Evaluation of insecticides for management of mango hopper, Idioscopus niveosparsus Leth

Abstract

Mango hopper, (Idioscopus niveosparsus Leth) is an important pest of mango causing severe yield losses. Experiments were conducted at Regional Fruit Research Station, Vengurle to manage mango hopper on Alphonso variety with different insecticides alone and in combination with spreader during 2013-14 to 2016-17. Five different insecticides viz., buprofezin, spinosad, azadirachtin, acetamiprid and thiamethoxam were used alone and in combination with a spreader. From the pooled results, it is revealed that for management of mango hopper the treatment of thiamethoxam + spreader was found most effective (99.06%). Also, the same treatment recorded maximum yield (56.27 kg/tree).

Full text

~ 950 ~
Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies 2018; 6(6): 950-952
E-ISSN: 2320-7078
P-ISSN: 2349-6800
JEZS 2018; 6(6): 950-952
© 2018 JEZS
Received: 12-09-2018
Accepted: 16-10-2018
AY Munj
Jr. Entomologist, Regional Fruit
Research Station, Vengurle,
Maharashtra, India
BN Sawant
Associate Director of Research,
Regional Fruit Research Station,
Vengurle, Maharashtra, India
RA Raut
Jr. Plant Pathologist, Regional
Fruit Research Station,
Vengurle, Maharashtra, India
RM Dheware
Horticulturist, Regional Fruit
Research Station, Vengurle,
Maharashtra, India
BR Salvi
Head, Department of
Horticulture, Dr. B. S. Konkan
Krishi Vidyapeeth, Dapoli, Dist.
Ratnagiri, Maharashtra, India
Correspondence
AY Munj
Jr. Entomologist, Regional Fruit
Research Station, Vengurle,
Maharashtra, India
Evaluation of insecticides for management of
mango hopper, Idioscopus niveosparsus Leth
AY Munj, BN Sawant, RA Raut, RM Dheware and BR Salvi
Abstract
Mango hopper, (Idioscopus niveosparsus Leth) is an important pest of mango causing severe yield losses.
Experiments were conducted at Regional Fruit Research Station, Vengurle to manage mango hopper on
Alphonso variety with different insecticides alone and in combination with spreader during 2013-14 to
2016-17. Five different insecticides viz., buprofezin, spinosad, azadirachtin, acetamiprid and
thiamethoxam were used alone and in combination with a spreader. From the pooled results, it is revealed
that for management of mango hopper the treatment of thiamethoxam + spreader was found most
effective (99.06%). Also, the same treatment recorded maximum yield (56.27 kg/tree).
Keywords: Mango hopper, Idioscopus niveosparsus, management, thiamethoxam
Introduction
Mango, Mangifera indica L. is an important fruit crop grown in Konkan region of Maharashtra
and Alphonso is the major variety of this region. The mango crop is found to be infested by
more than 100 insect pests [1], however, mango hopper is one of the most serious pests
responsible for about 66 percent losses in fruit yield [2]. Three species of mango hoppers viz.
Amritodus atkinsoni, Idioscopus clypealis and I. niveosparsus are commonly found all over
India [3]. However, during recent years only I. niveosparsus is the most predominant species
found in Konkan region of Maharashtra [4].
The adults of Idioscopus niveosparsus are 4 to 5 mm long, greenish grey coloured and wedge
shaped with prominent triangular whitish band around the neck. The female hoppers lay eggs
in the midrib of tender leaves on the under surface and at the time of panicle initiation the eggs
are laid on the tender panicles. The incubation period is 3 to 5 days and nymphal period is 10
to 15 days. The pest intensity is severe during November to March. Both nymphs and adults
suck cell sap from tender foliage, inflorescence and tender fruits. The tender leaves get
twisted, the inflorescences become weak and shedding of flowers and tender fruits take place
which badly affects the yield. In addition, hoppers excrete honey dew like substance on which
black sooty mould (Capnodium mangiferae) grows which interferes with the photosynthetic
activity of leaves and reduces the market value of fruits.
In order to manage the hopper incidence effectively, the experiments were conducted with five
relatively newer insecticides alone and in combination with spreader at Regional Fruit
Research Station, Vengurle during 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2016-17.
Material and methods
The management trials were conducted at Regional Fruit Research Station, Vengurle, M.S.
during 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2016-17 on Alphonso variety. The experiments were laid out in
Randomized Block Design with 11 treatments and 3 replications.
Treatment details
T1 – Buprofezin 25 SC at 0.025% conc.
T2 – Spinosad 45 SC at 0.015% conc.
T3 – Azadirachtin 10000 PPM at 0.003% conc.
T4 – Acetamiprid 20 SP at 0.002% conc.
T5 – Thiamethoxam 25WG at 0.005% conc.
T6 – Buprofezin 25 SC at 0.025% conc + spreader 0.5 ml/lit
T7 – Spinosad 45 SC at 0.015% conc + spreader 0.5 ml/lit
T8 – Azadirachtin 10000 PPM at 0.003% conc + spreader 0.5 ml/lit

Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies
~ 951 ~
T9 – Acetamiprid 20 SP at 0.002% conc + spreader 0.5 ml/lit
T10 – Thiamethoxam 25WG at 0.005% conc + spreader 0.5
ml/lit
T11 – Control
No. of applications - Four
First Spray: At bud burst stage
Second Spray: 15 days after 1st spray.
Third Spray: 15 days after 2nd spray.
Forth Spray: 15 days after 3rd spray.
Observations on hopper population
Ten panicles were labeled randomly on each tree and the
number of hoppers (nymphs and adults) observed on these
panicles were counted. The pre-treatment observations were
recorded 24 hrs before each spray and the post treatment
observations were recorded 14 days after each spray.
Statistical analysis
Efficacy of different treatments against mango hopper was
analysed by analysis of variance. The population data was
corrected by the correction factor for determination of percent
reduction (percent control) using the formula given by
Henderson and Tilton [5].
Where,
Ta = Number of insects in treatment after spray
Tb = Number of insects in treatment before spray
Ca = Number of insects in untreated check after spray
Cb = Number of insects in untreated check before spray
The data of percent reduction were transformed into arc sine
values and subjected to analysis of variance. Also, the
marketable fruit yield of respective treatment was recorded at
the time of harvesting which was subjected to analysis of
variance.
Results and discussion
The data on mean percent reduction in hopper population 14
days after spray recorded during 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17
and the pooled data is presented in Table 1. The data revealed
that during all the three individual years, the treatment T10
(Thiamethoxam 25WG at 0.005% conc + spreader 0.5 ml/lit)
recorded the maximum reduction in hopper population (99.59,
98.74 and 99.16%, respectively). However, it was at par with
T9 (Acetamiprid 20 SP at 0.002% conc + spreader 0.5 ml/lit),
T5 (Thiamethoxam 25WG at 0.005% conc.) and T4
(Acetamiprid 20 SP at 0.002% conc.) during all the three
years. The pooled data revealed that, the treatment T10
(Thiamethoxam 25WG at 0.005% conc + spreader 0.5 ml/lit)
was most effective with a 99.06% reduction in hopper
population, but it was at par with T9 (Acetamiprid 20 SP at
0.002% conc + spreader 0.5 ml/lit) and T5 (Thiamethoxam
25WG at 0.005% conc.).
From the yield data presented in Table 2, it is seen that the
treatment T10 (Thiamethoxam 25WG at 0.005% conc. +
spreader 0.5 ml/lit) has recorded maximum yield during all
the three years (60.00, 53.23 and 55.57 kg/tree), however, it
was at par with T9 (Acetamiprid 20 SP at 0.002% conc. +
spreader 0.5 ml/lit), T5 (Thiamethoxam 25WG at 0.005%
conc.), T4 (Acetamiprid 20 SP at 0.002% conc.), T7 (Spinosad
45 SC at 0.015% conc. + spreader 0.5 ml/lit), T2 (Spinosad 45
SC at 0.015% conc.) and T6 (Buprofezin 25 SC at 0.025%
conc. + spreader 0.5 ml/lit) during 2013-14, whereas, during
2014-15 it was at par with T9 (Acetamiprid 20 SP at 0.002%
conc. + spreader 0.5 ml/lit), T5 (Thiamethoxam 25WG at
0.005% conc.), T7 (Spinosad 45 SC at 0.015% conc. +
spreader 0.5 ml/lit) and T2 (Spinosad 45 SC at 0.015% conc.).
During 2016-17, the treatment T10 (Thiamethoxam 25WG at
0.005% conc. + spreader 0.5 ml/lit) was at par with T9
(Acetamiprid 20 SP at 0.002% conc. + spreader 0.5 ml/lit), T5
(Thiamethoxam 25WG at 0.005% conc.) and T4 (Acetamiprid
20 SP at 0.002% conc.). Similarly the pooled data revealed
that, the treatment T10 (Thiamethoxam 25WG at 0.005%
conc. + spreader 0.5 ml/lit) recorded the maximum yield
(56.27 kg/tree), however, it was at par with T9 (Acetamiprid
20 SP at 0.002% conc. + spreader 0.5 ml/lit), T5
(Thiamethoxam 25WG at 0.005% conc.) and T4 (Acetamiprid
20 SP at 0.002% conc.).
These results are in close agreement with Patel [6], Kumar [7],
Samanta [8], Anithakumari [9] and Ray [10] who reported
thiamethoxam as an effective insecticide for management of
mango hopper. Sharma [11] reported 91 percent reduction in
hopper population in the treatment of thiamethoxam 10 days
after application. Also, Thiruveni [12] reported that
thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 37.5 and 50g a.i./ha significantly
reduced the mango hopper population to an extent of 89.76 to
90.27 percent and 84.77 to 87.48 percent at two different
locations, respectively. Also, Munj [13] reported that the
module of three sprays (first spray of imidacloprid 17.8 SL @
0.005% at panicle initiation stage, a second spray of
quinalphos 25 EC @ 0.05% 21 days after first spray and third
spray of thiamethoxam 25 WG @ 0.005% 15 days after
second spray) was most effective with a 97.42 percent
reduction in hopper population after last spray. Also, Samanta
[7] reported that the treatment with 0.016 percent
thiamethoxam was superior for management of mango hopper
with higher yield (72 kg/tree).
Conclusion
From the overall results, it is concluded that, the insecticides
thiamethoxam 25WG @ 0.005% and acetamiprid 20 SP @
0.002% are most effective for management of mango hopper.
Acknowledgement
The authors are thankful to the Director of Research, Dr. B. S.
Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth, Dapoli for providing the funds
and facilities for conducting the present research work.

Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies
~ 952 ~
Table 1: Cumulative efficacy of different treatments against mango hopper
T.
No.
Treatments
Pre treatment
population/
panicle
Cumulative mean reduction in hopper population (%) 14 days after
spray
2013-14
2014-15
2016-17
Pooled Mean
T1
Buprofezin 25 SC @ 0.05%
9.40 [3.21]*
92.43 (74.15)**
92.48 (74.24)**
92.40 (74.04)**
92.55 (74.31)**
T2
Spinosad 45 SC @0.015%
8.73 [3.11]
92.48 (74.26)
91.54 (73.01)
92.31 (73.82)
91.98 (73.66)
T3
Azadirachtin 10000 ppm @ 0.003%
9.27 [3.22]
68.89 (56.07)
60.54 (51.07)
64.71 (53.56)
64.81 (53.73)
T4
Acetamiprid 20 SP @0.002%
9.77 [3.28]
97.30 (80.96)
97.24 (80.75)
97.27 (80.87)
97.37 (81.11)
T5
Thiamethoxam 25 WG @0.005%
7.77 [2.96]
99.10 (84.67)
97.88 (81.69)
98.49 (83.02)
99.03 (84.44)
T6
Buprofezin + Spreader (0.5ml/lit)
9.37 [3.20]
94.90 (76.75)
91.38 (73.04)
93.14 (74.84)
93.24 (74.81)
T7
Spinosad + Spreader (0.5 ml/lit)
9.57 [3.24]
95.60 (77.96)
92.70 (74.32)
94.15 (76.18)
94.25 (76.34)
T8
Azadirachtin + Spreader (0.5 ml/lit)
8.60 [3.10]
73.32 (58.92)
60.55 (51.16)
66.93 (54.95)
66.83 (55.04)
T9
Acetamiprid + Spreader (0.5 ml/lit)
11.90 [3.66]
99.17 (85.18)
98.67 (83.49)
98.92 (83.96)
98.85 (84.08)
T10
Thiamethoxam + Spreader (0.5 ml/lit)
9.10 [3.17]
99.59 (86.41)
98.74 (83.57)
99.16 (84.92)
99.06 (84.59)
T11
Control
8.90 [3.14]
-
-
-
-
S.E.m +
0.15
2.58
2.29
1.89
0.64
C. D. at 5%
N.S.
7.32
6.66
5.62
1.90
* Figure in parenthesis are square root transformed values
** Figure in parenthesis are arc sine transformed values
Table 2: Yield data recorded in different treatments
T. No.
Treatments
Yield (kg/tree)
2013-14
2014-15
2016-17
Pooled Mean
T1
Buprofezin 25 SC @ 0.05%
49.67
41.47
41.67
44.27
T2
Spinosad 45 SC @0.015%
51.20
56.57
40.77
46.18
T3
Azadirachtin 10000 ppm @ 0.003%
42.33
35.13
31.77
36.41
T4
Acetamiprid 20 SP @0.002%
58.10
50.70
52.13
53.64
T5
Thiamethoxam 25 WG @0.005%
57.60
51.30
53.17
54.02
T6
Buprofezin + Spreader (0.5ml/lit)
51.00
41.50
40.73
44.41
T7
Spinosad + Spreader (0.5 ml/lit)
54.90
46.63
41.27
47.60
T8
Azadirachtin + Spreader (0.5 ml/lit)
46.03
36.77
32.90
38.57
T9
Acetamiprid + Spreader (0.5 ml/lit)
58.47
50.90
52.60
53.99
T10
Thiamethoxam + Spreader (0.5 ml/lit)
60.00
53.23
55.57
56.27
T11
Control
29.70
25.73
23.77
26.40
S.E.m +
3.20
3.07
2.39
1.13
C. D. at 5%
9.45
9.07
7.06
3.34
References
1. Butani DK. Save your crop from insect pests. Indian
Horticulture, 1962; 6(1):6-7.
2. Kumar D, Roy CS, Yazdani SS, Hamid SF, Khan ZR.
Effect of some insecticides against hopper complex on
mango. Pesticides. 1985; 19(11):42-43.
3. Rahman SK, Kuldeep MA. Mango hoppers: Bio ecology
and management- A review. Agricultural Reviews. 2007;
28:49-55.
4. Dhangar SH. Studies on mango hopper in Raigad district
of North Konkan region. M. Sc. (Agri.) thesis submitted
to Dr. B. S. Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth, Dapoli, Dist.
Ratnagiri, M.S, 2004.
5. Henderson CF, Tilton EW. Tests with acaricides against
brown wheat mite. Journal of Economic Entomology.
1955; 48(2):157-161.
6. Patel NC, Kher RH, Chavda AJ, Patel JK. Bio-efficacy of
thiamethoxam (Actara 25 WG) in comparison to
conventional insecticides against mango hopper. Indian
Journal of Entomology. 2003; 65(3):315-318.
7. Kumar S, Raghvani BR, Bhatt RI. Bioefficacy of newer
insecticides against hopper complex on Alphonso mango
in humid tropics of South Gujarat. Journal of Applied
Zoological Researches, 2005; 16(1):64-66.
8. Samanta A, Gosh A, Hembram TK, Patra S,
Somchowdhury AK. Efficacy of insecticides against
mango hopper and fruit yield. Annals of Plant Protection
Science. 2009; 17(1):243-244.
9. Anithakumari D, Anitha V, Girwani A, Reddy CN.
Efficacy of various insecticidal modules against hoppers
in mango. International Journal of Plant Protection. 2014;
7(1):99-103.
10. Ray SN, Shah T, Nithya C. Field efficacy of pest
management modules against mango hopper on Langra
mango in zone III of Bihar. Annals of Plant Protection
Science. 2014; 22(1):10-13.
11. Sharma DR, Arora PK, Gill MS, Singh HP. Current
status of insect pests of mango in Punjab and efficacy of
some new molecules against mango hopper. In: Global
Conference on Augmenting Production and Utilization of
Mango: Biotic and Abiotic Stresses, 21-24 June, 2011 at
CISH, Lucknow, 2011, 131.
12. Thiruveni T, Ganesh Kumar M, Kuttalam S. Field
evaluation of a new indigenous thiamethoxam 25% WG
formulation against mango hopper. Pestology. 2014;
38(4):76-78.
13. Munj AY, Salvi BR, Narangalkar AL. Effective
management module to minimize the crop loss in
Alphonso mango due to mango hopper, I. niveosparus.
In: International conference on ‘Changing scenario of
pest problems in agri-horti ecosystem and their
management, 27-29 Nov., 2014 at MPUAT, Udaipur,
2014, 17.