POPULATION DYNAMICS OF SUCKING PEST & ITS CORRELATION WITH ABIOTIC FACTORS

Transcription

1 AGRIWAYS VOLUME 1 ISSUE 1 JUNE, RESEARCH ARTICLE POPULATION DYNAMICS OF SUCKING PEST & ITS CORRELATION WITH ABIOTIC FACTORS Deepika Kalkal, Roshan Lal, K.K. Dahiya and Y.P. Bharti Department of Entomology, C C S Haryana Agricultural University, (Hisar) INDIA deepikakalkal@gmail.com ABSTRACT Research was done at the research farm of Cotton Section, Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar during kharif and Nineteen genotypes comprising seventeen hybrids, one conventional hybrid and one variety were evaluated for their reaction to sucking pests, under unsprayed conditions. The observations on sucking pests viz., white fly and leafhopper were recorded at weekly intervals. Maximum population of leafhopper was recorded during 28 th and 32nd standard week in 2008 and 2009 respectively. Maximum mean incidence was recorded in H-1226 during both the years. Whitefly population remained below ET during 2008 while during 2009 it crossed ET in RCH 134 ( adults/leaf). Mean maximum population was recorded in IT-905 (during 2008) and RCH-134 (during 2009). Leafhopper and whitefly population was significantly positively correlated with temperature while negatively correlated with rainfall. Key Words : Sucking pests, cotton, population dynamics, correlation coefficient. Cotton is an important commercial crop in India which plays a key role in national economy. The crop is grown principally for the fiber and the seed is used as a source of food and feed animals. At world level, cotton occupies an area of million ha having production of million bales with an average yield of 724 kg/ha (Anonymous 2007). During , it was grown on an area of 110 Lakh ha with the production of 325 Lakh bales with the average yield of 503 kg lint /ha (Anonymous, 2010). In Haryana, cotton is cultivated on 4.45 Lakh ha with production of Lakh bales with the average yield of 529 kg lint /ha (Anonymous, 2010). Among the vast array of insect pests, major sucking pests are, [ white fly, Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius); leafhopper, Amrasca biguttula biguttula (Ishida); mealy bug, Pnenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley; thrips, Thrips tabaci Lindeman; and aphid, Apis gossypii Glover]. Krishnaiah et al. (1979) described the method of jassid estimation by counting on second, third and fourth leaves from top on okra plant. Sidhu and Dhawan (1980) recorded the population of jassid nymphs in Punjab from three fully opened leaves in the upper canopy of each plant and reported that the population of jassid started declining during second half of August. The sucking pest population increased with advancement of vegetative growth and attained peak value at maximum leaf area stage (Bishnoi et al., 1996). Bambawale et al. (2004) observed that sucking pest population was not significantly different in MECH 162 and non- MECH Differential reaction of hybrids over their non counterparts was noted in terms of increased or decreased tolerance or susceptibility to sucking pests following gene introgression (Vennila et al., 2004). Prasad and Rao (2008) reported that there were not much differences between and non- version of the same hybrid though there were difference among the hybrids regarding the incidence of sucking pests. Bambawale et al. (2004) observed that populations of whitefly, jassids, thrips and aphids were not significantly different in MECH 162 and MECH non Sharma and Dhawan (2005) reported that the sucking pests population was significantly less in RCH134 and RCH-317 as compared to other hybrids. Kumar and Stanley (2006) found no significant difference among the

2 DEEPIKA KALKAL, ROSHAN LAL, K.K. DAHIYA AND Y.P. BHARTI sucking pest population in and non- cotton and also reported that the non- plot attracted more bollworm infestation than the plot. NCEH-6 and MRC-6301 followed by ANKUR JASSI BGII and VBCH-1501 (0.54 nymphs/leaf) while maximum mean incidence was recorded in H-1226 (1.37 nymphs/leaf) MATERIALSAND METHODS The studies were carried out during Kharif seasons of 2008 and 2009 respectively, on nineteen genotypes comprising seventeen hybrids, one conventional hybrid and one variety (Table 1) under unsprayed conditions at the research farm of Cotton Section, Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar. The observations on sucking pests viz., leafhopper (nymphal population) and whitefly (adults population) were recorded from randomly selected 5 plants per plot on 3 leaves/plant representing the top, middle and bottom canopy of the plant at weekly intervals, starting from the first week of June, 2008 and 2009 to the end of September. Plate 1: Leafhopper (Amrasca biguttula biguttula) nymphs Statistical analysis : The data obtained during studies in the above experiments were got computed for analysis of variance using the methods of Panse and Sukhatme (1995). In case of sucking pest population the data were analyzed for variance by Table-1: List of the genotypes of cotton evaluated for their reactions to insect pests during crop seasons, and Sr. No. GENOTYPES KDCHH-9810 BG-I KDCHH-441 TULSI-45 MRC-7031 MRC-6301 RCH-134 RCH-134 VBCH-1504 VBCH-1501 VBCH-1006 Sr. No. GENOTYPES SIGMA ANKUR 2534 ANKUR JASSI NCS NCS-913 NCEH-6 IT-905 HHH-223 (LC) H-1226 (LC) Fig. 1 : population of leafhopper (nymphs/leaf) in different of cotton during 2008 adopting n+1 transformation. RESULTSAND DISCUSSION Leafhopper ; Amrasca biguttula biguttula (Ishida) Data presented in Table-2 (pooled table) indicated that under unsprayed conditions the population of cotton leafhopper crossed economic threshold in H-1226 (3.67 nymphs/leaf) during 2008 and However, the higher population was recorded (1.30 and 0.99 nymph/leaf) in 28th and 32nd standard week and maximum was during 28th week. Leafhopper population declined from 33 rd standard week onwards during 2008 (Fig. 1). Amongst the genotypes, minimum mean population was recorded in MRC-7031, 24 Fig. 2 : population of leafhopper (nymphs/leaf) in different genotypes of cotton during 2009

3 POPULATION DYNAMICS OF SUCKING PEST & ITS CORRELATION WITH ABIOTIC FACTORS 25

4 DEEPIKA KALKAL, ROSHAN LAL, K.K. DAHIYA AND Y.P. BHARTI (Table 2). Leafhopper population declined from 34th standard week onwards during 2009 (Fig. 2). Leafhopper population was significantly and positively correlated with temperature (r =0.17 in 2008, r = 0.71 in 2009 and r = 0.49 in pooled data), relative humidity (r = 0.37 in 2008 and r = 0.42 in pooled data) and wind speed (r = 0.03 in 2008, r = 0.18 in 2009 and r = 0.30 in pooled data) while significantly negatively correlated with rainfall (r = in 2008 and r = ) (Table 2). Mean leafhopper population/leaf varied significantly amongst the and non- genotypes during both the years. The results of present studies indicated that the leafhopper population was negatively correlated with maximum temperature and morning relative humidity (Table 2). The studies are in accordance with the Sidhu and Dhawan (1980) they reported that the population of leafhopper started declining during 2 nd half of August. Aggarwal et al. (2007) reported that maximum population of jassid was recorded in non- genotypes. Dhaka and Pareek (2008) reported that the population increased gradually and reached to its peak in 32nd and 33rd week. But, these results are not in conformity with the findings of Sharma et al. (2004) they reported the appearance of jassids in 3rd week of June and peak population in the last week of August. The observation are not in agreement with Lavekar et al. (2004) and Vennila et al. (2005) they reported that the incidence of leafhoppers was from second fortnight of August to the end of crop growth in all the hybrids with peak activity during mid September to mid November the differences may be due to different geographical location as the present studies have been conducted in North India while other are from Central India. Results of present studies revealed that the mean leafhopper population/leaf varied significantly among the and non- hybrids during both the years. But, these results are not in conformity with the findings of Kumar and Stanley (2006) who reported that there was a non-significant difference among the sucking pest populations in the and non- crops. Leafhopper caused significant damage during early stage by sucking cell sap of the leaves. However, the jassid populations decreased with decrease in air temperature and increase in relative humidity over optimum range (Bishnoi et al., 1996). The present findings are in agreement with those of Amar et al. (1986), Kavita et al. (2003) and Singh et al. (2004) reported significant positive influence of temperature on the population of leafhopper. Leafhopper population was positively correlated with temperature, relative humidity and wind speed while negative correlation with rainfall corroborates the finding of Ramamurthy et al. (2000), Dhaka and Pareek (2008) and Parsad et al. (2008) who reported positive correlation between jassid population and relative humidity. Sitaramaraju et al. (2010) reported negative influence of relative 26 humidity on the population of leafhopper; the results are not in conformity with the present findings. The present finding are not in accordance with that of Rao et al. (2001), Amar et al. (1986), Kavita et al. (2003) and Singh et al. (2004) who reported significant positive correlation between rainfall and jassid population. Whitefly; eemisia tabaci (Gennadius) : Data presented in Table 3 indicated that under unsprayed conditions the population of cotton whitefly remained below economic threshold in all the genotypes throughout the period of study. However, the population of cotton whitefly crossed economic threshold in RCH 134 BGII (4.10 adults/leaf). However, the higher population was recorded 2.19 adults/leaf in 28th standard week and maximum was during 28th standard week. Whitefly population declined after 34th week onwards during 2008 (Fig. 3). Amongst the genotypes, minimum mean population was recorded in ANKUR (0.98 adults/leaf) followed by NCEH-6 (1.02 adults/leaf) while mean maximum population was recorded in RCH-134 (2.08 adults /leaf). Whitefly population declined since 36th standard week onwards during 2009 (Fig. 4).. Whitefly population was significantly positively correlated with temperature (r = 0.10 in 2008, r = 0.04 in 2009 and r = 0.35 Plate 2: Cotton whitefly (Bemisia tabaci) adults feeding cotton leaf feeding on cotton leaf Fig.3 : Population of whitefly (adults/leaf) in different ghenotypes of cotton during 2008

5 Table 3: Population of cotton whitefly (Bemisia tabaci) on and non genotypes of cotton during 2008 and 2009 crop season Pooled mean population of leafhopper during different periods of observation (Nymphs/leaf) standard week Genotype Mean POPULATION DYNAMICS OF SUCKING PEST & ITS CORRELATION WITH ABIOTIC FACTORS KDCHH BG-I (1.90) (1.87) (1.67) (1.43) KDCHH (1.74) (1.97) (1.64) (1.87) (1.31) TULSI (1.61) (1.80) (1.24) MRC (1.30) (1.48) (1.48) (1.62) MRC (1.62) (1.89) (1.90) (1.82) (1.75) (1.29) RCH (1.99) (2.21) (1.70) (1.77) (1.78) (1.78) (1.89) (1.31) RCH (1.61) (1.80) (1.73) (1.64) VBCH (1.60) (1.60) VBCH (1.30) (1.28) () VBCH (1.61) (1.64) () (1.48) (1.17) (1.16) ANKUR (1.10) (1.09) ANKUR JASSI (1.43) (1.24) (1.27) NCS (1.73) (1.62) (1.77) (1.77) (1.86) (1.86) (1.63) (1.30) (1.18) (1.31) (1.75) (1.52) (1.23) HHH (LC) (1.74) (1.20) () (1.28) (1.75) () (1.69) (1.18) Mean C.D. (p=0.05) (0.22) (0.16) (0.32) (0.25) (0.07) (0.17) (0.17) (0.05) (0.15) (0.15) (0.10) (0.11) (0.04) S.E.± (0.08) (0.06) (0.07) (0.09) (0.02) (0.06) (0.06) (0.02) (0.01) (0.01) (0.03) (0.04) (0.16) SIGMA NCS-913 NCEH-6 IT-905 H-1226 (LC)

6 DEEPIKA KALKAL, ROSHAN LAL, K.K. DAHIYA AND Y.P. BHARTI pooled data), wind speed (r = 0.51 in 2009 and r = 0.48 in pooled data), relative humidity (r = 0.10 in 2008, r = 0.29 in 2009 and r= 0.08 in pooled data) and sunshine hours (r = 0.44 in 2008, r = 0.08 in 2009 and r = 0.11 pooled data) while significantly negatively correlated with rainfall (r = in 2008, r = in 2009 and r = in pooled data) (Table 2).The results of present studies indicated that the whitefly population was negatively correlated with maximum temperature and morning relative humidity (Table 2). On the basis of mean values of whitefly population in and non- genotypes, it was observed that in both the crop seasons (i.e ) higher population was recorded in genotypes than non- genotypes. The present findings are in agreement with those of Dhawan et al. (1987) and Sharma et al. (2004) who reported that the incidence of whitefly started in June. Simwat and Dhawan (1994) and Dhawan (2000) reported that whitefly population increased from 35th standard week onwards which are not in supports of the present studies of increase in whitefly population early in the crop season. Whereas the results are not in support with those of Singh and Butter (1985) and Sharma et who computed positive correlation between whitefly incidence and maximum temperature. The present findings varied with those of Singh and Butter (1985), Nandihalli et al. (1993), Gupta et al. (1998), Singh et al. (2004), Lakshminarayana et al. (2007) and Sitaramaraju et al. (2010). These investigators reported a significant negative linear relation between the whitefly population and the minimum temperature and similar negative relationship was established between the whitefly population and evening RH under correlation study. But these results are not in support with the findings of Rote and Puri (1991) they reported that whitefly population was positively associated with temperature and negatively associated with relative humidity and the research was conducted at Gujarat therefore the difference may be due to environmental conditions. The present studies indicated that there was no significant difference in sucking pest population under and non- genotypes. These findings got conformation to the observation made by Gupta et al. (2001). Similarly, Bambawale et al. (2004) and Kumar and Stanley, (2006) observed that the sucking pest populations (whiteflies, jassids, thrips and aphids) were nonsignificantly different in and non- genotypes. The sucking pest population was significantly less in RCH-134 and RCH317 as compared to other hybrids reported by Sharma and Dhawan (2005) which supports the present findings that genotypes recorded higher whitefly population than non- genotypes. REFERENCES Aggarwal N, Brar D S and Buttar G S (2007). Evaluation of and non- version of two cotton hybrids under different spacings against sucking insects-pests and natural enemies. J. Cotton Res. Dev. 21 (1): Fig.4 : Population of whitefly (adults/leaf) in different ghenotypes of cotton during 2009 al. (2004) who reported the peak period of incidence of whitefly during September-October the difference may be due to difference in climatic conditions. However, Rathod et al. (2003) reported the peak incidence of whiteflies from the beginning of November to the end of December. Sitaramaraju et al. (2010) reported that the population was observed from 34th week reaching peak population by 46th week these results are not in line with the present findings. Minimum mean population was recorded in MRC-7031 followed by MRC-6301, the results are in agreement with the findings of Pal et al. (2010) who reported that minimum mean population was recorded in MRC Whitefly population positively correlated with temperature and relative humidity. The present findings are in conformity with those of Singh and Butter (1985), Rao and Chari (1993), Gupta et al. (1998) and Dhaka and Pareek (2008) 28 Amar E D, Fouad S H, Megahad MM and Sewaify G H (1986). Population density and vertical distribution of Empoasca leafhopper on cotton plants in Kafer using two sampling methods. Ann. Agric. Sci. 24: Anonymous (2010). AICCIP Annual Report : Introduction. CICR, Regional station, Lawley Road, Coimbator, Tamil Nadu pp- 5. Anonymous (2007). Area, production and Yield of Cotton in World. USDA and FAO yearbook, various issues. pp- 8. Bambawale O M, Singh A, Sharma O P, Bhosle B B, Lavekar R C, Dhandapani A, Kanwar V, Tanwar R K, Rathod K S, Patange N R and Pawar V M (2004). Performance of cotton (MECH162) under integrated pest management in farmers participatory field trial in Nanded district, Central India. Curr. Sci. 86: Bishnoi O P, Singh M, Rao V U M, Ram Niwas and Sharma P D (1996). Population dynamics of cotton pests in relation to weather parameters. Indian J. Ent. 58(2): Dhaka S R and Pareek B L (2008). Weather factors influencing population dynamics of major insect pests of cotton under semi arid agro-ecosystem. Indian J. Ent. 70 (2):

7 POPULATION DYNAMICS OF SUCKING PEST & ITS CORRELATION WITH ABIOTIC FACTORS Dhawan A K (2000). Cotton pest scenario in India: Current status of insecticides and future perspectives. Agrolook 1(1): Dhawan A K, Simwat G S and Sidhu A S (1987). Effect of sowing dates on incidence of sucking pests and bollworms in arboreum cotton. J. Res., Punjab Agric. Univ., 24(1): Gupta G P, Janakiraman S, Raghuraman M and Singh R P (2001). Status of transgenic cotton and its prospect in India. Agrolook 2(1): 719. Gupta G P, Mahapatro G K, Kundu S K and Roshanlal (1998). Impact of abiotic factors of population dynamics of whitefly in Cotton. Indian J. Ent. 60 (3): Kavita G, Ram P and Saini R K (2003). Arthropod predatory fauna and its population dynamics in cotton in Haryana. J. Cotton Res. Dev. 17: Rao G R and Chari M S (1993). Population dynamics of whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Genn.) in cotton and tobacco in relation to weather factors. Tobacco Research 18(1 and 2): Rao G Raghupathi, Rao P P, Kumar P H, Rao C R Nageshwar and Madhavi G Bindu (2001). Population dynamics and management of jassid, Amrasca biguttulla biguttulla Ishida on cotton. In: National Conference: Plant Protection- New horizons in the Millennium, Entomological Research Association, Udaipur. pp-19. Rathod, K S, Lavekar R C, Pande A K, Patange N R and Sharma O P (2003). Efficacy of imidacloprid against sucking pests of cotton. Ann. Pl. Protec. Sci. 11: Rote N B and Puri S N (1991). Population dynamics of cotton whitefly,bemisia tabaci Genn. on cotton and its relationship with weather parameters. J. Cotton Res. Dev. 5 (2): Krishnaiah K, Ramachander P R, Jagmohan N and Wahi S D (1979). Sampling technique for estimation of jassid population on okra. Indian J. Ent. 41: Sharma M and Dhawan A K (2005). Field evaluation of transgenic hybrid against sucking pests and natural enemies. Ist Congress on Insect Science, Dec , PAU, Ludhiana. pp Kumar K R and Stanley S (2006). Comparative Efficacy of Transgenic and Non- transgenic Cotton against Insect pest of cotton in Tamil Nadu, India. Resistant pest management newsletter 15(2): Sharma P D, Jat K L and Takar B L (2004). Population dynamics of insect pests of American cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) in Haryana. J. Cotton Res. Dev. 18 (1): Lakshminarayana S, Singh P S and Mishra D S (2007). Relative occurrence of whitefly and YMV on some genotypes of Vigna radiata. Ann. Pl. Protec. Sci. 15: Lavekar R C, Teland S M, Sharma O P and Rathod K S (2004). Efficacy of pesticides against field insect pests of cotton. Ann. Pl. Protec. Sci. 12: Nandihalli BS, Patil B V and Lingappa S (1993). Population dynamics of cotton whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Genn.). Karnataka J. agric Sci. 6: Sidhu A S and Dhawan A K (1980). Seasonal abundance of different insect pests on desi cotton ( Gossypium arboreum L.). PAU J. Res. 17: Simwat G S and Dhawan A K (1994). Changing pest status of cotton in relation to change in crop production and protection technologies in Punjab, J. Cotton Res. Dev. 8 (2): Singh J and Butter N S (1985). Influence of climatic factors on the build up of whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Genn.) on cotton. Indian J. Ent. 47(3): Panse V G and Sukhatme P V (1995). Statistical methods for Agricultural workers, ICAR :New Delhi. pp-15. Singh S, Niwas R, Saina R K and Khichar M L (2004). Relationship of micro climatic parameters with population dynamics of leafhopper and whitefly in cotton. Abstracts of National Symposium on Changing World Order-Cotton Research, Development and Policy in Context August 10-12, 2004, ANGRAU, R. Nagar, Hyderabad. pp.104. Parsad N V V S D, Rao N H P and Mahalakshmi M S (2008). Population dynamics of major sucking pests infesting cotton and their relation to weather parameters. J. Cotton Res. Dev. 22 (1): Sitaramaraju S, Prasad N V V S D and Krishnaiah P V (2010). Seasonal incidence of insect pests on cotton in relation to weather parameters. Ann. Pl. Protec. Sci. 18(1): Prasad N V V S D and Rao N H (2008). Field evaluation of cotton hybrids against insect pest complex under rainfed conditions. Indian J. Ent. 70 (4): Vennila S, Biradar V K, Panchbhai P R, Gadpayle J G, Deshmukh A Y, Nemade P W and Karanjkar P P (2005). Seasonal dynamics, survival and feeding preference of Earias vittella larval instars on cotton. Ann. Pl. Protec. Sci. 13: Pal V, Sharma P D, Jat S L and Chauhan R (2010). Relative performance of and their corresponding non- cotton genotypes for sucking pests and yield. J. Cotton. Res. Dev. 24(1): Ramamurthy R, Rajaram V, Rajendran M and Krishnadoss D (2000). Impact of weather parameters on cotton pests. J. Cotton Res. Dev. 14 (2): ************** 29