EVALUATION OF SOME CHEMICALS FOR THEIR ...

Sci.Int. (Lahore), 23(4),327-330,2011

ISSN 1013-5316; CODEN: SINTE 8

327

EFFICACY OF INSECTICIDES AGAINST ARMY WORM (Spodoptera mauritia) ON MUNG BEAN (Vigna radiata L.) UNDER ARID CLIMATE. Ghulam Abbas*, Jabar Zaman Khan Khattak**, Zafar Abbas* M. Aslam* M. Bakhsh Khokhar* and Asmat Ullah Malik*** *Adaptive Research Farm, Karor, District Layyah, Punjab, Pakistan. **Assistant Professor International Islamic University, Pakistan ***Agronomic Research Station, Karor, District Layyah, Punjab, Pakistan

ABSTRACT: Influence of Bifenthrine (Talstar) @ 375ml ha-1, Deltaphos 10+350EC @ 500ml ha-1, Lorsban 40EC@ 850ml ha-1, Triazofos (20/400EC) @ 750ml ha-1& Karate 5EC @ 1250ml ha-1 was studied on mung bean (Vigna radiata L.) yield under arid climate at Adaptive Research Farm, Karor during two kharif seasons of 2007 and 2008. Experiments were laid out in randomized complete block design with six a test variety. All the chemicals showed significant impact on mung crop as compared to that in control treatments. AZRI- 2006, a promising variety of mung bean (Vigna radiata L.) for arid climat,e was used as plots, but the treatment of Deltaphos 10+350 EC @ 350ml ha -1consistently proved better than other treatments. Key Words: Mung bean (Vigna radiata), Insecticides, Army worm (Spodoptera mauritia), Arid, Punjab, Pakistan.

INTRODUCTION Mung bean (Vigna radiata L.), commonly known as green gram, is an important conventional pulse crop of Pakistan. It has an edge over other pulses because of its high nutritive value, digestibility and non-flatulent behavourr. It is grown principally for its protein rich edible seeds 1. Because of its proteinacious value, it is rightly called as poor man meat. Mungbean is an important pulse crop that can be grown twice a year i.e. in spring and autumn. Among the grain legumes, it is one of the important conventional pulse crops of Pakistan. It ranks second to chickpea (Cicer arietinum) amongst grain legumes from production point of view. Its seed is more palatable, nutritive, digestible and non-flatulent than other pulses grown in country. It contains 24.7% protein, 0.6% fat, 0.9% fiber and 3.7% ash 2. Besides being a rich source of protein, it maintains soil fertility through biological nitrogen fixation in soil and thus plays a vital role in further sustainable agriculture 3. Like other pulses this crop also fixes atmospheric nitrogen 4. An important feature of the mung-bean crop is its ability to establish a symbiotic partnership with specific bacteria, setting up the biological nitrogen fixation in root nodules that supply the plant's needs for nitrogen. 5. In Pakistan, during 2008-09, Mung bean was grown on an area of 231.1 thousand hectares with total production of 157.4 thousand tons which was -11.9 % less than previous year 6. It is a short duration crop therefore has less water requirement as compared to summer crops. Moreover, it is drought resistant that can withstand adverse environmental conditions, and hence successfully be grown in rain fed areas 7. Mung bean has the potential of producing higher seed yield from 1295 to 2961 kg ha-1 depending on the genotypes studied 8. Mung bean do best on fertile sandy loam soils with good internal drainage with a pH between 6.2 and 7.2 and plants can show severe iron chlorosis symptoms and certain micronutrient deficiencies on more alkaline soils. Mung bean is attacked by different species of insect pests i.e whitefly, jassids, thrips and armyworm are of the major importance. These insect pests not only reduce the vigor of the plant by sucking the sap but also transmit diseases and affect photosynthesis as well. The yellow mosaic virus caused 30-70%yield loss 9. 10 found that 0.03%

dimethoate or 0.04% monocrotophos effectively reduced the insect pest complex of Mung bean when applied 45 and 60 days after sowing. Army worm: Latin Names are Mythimna separate (Walker), Spodoptera mauritia acronyctoides (Guenee), Spodoptera exempta (Walkeer) and symptoms are fed upon leaf tips or along leaf margins. The rounded eggs are either bare or covered with a thin layer of blackish felt and are laid in oblong clusters. They are sub-spherical and greenish white or pearly white. They turn yellow and dark brown with age. Young larvae have two pairs of pro-legs. They have brown to orange head with an A- marking on the front. They are grass green with gray dorsal stripes. The body of mature larvae has shades of green gray brown pink or black with dorsal or sub dorsal longitudinal light gray to black stripes or clear yellow stripes running along the entire length of the body. The adult either grayish black with marking on its forewings are pale red brown with fewer markings on the front wings are it has pale and brown forewings with two pale round spots. Its hind wings have two colours, dark red brown on top and white underneath or the hind wings are lighter the forewings. The insect has a body length of more than 15 meter. 11. Parasitoids of army worm such as tachinids, ichneumonids, eulophids,chalcids and braconid wasps parasitize it. Meadow grasshoppers, ants, birds and toads feed on the pest. Fungal diseases and virus also infect the larvae. Chemical control can be needed when populations are extremely high. Pyrethroids can often kill the larvae but can also cause development of secondary pests, such as the brown plant hoper. 12 MATERIALS AND METHODS Location Trials were conducted during 2007 & 2008 to study chemical control of Army Worm in thal areas. The experiments were conducted at Adaptive Research Farm Karor. The experiments were laid out in randomized complete block design with thee replications. Treatments o T1 = Control o T2= Talstar ( Bifenthrin) 10 EC @ 375ml ha-1.

328


T3= Deltaphos 10+350EC(Deltamathrin + Triazophos) @ 500ml ha-1. o T4= Lorsban (Chloropyriphos) 40EC @ 850ml ha-1. o T5= Triazophos (20/400EC) @ 750ml ha-1. o T6= Karate (Lamda cyhalothrine) 5EC @ 1250ml ha-1. During 2007 plots size 8.25 meter x 18.9 meter and mung variety was sown AZRI-2006. Date of sowing was 8th June 2007 while during 2008 plot size was 11.4 meter x 13.8 meter and mung variety sown was AZRI-2006. Date of sowing was Ist June 2008. Inorganic fertilizers were applied at the time of seedbed preparation. Organic fertilizers were applied as Farm Yard Manure. Inorganic fertilizers were applied in the form of DAP, SOP and Urea. All other agronomic practices were kept same for all treatments. The yield data were recorded by harvesting randomly selected 3 x 3 m-2 from each treatment, while plant height and number of pods were recorded on the average of ten plants from each treatment. Statistical Analysis Year wise data was subjected to statistical analysis separately by using analysis of variance technique. The difference among treatment means was compared by using least significant difference (LSD) test at 5% probability level 13. o

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Germination m-2 The results given in table-I showed that all the different chemicals have no impact on germination m-2 of mung crop during both the years 2007 and 2008 because all the chemicals were applied after germination to control Armyworm. Plant Height (cm) The results revealed (table-I) that all the different chemicals have significant impact on plant height as compared to T1 (control). Maximum plant height i.e 65.75 and 65.72 inT3 was recorded in T3 (Deltaphos 10 + 350 EC @500ml ha-1) during both the years 2007 and 2008. Plant height was also more in T5 (Triazofas (20/400 EC) @ 750ml ha-1as compared to T2, T4 and T6 where Bifenthrin (Talstar) @ 375ml ha-1, Lorsban 40 EC @ 500ml ha-1and Karate 5EC @ 1250ml ha-1 was applied respectively. Resultantly T3 (Deltaphos 10 + 350 EC @500ml ha-1) was found statistically more significant than all other treatments i.e T2, T4, T5, T6 and also from T1. Percentage Infestation by army worm before spray The results of table-II showed that % age infestation by armyworm before spray was maximum i.e 8.42 in T2 during 2007 while during 2008 it was maximum i.e 9.38 in T6. Percentage Infestation by army worm after spray The results given in table-II revealed that %infestation by armyworm after spray was minimum i.e 0.1 and & 0.10 in T3 (Deltaphos 10+350 EC @ 50ml ha-1) during both the year 2007 and 2008 respectively. % Infestation was also minimum in T5 (Triazofas 20/400 EC @ 450ml ha-1) as compared to T2 (Bifenthrin @ 375ml ha-1), T4 (lorsban 40EC @ 850ml ha-1) and T6 (Karate 5EC @ 1250ml ha-1) respectively. % infestation was maximum after spray in T1 (control). The results were similar to some extent with the findings of Mambiri and Amadalo (1998) 14 who found that the insecticides performed well in reducing the

Sci.Int. (Lahore), 23(4),327-330,2011

infestation of mung by army worm were Decis, Karate were applied Resultantly T3 (Deltaphos 10 + 350 EC @500m ha-1) was found statistically more significant than all other treatments i.e T2, T4, T5, T6 and also from T1. Number of Branches plant-1 The results given in table-III revealed that all the chemicals have significant impact on number of branches per plant of mung crop against T1 (Control). Maximum number of branches i.e 9 & 9.02 were recorded in T3 (Deltaphos 10 + 350 EC @500ml ha-1) during both the years 2007 and 2008 respectively. No. of branches were also maximum in T5 (Triazofas 20/400 EC @ 450ml ha-1) as compared to T2 (Bifenthrin @ 375ml ha-1), T4 (lorsban 40EC @ 850ml ha-1) and T6 (Karate 5EC @ 1250ml ha-1 as compared to during both the year 2007 and 2008 respectively. Treatments T2 (Bifenthrin (Talstar) @ 375ml ha-1), T4 (Lorsban 40EC @ 850ml ha-1), T5 (Triazophos (20/400EC) @ 750ml ha-1) are not significantly different from each other. Resultantly T3 (Deltaphos 10 + 350 EC @500ml ha-1) was found statistically more significant than all other treatments i.e T2, T4, T5, T6 and also from T1. Number of Pods plant-1 The results given in table-III showed that all the chemicals have significant effect on number of pods per plant against T1 (control). Numbers of pods per plant were recorded maximum i.e 25 and 25.25 in T-3 (Deltaphos 10 + 350 EC @500ml ha-1) during both the years 2007 and 2008 respectively. No. of pods per plant were also maximum i.e 23.60 and 23.67 in T5 (Triazophos (20/400EC) @ 750ml ha 1 ) as compared to T2( Bifenthrin (Talstar) @ 375ml ha-1),T4 (Lorsban 40EC @ 850mlha-1) and T6 (Karate 5EC @ 1250ml ha-1) during both the years 2007 & 2008 respectively. Treatments T4 (Lorsban 40EC @ 850ml ha-1 ) and T5 (Triazophos (20/400EC) @ 750ml ha-1) were not significantly different from each other. The results were not similar with the findings of Anonymous (1985) 15 who found that out of seven pyrethroids, Karate was better in controlling Armyworms on mung. Resultantly T3 (Deltaphos 10 + 350 EC @500ml ha-1) was found statistically more significant than all other treatments i.e T2, T4, T5, and T6 and also from T1. Number of grains pod-1 The results revealed (table-4) that all the chemicals have significant effect on no.of grains per pod against T1 (control). No. of grains per pod were recorded maximum i.e 6.86 and 6.90 in T3 (Deltaphos 10 + 350 EC @500ml ha -1) during both the years 2007 and 2008 respectively. No. of grains per pod were also maximum i.e 6.20 and 6.26 during both the years 2007 and 2008 in T5 (Triazophos (20/400EC) @ 750ml ha-1) as compared toT2 (Bifenthrin (Talstar) @ 375ml ha-1), T4 (Lorsban 40EC @ 850mlha-1) and T6 (Karate 5EC @ 1250ml ha-1). Resultantly T3 (Deltaphos 10 + 350 EC @ 500ml ha-1) was found statistically more significant than all other treatments i.eT2, T4, T5, and T6 and also from T1.

Sci.Int. (Lahore), 23(4),327-330,2011


329

Table-I. Influence of insecticides on growth parameters for the control of Army Worm, during the years 2007 and 2008 (average of three replicates) Treatments Germination m-2 Plant height (cm) 2007 2008 2007 2008 T1 =Control 17.00c 17.33c 33.70c 33.61c T2= Talstar ( Bifenthrin) 10 EC @ 18.66ab 19.66ab 56.66ab 56.60bc 375ml ha-1. T3=Deltaphos 21.33a 20.66a 65.75a 65.72a 10+350EC(Deltamathrin + Triazophos) @ 500ml ha-1 T4=Lorsban (Chloropyriphos) 40EC @ 850ml ha-1

18.00bc

18.33bc

T5=Triazophos (20/400EC) @ 50ml 19.33ab 20.33ab ha-1 T6=Karate (Lamda cyhalothrine) 5EC 18.33abc 19.00bc @ 1250ml ha-1 *Mean sharing the same letter are not significantly different than each other.

51.06b

51.00cd

59.51ab

59.40ab

44.45c

44.41d

Table-II. Influence of insecticides on growth parameters for the control of Army Worm, during the years 2007 and 2008 (average of three replicates) Treatments

% Infestation by Army Worm Before spray

% Infestation by Army Worm After spray

2007

2008

2007

2008

0.37d

08.07ab

15.69a

16.13a

08.42a

08.07ab

03.11b

03.05b

T3=Deltaphos 10+350EC(Deltamathrin + Triazophos) @ 500ml ha-1

07.26b

07.93ab

00.1c

00.10c

T4=Lorsban (Chloropyriphos) 40EC @ 850ml ha-1

07.98b

07.71b

01.88bc

01.81bc

01.4bc

01.49bc

03.90b

03.72b

T1 =Control T2= Talstar ( Bifenthrin) 10 EC @ 375ml ha-1.

T5=Triazophos (20/400EC) @ 50ml 07.48b 06.48b ha-1 T6=Karate (Lamda cyhalothrine) 5EC 07.70c 09.38a @ 1250ml ha-1 *Mean sharing the same letter are not significantly different than each other.

Table-III. Influence of insecticides on growth parameters for the control of Army Worm, during the years 2007 and 2008 (average of three replicates) No. of Branches plant-1 No. of pods plant-1 Treatments 2007 2008 2007 2008 T1 =Control 7.45c 07.55c 15.35c 18.31c T2= Talstar ( Bifenthrin) 10 EC @ 375ml 08.13bc 08.1b 20.65bc 20.70bc ha-1. T3=Deltaphos 10+350EC(Deltamathrin + 9.00a 09.02a 25.00a 25.25a Triazophos) @ 500ml ha-1 T4=Lorsban (Chloropyriphos) 40EC @ 8.00bc 08.1b 19.66bc 19.69bc 850ml ha-1 -1 T5=Triazophos (20/400EC) @ 50ml ha 8.60ab 08.5b 23.60ab 23.67ab T6=Karate (Lamda cyhalothrine) 5EC @ 7.46c 07.76c 18.60 18.66c 1250ml ha-1 *Mean sharing the same letter are not significantly different than each other.

330


Sci.Int. (Lahore), 23(4),327-330,2011

Table-IV. Influence of insecticides on growth parameters for the control of Army Worm, during the years 2007 and 2008 (average of three replicates) No. of Grains pod-1

Yield (kgha-1)

Treatments 2007

2008

2007

2008

T1 =Control

05.03c

05.95c

615.00b

646.00b

T2= Talstar ( Bifenthrin) 10 EC @ 375ml ha-1.

06.16b

06.25bc

710.00a

735.00a

06.86a

06.90a

720.00a

751.00a

060.03b

06.20c

705.00a

733.00a

06.20b

06.26ab

710.00a

741.00a

06.6c

695.00b

683.00b

T3=Deltaphos 10+350EC(Deltamathrin + Triazophos) @ 500ml ha-1 T4=Lorsban (Chloropyriphos) 40EC @ 850ml ha1

T5=Triazophos (20/400EC) @ 50ml ha-1

T6=Karate (Lamda cyhalothrine) 5EC @ 1250ml 06.03b ha-1 *Mean sharing the same letter are not significantly different than each other.

Yield (kg ha-1) The results given in table-4 revealed that all the chemicals have significant impact on yield of mung crop against T1 (control). Maximum yield i.e 720Kgha-1 and 751Kgha-1 was recorded in T3 (Deltaphos 10 + 350 EC @500ml ha-1) during both the years 2007 and 2008 respectively. Yield was also high in T5 (Triazophos (20/400EC) @ 750ml ha-1) as compared to T2 (Bifenthrin (Talstar) @ 375ml ha-1), T4 (Lorsban 40EC @ 850ml ha-1) and T6 (Karate 5EC @ 1250ml ha-1). Treatments T2 Bifenthrin (Talstar) @ 375ml ha-1), T4 (Lorsban 40EC @ 850ml ha-1), T5 (Triazophos (20/400EC) @ 750ml ha-1) are not significantly different from each other. Resultantly, T3 (Deltaphos 10 + 350 EC @500ml ha-1) was found statistically more significant than all other treatments i.e T2, T4, T5, T6 and also from T1 during both the years 2007 and 2008.The results were not similar with the findings of Anonymous (1985) 15 who found that out of seven pyrethroids, Karate was better in controlling Army worms on mung CONCLUSION The efficacy of Deltaphos 10 + 350EC @ 350ml ha-1 was found significantly higher followed by Triazophos (20/400EC) @ 750ml ha-1, Karate 5EC @ 1250ml ha-1 and Lorsban 40EC @ 850ml ha-1. So maximum yield i.e 720 kg ha-1 and 750 kg ha-1 was obtained during both the years 2007 and 2008 respectively where Deltaphos 10 + 350EC @ 350ml ha-1 was applied. REFERENCES 1. Haq, A (1989). Studies on the yield and related morphological characters of some new mungbean genotypes in irrigated environment. M.Sc. Thesis. Dept. Agronomy, Univ.of agri.Faisalabad. 2. Potter, N. N. and J.H. Hotchkiss. Food Science. CBS Publishers, New Delhi, India. pp: 403, 1997. 3. Kannaiyan, S., Bioresource technology for sustainable agriculture. Associated Publishing Company. New Delhi, pp: 422, 1999..

4. 5.

6. 7.

8.

9. 10. 11.

12. 13. 14.

15.

Malik, B.A., Grain legumes crop production, Nazir, S. Bashir, E & Bantel, R (Eds.). National Book Found. Islamabad, pp. 277-326, 1994. Mahmood A, Athar M. Cross inoculation studies: Response of Vigna mungo to inoculation with rhizobia from tree legumes growing under arid Environment. Int. J.E nviron. Sci. Technol. 5: 135-139, 2008.. Anonymous, Economic Survey. Economic Advisors Wing, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of Pakistan, Islamabad, 2009.. Anjum, M. S., Z. I. Ahmed and C. A. Rauf, Effect of Rhizobium Inoculation and Nitrogen Fertilizer on Yield and Yield Components of Mungbean. Int. J. Agric & Biol., 8 (2): 238–240, 2006. Ullah H, I.H Khalil, I.ltafullah, H.U. Rahman, I. Amin (2011). Genotype × environment interaction, heritability and selec.tion response for yield and yield contributing traits in mungbean. African J. Biotechnol. 10 (4): 475483. Marimuthu, T., C.L. Subramanian and Mohan, Assessments of yield losses due to yellow mosaic virus in mungbean. Pulse Crop Newsl. 1: 104, 1981.. Ahmad, R, C.P. Yadava and S. Lal. Evaluation of spray schedule for the control of insect’s pests of munghean. Indian J. Pulses Res., 11(2): 146-148, 1998.. Masood, K. K., D. Salahu, K.Liaqatullah and S.,S.Ghulam. Efficacy of various insecticides on the damage and incidence of armyworm on mung and beneficial fauna. Pak Entomol. 26 (1): 66-79, 2004. Lever, R.J. 2000. Major mung bean insects and their control. World Farming, 12 (5): 16- 24, 1997. Steel RGD, J.H Torrie and D.A. Dickey, Principles and Procedures of Statistics. A Biometrical Approach, 3rd Ed. McGraw Hill Book Co., New York, 172-177. 14. Mambiri, A.M. and B.A. Amadalo, Field Evaluation of some chemicals for their efficacy against armyworm on mungbean in Kenya. Insect Sci. Appli. (2): 287-295,1988. Anonymous, Efficacy of pyretheroids against insect pests of mung at Multan. Ann. Rep. of Ento., ARRI.(17)1985-86,1985.