ArticlePDF Available

Study on bioefficacy of certain acaricides against rice panicle mite

Authors:
ISSN No. 2319-3670
Journal
of
Rice Research
Volume 6, No. 2 December 2013
Society for
Advancement of
Rice Research
Invited Paper
Site Suitability Analysis of SRI (System of Rice Intensification) Cultivation in
Potential Rice Cropped Areas of Andhra Pradesh: A Geospatial Approach
Anima Biswal, M.V.R. Sesha Sai, K.V. Ramana, S.V.C. Kameswar Rao and G. Sujatha
Contributed Papers
Variability and Association Studies for Yield Components and Quality Parameters
in Rice Genotypes
B. Krishna Veni, B. Vijaya Lakshmi and J.V. Ramana
Genetic Variability, Correlation and Path Analysis for Quantitative Characters in
Rainfed Upland Rice of Uttarakhand Hills
J. P. Aditya and Anuradha Bhartiya
Study on Grain and Water Productivity of Rice-Zero-Till Maize Cropping System
D. Sreelatha, M. Srinivasa Raju, M. Devender Reddy, G. Jayasree and D. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy
Influence of Long Term Fertilizer Application on Soil Phosphatase Enzyme
Activity and Nutrient Availability in Rice Rice Cropping System
M. Srilatha, Palli Chandrasekhar Rao, S.H.K. Sharma and K. Bhanu Rekha
Relative Composition of Egg Parasitoids of Rice Yellow Stem Borer, Scirpophaga
incertulas (Walker) at Rajendranagar, Andhra Pradesh, India
N. Rama Gopala Varma, R. Jagadeeshwar and Chitra Shanker
Study on Bio-Efficacy of Certain Acaricides Alone and in Combination with
Propiconazole against Rice Panicle Mite, Stenotarsonemus Spinki Smiley
A. Venkat Reddy, R. Sunitha Devi, S. Dhurua and D. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy
Compatibility of Fungicides and Insecticides Targeting Sheath Blight and Major
Rice Pests
V. Bhuvaneswari and S. Krishnam Raju
1
16
24
35
45
53
59
64
Rank scored in multi-criteria
weight overlay analysis
Suitability for SRI system
Potential Rice Area of AP
4-5
S1;Highly Suitable
21.675 lakh ha.
6-7
S2; Moderately Suitable
11.410 lakh ha.
8-9
S3; Slightly Suitable
37,102.96 thousand ha.
21 Journal of Rice Research 2013, Vol. 6 No. 2
Table 1: Mean, range and variability parameters for 15 yield components and
quality parameters in 70 genotypes of rice
Significant at 5% level Significant at 1% level
DFF: Days to 50% Flowering; PH: Plant Height; EBT: Ear Bearing Tillers; PL: Panicle Length;TW: Test Weight; HRR:Head Rice Recovery; KL: Kernel
Length; KB: Kernel Breadth;L/B: Length/Breadth Ratio; KLAC: Kernel Length after Cooking; ER: Elongation Ratio; WU: Water Uptake; VER: Volume
Expansion Ratio; AC: Amylose Content
Character
Mean
Range
PCV
GCV
Heritability
Genetic
advance as %
of mean
DFF (days)
106.95
89-133
11.98
11.84
97.8
24.12
PH (cm)
96.88
74.5-148.0
11.33
11.12
96.3
22.48
EBT
10.42
6.75-15.52
20.02
16.96
71.7
29.59
PL (cm)
22.82
19.2-24.5
5.85
3.42
34.3
4.13
TW (g)
19.71
13.41-32.29
20.73
20.35
96.3
41.14
HRR (%)
59.72
50.3-67.1
7.11
6.31
78.7
11.52
KL (mm)
5.62
3.72-6.97
11.80
11.21
90.3
21.96
KB (mm)
1.99
1.57-2.66
12.59
11.03
76.8
19.91
L/B
2.83
1.99-3.64
13.02
11.41
76.8
20.59
KLAC (mm)
8.88
5.65-12.18
15.54
13.99
81.1
25.95
ER
1.62
1.21-2.06
12.39
10.32
69.4
17.70
WU (ml)
199.26
90.0-347.5
28.97
26.28
82.3
49.12
VER
4.19
2.90-4.80
15.92
12.62
62.8
20.61
AC (%)
24.19
19.36-26.65
7.53
5.64
56.1
8.69
Grain yield/plant (g)
17.85
8.96-28.27
27.04
26.18
93.8
52.23
22 Journal of Rice Research 2013, Vol. 6 No. 2
Table 2: Genotypic correlation coefficients of grain yield with yield components and quality parameters in rice
Character
DFF
PH
EBT
PL
TW
HRR
KL
KB
L/B
KLAC
ER
WU
VER
AC
GY
DFF
1.000
0.2709*
0.473*
*
0.132
-
0.0530
0.1361
-
0.4191*
*
-0.0008
-
0.4086*
*
-0.2110
0.1704
0.1970
0.0055
0.2273
0.3254*
PH
1.000
-0.118
0.299*
-
0.0569
-
0.3114*
-0.2144
0.0558*
*
-0.2396
-
0.2495*
-0.1243
0.0918
0.0552
-0.0518
-0.0953
EBT
1.000
0.553*
*
-
0.2926
*
0.4137*
*
-
0.3185*
-
0.4009*
*
-0.0101
-0.2036
0.1566
0.0481
0.4633*
*
-0.0823
0.7970*
*
PL
1.000
-
0.1369
0.5146*
*
-
0.3886*
*
-0.1113
-
0.3012*
-0.2106
0.0242
0.2662
*
0.0777
-
0.5109*
*
0.4679*
*
TW
1.000
-0.1687
0.5181*
*
0.6785*
*
-0.0599
0.4634*
*
-0.0097
0.1216
-0.1729
0.4305*
*
-
0.3540*
HRR
1.000
-
0.2601*
-0.2338
-0.1020
0.1522
0.4933*
*
0.1333
0.3340*
*
-0.1090
0.5195*
*
KL
1.000
-
0.4090*
*
0.6224*
*
0.6514*
*
-0.1765
0.1025
-0.1331
0.0862
-
0.2944*
KB
1.000
-
0.4582*
*
0.3297*
*
-0.0380
0.1824
-
0.3805*
*
0.3854*
*
-
0.3755*
*
L/B
1.000
0.3319*
*
0.1648
-
0.0313
0.1666
-
0.2619*
-0.0093
KLAC
1.000
0.5117*
*
0.1484
0.2273
0.0035
-0.0272
ER
1.000
0.0264
*
0.5217*
*
-0.0697
0.3026*
WU
1.000
0.0082
0.2246
0.2253
VER
1.000
-
0.4775*
*
0.4991*
*
AC
1.000
-0.1852
* Significant at 5% level ** Significant at 1% level
DFF: Days to 50% Flowering; PH: Plant Height; EBT: Ear Bearing Tillers; PL: Panicle Length; TW: Test Weight; HRR:Head Rice Recovery; KL: Kernel
Length; KB: Kernel Breadth; L/B: Length/Breadth ratio; KLAC: Kernel Length After Cooking; ER: Elongation Ratio; WU: Water Uptake; VER: Volume
Expansion Ratio; AC: Amylose Content
23 Journal of Rice Research 2013, Vol. 6 No. 2
Table 3: Path coefficient analysis of grain yield with yield components and quality parameters in rice genotypes
Character
DFF
PH
EBT
PL
TW
HRR
KL
KB
L/B
KLAC
ER
WU
VER
AC
DFF
0.0023
0.0006
0.0011
0.0003
-0.0001
0.0003
0.0010
0.000
-0.0010
-0.0005
-0.0004
0.0005
0.0000
0.0005
PH
-0.0144
-0.0533
0.0063
-0.0159
0.0030
0.0166
0.0114
-0.0030
0.0128
0.0133
0.0066
-0.0049
-0.0029
0.0028
EBT
0.2689
-0.0669
0.5687
0.3147
-0.1664
0.2353
-0.1811
-0.2280
-0.0057
-0.1158
0.0891
0.0274
0.2635
-0.0468
PL
0.0188
0.0426
0.0790
0.1428
-0.0195
0.0735
-0.0555
-0.0159
-0.0430
-0.0301
0.0035
0.0380
0.0111
-0.0729
TW
0.0161
0.0173
0.0888
0.0416
-0.3035
0.0512
-0.1573
-0.2060
0.0182
-0.1407
0.0029
-0.0369
0.0525
-0.1307
HRR
0.0095
-0.0216
0.0288
0.0358
-0.0117
0.0695
-0.0181
-0.0163
-0.0071
0.0106
0.0343
0.0093
0.0232
-0.0076
KL
0.1377
0.0704
0.1046
0.1277
-0.1702
0.0854
-0.3285
-0.1343
-0.2044
-0.2140
0.0580
-0.0337
0.0437
-0.0283
KB
-0.0002
0.0157
-0.1126
-0.0313
0.1906
-0.0657
0.1149
0.2809
-0.1287
0.0926
-0.0107
0.0512
-0.1069
0.1083
L/B
-0.1099
-0.0644
-0.0027
-0.0810
-0.0161
-0.0274
0.1674
-0.1232
0.2689
0.0893
-0.0443
-0.0084
0.0448
-0.0704
KLAC
-0.0482
-0.0570
-0.0465
-0.0481
0.1059
0.0348
0.1489
0.0754
0.0759
0.2286
0.1170
0.0339
0.0519
0.0008
ER
-0.0081
0.0059
-0.0075
-0.0012
0.0005
-0.0236
0.0084
0.0018
0.0079
-0.0244
-0.0477
0.0013
-0.0249
0.0033
WU
0.0232
0.0108
0.0057
0.0313
0.0143
0.0157
0.0121
0.0215
-0.0037
0.0175
-0.0031
0.1177
0.0010
0.0264
VER
0.0011
0.0112
0.0937
0.0157
-0.0350
0.0676
-0.0269
-0.0770
0.0337
0.0460
0.1055
0.0017
0.2023
-0.0966
AC
0.0287
-0.0065
-0.0101
-0.0644
0.0543
-0.0137
0.0109
0.0486
-0.0330
0.0004
-0.0088
0.0283
-0.0602
0.1260
DFF: Days to 50% Flowering; PH: Plant Height; EBT: Ear Bearing Tillers; PL: Panicle Length;TW: Test Weight; HRR:Head Rice Recovery; KL: Kernel
Length; KB: Kernel Breadth;L/B: Length/Breadth Ratio;KLAC: Kernel Length After Cooking; ER: Elongation Ratio; WU: Water Uptake; VER: Volume
Expansion Ratio; AC: Amylose Content.
The values in bold and diagnolly represented are direct effects and all others are indirect effects.
30 Journal of Rice Research 2013, Vol. 6 No. 2
Table 1. List of rainfed upland rice genotypes under study and their pedigree
Genotypes
Pedigree
VL 8257
Pant Dhan 6 x Barakat
VL 8201
VR 539-2 x VLD 81
VL 8204
VR 539-2 x VLD 81
VL 8302
VL 9588 x A-57
VL 8292
VL 9588 x A-57
VL 8214
VLD 81 x VR 539-2
VL 8188
VR 539-2 x IR 63872-93-2-37
VL 8185
VR 539-2 x IR 63872-93-2-37
VL 8369
VL 9588 x VR 539-2
VL 31384
China 4 x BG 367-4
VL 31402
SRSN 38 x VL 6394
VL 31430
Pant Dhan 6 x VL 3288
VL 31590
VL 3861 x IR 59656-5- K-1
VL 31567
Vivek Dhan 82 x WAB 337-B-B-13-1-1-3
VL 31440
VHC 1253 x Thapachini
VL 31419
Vivek Dhan 82 x VLD 206
Vivek Dhan 154
VL Dhan 221 x VL- 24
VLD 221
IR 2053-521-1-1-1 x Ch- 1039
31 Journal of Rice Research 2013, Vol. 6 No. 2
Table 2: Analysis of variance for various yield contributing characters
Source of
variance
d.f
Plant
height
Days to
50%
flowering
Days to
maturity
Tillers
per
plant
Flag
leaf
length
Flag
leaf
width
Panicles
per
plant
Panicle
length
Grains per
panicle
Fertile
grains per
panicle
1000grain
weight
Grain
yield
per
plot
Kernel
length
Kernel
width
L/B
ratio
Replication
2
18.91
0.91
4.24
0.91
1.27
0.01
1.46
1.04
16.07
4.46
1.13
0.009
0.07
0.006
0.0004
Treatments
17
281.62**
74.73**
70.01**
0.90
40.50**
0.08**
1.09*
5.39**
1898.27**
1589.33**
17.68**
0.12**
0.47**
0.04**
0.61**
Error
34
1.77
1.24
1.28
0.71
1.91
0.008
0.54
0.60
14.54
9.95
1.32
0.004
0.03
0.004
0.01
*, ** Significant at 5% and 1% level of probability respectively.
32 Journal of Rice Research 2013, Vol. 6 No. 2
Table 3: Range, mean and genetic parameters of 15 yield attributing characters in rainfed upland rice
Characters
Range
GM
CV %
CD at 5%
SEm
GCV
(%)
PCV
(%)
h2
(%)
GA at 5%
GA as %
mean
Plant height
(cm)
104-142
121.52
1.09
2.21
1.08
7.95
8.02
98.14
19.71
16.22
Days to 50%
flowering (days)
82-99
91.74
1.21
1.85
0.91
5.39
5.53
95.18
9.95
10.84
Days to maturity
(days)
114-131
122.81
0.92
1.88
0.92
3.90
4.00
94.71
9.60
7.81
Tillers per plant
(number)
5-8
6.30
13.39
1.40
0.69
3.96
13.96
8.03
0.14
2.31
Flag leaf length
(cm)
21.29-34.31
28.85
4.78
2.29
1.13
12.43
13.32
87.09
6.90
23.90
Flag leaf width
(cm)
1.39-1.95
1.66
5.44
0.15
0.07
9.00
10.51
73.21
0.26
15.86
Panicles per plant
(number)
5-7
5.96
12.34
1.22
0.60
7.20
14.28
25.38
0.45
7.47
Panicle length
(cm)
20.98-26.13
22.98
3.37
1.29
0.63
5.49
6.45
72.61
2.22
9.65
Grains per panicle
(number)
76-150
118.43
3.22
6.33
3.11
21.16
21.40
97.74
51.03
43.09
Fertile grains per
panicle (number)
65-137
103.76
3.04
5.23
2.58
22.10
22.31
98.14
46.80
45.10
1000grain weight
(g)
22.53-31.22
27.64
4.16
1.91
0.94
8.45
9.42
80.52
4.32
15.62
Grain yield per plot
(Kg)
0.23-0.95
0.55
12.07
0.11
0.05
35.72
37.70
89.74
0.38
69.70
Kernel length
(cm)
5.88-7.35
6.68
2.37
0.26
0.13
5.74
6.21
85.48
0.73
10.94
Kernel width
(cm)
2.22-2.63
2.47
2.63
0.11
0.05
4.44
5.16
74.03
0.19
7.86
L/B ratio
2.40-3.24
2.72
3.74
0.17
0.08
9.41
10.13
86.35
0.49
18.01
33 Journal of Rice Research 2013, Vol. 6 No. 2
Table 4: Phenotypic correlation coefficients among grain yield and component traits in rainfed upland rice
Characters
Plant
height
Days to
50%
flowering
Days to
maturity
Tillers
per
plant
Flag leaf
length
Flag leaf
width
Panicles
per plant
Panicle
length
Grains
per
panicle
Fertile
grains
per
panicle
1000grain
weight
Grain
yield
per plot
Kernel
length
Kernel
width
L/B ratio
Plant
height
1.000
0.645**
0.691**
-
0.241
0.708 **
0.418**
-0.126
0.499**
0.308 *
0.335*
0.164
0.471**
0.109
-0.118
0.134
Days to
50%
flowering
1.000
0.980**
-
0.154
0.4453**
0.477**
-0.083
0.408**
0.315 *
0.306*
0.162
0.284*
0.033
-0.139
0.107
Days to
maturity
1.000
-
0.171
0.459**
0.499**
-0.084
0.436**
0.313*
0.303*
0.139
0.307*
0.023
-0.126
0.095
Tillers per
plant
1.00
-0.105
-0.0918
0.849**
-0.317 *
-0.226
-0.240
0.006
0.053
0.147
-0.164
0.181
Flag leaf
length
1.000
0.663**
-0.027
0.4170**
0.583**
0.602**
0.313*
0.602**
0.202
-0.036
0.133
Flag leaf
width
1.000
-0.039
0.369 **
0.535**
0.515**
0.057
0.383**
-0.134
0.157
-0.186
Panicles
per plant
1.000
0.394**
-0.256
0.279*
0.112
-0.042
0.238
-0.206
0.259
Panicle
length
1.000
0.543**
0.545**
-0.057
0.369**
-0.254
0.163
-0.251
Grains per
panicle
1.000
0.982**
0.122
0.485**
-0.156
0.329*
0.289*
Fertile
grains per
panicle
1.000
0.133
0.502**
-0.099
0.294*
-0.236
1000grain
weight
1.000
0.184
0.688**
0.089
0.390 **
Grain yield
per plot
1.000
0.306*
-0.256
0.319 *
Kernel
length
1.000
0.479**
0.884**
Kernel
width
1.000
0.832**
L/B ratio
1.000
34 Journal of Rice Research 2013, Vol. 6 No. 2
Table 5: Phenotypic path coefficient analysis among the quantitative characters in rainfed upland rice
Characters
Plant
height
Days to
50%
flowering
Days to
maturity
Tillers
per
plant
Flag
leaf
length
Flag
leaf
width
Panicles
per
plant
Panicle
length
Grains
per
panicle
Fertile
grains
per
panicle
1000grain
weight
Kernel
length
Kernel
width
L/B
ratio
Grain
yield
per
plot
Plant height
0.330
0.213
0.228
-0.080
0.234
0.138
-0.042
0.164
0.101
0.110
0.054
0.036
-0.039
0.044
0.471
Days to
50%
flowering
-0.295
-0.457
-0.448
0.071
-0.203
-0.218
0.038
-0.186
-0.144
-0.140
-0.074
-0.015
0.064
-0.049
0.284
Days to
maturity
0.130
0.184
0.188
-0.032
0.086
0.094
-0.016
0.082
0.059
0.057
0.026
0.004
-0.024
0.018
0.307
Tillers per
plant
-0.129
-0.082
-0.091
0.532
-0.056
-0.049
0.452
-0.169
-0.120
-0.128
0.003
0.078
-0.087
0.096
0.053
Flag leaf
length
0.039
0.025
0.026
-0.006
0.056
0.037
-0.002
0.023
0.032
0.033
0.017
0.011
-0.002
0.007
0.602
Flag leaf
width
0.092
0.105
0.110
-0.020
0.146
0.220
-0.009
0.081
0.118
0.113
0.013
-0.029
0.034
-0.041
0.383
Panicles
per plant
0.058
0.038
0.038
-0.389
0.012
0.018
-0.458
0.180
0.117
0.128
-0.051
-0.109
0.094
-0.119
-0.042
Panicle
length
0.041
0.033
0.036
-0.026
0.034
0.030
-0.032
0.082
0.044
0.045
-0.005
-0.021
0.013
-0.021
0.369
Grains per
panicle
0.253
0.258
0.257
-0.185
0.478
0.439
-0.210
0.446
0.821
0.806
0.100
-0.128
0.270
-0.237
0.485
Fertile
grains per
panicle
-0.114
-0.104
-0.103
0.082
-0.205
-0.175
0.095
-0.186
-0.334
-0.341
-0.045
0.034
-0.100
0.080
0.502
1000grain
weight
-0.015
-0.015
-0.013
-0.001
-0.029
-0.005
-0.010
0.005
-0.011
-0.012
-0.093
-0.064
-0.008
-0.036
0.184
Kernel
length
-0.141
-0.043
-0.030
-0.189
-0.261
0.173
-0.306
0.327
0.202
0.128
-0.888
-1.290
0.618
-1.140
0.306
Kernel
width
-0.130
-0.153
-0.139
-0.180
-0.040
0.173
-0.227
0.180
0.362
0.323
0.099
-0.528
1.102
-0.917
-0.256
L/B ratio
0.353
0.283
0.249
0.475
0.350
-0.490
0.684
-0.661
-0.762
-0.620
1.028
2.327
-2.191
2.633
0.319
Residual effect= 0.591
IW:CPE ratio(I)
Rice crop establishment method (M)
2007-08
2008-09
Transplanted
Aerobic
Mean
Transplanted
Aerobic
Mean
0.8
5798
6462
6130
6258
6536
6396
1.0
6381
6728
6554
6808
7072
6940
Mean
6139
6545
6533
6803
SEm ±
CD(P=0.05
)
SEm ±
CD(P=0.05)
I
107
217
89
180
M
68
156
62
199
I at same or
different M
152
307
126
255
M at same or
different I
114
245
109
262
P level( kg P2O5
ha-1)
Irrigation levels ( IW: CPE ratio)
2007-08
2008-09
0.8
1.0
Mean
0.8
1.0
Mean
0
4751
5125
4938
4938
5734
5340
30
5756
6333
6045
6506
6865
6686
60
6934
7350
7142
7058
7478
7268
90
7079
7408
7244
7084
7674
7379
Mean
6130
6554
6396
6940
SEm ±
CD(P=0.05)
SEm ±
CD(P=0.05)
P
132
292
116
225
I
107
217
89
180
Pat same or
different I
155
311
179
359
I at same or
different P
149
218
179
359
2007
2008
Transplanted
Aerobic
Transplanted
Aerobic
Number of irrigations
33
24
27
16
Irrigation water applied
12200
8400
10100
6500
Effective rainfall during crop period
2238
2238
5795
5795
Quantity of field water used
14438
10638
15895
12295
Field Water Productivity
0.40
0.44
0.34
0.35
2007-08
2008-09
Maize after Transplanted
rice
Maize after aerobic
rice
Maize after
Transplanted rice
Maize after
aerobic rice
IW: CPE ratio
0.8
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.8
1.0
Maize
Number of irrigations
Quantity of irrigation water
applied
8
4500
10
5500
8
4500
10
5500
10
5500
13
7000
10
5500
12
6500
Effective rainfall
339
339
534
534
365
365
--
--
Total quantity of water used
4839
5839
5034
6034
5865
7865
5500
6500
Field Water Productivity
1.33
1.18
1.31
1.16
1.07
0.80
1.17
1.04
Rice-maize system
Total quantity of water used
21071
16172
22839
18295
Water productivity
0.56
0.68
0.52
0.60
Treatments
Consumptive use
(mm)
Crop water productivity
(kg m-3 )
2007-08
2008-09
2007-08
2008-09
Mean
Crop establishment methods (M)
Transplanting rice
343.75
362.46
1.83
1.82
1.83
Aerobic rice
382.79
396.20
1.78
1.76
1.77
Irrigation level (IW:CPE ratio)
0.8
376.95
404.62
1.68
1.62
1.65
1.0
421.10
458.14
1.69
1.53
1.61
Phosphorus levels (kg P2O5ha-1)
0
292.58
327.56
1.67
1.56
1.62
30
320.85
375.90
2.04
1.82
1.93
60
349.72
396.10
2.03
1.87
1.95
90
361.39
405.20
2.01
1.84
1.93
Treatments
Soil depth (cm)
2007-08
2008-09
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
Total
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
Total
Crop establishment method
Transplanted rice
137.5
103.12
67.24
35.89
343.75
138.98
100.72
80.16
42.60
362.46
Aerobic rice
158.05
118.79
71.52
34.43
382.79
161.86
116.12
76.24
42.08
396.20
Irrigation level (IW:CPE ratio)
0.8
142.54
108.26
82.76
43.39
376.95
162.85
122.39
78.92
40.46
404.62
1.0
160.44
124.33
84.24
32.09
401.10
174.06
140.04
94.03
50.01
458.14
Phosphorus level (kg P2O5ha-1)
0
121.03
89.7
53.52
28.26
292.58
129.02
95.27
64.12
39.15
327.56
30
131.34
98.26
61.17
30.08
320.85
150.36
106.77
71.18
47.59
375.90
60
137.89
102.92
75.94
32.97
349.72
159.44
120.83
71.22
44.61
396.10
90
141.09
100.16
82.24
37.90
361.39
162.12
122.83
76.24
44.02
405.20
50 Journal of Rice Research 2013, Vol. 6 No. 2
Fig.1 Changes in soil acid phosphatase activity (µg p-nitrophenol released g-1 soil h-1) at
various growth stages of rice (rabi).
Fig.2 Changes in soil alkaline phosphatase activity (µg p-nitrophenol released
g-1soil h-1) at various growth stages of rice (rabi).
Table 1: Changes in soil acid phosphatase activity (µg p-nitrophenol released g-1 soil h-1)
at various growth stages of rice during kharif
Treatments
Days after transplanting (kharif)
30
60
90
Harvest
50% NPK
74.6
92.2
88.2
52.1
100%NPK
80.8
110.4
101.3
67.0
150% NPK
90.3
127.9
121.3
78.1
100%NPK + HW
82.5
110.5
100.7
65.5
100%NPK + Zn
83.2
107.6
99.9
64.2
100%NP
65.6
80.7
74.1
55.5
100%N
64.3
77.3
67.6
48.8
100%NPK + FYM
85.1
116.7
112.5
75.5
100%NPK - S
81.9
100.8
103.6
62.3
FYM
87.4
104.2
100.6
74.5
Control
73.1
89.1
80.8
61.1
50 Journal of Rice Research 2013, Vol. 6 No. 2
Fig.1 Changes in soil acid phosphatase activity (µg p-nitrophenol released g-1 soil h-1) at
various growth stages of rice (rabi).
Fig.2 Changes in soil alkaline phosphatase activity (µg p-nitrophenol released
g-1soil h-1) at various growth stages of rice (rabi).
Table 1: Changes in soil acid phosphatase activity (µg p-nitrophenol released g-1 soil h-1)
at various growth stages of rice during kharif
Treatments
Days after transplanting (kharif)
30
60
90
Harvest
50% NPK
74.6
92.2
88.2
52.1
100%NPK
80.8
110.4
101.3
67.0
150% NPK
90.3
127.9
121.3
78.1
100%NPK + HW
82.5
110.5
100.7
65.5
100%NPK + Zn
83.2
107.6
99.9
64.2
100%NP
65.6
80.7
74.1
55.5
100%N
64.3
77.3
67.6
48.8
100%NPK + FYM
85.1
116.7
112.5
75.5
100%NPK - S
81.9
100.8
103.6
62.3
FYM
87.4
104.2
100.6
74.5
Control
73.1
89.1
80.8
61.1
50 Journal of Rice Research 2013, Vol. 6 No. 2
Fig.1 Changes in soil acid phosphatase activity (µg p-nitrophenol released g-1 soil h-1) at
various growth stages of rice (rabi).
Fig.2 Changes in soil alkaline phosphatase activity (µg p-nitrophenol released
g-1soil h-1) at various growth stages of rice (rabi).
Table 1: Changes in soil acid phosphatase activity (µg p-nitrophenol released g-1 soil h-1)
at various growth stages of rice during kharif
Treatments
Days after transplanting (kharif)
30
60
90
Harvest
50% NPK
74.6
92.2
88.2
52.1
100%NPK
80.8
110.4
101.3
67.0
150% NPK
90.3
127.9
121.3
78.1
100%NPK + HW
82.5
110.5
100.7
65.5
100%NPK + Zn
83.2
107.6
99.9
64.2
100%NP
65.6
80.7
74.1
55.5
100%N
64.3
77.3
67.6
48.8
100%NPK + FYM
85.1
116.7
112.5
75.5
100%NPK - S
81.9
100.8
103.6
62.3
FYM
87.4
104.2
100.6
74.5
Control
73.1
89.1
80.8
61.1
51 Journal of Rice Research 2013, Vol. 6 No. 2
Fallow
82.9
100.9
98.0
76.8
S.Em+
4.0
7.2
5.5
4.6
CD (0.05)
8.2
14.7
11.2
9.5
CV (%)
7.2
10.1
8.1
10.2
Table 2: Changes in soil acid phosphatase activity (µg p-nitrophenol released g-1 soil h-1)
at various growth stages of rice during rabi
Treatments
Days after transplanting (rabi)
30
60
90
Harvest
50% NPK
88.1
187.9
106.7
77.8
100%NPK
102.2
192.0
122.9
87.4
150% NPK
120.6
206.1
138.7
100.5
100%NPK + HW
102.1
191.5
126.7
91.2
100%NPK + Zn
105.3
194.2
126.9
89.6
100%NP
78.5
177.0
91.5
70.1
100%N
72.7
169.8
86.1
65.6
100%NPK + FYM
110.5
201.1
155.6
95.4
100%NPK - S
101.3
194.0
129.4
89.6
FYM
107.9
198.2
140.2
92.0
Control
83.8
181.9
93.5
74.5
Fallow
100.1
191.5
138.1
95.7
S.Em+
4.4
6.6
6
4.6
CD (0.05)
8.9
13.5
12.2
9.3
CV (%)
6.3
4.9
7.1
7.6
Table 3: Changes in soil alkaline phosphatase activity (µg p-nitrophenol released g-1 soil
h-1) at various growth stages of rice during kharif
Treatments
Days after transplanting(kharif)
30
60
90
Harvest
50% NPK
82.2
86.1
94.0
78.6
100%NPK
87.9
97.6
100.0
82.3
150% NPK
94.8
135.2
125.9
92.6
100%NPK + HW
83.1
97.1
99.0
78.9
100%NPK + Zn
82.6
94.1
99.1
86.1
100%NP
79.9
85.9
79.8
59.2
100%N
73.5
81.8
70.2
52.8
100%NPK + FYM
91.9
123.4
105.1
88.7
100%NPK - S
85.2
99.5
102.0
82.4
FYM
82.2
102.7
104.8
88.5
Control
83.7
85.5
87.5
62.2
Fallow
89.3
110.3
105.3
85.4
S.Em+
3.9
4.4
4.9
3.5
CD (0.05)
7.9
8.9
10.1
7.1
CV (%)
6.5
6.2
7.2
6.3
52 Journal of Rice Research 2013, Vol. 6 No. 2
Table 4: Changes in soil alkaline phosphatase activity (µg p-nitrophenol released g-1
soil h-1) at various growth stages of rice during rabi
Treatments
Days after transplanting(rabi)
30
60
90
Harvest
50% NPK
94.2
142.0
109.1
83.9
100%NPK
103.8
152.0
125.2
94.9
150% NPK
126.1
177.4
151.4
109.4
100%NPK + HW
102.0
153.6
121.9
96.8
100%NPK + Zn
103.7
149.8
123.1
93.9
100%NP
85.6
132.0
96.7
76.9
100%N
81.7
127.9
85.6
69.1
100%NPK + FYM
114.7
167.0
140.1
109.3
100%NPK - S
100.9
151.6
123.7
94.6
FYM
118.5
156.1
137.0
100.6
Control
87.6
136.6
97.0
86.4
Fallow
114.8
157.8
131.6
103.2
S.Em+
3.3
3.9
3.3
2.4
CD (0.05)
6.7
7.9
6.8
4.9
CV (%)
4.5
3.6
3.9
3.6
Table 5: Soil fertility status after harvest of rice (After 11th crop cycle)
Treatments
Organic carbon
(%)
Available Nitrogen
(kg ha-1)
Available Phosphorous
(kg ha-1)
Available
Potassium
(kg ha-1)
50% NPK
0.81
204
29.5
320
100%NPK
0.8
185
31.1
322
150% NPK
0.81
213
42.1
349
100%NPK + FYM
1.01
210
43.2
326
FYM
1.04
247
38.2
316
Control
0.8
191
20.3
309
CD (0.05)
0.16
NS
6.7
NS
53 Journal of Rice Research 2013, Vol. 6 No. 2
Relative Composition of Egg Parasitoids of Rice Yellow Stem Borer,
Scirpophaga incertulas (Walker)
N. Rama Gopala Varma*, R. Jagadeeshwar and Chitra Shanker
Rice Section, Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Agricultural Research Institute,
Rajendranagar and Directorate of Rice Research, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad
Abstract
Studies on the extent of parasitization of
yellow stem borer (YSB), Scirpophaga
incertulas (Wlk.) egg masses for four
consecutive years (2009-2012) was
assessed in insecticide free paddy field
at Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, Andhra
Pradesh. The hymenopteran
parasitoids, Telenomus dignus (Gahan),
(Scelionidae), Tetrastichus schoenobii
Ferriere (Eulophidae) and
Trichogramma japonicum Ashmead
(Trichogrammatidae) were the three
important YSB egg parasitoids recorded
from this area which played a pivotal
role in population regulation of YSB.
The peak parasitization ranging from
75.29 to 97.56% was observed during
kharif, particularly in October. The
parasitization during rabi varied from
42.60% to 69.79%. In kharif,
parasitization by Trichogramma was
more prevalent during September, while
that of Telenomus and Tetrastichus was
more during October.
__________________________________
*Corresponding author: varmanrg@gmail.com
Keywords: Scirpophaga incertulas, egg
parasitoids, egg parasitization,
Trichogramma, Telenomus, Tetrastichus
Rice is one of the most important food
crops, with its production crossing 100
million tonnes in 2011-12, accounting for
22.81 per cent of global production. In
Andhra Pradesh, rice is cultivated in about
38 lakh hectares with a production of
72.12 lakh metric tonnes and productivity
of 2900 kg/ha. Among the various insect
pests of rice inflicting yield loss, yellow
stem borer, Scirpophaga incertulas
(Walker) is considered one of the major
insect pest of rice, having a potential to
cause yield losses ranging from 3%-95%
in India (Ghose et al., 1960) while Prasad
et al. (2007) reported yield losses ranging
from 38%-50%. In terms of grain
production loss over ecosystems, 1% dead
heart, or white ear head, or both phases of
stem borer damage would be 108 kg/ha,
174 kg/ha and 278 kg/ha, respectively
(Muralidharan and Pasalu, 2006).
Host plant resistance to yellow
stem borer is ambiguous. The most
54 Journal of Rice Research 2013, Vol. 6 No. 2
commonly used method of control is
insecticides, but less effective due to the
concealed habit of the larvae. Biological
control offers an eco-friendly option for
management of this pest. Several workers
have reported on egg parasitsation of YSB
from different parts of the country.
Chandramohan and Chellaiah (1984)
identified several parasites of S. incertulas
from Coimbatore. Hikim (1988) reported
that parasitoid activity showed periodical
fluctuation coinciding with emergence of
YSB moths. Chakraborty (2012) recorded
egg parasitoids of YSB from West Bengal.
The present study was contemplated to
document the extent of parasitism by egg
parasitoids against rice yellow stem borer
at Rajendranagar, Hyderabad.
Materials and Methods
Field study was conducted at the Rice
Section of Agricultural Research Institute,
Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, during four
consecutive crop years (2009-2012) with
variety Sumati during kharif and var.
Tellahamsa during rabi. The observation
plot (1000 m2) was kept pesticide free and
the planting time was adjusted to facilitate
incidence of rice yellow stem borer and its
natural enemies. The entire plot was
divided into 4 blocks of equal size,
demarcated with bunds and channels. The
stem borer egg masses were collected from
these unsprayed blocks twice or thrice in a
crop season depending upon the
availability of egg masses. A minimum
of 8-10 egg masses were collected from
each block accounting for 30-40 egg
masses per observation date.
The collected egg masses were
placed individually in separate plastic vials
(15 cm long and 2.5 cm wide) and
observed periodically for emergence of
adult parasitoids. After the emergence, the
adult parasitoids were observed under a
stereo-zoom microscope (Magnus MSZ
with a zoom ratio of 1:7), to identify the
respective species and number.
The per cent egg parasitism was
computed based on number of live larvae
and parasitoid emergence. The species
identification of egg parasitoids was done
at Directorate of Rice Research,
Rajendranagar, Hyderabad.
Results and Discussion
The egg parasitoids of the yellow stem
borer, S. incertulas prevalent in
Rajendranagar were identified as the
hymenopterans Trichogramma japonicum
(Ashm.) (Trichogrammatidae), Telenomus
dignus (Gahan) (Scelionidae) and
Tetrastichus schoenobii (Ferr.)
(Eulophidae). Perusal of kharif 2009 data
(Table 1) revealed that 24 per cent of the
eggs were parasitized during 2nd week of
55 Journal of Rice Research 2013, Vol. 6 No. 2
October, while maximum parasitization
was observed during October 1st (75.29)
and 3rd weeks (82.23%). Lakshmi et al.
(2010) reported 95 per cent egg mass
parasitization. The composition of
Tetrastichus, Telenomus and
Trichogramma was 43.13 per cent, 25.90
per cent and 6.26 per cent, respectively
during 1st week of October, 6.74, 6.99 and
10.30 per cent during October 2nd week
and 35.88, 39.77 and 6.38%, during
October 3rd week. Chakraborty (2012)
reported parasitization by Trichogramma
sp.,Telenomus spp., and Tetrastichus spp.
to be 6.12 per cent, 9.53 per cent and 48.44
per cent, respectively.
During kharif 2010, total
parasitization increased gradually from
September 1st week to October 4th week
ranging from 39.34% to 97.56%, except
during fourth week of September where in
only 33.33% eggs were parasitized (Table
1). Trichogramma was the predominant
egg parasitoid during September, while it
was overtaken by Tetrastichus schoenobii
and Telenomus dignus during October 4th
week.
Lakshmi et al. (2010) reported that T.
schoenobii was prevalent from September
to November and Trichogramma and
Telenomus from September to October,
but the activity of egg parasitoids
decreased during November. Similar
observations were made in the present
study. During kharif 2011, the egg mass
parasitization of Tetrastichus,Telenomus
and Trichogramma was 20.8 per cent, 28.0
per cent and 13.2 per cent during October
1st week and 42.5, 6.2 and 22.0 during 2nd
week, respectively. The parasitization was
relatively low during kharif 2012 with
37.96 per cent, 68.97 per cent and 29.45
per cent parasitization, respectively during
3rd week of September, 3rd week of
October and 1st week of November.
Similarly during kharif 2012
Trichogramma was the predominant egg
parasitoid during September, while
Telenomus and Tetrastichus have become
dominant during October.
The total parasitization during rabi
2009-10 varied from 51.78% during 4th
week of March to 42.60% in 3rd week of
April (Table 2). During rabi 2009-10
Telenomus was the predominant egg
parasitoid followed by Trichogramma and
meager incidence of Tetrastichus was
noticed.
During rabi 2010-11 maximum
parasitization (69.79%) was recorded
during April 3rd week with Trichogramma
being the predominant egg parasitoid.
Contrastingly, Tetrastichus parasitization
was more during April 3rd and 4th weeks,
while Telenomus parasitization was
negligible during rabi 2010-11. Gupta et
56 Journal of Rice Research 2013, Vol. 6 No. 2
al. (1985) reported egg parasitization of
30.6% and 23.7% respectively during
kharif and rabi by T. schoenobii while in
the present study the parasitization by T.
schoenobii ranged from 2.19%
to 48.61% during kharif and 4.35% to
19.14% during rabi.
Even though all the three egg
parasitoids were observed, Trichogramma
was more predominant during September,
while the other two egg parasitoids viz.,
Telenomus and Tetrastichus dominated
during October. At Navsari, Gujarat, T.
dignus and T.schoenobii were most
abundant parasitoids of YSB eggs (Pandya
et al., 1995) and T. schoenobii was
reported to be second important parasitoid
during winter (Hikim, 1988). Senapati et
al. (1999) reported that the extent of
parasitism in different parts of India ranges
from 4.0% to 97.2%.
Further, it was observed that there
was larval survival in egg masses
parasitized by Trichogramma but very
rarely live larvae were recorded from egg
masses parasitized by Telenomus and
Tetrastichus. The extent of parasitization
was more during kharif than during rabi.
It was observed that mostly the egg masses
were parasitized either by single or two
parasitoid species. Occasionally all the
three parasitoid species were observed in a
single egg mass. Chakraborty (2012) also
reported parasitization of YSB egg mass
by more than one species viz.,
Trichogramma spp + Telenomus spp
(3.46%), Telenomus + Tetrastichus
(21.06%) and Trichogramma +
Tetrastichus (2.35%).
The study on composition of egg
parasitoids of rice yellow stem borer, S.
incertulas revealed that Trichogramma
japonicum, Telenomus dignus and
Tetrastichus schoenobii are predominant
egg parasitoids of this region.
Considerable variations in egg parasitoid
composition were observed across the
seasons and in different months within the
season. Looking at the predominance of
egg parasitoids in kharif than in rabi there
is a greater scope of conserving these
parasitoids and augmenting with
Trichogramma releases, particularly
during September and October months, so
that the surviving larval population after
natural parasitization can be taken care of
at the egg stage, through inundation,
whereby pesticide usage can be
minimized. During rabi natural
parasitization is relatively low
necessitating more inundative releases for
effective management of yellow stem
borer.
References
57 Journal of Rice Research 2013, Vol. 6 No. 2
Chakraborty, K. 2012. Relative composition of egg
parasitoid species of yellow stem borer,
Scirpophaga incertulas Wlk. in paddy field at
Uttar Dinajpur, West Bengal, India. Current
Biotica 6 (1):42- 52.
Chandramohan, N. and Chellaiah, S. 1984. Parasite
complex of yellow stem borer (YSB).
International Rice Research Newsletter 9
(6):21.
Ghose, R.L.M., Ghatge, M. B. and Subramanyan,
V. 1960. Rice in India. Revised Edition. Indian
Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi
pp 74.
Gupta, M., Chaugule, R.A., Pawar, A.D. 1985.
Role of Tetrastichus schoenobii Ferrierre in
controlling yellow rice borer, Scirpophaga
incertulas Wlk. Plant Protection Bulletin of
India 37 (2):7-12.
Hikim, I.S. 1988. Seasonal parasitism by egg
parasites of yellow stem borer, Scirpophaga
incertulas (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae).
Entomologia 33(1):115-124.
Lakshmi, V.J., Surekha, K. and Pasalu, I.C. 2010.
Parasitization of rice yellow stem borer,
Scirpophaga incertulas (Walker) egg masses.
Annals of Plant Protection Sciences 18 (2):
366-369.
Muralidharan K. and Pasalu, I.C. 2006.
Assessments of crop losses in rice ecosystems
due to stem borer damage (Lepidoptera:
Pyralidae). Crop Protection 25: 409417.
Pandya, H.V., Sah, A.H., Patel, C.B., Purohit, M.S.
and Rai, A.B. 1995. Study of egg parasitism of
rice yellow stem borer in Gujarat. Gujarat
Agricultural University Research Journal 21
(1):197-199.
Prasad, S.S., Gupta, P.K. and Kanaujia, B.L. 2007.
Simulation study on yield loss due to
Scirpophaga incertulas on semi deep water
rice. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences 15:
491-492.
Senapati, B. and Panda, S.K. 1999. Rice stem
borers. In: Insects of cereals and their
management. Applied Zoologist Research
Association, Cuttack. pp169.
58 Journal of Rice Research 2013, Vol. 6 No. 2
Table 1: Relative composition of egg parasitoids of rice yellow stem borer in kharif
season at Rajendranagar
Year
Trichogramma
japonicum
Telenomus
dignus
Tetrastichus
schoenobii
Total **
2009
% Egg Parasitization*
October (1st week)
6.26
25.90
43.13
75.29
October (2nd week)
10.30
6.99
6.74
24.00
October (3rd week)
6.38
39.97
35.88
82.23
2010
September (1st week)
39.34
0.00
0.00
39.34
September (2nd week)
28.70
14.29
0.00
42.99
September (3rd week)
39.40
10.34
6.90
56.64
September (4th week)
16.68
14.46
2.19
33.33
October (4th week)
7.54
41.41
48.61
97.56
2011
October (1st week)
13.20
28.00
20.8
54.00
October (2nd week)
22.00
6.20
42.5
70.70
2012
September (3rd week)
24.52
13.44
0.00
37.96
October (3rd week)
11.86
35.91
21.20
68.97
November (1st week)
15.34
11.17
2.94
29.45
* Each value is a mean of 30 to 40 egg masses
** The total indicates the extent of parasitization observed in the specified week
Table 2: Relative composition of egg parasitoids of rice yellow stem borer in rabi season
at Rajendranagar
Year
Trichogramma
japonicum
Telenomus
dignus
Tetrastichus
schoenobii
Total**
2009-10
% Egg Parasitization*
March
(4th week)
19.74
26.33
5.71
51.78
April
(3rd week)
8.57
34.03
0.00
42.60
2010-11
April
(1st week)
34.10
8.70
4.35
47.15
April
(2nd week)
52.40
0.31
17.38
69.79
April
(4th week)
32.20
0.57
19.14
51.96
* Each value is a mean of 30 to 40 egg masses
** The total indicates the extent of parasitization observed in the specified week
59 Journal of Rice Research 2013, Vol. 6 No. 2
Study on Bio-Efficacy of Certain Acaricides Alone and in Combination
with Propiconazole against Rice Panicle Mite, Stenotarsonemus Spinki
Smiley
A. Venkat Reddy*, R. Sunitha Devi, S. Dhurua and D. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy
Regional Agricultural Research Station, Mulugu Road, Warangal-506007, Andhra Pradesh
Abstract
Four acaricides (Diafenthiuron,
Propargite, Dicofol and Profenophos)
and in combination with fungicide
(Propiconazole) were evaluated for their
efficacy against rice panicle mite for the
management of grain damage during
field trials conducted at Regional
Agricultural Research Station, Acharya
N.G. Ranga Agricultural University,
Warangal, A.P for three consecutive
kharif seasons of 2010, 2011 and 2012.
Among all the treatments, Dicofol 18.5
EC + Propiconazole 25 EC @ 5 ml+1
ml/l was found to be the most effective
treatment followed by Diafenthiuron 50
WP + Propiconazole @ 1.5 g + 1 ml/l
and Profenophos 50 EC + Propiconazole
25 EC @ 2 ml+1ml/l. Among all the
treatments, acaricides in combination
with fungicide gave higher efficacy
when compared to acaricides alone.
Key words: Rice, panicle mite, acaricide,
fungicide, bio-efficacy.
_____________________________________
* Corresponding author: adrrars_wgl@yahoo.co.in
Rice, the staple food of nearly half of the
humanity is mainly grown and consumed
in Asian countries. India is number one in
area and it ranks second in rice production,
but per hectare yield or productivity is
low.
Traditionally insect pests, diseases
and weeds are the triple evils responsible
for lower yields of rice in India. Of late,
mites are assuming major status in rice
crop in India as well as in Andhra Pradesh.
Among different species of mites
associated with rice crop, the rice panicle
mite or sheath mite is most important. The
rice panicle mite or sheath mite,
(Stenotarsonemus spinki) alone and in
association with sheath rot fungus,
(Acrocylindrium oryzae) causes grain
discoloration, ill-filled, chaffy grains and
often cause heavy losses. It has been
reported that this mite caused yield losses
ranging from 4.9% to 23.7% (Natalie et
al., 2009). Several studies were conducted
to test the efficacy of insecticides alone
against panicle mite (Bhanu et al., 2006;
Laxmi et al., 2008). However, adequate
60 Journal of Rice Research 2013, Vol. 6 No. 2
information is not available on the efficacy
of acaricides alone and in combination
with fungicides. Therefore, the present
study was conducted to evaluate the
efficacy of different acaricides alone and
in combination with fungicide,
propiconazole against rice panicle mite
under field conditions.
Materials and Methods
Field trials were conducted at Regional
Agricultural Research Station, Warangal,
Andhra Pradesh for three years i.e., 2010,
2011 and 2012 Kharif seasons to evaluate
the efficacy of certain acaricides alone and
in combination with fungicide-
Propiconazole against panicle mite. The
trials were laid in a Randomized Block
Design (RBD) with nine treatments and
three replications with a plot size of 20 m2.
The popular rice variety, BPT-5204 which
is susceptible to panicle mite was chosen.
All the recommended package of practices
were implemented in all the treatments
except treatment sprayings. Three
sprayings of chemicals were given at
panicle initiation stage, boot leaf stage and
at 50 per cent panicle emergence using
knapsack sprayer with a spray fluid
volume of 500 l/ha. Observations were
recorded on number of healthy grains,
number of discolored grains, number of
chaffy grains per panicle, grain yield per
plot and the data was expressed as per cent
discolored grains+ chaffy grains and per
cent reduction of discolored grains +
chaffy grains over control and grain yield
per hectare.
Results and Discussion
The pooled data for three years in respect
of per cent discolored grains + chaffy
grains, per cent reduction over control and
grain yield/ha is depicted in Table 1. The
results indicated that among all the
treatments, Dicofol 18.5 EC +
Propiconazole 25 EC @ 5 ml + 1 ml/l was
significantly highly effective , where in the
per cent grain discoloration + chaffy grains
was the lowest (8.3%) and per cent
reduction of grain discoloration + chaffy
grains was the highest (60.8%) with
highest grain yield of 7049 kg/ha. The
next best treatments were: Diafenthiuron
50 WP + Propiconazole 25 EC @ 1.5 g + 1
ml/l (9.8%, 53.8% respectively) and
Profenophos 50 EC + Propiconazole 25
EC @ 2 ml + 1 ml/l (10.1%, 52.4%
respectively) and were found to be on par
with each other in efficacy and grain yield
(6768 and 6698 kg/ha respectively). The
lowest efficacy was recorded with
Propargite 57 EC + Propiconazole 25 EC
@ 1.5 ml + 1 ml/t where in, the per cent
grain discoloration + chaffy grain was the
highest (13.8%) and the per cent reduction
61 Journal of Rice Research 2013, Vol. 6 No. 2
over control was lowest (33.8%). Among
the treatments, all the acaricide treatments
alone have shown significantly lower
efficacy by showing highest grain
discoloration + chaffiness and lowest per
cent reduction over control compared to
combination of acaricides with
propiconazole. Among all the treatments,
significantly lowest efficacy was noticed
with Progargite 57 EC @ 1.5 ml/l (15.3%
and 27.8% respectively) followed by
Diafenthiuron 50 WP @ 1.5 g/l (14.3%,
32.5%, respectively) and Dicofol 18.5 EC
@ 5 ml (13.9%, 34.4%, respectively)
which were found on par with each other.
Among the acaricides alone treatments,
Profenophos 50 EC @ 2 ml/lt was found
to be the best treatment by showing
relatively lower percent grain discoloration
+ grain chaffiness (12.2%) and relatively
higher percent reduction (34.4%) over
control.
With respect to grain yield,
significantly highest yield was observed
with Dicofol 18.5 EC + Propiconazole 25
EC @ 5 ml + 1 ml/l (7049 kg/ha) followed
by Diafenthiuron 50 WP + Propiconazole
25 EC @ 1.5 g + 1 ml (6768 kg/ha). The
lowest grain yield was recorded in
Propargite 57 EC @ 1.5 ml/l (6358 kg/ha)
but significantly superior over untreated
control (5667 kg/ha).
The present finding on superior
efficacy of acaricides in combination with
fungicides compared to acaricides alone
was in conformity with findings of Suresh
et al. (2013). Bhanu et al. (2006) and Loet
al.(1981) also reported superior efficacy
of acaricides like Dicofol and Profenophos
against panicle mite in rice. In India,
grains infested with S.spinki were
described as being discolored and
pathogenic fungi were isolated from mite
(Rao and Prakash, 2003). Chen et al,
(1979) found that S.spinki carried spores of
Acrocylindrium Oryzae on their body and
attributed the plant symptoms to a
combination of S.spinki damage and
disease. Miticides that have been tested
under laboratory conditions reported to
cause more than 95 per cent mortality of
adult S.spinki. Field trials conducted in
India reported up to 90 per cent mortality
following treatments with certain
acaricides (Bhanu et al., 2006 and Ghosh
et al., 1998). The present findings clearly
indicate that apart from panicle mite,
several pathogens especially sheath rot
fungus, Acrocylindrium oryzae was
responsible for grain damage. Hence,
invariably an effective fungicide in
combination with effective acaricide may
be recommended to the farmers for
reducing grain damage associated with
panicle mite and pathogens. Based on
overall performance, Dicofol 18.5 EC +
62 Journal of Rice Research 2013, Vol. 6 No. 2
Propiconazole 25 EC @ 5 ml + 1 ml/l
followed by Diafenthiuron 50 WP +
Propiconazole 25 EC 1.5 g + 1 ml and
Profenophos 50 EC + Propiconazole 25
EC @ 2 ml + 1 ml/l may be suggested to
the farmers for managing grain damage
due to panicle mite in association with
pathogens.
References
Bhanu, V., Reddy, S.P. and Zaheeruddin, S.M.
2006. Evaluation of some acaricides against
leaf mite and sheath mite in rice. Indian
Journal of Plant Protection 34: 132-133.
Chen, C.N., Cheng,C.C. and Hsiano,K.C.1979.
Bionomics of Stenotarsonemus spinki
attacking rice plants in Taiwan. Plant
Protection Bulletin 22(1): 31-39.
Ghosh, S.K., Prakash, A. and Rao, J.1998. Efficacy
of some chemical pesticides against rice
tarsonemid mite Stenotarsonemus spinki
Smiley. (Acari: Tarsonemidae) under
controlled conditions. Environmental Ecology
16:913-915.
Laxmi, V.J., Krishnaiah, N.V., Pasalu, I.C. and
Katti, G. 2008. Bio-ecology and management
of rice mites. A review. Agricultural Reviews
29(1): 31-39.
Lo, K.C., Ho, C.C and Lin, K.C. 1984. Screening
of chemicals for the control of rice tarsonemid
mite, Stenotarsonemus spinki.Journal of
Agricultural Research, China 30(3): 303-307.
Natalie, A. Hummel., Boris A. Castro., Eric M. Mc
Donald., Miguel A.Pellerano and Ronald
Ochoa. 2009. The panicle rice mite,
Stenotarsonemus Spinki Smiley, a re-
discovered pest of rice in the United States.
Crop Protection 1-14.
Rao, J. and Prakash, A. 2003. Panicle mites causing
sterility in farmers’fields in India. Journal of
Applied Zoology Research 14:212-217.
Suresh, D., Bhushan, V.S., Ramgopal Varma, N
and Ramesh, B. 2013. Efficacy of Acaricides
alone and in combination with propiconazole
against rice panicle mite / sheath mite,
Stenotarsonemus spinki.Journal of
Agricultural Science and Technology B 36:
107-110.
63 Journal of Rice Research 2013, Vol. 6 No. 2
Table 1. Efficacy of acaricides alone and in combination with fungicide in the management of grain damage due to rice panicle
mite
Treatments
Dose/l
% discolored grains + Chaffy
grains
% Reduction of discolored
grains + chaffy grains over
control
Grain yield (kg/ha)
2010
2011
2012
Pooled
2010
2011
2012
Pooled
2010
2011
2012
Pooled
Diafenthiuron 50 WP +
Propiconazole 25 EC
1.5g+1.0ml
11.3
10.7
7.5
9.8
19.3
64.0
62.1
53.8
7855
7575
4875
6768
Propargite 57 EC +
Propiconazole 25 EC
1.5ml+1.0ml
11.3
17.0
13.1
13.8
19.3
42.8
33.8
34.9
7315
7426
4650
6500
Dicofol 18.5 EC+
Propiconazole 25 EC
5.0ml+1.0ml
8.0
9.9
6.9
8.3
42.9
66.7
65.2
60.8
7950
8182
5015
7049
Profenephos 50 EC+
Propiconazole 25 EC
2.0ml+1.0ml
12.3
12.8
5.3
10.1
12.1
56.9
73.2
52.4
7710
7236
5150
6698
Diafenthiuron 50 WP
1.5g
13.7
16.1
13.0
14.3
2.1
45.8
34.3
32.5
7470
7055
4580
6368
Propargite 57 EC
1.5ml
12.7
15.9
15.6
15.3
9.3
46.5
21.2
27.8
7475
7135
4465
6358
Dicofol 18.5 EC
5.0ml
15.0
14.5
12.1
13.9
7.1
51.2
38.8
34.4
7590
6575
4715
6793
Profenephos 50 EC
2.0ml
11.0
15.2
10.5
12.2
21.4
48.8
47.0
42.5
7530
7435
4890
6618
Untreated control
-
14.0
29.7
19.8
21.2
-
-
-
-
6375
6507
4120
5667
CD (0.05%)
3.2
2.5
2.7
2.8
2.5
5.1
4.8
4.5
355.0
215.7
175.5
248.9
SEm±
1.5
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.2
2.4
2.3
2.1
159.0
103.2
82.8
115.0
64 Journal of Rice Research 2013, Vol. 6 No. 2
Compatibility of Fungicides and Insecticides Targeting Sheath Blight and
Major Rice Pests
V. Bhuvaneswari* and S. Krishnam Raju
Department of Plant Pathology, Andhra Pradesh Rice Research Institute & Regional
Agricultural Research Station, Maruteru,, Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University,
Andhra Pradesh
Abstract
Three fungicides and six insecticides at
recommended concentrations were
evaluated as tank mix in various
fungicide and insecticide combinations
for their efficacy against sheath blight,
brown plant-hopper and leaf folder and
to investigate their compatibility as tank
mix application for the purpose of
reducing the application cost in the
event of simultaneous occurrence of
both diseases and pests during crop
growth period. Among the different
combinations tested, pymetrozine @ 0.5
g/l in combination with hexaconazole @
2 ml/l recorded less sheath blight
incidence (9.1%) severity (14.8%) and
also lesser number of plant-hoppers
(0.5/hill) followed by pymetrozine @ 0.5
g/l + validamycin @ 2 ml/l (9.6%, 15.0%
and 0.7/hill) and combination product of
imidacloprid + ethiprole @ 0.8 g/l +
hexaconazole @ 2 ml/l (9.2%, 18.2%
and 0.4/hill) compared to untreated
check where the incidence and severity
of sheath blight was 93.6% and 81.9%
*Corresponding author: bhuvanavk2001@gmail.com
respectively. The number of plant-
hoppers in untreated check plot was
26/hill. Similarly, chlorantraniliprole @
0.3 ml/l in combination with
hexaconazole @ 2 ml/l (6.3% WE) gave
less incidence (8.3%) and severity of
sheath blight (12.8%) and also less stem
borer and lesser leaf folder damaged
leaves per hill (1.9) followed by
pymetrozine @ 0.5 g/l + validamycin @
2 ml/l (9.6%, 15.0% and 1.2/hill, 12.5%
WE). There was no reduction in the
efficacy of these insecticides and
fungicides when used as tank mix and
phytotoxicity symptoms were not
observed in any of the treatments. Thus,
all the insecticides and fungicides
combinations used in the present
investigation are compatible with each
other and can be safely combined as
tank mix for the control of rice pests
and diseases, thus, saving labour costs.
Key words: Insecticides, fungicides,
compatibility, rice, sheath blight, brown
plant-hopper and leaf folder.
65 Journal of Rice Research 2013, Vol. 6 No. 2
Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is the primary
source of food for more than half of the
world’s population. Occurrence of diseases
and insect pests together in rice demands
the necessity of fungicidal and insecticidal
application at the same place and time. In
many endemic areas, sheath blight, brown
planthopper (BPH), leaf folder and stem
borer occur at the same stage of the crop
growth. Therefore, a combined application
of effective fungicides and insecticides is a
practical necessity. In Andhra Pradesh,
Godavari delta farmers are regularly going
for 2-3 sprays in rice crop, and mixed
combinations of fungicides and
insecticides is a common practice in view
of labour shortage at these locations.
Keeping this in view, the study was
undertaken with effective fungicides like
hexaconazole, validamycin and
trifloxystrobin 25% + tebuconazole 50%
WG @ 2.0 ml/l, 2.0 ml/l and 0.4 g/l,
respectively along with the effective
insecticides like buprofezin, pymetrozine,
acephate, chlorantraniliprole, dinotefuran
and imidacloprid + ethiprole 80% WG @
1.6 ml/l, 0.5 g/l, 1.5 g/l, 0.3 ml/l, 1.8 g/l
and 0.8 g/l, respectively to find their
efficacy on sheath blight and insect pests
like BPH, leaf folder and stem borer as
well as the compatibility of the test
fungicides and insecticides.
Materials and Methods
The experiments were conducted during
the kharif 2011 and 2012 seasons in
Randomized Block Design. Three
fungicides viz., hexaconazole 5% EC,
validamycin 3% l and trifloxystrobin 25%
+ tebuconazole 50% (Nativo 75% WG) @
2 ml/l, 2 ml/l and 0.4 g/l, respectively and
six insecticides viz., buprofezin 25% SC,
pymetrozine 50% WG (Plenum), acephate
75% SP, chlorantraniliprole 18.5% SC
(Coragen), dinotefuran 20% SG (Token)
and imidacloprid + ethiprole 80% WG
(Glamor) @ 1.6 ml/l, 0.5 g/l, 1.5 g/l, 0.3
ml/l, 1.8 g/l, and 0.8 g/l, respectively, were
evaluated as tank mix of fungicide and
insecticide combinations for their efficacy
against sheath blight, brown planthopper
and leaf folder and to investigate their
compatibility as tank mix application for
the purpose of reducing the application
cost in the event of simultaneous
occurrence of both diseases and pests
during crop growth period. An untreated
control was also maintained for
comparison. Popular susceptible rice
variety, MTU-7029 (Swarna) was
transplanted during kharif 2011 and 2012
seasons in a randomized block design with
10 treatments and three replications. A
spacing of 15 x 15 cm was adopted in a
gross plot size of 9.945 sq m. A pure
culture of a virulent isolate of Rhizoctonia
66 Journal of Rice Research 2013, Vol. 6 No. 2
solani was multiplied on typha leaf bits.
Inoculation with R. solani was carried out
at maximum tillering stage
(Bhaktavatsalam et al., 1978). The
colonized typha bits were placed between
the tillers of rice plant, 5-10 cm above the
water level. The data on the disease
incidence and subsequent spread were
collected from the date of first incidence of
the disease till 30 days after final spray.
The per cent disease incidence and
severity was calculated from the data
collected from 25 hills of each treatment in
each replication as per the Standard
Evaluation System for rice (IRRI, 1996).
The disease incidence and severity data
were transformed into arc sine values
before statistical analysis. Similarly natural
incidence in these treatments was also
recorded. The grain yield was recorded
from each gross plot and calculated to
kg/ha. The data was subjected to statistical
scrutiny, and the results are furnished.
The disease and pests were first
noticed in the experimental plots at
maximum tillering stage during both
seasons. Three fungicidal and insecticidal
combination sprays were given at 15 days
interval starting from the appearance of
initial disease symptoms and pest
incidence depending upon the initial
disease symptoms/insect damage and the
subsequent pest pressure. A spray fluid of
500 L/ha was used to ensure thorough
coverage of the plants. Symptoms of
phytotoxicity, if any, were also recorded at
5 and 10 days after the imposition of the
treatments. Yield data was also recorded.
Results and Discussion
During 2011, the data revealed that among
different fungicide and insecticide
combinations used for the control of
sheath blight, planthoppers and leaf folder,
combination product of imidacloprid +
ethiprole @ 0.8 g/l + hexaconazole @ 2.0
ml/l has recorded less sheath blight
incidence (7.3%) severity (14.4%) and also
lesser number of plant-hoppers (0.1 per
hill) closely followed by trifloxystrobin
25%+ tebuconazole 50% WG @ 0.4 g/l in
combination with buprofezin @ 1.6 ml/l
(5.4%, 11.8%, 3/hill), pymetrozine @ 0.5
g/l + validamycin @ 2 ml/l (11.6%,
18.5%, 0.3/hill), pymetrozine @ 0.5 g/l +
hexaconazole @ 2 ml/l (13.8%, 19.6%,
0.6/hill) and buprofezin @ 1.6 ml/l +
hexaconazole @ 2 ml/l (5.6%, 11.9%,
6.9/hill) compared to untreated check
where the incidence and severity of sheath
blight was 87.1 and 85.7 per cent
respectively. The number of planthoppers
per hill in untreated check plot was 38.1
per hill. No significant differences were
found among treatments with respect to
leaf folder damaged leaves. In 2011, the
incidence of leaf folder was very low.
67 Journal of Rice Research 2013, Vol. 6 No. 2
While, chlorantraniliprole @ 0.3 ml/l in
combination with hexaconazole @ 2 ml/l
gave less disease incidence (12.2%) and
severity of sheath blight (18.5%) and also
lesser per cent white ears (6.3) closely
followed by acephate @ 1.5 g/l +
hexaconazole @ 2 ml/l (11.6%, 15.3%,
7.5%) compared to control where the per
cent white ears was 19.6 (Tables 1 and 2).
This confirms that the fungicides and
insecticides involved in the trial are
compatible in all fungicide insecticide
combination from the point of sheath
blight, brown planthopper and stem borer
management.
During 2012, the data presented in
Tables 1 and 2 revealed that among
different fungicide and insecticide
combinations, dinotefuran @ 1.8 g/l +
hexaconazole @ 2 ml/l combination has
recorded less sheath blight incidence
(3.8%) severity (7.8%) and also lesser
number of planthoppers (0.2/hill) closely
followed by combination of pymetrozine
@ 0.5 g/l + hexaconazole @ 2 ml/l (4.5%,
10.1% and 0.3/hill) and combination of
(imidacloprid + ethiprole) @ 0.8 g/l +
hexaconazole @ 2 ml/l (11.1%, 22.0% &
0.7/hill) compared to untreated check
where the incidence and severity of sheath
blight was cent per cent and 78.1 per cent
respectively. The number of plant-hoppers
per hill in untreated check plot was 13.9
per hill. Similarly chlorantraniliprole @
0.3 ml/l in combination with hexaconazole
@ 2 ml/l gave less disease incidence
(4.4%) and severity of sheath blight
(7.2%) and also lesser leaf folder affected
leaves per hill (3.7), reveal that the
combinations did not in any way lower the
effectiveness of the fungicides against
sheath blight and insecticides against BPH
and leaf folder. Phytotoxicity symptoms
were not observed in any of the treatments
which indicated the positive compatibility
of the evaluated chemicals.
The pooled data revealed that
among different fungicide and insecticide
combinations used for the control of
sheath blight, planthoppers and leaf folder,
combination of pymetrozine @ 0.5 g/l +
hexaconazole @ 2 ml/l has recorded less
sheath blight incidence (9.1%) severity
(14.8%) and also lesser number of plant
hoppers (0.5/hill) closely followed by
pymetrozine @ 0.5 g/l + validamycin @ 2
ml/l (9.6%, 15.0%, 0.7/hill) and
combination of imidacloprid + ethiprole @
0.8 g/l + hexaconazole @ 2 ml/l (9.2%,
18.2% and 0.4/hill), compared to untreated
check where the incidence and severity of
sheath blight was 93.6% and 81.9%,
respectively. The number of planthoppers
per hill in untreated check plot was 26per
hill. The other combinations viz.,
buprofezin @ 1.6 ml/l + trifloxystrobin
25% + tebuconazole 50% WG @ 0.4 g/l
(8.3%, 15.7%, 4.2/hill), buprofezin @ 1.6
68 Journal of Rice Research 2013, Vol. 6 No. 2
ml/l + hexaconazole @ 2 ml/l (4.8%,
9.9%, 5.5/hill) and dinotefuran @ 1.8 g/l +
hexaconazole @ 2 ml/l (19.4%, 26.8%,
9.5/hill) were also found superior over
control. Similarly chlorantraniliprole @
0.3 ml/l in combination with hexaconazole
@ 2 ml/l gave less incidence (8.3%) and
severity of sheath blight (12.8%) and also
lesser leaf folder infested leaves per hill
(1.9) closely followed by pymetrozine @
0.5 g/l + validamycin @ 2 ml/l (9.6%,
15%, 1.2/hill) compared to control where
the number of leaf folder damaged leaves
were 4.20 per hill (Tables 1 and 2). The
overall results revealed that tank mixing of
fungicides with insecticides involved in
the present studies did not reduce the
efficacy of the fungicides against rice
sheath blight and that of insecticides
against brown planthopper and leaf folder.
Hence, they are compatible with each
other for spray application to control the
rice pests. These findings are in
conformity with the findings of Singh et
al. (2010), where in it was reported that
the combination treatments of fungicides
(tricyclazole and iprobenphos) and
insecticides (indoxacarb and cartap
hydrochloride) were biologically as
effective as their individual treatments
against neck blast, leaf folder and stem
borer of rice, respectively during kharif
2006 and 2007 along with corresponding
grain yield in Taraori Basmati. Similar
reports were reported by Prajapati et al.
(2005) that insecticide triazophos (20% EC
@ 0.02%) alone or tank mixed with
fungicides carbendazim (50% WP @
0.05%) and tricyclazole (75% WP @
0.04%) was found effective in controlling
leaf folder damage as well as white backed
plant-hoppers as compared to untreated
control. Bhatnagar (2004) reported that the
combination of cartap (Padan 50% WP)
and tricyclazole (Beam 75% WP) was
effective in reducing the damage by rice
leaf folder and blast, and found to be
compatible.
Thus, the effectiveness of the six
insecticides viz., buprofezin, pymetrozine,
acephate, chlorantraniliprole, dinotefuran
and imidacloprid + ethiprole did not in any
way get hindered by mixing with the
fungicides. All the treatments with
fungicide-insecticide combinations had
significantly higher grain yield as
compared to the control.
References
Bhaktavatsalam, G., Satyanarayana, K., Reddy
A.P.K. and John, V.T. 1978. Evaluation for
sheath blight resistance in rice. International
Rice Research Newsletter 3: 9-10.
Bhatnagar, A. 2004. Compatibility of pesticides
against rice leaf folder and blast. Annals of
Plant Protection Sciences 12(1): 208-210.
IRRI. 1996. Standard Evaluation System for rice.
INGER Genetic Resource Centre, 4th Edn.
July, 1996.
Prajapati, K.S., Korat, D.M., Dodia, J.F., Pathak,
A.R. and Patel, R.C. 2005. Field Evaluation of
compatibility of insecticides and fungicides on
rice. Pesticide Research Journal 17(1): 30-32.
69 Journal of Rice Research 2013, Vol. 6 No. 2
Singh, R., Sunder, S., Dodan, D.S., Ram, L. and
Singh., R. 2010. Evaluation of scented rice
genotypes and fungicides against blast and
compatibility of pesticides used against neck
blast, stem borer and leaf folder. Indian
Phytopathology 63(2): 212-215.
70 Journal of Rice Research 2013, Vol. 6 No. 2
Table 1. Efficacy of fungicides and insecticides as tank mix against sheath blight of rice
S.
No
Treatments
Dose/L
*Disease incidence (%)
*Disease severity (%)
*Yield (kg/ha)
2011
2012
Pooled
2011
2012
Pooled
2011
2012
Pooled
T1
Buprofezin 25% SC (Applaud) +
hexaconzole 5% EC
1.6 ml +
2.0 ml
5.6
(13.6)a
4.0
(11.5)a
4.8
(12.6)a
11.9
(20.1)a
8.0
(16.1)a
9.9
(18.3)a
7859a
3776a
5817a
T2
Buprofezin + validamycin 3% L
1.6 ml +
2.0 ml
32.7
(34.9)c
22.3
(27.4)b
27.5
(31.6)d
45.4
(42.3)b
27.4
(30.7)c
36.4
(37.1)d
7196ab
3385a
5291b
T3
Buprofezin + (trifloxystrobin 25%
+ tebuconazole 50% WG (Nativo
75% WG)
1.6 ml +
0.4 g
5.4
(12.8)a
11.2
(18.7)a
8.3
(16.5)a
11.8
(20.0)a
19.5
(26.0)b
15.7
(23.3)b
7864a
3522a
5693a
T4
Pymetrozine 50% WG (Plenum) +
hexaconazole
0.5 g +
2.0 ml
13.8
(21.8)b
4.5
(12.1)a
9.1
(17.5)a
19.6
(26.1)a
10.1
(18.4)a
14.8
(22.6)ab
7615a
3759a
5687a
T5
Pymetrozine + validamycin
0.5 g +
2.0 ml
11.6
(19.7)b
7.5
(14.2)a
9.6
(17.9)b
18.5
(25.5)a
11.4
(18.3)a
15.0
(22.6)ab
7479a
3731a
5605a
T6
Acephate 75% SP + hexaconazole
1.5 g +
2.0 ml
11.6
(19.7) b
6.6
(14.4) a
9.1
(17.6)ab
15.3
(22.9)a
12.0
(20.0)ab
13.7
(21.7)a
7954a
3611a
5783a
T7
Chlorantraniliprole 18.5% SC
(Coragen) + hexaconazole
0.3 ml +
2.0 ml
12.2
(19.9) b
4.4
(10.9) a
8.3
(16.4)a
18.5
(24.9)a
7.2
(13.5)a
12.8
(20.8)a
7458a
3814a
5636a
T8
Dinotefuron 20% SG (Token) +
hexaconazole
1.8 g +
2.0 ml
34.9
(36.1)c
3.8
(11.2)a
19.4
(26.0)c
45.8
(42.6)b
7.8
(16.2)a
26.8
(31.1)c
6948bc
3817a
5383ab
T9
(Imidacloprid + ethiprole 80%
WG) (Glamor) + hexaconazole
0.8 g +
2.0 ml
7.3
(15.2)ab
11.1
(18.8)ab
9.2
(17.5)a
14.4
(21.8)a
22.0
(27.6)bc
18.2
(25.2)b
8242a
3724a
5983a
T10
Control
--
87.1
(69.0)d
100
(90.0)c
93.6
(75.3)e
85.7
(67.8)c
78.1
(62.2)d
81.9
(64.9)e
6010c
2116b
4063c
CD(P=0.05)
6.8
9.8
5.0
7.7
8.9
4.3
1180.1
988.1
635.4
CV
15.1
25.0
11.7
14.3
20.7
8.7
9.2
16.3
6.7
*Mean of three replications
Figures in the parentheses are arc sine transformed values.
71 Journal of Rice Research 2013, Vol. 6 No. 2
Table 2. Efficacy of insecticides and fungicides as tank mix against major rice pests
S.
No
Treatments
Dose/L
*BPH (No./hill)
*Leaf folder
infested leaves/hill
White
ears (%)
2011
2012
Pooled
2011
2012
Pooled
2011
T1
Buprofezin 25% SC (Applaud)+ hexaconzole
5% EC
1.6 ml +
2.0 ml
6.9
(2.5)b
4.2
(2.0)bc
5.5
(2.3)bc
0.0
(0.0)
5.5
(2.3)b
2.7
(1.7)b
14.1
(22.0)b
T2
Buprofezin + validamycin 3% L
1.6 ml +
2.0 ml
3.8
(1.9)b
5.6
(2.3)c
4.7
(2.1)b
0.1
(0.2)
4.9
(2.2)b
2.5
(1.6)b
8.5
(16.6)a
T3
Buprofezin + (trifloxystrobin 25% +
tebuconazole 50% WG (Nativo 75% WG)
1.6 ml +
0.4 g
3.0
(1.7)b
5.3
(2.1)c
4.2
(2.0)b
0.0
(0.0)
7.2
(2.7)c
3.6
(1.9)bc
20.7
(26.9)c
T4
Pymetrozine 50% WG (Plenum) + hexaconazole
5% EC
0.5 g +
2.0 ml
0.6
(0.7)a
0.3
(0.5)a
0.5
(0.7)a
0.0
(0.0)
4.5
(2.1)b
2.3
(1.5)ab
12.5
(19.4)ab
T5
Pymetrozine + validamycin 3% L
0.5 g +
2.0 ml
0.3
(0.4)a
1.1
(0.8)ab
0.7
(0.7)a
0.0
(0.0)
2.4
(1.5)a
1.2
(1.1)a
14.6
(22.4)bc
T6
Acephate 75% SP + hexaconazole 5% EC
1.5 g +
2.0 ml
28.1
(5.3)d
4.2
(2.0)bc
16.1
(4.0)d
0.1
(0.1)
4.3
(2.1)b
2.2
(1.5)ab
7.5
(15.7)a
T7
Chlorantraniliprole 18.5% SC (Coragen) +
hexaconazole 5% EC
0.3 ml +
2.0 ml
80.4
(9.0)f
20.1
(4.3)d
50.2
(7.1)f
0.0
(0.0)
3.7
(1.9)ab
1.9
(1.4)a
6.3
(13.6)a
T8
Dinotefuran 20% SG (Token) + hexaconazole
5% EC
1.8 g +
2.0 ml
18.7
(4.3)c
0.2
(0.4)a
9.5
(3.1)c
0.0
(0.0)
5.5
(2.3)b
2.7
(1.6)b
10.0
(18.2)a
T9
(Imidacloprid + ethiprole 80% WG) (Glamor) +
hexaconazole 5% EC
0.8 g +
2.0 ml
0.1
(0.2)a
0.7
(0.7)a
0.4
(0.6)a
0.0
(0.0)
6.0
(2.4)bc
3.0
(1.7)b
10.6
(18.6)a
T10
Control
--
38.1
(6.2)e
13.9
(3.7)d
26.0
(5.1)e
0.1
(0.2)
8.3
(2.8)c
4.2
(2.0)c
19.6
(26.2)c
CD(0.05)
0.8
1.2
0.8
0.5
0.4
6.7
CV
14.2
35.9
15.8
NS
12.7
12.8
23.0
*Mean of three replications.
Figures in the parentheses are arc sine transformed values.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Out of 119 scented rice genotypes, twenty-seven were found consistently resistant to leaf blast while ten genotypes were consistently resistant to neck blast during Kharif 2007 and 2008, indicating that resistance to leaf blast in scented rice cultures is more common than neck blast. Seven genotypes namely, HKR 04-487, HKR 05-436, HKR 05-476, Haryana Mahak-11, PAU 3237-1-B-B-19, PAU 3237-1-B-B-20 and PAU 3237-1-B-B-22 were found consistently resistant to both leaf and neck blast phases during both the years. On the basis of mean data of Kharif 2000 and 2001, carpropamid and tricyclazole were found to be the most promising fungicides in reducing the neck blast incidence followed by kasugamycin and epoxiconazole + carbendazim. However, carbendazim 12% + mancozeb 63% had no significant effect on disease incidence. In addition, kresoxim methyl at 1.5 ml/l and azoxystrobin at 1.0 ml/l were also found highly effective against neck blast and statistically on par with standard fungicide tricyclazole during Kharif 2002 to 2005. The combination treatments of both the fungicides (tricyclazole and iprobenphos) and insecticides (indoxacarb and cartap hydrochloride) were biologically as effective as their individual treatments against neck blast, leaf folder and stem borer of rice, respectively during Kharif 2006 and 2007 along with corresponding increase in grain yield of Taraori Basmati. Tricyclazole alone and in combination with insecticides proved better than iprobenphos alone and in combination with insecticides.
Article
A field experiment was conducted during winter season of 2002-03 and 2003-04 at Pusa in Bihar to study the effect of four irrigation levels, based on Irrigation water (IW): cumulative pan evaporation (CPE) ratio and four intercropping systems. The plant height, leaf-area index, yield attributes except number of cobs/plant and grain yield of maize increased significantly with increase in IW:CPE ratio. Application of five irrigations each of 6 cm depth gave the maximum maize-equivalent yield, and net return/Re of investment. Intercroping of maize (Zea mays L.) reduced the maize yield but significant reduction was recorded only in french bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and toria (Brassica campustris L. var. toria) intercropping system. However, water-use efficiency (WUE) decreased with increase in IW:CPE ratio and was maximum at IW:CPE 0.6. Among the intercrops, maximum WUE (on the basis of maize-equivalent yield) was obtained with maize + potato (Solarium tuberosum L.) (561.89 kg/ ha-cm) and minimum with maize + toria (256.0 kg/ha-cm). All the intercrops with maize recorded significantly higher maize-equivalent yield than sole cropping of maize. Maize + potato recorded the highest (123.48 and 140.07 q/ha) maize-equivalent yield and net return, whereas, sole cropping of maize recorded the maximum net return per rupee of investment. Among intercropping systems, maize+potato generated the highest net return (Rs 28,781 and 35,661), followed by maize + rajmash.