Journal of Scientifi c & Indusuial Research Vol. 59 , March 2000, pp 2 14-220

Use of Botanicals in Bruchid Control of Stored Pulses

N Raja and S Ignacimuthu *

E nto mo logy Research Ins titute, Loyo la Co llege, C he nn a i 600034, Indi a.

Received : 30 A ug ust 1999; accepted : 13 December 1999

The revi ew deals with different botanica ls such as essent ial oil s and extracts prepared from vari ous plant parts, used to con tro l bruchids, whic h damage stored pu lses . The efficacy, meri ts, and demeri ts of the methods agai nst bruchids are

discussed .

Introduction

Pulses form an integral part of vegetable diet in Indian subcontinent. India has been producing 12-14 m tonnes of different pulses for the last four decades I .

Nearly 8.5 per cent of the same is lost during post harvest handling and storage2 During storage, damage due to pest attack results in loss of grain weight , decrease in percent seed germin ati on, bes ides contamination and biochemica l and nutritional changes in seeds3.4. There are various chemical, physical and biological factors, which are responsible for the deteriorati on of pulses during storage . They are temperature, humidity, storage pattern , microorgani sms, fungi, insects, rodents and birds5

More than 14 spec ies of insect pests of storage caused damage, of which bruchids Callosobruchus

mantlalus, C. chinensis and C. anaLis are prominent ones. The average percentage damage has been fo und to be max imum on pigeon pea (32.64 per cent) foll owed by Lethyrus (25.6 1 per cent) cowpea ( 18.60 per cent) blackgram ( 14.97 per cent) green gram (9.90 per cent) bengal gram (4.8 per cent) beans (3.8 per cent) peas (2.58 per cent) and lentil (2.2 per cent)6. Here, an attempt is made to compile vari ous botanical protectants avail able aga inst bruchids found in the literature and suggesti ons are offered for better

control measures.

* Corresponding aut hor

Use of Botanicals as Protectants

Application of pl ant products to protect the stored seeds is a traditional method in rural India. The botanicals such as essential oil s, extrac ts of leaves, bark, seed kernel, powdered pl ant parts, e.g., leaf, seed have been subjected in laboratory conditi ons to control bruchi ds. Using bioproducts IS safer alternative for syntheti c pesticides .

Essential Oils

Cowpea seeds treated with 10ml/kg of groundnut or traditional coconut oil was found to be tox ic against eggs of C. macuLalus and reduced progeny development7

. Crude soyabean oil 0.5mll I OOg of pigeon pea was tox ic to C. chillensi.\·x. Neem seed oil at I ml /I OOg of chickpea seeds protec ted them against C. chinensis9

. Essenti al oil from Acorus calamus rhi zomes was tox ic against Callosobruchus Sp.IO-1 2 Mishra el aL. 1.1 and Ansari and Mishra l 4 have reported that the oil s of Callislcmoll lanceoLalus and Eupalorium capill!foliul11 were found to be toxic to C. maculatus. The LCso for both the oil s decreased with increasing time: 0. 16 and 0.01 8 1111 fo r C. Lanceolalus and 0.092 and 0.01 4ml for E. capillifo lium after 24 and 96 h, respecti vely.

Giga and Munnetsi 15 have suggested that maize oil , a blend of cotton seed and soya oil , castor oil and citrus oi I at rates of 5 1111 oi IIkg seed or higher were effec ti ve in reducing ovipositi on and egg hatching of C. rhodesianus in seeds of Vigna unguicll/tlIa. According to Begam and Quiniones l6.17 the dosages of

RAJA & IGNACIM UTH U: BOTAN ICALS IN BRUCHID CONTROL 2 15

3 ml/kg of either coconut, soyabean, mustard or groundnut oil were effecti ve in protecting Vigna

radiata against C. chinensis infestation and affected ov i position . Sesame and neem oi I at I ml /I OOg was the most effective against C. chill ensis

l8. Oils from

the seeds of neem (Azadirachta illdica) and the brown pepper Piper g llill eese afforded protecti on to cowpea seeds (Vigna ullguiculata) from C. maculatlls

ll). Olive

oi l with salt gave good effec ti veness during four months of storage of pulses20 According to Don­Pedr021, pure oleic and linoleic fatty ac ids were acti ve in reducing the development of progeny of C. lI1aclllatlis on seeds of cowpea (Vigna IIl1g llic lllata )

compared to crude groundnut and coconut oil. The essential oils from clove (SYZyg illll1 aromaticlI/11 ) were tox ic to adults of C. l11aclllatll:P . Single application of groundnut oil or palm oil at 2.5 - 3.0 mllkg of cowpea seed reduced C. l11a clllatlls ov ipos iti on, progeny

d I . ~I

emergence an ongevlty- .

Cockfi e ld 2~ has reported that groundnut oil nearl y as effecti ve as methyl pirimiphos for protec ti on of stored cowpeas against bruchids . Ex tract from nuts of Vitellaria paradoxa protected stored cowpea seeds against C. lIIaculatlls with less damage(5.60 per cent) after six months1

) . Fifty milli gram of ex tracted oil from Cilll1al11011111m lI1 ercadoi caused 100 per cent mortality of adults of C. chillellsis after 24 h(ref 26) . Oils of LHIlIIIIga scalldells, Na rdostachvs jOf(/IIWlI si

and Seseli illdicllll127 and neem, castor, karanj i oil "s

ex hibited significant repellent activity against C. chill emis.

According to Kh aire el o l? ), neem oil at I per cent concentration superi or than eq ual concentrati on of sunfl ower, caster, mustard , sa ffl ower, groundnut ,

palm, sesame, karanji and corn oil against C. chillellsis. 2ml or 4 ml/kg of soyabean oil protected seeds of faba beans and cowpeas against C. chinellsis.lo. Essential oil of basil and geranium had hi gh insecticidal effects thereby protecting faba beans against C. chinellsis.l l . 4 ml/kg of palm, mustard , taramira (Fruca vesicaria), groundnut or coconut oil completely inhibited C. chilillellsis up to 90d of stored eh ickpea seeds.ll. Li enard et (iI.1

.,

have reported that oil from seeds of Cassia occidelllalis induced an increase in mortality of eggs and first instar larvae of C. l11aclllatlls at a concentration of 10ml/kg of cowpea.

' ~ Gbolade and Adebayo' have reported that volatile oils of Lippia adoell sis at doses ranging from 5 to 50 IJI effec ti ve in protectin g 9.9g of cowpea seeds from infestati on by C. /11 aclllatlls. Applicati on of coconut oi I at I mil I OOg was fo und to be more protective in green grams than benga l gram (Chi ck pea) and cowpeas against C. clliIlCIISi.l'. Oils of taramira Em c(l sativa. coconut (COCIIS III1CijC' ro ),

sunfl ower (Glycell c /11ox) , saffl ower (Ca u h{//I/lls

tillctorius) and castor (Ricilllls COll1l1ll1l1is) at I or 3 mllkg seed of gram (Cicer a rietinlll11 ) inhi bited ov ipos iti on of C. chillell si.\}(' .

Ramzan.17 has reported th at oil s from cotton seed, sunflower, groundnut , soyabean and mustard at 30 mllkg of cow pea seeds and 4 ml/kg of green gram suppressed adult emergence of C. 1II([{.; lIlatlls for up to 5 months . Coconut, ground nut and mustard oi I at 5 and 7.5 ml /kg of chi ckpea seed proved hi gh I Y effecti ve in protecting seeds for up to 8 months of storage, in terms of seed damage and weight 10SSIX . The oils and powdered leaves of Ellgellia lill i/10m and

N Raja. hom Oil Nih Fehm{//T 1907, i.l' a scielllisl {I/ 1:;lI lo llllJlogr RI'.\·I'{I/·ch IlI slilllle,

Lor nla Co/legl', Chl'lIl1a i. /-Ie n 'cI' il'ed his doclOml t/I'grt'e ill Zoolog.\' .Iim ll

Ullil 'e rsit\' (~r M {/(Ims, Chmlla i ill 1994. /-le is 11 11 allthor or aholll 25 research

P{/p('/'s IlIIh/islll'd ill scl lO larlr jOllnw ls allll cOII/I' rell cl' /JI '()ceet/illgs. /-/1' has 11/.1'0

collirilm iet/ IJilIIII la I' auicles ill loca l II/aga: ill es alit/ ".,-i l/l'lI./llIIr books Oil I"allis ill

Tal/lil la llg llagl' . /-/1' has Olle booklet Oil " Spit/I' rs I fJl ' Cockroach - A Us('/'

Malllla/" ".,-il/('// ill Tall/il allll LlIg /isll lall guage 10 his credil.

Dr S Igllacillllllhll , hom Oil 7lh Fehmar.\' 19-18, is Dirl'clor alld Pr ill cilw l (J/

Ell lo/l lOlogr l?e.I'I'arch I llstilllie. Lorolu Co /legl', Chell/wi. /-Ie receil 'cd his Ph .D. ill fl o/(Ji/.\' ./iwlI UlliI '('J's ity (~r /)I' lhi ill 1980. /-/e has 75 res('{J rch /I/ /b/ical ioll s alld Ilill e scil' lIl ijic hooks 10 Ihis credit . /-/ 1' has I\'()II se l'l'ml (/\\'{/ rdsllll!/l our.\· alld I'isiled

Nelher/allds, BelgiulI/ allll Cem/(/nI' .fiJI' Imillillg Oil DII 'im lll/lell/(J1 I'm teclioll . /-/e has a lso co/llri lJII led 15 sci l'll ti/ic books.

2 16 J SCI INO RES VOL 59 MARCH 2000

Lippia adoellsis were effect ive in providing a hi gh level of bruchid control39. Reddy el {{1.40 have reported that karanji oil , mustard oil , and castor oil at a concentrati on of 10 mllkg protected mung seed (Vigna radiata) over a period of 2 1 months against C. chillensis. Appl ication of 4 ml/kg of cotton seed oi I was most effecti ve in protecting black gram Vign{{

. C I 4' 117ungo aga ll1st . ana .is .

The essential oils of Eucalypllls cilriodora and Ocimlll11 basilicUlI1 ~land crude castor oi 1 ~ 3 at 10ml/kg of chickpea were potent aga inst C. lIlaclllallls and C. phaseoli. Chang el al.~~ have reported that rice bran oil at 1-8 ml/kg moong 'bean had a 52.6-82.5 per cent repellent effec t on the ad ults and a 96.3-100 per cent inhibitory effect on egg hatching of C. chinensis . Signi ficantly decreased ov ipositi on was observed in steam di stilled essential oi l from dried leaves of Piper aClllijoliUll745

. Essential oils of Dennellia IripeIOI{{ , Piper gllineense achieved 100 per cent mortality of adults of C. maculatus and Sitophillls :eafl'/ais in 24 h (ref.46). Fumi gat ion of Cilms peel oil resulted in the death of C. macula fll s larvae within cowpea seeds immed iatel/ 7 and the component limonene was found to be bioactive havi ng strong insecticidal ac ti vi t/ H. The essenti al oi ls, steam distilled from leaves of Lippia /11ul/t!/7ora ex hibited in secti cidal actIVIt y

. C I ~9 R' k I 'i() I aga inst . macu allis . appa ' se cl (/. - lave suggested that oil s of maize, groundnut , sunfl ower and sesame at 10 mllkg of cowpea seeds signifi cantl y reduced the oviposition of C. l11aclllallls, C. chillellsis and C. rhodesiaJlus.

Use of Other Plant Products (Extracts/Powders)

Petroleum ether ex tracts of stem and bark of Lilllonia {[cidissill1a were fou nd to be hi ghl y insecti cidal ( 100 per cent and 65 per cent respect ive ly) aga inst C. chineJlsis when adult emergence studies were carried out with seeds of Vigna radiala51

. Makanjuola52 has reported that trea tment of cowpea seeds wi th neem leaf and seed ex tracts in water or methylated spi rit significantl y reduced in ov ipositi on, egg hatch and adult emergence of C. /11oclllatlls and field trials showed that the extracts generally gave protecti on for 5 month s. Treatment at 25-50 mg/ I Og of powder from dried leaves of Prell/ina integrilolill had an tiovipos iti onal effects on C. chillensis in seeds of mung bean Vigna radialO 'il.

Ofuya5~ has reported that tobacco powder was most effective in reducing C. Inaclllalils egg hatching on stored cowpeas. Powdered leaves of Cyl71bopogon j laxuosus of 2-4 per cent by weight gave adequate protection on C. /'I1(/ culatus infestati on in Vigna unglliculata 55. George and Patel)(, reported that dry leaf powder of mint (Menlha spic([{a) at 10 per cent was effecti ve against C. analis in green gram.

Applicati on of 500-2000 ppm of hexane extract of Piper cubeba fruit to black eyed peas (Vigna lIlIglliculala) reduced infestation of C. maclllalllS by 7-42.5 per cent 57. Neem leaves an seed powder when indi viduall y mi xed with cowpeas at 3 per cent w/w caused 85-90 per cent mortality to adult of C. l71aculatus in 72h(ref.58). Wolfson et (d. 5') have reported three parts of ash (Querous spp an Carya spp I: I ratio) to four parts of cowpea prevented growth of C. maculallls population and a 3 cm layer of ash on top of stored seeds prevented in festat ion by adu lts. Appli cati on of cashew nut shell liquid was found to be effec ti ve in reducing infestat ion of cowpea seed by C. I/Wcul((III./'o Vilex ncgundo leaf was most effective against C. l11aculallls in reduc ing ov ipos iti on and adult emergence anu weight loss in cowpea and khesari (La lhym s salivw /'. Accord ing to Mbata and Ekpendu62 powder and solvent ex tract of Piper guinecnsc prevented ov ipos iti on and caused egg and adult mort ali ty. The gums exude of the cashew tree (Anacardillll1 occidenlale) prevented ov ipositi on and reduced the number of surviving ad ults of C. maculatlls 63 . I-Sg of dried and ground Ricinus cOlI/l11 l1nis leaves mixed with 300 seeds of cowpea in the laboratory caused 100 per cent mortality of C. /1 f([c u/a tlls in 7d(ref.64). The crude ether ex tract of seeds of Monode rJ/w l17yrisl ica at 20 per cent and 50 per cent concentrat ion significa tly inhibited ovipos iti on by C. I1wcll latus in legume seeds and ex hibited ovic idal and larvicidal action while it did not significantl y reduce the germinabili ty of treated

d 6'i A d' 0" 16() I I cowpea see s -. ccor IIlg to ~ ' Cl a. , et ly alcohol ex tract of Piper guinef'se fruit was morc tox ic than its fruit dust agai nst C. l1J([culolllS on stored cowpeas. Seck cl al. 67 have found out that fresh ground fruits and leaves of the African shru b Boscio senegalcnsis at 2-4 , 9 (w/w), respec ti ve ly, caused 80-100 per cent mortality in ad ults of C. mawlallls anei signi ficantly reduced both emergence and damage caused in F I progeny. Extract obta ined from ca llu s of

...,-

RAJA & IGNACIM UTH U: BOTANICALS IN BRUCHID CONTROL 2 17

Indigoj'era lillcloria was more effecti ve against C. chinensis th an the same compounds obtained from plant parts6R

.

o . Lale has shown that cowpea seeds mi xed with

Capsicum ji'utescens and stored in ventilated plastic reduced the percentage of adult of C. 1Il(1(.;lIlallts.

Kahare el al.70 reported that when chi ckpeas were

treated with one per cent seed extract of Azadirachla

indica and two per cent seed extract of Pon[?wl1ia

g lC/bra, the number of eggs laid by C. lI1aculalus was lowest. Treating the cowpea seeds with ground fruit of Capsicllll1 annum resulted in hi ghest mortalit y (92 per cent) of C. 1I7ac ltlalllS after six months of

71 storage . Dosages of dry leaf powder of Eucalyplus

cilriodera on 4 per cent (w/w) either as a layer above the red gram or mi xed with the grain gave greatest reduction in the number of eggs laid by C. chinemis

and F I adult emergence72 . EI-Lakwah el a /7

\ have reported that petroleum ether extract of the M elia

azadirachla fruit s was more tox ic to C. /I1aCltlallts

adults than the powder and acetone ex tract. Sweet fl ag (Aco rus calamus) applied at 0.5- 2.5g/50g of seed: gave maximum protec tion against C. chin en .,· i .\.7 ~ . The powdered root bark of Zanlhoxylltlll ~anlhoxvloides

and seeds of A zadi rachla indica performe~1 well enough to serve as alternatives to pirimiphos-meth yl and permethrin , to control C. IIwCulal ltS on stored

75 H · 76 . . cowpea . emyan has eported th at applIcati on of neem kernel powder or M edia (/~adirachl{/ kernel or Solanllll7 in cmwlIIl1 leaves or wood ash (Acacia wood stalk as h) at the rate of 5g/ I 00 showed good protec ti on against C. macula lus . Neem (A~adiu;chla indica) based pesticide Margosan OTM (containing azadirachtin) was effecti ve against C. (lnali.,.7

7 Seed powder of custard apple A nnona sq llall lO.W and black pepper Piper nig rllll1 , leaves of mint Menlha piperita

and peel of orange Cilms re licltlaf(/ all at 5 part s/ I 00 parts of green gram (w/w) resulted in 100 per ce nt adult mortality after 3 d (ref. 78). The ground seed powder of Pithraj (Ap/wnamix is po/yslachya)

provided good protec ti on by greatl y reducing F I progeny and seed damage rates for mung beans (Vigna radiala) aga inst C. chinensi./') Cloves and black pepper at I g/kg of cowpea gave result s, which were comparable to those produced by malathion( 1.5

R(' per cent)' J.

The powdered fruit s of peppers (Capsicltlll

ji·ltleSCells, C. annLlll1 and C. chinellse) at 2.5-5.0

g/250g of cowpea seeds were effective in reducin o b

ov ipos iti on and damage from C. l11acLlla lu.\·8 1. Seeds of black gram ( Vigna II1UllgO) could be effecti ve ly protected from damage by C. chinensis by mi xing the seed with dried powder of neem leaves at a rate of 100-400 mg /50g seed82

. lavaid and Ramatlakape la83

ha ve reported that cow dung ash and wood of Motswere (Co ll1bretul11 inberbe) tree ash applied on cowpeas at hi gh doses (30 per cent and 100 per cent wt/wt) were effec ti ve in the management of C. mClcltla lLls . Black pepper ( Piper nig rlll17 ) powder at 500 ppm used in conjunction with mustard oil gave significantly greater protection of stored aree n ~ram /:' b

(Vigna radiata) against C. chill ensis and C. ana /is

compared with bl ack pepper powder on it s own ~~. Leaf powder of Hyplis suaveolells and Sphenodea

zeylallica showed best protectant effects aga inst bruchids after four months storage of pulses85

. ~

X( Mbata el at. 1 have reported that the dust and ether extrac t (0.5 per cent) of Piper guin eell.l·e seeds were effecti ve in enhancin g the mortality of C. lI1([culaluS adults infesting cowpea seeds . These seed products are recommended by the authors, for use as in secticides , as they have low tox icit y to huma n beings when used as spices. Accordin g to Oounwolu

~ b

and Odunlami R7 , root bark powder of Zalltho,l'vl l/I/l

w l1lhoxylo ides. neem seed powder and Pirimil~hos­methyl at 0.25 g/20 g had nearl y five months res idual effects against C. lIIacl/lallis. RajapakseRx has reported that Piper Ilig l'lllli powder signi fica ntl y reduced ov ipos iti on and ad ult emergence of C. /J1a clilalus while 100 per cent adult mortality was obtained from the same fruits at 0.2 per cen t concentrati on while ov ipositi on was completely suppressed at 0.8 per cent concentrati on. Mixin g dri ed neem (A zadira r.:hla illdicu) saw dust at 400 mg /50g to Vlglla mllllgO seed prov ided effec ti ve protecti on aga inst C. /11(f('ft!(/IUS X

') The use of hermiti c storage in combination with Boscia sellega lellsis fruits at 1.2g/ l(flask vo lume) reduced the emergence of the bruchid , whi le 2.4 - 4.8g/1 completely inhibi ted the producti on of a new generati on of C. maclll{f IlIS')O

Powdered grapefruit pee l and lime peel at 20 mg/200g of cowpea discouraged ov ipos iti on, sUPI;res se~1 emergence of the F I generati on and substant iall y reduced damage to cowpea seeds by C. I11{fCIlI(1/lls') I.

The number of eggs laid by C. l11(fcul(fIIl.l' . C. ('hill ell sis and C r/lOdesillllu .l' was signi fica ntl y

218 J SCI IND RES VOL 59 MARCH 2000

reduced in treated cowpea seeds mixed with 109/kg of powders of Cymbopogon citratus, CillnamernUI11 camphora, Derris inudata , MOll odora myristica, Zillgiber spectabile or Z. zerul17bet 50. Gunny bags treated with 10 per cent concentrati on of aqueous leaf ex tract of Annona squamosa and Justicea gendart/ss(/ effecti vely protected cowpea seeds in storage'!1 .

Even th ough most of the pl ant products studi ed were shown to be effec ti ve in cont ro lling bruchids in laboratory conditi on, the farmers have traditi onall y been using dried leaf powder from Vitex negllndo and Azadirachta indica . Most of the above menti oned botanical protectants have yet be ex ploited in fi eld conditions because of well cont ro ll ed and ex tensi ve field trail s have to be carried out , before they can be recommended to the farmers.

Furthermore, ri gorous studies arc required to test the tox icity of these products in mammals and organoleptic properti es such as tas te, fl avour, tex ture, and aeceptabi lity of bioproduct treated seeds as well as their effect of on seed germin ab ility, if the considerable potenti al fo r botani cal protectant s to be rea li sed.

Conclusions

The manage ment of insects in stored products is in transiti on from a dependence on regul ar applicati on of chemi ca l in sec ticides to the use of integrated pest management (IPM). Now the focus of resea rch is shi fting to find suitabl e bi oprod ucts produced 1'1'0 111

indigenous pl ants which in many cases has been found to be sati sfactory in control of bruchi ds as well as other stored product pests. SllIdies on characteri sati on and qu antificati on of chemi ca l constituents of pl ant products would further imp rove the efficacy of their use in future insect pes t mLl nagemen t.

References

A sthana A N & Chaturvedi S K. Hindll SlIn ' Agrie. ( 199<)

pp 6 1-65.

2 A garwal A , La l S & Gupta K C. !Jill! Cra in 1'('1' 1111 111, 26( 2)

( 1<)88) pp I 54-64.

3 Pedersen J R, SlOrage oj' C('I'eal Crains and Th"ir Prodllc/s (A meri can A ssociat ion for Cerea l Chemistry. St Paul. MN ).

1<)92. pp 435-490.

4 Pomeranz 0 B. S/orage 0/ Cercal Cmins and Thcir Prodllc/s, (American A ssoc iation Cereal Chemistry, St Paul ,

M N) 1992. pp 55 - 142.

5 Tyagi A K & Girish G K, Bil l! Cra in Techno!. IS( I ) ( 1977) pp 46-66.

6 M ookherjee P B. Jotwani M G, Y atav T 0 & Sircar P, In dian .I EII/lIlol, 32(4) ( 1970) pp 350-355.

7 Don-Ped ro K N, In l Pesl Conlrol, 31(2) ( 1989) pp 34-:\7.

8 Singh 0 P & Singh K J, Farlll Sci .l. 4( 1,2,:1) ( 198<) pp 144-147.

9 Das G P, Bangladnh.l Zoo l. 17(2) ( 1989) pp 199-20 I.

10 EI-Nahal A K M, Schmid t G H & Ri sha E M, .1 SllIred Prod Res. 25(4) ( 19R9) pp 2 11 -2 16.

II Schmidt G H & Risha E M . In/cgraled Pc.11 Man age Tro/' SlIln 1'01' Cm!'/' Sr.l/. 3 ( 1990) pp ')77-997.

12 Ri sha E M . EI-Nahal A K M & Schmid t G H, .I S/or('d Prod ReI, 26(3) ( 1990) pp I 33- 137.

13 Mi shra 0 N, M ishra A K . T iwari R & Upaclhyaya P S. Indian Pcrji rlll . . B (2) ( 198<)) pp 137- 141.

14 Ansari Fl A & Mishra 0 N , .Ilnsl Agrie Aniill Sci. II ( I <j<)0)

pp <)5-98.

15 Giga 0 P & Mu netsi M M , Planl Pmleel Q. 5(4) ( 1l)<)O) pp 14g- I SI .

16 BeguJ1J S & Quin iunes A C, Brl/rgladesh .J Zoo I. IX (2) ( I <)()O )

pp 203-2 10.

17 Begum S & Quin iones A C, Ballgladcsh .l Zool, 19( I ) ( 19<) I )

pp 65-67.

18 Jacob S & Shei la M K, Plall l Pro/eel !Jill!, Farie/{/had. 420,4) ( 1990) pp 9- 10.

1<) Ivbij aro M F, In.I('('1 Sci AI'I,I, 11(2) ( 1')90) pp 149- 152.

20 Weigand S & Tahhan O. Ch ickpea in the N ineties. Proc Secolld 1111 WorksllOl' Chickl'ea III/!'rol 'clIl{'n!, 1990. I (l<)· 175.

2 1 Dun-Pedro K N. P I'SI Sci. 3(0) (I <)90) pp 295-302.

22 La ic N E S . .1 A.fi' Zool, IOS(S) ( I <)<) I ) pp 357-:\62 .

2:l Uvah 1\ & Ishaya A T, Tro/' Pes/ Manage. 3S0) ( I (J<)2) pp 257-260.

24 Cockri cld S 0 , Trol' Pes I Manage. 3X(:l) ( I <)92) pp 261\ -270.

25 Dab ire C, Sahel PII· lllto No 49 ( 1992) pp 7- 13.

26 Garcia J R Jr & Morallo R \3 , Ph ilil'l'inc Ell 1011 10 I. 9(2) ( 19')3) pp 230-24 1.

27 Dixi t V , Chaturvedi R V & Tripathi S C, Naln Amd Sci Lt' ll. 15(8) ( 1992) pp 255-257.

28 Khaire V M. Kachare R V & M ote U N. Sf' f'd Rcs. 2 1( 2)

( 19')3) pp 71~- g I.

2<) K hain: V M. Kachare B V & M ote U N. SI'I'd Res. 21( 2)

( 19')3) pp 12X-IJO.

30 Ri sha E M , Hashem M Y & Rabi e M . /Jill! bUlI/ol Soc 1~'g\'/'/ ' Economic series no 20 ( 19(3) pp 133- 1'+0.

3 1 Risha E M , Hashem M Y & Rab ie M. [Jill! 1:'11 /11101 Soc Eg\'I' I . Ecoll Scr No 20 ( 1993) pp 15 1- 159.

....

RAJA & IGNACIM UTH U: BOTANICALS IN BR UCHID CONTROL 2 19

32 Sheokand S S, Singal S K & Verma A N, J Il/ secI Sci, 6(2)

( 1993) pp 267-273.

33 Lienard V , Seck D, Lognay, G, Gaspar C & Severin M , J Slored Prod Res, 29(4) ( 1993) pp 3 11-318.

34 Gbolade A A & Adebayo T A, In secI Sci Appl, 14(5) ( 1993) pp 631-636.

35 Jacob S, Illd Coconul J, Cochill , 25(1) (1994) pp 14-1 9.

36 Singh V N, Pandey N D & Singh Y P, Illd J EII/1I101, 56(3)

( 1994) pp 2 16-2 19.

37 Ramzan M , J InsecI Sci, 7(1) ( 1994) pp 37-39.

38 Singal S K, J In sec/ Sci, 8(2) ( 1995) pp 2 15-2 16.

39 Adebayo T & Gbolade A A, In sect Sci Appl, 15(2) ( 1994) pp 185-1 89.

40 Reddy V S, Babu T R, Hussaini S H & Reddy B M , Pesl Manage Econ Zool, 2( I ) ( 1994) pp 15-1 7.

4 1 Lakhanpal G C, K ashyap N P & Mehta P K, J InsecI Sci, 8( 1) (1995) pp 66-69.

42 Gakuru S & Foua-Bi-K, Tropicullura, 13(4) ( 1995) pp 143-146.

43 Pacheco I A, De-Castro-MFPPM , De-Paul a-D C & Laurencao A L , J Slored Prod Res, 31(3) ( 1995) pp 22 1-228.

44 Chang Ju Y , Zhittu i Y , Jianfang H, Wangx i D & M ao Z , J Huazhong Agric Univ, 14( I ) ( 1995) pp 38-42.

45 Lognay G C, Bouxin P, M arlier M , Haubruge E, Gaspar C & Rodriguez A, J Essen Oil Res, 8(6) ( 1996) pp 689-69 1.

46 Okonkwo E U & Okoye W I, 1111 J Pesl Mallage, 42(3) ( 1996) pp 143 -1 46.

47 Don-Pedro K N, Pes/ Sci, 46( 1) ( 1996) pp 71-78.

48 Don-Pedro K N, Pes/ Sci, 46( 1) ( 1996) pp 79-84.

49 Koumag lo K H, Akpagana K , Glitho A I. Garneau F X, Gagnon H, Jean F I, M oudachi rou M & Addae Mensah J, J Essen Oil Res, 8(3) ( 1996) pp 237-240.

50 Raj apakse R, Van Emden H F, Shaaya E & Bell C, J Slored Prod Res, 33( I ) ( 1997) pp 59-68.

5 1 Bandara B M R, Gunatil aka A A L , Sotheeswaran S, Wijeratne E M K & Ranasinghe M AS K , J NaIll Sci CO IIII, Srilanka, 17(2) ( 1989) pp 237-239.

52 Makanjuola W A, J SlOred Prod Res. 25(4) ( 1989) pp 23 1-237.

53 Dixit 0 P & Saxena R C, Pesticides. Bombay, 24( I ) (1990) pp 29-3 1.

54 Ofuya T I. J Agric Sci. 115(3) ( 1990) pp 343-345.

55 Usha H, Gowda J S & RalllJiah H, Legullle Res. 13( I ) ( 1990) pp 13- 19 .

56 George G & Patel J R, Ill dian J Plalll PrOleel. 20( I ) ( 1992) pp 66-69.

57 Su H C F, J Ell llllol Sci, 25( I ) ( 1990) pp 16-20.

58 Seck D, Sidibe B, Haubruge E & Gaspar C, Proc 1111 Sy/llp Crop Pro/ecl, Ref No.3 . 56(3a) ( 199 1 ) pp 12 17- 1224.

59 Wolfson J L, Shade R E, Mentzer P E & Murdock L. L, J SlOred Prod Res, 27(4) ( 199 1) pp 238-243.

60 Echendu T N C, Trop Sci. 31 (2) ( 199 1) pp 209-2 1 I.

6 1 Miah M R U, Ahmad M , Elias M & Al am S M K, Bangladesh J Enlmol, 2, ( 1992) pp 65-67.

62 Mbata G N & Ekpendu 0 T , Proe In / SYI11P Crop Pmlecl, 57(3a) ( 1992) pp 723-733.

63 M arques M R, A lbuquerque L M B & Xavier F J, AIIII Apl)1 Bioi, 121 (2) ( 1992) pp 37 1-377.

64 Okonkwo E U & Okoye W I. Trofl Pes I Mallag e. 3S(3) ( 1992) pp237-238.

65 Ofuya T I, Okoye B C & Olola A S, Zei/schri/iJllr-fif!anzenkrclllkheilen-ulld-pf!anzenschulZ, 95(5) ( 1992) pp 528-532.

66 Oji 0 , M adubuike F N, Oji P 0 & Nwaigbo L. C, Filolerapia, 63(2) ( 1992) pp 182- 183.

67 Seck D, Lognay G, Haubruge E, Wathlet J P, Warli er M, Gaspar M & Severin M, J Chelll Eeol, 19(2) ( 1993) pp 377-389.

68 Kamal R & Mangla M , J Biosci, 18( I ) ( 1993) pp 93 -1 () I.

69 Lale N E S, Rev Zool AJri, 107(3) ( 1993) pp 39-43 .

70 Kahare S N, Kahare N p, Harinkhere J P, Kandalkar V S & Thakur S K , J Soils Crop. 3( I ) ( 1993) pp 33 -36.

7 1 Zibokere D S, 'll dielll J Agri Sci. 64( 10) ( 1994) pp 727-728.

72 Subramanya S, Babu C K , Kri shnappa C & Murthy K C K, Mysore J Agri Sci. 28(4) ( 1994) pp 325-345 .

73 EI -Lakwah F A, M ohamed R A & Shams EI -Din A M, AII II Agric Sci, 32(4) ( 1994) pp 2 149-2 158.

74 Shi vanna S, Lingappa S & Patil B V , Kam a/aka J Agric Sci, 7(3) ( 1994) pp 285-290.

75 Ogunwolu 0 & Idowu 0 , J AJr Zool, 108(6) ( 1994) pp 521-528.

76 Hemyari A A, Ann Agric Sci, 72(2) ( 1994) pp 997- 1007.

77 Tabassam R, Naqvi S N H, Ahmad V U, Rani S, Jahan M & Azmi M A, Pm c Pakis/all COlIg Zoo l, 14, ( 1994) pp 326-333.

78 Juneja R P & Patil J R, Glljaml Agric Univ Res J, 20( I ) ( 1994) pp 84-87.

79 Ta lukder F A & Howse P E, J Gel/1 Eco l. 20(4) ( 1994) pp 899-908.

80 Javaid I & Poswal MAT, A[r £1/111101. 3( I ) ( 1995) pp i\7-89.

81 Onu I & Aliyu M. 1111 J Pesl Mallag e, 41 (3) ( 1995 ) pp 143-145.

82 Pandey N K & Singh S C, Ulla r Pradesh J Zool, 15(3) ( 1995) pp 162- 164.

83 Javaid I & Ramatl akapela K, J SUSI Agric, 7(2 ,3 ) ( 1995 ) pp 147- 154.

84 Khanna S C, AIIII Plalll Pro lee/ Sci, 3(2) ( 1995) pp 164-190.

220 J SC I IND RES VOL 59 MARCH 2000

1)5 Fatope M 0, Nuhu A M , M ann A & Takeda Y, II/ I .I Pes I Mal/age, 4(2) ( 1995) pp 84-86.

86 Mbata G N, Oji 0 A & Nwana I E, Di.\·COl 'eI'r II/I/ oi!. 7 (2)

( 1995) ppI 39- 142.

87 Ogunwolu E O & Odunlami AT. emp Pmleel. 15(7) ( 1996) pp om-607.

1)8 Rajapakse R H S. F;I/IOIl IOII . 21 (\,4) ( 1996) pp 2 11 -2 15.

89 Singh S C, Pandey N K & Kumar A . .I EC() /(J.ri EIII 'il'lll/

M Ol/iI, 6( I ) ( 19%) pp 69-71.

90 Seck D, Lognay G, Haubruge E, Marlier M &. Gaspar C, .I Slored Pmd Hes. 32( I ) ( 1996) pp 39 -44.

9 1 Onu I & Sul yman A , .1 5 11.1'1 Agric, 9(4) ( l 997) pp 85-')2 .

92 Raja N, Albert S. Ignacimulhu S, Ofuya T I & Dorn S. AIIIII hop Agric, ( 199R) pp 39-41.