i

EVALUATION OF SEX PHEROMONE AND STICKY COLOUR TRAPS FOR MONITORING OF SHOOT AND FRUIT BORER

(Leucinodes orbonalis Gueene.) IN BRINJAL

ARAVINDA M.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ENTOMOLOGY COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, VIJAYAPUR

UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, DHARWAD - 580 005

JUNE, 2015

ii

EVALUATION OF SEX PHEROMONE AND STICKY COLOUR TRAPS FOR MONITORING OF SHOOT AND FRUIT BORER

(Leucinodes orbonalis Gueene.) IN BRINJAL

Thesis submitted to the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of

Master of Science (Agriculture)

In

Agricultural Entomology

By

ARAVINDA M.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ENTOMOLOGY COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, VIJAYAPUR

UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, DHARWAD - 580 005

JUNE, 2015

iii

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ENTOMOLOGY COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, VIJAYAPAUR

UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, DHARWAD

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the thesis entitled “EVALUATION OF SEX

PHEROMONE AND STICKY COLOUR TRAPS FOR MONITORING OF SHOOT

AND FRUIT BORER (Leucinodes orbonalis Gueene.) IN BRINJAL” submitted by Mr.

ARAVINDA M., for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE (AGRICULTURE) in

AGRICULTURAL ENTOMOLOGY to the University of Agricultural Sciences,

Dharwad, is a record of research work done by him during the period of his study in

this university, under my guidance and supervision and the thesis has not previously

formed the basis of the award of any degree, diploma, associateship, fellowship or

other similar titles.

VIJAYAPUR (S. S. UDIKERI)

JUNE, 2015 CHAIRMAN

Approved by:

Chairman:

(S. S. UDIKERI)

Members: 1.

(S. S. KARABHANTANAL)

2.

(S. B. PATIL)

3.

(A. N. BAGALI)

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It is a matter of pleasure to glance back and recall the path one traverses

during the days of hard work and pre-perseverance. It is still great at this juncture to

recall all the faces and spirit in the form of teachers, friends, near and dear ones. I

would consider this work nothing more than incomplete without attending to the task

of acknowledging the overwhelming help I received during this endeavor of mine.

It is very difficult to express one’s feelings in words but formality demands to

do so the extent possible I consider myself very much fortunate and it is indeed true

that I have had a chance to work under the noble guidance of Dr. S. S. UDIKERI,

Principal Scientist (Cotton Entomology), ARS Hebballi farm, UAS Dharwad and

Chairperson of my advisory committee. I wish to express my deep sense of

gratitude and heartfelt thanks for his inspiring guidance, meritorious support,

sustained interest in planning and execution of research, meticulous and critical

evaluation of the manuscript, personal interest, genuine counseling, continuous and

unitary words of encouragement.

The moral zeal and constant assurance at every count bestowed by

members of my advisory committee Dr. S. S. Karabhantanal, Assistant Professor

(Entomology),

Dr. S. B. Patil, Professor and Head (Agricultural Extension) and Dr. A. N. Bagali,

Associate Professor (Horticulture), College of Agriculture, Vijayapur, their timely

suggestions from the beginning of this investigation, valuable counsel and keen

interest have helped me to shape this manuscript in the present form.

I avail this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to field staffs, college

farm, Vijayapur. All the teaching and non technical staff, College of Agriculture,

Vijayapur particularly Dr. S. B. Jagginavar, Professor and Head (Entomology), is

highly regarded for their encouragement during the course of study.

I sincerely acknowledge the blessings by my parents Smt. Renuka, and Sri.

Maruthi H. Mallarer, support given by my sisters Jayashree, Gnaneshwari,

Rajeshwari, Navina kumari, Vidyashree and my brother in laws, B. N. Navalagund,

Subhash Havnur, S. M. Hiremath, Raju Jamakhandi, Yellesh Bhati for their

boundless love, needy inspiration, without whose affection I would not have come

up to this level.

The co-operation of my farmers Channappa Kokatnur, Mallappa Ganiger and

Ravi V. Agasar is highly regarded for sparing their farm to conduct experiment. My

diction do not seem to be rich enough to translate gratitude’s into words, the timely

help extended by my all colleagues, my farmers, seniors and all my juniors.

VIJAYAPUR JUNE, 2015 (ARAVINDA M.)

v

CONTENTS

Sl. No. Chapter Particulars

CERTIFICATE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF PLATES

LIST OF APPENDIX

1. INTRODUCTION

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Importance of pest and yield loss

2.2 Use of pheromone for monitoring

2.3 Different types of traps and their efficacy

2.4 Use of colour traps

3. MATERIAL AND METHODS

3.1 Evaluation of different types of pheromone trap models for monitoring L. orbonalis

3.2 Evaluation of different types of colour sticky traps for monitoring of L. orbonalis

4. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

4.1 Evaluation of different types of pheromone trap models for monitoring of L. orbonalis

4.2 Evaluation of different types of colour sticky traps for monitoring of L. orbonalis

5. DISCUSSION

5.1 Evaluation of different types of pheromone trap models for monitoring L. orbonalis

5.2 Evaluation of different types of colour sticky traps for monitoring of L. orbonalis

6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

REFERENCES

APPENDIX

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table

No. Title

1. Evaluation of different sex pheromone trap models for L. orbonalis

monitoring in brinjal crop.

2. Influence of moth trapping through different trap models on shoot damage

(%) due to L. orbonalis monitoring in brinjal crop.

3. Influence of moth trapping through different trap models on fruit damage

(%) due to L. orbonalis monitoring in brinjal crop.

4. Influence of moth trapping through different trap models on yield (kg plot-

1) due to L. orbonalis monitoring in brinjal crop.

5. Influence of moth trapping through different trap models on yield (q ha-1)

due to L. orbonalis monitoring in brinjal crop.

6.

Influence of different types of pheromone trap models on shoot damage,

fruit damage and total yield.

7. Correlation between shoot infestation and fruit infestation and yield with

moth catches.

8. Total moth catches in different trapping devices.

9. Evaluation of different types of color sticky trap for L. orbonalis monitoring

in brinjal crop.

10. Performance of different types of color sticky traps on shoot damage (%)

due to L. orbonalis monitoring in brinjal crop.

11. Performance of different types of color sticky traps on fruit damage (%)

due to L. orbonalis monitoring in brinjal crop.

12. Performance of different types of color sticky traps on yield (kg plot-1) due

to L. orbonalis monitoring in brinjal crop.

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No.

Title

1 Evaluation of different sex pheromone trap models for L. orbonalis monitoring in brinjal crop

2 Impact of different trap modules on moth capture

3 Influence of moth trapping through different trap models on shoot damage (%) due to L. orbonalis monitoring in brinjal crop

4 Influence of moth trapping through different trap models on fruit damage (%) due to L. orbonalis monitoring in brinjal crop

5 Influence of moth trapping through different trap models on yield (q ha-1) due to L. orbonalis monitoring in brinjal crop

viii

LIST OF PLATES

Plate No.

Title

1. Preparation of Bottle trap and Can trap in the field.

2. Different pheromone trap modules used for trapping experiment.

3. Efficacy of different trap modules in moth capture.

4. Sticky traps of different colors used for monitoring experiment.

5. Field view of moth trapping experiment.

6. Shoot damage by Leucinodes orbonalis in brinjal plants.

7. Brinjal fruit damage and larva of Leucinodes orbonalis.

ix

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix No.

Title

I Meteorological data of Regional Agricultural Research Station, Vijayapur (Karnataka: India), 2014.

1. INTRODUCTION

Brinjal fruit (unripe) is primarily consumed as cooked vegetable in various ways

and dried plants are used as fuel in rural areas. Brinjal fruits are widely used in

various culinary preparations viz., sliced bhaji, stuffed curry, bertha, chutney,

vangibath, pickles etc. It is often considered as a Mediterranean or mid-Eastern

vegetable. Brinjal assumes special significance among vegetables in the hot wet

season when other vegetables are in short supply. Practically the only vegetable

available at an affordable price for everyone is brinjal. So, it is known as poor man’s

crop.

Brinjal or egg plant occupies a world area of 1.867 mha with a production of

49.79 mt with the productivity of 26.7 t ha-1. In India the area under brinjal cultivation

was estimated to be 0.72 mha with total production of 13.56 mt and the productivity of

19.1 t ha-1. In Karnataka, it is grown in an area of 0.0158 mha with a total production

of 0.4025 m t and the productivity is 25.4 t ha-1 (Anon., 2014b). Brinjal (Solanum

melongena L.) crop is native to India and is grown throughout the country and

throughout the year (Choudhury, 1970). It is one of the widely used solanaceous

vegetable by people and is being cultivated in India for the last 4,000 years. Brinjal is

an important vegetable in South and South-East Asia (Bangladesh, India, Nepal and

Srilanka), where it is one of the three most important vegetable species. This region

accounts for almost 50 per cent of world's area under brinjal cultivation.

In India, there are approximately 2500 varieties of brinjal of various shapes

extending from oval or egg-shaped to long or club shaped. Colours of fruits range

from white, yellow, green and purple to nearly black. Brinjal occupies an important

position in every day diet due to its high nutritive value. Contrary to the common

belief, it is quite high in nutritive value being rich in vitamins like A, B and C and

minerals like calcium, magnesium, phosphorus and fatty acids. It is low in calories

and fats, contains mostly water, some protein, fibre and carbohydrates. It is a good

source of minerals and vitamins and is rich in total water soluble sugars, free

reducing sugars, amide proteins among other nutrients. It has been reported that on

an average, the oblong-fruited egg plant cultivars are rich in total soluble sugars,

whereas, the long-fruited cultivars contain a higher content of free reducing sugars,

2

anthocyanin, phenols, glycoalkaloids (such as solasodine), dry matter and amide

proteins (Bajaj et al., 1979).

Though the quantity is very high per unit area (upto 42 t ha-1, Alam et. al.,

2003), but the quality of brinjal is not to the acceptable level. There are several

factors responsible for poor quality of brinjal fruits, among them insect pests are of

major one’s. Though, brinjal is a summer crop, it is being grown throughout the year

under irrigated condition. Hence, it is attacked by number of insect pests right from

nursery stage till harvesting (Regupathy et al., 1997). Among the insect pests

infesting brinjal, Leucinodes orbonalis Gueene is considered the main constraint as it

damages the crop throughout the year. It is known to damage shoot and fruit of

brinjal in all stages of its growth. The yield loss due to the pest is to the extent of 70-

92 per cent (Eswara Reddy and Srinivasa, 2004). As many as 70 insect pests have

been reported on brinjal. Among the major pests infesting brinjal the most important

and destructive one is brinjal shoot and fruit borer (BSFB), (Leucinodes orbonalis

Gueene: Pyralidae: Lepidoptera). In the early stage of the crop, larva bores into the

shoots resulting in drooping, withering and drying of the affected shoots. During the

reproductive stage, tiny shiny larva bores into the flower buds and fruits. The bored

hole is invariably plugged with excreta. The yield loss could be as high as 70 per cent

(Dhandapani et al., 2003) and may go up to 90 per cent in India (Kalloo, 1988).

Eggplant (Solanum melongena Linnaeus) is one of the most economically

important vegetable of tropics having hot-wet climate. The key pest, eggplant fruit

and shoot borer found to be most destructive and ranked first among threats

especially in South Asia, hence has become hot issue for research in this region. It

inflicts sizeable damage up to 80 per cent in terms of fruit and content of vitamin-C

(Ram Prasad Mainali, 2014).

According to Peswani and Ratanlal (1964) the loss due to the infestation of this

pest was estimated to be 20.70 per cent on entire fruit weight basis and 9.70 per cent

only on the basis of damaged portion. The total loss due to fruit borer attack has been

estimated to be 50 to 75 per cent (Leela David, 1966), while Krishnaiah (1980)

reported a crop loss of 54 to 66 per cent due to L. orbonalis from Bangalore. It is also

reported that, there will be reduction in vitamin C content to the extent of 68 per cent

3

in the infested fruits (Hami, 1955). Damage to the fruits, particularly in September, is

very severe and the whole crop can be destroyed. L. orbonalis is active throughout

the year at places having moderate climate but its activity is adversely affected by

severe cold (Atwal, 1976).

The losses caused by brinjal pests vary from season to season depending

upon environmental factors as reported by Gangawar and Sachen (1981) and Thanki

and Patel (1988). Among the meteorological parameters, temperature is the most

crucial abiotic factor influencing the life span of any organism. However, temperature,

rainfall, relative humidity and wind speed are the chief weather parameters that

largely influence the activity of a given species of insect. The interaction between

pest activity, biotic and abiotic factors helps in deriving at predictive models that aids

in forecast of pest incidence.

Sex pheromones are important component of Integrated Pest Management

(IPM) programs mainly used to monitor as well as mass-trap the male insects. The

IPM strategy based on sex pheromone for managing the L. orbonalis has reduced

pesticide usage and enhanced the activities of natural enemies in Indo-Gangetic

plains of South Asia (Srinivasan, 2012). Thus, this technology can be expanded as

IPM technology may be beneficial in holistic manner (Mathur et al., 2012).

Many reports are available on the influence of trap colour on the captures of

lepidopteran moths. Such traps vary widely in their spectral reflectance. The influence

of trap colour on the capture of some noctuid pests in sex pheromone baited traps

has been well studied (Mc Laughlin et al. 1975, Mitchell et al. 1989). However, the

importance of the visual stimuli provided by traps in these two studies of night-flying

moths contrasted sharply. Further moths of L. orbonalis are photophobic hence they

are not attracted to light during night. This is one of the reasons for unsatisfactory

control of the pest under field situations.

Pheromone traps offer one of the best sampling tools for flying adult insects. It

has been reported to be very useful for determining seasonal activity of pest species

by several workers (Tamhankar et al., 1989; Singh et al., 2000 and Patil et al., 1992).

The order of effectiveness was emamectin benzoate 5 SG @ 0.0025 % (89.56 %) >

flubendiamide 480 SG @ 0.01 % (83.70 %) > rynaxypyr 20 SC @ 0.006 % (81.04 %)

4

> lufenuron 5 EC @ 0.005 % (74.62 %) > novaluron 10 EC @ 0.01 % (69.03 %) >

indoxacarb 15.5 SC @ 0.007 % (67.46 %) based on per cent reduction in shoot

damage and emamectin benzoate (75.06 %) > flubendiamide (63.02 %) > rynaxypyr

(61.55 %) > lufenuron (49.93 %) > novaluron (47.69 %) > indoxacarb (45.34 %) >

thiodicarb (41.08 %) based on per cent reduction in fruit damage (Shah et al., 2012).

In many cases, the insecticides did not provide satisfactory control of the target pest.

Such phenomenon is apprehended to the development of insecticide resistance in

the insect which leads to their misuse and threatening environmental safety.

Therefore, there is a need to look for better and environmentally safer methods of

control. In order to reduce the pesticide load in the environment, to reduce the cost of

production and to be abreast with sustainability, certain behavioural notifications

could be harnessed. Such an endeavour is the use of sex pheromones (Mazumder

and Khalequzzaman, 2010).

In view of this, attempts have been made to carry out investigation on the field

studies on brinjal shoot and fruit borer (BSFB) with the following objectives.

1. Evaluation of different types of pheromone trap models for monitoring Leucinodes

orbonalis.

2. Evaluation of different types of colour sticky traps for monitoring of Leucinodes

orbonalis.

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The literature pertaining to efficacy of different pheromone trap and colour

sticky trap models for monitoring of Leucinodes orbonalis Gueene and similar pests

has been reviewed and presented here under.

2.1 Importance of pest and yield loss

Eggplant (Solanum melongena Linnaeus) is one of the most economically

important vegetable of tropics having hot-wet climate. The key pest, brinjal fruit and

shoot borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Gueene found to be most destructive and first

ranked threat especially in South Asia, hence become hot issue for research in this

region. It inflicts sizeable damage up to 80 per cent in terms of fruit and content of

vitamin-C (Ram Prasad Mainali, 2014).

Brinjal crop is attacked by a large number of insect pests due to cultivation

throughout the year, out of which brinjal shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis

Gueene, Pyralidae: Lepidoptera) is the most serious (Sardana et al., 2004). Almost

all the groups of insecticides having novel target site of action have been tested

against this insect to produce blemish-free marketable fruits, but the pest has

become resistant to insecticides in recent years (Kabir et al., 1996).

Brinjal shoot and fruit borer (BSFB) (Leucinodes orbonalis Gueene) is a major

insect pest of brinjal in Asia, which causes serious damage especially during the

fruiting stage. The per cent fruit infestation caused by the pest reached up to 90.86%

(Rahman, 1997). Various insects cause enormous losses to this vegetable

throughout the season in Bangladesh as well as in Indian sub- continent (Alam,

1969 and Dhankar, 1988), among them brinjal shoot and fruit borer (BSFB),

Leucinodes orbonalis is the most serious and destructive one. Due to the attack of

this pest, considerable damage occurs each year affecting the quality and yield of

the crop. The larvae of this pest cause 12-16 per cent damage to shoots and 20-60

per cent to fruits (Alam, 1970; Maureal et al., 1982).

The pest is very active during the rainy and summer season and often causes

more than 90 per cent damage (Kalloo, 1988). The yield loss has been estimated up

6

to 86 per cent (Ali et al., 1980) in Bangladesh and up to 95 per cent (Naresh et al.,

1986) in India.

2.2 Use of pheromone for monitoring

2.2.1 Pheromones

As early as 1837, Siebold and Von recognized that the odours emitted by

female insects, probably were attractants for males of the same species and that the

odours secreted by male insects were aphrodisiac that incited females to mate.

Fabre (1904) verified that caged female of great peacock moth; Saturnia pyri

(Linnaeus) could attract large number of male moths. He accepted that insects could

detect the odours of other insects, but he could not believe that such odours could

operate over long distances.

Karlson and Butenandt (1959) and Karlson and Luscher (1959) proposed the

name “Pheromones”. The first insect sex pheromone was isolated and identified by

Butenandt et al. (1959) from the females of silkworm, Bombyx mori (Linnaeus).

These investigators, without the benefits of chemical instrumentation, isolated and

identified a single compound trans-10, cis-12, hexaadecadien-1-ol by fractionating

the complex mixture from an extract of the secretory gland.

During the early days of pheromone chemistry, it was believed that every

insect had a single component in its chemical communication system. The earlier

discovery of a multi component pheromone system was by Silverstein et al. (1966).

In their field tests the bark beetle, Ips paraconfuses Lanier responded only to a

mixture of three terpene alcohols which were components of their aggregation

pheromone. Incidentally, it was the first pheromone ever to be isolated and identified

from coleopteran after the identification of the two components of the sex

pheromone of the southern armyworm, Spodoptera eridania Cramer (Jacobson et

al., 1970).

Pheromones can be mainly used in three ways in pest management

programmes, viz., for surveying or monitoring the pest population so that chemical

control measures can be undertaken at the appropriate time, mass trapping of male

7

insects and lastly for disrupting the mating between two sexes in pest species

(Minks, 1977).

It is considered that sex pheromones in insects contain mixtures of several

compounds, of which the primary component attracts the insects upwind from a

distance, and the secondary components in combination with the primary

component stimulate other aspects of mating behavior (Picardi, 1979).

Zhu et al. (1987) reported that the main component of female sex pheromone

of L. orbonalis was identified as (E)-11-hexadecenyl acetate. It was synthesized in

the laboratory and tested in the field, where more males were captured in traps

baited with 300-500 µg of the compound than 6 live females when used for adults

capture.

Cork et al. (2001) reported that blends containing between 1 and 10% E11-16:

OH caught more male L. orbonalis than E11-16: Ac alone. At 1,000 µg dose, on

white rubber septa, addition of 1% E11-16: OH to E11-16: Ac was found to be more

attractive to male L. orbonalis than either 0.1 or 10% E11-16:OH. Trap catch was

found to be positively correlated with pheromone release rate, with the highest dose

tested, 3000 µg, on white rubber septa catching more male moths than lower doses.

Studies under farmers' field conditions revealed that Leucinlure™, produced

using indigenously synthesized pheromone concentrates, trapped significantly more

number of adults when used with PCI's portable water traps as compared to funnel

and delta traps (Bhanu et al., 2007).

Srinivasan (2008) reported that use of BFSB sex pheromone traps based on

(E)-11-hexadecenyl acetate and (E)-11-hexadecen-1-ol to continuously trap the

adult males significantly reduced the pest damage on eggplant in South Asia.

2.2.2 Monitoring pest populations using pheromones.

Monitoring of pest population with pheromones has long been recognized as

one of the major benefits of sex pheromone research. Pheromone baited traps can

be effectively used in estimating the population of a pest, so that chemicals can be

8

applied at the most appropriate time for controlling pests (Minks and De Long, 1975;

Vakenti and Kadsen, 1976; Toscano et al., 1974).

The potato tuber moth (PTM), Phthorimaea operculella (Zeller), is one of the

most damaging pests of potatoes in field and storage and is generally of greatest

importance in warmer climates. Results on monitoring using pheromone are

reported. Highest captures were obtained by using a 9:1 or 1:1.5 ratio of PTM 1:2.

The attractiveness of 9:1 ratio appears to drop after 90 days of field use. The 1:1.5

ratio remained attractive for 90 days and beyond. In monitoring studies, tuber

damage of clone DTO 33 was related to trap catches (Raman, 1988).

2.3 Different types of traps and their efficacy

Andagopal et al. (2011) studied the efficacy of different types of sex

pheromone traps was evaluated for trapping of male moths Leucinodes orbonalis

Gueene (Pyralidae: Lepidoptera) in the Saurashtra region of Gujarat. Results

showed that there was significant difference in trapping efficiency. Wota-T trap

developed by Pest Control India (PCI) (Pvt.) Ltd., Mumbai, caught significantly

higher number of male moths (21.49 mean male moths/3 nights/trap). Among the

various trapping materials tried, water mixed with kerosene was found better. The

per cent intensity of damage and bore holes on fruits was less in plots where

pheromone traps were installed.

Cork et al. (2009) reported that, Delta and wing traps baited with synthetic

female sex pheromone of Leucinodes orbonalis Gueene were found to catch and

retain ten times more moths than either Spodoptera or uni-trap designs. Locally-

produced water and funnel traps were as effective as delta traps, although ‘windows’

cut in the side panels of delta traps significantly increased trap catch from 0.4 to 2.3

moths per trap per night.

Rajneesh, (2006) evaluated the different types of pheromone trap viz., sleeve

trap, water trap, delta trap and bottle trap for their efficiency in trapping the potato

shoot borer moths Leucinodes orbonalis. The number of moths caught in different

types of traps at 1st week after installation of trap showed that the water trap was

found to be highly significant in catching the more number of moths. The next best

9

treatments were sleeve trap and delta trap. The least number of moths were caught

in bottle trap. The similar trend was observed in 2nd 3rd, 4th and 5th week after

installation of traps. It was found that water trap was highly significant over the other

treatments. The sleeve trap, delta trap and bottle trap were found on par with each

other at 5th week after installation. The average mean values shows that water trap

is highly efficient in catching the potato shoot borer moth L. orbonalis compared to

other traps.

Delta and wing traps baited with synthetic female sex pheromone of L.

orbonalis were found to catch and retain ten times more moths than either

Spodoptera litura or uni-trap designs. Locally produced water and funnel traps were

as effective as delta traps, although ‘windows’ cut in the side panels of delta traps

significantly increased trap catch from 0.4 to 2.3 moths per trap per night. Wing traps

placed at crop height caught significantly more moths than traps placed 0.5 m above

or below the canopy (Cork et al., 2003).

Locally produced clear plastic water trap (RCM x 14 cm basal and 21 cm

height) was effective for use in large scale mass trapping trails to control the brinjal

fruit and shoot borer, L. orbonalis. Changing the shape (Square and triangles) and

number (2 and 4) of entry holes in the water trap had no significant effect on trap

catch. Significantly more male moths were caught in trails treated with water

containing powdered detergent than liquid detergent (Cork et al., 2005a).

Cork et al. (2005b) reported that the pheromone blends containing between 1

and 10 per cent of female pheromone gland extract E-11-16: OH caught more male

moths of L. orbonalis than E 11-16: Ac alone. At the 1000 g dose, on white rubber

septa, addition of 1 per cent E11-16: OH to E11-16: Ac was found to be more

attractive to male

L. orbonalis than either 0.1 to 10 per cent E 11-16: OH. Trap catch was founds to be

positively correlated with pheromone release rate, with the highest dose tested,

3000 ıg on white rubber septa catching more male moths than lower doses.

Dickerson and Hoffmann (1977) used a pan of water containing detergent,

with a dispenser of the synthetic pheromone (looplure) of Trochoplusia ni (Hubner)

suspended above from a hanger, placed on top of fence posts surrounding pastures

and soybean fields in Missouri. A single one caught five times as many males of T.

10

ni as did an ultra violet light trap without pheromone. Use of double pan trap, of

which the lower pan contained a perfumed detergent (Chiffon) in water and was

separated from the pheromone baited upper pan by cylindrical wire mesh support ,

doubled the catches of T. ni and also attracted large number of Pseudoplusia

includes (Walker), Heliothis zea (Boddie) and Spodoptera frugiperda (Smith).

Thal (1978) reported that a pan of water baited with rubber septa impregnated

with pheromone mixture resulted in the largest catches of the potato tuber moth,

Phthorimaea operculella (Zeller). Voerman and Rothschild (1978) found that males

of P. operculella are attracted by a mixture of trans-4, Cis-7- tridecadienyl acetate

and trans-4, Cis-7, Cis-10-tridecatrienyl acetate. The largest catches were obtained

from water pan traps baited with rubber sleeve stoppers containing both components

in ratios varying between 1:9 and 9:1.

Field studies carried out by Nesbitt et al. (1979) using synthetic (z)-11-

hexadecenal (I) and (z)-11-hexadecenyl-1-ol (II) as bait in water traps revealed that

compound (I) was highly attractive to males of Chilo partellus (Swinhoe).

Sara Savoldelli (2004) used different kinds of pheromone traps for the

monitoring of Plodia interpunctella. Three kinds of sticky trap (wing trap, delta trap,

strip trap) and a funnel trap have been tested. The wing trap has been tested in

three different ways: with only adhesive base, with only adhesive top and with both

base and top glued. Results revealed that, funnel trap captured the lowest

percentage of males. Among the adhesive traps, the highest percentage of captures

was with wing and delta traps, the lowest with the strip trap and a higher number of

adults were captured at the lowest part of the sticky surface. The wing traps with

adhesive base and top and with only adhesive top have captured a similar

percentage of males as the wing with adhesive base. The adhesive base captured

less males than the top.

Balasubramanian and Karuppuchamy (1980) used iron trays of 30 х 22 х 5 cm

fixed in cotton field 15-20 cm above the crop level and the trays were filled with

water and a small quantity of teepol was added to prevent the escape of pink

bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders). Red rubber sleeve stoppers treated

with 1000 µg of gossyplure 60% ZZ-isomer in 1:1 mixture of ZZ and SE- isomer

were used as baits. The mean male population caught per trap was 132 in 60% ZZ

11

new bait, 123 in 70% ZZ new bait, 5 in 60% ZZ old bait and 3 in water traps. These

were more effective than sticky traps.

David et al. (1981) reported that water traps baited with synthetic pheromone

of Chilo sacchariphagus indicus (Kapur) (Z) -13 Octdecenyl acetate and alcohol (Z) -

13 Octadecen-1-ol (3:1) caught a maximum of 39 males in a single day 33 days after

setting trap. Even on the 99th day, 10 males were trapped indicating the

effectiveness and persistence of the material. Bourdouxhe (1982) studied

effectiveness of tunshall water trap and INRA and montendison sticky traps. The

results showed that the first was the most efficient in capturing Helicoverpa armigera

Hubner and monitoring its populations. In addition, the pheromone remained active

for three months in the water trap and only one month in sticky traps.

Field studies were conducted to evaluate the influence of trap design, trapping

location, type of pheromone dispenser and trap colour on the capture of Palpita

unionalis (Hubner) males in olive groves. Among the trap types used, the Funnel

was significantly more attractive than Delta, Pherocon 1C, and Pherocon II traps.

Among the four coloured traps tested, white traps were the most effective. However,

a significant difference in trap catches was found between white and brown traps.

Traps baited with red rubber septa captured more males than those baited with the

white one (Christos et al., 2004).

Megahed et al. (1982) reported that phercon trap recorded regular catches of

male moths of P. gossypiella than plastic trap; the phercon trap usually caught more

males than did yellow green or red traps of the same type. Saxena et al. (1982)

reported that regular catches of male potato tuber moth, Phthorimaea operculella

Zeller in pheromone baited water traps protected potatoes from tuber moth

infestation to the extent of 88 to 100 per cent and 80 to 99 per cent.

Oloumi-Sadeghi and Esmail (1983) monitored the population of peach twig

borer, Anarsia lineatella Zeller by means of water or sticky traps both baited with

synthetic pheromone compound Anamone. Water traps caught more moths but

catches in both types of traps demonstrated similar flight trends. Cheng et al. (1985)

found that water traps baited with a blend of the pheromone components captured

as many males of beet army worm, Spodoptera exigua (Hubner) as sticky traps did.

12

In order to maintain a high efficacy of capture, it was found that the width of the trap

entrance should not exceed 1 cm.

Dhandapani (1985) reported that a water pan trap 7 cm in diameter baited

with a synthetic pheromone caught significantly more males of Spodoptera litura

(Fabricius) than the sticky trap. Neumark and Teich (1993) developed a device for

maintaining a constant water level in polystyrene cup traps baited with hexalure (Cis-

7-hexadeccen-1-ol acetate) for capturing adult males of P. gossypiella in cotton

fields. Water trap was the best suited for mass trapping and it was the most efficient

and also the most practical both in terms of maintenance and also availability at the

village level (Cork et al., 2005b).

Relative trap efficiency of ICRISAT standard trap and sleeve trap for trapping

males of Spodoptera litura and Helicoverpa armigera using synthetic sex

pheromones and their rhythm of male attraction has been assessed. ICRISAT

standard traps have been found to be more efficient by 1.2 times over sleeve traps

in mass trapping of both S. litura and H. armigera. The standard blend trapped

significantly more number of H. armigera than the other blends and moth catches

decreased with the increase in the minor component of sex pheromone (Lalita

kumara and Reddy, 1992).

Branco et al. (2004) studied the effects of trap design on the capture of male

Matsucoccus feytaudi in maritime pine forests of Portugal, France and Italy, and

Matsucoccus josephi in Aleppo pine stands of Israel. Results revealed that, catches

of M. feytaudi males were not affected by trap design, whereas Matsucoccus

feytaudi males were caught in significantly greater numbers in delta traps. Large

delta traps caught significantly more males of both species.

Four traps were evaluated are box, currently used for monitoring pickleworm

moth populations; the Heliothis; the Pherocon (sticky); and the unitrap (bucket). The

bucket (can) trap consistently captured and retained more male pickleworm moths

than the other traps tested. Trap efficiency was determined for the bucket trap and a

modified (Fluon-coated outer cone) bucket trap. Efficiencies for the bucket and

modified bucket traps were not significantly different. The bucket trap caught 20.3 ±

1.2% (x¯ ± SEM) of males orienting toward the trap, 29.3 ± 1.7% of males touching

the trap and 41.0 ± 3.3% of males landing on the caged females used as the

pheromone source (Valles et al., 1991).

13

2.4 Use of colour traps

The horse chestnut leaf miner, Cameraria ohridella Deschka & Dimic

(Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae), an invasive pest that has spread all over the Europe

over the last 25 years. Studies were conducted in Warsaw and Falenty near Warsaw

to know efficacy of different traps in monitoring this pest. No trap colour preference

by male moths was found in tests of white, blue and green barrier traps. Barrier traps

had the largest sticky area (32 dm2) in comparison to PL-2 (5.625 dm2) and delta PL-

1 (3.4 dm2) traps, thus they caught the highest total number of males. However PL-2

traps were the most effective (268-381 moths/dm2). The results suggest that to make

traps with the C. ohridella pheromone be more effective they should be located on a

stem below a tree crown or in its lower part for the first C. ohridella generation, and

in crowns for the second and later insect generations, they should be placed in some

distance (Lidia et al., 2009).

Prasannakumar et al. (2009) conducted field trials to test the efficacy of

pheromone traps against five lepidopterous pests of vegetables during kharif and

rabi, 2007. The red traps were the most effective in trapping male moths of

Helicoverpa armigera (Hub.) (11.89 ± 7.99 moths/trap/week), Earias insulana

(Boisd.) (4.39 ± 2.27 moths/trap/week) and diamondback moth (DBM), Plutella

xylostella (Linn.) (13.23 ± 11.10 moths/trap/ week). The red (19.68 ± 12.49

moths/trap/week) and pink (18.76 ± 11.60 moths/trap/week) traps were found to be

on par in trapping the male moths of brinjal shoot and fruit borer (BSFB), Leucinodes

orbonalis Guen. Yellow pheromone traps attracted maximum moths of Spodoptera

litura Fab. (22.01 ± 14.61 moths/ trap/ week). However, differences in numbers of

moths trapped were statistically non-significant. Laboratory evaluation of lures

placed in red, pink and yellow traps showed that lures in red traps were the most

attractive to the male moths of the five pest species. The study concludes that

beside other factors, trap colour also plays an important role in attracting moths of

these five lepidopterous pest species.

Nine different colours of sticky traps were examined for their attractiveness of

adult spotted Lentiform leafminer, Phyllonorcter blancardella (F) (Lepidoptera:

Gracillariidae). Traps were 9.5-by 17-cm rectangles, and hung horizontally within the

canopy of commercial apple trees at a height of approximately 1.8 m. Among nine

14

different colour sticky traps, only three showed significant differences between trap

colours. From this study it was concluded that adult P. blollcardella were not actively

attracted to the traps and that no one colour of trap would be preferable to any other

colour for the purpose of trapping P. blallcardella in orchards (Bruce, 1992).

Clayton et al. (2009) evaluated delta-style traps painted with different colours

(orange, red, yellow, green, blue, and white) for capture of oblique banded leafroller,

Chorisfoneura rosaceana (Harris), and oriental fruit moth, Grapholita molesta

(Busck). Capture of oblique banded leafroller and oriental fruit moth was not

significantly affected by trap colour. There were no differences in capture of pest

species in Pennsylvania between coloured, plastic LepTrap® traps and standard

unpainted white delta-style traps. Given the observed differences, they recommend

using yellow, red, or orange delta traps for monitoring of obliquebanded leafroller

and oriental fruit moth apple production areas in the eastern United States.

Coloured Moericke water pan traps were used to determine the effect of

colour on the preference behavior of butterflies (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea,

Papilionoidea) over the period 2001 to 2003 in grassland habitats in Eastern

Slovakia. A total of 912 individuals belonging to 53 species and 7 families of

butterflies were trapped. The colour of the traps that caught the most butterflies was

white, followed by blue, violet, yellow and finally the least were caught by red

coloured traps. Ordination analysis showed that some butterfly families and species

were more likely to be caught by traps of a specific colour. The effect of colour on

the catches did not differ significantly among the sites. The butterflies were more

likely to be caught by traps of a certain colour even though the other features of the

traps were the same (Kocikova et al., 2012).

Field studies were conducted to evaluate the influence of coloured pan water

traps on the capture of the tomato leafminer, Tuta absoluta males in open field

tomatoes in two sites (Saheline and Chott-Mariem) in the Centre-East of Tunisia.

Three experiments were setup using coloured traps (white, yellow, orange, red and

green) in a randomized block design with four replicates under low and high

population levels. Results revealed that, in all experiments, that there is no

significant difference in male capture according to trap colour (Mohamed Braham,

2014).

15

2.4.1 Colour and other constituents

The relative performance of a clear delta trap baited with individual or

combination sex pheromone and kairomone lures for codling moth, Cydia

pomonella L. was evaluated against three vertical clear pane and coloured delta

traps in field trials within apple, Malus domestica (Borkhausen). The clear caught

significantly more females than the orange delta trap with pear ester alone, pear

ester plus (E,E)-8,10-dodecadien-l-ol (codlemone) (PE-PH), or a combination of PE-

PH and acetic acid. Male moth capture was similar in both clear and coloured delta

traps with all codlemone lures tested. Seasonal moth catches of female moths were

higher in clear than either white (second flight, 2008) or orange (first and second

flights, 2009) traps baited with PE-PH. Total moth catch was significantly higher in

clear than white traps in 2008 and did not differ between clear and orange traps in

2009. Clear traps baited with acetic acid but not with pear ester, PE-PH, or when

unbaited caught significantly more nontarget moths than coloured traps (Alan, 2009).

Field experiments were conducted to determine the attractive action of

different colours (red, yellow, green, and blue) to tomato leaf miner Tuta absoluta

moths and to assess the influence of trap colour on their capture moths in sex

pheromone baited traps. The results demonstrate that T. absoluta moths can

distinguish between colours, where the red sticky traps with 39.7 per cent

reflectance at 612.1 nm dominant wavelength caught the greatest number of moths,

recording 46.89 per cent of the total moths captured, while the yellow sticky traps

caught the fewest number of moths recording only 13.99 %. Delta and water pan

traps of red colour baited with commercial sex pheromone captured 1.58 and 1.52

times, respectively more male T. absoluta moths than such traps of yellow colour

baited with the same sex pheromone. Hence the red colour can be used to enhance

the effectiveness of sex pheromone traps for capturing male T. absoluta moths

(Taha et al., 2012).

Mahmoud et al. (2014) evaluated the effects of trap colour, trap direction and

trap position on the tomato moth, Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) captures. Each trap was

baited with a pheromone capsule type Q lure-TUA®. White pheromone traps caught

more moths than yellow, blue, green and red traps. Significant differences between

mean catches by white trap and other coloured traps were observed.

16

The relative performance of a clear delta trap baited with individual or

combination sex pheromone and kairomone lures for codling moth, Cydia

pomonella L. was evaluated against three vertical clear pane and coloured delta

traps in field trials within apple, Malus domestica (Borkhausen). The clear delta trap

caught significantly more moths of each sex than an orange delta trap when baited

with ethyl (E, Z)-2, 4-decadienoate (pear ester) and acetic acid (PE+AA) and

performed similarly to oil-coated pane traps. The clear caught significantly more

females than the orange delta trap with pear ester alone, pear ester plus (E, E)-8,

10-dodecadien-l-ol (codlemone) (PE-PH), or a combination of PE-PH and acetic

acid. Male moth capture was similar in both clear and coloured delta traps with all

codlemone lures tested. Seasonal moth catches of female moths were higher in

clear than either white (second flight, 2008) or orange (first and second flights, 2009)

traps baited with PE-PH. Total moth catch was significantly higher in clear than white

traps in 2008 and did not differ between clear and orange traps in 2009. Clear traps

baited with acetic acid but not with pear ester, PE-PH, or when unbaited caught

significantly more nontarget moths than coloured traps. These studies suggest that

the use of clear traps with their higher captures of female codling moths could

improve both monitoring programs and the development of lure and kill strategies

(Alan, 2010).

Lopez (1998) reported that all-green and all-white Unitraps baited with Trace

lures were significantly less effective than those with a green cover, yellow top, and

white bottom (multicoloured). Multicoloured unitraps captured significantly greater

numbers of males compared to Multipher 1, 2, or 3 traps and commercially

fabricated wire cone or commercially available traps. There was no significant

difference between captures in the wire cone and Scentry traps.

Boyd and Maya (2013) conducted field experiments to evaluate several

pheromone-baited trap characteristics, including pheromone lure substrate, trap

type, trap colour, lure longevity, trap height, and field position. The type of substrate

that pheromone was released from and lure age did not affect trap capture of male

Coleophora deauratella. Moth capture in nonsaturating green Unitraps was

significantly higher than diamond or wing traps when inspected at 2-wk intervals.

17

Multi-coloured Unitraps caught significantly more male C. deauratella than Diamond,

and Wing traps when inspected at weekly intervals.

The effect of bucket trap colour on grape root borer (GRB), Vitacea

polistiformis Harris, captures was evaluated in 2005 and 2006. Traps were deployed

in a commercial vineyard consisting of muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia Michx) grapes in

North-Central Florida. Five treatments (green, yellow, green top, yellow top, and

multicolour) and four replicates were evaluated. All traps were baited with GRB

female sex pheromone. Trap colour had a significant effect on the number of GRB

males captured. In 2005, green and yellow traps caught more GRB males than other

trap colours (Craig and Oscar. 2008).

Males of the currant clearwing moth (Synanthedon tipuliformis) preferred

yellow and green pheromone-baited traps. Electrophysiological and behavioural

experiments were conducted to determine whether this phenomenon was caused by

the ability of currant clearwing moths to discriminate colours and their preference for

some of them. In field experiments with traps of equal contrast against the

background but different in colour, light-yellow traps were significantly more

attractive, providing evidence, that S. tipuliformis moths possess colour vision and

use it while reacting to the female sex pheromone. Although it was proved that

currant clearwing moths are able to perceive the UV-colour, the addition of the UV-

colour did not affect attractiveness of traps (Vidmantas and Vincas, 2012).

3. MATERIAL AND METHODS

Field investigations were carried out on brinjal shoot and fruit borer,

Leucinodes orbonalis Gueene during kharif 2014 and at Jumanal and Hittanalli

villages under irrigated condition which is situated in the Northen dry zone (Zone-III)

of Karnataka between 160 2 latitude and 760 42 longitude with an altitude of 593.8

meters above the mean sea level. The annual average rainfall was 736 mm with a

mean maximum temperature of more than 30ºC throughout the year except during

December. The relative humidity was uniformly higher during rainy months from

June to December and uniformly lower during pre-summer and summer months

from January to May. The meteorological data for the year 2014-15 are presented in

Appendix-I. The details of the materials and methods used and the methodology

adopted during the course of investigation are described hereunder.

3.1 Evaluation of different types of pheromone trap models for monitoring L.

orbonalis

The evaluation of different types of pheromone traps using lucinlure (Hexa

decinyl acetate) was conducted in farmer’s field at Hittanalli village (Vijayapur

Taluka; Vijayapur District) using five different types of pheromone traps with four

replications. The brinjal variety Mahyco super-10 was transplanted with spacing 60

cm x 60 cm over 1 acre area. Crop was grown as per the recommended package of

practice except for plant protection (Anon, 2014c). Soon after transplanting, different

types of traps viz., commercial models of water trap, sleeve trap and delta trap and

locally prepared bottle traps and can traps were fixed in field at 10m X 10m distance

between traps. The lure was changed only once 15 days after installation. The

observation was recorded on number of moths caught in each trap after first week of

installation at five days interval. The moths were disposed off after every

observation.

19

Plate 1: Preparation of Bottle trap and Can trap in the field

20

Treatment details for evaluation of different types of pheromone trap models for

monitoring L. orbonalis

Treatment Trap Models

T1 WOTA-T (Water) traps. Commercial model

T2 Sleeve traps. Commercial model

T3 Delta traps. Commercial model

T4 Bottle traps. Locally prepared model

T5 Can traps. Locally prepared model

T6 Control No traps

3.1.1 Observations

3.1.1.1 Shoot infestation

For shoot and fruit borer, plants from ten feet radius from the point of installed

traps were selected from each field and observed for shoot damage. The extent of

damage was expressed in percentage. The per cent shoot infestation was recorded

by counting the number of infested shoots and total number of shoots by using the

formula given below.

Number of infested shoots Per cent shoot infestation = x 100 Total number of shoots

3.1.1.2 Fruit infestation

Similarly, the per cent fruit infestation was recorded by counting the number of

infested fruits and total number of fruits by using the formula mentioned below.

Number of infested fruit Per cent fruit infestation = x 100

Total number of fruit

3.1.1.3 Fruit yield

The brinjal fruit yield was recorded as per plot basis from each treatment in

every picking. All together there were 30 pickings. The yield has been presented as

21

kg per plot and quintal per hector. Only marketable yield was taken into

consideration for an impact analysis.

3.1.2 Water or Wota-T™ trap

It is a water trap designed by M/s Pest Control (India) Ltd, Bengaluru for mass

trapping pests of crops such as sugarcane borers, brinjal shoot and fruit borer,

diamondback moth etc. Wota-T™ is easy to assemble on a single pole. The trap

consists of a green colour plastic bowl (25×10cm diameter); adapter, basin to hold

water mixed with oil or detergent and a lure holder with a canopy. The pheromone

septa were suspended from the lure holder from the centre of the basin in such a

way that it is 2-3 cm above the surface of water. About three fourth of the container

is filled with water and oil on the spread to hold caught moths by the pheromones.

moths attracted to the trap are killed when they fall into the water containing castor

oil (Plate 2).

3.1.3 Delta trap

It is a water trap designed by M/s Pest Control (India) Ltd, Bengaluru,

consisting of triangular yellow colour thin sheets with sticky substance on one side.

The pheromone septa were placed inside the triangular sheets. The base of inner

side of triangular sheet is provided with gelatinous gum to hold the attracted moths

inside (Plate 2).

3.1.4 Sleeve trap

Commercially available sleeve traps consisting of a long plastic sleeve, in

which cotton soaked in chemical solution was placed in plastic sleeve and the

pheromone septa were suspended from the lure holder at the centre of the top cover

lid.

3.1.5 Can traps

Can traps were locally prepared with the help of yellow colour oil cans of

having 5 litre capacity. An 8 cm2 window cut was given at all four sides of the can for

entry of moths. The pheromone septa were suspended with the help of thin iron wire

22

Plate 2: Different pheromone trap modules used for trapping experiment.

23

(thread) from the top of the can and about three fourth of the container below

window cut is filled with water and castor oil on the spread to hold caught moths by

the pheromone (Plate 2).

3.1.6 Bottle traps

Bottle traps were locally prepared with the help of two litre mineral water

bottles. A 4.0 cm diameter cut hole was given at four sides of the bottle for entry of

moths. The pheromone septa were suspended from the thin iron wire (thread) from

the top lid of the bottle and about three fourth of the container below circular hole cut

is filled with water and castor oil was spread over water to hold caught moths by the

pheromone (Plate 2).

3.1.7 Pheromone Sample

The composition of the pheromone components of L. orbonalis is (E)-11-

hexadecenyl acetate (E11-16: Ac) and (E)-11-hexadecen-1-ol (E11-16: OH). The

pheromone impregnated in the white plastic septa was used in these studies were

manufactured and marketed in the name of Lucin-lure® and supplied by M/s Pest

Control (India) Ltd., Division Biocontrol Research Laboratories, Bengaluru-561 203.

3.2 Evaluation of different types of colour sticky traps for monitoring of L.

orbonalis

The evaluation of different coloured sticky traps for monitoring of L. orbonalis,

a field experiment was conducted in farmer’s field at Jumnal village (Vijayapur

Taluka; Vijayapur District) using seven different types of coloured sticky traps with

three replications. The brinjal variety Mahyco super-10 was transplanted with

spacing 60 x 60 cm. Recommended package of practice was followed except plant

protection practices to raise the crop (Anon., 2014c). Different traps which are made

up of thin iron sheet (1.5’ x 1.0’ size) and are wrapped by different colour (Violet,

Indigo, Blue, Green, Yellow, Orange, Red) fluorescent stick sheets. These sheets

were smeared with colourless grease on both sides (for sticking of moths). The traps

were installed (in 1.0 acre area at 10 x 10 m distance between traps) just above the

crop canopy (30-50 cm). The traps were installed soon after transplanting and

observation was recorded on number of moths caught in each trap after first week of

24

Plate 3: Efficacy of different traps in moth capture

25

Plate 4: Sticky traps of different colours used for monitoring experiment

26

installation at five days interval. As in case of previous objective the observations

were recorded shoot and fruit damage as well as yield parameters.

3.2.1 Details of the treatments for evaluation different types colour sticky traps for

monitoring of L. orbonalis

Treatments Details

T1 Violet coloured traps.

T2 Indigo coloured traps.

T3 Blue coloured traps.

T4 Green coloured traps.

T5 Yellow coloured traps.

T6 Orange coloured traps.

T7 Red coloured traps.

T8 Control; (no traps).

The observed data in both experiments were subjected to necessary

transformations before analysis. The statistical analysis was done using software

Microsoft excel and M-stat (DMRT).

27

Plate 5: Field view of moth trapping experiment.

28

4. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

Results on the investigation carried out for evaluation of different types of

pheromone trap models and colour sticky traps for monitoring of brinjal shoot and fruit

borer L. orbonalis have been presented here under.

4.1 Evaluation of different types of pheromone trap models for monitoring of L.

orbonalis

4.1.1 Moth catch

The different types of pheromone trap viz., water trap, sleeve trap, delta trap,

locally prepared bottle trap and can traps were evaluated for their efficiency in trapping

the brinjal shoot and fruit borer moths and results obtained are presented in Table 1.

The adult male moth trapping exercise through different types of trapping device

using a common lure and these changed at similar intervals revealed varied

effectiveness. From the data it was evident that the pest was active throughout

cropping period, hence the moth catches have been seen accordingly. There is a

significant difference among traps for their efficacy at all observations except 105 to

120 and 135 to 150 days after installation of trap. However during this period also the

moth catches have been noticed, but, there was no significant variation.

The observations on the number of moths caught in different types of traps at 5

days after installation of trap showed that highly significant number of moths trapped in

water trap (6.50 moth/ trap) which was on par with locally prepared can trap (5.50

moths/trap) and bottle trap with 2.75 moths/trap. The least number of moths were

caught in delta trap with 2.00 moths/trap and sleeve trap with 1.25 moths/trap. The

similar trend was observed in 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 50, 55, 60, 70, 75, 85, 100, 130, days

after installation of traps.

At 10 days observation, highest moth catches were found in water trap (6.25

moths/trap) which was differed significantly from can trap (4.00 moths/trap), both

sleeve trap and the bottle trap caught 1.50 moths/trap. Least effective was delta trap.

The similar trend was observed in 40, 65 and 125 days after installation of traps.

29

Table 1. Evaluation of different sex pheromone trap models for L. orbonalis monitoring in brinjal crop

Treatment

Number of moths caught/trap (in five days)

5

DAIT

10

DAIT

15 DAIT

20 DAIT

25 DAIT

30 DAIT

35 DAIT

40

DAIT

45

DAIT

50 DAIT

55 DAIT

60 DAIT

65 DAIT

70 DAIT

75 DAIT

T1

Water trap

6.50

(2.74)a

6.25

(2.69)a

4.00

(2.23)a

8.00

(2.99)a

3.50

(2.12)a

3.00

(2.00)a

1.75

(1.64)a

3.50

(2.12)a

3.25

(2.06)a

2.50

(1.85)a

2.75

(1.93)a

2.25

(1.80)a

2.25

(1.79)a

2.25

(1.80)a

2.50

(1.85)a

T2

Sleeve trap

2.00

(1.72)b

1.50

(1.57)c

1.00

(1.41)b

2.00

(1.73)c

1.00

(1.41)c

1.75

(1.65)b

0.75

(1.31)bc

0.75

(1.31)b

1.75

(1.64)b

1.25

(1.46)ab

0.75

(1.31)b

1.25

(1.49)b

1.50

(1.57)b

1.00

(1.41)b

1.00

(1.41)c

T3

Delta trap

1.25

(1.49)c

1.00

(1.41)c

1.00

(1.41)b

1.75

(1.65)c

1.00

(1.41)c

1.50

(1.57)b

0.00

(1.00)c

0.50

(1.21)b

1.25

(1.49)b

0.50

(1.21)b

0.50

(1.21)b

1.00

(1.39)b

1.00

(1.41)b

0.75

(1.31)b

0.75

(1.31)c

T4

Bottle trap

2.15

(1.93)ab

1.50

(1.57)c

1.25

(1.49)ab

2.25

(1.80)c

2.00

(1.73)b

1.75

(1.65)b

1.25

(1.49)ab

0.75

(1.31)b

1.25

(1.49)b

0.25

(1.10)b

1.00

(1.41)b

1.50

(1.57)ab

1.00

(1.41)b

1.50

(1.57)ab

1.25

(1.49)bc

T5

Can trap

5.50

(2.54)a

4.00

(2.22)b

3.75

(2.18)a

3.75

(2.17)b

2.25

(1.79)b

2.25

(1.80)b

0.50

(1.21)c

1.00

(1.39)b

2.00

(1.72)b

1.50

(1.57)ab

1.25

(1.49)b

1.75

(1.65)ab

1.25

(1.49)ab

2.00

(1.72)a

2.25

(1.79)ab

CD @ 5% 0.22 0.22 0.12 0.20 0.16 0.14 0.23 0.26 0.23 0.35 0.19 0.19 0.15 0.21 0.24

SE.m ± 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.06 0.02 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.06

DAIT- Days After Installation of Traps; Figures in parentheses √x+1 transformed values

Contd…

30

Treatment

Number of moths caught/trap (in five days)

80

DAIT

85 DAIT

90 DAIT

95 DAIT

100 DAIT

105 DAIT

110 DAIT

115

DAIT

120 DAIT

125 DAIT

130 DAIT

135 DAIT

140 DAIT

145 DAIT

150 DAIT

Mean

T1

Water trap

2.00

(1.73)a

5.00

(2.45)a

3.00

(2.00)a

3.00

(2.00)a

4.75

(2.40)a

0.75

(1.31)a

0.00

(1.31)a

0.00

(1.31)a

1.50

(1.54)a

2.75

(1.93)a

6.00

(2.64)a

2.50

(2.50)a

2.00

(2.50)a

2.50

(1.82)a

2.50

(1.82)a

3.08

(2.03)a

T2

Sleeve trap

1.00

(1.41)c

1.50

(1.57)b

0.75

(1.31)b

1.00

(1.41)c

1.00

(1.41)cd

0.25

(1.10)a

0.00

(1.10)a

0.00

(1.10)a

0.25

(1.10)a

0.75

(1.29)b

0.75

(1.31)cd

0.50

(0.50)a

0.75

(0.50)a

0.50

(1.18)a

0.50

(1.18)a

0.96

(1.33)c

T3

Delta trap

1.00

(1.41)c

0.50

(1.22)c

0.75

(1.31)b

0.75

(1.31)c

0.50

(1.21)d

0.25

(1.10)a

0.00

(1.10)a

0.00

(1.10)a

0.00

(1.00)a

0.50

(1.21)b

0.50

(1.21)d

0.50

(0.50)a

1.50

(0.50)a

0.50

(1.21)a

0.50

(1.21)a

0.72

(1.24)c

T4

Bottle trap

1.00

(1.41)c

1.00

(1.41)bc

1.25

(1.49)b

0.75

(1.31)c

1.25

(1.49)c

0.00

(1.00)a

0.00

(1.00)a

0.00

(1.00)a

0.00

(1.00)a

0.75

(1.31)b

1.50

(1.57)c

0.50

(0.50)a

1.50

(0.50)a

0.50

(1.21)a

0.50

(1.21)a

1.06

(1.35)ab

T5

Can trap

1.50

(1.57)b

4.50

(2.34)a

2.75

(1.93)a

2.25

(1.80)b

2.00

(1.73)b

0.75

(1.31)a

0.00

(1.31)a

0.00

(1.31)a

1.25

(1.36)a

1.25

(1.49)b

2.50

(1.87)b

1.75

(1.75)a

1.75

(1.75)a

1.75

(1.64)a

1.75

(1.64)a

2.03

(1.72)ab

CD @ 5% 0.09 0.17 0.18 0.17 0.15 NS NS NS

NS 0.24 0.23 NS NS NS NS

0.29

SE.m ± 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.80 0.06 0.06 0.68 0.66 0.67 0.67 0.06

DAIT- Days After Installation of Traps; Figures in parentheses √x+1 transformed values

31

At 90 days after installation of trap, highest moth catches were found in water

trap with 3.00 moths/trap which was on par with can trap (2.75 moths/trap) and bottle

trap (1.25 moths/trap) and least effective was sleeve trap and delta trap with 1.00, 0.75

moths/trap, respectively.

At 45 and 95 days after installation of trap, highest moth catches were found in

water trap with 3.25 and 3.00 moths/trap respectively. It was followed by can trap

(2.00, 2.25 moths/trap) and sleeve trap (1.75, 1.00 moths/trap). Least number of moth

catches were recorded in both delta trap and bottle trap 1.25, 0.75 moths respectively.

Highest moth catches were found in water trap 2.50/trap followed by can trap

(1.75/trap), at 80 days after installation of trap and all other traps were not effective.

It was found that water trap was highly significant over the other treatments and

recorded 3.08/trap moth catches on an average at five days interval. The can trap

(2.03/trap) and bottle trap (1.06/trap) were found on par with each other followed by

sleeve trap (0.96/trap) and delta trap (0.72/trap).

The seasonal mean values have revealed that water trap is highly efficient in

catching the brinjal shoot and fruit borer moth L. orbonalis compared to other traps

followed by can trap.

4.1.2 Shoot damage (%)

The different types of traps were evaluated for their efficiency in reducing the per

cent shoot damage by brinjal shoot and fruit borer. Results obtained are presented in

Table 2.

The moth trapping have rendered an influence over the pest incidence and

resulted in reducing the shoot damage. From Table 2, it was evident that the shoot

damage (%) observed among the treatments was corresponding to the trapping

efficacy. In general significantly higher damage was noticed in control plots where traps

were not installed. The data on shoot damage (%) was non-significant at 25, 45, 50

and 85 days after installation of trap was negligible. For rest of the observations, there

was significant difference was noticed among the trap treatments and also as against

control.

32

Table 2. Influence of moth trapping through different trap models on shoot damage (%) due to L. orbonalis monitoring in brinjal crop

Treatment

Shoot damage (%) as influenced by moth trapping.

5

DAIT

10

DAIT

15

DAIT

20

DAIT

25

DAIT

30

DAIT

35

DAIT

40

DAIT

45

DAIT

50

DAIT

55

DAIT

60

DAIT

65

DAIT

70

DAIT

75

DAIT

T1

Water trap

1.38

(6.71)a

2.75

(9.51)a

4.39

12.02a

5.54

(13.61)a

6.94

(6.71)a

7.62

15.98)a

7.36

(15.69)a

7.15

(23.32)a

9.33

(17.77)a

8.35

(16.61)a

8.90

(17.28)a

7.76

(16.06)a

6.80

(14.97)a

7.76

(16.06)a

3.06

(10.05)a

T2

Sleeve trap

5.14

(13.08)b

8.22

(16.62)b

6.89

(15.19)bc

7.26

(15.55)ab

9.53

(14.24)a

9.65

(18.06)ab

9.71

(18.14)bc

9.65

(25.97)bc

10.58

(18.97)a

10.15

(18.52)a

9.73

(18.13)ab

9.01

(17.42)a

9.61

(18.01)ab

9.86

(18.29)ab

9.33

(17.77)b

T3

Delta trap

7.47

(14.24)c

11.57

(19.88)c

7.80

(16.19)c

7.96

(16.31)b

10.40

(13.08)a

11.63

(19.91)b

10.80

(19.17)c

11.01

(25.20)c

10.70

(19.07)a

10.36

(18.76)a

11.57

(19.88)b

11.57

(19.88)b

11.60

(19.76)b

11.57

(19.88)b

9.47

(17.82)a

T4

Bottle trap

1.97

(7.09)a

7.76

(16.06)b

5.19

(13.08)c

7.08

(15.37)ab

9.18

(17.90)a

9.07

(17.43)b

9.07

(17.43)abc

8.64

(24.64)ab

10.81

(19.16)a

10.49

(18.87)a

9.23

(17.67)a

8.88

(17.32)a

9.13

(17.57)ab

8.85

(17.28)a

8.30

(16.70)b

T5

Can trap

1.72

(6.81)a

4.12

(11.52)a

4.32

(11.76)a

5.60

(13.67)a

7.97

(16.81)a

8.52

(16.97)a

8.19

(16.63)ab

8.31

(24.06)ab

10.11

(18.51)a

9.40

(17.79)a

8.22

(16.62)a

8.22

(16.62)a

7.60

(15.91)a

8.22

(16.62)a

8.01

(16.36)b

T6

Control

7.26

(15.55)c

9.65

(18.06)c

7.36

(15.69)c

7.76

(16.06)b

10.49

(18.87)a

11.57

(19.88)b

10.70

(19.07)c

10.36

(18.76)c

10.80

(19.17)a

10.40

(19.08)a

11.01

(25.20)b

11.60

(19.76)b

11.63

(19.91)b

11.01

(25.20)b

9.73

(18.13)b

CD @ 5% 2.12 2.03 2.04 1.46 NS 1.55 1.38 1.07 NS NS 1.46 1.56 2.14 1.52 1.89

SE.m ± 0.45 0.48 0.37 0.32 2.13 0.37 0.34 0.39 0.09 0.15 0.46 0.28 0.41 0.39 0.44

DAIT- Days After Installation of Traps; Figures in parentheses are arc sine transformed values.

Contd…

33

Treatment

Shoot damage (%) as influenced by moth trapping.

80

DAIT

85

DAIT

90

DAIT

95

DAIT

100 DAIT

105 DAIT

110 DAIT

115 DAIT

120 DAIT

125 DAIT

130 DAIT

135 DAIT

140 DAIT

145 DAIT

150 DAIT

Mean

T1

Water trap

7.51

(15.74)a

0.09

(0.87)a

1.62

(7.11)a

5.35

(13.35)a

5.03

(12.94)a

3.76

(11.16)a

3.26

(10.35)a

3.61

(10.88)a

4.41

(12.08)a

5.43

(13.45)a

5.58

(13.59)a

6.51

(14.78)a

6.94

(15.21)a

7.51

(15.82)a

2.81

(9.51)a

5.48 (12.97)

a

T2

Sleeve trap

9.82

(18.22)ab

0.59

(3.09)a

6.40

(14.63)b

9.92

(18.32)b

7.95

(16.36)b

8.22

(16.62)b

4.13

(11.67)ab

8.09

(16.50)b

6.47

(14.73)b

6.86

(15.15)ab

7.54

(15.90)bc

7.97

(16.36)ab

9.24

(17.69)b

9.33

(17.77)ab

9.33

(17.77)b

8.24

(15.44)b

T3

Delta trap

11.07

(19.42)a

0.37

(2.38)a

6.42

(14.67)b

9.33

(17.77)b

8.13

(16.53)b

8.39

(16.80)b

6.68

(14.96)b

8.47

(16.89)a

6.68

(14.97)b

7.71

(16.09)b

7.90

(16.30)c

9.33

(17.76)b

9.25

(17.70)b

11.32

(19.64)b

11.57

(19.88)c

9.16

(17.38)b

T4

Bottle trap

8.91

(17.36)ab

0.30

(2.19)a

1.76

(7.08)b

8.22

(16.62)b

7.07

(15.33)b

7.48

(15.79)b

3.85

(11.26)a

4.13

(11.68)ab

5.57

(13.64)ab

5.82

(13.96)ab

6.46

(14.71)abc

7.26

(15.56)a

9.04

(17.49)b

8.99

(17.40)a

8.22

(16.62)b

7.22

(15.01)ab

T5

Can trap

8.22

(16.62)a

0.19

(1.26)a

7.46

(15.82)b

7.76

(16.06)b

5.11

(13.06)a

4.23

(11.84)a

3.46

(10.68)b

4.13

(11.68)ab

5.21

(13.14)a

5.61

(13.63)a

5.87

(13.97)ab

6.80

(15.08)b

8.13

(16.53)ab

8.22

(16.62)a

7.76

(16.06)b

6.56

(14.29)ab

T6

Control

11.63

(19.91)b

0.69

(3.19)a

6.47

(14.73)b

9.53

(14.24)b

8.22

(16.62)b

8.39

(16.80)b

5.60

(13.67)b

9.04

(17.49)b

6.42

(14.67)b

7.97

(16.36)b

7.95

(16.36)c

8.91

(17.36)b

9.92

(18.32)b

11.07

(19.42)ab

11.60

(19.76)c

9.24

(16.32)b

CD @ 5% 1.78 3.08 1.77 1.85 1.49 1.58 1.16 1.55 0.96 1.28 1.39 1.31 1.17 1.67 1.93 1.65

SE.m ± 0.56 NS 0.40 0.58 0.46 0.47 0.31 0.41 0.29 0.39 0.24 0.39 0.30 0.41 0.43 0.42

DAIT- Days After Installation of Traps; Figures in parentheses are arc sine transformed values.

34

The observations on the shoot damage (%) at 5 days after installation of trap

showed (table 2) that the lowest shoot damage (1.38%) was found in water trap

treatment and was on par with can trap (1.72%). The next lowest shoot damage

(1.97%) was observed in bottle trap installed plot followed by sleeve trap (5.14%) and

delta trap (7.47 %) treatments. Significantly higher shoot damage (7.26 %) was

recorded in control plot. The similar trend was observed in 10, 15, 20, 30, 35, 40, 55,

70, 75, 90, 95, 100, 110, 120, 135, 145 days after installation of traps.

The observations on the shoot damage per cent at 60 days after installation of

trap showed that significantly lowest shoot damage (7.76 %) was found in water trap

but was on par with can trap (8.22 %). The next lowest shoot damage (8.88 %) was

observed in bottle trap followed by sleeve trap (9.01 %) and delta trap (11.57 %)

treatments. The similar trend was observed in 65, 80, 125, 130, 140 and 150 days after

installation of trap.

At 105 days after installation of trap, the lowest per cent of shoot damage (3.76)

was found in water trap and was on par with can trap (4.23 %). The significantly lowest

per cent shoot damage was noticed in control and delta trap as they recorded 8.39 per

cent shoot damage and were on par with sleeve trap (8.22 %) and bottle trap (7.48 %).

At 115 days after installation of trap, the lowest shoot damage (3.61 %) was

found in water trap followed by can trap and bottle trap treatments. The next lowest

percent of shoot damage (8.09) was observed in sleeve trap followed by delta trap. In

control plot, 9.04 per cent shoot damage was recorded.

The seasonal lowest shoot damage was recorded in water trap (5.48 %)

followed by can trap (6.56 %). 7.22, 8.24, 9.16 per cent damage were recorded in

bottle trap, sleeve trap and delta trap, respectively. Highest per cent shoot damage

was recorded in control (9.24 %).

4.1.3 Fruit damage (%)

Different types of traps had their efficacy in terms of reduced fruit damage (%) by

brinjal shoot and fruit borer and also results of the investigation are presented in Table

3.

35

Table 3. Influence of moth trapping through different trap models on fruit damage (%) due to L. orbonalis monitoring in brinjal crop.

Treatment

Fruit damage (%) as influenced by moth trapping.

Pickings

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

6th

7th

8th

9th

10th

11th

12th

13th

14th

15th

T1

Water trap

2.81

(9.51)a

23.32

(28.75)a

15.95

(23.38)a

12.42

(20.63)a

8.13

(16.33)a

10.21

(18.18)a

15.40

(23.03)a

8.58

(16.97)a

10.65

(19.04)a

9.73

(18.17)a

17.35

(24.49)a

12.46

(20.36)a

12.53

(20.72)a

9.83

(18.26)a

12.21

(20.45)a

T2

Sleeve trap

9.33

(17.77)b

28.48

(32.20)ab

18.27

(25.25)a

31.03

(33.69)b

12.16

(20.36)bc

22.33

(28.09)b

18.78

(25.60)ab

17.54

(24.71)b

19.02

(25.71)bc

16.85

(24.16)b

33.77

(35.51)c

38.58

(38.39)c

21.83

(27.67)b

18.31

(25.16)c

18.17

(25.09)ab

T3

Delta trap

11.57

(19.88)c

32.16

(34.53)b

30.91

(33.65)b

32.23

(34.50)b

14.12

(22.03)c

21.50

(26.91)ab

19.50

(26.20)b

19.55

(26.22)b

23.49

(28.96)c

17.23

(24.26)b

35.42

(36.49)c

39.33

(38.80)c

23.93

(29.22)b

20.71

(27.06)bc

21.18

(27.17)b

T4

Bottle trap

8.22

(16.62)b

26.77

(31.15)ab

17.03

(24.36)a

23.80

(29.19)ab

11.02

(19.38)abc

13.80

(21.64)ab

19.75

(26.38)b

16.84

(24.18)b

15.05

(22.80)ab

13.08

(21.19)ab

28.82

(32.33)bc

27.78

(31.66)b

22.03

(27.85)b

15.35

(22.93)b

18.00

(25.07)ab

T5

Can trap

7.76

(16.06)b

24.18

(29.39)a

15.99

(23.41)a

18.70

(24.86)a

10.34

(18.67)ab

11.74

(19.96)ab

15.27

(22.95)a

15.58

(22.98)b

13.40

(21.36)a

12.73

(20.81)ab

22.22

(28.04)ab

15.22

(22.65)a

14.50

(22.38)a

14.73

(22.51)b

15.25

(22.95)ab

T6

Control

12.46

(20.36)c

33.11

(35.12)b

30.49

(33.46)b

33.51

(35.20)b

15.05

(22.80)c

22.03

(27.85)ab

19.59

(26.27)b

19.54

(26.22)b

23.93

(29.22)c

18.27

(25.25)b

38.58

(38.39)c

30.91

(33.65)b

23.32

(28.75)b

21.50

(26.91)c

23.32

(28.75)b

CD @ 5% 1.93 2.77 2.41 4.58 2.56 4.41 1.79 2.99 2.79 2.80 3.35 4.50 3.11 2.85 3.18

SE.m ± 0.61 0.81 0.11 1.53 0.79 1.02 0.39 0.99 0.93 0.75 1.53 0.99 1.02 0.88 0.95

Figures in parentheses are arc sine transformed values.

Contd…

36

Treatment Fruit damage (%) as influenced by moth trapping.

Pickings

16th

17th

18th

19th

20th

21st

22nd

23rd

24th

25th

26th

27th

28th

29th

30th

Mean

T1

Water trap

17.66

(24.78)a

12.44

(20.64)a

21.46

(27.58)a

20.77

(27.10)a

21.45

(27.39)a

18.98

(25.83)a

20.25

(26.74)a

16.33

(23.72)a

19.37

(26.11)a

22.50

(28.30)a

19.20

(25.95)a

16.50

(23.95)a

10.46

(18.81)a

17.52

(24.60)a

14.36

(22.16)a

15.03 (22.40)

a

T2

Sleeve trap

28.33

(32.02)b

26.21

(30.79)b

30.49

(33.46)b

26.58

(30.90)b

33.51

(35.20)bc

24.32

(29.51)b

23.50

(28.99)bc

25.46

(30.10)b

25.50

(30.21)b

25.25

(30.08)ab

28.75

(32.41)b

17.55

(24.70)a

18.99

(25.75)b

24.21

(29.45)b

17.81

(24.90)ab

23.36

(28.59)b

T3

Delta trap

28.64

(32.28)b

27.11

(31.05)b

33.11

(35.12)b

26.46

(30.94)b

40.65

(39.58)c

24.05

(29.35)b

24.75

(29.83)c

30.44

(33.42)b

27.91

(31.88)b

31.15

(33.88)b

28.21

(32.04)b

25.25

(30.11)b

19.59

(26.27)b

24.44

(29.59)b

22.00

(27.95)b

25.89

(30.31)b

T4

Bottle trap

22.38

(28.07)ab

23.35

(28.68)b

29.71

(32.98)b

22.00

(27.96)ab

25.92

(30.55)ab

23.78

(29.17)b

22.00

(27.97)ab

24.77

(29.80)b

20.77

(27.10)a

23.90

(29.20)a

22.44

(28.22)ab

17.25

(24.53)a

15.96

(23.45)b

21.85

(27.84)ab

15.79

(23.05)b

20.31

(24.89)ab

T5

Can trap

18.89

(25.71)a

19.39

(26.12)ab

28.25

(31.97)b

21.43

(27.57)ab

22.97

(28.61)a

23.69

(29.11)b

21.75

(27.78)ab

22.26

(28.08)ab

20.09

(26.61)a

22.88

(28.53)a

20.75

(26.78)a

16.91

(24.28)a

14.57

(22.29)ab

18.57

(25.48)a

14.86

(22.56)a

17.83

(24.68)ab

T6

Control

28.21

(32.04)b

28.75

(32.41)b

33.12

(35.13)b

27.91

(31.88)b

39.33

(38.80)c

24.77

(29.80)b

28.75

(32.41)c

29.73

(32.98)b

28.34

(32.02)b

30.49

(33.46)b

28.82

(32.33)b

27.11

(31.05)b

18.89

(25.71)b

24.32

(29.51)b

23.35

(28.68)c

26.25

(30.88)c

CD @ 5% 3.58 4.50 3.44 2.30 4.55 1.69 1.08 3.41 2.49 2.38 3.21 1.73 3.03 2.74 2.77 2.90

SE.m ± 0.91 1.10 1.05 0.89 1.05 0.41 0.22 1.00 0.45 0.32 0.99 0.31 1.01 0.91 0.92 0.53

Figures in parentheses are arc sine transformed values.

37

The moth trapping have rendered an influence over the pest populations and

resulted in reducing the fruit damage. From table 3, it was evident that the variation in

the fruit damage (%) observed among the treatments was corresponding to the

trapping efficacy. In general significantly higher damage was noticed in control plots,

where traps were not installed.

The observations on the per cent fruit damage at first picking showed the lowest

fruit damage (2.81 %) in water trap followed by can trap (7.76 %). The next lowest fruit

damage was observed in bottle trap (8.22 %) followed by sleeve trap (9.33 %) and

delta trap (11.57 %). 12.46 per cent fruit damage was recorded in control. The similar

trend was observed in 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 19th, 22nd,

25th, 27th and 30th pickings.

Fruit damage at 6th picking was significantly lowest in water trap (10.21 %) and

was on par with can trap (11.74 %). The next lowest fruit damage was observed in

bottle trap (13.80 %) followed by delta trap (21.50 %) and sleeve trap (22.33 %)

treatments and these treatments not differ significantly from control plot (22.03 %).

The observation on 8th picking showed the lowest fruit damage of 8.58 per cent

in water trap treatment followed by can trap (15.58 %). The next lowest fruit damage of

16.84 per cent was observed in bottle trap followed by sleeve trap (17.54 %) and

control (19.54 %). The similar trend was observed in 12th 20th 23rd 28th and 29th

pickings.

The fruit damage at 13th picking showed that, significantly lowest fruit damage

was found in water trap (12.53 %) and was on par with can trap (14.50 %). The next

lowest fruit damage of 21.83 per cent was observed in sleeve trap followed by bottle

trap (22.03 %) and control (23.32 %) and in delta trap (23.93 %).

The observation on 18th picking, showed the lowest fruit damage (21.46 %) was

recorded in water trap treatment followed by can trap (28.25 %). The next best

treatment was bottle trap, sleeve trap and delta trap as they recorded 29.71, 30.49 and

33.11 per cent, respectively. The similar trend was observed in 21st 24th and 26th

pickings.

38

The average lowest fruit damage was recorded in water trap treatment (15.03 %)

followed by can trap (17.83 %). Fruit damage recorded in control (26.25 %) was

significantly highest among treatments.

4.1.4 Yield (kg plot-1)

Yield in kg plot-1 were recorded at regular intervals from different treatments and

are presented in table 4.

The observations on the fruit yield at first picking showed that the highest fruit

yield of 4.25 kg plot-1 in water trap treatment followed by can trap (2.56 kg plot-1). The

next highest fruit yield of 2.38 kg plot-1 was observed in bottle trap followed by delta

trap treatment (1.81 kg plot-1). In control treatment the yield was significantly lowest i.e.

1.79 kg plot-1. The similar trend was observed in 2nd, 4th, 6th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th,

14th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 21th, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 27th and 29th pickings.

The fruit yield at 3rd picking showed that the significantly highest fruit yield of 4.75

kg plot-1 was found in water trap and was on par with can trap (3.75 kg plot-1). The next

highest fruit yield 3.60 kg was observed in bottle trap followed by sleeve trap (3.55 kg

plot-1), control (3.38 kg plot-1) and delta trap (3.35 kg plot-1). None of the treatments

showed their efficacy over control, except water trap and can trap. The similar trend

was observed in 5th 8th 15th 20th 22nd 26th and 30th pickings.

The observation on 28th picking showed the highest fruit yield of 5.25 kg plot-1

was found in water trap and was on par with can trap (4.38 kg plot-1) and bottle trap

(4.06 kg plot-1). In control lowest yield of 2.25 kg plot-1 was recorded.

The total highest fruit yield per plot was significantly highest in water trap 489 kg

followed by can trap (416 kg plot-1). 364 kg, 319 kg, 278 kg fruit yield per plot were

recorded in bottle trap, sleeve trap and delta trap, respectively, and these treatments

did not show any superiority over control plot (271 kg plot-1).

Considering all pickings, the total yield in terms of kg plot-1 was significantly

highest in water trap treatment (489 kg plot-1) followed by can trap (416 kg plot-1). The

other traps not proved superior over control (271 kg plot-1) where trapping was not

exercised.

39

Table 4. Influence of moth trapping through different trap models on yield (kg plot-1) due to L. orbonalis monitoring in brinjal crop.

Treatment

Yield (kg plot-1

)

Pickings

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

6th

7th

8th

9th

10th

11th

12th

13th

14th

15th

T1

Water trap 4.25

a 3.25

a 4.75

a 2.23

a 6.30

a 5.85

a 4.91

a 3.22

a 4.01

a 4.27

a 5.25

a 3.23

a 4.42

a 1.72

a 4.83

a

T2

Sleeve trap 1.75

b 1.69

bc 3.55

b 1.49

bc 4.55

b 4.33

ab 4.58

c 1.41

c 1.35

bc 2.86

b 4.32

ba 2.55

ab 4.16

b 1.46

bc 2.93

bc

T3

Delta trap 1.81

b 1.75

b 3.35

b 1.33

c 4.45

b 3.70

b 4.61

c 1.25

c 1.13

c 1.46

c 3.80

c 2.23

b 4.14

b 1.41

c 2.13

c

T4

Bottle trap 2.38

b 1.56

bc 3.60

b 1.49

bc 5.20

ab 4.48

ab 4.65

bc 1.82

bc 2.15

b 3.18

ab 4.36

ba 2.97

a 4.27

ab 1.51

bc 3.81

ab

T5

Can trap 2.56

b 2.50

b 3.75

b 1.89

ab 6.10

a 4.50

ab 4.83

ab 2.40

ab 3.16

a 3.93

ab 4.65

ab 3.11

a 4.34

a 1.65

ab 4.08

ab

T6 Control

1.79b 1.67

b 3.38

b 1.41

c 4.54

b 3.60

b 4.32

c 1.81

c 1.12

c 1.45

c 3.70

c 2.16

b 4.10

b 1.27

c 2.23

c

CD @ 5% 0.60 1.60 0.65 0.40 1.05 0.90 0.16 0.52 0.62 0.75 0.45 0.51 0.12 0.14 0.90

SE.m ± 0.17 0.41 0.11 0.09 0.21 0.25 0.03 0.13 0.19 0.18 0.09 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.16

Contd…

40

Treatments

Yield (kg plot-1

) Pickings

16th

17th

18th

19th

20th

21st

22nd

23rd

24th

25th

26th

27th

28th

29th

30th

Total

T1 Water trap

2.77a

3.49

a

3.34

a

3.08

a

1.79

a

3.26

a

3.58

a

3.89

a

3.22

a

3.92

a

4.01

a

5.19

a

5.25

a

6.31

a

6.75

a

489

a

T2 Sleeve trap

1.27c

2.72

cd

2.56

b

2.28

bc

1.33

b

2.73

ab

2.67

bc

2.90

c

1.41

c

2.75

b

1.35

bc

2.63

cd

3.00

bc

3.50

cd

3.75

cd

319

b

T3 Delta trap

1.05c

2.39d

1.96

c

2.16

c

1.14

c

2.27

b

2.31

c

2.63

c

1.25

c

2.44

b

1.13

c

1.94

d

2.25

c

2.94

d

3.00

d

278

b

T4 Bottle trap

1.56bc

2.98bc

2.69b

2.51

b

1.48

b

2.86

a

3.06

ab

3.05

bc

1.82

bc

2.88

b

2.15

b

3.41

bc

4.06

ab

4.56

bc

4.50

bc

364

ab

T5 Can trap

2.05b

3.24

ab

3.07

ab

2.95

a

1.67

a

3.12

a

3.19

ab

3.42

ab

2.40

ab

3.15

b

3.16

a

4.10

ab

4.38

ab

5.50

ab

5.25

b

416

ab

T6 Control

1.04c

2.29

d

1.94

c

2.23

c

1.25

c

2.26

b

2.39

c

2.27

c

1.05

c

2.16

b

1.15

c

1.23

d

2.25

c

2.50

d

3.24

d 271

b

CD @ 5% 0.43

0.27

0. 41

0.23

0.13

0.34

0.45

0.31

0.52

0.56

0.62

0.96

1.01

1.10

0.86

70.28

SE.m ± 0.13 0.07 0.09 0.05 0.02 0.09 0.13 0.09 0.10 0.14 0.17 0.28 0.27 0.29 0.24 21.05

41

4.1.5 Yield (q ha-1)

Yield in q ha-1 were recorded at regular intervals from different treatments and

are presented in Table 5.

The observations on the fruit yield at first picking showed that the highest fruit

yield of 42.5 q ha-1 in water trap treatment followed by can trap (25.6 q ha-1). The next

highest fruit yield of 23.8 q ha-1 was observed in bottle trap followed by delta trap

treatment (18.1 q ha-1). In control treatment the yield was significantly lowest i.e. 17.9 q

ha-1. The similar trend was observed in 2nd, 4th, 6th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 16th,

17th, 18th, 19th, 21th, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 27th and 29th pickings.

The fruit yield at 3rd picking showed that the significantly highest fruit yield of 47.5

q ha-1 was found in water trap and was on par with can trap (37.5 q ha-1). The next

highest fruit yield 36.0 q was observed in bottle trap followed by sleeve trap (35.5 q

ha-1), control (33.8 q ha-1) and delta trap (33.5 q ha-1). None of the treatments showed

their efficacy over control, except water trap and can trap. The similar trend was

observed in 5th 8th 15th 20th 22nd 26th and 30th pickings.

The observation on 28th picking showed the highest fruit yield of 52.5 q ha-1 was

found in water trap and was on par with can trap (43.8 q ha-1) and bottle trap (40.6 q

ha-1). In control lowest yield of 22.5 q ha-1 was recorded.

The total highest fruit yield per plot was significantly highest in water trap 489.0 q

followed by can trap (416.0 q ha-1). 364.0 q, 319.0 q, 278.0 q fruit yield per hector were

recorded in bottle trap, sleeve trap and delta trap, respectively, and these treatments

did not show any superiority over control plot (271.0 q ha-1).

Considering all pickings, the total yield in terms of q ha-1 was significantly

highest in water trap treatment (489.0 q ha-1) followed by can trap (416.0 q ha-1). The

other traps not proved superior over control (271.0 q ha-1) where trapping was not

exercised.

42

Table 5. Influence of moth trapping through different trap models on yield (q ha-1) due to L. orbonalis monitoring in brinjal crop.

Treatments

Yield (q ha-1

)

Pickings

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

6th

7th

8th

9th

10th

11th

12th

13th

14th

15th

T1

Water trap 42.5

a 32.5

a 47.5

a 22.3

a 63.0

a 58.5

a 49.1

a 32.2

a 40.1

a 42.7

a 52.5

a 32.3

a 44.2

a 17.2

a 48.3

a

T2

Sleeve trap 18.1

b 17.5

b 33.5

b 14.9

c 44.5

b 43.3

ab 45.8

c 14.1

c 13.5

bc 28.6

b 43.2

ab 22.3

ab 41.6

b 14.6

bc 29.3

c

T3

Delta trap 17.5

b 16.9

b 35.5

b 13.3

bc 45.5

b 37.0

b 46.1

c 12.5

c 11.3

c 14.6

c 38.0

c 25.5

b 41.4

b 14.1

c 21.3

bc

T4

Bottle trap 23.8

b 15.6

bc 36.0

b 14.9

bc 52.0

ab 44.8

ab 46.5

bc 18.2

bc 21.5

b 31.8

ab 43.6

ab 29.7

a 42.7

ab 15.1

bc 38.1

ab

T5

Can trap 25.6

b 25.0

b 37.5

b 18.9

ab 61.0

a 45.0

ab 48.3

ab 24.0

ab 31.6

a 39.3

ab 46.5

a 31.1

a 43.4

a 16.5

ab 40.8

ab

T6 Control

17.4b 16.7

b 33.8

b 13.1

c 45.6

b 36.0

b 43.2

c 18.1

c 11.2

c 14.5

c 37.0

c 21.6

b 40.0

b 12.7

c 22.3

c

CD @ 5% 6.0 16.0 6.50 4.00 10.50 9.00 1.60 5.20 6.20 7.50 4.50 5.10 1.20 1.40 9.00

SE.m ± 1.82 4.49 1.81 1.05 3.15 2.25 0.32 1.68 2.01 2.49 1.44 1.70 0.38 0.41 2.81

Contd…

43

Treatments

Yield (q ha-1) Pickings

16th

17th

18th

19th

20th

21st

22nd

23rd

24th

25th

26th

27th

28th

29th

30th

Total

T1

Water trap 27.7ac 34.9a 33.4a 30.8a 17.9a 32.6a 35.8a 38.9a 32.2a 39.2a 40.1a 51.9a 52.5a 63.1a 67.5a 489.0a

T2

Sleeve trap 12.7c 27.2cd 25.6b 22.8bc 13.3b 27.3ab 26.7bc 29.0c 14.1c 27.5b 13.5bc 26.3cd 30.0bc 35.0cd 37.5cd 319.0b

T3

Delta trap 10.5bc 23.9d 19.6c 21.6c 11.4c 22.7b 23.1c 26.3c 12.5c 24.4b 11.3c 19.4d 22.5c 29.4d 30.0d 278.0b

T4

Bottle trap 15.6b 29.8bc 26.9b 25.1b 14.8b 28.6a 30.6ab 30.5bc 18.2bc 28.8b 21.5b 34.1bc 40.6ab 45.6bc 45.0bc 364.0b

T5

Can trap 20.5b 32.4ab 30.7ab 29.5a 16.7a 31.2a 31.9ab 34.2ab 24.0ab 31.5b 31.6a 41.0ab 43.8ab 55.0ab 52.5b 416.0b

T6 Control

10.4c 22.9d 19.4c 22.3c 12.5c 22.6b 23.9c 22.7c 10.5c 21.6b 11.5c 12.3d 22.5c 25.0d 32.4d 271.0b

CD @ 5% 4.30 2.70 4.10 2.30 1.30 3.40 4.50 3.10 5.20 5.60 6.20 9.60 10.1 11.0 8.60 702.8

SE.m ± 1.31 0.80 1.17 0.57 0.23 1.03 1.30 0.98 1.63 1.67 2.01 3.10 3.07 3.27 2.67 221.29

44

4.1.6 Influence of different types of pheromone trap models on over all mean of

shoot damage, fruit damage and total yield.

Significantly lowest seasonal mean shoot damage (5.48 %) and fruit damage

(15.03 %) were recorded in water trap treatment. The next lowest shoot damage (6.56

%) and fruit damage (17.83 %) were recorded in can trap which are on par with sleeve

trap, bottle trap, delta trap and in control. Correspondingly, the significant highest total

yield both in kg plot-1 and q ha-1 were recorded in water trap followed by can trap which

are on par with sleeve trap, bottle trap, delta trap and in control (Table 6).

4.1.7 Correlation between shoot infestation, fruit infestation and yield with moth

catches

The shoot infestation showed significantly negative correlation with moth catch (r

= -0.992**). The fruit infestation showed significantly negative correlation with moth

catch (r = -0.943*). The yield (kg plot-1) showed that significantly positive correlation

with moth catch (r = 0.901*) (Table 7).

4.1.8 Total moth catches in different trapping devices.

There were totally 941 moths caught trapped from all types of trap designs. Among

those, 365 were caught in water traps, 245 were caught in locally prepared can traps.

129 were caught in bottle trap. 105 were caught in sleeve traps and 97 were caught in

delta traps (Table 8).

4.2 Evaluation of different types of colour sticky traps for monitoring of L. orbonalis

During the investigation none of the moths were attracted to colour sticky traps.

However there was stray attraction of moths, in which a negligible population (0.33

moths/trap) were caught in violet trap at 15, 40 days after installation of traps (DAIT),

similarly in red trap at 10 DAIT, in orange trap at 30 DAIT, in green trap at 40 DAIT,

0.67 moths were caught in yellow trap at 40 DAIT. On an average, violet trap caught

0.02 moths, yellow and green trap caught 0.06 moths and orange and red trap caught

0.01 moths (Table 9).

45

Table 6. Influence of different types of pheromone trap models on shoot damage, fruit damage and total yield.

Treatment Mean shoot damage (%)

Mean fruit damage (%)

Total yield

(kg plot-1)

Total yield

(q ha-1)

Water trap 5.48

(12.97)a

15.03

(22.40)a 489a 489.0a

Sleeve trap 8.24

(15.44)b

23.36

(28.59)b 319b 319.0b

Delta trap 9.16

(17.38)b

25.89

(30.31)b 278b 278.0b

Bottle trap 7.22a

(15.01)b

20.31

(24.89)ab 364ab 364.0b

Can trap 6.56

(14.29)ab

17.83

(24.68)ab 416ab 416.0b

Control 9.24

(16.32)b

26.25

(30.88)b 271b 271.0b

CD @ 5% 1.65 2.90 70.28 702.8

SE.m ± 0.42 0.53 21.05 221.29

46

Table 7: Correlation between shoot infestation and fruit infestation and yield with moth catches.

Parameters Moth Shoot damage Fruit damage Yield(kg plot-1)

Moth 1 -0.992** -0.943* 0.901*

Shoot damage - 1 0.920* -0.862*

Fruit damage - - 1 -0.862*

Yield

(kg plot-1) - - - 1

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

47

Table 8: Total moth catches in different trapping devices.

SI No. Traps Total moths caught

1 Water trap 365

2 Sleeve trap 105

3 Delta trap 97

4 Bottle trap 129

5 Can trap 245

Total- 941 moths.

48

Table 9. Evaluation of different types of color sticky trap for L. orbonalis monitoring in brinjal crop

Treatment

Number of moths caught/trap (five days)

5

DAIT

10

DAIT

15

DAIT

20

DAIT

25

DAIT

30

DAIT

35

DAIT

40

DAIT

45

DAIT

50

DAIT

55

DAIT

60

DAIT

65

DAIT

70

DAIT

T1- Voilet 0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.33

(1.14)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.33

(1.14)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

T2- Indigo 0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

T3- Blue 0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

T4- Green 0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

1.33

(1.41)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.33

(1.14)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

T5- Yellow 0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

1.00

(1.33)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.67

(1.24)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

T6- Orange 0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.33

(1.14)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

T7-Red 0.00

(1.00)

0.33

(1.14)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

CD @ 5% NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

SE.m ± 0.76 0.78 0.14 0.87 0.14 0.83 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76

DAIT- Days After Installation of Traps; Figures within the Parentheses are √x+1 transformed values

Contd…

49

Treatment

Number of moths caught/trap (five days)

75

DAIT

80

DAIT

85

DAIT

90

DAIT

95

DAIT

100 DAIT

105 DAIT

110 DAIT

115 DAIT

120 DAIT

125 DAIT

130 DAIT

135 DAIT

140 DAIT

Mean

T1- Voilet 0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.02

(1.01)

T2- Indigo 0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

T3- Blue 0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

T4- Green 0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.06

(1.02)

T5- Yellow 0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.06

(1.02)

T6- Orange 0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.01

(1.01)

T7-Red 0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.00

(1.00)

0.01

(0.92)

CD @ 5% NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

SE.m ± 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.91

DAIT- Days After Installation of Traps; Figures within the Parentheses are √x+1 transformed values

50

Plate 6 Shoot damage by Leaucinodes orbonalis in brinjal plants.

Plate 7 Brinjal fruit damage and larva of Leucinodes orbonalis

51

The shoot damage ranged from 6.72 (75 DAIT) to 35.42 per cent. The highest

shoot infestation (35.42 %) was observed during 15 days after installation of trap, while

the lowest (6.72 %) shoot damage was observed during 75 days after installation of

traps. The data was non-significant among the treatments (Table 10).

The fruit damage ranged from 5.73 to 54.41 per cent. The highest fruit

infestation (54.41 %) was observed during 12th picking, while the lowest (5.73 %) fruit

damage was observed during 5th picking. Similar as shoot damage (%), the data was

non-significant among the treatments (Table 11).

The fruit yield (kg plot-1) ranged from 0.75 to 6.0 kg. The highest yield (6.0 kg)

was observed during 4th picking, while the lowest (0.75 kg) fruit yield was observed

during 9th picking. The data was non-significant among the treatments (Table 12).

52

Table 10. Performance of different types of color sticky traps on shoot damage (%) due to L. orbonalis monitoring in brinjal crop

Treatment Shoot damage (%)

5 DAIT

10 DAIT

15 DAIT

20 DAIT

25 DAIT

30 DAIT

35 DAIT

40 DAIT

45 DAIT

50 DAIT

55 DAIT

60 DAIT

65 DAIT

70 DAIT

T1- Voilet 10.63

(18.23) 21.39

(27.17) 24.31

(28.86) 17.42

(24.45) 10.61

(18.52) 18.25

(25.27) 9.70

(18.12) 13.41

(21.19) 16.20

(23.72) 13.03

(21.15) 13.23

(21.27) 10.86

(19.05) 13.05

(21.17) 11.98

(20.14)

T2- Indigo 17.75

(24.74) 17.38

(23.83) 29.89

(33.00) 20.56

(26.84) 11.84

(19.25) 12.96

(20.80) 9.66

(18.11) 15.25

(22.68) 14.25

(22.08) 14.26

(22.17) 16.38

(23.81) 14.42

(22.30) 13.98

(21.90) 15.80

(23.42)

T3- Blue 20.09

(26.50) 25.85

(29.70) 31.18

(33.84) 13.52

(20.90) 8.84

(17.11) 8.75

(16.98) 12.98

(20.76) 15.44

(22.95) 13.72

(21.69) 13.56

(21.59) 20.89

(27.11) 11.89

(20.11) 14.11

(22.06) 13.71

(21.10)

T4- Green 19.85

(26.35) 24.47

(28.65) 18.78

(25.38) 8.27

(16.32) 14.45

(22.34) 11.46

(19.75) 11.44

(19.76) 13.27

(21.11) 13.65

(21.66) 15.33

(23.03) 14.32

(22.11) 13.29

(21.37) 13.36

(21.43) 16.05

(23.43)

T5- Yellow 26.10

(30.42) 23.58

(28.41) 21.80

(27.68) 19.29

(25.94) 15.01

(22.36) 13.17

(21.05) 12.08

(20.24) 11.70

(20.00) 14.05

(21.94) 15.65

(23.15) 15.16

(22.91) 14.99

(22.74) 26.54

(30.13) 9.21

(17.47)

T6- Orange 25.56

(30.04) 24.44

(29.47) 35.43

(36.49) 23.91

(29.08) 15.59

(22.76) 18.78

(25.03) 10.99

(19.35) 13.54

(21.50) 14.82

(22.63) 16.05

(23.58) 13.99

(21.92) 11.19

(19.46) 10.85

(19.01) 10.89

(19.06)

T7-Red 17.71

(23.65) 19.07

(23.30) 29.35

(32.45) 14.77

(22.55) 13.79

(21.61) 15.02

(22.72) 12.10

(20.19) 14.76

(22.57) 13.10

(21.22) 15.66

(23.10) 11.92

(19.82) 7.08

(14.61) 14.57

(21.63) 11.78

(19.74)

T8-Control 23.58

(28.41) 13.52

(20.90) 17.75

(24.74) 19.07

(23.30) 12.98

(20.76) 13.27

(21.11) 14.26

(22.17) 14.42

(22.30) 13.52

(20.90) 25.85

(29.70) 20.09

(26.50) 14.11

(22.06) 31.18

(33.84) 21.39

(27.17)

CD @ 5% NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

SE.m ± 20.08 21.78 24.06 18.35 16.05 16.77 14.99 16.74 16.94 17.28 17.44 15.36 17.56 15.98

DAIT- Days After Installation of Traps; Figures in parentheses are arc sine transformed values.

Contd…

53

Treatment

Shoot damage (%)

75

DAIT

80

DAIT

85

DAIT

90

DAIT

95

DAIT

100 DAIT

105 DAIT

110 DAIT

115

DAIT

120 DAIT

125 DAIT

130 DAIT

135 DAIT

140 DAIT

Mean

T1- Voilet 11.42

(19.70)

13.25

(21.24)

12.01

(20.23)

14.18

(22.07)

11.46

(19.77)

12.78

(20.94)

17.59

(24.59)

12.47

(20.64)

12.06

(20.29)

7.88

(16.14)

8.39

(16.45)

11.71

(19.99)

12.09

(20.23)

10.47

(18.80)

13.28

(21.05)

T2- Indigo 13.34

(21.09)

9.54

(17.86)

10.60

(18.99)

10.35

(18.56)

10.23

(18.57)

15.94

(23.50)

11.69

(19.79)

21.77

(27.55)

14.20

(22.13)

9.33

(17.62)

12.04

(19.70)

6.90

(15.18)

12.15

(20.39)

14.15

(22.07)

14.16

(21.71)

T3- Blue 10.89

(19.22)

12.13

(20.35)

12.16

(20.33)

10.08

(18.39)

12.67

(20.84)

14.78

(22.49)

10.73

(18.91)

16.32

(23.29)

21.25

(27.21)

7.29

(15.64)

13.13

(20.96)

9.44

(17.80)

12.54

(20.30)

17.02

(24.09)

14.46

(21.87)

T4- Green 6.72

(14.94)

13.02

(20.95)

11.92

(20.15)

13.27

(21.34)

10.11

(18.54)

18.97

(25.81)

18.02

(24.65)

12.31

(20.36)

13.94

(21.92)

15.95

(22.06)

7.35

(15.73)

13.39

(21.21)

19.59

(26.15)

15.90

(23.21)

14.23

(21.78)

T5- Yellow 12.07

(20.17)

13.56

(21.55)

11.84

(20.02)

16.03

(22.93)

8.35

(16.66)

14.65

(22.39)

15.44

(23.12)

11.22

(19.39)

15.69

(22.87)

15.05

(22.14)

12.35

(20.08)

12.67

(20.48)

15.37

(22.61)

19.79

(23.97)

15.44

(22.60)

T6- Orange 11.05

(19.40)

11.58

(19.89)

19.07

(25.13)

12.09

(20.19)

15.60

(22.86)

13.34

(21.32)

17.37

(24.07)

12.24

(20.46)

13.02

(21.03)

10.61

(18.83)

12.68

(20.67)

8.12

(16.51)

23.56

(28.95)

12.81

(20.79)

15.68

(22.84)

T7-Red 10.11

(18.24)

12.13

(20.26)

15.70

(22.84)

15.47

(23.13)

11.75

(20.00)

14.78

(22.49)

10.96

(19.28)

14.20

(22.11)

13.80

(21.80)

17.18

(23.75)

6.80

(15.07)

11.29

(19.40)

11.22

(19.54)

12.67

(20.72)

13.88

(21.35)

T8-Control 11.84

(20.02)

10.23

(18.57)

21.77

(27.55)

21.77

(27.55)

13.13

(20.96)

10.35

(18.56)

9.44

(17.80)

19.59

(26.15)

12.16

(20.33)

10.35

(18.56)

12.04

(19.70)

11.84

(20.02)

13.27

(21.34)

12.13

(20.35)

15.89

(22.90)

CD @ 5% NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

SE.m ± 14.62 15.59 16.37 16.17 15.08 17.41 17.11 16.97 17.29 15.41 14.32 14.40 17.43 17.36 16.96

DAIT- Days After Installation of Traps; Figures in parentheses are arc sine transformed

54

Table 11. Performance of different types of color sticky traps on fruit damage (%) due to L. orbonalis monitoring in brinjal crop

Treatment

Fruit damage (%)

1st

picking

2nd picking

3rd picking

4th picking

5th picking

6th picking

7th picking

8th picking

9th picking

10th picking

11th picking

12th picking

13th picking

T1- Voilet 35.73

(36.61)

30.36

(33.33)

25.41

(30.15)

22.46

(28.24)

30.06

(33.22)

25.91

(30.42)

28.31

(31.84)

25.68

(29.95)

28.28

(31.99)

27.30

(31.15)

26.23

(30.80)

38.81

(38.52)

25.91

(30.42)

T2- Indigo 49.55

(44.74)

23.01

(28.40)

31.48

(33.96)

26.11

(30.54)

25.99

(30.62)

42.06

(40.42)

32.67

(34.56)

29.01

(32.58)

23.35

(28.83)

19.61

(26.28)

48.06

(43.90)

33.24

(35.02)

42.06

(40.42)

T3- Blue 36.31

(37.04)

23.11

(28.24)

29.16

(32.67)

26.91

(30.24)

17.77

(24.55)

45.07

(42.13)

32.89

(34.94)

30.26

(33.34)

32.08

(34.46)

19.39

(26.05)

29.72

(32.99)

43.16

(41.04)

45.07

(42.13)

T4- Green 36.50

(37.00)

35.42

(36.24)

21.81

(27.75)

28.28

(32.12)

31.72

(32.61)

47.59

(43.62)

48.68

(44.24)

35.49

(36.57)

33.13

(35.12)

19.77

(26.13)

37.43

(37.67)

54.41

(47.54)

47.59

(43.62)

T5- Yellow 43.12

(41.03)

30.77

(33.68)

22.18

(28.02)

36.57

(37.18)

19.96

(21.40)

37.20

(37.55)

20.24

(26.24)

33.52

(35.09)

27.43

(31.48)

22.52

(28.24)

38.93

(38.55)

46.96

(43.25)

37.20

(37.55)

T6- Orange 25.74

(30.31)

32.96

(34.96)

25.86

(30.03)

38.33

(37.93)

5.73

(13.33)

28.00

(31.79)

38.62

(38.42)

30.66

(33.56)

23.07

(28.32)

22.69

(28.29)

29.27

(32.74)

43.11

(41.03)

28.00

(31.79)

T7-Red 36.57

(37.18)

42.81

(40.86)

24.84

(29.46)

29.91

(33.06)

15.26

(18.97)

17.46

(24.55)

20.65

(26.70)

32.42

(34.20)

41.59

(40.14)

27.92

(31.73)

30.14

(33.25)

22.95

(28.51)

17.46

(24.55)

T8-Control 28.28

(32.12)

45.07

(42.13)

35.49

(36.57)

33.13

(35.12)

19.61

(26.28)

29.16

(32.67)

19.39

(26.05)

29.72

(32.99)

33.24

(35.02)

26.91

(30.24)

29.16

(32.67)

45.07

(42.13)

37.43

(37.67)

CD @ 5% NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

SE.m ± 28.93 25.98 23.40 25.48 20.69 27.45 26.09 25.99 25.26 21.79 27.39 30.13 27.45

Figures in parentheses are arc sine transformed values.

Contd…

55

Treatment

Fruit damage (%) 14th

picking 15th picking

16th picking

17th picking

18 th picking

19 th picking

20 th picking

21st picking

22nd picking

23rd picking

24th picking

25th picking

26 th picking

Mean

T1- Voilet 25.00

(29.85)

26.10

(30.61)

22.21

(36.61)

26.21

(30.68)

24.55

(29.55)

23.55

(28.83)

23.55

(28.83)

28.21

(31.94)

22.21

(27.78)

29.21

(32.55)

26.26

(30.44)

31.21

(33.73)

21.55

(27.22)

27.89

(32.69)

T2- Indigo 30.13

(33.16)

31.48

(33.96)

27.40

(44.74)

32.40

(34.51)

30.40

(33.31)

33.47

(35.12)

29.73

(32.89)

32.40

(34.51)

33.40

(35.10)

33.47

(35.12)

36.73

(37.02)

29.47

(32.75)

23.47

(28.59)

32.94

(36.29)

T3- Blue 24.10

(29.18)

35.79

(36.66)

33.62

(37.04)

29.57

(32.92)

29.16

(32.67)

29.57

(32.92)

34.13

(35.70)

30.13

(33.29)

24.46

(29.18)

33.46

(35.31)

30.57

(33.53)

37.79

(37.81)

29.13

(32.65)

32.38

(35.50)

T4- Green 21.81

(27.75)

17.84

(24.93)

21.81

(37.00)

23.03

(28.58)

19.84

(26.42)

23.03

(28.58)

22.51

(28.19)

23.51

(28.82)

20.17

(26.66)

25.09

(30.03)

21.81

(27.75)

24.09

(29.37)

16.78

(22.72)

30.56

(34.48)

T5- Yellow 19.57

(26.22)

30.72

(33.10)

30.98

(41.03)

22.65

(28.37)

21.39

(27.50)

22.65

(28.37)

23.05

(28.58)

23.99

(29.21)

23.05

(28.58)

22.18

(28.02)

22.65

(28.37)

22.99

(28.56)

25.98

(30.62)

29.37

(33.55)

T6- Orange

25.07

(29.36)

25.63

(29.87)

26.93

(30.31)

26.49

(30.53)

26.96

(30.78)

25.86

(30.03)

27.96

(31.43)

32.30

(34.05)

28.30

(31.64)

24.63

(29.15)

29.15

(32.45)

24.93

(29.49)

23.63

(28.37)

29.09

(33.07)

T7-Red 24.84

(29.46)

24.34

(29.02)

26.23

(37.18)

25.34

(29.89)

24.45

(29.22)

20.56

(26.59)

26.45

(30.44)

28.12

(31.42)

26.12

(30.24)

24.84

(29.46)

26.12

(30.24)

25.01

(29.61)

27.56

(31.10)

27.46

(32.20)

T8-ontrol 21.81

(37.00)

34.13

(35.70)

23.51

(28.82)

20.17

(26.66)

31.48

(33.96)

33.47

(35.12)

30.57

(33.53)

22.18

(28.02)

29.15

(32.45)

31.21

(33.73)

30.40

(33.31)

35.79

(36.66)

26.21

(30.68)

31.04

(34.96)

CD @ 5% NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

SE.m ± 22.68 24.23 28.93 23.75 23.10 23.24 23.88 24.70 23.21 24.26 24.32 24.45 22.50 26.31

Figures in parentheses are arc sine transformed values.

56

Table 12. Performance of different types of color sticky traps on yield (kg plot-1) due to L. orbonalis monitoring in brinjal crop

Treatments Yield (kg plot-1)

1st picking

2nd picking

3rd picking

4th picking

5th picking

6th picking

7th picking

8th picking

9th picking

10th picking

11th picking

12th picking

13th picking

T1- Voilet

2.17 2.00 4.33 2.17 1.67 1.67 1.83 2.17 3.33 2.00 1.50 2.83 1.67

T2- Indigo 1.67 1.33 3.33 2.33 1.50

0.50

1.00

2.33

2.00

1.83

0.83

3.33

2.33

T3- Blue 2.00 3.17 2.00 1.17 1.17

1.67

1.67

1.33

0.75

1.00

2.83

1.17

1.67

T4- Green 1.83 3.50 3.00 2.83 0.83

2.33

2.50

3.00

2.33

2.67

2.83

1.83

0.50

T5- Yellow 5.17 4.00 3.67 6.00

2.50

2.00

2.67

5.67

2.00

2.17

3.83

5.17

2.00

T6- Orange 3.17 1.17 2.33 1.67 0.83

3.00

2.67

1.50

1.50

1.00

1.00

2.50

3.00

T7-Red 1.50 0.83

1.17 2.17 0.83

1.83

2.17

2.00

1.50

2.17

0.83

2.17

1.83

T8-Control 3.50 1.83 1.33 1.67 1.50

2.83

2.33

3.33

2.00

3.17

5.16

2.17

4.00

CD @ 5%

NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

SE.m ± 4.19 4.19 5.38 4.43 2.32

3.40

3.57

4.28

3.49

3.39

3.41

4.41 3.40

Contd...

57

Treatment

Yield (kg plot-1)

14th picking

15th picking

16th picking

17th picking

18th picking

19th picking

20th picking

21st picking

22nd picking

23rd picking

24th picking

25th picking

26th picking

Total

T1- Voilet

3.50 2.17 4.67 2.50 2.00 2.00 1.83 1.67 3.00 3.00 1.50 3.17 2.00 188

T2- Indigo 1.33 1.17 3.33 2.33 2.17 1.33 1.67 2.50 1.50 2.50 1.33 3.33 2.00 153

T3- Blue 2.00 3.50 2.00 1.50 1.17 1.33 2.33 2.33 1.17 1.00 2.83 1.17 1.67 138

T4- Green 1.83 3.50 3.67 2.17 0.83 2.00 1.50 2.00 2.83 2.33 2.83 1.50 1.17 175

T5- Yellow 4.50 3.67 4.00 4.00 1.50 2.00 2.67 5.67 2.17 2.50 3.83 4.50 2.00 270

T6- Orange 2.83 0.83 2.00 1.67 1.17 3.00 3.00 1.50 1.33 1.33 1.33 2.50 2.67 151

T7-Red 1.50 1.17 1.50 3.17 1.17 1.83 2.50 2.67 1.50 1.83 0.83 2.83 1.83 136

T8-Control 2.10 2.16 2.66 2.21 1.25 1.72 1.89 2.14 1.77 1.87 1.78 2.27 1.66 181

CD @ 5%

NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

SE.m ± 4.06 4.18 5.13 4.26 2.42 3.33 3.66 4.14 3.41 3.61 3.43 4.38 3.21 297.2

5. DISCUSSION

With the increasing realization of the importance of sustainable agriculture, the

concept of IPM is gaining a strong foothold with the chemicals being pushed to the

background. In the recent past, entomologists and farmers have identified IPM

methods that are ecologically non-disrupting and stable. Insect sex pheromones have

been recognized as one of the important components for imparting sustainability to

agricultural ecosystems through improved IPM practices (Jayaraj et al., 1995).

In India, L. orbonalis and many other major lepidopteran insect sex

pheromones are widely recommended in a variety of cropping systems. The insect

sex pheromones were considered efficient in the eighties and the effectiveness of the

pheromone trap catches depend on trap designs and colour.

Hence, the present investigation was aimed at evaluation of trap type and colour

sticky trap for understanding the effect on trap catches of BSFB, L. orbonalis.

The results of the present investigation on evaluation of sex pheromone and

sticky colour traps for monitoring of shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis

Gueene.) in brinjal are discussed in this chapter.

5.1 Evaluation of different types of pheromone trap models for monitoring L.

orbonalis

5.1.1 Moth catch efficacy.

The different types of pheromone traps viz., sleeve trap, water trap, delta trap,

can trap and bottle trap were evaluated for their efficiency in trapping the adult male

moths of brinjal shoot and fruit borer.

Installation of pheromone traps for brinjal fruit and shoot borer has revealed

influence of trapping device. Thus the number of moths trapped varied significantly

among treatments. Since the lure source and changing frequency was kept uniform,

difference if any among traps in terms of moths caught is exclusively the impact of

trapping device structure. Preference of moths to certain types of traps is a function

of the behaviour of that species (Alam et al., 2003).

59

The brinjal shoot and fruit borer moth catches started at five days after

installation of trap (25th July) and attained peak 32 moths in water trap (Table 1), 15

moths in can trap, 9 moths in bottle trap, 8 moths in sleeve trap, 7 moths in delta trap

at 20 days after installation of trap (10th August). Minimum moth catches was

observed in water trap (7 moths), can trap (2 moths), bottle trap (5 moths), sleeve

trap (3 moths) and no moth trapped in delta trap at 35 days after installation of trap

(25th August).

The other trap with considerable effective was locally made can trap with 2.03

mean moths/trap catches followed by bottle trap with 1.06 mean moths/trap.

During the investigation, water trap was found to be excellent in trapping the

moths compared to other traps (Fig. 1). This may be due to the open space in water

trap where the moths come and hit the sides of the trap and fall into the water

containing insecticides. In case of water trap, the chance of escape of moth was very

less unlike other traps. The present findings are in line with the reports of Rajneesh

(2006) and Andagopal et al. (2011) who found the water traps as the best among the

different traps that they used for L. orbonalis moth catch.

The windows provided on side walls of can trap and bottle trap increased the

trapping efficiency, however, the results were next best to water trap. In case of can

and bottle traps, the chance of escape of moth is very less compared to the delta trap

(without window cut). The present finding is in accordance with Cork et al. (2005a),

who reported that the locally produced water and funnel traps were as effective as

water traps, although, windows cut in the side panels of delta trap significantly

increased trap catch from 0.4 to 0.23 moths per trap per night.

The trap design that would attract more numbers of insects will vary from one

location to the other.

There was no significant difference between traps at 105, 110, 115, 120, 135,

140, 145 and at 150th days after installation of trap (table 1) due to the fluctuation in

adult moth activity. The present findings are in conformity with Anju shukla and Khatri

(2010). They reported that the adult population of brinjal shoot and fruit borer

fluctuated to a great extent not only from year to year but also in different months.

60

61

Adult population increased considerably in October and November and decreased in

subsequent weeks in December. Similarly, Ghosh and Senapati (2009) reported that

the pest was less active during winter particularly in December–January.

There were totally 941 moths trapped from all types of traps. Among those,

38.79 % moths (365) were caught in water traps, 26.04 % moths (245) were caught

in locally prepared can traps, 13.71 % moths (129) were caught in bottle trap, 11.16

% moths (105) were caught in sleeve traps and 10.31 % moths (97) were caught in

delta traps (Fig. 5).

5.1.2 % Shoot damage

During the investigation, the shoot damage ranged from 1.38 to 11.63 per cent.

The highest shoot infestation (11.63 %) was observed during 80 days after

installation of trap (41st MSW, October first week), while the lowest (1.38 %) shoot

damage was observed during 5 days after installation of trap (30th MSW, July fourth

week). On an average lowest shoot damage was recorded in water trap followed by

can trap over control. These results are in agreement with Ghananand et al. (2009)

who observed that the damage of brinjal shoot and fruit borer on shoots was started

during 34th SW and reached its peak during 43th SW (33 % shoot damage) during first

year and 40th SW (31.6 % shoot damage) during second year.

The lowest shoot and fruit damage was found in water trap over control. The

can trap was next in the row (Fig. 2). This was due to more number of moths trapped

in water trap and can trap which checks the egg laying activity in the respective

treatments along with de-topping of infested shoots and application of chemicals

(Coragen). The present findings are in conformity with Chakraborthi (2001) who

reported that, the integrated approach including pheromones in the management of

brinjal shoot and fruit borer was found highly effective showing minimum shoot and

fruit infestation. Anonymous, 2013a, reported that trapping of adult moths should be

combined with removal and destruction of infested fruits and shoots (preferably by

deep burial 2m. below soil surface or burning) once every week, destruction of

infested shoots and fruits kills BFSB larvae and prevents their pupation and further

development into adults (and subsequent increase in adult population) and reduces

the shoot and fruit infestation. Alam et al. (2003) also stated that removal of damaged

62

63

64

shoots and trapping of adult male moths in pheromone traps resulted in a significant

reduction in further development into adults (and subsequent increase in adult

population) and reduces the shoot and fruit infestation. The fruit damage by BFSB

was significantly reduced in pheromone-treated and sanitation plots than in check

fields.

5.1.3 Fruit damage and Yield

During the investigation, the fruit damage ranged from 2.81 to 39.33 per cent.

The highest fruit infestation (39.33 %) was observed during 20th picking, while the

lowest (2.81 %) fruit damage was observed during 1st picking. Lowest fruit damage

was recorded in water trap followed by can trap over control (Fig. 3).

The yield (kg plot-1) ranged from 1.27 to 6.75 kg. The highest yield (6.75 kg)

was observed during 30th picking, while the lowest (1.27 kg) yield was observed

during 14th picking. On an average highest yield was recorded in water trap followed

by can trap over control (Fig 4). The yield (q ha-1) ranged from 12.7 to 67.5 q. The

highest yield (67.5 q) was observed during 30th picking, while the lowest (12.7 q) yield

was observed during 14th picking. The higher yield obtained in water trap and was

due to reduced pest incidence. The present findings are in agreement with

Chakraborthi (2001) who reported that the integrated approach including phermones

in the management of brinjal shoot and fruit borer was found highly effective showing

minimum shoot and fruit infestation and recorded higher yield (29.4 t/ha) nearly the

potential yield (3.0 t/ha).

Rahman et al. (2009) reported that spraying of chemical at 2 days interval,

mechanical control and using pheromone trap performed the best in all respects

ensuring the lowest shoot (6.27%) and fruit (3.19 %) infestation, the highest reduction

of shoot (79.65%) and fruit (89.03%) infestation compared to control. As a result, the

maximum fruit yield (32.71 tons/ha) was produced in T1, which contributed the

highest yield of healthy fruits (30.42 t ha-1). The sex pheromone confused the male

adult for mating and thus preventing fertilized egg production vis-à-vis reduces larval

and adult population build–up. These treatments significantly reduced the BSFB

population and its infestation level, which ultimately increased the yield of brinjal.

65

66

67

Alam et al. (2003), who reported that, the marketable fruit yield was greater in

pheromone-treated plots than in check plots. Use of sanitation may have contributed

to the reduction in pest damage in pheromone-installed plots. However the

experiment was done in the open field in a predominantly eggplant growing region,

where migration of pest adults from elsewhere into experimental areas could not be

prevented. As a result, as observed elsewhere with barrier net studies, contribution of

sanitation-only treatment in reducing pest damage was expected to be minimal.

The correlation matrix between shoot damage, fruit damage, yield (kg ha-1) and

moth catches showed that the shoot damage was found to be significantly negatively

correlated with moth catches (r = -0.992**). Fruit damage was found to be significantly

negatively correlated with moth catches (r = -0.943*). The yield (kg plot-1) showed that

significantly positive correlation with moth catch (r = 0.901*). This was due to more

number of moths caught in traps which reduced the egg laying activity on shoots and

fruits ultimately reducing the shoot and fruit infestation leading to less damage and

more yield. The present findings are in conformity with the findings of Alam et al.

(2003) who reported that the fruit damage by BFSB was significantly reduced in

pheromone-treated and sanitation plots than in check fields.

5.2 Evaluation of different types of colour sticky traps for monitoring of L.

orbonalis

None of the colour sticky traps found to attract L. orbonalis moths at any given

time of the study despite due care was taken for installation and maintenance. Thus

the present study reveals no significance of colour traps with respect to Leucinodes

orbonalis in brinjal. The present findings are in conformity with the findings of Lidia et

al., (2009) who reported that the research was conducted on horse chestnut leaf

miner, Cameraria ohridella Deschka & Dimic (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae), an invasive

pest, to know efficacy of different traps in monitoring this pest. No trap colour

preference by male moths was found in tests of white, blue and green barrier traps.

Bruce (1992) who reported that the among nine different colours of sticky traps

examined for their attractiveness of adult spotted Lentiform leafminer, Phyllonorcter

blancardella (F) (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae) were not actively attracted to the traps

and that no one colour of trap would be preferable to any other colour for the purpose

68

of trapping P. blallcardella in orchards among nine different colours. The effect of

colour on the catches did not differ significantly (Kocikova et al., 2012). There is no

significant difference in male capture of the tomato leafminer, Tuta absoluta

according to trap colour (Mohamed Braham, 2014). Astray attraction was because of

moths attraction were change from month to month, season to season and year to

year.

Despite that shoot and fruit damage was less with better yield due to better

pest management practices taken up during the study period.

6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Investigations on evaluation of sex pheromone and sticky colour traps

for monitoring of shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Gueene.) in

brinjal were carried out during 2013-14 at Jumanal and Hittanalli villages

(Vijayapur Tq and District) under irrigated condition and the results are

summarized here under.

Installation of pheromone traps for brinjal fruit and shoot borer has

revealed influence of trapping device. Thus the number of moths trapped

varied significantly among treatments. Since the lure source and changing

frequency was kept uniform difference if any among traps in turns of moths

caught is exclusively the impact of trapping device structure. Preference of

moths to certain types of traps is a function of the behavior of that species.

Among the different pheromone traps evaluated for monitoring of

BSFB, water trap proved significantly superior over sleeve trap, delta trap, can

trap and bottle trap in recording more number of moths caught and less shoot

and fruit damage per cent with higher yield. It was found that water trap is

highly efficient in catching the brinjal shoot borer moth L. orbonalis compared

to other traps. However it was on par with can trap in most of trap catches,

shoot damage, fruit damage and yield.

During the investigation, water trap found excellent in trapping the

moths compared to other traps. The water trap was found effective compare

to other trap may be due to the open space in water trap where the moths

come and hit the sides of the trap and fall into the water containing

insecticides. In case of water trap, the chance of escape of moth was very

less unlike other traps.

The correlation matrix between shoot damage, fruit damage, yield (kg

ha-1) and moth catches showed that the shoot damage was found to be

significantly negatively correlated with moth catches (r= -0.992**). Fruit

damage was found to be significantly negatively correlated with moth catches

70

(r= -0.943*). The yield (kg plot-1) showed that significantly positive correlation

with moth catch (r = 0.901*).

Among the seven different sticky colour traps viz., Violet, Indigo, Blue,

Green, Yellow, Orange and Red evaluated for monitoring of BSFB, no one of

the colour traps caught BSFB moths except some stray attraction and there is

no significant difference between shoot damage percent, fruit damage percent

and yield. It was found that no one colour had significant influence in catching

the brinjal shoot borer moth L. orbonalis for monitoring purpose. Thus the

present study reveals no significance of colour traps with respect to

Leucinodes orbonalis in brinjal.

Future line of work

1. Optimization of water traps for the mass trapping of L. orbonalis.

2. Water trap height standardization for the mass trapping of L. orbonalis.

3. Optimization of locally prepared traps for the mass trapping of L.

orbonalis.

REFERENCES

Alam, M. Z., 1969, Insect pests of vegetables and their control in East Pakistan.

Agric. Inf. Serv., Department of Agriculture. Dacca-3, East Pakistan, p.

146.

Alam, M. Z., 1970, Insect pest of vegetables and their control in Bangladesh. Agric.

Inf. Serv., Dacca, Bangladesh, p. 132.

Alam, S. N., Rashid, M. A., Rouf, F. M. A., Jhala, R. C., Patel, J. R., Satpathy, S.,

Shivalingaswamy, T. M., Rai, S., Wahundeniya, I., Cork, A.,

Ammaranan, C., and Talekar, N. S., 2003, Development of an integrated

pest management strategy for eggplant fruit and shoot borer in South

Asia, Tech. Bull. TB28, AVRDC – The World Vegetable Center,

Shanhua, Taiwan, p. 66.

Alan, L. K., 2009, Influence of trap colour on the capture of codling

moth(Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), honeybees, and non-target flies, Yakima

Agricultural Research Laboratory, USDA-ARS, 5230 Konnowac Pass

Rd., Wapato, WA 98951.

Alan, L. K., 2010, Increased catch of female codling moth (Lepidoptera:

Tortricidae) in kairomone-baited clear delta traps, Yakima agricultural

research laboratory, USDA-ARS, 5230 Konnowac Pass Rd., Wapato,

WA 98951.

Ali, M. I., Ali, M. S. and Rahman, M. S., 1980, Field observation of wilt disease and

shoot and fruit borer attack on different cultivars of brinjal. Bangladesh J.

Agric. Sci., 7: 193–194.

Andagopal, V. N., Prasad, T. V., Jethwa Dharmrajsinh, Gedia, M. V., Koradia, V.

G. and Patel, H. V., 2011, Evaluation of pheromone traps against brinjal

fruit and shoot borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Gueene. Indian J. Ent.,

72:1: 7-10.

72

Anju shukla and Khatri, S. N., 2010, Incidence and abundance of brinjal shoot and

fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guenée, The Bioscan, 5(2):305-308.

Anonymous, 2013a, Lucin-Lure & Wota-T for management of brinjal fruit & shoot

borer, pest control (India) pvt ltd. Div-Bio-Control Research Laboratories

(BCRL), pp 1-2.

Anonymous, 2014b, National Horticulture Board, Ministry of Agriculture,

Government of India 85, Institutional Area, Sector-18, Gurgaon-122 015,

India.

Anonymous, 2014c, Package of practice for horticultural crops, Uni. Horti. Sci.,

Bagalkot (India), pp. 65-66.

Atwal, A. S., 1976, Agricultural pests of India and Southeast Asia. Kalyani

Publishers. New Delhi, India, pp. 215-217.

Bajaj, K. L., Kaur, G. and Chadha, M. L, 1979, Glyco-alkaloid content and other

chemical constituents of the fruits of some egg plant (Solanum

melongena L.) varieties. J. Foods, 3: 163-168.

Balasubramanian, M. and Karuppuchamy, P., 1980, Water-Pan trap with synthetic

gossyplure to monitor pink bollworm of cotton. Andhra Agril. J., 27 (1&2):

83-85.

Bhanu, K. R. M., Prabhakara, M. S. and Jayanth, K. P., 2007, Field evaluation of

indigenously developed sex pheromone lures for mass trapping brinjal

shoot and fruit borer Leucinodes orbonalis Gueene (Lepidoptera:

Pyralidae). Pest Manag. Horti. Ecosyst., 13(2): 115-121.

Bourdouxhe, L., 1982, Comparison of two kinds of trap for sex trapping of Heliothis

armigera in Senegal. Pl. Prot. Bull. F.A.O., 39 (3/4): 131-136.

Boyd A. Mori and Maya L. Evenden, 2013, Factors affecting pheromone-baited

trap capture of male Coleophora deauratella, an invasive pest of clover

in Canada. J. Econ. Ent., 106(2):844-854.

73

Branco, M., Jactel, H., Silva, E. B., Binazzi, A. and Mende, Z., 2004, Effect of trap

design, trap size and pheromone dose on male capture of two pine

scales species (Hemiptera: Matsucoccidae): implications for monitoring

and mass-trapping. Agril. Forest Ent., 6: 233–239.

Bruce, A. Barrett, 1992, Attractiveness of coloured sticky traps to adult spotted

tentiform leafminer, Phyllonorycter blancardella (F.) (Lepidoptera:

Gracillariidae). J. Agric. Ent., 9(3); 211-216.

Butenandt, A., Beckman, R., Stamm, D. and Recker, E., 1959, Uber den

Sexuallockstoff des Sceidenspinners Bombyx mori, reindar stellung and

Konstiution. Z. Naturforsch., 14: 283-284.

Chakraborthi, S., 2001, A biorational approach for the management of brinjal fruit

and shoot borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Gueene. J. Entomol. Res., 25:

73-76.

Cheng, E. Y., Lin, D. F., Kao, C. H., Chen, S. M., Weng, S. S. and Lee, H. C.,

1985, Studies on the synthetic sex pheromone of beet armyworm,

Spodoptera exigua (Hubner). J. Agri. Res., 34 (3): 315-322.

Choudhury, B., 1970, Vegetables. National book trust, New Delhi, pp. 25-50.

Christos, G. A., Nickolas, G. K. and Basilios, E. M., 2004, Effect of trap type, trap

colour, trapping location, and pheromone dispenser on captures of male

Palpita unionalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). J. Econ. Ent., 97(2):

321-324.

Clayton, T. M., Grzegorz, K. and Arthur, M. A., 2009, Response of tortricid moths

and non-target insects to pheromone trap colour in commercial apple

orchards. J. Entomol. Sci., 44(1): 69-77.

Cork, A., Alam, S. N., Das, A., Das, C. S., Ghosh, G. C., Farman, D. I., Hall, D. R.,

Maslen, N. R., Vedham, K., Phythian, S. J., Rouf, F. M. A. and

Srinivasan, K., 2001, Female sex pheromone trap of brinjal shoot and

74

fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guenée blend optimization. J. Chem.

Ecol., 27(9):1867-77.

Cork, A., Alam, S. N., Das. A. and Das, C. S., 2003, Development of mass trapping

techniques for control of brinjal shoot and fruit borer, L. orbonalis. Bull.

Entomol. Res., 95:189-196.

Cork, A., Alam, S. N., Das, D., Das, C. S., Ghosh, G. C., Farman, D. L., Hall, D. R.,

Maslen, N. R., Vedham, K., Phythian, S. J., Rouf, F. M. A. and

Srinivasan, K., 2005a, Female sex pheromone of brinjal fruit and shoot

borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Blend optimization. Bull. Entomol. Res., 95:

197-202.

Cork, A., Alam, S. N., Das, A., Das, C. S. and Hall, D. R., 2005b, Female sex

pheromone of brinjal fruit and shoot borer, L. orbonalis

(Lepidoptera:Pyralidae) trap optimization and application in IPM traits. J.

Chem. Ecol., 25: 1860-1872.

Cork, A., Alam, S. N., Rouf, F. M. A. and Talekar, N. S., 2009, Development of

mass trapping technique for control of brinjal shoot and fruit borer,

Leucinodes orbonalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Bull. Entomol. Res., 95:

589-596.

Craig, R. R. and Oscar, E. L., 2008, Effect of trap colour on captures of grape root

borer (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae) Males and Non-Target Insects. J. Agril.

Urban Ent., 25(2): 99-109.

David, H., Easwara Moorthy, S., Nesbitt, B. F. and Nandagopal, V., 1981, Sex

attraction studies in sugarcane internode borer, Chilo sacchariphagus

indicus (K.) with synthetic pheromone. Pestol., 5(7): 9-11.

Dhandapani, N., 1985, Trapping of Spodoptera litura (Fb) moths using sex

pheromone. Madras Agric. J., 72(4): 236-238.

75

Dhandapani, N., Shelkar, U. R. and Murugan, M., 2003, Bio-intensive pest

management in major vegetable crops: An Indian perspective. J. Food

Agric. Environ., 1(2): 330-339.

Dhankar, B. S., 1988, Progress in resistance studying in Eggplant (Solanum

melongena L.) against shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis

Gueene) infestation. Trop. Pest Mngt., 34: 343-345.

Dickerson, W. A. and Hoffman, J. D., 1977, Water pheromone trap for cabbage

adult looper (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Canadian Entomol. Soc., 50(2):

234-237.

Eswara Reddy, S. G. and Srinivasa, 2004, Management of shoot and fruit borer,

Leucinodes orbonalis (Guen.) in brinjal using botanicals/oils. Pestol., 28 :

50-52.

Fabre, J. H., 1904, Souvenire Entomologiques. 8th Ed. Paris, p. 127.

Gangawar, S. K. and Sachen, J. N., 1981, Seasonal incidence and control of

insect pests of brinjal with special reference to shoot and fruit borer,

Leucinodes orbonalis Gueene in Meghalaya. J. Res. Assam Agri. Univ.,

2: 87-92.

Ghananand, T., Prasad, C. S. and Loknath, 2009, moths trapping of brinjal fruit

and shoot borer, Leucinodes orbonalis (Guen.), Ann. Pl. Prot., 17(2):

319-321.

Ghosh, S. and SenapatI, S. K., 2009, Seasonal fluctuation in the population of

Leucinodes orbonalis Gueene in the sub-himalayan region of West

Bengal, India and its control on eggplant (Solanum melongena L.).

Precision Agric., 10: 443–449.

Hami, M. A., 1955, Effect of borer attack on the vitamin, C content of brinjal.

Pakistan J. Health., 4: 223-224.

76

Jacobson, M., Redfern, R. E., Jones, W. A. and Aldridge, M. H., 1970, Sex

pheromones of the Southern army worm moth: isolation, identification

and synthesis, Science, 170: 542-543.

Jayaraj, S., Sathaiah, N., Shanthi, M. and Muthuswami, M., 1995, Insect sex

pheromones: Innovative tools in IPM. In Pheromone in IPM. pp. 263-

276.

Kabir, K. H., Bakash, M. E., Rouf, F. M. A., Karim, M. A. and Ahmed, A., 1996,

Insecticide usage pattern on vegetables at farmer's level of Jossore

region in Bangladesh: A survey finding. Bangladesh J. Agric. Res., 21:

241-254.

Kalloo, G., 1988, Biochemical basis of insect resistance in vegetables. Vegetable

Breeding (Vol. II), CRC Press Inc Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 520-570.

Karlson, P. and Butenandt, A., 1959, Pheromones (ecto harmones) in insects.

Annu. Rev. Ent., 4: 39-58.

Karlson, P. and Luscher, M., 1959, “Pheromones”. A new term for a class of

biologically active substances. Nature, 183: 55-56.

Kocikova, Lenka, Miklisova, Dana, Canady, Alexander, Panigaj and Luirbom,

2012, Is colour an important factor influencing the behaviour of

butterflies (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea, Papilionoidea), European J. Ent.,

109 (3): 403.

Krishnaiah, K., 1980, Methodology for assessing crop losses due to pests of

vegetables. In: Proceedings of the workshop “Assessment of crop losses

due to pests and diseases”, Bangalore, pp. 259-267.

Lalita kumara, V. L. and Reddy, D. D. R., 1992, Evaluation of pheromone trap

designs for tra-pping Spodoptera litura and Helicoverpa armigera and

their reproductive behaviour. Indian J. Pl. Prot., 20: 1:18-23.

Leela David, A., 1966, Trials with insecticides for the control of brinjal beetle and

fruit borer. Indian J. Agril. Sci., 36: 153-160.

77

Lidia, S., Slawomir, S., Tomasz, J and Andrzej K., 2009, Pestycydy Effect of type,

colour and location of sticky pheromone traps on male moth catches of

Cameraria ohridella, Pesticides. (1-4), 79-88. ISSN 0208-8703; Forest

Protection Department, Forest Research Institute, 3 Braci Lesnej St.,

Sękocin Stary, 05-090 Raszyn, Poland.

Lopez, J. D., 1998, Evaluation of some commercially available trap designs and

sex pheromone lures for Spodoptera exigua (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J.

Econ. Ent., 91(2): 517-521.

Mahmoud, Y. A., Ebadah, I. M. A., Abd-Elrazik, A. S., Abd-Elwahab, T. E. and.

Deif, S. H., 2014, Efficiency of different coloured traps baited with

pheromone in capturing tomato adult moth, Tuta absoluta (Meyrick)

(Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) during summer plantation. World Appl. Sci.

J., 30 (4): 406-412.

Mathur, A., Singh, S., Singh, N. P. and Meena, M., 2012, Field evaluation of plant

products and microbial formulations against brinjal shoot and fruit borer,

Leucinodes orbonalis Gueene under semi-arid conditions of Rajasthan.

J. Biopest. 5(1): 71-74.

Maureal, A. M., Noriel, L. M. and Esguerra, N. M., 1982, Life history and behaviour

of eggplant fruit borer. Anna. Trop. Res., 4(3): 178.

Mazumder, F. and Khalequzzaman, M., 2010, Eggplant shoot and fruit borer

Leucinodes orbonalis Gueene male moth catch in sex pheromone trap

with special reference of lure elevation and IPM. J. Bio. Sci., 18: 9-15.

Mc Laughlin, J. R., Brogdon, J. E., Agee, H. R. and Mitchell, E. R., 1975, Effect of

trap colour on captures of male cabbage loopers and soybean loopers in

double-cone pheromone traps. J. Georgia Entomol. Soc., 10: 174-179.

Megahed, M. M., Ammar, E. D., Metwally, A. G. and Rashid, A., 1982, Studies on

the attraction of Pectinophora gossypiella Saunders, in Egypt, to the sex

pheromone gossyplure. Agric. Res. Rev., 60(1): 181-199.

78

Minks, A. K. and De Long, D. J., 1975, Determination of spraying date for

Adoxphyes orana by sex pheromone traps and temperature recordings.

J. Econ. Ent., 68: 729-732.

Minks, A. K., 1977, Trapping with behavior modifying chemicals: Feasibility and

limitations. In: Chemical Control of insect behavior: Theor. Appl. New

York, pp. 385-394.

Mitchell, E. R., Agee, H. R and Heath, R. R., 1989, Influence of pheromone trap

colour and design on capture of male velvetbean caterpillar and fall

armyworm moths (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Chemi. Ecol., 15: 1775-

1784.

Mohamed Braham, 2014, Sex pheromone traps for monitoring the tomato

Leafminer, Tuta absoluta: Effect of coloured traps and field weathering of

lure on male captures. Res. J. Agricul. Environ. Mngt., 3(6); 290-298.

Naresh, J. S., Malik, V. S., Balan, J. S. and Khokhar, K. S., 1986, A new record of

Trathala sp., a larval endoparasite attacking brinjal fruit borer,

Leucinodes orbonalis Gueene. Bull. Ent., 27(1): 74.

Nesbitt, B. F., Bevor, P. S., Hall, D. R., Lester, R., Davies, J. C. and Reddy, K. V.

S., 1979, Components of the sex pheromone of the female spotted stalk

borer, Chilo partellus (Swingoe) (Lepidoptera: Pyrallidae): Identification

and preliminary field trials. J. Chem. Ecol., 5(1): 153-163.

Neumark, S. and Teich, I., 1993, Pink bollworm: Constant level liquid device for

use in trapping moths. J. Econ. Ent., 66(1): 298.

Oloumi-Sadeghi, H. and Esmail, M., 1983, The moth population study of peach

twig borer (Anarsia lineatella Zeller) in Ghaznin and Karadj from 1975-

80. Entomologie et Phtopath. Appl., 50(1&2): 1-16.

Patil, B. V., Nandihalli, B. S., Hugar, P. S. and Somashekar, 1992, Influence of

weather parameters on pheromone trap catches of cotton bollworms.

Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 5: 346-350.

79

Peswani, K. M. and Ratanlal, 1964, Estimation of losses of brinjal fruit borer,

Leucinodes orbonalis Gueene. Indian J. Ent., 26(2): 112-113.

Picardi, P., 1979, Recent advances in the investigation and use of sex

pheromones in Lepidoptera species. Forest Ent., 1: 161-177.

Prasannakumar, N. R., Chakravarthy, A. K., Vijay kumar, L. and Gangappa, E.,

2009. Field trials with pheromone traps on major lepidopterous insect

pests of five vegetable crops. Pest Manag. in Horti. Ecosyst., 15 (1): 17-

27.

Rahman, A. K. M. Z., 1997, Screening of 28 brinjal line for resistance/tolerance

against the brinjal shoot and fruit borer. Annu. Res. Rep.-1996-97.

Entomology Division, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute,

Joydebpur, Gazipur, Bangladesh, p. 130.

Rahman, M. M., Ali, M. R. and Hossain, M. S., 2009, Evaluation of combined

management options for managing brinjal shoot and fruit borer.

Academic J. Entomol., 2 (2): 92-98.

Rajneesh, H., 2006, Management of shoot borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Gueene on

potato crop. M. Sc. Thesis. Uni. Agri. Sci. Dharwad (India).

Ram Prasad Mainali, 2014, Biology and management of eggplant fruit and shoot

borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Gueene (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae): A review.

Int. J. Appl. Sci. Biotech., 2(1): 18-28.

Raman, K. V., 1988, Control of potato tuber moth Phthorimaea operculella with sex

pheromones in Peru. Agri. Ecosyst. Environ., 21: 2: 1–2.

Regupathy, A., Palanisamy, S., Chandramohan, N. and Gunathilagaraj, K., 1997,

A guide on crop pests. Sooriya desk Top Publishers, Coimbatore, pp.

264.

Sara Savoldelli, 2004, Evaluation of the efficacy of different kinds of pheromone

traps for the monitoring of Plodia interpunctella Hbn. (Lepidoptera:

Pyralidae). Integrated Prot. Stored Products, IOBC Bull./wprs. 27 (9):

103-108.

80

Sardana, H. P., Arora, S., Singh, D. K. and Kadu, L. N., 2004, Development and

validation of adaptable IPM in egg plant, Solanum melongena L. in a

farmers participatory approach. Indian J. Pl. Prot., 32: 123-128.

Saxena, A. P., Raj, B. T. and Trivedi, T. P., 1982, Evaluation of sex pheromones

for control of potato tuber moth, Phthorimaea operculella (Zell.) in

country stores. JIPA, 9: 16-20.

Shah, K. D., Bharpoda, T. M. and Jhala, R. C., 2012, Bio-efficacy of newer

molecules of insecticides against brinjal shoot and fruit borer,

Leucinodes orbonalis (Guen). An international e-J., 1(2): 186-200.

Siebold, C. T. and Von, 1837, Die Spermatozoan Wirbellosen Tiere, IV. Die

Spermatozoen in des befruchteten Insekten weibchen. Arch. Anat.

Physiol., pp. 381.

Silverstein, R. M., Rodin, J. O. and Wood, D. L., 1966, Male IPS paraconfuscus in

Ponderosa Pins. Sci., 154: 509-510.

Singh, S. V., Singh, K. S. and Malik, Y. P., 2000, Seasonal abundance and

economic losses of shoot and fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis on

brinjal. Indian J. Ent., 62: 247-252.

Srinivasan, R., 2008, Integrated Pest Management for eggplant fruit and shoot

borer (Leucinodes orbonalis) in South and South East Asia: Past,

Present and Future. J. Biopest., 1(2):105 – 112.

Srinivasan, R., 2012, Integrating bio-pesticides in pest management strategies for

tropical vegetable production. J. Biopest., 5: 36-45.

Taha, A. M., Homam, B. H., Afsah, A. F. E. and Fatma, M. El-Sharkawy, 2012,

Effect of trap colour on captures of Tuta absoluta moths (Lepidoptera:

Gelechiidae) Inter. J. Environ. Sci. Engg., 3: 43- 48

Tamhankar, A. J., Guthi, K. K. and Rahalkar, G. W., 1989, Responsiveness of

Earias vitella and Earias insulana males to their female sex pheromone.

Insect Sci. Appl., 10(5): 625-630.

Thal, J., 1978, On the effectiveness of the sex pheromone of the potato tuber

moth, Phthorimaea operculella Zeller (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) in

81

comparison with various light- traps. Pflanzenschutz Umwetschutz,

51(7): 107-109.

Thanki, K. V. and Patel, J. R., 1988, Seasonal incidence of Leucinodes orbonalis

Gueene on eggplant (Solanum melongena) in Gujarat. Indian J. Agric.

Sci., 58: 867- 868.

Toscano, N. C., Mueller, A. J., Sevacherian, V., Sharma, R. K., Nilus, T. and

Reynolds, H. T., 1974, Insecticide applications based on hexalure trap

catches versus automatic scheduled treatments for pink bollworm moth

control. J. Econ. Ent., 67(4): 522-524.

Vakenti, J. M. and Kadsen, H. F., 1976, Codling moth (Lepidoptera: Olethreutidae):

Monitoring populations in apple orchards with sex pheromone traps.

Canadian Ent., 108: 433-438.

Valles, S. M., Capinera, J. M. and Teal, P. E. A., 1991, Evaluation of pheromone

trap design, height, and efficiency for capture of male Diaphania nitidalis

(Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in a field cage. Environ. Ent., 20(5): 1274-1278.

Vidmantas, K. and Vincas, B., 2012, Colour vision in currant clearwing moth

(Synanthedon tipuliformis) (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae). Acta Zoologica

Lituanica, 17(3): 198-202.

Voerman, S. and Rothschild, G. H. L., 1978, Synthesis of the two components of

the sex pheromone system of the potato tuber moth, Phthoerimaea

operculella (Zeller) (Lepidoptera: Gelichiidae) and field experience with

them. J. Chem. Ecol., 4(5):531-542.

Zhu, P. C., Kong, F., Yu, S. D., Yu, U. Q., Jin, S. P., Hu, X. H. and Xu, J. W., 1987,

Identification of sex pheromone of egg plant, Leucinodes orbonalis

Gueene (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Zeitschriftfur Naturaforcshung, 42: 11-

12.

82

Appendix I: Meterological data of Regional Agricultural Research Station, Vijayapur (Karnataka: India), 2014.

Month Rainfall

(mm)

Temperature(0C) Relative Humidity (%)

Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum

January 0.0 29.7 15.2 79 37

February 6.4 31.7 16.1 66 33

March 27.4 34.5 20.1 61 29

April 27.0 38.0 22.7 56 24

May 68.6 37.6 22.9 75 31

June 54.4 35.0 22.7 81 43

July 151.6 30.1 21.6 88 64

August 245.7 30.2 21.3 89 63

September 59.4 30.7 21.1 88 56

October 65.3 31.9 19.6 84 48

November 15.0 30.4 15.6 85 42

December 16.0 29.0 13.0 83 41

EVALUATION OF SEX PHEROMONE AND STICKY COLOUR TRAPS FOR MONITORING OF SHOOT AND FRUIT BORER (Leucinodes orbonalis Gueene.)

IN BRINJAL

ARAVINDA M. 2015 Dr. S. S. UDIKERI Major Advisor

ABSTRACT

Studies on evaluation of sex pheromone and sticky colour traps for

monitoring of shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes orbonalis Gueene.) BSFB in brinjal

were carried out during 2013-14 at Jumanal and Hittanalli villages (Vijayapur Tq

and District) under irrigated condition with Mahyco super 10 variety.

Among the different pheromone traps evaluated for monitoring of BSFB,

water trap proved to be most effective by attracting significantly higher number of

moths throughout the season. The mean number of moths caught was 3.08 / trap

leading to lowest shoot (5.48 %) and fruit (15.03 %) damage. The fruit yield in the

plots having water trap (489 kg plot1) was also significantly higher amongst

treatments. Can trap appeared to be next best treatment among other models

used. Sleeve trap, delta trap and bottle trap models were ineffective as monitoring

tool.

Seven different sticky colour traps viz., Violet, Indigo, Blue, Green, Yellow,

Orange and Red were evaluated for monitoring of BSFB. The moth attraction was

nil to any traps except some stray attractions. There was no significant difference

noticed in shoot damage, fruit damage and yield among these treatments. Thus

the present study reveals no significance of colour traps with respect to

Leucinodes orbonalis in brinjal.