Vol.12_No.2 - Pesticide Alternatives Lab - Michigan State University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Spring 2003 Resistant Pest Management Newsletter Vol. 12, No.2greenhouse. Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystems. 7 (1):54-58.Morse, J.G. and Brawner,O.L. 1986. Toxicity of pesticides of Scirtothripscitri and implications to resistance management. Journal ofEconomic Entomology. 79:560 570.Nair, V.V., Regunath and Visalakshi, A. 1991. Control of thripsScirtothrips dorsalis Hood on rose. Entomon, 16 (4): 327-329.Reddy, G.P.V., Deva Prasad, V. and Srinivasa Rao, R. 1992. Relativeresistance in chilli thrips, Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood populations inAndhra Pradesh to some conventional insecticides. Indian J. PlantProt. 20(2): 218 - 222.V. Sridhar and B. Jhansi RaniDivision of Entomology and NematologyIndian Institute of Horticultural ResearchHessaraghatta Lake Post, Bangalore-560 089IndiaStatus of Pyrethroid Resistance in Helicoverpa armigera in IndiaHelicoverpa armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae) is charismatic and one of the most dreadedinsect pests in agriculture, accounting for theconsumption of over 30% of the total insecticide useworldwide. The frequent and rapid changes in croppingpatterns and agro-ecosystems, the polyphagus nature ofthe pest, and its cosmopolitan abundance haveaccentuated the problem globally. The problems of thispest are magnified due to its direct attack on fruitingstructures, its voracious feeding habits, its highmobility and fecundity, its multivoltine, overlappinggenerations with facultative diapause, its nocturnalbehaviour, migration, and host selection by learning,and a propensity for acquiring resistance againstinsecticides (Satpute and Sarode, 1995; Sarode, 1999).This pest has been recorded feeding on 182 plantspecies across 47 families in the Indian subcontinent,of which 56 are heavily damaged and 126 are rarelyaffected (Pawar et al., 1986). Losses due solely to thispest of up to Rs.10,000 million have been reported incrops like cotton, pigeonpea, chickpea, groundnut,sorghum, pearl millet, tomato, and other crops ofeconomic importance (Raheja, 1996).In India, Helicoverpa is represented by threespecies, with H. armigera constituting 99.2%, H.peltigera at 0.6%, and H. assulta at 0.2% of the totalpopulation (Pawar, 1998). In recent years, H. armigerahas assumed such serious proportions in the countrythat for the past decade, farmers and plant protectionagencies of central and state governments havevirtually become perplexed regarding its control whichultimately has lead to an array of social, economical,and political problems. Of these, a primary problemconcerns the development of resistance in this pest to anumber of insecticides including pyrethroids.Resistance to pyrethroids in H. armigera had beenreported from a number of countries through out theworld including India. The control failures of syntheticpyrethroids were first detected on pigeonpea against H.armigera at Lam farm, Guntur, A.P. in 1986. From1987-88 to 1989-90, continuous monitoring andevaluation of the H. armigera population revealed thatthe resistance levels were low during 1988-89 inAndhra Pradesh, decreased by a factor of 10 (Table 1).During the cotton season 1989-90, it increased nearly2-fold greater than that encountered in 1988-89. It mayalso be elucidated that the resistance response inNorthern India, i.e. the Delhi and Karnal strains,remained constant. It was also shown that theresistance was not restricted to one or the otherpyrethroid, but had extended to all the three pyrethroidsused in the country viz., cypermethrin, fenvelerate, anddeltamethrin (Mehrotra, 1991). The subsequent studiesconfirmed the major cause of crop failure in A.P. wasresistance to synthetic pyrethroids in this pest(Srivastava, 1995). Although, the pyrethroid resistancein H. armigera was found to be restricted to anapproximately 75km wide and 200km long beltcomprising three districts of A.P. viz. Prakasham,Guntur, and parts of Krishna (Dhingra et al., 1988), thepresence of increased tolerance to cypermethrin in thetwo strains collected in Tamil Nadu from cotton (1989)and groundnut (1991) suggested that resistance topyrethroids was wide spread and could be featuredthroughout South India (Armes et al., 1992). InCoimbatore, resistance to cypermethrin was found to64
Spring 2003 Resistant Pest Management Newsletter Vol. 12, No.2be 25- to140-fold during 1992 and 1993 (Armes et al.,1996), but despite a reduction in the use of pyrethroidsin the state over the past few years, resistance levelsincreased 64- to 207-fold (Kranthi et al., 2001).The pyrethroid resistance in H. armigera hassubstantially increased in certain regions of Central andNorthren India too. Although, the pyrethroid use in thedistricts Akola and Amravati of Central India is not ashigh as in the Warangal or Guntur districts of A.P., thehighest level of pyrethroid resistance was recorded inthese districts during the H. armigera outbreak of1997-1998. This is in sharp contrast to resistance levelsreported from the Bhatinda district of Punjab wherepyrethroid use was reasonably high (Kranthi et al.,2001). In the Varanasi area in Uttar Pradesh, pyrethroidresistance was recorded in H. armigera larvae collectedfrom early pigeonpea in November 1991 and fromchickpea in March 1992 (Armes et al., 1992). Thesedetails reveal that the pyrethroid resistance has alreadymoved from South India to other parts of India.A survey of insecticide resistance in H. armigeraon the Indian sub-continent during 1991-95 revealedthat pyrethroid resistance levels were highest in theintensive cotton and pulse growing regions of Centraland Southern India where excessive application ofinsecticides is common (Armes, 1996). However, it hasbeen observed that several regions of the countrywhere insecticides are used in a very low quantity,resistance in this pest can be expected over space andtime (Tripathy and Singh, 1999). Among the severalpossibilities in this regard, many workers suspected itto be the resultant of immigration of resistant moths ina windward direction either from the North Indianstates of Punjab and Haryana where to control this pest,pyrethroid use was ever increasing (Pedegley et al.,1987) or from Central India (Vaishampayan and Singh,1995).Thus, the possibility of dispersal or migration ofH. armigera, that may occur at particular times duringor after cropping seasons eventually influence theresistance patterns across the country. Hence, revisedinsecticide resistance management (IRM) strategies areurgently required if further widespread failures tocontrol this pest are to be avoided.REFERENCES:Armes, N. J., Jadhav, D. R., Bond, G.S. and King, B.S. 1992. InsecticideResistance in Helicoverpa armigera in South India. PesticideScience 34:355-364.Armes, N. J., Jadhav, D.R. and DeSouza, K.R. 1996. A survey ofInsecticide resistance in Helicoverpa armigera in Indian subcontinent.Bulletin of Entomological Research. 86: 499-514.Dhingra, S., Phokela, A. and Mehrotra, K.N. 1988. Cypermethrinresistance in the population of Heliothis armigera Hubner. NationalAcademy of Science Letters, 11: 123-125.Kranthi, R.K., Jadhav, D., Wanjari, R., Kranthi, S. and Russell, D. 2001.Pyrethroid resistance and mechanism of resistance in field strains ofHelicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Journal ofEconomic Entomology .94(1): 253-263.Mehrotra, K.N. 1991. Current status of pesticide resistance in insect pestsin India. Journal of Insect Science. 4:1-4.Pawar, C.S. 1998. Helicoverpa- A national problem which needs anational policy and commitment for its management. Pestology.12(7): 51-59.Pawar, C.S., Bhatnagar, V.S. and Jadhav, D.R. 1986. Heliothis speciesand their natural enemies with their potential for biological control.Proceedings of Indian Academy of Sciences (Animal Sciences). 95:697-703.Pedegley, D.E., Tucker, M.R. and Pawar, C.S. 1987. Wind born migrationof Heliothis armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in India.Insect Science and its applications. 8: 599-604.Raheja, A.K. 1996. IPM Research and Development in India: Progressand Priorities. In : Recent Advances in Indian Entomology (Ed.O.P.Lal). APC Publications Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, pp.115-126.Sarode, S.V. 1999. Sustainable management of Helicoverpa armigera(Hubner). Pestology. Spl. Issue 13(2):279-284.Satpute, U.S. and Sarode, S.V. 1995. Management of Heliothis on cotton-A thought. In: Souvenir published at the State Level Conference onIPM. May 26, 1995 Akola (Maharashtra). pp.27-31.Srivastava, C.P. 1995. Insecticide resistance in Helicoverpa armigera inIndia. Resistant Pest Management. 7(1).Tripathy, M.K. and Singh, H.N. 1999. Circumstantial evidences formigration of resistant moths of Helicoverpa armigera at Varanasi.Uttar Pradesh. Indian Journal of Entomology. 61(4): 384-395.Vaishampayan, S.M.Jr. and Singh, H.N. 1995. Evidence on migratorynature of Heliothis armigera (Hubner) adults collected on light trapsat Varanasi. Indian Journal of Entomology. 57(3): 224-232.R.K.Arora, M.Yaqoob, and Arvind IsharDivision of EntomologyFaculty of Agriculture, SKUAST-JammuUdheywalla Jammu -180 002IndiaIntegrated Resistant Management of Codling Moth Cydia pomonella L. in ItalyINTRODUCTION Trentino and Emilia-Romagna are twoof the major apple-growing regions in Italy, with ayearly apple production of 450,000 and 210,000 tonnesa year, respectively. Emilia-Romagna is also the mostimportant area for pear production, with 630,000tonnes of pears grown annually. The codling moth(Cydia pomonella) is the key pest affecting Italianapple and pear orchards; those pest populations haveuntil now been primarily managed by insect growthregulators (IGRs) and organo-phosphate applications(OP). Subsequent to the increase in the damage causedby the codling moth at the end of the 1990s, amonitoring programme was started in 1998 in order todetect resistance, and field trials were carried out inorder to define the most appropriate IRM strategies(Ioriatti and Bouvier, 2000).MONITORING of the RESISTANCE Resistance monitoringwas carried out by using two methods: the attracticidesusceptibility test was used to evaluate the azinphosmethylactivity on the feral male moths, whileresistance to the IGR diflubenzuron was evaluated bytreating the over-wintering larvae collected directly inthe field (Ioriatti et al., 2003).65
Page 1:
Resistant Pest Management Newslette
Page 4 and 5:
Spring 2003 Resistant Pest Manageme
Page 6 and 7:
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15: Spring 2003 Resistant Pest Manageme
Page 35 and 36: Tetranychus urticae Koch. At 24 hrs
Page 63: Spring 2003 Resistant Pest Manageme
Page 77: Spring 2003 Resistant Pest Manageme
Page 80 and 81: In contrast to spinosad, indoxacarb
Page 82 and 83: Resistance Management NewsInsect Mo
Page 84 and 85: SymposiaCAST Pesticide Resistance M
show all

Vol.12_No.2 - Pesticide Alternatives Lab - Michigan State University

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?