Legume Research

  • Chief EditorJ. S. Sandhu

  • Print ISSN 0250-5371

  • Online ISSN 0976-0571

  • NAAS Rating 6.80

  • SJR 0.391

  • Impact Factor 0.8 (2024)

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Research Article

Legume Research, volume 44 issue 4 (april 2021) : 463-471

Efficacy of Some Biopesticides against Helicoverpa Armigera (Hubner) in Pigeonpea under Natural Condition

S.V. Agale1,*, Rajeev Gupta1, G.V. Rangarao2, S.P. Wani2
1Department of Entomology, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur-492 012, Chhattisgarh, India.
2International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru-502 324, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.

  • Submitted05-01-2019|

  • Accepted28-09-2019|

  • First Online 03-12-2019|

  • doi 10.18805/LR-4117

Cite article:- Agale S.V., Gupta Rajeev, Rangarao G.V., Wani S.P. (2019). Efficacy of Some Biopesticides against Helicoverpa Armigera (Hubner) in Pigeonpea under Natural Condition . Legume Research. 44(4): 463-471. doi: 10.18805/LR-4117.

ABSTRACT

The field experiments on efficacy of some biopesticides against H. armigera on pigeonpea under field condition was carried out in the experimental field of department of Entomology at International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Hyderabad, during 2016-2017 and 2017-2018.These studies revealed Spinosad 45 SC treatment as the most effective against H. armigera. Lower larval population of H. armigera was observed when crop was treated with consortia of biopesticides which was at par with neem fruit powder followed by HaNPV. The treatment of Spinosad 45 SC was found significantly superior, recording lower pod and seed damage by H. armigera (6.82 %)  followed by consortia (37.95%) and neem fruit powder (39.77%).The highest yield was (1359 kg/ha) recorded in Spinosad 45 SC followed by Streptomyces sp.(SAI-25) (762 kg/ha).

INTRODUCTON

Pigeonpea, (Cajanus cajan L.) is an important grain legume and occupies 2nd largest area among the various pulse crops grown in India. It is a staple diet and consumed as green peas as well as dry seeds (Tabo et al.,1995). The crop originated from India and moved to Africa about 4,000 years ago. Unlike other grain legumes, pigeonpea production is concentrated in developing countries, particularly in a few South and Southeast Asia and Eastern and Southern African countries. Pigeonpea is the second most important pulse crop of India after chickpea. India is the largest producer and also the largest consumer of pulses in the world. It accounts for 33 per cent of the world areas and 25 per cent share in global production (Srivastava et al., 2010). The Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) was recorded as major pests on this crop by causing more than 51 per cent damage to the crop, whereas, nine insect pests viz., Megalurothrips usitatus (Bangall), Empoasca kerri (Pruthi), Clavigralla gibbosa (Spinola), Riptortus pedestris (Fb)., Exelastis atomosa (May.), Melanagromyza obtusa (Mlloch), Cydia ptychora (Meyr.), Maruca testulalis (Geyer) and Etiella zinckenella (Treit) were recorded as moderate pests by inflicting damage between 31 to 50 per cent. As many as ten insect pests were recorded as minor pests on this crop, while ten were recorded as low important (Balikai and Yelshetty, 2008).
 
A microbial pesticide compatible with commonly used biopesticides pesticide can be used simultaneously or sequentially with it. To harness the benefits of entomopathogenic fungus their compatibility other biopesticides becomes decisive for combined use, while the potential inhibitory effects of insecticides on the entomopathogenic fungus cannot be ignored. The use of incompatible insecticides may inhibit the development and reproduction of these pathogens affecting IPM. If Beauveria bassiana has to be incorporated into a pest management programme it is essential to determine the effects of pesticides on it. Management of pod borer complex in pigeonpea relies heavily on insecticides, often to the exclusion of other methods of control. Considerable number of insecticides has been tested and few of them found effective against the pod borers in pigeonpea (Yadav and Dahiya, 2004). Regular and indiscriminate uses of insecticides have induced resistance against several pests besides polluting our much precious environment, coupled with increased cost of cultivation.
 
Microbial pathogens are considered for eco-friendly management strategy of the pests. Hence, a field trial consisting of different bio-pesticides such as Beauveria bassiana, Metarrhizium anisopliae Paecilomyces fumosoreseus, Verticillium lecanii and Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki microbial products was conducted to evaluate the efficacy against the gram pod borer in pigeonpea. For the management of pod borer bio-pesticides were tested along with control. Among the bio-pesticides, Beauveria bassiana @ 1 liter / ha (1×1012 spores/ml) was found to be most effective biopesticides as it recorded lowest larval population  (Pandey and Das 2016).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The field trial was carried out in the experimental field of department of Entomology at International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Hyderabad, during 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. The trial was laid out in randomized block design with three replications. Pigeon pea variety ICPL-161 was sown at 120 cm spacing (row to row) having plot size of 20x20m.The trial comprised eight treatments namely, Streptomyces sp (5.85x107colonies/ml), HaNPV500LE/ha, Metarhizium anisopliae (39.2x104spores/ml), Neem fruit powder (15-20kg/ha), Consortia (Streptomyces sp. (SAI-25) + HaNPV+ Metarhizium anisopliae + Neem fruit powder) @ (5.85x107colonies/ml + 500LE/ha+39.2x104spores/ ml+15-20kg/ha), Farmers practice (mostly chemical) Spinosad 45% SC and untreated control. Three sprays per treatment were given at 50% flowering stage and pod formation stage. Observations on larval population of H. armigera were recorded on seven plants per plot at 24 hours before spraying (pre treatment) and 3, 7 and 10 days after each spray. At harvest, total number of healthy and borer damaged pods and grain were counted and expressed as per cent damage. The data were the subjected to square root and arcsine transformation values before statistical analysis.
 
Statistical analysis
 
The data was analyzed using computerized statistical software by using Gen-Stat 14th edition software, SPSS 15.0 windows@ and Microsoft Excel.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Efficacy of various biopesticides against gram pod borer, H. armigera infesting pigeonpea during 2016-17
 
Pre- treatment observation indicating the H. armigera  mean larval population per plant among different treatments were not significant, indicating more or less uniform distribution of the pest. Data presented in Table 1 showed that at 3rd DAFS, the differences in the mean larval population among different treatments were significant. Among the treatments, Spinosad 45 SC @73 g a.i./ha was found to be most effective as it recorded lowest larval population (0.24 larvae / 7 plants) followed by Streptomyces sp. @ 5.85 × 107colonies/ml (1.24/ 7 plants), neem fruit powder @15-20kg / ha (1.62/ 7 plants). Mahendra et al., (2011) investigated seven different treatments along with untreated check and the efficacy of new insecticides against H. armigera. At 7th DAFS the differences in the mean larval population among different treatments were significant. All the biopesticides treatments significantly reduced the larval population as compared to control (2.90 larvae/7 plants). Among the treatments, Spinosad 45 SC was found to be most effective as it recorded lowest larval population (0.76 larvae/7 plants). Dandale et al., (2000) concluded that Spinsosad 48 SC at 75 and 50 g a.i /ha was effective in controlling the infestation of H. armigera. This was followed by Streptomyces sp. (1.76 larvae/7 plants). At tenth days after first spray also showed similar trends and it showed significant deviation in population of H. armigera larvae with respect to treatments. It was ascertained that, among the treatments, Spinosad 45 SC was found to be most effective as it recorded lowest larval population (0.48 larvae/7 plants) followed by Streptomyces sp. (3.57 larvae/7 plants). The maximum larval population was recorded in control (5.19 larvae/7 plants). Data presented in Table 1 showed that at 3rd  DASS, the differences in the mean larval population of H. armigera varying significantly from (0.04 larvae /7 plant) Spinosad 45 SC followed by consortia (1.71 larvae/7 plants). Mahakalkar et al., (2009) reported that application of Spinosad 45 SC @ 50 g a.i./ha registered significantly maximum larval reduction of H. armigera. The maximum larval population was recorded in control (2.61 larvae/7 plants). At 7th DASS, the similar trend of decline in the population of H. armigera larvae in filed condition, it showed the treatment Spinosad 45 SC evidenced to be with minimum larval population of (0.14 larvae/7 plants) followed by neem fruit powder (1.95 larvae/7 plants). The findings were in conformity with Sadawarte and Sarode (1997) who studied the efficacy of neem seed extract, cow dung, cow urine and combinations with and without insecticides to control H. armigera, on pigeonpea. Mittal and Ujagir (2005a) reported that the efficacy of Spinosad @ 90 g a. i. /ha the lower number of H. armigera larvae in pigeonpea.
 

Table 1: Efficacy of various biopesticides against gram pod borer, H. armigera infesting pigeonpea during 2016-17.


 
The significant difference was noticed by 10th DASS, the lowest population H. armigera larvae recorded in treatment Spinosad 45 SC (0.19 larvae/7 plants) followed by neem fruit powder (1.47 larvae/7 plants). The maximum larval population was recorded in control (2.76 larvae/7 plants). Data presented in Table 1 showed that at 3rd DATS, significantly lower population of H. armigera in treatment with Spinosad 45 SC (0.04 larvae/7 plants) followed by neem fruit powder (1.00 larvae/7 plants). Present study with Deshmukh et al., (2010) found that spinosad 0.009 per cent found to be the most effective in reducing the H. armigera larval population. The highest larval population was recorded in control (3.04 larvae/7 plants). Therefore the present study indicated slower efficacy of bioproducts against H. armigera. At 7th DATS the differences in the mean larval population among different treatments were significant. All the biopesticides treatments significantly reduced the larval population as compared to control (2.42 larvae/7 plants). Among the treatments, Spinosad 45 SC was found to be most effective as it recorded lowest larval population (0.04 larvae/7 plants). The significant difference was noticed by 10th DATS, the zero population H. armigera larvae recorded in treatment Spinosad 45 SC (0.00 larvae/7 plants) followed by neem fruit powder (1.09 larvae/7 plants). The maximum larval population was recorded in control (2.19 larvae/7 plants).
 
Gram pod borer, H. armigera during 2017-18
 
Pre- treatment observation in the H. armigera mean larval population per plant among different treatments were not significant, indicating less distribution of the pest in the experimental field. Data presented in Table 2 showed that at 3rd DAFS, the differences in the mean larval population among different treatments were significant. Among the treatments, M. anisopliae (0.14 larvae/7 plant) and consortia (0.14 larvae/7 plants) was found to be most effective as it recorded lowest larval population followed by Spinosad 45 SC (0.19 larvae/7 plants). The maximum larval population was recorded in control (0.38 larvae/7 plants). At 7th DAFS the differences in the mean larval population among different treatments were significant. Raghuraman et al. (2008) have mentioned that determined the bioefficacy of neem based formulations were significantly effective in reducing the larval population of H. armigera and increased the yield of chickpea. All the biopesticides treatments significantly reduced the larval population as compared to control (0.33 larvae/7 plants). Among the treatments, Spinosad 45 SC was found to be most effective as it recorded zero larval population (0.00 larvae/7 plants) followed by HaNPV (0.04 larvae/7 plants) (Table 2). At 10th DAFS also showed similar trends and it showed in significant variation in population of H. armigera larvae with respect to treatments. It was ascertained that, among the treatments, HaNPV was found to be most effective as it recorded lowest larval population (0.04 larvae/7 plants) followed by Spinosad 45 SC (0.05 larvae/7 plants). The maximum larval population was recorded in control (0.24 larvae/7 plants) (Table 2). Data presented in Table 2 showed that at 3DASS, the differences in the mean larval population of H. armigera varying significantly from (0.05 larvae/7 plant) Spinosad 45 SC followed by HaNPV (0.24 larvae/7 plants). The maximum larval population was recorded in control (0.57 larvae/7 plants). At 7th DASS, the similar trend of decline in the population of H. armigera larvae in filed condition, it was showed the treatment Spinosad 45 SC evidenced to be with minimum larval population of (0.43 larvae/7 plants) followed by consortia (0.48 larvae/7 plants). The maximum larval population was recorded in control (1.05 larvae/7 plants). (Table 2).The significant difference was noticed at 10th DASS, the lowest population H. armigera larvae recorded in treatment neem fruit powder (0.43 larvae/7 plants) followed by Spinosad 45 SC (0.48 larvae/7 plants).The maximum larval population was recorded in control (1.29 larvae/7 plants) (Table 2). Data presented in Table 2 showed that at 3DATS, showed significant variation were observed among treatment at 3DATS, the lowest population H. armigera larvae recorded in Spinosad 45 SC (0.05  larvae/7 plants) followed by consortia (0.24 larvae/7 plants) (T5). At 7th DATS, showed the minimum larval population of H. armigera with Spinosad 45 SC (0.19 larvae/7 plants) followed by HaNPV (0.29 larvae / 7 plants) (Table 2). The significant difference was noticed by 10th DATS, the lowest population of H. armigera larvae recorded in treatment Spinosad 45 SC (0.10 larvae/7 plants) followed by M. anisopliae (0.19 larvae/7 plants) and consortia (0.29 larvae/7 plants) (T5). The least effective treatment was HaNPV (0.29 larvae/7 plants) (T2) but was significantly superior to control. The maximum larval population was recorded in control (1.52 larvae/7 plants) (Table 2). Similarly earlier finding with Pandey and Das (2016) among the bio-pesticides, B. bassiana @ 1 liter/ha (1x1012 spores/ml) was found to be most effective bio-pesticide as it recorded lowest larval population (6.68 larvae/5 plants).
 

Table 2: Efficacy of various biopesticides against gram pod borer, H. armigera infesting pigeonpea during 2017-18.


 
Pooled mean gram pod borer, H. armigera during 2016 and 2017
 
Pre-treatment of spraying in all 7 treatments showed uniform distribution of larval population of H. armigera recorded with M. anisopliae (0.53 larvae/7 plants) which was statistically at par with Streptomyces sp. and maximum recorded with Spinosad 45 SC (0.71 larvae/7 plants) in comparison with control (0.43 larvae/7 plant) (Table 3). Malik et al., (1993) found that B. bassiana gave effective control from seventh days of application. At 3DAFS, the pooled mean of larvae of H. armigera population showed significant differences among treatments, with minimum of Spinosad 45 SC (0.22 larvae/7 plants) followed by Streptomyces sp. (0.77 larvae/7 plants) and maximum population recorded with HaNPV (1.31 larvae/7 plants) in comparison with control (1.22 larvae/7 plants) (Table 3). The collective mean of H. armigera larvae at 7 DAFS, it showed a statistically highly significant difference among population of all treatments. It was recorded lowest H. armigera larval population in Spinosad 45 SC (0.38 larvae/7 plants), followed by Streptomyces sp. (0.93 larvae/7 plants). At 10th DAFS, the pooled mean of both the season, showed significant variation in population of larvae among treatments. It was ascertained that, the lowest H. armigera larvae in Spinosad 45 SC (0.27 larvae/7 plants), this was followed by consortia (1.88 larvae/7 plants) (Table 3). Tamboli and Lolage (2008) also concluded that treatments Spinosad @ 90 g a.i./ha as the most effective against H. armigera in pigeonpea by recording 0.29 larva /plant and was at par with flubendiamide @ 50 g. a.i. /ha. Similarly, for second spray, two years pooled data were presented in Table 3 At 3 DASS revealed that the lowest (0.05 larvae/7 plants) larval population when crop was treated with Spinosad 45 SC followed by consortia (1.05 larvae/7 plants). Srinivasan and Durairaj (2007) also reported lowest Helicoverpa larval population with Spinosad 45 SC (73 g a.i./ha) treated plots, followed by indoxacarb 14.5 SC and maximum population in the untreated control. Maximum larval population was recorded in control (1.59 larvae/7 plants). At 7th DASS, the pooled two years data it showed a similar trend of gradual decline in the population of H. armigera larvae in field condition, with data showed that the lowest population was recorded in Spinosad 45 SC (0.29 larvae/7 plants), followed by consortia (1.29 larvae/7 plants). Significant difference among treatments was noticed by 10th DASS, the pooled mean of the lowest population H. armigera larvae recorded in Spinosad 45 SC (0.34 larvae/7 plants) followed by neem fruit powder (1.36 larvae/7 plants) (Table 3). Pooled results of two year on third spray, 3DATS showed that the lowest (0.05 larvae/7 plants) larval population when crop was treated with Spinosad 45 SC followed by neem fruit powder (0.72 larvae/7 plants) and consortia (1.29 larvae/ 7 plants), the maximum population was observed in T3 in comparison with control (2.05 larvae/7 plants) (Table 3). At 7th DATS, the pooled two years data indicated a similar trend of gradual decline in the population of H. armigera larvae in field condition, with data showed that the lowest population was recorded in Spinosad 45 SC (0.12 larvae/7 plants), followed by Streptomyces sp. (0.98 larvae/7 plants). The maximum population was recorded in control (1.93 larvae / 7 plants) (Table 3). Nahar et al.,(2004) showed similar result with M. anisopliae and B. bassiana preparations less effective against H. armigera. At 10th DATS the pooled mean of both years, showed significant deviation in population of larvae among different treatments. It was ascertained that, the lowest H. armigera larvae in Spinosad 45 SC (0.05 larvae/7 plants) this was followed by consortia (0.69 larvae/7 plants) (Table 3). Revathi et al., (2011) support the present finding of entomopathogenic fungi M. anisopliae against third instar larvae of H. armigera at 1×107 conidia/ml. It revealed that individual treatment resulting in 50-70 per cent larval mortality of H. armigera.
 

Table 3: Pooled efficacy of various biopesticides against gram pod borer, H. armigera in pigeonpea during 2016 and 2017.


 
Efficacy of biopesticides on pigeonpea pod and grain damage by H. armigera (Years 2016 and 2017)
 
The percentage pod damage due to H. armigera in different treatments recorded during the year 2016 significantly reduced the pod damage by gram pod borer as compared to control (63.00%). Among the treatments, Spinosad 45 SC was found to be most effective as it recorded lowest pod damage (11.30%) followed by treatments consortia (57.30%) (Table 4). Narasimhamurthy and Keval (2012a) studies on the highest pod damage in pigeonpea on the treatment B. bassiana @1.5 kg/ha (39.4% and 39.8%) followed by NSKE 5% with 32.9 per cent and 31.2 per cent compared to least damage in case of Spinosad 16.3 per cent and 17 per cent in two successive years 2009-10 and 2010-2011. The percentage grain damage due to H. armigera in different treatments recorded during the year 2016 revealed that Spinosad 45 SC gave significantly lowest grain damage (8.30%) followed by consortia (19.30%) (Table 4). The percentage pod damage due to H. armigera in different treatments recorded during the year 2017 significantly reduced the pod damage by gram pod borer as compared to control (44.17%). Among the treatments, Spinosad 45 SC was found to be most effective as it recorded lowest pod damage (2.80%) followed by treatments consortia (18.53%) (Table 4). The percentage grain damage due to H. armigera in different treatments recorded during the year 2017 revealed Spinosad 45 SC gave significantly lowest grain damage (2.60%) followed by consortia (6.52%) (Table 4). The pooled data in the year of 2016 and 2017 (Table 4) revealed that the difference in pod damage among the biopesticides treatments was significant over control. The treatment of Spinosad 45 SC was found significantly superior, recording lower pod damage (6.82%). This was followed by consortia (T5) (37.95%). Untreated control plot recorded the highest pod damage (53.56%). In case of grain damage Spinosad 45 SC found most effective, recorded lowest grain damage (5.47%) This was followed by consortia (12.90%). Maximum grain damage was recorded in control (27.35%). Sarode et al., (1995b) confirmed that two applications of 5% NSKE as the most effective treatment resulting in the lowest pod damage and highest seed yield of 0.95q/ha. Present study agrees with observation of Yogesh and Kumar (2014) was evaluated biopesticides and insecticides against H. armigera. Minimum pod damage (18.89% and 18.83%) was observed in treatment NPV 250 LE + imidacloprid 17.8 SL in both the years. Chandra and Singh (2014) showed that the grain damage was ranged from 10.29 to 36.7% plot treated with Spinosad 45 SC @ 73 g a.i./ha was most effective with lowest pod damage (0.00%) followed by flubendiamide 20 WG (0.60%).
 

Table 4: Pod and grain damage (%) caused by gram pod borer H. armigera in different spray schedules during 2016 and 2017.


 
Efficacy of biopesticides on pigeonpea grain yield
 
During 2016 all the treatments registered significantly higher grain yields compared to the control. The highest grain yield was recorded in Spinosad 45 SC (T6) treated plots (1194 kg/ha) which was significantly superior to the rest of the treatments, followed by neem fruit powder (473 kg/ha) and HaNPV (402 kg/ha). The lowest yield was obtained in untreated control plot (348 kg/ha) and they differed significantly from each other. Grain yield of the year 2017 the data on healthy pod yield presented in Table 5. Haldar et al., (2006) showed that Spinosad 45 SC at 73 g a.i./ha sprayed twice against major insect pests of pigeonpea at 15 days interval gave the maximum protection an highest grain yield of 840 kg/ha, followed by novaluron 10 EC (75 g). Similar finding conform with Ajagol et al., (2014) showed that IPM modules for management of pod borer complex in pigeonpea. The study concluded that pesticide based IPM module comprising Spinosad 45 SC proved to be cost effective by recording highest grain yield (2819 kg/ha). Shinde et al., (2013) revealed that the efficacy of microbials against H. armigera in chickpea and found that the HaNPV was most effective biopesticide which registered 16.78 q yield/ha.The highest grain yield was recorded in Spinosad 45 SC treated plots (1524 kg/ha) followed by Streptomyces sp. (1179 kg/ha) and consortia (1097 kg/ha). Lowest yield was obtained in untreated control plot (816 kg/ha). Two years (2016 and 2017) pooled data were presented in Table 5 revealed that the treatment of Spinosad 45 SC recorded the highest yield (1359 kg/ha) this was followed by Streptomyces sp. (762 kg/ha). The lowest yield was obtained in untreated control (582 kg/ha) (Table 5). Taggar and Singh (2015) showed that Spinosad 45 SC recorded the highest grain yield (711.93 kg/ha) which was followed by the commercial Bt formulation (1.5 kg/ha) and a combination of Bt and B. bassiana (3.0 g/liter). Gowda et al., (2003) reported highest (741 kg /ha) grain yield from the plots treated with Spinosad 45 SC @ 90 a.i./ha.
 

Table 5: Effect of various biopesticides on grain yield of pigeonpea.


 
Increase in yield over control
 
The pooled data on yield increase over untreated control due to pod borer management in pigeonpea presented in Table 5. Among the different treatments, highest increase in yield over control was recorded in Spinosad 45 SC (133.50%), this was followed by Streptomyces sp.(30.92%). Whereas, it was minimum (15.80%) in the treatment of HaNPV (T2). Thus, yield increase over control ranged from 26.1 to 27.1 per cent.

AKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors are highly thankful to Gopalakrishanan Subramaniam (Principal Scientist), Biocontrol, Division of Crop Protection, at International Crop Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Patancheru for providing necessary facilities for carrying out this research work.

REFERENCES


  1. Ajagol, M., Mallapur, C.P., Balikai, R.A. and Manjunath,C.(2014). Evaluation of IPM modules for the management of pod borer complex in hybrid pigeonpea. Journal of Experimental Zoology, India. 17(1): 207-212.

  2. Balikai, R.A. and Yelshetty, S. (2008). Insect pest scenario of pigeon pea in northern Karnataka. Legume Res. 31: 149-151.

  3. Chandra, N. and Singh, D.C. (2014). Evaluation of newer insecticides against pod borer complex in pigeonpea, Progressive Agriculture. 14(1): 200-202

  4. Dandale, H. G., Rao, N. G. V., Tikar, S.N. and Nimhalker, S. A. (2000). Efficacy of Spinosad against cotton bollworms in comparison with some synthetic pyrethroids. Pestology. 24(11): 6-10.

  5. Deshmukh, S.G., Sureja, B.V., Jethva, D.M. and Chatar, V.P. (2010). Field efficacy of different insecticides against Helicoverpaarmigera (Hubner) infesting chickpea. Legume Research-An International Journal. 33(4): 103-109

  6. Gowda, D. K., Yelshetty, S. and Patil, B. V. (2003). Spinosad 45 SC: An effective insecticide against pigeon pea pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). Pestology. 27(11): 21-23.

  7. Haldar, B., Shrivastava, C.P. and Joshi, N. (2006). Comparative performance of some newer insecticides against the major insect pest of short duration pigeon pea. Pestology. 30(9):32-35

  8. Mahakalkar, S.S., Nikhade, V.T. and Borkar, S.L. (2009). Efficacy of Spinosad and different biopesticides on larval reduction of H. armigerao on pigeonpea. Crop Research. 38(1/3): 208-211.

  9. Mahendra, R., Babu, C. S. J., Girish, R. and Basanth, Y.S. (2011).Evaluation of new insecticides against Helicoverpa armigera on pigeonpea crop. Environment and Ecology. 29: (1) 282-283.

  10. Malik, F., Nagia, D.K., Kumar, S., Saleem, M. Shukla, A. and Saini, M.L. (1993). Laboratory evaluation of Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo) Vuillemin and some insecticides against Helicoverpa armigera (Hunber). Plant Prot. Bull, Faridabad. 45(1): 50–51.

  11. Mittal, V. and Ujagir, R. (2005). Evaluation of naturalyte spinosad against pod borer complex in early pigeon pea. Indian J. Plant Prot. 33(2): 211-215. 

  12. Nahar, P., Yadav, P., Kulye, M., Hadapad, A., Hassani, M., Tuor, U., Keller, S., Chandele, A.G., Thomas, B. and Deshpande, M.V. (2004). Evaluation of indigenous fungal isolates, Metarhizium anisopliae M34412, Beauveriabassiana B3301 and Nomuraea rileyi N812 for the control of Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) in pigeonpea field. Journal of Biological Control. 18(1): 1-7.

  13. Narasimhamurthy, M.M. and Keval, R. (2012). Field evaluation of certain insecticides on pod fly (Melanagromyza obtusa Malloch) in long duration pigeonpea. J. Food Legumes. 25(3): 250-251.

  14. Pandey, S.A.and Das, S.B. (2016).Evaluation of biopesticides against gram pod borer Helicoverpa armigera (HUB.) on pigeonpea.Legume Research. 39(3): 479-481.

  15. Raghuraman, M., Ajanta, B. and Gupta, G. P. (2008). Management of Helicoverpa armigera in chickpea with botanical formulations. Indian J. Ent. 70(2): 118-122.

  16. Revathi, N., Ravikumar, G., Kalaiselvi, M., Gomathi, D. and Uma, C. (2011). Pathogenicity of three entomopathogenic fungi against Helicoverpa armigera. J. Plant Pathol. Microbiol. 2: 4.

  17. Sadawarte, A.K. and Sarode, S. Y. (1997). Efficacy of neem seed extract, cow-dung, cow-urine alone and in combination, against the pod borer complex of pigeonpea. International Chickpea and Pigeonpea Newsletter. 4: 36-37.

  18. Sarode, S. V., Deotale, R. O.and Patil, P. P. (1995). Performance of HaNPV combined with NSKE against; the pod borer on chickpea. International Chickpea and Pigeonpea Newsletter. 2: 35-36.

  19. Shinde, Y.A., Veda, O.P. and Patel, B.R. (2013). Efficacy of microbials against chickpea pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). Current Biotica. 7(3): 222-227.

  20. Srinivasan, T. and Durairaj, C. (2007). Newer insecticides against pod borercomplex of pigeonpea with special reference to Helicoverpa armigera and Melanagromyza obtusa. Indian J.Pl. Prot. 35 (1):47-49.

  21. Srivastava, S. K., Sivaramane, N. and Mathur, V. C. (2010). Diagnosis of Pulses Performance of India. Agricultural Economics Research Review. 23: 137-148.

  22. Tabo, R., Ezueh, M. I., Ajayi, O., Asiegbu, J. E. and Singh. L. (1995). Pigeonpea production and utilization in Nigeria. International Chickpea and Pigeonpea Newsletter. 2: 47-49.

  23. Taggar, G.K. and Singh, R. (2015). Efficacy of some Biopesticides against pod borer in Pigeonpea, Agricultural Research Journal. 52(2): 200-20.

  24. Tamboli, N. D. and Lolage, G. R. (2008). Bio-efficacy of newer insecticides against pod borer, H. armigera on pigeon pea. Pestology. 32(10): 29-31.

  25. Yadav, G. S. and Dahiya, B. (2004). Evaluation of new insecticides/ chemicals against pod borer and pod fly on pigeonpea. Annals of Biology. 20(1): 55–60.

  26. Yogesh and Kumar R. (2014). Evaluation of certain insecticides and bio-pesticides against Helicoverpa armigera in pigeonpea. International Journal of Advanced Biological Research. 4(1): 80-82. 
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)