Plant protection module on management of diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella and other lepidopteran pests in cabbage

Authors

  • RAJENDRA PRASAD Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Ramanagara, UAS, Bengaluru 560 065, India
  • B S MANJUNATH Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Bengaluru Rural, UAS, Bengaluru
  • B SAVITA S M Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Ramanagara, UAS, Bengaluru 560 065, India
  • MALLIKARJUNA GOWDA A P Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Bengaluru Rural, UAS, Bengaluru

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v91i12.120796

Keywords:

Bioagents, Botanicals, Cabbage, DBM, Safer insecticides

Abstract

The diamondback moth (DBM), Plutella xylostella (L.) is the most destructive insect pest of cruciferous crops throughout the world. The use of trap crops, pheromones, botanicals, bio-agents and safer insecticides for pest control promises to be an important integrated approach in the management of DBM and other lepidopteran pests which helps to solve major environmental and human health problems. A study was designed and carried out at Ramanagara and Bengaluru Rural district during 2017-18 and 2018-19 to understand the effectiveness of IPM module, recommended practices and farmers' practice in cabbage fields.The results revealed that 15 days prior to cabbage transplanting, sowing of Indian mustard (2 rows after 25 rows of cabbage) attracted DBM moths for oviposition, 7 days after transplanting (DAT), installation of WOTA-T traps @ 5 Nos./acre helped in monitoring and mass trapping of DBM moths. The spraying of botanicals, bioagents and safer insecticides as per the schedule, viz. neem soap (10 g/l) after 15 DAT, Spinosad 2.5 SC (1.25 ml/l) after 18 DAT, Emamectin benzoate 5SG (0.5 gm/l) after 21 DAT, Bt (Dipel) (1 g/l) after 35 DAT, Chlorfenapyr 10 SC (1.5 ml/l) after 50 DAT, Spinosad 2.5 SC (1.25 ml/l) after 65 DAT and Emamectin benzoate 5 SG (0.5 gm/l) after 80 DAT, effectively reduced the damage caused by DBM in cabbage fields. The pest incidence in IPM module was negligible resulted in fetching higher yields, quality heads and better returns compared to farmers' practice. Farmers can adopt IPM module as an alternative to insecticides as it is ecologically safe, economically viable and socially well acceptable.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Anonymous. 1987. Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center. 1985, Progress Report. Shanhua, Taiwan: Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center, p 471.

Anonymous. 2017. Horticultural Statistics at a Glance. PDES – 256 (E) 500 -2017 – (DSK-III): 1-481.

Banks J E and Ekbom B. 1999. Modelling herbivore movement and colonization: pest management potential of intercropping and trap cropping. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 1: 165–70.

Bansode G M. 2003. ‘Integrated management of diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella L.) on cauliflower’. M Sc (Ag.) thesis, Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari, Gujarat (India).

Cochran W G and Cox G M. 1957. Experimental Designs. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, USA.

Gautam M P, Hem Singh, Sushil Kumar, Vinod Kumar, Gajendra Singh and Singh S N. 2018. Diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (Linnaeus) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) a major insect of cabbage in India: A review. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies 6(4): 1394–99.

Hooks C R R and Johnson M W. 2003. Impact of agricultural diversification on the insect community of cruciferous crops. Crop Protection 22: 223–38.

Mahalakshmi M S, Arjun Rao P and Ramachandra Rao G. 2002. Efficacy of some newer insecticides against Plutella xylostella infesting mustard. Andhra Agricultural Journal 49(1-2): 65–68.

Mallapur C P, Bhat, N S and Lingappa S. 1994. Control of cabbage pests by insecticides. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural Universities 19(2): 259–61.

Mohan M and Gujar G T. 2000. Susceptibility pattern and development of resistance in the diamondback moth Putella xylostella L., to Bacillus thuringiensis Ber.var kustaaki in India. Pest Management Science 56: 189–94.

Muthukumar M, Sharma R K and Sinha S B. 2007. Field efficacy of biopesticides and new insecticides against major insectpests and their effect on natural enemies in cauliflower. Pesticide Research Journal 19(2): 190–96.

Panchabhavi K S and Sudhindra M. 1994. Bacillus thuringiensis in the IPM of cabbage diamondback moth. Pestology 18(9): 28–30.

Pivnick K A, Jarvis B J, Gillott C and Slater G P. 1990. Underhill EW. Daily patterns of reproductive activity and the influence of adult density and exposure to host plants on reproduction in the diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae). Environmental Entomology 19: 587–93.

Prasannakumar N R, Krishna Moorthy P N and Saroja S. 2013. Efficacy of botanicals against major insect pests of cabbage (Brassica oleracea var capitata). Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystems 19(1): 27–32.

Sheikh A G and Kushwaha K S. 1994. Synergistic interaction of Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner with some insecticides against tobacco caterpillar, Spodoptera litura Fabricius on cauliflower. Journal of Biological Control 8(2): 98–101.

Somnath Deshmukh, Pandya H V, Patel S D, Saiyad M M and Dave P P. 2015. Development of suitable integrated pest management modulefor major lepidopteran insect pests of cabbage (Brassica oleracea var. capitata). Asian Journal of Biological Science 10(1): 48–56.

Srinivasan K and Krishnamoorthy P. 1992. Development andadoption of integrated pest management for major pests of cabbage using Indian mustard as trap crop. In: Management of biamondback moth and other crucifer pests. (In) Proceedings of the second International Workshop. Talekar N S (Ed.). Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center, Shanhua, Taiwan, p 603.

Verkerk R H J and Wright D J. 1996. Multi-trophic interactions and management of the P. Xylostella: A review. Bulletin of Entomological Research 86: 205–16.

Downloads

Published

2022-01-31

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

PRASAD, R., MANJUNATH, B. S., S M, B. S., & A P, M. G. (2022). Plant protection module on management of diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella and other lepidopteran pests in cabbage. The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 91(12), 1742–1746. https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v91i12.120796
Citation