Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:55:15.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of three commercial biopesticides of neem (Azadirachta indica) and Bacillus thuringiensis on legume pod borer (Maruca vitrata) (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) in Thailand

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 May 2014

Prabhat Kumar ,
Lu-Ying Zoe Huang  and
R. Srinivasan
Prabhat Kumar*
Affiliation:
Asian Center of Innovation for Sustainable Agriculture Intensification (ACISAI), AIT, PO Box 4, Khlong Lunag, Pathumthani12120, Thailand
Lu-Ying Zoe Huang
Affiliation:
Asian Center of Innovation for Sustainable Agriculture Intensification (ACISAI), AIT, PO Box 4, Khlong Lunag, Pathumthani12120, Thailand
R. Srinivasan
Affiliation:
AVRDC – The World Vegetable Center, Shanhua, Tainan74151, Taiwan, ROC
*
*E-mails: pkipm@ait.asia; pkipm@yahoo.com
Get access

Abstract

Maruca vitrata Fabricius (legume pod borer, LPB), the most serious economic pest of legume crops in the tropics, is primarily controlled by chemical pesticide application with serious consequences for the ecosystem and human health. In this study, various concentrations of three commercial biopesticides, NeemBaan®, Bactospeine® (Bacillusthuringiensis (Bt) subsp. kurstaki) and Florbac® (Btaizawai), were tested either in the field or laboratory or in both conditions. In the laboratory experiments, different concentrations of NeemBaan® exhibited significant effects on the mortality of all the tested larval instars and a mortality rate of over 80% was recorded at a dose of 3000 ppm. Bactospeine® was found to be more effective against M. vitrata than Florbac®. Bactospeine® applied at a lower dose of 500 ppm caused 100% mortality in the first-instar and second-instar larvae; however, at the same dose, Florbac® caused mortality of only 26.67% (first instar) and 20% (second instar). In the field experiments, a higher dose of NeemBaan® (6000 ppm) significantly reduced pod damage to approximately 20% in both the first and second cropping seasons. In conclusion, neem- and Bt-based biopesticide products have insecticidal potential to be used in an integrated pest management strategy for controlling M. vitrata in Thailand.

Keywords

Maruca vitratabiopesticidesneemBacillus thuringiensis
Type
Research Papers
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , June 2014 , pp. 80 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, W. S. (1925) A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. Journal of Economic Entomology 18, 265–267.Google Scholar
Afun, J. V. K., Jackai, L. E. N. and Hodgson, C. J. (1991) Calendar and monitored insecticide application for the control of cowpea pests. Crop Protection 10, 363–370.Google Scholar
Ascher, K. R. S. (1992) Antifeedants: an overview. The Philippine Entomologist 8, 1117–1123.Google Scholar
AVRDC (1996) AVRDC 1995 Report. Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center, Tainan. 187 pp.Google Scholar
AVRDC (1997) AVRDC 1996 Report. Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center, Tainan. 172 pp.Google Scholar
Booker, R. H. (1965) Pests of cowpea and their control in northern Nigeria. Bulletin of Entomological Research 55, 663–672.Google Scholar
Chaudhari, D. K. (1988) Efficacy of some newer insecticides against pigeonpea pest complex. MSc thesis, Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola, Maharashtra, India. 90 pp..Google Scholar
Chawla, A. A., Kumar, M. and Bansal, I. (1995) Chemical constituents and biological activity of neem – review. Indian Drugs 32, 57–64.Google Scholar
Dean, D. H. (1984) Biochemical genetics of the bacterial insect-control agent Bacillus thuringiensis: basic principles and prospects for genetic engineering. Biotechnology & Genetic Engineering Reviews 2, 341–363.Google Scholar
Dina, S. O. and Medaiyedu, J. A. (1976) Field tests with insecticides to control Maruca testulalis and other pod-boring insects of cowpea in southern Nigeria. Journal of Economic Entomology 69, 173–177.Google Scholar
Dreyer, H., Baumgartner, J. and Tamo, M. (1994) Seed damaging field pests of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.) in Bénin: occurrence and pest status. International Journal of Pest Management 40, 252–260.Google Scholar
Ekesi, S. (1999) Insecticide resistance in field populations of the legume pod borer, Maruca vitrata Fabricius in Nigeria. International Journal of Pest Management 45, 57–59.Google Scholar
Faridi, B., Pourmirza, A. A., Safaralizadehm, M. H. and Taghaddosi, M. V. (2011) Food consumption pattern and baseline susceptibility to Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner var. tenebrionis in Colorado potato beetle larvae. Egyptian Academic Journal of Biological Sciences 4, 39–46.Google Scholar
Höfte, H. and Whiteley, H. R. (1989) Insecticidal crystal proteins of Bacillus thuringiensis. Microbiological Reviews 53, 242–255.Google Scholar
Jackai, L. E. N. (1983) Efficacy of insecticide applications at different times of day against the legume pod borer, Maruca testulalis (Geyer) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), on cowpea in Nigeria. Protection Ecology 5, 245–251.Google Scholar
Jayadevi, H. C. and Kumar, A. R. V. (2011) Why is a crude extract of neem superior to commercial neem formulations? A field test against Plutella xylostella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) in cabbage, pp. 172–181. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Management of the Diamondback Moth and other Crucifer Insect Pests (edited by Srinivasan, R., Shelton, A. M. and Collins, H. L.). AVRDC – The World Vegetable Center, Tainan.Google Scholar
Jeyarani, S. and Karuppuchamy, P. (2010) Investigations on the enhancing efficacy of granulovirus on nucleopolyhedrovirus of Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). Journal of Biopesticides 3, 172–176.Google Scholar
Karel, A. K. (1985) Yield losses from and control of bean pod borers, Maruca testulalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) and Heliothis armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 78, 1323–1326.Google Scholar
Kumar, P. and Poehling, H. M. (2007) Effects of azadirachtin, abamectin, and spinosad on sweet potato whitefly (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) on tomato plants under laboratory and greenhouse conditions in the humid tropics. Journal of Economic Entomology 100, 411–420.Google Scholar
Kumar, P., Poehling, H. M. and Borgemeister, C. (2005) Effects of different application methods of azadirachtin against sweet potato whitefly Bemisia tabaci Gennadius (Hom., Aleyrodidae) on tomato plants. Journal of Applied Entomology 129, 489–497.Google Scholar
Lal, S. S. and Yadava, C. P. (1988) Efficacy of certain insecticides against pod borers infesting pigeonpea. Pesticides 22, 30–35.Google Scholar
Lambert, B. and Peferoen, M. (1992) Insecticidal promise of Bacillus thuringiensis. Journal of Biosciences 42, 112–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otieno, W. A. and Karikuri, C. W. (1991) Field efficacy of Bacillus thuringiensis against tropical cereal stem borers, Chilo partellus, Busseola fusca and Maruca testulalis in Kenya, Vol.1. In 11th International Congress of Plant Protection: Proceedings, International Plant Protection: Focus on the Developing World, 5–9 October 1987, Manila, Philippines (edited by Magallona, E. D.). The Congress, Manila.Google Scholar
Pereyra, P. J., Rossini, G. B. and Darrigran, G. (2012) Toxicity of neem oil, a potential biocide against the invasive mussel Limnoperna fortunei (Dunker 1857). Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 84, 1065–1071.Google Scholar
Phompanjai, P. and Jamjanya, T. (2000) Study on pod borer (Maruca vitrata Fabricius) widespread and insecticide spraying time in cowpea, pp. 184–192. In Proceedings of the National Mungbean Research Conference VIII, 18–20 January 2000, Kasetsart University, Kamphaeng Saen Campus, Nakhon Pathom, Thailand. Department of Agriculture Extension, and The Thai Research Fund, Bangkok.Google Scholar
SAS (1999) SAS/AF Software: FRAME Entry Usage and Reference, Version 8. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina.Google Scholar
Schaaf, O., Jarvis, A. P., Van der Esch, S. A., Giagnacovo, G. and Oldham, N. J. (2000) Rapid and sensitive analysis of azadirachtin and related triterpenoids from neem (Azadirachta indica) by high-performance liquid chromatography–atmospheric pressure chemical ionization mass spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography A 886, 89–97.Google Scholar
Schläger, S., Ulrichs, C., Srinivasan, R., Beran, F., Bhanu, K. R. M., Mewis, I. and Schreiner, M. (2012) Developing pheromone traps and lures for Maruca vitrata in Taiwan. Gesunde Pflanzen 64, 183–186.Google Scholar
Schmutterer, H. (1990) Properties and potential of natural pesticides from the neem tree, Azadirachta indica. Annual Review of Entomology 35, 271–289.Google Scholar
Schnepf, E., Crickmore, N., Van Rie, J., Lereclus, D., Baum, J., Feitelson, J., Zeigler, D. R. and Dean, D. H. (1998) Bacillus thuringiensis and its pesticidal crystal proteins. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 62, 775–806.Google Scholar
Sieber, K.-P. and Rembold, H. (1983) The effects of azadirachtin on the endocrine control of moulting in Locusta migratoria. Journal of Insect Physiology 29, 523–527.Google Scholar
Singh, S. R. and Allen, D. J. (1980) Pests, diseases, resistance and protection of Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp, pp. 419–433. In Advances in Legume Science (edited by Summerfield, R. J. and Bunting, A. H.). Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, London.Google Scholar
Singh, S. R. and Jackai, L. E. N. (1988) The legume pod borer, Maruca testulalis (Geyer): past, present and future research. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science 9, 1–5.Google Scholar
Singh, S. R., Jackai, L. E. N., Dos Santos, J. H. R. and Adalla, C. B. (1990) Insect pests of cowpea, pp. 43–90. In Insect Pests of Tropical Food Legumes (edited by Singh, S. R.). Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
Sodavy, P., Sitha, M., Nugent, R. and Murphy, H. (2000) Farmers' awareness and perceptions of the effect of pesticides on their health, situation analysis. FAO Community IPM Programme, Field Document, April. Available at: http://www.communityipm.org/toxictrail/Documents/Cambodia-SituationAnalysis.pdf.Google Scholar
Srinivasan, R. (2008) Susceptibility of legume pod borer (LPB) Maruca vitrata to δ-endotoxins of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) in Taiwan. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 97, 79–81.Google Scholar
Srinivasan, R., Yule, S., Chang, J. C., Malini, P., Lin, M. Y., Hsu, Y. C. and Schafleitner, R. (2012) Towards developing a sustainable management strategy for legume pod borer, Maruca vitrata on yard-long bean in Southeast Asia, pp. 24–26. In Proceedings of the Regional Symposium on High Value Vegetables in Southeast Asia: Production, Supply and Demand (SEAVEG2012), January 2012, Chiang Mai, Thailand (edited by Holmer, R., Linwattana, G., Nath, P. and Keatinge, J. D. H.). AVRDC – The World Vegetable Center, Publication No. 12-758, Tainan.Google Scholar
Taylor, T. A. (1968) The effects of insecticide applications on insect damage and the performance of cowpea in southern Nigeria. Nigerian Agricultural Journal 5, 29–37.Google Scholar
Ulrichs, C. and Mewis, I. (2004) Seasonal abundance of two armyworm species, Spodoptera exigua (Hübner) and Spodoptera litura (F.) in the Philippines. Communications in Agricultural and Applied Biological Sciences 69, 323–328.Google Scholar
Van der Nat, J. M., Van der Sluis, W. G., De Silva, K. T. D. and Labadie, R. P. (1991) Ethnopharmacognostical survey of Azadirachta indica A. Juss (Meliaceae). Journal of Ethnopharmacology 35, 1–24.Google Scholar
Yule, S. and Srinivasan, R. (2013) Evaluation of bio-pesticides against legume pod borer, Maruca vitrata Fabricius (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), in laboratory and field conditions in Thailand. Journal of Asia-Pacific Entomology 16, 357–360. doi:10.1016/j.aspen.2013.05.001.Google Scholar