screening elite genotypes and ipm of defoliators in groundnut

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 11: Aproraema modicella population in different IPM modules of groundnut Module I Treatment (Groundnut + sunflower) Module II (Groundnut + foxtail millet) Module III (Farmers’ practice) Paired “ t” test value for comparison of means Aproraema modicella population / plant 51 DAS 58 DAS 65 DAS 72 DAS 79 DAS 86 DAS 0.92 1.00 1.20 1.08 - - 0.36 0.44 0.48 0.50 - - 1.82 1.94 2.00 2.04 - - Module I & Module II 4.63* 3.25* 3.02* 2.88* - - Module II & Module III 6.69* 4.48* 4.41* 6.01* - - Module III & Module I 6.28* 3.98* 4.20* 6.00* - - * Significant at 5% level DAS- Days after sowing Module-I : Seed treatment with Trichoderma, sunflower (trap crop), pheromone trap and spraying of N. rileyi and NSKE Module-II : Seed treatment with Trichoderma, foxtail millet (intercrop), pheromone trap and spraying of Emamectin benzoate Module-III: Spraying of quinalphos
4.2.4.2 50 days after sowing The defoliation percentage was more (39.8) in module-III followed by module-I (35.8) and less (29.0) in module –II and at 50 days after sowing. All the three modules varied significantly from each other as per Paired ‘t’ value (Table 12). 4.2.4.3 65 days after sowing The per cent defoliation was highest in module-III (25.2) followed by module-I (22.2) and least in module-II (16.4) at 65 days after sowing. As per Paired ‘t’ value, all the three modules differ significantly from each other (Table 12). 4.2.5 The management of Spodoptera litura in IPM modules of groundnut The management of Spodoptera litura in IPM modules of groundnut is given in table 13. Two sprays 45 and 60 days after sowing was done and observations have taken. All the three treatments differed significantly in percent defoliation before spraying in both the cases. Module III has shown significantly higher defoliation percentage (43.6, 24.4) followed by module I (37.8, 17.4) and lowest observed in module II (31.8, 15.4) in first and second spray respectively. In first spray, 7DAS defoliation percentage and larvae per mt row were counted. All three treatments differed significantly in both the observations. Module III reported significantly highest defoliation and larvae (39.8 and 4.2) followed by module I (35.8 and 3.2) and the module II showed less defoliation and larvae (29.0 and 2.2). Observations taken 15 DAS also showed the same trend showing significantly higher defoliation and larvae in module III (25.2 and 3.8) followed by module I (22.2 and 3.0) and lowest in module II (16.4 and 1.6). In second spray, 7DAS per cent defoliation and larvae per mt row were recorded. All three treatments varied significantly in both the observations. M- III showed significantly highest defoliation and larvae (24.4 and 3.6) followed by M-I (21.2 and 2.6) and the M -II showed less defoliation and larvae (15.4 and 1.8). Observations taken 15 DAS also followed the same trend showing significantly higher defoliation and larvae in M-III (19.4 and 3.4) followed by M-I (17.4 and 2.0) and lowest in M- II (12.4 and 1.2). 4.2.6 Incidence of sucking and defoliating insect pest on sunflower crop 4.2.6.1 Sucking pests Leafhoppers, both nymphs and adults were found to suck the plant sap, starting from 21 DAS to 63 DAS. The leafhopper population varied from 1.02 to 2.04 / top three leaves with an average of 1.49 ± 0.32 (Table 14). Thrips, Thrips palmi were noticed on the crop from 21 DAS to 63 DAS. The population of thrips ranged from 1.42 to 2.64 / top three leaves with an average of 1.24 ± 0.29. The nymphs and adults were found to attack and suck the sap from the tender leaves (Table 14). Aphids, Aphis sp were observed on the crop from 21 DAS to 63 DAS. Both nymphs and adults were found feeding around succulent parts and under surface of tender leaves. The aphid population differed from 0.86 to 1.84 per top three leaves with the mean value of 1.28 ± 0.34. 4.2.6.2 Defoliators DAS. Semilooper, Thysanoplusia orichalcea was noticed on the crop from 37 DAS to 79
Page 1 and 2: SCREENING ELITE GENOTYPES AND IPM O
Page 3 and 4: CONTENTS Sl. No. Chapter Particular
Page 5 and 6: Figure No. LIST OF FIGURES Title 1.
Page 7 and 8: In some parts of the northern Karna
Page 9 and 10: mutants were systematically screene
Page 11 and 12: observed on Dwarf Mutant, the lowes
Page 13 and 14: Singh and Sachan (1991) recorded se
Page 15 and 16: Thontadarya and Nangia (1983) repor
Page 17 and 18: Monitoring with pheromone traps to
Page 19 and 20: 1. JL-24 (Susceptible check) 2. ICG
Page 21 and 22: Observations were recorded daily on
Page 23 and 24: Table 1: Performance of elite groun
Page 25 and 26: Third instar duration was significa
Page 27 and 28: Table 3: Gain in larval weight and
Page 29 and 30: Table 4: Biological parameters of S
Page 31 and 32: Table 5: In vitro biology of Spodop
Page 33 and 34: sunflower and N. rileyi, foxtail mi
Page 35 and 36: Table 7: Leaf hoppers population in
Page 37 and 38: Table 8: Thysanoplusia orichalcea p
Page 39: Table 10: Spilarctia obliqua popula
Page 43 and 44: Table 13: The management of Spodopt
Page 45 and 46: The early instar larvae scraped the
Page 47 and 48: Module I Table 16: Natural enemy po
Page 49 and 50: Table 18: Natural enemy population
Page 51 and 52: Table 19: Economics of IPM modules
Page 53 and 54: Per cent defoliation 50 45 40 35 30
Page 55 and 56: Larval period and Total development
Page 57 and 58: Larval Larval weight weight (g) (g)
Page 59 and 60: 5.2.3 Defoliator population in thre
Page 61 and 62: Pest population 1600 1400 1200 1000
Page 63 and 64: Gross returns and Net returns (Rs./
Page 65 and 66: REFERENCES Agasimani, C. A., Ravish
Page 67 and 68: Kennedy, F. J. S., Rajamanickam. K.
Page 69 and 70: Prasad, M. N. R. and Gowda, M. V. C
Page 71 and 72: Tiwari, S. N., Rathore, Y. S. and B
Page 73: SCREENING ELITE GENOTYPES AND IPM O

screening elite genotypes and ipm of defoliators in groundnut

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?