J. Exp. Zool. Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 635-642, 2016 www.connectjournals.com/jez ISSN 0972-0030 PESTS OF COWPEA AND THEIR MANAGEMENT– A REVIEW

Ch. Anusha*, Prashant K. Natikar** and R. A. Balikai*** *Department of Agricultural Entomology, ANGRAU, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-500 030, India **Department of Agricultural Entomology, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad - 580 005, India ***Dean (Agri.), College of Agriculture, Hanumanamatti- 581 115, U.A.S., Dharwad e-mail: [email protected] (Accepted 23 February 2016)

ABSTRACT : Insect pests are major biotic constraints in cowpea production throughout the country and Karnataka is not an exception. The average yield in Karnataka is low, due to several constraints in the cultivation of cowpea. Among these constraints, insect pests have been considered as the major factor in causing severe loss in pulse grain yield. About 150 species of are known to attack pulse crops in India, of which about 25 species are reported to be serious. Cowpea is being infested by 21 insect pests like aphids, Aphis craccivora, leaf hoppers, Empoasca kerri (Pruthi), tobacco caterpillar, Spodoptera litura (Fab.) and spotted pod borer, Maruca vitrata (Geyer) causing about 65-100 per cent losses. The current paper deals with detailed review to highlight losses caused by these insect pests, their management and varietal screening for different pests of cowpea. Key words : Insect pests, management, cowpea, varietal reaction.

INTRODUCTION insect pests have been considered as the major factor in Among the various grain legumes, cowpea (Vigna causing severe loss in pulse grain yield. About 150 species unguiculata (L.) Walp.) is one of the most important of insects are known to attack pulse crops in India, of pulse crops, native to central Africa, belongs to family which about 25 species are reported to be serious Fabaceae. Grain legumes are considered to be the most (Srivastava, 1964). Almost every part of the cowpea plant important source of protein food in tropical and sub- is attacked by one or the other species. The major pests tropical countries, where diets in general are deficient in infesting cowpea are divided into two groups viz., pre- protein. It is so, because pulses supply protein to a greater flowering pests and post-flowering pests, of which the extent than any other vegetarian food source. They also latter group is more important. Among the post-flowering provide substantial quantities of minerals and vitamins to pests, the legume pod borer, Maruca vitrata (Geyer) the diet. Cowpea is called as vegetable meat due to high has been considered as one of the serious pests of cowpea amount of protein in grain with better biological value on and other legumes in tropical and subtropical regions of dry weight basis. On dry weight basis, cowpea grain the world. Maruca vitrata derives its prominent contains 23.4 per cent protein, 1.8 per cent fat and 60.3 importance as a pest of tropical grain legumes, from its per cent carbohydrates and it is rich source of calcium extensively wide distribution, its extensive host range and and iron. Apart from this, cowpea forms excellent forage ability to infest the young growing plant tips, flower buds, and it gives a heavy vegetative growth and covers the stems, flowers, pods, seeds of grain legumes including ground so well that it checks the soil erosion. It also forms cowpea. The pod borer is largely responsible for total a good silage and green manure crop. crop failure in southern Nigeria causing 50 per cent damage to flowers and over 60 per cent to green pods The major cowpea growing countries include Africa, (Taylor, 1964). The major insect pests which severely Nigeria, Brazil, Haiti, India, Mayanmar, , damage cowpea during all growth stages are the cowpea Australia and U.S. In India, larger portion of cowpea is aphid (Aphis craccivora Koch), foliage beetles cultivated in Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. (Ootheca sp., Medythia spp.,), the flower bud thrips In India the area under pulses is 11.05 million hectares (Megalurothrips sjostedti Trybom), the legume pod with the production of 17.21 million tonnes during 2011- borer (M. vitrata) and the sucking bug complex, of which 12. In Karnataka cowpea is cultivated over an area of Clavigralla spp., Anoplocnemis spp., Riptortus spp., 68029 hectares with a production of 35114 tonnes and Mirperus spp., Nezara viridula Fab. and Aspavia the productivity of 543 kg/ha during 2011-12. The average armigera L. are most important and are prevalent. yield (543 kg/ha) in Karnataka is low, due to several Without their control, reasonable grain yield cannot be constraints in the cultivation. Among these constraints, obtained (Jackai and Daoust, 1986; Suh et al, 1986). 636 Ch. Anusha et al Several control measures are available (Jackai, 1985) (1977) reported that varieties, TVU-946 and TVU-4557 of which chemicals are most effective giving several fold were resistant due to antibiosis principle and also observed increase in grain yield (Jackai, 1993). Sometimes, that cowpea varieties possessing longer peduncle with however, farmers spray their farms as many as 8 to 10 pods held apart were resistant to M. testulalis than the times during the growing season (Omongo et al, 1998). varieties possessing pendent pods. Charles Bell (1980) Cowpea is being infested by 21 insect pests like aphids, revealed that the genotypes viz., P-1476, EC-4276, VI A. craccivora, leaf hoppers, Empoasca kerri (Pruthi), and T-4222 were rated as resistant. The entries viz., P- tobacco caterpillar, Spodoptera litura (Fab.) and spotted 1473 and P-1476 were completely free from aphid pod borer, M. vitrata causing about 65-100 per cent losses incidence, while HG-22, CM-11 recorded highest (Pai, 1990). infestation as revealed by Dhanorkar and Daware (1980). Varietal screening for different pests of cowpea Obadofin et al (2007) results showed that varietal Prajapati et al (2008) reported that larval population resistance to insect pests in cowpea varied with growth of spotted pod borer, M. vitrata ranged from 0.67 (Pusa stages and seasonal changes. Five major insect pests (A. Phalguni) to 2.83 (GC-8949) per plant. Further, they craccivora, Megalurothrips sjostedti (Trybom), M. reported that, Pusa Phalguni and GC 8968 were vitrata, Riptortus dentipes (Fabricius) and C. categorized as less susceptible genotypes while GC-1, tomentosicollis) were observed at the various stages of GC-3, GC-8923, GC-8926, GC-8947, GC-8966 and GC- crop growth. Results suggest that the cowpea variety, 8968 were grouped into moderately susceptible category. IT90K-277-2 was resistant to A. craccivora while Four genotypes viz., GC-8910, GC-8916, GC-8927 and IT86D-719 was resistant to M. sjostedti. Maruca vitrata GC-8929 were categorized as susceptible genotypes, did not pose any threat to most of the cowpea varieties while GC-2, GC-8949 and GC-8956 were categorized as tested. IT95M-118, IT86D-719, IT95M-120 and IT95M- highly susceptible ones. Hanifa et al (1973) reported that, 220 were resistant to R. dentipes, a pod-sucking pest. the varieties MS-9508, The pod evaluation index showed that IT95M-118 and IT84E-124 were resistant to pod sucking insects. The MS-9882, PLS-126, PLS-127, MS-9507 and PLS- highest pod and peduncle damage were recorded by the 121 were resistant to A. craccivora. Singh et al. (1976) variety IT95M-120. Karel and Malinga (1980) reported and Oghiakhe et al (1991) reported that the resistant that, the varieties viz., TVU-408 and TVU-410 were cowpea types TVu 946 and TVu 4557 suffered less stem neither preferred for feeding nor suitable for growth and damage because of smaller stem diameter coupled with development of pest. TVU-946 consistently recorded closely knit interlocking collenchyma cells. Govindan lowest number of larvae and Vita-3 had the highest. Early (1974) documented that the variety CO-8 could be maturity, small size of flower and greater flower bud categorized as moderately resistant with 24 per cent formation could be the reasons for lowest infestation in damaged pods. Vishakantaiah and Jagadeesh Babu TVU-946 and hence, suggested that it could be used in (1978) reported that HG-22, Cowpea cream, V-15, C- breeding programme for pod borer resistance as reported 2099 and Anand-1 sustained less than 2.0 per cent pod by Jackai (1981). Jayadeep et al (2006) studied the borer incidence, while T-560, recorded highest damage varietal reaction against spotted pod borer, M. vitrata in of 35.71 per cent. ten varieties of mungbean. It was observed that highly Chakravarthy (1977) observed that the cultivars with susceptible cultivar LGG-450 had least number of red, glabrous and odourless pods and presence of trichomes on stem (8.9), pods (3.0) and leaves (13.0) as anthocyanin were least preferred for oviposition than compared to highly tolerant cultivar LGG-497 which had cultivars with green, pubescent, aromatic pods and 12.3, 7.2 and 22.8 trichomes/mm2, respectively. Similarly presence of chloroplast. Considering the resistance to trichome length was also least (0.46 mm) in susceptible spotted pod borer and blister beetle, under unprotected cultivar, LGG-450 compared to resistant cultivar, LGG- field conditions, LRG 41 recorded the highest grain yield 497 (0.62 mm). Macfoy et al (1983) from reported with lowest yield loss followed by ICPL-332. The hybrid that TVU-946 was most resistant both in the flowering (LRG 41 x ICPL 87119) registered the highest yield and pre-flowering stages followed by IFC-brown and coupled with lowest yield loss followed by CO 6 x ICPL Vita-1. Lalasangi (1984) reported that the varieties P- 87119. Hence, the parent LRG 41, ICPL 332 and the 869 and MS-90-82/2 recorded less percentage of flower crosses LRG 41 x ICPL 87119, CO 6 x ICPL 87119 are and pod damage. Ofuya and Akinghbohungbe (1986) the potential sources for resistance in breeding programme reported that the cowpea varieties TVU-2994, TVU-3709, as reported by Anantharaju and Muthiah (2008). Singh EW/1, BPL-3-1, ER-7 and Vita-5 showed promising Insects pests of cowpea and their management 637 levels of resistance to Cydia ptychora (Meyer) in damage to cowpea pods around Dharwad region. Nigeria. Nyiira (1971) observed that M. testulalis was Jackai and Oghiakhe (1989) demonstrated that the responsible for causing 50-60 per cent damage to the trichomes and phytochemicals were responsible for flowers and up to 60 per cent damage to the green pods resistance in wild cowpea genotypes viz., TVNU-72, of cowpea in . Booker (1964) reported that M. TVNU-73 to M. testulalis as compared to susceptible testulalis and coreids together destroyed 62.92 and 19 variety IT-84E-124. Oghiake and Odulaja (1993) studied per cent of the potential crop of cowpea. Raheja (1976) the variations in resistance to 18 cowpea cultivars based reported that the post-flowering pests caused more on principal component analysis from the damage on damage than the the pre-flowering pests, which accounted floral buds, flowers and sliced pods. Using cluster analysis for 70 per cent loss in grain yield. According to Adimani they found that MRx6-84F had wider adaptability in the (1976) the damage to soybean pods due to pod borers presence of M. vitrata infestation. TVU 946 performed just before harvest ranged from 10.5 to 91.29 per cent best and was in a single cluster. Anusha et al (2013) on the crop sown during October and July, respectively. reported that cowpea genotypes C-152 and DC-15 were Patel and Singh (1977) reported that M. testulalis with a categorized as moderately resistant and DC-47-1, GC- density of one to four larvae per plant caused 10 per 3, RC-101 and PGCP-6 as intermediate to pod borers. cent damage to the crop by destroying flowers, buds and Based on mean infestation index the genotypes C- pods. In Europe the potential pest of grain legumes C. 152, GC-3 and DC-15 were regarded as highly resistant, ptychora damaged up to 20 per cent of pea seed. C. whereas DC-47-1 regarded as moderately resistant to ptychora also caused 20.0 to 30.0 per cent yield loss in aphids. While, the genotypes RC-101 and PGCP-6 were cowpea in Nigeria (Perrin and Ezueh, 1979). Ganapathy regarded as highly susceptible to aphids. Less population (1996) estimated an avoidable loss of nearly 50 per cent of sucking pests (leafhoppers, thrips and bugs) were and flower drop damage ranging from 9.4 to 12.7 per noticed on C-152, GC-3 and DC-15 genotypes of cent due to M. vitrata in short, medium and long duration cowpea as. pigeonpea cultivars. The infestation of pests on the Loss estimation due to pod borers and sucking cowpea cultivar, S-488 under field condition caused 5.75 pests per cent pod damage as reported by Rai (1979). The cowpea plant is subjected to the attack by one Singh and Allen (1980) reported that A. craccivora or another insect species right from the germination till was a serious pest of cowpea and other pulses and caused the crop is harvested (Booker, 1964). Further, Raheja 20-40 per cent yield losses. Naresh and Gopalsingh (1984) (1976) noticed the attack of several insects on the same reported that the total damage caused by M. testulalis, parts of the cowpea plant at the same time and found it H. armigera, L. boeticus, C. gibbosa and E. atomosa is very difficult to measure accurately the losses caused together to the pods and seeds was 40.36 and 18.0 per by any one of the insects. The damage due to pod borers cent, respectively on cowpea in India. The loss in yield was to the tune of 80.00 per cent in as reported due to pod borers was assessed by protecting the crop by Katagihallimath and Siddappaji (1962). Taylor (1964) with varied number of sprays at 15 days interval after observed that M. testulalis was largely responsible for pod initiation. A minimum pod yield of 3.89 q/ha was total crop failure in southern Nigeria by causing about 50 recorded in untreated control where the crop was exposed per cent damage to flowers and over 60 per cent damage to natural infestation while, as high as 13.0 q/ha pod yield to green pods. Ganapathy (2010) reported that the damage could be obtained from completely protected plots due to M. vitrata was about 25-40 per cent in cowpea followed by the treatments with five, four and three and 9-84 per cent in pigeonpea across the Globe. The sprays, respectively, which were on par with fully damage and loss due to M. testulalis in Nigeria are protected treatments as reported by Rekha (2005). Karel generally higher on the late crop of cowpea than on the (1985) reported that 31.0 per cent flowers were damaged early crop. About 40-50 per cent loss in flowers and 20- due to feeding by two species of pod borers. The larvae 40 per cent loss in pods was recorded by from a severe of M. testulalis were more abundant and damaged the attack on cowpea as reported by Taylor (1967). pods to a greater extent than did by H. armigera with an Reghupathy et al (1970) found the actual loss in seed average of 31.0 and 13.0 per cent, respectively. Lalasangi yields due to pod borers (Helicoverpa zea (Boddie), (1984) made an effort to estimate the loss caused by M. Exalastis atomosa (Walsingham), M. testulalis and testulalis on cowpea and reported 37.08 per cent loss in atkinsoni (Moore), ranged from 3.2 to 23.5 per yield in cowpea protected at its different growth stages. cent. Gubbaiah et al (1975) recorded 42 to 56 per cent Shantibala and Singh (2004) found 1.24 per cent pea pod 638 Ch. Anusha et al infestation due to L. boeticus. Jakhmola and Singh (1985) 25 g a.i./ha and endosulfan 35 EC @ 0.07 per cent, were reported that C. ptychora caused 8.6 and 2.9 per cent the most promising treatments in terms of least pod damage to pods and grains, respectively, in greengram damage (11.85 and 17.80%) and grain damage (13.51 and 15.0 and 1.5 per cent damage to pods and grains, and 20.41%) as against 28.65 and 41.17 per cent pod respectively, in blackgram. According to Kaushik and and grain damage, respectively in untreated control. Gulabsingh (1985) damage due to L. boeticus on pods Studies carried out at the Regional Agricultural Research and locules was 8.0 per cent. Alghali (1992) reported Station against M. vitrata revealed that, spinosad 45 SC that three sprays at flower- budding flowering and poding (0.4 ml/l) was effective with lower pod damage of 2.20 were profitable which increased the yield by 50-200 per per cent followed by profenophos (1.0 ml/l), which cent in cowpea. Pandey et al (1991) observed the recorded pod borer damage of 2.67 per cent (Anon., 2002- avoidable losses in yield due to insect pests have been 03). recorded in the range of 66-100 per cent in cowpea. Lakshmi et al (2002) observed that the spinosad @ Field experiments were undertaken during kharif 0.005% was significantly superior over all other treatments 2012 at the Department of Agricultural Entomology, with higher pod yield of blackgram (14.66 q/ha with College of Agriculture, UAS, Dharwad by Anusha and 120.12% increase in yield) followed by Nurelle D-505 Balikai (2015) for the assessment of avoidable loss in (0.05 chlorpyrifos-methyl + 0.005% cypermethrin) (12.58 the form of yield reduction due to pod borers and sucking q/ha), thiodicarb @ 0.075% (12.16 q/ha), dichlorvos @ pests in cowpea genotypes viz., C-152 and DC-15 by 0.076% (11.58 q/ha) with 88.88, 82.52 and 73.87 per cent protecting the crop from insects in its different stages of increase in yield over untreated control. Mittal and Ujagir growth. The avoidable loss varied from 47.23 to 62.52 (2005) reported that among the spinosad treatments, and 48.51 to 62.91 per cent in C-152 and DC-15 varieties, spinosad @ 90 g a.i./ha recorded lowest larval population respectively with quinalphos 25 EC @ 2.0 ml/l sprayed of pod borer, M. vitrata (0.3 larvae/25 flowers) followed at different intervals. Whereas, highest grain yield of by spinosad @ 56, 45 and 73 g a.i./ha which recorded 14.49 q/ha in C-152 and 14.05 q/ha in DC-15 was obtained 1.3, 0.7 and 1.0 larvae per 25 flowers, in pigeonpea when crop was protected by three sprays with quinalphos respectively. Lambda cyhalothrin in combination with 25 EC @ 2.00 ml/l at 40, 55 and 70 days after sowing dichlorvos was found effective with 4.97 per cent pod (DAS) followed by the treatments with two sprays taken damage followed by novaluron and spinosad as reported up at 55 and 70 DAS and two sprays taken up at 40 and by Rani and Eswari (2008). Babu et al (2006) observed 70 DAS. that indoxacarb @ 0.0145% was highly effective against Management of cowpea pests M. vitrata in groundnut and recorded the lowest population of 3.00 larvae per plant, which worked out to Dayakar et al (1995) reported that fenvalerate @ 68.00 per cent reduction over untreated control and was 0.01% and profenophos @ 0.05% proved to be the best par with endosulfan 0.07%. Kumawat and Ashok Kumar by recording the lowest larval population of M. vitrata. (2007) observed that acetamiprid @ 80 g a.i./ha against Jena et al (1997) reported that application of dichlorvos leaf hoppers proved significantly superior over other 76 EC @ 0.5 kg a.i./ha twice at 35 and 50 days after treatments. It was followed by indoxacarb @ 100 g a.i./ sowing significantly reduced the aphid infestation over ha and lamda cyhalothrin @ 40 g a.i./ha which were at control in groundnut. Ganapathy and Durairaj (2000) par with each other. Among the new molecules reported that cumulative pod borer damage caused by flubendiamide 480 SC @ 0.2 ml/l was found significantly M. vitrata in blackgram was the lowest in quinalphos superior in reducing the larval population of S. litura and (0.04%) followed by profenophos (0.1%), alanycarb recorded highest grain yield of soybean (2382.00 kg/ha) (0.06%), endosulfan (0.07%), dimethoate (0.03%) and followed by indoxacarb 15.8 EC @ 0.3 ml/l (2217.33 kg/ acephate (0.075%). Jena and Kuila (1996) recorded the ha) and cyantraniliprole 10 OD @ 0.2 ml/l (2053.33 kg/ reduced infestation of leafhoppers, E. kerri by 34.95 per ha) as reported by Natikar (2015). Srihari and Patnaik cent over control and obtained yield increase of 28.6 per (2006) reported that indoxacarb (0.0145%) resulted in cent over control in groundnut crop. Rao (2000) reported the greatest reduction in larval population of M. vitrata. that profenophos @ 0.01% alone and also in combination with lufenuron (0.05%) (profenophos 0.05% + lufenuron Rangarao et al (2007) reported that the maximum 0.005%) proved effective in controlling M. vitrata in reduction in larval population of M. vitrata (82%) in pigeonpea by recording larval population reduction of pigeonpea was obtained with spinosad 45 SC @ 0.4 ml/ 42.96 and 49.35 per cent, respectively. Bhoyar et al l within two days after application as compared to 72 per (2004) reported that, the treatments spinosad 2.5 SC @ cent with indoxacarb 14.5 SC @ 1.0 ml/l, 40 per cent Insects pests of cowpea and their management 639 with monocrotophos 36 EC @1.5 ml/l and 20 per cent per cent respectively. Sonune et al (2010) results revealed with Metarhizium @ 1.0×108/g. Ankali et al (2011) that spinosad @ 0.009%, indoxacarb @ 0.008%, studies revealed that dichlorvos was highly toxic followed profenophos @ 0.05% and lambda cyhalothrin @ 0.005% by acephate and spinosyn at 1 and 3 days after treatment were found to be the most effective in reducing the larval (DAT) and further showed cent per cent mortality at 7 population and pod damage of blackgram. Devaki et al. DAT. The results on the efficacy of insecticidal treatments (2011) studied the efficacy of different insecticides against revealed that the thiamethoxam (0.05%), acetamiprid pod sucking bug complex in cowpea, reported that 18.7 (0.004%) and imidacloprid (0.01%) were the most per cent incidence in Acetamiprid @ 0.1g/l treatment and effective treatments for the control of leaf hoppers as 16.9 per cent incidence in imidacloprid treatment @ reported by Sutaria et al (2010). Gopali et al (2010) 0.25ml/l seven days after treatment. Among new observed that the profenophos 50 EC (2.0 ml/l) in insecticide molecules flubendiamide 24%+thiacloprid 24- combination with dichlorvos (0.5 ml/l) at the time of 48% SC recorded comparatively high larval reduction flowering was found to be the most effective in combating (76.56 and 84.45%) followed by emamectin benzoate the M. vitrata and registered lowest pest damage (66.50 and 80.88%) and indoxacarb (61.55 and 77.94%) (6.23%), highest grain yield (10.20 q/ha) with highest cost after first and second sprays, respectively as reported benefit ratio (1:5.30). Emamectin benzoate 5 SG @ 0.2 by Shivaraju et al (2011). g/litre and spinosad 45 SC @ 0.2 ml/litre were identified Field evaluation of newer and conventional as the best treatments as they recorded the lowest values insecticides was carried out against cowpea pests during for pod and seed damage and the highest values for green kharif 2012. Flubendiamide 480 SC @ 0.1 ml/l recorded pod yield, net returns and benefit: cost ratio as reported highest protection against pod borers, M. vitrata, C. by Rekha and Mallapur (2007). The minimum larval ptychora and Lampides boeticus (Linnaeus) with 87.15, population of 1.13 and 0.50 larvae per five plants was 100.00 and 100.00 per cent after second spray, recorded with the treatment of flubendiamide 480 SC @ respectively. The next best treatments included 48g a.i./ha followed by indoxacarb 14.5 SC @ 75 g a.i./ emamectin benzoate 5 SG @ 0.2 g/l (87.43, 79.88 and ha (1.19 and 0.63 larvae/5 plants) at 3 and 7 days after 85.30%) and profenophos 50 EC @ 2.0 ml/l + dichlorvos spraying, respectively which were at par with each other. 76 EC @ 1.0 ml/l (86.33, 87.93 and 93.70%). Higher The lowest pod damage of 9.98 per cent was recorded protection against leafhopper (E. kerri), thrips (Megaluro in flubendiamide 480 SC @ 48 g a.i./ha followed by thrips sp.), pentatomid bugs (Nezara viridula Fabricius) indoxacarb 14.5 SC (10.22%) as stated by Patil et al. and coreid bugs (R. pedestris) was recorded by (2008). Bharathimeena and Sudharma (2009) reported imidacloprid 17.8 SL @ 0.25 ml/l (80.50, 87.13, 83.00 that imidacloprid @ 0.005% significantly lowered the and 88.09%), acetamiprid 20 SP @ 0.25 g/l (78.93, 88.97, nymphal population of pod sucking bug (Riptorus 85.10 and 92.06%) and diafenthiuron 50 WP @ 1.0 g/l pedestris Fab.) on cowpea and recorded highest yield. (58.49, 80.88, 80.14 and 71.42%), respectively (Anusha Remya (2010) reported that novaluron 10 EC @ 0.7 et al, 2014). ml/l, emamectin benzoate 5 SG @ 0.2 g/l, spinosad 45 CONCLUSION SC @ 0.1 ml/l, flubendiamide 20 SC 0.2 g/l @ and The findings point to the fact that the adoption of diflubenzuron 25 WP @ @ 1.0 ml/l were effective in resistant varieties of cowpea is a suitable alternative reducing the larval population as well as per cent damage. method for controlling insect pests because it is Rynaxiper 10 SC @ 0.1 ml/l was found least effective as comparatively easy, less expensive and hazardous effects compared to other newer insecticides. Among the new of chemicals on environment can be avoided. insecticide molecules evaluated by Mallikarjuna (2009) against pod borers of field bean revealed that Indiscriminate use of pesticides may result in several flubendiamide+thiacloprid recorded the highest per cent environmental problems and therefore it is imperative to larval reduction after second (76.295%), fifth (79.78%) develop alternative eco-friendly techniques which can be and tenth (81.15%) day after first spray followed by fitted in integrated pest management modules. emamectin benzoate and indoxacarb 14.5SC (I) at 0.3 In recent years, many publications are describing ml/l. Singh and Nath (2011) recorded the reduction of newer molecules of insecticides that appear very pod damage in pigeonpea due to the pod sucking bug promising and useful. In order to fulfill the promise of complex by the spray of Nomuraea rileyi @ 2 g/l (5x1011 improved molecules, thorough trails of newer molecules conidia/ml), profenophos 50 EC 2 ml/l (0.1%), of insecticides are required. imidacloprid 17.8 SL (0.25 ml/l) were 37.3, 34.7 and 37.9 640 Ch. Anusha et al REFERENCES borer, Maruca testulalis Geyer. (Pyralidae: ) in pigeonpea, Ph. D. Thesis, Tamil Nadu Agric. Univ., Coimbatore, Adimani B D (1976) Studies on the insects of soybean (Gylcine max India. (L.) with special reference to the bionomics and control of pod borer, Cydia ptychora (Meyer) (Lepidoptera: Torticidae). M. Ganapathy N (2010) Spotted pod borer, Maruca vitrata (Geyer) in Sc. (Agri) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Bengaluru, Karnataka, (India). legumes: Ecology and management. Madras Agric. J. 97(7-8), 199-211. Alghali A M (1992) Insecticide application schedules to reduce grain losses caused by insects of cowpea in Nigeria. Insect Sci. Applic. Ganapathy N and Durairaj C (2000) Bio-efficacy of some newer 13, 725-730. insecticides against pod borers of blackgram. Pestology 24, 43- 45. Anantharaju P and Muthiah A R (2008) Screening for pigeonpea spotted pod borer and blister beetle species tolerance techniques Gopali J B, Raju T, Mannur D M and Suhas Y (2010) Web-forming under field conditions. Plant Arch. 8(1), 189-194. lepidopteran, Maruca vitrata (Geyer): an emerging and destructive pest in pigeonpea. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci. 23, 35- Ankali S M, Jadhav Y T, Jadhav K A and Barkade D P (2011) Study 38. of relative toxicity of synthetic insecticides and biopesticides to Maruca vitrata on pigeonpea. Int. J. Pl. Protec. 4 (1), 156 -157. Govindan R (1974) Insects of the field bean (Lablab niger var. Lignosus medicus) with special reference to the biology and ecology of Anonymous (2003) AICRP (All India Coordinated Research Project) the Adisura atkinsoni. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., on Pulses, Annual Report (2002-2003), RARS, Lam Farm Bengaluru, Karnataka, (India). (Guntur), Andhra Pradesh, India, p. 45. Gubbaiah Rajanna T V and Kulkarni K A (1975) Cydia ptychora Anusha Ch and Balikai R A (2015) Avoidable loss estimation due to Meyr as a pest of cowpea (Vigna sinensis Savi.). Cur. Res. 4, 46. pod borers in C-152 and DC-15 varieties of cowpea. J. Exp. Zool. India 18(1), 349-353. Hanifa A M, Balasubramanian G, Leela David and Subramanian T R (1973) Screening of Lablab varieties for resistance to black bean Anusha Ch, Balikai R A and Deshpande S K (2013) Screening of aphid, Aphis craccivora Koch. South Indian Hort. pp. 131- cowpea genotypes against different insect pests. J. Exp. Zool. 133. India 16, 683-688. Jackai L E N (1981) Relationship between cowpea crop phenology Anusha Ch, Balikai R A and Patil R H (2014) Management of cowpea and field infestation by the legume pod borer, Maruca testulalis. pests through newer and conventional insecticides. Int. J. Agricult. Ann. Ent. Soc. Am. 74, 402-408. Stat. Sci. 10(1), 157-160. Jackai L E N (1985) Cowpea Entomology Research at IITA and its Babu K R and Santharam G (2002) Bioefficacy of imidacloprid against impact on food production in the tropics. Nigeia J. Ent. 6, 87- leafhopper, Empoasca kerri on groundnut. Ann. Pl. Protec. Sci. 97. 10, 69-71. Jackai L E N (1993) The use of neem in controlling cowpea pests. Int. Bharathimeena T and Sudharma K (2009) Alternate host range and Institute of Tropical Agric. Res. 7, 5-11. management of Riptortus pedestris infesting cowpea. J. Res. Punjab Agric. Univ. 14(3), 299-303. Jackai L E N and Daoust R A (1986) Insect pests of cowpeas. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 31, 95- 119. Bhoyar A S, Siddhabhatti P M, Wadaskar R M and Khan M I (2004) Seasonal incidence and control of pod borer complex in pigeonpea. Jackai L E N and Oghiakhe S (1989) Pod wall trichomes and resistance Pestology 28(9), 99-104. of two wild cowpea Vigna unguiculata (L.) accessions to Maruca testulalis (Geyer) and Clavigralla tomentosicollis Stall. Bull. Booker R H (1964) Pests of cowpea and their control in northern Entomol. Res. 79(4) 595-605. Nigeria. Bull. Ent. Res. 55, 663-672. Jakhmola S S and Singh O P (1985) New record of Cydia ptychora Chakravarthy A K (1977) Pod borer resistance in Lablab niger (L.) Meyrick as a pod borer pest of green and black gram in Madhya cultivars with special reference to the pod borer, Adisura Pradesh. Agric. Sci. Digest 5, 3-4. atkinsoni Moore (Lepidoptera: ). M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis. Univ. Agric. Sci., Bengaluru, Karnataka, (India). Jayadeep H, Srinivasan S and Muralikrishna T (2006) Role of various biophysical factors on distribution and abundance of spotted Charles Bell R (1980) Studies on the resistance in cowpea, Vigna pod borer, Maruca vitrata (Geyer) on mung bean. Ann. Pl. Protec. unguiculata (L.) Walp. to the aphid Aphis craccivora Koch. Sci. 14(1), 49-51. M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Tamil Nadu. Agric. Univ., Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, (India). Karel A K (1985) Yield losses and control of bean pod borers, M. testulalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) and Heliothis armigera Dayakar S, Arjuna R P and Tirumala R K (1995) Effect of organic and (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 78, 1323-1326. inorganic sources of N and P and certain insecticides on the buildup of pod borers on pigeonpea. The Andhra Agric. J. 42(4), Karel A K and Malinga Y (1980) Leaf hopper and aphid resistance in 14-17. cowpea varieties. Trop. Grain Legume Bull. 20, 10-11. Devaki K, Murali Krishna T, Ramakrishna Rao A, Ramaiah M, Katagihallimath S S and Siddappaji C (1962) Observations on the Prasanthi L and Raja Reddy K (2011) Management of pod incidence of Lepidoptera pod borers of Dolichos lablab and the sucking bug complex in cowpea, Ann. Pl. Protec. Sci. 19(2), 451- results of preliminary insecticidal trails to control them. Second 508. All India Congress of Zoology, New Delhi; 20th October, p. 59. Dhanorkar B J and Daware D G (1980) Differences in number of Kaushik S K and Gulabsingh (1985) A short note on the incidence of aphids found on lines of Cowpea in a replicated trail. Trop. blue butterfly, Lampides boeticus L. (Lycaenidae: Lepidoptera). Grain Legume Bull. 10, 3-4. Indian J. Pl. Protec. 10, 94. Ganapathy N (1996) Bioecology and management of spotted pod Kumawat M M and Ashok Kumar (2007) Bioefficacy of some noval Insects pests of cowpea and their management 641 insecticides against jassids in soybean. Pestology 31(2), 29-32. Fabricius (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). J. Arid Legumes 5(2), 136- Lakshmi P S P, Sekhar P R and Rao V R (2002) Bioefficacy of certain 137. insecticides against spotted pod borer on urdbean. Indian J. Raheja A K (1976) Assessment of losses caused by insect pests to Pulses Res. 15(2), 201-202. cowpeas in northern Nigeria. PANS 22, 229-233. Lalasangi M S (1984) Bionomics, loss estimation and control of the Rai P S (1979) Field evaluation of cowpea cultivar S-488 by pod borer, Maruca testulalis (Geyer) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Callasobruchus chinensis Linnaeus. J. Maharashtra Agric. Univ. on cowpea (Vigna unguiculata W.). M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. 4(1), 104. Agric. Sci., Bengaluru, Karnataka (India). Rangarao G V, Ashwinikumari P R, Rameswar Rao V and Reddy Y V Macfoy C A, Dabrowski Z S and Okech S (1983) Studies on the R (2007) Evaluation of spinosad and indoxacarb for the legumes pod borer, Maruca testulalis (Geyer), cowpea resistance management of legume pod borer, Maruca vitrata (Geyer) in to oviposition and larval feeding. Insect Sci. Applic. 4(1/2), 147- pigeonpea. J. Food Legumes 20(1), 126-127. 152. Rani C S and Eswari K B (2008) Evaluation of some newer insecticides Mallikarjuna J (2009) Studies on pod borers of dolichos bean, Lablab against Maruca on green gram. Asian J. Bio. Sci. 3(2), 346-347. purpureus L. (Sweet) and their management, M. Sc. (Agri.) Rao Ch S (2000) Management of pod borers of pigeonpea, M. Sc. Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Bengaluru, Karnataka, (India). (Agri.) Thesis, Acharya N. G. Ranga Agric. Univ., Hyderabad, Mittal V and Ujagir R (2005) Evaluation of naturolyte spinosad against Andhra Pradesh, (India). pod borer complex in early pigeonpea. Indian J. Pl. Protec. Regupathy A, Palaniswamy G A and Krishnan R H (1970) Assessment 33(2), 211-215. of loss in seed yield by pod borers in certain varieties of field Naresh J S and Gopal Singh (1984) Population dynamics and damage bean. Madras Agric. J. 37, 274-278. of insect pests in pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) (L.). Indian J. Rekha K (2005) Status and Management of pod borer complex in Entomol. 46, 412-420. Dolichos bean, Lablab purpureus (L.) Sweet, M. Sc. (Agri.) Natikar P K (2015) Evaluation of insecticides for the management of Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka, (India). Spodoptera litura (Fabricius) in soybean. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Rekha S and Mallapur C P (2007) Efficacy of indigenous materials Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka (India). and new molecules against pod borer. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci. Nyiira Z M (1971) The status of insect pests of cowpea (Vigna 20(2), 414-416. unguiculata) and their control. PANS 17, 194-187. Remya K (2010) Ecofriendly approaches for the Management of Obadofin A A, Joda A O and Dada O A (2007) Field evaluation of pod borers in field bean, Lablab purpureus (l.) Sweet, M. Sc. cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp) varieties for resistance to (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka, (India). some major insect pests in Ago-Iwoye, South west Nigeria. Shantibala T and Singh T K (2004) Yield loss infestation and economic Moor J. Agric. Res. 8(1), 13-18. injury level for pea pod borer in Manipur. Ann. Pl. Protec. Sci. Ofuya T I and Akinghbohungbe A E (1986) Aspects of varietal 12, 22-28. resistance to the black cowpea , Cydia ptychora (Meyrik) Shivaraju C, Ashok Kumar C T, Sudhirkumar S and Thippaiah M (Lepidoptera: Torticidae). Insect Sci. Applic. 7, 777-780. (2011) Efficacy of indigenous materials and new insecticide Oghiakhe S and Odulaja A (1993) Classification of cowpea cultivars molecules against Maruca testulalis (Hubner) on black gram. for field resistance to the legume pod borer, Maruca testulalis in Int. J. Pl. Protec. 4(1), 214-216. Nigeria using cluster analysis. Ann. Apl. Biol. 122, 69-77. Singh R S and Allen D J (1980) Pests, diseases, resistance and protection Oghiakhe S, Jackai L E N and Makanjuola W A (1991) Cowpea plant in cowpea. In: Advances in legume Sci. ( eds. Summerfield R J architecture in relation to infestation and damage by the legume and Bunting A H), p. 419-443. Kew, Royal Botanic Gardens. pod borer Maruca testulalis (Geyer): II- Effect of canopy Singh R S and Nath P (2011) Effect of biorational approaches on structure and pod position. Insect Sci. Applic. 13, 339-344. pigeonpea pod and grain damage by pod bug, Clavigrella gibbosa. Omongo C A, Adipala E, Ogenga Latigo M W and Kyamanywa S Ann. Pl. Protec. Sci. 19, 75-79. (1998) Insecticide application to reduce pest infestation and Singh S R (1977) Cowpea cultivars resistant to insect pests in world damage on cowpea in Uganda. African Plant Protec. 4 (2), 91- germplasm collection. Trop. Grain Legume Bull. 9, 3-7. 100. Singh S R, Williams Rachie K O, Watt E, Nangju D, Wien H C and Pai K M (1990) Incidence of insect pests in early variety of cowpea, Luse R A (1976) Cowpea VITA-5, Trop. Grain Legume Bull 5, Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Konam Krishi 41-42. Vidyaeet, Dapoli, Maharashtra, (India). Sonune V R, Bharodia R K, Jethva D M, Rathod R T and Deshmukh Patel R K and Singh D (1977) Serious incidence of pod borer, Maruca S G (2010) Field efficacy of chemical insecticides against spotted testulalis Gey. on red gram at Varanasi. Sci. Cult. 43, 319. pod borer, Maruca vitrata (Fabricius) infesting blackgram, Patil S K, Deshmukh G P and Patil J V (2008) Efficacy of newer Legume Res. 33(4), 287-290. Flubendiamide 480SC against pod borers in black gram. Pestology Srihari B and Patnaik N C (2006) Use of new insecticides against 9, 20-22. Maruca vitrata (Geyer) in black gram. Ann. Biol. 22(2), 169- Perrin R M and Ezueh M I (1979) The biology and control of grain 172. legume olethreutids (Torticidae). Report of Imperial College of Srivastava B K (1964) Pests of Pulses, In: Entomology in India. (Ed. Field Stutien Silwood Park Ascot, Berks UK. pp. 201-207. Pant. N. C.) Entomological Society of India, IARI, New Delhi. Prajapati D A, Dodia D A and Tikka S B (2008) Relative susceptibility pp. 83-91. of cowpea genotypes against spotted pod borer, Maruca vitrata Suh J B, Jackai L E N and Hammond W N O (1986) Observations on 642 Ch. Anusha et al pod sucking bug populations on cowpea at Mokwa, Nigeria. L. in southern Nigeria. Nigeria Grower Producer 3, 1-4. Trop. Grain Legume Bull. 33, 17-19. Vishakantaiah M and Jagadeesh Babu S C (1978) Screening of cowpea Sutaria V K, Motka M N, Jethva D M, and Ramoliya D (2010) Field genotypes for isolating strains resistant to pod borers. AICRP efficacy of insecticides against jassid, Empoasca kerri (Pruthi) on Pulse Improvement, Bengaluru Centre, Kharif Progress in soybean, Ann. Pl. Protec. Sci. 18(1), 94-97. Report. 1978-79, pp. 36-37. Taylor T A (1964) The field pest problems on cowpeas Vigna sinensis