Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies 2017; 5(3): 91-102

E-ISSN: 2320-7078 P-ISSN: 2349-6800 Life cycle of Papaya Paracoccus JEZS 2017; 5(3): 91-102 © 2017 JEZS marginatus Williams and Granara de Willink on Received: 15-03-2017 Accepted: 16-04-2017 different host plants vis-à-vis divergent natural

R Nisha selection Department of Crop Protection, Imayam Institute of Agriculture and Technology, Thuraiyur, R Nisha and JS Kennedy Trichy

JS Kennedy Abstract Department of Agricultural Life cycle of Papaya mealybug PMB on different host plants was studied using Entomology, Tamil Nadu Age Specific (or Horizontal) and Stage Specific (or Vertical) Life Table. It showed enormous biological Agricultural University, activity of PMB on host plants. The net reproductive rate of papaya mealybug was observed to be higher Coimbatore, India in papaya (559.48 females/female) and least in tapioca (282.53). The capacity for increase (rc) was minimum (0.324) in tapioca and maximum in papaya (0.512). Intrinsic rate of increase (rm) has increased with the increase in the rate of capacity for increase as it was maximum in papaya (0.570 increase per day), minimum in tapioca (0.342/day). The cumulative K value, total generation mortality was observed to be minimum in female than male. It was minimum in papaya 0.0325 for female and 0.0587 for male mealybug, while tapioca recorded highest K value of among the host plants (0.1405 in female and 0.1799 in male).

Keywords: Life cycle, life table, survival, mortality, Papaya mealybug, Paracoccus marginatus, natural selection, k value, intrinsic rate, net reproductive rate

1. Introduction

A life table is a kind of book-keeping system that ecologists often used to keep track of stage specific mortality in the population they study [13]. A life table describes for successive age intervals, the number of deaths, the survivors, the rate of mortality and the expectation of further life [11]. Life table provides an important tool in understanding the changes in population of pests during different developmental stages throughout their life cycle. It

is an especially useful approach in entomology, where developmental stages are discrete and [7] mortality rates may vary widely from one life stage to another . It is very useful to analyse the mortality of insect population, to determine key factors responsible for the highest mortality within population. Moreover, various mathematical formulas also indicated for the appropriate evaluation of life fecundity tables, stable age distribution and life expectancy [4].

The construction of several life tables may be possible to prepare a predictive model which can [12] be tested against natural population fluctuations . Life table is an important analytical technique in studying distribution, determination of age and mortality of an organism and individuals can be calculated [11]. On being a polyphagous pest, PMB is feeding on many plants with divergent variation in development and bioecology [14]. Hence, the present research

was conducted to study the life cycle of PMB on different host plants and it reported for first time in the current study.

2. Materials and methods The research work was carried out in the Insectary of Department of Crop Protection, Tamil

Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore and Tamil Nadu, India (Department of Agricultural Entomology and biocontrol laboratory).

2.1. Collection and mass culturing of Paracoccus marginatus Correspondence Potato sprouts was used as an alternate food source for rearing . Mass culturing of R Nisha [17] Department of Crop Protection, potato sprouts (Fig. 1) was done in line with the reference of . Papaya mealybugs collected Imayam Institute of Agriculture from different host plants like papaya, tapioca, cotton, mulberry, brinjal and hibiscus were and Technology, Thuraiyur, released on potato sprouts (Fig. 2) using camel hair brush at the rate of 3 to 5 ovisacs per Trichy potato and mealybugs en masse were obtained within 25 to 30 days of release. Mass culturing ~ 91 ~ Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies

Column one of the life table gives the age of life from birth to was also carried out in above said host plants and used for death. The second column shows the survivorship to each age further experiments [2]. The observations needed for the life of life, starting out at birth (age 0), and diminishing from age cycle studies were documented and calculated as below. to age in accordance with the mortality. The figures in this

column are generally denoted by the symbol lx. The third column indicates the corresponding survival fraction (Sx) at each interval of life, being simply the fraction between lx of the subsequent stage and lx of the current stage. The fourth column gives the death rate in each day of life or to be more exact, the probability at a given age of dying in an interval, this being denoted by the symbol qx. The figures in the fifth and sixth column are the total number of females produced for total population and number of females produced per female, respectively. The seventh and eighth columns are auxiliary columns employed in computing the ninth column, which gives the expectation of life at each age. The ninth column gives the average number of living in each age of life. The figures in this column may also

be interpreted as the number of days of life lived within a Fig 1: Mass culturing of papaya mealybug Paracoccus marginatus given age of life. Column eighth is obtained by cumulating on potato sprouts the figures in column seventh beginning at the end. Lastly, column ninth, gives the expectation of life or the average after 2.2. Description of life table statistics lifetime at each age class of life. It is obtained as the quotient Life table describes the mortality and survival patterns of a of the figures in column eighth and the corresponding figures population. On the basis of mortality ratios for each age or in column two, for this gives a total number of age class lived age group, life tables provide information on parameters such by survivors of a cohort after a given age, divided by the as the number of survivors, the number of deaths and the life number of insects entering that age [8]. The 10th and 11th [8] expectancy . columns are auxiliary columns used in the calculation of the th 12 column denoted as intrinsic rate of natural increase (rm).

2.2.1. Construction of age and stage specific life table The life tables for insect species were built by partitioning its life-cycle into distinct development stages (e.g., eggs, larvae, pupae and adults; eggs, nymphs and adults), and by evaluating the development time and survival or mortality for each individual stage. For females, the age-dependent total a) Papaya b) Cotton oviposition (fecundity/reproduction) was also determined. [15] The different life table parameters viz., Survivorship (lx) , Survivorship curves [10], Fixation of survivorship curves [16], Survival fraction (Sx), Apparent mortality, Mortality survivor [18] ratio (MSR), Indispensable mortality (IM), K-values , Net reproductive rate, Intrinsic rate of natural increase, Finite rate of increase (λ), Mean generation time (T), Doubling time of population (t) were calculated as per the earlier experiments [4] [1, 3, 11] c) Tapioca d) Mulberry .

3. Results and Discussion Data on vital schedules such as survival, mortality, and fecundity were collected for papaya mealybug on different

host plants. The observations on fecundity and total number of females emerged were recorded from the experiment. By using the above said observations life tables were constructed for mealybugs from different host plants. The stage specific e) Brinjal f) Hibiscus life tables were constructed from the data derived from age specific life tables.

3.1. Age specific life table of Paracoccus marginatus from different host plants The data on the age specific life tables of papaya mealybug from different crops are exhibited in the Tables 1 to 7. The results revealed that the total life span of adult mealybug was g) Potato sprouts minimum and last for 28 days in papaya, while it was

Fig 2: Host plants raised in pots for biology and life cycle studies of maximum in tapioca (42 days). In papaya the production of Papaya mealybug Paracoccus marginatus off springs (56 females/female) started from the eighth day and ceased on 18th day of life span with production of 26

~ 92 ~ Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies

females per female. The ninth day was the start of First instar (Crawler) 5 days reproduction period in cotton (65 females) and ended with 21 Egg - 8 days females on 19th day with 30 days of adult longevity. In potato sprouts, mealybug started reproduction (56 females) from 9th day and ended up with 22 females on 19th day and the total life span was lasted for 31 days. In mulberry PMB recorded 49 days of females on 10th day st and 10 females on 21 day. The adult longevity was 32 days. Second instar The 10th day was the start of reproduction period in brinjal Total - 3.2 days with production of 44 females per female and ended with 11 Total females on 22nd day and had the life span of 35 days. In Life Cycle hibiscus and tapioca, the reproduction of offsprings (31 and 50 Days 21 females/female) started from the 11th and 13th day and ceased on 23rd and 26th day of their life span (36 days and 42 days respectively) with reproduction of 5 and 2 females per female respectively. Papaya, cotton and potato sprouts recorded higher reproduction of offsprings with lesser Adult Female lifespan and production days. Mulberry was marginally same 16.2 days as that of those crops. Whereas, tapioca, hibiscus and brinjal recorded lesser production of offsprings with maximum life Third instar Total - 5 days span and production days.

Fig 3: Biology of papaya mealybug Paracocccus marginatus on papaya

Table 1: Age specific life table of Paracoccus marginatus on papaya

rc rc -r -rmx -r x n lx mx lxmx xlxmx e- x e- x. lxmx e mx rm e e mx lxmx 0 100 1 0 1 94 0.94 0 2 90 0.9 0 0 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.32 0.00 3 85 0.85 0 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.18 0.00 4 79 0.79 0 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.10 0.00 5 72 0.72 0 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.06 0.00 6 69 0.69 0 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.00 7 62 0.62 0 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.00 8 58 0.58 56 32.48 259.84 0.02 0.54 0.01 0.60 0.01 0.34 9 56 0.56 92 51.52 463.68 0.01 0.51 0.00 0.59 0.01 0.30 10 55 0.55 112 61.60 616.00 0.01 0.37 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.21 11 52 0.52 135 70.20 772.20 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.13 12 50 0.5 146 73.00 876.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.08 13 46 0.46 176 80.96 1052.48 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.05 14 46 0.46 153 70.38 985.32 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.02 15 45 0.45 121 54.45 816.75 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.01 16 42 0.42 97 40.74 651.84 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.00 17 40 0.4 42 16.80 285.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.00 18 35 0.35 21 7.35 132.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.00 19 32 0.32 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20 26 0.26 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21 25 0.25 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22 20 0.2 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23 20 0.2 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24 15 0.15 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25 10 0.1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 26 10 0.1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27 5 0.05 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28 3 0.03 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 559.48 6912.01 2.03 1.15

Table 2: Age specific life table of Paracoccus marginatus on cotton

rc rc -r -rmx -r x n lx mx lxmx xlxmx e- x e- x. lxmx e mx rm e e mx lxmx 0 100 1 0

1 95 0.95 0 0.59

2 90 0.9 0 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.35 0.00

3 85 0.85 0 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.21 0.00

4 80 0.8 0 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.12 0.00

5 75 0.75 0 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.07 0.00

~ 93 ~ Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies

6 75 0.75 0 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.00

7 70 0.7 0 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.00

8 68 0.68 0 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00

9 62 0.62 65 40.30 362.70 0.01 0.56 0.01 0.54 0.01 0.37 10 59 0.59 89 52.51 525.10 0.01 0.46 0.00 0.54 0.01 0.29 11 50 0.5 117 58.50 643.50 0.01 0.32 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.19 12 50 0.5 124 62.00 744.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.12 13 46 0.46 165 75.90 986.70 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.09 14 42 0.42 142 59.64 834.96 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.04 15 40 0.4 128 51.20 768.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.02 16 35 0.35 112 39.20 627.20 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.01 17 35 0.35 97 33.95 577.15 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.00 18 30 0.3 64 19.20 345.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.00 19 28 0.28 21 5.88 111.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.00 20 22 0.22 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

21 20 0.2 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

22 20 0.2 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

23 18 0.18 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

24 15 0.15 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

25 10 0.1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

26 8 0.08 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

27 6 0.06 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

28 4 0.04 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

29 2 0.02 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

30 2 0.02 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

31 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 498.28 6526.63 1.86 1.13

Table 3: Age specific life table of Paracoccus marginatus on tapioca

rc rc -r -rmx -r x n lx mx lxmx xlxmx e- x e- x. lxmx e mx rm e e mx lxmx 0 100 1 0

1 86 0.86 0

2 85 0.85 0 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.50 0.00

3 80 0.8 0 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.36 0.00

4 80 0.8 0 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.25 0.00

5 75 0.75 0 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.18 0.00

6 70 0.7 0 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.13 0.00

7 70 0.7 0 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.09 0.00

8 70 0.7 0 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.00

9 68 0.68 0 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00

10 68 0.68 0 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.00

11 66 0.66 0 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.00

12 65 0.65 0 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00

13 60 0.6 21 12.60 163.80 0.01 0.19 0.01 0.35 0.01 0.15 14 54 0.54 35 18.90 264.60 0.01 0.20 0.01 0.34 0.01 0.16 15 50 0.5 64 32.00 480.00 0.01 0.25 0.01 0.34 0.01 0.19 16 50 0.5 91 45.50 728.00 0.01 0.25 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.19 17 46 0.46 112 51.52 875.84 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.15 18 43 0.43 89 38.27 688.86 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.08 19 40 0.4 73 29.20 554.80 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.04 20 37 0.37 52 19.24 384.80 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.02 21 35 0.35 47 16.45 345.45 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.01 22 35 0.35 23 8.05 177.10 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 23 30 0.3 20 6.00 138.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 24 28 0.28 11 3.08 73.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 25 22 0.22 6 1.32 33.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 26 20 0.2 2 0.40 10.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 27 20 0.2 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

28 20 0.2 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

29 15 0.15 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

30 15 0.15 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

31 14 0.14 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 rc rc -r -rmx -r x n lx mx lxmx xlxmx e- x e- x. lxmx e mx rm e e mx lxmx 32 11 0.11 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

33 10 0.1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

34 10 0.1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

35 9 0.09 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

36 7 0.07 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

~ 94 ~ Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies

37 5 0.05 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

38 5 0.05 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

39 3 0.03 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

40 3 0.03 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

41 1 0.01 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

42 1 0.01 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

43 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 282.53 4918.57 1.32 0.97

Table 4: Age specific life table of Paracoccus marginatus on mulberry

rc rc -r -rmx -r x n lx mx lxmx xlxmx e- x e- x. lxmx e mx rm e e mx lxmx 0 100 1 0

1 90 0.9 0

2 90 0.9 0 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.40 0.00

3 86 0.86 0 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.25 0.00

4 81 0.81 0 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.16 0.00

5 75 0.75 0 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.10 0.00

6 74 0.74 0 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.06 0.00

7 74 0.74 0 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.00

8 65 0.65 0 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.00

9 62 0.62 0 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00

10 56 0.56 49 27.44 274.40 0.01 0.39 0.01 0.48 0.01 0.27 11 50 0.5 85 42.50 467.50 0.01 0.39 0.01 0.47 0.01 0.26 12 50 0.5 111 55.50 666.00 0.01 0.33 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.22 13 45 0.45 135 60.75 789.75 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.15 14 40 0.4 146 58.40 817.60 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.09 15 35 0.35 129 45.15 677.25 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.04 16 32 0.32 117 37.44 599.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.02 17 30 0.3 97 29.10 494.70 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.01 18 30 0.3 71 21.30 383.40 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.01 19 28 0.28 64 17.92 340.48 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 20 22 0.22 33 7.26 145.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 21 20 0.2 10 2.00 42.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 22 17 0.17 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

23 15 0.15 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

24 15 0.15 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

25 12 0.12 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

26 10 0.1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

27 8 0.08 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

28 6 0.06 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

29 5 0.05 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

30 3 0.03 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

31 1 0.01 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

32 1 0.01 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

33 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 404.76 5697.32 1.65 1.07

Table 5: Age specific life table of Paracoccus marginatus on brinjal

rc rc -r -rmx -r x n lx mx lxmx xlxmx e- x e- x. lxmx e mx rm e e mx lxmx 0 100 1 0

1 90 0.9 0

2 90 0.9 0 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.40 0.00

3 85 0.85 0 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.25 0.00

4 80 0.8 0 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.16 0.00

5 75 0.75 0 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.10 0.00

6 74 0.74 0 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.06 0.00

7 70 0.7 0 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.00

8 66 0.66 0 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00

9 62 0.62 0 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00

10 57 0.57 44 25.08 250.80 0.01 0.36 0.01 0.47 0.01 0.26 11 55 0.55 79 43.45 477.95 0.01 0.41 0.01 0.47 0.01 0.29 12 50 0.5 93 46.50 558.00 0.01 0.28 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.19 13 46 0.46 112 51.52 669.76 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.14 14 46 0.46 125 57.50 805.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.10 15 45 0.45 104 46.80 702.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.05 16 40 0.4 88 35.20 563.20 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.02 17 37 0.37 79 29.23 496.91 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.01 18 37 0.37 41 15.17 273.06 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00

~ 95 ~ Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies

19 33 0.33 22 7.26 137.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 20 30 0.3 11 3.30 66.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 21 25 0.25 5 1.25 26.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 22 20 0.2 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

23 20 0.2 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

24 17 0.17 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

25 15 0.15 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

26 15 0.15 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

27 12 0.12 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

28 10 0.1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

29 8 0.08 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

30 7 0.07 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

31 7 0.07 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

32 5 0.05 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

33 5 0.05 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

34 3 0.03 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

35 1 0.01 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

36 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 362.26 5026.87 1.56 1.07

Table 6: Age specific life table of Paracoccus marginatus on hibiscus

rc rc -r -rmx -r x n lx mx lxmx xlxmx e- x e- x. lxmx e mx rm e e mx lxmx 0 100 1 0 1 85 0.85 0 2 85 0.85 0 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.44 0.00 3 83 0.83 0 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.29 0.00 4 80 0.8 0 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.19 0.00 5 73 0.73 0 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.13 0.00 6 70 0.7 0 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.09 0.00 7 70 0.7 0 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.00 8 65 0.65 0 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.00 9 65 0.65 0 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 10 60 0.6 0 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 11 54 0.54 31 16.74 184.14 0.01 0.24 0.01 0.42 0.01 0.19 12 50 0.5 66 33.00 396.00 0.01 0.32 0.01 0.41 0.01 0.24 13 45 0.45 98 44.10 573.30 0.01 0.29 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.22 14 45 0.45 119 53.55 749.70 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.18 15 45 0.45 127 57.15 857.25 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.12 16 40 0.4 81 32.40 518.40 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.05 17 35 0.35 69 24.15 410.55 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.02 18 33 0.33 41 13.53 243.54 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.01 19 33 0.33 29 9.57 181.83 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 20 30 0.3 19 5.70 114.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 21 27 0.27 11 2.97 62.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 22 21 0.21 10 2.10 46.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 23 20 0.2 5 1.00 23.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 24 18 0.18 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25 14 0.14 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 26 14 0.14 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27 12 0.12 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28 10 0.1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29 8 0.08 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30 7 0.07 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31 7 0.07 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32 5 0.05 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33 5 0.05 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 34 3 0.03 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 35 3 0.03 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 36 3 0.03 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 37 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 295.96 4360.28 1.39 1.03

Table 7: Age specific life table of Paracoccus marginatus on potato sprouts

rc rc -r -rmx -r x n lx mx lxmx xlxmx e- x e- x. lxmx e mx rm e e mx lxmx 0 100 1 0

1 92 0.92 0

2 85 0.85 0 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.36 0.00

3 80 0.8 0 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.22 0.00

~ 96 ~ Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies

4 80 0.8 0 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.13 0.00

5 77 0.77 0 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.08 0.00

6 74 0.74 0 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.00

7 74 0.74 0 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.00

8 65 0.65 0 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00

9 62 0.62 56 34.72 312.48 0.01 0.51 0.01 0.53 0.01 0.35 10 56 0.56 79 44.24 442.40 0.01 0.41 0.01 0.53 0.01 0.26 11 50 0.5 111 55.50 610.50 0.01 0.32 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.20 12 50 0.5 124 62.00 744.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.13 13 45 0.45 165 74.25 965.25 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.10 14 40 0.4 143 57.20 800.80 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.04 15 35 0.35 132 46.20 693.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.02 16 32 0.32 112 35.84 573.44 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.01 17 30 0.3 97 29.10 494.70 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 18 30 0.3 59 17.70 318.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 19 28 0.28 22 6.16 117.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 20 22 0.22 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

21 20 0.2 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

22 17 0.17 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

23 15 0.15 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

24 15 0.15 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

25 12 0.12 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

26 10 0.1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

27 8 0.08 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

28 6 0.06 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

29 5 0.05 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

30 3 0.03 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

31 1 0.01 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

32 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 462.91 6072.21 1.80 1.12

The parameters of age specific life table on different host was reflected in plumeria and the survival for the third-instar plants are summarized in Table 9. Determining the life cycle males and females, and the fourth-instar males were not of an insect was important to understand its development, affected by the host species. They also concluded that adults distribution and abundance. In polyphagous insects, life cycle emerged on plumeria with a higher proportion of females than can vary with the plant species it feeds on. There were on the other three host species. differences in the life history parameters of P. marginatus and thereby able to develop, survive and reproduce on different 3.1.1. Survivorship curve of Paracoccus marginatus on hosts. The life cycle of P. marginatus was reported for first different host plants time in the current study and it varied accordingly to the host The survival exhibited by P. marginatus indicated that it plants. While observing the age specific life table of the pest belongs to type III survivorship curve. In general, survival in the present study, it has been concluded that the net decreased with increasing in days. The curve indicated that reproductive rate of papaya mealybug was observed to be the mortality during early stage of the pest was higher at higher in papaya (559.48 females/female) and followed by higher in tapioca. Tapioca recorded 50 per cent mortality at cotton with 498.28 females. Whereas in tapioca it had the 16h day whereas other crops it was on 12th day of their least net reproductive rate of (282.53). The capacity for longevity (Fig.1.). Using DUD’s method, survivorship curves increase (rc) was minimum (0.324) in tapioca and maximum of P. marginatus on different host plants were smoothened. in papaya (0.512) followed by cotton (0.474) and potato Parameters (a and b) of the smoothened curves of different sprouts (0.427). Intrinsic rate of increase (rm) has increased host plants are given in the Table 8. with the increase in the rate of capacity for increase in all the host plants by following same trend as that of rc value. It was Table 8: Response of survival of Paracoccus marginatus on maximum in papaya (0.570 increase per day), while recording different host plants

minimum in tapioca (0.342/day). Mealybug had the longest ‘a’ (Days of 50% ‘b’ r2 Host plants doubling time in tapioca (2.028 days) followed by hibiscus mortality) (Intercept) value (1.696 days), while recorded shortest time in papaya (1.216 Papaya 12 2.180 0.783 days). This is because of the innate capacity of P. marginatus Cotton 12 0.922 0.983 to live shorter and reproduce more in hosts, in which they are Tapioca 16 0.864 0.973 adapted. Mulberry 12 0.894 0.967 The results were in contrast with report of [2] Amarasekare et Brinjal 12 0.883 0.972 al. (2008), who found out that mealybug eggs survived Hibiscus 12 0.854 0.965 similarly on the four plants plumeria, acalypha, hibiscus and Potato sprouts 12 0.899 0.974 parthenium. The lower survival of the first and second instars

~ 97 ~ Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies

Fig 4: Survivorship curve of Paracoccus marginatus on different host plants

Table 9: Life table parameters of Paracoccus marginatus on different host plants

Parameter Papaya Cotton Tapioca Mulberry Brinjal Hibiscus Potato sprouts Age of first oviposition (days) 8 9 13 10 10 11 9 Age of last oviposition (days) 18 21 26 21 22 23 22 Length of oviposition (days) 11 13 14 12 13 13 14 Net Reproductive rate (R0) (females/female) 559.48 498.28 282.53 404.76 362.26 295.96 462.91 Approx generation time (Tc) days 12.35 13.10 17.41 14.08 13.88 14.73 13.12 Capacity for increase (rc) 0.512 0.474 0.324 0.427 0.425 0.386 0.468 Intrinsic rate of increase (rm) per day 0.570 0.521 0.342 0.462 0.457 0.409 0.512 Mean generation time (T) (days) 11.10 11.92 16.51 12.98 12.91 13.92 11.98 Finite rate of increas (λ) per day 1.768 1.684 1.407 1.588 1.579 1.505 1.669 Doubling time (t) days 1.216 1.330 2.028 1.499 1.518 1.696 1.353

3.2. Stage specific life table of Paracoccus marginatus on 0.74 per cent and 12.60 per cent and 0.75 respectively. The different host plants highest apparent mortality was recorded in tapioca by The data on the stage specific life table of papaya mealybug mealybugs than other host plants. While comparing instars in on different crops was exhibited in the Tables (10 - 24). The female mealybugs, the lower apparent mortality was observed data revealed that mealybug had female biased sex ratio in the in first instars (23.65) and the second instars had the highest production of offsprings. The sex ratio of mealybug was mortality of 30.32. In male mealybugs, it was maximum in estimated in the second instar and the ratio was back fourth instars (50.00). In female mealybugs, lowest apparent calculated in egg and first instar stages. The stage specific life mortality was observed in first instar (6.14) and the third table parameters involving survivals and mortality in each instar had the highest mortality of 9.14 among the instars in stage of both female and male mealybug on papaya are papaya. In male mealybugs, it was maximum in fourth instar exhibited in the tables 10 and 11. The analysis was started (26.45), and minimum in first instar (5.14). with 890 and 175 eggs in female and male mealybugs Mortality survivor ratio (MSR) was estimated to understand respectively and finally 660 and 89 emerged successfully as the amount of population increase in a particular stage, if, adults respectively as females and males on papaya host and mortality in the particular stage had not occurred. In egg stage 760 eggs in females and 205 eggs in male mealybugs in MSR was observed to be marginally same (0.47 and 0.48 cotton. respectively) in female and male in tapioca. It was found to be Subsequently it started with 299 and 246 eggs in female and observed that MSR in second instars was 0.31 in female and male mealybugs respectively and finally 82 and 31 were 0.34 in male. MSR was more in male mealybugs (0.18 and emerged successfully as adults respectively in females and 0.36 in third and fourth instars respectively) than females males on tapioca and with 610 and 315 eggs in female and (0.10 in third instar). In other host plants also, MSR was male mealybugs respectively and finally 356 and 85 were recorded synchronically. Indispensable mortality (IM) was emerged successfully as adults respectively in female and calculated to understand the amount of mortality, which can male on mulberry. It started with 526, 399 and 708 eggs in be avoided if the factor causing mortaliy is not allowed to female and 309, 296 and 242 eggs in male mealybug in operate. The examination of mealybugs revealed that, it was brinjal, hibiscus and potato sprouts respectively. more in females than males in all the stages. In females, it was Survival proportion and Survival fraction (Sx) of female maximum in papaya 47.71 to 67 and minimum in tapioca mealybug was maximum 74.16 and 0.91 per cent respectively 25.39 to 38.78 and in males, it was maximum in tapioca 10.50 in papaya and minimum in tapioca 27.42 and 0.76 per cent to 31.00 and minimum in papaya 2.08 to 2.24 respectively and in same male melaybugs recorded 50.86 and In the stage specific life table of the current study, survival

~ 98 ~ Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies

proportion, survival fraction (Sx), apparent mortality, they moved back or were placed back on the leaf. mortality survivor ratio (MSR), indispensable mortality (IM) In the present study, there were differences observed in the and K – value were recorded the significant difference in all adult longevity of mealybugs on host plants. However, [2] the host plants. There was similarity observed that all the host reported no difference in adult longevity of males and females plants recorded the female biased sex ratio but different ratio occurred on different hosts. However, survival proportion and among the host plants, which was reported earlier by [2] the fraction of mealybug was maximum in papaya and minimum author. The loss of first instar P. marginatus was observed in in tapioca and hibiscus, whereas the mortality ratio was the current study, might be due to the movement of crawlers maximum in tapioca and hibiscus and minimum in papaya. (first instars) away from the leaf tissues and they falling off The total generation mortality K-value was observed to be the plants. This movement was observed on all plants, minimum in female mealybugs than male (Table 24). It was although it was more obviously evidenced by [2] the author, minimum in papaya 0.0325 for female mealybugs and 0.0587 who reported a loss of 17 to 18% of the first instars mealybug for male mealybugs, while tapioca recorded highest K value on hibiscus, acalypha, and parthenium. Preliminary studies of 0.1799 among the host plants (0.1405 in female and 0.1799 demonstrated that the crawlers of P. marginatus, which were in male) and it was followed by hibiscus in both female and dislodged from the leaves, were not be able to survive, unless male pest (0.0959 and 0.1478 respectively).

Table 10: Stage specific life table of female Paracoccus marginatus on papaya

Stage lx dx Survival proportion Survival fraction (Sx) Apparent mortality MSR IM K- value Egg 890 60 100 0.93 6.74 0.07 47.71 0.030 Instar I 830 51 93.26 0.94 6.14 0.07 43.21 0.028 Instar II 779 52 87.53 0.93 6.68 0.07 47.21 0.030 Instar III 727 67 81.69 0.91 9.22 0.10 67.00 0.042 Adult 660 660 74.16 0.00 100.00 0.00 Average 0.033

Table 11: Stage specific life table of male Paracoccus marginatus on papaya

Stage lx dx Survival proportion Survival fraction (Sx) Apparent mortality MSR IM K- value Egg 175 12 100 0.93 6.86 0.07 2.24 0.031 Instar I 163 9 93.14 0.94 5.52 0.06 2.21 0.025 Instar II 154 11 88.00 0.93 7.14 0.08 2.19 0.032 Instar III 143 22 81.71 0.85 15.38 0.18 2.16 0.073 Instar IV 121 32 69.14 0.74 26.45 0.36 2.08 0.133 Adult 89 89 50.86 0.00 100.00 Average 0.059

Table 12: Stage specific life table of female Paracoccus marginatus on cotton

Stage lx dx Survival proportion Survival fraction Sx Apparent mortality MSR IM K- value Egg 760 90 100 0.88 11.84 0.13 65.69 0.0547 Instar I 670 70 88.16 0.90 10.45 0.12 57.05 0.0479 Instar II 600 75 78.95 0.88 12.50 0.14 69.86 0.0580 Instar III 525 36 69.08 0.93 6.86 0.07 36.00 0.0309 Adult 489 489 64.34 0.00 100.00 Average 0.0479

Table 13: Stage specific life table of male Paracoccus marginatus on cotton

Stage lx dx Survival proportion Survival fraction Sx Apparent mortality MSR IM K- value Egg 205 25 100 0.88 12.20 0.14 11.53 0.0565 Instar I 180 19 87.80 0.89 10.56 0.12 9.80 0.0484 Instar II 161 20 78.54 0.88 12.42 0.14 11.77 0.0576 Instar III 141 29 68.78 0.79 20.57 0.26 21.49 0.1000 Instar IV 112 29 54.63 0.74 25.89 0.35 29.00 0.1301 Adult 83 83 40.49 100.00 Average 0.0785

Table 14: Stage specific life table of female Paracoccus marginatus on tapioca

Stage lx dx Survival proportion Survival fraction (Sx) Apparent mortality MSR IM K- value Egg 299 96 100 0.68 32.11 0.47 38.78 0.1682 Instar I 203 48 67.89 0.76 23.65 0.31 25.39 0.1172 Instar II 155 47 51.84 0.70 30.32 0.44 35.69 0.1569 Instar III 108 26 36.12 0.76 24.07 0.32 26.00 0.1196 Adult 82 82 27.42 0 100.00 Average 0.1405

~ 99 ~ Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies

Table 15: Stage specific life table of male Paracoccus marginatus on tapioca

Stage lx dx Survival proportion Survival fraction (Sx) Apparent mortality MSR IM K- value Egg 246 80 100 0.67 32.52 0.48 14.94 0.1708 Instar I 166 42 67.48 0.75 25.30 0.34 10.50 0.1267 Instar II 124 36 50.41 0.71 29.03 0.41 12.68 0.1489 Instar III 88 26 35.77 0.70 29.55 0.42 13.00 0.1521 Instar IV 62 31 25.20 0.50 50.00 1.00 31.00 0.3010 Adult 31 31 12.60 0.00 100.00 Average 0.1799

Table 16: Stage specific life table of female Paracoccus marginatus on mulberry

Stage lx dx Survival proportion Survival fraction Sx Apparent mortality MSR IM K- value Egg 610 89 100 0.85 14.59 0.17 60.81 0.0685 Instar I 521 42 85.41 0.92 8.06 0.09 31.22 0.0365 Instar II 479 75 78.52 0.84 15.66 0.19 66.09 0.0740 Instar III 404 48 66.23 0.88 11.88 0.13 48.00 0.0549 Adult 356 356 58.36 0.00 100.00 Average 0.0585

Table 17: Stage specific life table of male Paracoccus marginatus on mulberry

Stage lx dx Survival proportion Survival fraction Sx Apparent mortality MSR IM K- value Egg 315 46 100 0.85 14.60 0.17 14.54 0.0686 Instar I 269 27 85.40 0.90 10.04 0.11 9.48 0.0459 Instar II 242 34 76.83 0.86 14.05 0.16 13.89 0.0658 Instar III 208 80 66.03 0.62 38.46 0.63 53.13 0.2109 Instar IV 128 43 40.63 0.66 33.59 0.51 43.00 0.1778 Adult 85 85 26.98 0.00 100.00 Average 0.1138

Table 18: Stage specific life table of female Paracoccus marginatus on brinjal

Stage lx dx Survival proportion Survival fraction Sx Apparent mortality MSR IM K- value Egg 526 64 100 0.88 12.17 0.14 40.87 0.0563 Instar I 462 64 87.83 0.86 13.85 0.16 47.44 0.0648 Instar II 398 60 75.67 0.85 15.08 0.18 52.37 0.0710 Instar III 338 43 64.26 0.87 12.72 0.15 43.00 0.0591 Adult 295 295 56.08 0.00 100.00 Average 0.0628

Table 19: Stage specific life table of male Paracoccus marginatus on brinjal

Stage lx dx Survival proportion Survival fraction Sx Apparent mortality MSR IM K- value Egg 309 37 100 0.88 11.97 0.14 9.79 0.0554 Instar I 272 41 88.03 0.85 15.07 0.18 12.78 0.0710 Instar II 231 33 74.76 0.86 14.29 0.17 12.00 0.0669 Instar III 198 75 64.08 0.62 37.88 0.61 43.90 0.2068 Instar IV 123 51 39.81 0.59 41.46 0.71 51.00 0.2326 Adult 72 72 23.30 0.00 100.00 Average 0.1265

Table 20: Stage specific life table of female Paracoccus marginatus on hibiscus

Stage lx dx Survival proportion Survival fraction Sx Apparent mortality MSR IM K- value Egg 399 70 100 0.82 17.54 0.21 35.11 0.0838 Instar I 329 64 82.46 0.81 19.45 0.24 39.85 0.0940 Instar II 265 74 66.42 0.72 27.92 0.39 63.93 0.1422 Instar III 191 26 47.87 0.86 13.61 0.16 26.00 0.0635 Adult 165 165 41.35 0.00 100.00 Average 0.0959

Table 21: Stage specific life table of male Paracoccus marginatus on hibiscus

Stage lx dx Survival proportion Survival fraction Sx Apparent mortality MSR IM K- value Egg 296 52 100 0.82 17.57 0.21 11.51 0.0839 Instar I 244 47 82.43 0.81 19.26 0.24 12.88 0.0929 Instar II 197 56 66.55 0.72 28.43 0.40 21.45 0.1452 Instar III 141 46 47.64 0.67 32.62 0.48 26.15 0.1715 Instar IV 95 41 32.09 0.57 43.16 0.76 41.00 0.2453 Adult 54 54 18.24 0.00 100.00 Average 0.1478 ~ 100 ~ Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies

Table 22: Stage specific life table of female Paracoccus marginatus on potato sprouts

Stage lx dx Survival proportion Survival fraction Sx Apparent mortality MSR IM K- value Egg 708 104 100 0.85 14.69 0.17 74.38 0.0690 Instar I 604 62 85.31 0.90 10.26 0.11 49.42 0.0470 Instar II 542 68 76.55 0.87 12.55 0.14 61.97 0.0582 Instar III 474 42 66.95 0.91 8.86 0.10 42.00 0.0403 Adult 432 432 61.02 100.00 Average 0.0536

Table 23: Stage specific life table of male Paracoccus marginatus on potato sprouts

Stage lx dx Survival proportion Survival fraction (Sx) Apparent mortality MSR IM K- value Egg 242 36 100 0.85 14.88 0.17 15.90 0.0699 Instar I 206 20 85.12 0.90 9.71 0.11 9.78 0.0444 Instar II 186 24 76.86 0.87 12.90 0.15 13.48 0.0600 Instar III 162 39 66.94 0.76 24.07 0.32 28.85 0.1196 Instar IV 123 32 50.83 0.74 26.02 0.35 32.00 0.1309 Adult 91 91 37.60 100.00 Average 0.0850

Table 24: K value of Paracoccus marginatus on different host plants

K value Cumulative k value Host crop Egg period First instar Second instar Third instar Fourth instar Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Male Female Papaya 0.031 0.030 0.025 0.028 0.032 0.030 0.073 0.042 0.133 0.059 0.033 Cotton 0.057 0.055 0.048 0.048 0.058 0.058 0.100 0.031 0.130 0.079 0.048 Tapioca 0.171 0.168 0.127 0.117 0.149 0.157 0.152 0.120 0.301 0.180 0.141 Mulberry 0.069 0.069 0.046 0.037 0.066 0.074 0.211 0.055 0.178 0.114 0.059 Brinjal 0.055 0.056 0.071 0.065 0.067 0.071 0.207 0.059 0.233 0.127 0.063 Hibiscus 0.084 0.084 0.093 0.094 0.145 0.142 0.172 0.064 0.245 0.148 0.096 Potato 0.070 0.069 0.044 0.047 0.060 0.058 0.120 0.040 0.131 0.085 0.054

When comparing six different host plants, tapioca and 5. Acknowledgement hibiscus recorded maximum the finite rate of mortality of egg Authors are thankful to the Department of Agricultural and I instar larvae. This may be attributed to variation in the Entomology, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, host nutrition, developmental conditions and vulnerability of Coimbatore for the great support during the research period young ones. Host plant species have been shown to affect the and to the University Grand Commission, New Delhi for life history parameters of several mealybug species. Longer providing fellowship for the research work. pre-reproductive period and a higher progeny production were observed in Rastrococcus invadens Williams reared on 6. References different varieties of Mangifera indica L. [5]. The differences 1. Acharya MF, Vyas HJ, Gedia MV, Patel PV. Life table, observed in the life history of P. marginatus may be related to Intrinsic rate of Increase and Age-specific Distribution of nutritive factors, allelochemical compounds and physical Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) on Cotton, Annals of differences in leaf structures, etc. Mortality of the of citrus Plant Protection Sciences. 2007; 15(2):338-341. mealybug Planococcus citri (Risso) was higher on green than 2. Amarasekare KG, Mannion CM, Osborne LS, Epsky ND. on red or yellow variegated Coleus blumei "Bellevue" Life history of Paracoccus marginatus (: (Bentham) plants, and developed faster and had a higher Pseudococcidae) on four host plant species under fecundity when developed on red-variegated plants [19]. laboratory conditions. Environ. Entomol. 2008; 37:630- Food availability and quality are other environmental factors 635. that we expect to affect life history traits, independent of 3. Arshad A, Rizvi PQ. Age specific Survival and Fecundity whether. These effects have been altered or caused by natural Table of Coccinella septumpunctata L. on different selection in a specified environment [9]. The difference in the Aphid species, Annals of Plant Protection Sciences. total life cycle might be due to the type of host used for the 2007; 15(2):329-334. study [6]. Life history of P. marginatus was affected by the 4. Birch LC. The Intrinsic rate of natural increase of an host plants. However, it has the ability to develop, survive, insect population. J Anim. Ecol. 1948; 17:15-26. and reproduce on a variety of host plant species. 5. Boavida C, Neuenschwander P. Population dynamics and life tables of the mango mealybug, Rastrococcus 4. Conclusion invadens Williams, and its introduced natural enemy The information gathered from the life history study will be Gyranusoidea tebygi Noyes in Benin. Biocontrol Sci. important in the management of P. marginatus, by providing Tech. 1995; 5:489-508. a better understanding of its life cycle, and its ability to 6. Chaitanya T, Sreedevi K, Navatha L, Murali Krishna T, survive on different host plant species. This information is Prasanti L. Bionomics and population dynamics of needed in the development of integrated pest management of legume pod borer, Maruca vitrata (Geyer) in Cajanus this pest. The ability of P. marginatus to develop on these cajan (L.) Millsp. Curr. Biotica. 2012; 5(4):446-453. plant species demonstrates the possibility of movement, 7. Chakraborty S, Mondal P. Specific and Age Female distribution, and establishment of P. marginatus into new Fecundity Life Table of Callosobruchus chinensis Linn. areas. ~ 101 ~ Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies

on Green gram. Int. J Pure App. Biosci. 2015; 3(4):284- 291. 8. Dublin LI, Lotka AJ. Uses of the Life Table in Vital Statistics. Am. J. Public Health. 1937; 27:481-491. 9. Ford NB, Seinel RA. Phenotypic plaasticitv in reproductive traits: evidence from a viviparous snake. Ecology. 1989; 70:1768-1774. 10. Gotelli. A Primer of Ecology, 3rd Edition. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. 2007, 290. 11. Kakde AM, Patel KG, Shailesh Tayade. Role of Life Table in Insect Pest Management. IOSR Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science (IOSR-JAVS) 2014; 7(1):40-43. 12. Manikandan N, Kennedy JS, Geethalakshmi V. Effect of temperature on life history parameters of brown planthopper (Nilaparvata lugens Stal). African Journal of Agricultural Research. 2015; 10(38):3678-3685 13. Meyer J. Life table. In: General Entomology. NC State University. 2016, 1. 14. Nisha R, Kennedy JS. Effect of Native and Non-native Hosts on the Biology of Acerophagus papayae Noyes and Schauff, the Introduced Parasitoid of Paracoccus marginatus Williams and Granara De Willink. Journal of Biological Control. 2016; 30(2):99-105. 15. Priyanga A, Romina S. Elucidating the temperature response of survivorship in insects. Funct. Ecol. 2012; 26(4):959-968. 16. Raltson M, Jennrich R. Dud, a derivative-free algorithm for nonlinear least squares. Technometrics. 1978; 20(1):7- 14. 17. Serrano MS, Laponite SL. Evaluation of host plants and a meridic diet for rearing (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) and its parasitoid Anagyrus kamali (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae). Florida Entomol. 2002; 85:417-425. 18. Southwood TRE. Ecological methods with particular reference to the study of insect populations, 2nd ed. London: Chapman and Hall, 1978, 391. 19. Yang J, Sadof CS. Variegation in Coleus blumei and the life history of citrus mealybug (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae). Environ. Entomol. 1995; 24:1650- 1655.

~ 102 ~