NON-CHEMICAL APPROACHES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 13. Effect of spraying botanicals at different intervals on oviposition of shoot fly on 21 DAE in late sown sorghum Spraying interval (DAE) Treatments 3 6 9 12 3, 6 3, 6, 9 Azagro 5% 2.00 b (1.73)* NSKE 5% 2.00 b Plant mixture 5% Endosulfan 35 EC (0.07%) (1.73) 2.00 b (1.73) 1.66 c (1.63) Mean 1.92 b (1.71) 2.00 b (1.73) 1.33 d (1.53) 1.66 c (1.63) 1.33 d (1.53) 1.59 c (1.61) 1.66 c (1.63) 1.33 d (1.53) 2.00 b (1.73) 1.33 d (1.53) 1.59 c (1.61) 1.66 c (1.63) 1.33 d (1.53) 1.66 c (1.63) 1.00 e (1.41) 1.34 d (1.53) 1.33 d (1.53) 1.33 d (1.53) 1.66 c (1.63) 1.00 e (1.41) 1.34 d (1.53) 1.00 e (1.41) 0.33 g (1.15) 1.33 d (1.53) 0.33 g (1.15) 0.74 f (1.32) 3,6,9,12 3, 9 3, 12 6, 9 6, 9, 12 Number of shoot fly eggs per plant 0.66 f (1.15) 0.33 g (1.15) 1.33 d (1.53) 0.33 g (1.15) 0.59 g (1.26) * Figures in parentheses indicates √ x + 1 transformed values. Means followed by same alphabet do not differ significantly (0.05) by DMRT. DAE – Days After Emergence SEm± CD at 5% Source 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.09 Between two treatments Between two spraying intervals Interaction between treatments and spraying intervals 1.00 e (1.41) 1.00 e (1.41) 1.66 c (1.63) 1.00 e (1.41) 1.16 e (1.47) 1.33 d (1.53) 1.33 d (1.53) 1.33 d (1.53) 0.66 f (1.29) 1.16 e (1.47) 1.00 e (1.41) 1.00 e (1.41) 1.66 c (1.63) 1.00 e (1.41) 1.16 e (1.47) 0.66 f (1.29) 0.33 g (1.15) 1.33 d (1.53) 0.33 g (1.15) 0.66 f (1.29) 6, 12 9, 12 Untreated control 1.00 e (1.41) 1.00 e (1.41) 1.33 d (1.53) 0.66 f (1.29) 1.00 e (1.41) 1.00 e (1.41) 1.00 e (1.41) 1.33 d (1.53) 0.66 f (1.29) 1.00 e (1.41) 2.66 a (1.91) 2.33 a (1.83) 2.66 a (1.83) 2.33 a (1.91) 2.49 a (1.87) Mean 1.31 b (1.52) 1.13c (1.46) 1.62a (1.62) 1.02d (1.42) 1.27 (1.51)
deadhearts). This was followed by Azagro (5%) which recorded 14.29 per cent deadhearts. Plant mixture was inferior recording 15.02 per cent deadhearts. All spraying intervals irrespective of botanicals were significantly superior over untreated check (49.25% deadhearts) (Table 15). Highest protection was offered by spraying 3, 6, 9, 12 DAE (4.91% deadhearts) followed by 3, 6, 9 DAE (6.08% deadhearts) and 6, 9, 12 DAE (6.00% deadhearts) being on par with each other. Interaction effect revealed that spraying NSKE (5%) at 3, 6, 9, 12 DAE offered highest protection (4.00% deadhearts) which was on par with Endosulfan 35 EC at this interval (4% deadheart).this was followed by Azagro at 3, 6, 9, 12 DAE (6% deadheart) and NSKE (5%) sprayed at 6,9,12 DAE (5.66% deadhearts) all being on par with each other and with endosulfan at these intervals.( 5% deadhert) (Table 15). Study on evaluation of spraying botanicals at different intervals against shoot fly on 28 DAE in timely sown sorghum (Table 16) revealed that irrespective of spraying intervals Azagro (5%) and NSKE (5%) offered good protection (22.78% deadhearts each). But endosulfan was superior (18.40% deadhearts). Plant mixture offered least protection (23.61% deadhearts). Irrespective of botanicals, all spraying intervals offered good protection as against control (82.08% deadhearts) (Table 16). Highest protection was offered by spraying at 3, 6, 9, 12 DAE (10.83% deadhearts) followed by 3, 6, 9 DAE and 6, 9, 12 DAE (13.08% deadhearts each). Spraying at 3, 6 DAE, 3, 9 DAE and 6, 9 DAE were on par with each other (18.08, 17.91 and 18.00% deadhearts, respectively) and were next best. Interaction effect revealed that the best was NSKE (5%) sprayed at the 3, 6, 9, 12 DAE (10.33% deadhearts) which was on par with Azagro (5%) and plant mixture (5%) sprayed at the same interval (11.66 and 12% deadhearts, respectively). But highest protection was offered by endosulfan 35 EC (0.07%) sprayed at 3, 6, 9, 12 DAE (9.33% deadhearts) (Table 16). 4.2.2.2 Late sown sorghum On 14 DAE (Table 17) the best treatment was NSKE (5%) (14.19% deadhearts) irrespective of spraying intervals. Azagro (5%) and plant mixture were on par (14.85 and 15.90% deadhearts respectively). However, endosulfan recorded least damage (8.42% deadhearts) and was the most superior. Among spraying intervals, spraying at 3, 6, 9, 12 DAE proved best (4.66% deadhearts) followed by 3, 6, 9 DAE (5.66% deadhearts), 6, 9, 12 DAE (5.66% deadhearts) and were on par with each other. Interaction effect recorded 3.33 to 22.00 per cent deadhearts as against control (31.66 to 32% deadhearts) thus proved significantly superior to no protection. Among botanicals, highest protection was offered by NSKE (5%) sprayed at 3, 6, 9, 12 DAE (4.00% deadhearts) and endosulfan was on par with it at the same interval (3.33% deadhearts). Next best were Azagro (5%) at 3,6,9,12 DAE (5.66% deadheart) and plant mixture (5%) sprayed at 3,6,9 DAE (5.33% deadheart), NSKE (5%) at 6,9,12 DAE (5.66% deadheart) all being on par with each other. At 21 DAE (Table 18), the best was Azagro (5%) which recorded 23.66 per cent deadhearts. NSKE (5%) and plant mixture (5%) recorded 24.14 and 24.26% deadhearts and were on par with each other but the superiority was shown by endosulfan 35 EC (0.05%) which recorded least damage (16.92% deadhearts) irrespective of spraying intervals. Irrespective of botanicals, spraying @ 3, 6, 9, 12 offered highest protection against shoot fly (9.08% deadhearts) followed by 3, 6, 9 DAE and 6, 9, 12 DAE (15.33 and 15.66% respectively). Next superior were 3, 12 DAE, 6, 12 DAE and 9, 12 DAE (17.33, 17.66 and 17.33% deadhearts, respectively). Spraying at 3, 6 DAE, 3, 9 DAE and 6, 9 DAE were next best and on par with each other (20.58, 20.66 and 20.41% deadhearts, respectively). Next superior were 6 DAE and 9 DAE (23.08 and 22.83% deadhearts, respectively) followed by 3 DAE and 12 DAE (24.16 and 24.75% deadhearts, respectively). All intervals proved better than untreated check (63.08% deadhearts).
Page 1 and 2: NON-CHEMICAL APPROACHES FOR THE MAN
Page 3 and 4: CONTENTS Sl. No. Chapter particular
Page 5 and 6: 23 24 25 26 27 Figure No. Effect of
Page 7 and 8: 1. INTRODUCTION Sorghum (Sorghum bi
Page 9 and 10: Kumar and Sangappa (1984) compared
Page 11 and 12: Anon. (2002) reported that neem lea
Page 13 and 14: fraction (0.25%) and NSKE (1500 ppm
Page 15 and 16: NSKE 5 per cent conserved significa
Page 17 and 18: 3. MATERIAL AND METHODS 3.1 Managem
Page 19 and 20: Shoot fly egg Shoot fly maggot Shoo
Page 21 and 22: 13. 9, 12 DAE 14. Untreated check S
Page 23 and 24: Plate.3. Fish meal trap
Page 25 and 26: Table 1. Effect of seed treatment w
Page 27 and 28: Table 2. Effect of seed treatment w
Page 29 and 30: NSKE (5%) was the best (31% deadhea
Page 31 and 32: extract (12.98 q/ha) and they were
Page 33 and 34: Table 6. Effect of seed treatments
Page 35 and 36: Table 8. Effect of seed treatments
Page 37 and 38: On 21 DAE chrysoperla population in
Page 39 and 40: Table 11. Effect of spraying botani
Page 41: Table 12. Effect of spraying botani
Page 45 and 46: Table 15. Evaluation of spraying bo
Page 51 and 52: Treatments Table 20. Yield of timel
Page 53 and 54: 4.2.4 Natural enemies 4.2.4.1 Cocci
Page 59 and 60: 4.3.2 Oviposition Effect of differe
Page 61 and 62: 5. DISCUSSION Investigations on the
Page 63 and 64: Mean number of eggs/plant 2 1.8 1.6
Page 65 and 66: Percent deadheart 90 80 70 60 50 40
Page 67 and 68: Interaction effect of treatments an
Page 69 and 70: Number of eggs/plant 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.
Page 71 and 72: Percent deadheart 90 80 70 60 50 40
Page 73 and 74: Yield (q/ha) 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6
Page 75 and 76: 5.2.4.2 Chrysoperla Study on effect
Page 77 and 78: 6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Investiga
Page 79 and 80: • Spraying Azagro (5%) and NSKE (
Page 81 and 82: Deepthi Jose, 2007, Studies on the
Page 83 and 84: Mendes, J. and Linhares, A.X., 1993
Page 85 and 86: Sharma, H.C., 1985, Strategies for
Page 87: NON-CHEMICAL APPROACHES FOR THE MAN

NON-CHEMICAL APPROACHES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?