Quick viewing(Text Mode)

Comparative Efficacy of Different Insecticides Against Whitefly, Bemisia Tabaci (Gennadius) (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) on Tomato Plants

Comparative Efficacy of Different Insecticides Against Whitefly, Bemisia Tabaci (Gennadius) (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) on Tomato Plants

Middle East Journal of Applied Volume : 07 | Issue :04 |Oct.-Dec.| 2017 Sciences Pages: 786-793 ISSN 2077-4613

Comparative efficacy of different against , tabaci (Gennadius) (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) on Plants

Jahel M. K., Safaa M. Halawa, Hafez A. A., Abd El-Zahar T. R. and Elgizawy K. Kh Plant Protection Dept., Fac. of Agric. Moshtohor, Benha Uni., Egypt. Received: 15 July 2017 / Accepted: 14 Oct. 2017 / Publication date: 5 Nov. 2017

ABSTRACT The efficiency of three used insecticides viz., Sulfoxaflor, Azadirachtin, and Biopower () were evaluated against nymphs and adults of cotton and tomato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) on tow tomato Varieties under natural field conditions at the farm of Faculty of Agriculture, Benha University, Egypt during two seasons 2016 and 2017. Results showed that Sulfoxaflour was the most effective against nymphal and adult stages of whitefly among the tested insecticides. Where as Sulfoxarflour gave the highest population reduction of B.tabaci after one day from treatment (recorded 100% reductions), while the efficiency of Biopower recorded 94.52% after five days from treatment. Azadirachtin was found to be the least effective on population of both adults and nymphs of whitefly on Alissa and Super strain cultivars of tomato, respectively for two seasons.

Key words: Efficacy, Bemisia tabaci, Tomato, Sulfoxaflour, Azadirachtin. Biopower

Introduction Tomato (Lycopersicone sculentum Mill) is one of the most important solanaceous vegetable crops in Egypt. The tomato plants are currently infested with many serious pests. The most destructive pests is whitefly, Bemisia tabaci. (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) . The whitefly is a polyphagous on more than 600 different plant species (Oliveira et al., 2001; Bayhan et al., 2006; Stansly and Natwick, 2010). It causes economic losses in vegetable, fiber, and ornamental crops due to both direct damage through phloem feeding and injection of toxins and indirect damage to the host plant through its ability to transmit plant viruses (Pereira et al., 2004; Brown, 2010). Moreover, an unfavorable side effect of whitefly infestation is the production of carbohydrate rich excretions, which make the leaves sticky, impair photosynthesis and support the growth of sooty mold fungi on the plant leaf and fruit surface (Stansly and Natwick, 2010). The direct damage elicited by B. tabaci has a vast impact on plant health and consequently yield. The indirect damage caused by the whitefly is even more destructive for agriculture (Lima et al. 2000). Indirect damage occurs through transmission of geminiviruses; whitefliesare vector of more than 300 plant viruses (Hogenhout et al. 2008). Many chemical and integrated protection programs are used to control this pest and to decrease the widespread damage which it cause in Egypt. The efficacy of different insecticides in controlling whitefly have been done by various workers viz (Khattak et al., 2006; Amjad et al. 2009; Nadeen et al., 2011 and Fida Magis et al. ,2017) Insecticides such as organophosphates, carbamates, and pyrethroids have been used to protect significant agricultural commodities from insect pests. Many have developed resistance against these groups of insecticides over the years. on the other hand, are highly effective insecticides because they exhibit no cross-resistance and are active against a wide range of insect pests. Sulfoxaflor is a systemic fourth-generation acting on the nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) in the nervous system of pests (FAO, 2011; Cutler et al., 2013). It is highly efficacious against sap-feeding insects. Sulfoxaflor used as an insecticide for various grains, vegetables, and fruits against , , hoppers, lygus, and mulberrythrips, with safety guidelines for three types of formulation products including suspension concentration (S), granule (GR), and water-dispersible granule (WG) (Korea Crop Protection Association, 2015). Azadirachtin also, acts as a strong antifeedant and repellent, delays and prevents moulting, reduces growth, development and oviposition; and can cause high mortality, particularly in immatures, as documented for a wide group of phytophagous insects including whitefly (Mitchell et al. 2004; Kumar et al. 2005 and Kumar and Poehling, 2006).

Corresponding Author: Jahel, M. K., Plant Protection Dept., Fac. of Agric. Moshtohor, Benha Uni., Egypt. 786 Middle East J. Appl. Sci., 7(4): 786-793, 2017 ISSN 2077-4613

Also, microbial control with fungal pathogen, (Beauveria bassiana) Biopawor was used to control many insects such as B. tabaci and Pieris brassicae (Baroudy et al., 2009 and Abboud et al., 2012). The present studies were conducted to evaluate the efficacy of some market available insecticides against whitefly, B. tabaci for increasing tomato production in the district

Materials and Methods

1-Field assay of Bemisia tabaci infestation suitability for the two tomato varieties :-

The present study was conducted during two growing seasons 2016 and 2017, in the experimental vegetable farm of the Faculty of Agriculture, Moshtohor, Benha University, Qalubiya Governorate, Egypt. Field experiments were carried out in an area of (126 m2) cultivated with two varieties of tomato (Lycopersicone sculentum Mill),Alissa and Super strain to evaluate the susceptibility degree of them to the white fly infestion and efficiency of three insecticides viz., Sulfoxaflor, Azadirachtin, and Biopower (Beauveria bassiana) against nymphs and adults population of tomato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci under natural field conditions . The experimental area was divided into 3 treatments Sulfoxaflor, Azadirachtin, and Biopower Table (1). Each treatment splited to 3 replicates and each replicate about (10.5 m2). In addition, three replicates were used as control. The recommended agronomic practices were followed in all plots including the untreated check. The experiment was laid out in a Randomized Complete Design (RCD).The tomato plants were sprayed tow times, by using a 20 L knapsack sprayer with one nozzle with tested insecticides the 1st spray was at 6th of April, while the 2nd spray was at the 2nd of May in the two studied seasons. The amount of water was calibrated to obtain sufficient coverage of Tomato plants and spraying was carried out early in the morning. Four plants / replicate were inspected directly, in the field and calculated the numbers of white fly adults. Twenty leaves per replicate were picked at random from 4 plants (5 leaves/plant) and put in a tightly closed paper bags and transferred to the laboratory, to inspection under stereo microscope, to calculate the life numbers of nymphs in order to determine the effect of the three tested compounds in reducing the population density of B. tabaci. Numbers of white fly individuals were counted 24 hrs before treatment one 3, 5,7 and 14 days after spraying .

Table 1 : Insecticides and doses used against B. tabaci. T. Common name Formulation Trade name Source Dose T1 Sulfoxaflor 24% SC Closer DOW Agrosciences-UK 100cm/Fadden T2 Azadirachtin 0.03%EC Safe oil Gaara Establishment 500cm/100L T3 Beauveria bassiana 1.15%WP Biopower Gaara Establishment 1.5KG/Fadden

Twenty leaves per replicate were picked at random from 4 plants (5 leaves/plant) and put in a tightly closed paper bags and transferred to the laboratory Percent reduction in the population of nymphs and adults of whitefly for each treatment was calculated according to equation of Henderson and Tiltton, (1955).

Statistical analysis

An independent F-test was carried out to independent the significant differences between the Alissa and Super strain tomato varieties in the suitability of B. tabaci based on the number of nymphs and adults. The SPSS program Version 16 (SPSS-Inc., 2005) was used. The least significant difference test was applied at 0.05 probability level to compare mean treatments.

Results and discussion

Effect of tomato variety and some insecticides on nymphs and adults population of Bemisia tabaci during two seasons 2016 and 2017.

Effect of tomato variety on population density of whitefly was studied under field condition on two tomato varieties during two seasons 2016 and 2017.

787 Middle East J. Appl. Sci., 7(4): 786-793, 2017 ISSN 2077-4613

Also, the effect of three insecticides Sulfoxaflour, Biopower and Azadirachtin in reducing the population density of B.tabaci was evaluated in field experiment after (34) days of transplanting and compared with untreated plants during two successive seasons 2016 and 2017 on two tomato cultivars, Alissa and Super strain. All tested insecticides were used with the recommended dose (Table, 1).

Effect of tomato varieties:

Data in Tables 2 &3 show significant differences in infestation rates caused by B. tabaci nymphs and adults to the tested tomato varieties during 2016 and 2017 seasons. In the first season, results in Table (2) reveal that where higher infestation rates with B. tabaci occurred on Alissa variety the pre count of B. tabaci nymphs ranged between 0.92 to 3.25 individuals/leave while on super strain were ranged between 1.0 – 2.5 individuals/leave. In the second season recorded 1.25 to 3.42 on Alissa cultivar while on super strain cultivar were 1.17 to 2.17 individuals/leave, respectively. concerning, population of B. tabaci adults results show significant differences of pest population between the two tested tomato varieties. The population density of B. tabaci adults ranged between 2.17 to 5.6 individuals/plant in the first season, while ranged 1.42-4.33 on super strain cultivar (Table 3). In the second season recorded 2.08 to 5.50 individuals/plant with Alissa cultivar, while the cultivar Super strain harbor finally, it can be concluded that the two tested tomato cultivars showed that Alissa cultivar more susceptibility to whitefly infestan than super strain variety B. tabaci adults ranged between 1.42 to 4.33 individuals/plant, respectively. These results are in agreement with those obtained by Hanafy (2004) and Amro, (2008), who reported that the tested cucurbit varieties showed different susceptibility degrees to the white fly, B. tabaci infestation. Moreover,

The efficiency percentages of tested compounds against the adults and nymphs of B. tabaci on two tomato varieties during two seasons 2016 and 2017.

All tested insecticides showed high efficiency in mortality of the whitefly nymphs and adults. Also, there are significant differences between all tested compounds. A considerable reduction in B. tabaci population on the two previously mentioned cultivars. Statistical analysis after one day of insecticides application revealed that sulfoxarflour had the significantly highest effect in reducing the population density of B. tabaci on the two studied tomato cultivars. Results of the efficiency of Sulfoxaflor against whitefly are shown in Tables 3&4, from these data it clear that the highest efficiency caused 100% mortality of whitefly nymphs and adults recorded in the 1stday after application. In the other tested insecticides, a conclusive difference in efficiency was found; on day 3rd after application, the highest efficiency was determined in Azadirachtin ranging (depending on tomato variety from 90.22 % to 100% and 80.16% to 90.64% for Super strain and Alissa cultivars ’respectively during the two seasons 2016and 2017.The bio- Biopower (Beauveria bassiana) showed the highest efficiency, which was estimated to be approximately 100%.on day 5th. The efficiency of all tested insecticides was decreasing slightly within the time.(Table, 4 and 5) However, application of sulfoxaflour and Azadirachtin always may be induced resistance development on the whitefly population. The overall results manifest that to get effective control of whitefly soon after its onset,Sulfoxaflour proved to be the most effective against nymphs and adults of whitefly (during the first week after application) population among the tested insecticides. While, B. bassiana (Biopower) can be used as a promising agent in and integrated pest management programs instead of conventional pesticides to reduce the environmental pollution especially when the pests were under the economic threshold. Also, the effective of biopower extended two for more than two weeks and don’t effect on natural enemies. Abdel-Razek et al. (2017) evaluated the efficacy of different bio-rational insecticides against B. tabaci under greenhouse conditions. The results exhibited a special significance in B. tabaci infestation suitability between thetwo tomato varieties with a high infestation significance found in the Shifa F1 hybrid tomato variety compared to the Savera F1 hybrid tomato variety in the first plantation period.Subsequently, in the second plantation period, there was a significant difference between the two tomato varieties. Bemisia tabaci showed a preference for the Shifa F1 hybrid over the Savera F1 hybrid tomato variety.

788 Middle East J. Appl. Sci., 7(4): 786-793, 2017 ISSN 2077-4613

In this respect Also, Alsaidy, (2014) concluded that the pesticide chemical Hatchihatchi in reducing the population density of nymphs and adults whitefly Bemisia tabaci ,with 63%, followed by treatment Spino sad and pathogenic fungus B. bassiana52% and 44.67%, respectively.

Table 2: Effect of some insecticides on nymphs population of Bemisia tabaci on two tomato varieties, Alissa and Super Strain under field conditions during two seasons 2016 and 2017 . Mean number of Nymphs /leave ±SE

ty Treatments Seasons After first spray (day) Veri Pre-spray 1 3 5 7 14 1st 1.58 0±0dF 0.17 0.58 1.00 2.00 ±0.34abcB ±0.11fE ±0.23dD ±0.33dC ±0.39bcA Sulfoxaflour 2nd 1.33 0±0dC 0.17 1.08 1.17 1.75 ±0.38cdB ±0.11fC ±0.26cB ±0.32dB ±0.48cA 1.67 1.00 0.67 0.08 0.58 0.83 1st ±0.33abA ±0.28abcB ±0.26dC ±0.08eD ±0.23fC ±0.27eBC Biopower 1.67 1.00 0.58 0.58 0.83 2nd 0±0eD ±0.28abA ±0.35abcB ±0.23deC ±0.19fC ±0.34eB

Alissa 1.75 1.08 0.33 0.75 0.92 1.33 1st ±0.33aA ±0.31abBC ±0.19efE ±0.22dD ±0.23deCD ±0.31dB Azadirachtin 1.42 0.83 0.33 0.75 0.83 1.17 2nd ±0.34bcA ±0.27bcB ±0.19efC ±0.3dB ±0.27eB ±0.27dA 1.00 0.92 1.42 1.75 1.92 2.33 1st 0.30eD ±0.23bcD ±0.29bC ±0.39bB ±0.45abB ±0.56aA Control 1.25 1.25 1.83 2.08 2.08 2.33 2nd ±0.25cdeC ±0.30aC ±0.37aB ±0.40aAB ±0.40aAB ±0.56aA 0.67 0.42 0.67 1.00 1st 0±0eD 0±0eD ±0.19dB ±0.15cC ±0.22dB ±0.28dcA Sulfoxaflour 0.75 0.50 0.75 0.83 2nd 0±0eC 0±0eC ±0.22cdA ±0.19cB ±0.22dA ±0.3eA

st 0.83 0.67 0.67 eD 0.42 0.58 1 cdA bAB dAB 0±0 eC fBC

±0.27 ±0.26 ±0.22 ±0.15 ±0.19 Biopower 1.00 0.83 0.50 0.25 0.50 0.58 2nd ±0.25abA ±0.24bA ±0.19dB ±0.13dC ±0.19deB ±0.23fB 0.67 0.42 0.08 0.58 0.67 1.08 1st ±0.19dB ±0.15dC ±0.08eD ±0.19cBC ±0.19dB ±0.26dA Super Strain Azadirachtin 0.92 0.58 0.17 0.58 1.17 1.08 2nd ±0.26bcB ±0.19cdC ±0.11eD ±0.23cC ±0.30cA ±0.19dAB 1.00 1.08 1.67 1.75 2.08 2.50 1st ±0.17abD ±0.23aD ±0.19bC ±0.3aC ±0.29aB ±0.29aA Control 1.17 1.25 2.17± 1.33 2.08 1.92 2nd ±0.24aC ±0.25aC 0.37aA ±0.31bC ±0.5aAB ±0.47bB After second spray (day) 1.83 0.25 0.58 1.08 1.42 1st 0±0eE ±0.32cdA ±0.13cdE ±0.19dD ±0.34cC ±0.29dB Sulfoxaflour 1.42 0.33 0.92 1.33 1.33 2nd 0±0eD ±0.36efA ±0.19bcC ±0.29cB ±0.36bcA ±0.26dA 0.83 0.75 0.58 0.58 0.83 1st 0±0eB ±0.24hA ±0.22dA ±0.19bA ±0.23dA ±0.3eA Biopower 0.83 0.83 0.58 0.42 0.75 2nd 0±0eC ±0.24hA ±0.24dA ±0.19bAB ±0.19dB ±0.25eA

Alissa 1.25 0.58 0.17 0.58 1.25 1.50 1st ±0.25fgA ±0.19dB ±0.11dC ±0.23dB ±0.25bcA ±0.26bA Azadirachtin 1.08 0.58 0.25 0.75 1.25 1.58 2nd ±0.23ghB ±0.19dC ±0.18cdD ±0.28cdC ±0.25bcB ±0.34dA 1.58 2.33 2.25 2.83 3.25 3.08 1st ±0.29deD ±0.38bC ±0.35aC ±0.47aB ±0.57aA ±0.51bAB Control 2.00 3.00 2.33 2.83 3.33 3.42 2nd ±0.35cD ±0.43aB ±0.28aC ±0.47aB ±0.59aA ±0.74aA 1.08 0.08 0.67 1.33 1.33 1st 0±0fD ±0.26dB ±0.08dD ±0.19dcC ±0.31cA ±0.31cA Sulfoxaflour 1.33 0.17 0.83 0.83 0.95 2nd 0±0fC ±0.31cA ±0.11cdC ±0.21dB ±0.3dB ±0.34dB

st 0.67 0.67 0.33 fC 0.42 0.75 1 eA dA cB 0±0 eB dA

±0.19 ±0.19 ±0.14 ±0.23 ±0.31 Biopower 0.58 0.42 0.30 0.37 0.33 2nd 0±0fC ±0.23eA ±0.23eAB ±0.19cB ±0.19eAB ±0.29eB 1.00 0.67 0.50 0.83 1.17 1st 0±0dD ±0.25dA ±0.22dBC ±0.19eC ±0.3dB ±0.27cA Super Strain Azadirachtin 1.00 0.75 0.58 0.67 0.70 2nd 0±0dC ±0.21dA ±0.25dB ±0.23eB ±0.22dB ±0.19dB 1.67 2.00 1.83 2.17 2.42 2.50 1st ±0.28bD ±0.25aC ±0.27aC ±0.24aB ±0.42aA ±0.44aA Control 2.08 1.92 1.33 1.67 1.50 1.67 2nd ±0.45aA ±0.26bB ±0.26bD ±0.36cC ±0.34cC ±0.36bC a, b & c: There is no significant difference (P>0.05) between any two means, within the same column have the same superscript letter. A, B & C: There is no significant difference (P>0.05) between any two means, within the same row for same spray have the same superscript letter.

789 Middle East J. Appl. Sci., 7(4): 786-793, 2017 ISSN 2077-4613

Table 3: Effect of some insecticides on population of Bemisia tabaci adults on two tomato varieties, Alissa and Super Strain under field conditions during two seasons 2016 and 2017 (mean number of adults/plant ±SE)

Mean number of adults /plants ±SE

y \ Treatments Seasons After first spray (day) Pre-spray

Veriti 1 3 5 7 14

1st 3.00±0.56bA 0±0gE 0.17±0.11hE 0.67±0.22efD 1.33±0.28dC 2.08±0.36eB Sulfoxaflour 2nd 2.75±0.55bcdB 0.25±0.13gFG 0.50±0.15fgF 0.83±0.30deE 1.33±0.26dD 2.75±0.35dB

1st 3.33±0.47aA 1.75±0.25cdB 1.42±0.56dBC 0.25±0.13ghE 0.75±0.22fD 1.08±0.29gh Biopower nd cdA eBC dBC fgE eCD hiD

2 2.58±0.43 1.42±0.36 1.25±0.33 0.50±0.19 1.08±0.26 0.92±0.29

1st 1.83±0.30ghB 1.42±0.23eC 0.50±0.23fgFG 0.75±0.22eEF 1.17±0.21eCD 2.00±0.28eB Alissa Azadirachtin 2nd 2.83±0.49bcA 1.50±0.23dC 0.83±0.30eE 1.08±0.29dDE 1.50±0.29dC 2.17±0.46eB

1st 2.25±0.28efF 2.17±0.32abF 2.42±0.31bF 3.08±0.26aE 3.25±0.33aDE 3.17±0.47cE Control 2nd 2.08±0.45fgE 2.25±0.37aE 2.92±0.31aD 3.00±0.46aCD 3.08±0.29aCD 4.25±0.84aB

1st 1.08±0.19kC 0±0gE 0.08±0.08hDE 0.42±0.15fghD 1.50±0.44dB 1.92±0.29eA Sulfoxaflour 2nd 1.33±0.28jkB 0±0gD 0.33±0.19ghD 0.75±0.28eC 1.25±0.37deB 1.92±0.43eA

1st 1.42±0.34ijA 1.42±0.36eA 0.50±0.19fgBC 0±0iD 0.58±0.19fBC 0.75±0.22iB

Biopower 2nd 1.67±0.19hiA 1.25±0.37efB 0.75±0.28efCDE 0.17±0.11hF 0.67±0.19fDE 0.67±0.22iDE

1st 1.75±0.25hB 1.50±0.34deBCD 0.33±0.19ghF 0.83±0.24dE 1.17±0.3eDE 1.50±0.29fBCD Azadirachtin Super Super Strain 2nd 2.50±0.84deA 1.08±0.26fC 0.33±0.14ghE 0.75±0.22eD 1.17±0.42eC 1.25±0.25fgC

1st 1.42±0.26ijF 1.92±0.31bcE 2.00±0.28cE 2.50±0.40bD 2.42±0.29cD 3.92±0.45bB Control 2nd 1.58±0.36hiEF 1.50±0.31deF 2.00±0.41cD 1.92±0.34cDE 2.75±0.45bC 3.17±0.76cB

After second spray (day) 1st 3.33±0.33bAD 0±0gE 0.33±0.14ghiDE 0.67±0.22fD 1.33±0.28fgC 1.92±0.36fB Sulfoxaflour 2nd 2.92±0.63cB 0.08±0.08gG 0.33±0.26ghiFG 0.92±0.29efE 1.92±0.47eC 3.58±0.60cA

1st 1.67±0.26efB 1.17±0.27eC 0.75±0.25fD 0.25±0.13gE 0.75±0.28jD 1.17±0.27hC Biopower nd gB dB dB gF jD ghBC

2 1.58±0.4f 1.58±0.26 1.50±0.31 0.17±0.11 0.75±0.22 1.33±0.36

1st 2.50±0.34dA 1.17±0.32eCD 0.17±0.11iG 0.58±0.19fE 0.92±0.26ijDE 1.92±0.34fB Alissa Azadirachtin 2nd 2.25±0.37dB 1.25±0.25deCD 0.25±0.13hiF 1.08±0.26deDE 1.50±0.34fC 1.50±0.45gC

1st 3.25±0.37bDE 3.42±0.48aCE 3.58±0.43bCD 3.67±0.36bBC 4.00±0.49bB 5.67±0.75aA Control 2nd 4.50±0.90aB 3.33±0.72aC 4.17±0.82aB 4.08±0.87aB 4.42±0.88aB 5.50±1.10aA

1st 2.25±0.39dA 0±0gE 0.25±0.13hDE 1.00±0.21eC 1.08±0.23ghiC 2.25±0.28eA Sulfoxaflour 2nd 1.92±0.5eA 0.08±0.08gD 0.33±0.19ghD 1.33±0.38cdB 1.00±0.25hjB 1.92±0.54fA

1st 0.83±0.24hB 0.75±0.18fB 0.58±0.19fgBC 0±0gD 0.33±0.14kCD 0.75±0.28iB

Biopower 2nd 1.33±0.28gAB 1.08±0.26eBC 0.75±0.22fCDE 0±0gF 0.42±0.19kE 0.83±0.30iCD

1st 1.58±0.26fgBC 1.17±0.32eDE 0.42±0.26ghF 0.92±0.26eE 1.33±0.28fgCD 3.00±0.58dA Azadirachtin Super Strain 2nd 1.67±0.36efB 2.33±1.09cA 0.33±0.19ghE 1.42±0.43cBC 1.42±0.36fBC 2.25±0.70eA

1st 2.42±0.29dD 2.50±0.44bcD 2.58±0.26cD 3.50±0.34bC 3.58±0.4cC 4.33±0.62bA Control 2nd 2.50±0.48dC 2.67±0.38bC 2.75±0.58cC 3.58±0.79bA 3.00±0.44dB 3.00±0.43dB a, b & c: There is no significant difference (P>0.05) between any two means, within the same column have the same superscript letter. A, B & C: There is no significant difference (P>0.05) between any two means, within the same row have the same superscript letter.

790 Middle East J. Appl. Sci., 7(4): 786-793, 2017 ISSN 2077-4613

Table 4: The efficiency % of tested compounds against the adults of B. tabaci on two tomato varieties, Alissa and Super Strain under field conditions during two seasons 2016 and 2017. Efficiency % after spray(s) against the B. tabaci infestation

Treatments Spray Alissa Super Strain

Seasons Seasons 1 3 5 7 14 1 3 5 7 14

1st 100.00 94.83 83.78 69.23 50.66 100.00 94.52 78.09 18.39 35.66 Sulfoxaflour 2nd 100.00 90.92 82.25 67.47 66.99 100.00 85.04 55.82 53.25 19.71

1st 45.43 60.39 94.52 84.41 76.88 26.09 75.00 100.00 75.86 80.85

Biopower nd

2016 2 33.55 59.27 86.73 63.51 59.93 25.22 43.72 100.00 76.81 56.86

1st 19.61 74.56 70.09 55.86 22.35 36.50 86.48 72.95 60.83 68.92 Azadirachtin 2nd 55.61 93.95 79.32 70.21 56.03 22.07 73.06 56.26 37.86 22.92

1st 91.60 87.03 78.99 67.29 51.06 100.00 80.20 53.51 46.00 28.10 Sulfoxaflour 2nd 96.15 87.67 65.40 33.12 27.71 95.11 81.04 41.81 47.87 0.08

1st 49.24 65.45 86.56 71.67 82.61 21.16 64.52 91.77 77.06 80.08

Biopower nd

2017 2 16.27 24.81 88.38 51.64 30.96 0.48 2.19 100.00 70.11 49.79

1st 51.00 79.00 73.46 64.24 62.53 54.36 89.47 75.27 73.19 75.05 Azadirachtin 2nd 25.00 88.00 46.94 32.08 45.45 29.80 74.79 65.17 23.73 1.55

Table 5: The efficiency % of tested compounds against the nymphs of B. tabaci on two tomato varieties, Alissa and Super Strain under field conditions during two seasons 2016 and 2017 . Efficiency % after spray(s) against the B. tabaci infestation

Treatments Spray Alissa Super Strain

Seasons 1 3 5 7 14 1 3 5 7 14

1st 100.00 92.55 78.90 66.98 45.75 100.00 100.00 64.46 52.24 40.30 Sulfoxaflour 2nd 100.00 90.41 82.22 71.22 60.33 100.00 92.97 52.42 14.69 17.53

1st 34.68 71.82 97.15 81.78 78.61 25.86 51.81 100.00 75.90 71.89 Biopower nd

2016 2 38.81 50.65 100.00 65.83 48.55 16.92 54.68 100.00 57.03 25.22

1st 32.47 86.55 75.51 72.67 67.35 42.59 92.54 50.25 52.24 35.32 Azadirachtin 2nd 68.40 90.64 73.98 51.38 38.51 44.33 100.00 61.46 42.41 22.07

1st 100.00 91.46 51.13 47.37 29.51 100.00 100.00 41.50 43.84 32.17 Sulfoxaflour 2nd 100.00 79.88 54.43 43.66 45.04 100.00 80.45 21.80 13.12 10.86

1st

40.12 76.18 100.00 79.04 73.27 22.00 73.00 78.06 71.92 64.39 Biopower nd

2017 2 33.07 39.76 100.00 69.88 47.11 21.42 19.31 100.00 11.54 28.99

1st 41.31 83.99 68.31 64.79 55.99 40.65 90.22 44.36 28.78 28.12 Azadirachtin 2nd 63.99 80.16 50.98 30.56 14.18 18.61 100.00 27.20 7.56 12.64

791 Middle East J. Appl. Sci., 7(4): 786-793, 2017 ISSN 2077-4613

References

Abboud R., A. M. Mouhanna, E. Choueiri and B. El Rahbana, 2012. Assessment of the Effectiveness of Beauveria bassiana Fungus in Controlling Insects Under greenhouse, Field and Laboratory Conditions. Persian Gulf Crop Protection 1(1): 36-44 Abdel-Razek, A. S., N.M. Abd El-Ghany, K. Djelouah and A. Moussa, 2017. An evaluation of some eco-friendly biopesticides against Bemisia tabaci on two greenhouse tomato varieties in Egypt. J. plant protection Res., 57,(1)9-17. Alsaidy, H.A.M., N.A. Alumairy, F. Bahjet and H. A. Alanbugy, 2014. Biocontrol Fungi in Reducing The Population Density Of The Cotton White Fly on G. J.B.A.H.S., 3 (3):246-251. Amjad M., M.H. Bashir, M. Afzal and M. A. Khan, 2009. Efficacy of Some Insecticides against Whitefly (Bemisia tabaci Genn.) Infesting Cotton under Field Conditions .Pak. j. life soc. sci., 7(2): 140-143 Bayhan E., M.R. Ulusoy and J.K. Brown, 2006. Host range, distribution, and natural enemies of Bemisia tabaci ‘B biotype’ (: Aleyrodidae) in Turkey. J. Pest Science 79 (4): 233– 240. Brown J.K., 2010. Phylogenetic biology of the Bemisia tabaci sib-ling species group. p. 31–67. In: “Bemisia: Bionomics and Management of a Global Pest” (P.A. Stansly, S.E. Naranjo, eds.). Springer, 36 pp. Cutler P., R. Slater, A.J.F. Edmunds, P. Maienfisch, R.G. Hall, F.G. Earley, T. Pitterna, S. Pal, V.L. Paul, J. Goodchild, M. Blacker, L. Hagmann and A.J. Crossthwaite, 2013. Investigating the mode of action of sulfoxaflor: a fourth-generation neonicotinoid, Pest Management Science, 69 (5), 607-619. Fida Magsi, H., K.H. Lashari, M.A. Chandio, Z.A. Bhutto, N.A. Channa, A.A. Junejo, A.A. Soomro, S.H. Lashari and S. Mangi, 2017. Effectiveness of different synthetic insecticides against Bemisia tabaci (genn) on tomato crop. International Journal of Fauna and Biological Studies, 4(3): 06-09 Food and agricultural organization/world health organization. available from: http://apps.who.int/pesticide-residues-jmpr, 2011. Hogenhout S.A., E.D. Ammar, A.E. Whitield and M.G. Redinbaugh, 2008. Insect vector interactions with persistently transmitted viruses. Annual Review of Phytopathology 46: 327–359. Khattak, M.K., M. Rashid, S.A.S. Hussain, and T. Islam, 2006. Comparative effect of neem (Azadirachta indica) oil, neem seed water extract and baythroid TM against whitefly, jassid and on cotton. Pak. Entomol., 28: 31-37. Korea Crop Protection Association, 2015. p. 526. www.koreacpa.org. Kumar, P., H.M. Poehling and C. Borgemeister, 2005. Effects of different application methods of Neem against Sweet potato Whitefly Bemisia tabaci Gennadius (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) on Tomato plants. J ApplEntomol 129:889-497 Lima L., D.Návia, P.Inglis and M.De Oliveira, 2000. Survey of Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) biotypes in Brazil using RAPD markers. Genetics and Molecular Biology 23 (4): 781–785. Longhurst, C., J.M. Babcock, L. Denholm, K. Gorman, J.D. Thomas and T.C. Sparks, 2013. Cross- resistance relationships of the sulfoximine insecticide sulfoxaflor with neonicotinoids and other insecticides in the whiteflies Bemisia tabaci and vaporariorum. Pest Management Science; 69 (7), 809-813. Mitchell, P.L., R. Gupta, A.K. Singh and P. Kumar, 2004. Behavioural and developmental effects of neem extracts on Clavigrallas cutellaris (Hemiptera: : ) and its egg , Gryonfulviventre (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae). J Econ Entomol 97(3):916–923 Nadeem, M.K., S. Nadeem, M. Hasnain, S. Ahmed and M. Ashfaq, 2011. Comparative efficacy of some insecticides against cotton Whitefly, Bemisi atabaci (gennadius) (homoptera: aleyrodidae) Under natural field conditions.The Nucleus 48, (2): 159-162 Oliveira, M., T. Henneberry and P. Anderson, 2001. History, current status, and collaborative research projects for Bemisia tabaci. Crop Protection 20 (9): 709–723. Pereira M.F., J.A.L. Boiça and J.C. Barbosa, 2004. Distribuição espacial de Bemisia tabaci (Genn.) biótipo B (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) emfeijoeiro (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). [Spacial distribution

792 Middle East J. Appl. Sci., 7(4): 786-793, 2017 ISSN 2077-4613

of Bemisia tabaci (Genn.) biotype B (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)]. Neotropical Entomology 33 (4): 493–498. prabhat Kumar H. M. Poehling, 2006. Persistence of soil and foliar azadirachtin treatments to control weetpotato whitefly Bemisia tabaci Gennadius (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) on tomatoes under controlled (laboratory) and field netted greenhouse) conditions in the humid tropics . J Pest Sci., 79: 189–199 SPSS-Inc., 2005. SPSS Base 16.0 for Windows User’s Guide. SPSS Inc., Chicago IL. Stansly, P.A. and E.T. Natwick, 2010. Integrated systems for managing Bemisiatabaci in protected and open field agriculture. p. 467–497. In: “Bemisia: Bionomics and Management of a Global Pest (P.A. Stansly, S.E. Naranjo, eds.). Springer, 540.

793

Top View