COMPARATIVE FIELD EVALUATION OF SOME NEWER VERSUS CONVENTIONAL INSECTICIDES FOR THE CONTROL OF APHIDS (HOMOPTERA: APHIDIDAE) ON OILSEED RAPE (BRASSICA NAPUS L.)

M. Sarwar, N. Ahmad, Moula Bux, M. Nasrullah, M. Tofique

Abstract


This study was designed to evaluate the effects of new insecticides like, Imidacloprid (Confidor 200 EC), Thiomethoxam (Actara 25 WG) and Acetamiprid (Megamos 20 SL) belonging to Nitroguanidine group alongwith conventional insecticides such as, Chlorpyrifos (Lorsban 40 EC) and Dimethoate (Systoate 40 EC) belonging to Organophosphate group against aphids’ population on oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.). A perusal of data, based on the overall performance of the test compounds, reflected that newer insecticides were superior in reducing the population of aphids and yield enhancement as compared to conventional insecticides. The best results were achieved with the application of Imidacloprid by recording the lowest number of aphids (2.2 per plant) than obtained with Thiomethoxam and Acetamiprid (3.22 and 4.66, respectively). Other insecticides, viz., Chlorpyrifos and Dimethoate were also found to be effective in maintaining the aphids’ population at lower levels per plant (16.2 and 17.5, respectively) over untreated control (227.7). Imidacloprid was responsible for increasing the grain yield to 3722.85 Kg per Hectare, approached by Thiomethoxam, Acetamiprid, Chlorpyrifos and Dimethoate as against unsprayed control (2980.0, 2542.85, 1542.85, 540.0 and 604.85 Kg per Hectare, respectively). Study indicated that selective use of newer insecticides would seem a reasonable strategy in aphids controlling and integration of such chemicals in insects’ management package could help to reduce pest densities.

Full Text:

PDF

References


M. Sarwar. Biological Diversity and

Conservation 2 (2009) 85.

D.R.C. Bakhetia. J. Res. Punjab. Agric. Univ.

(1984) 63.

K.G. Phadke. Ecological factors influencing

aphid Lipaphis erysimi (Kalt) incidence on

mustard crop. Aphidology in Ind. Proc. Nat

Sym. (eds. B.K. Agarwala) (1986) 37.

S.K. Prasad, IPM and Sustain Agric. An

Entomal. Appr. 6 (1996)174.

L.C. Devi, T.K. Singh and R. Varatharajan,

Ind. J. Entomol. 64 (2002) 337.

M.V. Vekaria and G.M. Patel, Ind. J. Entomol.

(2005) 182.

K. Dutta, U. Mian, S. Alam, M. Nasiruddin

and U. Ahmed, Journal of Subtropical

Agricultural Research and Development 4

(2006) 197.

Y.P. Singh. Indian Journal of Plant Protection

(2007) 116.

R.G.D. Steel and J.H. Torrie, Principles and

Procedures of Statistic. A biometric

approach. Mc-Graw Hill Book Co. Inc. New

York (1980).

S.K. Prasad, Ind. J. Entomol. 40 (1978) 328.

B.L. Pareek and K. Noor, Rev. Appl. Entomol.

(1980) 378.

R.V. Flanders, L.W. Bledsoe and C.R.

Edwards, Environ. Entomol. 13 (1984) 902.

S.M. Bodhade, P.W. Narkhede and M.N.

Borle, Ind. J. Entomol. 54 (1992) 20.

R. Cornale, M. Pozzati, C. Cavazzuti and G.

Burgio, Informatore Agrario. 52 (1996) 35.

M. Sarwar, N. Ahmad, Q.H. Siddiqui, A.A.

Rajput and M. Tofique, Asian Journal of Plant

Sciences 2 (2003) 831.

K. Anil, V.K. Jandial and S.B.S. Parihar, Int.

J. Agric. Sci. 3 (2007) 90.

Z.A. Rana, M.A. Shahzad, N.A. Malik and S.

Ahmad, J. of Agric. Research 45 (2007) 221.

L.D. Fanti and D.L. Fanti, Control

experiments against grey aphid on apple.

Informatory Agrario Suppl. 53 (1997) 12.

Sreelatha and B.J. Divakar, Ind. J. Plant Prot.

(1997) 52.

D.E. Bragg and J.W. Burns, Crop profile for

canola in Washington. Cooperative Extension

Services of Washington State University and

Canola Council of Canada, Winnipeg (2001).

H.P. Misra. Ind. J. Entomol. 64 (2002) 328.

Gesraha, Egyptian J. of Biol. Pest

Control. 17 (2007) 65.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.