AFPP-SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON PESTS IN AGRICULTURE, MONTPELLIER, FRANCE 26TH-27TH OCTOBER, 2005.

COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF THE EFFICACY OF THREE BOTANICAL AND SYNTHETIC INSECTICIDES AGAINST THE SPIRALING , Russell ON PEPPERS.

M.M.DEGRI*; T.LIBNA** &H.B.K.JOSEPH* *Pest Control Unit, Gombe State ADP, PMB 0046 Gombe, Gombe State, Nigeria. **School of Agriculture,ATBU PMB 0248 Bauchi, Nigeria

Abstract Field experiments were conducted at the Dadin-Kowa irrigation dam during 2003- 2004 dry seasons to compare the effectiveness of neem seed oil, tobacco leaf garlic bulb and imidacloprid (Confidor) insecticides in the control of spiraling whitefly, Aleurodicus dispersus Russell on peppers (Capsicum spp.).The treatments were replicated four times in a randomized complete block design. The botanical and synthetic insecticides application was done at 7days intervals and at 10% and 0.5 ml/litre of water, respectively.Results of the study showed that all the three botanicals were as effective as the synthetic insecticide in controlling the pest in the field.Confidor significantly ( P< 0.05) reduced the infestation of spiraling whitefly than the three botanical insecticides. However neem oil, garlic and tobacco sprayed peppers had significantly (P< 0.005) lower infestations and improved the fruit yields than control treatment. Neem oil, garlic and tobacco extracts are therefore recommended for controlling A.dispersus on peppers.

Keywords: botanical, synthetic, insecticide, spiraling, whitefly, pepper

INTRODUCTION Aleurodicus dispersus Russell (Homoptera:Aleyrodidae) is a highly polyphagous pest. It is known to attack many host plants like vegetables, fruits, ornamentals, shade trees (DAVID ®U,1995;SRINIVASA,2000; GEETHA &SWAMIAPPA,2001).The major host plants of economic importance in Nigeria are banana,guava,pawpaw tomato,peppers, eggplant,mango,cassava, cowpea, potatoes and amaranthus (NEUENSCHWANDER,1994;PITAN et al. 2002).The pest feed on the plant by piercing through their needle-like mouthparts and sucking of sap from leaves mainly by the nymphs and adults and when population is high can cause premature leaf drop, reduce plant vigor and yields but rarely cause death of the plant (PITAN et al.2002). PITMAN & OLUFEMI (2003) reported that about 40-60 adults can be found per leaf and 50-70 % of the total number of leaves per plant can be infested depending on the plant species. The sticky liquid called honeydew excreted by the adults and nymphs on the lower leaf surfaces encourages the development of other organisms like sooty mould fungi on leaf surfaces which interferes with photosynthetic capacity and market value of the crop (AKINLOSOTU et al.1993).The copious white, waxy, flocculent material secreted by all the stages of spiraling whitefly are readily spread by wind, creating nuisance to human and (RAMANI et al.2002). GEETHA,(2000) reported that heavy incidence of the pest caused yield reduction to an extent of 53.10 % in tapioca. WEN et al.;(1995) reported a loss in fruit yield of 80 % in guava attacked by the pest for four months consecutively in Taiwan. Yield losses of 20-100 % can occur depending upon the crop, season and prevalence of the pest among other factors (RONALD et al.; 2003) The control of spiraling whitefly was reported in several countries using insecticides (WIJESEKERA &KUDAGAMAGE, 1990; WEN et al. 1995; ALAM et al.1998) but broad spectrum insecticides are not recommended because of their harmful effects on natural enemies (RONALD et al.; 2002).In India, tobacco, neem oil, fish oil, rosin soap and detergent solution in addition to several insecticides have been found effective (RANJITH et al.1996; MARIAM, 1999 & GEETHA, 2000). Chemical control is both uneconomic and impractical because of the pest’s wide host range, widespread distribution and presence in areas with high human and inhabitation (KAJITA et al.(1991).Sprayed dilute aqueous solution of detergent to reduce infestations and use of light traps covered with Vaseline coating to trap adults have been effective (MARIAM,1999). As spiraling whitefly is an exotic pest in most countries, biological control through introduction of natural enemies from the area of origin of the pest is considered the best method for a sustainable control (LOPEZ et al.1997).The introduction of aphelinid parasitoids Encarsia spp.into many countries like India, Taiwan, Nigeria, Benin, Hawaii, Maldives, Togo, Ghana, Malaysia, and the Philippines have shown that there has been a perceptible reduction in the population of the pest (NEUENSCHWANDER,1996,D’ALMEIDA et al.1998). This study tried to evaluate the efficacy of botanical insecticides in comparison with a synthetic insecticide imidacloprid in controlling A.dispersus on pepper.

MATERIALS AND METHODS Field experiments were conducted at the Dadin-kowa irrigation dam during 2003 and 2004 dry seasons. Neem (Azadirachta indica A.Juss) seed oil, tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.), garlic (Allium sativum L.) bulb and imidacloprid (Confidor) were used. Five treatments were demarcated in a randomized complete block design replicated four times. Each plot was 4.5 m long by 3.0 m wide with 1.5 m interspaces between adjacent plots of replication. Clean seeds of pepper were purchased from Gombe State Agricultural Supply Company and planted in nursery for four weeks prior to transplanting. The seedlings were transplanted during cool evening in the prepared fields at a plant spacing of 60 cm by 50 cm.After transplanting, the plants were irrigated twice daily and gap filling was done one week after transplanting to maintain the plant population in the experimental plots.

Fresh garlic bulbs and tobacco leaves were obtained; sun dried and milled to powder with blender.400 g of each product powder was boiled separately in 20 litres of water to obtain a paste. The paste were allowed to stay for 12 hours and filtered through double fold muslin cloth to obtain extract. The fresh seeds of neem were collected from neem trees, sun dried, decorticated; sun dried the kernel, milled to powder by using blender. 400 g of the powder was mixed with 20 litres of hot water to form paste. Oil extraction was done by pressing and squeezing the paste put in a muslin cloth to bring out the oil. The extracted oil and supernatant from the various plant products were left for one hour to cool and were put separately in 4 litre gallons. The neem oil, garlic, tobacco extracts and imidacloprid were carefully sprayed to cover the underside and surface of the crops using knapsack sprayer. After the application of each product, the sprayer was washed thoroughly with clean water before introducing the next product in the sprayer. The botanical insecticides were sprayed at 10 % concentration while imidacloprid at 0.5 ml/l of water at 7 days interval. The first application was done as soon as the pest was sighted on some few crops. Assessment of the products was done by visually counting the number of infested plant/plot and the number of leaves with spiraling whitefly from randomly tagged plants. Harvested fruits were weighed and recorded. Data collected from infested plants, leaves and fruits were subjected analysis of variance (ANOVA) and their means were compared and separated.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The infestation of peppers by A.dispersus was low in imidacloprid, A.indica, A.sativum and N.tabacum and high in the untreated control treatments for the two years (Table 1 ). The three botanical insecticides have been found to be effective against the pest but were not as effective as the synthetic insecticide used in the experiment. There was significant difference (P< 0.05) between imidacloprid and the three botanical insecticides. The low number of pepper plants and leaves infested by A.dispersus in imidacloprid was due to its capability to protect the plant from the pest. And this could be because imidacloprid is a systemic insecticide with a very good contact and stomach poison effects when used as foliar spray on the plants. The three botanical insecticides also protected the pepper plants from the pest when compared with the untreated treatments. This could be because neem, garlic and tobacco have insecticidal properties which serve as antifeedant, repellant and also disrupt the moulting by antagonizing ecdysone processes (STOLL, 1996). In the control treatment, there was steady increase in the population of the pest instead of decrease. This was because there was nothing to disrupt the breeding and feeding activities of the pest (RANJITH et al.; 1996 & MURALIKRISHNA, 1999). Table 2 showed that imidacloprid was significantly (P<0.05%) more effective than the botanical insecticides in controlling the pest on pepper. The number of pepper leaves infested in 2003 and 2004 were low in imidacloprid treatment, moderate in A.indica,A.sativum and N.tabacum and high in untreated treatments. The superioty and effectiveness of synthetic insecticides like the one exhibited by imidacloprid over the three botanical insecticides were reported by MARIAM(1999) and GEETHA(2000).

Figure 3:Effect of botanicals and Confidor on fruit yields/ha in 2003-2004

D 30 25 20 2003 15

(t/ha) 2004 10 5 MEAN FRUITYIEL MEAN 0 A. indica A. sativum Control Treatment

Table 3 indicated that imidacloprid, A.indica, A.sativum and N.tabacum treatments produced better fruit yields in 2003 and 2004 than the untreated treatment.Imidacloprid treatment fruit yield was significantly (P<0.05) higher than the fruit yields obtained from the three botanical insecticides. The mean pepper fruit yields obtained from the three botanical insecticides. This conformed with the report given by ALAM, et al.,(1998),WIJESEKERA & KUDAGAMAGE(1990). The significant higher mean fruit yields obtained from imidacloprid, A.indica, A.sativum and N.tabacum was because they prevented A.dispersus from feeding which would have caused reduction in photosynthetic activity, premature leaf drop and weakening of the pepper plants (PITMAN &OLUFEMI, 2003). They also reduced the interference of the pest with the market value of the pepper fruits (AKINLOSOTU et al., 1993).

CONCLUSION This experiment has found that botanical insecticides of neem, garlic and tobacco have been effective in the reduction of A.dispersus population in Nigeria similar to what was reported in India. These botanical insecticides have done well in increasing and improving the yield and market value of pepper. The impact of the botanical insecticides with regards to environment, natural enemies and life is low compared to synthetic insecticides. More indigenous botanical insecticides on the spiraling whitefly population have to be carefully evaluated.

REFERENCES Akilosotu, T.A.; Jackai,L.E.N.;Ntonifor, N.N.;Hassan,A.T; Agyakwa,C.W.; Odebiyi, J.A.;Akinbohungbe,A.E.& Rossel,H.W.(1993). Spiraling whitefly,Aleurodicus dispersus Russell in Nigeria. FAO Plant Protection Bulletin 41:127-129

Alam,S.;Islam,M.N.;Alam,M.Z.& Islam,M.S (1998). Effectiveness of three insecticides for the control of the spiraling whitefly,Aleurodicus dispersus Russell (Homoptera:Aleyrodidae) of guava. Bangladesh Journal of Entomology 8:53-58

D’Almeida,Y.A.;Lys,J.A.;Neuenschwander,P.& Ajuanu,O. (1998). Impact of two accidentally introduced Encarsia species (Homoptera:Aleyrodidae) and other biotic and a biotic factors on the spiraling whitefly Aleurodicus dispersus Russell (Homoptera:Aleyrodidae) in Benin, West Africa. Biocontrol Science and Technology 8: 163-173

David, B.V. & Regu, K. (1995). Aleurodicus dispersus Russell (Aleyrodidae: Homoptera), a whitefly pest new to India. Pestology 19:5-7

Gajendra, B.B. & David P.M.M. (1999). New host plant records and host range of the spiraling whitefly, Aleurodicus dispersus Russell (: Aleyrodidae).Madras Agricultural Journal 86:305-313

Geetha, B. (2000).Biology and management of spiraling whitefly Aleurodicus dispersus Russell (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae).Ph.D.thesis, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, India.196pp

Geetha, B. & Swamiappan, M. (2001).Host range and natural enemies of spiraling whitefly,Aleurodicus dispersus Russell in Tamil Nadu Abstracts, National seminar on emerging trends in pests and diseases and their management, Coimbatore,11-13 October 2001.Coimbatore,India Tamil Nadu Agricultural University,Pp76 (abstract ENT 78).

Kajita, H.; Samudra, I.M. & Naito, A. (1991).Discovery of the spiraling whitefly Aleurodicus dispersus Russell (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) from Indonesia, with notes on its host plants and natural enemies. Applied Entomology and Zoology 26:397-400.

Lopez, V.F. Kairo, M.T.K. & Carl, K.P. (1997).Strengthening of the biological control programme against the spiraling whitefly, Aleurodicus dispersus in Togo, Curepe, Trinidad and Tobago. International Institute of Biological Control. Unpublished technical report 70pp

Mariam, M.A. (1999).Biology and management of spiraling whitefly, Aleurodicus dispersus Russell (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) on mulberry. M.Sc (Ag) thesis, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, India.88pp

Mural Krishna, M. (1999).Bio-ecology, host range and management of spiraling whitefly, Aleurodicus dispersus Russell (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) M.Sc. (Ag).thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, India 67pp

Neuenschwander, P. (1994).Spiraling whitefly Aleurodicus dispersus, a recent invader and new cassava pest in Africa. African Crop Science Journal 2:419-421

Neuenschwander, P. (1996).Evaluating efficacy of biological control of three exotic homopteran pests in tropical Africa. Entomophaga 41:405-434

Pitman, S. & Olufemi, O.R. (2003).Response of two growth stages of pepper to different population densities of the spiraling whitefly, Aleurodicus dispersus Russell. Insect Science and its Application 23(2):115-120

Pitan, O.O.R.; Fajimi, A.A.; Akinyemi, S.O.S. & Ayodele, E.O. (2002).Geographical Distribution and host range of spiraling whitefly Aleurodicus dispersus Russell (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) in Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Entomology 19 (2000):98-110 Ramani, S. (2000).Fortuitous introduction of an aphelinid parasitoid of the spiraling whitefly, Aleurodicus dispersus Russell (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) into the Lakshadweep islands, with notes on host plants and other natural enemies. Journal of Biological Control 14:55-60

Ranjith, A.M.; Rao, D.S. & Thomas, D.J. (1996).New host records of the mealy whitefly, Aleurodicus dispersus Russell in Kerala.Insect Environment 2:35-36

Ronald,A.H.;Walter,T.N.;Kumashiro,B.R.& Watanabe,T.M.(2002).Giant whitefly,Aleurodicus dispersus (Homoptera:Aleyrodidae).Plant pest control. Hawaii Department of Agriculture, Honolulu, Hawaii.New pest Advisory NO.02- 04:2pp

Srinivasa, M.V. (2000).Host plants of the spiraling whitefly, Aleurodicus dispersus Russell (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae).Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystems 6:79-105

Wen, H.C.; Tung, C.H. & Chen, C.N. (1995).Yield loss and control of spiraling whitefly, Aleurodicus dispersus Russell. Journal of Agricultural Research of China 44:147- 156

Wijesekera,G.A.W.& Kudagamage, C.(1990).Life history and control of ‘spiraling ‘whitefly Aleurodicus dispersus (Homoptera:Aleyrodidae):fast spreading pest in Sri Lanka.Quarterly Newsletter, Asia and Pacific Plant Protection Commission 33:22-24