J. Env. Bio-Sci., 2016: Vol.

30 (1):165-167
(165) ISSN 0973-6913 (Print), ISSN 0976-3384 (On Line)

BIO - EFFICACY OF EMAMECTIN BENZOATE 5 - WG AGAINST PIGEON PEA POD

BORER, HELICOVERPA ARMIGERA (HUB.) UNDER FIELD CONDITION
IN STEPPE CLIMATE OF HK REGION
Krishna Japur*, R. Naveena and A. C. Hosamani
Dept. of Agricultural Entomology, MARS, UAS, Raichur-584 104
[Corresponding author E-mail*: krishna3944@gmail.com]

Received: 14-02-2016 Revised: 01-03-2016 Accepted: 09-03-2016

Two field experiments were carried out to evaluate bioefficacy of emamectin benzoate 5 WG against pod borer in pigeonpea, this
study were conducted at Main Agricultural Research Station, UAS, Raichur under steppe climatic conditions of Hyderabad-Karnataka
(HK) region during kharif, 2012-13 and 2013-14. In the vicinity of Hyderabad Karnataka region the density of H. armigera population
increases dramatically and causes 50 to 90 % damage to pigeonpea pods. When biological control is not effective, chemical
control is the alternative can be used with selective pesticides is an integrated strategy. All the tested pesticides were significantly
superior over control in minimizing pod borer population for both years. Pooled data indicates that larval populations were ranged
from 1.07 to 2.09 larvae/ plant with pod damage of 7.89 to 13.15 %. Experimental results revealed that among all the treatments,
emamectin benzoate 5 WG @ 7.50 g.a i/ha were noticed superior in lowering the H. armigera larval population of 1.04 per plant with
7.89 % pod damage and with yield of 15.73 q/ha. The untreated control recorded with maximum pod damage of 30.60 %with a
minimum yield of 9.13 q/ha.

Pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan L) is a tropical grain legume mainly
grown in India and ranks second in area and production which
contributes about 90 % in the world's pulse production. In India,
pigeonpea is grown in 4.42 million ha with an annual production
of 2.89 million tonnes and 655 kg ha-1 of productivity. India
has the largest area (3.38 million ha) followed by Myanmar
(580,000 ha), China (150,000 ha) and Nepal (21,360 ha).
Pigeonpea is cultivated throughout the semi-arid tropics of
South Asia and East Africa. In Karnataka, it is cultivated in an
area of 6.38 lakh ha with production of 2.65 lakh tonnes1 and
productivity is 415 kg ha-1. Though the area under pigeonpea
is increasing both during Kharif and Rabi seasons, the yields
have remained stagnated (500- 700 kg/ha) for the past 3-4
decades, largely due to insect pest damage2.
It is attacked by more than 250 species of insects, of which
pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera Hubner is the most dreaded
and polyphagous pest of pigeonpea worldwide3. Its preference
for flowering and fruiting parts results in heavy loss upto 60 %
or more under subsistence agriculture in the tropics. The annual
loss due to this was estimated to be US $ 400 million in
pigeonpea4. Management of Helicoverpa armigera relies heavily
on insecticides, often to the exclusion of other methods of
management. A number of insecticides have been found
reported to be effective for controlling H. armigera on pigeonpea5.
Exploring new insecticides with lesser residues and lower
environmental threat has become imperative. In recent years,
newer compounds with novel modes of action are being evolved
to check infestation by this insect pest. The present study is
aimed to evaluate the bioefficacy of certain newer insecticides
against the pod borer in pigeonpea ecosystem.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Field study was under taken at the Main Agricultural Research
Station (MARS), University of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur
during Kharif, 2012 and 2013 to evaluate newer insecticides
against pigeonpea pod borer under steppe condition of
Hyderabad-Karnataka (HK) and considered as pulse bowl of
Karnataka. The experiment were laid out in completely
randomized block design with eight treatments replicated thrice
using pigeonpea variety "TS-3R" which is susceptible for pod
borer attack were selected for this study. The pigeonpea seeds
were dibbled manually in the experimental field, with a plot
size of 6.36 X 3.60 m for each treatment and 90 x 30 cm
spacing was maintained. All agronomic practices with
recommended dose of fertilizers were followed to maintain good
plant stand till the harvest of crop and harvesting was done
manually. All the formulations were diluted in water and
applied with the help of knapsack sprayer. Treatment

NAAS Rating (2016)-4.20

Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/)

 BIO - EFFICACY OF EMAMECTIN BENZOATE 5 - WG
applications were done at reproductive stage of crop in the
experimental field. Pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hub.)
larvae were counted on five randomly selected plants and
expressed as larvae per plant. Pod per cent pod damage were
worked out by counting good number of pods and damaged
pods and later per cent pod damage were worked out
statistically and subjected for angular transformation6.
Predatory population: Predatory population viz., coccinellids
and spiders per plant on tagged plants were recorded at one
day before and ten days after spraying and the population of
predators at each spray was averaged and subjected to
statistical analysis.
Phytotoxicity: Five plants were randomly selected from each
plot and the total number of leaves of those showing
phytotoxicity, if any were counted on one, three and seven
days after spray and were recorded on leaf injury on tips and
leaf surface, wilting, necrosis, vein clearing, epinasty and
hyponasty etc,. The data collected were converted into
percentage. The visual phytotoxic scoring was assessed in
each treatment as per the EWRC ratings:
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Pod borer, H. armigera: The experimental results indicate
that the larval populations per plant at one day before spray in
all the treatments were similar and statistically non-significant.
The larval population during 2012-13 ranged from 1.09 to 2.10
compared to untreated control which recorded 5.73 larvae/
plant, whereas during 2013-14 the larval populations were
ranged from 0.98 to 2.08 compared to untreated control 7.13
larvae/plant. The result from pooled data represents that
population varied from 1.07 to 2.09 larvae/ plant. Among all the
imposed treatments, emamectin benzoate 5 WG @ 7.50 g.a
i/ha were noticed superior in lowering the H. armigera larval
Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/)
(166)
population of 1.04 per plant. The next best treatments were
Emamectin benzoate 5 WG @ 6.25 g.a.i/ha which recorded
1.23 larvae/plant followed by Emamectin benzoate 5 WG @
11.0 g.a.i/ha, chlorantiniprole 18.5 SC @ 30.00 g.a i/ha and
spinosad 45 SC @ 56.0 g.a i/ha which recorded 1.40, 1.24
and 1.32 larvae/plant respectively. The maximum larval
populations were noticed in untreated control. The present
findings are in confirmation with other worker, who reported
that the number of Helicoverpa larvae per plant were lowest in
plots treated with chlorantraniliprole 20 SC (0.43), flubendiamide
480 SC (0.59) and spinosad 45 SC (0.85) as against untreated
control plot (4.17) with 89.7, 85.9 and 79.6 % larval reduction
over control, respectively7.
Per cent pod damage: During 2012-13 per cent pod damage
were ranged from 8.44 to 13.70 in comparison with untreated
control (28.50), whereas, during 2013-14 it varied from 7.34 to
12.60 compared to untreated control which recorded 32.70
per cent pod damage. The pooled data represents that 7.89 to
13.15 per cent pod damage were noticed in untreated control
with 30.60 per cent pod damage. Among all the treated
insecticides, minimum per cent pod damage were observed in
emamectin benzoate 5 WG @ 7.5 g.a.i/ha followed by
chlorantiniprole 18.5 SC @ 30.00 g.a i/ha which recorded 7.89
and 8.42 per cent pod damage respectively. Similarly, spinosad
45 SC @ 56.0 g.a i/ha, emamectin benzoate 5 WG @ 6.25
g.a.i/ha and emamectin benzoate 5 WG @ 11.0 g.a.i/ha were
noticed with 9.05, 9.15 and 9.77 per cent pod damage
respectively and were on par with each other. The highest
damage were seen in lufenuron 5 EC @ 30.00 g.a i/ha with
13.15 per cent pod damage compared to untreated control
which recorded 30.60 per cent pod damage as depicted in
Table-1. The present findings are in confirmation with other
worker8 reported Flubendiamide was the most effective with
5.98% damage by the pest, which was at par with emamectin
benzoate at 11 g/ha (6.35%) and spinosad at 73 g/ha (7.35%)8.
Grain Yield: The experimental results reveals that emamectin
benzoate 5 WG @ 7.5 g.a.i/ha were recorded with maximum
pod yield of 15.73 q/ha as shown in Fig.-1, followed by
emamectin benzoate 5 WG @ 6.25 g.a.i/ha, chlorantriniprole
18.5 SC @ 30 g.a.i/ha and spinosad 45 SC @ 56.0 g.a.i/ha
which were recorded with 15.44, 15.33 and 15.14 q/ha
respectively and are on par with each other. The lowest yield
 (167) JAPUR, NAVEENA AND HOSAMANI

Table 1: Bioefficacy of Emamectin Benzoate 5 WG against Red gram pod borer, H. armigera during Kharif season
Helicoverpa armigera (larvae/plant) Per cent pod damage Yield (q/ha)
Sl. Dosage
Treatments Pooled Pooled Pooled
No. (g.a.i/ha) 2012-13 2013-14 2012-13 2013-14 2012-13 2013-14
mean mean mean
1.89 1.84 1.87 12.40 11.3 0 11.85
1 Emamectin Benzoate 5 WG 5.00 b c 13.14 14.26 13.70
(1.55) (1.53) (1.54)ab (20.62) (19.64) (20.14)bc
1.20 1.26 1.23 9.88 8.42 09.15
2 Emamectin Benzoate 5 WG 6.25 14.96 15.92 15.44
(1.30)a (1.33)b (1.32)a (18.32) (16.87) (17.61)ab
1.09 0.98 1.04 8.44 7.34 07.89
3 Emamectin Benzoate 5 WG 7.5 15.42 16.04 15.73
(1.26)a (1.22)a (1.24)a (16.89) (15.72) (16.31)a
1.39 1.41 1.40 10.12 9.42 09.77
4 Emamectin Benzoate 5 SG 11.00 14.26 15.06 14.66
(1.37)a (1.38)b (1.38)ab (18.55) (17.87) (18.21)ab
2.10 2.08 2.09 13.70 12.60 13.15
5 Lufenuron 5 EC 30.0 12.78 13.18 12.98
(1.61)b (1.61)d (1.61)b (21.72) (20.79) (21.26)c
1.29 1.34 1.32 8.96 9.14 09.05
6 Spinosad 45 SC 56.0 15.04 15.24 15.14
(1.34)a (1.36)b (1.35)ab (17.42) (17.60) (17.51)ab
1.25 1.23 1.24 8.58 8.26 08.42
7 Chlorantraniliprole 18.5 SC 30.0 (1.32)a (1.32)b (1.32)a (17.03) (16.70) (16.87)a 15.18 15.48 15.33
5.73 7.13 6.43 28.50 32.70 30.60
8 Untreated control -- 9.42 8.84 09.13
(2.50)c (2.76)e (2.63)c (32.27) (34.88) (33.58)d
SEm ± 0.12 0.08 0.10 -- -- -- -- -- --
CD at 5 % 0.37 0.24 0.31 -- -- -- -- -- --
CV (%) 10.65 6.35 8.50 -- -- -- -- -- --

DBS: Days Before Spray DAS: Days After Spray Figures in parentheses are arcsine transformed values

Table 2: Cost economics of treatments for the management of Red gram pod borer, H. armigera
Gross Cost of
Sl. Dosage Yield Net profit
Treatments returns cultivation B:C ratio
No. (g.a.i/ha) (q/ha) (Rs./ha)
(Rs./ha) (Rs./ha)
1 Emamectin Benzoate 5 WG 5.00 13.70 61650 21500.0 40150.0 2.9
2 Emamectin Benzoate 5 WG 6.25 15.44 69480 21875.0 47605.0 3.2
3 Emamectin Benzoate 5 WG 7.5 15.73 70785 22250.0 48535.0 3.2
4 Emamectin Benzoate 5 SG 11.00 14.66 65970 24250.0 41720.0 2.7
5 Lufenuron 5 EC 30.0 12.98 58410 23600.0 34810.0 2.5
6 Spinosad 45 SC 56.0 15.14 68130 22750.0 45380.0 3.0
7 Chlorantraniliprole 18.5 SC 30.0 15.33 68985 24800.0 44185.0 2.8
8 Untreated control -- 09.13 41085 19000.0 22085.0 2.2

Table 3: Effect of Emamectin Benzoate 5 WG on natural enemies of Red gram pod borer, H. armigera

DBS: Days Before Spray DAS: Days After Spray

Fig. 1: Helicoverpa armigera larval population, per cent pod damage and yield

Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/)


were observed in Lufenuron 5 EC 56 g.a i/ha which recorded
12.98 q/ha when compared to untreated control which recorded
9.13 q/ha. The present findings are in agreement with other
worker8 reported the maximum pod yield was recorded with
emamectin benzoate at 11 g/ha (1761 kg/ha) followed by
spinosad at 73 g/ha (1717 kg/ha), indoxacarb at 50 g/ha (1598
kg/ha) and bifenthrin at 80 g/ha (1573 kg/ha)8.
Cost economics: The results from cost economics revealed
that among the different treatments emamectin benzoate 5
WG @ 7.5 g.a.i/ha were registered with maximum gross return
of Rs. 70785/ha resulting in maximum net profit of Rs. 48335/
ha followed by emamectin benzoate 5 WG @ 6.25 g.a.i/ha
and spinosad 45 SC @ 56.0 g.a.i/ha recorded net profit of
Rs.47605 and Rs. 45380/ha, respectively5. Among all the
treatments, the highest cost benefit ratio were recorded in
emamectin benzoate 5 WG @ 7.5 g.a.i/ha 1:3.2 and were at
par with emamectin benzoate 5 WG @ 6.25 g.a.i/ha (1:3.2)
followed by spinosad 45 SC @ 56.0 g.a.i/ha which recorded
cost benefit ratio of (1:3.0). However, the lowest cost benefit
ratio were recorded in Lufenuron 5 EC @ 30 g.a.i/ha (1:2.5).
Predatory population: The experimental result indicates that
a day before imposition of treatment the predatory population
of coccinellids and spiders were uniform in all the experimental
plots. On ten day after treatment imposition emamectin
benzoate 5 WG @ 7.5 g a.i/ha were recorded with coccinellids
1.23 and spiders 1.41 per plant which were statistically non-
significant with all other dosages of insecticides and were at
Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/)
(168)
par with each other. All the doses of emamectin benzoate 5
WG are safer to predatory populations and do not have any
impact on natural enemies.
CONCLUSION
There was no record of phytotoxic symptoms on any pigeonpea
plants treated with various dosages of emamectin benzoate 5
WG. Under field condition, all the dosages of emamectin
benzoate 5 WG proved significantly effective in controlling the
pigeonpea pod borer, H. armigera infestation and increased
pigeonpea pod yield during both the years.
REFERENCES
1. Anonymous, (2012). In: All India Co-ordinated Research Project
on Pigeonpea. Project Coordinator's Report. Annual group meet
at UAS, Bangalore, 13th-15th May, 2012.
2. Sharma, H. C. and Pampapathy, G. (2004). Indian Journal of
Plant Protection, 32(2): 40.
3. Shanower, T. G., Romeis, J. and Minja, E. M. (1999). Annual
Review of Entomology, 44: 77.
4 Anonymous, (2007a). In:The medium term plan. ICRISAT,
Patancheru 502324, Andhra Pradesh, India. Vol-3. pg no. 1.
5. Ujagir, R. (2000). Annals of Plant Protection Sciences, 71: 19.
6. Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. (1984). In: Statistical procedures
for agricultural research. John W iley and sons, New York.
7. Sreekanth, M., Lakshmi, M.S.M. and Koteswar Rao, Y. (2014).
Int. J. Pl. Anim. and Envi. Sci., 4(1): 11.
8. Dodia, D. A., Prajapati, B. G. and Acharya, S. (2009). Journal of
Food Legumes, 22 (2): 144.