 66-70.

Yokoi, S., Omino, T. and Tsuji, H., 1975, Experiment studies on behavioural differences among three Noctuid species larvae, Agrotis ipsilon, Momestra brassicae and Spodoptera litura in relation to the efficacy of commercial bait. Japanese J. App. Entomol. Zool., 19: 11-16.

* - Originals are not seen__________________________________________________

Appendix I: Weekly average values of the weather parameters during the crop growing season (2010-11)

MSW Tmax (0C)

Tmin (0C)

RHm (%)

RHe (%)

RHa (%) Rainfall

(mm) NRD

Avg. WS

(kmph)

22 35.3 22.8 65.4 58.7 62.1 0.6 0 11.0

23 34.1 21.9 71.9 64.7 68.3 5.2 1 10.3

24 28.1 21.5 89.0 85.6 87.3 41.0 5 10.1

25 29.2 21.0 86.7 79.3 83.0 15.8 2 10.7

26 29.1 21.3 85.4 76.7 81.1 12.2 1 11.9

27 28.2 21.1 86.1 80.3 83.2 11.6 1 9.7

28 30.0 20.9 86.6 66.1 76.4 2.0 0 12.4

29 26.1 20.7 90.1 88.4 89.3 38.6 5 10.4

30 25.8 20.7 95.1 85.0 90.1 91.4 7 12.1

31 26.8 20.7 92.6 76.7 84.6 28.5 3 15.1

32 28.6 21.1 89.4 71.0 80.2 1.8 0 11.6

33 28.4 20.8 92.9 75.7 84.3 18.8 3 8.3

34 27.3 20.5 95.1 75.1 85.1 94.6 3 7.8

35 25.0 20.4 94.7 80.1 87.4 65.8 3 7.0

36 23.5 20.6 92.3 78.9 85.6 8.1 0 8.0

37 23.5 20.3 93.0 74.4 83.7 4.6 1 8.0

38 23.5 19.3 88.1 84.3 86.2 106.6 4 6.9

39 25.5 20.3 89.1 69.7 79.4 26.8 3 7.7

40 29.8 20.5 93.6 66.6 80.1 69.6 4 5.4

41 29.3 19.8 89.4 67.1 78.3 37.8 2 6.4

42 27.4 20.6 91.7 76.1 83.9 9.2 1 7.7

43 24.7 17.2 81.3 59.3 70.3 58.2 3 6.7

44 23.4 19.5 91.0 72.6 81.8 23.8 2 8.3

45 23.5 19.7 91.7 73.6 82.6 45.6 3 6.3

46 29.2 19.3 87.4 56.7 72.1 0.0 0 5.4

47 28.8 18.5 88.3 67.9 78.1 25.6 2 4.9

48 28.4 17.1 87.1 52.6 69.9 0.0 0 8.0

49 26.9 16.0 86.3 56.9 71.6 0.6 0 5.6

50 26.8 13.9 77.9 56.3 66.6 0.0 0 4.3

51 27.6 10.7 64.3 38.7 51.5 0.0 0 6.7

52 28.3 17.3 82.2 55.7 68.9 0.0 0 9.3

1 28.9 15.6 88.0 60.0 74.0 0.0 0 4.0

2 27.5 12.9 84.9 48.7 66.9 0.0 0 5.6

3 28.9 11.4 66.6 60.7 60.8 1.0 0 4.9

4 29.9 13.0 71.0 39.6 63.5 0.0 0 4.3

5 30.1 12.4 69.6 26.6 51.9 0.0 0 7.1

6 30.2 13.1 62.7 23.7 43.2 0.0 0 7.7

7 31.2 12.4 53.4 20.4 36.9 0.0 0 8.1

8 30.5 13.9 75.3 30.7 53.0 0.0 0 6.9

9 30.8 15.5 85.4 32.6 59.0 21.6 1 5.6

Appendix-II : Weekly average values of the weather parameters during the crop growing season (2011-12)

MSW Tmax (0C)

Tmin (0C)

RHm (%)

RHe (%)

RHa (%) Rainfall

(mm) NRD

Avg. WS (kmph)

22 32.0 21.2 93.6 62.4 78.0 85.4 3 11.6

23 26.7 21.3 94.1 82.0 88.1 42.4 5 12.3

24 26.0 20.9 92.9 78.6 85.7 29.6 3 14.1

25 27.9 21.2 92.1 69.1 80.6 34.0 2 13.9

26 27.7 21.3 93.1 73.4 83.3 31.0 4 13.3

27 27.4 20.4 93.9 75.7 84.8 38.6 5 11.3

28 27.0 20.2 94.6 77.6 86.1 16.2 2 13.3

29 26.0 21.1 94.6 82.3 88.4 35.6 4 13.9

30 26.8 20.7 94.1 75.6 84.9 27.2 1 11.6

31 26.1 20.6 94.6 83.6 89.1 44.6 4 12.3

32 26.6 21.1 94.0 76.4 85.2 12.4 2 11.7

33 27.0 20.6 92.9 76.3 84.6 9.0 1 8.6

34 28.2 20.5 93.7 75.0 84.4 23.6 2 7.3

35 24.4 20.6 96.6 87.9 92.7 64.0 7 10.7

36 26.7 20.6 95.0 78.4 86.7 38.2 5 9.9

37 28.8 20.4 91.4 67.6 79.5 4.8 1 7.4

38 28.3 19.2 89.7 61.1 75.4 7.0 1 7.6

39 30.0 19.0 87.4 60.1 73.8 5.8 1 5.9

40 30.2 19.5 90.4 58.7 74.6 38.8 2 4.9

41 30.0 20.0 91.6 58.1 74.9 133.2 3 4.7

42 30.0 19.7 89.1 54.9 72.0 43.9 3 4.0

43 29.8 18.9 85.9 56.0 70.9 2.0 0 7.1

44 30.0 17.9 87.7 53.9 70.8 2.6 0 6.1

45 30.8 15.4 67.4 29.3 48.4 0.0 0 5.6

46 30.2 14.7 62.3 29.6 45.9 0.0 0 6.4

47 29.6 13.8 71.9 33.9 52.9 0.0 0 8.0

48 29.3 18.7 87.6 48.7 68.1 3.4 1 8.0

49 30.1 14.6 74.3 38.7 56.5 0.0 0 5.9

50 29.9 14.4 79.6 41.0 60.3 0.0 0 6.1

51 28.2 11.6 76.7 31.9 54.3 0.0 0 6.7

52 29.2 12.7 68.0 35.1 51.6 0.0 0 5.1

1 27.8 13.4 86.7 51.4 69.0 0.0 0 6.5

2 28.6 11.1 65.0 58.7 60.1 0.0 0 4.7

3 29.9 13.1 75.3 44.1 63.5 0.0 0 6.1

4 29.8 12.4 67.3 26.3 54.0 0.0 0 5.3

5 30.4 13.2 65.6 24.1 44.9 0.0 0 5.1

6 31.1 12.1 55.6 20.4 38.0 0.0 0 7.1

7 30.6 14.2 68.0 29.6 48.8 0.0 0 6.1

8 30.7 15.4 84.6 32.9 58.7 21.6 1 5.4

9 32.5 16.5 70.9 28.1 49.5 0.0 0 5.7

STUDIES ON DEFOLIATORS AND STEMFLY PESTS OF SOYBEAN AND THEIR MANAGEMENT

PRABHU NAYAKA 2013 Dr. R. H. PATIL Major Advisor

ABSTRACT

Investigations were carried out on different insect pests of soybean at ARS, Bailhongal and MARS, UAS, Dharwad, Karnataka during kharif, 2010-11 and 2011-12.

Survey was under taken in four districts of northern Karnataka viz., Dharwad, Belgaum, Haveri and Bagalkot during kharif 2010 and 2011. Among districts surveyed, Belgaum and Bagalkot were identified as hot spots for stem fly while Dharwad and Belgaum were identified as hot spots for defoliators by recording higher incidence. The surveillance in fixed plot study indicated the highest incidence of Melanagromyza sojae during 36

th and 37

th Meteorological Standard Week (10.10 and

15.00%, respectively). The population of Spodoptera litura ranged from 2.50-3.45 larvae/meter row length, Thysanoplusia orchalcea fom 1.05-1.82 l/mrl and Spilarctia oblique from 1.30-2.15 l/mrl and activity of natural enemies observed on 15 days after sowing.

Correlation studies between insect pests and weather parameters revealed that, rainfall had negative correlation (r = 0.55) and maximum temperature (r = 0.71) had positive correlation with S. litura and M. sojae.

Seed dressing with thiamethoxam 70 WS @ 3.0 g/kg seed + foliar spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.5 g/l at 20 days after sowing proved its superiority over other treatments in managing stem fly by recording high seed yield of 25.64 and 24.42 q/ha during 2010 and 2011, respectively. Among the insecticide, flubendiamide 480 SC 0.2 ml/l was found to be the most effective in managing leaf eating caterpillars by recording highest seed yield of 23.95 q/ha. The simulation studies revealed that 25 per cent defoliation at 20 DAG did not significantly affect the seed yield while at 60 days after germination it was significantly educed the seed yield.

Among the genotypes screened for two years PS-1466 and PK-1042 were found resistant to stem fly and high yielding. While JS-335 and Dsb-11 susceptible to high yielding and defoliation as per max-min and min-max method.

Documents

STUDIES ON DEFOLIATORS AND STEMFLY PESTS OF SOYBEAN … · Pradesh, Karnataka and Gujarat. In Karnataka soybean occupies an area of 0.22 million ha with production of 0.23 million