Content uploaded by Ismaila Aderolu
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ismaila Aderolu on Mar 16, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Research Article Open Access
Volume 2 • Issue 3 • 1000112
Entomol Ornithol Herpetol
ISSN: 2161-0983 EOH an open access journal
Open Access
Research Article
Entomology, Ornithology & Herpetology
Aderolu et al., Entomol Ornithol Herpetol 2013, 2:3
http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2161-0983.1000112
Keywords: Hymenia recurvalis; Amaranthus species; Neem extracts;
Apanteles hymeneae
Introduction
Amaranth (Amaranthus species) is believed to have originated from
Central and South America [1,2] where it has been cultivated for more
than 8,000 years [3,4]. It has now become cosmopolitan, spreading to
and becoming established in Africa, Asia (Nepal, India, China and
Russia), parts of Eastern Europe and South America [5-7] and its now
been grown by a large number of farmers over the past few decades [8].
In Africa, Nigeria is the largest producer and consumer of amaranth
followed by Ghana, Benin Republic and Senegal in West Africa; Kenya,
Uganda, Cameroon, Gabon, Tanzania and Ethiopia in East and Central
Africa; South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe in Southern Africa [9-13].
Smith and Eyzaguirre [12] noted that dierent vegetable parts are useful
for several purposes. Amaranth is one of those rare plants whose leaves
are eaten as vegetables and seeds as cereal [14-16]. ese are otherwise
referred to as vegetable and grain amaranths, respectively.
Vegetable amaranth is cultivated and consumed in many parts of
the world, with A. cruentus, A. dubius, A. blitum and A. tricolor being
the documented cultivated species in East Africa. In West Africa,
especially Nigeria where it is a common vegetable, the edible species
include A. cruentus, A. dubius, A. caudatus and A. hypochondriacus
[17]. Kamalanathan et al. [18], Oke [19], Banjo [20] stated that
popularity of vegetable amaranth is due to its earliness to maturity,
palatability and high nutritive value. Its protein content is well balanced
in amino acids such as lysine and rich in minerals (Fe, I and Ca) and
vitamins A and C [16,21,22]. erefore, regular consumption reduces
blood pressure, cholesterol levels and improves the body’s antioxidant
status and immunity [23].
However, one of the greatest limiting factors in increasing the
productivity of amaranths is the range of insect pests with which
they are associated and the level of losses suered in unimproved and
improved agriculture [20]. Akinlosotu [24] implicated insects of various
*Corresponding author: Aderolu IA, Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria, P.M.B
5244, Ibadan, Nigeria, Tel: +234-8035862166; E-mail: adeisma@yahoo.com
Received August 23, 2013; Accepted November 11, 2013; Published November
18, 2013
Citation: Aderolu IA, Omooloye AA, Okelana FA (2013) Occurrence, Abundance
and Control of the Major Insect Pests Associated with Amaranths in Ibadan,
Nigeria. Entomol Ornithol Herpetol 2: 112. doi:10.4172/2161-0983.1000112
Copyright: © 2013 Aderolu IA, et al. This is an open-access article distributed
under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original author and source are credited.
Occurrence, Abundance and Control of the Major Insect Pests Associated
with Amaranths in Ibadan, Nigeria
Aderolu IA1*, Omooloye AA2 and Okelana FA1,2
1Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria, P.M.B 5244, Ibadan, Nigeria
2University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria
Abstract
Beetworm Moth (BM), Hymenia recurvalis F. is a major defoliator of Amaranthus species causing severe yield loss.
Control with synthetic insecticide is being discouraged for its adverse effects. Information on sustainable management of
BM with ecologically friendly methods is scanty. Three Amaranthus species: A. cruentus, A. blitum and A. hybridus were
evaluated for insect diversity and abundance during wet and dry seasons of two years following standard procedures.
Data collected were Leaf Area Damage (LAD) (cm2); Infestation per plant (I) and Field Abundance (FA). Three neem
extracts: 0.125 g Aqueous Neem Leaf (ANL) w/v; 0.125 g Aqueous Neem Bark Ash (ANBA) w/v and Aqueous Modied
ANL+ANBA (AMAN) (1:1) all at 3l/25 m2 were bioassayed against BM using λ-cyhalothrin at 2.5 ml/25m2 and water as
controls. Data collected were analysed using descriptive statistics, ANOVA at P>0.05, Shannon index (H), Simpson
index (1-D) and evenness. Sixty insect species from 29 families and 12 orders; comprising 31 defoliators, 12 predators,
one pupa parasitoid (Apanteles hymeneae) and 16 non-economic species were encountered on Amaranthus species.
The BM was the most damaging causing 69.4 ± 0.16% loss of foliage compared to control. The species abundance in
both seasons was BM (2916.8 ± 138.83)>Hypolixus truncatulus (2262.7 ± 94.1) >Lixus truncatulus (2088.7 ± 36.4). Shannon
(3.52), 1-D (0.96) and evenness index (0.65) of diversity were high with few dominant species. The AMAN at 3l/25 m2 w/v extract
caused signicant reduction of leaf damage (72 ± 0.05%) and eld infestation (78 ± 0.06%) compared to the untreated control; but
comparatively less effective by only 5% to λ-cyhalothrin; implying suitability as environmentally safe control measure.
orders namely; Coleoptera, Hemiptera, Lepidoptera and Orthoptera.
Lepidopterous insect pests of Amaranthus include Psara bipunctalis,
Sylepta derogata [25] as well as Hymenia recurvalis, Helicoverpa
armigera and Spodoptera litura [26]. Furthermore, the publication by
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, India on ‘Insect Pests
of Amaranthus’ recorded that Leaf caterpillar, Hymenia recurvalis and
Psara basalis are the most important pests of Amaranthus species.
e Beetworm Moth, Hymenia recurvalis Fab. (Lepidoptera:
Pyralidae) causes severe losses to Amaranthus species. e caterpillar
rolls the leaf into distinctive leaf shelter and voraciously feed on the
green matter. Severe attack results in complete skeletonisation and
drying up of the leaves within a short time [27,28]. is has necessitated
the need to control the insect pest and other pests of Amaranthus species.
e management of these insect pests has been through the use of
insecticides. Dales [29] noted that the use of synthetic insecticides pose
health risk and result in environmental pollution. Also, Schmutterer
[30] reported that the World Health Organization (WHO) had reported
the poisoning of at least 3 million agricultural workers from which
20,000 deaths are recorded annually due to pesticide usage. Awasthi
[31] also noted that consumers of vegetables may be at risk from
pesticide residues. us, research has been geared towards identifying
non-chemical methods of pest control, which are safe, cheap, easy to
Citation: Aderolu IA, Omooloye AA, Okelana FA (2013) Occurrence, Abundance and Control of the Major Insect Pests Associated with Amaranths in
Ibadan, Nigeria. Entomol Ornithol Herpetol 2: 112. doi:10.4172/2161-0983.1000112
Page 2 of 9
Volume 2 • Issue 3 • 1000112
Entomol Ornithol Herpetol
ISSN: 2161-0983 EOH an open access journal
apply and accessible to farmers [32]. In this regard botanicals from
neem have shown considerable potential [25,33].
e leaf and seed extracts of the neem tree Azadirachta indica A.
Juss have been shown to aect over 200 insect species including some
species of aphids, beetles, caterpillars, leafminers, mealybugs, scales,
thrips, true bugs and whiteies; it is also the most popular botanical
pesticide against foliage feeding pests. e aqueous extract of A.
indica bark has been shown to be as eective as a synthetic insecticide
(Cymbush®) in controlling foliage feeders of vegetables [25]. Meanwhile,
Copping [34] has earlier reported no known incompatibilities of
neem extracts with other crops protection agents. ere is evidence
available for the synergistic action of neem with microbial pesticides
such as NPVs of tomato fruit worm [35] and common armyworm [36],
and entomopathogenic fungi (Beauveria bassiana) against common
army worm [37]. Asian Vegetable Research and Development Centre
(AVRDC) has developed IPM strategies for tomato and vegetable
soybean involving neem as an integral component with microbial
pesticides such as Bacillus thuringiensis and NPVs in managing
phytophagous insects [38]. Such IPM strategy would only be possible
through a thorough knowledge of the pest under consideration.
erefore, in view of the need to control the beet webworm moth,
potential locked up in A. indica and the need to develop non-toxic,
safe and eective biodegradable alternative to synthetic insecticides
which could be deployed in a site specic IPM approach which in turn
depends on adequate information on the pest as well as appropriate pest
population estimates. Consequently, this study evaluates the biology
and management of the leaf caterpillar, H. recurvalis (Lepidoptera:
Pyralidae) on Amaranths in Ibadan, Nigeria.
Materials and Methods
e study site
is research was carried out at the valley bottom site of the Practical
Year Farm Training Plot of the Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry,
University of Ibadan and in the Entomology Research Laboratory of the
Department of Crop Protection and Environmental Biology, University
of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria. Ibadan is the capital of Oyo State, Nigeria.
e study area lies approximately between longitude N07°26’850”
to N07° 27’087” and latitude E003°53’899” to 003°53’552 with elevation
ranging from 205 m-227 m above sea level [39]. e climate of the area
is divided into wet season (April-October) and dry season (November-
March) with bimodal rainfall which peaks in June and September. e
bimodal rainfall pattern with onset at around March/April corresponds
to the period when Hymenia recurvalis moths were abundant due to
availability of wild Amaranthus species, Amaranthus spinosus and other
hosts range supported by persistent rainfall. Except where otherwise
stated, all laboratories and screen houses experiments were conducted
under ambient conditions of 27 ± 3°C temperature and 75 ± 3% RH.
Field survey for abundance and diversity of insects associated
with Amaranthus spp.
e survey aimed at identifying insect pests that attack Amaranthus
grown in two seasons in Ibadan Southwest Nigeria. In this study, three
methods of insects trapping were employed, namely hand capture for
wingless insects, hand net for ying insects and improvised pitfall trap
for soil dwelling insects. e rst set of eld trials were conducted
to assess the abundance and diversity of insects associated with
Amaranthus species during the rainy season in May and June followed
by dry season planting in November and December 2009. e second
trial was conducted during the rainy season in May and June followed
by dry seasons in November and December 2010. e site was manually
cleared and the debris packed along the borders to ensure clean seed-
bed for sowing. e land area 13×11.5 m2 was laid out into nine blocks
of 11.5 m long each, with a spacing of 0.5 m between each block of 1 m
wide. Each block contained four plots each measuring 2.5×1 m2 with
0.5 m spacing between plots in each block (Table 1). e plots were
assigned to the amaranth varieties studied in a randomized complete
block design and replicated four times. Beds were constructed manually
with hoe. Seeds of each variety were sown by drilling with inter row
spacing of 30 cm apart. Plant were later thinned to 25 stands per row at
an average spacing of 5 cm within each row (200,000 plant stands/ha)
at two weeks aer sowing (WAS) as shown in Plate 1 [40]. Weeds were
manually removed from the plots at two weeks aer planting. Standard
management practices such as manure application, regular watering
and thinning were employed for the duration of the growing seasons.
However, the abundance and diversity of insect population
associated with the amaranth species were estimated by quadrat
sampling. e quadrat of dimension 0.5×0.5 m2 was laid randomly
in each plot ve times between 07.00 and 09.00 hrs (local time).
e number of insects species per quadrat was taken at 14 DAS and
thereaer weekly till 70 DAS. e quadrat samples were taken in ve
replicates. is was used to determine the frequency of occurrence of
insect pest on the Amaranthus spp being evaluated at dierent season,
which was in turn used in computing percentage occurrence of insect
pests of the Amaranthus spp.
All samples collected were identied by comparing their
morphological characteristics with insect paratypes at the Insect
Reference Collection Centre of the Department of Crop Protection and
Parameters Measurement
Experimental Area 13 m×11.5 m
Experimental Block Dimension 1 m×11.5 m
Experimental Plot Dimension 1 m×2.5 m
Alley 0.5 m
Test Plots
Number of rows 4
Row length 2.5
Inter row spacing 30 cm
Number of replicates 4
Inter plant spacing 5 cm
Row width 1 m
Table 1: Field Parameters and Measurement.
Plate 1: Seedlings at 2 weeks after sowing: showing period of insect infestation.
Citation: Aderolu IA, Omooloye AA, Okelana FA (2013) Occurrence, Abundance and Control of the Major Insect Pests Associated with Amaranths in
Ibadan, Nigeria. Entomol Ornithol Herpetol 2: 112. doi:10.4172/2161-0983.1000112
Page 3 of 9
Volume 2 • Issue 3 • 1000112
Entomol Ornithol Herpetol
ISSN: 2161-0983 EOH an open access journal
Environmental Biology, University of Ibadan using taxonomic keys,
hand lens as well as light microscope for checking ne structures. Data
was analysed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) with descriptive
statistics and standard diversity indices at P=0.05.
Results
Occurrence and abundance of insect diversity associated with
Amaranthus species in Ibadan
e overall mean of spectral analysis of species and abundance
associated with Amaranthus sp. during the wet seasons of 2009 and
2010 and dry seasons of 2009 and 2010 are as shown in Figures 1-4
respectively. e peak frequency (0.3897) during wet season was not
signicantly (P>0.05) higher than peak frequency (0.3114) during dry
season in the two years.
Abundance and diversity of insects associated with
Amaranthus sp. in the wet season
e diurnal insects associated with Amaranthus sp. in Ibadan varied
signicantly in the wet seasons of 2009 and 2010 as presented in Table
2 total of 37, 593.2 ± 16.38 individuals in 2009 and 36,464.0 ± 15.85 in
2010 comprising adults and immature stages of dierent insects from
29 families and 12 orders of insects were encountered during the eld
assessments. e six most abundant species were Hymenia recurvalis
2916.8 ± 138.83 (7.76%), Hypolixus truncatulus 2262.7 ± 94.10 (6.02%),
Lixus truncatulus 2088.7 ± 36.37 (5.56%), Gastroclisus rhomboidalis
2011.4 ± 12.03 (5.35%), Aspavia armigera 1733 ± 49.41 (4.61%), and
Mirperus jaculus 1454.3 ± 44.99 (3.87%). In 2010, the populations of
H. recurvalis 2632.1 ± 111.17 (7.22%) and L. truncatulus 2076.6 ± 35.74
(5.69%) were not signicantly (P>0.05) dierent from 2009 and no
signicant (p>0.05) dierence were recorded in the population of H.
truncatulus 2236.8 ± 96.36 (6.13%), A. armigera 1741.3 ± 43.59 (4.78%),
G. rhomboidalis 2006.3 ± 13.59 (5.50%), and M. jaculus 1455.4 ± 54.86
(3.99%) from that of 2009. e most abundant species encountered
during the study period was H. recurvalis with a total of 2916.8 ± 138.83
in 2009 and 2632.1 ± 111.18 individuals in 2010. is was followed by
H. truncatulus with a total of 2262.7 ± 94.10 in 2009 and 2236.8 ± 96.36
individuals in 2010. e species were highly diversied with Simpson
diversity index of 0.964 in 2009 and this was not signicantly (p>0.05)
dierent with species diversity recorded in 2010. Similarly, the index of
evenness was high being 0.651 and 0.650 for 2009 and 2010 respectively
as presented in Table 3.
0 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.3 0.36 0.42 0.48
Frequency
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2
2.4
2.8
3.2
3.6
4
Log Abundance
Figure 1: Overall mean of spectral analysis of species abundance associated
with Amaranthus sp. during the wet seasons of 2009.
0 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.3 0.36 0.42 0.48
Frequency
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2
2.4
2.8
3.2
3.6
4
Log Abundance
Figure 3: Overall mean of spectral analysis of species abundance associated
with Amaranthus sp. during the dry seasons of 2009
Figure 4: Overall mean of spectral analysis of species abundance associated
with Amaranthus sp. during the dry seasons of 2010.
0 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.3 0.36 0.42 0.48
Frequency
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2
2.4
2.8
3.2
3.6
4
Log Abundance
Figure 2: Overall mean of spectral analysis of species abundance associated
with Amaranthus sp. during the wet seasons of 2010.
Citation: Aderolu IA, Omooloye AA, Okelana FA (2013) Occurrence, Abundance and Control of the Major Insect Pests Associated with Amaranths in
Ibadan, Nigeria. Entomol Ornithol Herpetol 2: 112. doi:10.4172/2161-0983.1000112
Page 4 of 9
Volume 2 • Issue 3 • 1000112
Entomol Ornithol Herpetol
ISSN: 2161-0983 EOH an open access journal
Species (n=10) Order Family 2009 (N=52) 2010 (N=52)
Tetranychus cinnabarimus Acarina Tetranychidae 35.7 ± 3.38 36.2 ± 3.24
Tetranychus urticae Acarina Tetranychidae 201.9 ± 6.11 198.7 ± 5.45
Apate monachaus Coleop. Bostrichidae 623.3 ± 14.06 618.9 ± 12.29
Stenaspis v. insignis Coleop. Cerambycidae 15.5 ± 1.01 14.5 ± 1.12
Crioceris asparagi Coleop. Chrysomelidae 351.1 ± 11.58 344.8 ± 11.63
D. undecimpunctata Coleop. Chrysomelidae 380.7 ± 13.28 374.4 ± 13.97
Othreis fullonica Coleop. Chrysomelidae 414.8 ± 16.66 410.7 ± 17.57
Ootheca mutabilis Coleop. Chrysomelidae 333.2 ± 18.20 328.9 ± 18.88
Podagrica sjostedti Coleop. Chrysomelidae 22.7 ± 1.74 22.3 ± 1.94
Cheillomenes vicina Coleop. Coccinellidae 338.6 ± 9.21 331.7 ± 12.92
Epilachna chrysomelina Coleop. Coccinellidae 532.1 ± 25.26 520.1 ± 27.90
Gastroclisus rhomboidalis Coleop. Curculionidae 2011.4 ± 38.05 2006.3 ± 13.59
Hypolixus truncatulus Coleop. Curculionidae 2262.7 ± 94.1 2236.8 ± 96.36
Lixus truncatulus Coleop. Curculionidae 2088.7 ± 115.01 2076.6 ± 35.74
Lagria villosa Coleop. Lagriidae 417.3 ± 10.28 410.5 ± 7.31
Efferia pogonias Diptera Asilidae 43.8 ± 2.09 40.9 ± 3.26
Macrosiphum spp.Hemip. Aphididae 1089.7 ± 32.34 1083.3 ± 31.00
Riptortus dentipes Hemip. Alydidae 1168.6 ± 34.74 1161 ± 37.18
Empoasca spp. Hemip. Cicadellidae 487.8 ± 26.36 481.9 ± 27.21
Clavigralla tomentosicollis Hemip. Coreidae 1617 ± 59.55 1609.5 ± 60.95
Cletomorpha unifasciata Hemip. Coreidae 201.1 ± 14.20 199.4 ± 4.31
Cletus ochraceus Hemip. Coreidae 1456.7 ± 111.65 1448.9 ± 110.9
Mirperus jaculus Hemip. Coreidae 1454.3 ± 44.99 1455.4 ± 45.91
Lygus lineolaris Hemip. Miridae 76 ± 4.83 74.7 ± 5.38
Podisus aculissimus Hemip. Pentatomidae 1528 ± 60.49 1524.5 ± 62.15
Aspavia armigera Hemip. Pentatomidae 1733 ± 49.41 1741.3 ± 43.59
Nezara viridula Hemip. Pentatomidae 1517.2 ± 56.05 1508.2 ± 58.03
Philaenus spumaris Hemip. Cercopidae 31.3 ± 2.03 30.4 ± 2.37
Apanteles hymenaea Hymeno. Braconidae 161.7 ± 6.87 160.8 ± 6.73
Pogonomyrmex barbatus Hymeno. Formicidae 50.8 ± 1.90 49.3 ± 2.45
Solenopsis geminate Hymeno. Formicidae 45.7 ± 42.08 44 ± 2.13
Armitermes evuncifer Blattodea Termitidae 33.6 ± 2.48 33 ± 2.54
Spilosoma oblique Lepidop. Arctidae 324.1 ± 17.93 317.9 ± 19.91
Psara basalis Lepidop. Crambidae 796.5 ± 32.34 790.7 ± 33.19
Pholisora Catullus Lepidop. Hesperiidae 98.1 ± 4.25 96.1 ± 4.21
Agrotis nigrum Lepidop. Noctuidae 859.1 ± 26.02 877.2 ± 25.50
Helicoverp armigera Lepidop. Noctuidae 910.5 ± 16.22 905.2 ± 18.39
Chrysodeixis eriosoma Lepidop. Noctuidae 842.3 ± 18.20 833.5 ± 21.20
Earias biplaga Lepidop. Noctuidae 1157.8 ± 39.01 1170.3 ± 27.37
Othreis fullonica Lepidop. Noctuidae 520.1 ± 8.69 510.3 ± 8.29
Spodoptera exempta Lepidop. Noctuidae 872.5 ± 21.48 868.2 ± 21.59
Spodoptera litura Lepidop. Noctuidae 931 ± 39.03 605.7 ± 5.79
Junonia orithya Lepidop. Nymphalidae 224.8 ± 8.05 218.8 ± 6.45
Hymenia recurvalis Lepidop. Pyralidae 2916.8 ± 138.82 2632.1 ± 111.2
Hymenia perspectalis Lepidop. Pyralidae 807.8 ± 24.38 803.8 ± 23.28
Maruca vitrata Lepidop. Pyralidae 1014.3 ± 9.41 1005.1 ± 13.78
Sylepta derogate Lepidop. Pyralidae 1081.5 ± 69.75 763.3 ± 22.71
Plutella xylostella Lepidop. Plutellidae 433.6 ± 7.73 429.7 ± 8.44
Eretmocera impactella Lepidop. Scythrididae 249.7 ± 12.37 240.9 ± 11.11
Ophiogomphus susbehcha Odonata Gomphidae 94 ± 14.95 91.9 ± 5.17
Gryllotalpa similis Orthop. Gryllotalpidae 10.3 ± 0.90 10.1 ± 0.87496
Frankliniella spp. Thysanop. Thripidae 722.4 ± 9.12 715.3 ± 11.25
Total 1733 ± 49.41 36464 ± 15.85
Table 2: Occurrence of insects associated with Amaranthus sp. during wet season in Ibadan.
Abundance and diversity of insects associated with
Amaranthus sp. in the dry season
e diurnal insects associated with Amaranthus sp. in Ibadan
varied signicantly (P>0.05) in the dry season of 2009 and 2010 as
presented in Table 3. In total, there were 26296.5 ± 15.17 individuals
in 2009 and 26151.6 ± 15.26 individuals in 2010 of 59 species from
29 families and 12 orders of insects. In 2009, the six most abundant
Citation: Aderolu IA, Omooloye AA, Okelana FA (2013) Occurrence, Abundance and Control of the Major Insect Pests Associated with Amaranths in
Ibadan, Nigeria. Entomol Ornithol Herpetol 2: 112. doi:10.4172/2161-0983.1000112
Page 5 of 9
Volume 2 • Issue 3 • 1000112
Entomol Ornithol Herpetol
ISSN: 2161-0983 EOH an open access journal
Species (n=10) Order Family 2009 (N=59) 2010 (N=59)
Tetranychus cinnabarimus Acarina Tetranychidae 30.1 ± 1.44 30.9 ± 0.86
Tetranychus urticae Acarina Tetranychidae 185.2 ± 4.05 188.9 ± 3.28
Apate monachaus Coleop. Bostrichidae 401.2 ± 11.71 408.3 ± 8.10
Stenaspis v. insignis Coleop. Cerambycidae 11.5 ± 1.02 12.3 ± 0.70
Crioceris asparagi Coleop. Chrysomelidae 126.4 ± 4.80 128.2 ± 4.11
D. undecimpunctata Coleop. Chrysomelidae 211.3 ± 10.71 218.7 ± 5.24
Othreis fullonica Coleop. Chrysomelidae 300.3 ± 6.30 304.4 ± 7.25
Ootheca mutabilis Coleop. Chrysomelidae 286.1 ± 3.87 288 ± 4.31
Podagrica sjostedti Coleop. Chrysomelidae 20.6 ± 1.00 21.7 ± 0.54
Cheillomenes vicina Coleop. Coccinellidae 196.8 ± 9.37 204.9 ± 3.13
Epilachna chrysomelina Coleop. Coccinellidae 308.4 ± 9.09 309.9 ± 8.87
Gastroclisus rhomboidalis Coleop. Curculionidae 1037.7 ± 22.03 1046.3 ± 17.37
Hypolixus truncatulus Coleop. Curculionidae 1135.9 ± 31.72 1171 ± 25.42
Lixus truncatulus Coleop. Curculionidae 1142.3 ± 25.58 1153.1 ± 26.01
Lagria villosa Coleop. Lagriidae 202.1 ± 3.87 205.2 ± 3.77
Liriomyza brassicae Diptera Agromyzidae 594.6 ± 11.62 608.4 ± 8.13
Diopsis longicornis Diptera Diopsidae 49.1 ± 2.31 51.3 ± 1.71
Efferia pogonias Diptera Asilidae 23.1 ± 1.97 24.4 ± 1.19
Macrosiphum spp.Hemip. Aphididae 690.3 ± 12.20 702.3 ± 7.03
Empoasca spp. Hemip. Cicadellidae 209 ± 6.24 210.6 ± 5.62
Clavigralla tomentosicollis Hemip. Coreidae 1456.3 ± 17.77 1472.8 ± 16.78
Cletomorpha unifasciata Hemip. Coreidae 117.3 ± 4.59 120.1 ± 4.61
Cletus ochraceus Hemip. Coreidae 1010.9 ± 28.08 1027.9 ± 22.03
Mirperus jaculus Hemip. Coreidae 990.9 ± 30.40 1004.7 ± 23.60
Lygus lineolaris Hemip. Miridae 54.8 ± 1.99 57.2 ± 1.33
Podisus aculissimus Hemip. Pentatomidae 699.2 ± 14.88 712 ± 9.11
Rhynocoris bicolor Hemip. Reduviidae 36.9 ± 1.75 39 ± 0.79
Myzus persicae Hemip. Aphididae 479.3 ± 11.36 454.4 ± 17.24
Bemisia tabaci Hemip. Aleyrodidae 101.4 ± 1.86 102.6 ± 1.93
Aspavia armigera Hemip. Pentatomidae 1107 ± 21.92 1057.1 ± 20.68
Nezara viridula Hemip. Pentatomidae 995.2 ± 14.90 1003 ± 13.16
Dysdercus superstitiosus Hemip. Pyrrhocoridae 11.7 ± 0.86 12 ± 0.88
Apanteles hymenaea Hymeno. Braconidae 141 ± 4.66 147.7 ± 1.31
Pogonomyrmex barbatus Hymeno. Formicidae 33.9 ± 2.11 35.3 ± 1.98
Solenopsis geminata Hymeno. Formicidae 29.2 ± 1.70 30.4 ± 1.59
Vespula vulgaris Hymeno. Vespidae 18.6 ± 1.33 19.8 ± 0.88
Armitermes evuncifer Blattodea Termitidae 28.9 ± 1.22 30.6 ± 0.88
Spilosoma obliqua Lepidop Arctidae 186.3 ± 5.23 188.1 ± 4.94
Psara basalis Lepidop. Crambidae 596 ± 4.64 600.6 ± 5.30
Pholisora catullus Lepidop. Hesperiidae 98.5 ± 2.28 100.7 ± 2.37
Agrotis nigrum Lepidop. Noctuidae 575.9 ± 11.83 582.1 ± 9.86
Helicoverp armigera Lepidop. Noctuidae 794.9 ± 16.45 722.1 ± 17.18
Chrysodeixis eriosoma Lepidop. Noctuidae 306 ± 13.16 312.2 ± 11.78
Earias biplaga Lepidop. Noctuidae 1012.5 ± 10.08 1021.4 ± 11.02
Othreis fullonica Lepidop. Noctuidae 278.3 ± 11.84 282 ± 11.17
Spodoptera exempta Lepidop. Noctuidae 496.8 ± 10.28 506.4 ± 6.10
Spodoptera litura Lepidop. Noctuidae 921.4 ± 41.80 856.5 ± 47.44
Junonia orithya Lepidop. Nymphalidae 197.4 ± 5.54 195.3 ± 2.93
Hymenia recurvalis Lepidop. Pyralidae 2311.5 ± 32.46 2122.4 ± 16.33
Hymenia perspectalis Lepidop. Pyralidae 591.4 ± 12.20 605.4 ± 8.96
Maruca vitrata Lepidop. Pyralidae 679.8 ± 15.37 687.4 ± 13.34
Sylepta derogata Lepidop. Pyralidae 1071.1 ± 63.51 1029.8 ± 53.00
Plutella xylostella Lepidop. Plutellidae 292.9 ± 10.37 297 ± 11.15
Eretmocera impactella Lepidop. Scythrididae 160.7 ± 3.89 166 ± 1.71
Ophiogomphus susbehcha Odonata Gomphidae 79 ± 1.28 80.1 ± 0.95
Gryllotalpa similis Orthop. Gryllotalpidae 11.4 ± 0.50 11.9 ± 0.43
Zonocerus variegatus Orthop. Pyrgomorphidae 27.5 ± 1.014 28.4 ± 0.97
Frankliniella spp. Thysano. Thripidae 531.5 ± 10.88 535.8 ± 1.00
Total 26296.5 ± 15.17 26151.6 ± 15.26
Table 3: Occurrence of insects associated with Amaranthus sp. during dry season in Ibadan.
Citation: Aderolu IA, Omooloye AA, Okelana FA (2013) Occurrence, Abundance and Control of the Major Insect Pests Associated with Amaranths in
Ibadan, Nigeria. Entomol Ornithol Herpetol 2: 112. doi:10.4172/2161-0983.1000112
Page 6 of 9
Volume 2 • Issue 3 • 1000112
Entomol Ornithol Herpetol
ISSN: 2161-0983 EOH an open access journal
species were Hymenia recurvalis 2311.5 ± 32.46 (8.79%), Clavigralla
tomentosicollis 1456.3 ± 17.77 (5.54%), Lixus truncatulus 1142.3 ±
25.58 (4.34%), Hypolixus truncatulus 1135.9 ± 31.72 (4.32%), Aspavia
armigera 1107 ± 21.92 (4.21%) and Sylepta derogata 1071.1 ± 63.51
(4.07%). In 2010, there were signicant (P>0.05) increases in the
populations of C. tomentosicollis 1472.8 ± 16.78 (5.63%), L. truncatulus
1153.1 ± 26.01 (4.41%), H. truncatulus 1171 ± 25.42 (4.48%). Also, in
2010, there was a signicant decrease (p>0.05) in the populations of
H. recurvalis 2122.4 ± 16.33 (8.12%) and S. derogata 1029.8 ± 53.00
(3.94%)) while no signicant (P>0.05) dierence was recorded in the
population of A. armigera 1057.1 ± 20.68 (4.04%). However, the most
abundant species encountered during the study period in dry season
was H. recurvalis with a total of 2311.5 ± 32.46 and 2122.4 ± 16.33
individuals in 2009 and 2010 respectively. is was followed by H.
truncatulus with a total of 1135.9 ± 31.72 and 1171 ± 25.42 individuals
in 2009 and 2010 respectively. Similarly, the trend of species diversity of
insect associated with Amaranthus species in the dry season follow the
pattern of wet season except that the number of species increases from
52 to 59 which include: Liriomyza brassicae, Diopsis longicornis, Myzus
persicae, Bemisia tabaci, Dysdercus superstitiosus and Vespula vulgaris.
Plate 2 above showed adult stage, newly laid eggs (in batch) and 3rd larva
instar of the H. recurvalis.
e summary of species diversity obtained from PAST soware
Hammer et al. [41] revealed that the species were highly diversied
with Simpson diversity index of 0.964 in both 2009 and 2010. Likewise,
the index of evenness was high being 0.651 and 0.650 for 2009 and 2010
respectively as presented in Table 4.
Relationships between abundance of H. recurvalis and
weather parameters-temperature, humidity and rainfall.
Figure 5 and 6 showed the relationship between weekly average
abundance of H. recurvalis and weather parameters during rainy and
dry season respectively. For both seasons, beetworm moth population
are not signicantly (p>0.05) dierent and the highest mean population
(68.75 ± 0.274) and (68.15 ± 0.651) was recorded at third week aer
planting in rainy and dry season respectively. e relative humidity
peaked in June at 8WAS and 7WAS with values of 87.84% and 88.23%
for 2009 and 2010, respectively. e steady decline in the population
of BM in December corresponds with the fall in the relative humidity
of 70.58 and 73.80 in 2009 and 2010, respectively. Table 5 showed
the correlation matrices of the relationship between weather factors
(rainfall, temperature and relative humidity) and BM population
during rainfall and dry season in 2009 and 2010 respectively. e
correlation analysis showed that among the three climatic factors under
consideration only relative humidity was positively (p<0.05) associated
with BM population during the rainy season in 2009 and 2010. On
the other hand, during dry season, only temperature was positively
correlated with BM population in 2009 and 2010.
Comparative ecacy of selected botanical extracts against
eld infestation of H. recurvalis on Amaranthus spp.
Generally, the neem leaf had better values of % N and P than neem
bark ash (NBA). Neem bark as extract had higher values of % K, Ca
and Mg than neem leaf. e λ-Cyhalothrin 2.5EC did not have any
component of N, P, K, Ca and Mg. e functional groups responsible
for insecticidal properties of neem leaf extract are Azadirachtin and
calcium carbonate in neem bark extract respectively while that in
λ-Cyhalothrin 2.5EC is Lambdacyhalothrin.
Eect of insect infestation on the susceptible amaranthus plant
under dierent control treatment solutions is as presented in Table 6.
ere were signicant decreases (P<0.05) in the Hymenia recurvalis
population per plant and number of damaged leaves per plant
under the neem leaf, wood ash, modied neem leaf extracts and
λ-Cyhalothrin compared to the control treatment. Modied neem
A
B
C
Plate 2: A=Adult stage of Hymenia recurvalis, B=Newly laid eggs (in batch) of
Hymenia recurvalis C=3rd larva instar of H. recurvalis.
Diversity indices 2009 2010 Remarks
Taxa_S 52a 52a Insect species in the study area
Individuals 37593.2a 36464b Total number of insects in the study
area
Dominance 0.03602a 0.036a No species dominate the ecosystem
in both year
Simpson
Index 0.964a 0.964a Species are evenly distributed in the
study site
Shannon
Index 3.522a 3.521a Species diversity is high in both year
Evenness_e^H/S 0.6509a 0.6504a Even distribution within each family
in both years
Brillouin 3.517a 3.516a Species diversity is high in both year
Menhinick 0.2682a 0.2723a Species richness/plot is low
Margalef 4.81b 4.855b Overall species richness is moderate
Equitability_J 0.8913a 0.8911a Even distribution within each family
in both years
Fisher_alpha 5.941b 5.964a Species diversity is high in both year
Berger-Parker 0.07759a 0.07218b No species dominate the ecosystem
in both year
Table 4: Summary of the diversity of insects associated with Amaranthus
species in wet-season in Ibadan, Southwest Nigeria.
Citation: Aderolu IA, Omooloye AA, Okelana FA (2013) Occurrence, Abundance and Control of the Major Insect Pests Associated with Amaranths in
Ibadan, Nigeria. Entomol Ornithol Herpetol 2: 112. doi:10.4172/2161-0983.1000112
Page 7 of 9
Volume 2 • Issue 3 • 1000112
Entomol Ornithol Herpetol
ISSN: 2161-0983 EOH an open access journal
leaf extracts decreased the insect population and number of damaged
leaves per plant in amaranthus by 30% and 41% respectively compared
to the neem leaf extract. λ-Cyhalothrin also decreased signicantly
the number of damaged leaves per plant by 37% compared to the
modied neem leaf extract. However, there was no signicant decrease
in the insect population between modied neem leaf extract and
λ-Cyhalothrin as marginal decrease of 10% was observed in favour of
λ-Cyhalothrin. Among the treatment extracts, modied neem leaf was
the most eective in reducing H. recurvalis population and number of
damaged leaves per plant followed by both neem bark ash and neem
leaf extract respectively.
Table 7 shows yield of susceptible amaranthus plants under dierent
pest control treatment. ere were signicant increases (P<0.05) in the
weight of amaranthus leaf (t/ha) under dierent treatment extracts
compared to the control treatment. Modied neem leaf extract (wood
ash + neem leaf extracts) increased the amaranthus leaf by 15% and
14% compared to neem leaf and neem bark ash extracts respectively. It
also increased amaranthus leaf yield by 6% compared to λ-Cyhalothrin
treatment. Generally, among the treatment extracts, modied neem
leaf extract had the best values of amaranthus leaf yield followed by
λ-Cyhalothrin while the neem bark ash and neem leaf extract did not
dier signicantly in amaranthus yield.
Discussion
Insect pest infestations are perhaps the most important constraint
to production of amaranths in Nigeria and one of the primary causes
of low quality and yields. From the result of the survey conducted, it
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Wk 2
Wk 3
Wk 4
Wk 5
Wk 6
Wk 7
Wk 8
Wk 9
Weekly Average Abundance of Hymenia
recurvalis
Rainy Season
Weekly Av.
Abundance of H.
recurvalis
Rainfall
Temperature
Relative humidity
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Average Abundance of Hymenia recurvalis
Weeeks
Dry season
Abundance of
H. recurvalis
Rainfall
Temeprature
Relative
humidity
Figure 5: Relationship between weekly abundance of Hymenia recurvalis and
weather parameters during rainy and dry season in 2009.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Abundance of Hymenia recurvalis
Weeks
Rainy Season
Abundance of H.
recurvalis
Rainfall
Temperature
Relative
humidity
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Abundance of Hymenia recurvalis
Weeks
Dry Season
Abundance of
H. recurvalis
Rainfall
Temperature
Relative
humidity
Figure 6: Relationship between weekly abundance of Hymenia recurvalis and
weather parameters during rainy and dry season in 2010.
Diversity indices 2009 2010 Remarks
Taxa_S 59a 59a Insect species in the study area
Individuals 26296.5b 28060.6a Total number of insects in the study
area
Dominance_D 0.03474b 0.04432a No species dominate the ecosystem in
both year
Simpson Index 0.9653a 0.9557a Species are evenly distributed in the
study site
Shannon Index 3.591a 3.509a Species diversity is high in both year
Evenness_e^H/S 0.6149a 0.5663b Even distribution within each family in
both years
Brillouin 3.583a 3.502b Species diversity is high in both year
Menhinick 0.3638a 0.3522b Species richness/plot is low
Margalef 5.699a 5.663b Overall species richness is moderate
Equitability_J 0.8807a 0.8606b Even distribution within each family in
both years
Fisher_alpha 7.191a 7.127b Species diversity is high in both year
Berger-Parker 0.0879b 0.1437a No species dominate the ecosystem in
both year
Table 5: Summary of the diversity indices of the insects associated with Amaranthus
species in Dry-Season in Ibadan, Southwest Nigeria.
Trts Insect pop. plant-1 No. of damaged leaves
Ctrl 10.08e 33.0a
NLE 2.82a 15.54b
WAE 3.18a 14.55c
MNL 1.98c 9.16d
K720EC 1.79c 5.80e
Means followed by the same letters are not signicantly different from each other
using Duncan Multiple Range Test (DMRT) at 5% level.
Table 6: Effect of insect infestation on the susceptible amaranthus plant under
different control treatment solutions.
Treatments Weight of amaranthus leaves (t/ha)
Control 10.028d
Neem leaf extract 18.680c
Wood ash extract 18.880c
Modied neem leaf extract 21.880a
Karate 720EC 20.480b
Means followed by the same letters are not signicantly different from each other
using Duncan Multiple Range Test (DMRT) at 5% level.
Table 7: Yield of susceptible amaranthus plants under different pest control
treatment.
Citation: Aderolu IA, Omooloye AA, Okelana FA (2013) Occurrence, Abundance and Control of the Major Insect Pests Associated with Amaranths in
Ibadan, Nigeria. Entomol Ornithol Herpetol 2: 112. doi:10.4172/2161-0983.1000112
Page 8 of 9
Volume 2 • Issue 3 • 1000112
Entomol Ornithol Herpetol
ISSN: 2161-0983 EOH an open access journal
was established that species diversity and abundance of insect pests
associated with Amaranthus species in Ibadan varied from season to
season in the study site, but Hymenia recurvalis, beetworm moth was
the most abundant Lepidoptera pest, while Hypolixus truncatulus was
the most abundant coleoptera pest causing considerable damage to
the crop. is was not in support of earlier study by Akinlosotu [24]
that reported Sylepta derogata and Gastroclisus rhomboidalis as the
major pest of Amaranthus cruentus in Nigeria. is alteration in pest
incidence and abundance may be due to rivalry for food and space
between insect’s pests of dierent species on Amaranthus leaf in the
eld. Also, there had been changes in climatic factors, like temperature
and humidity overtime. As regards G. rhomboidalis, the ranking of
Akinlosotu [24] might probably not take into consideration Amaranthus
leaf as the desired product, rather, the indirect damage caused by G.
rhomboidalis on Amaranthus stem. is assertion was supported by
Ruesink and Kogan [42] as quoted by Banjo [20], who referred to G.
rhomboidalis as an indirect pest of Amaranthus, damaging parts that
may not aect yield. However, increase in temperature overtime might
be a reason why moths (especially H. recurvalis) were able to uphold
their status as a major pest of Amaranthus. Even though, the inuence
of these climatic factors were not studied in this work, earlier report
by Shirai [43] showed that H. recurvalis are ectothems and the adult
y and survive longest at temperature range between 17°C and 23°C
on honey-based diets. is suggested that adaptability of H. recurvalis
to a wide range of temperature and relative humidity was high within
dierent locations and could migrate from cooler regions, especially
during winter, to regions with relatively higher temperature.
Other Lepidoptera pest of economic importance encountered
were Erias biplaga, Sylepta derogata, Psara basalis, Maruca vitrata,
Spodoptera sp., Helicoverpa armigera, Agrotis nigrum, Chrysodeixis
eriosoma and Othreis fullonica which were observed at varying levels
on all the Amaranthus accessions being assessed. is implies that
any of these lepidotera pests have potentials of becoming the major
insect pest of Amaranthus in Nigeria as they could out-compete H.
recurvalis if not well-managed and this was corroborated by Ebert et
al. [26], who listed Spodoptera litura, H. armigera and Psara basalis as
important but oen ignored Lepidoptera pests of Amaranthus. is
is also in consonance with earlier study reported by Sileshi et al. [44],
Cherian and Brahmachari [45], ompson and Simmonds [46] (listed
in prey-host record) that Sylepta derogata, H. armigera and Psara
basalis respectively under favorable conditions can exceed H. recurvalis
in competition for food and space especially on a laboratory diet. is
study showed that an array of insect pests’ complex infests Amaranthus
leaves on the eld at ambient temperature and relative humidity in
association with one another in a competitive manner. is trend of
insect species conrms the presence of the insect species previously
reported as pests of amaranth [47,48] and this requires multifaceted
and integrated management approach.
ree neem extracts: 0.125 g Aqueous Neem Leaf (ANL) w/v;
0.125 g Aqueous Neem Bark Ash (ANBA) w/v and Aqueous Modied
ANL+ANBA (AMAN) (1:1) all at 3l/25 m2 were bioassayed as
ecologically friendly eld protectant against BM using λ-cyhalothrin
at 2.5 ml/25 m2 and water as controls. e AMAN at 3l/25 m2 w/v
extract was most eective botanical formulation, causing signicant
reduction of leaf damage (72 ± 0.05%) and eld infestation (78 ± 0.06%)
compared to the untreated control; but comparatively less eective by
only 5% to λ-cyhalothrin; implying suitability as environmentally safe
control measure.
Conclusion
is study revealed that there are signicant dierences (p ≤ 0.05)
in the seasonal abundance and diversity of insect pests of amaranths in
Ibadan Southwest Nigeria. Loss of foliage was highly dependent on the
infesting insect pest especially defoliators.
Sixty insect species associated with amaranth crop were determined;
of these, the species with the major presence level on the foliage were
H. recurvalis and Sylepta derogata with 8.8% and 4.1% of occurrence,
respectively. e borers group, curculionids, caused infestations of
12.6%, while the white grubs group infests 7.3% of the plants. e
most voracious and damaging stage of H. recurvalis is the third instar
larva which prefers tender leaf. Hence, availability of amaranths is
very peculiar and germane to the seasonal abundance and population
dynamic of H. recurvalis on the eld.
ere was considerable variation in the eectiveness of the extracts
at the minimum inhibitory concentration of the neem and ash extracts
used in the control of H. recurvalis. Modied neem extracts at 1200 l/ha
was the most eective among the screened neem and ash extracts and
has synergistic eect in the control of H. recurvalis. Beetworm Moth
was the most important defoliator of Amaranthus species. e resistant
donor cultivar Amaranthus hybridus along with aqueous modied neem
leaf with bark ash extracts could be used in integrated management
of the insect pest. erefore, it is recommended as environmental
safe alternative, practicable, available and sustainable form of control
compare to synthetic pesticides.
References
1. Grubben GJH, von Sloten DH (1981) Genetic resources of amaranth: A global
plan of action. Int. Board for Plant Genet. Resources. FAO, Rome, Italy.
2. Gimplinger DM, Dobos G, Schönlechner R, Kaul HP (2007) Yield and quality
of grain amaranth (Amaranth sp.) in Eastern Austria. Plant Soil Environ 53:
105-112.
3. O’brien, Kelly G, Price Martin L (1983) Amaranth Grain and Vegetable Types.
Echo Technical Note.
4. Yarger Larry (2008) AMARANTH Grain & Vegetable Types by G. Kelly O’Brien
and Price Martin L.
5. Putnam DH, Oplinger ES, Doll JD, Schulte EM (1989) Amaranth. Alternate
eld crops manual. Univ. Wisconsin Coop. Ext., Minnesota Ext. Serv., Univ.
Minnesota, St Paul.
6. Meyers RL (1998) Nitrogen fertilizer effect on Grain Amaranth. Agronomy J 90:
597-602.
7. Mposi MS (1999) Vegetable Amaranth improvement for South Africa. The
Australian New Crops Newsletter, 11.
8. Meyers RL (2002) Grain Amaranth: A Lost Crop of the Americas. Thomas
Jefferson Agricultural Institute, Columbia, USA.
9. FAO/WHO (2005) United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World
Health Organization: Fruit and Vegetables for Health. Report of a Joint FAO/
WHO Workshop, Kobe, Japan.
10. IITA (2005) International Institute for Tropical Agriculture: Indigenous vegetables
becoming more popular in Central Africa.
11. Hart AD, Ajubuike CU, Barimalaa IS, Achinewhu SC (2005) Vegetable
consumption pattern of households in selected areas of the old Rivers State
of Nigeria. African Journal of Food Agriculture Nutrition and Development 5(1).
12. Smith FI, Eyzaguirre P (2007) African Leafy Vegetables: Their Role in the World
Health Organization’s Global Fruit and Vegetables Initiative. African Journal of
Food Agriculture Nutrition and Development 7(3).
13. Achigan-Dako EG, Fanou N, Kouke A, Avohou H, Vodouhe RS, et al. (2006)
Évaluation agronomique de troisespèces de Egusi (Cucurbitaceae) utiliséesd
ansl’alimentation au Béninetélaboration d’un modèle de préduction du
rendment. Biotechnology, Agronomy, Society and Environment 10: 121-129.
Citation: Aderolu IA, Omooloye AA, Okelana FA (2013) Occurrence, Abundance and Control of the Major Insect Pests Associated with Amaranths in
Ibadan, Nigeria. Entomol Ornithol Herpetol 2: 112. doi:10.4172/2161-0983.1000112
Page 9 of 9
Volume 2 • Issue 3 • 1000112
Entomol Ornithol Herpetol
ISSN: 2161-0983 EOH an open access journal
14. Oke OL (1983) Amaranth in Nigeria. In “Handbook of Tropical Foods,” ed. HT
Chan Jr., Marcel-Dekker, Inc., New York, USA.
15. Kauffman CS, Haas PW (1983) Grain amaranth: A crop with low water
requirements and high nutritional value. Environmentally Sound Agric.
W.Lo~Keretz: 299.
16. Saunders RM, Becker R (1984) Amaranthus: A potential food and feed source,
In: Y. Pomeranz (ed.). Advances in cereal science and technology. 6: 357-396.
17. Costea (2003) Notes on Economic Plants. Economic Botany 57: 646-649.
18. Kamalanathan S, Sunderajan S, Thambura JS, Shammugam A (1973) Co I
Amaranthus. A high yielding and delicious strain. Madras Agricultural Journal
60: 355-358.
19. Oke OL (1980) Amaranth in Nigeria. In “Proceedings of the Second Amaranth
Conference”. Rodale Press Emmaus, PA, USA.
20. Banjo AD (2007) Bio-ecology and life history of Gasteroclisus rhomboidalis
Boh. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) a pest of Amaranthus cruentus (L.) Sauer. J
Entomol 4: 308-316.
21. Palada MC, Chang LC (2003) Suggested Cultural Practices for Vegetable
Amaranth. International Cooperates Guide. AVRDC-The World Vegetable
Center, Shanhua, Taiwan. 4.
22. Thuy Hang, Trinh Quang Thoai, Paule Moustier (2003) Spatial and institutional
organization of vegetable markets in Hanoi. RIFAV, Gia Lam.
23. Martirosyan DM, Miroshnichenko LA, Kulakova SN, Pogojeva AV, Zoloedov VI
(2007) “Amaranth oil application for coronary heart disease and hypertension”.
Lipids Health Dis 6: 1.
24. Akinlosotu TA (1977) A checklist of insects associated with local vegetables in
Southwest Nigeria. Research Bulletin, IAR and T. Ife. 18.
25. Okunlola AI, TI Ofuya, RD Aladesanwa (2008) Efcacy of plant extracts
on major insect pests of selected leaf vegetables of Southwestern Nigeria.
Agricultural Journal 3: 181-184.
26. Ebert AW, Wu T, Wang S (2011) Vegetable amaranth (Amaranthus L.)
International Cooperator’s guide. AVRDC – The World Vegetable Center: 11-
754
27. Navarajan AVP (2007) Insect Pests and their Management. Indian Agricultural
Research Institute, New Delhi, India, 68.
28. James B, Atcha-Ahowe C, Godonou I, Baimey H, Georgen H, et al. (2010)
Integrated Pest Management in Vegetable Production: A guide for extension
workers in West Africa. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA),
Ibadan, Nigeria 120.
29. Dales MJ (1996) A review of plant materials used for controlling insect pests of
stored products. NRI, Chatham Maritime, UK.
30. Schmutterer H (2002) The Neem Tree, Azadirachta indica A. Juss and
Othermeliaceous Plants Sources of Inuque Natural Products for Integrated
Pest Mnagement Medicine and Other Purposes. (2ndedn). Neem foundation,
Mumbai, India, 892.
31. Awasthi MD (2001) Pesticide residues in fruit and vegetables. In: Parvatha
Reddy P, Verghese A and Krishna Kumar NK (eds.), Integrated Pest
Management in Horticultural Ecosystems, Capital Publishing Company, New
Delhi, India. 263-278.
32. Jilani G, HCF Su (1983) Laboratory studies on several plant materials as insect
repellents for protection of stored grains. J Econ Entomol 76: 154-157.
33. National Research Council (1992) Neem: a tree for solving global problems.
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C, USA. 141.
34. Copping LG (Ed.) (2001) The Biopesticides Manual, Second Edition. British
Crop Protection Counsel. UK.
35. Senthilkumar N, Murugan K, Zhang W (2008) Additive interaction of Helicoverpa
armigera Nucleopolyhedrovirus and Azadirachtin. Biocontrol 53: 869-880.
36. Nathan SS, Kalaivani K (2006) Combined effects of azadirachtin and
nucleopolyhedrovirus (SpltNPV) on Spodoptera litura Fabricius (Lepidoptera:
Noctuidae) larvae. Biological Control 39: 96-104.
37. Mohan MC, Narasimha P, Reddy NP, Devi UK, Kongara R, et al. (2007) Growth
and insect assays of Beauveria bassiana with neem to test their compatibility
and synergism. Biocontrol Sci Tech 17: 1059-1069.
38. Srinivasan R, Tamo M, Lee ST, Lin MY, Huang CC, et al. (2009) Towards
developing a biological control program for legume pod borer, Maruca vitrata.
In: Grain Legumes: Genetic Improvement, Management and Trade. (Sanjeev
Gupta, Ali, M. and Singh, B. B. eds.), Indian Society of Pulses Research and
Development, Kanpur, India, 183-196.
39. Oyerinde GT, Oluwasemire KO, Oshunsanya SO (2013) Effects of Water
Pollution on Soil Physical and Hydrological Properties of a Valley Bottom in
University of Ibadan, Nigeria. International Journal of Science and Research
(IJSR), India Online.
40. Ssekabembe CK (2008) Effect of proportion of component species on
the productivity of Solanum aethiopicum and Amaranthus lividus under
intercropping. Department of Crop Science, Makerere University, Kampala,
Uganda. African Journal of Agricultural Research 3: 510-519.
41. Hammer O, Harper DAT, Ryan (2001) Paleoontological statistical software
package for education and data analysis. Paleontol. Eletronica 4: 9-9.
42. Ruesink WG, M Kogan (1975) The Quantitative Basis of Pest Mnagement:
Sampling and Management. In: Metcalf, R.L. and Luckman W (Eds.).
Introduction to Insect Pest.
43. Shirai Yoichi (2006) Flight activity, reproduction, and adult nutrition of the beet
webworm, Spolade arecurvalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Appl Entomol Zool 41:
405-414.
44. Sileshi G, Kenis M, Bridge J (2001) Parasitism of the leaf-beetle Mesoplatys
ochroptera Stal (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in Eastern Zambia. Biocontrol
Science and Technology 11: 611-622.
45. Cherian MC, Brahmachari K (1941) Notes on three predatory hemipterans from
south India. Indian Journal of Entomology 3: 115-119.
46. Thompson WR, Simmonds FJ (1965) A Catalogue of the Parasites and
Predators of Insects Pests. Host Predators Catalogue. London: Commonwealth
Agric. Bur., C.l.B.C. 198.
47. Aragón GA, Tapia-Rojas AM, Huerta-Sánchez SIMT (1997) Insects associated
with the Amaranth crop Amaranthus hypocondriacus L. (Amaranthaceae) in the
Tehuacán Valley, Puebla, Mexico. Folia Entomol, Mexico, 100: 33-43.
48. Aragón GA, JF López-Olguín (2001) Description and control of the pests the
Amaranth. Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Mexico, 32.
Submit your next manuscript and get advantages of OMICS
Group submissions
Unique features:
• User friendly/feasible website-translation of your paper to 50 world’s leading languages
• Audio Version of published paper
• Digital articles to share and explore
Special features:
• 300 Open Access Journals
• 25,000 editorial team
• 21 days rapid review process
• Quality and quick editorial, review and publication processing
• Indexing at PubMed (partial), Scopus, EBSCO, Index Copernicus and Google Scholar etc
• Sharing Option: Social Networking Enabled
• Authors, Reviewers and Editors rewarded with online Scientic Credits
• Better discount for your subsequent articles
Submit your manuscript at: www.omicsonline.org/submission/
Citation: Aderolu IA, Omooloye AA, Okelana FA (2013) Occurrence, Abundance
and Control of the Major Insect Pests Associated with Amaranths in Ibadan,
Nigeria. Entomol Ornithol Herpetol 2: 112. doi:10.4172/2161-0983.1000112
