Efficacy of Insecticides Against Major Defoliators of Rice

Indian Journal of Entomology 83(2021) Online published Ref. No. e20228 DoI No.: 10.5958/0974-8172.2021.00024.9

EFFICACY OF INSECTICIDES AGAINST MAJOR DEFOLIATORS OF RICE

Sandeep Kumar* and Kuldeep Sharma

Department of Agricultural Entomology, College of Agriculture, V C Farm, Mandya, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bengaluru 571405 *Email: [email protected] (corresponding author)

ABSTRACT

A field experiment carried out at the College of Agriculture, V C Farm, Mandya, Karnataka evaluated the efficacy of insecticides viz., indoxacarb 15.8EC @ 0.5 ml/ l, flubendiamide 48SC @ 0.15 ml/ l, chlorantraniliprole 18.5SC @ 0.12 ml/ l, benfuracarb 3G @ 33 kg/ ha, cartap hydrochloride 4G @ 25 kg/ ha, fipronil 0.3G @ 25 kg/ ha, acephate 75SP @ 1g/ l and chlorpyriphos 20EC @ 2ml/ l against major defoliators of rice viz., rice hispa, leaf folder, caseworm and horned caterpillar during kharif, 2018. The reduction of leaf damage over untreated control after imposing treatments was maximum with flubendiamide 48SC (56.99-82.72%) followed by cartap hydrochloride 4 G (52.24- 79.69%). Also, flubendiamide 48SC @0.15 ml/ l was the most effective with maximum cost benefit ratio.

Key words: Rice, defoliators, insecticides, efficacy, flubendiamide, cartap hydrochloride, indoxacarb, chlorantraniliprole, benfuracarb, fipronil, acephate, chlorpyriphos, cost benefits

Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is one of the most important include: indoxacarb 15.8EC @0.5 ml/ l, flubendiamide cereal crops of the world, and its productivity is 48SC @0.15 ml/ l, chlorantraniliprole 18.5SC @0.12 hampered by insect pests. Amongst these the defoliators ml/ l, benfuracarb 3G @33 kg/ ha, cartap hydrochloride viz., rice hispa, Dicladispa armigera Oliver, leaf 4G @ 25 kg/ ha, fipronil 0.3G @ 25 kg/ ha, acephate folder Cnaphalocrocis medinalis Guenee, caseworm 75SP @1g/ l, chlorpyriphos 20EC @ 2ml/ l and untreated Nymphula depunctalis Guenee and horned caterpillar control. The variety Jaya was sown with a spacing of 20x Melanitis leda ismene Cramer are of major importance 15 cm, in plot size of 4x 4.5 m with a total of 108 subplots. and cause economic damage (Sidde Gowda and The evaluated insecticides were used as soil application/ Gubbaiah, 2011; Bhattacharjee and Ray, 2010; Ahmad foliar spray, with granular insecticides being benfuracarb, et al., 2010; Alvi et al., 2003; Singh and Singh, 2014; cartap hydrochloride, fipronil applied seven days Pathak and Khan, 1994). Of these, the rice horned before those applied as foliar spray. The pretreatment caterpillar usually occurs in less number and infest rice observations were made a day before treatment, and crops of lowland and upland. This pest has gained major the post treatment counts at 1, 7 and 14 days after. For pest status in various parts of India. In Southern parts rice hispa counts were made on 10 randomly selected of Karnataka, the infestation of all these defoliators plants/ replication by counting number of leaves showing have become serious for the past two decades causing feeding damage by adults (white parallel streaks along heavy damage in both kharif and summer crops. Since, leaf axis) and total number of leaves, and % leaf damage the southern parts of Karnataka are important rice computed. For rice leaf folder it was computed with the growing region in the state, the management of these number of folded leaves (scrapping on leaf blade). In case defoliators are of prime importance. The present study of rice caseworm, it was done with number of leaf cases, evaluates the efficacy of some insecticides against the and for horned caterpillar it was done with the damaged major defoliators. leaves (defoliated leaf blade irregularly) (IRRI, 2013). At harvest, yield of grain and biomass were recorded, with MATERIALS AND METHODS data converted to q/ ha. The data of % leaf damage was The field experiment was carried out in kharif, subjected to suitable transformation before ANOVA and 2018 at the College of Agriculture, V C Farm, Mandya, means were separated by Tukey’s HSD (Tukey, 1953). Karnataka (12032’N, 76053’E, 690 masl) during kharif, Further, cost economics was worked out by following 2018. l. For each defoliator, separate experiment was formula. laid out in Randomized Completely Block Design with Benefit Cost Ratio = (Net profit (Rs.) three replications in each treatment. The treatments (Total cost (Rs.) 2 Indian Journal of Entomology 83(2021) Online published Ref. No. e20228

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION against rice leaf folder. Similarly, Javaregowda and Naik (2005) and Kulagod et al. (2011) also indicated The results revealed that with D. armigera, the that flubendiamide 39.35SC was the best against rice pretreatment data varied from 2.03 to 2.41%, and 2.02 defoliators. Similarly, Seetharamu et al. (2005) and to 2.39 on one day after treatment (DAT); seven DAT Sachan et al. (2006) revealed the superiority of cartap least damage (1.61%) was observed with acephate 75SP hydrochloride against lepidopteran pests of rice. Thus, which was on par with that of flubendiamide 48SC flubendiamide 48SC @ 0.15 ml/ l was found to be the (1.67%) and cartap hydrochloride 4G (1.72%); on 14 most effective insecticides against defoliators of rice DAT 1.13% damage was observed with flubendiamide followed by cartap hydrochloride 4G @ 25 kg/ ha. 48SC which was on par with cartap hydrochloride 4G However, the flubendiamide 48SC @ 0.15 ml/ l and (1.33%). Thus, reduction of damage at 14 DAT was more indoxacarb 15.8 EC @ 0.5 ml/ l gave maximum cost in flubendiamide 48SC (59.78%). Maximum grain yield benefit. (61.12 q/ ha) was obtained with flubendiamide 48SC followed by cartap hydrochloride 4G (57.22 q/ha). The ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS maximum cost benefit was 1:3.07 with flubendiamide 48SC. For C. medinalis, the pretreatment observations The authors thank the Department of Agricultural revealed 9.70 to 10.92% damage, and 1 DAT, it was Entomology, College of Agriculture, Mandya, 9.62 to 10.34%, with significant differences observed University of Agricultural Sciences, Bengaluru for 7DAT- the least damage (6.09%) was observed in providing necessary facilities. The award of ICAR-NTS flubendiamide 48SC followed by cartap hydrochloride 4 (National talent scholarship) to the first author is also G (6.43%) against 13.97% in untreated control. After 14 acknowledged. DAT similar results were obtained with flubendiamide REFERENCES 48SC which was on par with cartap hydrochloride 4G, with maximum reduction of 82.72% in damage over Ahmad H, Khan R B, Sharma D, Jamwal V V S, Gupta S. 2010. Seasonal incidence, infestation and trap catches of Cnaphalocrocis medinalis untreated control. Maximum yield of 66.47 q/ ha was in rice. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences 18(2): 380-383. observed with flubendiamide 48SC giving cost benefit Alvi S M, Ali M A, Chaudhary S, Iqbal S. 2003. Population trends and being 1:3.15 (Table 1, 2). chemical control of rice leaf folder, Cnaphalocrocis medinalis on rice crop. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology 5(4): Against N. depunctalis which was showing a 615-617. pretreatment damage at 9.79 to 10.66%, and 9.75 Bhattacharjee P P, Ray D C. 2010. Population dynamics of rice hispa, to 10.58% on 1 DAT, revealed damage of 5.60% Dicladispa armigera (Olivier) in Barak Valley of Assam and effectiveness of bio-pesticides for its management. Oryza 47: on 7 DAT with flubendiamide 48SC; and it was on 307-311. par with cartap hydrochloride 4G; on 14 DAT again Chaudhari B N, Shamkuwar G R, Raut R F, Shende P V, Undirwade flubendiamide 48SC was the most effective on par D B, Katti G R. 2017. Screening of newer insecticides against with cartap hydrochloride 4G, leading to 74.94% and major insect pests of rice. International Journal of Researches in 71.91% reduction in damage, respectively. Maximum Biosciences Agriculture and Technology 5(2): 506-509. yield (59.83 q/ha) was observed with flubendiamide Devi P R, Singh K L. 2015. Efficacy of new molecules, spinosad and monocrotophos on the incidence of Cnaphalocrocis medinalis 48SC giving maximum benefit cost ratio (1:3.00). In Guenee under kharif rice crop ecosystem of Manipur Valley. the experiment on M. leda ismene, pretreatment damage International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology was from 6.19 to 6.53% and after 1 DAT it was 6.10 to 6(1): 8-14. 6.68%. After 7 DAT this daamge reduced to the least IRRI. 2013. Standard Evaluation System (SES) for rice. International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Los Banos, Philippines. value of 5.58% with cartap hydrochloride 4G which was Javaregowda, Krishna Naik. 2005. Bioefficacy of flubendiamide 20 on par with others; and after 14 DAT it reduced to 3.26% WDG (RIL-038) against paddy pests and their natural enemies. with flubendiamide leading to a reduction of 56.99%. Pestology 29(11): 58-60. Maximum yield (60.36 q/ ha) was obtained with Kulagod S D, Mahabaleshwar H, Vastrad A S, Basavanagoud K. 2011. flubendiamide 48SC followed by cartap hydrochloride Evaluation of insecticides and biorationals against yellow stem 4G, with benefit cost ratio of 1:3.02 (Table 1,2). borer and leaf folder on rice crop. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences 24(2): 244-246. These results are in close conformity with those Pathak M D, Khan Z R. 1994. Insect pests of rice. International Journal of Devi and Singh (2015), Sandhu and Dhaliwal of Tropical Insect Science 35(2): 51-53. Sachan S K, Singh D V, Chowdary A S. 2006. Field evaluation of (2016) and Chaudhari et al. (2017) who observed insecticides against rice stem borer and leaf folder. Annals of Plant that flubendiamide 39.35SC was the most effective Protection Sciences 14(2): 462-464. Efficacy of insecticides against major defoliators of rice 3 Sandeep Kumar and Kuldeep Sharma

a c ab ab bc ab ab ab bc 4.42 3.26 4.97 5.33 3.62 5.03 4.78 5.46 7.58 0.60 1.79 (10.26) (15.98) 14 DAT (12.08) (12.89) (13.35) (10.97) (12.96) (12.62) (13.51)

a a c b b b b ab ab 5.91 5.78 5.86 5.80 5.58 5.96 5.96 5.99 6.93 0.57 1.71 7 DAT (14.13) (14.15) (21.96) (17.15) (17.52) (17.51) (17.93) (16.83) (16.67)

NS 6.20 6.30 6.49 6.10 6.24 6.18 6.13 6.47 6.68 M. leda ismene (14.42) (14.55) (14.69) (14.31) (14.47) (14.39) (14.33) (14.72) (14.98) 1 DAT

NS 6.21 6.47 6.53 6.19 6.32 6.24 6.22 6.50 6.27 (14.43) (14.67) (14.80) (14.40) (14.56) (14.46) (14.44) (14.78) (14.51) 1 DBS

a a c b b ab ab ab ab 4.47 3.47 5.72 7.57 3.89 5.96 4.67 7.97 0.90 2.70 13.85 (11.35) (10.59) (21.78) (15.95) (16.36) 14 DAT (12.20) (13.83) (14.13) (12.41)

a a a a a a a b ab 6.14 5.60 6.53 7.72 5.91 6.57 6.51 8.70 0.64 1.92 11.34 7 DAT (14.35) (13.66) (14.81) (16.14) (14.04) (14.76) (14.70) (19.69) (17.15)

NS 9.82 9.75 10.25 10.14 10.58 10.37 10.27 10.03 10.23 N. depunctalis (18.68) (18.52) (18.99) (18.25) (18.79) (18.20) (18.69) (18.47) (18.66) 1 DAT

NS 9.79 10.31 10.18 10.66 10.47 10.02 10.32 10.50 10.19 (18.72) (18.61) (19.07) (18.24) (18.88) (18.42) (18.73) (18.91) (18.61) 1 DBT

a c c c c d bc ab bc 6.16 3.08 7.59 8.77 3.62 7.68 6.38 0.79 2.38 8.93c 17.83d (10.11) (16.00) (17.15) (16.07) (17.39) (24.94) 14 DAT (14.38) (10.89) (14.64)

a c d bc ab bc abc abc abc 8.69 6.09 8.38 9.09 6.43 8.22 9.07 9.52 0.65 1.96 13.97 (14.29) (17.93) (21.96) 7 DAT (17.52) (14.62) (17.51) (17.15) (16.83) (16.67)

NS 9.74 9.63 9.62 C. medinalis 10.21 10.34 10.09 10.07 10.03 10.27 (18.64) (18.75) (18.19) (18.07) (18.53) (18.50) (18.47) (18.70) (18.07) 1 DAT

NS 9.77 9.70 10.11 10.29 10.38 10.23 10.50 10.35 10.92 (18.71) (18.80) (18.23) (18.15) (18.54) (18.64) (18.92) (18.78) (19.28) 1 DBT

a a a a a a a c ab 1.52 1.13 1.68 1.75 1.33 1.71 1.50 1.88 2.82 0.38 1.14 (7.08) (6.09) (7.40) (7.60) (6.62) (7.48) (6.96) (9.66) (7.89) 14 DAT

a c bc bc ab bc ab bc abc Table 1. Effect of insecticides against defoliators in rice 1. Effect Table 1.77 1.67 2.00 1.98 1.72 1.96 1.61 1.99 2.56 0.38 1.15 (5.83) (9.20) (8.14) (8.07) (7.12) (8.03) (7.25) (8.10) 7 DAT (7.65)

NS 2.02 2.29 2.39 2.18 2.36 2.21 2.03 2.23 2.25 D. armigera (8.16) (8.69) (8.88) (8.47) (8.70) (8.47) (8.20) (8.58) (8.63) 1 DAT

NS 2.03 2.32 2.41 2.27 2.38 2.27 2.06 2.24 2.30 (8.19) (8.68) (8.93) (8.63) (8.87) (8.64) (8.24) (8.61) (8.72) 1 DBT

36 75 375 200 1000 1000 11.10 39.50 Dose (ml/ g a.i./ ha) Treatments Indoxacarb 15.8EC Flubendiamide 48SC Chlorantraniliprole 18.5SC Benfuracarb 3G Cartap hydrochloride 4G Fipronil 0.3G Acephate 75SP Chlorpyriphos 20EC Untreated Control

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. S. No. SE m± CD@ p= 0.05 Values mean % leaf damage/ 10 hills; DBT: Days before treatment; DAT: days after treatment; value in column followed by common letters non significant- NS (p = 0.05); Figures in parentheses arc sine arc parentheses in Figures 0.05); = (p NS significant- non letters common by followed column in value treatment; after days DAT: treatment; before Days DBT: hills; 10 damage/ leaf % mean Values transformed values. 4 Indian Journal of Entomology 83(2021) Online published Ref. No. e20228

Table 2. Benefit cost ratio of insecticides evaluated against defoliators in rice Cost involved Yield (q/ ha) Total Net Dose Gross (Rs/ ha) S. cost profit B: C Treatments (ml/ g Defoloator returns Cost of No. Other (Rs/ (Rs/ ratio a.i./ha) Grain biomass (Rs) insec- costs ha) ha) ticides D. armigera 56.1 57.10 109545 28500 158 28658 80887 1:2.82 Indoxacarb C. medinalis 56.44 60.77 110707 28500 158 28658 82049 1:2.86 1. 39.5 ml 15.8EC N. depunctalis 57.00 60.22 111633 28500 158 28658 82975 1:2.90 M. leda ismene 55.41 58.10 108453 28500 158 28658 79795 1:2.78 D. armigera 61.12 62.66 119415 28500 864 29364 90051 1:3.07 Flubendiamide C. medinalis 62.47 63.87 122026 28500 864 29364 92662 1:3.15 2. 36 ml 48SC N. depunctalis 59.83 64.5 117369 28500 864 29364 88005 1:3.00 M. leda ismene 60.36 62.52 118026 28500 864 29364 88662 1:3.02 D. armigera 52.77 53.94 103077 28500 210 28710 74367 1:2.59 Chlorantranili- C. medinalis 52 54.56 101784 28500 210 28710 73074 1:2.55 3. 11.11 ml prole 18.5SC N. depunctalis 50.73 53.83 99388 28500 210 28710 70678 1:2.46 M. leda ismene 50.11 53.83 98272 28500 210 28710 69562 1:2.42 D. armigera 49.97 48.22 97179 28500 5362 33862 63317 1:1.87 Benfuracarb C. medinalis 52.41 53.41 102349 28500 5362 33862 68487 1:2.02 4. 33 kg 3G N. depunctalis 49.12 50.22 95949 28500 5362 33862 62087 1:1.83 M. leda ismene 48.9 46.12 93678 28500 5362 33862 59816 1:1.77 D. armigera 57.66 61.55 113020 28500 5468 33968 79052 1:2.32 Cartap C. medinalis 60.11 61.88 117480 28500 5468 33968 83512 1:2.45 5. hydrochloride 25 kg N. depunctalis 57.27 61.72 112344 28500 5468 33968 78376 1:2.31 4G M. leda ismene 59.55 61.88 116472 28500 5468 33968 82504 1:2.43 D. armigera 50.11 52.44 98064 28500 2600 31100 66964 1:2.15 C. medinalis 53.9 54.41 105835 28500 2600 31100 74735 1:2.40 6. Fipronil 0.3G 25 kg N. depunctalis 49.61 51.38 97005 28500 2600 31100 65905 1:2.12 M. leda ismene 48.94 50.88 95724 28500 2600 31100 64624 1:2.08 D. armigera 55.72 57.61 108937 28500 382 28882 80055 1:2.77 Acephate C. medinalis 54.77 58.77 107401 28500 382 28882 78519 1:2.71 7. 375 g 75SP N. depunctalis 51.94 58.22 102225 28500 382 28882 73343 1:2.53 M. leda ismene 53.41 55.52 104466 28500 382 28882 75584 1:2.62 D. armigera 42.11 45.72 82656 28500 80 28580 54076 1:1.89 Chlorpyriphos C. medinalis 48.55 51.05 95047 28500 80 28580 66467 1:2.33 8. 200 ml 20EC N. depunctalis 44.55 48.05 87397 28500 80 28580 58817 1:2.06 M. leda ismene 44.5 47.05 87157 28500 80 28580 58577 1:2.05 D. armigera 38.47 40.55 75328 28500 - 28500 46828 1:1.64 Untreated C. medinalis 37.52 39.66 73485 28500 - 28500 44985 1:1.58 9. - control N. depunctalis 37.10 39.41 72511 28500 - 28500 44011 1:1.54 M. leda ismene 38.3 39.53 74869 28500 - 28500 46369 1:1.62 Price of rice grains = Rs. 1800 per quintal, Price of biomass = Rs. 150 per quintal

Sandhu G S, Dhaliwal N S. 2016. Evaluation of different insecticides management in Karnataka, India. Agricultural Reviews 32(1): against major insect pests of rice in Punjab. International Journal 55-62. of Plant Protection 9(1): 187-192. Singh B B, Singh R. 2014. Major Rice insect pests in North Eastern Seetharamu P, Punniah K C, Rao G R. 2005. Field evaluation of certain UP. International Journal of Life Science and Pharma Reviews insecticides against the rice leaf folder, Cnaphalocrosis medinalis 3(1): 124-143. Guenee. Pest Management and Economic Zoology 13(1): 121-125. Tukey J W. 1953. The technical tools of statistics. American Statistician Sidde Gowda D K, Gubbaiah. 2011. Insect pests of rice and their 19: 23-28.

(Manuscript Received: June, 2020; Revised: September, 2020; Accepted: September, 2020; Online Published: November, 2020) Online published (Preview) in www.entosocindia.org Ref. No. 20228