Content uploaded by Mandeep Rathee
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mandeep Rathee on Mar 25, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
~ 1201 ~
Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies 2018; 6(2): 1201-1208
E-ISSN: 2320-7078
P-ISSN: 2349-6800
JEZS 2018; 6(2): 1201-1208
© 2018 JEZS
Received: 15-01-2018
Accepted: 16-02-2018
Mandeep Rathee
Ph.D. Student, Department of
Entomology, Chaudhary Charan
Singh Haryana Agricultural
University, Hisar, Haryana,
India
Naveen Vikram Singh
Ph.D. Student, Department of
Entomology, Chaudhary Charan
Singh Haryana Agricultural
University, Hisar, Haryana,
India
Pradeep Kumar Dalal
Ph.D. Student, Department of
Entomology, Chaudhary Charan
Singh Haryana Agricultural
University, Hisar, Haryana,
India
Swati Mehra
Assistant Scientist, Department
of Entomology, Chaudhary
Charan Singh Haryana
Agricultural University, Hisar,
Haryana, India
Correspondence
Mandeep Rathee
Ph.D. Student, Department of
Entomology, Chaudhary Charan
Singh Haryana Agricultural
University, Hisar, Haryana,
India
Integrated pest management under protected
cultivation: A review
Mandeep Rathee, Naveen Vikram Singh, Pradeep Kumar Dalal and Swati
Mehra
Abstract
Insect pests are the prime threats to production and productivity of greenhouse crops worldwide.
Presence of warm, humid conditions and abundant food under protected structures provide a stable
environment and habitat for pest development. Often, the natural enemies that keep pests under control
outside are lacking under protected environment. For these reasons, pest situations often become
alarming in the indoor environment than outdoors. The damage inflicted by arthropod pests on
greenhouse crops varies from pest to pest and season to season. The level of damage that can be tolerated
is greatly dependent on the type of crop as well. Integrated pest management (IPM) is a systematic
approach to manage insect-pests that combines a range of techniques and strategies to either reduce pest
populations or decrease their economic impact. It is a site-specific strategy for managing pests that relies
on correct pest identification and understanding the pest biology. With a long-term perspective it is easier
to visualize that an investment in IPM can surely pay for itself in a higher-quality crop and a cleaner
environment in greenhouse crop production.
Keywords: environment, IPM, protected cultivation, sucking insect
Introduction
Protected cultivation of high value vegetables and cut-flowers has shown tremendous potential
during the last decade or so. In terms of area of fruit and vegetable crops under protected
cultivation, China ranks first (27,60,000 ha), while India stands at seventh (25,000 ha)
worldwide [18]. With the progress of liberalized economy and the advent of newer technologies
in agriculture, protected cultivation has boosted in the field of agriculture worldwide. These
technologies are not only creating avenues at higher level but also to the growers with the
smaller landholdings as the higher productivity levels retain economic relevance to agriculture.
The technology involves the cultivation of horticultural crops in a controlled environment
wherein the factors like the temperature, humidity, light, soil, water, fertilizers, etc. are
manipulated to attain maximum produce as well as allow a regular supply of them even during
off-season. By adopting protected cultivation technology, the growers can look forward to a
better and additional remuneration for high quality produce.
But as a matter of fact, greenhouse vegetable crops grown all over the world are vulnerable to
various diseases and pest attacks as the protected crops provide stable and favorable
microclimates for development of pest populations, which often limit the success of this crop
production system [28]. The losses caused due to pests in greenhouses crops like tomato, okra,
capsicum, gerbera, carnation, cucumber, lettuce, beans, etc. are tremendous. Crop losses are
mainly due to arthropod pests like mites, whiteflies, thrips, leaf-miners, aphids and diseases
caused by virus, fungi, bacteria, nematodes etc. Among these various, insects are of much
importance and need to be managed properly so as to prevent the crop losses and increase
yields. The increasing need for higher crop yields both in the field and in greenhouses brings
with it problems linked to large monocultures and pest attacks. Chemical pest control has to be
reduced owing to its unwanted effects on non-targeted organisms [3] and pest resistance [15].
Thus, alternative and sustainable long-lasting pest control methods are urgently needed to
enhance the activity of beneficial organisms [32]. In this write up greenhouse insect pests of
various crops have been discussed along with their management.
Integrated pest management
Since the first definition of integrated control by [29], more than 65 definitions of IPC and IPM
~ 1202 ~
Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies
have been proposed. IPM refers to an ecological approach in
PM in which all the available necessary techniques are
consolidated in a unified program, so that pest populations
can be managed in such a way that economic damage is
avoided and adverse side effects are minimized [19]. According
to modern concept IPM is a decision support system for the
selection and use of pest control tactics, singly or
harmoniously coordinated into a management strategy, based
on cost/benefit analyses that take into account the interests of
and impacts on producers, society and the environment [12].
Protected cultivation
Protected cultivation is the concept of growing potential crops
in the modified natural environment for ensuring optimum
growth of the crop plants without any or least stress [25]. In
other words, protected cultivation can also be defined as
controlled environment agriculture (CEA) which is highly
productive, conservative of water and land and also protective
of the environment [10].
Types of protective structures
Greenhouse for vegetable production encompasses:
glasshouse, polyhouse, insect-proof net house, low tunnel
polyhouse, zero energy polyhouse. Protected structures are of
different kinds, viz. open-ventilated, closed polyhouse with
fan and cooling-pad system, shade net house, etc. Greenhouse
structures are of different kinds based on shape (lean to type,
evan span type, ridge and furrow type etc.), utility
(temperature and humidity controlled), construction (wooden,
pipe or truss framed), covering material (glass, fiber glass,
plastic-film). Plastic film covering materials are of different
types such as acrylic, polycarbonate, fiber glass reinforced
polyester, polyethylene film [17] and polyvinyl chloride film.
Most greenhouse crops grow best in light whose wavelengths
range from 400 to 700 nm and hence the glazing materials
should be highly transparent [25].
Table 1: Insect-pests scenario under protected environment in India [25]
Insect
Host
Common Name
Scientific Name
Aphids
Aphis gossypii
Capsicum
Macrosiphoniella sanborni
Chrysanthemum
Myzus escalonicus
Strawberry
Myzus persicae
Capsicum Gerbera
Toxoptera aurantii
Orchid
Caterpillars
Helicoverpa armigera
Capsicum, tomato, carnation
Spodoptera litura
Rose, tomato, capsicum, cucumber
Leaf-miners
Liriomyza trifolii
Tomato, cucumber, chrysanthemum, gerbera
Mites
Aceria lycopersici
Tomato
Polyphagotarsonemus latus
Capsicum
Stenotarsonemus fragariae
Strawberry
Tetranychus cinnabarinus
Carnation
Thrips
Scritothrips dorsalis
Rose
Thrips palmi
Gerbera
Whiteflies
Bemisia tabaci
Gerbera, capsicum
Trialeurodes vaporariorum
Tomato, cucumber, capsicum, beans, gerbera
Integrated Pest Management strategies for protected
cultivation
I. Preventive measures
II. Scouting and early detection
III. Curative measures
I. Preventive Strategies
A) Exclusion
1) Use of physical barriers
Exclusion means keeping insects from entering the
greenhouse by use of physical barriers such as insect proof
screens. Insect exclusion is considered a first step in
developing an integrated approach to greenhouse pest
management. The pests not only damage the crop by direct
feeding but may also transmit phytopathogenic organisms.
Moreover, crop protection from insects is regarded from
many growers in the Mediterranean basin as more important
than protecting them from excessive heat. The exclusion is
obtained by installing fine-mesh screens which act as
mechanical barriers on the greenhouse openings [2]. Some of
exclusive mechanisms are discussed below:
a) Use of insect-proof nets
This includes common greenhouse pests such as thrips,
aphids, leaf-miners and whiteflies, but also some less
common pests such as fruit borers. Screen mesh of holes less
than 200 micrometers is required for complete exclusion.
Insect-proof screens 10 x 20 micron and 10 x 22 micron give
adequate exclusion of whiteflies Trialeurodes vaporariorum
and Bemisia tabaci without impeding natural enemies
(Diglyphus isea and Eretmocerus erimicus) movement [7].
b) Provision of double door
Limited access to screened areas is beneficial since insects
may come in the protected structure on clothing or be swept
in with the wind. Building a screened foyer to create a double-
door entry partially solve the problem of wind-carried insects.
Special efforts must be put in for repairing holes or tears
immediately, and cleaning the screens to maintain airflow.
c) Use of reflective or metalized mulches
These are used primarily for the repelling effects on certain
insects. Metalized mulch was effective in reducing silverleaf
whitefly entrance by 90 per cent. The combination of
screening and metalized mulch should be used together and
will provide the greatest total reduction of whitefly entry [8].
Complete mulching of the greenhouse floor preventing weeds
and acting as a mechanical barrier to certain insect (leaf-
miners, thrips and other lepidopteran pests) life stages
preventing them from moving into the soil for pupation.
d) Ultra-violet radiation absorbing sheets
Altering the visual behaviour of insects has been used
successfully as a tool in IPM programmes directed to protect
~ 1203 ~
Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies
crops from insects and insect-borne viral diseases. The first
evidence that UV-absorbing films may reduce insect invasion
of greenhouses came from Japan. Insects perceive light
signals through their compound eyes. The anatomy and
physiology of the compound eye is adapted to sense UV
wavelengths alone or a mixture of UV and visible radiation.
The UV part of the solar spectrum plays an important role in
the ecological behavior of insects, including orientation,
navigation, feeding and interaction between the sexes.
Spectrally modified sheets are produced commercially by the
introduction of a UV-absorbing additive into the raw material
which blocks the transmission of most wavelengths in the UV
range below 370-380 nm without interfering with the
transmission of photosynthetically active radiation (400-700
nm).
The manipulation of the UV vision of insects by using UV-
blocking greenhouse cladding materials has been shown to be
effective in preventing the immigration of a wide range of
insect-pests (whiteflies, aphids, thrips and leaf-miners) from
the external environment into the protected crop. It was
found that populations of aphid (Aphs gossypii), greenhouse
whitefly (T. vaporariorum), thrips (Frankliniella
occidentales and Scirtothrips dorsalis) and leaf-miner
(Liriomyza sp.) were lower on tomatoes grown in a plastic-
house made of polyethylene treated to exclude UV
wavelengths than on crops grown in an ordinary plastic house.
The number of whiteflies, aphids and thrips trapped on sticky
yellow cards under a UV-absorbing film were 10 - 100 times
lower than the number trapped under regular films. The use of
UV-A films also helped in reducing the number of insecticide
applications by 50-80 per cent for the management
of Spodoptera lituralis. UV-absorbing plastic roofs showed
the most pronounced deterrent effect for thrips [20]. UV
blocking PE films found very effective in reducing the no. of
injured fruit in tomato and produces higher yield in
comparison to other covering material [22].
Mesh size depends upon the targeted insect (Table 2). Mesh
with holes less than 200 micrometers is required for complete
exclusion of thrips; however, screening with holes as large as
600 mm is sufficient for excluding leaf-miners [28].
Table 2: Screen mesh sizes needed to exclude major greenhouse pest species
Insect-Pest
Hole size (micron)
Mesh (number of threads per linear inch)
Leaf-miner (L. trifoli)
610
34
Cotton whitefly (B. tabaci)
462
42
Aphid (M. persicae)
340
52
Greenhouse whitefly (T. vaporariorum)
290
58
Thrips (Thrips spp.)
192
76
B) Sanitation and cultural practices
1) Sanitation
Sanitation involves the removal of both infested materials and
potential sources of infestation, followed by disinfection of
surfaces and includes various approaches like, clean planting
material, ventilation, clean or sterile soils tools, flats and other
equipments. Maintain a clean, closely mowed area around the
greenhouse to reduce invasion by pests that develop in weeds
outdoors, dispose of trash, boards and old plant debris in the
area, removal of weeds and any plant debris and clean the
greenhouse thoroughly after each production cycle.
2) Cultural Practices
a) Pre-season cleanup
Before introducing a new crop into the greenhouse, it is
extremely important to pests from the previous crop. Remove
all plant debris and weeds from the greenhouse. Many pests
also occur on other crops or broadleaf weeds. For this reason,
it is important to avoid growing other crops next to the
greenhouse and to prevent heavy growths of broadleaf weeds
around the outside edges of the greenhouse. Under protected
environment monoculture is suggested, however, if one has to
go for polyculture then avoid staggered planting. A fallow
period of two to four weeks reduces the pest load
considerably. To determine the presence of thrips, whiteflies,
leaf-miners, or other insects, set up yellow sticky cards and
indicator plants after watering. Observe for any insects that
are trapped on the cards after two days and continue till the
activity is ceased and only thereafter the decision regarding
plantation of new crop be made.
b) Inspection upon arrival
One of the most important points in protected cultivation is to
begin with insect-free planting material. When new plants
arrive at the greenhouse, examine them closely for signs of
pest infestation. If necessary, remove lower or damaged
leaves to avoid spread of pests. Make the decision whether
treatment is needed from the first sign of symptoms of insects
or mites. It is much easier to manage a pest infestation by
treating a group of small plants (in seedling stage) rather than
larger plants where the dense canopy prevents thorough
coverage.
c) Balanced use of fertilizer
Fertilization schedules based on balanced use of nutrients
should be followed. Nitrogen should be applied only as
needed for optimal growth. Periodic heavy applications set up
nitrogen surpluses that cause excessive growth, which favour
the population growth of aphids, and other pests. Application
of potassium at desired levels has been found to reduce the
incidence of insect-pests.
d) Pinching and Pruning
Pinching-off damaged plant parts, flowers, and spotted leaves
(and those with insect larvae or egg deposits) can be a very
effective way of reducing the spread of pests in the
greenhouse. The plant debris should be placed immediately in
a covered container before being disposed-off. This practice
can be helpful in reducing the pest population of all the
targeted pests. Pruning lower leaves after harvesting lower
fruit clusters is helpful measure in removing large numbers of
developing leaf-miners and whiteflies.
e) Trap crop/Indicator plants
For early detection and trapping of the target pests, some of
the preferred hosts of the target pests can be used. Planting
border rows of Portulaca oleracea in rose can be used as a
trap crop for tobacco caterpillar under protected environment.
f) Plant Quarantine
Professionals or labours working in the greenhouse are one of
the mechanisms for dispersal of insects and mite pests. One
~ 1204 ~
Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies
should try to avoid moving plants with mites or thrips and
they should not be touched or moved immediately before
handling clean and healthy plants.
II. Scouting and early detection
Scouting and early detection are critical to manage the insect
infestation successfully. Monitoring or scouting is the regular,
systematic inspection of the plants and exteriors to identify
and assess pest problems. It includes visual inspection of
foliage and flowers; and the use of sticky or light traps. Many
insect infestations begin in isolated spots within the
greenhouse. Timely crop monitoring identifies situations
where pests are absent or are at levels well below economic
injury, thus preventing unnecessary control applications and
expenditures therby.
Scouting
Scouting procedures for most greenhouse-grown crops are
based on visual observations and are used to provide
estimates of the pest population in protected environment.
The common pests that attack greenhouse crops do not
distribute themselves evenly throughout the crop. Therefore,
it is imperative to scout the entire greenhouse in a consistent,
uniform pattern. Inspect the entire plant, including the soil
surface, for the presence of arthropod pests. Look at the plant
systematically each time. Begin at the bottom and work up.
Look at the older leaves, the young, tender leaves, and the
flush growth. When the crop is young, it is important to check
all the leaves on the plant. Because a majority of arthropod
pests associated prefers the underside of a leaf, it is important
to turn the leaves over to check for pests. The detailed account
of observations to be recorded is presented below.
Scout the crop on a regular basis and at least 1-2 per cent of
the total plants should be inspected at weekly interval. A
thorough greenhouse inspection reveals the location and
severity of any current pest problems. One should use a field
data sheet to record the identification, location, and severity
of all pests present, and record the effectiveness of any
treatments [22].
Monitoring
It is a relative method of insect population estimation where
no direct observations on the plants for the presence of insect-
pests are needed. However, the pest population is estimated
with the help of attractant traps. For whiteflies, aphids, thrips
and leaf-miner adults, yellow sticky cards (4″x12″ or 8″x12″)
are an excellent supplement to pest observation in the
protected environment. Additionally, for thrips blue coloured
sticky traps can also be used. The traps are placed in a grid
pattern and 1-2 yellow sticky cards per 100 square meter of
floor area are used. If the target is mass trapping, then number
of traps can be increased to five or more. Hang the yellow
sticky cards/ traps in the crop with the help of strings about 4″
to 6″ above the plant canopy. As the crop grows, cards can be
moved up. Designate the location of each sticky card on a
map of the greenhouse. Check the sticky cards every scouting
visit (twice a week if possible) and record the total number of
whiteflies, thrips, winged aphids and leaf-miners from each
card on the field data sheet. Change the cards when more than
60-70 per cent of the area is covered by trapped insect.
III. Curative measures
A) Biological Control
Biological control is the action of parasites, predators or
pathogens in maintaining another organism population density
at a lower average that would occur in their absence. In
entomology, it has been used to describe the use of live insect
predator and parasitoids, entomopathogenic nematodes or
microbial pathogens to suppress populations of different pest
insects. The organism that suppresses the insect pest is
referred to as the biological control agent (BCA) [15]. BCAs
are of utmost importance in case of protected cultivation and
widely used against a number of pests. Biological control in
the greenhouse environment is a viable alternative to pesticide
use from both environmental and economic perspectives [26].
The important BCAs used against greenhouse pests are listed
below in Table 3 [20].
Table 3: Major BCAs of key pests of green houses
Pest
Predator
Parasitoid
Entomopathogens
Mites
Phytoseiulis persimilis Neoseiulis
cucumeris Orius laevigatus
-
-
Whitefly
Orius laevigatus Chrysoperla spp
Eretmocerus mundus Encarsia formosa
Verticillium lecanii Beauveria bassiana
Thrips
Orius laevigatus Neoseiulis cucumeris
-
-
Leafminer
-
Diglyphus isaea Dacnusa siberica
Bacillus thuringiensis
Aphids
Orius laevigatus Chrysoperla spp.
Apidoletes aphidomyza
Aphidus colemani Aphidus matricarae
-
Caterpillars
(Spodoptera sp.)
Chrysoperla carnea
Trichogramma spp.
Bacillus thuringiensis, SlNPV, HaNPV
Commercially available biological control agents for
common greenhouse insect pests [31]
Biocontrol agents of whitefly
Parasitoids
Encarsia formosa
It is the most widely used parasitoid for greenhouse
whiteflies
Most effective at higher temperatures (>70° F)
May be ineffective on plants with honeydew (clear,
sticky liquid)
Make releases when greenhouse whitefly populations are
low
Adult females will host feed on nymphs
Release parasitoids every 1 to 2 weeks
Release 2 wasps per 15 square feet every 1-2 weeks for
preventation
Eretmocerus eremicus
Parasitizes sweet potato and greenhouse whitefly
Females prefer laying eggs into 2nd or 3rd nymphal instars
Tolerates higher temperatures and does more host-
feeding than Encarsia formosa
Predators
Predatory mite Amblyseius swirskii:
Feeds on the eggs and nymphs of whiteflies and larvae of
western flower thrips
May also feed on pollen in the absence of prey
~ 1205 ~
Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies
Predatory Beetle, Delphastus catalinae
Most effective when whitefly populations are high
Can feed on >150 whitefly eggs per day
Will not attack parasitized whitefly
May be sensitive to pesticide residues
Predatory Mirid Bug, Dicyphus hesperus
Feeds on greenhouse whitefly
Reared on mullein banker plants: requires a minimum of
8 weeks to establish a sufficient population
Biocontrol Agents of Aphids
Parasitoids
Aphelinus abdominalis
Parasitizes a wide-range of aphid species
Can tolerate higher temperatures than most Aphidius
species
Slower to establish than Aphidius species
Release 2 to 4 adult wasps per 10 square feet weekly or
until 80-90% of the aphids are parasitized
Aphidius colemani
Parasitizes smaller aphids such as green peach and melon
aphid
Can be reared using banker plants (oat or wheat) infested
with bird cherry oat aphid (use a minimum of 4 banker
plants per acre)
May be sold as a mixture with Aphidius ervi
Release 400 to 2,000 adults per acre
Predators
Predatory Gall Midge, Aphidoletes aphidimyza
Larval stages prey on all aphid species encountered in
greenhouses
Most effective at temperatures between 68 and 80°F and
a relative humidity between 70 and 80%
Primarily active at night
Mainly used against high aphid populations
Ladybird Beetle, Adalia bipunctata
Both larvae and adult feed on many different aphid
species
Used when aphid populations are high
Adults typically attempt to leave the greenhouse after
release. Therefore, make releases in the evening
Release adults every 2 to 3 weeks
Green Lacewing, Chrysoperla carnea
Feeds on greenhouse whitefly
Reared on mullein banker plants: requires a minimum of
8 weeks to establish a sufficient population
Biocontrol Agents of Western flower thrips
Predators
Predatory mite Amblyseius swirskii
Feeds on both 1st and 2nd instar larvae
Tolerates higher temperatures than Neoseiulus cucumeris
Will also feed on the eggs and nymphs of whiteflies
Feeds on pollen in the absence of prey
More expensive than N. cucumeris
Predatory mite, Neoseiulus (=Amblyseius) cucumeris
Most widely used predatory mite for western flower
thrips
Feeds on the 1st instar larvae
Make releases early in the crop production cycle
Minute pirate bug, Orius spp
Feed on larvae and adults of western flower thrips
May also feed on aphids and whiteflies
Can be used with ornamental pepper plants serving as
banker plants (example: ‘Purple Flash,’ 100 per acre)
More expensive than using Neoseiulus cucumeris
Most effective when temperatures are >60° F and day
length is >12 hours
Release 1 per square foot
Soil dwelling predatory mite, Stratiolaelaps scimitus
Adults may kill up to 30 prey, including western flower
thrips pupae or fungus gnat larvae, per day. Release
1,000 to 2,000 per square foot
Case Studies involving biocontrol agents and botanicals
Efficiency of predator Chrysoperla carnea second instar
larvae were estimated against Aphis gossypii, Myzus persicae,
Bemisia tabaci at three different rates (3, 5 and 7 larvae /
plant) on cantaloupe (Cucumis melo L.) under greenhouse
conditions. The promising and best results were obtained after
21 days by releasing larvae @ 5 larvae/plant, reducing
population of aphids and whitefly by 73.9 and 83.07 per cent,
respectively [34]. Efficacy of the parasitoid Eretmocerus
ermicus (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) and the predatory mite,
Amblyseius swirski (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) in comparison
with conventional insecticides against whiteflies and thrips on
herbs at Koka, Ethiopia was studied during 2009-10 [1]. Thrips
population in both green houses was low in the first three to
four months (November to January/February). After
January/February, thrips population in the biological control
green house (BCGH) was lower than the conventional
insecticide green house (CIGH). On the hand, white fly
population was higher in BCGH than the CIGH throughout
the experimental period. The predatory mite as measured by
the proportion of plants having the predator was low initially
(November through January) which later increased with time.
On the other hand, the parasitoid was almost nil throughout
the experimental period. Overall lower thrips number in
BCGH than in CIGH and the presence of A. swirski in good
number later in the season suggest the need and importance of
considering A. swirski as an integral component of thrips
management in herbs. Its use, however, entails use of
effective biocontrol agents or Integrated Pest Management
compatible products against the concurrently occurring white
flies. Eretmocerus ermicus establishment was very poor and
hence its influence on the pests.
Aphelinid parasitoids (Eretmocerus sp., Encarsia formosa)
and predators, Aphidoletes aphidimyza were able to control
pest on tomato, cucumber and ornamental crops grown in
greenhouses. Parasitism of the whiteflies, Trialeurodes
vaporariorum and Bemisia tabaci was as high as 85 to 96 per
cent. Natural enemies released also effectively suppressed
aphid populations in tomato and cabbage crops. Egg
parasitism of the cabbage butterfly, Pieris rapae, and tomato
fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera, by Trichogramma sp. was
78 to 95 per cent on an average [28].
Efficacy of Aphidius colemani Viereck (Hymenoptera:
Braconidae) for suppression of A. gossypii in greenhouse-
grown chrysanthemum, Dendranthema grandiflora was
compared with a pesticide standard, imidacloprid (Marathon
1% G) and an untreated check. No significant differences
were found between aphid populations in the two treatments.
~ 1206 ~
Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies
A. colemani and imidacloprid kept aphid numbers very low,
in contrast to the untreated plants. Parasitism levels in A.
colemani plots ranged from 48.93 to 83.38 per cent [30].
Three hymenopteran parasitoids were recorded from Myzus
persicae, including one Aphelinidae, Aphelinus asychis
Walker, and two Braconidae, Aphidius matricariae Haliday,
and Aphidius ervi (Haliday) in a bell pepper crop grown in a
polyhouse at Palampur, Himachal Pradesh, India during 2011-
2012. The parasitoid A. asychis (black mummies) was
detected in the first week of December, whereas the braconid
parasitoids (goldenbrown mummies) were first recorded in
the last week of December and second week of January,
respectively. Of these, A. matricariae was recorded first and
A. ervi appeared later on. Parasitism rates varied from 2.4-
38.6 per cent (mean = 20.5%) for A. asychis [6].
Botanicals (Neem oil, Pongamia oil, NSKE, Sweet flag
rhizome, Vitex negundo leaves) and mycopathogens
(Verticillium lecanii, Metarrhizium anisopliae) were
evaluated for the management of mites and thrips under
polyhouse condition in Dharwad during 2006-07. At 10 DAS,
neem oil maintained its superiority in recording lowest mite
population (6.97 mites / leaflet). V. negundo (7.18 mites
/leaflet) and V. lecanii (8.00 mites /leaflet) were the next best
treatments in reducing the mite population. At 10 DAS,
pongamia oil was the most superior treatment (3.50 thrips
/leaflet) followed by neem oil (4.20 thrips /leaflet) and NSKE
(4.68 thrips /leaflet) in controlling thrips [13]. Evaluation of
phytoseiid predators for control of western flower thrips
(WFT), Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande) on greenhouse
cucumber revealed that predatory mite species,
Typhlodromalus limonicus (Garman & McGregor),
Typhlodromips swirskii (Athias-Henriot) and Euseius ovalis
(Evans) reached much higher population levels resulting in a
significantly better control of thrips. T. limonicus was clearly
the best predator of WFT [16]. A polyhouse experiment
conducted to find out the efficacy of botanicals and
entomopathogens against Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood on
different stages of rose (bud, half opened and full opened
flower) revealed that among different stages of rose, half
opened flower was found superior to control S. dorsalis.
Among different botanicals NSKE (2%) was recorded 74.37
per cent mortality to thrips. Among different
entomopathogens, Heterorhabditis indica (2000 IJs/ml) was
found next best to botanicals by recording 72.08 per cent
mortality of thrips [9].
B) Chemical control
Control of insects with chemicals is known is chemical
control. The term pesticide is used to those chemicals which
kill pests and these pests may include insects, animals, mites,
diseases or even weeds. Chemicals which kill insects are
called as insecticides. Insecticide may be defined as a
substance or mixture of substances intended to kill, repel or
otherwise prevent the insects.
Importance of chemical control
Insecticides are the most powerful tools available for use in
pest management. They are highly effective, rapid in curative
action, adoptable to most situations, flexible in meeting
changing agronomic and ecological conditions and
economical. Insecticides are the only tool for pest
management that is reliable for emergency action when insect
pest populations approach or exceed the economic threshold.
A major technique such as the use of pesticides can be the
very heart and core of integrated systems. Chemical pesticides
will continue to be essential in the pest management
programmes. Some of the important chemical insecticides
used against greenhouse insect pests are listed below in Table
4.
Table 4: Some of the important chemical formulations used against greenhouse insect pests
Target pests
Chemicals
References
Mites
Diafenthiuron, Fenpyroximate, Abamectin @ 0.5ml/L
[27]
Thrips, Whiteflies, Aphids
Imidacloprid @ 0.4g/L, Acephate @ 1g/L or Acetamiprid @ 0.2g/L, Abamectin @ 0.5 ml/L,
Phosphomidan 0.2 mL
[11], [14], [24]
Leafminer
Spinosad @ 0.3ml/L, Abamectin @ 0.5ml/L
[26]
Caterpillars
Spinosad, Chlorantraniliprole @ 0.3ml/L, Flubendiamide @ 0.1ml/L
[26]
Case studies including chemicals and botanicals
Neem Azal-T/S (azadirachtin), Success (spinosad) and
abamectin were tested against different life stages of sweet
potato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci, in an air conditioned tropical
net greenhouse. Neem Azal-T/S and abamectin deterred the
settling of adults on tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum and
consequently reduced egg deposition. No such effect was
detected for Success. All three pesticides influenced egg
hatch. Effects of Neem Azal-T/ S were significantly altered if
applied to different-aged eggs (1, 3 and 5 day old). In
contrast, abamectin-treated eggs failed to hatch at any given
age class. All three products caused heavy mortality of the
three nymphal stages of B. tabaci, with the first instars being
most susceptible, abamectin-treated nymphs died within 24 h
post application. In contrast, 100% nymphal mortality with
Neem Azal-T/S and Success was reached 6-9 day post
application. Abamectin caused 100% immature mortality at
all residue ages (1, 5, 10 and 15 day) in the laboratory and
greenhouse as well [14]. The combination of agricultural spray
oil + azadirachtin proved most effective in reducing the mite
(Tetranychus urticae) population as compared to control in
cucurbits throughout the treatment period followed by
agricultural spray oil and azadirachtin alone [23].
Effective control of two-spotted spider mite, T. urticae on
greenhouse cucumber was obtained by combined spraying of
agricultural spray oil and azadirachtin (0.5%) [5]. In
chrysanthemum, combined treatment of phosphamidon and
cypermethrin was the most effective for the key pests, viz.
aphid, Macrosiphoniella and Spodoptera caterpillar. Efficacy
of caterpillar management by spinosad 11.6% SC increased
after three days of application (94.44%). In aphid control, the
agricultural spray oil @ 0.50% showed very effective result
[24].
The studies on efficacy of some insecticides and botanicals
against sucking pests on capsicum under net house resulted in
significantly low aphid counts/plant (0.76-1.05) in treatments
Asataf (Acephate) 75 SP @ 0.10% and Neem Soap
(Azadirachta indica) @ 1.0%. Significantly low chilli thrips
counts /top canopy/plant (0.03-0.06) were recorded in
treatments confidor 17.8 SL (Imidacloprid) @ 0.05%
followed by Asataf (Acephate) 75 SP @ 0.10% and
significantly lower mean yellow mite rating (2.42-2.45) was
recorded in treatment Decis 2.8 EC @ 0.05 % [11].
~ 1207 ~
Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies
Conclusion
Based on the insight of available literature it is concluded that
for successful management of greenhouse pests can be done
by using integrated approach. It is important for greenhouse
producers in India to implement as many IPM exclusion
strategies as possible to manage insect-pests. Once these pests
enter the greenhouse, growers have very few options to
manage them. Therefore, excluding the pests from entering
the greenhouse is of utmost importance.Integrated approaches
involving bio control agents, botanicals and microbial
pathogen with limited and ecologically safe insecticides to
non-target organisms must be developed and adopted at large
scale. Many of the serious insect pests of greenhouse crops,
including aphids, silverleaf whitefly, mite and thrips, require
special control efforts due to their potential to act as vector
plant viruses.
References
1. Ayalew G. Comparison of biological and chemical
control methods against whiteflies and thrips in green
house herbs in the central rift valley of Ethiopia. Asian
Research Publishing Network Journal of Agricultural and
Biological Science. 2016; 11(1):9-17.
2. Bethke JA, Paine TD. Screen hole size and barriers for
exclusion of insect pests of glasshouse crops. Journal of
Entomological Science. 1991; 26:169-177.
3. Biondi A, Desneux N, Siscaro G, Zappalà L. Using
organic-certified rather than synthetic pesticides may not
be safer for biological control agents: selectivity and side
effects of 14 pesticides on the predator Orius laevigatus.
Chemosphere. 2012; 87:803-812.
4. Dehghani M, Ahmadi K. Anti-oviposition and repellence
activities of essential oils and aqueous extracts from five
aromatic plants against greenhouse whitefly Trialeurodes
vaporariorum Westwood (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae).
Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science. 2013; 19:691-
696.
5. Deka S, Tanwar RK, Sumitha R, Sabir N, Bambawale
OM, Singh B. Relative efficacy of agricultural spray oil
(Servo Agrospray®) and azadirachtin against two spotted
spider mite, Tetranychus urticae Koch on cucumber
under greenhouse and laboratory conditions. Indian
Journal of Agriculture Sciences. 2011; 81:158-162.
6. Gavkare O, Kumar S, Japoshvili G. Effectiveness of
native parasitoids of Myzus persicae in greenhouse
environments in India. Phytoparasitica. 2014; 42(2):141-
144.
7. Hanafi A, Bouharroud R, Amouat S, Miftah S. Efficiency
of insect nets in excluding whiteflies and their impact on
some natural biological control agents. Acta
Horticulturae. 2007; 747:383-388.
8. Hochmuth RC, Sprenkel RK. Exclusion methods for
managing greenhouse vegetable pests. ENY-846,
extension series of the Entomology and Nematology
Department, University of Florida, 2015;
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu.
9. Jagdish EJ, Purnima AP. Evaluation of selective
botanicals and entomopathogens against Scirtothrips
dorsalis Hood under polyhouse conditions on rose.
Journal of Biopesticides. 2011; 4(1):81-85.
10. Jensen M. Controlled environment agriculture in desert,
tropics and temperate regions- A review. Acta
Horticultureae. 2002; 578:19-25.
11. Kaur S, Singh S. Efficacy of some insecticides and
botanicals against sucking pests on capsicum under net
house. Agriculture for Sustainable Development. 2013;
1(1):25-29.
12. Kogan M. Integrated pest management: historical
perspectives and contemporary developments. Annual
Review of entomology. 1998; 43:243-270.
13. Kumar KSD, Nandihalli BS. Evaluation of botanicals and
mycopathogens in the management of mites and thrips
under polyhouse condition. Karnataka Journal of
Agricultural Science. 2009; 22(3-Spl.Issue):696-697.
14. Kumar P, Poehling HM. Effects of azadirachtin,
abamectin and spinosad on sweetpotato whitefly
(Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) on tomato plants under
laboratory and greenhouse conditions in the humid
tropics. Journal Economic Entomology. 2007;
100(2):411-420.
15. Liang P, Tian YA, Biondi A, Desneux N, Gao XW.
Short-term and transgenerational effects of the
neonicotinoid nitenpyram on susceptibility to insecticides
in two whitefly species. Ecotoxicology. 2012; 21:1889-
1898.
16. Messelink GJ, Sebastiaan EF, Van Steenpaal, Ramakers,
PMJ. Evaluation of phytoseiid predators for control of
western flower thrips on greenhouse cucumber.
BioControl. 2006; 51:753-768.
17. Montero JI, Munoz P, Anton A, Iglesias N.
Computational fluid dynamic modelling of night-time
energy fluxes in unheated greenhouses. Acta
Horticulturae. 2005; 691(1):403-409.
18. Nair R, Barche S. Protected cultivation of vegetables-
prsent status and future prospectsin India. Indian Journal
of Applied Research. 2014; 4(6):245-247.
19. NAS (National Academy of Sciences). Principles of plant
and animal pest control. Washington, D.C. USA Insect
Management and control. 1969, 3.
20. Nguyen THN, Borgemeisterj M, Poehling HM.
Manipulation of Ultraviolet Light Affects Immigration
Behavior of Ceratothripoides claratris (Thysanoptera:
Thripidae). Journal of Economic Entomology. 2009;
102(4):1559-1566.
21. Pal KK, Gardener BM. Biological Control of Plant
Pathogens. The Plant Health Instructor. 2006, 1-25. DOI:
10.1094/PHI-A-2006-1117-02.
22. Papaioannou C, Katsoulas N, Maletsika P, Siomos A,
Kittas C. Effects of UV-absorbing greenhouse covering
film on tomato yield and quality. Spanish Journal of
Agricultural Research. 2012; 10(4):959-966.
23. Sabir N, Deka S, Singh S, Sumitha R, Hasan M, Kumar
M, et al. Integrated pest management for greenhouse
cucumber: A validation under north Indian plains. Indian
Journal of Horticulture. 2011; 68(3):357-363.
24. Sabir N, Deka S, Tanwar RK, Singh S, Sumitha R,
Susmita A, et al. Comparative evaluation of pesticides
and biorationals against key pests of greenhouse
chrysanthemum. Indian Journal of Horticulture. 2012;
69:101-105.
25. Sabir N, Singh B. Protected cultivation of vegetables in
global arena: A review. Indian Journal of Agricultural
Sciences. 2013; 83(2):123-13.5
26. Sabir N, Singh S, Hasan M, Sumitha R, Deka S, Tanwar
RK, et al. Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) for IPM in
Protected Cultivation, No. 23, National Centre for
Integrated Pest Management, New Delhi-110 012 India,
July 2010, Tech. Bulletin. 2010; 23:1-16.
27. Shah DR, Shukla A. Chemical control of two spotted
spider mite, Tetranychus urticae (Koch) (Acari:
~ 1208 ~
Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies
Tetranychidae) infesting gerbera. Pest Management in
Horticultural Ecosystems. 2014; 20(2):155-161.
28. Sood AK. Integrated Pest Management under Protected
Environment: Principles and Practices. Agropedia. 2010;
13-21.
29. Stern VM, Smith RF, van den Bosch R, Hagen KS. The
integrated control concept. Hilgardia. 1959; 29:81-101.
30. Vasquez GM, Orr DB, Baker JR. Efficacy Assessment of
Aphidius colemani (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) for
Suppression of Aphis gossypii (Homoptera: Aphididae) in
greenhouse-grown chrysanthemum. Journal of Economic
Entomology. 2006; 99(4):1104-1111.
31. Wollaeger H, Smitley D. Commercially Available
Biological Control Agents for Common Greenhouse
Insect Pests. Extension Bulletin No. 3299, Michigan
State University Extension and Kansas State University,
2015, 1-8.
32. Wratten SD, Gillespie M, Decourtye, A, Mader E,
Desneux N. Pollinator habitat enhancement: benefits to
other ecosystem services. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment. 2012; 159:112-122.
33. Yang NW, Zang LS, Wang S, Guo JY, Xu HX, Zhang F
et al. Biological pest management by predators and
parasitoids in the greenhouse vegetables in China.
Biological Control. 2014; 68:92-102.
34. Younes MWF, Shoukry IF, Samia AG, Abd-Allah YNM.
Efficiency of second instar larvae of Chrysoperla carnea
to suppress some piercing sucking insects infesting
cantaloupe under semi- field conditions. Egyptian Journal
of Agricultural Research. 2013; 91(1):169-179.
35. Zheng L, Zhou Y, Song K. Augmentative biological
control in greenhouses: experiences from China. In:
proceedings of Second International Symposium on
Biological Control of Arthropods, held at Davos,
Switzerland, 2005, 538-545.
