Herpe y & tolo log gy o : th C i u n r r r e O n , t y R g e o l s o e a m r o c t h n Entomology, Ornithology & E Herpetology: ISSN: 2161-0983 Current Research Research Article Insect Pests and Predators Associated with Mango Varieties Ahmed Khan Mari1, Abdul Ghaffar Khoso2, Khalid A E Eisawi3*, Enayat Aziz4, Mansab Khan1 1Department of Entomology, Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam, Pakistan; 2College of Plant Protection, Northwest A & F University, Yangling, China; 3 College of Forest Protection, Northwest A & F University, Yangling, China; 4Agriculture Department, Uthal, Pakistan ABSTRACT The experiments were conducted to examine the insect pests and predators associated with mango varieties commonly cultivated in Sindh province. Four mango varieties were included in this study (Sirroli, Langra, Sindhri and Neelum) and insect pests were assessed through trap catches. The results showed that the insect pests associated with different mango varieties as observed from the weekly trap catches were mango hoppers, Amrittodus atkinsoni, Idioscopus clypealis, mango thrips, Rhipphorothrips cruentatus, Thripstabaci, mango fruitflies, Dacus zonatus, D. dorsalis, mango scales, Aspidiotus destructor, Parlotoria pegandei and mango mealy bugs, Drosicha stebingi; while the predators were identified as Chrysopalac ciperda, Mallada boninensis and Polynema. The predators did not show a linear trend either for increase or for decrease in population. The trap catches were higher in the months of June and July. Varieties Neelum and Langra attracted more predators as compared to Sindhri and Sirroli varieties. Keywords: Mango varieties; Sindh; Predators; Pests; Pakistan INTRODUCTION correctus), Scale Insects, (Pulvinana polygonata, Aspidiotus destructor, Ceroplastis Rastococcus Chlumetia Mango, the choicest fruit and is rightly titled as the king of fruits sp. and sp.), Shoot Borer ( transversa Indarbella quadrinotata because of its wide adaptability, high nutritive value, richness in ), Bark Eating Caterpillar ( ), Stem Batocera rufomaculata Apsylla cistellata variety, delicious taste, excellent flavor, attractive appearance and Borer ( ), Shoot Gall Psylla ( ), Ortbaga euadrusalis Sternochetus popularity among the masses. However, the performance of Leaf Webber ( ) and Stone Weevil ( mangiferae varieties is found to vary under different climatic conditions [1]. ). Losses caused by these insects are not confined to As an export crop, mango earns the country foreign exchange feeding activities alone but also intensified by disseminating while at the same time acts as a source of food and household disease pathogens. The spiders compose major predator income for resource poor farmers [1,2]. population and prey behavior of these predatory spiders on different insect pests differs by species. The susceptibility of the The production of mango is threatened by the attack of many different mango varieties has not been studied [5]. The present insect pests and due to infestation of these insect pests the study therefore, carried out to examine the insect pests and mango crop suffers heavy losses [3]. Insect pests attack both ripe predators associated with mango varieties commonly cultivated and unripe fruits and females lay eggs under the skin of the fruit. in Sindh province, Pakistan. Objectives of this study monitor the The eggs of some insects hatch into larvae which feed on the insect pests associated with different mango varieties. The fruit tissue resulting in the rotting of the fruit and premature predators population on different mango varieties and identify fruit drop [3]. Out of 260 species of insects and mites that have the varietal preference of different insect pests and predators on been recorded as minor or major pests [4], major insect pests of mango. mango which pose a serious threat to foliage and fruit included: Hopper (Idioscopus clypealis, Idioscopus nitidulus and Amritodus MATERIALS AND METHODS atkinson), Mealy Bugs (Drosicha mangiferae), Inflorescence Midge The study comprised of the monitoring of mango varieties (Erosomyia indica), Fruitfly (Daccus dorsalis, D. zonatus and D. cultivated at the Horticulture Orchard of Sindh Agriculture Correspondence to: Dr. Khalid A E Eisawi, Department of Forest Protection, College of Forestry, Northwest A & F University, Yangling, China, Tel: +81-11-706-3690; E-mail: [email protected] Received: May 26, 2020; Accepted: June 12, 2020; Published: June 19, 2020 Citation: Mari AK, Khan M, Aziz E, Khoso AG, Eisawi KAE (2020) Insect Pests and Predators Associated with Mango Varieties. Entomol Ornithol Herpetol. 9:225. DOI: 10.35248/2161-0983.20.9.225. Copyright: © 2020 Mari AK, et al. This is an open-access ar ticle dis tribut ed under the t erms of the Cr eativ e Commons A ttribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Entomol Ornithol Herpetol, Vol.9 Iss.2 No:1000225 1 Mari AK, et al. University Tandojam for population of various insect pests and Difference) test was applied to compare different treatments for predators. The experiment was planned in a four replicated their efficacies against these insect pests. Randomized Complete Block Design. Following mango varieties were monitored for insect pests and their predators: RESULTS • Sirroli The study was carried out to examine the insect pests and • Langra predators associated with mango varieties commonly cultivated • Sindhri in Sindh province during 2012 at the Horticulture Garden, • Neelum Department of Horticulture, Sindh Agriculture University Tandojam. Four mango varieties were included in this study The mango trees were well worked for rings around and field (Sirroli, Langra, Sindhri and Neelum) and insect pests were was well prepared. In all, 16 trees were selected at random, four assessed through trap catches. The insect pests identified during trees of each variety. One tree was considered as one replication. weekly trap catches included mango hoppers, Amrittodus After proper labeling of the varieties and replications with white atkinsoni, Idioscopus clypealis, mango thrips, Rhipphorothrips paint, pheromone traps were installed. cruentatus, Thrips tabaci, mango fruit flies, Dacus zonatus, D. dorsalis, mango scales, Aspidiotus destructor, Parlotoria pegandei and Preparation and placement of pheromone traps mango mealy bugs, Drosicha stebingi; while the predators were Pheromone traps were prepared locally, and the method of its identified as Chrysopalac ciperda, Mallada boninensis and Polynema. preparation is very simple and affordable for average grower. The data on these insect pests and predators are presented in Plastic bottles containing trapping lure and hanging wire with Tables 1 to 12 in this chapter and accordingly the results are surf water in the base provided support with a stick and described. installed it at the height of the crop so that the insect is trapped easily. One pheromone trap was found to be sufficient for one Mango hoppers, Amrittodus atkinsoni, Idioscopus clypealis tree. Sex-pheromone trap lures during trials were replaced after The mango hoppers were identified in the trap catches as one month for each variety. All the experimental trees were Amrittodus atkinsoni and Idioscopus clypealis and the analysis of provided equally with pheromone traps. The experimental variance (Table 1) indicated a significant (p<0.05) difference in mango trees were visited on daily basis and the insect pest varietal preference of mango hoppers (F=5.37; DF=351; p<0.05) infestation was monitored on weekly basis. The data thus and as well as observation dates (F=680.92; DF=351; p<0.05); collected were subjected to statistical analysis using analysis of while interactive effect of mango variety × observation dates for variance to know the significance of differences in the mango hopper population was non-significant (F=0.34; DF=351; population of various insect pests and infestation at different p>0.05). intervals after treatment, and LSD (Least Significance Table 1: Analysis of variance for trap catches for mango hoppers. Source Degrees of freedom Sum of squares Mean squares F. ratio Probability Replications 3 373.1 124.38 - - Varieties(V) 3 29.2 9.73 5.37 0.0013 Obs. Dates(D) 21 25889.3 1232.82 680.92 0.0000 V × D 63 39.2 0.62 0.34 0.9800 Error 261 472.5 1.81 - - Total 351 26803.4 - - - The mango hoppers showed relatively more preference to mango May observation, minor trap catches of mango hoppers were varieties Sindhri (7.97/week) and Langra (7.83/week); while found and no change was found afterwards up to the end of the relatively less preferred varieties of mango hoppers were Sirroli study period on 8th August. This indicates that the major period (7.50/week) and Neelum (7.23/week). The data (Table 2) of mango hopper infestation spread over March and April showed that initially on 14th March observation, the average months. All the mango varieties showed similar trend of mango hoppers trap catches were 15.82/week averagely on four response to mango hopper infestation as observed from the varieties and remarkable increase in trap catches were found on weekly trap catches from 14th March to 8th August. It was the following observations of 21st March (21.87/week) and 28th further observed that none of these four mango varieties showed March (30.14/week) and then started decreasing fast. The peak resistance to mango hoppers, but varietal preference of the population of mango hoppers was found on 28th March. On 9th insect