Agricultural Science Digest

  • Chief EditorArvind kumar

  • Print ISSN 0253-150X

  • Online ISSN 0976-0547

  • NAAS Rating 5.52

  • SJR 0.156

Frequency :
Bi-monthly (February, April, June, August, October and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Agricultural Science Digest, volume 33 issue 4 (december 2013) : 299-303

EFFECT OF BIORATIONAL APPROACHES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF BLUE BUTTERFLY (LAMPIDES BOETICUS L.) IN PIGEONPEA

Ram Subhag Singh1, Paras Nath2, Akhilesh Kumar3
1Department of Entomology and Agricultural Zoology, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, 221 005, India
Cite article:- Singh1 Subhag Ram, Nath2 Paras, Kumar3 Akhilesh (2024). EFFECT OF BIORATIONAL APPROACHES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF BLUE BUTTERFLY (LAMPIDES BOETICUS L.) IN PIGEONPEA. Agricultural Science Digest. 33(4): 299-303. doi: 10.5958/j.0976-0547.33.4.029.

ABSTRACT

A filed experiment was conducted to determine the influence of intercropping and application of ecofriendly biopesticides on the management of blue butterfly, (L. boeticus.) Pigeonpea cv. Bahar intercropped with maize, pearl millet, sorghum, rice and black gram had significant influence on the reduction of larval population of [L. boeticus (L)] as compared with monocrop. The intercrops pigeonpea + pearl millet (2.86%), pigeonpea + sorghum (1.03%) and pigeonpea + black gram (0.62%) had lowest pod and grain damage by number and by weight basis, respectively. While, intercropping had no significant influence in reduction of pod and grain damage. The ecofriendly biopesticides i e. NSKE (5%), Nimbecidine (1%) and Bacillus thuringiensis kurstaki (1.5%) sprayed once and twice (first at flowering and pod formation stage and second after 20 days) were found superior over one spray of biopesticides in reducing the larval population, pod damage, grain damage and grain weight loss and their mean values varied from 0.21 to 0.39 larva plant-1, 1.75 to 4.08%, 0.53 to 1.41% and 0.37 to 0.87%, respectively. However, the plots devoid of any biopesticidal treatment had maximum larval infestation (0.70 larva plant-1), pod damage (4.62%), grain damage (1.82%) and grain weight loss (1.12%).

REFERENCES

  1. Andrews, E,A. (1981). Notes on insect pests of green manures and shade trees. J. Sci. Dep. India Tea Asso. Calcultta. Part 2:29-34.
  2. Dash, A.N.; Mahapatra, H., Pradhan, A.C. and Patnaik, N.C. (1987). Effect of mixed and intercropping on occurrence of some insect pest in Orissa . Environ. and Ecol. 5:526-530.
  3. Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A.A. (1976). Statistical Procedures for Agriculture Research. John Wiley and Sons. Inc. New York.
  4. Heinrichs, E.A., Chelliah, S; Valencia, S.C; Arceo , M.B. Fabellar, L.T.; Aquino, G.B. and Pickin, S.(1981). Statistical analysis of insect population and plant damage. Manual for Testing Insecticides on Rice. I.R.R.I, Manila, Philippines, pp. 73-80.
  5. Kumar, A. and Nath, P. (2005). Study on the effect of meteorological factors on the population on insect pests infesting UPAS 120 cultivar of pigeonpea. J. Maharastra Agril. Univ., 30 : 190-192.
  6. Kumar, S, Singh, B. and Kumar, N. (2004). Population of pod borers on pre-rabi pigeonpea . J. Res Birsa. Agril Uni. 16 : 143-145.
  7. Lateef, S.S. and Reed, W. (1990). Insect Pests of Pigeonpea. In :Insect Pests of Tropical Legume. Singh S. R.. Chichester, U. K. Wiley.pp.451. pp.193-242.
  8. Mavi, G.S. (1992). A critical review on distribution and host range of pea blue butterfly, Lampides boeticus (Linn.). J. Insect Sci, 5(2):115-119.
  9. Nath, P., Singh , R.S.; Singh, P.S. and Keval, R.(2008). Study of the succession of insect pests associated with pods of pigeonpea under sole and intercropping system. Indian J. Environ. & Ecoplan. 15 : 455 -461.
  10. Sahoo, B.K. and Senapati, B. (2001). Extent of damage by different pod borer species in pigeonpea in coastal Orissa. J. Appl. Zool. Res. 12:19-12.
  11. Sarode, V.S.; Jumde. Y.S; Deotale, R.O. and Thakare, H.S. (1995). Evaluation of neem seed kernel extract (NSKE) at different concentrations for the management of Helicoverpa armigera (Hub.) on pigeonpea. Indian J. Ent. 57(4):385-388.
  12. Sharma, V.K. and Pandey, S.N. (1993). Effect of intercropping on infestation of borer complex on early and medium maturing cultivars of pigeonpea. Indian J. Ent. 55: 170 -173.
  13. Shatntibala, T. and Singh, T.K. (2002). Efficacy of insecticides and biopesticides against the pea pod borer, Lampides boeticus infesting pea. Ann. Plant.Protec. Sci.10: 370-372.
  14. Shantibala, T. and Singh, T. K. (2003). Population dynamics of Lampides boeticus [Linnaeus] on pea crop in Manipur. Shaspa. 10:133-137.
  15. Singh, R.; Mahal, M.S. and Singh, B. (1988). Assessment of losses caused by borer complex in arher [Cajanus cajan (L) Millsp.]. J. Insect Sci. 1: 168 -172.
  16. Venkateshwarlu, O. and Singh, T.V.K. (1999). Response of pigeonpea genotypes against important insect pests. Insect Environ. 5(5): 123-124.
  17. Yadav,C.P. Lal, S.S. and Schan, J. N. (1988). Assessment of incidence and crop losses due to pod borer of pigeonpea of different maturity groups. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 58: 216-218.
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)