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 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. Gailce Leo Justin, D. Rajakumar, J.E. Adeline Vinila, 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. (2024). 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: .

ABSTRACT

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.

KEYWORDS

    REFERENCES

    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.
    Reviewed By

    Download Article
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)