www.IndianJournals.com Members Copy, Not for Commercial Sale mango orchard in which the pest breeds in active period andactivebreedsperiod pestinthe which inmango orchard the micro-ecosystem of tree,mango of size large the to due 2002). However, management of mango leaf webber is andformulation insecticidesdifficult (Singh, Bhatia 1999; and Gupta, entomopathogenic fungi (Asari (Reddy source the resistance identify to germplasm the of screening Reddy,2013), the pest (Hasseb leaf webber time to time, that includes biology and incidence of leaf webber results in complete failure of flowering. 1982). Verghese (1998) reported that severeconditions was infestationestimated favourable asof under mango pest35 per bycentthis damagecaused (Srivastava of extent Theand Tandon, a conspicuous burnt up appearance (Rafeeq and Ranjini, shows2011). many clusters webbedof tree and colony. heavilyinfested A dried a leaves, presenting to it in leaves of cluster the togetherweb that eaters leaf voracious are mothPyralid the of plant.larvaeThe host the any damageeconomicto cause directly not do moth lepidopteranpest,adult athe webber is Bihar and other parts in north India (Rajkumarlimiting factor in mango production regions Uttar of Pradesh, leaf webber, Mango pests. ravagesof to due loss huge regularlya fruit crop, popularly known as king of fruits. This crop suffers Received: 09 September 2015; Revised accepted: 25 April 2016 *Email of corresponding [email protected] author: (Uttar 101 Pradesh), Lucknow-226 Rehmankhera, Horticulture, ICAR- Subtropical Institute for Central GUNDAPP conditions eudrusalis Seasonal incidence and weather based forecasting model for mango leaf webber Downloaded From IP - 14.139.233.102 on dated 3-Aug-2016 Many workers has studied the different aspects of mango Mango( Key words: webber. leaf timelymanagement of and predicting incidence forthe advisories utilizedtheagro in × minimum0.08 + speed humidityrelative (R modelforecasting for theleaf webber (Y) for Lucknow is × Yregion minimum- = 1.35 31.90 temperatu th Hence, variation incidence. webberin the leaf of perhadcent explained with wind36 along speed h minimum Minimumrelative temperature, variation. of amount highest explained had models polynomial to Compare theminimum with humiditycorrelated positively0.37**). relative and = (r -0.48**) = (r webber incidence was found to be significant negative correlation with minimum temperature (r = -inwhereas, the0. consecutive its season peak incidence was observedbet duringand (SMW) 38 weeks The peak meteorological incidenceseasons. standard of leaf orchards, webber was foundplot fixed during across the 37 incidence webber leaf the in incidence seasonal and develop weather based forecasting model forinUttar Prade Lucknow, mango leaf webber.2014) and (2013 A seasons wide consecutive variati two conductedfor A fieldexperiment was A*, 10.5958/2394-4471.2016.00020.4: DOI AdvancesAgriculturalCurrent in Sciences Orthaga euadrusalis Orthaga indica Mangifera T ARUN et al Leaf webber, Mango, Regression model, Seasonal incidence ., 2000; Singh,., 2000; Beria 2002; ADAK t al et et al and L.) is considered as a major aconsideredas L.) is recently has become major akr Lpdpea yaia) ne subtropical under ) (: walker , 01, xlrto of exploration 2001), ., PK PK SHUKLA ., 1977), ., efficacy1977), of neem et al ., 2013). Leaf et al 8(1): 96-99 (June 2016) 2 2 = 0.36; F = 4.20 p< 0.01). This prediction This model p

- 0.72 -× wind0.72 sh to study to sh ween two ween umidity et al.

22 , www.IndianJournals.com Members Copy, Not for Commercial Sale found to be found to higher during the year 2013 In general the leaf webber incidence was during 38 peakincidenceobservedwas season its consecutive the in whereas, tree, per SMW during 37 thethe year during 2013 with recorded 9.7 webs was webber weeks meteorological (SMW). The standard peak the incidence of leafacross varied also incidence webber leaf The orchard. the within existingconditions webber is attributed leaf to the microclimaticof incidence the in variation The at CISH III Block webswith 11 per tree. the 2014 highest incidence was observed yearwhereas,duringthe per tree,webs (Fixed Navipana I) at and webber Hafizkhera observed leaf was (Fixed I)incidence highest with 5.9 the 2013 year consecutive seasons (Fig. 1). During the andorchardsbetweenfixed plot two incidence22 theacross incidence webber leaf of Dynamics while in 2013, only 3.70 to 6.59 mm pan per Higher dayevaporation 2014. waswas in observednoted received was (Tablein mm i.e.2014 1). 6.39 12.86 to by 10.09 mm followed per day recorded in period of peak occurrence in 2013, highestwhile onlyamount 13.23 of 21.74 mm followed by 13.71 rainfallmm wasrainfall mm130 wasin 2013 as compared to 93 mm The2014. the peak period of the pest. The total amount of week’s thesepercentacrossseasonsduring 77.43 to average centand48.29 minimum relative humidityandMaximum was 2013. into compared as the 2014 inrecorded was range of 77.0 to 90.57 per speedwindhigher found, speedwas wind in Widevariation trend minimum of temperature was observed after 38 was higher during season2013 as compare to Declining2014. seasons, respectively. During this period was recorded36.57°C minimumin two to and 34.43°C temperature30.93 to 29.07 the period of peak occurrence of leaf webber (3116.43 to 43.44°C in the second season compareas to (2014). However season(2013) first during in 40°C to between21.44 indicated maximum thethat temperaturevaried (2013-2014) period study the during Weather conditions analyseswere by carriedout excel.using Microsoft (R incidence due the factor was determined based on the R-value on the Y-ordinate. Theextentvariability of the inwebber leaf factor (s) developto linear models with leaf webber incidence Significant factor. correlation dependent coefficient a as (r) values incidence are the webber criteria leaf to select suitable was subjected thefor correlation and regression analyses with Downloaded From IP - 14.139.233.102 on dated 3-Aug-2016 2 ) or coefficient of determination. All the required statistical ie aito ws bevdi te ef webber leaf the in observed was variation wide A The agro climatic analyses during the current study period Thewebberweeklymeanincidenceandleaf dataof on th GUNDAPP SMW with 3.5 webs per tree. RESUL A TS et al. al. et AND DISCUSSION AND DEVELOPMENT - h t Fig. 1. Mango leaf webber incidence in different fixed plots fixed different in incidence webber leaf Mango 1. Fig. OF OF st to 41 WEA HRBSD FORECASTINGMODEL BASEDTHER st th SMW), SMW. Table1.Weather parametersduring period thestudy M – tnad eerlgcl ek Tm. a- Maximum max- Temp. week; humidity Relative Minimum – min RH humidity; meteorological Maximumrelative max- RH temperature; Standard – SMW

SMW 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41

29.07 34.14 34.43 34.10 34.33 32.03 34.03 33.00 31.47 34.26 33.19 33.14 32.29 31.79 30.14 32.36 34.91 35.64 37.36 40.00 39.29 21.44 22.37 24.00 25.43 26.83 26.44 27.07 28.14 30.93 31.81 30.69 31.03 2013 Temp. max ( °

C) 34.36 34.43 33.14 30.93 32.71 35.79 36.57 33.64 32.00 33.86 32.07 31.36 34.36 34.64 39 36.50 40.57 43.44 38.04 40.57 38.59 16.43 17.61 21.07 24.43 27.00 27.20 28.14 30.21 29.89 30.71 27.57 34.43 2014

.40

86.57 85.71 83.71 84.14 82.14 87.00 88.86 90.29 90.57 77.57 86.71 86.43 84.14 87.14 87.00 85.86 76.57 81.71 76.14 77.43 69.57 86.47 90.29 84.57 82.86 82.14 86. 78.57 82.00 82.43 76.43 63.43 86.71 2013 RH max RH 29 FOR MANGO LEAF MANGO FOR (%)

81.43 77.14 86.57 89.29 88.43 77.00 83.29 86.86 89.29 86.00 8 88.29 88.29 82.71 76.00 85.71 72.86 59.00 68.57 46.57 51.71 86.00 90.00 87.43 83.00 86.14 81.29 79.86 81.86 87.57 84.86 88.29 83.29 2014 8.29

72.00 65.14 54.00 61.43 57.14 70.43 60.29 73.00 77.43 60.00 66.86 70.86 67.86 73.00 79.86 62.57 56.71 56.29 47.43 44.71 43.57 46.88 56.14 39.14 35.71 39.29 34.43 33.43 41.86 40.29 47.57 85.57 62.71 2013 RH min RH (%)

57.57 59.00 64.14 72.71 64.71 54.43 5 64.14 70.86 66.14 71.29 77.43 65.14 58.29 45.29 57.00 38.43 28.71 37.71 22.86 24.14 59.57 6 53.71 44.14 33.57 32.43 32.14 43.00 50.86 47.14 63.29 48.29 2014 3.43 2.71

21.74 13.71 13.29 11.14 23.34 15.47 2013 3.69 2.97 0.00 0.63 0.17 7.43 1.00 0.00 7.00 6.51 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.66 WEBBER Rainfall (mm)

12.86 13.23 11.63 12.60 10.91 2014 1.60 0.00 6.9 0.00 1.26 0.40 3.49 1.97 8.36 1.57 0.00 3.00 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

7

2013 Evaporation 2.34 2.59 2.53 2.39 2.84 2.57 2.47 2.49 3.07 3.49 3.13 3.73 3.70 3.86 4.70 5.40 5.41 4.44 4.54 5.10 4.09 6.59 5.23 5.19 4.13 4.19 5.17 5.99 4.90 5.51 8.66 8.67 9.31 (mm day

10.09 11.79 11.91 12.64 11.83 11.26 12.09 11.03 2014 2.37 2.90 3.14 3.61 3.83 4.24 5.90 5.71 6.56 6.57 5.69 7.93 8.23 8.21 7.49 7.61 7.24 9.10 7.80 6.39 6.86 6.09 6.34 8.86 9.30 97 - 1 )

www.IndianJournals.com Members Copy, Not for Commercial Sale considering significant weather factors by analysisout regressioncarriedwas the with minimum relative observed humidity. was A step-wise correlation positive study our in However hours. sunshine except parameters weather the all with negatively correlatedwas where(2011), in leaf webber incidence Lakshmi of findings with line in findingsare (TableOur 2). 0.37**) with the minimum relative humidity (rpositivelycorrelation and = 0.48**) - = temperature minimum (r = - with 0.39**), wind speed correlation (r negative significant had incidence webber leaf factor. The results weather indicated that mango and independent as taken parameterswere factor dependent as where leaf webber incidence was taken analyses correlation the for subjected September.andAugust of fortnight first with coincides that were 33 peaks during observed distinct study, two present however it’s the In to December. attributed was overlappinggenerations to June from pest of Madhya peaks different Bhopal, distinct ThePradesh. at October and September August, of fortnight first distinct peaks leaf of webber incidence three during the observed (2010) Singh and Verma Pradesh. Andhra 44 during incidence of leaf webber was observed al. et findings of Reddy the with corroborated are incidence webber leaf the in variation temporal Observations 4). with respect Fig. and to 3 the spatio- Fig. 1; (Table season during the year webber leaf 2014 as of incidencecompare low the for to 2013 condition beresponsiblecould factors dry inresulted maximum temperature pan high wind Higher speed, low rainfall and higher evaporation duringcoupled with 2014 incidence. webber leaf for favourable were humid/wet conditions indicated This 2014 to season. compared as 2013 during received during peak occurrence leaf of webber rainfall of amount higher The 2). (Fig. variationthe in incidenceattributed to 2014 to compare as 98 Downloaded From IP - 14.139.233.102 on dated 3-Aug-2016 21) eotdta te peak the that reported (2011) ef ebr niec was incidence webber Leaf th M a Hyderabad, at SMW et al rd . (2001). Lakshmi ad 37 and th CURRENT SMW t al. et Fig. 3. Dynamics of leaf webber incidence in relation to minimum temperature minimum to relation in incidence webber leaf of Dynamics 3. Fig. Fig. 2. Leaf webber incidence in different fixed plots across standard meteorological weeks meteorological standard across plots fixed different in incidence webber Leaf 2. Fig.

Fig. 4. Dynamics of leaf webber incidence in relation to windspeed to relation in incidence webber leaf of Dynamics 4. Fig. ADV ANCES IN ANCES AGRICUL TURAL SCIENCES 8(1): JUNE 2016 JUNE 8(1): SCIENCES www.IndianJournals.com Members Copy, Not for Commercial Sale facilitatedcarrystudy.this out which scenario”, change climate and under mango in dynamics interactions pest host in changes entitled, the Project “Understanding (NICRA) Agriculture Resilient Climate of Initiative National under assistance financial providing due to Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi for providing facilities carrying for the work.out Thanks are also Table 3. Weather regressionbased models mangofor leaf webber management leafof webber. predicting advisoriesfor incidenceagrothethe in andtimely incidence. This prediction models after validation can be used models could explain the non-liner modelsmaximum linear variation to compare that in opined also the leaf (2011) webber humidity.Lakshmirelative forenoon and temperature predicted the incidence to an extentweatherparameters to relationand mangowebberleaf inoffor 76 per cent with minimum incidence.Kavitha model could explain up to 36 per centAdding variation minimumin therelative webber leaf humidity leaf webber with to thethe only percent.incidence 2 is variation for its contribution third correlated order polynomial positively humidity relative and survival of the leaf webber successfully.these factors two play a crucial inrole the population buildup However, minimum the leaf webber incidence (Table This3). clearly indicates that along with wind speed had explained 34 per cent of percentvariation.Minimumtemperature34 variation explainedto in 24 had modelspolynomial Secondorder variation. of centper webber incidence leaf theminimum influencing temperature factors weather alone significant had the Among explained 23 variation. percentof webberleaf23 the had explainedto 14 as incidence webber dependent leaf variable. The and results revealed variable that linear models for independent an as P=0.01 at Significant ** Table 2. Polynomial Linear Models Rainfall (mm) Wind speed (km/hr) Relative humidity maximum (%) Relative humidity minimum (%) Minimum Temperature (°C) Maximum Temperature (°C) Weather parameters (Units) Downloaded From IP - 14.139.233.102 on dated 3-Aug-2016

Authors are thankful to the Director, CISH, Lucknow for incidence webber leaf and weatherCorrelationparametersbetween wind speed+0.08× Maximum relative humidity wind Maximumrelative speed+0.08× 31.90Y= Maximumrelativehumidity 26.07Y= relativehumidity Y= speed Wind Y=44.07 Y= 5.23Y= 44.76 Y= Equation GUNDAPP

- - 16.99+0.22× Maximum relative humidity 16.99+0.22×Maximumrelative 10.55 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS -

- 0.88× 0.88× speed Wind - - 1.55 × Minimum1.55×

- 1.35× Minimum 1.35× Minimum temperature 1.37× - 1.69 × Minimum 1.69× 0.73× Wind speed+0.17 × Maximum× 0.73× speed+0.17 Wind

et al et A

et al. al. et

. (2005) developedmodelregression (2005) .

DEVELOPMENT -

t t

emperature emperat t emperature ure Correlation co Correlation

- +0.12× - 0 0.77× .72× .72×

OF OF - - 0.37** 0.39** 0.48** 0.34 0.14 0.15 0.23 - 0.36 0.26 0.24 0.14 0.15 0.16 R 2 WEA

-

efficient (r)

0.29 0.10 0.12 0.19 Adj. 0.27 0.20 0.17

R

2

HRBSD FORECASTINGMODEL BASEDTHER

4.20 4.17 3.73 6.18 4.04 4.49 7.18 F t al et

0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.01 P < P

.

aeqA n RniiK, 01 ie als f h mno leaf mango the of tables Life 2011. Ranjini KR, and AM Rafeeq LakshmiKV, DRand Varma Reddy NRG, 2011. Seasonal Incidence webber leaf Mango 2005.Anitha V, and Lakshmi KV Kavitha K, andSrivastava SR RP,M,Haseeb2000. Missing Abbas links in the Bhatia R andGupta D,2002. Incidenceandthe control of themango BeriaKapadiaBiologyNN,andMN,2008.Mango AcharyaMF of 1977.Peethambaranand CK,BalakrishnanA PAR,Asari Jacob S, em Rad ig , 00 esnlAtvt f h ag leafmango the ActivitySeasonal 2010.of S, Singh and Verma R Verghese A, 1998. Management of mango leaf webber. A vital package SrivastavaandRP Tandon1980. PL, Studies of insectpathogens on Singh S and Verma R, 2013. Factors influencing the incidence of mango SinghG, 1999. Efficacyneem of formulations chemical to compared 2002.BioecologySinghManagement C, and mangoleaf of webber pest Integrated 2001. RN, Padari and M Hasseb RP, Shukla Reddy DS, 2013. Relative incidence of leaf webber, Reddy C, Harihara Prasad, Rajendera P andUmamaheshawari, 2001. RajkumarKhan B,Gundappa, andKumar RM HK, 2013. Integrated Protection 39:180-182.Protection Weather Parametersin Andhra Indian Pradesh. Journal of Plant of Mango Leaf Webber, EnvironmentInsect Pradesh. 11:39-40. Orthaga euadrusalis (Lepidoptera:Pyralidae).EnvironmentInsect 746: mangoleafwebber, of biology 111-113.22: Lepidoptera)in Himachal Pradesh. Agricultural webber, ScienceDigest leaf Sciences16: 218-219. LeafWebber, H.Current new fungal parasite of the mangoPaecilomyces farinosusleaf webber, Insect EnvironmentInsect 16:22. webber, paniclefor emergence Pyralidae).219-221. Entomon5: mango leaf webber, Molecular management. Entomology22-25.4: their and mango in Lepidoptera) webber, leaf 745-750. 509,pp. MangoSymposium on insecticides against hoppers and leaf webber. In : VI International Technology, Pantnagar,India. andAgriculture of University Pant Ballabh Govind Thesis, euadrusalis Orthaga 9-11. management in mango, Technical Bulletin CISH, Lucknow, pp. 236. 234- 19: ManagementHorticultural in Ecosystems Pest L.). varietiesmango( on Hamp. of hybrids and 29:Plant118-111. Protection of exvinacea Screening of Mango Cultivars against the leaf webber, Lucknow,H,CISH, 269 pp. in subtropical fruit 2013crops, of SinghEds. VK and Ravishankarmodification. canopy production withIn: planting canopy management density high quality under and high fruits density enhancing plantingsubtropical for management pest 14:425-429.Zoology Pyralidae) on different host plant leaves.pest, webber Journal of Experimental Orthaga euadrusalis Orthaga Hampson (Pyralidae:Hampson IndianLepidoptera). Journal

Science46: 163. Orthaga exvinacea Orthaga Orthaga euadrusalis Orthaga Orthaga exvinacea Orthaga rh a euadrusalis ga Ortha FOR MANGO LEAF MANGO FOR REFERENCES Orthaga euadrusalis Orthaga Walker (Pyralidae: Lepidoptera) in Andhra Walker (Pyralidae: Ph.D.Lepidoptera). , , InsectEnvironment 4:7. Orthaga euadrusalis Orthaga (Dickson ex Fries) Brown and Smith, a Walker (Pyralidae Lepidoptera Orthaga euadrusalis Orthaga . Annals . PlantProtection of apo (Lepidoptera: Hampson apo, (Pyralidae: Hampson, WEBBER akr Prldae: (Pyralid walker Walker (Lepidoptera: Orthaga exvinacea Orthaga exvinacea Mangifera indica Mangifera as Influenced by Orthaga Walker 99 ).