volume 25 issue 4 (december 2005) : 266 • 268

DOSAGE AND TIME-MORTAUfY RESPONSE OF BACILLUS THURINGIENSIS BERUNER TREATED LARVAE OF DIAMONDBACK MOTH, PLUTELLA XYLOSTELLA (L.) (LEPIDOPTERA: PLUTEWDAE) TO INSECTICIDES

G
G. Gailce Leo Justin
D
D. Rajakumar
J
J.E. Adeline Vinila
J
J.D. Nirmalatha
1Horticultural Research Station. Tamil Nadu Agricultural University. Pechiparai . 629 161. Kanyakumari District. India
  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Justin Leo Gailce G., Rajakumar D., Vinila Adeline J.E., Nirmalatha J.D. (2025). DOSAGE AND TIME-MORTAUfY RESPONSE OF BACILLUS THURINGIENSIS BERUNER TREATED LARVAE OF DIAMONDBACK MOTH, PLUTELLA XYLOSTELLA (L.) (LEPIDOPTERA: PLUTEWDAE) TO INSECTICIDES. Agricultural Science Digest. 25(4): 266 • 268. doi: .
Investigations on the dosage and time-mortality response of Bacillus thuringlensis Berliner (Bt) treated larvae of Diamondback moth (DBM), Plutella xylostella (L.) revealed that Bt-treated DBM larvae were more susceptible than untreated counterparts to endosulfan, qulnalphos, fenvalerate and Nimbecidine. Bt-treatment increased the susceptibility of these larvae (1.90 to 2.80 times) to different insecticides. The LT50 values were reduced due to Bt-treatment. The increase in susceptibility was more or less equal against endosulfan, quinalphos and fenvalerate, but high in Nimbecidine with a susceptibility ratio of 4.65 times. The possibilities for the increased susceptibility of Bt-treated DBM larvae to the different insecticides are discussed.
    1. Gill, S.S. et ai. (1992). Ann. Rev. Ent., 37: 615-636.
    2. Girardeau, J.H. Jr. and Mitchell, E.R. (1968). J. Econ. Ent., 61: 312-313.
    3. Hama, H. (1987). Appl. Ent. Zool., 30: 277-284.
    4. Hama. H. (1992). In: Diamondback Moth and Other Crucifer Pests (Talekar, N.S. ed.). Proc. 2nd. Inti. Workshop, 1990, AVRDC, Taiwan, pp. 453-463.
    5. Justin. C.G.L. et al. (1989). Insect Sci. Applic., 10: 573-576.
    6. Ustov. M.V. and Nesterov, VA (1976). Zasch. Rast., 6: 48.
    7. Motoyoma, N. et al. (1992). In: Diamondback Moth and Other Crucifer Pests (Talekar. N.S. ed.) Proc. 2nd. Inti.
    8. Workshop, 1990, AVRDC, Taiwan. pp. 411-418.
    9. Rabindra, R.J. and Jayaraj, S. (1990). J. Bioi. Control, 4: 31-34.
    10. Sun, C.N. (1992). In: Diamondback moth and Other Crucifer Pests (Talekar, N.S. ed.) Proc. 2nd. Inti. Workshop, 1990, AVRDC, Taiwan, pp. 419-426.
    11. Talekar, N.S. (1992). Diamondback Moth and Other Crucifer Pests. Proc.2'Jd Ihtl. Workshop, 1990, Taiwan, AVRDC. pp.603.
    volume 25 issue 4 (december 2005) : 266 • 268

    DOSAGE AND TIME-MORTAUfY RESPONSE OF BACILLUS THURINGIENSIS BERUNER TREATED LARVAE OF DIAMONDBACK MOTH, PLUTELLA XYLOSTELLA (L.) (LEPIDOPTERA: PLUTEWDAE) TO INSECTICIDES

    G
    G. Gailce Leo Justin
    D
    D. Rajakumar
    J
    J.E. Adeline Vinila
    J
    J.D. Nirmalatha
    1Horticultural Research Station. Tamil Nadu Agricultural University. Pechiparai . 629 161. Kanyakumari District. India
    • Submitted|

    • First Online |

    • doi

    Cite article:- Justin Leo Gailce G., Rajakumar D., Vinila Adeline J.E., Nirmalatha J.D. (2025). DOSAGE AND TIME-MORTAUfY RESPONSE OF BACILLUS THURINGIENSIS BERUNER TREATED LARVAE OF DIAMONDBACK MOTH, PLUTELLA XYLOSTELLA (L.) (LEPIDOPTERA: PLUTEWDAE) TO INSECTICIDES. Agricultural Science Digest. 25(4): 266 • 268. doi: .
    Investigations on the dosage and time-mortality response of Bacillus thuringlensis Berliner (Bt) treated larvae of Diamondback moth (DBM), Plutella xylostella (L.) revealed that Bt-treated DBM larvae were more susceptible than untreated counterparts to endosulfan, qulnalphos, fenvalerate and Nimbecidine. Bt-treatment increased the susceptibility of these larvae (1.90 to 2.80 times) to different insecticides. The LT50 values were reduced due to Bt-treatment. The increase in susceptibility was more or less equal against endosulfan, quinalphos and fenvalerate, but high in Nimbecidine with a susceptibility ratio of 4.65 times. The possibilities for the increased susceptibility of Bt-treated DBM larvae to the different insecticides are discussed.
      1. Gill, S.S. et ai. (1992). Ann. Rev. Ent., 37: 615-636.
      2. Girardeau, J.H. Jr. and Mitchell, E.R. (1968). J. Econ. Ent., 61: 312-313.
      3. Hama, H. (1987). Appl. Ent. Zool., 30: 277-284.
      4. Hama. H. (1992). In: Diamondback Moth and Other Crucifer Pests (Talekar, N.S. ed.). Proc. 2nd. Inti. Workshop, 1990, AVRDC, Taiwan, pp. 453-463.
      5. Justin. C.G.L. et al. (1989). Insect Sci. Applic., 10: 573-576.
      6. Ustov. M.V. and Nesterov, VA (1976). Zasch. Rast., 6: 48.
      7. Motoyoma, N. et al. (1992). In: Diamondback Moth and Other Crucifer Pests (Talekar. N.S. ed.) Proc. 2nd. Inti.
      8. Workshop, 1990, AVRDC, Taiwan. pp. 411-418.
      9. Rabindra, R.J. and Jayaraj, S. (1990). J. Bioi. Control, 4: 31-34.
      10. Sun, C.N. (1992). In: Diamondback moth and Other Crucifer Pests (Talekar, N.S. ed.) Proc. 2nd. Inti. Workshop, 1990, AVRDC, Taiwan, pp. 419-426.
      11. Talekar, N.S. (1992). Diamondback Moth and Other Crucifer Pests. Proc.2'Jd Ihtl. Workshop, 1990, Taiwan, AVRDC. pp.603.
      In this Article
      Published In
      Agricultural Science Digest

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)