PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF HEXACOPTER UAV (ANGRAU- PUSHPAK) SPRAYING FOR MANAGEMENT OF CHILLI THRIPS (Thrips parvispinus)
798 / 164
Keywords:
Chilli, Fipronil 80% WG, Spinetoram 11.7% SC, Spirotetramat 25.31% w/w OD, Flubendiamide 19.92% + Thiacloprid 19.92% SC, Thrips parvispinus, UAV sprayingAbstract
The study aimed at evaluating efficacy of UAV spraying in managing invasive thrips, Thrips parvispinus on chilli. The experiment was conducted at operational research project (ORP) site at Lam village of Guntur district during kharif 2022-23 with restricted randomized block design. The recommended doses of pesticides issued by Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee(CIB&RC), GoI, New Delhi were adapted. The treatments imposed were of 100%, 75% and 50% RDP with UAV and 100% RDP with human backpack sprayer and a control plot with only water spraying with drone for asserting the efficacy of drone spraying when sprayed at low volume spraying (25 L ha-1).The first spray to control thrips was carried out 112 DAS (Days After Sowing) with a spinetoram 11.7% SC on with analysis of pre and post spraying (5 days after spraying) results showed that the bio-efficacy when sprayed with 100% RDP (T1), 75% RDP(T2), 50% RDP (T3) with drone and 100% RDP with human back pack sprayer (T4) and control(T5)reduced number of thrips per flower from 7.57 to 5.8, 7.55 to 6.40, 7.55 to 10.22, 8.05 to 8.22, 8.05 to 12.95, respectively with a percent reduction over control of 50.75, 46.19, 23.65 and 36.57, respectively. The second spray was carried out at 119 DAS with Flubendiamide 19.92% +Thiacloprid 19.92% SC. The pre and post spraying (5 days after spraying) data analysis revealed that the reduction of thrips per flower over control in T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 to 7.37, 8.32, 12.12, 10.25 and 16.03 and the percent reduction over control in T1, T2, T3 and T4 are 52.22%, 44.88%, 24.29% and 36.78%, respectively. The third spray with Fipronil 80% WG was carried out at 126 DAS and the pre and post spraying data analysis revealed that the number of thrips per flower are 5.27, 6.47, 10.55, 8.05 and 16.83 with a percent reduction over control of 68.83, 62.34, 22.08 and 38.96, respectively. The fourth spray was carried out at 133 DAS with spirotetramat 25.31% w/w OD and the pre and post spray data analysis revealed that the number of thrips per flower are of 5.12, 5.75, 9.5, 8.5 and 18.22 in T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 and the percent reduction over control in T1, T2, T3 and T4 are 66.59, 61.68, 40.89 and 46.92, respectively. During the four sprays, it was observed that in all treatments, there was no phytotoxicity due to these chemicals spraying and the NDVI values recorded were 0.77, 0.76, 0.64, 0.72 and 0.34, respectively in the treatments T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5. The yields recorded were found to be 58.6, 55.2, 34.5, 53.8 and 14.1 q ha-1. The incremental cost-benefit ratio (ICBR) was found to be highest (4.46) in 75% RDP spray with drone, when compared to 3.58 in 100% RDP, 2.82 in 50% RDP and 2.98 in 100%RDP with human backpack sprayer respectively. The bio-efficacy of all the chemicals revealed that 100% RDP and 75% RDP sprayed with drone are on par with each other, which offers an opportunity to reduce the dosage by25% if sprayed with drone for the same bio-efficacy with highest ICBR.
References
1. Anitha Kumari, D., Bhasker, K and Suresh, V.
2. A new invasive chillithrips (Thrips
3. parvispinus) in Telangana State. Insect
4. Environment. 24(4): 520-522.
5. Chilli Outlook.2021. January- December 2021.
6. Agriculture Market Intelligence Centre,
7. ANGRAU, Guntur.
8. Deepak Kumar, Kamal Ravi Sharma and Raju.
9. S.V.S. 2019. Field efficacy of insecticidal
10. combinations against chillithrips,
11. Scirtothrips dorsalis (Hood) and Aphis
12. gossypii (Glover). Annals of Plant
13. Protection Sciences.27 (3): 324-328.
14. Fleming, R and Ratnakaran, A. 1985. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-1985-31378
15. Evaluating single treatment data using
16. Abbot’s formula with modification.
17. Journal of Economic Entomology.
18. :1179.
19. Italiya, J. V., Kalasariya, R. L., Dodiya, R. D.,
20. Barad, A. H and Patel, N. A. 2023.
21. Economically management of thrips by
22. insecticides in chilli under field
23. condition.The Pharma Innovation
24. Journal. 12(4): 1371-1374.
25. Kotresh, S., Raghuraman, M and Srushtideep,
26. A. 2020. Management of chilli thrips
27. using newer formulations. Journal of
28. Entomology and Zoology Studies. 8(4):
29. -673.
30. Mandal, L andMondal, P. 2022. Bio-efficacy of
31. some newer generation insecticides
32. against chilli thrips, Scirtothrips dorsalis
33. Hood. International Journal of Bio-
34. Resource & Stress Management. 13(11):
35. -1140.
36. Matharu, K. S andTanwar, P. S. 2020.
37. Bioefficacy of novel insecticides against
38. cotton thrips, Thrips tabaci
39. (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). International
40. Journal of Chemical Studies. 8(3): 1167-
41. Nagaraju, D.K., VivekUppar., Ranjith, M.,
42. Sriharsha Ramesh, G., Om Prakash
43. Verma and Ravi Prakash. 2021
44. Occurrence of Thrips parvispinus (Karny)
45. (Thripidae: Thysanoptera) in major chilli
46. (Capsicum annum) growing areas of
47. Karnataka. Insect Environment. 24(4):
48. - 532.
49. Phang, S. K., Li, K., Chen, B. M., Lee, T. H.,
50. Valavanis, K. P and Vachtsevanos, G. J.
51. Systematic design methodology
52. and construction of micro aerial
53. quadrotor vehicles. Handbook of
54. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. The
55. Netherlands. pp.181–206.
56. Rashmi, M. A, Sireesha, Kand Verghese. A.
57. Need for surveillance in case of
58. the invasive thrips, Thrips parvispinus
59. (Karny) on chilli (Capsicum annuum)
60. (including IPM recommendations). Insect
61. Environment. 25 (2):60-61.
62. Sharanappa, C. H., Katti, P., Arunkumar, H.,
63. Sushila, N., Desai, B. K and Pampanna,
64. Y. 2020. Evaluation of insecticides
65. against thrips (Thripidae: Thysanoptera)
66. and mites (Tarsonemidae:
67. Trombidiformes) infesting capsicum.
68. Journal of Entomology and Zoology
69. Studies. 8(2): 1221-1225.
70. Shimokawatoko, Y., Sato, N., Yamaguchi, Y and
71. Tanaka, H. 2012. Development of the
72. novel insecticide spinetoram
73. (Diana®). Sumitomo Kagaku. pp.14-15.
74. Singh, V., Verma, J. R., Bhati, D. S., Kumar, S
75. and Sanp, R. K. 2012. Bioefficacy of
76. Spinetoram 12% SC against thrips and
77. boll worm complex on Cotton. Journal of
78. Progressive Agriculture. 3(1): 66-68.
79. Sireesha, K., Prasanna, B. V. L., Vijaya
80. Lakshmi, T and Reddy, R. V. S. K. 2021.
81. Outbreak of invasive thrips species
82. Thrips parvispinus in chilli growing areas
83. of Andhra Pradesh. Insect
84. Environment. 24(4): 514-519.
85. Tyagi, K., Kumar, V., Singha, D and
86. Chakraborty, R. 2015. Morphological
87. and DNA barcoding evidence for invasive
88. pest thrips, Thrips parvispinus
89. (Thripidae: Thysanoptera), newly
90. recorded from India. Journal of Insect
91. Science. 15(1):105-106. DoI: https://
92. doi.org/10.1093/jisesa/iev087
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The author owns the article's copyright until the article is accepted for publication. After acceptance, the author(s) assigns the article's copyright jointly to both the authors and the Publishers of the Journal of Research ANGRAU (ANGRAU) and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License.