Content uploaded by Pravin G. Shinde
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Pravin G. Shinde on Jul 19, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Pravin G. Shinde
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Pravin G. Shinde on Jul 19, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
~ 397 ~
The Pharma Innovation Journal 2021; SP-10(7): 397-400
ISSN (E): 2277- 7695
ISSN (P): 2349-8242
NAAS Rating: 5.23
TPI 2021; SP-10(7): 397-400
© 2021 TPI
www.thepharmajournal.com
Received: 01-05-2021
Accepted: 03-06-2021
Pravin G Shinde
Department of Entomology,
Chandra Shekhar Azad
University of Agriculture and
Technology Kanpur,
Utter Pradesh, India
Pratap A Divekar
ICAR-Indian Institute of
Vegetable Research, Varanasi,
Uttar Pradesh, India
DK Singh
Department of Entomology,
Chandra Shekhar Azad
University of Agriculture and
Technology Kanpur,
Utter Pradesh, India
Deepak Singh Pal
Department of Entomology,
Chandra Shekhar Azad
University of Agriculture and
Technology Kanpur,
Utter Pradesh, India
Ansar Nadaf
Chaudhary Charan Singh
Haryana Agricultural University
Hisar, Haryana, India
Corresponding Author:
Pravin G Shinde
Department of Entomology,
Chandra Shekhar Azad
University of Agriculture and
Technology Kanpur,
Utter Pradesh, India
Bio-pesticide management strategy for mustard aphid
Lipaphis erysimi (Kaltenbach) (Homoptera: Aphididae)
Pravin G Shinde, Pratap A Divekar, DK Singh, Deepak Singh Pal and
Ansar Nadaf
Abstract
Mustard aphid, Lipaphis erysimi (Kalt.) is a key pest on rapeseed-mustard. Experiment were undertaken
to study the efficacy of biopesticides against mustard aphid in mustard crop. The efficacy of bio
pesticides viz., Beauveria bassiana, Verticillium lecanii, azadirachtin and a standard insecticide check,
dimethoate was studied against mustard aphid, Lipaphis erysimi under field conditions at Oil seed farm
Kalyanpur, Chandrashekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology (C.S.A.U.A.T.), Kanpur,
India. All the bio pesticides and standard check insecticide dimethoate were found equally effective in
reducing the aphid population over the untreated control. The reduction of aphid after the application of
all biopesticides and dimethoate was observed significantly superior over control at all the interval of
observation. However, all the bio pesticidal treatments singly and in their combination were at par with
the standard check insecticide dimethoate in terms of mean aphid population after the application of three
sprays. Therefore, we recommend the use of biopesticides Beauveria bassiana, Verticillium lecanii and
azadirachtin individually or in their combination as an eco-friendly and cost-effective alternative for the
management of mustard aphid, Lipaphis erysimi (Kalt.).
Keywords: mustard aphid Lipaphis erysimi, bio pesticides, entomopathogenic fungi, Beauveria
bassiana, Verticillium lecanii, azadirachtin
Introduction
Rapeseed-mustard is an important oilseed crop which is grown in subtropical as well as
tropical countries in the world. India is the second largest producer of this crop in the world
(Dwivedi et al., 2019) [3]. Rapeseed-Mustard is a most important edible oilseed crop in
Northern India. In India, rapeseed-mustard is grown during Rabi season under rain-fed as well
as irrigated conditions (Janu et al., 2018) [9]. Mustard oil is an edible and high-energy food
ingredient that is widely used in the preparation of foods to improve their palatability and
flavour. Mustard oil seed cakes are also utilised as fertilisers and animal feed. (Cheema et al.,
2018) [1]. The yield of rapeseed-mustard is low due to various biotic and abiotic stresses.
Among the biotic stresses, mustard aphid, Lipaphis erysimi (Kalt.) considered to be the key
pest of rapeseed and mustard crops in India (Gautam et al., 2019) [5]. This dreaded pest infests
the mustard crop and cause losses ranging from 19-96 per cent and adversely affects the oil
production (Janu et al., 2018) [9]. In past many workers have evaluated a number of chemical
insecticides against insect pest and some of them have been found effective to control this
insect. Use of chemical insecticides has been found more or less toxic to a number of
parasitoid and predators i.e., Diaeretiella rapae, Chrysoperla carnea, coccinellids and syrphid
flies present in mustard fields as natural enemies of aphid. Use of chemical pesticides is also
responsible for environmental pollution, health hazards to human beings, toxic to pollinators,
pest resurgence, development of resistance in insect-pests and residue in oil and cake (Meena
et al., 2013) [11]. Host plant resistance (HPR) is one of the most important cost effective and
compatible mechanisms to manage insect pest which has adverse effects on the survival and
other biological parameters of insect pests (Divekar et al., 2019) [2]. Extreme and irrational use
of synthetic chemicals for improved plant protection and plant productivity causes several
adverse impacts on the ecosystem. Microbes belonging to different taxonomic group of
bacteria, viruses, and fungi are employed in the biological suppression of phytopathogens.
Such bioagents can more efficiently grow, survive and proliferate in several agro- horticultural
ecosystems (Dukare et al., 2020) [4]. A combination of the Entomopathogenic fungi like
Beauveria bassiana, Metarhizium anisopliae, and Lecanicillium lecanii with neem oil at half
of their recommended concentrations could be a viable eco-friendly option in the management
~ 398 ~
The Pharma Innovation Journal http://www.thepharmajournal.com
of the sucking pests of okra, along with the conservation of
natural enemies (Halder et al., 2021) [7]. Biocontrol agents like
entomopathogenic nematodes are effective biological control
agents for a variety of economically important insect pests
and considered as potential alternatives to chemical
insecticides (Gowda et al., 2020) [6].
In recent year awareness towards the eco-friendly
management of insect pest has been initiated and the
insecticidal and antifeedent properties of some plant extracts
has been reported against mustard aphid, ethanol extract of
some plant materials were found effective against the pest
under the laboratory condition as well as field condition (Pal
et al., 2020) [12]. An eco-friendly pest control approach against
mustard aphid is the necessity of present time to safeguard the
natural enemies and pollinators as well as human health.
Keeping the above facts in mind the present investigation was
undertaken to manage mustard aphid Lipaphis erysimi
(Kaltenbach) through eco-friendly bio-pesticides.
Materials and Methods
The experiment was conducted at Oil seed farm Kalyanpur,
Chandrashekhar Azad University of Agriculture and
Technology (C.S.A.U.A.T.), Kanpur, India (26°49′N latitude,
80°30′E longitude, 126 m altitude) during 2019-20. Seed of
the “Urvashi” variety is provided by ICAR-DRMR, Bharatpur
(ICAR- Directorate of Rapeseed & Mustard Research) and
Oilseed Section C.S.A.U.A.T. Kanpur. The experiment was
carried out in a randomised block design (RBD) with three
replications and seven treatments. The plot size is 4.2 m x 3m.
Evaluation of insecticides against mustard aphid, Lipaphis
erysimi
The mustard aphid was regularly monitored during the crop
season to impose treatments for management of mustard
aphid on need basis. The application of treatments was done
on the basis of ETL i.e. 25 aphids 10 cm−1 central twig per
plant (Singh and Lal, 2011) [13].
The details of biopesticides and a standard insecticide check
selected for the investigation were given in table 1. All of the
treatments were sprayed with a Knapsack Sprayer at 15 days
interval. Pre-treatment count of the insect pests was noted one
day before insecticide application. The post treatments
population of the insects were recorded regularly at ten
randomly selected plants of each plot 3, 7, and 10 days after
treatment application. The percentage reduction of the pest
population over control was calculated by using the formula
given by Henderson and Tilton (1955) [8].
Table 1: Insecticide for testing their effectiveness against mustard aphid.
Treatments
Description
Trade Name
Formulation
Dose
T1
Beauveria bassiana
Ecoria
1.15 WP
2g/L
T2
Verticillium lecanii
Bioline
1.15 WP
2g/L
T3
Azadirachtin
Achook
5SL
5ml/L
T4
T1+T3
-
-
T1 (2g/L) +T3 (5ml/L)
T5
T2+ T3
-
-
T1 (2g/L) +T3 (5ml/L)
T6
Dimethoate
Rogor
30 EC
1ml/L
T7
Untreated Control
-
-
-
Result and Discussion
Efficacy of insecticides against mustard aphid, Lipaphis
erysimi
The results of bio-efficacy of selected biopesticides against
mustard aphid were presented in table 2. Pre-treatment count
for mustard aphid population was non-significant and was
recorded in the range of 79.69 to 89.12 (F (6, 14) = 1.07, p=
0.42) during season 2019-20. Significant differences were
observed for the mean mustard aphid population among the
treatments after first, second and third spray application (F (6,
14) = 13.29, p ˂0.001); (F (6, 14) = 211.43, p ˂0.001) and (F
(6, 14) = 1125.82, p ˂0.001), respectively. The pooled mean
data showed that the aphid population was ranged in between
21.83-194.85 and the treatments were significantly different
(F (6, 14) = 28.73, p ˂0.001) (Table 1). Non-significant
differences were observed in the treatments involving
biopesticides, their combinations and dimethoate in terms of
percent reduction over control after first, second and third
spray of application ((F (6, 14) = 0.13, p=0.98); (F (6, 14) =
0.50, p= 0.76) and (F (6, 14) = 1.97, p =0.15), respectively.
Pooled mean data in terms of percent reduction over control
ranged in between 61.27- to 71.51. All the biopesticides and
standard check insecticide dimethoate were found effective in
reducing the aphid population over the untreated control.
Results clearly revealed that the reduction of aphid after the
application of all biopesticides and dimethoate treatments
found significantly superior to control at all the interval of
observation. However, all the bio pesticidal treatments singly
and in their combination were at par with the standard check
insecticide dimethoate in terms of mean aphid population
after the application of three sprays. This clearly suggests that
the B. bassiana, M. anisopliae and Azadirechtin singly and in
combination are equally effective as dimethoate.
Entomopathogenic fungi like V. lecanii or NSKE along with
release of C. septempunctata can be used as alternative
measure to manage mustard aphid instead of solely relying on
insecticides (Yadav and Singh, 2015) [17].
Neem-based formulation nimbecidine has been reported
compatible with B. bassiana and L. lecanii (Subbulakshmi et
al., 2012) [16]. Bio-efficacy of the insecticide imidacloprid
17.8% SL was at par with the different biopesticides,
botanicals, and their combinations (Halder et al., 2021) [7].
Dimethoate being a systemic insecticide used in the region
over a decade. Local farmers frequently applied this
insecticide more than their recommended concentration. Due
to long-term regular use of this neonicotinoid in agri-
horticultural ecosystem of the region caused development of
resistance among sucking pests. The melon aphid, Aphis
gossypii Glover, has developed 210-fold resistance to
dimethoate (Lokeshwari et al., 2016) [10]. Conversely, farmers
are preferably using the pesticides as a first line of protection
pest management over the biopesticides and other eco-
friendly approaches. Therefore, the biopesticides alone and in
their combinations proved equally effective as insecticide
against mustard aphid, L. erysimi.
Effect of biopesticides on yield and economics
The maximum yield recorded in treatment Dimethoate 30
~ 399 ~
The Pharma Innovation Journal http://www.thepharmajournal.com
EC@ 1ml/L is (2063 kg/ha) it was found to on par with
treatment Azadirachtin 5 SL@ 5ml/L is (1930 kg/ha).
Whereas minimum yield was recorded in control (745kg/ha).
These results coincide with the finding of (Singh et al., 2009)
who observed a significantly higher yield of mustard seed
under Dimethoate 30 EC @ 300 g a.i./ha. The higher efficacy
of dimethoate for the management of mustard aphid Lipaphis
erysimi (Kalt.) under field condition and with giving
relatively the higher yield of mustard (Sinha et al., 2001).
The highest IBCR (Incremental Benefit Cost Ratio) is
recorded in Dimethoate 30 EC@ 1ml/L is (44.18) followed by
Azadirachtin 5 SL@ 5ml/L is (11.10), Verticellium leccani
1.15 WP@ 2g/L is (10.47), Beauveria bassiana 1.15 WP @
2g/L is (9.66) (Table 3). The lowest IBCR was obtained in
Azadirachtin 5 SL@ 5ml/L followed by Verticellium leccani
1.15 WP @ 2g/L is (8.71), followed by Azadirachtin 5 SL@
5ml/L followed by Beauveria bassiana 1.15 WP@ 2g/L is
(9.14). (Yadav and Singh, 2015) [17] Reported the highest cost-
benefit ratio (7.25) under the treatment of dimethoate @ 1
ml/l followed by C. septempunctata @ 5,000 beetles/ ha for
the management of mustard aphid Lipaphis erysimi Kalt.
Similarly, the most favourable cost-benefit ratio under the
treatment in dimethoate 30 EC @ 300 g a.i. /ha (1:38)
followed by neem seed kernel extract @ 5% (1:18) was also
reported (Meena et al., 2013) [11].
Table 2: Effect of biopesticides on the mustard aphid, L. erysimi in terms of reduction in population.
Treatments
Mean population of mustard aphid per 10 cm central twig per plant
Pooled Mean
population
Pooled Mean
PROC
1 DBS
Spray I
PROC
Spray II
PROC
Spray III
PROC
T1
79.69a
45.68a (6.79)
61.00a
21.11a (4.64)
70.64a
13.31a (3.71)
59.87ab
26.70a
63.84a
T2
85.84a
44.53a (6.71)
64.71a
22.03a (6.74)
69.05a
14.39a (3.85)
50.05a
26.98a
61.27a
T3
85.02a
41.04a (6.44)
66.72a
22.63a (4.80)
67.04a
13.85a (3.78)
61.14ab
25.84a
64.97a
T4
89.12a
44.39a (6.70)
66.17a
23.08a (4.85)
67.92a
11.47a (3.45)
62.23ab
26.31a
65.44a
T5
84.09a
42.23a (6.53)
69.42a
18.06a (4.30)
74.04a
8.94a (3.07)
65.04b
23.08a
69.50a
T6
83.11a
40.23a (6.38)
72.55a
17.09a (4.19)
75.12a
8.17a (2.94)
66.85b
21.83a
71.51a
T7
84.55a
154.98b (12.46)
-
199.10b (14.12)
-
230.48b (15.19)
-
194.85b
-
F
1.07
13.29
0.13
211.43
0.50
1125.82
1.97
28.73
1.33
P
0.42(NS)
˂0.001
0.98(NS)
˂0.001
0.76(NS)
˂0.001
0.15(NS)
˂0.001
0.31 (NS)
PROC-Percent Reduction over control, Figures within parenthesis is√𝑥 + 0.5 transformed value, DBS =Days before Spraying, DAS =Days after
spraying
Table 3: Economics analysis of different treatments against mustard aphid, L. erysimi
Treatment
Cost of insecticides
(Rs. / ha)
Labour charge
(Rs. / ha)
Total Expenditure
(Rs. / ha)
Mean yield
(kg/ha)
Gross income*
(Rs. / ha)
Net return over
control (Rs. /ha)
IBCR
T1
4024.00
696.00
4720.00
1930
85402.00
52436.00
11.10
T2
2957.00
696.00
3653.00
1500
66375.00
33409.00
9.14
T3
1870.00
696.00
2586.00
1310
57967.00
25001.00
9.66
T4
3057.00
696.00
3753.00
1484
65667.00
32701.00
8.71
T5
1890.00
696.00
2586.00
1357
60047.00
27081.00
10.47
T6
624.00
696.00
1320.00
2063
91287.00
58321.00
44.18
T7
745
32966.00
IBCR= Incremental Benefit Cost Ratio
*Total expenditure includes cost of labour and cost of insecticide
** Income based on produce/ha and sale price of mustard @ 4425/q
Conclusion
Biopesticides like B. bassiana, M. anisopliae and
Azadirechtin were proved equally effective in the
management of mustard aphid, Lipaphis erysimi. Considering
the yield and economics of these biopesticides are the one of
the cost effective alternatives to the chemical insecticides.
Therefore, we recommend the use of biopesticides as an eco-
friendly and economically viable alternative for the
management of mustard aphid, Lipaphis erysimi in mustard.
Acknowledgement
We are thankful to the Head, Department of Entomology,
C.S.A.U.A.T. Kanpur for providing the required facilities
during the course of research work. Financial support to Mr.
Shinde Pravin Gautam during M.Sc. as ICAR-National Talent
Scholarship by Indian Council of Agricultural Research
(ICAR), New Delhi is gratefully acknowledged.
References
1. Cheema SA, Zubair M, Saleem MJ, Malik MK, Aslam A,
Maan NA et al. Evaluation of Brassica napus germplasm
for susceptibility status against Mustard Aphid (Lipaphis
erysimi Kalt.) Journal of Entomology and Zoology
Studies 2018;6(6):39-42.
2. Divekar P, Kumar P and Suby SB. Screening of maize
germplasm through antibiosis mechanism of resistance
against Chilo partellus (Swinhoe). Journal of
Entomology and Zoology Studies 2019;7(3):1115-1119.
3. Dwivedi SA, Singh RS and Pragnabharathi R. The
screening of mustard varieties resistance against mustard
aphid Lipaphis erysimi Kalt. Plant Cell Biotechnology
and Molecular Biology 2019;20(9, 10):397-408.
4. Dukare A, Paul S, Mhatre PH and Divekar PA.
Biological Disease Control Agents in Organic Crop
Production System. In book: Pesticide Contamination in
Freshwater and Soil Environs: Impacts, Threats, and
Sustainable Remediation (Hard ISBN: 9781771889537)
2020. Publisher: Apple Academic Press, USA. DOI:
10.1201/9781003104957-10.
5. Gautam MP, Singh SN, Kumar P, Yadav SK, Singh DP
and Pande MK. Mustard aphid, Lipaphis erysimi (Kalt)
(Hemiptera: Aphididae): A review., The Pharma
Innovation Journal 2019;8(9):90-95.
6. Gowda MT, Patil J, Vijayakumar R, Halder J, Kumar V,
~ 400 ~
The Pharma Innovation Journal http://www.thepharmajournal.com
Divekar PA et al. Isolation, identification and biocontrol
potential of entomopathogenic nematodes occurring in
Purvanchal and Bundelkhand regions of Uttar Pradesh,
India. Egypt J Biol Pest Control 2020;30:95.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41938-020-00290-5.
7. Halder J, Divekar PA, Rani AT. Compatibility of
entomopathogenic fungi and botanicals against sucking
pests of okra: an eco-friendly approach. Egypt J Biol Pest
Control 2021;31:30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41938-021-
00378-6.
8. Henderson CF, Tilton EW. Test with acaricide against
the brown wheat mite. J Entomol 1955;48:157-161.
9. Janu A, Yadav GS, Kaushik HD, Jakhar P. Bio efficacy
of Verticillium lecanii and Beauveria bassiana against
mustard aphid, Lipaphis erysimi under field condition.
Plant Archives 2018;18(1):288-290.
10. Lokeshwari D, Kumar NKK, Manjunatha H,
Shivashankar S. Biochemical Characterization of
Detoxifying Enzymes in Dimethoate-Resistant Strains of
Melon Aphid, Aphis gossypii (Hemiptera: Aphididae).
Advances in Entomology 2016;4:167-182.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ae.2016.43018.
11. Meena H, Singh SP, Nagar R. Evaluation of microbial
agent and bio-products for the management of mustard
aphid, Lipaphis erysimi (Kalt.). The Bioscan
2013;8(3):747-750.
12. Pal DS, Singh DK, Gautam SP, Kumar A. Biorational
management of mustard aphid, (Lipaphis erysimi Kalt.).
International Journal of Chemical Science
2020;8(2):2554-2557.
13. Singh A, Lal MN. Eco-friendly approaches for
management of Mustard Aphid, Lipaphis erysimi (Kalt.).
Annals of Plant Protection Sciences 2011;19(1):93-96.
14. Singh SP and Singh YP. Bio-efficacy of pesticides
against mustard aphid. Annals of Plant Protection
Sciences 2009;17(1):240-242.
15. Sinha RP, Kumari K, Singh SN. Relative efficacy and
persistence of toxicity of insecticides against mustard
aphid. Indian Journal of Entomology 2001;63(2):186-91.
16. Subbulakshmi N, Ramarathinam S, Anburaj J,
Sundaravadivelan C, Kuberan T, Kumar P et al.
Compatibility of neem-based oil nimbicidine with
entomopathogenic fungi. Int J Appl Biores 2012;4:12-15.
17. Yadav S, Singh SP. Bio-intensive integrated management
strategy for mustard aphid Lipaphis erysimi Kalt.
(Homoptera: Aphididae). Journal of Applied and Natural
Science 2015;7(1):192-196.