BIO-EFFICACY AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF INSECTICIDES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF POD BUGS IN MUNG BEAN (VIGNA RADIATA (L.) WILCZEK)
161 / 127
Authors
-
Y VASAVI
Department of Entomology, Agricultural College, Bapatla - 522101 Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University, Lam, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India
-
N KAMAKSHI
Department of Entomology, Agricultural College, Bapatla - 522101 Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University, Lam, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India
-
C SANDHYA RANI
Department of Entomology, Agricultural College, Bapatla - 522101 Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University, Lam, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India
-
P KISHORE VARMA
Department of Entomology, Agricultural College, Bapatla - 522101 Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University, Lam, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India
Keywords:
Benefit- cost ratio, Mung bean, Pod bugs, Pulses, SpinosadAbstract
The present study evaluates the bio-efficacy and economics of different insecticides used
against pod bugs and was conducted at the Agricultural Research Station, Bapatla during rabi
2024–25. Insecticides were assessed for their effect on egg masses and nymph/adult populations
and their effect on pod and seed damage and cost and economics were worked out. Results
indicated that Commercial azadirachtin 10000 ppm achieved the highest reduction in egg masses
(67.3% and 80.7% at 3 and 7 DAS, respectively). Spinosad 45 SC (175 ml/ha) proved most
effective against nymphs and adults (59.4% and 72.1% reduction at 3 and 7 DAS, respectively),
and also recorded the lowest pod damage (4.53%) and seed damage (6.47%). Spinosad resulted
in the highest grain yield (1563 kg/ha), while chlorantraniliprole 18.5 SC (150 ml/ha) and neem
seed kernel extract (NSKE) 5% also produced yields exceeding 1300 kg/ha. Among the treatments,
chlorantraniliprole recorded the highest benefit–cost ratio (3.1). These findings highlight Spinosad
and chlorantraniliprole as promising options for pod bug management in mung bean along with
NSKE under Krishna delta region.
References
1. Bharat, L., Bhadauria, N. S. and Nayak, M. K.
2. 2019. Biology and bionomics of tur pod
3. bug, Clavigralla gibbosa (Spinola) on
4. variety Saket under laboratory conditions
5. in Gird agroclimatic region of Madhya
6. Pradesh. Journal of Current Microbiology
7. and Applied Sciences, 8 (10): 1660
8. 1666.
9. Chethan, B. R., Rachappa, V., Hanchinal, S.
10. G., Naik, R. Harischandra and
11. Doddagoudar, S. R. 2024. Efficacy of
12. biopesticides against pod bug,
13. Clavigralla gibbosa Spinola (Heteroptera:
14. Coreidae) in pigeonpea. Legume
15. Research, 47 (2): 323–327.
16. Flemming, R. and Ratnakaran, A. 1985.
17. Evaluating single treatment data using
18. Abbott’s formula with reference to
19. insecticides. Journal of Economic
20. Entomology, 78: 1179–1181.
21. Hanumanthaswamy, B. C., Yadahalli, K. B. and
22. Nagaraja, M. V. 2009. Evaluation of bio-intensive IPM module in redgram. Mysore
23. Journal of Agricultural Science, 43 (2):
24. 386–388.
25. Hernowo, K., Kamminga, K. and Davis, J. A.
26. 2020. Evaluating behavioural responses
27. of selected stink bugs (Hemiptera:
28. Pentatomidae) to spinosad. Journal of
29. Economic Entomology, 113 (6): 2732
30. 2738.
31. Khade, K. N., Undirwade, D. B., Tembhurne,
32. R. D. and Lande, G. K. 2014. Biorational
33. management of sucking pests of cowpea
34. Vigna sinensis (L.). Trends in
35. Biosciences, 7 (20): 3212–3217.
36. Mitchell, P. L., Gupta, R., Singh, A. K., Kumar,
37. P. 2004. Behavioural and developmental
38. effects of neem extracts on Clavigralla
39. scutellaris (Hemiptera: Heteroptera:
40. Coreidae) and its egg parasitoid, Gryon
41. fulviventre (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae).
42. Journal of Economic Entomology, 97 (3):
43. 916–923.
44. Pawar, U. A. and Das, S. B. 2020. Studies on
45. bio-efficacy of insecticides against pod
46. sucking bug, Clavigralla gibbosa
47. (Spinola) infesting pigeonpea, Cajanus
48. cajan (L.). International Journal of
49. Current Microbiology and Applied
50. Sciences, 9 (5): 374–381.
51. Purwar, J. P. and Yadav, S. R. 2004. Evaluation
52. of age-related response of Spilarctia
53. oblique to biorational insecticides. Annals
54. of Plant Protection Sciences, 12: 271
55. 273.
56. Randhawa, H.S and Saini, M.K. 2015. Efficacy
57. of different insecticides against pod
58. borer, (Maruca vitrata Geyer) in
59. pigeonpea. Legume Research-An
60. International Journal. 38 (5): 687-690
61. Sonune, K.R and Bhamare, V.K. 2018. Bio
62. efficacy of different insecticides against
63. pod fly, Melanagromyza obtusa (Malloch)
64. and plume moth, Exelastis atomosa
65. (Walsingham) infesting pigeonpea.
66. International Journal of Current
67. Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 6:
68. 2027-2035.
69. Srujana, Y. and Keval, R. 2014. Periodic
70. occurrence and association of pod fly
71. and pod bug on long duration pigeonpea
72. (Bahar) with weather parameters.
73. Journal of Experimental Zoology, 17 (2):
74. 595–597
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.
